1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 4

September 1998

In This Issue—

Editor’s Note

Issues of this newsletter are

available on the World Wide Web

(www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv).

Click on NCSS and then on the desired

issue number of the NCSS Newsletter.

You are invited to submit stories for

future issues of this newsletter to

Stanley Anderson, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Phone—402-437-5357; FAX—402-

437-5336; email—

sanderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov.

Reasons for Adopting the

MLRA Organization

Approach to Soil Survey

By Thomas E. Calhoun, Soil Survey

Division Program Manager, NRCS, Washington,

D.C.

This is the second of two papersproviding background

information on managing soil survey

by Major Land Resource Areas

(MLRA’s). This paper provides more

of the reasons why the change to that

organizational concept was made. The

first paper dealt more with the

evolution or history of the concept.

The current concept of managing a

soil survey program by Major Land

Resource Areas is primarily a concept

of how to update older surveys to meet

current standards and then maintain

them as relevant parts of a dynamic soil

information system.

As states with many out-of-date

surveys began to develop plans for

updating them, they were faced with

the issue of updating surveys while

continuing to map in previously

unmapped areas without significant

increases in funding or staff.

The staff in Texas was one of the

first to grapple with this issue as they

looked at their needs in the western

parts of the Texas Panhandle, or High

Plains area. In his report on a meeting

held in July of 1980, Paul Unger writes

that he

...participated in a workshop,

sponsored by the Soil

Conservation Service, entitled

“Field Study to Determine

Adequacy of the Soil Surveys in

the Texas High Plains.” The

underlying theme of the

workshop was to determine how

soil surveys could or should be

revised to better meet current or

future needs. This was mainly in

regard to some of the older

surveys that were out of print or

those that were made before the

development of current

standards. (Unger, 1980)

That meeting resulted in a listing

of the research needed to help develop

new interpretations of soils in the

area.

Charles M. Thompson, State Soil

Scientist in Texas, in a letter to his

State Conservationist reporting on the

same meeting, wrote:

All of the High Plains (MLRA77) of Texas has soil survey

coverage that is considered as

modern soil surveys. There are

42 counties that are wholly or

partially within the High Plains

LRA. All counties have a

published soil survey with the

exception of Roberts County.

Roberts County is scheduled for

immediate release. Soil surveys

date from the early 1950’s to the

present time. Some surveys lack

interpretations and some have

outdated and obsolete

interpretations. Some surveys

have outdated map scales and

base maps. About 18 counties are

out of print and unavailable for

distribution. Land use changes

have rendered some surveys

obsolete for operational use.

Further, laboratory data are

MLRA continued on page 5

Reasons for Adopting the MLRA

Organization Approach to Soil

Survey ............................................ 1

Operation of MLRA 94A (East Part)

in Michigan .................................... 2

Updating the MLRA Soil Survey—

Concepts, Chronology, and

Application .................................... 3

Recipe for Baked Glasses .................... 4
2

NCSS Newsletter

Operation of MLRA 94A (East

Part) in Michigan

By William E. Frederick, Soil Scientist

Liaison, State Office, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, East Lansing, Michigan.

With the acceleration of the soilsurvey program in Michigan

in the mid-1980’s, soil surveys were

initiated in the upper part of the Lower

Peninsula. Initiation of these surveys

provided a unique opportunity for

application of MLRA procedures

and principles to completing the “once

over” soil survey in this part of the

State long before implementation of the

MLRA concept really began.

MLRA 94A (Northern Michigan

and Wisconsin Sand Drift) consists of

16 counties in the northern part of the

Lower Peninsula of Michigan plus

portions of 8 additional counties. Over

the past 10 to 12 years, there have been

five to seven soil survey project crews

consisting of Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Forest Service,

and Michigan Department of

Agriculture soil scientists, who have

worked very closely together to

achieve a seamless survey in this

area.

The first steering committee meeting

of the MLRA was held in 1991. The

committee consisted of all field soil

scientists in the project offices,

resource soil scientists in the area, state

office soil scientists, and cooperators

from the Michigan Department of

Agriculture; the United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service; and Michigan State

University. Since there has never been

an official soil survey project leader for

the MLRA, the State Soil Scientist or

Soil Scientist Liaison has chaired the

committee.

