U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREMLRA-NCSS
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICEREV. 03/2002
W. S O I L S U R V E Y T E C H N I C A L E D I T W O R K S H E E T
1. DOCUMENTATION MATERIALS
1.1 Have the following support materials been completed and submitted with the manuscript?
_____ a) Final prints of block diagrams and hand-drawn illustrations
_____ b) Black and white photos, color slides, and/or digital files
_____ c) Completed NRCS-SOI-8's
_____ d) Electronic copy of additional manuscript materials (i.e., inserts, guest author sections, etc.)
_____ e) Copy of the official or preliminary classification & correlation document
2. PREWRITTEN MATERIAL
_____ 2.1 Do cooperating agencies listed on the cover, on the credits page, and in the introduction agree
with the classification & correlation document?
_____ 2.2 Has the Table of Contents been correctly edited to those sections needed in the survey area?
_____ 2.3 Are all names in the "Soil Series" section in agreement with the classification & correlation
document?
_____ 2.4 Have all map unit symbols and names in the "Index To the Map Units" section been checked
against the classification & correlation document?
_____ 2.5 If column headings have been deleted from tables, have these paragraphs been crossed out
in the prewritten material?
_____ 2.6 Do the lists of map units in the prime farmland, hydric soils, and HEL sections of the
manuscript agree with the classification & correlation document?
3. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL NATURE OF THE SURVEY AREA
_____ 3.1 Do acreage figures given in the "Introduction" section agree with Table A and the latest NRI
data?
_____ 3.2 If land use acres are given in the "General Nature of the Survey Area" section, does this
information agree with acreage described in the "Use and Management” section?
4. GENERAL SOIL MAP AND GENERAL SOIL MAP UNITS
_____ 4.1 Does the acreage and percent composition provided in the GSMU description agree with the
general soil map?
_____ 4.2 Are 90 percent or more of the taxonomic units (series) distributed in one of the GSM units?
_____ 4.3 Do the percentages of the general soil map units add up to 100?
_____ 4.4 In the description of each general soil map unit, does the percent of the named soils plus the
percent of the minor soils add up to 100?
_____ 4.5 Does the map join GSMs of adjoining published surveys? (If not, a detailed account should
be attached to the classification & correlation document. If there are significant differences, a
join statement should be included in the GSMU description.)
_____ 4.6 On a separate general highway map, have roads, streams, and towns been highlighted for
use on the general soil map and index to field sheets?
_____ 4.7 Is the general soil map clearly legible and on a base that has enough cultural and drainage
features to allow accurate location of general soil map unit boundaries?
_____ 4.8 Have long narrow delineations less than 1/8 inch wide and circular delineations less 1/4 inch
wide been corrected on the GSM?
_____ 4.9 Are all delineations wide enough to reproduce at the publication scale?
_____ 4.10 Does each unit in the GSM legend appear on the map? Does each unit on the map appear in
the legend?
_____ 4.11 Are all of the soil boundaries closed, and are there different symbols in adjacent delineations?
_____ 4.12 Is there a symbol in each delineated area?
_____ 4.13 Are the units logical? (They should meet a need and be clearly distinguishable from each
other.)
_____ 4.14 If there are 12 or more GSM units, have the units been grouped and are the groups clearly
distinguishable and reasonable and have they been described?
_____ 4.15 Do the soil names in each map unit agree with the classification & correlation document?
Are they listed from most to least extensive for each unit? Is the format consistent for each
map unit name?
_____ 4.16 Does the legend on the general soil map show each group heading and the names of each of
the general soil map units? (The descriptive heading is no longer given in the legend of the
general soil map.)
_____ 4.17 Does the text of each general soil map unit agree with the detailed soil map unit descriptions,
the taxonomic unit descriptions, and the tables?
_____ 4.18 Is the slope range for each map unit within the correlated range of the map units?
_____ 4.19 Do statements about the "setting" agree with detailed map unit descriptions? Do "formed in"
statements agree with series descriptions?
