24  Patty and Nora Check-in 17JUN2024

Date: Monday, June 17, 2024

24.1 Attendees

  • Patty Burns
  • Nora Pearson

24.1.1 Agenda

  1. Upcoming field work schedule
  2. Required apps and tools for field work
  3. Updates on project tasks and planning
  4. Discussion of urban soil classification
  5. Miscellaneous project updates

24.1.2 1. Upcoming Field Work Schedule

Nora and Patty discussed and confirmed dates for upcoming field work:

  • July 9-10: Field work in Plymouth
    • French Park and Eagle Lake Park confirmed
  • July 23-24: Field work in Eden Prairie
    • Bryant Lake Park tentatively planned

Patty expressed flexibility for additional days if needed. They agreed to start field work on Tuesdays to align with the team’s schedule of no field work on Mondays.

Nora mentioned her upcoming vacation: - June 24 - July 5: Nora will be in Europe - July 8: Nora returns to work

Patty noted she’ll be in the Twin Cities area for dog-sitting during the week of July 22nd, making her available for field work.

Action Items:

24.1.3 2. Required Apps and Tools for Field Work

Patty inquired about necessary apps and tools for field work. Nora recommended:

  1. Survey123 app
    • Nora will send instructions on how to add surveys to the app
  2. Camera app for site photos and profile pictures
  3. Compass app for directional photos
  4. Soil Web app (optional, but useful); Patty already has this installed
  5. Soil Explorer app (optional)

Patty mentioned she’ll try to get the NRCS Survey123 Pedon Description Form as well.

Action Items:

24.1.4 3. Updates on Project Tasks and Planning

24.1.4.1 3.1 Landform Identification for Twin Cities

Nora mentioned she needs to follow up on identifying landforms for the Twin Cities project:

  • Will review notes from the initial Field Review
  • Plans to look at the email Patty sent to her and Nic about it
  • Aims to start thinking about it this week, despite Nic being in Alaska

Action Items:

24.1.4.2 3.2 Geomorphic Surfaces GIS Layer

Patty proposed creating a GIS layer showing different geomorphic land surfaces:

  • Would help visualize till plains, outwash plains, etc.
  • Could assist in compartmentalizing data by geomorphic surface rather than just by city
  • Useful for identifying gaps in sampling and soil type coverage

Action Items:

24.1.4.3 3.3 Data Synthesis and Grouping

They discussed methods for synthesizing and grouping collected data:

  • Joe suggested creating spreadsheets to track soil classes within different landscapes
  • Ava mentioned creating landscape diagrams to group sampling locations
  • The team aims to categorize soils by landscape types (e.g., terrace soils, morainic soils)

Action Items:

24.1.4.4 3.4 Project Poster

Nora mentioned she’s working on a project poster:

  • Aiming to finish it this week, but no firm deadline
  • Joe may want to bring it somewhere if completed

Action Items:

24.1.5 4. Discussion of Urban Soil Classification

Patty and Nora discussed the challenges of classifying urban soils, particularly in relation to anthropogenic landscapes:

24.1.5.1 4.1 Anthropogenic Landscapes (Anthroscapes)

  • Debate over how to classify areas like ball fields in urban settings
  • Some team members consider most of the Twin Cities an anthroscape due to extensive modification
  • Others prefer a more nuanced, zoomed-in approach

24.1.5.2 4.2 Proposed Classification Approach

Patty suggested a layered approach to classification:

  1. Anthroscape as the broad landscape category
  2. Natural underlying landscape (e.g., terrace)
  3. Specific anthropogenic landform (e.g., urban park, fill, cut)

This approach aims to capture both the urban nature and the underlying natural landscape.

24.1.5.3 4.3 Next Steps for Classification

  • Patty plans to reach out to Erik for more clarity on classification methods and to obtain his list of anthropogenic landforms
  • They aim to create a comprehensive list of landscapes and landforms to use in the project

Action Items:

24.1.6 5. Miscellaneous Project Updates

24.1.6.1 5.1 Residential Sampling

Patty received permission from her nephew in Golden Valley to sample on his property. They discussed the logistics of residential sampling:

  • Easier to manage with smaller teams (2 people)
  • Less disruptive to homeowners
  • Quicker to complete compared to park sampling

Action Items:

24.1.6.2 5.2 NRCS Involvement

Joe plans to have NRCS teams available for sampling starting August 1st. Nora and Patty discussed how to integrate NRCS teams:

  • Nora or Gen will handle Gopher State One Call tickets and clearances
  • NRCS teams can then go out to pre-cleared sites

Action Items:

24.1.6.3 5.3 Field Review Follow-up

Nora mentioned a few follow-up items from the Field Review:

  • Team members requested Angela Radke’s data and maps
  • Dan requested that Erik’s urban soils handout be shared digitally and suggested he visit in person

Action Items:

24.1.7 6. Other Discussion Points

24.1.7.1 6.1 Bassett Creek Information

Patty shared an interesting article about Bassett Creek in Minneapolis:

  • The creek starts at Medicine Lake and ends at the Mississippi River
  • Much of it has been tunneled underground through the city
  • There are efforts to potentially “daylight” the creek for recreational purposes

24.1.7.2 6.2 Team Dynamics

Both Patty and Nora expressed appreciation for the project team:

  • Noted the high level of engagement and initiative from team members
  • Appreciated the balance of field work skills and intellectual curiosity

24.1.8 Closing Remarks

The meeting concluded with both parties expressing excitement for the upcoming field work and the progress of the project. They agreed to reconnect on July 8th after Nora’s return from vacation.

Final Action Items: