|
1
|
From uniola@email.unc.edu Wed Mar 19 14:53:25 2003
|
|
2
|
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:38:16 -0500 (EST)
|
|
3
|
From: Robert K. Peet <uniola@email.unc.edu>
|
|
4
|
To: Don Faber-Langendoen <don_faber-langendoen@natureserve.org>
|
|
5
|
Cc: David Tart <dtart@fs.fed.us>, Michael Jennings <jennings@uidaho.edu>,
|
|
6
|
Michael Lee <mikelee@email.unc.edu>
|
|
7
|
Subject: RE: Picklists -- soils
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
Regards VegBank, I see the cover issue as a metadata issue. To be
|
|
11
|
rigorous, perhaps we should have a field specifically to record this,
|
|
12
|
either in coverMehtod or in observation. My preference woulbe to put it
|
|
13
|
in observation. MIke Lee, would you see that this enters Bugzilla?
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
Bob
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Don Faber-Langendoen wrote:
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
> I'm content to add those missing classes so we can make the system usable to
|
|
22
|
> both sets of users. Dave's point about trying to make VegBank FGDC
|
|
23
|
> compliant on non-veg issues is important. Sometimes we tend to do things
|
|
24
|
> because we think this will lead to "buy-in." But the issue of being FGDC
|
|
25
|
> compliant on all non-veg issues is really beyond the scope of VegBank. We
|
|
26
|
> do need to ensure that the databases can talk to each other. If the FS
|
|
27
|
> creates a database structure that can't handle both a 12 point scale as well
|
|
28
|
> as a 21 point scale, they've put themselves into a narrow framework that
|
|
29
|
> works for them, but not for all users. We shouldn't do the same.
|
|
30
|
>
|
|
31
|
> I believe most ecologists use canopy cover estimates rather than foliar
|
|
32
|
> cover estimates (but I have been with ecologists who do make minor
|
|
33
|
> corrections for very open canopies). As Bob points out, these issues will
|
|
34
|
> not impact the quality of the data for classification purposes. There's a
|
|
35
|
> higher degree of real ecological variability that makes distinctions between
|
|
36
|
> foliar and canopy cover estimates less than critical. Perhaps droughtier
|
|
37
|
> ecological systems are more affected by the choice?. As long as we specify
|
|
38
|
> which one is being used, I think we'll be fine.
|
|
39
|
>
|
|
40
|
> Bob, is this strictly a meta-data issue about cover, or are you considering
|
|
41
|
> a field that needs to be added?
|
|
42
|
>
|
|
43
|
> Don
|
|
44
|
>
|
|
45
|
> -----Original Message-----
|
|
46
|
> From: Robert K. Peet [mailto:uniola@email.unc.edu]
|
|
47
|
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:29 PM
|
|
48
|
> To: David Tart
|
|
49
|
> Cc: Don Faber-Langendoen; Michael Jennings; Michael Lee
|
|
50
|
> Subject: RE: Picklists -- soils
|
|
51
|
>
|
|
52
|
>
|
|
53
|
>
|
|
54
|
>
|
|
55
|
> Dave,
|
|
56
|
>
|
|
57
|
> With VegBank we are simply trying to retain sufficient flexibility to
|
|
58
|
> support the needs of a rather broad user base. Thus, if FS is going to
|
|
59
|
> routinely use a 21-point texture class scale and NS is going to routinely
|
|
60
|
> use a 12 point scale, we need to find a way to accommodate both approaches
|
|
61
|
> with minimal complexity for the users.
|
|
62
|
>
|
|
63
|
> How do we do this? I propose we accept the 21-point FGDC list and that we
|
|
64
|
> add to it the missing classes of "Sands, loamy sands and sandy loams. I
|
|
65
|
> also suggest that for purposes of our database we indict the subclasses by
|
|
66
|
> having the name in the list read as follows Sands: sand Sands: coarse sand
|
|
67
|
> Sands: fine sand Sands: very fine sand etc. This will avoid mistakes
|
|
68
|
> resulting from those who want to enter "sand" and who have never noticed
|
|
69
|
> the difference between "sand" sensu the NRCU Soil Manual soil triangle
|
|
70
|
> (fig 3-16) and "sand" sensu NRCS SOil Manual Chpt 3 text and the FGDC
|
|
71
|
> standard (which is a subset of the other sand. At the same time, it will
|
|
72
|
> allow unambigous mapping to the FGDC standard.
