Soil_Data_Join_Recorrelation.ppt -

Document Sample
Soil_Data_Join_Recorrelation.ppt - Powered By Docstoc
					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
                            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
•   Many soil scientists that have key knowledge for making
    these decisions will likely be retiring soon
       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
   – 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
11.   Endres, Tonie - NRCS, Indianapolis, IN
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
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
               What are the issues?

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

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


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

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


Expectation of consistent

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

 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

 National Instruction Highlights
• Conducted                               NASIS
  through a review                                            Soil
  of existing data:      Knowledge

• Map Unit Concept
  and Composition
                        GIS                                    Correlation
                      Products                                 Documents

                                 Research &       Lab Data
           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

                               Meets Data
          Major and Minor
          Soils Populated

                      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;
            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

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

              Build foundation for next

• Questions?

Shared By: