39 Patty, Ryder, Adam, Nora Check-in 28JAN2025
Date: January 28, 2025
39.0.1 Attendees
- Patty Burns
- Nora Pearson
- Ryder Anderson
- Adam Devlin
39.1 1. Pedon Entry Process Updates and Guidelines
39.1.1 Data Entry Review Feedback (Presented by Ryder)
- Overall completeness of entries needs improvement
- Survey123 has some glitches in data population
- Several specific corrections and guidelines were discussed:
39.1.1.1 Iron Concretions vs. Masses
- Many entries used “iron concretions” when “iron masses” would be more appropriate
- For 7.5YR 5/8 rust color features, use F3M (iron masses) instead of FMC
- Distinction: Iron masses for rust-colored features; concretions for cemented nodules
- Reference the Red Book for proper codes
39.1.1.2 Anthropogenic Features
- All sites with Human Transported Material (HTM) should have:
- Anthropogenic landform populated
- HTM listed in parent material
- Use of number “2” after HTM in horizon designation
- Recommendation to use LIDAR data to help identify anthropogenic landforms
- Even small amounts (20cm) of fill should be documented
39.1.1.3 Course Fragments Documentation
- Need to include size ranges rather than single measurements
- Current entries often only mark largest fragment size
- Should document percentages for different size classes
- Can break down analysis (e.g., 10% gravel size, 5% cobble size)
39.1.1.4 Till Classification
- Simplify to “till unspecified” instead of specific types like “till, melt-out”
- Keeps consistency across descriptions
- Can be more specific if tied to specific landforms
39.1.1.5 C Horizon Guidelines
- C horizons should not have structure populated
- If structure exists, it’s likely a BC or Bw horizon
- For C horizons, use “structureless massive” or “single grain” for sandy materials
- Document any inherited structure in text notes
39.1.2 Process Improvements
- Recommended hand-digging first 45-50cm when possible
- Document “hand dug to X cm, then augered” in notes
- Survey123 vs. NASIS entry options discussed
- NASIS-trained staff can enter directly
- Others should continue using Survey123
39.2 2. Geomorphic Mapping Project Update (Presented by Patty and Adam)
39.2.1 Current Status
- Created broad groupings of geomorphic surfaces:
- Anoka Sandplain (Blue)
- Superior Red Till - coarse loamy (Red)
- Des Moines Lobe Till - fine loamy (Green)
- Outwash (Buff)
- Lacustrine (Purple)
- River Systems (Brown)
- Till/Outwash Mix (Orange)
39.2.2 Till Classifications
- Coarse Loamy Till: <18% clay (sandy loam till)
- Fine Loamy Till: 18-35% clay
- Complex area identified where Des Moines lobe overrode Superior lobe in Carver, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties
- Variable thickness and mixing of materials
- More consistent in center of advance
- More variable at edges
39.2.3 Next Steps
- Further subdivision of broad groupings:
- River systems to be divided into bottomland and upland
- Different landscape positions within till plains
- Customized breaks for each physiographic region
- Development of reference materials:
- Spreadsheet linking geomorphic units to expected soil series
- Documentation of typical soil patterns
- Integration with historical SSURGO data
- Cleanup Tasks:
- Remove small anomalous areas
- Resolve complex transition zones
- Refine boundaries in overridden areas
39.3 3. Action Items
39.3.1 For Nora
- Update Survey123 guide with new guidelines
- Email Ryder when new batches are uploaded to Box
39.3.2 For Ryder
- Share example Pedon Entry classifications
- Send guidance on anthropogenic vs. mollic classifications
- Work with Randy on Box access for NRCS staff
- Continue QC of submitted pedons
39.3.3 For Patty
- Continue cleanup of geomorphic map units
- Coordinate with Joe on Randy meeting agenda
- Further develop soil series reference spreadsheet
39.3.4 For Adam
- Begin planning secondary cuts for geomorphic regions
- Consider landscape position breaks within main units
39.4 4. Next Meetings
- February 11th meeting with Randy scheduled
- Regular 9am check-in cancelled
- Ryder will be unavailable for two weeks due to training
39.5 5. Outstanding Questions for Randy
- Definition and implications of “rock structure” in anthropic epipedon requirements
- Clarification on artifact classifications vs. litter discarded by humans
- Additional taxonomy questions to be compiled
39.6 6. Notes
- Quality of Pedon Entry submissions improving over time
- Some early entries may need revision
- Emphasis on making entry process accessible for undergraduates
- Complex areas may require additional sampling density
- Team working to balance detail vs. practicality in classifications