Soil_Data_Join_Recorrelation

					    Soil Data Join Recorrelation
              Initiative
• Overview and Background
     – Purpose, Issues, Objectives, Initiative
•   Advisory Team / Technical Team
•   National Instruction Highlights
•   Reportable Measures
•   FY12 and Beyond
       Overview and Background

• Chief’s decision memo regarding NASIS
  – Improve the database
  – Accelerate MLRA approach by re-correlating
    data joins (harmonization)
  – Accelerate Phase 1 of MLRA update


  – Goal is seamless soil survey data
  Soil Data Join Recorrelation (SDJR)
          (a.k.a. Harmonization)
What is it?
• Effort to provide seamless soil survey
  information in a timely fashion
• Correlation and data enhancement using legacy
  soils data to provide seamless soils data
• One data mapunit or consistent properties
  correlated to geographically consistent map units
      • Same named
      • Similar named
      • Uniquely named
                          SDJR
                          Why now?
•   It has been a SSD Director priority for at least 2
    years
•   With the completion of SSURGO many added value
    products are being generated
•   We need to provide consistent data for USDA
    programs
•   If we don’t do this, others (non-soil scientists) will
    make changes to make data consistent
•   We have enough data to make decisions for many
    instances
     National Soil Survey Database
        Harmonization Project
                  Why now?

• Allows for SSOs and MOs to do a thorough
  analysis of all their data
• Through this analysis long range and yearly
  plans, and projects can be developed and
  prioritized
• Using Benchmark Soils, we can harmonize/make
  consistent a large percentage of our data
Division Priority

• FY- 2012 Soils Division Priorities
  – Begin a multi-year initiative to complete Soil
    Survey Data Join Re-correlation (often
    referred to as harmonization) so that soils
    information matches from county to county
    and state to state on 1 billion acres
Division Director Charge:

• Establish Advisory and Technical teams to look
  at accelerating Phase I (data harmonization) of
  MLRA updates
   – Provide advice for implementation
   – Develop objectives, goals, and direction
Advisory Team


•   Cameron Loerch   •   Tom Weber
•   Ken Scheffe      •   Cleveland Watts
•   Paul Finnell     •   Dennis Williamson
•   Jon Gerken       •   Roy Vick
•   Dave Hoover      •   Jerry Schaar
•   Amanda Moore     •   Steve Park
•   Mike Domeier
  Technical Team
1. Thorson, Thor - NRCS, Portland, OR
2. Tallyn, Ed - NRCS, Davis, CA
3. Fisher, John – NRCS, Reno, NV
4. Mueller, Eva- NRCS, Bozeman, MT              •Paul Finnell, NSSC
5. Wehmueller, William - NRCS, Salina, KS       •Ken Scheffe, NSSC
                                                •Cathy Seybold, NSSC
6. Hahn, Thomas - NRCS, Denver, CO
                                                •Steve Monteith, NSSC
7. Ulmer, Mike - NRCS, Bismarck, ND             •Zamir Libohova, NSSC
8. Glover, Leslie - NRCS, Phoenix, AZ           •Deb Harms, NSSC
9. Gordon, James - NRCS, Temple, TX             •Steve Peaslee, NSSC
10. Whited, Michael - NRCS, St. Paul, MN
                                                •Sub-Committees
11. Endres, Tonie - NRCS, Indianapolis, IN
                                                    •Database
12. Finn, Shawn - NRCS, Amherst, MA                 •Climate
13. Dave Kingsbury - MOL, WV                        •GIS
14. Anderson, Debbie - NRCS, Raleigh, NC            •Correlation
15. Anderson, Scott - NRCS, Auburn, AL              •Interpretations
                                                    •ESD
16. Mersiovsky, Edgar - NRCS, Little Rock, AR
                                                    •Lab Data
17. Mark Clark – MO Leader, AK
18. David Gehring - NRCS, Lexington, KY
What are the issues?
             What are the issues?

• K factors are one
  interpretation
  dependent on texture
  that are dependent on
  map unit concept
             What are the issues?

• Same map unit
  name, different
  composition
                 What are the issues?

