1) Is there an official meeting hotel?
2) Can NIU provide HCl for those of us that are flying?
3) Will measuring tapes be provided in the control sections?
4) Is the contest open book?
Loading rate table
Taxonomic key
Family particle size class key
Interpretation tables
Abbreviations
Water holding capacity, erosion potential, & surface runoff tables
Texture triangle
These 8 items can be found in Appendix 2 of the handbook.
5) How many students can compete in the contest? This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
6) What areas should we focus on studying for the contest?
7) How will Cr and R horizons be handled on the site data cards?
8) Page 9 and 21 have contradictory statements regarding recognizing lithologic discontinuties in outwash and other glaciofluvial deposits. Which is correct? This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
9) Will "u" nomenclature be used if artifacts are present?
10) Will the same type of laboratory data be given at all sites?
11) Can you give an example of when "other" would be used in the soil classification section of the scorecard?
12) Is there a minimum thickness of geologic material that needs to be present to recognize it as a parent material?
13) Do students still need to determine loading rates for soils in floodplains or ponded soils?
14) If a soil meets more than one hydric indicator (meets both A11 and F3...) does it matter which indicator the students list?
15) The contest area looks to border LRR M and K. For curiosity which do you consider yourself to be in?
16) Is the loading rate example on page 19 correct? I get another value. This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
17) 2016 regional contest descriptions and a narrative were emailed 2-2-17. The 2 attachments were large, let me know if you did not receive them and I'll break the pdf into smaller files. The site data cards were sent in a separate email on 2-2-17.
18) Pale is missing from the great group scorecard choices but is in the Appendix 2 Taxonomic Key. There is no Albaqualf in the Appendix 2 Taxonomy Key but their is an Alb choice for great group on the scorecard. Can you put the taxonomic choices in alphabetical order? This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
19) Handbook and scorecard v2.0 were posted 2-2-17. 5 changes were made to the handbook and they are highlighted in yellow. No page numbers changed.
20) (Paraphrasing a longer series of questions) Why are we only listing the first reason for Soil Interpretations and Hydric Soils? If there are 3 reasons a septic rating is severe or 2 hydric indicators met, why aren't we listing them all on the scorecard? The ratings are not a hierarchical rating system. All reasons causing the rating are important.
21) Umbric is not listed in the taxonomic key for Inceptisol determination on p. 37. This was corrected in Handbook v3.0
22) Calci is not listed as a Great Group choice on the scorecard and Calciaquoll is not listed in the simplified keys. Will we see any of these? This was corrected in Handbook v3.0
23) What does RCF mean on the loading rate chart?
24) In the family particle size class keys #4 (page 38), should paralithic be included with lithic? This was corrected in Handbook v3.0
25) The final (I hope!) versions (3.0) of the handbook and scorecard are posted.
26) On 3-8-17 I updated the 3-7-17 posted handbook so that it said v 3.0 on all pages. No other changes were made. I noticed some of Appendix 2 had different headers.
27) Registration will be $50 per person. Cash or check only, no credit cards. Checks should be made out to "Northern Illinois University".
28) 11 articles were emailed on 3-30-17. The titles are shown at the bottom of the CONTEST MATERIALS page. Let me know if they didn't make it through. I sent 3 emails. Had to resend to 3 of you in 5 files because of your email MB caps.
29) Sturated hydraulic conductivity question - on page 17 under "High" is states "This class includes sands, loamy sands . . ." Are Fine Sands and Loamy Fine Sands also included here, or do they fall into moderate?
30) Looking at the Elpaso OSD, would till plain be listed as the correct landform?
31) How many practice pits are there?
More coming soon.
- No, a list of hotels has been provided for Sycamore, DeKalb, and Rochelle. Banquet and coaches meeting will be in Sycamore. Sycamore and DeKalb have many more restaurant and shopping options. All 3 towns will provide central access to practice pits.
2) Can NIU provide HCl for those of us that are flying?
- Yes we can supply you with a bulk bottle. You will need to bring empty field bottles for the students to use. We do not have extra of those. Please let me know if you will need acid when you register. There will be a question on the registration form.
3) Will measuring tapes be provided in the control sections?
- A measuring tape will be provided and attached to all contest pit control sections. Teams should bring their own measuring tape to use in practice pits.
4) Is the contest open book?
- No. Students will be given the following 8 items on 4 double sided pages at the beginning of the individual contest.
Loading rate table
Taxonomic key
Family particle size class key
Interpretation tables
Abbreviations
Water holding capacity, erosion potential, & surface runoff tables
Texture triangle
These 8 items can be found in Appendix 2 of the handbook.
5) How many students can compete in the contest? This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
- Individual contest - 4 max from each university
- Group contest - 1 group from each university with as many students as you want on it
- I left a word out of the following sentence on page 8 of the initial handbook (v 1.0). It should read: "Only one official team is permitted from a university. Alternates not on the official team are welcome to judge practice sites, but will NOT be permitted to judge the official contest pits for individual awards."
