20131126USFSReviewRiley_Pass_Borrow_Soil_Resources_Final.pdf

REPORT OF

Survey of Topsoil Borrow Resources for

Riley Pass A&E Services- Abandonded Mine Reclamation

Riley Pass Mining Area

AG-0355-D-12-0021

December 2013

Survey of Topsoil Borrow Resources for Riley Pass A&E Services- Abandoned Mine Reclamation Riley Pass Mining Area

AG-0355-D-12-0021

Prepared for:

United States Department of Agriculture Custer National Forest Sioux Ranger District Task 1 on Federal Task Order Contract #AG-0355-D-12-0021 against GSA contract #GS-1 OF-02081.

Prepared by:

618 South 25th Street Billings, Montana 59101

(406) 248-9161 Fax (406) 248-9282

Tetra Tech Project No. 114-551083

Jeffrey R. Rice Environmental Group Manager

Dustin Anderson Soil Scientist

December 13, 2013

N:\TYPING\ENV-FAC\551083 Riley Pass\2013 Soil Survey\20131126USFSReviewRiley Pass Borrow Soil Resources Final_JR2.doc

Survey of Topsoil Borrow Resources

Riley Pass Mining Area Custer National Forest

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Data Review

2.2 Field Investigations

2.3 Sample Collection

2.4 Laboratory Analyses

2.5 Soil Borrow Area Development

2.6 Soil Suitability for Reclamation

3.0 EXISTING SOIL MAPPING

3.1 USFS Survey Areas

3.2 Northern and Central Private Land Survey Areas

3.3 Southern Private Land Survey Area

4.0 SOIL PROFILE RESULTS

4.1 USFS Survey Areas

4.2 Northern and Central Private Land Survey Areas

4.3 Southern Private Land Survey Area

5.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

5.1 Soil Physical Properties

5.2 Soil Acidity and Alkalinity

5.3 Specific Conductance (SC)

5.4 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

5.5 Metals

5.6 Nutrient Content

5.7 Soil Erodibiltiy

6.0 SOIL SALVAGE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 USFS Survey Areas

6.2 Northern and Central Private Land Survey Areas

6.3 Southern Private Land Survey Area

7.0 REFERENCES

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Preliminary Topsoil Suitability Criteria- Riley Pass Mining Area

Table 2 Soil Physical Properties

Table 3 Soil Chemistry

Table 4 Soil Borrow Volumes

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Identified Private & Public Lands Soil Borrow Resource Locations

Figure 2 NRCS Soils Map

Figure 3 North USFS Borrow Area

Figure 4 Northwest USFS Borrow Area

Figure 5 Southeast USFS Borrow Area

Figure 6 Southwest USFS Borrow Area

Figure 7 North Private Borrow Area

Figure 8 Central Private Borrow Area

Figure 9 South Private Borrow Area

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Soil Map Unit and Series Descriptions

Appendix B: Soil Profile Descriptions

Appendix C: Laboratory Analytical Reports

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

During May and September 2013, Tetra Tech completed a limited soil borrow resource assessment in the vicinity of the former Riley Pass uranium mining area, in the North Cave Hills of Harding County, South Dakota, within the Custer National Forest (Figure 1). This work was conducted in accordance with the Order for Supplies or Services Contract No. GS-10F-0208J for Riley Pass A&E Services. This assessment was conducted to identify and quantify potential soil borrow areas for reclaiming former uranium mine sites.

The specific objectives of the soil resource assessment included the following:

Describe soil profiles and document soil characteristics;

Map areas with similar borrow capabilities;

Sample and analyze soils for physical and chemical properties within the project area; and

Evaluate soil suitability for reclamation (i.e. as a growth medium), propose suitable salvage depths of the soil found in the project area, and identify limiting characteristics.

This report describes the methods used by Tetra Tech to achieve the survey objectives, as stated above, and presents results of the 2013 soil resources assessment. Supporting information is included in the appendices of this report.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 2

2.0 METHODS

The methods employed to collect and analyze soil resource data were generally consistent with plans of study prepared for similar projects in the western U.S. The methods employed to conduct the survey are described below.

2.1 Data Review

The following information was reviewed prior to initiation of the soil assessment:

Aerial photography and topographic mapping for the project area;

Soil survey information from Harding County (USDA, 2010); and, Riley Pass soil borrow suitability criteria as developed by Millennium Science and

Engineering (MSE, 2010) and adopted by the United States Forest Service (USFS) in the 2010 Statement of Work (USFS, 2010).

2.2 Field Investigations

This soil resource evaluation and inventory, including soil sample collection and laboratory analyses, were completed for potential borrow sites with suitable topsoil and subsoil chemical and physical characteristics for reclamation of adjacent disturbed areas. Due to the possibility of disturbing cultural resources, test pits were excavated only on privately owned lands near the site during May 2013. Following additional review by and coordination with the USFS archeologist, areas within the USFS boundary were investigated during September 2013.

Areas surveyed and determined to be potential borrow areas included approximately 200 acres on privately owned land and 300 acres of USFS land. To reduce potential soil borrow transport costs, surveys were conducted proximal to the Bluffs B, C, D, E, G and H as shown on Figure 1.

Specific soil profile descriptions were conducted in general accordance with the guidelines provided by the National Soil Survey Handbook (USDA, 2003) and the Soil Survey Manual, Handbook 18 (USDA, 1993). Map unit boundaries were identified by field observation and interpretation of aerial photographs, topographic maps, and other geographic models.

The potential soil borrow area was previously mapped by the USDA Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS) to a level of detail commensurate to an Order III Survey (USDA, 2010). The NRCS mapping is presented on Figure 2 and common soil series descriptions are presented in Appendix A. The databases and digital maps from these previous surveys were used to develop a conceptual model as discussed further in section 2.5. The conceptual model was used in combination with aerial photographs to identify likely changes in soil conditions

(map units) within the project area. The locations of soil profiles were selected to be representative of a map unit or to help determine the composition of a map unit. These sites were identified through review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, and site inspection. A

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 3 skid steer mounted backhoe, hand auger and tile spade shovel were used to excavate the soil profile description sites. To mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources, all soil profile locations excavated were surveyed by an on-site USFS archeologist prior to excavation. Some test pits were also sieved by the USFS archeologist during September 2013 soil profile excavation and no heritage resources were discovered. No known significant cultural resources were encountered or impacted during soil profile excavations.

