2011-07-13_REPORT - C1981008 (9)

Home Browse Search

analyzed for electrical conductivity by the paste method (EC), pH by the paste method (pH), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and percent saturation. No exceedances of criteria listed n the permit Table 2.05.4(2)(d)-1 Spot inn/ Soil Suitability Criteria were noted. Laboratory results and chain-oretistody !bins are a:lathed to this letter. Results are summarized in Tablet. NOV S'tep 2 - This step required resampling die Bench 1 Subsoil Substitute Topsoil (formerly called "suitable subsoil") sites on the Lloyd property, and analyzing the soil for saturation percent, SA.R, CaCO3. selenium (Sc), and coarse fragments. Pits excavated by WPC at the previous sampling locations were inspected by Walsh. Each pit was inspected by sweeping off a Dice of the pit, measuring the depth of the pit and marking the 24-inch and 48-inch depths below the base of topsoil, visually estimating the percent boulders, stones, and cobbles using USDA criteria in the 0-24 and 24- 48-inch depth %ones, and obtaining full-thickness soil samples from both depth intervals and placing each into a graduated sieve with a 2-millimeter final sieve size, and sieving the soil into a bottom pan. The volume percent of soil being caught in the 2-mm and larger sieves was estimated, the sieve pans and excavation were photographed, and two samples of the less than 2 mm fraction were obtained From each depth interval for laboratory analysis. No boulders (>25 inches) were observed in any soil pit. All field data were recorded on field data sheets, copies of which are attached to this letter, Samples were analyzed for selenium by Key Laboratories of Grand Junction, Colorado, and other analytes by Servi-Tech Labs of Hastings, Nebraska, with the results recorded in Table 2. The total percent rock fragments Criterion was exceeded at NESS-240A and NHSS-241A and 13, and the aven,ge percent rock frownent criterion was exceeded. No other execedanecs of relevant criteria were noted. In addition, a sample orspoil from 48 inches to the pit bottom (between 55-82 inches) was obtained from selected pits for analysis of boron, pH, and EC by Servi-Tech Labs, with results recorded on Table 5. No exceedanees, of relevant criteria were measured at any sampling location. NOV Step 3 This step involved re-sampling Bench I Subsoil Substitute Topsoil from the Morgan properly at sample points SS-31 through SS-44. The 0-36 inch soil :ntervals at these points had previously been inspected by Lambert and Associates. Inc. in May. 2010; however, they did not determine coarse rock fragment percentages, nor did they report soil texture using USDA er'neria. Walsh calculated gravel percentage from Lambert's grain size distribution curves and recorded. these results in Table 3. and calculated soil texture based on Lambert's grain size distribution curves using. USDA grain size criteria and texture criteria and recorded these results in Table 4. All textures found were sLtitable In addition, pits excavated by WFC at the previous sampling locations were inspected. Each pit was inspected by sweeping off a face of the pit, measuring the depth of the pit and marking the 36-inch depth below the base of topsoil, visually estimating the percent boulders, stones, and cobbles using USDA criteria in the 0-36 and >36-inch depth zones, and obtaining a full-thickness soil sample from the 0-36-ineh depth interval. In pits where observed gravel estimates varied from the Lambert report (SS-32 and SS-34}, soil from the 0-36-inch interval was placed into a graduated sieve with a 2- millimeter final sieve size, and sieved into a bonom pan. The volume percent of soil being eatntht in the 2-mm and larger sieves was estimated, the sieve pans and excavation were photographed, and the Valsh F,rivo nmental Scientists and lirtgineers,LLC