NTIS PB 81 234742 EPA 600/7-81-131
June 1981
FIELD STUDIES ON PARAHO RETORTED OIL SHALE LYSIMETERS:
Leachate, Vegetation, Moisture, Salinity, and Runoff, 1977-1980
by
M.K. Kilkelly, H.P. Harbert, III, and W.A. Berg
Colorado State University Experiment Station
Fort Collins, Colorado
Grant Number CR804719
Project Officer
Edward R. Bates
Energy Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,.and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute endorsement
of recommendation for use.
11
-------
-------
;F!RST
'Li.Nr, OF
TEVf
1 Kent £-?"
HEAD;
BEGIN
SECTIONS
HERE *
TYPING GUIDE SHEET
/-. » , *- r r-i
w c * f r, r~i
OF PAGE
t
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
I and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on^
[our health often require that new and {increasingly more efficient pollution
[control methods! be used. The Industrijal Environmental Research Laboratory - .
' Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
fmethodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
' | .. :
This study; used lysimeters to simulate both a low-elevation (dry site)
and a high-elevation (moist site) disposal scheme for Paraho direct-heated
oil shale. The study investigated the surface vegetative stabilization of ,
^etorte-d~sh-a-le"U-th'^nd'rwit;hou-t-so-il cper andinvgstlgated-water-a1i-d-salt ? ,
movement through compacted and uncompajcted Paraho retorted shale. The
results should be useful to government agencies and private developers
involved with developing control technology methods for retorted oil shale
tdisposal. For more information, contact the Oil Shale and Energy Mining
! Branch of the'Energy Pollution Control* Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
BEGIN
LAST LINE
OF TEXT
3/O '
/ o
fv' OF
FQK TABLES
AND jLt.US-
EPA-287 (Cin.)
(4-76)
PAGE NUMBER
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
A disposal scheme for Paraho retorted shale utilizing lysimeters to
simulate a low-elevation (dry site) and a high-elevation (moist site) was
Constructed. The study site was located in western Colorado at the Depart-
ment of Energy oil shale research facility at Anvil Points. The lysimeters
were constructed in 1976 and filled with retorted shale in 1977. Objectives
of the study were to investigate 1) vegetative stabilization of Paraho
retorted shale, as affected by leaching and soil cover treatments; and
2> moisture and soluble salt movement through the soil/shale profile.
After intensive management and four growing seasons, only a sparse (2% to
3%) cover of perennial vegetation resulted on the Paraho retorted shale. In
contrast, good to excellent cover was established and maintained on the soil
control and soil-covered retorted shale treatments.
.Initial leaching and irrigation for plant establishment produced perco-
late from drains below the compacted shale zone. The percolate from the
Paraho retorted shale treatment measured a maximum electrical conductivity
(EC) of 35 mmhos/cm and a pH of 11.4. The soil control produced percolate with
a maximum EC of 8.5 mmhos/cm and a pH of 8.3. Each spring the high-elevation-
lysimeter received supplemental irrigation to simulate a zone of higher pre-
cipitation. Percolate produced from these irrigations exhibited a general
overall reduction in both EC (33 to 11.4 mmhos/cm) and pH (11.4 to 8.6) by
1980 on the Paraho retorted shale treatment. The low-elevation lysimeters
did not receive additional spring irrigations and no percolate was produced
from the unleached treatments. When the constructed lysimeters were filled
with freshly retorted shale a high temperature (60 C) was maintained at a 1 m
depth for 30 days. Prolonged, elevated temperatures of retorted shale dis-
posal piles could significantly affect both the amount and composition of
vegetative cover.
This report deals most specifically with the collection, measurement,
and interpretation of data from 1978 through 1980. A more detailed descrip-
tion of all measurements and analyses for 1976-1977 was reported in Harbert
et al. (1979).
iv
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
i
i FOREWORD
j ABSTRACT
i FIGURES
.- TABLES
.
.APPENDIX TABLES ........... ....... - ......... V111
! ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ...... . . ............... *
'; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........... ................. xi
' Section
~" .
[ I INTRODUCTION
II CONCLUSIONS ....................... 3
III RECOMMENDATIONS . . . .' ................. 5
' "' C
IVj MATERIALS AND METHODS . ................. b
*- j
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................. 13
. ,. "Chemical and physical properties of retorted shale
and soil . . . ................. 13
Precipitation ... ................. 16
. Vegetation ..... .................
21
Moisture ..... - ............. :*
; Runoff ......' ............ ..... 3°
Percolate . . . . ................. -!4
' /iO
, Core sample analysis ............ . . . . .
i Water balance . .1 ................. 45
f
. LITERATURE CITED
,- APPENDIX TABLES
L_
-------
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Location of the Paraho retorted shale lysimeter study
site ............................ 6
2 Diagram of the Paraho retorted shale lysimeter study
treatments ...... ...................
3 Cross section of the lysimeter design ........
4 Cooling rates for Paraho retorted shale . . . . ...... 16
5 Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1977 ......... .....' ........ 22
6 Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1978 ...... . ............... 24
7 Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1979 ...................... 25
8 Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1980 ..... . ............. -. 25
9 Seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1977 ...................... 27
10 seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1978 ...................... 2
11 Seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1979 ......................
12 Seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1980 ..... - ................ 29
13 Soluble salt profiles of the lysimeter treatments, 1979
44
VI
-------
-------
TABLES
. . Page
Number z
1 Seed mixtures and rates of application for the low- and high-
elevation lysimeters « '
2 Chemical and physical characteristics of Paraho retorted shale
and soil used in this study 14
3 Monthly precipitation for the lysimeter study site,
1976-1980
4 vegetative cover for Paraho retorted shale, soil-covered
Paraho retorted shale, and soil control, 1977-1980 18
5 vegetative cover by species categories for Paraho retorted ,-
shale, soil-covered Paraho retorted shale, and soil control,
1978-1980 20
6 Percent moisture by weight of core samples from the
lysimeter study, 1978 *- . .
7 Spring snowmelt runoff from the low-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1978 ..........
8 Spring snowmelt runoff from the lysimeter study, 1979 .... 31
9 Water quality analyses of spring snowmelt runoff from the
lysimeter study, 1979
10 Spring snowmelt runoff and water quality analyses from the
lysimeter study, 1980
11 Percolate from the lysimeter study, 1977 35
"^7
12 Percolate from the lysimeter study, 1978 . .
13 Percolate from the lysimeter study, 1979 38
14 Percolate from the lysimeter study, 1980 39
15 Total percolate volume for the lysimeter study, 1977-1980 . . 41
16 Laboratory analyses of the initial percolate from the high-
elevation lysimeter, 1977
17 analyses of Paraho retorted shale before and after leaching
and plant establishment, 1977 43
vii
-------
-------
APPENDIX TABLES
Number
1-4 Vegetative analysis (transect method), 1978.
High-Elevation Lysimeters
1 - South-aspect, 25% slope 48
2 - North-aspect, 2% slope 50
Low-Elevation Lysimeters
3 - South-aspect, 25% slope . 52
4 - North-aspect, 2% slope 54
5-8 Moisture measurements (neutron probe), 1978.
High-Elevation Lysimeters
' 5 - South-aspect, 25% slope 56
6 - North-aspect, 2% slope 58
Low-Elevation Lysiroeters
7 - South-aspect, 25% slope 60
8 - North-aspect, 2% slope . . . 6.2
9-12 Vegetative analysis (transect method) , 1979.
High-Elevation Lysimeters
9 - South-aspect, 25% slope 64
10 - North-aspect, 2% slope 65
Low-Elevation Lysimeters
11 - South-aspect, 25% slope 66
12 - North-aspect, 2% slope 67
13-16 Moisture measurements (neutron probe), 1979.
gigh-Elevation Lysimeters
13 - South-aspect, 25% slope 68
14 - North-aspect, 2% slope 70
Low-Elevation Lysimeters
15 - South-aspect, 25% slope 72
16 - North-aspect, 2% slope 74
viii
-------
-------
Number Page
17-18 Salinity measurements (EG) of core samples, October 1979.
17 - High-Elevation Lysimeters 76
18 - Low-Elevation Lysimeters 77
19-22 Vegetative analysis (transect method) , 1980.
High-Elevation Lysimeters
19 - South-aspect, 25% slope 78
20 - North-aspect, .2% slope . 79
Low-Elevation Lysimeters
21 - South-aspect, 25% slope 80
22 - North-aspect, 2% slope ........ 81
23-26 Moisture analysis (neutron probe), 1980.
High-Elevation Lysimeters
23 - South-aspect, 25% slope 82
24 - North-aspect, 2% slope 83
Low-Elevation Lysimeters
25 - South-aspect, 25% slope '.... 84
26 - North-aspect, 2% slope . . - 85
ix
-------
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
mmhos/cm
pmhos/cm
ha-m
kg/ha
Jon
meq/£
ppm
SAR
X
centimeter
Colorado State University
diethylenetr iamine pentaacetic acid
electrical conductivity
millimhos per centimeter
micromhos per centimeter
hectare -meter
kilogram per hectare
kilometer
liter
milliequivalent per liter
a numerical designation of acidity
and alkalinity
parts per million
sodium adsorption ratio
standard deviation
total dissolved solids
mean
. x
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks to the following agencies and individuals who helped and
cooperated on this study:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for funding the project.
The Development Engineering, Inc. for providing the retorted shale.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management for providing the study site.
The Battelle Northwest Laboratories for some of the leachate
.analyses.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Navy for the use of
the Anvil Points facilities. .;
And above all, to the following people who worked long,and hard
on various stages of the project:
Bob Squires
Jim Herron
Bob. Foley
Terry Ruiter
Claire Semmer
Deborah Gerschefske
Russell Scott
Kirby DeMott
Lori Nukaya
-------
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
In recent years the need to develop new energy resources within the
United States has become increasingly important. In 1973 the U.S. Department
of Interior estimated that the western oil shale reserves, consisting of over
64,750 square kilometers in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, contained over
9.5 x 1013 A (600 billion barrels) of recoverable crude oil. These previously
undeveloped areas, used largely as range and wildlife habitats, will be sub-
ject to vast land disturbances with the development of an oil shale industry.,
Various waste products will be generated by shale processing methods
making it necessary to develop control technology in order to limit the
environmental impact. One of the major environmental problems associated
with oil shale development is the disposal of the massive amounts of .waste
material produced. The U.S. Department of Interior (1973) estimated that a
mature oil shale industry of 1.6 x 108 S, of oil/day (one million barrels of
oil/day) would generate approximately 20,000 ha-m/year of waste material with
surface retorting methods. Part of this waste might be returned to mined
areas, but a large proportion would require surface disposal. Not only the
large volume, but also the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste
will create challenges for the development of control technology.
A part of the solution to the management of processed shales would be.
the rapid establishment of a satisfactory vegetative cover on disposal piles.
Vegetation would stabilize the processed shale by decreasing water and wind
erosion. Transpiration by vegetation would also result in less moisture
available for deep percolation. Establishment of vegetation would also aid
in returning the area to a valuable range and wildlife habitat, and provide
a more aesthetic landscape.
To make reasonable predictions about the environmental impact of an oil
shale industry it is necessary to investigate both the chemical and physical
properties of the waste material. Factors affecting the characteristics of
the retorted shale include the natural variation in the raw shale, the degree
to which the raw shale was crushed prior to retorting and the retorting pro-
cess itself.
In addition to physical and chemical characteristics of the retorted
shale, the location of the disposal sites in a region of complex geomor-
phology and varied climatic regimes will influence the success of disposal
management efforts.
-------
shale:
shale
'-stt,1:
the results of the first growing season.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PARAHO RETORTED SHALE
1 After four wetting-and-drying cycles, the PH of Paraho retorted
shale surface samples was reduced from 11.2 to 9. O.
2. After leaching, the Paraho retorted shale soluble salt content was
reduced from 7.1 nmhos/cm to 3-4 mmhos/cm.
3 The unleached treatments averaged approximately 10 nmhos/cm
3° Srou^hout the retorted shale profile.^ al though , «>erewas no
indication of upward migration of soluble salts by 1979.
4 Laboratory analyses of 1977 core samples suggested that Unbalances
' «*Sci2. magnesium, and sodium might inhibit plant growth on the
Paraho retorted shale.
while increasing surface evaporation.
VEGETATION
1 After four growing seasons, perennial vegetation on the Paraho
retorted shale remained minimal (2% to 3% cover) .
2. A good to excellent vegetative cover was established £***£
on the soil control and soil-covered, retorted shale treatments,
with western wheatgrass as the predominant species.
3. Differences between varying amounts of soil cover, with respect to
vegetative cover, were insignificant.
- - s=?=2=
indicating limited root tolerance for the Paraho retorted shale
-------
PERCOLATE
movement of moisture through the profile
4 irrigation (except for 1980) of the high-elevation lys^eters
* resulted in percolate each spring.
meters produced percolate
.
did not move below 105 cm.
WATER
The Baxi»» ^ of percolate fro. the Par^o retorted «ha!« -as
35 jnmhos/cm.
DISPOSAL PILE TEMPERATURES
1 The freshly retorted shale
temperatures for 30 days.
in this study -a^taine* 60 C
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Because of the unsuitability of the Paraho retorted shale as a
plant growth media, soil cover is recommended for successful e
ment of vegetation on the retorted shale.
2. Poor establishment and growth of the fourwing saltbush suggested limited
- root penetration into the Paraho retorted shale. Additional studies are
needed to evaluate root growth in retorted shale.
3 Efforts should be made to prevent movement of water through the retorted
shale as leach water poses a pollution potential due to high soluble salt
content. '".
4. Research is needed to insure that the compacted shale can be made '***?*-
vious, since in this study, moisture moved through Paraho retorted shale
compacted to a density of 1.5 to 1.6 g/cm3.
'5 Elevated temperatures maintained in the retorted shale disposal pile
might adversely affect the establishment of vegetation. Further investi-
gation under commercial disposal pile conditions is recommended.
'.6. The present fluctuations in chemical composition of leachate from the
lysimeters require that additional pore volumes of water are needed to
evaluate leachate quality.
-------
SECTION IV
METHODS AND MATERIALS
In 1976 a series of concrete lysimeters were constructed to aid in
modeling a disposal scheme for Paraho retorted (direct-heated) oil shale.
The lysimeters were designed to simulate a canyon fill disposal site having
the following features:
1. The back face of the canyon fill gently sloped (2% to 5%) upstream.
2. The front face of the dam steeply sloped (25% to 50%) downstream.
3. The body of the disposal pile highly compacted.
4. The exposed surface of either uncompacted retorted shale or soil-
covered retorted shale of a sufficient depth to provide ade-
quate plant rooting and moisture storage.
A study site was selected at the U.S. Department of Energy, Anvil Points
Research Facility in western Colorado (Figure 1). The study site, on public
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, was characteristic of a semi-
arid, low-elevation disposal site, with an elevation of 1737 m, and an aver-
age annual precipitation of 28 cm. - ~
Figure 1. Location of Paraho retorted shale lysimeter study site.
