vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring and
Quality Assurance
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/4-87/041 a
December 1987
Research and Development
Direct/Delayed Response
Project: Field
Operations and
Quality Assurance
Report for Soil
Sampling and
Preparation in the
Southern Blue Ridge
Province of the United
States
Volume I. Sampling
-------
EPA/600/4-87/041a
December 1987
Direct/Delayed Response Project:
Field Operations and Quality Assurance Report
for Soil Sampling and Preparation in the
Southern Blue Ridge Province of the United States
Volume I Sampling
by >
D.S. Coffey, J.J. Lee, U.K. Bartz, R.D. Van Remortel, M.L. Papp,
and G.R. Holdren
A Contribution to the
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Ofcicago, IL 60604
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance
Office of Ecological Processes and Effects Research
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas/Nevada 89193
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 Management
Services Company, Inc., and under Contract Number 68-03-3246 to Northrop Services, Inc. It has
been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is one volume of a set which fully describes the Direct/Delayed Response
Project, Southern Blue Ridge and Northeast soil surveys. The complete document set includes the
major data report, quality assurance plan, analytical methods manual, field operations reports, and
qualtiy ssurance 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 set.
The correct citation of this document is:
Coffey, D. S.4, J. J. Lee3, J. K. Bartz1, R. D. Van Remortel1, M. L. Papp1, G. R. Holdren3. 1987.
Direct/Delayed Response Project: Field Operations and Qualtity Assurance Report for Soil
Sampling and Preparation in the Southern Blue Ridge Province of the United States.
EPA/600/4-87/041. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
1 Lockheed Engineering and Science Company, Las Vegas, Nevada.
2 Environmental Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114.
3 NSI Technology Services Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon 97333.
4 Tetra Tech, Inc. Bellevue, Washington 99005
-------
Abstract
The Direct/Delayed Response Project is designed to address the concern over potential
acidification of surface waters by atmospheric deposition within the United States. The Southern
Blue Ridge Province soil sampling was conducted during the spring of 1986 to provide soil samples
for a synoptic physical and chemical survey to characterize watersheds located in a region of the
United States believed to be susceptible to the effects of acidic deposition. A similar regional soil
survey was conducted in the northeastern United States in 1985. This document describes the
planning activities and summarizes field operations and quality assurance/quality control activities
associated with soil sampling activities of the Southern Blue Ridge Province soil survey. A total of
125 routine and special interest pedons were described and sampled.
Before the regional surveys, a pilot study was conducted to develop and test site location
protocols and sampling procedures and to assess logistical constraints associated with
implementing these procedures. From this study, a sampling site selection algorithm was
developed to select soil and vegetation classes for sampling activities in the regional surveys.
In general, soil sampling activities during the survey proceeded as planned. Observations,
difficulties, and concerns are discussed in this report, and recommendations are made for
modification and improvements. These recommendations may be valuable to planners of similar
projects.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-03-3249 by Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., and Contract Number 68-03-3246 by Northrop
Services, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers a period from March 1986 to December 1986, and work was completed as of October 1987.
iii
-------
-------
Contents
Page
Notice ii
Abstract Hi
Figures vj
Tables vii
List of Abbreviations ix
Acknowledgments x
1 Introduction 1
Overview 1
Field operations documentation 2
The soil survey 3
Soil mapping 3
Sampling class development 3
Computer program for selection of sampling sites 5
Field selection of sampling locations 7
Coordination of sampling activities 7
Exit meeting 7
2 Field Operations 8
Preparation for field operations 8
Procurement of equipment and supplies 8
Protocol development 8
Sampling crew training 8
Protocol modifications 9
Additional training 9
Special interest watershed sampling 9
Soil sampling 10
Site selection and site restrictions 10
Sampling Difficulties Relating to Soil Characteristics 12
Equipment for pedon description and sampling 13
Sample labeling discrepancies 14
Clod sampling for determination of bulk density 15
Sample transport and storage 15
Preparation laboratory interactions 15
Field data forms and codes for pedon description 16
Entry of field data 17
3 Quality Assurance Program 18
Data quality objectives 18
Sampling objectives 18
Fulfillment of objectives 20
Evaluations and audits 20
Evaluations by the Soil Conservation Service state staff 21
-------
Contents (continued)
Page
Evaluations by the regional correlator/coordinator 21
Audits by quality assurance staff \\\ 21
Review of log books \\ 22
Sampling log books '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 22
Sample receipt log books '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.''" 22
Review of profile descriptions '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 23
Paired pedon descriptions '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 23
Independent pedon descriptions '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.''' 24
Data entry and management '.'.'.'.'.'. 26
Soil mapping data files '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 26
Soil sampling data files '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 27
4 Recommendations and Conclusions 29
Recommendations 29
Site selection '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 29
Supplies and equipment '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'' 29
Clod sampling '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 30
Sample labeling '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 30
Preparation laboratory support '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 30
Field data forms and codes '.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 31
Soil Conservation Service state staff evaluations '.'.'.'.'.'. 32
Regional correlator/coordinator evaluations 32
Quality assurance staff audits '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.''' 33
Sampling log books '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 33
Sample receipt log books '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 40
Paired pedon descriptions '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 40
Independent pedon descriptions '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 40
Conclusions '.-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 40
References 42
Appendices
A Sampling protocols for the Southern Blue Ridge Province Soil Survey . 44
B Addendum to the protocols ' ' ' ' 149
C Special interest watersheds '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 154
D Letter to landowner , '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 158
VI
-------
Figures
Number
1 Design for the Direct/Delayed Response Project soil survey ................ 4
2 Sampling classes for the Southern Blue Ridge Province soil survey ........... 6
3 Recommended title page for sampling log books ........................ 34
4 Recommended index page for sampling log books . ...................... 35
5 Recommended format for site location notes ........................... 36
6 Recommended format for sampling notes ............................. 37
7 Recommended format for slide key .................................. 39
8 Recommended format for sample receipt log books ...................... 41
VII
-------
Tables
Number
1 Summary of routine soil samping during 1986 . ......................... 10
2 Pedons removed or disqualified from the sampling list ............ . ....... 11
3 Summary of the qualitative differences between paired pedons ............. 24
4 Summary of the independent pedon descriptions evaluated ...... . ......... 25
VIII
-------
List of Abbreviations
DDRP Direct/Delayed Response Project
DQO data quality objective
EMSL-LV Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas, Nevada
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERL-C Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis, Oregon
FD field duplicate
GIS Geographic Information System
NAPAP National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
NSWS National Surface Water Survey
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RCC Regional Correlator/Coordinator
SAP Society of American Foresters
SCS Soil Conservation Service
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
Critical peer reviews by the following individuals are gratefully acknowledged: W. Banwart,
Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois; J. S. Lohse,
Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Farmland Protection, Springfield, Illinois; and
L K. Fenstermaker, Environmental Research Center, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Nevada.
Technical assistance and review during the preparation of this document were provided by
H. J. Byrd, Raleigh, North Carolina; J. Sprenger, Northrop Services, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon;
R. E. Cameron and S. L. Pierett, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.,
Las Vegas, Nevada; R. D. Schonbrod, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada; and the following staff of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: L. Rattliff (Texas), T. Gerald and R. Wilkes
(Georgia), A. Goodwin and E. Hayhurst (North Carolina), and E. Lewis and D. Newton (Tennessee).
A draft of this report was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under the direction of D. S. Coffey,
for Northrop Services, Inc. in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 450084356. R. Barrick of Tetra Tech,
Inc. was the project manager. The draft was edited by W. J. Erckmann.
L. K. Marks and L. A. Stanley, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.,
provided word processing and graphics support during preparation of the final draft.
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Overview
The Direct/Delayed Response Project
(DDRP) is an integral part of the acidic deposi-
tion research program of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA
program is conducted under the federally
mandated National Acid Precipitation Assess-
ment Program (NAPAP) which addresses the
concern over potential acidification of surface
waters by atmospheric deposition within the
United States. DDRP is administered by the
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-C). M. Robbins Church
is the DDRP Technical Director.
The overall purpose of DDRP is to char-
acterize geographic regions of the United
States by predicting the long-term response of
watersheds and surface waters to acidic
deposition. DDRP has been designed under
the concept of regionalized integrative surveys.
According to this concept, research programs
initially are approached from a large region of
study leading to the selection of regionally
characteristic systems. These systems can be
assessed through detailed, process-oriented
research which will aid in the understanding of
the underlying mechanisms responsible for
observed effects. The projected responses of
watershed systems typical of the regional
population then can be extrapolated with
confidence to a regional or national scale.
Two regions of the United States were
selected for study: the Northeastern region
and the Southern Blue Ridge Province (SBRP).
In defining the regions of concern, the intent
was to focus on regions: (1) with surface
waters that have low acid neutralizing capac-
ity, and (2) that exhibit a wide contrast both
in soil and watershed characteristics and in
levels of acidic deposition.
EPA is assessing the role that atmo-
spheric deposition of sulfur plays in controlling
long-term acidification of surface waters (EPA,
1985a). Recent trend analyses have indicated
that the rate of sulfur deposition is either
unchanging or slowly declining in the north-
eastern United States, but is increasing in the
southeastern United States. If a 'direct'
response exists between sulfur deposition and
surface water alkalinity, then the extent of
current effects on surface water probably
would not change much at current levels of
deposition, and conditions would improve as
the levels of deposition decline. If surface
water chemistry changes in a 'delayed' man-
ner, e.g., due to chemical changes in the
watershed, then future changes in surface
water chemistry (even with level or declining
rates of deposition) become difficult to predict.
This range of potential effects has clear and
significant implications to public policy deci-
sions on possible additional sulfur emissions
control (EPA, 1985b).
Specific goals of DDRP are (1) to define
physical, chemical, and mineralogical charac-
teristics of the soils and to define other water-
shed characteristics across these regions, (2)
to assess the variability of these characteris-
tics, (3) to determine which of these character-
istics are most strongly related to surface-
water chemistry, (4) to estimate the relative
importance of key watershed processes in
controlling surface-water chemistry across the
regions of concern, and (5) to classify the
sample of watersheds with regard to their
response to sulfur deposition and to extrapo-
late the results from the sample of water-
sheds to the regions of concern.
-------
A variety of data sources and methods
of analysis will be used to address the objec-
tives of DDRP. In addition to the data col-
lected during DDRP, other data sources include
the following data bases:
National Surface Water Survey
(NSWS)
Acid Deposition Data Network
(ADDNET), including GEOECOLOGY
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
Soils-5
Adirondack Watershed
Topographic and Acid Deposition
System (ADS) [total sulfur deposition
data]
U. S. Geological Survey [runoff data]
Also, data from EPA long-term monitoring
sites, episodic event monitoring sites, and
intensively studied watersheds will be used.
The data that are collected will be ana-
lyzed at three levels:
Level I - System description and
statistical analysis
Level II - Single factor response-time
estimates
Level III- Dynamic systems modeling
Field and laboratory data collected in DDRP
are included in the system description in Level
I. These data also will be used in Level II to
develop single factor estimates of the re-
sponse time of watershed properties, e.g.,
sulfate adsorption capacity, to sulfur deposi-
tion. Finally, the data will be used in Level III,
in conjunction with three dynamic simulation
models, MAGIC (Cosby et al., 1984), ILWAS
(Chen et al., 1984), and Trickle-Down (Schnoor
et al., 1984), to predict the long-term regional
watershed and surface water responses to
sulfur deposition.
DDRP includes two major field activities:
soil mapping and soil sampling. The mapping
tasks were the responsibility of ERL-C. The
soil sampling was conducted as a cooperative
effort of two EPA laboratories under the man-
agement of the technical director at ERL-C.
The soil sampling task leader at ERL-C had
overall responsibility for the soil sampling
including quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) for the site selection, profile descrip-
tion, and sampling. Logistical support and
preparation and analytical QA/QC support were
provided by the EPA Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada
(EMSL-LV).
A QA program was developed to assure
the validity of the profile description and
sampling efforts for the DDRP soil survey. The
integrity of the sampling activities affects the
ultimate quality of data derived from physical,
chemical, and mineralogical analyses of the
samples. The QA program was designed to
assess data quality so that potential users of
the data may determine if the data meet their
project needs. In addition, the QA program
was designed to ensure that the resulting data
are comparable within and across the regions
of concern. Soils were described and sampled
according to documented protocols (see
Appendix A), although special interest water-
sheds were sampled by using slightly modified
protocols (see Appendix C). Laboratory ana-
lyses were conducted according to docu-
mented protocols (Cappo et al., 1987).
Field Operations Documentation
Volume I of the report documents field
operations during the SBRP soil survey, and
evaluates compliance with the protocols pro-
vided to the sampling crews. Deviations from
the protocols are documented, data for profile
descriptions are reviewed, and an evaluation is
made of the potential effect of these devia-
tions on the validity of the sampling and the
integrity of the samples. In addition, this
report recommends modifications to the sam-
pling protocols that should be considered for
future surveys.
This volume was primarily developed
from the following sources of information:
Documents referenced in this report
Sampling log books
Field data forms
-------
Photographic slides of each pedon
sampled
Audit reports by QA staff
Sample receipt log books
Project reports to EPA management
(including DDRP Team Reports)
Interviews with project participants
Notes from the SBRP exit meeting
The Soil Survey
The SBRP soil survey included the area
encompassing the Blue Ridge Mountains in
eastern Tennessee, northcentral Georgia,
western North Carolina, and northwestern
South Carolina. Special interest watersheds
sampled as part of this survey are located in
the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service near Franklin, Macon County, North
Carolina and in White Oak Run watershed in
Rockingham County, Virginia.
The streams in this region were sampled
in 1985 as part of the National Surface Water
Survey, which is a NAPAP program designed
and implemented by EPA to conduct a chem-
ical survey of lakes and streams located in
regions of the United States believed to be
susceptible to the effects of acidic deposition.
This program included the pilot National
Stream Survey, which helped identify a target
population within SBRP consisting of medium-
sized streams draining watersheds of less
than 200 square kilometers in area. A sam-
pling design was applied to allow for unbiased
characterization of regional populations, and
resulted in the selection of 54 watersheds. In
addition, seven special interest watersheds
were selected.
Pilot stream survey watersheds encom-
passing areas less than 3,000 hectares were
included in the soil survey. Of the 54 water-
sheds in the pilot stream survey, 35 water-
sheds satisfied this criterion, and were se-
lected as the sampling frame for the SBRP soil
survey. In addition, two of the seven special
interest watersheds were included in the soil
survey. The design of the soil survey is pre-
sented schematically in Figure 1.
Soil Mapping
Mapping was conducted primarily by SCS
soil scientists under interagency agreements
between EPA and USDA. In some states, SCS
subcontracted cooperators at land-grant
universities and private consultants, and temp-
orarily hired other individuals for staffing the
sampling crews. The objective of the soil
mapping was to identify soil types occurring
within the watersheds so that DDRP staff
could group similar soils into sampling classes
defined for the SBRP survey. Vegetation
classes were noted in order to document the
vegetation occurring in the watershed at the
time of the survey.
On July 2, 1985, a planning workshop
was held in Raleigh, North Carolina to define
soil mapping activities and to meet with survey
participants. A meeting was held in Atlanta,
Georgia from August 21 through 28, 1985, to
develop a regionally correlated soil legend and
to discuss the modification and use of soil
mapping protocols that had been developed
for the Northeastern soil survey. A soil map-
ping workshop was held in western North
Carolina from October 8 through 10, 1985, to
review soil mapping protocols. Two days of
the workshop were devoted to mapping and
transecting practice employing the specified
protocols.
Mapping for the SBRP soil survey was
conducted from October 15, 1985, through May
23, 1986. The protocols used in mapping are
detailed in Chapter 7 of the DDRP Action Plan/
Implementation Protocol (EPA, 1985b). A
separate field operations report discusses
mapping activities in SBRP (Lammers et al., in
preparation).
Sampling Class Development
Initial criteria for the development of the
sampling classes were as follows:
Group similar soils so that the varia-
bility within a sampling class is less
than the variability between sampling
classes.
Restrict the number of sampling
classes that have limited occurrence
in the watershed studied, i.e., that
-------
PILOT SOIL SURVEY
(ERL-C)
SAMPLING DESIGN
(ERL-C)
WATERSHED SELECTION
(ERL-C)
WATERSHED MAPPING
(SCS)
SELECTION OF SOILS
FOR SAMPLING
(ERL-C/SCS)
SOIL SAMPLING AND
FIELD MEASUREMENTS
(SCS)
SOIL PREPARATION
(EMSL-LV)
CONTRACT LABORATORY
ANALYSES
(EMSL-LV)
DATA VERIFICATION
AND REPORTING
(EMSL-LV1
DATA VALID ATI ON
(ERL-C)
DATA MANAGEMENT
(ORNL)
Figure 1. Design for the Direct/Delayed Response Project soil survey.
-------
occur only in less than 5 percent of
the watersheds.
Restrict the number of sampling
classes having a total mapping area
of less than 200 acres, i.e., 83 hec-
tares or about 0.2 percent of the
overall area mapped in the region.
The final step was to identify sampling
classes in specific watersheds for sampling.
The sampling classes were selected to satisfy
the following criteria:
Characterize all sampling classes at
similar levels of precision.
Include the range in soil characteris-
tics within each sampling class over
the watersheds selected for sampling.
The definition of sampling classes was
accomplished at the soil correlation and sam-
pling class selection workshop held in
Corvallis, Oregon, from March 3 through 7,
1986. The procedures developed to satisfy the
sampling objectives are presented in the QA
plan (Bartz et al., 1987). Sampling classes
developed for use in the SBRP soil survey are
provided in Figure 2.
Computer Program for Selection of
Sampling Sites
The method of watershed and sampling
class selection used in the SBRP is detailed in
EPA (1985b). The algorithm for watershed and
sampling site selection was applied using a
personal computer programmed to obtain a
list of possible sampling classes for each
watershed. The subsequent steps were per-
formed manually by ERL-C staff.
A watershed map with soil mapping
units delineated by sampling class was used
in conjunction with a 1-hectare square mylar
grid overlay. Random coordinates were gener-
ated by a computer program and were located
on the grid. If the resulting point did not fall
within a soil mapping unit containing the sam-
pling class chosen for that watershed, then
another random coordinate point was gener-
ated. If the point fell on a mapping unit that
was a soil complex, a random procedure was
used to ensure that the probability of accep-
ting the point was approximately equal to the
proportion of the sampling class within the
complex.
This process was repeated until five
random points located within mapping units
containing the correct sampling class were
designated in the watershed. The points were
numbered 1 through 5, in the order of selec-
tion, and were plotted on the base map. In
addition, a vegetation class associated with
the sampling class was defined for each point.
Copies of the resulting maps and lists of the
assigned sampling and vegetation classes
were given to the SCS for site selection pur-
poses.
The method for sampling site selection
as described above presented difficulties when
applied to sampling classes that occur as a
long, narrow component on the landscape.
For these sampling classes, fifty or more
random coordinates often were generated
before five points were located within the area
of the sampling class. Therefore, a second
selection method was developed to reduce the
time required to choose five points while
satisfying the requirements for a random
selection. This second method involved the
following steps: (1) overlaying the 1-hectare
mylar grid on the watershed map; (2) number-
ing all points that fell into mapping units
contained in the selected sampling class
consecutively from 1 to n; (3) defining the
appropriate random number window size,
which was dependent on the number of points
in the sampling class delineations; and (4)
selecting sampling sites 1 through 5 using a
five-digit random number table.
For cases in which soil complexes were
under consideration for sampling, an additional
keep/reject criterion was applied. Usually the
final two, or occasionally three, digits were
used for the selection process. However, in
complexes, using the occurrence of the sam-
pling class within the mapping unit to the
nearest 10 percent as an index, the sampling
point was incorporated as a selected site only
if the occurrence was greater than or equal to
the first digit of the random number. The
point was rejected as a sampling site when
the occurrence was less than the random
number.
-------
SOILS OF THE SOUTHERN BLUE RIDGE PROVINCE
FRIGID
(FR)
NON-FRIGID
NON-CALCAREOUS
CALCAREOUS
(OTC)
NON-SKELETAL
SKELETAL
CONCAVE
(SKV)
CONVEX
(SKX}
FLOODED
(FL)
NON-FLOODED
LOW ORGAN 1C
MATTER
HIGH ORGANIC
MATTER
SHALLOW
(SHU
OTHER
ACID CRYSTALLINE
(ACH)
METASEDIMENTARY
(MSH)
OTHER
(OTU
METASEDIMENTARY
(MSL)
ACID
CRYSTALLINE
CLAYEY
(ACC)
OTHER
(ACL)
Figure 2. Sampling classes for the Southern Blue Ridge Province soil survey.
-------
Field Selection of Sampling Locations
The sampling crews uced the watershed
base map and the protocols (Appendix A) to
determine the sampling locations. This system
assured a high probability for locating a point
within the designated sampling class and
vegetation class.
The procedure for specifying the order in
which the five randomly chosen coordinates
were to be visited was modified from the
procedure used for the Northeastern soil
survey. In the Northeastern soil survey, the
coordinates were labeled 1 through 5 in the
order in which they were selected. This order
was specified as the order in which the sites
were to be visited by the sampling crew. In
the SBRP soil survey, the first randomly cho-
sen site was the first site the sampling crew
was to visit. The remaining four points were
visited in order of increasing distance from the
first point. This modification was made for
the convenience of the sampling crews, and
did not affect the validity of the sampling
scheme (DDRP Team Report No. 16, March 17,
1986).
Routine soil sampling conducted by the
SCS characterizes soils on the landscape by
using descriptive soil series characteristics
based on a non-random, highly selective sam-
pling design. The DDRP soil survey differs
from this routine in that DDRP sampling is
based on the random selection of sampling
locations within a region of concern. This
experimental design, i.e., random sampling of
pedons, allows derivation of statistically valid
inferences concerning watershed responses to
acidic deposition.
To fulfill the data requirements for cali-
bration of the acid deposition response mod-
els, sampling sites in special interest water-
sheds were not selected randomly. Instead,
the sampling crew was sent to a specified
point and instructed to sample a soil that was
intended to represent the specific watershed
or portion of the watershed from which it was
obtained.
Coordination of Sampling Activities
Weekly conference calls between SCS
and EPA staff were used to discuss and
resolve matters involving sampling protocols
and site location difficulties, as well as to
review the status of sampling operations and
to identify access difficulties, e.g., the need for
a helicopter to access a watershed. In addi-
tion, the conference calls also provided regular
communication to ensure that all SCS staff
were informed of protocol modifications and
issues of concern. Major issues resulting from
these discussions were documented in the
DDRP team reports by the soil sampling task
leader.
Exit Meeting
Following the SBRP soil sampling activi-
ties, an exit meeting was held July 15 through
17, 1986 in Park City, Utah. Meeting partici-
pants included SCS staff from from Georgia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia;
representatives from the sampling crews;
ERL-C DDRP staff; and representatives from
Northrop Services, Inc. (technical and support
staff for ERL-C), Lockheed Engineering and
Management Services Company, Inc. (technical
and support staff for EMSL-LV), Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), and Tetra Tech,
Inc. A representative of the West Virginia SCS
state office staff attended to obtain back-
ground information for possible DDRP soil
survey activities in the Mid-Appalachian region.
-------
Section 2
Field Operations
ERL-C staff were responsible for the
overall management of the mapping and
sampling during the SBRP soil survey. EMSL-
LV staff were tasked with overseeing the
preparation laboratories, procuring equipment
and supplies, developing sampling protocols,
and providing QA support. A discussion of all
field activities follows.
Preparation for Field Operations
Procurement of Equipment and
Supplies
A detailed listing of equipment and
supplies is presented in Appendix A Most of
the materials were provided by EPA, although
SCS personnel used their own equipment and
supplies in some cases. Before procurement,
cost estimates were obtained from at least
three suppliers. The overall cost, shipping
charges, and ability to deliver within the re-
quired time frame were considered prior to the
initiation of a support contractor purchase
request for each item. For some specialty
supplies, e.g., clod storage boxes, a sole
source justification was required.
Equipment and supplies were shipped to
the preparation laboratories via air courier, and
the preparation laboratory personnel distrib-
uted the materials to the sampling crews.
Other specialized equipment was supplied
directly to SCS personnel by ERL-C staff.
Occasional delays were encountered in the
shipment and delivery of equipment to the
laboratories.
Protocol Development
Detailed protocols were based upon SCS
National Cooperative Soil Survey procedures
that were modified in order to accomplish the
specific objectives of the DORP soil survey.
Procedures for sampling and describing soils
are presented in Appendix A.
The routine site selection protocols were
slightly modified for the special interest water-
sheds (see Appendix C). These modifications
were necessary because of the intended use
of the data for model testing and calibration.
Protocol modifications for site selection of the
special interest watersheds resulted in the
collection of representative, but not random,
samples.
Sampling Crew Training
EPA personnel involved in the sampling
effort, SCS personnel, and others contracted
by the SCS participated in a sampling work-
shop in Knoxville, Tennessee, from March 18
through 20, 1986. The purpose of the work-
shop was to review the sampling protocols
(Appendix A), to become familiar with the field
data forms and codes used for pedon descrip-
tion, and to participate in a field exercise
applying the specified protocols. Many proto-
col questions, particularly sample labeling,
were discussed. Set ID numbers, unique
numbers that are used to identify all pedons
collected by a sampling crew on a given day
of sampling, were assigned for each sampling
crew.
-------
Protocol Modifications
An addendum to the protocols for routine
sampling (Appendix B) was distributed before
sampling activities began. Most of these
modifications were identified during the train-
ing workshop.
Procedures were field tested during the
first few weeks of sampling, and some modifi-
cations were suggested. This review subse-
quently resulted in editorial changes and the
following modifications:
In some cases it was found that
pacing distances through forest,
rhododendron thickets, or rugged
terrain was not practical. It was
decided that sampling crews could
locate their starting point on the aerial
photograph and could proceed to that
point by any practical means. The
distance from the starting point to a
suitable landmark could then be
scaled from the topographic map and
entered on the field data form.
Sometimes a mapped soil did not fit
the prescribed sampling class. For
example, the Brevard series is listed
as class ACL (acid crystalline parent
material, low organic matter); how-
ever, some soils mapped as Brevard
occur on a metasedimentary parent
material. In this case, the correct
sampling class is MSL. This ambi-
guity was considered in developing
the following guidelines:
- When a soil in the field could be
identified as one of the soils listed
in the protocols, the list took prece-
dence over the flowchart for defin-
ing sampling classes. If the soil
was not included on the list, then
the flowchart was used.
- When the soil was sampled be-
cause it was in the designated
sampling class according to the
list, but the flowchart indicated that
it fit better in a different sampling
class, this was noted on the field
data form.
The protocols were not clear as to
whether or not additional sets of clod
samples should be collected for the
field duplicate samples. It was
decided that the collection of dupli-
cate sets would yield little new infor-
mation and was not required.
The protocols do not provide instruc-
tions for labeling samples from hori-
zons that have been split-sampled
because of contrasting soil material.
For example, a B/C horizon would be
predominantly B material with pockets
or strata of C horizon material.
Sampling crews were instructed to
sample the B and C material sepa-
rately. A problem occurred when
sampling crews assigned the same
sample number to B and C material
samples. The samples should be
identified as unique samples by using
different sample codes.
Additional Training
Sampling crews received additional
training before sampling began. All crews
participated in training sessions organized by
their respective SCS state staffs. The regional
correlator/coordinator (RCC) was present for
the session held in Georgia on April 14, 1986,
and for the session held in Tennessee on April
1, 1986. The RCC spent April 3, 1986, with
North Carolina crews. North Carolina sampling
crews spent 3 or 4 days together sampling
practice pedons to gain familiarity with the
protocols.
Special Interest Watershed Sampling
Five pedons each were sampled from
Watershed 34 and Watershed 36 in the
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory area by sam-
pling crew NC03, assisted by members of
sampling crew NC01. Five pedons were sam-
pled in the White Oak Run special interest
watershed by sampling crew VA01. This crew
did not participate in routine soil sampling,
although the VA01 crew leader did accompany
crew NC03 during sampling of the Coweeta
watersheds from May 19 through 23, 1986.
Also, the RCC participated with VA01 in the
sampling of the first site in White Oak Run on
June 18, 1986 and was in the watershed as
the other sites were sampled during the period
9
-------
from June 17 through 20, 1986 (RCC, personal
communication, October 26, 1987).
Soil Sampling
Soil sampling operations cover a wide
range of activities including site location, pit
excavation, photographic documentation,
pedon description, and soil sampling. Sam-
pling protocols and modifications for routine
sampling are described in Appendices A and B,
respectively; protocols for special interest
watersheds are documented in Appendix C.
The following sections discuss issues associ-
ated with the implementation of the protocols.
Recommendations also are presented to
modify and improve the protocols for use in
future regional soil surveys.
Sampling activities were initiated during
the week of April 2,1986, in North Carolina and
Tennessee and during the week of April 15,
1986, in Georgia. All 110 routine pedons had
been sampled by June 16, 1986. This met the
target date for completion of sampling. Spe-
cial interest watersheds were sampled from
May 13 to June 22, 1986. A summary of soil
sampling activities is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Routine Soil Sampling During
1986
Number of Pedons Dates of Sampling
SCS Staff Designated Sampled Initial Final
GA
NC
TN
37
45
32
37
44
29"
4/15
4/2
4/2
6/12
6/6
5/22
TOTAL
114
110°
' Two pedons were added to the sampling list for
Tennessee.
Two pedons were eliminated from the original
sampling list, and inadvertently two pedons were not
sampled (see Table 2).
Site Selection and Site Restrictions
One of the initial responsibilities of the
sampling crew leader was to assess sampling
site locations. The watershed maps provided
by EPA were reviewed to determine the phys-
ical accessibility and land ownership status,
i.e., public or private, of each site.
Physical Inaccessibility-
Sites were defined as physically inacces-
sible if all alternatives for approaching the site
were eliminated or if the site was under water.
Helicopter support was available for difficult
sites, although National Park Service regula-
tions restricted the use of helicopters within
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Permission to sample within the park was
granted with the cooperation of the National
Park Service, the Tennessee SCS, and EPA.
Most sampling points were accessible.
If there were too many trees for landing a
helicopter, the sampling crew could hike to the
sampling site, and a helicopter could be used
to transport supplies to the watershed and to
retrieve supplies and samples from the sam-
pling sites.
Helicopters were used to access the
Eagle Creek and Forney Creek watersheds in
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park. At
the exit meeting, sampling crews mentioned
that some samples were lost during the orig-
inal airlift from Forney Creek. However, the
pedon was resampled (E. Lewis, personal
communication, October 19, 1987).
Sampling crew TN01 considered the first
four points specified for pedon 2AO-7811 to be
inaccessible because, even with helicopter
support, the time required to hike to the sites
and to sample exceeded a reasonable working
day. The fifth point satisfied sampling site
requirements.
