MLRA REGION 10 NEWSLETTER--APRIL 1, 1999

         BOO-SHOO! (HELLO) FROM THE CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE
                  Contributed by Tom Neuenfeldt

The Center for Excellence in soil map finishing completed its first
quarter of operation in September.  Located at the Fond du Lac Tribal
and Community College [Cloquet, MN], the Center provides opportunities for
students to work in a learning atmosphere and allows NRCS employees to
interact with college staff and students.

After Grand Opening Ceremonies in June, five students; Pam Crittenden,
NRCS cartographic aide; and Tom Neuenfeldt, NRCS soil scientist; began
working on the recompilation of soil maps for Martin County [MN].  The soil
line and symbol work for Martin County was completed in September.
The completed overlays are now being checked for quality and errors
and are being corrected.  The overlays will be checked again in St.
Paul by MO Region 10 staff prior to being sent to the digitizing
center in Madison.  The map finishing team has started work on the
recompilation of Watonwan County [MN].

The students began their work at the Center by practicing technical
lettering and line work.  The students have been learning about photo
interpretation and how soil maps are made.  They have been introduced
to soil science concepts during weekly team meetings.  At these
meetings, Tom Neuenfeldt leads discussions highlighting two or three
soils, their formation, their typical landscape positions and how the
soil map units typically appear on the orthophotoquad base map images.

When classes began at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in
August, three student positions became available at the Center.  A
committee consisting of Neuenfeldt, Crittenden, Dave Wise (NRCS Tribal
College Liaison Officer) and Joe Hudspith, (Environmental Studies
Director) interviewed potential student employees.  The training cycle
began again with the new employees.  The two students who have been
working at the Center since June are helping the newer students learn
the soil line and symbol transfer technique.

For two weeks in July, the Center participated in an internship
program designed to introduce science, math, engineering and
technology to high school students and young adults.  All the
participants in the program were introduced to soil science as a
career in a presentation by Neuenfeldt.  In addition, the Center
provided a work experience to Lisa Northrup of the Fond du Lac Band.
She made some map indexes, highlighted spot symbols and performed some
preparatory work for the Watonwan County project.  She was introduced
to technical lettering and practiced drawing soil lines.

Visitors are always welcome at the Center.  Since June, the Center has
hosted about 100 visitors.  Some of those on the guest list are NRCS
employees, University of Minnesota representatives, a Minnesota State
Senator, representatives from the 1854 Tribal Authority and friends
and family of those working at the Center.  Those who are traveling
through Cloquet are welcome to stop by, see what's going on and add
their names to the guest book.

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

LEGENDARY CONSERVATIONIST'S DAUGHTER SPEAKS TO NRCS EMPLOYEES

The closing speaker for a recent Wisconsin NRCS all-
employee meeting was Nina Leopold Bradley, daughter of Aldo 
Leopold.  Tim Meyer, NRCS soil scientist, presented her with a 
description of a new soil series, Aldo Sand, found in many 
Wisconsin counties, including the site of the nearby Leopold 
shack.  The Aldo Sand soil series was proposed as a tribute to 
Aldo Leopold, who is best known for his work, A Sand County 
Almanac.  It is anticipated that as older soil surveys are updated 
in Wisconsin, the Aldo soil series will be mapped throughout the 
State where these same soil conditions exist, including the 
original Aldo Leopold property near the Wisconsin River.  

--From NRCS This Week 

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

"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself."
 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) 32nd President of the United States.

--From NRCS This Week

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

         CENTRALIZED NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY DATABASE ESTABLISHED

NRCS and the National Cooperative Soil Survey - (NCSS a nationwide 
partnership of Federal, regional, State, and local agencies and 
institutions lead by NRCS) - recently established a centralized 
National Soil Survey database. The new centralized national soil 
survey database will provide NCSS with a single site to provide 
and disseminate quality soils information.  The new database was 
made possible by the recent implementation of the NRCS National 
Soil Information System (NASIS 4.0).  NASIS 4.0 links the soil 
databases from the 17 MLRA Soil Survey Regional Offices to a 
centralized database housed at Iowa State University in Ames.  The 
NCSS partnership works together to investigate, inventory, 
document, classify, and interpret soils, and to disseminate, 
publish, and promote the use of information about the soils of the 
United States and its trust territories.