|
|
73
|
>
|
|
74
|
> We don't view Vegbank as the standard. However, where we are headed is
|
|
75
|
> toward a data exchange standard for plot data, rather similar in character
|
|
76
|
> to XML. This will likely draw heavily from the VegBank ERD to develop an
|
|
77
|
> appropriate logical structure. We anticipate this as a component of the
|
|
78
|
> Veg Standard to be added to the draft as an appendix in perhaps 2-3
|
|
79
|
> months. At that point we will need some of the FS database guys to look
|
|
80
|
> it over to see if it will work for them. We also have to recognize that
|
|
81
|
> part of our data exchange specification will consist of extensions to
|
|
82
|
> nonveg stuff like soil texture. We should probably include these but
|
|
83
|
> identify them as extensions that can or should be replaced by data
|
|
84
|
> exchange standards to be published by the other subcommittees.
|
|
85
|
>
|
|
86
|
> The discussion over the cover measures suggests to me that we are making
|
|
87
|
> our standards a bit too tight. If we make a veg type sink or swim based
|
|
88
|
> on use of canopy cover vs foliar cover, we have made some serious mistakes
|
|
89
|
> in constructing the standards. We need to accept legacy data that are
|
|
90
|
> somewhat divergent from best practice but which inform the process. We
|
|
91
|
> perhaps should state in the document that best practice is "canopy cover",
|
|
92
|
> but acceptable is "foliar cover". Good plot data from some regions are so
|
|
93
|
> sparse that we need to accept and combine multiple types of data.
|
|
94
|
>
|
|
95
|
> Best,
|
|
96
|
> Bob
|
|
97
|
>
|
|
98
|
>
|
|
99
|
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, David Tart wrote:
|
|
100
|
>
|
|
101
|
> >
|
|
102
|
> > All,
|
|
103
|
> >
|
|
104
|
> > To do as Don suggests, you will have to add Sands, Loamy Sands, and Sandy
|
|
105
|
> > Loams to the picklist in order to keep these classes distinct from the
|
|
106
|
> > subclasses sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam. However, using the sandy
|
|
107
|
> > loams class would not follow Soil Survey Manual direction and therefore
|
|
108
|
> > would not be FGDC compliant. So, 12 categories does not appear to be a
|
|
109
|
> > viable option, while 15 is acceptable (currently). I suspect that NRCS
|
|
110
|
> and
|
|
111
|
> > Forest Service will reject anything other than the 21 subclasses, since
|
|
112
|
> > this appears to be current practice in soils and is the only option
|
|
113
|
> > supported by NASIS.
|
|
114
|
> >
|
|
115
|
> > It is likely that in the long run, only the minimum required data in the
|
|
116
|
> > ESA document will end up in the FGDC vegetation classification standard.
|
|
117
|
> > Equating VegBank and its picklists with the proposed vegetation
|
|
118
|
> > classification standard is likely to hurt chances of federal acceptance of
|
|
119
|
> > the vegetation standard. Given the possible ramifications of the Data
|
|
120
|
> > Quality Act, the content of the FGDC vegetation standard will likely have
|
|
121
|
> > to be limited to vegetation attributes only. Any conflict between FGDC
|
|
122
|
> > standards will lead to lawsuits for federal agencies. I would hope that
|
|
123
|
> > the Forest Service and BLM would prefer to avoid setting themselves up, by
|
|
124
|
> > not allowing the FGDC Vegetation Standard to conflict with other FGDC
|
|
125
|
> > standards.
|
|
126
|
> >
|
|
127
|
> > The Data Quality Act also makes the canopy vs foliar cover issue critical
|
|
128
|
> > to the Forest Service. A standard that does not include canopy cover
|
|
129
|
> would
|
|
130
|
> > instantly brand FS legacy data as inferior or substandard. Then any FS
|
|
131
|
> > management decision that could be tied back to vegetation types could be
|
|
132
|
> > challenged on that basis. This is one example of the kind of issues that
|
|
133
|
> > will come up in the FGDC review of the standards document.
