MLRA REGION 10 NEWSLETTER--SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 DOCUMENTATION GATHERING AND ANALYSIS METHODS The following is a brief trip report from the discussions that took place in regard to documentation in the Mille Lacs/ Kanabec County Minnesota subset updates. Tom Jackson, Peter Hartman and Kim Steffen are going to assist in gathering documentation in MLRA-91 to help the crew in the Milacs/Kanabec County subsets. The data gathered will be to used to develop data mapunts for the MLRA that will be used in Milacs/Kanabec survey subsets. We discussed the process and procedures on how we would gather this documentation. It will be a combination of step transects used for components and component percentages. We will also gather random point data to determine key soil properties for each component. Once we gather this documentation we will use the data analysis function of MS-Excell to determine statistical information such as mean, mode, median, standard deviation. With this sound statistical data analysed, we can then build a sound data mapunit for the MLRA, at least the initial concept at this point. This produre will be developed and written up as one method to build data mapunits that have some degree of statistical reliability. The procedures will be discussed at the next round of MLRA steering committee meetings after this field season. ALLAN G. GIENCKE Phone=612-602-7863 REGION 10 Correlator/LPSS email=mnnet!mnsol!agg USDA - NRCS Internet=agg@mn.nrcs.usda.gov 375 Jackson St. - 600 Fax=612-602-7914 St. Paul, MN 55101 VOICE COM 1-800-602-7863 BOX 7863 ######################################################################### MICHIGAN'S "ONCE OVER" SOIL SURVEY - BEGINNING OF THE END April 14, 1998 was a historic day for the "once over" soil survey of Michigan. That is the date when the last Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) needed to finish the "once over" soil survey of Michigan was signed by the chairman of the Keweenaw County Board of Commissioners. During the winter and early spring, MOU's were negotiated, presented and signed by the last five counties in Michigan without a modern soil survey. The last 5 counties to start are Schoolcraft, Ontonagon, Gogebic, Keweenaw, and Oscoda. (Sounds like a soil trivia question, doesn't it?) Of these five, the first four are in the Upper Peninsula, which means they are in the capable hands of the MO 10 staff in St. Paul, Minnesota. This is the largest number of soil surveys to start in one year in Michigan, and the projected finishing date for them is April 1, 2003. That should make for an impressive "Final Final Acre" ceremony! Not only are these surveys the last in the "once over" soil survey of Michigan, they are also the beginning of the MLRA approach to soil survey in the UP. The data for these new surveys (as well as two surveys started previously) will be treated as subsets of the appropriate MLRA's (93, 92, 94B). Hopefully this will lessen the workload required to incorporate the 9 UP counties with published modern soil surveys into MLRA databases. As of mid-June, a "Staff Leader" was in place for all of the new surveys in the UP, with the rest of the staff to follow as older soil surveys finish up. The staff leaders are as follows: Schoocraft-Joe Calus, Gogebic-Bill Perkis, Ontonagon-Bill Anzalone, and Keweenaw-Ken Wikgren. By the way, if any of you can put up with bugs, 5 months of winter and lots of rock, there may just be some openings for a few stout hearted soil scientists "up north" in the future! Submitted by: Larry Carey ######################################################################### NASIS 4.0 CAPABILITIES The following new capabilty will be included in NASIS 4.0. Many of these new features will be very helpful to us in managing our data. We have looked at all of the following new functionality and are excited for what it could do for us. 1. Data Replication: When you make a save to NASIS, those saves will be also reflected in the central site at AMES, IA. This will be a read only dataset for the entire country, but you will be able to query, report and copy from this data set. We were not aware that we would be able to use the central site as a source of data, but we will be able to. 2. Edit Setup: You will be able to create custom views of all the data tables to make management of the data more logical and efficient. You can save, select and create these Edit Setups as desired. 3. Interpretations from the Interp. Generator can be more easily incorporated with reports making output formats much more flexible. 4. Pedon and Site Data Tables: 40 new tables have been added to NASIS to handle the pedon data. It is consistent with the current pedon format. Conversion of Unix Pedon Data into NASIS is not included with 4.0 but will follow. 5. Soil Survey Schedule: A short term fix for Soil Survey Schedule is included in NASIS 4.0 6. Multiple Target Tables: You can target one, any or all target tables at once, eliminating the need to run queries more than once on different objects to get the desired selected set. THIS IS A BIG STRIDE FORWARD!! 