soil and groundwater subsurface investigation report center... · 2020. 8. 24. · using...

GHD | 718 3rd St. Eureka, CA | 11146364 | Report No 1 | October 2019

Soil and Groundwater

Subsurface Investigation

Report

City of Fortuna

October 2, 2019


Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Background .................................................................................................................................. 2

3. Infiltration Test .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Fieldwork Scope ................................................................................................................ 3

3.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 4

4. Falling Head Permeability Test .................................................................................................... 5

5. Preliminary Update to Water Balance Model ............................................................................... 7

6. Soil Fertility Test ........................................................................................................................... 7

7. Summary and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 8

Table Index

Table 3-1: Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Data ................................................................................. 4

Table 3-2: Test Pit Infiltration Rates ....................................................................................................... 5

Table 4-1: Permeability Infiltration Rates (k) .......................................................................................... 6

Table 4-2: Summary of Permeability (k) ................................................................................................. 6

Table 5-1: Land Area Requirements for Summer Type II Irrigation of Treated Effluent ........................ 7

Table 6-1: Soil Fertility Testing Results .................................................................................................. 8

Appendix Index

Appendix A Figures

A-1: Figure 1: Vicinity Map

A-2: Figure 2: Soils and Zoning Map

A-3: Figure 3: Monitoring Well and Test Pit Locations

Appendix B Groundwater Well Boring Logs

Appendix C Site Access and Permit documents

C1: Access Agreements

C-2: Coastal Development Permit Waiver

C-3: Well Drilling Permit

Appendix D Test Pit Field Photos

Appendix E Test Pit Soil Logs and Infiltration Test Data

Appendix F Soil Fertility Analysis Results


1. Introduction

This report presents a summary of background information and site testing in support of the City of

Fortuna’s (City) wastewater effluent land application evaluation.

The City of Fortuna has a compliance schedule in its North Coast Regional Water Quality Control

Board (Regional Board) Time Schedule Order (TSO) R1-2017-0026, which requires that the City

prepare a number of technical reports to address treated effluent disposal issues. As requested by

the Regional Board, the City is considering summertime (May 15th – September 30th) land

application of treated effluent as an alternative to the use of existing percolation ponds near the Eel

River. The City has identified a candidate land application site and completed preliminary

investigations suggesting the site may be feasible. The City received permission from the landowner

to further investigate the site including installing monitoring wells and test pits and conducting

infiltration and permeability testing.

This report presents a summary of field activities conducted at the potential land application site as

well as initial findings from these investigations. This report also includes general information on soil

types (series) within the proposed application area and site-specific information obtained from soil

sampling, infiltration tests, and permeability tests. The information collected and analyzed as part of

this proposed project will assist the City to determine the potential feasibility of proceeding with land

application of treated wastewater at the candidate site. The following sections present background

information on the potential land application site, existing site-conditions observed, and an overview

of field methods implemented and the results obtained.

2. Background

In summer of 2018, the City identified a potential site for land application of treated effluent across

the Eel River from the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), Parcels APN 106-041-016

owned by Lester P Pedrazzini, and APN 106-091-030 and 106-091-040 owned by Troy E and

Ehmke Trudy M, shown on Figure 2, in Appendix A. The overall site is comprised of 60 acres that

are generally located along the Eel River. Soils within the proposed site are primarily classified as

Water and Fluvents, 0 to 2 percent slopes, which is reflective of the historical movement of the Eel

River in the area. The western and southern portions of the site are classified as Udifluvents. The

soil classifications were taken from the most current USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey for Humboldt County. According to the Humboldt County General Plan, the

potential candidate parcels are primarily zoned agriculture exclusive (AE) with the eastern edge of

the parcels zoned natural resources (NRR), both with combining overlays. The soils and zoning are

included in Figure 2 in Appendix A. The combined zones include Archaeological Resource Area,

Flood Hazard Areas, Streams and Riparian Corridor Protection, and Transitional Agricultural Lands.

The project site is located in the coastal zone, as shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A. The potential

land application site is split between State Coastal Jurisdiction and Local (Humboldt County) Permit

Jurisdiction.

