Module 1 Principles of Soil Correlation

1. Module 1 Principles of Soil Correlation

2. Objectives Define soil correlation and its purpose Understand the roles and responsibilities of individuals/offices in correlation Elements/steps in correlation Exercise handout 1.1

3. SoilCorrelation A process, not an event

4. Process Each module presented this week will address a step in the correlation process. This week you will also participate as a team member in a correlation process exercise.

5. Correlation • Define it!

6. Correlation Definition-Soil Survey • A process used to facilitate the consistent collection, identification, grouping and transfer of soil information • See NSSH 609.02

7. Correlation • What is its purpose?

8. Purpose for Correlation • Provide a means for CONSISTENCY • Provides a mean for effective TRANSFER OF INFORMATION to andbetween users • Serves as a TOOL to provideflexibilitybetween our Standards and the Variability we observe and document in the “real world”

9. CONSISTENCY What do we need consistency in?

10. Consistency in: • Mapping • Naming • Classification • Joining • Database population • Interpretations

11. How achieve consistency • Use standards and guides--what are they? • Communication

12. Standards • Soil Taxonomy (includes official series descriptions) • Soil Survey Manual • National Soil Survey Handbook • Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils • Technical Notes • Database Standards (NASIS) • Spatial standards (GIS)

13. Application of Standards • How are the standards applied?

14. Application of Standards • Designing and Controlling Mapping Legends • Identifying, Describing and Classifying Soils in the Field • Delineating Soil Boundaries on the Map • Determining Map Unit Composition • Population of NASIS database

15. Application of Standards (Cont.) • Preparing Map Unit Descriptions • Selecting and Classifying Representative Pedons • Naming the Map Units • Making Special Studies • Preparing and/or Testing Interpretations

16. Application of Standards (Cont.) • Preparing Soil Survey Manuscript (Final Product) and database • Preparing Correlation • Documentation • Comparing

17. Standards • Standards are not static and do change with time!!!! • Important to know what the Standards were when soil surveys were initially made as this will impact maintenance and update work. • The next 3 slides highlight some of the major Standard changes and dates; see exercise handout 1.1

18. “Milestone” Changes to Standards *7th Approximation-------------------------------1960 *Supplement to the 7th Approximation------1967 *Soil Taxonomy first edition------------------1975 *Keys to Soil Taxonomy--first edition--------1983 --second edition---1985 --third edition-------1987 --fourth edition-----1990 --fifth edition--------1992 --sixth edition-------1994 --seventh edition---1996 --eighth edition-----1998 *Soil Taxonomy second edition----------------1999 *Keys to Soil Taxonomy--ninth edition--------2003 --tenth edition--------2006 --eleventh edition-2010 NOTE; the documents listed above are available online at: www.soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/tax_keys/archive.html *Soil Survey Manual-----1951 *Soil Survey Manual------1993 *SOILS MEMORANDUM-66--1967 *Horizon nomenclature change--about 1981 Example--A2=E --B2=Bw --B21t=Bt1 --IICcasim=2Bkqm

19. “Milestone” Changes to Standards *Soil Surface--Prior to about 1991, the top of the soil was the top of the first mineral horizon, except for soils with saturated O horizons. The revised Soil Survey Manual in 1993 changed the soil surface to be the top of the O horizon whether saturated or not in which the O horizon was at least slightly decomposed. At this same time the top of the series control section moved to become the top of the O horizon; thus the presence or absence of an O horizon could become criteria for differentiating series. *Variants--the use of Variants was discontinued in 1988; see page 21 in SSM *Taxadjuncts--the definition changed at the same time the use of Variants was discontinued. Prior to 1988, a taxadjunct was defined as having the same ordifferent classification of the soil after which it was named and use and management are the same. After 1988, a taxadjunct was defined as having a different classification from the soil after which it was named and use and management are the same. *Series Control Section--in 1991 with the release of the Soil Taxonomy Handbook issue #15, the series control section was expanded from a bottom depth of 100 cm. to a bottom depth of 150 or200 cm. This change was published in the 5th edition of the Keys. *About 1996 and currently, several changes occurred--some are; recognition of densic materials, use of “para” for extremely weakly to moderately cemented fragments, change in definition of paralithic materials, new textural modifiers (ashy, medial, mucky, etc), redox features vs. mottles, saturation (epi vs. endo)