--From NRCS This Week

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

                 AWARD WINNING SOIL SCIENCE VIDEOS

NRCS in Utah recently recognized KUTV Producer John Greene, and 
KUTV 2-News as this year's "Conservation Communicators of the 
Year," for their outstanding contributions in communicating the 
importance of natural resource conservation.

Greene, whose efforts writing and producing an innovative fourth-
grade conservation educational program titled, "Dirt: Secrets in 
the Soil," as well as his creative contributions in producing a 
series of "Backyard Conservation" television public service 
announcements, was recognized for his individual contributions.

For its part, KUTV received the organizational award for 
sponsorship and support of "Dirt: Secrets in the Soil." The 
project, which was designed to help Utah's fourth grade teachers 
instruct students on soil science, features video segments and 
lessons titled: "It's Your Food Dude," "Soil Isn't a Dirty Word," 
"The Dust Bowl Isn't Played on New Years Day," "Slip Slidin' 
Away," "Healthy Food From Healthy Soil," and "Hitting Pay Dirt."

Greene and KUTV received their awards during the Utah 
Association of Conservation Districts' 50th Anniversary conference 
in St. George on November 5.

--From NRCS This Week

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

               NASIS INTRODUCTORY TRAINING PARTICIPANTS

The following soil scientists participated in the NASIS Introductory
Training this winter conducted by the MLRA Region 10 staff. Please use the
knowledge gained by these individuals as an additional resource to answer
your questions.

Anderson, Keith A.   Hvizdak, David J.     Natzke, Larry
Anzalone, William C  Jackson, Thomas C.    Perkis, Bill
Beck, John F.        Jerome, Dwight S.     Pink, Trudy
Boelter, Joseph M.   Johannes, Richard M.  Simeth, Fred J.
Calus, Joe           Kristoff, Joseph M.   Steffen, Kim D.
Carey, Lawrence M.   Kroll, Terry L.       Talsky, Jeff C.
Congdon, Louise      Krupinski, Mark       Turk, Jesse
Elg, Angela M.       LaVan, Mark R.        Vobora, Robert J.
Elmer, Steve         Lawler, Steve         Vogel, Chanc
Fiala, William D.    Lemke, Lenora         Walczynski, Michael J.
Gafvert, Ulf B.      Lieser, Michael L.    Webb, Stacy S.
Genrich, Raymond C.  Lunde, Luke           Whitney, Gregory D.
Gertsma, James M.    Mase, Sarah           Wikgren, Kenneth R.
Hartman, Peter R.		

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

  MORE OFFICIAL SERIES DESCRIPTIONS & "NATIONAL STANDARD" DISCUSSIONS
                     (continued from last month)

From: Paul Finnell <prf@ks.nrcs.usda.gov>
To: Kit.Paris@ca.usda.gov

Kit, 
I got your message and it looks like we all agree on the need of some
method in NASIS to generate a "series concept" report. 

I wonder, are we as a NCSS moving away from the series and towards
the development of identifying properties within a polygon?  
And if we do, should we be concerned with identifying the "concept" of
that group of similar polygons?

I, like many of you, have developed queries and reports to identify the
properties for a particular series as it occurs in the database.  I also
realize, that for the most, the only difference of properties for a series,
in NASIS, is based on the SIR number it originated from.  And the only
difference I have found on the NASIS series data is the various layer
depths from the "Type Locations".  For a given SIR, if not edited in MUIR,
the properties are identical, only layer depths are different.

So, my question for an agreement of all. is:
Do we use the data currently in NASIS and generate a report to show
the ranges of data by phase and call it the "Soil Concept"?
And if we do use a report, how do we designate that "set of data" as
edited by correlators, only, and make it available for other correlators to
use.  

The 17 of us need to agree on one method that allows me, as a
correlator, to access the "official" properties of a series that is owned by
my MO or another MO.  No matter how we do it (develop a new
datamapunit record, designate a particular datamapunit, or other ideas),
we must develop one consistent method and be able to train ALL soil
scientists on the methodology of obtaining the "official" properties for a
series.

Any preferences?

