NSSH Part 610

Updating Soil Surveys

Definition and Purpose (610.00)

Updating of soil survey information is the continuous activity of data collection, reviews, evaluations, and additions to existing soil survey information.
Updating soil survey information ensures that current and accurate seamless soil survey information is available to meet the needs of the majority of users.
MLRA soil survey update projects are planned and organized to focus on specific groups of soils and their associated support data and interpretations.
Update projects are generally coordinated across existing soil survey area boundaries and follow natural landforms.

Policy and Responsibilities (610.01)

Policy
1. Consider the MLRA as the overall project soil survey area.
2. Analysis and update is by MLRA, stored in NASIS, and delivered as subsets.
3. Correlation decisions are recorded in NASIS or, if not yet SSURGO-certified, with an amendment to the correlation document, as appropriate.
4. Updates are based on a broad physiographic area, brought to a consistent level with joined data and soil delineations that follow natural landforms, and generally coordinated across existing soil survey area boundaries.
5. Updating the mapping of an individual soil survey area without improving the join is unacceptable.
6. Natural physiographic areas within the MLRA (i.e., specific groups of soils or natural landforms) can be identified as update projects.
7. The existing project soil surveys of counties or other boundaries within the MLRA can be identified as subsets if identified as needing extensive revision; see 610.04(a)(2)(i).
8. The MLRA workload analysis - long-range plan brings each of the existing soil surveys in the MLRA to the standard defined by the MLRA Region-wide memorandum of understanding. Base the plan on information developed by the state soil scientists and other cooperators responsible for setting priorities for soil surveys (see 608.06). Exhibit 608-3 illustrates a sample workload analysis - long-range plan for a MLRA. Identify specific priorities within the MLRA that can be accomplished in about 2 to 5-years and develop subsequent annual plans of operation to guide and provide specific focus to staff as the 2 to 5 year projects are being implemented.
9. Official soil survey attribute data, and to the extent possible, all other official soil survey information (maps, interpretations, and metadata) are maintained in a central, sole-source repository (Soil Data Warehouse) and accessible electronically through various soil data marts. Official soil survey information (maps, data, interpretations, and metadata) is identified in the Field Office Technical Guide.
10. Proposed revisions, modifications, and supplemental mapping are documented and, when determined appropriate by an evaluation of the soil survey, used to revise the official soil survey information. Revisions, modifications, supplemental mapping, or remapping require evaluation actions listed in 610.03.
11. Bring soil surveys up to date within a major land resource area (MLRA). Ensure that surveys within the MLRA have common soil polygon lines and features and share basic soil properties and selected soil qualities (see Exhibit 609-2).
12. Coordinate and utilize common standards for updating soil survey information within the MLRA with those established and defined in the MLRA Region-wide memorandum of understanding. Specific details can be included in the workload analysis – long-range plan and the project plan of operations as needed.
13. Use a common map scale, map unit symbol, map unit name, map unit design, and mapping intensity within broad physiographic areas to provide soil information at a level commensurate with most user needs.
14. All revisions to soil surveys are part of a MLRA project.
Responsibilities

Primary responsibility for various aspects of updating soil surveys is with state offices, MLRA Regional Offices (MO), MLRA Soil Survey Offices (SSO), and on some federal lands, NCSS partner agencies. The General Manual, Title 430, Part 402, Subpart B, outlines responsibilities of these offices and other soil survey business areas. In addition to the following responsibilities, refer to part 608.01 for a partial overview of responsibilities.
1. MLRA Regional Offices (MO)
  1. Coordinates with the states to develop a plan that addresses the routine maintenance of existing NASIS datasets. The purpose of the plan is to minimize the risk of data being included that does not meet NCSS standards, that is inconsistent with data in adjoining areas of the same soils, and that is of unknown origin. The plan builds quality control and quality assurance into the editing process. The plan may include information such as:
    - a list of individuals who have permissions to edit the data;
    - actions to obtain needed training;
    - a list of data map units and data elements expected to be addressed;
    - guidance documents, algorithms, and other aids to be used; and
    - a schedule of when work will be done.
  2. Assures the quality of all new and revised soil survey data in the region.
  3. Conducts a quality assurance review of the revised spatial data.
  4. Manages the assignment of editing permissions in NASIS.
  5. Assures that individuals with editing privileges are properly trained.
  6. Approves changes to the legend that are proposed by the MLRA Soil Survey Office.
2. State Offices
  