Denied Access-
There were occasional instances of
access to SBRP sampling sites being denied
by private landowners. Because of a govern-
ment announcement during April 1986 that a
site for nuclear waste storage was under
study near Asheville, North Carolina, land-
owners occasionally were suspicious of field
crews working in the vicinity. Some crews
mentioned that a letter on EPA letterhead
explaining the sampling activities to the land-
owner would have been helpful in this
situation.
10
-------
Inappropriate Site Conditions-
In the Northeastern soil survey, occa-
sionally a pedon was disqualified from sam-
pling because of conditions observed at the
site. These conditions included flooding or
severe disturbance, such as parking lots or
housing developments built on fill. Such
conditions were considered inappropriate for a
regional characterization of soils according to
DDRP objectives. In the SBRP soil survey, no
pedons were disqualified from sampling for
this reason. Also, no instances were noted
where all possible sampling points for a pedon
were eliminated.
Site Restrictions on Sampling
Class-
Initially, 114 pedons were selected for the
SBRP soil survey. Four pedons were elimi-
nated because the designated sampling class
was not found during the site selection pro-
cess. In addition, four pedons were sampled
from sampling classes that were different from
those initially specified. A summary of the
pedons removed from or modified on the
sampling list is provided in Table 2.
Only one of those four pedons that were
not sampled, i.e., sampling class SKV on
watershed 2AO-7703, was eliminated because
the sampling class selection was based on
incorrect mapping data which later were
rectified. For the other three pedons, i.e.,
sampling class OTL on watershed 2AO-7821
and sampling class OTC on watersheds 2AO-
7701 and 2AO-7805, the crews had been asked
to sample where the designated sampling
class occurred as an inclusion for the mapping
unit. However, in these cases, the inclusion
did not occur in the delineated mapping unit.
Two of the four pedons sampled in a
sampling class other than that initially speci-
fied were located on inclusions to the soil
mapping unit. To compensate for not finding
the sampling class OTC on two designated
watersheds, two additional OTC samples were
requested from watershed 2AO-7803. In each
case, the sampling crew understood that the
request was to substitute sampling class OTC
for the sampling classes MSL and SKX origi-
nally designated for this watershed. (Addition-
al discussion of sampling class OTC occurs
later in this section.)
Two other pedons intentionally were
sampled in classes other than originally speci-
fied after it was discovered that sampling
classes SKV and SKX had been interchanged
on two watersheds during the selection of
watersheds for sampling. This resulted from
a misinterpretation of mapping unit compo-
nents, not from any deficiency in mapping.
There was a question raised during
sampling concerning the sampling of soils in
mapping units where the desired sampling
class occurred only as inclusions. The issue
was raised because a mapping unit, which did
not include the designated sampling class ACL
as a named component but did contain 25
percent of sampling class ACL as inclusions,
was selected as a potential sampling site on
watershed 2AO-7826-NC. It was decided that
such mapping units could be sampled if the
following criteria were satisfied: (1) the map-
ping units contained inclusions that fit the
selected sampling class, (2) the sampling
Table 2. Pedons Removed from or Modified on the Sampling List
Watershed ID
State
Sampling Class
Reason
2AO-7701
2AO-7703
2AO-7803
2AO-7803
2AO-7805
2AO-7811
2AO-7821
2AO-8803
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
GA
NC
GA
OTC
SKV
MSL
SKX
OTC
SKX
OTL
SKV
Required sampling class not found
Required sampling class not found
Sampled OTC instead
Sampled OTC instead
Required sampling class not found
Changed to SKV
Required sampling class not found
Changed to SKX
11
-------
class made up at least 20 percent of the
mapping unit, and (3) a pedon meeting the
constraints of the sampling class could be
located. The reason for deciding to sample
such inclusions was that there were other
mapping units, i.e., complexes, for which the
sampling class made up only 20 percent and
were automatically eligible for sampling.
Because the sampling class occurred as a
single soil series, it qualified as a named
component of the complex The original intent
was to base sampling class selection on the
occurrence of a sampling class within a map-
ping unit, without regard to whether or not the
sampling class occurred as one or more
named components of the mapping unit.
An exception to the DDRP minimum
occurrence guideline was made for sampling
class OTC which contains calcareous soils
that occur only as inclusions. These soils
comprised a sampling class because the
occurrence of even small areas of calcareous
soils could be important for determining the
response of a watershed to acidic deposition.
Vegetation Class Considerations-
Vegetation classes were determined from
data obtained during the watershed mapping
phase. Vegetation classes recorded while
mapping were identified using Society of
American Foresters (SAP) cover types (Eyre,
1980); however, vegetation classes specified
for the soil survey were based on an aggrega-
tion of SAP cover types. In some cases the
cover types selected from the mapping could
not be found at the site during the sampling.
Discrepancies were attributed to the method
used to group mapping units into sampling
classes, mapping error, or vegetative changes
at the site between the time of mapping and
sampling. This difficulty occurred for only one
watershed in the SBRP soil survey: for water-
shed 2AO-8904, all sampling points were in the
mixed vegetation class instead of the desig-
nated hardwood class. Permission to sample
under a mixed vegetation canopy was obtained
from EPA before sampling.
It should be noted that the vegetation at
a sampling site might be nominally different in
terms of percentage from the specified vegeta-
tion class and still fit the class. This is be-
cause the actual vegetative components were
not always pure for a given vegetation class,
e.g., a conifer class could contain up to 20
percent inclusions of hardwoods and still meet
the criteria of the class. Sampling crews were
instructed to consider vegetation located in the
immediate vicinity of the site in order to meet
suitable sampling criteria. Comments made at
the exit meeting indicated that this assess-
ment was not performed consistently by all
sampling crews, i.e., some crews considered
only the vegetation directly above the point to
be sampled; other crews considered only the
vegetation within a short radius of the point to
be sampled.
Sampling crew leaders suggested during
the exit meeting that the protocols should
define the size of the area to consider and
should provide guidelines to assess the com-
position of vegetation at the sampling site.
Sampling crews commented that the SAP
cover types were not always representative of
the vegetation classes in this region.
Protocol Adherence-
Generally, all sampling crews adhered to
the site selection protocols. Minor protocol
deviations, noted in the sampling crew tog
books and the written QA audit reports, are
discussed in later sections.
The GA01 crew did not initially use the
method specified in the protocols for collection
of the field duplicate sample, i.e., sequentially
placing alternate trowelsful of soil into two
containers. During a QA audit, the crew col-
lected and mixed a 2-gallon sample and split
it for the routine and field duplicate samples.
In this scenario, the resulting samples would
be field splits rather than field duplicates as
was specified. For the SBRP soil survey, the
design of the QA program is dependent upon
data from the field duplicates rather than from
field splits to estimate the sampling error.
Sampling Difficulties Relating to Soil
Characteristics
No major difficulties relating to soil
characteristics were encountered during sam-
pling. Some soils with high water tables were
sampled, and pumps or bailers were used to
control seepage. In one case, the sampling
crew encountered a water table at 0.5 meter.
The crew attempted to sample, but had
to abandon that particular pit. A different
12
-------
sampling site was chosen according to the
site selection protocols.
Equipment for Pedon Description and
Sampling
The success of pedon excavation and
description, photographic documentation, clod
sampling, sample storage and transportation,
and other field activities was dependent on the
equipment supplied to the trained sampling
crews. The immediate availability of equip-
ment to the sampling crews was an important
factor. The utility, reliability, durability, and
efficiency of the equipment had a major effect
on the quality of sampling.
Equipment supplied to SBRP sampling
crews, but not originally supplied for the
Northeastern soil survey, is as follows:
Hand pumps
Canon Sure-Shot cameras (supplied to
GA and NC sampling crews only)
Khaki measuring tape for scale in the
pedon photographs
Photogray cards
Clod tags for clods and boxes
Photographic Equipment-
Canon Sure-Shot 35-mm cameras were
supplied to seven of the nine sampling crews.
These cameras had been used previously for
the National Surface Water Survey field work
and were missing the operating instructions.
Occasionally, batteries were not supplied with
the cameras, and one camera was inoperable.
Although this type of camera had been recom-
mended for use following the Northeastern soil
survey, its performance was comparable to
other 35-mm cameras.
Participants in the Northeastern soil
survey had suggested that ASA-400 film would
produce better exposures. Both ASA-400 and
ASA-200 film were used in the SBRP soil
survey. Sampling crews determined that ASA-
200 film was better for the range of field
conditions encountered in the SBRP soil sur-
vey. The photogray cards used to identify
sampling sites were too small to be legible in
the exposures, and the colored golf tees used
for delineating soil horizon boundaries were
difficult to see. The scaled measuring tapes
with black markings also were somewhat
illegible in most of the slides.
Indelible Markers-
Indelible ink markers were supplied to
the sampling crews for filling out labels and
clod tags. The markers were indelible on the
labels, but smeared on other surfaces. There-
fore, the sampling crews purchased other
types of indelible markers to replace those
supplied.
Hand Pumps--
Portable hand pumps were supplied to
most sampling crews. It was discovered that
the discharge hose on the pump was too
short to be effectively used in a soil pit 2
meters in depth, hence, sampling crews had to
purchase longer discharge hoses. Also, sam-
pling crews requested that repair instructions
be supplied with the hand pumps. The pumps
tended to clog frequently, and the sampling
crews speculated that a filter would decrease
clogging if it could be used with the pump.
Field pH Kits-
A standard pH kit that included fresh
reagent was not supplied, therefore, compari-
son of field pH values among sampling crews
is difficult. Sampling crews used their own
field pH kits.
Boxes and Hair Nets for Clod
Sampling-
Some sampling crews received used clod
boxes that lacked dividers. Hair nets were in
short supply for some sampling crews be-
cause of occasional irregularities in
distribution.
Saran Solution for Coating Clod
Samples-
When asked to do so, the preparation
laboratories mixed the saran-acetone solution
used to stabilize clod samples collected for the
determination of bulk density. Health and
safety considerations require that saran be
13
-------
mixed under a fume hood. Sampling crews
cannot be expected to have ready access to
fume hoods and should not be tasked with
mixing their own saran.
Requests for Additional Equipment-
Sampling crews requested that paper
punches, grass clippers, and digging bars be
supplied as standard equipment. The paper
punches were used for preparing clod tags.
The grass clippers were used to trim the clod
samples and to smooth the face of the profile
before description. The digging bars were
used during pit excavation.
Sample Labeling Discrepancies
Sampling crews delivered the soil sam-
ples to the preparation laboratories at regular
intervals. Instead of copying information di-
rectly from the sample bag labels, i.e., Label A,
it appears that some crews transcribed the
sample codes from their sampling log books
or field data forms without verifying that one
sample was delivered for each corresponding
sample code entry in the sample receipt log
book.
Preparation laboratory personnel were
responsible for verifying Label A data and for
relabeling subsamples with Label B for ship-
ment to the analytical laboratories. It was
envisioned that preparation laboratory person-
nel would identify and correct mislabeled sam-
ples, although no provision was made in the
protocols to provide copies of the field data
forms to the laboratories. The identification of
labeling or log book errors was delayed until
copies of the field data forms were received.
Preparation laboratory personnel and
EPA staff discovered occasional sample label-
ing errors after samples were placed in cold
storage. These are summarized below:
Two sets of samples (one collected
by sampling crew TN01 and one col-
lected by sampling crew NC01) were
found to have the same sample ID
number. Apparently TN01 labeled the
sample bags with NC17-3007 for one
pedon, and the accompanying field
data form as NC17-3001. However,
NC01 had previously used the sample ID NC17-
3001. The issue was resolved by changing the
number on TNOI's field data form from NC17-
3001 to NC17-3007. This differentiated the two
samples and did not require relabeling the
samples.
Fourteen pedons from watersheds in
North Carolina were found to have
duplication in the use of sample ID
numbers. The duplicated sample IDs
and associated sampling classes are
as follows:
NC089-01xx;
NC089-02xx;
NC089-03xx;
NC089-04xx;
NC087-01xx;
NC087-02xx;
NC087-03xx;
SHL, OTL
ACC, SKV
ACL, ACH
ACL, ACH
ACL, FR
ACH, SKX
FR, MSL
Seven of the fourteen pedons subse-
quently received new sample numbers,
as follows:
Old Sample Sampling New Sample
Number Class Number
NC089-01xx
NC089-02XX
NC089-03xx
NC089-04xx
NC087-01xx
NC087-02xx
NC087-03xx
SHL
SKV
ACH
ACH
FR
SKX
MSL
NC089-05
NC089-06
NC089-07
NC089-08
NC087-04
NC087-05
NC087-06
Two samples collected by GA01 had
the same sample ID, but the soil color
in the two sample bags was markedly
different. The preparation laboratory
treated these as two different sam-
ples. This was a result of using the
same sample code for the B material
and C material that were collected
separately from a B/C horizon.
Duplicate sample numbers were used
for two pedons on Cosby Creek
watershed, 2AO-7805. It was discov-
ered that the sampling class labeled
OTC was changed to FR. The sample
code for this pedon was changed
from TN029-03 to TN029-04.
14
-------
Samples with the sample code TN029-
01 and the watershed ID 2AO-7891
were logged at the Tennessee prepar-
ation laboratory. The samples were
subsequently incorporated into Batch
20603, which was sent to the analy-
tical laboratory and was analyzed.
Concern arose because no field data
form was received for these samples
and because this watershed ID was
not listed for sampling. Later it was
discovered that these samples were
practice samples collected by the
Tennessee SCS, and that they were
submitted at the laboratory's request
for use as practice samples.
Although taking practice samples or
using them in the preparation labora-
tory is not discouraged, such samples
should not be assigned sample codes
or be logged in the sample receipt log
book.
Three special interest watershed
sample codes were recorded incor-
rectly by VA01. The preparation labo-
ratory was directed to correct the
codes after the errors were
discovered.
Clod Sampling for Determination of
Bulk Density
Sampling crews were instructed to
collect three clod samples from each horizon
if it were physically possible to obtain them
and to prepare clods by immersing them in a
1:7 saran-acetone solution, by weight. In
addition, sampling crews were instructed to
record the number of times each clod was
dipped into the saran-acetone mixture, if it
were dipped more than once. This information
was needed by the preparation laboratories to
determine the weight of the saran coatings for
use in the bulk density calculations.
The clod sampling procedure can be
complicated by horizon thickness, soil struc-
ture and consistence, cohesion/adhesion
properties, soil texture, root density, and the
field moisture content of the soil. The pro-
jected success rate for clod collection was
only 50 percent because it was anticipated
that some horizons would be difficult to sam-
ple. Although clod sampling data were to be
recorded on the field data forms, some sam-
pling crews did not provide the data. On the
basis of information from the preparation
laboratories, the actual success rate for exca-
vating clods from mineral soil horizons was 61
percent.
The number of saran coatings was
recorded routinely on the clod labels and in the
sample receipt log books. The duration of
clod immersion in the solution did not vary
widely among the crews. One sampling crew
mixed a weak 1:56 saran:acetone solution for
coating clods from pedons NC113-01 and
NC113-02. This mixture was not sufficient to
stabilize the clods, and most of them disinte-
grated during transport and storage.
Sample Transport and Storage
Samples were required to be placed in
cold storage at 4*C within 24 hours after
sampling. As previously mentioned, some
sampling crews rented cold storage facilities
near the sampling sites and stored samples
until delivery to the preparation laboratory
could be made at the end of the week. This
system was used in the Northeastern soil
survey and was found to be efficient. Sam-
ples were stored in the styrofoam coolers
during transport to the preparation laboratory.
Preparation Laboratory Interactions
The services of two preparation labora-
tories were obtained through interagency
agreements. The laboratory locations and
sampling crews assigned to each laboratory
are as follows:
Preparation Laboratory Crew Assignments
University of Tennessee
Department of Agronomy
Knoxville, Tennessee
Clemson University
Department of Agronomy
Clemson, South Carolina
GA02.TN01.TN02,
NCOS, VA01, NC01
NC01, NC02, NC04,
GA01
Preparation laboratory staff were respon-
sible for storing samples received from the
sampling crews, preparing soils for analysis
(i.e., drying, sieving, and shipping samples to
the analytical laboratories), determining the
percentage of rock fragments, testing for the
presence of carbonate, and determining the
15
-------
bulk density of clod samples. In addition,
preparation laboratory staff initially distributed
field equipment and supplies, received re-
quests from the sampling crews for additional
equipment and supplies, and inventoried the
equipment returned by the sampling crews at
the end of the sampling effort.
Interagency agreements with the prepar-
ation laboratories were not in place when soil
sampling was initiated. Nevertheless, both
laboratories provided cold storage space for
soil samples, although the laboratories were
hesitant to make expenditures, e.g., hiring
laboratory personnel, until funding was as-
sured. As a result, the preparation laborato-
ries were not able to provide full logistical
support as planned by DDRP staff. Both
laboratories began operations after the inter-
agency agreements were in place, although
neither laboratory received payments until June
1986. (Note: Routine soil sampling was com-
pleted on June 16, 1986.)
Delivery of samples often could not be
arranged during conventional work hours.
Samples usually were delivered to a prepara-
tion laboratory by the sampling crew after a
long day in the field, at the end of a week, or
on the weekend. Laboratory personnel were
required to check the labels of incoming sam-
ples against the sample codes recorded in the
sample receipt log book. This was done as
soon as possible to ensure that sample sets
were complete and labels were filled out
properly. Occasionally, the laboratory staff
were able to inventory the samples while a
sampling crew member was present.
Weekly conference calls between QA
staff and preparation laboratory personnel
aided in the distribution of supplies and equip-
ment, resolved issues requiring the assistance
of DDRP management staff, and allowed
laboratory personnel an opportunity to share
information. After soil sampling was comple-
ted and soil processing was well underway, it
was decided that weekly conference calls were
no longer necessary. Subsequent calls were
made as needed.
Details of the preparation laboratory
activities can be found in Volume II of this
report, under separate cover (Haren and Van
Remortel, 1987).
Field Data Forms and Codes for
Pedon Descriptions
A standard SCS field data form was first
adopted for DDRP use in the Northeastern soil
survey. That survey involved the first wide-
spread usage of the form by SCS soil scien-
tists, and SCS was interested in working with
EPA to modify the form for use in the SBRP
soil survey. Changes to the form included
placing the codes directly on the form for easy
reference and restructuring the format. An
attempt was made to create a generic form
that could be used in any region of the United
States. In general, the sampling crews re-
sponded favorably to the modified field data
form and indicated that it was an improvement
over earlier versions of the form. Appendix C
of the protocols (contained in Appendix A of
this document) provides a brief discussion on
completing the field data form.
No major difficulties were encountered in
filling out the field data forms. Audit reports
indicated that a number of the sampling crews
drafted a final version of the field data form
derived from a rudimentary version that had
been completed on-site. The intended protocol
was to use the field data forms to document
activities as they occurred, without regard for
generating a second, neater copy. This was
not always practical because the initial horizon
designations and descriptions often were
adjusted during sampling and transcription
errors occurred that required insertion of
correct data.
QA staff reviewed the forms to identify
discrepancies, and subsequently the data were
corrected by the SCS state staffs or by the
sampling crews. SCS state staff noted that
the following types of errors were made in
completing the field data forms:
Duplicate sample numbers in the
same county.
Pedon classification in error.
Failure to indicate paralithic with a "w"
when a Cr horizon occurred.
Moist consistence recorded in the top
block instead of the middle block.
16
-------
Horizon notes written in a form too
abbreviated for computer operators to
understand.
Decimal points used in the pH field,
i.e., 4.5 was entered rather than 045.
Ochric epipedon not entered with an
"o."
A modification requiring that a volume
estimate of rock fragments in the 20- to 76-
mm, 76- to 250-mm, and greater than 250-mm
size fractions was made (DDRP Team Report
No. 15, February 14, 1986). It later was deter-
mined that the 20- to 76-mm size fraction was
not being estimated directly, i.e., the sampling
crews were subtracting the 2- to 20-mm size
fraction from the 2-to 76-mm fraction rather
than performing the specific 20- to 76-mm
volume estimate. The procedure for making
this additional volume estimate was not pro-
vided in the protocols.
Structural modification of the field data
form was intended to produce a generic form
for use in all regions of the United States. As
a result, it contains entry fields and codes that
are not necessarily pertinent to conditions
observed in the SBRP soil survey. The generic
nature of the field data form occasionally
resulted in a lack of codes describing specific
situations observed in the SBRP watersheds.
Entry of Field Data
An interactive software program was
developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
allow the input of field data and a hard-copy
output of the data in an organized format.
The hard copy was used by the SCS state
staffs to check the field data before submit-
ting the field data forms to ORNL for data
entry.
Instructions for entering field data for
horizons that were split for sampling because
of thickness (more than 30 centimeters thick in
upper meter of profile and more than 50 centi-
meters thick below one meter) caused some
difficulties in data entry using the software.
The sampling crews had been instructed to
record "same" on the field data form for the
lower part of a split horizon. It became nec-
essary for data entry staff to add the missing
values because the software program would
not proceed unless values were entered in
each entry field. The output for the lower part
of the horizon is exactly the same as that for
the upper part. Because there was no indica-
tion of a split sample, each part is displayed
as a discrete horizon, which is misleading.
There were no instructions provided to
the SCS state staffs concerning the entry of
multiple, independent descriptions of the same
pedon by sampling crew, state staff, and RCC.
Because the descriptions were made at the
same site, the field data forms contained the
same ID codes. The North Carolina SCS
produced two data files, one for crew data,
and one for SCS state staff data. The
Georgia SCS used "dummy11 ID codes to differ-
entiate the two descriptions.
The current software program does not
allow entry of data contained in the "Log" field.
These data specify which of the five possible
points in the watershed was sampled and the
exact location of the pedon sampled. If the
new identification codes are implemented for
future surveys and the software is modified to
accommodate the changes, this difficulty will
have been resolved.
17
-------
Section 3
Quality Assurance Program
EPA has mandated that the Quality
Assurance Management Staff be responsible
for providing technical guidelines to ensure
that adequate planning and implementation of
QA/QC occurs in all EPA-funded programs that
involve environmental measurements. In
support of this responsibility, data quality
objectives (DQOs) are developed as the initial
step in the process leading to the preparation
of the QA project plan. The QA project plan
specifies the policies, organization, objectives,
and QA/QC activities needed to achieve the
DQOs.
Data Quality Objectives
The application of DQOs increases the
likelihood of collecting data that will meet the
needs of data users as well as providing for
greater efficiency and success in data collec-
tion activities. The EPA Quality Assurance
Management Staff has defined guidelines and
specifications for developing DQOs. The
inherent quality of a data set is represented in
terms of five characteristics: precision, accu-
racy, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability. Brief explanations of these
characteristics follow:
Precision and Accuracy - quantitative
measures that characterize the varia-
bility and bias inherent in a given data
set. Precision is defined by the level
of agreement among multiple mea-
surements of the same characteristic.
Accuracy is defined by the difference
between an estimate based on the
data and the true value of the param-
eter being estimated.
Representativeness - the degree to
which the data collected accurately
reflect the population, group, or me-
dium being sampled.
Completeness - the quantity of data
that is successfully collected with
respect to that amount intended in
the experimental design. A certain
percentage of the intended data must
be successfully collected for valid
conclusions to be made. Complete-
ness of data collection is important
because missing data may reduce the
precision of estimates or may intro-
duce bias, thereby lowering the level
of confidence in the conclusions
drawn from the data.
Comparability - the similarity of data
from different sources included in a
single data set. Because more than
one sampling crew was collecting
samples and more than one labora-
tory was preparing and analyzing the
samples, uniform procedures must be
used. This ensures that samples are
collected in a consistent manner and
that data from different laboratories
are based on measurements of the
same parameter.
Sampling Objectives
DQO concepts that had been developed
for analytical laboratory operations were diffi-
cult to apply to soil sampling activities. DQOs
for soil sampling were developed to ensure
that field operations, e.g., sampling site loca-
tion, profile description, and sampling, would
be conducted in a consistent manner. These
objectives were intended to reduce the error
inherent in collecting soils data and to provide
an indication of the variability among sampling
crews.
18
-------
The DQOs presented in this section were
developed by the ERL-C DDRP staff. That
development included the preparation of a
detailed DQO document which was used to
guide sampling activities in the Northeastern
region. Subsequently, the DQOs were revised
to reflect modifications for the SBRP soil
survey. The following paragraphs also contain
information from the QA project plan (Bartz et
al., 1987).
Precision and Accuracy-
The regional correlator/coordinator (RCC)
must be a soil scientist with several years
experience in soil profile description and soil
mapping. The RCC monitors one site per
sampling crew for adherence to SCS stan-
dards, procedures, and sampling protocol
modifications, and performs an independent
duplicate profile description. At least one site
in each state is monitored with the SCS state
staff representative while the remaining sites
may be monitored independently. Monitoring
includes preparing a duplicate profile descrip-
tion and reviewing selection of sites for sam-
pling. The RCC also insures that SCS state
staffs perform duplicate profile descriptions.
During this process, the RCC identifies, dis-
cusses, and resolves any significant issues.
Written reports are submitted to the sampling
task leader at ERL-C within two weeks. The
resolution of major issues is reported verbally
within two working days.
A representative of the SCS state staff
independently describes a minimum of one site
per sampling crew. These independent pedon
descriptions are used to assess the variability
in site descriptions among soil scientists. The
SCS representative monitors adherence to
protocol for site selection, labeling, and sam-
pling. The soil profile is described on the
same face of the pit described by the sam-
pling crews. The representative makes the
assessment while the crew is describing and
sampling the pedons. Written reviews are
submitted to the sampling task leader at ERL-
C within two weeks. Major discrepancies are
reported verbally within two working days.
The QA representative audits each sam-
pling crew at least once to ensure adherence
to sampling protocol. Written reports are
submitted within two weeks. Major discrepan-
cies are reported verbally within two working
days.
A small percentage of the sampling
classes are selected randomly by EPA for
replicate sampling to determine the within-
class variability. These replicate pedons,
called paired pedons, are selected before
sampling begins. The paired pedon and the
routine pedon from a representative site for
each selected sampling class are sampled on
the same day by the same field crew. The
criteria for the paired pedon are the following:
Establish sufficient distance between
the two sampling locations to avoid
disturbing the paired pedon because
of the sampling of the routine pedon.
Use the same sampling class and
vegetation class as for the routine
pedon.
Use the same slope position as for
the routine pedon.
Sample pits are located accurately on the
soil survey maps, and the pit dimensions and
the long azimuth are recorded. The pit face
from which samples are removed is recorded,
and the location of the pit in the field is
flagged or identified so that the site can be
revisited. The soil profile is described accord-
ing to SCS protocols.
One horizon per day is sampled in dupli-
cate by each field crew. The choice of horizon
is made at the discretion of the field crew,
although an attempt is made to sample across
the range of horizon types. The sample is
taken by placing alternate trowelsful of sample
into each of two sample bags. One field
duplicate is included in each set of samples
sent to a preparation laboratory.
Representativeness-
The primary concerns in the selection of
sampling sites are (1) to assess soil charac-
teristics, (2) to integrate information on parent
material, internal drainage, soil depth, slope,
and vegetative cover, and (3) to determine
representative sampling classes. Soils which
have been identified in the study regions have
been combined into groups, or sampling
classes, which are either known to have or are
19
-------
expected to have similar chemical and physical
characteristics. Each of the sampling classes
can be sampled across a number of water-
sheds in which they occur. In this approach,
a given soil sample does not represent the
specific watershed from which it came, rather,
it contributes to a set of samples which collec-
tively represents a specific sampling class on
all watersheds within the sampling region.
The lead soil scientist of the sampling party
selects a sampling site representing the desig-
nated sampling class and vegetation class
within the designated watershed. Five random
points are assigned at each site. Sampling
crews must proceed to the first designated
point and must determine if the sampling class
and vegetative cover specifications are satis-
fied. If the point is unsatisfactory, the crew
proceeds to the next point and so on until a
satisfactory sampling site representative of the
sampling class and vegetation class is found.
Completeness-
«
Soil sampling protocols specify the
sampling of 100 percent of the designated
pedons and of the prerequisite number of
horizons. If samples are lost, spilled, or
mislabeled, it is possible to return to the field
and resample the same site. If a sampling
site is inaccessible, the reason for excluding
the site must be formally documented by the
sampling crew.
Comparability-
The consistent use of SCS methods,
personnel, and data forms for the sampling
phase provides field and analytical data that
are qualitatively comparable to data generated
from SCS investigations and other studies
which have utilized a similar approach. The
data are quantitatively comparable only to soil
surveys utilizing a randomized site selection
procedure.
Fulfillment of Objectives
Precision and Accuracy-
Eleven paired pedons (10 percent of the
total number of routine pedons sampled) were
sampled to provide information on variability
between morphologically matched pedons.
Additional precision and accuracy estimates
will be discussed in the forthcoming QA report
on the analytical data (Palmer et al., in
preparation)
Representativeness-
All pedons sampled were within the
range of morphological characteristics as
assigned for their respective sampling classes.
Data analysis activities should assess whether
or not the sampling classes, as defined by the
physical, chemical, and mineralogical data, are
separate populations. The results will be
discussed in the forthcoming QA report on the
analytical data.
Completeness-
A total of 110 routine pedons were sam-
pled of the 114 pedons initially selected, result-
ing in 96 percent completeness. In addition,
two pedons were added to the list, and two
pedons were not sampled (see Table 2).
Although this does not meet the 100 percent
goal, the number of samples collected should
provide sufficient data for valid conclusions to
be made for all sampling classes.
The number of field duplicates obtained
during routine and special interest watershed
sampling satisfied the DQO goal, which speci-
fied that each sampling crew was to collect
one horizon in duplicate on each day of sam-
pling.
Comparability
The comparability of morphological
characteristics is discussed in detail under the
heading "Review of Profile Descriptions". The
comparability of physical, chemical, and miner-
alogical data obtained from different analytical
laboratories using several reporting standards
and different analytical methods will be ad-
dressed in the forthcoming QA report on the
analytical data.
Evaluations and Audits
The objective of on-site observations is
to assess the quality of sampling activities
performed by the sampling crews. Three
categories of observations were conducted for
the sampling activities by the SCS state staffs,
RCC, and the QA auditor. The activities
20
-------
observed, DQO levels of effort, deviations from
protocol, and difficulties encountered are
discussed below.
Evaluations by the Soil Conservation
Service State Staff
SCS state staffs were responsible for
evaluating the sampling crews in their respec-
tive states as a quality control measure. It
was desirable for these evaluations to be
conducted by SCS staff who were not mem-
bers of the sampling crews to ensure that
evaluations would be as objective as possible.
Written reports documented that all crews
were evaluated at least once during the survey.
No difficulties were documented in the
written reports. Site selection and sampling
protocols were not discussed in the reports for
all crews. Most reports were brief with little
detail concerning the areas covered during the
evaluation. The report for the observation of
the GA01 and GA02 sampling crews stated
that additional staff were added to the crew to
allow soil sampling activities to be completed
in a timely manner.
