[MLRA REGION 10 NEWSLETTER]{.mark}

September 1, 2000

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.5083333333333333in"
height="2.4270833333333335in"}

\#########################################################################

**NEWSLETTER CHANGES**

The MLRA Region 10 Newsletter will be distributed on a bi-monthly basis
beginning with the next issue which will be distributed in November. The
reason is simply due to the large workload at the MO Office.

Also, effective immediately, submit all articles to Rhonda Osterman
(<rhonda.osterman@mn.usda.gov)>.

Contributed by: Joe McCloskey

\#########################################################################

**DATABASE AND SOFTWARE NOTES FROM THE RECENT MO LEADERS MEETING**

## NASIS ![](media/image2.png){width="0.8888888888888888in" height="1.2784722222222222in"}

## NASIS 5.0 scheduled for release in November, 2000

-   Features

-   Central server located at Ft Collins

-   Allows sharing of data across MO boundaries

-   Nationally unique list of users

-   Replication of data at ISU to cease

-   HP computers and INFORMIX licenses at MOs no longer used for soil
    data

-   All users will be connected remotely -- MO staff will likely see
    some slow down in performance, but most other users should see
    improved performance

-   New SSURGO standard export included

**[WinPedon -- pedon description data input tool]{.underline}**

-   To be released in early 2001

-   Runs with MS-Access dbms under Windows 95/98/NT

-   Data structure matches NASIS 5.0

-   A second version of it will upload the data to NASIS (spring 2001)

## PDP (PEDON) 3.6 data conversion

-   Conversion program to be released to MOs by end of July 2000

-   Converts PDP 3.x data into NASIS 4.1

-   States using Tom Reinsch's Windows-based PEDON prototype, can have
    that data converted to PDP 3.6 structure, then convert it into NASIS

-   Data must be converted before moving to NASIS 5.0

-   Each PDP data set to be converted individually to NASIS. Ownership
    of that data set selected during conversion process.

-   A data set with about 2000 pedons takes about 2 hours on the HP
    computer

-   No plans at this time to convert any data from older versions of PDP

#### **Soil Data Viewer**

-   A version which operates in Windows 95/98 is being beta tested

-   To be available as a stand alone package and available to
    cooperators

## Soil Data Warehouse

-   Development of requirement statement is underway

-   Intended to be the repository of archived official soil data sets,
    which have been downloaded for the NASIS transactional database,
    from which public access and downloads of data would originate --
    SSURGO, FOTG, manuscripts, national queries, etc.

-   Web access to data is planned

-   Necessary for integration of NRI with NASIS data

-   Implementation planned for 2001

## New SSURGO Data Standard

-   A new attribute data standard for SSURGO has been developed

-   Uses NASIS data format (similar to BPR data export)

-   Uses fuzzy logic interpretation results

-   Includes a table of values (soil property data and selected
    interpretations) where component data are aggregated to map unit
    level to expedite use of the data in GIS

-   Export included with NASIS 5.0

-   Existing SSURGO data sets will need to be re-certified using the new
    data standard

-   Data structure of Customer Service Toolkit to be modified to match

## STATSGO Update

-   Attribute data will be converted into NASIS this fall

-   Change from individual state legends to consolidated national legend

-   Data ownership/editing privilege scheme has been developed (see
    attachment 1)

-   Pre-conversion validations have been run on STATSGO data and error
    reports sent to all states for editing

-   16 states have corrected data errors, and their data now passes the
    validations and is ready for conversion into NASIS.

## Map Scale issues -- SSURGO vs STATSGO vs MLRA

-   SSURGO -- 1:12,000 to 1:24,000

-   STATSGO -- 1:250,000

-   MLRA -- 1:7.5,000,000, digitized from 1:250,000 base maps

-   These differences in scale must be kept in mind as maps are
    developed, especially in regard to the minimum size of delineations
    allowed.

\#########################################################################

### CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REPORT REVISED USING LOCAL CRITERIA

Several Wisconsin subset legends have been run against the National
report, **MANU -- Table Eng-1. --Construction Materials+ w/fuzzy**
**rating.** Most, or all, of the soil mapunits that were previously
rated as a **PROBABLE** source of gravel in the past (on SIRs and in
pre-NASIS manuscripts), now are rated as an **IMPROBABLE** source.

The first process in solving this dilemma was to find out what criteria
was being used in the National report.

The properties used in the 1993 NSSH Interpretive Guides\* to evaluate
the soil as a probable source of gravel were grain size, as indicated by
the Unified soil classification, the thickness of the layer, and the
amount of rock fragments. These guides gave a **PROBABLE** rating when
the Unified Classification entries listed were GW, GP, GW-GM, or GP-GM
in the thickest layer between 10-60" or in the bottom layer
**[AND]{.underline}** the weight percent of the fragments \>3" was \<50%
in the thickest layer between 10-60". A **PROBABLE** rating was also
given when the Unified entries were SW, SP, SW-SM, or SP-SM
**[AND]{.underline}** the percent retained on the #4 sieve was equal to
or greater than 25% **[AND]{.underline}** the weight percent of the
fragments \>3" was \<50% in the thickest layer between 10-60".

\*The 1993 Interpretive Guides can be found in an old copy of the NSSH,
they can be downloaded out of the Sept 1999 NSSH available from the MO10
Homepage, and they can be found in the appropriate Rule Description Text
in NASIS.