  As program managers, state soil scientists:
  1. are responsible for conducting evaluations of non-MLRA soil survey areas within their state to identify deficiencies, problems, and needs;
  2. assign competent, trained individuals within the state to edit data in NASIS as necessary to carry out program responsibilities;
  3. inform the MO of work being performed by them on the database and request edit privileges as needed; and
  4. notify the appropriate area and field offices, and affected partner agencies of major revisions to the database.
3. MLRA Soil Survey Offices (SSO)
  1. Develop, manage, and update all map unit information.
  2. Propose changes to the legend, such as component names used in the map unit name.
  3. Correct errors, obsolete terms, and null data. Data searches of these errors constitute an evaluation and change over the extent of the mapping unit and additional evaluation actions are not needed. Entries or corrections to data entries are made at the time that the errors are discovered, including changes to taxonomic soil classification.
  4. Inform the MO of work being performed by them on the database.
  5. Analyze the official soil survey legends of the MLRA and reconcile the map unit names in order to prepare a legend for the MLRA or for some portion thereof.
  6. Compile a list of map unit names for the broad update area to facilitate the correlation of map units among individual soil survey areas within the area. Uniformly named map units and a consistent symbol legend enhance usability.
  7. Update all data map units when combining map units during correlation.
4. National Cartography and Geospatial Center (NCGC)
  1. Assist in the acquisition of best available digital elevation data, aerial photography, and orthophotography.
  2. Provide subsets of the Digital Soil Map of the U.S.
  3. Assist with the application of remote sensing and global positioning systems.
  4. Provide training in GIS, GPS, remote sensing, and digital soil survey development.
  5. Provide geospatial web map services and image map services.

Workflow for Updating Soil Survey by Major Land Resource Area (610.02)

Determine Requirements.

Major requirements are identified through the process of setting priorities described in part 608.06.
Develop a Work Load Analysis – Long-Range Plan for the MLRA Soil Survey Area.

The MLRA Soil Survey Office consults the workload analysis – long-range plan to address the priority issues that have been identified for the MLRA soil survey area. The most important priorities are identified and narrowed down to a manageable workload that can be accomplished within about a 2 to 5 year period (see 608.07). A project plan of operations is developed to guide the work on these activities.
Acquire and Integrate Existing Data.

To begin work, relevant existing data should be acquired and organized by the MLRA Soil Survey Office. Existing data may include:
1. Soil Surveys in the MLRA
  1. Previously completed soil surveys
  2. Soil surveys for conservation planning
  3. Soil survey quality control data, including field notes and documentation
  4. Soil survey photographs, block diagrams, and other figures
  5. Soil survey quality assurance documents
  6. Soil correlation memoranda and amendments
2. Reference Maps
  1. Original field sheets
  2. Major land resource area maps
  3. General soil map
  4. All available aerial photography and other remote sensing coverage
  5. U.S.G.S. topographic and slope maps
  6. Public lands survey
  7. Maps and text on geology, geomorphology, geography and water resources
  8. Maps and text on vegetation and land use
  9. Climatic maps and data
  10. Flood plain maps
  11. Maps and text on air resources
  12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland maps
3. Reports and Inventories
  1. Census reports
  2. Crop reporting service reports
  3. Multi-spectral data
  4. River basin reports
  5. State, regional, or county land use plans and regulations
  6. RC&D work plans
  7. Public lands management reports and inventories
  8. Bulletins and reports of State Agricultural Experiment Stations
  9. National Food Security Act Manual and similar manuals
  10. National resource inventory data
  11. Field office technical guides
  12. Soil laboratory data
4. Scientific and Research Reports and Data
  1. Theses and dissertations of college or university students
  2. ICOM reports - wet soils, cold Aridisols, Aridisols, Andisols
  3. Articles in scientific and technical journals
  4. Well logs from local or state agencies
  5. NRCS drainage, irrigation, and erosion control guides and maps
  6. Percolation test results from local agencies
  7. Highway soil test data
  8. Climate data
  9. Geomorphology studies
5. Forestry, Range, and Wildlife Inventories and Studies
  1. Forest inventories
  2. Range inventories
  3. Studies and reports on wildlife habitat recreational sites
6. Official Soil Series and Soil Interpretations
  1. Soil interpretations information in the databases for the taxa assumed to be in the survey area
  2. Official soil series descriptions
  3. Archived copies of previous official series descriptions and soil interpretation records
7. Databases
  1. Pedon database
  2. National Soil Information System
  3. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database
  4. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database
8. Digital Data
  1. Digital orthophotography
  2. Digital raster graphic
  3. Digital elevation model
  4. Common land units
  5. Common Resource Areas
  6. Digital hydrography, transportation, etc.
Data Analysis

