Laserfiche WebLink
<br />shown on \dap 1. The pit locations were determined mostly by accessibility and <br />proximity to the edges of Harner-White's soil mapping units. The sampling was <br />done using a standard shovel in a pit dug by a small Ford backhoe. The pit allowed <br />for visual inspection of the soil profile and an accurate determination of the soil <br />removal depth. Pit samples were taken from each soil mapping unit except Unit 3. <br />Unit 3 '~ located in an area without access and where very little disturbance is <br />proposed. Each pit had samples taken from each visually identifiable horizon and <br />only from horizons that would potentially be removed as topsoil. If a rocky or <br />very heavy clay layer was encountered, that horizon was designated as the bottom <br />of the removable profile and was not sampled. Soil profile descriptions are in <br />Appendix 1. <br />The soil samples were taken to Armstrong Engineering in Grand Junction and <br />analyzed for soil texture, organic matter, pH, available nitrogen, available <br />phosphorus, and available potassium to assess their fertility (Appendix 2). <br />Soil Description <br />Most of the soils sampled were clay to clay loam in texture and the first 6" of <br />soil was a highly uniform dark brown color. Below 6" the soils varied greatly from <br />dark brown to sandy yellow to ashy-white. In general, most of the soils had very <br />little structure and that structure was small (1/8th to 1/2 inch diameter peds). The <br />shape of the peds was rounded to subangular to massive. Table 1 provides details on <br />each soil mapping unit sampled. <br />2 <br />