Soil profiles were generally described using methods and abbreviations identified in the Field

Book for Sampling and Describing Soils (USDA, 2002). Complete or partial profile descriptions were recorded on field forms, which are included in Appendix B. Complete profile descriptions were recorded at the most representative locations as determined by the Soil Scientists, and selected sites were sampled for map unit representation and borrow material potential.

2.3 Sample Collection

A total of 49 soil samples were collected from 23 profile locations and delivered for laboratory analyses. These samples were selected in the field to be representative of soils in the area and to determine if the sampled horizon was acceptable as a borrow material. Selected soil samples were generally collected from profiles where the soil type was a dominant component of the soil borrow area. Soil samples were collected from horizons greater than three inches thick.

Horizons less than three inches thick were described but not sampled. For horizons greater than

18 inches thick, soil samples were collected from the lower portion of the soil horizon.

2.4 Laboratory Analyses

Soil samples were transported under chain-of-custody protocol to Pace Analytical Laboratory

(Pace), in Billings, Montana for laboratory analysis. In general, laboratory parameters were analyzed using the methods specified by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

(WDEQ) Topsoil and Overburden Guidelines (Guideline 1; WDEQ, 2004). Forty-three soil samples were analyzed to include some or all of the following parameters:

Textural class (sand, silt, clay percentages) pH (acidity/alkalinity)

Calcium (Ca), manganese (Mg) and sodium (Na)

Specific conductance (SC)

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

Arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn).

The methods used for laboratory analyses are presented on the laboratory report included in

Appendix C. Field estimates for physical soil conditions are documented on the field logs in

Appendix B.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 4

2.5 Soil Borrow Area Development

Preliminary borrow area boundaries identified in the field were supported by available data and site inspection. Boundaries of preliminary areas were further refined based on the results of profile descriptions and development of conceptual areas based primarily on depth of A and B horizon, soil texture and potential for elevated salinity concentrations. Many of the conceptual delineations were documented in the field for further refinement based on review of all available information, including laboratory results and final profile classifications.

Following completion of the field effort, color aerial photography was used to further assist in delineation refinement (Figures 3 through 9). These images revealed details related to vegetation communities, saline-sodic surfaces, rock outcrop patterns and geologic parent materials. Each borrow area within the project area was described by documenting soil profiles and salvage depths found in the borrow site, their relative composition, and their placement relative to one another. Borrow area nomenclature for this survey is as follows; for private and public land, the name consists of letters followed by numbers. Example KL 22 where the first letter

K stands for the last name of the landowner (on private land only, there are no letters present for

USFS land), L stands for the dominant soil texture of the borrow area (loam) and the number 22 stands for the average total soil salvage depth of that particular borrow area. Each area was composed primarily of similar soils, with the smallest borrow area encompassing approximately four acres. Areas identified as limited or no salvage potential during the field investigation portion of the survey, were not assigned a reference name and will not be discussed in this report. The methodology for determining potential suitability is discussed further below.

2.6 Soil Suitability for Reclamation

Field observations and laboratory test information from soil samples were evaluated to determine relative suitability of soil as a plant growth medium. Site specific soil suitability criteria were developed by the USFS and MSE (USDA, 2010; MSE, 2010) to define and classify suitability (Table 1). Soil profile characteristics and laboratory analyses are used to evaluate potential salvage depths for each soil type. Differences in suitability between soil horizons are reviewed to determine which soils are suitable topsoil or cover material.

The suitability criteria for cover soil, presented in Table 1, are similar to criteria used for previous reclamation in the Riley Pass area and similar sites in the western US. However, due to the various potential metal toxicity issues, the acidic pH number was elevated from an often used criterion of 5.5 to 6.5 (WDEQ, 2004). Soils with a pH of greater than 6.0 would also likely produce acceptable results. Therefore, we occasionally used an acceptance criterion of 6.0 assuming the soil horizon is less than a few inches thick, and higher pH soil is also likely going to be utilized. The potential presences of arsenic, cadmium, among other metals are more mobile at low pH and are able to enter the food chain via phyto-uptake. To remove the potential bio-uptake of these metals Tetra Tech recommends limiting the pH of potential borrow soils to a pH of 6.0 and greater. This recommendation was proposed by Tetra Tech and reviewed by the

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 5

USFS. The USFS concurred with this modification and Table 1 was amended to reflect this modification.

For the purposes of this investigation, it is anticipated that onsite organic materials (i.e. sod) and six inches of stripped topsoil would be replaced on the borrow locations. The replaced material would be topsoil, or upper A horizon, and the total depth of salvage to unsuitable borrow material was considered in determining the total salvage depth.

Table 1: 2013 Topsoil Suitability Criteria – Riley Pass Mining Area

Legend: Depth of growth media above bedrock or unsuitable soils

USDA = US Department of Agriculture

SL = Sandy Loam, LS = Loamy sand, S = Sand, C = Clay

PPM = Parts per million

1 decisiemens per meter (dS/m) = 1 millimhos per centimeter (mmho/cm)

Property Suitable Unsuitable

Depth (cover depth) 12-18 inches <12 inches

USDA Texture (thickest layer 0-40 in.) All Others >45% Clay content and LS, S

Rock Fragments (by volume) <45 (all fragments less than six inches diameter) >45

Depth to High Water Table (feet) --- Perennial wetness

Soil Acidity (pH 0-40 inches) 6.0 to 8.5 <6.0 or >8.5

Arsenic <142 ppm >142 ppm

Cadmium < 4 ppm > 4 ppm

Copper < 100 ppm > 100 ppm

Lead < 100 ppm >100 ppm

Zinc < 250 ppm >250 ppm

SAR <12 >12

Specific conductance (entire depth of cover soil)

<6 dS/m >6 dS/m

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 6

3.0 EXISTING SOIL MAPPING

Employing NRCS soil mapping data, several map units were selected as providing the highest potential for borrow material over the survey area as described in the Harding County soil survey (NRCS, 2010; Figure 2). Review of the NRCS soil survey was only used as a screening tool and borrow areas were chosen only by site specific investigations. Constrained by the local landscape, land ownership, and distance from the areas to be reclaimed, the survey was broken into four principle areas the USFS properties, northern, central and southern survey private land areas as shown in Figures 3 through 6 and 7 through 9, respectively. The northern and central private lands will be discussed concurrently as they are adjacent and can be accessed in the same manner.

