8  Urban Dynamic Soil Properties Discussion 12JAN2024

8.1 Attendees

  • Nic Jelinski, University of Minnesota
  • Nora Pearson, University of Minnesota
  • Sarick Matzen, University of Minnesota
  • Matthew Lundberg, NRCS
  • Joe Brennan, NRCS
  • Shaunna Repking, NRCS
  • Dan Wing, NRCS
  • Randy Riddle, NRCS
  • Francine Lheritier, NRCS

8.2 Date

Friday, January 12, 2024

8.3 Agenda

  1. Overview of current DSP guidelines and how to design a study that meets them
  2. Lessons learned from LA DSP project
  3. Site/property access challenges and solutions

8.4 Summary of Discussion

8.4.1 Overview of DSP Guidelines

  • NRCS is currently updating the DSP guide, expected to be published this year. The draft can be shared once it goes through public review in 4 months.
  • Goal of a DSP project is to get DSP data on as much area as possible, focusing on the most extensive or important soils.
  • Recommend 3 plots per condition (similar ecology/land management). Each plot has a main pedon and 2 satellites.
  • For intensive projects, use KSSL methods so data is comparable.
  • Intensive projects require KSSL analysis. Intermediate projects use in-house lab. This project would likely be intensive given the UMN lab capacity.

8.4.2 LA DSP Project Overview

  • Looked at natural ground cover, artificial ground cover, and traditional lawns. Interested in climate resiliency, carbon storage, and gas fluxes.
  • Focused on urban climate and social health. Examined techniques like xeroscaping.
  • Partnered with Tree People organization to provide outreach on beneficial landscaping based on DSP data.

8.4.3 Site Access Challenges and Solutions

  • Access can be a challenge. Partnering with local organizations that can help arrange access to sites is recommended.
  • Can dig pits once to collect samples. Don’t need long-term access.
  • Recommend taking photos, cores, and bulk samples if possible since access is limited.

8.4.4 Study Design Discussion

  • Most plots should be spread across the urban area, not concentrated on one site.
  • For urban agriculture focus, residential lawns could be reference state since that is common land use. Hoop houses and in-ground plots would be altered states.
  • If including non-urban reference site, look at uncultivated native sites outside urban area.
  • Design depends on goals - compare urban soils only or also compare to non-urban.
  • NRCS flexible on study design within urban focus. Recommend consulting urban conservationists like Matt Lundberg.

8.4.5 Analysis Methods

  • Required intensive tier uses KSSL methods. Can send samples to KSSL but may take 1-2 years to get data back.
  • Optional intensive tier analyses like POXC could be done in UMN lab.
  • Interest in testing additional indicators relevant to urban soils like contaminants.
  • If additional lab costs needed can discuss modifications to support more analyses.

8.5 Action Items

  • UMN team will continue planning using DSP guidelines and input from NRCS
  • NRCS to share draft DSP guide when ready for public review
  • Discuss ideas for related non-urban research with NRCS
  • Send samples to KSSL or UMN lab depending on timeline needs and funding

8.6 Next Steps

  • UMN to share meeting minutes and recordings
  • Additional DSP planning check-ins as site selection progresses