Shortly after the initial meeting of

the steering committee, special

subcommittees for legend

development, special features

development, map unit development,

and geomorphic or landform map

development were initiated. It was

decided that, with the completion of the

soil survey of Alcona County in 1991,

there would be an MLRA soil survey

legend and the Alcona County legend

would be the first part of that legend.

The legend subcommittee reviewed the

more recently completed soil surveys

in the MLRA and decided which of the

map units were viable and would be

added to the MLRA legend. At the end

of each county field review, new map

units were approved and added to the

MLRA legend. They were assigned a

number that will be used in the county

publication as well as in the MLRA

legend.

A geomorphic tour of the MLRA

was conducted in 1992. In 1998, a

landform map of the northern part of

the Lower Peninsula, including

MLRA’s 94A and 96, was completed.

The landform committee also proposed

a change in the boundary of MLRA

94A. This change will slightly reduce

the size of the MLRA and create a new

MLRA (94C) in the northeastern part

of the Lower Peninsula. The proposal

for the new MLRA was based on

climatic data as well as landform

differences. It was forwarded to the

Soils Staff of MO Region 11, where it

was approved.

Over the years other special studies

have been conducted in MLRA 94A.

One of these was a field trip in which

the real concept of the Emmet series,

which had been mapped extensively in

the area, was reconsidered.

One of the most important factors in

the success of the soil survey program

in MLRA 94A has been the close

communication between field soil

scientists in different counties. The soil

scientists were encouraged to attend

some or all parts of soil survey field

reviews and were required to attend the

field reviews involving counties

adjacent to their counties.

Resource soil scientists have also

participated in the MLRA project by

assisting in mapping, soil investigation,

and collection of site index and plant

data and by developing a special plant

communities table for the soil survey

publications.

Since the MLRA concept was

initiated in this area, seven surveys

have been completed and three remain

incomplete. The three remaining soil

surveys will be completed in 1999, in

2000, and in 2003.

We hope that a within the next year

or two, or before all soil scientists leave

this area, an MLRA office for MLRA’s

94A, 94C, and 96 will be opened and a

project leader selected. The major

responsibilities of this project staff will

be to review and edit county joins done

prior to the MLRA project and thus

achieve a seamless survey of the area,

to maintain and update the NASIS data

base for the MLRA’s, and to complete

map compilation of the older soil

survey projects either for update

projects or for addition to the Soil

Survey Geographic Database

(SSURGO).
3

NCSS Newsletter

Updating the MLRA Soil

Survey—Concepts,

Chronology, and Application

--Excerpts of a letter from Steve Elmer,

MLRA Soil Survey Project Leader,

Rock Falls, Illinois, to Mark LaVan,

Resource Soil Scientist, Fairfield, Iowa

With the approachingcompletion of the last

remaining countywide soil surveys at

the beginning of the 1990’s, Illinois

began to implement the earlier

established national Major Land

Resource Area (MLRA) concept in

response to requests for updated soil

survey information.

In 1991, MLRA offices were

opened and staffed at five locations

around the State. Each office was given

responsibility for specific MLRA’s in

their area of the State. Planning

meetings were held, and guidelines and

protocol were established for future

soil survey activity under the MLRA

approach. Larry Ratliff, Carl Glocker,

and others from regional and national

levels attended many of these early

sessions and helped to provide program

direction.

Within the Midwest Region,

multistate geomorphic/landform

tours and work sessions were held,

promoting and implementing the

MLRA approach to updating soil

surveys. Soil scientists from the

field, State Office, and regional

levels joined with university soil

scientists, geological survey

specialists, and others. MLRA 105 and

108 geomorphic tours and a Fort

Wayne regional soil series workshop in

1994 are two examples of these

activities during the first half of the

decade.

By 1993, the first three county

update projects had begun in northern

and southwestern Illinois. As with the

former county soil survey agreements,

these projects received input from

Federal, State, and local agencies.

Two primary objectives of the

cooperating agencies were to have the

existing soil survey information placed

onto digital orthophotography at a

scale of 1:12,000 in a digital format

and to join the soil mapping across

similar landscapes and political

boundaries.

Currently, counties interested in

updating their soil survey information

still sign agreements with the Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) and the Illinois Department of

Agriculture, and updates may be

completed as individual projects.

