MLRA REGION 10 NEWSLETTER--JULY 1, 1998 MAKE THOSE FIRE (TORNADO) COPIES - AND KEEP THEN IN A SAFE PLACE!! In the evening of March 29th after reports of a large tornado passing through St. Peter, Minnesota, (where my office is located), my thoughts were on friends and co-workers that lived in town. Thinking more later, my thoughts turned to the work on the Waseca subset update. The field maps and documentation stored on the first floor of the office. I felt secure because I had kept up-to-date in making "fire" copies - but they were stored at the county field office nearby. I soon found out that both buildings where my field sheets and fire copies were at, both sustained damage. The extent of which I was unsure of, which caused some concern on my part. As it turned out, four of my originals sustained water damage which was easily corrected, with no work lost. To my suprise, many blue line fire copies from older surveys (some which can be used for digitizing projects) were rendered unreadable from the water. Some fire copies made from white line reproduction or from a photo copy machine were fine. This experience brought two things to light for me. Make your fire or tornado copies on a stable reproduction, and two, keep them separated from your field sheets by some reasonable distance. I would have never thought that the two buildings where I kept my field sheets and fire copies would both be impacted by one event. If there is a chance it can happen, it will somewhere, sometime! Submitted by: Doug Miller NRCS St. Peter, Minnesota ######################################################################### NASIS USE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY The National Soil Information System (NASIS), developed by NRCS to manage soil survey information, is being used by agencies throughout USDA and Department of the Interior and by several universities. High-quality training provided by the NRCS National Soil Survey Center (NSSC) in Lincoln, Nebraska, is making the difference in acceptance and use of NASIS. NSSC reports that 504 soil scientists have been trained including soil scientists from NRCS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and several universities. From "NRCS This Week" May 1, 1998. ######################################################################### NASIS TALES OF WOE--AND A POSSIBLE SOLUTION One story of many from project office staffs concerning getting NASIS up and running.... * * * * * From MLRA 105 Soil Survey Project Office in Eau Claire, Wisconsin: [Tim's comments are a result of attempting to use currently available resources to establish a connection with the NASIS system at the MLRA Region 10 Office. Excerpted from an email from him to Ken Lubich.]: Ken, I have spent a good deal of time attempting to complete our connection to St. Paul with the xterminal software. Deb Legear upgraded our internet computer to Windows 95, we downloaded a copy of the Xonnet for W-95 but we have a bug that has to do with the "socket" that will not let us connect. Deb is too busy and unfamiliar with these problems to ferret out the problem, I have worked with Rich Dougherty in St. Paul to try and correct and we still have not gotten it worked out. If NASIS in the project office is going to be a reality, the right equipment as well as people with the hardware and software knowledge to get it working will have to be dedicated to the project. I will not spend any more time on these NASIS IRM issues. I am planning on traveling to St. Paul/Madison/Richland Center when necessary to work with Duane [Simonson] and Joe Jahnke on NASIS edits. -- Tim Meyer, SSPL, MLRA 105 UNIX: wi600g!wia2!tmeyer INTERNET: wia2!tmeyer@wi600g!wi.nrcs.usda.gov * * * * * Tim, I appreciate your frustration using NASIS. There are severe performance problems. These will be a key discussion topic during the June 8, 9 meeting with State Conservationists, Horace Smith, Maurice Mausbach, and State Soil Scientists. Joe McCloskey * * * * * I know of at least two other soil survey offices in MLRA Region 10 that are not able to use NASIS efficiently due to inadequate communications. John Handler * * * * * From "NRCS This Week" May 1, 1998. To improve telecommunications service required by NASIS, NRCS is working with the LAN/WAN/Voice infrastructure project. * * * * * These comments and scores of others from around the country resulted in the following presentation to the NRCS national Information Resources Management Review Board on June 9, 1998: DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE IRB NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE FROM: Maurice J. Mausbach Deputy Chief, Soil Survey and Resource Assessment Natural Resources Conservation Service THROUGH: Thomas W. Christensen Chief Information Officer Natural Resources Conservation Service TO: Information Resources Management Review Board (IRB) Natural Resources Conservation Service SUBJECT: Soil Survey Project Office Access to NASIS ISSUE: A critical need exists for soil survey project offices to connect to the National Soil Information System (NASIS) servers at Major Land Resource Area Soil Survey Offices. LAN/WAN/Voice (LWV) implementation is a vehicle to provide basic telecommunication infrastructure, but it is unclear exactly what soil survey project offices will receive under LWV and when. This decision memo outlines a target telecommunication configuration for soil survey project offices and establishes criteria for