-------
:£,
Two identical sets of lysimeters were constructed at this site. One
set was used to simulate the natural low-elevation site, while the other was
to simulate a high-elevation disposal site. Because of proximity to water,
electricity, retorted shale, and construction supplies, both sets of lysi-
meters were built at the low-elevation site. Sprinkler irrigations simulated
the increased precipitation associated with a high-elevation site.
The following replicated treatments (shown in Figure 2) were tested with
each lysimeter set, on both a 2%, north-aspect slope, and a 25%, south-aspect
slope:
1. Paraho retorted shale, leached
"; 2. 20 cm soil cover over Paraho shale, leached
3. 40 cm soil cover over Paraho shale, unleached
k. 4. 60 cm soil cover over Paraho shale, unleached
I- ,5. 80 cm soil,cover over Paraho shale, unleached
... . ' 6.- Soil control, unleached
Each of the treatments, except the soil control, contained 90 cm of com-
pacted Paraho retorted shale, covered with uncompacted shale, and Carious
amounts of soil cover (for some treatments) to equal a total profile depth of
240 cm. Drains were built into the lysimeters at both the interface of the
* compacted and uncompacted zones and beneath the compacted zones (Figure 3). A
,-more detailed description of the construction of these lysimeters may be
jf found in Harbert et al. (1979).
During the filling operation, temperature measurements of the retorted
shale were made with a thermocouple probe. A series of thermocouples were
later used to measure surface temperatures throughout the 1977 and 1978
growing season.
Previous research by Bell and Berg (1977) showed that the pH of Paraho
retorted shale could be reduced from 11 to 9 by four wetting and drying
treatments. Therefore, in April 1977, the retorted shale treatments of both
lysAmeters were subjected to four wet-dry cycles. Shale samples were col-
lected before and after the procedure and analyzed for pH and EC on a 1:1
shale to water by weight extract.
The lysimeters were instrumented with tensiometers, piezometers, neutron
probe access tubes; and salinity sensors to monitor theater and salt move-
ment through the uncompacted zones. Tensiometers were installed at 15, 30,
60. 90, 120, and 150 cm depths to measure soil and shale matric potential
for 1977. The tensiometer data were used by other researchers for a nydro-
logical modeling study, and are not included in this report (Chandler, 1979).
Piezometers were installed to a depth of 150 cm (the interface of the com-
pacted and uncompacted zone) and read during the 1977 season. Neutron probe
access tubes were also set to a depth of 150 cm. Monthly readings of soil
moisture by volume were taken during each growing season. Salinity sensors
were placed at depths of 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 cm. Because of erratic
readings, the use of the sensors was discontinued in 1978.
-------
pQ?
J-E4
n
, «
.
n
6C
H22
ML
H21
}6
H2O
«
SOIL
HIS
6C
HIS
cm
CD**
H17
}6
H6GH
H16
SOIL
HIS
6C
< EU
H14
cm
H13
}6
EW
HT2
«
SOIL
H11
6C
ION
H10
;m
X«3»
H9
D6
LYS»
HS
X
SOL
H7
6C
1ETE
H6
TVTH
H5
}6
:R
H4
H3
,c
1" T
H2
HI
lU
m 1
|
\
\
»-
k
S8S?
LOW ELEVATION LYSIMETER
P<
t
>'
L24
sc
L23
V
L22
WL
LSI
L20
8C
SOIL
L19
ue
on
U7
Y
Lie
K
SOL
LB
V
U4
mi
coax
L13
Y
LT2
«
SOL
LT
Y
UO
3n
covo
L9
LB
20
SOIL
L7
UB
:m
crwtn
LS
Y
L4
L3
L2
SHUI
LI
\
-555--555 0^0
66
-X
Figure 2. Diagram of the Paraho retorted shale lysimeter study treatments.
-------
0)
4J
0)
.9
I
§
U
Q)
m
n
m
£
-------
-------
TABU) 1. SEED MIXTURES AND RATES OF APPLICATION FOR THE IOW- AND HIGH-
ELEVATION LYSIMETERS.
Common Name
Scientific Nomenclature
Rate
Kg/ha
HIGH ELEVATION MIXTURE
Species Seeded
Western wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Utah sweetvetch
Palmer penstemon
Lupin spp.
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Agfopyfon emi-thi-i-
Agropyrcn epiccctum
Bedysarum boreale utanensis
Penstemon palmeri
Lupines spp.
Baleamorhiza eagittata
TOTAL
9.0
4.5
4.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
24.6
Transplanted
Serviceberry, Utah
Bitterbrush, antelope
Amelanchier utahensis
Pufshia tridentata
4/replication
2/replication
LOW ELEVATION MIXTURE
Species Seeded
Western wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Indian ricegrass
Galleta
Winterfat
Fourwing saltbush
Utah sweetvetch
Palmer penstemon
Agropyfon
Agrapyron apioatum
Oryzopsis hymenoides
Bilaria jamesii
Ceratoides lanata
Atriplex caneseens
Hedysarum boreale utahensis
Penstemon palmeri
TOTAL
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.1
2.2
4.5
2.2
28.0
11
-------
Vegetative analysis for 1977 was done by the quadrat method, to deter-
mine vegetative cover. For vegetative measurements 1978-1980 the line-
transect method was used. Vegetative cover as well as species composition
was determined.
In September of 1977 core samples were taken from various treatments in
20-cm increments to a depth of 160 cm. These samples were analyzed by the
CSU Soil Testing Laboratory for common cations and anions, pH, and EC. Core
samples were again taken in the fall of 1979 for EC analysis.
flmbient air temperature, precipitation, and pan evaporation have been
monitored since establishment of the lysimeters.
A more detailed discussion regarding all measurements and analyses for
1976-1977 was presented in an earlier report (Harbert et al., 1979). All
data collected for 1978-1980 are reported in the appendix tables following
.this report.
12
-------
SECTION V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF RETORTED SHALE AND SOIL
The Paraho retorted shale and the soil used in this study were charac-
terized as to physical and chemical properties (Table 2). Retorted shale
samples were collected from the retort and analyzed daily during the lysi-
jneter filling operation (March 21 through April 4, 1977) by Development
Engineering, Inc. personnel at Anvil Points. In addition to routine analyses
associated with the retorting operation, the samples were analyzed for pH aind
EC.
These analyses indicated that the pH of freshly retorted shale was
between 11.3 and 11.6, with an EC between 2.2 and 4.3 mmhos/cm on a 1:1 by
weight (water to shale) extract. A standard saturation paste was not used
because the coarse texture of the retorted shale prevented an accurate
determination of saturation as described for soils by the U.S. Salinity
Laboratory (Richards, 1954). A rough conversion of a 1:1 extract conduc-
tivity to a saturated paste extract conductivity can be made by doubling the
former value. A material is considered saline when the EC of a saturation
extract is >4 mmhos/cm. Thus, freshly retorted Paraho shale was character-
ized as having a high pH and moderate soluble salt content. However, when
the retorted shale was exposed to the atmosphere, the pH decreased and the
EC increased. Samples were collected by CSU personnel in March and April
1977, air-dried and stored in plastic bags. Analyses of the Paraho retorted
shale and the soil used for the various treatments in the lysimeter study
are reported in Table 2.
The SAR (Sodium Adsorption Ratio) is a measure of the ratio of sodium to
calcium and magnesium of soils or waters and estimates the dispersion poten-
tial posed by exchangeable sodium, when soluble salts are leached (Richards,
1954). A potential sodium dispersion problem may exist when SAR values
exceed 15. The SAR value of the Paraho retorted shale (Table 2) suggested
such a problem. Other analyses indicated that the retorted shale would
require fertility amendments for successful vegetative growth. While plant-
available phosphorus was low for the retorted shale (as well as the soil),
potassium seemed adequate, but nitrate-nitrogen was low.
^
Physically, the soil was fine-textured (clay loam)-and the Paraho
retorted shale was very coarse (gravelly sandy loam). Although the retorted
shale was coarse, the large particles were fairly porous and contained a
reservoir of soluble salts which could present a long-term salinity problem.
13
-------
TABLE 2. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PARAHO RETORTED SHALE AND
SOIL USED IN THIS STUDY.
Chemical Analysis
EC (nuhos/cm 0 25 C)
pH
SAR
Cations (meq/1)
Ca
Hg
Na
K
Anions (meq/1)
HC03
Cl
soa
co3
O.H. (X Organic-C)
(Walkley-Black method)
P, ppm
(NaHCOj extraction)
K, ppm '
(NH4 acetate extraction)
HO,-N, ppm
J(KC1 extraction)
Zn, ppm
(DTPA extraction)
Fe, ppm
(DTPA extraction)
Textural Analysis T
Gravel * <2 mm
Sand S <0.074 mm
Silt T T0.005 mn
Clay *. «0.005 mm ,
Retorted Shale*
Unconpacted
7.1
9.7
19.0
21.6
24.3
91.5
7.1
1.7
3.6
131.3
0.5
4.0
2
383
2
9.9
225.6
90.5
5.2
2.9
'«
Retorted Shale*
Compacted
6.6
8.9
7.9
17.0
25.6
43.3
4.9
1.5
4.4
83.1
0.3
4.0
1
315
2
9.6
215.3
47.8
27.6
17.2
7.4
Soil
Covert
1.7
8.2
4.7
5.2
5.8
11.0
0.1
2.1
2.0
13.1
0.4
1.8
3
74
6
2.6
5.2
38.7
22.5
20.8
17.8
* Retorted shale analyses were on 1:1 extracts for EC, pH, SAR, cations, and
anions.
t Soil analyses were on saturation extracts for EC, pH, SAR, cations, and
anions.
$ Values are means of four replications, analysis of <2 mm particles was by
the hydrometer method.
14
-------
* +-V.O t^xtural difference between the retorted shale and the
l. fSth" S iht moisSre and percolation sections which
cle size of Paraho retorted shale with compaction.
Wet-Dry Cycles
After filling of the lysimeters was completed, a series of wetting and .
salts at a lower pH.
Retorted Shale Temperatures
both the amount and composition of vegetation cover.
15
-------
^lermocouple recorder
0 15 20 25
DAYS AFTER EXIT FROM RETORT
recorder or probe, April a ra y
Average annual P«= ^Hifle. Colorado-
on lon,-^ p~cl
^^er irrigation system
16
-------
TABIJ3 3. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (cm) FOR THE LYSIMETER STUDY SITE.
1976 THROUGH 1980.
Month
__
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
" December
TOTAL
1976
0.4
5.9
3.7
3.4
4.0
1.8
1.2
2.5
3.8
1.4
0.1
0.1
28.3
Paraho
1977
1.5
0.6.
2.2
0.9
1.5
0.5
-
4.8
3.7
2.2
-
2.5
20.4
Lysimeter
1978
4.8
3.5
9.2
3.4
2.6
0.6
0.2
1.1
2.0
0.1
5,1
2.9
35.5
Study
1979
0.7
4.5
3.3
0.6
4-1
1.2
1.7
3.3
0.4
2.0
3.0
0.6
25.4
1980
5.5
9.2
4.9
2.1
6.4
0.0
3.0
2.2
0.6
4.8
1.5
1.6
41.8
- Incomplete data.
, VEGETATION
In August of 1977, the first growing season, a quadrat method was used
to visually estimate percentage of vegetative cover on all treatment plots.
A good to excellent (55% to 85%) vegetative cover was measured on both the
high- and low-elevation lysimeter soil cover treatments. A sparse (5% to
'.15%) vegetative cover on the Paraho retorted shales was measured (Table 4)
: The lad of vegetation on the Paraho shale was thought to be due to a comb^n-
ation of high JH, excess salinity, and high surface temperatures of the bl< ck
maSrial. Western wheatgrass wal the predominant component of the vegetative
cover on the high-elevation lysi^eters. On the low-elevation !?»»*» a
dense cover of galleta, a warm season grass, dominated all other species
seeded. Irrigation of both high- and low-elevation lysimeters the first
growing season was used to insure a satisfactory vegetative coyer. Unfor-
: Stety this stimulated .a severe infestation of alfalfa and plantar, from
M* in the mulch, on both sets of lysimeter plots. In later years, only the
high-Sevation lysimeter received supplemental irrigation to somulate a moist
disposal site.
17
-------
TABLE 4. VEGETATIVE COVER FOR PARAHO RETORTED SHALE, SOIL-COVERED PARAHO
RETORTED SHALE, AND SOIL CONTROL, 1977-1980.
:
Treatment
Paraho Retorted Shale
20 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
40 on- Soil Cover/Paraho
60 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
80 on Soil Cover/Paraho
Soil Control
Treatment
.
Paraho Retorted Shale
20 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
40 on Soil Cover/Paraho
60 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
BO cni Soil Cover/Paraho
Soil Control
1977*
15.0
65.0
65.0
,80.0
80.0
60.0
28
North
1978*
49.0
62.0
61.5
53.5
56.5
,99.0
Slope
Aspect
1979f
49.0
82.8
90.6
82.9
84.5
96.5
High-Elevation
1980f
47.9
45.2
41.6
54.9
47.4
32.4
Low-Elevation
Lysimeter
1977
10.0
65.0
75.0
65.0
75:0
55.0
25%
South
1978
48.5
83.0
88.5
80.0
87.0
97.0
Slope
Aspect
1979
54.2
89.7
89.4
84.7
82.9
96.7
1980
38.6
52.1
55.1
48.9
53.2
30.4
Uysimeter
2% Slope
North Aspect
1977*
5.0
. 70.0
" 70.0
85.0
80.0
80.0
19781
14.5
65.0
63.0
71.0
70.5
82.5
19791"
25.1
91.4
90.0
80.6
69.0
86.0
1980+
26.1
73.4
67.4
61.1
57.6
53.0
1977
5.0
85.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
75.0
25%
South
1978
21.0
66.5
60.5
59.5
57.0
83.0
Slope
Aspect
1979
29.4
58.7
68.0
82.8
70.7
82.6
1980
17.0
65.7
61.0
52.1
53.7
46.5
* Values are means of six quadrats in each of two replications, 1977.
t Values ore me'ans of 3 transect-1 ines in each of two replications, 1978, 1979, end 1980.
The quadrat method was used for the first year of growth in 1977 to
estimate germination and establishment. The line-intercept method was,used
in later years to provide more quantitative measurements. Because of the
ample supply of water provided by the establishment irrigations, combined
with high over-winter precipitation, the alfalfa and plantain infestation
from the mulch increased on almost all treatment plots, particularly the
high-elevation lysimeters. Many of the seeded natives were forced out due
to the aggressive growth of the alfalfa and plantain. Various methods to
eradicate these species were used. Hand pulling and digging, combined with
carefully administered applications of 2,4-D succeeded in virtually elimina-
ting these species from the treatment plots. Hand seeding of native species
into bare areas, produced by eliminating alfalfa and plantain, was done in
the fall of 1978. Although perennial vegetative cover increased on almost
all high-elevation lysimeters in 1978, there was an observable decrease on
18
-------
tthe low-elevation lysimeter plots (fable 5). This drop was due to the appar-
7'ent loss of dense stands of galleta from winter-kill. Die-back of many four-
'-%ing saltbush was, also observed on the low-elevation plots. The void created
was readily filled by the invasion of cheatgrass on these plots. The Paraho
retorted shale continued to produce only a minimal vegetative cover, con-
sisting primarily of annual species such as Russian thistle, kochia, and
chenopodium (Table 5).
