Laserfiche WebLink
II. SOIL MAPPING AND SA114PLING METHODS <br />AGENCY COORDINATION <br />In September 1995, Savage and Savage staff discussed soil sampling methods with staff <br />of CDMG for the baseline investigation of the RPE area. Based on those discussions, <br />and approval of the sampling design and methods for the RPE area, a soil mapping and <br />sampling strategy was developed for the SGFA. <br />TIMING <br />Field sampling and mapping was conducted July 30-31, 1996 and October 13, 1996 by <br />Michael Savage and Michael Gillon of Savage and Savage, Inc. Additional data <br />collected from two sites in Sylvester Gulch in support of the Refuse Pile Expansion <br />(Savage and Savage, 1996x) has been incorporated into this report. The summer time <br />periods coincided with periods of dry moisture conditions at the mine. <br />SAMPLING DESIGN <br />. A map of the mine site at 1:2400 scale (1"=200') was used to delineate the SGFA. <br />Onto the map, the soil map units from the Natural Resource Conservation Service <br />(NRCS) and U. S. Forest Service (USFS) soil surveys were traced. In conjunction with <br />the NRCS aerial photograph of the SGFA, the investigators planned sampling across <br />the Sylvester Gulch drainage at a number of locations which would represent the major <br />soil types to be disturbed within the SGFA. In all, forty soil sample locations were <br />established within the SGFA. Sample sites were located in the field through compass <br />triangulation and pacing from known landmarks. Figure 1 illustrates the SGFA sample <br />point locations. <br />FIELD SAMPLING <br />Soil Test Pits <br />At each sample location a soil test pit was dug. Construction of the test pit employed a <br />2~4 inch (I. D.) AMS bucket auger to remove organic litter and detritus and the topsoil <br />and subsoil horizons (A and B horizons). Depth of the test pit was extended until the <br />bucket auger would not penetrate further, usually due to contact with sandstone or large <br />cobbles. In several locations, test pit depth was limited by the length of the bucket <br />auger. These instances are reported on the data sheets (Appendix l). <br />On field sheets the salient features of each test pit were recorded. For each test pit the <br />• general location, physiography, plant community, and degree of disturbance were <br />noted. A diagram of each test pit was sketched, with observations on the character of <br />-3- <br />