In November 2018, seven groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site. A boring logs for

the soils in the seven well sites were completed by GHD staff during the well installation. The

location of the wells are shown in Figure 3 in Appendix A and a copy of the boring logs is included in


Appendix B. The access agreements with the landowner, as well as the coastal development permit

waiver and well drilling permit are included in Appendix C. The City has periodically measured

groundwater elevations and has completed some basic water quality testing, which will be presented

in future reports as the data is made available.

In August 2019, GHD staff conducted initial investigations at four locations within the previously

identified land application site. GHD personnel performed a site walk in conjunction with City staff,

and finalized the appropriate test site locations. Prior to testing and backhoe digging, via Wendt

Construction, demarcation of known existing underground utilities was conducted prior to the start of

work by contacting www.usanorth811.org. GHD conducted soil-profiling, double ring infiltrometer

testing on site, and collected samples for fertility and permeability testing within the predetermined

locations.

The four infiltration rate tests locations are shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A. Field tests were

conducted by GHD to determine if the site is suitable for application of secondary treated effluent

through infiltration basins/ponds or through Type II irrigation of treated wastewater and to evaluate

the appropriate design infiltration rate. Type II irrigation is the application of water at a rate to

infiltration below the plant rooting zone into groundwater in comparison to Type I irrigation, which

which is application of water at a rate that only provides enough water to meet plant needs

(agronomic demand). The use of Type II irrigation reduces the land area and associated wastewater

infrastructure needed by the City to dispose of treated wastewater due to the higher application rate.

This investigation included soils and laboratory tests. Data collection focused on understanding soil

characteristics and how water moves through the soil surface and subsurface layers. The following

sections summarize the observed characteristics of surface and near surface soils of the potential

application site as well as the field infiltration rates, laboratory permeability rates,and laboratory

fertility analysis of soils from four test locations.

3. Infiltration Test

Infiltration testing was conducted to support the design of the potential treated effluent land

application system. Field work was conducted on August 21, 2019, within the previously identified

testing areas. Representative site photographs taken during the field work are included in Appendix

D. Infiltration testing methodology utilized Designation D3385-18 Standard Test Method Rate of

Soils in Field using Double-Ring Infiltrometer and the field work was overseen by a GHD

Environmental Scientist familiar with the testing procedures. The test pit soil logs and the infiltration

test field sheets are included in Appendix E.

3.1 Fieldwork Scope

The following general procedure was followed for the field infiltration testing:

Excavate test pit with backhoe to between four and half and five feet (4.5’-5’) below ground

surface (bgs) for soil profile and permeability test.

a. Define soil horizons by visual observation. Remove the top soil horizon layer (silt) to

conduct the double ring infiltrometer tests

http://www.usanorth811.org/


Excavate test pit bench with backhoe at depth for infiltration testing.

b. Conducted one (1) double ring infiltrometer test per pit.

Collect soil sample for permeability testing at most restrictive horizon level beneath/below

infiltration test level. Most restrictive horizon identified through visual observation.

Collect soil sample at various levels below infiltration test level for laboratory fertility tests..

Select one representative sample per test pit as most representative of the test pit based on

visual observations, field testing and laboratory test results.

3.2 Methodology

The following methodologies were employed for the testing:

ASTM Designation D 3385-18 Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field

Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer

The double-ring infiltrometer method consists of driving two open cylinders, one inside the

other, into the ground, partially filling the rings with water and then recording the liquid level

drop over time. The water level drop in the inner ring is the measure of the liquid that

infiltrates the soil. Water added to the outer ring to maintain depth to “maximum water

level”. The water infiltrated during a time interval is converted to an incremental infiltration

velocity, expressed in inch/minute. The maximum-steady state or average incremental

infiltration velocity depending on application is equivalent to the infiltration rate.

Unified Soil Classification Standard (USCS) Field Methodology

USCS textural classification techniques for soil utilizing representative samples and

defining physical properties: size, particulate type, organic compounds, grain tests, to

classify and identify. Soils were found to be silt loam, loamy sand, gravelly sand, gravel,

and cobbles.

3.3 Results

The results of the double ring infiltrometer field tests including stabilization rates are summarized in

Table 3-1, below. A 30 minute saturation period was performed prior to testing. Results are shown

for the four Test Pits (TP). Infiltration rings were set at various depths below surface, typically

between two (2’) and three (3) feet below surface level depending on the soil profile.