NRCS has been able to give the

counties a cost break for

orthophotomaps when several counties

agree to request updates together. Such

was the case with the adjacent

northwestern Illinois counties of

Henry, Mercer, and Rock Island, which

have identical update completion

schedules, have similar soils and

landscapes, and are being treated as

one project during the field

investigation and legend correlation

phases. Each county will receive a

customized digital soil survey product

(maps, manuscript, and data) in

accordance with their individual

agreement contracts at the conclusion

of the project.

Project staff are not remapping

during updates, except for partial areas

in six or seven of the oldest existing

surveys that were completed in the

1940’s and 1950’s. In all other surveys,

existing documentation (correlation

documents, lab data, field notes, pedon

descriptions, etc.), the large knowledge

base of experienced soil scientists, new

and/or recent information within the

county or region, and field transects as

needed are used to update existing soil

survey information.

Most update projects are expected to

take 2 to 4 years to complete. This time

period is not unusual, but updating two

to seven of these county projects at the

same time with the same or a smaller

crew requires fresh thinking. For

example, each of the four adjacent

counties in the Quad Cities area that

our team of three soil scientists is

currently updating simultaneously has

the same 3-year schedule (1997-2000)

not only for completing whatever

fieldwork is needed but also for

correlating the county legend so that it

joins with the adjacent update counties

and conforms to current MLRA

standards and guidelines. The schedule

also includes completing map

recompilation onto orthophotography,

editing the data base in the new NASIS

format, and developing computergenerated manuscripts based upon the

new product.

With that kind of workload and

timetable, remapping is not possible. In

most cases it is not necessary. As the

soil survey crews of the past several

decades applied their experience, they

provided a good record of soil

conditions that can be built upon. With

the exception of possible data gaps,

such as subsequent soil-parent

material-geological studies and

research findings, and nonjoins

with adjacent counties, existing

information can be brought up to

today’s standards.

Fieldwork in the form of transects or

selected block mapping on specific

landscapes can normally be completed

during the early stages of each project.

The evaluation of soils and landscapes

Updating continued on page 4
4

NCSS Newsletter

on a regional basis, even when

individual counties are being updated,

can also result in a more accurate

description and linkage of landscape

similarities and differences. This

regional evaluation is a central tenet of

the MLRA concept.

All MLRA soil survey activities will

include, among other things, acceptable

joins with adjacent update projects. On

the other hand, update project

information may not have perfect joins

with existing adjacent county soil

surveys if more recent data and soil

knowledge dictate otherwise. The goal

is to improve upon the accuracy and

consistency of existing information

regarding soils, geology, and parent

material and may involve recorrelating

soils in adjacent counties when

information in those areas is updated at

some future date.

Standards provided in the National

Soil Survey Handbook, the Keys to Soil

Taxonomy, the Soil Survey Manual,

and regional and State MLRA and

cooperating agency guidelines are

being followed. When Illinois began

implementing the MLRA concept in

the early 1990’s, it was decided that

MLRA legend(s) would be developed

from each county update project legend

correlated from that point on. Our

initial MLRA 108 soil legend, for

instance, was the correlated Bureau

County soil legend. This survey area

was the initial MLRA soil survey

update project completed in MLRA

108.

Pedons representing each approved

map unit were placed in an MLRA

series/map unit file. Map units that are

correlated in Bureau County and are

also on the legends of subsequent

county update projects in MLRA 108

are considered already approved on

that subsequent legend. The same

typifying pedon is used for that map

unit wherever it is encountered, as long

as it is considered a match. Pedons

encountered in subsequent updates that

were not mapped in the Bureau County

project are correlated and added to the

MLRA legend. The MLRA legend is

thus built upon with each update

project.

We are using the Official Series

Description (OSD) type location pedon

if it represents a map unit on a county

legend and is within or adjacent to the

MLRA. These steps streamline the

legend development process and avoid

unnecessary duplication of effort.

These benefits will become more

evident with each subsequent update,

as the data base will already be in place

for an increasing number of the map

units.

We are proposing new soil series

where appropriate and necessary. A

new series may be warranted because

of recent studies, as a result of

separating substratum phases or other

phases, because of changes needed

when soil properties extend the series

control section from 60 to 80 inches as

defined by Soil Taxonomy, when soils

have been correlated as taxadjuncts in

the past, or for other reasons. Proposed

new series are sent to the regional

MLRA office and then routed to

adjacent states and partners for

comments.