Using tools such as Soil Data Viewer, ArcGIS, and NASIS query functionality, analysis of the data by the MLRA Soil Survey Office is performed for consistencies, inconsistencies, and anomalies to be addressed. Landscape predictive models, such as those that are part of the Soil Resource Inventory Toolbox, as well as statistical software to analyze and summarize data can also be used as appropriate.
Field Investigations And Data Collection

Field investigations may be needed to collect data identified in the previous step. The MLRA Soil Survey Office will check data out of the National Soil Geospatial Database (see 610.06). Sites are identified (preselected) during the data analysis phase and are statistically representative of the landscape and are large enough to sample. Use GPS to navigate to the site and collect data, including vegetative data, as documentation. Edit tabular and spatial data as appropriate.
Laboratory Analysis

An investigation plan is part of the project plan of operations for the MLRA soil survey area. The investigation plan is developed by the MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader in consultation with the MO, partner agencies, and NSSL who will assist the MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader through expert consultation and providing regional and national coordination of investigations.
Quality Control

The MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader is responsible for quality control of the soils information within the MLRA soil survey area. The MLRA Soil Survey Leader reviews data online as well as conducting site visits throughout the area (see 609.04).
Quality Assurance

The MO Leader is responsible for quality assurance of the soils information within the entire MO area of responsibility (see 609.05). The MLRA Regional Office works closely with partner agencies on federal lands in carrying out quality assurance activities.
Update Soil Data Warehouse and Soil Data Mart

After all field data is collected, analyzed, and populated into NASIS, the Soil Data Quality Specialist completes a quality assurance review of the process and a technical review of the spatial and attribute data. The State Soil Scientist is informed that the survey areas are complete and available for posting to the Soil Data Mart and to the Web Soil Survey. This process allows for a timely delivery of “updated” soil survey data.

Evaluating Deficiencies to be Corrected in Soil Survey Updates (610.03)

Each official non-MLRA initial soil survey area is evaluated within the context of the greater MLRA soil survey area for update needs. The goal is to bring all soil survey areas within the MLRA to a common, coordinated standard so that the MLRA can be viewed as one survey. The states that share the MLRA are all involved in the evaluation process.

The extent of the evaluations will depend on the current level of existing knowledge about each soil survey. For many soil survey areas, some knowledge is available from staff experience, records, or from those who participated in the previous soil survey. Users of a given soil survey may have kept records of deficiencies. Where existing information on deficiencies is available, an abbreviated evaluation process may be all that is needed. Where information is limited, a more structured evaluation is required. In either case, the result of evaluations summarizing deficiencies and recommendations for improvement is documented. Evaluation worksheets in Exhibits 610-1 and 610-2 are useful, particularly for soil surveys that have little or no information available to current staff.

The Evaluation Process

Prior to any soil survey updating activity, an evaluation of the overall condition of the original survey areas is required. Evaluation of all soil survey areas within an MLRA should be done within a relatively short period (1 year or less), utilizing a consistent format. Evaluations include two major components:
1. Determine current and projected user requirements and needs. The original soil survey memorandum of understanding records user needs and specifications for the survey at the time it was initiated and can be helpful in assessing the likely needs for update.
2. Evaluate the spatial and attribute.
Responsibilities and Coordination of Evaluations

