Geochemical Variability of

X

Natural Soils and

Reclaimed Mine-Spoil ~JL Soils in the

San Juan Basin, Is ew Mexico

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1134-C

Geochemical Variability of 

Natural Soils and 

Reclaimed Mine-Spoil Soils in the 

San Juan Basin, New Mexico

By R. C. SEVERSON and L. P. GOUGH

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1134-C

A study providing background information for total and 

extractable element composition of soils in areas 

likely to be affected by energy-related development

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1981
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JAMES G. WATT, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Doyle G. Frederick, Acting Director

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Severson, R. C. (Ronald Charles), 1945-

Geochemical variability of natural soils and reclaimed mine-spoil soils in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico.

(Geochemical survey of the western energy regions)

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 1134-C)

Bibliography: p. 38

Supt. of Doc. no.: I 19.16:1134-C

1. Soils—New Mexico—Composition. 2. Soils—San Juan River watershed (Colo.-Utah)—Composition.

3. Coal mine waste—New Mexico —Farmington region—Composition. 4. Reclamation of land—New Mexico.

5. San Juan River watershed (Colo.-Utah)

I. Gough, L. P. II. Title. III. Title: Mine-spoil soils in San Juan Basin, New Mexico. IV. Series.

V. Series: Geological Survey Professional Paper 1134-C.

S599.N6S46 63l.6'4 81-607985 AACR2

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402
CONTENTS

Abstract ......................................................................................

Introduction .................................................. —............................. 1

Acknowledgments .................—..........................—......................... 2

Methods -....-...... — ...................................................._................. 2

Sampling .................................................................................. 2

Analysis .----.-.-......-.--...-.......-....-......-.-....................-......-.-......... 4

Use of variance components .............................................................. 4

Resultsand Discussion .............................................................. —..... 5

Soil variability .................. —....................................................... 5

Study 1 ----------.------.-------.-..----......—........................................ 5

Study 2 .................................................................................. 9

Study 3 ................................................................................ 13

Summary ................................................................................ 15

Soil composition ............................................................................ 29

Study 1 -——.——.................................................................... 29

Study 2 .................................................................................. 30

Study 3 ..—............................................................................. 34

Summary ................................................................................ 34

Conclusions ..-.-....---...--...-..-.....................-..-.-.-.-....-.----......-.-----.... 37

References cited .--....-.-..-.-..--..-....-....--.-.-......-..--..-.-....-.-.--.-.--...-....-. 38

ILLUSTRATIONS

1'ajje

FKJURE 1. Map showing geology and location of the study areas within the San Juan Basin ---------------------------------------- 2

2. Photograph showing a typical landscape in the San Juan Basin ---------------------------------------------------------- 2

3. Map showing the nested sampling design and sampling locations in the area likely to be affected by energy-related

development in the San Juan Basin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

4. Map showing generalized sampling locations in the area containing soils considered to have potential for use as topsoil in

mined-land reclamation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

5. Photograph showing a reclaimed area of the San Juan mine -------------------------------------------------------------- 4

6. Maps showing regional trends in amounts of various parameters measured in soils in the area likely to be affected by

energy-related developments in the San Juan Basin: 

6A. Total arsenic, A horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

6B. Total arsenic, C horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

6C. Total aluminum, C horizon --..-.-.-.-..-..-.....-.........-...-.........-.-...---.---.----.---.--.---.-----------.-- 7

6D. Total barium, C horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

6E. Carbonate carbon, C horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8

6F. Total carbon, C horizon ....-.......-.....-....--..........--.................---.-...---------.------.------------.-. 8

6G. Total calcium, C horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

6H. Exchangable calcium, C horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

6 /. DTPA (diethylenetriamine penta acetic acid) extractable lead, C horizon ----------------------------------------- 9

6 J. Total lithium, A horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

6K. Total magnesium, C horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9

6L. Total mercury, C horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

6/kf. Total molybdenum, A horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

6AT. Total nickel, C horizon .........................—.... —.................... — — ..... — . — ... — ...... — — — .. 10

6O. Total potassium, A horizon -----------------.----.---------------.--------.------------------------------•------------- 10

in
IV CONTENTS

FIGURE 6—Continued p*«e

QP. Total silicon, C horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10

6Q. Total sodium, C horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

6R. Total strontium, A horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

QS. Total strontium, C horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

7. Maps showing average values for soil parameters within cells 25 km on a side measured in the area likely to be affected by

energy-related developments in the San Juan Basin:

1A. Water-soluble calcium, A horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12

IB. Water-soluble calcium, C horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12

1C. Clay-size particles, C horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

ID. Total copper, C horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12

IE. Total germanium, A horizon .............................................................~^.-------------------------- 13

IF. Total iron, A horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

7G. DTPA extractable iron, A horizon --..----..-.--..---.--------------~~.~--~ —..- — -- —---------------------- 13

1H. Total lanthanum, C horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13

7 /. Total magnesium, A horizon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14

7 J. Water-soluble magnesium, C horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

IK. DTPA extractable manganese, A horizon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

1L. DTPA extractable nickel, A horizon _... — ...-.. — ..-- —-.-~ — -----~--~~--~ —--------------------------- 14

1M. Total potassium, C horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

IN. Total rubidium, A horizon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

70. Total sulfur, C horizon ........................................ — — ..... —. — — .. — .... — . — . — . — — .. — — 15

IP. Total thorium, A horizon ..-.--....-.-.....-.-...-...-... — -.----------------------.----------------------•------------ 15

1Q. Total uranium, A horizon ---.------..----..---...--..-.--------.----.-.-.-----.---------.-----.---------------------- 16

1R. Total yttrium, C horizon - — -------.---..-„. — -.- — ---- — --- — ----- — ------ — ------------------- 16

IS. Total zirconium, C horizon -.----.----.--.--.---.-.-.---.-------.---.-----------.-------------------------------------- 16

TABLES

I'ayv

TABLE 1. Variance analysis of parameters of soils from the area likely to be affected by energy-related developments ------------ 5

2. Summary statistics of parameters of soils from the area likely to be affected by energy-related developments. ---------- 17

3. Variance analysis of soils from the area containing soils considered to have potential for use as topsoil in mined-land

reclamation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

4. Summary statistics of parameters measured of soil from the area containing soils considered to have potential for use as

topsoil in mined-land reclamation ----------------------------- — ------------------------------------------------------ 21

5. Variance analysis of parameters for topsoil and mine spoil from the San Juan mine ------------------------------------ 24

6. Summary statistics of parameters of topsoil and mine spoil from the San Juan mine ------------------------------------ 25

7. Taxonomy of soils sampled in the San Juan Basin ------------------------ — ----------------------------------------------- 29

8. Parameter values measured for seven soil great groups in the area likely to be affected by energy-related developments in

the San Juan Basin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31

9. Parameter values measured for five soil families sampled in the area containing soils considered to have potential for use

as topsoil in mined-land reclamation in the San Juan Basin —........-..-....„_-...-...-.--....-...--....-.....--.. 35
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

GEOCHEMICAL VARIABILITY OF NATURAL SOILS AND 

RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO

By R. C. SEVERSON and L. P. GOUGH

ABSTRACT

An inventory of total-and extractable-element concentrations in 

soils was made for three areas of the San Juan Basin in New Mexico: 

(1) the broad area likely to be affected by energy-related development, (2) an area of soils considered to have potential for use as 

topsoil in mined-land reclamation, and (3) an area of the San Juan 

coal mine that has been regraded, topsoiled, and revegetated. Maps 

made of concentrations of 16 elements in area 1 soils show no 

gradational pattern across the region. Further, these maps do not 

correspond to those showing geology or soil types. Sodic or saline 

problems, and a possible but unproven deficiency of zinc available to 

plants, may make some of the soils in this area undesirable for use as 

topsoil in mined-land reclamation. Taxonomic great groups of soil 

in this area cannot be distinguished because each great group tends 

to have a large within-group variability if compared to the betweengroup variability. In area 2 the major soils sampled were of the 

Sheppard, Shiprock, and Doak association. These soils are quite 

uniform in chemical composition and are not greatly saline or sodic. 

As in area 1 soils, zinc deficiency may cause a problem in revegetating most of these soils. It is difficult to distinguish soil taxonomic 

families by using their respective chemical compositions, because of 

small between-family variability. Topsoil from a reclaimed area of 

the San Juan mine (area 3) most closely resembles the chemical 

composition of natural C horizons of soil from area 1. Spoil material 

that has not been topsoiled is likely to cause sodic- and saline-related 

problems in revegetation and may cause boron toxicity in plants. 

Topsoiling has apparently ameliorated these potential problems for 

plant growth on mine spoil.

Total and extractable concentrations for elements and other 

parameters for each area of the San Juan Basin provide background 

information for the evaluation of the chemical quality of soils in each 

area.

INTRODUCTION

A reconnaissance geochemical survey of soil in the 

part of the San Juan Basin of New Mexico that is most 

likely to be affected by energy-related developments 

was conducted in the summer of 1977. The survey 

consisted of three parts: (1) an evaluation of soil 

variability over the broad region, (2) an appraisal of 

chemical variability in the Sheppard, Shiprock, and 

Doak soil association, which is considered likely to be 

used in topsoiling the reclaimed areas, and (3) an

evaluation of variability in topsoil and spoil in a 

reclaimed area of the San Juan mine. In addition to 

assessing spatial variability for element composition 

of soils, basic background information on the element 

composition of soil and spoil is provided for the 

materials in the San Juan Basin, which may be used to 

derive compositional background levels for elements 

in the taxonomically distinct soils.

A substantial amount of published information on 

soil and vegetation in the San Juan Basin is available. 

The statewide soil survey (Maker, Dregne, Link, and 

Anderson, 1974), as well as individual county surveys 

(San Juan County — Maker, Keetch, and Anderson, 1973; 

Rio Arriba County — Maker, Folks, Anderson, and 

Link, 1973; McKinley County — Maker.Bullock, and 

Anderson, 1974; and Sandoval County — Maker, 

Folks, Anderson and Gallman, 1971), provided data on 

quantity and quality of soil material present and its 

areal distribution. Researchers from New Mexico 

State University have provided much information on 

the vegetation and soil character of areas to be strip 

mined (Gould, Howard, and Buchanan, 1972, 1977; 

Gould, Howard, and Valentine, 1972), chemical and 

physical properties of soil samples from a coal-lease 

area (Rai and others, 1975), and chemical and physical 

properties of core samples of rock from coal-lease 

areas (Rai and others, 1974; Gould, Miyamoto, and Rai 

1977). Maps showing surficial and bedrock geology of 

the area where surface mining is expected to be concentrated are also available (O'Sullivan, Scott, and 

Heller, 1979a, 1979b; Scott, O'Sullivan, and Heller, 

1979a, 1979b; and Scott, O'Sullivan, and Mytton, 

1979). These studies and maps provide much of the 

information necessary to assess the quality of sitespecific soil and spoil material and the plant-growth 

potential.

Background data for the total content of nearly 40 

elements and the extractable content of 15 elements 

are presented for soils in the region likely to be altered 

by mining activities, for soils considered to be the best

l
2 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

available material for stockpiling to be used later as 

topsoil for reclaimed areas, and for mine soil (topsoil 

and spoil material). These data fill a void in the present 

information on the chemical composition of soil in the 

region. Power (1978) stated that chemical data add a 

new dimension to reclamation research by providing a 

basis for defining the nature and properties of the soil 

and spoil resource being utilized in reclamation, and 

by helping to determine soil quality in relation to 

plant-growth potential.

Throughout this report, the part of the work dealing 

with soils in the region that are likely to be altered by 

energy-related developments is referred to as Study 1; 

the work on soil material of the Sheppard, Shiprock, 

and Doak soil association is labeled Study 2; and the 

work on topsoil and mine spoil chemistry is designated 

Study 3.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All analyses were done in the laboratories of the U.S. 

Geological Survey in Denver, Colo. by J. W. Baker, A. 

J. Bartel, P. H. Briggs, J. G. Crock, C. M. Ellis, Carol 

Gent, K. E. Horan, R. G. Havens, Claude Huffman, Jr., 

Fred Lichte, J. G. McDade, C. McFee, H. T. Millard, 

Jr., Violet Merrit, Harriet Neiman, F. D. Perez, S. E. 

Prelipp, George Riddle, V. E. Shaw, A. L. Sutton, Jr., 

J. A. Thomas, M. L. Tuttle, R. E. Van Loenen, J. S. 

Wahlberg, and W. J. Walz. Voucher specimens of each 

soil sampled in Study 1 and Study 2 were identified 

taxonomically by J. E. Ruiz and Leroy Hacker, soil 

scientists with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service in Aztec and Albuquerque, 

N. Mex., respectively. We are grateful for the cooperation of R. W. Alien of the Western Coal Company in 

granting permission to sample soil and spoil material 

at the San Juan coal mine, and to the Navajo Tribal 

Council for granting permission to sample soils on 

their land. Monte McClendon, of the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management at Farmington, N. Mex., and C. W. 

Keetch, of the Soil Conservation Service at Aztec, 

provided much valuable information about the local 

area.

METHODS 

SAMPLING

At each sampling location, a pit was dug and 

specimens of each soil horizon were collected so that 

each soil sampled could, at a later date, be identified 

taxonomically. The actual samples for chemical 

analyses were collected with a barrel-type auger 

adjacent to the soil pit. About 2 kg (kilograms) of 

material were collected from the A and C horizon of

Uppermost Cretaceous to 

Eocene rocks

FIGURE 1.—Map showing geology and location of the three study 

areas within the San Juan Basin. Geology modified from Dane 

and Bachman (1965). Kkf, Kirtland Shale and Fruitland Formation; Klmv, Lewis Shale and Mesaverde Group; all of Late Cretaceous age. Units listed in order of increasing age.

.-** .».,***

I • » S*" &f , i^ygPiEP'' "** — '" - ja»^ «*"*•"***.«*** ' »

'•Sf*--*-!**^* 1 ***^'';:. -***:fc'*^ . *»- - **», .-r.. -^.. ^.^w**^ -4

FIGURE2.—Landscape typical of the San Juan Basin. Sheppard and 

Shiprock soils are developed on stabilized dunes (background and 

foreground) and Doak soils are developed in the area between the 

stabilized dunes (middle ground). Photographed August 15,1977.

the soil. This material was placed in paper envelopes 

for transportation to the laboratories.

Samples of A and C horizons of soils for Study 1 were 

collected at47 locations in the coal region of northwest 

New Mexico (fig. 1). A typical landscape in the San 

Juan Basin is shown in figure 2. This area is underlain
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO

37° UIj-4- - __ _ ___ _ I COLORADO ___ _ _ . 

| "^-x^ f^ NEW MEXICO C

Fannington

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I

FIGURES.—Soil-sampling locations in the area likely to be affected 

by energy-related devlopment in the San Juan Basin. Large 

squares (solid lines) are 50 km on a side; smaller squares (dashed 

lines) are 25 km on a side. Dots are sampling sites. Number 

adjacent to each dot indicates the soil taxonomy at the sampling 

site (table 7).

by the the Kirtland Shale, Fruitland Formation, and 

the undifferentiated Mesaverde Group, all of Cretaceous age (Dane and Bachman, 1965). Sampling 

locations were selected randomly for a five-level, 

unbalanced, nested analysis-of-variance design (Leone 

and others, 1968). Within the irregular boundaries of 

the coal region, cells 50 km on a side were arranged to 

provide maximum coverage (fig. 3). Each of the eight 

50-km (kilometers) cells was divided into areas of 

decreasing size, as follows: four 25-km cells, each of 

which was divided into 25 5-km cells. The cells 

sampled were randomly selected, as follows: all four 

25-km cells; two 5-km cells in one 25-km cell and one 

5-km cell in each of the three other 25-km cells; two 

1-km cells in one 5-km cell and one 1-km cell in each of 

the four other 5-km cells. This nested arrangement of 

cells sampled resulted in the selection of 48 sampling 

locations as shown in figure 3; however, only 47 

locations were actually sampled because one location 

was inaccessible. One sample each of A and C horizons 

of soil was collected from each location. Eight of the 47 

samples of each horizon were split and analyzed in 

duplicate.

Samples of A and C horizons of soil for Study 2 were 

collected at 30 localities in northwest New Mexico. 

The localities were confined within the boundaries of

the mapped occurrence (Dane and Bachman, 1965) of 

the coal-bearing Fruitland Shale and Kirtland Formation of Cretaceous age (fig. 1), and also within the 

boundaries of the mapped occurrence of the Sheppard, 

Shiprock, and Doak soils (Maker, Keetch, and Anderson, 1973). The actual sampling locations were 

selected randomly, based on an unbalanced, nested 

analysis-of-variance design (Leone and others, 1968) of 

the barbell type (Tidball and Ebens, 1976). Three 

barbells were oriented in the area by selecting compass 

directions at random. The major axis of each barbell 

was 10 km long, and the sequentially smaller axes 

were 5, 1, and 0.1 km. The general location of each 

barbell is shown in figure 4. Ten localities were 

sampled in each barbell, resulting in a total of 30 

samples each of A and C horizons of soils. Ten of the 30 

samples from each horizon were split and analyzed in 

duplicate.

Samples of topsoil and mine spoil for Study 3 were 

collected at six locations at the San Juan mine (fig. 1) 

from an area that had been reclaimed (graded, topsoiled, and revegetated) in 1974 (fig. 5). Sample 

locations were selected randomly, based on a fourlevel, nested analysis-of-variance design (Leone and 

others, 1968). Within about a 4 ha (hectare) area, the 

axes of a barbell were oriented by selecting a compass 

direction at random. The major axis of the barbell was 

100 m long, and the sequentially smaller axes were 25 

and 5 m. Each of the six topsoil and mine spoil samples 

were split and analyzed twice, yielding a total of 24 

samples. The topsoil consisted of a uniform layer of

FIGURE 4.—Map showing generalized sample locations in the area 

containing soils considered to have potential for use as topsoil in 

mined-land reclamation. Numbers adjacent to barbells indicate 

approximate sampling locality and indicate the taxonomy of the 

soil sampled (table 7).
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

FIGURES.—Area of the San Juan Mine from which topsoil and spoil 

were collected in Study 3. The area was reclaimed (regraded, 

topsoiled, and seeded) in 1974. Photographed August 15,1977.

about 20 cm (centimeters) of soil that had been 

stockpiled prior to mining. This 20 cm of topsoil, and 

underlying mine spoil to a depth of 50 cm, were 

sampled.

ANALYSIS

All samples were dried at ambient temperature and 

then were disaggregated in a motor-driven ceramic 

mortar and pestle, and the portion passing a 2-mm 

(millimeter) stainless-steel sieve was saved. Splits of 

the less-than-2-mm material was further ground to 

minus-100 mesh in a ceramic mill, and this material 

was used for all total-element determinations. The 

disaggregated but unground less-than-2-mm material 

was used for the extractable-element determinations. 

After disaggregating, greater than 95 percent of the 

material from the A and C horizons and of topsoil used 

in reclamation passed the 2-mm sieve. The amount of 

mine spoil material passing the sieve varied from 

sample to sample depending on the lithology and 

cementation of the rock. The effects of such fractionation, resulting from sample preparation, are 

unknown. Some guidelines should be established for 

preparation of sedimentary rocks differing in lithology 

and cementation in order to standardize the results of 

chemical analysis from laboratory to laboratory.

Concentrations of some elements in some samples 

were below the limit of determination (censored) by a 

given analytical method. When more than one-third of 

the determinations for an element were below this 

limit the element was omitted from the analysis of 

variance. For elements having less than one-third the 

censoring, the censored values were replaced by a 

value equal to 0.7 times the lower limit of determination. Because of their generally small number, the use 

of replacement values is thought to not substantially 

affect the geochemical interpretation of the data. 

Baseline summary statistics of such censored data 

were estimated by using the technique of Cohen 

(1959).

Variation due to all laboratory procedures was 

estimated separately in each study from a replicate 

analysis of samples selected randomly from the total 

suite of samples. These analytical splits were randomly placed among the total suite of samples. This 

procedure insured that any systematic error in analysis would effectively be converted to random error.

The analytical methods used for total-element determinations are described in U.S. Geological Survey 

(1975) by J. S. Wahlberg(p. 69), Claude Huffman, Jr. 

(p. 71), and H. T. Millard, Jr. (p. 79); and in U.S. 

Geological Survey (1976) by A. L. Sutton, Jr. (p. 131). 

Methods used for extractable element determinations 

are described in Crock and Severson (1980).