In summary, the MLRA soil survey

project leader must gain as much

knowledge about the MLRA survey

area as possible. MLRA project leaders

are the first-line correlators for an

MLRA. They are responsible for

coordinating the data for many counties

simultaneously. They are no longer

managing the data for one survey at a

time. The MLRA soil survey concept is

the future and will bring the National

Cooperative Soil Survey effort into the

21st century. 

Updating continued from page 3 Recipe for Baked Glasses

By Stanley Anderson, Editor, NRCS,

National Soil Survey Center.

• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.

• Season large turkey breast with

salt and pepper.

• Place the turkey breast in a

cooking pan and cover it with tinfoil.

• Roast the turkey at 350 degrees

(20 minutes for each pound).

• About 1/2 hour before roasting is

complete, remove the tinfoil and insert

a meat thermometer in the fattest part

of the turkey.

• Wait about 15 minutes before

checking the temperature.

• After opening the oven door,

remove your glasses to keep them from

steaming over.

• Pay no attention to where you

place the glasses.

• Close the oven door.

• Turn up the heat to 450 degrees so

that the turkey will brown.

• Immediately start looking for your

glasses.

• Check everywhere throughout the

house, including the attic and the

basement.

• Don’t forget to check in the

freezer.

• After about 15 minutes of looking,

check in the oven.

• If the glasses are golden brown

(like the turkey) and have shattered

lenses, stick a fork in them. They’re

done.
5

NCSS Newsletter

scarce to absent in most surveys.

Many soil series concepts have

changed with the implementation

of Soil Taxonomy. (Thompson,

1980)

Later in the letter, Charles indicates

the group’s response to the needs for

current and future soil surveys:

The group responded to the

question by listing several ideas

and listing needs. The group felt

that one approach to updating

would be to use the MLRA as the

boundary for resource area

interpretations. This approach

would provide one interpretative

document for the entire MLRA.

(Thompson, 1980)

In his summary statement Charles

identifies at least three phases in the

concept of updating the High Plains

MLRA:

1. Identify the needs, status of

surveys, and set up work plans

and memoranda of understanding

for accomplishing the jobs.

2. Update of soil survey

interpretations for the MLRA.

Preferably in one document that

is tied to existing maps.

3. Selective re-mapping and republication of counties where the

highest priority needs are

identified (Long range plan).

(Thompson, 1980)

The initial concept established at

that time was to bring the

interpretations of the entire MLRA up

to current standards and needs in one

document for the entire area.

The soil survey staff in Oklahoma

reviewed the correspondence from the

High Plains workshop and asked to be

included in the effort. A larger

workshop was organized in 1982 to

orient all the staffs concerned,

including Texas, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Kansas. At that

meeting, Wes Fuchs highlighted the

following items in a presentation on

alternatives for updating:

1. We need to consider having

one supplement (new

manuscript) for large part of

MLRA-77 with similar soils, land

use, etc.

2. We need to integrate the soil

survey data into an existing state

geographic information system.

3. We need to digitize the

survey.

4. We need to prepare one

legend for eight survey areas

(areas of similar soils)

5. We need to have one

correlation document.

6. From all this we will provide

each field office with sets of

maps for their district and copies

of the publication. (Fuchs, 1982)

This outline by Wes more nearly

defined the update process as we

currently think of it. It was a plan to

bring a patchwork quilt, as described

by Dennis Lytle in several

presentations on the concept, of older

surveys of an area with similar soils,

climate, geography, and land use up to

date under one legend so that

interpretations could be made that are

consistent across county, state, and

regional lines. Subsets of this area, if

needed, could be delineated for the

purposes of publications or other

tailored reports.

Over the next 10 years, the need for

this approach nationally continued to

be advocated by some and was studied

at the National Soil Survey Center. In

1996, the opportunity to implement the

MLRA approach to soil surveys was

presented. Factors that helped to make

the MLRA organization for soil survey

a reality included: 1) near completion

of initial soil survey coverage for

private lands in the United States;

2) implementation of the National Soil

Information System (NASIS); 3) the

need for and use of multicounty,

statewide, and national data sets for

farm bills and by other agencies; 4)

requests by states to have their soil

survey funding provided by MLRA soil

survey areas; 5) an initiative to digitize

all published soil surveys; and 6) the

1996 Agency Reorganization driven by

Vice President Gore’s National

Performance Review and the Federal

Deficit.