Table 3-1: Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Data

TP ID Test No.

Water Depth Max

(inches)

Time (Start- Stop)

Height Interval

(inches)

Time Interval

(minutes)

Inches/Minute Stabilization

TP-1 1 12 9:25-9:35 11.5 10 1.15 No

TP-1 2 12 9:35-9:45 10.8 10 1.08 No

TP-1 3 12 9:45-9:55 10.4 10 1.04 No

TP-1 4 12 9:55-10:05 10.3 10 1.03 Yes

TP-1 5 12 10:05 –10:15 10.2 10 1.02 Yes


Table 3-1: Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Data

TP ID Test No.

Water Depth Max

(inches)

Time (Start- Stop)

Height Interval

(inches)

Time Interval

(minutes)

Inches/Minute Stabilization

TP-1 6 12 10:15-10:25- 10.2 10 1.02 Yes

TP-2 1 6 11:15-11:20 5.5 5 1.1 No

TP-2 2 6 11:20-11:25 5.4 5 1.08 No

TP-2 3 6 11:25-11:30 5.3 5 1.06 No

TP-2 4 6 11:30-11:35 5.2 5 1.04 Yes

TP-2 5 6 11:35-11:40 5.2 5 1.04 Yes

TP-2 6 6 11:40-11:45 5.2 5 1.04 Yes

TP-2 7 6 11:45-11:50 5.2 5 1.04 Yes

TP-2 8 6 11:50-11:55 5.2 5 1.04 Yes

TP-3 1 6 13:30-13:45 5.9 15 0.39 No

TP-3 2 6 13:45-14:00 5.0 15 0.33 No

TP-3 3 6 14:00-14:15 4.9 15 0.33 Yes

TP-3 4 6 14:15-14:30 4.9 15 0.33 Yes

TP-3 5 6 14:30-14:45 4.9 15 0.33 Yes

TP-4 1 12 15:30-15:35 11.5 5 2.3 No

TP-4 2 12 15:35-15:40 11.5 5 2.3 No

TP-4 3 12 15:40-15:45 10.6 5 2.12 Yes

TP-4 4 12 15:45-15:50 10.6 5 2.12 Yes

TP-4 5 12 15:50-15:55 10.6 5 2.12 Yes

Double ring infiltration rates were recorded at various times depending on the properties of the soil.

A pre-saturation period of 30 minutes was performed on each test pit prior to testing. Once

saturation was met, testing was initiated. Time intervals varied from five (5) to fifteen (15) minutes

depending on the test pit. Testing was repeated until at least three stable results were obtained.

Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated infiltration rates at each test pit.

Table 3-2: Test Pit Infiltration Rates

TP ID Inches/Minute Feet/Day

TP-1 1.03 124

TP-2 1.04 125

TP-3 0.33 39.6

TP-4 2.12 254

4. Falling Head Permeability Test

Samples collected from the most restrictive soil layer in each of the four test pits were brought back

to GHD’s in-house laboratory and falling head permeability tests were conducted. Based on data


collected during the lab testing, the permeability (k) was calculated. The results of the laboratory

permeability tests for infiltration rates of the soil samples are shown in Table 4.1 below:

Table 4-1: Laboratory Permeability

Test Pit Hi (in) Hf (in) Havg ΔH (in) L (in) T (min) k

(in/min)

TP-1 - Run 1 6.5 4.5 5.5 2 2 0.15 4.85

TP-1 - Run 2 6.5 4.5 5.5 2 2 0.15 4.85

TP-1 - Run 3 6.5 4.5 5.5 2 2 0.15 4.85

TP-2 - Run 1 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.12 2.86

TP-2 - Run 2 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.13 2.50

TP-2 - Run 3 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.13 2.50

TP-2 - Run 4 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.13 2.50

TP-3 - Run 1 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 1.38 0.24

TP-3 - Run 2 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 1.37 0.24

TP-3 - Run 3 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 1.43 0.23

TP-3 - Run 4 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 1.38 0.24

TP-4 - Run 1 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.7 0.46

TP-4 - Run 2 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.9 0.39

TP-4 - Run 3 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.92 0.36

TP-4 - Run 4 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.8 0.42

TP-4 - Run 5 6.5 5.5 6 1 2 0.9 0.38

Hi = initial height (in)

Hf = final height (in)

Havg = average height (in)

ΔH = change in height (in)

L = length (in)

T = time (sec)

k = permeability (in/min)

The average permeability for each of the four test pits are summarized in Table 4-2, below based on

several useful units.