|
|
134
|
> >
|
|
135
|
> > Dave
|
|
136
|
> >
|
|
137
|
> > David L. Tart - Regional Vegetation Ecologist
|
|
138
|
> > Intermountain Region
|
|
139
|
> > Vegetation Management (Room 5022)
|
|
140
|
> > U.S. Forest Service, 324 25th Street, Ogden UT 84401
|
|
141
|
> > Office: (801) 625-5817 Fax: (801) 625-5483
|
|
142
|
> >
|
|
143
|
> >
|
|
144
|
> >
|
|
145
|
> > "Don Faber-Langendoen"
|
|
146
|
> > <don_faber-langendoen@natur To: "David
|
|
147
|
> Tart" <dtart@fs.fed.us>, "Robert K. Peet" <uniola@email.unc.edu>
|
|
148
|
> > eserve.org> cc:
|
|
149
|
> "Michael Jennings" <jennings@uidaho.edu>, "Michael Lee"
|
|
150
|
> >
|
|
151
|
> <mikelee@email.unc.edu>
|
|
152
|
> > 03/18/2003 03:42 PM Subject: RE:
|
|
153
|
> Picklists -- soils
|
|
154
|
> > Please respond to
|
|
155
|
> > don_faber-langendoen
|
|
156
|
> >
|
|
157
|
> >
|
|
158
|
> >
|
|
159
|
> >
|
|
160
|
> >
|
|
161
|
> >
|
|
162
|
> > If we take the approach of including the 21, then we clearly need to
|
|
163
|
> > indicate what the 12 basic ones from the triangle are in the description
|
|
164
|
> > field, so that users can clearly follow the picklist.
|
|
165
|
> >
|
|
166
|
> > Don
|
|
167
|
> >
|
|
168
|
> > -----Original Message-----
|
|
169
|
> > From: David Tart [mailto:dtart@fs.fed.us]
|
|
170
|
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:18 PM
|
|
171
|
> > To: Robert K. Peet
|
|
172
|
> > Cc: Don Faber-Langendoen; Michael Jennings; Michael Lee
|
|
173
|
> > Subject: RE: Picklists -- soils
|
|
174
|
> >
|
|
175
|
> >
|
|
176
|
> >
|
|
177
|
> > Bob,
|
|
178
|
> >
|
|
179
|
> > I did find a bit of a caveat regarding soil textures in the soil survey
|
|
180
|
> > manual. Following the definitions of the classes and subclasses it says,
|
|
181
|
> >
|
|
182
|
> > "The eight distinctions in the sand and loamy sand groups provide
|
|
183
|
> > refinement greater than
|
|
184
|
> > can be consistently determined by field techniques. Only those
|
|
185
|
> > distinctions that are
|
|
186
|
> > significant to use and management and that can be consistently made
|
|
187
|
> > in the field should be
|
|
188
|
> > applied."
|
|
189
|
> >
|
|
190
|
> >
|
|
191
|
> >
|
|
192
|
> >
|
|
193
|
> > This allows the option of using "sands" or "loamy sands" in describing a
|
|
194
|
> > soil pedon. However, this does not appear to be the current proctice
|
|
195
|
> > because the NASIS database does not have distinct codes for the sand
|
|
196
|
> > subclass and the sands class, etc. (NRCS is in the same situation as FS,
|
|
197
|
> > their protocol and database are out of sync.) Applying this rarely used
|
|
198
|
> > rule would result in 15 texture categories instead of 21. (The rule does
|
|
199
|
> > not apply to sandy loams.) The Soil Survey Manual is being revised, so
|
|
200
|
> it
|
|
201
|
> > is possible that this obscure rule may be removed.