7. Improved Cancel: Canceling a report or process in NASIS will not dump you clear our of NASIS anymore, but will just end the process that is taking so long. 8. Improved Locking: The database has been redesigned to minimize concurrent locking of the data. It has resulted in a lot fewer locks even during the beta test. These major improvements along with other less obvious features are very welcomed and should make our work a little easier as we move further toward full integration of NASIS. Submitted by: -- Mike Hansen Montana Soil Staff Bozeman, MT [MLRA Region 10 plans to load NASIS 4.0 on September 14.] ######################################################################### DIRECTORY OF NRCS SOIL SCIENTISTS As requested by many of you, the National Soil Survey Center has updated the "USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Program Directory for MLRA Soil Survey Region Offices and State Offices" which was last issued in February 1996. It will not be issued hardcopy, but it is on the following ftp site. Two files containing this directory have been set up on this site. One is a text only file (MOSODIR2.TXT) and the other is a Word 6.0 file (MOSODIR2.DOC). These directories contain soil scientists names; mail and email addresses; phone, voicecom, and FAX numbers in: Regional Offices (6) MLRA Region Offices (17) State Offices (52) Soil Quality Institutes (5) National Headquarters National Cartography and Geospational Center ("Ft. Worth") Information Technology Center ("Ft. Collins") Information Technology Institute To obtain these files, at a prompt on your screen: Type: ftp nssc.nrcs.usda.gov At the "Name" prompt type: ftp At the "Password:" prompt, type your email address. At the "ftp>" prompt type: cd pub At the "ftp>" prompt type: cd nssc At the "ftp>" prompt type: ls -l At the "ftp>" prompt type: bi At the "ftp>" prompt type: get [filename] This will transfer the [filename] to the directory from which you started on your own computer. To exit, at the "ftp>" prompt type: bye ######################################################################### SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR CRITERIA--DISCUSSIONS AND ANSWERS Duane Simonson and I have been using guides in MLRA 105 which are very similar to the recent guide put out for use in MO 10 & 11 (we had been using the guide promoted by Larry Ratliff in 1993). We have always felt that a consistent guide was needed to help develop a legend, develop a consistent mapping key, and to write the inclusions (minor components) section of the map unit descriptions. Although the guides do differ on specifics they are basically both good guides for consistency when considering phase separations on the landscape. The old guide only discussed DISSIMILAR SOIL COMPONENTS and did not consider VERY CONTRASTING COMPONENTS nor the LIMITING/NON-LIMITING factors. The newer guide is more inclusive and will help to provide all those working in the MO a consistency in legend develpment that may have been lacking. Since we have not been able to develop a data mapunit in NASIS yet, I have some questions as to how this criteria will relate to the data mapunit minor components section. Will there be "rules" on listing minor components based on this guide? Will minor components be limited to dissimlar/limiting? very contrasting/limiting? Will the component be tagged in NASIS with a designation as dissimilar, very contrasting, limiting/non-limiting? If the criteria are not used to limit minor components in the data mapunit where do these additional designations come into play other than as a "rule of thumb" correlation tool for SSPLs and SDQSs? -- Tim Meyer, SSPL, MLRA 105 UNIX: wi600g!wia2!tmeyer >From LAN/WAN: wia2!tmeyer@wi600g!wi.nrcs.usda.gov INTERNET: tmeyer@wi.usda.gov (to send formatted files) * * * * * To follow up on my last comments on the guide, I think if the guide is going to become part of the MO guidance document it needs to have a narrative included to provide some insight into how the guide should be applied. "Use this guide to assign similar/dissimilar concepts to components and map units." needs a little more explanation. Also, how does this fit into the update-type soil survey? I assume that the intent is not to separate similar or non-limiting soils from each other in the same landscapes? We have many mapunits in these older surveys that ARE separated from similar soils according to this guide. Did the staffs of MO 10 and 11 provide any additional insight on how these guides would/could be used in the quality assurance procedures? If not, I think we need that type of info in order to evaluate the guide and be able to make better comments about it. -- Tim Meyer, SSPL, MLRA 105 UNIX to UNIX: wi600g!wia2!tmeyer LAN/WAN to UNIX: wia2!tmeyer@wi600g!wi.usda.gov INTERNET (to send formatted files): tmeyer@wi.usda.gov [Marc Diers in Duluth has also asked similar questions.] * * * * * Similar/Dissimilar Criteria Lynn DesLauriers, SDQS (Manuscripts and Interpretations) In the July newsletter the new similar/dissimilar criteria were submitted for your review and comment. Since that time we have received comments and some changes were made to make the criteria more straightforward. "Skip one" was replaced by "Difference of one". Please review the revised criteria and submit any further comments that you have. We have also received questions on how the similar/dissimilar criteria will be used in correlating components and datamapunits. The criteria are used to determine which components are significantly different for use and management, and therefore, are separate components within a datamapunit. They are also used in separating one mapunit/datamapunit from another during mapping. The similar/dissimilar criteria with an explanation of their use will become a part of our guidance documents in the near future. SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR GUIDE FOR USE IN REGIONS 10 AND 11 (7/98) 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: Difference of one class is dissimilar and 2 classes is 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 Difference of one group is dissimilar and 2 groups is 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 classes (in inches): 0 - 10 very shallow 10 - 20 shallow 20 - 40 moderately deep 40 - 60 deep > 60 very deep Difference of one class is dissimilar and 2 classes is 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) Difference of one group is dissimilar and 2 groups is very contrasting. All dissimilar components are limiting. Surface layer rock fragment class (percent by volume): Less than 15% 15 - 35% 35 - 60% 60% + Difference of one class is dissimilar