Table 4-2: Summary of Laboratory Permeability (k)

Test Pit k (in/min) k (cm/sec) k (in/hr) k (ft/day)

TP-1 4.85 0.21 291 582

TP-2 2.59 0.11 155 311

TP-3 0.28 0.01 17 34

TP-4 0.39 0.02 23 46

The laboratory permeability test results indicate a wide range of permeability values from a low of 34

ft/day (sample from TP-3) to 582 ft/day (sample from TP-1). The results of TP-1 and TP-2 were

similar to each other; the results for TP-3 and TP-4 were also similar to each other. The lowest

permeability of 34 ft/ day at TP-3, which was used in the evaluation below.


5. Preliminary Update to Water Balance Model

A water balance analysis was previously developed to evaluate the land area required for summer

disposal (May 15 – September 30) of treated effluent to new percolation ponds. The water balance

model was reviewed and updated based on the results of infiltration and percolation testing. The

permeability at TP-3 was the lowest observed and hence was used as the basis for establishing a

conservative value for the calculations. For this analysis 1/10th of the TP-3 permeability was used

based on Table 5-11 of the EPA’s Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal

Wastewater, which was equal to an application rate of 3.42 feet per day. This application rate is

significantly higher than required of typical pasture grass and therefore this would represent Type II

irrigation rate.

The estimated land area requirements for summertime (May 15th – September 30th) Type II land

application based on the updated water balance is shown in Table 5-1, below.

Table 5-1: Land Area Requirements for Summer Type II Irrigation of Treated

Effluent

Scenario Active Percolation Area

(acres) Total Land Area Requirements

(acres)

Current effluent flows, average precipitation

0.4 1.6

Current effluent flows, 100-year precipitation

0.4 1.6

Build-out effluent flows, average precipitation

0.5 1.9

Build-out effluent flows, 100-year precipitation

0.5 1.9

The land area requirements include a 20% area buffer to account for access roads, setbacks, and

other non-usable areas. The layout includes 4 irrigation/percolation cells, and the proposed system

would use 3 active cells and one which will be allowed to rest. The area needed under average and

100-year precipitation are the same due to the high rate in infiltration and the low summertime

precipitation. A two (2) acre reference area was added to Figure 3 for scale. It should be noted that

under future final design, an alternative configuration could be two active cells and two cells at rest.

In addition, the sizing of the irrigation/percolation cells should also consider potential groundwater

mounding beneath the cells and the effects on the percolation rates, and hence the effect on total

active percolation area required.

6. Soil Fertility Test

Representative samples were collected from within the typical root zone of the test pits and sent to

A&L Western Laboratories for fertility testing. A summary of the key result from the soil fertility

testing is presented in Table 6-1 below. The full soil analyses report can be found in Appendix F.


Table 6-1: Soil Fertility Testing Results

Sample #

Test Pit

Depth (in)

pH NO3-N (ppm)

P (ppm)

Mg (ppm)

Zn (ppm)

Fe (ppm)

B (ppm)

Cu (ppm)

55675 TP-1 4.5 7.6 1 (VL) 5* 16 0.1 (VL) 5 (VL) 0.1 (VL) 0.4 (L)

55676 TP-2 4.0 7.1 1 (VL) 9 (L) 147 0.2 (VL) 8 (L) 0.1 (VL) 0.7 (L)

55677 TP-3 1.75 6.8 1 (VL) 4 (VL) 260 (VH) 0.1 (VL) 12 (M) 0.1 (VL) 0.9 (M)

55678 TP-4 3.0 6.9 1 (VL) 4 (VL) 129 0.1 (VL) 7 (L) 0.1 (VL) 0.4 (L)

Note: Code in parenthesis rates the concentration relative to typical ranges found in soils. VL = Very Low, L = Low, M = Medium, H = High, and VH = Very High, per A&L Western Laboratory soils report.

