1 / 97

Management of MLRA Soil Surveys

Management of MLRA Soil Surveys. Definition.

damon
Download Presentation

Management of MLRA Soil Surveys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Management of MLRA Soil Surveys

  2. Definition.  An MLRA soil survey update is a systematic process designed to improve published soil survey products and information considering the full extent of soils and map units across the Major Land Resource Area (see part 649.2).Updating by MLRA is a continuous activity of evaluations, data collection and synthesis, reviews, and recertification of existing soil survey information bringing all soils information to a common standard. The MLRA soil survey update is planned and organized using scheduled projects that systematically focus on specific groups of soils or landforms and the associated support data, interpretations, and maps (see part 610.4). 

  3. Purpose MLRA process will develop a seamless coverage of soils information across the nation.  Updating soil survey information by MLRA ensures that current and accurate soil survey information is available to meet the needs of the majority of users and delivered to the users in a timely manner. Updateprojects are coordinated across the existing (i.e. “traditional” or Non-MLRA) soil survey area boundaries and follow natural landforms. The MLRA process eliminates biases in soils data, interpretation and maps arising from technical knowledge, survey standards, design, political and land management boundaries inherent to the traditional soil survey. The first phase of the update process will focus on the refining and enhancing of map unit concepts, design, and complete population of the attribute database (NASIS see part 639). The second phase of the update will use the fully populated attribute database to refine the spatial database.

  4. Project Path • Long Range Plan • Evaluations • General (for LRP) • Detailed (for PP) • Ranking and prioritizing • Project Planning • WLA, APO Plan • QC/QA/Project Plan Publication

  5. Long Range Plan

  6. Long Range Plan The MLRA Soil Survey Office long-range plan includes • General nature of the survey area • General evaluation findings of existing soil surveys • General supporting information • Update strategy of the survey area

  7. Long Range Plan • Relies on Technical Team and their knowledge • Uses a generalized evaluation of the survey area to identify issues • Drafted as a document • Presented to the Management Team

  8. Long Range Plan details • Map of MLRA survey area • LRU map (physiographic areas) • NCSS Partners, Management and Technical Teams Associated with the MLRA SSO • General Background and History of Soil Survey in the MLRA SSA – (overview of correlation concepts used in area) • Geographic and Geologic Descriptions of the MLRA SSA

  9. Long Range Plan details • LRU’s (geographical subsets) • Listing of Initial Soil Surveys (If appropriate) • Soil Survey Publications (SSA Name, SSAID, Acres, Pub date, field work completed date) • List of current OSD’s (located within the MLRA SSA) • List of current Benchmark Soils • Special Investigations

  10. Long Range Plan details • Major Evaluation Findings (related to LRU’s) • Attribute Deficiencies • Spatial Deficiencies • Interpretations Deficiencies • Map Units (ex. obsolete miscellaneous areas, outdated classification, scale, design) • ESD development needs • Implementation Strategy for the Soil Survey Update

  11. Long Range Plan publication • The long range plan is written to provide current users a justification for the need of the update and future users information on decisions about the MLRA Soil Survey Area. The plan is provided to the MLRA Management Team and to the Board of Directors for their approval and use. • The plan is stored on the NSSC SharePoint site “MLRA Long Range Plans” (https://nrcs.sc.egov.usda.gov/ssra/nssc/MLRA%20Long%20Range%20Plans/Forms/AllItems.aspx).

  12. When is the LRP to be completed? • It is hoped that if not already done, the LRP will be completed and posted by the end of this fiscal year, but understanding efforts with carbon and winding up of initial survey work, an outside target of end of 2nd quarter FY12.

  13. Evaluations

  14. Evaluations • Customer needs. • Determine the current and projected user requirements and needs. The original soil survey memorandum of understanding records user needs and specifications for the survey at the time it was initiated and can be helpful in assessing the likely needs for update. • Manuscript and Databases. • The spatial and attribute databases are evaluated in the context of the published manuscript. The published manuscript contains the map unit concept and the map unit delineations at the point in time the survey mapping was completed or officially correlated. The databases will be evaluated to identify issues such as proper line placement, quality and completeness of soil property data, and current soil interpretations. • Interpretations. • Soil interpretations are evaluated with consideration given to the current and projected needs of the survey. The types of interpretations needed for the survey area and the soil properties necessary to generate the interpretations are considered during the evaluation process.