3.1 USFS Survey Areas

The far northern reach of the USFS surveyed area (Figures 3 and 4) contains the largest total area of high potential borrow soil identified on USFS property. These potential borrow sites are generally clustered in two distinct areas; at the mouth of Fuller Canyon (Figure 3) and in the vicinity of Sawmill Canyon (Figure 4).

Four separate areas (1SL24-A, 1SL24-B, CL30-A and 2SL24; Figure 3) of potential borrow soil are located at the mouth of Fuller Canyon and on the northern toe-slope of the bluff composing the western canyon wall (Figure 3). Three of these areas (1SL24-B, CL30-A and 2SL24) are either partially or entirely within the Shambo-Rodes loams (SmB) map unit (NRCS, 2010

Appendix A). Located on a gently sloping northerly facing stream terrace, the Shambo-Rodes loam is described as being deep, well drained, with moderate permeability. The A horizon in this series is typically nine inches thick. The fourth potential (1SL24-A) borrow source in this area is located above the flood plain on a northwest facing toe-slope mostly within the delineated soil map unit Amor-Cabba loams (AcC). The Amor series consist of approximately eight inches of an A horizon and the B horizon extending to a depth of approximately 34 inches. The Cabba soil is a shallow soil with minimal soil borrow salvage potential (NRCS, 2010; Appendix A).

The best prospective borrow site (SL20; Figure 4) is located north of Sawmill Canyon on a gently sloping terrace formed from the convergence of multiple alluvial fans. This terrace is west of and adjacent to a series of bluffs within the Shambo-Rodes loams (SmB) soil mapping unit (NRCS, 2010 Appendix A). The SL20 mapping unit is described as being deep, well drained, with moderate permeability. The A horizon in this series is typically nine inches thick.

Another, somewhat smaller area of potential borrow soil (CL30-B; Figure 4) is located approximately 1.5 miles west on a gently sloping and erosionally dissected incised terrace directly north of Craig Pass. Borrow area CL30-B also consists of map unit SmB along with the

Amor-Rhoades loams (AdC). The Amor series are described as being deep to very deep and moderate to well drained with moderate permeability due to the coarser parent material much like the Shambo series. The Rhodes series are typically deep well drained soils with very low

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 7 permeability. These soils are formed in stratified clayey materials derived from shale, siltstone, and mudstone (NRCS, 2010; Appendix A).

Another considerable acreage of potential borrow soil is located in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir at the southern end of Campbell Creek (Figure 6). A triangular area of borrow soil southeast of the reservoir (PLOW 35; Figure 6) is primarily comprised of map unit (RbB), Reeder loam, with a minor inclusion of map unit Amor-Rhodes loam (AdC). These soils are described above. The southern facing bench adjacent to the west shore of the reservoir which slopes gradually to the floodplain south of the reservoir (LS10, LS19, PLOW17; Figure 6) is another potential borrow source. The northern end of this borrow source (LS10) is within the delineated boundary of the RbB map unit while the remainder (LS19, PLOW17) are within the

Rhoades-Daglum loams (RnB) map unit. The Rhoades series is a described above. The

Daglum series are typically deep, well drained, clay rich soils formed in alluvium and residuum on foot slopes and swales on terraces and uplands.

Relatively minor areas of potential borrow soil were also identified on USFS land in the central portion of the USFS survey area in the vicinity of Schleichart Draw (Figure 5). Two of the areas

(C16, SCL22-B; Figure 5) were present on toe-slopes while a third (SCL22-A; Figure 5) consisted of the top of a flat and broad bluff. Areas C16 and SCL22-A are primarily comprised of map unit RnB, (see above discussion). Borrow source SCL22-B is primarily comprised of the

Cohagen fine sandy loam (CoE) series. The Cohagen series is described as being shallow, well to excessively drained. This soil formed from the weathering of sandstone. Based on in-field observations of soil texture and potential borrow depth all three areas qualify as potential borrow source However, due to their relative small acreage and the potential for disturbing archeologically significant resources no further investigation was conducted.

3.2 Northern and Central Private Land Survey Areas

The northern and central areas contained four high potential map units that were on land proximal to the Bluffs where landowners Craig Feist (Figure 7), Thomas Kalisiak (Figure 8), and

Lex Burghduff (Figure 8) granted permission to survey through written agreements with the

USFS. These include Reeder-Cabba loams (RcC), six to nine percent slope, Korchea-Archin complex (Km), zero to six percent slope, Amor-Cabba loams (AcC), nine to 25 percent slope, and Parshall fine sandy loam (PhA), three percent slope (NRCS, 2010; Appendix A). These soils series reported loam to sandy clay loam texture and other physical properties potentially making them suitable as borrow material. The target soils within these units are Archin, Parshall, Reeder, and Amor. The Cabba are general shallow, loamy soils with weathered bedrock at depths less than 20 inches below ground surface (bgs). However, where Cabba soils are deeper to bedrock they have potential as a borrow source. Additional NRCS map units were evaluated and descriptions are included in Appendix A. All potential borrow sources as identified through review of NRCS mapping were chosen based on site specific investigations.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 8

The Archin and Parshall Series are deep soils. The Archin Series generally present suitable loamy textures that are slightly acid to neutral. However, although these soils are typically well drained, permeability is slow to very slow in the lower solum. Due to the limited movement of water within the soil profile these soil may accumulate salt as observed during soil survey activities. The Parshall series are very deep, well drained soils with thick, eight to 10 inch A horizons. These soils are typically cultivated for growing agronomic crops. The limiting physical properties for the Parshall series is the fine sandy loam texture and weak soil structure making these soil susceptible to wind and water erosion. The Reeder and Amor series are generally moderately deep, well developed, loamy soils with bedrock greater than 30 inches bgs. Reeder and Amor A horizons are generally equal to or greater than 8 inches thick.