Evaluations by the Regional
Correlator/Coordinator
EPA contracted a former SCS soil scien-
tist to serve as RCC. All sampling crews were
audited, including VA01 which sampled five
special interest pedons in Virginia.
Sampling site location, sample labeling,
and sampling protocols were evaluated during
the RCC review, although the written report
concerning these areas is brief. The written
reports identified no major deviations from the
protocols. However, detailed discussions of
questions concerning protocols and the RCC's
suggestions were not provided. Names of
sampling crew members and SCS state staff
also reviewing the site were included in the
written report.
Audits by Quality Assurance Staff
ERL-C QA staff performed complete
audits for six of the nine SBRP sampling
crews. For NC01, the auditor observed the site
selection, pit excavation, and profile descrip-
tion. Sample collection activities were not
audited. For GA02, the protocols were re-
viewed with the sampling crew members, but
an audit was not conducted because field
activities were postponed because of rain.
The sampling of special interest watersheds
by VA01 was not audited.
A written report and a checklist of activi-
ties observed were completed for each audit
conducted. The auditor corrected any protocol
deviations observed at the time of the audit
and documented issues of concern in the
written audit report. A summary report evalu-
ated sampling crew performance for all sam-
pling crews audited.
Concerns identified during the audits
included the following:
In the protocols, it was unclear if clod
samples were to be collected for both
routine and field duplicate horizons.
This issue was resolved after discus-
sion with the soil sampling task
leader. It was decided no additional
clods would be required for the field
duplicate horizon.
« Field data forms were not filled out at
the time of soil description and sam-
pling by GA01.
GA01 did not label samples in the
field.
Several sampling crews did not fill out
field log books in the field, but com-
pleted them later.
GA01 and GA02 did not have enough
crew members to perform all required
tasks. The auditor believed that a
minimum of four sampling crew mem-
bers was required to perform all
assigned tasks.
GA01 used the SCS blue-sheet soil
series descriptions to determine
horizon designations. (Note: Blue
sheets represent the typical series
description with a range of character-
istics.) This practice is not appropri-
ate for DDRP characterization where
the objective of soil description is to
characterize the pedon that is
sampled.
21
-------
The QA auditor observed the following
favorable practices:
Two holes punched in a photogray
card with a flag rod run through them
were found to work well to anchor the
card in place during the photographic
documentation of each pedon.
Some crews left the photogray cards
at the sampling sites to provide an
explanation for the excavation. Local
authorities had received occasional
reports of graves being dug in odd
locations.
Some sampling crews decided that
spraying clod samples with water
before dipping might inhibit the ab-
sorption of the saran, instead of
enhancing the process as expected.
Sampling crews were given permis-
sion to discontinue spraying clods
with water before dipping.
Review of Log Books
Sampling Log Books
Sampling log books maintained by all
sampling crews were reviewed for complete-
ness in terms of the following information:
On-site observations by the RCC, SCS
state staff, and QA staff, including
documentation of concerns discussed
with the evaluator or auditor.
Difficulties encountered in locating any
sampling site.
Site conditions or soil characteristics
that could have an effect on the
analytical results.
Sampling procedures that might affect
the quality of the samples collected.
Difficulties with equipment or supplies.
Comments regarding adherence to
protocol, including any procedural
modifications or recommendations for
future surveys.
An examination of sampling log books
indicated a wide range in the amount of detail
recorded, which can be attributed partially to
the lack of a specified format for log book
entries. Several sampling log books contained
no record of sampling crew members. The
lack of a master list of exposures taken by
each crew made it difficult to evaluate the
completeness of the photographic record for
SBRP field activities.
Sample Receipt Log Books
Sample receipt log books from the prep-
aration laboratories were reviewed for
completeness in providing the following
information:
Condition of samples upon arrival at
the preparation laboratory.
Labeling errors and correction of
mislabeled samples.
Sampling difficulties or protocol devia-
tions identified in sampling log books
and documented upon receipt of the
sample at the preparation laboratory.
Sampling level of field duplicates for
comparison with DQO goals.
The sample receipt log books did not
provide all information expected. However, the
preparation laboratory may maintain other
notebooks containing this information that
were not reviewed for this report. The log
book from one laboratory was compiled after
the interagency agreement was in place,
therefore, this log book does not provide
sample condition upon receipt because the
samples had been delivered by the sampling
crews approximately one month before this log
book was compiled. The other log book
followed a column and row format. Column
headers were the following: date, time, who
delivered or crew ID, who received sample,
condition as placed in storage, sample ID, clod
ID, number of clods per horizon, clod condi-
tion, and remarks. The left page contained
information on the bulk samples and the right
page, on the clod samples. The cooler tem-
perature was recorded for each group of sam-
ples delivered. Generally, sampling crews
logged in samples as the samples were deliv-
ered to the cold storage facility. Occasionally,
22
-------
the farm manager or preparation laboratory
personnel assisted. Most deliveries were
made after 5:30 PM, and several deliveries
were made on Saturday and Sunday. Accord-
ing to the documentation, all samples arrived
in good condition.
Although most entries were made in
black ink as required by protocol, entries for
148 samples collected during April and May
1986 were made in pencil. Entries for six
samples were recorded in blue ink. Pencil and
blue ink do not photocopy well, and pencil
entries tend to wear and become illegible. The
QA auditor reiterated the need to use black ink
pens.
Corrections to sample codes which were
requested by the sampling task leader and
EMSL-LV staff were made by crossing out part
of the original sample code and clearly writing
the correction above the original entry. The
changes were not initialed; however, the ori-
ginal entries did remain legible as required by
protocol.
Review of Profile Descriptions
Paired Pedon Descriptions
Eleven paired pedons were sampled to
provide information on variability between
morphologically matched pedons. Both the
routine and replicate pedons of each pair are
described and sampled according to the proto-
cols used for all routine sampling.
The objective of paired pedon description
and sampling is to gain some indication of the
spatial variability of field-observed characteris-
tics and physical and chemical soil properties
over short distances. The determination of
physical and chemical parameters will yield
quantitative data that may be used in statisti-
cal comparisons during data analysis.
The qualitative components of the paired
pedon descriptions were evaluated for this
report. Differences in horizon designations
and other descriptive parameters, e.g., field pH,
color, roots, and rock fragments, constitute the
basis for comparison. Analysis of profile
descriptions for paired pedons may give a
different picture of similarity than analysis
based on the results of physical and chemical
data. Any qualitative differences determined in
the comparison of paired pedon descriptions
are not intended to be used for any specific
purpose other than documenting the variability
observed during the SBRP soil survey.
The qualitative classification of the
paired pedons is summarized in Table 3. The
pedon descriptions were systematically re-
viewed by comparing the field observations of
descriptive parameters between the routine
and replicate pedons. Ranges of characteris-
tics for descriptive parameters were defined to
make the comparison. Subsequently, the
paired pedons were classified as similar,
moderately different, or very different based
primarily on soil morphology. Of the 11 paired
pedons evaluated, 55 percent of the pairs were
judged to be similar, 36 percent were moder-
ately different, and 9 percent were very differ-
ent. Both pedons of each pair were located
within the same sampling class and the same
vegetation class.
Paired pedons may be compared with
respect to both the correlation of the horizon
designations and the correlation of field-mea-
sured characteristics of horizons identified for
both pedons. When there is little agreement in
the horizon designations for the routine and
paired pedons, quantitative comparisons of
field-measured characteristics are not possible.
A qualitative comparison of the charac-
teristics for pedons classified as very similar
revealed that no additional information on
variables within pedon pairs was gained
beyond that derived by determining the propor-
tion of horizon designations in common for
those pairs. Even when the paired descrip-
tions were similar, the field-measured proper-
ties, e.g., horizon thickness, were found to
differ considerably.
Pedon pairs that were classified as
moderately different were those that differed
from each other in 22 to 71 percent of the total
number of horizon designations. Although 71
percent of its horizons were described differ-
ently, one pedon description was classified as
moderately different because of comparability
between other characteristics.
The pedons classified as very different
were those that exhibited differences in
horizon designations exceeding 71 percent.
23
-------
Table 3. Summary of the Qualitative Difference* Between Paired Pedons
Watershed ID Sampling Class Crew ID Pedon Comparison Total Horizons
Horizons Described Differently
Number Percent
2AO-8805
2A08904
2AO-8910
2AO-7826
2AO-7830
2AO-7833
2AO-7834'
2AO-7823
2AO-7829
2AO-7802
2AO-7805
FL
ACC
OTL
ACL
ACH
FR
SHL
SKX
MSL
SKV
MSH
GA02
GA01
GA01
NC01
NC01
NCOS
NC03
NCOS
NC04
TN02
TN01
Georgia
S*
Mc
S
North Carolina
M
Drf
S
S
S
M
Tennessee
M
S
8
9
7(6)"
7
7(5)
8(7)
4
4
9(8)
7
7(8)
0
5
1
2
5
1
0
0
2
5
1
0
56
14
29
71
13
0
0
22
71
13
' This paired pedon was originally to have been sampled on watershed 2AO-7830.
° Similar (S).
c Moderately different (M).
" Very different (D).
* The number of horizons described for the routine pedon are given first, followed by the number of
horizons described for the paired pedon in parentheses.
Generally, the characteristics of the surface
horizons of these pedons were more similar
than were the subsurface horizons. At lower
depths in the pedons, differences in horizon
designations become relatively greater and
characteristics of the horizons are more vari-
able differed.
Comparison of paired pedons at the
qualitative level appears to be a useful exer-
cise only for describing the inherent variability
of the sampling classes. The value of this
comparison for future surveys can be deter-
mined only after the analytical data have been
analyzed statistically. The low correlation
between the routine and replicate pedon sug-
gests some difficulty in sampling qualitatively
similar pedons utilizing the sampling design
employed in this survey. The lack of qualita-
tive similarity between paired pedons does not
necessarily mean these soils are dissimilar for
the purposes of DDRP, because similar soils
are defined by sampling classes.
The results of the laboratory analyses for
paired pedon samples should be analyzed and
reviewed before a final determination of the
variability between paired pedons and within
sampling classes is assessed. The conclusion
that only 55 percent of the paired pedons are
similar should be considered when examining
the laboratory data. It may be difficult to
evaluate the variability of the paired pedons
and the sampling classes based on the analyt-
ical results only.
In summary, this examination of the
field-described characteristics demonstrates
the difficulty encountered in matching soil
profiles and characteristics over a distance of
a few meters for pedons of the same soil
series. Linking data for all pedons within a
sampling class over the entire region is ex-
pected to be even more difficult.
Independent Pedon Descriptions
The RCC and SCS state staff evaluations
often included the preparation of independent
pedon descriptions. These were compared
with the sampling crews' pedon descriptions.
For two pedons, independent descriptions of
the same pedon were made by the sampling
crew, the RCC, and the SCS state staff. A
total of 13 independent descriptions were
made either by the sampling crew and the
RCC or by the sampling crew and the SCS
state staff.
24
-------
The purpose of performing independent
pedon descriptions is to provide a basis for
qualitatively evaluating the variability that
occurs when two or more soil scientists de-
scribe the same pedon. Although the stan-
dards and guidelines routinely used by SCS
often are based on precisely defined terms,
the consistency in application is not always
perfect. A certain degree of subjectivity is
inherent in this process, which allows some
variability between individuals in making obser-
vations of the same pedon. For example, the
color of one horizon may be described in three
different ways by as many describers. The
precision of comparing a soil sample with a
Munsell color chip is primarily influenced by the
amount of sunlight present, the moisture
content of the sample, and the ability of the
describer to distinguish hue, value, and chroma
differences.
Independent pedon descriptions are
useful for comparing subjective field character-
istics, such as horizon boundaries, soil texture,
or color. Usually, horizon designations are
determined by evaluating a range of physical
characteristics and interpreting their relation-
ship to soil development. Independent pedon
descriptions are comparable only when the
participants describe the same face or portion
of the pedon.
Independent pedon descriptions are
summarized in Table 4. The horizon designa-
tions for each pedon description were evalu-
ated with respect to all field- measured vari-
ables recorded on the field data forms, accord-
ing to the same procedure used for paired
pedon descriptions. Soil colors were the most
often noted differences between the descrip-
tions. These may be related to variability in
the describers' vision or actual color variability
in the samples. Soil pH differences may have
been due to differences between soil samples
Table 4. Summary of Independent Pedon Descriptions Evaluated
Describers
Watershed ID
Sampling Class
Crew ID
E valuator
RCC
SCS
Horizons Described Differently
Total Number Percent
2AO-7806
2AO-7811
2AO-7813
2AO-7817
2AO-7826
2AO-7829
2AO-7830
2AO-7833
2AO-7882
2AO-8801
2AO-8803
2AO-8810
2AO-8904
2B04-7916
Coweeta #36
ACH
SKV
_
SKX
ACC
MSL
ACH
FR
ACH
MSL
FL
ACC
FL
MSL
ACH
TN02
TN01
NC04
TN01
NC01
NC04
NC01
NC03
NC02
GA02
GA02
GA01
GA01
VA01
NCOS
X
.
X
X
.
.
X
.
X
X
.
.
X
X
X
X
X
.
.
X
X
.
X
X
.
X
X
X
8
8(9)'
5(6)
11
9
5
8(9)
12(9)
8
7
6
8
6
0
1
2
0
0
2
4
.
6
0
0
0
3
3
0
11
33**"
Of
0
40C
44
.
50>
Q«MT
0*
QbMtt
38**"
50'
* The number of horizons described for the first description are given first, followed by the number of horizons described
for the second description in parentheses. Intercomparisons were not possible when triplicate descriptions were made.
* Texture.
c Structure.
" Depth.
Horizon thickness.
Based on the descriptions provided, it appears that different faces of the soil pit were described.
Field-observed pH.
Soil color.
Roots.
Incomplete field data form received for evaluation.
Horizon boundary.
Rock fragments.
m Sampling class.
25
-------
or the types of pH reagent used, as well as
differences in perception of the pH color
charts. Generally, there was insufficient infor-
mation provided on the field data forms to
determine if the descriptions were made in the
same location or on the same face of the soil
pit.
Unless it is certain that descriptions are
made within a specific, delineated area of the
exposed soil profile, independent pedon de-
scription comparisons can be only qualitative.
It was not possible to conduct a more de-
tailed comparison of the field descriptions
because only one pedon (watershed ID 2AO-
7806) was known to have been described by
all three describers for a specific portion of the
pedon.
Data Entry and Management
This section describes the software,
procedures, and QA/QC measures used during
the development of the computerized data
base. Data entry protocols included visual
scanning of the data forms, computer entry,
entry checking, and editing. The specific
software, procedures, and checks varied
according to data type and also evolved
through time because of adjustments in the
data collection protocols, reporting forms,
available computer software and equipment,
and personnel.
Soil Mapping Data Files
In the Fall of 1985 and Spring of 1986,
SCS soil scientists mapped 35 watersheds in
SBRP. Transects were made on the mapped
watersheds to determine mapping unit compo-
sition. SCS state staffs prepared watershed
attribute maps that delineated soil types,
vegetation cover types, bedrock geology, depth
to bedrock, and land use at a scale of 1 :
24,000. Bedrock geology delineations were
derived from existing geological maps. The
other maps were derived from data collected
as part of DDRP.
Preliminary map legends and mapping
unit descriptions were prepared by SCS state
staffs using existing soil surveys, topographic
maps, and aerial photography. After mapping
was completed, the provisional legends and
mapping unit descriptions were correlated at a
workshop held in Corvallis, Oregon in March
1986. Using data from field transects, the
workshop participants applied a consistent
mapping unit nomenclature and composition
from state to state. Most of the mapping
units were described as consociations or
complexes of soil series, although a few
mapping units were defined as consociations
or complexes at a higher taxonomic category,
e.g., Great Group.
Each mapping unit description form
included the mapping unit name, slope, land-
scape position, landform, parent material,
depth to bedrock, taxonomic classification, and
inclusions of unnamed soils occurring in the
mapping unit. The map legends and mapping
unit description forms were scanned for legi-
bility, completeness, and accuracy. Any dis-
crepancies were resolved through communica-
tion with the SCS state staffs.
Following the workshop, both ERL-C and
ORNL entered the watershed map attribute
data, soil transect data, and mapping unit
description data into their respective computer
systems. Data entry at ORNL was performed
by an in-house data entry center and the
resulting files were transferred to SAS files
(SAS Institute Inc., 1987) on the IBM 3033
system. ERL-C entered the data using dBase
III software on an IBM personal computer.
The ERL-C files were transferred to ORNL in
an ASCII format and were uploaded to SAS
files on the IBM 3033 system. Next, the two
files were compared for discrepancies.
Discrepancies in watershed attributes
were resolved through legend corrections and
some remapping by the SCS state staffs, and
the revised data were entered into the data
base. ERL-C used the Arc/Info geographic
information system (GIS) to digitize the water-
shed attribute files. Then ERL-C compared the
updated watershed attribute data with the
digitized watershed attribute data, and re-
solved any inconsistencies. Finally, the GIS-
derived mapping unit areas were adopted as
the most reliable.
The mapping unit data are maintained in
three files: mapping unit legend file, mapping
unit composition file, and mapping unit com-
ponent file. The legend file contains data
pertaining to the identification of the mapping
unit, including the symbol, name, and physio-
graphic information. The composition file
26
-------
contains the percentage of individual compo-
nents found in each mapping unit. The com-
ponent file contains data on each named soil
or inclusion, such as slope, drainage class,
and taxonomic classification. The reasons for
splitting the data into three files were to
reduce the amount of redundant information
stored in a single file and to facilitate the
review and comparison of the mapping unit
components.
ERL-C sent listings of the computerized
mapping unit files to the SCS state staffs for
review and resolution of apparent inconsis-
tencies. Several iterations of updates were
entered into the SAS files at ORNL. The cor-
rections were entered into a change file which
contained the record identifier, the variable
name, the old value, and the new value. Then
the change file was compared with each
record in the data base. Only when all three
items matched an observation in the data
base was the new value inserted. This meth-
od of updating the data base virtually elimin-
ated the possibility of adjusting the wrong
observation or variable.
After the updates were made, ORNL
generated frequency tables of the coded
variables and compared these tables with lists
of valid codes. The frequency tables were
used to build code translation tables contain-
ing the codes and their definitions. The code
translation tables are stored as SAS format
libraries in the data base.
The final step in editing the mapping
data files involved the labeling of variables
and, where necessary, the modification of
variable names and labels to ensure consis-
tency among the data files. The complete
contents of the mapping files are described in
Turner et al. (1987).
Soil Sampling Data Files
Each sampling location and soil profile
were described in conjunction with soil sam-
pling. During the training workshop at the
University of Tennessee - Knoxville, the sam-
pling crews were instructed in uniform proce-
dures for describing the soils and recording
data on the field data forms.
Upon completion of sampling in the
Spring of 1986, copies of the data forms were
sent to ORNL, ERL-C, and EMSL-LV. At ORNL,
the forms were scanned visually for complete-
ness, legibility, and the validity of code entries.
ORNL personnel noted any missing, illegible, or
suspect data.
To computerize the data, ORNL created
a custom dBase III data entry program. SCS
state staff entered the field data using this
software and sent diskettes to ORNL The
handwritten field data forms also were for-
warded to ORNL for data entry by using the
dBase III software program. The two files
were uploaded to SAS data files on the IBM
3033 computer system and were compared
using SAS procedures. A list of discrepancies
was generated. This list was compared with
the original field data forms, and a change file
was generated using the record identifier, the
variable name, the incorrect observation and
the correct observation. Corrections were
made to the data using the same procedure
as that described for the mapping unit files.
The data were entered as two linked
files. The base file, designated 232 BA, con-
tains one record for each pedon. Data pertin-
ent to the entire pedon, such as identifier, date
sampled, location, taxonomic classification,
and physiographic information, are stored in
this file. These data were reported on the first
page of the field data form. The horizon file,
designated 232 HO, contains the horizon
characteristics, such as horizon depth, thick-
ness, color, and structure. These data were
reported on pages 2 through 4 of the field
data form.
The EMSL-LV staff developed and imple-
mented procedures to evaluate the data re-
corded on the field data forms (Bartz et al.,
1987). Following receipt of the field data
forms, QA staff examined the forms for sus-
pect data and sent a list of discrepancies to
the SCS state offices for resolution. SCS
returned the confirmed or corrected data.
These data were entered into a change file,
and were integrated into the data base.
ORNL generated frequency tables of
coded variables and compared them to a list
of valid codes. Invalid or suspect codes
identified by this procedure were sent to
EMSL-LV for resolution. This resulted in an-
other round of updates which were incorpor-
ated into the data base.
27
-------
As with the mapping data, labels were
assigned to all field variables and, where
necessary, variable names and labels were
modified to ensure consistency among the
various data files. The complete contents of
the field data files are discussed in Turner et
al. (1987).
28
-------
Section 4
Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommendations for resolving issues
and concerns stemming from the SBRP soil
survey operations are summarized in this
section to aid in the design of future surveys.
Although the detailed discussions provided in
the text of this report are not reproduced in
this section, recommendations are presented
in their order of occurrence in the text. A
summary assessing the overall quality of the
soil sampling operations concludes this report.
Recommendations
Site Selection
A letter on EPA letterhead should be
provided to sampling crews for use in assuring
private landowners that the sampling crew
represents EPA in collecting data of local and
regional significance.
The criteria provided below for selecting
pedons for sampling in which the desired
sampling class occurs only as an inclusion in
the mapping unit should be incorporated into
any protocol revision:
The mapping unit must contain inclu-
sions that fit the required sampling
class.
The sampling class must make up at
least 20 percent of the mapping unit.
A pedon meeting the constraints of
the sampling class can be located.
A method for assessing the vegetation
composition at the sampling site and for
determining if it satisfies the vegetation class
requirements should be incorporated into
revised protocols. Consideration should be
given to defining the size of the area in rela-
tionship to the sampling point and to estab-
lishing a procedure for evaluating stand com-
position, particularly for the mixed class desig-
nation.
Supplies and Equipment
Preparation laboratory personnel should
ensure that all equipment is serviceable in
advance of distribution to the sampling crews.
Crews should inspect all equipment before it is
taken into the field.
Supplies should be distributed evenly
among sampling crews to ensure that each
crew has a sufficient supply for two weeks of
sampling work.
Operating and repair instructions should
accompany equipment such as cameras and
hand pumps. If operating instructions are not
available, training should be provided at the
workshop.
Sampling crews should be provided with
35-mm cameras for photographic documenta-
tion of pedon characteristics. Personal cam-
eras also may be used.
ASA-200 film is recommended for general
use. However, ASA-400 film is recommended
for taking photographs under shady conditions
without using a flash attachment.
Photogray cards with dimensions of 8.5
by 11 inches are recommended for better
visibility in the slides.
Two holes punched in a photogray card
with a flag rod run through them were found
to work well to anchor the card in place during
29
-------
the photographic documentation of each
pedon.
Some sampling crews recommended
leaving the photogray card on-site to provide
an explanation for the excavation, because
local authorities had received occasional
reports of graves being dug in odd locations.
White golf tees are recommended for
marking soil horizon boundaries.
Khaki cloth measuring tapes with white
interval markings are recommended to provide
better visibility in the slides.
Marking pens supplied to sampling crews
should be indelible on all surfaces.
Standardized pH kits with fresh reagent
should be supplied to all sampling crews to
ensure that comparable results are produced.
Preparation laboratories should mix the
saran-acetone solutions for the sampling
crews. Sampling crews should give at least
two days advance notice of their need for the
solution.
Hole punches, garden clippers, and
digging bars are recommended as routine
sampling equipment.
Hand pumps should be equipped with
discharge hoses that are of sufficient length to
extend from a soil pit that is 2 meters deep.
Clod Sampling
One standard saran:acetone solution
should be used. Because acetone is volatile,
the sampling crew will have to carry a sepa-
rate container of acetone for maintaining the
solution at a nearly constant viscosity. Clods
should be immersed in the saran-acetone
solution only once and for a set period of time.
If a clod is dipped more than once, this infor-
mation must be recorded on the clod label and
in the sampling log book. Safety precautions
must be taken because acetone is flammable,
and both saran and acetone are carcinogens.
Some sampling crews suggested that
spraying clod samples with water before
dipping might inhibit the absorption of saran.
They recommended that the practice be
discontinued.
Sample Labeling
Samples should be labeled by the field
crews while they are in the field.
Labels should be checked against (1) a
master listing of the pedon codes identifying
the sampling sites and (2) copies of the field
data forms accompanying the samples to be
delivered.
Preparation Laboratory Support
Preparation laboratories should be opera-
tional before soil sampling begins. This will
ensure that the preparation laboratories can
provide logistical support for the sampling
operations.
Sample tracking procedures should be
detailed in the EPA Statement of Work and
should be included in the protocols for future
surveys. Specifically, these protocols should
emphasize that (1) the person delivering sam-
ples to the preparation laboratory is responsi-
ble for documenting which samples have been
delivered and (2) the preparation laboratory
personnel are responsible for verifying that a
sample exists at the laboratory for each log
book entry. This redundancy in recording and
checking sample codes is necessary for the
QA documentation of the transfer of sample
custody from the sampling crew to the prepa-
ration laboratory.
The preparation laboratory should be
provided with (1) a master listing of the pedon
codes identifying the sites designated for
sampling and (2) copies of the field data
forms accompanying the samples delivered.
The laboratory manager should make arrange-
ments to have a copying machine available
when samples are delivered.
Each sampling crew should arrange a
mutually satisfactory delivery schedule with the
preparation laboratory manager. Because the
area used for sample storage is required to be
secure, i.e., locked, advance arrangements
should be made for access. Phone numbers
of the appropriate laboratory personnel should
be provided to the crews.
30
-------
Field Data Forms and Codes
The training workshop should put more
emphasis on the proper entry of data onto the
field data form. The protocols should provide
detailed instructions for completing the field
data form.
The protocols should stress that original
field data forms should be completed in the
field by using permanent ink or an indelible
marker. Preliminary data forms that are later
copied without change onto final data forms
are acceptable. However, both versions of the
form must be submitted to the QA staff for
data verification.
Suggested modifications to the field data
form include the following:
The brown shading on the back page
should be eliminated or lightened
because it interferes with photocopy
reproduction of the forms and the
legibility of the photocopies.
The column for horizon depth, upper
and lower, should be identical to the
header column.
An upper and lower division of the
boundary column is not needed.
The organization of the code legend
on the form could be better. The
codes are difficult to find because
they are not presented in the order in
which they are used in filling out the
form.
Additional codes should be provided, as indi-
cated in the following categories:
Geomorphic Position
- Floodplain
- Footslope (colluvial deposit)
- Toeslope (colluvial deposit)
Local Landform
- Cove
Land-Use
- Abandoned land
- Abandoned pasture
- Idle land
Parent Material Origin
- Metasedimentary (MS)
- Mixed materials
- Crystalline materials
- Schist
- Phyllite
(Note: Separate sampling classes
were distinguished by schist and
phyllite; however, only one code,
M5, was provided.)
Field-Measured Property (Kind)
- Old root channels
- Worm casts
- Krotovinas, i.e., a former animal
burrow that has been filled with
organic matter or material from
another horizon.
The following changes are recommended
for use on a field data form modified specifi-
cally for future DDRP soil surveys:
Pedon Code (replaces Sample Num-
ber): An 8-digit code made up of
state, county, and unit designations,
e.g., NC113-02.
Watershed ID: An 8-digit code to
identify a watershed. Leading zeros
could be added to standardize the 6-
and 7-digit codes, e.g., 1A3007 and
2A07907, which were used in the
Northeastern and SBRP regions,
respectively.
Class ID: A 3-digit code to identify a
soil sampling class; e.g., S09 in the
Northeastern soil survey or OTC in the
SBRP soil survey.
Site Number: A 1-digit number from 1
to 5 to indicate the random point used
for sample site location.
Transect Azimuth: A 2-digit code to
designate the ordinal direction of the
transect line from the random number
point, e.g., ON, NE, NW. AW should
be used if the random point was
sampled.
Transect Distance: A 3-digit code
from 001 to 150 to specify the dis-
tance in meters in the transect
31
-------
azimuth direction from the random
point to the sampling point.
Sample Type: A 3-digit code to desig-
nate the type of sample and number
of bags of sample obtained, e.g., R12
or FD1.
Horizon Number: A 2-digit code to
indicate the number of the horizon on
the field data form.
From the above codes, two new identifi-
cation codes can be constructed:
Location Code: A 17-digit code com-
bining the Watershed ID, Class ID,
Site Number, Transect Azimuth, and
Transect Distance.
Sample Code: A 13-digit code com-
bining the Sample Type, Pedon Code,
and Horizon Number. This would be
recorded on the sample bags.
Recommendations to modify the inter-
active software program to enter the field
data include:
Developing instructions to enter data
for horizons that were split because
of thickness.
Developing instructions to enter inde-
pendent pedon description data. A
specific entry field, e.g., a sub-unit
field of "Sampler", should be provided
on the form to identify the describer
as sampling crew, SCS state staff, or
RCC.
Developing an entry system to allow
entry of data from a modified field
data form.
Soil Conservation Service State Staff
Evaluations
It is recommended that the SCS state
staffs be provided with a detailed question-
naire to ensure that all sampling site selection
and soil characterization activities are evalu-
ated and that detailed written documentation
is produced. Standard questionnaires are
particularly important for these evaluations
which, unlike the RCC evaluations, are
performed by different individuals. It is impor-
tant that all sampling crews, within and
among states, be evaluated according to
uniform criteria to assure the comparability of
the evaluations.
Comparability would be enhanced if all
staff performing on-site observations partici-
pated in a training session. QA staff should
make arrangements for a training session of
this nature.
The SCS state staff evaluations are most
useful when performed as early in the survey
as possible. The procedural variations among
sampling crews should be assessed and
included in the written report. Difficulties and
concerns should be discussed and any recom-
mendations for corrective action should be
provided. In addition, when corrective action
is necessary for a given crew, a subsequent
evaluation should be made to verify that the
corrective action was implemented.
All crews should be evaluated at least
once and as early as possible in the soil
sampling activities.
Regional Correlator/Coordinator
Evaluations
It is recommended that the RCC be
provided with a detailed questionnaire to
ensure that all sampling site location and soil
characterization activities are evaluated ac-
cording to uniform criteria and that detailed
written documentation is produced. The
evaluations should be performed as early in
the survey as possible. This would allow the
RCC an opportunity to clarify the protocols
with each crew. The clarifications should be
written, and after the approval of the sampling
task leader and the QA staff, the information
should be provided to all crews early enough
in the survey to benefit the sampling effort.
Difficulties and concerns should be
discussed and any recommendations for
corrective action should be provided. When
corrective action is necessary for a given crew,
a subsequent evaluation should be made to
verify that the corrective action was
implemented.
The RCC should assess the procedural
variations among sampling crews and should
32
-------
include the assessment in the final written
report.
The QA staff should conduct a workshop
to train the RCC and SCS participants in the
requirements of on-site evaluations and the
content of the written reports.
The RCC should evaluate all sampling
crews at least once and as early as possible
in the soil sampling activities.