The prewritten National reports that are provided in NASIS, under
Options, Standard Reports, National (NSSC Pangaea), require a bit more
investigation to determine what criteria they use for rating your soils
data. The rules and evaluations linked to the report need to be
examined. What we found is that in the prewritten NASIS Manuscript
Material it says that similar soil properties were used to evaluate the
soil i.e. gradation of grain size (as indicated by the Unified
classification of the soil), the thickness of suitable material, and the
content of rock fragments. However, we could not find any reference to
the Unified classification and size was dependent on material passing
designated sieve sizes.

The Bottom Layer or the Thickest Layer is considered a **PROBABLE**
source of gravel when the **% passing the #4\*** sieve **is between 10
and 50%** (probability rating in the Value Column of the report is from
.999, the best probability, down to 0). It is considered an
**IMPROBABLE** source of gravel when the **% passing the #4 sieve** is
from **50 to 100%** (with 0 in the Value Column), and it is considered a
**SOURCE** of gravel when the **% passing the #4** **sieve** is **0 to
10%** (with 1 in the Value Column). Also, this report figures a
probability rating for % of fragments \>10" (stones) and for % of
fragments 3-10" (cobbles) based on 0 to 35% by weight, and if either of
these ratings is less than the rating for the gravel content it will use
the cobble or stones rating. If the content of cobbles or stones is
\>35% by weight it is rated as **IMPROBABLE** as a gravel source. Both
old and new criteria seem to use the same criteria for bottom and
thickest layer.

What all this means is that in the old guides soils were a probable
source when they had 25% or more retained on the #4 sieve and the
National reports require 50% or more retained on the #4 sieve.

\*Note that the 1993 Guides used the **AVERAGE** of the low and high %
passing the #4 sieve, and the National reports in NASIS are written to
use the **RV** out of **NASIS**. Also keep in mind that **weight,** and
**not volume**, is always appropriate when referring to % passing
sieves.

The next step we felt was necessary was to talk with some of the
construction materials companies and try and determine what they
consider to be an economical source of gravel. A geologist at American
Materials in Eau Claire, WI was contacted. Her job was to find sources
of gravel and deal with the reclamation of the pits. I soon learned that
there are many more criteria for determining what constitutes a "good"
source of gravel for this company than we could deal with in our
reports. We tried to concentrate on just content of particle size and we
came up with a "rule of thumb" that she felt was a good portrayal.
Listed below is a summary of her criteria and some other things we
discussed....................

==================================================================================

POTENTIAL GRAVEL SOURCE, American Materials Corporation

# Percent and Size Of Gravel For Slight or Minimum Potential

15-30% gravel by volume, 25-45% by weight or 55 to 75% passing the #10
Sieve (\>2 mm to 4.74 mm)

The coarser gravel is more desirable (4.74 mm to 3"; i.e. what is
retained on #4) and if source has cobble size that would be a bonus
(they consider cobble size as "gravel").

The proximity to town, county, or state roads, distance to area of use,
are also important considerations. In general, the better the road and
the closer to area of use, the lower the amount of gravel necessary for
consideration.

It is very hard to define a potential gravel source due to the multitude
of different uses for many different sizes of gravel.

Every site is screened and graded. Most larger gravel and cobble is
crushed routinely.

## Percent and Size of Gravel Constituting Good to Very Good Potential

30 to 50% gravel by volume, 45-65% by weight or 35 to 55% passing the
#10 Sieve (\>2 mm to 4.74 mm)

The coarser gravel is more desirable (4.74 mm to 3" retained on #4) and
if source has cobble size that would be a bonus (they consider cobble
size as "gravel").

##  Percent and Size of Gravel Constituting Excellent Potential

50%+ gravel by volume, 65%+ by weight or 35% or less passing the #10
sieve Sieve (\>2 mm to 4.74 mm)

The coarser gravel is more desirable (4.74 mm to 3" retained on #4) and
if source has cobble size that would be a bonus (they consider cobble
size as "gravel").

====================================================================================================

These figures mirror pretty well the criteria used in developing the
National report for construction materials except for the fact that the
national report could give a lower probability rating with an increase
in cobbles to the point where it would be IMPROBABLE at \>35%, and
American Materials says "the more cobbles the better". We did not
attempt to alter the criteria for cobbles or stones.

American Materials is in a very "gravel rich" area here in the Chippewa
River Vally and they have many gravel pits in soil polygons that are
considered as **IMPROBABLE** sources of gravel when run against the
criteria in the national reports.

After checking what data we have on the map units in question, we
determined that the ranges in gravel content were accurate but the RVs
could possibly be shifted to better represent the data mapunit. Most of
the series that are mapped in outwash in this area range from 0 to about
35% by volume as an average, realizing that most are stratified and very
unpredictable. The shift in RVs did not make a difference in the rating
so we felt that we needed to revise the criteria in the report if
possible.

Lynn DesLauriers, Larry Natzke, Duane Simonson and I developed a report
that we feel may be better suited to our state and possibly the MO10
Region. The only report criteria that we changed involved allowing soils
with 50 to 74% passing the #4 sieve to be considered as a **POSSIBLE**
source of gravel (if we want to revise the report to read POSSIBLE
source it will require a revision of the PWM as well). Take a look at
the following example of a list of data mapunits run against this
revised report, run the report against your own legend, and let me know
what you think. This report can be accessed in NASIS under Options,
Standard Reports, Local (MO10_Office), MANU -- Table Eng-1.
--Construction Materials+ w/fuzzy ratingtm. I would be very interested
in any additional information people may have from construction
materials companies in other parts of the state.