and 2 classes is 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 Difference of one class is dissimilar and 2 classes is 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) Classes 1 or 2 and class 3 are dissimilar and classes 1 or 2 and class 4 are 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 classes: 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. ######################################################################### OBTAINING OSDs VIA THE INTERNET INSTEAD OF VIA X3780 FILES For several years, the MLRA Region 10 Office has provided monthly updates of OSDs to soil survey project offices via the "x3780 process", by which updated OSDs are imported into SSSD and printed using SSSD. Now that soil survey project offices are obtaining internet access, one of the data bases that becomes available is the "Official Soil Series Descriptions" data base. This is the same data base from which the OSDs in x3780s are obtained. So, once your project office has an internet access, you may wish to consider obtining updated OSDs directly rather than using the x3780s. If you wish to try obtaining OSDs using the internet, try the following: 1. Use your web browser to go to the following site: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi 2. Enter the OSD name you would like to view. 3. Move the cursor to "Process" and click the mouse button. 4. Use your web browser to print a copy and/or send a copy back to your computer (your system administrator may need to set up your printer or establish file transfer protocols). One question remains to be answered, however--"of the 20,000 OSDs, which ones were updated last month?" The answer to that will be found in this newsletter under the list of "x3780s sent this month". If obtaining OSDs via the internet works for you, then you have no need to continue to receive x3780s. Let me know if that is your wish. Submitted by: John Handler ######################################################################### Last month, the following x3780 files were sent to offices having SSSD: x3780.432frig on Aug 3 ( 1 updated OSD ) @ x3780.433mes on Aug 6 ( 5 updated OSDs) * x3780.434frig on Aug 10 ( 1 updated OSD ) @ @ 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. These x3780s contained the following updated OSDs: frigid: Runeberg, Soderville. mesic: Adco, Biggsville, Coland, Cylinder, Locksprings. ######################################################################### WEB SITES OF INTEREST http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv/surveys/ksgeary.pdf Geary County, Kansas Soil Survey manuscript (no maps). An Acrobat Reader plugin is needed to read it. http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv/surveys/ksbrown.pdf Brown County, Kansas Soil Survey manuscript (no maps). An Acrobat Reader plugin is needed to read it. ######################################################################### CHANGED ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS 1. Guyon Shipman, Soil Scientist with the MLRA 105 crew in Richland Center, Wisconsin transferred from a soil scientist to a soil conservationist effective May 25, 1998. His new address is the Boone Field Office, 1327 SE Marshall Suite 4, Boone, Iowa 50036. His phone number is 515-432-2316. Chanc Vogel came on duty on July 6th as a soil scientist to fill the vacant position. Chanc is currently volunteering at the Madison digitizing center and is a graduate of UW Stevens Point. He has a major in Resource Management and a minor in Soil Science. Chanc is hearing impaired and the best way to reach him is probably through e-mail. 2. Changed email addresses for: Tom Neuenfeldt twn@ezigaa.fdl.cc.mn.us Bob Dideriksen bob.dideriksen@ia.nrcs.usda.gov Joe Johnson joe.johnson@ia.nrcs.usda.gov Robin Wisner robin.wisner@ia.nrcs.usda.gov Patrick Cowsert patrick.cowsert@ia.nrcs.usda.gov Sam Steckly sam.steckly@ia.nrcs.usda.gov Richard Lensch richard.lensch@ia.nrcs.usda.gov 3. Pattie West has a new phone number: (402) 437-5334 4. The Rhinelander Soil Survey Project Office has moved to: USDA Service Center Natural Resources Conservation Service 639 W. Kemp Street Rhinelander, WI 54501 New phone number and extensions: Joe Boelter 1-715-362-5941 X 119 Angie Elg 1-715-362-5941 X 118 New FAX number: 1-715-362-9370 New email addresses: Joe Boelter jboelter@wirhinelan.fsc.usda.gov Angie Elg aelg@wirhinelan.fsc.usda.gov ######################################################################### ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (through October 15--subject to change) MLRA DATE ACTIVITY LOCATION MO 10 STAFF 92 Aug 31-04 Progress Field Review Ashland P.O. Jahnke Sep 08 Iowa Partnership Meeting Ames McCloskey 93 Sep 28-01 Progress Field Review South St. Louis Giencke Handler 94B Sep 28-02 Progress Field Review Luce County Jahnke 105 Sep 14-18 Progress Field Review Dunn County Jahnke 107 Sep 21-25 Progress Field Review Woodbury-Crawford Hempel DesLauriers ######################################################################### CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME Thanks to those individuals who participated this month. It is your efforts that are making this newsletter a success. * * * * * Please submit your articles 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. Occasionally, due to other workload demands, it may be an additional month before the article appears. Generally, articles are inserted in the order they are received. Articles in an electronic format can be submitted to: jfh@mn.nrcs.usda.gov It is best if electronic articles are prepared in a "text only" format. Articles 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: 1-651-602-7914 * * * * * 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, read, and printed by the project office having the least sophisticated computer setup. #########################################################################