Quality Assurance Staff Audits
Audits should be performed as early in
the survey as possible in order to identify
initial difficulties and allow for written correc-
tions and clarifications of the protocols to be
made early enough in the survey to be of
benefit to the sampling effort. When corrective
action is necessary, the activities of the sam-
pling crew should be audited again to ensure
that protocols are being followed as specified.
Comprehensive documentation of the audits
and any corrective actions will assure that a
complete assessment of sampling operations
is available at the end of the survey.
Scheduling of audits should be flexible
enough to ensure that sampling crews are
observed conducting all activities associated
with soil sampling. In particular, it is recom-
mended that special attention be given to
compliance with the stated protocols for
sample labeling and completing field data
forms. For QA purposes, it is critical to ob-
serve each crew performing all activities and
to document the observations. Protocol devia-
tions observed during the sampling activities
should be discussed with the sampling crew
after the day's activities have been completed.
Sampling Log Books
It is recommended that several forms be
developed as a basis for detailed documenta-
tion of daily sampling activities, and be distri-
buted as a hardbound sampling log book for
future surveys. Suggested forms are provided
in Figures 3 through 7.
A format for identifying sampling crew
personnel is provided in Figure 3.
A format for summarizing the con-
tents of the sampling log books is
provided in Figure 4.
Suggested formats for site location
and soil sampling information are
provided in Figures 5 and 6,
respectively.
A master list of the exposures taken
would be useful. A slide key such as
that outlined in Figure 7 could provide
an easy reference for sampling crews
to use in labeling processed slides. A
master slide list could be generated
by each sampling crew, and could be
included in each slide catalog submit-
ted to EPA at the conclusion of the
survey.
Sampling log books should contain the
following types of information to further in-
crease their value as reference documents:
An index of log book entries.
Notes detailing equipment and supply
needs.
Notes on the function and use of field
equipment.
Names and phone numbers of all
sampling crew members, SCS state
staff, preparation laboratory person-
nel, and others associated with the
sampling operations.
Comparisons of paired pedon descrip-
tions, particularly noting similarities
and differences.
Complete records of the clod sam-
pling procedure, including horizons
successfully sampled, the number of
clods obtained from each horizon, and
reasons clods could not be obtained
from unsampled horizons.
Visits by RCC, SCS state staff, and
QA auditors, including documentation
of issues and concerns discussed.
Difficulties encountered in site location
or soil sampling activities, particularly
those that could have an adverse
33
-------
Field Crew Members:
Field Crew Leader:
Field Crew:
Routine Staff:
Additional
Participants:
Notes:
Audit Visits:
Who:
Date:.
Page in Logbook of
Notes Taken During
Audit
Figure 3. Recommended title page for sampling log books.
34
-------
Pedon
Number
County
Sampling
Class
Pag
Site
Selection
Notes
e
Sampling
Notes
Lake Name
Lake ID
Location
Page
Set
ID
Date Where
Used Used
Page
Figure 4. Recommended Index page for campling log books.
35
-------
Site Selection
Watershed No.:
Location:
County:
Map:
Sampling Class: .
Vegetation Class:
Site Location Notes:
Pedon No.:
Lake Name:
Date:
Crew ID:
Additional Participants:
Point 1:
Figure 5. Recommended format for site location notes.
36
-------
Watershed No.:
Location:
County:
Map:
Sampling Class: _
Vegetation Class:
Weather:
Soil Sampling
Pedon No.:
Lake Name:
Date:.
Crew ID:
Additional Participants:
Time of Arrival:
Time of Departure:
Samples Collected
Sample Code
Horizon
Depth
# Clods
Figure 6. Recommended format for campling notec.
37
-------
Notes:
Sample Storage:
Sample Transport to Prep Lab:
Figure 6. (continued)
38
-------
Film
Roll i
Slide #
WS ID
WS Name
SamplIng
Class
SI 1de Description
Figure 7. Recommended format for tilde key.
39
-------
effect on the quality of samples or
data collected.
Comments concerning protocol adher-
ence or modification.
Sample Receipt Log Books
The variability of information recorded in
the sample receipt log books suggests that a
standard format would be desirable to ensure
that useful sample receipt information is re-
corded. This documentation includes the date,
time, and person delivering the sample in addi-
tion to information identifying each sample as
a unique entity. All samples delivered to the
preparation laboratory should be logged in,
including clod samples. A record of field dup-
licates and paired pedon samples would be
useful for later data summary. A suggested
format for sample receipt log books is pro-
vided in Figure 8. The many column headers
needed to record all necessary data suggest
that an 11- by 14-inch notebook would be most
useful. Columns must be wide enough to
allow data to be entered legibly.
Sampling crews should record directly on
the sample bag label any information that may
be important in the handling of the sample by
the preparation laboratory, e.g., unsieved sam-
ples, or that may affect the quality of the
sample, e.g., leaking gel-pacs in the styrofoam
coolers. This type of information should be
transferred to the sample receipt log book
under "Sample Condition."
Sampling crews should ensure that sam-
ple receipt log book entries are transcribed
directly from the sample bag label, i.e., Label
A, rather than from the sampling log book or
field data form. In this way, the presence of
each sample that is entered in the log book
can be verified as the samples are logged.
Preparation laboratory personnel are
responsible for verifying that a sample exists
for each sample code that has been entered in
the log book.
Paired Pedon Descriptions
For the benefit of the sampling crews,
the protocols should explain the purpose of
paired pedon sampling.
Independent Pedon Descriptions
It is recommended that the protocols for
future surveys specifically indicate that all
independent pedon descriptions must be
performed in the same portion of the pedon.
The pedon should be marked to clearly deline-
ate the profile for description. If descriptions
are not performed in the same locations, it
should be clearly noted on the field data form.
Independent pedon description comparisons
yield little useful information unless the exact
portion of the same profile is described.
The independent field descriptions should
be reviewed among all participants while still
in the field so differences and discrepancies
can be discussed and documented at that
time for the benefit of the data users. The
objective is not to reach a consensus on the
best description, but is to provide an exchange
of information concerning the inherent variabil-
ity among describers and the characterization
of soil development features.
Conclusions
Generally, soil sampling activities pro-
ceeded as planned within the expected time
frame. The sampling methods and quality
assurance activities developed for use in the
SBRP soil survey ensured the collection of soil
samples of known and documented quality.
The coordination of sampling activities among
the many participants was a large- scale,
complex task that was successfully performed
as originally conceived with a minimum of
unanticipated difficulties and modifications. A
number of recommendations have been made
in this report to assist planners of similar
projects.
40
-------
V-f.1t HuM*r
Crew
ID
Slit
ID
Set
10
o.u
Collected
Dltc
Received
H«e
Hecelved
Delivered
«J
leCeUed
»»
S«wl<
Conlltlon
Ml/Dry (W/0)
Slcve4/Untlcved (S/U)
K<9 Split IBS)
Under VoliM (UV)
Addtllonil Hotel
*j*xr of
Clod Staples
CollKtcd
for t»ch Hoi-lion
S«(>lt4
Field
Oupllote?
riirrt
Pedant
Figure 8. Recommended format for sample receipt log books.
-------
References
Bartz, J. K., S. K. Drouse, M. L Papp,
K. A. Cappo, G. A. Raab, L. J. Blume,
M. A. Stapanian, F. C. Garner, and
D. S. Coffey. 1987. Direct/Delayed
Response Project: Quality Assurance
Plan for Soil Sampling, Preparation, and
Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. EPA/600/8-
87/021.
Cappo, K. A., L. J. Blume, G. A. Raab,
J. K. Bartz, and J. L. Engels. 1987.
Analytical Methods Manual for the Direct/
Delayed Response Project Soil Survey.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, Nevada. EPA/600/8-87/020.
Chen, C. W., S. A. Gherini, J. D. Dean,
R. J. M. Hudson, and R. A. Goldstein.
1984. Development and Calibration of
the Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidifica-
tion Study Model. pp. 175-203 In.
Schnoor, J. L. (ed.) 1984. Modeling of
Total Acid Precipitation Impacts.
Butterworth Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts. 222 pp.
Coffey, D. S., M. L Papp, J. K. Bartz,
R. D. Van Remortel, J. J. Lee,
D. A. Lammers, M. G. Johnson, and
G. R. Holdren. 1987. Direct/Delayed
Response Project: Field Operations and
Quality Assurance Report for Soil Sam-
pling and Preparation in the Northeastern
United States, Vol. I: Sampling. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada. EPA/600/4-87/030.
Cosby, B. J., R. F. Wright, G. M. Hornberger,
J. N. Galloway. 1984. Model of Acidifica-
tion of Groundwater in Catchments.
Internal project report submitted to
EPA/North Carolina State Univ. Acid
Precipitation Program.
Eyre, F. H. 1980. Forest cover types of the
United States and Canada. Society of
American Foresters, Washington, D.C.
Haren, M. F., and R. D. Van Remortel. 1987.
Direct/Delayed Response Project: Field
Operations and Quality Assurance Report
for Soil Sampling and Preparation in the
Southern Blue Ridge Province of the
United States, Volume II: Preparation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Lammers, D. A., D. Cassell, J. J. Lee,
J. Ferwerda, D. Stevens, M. Johnson,
R. Turner and B. Campbell, (in prepara-
tion). Field operations and quality
assurance/quality control for soil map-
ping activities in the Northeast region.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
SAS Institute Inc. 1987. SAS Applications
Guide, 1987 Edition. SAS Institute Inc.,
Gary, North Carolina. 272 pp.
Schnoor, J. L, W. D. Palmer, Jr., and
G. E. Glass. 1984. Modeling Impacts of
Acid Precipitation for Northeastern
Minnesota. pp. 155-173 In:
Schnoor, J. L. (ed.) 1984. Modeling of
Total Acid Precipitation Impacts.
Butterworth Publishers, Boston,
Massachusetts. 222 pp.
Turner, R. S., J. C. Goyert, C. C. Brandt,
K. L Dunaway, D. D. Smoyer, and
J. A. Watts. 1987. Direct/Delayed Re-
sponse Project: Guide to using and
interpreting the data base. Draft
ORNL/TM-10369. Environmental Sciences
Division Publication No. 2871. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985a.
Direct/Delayed Response Project. Long-
term Response of Surface Waters to
Acidic Deposition: Factors Affecting
Response and a Plan for Classifying
Response Characteristics on Regional
Scales. Volume II: Part A, State of
Science. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Corvallis, Oregon.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985b.
Direct/Delayed Response Project. Long-
term Response of Surface Waters to
Acidic Deposition: Factors Affecting
Response and a Plan for Classifying
Response Characteristics on Regional
Scales. Volume V: Appendix B.2 Soil
Survey-Action Plan/Implementation Pro-
tocol. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Corvallis, Oregon.
43
-------
Appendix A
Sampling Protocols for the
Southern Blue Ridge Province Soil Survey
by
L J. Blume, M. L Papp, K. A. Cappo, J. K. Bartz,
D. S. Coffey, and K. Thornton
The following protocols were used by sampling crews during the Southern Blue Ridge Province
Soil Survey. The protocols were distributed to DDRP participants as the draft "Soil Sampling and
Preparation Laboratory Manual for the Direct/Delayed Response Project Soil Survey." The draft did
not undergo a complete external review and was not formally released by EPA. Parts I and II of
the draft are presented here without editorial correction. The reader may notice 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.
Part III of the draft contains the protocols used by the preparation laboratories, and is
included as Appendix A in Volume II of this report, referenced as follows:
Haren, M. F., and R. D. Van Remortel. 1987. Direct/Delayed Response Project: Field Operations
and Quality Assurance Report for Soil Sampling and Preparation in the Southern Blue Ridge
Province of the United States, Volume II: Preparation. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
44
-------
Section T of C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 4
Table of Contents
Section Page ffev/s/on
Part I. Overview
1.0 Introduction 1 of 2 4
Part II. Field Operations
2.0 Field Personnel and Equipment 1 of 5 4
2.1 Personnel ............. . .......... 1 of 5 4
2.1.1 Field Crews .. .. ... .............. 1 of 5 4
2.1.2 USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Soils Staff . . . 1 of 5 4
2.1.3 Regional Coordinator/Correlator ..;...... 2 of 5 4
2.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Representative . 2 of 5 4
2.2 Field Equipment 2 of 5 4
2.2.1 Site Selection Equipment 2 of 5 4
2.2.2 Excavation Equipment . . . . f. . . 3 of 5 4
2.2.3 Soil Description Equipment 3 of 5 4
2.2.4 Photographic Equipment 4 of 5 4
2.2.5 Clod Sampling Equipment 4 of 5 4
2.2.6 Sampling Equipment 4 of 5 4
2.2.7 Transportation Equipment 5 of 5 4
2.3 Use of Field Equipment 5 of 5 4
3.0 Selection of Pedon to be Sampled 1 of 4 4
3.1 Identifying a Suitable Pedon for Sampling 1 of 4 4
3.2 Procedure for Locating a Suitable Pedon 1 of 4 4
3.3 Locating a Suitable Pedon of a Map Unit
Inclusion 3 of 4 4
3.4 Paired Pedons 4 of 4 4
4.0 Pedon Excavation 1 of 3 4
4.1 Standard Excavation 1 of 3 4
4.1.1 Pit Size 1 of 3 4
4.1.2 Steps in the Pit 2 of 3 4
-------
Section T of C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 4
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section page Revision
4.2 Excavation of Soils with Water Tables 2 of 3 4
4.3 Excavation of Organic Soils 3 of 3 4
4.4 Soils Difficult to Excavate 3 of 3 4
5.0 Site and Profile Description 1 of 3 4
5.1 Profile Preperation 1 of 3 4
5.2 Photographs of Profile and Site 1 of 3 4
5.3 Thick Horizons 2 of 3 4
5.4 Field Descriptions 2 of 3 4
5.5 Documents 3 of 3 4
6.0 Field Sampling Procedures 1 of 6 4
6.1 Sampling the Pedon 1 of 6 4
6.1.1 Field Sampling Protocol 1 of 6 4
6.1.2 Important Points Concerning Soil
Sampling 1 of 6 4
6.2 Sample Size 1 of 6 4
6.3 Sampling Procedure 2 of 6 4
6.3.1 Stratified Horizons 2 of 6 4
6.3.2 Field Duplicates 2 of 6 4
6.4 Sampling Clods for Bulk-Density Determination 2 of 6 4
6.4.1 Procedure 3 of 6 4
6.4.2 Transport of Clods 3 of 6 4
6.5 Filling Sample Bag 3 of 6 4
6.6 NADSS Label A 4 of 6 4
6.7 Delivery 5 of 6 4
Part III. Preparation Laboratory
7.0 Preparation Laboratory Personnel and Equipment 1 of 3 4
7.1 Personnel 1 of 3 4
7.2 Equipment 1 of 3 4
-------
Section T of C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 4
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page Revision
8.0 Receipt and Storage of Samples 1 of 1 4
8.1 Bulk Soil Samples 1 of 1 4
8.2 Clods for Bulk Density 1 of 1 4
9.0 Sample Processing 1 of 6 4
9.1 Air Drying 1 of 6 4
9.1.1 General Considerations 1 of 6 4
9.1.2 Procedure 1 of 6 4
9.2 Crushing and Sieving 2 of 6 4
9.2.1 General Considerations 2 of 6 4
9.2.2 Procedure 3 of 6 4
9.2.3 Calculation of Percent Rock Fragments 4 of 6 4
9.3 Homogenization and Subsampling 4 of 6 4
9.3.1 General Considerations 4 of 6 4
9.3.2 Procedure for Analytical Samples 5 of 6 4
9.3.3 Procedure for Mineralogical Samples 5 of 6 4
9.4 Documentation 6 of 6 4
10.0 Formation and Shipping of Batches 1 of 2 4
10.1 Analytical Samples 1 of 2 4
10.1.1 Procedure 1 of 2 4
10.2 Mineralogical Samples 2 of 2 4
11.0 Analytical Procedures 1 of 5 4
11.1 Rock Fragments 1 of 5 4
11.1.1 Procedure 1 of 5 4
11.1.2 Calculations 1 of 5 4
-------
Section T of C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 4
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page Revision
11.2 Moisture 1 of 5 4
11.2.1 Procedure 1 of 5 4
11.2.2 Calculations 2 of 5 4
11.3 Inorganic Carbon 2 of 5 4
11.3.1 Procedure 2 of 5 4
11.3.2 Internal Quality Control 3 of 5 4
11.4 Bulk Density 3 of 5 4
11.4.1 Procedure . . 3 of 5 4
11.4.2 Assumptions 4 of 5 4
11.4.3 Calculations 5 of 5 4
12.0 References 1 of 1 4
Appendices
A Strategy of Site Selection and Sampling
Information for the Northeastern United States 1 of 10 4
B Strategy of Site Selection and Sampling
Information for the Southeastern United States 1 of 2 4
C Field Data Form and Legends 1 of 59 4
D Preparation Laboratory Forms 1 of 3 4
E List of Northeast Soils by Sampling Class 1 of 6 4
F List of Southern Blue Ridge Soils by
Sampling Class 1 of 12 4
-------
Section Figures
Revision 4
Date 5/86
Page 1 of 1
Figures
Figure Page Revision
3.1 Flowchart for definition of sampling classes for SBRP 2 of 4 4
4.1 Pit design for standard excavation - top view 1 of 3 4
4.2 Pit design for standard excavation - side view 2 of 3 4
6.1 NADSS Label A 4 of 6 4
6.2 Sample code 5 of 6 4
6.3 Single horizon 6 of 6 4
6.4 Filed duplicate horizon 6 of 6 4
6.5 Combined horizon 6 of 6 4
6.6 Horizon requiring two sampling bags 6 of 6 4
-------
Section Tables
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 1
Tables
Table Page Revision
11.1 Density of Water 4 of 5 4
-------
Acknowledgments
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 1
Acknowledgments
Contributions provided by the following individuals were greatly appreciated: S. Bodine, D.
Lammers, M. Johnson, J. Lee, B. Jordan, M. Mausbach, R. Nettleton, W. Lynn, F. Kaisacki, B.
Waltman, W. Hanna, B. Rourke, G. Raab, and J. Warner.
The following people were instrumental in the timely completion 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, J. Engels, M. Faber, and
G. Villa at Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., and Mary Lou Putnam
of Donald Clark Associates.
-------
-------
Section 1.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 2
Part I. Overview
1.0 Introduction
This field sampling manual is written to guide personnel involved in the collection and preparation
of soil samples for the Direct/Delayed Response Project (DDRP) Soil Survey of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). All field and laboratory personnel must be trained by a field manager or
by other persons knowledgeable in the procedures and protocol detailed in this manual. The scope
of this manual includes field operations, preparation of samples for analysis, analytical procedures
performed at the preparation laboratory, and formation and shipment of batches to contractor
laboratories.
This manual is a companion to the Laboratory Methods Manual for the Direct Delayed Response
Project Soil Survey and the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Direct Delayed Response Project
Soil Survey. There is some repetition among the manuals which is necessary to maintain continuity
and to document the methodology of the Soil Survey.
The basic goals of the DDRP Soil Survey procedures are to collect representative samples without
contamination, to preserve sample integrity for analysis, and to analyze samples correctly.
Procedures have been chosen that offer the best balance among precision, accuracy, sensitivity,
and the needs of the data user.
The overall objective of DDRP is to predict the long-term response of watersheds and surface
waters to acidic deposition. Based upon 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).
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 DDRP is managed by the technical director at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory -
Corvallis (ERL-C). The sampling task leader at ERL-C has overall responsibility for the sampling
phase including QA/QC. The quality assurance (QA) manager at the EPA Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) has responsibility for logistical and analytical QA
support.
The objective of this manual is to emphasize and modify National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS)
procedures as is necessary to characterize and sample soils for the DDRP Soil Survey. This manual
is written to an audience of soil scientists who are aware of NCSS procedures and who have
-------
Section 1.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 2
experience in soil description, soil sampling, and laboratory preparation. Since this manual
supplements NCSS handbooks and manuals, one should refer to those documents for more
complete description and definitions.
Soils which have been identified in the sampling regions have been combined into groups, or
sampling classes, which are either known to have or are expected to have similar chemical and
physical characteristics. Each of the sampling classes can then be sampled across a number of
watersheds in which they occur. Note that in this approach, a given soil sample does not represent
the specific watershed from which it came. Instead it contributes to a set of samples which
collectively represent a specific sampling class on all DDRP watersheds within the sampling region.
The manual is a guide to soil sampling of routine pedons. Protocols for sampling special interest
watershed pedons are contained in another document supplied by ERL-C.
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 5
Part II. Field Operations
2.0 Field Personnel and Equipment
2.1 Personnel
2.1.1 Field Crews
A field crew consists of one crew leader who is a soil scientist experienced in the National
Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and two to three other crew members who may also be soil
scientists. Crews from each state are numbered consecutively beginning with 01. For example, if
state XY has three crews, they are XY01, XY02, and XY03. The lead soil scientist in each crew will
supervise all field operations and decisions. This person is also responsible for selecting each
sampling site and for documenting all field data. The field crew leader has the responsibility to
Obtain samples from the soil classes selected for characterization.
Make decisions concerning soil description and sampling including horizon delineation,
horizon thickness, and material excluded from the samples.
Ensure that site and pedon descriptions, logbooks, and pedon labels are legible and
accurate and that photographs are taken properly.
Ensure proper use and maintenance of field equipment, including cleaning between each
sample.
Minimize contamination of the sample particularly from soil or solution found above or
below the horizon being sampled.
Maintain sample integrity until delivery to the preparation laboratory.
Report to the Sampling Task Leader (at the earliest possible opportunity) any problems
or difficulties encountered while sampling or transporting soil samples.
Return all unused field equipment and supplies to the preparation laboratories.
2.1.2 USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soils Staff for each state
A representative of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) State Soils Staff will independently describe
a minimum of one site per field crew. These independent pedon descriptions will be used to
assess the variability in site descriptions among soil scientists. This representative will also
monitor adherence to protocol for site selection, labeling, and sampling. The representative will
make his assessment while the crew is describing and sampling the pedons. Written reviews will
be documented and submitted to the Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis (ERL-C) within
two (2) weeks. Major problems must be reported orally within two (2) days.
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 5
2.1.3 Regional Coordinator/Correlator
The Regional Coordinator/Correlator (RCC) must be a qualified soil scientist with several years
experience in soil profile description and soil mapping. The RCC will also monitor one site per
field crew for adherence to NCSS standards, procedures, and sampling protocol modifications as
presented in this document and will perform an independent duplicate profile description. At least
one site in each state will be monitored with the SCS State Soils Staff representative while the
remaining sites may be monitored independently. The RCC will also ensure that State Soils Staff
perform duplicate profile descriptions. During this process, the RCC will identify, discuss, and
resolve any significant problems. Written reports are submitted to ERL-C within two (2) weeks.
The resolution of major problems must be reported orally within two (2) days.
2.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Representative
The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) representative will audit each field sampling crew
at least once to ensure adherence to sampling protocol as specified in this manual and to fulfill
ERL-C auditing requirements. Written reports will be submitted to ERL-C within two (2) weeks.
Major problems will be reported orally within two (2) days.
2.2 Field Equipment
The materials required to successfully complete the sampling task are listed in the following six
sections. Materials marked with an asterisk (*) are supplied by the EPA through the preparation
laboratory. Unmarked materials must be supplied by the crew. Equipment not specifically listed
may be considered optional. Obtain permission from the QA manager before using optional
equipment. It is the crew leader's responsibility to see that all EPA-issued equipment and supplies
shall be returned to the preparation laboratory upon completion of the study. This includes all
durable equipment and unused consumables.
2.2.1 Site Selection Equipment
Screw auger
Bucket auger
Aerial photographs
Stereoscope
Compass (true north, adjust for declination)
Punch probe
Spade
Topographic site map
Map showing sampling sites (provided by ERL-C)
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 5
Random number table
2.2.2 Excavation Equipment
Shovels
Spades (sharpshooters)
Picks/Mattock
Hand pump (Beckson Gusher - 16 GPM)*
Post hole digger
Backhoe
2.2.3 Soil Description Equipment
SCS-232 form (one per site)*
Letter size tablet holder
5.25" double-sided double-density computer disks
Munsell color chart (newly purchased or in good condition)
2 clinometers
Compass (true north, adjust for declination)
Hand lens
Hand knife
pH kit
Peat sampler (for Histosols)
Orange flagging (1 roll/day)*
Yellow marker flags (5/site)*
Indelible ink markers (black)*
Golf tees (for horizon delineation in photographs)
Plastic squeeze bottle (for wetting soils)
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 5
2.2.4 Photographic Equipment
35-mm camera, fully automated with flash*
Ektachrome ASA-200 slide film
Prepaid Kodak mailing envelopes
Photogray cards*
Khaki cloth measuring tape (5 cm x 2 m) with clearly marked black figures at 50-cm
intervals and tick marks at 10-cm intervals (supplied by ERL-C)
Slidefile (for archiving slides)
2.2.5 Clod Sampling Equipment
Dow Saran-310 resin*
Acetone
1 gallon metal paint can with lid (saran storage)*
Hair nets (1/clod)*
6" x 8" Plastic bags, 1 mil (1/clod)*
17.50" x 11.94" x 3.75" Clod box, 24-cell (1 box/day-reusable)*
2' x 2' blank vinyl labels (attach to box to identify each clod compartment)*
Rope (for hanging clods)
Clothespins or hooks (for hanging clods)
Hand knife
Scissors
Pruners
Fine mist spray bottle
2.2.6 Sampling Equipment
Post hole digger (for Histosols only)
1 brass sieve (19-mm)*
1 gallon plastic bucket
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 5 of 5
Spatula or putty knife (for sampling thin horizons)
Plastic sheet, 6 mil (1.2 m x 1.2 m)*
Stiff brush (for cleaning sieves and plastic)
Plastic inner bags (20/day)*
Cloth exterior bags (20/day)*
NADSS Label A (30/day)*
Staplers (1 heavy duty, 1 standard)*
Staples*
Dust pan
Hand trowel
Rubber tipped pestles (for sieving soils)
2.2.7 Transportation Equipment
Packs (Indian packs or backpacks)
Styrofoam coolers (3/day)*
Gel packs (24/day or 8/cooler)*
Thermometers, centigrade (2)*
Truck or car with covered cargo area
2.3 Use of Field Equipment
How a crew decides to utilize its equipment determines the quality of the soil sample recovered.
Careful use of the proper equipment coupled with cleanliness will reduce contamination of the
samples. Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 describe the use of the equipment in the field.
-------
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 4
3.0 Selection of Pedon to be Sampled
3.1 Identifying a Suitable Pedon for Sampling
Components of soil map units (including inclusions) have been grouped into soil sampling classes
which are either known to have or are expected to have similar chemical and physical characteris-
tics for the purposes of the DDRP Soil Survey. The soil sampling classes for the Southern Blue
Ridge Province sampling effort are shown in Figure 3.1, and a list of the soil components identified
from soil mapping is in Appendix (E). The soil sampling classes and components for the
northeastern sampling effort are found in Appendix F.
Soil sampling sites were selected as locations where one would expect to find a combination of
a soil pedon that represents a soil sampling class and a specified vegetation class. The site
locations were randomly selected from soil maps and vegetation maps of the DDRP watersheds.
Since each sampling site for a specified soil sampling class was located within a map polygon
having a representative of the sampling class as a soil map unit component, one would expect to
find a soil pedon that fits the sampling class in the near vicinity of the randomly selected point.
An example using soils typical of the Southern Blue Ridge Province is used for illustration. The
actual sampling classes used will depend on the area of study. For example, if one were to
sample a pedon that represented the class of shallow, low organic matter, non-flooded, non-
skeletal, non-calcareous, non-frigid soils (class SHL) in a map polygon of Cowee- Saluda Complex,
one would expect to find the Saluda soil or a soil similar to one of the soils in the SHL sampling
class. The pedon selected for sampling does not need to fit all the characteristics of either a
Cleveland, Ramsey, or Saluda series but should be similar to the soils in the sampling class as
defined in Figure 3.1. If a pedon at a potential sampling point would better fit in one of the other
sampling classes in Figure 3.1, the soil would be a dissimilar soil, and one would need to search
further for a pedon that would suit the sampling class. The field crew leader decides whether a
soil is similar or dissimilar by using Figure 3.1 as a key. If a pedon falls within the desired
sampling class and if the nearby vegetation falls within the specified vegetation class, the pedon
is suitable for sampling. Because a potential sampling point might not fall on a pedon with the
specified sampling class because of dissimilar soils or miscellaneous areas included in the map
unit, an unbiased procedure is needed to locate a pedon that fits.
3.2 Procedure for Locating a Suitable Pedon
The field crew should proceed to a preselected starting point identified by ERL-C from watershed
soil maps and use the following procedure to locate a suitable pedon. The following definitions
apply:
Sampling site - A circle with a 150-m radius whose origin corresponds to one of the ordered
points indicated on the watershed soil map supplied by ERL-C prior to
sampling activities.
Potential sampling point - A circle with a 5-m radius which can be searched for the
preselected soil class and vegetation class.
Starting point - The first potential sampling point located at the center of each sampling site.
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 4
x SOILS OF THE SOUTHERI
1
f FRIGID "\
^ (FR) J
g BLUE RIDGE PROVINCE ;
I
1
NON-FRIGID
1
I
uaie: ;
: Page 2
NON-CALCAREOUS
CALCAREOUS
(OTC)
NON-SKELETAL
SKELETAL
1
f CONCAVE ^
I (SKV) J
X.^_ J
1
( CONVEX ^
L (SKX) J
C
I
FLOODED
(FL)
NON-FLOODED
LOW
ORGANIC
MATTER
I
HIGH
ORGANIC
HATTER
I
SHALLOW
(SHL)
^
J
OTHER
I
f OTHER A
lCOJL)J
I ACID
CRYSTALLINE
(ACH)
META-
SEDIHENTARY
(HSH)
f lETA-
SEDinENTARY
L
I
ACID
CRYSTALLINE
CLAYEY
(ACC)
N
J
OTHER
(ACL)
N
J
Figure 3.1. Flowchart for definition of sampling classes for the SBRP.
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 4
Procedure
Step 1: Obtain a map that clearly shows the five preselected ordered random points.
Step 2: Go to the starting point of the first potential sampling site indicated on the map. If
that starting point is inaccessible but some part of the sampling site is accessible,
follow the procedure in Step 4 to select the location of the pedon for sampling. If
the entire sampling site is inaccessible or unsuitable, note the reasons on the SCS-
232 Field Form and proceed to the second or next potential sampling site.
Some land use classes generally are not suitable for sampling. These classes
include urban land, barren land, and waste disposal land. The crew leader will
decide if a sampling site is unsuitable.
Step 3: If the starting point is accessible a/rc/fits the specified soil class and vegetation
class, sample the pedon.
Step 4: If the starting point is accessible but does not contain the specified soil class or
vegetation class, then the following site selection procedures are required:
From a random number table, select a random number between 1 and 8 (where
1 is northeast, 2 is east, and so forth).