Determinations of exchangable cations tend to be 

too high when the pH of the natural soil is greater than 

about 8.0. These high values reflect, in part, the fact 

that the exchanging solution was buffered at pH 7.0. 

When the natural soil pH is above about 8.0, salts and 

carbonates of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and 

sodium, which are stable at this high soil pH, begin to 

dissolve at the lower extraction solution pH and greater 

dilution, and, therefore, give values which are much 

too high. The values for exchangable calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium reported here have been 

corrected for their water-soluble fractions.

USE OF VARIANCE COMPONENTS

Sampling was designed to measure the variation in 

soil-element content over increments of distance, expressed by cell size for Study 1 and by ranges in distance for Study 2 and Study 3. Total variation was, 

therefore, subdivided into distance-related geographical components.

A principal interest in variance components is in 

their use for calculating the minimum number of 

samples (nr) required to estimate a mean with a specified degree of reliability, and to determine the presence and magnitude of regional variation as a basis for 

constructing maps. The conventional F-test at the 0.05 

probability level is used to test each variance component to determine if variation between cells (or ranges 

in distance) is significantly different from variations 

within cells (or ranges in distance) at each level of the 

sampling design. If a component fails to be significant, 

it is not practical to attempt to map variation at the
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO

interval associated with that component because of the 

high probability that the variation within units masks 

the variation between units. Analytical-error variance 

components in excess of 50 percent are considered to 

be excessive, and interpretation of the data for these 

elements must be made with caution.

A variance ratio (v) is computed to determine the 

feasibility of preparing geochemical maps from the 

data already collected, or for determining the magnitude of the sampling effort necessary to prepare maps 

based on various sampling intervals. The general 

expression for the variance ratio is:

_ Estimated variance among sampling units 

Estimated total variance within sampling units

This ratio was defined by Miesch (1976, p. 8) as a 

"relative measure of the compositional heterogeneity 

among, and the compositional homogeneity within, 

mapped units of the population being studied." A 

value of v equal to 1.0 is chosen as the value below 

which a reliable map could not be prepared. If v is 

greater than 1.0, then there is some basis for preparing a map that will reliably depict the true geochemical pattern because of the relatively large variation 

among sampling units as compared to the smaller 

variation within units.

In addition to using v to indicate reliability of data 

for presentation in the form of a map, v can also be used 

to estimate the minimum number of samples that 

would need to be collected at random, from an area 

represented by some given distance increment, in 

order to prepare a reliable map (Miesch 1976, p. 9).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

SOIL VARIABILITY

STUDY 1

The assessment of spatial variation of soil parameters in Study 1 shows that two levels of the sampling 

design (between 25-km cells 1 and between 1-km cells) 

account for the largest portion of the measured variation for most parameters (table 1). Variation measured between 50-km cells is very small or nonexistent 

for most parameters in both A and C horizons of soils 

(table 1). Total arsenic and mercury and extractable 

potassium, manganese, and zinc in the A horizon, and 

organic carbon and pH in the C horizon are the only 

parameters that show significant variation between 

50-km cells. For variation between 5-km cells, no gen1 For brevity, we refer to cell sizes of X-km on a side as X-km cells.

eral statement can be made for either A or C horizons 

of soil because for a few parameters the measured 

variation is significant, for other parameters it is substantial but not significant, and yet for other parameters it is nonexistent.

A practical aspect of variance components is their 

usefulness for testing the feasibility of preparing 

maps based on the parameter means of a samplingunit size. This feasibility can be calculated only for 

50-km and 25-km cells if the intent is to provide maps 

of parameter values based on the present sampling 

design and data. For most parameters, variation measured for 50-km cells is nonexistent; therefore, attempting to map at this interval would be impractical. 

Mapping parameter-value distributions at an interval 

of 25 km may be practical using the present data 

because much of the total variation was measured for 

many parameters at this interval. It would not be 

possible to map at an interval of 5 km or 1 km using the 

present data because not all 5-km or 1-km cells were 

sampled.

The feasibility of presenting the data in map form, 

based on 25-km cells, was evaluated by the variance 

ratio described previously. The ratio for 25-km cells is 

computed as follows:

(50) (25)

p + p

Ml) Me)

where P represents the percent of total variance 

between cells of the size indicated by the subscript, 

and P(e) indicates the percentage of the total variance 

between the analysis of duplicate samples.

These calculated variance ratios are presented in 

table 1. Elements having a ratio greater than 1.0 are 

total arsenic, potassium, lithium, molydbenum, and 

strontium in the A horizon, and total aluminum, 

arsenic, barium, beryllium, carbon, calcium, mercury, magnesium, sodium, nickel, silicon and strontium; carbonate carbon; DTPA (diethylenetriamine 

pentaacetic acid) extractable lead; and exchangable 

calcium in the C horizon. Data for these elements are 

presented on maps (fig. 6) as geometric means for 

25-km cells. The cell means are not contoured because 

there are no apparent regional trends (variance at the 

50-km level is nonsignificant). Only for total arsenic in 

the A horizon (fig. QA) are such trends suggested by 

the maps and by the analysis of variance. Four classes 

are represented by shading in figures 6A-6S. The 

determination of these classes is based on the assumption that the data for an element follows a log-normal 

distribution. The highest and lowest classes represent
GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

TABLE 1.— Variance components expressed as a percentage of total 

variance of parameters measured for two horizons of soils from the 

area likely to be affected by energy-related development in the San 

Juan Basin

[*, variance component significantly different from zero at the 0.05 probability level; vm, 

variance mean ratio for 25-km cells; nr, minimum number of random samples per 25-km 

cell needed to map regional variation at the 80-percent confidence level; n.d., no data 

available; <, less than; >, greater than]

Variance

Parameter Soil

horizon

Iog 10 

50-km 25-km 5-km 1-km Duplicate v n 

variance cells cells cells cells analysis

Based on total concentration

C .0156 0 *53.2 11.3 *33.4 2.1 1.1 3

C .0371 2.2 *51.0 0 *38.2 8.7 1.1 3

C .2015 0 7.2 28.2 0 64.6 .1 11

C .0404 0 59.6 *21.6 8.0 10.8 1.5 2

C .0127 11.5 0 25.5 20.4 42.6 .1 7 

C, carbonate —— C .4027 0" *75.1 0 *20.3 4.6 3.0 2

C .1619 *17.3 5.7 0 *60.2 16.8 .3 4

C .1152 6.5 *55.6 0 *37.8 .1 1.6 2

C .1539 0 *65.0 0 *34.9 .1 1.9 2

Co —————————— A .0264 0 10.6 37.1 *40.0 12.7 .1 8 

C .0550 0 12.8 0 *84.6 2.6 .2 7

C .0496 0 29.9 0 40.9 29.2 .4 4

C .0900 0 *30.1 18.4 25.3 26.2 .4 4

C .0168 0 7.5 0 50.3 42.2 .1 11

C .0471 0 36.4 0 *63.2 .4 .6 4

C .0118 0 18.5 0 28.2 53.3 .2 5

C .0758 0 *51.0 2.4 23.7 22.9 1.0 3

C .0212 0 *44.4 0 *54.9 .7 .8 3

C .0176 0 *28.8 8.3 24.3 38.6 .4 4

C .0551 1.3 27.0 0 *50.0 21.7 .4 4

C .0918 0 *67.1 0 *32.7 .2 2.0 2

C .1332 0 8.7 0 *84.2 7.1 .1 9 

Mo —————————— A .0615 0 *53.0 17.0 0 30.0 1.1 3

C .0409 0 0 6.3 50.4 43.3 n.d. n.d. 

Na —————————— A .0910 2.2 16.2 0 0 81.6 .2 5

C .0522 0 *57.9 0 *41.0 1.1 1.4 2

Nb —————————— A 0235 o 31.2 5.1 0 63.7 .5 4 

C .0162 0 15.8 0 51.5 32.7 .2 6

C .0631 0 *51.7 0 *45.8 2.6 1.1 3

C .0182 0 19.8 15.2 35.7 29.3 .3 5 

Rb —————————— A .0760 0 *39.3 0 0 60.7 .73

C .0416 3.1 24.5 0 42.0 30.4 .4 4

s —————————— A Q328 4.9 0 0 *67.5 27.6 .1 15 

C .2387 0 *48.5 0 *50.9 .6 .9 3

C .0420 0 18.5 17.4 *55.4 8.7 .2 5

C .0028 0 *53.7 0 *39.9 6.4 1.2 3

C .1637 0 25.2 *37.8 7.2 29.8 .3 4

C .0315 0 *52.0 0 *42.6 5.4 1.1 3

C .0191 0 25.2 *36.1 25.7 13.0 .3 4

C .0233 0 5.0 *65.1 *27.6 2.3 .1 15 

U —————————— A Q162 0 *45.5 0 *50.2 4.3 .8 3

C .0244 0 40.3 *42.3 *14.8 2.6 .7 3

C .0412 0 29.4 0 *62.9 7.7 .4 4

TABLE 1.— Continued

Parameter Soil

C

Yb ——————————— A

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

Total 

Iog 10

.0185 

.0247 

.0200 

.0373 

.0299 

.0500 

.0642 

.0526

Bas

0.1081 

.0963 

.0729 

.0688 

.0604 

.1705 

.0373 

.1442

.0647 

.0759 

.2508 

.2560 

.0559 

.0575

Based on

0.1213 

.1321 

.1663 

.2303 

.0524 

.1162 

.3792 

.3750

50-km 

cells

0 

0 

5.3 

0 

0 

0 

3.7 

0

ed on DT

5.1 

0 

6.9 

6.7 

0 

0 

*21.0 

0

0 

.2 

0 

0 

*6.7 

0

sodium

0 

0 

0 

.2 

0 

0 

5.4 

2.8

Vari

25-km 

cells

21.2 

*35.9 

0 

5.9 

40.9 

44.3 

8.1 

*47.0

0 

4.6 

0 

0 

*28.6 

26.6 

*22.4 

0

*46.7 

26.0 

0 

*50.4 

24.7 

24.9

21.6 

*72.7 

0 

19.2 

42.2 

36.9 

0 

0

5-km 

cells

*34.5 

11.6 

*49.4 

0 

11.5 

6.4 

27.9 

0

action

0 

1.3 

0 

*66.3 

21.1 

0 

9.9 

0

0 

0 

*41.3 

0 

0 

*45.7

0 

0 

35.7 

4.5 

9.9 

0 

0 

20.7

1-km 

cells

16.3 

29.3 

.1 

*86.3 

*37.0 

*48.9 

0 

24.4

57.2 

0 

*84.4 

*22.4 

16.0 

44.4 

24.0 

*96.9

31.2 

28.4 

0 

0 

34.3 

0

tion

*77.3 

*26.9 

0 

17.6 

*47.1 

*62.9 

*83.6 

*74.5

Duplicate vm

28.0 .3 

23.2 .6 

45.2 .1 

7.8 .1 

10.6 .7 

.4 .8 

60.3 .1 

28.6 .9

37.3 0.1 

94.1 .1 

8.7 .1 

4.6 .1 

34.3 .4 

29.0 .4 

22.7 .8 

3.1 n.d.

22.1 .9 

45.4 .4 

58.7 n.d. 

49.6 1.0 

34.3 .5 

29.4 .3

1.1 0.3 

.4 2.6 

64.5 n.d. 

58.5 .2 

.8 .7 

.2 .6 

11.0 .1 

2.0 .1

•>r

5 

4 

14 

13 

3 

3 

7 

3

5 

18 

12 

12 

4 

4 

3

3

4

3 

3

4

4 

2

5 

3 

3 

14 

>20

Based on water-saturation extraction

C

C

C

C

C

Cation-exchange A 

Capacity. C

SAR3 ————————— A 

C 

Saturation ———— A 

index. C

C

C

C

Variance is arithm

^diu^adsor tion 1"

0.1294 

.3090 

.7410 

.1647 

.0804

.0673 

.3573 

.6453 

.4589 

.6829 

.4064 

.4073

Measured

0.0977 

1.999

Based o

0.2937 

.0534

Based

.1843 

.3329 

.4515 

.3171 

.0078 

.0200

0.0324 

.1065 

.2178 

.2257 

.0843 

.0566

4.9 

0 

1.1 

*10.6 

9.5

0 

0 

3.5 

6.9 

0 

4.9 

0

by spec

5.7 

*7.0

n replac

4.9 

0

on calcu

3.3

9.9 

2.9 

9.8 

6.4 

0

0 

0 

*14.3 

0 

0 

0

ge.

*17.5 

*44.4 

20.9 

0 

0

18.6 

*49.4 

0 

0 

1.3 

0 

8.4

0 

0

ement .

0 

8.7

lated p

17.3 

0 

10 

0 

9.9 

21.7

34.2 

0 

0 

39.3 

13.1 

*42.6

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

13.0 

0 

32.5 

34.6 

0 

0

19.8 

0

ith sod

0 

28.5

aramete

0 

35.2 

0 

21.9 

24.9 

35.0

opertie

0.9 

0 

*58.1 

*30.5 

0 

19.2

*75.1 

*53.5 

46.5 

0 

54.0

*73.4 

*34.4 

*92.0 

*59.0 

*60.5 

*95.0 

*91.2

*70.7 

*92.0

ium

*91.6 

*57.5

rs

51.4 

*53.6 

*91.5 

*65.2 

*54.6 

*40.7

•

*62.8

noo.o

*22.5 

10.1 

59.3 

*29.7

2.5 0.3 

2.1 .8 

31.5 .3 

89.4 .1 

36.5 .1

8.0 .2 

3.2 .9 

4.5 .1 

1.6 .1 

3.6 .1 

.1 .1 

.4 .1

3.8 • 0.1 

1.0 .1

3.5 0.1

5.3 .1

28.0 0.3 

1.3 .1 

5.6 .1 

3.1 .1 

4.2 .2 

2.6 .3

2.1 0.5 

0 n.d. 

5.1 .2 

20.1 .6 

27.6 .2 

8.5 .7

4 

3

4 

8 

8

5 

3 

>20 

12 

4 

15 

9

13 

11

15 

9

5 

8 

>20 

8 

6 

4

3

6 

3 

7 

3
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO

values that either exceed or are below the computed 

baseline (expected 95 percent range). The two intermediate classes represent values that are either above 

or below the geometric mean but within the limits of 

the baseline value.

Several other parameters show significant variation between 25-km cells but have a variance ratio less 

than 1.0. This ratio indicates that map patterns prepared from the present data may not be reproducible — within-cell variation is greater than be109°___________________108°___________ 

mU-- s --___- I COLORADO 

I ^-/^" NEW MEXICO

107" 109

GM 5.4 

Range 2.3-13

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

I I I I I__I

A-Total arsenic (ppm), A horizon 

108°

B-Total arsenic (ppm), C horizon

109° 108°

UIU- _ _ _j^ _ _ ___ _ I COLORADO _ _ ___ _ _ 

| l~v-^> /^" NEW MEXICO t

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

C- Total aluminum (pet), C horizon D-Total barium (ppm), C horizon

FIGURE 6.—Regional trends in soil parameters in the area likely to be affected by energy-related development. Values are means of 

cells 25-km on a side. Different shadings are based on the geometric mean (GM) and the upper or lower expected 95-percent values. 

N.S., not sampled.
35°

37°

109°

GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

108° 107° 109° 108°

. _ _ ___ _ I COLORADO COLORADO _ _

"V~v^>______ /^ NEW MEXICO

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

36°

E-Carbonate carbon (pet), C horizon 

108°

fflU- — __e^ __ I COLORADO

I ^- //^ NEW MEXICO L

109°

F-Total carbon (pet), C horizon 

108°

G-Total calcium (pet), C horizon H-Exchangablc calcium (me/100 g), C horizon

FIGURE 6—Continued

tween-cell variation, and additional sampling and 

analyses to produce a stable map may result in somewhat different patterns of parameter values in this 

area. However, variation between 25-km cells is statistically significant, and, therefore, average parameter 

values for each cell are displayed on maps in figure 7. 

Classes in parameter values are not distinguished, as 

in figure 6, because the patterns of parameter values 

may not be reproducible.

Many of the remaining elements or properties in 

either A or C horizons of soil could be represented by a 

map if only three or four samples (nr values in table 1) 

were collected randomly from each 25-km cell. However, the maps thus generated would most likely show 

only poorly developed regional patterns because of the 

small variation measured for the larger 50-km cells 

(table 1). For these elements or properties, for which 

reliable maps could not be prepared because of exces-
37°

NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO

108° 107° 109° 108° 107° T —-___ _ _ ~J_COLORADO 2 

~^ NEW MEXICO (

// rS7//77/A'*5?tt?!f?. ^/ , n, V//I

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

/-DTPA extractable lead (ppm), C horizon

108° 107°

J-Toted lithium (ppm). A horizon 

108°

T

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I

K-Total magnesium (pet), C horizon

FIGURE 6—Continued

sive within-cell variability, and for those elements 

displayed on maps, the average composition and a 

measure of variability is expressed by a baseline value 

(table 2). The baseline represents an expected range in 

parameter values in soil that can be used in making 

extrapolations — new data may be compared to the 

baseline value to identify individual samples of 

extreme composition.

L-Total mercury (ppm), C horizon

STUDY 2

Variation measured for parameters of the Sheppard, Shiprock, and Doak soil association, Study 2, are 

presented in table 3. Most of this variation occurred at 

distance intervals of less than 5 km. Eight elements or 

properties (organic and total carbon; total titanium 

and uranium; extractable copper, calcium, and mag-
10 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

109° 103° 107°

__________________ __________________ ~

LULL--- I COLORADO 

I ^- /^ NEW MEXICO

0 10 20 > 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

36° -I

35°

109°

M-Total molybdenum (ppm), A horizon 

108°

N-Total nickel (ppm), C horizon 

108°

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

O-Total potassium (ppm), A horizon P-Total silicon (pet), C horizon

FIGURE 6—Continued

nesium; pH; and specific conductance) in the A horizon 

and four elements or properties (total lithium and 

magnesium; extractable magnesium; and cationexchange capacity) in the C horizon have values 

greater than 50 percent of the total variation in these 

parameters that were measured at distance increments of greater than 5 km. Only with additional sampling at 5-km intervals could these parameters be 

reliably mapped. A few additional parameters (table 

3) show significant regional variation (between barbells, approximately 25-km distant), and therefore, 

could be reliably mapped in this area using the same 

cell size (25 km) as used in Study 1. Samples from the 

southernmost barbell (fig. 4) tend to be the highest
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 11

10S* 108°

__________________ ________________ T — - _ ~ I COLORADO

^- //^ NEW~MEXICO t

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

36C

35C

Q-Total sodium (pet), C horizon 

108°

R-Total strontium (ppm), A horizon

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

S-Total strontium (ppm), C horizon

FIGURE 6—Continued

from the three areas in concentration of these additional parameters, except pH, which is the lowest. 

Samples from the other two locations are about equal 

in values of these parameters; however, the samples 

from the northernmost barbell tend to be higher in 

some parameters and lower in pH than those of the 

centrally located barbell. Total variaton in most parameters measured for Study 2 is low (table 3) compared 

to the data for Study 1 (table 1).

Variances found in parameters of Study 2 suggest 

that the soil sampled in the area mapped as containing 

the Sheppard, Shiprock, and Doak soils is more uniform in element composition than are the soils of Study 

1. Because of this uniformity, attempts to map differ-
12 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

109° 108°

T

_ _ _ _ ___ _ I COLORADO 

"^-^ ^^ NEW MEXICO

————_ ————

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I i I I I

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

109°

A -Water-soluble calcium (me/L), A horizon 

_______ 108° 107°

B -Water-soluble calcium (me/L), C horizon

108° 107°

C - Clay-sized particles (pet), C horizon D - Total copper (ppm), C horizon

FIGURE 7.—Average values for soil parameters in cells 25 km on a side measured in the area likely to be affected by energy-related 

development. Values are geometric means (GM). Shading, as used in figure 6, is not used because the analysis of variance indicates 

that, although significant differences exist between 25-km cells, the patterns may tend not to be reproducible. N.S., not sampled.

ences in soil composition would require that a large 

number of samples be collected at close intervals for 

all parameters, except for those parameters showing 

regional variation that were mentioned above, in 

order to characterize the slight differences. The uniformity in composition indicates that a large area may 

be characterized by means of only a few samples. The 

element composition of the area containing mainly the 

Sheppard, Shiprock, and Doak soils can be effectively 

summarized by computing an average or baseline
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 13

109°

370 UTI | _ _ _ _ ___ _ I COLORADO _ _ ___ _ _

| "^-v/v ~ NEW MEXICO L

109° 108° 107°

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I i I I

T

_. _ _ _ ___ _ I COLORADO _ _ ___ 

>x-v, J/^ NEW"MEXICO ~

36C

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I

109°

E-Total germanium (ppm), A horizon

108° 107°

37° UU j _ _ _ _ ~ I COLORADO 

I 'A- ;> Ir-^ NEW MEXICO

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

F-Toted iron (pet), A horizon 

108°

G-DTPA extractable iron (ppm), A horizon

T

_ _ I COLORADO 

"^- * NEW MEXICO i

H-Total lanthanum (ppm), C horizon

FIGURE 7—Continued

value (table 4), and this average value should be widely 

applicable for characterizing these soils. The baseline 

values can be used as described for Study 1.

