MLRA REGION 10 NEWSLETTER--AUGUST 1, 1999


                INTERNATIONAL SOILS CONFERENCE SYNOPSIS

--------------------------------------------------------------
International Conference on Soil Resources: Their Inventory,
Analysis, and Interpretation For Use In The 21st Century
--------------------------------------------------------------
The conference was held June 10-12, 1999, at the Thunderbird Motel in
Minneapolis.  Over 150 participants were registered from around the
world.  The keynote speaker was Dr. Johan Bouma, from Wageningen
Agricultural University, in the Netherlands.  He emphasized "the strength
of the past is the key to the future".

As a part of the National celebration for the Soil Survey Centennial in
1999, the aim of this conference was to provide a vision of the
potentials and needs for soil survey information in the 21st century.  A
wide variety of speakers from Jack Briggs (President-Fond du Lac Tribal
and Community College, in Cloquet, Minnesota), to Horace Smith (Director
of our National Soil Survey Division, in Washington D.C.), to Alex
McBratney (University of Sydney in Australia), and 23 others, provided an
excellent forum for discussions.  The potential need for soil survey
information in the next century and beyond was clearly documented.
Symposium proceedings will be printed and provided to all participants.

A banquet to honor Dr. Richard Rust of the University of Minnesota, for
over 30 years of dedicated service to the National Cooperative Soil
Survey, was held on Friday evening.

Over 60 poster displays added to the strength of the conference.  Al
Giencke and Ken Matzdorf put together the Minnesota-NRCS poster which
depicted 100 years of Soil Survey in Minnesota - Past - Present & Future.

Sumbitted by Ken Matzdorf

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

                  PUBLICATION OF KEYS TO SOIL TAXONOMY

The idea of publishing a hard cover "Soil Taxonomy" in support of the
Soil Survey Centennial is nearing completion. The folks at the 
National Soil Survey Center in Lincoln have received copies from the 
bindery and the rest of us will shortly.

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

                  NASIS - NSSC PANGAEA RELEASE NOTES

The following data objects were added or modified IN NASIS
since the last Pangaea release on March 31, 1999.

#AREA TYPES & AREAS
# contact: Russ Kelsea 402-437-5878

Military Reservations
 ..about 350 military facilities added

Non-MLRA Soil Survey Area
 CLAY AND QUITMAN COUNTIES, GEORGIA
 RANDOLPH COUNTY, GEORGIA

#QUERIES
 no changes

#REPORTS
# contact: Russ Kelsea 402-437-5878
#          Jim Fortner 402-437-5755

CORR - Series Extent (permanent dataset)
CORR - Series Extent (selected set)
MANU - Table U. Windbreak Plantings
SSS - Status Map Data Dump
UTIL - NASIS Groups and Users
UTIL - NASIS Users and Groups
UTIL - NASIS Users sorted by User Name
UTIL - NASIS Users sorted by login
UTIL - Property Values (L-RV-H)
UTIL - Property Values (RV only)
UTIL - Property Values (RV-Mapunit-Export)

#GEOMORPHIC FEATURE TYPES
 no changes

#EDIT SETUPS
 no changes

#INTERPRETATIONS
#  There are many changes in Rules, Evaluations and
#Properties used in interpretations.  The significant
#net effect of these changes is that five URB/REC
#interps; two ENG interps; two FOR interps; and one
#AWM interp have been modified or added.

#RULES (interpretations)
# contact: Bob Nielsen 402-437-4149

1Landscape Flooding  Frequency at Planting or Harvest DRAFT
AWM - Vermont Manure Stacking Site
Acid < 3.5 Thickest Layer 10 to 60 inches
CACO3 > 40% in the Thickest Layer 25 to 150cm
Clayey 25 to 150cm (10 to 60 inches)
Clayey 25 to 180cm (10 to 72 inches)
Cobbly, Fragments 75 to 250mm Wt. Ave. 15 to 35% - 0 to 72"
Depth to Water Table =<30cm
ENG - Daily Cover for Landfill
ENG - Sanitary Landfill (Trench)
Erodes Easily
Excess Humus (Unified Surface PT)
FOR - Potential Fire Damage Hazard
FOR - Potential Seedling Mortality
Flooding (Maximum Frequency)
Flooding > Occasional Frequency
Flooding > Rare Frequency
Fragments 2 to 75mm Wt. Ave. to 60"
Hard to Pack
Humus Between 25 to 150cm (10 to 60")
Inorganic Silts and Clays >=15cm Thick, 0 to 150cm
Landscape - Slope Crop Index
Large Stones (Fragments >75mm Wt. Ave. to 60")
Large Stones - Camp Areas
Large Stones, Surface Layer > 75mm (25-75%)
Large Stones, Surface Layer > 75mm (5-30%)
Layer Thickness (40 to 60 inches)
Not Aridic
Organic Matter Crop Production Index Draft (Surface)
Organic Silts and Clays or Peat 0 to 150cm
Percolation & Tax Modified (.4 - 4 um/sec) to 40"
Percolation Thickest Layer (> 14 um/sec) 10 to 60 Inches
Permafrost
Ponded > 4 hours
Salinity (EC 8 to 16mmhos)
Salinity (EC > 16mmhos)
Salinity (EC > 16mmhos), not Aridic
Salinity (EC >16mmhos) Within 25 to 150 cm
Salt 4 to 8 mmhos/cm
Sand Thickest Layer 10 to 72 inches.
Seepage Bottom Layer, Not Aridic
Shallow to Bedrock  <50cm
Shallow to Bedrock  mod by Slope
Shallow to Cemented Pan  mod by Slope
Shallow to Cemented Pan < 50 cm
Slope (15 to 25%)
Slope (25 to 40%)
Slope 2 to > 6%
Slope 8 to > 15%
Slope < 1% surface
Slope >30%
Slope/Unified Code Limitation (1)
Slope/Unified Code Limitation (2)
Small Stones, Surface Layer 2-75mm (10-25%)
Small Stones, Surface Layer 2-75mm (25-50%)
Small Stones, Surface Layer 2-75mm (>65%)
Sodium 25-150cm, Thickest Layer
Sodium, Soil Max SAR > 12
Sodium, not Aridic
Soil Materials for Packing, Unified and Kaolinitic
Stony, Surface Layer Fragments > 25 cm (10 inches)
Strength Limitation (1)
Surface Condition; Crop Index; Most Restrictive
Surface Reaction < 3.5
Texture, Sandy Surface Layer
Texture, Surface Layer - Clayey
Texture, Surface Layer - Clayey & Tax Modified
Texture, Surface Layer - Silty & Tax Modified
Texture, Surface Layer - Too Sandy
Texture/Fragment Limitation (1)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (10)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (11)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (12)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (13)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (14)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (2)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (3)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (4)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (5)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (6)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (7)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (8)
Texture/Fragment Limitation (9)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (29)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (30)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (31)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (32)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (33)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (34)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (35)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (36)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (37)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (38)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (39)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (40)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (41)
Texture/Fragment/Depth Limitation (42)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (43)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (44)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (45)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (46)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (47)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (48)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (49)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (50)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (51)
Texture/Fragment/Depth/Slope Limitation (52)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (15)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (16)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (17)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (18)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (19)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (20)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (21)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (22)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (23)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (24)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (25)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (26)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (27)
Texture/Fragment/Slope Limitation (28)
Thickest Sand Layer 10 to 72 inches.
URB/REC - Camp Areas
URB/REC - Off-Road Motorcycle Trails
URB/REC - Paths and Trails
URB/REC - Picnic Areas
URB/REC - Playgrounds
Wet, Ground Water Near the Surface (30 - 60cm)
Wet, Ground Water Near the Surface (30 - 75cm)
Wet, Ground Water Near the Surface (45 - 100cm)
Wet, Ground Water Near the Surface (45 -75cm)
Wetness Limitation (2)
Wetness Limitation (3)
Wetness Limitation (4)
Wetness Limitation (5)
Wetness Limitation (6)
pH Minimum to a depth of 180cm (acid)