The State Soil Scientist provides leadership and direction to the evaluation process within their respective state. The State Soil Scientist assures that the evaluation includes documentation related to the current quantity and quality of the soil survey data. This evaluation serves as an inventory and assessment of the data on file, and helps to direct the State Soil Scientist and the state soil survey partners in update projects.
Evaluation Process
1. Assemble, review, and summarize the existing documentation on file.
  1. map unit descriptions
  2. unpublished soil information
  3. records documenting soil survey joining problems
  4. interpretations
  5. correlation records
  6. field review reports
  7. special investigation and laboratory data
  8. pedon descriptions
  9. transect data
  10. tacit knowledge of those experienced in the area
  11. notes of needed changes recorded in the office copy of the published soil
2. Some examples of items to be considered when evaluating a soil survey include:
  1. soil delineations conform to landform positions
  2. appropriate level of detail
  3. adequacy of the imagery
  4. land use change
  5. map unit design/composition
  6. classification
  7. need for laboratory or other support data
  8. adequacy of the database to support interpretations
3. Interview users of the data including NCSS cooperators, state and local government agencies, NRCS field office staff, Resource Soil Scientists, and Soil Scientists who worked in the survey area or in adjacent survey areas.
4. Look for variability of soil delineations which may result from individuals’ mapping style, differences in detail within and among soil survey areas, and the consistent use of spot symbols.
5. Evaluate the validity and regional consistency of application of map unit concepts:
  1. Analyze the soil-landscape model: Do the same mapping units occur in the same or similar geology, landforms, and parent materials?
  2. Are lines placed accurately on the map? Do crisp boundaries exist where these placements may be evaluated, e.g., the upland and flood plain interface or at the edge of water features?
6. What are the join issues between adjacent soil survey areas?
7. What is the extent of change in land use within the survey area?
8. Have catastrophic natural events or human activities altered the land?
9. Review the kind and accuracy of the soil interpretations. Consider interpretive results and relation of data entries to criteria:
  1. interpretations that were not previously included, and are currently needed, and the development of local interpretations;
  2. improvements that can be made by new and improved data;
  3. changes in land use since the base photography was acquired;
  4. the need for additional soil property or soil quality information;
  5. knowledge of soil response to different uses and management.
10. Review and evaluate the accuracy and consistency of data that exists in NASIS.
Evaluation Documentation

A written summary of the evaluation must be a component of the process to allow development of conclusions and a comparison of situations among survey areas within an MLRA. Evaluation worksheets in Exhibits 610-1 and 610-2 can be used for this purpose as needed. Modify them to accommodate local conditions.

Developing a Plan for Updating Soil Survey Information (610.04)

Actions to update soil survey information are based on the results of the formal evaluation. All update of soil survey information is planned and conducted within the context of the entire MLRA. A common approach is to focus on specific groups of soils within the MLRA and coordinate them across existing soil survey area boundaries, following natural landforms. Update of soil survey information includes soil tabular databases, soil spatial data, and documentation, such as information from soil investigations.

Workload Analysis – Long-Range Plan of Operation
1. The MLRA workload analysis – long-range plan of operation addresses all categories of soil survey work needed to bring the deficiencies identified in the evaluation to the standard defined in the MLRA region-wide memorandum of understanding. Exhibit 608-3 illustrates a sample plan for a MLRA.
  1. Prioritize deficiencies by MLRA.
  2. Archive a record of the complete list of deficiencies in the workload analysis – long-range plan and use as a basis for formulating a project plan of operations detailing work to be accomplished over about a 2 to 5 year period.
2. The plan should include a strategy to update soil mapping. Include a discussion of the categories that best describe the work needed to bring the soil maps to a common standard throughout the MLRA. Revisions or supplements to the soil map fit into the categories described below. Use a planimetrically correct base to join adjacent surveys. Support all revisions with a documented evaluation of the entire MLRA. Plans to update soil mapping depend on the results of the formal evaluation.
  1. Extensive revision (a detailed form of “update”)
    
    Extensive revision requires considerable fieldwork involving remapping and updating soil descriptions. Extensive revision is seldom used and available only if the survey evaluation documents that remapping a significant portion of the survey is justified. Revising the soil map for a significant portion of an existing soil survey is rarely needed. When such a revision is deemed necessary, use the same procedures as listed for an initial soil survey. A project soil survey memorandum of understanding is not required, but can be prepared if it is deemed valuable. It must be compatible with the MLRA Region-wide MOU. Approval to extensively revise must be obtained from the Director of the Soil Survey Division. Include the soil survey evaluation along with the request for approval.
  2. Update
    