3.3 Southern Private Land Survey Area

The soil investigation in the southern portion of the surveyed area contained three high potential map units proximal to the U.S. Forest Service boundary where landowner (William Rotenberger

Figure 9) permission was granted to survey. These include Reeder-Cabba loams (RcC), six to nine percent slope, Korchea-Archin fine loamy complex (Km) zero to six percent slope, and

Parchin-Bullock fine sandy loams (PbB) two to nine percent slope (NRCS, 2010; Appendix A).

As discussed above, the Reeder, Cabba, Korchea, and Archin Series all have the potential to provide suitable borrow locations. The Parchin consists of moderately deep, well-drained soils formed in residuum weathered from sandy and loamy sedimentary rocks. The depth to weathered soft-bedded sandstone bedrock is typically 25 to 30 inches but ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The Bullock series consists of moderately deep loamy soils on residuum weathered from soft sandstone or silty or clayey shales interbedded with soft sandstone. Bullock series soils have sandy clay loam and clay loam subsoils, and, like the Archin series, have the potential to accumulate salts making them not suitable for borrow material.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 9

4.0 SOIL PROFILE RESULTS

A total of 87 soil pits were excavated from the northern, central, and southern extents of the survey area to characterize and quantify potential borrow material to serve as plant growth medium during reclamation efforts.

4.1 USFS Survey Areas

A total of 31 soil pits were hand excavated within the USFS portion of the survey area. Twelve distinct soil types were identified as potential borrow locations based primarily on field observations of textural class and A- and B-horizon thickness. Accessibility, cultural resource concerns, depth to bedrock, and soil saline site conditions were also considered when delineating these borrow areas.

Soil borrow area SL20 (Figure 4) is located north of Sawmill Canyon on a gently sloping terrace formed from the convergence of multiple alluvial fans. This terrace is west of and adjacent to a series of bluffs and extends eastward just beyond the gravel USFS road. Vegetation consists of dense crested wheatgrass, silver sage, and other scattered forbs such as Echinacea and asters. Soil profiles observed within this potential borrow area were relatively consistent and were characterized suitable texture: loamy sand to sandy loam textures to depths of around 20 inches. Textures became increasingly coarse (coarse sandy loams and coarse sands) at greater depths. A- and B-horizon clay content ranged from 10 to 15 percent at locations east of the road. Clay contents to the west of the road ranged from 25 to 33 percent suggesting that the soil transitions to finer textures at lower elevations closer to the saline draws and gullies observed in that area. Laboratory analysis indicates that about 45 percent of the sand content of these soils consists of very fine sand that may preclude use of this soil in erodible areas.

Soil borrow areas CL30-B and SCL10 (Figure 4) occupy the terrace directly north of Craig Pass.

Vegetation in this area is primarily crested wheatgrass with some sage and other miscellaneous forbs. Borrow area CL30-B (Figure 4) consists of sandy clay loams and clay loams extending to a depth of about 30 inches bgs. Clay content and coarse fragment content (fine gravels and channers) increased with depth. The soil profile of potential borrow area SCL10 was similar to that of CL30-B except that sandier soil textures were present and the soil profile was considerably shallower. Below a depth of approximately 10 inches the profile consisted of greater than 50 percent fine gravels and channers which make this soil unsuitable at this depth.

However, site SCL10 has been included as it may be a useful source of gravel for road building and other engineering needs.

Soils near the mouth of Fuller Canyon occurred in four different soil borrow areas; CL30-A, 1SL24-A, 1SL24-B and 2SL24 (Figure 3). As was the case for area CL30-B near Craig Pass

(Figure 4), the topographic position of CL30-A in Fuller Canyon is a stream terrace on relatively flat ground along the canyon floor. Soil textures in the potential borrow areas (Cl-30-A, 1SL24-

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 10

A, 1SL24-B, and 2SL24) consist of clay loams with some isolated occurrences of sandier textures. Clay concentrations ranged from 25 to 45 percent and increased with depth.

Soil borrow areas 1SL24-A and 1SL24-B (Figure 3) occurs on the north to northeast facing toe-slopes of the bluff to the west of the canyon mouth. These soils consist of sandy loams and loamy sands with clay concentrations that abruptly decrease from about 20 percent at the surface to around five percent at a depth of around 22 inches. This map unit was delineated as two separate areas (1SL24-A and 1SL24-B) which are separated by landslide debris consisting of a colluvial deposit of loam, sandy clay, and clay with up to 25 percent cobbles. Areas of saline seeps exist topographically below, to the north, and to the south-east of the delineated map unit and are not suitable for reclamation use.

Map unit 2SL24 (Figure 3) is located in a similar landscape position as unit CL30 in Fuller

Canyon but is farther from the canyon floor and creek. This map unit consists of sandy loam and sandy clay loam textures with clay concentrations ranging from about eight to 25 percent.

Unlike map units 1SL24-A and 1SL24-B, clay concentrations within 2SL24 appear to increase with increasing depth.

Four borrow soil map units were delineated in the vicinity of the Campbell Creek reservoir

(PLOW35, PLOW17, LS19, and LS10; Figure 6). This area was previously cultivated resulting in a well-defined plow layer (i.e. Ap horizon) from the 0 to 10-inch depth increment and little potential for intact cultural resource sites within the boundaries of the map units. However, significant cultural resource sites are present nearby. Vegetation is fairly consistent across the area and is comprised primarily of dense grasses (i.e. smooth brome, crested wheat, rye, and bluestem) with sage becoming more prevalent to the southeast.

Map unit PLOW35 is a triangular area delineated based on its position which is bounded by the reservoir outflow to the west, private property to the south, and significant cultural resources to the northeast. The 0 to 35-inch depth increment of this map unit consists of a mixture of sandy loam soils or loamy sand (five to 15 percent clay) in some areas with finer textured silty clay textures (35 to 45 percent clay) in others. At depths below about 35 inches a C-horizon consisting of sandy clay loam was encountered at both observation pits excavated in the map unit. The loamy sand texture is not a suitable texture based on Table 1. However, field observations determined the loamy sand texture to be a thin lens intercepted around 20 inches bgs with more suitable textures immediately adjacent. With the more suitable textures composing the major components in the soil profile this area qualifies as a suitable borrow source.