#EVALUATIONS (interpretations)
# contact: Bob Nielsen 402-437-4149

CTSG - Ksat >=141, Bottom Layer
CTSG - Peaty and Mucky Texture in Depth 0-40cm
CaCO3 >40 25-150cm Thickest Layer
Clayey Surface Texture
Excess Sodium SAR >13
Frag 2-75mm surface, (>50 : <25)
Fragments 2mm-<75mm in 0-150cm
Fragments > 75mm, 20 to 35%, Wght. Av. 0 to 50cm (0-20in)
Fragments >75mm in 0-150cm
Layer Thickness (40 to 60 Inches Thick)
Loamy Surface Texture
Low Excess Sodium 0 to 50cm (0 to 20")
Mod sandy USDA Textures - thickest layer in 25-180cm
Percolation (.4 - 4 um/sec) 0 to 100cm (0 to 40")
Percolation (.4 - 4 um/sec) 0 to 150cm (0 to 60")
Percolation (1 - 4 um/sec) 0 to 150cm (0 to 60")
Percolation (10 to 40 um/sec) 0 to 150cm (0 to 60")
Percolation (Layer Thickness > 30cm & ksat > 14um/sec)
Percolation < 2 um/sec to 150cm (0 to 60")
Percolation Layer Thickness (> 14um/sec)  25 to 150cm
Ponding Duration > Very Brief
SAR 25-150cm Thickest Layer
SQI - Surface Sand
Salinity 8 to 16 mmhos/cm
Salinity > 16 mmhos/cm
Salinity, EC >16mmhos, 25-150cm
Sand (Bottom Layer)
Sandy Surface Texture
Sandy USDA Textures - thickest layer in 25-180cm
Seepage (Bottom layer)
Shallow to Bedrock (75 to 100cm (30 to 40"))
Shallow to Bedrock (<50cm (<20"))
Shallow to Cemented Pan (<50cm (<20"))
Shallow to Permafrost (50 to 100cm (20 to 40"))
Slope 2.9 to > 8%
Slope > 2
Slope >15% to <8%
Slope >30%
Slopes <15 to >25%
Slopes <2 to >6%
Slopes <25 to >40%
Slopes <8 to >15%
Slopes > 8%
Soil reaction 25-150cm thickest layer for daily cover
Surface Fragments > 2-75mm, 10 to 25%
Surface Fragments > 2-75mm, > 65%
Surface Fragments > 75mm, 25 to 75%
Surface K-Factor > .35
Surface Layer Thickness =<10cm
Surface Organic Matter Crop Production
Surface Sand
Taxonomic Great Group - torr* or xer
Taxonomic Great Group - torr*, ust*, or xer
Taxonomic Order - oxisols
Taxonomic Subgroup - torr*,  aridic*, xer
Taxonomic Subgroup - torr*, ust*, aridic*, xer
Taxonomic Subgroup - torr*, ust*, aridic*, xer*, or oxic
Taxonomic Suborder - torr*, ust*, or xer
USDA Texture Classs, Surface - Clayey
USDA Texture Classs, Surface - Silty
USDA Texture-Mod Clayey 25-150cm, Thickest Layer
USDA Texture-Very Clayey 25-150cm, Thickest Layer
USDA textures-mod clayey in thickest layer in 25-180cm
USDA textures-mod sandy in thickest layer in 25-150cm
USDA textures-very clayey in thickest layer in 25-180cm
Unified  25-150cm for packing
Unified  25-150cm for seepage
Unified (Gravel/Sand) Within 10cm of Surface
Unified (Gravels) Within 10cm of Surface
Unified (Inorganic) In Layer >=15cm Thick in Depth 0-150cm
Unified (Inorganic) In Layer >=15cm Thick in Depth 0-30cm
Unified (Inorganic) In Layer >=15cm Thick in Depth 0-90cm
Unified (Inorganic) In Layer >=7cm Thick In Depth 0-15cm
Unified (Organic 25 to 150cm (10-60"))
Unified (Organic in the surface layer)
Unified (Organic) In Layer >=15cm Thick In Depth 0-90cm
Unified (Organic) In Layer >=15cm Thick in Depth 0-150cm
Unified (Organic) In Layer >=15cm Thick in Depth 0-30cm
Unified (Organic) In Layer >=7cm Thick In Depth 0-15cm
Unified (Sand/Cl Gravel) Within 10cm of Surface
Unified (Silt/Clay/Peat) Within 10cm of Surface
Unified 25-150cm for excess humus
Unified PT in surface for excess humus
Wet, Ground Water Near Surface (30 - 60cm)
Wet, Ground Water Near Surface (45 - 105cm)
Wet, Ground Water Near Surface (60 - 120cm)
Wet, Ground Water Near Surface (60 - 180cm)
Wet, Ground Water within 180 cm (6 ft.)
pH Maxium to a depth of 180cm (alkaline)
pH Minimum to a depth of 180cm (Acid)