    All other degrees of revision are included in “Update”. A workload analysis – long-range plan is developed to establish update priorities within the MLRA that accommodate all or most of the parties involved (e.g., different states, agencies, and partners). A project plan of operations describing the specific work and timeline is developed to address the highest priorities that can be accomplished by the MLRA Soil Survey Office staff within about a 2 to 5 year period. See part 608.06.
    - Modernize the soil map base
      Obtain a new base and compile soil delineations, symbols, and cultural features only when the soil map base is not sufficiently current to meet the needs of the survey. Digitize a new soil map and issue as needed. Purchase of a new base requires approval by the Director, Soil Survey Division. Send requests to the Director, National Soil Survey Center, for coordination. This action is normal maintenance of the soil survey. The status of soil survey continues as published in the Soil Survey Schedule. A project soil survey memorandum of understanding is not required.
    - Supplemental soil mapping
      Supplemental mapping is another soil data layer that is made for a specific purpose. It provides more detailed soil information than is contained in the official soil survey for an area of limited extent, such as a university experiment station farm. Document the objective, purpose, scale, and expected use of the information. Map the area and record supporting data, such as the soil legend, map unit descriptions, soil properties and qualities, and interpretations. Supplemental information is issued as needed on a local basis. These actions, however, do not constitute a change to official soil survey information. The status of soil survey continues as published in the Soil Survey Schedule. A memorandum of understanding is not required.
3. Specify which method will be used to manage the MLRA soil survey legend (see part 610.07).
Project Plan of Operations (2 to 5 year plan)
1. Identify specific priorities within the MLRA that can be accomplished within about a 2 to 5 year period. Part 608 contains additional information. Exhibit 608-4 provides an example.
2. Each state and their partners (at state work planning conferences) will prioritize update projects needed within the next 2 to 5 year timeframe.
3. The MO will collect these priorities from each state.
4. An MLRA-SSO technical advisory group will review the priorities from the states and work to develop a consensus recommendation for a 2 to 5 year project plan of operations. The group consists of:
  1. the MO Leader and the State Soil Scientist from each state affiliated with that particular MLRA-SSO; and
  2. soil survey program managers from partner agencies.
5. Present the plan to the MO Board of Directors (BOD) for concurrence of decisions as necessary.
Annual Plan of Operations
1. Annual plans of operation should also be developed to guide and provide specific focus to staff as the 2 to 5 year projects are being implemented. Part 608 contains additional information.
2. Annual plan of operations will be put in place by MOs and MLRA SSOs subsequent to the development of the two to five year plan. The list of needs and priorities may change with time (Farm Bill priorities, deficiencies identified as other projects are being performed, cost share opportunities, etc.) and flexibility should be maintained to make adjustments within this process.

NASIS Legend Management for Updates (610.05)

Purpose

Managing legends in NASIS contributes to the overall goal of providing a seamless, high quality soil survey geographic database (SSURGO) for the nation. The MLRA is the geographic area chosen to manage, update, and upgrade soil survey information. Subsets of soil survey information – a traditional non-MLRA Soil Survey Area, a Common Resource Area, a National Forest, or a watershed – can be clipped out using a GIS, and the associated attribute data could be selected using the legend area overlap NASIS query. The MLRA soil survey areas are designed to facilitate the update of soil survey information, either by map unit, groups of map units, series and groups of series, landform, and geographic area or other areas not coincident with the traditional soil survey areas. The soil survey legend is a tool for the MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader to evaluate, manage, correlate, update, and upgrade the soil survey information within the geographic area of responsibility.

The “Non-MLRA Soil Survey Area” legends are designated as the Official Legend for the traditionally defined soil survey areas. These legends are posted to the Soil Data Mart by the State Soil Scientist. It is not necessary to create additional copies of the “Non-MLRA Soil Survey Area” legend for a survey area that is under update. The map units and their documentation, correlation history, and progress are to be maintained in the one “official” legend. The Soil Data Warehouse is the archive database for older versions of the legends and associated tabular and spatial data.
Methods for Managing MLRA Legends