STUDY 3

Variability in parameter values of topsoil and mine 

spoil, Study 3, from a limited sampling of a reclaimed

area of the San Juan mine, is presented in table 5. For 

most parameters in topsoil and mine spoil, greater 

than 50 percent of the total variation was measured at 

distance intervals of less than 5 m. Only values for total 

calcium and molybdenum, extractable calcium and 

potassium in topsoil, total sodium and strontium, 

extractable sodium and S04, and SAR (sodium adsorp-
14 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

109°

/-Total magnesium (pet), A horizon 

108°

37°

36° 

35°

Ul

go

DC

/

^

r

1

\

•> l

1

1 COLORADO 1

^-> //'

4.7/

\

8.3

Gallup'

I

\

^ 5.8

4.3

1

1 

4.5

i

j 6.8 

7.7 f^"

/ 

7.7

7.3 '-

4.7

6.2

14

^

~airnin

r '

tNEW MEXICO C^ ^P

gton \ i~^

GM 7.7 I ^ 

Range 3.1-19 \ <

\\

7

-

10

8.6 

2.3

VV,

^ 

0

1 _

8.7 

13

8.5

0 20 30

I I I

8.0

T~^ 

14

N.S.^ 

,''"l3

\

^

8.9 ^6.2

11 ^7.3

^

40 50 KILOMETERS 

I I

I

109°

J -Water-soluble magnesium (me/L), C horizon

108° 107°

_COLORADO_ _ 

NEW MEXICO"

I ,'_

0.5 '

0.3

I 

07

0.5

_'i]

- 0.3

07

1

1 

0.4

j —————

t\ 

1 0.7

1 __ _

0.3

0.3^ 

0.5

0.4 V0.5

0.5 

^ 0.3

" amningTon

^ 0.4

\--~-

0.3 -

0.3 f—

0.6

Gallup- V ^

I \y \

1 . \

^

GM 0.5 | y 

Range 0.2-1.3 \]?

-0.3 ^ 

0.6

0.3

0.5 »

L-r5

,0.9

X^__s^

0.4

N.S. -y^

[/ 0.5

, ]

0.8 i 0.9

iy

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

K- DTPA extractable manganese (ppm), A horizon L- DTPA extractable nickel (ppm), A horizon

FIGURE 7—Continued

tion ratio) in mine spoil at distance intervals of 25 m is 

creater than 50 percent of the total variation measured. Total variation measured for total-element content of most elements was greater in mine spoil than in 

topsoil; however, the opposite relation was generally 

true for extractable elements (table 5).

The magnitude of the sampling effort needed to 

prepare a geochemical map of topsoil or mine spoil for

5-m and 25-m cells was estimated by using the variance components (table 5). The nr values in this table 

indicate that, for most elements, more intensive sampling would be needed in mine spoil than in topsoil to 

prepare reliable maps of the chemical and physical 

composition of these soil materials. For many parameters, where most of the variation was measured at 

distance increments of less than 5 m, it would be
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 15

109° 108° 108°

M-Total potassium (pet), C horizon 

108°

COLORADO _ 

NEW MEXICO"

3.3 f 0.16^

——f-\ ——— T

^0.12 0.10

p 0.09

j

0.09 '

0.21

3.3

1

I" ^

-'0.11^ 0.08

0.12 0.10

''-A

-armmgton \ f~*-

1 V

GM 0.14 ( <2y 

Range 0.02-0.83 Vi

0.15^-0.09

0.14

0.09

0.21 •^- ,

0.72

0.09

f—

0.14

Gallup'V ' —— '.,

\ \

/

1

-0.10 '[^0.11

Ik ^

r L ^

0.20 0.16

0.09 M.S.,

- ——— \-^-

0.07 4-('o.15

, , i\

^0.13 |^0.10

0.12 yiQ.12

^S\

^V

y

I _ —

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

N-Total rubidium (ppm), A horizon 

108°

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

O-Total sulfur (pet), C horizon P-Total thorium (ppm), A horizon

FIGURE 7—Continued

impractical to attempt a mapping program at any 

interval greater than 5 m. The average composition of 

topsoil and mine spoil from this small area at the San 

Juan mine is summarized by a baseline value in 

table 6.

SUMMARY

Variation was assessed at widely different distance 

increments in the three studies. Therefore, it is difficult to relate variation associated with a specific distance increment between the three studies. In Study 1 

we used a nested-cell sampling design similar to that 

used by Severson and Tidball (1979) in the Northern 

Great Plains. In that study, as in the present study 

(figs. 6 and 7), parameter-value distributions in soil 

were based on a limited sampling of the entire area of 

interest and were presented in map form. The content
16 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

109° 108° 108° 107°

UT[ | _ _ _ _ ___ _ I COLORADO ___

| "^-w^ ff NEW"MEXICO~~ ~

! Y~ /*

2.6 fj 2.3 J(Farmingt 

^

21* ^23-^Farmingt

Q-Total uranium (ppm), A horizon 

108°

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

I I I I I I

S-Total zirconium (ppm), C horizon

FIGURE 7—Continued

and variability of the remaining parameters in these 

soils of Study 1 are expressed as a baseline value (table 

2). In Study 2 and Study 3 we used a barbell sampling 

design similar to that used by Severson (1979) in the 

Wind River and Bighorn Basins of Wyoming and 

Montana; that study and the present studies provide 

basic information on the variability of the material

sampled (without complete coverage of the area) and 

provide data on the average composition of the materials sampled. These data are represented by baseline 

values in table 4 for the soil material considered suitable for mined-land reclamation (Study 2), and in table 

6 for soil and spoil from a reclaimed area of the San 

Juan mine (Study 3).
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 17

TABLE 2.— Summary statistics of parameters measured for two horizons of soils from the area likely to be affected by energy-related

development in the San Juan Basin.

[E'etection ratio, number of samples in which the parameter was found in measurable concentrations relative to the number of samples analyzed; geometric error (except as indicated) 

attributed to laboratory procedures; baseline, expected 95-percent range; leaders (---), no data available; <, less than, >, greater than; pet, percent; ppm, parts per million; me/L, 

milliequivalents per liter; mmhos/cm, reciprocol milliohms per centimeter; me/lOOg, milliequivalents per 100 grams]

Parameter So ^ 1 

horizon

Detection 

ratio

Geometric 

mean

Geometric 

deviation

Geometric 

error

Observed range Baseline

Based on total concentration

Al, pet ——— —— —— ——

C, carbonate, pet ——

C, total, pet —— —— -

Fe, pet ——————————

Hg, ppm ———— - — -

K, pet ———————————

Mg, pet — - — ———

Na, pet ———————

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

39:47 

36:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

30:47 

43:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

42:47 

45:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

46:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

31:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

4. 

5. 

5. 

5. 

16 

15

570 

570 

1. 

1.

1.

5. 

5. 

18 

18 

8. 

8.

6. 

6. 

1. 

1. 

1. 

1.

1. 

1. 

27 

30

12 

13

230 

180

1. 

1.

13 

12

7 

0 

4 

4

5 

5 

040 

18

37 

27 

51 

54 

55 

1

7 

7

9 

7

•1 

5 

1 

2 

4 

3

02 

02 

7 

5

33 

37

2 

4 

84 

91

1.27 

1.30 

1.52 

1.46 

2.20 

2.59

1.41 

1.52 

1.20 

1.24 

9.37 

3.71

1.86 

2.24 

1.80 

2.01 

2.12 

2.13

1.44 

1.62 

1.45 

1.51 

1.90 

1.94

1.21 

1.21 

1.62 

1.58 

1.22 

1.20

1.49 

1.85 

1.21 

1.31 

1.38 

1.35

1.58 

1.70 

1.64 

1.77 

1.76 

1.76

1.71 

1.57 

1.67 

1.56 

1.27 

1.32

1.04 

1.04 

1.20 

1.14 

1.81 

2.29

1.13 

1.16 

1.17 

1.18

1.37

1.35 

1.46 

1.02 

1.01 

1.05 

1.03

1.14 

1.09 

1.51 

1.32 

1.14 

1.42

1.28 

1.21 

1.03 

1.04 

1.24 

1.20

1.56 

1.35 

1.02 

1.03 

1.28 

1.21

1.21 

1.29 

1.03 

1.04 

1.20 

1.25

1.37 

1.36 

1.87 

1.06 

1.32 

1.18

2.4 

2.3 

2.5 

2.1 

<5 

<5

230 

300 

1.0 

1.1 

<.010 

<.010

.060 

.010 

.11 

.090 

.15 

.097

2.1 

1.3 

7.6 

6.3 

2.1 

1.7

<4.6 

<4.6 

.42 

.41 

.8 

.9

.01 

<.01 

.85 

.56 

6.9 

12

5.0 

5.0 

.11 

.10 

73 

33

<1.0 

1.0 

.10 

.19 

6.4 

5.0

7 

8 

19

15 

41

43

- 1,800 

- 3,000 

2 

2 

1 

1

1 

1 

2 

1

4 

4

11 

15 

42 

47 

30 

28

9 

10 

6

2 

1

1

2 

2 

43 

61

31 

32

- 1,700 

510

6 

3 

2 

2 

22 

21

.7 

.0

.3 

.8 

.6 

.1

.6 

.1 

.1 

.5 

.5 

.5

.1

.0 

.•5 

.9 

.9

.06 

.06 

.3 

.3

.82 

.97

.5 

.6 

.1 

.0

2.9 

3.0 

2.3 

2.5 

3.3 

2.2

290 

250 

1.0 

1.0

.01

.11 

.05 

.16 

.13 

.12 

.24

2.7 

2.2 

8.6 

7.9 

2.5 

2.3

4.2 

4.4 

.42 

.48 

.9 

.9

.01 

.01 

1.2 

.87 

14 

16

4.8 

4.5 

.12 

.12 

74 

58

.4 

.6 

.30 

.37 

8.1 

6.9

7.6

8.5 

13

12 

77

- 100

- 1,100 

- 1,300 

2.2 

2.3

2.5

1.3 

1.4 

1.7 

2.2 

2.5

5.0 

12

15 

38 

41 

32 

33

8.9 

9.5 

2.9

3.0 

2.1 

1.9

.04

.07 

2.5 

2.6

51 

55

30 

38 

.89 

1.2

- 710 

- 560

3.5 

3.5

2.3 

2.2 

21 

21
18 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

TABLE 2—Continued

Parameter Soil 

horizon

Detection 

ratio

Geometric 

mean

Geometric Geometric 

deviation error

Observed range Baseline

Based on total concentration

S, pet ——————— -

Ti, pet ——— -

V, ppm ——————— -

Y, ppm

r- J_ __

Co —————————— _

Cu —— —— —— —— —

Fe ______________

Mn ——— —— —— — —

N i ______________

Pb ———————————

Zn ———————————

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

34:47 

39:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47, 

47:47 

47:47 

46:47 

46:47

19:47 

7:47 

46:47 

43:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

45:47 

47:47 

47:47

Based

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

8.4 

8.6 

13 

12 

57 

62

.10 

.14 

3.6 

4.0 

36 

34

.4 

.6 

160 

200

8.2 

8.3

.21 

.22 

2.5 

2.7 

41 

44

28 

29 

1.6 

1.6 

39 

37 

430 

330

Based on

0.05 

.05 

.4 

.3 

.7 

.6 

9.1 

9.9 

7.7 

4.5 

.-5 

.4 

.8 

.5 

.4 

.3

on sodium

12 

30 

1.1 

.6

1

1 

1

1 

1

1

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1

2 

2 

1 

1

1 

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

DTPA

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1

.59 

.67 

.28 

.36 

.56 

.47

.45 

.44 

.59 

.61 

.09 

.10

.68 

.55 

.37 

.42

.35 

.38

.38 

.41 

.30 

.40 

.49 

.55

.34 

.45 

.28 

.45 

.49 

.66 

.65 

.64

extraction

.14

.49 

.90 

.67 

.89 

.77 

.17 

.57 

.94 

.61 

.78 

.17 

.45 

.60 

.70

1.10 

1.10 

1.14 

1.18 

1.64 

1.30

1.24 

1.10 

1.12 

1.15 

1.02 

1.03

2.04 

1.66 

1.09 

1.10

1.18 

.1.12

1.06 

1.05 

1.06 

1.06 

1.09 

1.14

1.18 

1.19 

1.24 

1.13 

1.14 

1.03 

1.57 

1.33

(ppm)

1.59 

2.00 

1.20 

1.14 

1.39 

1.67 

1.24 

1.17 

1.32 

1.53 

2.42 

2.27 

1.37 

1.35

2.8 

2.3 

.7.8 

5.1 

15 

25

.05 

.06 

1.5 

1.5 

30 

27

90 

110

39 

39

.09 

.09 

1.3 

1.1 

15 

15

15 

13 

.8 

.7 

18 

12 

130 

120

<0.05 

<.05

.3 

.2 

2.8 

1.5 

2.3 

.6 

.1 

.1 

.05 

<.05 

.2 

.1

19 

22 

21 

24 

110 

110

3. 

11

11 

42 

40

2. 

440 

680

15 

16

5. 

4. 

94 

97

46 

57 

2. 

5. 

84 

91 

->1,000 

->1,000

0.

2. 

3. 

51 

48 

20 

15 

1.

2. 

2.

1.

2.

42 

3

8 

7

40 

38 

1 

9

6 

8

08 

05 

8 

7 

8 

3

2 

9 

2 

5 

9 

1

3.3 

3.1

7.9 

6.5 

23 

29

.05 

.02 

1.4 

1.5 

30 

28

.06 

.1 

85 

100

45 

4.4

.11 

.11 

1.5 

1.4 

18 

18

16 

14 

1.0 

.8 

18 

13 

160 

120

0.04

.2 

.1 

.3 

.2 

2.9 

2.1 

3.1 

1.2 

.2 

.1 

.2 

.08 

.2 

.1

21 

24 

21 

22 

- 140 

- 130

.21 

.83

9.1 

10

43 

41

3.1 

4.0 

- 300 

- 410

15 

16

.40 

.44 

4.2 

5.3 

91 

- 110

50 

61 

2.6 

3.4 

87 

- 100 

- 1,200 

- 890

0.07

.9 

1.1 

2.0 

2.1 

29 

47 

19 

17 

1.3 

1.3 

3.8 

3.0 

1.0 

.9

acetate extraction (me/lOOg)

2 

2 

2 

3

.14 

.03 

.21 

.14

1.09 

1.06 

2.16 

2.43

2.6 

3.1 

.2 

.1

42 

230

4. 

3.

1 

6

2.6 

7.3 

.8 

.1

54 

- 120 

1.6 

2.5
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 19

TABLE 2—Continued

Para t r Soil Detection Geometric Geometric Geometric Observed range 

horizon ratio mean deviation error

Baseline

Based on sodium acetate extraction (me/lOOg) — Continued

"6 A 

C 

A 

C

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

1.3 1.71 1.05 .5 

2.3 2.02 1.03 .4 

.2 2.97 1.79 .1 

.6 3.41 1.30 .1

4.2 

8.5 

18 

26

.4 - 

.6 - 

.03 - 

.06 -

4.0 

9.4 

1.3 

6.6

Based on water-saturation extraction

L-ci | me/ LI

Cl, me/L — —— — —— —

K, me/L —— —— —— — —

Mg, me/L ——————————

Na , me/ L—

Specific conductance, 

mhos/cm.

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

47:47 

47:47 

27:47 

32:47 

47:47 

47:47

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

25:47 

32:47 

47:47 

47:47

5.4 1.84 1.14 1.6 

5.6 2.92 1.06 .6 

.5 4.05 1.97 <.5 

1.4 7.92 3.04 <.5 

1.2 1.66 2.42 .2 

.7 1.72 1.48 .1

1.1 1.63 1.18 .3 

2.1 3.53 1.28 .3 

1.7 3.51 1.48 .2 

8.2 4.16 1.22 .5 

.2 24.5 1.36 <1 

1.3 30.2 1.44 <1 

.9 2.38 1.05 .3 

1.3 3.00 1.10 .3

36 

64 

75 

75 

3.2 

3.1

5.1 

40 

680 

440 

510 

450 

66 

47

1.6 -

.7 - 

.03 - 

.02 - 

.4 - 

.2 -

.4 -

.2 - 

.1 - 

.5 - 

<.01 -

<.01 - 

.2 - 

.1 -

18 

46 

8.2 

88 

3.3 

2.1

2.9 

26 

21 

140 

120 

1200 

5.1 

12

Based on hot-water extraction (ppm)

A 

C

15:47 

27:47

0.3 1.99 2.56 <0.5 

.5 1.95 3.16 <.5

4.0 

3.5

0.08 - 

.1 -

1.2 

1.9

Measured by specific ion electrode

DHpH 1 . ___ A 

C

47:47 

47:47

8.1 0.30 0.061 7.3 

8.3 .81 .14 7.4

8.6 

9.2

7.5 - 

6.7 -

8.7 

9.9

Based on replacement with sodium (me/lOOg)

Cat ion-exchange A 

C

47:47 

47:47

10.2 2.40 1.20 0.2 

13.0 1.71 1.13 4.2

37.3 

40,8

1.8 -

4.4 -

59 

38

Based on calculated parameters

9

LJ IJ.T , r

Saturation index, —— 

pet.

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

1.3 2.46 1.90 0.2 

1.7 2.82 1.24 .3 

1.0 3.02 1.45 .1 

4.1 3.22 1.26 .3 

27.1 1.24 1.04 18.8 

31.6 1.38 1.05 20.5

35 

37 

155 

97 

53.9 

79.3

0.4 - 

.2 - 

.1 - 

.4 - 

17.8 - 

16.7 -

4.6 

13 

9.1 

43 

41.4 

59.7

Based on physical properties (percent)

Sand ——————————

C i 1 t- _ _

Clay — — ——— ———— ——

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47 

47:47

62 1.51 1.06 14 

50 1.86 1.02 5.1 

9.3 2.22 1.28 10 

10 2.82 1.63 10 

19 1.73 1.42 5.7 

24 1.68 1.17 7.0 -

89 

92 

46 

71 

59 

70

27 

14 

1.9 - 

1.3 - 

6.3 - 

8.6 -

100 

103 

46 

80 

57 

69

Variation is arithmetic. 

Exchangeable sodium percentage. 