#PROPERTIES (interpretations/reports)
# contact: Bob Nielsen 402-437-4149

AWC, 0-150CM OR FIRST RESTRICTIVE LAYER
AWC, 0-50CM OR FIRST RESTRICTIVE LAYER
CALCIUM CARBONATE  THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 25-150CM
CALCIUM CARBONATE EQUIVALENT MAXIMUM IN DEPTH  25-150CM
CALCIUM CARBONATE EQUIVALENT MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM
CALCIUM CARBONATE EQUIVALENT MINIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM
CALCIUM CARBONATE EQUIVALENT RV AVERAGE IN DEPTH 0-30CM
CLAYEY SURFACE TEXTURE
COMPONENT KIND
DEPTH TO BEDROCK
DEPTH TO BEDROCK LITHIC/PARALITHIC
DEPTH TO CEMENTED PAN
DEPTH TO FIRST RESTRICTION BELOW ORGANIC LAYER
DEPTH TO GROWING SEASON WATER TABLE MAXIMUM
DEPTH TO GROWING SEASON WATER TABLE MINIMUM
DEPTH TO HIGH WATER TABLE MINIMUM
DEPTH TO INDURATED LAYER
DEPTH TO LITHIC, PARALITHIC, DURIPAN
DEPTH TO MODERATELY CEMENTED LAYER
DEPTH TO STRONGLY/VERY STRONGLY CEMENTED LAYER
DEPTH TO VERY STRONGLY CEMENTED LAYER, 10-20CM THICK
DEPTH TO VERY STRONGLY CEMENTED LAYER, >20CM THICK
DEPTH TO VERY/EXTREMELY BOULDERY TEXTURE MODIFIER
DEPTH TO VERY/EXTREMELY STONY TEXTURE MODIFIER
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE AVERAGE FOR CONSECUTIVE MONTHS
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE AVERAGE FOR CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OCT-FEB
DEPTH TO WET LAYER MAXIMUM
DEPTH TO WET LAYER MINIMUM
DEPTH TO WET LAYER MINIMUM (DEFAULT 31)
DEPTH TO WET LAYER MINIMUM (DEFAULT 46)
DEPTH TO WET LAYER MINIMUM, MAR-SEP
EROSION FACTOR SURFACE LAYER
EROSION FACTOR THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 0-15CM
FINE EARTH % BY VOLUME
FLOODING DURATION CLASS
FLOODING FREQ. MONTHS W/ FREQUENT OR VERY FREQUENT FLOODING
FLOODING FREQ. MONTHS W/ OCCASIONAL FLOODING
FLOODING FREQUENCY CLASS
FRAGMENT KIND CODES IN SURFACE LAYER
FRAGMENTS 2MM TO 75MM MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM BY VOLUME
FRAGMENTS 2MM TO 75MM TOTAL IN DEPTH 0-150CM (reserved)
FRAGMENTS 2MM to <75MM TOTAL IN DEPTH 0-150CM (reserved)
FRAGMENTS 2MM to <75MM TOTAL IN DEPTH 0-30CM (reserved)
FRAGMENTS 2MM-75mm SURFACE LAYER
FRAGMENTS 2mm-<75mm WT. AVE. 0-150cm
FRAGMENTS =>75MM THICKEST LAYER WI 10CM OF SURFACE(reserved)
FRAGMENTS >2MM TOTAL IN SURFACE LAYER (reserved)
FRAGMENTS >2MM TOTAL IN SURFACE LAYER BY VOLUME
FRAGMENTS >75MM MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM BY VOLUME
FRAGMENTS >75MM MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-90CM BY VOLUME
FRAGMENTS >75MM THICKEST LAYER W/I 10CM OF SURFACE BY VOLUME
FRAGMENTS >75MM WEIGHTED AVE. IN DEPTH 0-30CM BY VOLUME
FRAGMENTS >75mm Wt. Ave. 0-150cm
FRAGMENTS >=250MM & <600MM ON THE SURFACE
FRAGMENTS >=250MM ON THE SURFACE
FRAGMENTS >=600MM ON THE SURFACE
FRAGMENTS >=75MM AND <250MM ON THE SURFACE
FRAGMENTS >=75MM MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM (reserved)
FRAGMENTS >=75MM MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-90CM (reserved)
FRAGMENTS >=75MM ON THE SURFACE
FRAGMENTS >=75MM WEIGHTED AVE. IN DEPTH 0-30CM (reserved)
HORIZON TABLE ID CODES
KSAT MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-20CM
KSAT MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-50CM
KSAT MAXIMUM IN DEPTH > 0CM
KSAT MAXIMUM SURFACE HORIZON TO 20CM
KSAT MAXIMUM, 0-150CM OR FIRST RESTRICTION
KSAT MAXIMUM, 20-150CM OR FIRST RESTRICTION
KSAT MAXIMUM, 50-150CM OR FIRST RESTRICTION
KSAT MINIMUM ABOVE RESTRICTIVE LAYER (0-100cm)
KSAT MINIMUM IN DEPTH 0-20CM
KSAT MINIMUM IN DEPTH 0-50CM
KSAT MINIMUM IN DEPTH >0CM
KSAT MINIMUM SURFACE HORIZON TO 20CM
KSAT MINIMUM, 0-150CM OR FIRST RESTRICTION
KSAT MINIMUM, 20-150CM OR FIRST RESTICTIVE LAYER
KSAT MINIMUM, 50-150CM OR FIRST RESTRICTIVE LAYER
LAYER THICKNESS IN RANGE
LAYER THICKNESS, KSAT >=0.42 & =<14.2, TOP DEPTH >0CM
LAYER THICKNESS, KSAT >=1.4 & =<141.1, 0-50CM THICK
LOAMY SURFACE TEXTURE
MOISTURE SUBCLASS
MONTH NAMES WITH WET SOIL MOISTURE STATUS
MONTHS W/ FREQUENT FLOODING >VERY BRIEF, GROWING SEASON
MONTHS W/ FREQUENT FLOODING DURING GROWING SEASON
MONTHS W/ OCCASIONAL FLOODING >VERY BRIEF, GROWING SEASON
MONTHS W/ OCCASIONAL FLOODING DURING GROWING SEASON
MONTHS WITH FREQUENT OR OCCASIONAL PONDING
MONTHS WITH WET SOIL MOISTURE STATUS
MONTHS WITH WET SOIL MOISTURE STATUS DURING GROWING
ORGANIC CARBON IN GRAMS/M2
ORGANIC MATTER IN THE SURFACE LAYER