We could add a POSSIBLE range for source of sand as well but this has
not been looked at to-date.

I also added some additional statements to the heading of the report
that I thought was useful???

====================================================================================================

DUNN COUNTY, WISCONSIN Print date: 08/18/2000

Table ENG-1.\--Construction Materials (Wisconsin Version)

Notes to Table:

(Gravel in this report is defined as particles ranging in size from
about 0.2 inches to 3 inches in

diameter. Soils are rated as a POSSIBLE gravel source with a minimum of
25% gravel by weight

and a PROBABLE gravel source with a minimum of 50% gravel by weight.)

(The probability of the soil material as a source of gravel is reduced
by the content rock fragments 3-\>10 inches in diameter.)

(The intent of the ratings is to show only the probability of finding
material of the defined

quantity and quality. The suitability for specific purposes is not
evalutated.

(The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but
does not eliminate the need

for onsite investigation. The numbers in the value columns range from
0.00 to 0.99. The

smaller the value, the greater the potential limitation. See text for
further explanation of

ratings in this table.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\| \| \| \|

Map symbol \|Pct \| Potential source of \| Potential source of \|
Potential source of

and soil name \| of \| gravel \| sand \| topsoil

\|map \| \| \|

\|unit\| \| \|

\|
\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\| \| Rating class and \|Value\| Rating class and \|Value\| Rating class
and \|Value

\| \| limiting features \| \| limiting features \| \| limiting features
\|

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

413A: \| \| \| \| \| \| \|

Rasset\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\| 95 \|Possible Gravel \| \|Probable
Sand \| \|Fair Source of \|

\| \| Source \| \| Source \| \| Topsoil \|

\| \| Bottom layer \|0.15 \| Thickest layer \|0.01 \| Hard to reclaim
\|0.32

\| \| Thickest layer \|0.15 \| Bottom layer \|0.06 \| Rock fragment
\|0.97

\| \| \| \| \| \| content \|

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

413B: \| \| \| \| \| \| \|

Rasset\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\| 95 \|Possible Gravel \| \|Probable
Sand \| \|Fair Source of \|

\| \| Source \| \| Source \| \| Topsoil \|

\| \| Bottom layer \|0.15 \| Thickest layer \|0.01 \| Hard to reclaim
\|0.32

\| \| Thickest layer \|0.15 \| Bottom layer \|0.06 \| Rock fragment
\|0.97

\| \| \| \| \| \| content \|

429A: \| \| \| \| \| \| \|

Lows\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\| 90 \|Improbable Gravel \|
\|Probable Sand \| \|Poor Source of \|

\| \| Source \| \| Source \| \| Topsoil \|

\| \| Bottom layer not \|0.00 \| Thickest layer \|0.00 \| Depth to
\|0.00

\| \| a source \| \| not a source \| \| saturated zone \|

\| \| Thickest layer \|0.00 \| Bottom layer \|0.39 \| Hard to reclaim
\|0.35

\| \| not a source \| \| \| \| \|

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

2003A: \| \| \| \| \| \| \|

Riverwash\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\| 95 \|Not rated \| \|Not rated \| \|Not
rated \|

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

2013: \| \| \| \| \| \| \|

Pits, Gravel\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\| 97 \|Not rated \| \|Not rated \| \|Not
rated \|

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

\| \| \| \| \| \| \|

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\|\_\_\_\_\_

Contributed by: Tim Meyer <tim.meyer@wi.usda.gov>

Soil Survey Project Leader, Eau Claire

\#########################################################################

**2000 NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE**

**A SUCCESS**

by Bill Frederick

The NRCS in Michigan hosted this years 2000 North Central Regional Soil
Survey Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan June 18-22 at the Holiday
Inn East. It was hosted by NRCS, Michigan State University and the Soil
Classifiers Association of Michigan (SCAM). This conference is rotated
among the 12 Midwestern states and is held every 2 years.

Approximately 55 soil scientists from the cooperating agencies of the
NRCS, Forest Service, Universities in the region, and state government
representatives attended. SCAM was well represented at the conference.
The purpose of the conference is to work on regional issues in the soil
survey arena and to pass these onto the National Soil Survey Leadership
at the National Soil Survey Conference which will be held next year.
This year committees focused on research needs within the region, hydric
soils indicator problems and Soils Data Acquisition.

Loren Berndt gave his excellent presentation entitled \"From The
Mackinac to the Montreal and Back\" following the Tuesday evening
banquet. We may have convinced a few more people to come to the Upper
Peninsula.

As part of the conference a one day field trip to Southwestern Michigan
was held. Insights on geologic landforms were given along the way by Dr.
Dave Lusch of Michigan State University. Sites visited along the trip
were the Kellogg Biological Station to discuss research on the Long Term
Ecological Plots, two stops to discuss the soils and farm management
operations at a vineyard and blueberry farm in Van Buren County, and a
final stop along the Lake Michigan shoreline to discuss dune landforms.
George Heffner, Resource Conservationist at Portage, Michigan and his
wife put on a great evening cookout for the group.

Word of this event must have reached others in the community, as before
too long three bus loads of elementary school children from the Covert
School District joined the tour around a shallow soil pit. Immediately
these children paired off with the soil scientists to discuss the
importance of soils in their lives and to point out some interesting
features of the soil being observed. This outreach event was enjoyed by
all.