|
|
202
|
> >
|
|
203
|
> > Dave
|
|
204
|
> >
|
|
205
|
> > David L. Tart - Regional Vegetation Ecologist
|
|
206
|
> > Intermountain Region
|
|
207
|
> > Vegetation Management (Room 5022)
|
|
208
|
> > U.S. Forest Service, 324 25th Street, Ogden UT 84401
|
|
209
|
> > Office: (801) 625-5817 Fax: (801) 625-5483
|
|
210
|
> >
|
|
211
|
> >
|
|
212
|
> >
|
|
213
|
> > "Robert K. Peet"
|
|
214
|
> > <uniola@email.un To: David Tart
|
|
215
|
> > <dtart@fs.fed.us>, Don Faber-Langendoen
|
|
216
|
> > c.edu>
|
|
217
|
> > <don_faber-langendoen@natureserve.org>, Michael Jennings
|
|
218
|
> > <jennings@uidaho.edu>, Michael
|
|
219
|
> > Lee <mikelee@email.unc.edu>
|
|
220
|
> > 03/18/2003 12:36 cc:
|
|
221
|
> > PM Subject: RE: Picklists --
|
|
222
|
> > soils
|
|
223
|
> >
|
|
224
|
> >
|
|
225
|
> >
|
|
226
|
> >
|
|
227
|
> >
|
|
228
|
> >
|
|
229
|
> >
|
|
230
|
> >
|
|
231
|
> > We seem to be at an impass regards the soil texture list. Let me try to
|
|
232
|
> > state where I think we are.
|
|
233
|
> >
|
|
234
|
> > Let's agree that we drop all categories except all or a subset of the 21
|
|
235
|
> > types in the FGDC sils list. The crux is that much data is collected using
|
|
236
|
> > the 12 categories on the traditional soil triangle. Other data are
|
|
237
|
> > collected using all 21 categories in the FGDC list. I think I was
|
|
238
|
> > initially confused and thought the 21 categories were mutually exclusive,
|
|
239
|
> > but now I see the long list as having overlapping categories. For example
|
|
240
|
> > coarse sand, fine sand and very fine sand nest inside sand. This pattern
|
|
241
|
> > is repeated for sandy loams and sandy loans. Thus we do not have to worry
|
|
242
|
> > about there being two meanings of sand where one is a subset of the other.
|
|
243
|
> > Given this, there is no cost to retaining all 21 categories. If you
|
|
244
|
> > happen to want to use the basic 12, great. If you want to use the finer
|
|
245
|
> > scale cntaining 18 distinct types and three higher level types, that too
|
|
246
|
> > is great in that the fine-scale cane be lumped up to match the coarse
|
|
247
|
> > scale.
|
|
248
|
> >
|
|
249
|
> > IN short, we go back to 21 items in the closed list in full knowldege that
|
|
250
|
> > they are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
251
|
> >
|
|
252
|
> > OK
|
|
253
|
> > Bob
|
|
254
|
> >
|
|
255
|
> >
|
|
256
|
> >
|
|
257
|
> >
|
|
258
|
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, David Tart wrote:
|
|
259
|
> >
|
|
260
|
> > >
|
|
261
|
> > > All,
|
|
262
|
> > >
|
|
263
|
> > > I recommend deleting the rock size terms from the list. I have attached
|
|
264
|
> > a
|
|
265
|
> > > copy of the list with the terms to be deleted in red. These terms are
|
|
266
|
> > > applicable only in very rare situations where no soil matrix is present.
|
|
267
|
> > > The soil scientists I talked to were not familiar with any examples of
|
|
268
|
> > > this.
|
|
269
|
> > >
|
|
270
|
> > > The 21 textural classes for mineral soils are standard for describing
|
|
271
|
> > soil
|
|
272
|
> > > horizions. They are necessary for calculating Available Water Capacity,
|
|
273
|
> > > which is one of the most useful soil properties relating to vegetation
|
|
274
|
> in
|
|
275
|
> > > the west. If an ecologist cannot identify the 21 textural classes in
|
|
276
|
> the
|
|
277
|
> > > field, then a soil scientist should be used to do the work. I would
|
|
278
|
> also
|
|
279
|
> > > question an ecologists ability to consistently and correctly identify
|
|
280
|
> the
|
|
281
|
> > > soil horizons themselves.
|
|
282
|
> > >
|
|
283
|
> > > More generalized categories are available for describing soils in a
|
|
284
|
> broad
|
|
285
|
> > > brush way, but these are not used to describe individual soil horizons.
|
|
286
|
> > > The 12 classes shown on the textural triangle are the first level of
|
|
287
|
> > > generalization above the 21 classes in the picklist. These can be
|
|
288
|
> > further
|
|
289
|
> > > grouped into either 3 or 5 categories. If you want more details I can
|
|
290
|
> > > provide them.
|
|
291
|
> > >
|
|
292
|
> > > Dave
|
|
293
|
> > >
|
|
294
|
> > > (See attached file: VegBank Soil Picklist.doc)
|
|
295
|
> > >
|
|
296
|
> > > David L. Tart - Regional Vegetation Ecologist
|
|
297
|
> > > Intermountain Region
|
|
298
|
> > > Vegetation Management (Room 5022)
|
|
299
|
> > > U.S. Forest Service, 324 25th Street, Ogden UT 84401
|
|
300
|
> > > Office: (801) 625-5817 Fax: (801) 625-5483
|
|
301
|
> > >
|
|
302
|
> > >
|
|
303
|
> > >
|
|
304
|
> > > "Don Faber-Langendoen"
|
|
305
|
> > > <don_faber-langendoen@natur To:
|
|
306
|
> > "Robert K. Peet" <uniola@email.unc.edu>, "Michael Lee"
|
|
307
|
> > > eserve.org>
|
|
308
|
> > <mikelee@email.unc.edu>, "Michael Jennings" <jennings@uidaho.edu>,
|
|
309
|
> "Gabriel
|
|
310
|
> > Farrell"
|
|
311
|
> > >
|
|
312
|
> > <farrell@nceas.ucsb.edu>, "David Tart/R6/USDAFS" <dtart@fs.fed.us>
|
|
313
|
> > > 03/17/2003 09:50 AM cc:
|
|
314
|
> > > Please respond to Subject: RE:
|
|
315
|
> > Picklists
|
|
316
|
> > > don_faber-langendoen
|
|
317
|
> > >
|
|
318
|
> > >
|
|
319
|
> > >
|
|
320
|
> > >
|
|
321
|
> > >
|
|
322
|
> > >
|
|
323
|
> > > Bob,
|
|
324
|
> > >
|
|
325
|
> > > I have added my comments below. One item you didn't list as changed was
|
|
326
|
> > > soil texture. I strongly object to th proposed FGDC texture options!
|
|
327
|
> > Few,
|
|
328
|
> > > if any, ecologists collect soil texture to this level of detail. We
|
|
329
|
> > either
|
|
330
|
> > > need to make this hierarchical, allowing for multiple levels of
|
|
331
|
> > resolution,
|
|
332
|
> > > or go back to the more basic 12 categories that have some hope of being
|
|
333
|
> > > keyed out in the field. We can make our picklists compatible with FGDC
|
|
334
|
> > > lists without adopting them verbatim.
|
|
335
|
> > >
|
|
336
|
> > > Don
|
|
337
|
> > >
|
|
338
|
> > > -----Original Message-----
|
|
339
|
> > > From: Robert K. Peet [mailto:uniola@email.unc.edu]
|
|
340
|
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:48 PM
|
|
341
|
> > > To: Don Faber-Langendoen; Michael Lee; Michael Jennings; Gabriel
|
|
342
|
> > > Farrell; David Tart/R6/USDAFS
|
|
343
|
> > > Subject: Picklists
|
|
344
|
> > >
|
|
345
|
> > >
|
|
346
|
> > >
|
|
347
|
> > > I have gone through the list of picklists prepared by Mike and made a
|
|
348
|
> > > bunch of changes. I attach it for your consideration. Here are a few
|
|
349
|
> > > highlights
|
|
350
|
> > >
|
|
351
|
> > > 1) commStatus.commLevel in generally used to house the hierarchy of the
|
|
352
|
> > > NVC, much like we place terms like order, family, genus, subgenus,
|
|
353
|
> > > species, variety here in the plant module. However, there is a problem
|
|
354
|
> > > that different vegetation classifications have different hierarchies.
|
|
355
|
> > > This suggests to me that at least for the vegetation classification we
|
|
356
|
> > > need to keep this an open list, prepopulated with FGDC. Otherwise we
|
|
357
|
> > > cannot accommodate the BB folks.