Sodium absorption ratio.
20 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

TABLES. — Variance components expressed as a percentage of total 

variance of tico horizons of soils from the area containing soils 

considered to have potential for use as topsoil in mined-land reclamation in the San Juan Basin

[*, variance component significantly different from zero at the 0.05 probability level]

p

Variance

^

log1Q ——————————————————————————————————————— 

Between 5-10 km 1-5 km 0.1-1 km nr

0-0.1 Duplikm cate 

analyses

Based on total concentration

Al 

As

Ba 

Be

c,

C,

c,

Ca

Cr 

Cu

Fe 

Ge 

Hg

La 

Li

Mg 

Mn

Na

Nb 

Ni 

Pb

Rb 

Sc 

Si

Sn 

SrThTi-

————————— A 0.0036 0 16.1 5.2 *45.1 0 33.6 

C .0081 0 19.1 *42.1 6.5 0 32.3

————————— A .0111 0 0 30.1 .5 0 69.4 

C .0239 0 0 22.6 *35.7 0 41.7

C .1013 *17.4 4.7 0 0 *56.5 21.4

C .0244 0 *19.4 0 9.4 *52.3 18.9

C .0041 .8 6.2 0 10.9 17.4 64.7 

carbonate— C .3678 4.4 0 12.1 0 *75.0 8.5

organic ——— A .0294 1.2 *54.6 0 *14.6 14.1 15.5 

C .2590 25.7 0 *26.0 12.6 0 35.7

C .1123 10.6 0 *39.9 0 *49.1 .4

C .1040 12.9 0 *40.0 0 *43.3 3.8

C .0204 6.7 8.5 *37.3 2.6 *37.9 7.0

C .0501 15.5 0 *27.9 2.7 0 53.9

C .0769 10.8 *29.0 7.2 0 22.7 30.3

C .0282 4.6 3.3 *50. 7 0 *25.5 15.9

————————— A .0050 2.4 0 16.7 0 *52.3 28.6 

C .0203 *10. 6 9.1 9.2 4.5 0 66.6

C .0940 3.2 0 0 12.8 0 84.0

C .0045 3.8 35.2 *32.7 0 .1 28.2

C .0153 0 4.3 *47.4 8.5 14.2 25.6

C .0213 14.2 *44.0 7.0 *21.9 .8 12.1

C .0502 26.2 *35.3 13.6 0 *24.7 .2

C .0504 0 *35.7 3.4 0 21.6 39.3

- ———————— A .0055 2.1 34.2 9.3 *46.1 *5 . 7 2.6 

C .0105 0 0 *68.9 *21.6 3.2 6.3

C .0378 *26.3 0 0 *43.3 3.0 27.4

- ———————— A .0124 0 6.7 *28.0 23.3 0 42.0 

C .0400 22.6 *23.3 19.1 4.1 *27.0 3.9

- ———————— A .0071 *11.2 0 19.3 6.4 0 63.1 

C .0119 9.7 2.9 20.2 0 5.5 61.7

C .0096 10.8 12.9 *23.0 8.5 0 44.8

C .0214 6.0 29.6 *23.3 0 24.4 16.7

C .0010 0 0 *34.1 0 39.7 26.2

C .7026 4.9 0 0 0 0 95.1

C .0180 *40.7 7.2 5.8 3.3 0 43.0 

- ———————— A .0129 *18.9 0 *29.1 8.6 7.4 36.0

C .0202 0 42.2 *24.9 .6 14.6 17.7

C .0163 23.3 0 *21.8 .7 18.9 35.3

C .0179 *30.3 0 28.7 *23.3 *14.5 3.2

C .0266 5.5 6.7 *47.8 0 *34.6 5.4

C .0248 0 0 *39.1 9.5 2.4 49.0

TABLE 3— Continued

Parait

SO, ——

Specif

\

C

C

C

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

Total

.0252 

.0779 

.0057 

.0204 

.0389 

.0736

Bas

0.0203 

.4319 

.0129 

.0070 

.0288 

.0341

.0982 

.0835 

.0483 

.0344 

.0122

Based on

0.0139 

.0516 

.0146 

.0815

.0144 

.0558 

.0698 

.0890

Based on

0.0319 

.2799 

.5839 

.0521 

.0926 

.0230 

.3044

.1267 

.2728 

.6002 

.0150 

.1832

Between 

barbell

3.2 

0 

0 

4.1 

*28 . 8 

*33.3

Varian

5-10

t

0 

11.8 

0 

10.5 

0 

6.8

ed on DTPA extr

5.4 

0 

16.5 

0 

5.9 

12.9

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

sodium

27.8 

15.4 

4.3 

*17.5

0 

0 

5.5 

*29.4

69.8 

2.2 

16.5 

13.3 

14.8 

0 

1.0

*27.3 

9.5 

.2 

55.0 

8.5

*49.9 

6.8 

*32.7 

*32.5 

*42.5 

*10.0

6.2 

17.7 

0 

*32.2 

*19.3

acetate

0 

0 

0 

0

24.5 

*62.8 

0 

2.4

*11.5 

0 

0 

*22.0 

0 

*51.2 

0

1.3 

0 

0 

*19.1 

0

ce

km 1-5 km

0 

7.5 

*56.1 

*56.4 

0 

1.2

action

*13.7 

0 

0 

6.5 

.7 

*27.0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

extraction

*40.8 

16.1 

0 

7.7

*31.0 

0 

0 

0

4.0 

31.4 

7.9 

0 

4.4 

0 

*39.1

0 

0 

36.0 

.2 

20.6

0.

0 

0 

4 

0 

13 

10

2 

4 

13 

19 

18 

0

25 

0 

33 

0 

0

1-1

.7

.3

.5

.2 

.7 

.1 

.8 

.0

.5 

.4

10.8 

3.3 

*56.3 

0

0 

18.1 

*39.8 

*43.1

*8 

16 

10 

0 

21 

*30 

11

4 

*56 

6 

5 

19

.1 

.2 

.9

.5 

.8 

.5

.6 

.5 

.5 

.3

.8

km

0-0.1 

km

23.6 

0 

*24.3 

*26.5 

0 

13.6

10.9 

0 

*25.9 

*28.0 

*21.2 

*40.6

0 

21.0 

0 

*49.0 

20.6

*18.0 

*64.1 

0 

26.7

*40.5 

*18.7 

0 

4.1

2.3 

*49.5 

*56.3 

39.5 

8.4 

2.4 

*47.5

17.1 

*33.6 

*55.0 

*14.1 

*50.6

nr

Duplicate 

analyses

73.2 

80.7 

14.9 

2.5 

57.9 

34.6

17.9 

88.5 

11.8 

13.2 

11.7 

9.5

68.3 

61.3 

66.6 

18.8 

60.1

2.6

1.1 

39.4 

48.1

4.0

.4 

54.7 

21.0

4.3 

.7 

8.4 

25.2 

50.9 

15.6 

.9

49.7 

.4 

2.3 

6.3 

.5

Measured by specific ion electrode

pH 1 ——

Cation 

capa

Satura

Silt —

1

2Excha 

3Sodiui

c

-exchange A 

city. C

C

C 

tion ——— A 

x. C

C

——————— A 

C

C

ngeable sodium per 

n adsorption ratio

0.2089 

.1029

Based o

0.0068 

.0321

Based

0.0713 

.0935 

.1599 

.1786 

.0032 

.0115

Based

0.0031 

.0086 

.0843 

.8128 

.0087 

.0277

cent age.

*42.4 

0

n repla

0 

*40.4

on calc

19.0 

15.1 

*39.2 

10.9 

0 

6.9

on phy

21.2 

23.4 

22.7 

*61.2 

.4 

*31.6

*21.5 

0

c emen t w

0 

10.4

ulated p

0 

0 

.1 

0 

*29.7 

*29.5

0 

0

ith sodium

*38.8 

*28.1

arameters

*24.6 

0 

2.6 

0 

15.2 

*18.0

*29 

3

0

1

8 

39

1 

*64 

18 

0

.4 

.9

.9

.6 

.0 

.6 

.1 

.4

*5.2 

*94.6

32.0 

0

7.6 

*29.4 

17.8 

*24.4 

*25.6 

*31.8

1.5 

1.5

29.2 

19.2

40.2 

16.5 

38.7 

.6 

11.1 

7.5

sical properties

1.1

*25.9 

31.1 

0 

0 

23.5

*48.7 

5.3 

*15.2 

*32.1 

*55.3 

*16.8

2 

0 

10

0 

0

7

.2 

.6

.0

*25.4 

*43.6 

*14.7 

*5.6 

*37.6 

*17.3

1.4 

1.8 

5.7 

1.1 

6.7 

3.8
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 21

TABLE 4 —Summary statistics of parameters measured for two horizons of soil from the area containing soils considered to have potential for

use as topsoil in mined-land reclamation in the San Juan Basin

[Detection ratio, number of samples in which the parameter was found in measurable concentrations relative to the number of samples analyzed; geometric error (except as indicated) 

attributed to laboratory procedures; baseline, expected 95-percent range; leaders (---), no dataavailable; <, less than, >, greater than; ppm, parts per million; me/L, milliequivalents 

per liter; mmhos/cm, reciprocal milliohms per centimeter; me/lOOg, milliequivalents per 100 grams; pet, percent]

Parameter So ^ 1 

horizon

Al, pet ——————————

As , ppro~~" ————————

Cj, carbonate, pet — 

C ., organic, pet — —

C., total, pet —— ——

Cr, ppm ———— —

Fe, pet —————————

Hg, ppm- ———— --

K, pet ——————————

n&> pet

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

Detection 

ratio

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

26:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

3:30 

26:30

30:30 

29:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

17:30 

13:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

29:30 

25:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

13:30 

12:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

28:30

Geometric 

mean

Based on

4.4 

4.4 

3.3 

3.7 

16 

11

620 

690 

1.3 

1.3 

<.01 

.10

.35 

.10 

.36 

.27 

.64 

1.0

4.9 

4.4 

20 

13 

8.8 

6.3

4.9 

4.5 

.91 

.83 

1.3 

1.2

.02 

.02 

2.1 

2.1 

28 

27

13 

12 

.25 

.23 

240 

220

1.0 

.9 

1.1 

1.1 

10 

9.2

Geometric 

deviation

Geometric 

error

Observed range Baseline

total concentration

1.12 

1.21 

1.22 

1.39 

1.42 

1.83

1.24 

1.34 

1.13 

1.16 

53.4 

3.91

1.39 

2.65 

1.36 

1.95 

1.26 

1.77

1.28 

1.37 

1.54 

1.50 

1.41 

1.73

1.31 

1.37 

1.23 

1.41 

1.17 

1.20

1.55 

1.72 

1.05 

1.17 

1.24 

1.33

1.13 

1.37 

1.29 

1.58 

1.42 

1.63

1.21 

1.81 

1.17 

1.23 

1.26 

1.43

1.08 

1.12 

1.22 

1.26 

1.45 

1.40

1.28 

1.17 

1.14 

1.13

1.50

1.17 

2.02 

1.06 

1.05 

1.30 

1.16

1.21 

1.09 

1.46 

1.46 

1.16 

1.42

1.05 

1.17 

1.09 

1.31

1.46 

1.91 

1.09 

1.09 

1.17 

1.16

1.07 

1.12 

1.05 

1.02 

1.28 

1.37

1.03 

1.06 

1.15 

1.26

3.4 

2.9 

2.1 

1.7 

6.4 

<5.0

330 

330 

1.1 

1.0 

<.01 

<.01

.19 

<.01 

.20 

.08 

.45 

.40

3.1 

2.6 

9.8 

5.5 

4.9 

1.6

<4.6 

<4.6 

.58 

.44 

.9 

.9

<.01 

<.01 

1.8 

1.7 

18 

16

11 

5.0 

.17 

.11 

120 

81

<1.0 

<1.0 

.85 

.70 

5.6 

<4.6

5.7 

6.1 

4.8 

7.6 

27 

25

- 970 

- 1,200 

1.7 

1.8 

.14 

.82

.64 

.40 

.64 

1.1 

1.1 

3.4

11 

8.9 

40 

40 

19 

17

8.1 

7.3 

1.2 

1.5 

1.7 

1.6

.03 

.04 

2.4 

3.1 

43 

46

18 

25 

.44 

.72 

- 470 

- 1100

1.4 

3.4 

1.7 

1.6 

15 

15

3.5 

3.0 

2.2 

1.9 

7.9 

3.3

400 

380 

1.0 

1.0

.01

.18 

.01 

.20 

.07 

.40 

.33

3.0 

2.3 

8.4 

5.8 

4.4 

2.1

2.9 

2.4 

.60 

.42 

1.0 

.8

.01 

.01 

1.9 

1.5 

18 

15

10 

6.4 

.15 

.09 

120 

83

.7 

.3 

.82 

.73 

6.3 

4.5

5.5 

6.4 

4.9 

7.1

32 

37

- 950 

- 1,200 

1.7 

1.7

1.5

.68 

.70 

.67 

1.0 

1.0 

3.2

8.0 

8.3 

47 

29 

17 

19

8

1

8.4 

1.4

1.7 

1.8 

1.7

.05

.06 

2.3 

2.9 

43 

48

17 

23

.57 

- 480 

- 580

1.4 

2.8 

1.5

1.7 

16 

19
22 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

TABLE 4—Continued

Parameter Soil 

horizon

Detection 

ratio

Geometric 

mean

Geometric 

deviation

Geometric 

error

Observed range Baseline

Based on total concentration — Continued

S, pet ——————— •

Si, pet —————— •

Th, ppm ——————

ii, pet -

V, ppm - -

Y, ppm - -

r* A

Co ——————————

Cu ——————————

N ————————————————————————

pu _ _ __ __ __ ,

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

18:30 

18:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

24:30 

22:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

29:30

3:30 

3:30 

6:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

30:30 

20:30 

23:30 

26:30 

16:30 

30:30 

30:30

Based

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

6.2 

5.4 

11 

9.7 

83 

86

.04 

.04 

2.9 

2.5 

34 

34

.8 

.8 

220 

210 

7.7 

7.0

.22 

.18 

2.2 

1.9 

28 • 

28

30 

25 

2.0 

1.6 

31 

26 

390 

270

Based on

0.2 

.6 

.4 

7.6 

7.7

11 

6.2 

.2 

.3 

.7 

.6 

.5 

.2

on sodium

7.0 

24 

.7 

.4

1.29 

1.53 

1.20 

1.29 

1.15 

1.22

1.42 

1.69 

1.22 

1.32 

1.05 

1.06

3.33 

4.92 

1.21 

1.25 

1.25 

1.31

1.23 

1.31 

1.22 

1.28 

1.21 

1.40

1.33 

1.38 

1.41 

1.48 

1.18 

1.36 

1.45 

1.82

1.18 

1.09 

1.17 

1.22 

1.08 

1.16

1.16 

1.15 

1.06 

1.04

2.06 

6.57 

1.07 

1.22 

1.17 

1.15 

1.06 

1.19 

1.08

1.09 

1.09

1.14 

1 .29 

1.37 

1.78 

1.07 

1.05 

1.41 

44

3.8 

2.2 

8.4 

6.0 

65 

65

<.03 

<.03 

2.0 

1.7 

30 

31

<.2 

<.2 

160 

130 

4.9 

3.9

.15 

.10 

1.5 

1.1 

20 

14

18 

11 

1.1 

.6 

23 

14 

210 

97

12 

12 

19 

18 

- 110 

- 140

.07 

.13 

4.3 

4.4 

37 

38

2.7 

5.4 

- 340 

- 340 

11 

11

.30 

30 

3.2

3.0 

42 

53

71 

51 

4.4 

3.3 

44

41 

- 970 

->1,000

3.7 - 

2.3 - 

7.6 - 

5.8 - 

63 

58

.02 - 

.01 - 

1.9 - 

1.4 - 

31 

30

.07 - 

.03 - 

150 

130

4.9 - 

4.1 -

.15 - 

.11 - 

1.5 - 

1.2 -

19 

14

17 

13 

1.0 - 

.7 - 

22 

14 

190 

82

10 

13 

16 

16 

110 

130

.08 

.11 

4.3 

4.4 

37 

38

8.4 

18 

320 

330 

12 

12 

.33 

.31 

3.3 

3.1 

41 

55

53 

48 

4.0 

3.5 

43 

48 

820 

890

DTPA extraction (ppm)

1.37 

1.36 

2.45 

1.25 

1.20

1.47 

1.43 

1.70 

1.81 

1.41 

1.27 

1.38 

1.23

1.15 

4.15 

1.09 

1.07

1.14 

1.14 

1.82 

1.68 

1.51

1.20 

1.22

<0.05 

<.2 

<.2 

.3 

.1 

4.4 

5.6

5.8 

1.8 

<.2 

<.2 

<.5 

<.5 

.3 

.2

0.08

.3 

.3 

1.0 

8.8 

12 

11

23 

12 

.7 

.9 

1.2 

.8 

1.1 

.3

0.1 - 

.3 - 

.07 -

4.9 - 

5.3 -

5.1 - 

3.0 - 

.07 - 

.09 -

.4 - 

.4 -

.3 - 

.1 -

0.4 

1.1 

2.4 

12 

11

24 

13 

.6 

1.0 

1.4 

1.0 

1.0 

.3

acetate extraction (me/ 100 g)

1.25 

1.61 

1.32 

1.95

1.05 

1.06 

1.19 

1.61

5.0 

7.8 

.5 

.1

12 

43 

1.8 

1.3

4.5 - 

9.3 - 

.5 - 

.2 -

11 

62 

1.0 

1.0
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO

TABLE 4—Continued

23

Parameter horizon

Detection Geometric Geometric Geometric Observed range 

ratio mean deviation error

Baseline

Based on sodium acetate extraction (me/lOOg) — Continued

Mg ——————————————

lid

A 

C 

A 

C

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

1.5 1.28 

2.5 1.56 

.7 1.70 

1.1 1.65

1.06 .9 

1.03 1.1 

1.58 .2 

1.48 .5

2.5 

6.8 

4.1 

3.3

.9 -

1.0 - 

.4 - 

.6 -

2.4 

6.1 

1.2 

2.1

Based on water-saturation extraction

Cl, me/L —— —— —— ——

K, me/L —— —— -— — ——

Mg, me/L —— —— —— ——

SO^, me/L — —— —— ——

Specific conductance, 

mmhos/cm.

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

25:30 

30:30 

26:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

15:30 

26:30 

30:30 

30:30

4.1 1.39 

4.9 2.65

2.7 6.70 

.7 1.57 

.2 1.95

1.2 1.32 

2.1 2.69 

.6 2.09 

8.0 2.74 

1.0 1.56 

3.2 4.55 

.5 1.29 

1.2 2 . 24

1.09 2.0 

1.11 1.5 

<.5 

1.66 <1.0 

1.30 .2 

1.65 <.l

1.15 .7 

1.13 .6 

1.78 .2 

1 . 08 .7 

<1.0 

1.32 <1.0 

1.07 .3 

1.07 .5

6.4 

32 

10 

49 

1.5 

.6

2.1 

23 

2.8 

61 

2.0 

65 

.8 

7.0

2.1 -

.7 -

.06 - 

.3 -

.05 -

.7 - 

.3 - 

.2 - 

1.1 - 

.4 - 

.2 - 

.3 - 

.2 -

7.9

34

120 

1.7 

.8

2.1 

15 

2.6 

60 

2.4 

66 

.8 

6.0

Based on hot-water extraction (ppm)

— ———_____ _

nHpH l _ ____ ______

A 

C

A 

C

1:30 

10:30

30:30 

30:30

0.4 2.00

Measured by specific

7.9 0.38 

8.6 .29

Based on replacement with

capacity.

Ei or , pet ~

Saturation index, —— 

pet.

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

30:30 

30:30

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

11 1.18 

12 1.42

Based on calculated

6.7 1.68 

3.9 1.72 

.4 2.25 

4.2 2.25 

22.9 1.12 

25.0 1.22

<0.5 

<.5

ion electrode

0.055 7.0 

.039 7.8

sodium (me/lOOg)

1.11 7.3 

1.20 6.0

parameters

1.48 2.2 

1.44 1.2 

1.35 -.1 

1.08 .4 

1.04 18.7 

1.07 18.1

0.5 

2.0

8.4 

9.2

14 

21

29 

11 

2.2 

20 

27.4 

38.1

0.1 -

7.1 - 

8.0 -

7.5 - 

5.8 -

3.4 - 

1.7 - 

.08 - 

.8 - 

18.5 - 

17.2 -

1.6

8.7 

9.2

14 

23

13 

8.7 

2.0 

21 

28.3 

36.3

Based on physical properties (.percent)

Sand ——————————

Silt — — ———— ————

Cl ay ————————— _

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30 

30:30

70 1.14 

75 1.24 

11 1.95 

27 7.97 

16 1.24 

17 1.47

1.02 51 

1.03 49 

1.17 1.9 

1.24 .1 

1.06 11 

1.08 8.9

87 

91 

33 

24 

21 

32

54

49

2.9 - 

.4 - 

10 

7.9 -

91 

100 

42 

100 

25 

37

Variance is arithmetic. 

Exchangeable sodium percentage. 

