18  Patty, Nic, Nora Check-in 24APR2024

Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2024

18.1 Attendees

  • Nic Jelinski
  • Nora Pearson
  • Patty Burns

18.2 Project Updates

18.2.1 Permit Status

  • Secured permits for:
    • Fish and Wildlife Service (5-6 units along Minnesota River)
    • South St. Paul (12-14 park sites)
  • Pending permits:
    • Three Rivers Parks (Hennepin County)
    • Roseville

18.3 Sampling Methodology

18.3.1 Site Selection Strategy

  • Aim for 3 sampling points per soil map unit in larger areas
  • Use judgment to sample representative landscape positions
  • Consider accessibility and underground utilities
  • For residential sites, consider sampling along topographic gradients (e.g. summit, backslope, footslope)

18.3.2 Field Protocol

  • Use safety vests and set up cones at public sampling sites
  • Bring multiple types of shovels and tools:
    • 2 sharpshooters
    • 2 short-handled shovels
    • 2 mattocks (pick-axes)
    • 1 long-handled shovel

18.3.3 Data Collection

  • Decision to use Nic’s existing Survey123 app for pedon descriptions. App includes:
    • Geolocation
    • Photo upload (site photos, profile photos, field sheet)
    • Pedon description form

18.3.4 Pedon Description Form Updates

  • Patty shared updated draft of Form 232 (pedon description form)
  • Added bedrock field
  • Expanded diagnostic horizons section
  • Removed physiographic location (may add back in simplified form)
  • Added artifacts page as optional third sheet

18.4 Data Management & Analysis

18.4.1 Survey123 App

  • Allows easy sharing of data with team members
  • Provides map interface to view sampling locations
  • Integrates photos with site data

18.4.2 NASIS Database

  • Need to develop workflow for transferring data from Survey123 to NASIS
  • Joe exploring options for automating this process

18.4.3 Soil Classification Considerations

  • Discussed how to handle urban soils in relation to “natural” soil series
  • May use tax adjunct concept (e.g. “Lester tax adjunct”) for soils with urban modifications
  • Need to determine classification approach for heavily modified urban soils

18.5 Project Planning

18.5.1 Kickoff Meeting

  • Date selected (not specified in transcript)
  • Nora to draft agenda by end of week
  • Potential presenters:
    • Randy Riddle (urban DSM and soil survey)
    • Troy Daniels

18.5.2 Action Items:

18.6 Detailed Discussion Notes

18.6.1 Survey123 App Features and Benefits

Nic demonstrated the Survey123 app he’s been using for pedon descriptions; key benefits discussed: 1. Automatic geolocation 2. Photo integration (site, profile, field sheet) 3. Data backup/redundancy 4. Easy sharing with team members 5. Map interface to view all sampling locations

The team agreed to use Nic’s existing app rather than create a new one, as Nic has refined it over time.

18.6.2 Form 232 (Pedon Description Form) Updates

Patty walked through her updates to Form 232:

  1. Added bedrock field back in
  2. Expanded diagnostic horizons section
  3. Removed physiographic location (may add back in simplified form)
  4. Added artifacts page as optional third sheet

The team discussed various aspects of the form, including:

  • Land cover classification options
  • Soil crust and cracks observations
  • Surface water depth (flooded vs. ponded)
  • Vegetation description fields

18.6.3 Urban Soil Classification Challenges

The team had an in-depth discussion about how to handle urban soils in relation to “natural” soil series. Key points:

  1. Many urban soils have fill or other anthropogenic materials overlying natural soils
  2. Need to determine how to classify these modified soils
  3. May use tax adjunct concept (e.g. “Lester tax adjunct”) for soils with urban modifications
  4. Heavily modified soils may need new classification approaches

Patty explained: “So we have an artesol of a Lester? Lester is in your front yard, is now an artesol? Is it a tax adjunct? Do we still get to call it, like Lester tax adjunct and give Lester a new classification?”

The team acknowledged this is new territory that will require careful consideration.

18.6.4 Digital Soil Mapping Approach

Patty outlined a potential approach for digital soil mapping in urban areas:

  1. Sample and classify soils at point locations
  2. Use modeling to predict soil properties across the landscape
  3. Group similar soils into map units for vector-based products

This approach would allow for more detailed mapping while still producing traditional soil survey products.

18.6.5 Sampling Strategy for Residential Sites

The team discussed how to approach sampling in residential areas, particularly when dealing with topographic variation within a single property. Patty suggested:

“Usually when we go out and do DSMs, we’ll have 1 point like you’ll go. Your point was your backyard. Then we usually went upslope and down slope, and so to get a little bit more of that slope profile. What’s going on?”

This approach could provide more context for how soils change across the landscape, even within a single residential lot.

18.6.6 Kickoff Meeting Planning

The team discussed preparations for the project kickoff meeting:

  1. Date has been selected (not specified in transcript)
  2. Nora to draft agenda by end of week
  3. Potential presenters:
    • Randy Riddle (urban DSM and soil survey)
    • Troy Daniels

18.7 Next Steps

  1. Begin sampling in South St. Paul parks
  2. Follow up on outstanding permit requests (Three Rivers, Roseville)
  3. Schedule more residential sampling appointments
  4. Finalize and distribute kickoff meeting agenda
  5. Continue refining Form 232 and field protocols
  6. Develop guidance materials (cheat sheets) for field staff