_____ 4.20 Does the GSMU brief soil profile description agree with the map units and typifying pedon? _____ 4.21 Is the format soil profile description consistent from one GSMU description to another?
_____ 4.22 Are minor soils located on the landscape and their significance explained to the reader?
_____ 4.23 Have all minor soil names shown in block diagrams that illustrate a general soil map unit
been listed in the description for that unit?
_____ 4.24 Is dominant land use, suitability for relevant land uses, and major concerns of management
provided for each GSM unit?
_____ 4.25 Do statements about present use of the soils and suitability for other uses agree with detailed
map unit descriptions?
_____ 4.26 Do cultural and drainage feature names on the map agree with those given in the text of the
manuscript?
_____ 4.27 Are there more acres of any soil on the general soil map than acres mapped in the survey
area?
_____ 4.28 Is there consistent use of terminology in discussions of soil properties, limitations, or
suitabilities of the soils within the GSMUs and the detailed map unit descriptions?
_____ 4.29 Are the names of the general soil map units on the map the same as those given in general
soil map unit descriptions?
_____ 4.30 Does the first paragraph (known as the summary paragraph or descriptive heading) of each
general soil map unit description summarize and describe those features that are common to
the major soils of the unit and distinguish the unit from other units in the survey area?
_____ 4.31 Does the name of each general soil map unit consist of three or fewer soil series, higher taxa
of soil taxonomy, or miscellaneous areas? (Four names may be used if the total percentage
of the dominant three components does not exceed 50 percent.)
_____ 4.32 Have the names of all series, higher taxa of soil taxonomy, and miscellaneous areas that
have been identified in the general soil map section of the manuscript, been correlated in the
survey area?
5. DETAILED MAP UNIT DESCRIPTIONS
_____ 5.1 Are all map units listed in the correlation document described, including water, dam,
Udorthents, etc?
_____ 5.2 Do all map unit symbols and map unit names agree with those listed in the classification &
correlation document and in Table A?
_____ 5.3 Does all information in the "setting" section of the map unit description agree with statements
in other parts of the text (series, general soil map units, and other sections, such as crops and
pasture write-up) and tables?
_____ 5.4 For multi-taxa units is the percent of the components logical? Does the description state why
the soils are mapped together? (narrative format only)
_____ 5.5 Has the percent composition been given for each dissimilar components?
_____ 5.6 Does the sum of the percent of the components equal 100 and do the sum of the “RVs” in the
data mapunit equal 100?
_____ 5.7 Is the texture of the surface layer the same as that in the name of the map unit and that of the
surface layer for the map unit in table H? (An exception is when the texture in the name of
the map unit is for a mixed surface layer.)
_____ 5.8 Are the layers of the mini-profile description consecutive? (Check to be sure there are no
missing or overlapping layers.)
_____ 5.9 Do depth, color, texture, mottling and/or redox features of the mini-profile description agree
with the typifying pedon? (Optional, if the DMU horizons have been aggregated.)
_____ 5.10 If eroded phases are used, does the brief pedon description reflect this?
_____ 5.11 Does the slope range for each soil in each map unit fit within the range given for that soil in
the taxonomic unit description?
_____ 5.12 Are statements in the management section that describe drainage only statements of fact and
not drainage recommendations?
_____ 5.13 If the soil(s) floods or ponds, is this stated prominently in the first paragraph (narrative format)
or the soil properties and qualities section (semi-tabular format)? Statements must agree with
Table K1.
_____ 5.14 Are eroded units discussed differently from uneroded units?
_____ 5.15 Does permeability agree with the taxonomic unit description and Table J1? (Permeability
should be given for the material below the surface layer and above a depth of 60 inches that
affect major interpretations.)
_____ 5.16 Water tables that affect interpretations should be mentioned. Does depth agree with
Table K1?
_____ 5.17 Does organic matter content (class) agree with Table J1?
_____ 5.18 Does soil reaction agree with the RIC in the taxonomic unit description and Table J2? (Soil
reaction is not required in the soil properties paragraph and is not recommended.)