Transect potential sampling points in 10 m intervals along a 150 m straight line
in the chosen direction until the first occurrence of the proper combination of soil
class and vegetation class is found. If a proper combination of soil class and
vegetation class is not obtained after five transects (a total of 76 potential
sampling points), go to the next highest numbered potential sampling site on the
list.
Record on the SCS-232 form in the log section the direction of each transect and
the number of the sampling point (do not record meters) on the last transect. Use
N for north, NE for northeast and so forth. An example could be:
SW, N, E, SE-7.
If none of the five potential sampling sites yield an accessible pedon with the
specified vegetation class and soil class, record this information in the field note-
book and call the Sampling Task Leader at the earliest possible convenience.
3.3 Locating a Suitable Pedon of a Map Unit Inclusion
Where insufficient map polygons are available to sample the soil class from major map unit
components, the pedons must be sampled from map unit inclusions. Some of the pedons for the
calcareous (OTC) sampling class will be collected from inclusions. To locate a suitable pedon for
sampling from an inclusion, go to an area nearest the preselected sampling site within the map
polygon where a soil that fits the class is expected to be located. If a suitable pedon cannot be
located near the first sample site, go to the next site.
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 4
3.4 Paired Pedons
The crew .eader determines the location of the paired pedon based on the following criteria:
* SKm'SSS^^K peff9 '°Cati0nS t0 aV°ld disturbance « ^ Paired
The same sampling class and vegetation class as the routine pedon.
The same slope position as the routine pedon.
Protocol is the same for describing, sampling, and coding as for routine pedons.
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 3
4.0 Pedon Excavation
In order to describe and sample a pedon as specified in the site description section, the field
crew must excavate a pit that exposes at least one clean vertical face, a minimum of 1 m
horizontally, to bedrock or to the depth specified for the region.
A decision regarding which face to describe is made before the excavation has started so that
neither soil from the pit nor human activity disturbs the soil or surface litter on that side.
If the soil is not stable and is a danger to members of the crew, do not excavate a standard pit.
Excavate the pit in standard form as deeply and safely as possible. After this, the crew leader
decides how further to proceed in the excavation, description, and sampling.
4.1 Standard Excavation (level to gently sloping ground)
4.1.1 Pit Size
There are many methods available for excavating a sampling pit. The standard excavation method
described in this subsection is practical in most soil sampling situations.
The preferred initial size of the pit is at least 1 meter by 2 meters (see Figure 4.1). It is desirable
to use these dimensions both to observe the soil throughout the range of its characteristics and
to obtain representative samples; however, modifications of this method may be required to fit a
specific situation.
1 m
AREA
SAMPLED
V-
STANDING
AREA
meter ^
//////////////
//////////////
STEP
-< *-
0.5 m
STEP
-< . .....»-
0.5 m
1 m
TOP
VIEW
0.5 m " '" 1m
AREA SAMPLED
Figure 4.1. Pit design for standard excavation (on level to gently sloping ground) - top view.
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 3
4.1.2 Steps in the Pit
When the pit is excavated to a depth of 50 to 70 cm, a step may be incorporated (see Figure 4.2).
Steps may be repeated every 50 to 70 cm until a depth of 1.5 to 2.0 or more meters is attained or
until bedrock is reached. The steps allow the soil scientist to continue digging a pit large enough
for proper characterization of the pedon; they also allow access for describing and sampling the
pedon.
SAMPLING
FROM TOP
DOWN
77777
T
STEP
1.5 to
2.0 m
STEP
20-50 cm
SIDE
VIEW
20-50 cm
1.0+ m
2.0 m
Figure 4.2. Pit design for standard xcavatlon (on level to gently sloping ground) - side view.
4.2 Excavation of Soils with Water Tables
The description and sampling of soils with water tables may require special methods of excavation.
A sump may be dug in a corner away from the face to be described and sampled. Water may
be removed from the sump by bailing or pumping as necessary. It may be desirable to describe
and sample lower horizons first in order to reduce contamination of the sample and to minimize
water removal effort.
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 3
Sumps may be dug upstream of the flow of the water table. Use the bucket auger, peat sampler,
or other implement to dig a hole that will collect the flowing ground water before it enters the pit.
In flat areas with no discernible direction of ground-water flow, it may be necessary to dig
sacrificial holes on all sides of the pit in order to drain the local water table before the pit can be
described and sampled.
A pit in lowlands with a high water table is difficult to sample. If the previous options do not
result in a clean, dry pedon face, allow the bcal water table to drain into the pit for a period of
time, while pumping continuously, until the local water table is fairly well drained. Continue using
the hand pump and direct its outflow away from the pit as much as possible. When the inflow
of water is reduced to a manageable level, then describe and sample the pedon.
4.3 Excavation of Organic Soils
Organic pedons cannot readily be excavated in standard form. As a result, organic pedons may
be described by using a peat sampler and may be sampled with a pesthole digger.
4.4 Soils Difficult to Excavate
In cases where the C horizon material is extremely difficult to excavate, (i.e., lithic and paralithic
contacts) a depth of 1/2 meter less than the specified depth, although not desirable, is acceptable.
The field crew leader decides if the soil is too difficult to dig through. Document this decision on
the SCS-232 form.
-------
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 3
5.0 Site and Profile Description
Complete descriptions of the soils are essential to the soil survey and serve as a basis for soil
identification, classification, correlation, and interpretation. Standards and guidelines are necessary
for describing soil properties. Precisely defined standard terms are needed if different observers
are to record data uniformly. However, the field scientist must evaluate the adequacy of standard
terms and must add needed information.
The description of a body of soil in the field, whether the body is an entire pedon or a sample
within a pedon, records the types of soil horizons, their depth and thickness, and the properties
of each horizon. These properties include color; texture; structure; consistence; the presence of
roots, animals, and their traces; reaction characteristics; the types of salts present; and features
of the boundaries between layers. Some of the properties which apply to the entire sampling unit
are also measured and recorded. Generally, external features are observed throughout the extent
of the polypedon; internal features are observed from studying a pedon that is within the desired
sampling class.
For a soil description to be of greatest value, the part of the landscape that the pedon represents
should be recorded. The description should include external and internal features of the soil, related
features such as vegetation and climate, and geomorphic position, and landform.
Pedons selected for detailed study are chosen tentatively at first. The areas chosen for description
and sampling are areas that previous mapping has shown to contain the sampling class of interest.
The pedon is usually selected on the basis of external evidence. Once a tentative sampling site is
located, the soil is examined to verify that it satisfies the criteria for the sampling class.
5.1 Profile Preparation
Clean the sides of the pit of all loose material disturbed by digging. Examine the exposed vertical
faces, starting at the top and working downward. Identify significant differences in any soil
chemical or physical properties that distinguish between adjacent layers. Identify and mark the
boundaries between horizons on the face of the pit. Photographic documentation should take place
before the pedon face is disturbed by description and sampling.
5.2 Photographs of Profile and Site
Photographic documentation of the sampling point and soil pedon is useful for later reference and
to complement field descriptions. Field crews will be provided with a 35-mm camera. Ektachrome,
ASA-200 slide film will be purchased locally. If available, tripods should be included in the
photographic equipment. For film-quality consistency, all slides should be developed using the
Kodak process.
Photographic documentation requires that a precise logbook be kept to identify slides. The indexing
system can be developed by the field crew, but it must be based on the sample code from NADSS
Label A to identify the site. The system used must be fully explained in the logbook.
Photograph in this order for each site sampled: pedon face, tree canopy above the pit, understory
vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the pit, representative landscape or landform and any
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 3
outstanding features of the pedon or sampling site. Identify the pedon being photographed by
including NADSS Label A information on the photogray cards provided. Place the photogray card
at the top of the pedon pit (on top of the profile) when taking the photograph. Note in the field
log the order of the photos taken so the slides can be correctly labeled later. Place a khaki cloth
tape marked with large black markings at 10-cm intervals and numbers at every half meter in
photographs of the pedon face. Note that the Khaki measuring tape is made to be placed at the
left of the profile because of the way the intervals are marked. Place an object for scale in
understory vegetation photographs. Photograph organic soil pedons by sequential placement of
the peat sampler increments on the ground or plastic; include the khaki cloth tape in the
photograph. Reconstruct the pedon in sequential order, and place the cloth tape at the top of the
profile.
In order to produce a quality slide, equal lighting of the whole pedon face is important. If some
areas of the face are lit by full sunlight and others are shadowed by trees, the slides will exhibit
exposure problems and the boundaries between layers will be indistinguishable. If this problem
arises, shade the entire pedon face for uniform exposure and use a flash. Natural sunlight and
shaded photos are both necessary for adequate documentation. Try to avoid extremely oblique
photo angles. The objective is to document the pedon and the site. Take as many photos as
necessary to accomplish this goal.
Once the slides have been developed, they should be labeled on the slide mounts with the sample
code, what the slide is, and any other information the field crew deems necessary. Slides are
stored in three-ring binders in slide files and are submitted with the logbook to EPA-LV at the
conclusion of the sampling phase of the survey. Slidebooks and logbooks will be sent to the
QA/QC personnel listed at the end of this section. Slide numbers are also to be recorded in the
log section of the 232 Form (page 4 of 4). Use care in handling cameras and film. Avoid excessive
heat and sunlight.
5.3 Thick Horizons
Sometimes a horizon or layer designated by a single combination of letters needs to be subdivided.
Subdivision occurs at 30 centimeters in horizons above 1 meter and 60 centimeters in horizons
below 1 meter.
These layers need to be identified, and this is done simply by numbering each subdivision
consecutively within a layer having a unique symbol, starting at the top. For example, four layers
of a Bt horizon sampled by 10-cm increments would be designated Bt1, Bt2, Bt3, and Bt4 (SSM p.
4-47). The four samples would be identified by a unique horizon designation and by therefore, a
unique sampling code.
5.4 Field Descriptions
Descriptions should be completed before sampling although changes may occur during the
sampling process. To observe horizontal relationships between soil features, expose a cross
section of each layer by removing the soil above the layer. 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 obvious, as well as the third dimension of many other features, should be observed
and recorded. Patterns of 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
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 3
features are often seen in horizontal section more clearly than in a vertical exposure. To complete
the field description, the field crew will use Form SCS-SOI232 which is coded for easy input onto
a computerized data file. The protocol for horizon description is discussed in detail in the SCS
National Soils Handbook? the SCS Soil Survey Manual? Principles and Procedures for Using Soil
Survey Laboratory Data? and The National Handbook of Plant Names.4 The SCS 232 form is
reproduced along,with instructions and codes in Appendix C. Vegetation codes from the National
Handbook of Plant Names should be used.
The SCS 232 form information will then be transferred into a computer data file via the program
developed by SCS National Soil Survey Laboratory and will be revised into a dBASE III format by
ORNL. The data entry instructions and program will be provided to the SCS in each state by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The program will not require dBASE III software since
formatting has been internalized on the disk. The program has a built-in data-entry verification
procedure which will permit only valid parameter codes to be entered. Disks with the SCS 232
form information and a copy of the SCS 232 forms will be sent to the personnel specified in
Section 5.5.
5.5 Documents
Documentation will be sent to the following personnel:
SCS-232, Disks, Slides, and Logbooks
Mike Papp - Associate Soil Scientist
Lockheed Engineering and
Management Services Company, Inc.
1050 Ev Flamingo, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
One copy of SCS-232 to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to:
SCS-232, Disks
Julia Watts - Data Manager, DDRP
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box X
Building 1505, Room 348
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
and one copy to the EPA ERL-C to:
SCS-232, Disks
Jeff Lee - Soil Sampling Task Leader
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
-------
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 6
6.0 Field Sampling Procedures
One of the objectives of field sampling is to collect a soil sample from each horizon that will yield
a minimum of 2-kg of air-dried soil material that passes a 2 mm sieve. Clods are collected to
determine field bulk density.
6.1 Sampling the Pedon
6.1.1 Field Sampling Protocol
Field sampling protocol is based on NCSS standard methods. The following procedural steps were
developed by the National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln, Nebraska, and are detailed in SCS
(1984b). Field crews should be familiar with the content of this document before field sampling
begins. An edited version of these procedures follows.
6.1.2 Important Points Concerning Soil Sampling
The sample site should be free of road dust and chemical contamination. Record in the field
sampling logbook all known spraying of pesticides and herbicides.
Soil samples should be collected from major horizons to bedrock or to a specific depth from freshly
dug pits that expose a clean vertical face about 1 m wide.
Samples are taken from continuous horizons *3 cm thick, including the C horizon if present.
Discontinuous horizons or a horizon <3 cm thick is sampled when considered significant by the
crew leader.
From each mineral horizon sampled, collect three fist-sized clods from each horizon sampled for
bulk density determination. Adherence to all items listed in Section 6.4 is necessary.
6.2 Sample Size
After the sampling site has been excavated, photographed, and described, horizon sampling begins.
A minimum of 2 kg of air-dried soil material that passes a 2 mm sieve is necessary to complete
all chemical and physical analyses. Therefore, a sample volume of approximately 1 gallon (about
5.5 kg) of mineral soil material that passes a 19 mm sieve is required. If the estimated volume of
the 2- to 19-mm size rock fragments exceeds 45 percent, more sample is needed (2 kg for every
10 percent increase over 45 percent). Two full sample bags of organic horizon material are
requested in every case possible. It may be difficult to obtain one gallon of uncontaminated
sample from a thin horizon (<3 cm). In this case it is recommended that as much soil material
be collected as possible, given time constraints, while maintaining the integrity of the horizon. The
preparation laboratory determines whether enough sample has been taken for adequate processing;
they will notify the field crews if problems occur.
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 6
6.3 Sampling Procedure
Horizons should be sampled in a sequence that minimizes sample contamination and that is most
practical. Sampling may expose spatial variability that was not accounted for in the initial profile
description. Descriptions should be modified to reflect this situation.
Sampling the Oi horizon is not necessary. Depending on the thickness of the Oe and Oa, they may
be sampled separately or together. Thin surface layers may be sampled from an uncontaminated
area within a few meters of the pedon.
Pass the field sample through a 19-mm sieve. The preparation laboratory will determine the percent
rock fragments in the 2- to 20-mm fraction. Place the soil fraction passing the 19-mm sieve in the
sample bag according to the procedures given in Section 6.5.
The sampling party needs to be alert to taxonomic questions that may arise and needs to sample
appropriately to resolve the questions (e.g., base saturation for Alfisol versus Ultisol may require
subsampling at a specific depth). Appropriate sampling increments depend on the kind of material
and on the proximity of the horizon to the soil surface. Horizons in the upper 1 m are split for
sampling if they are more than 30 cm thick, excluding organic horizons. Uniform horizons below
1 m are split for sampling if they are more than 60 cm thick. The ideal sample contains each soil
material within the horizon in proportion to its occurrence in the pedon.
6.3.1 Stratified Horizons
A single horizon may contain several thin strata. When the thin contrasting strata cannot be readily
separated for sampling, composite the strata into one sample for the horizon. Each soil material
should be described, and the proportions should be recorded. The soil material should then be
sampled in those proportions. Note stratified horizons in the free form notes on the SCS 232 form.
6.3.2 Field Duplicates
Sample one horizon per day in duplicate. This will be the field duplicate. Different horizons should
be chosen from day to day so that all horizons are duplicated during sampling.
To obtain a true horizon duplicate, alternate trowel-fulls or dust-pan loads into 2 piles or into 1-
gallon buckets. Sieve and place in separate sample bags; label one as a routine sample and the
other as a field duplicate. (See Section 6.6 and Figure 6.4 for labeling instructions.)
6.4 Sampling Clods for Bulk-Density Determination
Bulk density is defined as the mass per unit volume of soil. Bulk density is determined from soil
clods collected from each mineral horizon and coated in the field with saran to preserve their
integrity.
This method was chosen because of its routine use in the field, relative ease of performance, and
elimination of compaction problems inherent in core methods. Clods cannot readily be obtained
from some horizons.
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 6
6.4.1 Procedure
Collect natural clods (three per horizon) of about 100 cm3 to 200 cm3 in volume (approximately fist-
size). Remove a chunk 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 conveniently with scissors or side
cutters. In some soils, clods can be removed directly from the face of the pit with a knife, spatula,
or hand trowel. 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 using appropriate equipment.
Place the clods in hairnets and suspend them from a rope hung out like a clothesline. Label the
clods with the tags supplied, and attach the tags to the hairnet. On the label record the site ID,
sample code, horizon, depth, and replicate number (1, 2 or 3). Coding of this information is
discussed in Section 6.6. Moisten dry clods with a fine mist spray; this will inhibit saran from
entering air spaces of the clod.
Dip the suspended clods by raising a container of the saran mixture upward to submerse each clod
momentarily (2 seconds). It is recommended to dip clods once. If it is necessary to dip clods
more than once note the number of times on the clod label. Allow the saran-coated clods to dry
for 15 minutes or until dry to touch.
6.4.2 Transport of Clods
Place clods in 6" x 8" plastic bags, seal bags with a twist-tie, and place in the compartmentalized
clod boxes. The top (inner face) of the clod box should be labeled with the same information as
on the clod tag (i.e., sample code, horizon, replicate number, and how many times the clod was
dipped in the resin mixture if dipped more than once). Take great care to ensure that the clods are
not broken or damaged during handling and shipping. Fill the space in each compartment not
occupied by the clods with packing material, i.e., leaves, grass, etc.
6.5 Filling Sample Bag
Place approximately 1 gallon or more of soil that has passed the 19-mm sieve in each plastic
sample bag. The actual amount of soil available for chemical analysis is highly dependent on the
amount of rock fragments contained in each horizon (Section 6.2).
Label plastic sample bags with NADSS Label A. Attach the label to the center of the bag and not
near the top of the bag. Check that all designations are correct, complete, and legible. Do not
include large, easily removed nonmineral material in the sample. Limit handling of the soil sample
to avoid contamination. Excess water in Histosols should be drained before sealing the sample
bag. Do not drain water from mineral soils. This will prevent the loss of the fine particle size
fraction.
Fold down the top of the plastic sample bag in 2-cm sections. Staple the folded sections to
sufficiently seal the bag.
Place each sealed plastic bag within a canvas bag. With indelible ink, label the canvas bag below
the center with exactly the same information contained on NADSS Label A. Seal the canvas bag
by tying. The soil samples must be placed in a 4'C temperature storage area within 24 hours but
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 6
every effort should be made to keep the soils cool and dry after the samples have been excavated
If a sampling crew is returning to a cold storage facility each night, using gel packs is not
necessary; storage within the coolers for transport is acceptable. If a crew plans to be in the field
for longer than 24 hours, the frozen gel packs or Blue Ice will be necessary. Store as many frozen
gel packs in one cooler as possible when transporting to the sampling site. This will keep the gel
packs frozen longer. A cooler can be sufficient for eight gel packs and a maximum of four sample
bags. Ten coolers may suffice a field crew for a week, taking into account that the last day's
samples may be toft unrefrigerated for 24 hours. Coolers containing gel packs and soil samples
should be taped shut before transit. » » * K
6.6 NADSS Label A
NADSS Label A
: Data Sampled;
DDMMMYY
Crew ID:
Site ID:
Sample Code:
_^ Depth: -, cm
Set ID: I
Figure 6.1. NADSS Label A.
The sample date is entered in the format DD MMM YY. For example, March 14, 1985, is 1 4 M A
R 8 5. The crew identification (ID) consists of four digits: the first two are alphabetic,
representing the state, and the second two are the crew number assigned to each field crew for
the state. An example of a crew ID is NCO1. The site ID is synonymous with watershed ID and
appears on the assigned watershed map.
The sample code represents the SCS (FIPS) soil ID code and the sample type. Any soil that is
to be analyzed separately must be identified by a unique sample code. 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 zero digits 10 and 11 are the county pedon
number, and digits 12 and 13 are the horizon number.
-------
SAMPLE CODE:
Figure 6.2. Sample code.
Section 6.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 5 of 6
I <_1> I <2> | <3> |
511 I N 0 1 7
fi 2
1. Type of Sample
R11 - routine sample, one bag, one sample
R12 - routine sample, first of two bags
FDO - field duplicate, one bag, one sample
FD1 - field duplicate, compound bags
2. SCS State Code
3. SCS County Code
4. County Pedon Number (decided by SCS state office)
5. Horizon Number (designated on SCS 232 form)
The horizon and depth line represents the information described in the horizon designation and
depth parameters of the SCS 232 form. If two organic horizons are combined (see 6.2), sample
codes and horizon codes must be written on the NADSS label A for both horizons, i.e.,
Sample Code:
Horizon:
R12NCO/19-0/30/2
R12NCO/19-0/30/3
Oe 0/-2 cm
Oa 2-6 cm
The set ID is a four-digit number. A unique set ID number is used every day the sampling crew
samples a pedon. The set ID'S will be assigned.
Much of the information recorded on the canvas bags, NADSS label A, and on the clod tags can
be pre-labeled the day before sampling of the pedon occurs, i.e., the date, crew ID, site ID, a
portion of the sample code, and the set ID. The crew leader must have the pedon site located or
be fairly confident the site will be found. This pre-labeling will ensure legibility, especially in wet
condition, and will free a sampling crew member for other tasks at the sampling site. The following
are labeling examples.
6.7 Delivery
The soil samples are delivered to the preassigned soil preparation laboratory.
Because of the location of some watersheds, some samples may not be delivered to the
preparation laboratory until three to four days after they are sampled. 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.
If major problems occur, notice must be given as soon as possible to the Sampling Task Leader.
-------
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R g S
DDMMMYY
Crew ID: TN01
Site ID: 2A07907
Sample Code: R11TN01700306
Horizon: C Depth: 140 -200 cm
Set ID: 02099
Section 6.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 6 of 6
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R i
DDMMMYY
Crew ID: TNQ1
Site ID: 2A07907
Sample Code: FDOTN01700306
Horizon: ^ Depth: 140 - 200 cm
Set ID: Q2Q99
Figure 6.3. Single horizon.
Figure 6.4. Field duplicate horizon.
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 1 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y"Y ~
Crew ID: TN01
Site ID: 2A07907
Sample Code: R12TN01700402
R12TN01700403
Horizon: Oe Depth: OOP -005 cm
Oa
Set ID: 02001
002
005
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 1 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y"Y ~
Crew ID: TN01
Site ID: _2A07907
Sample Code: R22TN01706402
R22TN01700403
Horizon: _O_e Depth: OOP - 002 cm
Oa 000 005
Set ID:
Figure 6.5 Combined horizon.
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R S 6
DDMMMYY
Crew ID: TN01
Site ID: 2A07907
Sample Code: R12TN01700302
Horizon: Oe Depth: OOP....» 005 cm
Set ID: 02099
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R 8 6
D DM M~M YY ~
Crew ID: TN01
Site ID: 2A07907
Samp!© Code: R22TN01700302
Horizon: Oe Depth: OOP - 005 cm
Set ID: 02099
Figure 6.6. Horizon requiring two sampling bags.
-------
Section 12.0
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 1
12.0 References
1. USDA/SCS. 1983. National Soils Handbook. Part 600-606. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C.
2. USDA/SCS. 1984. SCS National Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
3. Mausbach, M., R. Yeck, D. Nettleton, and W. Lynn. 1983. Principles and Procedures for
Using So/I Survey Laboratory Data. National Soil Survey Laboratory. Lincoln, Nebraska.
4. USDA/SCS. 1981. National Handbook of Plant Names. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
5. USDA/SCS. 1984b. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil
Samples. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
-------
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 10
Appendix A
Strategy of Site Selection and Sampling Information
for the Northeastern United States
1.0 Selection of Watersheds
Because the objectives of the Direct/Delayed Response Project (DDRP) Soil Survey 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 study of the DDRP
because (1) the NSWS lakes were selected according to a rigorous probability sampling method,
i.e., stratified by five subregions and three alkalinity classes within each subregion and because (2)
water chemistry information was available from NSWS for these lakes.
The 150 watersheds studied in the DDRP also are part of the Phase II Lake Monitoring Program
of the NSWS that will provide a data set that contains both water-chemistry and watershed
information. Therefore, the procedure used to select these watersheds incorporated criteria relevant
to both the DDRP and the NSWS. The procedure consisted of five steps, which are summarized
as follows:
Step 1: Lakes of low interest, e.g., too shallow, highly enriched, capacity protected, polluted
by local activities, or physically disturbed, were excluded.
Step 2: Lakes too large to be sampled, i.e., >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; 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, i.e.,
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.
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 10
2.0 Soils 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 148 watersheds. Sampling each of the 440
mapping units would not necessarily be the best way to describe adequately the chemistry of the
soils of the region. A better procedure is to combine the identified soils into groups or sampling
classes which are either known to have or are expected to have similar chemical characteristics.
Each of these sampling classes can then be sampled across a number of watersheds in which it
occurs, and the mean characteristics of the sampling class can be computed. The mean values
and the variance about the mean can then be used to construct area- or volume-weighted
estimates of the characteristics of each watershed.
For this procedure to work, it is necessary that a sufficient number of samples are taken, i.e., 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 con-
straints. Thus, the central goal is to develop a method of grouping the large number of soils into
a reasonable number of sampling classes.
3.0 Sampling Classes
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:
Soil taxonomic class (series, subgroup, great group)
Family texture
Parent material
Origin
Mode of deposition
Drainage class
Slope class
Slope configuration
Geomorphic position
Dominant landform
Surface stoniness
Percent inclusions
Percent of soils occurring in 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, the number of occurrences, and the percent
of the watershed area.
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 10
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).
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 thought to influence soil
chemistry.
4.0 Watershed and Sampling Class Selection
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 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.
Objectives: To describe the variation in the Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) clusters
developed from the lake survey.
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 by using a simple selection algorithm.
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 10
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 is 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).
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). Using eight
samples per sampling class as a base, the following sample allocation occurs. Eight
samples will be allocated to each sampling class when there are more than eight
watersheds; when there are eight or fewer watersheds, one sample will be allocated to each
watershed.
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 few 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. By 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 as one occurrence of sampling
class 813 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
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 5 of 10
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.
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 weighting 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.
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 the watershed receives sufficient samples.
The method of sampling class and watershed selection outlined here is designed to satisfy
the objectives and constraints listed in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2. 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 among the demands of the
different objectives.
5.0 Final Sampling Locations
5.1 Rationale and Objectives
Soil surveys generally have a single 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 to describe the characteristics of the sampling class rather
than the characteristics of a specific soil phase. 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 (1) to characterize the range of variability that occurs within a sampling class and (2) to
characterize the soils within a sampling class by using similar levels of precision.
Determining the sampling location within the watershed sampling class is a two-step process.
5.2 Sampling Site Selection
There are five steps in selecting representative sampling sites within a sampling class.
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 6 of 10
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 field 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 the average proportion excluding the area occupied by
inclusions.
Step 2: For each watershed, obtain the watershed maps 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 1 hectare to a Mylar sheet. Overlay the
grid on the watershed map. Select a set of random coordinates (by 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 class, draw another pair of random coordinates. Continue this
process until five random points have been identified in each sampling class. Record
their order of selection from 1 through 5. Some sampling locations may not be
accessible, therefore, 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
associated with each point as (1) coniferous, (2) deciduous, (3) mixed, (4) open
dryland, or (5) open wetland.
NOTE: For a comparison of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed vegetation types with
Society of American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, see Table 1.
Within the sampling class, 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 will be sampled.
6.0 Miscellaneous Sampling Information for the Northeastern
Sampling Effort
This manual is written as a generic document that can be used in various sampling efforts. The
following information identifies specific protocols that were used in the initial Northeastern
Sampling Effort identified by "a" after the number. Items identified by "b" after the number reflect
protocols that are currently being used in the DDRP sampling effort of the Southeastern United
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 7 of 10
States. Some of these changes are results of lessons learned whereas other changes reflect
differences resulting from the physical nature of the soils in the various regions.
Table 1. Comparison of Coniferous, Deciduous, and Mixed Vegetation Types to SAF Forest Cover Types
SAF Cover Type Name Cover Type Number
Coniferous Vegetation Types
Jack Pine 1
Balsam Fir 5
Black Spruce 12
Black Spruce - Tamarack ^
White Spruce \Q7
Tamarack 38
Red Spruce 32
Red Spruce - Balsam Fir 33
Red Spruce - Frasier Fir 04
Northern White Cedar 07
Red Pine «
Eastern White Pine £
White Pine - Hemlock 22
Eastern Hemlock 23
Deciduous Vegetation Types
Aspen ,.
Pin Cherry
Paper Birch 18
Sugar Maple 2°
Sugar Maple - Beech - Yellow Birch 25
Sugar Maple - Basswood o~
Black Cherry - Maple
Hawthorn 1og
Gray Birch - Red Maple 19
Beech - Sugar Maple on
Red Maple %L
Northern Pin Oak ]V8
Black Ash - American Elm - Red Maple 3g
Mixed Vegetation Types
Hemlock - Yellow Birch y.
Red Spruce - Yellow Birch 30
Paper Birch - Red Spruce - Balsam Fir «
White Pine - Chesnut Oak s?
White Pine - Northern Red Oak - Red Maple 20
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 8 of 10
6.1 Personnel
6.1. la Field Sampling Crews
The field sampling crew will consist of soil scientists experienced in the NCSS.
6.1.1b Field Sampling Crews
A field sampling crew consists of one crew leader who is a soil scientist experienced in the NCSS
and two to three other crew members who may also be soil scientists.
6.1.2a Regional Coordinator Correlator
The Regional Coordinator Correlator will monitor 6 to 10 percent of the sampling units.
6.1.2b Regional Coordinator Correlator
The Regional Coordinator Correlator will monitor one site per field crew.
6.1.3a SCS State Office Staff
The state staff will independently describe 5 to 10 percent of the sampling units.
& 1.3b SCS State Office Staff
The state staff will independently describe one site per field crew.
6.1.4a QA/QC Auditor
The QA/QC auditor will review 5 percent of the sampling units.
6.1.4b QA/QC Auditor
The QA/QC auditor will audit each sampling crew.
6.2 Site Selection
6.2.1 a Step Two
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 on the list.
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 9 of 10
6.2.1b Step Two
Go to the starting point of the first potential sampling site indicated on the map. If the starting
point is inaccessible but if some part of the sampling site is accessible, follow the procedure in
step 4 to select the location of the pedon for sampling.
6.2.2a Step Three
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 applicable, select a random number from a random number table
between 1 and 8 where 1 represents the direction north, 2 = northeast, and so forth. Walk along
a straight line in that direction and check in 20 ft. sections 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 500 feet around the selected site.
6.2.2b Step Three
If the starting point is accessible but does not contain the specified soil class or vegetation class,
then the following site selection procedures are required.
From a random number table, select a random number between 1 and 8 (where 1
represents north, 2 = northeast, and so forth).
Transect potential sampling points in 10 meter intervals along a 150 meter straight line until
the first occurrence of the proper combination of soil and vegetation class is found.
