45 Group Check In 06MAY2025

Date: May 6, 2025

Attendees:

- Nic Jelinski

- Adam Devlin

- Nora Pearson

- Genevieve Saldibar

- Patty Burns

Project Team Members
- Currently attempting to hire several team members: Kylie, Brianna, Ava, Kasia, along with Adam, Gen, Nora, and Nic
- Brianna will be the data lead, responsible for coordinating data entry throughout the season
- The goal is to have continuous data entry with weekly updates of all pedon data
- Nic is trying to hire Ava to manage the lab work
- Undergraduates have limited field experience but are soil science minors
- Kylie has soil judging experience
Schedule Coordination
- Nic will send a follow-up email to determine when everyone can start
- Potential to begin fieldwork prior to all team members being available

Site Prioritization System
- Adam and Joe developed a comprehensive ranking system for potential sample sites
- Sites ranked on a 0-6 scale, with 6 being highest priority
- Prioritization based on:
  - Physiomains that have not been sampled yet (6)
  - Initial concepts that haven’t been sampled yet (5)
  - Geographic distance from existing samples (4)
  - Sites needed to meet minimum threshold of 5 samples per concept (3)
  - Additional considerations for under-sampled areas
Site Distribution Considerations
- Anoka Sand Plain and old till areas are significantly under-sampled
- High-priority areas include Dakota County and northern areas
- Need to focus on residential sites first, with parks as secondary options
- Considerations for outreach to Dakota County, Anoka County, and Ramsey County parks systems
- University of Minnesota’s Vermilion Highlands and Rosemount Research Center (20,000 acres) suggested as a sampling location in Dakota County
GIS Resources and Management
- Adam created an interactive map in ArcGIS Online showing all sites with priority rankings
- Map includes attribute tables with detailed information about each site
- Discussed plan for Patty to access ArcGIS Online through her UMN sponsored account
- Spreadsheet and ranking documentation available in Box
- Map includes initial concept polygons with rankings for additional site planning

Scheduling
- Field review proposed for June 5-6 (Thursday-Friday)
- Thursday would be virtual, Friday in-person at a site in St. Paul
- Joe is available for these dates, Nic has a conflict on June 4th (defense)
- Field day would likely be a half-day session
Content and Focus
- Review of field sheets and collection methods
- Avoid getting too deep into classification details
- Focus on practical field techniques and documentation
- Plan to find a site in St. Paul with HTM (human-transported material) examples
Participant List
- University team: Kylie, Brianna, Ava, Kasia, Adam, Gen, Nora, Nic
- NRCS team: Joe and others (TBD)

Residential Site Interest
- Prioritizing volunteer sites based on ranking system
- Gen will begin contacting homeowners for site access
- Plan to create a flyer/business card for “snowball” recruitment through existing volunteers
- Consider clustering site visits geographically for efficient field days
Initial Contact Plan
- Nora will update the email template from last year
- Need to provide approximate dimensions of soil pits to homeowners
- Focus initially on highest ranked sites (4-6) that are geographically clustered

Buried Soil Classification Challenges
- Detailed discussion about classification of buried soils versus anthropogenic phases
- Challenge: how to categorize soils that have significant HTM or fill material
- Question raised about whether to classify buried wet soils as wet or dry when they now have fill overtop
Classification Approach
- If soil has less than 50cm of HTM, classify based on original soil (anthropogenic phase)
- If soil has 50cm+ of HTM (officially buried soil), classify from new soil surface
- Need to maintain linkage to native soil type even when classified differently
- Same soil classification may have different parent materials, which is important to track
Process Improvements
- Patty suggested compartmentalizing the classification process
- Have field crews focus on data entry
- Designate specific team members with experience to handle classification
- Classification is more efficient when done by experienced team members who visited the site

Documentation Status
- Many pedons still at intermediate stage in the data workflow
- Data process: Survey123 → spreadsheet → NASIS
- Ryder has been helping but has limited availability
- Goal this year is to have all pedon data entered weekly by Brianna and team
Concept Assignment
- Patty working on assigning pedons to initial concepts
- Initial concepts based on SSURGO data
- Discussion about removing HTM conceptually to determine underlying native soil type
- Need to track both native soil concept and anthropogenic modifications

45.1 Action Items

Task	Assignee	Due Date
Send email to determine team member start dates	Nic	ASAP
Contact Dakota County Parks for sampling permission	TBD	Before field season
Contact Anoka County Parks for sampling permission	TBD	Before field season
Contact Ramsey County Open Space for sampling permission	TBD	Before field season
Update email template for contacting residential sites	Nora	This week
Create “snowball” recruitment cards for site volunteers	TBD	Before field season
Begin contacting highest priority (4-6) site owners	Gen	ASAP
Confirm field review dates with Joe and team	Patty	This week
Find suitable St. Paul site for field review	TBD	Before June 5
Help Patty access UMN ArcGIS Online	Nic/IT	As needed
Develop compartmentalized classification workflow	Patty/Nic	Before field season

Initial Concepts Framework
- Initial concepts created by Patty based on SSURGO data
- Classified by physiomain, wetness, and particle size
- Concepts can be adjusted as data collection progresses
- Current framework is a “trial legend” that can be modified
Miscellaneous
- The team discussed their recent experiences at the soil judging competition in Stevens Point, Wisconsin
- Notable soils observed included an ice-walled lake plain, outwash, till, and glaciofluvial materials
- Field studies class conflicts with some of the proposed field dates
- Parent material and geomorphic landforms are tracked to help with classification
NASIS Data Entry
- Patty has been working on entering data directly into NASIS
- Most data currently follows the Survey123 → spreadsheet → NASIS workflow
- Discussion about more efficient division of labor for data management