There are two methods to create, manage, and update MLRA legends in NASIS. Specify which method will be used in the workload analysis – long-range plan.
1. The preferred method is to manage all map units for the MLRA within the official legend designated with the Area Type Name of “Non-MLRA Soil Survey Area”. Queries and reports are available in NASIS to efficiently manage legends using this method. Less time and resources are needed to manage the MLRA updates because this system is already in place and no further legend development is necessary. The map units within the MLRA are managed using the Legend Area Overlap and Map Unit Area Overlap tables. The Legend Area Overlap table lists the MLRA(s) that are within the “Non-MLRA Soil Survey Area.” The Map Unit Area Overlap table is populated with the map units occurring within the given MLRA. If new MLRAs are established or boundaries of MLRAs have changed, the map units contained within the overlap tables should be reviewed and updated.
2. An alternative method is to develop an MLRA legend with the Area Type Name of “MLRA Soil Survey Area”. This legend can serve as a tool for the MLRA soil survey leader to track and store the map units within the entire MLRA. Using this legend, the Legend Area Overlap table contains a list of all “County or Parish” and “Non-MLRA Soil Survey Areas” within the MLRA. The Map Unit Area Overlap table is used to populate the associated MLRA map units for the given county or parish. Each unique MLRA map unit name must contain the correlation records for each of the associated official survey map units. This step is required to assure proper correlation of map units in order to create a conversion legend. A separate MLRA legend allows update work to progress without affecting certified “Non-MLRA Soil Survey Area” legends.

Managing Soil Spatial and Tabular Databases (610.06)

Soil survey attribute data, and to the extent possible, all other soil survey information (maps, interpretations, and metadata) are maintained in a central, sole-source repository (Soil Data Warehouse). These data are accessible to customers electronically through the Web Soil Survey and the Soil Data Mart, which are dynamic soil survey information delivery systems. SSURGO spatial, tabular, and metadata can also be obtained from the Geospatial Data Gateway. New and updated soil survey information, when placed into the Soil Data Warehouse, provides customers with the latest soil survey information. Procedures to enhance the information in the Soil Data Warehouse are part of the normal update of soil survey information.

Incorrect entries, obsolete terms, and null data are common deficiencies in the Soil Data Warehouse. Data searches of these errors satisfy the need for an evaluation and change over the extent of the mapping unit and additional evaluation actions are not needed. Entries or corrections to data entries can be made anytime that the errors are discovered, including changes to taxonomic soil classification. Changes that affect the legend, such as component names used in the map unit name, are proposed by the MLRA-SSO and approved by the MO. Correlation decisions should be recorded in NASIS or, if not yet SSURGO-certified, with an amendment to the correlation document as appropriate. The MO assures the quality of all new and revised soil survey data in the region.

Permissions to Edit Data

Entering new data and revising existing data may be done by MO staff, State Office staff, Soil Survey Office staff, or other appropriate individuals, as agreed-to by the State Soil Scientist and MLRA Regional Office Leader. NCSS partner agencies may be the steward for soil survey data on federal lands. The State Soil Scientist may assign competent, trained individuals within the state to edit data in NASIS as necessary to carry out program responsibilities. The MO is responsible for assigning editing permissions in NASIS and assuring that individuals with editing privileges are properly trained. Allowing data to be edited at multiple levels in the organization facilitates improvements to the soil data and timely distribution to the public through the Soil Data Mart and Web Soil Survey.
Scheduled Updates to the Data

At least annually, and as frequently as needed to meet NRCS or cooperator needs, schedule updates to the information in NASIS and export to the Soil Data Warehouse for all soil survey areas. Soil databases are maintained by the individual non-MLRA soil survey area currently defined within NASIS.
Managing Spatial Data