My thanks to all who helped make this conference a rousing success. We
have received may complements. We can relax now as we won\'t have to
worry about this conference until 2024.

\#########################################################################

**A TEACHABLE MOMENT**

NRCS soil scientists recently visited the farm of Sylvester Hawkins, a
blueberry grower

near Covert, a small, predominantly minority rural farming community in
Van Buren

County, Michigan. The local area has a unique, rare soil ideally suited
to blueberry

production.

The visit was part of a field trip during the 2000 North Central
Regional Soil Survey

Conference in Grand Rapids.

Barbara James Norman, who works part-time for the NRCS, arranged to have
60 students

in the Covert School Summer Program be on hand to hear the blueberry
grower explain

his farming operation and learn about soil science from NRCS soil
scientists, creating a unique \"teachable moment.\"

Your contact is Chris Coulon, NRCS Public Affairs Specialist, (517)
324-5244

From: NRCS This Week

\#########################################################################

**OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INSTITUTE**

The Soil Science Institute down in Alabama last winter was an excellent
experience and a much needed refresher for me. I thought it was great to
meet so many great soil scientists from all over the country. I made
some good friends. The southern cookin\' was excellent. Catfish,
barbeque, cornbread, collard greens, and sweet tee were just a few of
the local specialties I had my share of. I\'m sure glad there was an
exercise room in our hotel. The southern way took over many of us
northerners and we were saying y\'all before we left.

There were also two great weekend field trips put on by the MLRA
regional office in Auburn (MO 15). They were extremely long and tiring,
but I enjoyed seeing a part of the country I have never seen before. It
will probably be my only opportunity to see real Vertisols with
slickensides. I also thought I had seen red soils before, but those red
Ultisols are really something.

It\'s great, however to be back home in the Upper Peninsula.

Contributed by: Dwight Jerome

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Marquette MLRA Project Office

201 Rublein St.

Marquette, MI 49855

e-mail: <dsjerome@mi.nrcs.usda.gov>

\#########################################################################

**CHANGING DATA IN THE NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY DATABASE**

**AND THE ACCOMPANYING PEDON DESCRIPTIONS**

Pedon descriptions and the accompanying measured laboratory data are
integral to the National Soil Survey Laboratory Database. Soil samples
are analyzed with standard methods to obtain measured data. Pedon
descriptions establish a permanent record of the thoughts of the Soil
scientists in the field at the time the soils were sampled and have both
a scientific and historical value. Both the measured data and the pedon
descriptions are considered \"archived data\" and cannot be changed
except to correct errors.

Pedon descriptions used in soil survey reports, for official series
descriptions, in articles, etc. should reflect current standards and
nomenclature. Archived pedon descriptions will reflect the standards and
nomenclature at the time the descriptions were made.

Contributed by: ROBERT J. AHRENS

Director

National Soil Survey Center

\#########################################################################

**UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION**

Ever wondered what those numbers on the side of topographic maps that
look like (^50^98) are, or what those perfect squares on the map are?
Well all those numbers and squares are part of the Universal Transverse
Mercator Projection, or UTM grid system.

In the UTM grid system the world is divided into sixty zones each
covering six degrees of longitude. Horizontal bands spanning eight
degrees of latitude further divide these zones. A digit numbering from
10-19 and a letter designates each zone. For example Schoolcraft County,
MI, is in zone 16T. These zones are further divided into 1000-meter
grids. These 1000-meter grids make it easier to navigate on topographic
maps.

In order to navigate the first thing that needs to be done is to change
the set up on your GPS unit. Since GPS units vary greatly all that can
be said is you must change from L/L-dm to UTM/UPS. You may also need to
change the datum on the GPS to the corresponding datum on the
topographic map located in the lower left-hand corner of the map.

Here is how to use UTM grid system on a 7.5-minute topographic map. The
coordinate numerals are shown in black, and the tic marks are shown in
blue, and are located on the sides, top and bottom of the map. The first
one or two numbers are written smaller than the second two digits, for
example (^50^98) or ^50^96). The coordinates along the sides are the
Northing coordinates, and those along the top and bottom are the Easting
coordinates. The point where the Northing and Easting coordinate lines
intersect is the Southwest corner of a particular 1000- meter grid.

On the GPS you will get an address that looks like this

16T (Your zone)

5509800n (Northing coordinates, on the sides of map)

0538200e (Easting coordinates, on the top and bottom of map)

The first four digits on each denote the Southwest corner of a
particular 1000-meter grid. The last three digits denote the distance
North and East of the Southwest corner. Here is how to plot the address:

1\. Find the Southwest corner of ^55^09 and ^05^38.

2\. Measure 800 meters north

3\. Measure 200 meters east.

4\. This is your present position.

It must be noted that topographic maps printed before 1983 may not have
the 1000-meter grids printed on the map. Instead, there will be blue tic
marks located on the sides top and bottom of the map. These 1000-meter
grids can be easily installed. Using a 24-inch straight edge connect the
corresponding coordinate numerals from the top to the bottom with a 0.5
mm black line. Do the same to the coordinates on the sides of the map.
This establishes the 1000-meter grid system.

