MLRA REGION 10 NEWSLETTER--JULY 1, 1998


   MAKE THOSE FIRE (TORNADO) COPIES - AND KEEP THEN IN A SAFE PLACE!!

In the evening of March 29th after reports of a large tornado
passing through St. Peter, Minnesota, (where my office is
located), my thoughts were on friends and co-workers that
lived in town.  Thinking more later, my thoughts turned
to the work on the Waseca subset update.  The field maps
and documentation stored on the first floor of the office.  I
felt secure because I had kept up-to-date in making "fire"
copies - but they were stored at the county field office nearby.
I soon found out that both buildings where my field sheets and
fire copies were at, both sustained damage.  The extent of which
I was unsure of, which caused some concern on my part.

As it turned out, four of my originals sustained water damage
which was easily corrected, with no work lost.  To my suprise,
many blue line fire copies from older surveys (some which can be
used for digitizing projects) were rendered unreadable from the 
water.  Some fire copies made from white line reproduction or 
from a photo copy machine were fine.

This experience brought two things to light for me.  Make your
fire or tornado copies on a stable reproduction, and two, keep
them separated from your field sheets by some reasonable distance.
I would have never thought that the two buildings where I kept my
field sheets and fire copies would both be impacted by one event. 
If there is a chance it can happen, it will somewhere, sometime!

Submitted by:
Doug Miller
NRCS
St. Peter, Minnesota

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

   NASIS USE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY

The National Soil Information System (NASIS), developed 
by NRCS to manage soil survey information, is being used by 
agencies throughout USDA and Department of the Interior and by 
several universities.  High-quality training provided by the NRCS 
National Soil Survey Center (NSSC) in Lincoln, Nebraska, is 
making the difference in acceptance and use of NASIS.  NSSC 
reports that 504 soil scientists have been trained including soil 
scientists from NRCS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land 
Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and 
several universities.

From "NRCS This Week"  May 1, 1998.

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

            NASIS TALES OF WOE--AND A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

One story of many from project office staffs concerning getting NASIS
up and running....

                         *   *   *   *   *

From MLRA 105 Soil Survey Project Office in Eau Claire, Wisconsin:

[Tim's comments are a result of attempting to use currently available
resources to establish a connection with the NASIS system at the MLRA
Region 10 Office. Excerpted from an email from him to Ken Lubich.]:

Ken,

I have spent a good deal of time attempting to complete our
connection to St. Paul with the xterminal software. Deb
Legear upgraded our internet computer to Windows 95, we
downloaded a copy of the Xonnet for W-95 but we have a bug
that has to do with the "socket" that will not let us
connect. Deb is too busy and unfamiliar with these problems
to ferret out the problem, I have worked with Rich Dougherty
in St. Paul to try and correct and we still have not gotten
it worked out.

If NASIS in the project office is going to be a reality, the
right equipment as well as people with the hardware and
software knowledge to get it working will have to be
dedicated to the project. I will not spend any more time on
these NASIS IRM issues. I am planning on traveling to St.
Paul/Madison/Richland Center when necessary to work with
Duane [Simonson] and Joe Jahnke on NASIS edits.
--
Tim Meyer, SSPL, MLRA 105
UNIX: wi600g!wia2!tmeyer
INTERNET: wia2!tmeyer@wi600g!wi.nrcs.usda.gov

                         *   *   *   *   *

Tim, I appreciate your frustration using NASIS.  There are severe
performance problems.  These will be a key discussion topic during the
June 8, 9 meeting with State Conservationists, Horace Smith, Maurice
Mausbach, and State Soil Scientists.

Joe McCloskey

                         *   *   *   *   *

I know of at least two other soil survey offices in MLRA Region 10 that
are not able to use NASIS efficiently due to inadequate communications.

John Handler

                         *   *   *   *   *

From "NRCS This Week"  May 1, 1998.

To improve telecommunications service required by NASIS, NRCS is 
working with the LAN/WAN/Voice infrastructure project.