A brief discussion of the importance

of each of these factors is necessary if

one is to understand how the whole

picture developed.

1. The near completion of the

initial soil survey coverage on the

nation’s private lands, about 91 percent

at the time of implementation, was

important from the programmatic

standpoint. The soil survey program

had been in existence for almost 100

years, and modern soil surveys were

available for much of the country. The

Office of Management and Budget as

well as congressional committees

continued to ask when the program

would end. The concept of continuing

the program in perpetuity with its

existing structure was not politically

viable. A significant change was

needed to demonstrate the agency’s

accomplishment of its significant task

of providing soil survey coverage for

the nation’s private lands and to change

the program focus from producing data

to developing and using information

based on the soil survey data the

agency had been collecting over the

past 40 years.

Acknowledging that there was still

some work to be done on initial

surveys, the agency wanted to elaborate

on and market several new strategies

for the soil survey program. First, the

MLRA continued from page 1

MLRA continued on page 6
6

NCSS Newsletter

soil survey program was an

information program, and an

information life cycle management

approach was necessary to maintain the

data set of soil survey information

(valued at a replacement cost of 5

billion dollars) the agency had

developed. The concept of each soil

survey needing to be remapped after

about 25 years was obsolete in light of

current technology and lack of political

support. Second, although there was

still work to be done in providing

initial soil surveys for remaining

private lands, in many cases the need to

modernize older mapping was more

urgent. These two needs were not

mutually exclusive but could be met

more efficiently under a geographically

based approach to project soil surveys.

Third, some efficiencies could be

realized by staffing for quality

assurance of project soil surveys on a

geographic basis. Fourth, there was a

need for more emphasis on meeting

customer needs by diversifying the soil

survey products, using soil information

in implementing the agency’s

programs, and meeting other resource

planning needs. These “technical

services” were best conducted on a

political (state and county) basis since

the majority of customers were

accustomed to receiving services on

that basis, and the partnerships

developed through the National

Cooperative Soil Survey were

primarily developed around state and

county entities.

2. The implementation of NASIS

was significant in that it freed the soil

survey program from the notion that

each soil survey must be a discrete

entity unto itself. Separation of map

unit data from the map unit delineation

provided a mechanism to more easily

correlate mapping across county, state,

and regional boundaries and to

coordinate soil characteristics and

interpretations across these boundaries.

In NASIS, legends could be managed

by several different soil survey areas

rather than by just one. Because NASIS

is an accumulative data base, it helped

to focus on areas lacking data or having

data that was inconsistent within areas

with similar soils. It provided a

mechanism for improving the quality

of soil data and a new approach to

updating and filling in data gaps.

3. The 1985 Farm Bill was the

first that tied commodity crop

payments to conservation. The concept

of Highly Erodible Land, a new soil

interpretation, was developed.

Landowners were paid to place their

most highly erodible land into

conservation reserves, and conservation

plans that would reduce erosion to

acceptable levels were required if the

landowner was going to qualify for

commodity crop subsidies. It was no

longer acceptable to have

discontinuities in soil mapping and in

interpretations between counties, states,

and regions. Such inconsistencies

could, on one piece of land, cause a

farmer to qualify for the Conservation

Reserve Program on one side of a

county line and not on the other. The

soil did not change; however, the soil

information might differ county by

county. A mechanism was needed to

bring the soil surveys of the nation up

to standards and to eliminate many of

these inconsistencies as efficiently and

expeditiously as possible.

Understanding the concepts inherent

in soil classification makes the

mechanism obvious. Instead of looking

at soils on a political (county by

county) basis, soil surveyors look at

soils throughout their entire, normal

extent on the landscapes on which they

occur and ensure that the information

about those soils is consistent across

their respective landscape positions.

This approach allows the soil surveyors

to bring a geographic area up to

standards and to focus the collection of

additional data on those data gaps that

have been identified in the data set.

Carrying this thought process one step

further, grouping landscapes within

similar climatic and physiographic

regions for the purposes of mapping,

updating, and maintaining soil surveys

leads to the MLRA structure for soil

survey project activities. These same

issues and solutions surfaced when

other agencies, such as EPA and DOD,

tried to use soil surveys as sets of data

rather than as discrete soil survey areas.