ORGANIC MATTER PERCENT  THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 0-100CM
PARTICLES COARSER VFS IN LAYERS >=15CM THICK, DEPTH 0-30CM
PARTICLES COARSER VFS IN LAYERS >=15CM THICK, DEPTH 0-90CM
PARTICLES COARSER VFS IN LAYERS >=7CM THICK, DEPTH 0-15CM
PARTICLES COARSER VFS IN LAYERS >=7CM THICK, DEPTH 0-30CM
PERMEABILITY < 1.4, Thickest Layer
PERMEABILITY BOTTOM  LAYER
PERMEABILITY BOTTOM LAYER
PERMEABILITY OF LAYER > 30CM THICK
PERMEABILITY THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 25-150cm
PLASTICITY INDEX IN LAYERS >=15CM THICK, DEPTH 0-30CM
PLASTICITY INDEX IN LAYERS >=15CM THICK, DEPTH 0-90CM
PLASTICITY INDEX MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM
PLASTICITY INDEX THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 0-15CM
PONDING DURATION CLASS
PONDING FREQ. MONTHS W/ FREQUENT PONDING
PONDING FREQ. MONTHS W/ OCCASIONAL PONDING
SALINITY MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 25-150cm
SALINITY MAXIMUM WITHIN 30CM
SAND (#4-#200SIEVE) SURFACE LAYER
SAND FRACTION ALL HORIZONS (WHOLE SOIL)
SAND/GRAVEL FRACTION BOTTOM LAYER (WHOLE SOIL)
SANDY SURFACE TEXTURE
SANDY TEXTURE IN DEPTH 0-150CM
SLOPE
SLOPE PERCENT
SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO MAXIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM
SOIL REACTION 0.1M CaCl2 MINIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM
SOIL REACTION 1-1 WATER (Minimum)
SOIL REACTION 1-1 WATER MINIMUM IN DEPTH 0-30CM
SOIL REACTION 1-1 WATER THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 0-100cm
SOIL REACTION 1-1 WATER THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 25-150cm
SOIL SLIPPAGE POTENTIAL
SURFACE LAYER THICKNESS
TAXONOMIC ORDER CODE
TAXONOMIC TEMPERATURE REGIME
TEMPERATURE REGIME
TEXTURE CODE IN SURFACE LAYER (RESERVED)
TEXTURE IN-LIEU-OF FOR SURFACE LAYER
TEXTURE MODIFIER CODES IN SURFACE LAYER
THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH  0-72 in.
THICKNESS OF ORGANIC HORIZON
TOTAL CLAY PERCENT SURFACE LAYER
UNIFIED (GRAVEL/SAND) THICKEST LAYER W/I 10CM OF SURFACE
UNIFIED (GRAVELS) THICKEST LAYER W/I 10CM OF SURFACE
UNIFIED (INORGANIC) IN LAYER >=15CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-150CM
UNIFIED (INORGANIC) IN LAYER >=15CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-30CM
UNIFIED (INORGANIC) IN LAYER >=15CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-90CM
UNIFIED (INORGANIC) IN LAYER >=7CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-15CM
UNIFIED (ORGANIC) IN LAYER >=15CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-150CM
UNIFIED (ORGANIC) IN LAYER >=15CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-30CM
UNIFIED (ORGANIC) IN LAYER >=15CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-90CM
UNIFIED (ORGANIC) IN LAYER >=7CM THICK IN DEPTH 0-15CM
UNIFIED (SAND/CL GRAVEL) THICKEST LAYER W/I 10CM OF SURFACE
UNIFIED (SILT/CLAY/PEAT) THICKEST LAYER W/I 10CM OF SURFACE
UNIFIED SURFACE LAYER (pt)
UNIFIED THICKEST LAYER (ol, oh, ch, mh)  25-150cm
UNIFIED THICKEST LAYER (pt, oh, ol) 25-100cm
UNIFIED THICKEST LAYER (pt, oh, ol) 25-180cm
USDA TEXTURE BOTTOM LAYER
USDA TEXTURE IN-LIEU-OF IN DEPTH 0-40CM
USDA TEXTURE SURFACE LAYER (Sandy)
USDA TEXTURE SURFACE LAYER (Silty)
USDA TEXTURE THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 25-150cm
USDA TEXTURE THICKEST LAYER IN DEPTH 25-180cm

From: mnnet!nssc1000.nssc.nrcs.usda.gov!steve (Steve Speidel)

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

             NRCS PUERTO RICO CELEBRATES SOIL SURVEY CENTENNIAL

The NRCS Caribbean Area exhibited Bayamon and Victory soils,
representative of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), at the
International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Centennial of
the Soil Survey at Purdue University last May.  On February 12-15, the
soils were officially recognized by the USVI legislature during the USVI
Agri-Fair.  NRCS produced a photo exhibit, fact sheet, newsletter, and a
soil survey publication for the occasion.  Interviews with the USVI
media were scheduled.  A similar activity in Puerto Rico was held during
the 1999 Earth Week Celebration in April.  If you would like copies of
the NRCS materials for these events, please call Becky Fraticelli at
787-766-5206, ext. 236.  Specify if you would like the English or Spanish
versions of the material.