Lines join,
interpretation
s differ
Issues: Statewide Interpretations
Issues: Nationwide Soil Property Data
Users




2.33




0.02
       Bulk Density, 5-20 cm (Mg m-3)
                  What are the issues?

                                   MLRA 75-Crete sil, 0-1%
                                   Dwellings with Basements




         Before

Expectation of consistent
interpretations:

                                      After
Basic Objectives - SDJR


• Support the development of seamless soils data
  for use with CDSI, USDA Farm Bill Programs,
  and added value SSURGO products

• Process resulting in correlation of similar data
  map units taking into account existing legacy
  data, laboratory data, and expert knowledge
  Basic Objectives - SDJR
• Dissolve the perceived data faults in
  interpretations visible in geospatial presentation
  of soil survey information


 Often resulting from
 minor variation in data
 population, horizon
 depths, composition,
 and vintage of
 guidance documents
Basic Objectives - SDJR
• Improve the database

• Reduces the number of DMU’s for same and
  similarly named soil map units

• Identify priority update needs

• Builds the foundation for next generation of soil
  survey – disaggregation
National Instruction




          https://nrcs.sc.egov.usda.gov/ssra/nssc/default.aspx
 National Instruction Highlights
• Conducted                               NASIS
  through a review                                            Soil
                          Expert
  of existing data:      Knowledge
                                                             Survey
                                                             Reports



• Map Unit
  Concept and
  Composition           GIS                                    Correlation
                      Products                                 Documents




                                  Published
                                 Research &       Lab Data
                                 Documents
       National Instruction Highlights
• Focus on Same and Similarly named map units
         Prioritize with Initial List of MU’s

            Consider Benchmark Soils

                Consider Priority Landscapes



• Integrating Uniquely Named Map Units
  – SRSS/SDQS additional ideas to utilize SDJR approach
    National Instruction Highlights
• Creating SDJR Projects in NASIS

        SDJR Project Milestones
        •   Create spatial distribution maps
        •   Compile historical data
        •   Populate correlated map units into SDJR project
        •   Enter pedons in NASIS
        •   Review historical MU/DMUs
        •   Create and populate the new MLRA MU/DMU
        •   Document the MLRA MU/DMU
        •   Identify/propose future field projects
        •   Update OSD and lab characterization data
        •   Quality control completed
        •   Quality assurance completed
        •   Correlation activities completed
        •   SSURGO certification
      National Instruction Highlights
• Harmonized Soil Data is:

                  Linked to Same
                       DMU


           Major and          Meets Data
           Minor Soils       Completeness
           Populated          Standards


                    Components
                    Total 100%
     National Instruction Highlights
• Lab data reviewed
  – The pedons will be reviewed and updated
  – Updating the correlated name and correlated
    classification for sampled pedons


• OSD reviewed and updated;
  – Classification updated to current taxonomy if necessary
  – Other updates to the OSD will follow the standard
    operating procedures for the MLRA regional office
     National Instruction Highlights

• Legacy Data Populated and Archived
  – Published manuscript TUD’s
  – Pedon data


• ESD’s
  – Component productivity
  – Component ecological site
  – Work with ecological site inventory specialist and local
    rangeland management specialist


• Map unit certified by QA process through MO
      National Instruction Highlights

• Identification of project needs that require future
  field work and analysis
   – Document in NASIS as a proposed project
      • Brief description
      • Estimated extent


   – Areas not joining spatially across political boundaries
     are identified as future projects and documented

   – Capture ESD inventory and development needs
           Reportable measure’s
• SDJR (Harmonization) projects
   – 20% of total map unit acreage     20%
   – Report when QA milestone in
     project has been completed.
   – Post to SDM when scheduled
     (annual)

• Initial soils mapping = 100%
• MLRA field projects = 100%
• High priority extensive revision =
  100%
                    FY 2012 – SDJR

3rd Quarter
• Training to MLRA SSO’s by MO
  (Technical Team)



       4th Quarter
       •   Develop and work on a project
       •   Test National Instruction
       •   Develop future SDJR projects
       •   Other Priorities (Initial; Agreements;
           projects)
           FY 13 and Beyond

Fully engaged in SDJR

    Priorities and goals developed
    • SSD – MO’s
    • MLRA Advisory and Management
      Teams


         Complete Initial surveys
         before full implementation.

                  Support from the MO
                  (Technical Team)
National Bulletin
Summary
             Improve/enhance/populate
                     database


  SDJR      Reconcile DMU’s for same and
              similarly named map units
  Process
            Identify future project needs



              Build foundation for next
                      generation
Discussion

• Questions?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:11/20/2012
language:English
pages:33