Vegetative analysis in 1979 revealed that the most significant difference
between treatments regarding cover was the Paraho retorted shale treatment.
This treatment consistently averaged below all others with regard to vegeta-
tive cover (Table 4). More importantly the predominance of annual sepcies
over perennial plants indicated that after three years of weathering, the
retorted shale remained a poor plant growth medium. When the retorted shale
was covered with as little as 20 cm of soil the vegetative cover increased
substantially, with an accompanying increase in perennials. However, there
was little observable difference between the varying amounts of soil cover
w'ith regard to vegetative cover (Table 4). 'The soil control supported almost
a closed stand of western wheatgrass on the high-elevation lysimeters, with
very little diversity of other species. The most surprising occurrence was
the reappearance of large amounts of galleta on the low-elevation treatments.
Evidently much of this warm season grass was able to persist through the
winter. Although very little alfalfa or plantain remained on any treatment,
:^a large amount of cheatgrass cover was present, particularly on the low-
elevation plots.
In 1980, no supplemental irrigation of the high-elevation lysimeter plots
"was made. Consequently, vegetative cover decreased on all treatments (Table
f4). Ground cover, composed of not only live vegetation but litter from pre-
vious year, combined to result in an average of less than 6% bare, exposed,
^surface for all soil covered treatments. On the other hand, the Paraho
^retorted shale treatments supported only a very minimal (2% to 3%) perennial
^vegetative cover (Table 5). Observations of the few perennial species on the
Paraho shale indicated severe stunting and physiological stress. Caution must
*must be advised when comparisons of total vegetative cover between the Paraho
"'retorted shale and other treatments are made. Values as high as 48% vegeta-
,tive cover on the Paraho retorted shale, 2%-slope, northraspect of the high-
elevation lysimeters must be carefully scrutinized. This vegetative cover
was almost completely composed of annual species such as kochia. This annual
was at its vegetative peak when measured and with its extremely short-lived
'habit, left the treatment almost totally bare and exposed by mid- to late
summer. .
:J : After four growing seasons the inability of shrubs (where seeded, on the
'low-elevation lysimeters) to either increase in number or size was observed
on the soil-covered Paraho retorted shale treatments. In fact, die-back of
many fourwing saltbush was previously noted. Perhaps, despite the initial
growth of'the shrubs in the soil cover, plant roots were unable to tolerate
the Paraho retorted shale below. This phenomenon has been observed by others
working with soil covers over Paraho retorted shale (Cook and Redente, 1980).
19
'&'
-------
TABLE 5. VEGETATIVE COVER BY SPECIES COMPOSITION FOR PARAHO RETORTED SHALE,
SOIL-COVERED PARAHO RETORTED SHALE, AND SOIL CONTROL, 1978-1980.
' High-Elevation
Treatment
Paraho Retorted Shale
20 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
40 cm Soil Cover/Paraho'
60 cai Soil Cover/Paraho
80 on Soil Cover/Paraho
Soil Control
Species Categories
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
' Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
grasses
grasses
grasses
grasses
grasses
grasses
Lyslmeter
2% Slope
North Aspect
1978
19
2
29
59
2
57
.
5
47
7
40
16
86
-
14
1979 1980 1978
5
46
72
n
63
39
60
29
59
27
93
-
2
3
48
31
15
32
»
13
43
24
29
22
33
-
**
Low-Elevation
Treatment
,
Paraho Retorted Shale
20 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
40 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
60 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
80 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
Soil Control
Species Categories
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
Perennial
Shrubs
Other
grasses
grasses
grasses
Grasses
grasses
grasses
,1978
8
1
6
42
2
23
45
18
39
3
29
59
3
8
45
4
33
14
26
60
8
49
~
4
44
5
39
10
73
-
19
25% Slope
South Aspect
1979 1980
6
48
71
21
65
*
30
67
31
73
~
26
95
2
2
39
47
9
46
~
16
40
13
46
"
n
29
2
Lyslmeter
2S Slope
North Aspect
1979
^
1
24
18
2
80
28
69
22
3 '
62
48
2
24
51
6
29
1980
*
2
24
7
1
61
12
59
13
2
51
25
4
33
20
3
30
1978
2
5
15
26
3
39
41
2
19
47
12
45
2
11
61
15
8
25% Slope
South Aspect
1979
<,
3
27
31
~
38
20
61
16
79
22
57
52
18
14
1980
_
3
19
23
"
48
17
2
47
12
43
13
1
43
22
10
20
- This species category was not observed on line-transects used for analyses, of vegetation.
20
-------
Trace Elements in Vegetation
- In 1977 and 1978 plant samples were collected from the .lysimeter plots
for trace element analyses. Large stands of alfalfa were present as a result
of seed introduced with the hay mulch, so this species was sampled. Overall,
molybdenum levels of plants from Paraho retorted shales were judged to be
high (11.5 to 23.5 ppm Mo) (Kilkelly and Lindsay, 1979). This, combined with
low to moderate copper levels could limit the use of this vegetation for
animal forage.
T
Studies on other processed shales (Kilkelly, 1979) indicated that levels
of boron ranging from 85 to 202 ppm B in western wheatgrass from TOSCO II
retorted shales could limit the success of revegetation efforts. This study
also suggested that high molybdenum levels, measured in fourwing saltbush
grown on USBM retorted shales (averaging 28 ppm Mo), could make this species
unacceptable forage.
Schwab et al. (1980) analyzed plants growing on Paraho retorted shales,
at another study site. Levels of molybdenum in some plant species were suf-
ficiently elevated (approximately 26 ppm) to be of concern.
MOISTURE
In 1977, during the establishment of these study plots, the Paraho
retorted shale and the 20-cm soil/Paraho were leached by sprinkler irrigation
to reduce problems of plant growth due to the high pH and salinity of the
Paraho retorted shale. Approximately 77 cm of leach water was applied to
these treatments between June 2 through June 15, 1977. Additional amounts of
water were also used for plant establishment on all treatments. The high-
elevation lysimeter plots received approximately twice the establishment
water that was applied to the low-elevation lysimeter plots. These differ-
ences were designed to study the quality of the percolate which might result
when seasonal precipitation exceeded evapotranspiration.
High-Elevation Lysimeters
Once the Paraho retorted shale and 20-cm soil/Paraho were leached, an
additional amount of water was applied to all treatments for plant establish-
ment in 1977. To simulate a zone of higher seasonal precipitation than eva-
potranspiration, approximately 84 cm of water was applied. During this time
percolate from the lower drains of leached treatments indicated that moisture
was moving through both the uncompacted and lower compacted zones. Because
of the textural discontinuity that existed between the fine soil and coarse-
textured Paraho retorted shale, water did not uniformly move through the pro-
file (Figure 5). Instead, the soil cover became highly saturated (approxi-
mately 50'% by volume) before water moved into the larger pores of the coarse-
textured'Paraho retorted shale and percolate from the lower drains resulted.
Because of this; equilibrium, with respect to moisture throughout the entire
profile, was not obtained by the end of the 1977 growing season.
21
-------
.Si
o
O
IS
1
o
5
CO
o
o
CO
Is
(f)
3:
LU
Q_
3
CD
in
CVJ
g
2
H
0)
p
5;
1-1
V
i
0)
4J
Jl
(0
0)
fa
22
LUD UI M(d3Q
-------
Again, in the spring of 1978, an application of water was made to simu-
late the extra snowmelt at higher elevations. Approximately 20 cm of water
was applied April 10, 1978, followed by two more applications of 3 cm each;
May 9 and June 27. This, in combination with above average over-winter pre-
' cipitation, provided a maximum recharge of the moisture profile/(20% to 25%)
:' to the extent that percolate was collected from the lower drain of almost
all treatments. Core samples taken May 3, 1978 (Table 6) also verified that
water was moving through the compacted zone. By this time, the growth of _
vegetation on the plots was beginning to extract substantial amounts of moiss-
ture from the profiles (Figure 6). The growth of alfalfa and plantain,
brought in unintentionally with the mulch, was extraordinary because of the
supply of moisture stored in the profile. These species were preventing the
establishment of the native species seeded on the plots and consequently were
TABLE 6. PERCENT MOISTURE BY WEIGHT OF CORE SAMPLES FROM THE LYSIMETER STUDY.
May 3, 1978.
Treatment Sampled
Depth
(cm)
0- 15
15-30
30- 45
45-60
60- 75
75- 90
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-180
180-195
195-210
210-225
225-240
Shale
Plot 2
24.4
22.9
.v ' -. 21.1
25.6
17.9
26.3
21.8
22.8
18.7
19.7
23.1
22.0
")
\ 20.6
)
23.4
High Elevation
Shale
Plot 4
20.8
17.9
21.4
19.9
21.8
18.1
17.5
16.8
18.9
17.6
20.1
20.8
40 cm
Soil Cover
Plot 12
12.7
13.5
14.2
15.7
21.4
15.3
18.4
22.7
23.7
22.7
20.5
22.5
}22.9
)
Low Elevation
60 cm
Soil Cover
Plot 13
10.3
10.3
11.8
15.4
13.3
14.8
9.9
)
2.1
;
3.4
4.2
Dashed line indicates the interface of the uncompacted and the
compacted zones.
23
-------
eradicated, but not before considerable amounts of moisture were used. By
the fall of 1978, moisture levels of treatments supporting a good stand of
vegetation were reduced to approximately 10% by volume. The Paraho retorted
shale, despite leaching, supported only a minimal vegetative cover, with a
large percentage of weedy annuals. Therefore, moisture levels remained
somewhat higher (approximately 12% to 15% by volume) than in other treatments
(Figure 6).
HIGH ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
2*/. SLOPE - NORTH ASPECT
got Caver
Mcts(i»c oy vot
- --
» Moisture By W
p ao 30
, Moisture ty vol
in 30 33 4O
% Moisture ty vol
% Moisture uy *ol
n in an 3p 4
1, MC.Sturc IV v
0_4P_ - -
-25-fc SLOPE- SOUTH ASPECT-
X
9C
Dftf o 47 A 9/7
Figure 6. Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter treat-
ments. 1978.
On April 4, 1979, 20 cm of water was applied to supplement the seasonal
precipitation of the area. Approximately 3 cm of water was also applied on
May 21 and again on June 18, 1979. Spring recharge of the moisture profiles
averaged approximately 20% moisture by volume. Moisture recharge and extrac-
tion patterns were similar to the previous year. The soil control measured
the greatest moisture use by plants during the 1979 growing season; whereas,
the Paraho retorted shale with little vegetative cover, measured much less
moisture loss (Figure 7).
Additional irrigations to simulate increased moisture for the high-
elevation lysimeters were not made in the spring of 1980. Despite this,
moisture profiles for almost all treatments continued to average spring
recharge values of approximately 20% moisture by volume (Figure 8). Over-
winter and early spring precipitation was slightly above average and may
have accpunted for recharge values similar to previous years with .irrigation.
By fall, -moisture levels were depleted by the vegetation to approximately 10%
by volume (Figure 8). The least amount of moisture use was by the sparse
vegetation on the Paraho retorted shales, a large percentage of which was
probably due to evaporation rather than transpiration.
24
-------
HIGH ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
Poroho'Spent Shote '
% Moisture by vol.
IP 2O 3O 4O
3O
|eo
> 9O
t
l'i.0
K50
2O an Soil Cover
% Moisture by vol
O Ip 2O 3O 40
2% SLOPE - NORTH ASPECT
4Ocm Soil Cover ' ' 6Oem Soil Cover
% Moisture by vol. % Moisture by vol.
10 20 3O 40 O P 20 30 40
BOem Soil 'Cover ,
V, Moisture by vol.
10 20 ao 40
;: Soil Control
k Moisture by vol.
c 10 29 3O 40
25% SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT
Dote 04/23 A9/I3
Figure 7. Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter
treatments, 1979.
HIGH ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
Pqroho Snant Shole
7. Moisture by vol.
____ 2% SLOPE-NORTH ASPECT --
go on Soil Cover 4O em Soil Cover 6Oem Soil Cover
% Moisture by vol. %M«ture by vol. % Moisture by .vol..
ID 20 3O _ "
IJO em Soil Cover
% Moisture by vol.
. in gp 3O 4C-
Soil Corrtrol
% Moisture by vol.
n in y 30 40
-- 25% SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT
I5O1-
Dote O4/I4
Figiire 8. Seasonal moisture profiles for the high-elevation lysimeter
treatments, I960.
25
-------
Each year, since establishment, irrigation of the high-elevation lysi-
meters produced percolate from the lower drain of most treatments. The pur-
pose of the extra irrigation was to simulate a region of higher elevation,
where seasonal precipitation exceeded the evapotranspiration of the native
plant community. The collection and analysis of percolate from these treat-
ments could then be used for predicting the potential for environmental
pollution.
The Paraho retorted shale, despite leaching, continued to support far
less vegetative cover than other treatments, thereby reducing the extraction
of surplus moisture in the profile. Moisture recharge and depletion patterns
between other treatments were similar, with the greatest amount of moisture
use by the dense vegetative cover on the soil control.
Low-Elevation Lysimeters
In 1977, after the initial leaching of the Paraho retorted shale and^
20-cm soil/Paraho treatments, a supplement irrigation of all treatments^with
approximately 37 cm of water aided in vegetative establishment. No addi-
tional irrigation was intended for future years. Other studies (Harbert and
Berg, 1978) have shown that at low-elevation disposal sites moisture would not
be likely to move through the entire uncompacted shale profile. An adequate
vegetative cover would deplete moisture in the upper zone, allowing sufficient
storage of snowmelt from year to year. During the establishment irrigation
in July, water was applied slightly in excess of evapotranspiration and some
percolate was measured from treatments that had received water for leaching
earlier. By August, a greater vegetative cover began to deplete excess
moisture from the profile,, and by September 1977, water penetration into the
profile of unleached soil cover treatments was limited to a depth of 105 cm
(Figure 9).
Over-winter precipitation was above average for the 1977-1978 season;
therefore, moisture measurements made in April of 1978 indicated a recharge
of approximately 20% moisture by volume of treatments on the 2% north-aspect
and 25% moisture by volume of treatments on the 25% south-aspect (Figure 10).
Greater runoff of snowmelt recorded for the north-aspect decreased the amount
of snowmelt that entered the profile. Additional irrigation was not pro-
vided for these treatments, and by September 1978, the moisture in the pro-
file had been reduced to about 10% by volume on all treatments, by evapotrans-
piration.