As you can see this is a user-friendly system. The advantage of using
UTM grid system rather than latitude and longitude is that the UTM
1000-meter grids are already printed on the map itself, or can be easily
installed. The UTM has an attached scale. While latitude and longitude
have only 2.5 minute tick marks on the outer edges with no attached
scale. This leaves room for too much error in plotting your position.
Using the UTM grid system makes a quicker more accurate fix possible.

Contributed by: Dennis Rodacker, <drodacker@mi.nrcs.usda.gov>

Soil Scientist, Schoolcraft County, MI

\#########################################################################

**WISCONSIN NRCS SELECTS NEW STATE SOIL SCIENTIST**

Jonathon Hempel, Region 10 MLRA Data Quality Specialist, has accepted

the Wisconsin State Soil Scientist position, effective September 24.

Jon is a Stevens Point graduate, and has worked as an NRCS soil

scientist since 1979. His career includes: 7 years in Iowa as a Soil

Survey Project Member; 10 years in Ohio as a Soil Survey Project Leader,

Area Resource Soil Scientist, and MLRA Update Leader; 3 years in

Minnesota on the Region 10 MLRA staff providing correlation assistance

for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Minnesota; and soil survey

details to Alaska, Minnesota and North Dakota.

Jon also brings to Wisconsin experience in working with soil survey

digitizing and GIS, urban mapping techniques, Civil Rights Program

issues, career counseling, facilitation skills, and the use of soils

information in many NRCS programs.

Contributed by: Carl Wacker <carl.wacker@wi.usda.gov>

\#########################################################################

##### **MLRA 94B (MICHIGAN EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA SANDY DRIFT) UPDATE**

LUCE COUNTY SUBSET UPDATE

This is the beginning of year 7 and as usual each year seems to differ
somehow from all the others. For one thing it is a very dry year.
Snowfall was average, but snowmelt was in March and little rain fell
until late June. This drought is making the Rubicon sand tough digging
(that was a joke!) I also have a new trend going which is having an
operation just before the field season begins. In spite of these
hardships we will endure and finish on schedule in April of 2002. We
have several maps left that we labeled winter map, this means no roads
and 80% organic soils. I don\'t know if we can get to them in the
winters we have left which means someone will be doing a lot of swamp
walking. We have covered about 480,000 acres of this 578,000-acre
county. Time flies when you\'re having fun.

LUCE COUNTY SUBSET LANDFORMS AND SOILS

I am closing in on 27 summers of soil mapping and am looking back on
what I did over the years. No tears in my eyes just ache in my joints. I
am glad to say that I am much smarter today with my soil mapping
techniques than I have learned over the years. In Jackson County us
youngsters (Bob, Chuck, Jim, Will, and myself) ground out acres day by
day with little thought on the bigger picture such as vegetation,
landscapes, and landforms.

In Luce County subset, I have learned to use landforms and landscapes to
improve my mapping and to speed up the mapping process. The improvement
and speed (slow speed) comes from knowing the landform and that only
certain soils are associated with it.

For example, on the Munising moraine Dillingham is the glacial till soil
on the higher elevations. It is sandy, acid sediments with a fragipan.
This glacial till has Kalkaska and Adams sandy, outwash soils associated
with it. The Dillingham soil is only found on this moraine and from
elevations of 900 to 1150 feet. The depressions on this moraine are
small lakes, acid bogs, or cedar swamps. Most slopes are above 15% and
many are around 50%. This area is sugar maple-beech woods with an ATD
forest habitat type. Interestingly, Shelter Bay Forest Products own most
of this. On the lower elevation areas of this moraine are the Bodi soils
which are coarse-loamy, acid sediments with a fragipan and dense till.
(Thank goodness for the backhoe.) Associated with this soil are the
Adams, Wallace, and soft sandstone bedrock, which have been exposed on
the north facing slopes. These soils are found at an elevation of 800 to
850 feet. The Wallace soils are found below an elevation of 890 feet,
which is the historical high water mark of Lake Superior. Wallace soils
are lake deposits or outwash sediments that had a fluctuating water
table during the seasons to form the ortstein. When the water levels
dropped to their current mark the cemented sands stayed. On the lower
levels of this moraine we have to ignore the idiosyncrasies of glacial
melt waters and keep our minds on the basic concept of the moraine. I
always remember that lakes and moving water covered everything below 900
feet many times and this makes for stratified deposits.

This landform map and our ability to use it has taken 6 years to develop
and is being revised yearly. The correlation between the old soil survey
map (1929), the DNR pre-settlement vegetation map, and the new landform
map is remarkable. The 1929 publication lines follow the Leverett
landform map lines almost exactly. We have made slight adjustments to
the original lines as have others over time, but the basic concepts are
still there. The landform map along with the soil map worked well on a
DNR forester soils tour we had last year. The foresters could understand
the concept of a major landform, the soils on the landform, and the
unique properties of a soil on a landform. The soil tour demonstrated
the landform, the soils, and the vegetation.

Steve Rodock and I have used this basic thought process on all the areas
in the county. Every landform that we have seems to have at least one or
two soils that only occur on a specific landform. The final product is
that this landform map and associated soils will join the surrounding
counties to make an MLRA product.

Contributed by: Greg Whitney, <gwhitney@mi.nrcs.usda.gov>

\#########################################################################

**DETAILS FROM ALASKA**

Just thought I would let you know about a couple of neat tools
we![](media/image3.jpeg){width="0.7881944444444444in"
height="0.8791666666666667in"}

are using up here. One is called u-dig-it. It\'s a folding

stainless steel digging trowel with a holder that fits on a belt.