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Paul Finnell <prf@ks.nrcs.usda.gov>
Subject: OSD vs. NASIS

I am forwarding Mike's comments.  Mike brings some very good point to
light in his comments.  Many of which I agree with.   My only concern is
with one comment:

"We utilize NASIS reports we have written extensively to
correlate and manage the series concept, but the OSD 
remains the "STANDARD". "

Does the OSD have the properties needed to evaluate a correlation
decision?  If not, should the OSD be expanded to include properties that
allow the correlators to make an informed decision?

Right now, in all OSDs I review, we are not putting in specific properties.
Anyone else?

From: Mike Hansen  <mhansen@mt.nrcs.usda.gov>

Paul --

There are some inherent flaws to using the method you reference
as the keeper of the concept, just as Kits ideas miss some
critical features.  I do not have an answer.  NASIS permits a
component to exceed series limits within the interpretive focus
used to design that compotnent.  We map multiple surface 
phases, slope phases and vegetative phases of the same 
series, resulting in very large numbers of unique permeations
of these combined variable, not to mention the layer depth
issue.  This "CONCEPT" is tough to capture in the database
and has best been handled to date through a well designed
OSD.    I do not think it would work to try to create a DMU
component for each phase permeation.  At the same time
an agregate picture of a series actually created under NASIS
concepts, may not entirely fit within the series concept due
to the way components are derived in NASIS.  

We utilize NASIS reports we have written extensively to
correlate and manage the series concept, but the OSD 
remains the "STANDARD".  We could not support, at this
time the management of the series concept as a PSUEDO
DMU/Components in NASIS.

We view the mapunit component data to represent the 
aggregation of site observations, partitioned into components
using the MU interpretive focus as criteria.  These resulting
correlated components are named appropriately, as series,
series family, great groups or whatever.  The standard is
used to see if the correlated component can be realistically
named as a series, meeting the requirement of the RV values
falling in the range of the series, but the extent of the ranges,
possibley falling just outside.  

The accumulated RV values will not reflect the full range of
a series, just the central part of that range.

Some of the above discussion is why the NATIONAL STANDARD
did not go anywhere.  We are still fighting the same beast.


Mike Hansen
Assistant State Soil Scientist
Bozeman, MT
Email - mhansen@mt.nrcs.usda.gov
Phone - (406)-587-6960
Voicecom - 9000-587-1940

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: "Joe Moore" <jmoore@ak.nrcs.usda.gov>

I guess I'll jump in and offer my two cents worth. We are using the same
approach that Mike expresses for the Bozeman MO.  For correlation purposes,
the OSD is the standard we compare against.  The NASIS database represents
the aggregation of field data for a soil concept.  The total range in
property values for that "soil concept" normally exceed the range of the
OSD.  However, the core range in properties are compared to the OSD's.  If
they fit within an established OSD, we have a match.  If they don't fit, and
we have enough data to justify a new series, we write a new OSD and
establish a new series.  If the soil concept, as mapped, is too broad for
the series level, we correlate to a higher taxonomic level, even up to the
order level.  Almost all of our surveys include a mix of units with
components classified to the series, family, and higher taxonomic levels.
We present the full range in component properties to users, even those
outside the range of the correlated series or higher taxa.

In our view, the soi-5 is history.  It never was used to represent an
official series.  It was strictly for data input.  If there were multiple
fives assigned to a series, they could vary in many properties, both soil
properties and interpretive phases, as long as the soil properties fell
within the ranges specified by the OSD.
Fives were developed for every component, regardless of taxonomic level.

Our focus is on aggregating the field data, developing the component and map
unit concepts, populating the map unit and component properties in NASIS,
and then correlating by comparing against the OSD or higher tax standards.
When appropriate, the OSD's are revised to adjust property ranges.

At this point I would not be in favor of a "national standard", primarily
because there is not clear agreement on what  it means.  Also, being from
the hinterlands, I find that we usually can never meet any of the "national
standards', whether it be aerial photos, DOQ's, NRI, publications, etc.,
etc., etc.  I spend too much time trying to justify why we use alternative
approaches.  I am fully supportive of "data quality standards" with each MO
having the flexibility to develop their own procedures for meeting those
standards.

I know I'm rambling, but its -30 and it keeps my fingers warm.