Recharge and extraction patterns for the 1979 growing season were simi-
lar to 1978 observations. Over-winter precipitation recharged all treatments
to approximately 20% moisture by volume. Once again, by the fall of 1979,
moisture was reduced to approximately 10% by volume, to a depth of 60 cm, on
those plots having a satisfactory vegetative cover (Figure 11). Less mois-
ture was-extracted from the Paraho retorted shale profile because of a less
than adequate stand of native vegetation.
26
-------
i
o
CO
o
o
en
E
o
O
CO
.8
*8
fl
i
o
UJ
CO
i S
ID
or
o
UJ g
Q- O
CO
in
18
,so
LJ
Q.
C/5
O
CO
UJ
Q_
O
CO
CVJ
mo ui
(O
in
-------
-LOW ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
. . 2V. SLOPE- NORTH ASPECT-
n *Q ?o 3n 40
fa MOStire By voi ;. Mostire By voi
fc MOSturv Oy VOI > Mosture tv
1"
120
eo
oy v
3D
10 ?n >' 3D 4Q
10 3D 30 40
--25«/. SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT-
X
lee
I*"
CO
DM* 0*7
Figure 10. Seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatment, 1978.
LOW ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
fgroho Sp»ftf Shq^
% Mooturt by vol.
10 20 30 40
2% SLOPE-NORTH ASPECT
2OemSell Cev«r 4Oem Soil COMC ggcm Stf CW
3O
60
j. 90
t
tzo
ISO
%Moiituri by voi % Monturt by vol. % Moitturl by vol.
IP 2O 3O 4O O 10 20 3O 40 0 10 20 3O 40
BO on Sell Cov«f Sell Cantrol
% MoUturi by vol. 1* Maituro by vol.
IP 20 5O 10 0 10 20 SO 40
25% SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT
OOL
Do* O4/23 A9/I3
Figure 11. Seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatment, 1979.
28
-------
1980 moisture measurements indicated spring recharge values of approxi-
mately 20% moisture by volume on most treatments, with overall patterns simi-
lar to previous years. The least amount of'spring moisture was contained in
Paraho retorted shale profiles (Figure 12). Although runoff was not consi-
derably greater for those treatments, moisture evaporation from the exposed
black surface was most likely appreciable. Evapotranspiration reduced all
treatments to approximately 10% moisture by volume by the end of the growing
season. The good vegetative cover on the soil control extracted more mois-
ture from the profile than other treatments.
LOW ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
Poroho So«nt Sholt 2O on Soil Cov»r
% Moisture by vol. % Moisture by vol
IP 2O 30 40 O IP 2O 3O 4O O
2% SLOPE-NORTH ASPECT
4O em Soil Cow 6O cm Soil Cov«f BOcin Soil Covtr
Moisture by vol. % Moisture by vol. H, Moisture by vol.
IP gO 3d 40 O ip 2p 3O 4O 0
Soil Control
% Moisture by vol.
10 2O 3O 4O 0 IP 20 30 40
25% SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT
Dote O4/I4 AlO/4
*>' ' * '
Ji
*' Figure 12. Seasonal moisture profiles for the low-elevation lysimeter
treatments. 1980.
In a semi-arid region where seasonal precipitation seldom exceeds eva-
potranspiration; percolation, and water movement within a pile of retorted
shale should be limited, provided a satisfactory vegetative cover exists.
In this study seasonal precipitation over a four-year period provided a
spring recharge of approximately 20% moisture by volume (to depths of 60 to
, 120 cm). Those treatments with a good vegetative cover were reduced to
approximately 10% moisture by volume by fall. The moisture extracted during
the growing season by vegetation resulted in a renewal of reservoir capacity
to contain yearly precipitation, especially spring snowmelt. Without satis-
factory vegetative cover, moisture within the profile could be moved down-
ward with each yearly recharge, and pollution of ground water could result,.
29
-------
RUNOFF
1978 was the first year runoff samples were collected from the newly
established lysimeters. Observations on February 28, 1978 indicated only a
trace of runoff from south slopes and none from north slopes. When the col-
lection system was next checked on March 23, 1978, it was found that moisture
seeping through the seams of the galvanized steel culverts had floated the
plastic runoff containers. The small amount of runoff was then contaminated
by the large volume of seepage water. Only three plastic containers remained
upright with uncontaminated samples (Table 7) all of which were of low salin-
ity hazard. The culverts were sealed during the summer of 1978 to prevent
further seepage.
Runoffs from south slopes of both high- and low-elevation lysimeters were
measured and samples collected on March 8, 1979. At the time all north slopes
remained snow covered. Measurement and collection of runoff from the north
.slopes was not accomplished until March 22, 1979. Recorded runoff for south
slopes was greater than for north slopes. Due to the fact that snowmelt was
slower on the north side, and the slope more gradual, less runoff resulted.
Both pH and EC were measured in the field for samples collected March 8, 1979.
However, only EC is reported in Table 8 because equilibration of the pH elec-
trode in solution ranging from 4 to 8 C was exceedingly slow. Samples of
runoff collected on March 22 were sent to the CSU Soil Testing Laboratory
for water quality analyses (Table 9). The salinity hazard for all samples
was low to medium, while the sodium hazard was low.
Spring snowmelt in 1980 resulted in runoff only from north slopes (Table
10). Field observations at the time of sample collection indicated that the
ground on the north slopes was frozen with a thin covering of ice. The south
slope ground was thawed, allowing moisture to enter the soil or shale, result-
ing in little runoff.' This was confirmed by the water quality analyses done
by the CSU Soil Testing Laboratory. The low sodium and salinity hazard com-
bined with the negligible sediment yield suggested that the runoff never ac-
tually came in contact with the soil or shale surface, but merely ran over
the layer of ice. No runoff from summer storms resulted.
TABLE 7. SPRING SNOWMELT RUNOFF FROM THE LOW-ELEVATION LYSIMETER, SOUTH-
ASPECT, 25% SLOPE, MARCH 23, 1978.
Treatment Plot #
Soil Control L23
80 cm Soil/Paraho LI 7
60 cm Soil/Paraho LI 5
EC
ymhos/cm
130
140
300
Salinity Hazard
low
low
low
30
-------
TABLE 8. SPRING SNOWMELT RUNOFF FROM THE HIGH-ELEVATION AND LOW-ELEVATION
LYSIMETERS, SOUTH-ASPECT, 25% SLOPE, MARCH 8, 1979.
Runoff (en)
EC (imhos/cn)*
Salinity Hazardt
Stdliwnt Yield
(icg/ha)
Pinho
Retorted Shale
HI H3
0.42 1.58
180 180
low low
1.6 6.1
20 cm Soil/
Paraho
H5
0.85
110
low
20.0
H7
0.64
180
low
7.7
40 on Son/
Paraho
H9
0.37
140
low
2.2
Hll
0.51
90
low
7.7
60 t* Soil/
Paraho
HI 3
, 0.84
310
low
10.1
HIS
0.70
510
low
7.0
80 CM Soil/
Paraho
H17 H19
0.74 0.94
680 190
low-vied low
4.5 5.7
Soil Control
H21
0.98
250
low
7.9
H23
1.68
150
low
10.0
Runoff (en)
EC (i»hos/cn)*
Salinity Hazard
Sediment Yield
(kg/na)
Paraho
Retorted Shale
LI L3
'.- * 8.5
- 180
low
3.2
' 20 CM Soil/
Paraho
L5
8.2
140
low
8.9
17
8.6
110
low
26.1
40 cm Soil/
Paraho
L9
8.7
130
low
11.8
m
9.2
130
low
37.2
60 on Soil/
Paraho
L13
9.5
170
low
22.1
US
9.1
130
low
13.8
80 cm Soil/
Paraho
L17 L19
10.0 8.7
140 160
low low
40.4 6.0
Soil
L21
8.5
190
low
23.2
Control
L23
9.0
220
low
51. 5
* Values are In iwhos/cm * 25 C
t Richards, L.A. (ed.). 1954.
- No saatple collected 1f less than 25 t of runoff In prlnary collection container.
31
-------
TABLE 9. WATER QUALITY ANALYSES OF SPRING SNOWMELT RUNOFF FROM THE HIGH-
ELEVATION AND LOW-ELEVATION LYSIMETERS, NORTH-ASPECT, 2% SLOPE,
MARCH 22, 1979.
High-Elevation
Runoff (cm)
PH
EC (pmhos/cm)
Na (meq/i)
Ca (meg/*)
Kg (meq/i)
K (meq/Jt)
C03 (meq/*)
HC03 (meq/t)
N03 (meq/i)
S04 (meq/t)
Cl (meq/t)
SAR
Salinity Hazard
Sodium Hazard
20 cm Soil
Paraho
H6
0.22
6.9
280
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.2
0
1.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
low
low
40 cm Soil
Paraho
010
0.17
7.1
620
2.1
1.0
/ 1.0
0.5
0
2.2
0.02
2.6
1.8
2.1
low-med
low
Low-Elevation
Paraho
Retorted Shale
L4
0.16
7.3
280
0.6
0.6
1.8
0.2
0
1.6
0.06
1.3
0.5
0.6
low
low
80 cm Soil/
Paraho
LI 8
0.12
7.7
500
2.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
0
2.1
0.15
1.6
1.5
2.2
low
low
L20
0.26
7.4
390
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.3
0
2.1
0.03
1.0
1.0
1.4
low
low
32
-------
TABLE 10. SPRING SNOWMELT RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FROM THE HIGH-
AND LOW-ELEVATION LYSIMETERS, NORTH-ASPECT, 2% SLOPE,
MARCH 20, 1980.
HIGH ELEVATION
Treatment
Runoff (01)
PH
EC <»»hos/aO
Ha («q/l)
Ca («eq/l)
US l-eq/D
K (aeq/1)
COj («eo/l)
HC03 daeo/l)
S04 (mq/1)
Cl (Beq/1)
SAR
Snllnlty hazard
Sodlio hazard
Treatment
unoff (01)
pH
EC (vitas/at)
Da (eq/1)
Ca («*o/1)
Wg (wq/D
K (Mq/1)
C03 (-eq/D
ICO (»eq/l)
!104 <«eo./l)
C1 (a*q/D
SAR
Salinity hazard
Sodlix hazard
Paraho
Spent Shale
HZ H4
1.31 1.83
7.2 7.2
170 170
0.21 0.14
0.48 0.49
1.18 1.27
0.12 0.08
00
1.6 1.5
0.3 0.3
<0.1 <0.1
0.22 0.15
low low
low low
Paraho
Spent Shale
L2 L4
0.11 0.69
7.0 7.1
260 180
0.36 0.19
0.46 0.39
1.60 1.24
0.51 0.18
0 0
2.4 1.6
0.4 0.2
<0.1 <0.1
0.35 0.21
low low
low low
20 on Soil Cover
Paraho
H6 H8
3.23 3.03
7.2 7.0
70 60
0.06 0.10
0.36 0.29
0.29 0.16
0.10 0.10
0 0
0.6 0.5
0.1 0.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.11 0.20
low low
low low
20 oi Soil Cover
Paraho
L6 L8
0.73 0.84
7.0 7.0
90 80
0.05 O.OS
O.S1 0.51
0.31 0.26
0.12 0.08
0 0
0.9 0.8
0.1 0.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.08 0.08
low lew
low low
40 01 Soil Cover
Paraho
H10 H12
3.63 1.83
6.9 7.1
60 100
0.05 0.09
0.26 0.62
0.14 0.18
0.10 0.10
0 0
0.4 0.7
0.1 0.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.10 0.14
low low
low low
UM
40 01 Soil Cover
Paraho
L10 L12
0.77 0.03
7.0
80
0.05 *
0.51 *
0.25 *
0.11
0 *
0.9 *
0.1 *
<0.1 *
0.08
lev *
low *
60 on Soil Cover
Paraho
H14 H16
2.36 2.56
7.1 7.1
60 50
0.06 0.04
0.35 0.23
0.18 0.13
0.08 0.10
0 0
0.4 0.4
0.1 0.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.11 0.10
low low
low low
ELEVATION
60 a Soil Cover
Paraho
L14 L16
1.02 0.73
6.8 6.9
N 100
0.05 0.06
0.37 0.46
0.27 0.30
0.15 0.13
0 0
0.7 0.8
0.1 0.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.09 0.10
low low
low low
80 em Soil Cover
Paraho
H18 K20
2.23 1.75
7.1 6.9
70 60
0.08 0.04
0.35 0.28
0.21 0.15
0.08 0.11
0 0
0.6 0.5
0.1 0.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.14 0.09
low low
low low
80 oa Soil Cover
Paraho
L18 120
1.02 1.87
7.0 7.0
70 70
0.04 0.06
0.37 0.36
0.21 0.23
0.13 0.13
0 0
0.6 0.8
0.1 0.1
"0.1 <0'1
0.07 0.10
low low
low low
Soil Control
H22 H24
0.84 0.53
7.0 7.1
80 100
0.08 0.12
0.38 0.45
0.19 0.23
0.18 0.17
0 0
0.5 0.06
0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.1
0.14 0.20
low low
low low
Soil Control
L2Z L24
0.77 0.22
7.0 6.9
120 170
0.14 0.38
0.52 0.59
, 0.38 0.48
0.21 0.24
0 0
0.9 1.3
0.1 0.3
<0.1 <0.1
0.21 0.51
low ' low
low low
Inadequate SMple size for analyses
All south aspects <. 0.02 01 runoff, no swple for analyses.
33
-------
PERCOLATE
In 1977, after some treatments were leached, both high- and low-eleva-
tion lysimeter studies were irrigated to aid the establishment of vegetation.
Only the high-elevation lysimeter study received additional irrigation in the
early spring of 1978 and 1979. These differences were designed to study both
the quantity 'and quality of the percolate resulting. In I960, percolate from
the high-elevation Isyimeters resulted from seasonal snowmelt alone, no sup-
plemental irrigation was made. Continued leaching is planned for future
studies.
Only data from the lower drains, below the compacted zone, are discussed,
since 99% of the total volume of percolate was collected from these drains.
Some percolate data were also calculated on a pore volume basis. One pore
volume (including both the uncompacted and compacted zone) was calculated to
be about 50,000 H (110 cm) for a 6.7 x 6.7 m area with a depth of 2.4 m. The
porosity of the uncompacted zone was approximately 49%, assuming a bulk den-
sity of 1.32 g/cm3 and a particle density of 2.6 g/cm3. The porosity of the
compacted zone was approximately 41%, assuming an average bulk density of
1.53 g/cm3 and a particle density similar to the uncompacted zone (Harbert
et al., 1979). The volumes of percolate used in the following discussion are
approximate, due to the probable interchange of soil solution between the 25%
and 2%-slope, as no dividng wall separated the two slopes. Occasionally, the
totalizing flow meter readings were incompatible with measured flow rates,
in which case, the flow rates were used to estimate the volume of percolate.