level of service. If LWV cannot provide adequate service to soil survey project offices within 6 months, interim solutions must be pursued. Another year delay in full implementation of NASIS is unacceptable. BACKGROUND: The primary focus of the National Cooperative Soil Survey has been mapping the soils of the United States and providing that information as static, printed soil survey reports. Due to the intensive business process analysis conducted for NASIS, the focus has now shifted to maintaining and providing a dynamic resource of soil information that can serve diverse, individualized needs with products tailored to those needs. The entire soil survey program has been reengineered to meet the challenges of the new program focus. This reengineering includes implementing NASIS, organizing soil survey updates and maintenance around Major Land Resource Areas rather than counties, and digitizing all soil surveys so that all data, spatial and attribute, are in electronic formats. Soil scientists and other technical specialists in field locations throughout the country are the essential focal points for collecting and managing soil data. NASIS provides the tools necessary to carry out these jobs. Performance of NASIS is a critical success factor to its implementation in soil survey project offices (SSPO). Dial-up access to NASIS via 28.8 Kbps modems provides a basic level of service but is only marginally effective for a single user at a time. For SSPO's with 3 or more soil scientists, or where SSPO's are collocated with a service center, dedicated connections provide the necessary performance at cost savings over dial-up access. This solution is consistent with LWV and CCE. The Soil Survey Division has made a business decision to move 1 and 2 person offices over time to larger offices. For the short term, these smaller offices will still need access, but will utilize dial-up modems. Current experience with LWV installations shows average recurring costs of $200 to $250 per month compared to $150 to $200 per month for dedicated connections. The cost of the administrative overhead is greater for dial-up connections than for dedicated connections. We are just beginning to utilize the LWV Internet connectivity. Over time we anticipate either the cost of dial-up connections to increase as we more fully use the system, or the capacity of the dial-up connections to be exceeded and not meet business needs. The bottom line is that dedicated connections provide a better solution for USDA. TARGET CONFIGURATION: Three levels of service are depicted below based on the number of people in a SSPO and the relationship with a USDA Service Center. The scenarios are: 1. SSPO Collocated with a USDA Service Center, or SSPO with 3 or more Soil Scientists: the office qualifies for a dedicated connection to the USDA Internet Backbone. LWV pays for Local Area Network, router, dedicated connection and service initiation. Agency incurs monthly recurring costs. 2. SSPO "Nearby" a USDA Service Center: the Service Center qualifies for a dedicated connection to the USDA Internet Backbone, and the SSPO is connected to the Service Center via a dedicated connection. LWV pays for Local Area Network, router, dedicated connection and service initiation. Agency incurs monthly recurring costs. 3. Standalone SSPO with 1 or 2 Soil Scientists: provide basic dial-up modem access to NASIS through a State Office PPP modem server or through the Kansas City Rotary. LWV pays for modem and software. Agency pays for state office PPP modem server if used and monthly recurring costs. OPTIONS: 1. Agree to the stated criteria for a specific level of telecommunication service for soil survey project offices. Task LWV installation teams to follow the criteria of the target configuration outlined above and order dedicated connections for those offices meeting the specified criteria. Based on the April 1997 and June 1998 hardware and software inventory of soil survey project offices, the following items summarize required equipment purchases for soil survey project offices to utilize the communication capability. *Minimum requirements (1 PC for every soils office): $436,322.95 *Realistic requirements (1 PC for every soil scientist): $996,322.95 Any hardware or software purchase will be subject to the IT moratorium and require a waiver. 2. Utilize alternative solutions for SSPO access to NASIS until the LWV solution is implemented. The solutions selected will be based on a least cost analysis for a particular office. Estimated costs for alternative solutions may actually exceed installation and monthly recurring costs for the LWV solution. One solution may not work for all offices. Depending on the option selected, additional hardware and software may be required at the SSPO and the state or MLRA Soil Survey Office. Any hardware or software purchase will be subject to the IT moratorium and require a waiver. 3. Do nothing to enable SSPO access to NASIS. This option would jeopardize the soil survey program by not enabling field soil scientists access to the tools to do their work. Attribute data required by the digitizing effort would be difficult or extremely costly to produce (e.g., detail field soil scientists into the MO's) and time schedules would slip as production falls off. Future congressional funding could be at risk. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 is recommended. ######################################################################### NRCS WORKS TO PROVIDE QUALITY JOINS OF SOIL SURVEYS As part of its work for accelerating digitizing soil surveys over the next 5 years, NRCS is working on providing quality "joins" of soil surveys. These "joins" will provide digital soil data that are accurate from one orthophoto quad to the next, irrespective of the location of town, county, or State boundaries. This extra upfront work will produce more accurate soil survey digitized data and maps which will be more useful to planners. From: NRCS "This Week", May 8, 1998 ######################################################################### SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR CRITERIA Submitted by Lynn DesLauriers SDQS (Manuscripts and Interpretations) In October of 1997 the staffs of Regional MLRA Offices 10 and 11 met in Madison, WI in an effort to coordinate policy and procedures for conducting and performing quality assurance on the project soil surveys in both regions. One of the items to be developed was a criteria for consistently categorizing taxonomic units and map units as similar or dissimilar. The staff of Region 11 had previously developed and were using criteria. This criteria has worked well, but has been modified to be more inclusive. It is requested that all field soil scientists use and test this criteria when it is received and make suggestions for improvement if needed. The criteria is included in this article and will also become a part of the guidance documents provided by both regional offices. SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR GUIDE FOR USE IN REGIONS 10 AND 11 (5/98) Use this guide to assign similar/dissimilar concepts to components and map units. Although the guide is comprehensive and will cover most situations, soil components may be encountered that are not addressed in the guide. If these circumstances arise, please contact your Regional Soil Data Quality Specialist. An effort will be made to incorporate new criteria in the guide as necessary to cover these circumstances. 1. This similar/dissimilar key is based mostly on soil properties and on some soil interpretations. Similar/dissimilar status is based on the differences encountered in properties and interpretations, either individually or combination. 2. We identified the following properties and interpretations to be used in a key: Drainage class (except somewhat excessive and excessive) Family particle size class Depth to limiting layer Surface texture Surface layer rock fragment class Surface stones and boulders Erosion class Slope Flooding frequency Surface calcium carbonate content Drainage class: Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very contrasting. For dissimilar components: better drained components are non-limiting; more poorly drained components are limiting. Very poorly drained components are dissimilar to poorly drained components and very contrasting to components in all other drainage classes. Family particle size class: sandy coarse-loamy and coarse silty fine-loamy and fine-silty fine very fine Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very contrasting. For components with a contrasting particle size class, only the class for the upper part of the control section will be used. Dissimilar components will be non-limiting. Components with organic control sections are very contrasting to components with mineral particle size control sections. Depth to limiting layer: lithic and paralithic contacts sand and/or gravel dense till fragipans Depth groups (in inches): 0 - 10 very shallow 10 - 20 shallow 20 - 40 moderately deep 40 - 60 deep > 60 very deep Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very contrasting. Components in adjacent (shallow, moderately deep, or deep) classes with representative values that differ by 10 inches or more are also dissimilar. Shallower components are limiting. Deeper components are non-limiting. Very shallow components are very contrasting to components in all other depth classes. Surface texture: coarse (s, ls, cos, lcos, fs, lfs, vfs, lvfs) moderately coarse (sl, cosl, fsl) medium (l, sil, si, vfsl) moderately fine (scl, cl, sicl) fine (sc, c, sic) organic (muck, peat, mucky peat) Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very contrasting. All dissimilar components are limiting. Surface layer rock fragment class (percent by volume): Less than 15% 15 - 35% 35 - 60% 60% + Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very contrasting. Components with more rock fragments are limiting and those with less rock fragments are non- limiting. Components in adjacent classes with representative values that differ by 10 percent or more are also dissimilar, and by 20 percent or more are also very contrasting. Surface stones and boulders: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very contrasting. The more stony components are limiting the less stony components are non-limiting. Erosion class: class 1 or 2 (slight or moderate) class 3 (severe) class 4 (very severe/gullied) Adjacent groups are dissimilar, and skip a group for very contrasting. More severe erosion is limiting. Less severe is non-limiting. Slope: Slope Class Table Slope range Similar Dissimilar Very Contrasting Absolute Difference 0 to 1 < 3 3 4 2 to 3 < 4 4 6 4 to 8 < 5 5 8 9 to 16 < 7 7 10 17 to 30 < 9 9 14 > 30 < 12 12 20 A component must have a slope which differs by the indicated amount from the high or low slope of the map unit to be