Use various GIS and database software to coordinate across multiple non-MLRA soil survey areas within the MLRA. Use a planimetrically correct base to join adjacent surveys. Support all revisions with a documented evaluation of the entire MLRA.
1. Assemble a spatial dataset for the MLRA soil survey area using an acceptable coordinate system, quality standards, portable format, and scale for all geographic areas for which the MLRA Soil Survey Office is responsible.
2. Any part of the MLRA soil survey area-wide dataset (as defined by an area-of-interest) can be extracted/exported for evaluation, editing, and/or updating.
3. When work is completed, the revised spatial dataset from the area-of-interest is checked-in/merged with the MLRA soil survey area-wide dataset for evaluation by the MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader.
4. If the MLRA Soil Survey Office Leader accepts the edits/updates, the revised dataset is incorporated into the MLRA soil survey area-wide dataset.
5. The MLRA Regional Office performs a quality assurance review of the revised spatial data.
6. The State Soil Scientist determines if the revisions warrant placement into the Soil Data Warehouse.
7. Based on the date and person making edits to the soils layer, the revised polygons are extracted and placed into the Soil Data Warehouse. Currently, this step requires clipping and submitting the non-MLRA soil survey area to the Soil Data Warehouse.
8. A pending modification to the current procedure will accept incremental updates at the polygon level. It is expected that few surveys will need to be reposted in their entirety in this MLRA soil survey area environment. Historical record keeping is greatly reduced and processing more efficient.
9. Metadata will track changes to this much smaller geographic area, potentially at the polygon level in a revised Soil Data Warehouse environment.
10. The State Soil Scientist (or designee) notifies the appropriate area and field offices, and affected partner agencies of major revisions to the database, particularly if reclassification and update mapping affect USDA program implementation, such as changes to the hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and prime farmland lists.
11. Attribute data (NASIS) needs to be current and included to successfully post the modifications.
Managing Tabular Data in NASIS

Record database changes in NASIS update of soil survey information includes populating and revising soil attribute databases based on documentation, such as information from soil investigations, including benchmark soils. Investigations are discussed in part 631 and benchmark soils in part 630.

Certification of Soils Data (reserved) (610.07)

Sample Map Unit Evaluation Worksheet (Exhibit 610-1)

(Used for the evaluation of each map unit, the evaluation of the taxa used in the map unit name, and the evaluation of individual delineations of the map unit.)

MLRA ______________________________________________________________________________________

Soil Survey Area Identification: Name _________________________________________ Number __________

Map Unit Symbol ____________________________________________________________________________

Part A. Evaluation of the map unit in the database.

Map unit name as published ___________________________________________________________________

Probable map unit name if recorrelated __________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Do map unit names correspond with current NCSS and editorial standards? _____________________________

Acres of the map unit correlated in the survey area ___________, percent of the survey area ______________

Is the unit adequately described? ________. If not, what is inadequate? ________________________________

Does the map unit design meet current user needs within the MLRA? ___________________________________

Are limiting dissimilar soils named as minor map unit components? ________

Is the amount consistent with NSSH guidelines? ________

Major uses of the map unit at the time it was correlated ______________________________________________

now ________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________

Are soil properties consistent with the current land use? ______________________________________________

Are soil property entries to the NASIS database complete? ____________________________________________

Part B. Evaluation of the map unit components used to name the map unit.

Series, family, or higher category, name and classification or miscellaneous area name in the database

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Probable component name and/or classification if updated ____________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Do miscellaneous area names correspond with the approved list of miscellaneous areas? ___________________

Probable component name if updated _____________________________________________________________

Are component names written in title case (e.g., Jonus)? _____________________________________________

Are phase criteria properly entered in the phase? ___________________________________________________

Can the soil component be classified as presently described? ________ . If no, why not? ___________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Depth of typifying pedon ________ inches. Does the series (taxa), as described, overlap with other series

(taxa) ________? If yes, how so? ________________________________________________________________

Does the typical pedon used represent the map unit component? _______________________________________

Is there lab data for the series (taxa)? ________ If yes, is it adequate? _________________________________

Is the representative pedon within the RIC of the OSD? ________ If not, why not? ________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Is the series consistent with parent material? _______________ With geomorphic landform? ________________

With geographic setting? ________________ MLRA? _________________________________________________

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________

Part C: Evaluation of the map unit delineations.

Do soil boundary lines fit major landform breaks? ________

Do lines correctly separate map units in the soil landform? ________

Is there a need to delineate dissimilar soils? ________

Are dissimilar soils consistent with the map unit description? ________

Is the intensity of mapping suitable for the land use? ________

Does the series concept, as correlated, fit mapped areas? ________

How was the mapping evaluated? ________________________________________________________________

User comments ________ transects ________ field notes ________ descriptions ________

remapping ________ or road checking line placement ________

Is there an exact join with surrounding surveys? ________

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Is soil mapping consistently applied to landscapes across the major land resource area? ____________________

Does the use of features and symbols reflect current definitions and use standards on the Feature and Symbol

Legend for Soil Survey, NRCS-SOI-37A 5/2001? _____________________________________________________

Part D. Summary.