4. The issue of states requesting

that their soil survey funding be

provided on the basis of MLRA

projects was not a major factor in the

decision to use the MLRA approach,

but it was an indication of interest by

states in the MLRA concept and in

having some accountability for work

on MLRA projects. At that time,

allocations by MLRA’s could not be

made since only some states were

piloting the MLRA approach to soil

survey. Funding some states on that

basis and other states on another basis

would have led to inequities in state

funding. Because of that possibility, the

NHQ soil survey program manager

convened a group of state soil scientists

to help develop a “funding formula” in

1993. The resulting formula projected a

total soil survey workload in each state

and consequently each state’s

percentage of the total national soil

survey workload. That percentage of

the total national workload was (and

still is) the percentage of the funding

available for state soil survey

operations recommended for each

state. With the formula in place, it

was no longer relevant to funding

whether the soil survey project work

was on a geographic or a political

basis.

MLRA continued from page 5

MLRA continued on page 7
7

NCSS Newsletter

Declining or level budgets in the

program after the push for the 1985

Farm Bill caused many states to leave

staff positions vacant. At the same

time, the need for more soil scientists

to provide technical assistance for

implementation of the various

provisions of the farm bills caused a

migration of staff out of soil survey

project activities. Because of the

limited budgets and the increased need

for technical assistance, 16 State Soil

Scientist positions were vacant. The

program management decided to take

advantage of the opportunity to

implement the new approach to soil

survey project work and to

reemphasize the need for strong

program leadership.

5. Digitizing soil surveys brought

the issues of inconsistencies between

soil survey areas into even sharper

focus. Mismatched delineations and

inconsistent interpretations of soil

information across county, state, and

regional boundaries become quite

evident when surveys are managed by

GIS. It also became apparent that those

using GIS capability could not deal

with the 2,900 individual soil survey

legends when trying to analyze

resource concerns for areas broader

than one soil survey. The MLRA

approach could eventually lead to the

consolidation of those 2,900 legends

into 204 legends that would not change

with changing political boundaries and

at the same time could improve the

quality of the soil survey data by

eliminating the mismatches and filling

in the data gaps.

6. The final issue was the 1996

Agency Reorganization driven by Vice

President Gore’s National Performance

Review and the Federal Deficit. The

impact of declining and level budgets

has already been discussed in terms of

vacant State Soil Scientist positions.

The other major impact was from the

precepts of the National Performance

Review. Vice President Gore’s thrust

was to reform government by reducing

middle management, using the

capabilities of the “information

highway,” and reengineering old

bureaucracies into customer-focused,

responsive, flexible organizations that

empower the innovation of their

employees. Along with these

initiatives, Congress passed the

Government Performance Results Act,

which required that each program

develop a strategic plan to guide its

operations and with which to measure

its accomplishments.

The NRCS (actually USDA in total)

responded to these executive- and

legislative-branch initiatives by

downsizing national, regional, and state

staffs, placing more employees at the

field (direct customer contact) level,

changing the regional office role in the

agency, and delivering technology

through new channels. This

reorganization of NRCS provided the

opportunity for the soil survey program

to complete its reengineering process.

Reengineering was, in fact, what

was being done to the program. NASIS

was completely changing the way data

were handled. A data base was being

developed so that statistically reliable

statements could be made about the

composition of map units and about the

reliability of interpretations. Tailoring

of interpretations to meet local

conditions was now possible, and the

old standard national interpretations

were quickly losing their significance.

Management tools were being

developed to help more effectively

manage project activities. Reports

could be generated directly from

NASIS, freeing staff from much of the

tedium of editing manuscripts.

Digitizing soil surveys using

orthophotography was bringing the

spatial aspects of the surveys into the

field office so that areas of interest to

clients could be identified and tailored

reports with maps could be developed

to meet specific needs. The standard

published soil survey report was no

longer the sole product of the program.

Data and information use rather than

production was becoming the program

focus. All aspects of the program were

being changed from data gathering to

more data management, information

development, data use, and

interpretations. It was time to complete

the reengineering process and institute

a new organizational structure to carry

out the newly reengineered program.

The basic precept of the new

structure, the MLRA Office concept,

was rather simple. The soil survey

process (the inventory process) was

best carried out on a geographic basis

since suites of soils occur

geographically, and programs were

best implemented on a political basis

since customers and partners were

organized primarily around municipal,

county, state, and regional entities.