They run less than \$20 and are very handy when describing soils.

Forestry Suppliers carry them
(<https://secure.forestry-suppliers.com/View_Catalog_Page.asp?ID=6447>).

> Also, we use a Garmin GPS unit to identify our note sites. They are
> very light and small (compared to the PLUGGERs) and fit in the inside
> pocket of a mapping vest. They are no brainers\...just push the button
> to turn it on and wait for the signals. I think they are good to 50ft
> which is probably an accurate as we would need. Also, they only run
> about \$250 which is a heck of a lot cheaper than the PLUGGERS. They
> also come with a case that fits on a belt.
> (<https://secure.forestry-suppliers.com/View_Catalog_Page.asp?ID=1336>)![](media/image4.jpeg){width="1.0881944444444445in"
> height="1.351388888888889in"}

The more I think about it the better it sounds to have a least some
point data with the GIS era on the horizon. I don\'t agree with marking
every observation that\'s for sure. (Tim Meyer is looking into getting
one of these Garmin GPS units for testing in Eau Claire).

Mapping is going pretty good up here. The
urban![](media/image5.jpeg){width="2.615972222222222in"
height="1.6826388888888888in"}

lands are hard to photo interpret with all of the

disturbance created by the building. I\'ve seen

some of the best Spodosols up here. An E that\'s

thick enough to see and good Bs\'s too. I think a

lot of the soils are similar to those in Northern

Wisconsin just a little younger. No chance of an

Alfisol to be found.

Well, back to the grind.

On detail, in the wilds of Alaska\...Tim Miland,
<tim.miland@wi.usda.gov>

\#########################################################################

**NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR HYDRIC SOILS**

This is an update on the functions and current membership of the
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS).

The major *functions* of the NTCHS are:

1.  Provide national leadership in the formulation, evaluation and
    application of the Hydric Soil definition, criteria and indicators.

2.  Maintain the National List of Hydric Soils.

3.  Respond to public comments concerning the Hydric Soil definition,
    criteria, lists and indicators.

4.  Develop and maintain the Hydric Soil technical standard.

There have been some recent changes in the *membership* of the NTCHS.
Bobby Ward and Michael Whited, both from NRCS, have rotated off the
committee. Michael E. Lilly, NRCS, Jackson, Mississippi, has joined the
committee. Berman D. Hudson, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska, has joined the
committee and is the new Chair. Michael Vepraskas, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina, also has joined the committee. The
current members of the NTCHS are listed below.

> [Natural Resources Conservation Service]{.underline}
>
> Berman D. Hudson, Lincoln, NE
>
> Wade Hurt, Gainesville, FL
>
> Michael E. Lilly, Jackson, MS
>
> Lenore Matula-Vasilas, Baltimore, MD
>
> Neil Peterson, Boise, ID
>
> [Universities:]{.underline}
>
> Stephen Faulkner, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
>
> Richard Griffin, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX
>
> Herb Huddleston, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
>
> Chien-Lu Ping, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
>
> Jimmie Richardson, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
>
> Wayne Skaggs, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
>
> Michael Vepraskas, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
>
> Wetland Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Agencies:
>
> Porter Reed, Jr., US Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL
>
> Jerry Ragus, US Forest Service, Atlanta, GA
>
> William Sipple, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
>
> Russell Theriot, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS
>
> William Volk, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT

We welcome those who have recently joined the NTCHS and thank them for
volunteering their time and expertise. We also thank all current and
past members for their contributions to this important effort.

MAURICE J. MAUSBACH

Deputy Chief

Soil Survey and Resource Assessment

\#########################################################################

**NEWS FROM ALGER COUNTY SUBSET (MLRAs 94B & 93) SOIL SURVEY**

Greetings! The 2000 field season is off to a dirt-digin great start. It
is nice to be awakened from the dark underworld of the Munising Court
House. As well as a complete lesson on the operating basics of NASIS
this past winter, I also got a chance to help review part of the
recently completed Marquette Soil Survey. I am already looking forward
to next winter \... really I am! Other than a few bear encounters and a
goshawk blitzkrieg, all that\'s on my mind are acres.

Summer student Matt Bromely has joined us and seems to be digging holes
and feeding the bugs just the way we expect. Matt is a senior at
Michigan State University majoring in environmental soil sciences. This
is Matt\'s second summer with NRCS. He spent last summer mapping with
Larry Carey and Dwight Jerome in Marquette (MLRA 93). Matt will be
returning back to MSU for one more semester and then will be joining one
of the survey crews.

Our first priorities for the 2000 field season will be to finish
surveying the western portions of the county north of Trenary. The
Marquette group had already mapped most of western part of the county.
After we finish the western parts we will be heading up east of M-77
\[state highway\] and south of Grand Marais. Tentatively we plan to stay
a few weeks at the old Coast Guard station in Grand Marais. This would
save us an hour and a half of drive time each day, besides Grand Marais
is probably not the worst town to be stuck in.

Progress after the 1999 field season has left us with approximately
113,000 total. acres left to be mapped. About half of this will be
within Pictured Rocks National Lake Shore (<http://www.nps.gov/piro/>)
and private lands within the Hiawatha National Forest
(<http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha/>) south of Munising. The current
PRNL survey was completed in four different time frames. It was felt at
the last Alger Advisory Meeting that recorrelation and additional
transacts are needed to produce a seamless product absent of political
boundaries. For instance, dissected mapping units were not previously
recognized on the PRNL survey. Also, dual drainage reiterations need to
be studied for series such as Onota and Deerton. It is becoming clear as
we work near the join that certain upland units may also need to be
looked at.