From NRCS This Week

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

       IOWA DISTRICTS PARTICIPATE IN SOIL CARBON STORAGE PROJECT

Over the next year, Iowa's 100 conservation districts will play a major
role in a pilot project that could lead to one of the major issues
of the next century.  The Iowa Carbon Storage Project will use a
computer model to measure the amount of carbon stored in soil
protected by conservation tillage, conservation buffers,
Conservation Reserve Program land, pasture, and wetlands. On the
national level, the project is administered by National
Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) through a cooperative
agreement with NRCS.  The Department of Energy, one of NACD's new
partners, is funding the project.  In Iowa, a joint effort by
NRCS, the Conservation Districts of Iowa, Inc. (the State
association), and the Iowa Division of Soil Conservation will
implement a State action plan that they developed.

Under a United Nations global climate agreement, many countries
face mandatory cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions over the
next 10 years. Scientists say conservation practices could
transform farms into carbon dioxide "sponges" that could "soak up"
millions of metric tons a year of the chief greenhouse gas blamed
for global warming.

"We can reduce greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration by
using agriculture to suck the carbon out of the air and deposit it
into the soil, enriching our farmland and making our air cleaner
at the same time," said Vice President Al Gore at a recent Farm
Journal meeting.

The Iowa project will help to answer many questions on what
agriculture can do to help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere that affects the fragile ozone layer.  In addition
to the project in Iowa, Ohio State University soil scientist
Rattan Lal recently co-authored a new book on global warming and
agriculture and said farms can roll back emissions substantially
just by adopting well-known conservation practices, such as the
ones mentioned above.

From NRCS This Week

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

                                   QUOTE

"The man forced to farm subsoil exposed by erosion has little
chance for making a satisfactory  living, whether prices are up
or down."

Hugh Hammond Bennett (1881-1960), first Chief of the Soil Conservation
Service.

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

                          SOIL TAXONOMY/LAB DATA

I spent a week with Bob Engel from the national taxonomy staff.  We were
looking at lab data from Region 10 in order to classify and correlate it
and complete an electronic SOI-8 file.

This was a very interesting experience and I wanted to share some of the
things that I learned during this process.

ISOTIC MINERALOGY
We found that many samples from NE Minnesota and NW Wisconsin fall into
the isotic mineralogy.  Taxonomy has criteria for this class on page 303
of the 8th addition to the Keys to Soil Taxonomy.

Essentially it is a type of clay mineralogy that does not disperse very
well when running particle size analysis.  One diagnostic feature is
having a 15 bar moisture to clay ratio of over .6.  Ratios over .6
indicate that clay has not dispersed.  The reported clay will therefore
be lower than the actual sample, sometimes by a great deal.  Also, there
will often be an increase in iron and/or aluminum.  It appears as though
the horizon is a spodic "wannabe".  An estimate of actual clay can be
made by taking the 15 bar water minus the organic carbon and multiply by
2.5.  This will give a close approximation to the clay content if it
were fully dispersed.

SMECTITIC/CEC ACTIVITY
In classifying soils we now add the cation-exchange activity class.  It
has been assumed that soils in the smetitic class were always
superactive.  This is because, of all the clays, smectite is the most
active.

We found numerous samples in Region 10 however where smectitic
mineralogy only had an active CEC activity.  This was due to the fact
that, in addition to smectitic clays, the samples also had appreciable
amounts of kaolinite, vermiculite, chorlite, and mica.

The NSSC is thinking that a change to taxonomy is needed.  For the
definition of smectitic, in addition to having more smectite than any
other single clay mineral, they would add "and the CEC/clay ratio is
over .6.  If less then .6 the mineralogy would be mixed even though
smectite is the single dominant clay.

SILTY SUBSTRATUM PHASES
In MLRA-56 we attempted to set up some silty substratum phases of fine
family soils such as Fargo and Hegne.  The field descriptions of these
soils showed the substratum to be silty clay loam or silt loam.
However, the lab data came back as having a clay texture with 40 to 60
percent clay.  This seemed odd that the field description would miss the
clay content by that much.

However, after looking at the clay mineralogy there was a dominance of
1:1 lattice clays, such as kaolinite, instead of 2:1 lattice clays.
This was unusual as the clays in MLRA-56 are typically smectitic.

In the next few weeks we will have added about 250 lab samples to the
NSSL database that can be accessed over the internet.  This will go
along way in providing site specific data to be used in the MLRA update
process.
--

AL GIENCKE
REGION 10 Correlator/PSS            Phone=651-602-7863
USDA - NRCS                         Internet=al.giencke@mn.usda.gov
375 Jackson St. - Suite 600         Fax=612-602-7914
St. Paul, MN 55101                  VOICE COM  1-800-602-7863 Box 7863

#########################################################################
 
                               WATCH YOUR STEP

While outside messing around, how often have you been told to "watch your
step...there's poison ivy."

Poison ivy, poison oak or poison sumac can put an itchy hitch in your
plans.  Would you know what to look for?  It's not easy to spot these
plants, because they vary in shape and size.  You may be familiar with
these plants in your area, but will you recognize them in a new locale?
They can be a climbing vine, ground vine or a shrub.  They usually have 3
leaves, which aren't always shiny, nor always the same shape.  No wonder
these plants are considered the chameleons of the plant world!

The oil that causes the problem is called urushiol.  This is a sticky,
oily resin, virtually invisible.  It can adhere to almost anything,
including the fur of animals, tools, clothing or even a golf ball sliced
into the rough.

About 50% of us believe we're immune because we've come in contact with
the plant with no ill effect.  It could be just a matter of time and
toxic concentration before you get it.

To care for poison plant contact, immediately wash the affected area
thoroughly with water.  If a rash or weeping sore has already begun to
develop, put a paste of baking soda and water on the area several times a
day to reduce the discomfort.  Lotions, such as Calamine or Caladryl, may
help soothe the area.  If the condition gets worse and affects large
areas of the body or the face, see a doctor.