  15. Evaluations • General Evaluations • are completed for development of the Long Range Plan • results should prioritize the Land Resource Units (LRU) • identification of possible projects should be the outcome • completed in the office • Detailed Evaluations • integrated as the first milestone in the Project Plan • includes field analysis

  16. Evaluation Documentation • General evaluations • Legend Text • Detailed evaluations • Mapunit Text

  17. Evaluation Documentation • Kind = “miscellaneous notes” • Category = “evaluation” • Subcategory: • “spatial” • “attribute” • “interpretation”

  18. General Evaluations

  19. General Evaluations • Legends: • Reliance on Technical Team • Used to identify survey needs • Summarize existing survey information • Utilize previous evaluations • Assessment of deficiencies: • attribute, • spatial, and • Interpretations • Projects are identified from the general evaluations issues

  20. General Evaluations • Identify issues with • Soil Series and OSDs • Benchmark Soils • Map Unit issues • Land use changes • Investigation needs: water table studies, Ksat, temperature studies, dynamic soil properties, etc. • ESD data and correlation needs • ESDs to be developed

  21. General Evaluations • Review: • the original memorandums of understanding • the correlation documents • maps scales, compilation and digitized? • new base map and scale? • Determine User Needs: • Additional soil data? • User requested interpretations? • How can the soils product be improved?

  22. General Evaluations – Soil Series and OSDs • Identify • inactive series and • series with obsolete classifications • series outside of normal extent, such as moisture & temperature regimes • Series affected by changes in the series control section (substratum phases) • Series that have had changes in series concept (e.g. dual drainage classes, change in classification, Oxyaquic subgroups, some may now be two series) • OSDs with obsolete horizon nomenclature or terminology

  23. General Evaluations – Benchmark Soils NSSH 630 • A benchmark soil is one of large extent within one or more major land resource areas (MLRA), one that holds a key position in the soil classification system, one for which there is a large amount of data, one that has special importance to one or more significant land uses, or one that is of significant ecological importance.

  24. General Evaluations – Benchmark Soils • Identify • the list of Benchmark soils • their acreage extent • their geographical distribution • the amount of lab data • supporting pedon data

  25. General Evaluations – Benchmark Soils • Policy and Responsibilities (630.01) • The MLRA Soil Survey Office (MLRA SSO) is responsible for: • through cooperation and consultation with the technical team members, evaluating the benchmark soils in their area of responsibility for adherence to the benchmark soils definition and purpose, • proposing changes to the benchmark soils status of soil series through the MLRA Soil Survey Area Management Team to the MLRA Soil Survey Regional Office, • identifying soil series that are considered similar to the benchmark soils for the extrapolation and transfer of data, • ensuring pedon descriptions are in NASIS pedon for benchmark soil sampling sites, • Including a focus on benchmark soils in long-range, project, and investigation plans, • developing an inventory of existing data for benchmark soils within their area of responsibility. assessing the adequacy of the data, and developing plans to fill identified data gaps, and • developing a narrative record for each benchmark soil within their area of responsibility.

  26. MLRA–coverage criteria General Evaluations – Benchmark Soils • Total extent of benchmark soils should be about 20 to 25 % of the total soil area of the MLRA; and, • 60 to 80 % of total soil area of the MLRA is collectively represented by benchmark and similar soils

  27. Compare components to benchmark • Should the high acre components be benchmark soils?

  28. General Evaluations – Map Units • Identify Variants, taxadjuncts, substratum phases, miscellaneous areas, and components at higher taxa • Do map unit and component names meet current standards? • Are phase criteria properly entered in the local phase column? • Are map units correlated over multiple LRUs or landforms? • Query map units and components in NASIS by MLRA and Soil Survey Office Area

  29. General Evaluations – Map Units • Query map units in NASIS by Soil Survey Office Area • Does that office have all of the correct map units?

  30. Detailed Evaluations

  31. Detailed Evaluations • Completed on approved Project Plans • “Complete Detailed Evaluation” milestone • Provides justification, significance and benefits for Project Plans • Focused on map units and associated data map units and Pedon data • Focused on specific deficiencies identified in the general evaluations

  32. Detailed Evaluations • Manuscripts are the foundation of the update. • Mapunit concept is found in the manuscript • Correlation documents, both hardcopy and NASIS, are to be used to understand historical mapping concepts • Mapunit property data should be reviewed in NASIS. • GIS and NASIS data are tools to assist in the evaluation process

  33. Detailed Evaluations • Assess the amount and quality of documentation (pedon descriptions, transects, traverses, lab data, field notes or observations) • Assess the amount and quality of supporting documentation (soil temp/moisture data, range/forestry data, chemical properties data, etc.) • Review NASIS component and horizon data and compare this data for all map units within the Project

  34. Detailed Evaluations – Attribute Deficiencies • Identify (all easily identified using NASIS 6 and SDV) • Data voids • Data inconsistencies (e.g. such as K and T factors, WEI & WEG, hydric rating, farmland classification, hydrologic units, etc.) • Data and Interpretation inconsistencies (SDV) • Population of limiting Minor components • Population of Overlap tables • Calculation of data(Was the particle size calculator used to estimate data?)