|
|
358
|
> > >
|
|
359
|
> > > **DFL. I'm not sure I understand enough about VegBank to follow this,
|
|
360
|
> but
|
|
361
|
> > > why wouldn't you maintain a separate set of lists for CommStatus for
|
|
362
|
> > > different classifications. i.e. if you pick USNVC you get one list, if
|
|
363
|
> > you
|
|
364
|
> > > choose B-B you get another (if such a B-B list can be achieved). And
|
|
365
|
> your
|
|
366
|
> > > citation of B-B nomenclatural reference as a source isn't the same kind
|
|
367
|
> > of
|
|
368
|
> > > reference, since that citation lacks any syntaxonomic units per se.
|
|
369
|
> > Seems
|
|
370
|
> > > like our species taxonomic model would be more appropriate, i.e. you
|
|
371
|
> > > specifiy an authority and you pick from the list??
|
|
372
|
> > >
|
|
373
|
> > > 2) I have reworked commConvergence and plantConvergence
|
|
374
|
> > >
|
|
375
|
> > > 3) I have added a few types to disturbanceTYpe
|
|
376
|
> > >
|
|
377
|
> > > 4) I point out that namedPlace MUAST refer to four closed lists that we
|
|
378
|
> > > have created but which are not in this sequence of closed lists
|
|
379
|
> > >
|
|
380
|
> > > 5) geology. First, I think this name is confusing everyone and we
|
|
381
|
> should
|
|
382
|
> > > change to rockType. I take Dave Tart's suggestion of matching FGDC
|
|
383
|
> > > seriously here and have retained the list from the soil standard, for
|
|
384
|
> the
|
|
385
|
> > > present. I know that Don has put a lot of hard work into hte Geology
|
|
386
|
> > > types, but I remain relativley happy with the Soils FGDC list I
|
|
387
|
> suggested
|
|
388
|
> > > a month ago and feel it captures some important difference missed in
|
|
389
|
> > Don's
|
|
390
|
> > > effort where acidic and basic types are not separated.
|
|
391
|
> > > **DFL. I can live with this, though presumably this needs to continue to
|
|
392
|
> > be
|
|
393
|
> > > an open list, as the categories are not mutually exclusive. Is a user
|
|
394
|
> > only
|
|
395
|
> > > allowed to pick one item from the list.
|
|
396
|
> > >
|
|
397
|
> > > 5) Surficial Deposits. This is a new field that has been emerging over
|
|
398
|
> > > the last month. Note that once again I expunge the word geology. This
|
|
399
|
> > > time I find I like Don's revision of my revision of ... I have,
|
|
400
|
> however,
|
|
401
|
> > > seen fit to add a bunch of categories. The current list is as follows:
|
|
402
|
> > > **DFL, several changes recommended here:
|
|
403
|
> > >
|
|
404
|
> > > Add : Glacial Deposits: Glaciolacustrine
|
|
405
|
> > > Add: Glacial Deposits: Glaciomarine
|
|
406
|
> > > Reword: Glacial Deposits:Glaciofluvial
|
|
407
|
> > > Split: all three Marine and Lacustrine Deposits into separate Marine
|
|
408
|
> > versus
|
|
409
|
> > > Lacustrine. Thus:
|
|
410
|
> > > Marine Deposits: Unconsolidated Sediments
|
|
411
|
> > > Marine Deposits: Coarse sediments
|
|
412
|
> > > Marine Deposits: Fine-grained sediments
|
|
413
|
> > > Lacustrine Deposits: Unconsolidated Sediments
|
|
414
|
> > > Lacustrine Deposits: Coarse sediments
|
|
415
|
> > > Lacustrine Deposits: Fine-grained sediments
|
|
416
|
> > >
|
|
417
|
> > > ******************
|
|
418
|
> > > Residual Material: Bedrock
|
|
419
|
> > > Residual Material: Disintegrated Rock
|
|
420
|
