Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiuiiiiiii iii <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 8t., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 13031 866-3567 <br />FAX: 13031 832-8106 <br />November 18, 1994 <br />To: Erica Crosby <br />From: Janet Binn <br />Re: Roadside Soi Samples CRDA #2 (c ~ ~ °`' ~ ~ <br />~~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />ExecUlive Dneaor <br />Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />I have looked at the results of the soil sample analysis from above CRDA #2. These <br />samples were taken June 22, 1994. Both samples exhibit extremely high Sodium levels and <br />resulting SAR levels throughout the profile. EC levels below the 24 inch depth are limiting <br />as well. Since utilization of this material would be within the root zone, 18 inch <br />replacement depth on CRDA #1 and 24 inch replacement depth on CRDA #2, even <br />burying this material at the lower depths could be detrimental to root development. <br />I am aware that Powderhorn has limited topsoil material to cover CRDA #1 and #2, but <br />utilization of these severely sodic soils could affect their ability to establish vegetation. Is <br />this a significant change to their calculated topsoil balance? Is their an alternative choice <br />of material they can utilize to reach the required cover depth? If you compare these SAR <br />and Sodium values with those of soil samples taken at the borrow areas, Appendix XX, <br />there is an order of magnitude difference. I would not recommend using these soils for <br />cover material. <br />If you have additional questions, let me know. <br />c:~jhb\c81041.ss <br />