                         *   *   *   *   *

These comments and scores of others from around the country resulted in
the following presentation to the NRCS national Information Resources
Management Review Board on June 9, 1998:

                  DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE IRB
               NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

FROM:
Maurice J. Mausbach
Deputy Chief, Soil Survey and Resource Assessment
Natural Resources Conservation Service

THROUGH:
Thomas W. Christensen
Chief Information Officer
Natural Resources Conservation Service

TO:
Information Resources Management Review Board (IRB)
Natural Resources Conservation Service

SUBJECT:
Soil Survey Project Office Access to NASIS

ISSUE:

A critical need exists for soil survey project offices to connect to the
National Soil Information System (NASIS) servers at Major Land Resource
Area Soil Survey Offices.  LAN/WAN/Voice (LWV) implementation is a vehicle
to provide basic telecommunication infrastructure, but it is unclear
exactly what soil survey project offices will receive under LWV and when.
This decision memo outlines a target telecommunication configuration for
soil survey project offices and establishes criteria for level of service.

If LWV cannot provide adequate service to soil survey project offices
within 6 months, interim solutions must be pursued.  Another year delay in
full implementation of NASIS is unacceptable.

BACKGROUND:

The primary focus of the National Cooperative Soil Survey has been mapping
the soils of the United States and providing that information as static,
printed soil survey reports.  Due to the intensive business process
analysis conducted for NASIS, the focus has now shifted to maintaining and
providing a dynamic resource of soil information that can serve diverse,
individualized needs with products tailored to those needs.

The entire soil survey program has been reengineered to meet the challenges
of the new program focus.  This reengineering includes implementing NASIS,
organizing soil survey updates and maintenance around Major Land Resource
Areas rather than counties, and digitizing all soil surveys so that all
data, spatial and attribute, are in electronic formats.  Soil scientists
and other technical specialists in field locations throughout the country
are the essential focal points for collecting and managing soil data.  NASIS
provides the tools necessary to carry out these jobs.

Performance of NASIS is a critical success factor to its implementation in
soil survey project offices (SSPO).  Dial-up access to NASIS via 28.8 Kbps
modems provides a basic level of service but is only marginally effective
for a single user at a time.  For SSPO's with 3 or more soil scientists, or
where SSPO's are collocated with a service center, dedicated connections
provide the necessary performance at cost savings over dial-up access.
This solution is consistent with LWV and CCE.  The Soil Survey Division
has made a business decision to move 1 and 2 person offices over time to
larger offices.  For the short term, these smaller offices will still need
access, but will utilize dial-up modems.

Current experience with LWV installations shows average recurring costs
of $200 to $250 per month compared to $150 to $200 per month for dedicated
connections.  The cost of the administrative overhead is greater for
dial-up connections than for dedicated connections.  We are just beginning
to utilize the LWV Internet connectivity.  Over time we anticipate either
the cost of dial-up connections to increase as we more fully use the
system, or the capacity of the dial-up connections to be exceeded and not
meet business needs. The bottom line is that dedicated connections provide
a better solution for USDA.

TARGET CONFIGURATION:

Three levels of service are depicted below based on the number of people
in a SSPO and the relationship with a USDA Service Center.  The scenarios
are:

1. SSPO Collocated with a USDA Service Center, or SSPO with 3 or more Soil
Scientists: the office qualifies for a dedicated connection to the USDA
Internet Backbone.
LWV pays for Local Area Network, router, dedicated connection and service
initiation.
Agency incurs monthly recurring costs.

2. SSPO "Nearby" a USDA Service Center: the Service Center qualifies for a
dedicated connection to the USDA Internet Backbone, and the SSPO is
connected to the Service Center via a dedicated connection.  LWV pays for
Local Area Network, router, dedicated connection and service initiation.
Agency incurs monthly recurring costs.

3. Standalone SSPO with 1 or 2 Soil Scientists: provide basic dial-up
modem access to NASIS through a State Office PPP modem server or through
the Kansas City Rotary.
LWV pays for modem and software.
Agency pays for state office PPP modem server if used and monthly
recurring costs.

OPTIONS:

1. Agree to the stated criteria for a specific level of telecommunication
service for soil survey project offices.  Task LWV installation teams to
follow the criteria of the target configuration outlined above and order dedicated connections for those offices meeting the specified criteria.
Based on the April 1997 and June 1998 hardware and software inventory of
soil survey project offices, the following items summarize required
equipment purchases for soil survey project offices to utilize the
communication capability.
   *Minimum requirements (1 PC for every soils office):	$436,322.95
   *Realistic requirements (1 PC for every soil scientist):	$996,322.95
Any hardware or software purchase will be subject to the IT moratorium and
require a waiver.