20. “Milestone” Changes to Standards *Stones and boulders (textural modifier vs. surface phase)--prior to NASIS (1994/1996), surface stones and boulders could not be accounted for in the soil properties and soil interpretations unless they were included as part of the surface texture. Prior to NASIS, surface textures may have been called “stony”, but the amount of stones may have been very minimal and the total amount of rock fragments in the surface horizon may not have exceeded 15 % to warrant a textural modifier term. With NASIS we now can identify surface fragments on the surface and identify fragments in the surface. Prior to NASIS, how surface stones and boulders were accounted for in our soil information system, how map units were named, and how surface textures were identified can be extremely variable between and even within an individual State or between survey areas. *Published Reports and Databases—prior to 3SD (State Soil Survey Database, about 1990), NASIS 1.0 (1994), and NASIS 3.0 (1996) the goal for soil survey was an official hard copypublished soil survey report and any tools (SCS-SOI-5’ and 6’s) used to help create the report were just tools. During this pre-3SD and pre-NASIS time, there was no foreseeable vision that these tools (SCS-SOI-5’s and 6’s) would become the tools used to create 3SD and ultimately the initial NASIS database for the soil surveys. The products (soil survey manuscript tables) generated from using these early tools were heavily edited by hand (in some parts of the country) to create the tables in the published reports. In most instances the tools (SOI-SOI-5’s and 6’s) were NOT revised to reflect the hand edits made to manuscript tables. Thus, the initial and current NASIS soil survey databases for many survey areas may not reflect of the best information as contained in the hard copy published soil survey reports. With NASIS the official soil survey information became thesoil survey area database, and the hard copy published soil survey became a “snap shot” of the database.

21. Consistency • How do we achieve consistency?

22. Activities used to Achieve Consistency • Field Visits and Reviews • Quality control-NSSH 609.04 • Quality assurance-NSSH 609.05 • Team Communication

23. Field Reviews and Field Visits • Are held to ensure quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA): • maintain standards that are consistent throughout the MLRA • identify and solve problems • produce high quality soil surveys • training

24. QUALITY • Quality Control (QC) • Quality Assurance (QA)

25. Quality Control • NSSH 609.00 • Responsibility-MLRA soil survey office • Process of evaluating, prioritizing, and coordinating soil survey activities to ensure that products meet NSSC standards and user needs • The MLRA-SSO is the most critical level within the correlation process

26. Quality Control Responsibility • NSSH 609.01(a) • MLRA SSO responsible for conducting quality control reviews (initial, progress, final) for initial and extensive update soil survey areas and for project area reviews

27. Quality Assurance • NSSH 609.00 • MO responsibility • Process of providing review and training to SUPPORT and assure soil survey quality for NCSS and users

28. Quality Assurance Responsibility • NSSH 609.01(b) • MO responsible for quality assurance reviews for initial and extensive update soil survey areas and for project areas

29. Correlation responsibility MLRA teams/offices Who are the members? What is/are the goals?

30. Members of MLRA Teams • MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader • MLRA Office Soil Scientists • State Soil Scientist • MO-SDQS • Support specialists (range, forest, crop,) • Users (conservationists)

31. Goals of MLRA Teams • Consistent data collection • Consistent decision making • Consistent application of decisions • Other? • What are decisions based on?

32. Correlation Decisions • Based on DOCUMENTATION • We will be discussing documentation in Module 7

33. What do we Correlate?

34. CORRELATE *delineations of map units *map units *components *series

35. Soil Correlation Process • What are the elements/steps in the correlation process, in order to achieve the purpose for correlation?

36. Elements/Steps of the Soil Correlation Process Apply standards for consistency Collect data and documentation using the standards and quality control measures Review and evaluate information/data Propose correlations Test correlations Finalize our decisions

37. Final Correlation-”event”NSSH 609.02 • All initial soil surveys will have a final correlation document. • Document is prepared by MLRA-SSO and MO. • Document is signed by State Conservationist and MO Leader. • Signature certifies the soil survey is complete, accurate and meets the standards of the NCSS.

38. Summary of Correlation • Definition-process used to facilitate the consistent collection, identification, grouping and transfer of information • Purpose- to achieve consistency in what we do, how we do it, and the decisions we make; it also serves as a tool to provide balance between Standards and Variability • Process-with several elements, with roles and responsibilities for individuals and offices involved in the elements • What-components, delineations of map units, map units and series

39. Exercise Handout 1.1 • Issue-review the information provided, and make a list of where changes in Standards have “created” maintenance/update work items for MLRA project plans. (EVALUATIONS captured in NASIS) • Informationprovided-list of “milestone” changes to Standards, identification legend, classification table, 4 taxonomic unit descriptions with associated map unit descriptions. • Work in table teams and list changes on the flip-chart; (15 minutes).

40. Exercise review-items identified • Classification- correlation 1972, published in 1980; supplement to 7th approximation • Variant-Boesel; obsolete • Taxadjunct-Hodgson; no longer a taxadjunct • Soil Surface-O horizon is “excluded” (2 inches to 0 vs. 0 to 2 inches) • Obsolete horizon nomenclature • Stony surface-textural modifier vs. surface phase • Mottles vs. redox features-Hodgson • Marsh-soil component not approved miscellaneous area • Textural modifier-Donavan Series, ashy? • Soil depth-40->60 inches is deep • Densic contact-Donavan Series, color/roots/structure?