  35. Detailed Evaluations – Spatial Deficiencies • Utilizing Technical Team knowledge, Identify • areas where lines significantly do not match imagery or landforms, such as a valley bottom unit runs half way up the mountain side, or the ridge line unit is totally of the ridge. • compilation errors  • joins across political boundaries • lines that do not fit the Soil-Landscape model • consistency of flooding frequency • map unit distribution • Series/component distribution • OSD type locations

  36. Detailed Evaluations – Interpretation Deficiencies • Identify • overrides used in the original manuscripts? • Inconsistent criteria use of interpretations (e.g. drainage class, land capability class, etc. ) • Inconsistent interpretations due to data population issues, such as combining of transition layers • “not rated” soils? why? • WSS reports with no interpretation data?

  37. Detailed Evaluations – Soil Series and OSDs • Georeference OSD locations (available on the NSSL SharePoint site) • Review competing series • Review archived versions of OSDs to assess any changes in series classification or concept • Review series distribution and extent by MLRA

  38. Detailed Evaluations – Soil Series and OSDs Verify that OSD locations are representative of the map unit Heart of the Olton map units

  39. Detailed Evaluations – Map Units • First Step: • Reconcile map unit names and phase criteria for the MLRA • Review Manuscripts • compare component composition of same/similar named map units • compare phase criteria of same/similar named map units

  40. Detailed Evaluations – Reconcile Map Units • Adrian muck 6b9b • Adrian muck 6fct • Adrian muck 94kq • ADRIAN MUCK, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES, DRAINED 7vxb • ADRIAN MUCK, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES, UNDRAINED 7vxc • Adrian muck, 0 to 3 percent slopes 6b27 • Adrian muck, drained 5cp4 • Adrian muck, drained 5dwl • Adrian muck, drained 5fb3 • Adrian muck, drained 5g4r • Adrian muck, drained 94kr • Adrian muck, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes 5jfm • Adrian muck, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes 5k04 • Adrian muck, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes 1v4mm • Adrian muck, undrained, 0 to 1 percent slopes 5k05 • Adrian muck, undrained, 0 to 1 percent slopes 1v4mn

  41. Ranking and Prioritizing

  42. Prioritizing what • Listed projects in the LRP

  43. Mgt Team & Tech Team relations • Already established • Mgt provides guidance as to how to prioritize • Mgt has priorities to address • Prioritize all or a subset of all

  44. Priorities for Soil Surveys (608.05) State cooperative soil survey conferences, led by the State Soil Scientist, convene annually to discuss soil survey activities, consider the priorities of all cooperators, and recommend action. Other interested user groups recommend priorities, such as for special or interim soil reports.

  45. Considerations for preparing the priority list for the MLRA SSO are: • Status of initial soil surveys and update soil surveys requiring extensive revision, • NRCS needs for carrying out Farm Bill and technical or financial assistance programs and projects, • Cooperating agency needs for meeting their program and project needs, • Requests for soil surveys by local people, • Needs of federal partners on federal lands,

  46. Considerations for preparing the priority list for the MLRA SSO are: • Needs for information that aids in land use planning and decisions, • Rapid land use changes in areas where critical soil problems are expected, • Contributions of funds or staffing, • Needs for tax evaluation, and • Other factors of specific local importance.

  47. Ranking Criteria • Program Relevance • Interpretive Issues • Acres Affected • Data Errors / Frequency of Complaints or Appeals • Joins / Legend Issues • Map Unit Kind (Phases, Taxadjuncts, Miscellaneous Units) • Data Consistency • Series Age / Concept / Classification Issues

  48. Ranking Criteria --continued • Line Placement/Landscape Model Issues • Lab Data Availability • Stakeholder Contribution/Cost Share • Benchmark Status • Age of Survey • Whodunit and How • Others?

More Related