The following discussion addresses only some of the major hydrological obser-
vations. Another study was conducted separately (Chandler, 1979) which pre-
sented a more detailed interpretation and model of the hydrological data.
The Paraho retorted shale and the 20-cm soil/Paraho treatments of both
high- and low-elevation lysimeters were continuously leached from June 2
through June 15, 1977. The total amount of water applied averaged between
76 and 78 centimeters. The EC of the Colorado River water used for leaching
and establishment averaged 1 mmhos/cm. A sample of irrigation water was col-
lected on June 3, 1977 for additional analysis (Harbert et al., 1979). Fur-
ther irrigation for plant establishment, June 19 through August 17, 1977
resulted in application of approximately 84 cm of water to all treatments of
the high-elevation lysimeter and 38 cm to all treatments of the low-elevation
lysimeter.
Percolate collected from the lower drains of all treatments was analyzed
for pH and EC. Total volume of percolate, EC, and pH are summarized in Table
11. The greatest volume of percolate resulted from those treatments which
had been leached, and irrigated to establish vegetation (Paraho retorted shale
and 20-cm soil/Paraho). The greatest EC;values, ranging from 34 to 35 mmhos/
cm, were generally associated with percolate produced by those treatment plots,
as well as the high pH values (11.3 to 11.4). Overall there was some reduc-
tion of EC- and pH as greater volumes of leachate moved through the lysimeters.
The Paraho shale on the 25% slope of the high-elevation lysimeters produced
the greatest volume of percolate and also measured the largest overall reduc-
tion of EC and pH; from 31.0 mmhos/cm (pH 11.3) to 11.4 mmhos/cm (pH 8.6)
when approximately 0.7 pore volumes had passed through that lysimeter plot.
34
-------
xTABLE 11. PERCOLATE FROM THE LYSIMETER STUDY, 1977.
Treatment
HIGH ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil /Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho~
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
LOW ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control -.
Slope
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
"". 2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%.
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
Total Yearly
Percolate
_ _ _ t _ _
9,513.8
34,110.4
2,179.0
24,636.6
447,4 ,
3,860.7
0
1,308.9
0
1,771.8
219.0
5,649.1
1,042.6
706.8
771.4
4,638.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' EC
Max
Min
nonhos/cm
34.5 11.2
31.0 11.4
35.1
28.4
22.3
24.5
0
22.9
0
22.3
6.0
8.3
29.3
34.1
28.1
24.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.6
14.4
19.8
17.4
0
19.4
0
14.4
5.6
4.8
18.1
8.1
14.4
14.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PH
Max
11.5
11.3
11.4
11.4
11.2
10.6
0
8.4
0
10.8
~ 7.8
8.3
11.2
10.9
11.2
11.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
10.9
8.3
10.6
9.4
9.9
9.6
0
8.1
0
10.5,
7.7
7.9
8.3
7.2
' 9.0'
7.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
-------
The volume of percolate produced from other treatments was considerably less
(Table 11) making it difficult to interpret the limited chemical data obtained.
A much greater pore volume leached through these treatments would be necessary
to approach solution equilibria.
Approximately 20 cm of irrigation water was applied to the high-elevation
lysiitSrs on April 10, 1978 in order to simulate the extra spring snowmelt of
a high-elevation region. Additional applications of 3 cm each were also made
on £y 9 and June 27. 1978 to the same plots. The Iow7elevatl°\ g!^6^
did not receive additional irrigations. This extra moisture resulted in the
continued percolation of water through the high-elevation lysimeters. As
So^r^Paraho retorted shale and the 20-cm soil/Paraho treatments pro-
duced the greatest volume of leachate (Table 12). This was due to the res i-
dual moisture contained in these profiles from leach water of 1977.. The
maximum EC values of percolate from the treatments were reduced considerably
ov£Tl977 observations. The maximum EC for the Paraho retorted shale was
15?1 mmhos/cm, and 17.8 mmhos/cm for the 20-cm soil/Paraho. The pH of leach-
a'te from these treatments was also lower than 1977 values. Other treatments,
Lcause of less solution passing through the soil/shale matrix >^f^
produce percolate with maximum EC values ranging from 13.7 to 31.7 mmhos/cm
*Sble lH. Leachate from the soil control remained low with respect to both
EC and PH. The total volume of leachate from the 25% slope, Paraho retorted
shale treatment for both 1977 and 1978 was calculated to be approximately
£S pore volume. None of the other treatments produced over 0 22 pore volume
except the 25% slope, 20-cm soil/Paraho which totaled approximately 0.67 pore
volSe. With the fi^ited amounts of percolate obtained from most J^atments,
'there were no definite trends observed concerning the chemical data collected.
jSTcrftte treatments continued to show fluctuations of EC and pH values of
the leachate.
The high-elevation lysimeters received approximately 20 -cm of supple-
mental irrigation on April 24, 1979. Two more irrigations of 3 cm each on
Mav 21 and June 18, 1979 completed the simulation of spring snowmelt. Most
SeaSeS began to produce percolate in early April, even before the supple-
mental irrigation; peaked toward the end of April, and slowed to a ^nimal^
?low rate by the last irrigation application in June. Total volume of perco-
late^ S greatest for the 25% slope, Paraho retorted shale "f^*^'
lative total of 1.0 pore volume. The volume of percolate from the 2% slope
rSIned considerabiriess than that from the 25% slope, probably due to the
iSTof a dividing wall between the treatments. Electrical conductivity and
rt of leacSle were similar to past observations with much variation between
maxSui ant 2nE£ Values (TabL 13) . The treatments with greater amounts
of leachate continued to show decreases in EC and pH over initial values
Those treatments through which only minimum amounts of leachate passed main-
tained higher EC values.
The high-elevation lysimeters did not receive additional Ration in
1980. Limited percolate resulted only from three treatments (Table 14) with
25% slopes Thfparaho retorted shale produced the greatest volume of perco-
late llectricaly conductivity values were higher than 1979 percolates pro-
Sly due to a concentrating effect of the smaller percolate volumes produced.
36
-------
> TABLE 12. PERCOLATE FROM THE LYS±METER STUDY, 1978.
Treatment
HIGH ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
LOW ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
'Soil Control
Slope
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
Total Yearly
Percolate
4,149.1
8,527.6
462.5
8,658.2
1,092.7
5,969.0
107.1
2,879.6
946.3
4,087.0
1,105.2
5,216.5
5.0
0
20.6
180.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,-. EC
Max
Min
nnnhos/cni
13.2 8.2
15.1 7.2
16.1
17.8
31.7
25.5
13.7
20.9
15.9
21.5
4.8
10.8
15.5
0
15.2
17.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.8
11.0
16.1
10.0
11.3
7.1
10.6
9.9
4.5
3.4
10.7
0
0
16.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PH
Max
10.8
8.7
9.4
9.1
9.1
9.2
8.2
8.6
9.0
8.9
8.3
8.5
8.0
0
8.2
8.4
0
0
0
* 0
0
0
0
0
Min
8.2
7.2
8.1
7.4
8.2
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.9
0
0
8.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
-------
TABLE 13. PERCOLATE FROM THE LYSIMETER STUDY, 1979.
Treatment
HIGH ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
LOW ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
Slope
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
Total Yearly .-
Percolate
903.1
7,171.8
223.7
5,969.3
817.6
5,059.0
0
2,487.9
199.1
3,384.2
12.0
4.0
15.0
0
5.0
60.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EC
Max
Min
mmhos/cm
11.6 7.4
16.6 6.2
11.7
15.4
16.2
29.7
0
22.3
21.0
31.6
3.3
2.9
13.0
0
12.6 .
20.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.3
10.1
14.4
20.5
0
9.3
11.2
21.9
2.3
2.4
8.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
pH
Max
9.1
9.1
9.3
9.4
9.8
9.2
0
9.1
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.8
8.3
0
8.3
8.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.8
9.7
8.4
0
7.9
7.3
8.4
8.4
8.6
8.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
-------
i-TABLE 14. PERCOLATE FROM THE LYSIMETER STUDY, 1980.
Treatment . ; -
HIGH ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
LOW ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
Slope
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
Total Yearly
Percolate
0
318.7
0
91.2
0
22.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EC
Max
Min
pH
Max
Min
mmh /
0
23.9
0
16.4
0
35.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.5
0
12.0
0
30.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.7
0
8.7
0
9.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.3
0
8.3
0
8.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
-------
Total cumulative volumes for all treatments of both the high-elevation
lysimeter and low-elevation lysimeter are shown in Table 15. Only the Paraho
retorted shale on the 25% slope of the high-elevation lysimeter produced 1
pore volume of leachate. Percolate volume? from other treatments were gener-
ally limited. The objective of supplying additional irrigation water, on a
yearly basis, to the high-elevation lysimeter was to evaluate the quantity and
quality of percolate which might result from a processed oil shale disposal
pile at an elevation where seasonal precipitation exceeded evapotranspiration,
and resulted in percolate.
After the initial leaching and irrigation for plant establishment (which
resulted in a minimal amount of percolate) no further irrigation was applied
to the low-elevation lysimeters. On these treatments the vegetation was able
to deplete the plant-available moisture in the profiles of most treatments,
allowing a reservoir for spring recharge. Consequently, a significant amount
of percolate did not result in later years.
Because of the limited percolate volume from most treatments, the EC
values fluctuated considerably. The maximum EC was not always associated with
the initial percolate from a particular lysimeter, nor were minimum EC values
associated with the final percolate flowing from a lysimeter. Overall, how-
ever, a general drop in EC values was observed for treatments through which
greater amounts of water had passed, such as the Paraho retorted shale, 25%
slope, of the high-elevation lysimeter. In 1977, maximum EC values for leach-
ate from this treatment were 31.0 mmhos/cm, dropped to 15.1 mmhos/cm by 1979,
and returned to 23.9 mmhos/cm in 1980. Much greater volumes of water leached
through the lysimeters would be required in order to stabilize the chemical
composition of the percolate. Another, more extensive report involved modeling
both chemical and hydrological aspects of the lysimeters (Chandler, 1979) and
proposed continued leaching studies.
Laboratory analyses of the initial percolate collected in 1977 are
reported in Table 16. Analyses for EC, pH, TDS, and common cations and
anions were made in order to judge the quality of the percolate.
The EC measured in the laboratory was slightly lower than when deter-
mined in the field. This was most likely due to some salt precipitation
before laboratory analyses were made. The pH values were considerably lower
in the laboratory than those measured in the field. Skogerboe et al. (1978)
attributed the drop in pH to oxidation of thiosulfates in the percolate.
The percolate collected from the lower drains of the lysimeters had a
high soluble salt content from passing through 2.4 m of retorted shale. It
can be predicted from'these values that water moving through a retorted shale
pile, several hundred meters thick, could be extremely saline.
Laboratory analyses also indicated that the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
of the percolate was high. This suggested that the percolate could create
soil dispersion problems in irrigated agriculture (Richards, 1954). The soil
control produced percolate with a moderate SAR, increasing the possibility of
a sodium dispersion problem in such soils if contaminated with retorted shale
percolate.
40
-------
H "
""TABLE, is. TOTAL PERCOLATE VOLUME FROM THE LYSIMETER STUDY, i977-i98o.
Treatment
HIGH ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control
LOW ELEVATION
Paraho Spent Shale
20 cm Soil/Paraho
40 cm Soil/Paraho
60 cm Soil/Paraho
80 cm Soil/Paraho
Soil Control-
Slope
2%
25%
2%
25%
2% .
25%
2%
'25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
" 25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
2%
25%
1977
9,513.8
34,110.4
2,179.0
24,636.6
447.4
3,860.7
0
1,308.9
0
1,771.8
219.0
5,649.1
1,042.6
706.8
771.4
4,638.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1978
4,149.1
8,527.6
462.5
8,658.2
1,092.7
5,969.0
107.1
2,879.6
946.3
4,087.0
1,105.2
5,216.5
5.0
0
20.0
180.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1979 '-
903.1
7,171.8
223.7
5,969.3
817.6
5,059.0
0
2,487.9
199.1
3,384.2
12.0
4.0
15.0
0
5.0
60.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1980 '
0
318.7
0
91.2
0
22.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
14,566.0
50,128.5
2,865.2
39,355.3
7,357.7
14,911.4
107.1
6,676.4
1,145.4
9,243.0
1,336.2
10,869.6
1,062.6
706.8
796.4
4,878.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other investigators have reported analyses for trace elements and
organics. in collected percolate samples for 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980
(Garland, et al., 1979).
41
-------
TABLE 16. LABORATORY ANALYSES OF THE INITIAL PERCOLATE FROM THE HIGH-
ELEVATION LYSIMETER, 1977.
Percolate From Retorted Shale
6/8/77 6/17/77 9/2/77
Percolate From Soil
8/1/77 8/23/77 8/31/77
EC, wmhos/cm
PH
TDS, ppm
SAR
Cations, meg/1
Ca
Hg
Na
K
An ions, meg/1
Cl
so4
12.983
6.3
14,328
52.8
16.4
9.0
148.8
11.2
30.6
157.7
27,222
7.1
31,984
116.8
23.0
5.1
429.3
45.1
28.2
449.6
10,500
7.0
*
30.0
17.4
1.5
90.0
11.3
4.8
119.0
4600
7.5
*
10.8
8.8
8.5
31.5
2.9
11.5
35.6
5100
8.2
*
9.7
6.9
21.4
36.1
1.1
17.1
37.5
5100
8.3
*
9.7
5.4
19.8
34.0
1.0
15.3
36.2
* Not determined
CORE SAMPLE ANALYSES
Samples were taken September 1, 1977 of the uncompacted zone of the
Paraho retorted shale treatments; the soil cover treatments were not sampled.
Analyses of EC, pH, and common cations and anions were done (Table 17). In
October 1979, core sampling of selected treatments was repeated, with only EC
analyses made (Figure 13).
A comparison of the EC values for the Paraho retorted shale, before and
after leaching, indicated a. significant decrease in salinity. The original
EC of 7.1 mmhos/cm dropped to approximately 3 to 4 mmhos/cm by the end of
1977. The 1979 core sample analyses indicated that the EC averaged 4 to
5 mmhos/cm to a depth of 160 cm of the Paraho retorted shale profile. Other
treatments which had not been previously leached averaged EC values as high
as 19.0 mmhos/cm at depths of 120 to 160 cm to the retorted shale (Figure 13).
However, the latter values indicated that soluble salts moved downward under
conditions of natural precipitation. There has been no indication of upward
salt migration, into the soil cover of these treatments (Figure 13).
ff
A considerable reduction in pH was observed between the time the
retorted shale exited the retort (pH about 11.4) and sampling the material
after, leaching (average pH 9.1). The drop in pH was probably due to recar-
bonization from CO_ in the atmosphere and leach water, and the displacement
of alkaline anions by neutral salts from the irrigation water.
42
-------
V7. RNKLYSES OF PARAHO RETORTED SHALE BEFORE AND AFTER LEACHING AND
PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, 1977.
Measurement
E
EC, mmhos/cm
11 §
PH
SAR§
Cations, meq/l_5
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Anions, meq/1
HC03
Cl
so4
Before Leaching
and Irrigation*
7.1
9.7
19.0
21.6
24.3
91.5
7.1
1.7
3.6
131.3
After Leaching A
And Irrigation '
High
Elevation
3.6
9.1
2.5
11.6
19.5
11.3
1.6
1.9 -
3.5
33.5
Low
Elevation
3.9
9.1
3.0
11.1
29.7
13.1
1.8
2.2
3.5
45.0
*
* Mean value for four samples.
t Mean value for 23 to 45 core samples, all data are in Appendix Tables
107 and 108.
§ Analyses were on a 1:1 ratio of retorted shale to water by weight
extract.
The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) before leaching averaged 19.0 and
'decreased after leaching to around 3.0. This suggested that the irrigation
".water was effective in removing soluble sodium from the shale. As a result,
f-SKR values as high* as 123.1 were measured in the percolate from the Paraho
retorted shale lysimeters (Harbert et al., 1979).
Analyses of samples after the 1977 irrigations indicated a relatively
high proportion of magnesium to calcium (Harbert et al., 1979), which could
result in nutrient imbalances, restricting plant growth on the Paraho
retorted shale.
43
-------
-HIGH ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
2% SLOPE-NORTH ASPECT
Spy §hi}IE 20 cm Soil Cpu^r 40 em Soil Cover Sot Control
ECxiO3 ECxiO3 ECxiO3 ECxiO3
0 5 iQ g 20 05 10 IS 20 0 5 10 15 20 0_ 5 iQ i5 20
40
' 80
120
160
o
4O
BO
120
160
25 % SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT-
40
80
120
160'
LOW ELEVATION LYSIMETER-
-2% SLOPE-NORTH ASPECT
Porgrto
Spent Shale 20 em Soil Cover 40 em Soil Cover
ECxiO3 . ECXK33 ECxiO3
0 5 10 15 20 0_ 5 10 15 20 0_ 5 10 IS 20
ECxiO3
0 5 10 15 20
I
0
40
30
120
160
25 % SLOPE - SOUTH ASPECT-
7
T
Figure 13.
EC = Electrical Conductivity
Soluble salt profiles of the lysimeter treatments, 1979.
44
-------
WATER BALANCE
Water balance calculations were made for all treatments of both lysi-
meters for the 1977 season (Harbert et al., 1979). An attempt was made to
account for the total volume of water applied to each treatment by estimating
various inputs and losses. Inputs of moisture were fairly well defined and
limited; such as precipitation and irrigation. Losses were more difficult
to measure and estimate; such as percolation, moisture storage in the pro-
file, and evapotranspiration.
For all of the leached treatments, amounts of water applied could not
be accounted for by a summation of losses as they were measured or estimated.
A water balance for the unleached treatments resulted in just the opposite
in that water losses were calculated to be greater than water inputs. The
moisture measurements for the soil control most nearly balanced inputs and
losses. Other researchers have addressed the problem of water balances for
the lysimeter study (Chandler, 1979).
45
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bell, R.W., and W.A. Berg. 1977. Characterization of spent oil shales as
plant growth media. Presented Am. Soc. Agron. Mtg., Los Angeles, CA.
November 14, p. 168 (Abstract).
Chandler, R.L. 1979. Water and chemical transport in layered porous media.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Fall, Colo. St. Univ., Ft. Collins, CO.
Cook, C.W., and E.F. Redente (eds). 1980. Reclamation studies on oil shale
lands in northwestern Colorado. 1979-1980 PR, US DOE Contract No.
DE-AS-02-76EVO4018.
Garland, T.R., R.E. Wildung, and H.P. Harbert, III. 1979. Influence of irri-
gation and weathering reactions on the composition of percolates from
retorted oil shale in field lysimeters. pp. 52-57. In_ J.H. Gary (ed.)
12th Oil Shale Symposium Proc., Colo. Sch. Mines Press, Golden, CO.
Harbert, H.P., III, and W.A. Berg. 1978. Vegetative stabilization of spent
oil shales. EPA-600/7-78-021, US EPA, Indus. Environ. Res. Lab,
Cincinnati, OH.
Harbert H.P., III, W.A. Berg, and D.B. McWhorter. 1979. Lysimeter disposal
of Paraho retorted oil shale. EPA-600/7-79-188, US EPA, Indus. Environ.
Res. Lab., Cincinnati, OH.
Holtz, W.G. 1976. Disposal of retorted oil shale from the Paraho oil shale
project. Final report by Development Engineering, Inc., Grand Junction,
CO and Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO. US Bureau of Mines
Contract No. JO255004, Washington, D.C.
Kilkelly, M.K. 1979. Levels of B, Mo, As, Se, and F in plants from spent
oil shales. M.S. Thesis, Colo. St. Univ., Fort Collins, CO.
Kilkelly, M.K., and W.L. Lindsay. 1979. Trace elements in plants on pro-
cessed oil shale, pp. 191-253. In_ Trace Elements in Oil Shale,
W.R. Chappell (ed) 1976-1979 PR, US DOE Contract No. EY-76-S-02-4017.
Richards, L.A. (ed). 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali
soils. USDA Handbook 60.
Schwab, A.P., W.L. Lindsay, and G.P. Marx. 1980. Uptake of chemical elements
by plants growing on spent shales, pp. 85-112. In_ Trace Elements in Oil
Shale, W.R. Chappell (ed) 1979-1980 PR, US DOE Contract No. EV-10298.
Skogerboe, R.K., D.F.S. Natusch, D.R. Taylor, and D.L. Dick. 1978. Potential
toxic effects on aquatic biota from oil shale development, pp. 43-47.
In J.H. Gary (ed) llth Oil Shale Symposium Proc., Colo. Sch. Mines
'Press, Golden, CO.
46
-------
APPENDIX TABLES
47
-------
B
\-/
w
CM
CO
1
CO
£
w
@
H
10
^
t-H1
25
O
H
EH
1
?
S
H
S
U
s
1
ta
EH
S
W
CO CO
3 en
K i-H
~ to"
to EH
M Z
CO W
tJ EH
fj: gj
EH
S H
ss
EH CO
U
O *>
u in
rH
a
1
X
1 1
o
z
W
04
o
0
5
.s
1
e
u
o
"*
0
1
V
>
3
s
g
o
CM
5
vi
g
3>
o
j=
0
w
^
a:
^
in
tc
fO
3Z
*
E «Hl
2 *ULI
£ sun
2 3UH
1 9UI 1
£ ^UH
jjauH
I »"H
E aun
Z 9 1* c| s n «! | &^ P
^ * "5 o ,wtn vi *- ono«o*L-^uXa)«i*- S or
g w ^ v ml -w E ? ^ *J *- 1- « «j ** o s> 4-* f» uj ui
^j ^53 £|£ = E S £ § 5
I
S
g,
s:
T3
I|
Q U
Is
<*- *-
o o
"S
Sfc
S|
tnro
O)
a a*
*
.48
-------
_
-
Q
H
1
O
rH
a
s
X
H
*o
e
o
i
o
E
£
g
1
I
e
o
O9
1
2
1
1
e
u
g
CO
CM
Z
CM
3:
2
z
=
in
K
CO
£ '*Hi
Z auu
L am
.
c auu
z^
I »"U.
£ auu
Z aUU
I a"U
£ auu
Z axil
1 auu
£ auu
Z auu
I auu
£ auu
Z aui i
1 9UL 1
JOV 1 III | 1 1 1 1 I * 1 1 1 1 1 CM I |
«n !* -ii i iiiiirjiiiiiuS = i
s.. ..5 , ,,,:= c«^»
CM . iiii r^r
toin ** «* in to
O> tO 1 II 1 COlllliiiiiii CM CM
If) CO CO CM CM
«* co to in
^11 iii i iiitiiiiiitni %o oo
cu CM cnto o r^-
co en i i i < i i i i i i i i i i i i ^
co i i iii i < t i i i i i i i i r«> 10
^
< in i CMII i CMIIIIIIIIIII o en
rr*. ** i co r*. co o
CM 1 1 1 IIIIIIIIII ^ U>
- -
cot-. en CD CM co
r-. ^- i iii i i i -i t i t i i t i r co co
«
m co in o CM
en GO i CMII i 111111111111 to f-
uJ O£
« lO UJ
CO M L. .= ^
UJ « O» Vt O
CO O> « O J3
S « J= (U f UJ Wt &. >
M c c «j §S e? toScS^fe^^^* uj
I |^2 £ S^*, g 1 £ ^112*^^111^ S §
of %mr-
*
8S
49
-------
EH
O
W
S
ES
o
&
^
Pi
w
EH
§
H
CO
S
3
H
EH
rt
1
1
S
H
H
EH
&
^
Q
O
EC
ii
S
EH
0
w
2 r~
0£ CTl
^ ' f_j
*"**
M w
w a
§1
^i
W EH
H H
EH £j
S"
W *
^
i
EH
.-
H
Q
S
s
£
«
Q.
"u"
' CO U> CO
CM r* i iii i * iiiitiiiiii en en
"
oo en o to en «>
co ro i iii i iiitiiiiii^- * o
CM CM 1 1 1 Illllltlllll CM V
tn *f co to co
r Cn 1 II 1 lltlllllllll r- O
*"" *"
en r-* en to
^- ) 1 III 1 IIIIIIIIIIII CO CM
en i** ^i en ^ t*- CM
( VO 1 II 1 CMIIIIIItlll t
CD co en to tf>
en co i ii i tiiiiiiiiiii en r-.
^ CM cn crt ^r
r *? i 111 i tiiiiiiiiii t in
r
CM vo ' r^> m to en co en
r*.r-| 1)1 1 t r ^- 1 1 1 till CO C7)
trt ff r to to tn
r«. r i 111 i icn^-iiiiiiiii to o
m co m r-. in
<- i i iii i leniiiiiiiii r^ r^»
r~ co o r^» co en cn
iv.i iii r ir in i i i i i i i i i r»> cn
m to 10 o CM co
CM i i 111 * loiiiiiiiii cn o
* let
s ' ' ' ' ' 2 s?""rS ' ' 5 "
<" S j. 5
UJ « O UJ
£ r- ui M s~ =»
J5 CU X > (O » i f- OJ >>
_J "y .C CO) LU W) -M U r ffJ «C
^^CC|° C «ia 6r"2 5 S * ^*I5<£ S ce
v aj 3 tjj (/)! £ < UJ LU
LU 4->CUf-> CD! IA.C4J 3 C LU (OWiJ^JO-MWO**! ICflJ > |
Q; in 3 1 £EJ C « C OS 3 £ OlinOEtOtOr-* F-ErtJM- |
|
a;
"i
c
r-
CM
O
C
*~
1
c
[2
CD
C
J=
I
^
g
en
1
1
4-*
CU
a
c
S+j
0
cu
11
10 0)
o o
e <*i
3^
s|
sm
3 ai
5i^
«
*
50
-------
g
D
S
1-4
EH
O
CN
!j
|
H
Q
§
S
1
i
i
£ sun
Z«U
l-.suu
-
CM
CM
Z
£ »un
Z sun.
t sun.
I
ID
L.
O
a
i
u
s
i
au
Z sun
I sun
CO
s
£«uu
Zaun
t auu
5
(O
1
CM <9- O
cni tit i iiiiiiiiiii i v
gfx, r CM
i 111 i itiiiittiiroi I t
CM
CM o m C3 «n
en < i iii i t i i i i i i i i i i c3) rx
% 0=
» > t
.c *» tn cj .c *J a* s- i
< u ooi en cu « « *^"9 e H-
5 £§5 , IS « 5 &.§«&£ ^Ss'S'SJS & *
=r to .0 a* t/i| 4-» co a; ^ ^-» -r- -^- w «» -*J o l
0)
I
1
4-)
O)
S
1
f>0
0^
^ u
"of
o m
31
S|
fc. C
« *t-
cn co
w
*
Oi
51
-------
§
en
I
IH
£3
O
en
OS
g
H
CO
JM
3
J-J
H
rf
w
w
s
w
in
t,
o
I
EH
S
.
U
W
CO
1
EH
CO
H
CO
1 ^ £Q
S r**
§CT>
t-l
pj*
H Ou
EH O
EH CO
CJ> eK>
W in
> CM
»
CO
a
S
EH
X
H
Q
1
Q.
t
CU
1
^_
E
u
5
5
£ sun
z »un
i aun
en
_j
E aun
z 3"n
L aun
o
10
I-
>
3
"o
I/}
5
S
r^
t n
z aun
i 3"n
in
E3un
2 aun
i 3un
41
*re
«
c
OJ
to
_
u
ex.
CO
£ aun
2 aun
L aun
j
2 aun
L aun
*^«^ II *** 1 1 J2 | | i i | | | CM S m
tn^roi ii i i ro t i i i i i i i i o '
CM CM CO COr Crt CM
r i en i ii .11 riiiiiiiiico co in
tin* II «TI Illllllll CO^- O CM
^ i co in co o r^ in
* in in *$ ii ii 111111111 «a- r o
r-CO VO ID O "0- CO
v CM 1 II II Illllllll tn tO r to
r CM O 1 II II IlllllllliCn O CM
m o o ^- «*
IICOI II II Illtlllllr in r- CM
o
^- r r O 1--
1 CO 1 II || 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 < CO «tf
*""
r en i ii CMI 111111111 r- en to
en o\ co n co \o co o r
Cni II r IIIIIIIIICOCC CO *
a- r^ co in CM r^ CM in
i «er ii i 111111111 f r-. co *
CO i r in
iiii ii ii COIIIIIIIICM en i
r»» ^- \o . in
111 - K
iiii ii i i «s- i i i i i i i i i en i
r*- en r co co *
II II r I ICOllllllll f-. 1
CM
CO CO CO
III II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r- r I
in ^* S **
tit ii co i icoiiiiiiiii ^r i
vt
u\ ce.
vt to ui
co en t- .c g
+-> in *-> uj
ce «J -c en cy r ui M t- s-
tD QJ 2 OJ > re HI f- Q> >> -«
^ CJ -U WO W.C -M OJt. |-
_J J J= t- OJ C 4* UJ « -M t- f Q ce 4->*^--f-mre4-* o -M t uj LU
ce «3l"o cc RJC or r»c 3; u. so. co u. 3 o c_>a;i<:-jE33inEo_«« =r i
o
Q)
T3
*E
C
CM
1
.
1
3
c
«
^
*J
c
0)
c
S
in
CO
en
5
tn
c
F
aJ
c
re
i_
I
M
u
OJ
ex
V)
1
o
u
0)
>
M
S
at
en
a>
^
§ .
O -4-1
Ol °
ex
o u
to 01
o o
ECO
u ^.
ii
£ c
re -
(/> CO
Q)
3 a>
r =
tc
eu
fS
52
-------
.