Joe Moore

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Kit Paris <Kit.Paris@ca.usda.gov>

Well while I sit here waiting for another ssurgo download to complete (big
sucker about 350 mapunits), I will up Joe's ante to a nickel.

I agree I agree I agree ..... I am now wondering what is the proposed usage
of a "new SIR" (ughh!).  Are you creating this data entity to compare
Series criteria (which has been stated is best done using a "well designed
OSD") or is this being used a source of data.  You know copy/paste etc.
All data for a component should be the result of the data gathered in the
field via pedon descriptions and notes etc.

This aggregation of data makes up the ranges etc. for the component of the
mapunit. Unless of course you intend to just dig a hole, make a series
placement and use the data from the data back in the office (NASIS) for
your map unit.  No need in gathering data, describing pedons and so on.

You could use other datamapunits to help streamline the process as long as
you were confident of the integrity of the data and series placement.
That is what the DMU and mapunit histories can help you with.  If you were
going to edit the copied "standard" anyhow, what's the difference?  I am a
little apprehensive about sitting down and creating 1500+ "series
Standards" for this purpose.  The integrity of the series is maintained by
use of the OSD and a good Soil Scientist.  It will not get better using a
SIR.  We never used the SIR for this purpose anyhow.  The SIR (Soil
Interpretation Record) was used for it's intended purpose to generate
Interpretations and create a MUIR we could edit (and this had it's own
problems that hopefully went away with NASIS.  The resulting SSSD tables
were used to compare data to the OSD, not the SIR

I can ramble with the best of 'em too.

-- Kit

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Steve Park <spark@co.nrcs.usda.gov>

OK! OK! I can't stand it any longer.  My tongue hurts from biting it.  So,
I will throw in my 2 cents worth.  My opinion is ditto Joe Moore, MO17 and
Mike Hansen, MO4.  The OSD is the standard we use here in MO6.  The SOI-5
is history and was never intended to necessarily represent the central
concept for a series.

A well written and complete OSD is, in my opinion, the most effective and
user friendly way to communicate what the central concept and range of
parameters are for any particular soil series.

Steve Park
Soil Data Quality Specialist-MO6

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Roy Vick <roy.vick@nc.usda.gov>

I am not good at rambling and do not think I have the answer that will
please everyone.

We DO need a "standard" set of properties that represent a series
concept.  Yes, let us remember that the soil series is conceptual, and
it needs to have limits.  The present OSD format only touches on
properties that are significant to use and management.

A few critical properties include permeability (Ksat), LE, and water
table.  Yes, many properties are phase related, but there are many that
need to be captured as the central concept.  We have altered the OSD
program to insert SIR properties as a stop-gap way of displaying these.

It was decided here to have a complete set of template DMUs attached to
the MLRA legends.  SSPLs would have something to copy from and
manipulate.  It also leaves a "standard" so we could see what properties
they altered to ensure the series concepts were not violated.  A manual
DMU compare.  That is the MO14 2 cents worth.  I actually have enjoyed
reading all this stuff.  Sure would be nice to have a national NASIS
meeting.

roy vick

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Paul Finnell <prf@ks.nrcs.usda.gov>

There seems to be this West vs. East beginning to build here.  I would like
to see "a well designed" OSD from the West.  Those of the "West
persuasion" would do well to provide those of us "not in the West" a
series or two that you consider "well designed" so that everyone could
take a look at it.  If y'all are doing something with the OSD that I am not
aware of, I would like to see it and, possibly, change my way of thinking.
Please send out  the names of a few West series so we can look at
them on the web. 

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: "Joe Moore" <jmoore@ak.nrcs.usda.gov>

Gosh, this is fun.  I enjoy thought provoking discussions.  I don't think
we need to be arming and pointing the missiles yet, but I will start
stockpiling food and beverages.

I don't think this is an East vs. West issue nor really an OSD issue.  What
is more apparent are philosophical differences on how field data is used,
databases populated, and most important, what is presented to users.  I have
my preferences but I can't say any one approach is right or wrong.  A lot is
dependant on the time and resources available throughout each MO.  This is a
reason I am suspect of "national standards".  We need to use methods that
work for each one of us, given the constraints we individually face,
but -bottom line- get good quality information out to users.