Sodium adsorption ratio.
24 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

TABLES.— Variance components expressed as a percentage of total 

variance of parameters measured for topsoil and mine spoil from a 

reclaimed area of the San Juan Mine in northwestern New Mexico

[*, variance component significantly different from zero at the 0.05 probability level; nr, 

minimum number of random samples per 25-m or 5-m cells needed to map variation at 

the 80-percent confidence level; n.d., no data available; <, less than; >, greater than]

Parameter

Variance

Soil

horizon T° tal PerCent ° f t0tal variance . between

log1Q n 

25-100 m 5-25 m 0-5 m Duplicate

variance cells cells cells analysis J5 ffl 5 m

Based on total concentration

Sr ______________

v ————————————

Spoil .0037 0 0 *94.6 5.4 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0110 0 36.8 *49.1 14.1 n.d. 3

Spoil .0474 0 0 53.3 46.7 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0426 2.4 0 0 97.6 >20 >20

Spoil .0032 7.1 0 40.8 52.1 10 10

Spoil .0785 0 *68.7 0 31.3 n.d. 2

Spoil .4214 6.4 0 *94.5 .1 12 12

Spoil .3629 5.7 0 *99.2 .1 13 13

Spoil .0076 0 76.6 *21.9 1.5 n.d. 2

Spoil .0105 0 30.7 *52.6 16.7 n.d. 4

Spoil .0207 .8 0 *83.3 15.9 >20 >20

Spoil .0666 4.7 0 34.0 61.3 16 16

Spoil .0049 0 0 64.6 35.4 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0085 0 0 *88.0 12.0 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0604 0 0 *92.1 7.9 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .1416 1.5 0 *95.7 2.8 >20 >20

Spoil .0054 5.5 0 *94 . 1 .4 14 14

Spoil .0110 0 37.8 0 62.2 n.d. 3

Spoil .0022 0 13.7 *78.0 8.3 n.d. 6

Spoil .0042 0 10.6 *88. .9 n.d. 8

- Topsoil .0219 0 27.8 27. 44.5 n.d. 4 

Spoil .0193 1.0 0 *86. 12.6 >20 >20

Spoil .0044 0 0 55. 44.8 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0124 62.3 0 *37. .3 22

Spoil .0271 0 36.5 26.5 37.0 n.d. 3

Spoil .0066 0 37.8 *52.0 10.2 n.d. 3

Spoil .0303 16.2 0 *76.7 7.1 5 5

Spoil .0046 0 0 *88.0 12.0 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0997 3.5 0 *83.8 12.7 >20 >20

Spoil .0206 0 74.4 *19.1 6.5 n.d. 2

Spoil .0044 13.6 0 *85.5 .9 66

Spoil .0160 0 21.9 0 78.1 n.d. 5

- Topsoil .0465 16.2 0 0 83.8 5 5 

Spoil .0053 *73.9 0 *18.8 7.3 2 2

Spoil .0039 0 0 16.5 83.5 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0042 0 0 *92.5 7.5 n.d. n.d.

Spoil .0067 0 18.1 *79.0 2.9 n.d. 5

- Topsoil .0018 0 25.2 0 74.8 n.d. 4 

Spoil .0136 0 0 *95.2 4.8 n.d. n.d

TABLE 5— Continued

Y -

Zr—

Cd —

Ni —

Pb—

so4

Spec

1

Cati

ESP 2 

SAR3 

Satu

Parameter Soil

—————————— Topsoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil 

————————— Topsoil

Spoil

————————— Spoil

Spoil

—————————— Topsoil 

Spoil

————————— Topsoil 

Spoil 

——————————— Spoil

—————————— Spoil

Spoil

—————————— Topsoil 

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

B

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

————————— Topsoil 

Spoil

Spoil

pacity. Spoil

————————— Topsoil 

Spoil

————————— Topsoil 

Spoil

dex. Spoil

Iog10

.0037 

.0105 

.0026 

.0139 

.0023 

.0046 

.0624 

.0294

Based

0.0027 

.0993 

.0074 

.3736 

.1002

.1273 

.2070 

.2810 

.2858 

.1866 

.1250

ased on so

0.0138 

.0034 

.0143 

.0059

.0138 

.0619 

.2968 

.1410

a

0.1236 

.0052 

.0745 

.0404 

.0490 

.0104

.1590 

.0615 

.3833 

.0778 

.4026 

.0950 

.1991 

.0641

Based on

0.1499 

.7861

Measured by

0.9188 

1.330

Based on r

0.0801 

.0585

0.2193 

.0829 

.1948 

.0588 

.0064 

.0133

25-100 

cells

32.0 

0 

9.1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

on DTPA

9.1 

13.3 

23.8 

3.9 

0

14.5 

2.4 

15.6 

7.5 

0 

14.0

55.3 

23.0 

23.3 

0

1.6 

0 

0 

37.5

0 

0 

19.1 

22.3 

52.1 

25.3

0 

16.5 

0 

65.8 

0 

65.4 

0 

0

hot-wat

0 

33.1

specif i

21.0 

0

eplaceme

14.5 

4.5

0 

34.1 

0 

62.0 

4.3 

0

Variance

m 5-25 m 

cells

0 

30.8 

0 

*56.9 

0 

0 

*49.4 

37.6

extraction

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

33.3

0 

0 

0 

0

19.8 

0 

0 

*64.7 

0 

0

28.6 

28.7 

36.6 

7.1 

53.9 

4.5 

11.2 

40.1

0 

0

0-5 m 

cells

40.7 

*51.1 

19.6 

15.1 

*97.5 

*94.8 

0 

0

18.2 

*85.5 

*72.3 

*92.2 

*97.4

*84.4 

*97.3 

*81.7 

*83.5 

*87.0 

*85.7

ion

*38.6 

*60.6 

*58.7 

66.7

*97.7 

*99.4 

*98.4 

*58.7

*78.0 

*92.2 

*73.0 

6.7 

*35.5 

*67.6

*69.2 

*51.6 

*62.9 

*24.9 

*45.4 

*27.0 

*87.2 

18.8

»

*98.8 

43.2

*

Dupli 

analy

ween

cate 

sis

27.3 

18.1 

71.3 

28.0 

2.5 

5.2 

50.6 

62.4

72 

1 

3 

3 

2

1

2 

9 

13

6 

16 

18 

0

1 

3

7 

2 

9 

9 

6

1 

3 

7 

0 

0 

3

1 

4 

0

7 

6 

6 

8

2.2 

7.8 

7.9 

6.4 

12.4 

7.2

2.2 

3.2 

.5 

2.2 

.7 

3.1 

1.6 

41.1

1

23

2 

7

25 m

3

8 

n.d. 

n.d.

n.d. 

n.d .

8 

6 

4 

19

6 

>20 

6 

11 

n .d 

6

3

4 

4

>20

n.d. 

3

5

4 

3 

4

5 

n.d. 

2 

n.d. 

2

n.d. 

3

5m

3 

3

8 

6

4 

19 

n.d.

6 

>20 

6 

11 

n.d. 

6

3

4 

4 

3

>20 

3

5

5 

2 

3

4

4 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

6 

3

3

c ion electrode

0 

0

nt with sod

0 

0

15.2 

0 

41.8 

0 

0 

0

*78.3 

*98.9

Lum

*84.2 

*93.5

s

*82.2 

*63.4 

*57.1 

*36.8 

*80.7 

*93.7

0 

1

1 

2

2 

2 

1 

1 

15 

6

7 

1

3

0

6 

5 

1 

2 

0 

3

5

6

18

n.d. 

3 

n.d. 

2 

19

5 

n.d.

6

18

6 

3 

3 

2

Based on physical properties

Sand 

Silt 

Clay

2 Ex 

3 S

——————————— Topsoil 

Spoil

——————————— Topsoil 

Spoil 

——————————— Topsoil

Spoil

changeable sodium perc

0.0032 

.0092 

.0096 

.0115 

.0126 

.0053

Bntage.

8.8 

0 

0 

44.0 

23.5 

0

0 

41.8 

0 

39.7 

0 

0

*89.5 

*59.9 

16.5 

*11.2 

*66.8 

*98.3

1

83 

5 

9.

1.

7 

3 

5

1 

7 

8

9

n.d. 

3

5

9 

3 

n.d . 

2

5
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 25

TABLE6.—Summary statistics for parameters measured for topsoil and mine spoil from a reclaimed area of the San Juan mine in

northwestern New Mexico

[Detection ratio, number of samples in which the parameter was found in measurable concentrations relative to the number of samples analyzed; geometric error (except as indicated) 

attributed to laboratory procedures; baseline, expected 95-percent range; leaders(—), no data available; <, less than, >, greater than; ppm, parts per million; me/L, milliequivalents per 

liter; mmhos/cm, reciprocal milliohms per centimeter; me/100 g, milliequivalents per 100 g; pet, percent]

Parameter Soil Detection Geometric Geometric Geometric Observed range 

horizon ratio mean deviation error

Baseline

Based on total concentration

Al, pet — ——— —— — ——

As, pet ———————————

B, ppm ——————————

Ba., ppm ———————————

Be, ppm ————————

C, carbonate, pet ———

C, organic, pet ————

C, total, pet — —— ——

Ca, pet —————————

Co , ppm ———————————

Cr , ppm ————————

Cu, ppm — —— —— — ———

Er , ppm —— —— — — ———

Fe, pet ------ —— -----

Hg, ppm ————————

K, pet ————————————

La, ppm ——— — ——— ———

Li , ppm ————————

Mg, pet ———————————

Mn, ppm — — ——— ——— —

Mo, ppm ————————

Na, pet ——— — ——— ———

Nb , ppm —————————

Ni , ppm —— ——— —— ———

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil 

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

Topsoil

Spoil

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

8:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12 

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

12:12

4.9

6.1

2.9

4.3

6.9

13

450

590

2.4

2.7

.28

.23

.44

2.3

.78

2.6

1.3

1.4

6.0

8.5

22

14

10

18

6.5

7.1

1.4

1.7

1.3

1.4

.01

.03

1.5

1.4

25

32

17

22

.42

.56

260

340

1.8

2.7

1.2 

1.7

11

9.2

8.6

12

11

11

1.06

1.11

1.53

1.22

1.84

1.52

1.37

1.46

1.10

1.11

1.39

1.63

2.91

2.59

2.29

2.45

1.26

1.16

1.14

1.22

1.41

1.26

1.48

1.58

1.10

1.15

1.09

1.17

1.31

1.59

2.01

1.80

1.05

1.12

1.36

1.21

1.11

1.10

1.05

1.13

1.36

1.32

1.29

1.13

1.04 

1.22

1.26

1.41

1.14

1.18

1.15

1.33

1.03

1.03

1.37

1.10

1.59

1.41

1.36

1.61

1.08

1.10

1.20

1.43

1.17

1.05

1.02

1.03

1.03

1.03

1.11

1.10

1.41

1.14

1.15

1.50

1.07

1.10

1.07

1.08

1.31

1.17

1.22

1.16

1.01

1.01

1.26

1.21

1.03

1.03

1.01

1.01

1.26

1.12

1.12

1. 11

1.02 

1.02

1.20

1.26

1.06

1.06

1.18

1.11

4.5

5.1

1.0

3.0

<5.0

7.3

330

310

2.1

2.2

.19

.07

.19

.89

.40

1.1

.96

1.1

4.9

5.8

10

10

6.6

6.0

5.2

5.2

1.3

1.3

.7

.5

.01

.02

1.4

1.1

18

21

16

19

.40

.45

190

190

-1.3

2.1

1.1 

1.2

7.5

5.1

7.1

9.4

8.2

6.6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.5

6.9

4.7

6.1

23

25

1,000

1,100

2.7

3.2

.47

.42

4.1

14

4.5

14

1.9

1.8

7.4

12

29

22

24

28

7.5

9.1

1.6

2.1

1.9

2.3

.06

.09

1.6

1.6

51

40

22

26

.46

.67

430

430

2.8

3.2

1.3 

2.0

16

15

11

16

13

17

4.4

5.0

1.2

2.9

2.0

5.6

240

280

2.0

2.2

.15

.09

.05

.34

.15

.43

.82

1.0

4.6

5.7

11

8.8

4.6

7.2

5.4

5.4

1.2

1.2

.8

.6

<.01

.01

1.4

1.1

14

22

14

18

.38

.44

140

200

1.1

2.1

1.1 

1.1

6.9

4.6

6.6

8.6

8.3

6.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

5.5

7.5

6.8

6.4

23

30

840

1,300

2.9

3.3

.54

.61

3.7

15

4.1

16

2.1

1.9

7.8

13

44

22

22

45

7.9

9.4

1.7

2.3

2.2

3.5

.04

.10

1.7

1.8

46

47

21

27

.46

.72

480

590

3.0

3.4

1.3 

2.5

17

18

11

17

15

19
26 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS 

TABLE 6—Continued

Parameter

S, pet ——————— -

Ti, pet —————— -

U, ppm- — — -

r*A

Cu ——————————————— .

Fe —————————— - 

Mn —————————— -

N£ —————————— .

Pb —————————— .

Zn —————————— -

Ca —————————— -

Mg —————————— .

Soil 

horizon

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Spoil

Detection Geometric Geometric Geometric 

ratio mean deviation error

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

11:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

11:12 

12:12

3:12 

11:12 

2:12 

2:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

5:12 

12:12 

7:12 

10:12 

12:12 

12:12

Based

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

Based on

70 

71

.10 

.26 

3.9 

5.4 

35 

30

1.1 

1.9 

190 

270 

7.7 

9.8

.23 

.27 

2.9 

4.1 

45 

56

27 

32 

1.6 

1.6 

41 

56 

420 

300

Based on

0.05

.7 

2.0 

13 

61

8.1 

12

.2 

.1 

.5 

.4

1.5

on sodium

29 

32 

.2 

.3

3.4 

5.9 

1.0 

6.0

total

1

1

1 

1

1 

1 

1 

1

2

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1 

1

1 

1

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

Observed range Baseline

concentration

.05 

.14

.55 

.63 

.14 

.33 

.06 

.11

.24 

.27 

.55 

.14 

.19 

.14

.05 

.14 

.16 

.17 

.08 

.26

.11 

.23 

.10 

.25 

.08 

.14 

.51 

.35

DTPA extraction

1

1 

1 

2 

1

1 

2

2 

4 

2 

2

1

.00

.68

.18 

.93 

.98

.78 

.32

.23 

.13 

.74 

.25 

.89

1.04 

1.06

1.13 

1.30 

1.10 

1.09 

1.01 

1.01

1.60 

1.29 

1.57 

1.05 

1.16 

1.14

1.04 

1.04 

1.05 

1.03 

1.09 

1.06

1.08 

1.11 

1.10 

1.15 

1..02 

1.04 

1.51 

1.37

(ppm)

1.11

1.08 

1.04 

1.32 

1.13

1.09 

1.06

1.22

1.45 

1.43 

1.05

65 

55

.06 

.10 

3.1 

3.6 

31 

23

<.2 

1.4 

48 

220 

6.0 

7.9

.21 

.21 

2.4 

3.4 

40 

38

22 

22 

1.3 

1.1 

39 

47 

260 

190

<0.05 

<.05 

<.l 

<.l 

.5 

1.5 

6.4 

30

5.6 

5.4 

<.05 

.1 

<.l 

<.l 

.2 

.8

75 

80

.24 

.52 

5.2 

9.0 

36 

32

2.6 

2.8 

- 260 

- 330 

11 

12

.25 

.32 

4.0 

5.6 

50 

78

32 

41 

1.8 

2.5 

49 

66 

- >1000 

- 600

0.05 

.05 

.1 

1.4 

2.2 

2.4 

- 130 

- 210

32 

55 

.4 

.9 

1.5 

1.4 

2.2 

5.2

63 

55

.04 

.10 

3.0 

3.1 

31 

24

.2 

1.2 

79 

210 

5.4 

7.5

.21 

.21 

2.2 

3.0 

39 

35

22 

21 

1.3 

1.0 

35 

43 

180 

160

0.05

.2 

1.4 

1.5 

16

2.6 

2.2

.04 

.006 

.07 

.08 

.4

-

-

——

77 

92

.24 

.69 

5.1 

9.6 

39 

37

5.5 

3.1 

460 

350 

11 

13

.25 

.35 

3.9 

5.6 

52 

89

33 

48 

1.9 

2.5 

48 

73 

960 

550

0.05

2.0 

2.8 

110 

240

26 

65

1.0 

1.7 

3.8 

2.0 

5.4

acetate extraction (me/100 g)

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1 

2 

4

.25 

.13 

.22 

.18

.22 

.48 

.63 

.42

1.07 

1.06 

1.13 

1.00

1.02 

1.06 

1.26 

3.39

21 

28 

.2 

.3

2.9 

3.8 

.3

.1

46 

42 

.3 

.4

5.2 

12 

6.6 

18

19 

26 

.2 

.2

2.3 

2.7 

.2 

.8

-

44 

40 

.3 

.4

5.1 

13 

6.5 

44
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 27

TABLE 6—Continued

Parameter Soil 

horizon

Detection Geometric Geometric Geometric 

ratio mean deviation error

Observed range Baseline

Based on water saturation extraction

Cl, me/L —— — —— — —— 

K, me/L —— —— — —— ——

SO^, me/L ——— ———— ——

Specific conductance, 

mmhos/cm.

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

11 1.96 

26 1.13 

7.2 1.62 

19 1.50 

.4 1.46 

.6 1.17

4.9 2.11 

27 1.68 

21 3.15 

260 1.69 

18 3.12 

230 1.79 

2.8 2.37 

9.6 1.70

1.13 

1.05 

1.19 

1.13 

1.20 

1.06

1.15 

1.11 

1.10 

1.10 

1.14 

1.13 

1.14 

1.45

5.9 

23 

3 

9 

.2 

.5

2.4 

15 

6.5 

97 

5 

75 

1.3 

4.0

30 

33 

15 

31 

.7 

.8

15 

71 

- 120 

- 500 

95 

- 480 

11 

17

2.9 

20 

2.7 

8.4 

.2 

.4

1.1 

9.6 

2.1 

91 

1.8 

72 

.5 

3.3

42 

33 

19 

43 

.9 

.8

22 

76 

210 

740 

180 

740 

16 

28

Based on hot-water extraction (ppm)

B

_.___

PH1 —— —— —— —— —— ——

Topsoil 

Spoil

Topsoil 

Spoil

8:12 

11:12

12:12 

12:12

0.6 2.56 

1.8 2.91

Measured by specific

8.0 0.67 

7.6 .87

Based on replacement with

capacity.

ESP 2 , pet —— —— —— ——

Saturation index, pet.

Topsoil 

Spoil

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil

12:12 

12:12

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

17 1.62 

36 1.41

Based on calculated

3.1 2.28 

13 4.12 

7.6 2.26 

51 1.56 

28.2 1.15 

50.2 1.23

1.10 

1.46

ion electrode

0.076 

.12

sodium (me/ 100

1.08 

1.08

parameters

1.28 

3.14 

1.11 

1.06 

1.07 

1.07

<0.5 

.5

6.6 

6.3

g)

12 

22

1.0 

.2 

2.7 

20 

24.4 

33.0

3.5 

11

8.4 

8.4

46 

68

13 

32 

25 

78 

38.7 

61.9

0.09 - 

.2

6.7 

5.9

6.5 

18

0.6 

2.4 

1.5 

21 

22.1 

33.9

3.9 

15

9.3 

9.3

45 

72

15 

69 

39 

120 

36.0 

74.2

Based on physical properties (percent)

Silt ———————————

Clay —— — —— —— ——— -

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil 

Topsoil 

Spoil

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12 

12:12

67 1.10 

42 1.22 

12 1.23 

19 1.23 

21 1.21 

37 1.14

1.02 

1.01 

1.23 

1.06 

1.08 

1.02

54 

30 

7.4 

14 

17 

30

71 

52 

18 

27 

32 

45

55 

28 

7.9 

13 

14 

28

81 

63 

18 

29 

31 

48

Variance is arithmetic. 9

^Exchangeable sodium percentage, 

Sodium adsorption ratio.

Study 1 assessed the variation of soil for the broad 

area likely to be affected by energy-related development in the San Juan Basin. Maps were prepared for 

some elements (figures 6A-S), but for other parameters, reliable maps showing parameter-value distributions in soil could not be prepared from the present 

data. For these latter parameters, the feasibility of 

preparing such maps was estimated and is shown in 

table 1. However, it is likely that if additional samples 

were analyzed in order to prepare maps for the addi-
28 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

tional parameters, they would show no gradational 

regional patterns because of the small variation that 

had already been found at the 50-km cell level. From 

the maps that were prepared (figs. 6A-S), it is apparent that any consistent gradational trends in element 

content of soil across the region is lacking. In general, 

the maps of element concentrations do not reflect geologic units (compare figs. 1 and 6), nor do they reflect 

mapped soil units (see Maker, Dregne, Link, and Anderson, 1974 and compare with fig. 6). Many more maps 

were possible for total-element content than for extractable-element content. This difference may indicate that total-element content reflects types of surficial materials, whereas extractable-element content 

reflects pedogenic processes; surficial materials tend 

to be uniform throughout larger areas, but the effects 

of pedogenic processes on surficial materials do not. 

These processes probably reflect site-specific microclimate and vegetation. Of special interest is the single 

sample of the A horizon from the 25-km cell in which 

the Huerfano soil series (Typic Natrargid) was sampled, and in which arsenic (fig. 6A) and molydbenum 

(fig. 6M) both exceed the baseline value. High molybdenum and arsenic were observed in a similar study in 

the Northern Great Plains (Severson and Tidball, 

1979), where potential problems associated with high 

molybdenum in forage, leading to molybdenosis in 

cattle, are suspected and are currently being investigated (J. A. Erdman, oral communication, 1979). A 

similar molybdenosis potential may exist for the farwestern part of the area of Study 1 because of very 

high levels of molybdenum in galleta grass (Gough 

and Severson, 1981).