Map unit PLOW17 is the southern and topographically lowest portion of a low sloping ridge forming the western shore of the reservoir. The soil texture throughout the 52-inch excavation consisted of silty clay soils with clay concentrations ranging from about 35 to 45 percent. This map unit was very moist at the time of the visit suggesting that it is poorly drained. This location is elevated above the reservoir and there was no visible redoximorphic features common for a persistent water table. Based on field observations the wet soil conditions were likely the result

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 11 of rain water percolation. These conditions are likely not common and should not influence soil borrow qualification.

Immediately north of and adjacent to map unit PLOW17 is map unit L19, which is characterized by loamy textured soil with B-horizon depths extending to 22 inches in the southern portion of the map unit and decreasing to 16 inches in the northern portion.

Still farther to the north, in map unit LS10, soil thickness continues to decrease and textures become coarser. This map unit consists of sandy loam soils suitable for borrow to a depth of about 10 inches overlying minimally weathered sandstone residuum.

In the central portion of the survey area on USFS land (Figure 5), two relatively small map units were delineated; C16 and SCL22. Map unit C16 is located on the top of a flat broad bluff supporting a grass and sage vegetation community. The soil profile in this location consisted of the most clay-rich soil encountered during the survey of USFS land with clay loam to silty clay loam texture (30 percent clay) in the 0 to 5-inch depth increment and a marked increase to 50 percent or greater clay concentration at greater depths. Excavation of this soil pit was advanced from 16 inches bgs to a depth of 30 inches using a soil auger with no discernible change in soil texture and no indication that coarse fragments were encountered.

Map unit SCL22 occurred in two separate locations, both located at the toe-slope of low-lying bluffs supporting wheat, fescue, and brome grass species as well as scattered sage and forbs.

B-horizon depths in these areas extended to about 22 inches bgs with sandy clay loam textures with clay concentrations ranging from about 22 to 27 percent. While the soil profiles are similar in each of the two SCL22 areas (SCL22-A and SCL22-B; Figure 5), the western location

(SCL22-A) occurred in an area with deeply incised gullies and rock outcroppings. The eastern area (SCL22-B) was relatively flat with no rock outcroppings observed.

4.2 Northern and Central Private Land Survey Areas

A total of 43 soil pits were excavated within the northern and central private land survey areas.

Seven areas were presented as potential borrow locations (Figures 7, 8 and 9) based on soil analytical data (Tables 2 and 3). However, there are areas adjacent to these borrow areas that need to be avoided during soil salvage activities. Map Unit FSCL60 is located the furthest from the Bluffs scheduled for excavation (Figure 7). This area is gently sloping rangeland. Soils in this area are clay loams on side slopes with salts visible to the surface at the base of the slopes which should be avoided.

Map unit 1KL22 (Figure 8) is a gently sloping hayed pastureland. Knolls within this pasture land should be avoided as the soils become too shallow. Soils in this area are loams and clay loams.

Map Units 2KL22 and KL21 (Figure 8) are in a similar physiographic position to Map Unit

1KL22. Soil profile DA 25 in Map Unit 2KL22 has elevated pH and SAR values. The SAR was elevated due to low calcium and magnesium values relative to sodium. However, the specific

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 12 conductance value (Table 2) was well below the suitability criteria in Table 1. The alkaline pH value of 8.7 potentially limits soil salvage depths to less than approximately 30-inches bgs. The pH in soil profile SM23 in map unit KL21 had a surface pH of 5.9 with pH increasing to 8.0 between eight to 20 inches bgs then returning to 5.9 at depths greater than 20 inches bgs. Due to metals mobility concerns this area should be mixed with the alkaline B horizon. Because of the limited volume of potential borrow profile associated with the much higher pH within the soil profile potential borrow soil will exceed 6.0 guidelines in table 1 of this report.

Map Unit KSL30 is comprised of a cultivated field on a gently to moderately sloping surface.

Soils were again loams and clay loams with a depth of approximately 30 inches to the C horizon on the lower side of the field and shallower at the upper end.

Map Units BSCL41 and BCL50 are cultivated alfalfa fields. These fields are the closest to Bluff

B and could provide significant soil borrow. Soil analytical data for map units BSCL41 and

BCL50 indicate soil physical properties qualify these soils as potential borrow areas. Texturally these soils vary in percent sand and clay but are generally loamy and meet the suitability criteria outlined in Table 1. Low knolls adjacent to map unit BSCL41 should be avoided as these soils become too shallow. The erosional channel originating off of Bluff B also needs to be avoided to prevent exacerbating the active erosion occurring through this borrow area.

Chemically, soil profiles DA15, and JR02, within map unit BCL50, present elevated SC, SAR, and pH levels in all subsurface horizons, which exceed the suitability criteria in Table 1. Care should be taken when harvesting soil near DA15 and JR02 and toe slope areas to avoid salts in the subsurface horizons. This can be accomplished by staying away from the slope break down into the alluvial channels for both Map Units BSCL41 and BCL50.

4.3 Southern Private Land Survey Area

A total of 13 soil pits were excavated in the proposed borrow areas RSL19, RSCL44 and RSL23

(Figure 9). These areas are closer to Bluff H than most of the other potential borrow source areas which were reviewed. All three map units were in cultivated agricultural land (Figure 9).

Texturally these soils vary in percent sand and clay but all meet the suitability criteria outlined in

Table 1. Map unit RSCL19 and RSL23 presented sandy loam texture in the surface horizons extending to 22 inches bgs. Map unit RSCL44 presented sandy clay loam texture in the upper horizon extending to 28 inches bgs. These soils all presented thin A horizons. However, all three map units are currently sustaining agronomic crop production. Consequently, due to annual disturbance of the A horizon, and the shallow rooting nature of annual crops depleting the surface horizons, this could account for the reduction in A horizon depth.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 13

5.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The results of the soil physical and chemical laboratory analyses from this investigation are presented in Tables 2 and 3 and Appendix C. The following sections summarize the results of laboratory analyses and present interpretations relative to reclamation planning.