dissimilar. Dissimilar components with greater slopes are limiting. Example 1 - A component with 20% slope within a map unit with a slope range of 6-12%. Since the component has slopes greater than the upper limit of the map unit slope range, compare the component with the upper limit of the map unit slope range. The upper limit of the map unit slopes is 12%, which fits within the 9- 16% slope group. To be dissimilar the component must have at least 7 % more slope (7% + 12% = 19%) than the map unit. The component on 20% slope, therefore, is dissimilar. To be very contrasting, the component must have at least 10% more slope (10% + 12% = 22%) than the map unit. The component on 20% slope, therefore, is not very contrasting. Since the component has greater slopes than the upper slope limit of the map unit, it is limiting. Example 2. Compare components on 3% and 7% slopes. Find the difference required for the lower slope component. The 3% component fits into the 2-3% group, which requires a difference of 4% to be dissimilar, therefore, the 7% component is dissimilar. However, the difference required for the 7% component, which fits into the 4-8% group is 5%. Therefore, the 3 % component is not dissimilar to the 7% component. Example 3. Compare slopes of 5-10% with slopes of 8- 16%, using the lower slopes for each component (5 & 8) and the upper slopes for each component (10 & 16). A slope of 5% requires a difference of 5%, therefore, 8% is not dissimilar. A slope of 10% requires a difference of 7%, therefore, 16% is not dissimilar. Therefore, components with 8-16% slopes are not dissimilar. Flooding frequency: Flooding groups: none rare common Adjacent classes are dissimilar. None and common are very contrasting. More frequent flooding is limiting. Surface calcium carbonate content: Well drained soils 5% or more CaC03 (high value) in the surface layer are dissimilar to well drained soils with no calcium carbonate in the surface layer. ######################################################################### DOES SOIL SURVEY HAVE A HAMMERHEAD IN ITS' FUTURE? Just wanted to fill you in on the "future" I saw while in Ft. Worth. [The Hammerhead is a portable computer constructed to military specifications for ruggedness; it is currently being tested by NRCS soil scientists in Montana for all aspects of soil survey field work.] I was able to see and feel the Hammmerhead prototype. The Hammerhead is approximately the size of a clipboard. They have fixed the problems associated with the screen; it is now viewable in full sunlight. Specs include: Pentium 133 w/32 meg RAM and 1.2 gig storage. It runs WIN95 software and is pen based. The shell is machined aircraft aluminum. They anticipate production models next year to include a P233 w/64 meg RAM and 4 gig storage. It will have the capability to run all WIN95 based software (database/word/GIS, etc.). So, the hardware is becoming available and hopefully, the software will be shortly behind. The sales consultant is basically travelling the circuit drumming up support for this type of computer. Well, the dream lives on. Submitted by: Paul Finnell Soil Data Quality Specialist MLRA Region 5 Salina, Kansas ######################################################################### SOILS EXPLORER PROJECT Submitted by Ken Lubich Last February and March, I attended two meetings on the Soils Explorer Project. Soils Explorer is targeted to the general public and is being developed as free browser that can be distributed with certified SSURGO data and Digital Orthophotography. Soils Explorer doesn't require any GIS software and is ready to use from the CD, but it does require a Windows 95 or Windows NT operating system. The Soils Explorer, Brown County Prototype was put together little by little as a one of a kind CD. Some modifications and enhancements are being made to Soil Explorer based on feed back form the Brown County Kansas Prototype. The main task now that the Information Technology Center (ITC) programmers at Fort Collins, Colorado are working on is to automate the process. This includes developing standard programs or shells that will be used to process the tabular data and spatial data for any SSURGO certified soil survey and reformat it so it works in the Soils Explorer. The production unit is already being set up in Fort Worth, Texas with plans to get one soil survey on CD for each state yet this fiscal year. Soil Explorer is not meant to replace the published soil survey nor to be the only electronic product available. It has some advantages over other electronic products and some disadvantages. In order to make Soils Explorer available quickly somethings that would take to much time to program or require additional data will be left for future releases. One thing that I am very glad we were able to work out was a way to interpret any multi component map units. There are only a few of the prototype CD's left, if you haven't seen it you can check and see if Adrian Smith, NSSC has any left or you can have some one make you a copy. I feel this product and other similar products, such as the Illinois Soil View CD will put our soil surveys in the hands of new customers and will greatly increase there use. One last comment. Soils Explorer really is most impressive when landscape photos, soil profiles and block diagrams are included on the CD and tied to the map units. Keep getting those photos and make them color. ######################################################################### ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER CHANGES 1. Bill Pauls' new "internet style" address: billp@mo.nrcs.usda.gov 2. Steve Elmer's "internet style" address: steven.elmer@il.nrcs.usda.gov 3. Steve Higgin's "internet style" address: steve.higgins@il.nrcs.usda.gov 4. Dave Preloger's "internet style" address: david.preloger@il.nrcs.usda.gov 5. Sarah Mase's "internet style" address: Mase_Sarah_E/r9_ottawa@fs.fed.us 6.New Phones and FAX Numbers in Wisconsin ######### Wisconsin Digitizing Center Staff List ############# ########### New Phone Numbers effective 4/28/98 ############### Main staff (more than 1/2 time) with all or part of their time dedicated to digitizing initiative. Email: first letter of first name and first 7 letters of last name. (Example klubich@wi.nrcs.usda.gov) Home page: www.nrcs.usda.gov/tech.html FTP Site: winri.wi.nrcs.usda.gov (Generally go to pub/digcenter) New Phone 608-276-8732 Fax: 608-276-5890 USDA Voice 9018-Ext (Example 9018-248) Name Title Ext. Special Emphases Area -------------- ---------- ---- ------------------------------ Ken Lubich * SSS 248 Management Howard Gundlach SS 247 Soil Business Carl Wacker * SS 246 Tables Kent Pena Carto. 274 Technology, R&D, Mgt., Etc. Mark Roloff Carto. 263 SSURGO Review, Training, SL Barb Zeps Carto Tec 271 SSURGO Review Gretta Luedeke Carto. 235 Metadata, Shift Leader (SL) Kate Kelly Carto Tech 231 Creating, Cleaning, Joins Terry Schoepp Carto Tech 205 Corrections, Joins, CD 92s Adolfo Diaz Coop. Stud.216 Corrections, Ploting Amy Sippl WLWCA 219 QC, Attributing, Special Feat. Craig Surman WLWCA 206 Co. Borders, Joins, Attributing Wendy Goulet * Sec. 241 Clerical, etc. WLWCA Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Employee * Other major duties, only part time on digitizing team. SL Shift Leader Mailing Address: Natural Resources Conservation Service 6515 Watts Road, Suite 200 Madison, Wisconisn 53719-2726 NEW NUMBERS AS OF 4/28/98 Phone: 608-276-8732-248 FAX: 608-276-5980 USDA Voice 9018-248 Submitted by: Ken Lubich State Soil Scientist klubich@wi.nrcs.usda.gov ######################################################################### FOREST AND FLORENCE SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPTS The final touches were put on these two Wisconsin county's manuscripts last winter by Joe Boelter and submitted to the MLRA Region 10 office last May for technical and English edits. ######################################################################### WEB SITES OF INTEREST http://www.swcs.org Soil and Water Conservation Society of America home page. http://www.maptech.com/topo/index.html USGS 1:24,000/25,000 and 1:100,000 topgraphic maps on CD. MLRA Region 10 states with current coverage are Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; Michigan is currently in production. Five to seven CDs provide coverage for a single state; costs are $49 to $99 per CD. http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/sqihome.shtml USDA NRCS Soil Quality Institute home page. http://www.ga.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra15 MLRA Region 15 (Coastal Plain and Caribbean Area) home page. ######################################################################### Last month, the following x3780 files were sent to offices having SSSD: x3780.423mes on June 1 ( 6 updated OSDs) * x3780.422frig on June 3 ( 1 updated OSD ) @ x3780.424frig on June 23 ( 3 updated OSDs) @ x3780.425mes on June 24 ( 6 updated OSDs) * x3780.426frig on June 29 ( 2 updated OSDs) @ @ Sent to offices using soils in the frigid soil temperature regime. * Sent to offices using soils in the mesic soil temperature regime. # Sent to all offices. ######################################################################### ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (through August 15--subject to change) Jul 06-10 MLRAs 90, 93, 94A: Menominee Cty Final Field Review Jahnke Jul 13-16 MLRA 90: Taylor County Final Field Review Jahnke Handler Jul 27-31 MLRAs 93, 94B: Alger County Initial Field Review Jahnke Aug 03-06 MLRAs 57, 88, 93: Koochiching Cty Progress Field Rev Giencke Handler Aug 03-07 MLRAs 90, 93, 94A: Progess Field Review (Spooner) Jahnke Aug 10-14 Dense Till Study (Spokane, WA) Giencke ######################################################################### CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME Please submit your items at least five days before the end of the month for inclusion in the following month's newsletter. Otherwise it will appear the following month. Items in an electronic format can be submitted to: jfh@mn.nrcs.usda.gov It is best if articles are prepared in a "text only" format. Items in a paper format can be sent or faxed to: John Handler MLRA Region 10 Office USDA - NRCS 375 Jackson Street - Suite 600 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1854 FAX: 1-612-602-7914 Thanks to those individuals who participated this month. This newsletter is intended to be a forum to distribute information of a general nature that will benefit soil scientists in soil survey project offices. It is hoped that it will foster communications and sharing of knowledge among those soil scientists in MLRA Region 10. The format of this newsletter is intentionally simple so that it can be received, printed, and read by the project office having the least sophisticated computer setup. #########################################################################