6) What areas should we focus on studying for the contest?
- Practice and contest sites will be in the Rock River Hill Country, Green River Lowland, and Bloomington Ridged Plain physiographic divisions.
- All of DeKalb County. Approximately the the western half of Kane county the eastern 2/3 of Ogle and Lee Counties, and the southern half of Boone and Winnebago Counties.
7) How will Cr and R horizons be handled on the site data cards?
- The data row for Cr and R horizons will contain a dash. Numerical values will be present for all other types of horizons.
8) Page 9 and 21 have contradictory statements regarding recognizing lithologic discontinuties in outwash and other glaciofluvial deposits. Which is correct? This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
- Page 9 is correct. We will not use lithologic discontinuties in outwash (or alluvium) even if the material varies greatly in texture unless there is clearly a buried horizon in the lower material and it is clear that there are 2 episodes of outwash or alluvial deposition. Fluvial environments can have very drastic changes in grain size deposited within hours, days and weeks... Page 21 says "Abrupt changes in texture in outwash are considered changes in parent material for purposes of the P.M. part of Soil Morphology". This line will be deleted in the final handbook.
9) Will "u" nomenclature be used if artifacts are present?
- No, we will not use u in the contest.
10) Will the same type of laboratory data be given at all sites?
- Yes. The only exception to this is % CaCO3. Calcium carbonate data will not be given in most pits if there are no k horizons, otherwise it will be obvious from the lab data where the C horizon starts.
11) Can you give an example of when "other" would be used in the soil classification section of the scorecard?
- Other is listed in the extremely rare instance where we run across something not typically found in area soils and left the obscure item off the scorecard. It's a catch all for any unforeseen item.
12) Is there a minimum thickness of geologic material that needs to be present to recognize it as a parent material?
- No. If it is there, it is important and will be recognized. As little as 8 cm of loess mantling a soil is incredibly important to plant growth. In essence for the contest, 8 cm would be the minimum thickness required as that is the minimum thickness for a horizon to be broken out in the contest.
13) Do students still need to determine loading rates for soils in floodplains or ponded soils?
- Yes, loading rate will be determined for all soils. This determination is independent of geomorphic conditions. Ponded, flooded... will become factors in the Soil Interpretations section of the scorecard.
14) If a soil meets more than one hydric indicator (meets both A11 and F3...) does it matter which indicator the students list?
- Just the first one, same as for other Soil Interpretations. From the bottom of page 29 - "Determine if the soil is hydric or not and print the first indicator in Appendix 2 that determined the soil to be hydric". In this example A11 would be the correct reason and F3 would be incorrect. If 2 reasons are listed by the student, the reason is wrong because there is an additional answer.
15) The contest area looks to border LRR M and K. For curiosity which do you consider yourself to be in?
- The powers that be have drawn a line between M and K in the middle of the contest area. There is no rational for it. Same soils, same geology, same land-use on both sides of the line... The entire area fits M way better than K but someone in DC, Lincoln... likes the lines. Don't ask about the MLRA lines, Aquic soil moisture regime A horizon color criteria, or A11 and A12 color criteria unless we are at the bar and you have a loooong time to chat.
16) Is the loading rate example on page 19 correct? I get another value. This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
- There is an error in the handbook on page 19. It currently reads "For example, for a sandy loam formed in till and having moderate, subangular blocky structure and friable consistence, a contestant would receive full credit if they indicated a loading rate of 0.75gpd/ft2 and Ref. D8." It should be 0.84 gpd/ft2, Ref. D4. An older version of the loading rate table had geologic materials in the matrix too and I didn't catch this example error when we simplified the table.
17) 2016 regional contest descriptions and a narrative were emailed 2-2-17. The 2 attachments were large, let me know if you did not receive them and I'll break the pdf into smaller files. The site data cards were sent in a separate email on 2-2-17.
18) Pale is missing from the great group scorecard choices but is in the Appendix 2 Taxonomic Key. There is no Albaqualf in the Appendix 2 Taxonomy Key but their is an Alb choice for great group on the scorecard. Can you put the taxonomic choices in alphabetical order? This was corrected in Handbook v2.0
- Pale will be added to the great group scorecard v2.0 choice. Albaqualf will be added to the Appendix 2 Taxonomic Key v2.0. Scorecard v 2.0 will have the formative elements in alphabetical order.
19) Handbook and scorecard v2.0 were posted 2-2-17. 5 changes were made to the handbook and they are highlighted in yellow. No page numbers changed.
- The 5 handbook changes were:
- page 8, contest participants
- page 18, loading rate example
- page 21, outwash and parent material changes
- page 30, pH removed and % resistant minerals added to data card (pH is used in our region for Spodosol classification, we will not see any of those...)
- page 37, Albaqualf added to taxonomic key
- Pale was added as a great group choice and Fragi was removed from the new scorecard v2.0. Formative elements were put in alphabetical order.