Study 2 was designed to assess the soil variation in 

the area containing the Sheppard, Shiprock, and Doak 

soil association. These soils provide the best available 

topsoil material for mined-land reclamation. The feasibility of mapping composition at distance intervals of 

greater than 1 km is slight because, for most parameters in both A and C horizons of soils, the variation 

measured at distances of greater than 1 km is less than 

50 percent of the total variation (table 3). Moreover, 

the total variation measured for many parameters is 

small, indicating a rather uniform composition of the 

soil sampled within the mapped occurrence of these 

soils. Because of this inferred uniformity, the number 

of samples required to map the slight variations in 

composition of these soils would be large for most 

parameters. Also, as was expected, the total variation 

measured for the parameters of these soils is smaller 

than the variation measured in soils covering the 

larger area of Study 1 (table 3). For more information 

on the use of analysis-of-variance data to determine 

minimum sampling requirements, which may be applied to the present study, see the discussion in Severson 

(1979) where a similar sampling design was used, and 

see Miesch (1976), who gave a more basic comprehensive discussion.

Study 3 was designed to assess variation in parameters of a reclaimed area within the San Juan mine and 

to provide data on the composition of topsoil and mine 

spoil. Again, the analysis-of-variance data can be used 

to assess the feasibility of preparing maps of composition at various distance intervals. The distance increments used in this study were much smaller than those 

used in the previous studies. Smaller increments were 

used because much of the variability was expected at 

very small distance increments due to the heterogenous mixing of soil and spoil materials associated with 

mining operations. Generally, only a small area, a few 

hectares in size, is reclaimed at any one time. The 

analysis-of-variance data (table 5) show that topsoil 

tends to be less variable in its total-element composition than does mine spoil; however, the opposite relation is true for extractable elements. This result seems 

reasonable for total-element composition of mine spoil, 

because it consists of rock fragments that have not 

undergone pedogenic processes such as addition, removal, transfer, or transformation of various soil constituents that tend to make one soil different from 

another. The greater variation in extractable elements is probably because the topsoil reflects chemical differentiation due to pedogenic processes, even 

though it is physically homogenized by stockpiling 

and respreading. Variation at distance intervals of 

less than 5 m tends to account for most of the variation 

for both total- and extractable-element content in 

mine spoil. Variation in topsoil is also large at distance 

increments of less than 5 m but does not totally dominate variation at greater distances. In both topsoil and 

mine spoil, it would generally be necessary to sample 

at distance intervals of less than 5 m in order to describe more than 50 percent of the total variation measured for many elements or properties. The preparation of maps explaining a reasonable portion of the 

total variation would be expensive even for a 

moderate-size area.

Schafer (1979), in comparing the variation in soil 

physical and morphological properties between minereclaimed land and adjacent undisturbed areas in 

Montana, has stated that the variation is mainly at two 

increments of distance in the mine-reclaimed land — 

major variation at 0.1-1 m (local) and minor variation 

at greater than 500 m (landscape). However, natural 

soils were more variable than mine-reclaimed soils at 

the landscape scale ( greater than 500 m) but less 

variable at the local scale (0.1-1 m). The data obtained 

in the present study show variance components for
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 29

natural soils to be large for some parameters at distance increments of more than 25 km (regional), whereas for most parameters the largest variance componet was measured at less than 1 km (table 1). Also, 

mine-reclaimed soils show most of their variability at 

distance increments of less than 5 m (table 5). The 

present study does not assess variability of minereclaimed soils at any increment that could be considered regional, nor does it assess variability of natural 

soils at distance increments of a few meters. Comparisons between the two studies would be purely speculative because they were conducted in different areas, 

different soil properties were measured, and different 

distance increments were used to express variance 

components. However, further work on assessing 

chemical variability, in addition to physical and 

morphological properties, at similar increments for 

natural and mine-reclaimed soils would provide basic 

information useful to persons charged with evaluating 

mine-reclaimed areas whose main experience has 

been gained in mapping natural soils.

SOIL COMPOSITION

STUDY 1

Baseline values for the soils in the area likely to be 

affected by energy development are shown in table 2. 

Similar geometric means and observed and expected 

ranges for total content in A and C horizons are shown 

for most elements (calcium in the C horizon, however, 

is about double the amount in the A horizon). This 

similarity indicates that similar variability was measured for both soil horizons. Means and ranges for 

extractable concentrations of boron, calcium, chlorine, magnesium, sodium, and S04, and SAR are two 

or more times greater in the C horizon than the A 

horizon, whereas extractable potassium and manganese are higher in the A horizon than in the C horizon. 

These contrasts between total and extractable levels in 

the two soil horizons suggest that total-element content indicates gross mineralogy, whereas extractableelement content indicates pedogenic processes — in 

this case, movement of readily solubilized constituents 

from the A horizon to the C horizon. Those extractable 

elements that tend to be higher in the A horizon than in 

the C horizon either are not as easily mobilized under 

the present soil conditions (manganese, for example) 

or are readily recycled by vegetation (potassium, for 

example).

Total content of many trace metals in these soils in 

the area likely to be affected by mining operations is 

from one-half to one-fifth the total content of these 

metals in soils of the northern part of the Great Plains

(Severson, 1979, table 8). In addition, total calcium 

and magnesium contents are about one-half of those 

measured in the Great Plains. However, DTPA extractable levels of trace metals in soils in this area are 

similar to those reported for the Northern Great 

Plains (Severson and others, 1977, table 19; Gough and 

others, 1979). This similarity indicates that the tracemetal reservoir in soil is greater in the Northern Great 

Plains than in this area of the San Juan Basin; however, the extractable or plant-available amounts are 

similar.

Three soil orders were identified (Entisol, Aridisol, 

and Mollisol). The series names and taxonomic classification at the great-group level are shown in table 7 

for the 47 soils sampled. The sampling locations and 

taxonomic classifications at the great-group level are 

shown in figure 3. From figure 3, it is apparent that 

the great groups are dispersed throughout the area in 

a haphazard fashion and do not correspond to mapped 

geologic units (fig. 1). Soils are classified into like 

groups based on selected properties, generally those 

which define diagnostic horizons. These horizons may 

be identified by properties of either or both the A or B 

horizon of the soil. Because only A and C horizons of 

soils were sampled and analyzed, the presentation of 

chemical data based on taxonomic criteria may be of 

limited significance.

A horizons of soil were analyzed because they are 

presumed to be the most biologically active and most 

closely related to element uptake by plants. C horizons 

of soil were sampled because they represent the 

largest volume of soil material and should most closely 

reflect the chemical character of surficial deposits or, 

where surficial deposits are thin or absent, they should 

reflect the chemical character of the underlying geoTABLE 7.—Taxonomy of soils sampled in the San Juan Basin

[Index numbers are keyed to figs. 3 and 4]

Index 

Number

Subgroup Family

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

Typic TorriorthentTypic TorriorthentTypic TorriorthentLithic Torriorthent

Typic Torripsamment

Typic Haplargid — —

Typic Haplargid -——

Lithic Haplargid — -

Typic Calciorthid — 

Typic Camborthid ——

Typic Camborthid ——

Typic Camborthid ——

Ustollic Camborthid

Typic Natrargid — —

Cumulic HaplustollCoarse loamy, mixed (calcareous), mesic.

Fine loamy mixed (calcareous) , mesic.

Shallow, loamy, mixed (calcareous), mesic.

Loamy, mixed (calcareous),

mesic.

Mixed, mesic ——————————

Fine loamy, mixed, mesic ——

Coarse loamy, mixed, mesicFine loamy, mixed, mesic ——

—— do ————————————

Fine, mixed, mesic —— ——— —

Fine loamy, mixed, mesic ——

Coarse loamy, mixed, mesicFine loamy, mixed, mesic — — -

Shallow, loamy, mixed, mesic

Fine loamy, mixed, mesic ——

Fruit land.

Turley.

Persayo.

Unknown .

Sheppard.

Doak.

Shiprock,

Mayqueen.

Monicero.

Avalon. 

Notal.

Kinnear.

Koyen .

LaFonda.

Huerfano.

Manzano.
30 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

logic units. B horizons of soil were not sampled 

because in some soils they are absent and because 

when present they generally make up only a small part 

of the total soil volume.

It may be of general interest to compare the average 

composition of all soils (table 2) to the average composition of soils in each great group (table 8). Total and 

extractable concentrations for most of the elements 

are similar for all seven great groups. Only the Torripsamment and Natrargid great groups show noticeable 

deviations in some parameters from the average composition of groups. The Torripsamment great group is 

low in total aluminum in both A and C horizons, total 

thorium and titanium in the A horizon, extractable 

lead in the A horizon, and cation-exchange capacity in 

the A horizon. The Natrargid great group is high in 

total calcium, sulfur, and extractable calcium and 

sodium in the C horizon. It is also low in total potassium, in both A and C horizons. The geometric deviations for carbonate carbon; total boron, carbon, calcium, copper, sulfur, and tin; DTPA extractable iron 

and lead; exchangable potassium and sodium; most of 

the water-soluble constituents; ESP (exchangable 

sodium percentage) and SAR (sodium adsorption 

ratio) are greater than 2.00 for the other great groups. 

These high deviations indicate that, within a single 

great group, the range in values for these elements and 

properties is quite large — the great groups are certainly neither chemically distinct from one another 

nor very homogeneous within themselves. For the 

remaining elements or properties, each great group is 

more uniform; however, as stated above, the differences between great groups, based on chemical composition, are small. It is difficult to distinguish one great 

group from another based on these chemical parameters, except possibly for the properties of the Torripsamment and Natrargid great groups mentioned 

above.

Water-soluble boron greater than 2.0 parts per million, specific conductance greater than 4 millimhos/cm, 

SAR greater than 11, and ESP greater than 15 are 

generally accepted as being restrictive to plant growth. 

All of these values are exceeded by some samples of 

both A and C horizons of natural soils in the area of 

Study 1 (table 2, Observed range). In table 8, geometric means for C-horizon samples from the Calciorthids 

and Natrargids indicate that these two are the least 

favorable for plant growth. Also, if the DTPA extractable levels of copper, iron, manganese, and zinc, considered by Lindsay and Norvell (1978) as being deficient for growing corn and sorghum in Colorado soils, 

are at all applicable to native and mine-reclaimed soils 

in the San Juan Basin, then copper, manganese, and 

iron are adequate for plant growth, and zinc may be

generally deficient. Although the low zinc values were 

observed to have no affect on the native plants growing 

on these soils, they may affect introduced plants growing on reclaimed mine spoil. Such an effect has been 

noted by Safaya (1980) to be minimal on mine land in 

the Northern Great Plains.

STUDY 2

Baseline parameter values of the A and C horizons 

for the area containing the Sheppard, Shiprock, and 

Doak soil association are presented in table 4. Similar 

geometric means for the total content of most elements 

are reported for both soil horizons. However, the 

expected range is wider for the C horizon than for the 

A horizon because the C horizon shows greater variability. The geometric means and observed ranges for 

extractable elements are comparable for many elements or properties between the A and C horizons; 

however, the C horizon is noticeably higher in boron, 

chlorine, magnesium, sodium, S04 , pH, and SAR than 

the A horizon. Measures of the total content tend to 

reflect gross mineralogy, whereas measures of the 

extractable content reflect pedogenic processes, as 

described for Study 1. The baseline values used to 

characterize the composition of these soils may be 

extrapolated to other parts of the region where these 

soils occur.

The total content of many trace elements tends to be 

less in these soils by factors of from two to five than was 

reported for areas in the northern part of the Great 

Plains (Severson, 1979, table 8); however, the content 

of trace metals extracted by DTPA is similar in the 

two areas (Severson and others, 1977, table 19). This 

general observation indicates, as for Study 1, that the 

DTPA-extractable trace-element levels are similar 

for the two regions, but the reserves of these elements 

in soils are greater in the Northern Great Plains than 

they are in the Sheppard, Shiprock, and Doak soils.

The average composition of the five soil families 

sampled is presented in table 9; differences between 

the average composition of samples of these families is 

small. Moreover, the geometric deviations for most 

parameters within each soil family are also small. 

These facts indicate that the composition of these soils, 

when they are grouped at the family level, is rather 

uniform. The uniformity in composition of these soils 

was emphasized in the previous section on variability 

and is also shown by the small deviations for composition of all soils (table 4). It is difficult to distinguish 

between most of these soil families on a compositional 

basis because of this uniformity. However, the Typic 

Torripsamment, mixed, mesic family shows relatively 

low concentrations of total arsenic in the C horizon, 

and total iron, titanium, and uranium in the A horizon.
Soil great group

Soil 

horizon

Torriorthent Natrargid Haplargid

Ratio Geometric Geometric Ratio Geometric Geometric Ratio Geometric Geometric Ratio Geometric Geometric Ratio Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation mean deviation mean deviation mean deviation mean deviation

Ratio 

Al, pet —— — ——— — —

As , ppm ————————

B, ppm —— —— — —— ——

Ba , ppm —————————— 

Be, ppm —— ——— ——— -

C, carbonate, pet ——

C , organic, pet -----

C, total, pet —— —— -

Ca, pet ————————

Co, ppm ————————

Cr , ppm --———————

Cu, ppm —— —— —— —— -

Er> ppm ____________

Fe, pet ————————

Ge , ppm ————————

Hg, ppm ———— ______ 

K, pet —————————

La, ppm -——-——--——

Li , ppm ——————————

Mg, pet —— —— — — ——

Mn, ppm ————————

Mo , ppm —— ----- ———

Nb, ppm —— ——— — ———

Ni, ppm — ——— —— ———

Pb, ppm --———————

Kb, ppm —— ——— —— — -

A

C

A

C

A 

C

A 

C 

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A 

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A 

C 

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A 

C 

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

1:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

1:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

5.1

6.1

5.1

4.6

17 

<5.0

480

600 

1.3

1.5

.21

.39

.43

.28

.65

.71

1.3 

2.5

5.4

6.4

23 

16 

10

15

6.3

6.6

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.1 

.02

.02 

1.8

1.6

31

43

12

10

• JO

.44

380

180

<1.0 

2.2 

1.2

1.4

14

12

8.3

8.8

14

12

55 

35

1.20

1.16

1.09

1.46 

1.40

1* 63

1.65 

1.12

1.26

1.79

4.21

1.34

1.63

1.48 

2.82 

1.12

1.85

1.49

1.01

1.53 

1.09 

2.04

1.33

1.03

1.10

1.34

1.20

1.05

1.37 

1.00

3.12 

1.00

1.01

1.20

1.65

1.27

1.00

1.40

1.03

1.34

1.31

1.87 

1.11

1.02

1.00

1.13

1.50

1.19

1.23

1.34

1 ft7

1 • O/

1.23

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9 

6 : 9

7:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9

9:9

5:9

8:9

9:9

9:9

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9

9:9

8:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9 

6:9

8:9 

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

9:9

5.1

6.1

5.4

6.0 

*12

*16 

520

540 

1.6

1.7

*.02

.16

.39

.43

.46 

.73

.42

1.0

6.1

7.7

18 

19 

8.8

12

*5.9

7.1

1.1

1.5

1.4

1.4 

.02

.03 

1.8

1.6

31

34

16

17

.31

.44

230

190 

*1.4

*1.7 

.75

1.0

14

12

8.5

11

13

14

59 

72

1.33

1.22

1.45

1.30 

*3.06

*2.43 

1.15

1.34 

1.16

1.30

*8.84

*4.50

2.34

1.61

2.29 

1.64 

2.05

2.19

1.47

1.58

1.56 

1.33 

2.20

1.65

*1.23

1.18

1.51

1.49

1.19

1.21 

1* 31

1.56 

1.21

1.15

1.23

1.28

1.49

1.43

1.69

1.51

1.81

2.09 

*1.97

*1.56 

2.35

.52

.18

.31

.54

.45

.27

.26

• 31

.39

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

13:15 

13:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15

14:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15

15 : 15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

11:15

13:15 

15:15

15:15

15 : 15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

5.1

5.3

5.9

5.4 

*18

*19 

640

580 

1.5

1.5

*.14

.23

.37

.35

.59 

.59 

.75

1.1

6.5

6.6

13

18

11

12

6.7

6.8

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.3

.02

.02 

1.7

1.6

30

31

13

16

.42

.45

260

240 

*1.3

*1.5 

.86

.86

12

13

10

10

15

13

60

69

1.24

1.23

1.43

1.54

*2 • 23 

*2.15

1.53

1.37 

1.20

1.25

*3.06

2.17

2.28

1.70

1.90 

1.75 

1.71

1.50

1.41

1.33

1 • 33 

1.41 

1 • 31

1.79

1.13

1.19

1.49

1.47

1.11

1.22 

1.46

1.71 

1.12

1.11

1.33

1.27

1.75

1.57

1.67

.62

.59

.49 

* .39

* .44 

.29

.34

.24

1.24

1.66

1.56

1.25

1.29

1.43

1.33

tration

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3

3:3

2:3

3:3

3:3

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3

2:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

2:3

1:3 

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

3:3

4.1

3.9

8.5

5.4 

23

27 

730

330 

1.5

1.3

.41

*.U9

.37

.32

.86 

.64 

1.5

3.0

7.1

4.5 

20

19 

13

8.0

*5.2

6.4

2.2

1.1

1.0

1.3

.02

.04 

1.2

.74

26

27

15

14

.44

.27

560

62 

*1.3

<1.0 

.59

.69

11

13

11

6.2

15

6.2

47

49

1.02

1.23

2.02

1.72 

1.26

1.44 

2.19

1.72 

1.47

1.13

3.24

*15.8

1.56

1.31

2.23 

1.84 

2.73

1.63

1.46

3.40 

1.25

1.68 

2.12

1.22

*1.17

1.23

2.35

1.68

1.45

1.27 

1.49

1.42 

1.31

1.45

1.27

1.12

1.52

2.60

1.72

2.94

2.71

1.75 

*4.50

1.64

1.67

1.60

1.54

1.52

2.40

1.45

1.23

1.74

1.23

15:15

15:15

15 : 15

15:15 

14:15

11:15 

15 : 15

15:15 

15:15

15:15

5:15

13:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15

14:15

14:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

15:15

14:15 

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15 : 15

15:15

15:15

15:15 

9:15

1U:15 

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

15:15

4.5

4.6

5.1

5.8 

*18

*12 

530

640 

1.4

1.4

*.004

*.16

.35

.17 

.39

.42 

.35

.98

5.1

4.8 

18

17

7 H / . O

5.6

*5.9

*6.0

.99

.93

1.3

1.3 

.02

*.02 

1.7

1.6

25

28

10

11

.28

.31

180

170 

*1.1

*1.2 

.91

.90

13

11

7.6

7.3

13

11

54

6U

1.22

1.24

1.46

1.40 

*1.76

*2.80 

1.16

1.70 

1.13

1.20

*18.8

*4.63

1.40

2.91 

1.25

2.3U 

1.72

2.09

1.31

1.49 

1.48

1.71 

1.61

1.81

*1.22

*1.21

1.48

1.53

1.21

1.16 

1.42

*1.88 

1.17

1.24

1.24

1.31

1.53

1.76

1.35

1.74

1.39

1.46 

*1.42

*1.39 

1.61

1.72

1.32

1.41

1.40

1.64

1.21

1.27

1.59

1.59

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

0:2

1:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

1:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

1:2

1:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

1:2

0:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2
TABLE 8.—Continued 

Soil 

horizon

Soil great group

Calciorthid Torriorthent Natrargid Haplargid 

Ratio Geometric Geometric 

deviation

Ratio Geometric Geom itric 

ition

Ratio Geometric Geoir 

devi

itric Ratio Geometric Geometric 

deviation

Ratio Geometric Geometric 

deviation

Ratio 

Based on total concentration —Continued

S, pet ——————————— A 

C 

Sc, ppm —————————— A 

C

C

C 

Sr, ppm ————————— A 

C

Th, ppm —————————— A 

C

Ti, pet —————————— A 

C 

U, ppm ——————————— A 

C

C

C

C

C

C

Cd —————————————— A

C

C 

Cu —————————————— A

C 

C

C

C

C 

C

C 

C

C

C

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

1:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

.08 

.41 

3.6 

5.7 

35 

31

.6 

.4 

220 

360

8.3 

9.4

.20 

.26 

2.4 

2.7 

44 

58

28 

34 

1.6 

1.8 

40 

44 

780 

440

<0.05 

<.05 

.3 

.4 

.7 

.4 

8.8 

8.9

11 

4.8 

.4 

.3 

1.0 

1.0 

.5 

.3

28 

58 

1.8 

.3

1.6 

2.9 

.1 

3.2

1.10 

3.78 

1.50 

1.78 

1.00 

1.01

1.77 

2.43 

1.91 

1.57

1.18 

2.10

1.26 

1.35 

1.04 

1.15 

1.29 

1.45

1.19 

1.73 

1.19 

1.43 

1.02 

1.56 

1.61 

1.21

1.23 

1.00 

1.33 

1.44 

1.01 

1.14

1.02 

1.68 

1.44 

1.12 

1.44 

2.17 

1.33 

1.63

1.05 

1.61 

2.38 

1.57

1.41 

1.28 

1.67 

4.69

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

7:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

5:9 

3:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

9:9 

9:9 

9:9 

9:9

.11 

.13 

3.8 

6.0 

36 

33

*.5

1.1 

160 

210

8.1 

10

.22 

.28 

2.7 

3.4 

43 

59

29 

35 

1.6 

1.8 

43 

51 

370 

360

*0.05 

*.05 

.5 

.4 

.8 

1.0 

12 

12

7.6 

4.3 

.5 

.5 

.8 

.7 

.5 

.4

11 

30 

1.5 

1.0

1.3 

7.2 

.3 

.9

1.67 

2.14 

1.72 

1.54 

1.11 

1.09

*2.24 

1.81 

1.28 

1.31

1.38 

1.26

1.48 

1.33 

1.33 

1.23 

1.56 

1.49

1.35 

1.31 

1.29 

1.25 

1.51 

1.45 

1.56 

1.29

*1.16 

*1.00 

1.25 

1.24 

2.10 

2.26 

1.84 

2.15

1.78 

2.41 

1.62 

1.55 

2.11 

2.67 

2.14 

2.33

2.47 

1.57 

2.36 

2.57

1.81 

1.74 

6.20 

5.10

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

12:15 

14:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

B

4:15 

3:15 

15:15 

13:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

14:15 

15:15 

15:15

Based on

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

.10 

.11 

4.5 

4.4 

35 

34

*.6 

*.7 

160 

180

9.3 

9.0

.24 

.23 

2.8 

2.9 

47 

47

31 

30 

1.7 

1.7 

45 

45 

420 

370

ased on

*0.05 

*.05 

.4 

*.3 

.8 

.7 

10 

11

6.6 

5.7 

.4 

.5 

1.1 

*.6 

.4 

.3

sodium i

17 

28 

1.3 

.9

1.4 

1.9 

.3 

.7

1.20 

1.24 

1.61 

1.55 

1.09 

1.09

*2.57 

*2.03 

1.34 

1.31

1.34 

1.42

1.36 

1.35 

1.24 

1.26 

1.49 

1.43

1.33 

1.32 

1.27 

1.26 

1.50 

1.51 

1.71 

1.45

DTPA extraction

*1.00 

*1.00 

1.22 

*1.61 

1.78 

1.59 

2.03 

2.32

1.58 

1.76 

1.79 

1.53 

1.71 

*2.17 

1.46 

1.34

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

1:3 

2:3 

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

(ppm)