2. Utilize alternative solutions for SSPO access to NASIS until the LWV
solution is implemented.  The solutions selected will be based on a least
cost analysis for a particular office.  Estimated costs for alternative
solutions may actually exceed installation and monthly recurring costs for
the LWV solution.  One solution may not work for all offices.  Depending
on the option selected, additional hardware and software may be required
at the SSPO and the state or MLRA Soil Survey Office.  Any hardware or
software purchase will be subject to the IT moratorium and require a 
waiver.

3. Do nothing to enable SSPO access to NASIS.  This option would
jeopardize the soil survey program by not enabling field soil scientists
access to the tools to do their work.  Attribute data required by the
digitizing effort would be difficult or extremely costly to produce (e.g.,
detail field soil scientists into the MO's) and time schedules would slip
as production falls off.  Future congressional funding could be at risk.

RECOMMENDATION:

Option 1 is recommended.

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

        NRCS WORKS TO PROVIDE QUALITY JOINS OF SOIL SURVEYS

As part of its work for accelerating digitizing soil surveys over 
the next 5 years, NRCS is working on providing quality "joins" of 
soil surveys.  These "joins" will provide digital soil data that 
are accurate from one orthophoto quad to the next, irrespective 
of the location of town, county, or State boundaries.  This extra 
upfront work will produce more accurate soil survey digitized 
data and maps which will be more useful to planners.

From: NRCS "This Week", May 8, 1998

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

                SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR CRITERIA
               Submitted by Lynn DesLauriers
           SDQS (Manuscripts and Interpretations)
                              
                              
In October of 1997 the staffs of Regional MLRA Offices 10
and 11 met in Madison, WI in an effort to coordinate policy
and procedures for conducting and performing quality
assurance on the project soil surveys in both regions.  One
of the items to be developed was a criteria for consistently
categorizing taxonomic units and map units as similar or
dissimilar.  The staff of Region 11 had previously developed
and were using criteria.  This criteria has worked well, but
has been modified to be more inclusive.

It is requested that all field soil scientists use and test
this criteria when it is received and make suggestions for
improvement if needed.  The criteria is included in this
article and will also become a part of the guidance
documents provided by both regional offices.


SIMILAR/DISSIMILAR GUIDE FOR USE IN REGIONS 10 AND 11 (5/98)

Use this guide to assign similar/dissimilar concepts to
components and map units.  Although the guide is
comprehensive and will cover most situations, soil
components may be encountered that are not addressed in the
guide.  If these circumstances arise, please contact your
Regional Soil Data Quality Specialist.  An effort will be
made to incorporate new criteria in the guide as necessary
to cover these circumstances.

1.   This similar/dissimilar key is based mostly on soil
  properties and on some soil interpretations.
  Similar/dissimilar status is based on the differences
  encountered in properties and interpretations, either
  individually or combination.
  
2.   We identified the following properties and
  interpretations to be used in a key:
  
  Drainage class (except somewhat excessive and excessive)
  Family particle size class
  Depth to limiting layer
  Surface texture
  Surface layer rock fragment class
  Surface stones and boulders
  Erosion class
  Slope
  Flooding frequency
  Surface calcium carbonate content
  
Drainage class:  Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes
for very contrasting.

  For dissimilar components:  better drained components are
  non-limiting; more poorly drained components are limiting.
  Very poorly drained components are dissimilar to poorly
  drained components and very contrasting to components in
  all other drainage classes.
  
  
Family particle size class:
  
  sandy
  
  coarse-loamy and coarse silty
  
  fine-loamy and fine-silty
  
  fine
  
  very fine
  

Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very
contrasting.

For components with a contrasting particle size class, only
the class for the upper part of the control section will be
used.  Dissimilar components will be non-limiting.
Components with organic control sections are very
contrasting to components with mineral particle size control
sections.