6.3 Rock Fragments
6.3.1a Size Codes
2-75 mm
75 - 250 mm
>250 mm
6.3.1b Size Codes
20-76 mm
76 - 250 mm
>250 mm
6.4 Field Duplicate
6.4.1a One horizon per day will be sampled twice by each field crew. The choice of which horizon
to duplicate is at the discretion of the field crew.
6.4.1b Different horizons should be chosen from day to day so that all horizons are duplicated
during sampling.
-------
Appendix A
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 10 of 10
6.5 Sampling
6.5.1a Uniform horizons below 1 meter are normally split for sampling if they are greater than 75
cm.
6.5.1b Uniform horizons below 1 meter are split for sampling. If they are greater than 60 cm,
they are given a new horizon designation. For example, four layers of a Bt horizon sampled
by 30 cm increments would be designated Bt1, Bt2, Bt3, and Bt4. The four samples would
be identified by a unique horizon designation and, therefore, a unique sampling code.
6.6 Set Identification Codes and Crew Codes*1
Crew Code Set ID
ME01 0- 099
ME02 100- 199
ME03 200- 299
NH01 300- 399
NY01 400- 499
NY02 500-599
NY03 600- 699
MA01 700- 799
MA02 800- 899
CT01 900- 999
PA01 1000 - 1099
VT01 1100 - 1199
A definition of these codes and their uses is supplied in Section 6.6 of the text.
-------
Appendix B
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 2
Appendix B
Strategy of Site Selection and Sampling Information
for the Southeastern United States
1.0 Selection of Watersheds
A two-stage sampling design was used to select streams for Phase I of the National Stream
Survey. In the first stage of selection, a grid (with a scaled grid size of 64 km2) was placed over
a map of the Southern Blue Ridge Province, and the streams closest (going downslope) to each
grid point were selected. These selections provided information on the frequency distribution of
reach lengths and watershed areas in the study region. In the second stage, the streams from
every other grid point were used to select reaches for chemical measurements. The probability of
selecting a given stream and reach is known. Therefore, chemical measurements on a sample of
reaches can be extrapolated back to the overall region.
Fifty-one watersheds in the Southern Blue Ridge Province are being sampled in the Phase I Stream
Survey. Only 37 of these watersheds, however, have areas less that 3000 ha. Only these
watersheds will be sampled in the Soil Survey.
1.1 Sampling Site Selection
There are five steps in selecting potential sampling sites for a sampling class on a watershed.
These five steps are:
1.1.1 Identify the watersheds on which each sampling class is to be sampled. For each watershed
and sampling class, identify the map units in which the sampling class occurs. Calculate the
percentage of the map unit in the sampling class from the map unit description.
1.1.2 For each watershed, obtain the watershed maps and identify the sampling classes selected
for that watershed. For each desired sampling class, delineate areas of occurrence by
aggregating delineations of map units that contain the sampling class.
1.1.3 Randomly orient a grid overlay on the watershed map. Number the points on the grid that
fall within the delineation of the selected sampling class, beginning at the upper right of the
grid. Select 5 random numbers between 1 and the number of grid points in the sampling
class, recording the order of selection of the 5 numbers. Mark five points on the watershed
map, and associate with each point its order of selection.
1.1.4 If the point falls on a map unit that is a complex, then draw a random number, say Y,
between 0 and the total percent of the named soils in the complex (e.g., 50 to 30 percent
complex of Tunbridge-Lyman would sum to 80 so the maximum random number is 80).
Determine the percent of the area in the desired sampling class, e.g., Tunbridge is 50 percent.
Call this number X If X is less than Y (i.e., X < Y), draw another set of coordinates. This
procedure minimizes the probability that complexes will be overselected for sampling.
-------
Appendix B
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 2
1.1.5 Overlay the soil map with the vegetation map and, for each location selected, note the
vegetation class associated with each point as one of the following.
Coniferous
Open dryland
Deciduous
Open wetland
Mixed
Pedons will be sampled in areas within delineation of the sampling class that have any of the soils
in the sampling class and the vegetation class noted above.
1.2 Set Identification Codes and Crew Codes*1
Crew Code Set ID
TN01 2000 - 2099
TN02 2100 - 2199
TN03 2200 - 2299
NC01 2300 - 2399
NC02 2400 - 2499
NCOS 2500 - 2599
NC04 2600 - 2699
GA01 2700 - 2799
GA02 2800 - 2899
VA01 2900 - 2999
'* A definition of these codes and their uses is supplied in Section 6.6 of the text.
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 39
Appendix C
Field Data Forms and Legends
US DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE
SOU. CONSERVATION SERVICE
FORM SCS-SOI-232
SOIL DESCRIPTION
OK M»4»MMM
II II I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
J_L
U_
i i I i
AMM I ftUM | WMTI* j MM I tW
-1 ! I Ml I I I I I I I
Dl5T
JJ_
I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
!' I II I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i ! i i i i i I I i i I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I
L L*»«*Q«M coot* K.CI
,4' H
-------
FORM SCS-SOI-232 (Continued)
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 39
J_L
Mil
J_L
1111
.1111
i ' i
J_L
I I
J_L
J_L
J_L
It''
J_J_
l i i i
J_L
I I I
8
J_L
I I I I
J_U_
10
I I I
J_JL
H"i*| ClAUf t
C *>.(*.
ft r.71
*U fc., *.-
v«s *'-»
Cl >Ci V-» « 4
U t*»^-M-
w»k -»-,-..
C'* C.M^*-OM
CI Cwvr-wi
» l«.^ «... j
e«» COWMTIICI
A l^>
B. fH.
** w.
* ».
0**W O* lf*wClw«K
ti*uCtu*4 IH«»«
Form SCS-SOI-232 (Continued) (page 2 of 4)
-------
FORM SCS-SOI-232 (Continued)
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 39
1 1
! 1
1 1
8
III!
1 1
i I
10
tM'MCtMfUlDS'
" -C' trt#
0 -«? >'
-: 'cs
» «»».*»
Form SCS-SOI-232 (Continued) (page 3 of 4)
-------
FOR SCS-SOI-232 (Continued)
COt^CENTKtTIOKS
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 39
10
LOG
WEATHER
SET 1.0
UNDERSTORY VEG
SLIDES «s PED FACE
UNDERSTORY
OVEBSTORY
LANDSCAPE
LOCATION Of «OOT$
C in cracftf
f B*iw**i ptoi
M * m mar 11 100 0' *ornon
S Ma.nae a'Ownfl nonm
QUANTITY (OTt
tr v»fy ttw 10 '
FC ' ft- 10 COm^O"
CM ' Corf^on to "^"y
AP£ 0' "ONES
Ml«il.ti»l
TU TuOuiar
TS Co"l"'Ci*0 luOwiai
IE *-"*0 »>ir* Co«'M mat
TC Coni>t»MCwt luOwW
TE ' O*n0n<>C twDuMir
VS Vv».CuC'0
I i MK'O and >in«
«4
noaw
»-jOl
N- PHI IMClC'jl
tH MWI'Qt-T'WOQ
k L*«M>»l«'Morg*ti
?3 MrO'um two CO*'**
} Co*'M
4 v«'v CO*'t*
13 f in« 10 CO«'Vi>
SOIL MOiSTunC COOES
C* Cjicnf etyiU't
C7 SO" "taiMl Ol >>m«
TJ inwci catu
T4 Worm nooui*l
A? D>v 000***
0* *<* na-ri
D3 O*'"i cone>«'.on>
M7 San "a»»*i
$1 ' OO*'C'Y»l.'t
S? So'< matMt Qi *>i*ca
iMA^t O* CONCENTBATlQNS
C C»""O"e*-
Q «0vn0tfl '
Z ***!*
f HID MC*SUi*
C3
f
Ci
C?
f CC'lCf*
Form SCS-SOI-232 (Continued) (page 4 of 4)
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 5 of 39
Left justify letters and right justify numbers. Use leading zeros to fill spaces where number entries
are used. Enter zero as "0." All codes are on Form SCS-SOI-232, except for pedon classification
and parent material codes, which are printed on another sheet. Metric units are specified for this
project.
Site Data
Tier Number 1
Series Name
Soil Series Name
Column 16 on the first line will be used for a tax adjunct or variant of
the soil series described; the letters T or V will be used respectively.
If the soil described is listed other than at a series level, the code SND
shall be used.
Sample Number
St.
Sample Number
County Unit
S
u
b
St. = State alpha code
County = 3-digit FIPS county code
Unit = 3-digit number identifying the pedon with a county
Sub = subunit alpha code if needed
MLRA
MLRA
Major Land Resource Areas
S
u
b
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 6 of 39
Latitude of Sample Site
Deg
_L_
Latitude
0
I
Win Sec R
1
Longitude of Sample Site
Longitude
Deg
J_
Min
1
Sec
1
D
I
R
Date
Date
Mo Day Yr
Date = Date pedon was described
Mo = 2-digit code for month
Day = 2 digits, O/ used in left column if one
Yr = last 2 digits of the year
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 7 of 39
Tier Number 2
Slope Characteristics
Slope
S A P
H S Micro O
P GM P K A P S
% = Slope percent
SHP = Slope shape - The configuration of the slope
GM = Geomorphic position code - Specific part of a hillslope or
mountain slope, grading from summit areas to lowlands
ASP = Slope aspect code - Direction slope is facing
MICRO = Microrelief codes
K = Kind - Kind, amount and pattern of microrelief that includes
polypedon described
A = Amount in elevation code
P = Pattern code - Pattern of the low parts of the microrelief
POS = Pedon position on slope code - Placement of the pedon site
within the segment of the Geomorphic Component
Physiography
PHYS
R
G
L
O
C
l_
RG = Regional - Landform extending for kilometers about the pedon
site
LOG = Local - Landform in the immediate vicinity of the pedon site
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 8 of 39
Pedon
Classification
so GG
Pedon Classification
SG PSC MIN RX IMP OTH
O = Order
SO = Suborder
GG = Great group
SG = Subgroup
PSC = Particle size class
MIN = Mineralogy
RX = Reaction
IMP = Temperature regime
OTH = Other code
Precipitation
PRECIP
cm
Not coded by field crews
Water Table
(NSH p. 603-200)
Water
Depth
cm
1
Table
K
D
Month
1
Depth = Depth to top of free water (NA used if no water table
observed)
KD = Kind code
Month = Month described
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 9 of 39
Miscellaneous
LU = Land use code - Current use of the land at the pedon site
ST = Stoniness class - As defined in Soil Survey Manual (NSH p. 602-
PM = Permeability code - Code for the least permeable horizon
excluding the surface horizon (NSH p. 603-19)
DR = Drainage class code - As indicated in the pedon description
(SSM p. 4-32)
Tier Number 3
Elevation
Elevation
meters
Parent Material
(Glossary of
Landform and
Geologic Terms)
Parent Material
B
D
1 2 3 4 R
W M ORIG W M ORIG W M ORIG W M ORIG K
0
0
0
0
W = Not coded by field crews, 0 in box
M = Mode of deposition code
ORIG = Origin of material code
BDRK = Bedrock fracturing
The Arabic numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are for separate types of material that may occur within the
profile. They correspond to lithologic discontinuities.
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 10 of 39
Temperatures
Temperature *C
Average Air Average Soil
Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter
Not coded by
field crews
Moisture Regime
(MST RGE)
(Soil Taxonomy p. 51)
Weather station number
Weather Station
Number
Not coded by field crews
Tier Number 4
Control Section
Control Section
cm
I I
I I
CONTROL SECTION = upper and lower limits of particle size control section (Soil
Taxonomy p. 385)
Water erosion code (ERWA)
Fill in for present conditions
Runoff code (RNOF)
(SSM p. 4-34)
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 11 of 39
Diagnostic
Features
Diagnostic Feature*
K K K K K
Depth N Depth N Depth N Depth N Depth N
cm D cm D cm D cm D cm D
Depth = Upper and lower depths of feature
KND = Kind code
Coded in order of increased depth.
Flooding (NSH p. 603-40)
Flooding
FRQ
I
DUR
I
I
FRQ = Frequency (times/yr)
DUR = Duration - months between which flooding occurs
Tier Number 5
Vegetation-
Scientific plant
name symbol for
dominant species
(National
Handbook of
Plant Names)
Major
I I I
Vegetation Specie*
2nd
3rd
The major, 2nd, and 3rd fields should include the dominant tree species by order of
basal area. For recent clearcut areas (since mapping conducted) use the code CC.
Describe the dominant vegetation types prior to the clearcut in the free-form site notes.
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 12 of 39
Describers'
Names and
Crew I.D.
DescrlbeiV Names
Crew I.D.
Tier Number 6
Location Description
Spaces 1-6
7
8
9
-' 10 - 12
13
14- 16
17
18 to end
Watershed I.D.
Dash
Site Number
Dash
Sampling class code. If class has only 2 characters, add a zero (0) before the
number i.e., S9 becomes S09.
Dash
Aspect - Determined by the face of the pit described in a perpendicular direction
based on true north. If azimuth cannot readily be determined, as in Histosols
use N/A in this field. Use leading zeros.
Degree symbol
Location notes
2AO
Location Description
i-roe Form sit* Nous
1L
-------
Horizon Data
Depth
(SSM p. 4-50)
Horizon Designation
(SSM p. 4-39)
D«pth
Upper
Lower
Horizon
Designation
D
I
S Master
C Letter
Suffix
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 13 of 39
DISC = Discontinuity (Arabic number)
Master Letter = Master horizon designation
Suffix = Subscript
Thickness (SSM p. 4-50)
AVE = Average thickness of horizon
MAX = Maximum thickness of horizon
MIN = Minimum thickness of horizon
Thickness
AVE
MAX
MIN
-------
Colors (Dry and Moist)
Dry Color
L V C
0 AH
C % HUE L R
LOG = Location code
% * Percent of matrix
(leave blank if 100)
HUE = Hue (left justify.
A decimal
requires a space)
VAL = Value
CHR = Chroma
N Hues are coded as 0
L
o
_c
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 14 of 39
Moist Color
HUE
V C
A H
L R
ThJJJ? SpaCe f°r three matr'X C0l°r entries- Enter the dominant color on upper line (SSM
Texture
(SSM p. 4-52 and
NSH p. 603-198)
Texture
CLASS MOD
Structure
GRD = Grade code (SSM p. 4-72)
SZ = Size code (SSM p. 4-99)
SHP = Shape code (SSM p. 4-71)
Class = Class code
MOD - Texture modifier
Structure
G
R
D SZ SHP
I I
I I
I I
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 15 of 39
Consistence
(SSM 4-81)
Consistence
Drv
Moist
Other
I I
I I
I I
ST/I
|
I
3L
C
E
M
DRY = Dry (1st line left side of field)
MOIST = Moist (2nd line left side of field)
OTHER = Other code (3rd line left side of field) (SSM p. 4-83)
ST = Stickiness (1st line middle of field)
PL = Plasticity (2nd line middle of field)
CEM = Cementation code (lower right of field) (SSM p. 4-79)
Mottles
(SSM 4-66)
Mottles
C V C
A 0 AH
B SZ N HUE L R
|
|
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
AB = Abundance code
SZ = Size code
CON = Contrast code
HUE = Hue (left justify)
VAL - Value
CHR = Chroma
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 16 of 39
Surface features
Surface Features
K A
N M
D T
D L
C S 0
V C
A H
NIC HUE L R
|
I
I I I I
I
I I
I I I I
KND = Kind code
AMT = Amount code
CN = Continuity
DST = Distinction code
LOG = Location code
HUE = Hue (left justify)
VAL = Value
CHR = Chroma
Boundary
(SSM p. 4-51)
Distinctness-left
Topography-right
Effervescence
(SSM p. 4-91)
Effervescence
C A E
L G X
Not coded by field crews
CL = Class code
AG = Agent code
EX = Extent code
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 17 of 39
Roots
(SSM 4-85)
Roots
L
0
QT SZ C
|
|
I
|
|
I
QT = Quantity code
SZ = Size code
LOG = Location code
Pores
(SSM 4-84)
Pores
SHP QT SZ
SHP = Shape code
QT = Quantity code
SZ = Size code
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 18 of 39
Concentrations
(SSM 4-76)
Concentration*
S
H
KND QT P SZ
j
|
|
I
KND = Kind code
QT = Quantity code
SHP = Shape code
SZ = Size code
Field Measured
Properties
KND Amount
P
I
|
|
PS
EO
RI
ML
--
KND = Kind code
pH = line one, all horizons
OA = % Clay, line two, horizon 4-10
ON = % Sand, line three, horizon 4-10
AMOUNT = Amount, no decimals
PERM = Permeability of horizon. Use same codes as permeability
on page one. Upper line.
SOIL = Soil moisture code. Lower line.
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 19 of 39
Rock Fragments
(SSM 4-97)
Rock Fragments
K
N S
D % Z
1
2
3
KND = Kind code
% = Percent by volume
SZ = Size code
1) 20 - 76 mm
2) 76 - 250 mm
3) >250 mm
Sample Codes
Clods
Sample Codes = Sample taken from particular horizon. Same sample code that
appears on NADSS Label A.
Clods = Number of clods taken from particular horizon (if none, use 0)
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 20 of 39
Log
1. Weather - Type of weather i.e., rainy, sunny, and avg. temp.
2. Set ID. -'Unique numbers assigned to crews for each day in the field.
3. Understory vegetation
4. Slides - Number of slides corresponding to specific picture from film roll
Log
Weather
Set ID.
Understory Vegetation -
Slide No. pedon face
understory
overstory
landscape
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 21 of 39
2.0 Soil Description Codes for Form SCS-SOI-232
2.1 Slope Shape Codes
1 convex 2 plane
3 concave 4 undulating 5 complex
2.2 Geomorphic Position Codes
01 summit crested hills
02 shoulder crested hills
22 shoulder headslope
03 backslope crested hills
33 backslope sideslope
24 footslope headslope
44 footslope noseslope
25 toeslope headslope
04 footslope crested hills
2.3 Slope Aspect Codes
11 summit interfluve
12 shoulder interfluve
42 shoulder noseslope
23 backslope headslope
43 backslope noseslope
34 footslope sideslope
05 toeslope crested hills
35 toeslope sideslope
00 not applicable
32 shoulder sideslope
1 northeast
5 southwest
2 east
6 west
3 southeast
7 northwest
4 south
8 north
2.4 Microrelief (Micro) Codes
2.4.1 Kind (K)
B = micro depression
C = tree-throw feature
F = frost polygon
Q. = gilgai
L = land leveled or smooth
2.4.2 Variation in elevation (A)
Q - minimal 2 = 20-50 cm
2.4.3 Pattern (P)
0 = none
1 = linear
M = mound
R = raised bog
I = terracettes
Z - other (specify in notes)
<20 cm
2 = closed depressions
3_ = reticulate (net)
4 = 50-100 cm
2.5 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
3 on upper third
6 on a slope
9 in a drainageway
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 22 of 39
2.6 Regional Landform Codes
A coastal plains
E lake plains
G glaciated uplands
I bolson
L level or undulating uplands
N high hills
R hills
V mountain valleys or canyons
2.7 Local Landform Codes
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
2.8 Great Group Codes
B
F
H
K
M
P
U
intermountain basin
river valley
glaciofluvial landform
karst
mountains or deeply disected plateaus
piedmonts
plateaus or tablelands
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
Alfisols
AAQAL
MQFR
AAQNA
AAQPN
AAQUM
ABOEU
ABOGL
ABOPA
AUDAG
AUDFR
AUDGL
AUDNA
AUDTR
AUSHA
AUSPN
AXEDU
AXEHA
Albaqualf
Fragiaqualf
Natraqualf
Plinthaqualf
Umbraqualf
Eutroboralf
Glossoboralf
Paleboralf
Agrudalf
Fragiudalf
Glossudalf
Natrudalf
Tropudalf
Haplustalf
Plinthustalf
Durixeralf
Haploxeralf
AAQDU
AAQGL
AAQOC
AAQTR
ABOCR
ABOFR
ABONA
ASUPA
AUDFE
AUDFS
AUDHA
AUDPA
AUSDU
AUSNA
AUSRH
AXEFR
AXENA
Duraqualf
Glossaqualf
Ochraqualf
Tropaqualf
Cryoboralf
Fragiboralf
Natriboralf
Paleustalf
Ferrudalf
Fraglossudalf
Hapludalf
Paleudalf
Durustalf
Natrustalf
Rhodustalf
Fragixeral
Natrixeralf
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 23 of 39
Alfisols (continued)
AXEPA Palexeralf
AXERH Rhodoxeralf
Arid/sols
DARDU Durargid
DARND Nadurargid
DARPA Paleargid
DORCM Camborthid
DORGY Gypsiorthid
DORSA 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
Histosols
HFIBO
HFILU
HFISP
HFOBO
HFOTR
HHECR
HHEME
HHESO
HSABO
HSAME
Borofibrist
Luvifibrist
Sphagnofibrist
Borofolist
Tropofolist
Cryohemist
Medihemist
Sulfohemist
Borosaprjst
Medisaprist
Incept/sols
IANCR Cryandept
IANDY Dystrandept
IANHY Hydrandept
AXEPN 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
HFICR Cryofibrist
HFIME Medifibrist
HFITR Tropofibrist
HFOCR Cryofolist
HHEBO Borohemist
HHELU Luvihemist
HHESI Sulfihemist
HHETR Tropohemist
HSACR Cryosaprist
HSATR Troposaprist
IANDU Ourandept
IANEU Eutrandept
IANPK Placandept
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 24 of 39
Inceptisols (continued)
I AN VI
IAQCR
IAQHL
IAQHU
IAQPN
IAQTR
IOCDU
IOCEU
IOCUS
IPLPL
ITREU
ITRSO
IUMCR
IUMHA
Vitrandepth
Cryaquept
Halaquept
Humaquept
Plinthaquept
Tropaquept
Durochrept
Eutrochrept
Ustochrept
Plaggept
Eutropept
Sombritropept
Cryumbrept
Haplumbrept
Mollisols
MALAR
MAQAR
MAQCR
MAQHA
MBOAR
MBOCR
MBONA
MBOVE
MUDAR
MUDPA
MUSAR
MUSDU
MUSNA
MUSVE
MXECA
MXEHA
MXEPA
Argialboll
Argiaquoll
Cryaquoll
Haplaquoll
Argiboroll
Cryoboroll
Natriboroll
Vermiboroll
Argiudoll
Paleudoll
Argiustoll
Durustoll
Natrustoll
Vermustoll
Calcixeroll
Haploxeroll
Palexeroll
Oxisols
OAQGI
OAQPN
OHUAC
OHUHA
OORAC
OORGI
OORSO
OTOTO
OUSEU
OUSSO
Giwsiaquox
Plinthaquox
Acrohumox
Haplohumox
Acrorthox
Gibbsiorthox
Sombriorthox
Torrox
Eutrustox
Sombriustox
IAQAN
IAQFR
IAQHP
IAQPK
IAQSU
IOCCR
IOCDY
IOCFR
IOCXE
ITRDY
ITRHU
ITRUS
IUMFR
IUMXE
MALNA
MAQCA
MAQDU
MAQNA
MBOCA
MBOHA
MBOPA
MRERE
MUDHA
MUDVE
MUSCA
MUSHA
MUSPA
MXEAR
MXEDU
MXENA
OAQOC
OAQUM
OHUGI
OHUSO
OOREU
OORHA
OORUM
OUSAC
OUSHA
Andaquept
Fragiaquept
Haplaquept
Palacaquept
Sulfaquept
Cryochrept
Dystrochrept
Fragiochrept
Xerochrept
Dystropept
Humitropept
Ustropept
Fragiumbrept
Xerumbrept
Natralboll
Calciaquoll
Duraquoll
Natraquoll
Calciboroll
Haploboroll
Paleborolt
Rendoll
Hapludoll
Vermudoll
Calciustoll
Haplustoll
Paleustoll
Argixeroll
Durixeroll
Natrixeroll
Ochraquox
Umbraquox
Gibbsihumox
Sombrihumox
Eutrorthox
Haplorthox
Umbriorthox
Acrustox
Haplustox
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 25 of 39
Spodosols
SAQCR Cryaquod
SAQFR Fragiaquod
SAQPK Placaquod
SAQTR Tropaquod
SHUCR Cryohumod
SHUHA Hapiohumod
SHUTR Tropohumod
SORFR Fragiorthod
SORPK 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
2.9 Subgroup Codes
AA Typic
ABO4 Abruptic aridic
AB10 Abruptic haplic
AB16 Abruptic xerollic
AE03 Aerie arenic
AE06 Aerie humic
AE09 Aerie tropic
AE12 Aerie xeric
AL02 Albaquultic
AL08 Albic glossic
AL12 Alfic arenic
AL16 Alfic lithic
AN01 Andeptic
SAQDU
SAQHA
SAQSI
SFEFE
SHUFR
SHUPK
SORCR
SORHA
SORTR
UAQFR
UAQPA
UAQTR
UHUHA
UHUPN
UHUTR
UUDHA
UUDPN
UUDTR
UUSPA
UUSRH
UXEPA
Duraquod
Haplaquod
Sideraquod
Ferrod
Fragihumod
Placohumod
Cryorthod
Haplorthod
Troporthod
Fragiaquult
Paleaquult
Tropaquult
Haplohumult
Plinthohumult
Tropohumult
Hapludult
Plinthudult
Tropudult
Paleustult
Rhodustult
Palexerult
VUDCH Chromudert
VUSCH Chromustert
VXECH Chromxerert
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
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 26 of 39
AN06 Andic Dystric
AN22 Andic ustic
AN30 Anthropic
AQ02 Aquentic
AQ06 Aquic
AQ14 Aquic duric
AQ18 Aquicdystric
AQ26 Aquiclithic
AQ34 Aquollic
AR Arenic
AR03 Arenicorthoxic
AR06 Arenicplinthic
AR10 Arenicultic
AR16 Arenicustalfic
AR22 Argiaquic
AR26 Argic
AR30 Argicpachic
AR34 Aridic
AR42 Aridicduric
AR52 Aridicpetrocalcic
BO Boralfic
BO04 Boroalficudic
BOOS Borollic glossic
BO12 Borollic vertic
CA Calcic
CA06 Calciorthidic
CA20 Cambic
CH06 Chromudic
CR10 Cryic lithic
CU Cumulic
CU04 Cumulic ultic
DU Durargidic
DUOS Durixerollic
DU11 Durochreptic
DU14 Durorthidic xeric
DY03 Dystric entic
DY06 Dystric lithic
EN Entic
EN06 Enticultic
EP10 Epiaquicorthoxic
EU02 Eutrochreptic
FE Ferrudalfic
FI02 Fibricterric
FL06 Fluventic
FR10 Fragiaquic
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 Aridicpachfc
BO02 Borolficlithic
BO06 Borollic
BO10 Borollic lithic
CA04 Calcic pachic
CA10 Calcixerollic
CH Chromic
CR Cryic
CR14 Cyric pachic
CU02 Cumulic udic
DU02 Duric
DU10 Durixerollic lithic
DU12 Durorthidic
DY02 Dystric
DY04 Dystric Fluventic
DY08 Dystropeptic
EN02 Enticlithic
EP Epiaquic
EU Eutric
EU04 Eutropeptic
FI Fibric
FL02 Fluvaquentic
FL12 Fluventic umbric
FR18 Fragic
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 27 of 39
GL02 Glossaquic
GL10 Glossicudic
GL14 Glossoboralfic
GR Grossarenic
GR04 Grossarenicplinthic
HA Haplaquodic
HA02 Haplic
HA07 Haploxerollic
HA12 Hapludollic
HE Hemic
HI Histic
HI06 Histicpergelic
HU02 Humiclithic
HU06 Humoxic
HY Hydric
LE Leptic
LI01 Lithic
LI06 Lithicrupticalfic
LI08 Lithicrupticenticerollic
LI10 Lithicudic
LI12 Lithicultic
1114 Lithicumbric
LI16 Lithicustic
LI20 Lithicvertic
LI24 Lithicxerollic
MO Mollic
OC Ochreptic
OR01 Orthic
OX Oxic
PA Pachic
PA04 Pachicultic
PADS Paleustollic
PA20 Paralithicvertic
PE01 Pergelicruptichistic
PE04 Petrocalcic
PE08 Petrocalcicustollic
PE16 Petroferric
PK Placic
PK12 Plaggic
PL04 Plinthic
PS Psammaquentic
GL04 Glossic
GL12 Glossicustollic
GL16 Glossoboric
GR01 Grossarenicentic
HA01 Haplaquic
HA05 Haplohumic
HA09 Hapludic
HA16 Haplustollic
HE02 Hemicterric
HI02 Histiclithic
HU Humic
HU05 Humicpergelic
HU10 Humaqueptic
HY02 Hydriclithic
LI Limnic
LI04 Lithicmollic
LI07 Lithicruptic-argic
LI09 Lithicruptic-entic
L111 Lithicrupticxerorthentic
LI13 Lithicruptic-ultic
LI15 Lithicrupticxerochreptic
LI18 Lithicustollic
LI22 Lithicxeric
NA06 Natric
OR Orthidic
OR02 Orthoxic
PA02 Pachicudic
PA06 Paleorthidic
PA10 Palexerollic
PE Pergelic
PE02 Pergelicsideric
PE06 Petrocalcicustalfic
PE14 Petrocalcicxerollic
PE20 Petrogypsic
PK10 Plaggeptic
PL Plinthaquic
PL06 Plinthudic
PS02 Psammentic
QU Quartzipsammentic
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 28 of 39
RE Rendollic
RU02 Rupticalfic
RU11 Rupticlithic-entic
RU17 Rupticultic
SA Salorthidic
SA04 Sapricterric
SO04 Sombrihumic
SP02 Sphagnicterric
SU Suflic
TE Terrfc
TH06 Thaptohistictropic
TO02 Torrifluventic
TO06 Torripsammentic
TR Tropaquodic
TR04 Tropic
UD Udertic
UD02 Udic
UD05 Udorthentic
UL Ultic
UM02 Umbric
US02 Ustertic
US06 Ustochreptic
US12 Ustoxic
VE Vermic
XE Xeralfic
XE04 Xeric
2.10 Particle Size Codes
002 not used
005 ashy
008 ashy over loamy
019 ashy over medial
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
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
M Typic
UD01 Udalfic
UD03 Udollic
UD10 Udoxic
UM Umbreptic
US Ustalfic
US04 Ustic
US08 Ustollic
VE02 Vertic
t
XE02 Xerertic
XE08 Xerollic
007 ashy over cindery
013 ashy over loamy-skeletal
009 ashy-skeletal
006 cindery over bamy
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