Private lands alienated within the Hiawatha National Forest were
initially mapped in the 1967 Alger Delta Survey. The Forest Service and
their contractors have just completed the best share of the Hiawatha in
Alger County. Larry Carey and Dwight Jerome have been describing and
correlating soils for the Forest Service. For field season 2000, 20
additional soil descriptions and correlations are planned to be made
with the Forest Service. Prison crews will be digging the pits and a
Forest Service water pump will be used to keep Larry\'s boots dry while
describing. It is hoped that NRCS soils data stored in NASIS will be
fully compatible or transferable with Forest Service TERA database.

Contributed by: Mark Farina, <mfarina@mi.nrcs.usda.gov>

\#########################################################################

**MORE ON HYDROPHOBIC SOILS**

**A follow-up to the "NRCS Responds To Fires That Created Hydrophobic
Soils" article that appeared in the July 2000 newsletter.**

Wildfires can cause hydrophobic soils -- how?

Hydrophobic soils repel water. A thin layer of soil at or

below the mineral soil surface can become hydrophobic after

intense heating. The hydrophobic layer is the result of a

waxy substance derived from plant material burned during a

hot fire. The waxy substance penetrates into the soil as a

gas and solidifies after it cools, forming a waxy coating

around soil particles. Not all fires produce a water-

repellent layer in soil.

Hydrophobicity reduces the amount of water infiltration

resulting in increased runoff. Increased runoff after the

fire can cause soil loss, sedimentation, damaging flows in

stream channels, and can degrade water quality.

To learn more about hydrophobicity, read the Soil Quality

Information Sheet on Hydrophobicity available at

<http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/sqiinfo.html>.

You can download and copy this sheet. Printed copies of this Soil

Quality Information Sheet are not yet available.

Your contact is Ann Lewandowski at (612) 624-6765,
<alewand@soils.umn.edu>

\#########################################################################

### SOIL CAVE-IN...

In the United States, of the approximate 100,000 accidental deaths noted
each year, only about half occur on the highways. The others may occur
anywhere, but a large amount of them are recreation-related.

Of course, there are recreational activities that exhibit obvious risks
and dangers, but the dangers we\'re speaking of can happen as distant as
the beach while on vacation, or as close to home as your own back yard.

SOIL CAVE-IN, has claimed the lives of forty-one children, all between
the ages of one and fourteen years old, in a matter of only four years.

One such incident involves a 12-year old boy playing on the beach at
Ocean City, Maryland. It seems that he and some friends had dug a 5-foot
hole into the sand. The two friends went off to play in the water when
young Clinton Hoffman climbed inside of the \"sand tunnel,\" as it
collapsed on him, causing him to die due to oxygen deprivation.

As this may be considered a \"freak accident,\" the problem still
remains that this boy is certainly not the only child to experience such
fatal results while innocently playing, and that hundreds of thousands
of children continue to play under what are potentially dangerous
circumstances.

Perhaps if children and adults were made aware that digging in soil is
an activity that may not exhibit obvious signs of danger, but that
serious precautions should be taken, then forty-one (or more) lives
could be saved over the next four years.

*Article from [Soil Profiles]{.underline} newsletter, \[the voice of the
National Society of Consulting Soil Scientists, Inc.
(*<http://www.nscss.org/>*)\], Volume 7, Number 2 (Summer 1997)*

*Submitted by Donn Smith*

\#########################################################################

**CCE CERTIFIED OSDCHECK PROGRAM AVAILABLE**

A reminder for offices revising Official Series Descriptions: the
OSDCheck program that is certified for CCE machines has been available
for downloading since last February. The software is the same version as
the non-CCE software (OSDCheck 1.1). It has been re-packaged with an
Installshield wrapper around it to register properly under NT.

It is available on the CCE web site at:
<http://servicecenter.usda.gov/release/>

Soils Hotline EMAIL: hotline@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov

National Soil Survey Center PHONE: (402) 437-5378 or 5379

Lincoln, NE FAX: (402) 437-5336

\#########################################################################

**THE DIRT QUIZ**

Are you older than dirt (as grandmother likes to say)? Count how many
you

remember and find out.

1\. Blackjack chewing gum.

2\. Wax Coke-shaped bottles with colored sugar water.

3\. Candy cigarettes

4\. Soda pop machines that dispensed bottles

5\. Coffee shops with tableside jukeboxes

6\. Home milk delivery in glass bottles with cardboard stoppers

7\. Party lines

8\. Newsreels before the movie

9\. P.F. Flyers

10\. Butch wax

11\. Telephone numbers with a word prefix (olive-6933)

12\. Peashooters

13\. Howdy Doody (Can you name the other characters on the show? What
was

the Peanut Gallery?)

14\. 45 RPM records

15\. S&H Green Stamps

16\. Hi-fi\'s

17\. Metal ice trays with levers

18\. Mimeograph paper

19\. Blue flashbulbs

20\. Beanie and Cecil

21\. Roller skate keys

22\. Cork popguns

23\. Drive-in theaters

24\. Studebakers, Edsels, Corvairs

25\. Wash tub wringers

If you remembered 0-5 = You\'re too young to know much.