Treated effluent typically contains nitrogen and phosphorus, both of which are valuable as nutrients

for agriculture, but can also have negative impacts on groundwater if applied at high rates to

sensitive groundwater resources. Treated wastewater can also contain trace elements such as

boron and cadmium which are useful to plants at trace levels, but have adverse effects at high

levels..

Nitrogen, phosphorus, and Boron concentrations were generally found to be in low and very low

concentrations in the four soil samples, indicating that the site soils have the capacity to

accommodate application of higher levels of these constituents available from treated wastewater.

One soil sample exhibited Magnesium levels characterized as very high relative to typical ranges

found in soils. However, this may be an outlier as other samples indicated significantly lower levels.

The City’s water source is low in manganese comparison in the range of 22 to 28 mg/ L. Additional

soil characterization, including the evaluation of manganese, should be conducted in the future.

7. Summary and Next Steps

The field work and analysis of the soils in the four test pits conducted at the candidate application

site suggest the site is appropriate for Type II irrigation based on the permeability of the soil.

Laboratory results of the soils indicate they are generally appropriate for agricultural purposes. Next

steps include the development of the following reports: Supplemental Surface Water Disposal

Evaluation Report, Land Application Evaluation Report, and the Treatment Alternatives Report.

Within these reports, the influence of groundwater on potential infiltration rates and hence on sizing

of irrigation/percolation cells will be considered further.

Appendices

Appendix A: Figures

A-1: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map

A-2: Figure 2 - Soils and Zoning Map

A-3: Figure 3 - Monitoring Well and Test Pit Location

A-1: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map

P a c i f i c O c e a n H u m b o l d tB a y

Eureka

Fortuna

Rio Dell

E e l R i v e r

FerndaleProject Site

254

255

1

211

36

101

FIGURE 1

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

Project No.Revision No. -

11146364Date October 2019

City of FortunaGroundwater Well Installation Workplan

Map Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicHorizontal Datum: North American 1983

Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet

Paper Size ANSI A

Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunitySources: Esri, USGS, NOAA. Created by: jclark2

\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\SoilGWSubInv\11146364_001_Vicinity.mxdPrint date: 01 Oct 2019 - 16:44

LegendParcels ofInterestFreewayHighwayMajor Road

Vicinity Map

101

101

Fortuna

WillowCreek

Garberville

ArcataArcata

Eureka

Arcata

McKinleyville

101

96

299

H u m b o l d tH u m b o l d tC o u n t yC o u n t y

A-2: Figure 2 - Soils and Zoning Map

Appeal

L o c a lS t a t e

InlandS t r o n g s C r e e k

R o h n e r Cr e e k

E e l R i v e r

195

195

1010

132

195

100

119

220

119

Fortuna WWTF

10604116

10609130 10609140

FIGURE 2

0 280 560 840 1,120

Feet

Project No.Revision No. -





Paper Size ANSI A

Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityCopyright:(c) 2014 Esri. Created by: jclark2

\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\SoilGWSubInv\11146364_002_SoilsZoning.mxdPrint date: 01 Oct 2019 - 17:01

LegendParcels of InterestWastewater Treatment FacilityRivers / StreamsCoastal Zone Boundaries

Soils100 Water and Fluvents, 0-2% slopes1010 Urban land-Friendlycity association 0-2%119 Arlynda, 0-2% slopes132 Udifluvents, 0-2% slopes195 Russ, 0-2% slopes220 Fermdale, 0-2% slopes

Zoning (within parcels of interest)AE-60/A,F,R,TNatural Resources (NR/R)

Soil and Zoning Map

A-3: Figure 3 - Monitoring Well and Test PitLocations

S t r o n g s C r e e k

R o h n e r Cr e e k

E e l R i v e r

TP-3TP-1

TP-2 TP-4

Fortuna WWTF

2-acreReferenceArea

MW 1

MW 2

MW 3MW 4

MW 5

MW 6

MW 7

FIGURE 3

0 280 560 840 1,120

Feet

Project No.Revision No. A





Paper Size ANSI A

Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityCopyright:(c) 2014 Esri. Created by: jclark2