1:3 

0:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

2:3 

3:3 

3:3

.17 

1.3 

4.0 

3.6 

33 

31

*.6 

180 

240

10 

7.8

.23 

.27 

3.3 

4.1 

38 

36

3U 

33 

1.5 

1.5 

49 

28 

470 

560

<0.05 

<.05 

.3 

.4 

.6 

.5 

5.7 

15

5.0 

1.6 

.4 

.6 

.5 

*.4 

.3 

.2

2.07 

4.87 

1.67 

1.35 

1.12 

1.18

*4.03 

1.31 

1.13

1.21 

1.21

1.22 

1.32 

1.46 

1.19 

1.03 

1.18

1.36 

1.65 

1.25 

1.29 

1.45 

2.11 

1.46 

1.74

2.51 

1.39 

1.39 

1.83 

1.85 

1.84

1.30 

2.49 

1.30 

1.55 

2.04 

*2.44 

1.04 

1.74

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

9:15 

11:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

14:15

8:15 

1:15 

14:15 

13:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

.09 

.12 

3.2 

3.2 

37 

36

*.3 

*.5 

160 

210

7.6 

7.3

.21 

.19 

2.3 

2.2 

39 

37

26 

25 

1.5 

1.6 

33 

28 

430 

*280

*0.05 

<.05 

*.4 

*.2 

.6 

.4 

8.3 

8.1

9.5 

4.5 

.4 

.3 

.8 

.5 

.4 

.2

1.31 

1.79 

1.39 

1.42 

1.05 

1.08

*3.11 

*2.97 

1.46 

1.51

1.30 

1.25

1.28 

1.34 

1.21 

1.37 

1.42 

1.61

1.32 

1.51 

1.23 

1.69 

1.38 

1.57 

1.45 

*t-86

1.18

*1.42 

*2.03 

1.43 

1.61 

1.52 

2.33

1.39 

1.57 

1.53 

1.92 

1.68 

2.19 

1.54 

1.39

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

1:2 

U:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

1:2 

2:2

0:2 

U:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

icetate extraction (me/100 g)

1.75 

1.47 

1.94 

2.60

1.88 

2.00 

2.82 

2.48

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

3:3 

3:3 

3:3 

3:3

31 

123 

.9 

.7

1.1 

1.6 

.3 

1.2

1.53 

2.93 

2.59 

6.27

1.88 

1.63 

3.14 

1.97

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

15:15 

15:15 

15:15 

15:15

7.7 

25 

.9 

.4

1.3 

2.1 

.1 

.3

1.73 

1.69 

2.U9 

3.61

1.53 

1.97 

1.53 

2.74

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 33

<! o <! o <:t-><:t-><:t-><;<

I

> U
34 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

The Typic Torriorthent, coarse loamy, mixed calcareous, mesic family shows relatively high values for total 

calcium, sodium, and strontium in the A horizon.

Means and observed ranges (table 4) for watersoluble boron, and SAR, ESP, and specific conductance in both horizons of these samples of potential 

topsoil material indicate that very few samples have 

levels of these properties that can be considered restrictive to plant growth. Again, as for Study 1, using 

the Lindsay and Norvell (1978) critical levels for 

copper, iron, manganese, and zinc, only zinc appears 

to be at levels that are low enough in all soil families to 

limit plant growth, and copper in the C horizon of the 

Typic Calciorthid, fine loamy, mixed, mesic family 

(table 9) may also be at a deficiency level for plant 

growth. However, these low values do not appear to be 

affecting native plants growing on these soils, and 

there may be only a potential effect for introduced 

plants under reclamation conditions.

STUDY 3

Baseline values for topsoil and mine spoil from an 

area of the San Juan Mine that has been reclaimed 

(regraded, topsoiled, and revegetated in 1974) are 

given in table 6. The total content of only a few elements averaged two or more times as high in mine 

spoil as in topsoil (boron, organic and total carbon, 

mercury, and sulfur). However, extractable concentrations of many elements are from three to five times 

as great in mine spoil as in topsoil (DTPA-extractable 

copper, iron, lead, and zinc; water-soluble boron, calcium, chlorine, and magnesium; and specific conductance). ESP and SAR are about six times higher in 

mine spoil than in topsoil, and exchangable sodium, 

water-soluble sodium, and S04 are an order of magnitude higher in mine spoil than in topsoil. The average 

composition of topsoil (table 6), however, is similar to 

that of the C-horizon soil from both Study 1 (table 2) 

and Study 2 (table 4) for many parameters. The topsoil 

values are within the baseline ranges for the Study 1 

area for more parameters than for Study 2 because 

many varied soils were sampled in the former area, 

whereas the soils sampled in the latter area showed 

greater uniformity and, therefore, a narrower baseline 

range.

The upper and lower limits of the observed ranges in 

parameter values in mine spoil either exceed or are 

below the baseline ranges for many parameters in 

both A and C horizons of soils in both the Study 1 and 

Study 2 areas. Many more parameter values exceed 

these baselines than are below the baselines. The composition of mine spoil is much different from that of 

natural soils in this same area. Of special interest are

the high values of extractable boron and sodium, specific conductance, SAR, and ESP in mine spoil and 

their possible effects on the establishment and growth 

of vegetation. The element composition of plants grown 

both on and off mine spoil is reported in Gough and 

Severson (1980).

SUMMARY

Baseline ranges for total- and extractable-element 

composition and other properties of soils sampled in 

the area likely to be affected by energy-related development (Study 1) are shown in table 2. Baseline ranges 

for the area containing potential topsoil materials 

(Study 2) are shown in table 4, and baseline ranges for 

mine-reclaimed soils (Study 3) are shown in table 6. In 

tables 2 and 4 the geometric means for most elements 

are similar. Only a few soil properties (total sulfur in 

both horizons, water-soluble calcium and potassium in 

the C horizon, water-soluble sodium, and SAR in the A 

horizon) are two or more times higher in the Study 1 

area (table 2) than in the Study 2 area (table 4). The 

baselines for the Study 1 area encompass a much 

wider range in concentration than do those for the 

Study 2 area.

Great groups of soil in the Study 1 area, or soil 

families in the Study 2 area, are difficult to distinguish 

on the basis of their composition. In the Study 1 area, 

only the Natrargid and Torripsamment great groups 

show high or low values in composition for a few elejirients. However, the range of values measured for 

many parameters within each great group is large, 

making it difficult to define a discrete range in composition that may be expected for any single great group. 

In the Study 2 area, the range in values measured for 

many parameters in each family is small; however, the 

average composition of each family is so similar that it 

is difficult to distinguish them based on composition 

alone. Only the Typic Torripsamment, mixed, mesic 

family shows low values in composition for a few elements. In the Study 1 area, Calciorthid and Natrargid 

great groups generally have high SAR, ESP, and specific conductance, which may restrict plant growth. 

The soils in the Study 2 area can be considered as 

suitable for plant growth with respect to these properties. Concentrations of cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, 

manganese, lead, and zinc measured in the Study 1 

and Study 2 areas were similar to those shown to be 

favorable for native plant growth in the Northern 

Great Plains (Gough, and others, 1979).

In Study 3, the total content of only a few elements 

was as much as two times higher in mine spoil than in 

topsoil. However, extractable concentrations of many 

elements in mine spoil were from three to 13 times
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 35

TABLE 9.—Parameter values measured for five soil families sampled in the area containing soils considered to have potential for use as topsoil

in mined-land reclamation in the San Juan Basin

[Ratio, number of samples in which the parameter was found in measurable units relative to the number of samples analyzed; means not given for the Typic Torripsamment mixed, mesic 

family because it is represented by a single sample; *, value is an estimate, based on Cohen's (1959) technique, for censored data; leaders (--), no data available; <, less than; pet, 

percent; ppm, parts per million; me/L, milliequivalents per liter; mmhos/cm, reciprocal milliohms per centimeter; me/100 g, milliequivalents per 100 grams]

Soil 

horizon

Soil family

Typic Haplargid,

fine loamy, 

mixed, mesic

Typic Torriorthent, 

coarse loamy, mixed 

(calcareous), mesic

Typic Calciorthid,

fine loamy 

mixed, mesic

Typic Haplargid, 

coarse loamy, 

mixed, mesic

Geometric 

mean

Geometric 

deviation

Geometric 

mean

Geometric 

mean

Geometric 

deviation

Typic

Torripsamment 

mixed mesic

Based on total concentratio

Al, pet—————————— A 7:7 4.7 1.08 2:2 5.3

C 7:7 4.9 1.16 2:2 5.1

As, ppm—————————— A 7:7 3.4 1.18 2:2 3.5

C 7:7 4.6 1.15 2:2 3.6

B, ppm—————————— A 7:7 19 1.22 2:2 10

C 7:7 *10 *2.61 2:2 12

Ba, ppm—————————— A 7:7 620 1.19 2:2 790

C 7:7 670 1.45 2:2 760

Be, ppm—————————— A 7:7 1.4 1.16 2:2 1.3

C 7:7 1.4 1.15 2:2 1.3

C, carbonate, pet—— A 0:7 <.01 —— 0:2 <.01

C 6:7 *.ll *4.14 2:2 .12

C, organic, pet———— A 7:7 .44 1.45 2:2 .30

C 7:7 .19 1.52 2:2 .18

C, total, pet————— A 7:7 .44 1.45 2:2 .30

C 7:7 .35 1.89 2:2 .32

Ca, pet—————————— A 7:7 .67 1.15 2:2 1.1

C 7:7 1.2 1.86 2:2 1.3

Co, ppm—————————— A 7:7 6.3 1.32 2:2 5.4

C 7:7 5.5 1.30 2:2 4.6

Cr, ppm—————————— A 7:7 23 1.59 2:2 17

C 7:7 17 1.57 2:2 11

Cu, ppm—————————— A 7:7 12 1.41 2:2 8.5

C 7:7 11 1.61 2:2 8.4

Er, ppm—————————— A 5:7 *5.5 *1.24 1:2 <4.6

C 4:7 *5.3 *1.39 0:2 <4.6

Fe, pet—————————— A 7:7 1.0 1.15 2:2 1.0

C 7:7 1.1 1.39 2:2 1.0

Ge, ppm—————————— A 7:7 1.4 1.14 2:2 1.1

C 7:7 1.5 1.10 2:2 1.1

Hg, -ppm—————————— A 6:7 *.02 *1.57 2:2 .01

C 5:7 *.01 *1.79 2:2 .02

K, ppm——————————— A 7:7 2.1 1.04 2:2 1.9

C 7:7 2.0 1.08 2:2 2.0

La, ppm—————————— A 7:7 31 1.14 2:2 30

C 7:7 30 1.20 2:2 25

Li, ppm—————————— A 7:7 14 1.13 2:2 12

C 7:7 17 1.24 2:2 14

Mg, pet—————————— A 7:7 .26 1.33 2:2 .25

C 7:7 .39 1.51 2:2 .27

Mn, ppm—————————— A 7:7 290 1.37 2:2 210

C 7:7 230 1.57 2:2 210

Mo, ppm—————————— A 3:7 *1.0 *1.23 2:2 1.2

C 5:7 *1.2 *1.18 1:2 <1.0

Na, pet—————————— A 7:7 1.2 1.10 2:2 1.6

C 7:7 1.2 1.14 2:2 1.4

Nb, ppm—————————— A 7:7 11 1.18 2:2 8.4

C 7:7 11 1.28 2:2 10

Ni, ppm—————————— A 7:7 8.0 1.25 2:2 6.1

C 7:7 8.5 1.42 2:2 5.2

Pb, ppm—————————— A 7:7 14 1.20 2:2 11

C 7:7 10 1.21 2:2 8.6

Rb, ppm—————————— A 7:7 83 1.17 2:2 77

C 7:7 87 1.11 2:2 85

S, pet——————————— A 7:7 .04 1.33 2:2 .03

C 7:7 .05 1.82 2:2 .03

Sc, ppm—————————— A 7:7 3.4 1.13 2:2 3.0

C 7:7 3.5 1.31 2:2 2.5

C 7:7 230 1.57 2:2 210

Mo, ppm—————————— A 3:7 *1.0 *1.23 2:2 1.2

C 5:7 *1.2 *1.18 1:2 <1.0

Na, pet—————————— A 7:7 1.2 1.10 2:2 1.6

C 7:7 1.2 1.14 2:2 1.4

Nb, ppm—————————— A 7:7 11 1.18 2:2 8.4

C 7:7 11 1.28 2:2 10

1.11

1.25

1.30

1.29

1.91

1.19

1.33

1.16

1.12

1.05

2.10

1.07

1.12

1.07

1.25

1.04

1.35

1.18

1.28

1.58

1.06

1.09

1.08

1.06

1.30

1.14

1.14

1.63

1.00

1.05

1.03

1.29

1.09

1.13

1.11

1.38

1.08

1.07

1.07

1.13

1.13

1.20

1.03

1.00

Ni, ppm————————

Pb, ppm————————

Rb, ppm————————

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7

8.0

8.5

14

10

83

87

1.25

1.42

1.20

1.21

1.17

1.11

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

6.1

5.2

11

8.6

77

85

1.12

1.39

1.21

1.02

1.05

1.09

1.17

1.00

1.12

1.12

1.07

1.13

1.13

1.20

1.03

1.00

1.12

1.39

1.21

1.02

1.05

1.09

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

1:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

1:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

1:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

1:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

4.4

3.8

3.1

2.9

20

4.4

720

730 

1.5 

1.2 

<.01 

.18

.28 

.02 

.31 

.22 

.69 

1.0

4.8

3.2

23

13

8.0

4.2

<4.6 

<4.6 

.93 

.57 

1.4 

1.1

.02 

<.01 

2.0 

2.2

29

40

13

9.5

.31

.15

330

190

1.1 

1.1 

8.9 

7.3

6.3

3.1

12

10

92

92

.03

.06

2.8

1.44

190

1.1 

1.1 

8.9 

7.3

6.3

3.1

12

10

92

92

1.11

1.01

1.23

1.18

1.24

1.39

1.17

1.06

1.10

1.06

1.59

1.03

4.57

1.20

1.21

1.58

1.08

1.00

1.33

2.17

1.17

1.29

1.02

1.19

1.44

1.16

1.20

1.33

1.07

1.11

1.33

1.04

1.00

1.08

1.15

1.16

1.14

1.29

1.24

1.03

1.10

1.35

1.00

1.61

1.13

1.07

1.04

1.21

1.00

1.05

1.08

140

1.29

1.24

1.03

1.10

1.35

1.00

1.61

1.13

1.07

1.04

1.21

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:1S 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

2:18 

15:18

18:1S 

18:18 

18: IS 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

9:18 

9:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

15:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

6:18 

5:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

6:18 

5:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

4.3 

4.1 

3.3 

3.7 

15 

*10

590

690 

1.3 

1.3 

<.01

*.09

.34 

.08 

.36 

.24 

.59 

.93

4.5

4.1

19

11

8.0

5.1

*4.7

*4.7

.87

.74

1.3

1.2

.02

*.01

2.1

2.1

27

25

12

.24

.20

230

220

*.9

*.6

1.0 

1.0

10

8.5

5.8 

4.9

11

9.6

82

86

.04 

.03 

2.7

18:18 220

*.9

*.6 

1.0 

1.0

10

8.5

5.8 

4.9

11

9.6

82

86

1.11

1.21

1.24

1.40

1.37

*1.82

1.25

1.36

1.11

1.18

*4.34

1.37

2.58

1.31

2.09

1.18

1.86

1.19

1.37

1.46

1.48

1.33

1.63

*1.37

*1.25 

1.22 

1.30 

1.18 

1.20

1.57

*1.79 

1.06 

1.22 

1.25 

1.35

1.11

1.32

1.27

1.44

1.44

1.77

*1.25

*2.68 

1.13 

1.26 

1.32 

1.58

1.24

1.39

1.16

1.35

1.16

1.26

1.39

1.30

1.22

1.77

*1.25

*2.68 

1.13 

1.26 

1.32 

1.58

1.24

1.39

1.16

1.35

1.16

1.26

4.3 

4.6 

2.3 

1.7 

8.4 

<5.0

600

740

1.4

1.2

.22 

.16 

.22 

.43 

.56 

1.3

3.1

4.7

9.8

14

5.4

7.7

<4.6 

<4.6

.58 

1.2 

1.4 

1.0

.02 

<.01

2.0

2.1

19

21

.17

.25

140

190

1.1 

1.3 

9.9 

9.9

3.8

5.0

8.8

11

90

65

<.03 

.07 

2.4

1.1 

1.3 

9.9 

9.9

3.8

5.0

8.8

11

90

65
36 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS 

TABLE 9 — Continued

Soil family

Parameter Soil

Typic Haplargid, 

fine loamy, 

mixed, mesic

Typic Torriorthent, 

coarse loamy, mixed 

(calcareous), mesic

Typic Calciorthid, 

f ine loamy 

mixed, mesic

Typic Haplargid, 

coarse loamy, 

mixed, mesic

Typic 

Torripsamment 

mixed mesic

I1OI 1 zon -

jatio Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation

gatio Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation

Ratio Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation

gatio Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation

Based on total concentration] — Continued

s,

Sc,

Si,

Sn,

Sr,

Th,

Ti,

U,

V,

Y,

Yb,

Zn,

Zr,

pct ——————————

ppn, ____________

pct ——— ——

ppm —-—————_

ppm ——— -_—— _

ppm ----- —— — ~-

pct ___________

>pm~ ——————————

ppm —— —— — — ———

ppn _________

ppm —— — ——— ———

P P"1 —— --——-——

p pm --——-—————

A

C

A

C

A 

C

A

C

A 

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

A

C

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7 

7:7

5:7

3:7

7:7 

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

7:7

6:7

.04

.05

3.4

3.5

34 

33

*.5

240 

250

8.7

8.5

.27

.24

2.7

2.5

33

39

34

30

2.3

2.0

34

35

560

*510

1.33

.82

.13

.31

.06 

.06

*4.01

*12.4

1.13

1.13

1.17

1.22

1.16

1.30

1.22

1.20

1.15

1.33

1.15

1.36

1.26

1.41

1.15

1.21

1.34

*1.68

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

.03

.03

3.0

2.5

33

34

.9

2.4

340 

220

6.7

5.9

.25

.18

2.4

1.9

32

29

28

24

1.9

1.8

32

30

370

180

1.17

1.00

1.12

1.12

1.04 

1.05

4.73

1.30

1.02 

1.14

1.08

1.02

1.26

1.21

1.27

1.16

1.09

1.16

1.25

1.06

1.72

1.04

1.12

1.21

1.21

1.08

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2 

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

.03

.06

2.8

2.0

33 

35

2.3

.5

210 

210

8.0

5.9

.21

.14

2.0

1.4

28

18

29

19

2.4

1.2

33

17

500

150

1.00

1.05

1.08

1.24

1.09 

1.01

1.20

6.32

1.49 

1.49

1.24

1.00

1.07

1.04

1.12

1.01

1.19

1.42

1.07

1.04

1.03

1.19

1.24

1.29

1.22

1.10

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18 : 18 

18:18

14:18

13:18

18: 18 

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

.04

.03

2.7

2.3

35 

34

*.7

*.7

200 

200

7.5

6.9

.21

.16

2.2

1.8

27

26

30

24

1.9

1.5

30

24

340

250

1.39

1.30

1.22

1.21

1.04 

1.06

*3.53

*4.89

1.13 

1.21

1.29

1.33

1.21

1.23

1.15

1.24

1.20

1.33

1.39

1.40

1.46

1.52

1.17

1.32

1.38

1.68

<.03

.07

2.