_____ 5.19 Are all statements about minor components correct?
_____ 5.20 Do all soils listed as components in the detailed map unit description have a taxonomic
unit description and are they listed in Table Q/Q1?
_____ 5.21 Are the dissimilar soils and miscellaneous areas located on the landscape and their
differences explained?
_____ 5.22 Are cumulative amounts of components given? Are the amounts of minor components within
NSSH guidelines?
_____ 5.23 Are differentiating statements such as drainage, depth, color, etc., of components correct?
_____ 5.24 Has rating terminology been used consistently throughout the map unit descriptions, is it
consistent with ratings given in the tables, and is it correct?
_____ 5.25 Are general terms such as surface, subsurface, subsoil, and underlying material used
consistently?
_____ 5.26 Are the interpretive groupings that have been assigned to each soil substantiated by
statements that have been made in the management section, and do they agree with those
statements?
_____ 5.27 Do the interpretative groups (LCC, etc.) shown in the map unit description agree with those
shown in the tables (Table B)?
6. TAXONOMIC UNIT DESCRIPTIONS
_____ 6.1 Does the depth class agree with depth ranges shown in Table K2 and with depth class guides
as defined in the "Soil Survey Manual"?
_____ 6.2 Does permeability agree with the map unit description and Table J1?
_____ 6.3 Is the numeric slope range given? The slope given must include all map units of the series.
_____ 6.4 Is the parent material correctly identified and in agreement with the block diagrams and the
"Formation of the Soils" section?
_____ 6.5 Are general texture terms used correctly (e.g., loamy parent material)?
_____ 6.6 Are the taxadjuncts identified in the classification & correlation document in agreement with
Table Q1?
_____ 6.7 Has the typifying pedon been described from a prominent town to the soil site using standard
geographic terms with latitude and longitude coordinates?
(Abbreviated terms; NC 52, SR 1125, N., ft., etc. should not be used.)
_____ 6.8 Does the pedon description support the classification and horizonation?
_____ 6.9 Do all of the soils identified as taxadjuncts in the correlation document have a statement that
describes the difference and gives the classification of the taxadjunct?
_____ 6.10 Does all taxadjunct information agree with that stated in the correlation document?
_____ 6.11 Have all typifying pedon sites been located by a special symbol on the map compilation
sheets? (Optional)
_____ 6.12 Is the location of the typical pedon accurate and complete? (For directions given in highway
mileage, the starting point should be easily found on the index to map sheets.)
_____ 6.13 Are typical pedons located within a map unit in which the soil is a major component?
_____ 6.14 Does the map unit name in the location paragraph of the typical pedon agree with the
correlated name in the classification and correlation document?
_____ 6.15 If the typical pedon is the "type location" for that series, does all information shown in the
typical pedon agree with that in the official series description?
_____ 6.16 Are the horizon designations correct and supported in the horizon description?
_____ 6.17 Does the texture of the surface layer of the typical pedon agree with the texture in the name
of the map unit from which the typical pedon description is taken? Does it agree with the
texture shown for the surface layer of that map unit in table H?
_____ 6.18 If the typical pedon location is within the survey area, do layer depths of the typifying pedon
agree with those shown on Table H___? Table J___? Table R___? Table S___? or
Table T____?
_____ 6.19 Have transitional horizons greater than 4 inches thick (typifying pedon) been added to the
data mapunits?
_____ 6.20 Have coarse fragment texture modifiers (gravelly, cobbly, etc.) been correctly and uniformly
used in the typifying pedon?
_____ 6.21 Do all Munsell notations and color names agree? (Make sure you are using the latest color
charts.)
_____ 6.22 Are any of the ranges of properties given in the range in characteristics section "vertical"
ranges? For example, if the reaction of the A horizon is neutral or slightly alkaline and the
reaction of the B horizon is moderately acid to neutral, it is not correct to say that the reaction
of the soil ranges from moderately acid to slightly alkaline.