5.1 Soil Physical Properties

Soil textures in the project area are predominately sandy clay loams and clay loams with some loam, sand, clay and silt loams. Of the soil samples collected, clay content ranged from between five and 35 percent with an average of 23 percent (Table 2). Soils throughout the survey area have potential for use in reclamation due to their moderate clay content. However, the sandy and silty soils have low water-holding capacity which limits re-growth potential and promotes susceptibility to wind and water erosion. During soil placement, erosion mitigations strategies such as erosion fabric, crimped straw or compost, should be employed to abate potential soil erosional losses. The reclamation plan would provide a more complete explanation of potential erosion mitigation strategies

5.2 Soil Acidity and Alkalinity

The acidity and alkalinity of soils in the project area are closely tied to parent materials and topographic position. The pH of samples tested ranged from between 5.4 to 9.0, and averaged

7.6 (neutral pH = 7). Six soil samples were slightly acidic with pH levels of 5.4 to 6.3 (Table 3).

However, these samples were all collected from relatively thin surface soil horizons. At all locations, the soil samples collected directly below the surface horizon had a pH in excess of

6.6.

Six soil samples exceeded the alkalinity screening limit of 8.5 (Table 3). These samples were collected at depths greater than twelve inches bgs. Five of the six samples were located in toe slope and potential saline seep areas, with the sixth, sample DA25 29-40 inches bgs (Figure 8), having an elevated pH in the C horizon. Sample JR01 at 16-24 inches bgs, had the highest pH value of 9.0 at a depth of 16 inches bgs (Table 3). This same sample had a SAR of 45.9. It is important to note that this sample was also collected near the toe of a piedmont slope near the break in slope of the drainage, and is a saline seep area. Soil samples SM10, collected within

400 feet of JR01, at the same elevation but away from the break in slope, reported SC values of

0.44 millimhos per centimeter (mmhos/cm) and SAR values of 5.0 at a depth of 21 inches bgs, respectively (Table 3). Another sample, JR02, collected near the break in slope but at a slightly higher gradient, reported elevated SC value of 6.2 mmhos/cm at 20 inches bgs (Table 3). This data suggest that care should be taken when salvaging borrow soil in map unit BSCL41 and the lower slope of BCL50 (Figure 8) at depths greater than 20 inches near the break in slopes where saline conditions come closer to the surface. We recommend a reclamation scientist be onsite during all soil salvage activities to identify saline soils by ocular (white crusting of salt participants) and field screening using specific conductance (SC).

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 14

Based on this information, we do not believe it is necessary to restrict any soil from this location for potential borrow due to acidic conditions. The alkaline soils associated with sodic conditions were not suitable as a borrow source. These soils were also located at the break in slope of the drainage representing possible saline seeps.

5.3 Specific Conductance (SC)

A soil’s SC (often referred to as electrical conductivity or EC) is a measure of the salt content of the soil recorded in mmhos/cm and is directly related to osmotic potentials and soil water availability. Soils with an SC less than 8.0 mmhos/cm are generally considered non-limiting. The

USFS borrow restriction value was given as 6.0 mmhos/cm (Table 1). Of the soils sampled in the project area, three soil profile description sites (JR 01, intervals 16-24”, 24-40”, 40-60”, and

JR02 interval 20-34” and DA15, 0-9”, 9-14”, 14-44”) exceeded the USFS threshold value of 6.0 mmhos/cm (Table 3). Along with elevated SC concentrations, the SAR concentrations also exceeded the threshold indicating these soils are not adequate for borrow purposes.

The remainder of the samples had acceptable SC values. The average SC value was 2.9 mmhos/cm and therefore SC is not a notable limiting factor in most of the project area.

However, due to the elevated saline conditions observed in lower elevations of map unit

BSCL41 and BCL50 (Figure 8), removal of vegetation at the higher elevations has the potential to increase saline conditions at lower elevations since more soil water may be made available to transport salts through the subsoil profile. Thus the borrow site should be reclaimed and re-vegetated immediately following stripping operations.

5.4 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

The SAR of soil is an indicator of the amount of the cation sodium in relation to calcium and magnesium in the soil and is commonly referred to as soil sodicity. Elevated sodium degrades soil structure and inhibits plant growth. SAR values exceeding 8.0 can be limiting to plant growth by limiting plant rooting through surface soil crusting. Levels above 12.0 are further limiting and may require amendment treatments to re-vegetate. The average SAR of soils sampled was 7.8, indicating numerous soil samples did contain SAR values above the desired concentration

(Table 3). This indicates sodium concentrations are a concern at this site.

5.5 Metals

Soil samples were analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc concentrations as part of this investigation. While elevated metals concentrations were occasionally observed, none of the samples exceeded the USFS threshold values and are not expected to limit regrowth.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 15

5.6 Nutrient Content

The nutrient content of native soils was not analyzed as part of this investigation. However, organic matter content was generally observed to be low with depth in many of the soil profiles.

Soil organic matter (OM) is a critical source of nutrients in native soils and often accounts for free nutrient levels. Additionally, it is anticipated that borrow may be removed to a depth of up to three feet bgs which is most often very low in OM. Addition of OM to borrowed soils through compost is recommended as outlined under the MSE and USFS suitability criteria as adopted in the 2010 Statement of Work (USFS, 2010). Similar to OM content, phosphorus, nitrate, and potassium concentrations are expected to be low with depth but adequate for the establishment and sustained growth for native vegetation. Given, that the top six inches of the A horizon will be repositioned over the borrow areas following soil salvage activities, we do not recommend composting these areas as part of borrow area reclamation. Other erosion control measures will be evaluated on a site specific basis depending on locations used.

5.7 Soil Erodibility

Soil erodibility is represented by hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) which were established to evaluate wind and water erodibility. Soil physical characteristics along with land use, management practices, and hydrologic condition; determine a soil’s associated runoff curve number. Runoff curve numbers are used to estimate direct runoff from rain and snowmelt events. Assignments to the four common HSGs (A, B, C, and D) are based on climatic region, depth to a restrictive layer or shallow groundwater, ability to receive and transmit water, texture, structure, and degree of swelling when saturated (clay type and percent)(USDA, 2009). The A hydrologic group is the least erodible and the D group soils are the most erodible.