The process of developing soil

survey legends around MLRA’s would

be initiated as soil surveys were

approved for updating, and quality

assurance would be provided by the

MLRA Office for a group of MLRA’s.

Relocation of staff from the National

Soil Survey Center closer to the field

where they would have a more intimate

knowledge of the soils occurring in

their assigned geographic area

accomplished several things. It met the

agency direction of locating staff closer

to the field, and it moved some of the

higher graded employees out of the

National Soil Survey Center. This

transfer of employees made the center

less of a target during the agency

downsizing, thus protecting a critical

mass of technical support personnel

essential for continuing the innovations

MLRA continued from page 6

MLRA continued on page 8
8

NCSS Newsletter

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, and 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.

being implemented in the soil survey

program. Technical guidance for

project activities was also to be

provided through the MLRA staff.

Consolidation of the legends into

MLRA legends would facilitate using

soil digital and attribute soil

information in GIS. Data quality could

be improved over an entire geographic

area since work on a particular soil or

landscape would apply throughout its

extent rather than terminating at a

county line.

Soil survey project staff would be

located so that they could work out of

one location on many different survey

subsets of the MLRA for a significant

period of time. As a result, the need for

relocation at the conclusion of a survey

subset was reduced.

Where appropriate and where

opportunities permitted, initial project

surveys could also be organized around

the MLRA concept.

The State Office staff and the State

Soil Scientists were to focus their

efforts on using existing soil

information, providing the technical

assistance needed to implement the

agency programs, and meeting

customer needs. The State Soil

Scientist was responsible for

maintaining political contacts within

the state and leading the National

Cooperative Soil Survey efforts. State

work-planning conferences would be

reenergized to help set the work

priority for a state, alternative sources

of funding would be cultivated to help

continue the modernization efforts

within each state, and appropriate

products that meet the needs of

customers would be provided.

The MLRA approach to soil survey

project management was approved by

the agency leadership and instituted

with the beginning of fiscal year 1996.

Seventeen MLRA Offices (MO’s)

were established. There was no magic

about the number. It was recommended

by a 25-member multidisciplinary team

(NRCS, NSSC, 1995), which looked at

groupings of MLRA’s and workloads

and responded to the need for a

reasonable number of offices to handle

the remaining initial project and

ongoing updating project activities of

the program.

The program has been operating for

2 years now under the new structure.

As with any radical change (and this

was a traumatic change for the agency),

the full benefit will not be realized

immediately. People and institutions

both must shed the old as they get

comfortable with the new. Benefits are

being realized. The digitizing program

is now in full swing, and the MLRA

Offices are providing the quality

assurance necessary for certification

where appropriate. Inconsistencies

between counties, states, and regions

are being addressed and corrected. Data

quality is improving. NASIS is on the

verge of being totally implemented,

and program accountability is probably

the best it has been in years. For fiscal

year 1998, there is an increase in the

acres goaled for soil survey after years

of declining goals. There is renewed

interest on behalf of State

Conservationists and many partners.

Many states are holding work-planning

conferences where none have been held

for several years.

Adjustments will probably be

needed to some of the MO areas. One

MO has a workload that is much too

large to be realistically managed, and

some adjustments are needed to better

meet the objectives of reengineering.

The future, however, looks bright.

The agency is proud of its soil survey

program. The centennial of the

program will be celebrated in 1999. It

will highlight the premier program of

its kind.

Bibliography

Fuchs, Wes. 1982. MLRA - 77

Update and Evaluation Correspondence

1980-1990. In Report of High Plains

Soil Survey Evaluation, Lubbock,

Texas, November 16-18, 1982, pp. 9-

13. NRCS, NSSC, Lincoln, NE.

Natural Resources Conservation

Service, National Soil Survey Center.

January 1995. Soil Survey in the

Reinvented Natural Resources

Conservation Service: A Team Report

to the Soil Survey Division.

Thompson, Charles M. December 4,

1980. Correspondence to State

Conservationist. In Report on Soil

Research Needs, MLRA - 77 Update

and Evaluation Correspondence 1980-

1990. NRCS, NSSC, Lincoln, NE.

Unger, Paul. July 30, 1980. Report

on Soil Research Needs. In MLRA - 77

Update and Evaluation Correspondence

1980-1990. NRCS, NSSC, Lincoln,

NE.

MLRA continued from page 7