If you remembered 6-10 = You are getting older.

If you remembered 11-15 = Don\'t tell your age.

If you remembered 16-25 = You\'re older than dirt! But, hey, your memory

still works.

From: *Red Wing Republican Eagle* - Century in Review - Jan 1, 2000 ,
Page 11A

\#########################################################################

**NATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS IN MANUSCRIPT TABLES IN MO 9**

Since we had our soil interpretations training with Bob Nielsen, and
since the Fuzzy Interps prewritten material was released, we have been
testing the fuzzy national soil interpretations an submitting our
suggestions for change to Bob.

This effort is progressing well enough that we expect the national set
of fuzzy interps for manuscripts tables to become our standard set for
use in MO9.

We considered developing our own set but the national interps are so
good that we could not justify dedicating the time and people to
maintaining such a set.

*Contributed by: Wayne Gabriel, <Wayne.Gabriel@tx.usda.gov>*

*Soil Data Quality Specialist -- Database*

*MLRA Soil Survey Office Region 9*

\#########################################################################

**NEW SOIL QUALITY COURSE**

The National Employee Development Center (NEDC), partnering with the
Soil

Quality Institute, announces the course entitled \"Soil
Quality-Assessment

And Applications for Field Staff.\" The course will be offered starting
in FY

2000\. Chief Reed\'s letter to all employees dated June 28, 1999
stressed the

importance of soil quality and encouraged employees to take advantage of

this course.

The course will be offered on a \"train the trainer\" basis. NEDC

recommends that three trainers from each state or regional team
participate

in this course. Then, as a team, deliver soil quality training to their

respective state or region.

Upon completion of this 3-day course, participants will be able to
recognize

soil quality concerns, communicate those concerns to land users, and
provide

alternatives to remedy those concerns in a manner that meets all
requirements

of the agency and the land user.

The number of sessions offered will depend on NEDC budget allocations.

Look for the course in the NEDC inventory.

For more information on course delivery contact:

Don Holley

National Employee Development Center

\(817\) 509-3267

<dholley@ftw.nrcs.usda.gov>

For more information on technical content contact:

Cathy Seybold

Soil Quality Institute

\(541\) 737-1786

<seyboldc@ucs.orst.edu>

\#########################################################################

**WEB SITES OF INTEREST**

1.  Geology and Geomorphology from the Mars Pathfinder site.
    <http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/science/geology.html>. Any volunteers
    to start the soil survey?

2.  Soil Mineralogy and geochemistry from the Mars Pathfinder site.
    <http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/science/mineralogy.html>.

\#########################################################################

### OFFICIAL SERIES DESCRIPTION UPDATES

Last month, the following Official Series Descriptions were updated.
Please access the following web site to view and print them:

http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi

FRIGID: None

MESIC: alcester \... cooper \... corley \... forney \... grable \...
haynie \... ida \... kennebec \... luton \... marshall \... monona \...
napier \... onawa \... onawet \... percival

\#########################################################################

**CHANGED ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS**

1.  Rod Kyar has accepted the Soil Survey
    Project![](media/image6.jpeg){width="1.6875in"
    height="1.1090277777777777in"}

Leader position in Soda Springs, Idaho (MLRAs 13

-   Eastern Idaho Plateaus and 34 -- Central

> Desertic Basins, Mountains, and Plateaus). Rod's
>
> Former position was Soil Scientist at Virginia,
>
> Minnesota.

2.  Matt Otto has accepted the NRCS/Department of Natural Resources
    Partnership Liaison position in Madison Wisconsin, beginning his new
    duties on August 13. His new communication links are:

Phone: 1-608-264-9222; email: <otto.matt@wi.usda.gov>

\#########################################################################

**ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (through October 15\--subject to change)**

MLRA DATE ACTIVITY LOCATION MO 10 STAFF

\-\-\-- \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

88 Sep 05-08 Progress Field Review Virginia Giencke

90 Sep 18-22 Final Field Review (Dunn Cty) Eau Claire Jahnke

90 Sep 25-29 Progress Field Review Spooner Jahnke

93 Sep 19-20 NASIS one-on-one training Virginia Handler

94B Sep 18-22 Progress Field Review Manistique DesLauriers

94B Sep 25-29 Progress Field Review Manistique DesLauriers

103 Sep 18-21 Progress Field Review St. Peter Giencke

105 Sep 18-22 Final Field Review (Dunn Cty) Eau Claire Jahnke

107 Sep 18-22 Progress Field Review Onawa Hempel

all Sep 04-08 Work Planning Conference Des Moines McCloskey

all Sep 12-13 FY 2001 Planning Meeting St. Paul All

\#########################################################################

###### CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME

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.

\* \* \* \* \*

Articles from other newsletters are often included to distribute ideas

and comments from other areas of the country; these ideas and comments

are not necessarily identical to those used 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 and printer setup.

\* \* \* \* \*

Thanks to those individuals who participated this month. It is your

efforts that have made this newsletter a success.

\* \* \* \* \*

Articles in an electronic format can be submitted to:

<rhonda.osterman@mn.usda.gov>

\* \* \* \* \*

Previous copies of this newsletter are available at:

<http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/mo10/mo10.html>

\#######################################################################

### USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

> The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in
> all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
> origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
> orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
> apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require
> alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
> large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA\'s TARGET Center at
> 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
>
> To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of
> Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence
> Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice
> and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

\#######################################################################