Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />USDA criteria for prime farmland state that the total topsoil plus subsoil depth must equal or exceed <br />40 inches. These criteria were used to modify the soil suitability criteria table (Table 2.04.9-2) in the <br />DRMS permit. <br />All soil samples during the March 5 sampling event were within suitable ranges for selected analytes <br />and field parameters. The upper two feet of subsoil was investigated, but there was no change <br />observed to the total soil pit depth in any soil pit, suggesting that the soil suitability criteria would be <br />met in the three to four feet of observed subsoil at all or most sampling locations. <br />Re-sampling for pH and Electrical Conductivity <br />Comments from the DRMS in a letter dated May 28, 2008 revealed that the March 5 subsoil analyses <br />utilized 1:1 extract for the soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC), rather than the permit-required <br />paste method for these analytes. Walsh discussed the situation with DRMS and NRCS personnel and <br />determined that there is a proportional relationship between 1:1 extract and paste extract EC results. A <br />published formula was applied to the 1:1 EC results, and revealed that up to four sample points may <br />exceed the paste EC criteria of 4.0 (samples 21, 26, 32, and 33). Based on this, the eight sample points <br />that had 1:1 EC higher than 1.2 were resampled and analyzed for paste EC (Table 2). WFC personnel <br />resarnpled soil at the original sampling points using a 2" hand auger for a total depth of 24". A <br />fraction of the extracted sample was placed in a zip-loc bag and shipped to Servi-Tech Labs of <br />Hastings, Nebraska. The sampling points were located with a survey-grade GPS to match the March 5, <br />2008 sampling points. The sampled areas had not yet had topsoil placed at the time of sampling. <br />Of the eight samples obtained, two exceeded the topsoil permit criteria of 4. These were sample 21 <br />with a paste EC of 4.34 and sample 32 with a paste EC of 7.33. The sample 32 location is near a top- <br />soil pile, which may have affected this location. The samplers noted that as many as five attempts <br />were made at sample 32 to get a complete hole due to refusal of the hand auger. This suggests that <br />sample 32 may not be representative of the subsoil in the area. <br />Discussion <br />• The original soil survey (Intermountain Resource Inventories, Inc., 1998) performed laboratory <br />analyses on three soil profiles within the prime farmland unit south of BB Road. Of these three, four <br />individual soil horizons from the approximately 24-48 inch subsoil interval were analyzed. Paste EC <br />ranged from 0.7 to 3.8, with an average of 1.9. Percent CaCO3 ranged from 3 to 36%, with an average <br />of 17%. No cobbles, stones, or boulders were observed in the horizons, and lab analysis of gravel <br />ranged from 9.1 to 31.5%, with an average gravel content of 20.7%. This indicates that the <br />replacement subsoil has higher average paste EC (3.1%), lower CaCO3 (2%-4%), and lower coarse <br />fraction (11.7%) than the original tested subsoil. Sample averages are shown on tables 1 and 2. <br />Walsh discussed the impact of EC on crops with Mr. Dave Dearstyne of the NRCS, who indicated that <br />crops are more sensitive to elevated EC in topsoil than in subsoil. Elevated EC in subsoil can impact <br />established crops but not establishing crops, and established crops are generally more tolerant of <br />elevated EC than establishing crops. Mr. Dearstyne stated that subsoil with a paste EC up to 6 would <br />not be detrimental to grasses or alfalfa. As such, establishing a paste EC criterion of 6 for subsoil in <br />prime farmland for the permit may be appropriate. <br />Walsh <br />Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC <br />• (Revised Nov 2008) Attachment 2.05.4(2)(d)-1-4