The majority of people will get over this without too much of a problem.
Others may be seriously affected by this and require a doctors
assistance.

Make sure you know what plants are around you.

Taken from the Amoco Traveler Magazine-Healthwise, American Red Cross

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

            AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR MUG

Currently the National and our Regional MUG calculates the available
water capacity to  60 inches, or to a root restrictive layer.  In the
past, soil scientists have sometimes given some credit to the available
water capacity for dense layers.

The question is,  Should we continue to calculate the available water
capacity to a root restrictive layer, or should we consistently
calculate the available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches?  (This
implies that a restrictive layer that completely excludes roots would
have an available water capacity of 0. )

From: Henry Ferguson <mnnet!in.nrcs.usda.gov!hferguso>

                      *     *     *     *     *

Subject: Summary of AWC comments recieved.
From: Henry Ferguson <hferguso@in.usda.gov>

I received  many comments (25) on this topic, so I thought that I
should try to summarize them:

Minority -  Leave as is.  A restrictive layer is restrictive. To stop
calculating at the top of the restrictive layer is appropriate.

Second Minority of responses (possibly not the minority opinion) -
Where dense layers are common the available water capacity calculation
is restricted to the upper 40 inches.  This has been done in TN and VT
among others.  In these cases the prewritten material has been modified,
and the glossary reflects a 40 inch depth for AWC.   If these
restrictive features completely exclude roots the mug calculations would
work fine, except that mug has to be modified to stop calculating at 40
inches.

Majority - Calculate to 60 inches.  If the restrictive layer has no AWC
list it as 0.  If there are cracks then maintain the AWC as populated in
SSSD and converted to NASIS.

The message below implies that AWC would have to be populated for
restrictive layers.  In most cases the AWC is already populated from
SSSD, however the type of restrictive feature has not been populated in
NASIS.  Once the restrictive feature table has been populated the AWC
calculation would stop at the top of the restrictive feature, and would
not include an estimation of the AWC for the layer which has already
been made.

I have tested this, and mug can handle 0 AWC in a restrictive layer.

I don't think that there is a right or wrong, as long as the AWC is
properly defined in the glossary, and is consistently used in the
manuscript and tables.  However, my recommendation would be to modify
the mug to consistently calculate to 60 inches for those states that use
60 inches, and to calculate to 40 inches for those states that use 40
inches. Populate the database as best we can with the information that
we have, and move on.

(I am not sure how many individuals responded to all recipients, or how
many responded just to sender, so I am providing a few examples of
responses)

Example of the minority opionion:

The Region __  MUG program also calculates available water to 60 inches
or depth to a restrictive layer.  Calculating available water in a
restrictive layer would be possible, provided we populate the restrictive
layer with a figure for available water.  This could be a problem.  Where
is the available water located in these layers?  In the first few inches
of the layer, since the amount of roots generally decreases in these
layers with depth, or in the case of dense till in the cracks.  We have
had discussions on how to best define the cracks in dense till in the
database.  Maybe it would be possible to define a certain amount of
available water in certain restrictive layers based on types of materials
and restrictions and populate them consistently in the database.

At the moment I think this type of population is low priority compared
to other data needs in NASIS, but it may be something that we can
consider in the future.

Examples of the majority opinion:

   From: Richard Gehring <rich.gehring@oh.nrcs.usda.gov>

Henry,
I agree with some of what John Doll said regarding this subject.  If the

layer is restrictive the AWC in NASIS should reflect this.  Therefore,
the MUG calculation can be made for the entire 60 inches.  With the
exception of something like concrete, I have not seen a root restrictive
layer that totally excludes all roots.

   From:"Bill Frederick" <wef@miso.mi.nrcs.usda.gov>

Henry:

I believe we should continue to show the AWC to a depth of 60" as we
have done in the past.

   From: Donald Franzmeier <dfranzme@purdue.edu>

Henry:

I think we should calculate AWC to 60 inches and give partial credit for
restricting layers such as dense till and fragipans.  This might be 1/2
of WRD for fragipans and 1/3 to 1/2 of WRD for dense till.  WRD is water
retention difference, 1/3 bar minus 15 bar laboratory water retention
values.

   From: Henry Mount <hmount@gw.nssc.nrcs.usda.gov>

Henry,

I have seen a lot of vegetation growing out of the cracks of bedrock in
New England, Puerto Rico, and Finland.

Intuition tells me that plants get water from root limiting layers since
nearly all of them crack in some fashion or other.

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

      MLRA REGION 11 DATABASE UPDATE--NEWSLETTER FROM INDIANAPOLIS
            (by Henry Ferguson, unless otherwise indicated)
                      <Henry.Ferguso@in.usda.gov>

Part I:   Comments regarding report examples
Part II:  .Xdefaults files (solutions to viewing problems on small
          monitors)
Part IIb: .Xdefaults files  For those of you who do not have logins on
          our system
Part III: Report examples from Charles Love with attachement
Part IV:  More on Printers
Part V:   Update on information in Reports and Queries
Part VI:  Pictures in manuscripts - Why do our directions keep changing
          & what do we really need to keep and to send to the MO-office.

Part I: Comments regarding report examples

QUESTION: FROM MI:
I just finished looking over the Nasis Standard Report Examples you
handed out.  This is really nice.  I think you should suggest that all
of the querys or reports in Nasis require a page like you handed out.
That way somebody like me could be saved alot of time trying making a
query.  I think it should be required of all queries to make a sheet up
explaining what is in their query.  Otherwise get rid of the query - too
many there.   Thanks.

Reply.   Yes you have a good point.  I will not make it manditory, but
It would be helpful if each user send out a message regarding queries or
reports that he/she has created.  The following is a real example of
each and I hope that more users make the effort to make their queries
and reports public knowledge.

EXAMPLE:
  Query Name: hydric soils by survey area and major comp flag
  Select Tables: Area, Mapunit and Component
  Supplied information: Area name imatches    ex.     *illinois  (all
    surveys in illinois) or s*indiana(surveys starting in s in indiana)

What is loaded:  Legends, Active Mapunits, Major components with the
hydric rating filled in with a yes.

What reports might be good to use once this query has been run?
We have been using two reports.  1. Mapunit acres from legends and rep
dmuid(with totals) and 2.  Mapunit acres from legends, rep dmuid (without
totals) or any other legend report

Why have this query/report combination?  This query was developed to
provide a user with a list of all the hydric mapunits by county in the
state of Indiana.  The report without totals provided a report that
could be loaded into a spreadsheet or database.  The report with totals
provided additional information for the user so he/she would not have to
manually calculate the totals for each county.

Gliches include:  If the mapunit is a complex and one component is
hydric and another is not, the entire mapunit acres are calculated as
hydric.

QUESTION:
What happens if I get 2 or three legends and I only want one of them?
deselect the legends you do not want.  The datamapunits can stay in the
selected set and they will not affect your reports for the legends that
you do want.

Part II. .Xdefaults files

Several of our users in MO-11 already have .Xdefaults files which define
how their screen looks when they log into the HP-9000 here in Indy.
However, some users are not using them.  Wade Bott has provided copies
of two files called .Xdefaults.big and .Xdefaults.small.  I have placed
these two files in the subdirectory /usr/tmp.  By copying one of these
files to your home directory and renaming it to .Xdefaults, it  will
become your default setup.  Try them out and see which will make your
use of NASIS easier.

Additional information that has not been tested by me:
Chris Kendric from Missouri has suggested that the following command can
be used to change your .Xdefaults after you are already logged in.  This
may be helpful for a user such as myself that uses may different
computers (some at the same time) with very different screen sizes and
settings.

xrdb -load (filename)     The file name is the name of the file
containing the .Xdefaults that you want implemented.

Part IIb. .Xdefaults files  For those of you who do not have logins on
our system

Message from Wade: 
   From: Wade Bott <wbott@mt.nrcs.usda.gov>

I noticed Byrons listing of the component tables because he is unable to
see the entire list on his lap top.

Mike Hansen has spent a considerable amount of time on this and we
have two Xdefault files available to our NASIS users.  One for those
who use laptops and/or have smaller monitors (allows a view of the
whole list of component tables) and one for those who have systems
that can accomodate the larger Xdefault settings.

I posted our MO-4 Xdefault files on our ftp site.

ftp://ftp.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/incoming/nasis/
 The files are named:
 .Xdefaults.small
 .Xdefaults.big

 Grab them if you need them.
 __
 Wade D. Bott, CPSSc/SC
 Soil Data Quality Specialist, Bozeman, MT
 Phone: 406-587-6866, FAX: 406-587-6761
 E-mail: wbott@mt.nrcs.usda.gov

Part III: Report examples from Charles Love with attachement

Subject: NASIS Standard Report examples
From: Charles Love <clove@in.nrcs.usda.gov>

I have compiled a NASIS Standard Report packet of examples with
brief instructions.  I will be providing this  information to
soil scientists at the MLRA 94A and 96 Steering Committee meeting
(in MI).  I also provided a hard copy to the SDQS, here at the
office.

Part IV:  More on Printers

In the HP9000 I have loaded a file called localfile under
/usr/lib/lp/model.  This file is used to allow NASIS to print a gzip
postscript file to the user's home directory.  I also have made a
directory called doslp in the home directory of each user using dialup.

Along with other irm type changes the following directions are supposed
to allow you to print back to your office.  I have not done this myself,
but MO-10 has several sites set up this way, and Michigan requested that
I make modifications to my system to allow their sites to print this way
as well.  To get the whole system going you may need to contact your IRM
staff to help out.

At this time most of our direct connect sites are printing remotely.

The following directions are required for each user to perform to get
this method of printing going on our system:

start nasis
File - Printer Setup
Install...
Add Printer...
Define New Port...
Spooler
Dismiss
HP laserjet IV Postscript and doslp
Add Selected
Dismiss
Dismiss
Options - select the doslp printer and save (if necessary)

Part V:  Update on information in Reports and Queries

One new query and one new report has been added to MLRA-11.  I believe
that this is similar to the method used in other MLRA-NASIS computers to
desseminate(sp) informaton.

The query is called  A a a Recent changes to queries(read desc below).
At this time the description that is included reads as follows:

Mo-11 data mapunit by datamapunit description  has been renamed to
data mapunit by data mapunit description!!!

The most recent change to the queries was a modification of the hydric
soil query.  We have one now that queries by area and selects on the
hydric interpretation being marked as yes and the major component flag
marked as yes.  You must point to the component table , the area table,
and the legend table if you want to print out a report of mapunit names,
legend name, and acres.
 - - - - - - - -
The new Report is called 1 1 Report update from MLRA-11-- Read right

The contents of the text description at this time is as follows:

The first 27 reports are under review and need comment.  They will be
either accepted and moved into place or deleted.  The UTIL reports seem
very good and will be placed soon.

A new report being developed is called WetForm Report Soil Import.  This
report will be used to export data for import into WetForm Delineation
Dataform Software Version 1.2   See page 82 of the manual for expected
format.  Currently this report resides on the third screen down under
local reports.

If you are bringing reports in from other MO's, or writing your own
reports, Please! delete the sequence #.  This will cause the new reports
to rise to the top for comment and approval.  If any existing reports do
not work due to changes in NASIS please let us know so we can fix or
delete them.

mapunit text notes without nontechnical description notes did not work
for a while!  apparently due to change in NASIS.  This report has been
fixed and works fine now.

The latest reports developed are the text note reports and we have
modified an areage report for use in reporting components by acreage and
legend.
Y

This method of communication should allow our users to keep up with
changes to queries and reports.   Also , Please note that the names of
queries and reports often reflect what is going to happen to them or how
new they are.
Examples:
10024 Load Mapunit by Mapunit Name(See Mo-Mapunit query)
   This name implies that both queries are identical.
Component by name and surface depth(Tagged for deletion)
   This name implies that I see no reason to keep it.  The users/owner
   need to contact me to let me know why the query should be kept.
   Possibly it may be a very good query but it could either use some more
   work or might need to be renamed.
Component by component name and legend(same as below)
  The query listed below is identical to this one and eventually one may
  be eliminated.
Organic matter & texture - hodges (temporary)
   This query is under development and is temporarily called Organic
   matter and texture.  In the future it may be renamed/made more
   generic.
DMU by component and state revised (does not work)
   This query does not work and should not be used.  It will be deleted
   if it is not made to work within a couple of weeks.