One thing I do fear is ever getting to that point where NASIS controls the
soils program and how we do business.  NASIS, like GIS, is a simply a tool
to help us get our job done.  While we need to be open to new ideas, we
should not alter our core concepts to fit the tool.  If any one of us is
having to modify our core concepts on how we collect, analyze, and present
data simply to accommodate the NASIS beast, then its time to revise or
improve NASIS.  The tool needs to be adjusted to accommodate our concepts.

For MO17, our biggest issue is the time it takes to populate data for new
surveys into NASIS.  Our core concept is that field data unique to each
survey will be used to build data map units.  Because of the geographical
extent of the MO, and scattered surveys, we are seldom able to cut and paste
from existing data.  Where we are able, we have found it takes equally as
long or longer to thoroughly review and edit the pasted data, as it does to
populate fresh.  We have proposed and are testing a "minimum dataset"
necessary to populate for each mapunit and component.  This represents the
minimum it will take to support required interpretations and satisfy our
users.  Any other data population is a luxury, to be done in the future, if
and when time permits.  This probably will not meet the needs of national
modelers and others, but given our workload and time constraints, they are
not our priority.

Our Project Leaders have requested front end "forms", where the could
populate data fields without having to know and step through the entire
NASIS structure.  We are attempting to accommodate this in-house using
various edit setup routines.  This is something I need to forward on to
SSBAG or National NASIS folks as a need for a NASIS improvement - to speed
up data entry so we can concentrate on our core concept of data gathering,
analysis, and presentation.

Back to OSD's.  If anyone wants to look at our "well defined" OSD's, they
are all available on the net.  Those we have dealt with recently or
frequently are well-defined, others are not so well defined.

Sorry for the long message, but that's what short days do to the mind.

I am taking the liberty of sending a "cc" to the other MO Leaders.  This is
a good discussion, and they should visit with their SDQS's and/or database
managers regarding it. 

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Paul Finnell <prf@ks.nrcs.usda.gov>

Joe,
Thanks for the insight, I didn't mean to imply a division of the issue.
BUT, I am not familiar with Alaska soils, by name.  I just want to hop on
the net and look at one.  Since you did not provide a name, I went 
searching and set up Alaska 1998-1998.  Just to see the latest.

Now, this brings up the point to all of this.  As a correlator, I am not
familiar with Alaska soils, so, where do I go to get the information I need
to make a correlation decision between two similar series?  

I whole-heartedly agree about your comments on NASIS.  It is only a
beastlly tool.  Something must be done about the efficiency.  I only used
NASIS as an attempt to give our field soil scientists that additional
document they requested to identify the soil properties associated with a
particular series.

I know as a mapper, I relied on not only the OSD, but also the properties
associated with that series.  It just so happens that the SIR is where I
found the properties. 

Being in the middle allows me to look at both sides of the story.  What if:
as a correlator, I encounter a new series, owned by another MO.  It just
so happens that the other MO has 17000 datamapunits with this particular
series as a component.  Should I be concerned with the properties in the
other DMUs? And should I just set up my own DMU using their series
name but using the properties I have identified in my polygons?  Since it
fits the series description on the OSD, can I justify this approach? And
if I do, what decision or recourse does the adjoining MO have in making the
decision whether my new DMU "fits" the series concept?

I just feel, there should be additional information supplied with the OSD in
order to make an informed decision of not only the description of the
series, but also the properties associated with the central concept.

This seems to be getting so good comments.

                     *     *     *     *     *

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

Just a quick response to Paul Finnell's comment:

Paul wrote -- "Does the OSD have the properties needed to evaluate a
correlation
decision?  If not, should the OSD be expanded to include properties that
allow the correlators to make an informed decision?

Right now, in all OSDs I review, we are not putting in specific properties.
Anyone else?"
___

Montana has historically (for approx. 15 years--before I ever thought of
being a soil scientist) taken the time to capture the geographic setting and
several of the soil properties that typically existed on the SOIL-5 (SIR)
rather the the OSD in the past.  They took the time to capture the entire
series concept on the OSD and have the SOIL-5 fit within that concept;
rather than have the two documents serve as companions where you
aren't able to get a picture of the series concept without both documents.

Those properties which are considered series criteria were the ones
which were typically added.  In some cases the different phases
recognized are also listed.

They've also taken the time to use tabular format, which makes finding
information on an OSD  easier.