- I hope to have the final handbook and scorecard versions posted March 1. Keep sending me items that need addressing.
20) (Paraphrasing a longer series of questions) Why are we only listing the first reason for Soil Interpretations and Hydric Soils? If there are 3 reasons a septic rating is severe or 2 hydric indicators met, why aren't we listing them all on the scorecard? The ratings are not a hierarchical rating system. All reasons causing the rating are important.
- Agreed. When we added the "Reason" portion to the regional scorecard a decade or so ago, we had this same conversation. We wanted students to avoid guessing and simply answering severe. We wanted them to understand why the rating was severe. We discussed having the students list all reasons for the rating but then grading the scorecard became problematic. if there are 4 reasons why a rating is severe do they have to have all 4? If missing 1 of the 4 do they get the entire reason wrong? Do we give 1/4 of 3 points for each? If they get 1, or 2, or 3 of the 4 reasons should they get 0 or 1/4, or 2/4, or 3/4 of the 3 points????? All or nothing? Partial credit? Do we want to add fractions when tallying up scorecards? Should we change the point system so each reason is worth 1. Some might be worth 4 some 1... After coaches discussions we as a region decided we would just require the 1st reason that determined the rating be listed on the scorecard. We realize it is not the most important reason if there are multiple, it's just the first in the random (or maybe not so random...) list of criteria. When I teach this in class, I have the students list ALL reasons the rating is severe and all hydric indicators that are met. I have them only put the 1st on the scorecard. I would encourage you to use this approach when teaching this.
21) Umbric is not listed in the taxonomic key for Inceptisol determination on p. 37. This was corrected in Handbook v3.0
- The final version of the keys (p. 37) will be changed to "3) Inceptisol – Cambic and/or Mollic or Umbric present"
22) Calci is not listed as a Great Group choice on the scorecard and Calciaquoll is not listed in the simplified keys. Will we see any of these? This was corrected in Handbook v3.0
- They exist in the area and were accidentally left off the previous versions. They will be added to the final simplified keys and scorecard.
23) What does RCF mean on the loading rate chart?
- RCF = rock-controlled fabric. The following paragraph will be added to the structure type choices on page 14 of the final version of the contest handbook.
- "Soils having structure inherited from parent material will be designated “rock-controlled fabric” (RCF) to differentiate the geologic structure from pedogenic structure. This type of structure is relatively common in thinly bedded post-settlement alluvium and some eolian deposits and some tills (appears platy) in the region. While this structure is not considered pedogenic in nature, it does impact hydraulic properties and is therefore important to recognize. Rock-controlled fabric is given a grade of 0 to indicate the lack of pedogenic structure development. This structure designation should only be used in C or C transition (AC, CA...) horizons." This was added to Handbook v3.0
24) In the family particle size class keys #4 (page 38), should paralithic be included with lithic? This was corrected in Handbook v3.0
- Yes. Densic and paralithic will be added to the final version of page 38. I only listed lithic on the original but it should include other RLL.
- 4) RLL (lithic, paralithic, or densic) contact < 50 cm
- < 35% clay
- Loamy
- > 35% clay
- Clayey
- < 35% clay
25) The final (I hope!) versions (3.0) of the handbook and scorecard are posted.
- Densic and Calci were added to the scorecard
- Handbook edits: (in red fonts) (v 2.0 edits are in purple fonts) - no page numbers changed
- page 14, Rock controlled fabric was added
- page 31, Rock controlled fabric added to abbreviations
- page 36, titles added to tables
- page 37, Calciaquoll added to keys
- page 37, Umbric added to Inceptisol criteria
- page 38, Densic and paralithic added to RLL in FPSC
- page 38, Densic added to RLL control section
26) On 3-8-17 I updated the 3-7-17 posted handbook so that it said v 3.0 on all pages. No other changes were made. I noticed some of Appendix 2 had different headers.
27) Registration will be $50 per person. Cash or check only, no credit cards. Checks should be made out to "Northern Illinois University".
28) 11 articles were emailed on 3-30-17. The titles are shown at the bottom of the CONTEST MATERIALS page. Let me know if they didn't make it through. I sent 3 emails. Had to resend to 3 of you in 5 files because of your email MB caps.
29) Sturated hydraulic conductivity question - on page 17 under "High" is states "This class includes sands, loamy sands . . ." Are Fine Sands and Loamy Fine Sands also included here, or do they fall into moderate?
- They would be high. To simplify life, we will ignore the sand modifiers for hydraulic conductivity determination. VCS, CS, S, FS, VFS would all be high... and similarly for loamy sands.
30) Looking at the Elpaso OSD, would till plain be listed as the correct landform?
- Yes. Elpaso is developed in loess over till. Till is the lower parent material so till plain would be the correct landform.
31) How many practice pits are there?
- There are 20 practice pits (if it ever stops raining so we can dig the last few). We have 5 pits at 4 locations. 6 teams will spend a day at each site with 1 team out of the rotation.
More coming soon.