Depth to limiting layer:

          lithic and paralithic contacts
          sand and/or gravel
          dense till
          fragipans
  
  Depth groups (in inches):   0 - 10    very shallow
                          10 - 20  shallow
                          20 - 40  moderately deep
                          40 - 60  deep
                           > 60    very deep
  
  Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very
  contrasting.  Components in adjacent (shallow, moderately
  deep, or deep) classes with representative values that
  differ by 10 inches or more are also dissimilar.
  Shallower components are limiting.  Deeper components are
  non-limiting.  Very shallow components are very
  contrasting to components in all other depth classes.
  
  
Surface texture:

          coarse       (s, ls, cos, lcos, fs, lfs, vfs,
          lvfs)
          moderately coarse   (sl, cosl, fsl)
          medium       (l, sil, si, vfsl)
          moderately fine     (scl, cl, sicl)
          fine         (sc, c, sic)
          organic      (muck, peat, mucky peat)
  
  Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very
  contrasting.  All dissimilar components are limiting.
  
  
Surface layer rock fragment class (percent by volume):
  
          Less than 15%
          15 - 35%
          35 - 60%
          60% +
  
  Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very
  contrasting.  Components with more rock fragments are
  limiting and those with less rock fragments are non-
  limiting.  Components in adjacent classes with
  representative values that differ by 10 percent or more
  are also dissimilar, and by 20 percent or more are also
  very contrasting.


Surface stones and boulders:

          Class 1
          Class 2
          Class 3
          Class 4
          Class 5
          
  Skip one class for dissimilar and 2 classes for very
  contrasting.  The more stony components are limiting the
  less stony components are non-limiting.
  
  
Erosion class:   class 1 or 2 (slight or moderate)
                 class 3   (severe)
                 class 4   (very severe/gullied)
  
  Adjacent groups are dissimilar, and skip a group for very
  contrasting.  More severe erosion is limiting.  Less
  severe is non-limiting.
  
  
Slope:
                     Slope Class Table

 Slope range       Similar        Dissimilar         Very
                                                 Contrasting
                                      Absolute  
                                    Difference
    0 to 1           < 3              3               4
    2 to 3           < 4              4               6
    4 to 8           < 5              5               8
   9 to 16           < 7              7               10
   17 to 30          < 9              9               14
     > 30            < 12             12              20

   A component must have a slope which differs by the
   indicated amount from the high or low slope of the map
   unit to be dissimilar.  Dissimilar components with
   greater slopes are limiting.
   
      Example 1 -  A component with 20% slope within a map
      unit with a slope range of 6-12%.  Since the component
      has slopes greater than the upper limit of the map
      unit slope range, compare the component with the upper
      limit of the map unit slope range.  The upper limit of
      the map unit slopes is 12%, which fits within the 9-
      16% slope group.  To be dissimilar the component must
      have at least 7 % more slope (7% + 12% = 19%) than the
      map unit.  The component on 20% slope, therefore, is
      dissimilar.  To be very contrasting, the component
      must have at least 10% more slope (10% + 12% = 22%)
      than the map unit.  The component on 20% slope,
      therefore, is not very contrasting.  Since the
      component has greater slopes than the upper slope
      limit of the map unit, it is limiting.
      
      Example 2.  Compare components on 3% and 7% slopes.
      Find the difference required for the lower slope
      component.  The 3% component fits into the 2-3% group,
      which requires a difference of 4% to be dissimilar,
      therefore, the 7% component is dissimilar.  However,
      the difference required for the 7% component, which
      fits into the 4-8% group is 5%.  Therefore, the 3 %
      component is not dissimilar to the 7% component.
      
      Example 3.  Compare slopes of 5-10% with slopes of 8-
      16%, using the lower slopes for each component (5 & 8)
      and the upper slopes for each component (10 & 16).  A
      slope of 5% requires a difference of 5%, therefore, 8%

      is not dissimilar.  A slope of 10% requires a
      difference of 7%, therefore, 16% is not dissimilar.
      Therefore, components with 8-16% slopes are not
      dissimilar.
      
      
Flooding frequency:
      
      Flooding groups:   none
                         rare
                         common
      
  Adjacent classes are dissimilar.  None and common are very
  contrasting.  More frequent flooding is limiting.
  
  
Surface calcium carbonate content:

  Well drained soils 5% or more CaC03 (high value) in the
  surface layer are dissimilar to well drained soils with no
  calcium carbonate in the surface layer.

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

          DOES SOIL SURVEY HAVE A HAMMERHEAD IN ITS' FUTURE?

