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  <Enter>
At the "Name" prompt type: ftp <Enter>
At the "Password:" prompt, type your email address.
At the "ftp>" prompt type: cd pub <Enter>
At the "ftp>" prompt type: cd nssc <Enter>
At the "ftp>" prompt type: ls -l <Enter>
At the "ftp>" prompt type: bi <Enter>
At the "ftp>" prompt type: get [filename] <Enter> This will
transfer the [filename] to the directory from which you
started on your own computer.
To exit, at the "ftp>" prompt type: bye <Enter>

#########################################################################

    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.   

#########################################################################