2.

36 

33

1.

200

340

5.

5.

.

.

1.

2.

20

26

19

18

1.

23

29

210

300

4

2

9

2

6

3

15

22

5

1

6

9

Based on DTPA extraction

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C

1:7 

0:7 

1:7 

3:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7

7:7 

7:7 

6:7 

6:7 

7:7 

6:7 

7:7 

7:7

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7

<0.05 

<.05

*.2 

.7 

.6 

8.9 

8.5

14 

7.8 

*.3 

*.4 

.6 

*.5 

.5 

.2

6.9 

27 

.7 

.4

1.8 

4.1 

.6 

1.6

——

*1.34 

1.29 

.32 

.23 

.15

.64 

.26 

* .54 

* .67 

.40 

*1.32 

1.36 

1.21

1.27 

1.49 

1.35 

1.28

1.24 

1.47 

1.34 

1.42

0:2 

0:2 

1:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

1:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2

Based

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

<0.05 

<.05

.5 

.6 

8.4 

9.4

8.3 

6.6 

.4 

.5

.4 

.2

on sodiu

7.5 

30 

.8 

.3

1.2 

2.5 

.8 

1.5

Based on fc

Ca, me/L —————————

K, me/L ——————————

Mg, me/L ————————— 

Na, me/L ————————— 

S04 , me/L ————————

Specific conductance, 

mmh os/cm.

A 

C 

A 

C 

A 

C

A 

C 

A 

C 

A

C 

A 

C

A 

C

7:7 

7:7 

0:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

7:7 

3:7

5:7 

7:7 

7:7

0:7 

4:7

3.2 

6.5

12 

.6 

.3

1.2 

3.9/ 

.8 

17 

*.9

*3.2 

.5 

2.2

<0.5 

*.5

1.44 

3.07

4.08 

1.96 

2.14

1.32 

3.44 

2.26 

2.26 

*1.93

*5.86 

1.32

2.42

*1.68

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

0:2 

1:2

3.5

2.0

.4 

.2

1.0 

.7 

2.2 

8.2

2.7 

.5 

.9

Based on

<0.5

——

1.41 

1.77 

1.01 

1.23

1.03 

1.33 

2.43 

1.14

1.00 

1.63

1.43 

1.14 

1.31 

1.14

1.41 

1.22 

1.31 

3.21

2.17 

1.28

1.44 

1.33

1.55 

1.23 

1.17 

3.97

4.16 

1.33 

2.38

——

0:2 

0:2 

0:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

1:2 

2:2 

1:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

0:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

2:2 

2:2 

2:2

0:2 

1:2

(ppm)

<0.05 

<.05

.5 

.1 

7.0 

6.6

8.2 

4.6 

.3

.9

.3

.2

9.9 

25 

.7 

.3

1.5 

1.5 

.5 

.9

5.6 

26

13 

.8 

.3

1.2 

9.8 

.4 

24 

1.2

46 

.6 

4.2

<0.5

——

1.07 

1.63 

1.04 

1.23

1.25 

1.04 

1.23

1.17

1.23 

1.23

)

1.38 

1.26 

1.05 

1.00

1.10 

1.18 

1.41 

1.47

1.14 

1.19

1.22 

1.44 

1.00

1.06 

1.15 

1.63 

1.12 

1.33

1.01 

1.12 

1.11

——

2:18 

0:18 

1:18 

3:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

9:18 

13:18 

16:18 

9:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18

18:18 

18:18 

3:18 

14:18 

18:18 

14:18

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

18:18 

8:18

16:18 

18:18 

18:18

1:18 

4:18

*0.02 

<.05

*.2 

.5 

.3 

7.1 

7.4

11 

5.8 

*.2 

*.3 

*.7 

*.5 

.5 

.2

7.0 

21 

.8 

.3

1.5 

2.2 

.7 

.9

4.4 

4.0 

*.2 

*1.4 

.8 

*.2

1.3 

1.7 

.5 

5.5 

*.9

*2.4 

.5 

.9

<0.5 

*.5

*1.88

*1.26 

1.37 

2.79 

1.26 

1.20

1.38 

1.49 

*1.52 

*1.83 

*1.37 

*1.22 

1.42 

1.20

1.19 

1.71 

1.34 

1.73

1.24 

1.37 

1.89 

1.53

1.26 

2.28 

*2.97 

*5.98 

1.37 

*2.06

1.31 

1.93 

1.81 

2.48 

*1.47

*3.52 

1.28 

1.73

*1.00

<0.05 

<.05

.4 

.3 

8.1 

7.1

6.9 

6.2 

.3

1.0 

.4 

.4 

.2

5.3 

39 

.7 

.3

.9 

1.1 

.8 

.9

4.0 

4.3

1.0 

.6 

.2

.9 

.7 

.3 

3.8 

1.0

.5 

.7

<0.5
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 37

TABLE 9 — Continued

Typic Haplargid,

Soil £ine loamy ' 

Parameter mixed, mesic

gal-j- Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation

Typic Torriorthent , 

coarse loamy, mixed 

(calcareous), mesic

Sol.1 family

Typic Calciorthid, 

fine loamy 

mixed, mesic

Ratio Geometric Geometric RatiQ 

mean deviation

Geometric Geometric 

mean deviation

Typic Haplargid, Typic 

coarse loamy, Torripsamment 

mixed, mesic mixed mesic

Ratio Geometric Geometric 

deviation

Measured by specific ion electrode

1

C 7:7 8.5 .30

2:2 8.1 

2:2 8.8 .28

Based on rep Lacement

Ca t ion-exchange ————

capacity.

SAR3 ——————————

Saturation index, ——

pet.

Sand- —— ———— — —— —

Silt ________________

^Variance is arithmetic

A 7:7

C 7:7

C 7:7

A 7:7

C 7:7

A 7:7

C 7:7

A 7:7

C 7:7

A 7:7

C 7:7

C 7:7

11

17

4.9

.6

7.5

24.2

30.3

61

59

18

13

25

1.14

1.15

1.71

2.59

1.55

1.11

1.21

1.14

1.21

1.85

1.92

1.21

2:2 11

2:2 14

Based on

2:2 4.2

2:2 1.5

2:2 7.1

2:2 23.8

2:2 30.7

Based on phys

2:2 7.5

2:2 70

2:2 9.0

2:2 9.5

2:2 20

1.03

1.22

calcu

2.69

1.66

4.46

1.12

1.24

iical

1.00

1.07

1.18

1.13

1.32

2:2

with sodiu

2:2

2:2

lated paran

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

properties

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

8 

8 .4 .14 18:18 8.7 .30 8 .5

m (me/100 g)

11

6

jeters

3

5

20

19

.8

.0

.2

.6

.0

.8

1.07

1.20

1.80

1.56

1.08

1.10

1.07

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

10

10

3.8

.3

3.2

22.5

23.3

1.18

1.32

1.69

1.82

2.25

1.11

1.15

7

15

2

2

26

27

.3

.4

.2

.2

.4

.6

.8

(percent)

73

89

9

9

10

.0

.5

1.02

1.00

1.55

1.91

1.09

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

18:18

72

81

11

1.4

15

1.10

1.09

1.73

5.73

1.37

87

78

1

5

16

.9

.4

^Exchangeable sodium percentage.

SodLum adsorption rati 0.

higher. Exchangable sodium, water-soluble boron, 

specific conductance, ESP, and SAR values were 

measured at levels considered to be detrimental to 

plant growth (Sandoval and Gould, 1978). The values 

reported by Gould, Howard, and Buchanan (1977) and 

by Gould, Miyamoto, and Rai (1977) for waterextractable cations and anions, pH, and SAR from 

soils in southern San Juan County are within the 

expected range of those reported for the Study 2 area 

(table 4). However, when the soil properties measured 

in the present study (tables 8 and 9) are compared to 

the same properties of taxonomicaly similar soils as 

reported by Gould, Howard, and Buchanan (1977, 

table 4) and Gould, Miyamoto, and Rai (1977, table 3), 

both similarities and discrepancies are noted. In general, values for soils of the Torripsamment great 

group, as determined in this study and the other studies, are similar. Many of the values reported by 

Gould, Miyamoto, and Rai (1977, table 3) for the 

Haplargid great group are somewhat higher, and for 

the Calciorthid great group somewhat lower, than 

those reported for the same great groups in the present 

study (tables 8 and 9). Judged from these studies, as 

stated previously, named taxonomic soil groups show 

wide ranges in chemical properties.

Rai, Wierenga, and Gould (1974, table 3) reported 

values for water-soluble cations and anions, pH, and 

SAR in core samples of rock from the Fruitland Formation in the southern part of San Juan County. The

values for most elements in these rock samples are 

much higher than are those for mine spoil from the 

San Juan mine of this report (table 6). However, similar ranges are reported in both studies for waterextractable boron, and potassium, pH, and SAR. Perhaps the chemical composition of the Fruitland 

Formation changes appreciably between these two 

locations, or perhaps some process in the mining and 

mined-land reclamation operation is responsible for 

these disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Maps of element content in soils in the broad area 

likely to be affected by energy-related development (Study 1), show no gradational pattern 

across the area. Such geochemical maps do not 

show patterns that resemble geologic or soils 

maps, indicating that named geologic or soil 

units are poor indicators of the element composition of soils.

2. In Study 1, many more maps resulted from studies 

of total-element content than from extractableelement content. This result indicates that 

total-element content of soil is variable at a 

regional scale, whereas extractable element 

content is variable at a smaller, or local, scale. 

This difference suggests that total-element composition may reflect distribution of differing sur-
38 GEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF THE WESTERN ENERGY REGIONS

ficial deposits, whereas extractable element 

composition may reflect the more site-specific 

pedogenic processes acting on these surficial 

deposits.

3. In the Study 2 area, containing materials considered suitable for use as topsoil in mined-land 

reclamation, most of the variability in soil composition was confined to small distance increments. The soils are uniform in composition and, 

as a group, can adequately be characterized by a 

baseline range.

4. Topsoil and spoil material (Study 3) had a large 

portion of the total variability measured, for 

most parameters, at distance intervals of less 

than 5 m. In order to prepare reliable maps of 

composition of topsoil or spoil, it would be necessary to sample at this interval. Such maps, even 

for a moderate-size area, would be very expensive to prepare.

5. When the composition of soils of Study 1 are summarized according to their taxonomic great 

groups, it is difficult to distinguish between 

these groups based on composition alone. This 

difficulty indicates that soil taxonomy cannot be 

used to characterize the composition of soil 

groups very effectively.

6. It is also difficult to distinguish between the soils 

of Study 2, when grouped at the family taxonomic level, on the basis of their compositions 

alone. Taxonomic family groupings of soil in 

this area cannot be used very effectively to characterize composition.

7. In Study 1, many of the samples of C horizons of 

soils (and a few samples of A horizons) had 

values for SAR and ESP that would limit their 

desirability for use as topsoil in mined-land reclamation. In general, soils classified as Haplargids and Torriorthents are superior to those 

classified as Calciorthids and Natrargids as 

potential sources of topsoil material for minedland reclamation. The latter two great groups 

have water-soluble boron, SAR and ESP values 

that may be restrictive to plant growth.

8. Most of the soils sampled in Study 2 were identified as the Shiprock or Doak soil series. These 

soils appear to be suitable for use as topsoil in 

mined-land reclamation because they have few, 

if any, undesirable chemical properties.

9. High values for total arsenic and molybdenum in 

soil were measured in the western part of the 

Study 1 area. The potential for molybdenosis 

problems in livestock needs further investigation in this area.

10. The chemical composition of the topsoil material 

(Study 3) is similar to that of natural C horizons 

of soils from the Study 1 and Study 2 areas. 

However, mine spoil is much different in composition from natural soils. For example, high 

values for extractable boron and sodium, SAR, 

and ESP indicate that, without topsoil, the 

establishment and growth of vegetation on mine 

spoil may be difficult. In addition, extractable 

levels of copper, iron, lead, and zinc are three to 

five times higher in spoil than in topsoil. Topsoiling of reclaimed spoil material has ameliorated 

these undesirable chemical properties.

11. Total content of many trace elements in the soils 

sampled in Study 1 and Study 2 is from one-half 

to one-fifth that measured in soils in the northern part of the Great Plains; however, DTPA 

extractable levels are similar for all these areas. 

Therefore, although the trace-element reservoir 

is greater in soil in the Northern Great Plains, 

the extractable or plant available amounts are 

similar.

REFERENCES CITED

Cohen, A. C., Jr., 1959, Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are singly censored or truncated: Technometrics, v. 1, p. 217-237.

Crock, J. G. and Severson, R. C., 1980, Four reference soil and rock 

samples for measuring element availability in the Western 

energy regions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 841,16 p.

Dane, C. H. and Bachman, G. 0., 1965, Geologic map of New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000, 2 sheets.

Gough, L. P., and Severson, R. C., 1981, Biogeochemical variability 

of plants at native and altered sites, San Juan Basin, New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1134-D.

Gough, L. P., Severson, R. C., and McNeal, J. M., 1979, Extractable 

and total-soil element concentrations favorable for native plant 

growth in the northern Great Plains, in Wali, M. K., ed., Ecology and coal resource development: New York, Pergamon 

Press, p. 859-869.

Gould, W. L., Howard, V. W., Jr., and Buchanan, B. A., 1972, Biotic 

composition and soil characteristics of an area to be strip-mined 

in San Juan county by El Paso Natural Gas Company: New •
NATURAL SOILS AND RECLAIMED MINE-SPOIL SOILS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO 39

Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station 

Special Re port 24, 47 p.

1977, Biotic composition and soil properties on a Fruitland

Formation exposure in northwestern New Mexico: New Mexico 

State University Agricultural Experiment Station Special 

Report 33, 62 p.

Gould, W. L., Howard, V. W., Jr., and Valentine, K. A., 1972, Soil 

characterises, biotic composition, and vegetative production 

of areas leased by Western Coal Company for strip mining near 

Fruitland, New Mexico: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 20, 49 p.

Gould, W. L., Miyamoto, S., and Rai, Dhanpat, 1977, Reclamation 

potential of overburden materials in the Fruitland Formation 

in the San Juan Basin: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 657, 39 p.

Leone, F. C., Nelson, L. S., Johnson, N. L., and Eisenstat, Stanley, 

1968, Sampling distributions of variance components. II. Emperical studies of unbalanced nested designs: Technometrics, v. 

10, no. 4, p. 719-737.

Lindsay, W. L., and Norvell, W. A., 1978, Development of a DTPA 

soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper: Soil Science 

Society of America Journal, v. 42, no. 3, p. 421-428.

Maker, H. J., Bullock, H. E., Jr., and Anderson, J. U., 1974, Soil 

associations and land classification for irrigation, McKinley 

County: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 262, 68 p.

Maker, H. J., Dregne, H. E., Link, V. G., and Anderson, J. U., 1974, 

Soils of New Mexico: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 285, 132 p.

Maker, H. J., Folks, J. J., Anderson, J. U., and Gallman, W. B., 1971, 

Soil associations and land classification for irrigation, Sandoval 

and Los Alamos Counties: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 188, 45 p.

Maker, H. J., Folks, J. J., Anderson, J. U., and Link, V. G., 1973, Soil 

associations and land classification for irrigation, Rio Arriba 

County: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 254, 69 p.

Maker, H. J., Keetch, C. W., and Anderson, J. U., 1973, Soil associations and land classification for irrigation, San Juan County: 

New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 257, 44 p.

Miesch, A. T., 1976, Geochemical survey of Missouri — methods of 

sampling, laboratory analysis, and statistical reduction of data 

in a geochemical survey of Missouri, with sections on Laboratory methods: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 954-A, 

39 p.

O'Sullivan, R. B., Scott, G. R., and Heller, J. S., 1979a, Preliminary 

geologic map of the Bisti Trading Post quadrangle, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-1075, scale 1:24,000.

___ 1979b, Preliminary geologic map of the Kirkland SW quadrangle, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Field Studies Map MF-1080, scale 1:24,000.

Power, J. F., 1978, Reclamation research on strip-mined lands in

dry regions, in Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands: 

Madison, Wis., American Society of Agronomy and others, p. 

521-535.

Rai, Dhanpat, Wierenga, P. J., and Gould, W. L., 1974, Chemical 

and physical properties of core samples from a coal-bearing 

formation in San Juan County, New Mexico: New Mexico State 

University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 

287,13 p.

___ 1975, Chemical and physical properties of soil samples from 

a coal-bearing formation in San Juan County, New Mexico: 

New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 294, 24 p.

Safaya, N. M., 1980, Delineation of mineral stresses in mine spoils 

and screening plants for adaptability, in Wali, M. K., ed., Ecology and coal resource development: New York, Pergamon 

Press, p. 830-849.

Sandoval, F. M., and Gould, W. L., 1978, Improvement of saline- and 

sodium-affected disturbed lands, in Reclamation of drastically 

disturbed land: Madison, Wis., American Society of Agronomy, 

p. 485-504.

Schafer, W. M., 1979, Variability of mine soils and natural soils in 

southeastern Montana: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 43, no. 6, p. 1207-1212.

Scott, G. R., O'Sullivan, R. B., and Heller, J. S., 1979a, Preliminary 

geologic map of the Burnam Trading Post quadrangle, San 

Juan County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1076, scale 1:24,000.

___ 1979b, Preliminary geologic map of the Pillar NW quadrangle, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies Map MF-1077, scale 1:24,000.

Scott, G. R., O'Sullivan, R. B., and Mytton, J. W., 1979, Reconnaissance geologic map of the Almo West quadrangle, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 

MF-1074, scale 1:24,000.

Severson, R. C., 1979, Regional soil chemistry in the Bighorn and

Wind River Basins, Wyoming and Montana: U.S. Geological

Survey Professional Paper 1134-B, 9 p. 

Severson, R. C., Gough, L. P., and McNeal, J. M., 1977. Availability

of elements in soils to native plants. Northern Great Plains: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-847,90 p. 

Severson, R. C., and Tidball, R. R., 1979, Spatial variation in total

element concentration in soil within the Northern Great Plains

coal region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1134-A,

18 p.

Tidball, R. R., and Ebens, R. J., 1976, Regional geochemical baselines in soils of the Powder River Basin, Montana-Wyoming, in 

Laudon, R. B., ed., Geology and energy resources of the Powder 

River Basin: Wyoming Geological Association 28th Annual 

Field Conference, Casper, Wyo., Guidebook, p. 299-310.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1975, Geochemical survey of the western 

energy regions, 2nd annual progress report: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 75-436,132 p.

____ 1976, Geochemical survey of the western energy regions, 3rd 

annual progress report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 76-729,138 p.

, US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 198'1i——777-O34/46