_____ 6.23 Does the range in characteristics for each taxonomic unit cover all phases of that series that
have been mapped in the survey area? Information about inclusions belongs in the map unit
description not in the taxonomic unit.
_____ 6.24 Does the range in characteristics paragraph include the major soil properties?
_____ 6.25 Are all horizons identified in the typifying pedon assigned a range in the "Range in
Characteristics" paragraphs for individual layers?
_____ 6.26 Is the format of the range in characteristic paragraphs consistent from one typifying pedon to
another?
_____ 6.27 Are all soil properties and their ranges within the range of the Official Series Description or,
the needed changes been made or requested to the Official Series Descriptions, or
a correlation note has been made?
7. TABLES
_____ 7.1 Do table numbers and names agree with those in the prewritten material?
_____ 7.2 Do the column headings in each table agree with those shown in the write-ups in the
prewritten material?
_____ 7.3 Do the data given in the climate tables agree with the information in the climate section of the
manuscript?
_____ 7.4 Are there any inappropriate blanks in the tables?
_____ 7.5 Have interpretations and properties for miscellaneous areas or soil correlated as higher taxa
(Udorthents) been shown consistently?
_____ 7.6 Are all acreage figures correct on Table A (Acreage and Proportionate Extent of the Soils)?
_____ 7.7 Have areas of water greater than 40 acres in size (census water) and areas of water less
than 40 acres in size (noncensus water) been shown separately in Table A?
_____ 7.8 Have crop yields in Table B been edited to reflect local productivity with a high level of
management?
_____ 7.9 Have yields been given consistently for soils that have similar properties?
_____ 7.10 If yields are shown for cultivated crops, woodland, etc., in the tables, have management
statements been given in the map unit descriptions about these uses? (Optional)
_____ 7.11 Have tree species and site index values been edited in Table E to reflect conditions in the
survey area or extent of the data mapunit?
_____ 7.12 Is there consistency between the USDA textural modifiers given in the texture column and the
percent passing the number 10 sieve of each layer in Table H?
_____ 7.13 Are the textures shown in the USDA texture column possible with the sieve passing values
that have been given for the number 10, 40, and 200 sieves in Table H?
_____ 7.14 Has the percent clay column in Table J1 (Physical Properties of the Soils) been edited to the
clay range of the correlated textures?
_____ 7.15 Does the flooding frequency shown in Table K1 agree with that given in the detailed soil map
unit descriptions?
_____ 7.16 Do the depth to the high water table and the months that the water table is high as shown in
table K1 agree with the information given in the detailed soil map unit description?
_____ 7.17 Does the depth to bedrock given in Table K2 agree with that shown in the taxonomic unit and
detailed soil map unit descriptions?
_____ 7.18 Does the bedrock hardness shown in Table K2 agree with that indicated in the taxonomic unit
description?
_____ 7.19 Are all of the soil names shown in Tables R, S, and T names of soils that have been
correlated in the survey area?
_____ 7.20 If any of the soils shown in Tables R, S, and T are the typical pedons for that series, do the
horizon depths agree with those in the taxonomic unit description and with those in Tables H
and J?
_____ 7.21 Do the data in tables R, S, and T fit within the ranges of those properties in tables H and J?
(If not, this information needs to be explained in a footnote.)
_____ 7.22 Does the classification of each series in Table Q/Q1 agree with that in the classification &
correlation document and with that in the taxonomic unit description?
_____ 7.23 Are all series that are identified as taxadjuncts in table Q1 also shown as taxadjuncts in the
classification & correlation document and in the taxonomic unit descriptions?
_____ 7.24 Are all acreage figures correct on Table Z (Capability Classes and Subclasses)?
_____ 7.25 If additional tables have been used, is the information provided consistent with information in
the standard tables and with information provided in the text (i.e., DMUs, GMUs, TUDs, and
inserts)?
8. REFERENCES
_____ 8.1 Have the required Reference Worksheets been completed for nonstandard references?
_____ 8.2 Have all references been located in the text using standard reference numbers?
(Prewritten material reference numbers must be used.)