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 29 of 39
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
108 fine-silty over fragmental
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
011 medial-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
090 coarse-silty over fragmental
094 coarse-silty over clayey
096 fine-loamy
098 fine-loamy over fragmental
106 fine-silty112fine-silty over clayey
110 fine-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal
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
2.11 Mineralogy Codes
02 not used 04
09 chloritic 07
10 diatomaceous 12
18 gibbsitic 20
24 halloysitic 26
28 kaolinitic 30
34 mixed 35
38 montmorillonitic (calcareous)
40 oxidic 42
46 siliceous 50
calcareous
clastic
ferrihumic
glauconitic
illitic
marly
mixed (calcareous)
sepiolitic
vermiculitic
2.12 Reaction Codes
02 not used
10 euic
04 acid
12 nonacid
05 carbonatic
08 coprogenous
14 ferritic
22 gypsic
27 illitic (calcareous)
32 micaceous
37 montmorillonitic
44 serpentinitic
08 dysic
14 noncalcareous
-------
2.13 Temperature Regime Codes
02 not used
08 isofrigid
14 isothermic
04 frigid
10 isohyperthermic
16 mesic
2.14 Other Family Codes
02
06
14
16
not used
level
shallow
sloping
04 coated
08 micro
15 shallow and coated
19 orstein shallow
2.15 Kind of Water Table Codes
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 30 of 39
06 hyperthermic
12 isomesic
18 thermic
05 cracked
12 ortstein
17 shallow and uncoated
20 uncoated
0 no water table observed
3 apparent
2.16 Landuse Codes
1 flooded
4 ground water
A abandoned cropland (>3 yrs)
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
2.17 Stoniness Class Codes
0
1
class 0
class 1
2
3
class 2
class 3
2.18 Permeability Codes
C
E
G
L
P
R
T
2 perched
5 ponded
cropland
forest land grazed
pasture land and native pasture
waste disposal land
rangeland grazed
wetlands
tundra
class 4
class 5
1 very slow 2 slow
5 moderately rapid 6 rapid
2.19 Drainage Codes
1 very poorly drained
3 somewhat poorly drained
5 well drained
7 excessively drained
3 moderately slow
7 very rapid
4 moderate
2 poorly drained
4 moderately well drained
6 somewhat excessively drained
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 31 of 39
2.20 Parent Material Mode of Deposition Codes
A alluvium
D glacial drift
L lacustrine
M marine
R solid rock
H volcanic ash
E eolian
G glacial outwash
V local colluvium
O organic
Y solifluctate
2.21 Parent Material Origin Codes
Mixed Lithology
YO mixed Y1
Y2 mixed-calcareous Y3
Y4 mixed-igneous-metamorphic and sedimentary Y5
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
Sedimentary
SO sedimentary
S2 glauconite
Interbedded Sedimentary
S eolian-sand
T glacial till
W loess
X residuum
U unconsolidated sediments
mixed-noncalcareous
mixed
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
81 marl
BO interbedded sedimentary
B2 limestone-sandstone
B1 limestone-sandstone-shale
B3 limestone-shale
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 32 of 39
Interbedded Sedimentary (continued)
B4 limestone-siltstone
B6 sandstone-siltstone
Sandstone
B5 sandstone-shale
B7 shale-siltstone
AO sandstone
A2 arkosic-sandstone
A4 sandstone-calcareous
Shale
HO shale
H2 shale-calcareous
Siltstone
TO siltstone
T2 siltstone-calcareous
Limestone
LO limestone
L2 marble
L4 limestone-phosphatic
L6 limestone-argillaceous
Pyroclastic
PO pyroclastic
P2 tuff-acidic
P4 volcanic breccia
P6 breccia-basic
P8 aa
Ejecta Material
EO ejecta-ash
E2 basic-ash
E4 andesitic-ash
E6 pumice
E8 volcanic bombs
Organic Materials
KO organic
K2 herbaceous material
K4 wood fragments
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
K5 logs and stumps
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 33 of 39
Organic Materials (continued)
K6 charcoal
K9 other organics
2.22 Bedrock Fracturing
1. 10 cm between fractures
3. 45 cm to 1 m between fractures
5. 2m between fractures
2.23 Moisture Regime Codes
AQ aquic moisture regime
PU perudic moisture regime
UD udic moisture regime
XE xeric moisture regime
2.24 Erosion Codes
K7 coal
2. 10 to 45 cm between fractures
4. 1 to 2 m between fractures
AR aridic moisture regime
TO torric moisture regime
US ustic moisture regime
0 none
2.25 Runoff Codes
1 none
5 moderate
1 slight
2 ponded
6 rapid
2 moderate
3 very slow
7 very rapid
3 severe
4 slow
2.26 Diagnostic Feature Codes
Epipedon
A anthropic
O ochric
Horizons
Q albic
C calcic
N natric
J petrogypsic
I sombric
Properties
0 durinodes
W paralithic contact
H histic
P plaggen
R argic
B cambic
X oxic
K placic
S spodic
Z duripan
F fragipan
M mollic
U umbric
T argillic
G gypsic
E petrocalcic
Y salic
V sulfuric
L lithic contact
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 34 of 39
2.27 Horizon Codes
Color Location Codes
0 unspecified 1 ped interior
2.28 Texture Classes
2 ped exterior
3 rubbed or crushed
C
CL
COSL
CE
FB
FSL
G
ICE
LCOS
LS
MARL
MPT
PDOM
PEAT
SG
SCL
SP
SIL
SICL
U
VAR
VFSL
clay
clay loam
coarse sandy loam
coprogenous earth
fibric material
fine sandy loam
gravel
ice or frozen soil
loamy coarse sand
loamy sand
marl
mucky peat
partially decomposed
peat
sand and gravel
sandy clay loam
sapric material
silt loam
silty clay loam
unknown texture
variable
very fine sandy loam
CIND
COS
CSCL
OE
FS
FM
GYP
L
LFS
LVFS
MUCK
OPWD
organics
S
SC
SL
SI
SIC
UDOM
UWB
VFS
WB
2.29 Texture Modifiers
AY
BYX
CSV
CNV
CRC
CY
FLX
GRF
GY
MK
SH
SR
STX
SYX
ashy
extremely bouldery
very cobbly
very channery
coarse cherty
cindery
extremely flaggy
fine gravelly
gritty
mucky
shaly
stratified
extremely stony
extremely slaty
BY
CB
CBX
CNX
CRV
FL
GR
GRV
GYV
PT
SHV
ST
SY
bouldery
cobbly
extremely cobbly
extremely channery
very cherty
flaggy
gravelly
very gravelly
very gritty
peaty
very shaly
stony
slaty
cinders
coarse sand
coarse sandy clay loam
diatomaceous earth
fine sand
fragmental material
gypsiferous earth
loam
loamy fine sand
loamy very fine sand
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
RB rubbly
SHX extremely shaly
STV very stony
SYV very slaty
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 35 of 39
2.30 Grade of Structure
0 not used
3 strong
6 moderate and strong
2.31 Size of Structure
EF extremely fine
F fine
MC medium and coarse
CV coarse and very coarse
2.32 Structure Shape
ABK angular blocky
CDY cloddy
GR granular
PL platy
WEG wedge
2.33 Dry Consistence
L loose
H hard
2.34 Moist Consistence
L loose
FI firm
2.35 Other Consistence
WSM weakly smeary
B brittle
CO uncemented
SC strongly cemented
VF very fluid
2.36 Stickiness
SO nonsticky
2.37 Plasticity
PO nonplastic
1 weak
4 very strong
VF very fine
FM fine and medium
CO coarse
BK blocky
COL columnar
LP lenticular
PR prismatic
S
VH
soft
very hard
VFR very friable
VFI very firm
SM strongly smeary
R rigid
VWC very weakly cemented
I indurated
SS slightly sticky S sticky
SP slightly plastic P plastic
2 moderate
5 weak and moderate
FF very fine and fine
M medium
VC very coarse
SBK subangular blocky
CR crumb
MA massive
SGR single grain
SH slightly hard
EH extremely hard
FR friable
EFI extremely firm
MS moderately smeary
VR very rigid
WC weakly cemented
SF slightly fluid
VS very sticky
VP very plastic
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 36 of 39
2.38 Cementation Agent
H humus
X lime and silica
I iron
L lime
S silica
2.39 Mottle Abundance Codes
F few
C common
2 medium (5 to 15 mm)
13 fine to coarse
2.40 Mottle Size Codes
1 fine (5 mm)
12 fine to medium
2.41 Mottle Contrast Code
F faint D distinct
2.42 Surface Features
A skeletans over cutans
C chalcedony on opal
G gibbsite coats
K intersecting slickensides
M manganese or iron-manganese stains
P pressure faces
S skeletans (sand or silt)
U coats
2.43 Surface Feature Amount Codes
M many
3 coarse (>15 mm)
23 medium to coarse
P prominent
B black stains
D clay bridging
I iron stains
L lime or carbonate coats
O organic coats
Q nonintersecting slickensides
T clay films
X oxide coats
V very few
F few
C common
2.44 Surface Feature Continuity Codes
P patchy D discontinuous
2.45 Surface Feature Distinctness Codes
F fajnt D distinct
2.46 Location of Surface Features
M many
C continuous
P prominent
P on faces of peds
V on vertical faces of peds
U on upper surfaces of peds or stones
L on lower surfaces of peds or stones
H on horizontal faces of peds
Z on vertical and horizontal faces of
peds
C on tops of columns
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 37 of 39
2.46 Location of Surface Features (continued)
M on bottoms of plates
B between sand grains
I in root channels and/or pores
T throughout
2.47 Boundary
A abrupt C clear
2.48 Topography
S smooth W wavy
2.49 Effervescence
0 very slightly effervescent
2 stongly effervescent
2.50 Effervescence Agent Codes
H HCI (10%)
P H2O2 (unspecified)
S on sand and gravel
R on rock fragments
F on faces of peds and in pores
N on nodules
G gradual
I irregular
D diffuse
B broken
1 slightly effervescent
3 violently effervescent
I HCI (unspecified)
Q H2O2 (3 to 4%)
2.51 Field Measured Property Kind Codes
2.51.1 For organic materials
Column 1
F fiber
H hemic
L limnic
S sapric
Column 2
B unrubbed
W woody
S sphagnum
D diatomaceous earth
F ferrihumic
O other
R rubbed
H herbacious
C coprogenous earth
M marly
U humilluvic
L sulfidic
2.51.2 For mineral materials
ON sand
2.51.3 pH
OI silt
OA clay
pB Bromthymol blue
pL Lamotte-Morgan
pC Cresol red pH Hellige-Truog
pM pH meter (1:1 H2O) pN pH (0.1 M CaCIJ
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 38 of 39
2.51.3 pH (continued)
pP Phenol red
pY Ydrion
2.52 Soil Moisture Codes
pS soiltex
pG Bromcresolgreen
pT Thymol blue
pR Chlorophenol red
D dry
M moist
V very moist
2.53 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
2.54 Size (Roots, Pores, Concretions)
M micro
11 very fine and fine
2 medium
4 very coarse
2.55 Location of Roots
C in cracks
P between peds
T throughout
2.56 Shape of Pores
IR interstitial
IT interstitial and tubular
TU tubular
TD discontinuous tubular
TS constricted tubular
VT vesicular and tubular
2.57 Kind of Concentrations
Ml 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
A2 clay bodies
B2 soft masses of barite
C2 soft masses of lime
C4 lime nodules
D2 soft dark masses
D4 dark nodules
E4 gibbsite nodules
F2 soft masses of iron
F4 ironstone nodules
G2 masses of gypsum
B1 barite crystals
C1 calcite crystals
C3 lime concretions
D1 mica flakes
D3 dark concretions
E3 gibbsite concretions
F1 plinthite segregations
F3 iron concretions
G1 gypsum crystals
H1 halite crystals
-------
Appendix C
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 39 of 39
2.57 Kind of Concentrations (continued)
H2 salt masses
K3 carbonate concretions
M1 nonmagnetic shot
M3 iron-manganese concretions
S1 opal crystals
S3 silica concretions
T2 worm casts
T4 worm nodules
2.58 Shape of Concentrations
C cylindrical
P plate like
D dendritic
T threads
K2 soft masses of carbonate
K4 carbonate nodules
M2 soft masses of iron-manganese
M4 magnetic shot
S2 soft masses of silica
S4 durinodes
T3 insects casts
O rounded
Z irregular
2.59 Rock Fragment Kind Codes
A sandstone
F ironstone
K organic fragments
O oxide-protected rock
S sedimentary rocks
B mixed sedimentary rocks
H shale
L limestone
P pyroclastic rocks
T siltstone
2.60 Rock Fragment Size Codes
1. 20 to 76 mm
2. 76 to 250 mm
E ejecta
I igneous rocks
M metamorphic rocks
R saprolite
Y mixed lithogoy
3. >250 mm
-------
-------
Appendix D
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 3
Appendix D
Preparation Laboratory Forms
-------
Buch ID.
Crew 10 .
NATIONAL ACID DEPOSITION SOIL SURVEY (NADSS) FORM 101
DATE RECEIVED
BY QATA MOT
~t o ~ ~? ~
-------
NATIONAL ACID DEPOSITION SOIL SURVEY (NADSS)
SHIPPING FORM 102
DATE RECEIVED
BY DATA MGT .
DOOM
Prpp | np ip Dale Received
Pjiirnin ,,... _ Date Shinned
Anaiyi'cal Lab ID
SAMPLE NO
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
OB
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Sunole
(Identify By Check)
Shlpced Received
Signature ot Preparation laboratory Manager
Comments.
Sol) Tv->o
(Identify By Check)
Organic Mineral
1
Inorganic Rock
Carbon Fropnentr
Y Y«« Shinoed?
N - No Check U_ Yea
'
i
:
i
'
1
i
Appendix D
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 3
Figure D-2. Form 102.
-------
-------
Appendix E
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 7
Appendix E
List of the Northeast Soils by Sampling Class
-------
fn
3ISAQ
CM
uni
IN
tc
3inov
* 31 *U
1C
coonov
I
cc
AUVQ1
-KUTO3
1
COO
SXJSOISIH
1 1
1
tiosooods tlo.
II II"1
' ' 1 1 1 Itwti iiv
ld»HI tUtllNl
1
»l
nc
MM
1
H
AMVO1
-KMVO3
At lit
-KHVO3
1
..i
A°"* .
TMI WIMIIJ
myvn /wiavim
Cl
sion
nos
-------
EPA Soil Survey - Listing of Series by Soil Class
Appendix E
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 7
Soil Class - E2
Series List
18 Basher
30 Borosaprists(A)-'Fluvaquents'
44 Charles
72 Fluv-udifluvaquents
71 Fluvaquents
178 Mediasaprists(A)-'Aquents'
118 Medomak
175 Rumney
Soil Class - E3
42 Carver
89 Hinckley
156 Plymouth
504 Udipsamments
234 Windsor
Soil Class - E5
263 'Udorthents' -Lyman-Ricker
705 'Udorthents1 -Taconic-Rock
181 Schoodic-Rock
Soil Class - E6
217 Udorthents
Soil Class - H1
356 'Mahoosuc'-Enchanted
254 Lyman(C)-'Ricker'
254 Lyman(E)-'Ricker'
241 Mahoosuc
352 Monson(C)-'Ricker'
353 Monson(E)-Elliotsvill-'Ricker'
242 Ricker-Rockout
Soil Class - H1 (Continued)
Series List
176 Saddleback(E)-'Ricker'-Rockout
248 Tunbridge(C)-Borosap-'Ricker'
263 Udorthents(C)-Lyman-'Ricker'
263 Udorthents(E)-Lyman-'Ricker'
263 Udorthents(F)-Lyman-'Ricker'
Soil Class - H2
178 'Medisaprist'-Aquents
2 Adrian
258 Carbondale
41 Carlisle
253 Cathro
144 Palms
168 Rifle
Soil Class - H3
30 'Borosaprists'-Fluvaquents
79 'Greenwood'-Ossipee
243 Beseman
53 Chocorua
61 Dawson
506 Freetown
79 Greenwood(A)-'Ossipee'
103 Loxley
104 Lupton
188 Sebago
510 Swansea
248 Tunbidge(C)-'Borosap'-Ricker
226 Waskish
Soil Class - 11
767 'Haplaquept'-Humaquept
767 Haplaquepts(A)-'Humaquepts'
98 Leicester
(continued)
-------
Appendix E
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 7
EPA Soil Survey - Listing of Series by Soil Class (Continued)
Soil Class -11 (Continued)
Series List
107 Lyme
136 Neversink
211 Tughill
Soil Class -19
Series List
515 Broadbrook
127 Montauk
145 Paxton
Soil Class -12
252 Brayton
259 Insula(C)-Rockout-'Massena'
150 Pillsbury
167 Ridgebury
Soil Class - 15
47 'Chatfield'-Hollis-Charlton
48 'Chatfield'-Hollis-Rockout
108 'Macomber'-Taconic
46 Charlton(C)-'Chatfield
704 Taconic(E)-'Macomber'-Rockout
Soil Class -16
250 'Hollis'-Rockout
704 'Taconic'-Macomber-Rockout
47 Chatfield(C)-'Hollis'-Charlton
48 Chatfield(C)-'Hollis'-Rockout
514 Hollis-Rockout
108 Macomber(C)-Taconic'
251 Rockout-Hollis
705 Udorthents(C)-Taconic'Rockout
705 Udorthents(E)-'Taconic'Rockout
705 Udorthents(F)-Taconic'Rockout
Soil Class -110
Series List
46 'Charlton'-Chatfield
38 Canton
45 Charlton
47 Chatfield(C)-Hollis-'Charlton'
76 Gloucester
505 Narragansett
Soil Class -111
516 Rainbow
185 Scituate
199 Sutton
236 Woodbridge
Soil Class -121
701 Dummerston
702 Fullam
703 Lanesboro
Soil Class -125
52 Chippewa
129 Morris
138 Norwich
165 Rexford
186 Scriba
257 Tuller
(continued)
-------
EPA Soil Survey - Listing of Series by Soil Class (Continued)
Appendix E
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 5 of 7
Soil Class -125 (Continued)
224 Volusia
246 'Manlius'-Nassau
142 'Oquaga'-Arnot
101 Lordstown
110 Manlius
141 Oquaga
Soil Class - 130
12 'Arnot'-Rockout
261 'Insula'-Rockout
260 'Insula'-Rockout-Burnham
259 'Insula'-Rockout-Massena
142 Oguaga(C)-'Arnot'
11 Arnot
246 Manlius(B)-'Arnot'
142 Oquaga(B)-'Arnot'
142 Oquaga(D)-'Arnot'
Soil Class - 133
97 'Lackawanna'-Swartswood
96 Lackawanna
97 Lackawanna(E)-'Swartswood'
114 Mardin
202 Swartswood
229 Wellsboro
239 Wurtsboro
Soil Class - 1-37
128 Moosilauke
511 Scarboro
187 Searsport
Soil Class - 138
Series List
28 Biddeford
262 Muskellunge
146 Peacham
163 Raynham
173 Roundabout
180 Scantic
201 Swanville
512 Whitman
Soil Class - 140
4 Agawam
31 Bracefille
507 Haven
120 Merrimac
170 Riverhead
240 Wyoming
Soil Class -141
62 Deerfield
503 Sudbury
Soil Class - 142
517 Belgrade
29 Boothbay
37 Buxton
183 Scio
508 Tisbury
Soil Class - 146
36 Burnham
260 Insula(E)-Rock-'Burnham'
123 Monarda
(continued)
-------
Appendix E
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 6 of 7
EPA Soil Survey - Listing of Series by Soil Class (Continued)
Soil Class - S01
Series List
131 Naskeag
135 Naumberg
134 Naumburg
151 Pipestone
Soil Class - S02
7 'AIIagash'-Adams
351 'Masardis'-Rockout
1 Adams
6 Allagash
7 Allagash(C)-'Adams'
54 Colton
57 Croghan
64 Duane
116 Masardis
190 Sheepscot
Soil Class - SOS
3 Aerie Haplaquod
244 Typic Haplaquod
Soil Class - S09
21 'Becket'-Lyman
21 'Becket'-Lyman-Tunbridge
161 'Potsdam'-Tunbridge
20 Becket
115 Marlow
160 Potsdam
Soil Class - S10
88 'Hermon'-Lyman
87 Hermon
227 Waumbek
Soil Class - S11
Series List
23 'Berkshire'-Lyman
22 Berkshire
59 Danforth
122 Monadnock
214 Tunbridge(C)-'Berkshire'
214 Tunbridge(E)-'Berkshire'-Lyman
Soil Class - S12
162 'Rawsonville'-Hogback
214 Tunbridge'-Berkshire
214 Tunbridge'-Berkshire-Lyman
248 Tunbridge'-Borosaprists-Ricke
215 Tunbridge-Lyman
21 Becket(E)-Lyman-Tunbridge
90 Hogback(C)-'Rawsonville'
161 Potsdam (C)-Tunbridge'
161 Potsdam (E)-Tunbridge'
213 Tunbridge
Soil Class - S13
90 'Hogback'-Rawsonville
254 'Lyman'-Ricker
106 'Lyman'-Rockout
176 'Saddleback'-Ricker-Rockout
21 Becket(C)-'Lyman'
21 Becket(E)-'Lyman'-Tunbridge
21 Becket(F)-'Lyman'
23 Berkshire (C)-'Lyman'
88 Hermon(C)-'Lyman'
(continued)
-------
EPA Soil Survey - Listing of Series by Soil Class (Continued)
Appendix E
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 7 of 7
Soil Class - S13 (continued)
88 Hermon(E)-'Lyman'
105 Lyman
162 RawsonvNle(C)-'Hogback'
162 Rawsonville(D)-'Hogback'
172 Rockout-'Lyman1
215 Tunbridge(C)-'Lyman'
215 Tunbridge(E)-'Lyman'
Series List
215 Tunbridge(E)-Berkshire-'Lyman'
215 Tunbridge(F)-Lyman'
263 Udorthents(C)-'Lyman'-Ricker
263 Udorthents(E)-'Lyman'-Ricker
263 Udorthents(F)-'Lyman'-Ricker
Soil Class - S14
56 Crary
148 Peru
192 Skerry
196 Sunapee
238 Worden
Soil Class - S15
15 Bangor
51 Chesuncook
356 Enchanted
356 Mahoosuc(E)-'Enchanted'
356 Mahoosuc(F)-'Enchanted'
Soil Class - S16
63 Dixmont
357 Howland
137 Nicholville
354 Surplus
204 Telos
Soil Class - S17
67 Elliottsville
353 Monson(E)-'Elliotsville'-Ricker
358 Thorndike(E)-'Winnecook'
253 Winnecook
Soil Class - S18
Series List
353 'Monson'-Elliotsville-Ricker
352 'Monson'-Ricker
126 'Monson'-Rockout
206 'Thorndike'-Rockout
358 'Thorndike'-Winnecook
125 Monson
205 Thorndike
-------
-------
Appendix F
Revision 4 \
Date: 5/86
Page 1 of 12
Appendix F
List of the Southern Blue Ridge Soils by
Sampling Class
-------
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 2 of 12
191
192
176
207
208
382
232
233
231
351
356
305
BRflDDOCK
BRflDDOa
BRRDDOCK
CLiriOK
CLIFTON
cunoH
HflYESUILLE
HflYESUILLE
HRYESUILLE
HHYSEUILLE
HBYSEUILLE
HHYSUILLE
BC
RC
RC
BC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
i ... i
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
Clayey
HI wwwwwm
lypic
lypic
lypic
Ivpic
lypic
lypic
lypic
Ivpic
IVPIC
Ivpic
lypic
lypic
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludult 5
Hapludults
Kapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludult
Hapludult
Hapludult
I01HL USER
R
R
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
61
M7
97.2
217.9
701.7
79.8
57.2
381.0
1189.5
1159.5
11
286.2
1133.7
I09.8
-------
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 3 of 12
i.ituum fcKUU
8 CflSHIERS
9 MSHIERS
10 CHSHIEKS
211 PORTERS
212 PORTERS
210 PORTERS, STONY
(1 PORTERS, STORY
62 PORTERS, S10HY
a PORTERS, STONY
68 SflUHOOK
89 SflUNOOK
70 SBUHOOK
266 SRUNOOK, STOKY
72 SflUHOOK, STOKY
73 SOW, STOKY
96 TRIHONT
99 TEItlONT
259 1USOUUCE
260 TUSOUITEE
Z6i ma
26S TUSOUITEE
116 TUSQUITEE
77 TUSOUITEE
118 TUSOUITEE
79 TUSQUITEE
81 TUSOUITEE
13 TUSOUITEE
262 TUSOUITEE, STONY
261 TUSQUITCE, SIOHY
379 TUSOUITEE, STOKY
263 TUSOUITEE, STONY
107 UHITESIDE
117 UHITESIOE
119 UHITESIDE
r
K
K
K
X.
K.
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
RC
K
AC
RC
DC
RC
K
DC
BC
RC
DC
RC
RC
DC
RC
RC
RC
DC
K
RC
1C
L ... HLH
Coarse-loany
Coarst-loany
Coarsc-laany
Coarse-Ioany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
fine-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarst-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
H*t«*
unbric
(fabric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Huuc
Hwic
Hi/lie
Hunic
Hunic
Nunic
Htric
Hwuc
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
(fabric
(fabric
(fabric
(fabric
(fabric
Typic
Ivpie
Tvpic
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Oystrochrcpts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Hapludults
Hapludults
Mapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Dystrochrepts
Oystrothrepts
Oystrocivepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Naplunbrepts
Naplunbrepts
Haplunbrepts
10TRLRSER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
1)
U
0
V
U
X
X
U
U
U
U
U
U
V
V
U
U
V
0
II
U
V
U
V
K
19.3
119.7
19.2
187.0
10.1
12.6
161.2
1307.7
1979.0
10.8
£9.2
135.8
C.8
51.0
219.3
95.1
211.1
10.6
(6.0
T99.2
1619.8
11.0
163.3
67.5
721.0
183.1
207.1
201.1
11.0
116.1
28.0
12.6
33.0
133.S
51.5
-------
M*
183
181
185
312
311
173
189
365
193
191
195
196
202
201
203
399
22
132
21
131
26
136
28
WIW 3 ... HCL "
HSHE
RSHE
flSHE
RSHE
RSHE
RSHE
RSHE, STONY
BREUflRD
BREURRO
BREUflRD
BREUflRD
BREURRO
CHANDLER
CKRHDLER
CHflNDLER
CHESTNUT,
CHESTNUT,
CHESTNUT,
CHESTNUT,
CHESTHUT,
CHESTHUT,
CHESTNUT,
CHESTNUT,
138tHESTKUl,
13
15
17
19
395
29
35
367
375
377
31
33
37
11
387
308
218
219
316
217
315
CHESTNUT.
CHESTNUT,
CHESTNUT,
CHESTNUT,
STONY
STONY
STONY
STOKY
STONY
STONY
STOKY
STOKY
STONY
STONY, UINOSUEP
STOHY, UIHOSUEP
S1(W, UINOSUEP
STONY, UIKOSUEP
CHESTHUT, UIHDSUEPT
COUEE
COUEE
COUEE
COUEE
COUEE
COJEE
COUEE
COUEE, STONY
COUEE, STONY
COUEE, STONY
COUEE, STONY
EDNEYUILLE
EDKEYU1LLE
EDNEYUILLE
EDNEYUILLE
EDHEYU1LLE
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
DC
DC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
K
H
RC
RC
DC
RC
RC
RC
DC
K
DC
DC
1C
K
RC
RC
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coirse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine'loany
Fine-loany
Finrloany
Fine-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Finc-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
lypic
Typic
Typic
Typic
Typic
Typic
Typic
Typic
typic
Typic
typic
Typic
Typie
Typic
Typic
typic
lypic
Typjc
typie
typic
typic
Typic
typie
Typic
typic
lypic
, typie
typie
typie
typie
typic
typic
typie
Typic
typie
lypic
typie
typie
typic
lypie
lypic
Typic
lypic
typie
lypie
Oystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Hapludults
Hapludults
hpludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
hpludults
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Bystrochrepts
Bystrochrepts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
fl
R
R
fl
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
31.0
205.6
177.7
276.9
119.2
1698.1
777.7
0.0
281.6
595.1
591.9
193.8
155.9
155.0
925.9
3207.0
9.3
108.5
173.2
719.9
236.8
978.8
M.I
1350.0
7.3
73.0
39.0
10.0
31.0
118.8
192.9
120.6
798.7
311.3
559.8
1199.1
9.3
159.7
HO.O
5.5
67.0
811.7
962.8
27.5
(36.7
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 4 of 12
(continued)
-------
(Continued)
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 5 of 12
131
133
135
137
11
16
18
20
30
36
151
U7
221
222
223
361
3S3
220
165
355
32
31
159
171
226
227
229
228
EDNCYUIltE. STONY
EDHEYHUE, SlOW
EDHEYUIILE, SIONY
EDKEYUIILE, SIONY
EDNEYUILU, S10HY,
EDHIYUILLT, SIONY,
EHCVOIUI. SIDHY,
EDNEYUIILE, SIONY.
EURRD
[UflRD
EURRD
EURRO
EURRO
EURRD
EURRO
EURRO
EURRO
EURRO
EURRD
EURRD
EURRD
EURRO
EURRO
EURRO, SIONY
mm
FRHKIN
FRNNIN
fflHHIN
RC
K
DC
DC
UIHDSU DC
UIHDSU RC
UIHOSURC
UIKDSU RC
DC
DC
DC
DC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
fiC
K
RC
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarx-loany
Cwsrlaany
Coarse-loany
CoBrse-loany
Coarx-loany
Curse-loany
fine-loany
Tint-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fint-loany
Fine-loany
Finrloany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fint-loany
Fine-loany
lypic
lypie
lypie
lypic
lypie
lypic
lypie
lypie
Typic
lypic
Typie
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
Jypie
lypic
lypic
lypie
lypic
lypie
lypic
Typic
lypie
Typic
Typic
Typlc
lypie
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Oystroehrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Hapludults
Hapludults
Napludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Napludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
139.5
917.1
2153.9
1813.9
7.3
13.8
31.2
32.0
110.0
173.1
1SU
11.7
132B.1
2376.9
1183.0
171.2
1.1
553.0
10.8
8.8
358.0
1019.9
11.1
181.7
282.1
752.1
783.5
1571.1
IOIRLR8ER- 37231.1
-------
tM ***********
108 RRCRullR,
363
317
319
310
19D
12
180
309
15
213
211
230
235
112
111
359
113
311
315
391
361
168
350
92
257
258
ARMOUR,
RRKRQUR,
RRCRQUR,
mm?,.
BILIttORE
CHRIUGE,
COLURRO.
COLURRO,
MHW jjRQUr1
FRED FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
RRRELY FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
CUUOUHEE, OCC FLOODED
DIL1JRD,
DILLRRD,
FRENCH
IOTLR
UDfflSI,
PHILO
RRRELY FLOODED
RRRELY FLOODED
FKEQ FLOODED
POPE, OCC FLOODED
REDDIES,
R091RN,
S1RILER,
SUCHES
SUCHES
SUCHES,
SUCHES,
SYLUR
10XRURY,
FRED FLOODED
FREfl FLOODED
tRRELY FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
OCC FLOODED
FREO FLOODED
1RRNSYLURNIR
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
RC
DC
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
Y1
AC
RC
RC
Y1
Y1
tt
Y1
Y1
1 ... ft.
