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

-------