Just wanted to fill you in on the "future" I saw while in Ft. Worth.

[The Hammerhead is a portable computer constructed to military
specifications for ruggedness; it is currently being tested by NRCS soil
scientists in Montana for all aspects of soil survey field work.]

I was able to see and feel the Hammmerhead prototype.  The Hammerhead is
approximately the size of a clipboard.  They have fixed the problems
associated with the screen; it is now viewable in full sunlight.  Specs
include: Pentium 133 w/32 meg RAM and 1.2 gig storage.  It runs WIN95
software and is pen based.  The shell is machined aircraft aluminum.  They
anticipate production models next year to include a P233 w/64 meg RAM and
4 gig storage.  It will have the capability to run all WIN95 based software
(database/word/GIS, etc.).

So, the hardware is becoming available and hopefully, the software will be
shortly behind.  The sales consultant is basically travelling the circuit
drumming up support for this type of computer.  

Well, the dream lives on.

Submitted by:
Paul Finnell
Soil Data Quality Specialist
MLRA Region 5
Salina, Kansas

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

                         SOILS EXPLORER PROJECT
                         Submitted by Ken Lubich

Last February and March, I attended two meetings on the Soils Explorer
Project.

Soils Explorer is targeted to the general public and is being developed as
free browser that can be distributed with certified SSURGO data and Digital
Orthophotography.  Soils Explorer doesn't require any GIS software and is
ready to use from the CD, but it does require a Windows 95 or Windows NT
operating system.

The Soils Explorer, Brown County Prototype was put together little by little
as a one of a kind CD.  Some modifications and enhancements are being made
to Soil Explorer based on feed back form the Brown County Kansas Prototype.
The main task now that the Information Technology Center (ITC) programmers
at Fort Collins, Colorado are working on is to automate the process. This
includes developing standard programs or shells that will be used to process
the tabular data and spatial data for any SSURGO certified soil survey and
reformat it so it works in the Soils Explorer.

The production unit is already being set up in Fort Worth, Texas with plans
to get one soil survey on CD for each state yet this fiscal year.  Soil
Explorer is not meant to replace the published soil survey nor to be the
only electronic product available.  It has some advantages over other
electronic products and some disadvantages.  In order to make Soils Explorer
available quickly somethings that would take to much time to program or
require additional data will be left for future releases.

One thing that I am very glad we were able to work out was a way to
interpret any multi component map units.

There are only a few of the prototype CD's left, if you haven't seen it you
can check and see if Adrian Smith, NSSC has any left or you can have some
one make you a copy.  I feel this product and other similar products, such
as the Illinois Soil View CD will put our soil surveys in the hands of new
customers and will greatly increase there use.

One last comment.  Soils Explorer really is most impressive when landscape
photos, soil profiles and block diagrams are included on the CD and tied to
the map units.   Keep getting those photos and make them color.

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

                 ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER CHANGES

1. Bill Pauls' new "internet style" address:
     billp@mo.nrcs.usda.gov

2. Steve Elmer's "internet style" address:
     steven.elmer@il.nrcs.usda.gov

3. Steve Higgin's "internet style" address:
     steve.higgins@il.nrcs.usda.gov

4. Dave Preloger's "internet style" address:
     david.preloger@il.nrcs.usda.gov

5. Sarah Mase's "internet style" address:
     Mase_Sarah_E/r9_ottawa@fs.fed.us

6.New Phones and FAX Numbers in Wisconsin

######### Wisconsin Digitizing Center Staff List  #############
########### New Phone Numbers effective 4/28/98 ###############
Main staff (more than 1/2 time) with all or part of their time
dedicated to digitizing initiative.

