Laserfiche WebLink
C~ <br />Sa.nplas of the uppar~nost two to five feat were talon to provide background <br />information at each sits. These samples represent topsoil and were not included <br />in subsoil evaluations. <br />Subsamples were sent to a qualified laboratory for analysis of pH; electrical <br />conductivity (EC); saturation pero-ent; soluble sodium, calciwn and magnesiwn; <br />sodium adsorption ratio (SAR); particle size and USDA texture class; seleniu-n; <br />boron; and organic matter. Two sa.nples were further tested for percent lima; <br />acid, base and mat base potential; molybdenum; arsenic; lead; copper; and <br />nitrate-nitrogen. Analytical methods are those recommended by 'dyo:ning Guideline <br />No. 1 contained in Illustration E. The analytical r^sults are present•ad in <br />Illustration D. <br />• <br />Overburden quality was primarily evaluated using criteria suggested in fables <br />I-3 and I-4 of dyoming Guideline No. 1 contained in Illustration E. Another <br />evaluation consideration was the distribution of values, particularly as compared <br />to surFace sample levels where vegetation is healthy and diverse. Finally, the <br />effects of ,nixing during handling warn considered. Emphasis has been placed on <br />the sodium adsorption ratio and electrical conductivity which are two important <br />,measures of soil salinity. <br />r1 <br />LJ <br />II.I-13 <br />