All of the soils being considered as borrow material met or exceeded the requirements for the C group (Table 2) and 24 percent met A group requirements. Despite this qualification, analytical results of soil texture indicate that the many soils within the survey area are fine textured and susceptible to erosion. Given these fine textures, loss of soil to runoff and wind erosion should be considered in both borrow areas and areas being reclaimed. Mitigating measures such as erosion control mats, addition of compost, crimped straw, straw waddles and appropriate seed application and species, should be in place to mitigate potential resource losses. These measures would be outlined as described more completely in the reclamation plan.

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 16

Table 2: Soil Physical Properties

Sample

ID

Sample Interval (inches)

Clay Percent

Sand Percent

Silt Percent

Texture Hydrologic Soil Group

USFWS Lands

135 SM3

0-11 27.5 30.00 42.50 Clay Loam B

11-20 26.25 37.50 36.25 Loam B

135 SM49

0-10 15 43.75 41.25 Loam B

10-22 20 57.5 22.5 Sandy Clay Loam B

135 SM95

0-8 12.5 65 22.5 Sandy Loam A

8-24 12.5 70 17.5 Sandy Loam A

Private Lands

SM01

0-11 17.5 57.5 25 Sandy Clay Loam B

19-31 35 37.5 27.5 Clay Loam C

SM02

9-18 27.5 45 27.5 Clay Loam C

18-31 22.5 50 27.5 Sandy Clay Loam C

SM11

9-21 25 52.5 22.5 Sandy Clay Loam C

21-33 20 62.5 17.5 Sandy Clay Loam B

SM12

7-19 12.5 27.5 60 Silt Loam A

19-31 32.5 40 27.5 Clay Loam B

SM13

0-8 12.5 57.5 30 Sandy Loam A

19-27 15 50 35 Loam A

SM14

0-9 22.5 42.5 35 Loam C

9-19 17.5 55 27.5 Sandy Loam B

SM10

0-9 12.5 60 27.5 Sandy Loam A

9-21 22.5 65 12.5 Sandy Clay Loam B

SM19 7-22 7.5 75 Sandy Loam A

SM23

0-8 22.5 35 42.5 Loam C

8-20 5 27.5 67.5 Silt Loam A

20-28 27.5 30 42.5 Clay Loam C

DA04 9-29 25 55 20 Sandy Clay Loam C

DA10 6-20 32.5 17.5 50 Silty Clay Loam D

DA12 14-24 32.5 32.5 35 Clay Loam C

DA13

9-18 27.5 57.5 15 Sandy Clay Loam C

18-40 15 75 10 Sandy Loam A

DA15

0-9 22.5 57.5 20 Sandy Clay Loam C

8-14 30 47.5 22.5 Sandy Clay Loam C

14-44 30 67.5 2.5 Sandy Clay Loam B

DA17 8-28 25 50 25 Sandy Clay Loam C

DA25

17-26 25 27.5 47.5 Loam C/D

29-40 20 30 50 Silt Loam C

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 17

Table 2: Soil Physical Properties (continued)

Sample ID Sample Interval (inches)

Clay Percent

Sand Percent

Silt Percent

Texture Hydrologic Soil Group

Private Lands

JR01

0-8 15 67.5 17.5 Sandy Loam A

8-16 22.5 52.5 25 Sandy Clay Loam C

16-24 10 77.5 12.5 Sandy Loam A

24-40 32.5 45 22.5 Clay Loam C

40-60 27.5 52.5 20 Sandy Clay Loam C

JR02

0-9 17.5 60 22.5 Sandy Loam B

9-20 27.5 42.5 30 Clay Loam C

20-34 30 40 30 Clay Loam C

JR03

4-12 30 37.5 32.5 Clay Loam C/D

12-20 27.5 37.5 35 Clay Loam C

20-30 20 37.5 42.5 Loam C

30-40 10 65 25 Sandy Loam A

JR04

14-24 32.5 40 27.5 Clay Loam C

24-40 25 47.5 27.5 Sandy Clay Loam C

Average 22.6 48.6 28.4 N/A N/A

Legend:

Sample ID = Samples collected by Tetra Tech.

Sample Interval = Given in inches below ground surface.

HSG = Hydrologic Soil Group as defined by USDA, 2009 National Engineering Handbook- Hydrologic Soil Group (210-V1-NEH, NRCS, January), pp7-1-7-5.

NA = Not Applicable

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 18

Table 3: Soil Chemistry

SAMPLE

ID

LAB ID

Sample Interval (inches)

Texture pH

SC

(mmhos/cm) Ca

(meq/L) Mg

(meq/L) Na

(meq/L) SAR As

Cd (mg/Kg)

Cu (mg/Kg)

Pb (mg/Kg)

Zn (mg/Kg)

Suitability Criteria NA 6.5- 8.5

4-6 NA NA NA 12 142 4 100 100 250

USFS Lands

135 SM3

10243013001 0-11 Clay Loam 8.3 0.19 1.5 1.1 0.33J 0.29 15.2 0.2 10.0 18.6 NA

10243013002 11-20 Loam 8.0 0.25 0.79 0.72J 0.74 0.85 19.6 0.29 12.1 18.2 NA

SM49

10243013003 0-10 Loam 7.6 0.41 0.58 0.65J 1.5 1.9 8.2 0.20 6.0 11.0 NA

10243013004 10-22 Sandy Clay Loam 8.2 0.63 10.4 24.1 50.0 12.0 12.6 0.20 7.0 12.6 NA

SM95

10243013005 0-8 Sandy Loam 7.3 0.18 0.82 0.49J 0.27J 0.34 10.4 0.14 4.6 10.3 NA

10243013006 8-24 Sandy Loam 8.1 0.27 1.0 0.67J 0.63 0.68 11.2 0.13 4.6 10.7 NA

Private Land

SM01

10227774001 0-11 Sandy Clay Loam 6.0 0.29 1.3 0.83 0.53 <0.85 11.0 <0.28 9.2 12.9 38.4

10227774002 19-31 Clay Loam 7.9 0.61 1.4 1.7 2.4 1.9 14.2 0.33J 13.6 15.7 44.1

SM02

10227774003 9-18 Clay Loam 7.6 0.38 2.2 0.88 0.44 <0.85 16.9 <0.28 9.9 12.1 34.8

10227774004 18-31 Sandy Clay Loam 8.0 1.0 1.7 1.9 5.8 4.3 12.2 <0.31 8.5 10.5 35.3

