Geomorphic DescriptionLandscapes Broad or unique groups or clusters of spatially associated features (e.g., ≥ 1:10,000 or Order 2

surveys or higher).

Landforms Discrete, natural, individual features mappable at common survey scales (e.g., 1:10,000-24,000 or Order 2 surveys).

Microfeatures Discrete, natural, individual features typically too small to delineate at common survey scales (e.g., < 1:10,000 or Order 1 surveys).

Anthropogenic Features Discrete, artificial (human-made or extensively modified), earth surface features.

AbstractHuman-modified or created landforms are increasingly evident across the landscape, particularly in urban areas. The ability to identify, describe, and convey anthropogenic features differs in content but shares both framework and challenges with conventional geomorphology and natural landforms. These challenges can include range of scale (size) and internal composition (range of content, stratigraphy, and lateral extent) -- terms unfamiliar to many urban land managers. As the variety, complexity, and number of anthropogenic features increases it becomes imperative to develop means to bridge the gap between naturally-derived features and artificially-derived features. Examples are drawn from geomorphic descriptions for urban soils in actual surveys. A functional framework is proposed for anthropogenic and urban geomorphology.

HOW DO HUMAN-MODIFIED LANDFORMS FIT INTO GEOMORPHIC DESCRIPTIONS? Philip SchoenebergerNational Soil Survey Center, USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska

Joyce ScheyerNational Soil Survey Center, USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska

Current and Proposed NASIS Database Structure forLand Features (key categories)

Existing Geomorphic Framework Proposed Framework* Existing categories in NASIS (National Soil

Information System database of estimated soil properties in Soil Survey).

+

–

relative scale

Landscapes*(e.g., dune field)

Landforms*(e.g., interdune)

Microfeatures*(e.g., slip face)

DiscussionAnthropogenic features do not historically fit into the concept of “Landforms” (“…[earth surface features] produced by natural causes [processes]…” ; Jackson, 1997). The requirement of “natural causes” enables our ability to describe and predict the lateral extent of natural features and the materials of which they are made (content, stratigraphy, etc.). Anthropogenic features and processes have traditionally been viewed and treated as existing outside this scope. Some efforts have emerged to recognize humans and their activities as a bona fide “natural” process (e.g., SCS, 1977; Hernandez and Galbraith, 1995; and Binghamton Symposium, 2005), but this is not yet widely accepted, nor integrated into conventional geomorphic frameworks. This results in gaps or disconnects in land inventory. Human made or modified features must be accommodated in order to describe the reality of the earth’s present-day surface. Inventory systems and land management activities would benefit from integrating these disconnected arenas.

At a minimum, any integrated descriptive framework must acknowledge and accommodate fundamental differences between natural processes and their products (land features and the type and internal arrangement of sediment packages of which they are composed) vs. the processes and results of largely artificial manipulation / redistribution of sediments byhumans and the resulting features. How can features from these very different origins (geologic vs. human-made) be reconciled, distinguished, and communicated?

Part of the answer is to develop a common language:

1) Identify (find or coin) appropriate anthropogenic terms,

2) Define these terms to include form, composition (content,stratigraphy), and relevant modes of formation or landuse, and

3) To group these terms based partly on scale.

To achieve these goals, we propose modifying the current convention for describing anthropogenic features, in part by arraying them by scale. The following material presents the current, relevant contents of the National Soils Information System (NASIS) used by NRCS as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. It is accompanied by a proposed new framework to better capture and use anthropogenic features. Photographic examples are presented for each category, current and proposed.

Anthropogenic Features* [current NASIS choice list](NRCS, 2005a)

[discrete, artificial (human-made or extensively modified), earth-surface features]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

SummaryWe identified and defined key geomorphic categories and their attributes related to earth-surface features, including human affected soils. This includes:

Natural Features (natural geologic and pedogenic deposition, modification, and removal; can be arrayed by relative scale and geomorphic process) and

Anthropogenic Features (human-controlled deposition, modification, removal; can be arrayed by relative scale).

We propose a new framework to bridge traditional (geologically based) geomorphology and anthropogenic features and materials. Specifically, we propose to capture and refine Anthropogenic Features relative to the existing NASIS framework used by NRCS in the National Cooperative Soil Survey in order to make them compatible with conventional geomorphic description.

Further work on this topic needs to expand the choices of anthropogenic terms and to address their:

1) Form (shape, size / scale, orientation)2) Composition (characteristic contents: type, ranges)3) Stratigraphy (arrangement of internal contents)4) Origin (controlling process)

ReferencesBinghamton Symposium. 2005. Human geomorphology systems. The 36th

International Geomorphology Binghamton Symposium: October 7-9, 2005, University at Buffalo, NY.

Eswaran, H., S. Kapur, E. Akca, P. Reich, S. Mahmoodi, and T. Vearasilp. 2005. Anthroscapes: A landscape unit for assessment of human impact on land systems. In: J.E.Yang, T.M. Sa, and J.J. Kim (Eds.) Application of the emerging soil research to the conservation of Agricultural Ecosystems. Publ.: The Korean Society of Soil Science and Fertilizers, Seoul, Korea; p. 175-192.

Hernandez, L.A., and J. Galbraith. 1995. Soil Survey of South Latourette Park, Staten Island, New York City, NY. USDA-NRCS, US Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Jackson, J.A. (ed) 1997. Glossary of geology, 4th Ed. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA. 769p.

NRCS. 2005a. NASIS Data Dictionary. USDA, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.

NRCS. 2005b. National Soil Survey Handbook, Part 629: Glossary of landform and geologic terms. USDA, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.

Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil survey of the Outer Banks, NC (provisional): Part I – text material; Part II – soil maps. USDA, Raleigh, NC.

* Terms defined in the National Soil Survey Handbook, Part 629 (NRCS, 2005b) ** Proposed

artificial collapsed depressionartificial leveebeveled cut borrow pit burial moundcut (road, railroad)cutbankditch

dredged channel **dredge-deposit shoal **dredge spoil bank **dump fill filled marshland **floodwaygravel pit

impact crater landfill (see sanitary landfill)leveled land log landing middenopenpit mine pond (human-made)quarry

railroad bedreclaimed landrice paddyroad bed sand pit sanitary landfill scalped area sewage lagoon

skid trail spoil bank spoil pile surface minetillage / management features (see common, more specifictypes in following list)

Tillage / Management features (common types):conservation terrace (modern)

double-bedding mound (i.e., bedding mound fortimber production, Coastal Plain)

drainage ditch furrow hillslope terrace (e.g., archeological features)inter-furrow

truncated soil urban land

dune field

slip face of a dune

Anthropogenic Features*presently not scale defined

(e.g., dredged channel)

Anthroscapes(Eswaran, et al., 2005)

(e.g., unnamed – modified marshland)

Anthropogenic Landforms(e.g., bioswale)

Anthropogenic Microfeatures(e.g., small bioswale)

dredged channel and filled marshland

Photo by USFS-National Agroforestry Center.

Photo by Bruce Woods, courtesy of Conservation Design Forum.

interdune

large bioswale

small bioswale