Email: first letter of first name and first 7 letters of last name.
  (Example klubich@wi.nrcs.usda.gov)
Home page: www.nrcs.usda.gov/tech.html
FTP Site:  winri.wi.nrcs.usda.gov  (Generally go to pub/digcenter)

New Phone    608-276-8732
Fax:         608-276-5890
USDA Voice   9018-Ext (Example 9018-248)

Name            Title      Ext. Special Emphases Area
-------------- ----------  ---- ------------------------------
Ken Lubich  *   SSS        248  Management
Howard Gundlach SS         247  Soil Business
Carl Wacker *   SS         246  Tables
Kent Pena       Carto.     274  Technology, R&D, Mgt., Etc.
Mark Roloff     Carto.     263  SSURGO Review, Training, SL
Barb Zeps       Carto Tec  271  SSURGO Review
Gretta Luedeke  Carto.     235  Metadata, Shift Leader (SL)
Kate Kelly      Carto Tech 231  Creating, Cleaning, Joins
Terry Schoepp   Carto Tech 205  Corrections, Joins, CD 92s
Adolfo Diaz     Coop. Stud.216  Corrections, Ploting
Amy Sippl       WLWCA      219  QC, Attributing, Special Feat.
Craig Surman    WLWCA      206  Co. Borders, Joins, Attributing
Wendy Goulet *  Sec.       241  Clerical, etc.

WLWCA   Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Employee
*       Other major duties, only part time on digitizing team.
SL      Shift Leader

Mailing Address:
Natural Resources Conservation Service
6515 Watts Road, Suite 200
Madison, Wisconisn 53719-2726

NEW NUMBERS AS OF 4/28/98
Phone:  608-276-8732-248
FAX:  608-276-5980
USDA Voice 9018-248

Submitted by:
Ken Lubich
State Soil Scientist
klubich@wi.nrcs.usda.gov

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

              FOREST AND FLORENCE SOIL SURVEY MANUSCRIPTS

The final touches were put on these two Wisconsin county's manuscripts
last winter by Joe Boelter and submitted to the MLRA Region 10 office
last May for technical and English edits.

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

                        WEB SITES OF INTEREST

http://www.swcs.org
Soil and Water Conservation Society of America home page.

http://www.maptech.com/topo/index.html
USGS 1:24,000/25,000 and 1:100,000 topgraphic maps on CD. MLRA Region 10
states with current coverage are Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota;
Michigan is currently in production. Five to seven CDs provide coverage
for a single state; costs are $49 to $99 per CD.

http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/sqihome.shtml
USDA NRCS Soil Quality Institute home page.

http://www.ga.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra15
MLRA Region 15 (Coastal Plain and Caribbean Area) home page.

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

Last month, the following x3780 files were sent to offices having SSSD:

   x3780.423mes	on June 1		( 6 updated OSDs) *
   x3780.422frig    on June 3      ( 1 updated OSD ) @
   x3780.424frig    on June 23     ( 3 updated OSDs) @
   x3780.425mes     on June 24     ( 6 updated OSDs) *
   x3780.426frig    on June 29     ( 2 updated OSDs) @

@ Sent to offices using soils in the frigid soil temperature regime.
* Sent to offices using soils in the mesic soil temperature regime.
# Sent to all offices.	

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

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (through August 15--subject to change)

Jul 06-10  MLRAs 90, 93, 94A: Menominee Cty Final Field Review  Jahnke
Jul 13-16  MLRA 90: Taylor County Final Field Review            Jahnke
                                                                Handler
Jul 27-31  MLRAs 93, 94B: Alger County Initial Field Review     Jahnke
Aug 03-06  MLRAs 57, 88, 93: Koochiching Cty Progress Field Rev Giencke
                                                                Handler
Aug 03-07  MLRAs 90, 93, 94A: Progess Field Review (Spooner)    Jahnke
Aug 10-14  Dense Till Study (Spokane, WA)                       Giencke

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

     CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME

Please submit your items at least five days before the end of the month
for inclusion in the following month's newsletter. Otherwise it will
appear the following month.

Items in an electronic format can be submitted to: jfh@mn.nrcs.usda.gov
It is best if articles are prepared in a "text only" format.

Items in a paper format can be sent or faxed to:
   John Handler
   MLRA Region 10 Office
   USDA - NRCS
   375 Jackson Street - Suite 600
   St. Paul, Minnesota  55101-1854
   FAX: 1-612-602-7914

Thanks to those individuals who participated this month.

This newsletter is intended to be a forum to distribute information of
a general nature that will benefit soil scientists in soil survey project
offices. It is hoped that it will foster communications and sharing of
knowledge among those soil scientists in MLRA Region 10.

The format of this newsletter is intentionally simple so that it can be
received, printed, and read by the project office having the least 
sophisticated computer setup.

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