Q
£§
s
HI
EH
S
8
CO
a
i
X
M
H
ft
"g
4-1
C
Q
0
"o
t/>
o
rt)
1_
>
3
5
E
C
cc
o
.c
s_
cu
ID
1
i
E
0
CO
~J
CM
Cn
B
m
CO
"*
£ aun
Z aun
.1 aun
E aun
Z.aun
I aun
£ aun
2 aun
I aun
£ aun
Z aun
I aun
£ aun
2 aun
I aun
£ aun
2 sun
I aun
c? in co en co « co
104-CM II 00 r Illlllllll |
^r «*- c\j o m co CM co «r
CO CM CO 1 1 in CM Illlllllll \O tf *f
. CM. en co < in o
m ^- co co ii i iiiiiiitii « |x> in
f CM IO O - ^ CM CO «^ 1O
COioCOCM II 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 f CO * m o co en en to f** r*»
CMCOCO^- II .1 ICMIIIIIIIICM CO r*.
k
tO CMCM O CM CO
^- ro r-. i ii ii i, IIIIIIIIICM co 10
» o:
w> m UJ
uo wt i_ .c >
1. 1 AI en M o
ry) t_ 4-> tn ^: 3 (t) u
^f4-*'oiL. *-» '4^t/l4^ UJ
ce ro .c 01 cj r L«J in s. >
s 5s S 5 S 5 «S S &u ' P
rfO*C eoo O»«o cu'O « *H-ac 1
Mccta 2£ c: "*- t75t-c3-a«ja»'^i'O uj
z: i. 3 *-> c «S on t-j- "^ crxofocri.^^oaw'*- es ce
z: QJ ja o CQ xa» ee*j-*-f-««*»54J^- uj uj
cc w»3« ~o QS
«
O 4J
O.
0)
o"5
gs
*- H-
o o
E co
f *""*
0 1
k c:
ia »-
II
*
53
-------
S
H
P4
CO
rt
i
&J
o
2
»
H
S
H
W
>H
g.
H
EH
rt
1
a
2
H
K
EH
fa
°
1
!H
S
EH
O
K5
to
1
EH
CO
H
CO
3 .
fC CO
§ cr»
t-l
H W
Ss
a
1
X
H
Q
en
«Q
u
£
O*
1
1
e
§
CM
E »un
z sun
t«n
O
E sun
z aun
i sun
o
JZ
£
£
a
1
_
1
S
OO
_ J
E-n
2 aun
L aun
S
£ aun
2 aun
I aun
S
C
CO
*>
I
CO
E
£
3
£ aun
2 aun
L aun
CM
e«n
2 aun
I aun
-
t:rr° co in t ro CM
CM Yfin 1 || || r Illi III ICMtO O |
*"
cooooco en otto tn o 09
^T ^ II II till IICMI O CM
O *f CO *f IO f** CO
^cni i ii ttiiiF iiiii < CM
* o^*- r-*. in r^. « CM
en co en i i ii ^iiiiiiiii r*». r>
00 to CM fx. CO O tOCO CO 1ft
^ r OO 1 II «O 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 ^ < CO
r»- «n o ^- «a- CM co to o
^~ ^- CO CM II r 1 Illllllllr CM r CO
*o in co co r- CM rx.
r***^-i i ii IIIIIIIIICM r«> ^
CM r»» rj. in co o » CM in ro
m o to co co o CM to co CM
^- CO II 1 CJIIIIIIIICM CM V
^^3-00 CM UD «a- ,
p- i i ii ii < i i i i i i i i i co m r*.
tn CM r-. cj in co co ID
CM. C 1 II ^-1 CMIIIIIIIICMI r t
CM CO 1 II |" r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CJ CO CO f
ooi to m in
a-'1 '' ' iiiiii.iti to i
^ i t ii ii i i i t i i i i f i
CO
CO 1 II 1 Ir Illllll'll r- 1
CM
CM 1 II II ICJIIIIIIII U3 1
tn ie> «f co
III II 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 O 1
r-. CM co tf en
iii ii ii i f i i i i iii f-. t
1/1
M ce.
tn fO iJJ
CO «> t- J= >
C/JL.4->tn J= =1 0) CJ
co en *a XO) > « t -r- > «
j=u *» in o f> jc ** a> u i
tf O t- (UQ OtaCVIQ ID t XI i- 1
SCCZIO XE C<*- c/ll-CSTSWOig'CI UJ ^
Uj 4-1 OJ r -f- CO fl/) =3 C 4-> Ul r-'*e > h"
or w)3i "o oc «j c ce n c ar o»tnoEv»a*p r»r
01
tn
OJ
c:
Z
I/)
to
t.
I
tn
0)
I
tn
J3
1
8
0)
-^
1^.
l-s
re S
4- (*-
O O
0^1
"o s
+-> 0
fc- C
(Q T-
« CO
O)
Z> O)
. c
54
-------
.
Q
EH
8
<*'
3
§
EH
X
M
^
|
J
*o
s
£ 911 1,"
Z aun
I aun
CM
CM
E sun
Z aun
tsun
o
1
1
1
e
°
c
CO
g
-j
CO
£3un
E a«n
i aun
E aun
z sun
I aun
o
_c
1
, o_
Ol
3
^
5
g
to
J£
£ aun
Zaun
t aun
a-
Zj
£ aun
Z aun
I aun
tsftS"*' "» , , » - . 8 , i 1. 1 , , , i s « °°
" fo
VCM tO 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i O »
CM C"» CO i/) iff- m O to
totncni ii CMCM IIIIIIIIICM 1? i
cn*cM i ii **" i CM iii 22 £ J2
F
!*» r*» P~ in o to cs «* o f^
^-»n i ii i i i t i i t t <0 2 »
cncMto CM ' r- to r-. r*. to
^- 1 II 1 tAIIIIIIII CM tO CM CM
r
< cn o CT\ ^ t-«
tO r tO 1 II CMI Ir l|l|||rCM fx. CM
CM CO ^ O 00 O « O '
f> V£> 1 tl 1 r Illlllllr-l 00
^"
cn ^- 1^» to cn LOO u> o
cn ^- CM it ii i i i i t i i i i o ro
*
*a- ro o> i ii ^i iiiiiiiiii cn ro
*n CC
tn « (- .c >
UJ « cn . uj
CC 10 f Ol «J r ^ tf) I_ =»
< ^T So cnla gjIS^io T-Sc ff
5 t. 3 .-*j c vtcu trt »- t- _j cn«njcri-.Q(js" O *J ^- LU UJ
Ixl 4-> O) ^ -f- CO X;oi =D C «-> uf rtJWlJZ-O4-»rtJT3-*^p ClO ^ f-
C£. u»^3i -o ee «= ce 3£ = Ww>tJS3^^'5'~2lt: £
a. 3 co o i u_ =30. t/i u. 3B O t* ce itf _) 2: 2 2: to £ o. < £ _j
o
c:
0)
"e
e
CM
1
*~
fc
D_
O.
C
a>
c
4->
a>
E
u
g
CO
0
1.
1
(O
O)
1
i
c
IO
J
g
Ct
1
S
CO
o
Q)
cn
-------
OS
W
H
S
S
O
H
fC
S
w
s
H
S
w
a:
S
S
Pu
s
« *
o co
03 r-
CU en
rH
§ w
J3 13
w w
^ ^
II
S W
H o
*~ 1 I 1
en en
rt
S IT)
1^
EH O
CO W
M CW
O W
S <;
.
i
i
s
I
s
~
JJ
*
a
^
10
a
"
S
*
5
s
£
n
^
*
s
a
"
*
S
-
5
II
in
i
H
W
P<
i*^«J«M«Mnir>i-. i i
*** ***
i
SSS2S2S31' S
s
s
vi^o^nt~otr.J . r
«. *>. <*. -. ~. ". 1 ". . .
aioa>*<>f»eov|c *
. K ^ t\i «M
s a 5 2 s s a ! ! '
S S 2 E 2 f3 S ' '
2SS3SSSSSS
s
£
S-B
f
S
S
s
s
5;
S
0
to
u
s
"~ " *~ *~ *~ *~ *~
,,,-...,,,..
^SSS S2KSK '
NN«xiN52?2! ' '
»«^^0^^^,,
- g
^ 0V °
f^dc\inoCin! !
Mco«a>«Ptf-.o
v CD n 01 CD :B V in
o e-J * *. «J en « W ! !
o»mcgt*>»o
SSSSiS-sS : !
S S a 53 2 S £ ! ; !
sssstcssasg
i
£
f-e
5?
(M
CD
O
S
s
s
5
A
s
4-
S
u>
is
^
*-
^eo-^^^r . .
. i> ' !
£5i5a!3!3S!2 ! '
ESSSSSSSKS
I
i
1
stt
M J J
S 1"
E 'S'S'S
1 III
1 111
I i
I i
ii
5 "o
i i
£ -
a
I i
56
-------
- .
Q
PENDIX TABLE 5. CONTINI
£
60 ca Soil Cover/Fir
IA
S
IS
^
&
<»
*
£
»n
S
s
S
*
£
m
s
s
-
tO<0 OIO<«>0l<»
""zz^js^iSidjd
cnminr>>*rtnw>Oin
_ .
StSKSKSSS !
22CS8S222 !
S
SJM«Sc!! e o
8
sg^gsg'ssis; :
*
SSSSK^SiK; ! !
^ssssssgsg
Ol
=c
i
!i
r^
%
%
tn
10
s
£
s
f
s
to
2
a
s
p^o^*~MONr-^w
eo ! ! ^ cti ia ut in « 1
oi<-»w"»f.(\j«t*.| {
«x»»»»i»te««o^
ri^^2£5SS' *
cocteoeommiraiao
sssftsissas !
sdssisidsa!: !
2 s 8 a a s a s ! !
KSKSSiiCSR! ! !
S S S S S S S 8 S S .
i
s
11
Sr
s
&
St
4-
%
*
s
«
ill
tf>
*~ "~ " " *" ^ *
CO' IOIOIO ^- ,_ r. , , p.
r-.^ciJr»(n»r^r-. t !
cncuini^etcutntw ! !
2SSS338S I 1
tstsassa ! !
2SKS8SRSS < '
iA«-*-ie**to(up»«i«
IAOr»r^Nv^nm(n !
n*~*o^^tu^vo
^^^mf^^^GQ0t i
-ssscssiss !
ZZSSSS8K3 '
S83S&KS8K '
2SRSSSSSS <
£RiSSKSSgSS
1
f
|
i
ill
*s:
.'ijj
\trA sail nolsturt curv
0/78 - >v«n»e of 8 In
19/78 - iv«r«9t of 1.2
27/78 - tvenjeof 1.2
| S*&
i i
e =
it
i
*. s
' 1
!l
i !
i i
e S
£ -s.
s. s-
* ViluM ire In
t Indicates tht
57
-------
M
><
H?
g
H
1
tn
M
ffi
w
EH
s
s
P«
§ .
OS co
en
g ^
O
03 -
EH en
O EH
W z
' EH
en rt.
EH H
*2 Q*
fc, EH
W W
Pi PI
D Q
en 5
oi*-«»0'afMter-<*OV^I^
*
s s s si s a n ' ' '
ssssssggga
s
£
11
a
s
5
si
«_
s
^
*
*
s>
«
»
§
s
n
SI
"
'
-
5
m n to m to « »
t ^ .- r-
"S2 = ""=S! ' '
2225^3^2;:
2 S S 2 S = S ' ' '
s = ss = st |
fl
- = s-~ s s = 5
"*
w cj » ^ »o ~ « ! : :
to PJ «- f^ *> *o w
01 n ov a >-i oo <-i ( ( (
o: in M> m" « oJ n ! ! I
0, « M « « 0 * *
loon uar^o! ! i
in in 0 w> in N OT ( ( (
°* 2 C 2i 2 2 S ' ' '
* ^ 2 s " s: a ' ' '
a, o in o. - ~ 0.
2 s s s a s s
eo « «3 « m
2 s s 2 a a s '
s s s s c s a '
SSSSESSSgg
|
g
r
I
*
i
"'S'S
?-=
= &£
- Ill
* £cMCM
1 ill
~° '''
s s&t
S 5SS
in
i i
1 f
u
-------
-
Q
W
a
APPENDIX TABLE 6. CONTINl
1
£
S
S
S
S
«
£
1
1^
X~
«»
R
S
£
r
%
s
%
**
X
2r
&
nj*~r>tcwr^«i«*.«B
otaJfinm^^n
eiOitnco^eir***1*
S2J3S822S '
SfvJSjSJS" J2'
£
g a K si 2 2 2 s ! ! |
rmcBflemmmo o
<0moto~:~;£to'
S
s
.- t-
_^ ,-_.-._
ooopooon, ,
S222tS£g ' '
a s 5 si 2 E s s ! !
sasssgsgss
1
co
I*
Sv
S
10
£
*^
Sf
s
*
o?
fe
s
5
:
s
»-
m O ^ ^ *- rg to < i
= " ^ "
~S~~2 = £<° ! !
-5t2;2ggJ2 ' '
"SSSIKgaS ' '
"sisiasssias11 e
c
s
oa "> "i , ,
S£SSS5;^2' '
sssssssgss
i
~
!i
J^
»
is
£
"*
S
S
R
(A
A
rs
I
r~-:~«»«» ,
raoo^mojm^i i
r*Bmi>»r>.ia^~ej
'"2=' = 2i2s; ;
ui^-«%irnor.^.m(n i
"tssssags
zsasssaas
2 S iS is IS R S IS S '
--BBS»»S
*POIzz:~ n X S
u>rs
-------
fSIMETER, SOUTH-ASPE
S
H
|
.J
W
H
S
9
£
1
EH
P CO
ta r-
S2
to -
gg
« EH
W EH
PENDIX TABLE 7. MOISTURE
25% SLOPE
irltio Sp«nl Shlle
3
=
11
^
*
f
m
"."!=. °. "! °. ° ° ,, 1
ooinui^ou.^
^ssssssggg
=
in
11
oo
^
*-
.
1
,,,,,,,,,.
ssssessgs |
5
at
13
(M
£
^" "~ * "" "* *"
,,,,,,,,,
SRSSS8§§§
1
at
s
P
* o o o
* i!i
8 o = =
1 s^s
if
i ;
1 5
*i
1 1
i 1
* Values are 1n pen
t Indicates the app
60
-------
Q
H
H
O
U
CD 01 01 O *- 9t
J
OGDcom
oo<
Sr-»r*.
C4 IM
t!
f!
otnmm
sasBsss'"' '
S S S S S 8 SSS S
S 2 2 S S
= a s a a
: :
eo to ot 01
C3«oeommo»ea
-------
s
g
f
i
z
H
I
H
|
§
w
fa
§
w
2 00
CT>
W
EH
2
W
g|
g
m |i]
« EU
W W
S CM
IS
SSSSJCSSSgg
! °. > "! «> . ,
is
! Ill
T |5S
I 5§S
i ^
- a
{ |
« a.
ll
s 5
I 1
II
62
-------
PENDIX TABLE 8. CONTINUED
M
t-
cn Soil Cover/P
S
.
to
s
H
s
^
r*I !