Proper naming of queries is as follows:
Targeted property/field by Table names including special imbedded
criteria.

Component text by area & kind & category
   (status is also included in this query and could have been included
   in the name)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Proper naming of reports is as follows:

We have not been as structured in the naming of reports.  It is more
important that the following occurs:

Delete any sequence number if you have brought a report in from
outside.  This will cause it to rise to the top for review and comment.

Check out reports as soon as possible so that you can recommend that
they be kept or delete them.

Use National Reports whenever possible.

I make the following comments in report names and would like responses
from the owner: comments include (why keep)  (tagged for deletion) (do
not use) (do not delete) (keep)

Part VI:  Pictures in manuscripts - Why do our directions keep changing
and what do we really need to keep and to send to the MO-office.

     Technology keeps changing, and our contracts seem to lag behind.
The following is what is required and what is suggested.

Cover photo.    3 Color slides and 3 color prints of your final
selection. The slides are required because some printers still scan
slides. The prints are required for color matching and because some
printers prefer to scan prints.  Prints are necessary to show crop marks.

Digital products for the most part are not acceptable for cover
materials or other printed matter.  Digital products can be used as
supplemental photos within the manuscript.  It is all a matter of
pride.  In general publishers can do a better job with traditional
photographs than they can with digital products from digital cameras.
(I am not referring to the scanned images)

Color profiles.  3 Color slides and 3 color prints of your final
selections  3x5 is fine. The reason for the slides is the same as above.
The color prints are needed for color matching.

Landscapes.  3 prints of each.  These can either be in black and white
or color but must have such good contrast that they will print fine in
both color or black and white.

Why?

Many paper copies of the soil surveys will be published in black and
white because of cost.  However, if color prints are available they can
be included in web products and on CD's in color since there is no
additional cost to color in these formats.

What would I do if I were a project leader today?

If I had them, I would carry two cameras.  One with color slide film and
the other would be a high quality digital camera.  I would reserve my
slide film for the very best pictures that I thought I could use in the
publication.  I would be more free with the digital camera since it is
cheaper to use (no developing costs) and there is a possibiltiy that I
could use a product like Photoshop to enhance pictures for use on CD or
on the WEB.  When it got close to the end of a survey, I would make my
selections and have the top three cover choices printed at 8x10 color.
All other prints I would have reproduced at 5x7.  If I used any black
and white at all, I would have the prints developed by a professional
photographer using ILFORD glossy paper.  I would be very picky when it
came to the developing process and I would find a lab that used high
quality paper.

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

                          WEB SITES OF INTEREST

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/soils_atlas/index.html
Digital soil survey of Woodruff County, Arkansas.

http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ncg/ncg.html
NRCS National Cartography and Geospatial Center home page.

http://in.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra11/cent/index.htm
Soil Survey Centennial Celebration slide set.

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

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

   x3780.422frig       on Jul 09     (10 updated OSDs) @
   x3780.423mes        on Jul 15     (29 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.	

The above x3780s contained the following updated Official Series 
Descriptions, which can also be obtained at:
       http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi
 
     frigid
balaton...buhl...hibbing...hulligan...kerkhoven...lakepark...malachy...
nevens...ortonville...schisler

     mesic
aldo...barremills...bearpen...boguscreek...boplain...brice...chelsea...
drammen...dunnbot...ella...epsom...farrington...forkhorn...gaphill...
garne...greenbush...hersey...kevilar...komro...lacrescent...maxfield...
merton...nerwoods...pepin...plumcreek...prissel...rockbluff...rusktown
...scotah

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

                   CHANGED ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS

1. Scott Eversoll has accepted the Project Leader position in Ontonagon,
Michigan (MLRAs 93 and 92). Scott's former survey area was Jasper County, Missouri (MLRAs 112 and 116B).

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

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

MLRA DATE      ACTIVITY                     LOCATION          MO 10 STAFF
---- --------- ---------------------------- ----------------- -----------
 88  Aug 02-06 Progress Review              Internat'nl Falls Giencke
 88  Aug 30-03 Progress Review              Virginia          Giencke
 88  Aug 16-19 Progress Review              Duluth            Giencke
 90  Sep 13-17 Progress Field Review        Eau Claire        Jahnke
 92  Aug 09-13 Initial Field Review         Ontonagon         Jahnke
 92  Aug 23-27 Progress Field Review        Ironwood          Jahnke
 93  Aug 09-13 Initial Field Review         Ontonagon         Jahnke
 93  Aug 09-13 Initial Field Review         Gogebic           Jahnke
 93  Aug 16-19 Progress Review              Duluth            Giencke
 93  Aug 23-27 Progress Field Review        Ironwood          Jahnke
 93  Aug 30-03 Progress Review              Virginia          Giencke
 94B Sep 13-17 Initial Field Review         Munising          DesLauriers
 94B Sep 13-17 Progress Field Review        Manistique        DesLauriers
103  Sep 13-17 Progress Review              St. Peter         Giencke
104  Aug 16-20 Field Review                 Waverly           Hempel
104  Aug 16-20 Field Review                 Waverly           Hempel
105  Sep 13-17 Progress Field Review        Eau Claire        Jahnke
all  Sep 07    Iowa Partnership Meeting     Des Moines        McCloskey
all  Sep 07-10 Staff Meeting                St. Paul          All

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

     CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME

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

                           *     *     *     *     *

Articles from other newsletters are often included to distribute ideas
and comments from other areas of the country; these ideas and comments
are not necessarily identical to those used in MLRA Region 10.

                           *     *     *     *     *

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

                        *     *     *     *     *

Thanks to those individuals who participated this month. It is your
efforts that have made this newsletter a success.

                         *     *     *     *     *

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

                        *     *     *     *     *

Previous month's copies of this newsletter are available at:
   http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/mo10/mo10.html

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