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Sandy
Fine-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany owe
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Coarse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
mini
Fluvaq
Fluvaq
Fluvaq
Fluvaq
Fluvaq
lypic
lypic
Typic
lypic
Fluven
fiquu
'Rquic
Fluvaq
Rquic
Cunuli
Fluvaq
Fluven
Fluven
fluven
Hunic
fluven
Fluven
fluven
fluven
Typic
Cunuli
Cunuli
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Udifluuents
Ochraquults
Udifluvents
Udifluvents
Hunaquepts
Hapludults
Hapludults
Dystrochrepts
Udifluvents
Hunaquepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Haplunbrepts
Kaplunbrepts
Hapludults
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oyitrechrepts
Dystrochrepts
Hunaquepts
Hunaquepts
Kaplunbrepts
IOIRL RRtR -
R
R
R
R
R
fl
R
R
R
R
fl
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
II
R
R
V
A
fl
126.0
376.8
0.0
9.6
215.2
37.2
55.1
71.7
57.7
233.2
0.0
303.1
117.0
23.2
300.3
20.1
173.1
181.6
£5.9
89.7
0.0
17.1
390.0
26.1
12.2
81.3
36.0
3083.3
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 6 of 12
-------
VP PP« yKUU'
1
BURTOH, SIOHY
3 BURIOH, SIOHY
3 ... {*
(H Coarse-loany
HI Coarse-loany
5 BURTOH, STOW HI
211
301
2
1
6
110
115
120
331
326
56
97
116
109
327
329
389
330
300
32B
102
103
CRflGGEY
CROG6EY
CRflGGEY, STDHY
CRflGGEY. STOW
CRR66EY. STOW
U1HIC BOROfOLISTS
LITHIC BORDTOLISIS
LITHIC DYSTROCHREPTS
LITHIC DYSIROCHREPTS
LIIHIC HBPIORIHODS
OCOHflLUriEE
TflHflSEE. STOW
TYPIC DYSTROCHREPT
IYPIC HflPLORTHOD
TYPIC HflPLlflBREPTS
UHBRIC OYSTROCHREP1S
UHBRIC DYSTROCHREPIS
UHBRIC DYSTROCHREPIS
UHBRIC DYSTROCHREPIS
UHBRIC DYSIROCHREPTS. STO
UOYflH
UfiYflH. UIHOSUEPT
101 UflYRH, UIKOSUEPI
HI
ft
ftl
ffi
ftl
to
(0
ns
ns
ns
ns
RE
ns
ns
ns
ns
us
ns
ns
(IS
K
K
K
Coarse-loany
Loany
Loany
Loany
Loany
Loany
Loany-skeletal
Loany-skeletal
Loany-skeletal
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Loany-skeletal
Loany-skeletal
Loany-skeletal
Coarse-loany
Loany-skeletal
Loany-skeletal
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Typic
lypic
Typic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Lithic
Typic
Typic
lypic
Typic
Typic
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Unbric
Iyp«
Typic
lypic
Kaplunbrepts
Haplunbrepts
Kaplunbrepts
Haplunbrepts
Kaplunbrepts
Haplunbrepts
Haplwbrepts
Hapluibrepts
Borofolists
Borofolists
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Haplorthods
Haplunbrepts
Kaplunbrepts
Dystrochrepts
Haplorthod
Haplunbrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Dystrochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Haplunbrepts
Haplunbrepts
Haplunbrepts
10TRL f»[fl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
U
U
X
U
U
X
X
X
X
79.9
57.5
182.0
195.3
1051.3
68.9
26.6
13.7
1.1
5.8
B.9
201.2
23.8
158.9
30.9
9.0
2.8
19.3
80.1
6.0
1156.8
1016.1
76.5
215.7
277.2
212.8
5267.7
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 7 of 12
-------
m»m»««mn«i«» bKUur
352 BROOklSHIRE
289 BROOKSHIRE
291 BROOKSHIRE
293 BROOtSHIRE
332 BROOKSHIRE, BOULDERY
127 CKEORH
126 CHEOflH
128 CHEOflH
178 CHEOflH. U1HDSUEPT
239 JEFFREY
238 JEFFREY
316 JEFFREY
385 SANIEELRH
281 SRN1EETLRH
283 SANIEEILRH
285 SflNIEETLHH
291 SftHlEETLRH
108 ITBRIC DYSTROCHREPI
117 IHBRIC DYSIROCHREPIS
111 ITBRIC DYSIROCHREPIS, SHfl
362 UELCHLflND
Mininiiiiiiimmimiimi
HS Coarse-loany
HS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
HS Coarse-loany
MS Coarst-loany
nS Cosrse-loany
HS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Coarse-loany
nS Loany
nS Coarse-loany
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Oystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Typic Haplunbrepts
Typic Hsplunbrepts
lypic Kaplunbrepts
Typic Haplunbrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Typic Haplunbrepts
Typic Haplunbrepts
Typic Haplunbrepti
Typic Haplirbrepts
Typic Haplwbrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Unbric Dystrochrepts
Hume Hapludult
I01RL WEfl «
*«»«!* «
U
1)
V
U
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
V
U
U
U
X
X
X
fl
77
68.0
365.5
96.1
215.5
1929.5
30.0
301.9
362.1
92.9
1336.B
8.1
1189.8
209.2
65.9
296.0
595.5
111.9
228.3
1.5
8.8
161.0
17.2
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 8 of 12
-------
^ m &
25 2E 5
i § § sllllf JIIII!IIIIll£jf f-fllf 111
^fffflftfffffffffffffffffFFffFFiiiif jffiiir
Pl|l|||i|||||«lllllllllllllllll||illi|:||:|
*««'" " " w "-susses ------s-s-s-s-Ers-c-s-srcrcrfffS1?^?^?^
S«"« «««,<*£(? ,...,...,...
**^
co r
og^sr
rs^Ti
to
-------
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 10 of 12
_____-.----,-..---- ofcuur
320
318
318
107
112
319
DWID5E
HIT18LEH. OCC FLOODED
HfflBLEH, OCC FLOODED
LITZ
MUSE
SEQUOIfl ORIENT
K2
us
MS
H2
H2
H2
0 ... Ull
Clay-skeletal
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Loany-skeletal
Clayey
Clayey
Litluc
Fluvaq
Fluvaq
Ruptic
lypic
lypic
335
372
121
106
123
119
311
61
66
ITS
198
200
212
216
219
298
323
392
302
371
339
310
101
371
251
290
2S5
256
398
292
103
RL1ICRES!
RLTICREST
tlfMIEflDE
tlRfflERDE
nfiYtlEROE
HffrtlEROE
PITS. ROCK QURRRY
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP .
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OU1CSOP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
ROCK OUTCROP
IRLLHKT
IflURNT
JRLLRHT
IRLLRHT
1RIE
TRIE
TRIE
1RTE
TRTE
TRIE
1RTE
RO
M
m
m
tt
m
to
10
BO
BO
m
ffl
111
Ml
IK
HI
ffi
5 ATI
... OIL
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Coarse-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fint-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fine-loany
Fioe-loany
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
lypic
[utrochrepts
Eutrodirept
Eutrochrept
Dystrochrepts
Hapludult
Hapludults
IOIRI RRER >
Oystrochrepts
Bystrochrepts
Oysirochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Oysirochrepts
Oystrochrepts
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludult;
Kapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Kapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
Hapludults
X
0
1)
X
U
X
X
X
U
U
U
V
X
X
X
X
u
V
u
1)
u
u
u
308.2
2.1
168.1
17.1
36.8
316.9
879.8
3.3
101.8
11.2
111.3
250.0
220.1
57.0
99.0
205.0
819.2
11.7
15.2
15.1
19.1
16.1
119.9
267.6
125.0
393.1
9.9
120.8
152.1
15.8
2S.9
215.2
103.8
651.9
722.1
137.9
2S5.8
21B.D
TOTRL RREfl (001.1
Mmmiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiniinmnmi'r* """*"*"""""""**"*"
-------
65 CLEUELRHD
67 CLEUELRHD
313 CLEUELRND
171 CLEUELRHD
21 CLEUELRHD, SIOHY
27 CLEUELRNO. SIOHY
23 CLEUELRHD, SIOHY
25 CLEUELRHD, SIOHY
370 WrlSEY
333 W1SEY
369 MOSEY. SIOHY
331 RRHSEY. SIOHY
366 SRLUDR
376 SRLUOR
378 SRLUDR
361 SALUDR
161 SflLUOR
166 SflLUDR
218 SflLUOR
10 SflLUDR, SIOHY
12 SRLUDfl. SIOHY
11 SflLUDR, SIOHY
iiuiiumuiiiumiMiui
r iu ...
RC Loany
RC Loany
DC Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
tlSLoany
HSLoany
(15 Loany
(15 Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RCLowy
RC Loany
RCLoany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RC Loany
RCLowy
immninimin
SHL Miniinim
Lithic Oystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Oystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Oystrochrepts
Lithic Dysirochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Oystrochrepts
lypic Hapludults
lypic Hapludults
lypic Hapludults
Typic Hapludults
Typic Kapludults
Typic Hapludults
Typic Hapludults
Typic Hapludults
Typic Kapludults
lypic HapludulU
TOIRL HER »
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.0
572.2
120.5
1273.8
31.0
175.1
110.9
113.6
19.8
12.3
8.1
57.1
32.5
359.1
133.0
1.1
99.1
250. 0
11.2
102.3
57.5
51.2
1198.5
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 11 of 12
-------
Appendix F
Revision 4
Date: 5/86
Page 12 of 12
IMIIIII bKUUf
123 DELLUDOO, FKQ FLOODED
311 6REENLEE, WRY STOW
312 BREEHLEE. UERY STOW
102 MEEHLEE, UERY STOW
313 HEEHLEE. UERY SIOKY
<2S K1SILER
271 KIS1LER
280 SPIUEY
333 SPIUEY
7( SPIUEY
282 SPIUEY
78 SPIUEY
3(0 SPIUEY
281 SPIUEY
80 SPIUEY
317 SPIUEY
381 SPIUEY
82 SPIUEY
71 SPIUEY, [XTRD1ELY BOULDER
2SO SPIUEY, DEN STOttf
251 SYLEO
11 ... y.\l iMimium*
Y1 Sandy-skeletal Fluwn Haplunbrepts
K. Loany-ikelelal lypic Dystrochrepts
K Loany-skelelal Typic Dystrochrepts
BC Loany-skeletal Typic Dysirochrepts
K Loony-skeletal Typic Dystrochrtpls
nS Loony-skeletal Typic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skeltlal Typic Dystrochrtpts
nS Loony-skeletal lypic Haplunbrepts
nS Loony-skeletal Typic Haplirbrepts
AC Loany-skeletal Typic Haplirbrepts
IIS Loony-skeletal lypic Haplirbrepts
K Loany-skelelal Typic Haplirbrepts
K Loany-skelelal Typic Kaplirbrepts
nS Loany-skeletal Typic Haplirbrepts
K Loany-skelelal Typic Haplunbrepts
nS Loany-skelelal Typic Haplirbrepts
nS Loany-skeletal Typic Naplunbrepts
K Loany-skelelal Typic Haplirbrepts
Rtl Loany-ikelelal Typic Haplirbrepts
DC Loony-skeletal Typic Haplirbrepts
RS Loany-skeletal Typic Dystrochrepts
ft 231.2
y 10.0
U 20C.5
U ICtb.5
U 855.1
U 3.7
U 321.1
U (8.0
U (22.0
U 206.3
U 207.0
W 13(1.7
0 233.1
U 7B8.2
U 978.9
0 913.2
V 323.9
U 535.1
U 1981.0
U 25.8
X 370.9
lOTRlKER* 11253.9
115 CRTRSCfl
193 UIRSKfl
117 CBIHSKR
2(7 RRNGER
11( SYLCO
118SYLCO
253 TftlLRDIBfl
295 UHIC01
237.UHIC01
2% UHICDI
321 UNICOI
nS Loany-skeletal lypic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skelelal lypic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skeletal lypic Oystrochrepts
nS Loany-skeletal Ruptic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skelelal lypic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skeletal Typic Dystrochrepts
HS Loany-skeletal Ruptic Hapludults
nS Loany-skelelal Lithic Oystrochrepts
nS Loany-slelelal Lithic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skelelal Lithic Dystrochrepts
nS Loany-skelelal Lithic Dystrgchrepts
10TRL RRER
naitiaaBtat !*
X 27.9
X 15. (
X 225.7
X 982. (
X 21.7
X 52. (
X 211.1
X 52.2
X 205.8
X 150.1
X 713.6
2719.5
-------
Appendix B
Addendum to the Protocols
Section 1.0
Page 2 of 3, last paragraph, line 1: Change "project leader" to "technical director."
Page 3 of 3, last paragraph: Change to "The objective of this manual is to emphasize and
modify National Cooperative Soil Survey procedures as is necessary to characterize and sample
soils for the DDRP Soil Survey. This manual is written to an audience of soil scientists with
experience in soil description, soil sampling, and laboratory preparation, and knowledgeable of
NCSS procedures. Because this namual supplements NCSS handbooks and manuals, one may
want to refer to them for more complete description and definitions.
Soils which have been identified in the SBRP have been combined into groups, or sampling
classes, which are either known or expected to have sinilar chemical and physical characteristics.
Each of the sampling classes can then be sampled across a number of watersheds in which it
occurs. Note that in this approach, a given soil sample does not represent the specific watershed
from which it came. Instead it contributes to a set of samples which, collectively, represents a
specific sampling class on all DDRP watersheds within SBRP.
Section 2.0
Section 2.1.1, Third responsibility: "Ensure that site and pedon descriptions, log books, and
pedon labels are legible and accurate and that photographs are taken correctly. "Sixth
responsibility: "Maintain sample integrity (primarily by storage at 4 °C..."
Section 2.1.3, Page 3 of 8, line 2: "...document, and will perform an independent duplicate
profile description."
Section 2.2.1, Line 5: Change "Compass" to "Compass - (true north, adjust for declination)."
Section 2.2.3, Line 6: Change "Magnetic compass" to "compass - (true north, adjust for
declination)."
Section 2.2.4, Line 2: Change "ASA-400" to "ASA-200."
Section 2.2.7, Line 3 Change to "Gel pacs (24 per day or 6 per cooler)."
149
-------
Section 3.0
Page 4 of 6, second paragraph: Change to "Starting point - The starting point is the first
potential sampling point, located at the center of each sampling site."
Step 4: Second bullet, first line: Change to "Transect potential sampling points in 10 m intervals
along a 150 m straight line..."
fourth line: Omit "within 5 m of the line." Eliminate next sentence.
eigth line: After "transects" add "(a total of 76 potential sampling points)"
third bullet: Change: "Record on the SCS-232 Form in the LOG SECTION, the direction of each
transect and the number of the sampling point (do not record meters) on the last transect. Use
N for north, NE for northeast and so forth. An example could be: SW, N,E, SE-7.
forth bullet: Eliminate "QA Manager"
Page 5 of 6, Step 4, 3rd paragraph: Change to: "1 represents northeast, 2 is east, 3 is southeast."
The numbers represent the directions as described in the Slope Aspect Codes of the SCS-232 form.
Page 6 of 6: Add the following new section:
3.3 Locating a suitable pedon of a map unit inclusion.
Where insufficient map polygons are available to sample the soil class form major map unit
components, the pedons must be sampled form map unit inclusions. Some of the pedons
for the calcareous (OTC) sampling class will be collected from inclusions. To locate a
suitable pedon for sampling from an inclusion go to an area nearest the preselected sampling
site within the map polygon where a soil that fits the class is expected to be located. If a
suitable pedon cannot be located near the first sample site go to the next site.
Page 6 of 6, line 8: Change "3.3 Paired Pedons" to "3.4 Paired Pedons"
line 10: Change the sentence in parens to read "(Paired pedons are selected by sampling class
and watershed and are selected and assigned in advance by ERL-C)."
Section 5.0
Section 5.2, page 4 of 7, line 6: After "face." add "Note that the khaki measuring tape is made
to be placed at the left of the profile due to the way the intervals are marked."
last line: After "code" add "what the slide is."
Page 5 of 7, last line of 1st paragraph: Add "Slide numbers are also to be recorded in the Log
Section of the 232 Form (page 4 of 4)."
Section 5.3, Page 6 of 7, paragraph 1: Change references to agree with the reference list in
Section 12.0, page 1 of 1.
Section 6.0
Section 6.0, line 1: Change "to the collect" to "to collect"
line 3: Omit the word "Also"
6.1.1, line 4: Reference (1984b) is not consistent with reference list in Section 12.0.
-------
6.1.2, lines 4-6: Change to "Soil samples should be collected from jamor horizons to bedrock or to
a depth of 2 m from freshly dug pits that expose a clean vertical face about 1 m wide."
page 2 of 10, paragraph 2: After "three" add "fist-sized"
Section 6.3, page 3 of 10, first paragraph: Change to "Horizons should be sampled in a sequence
that minimizes sample contamination and is most practical. Samping may expose spatial variability
that was not accounted for in the initial profile description. Descriptions should be modified to
reflect this situation."
Section 6.3, paragraph 2, line 3: Change "shall" to "may"
Third paragraph, lines 3-4: Change sentence to "Place the soil fraction passing the 20 mm sieve
in the sampling bag."
Page 4 of 10: Afger 6.3.1, add the following section
6.3.2 Field Duplicates
Sample one horizon per day in duplicate. This will be the field duplicate. Diferent horizons
should be chosen from day to day, so that all horizons are duplicated during sampling.
To obtain a true horizon duplicate, alternate trowel - fulls or dust - pan loads into 2 piles or
into 1-gallon buckets. Sieve and place in separate sample bags; label one as a routine
sample and the other as a field duplicate. (See Section 6.6 for labeling instructions).
Section 6.4.1, page 5 of 10,1st paragraph: Delete 6th sentence "Record the number of times a clod
is dipped on the label." - add "It is recommended to dip clods once; if necessary to dip more than
once, note the number of times on the clod label."
Section 6.6, page 7 of 10: Delete digit 8 under node number.
Section 6.6, page 8 of 10: Below "6.6" Add "6.6.1 Filling Out Label" Add Section 6.6.2.
6.6.2 Examples of filling out labels
SINGLE HORIZON
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y Y
Crew ID: T N 0 1
Site ID: 2 A 0 7 9 0 7
Sample Code: R11TN0700306
Horizon: C Depth: 140-20 cm
Set ID: 02099
-------
FIELD DUPLICATE HORIZON
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y Y
Crew ID! T N 0 1
Site ID: 2 A 0 7 9 0 7
Sample Code: FDOTNO1700306
Horizon: C Depth: 140-20 cm j
Set ID: 02099 I
HORIZON CONTAINING TWO SAMPLE BAGS
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y Y
Crew ID: T N 0 1
Site ID: 2 A 0 7 9 0 7
Sample Code: R12TN01700302
Horizon: O e Depth: 000-005 cm
Set ID: 02099
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 0 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y Y
Crew ID: T N 0 1
Site ID: 2 A 0 7 9 0 7
Sample Code: R22TN01700302
Horizon: O e Depth: 000-005 cm
Set ID: 02099
-------
COMBINED HORIZON
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 1 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y Y
Crew ID: T N 0 1
Site ID: 2 A 0 7 9 0 7
R12TN01700402
Sample Code: R12TNO1700403
Horizon: O e Depth: 000-005
Oa 002-005
Set ID: 02001
NADSS Label A
Date Sampled: 1 1 A P R 8 6
D D M M M Y Y
Crew ID: T N 0 1
Site ID: 2 A 0 7 9 0 7
R22TN01700402
Sample Code: R22TNO1700403
Horizon: O e Depth: 000-002 cm
Oa 002-005
Set ID: 02001
-------
Appendix C
Interest Watersheds
Introduction
Three special interest watersheds in the southeastern United States were selected for
sampling as part of DDRP. Two of the watersheds, i.e., Coweeta #34 and #36, are located at the
USDA Forest Service Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory near Franklin, North Carolina; the third
watershed, White Oak Run, is located in Rockingham County, Virginia.
Because special interest watersheds are sampled to fulfill the data requirements for
calibration of the acidic deposition response models, the sampling sites in special interest
eatersheds are not selected randomly. Instead, the sampling crew is directed to a specific point
and is instructed to sample a soil that was chosen to represent the specific watershed or portion
of the watershed from which it is sampled.
This appendix documents changes that were necessary in the QA plan and the routine
protocols to account for the differences in the sampling of special interest watersheds. Also, the
documentation provided by the sampling crews is included.
Modifications to the Quality Assurance Pian
Section 1.0 Intended Use of Data
No changes are required.
Section 2.0 Criteria for Site Selection
Replace these criteria with the following:
The purpose of sampling soils in the special interest watersheds is to provide detailed
physical, chemical, and mineralogical information about the soils in each watershed sampled.
Unlike routine soil samples, the soil samples collected in the special interest watersheds should
characterize the chemically and hydrologicaliy important soils in the particular watershed. This is
different from the objective of the general soil survey which was intended to characterize soils on
a regional basis.
It is appropriate to use a model-based sampling approach as opposed to a probability
sampling design. The probability structure defines the relationship of the sample to the target
population. The probability structure carries the burden of inference. In the present case, the
model is the synthesis of the experience of the watershed modelers. Because this is highly
subjective, the persons most familiar with the soils within each special interest watershed are
asked to locate the sampling sites using their discretion. The sampling site selection guidelines
are described below:
154
-------
One of the five soil pedons will be taken from and represent the most important stream
headwater soil.
Two pedons will be taken in the near channel wetland: one near a low order part of the
stream, and one from a higher order position. Each pedon should represent the most
important soils that conduct soii water by saturated flow.
Two pedons will be taken from backslope positions on opposite sides of the stream.
Each pedon will represent the most important hillslope soil.
As mentioned above, the soil scientist sampling the special interest watersheds will be
responsible for locating the sampling sites. The soil scientist will document why each sampling
site was selected. This documentation must be sufficient to provide others with a reasonable
sense of the logic behind the sample site selection.
Section 3.0 Data Quality Objectives
The first paragraph under 3.1 Introduction does not apply. The remainder of Section 3.0
applies to special interest watersheds.
Section 4.0 Methods and Procedures
Modifications to the sampling protocols for southeastern special interest watersheds are
listed below:
Select sampling sites by location, not by soil type. This is an iterative process involving
ERL-C and SCS soil scientists. A general soils map indicating the five sampling regions
within each special interest watershed is supplied to the sampling crew leader by ERL-
C. The final location of th© sampling site is mads by the crew and should reflect
the concept of the sampling region. The crew must document the logic behind the
final sampling site selected. This documentation should be sent to ERL-C.
Split all soil horizons that are thicker than 20 cm for sampling.
Collect representative rock fragments greater than 76 mm from the pedon to enable ERL-
C scientists to identify bedrock geology. No more than than a kilogram of rock fragments
is necessary from any one horizon.
After the standard I- by 2- by 2-meter soil pit is excavated and the pedon is described
and sampled, attempt to sample the saprolite and, if possible, to bedrock, in at least two
of the five pedon sites by using a bucket auger with extension handles. In general, the
soils near the stream will tend to contain a considerable amount of rock fragments that
may impede or may prevent the use of the hand auger. Consequently, the soils near the
stream may be unsuitable for deep sampling. The crew leader will select the two sites
at which the sampling to bedrock will occur.
Collecting samples from the bottom of the soil pit with a bucket auger requires special
consideration. In general, a sample will require several bucketsful of soil material to be
collected. The soil scientist must use discretion in separating this material into discrete
samples. Samples should be homogeneous in color, texture, and general appearance.
This may be facilitated by placing sequential bucketfuls of soil material on a plastic sheet.
It is unnecessary to collect more than one gallon of sample material; however, when it is
not possible to collect one gallon, collect as much sample as possible. The depth should
be recorded on the field data form for all samples, and the samples should be
processed in the field, i.e., sieved, bagged, and labeled, in the same manner as routine
samples. Special sample number designations will be provided for these samples. The
preparation laboratory will receive instructions on how to handle deep samples because
the samples will be used only in mineralogical analyses.
-------
5.0 QA/QC Procedures
Section 4.1.4, "Quality Assurance/Quality Control Auditor" does not apply. The remainder of
Section 5.0 applies to special interest watersheds.
Site Selection for Coweeta Watersheds #34 and #36
Selection Criteria and Site Descriptions
(1) Site NC113012 in Watershed #34 and Site NC113017 in Watershed #36 were selected to
represent the warmer upland part of the landscape. These sites had warm vegetation, i.e.,
Chestnut Oak, Scarlet Oak, Hickory. Soils on these landscapes have ochric epipedon and
cambic B horizons. The Cr horizon is generally at a depth of 40 to 60 inches or 20 to 40 inches
from the soil surface. Most of the water movement in these soils is by unsaturated flow. All
the watersheds are on forest land and are not graded. Ground cover is good. Runoff is low.
(2) Site NC113013 in Watershed #34 and Site NC113018 in Watershed #36 were selected to
represent the lower part of the colluvial material in the lower part of the drainage area. These
sites had cool vegetation, i.e., Yellow Poplar, Black Birch, Eastern Hemlock, Northern Red Oak,
Sugar Maple. Soils on these landscapes have umbric epipedons and cambic B horizons. These
soils have a layer of skeletal material. These skeletal layers commonly occur at a depth of 20
to 40 inches or 40 to 60 inches from the soil surface. These skeletal layers commonly have
saturated flow at some time in the year. The water flowing in these layers does not always
cause these layers to be grey in color. These areas had a thick canopy and understory.
Runoff is slow even though these areas had some overland flow.
(3) Site NC113014 in Watershed #34 and Site NC113020 in Watershed #36 were selected to
represent the cooler upland part of the landscape. These sites have cool vegetation, i.e.
Northern Red Oak, Black Birch, Sugar Maple. Soils on these landscapes have umbric epipedons
and cambic B horizons. The Cr horizon is generally at a depth of 40 inches or greater. Most
of the water movement is by unsaturated flow. All the watersheds are forested. Groundcover
is very good, and runoff is slow.
(4) Site NC113016 in Watershed #34 and Site NC113019 in Watershed #36 were selected to
represent the upper part of the colluvial landscape in the upper part of the watershed. These
sites have cool vegetation, i.e., Black Birch, Yellow Birch, Northern Red Oak, Yellow Poplar,
Eastern Hemlock. Soils on these landscapes have umbric epipedons and cambic B horizons.
These soils have a layer of skeletal material commonly at 20 to 40 inches or at 40 to 60 inches
from the soil surface. These layers commonly have saturated flow some time during the year.
These layers do not always have grey colors. The water is apparently well oxygenated. All
these areas had a thick canopy and understory. Runoff is slow even though these areas have
some overland flow.
(5) Site NC 113015 in Watershed #34 and Site NC 113021 in Watershed #36 were selected to
represent the headwall of the watersheds. Because of the difference in elevation between
NC113015 and NC113021, the vegetation was different. Site NC113015 has Chestnut Oak,
Hickory, and some Yellow Poplar. Site NC113021 has Northern Red Oak, Maple, and Black Birch.
The main soil property for these sites is a Cr contact at 20 to 40 inches from the soil surface.
These areas are most likely to have shallow soils and rock outcroppings. The water movement
on these areas is through the soil with reappearance as streamflow downslope in the colluvial
material. The movement of water is largely by unsaturated flow except in thin layers of soil
material directly above rock contact flow surfaces. Runoff is slow except for the rock outcrop
areas.
General Notes on Watersheds #34 and #36
-------
The geology of watershed #34 is somewhat different than that of watershed #36. Watershed
#34 contains mica gneiss at sites NC113012, NC113013 and NC113016 and hornblende gneiss at site
NC113013. Watershed #36 contains interbedded mica gneiss and granite gneiss.
The geology of watershed #36 was more uniform than that of Watershed #34. Sites NC113017,
NC113018, NC113019, NC113020, and NC113021 have interbedded mica gneiss, hornblende gneiss,
and granite gneiss.
In general, soils in watershed #34 contained more mica than did soils in watershed #36.
Site Selection for White Oak Run Watershed
(1) Sites VA165001 and VA165004 were selected to represent f loodplain and small terrace positions,
respectively, along White Oak Run. These sites varied in elevation and vegetative cover. These
soils have skeletal layers to a depth of 60 inches and may have saturated flow sometime
during the year. Saturated flow is not reflected in the profile by the presence of tow chroma
mottling, i.e., less than 2. These soils have ochric epipedons and cambic B horizons.
(2) Site VA165003 was selected to represent the stream headwater soil. Most all of the headwater
soil is represented by this site. There is very little vegetation difference between this site and
VA165002 or VA165005 although they vary in elevation. Soils are 20 to 40 inches to bedrock
and are skeletal. This site represents unsaturated flow. Aspect influences vegetation for the
most part. This soil has an ochric epipedon and there was some question as to whether it has
an argillic.
(3) Sites VA165002 and VA165005 were selected to represent the backslope positions. Soil types
differed mainly because of varying geology, i.e., sandstone and phyllite, respectively. Site
VA165002 represents the primary headwater soil which occupies elevations of 2,200 feet and
above. Runoff from these soils is carried by Luck Hollow which empties into White Oak Run.
Below this 2,200 feet elevation, the soils are very similar to VA165003. It was indicated that
stream chemistry varies between White Oak Run and its tributary, Luck Hollow. Vegetation is
similar at each location. VA165002 contains large areas of rubbleland that support no
vegetation combined with an extremely stony area that supports mostly Chestnut Oak and pine.
Soils are skeletal and depth to bedrock is 20 to 40 inches. These soils have ochric epipedons
and cambic B horizons.
-------
Appendix D
Letter to Landowner
September 16, 1985
Dear Landowner:
One of the most important environmental concerns for our nation is the potential effect of acid rain
on lakes and streams. It is crucial to know how many lakes and streams are at risk of being
acidified by acid rain in the near future (called, "direct response systems"), and how many are
protected by the antacid actions of soil, rocks, and other parts of the watershed ("delayed response
systems"). To find out, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is looking at a large number of
lakes, streams, and watersheds in the eastern United States. The Soil Conservation Service is
cooperating in this project by describing and sampling selected soils on these watersheds. The
soil samples will be analyzed to see how much protection from acid rain the soils give to the lakes
and streams.
We are requesting your assistance in this project. Your property contains a soil type that is
important for us to describe and sample. This would mean digging a hole in the ground. This hole
might be up to 5 feet deep but most likely will be shallower than that. The sampling crew will
describe the soil and remove a small amount for chemical analysis. Then they will fill in the hole
after they are finished.
It is, of course, totally up to you whether you will permit us to sample the soil on your property.
We hope you will choose to assist us in this important project. If you wish, the results of the soil
description and analysis will be sent to you when they are available. Simply inform the sampling
crew of your desire for this information. The results of the soil analysis will most likely be available
next summer.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Technical Director
Direct/Delayed Response Project
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1990/748-159/00444
158
------- |