SM11

10227774005 9-21 Sandy Clay Loam 7.6 1.0 2.2 1.6 10.1 7.3 20.5 0.33J 8.1 11.3 45.6

10227774006 21-33 Sandy Clay Loam 8.2 0.95 1.6 0.95 9.1 8.0 30.5 0.45J 7.6 9.7 38.3

SM12

10227774007 7-19 Silt Loam 6.7 0.54 2.3 1.8 0.86 <0.85 8.1 0.27J 13.0 15.2 54.2

10227774008 19-31 Clay Loam 8.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 14.0 12.1 7.7 <0.28 19.0 19.0 60.3

SM13

10227774009 0-8 Sandy Loam 5.5 0.56 2.0 1.3 0.45 <0.85 9.6 <0.33 6.5 9.7 39.3

10227774010 19-27 Loam 6.8 0.83 0.74 0.52J 4.8 6.1 9.6 <0.32 6.8 10.9 38.5

SM14

10227774011 0-9 Loam 6.3 0.36 1.6 1.1 0.76 <0.85 26.4 0.40J 8.3 12.8 45.7

10227774012 9-19 Sandy Loam 6.7 0.65 2.7 2.2 1.0 <0.85 24.7 0.41J 8.7 11.2 42.6

SM10

10227774013 0-9 Sandy Loam 5.4 0.52 1.1 0.79J 2.4 2.5 15.3 <0.28 5.6 9.0 32.0

10227774014 9-21 Sandy Clay Loam 7.2 0.44 0.86 0.48J 4.1 5.0 26.2 0.41J 9.3 13.5 55.3

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 19

Table 3: Soil Chemistry (continued)

SAMPLE

ID

LAB ID

Sample Interval (inches)

Texture pH

SC

(mmhos/cm) Ca

(meq/L) Mg

(meq/L) Na

(meq/L) SAR As

Cd (mg/Kg)

Cu (mg/Kg)

Pb (mg/Kg)

Zn (mg/Kg)

Suitability Criteria NA 6.5- 8.5

4-6 NA NA NA 12 142 4 100 100 250

Private Land

SM19 10227774015 7-22 Sandy Loam 8.4 0.65 1.3 0.75J 5.4 5.2 26.3 <0.29 11.3 10.1 47.1

SM23

10227774016 0-8 Loam 5.9 0.30 1.3 0.79J 0.61 <0.85 10.8 <0.35 12.1 15.7 52.7

10227774017 8-20 Silt Loam 8.0 1.0 1.5 2.3 6.9 5.0 10.3 0.28J 13.8 13.2 43.1

10227774018 20-28 Clay Loam 5.9 0.31 1.2 0.78J 0.73 <0.85 9.0 <0.30 13.9 16.6 52.1

DA04

10227774019 9-29 Sandy Clay Loam 7.5 0.57 2.7 1.2J 1.5 <1.7 17.5 0.48J 7.5 13.5 72.4

DA10

10227774020 6-20 Silty Clay Loam 7.8 0.40 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.93J 12.7 0.39 11.8 11.8 56.0

DA12

10227774021 14-24 Clay Loam 7.5 0.44 2.3 1.6J 0.78J <1.7 10.5 <0.33 13.2 14.1 55.2

DA13

10227774022 9-18 Sandy Clay Loam 7.1 0.76 2.6 2.1 2.6 <1.7 23.5 0.32J 7.7 11.2 40.7

10227774023 18-40 Sandy Loam 8.0 0.51 0.97 0.79J 3.0 3.2 22.4 <0.31 4.6 7.3 29.8

DA15

10227774024 0-9 Sandy Clay Loam 7.9 8.0 4.4 7.7 64.3 26.1 19.1 0.31J 7.0 10.6 38.8

10227774025 8-14 Sandy Clay Loam 8.0 20.4 21.1 97.6 192 25.0 28.3 0.43J 10.3 13.1 48.1

10227774026 14-44 Sandy Clay Loam 8.5 19.3 19.9 79.7 193 27.3 28.6 0.45J 6.0 8.4 34.1

DA17 10227774027 8-28 Sandy Clay Loam 7.4 0.73 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.4J 15.4 0.28J 7.8 11.0 39.8

DA25 10227774028 17-26 Loam 7.7 0.61 2.0 1.4 1.7 1.3J 10.7 <0.34 12.3 12.7 43.8

10227774029 29-40 Silt Loam 8.7 2.7 0.96 2.2 20.8 16.5 8.7 <0.35 11.5 10.8 47.3

JR01 10227774030 0-8 Sandy Loam 7.9 0.61 1.6 0.97 2.6 2.3 26.2 0.40J 5.2 9.6 35.1

10227774031 8-16 Sandy Clay Loam 8.8 1.5 2.5 1.3 13.5 9.8 34.8 0.47J 6.8 7.9 36.2

10227774032 16-24 Sandy Loam 9.0 9.9 1.3 7.4 95.7 45.9 22.7 0.37J 5.6 8.4 32.6

10227774033 24-40 Clay Loam 8.8 14.3 3.3 20.8 144 41.5 29.7 0.44J 10.9 14.3 53.9

10227774034 40-60 Sandy Clay Loam 8.4 22.6 20.0 59.2 250 39.8 18.0 <0.29 9.0 13.0 49.4

Tetra Tech December 13, 2013 20

Table 3: Soil Chemistry (continued)

SAMPLE

ID

LAB ID

Sample Interval (inches)

Texture pH

SC

(mmhos/cm) Ca

(meq/L) Mg

(meq/L) Na

(meq/L) SAR As

Cd (mg/Kg)

Cu (mg/Kg)

Pb (mg/Kg)

Zn (mg/Kg)

Suitability Criteria NA 6.5- 8.5

4-6 NA NA NA 12 142 4 100 100 250

Private Land

JR02

10227774035 0-9 Sandy Loam 5.9 0.91 0.91 0.59J 3.6 4.1 14.1 <0.34 7.1 12.3 41.5

10227774036 9-20 Clay Loam 8.0 1.3 1.3 0.96 8.8 8.3 13.7 <0.31 11.8 16.0 50.5

10227774037 20-34 Clay Loam 7.9 6.2 10.6 15.5 37.9 10.5 12.6 0.39J…