Listed below are some examples of OSD's that have had this done to
them.  They can be found on the internet at:

http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/

TRUDEAU
ANACONDA
HANSON
CABBART
__
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

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: Roy Vick <roy.vick@nc.usda.gov>

MO14 agrees in principle to the items that Paul has proposed.

To clarify our position here, certain soil properties have always been
considered as series criteria.  Among these are water table depth and
kind, shrink-swell, and permeability.  You may call these
interpretations and not "properties", but series are identified on these
differences, and mapped and correlated based on these.

Whether the canned statements in the Drainage and Permeability section
suffice, I dare not answer for everyone.  We want an official range of
data for a series as it is correlated.  The soil series is a part of
Soil Taxonomy, and Soil Taxonomy is "a basic system of soil
classification for making and interpreting soil surveys".  We want to
capture what and how we are interpreting soils in the OSD.

roy vick

                     *     *     *     *     *

From: "Wayne J. Gabriel" <wgabriel@tx.nrcs.usda.gov>

I have no doubt that a consensus on this issue can be reached but the
points Paul proposes need some clarification first.  I can agree in
principle with everything everyone has said on this issue because we all
have the philosophy that good standards for soil series are important.
The only difference I see is how we think those standards should be
maintained.  I am confidant that this issue can be resolved to meet the
satisfaction of everyone.  Paul's consensus proposal is a good start.
The stance of most of the Soil Data Quaility Specialists I work with is
more closely aligned with the stance of Roy Vick on this issue.

Wayne Gabriel

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

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

     x3780.413frig     on Mar 08     (81 updated OSDs) @
     x3780.414frig     on Mar 10     ( 9 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
...aftad...akeley...alban...almena...alstad...amery...amnicon...andrusia...
anigon...anoka...antigo...anton...arland...auganaush...automba...balmlake...
baudette...beltrami...bemidji...bergkeller...billyboy...bionditch...
bjorkland...blackriver...blowers...bluffcreek...bootlake...bowstring...
braham...brainerd...brander...brandsvold...branstad...brennyvill...brill...
bushville....bygland...campia....chapett...chetek...comstock...cornucopia...
crex...crystal_la...cushing...cutaway...dalbo...darnen...daybrook...debs...
demontrevi...denomie...dobie...dody...dolph...doritty...duluth...eckvoll...
fallcreek...freya...halverson...hamre...hangaard...haslie...hattie...
hedman...hge...karlsborg...knute...lara...marquette...meenon...naytahwaus...
norgo...northwood...onstad...pence...perchlake...perida...seelyevill...
siren...slimlake...smestad...spoonerhil...stengel...sugarbush...
totagatic...traelake...traunik...winterfiel...

     mesic--none.

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

                   CHANGED ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS

1. New email addresses and phone numbers:
Bill Perkis      bperkis@mi.nrcs.usda.gov     1-906-663-6068
Chuck Schwenner  cschwenner@mi.nrcs.usda.gov  1-906-387-5241
Joe Calus        jcalus@mi.nrcs.usda.gov      1-906-341-5735
Bill Anzalone    banzalone@mi.nrcs.usda.gov   1-906-884-4065
Ken Wikgren      kwikgren@mi.nrcs.usda.gov    1-906-337-2279

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

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

MLRA DATE      ACTIVITY                     LOCATION          MO 10 STAFF
---- --------- ---------------------------- ----------------- -----------
 88  May 03-07 Final Correlation            Roseau            DesLauriers
103  Apr 06-07 Steering Committee Meeting   Ames              Giencke
 ALL Apr 15    MLRA Region 10 Staff Meeting St. Paul          All

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

     CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME

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

                        *     *     *     *     *

Please submit your articles at least five days before the end of the month
for inclusion in the following month's newsletter. Otherwise it will
appear the following month. Occasionally, due to other workload demands,
it may be an additional month before the article appears. Generally,
articles are inserted in the order they are received.

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

Articles in a paper format can be sent or faxed to:
   John Handler
   MLRA Region 10 Office
   USDA - NRCS
   375 Jackson Street - Suite 600
   St. Paul, Minnesota  55101-1854
   FAX: 1-651-602-7914

                        *     *     *     *     *

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

                        *     *     *     *     *

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

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