Will this map unit require extensive revision (remapping)? ________

If no, what are the main concern(s) in updating this map unit?

The information about map unit composition and/or soil patterns is inadequate.

The map units are improperly named at the series or higher category of soil taxonomy.

The map units have incorrect phase criteria.

The map units use unapproved names for miscellaneous areas.

The map unit names do not meet current editorial standards.

Other. Please specify. ____________________________________________________________________

Sample Soil Survey Evaluation Worksheet (Exhibit 610-2)

Soil Survey Evaluation Worksheet
For

____________________________ Area

I. General Information

Acreage: Private _______________ Public _______________

State ____________

USFS ____________

BLM _____________

Indian ___________

NPS _____________

DOD ____________

FWS ____________

BIA _____________

Other ___________

Date/Dates: Published __________ Correlated __________

Base map: Scale __________ Kind __________

Field work: Began __________ Completed __________

Land Use, in acres from NRI:

Cropland _____________

Pastureland ___________

Rangeland ____________

Forest land ____________

Urban land ____________

Wildlife land ___________

Other _________________

List the extent in acres of important land use changes since the existing soil survey was mapped:

__________ acres from __________ to __________

II. Quality of the Existing Soil Survey Information

Soil maps

On a separate attachment, list the symbols and the acreage of those map units that require extensive revision. Briefly explain how the determinations were made and what corrective actions are needed. The map units generally have one or more of the following problems.
1. The soil lines do not delineate landform segments, which can be identified on the ground and on the maps.
2. Delineations of the same map unit do not consistently identify the same landform segment.
3. Additional delineations of landform segments can be made within the map unit and are needed by users. For example, the existing map unit design may be inadequate for current needs.
Map unit names and descriptions

On a separate attachment, using the categories below, list the names and acreages of map units that do not need remapping but require update or re-correlation to meet the standards for naming and interpretation.
1. The information about map unit composition and/or soil patterns is inadequate.
2. The map units are improperly named at the series or higher category of soil taxonomy.
3. The map units have incorrect phase criteria.
4. The map units use unapproved names for miscellaneous areas
5. The map unit names do not meet editorial standards.
6. Other (explain).
Interpretations

On a separate attachment, list those map units that do not need remapping or recorrelation but require additional soil property information to provide updated or new interpretations. Briefly describe how the determinations were made and what corrective actions are needed.

III. Plans to Improve the Soil Survey

Describe the project area, MLRA, multi-county, or regional project __________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

How will the soil maps be digitized? ____________________________________________________________

What is the new base map?

Kind __________________________________________________________

Scale _________________________________________________________

What additional soil data do users need?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

What additional interpretations do users need?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Briefly describe the investigative and laboratory support needed to provide the new data and interpretations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Briefly describe how this survey will be improved by the update.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Briefly describe any publication plans in addition to the Web Soil Survey.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

IV. Staffing and Budgeting Needs

Estimate the staff years to complete:

Soil remapping ___________________ staff years

Update map unit names _________________ staff years

Interpretations _________________ staff years

Investigations __________________ staff years

Descriptions, transects, etc. _____________________ staff years

Publication development _____________________ staff years

Database population ________________ staff years

Others (soils) _________________ staff years

Total (soils) __________________ staff years

Estimate the kind and amount of support needed from other disciplines.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Estimate the kind and amount of additional support available for the update.

Federal __________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

State ____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Local ____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

< Back to Part 610 Contents

Technical References

National Soil Survey Handbook

NSSH Part 610

Updating Soil Surveys

Definition and Purpose (610.00)

Policy and Responsibilities (610.01)

Workflow for Updating Soil Survey by Major Land Resource Area (610.02)

Evaluating Deficiencies to be Corrected in Soil Survey Updates (610.03)

Developing a Plan for Updating Soil Survey Information (610.04)

NASIS Legend Management for Updates (610.05)

Managing Soil Spatial and Tabular Databases (610.06)

Certification of Soils Data (reserved) (610.07)

Sample Map Unit Evaluation Worksheet (Exhibit 610-1)

Sample Soil Survey Evaluation Worksheet (Exhibit 610-2)