> > > Residual Material: Deeply Weathered Rock
|
|
421
|
> > > Glacial Deposits: Undifferentiated glacial deposit
|
|
422
|
> > > Glacial Deposits: Till
|
|
423
|
> > > Glacial Deposits: Moraine
|
|
424
|
> > > Glacial Deposits: Bedrock and till
|
|
425
|
> > > Glacial Deposits: Glacial-fluvial deposits (outwash)
|
|
426
|
> > > Glacial Deposits: Deltaic deposits
|
|
427
|
> > > Alluvial Deposits: Floodplain
|
|
428
|
> > > Alluvial Deposits: Alluvial Fan
|
|
429
|
> > > Alluvial Deposits: Deltas
|
|
430
|
> > > Marine and Lacustrine Deposits: Unconsolidated Sediments
|
|
431
|
> > > Marine and Lacustrine Deposits: Coarse sediments
|
|
432
|
> > > Marine and Lacustrine Deposits: Fine-grained sediments
|
|
433
|
> > > Organic Deposits: Peat
|
|
434
|
> > > Organic Deposits: Muck
|
|
435
|
> > > Slope & Modified Deposits: Talus and scree slopes
|
|
436
|
> > > Slope & Modified Deposits: Colluvial
|
|
437
|
> > > Slope & Modified Deposits: Solifluction, landslide
|
|
438
|
> > > Aeolian Deposits: Dunes
|
|
439
|
> > > Aeolian Deposits: Aeolian sand flats and cover sands
|
|
440
|
> > > Aeolian Deposits: Loess deposits
|
|
441
|
> > > Aeolian Deposits: Volcanic Ash
|
|
442
|
> > > Chemical Deposits: Evaporites and Precipitates
|
|
443
|
> > > Other
|
|
444
|
> > > Variable
|
|
445
|
> > >
|
|
446
|
> > >
|
|
447
|
> > > I suppose the rockType list is now the most problematic. However, I am
|
|
448
|
> > > going to stick with the FGDC list until we generally agree to do
|
|
449
|
> > > otherwise.
|
|
450
|
> > > **DFL. This rockType list will require remapping of PLOTS to VegBank.
|
|
451
|
> > >
|
|
452
|
> > > Once we agree on this, we need to select which subset of these lists we
|
|
453
|
> > > want to include as part of the ESA Guidelines version 2 (Appendix). It
|
|
454
|
> > is
|
|
455
|
> > > now evident that a lot of FGDC standards do embed picklists.
|
|
456
|
> > >
|
|
457
|
> > > **DFL. I have the lifeform table complete, but need to double-check.
|
|
458
|
> > I'll
|
|
459
|
> > > send it out later thisweek.
|
|
460
|
> > >
|
|
461
|
> > > Best,
|
|
462
|
> > > Bob
|
|
463
|
> > >
|
|
464
|
> > >
|
|
465
|
> > >
|
|
466
|
> > >
|
|
467
|
> > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Don Faber-Langendoen wrote:
|
|
468
|
> > >
|
|
469
|
> > > > Bob and Mike,
|
|
470
|
> > > >
|
|
471
|
> > > > Here is my revised picklist for geology. I received comments from a
|
|
472
|
> > > number
|
|
473
|
> > > > of NatureServe ecologists that helped to clean it up. But I still
|
|
474
|
> > don't
|
|
475
|
> > > > know if Dave Roberts thinks that this works for the West. In any
|
|
476
|
> case,
|
|
477
|
> > > here
|
|
478
|
> > > > it is. We will need to redo the loader for the NPS PLOTS database to
|
|
479
|
> > > match
|
|
480
|
> > > > this new format, though it shouldn't be hard.
|
|
481
|
> > > >
|
|
482
|
> > > > Mike, I still have that lifeform/physiognomic list to work on, but I'm
|
|
483
|
> > > not
|
|
484
|
> > > > sure what I was asked to do on that. I have spent a fair bit of time
|
|
485
|
> > > > cleaning up the structure of our Biotics database on this same issue,
|
|
486
|
> > so
|
|
487
|
> > > I'm
|
|
488
|
> > > > hoping that what I've done there will translate to VegBank.
|
|
489
|
> > > >
|
|
490
|
> > > > Don
|
|
491
|
> > > >
|
|
492
|
|