\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08-GIS\Maps\Deliverables\SoilGWSubInv\11146364_003_MW_TP.mxdPrint date: 01 Oct 2019 - 17:10

LegendWastewater Treatment FacilityGroundwater Monitoring Well2-acre Reference AreaTest Pit LocationParcels of InterestRivers / Streams

Monitoring Well and Test Pit Locations

Appendix B: Groundwater Well

Boring Logs

C-1: Access Agreements



Appendix C:Site Access and Permit Documents

C-1: Access Agreements

Appendix D: Test Pit Field Photos

Photograph 1 – Test pit 1 at 4.5’ depicting soil horizons (noted with arrow, white)


Photograph 3 – Test pit 3 location (noted with arrow, white) once backfilled.


Appendix E: Test Pit Soil Logs and Infiltration Test Data

Appendix F: Soil Fertility Analysis Results

A & L WESTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES1311 WOODLAND AVE #1 � MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 95351 � (209) 529-4080 � FAX (209) 529-4736

REPORT NUMBER: 19-252-038CLIENT NO: 2664-D

SEND TO: GHD INC. SUBMITTED BY: MATT TOLLEY 718 THIRD STREET EUREKA, CA 95503- GROWER: JOB #11146364.10

DATE OF REPORT: SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE: 1

Potassium Magnesium Calcium Sodium Hydrogen Cation

P1 NaHCO3-P Exchange

** (Weak Bray) (OlsenMethod) Soil Buffer H Capacity

ENR **** * **** * pH Index meq/100g C.E.C.

lbs/A ppm ppm meq/100g

TP1 55675 0.4L 39 5 * 1VL 29 167 488 13 7.6 0.0 3.9 1.9 34.9 61.8 0.0 1.5

TP2 55676 0.5L 40 9L 3VL 25 147 580 13 7.1 0.0 4.2 1.5 28.7 68.5 0.0 1.3

TP3 55677 0.4L 37 4VL 1VL 34L 260VH 728L 13VL 6.8 0.2 6.1 1.4 35.0 59.6 3.0 0.9

TP4 55678 0.4L 38 4VL 1VL 24 129 623 12 6.9 0.1 4.3 1.4 24.4 71.5 1.5 1.2

* Weak Bray unreliable at M or H excess lime or pH > 7.5

Nitrogen Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Excess Soluble Chloride

NO3-N SO4-S Zn Mn Fe Cu B Lime Salts Cl SAND SILT CLAY

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Rating mmhos/cm ppm % % %

TP1 1VL 2VL 0.1VL 1VL 5VL 0.4L 0.1VL L 0.2VL

TP2 1VL 2VL 0.2VL 1VL 8L 0.7L 0.1VL L 0.1VL

TP3 1VL 1VL 0.1VL 1VL 12M 0.9M 0.1VL L 0.1VL

TP4 1VL 2VL 0.1VL 1VL 7L 0.4L 0.1VL L 0.1VL

* CODE TO RATING: VERY LOW (VL), LOW (L), MEDIUM (M), HIGH (H), AND VERY HIGH (VH). This report applies only to the sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a maximum ** ENR - ESTIMATED NITROGEN RELEASE of thirty days after testing. *** MULTIPLY THE RESULTS IN ppm BY 2 TO CONVERT TO LBS. PER ACRE OF THE ELEMENTAL FORM **** MULTIPLY THE RESULTS IN ppm BY 4.6 TO CONVERT TO LBS. PER ACRE P2O5

***** MULTIPLY THE RESULTS IN ppm BY 2.4 TO CONVERT TO LBS. PER ACRE K2OMOST SOILS WEIGH TWO (2) MILLION POUNDS (DRY WEIGHT) FOR AN ACRE OF SOIL 6-2/3 INCHES DEEP A & L WESTERN LABORATORIES, INC.

Rogell Rogers, CCA, PCA

Ca %

H %

SAMPLE NUMBER

SAMPLE ID

Organic MatterPhosphorus

* % Rating

Na *** * ppm

SOIL TEXTURE

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

K %

Mg %

PERCENT CATION SATURATION (COMPUTED)

Na %

pH

Mg *** * ppm

LAB NUMBER

09/12/19

Ca *** * ppm

K ***** * ppm