«*(wr».r.»r^_Meii«o
cocnoMNm^uim !
otninoooutoo
lar^ror^pCiaoJcnm i
^ ^ »- ^ .
cno<->-niXtniXin i
~~S~~~~S2
SSSSSSSSSg
!i
sasasscss
~ w O - 1
s s s E s a s
M
-------
s
W
fr,|
"*
1
ffi
1
M
«
1
H
1
g;
^5
H
EH
I
W
S
H
SB
U
EH
&4
O
**"».
8
s
EH
S
B
w
W Ol
§ o^
2 rH
EH
W
W EH
M ^
CO H
^ w
S H
EH
i_l A,
g S
EH W
C5 *
g$
§
(H
H
1
04
S
tr
o
u
~
o
o
E
|Q
£
1
S
o
s
CO
o
E
<£
I
O
01
8
S
o
1
V
s
f
o
tSi
O
S
W
^T
O
u
s
g
o
flj
13
(O
4-»
I
«
5
u
£
en
c3
31
O>
r-.
=
U1
*>
=
~
=
£
r*.
=c
Lf>
*n
3=
£
U)
2
Oltl ^ I I tMlllllilll 1 i
O
Kill ii i i i i evi i i i f ii i«
en i
r^ en " u> CO in
oj it it i [^.tiiiiiiii ^-ro
CT» f^.-
ro co r» ey to
Olill II 1 ll _J *
u.
to m £? 2
Sill II I inillllllll rv. «3-
__, I** o er> o
cniii i i coiiiiiiiii '^ "*
S ' ' «
*-» to 1%. r*> to *^ "*
g , i i S i miiiiiiii m ~
1^ 0«> CO 0 0 <0 S
ftlll S 1 JB 1 1 f- 1 1 r- 1 1 1 r- c*>
Sco i i 22 I l^ I I 1 I 1 I I 1 i en i
= --- "s .5"- c s
_. to ff to r^ to m
.Kill ' *>£ 1 1 1 1 -CO 0 -
* en cr» «
^111 ii « ' §" i i i i i « co
t/)
re in
t/t L. tn cc
in n *-> i. _ ">
01 ui i- io en -|= o
LU to en ,
s
1
^<
1
o.
fO
01
c
4-*
U
OJ
c
rt3
tt)
1
O
S
o
4->
1
tn
OJ
1
1 _
o o
"a.'a.
UJ (U
u-
OJ
TJ "CJ
!'5
en c
o
" JE
o*~
E C
u flJ
a.
r CL
C t~
"" (U
rtj J
tn
r (J
r> ai
64
-------
EH
O
a
w
ft
1
a
E-i
tf
o
3
OS
H
EH
JF,
H
W
§
H
s
M
£i
1 1
a
w
^
o
, ^
§
as
§
s
B
H
to
3 CF>
j3 I
Ii "-1
W W
W 2
>H H
ft EH
§ H
2 EH
O
M H
EH ft
US
H *
> CM
O
%
9
EH
X
H
«
"o
s_
o
cj
*o
CO
o
re
s_
£
i.
O)
o
tJ
T
"o
to
§
g
o
1
Q.
1
3
"o
CO
g
o
to
o
«o
L-
re
a.
"tT
$
o
u
o
CO
E
u
o
- -
o
.c
2
IB
I
^
5
u
s
ai
«)
CO
c
Q.
CO
o
re
j-
a.
1
CM
CM
1
CO
^
to
zc
CM
0
§
£
s
CM
3!
1
CO
Sill CM*
O 1 CM 1 tftt^t
en
r- CM
CO 1 1 1 r-I
to
mitt II
in
VO CO
CO 1 1 1 ' 1
CM
S ' ' ' ' '
tn
en . . ,
|m . S *° .
0 CO
S ' ' ' - '
O CO CM
CM CM 1 1 1
^
«3-
IO I I 1 II
*
CO
CM 1 1 1 II 1
V)
re ft
tft I- Vt
vt en re
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 r-
o ^- o en
CMIICMIIIIII f q-
v£> i i o i i i i i i en CM
CM PO CO r*. CM ro
co i i f* r i ii LD «s-
r-
cn «o- LO en in
miir-coi'iiii r- en
CM
co encg r*. en
< i i CM i i i i i co en
CM *
co t p*.
f^>iiiiiiiii un ^>
«r
o en 10
CMIIIIIIlll CM IO
CO
4- CO CM 1O
ro i i i i iiii ro CM
en i i r i i i i i t vo CM
'
co c-». CM m to
en i i i iiii r rj-
PO PO CM
^ IO CM IO f*» tO
cn CM i i i i t i en co
«r CM f
tf) «J +> t- UJ
co tfi t. re en jc =*
LU re en ui _ 5R
1/1 en re 1 1 u £.
*c *J *-
cp o x ** en . > c
§-J "S^2 » = g
CO f
CO 3
UJ j-> a* t. ca -jz i/i ^ t
a: in 3 *J (D ctirec: ct: =
UJCUi CJ= O4-»Cy 3TC
O- 3C CO - CO U. 3 CL CO U.
^
CO *J UJ
UJ in - . . . >
CJ t/t t- J= I
I Q. re O Cl -O r-
CT>re*^refc-r ? ore tD ce
Q£ 4^i-OJ4->ra4-)(ll *i- UJUJ
1 IslcirillSI i 5
JZ
4-)
cn,
c
0)
c
E
0
in
>,
I
X
g
a.
re
a;
c
cy
I
OJ
£
JZ
ti-
re
s
1
in
ai
1 U1
1" _
O O
"ex's.
-C JZ
u u
re re
UJ (U
<*-
in °
tn ai
1 ^ °
s. c
ocn
O
0)
QJ C
> -r
S-o
C=
Q) »
> O)
"c §
cn c
O
JD (U
re c
0 "^
E t-
ex
re 3
c
01 C
L. -
Q) .
re re
> QJ
65
-------
EH
0
H
Ai
?
EH
g
CO
^
g
H
H
W
(4
H
EH
>
S
H
g
P
H
g
0
I
SJ
EH
E
B.
o> o-.
K rH
W EH
C/} K*
3 Is
rt ff
55 KI
*C S
EH
S> W
H g
2 j
EH W
O OP
H m
t* CN
r-t
r-l
(4
1
X
H
Q
Z
2
1
O
t/1
P
ta
&.
o
^
3
o
CO
e
b
!_
f£
1
s
^
trt
u
0
VD
O
S
o.
o
^
5
o
§
o
.c
OL.
at
3
s
g
s
at
I
to
1
a.
£
g
2
CM
_J
CM
2
=
in
CO
_j
13
en
_i
U)
_j
CO
"J
_J
3
1
^r u> O go ,_ CMooin o^vi
cnicniD i initn cniiiiiii m en
CM r- . ' r-
co CM « co i** lOtncncoino^
cororoio . 911 toiiii^-i to m
coco en co «*r . . o
CM i , in . iii toiii 111,0 CM tn
CM ** to
CMCO te co^j.^-_cn
CMII1D > r II (Ollir-lllllO f** CT
I11O 1 ,1. COtf^-lllltO O I*1*
i t i «a- i .i en ^r , . , i i . i CM CM a
"~ *~ *~
1110 . ' ii r-. i i i i i i in r^ in
CM «
men 10 co CM o m lorn
en i i in i r ii coi. r iii ii in to
r^. co to in
ro., en , ... jo,,,,,,,,, ^ cr
S,,5 , *,. S.,.,..,,, c5? ff
10 ' ' CM ^ CM f
** a) 5
tn i- *-» m .c 3 J..
S SS£ S S j« « u.
c2«afcn o> * ^ J2S
"S^g 5 5 S« l_j=t-
_j ^^4- fa(*-*(DL.3u**-(UiT) u> o:
a: (n3"5^ ce ra oe acne IE fl>aS'°3o'~*'~33 es t-<
cu S co »S o £S intucoS ow^CDcTE3:vi5c5ce z j
5
I
C
1
S
m
>,
I
X
s
a.
ta
O)
c
u
0)
in
C
2
a>
QJ
S-
<*-
o
4J
o
u
-*-1
in
c
CU
£
1
i.
O O
"a. "a.
£S
o
ai en
Q. L>
in tu
t'f
o to
"a
a> c
(O "O
«j
o^
11
&£
aj
> CM
O
J3 0)
R} C
0 ^
u ^
a.
> a.
(O 3
o c
J-) -r-
£ =
flj _t
in
(U
3 -C
> cy
*
PJ
CU
fS
66
-------
EH
O
H -
PJ
f
SB
EH
a
o
3
pT
1
M
S
2
0
M
EH
>
a
w
H
EG
EH
fa
0
H
o
EH
S
S
EH
O
w
w
3
M H
EH S
pH u3
S 03
H *
> CM
f
CM
i-H
9
EH
X
| 1
Q
J
$
^
2
£
l
s
"o
E
o
g
o
1
s
E
u
o
1
1
1
o
0
*o
co
s
o
«cr
x:
2
£
1
o
J
t
o
CO
£
U
0
CM
0)
id
.c
tO
c
Q)
CO
O
1
°-
3
CM
CM
§
CO
to
5
CM
O
.'-*
CO
s.
-J
CM
_J
3-
~ . as " R , s s ,,,,,, a ,, s c
^ * *~" ' ' ^1 * 1 i CM 1 1 I CM 1 t fv.
S''S ' ~ ' S£SS,r",,21~ 2 g
1 - -g " - , I"10, ,",,,, 5 S
S i f-^r *** ^ , , 5 i i i i i i i i i to o
Rf*> ,to rv en n CM co
r_l'^ * 1 Olillllll O CM
co en to ^ en
j^'ii i iii (Oiiiiiiit co ro
co «4- <3- to tn
« 1 1 1 1 III r Illlllll \O f~
en en co o o o
*3;iii < ^11 giiiiiii;=-i {?> S
CM to tO CM to i
- ... . ~ . . £ ...... _ . . ^ U,
^
CM en 4o to *^ CM to LT> co
iii i ,i ^~ ro i i i i ^ i i o co ^
t ^ «3- CM
tn tn o ^*- <
iiii i ii icniiiiiitcM cvi *g-
r- fv.
v> ee
tn to tu
to M i- £ >
tO £ 4? « J= )3 Q) S
U.
os. IBJ= en
JZ U -M (A CJ M t- f 1
_J X .C T> Q) 4-» Ut(A4-* CO (DXMO) CC4-'<«-«43(O«» W*»- LU UJ
£SrS*c'« O4J Z O *-*- I .COO. ^O*«f 33 C ^«
O. 3 OO " O U. 3 V> Lu CO 2 O OS*£U3O« £ £ »/> < C9 CC S _J
JC
t
»
"3
X
o
a.
Q.
tn
e
*~
8
v>
c
2
+J
0)
1
«*-
0
3
s
01
4J
tn
4->
1
t _
M *J
O O
'a.'a.
-g-g
LU a!
-0
tn
Q} CO
|7
^1
s. c
o f>
° £
rt> "O
w c
f1"
> ai
"c 5
n
en c
a***"
fl3 C
t*- 1
O
U 0
r Q.
5 =
0 C
"^ U
5 S
^
<
67
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 13. MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS (NEUTRON PROBE) FROM THE HIGH-
ELEVATION LYSIMETER, SOUTH-ASPECT, 25% SLOPE TREATMENTS,
1979.
Deem
15
30
45
60
75
M
ins
120
135
4/23
17.8*
17.8
17.8
16.5
16.5
17.8
20.8
-.
t 5/2
19.0
25.0
29.5
29.5
29.5
30.3
29.5
24.3
5/16
18.3
18.3
18.3
17.3
17.3
1S.3
21.8
..
t 6/6
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
15.5
17.8
20.8
21.8
m
6/14 t
14.3
16.5
16.5
17.0
16.0
17.0
19.0
..
6/29
9.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
15.3
17.3
20.0
21.8
"
7/16
7.5
10.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.5
11.0
11.0
8/17
5.3
6.3
8.8
12.8
13.3
16.5
20.0
"
Paraho Sp
9/13
4.3
6.5
8.0
10.5
13.5
16.8
19.5
--
ent Shale
4/23
21.3
24.0
19.0
17.0
16.5
17.8
20.0
21.3
t 5/2
17.8
24.3
26.3
28.0
28.0
27.5
26.8
26.8
26.8
5/16
23.0
23.0
19.0
16.3
16.3
17.3
18.3
20.0
t 6/6
19.5
20.8
17.8
15.0
14.5
16.5
17.8
21.3
H3
6/14 t
18.3
19.0
17.8
16.0
14.3
16.0
17.0
19.0
"
6/29
15.0
17.8
15.5
14.5
14.5
16.0
16.5
19.0
"
7/16
6.0
10.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.5
15.8
17.3
8/17
8.3
11.8
13.3
12.8
13.3
12.8
16.0
18.3
9/13
6.8
9.8
11.8
12.8
12.8
15.5
16.0
18.3
"
20 cm Soil Cover/Paraho
Depth
15
30
45
CO
75
90
105
123
135
4/23
13.3
11.3
22.0
20.8
13.8
10.0
10.5
16.0
t 5/2
19.5
23.0
23.8
24.3
24.3
25.0
21.3
20.0
21.8
5/16
15.5
20.0
21. 8
22.5
14.5
10.8
14.5
..
t 6/6
9.3
11.8
17.3
17.8
13.3
9.8
10.3
14.5
H5
6/14 t
9.0
10.5
15.5
17.0
13.8
9.5
10.0
11.5
6/29
8.0
10.0
13.0
15.8
11.5
8.0
9.5
13.0
7/16
7.5
10.5
11.5
11.0
12.5
16.8
15.8
15.3
17.8
8/17
9.3
10.3
12.3
14.0
11.8
9.8
9.3
9/13
a. 3
9.8
11.3
13.3
11.3
8.3
9.3
4/23
17.0
20.8
22.0
19.5
18.3
18.3
20.8
19.5
t 5/2
23.0
22.5
25.5
23.5
24.8
24.8
24.3
23.0
5/16
19.0
21.8
22.5
21.3
19.0
20.0
20.0
CO.O
"
t 6/6
11.8
15.5
17.8
17.8
16.0
15.5
17.3
19.0
H7
6/14
11.0
13.3
16.0
17.0
15.5
16.0
17.8
19.0
"
t 6/29
10.0
11.5
14.5
16.3
14.0
15.3
16.8
18.3
--
7/16
8.5
11.5
11.0
12.0
13.5
17.3
18.3
17.8
~
8/17
10.3
11.3
12.3
14.5
13.3
15.0
15.5
17.3
"
g/13
9.5
10.5
12.5
14.0
13.5
13.5
15.8
16.3
"
40 on Soil Cover/Paraho
Depth
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
4/23
14.5
tl.O
22.5
24.3
21.3
19.0
20.0
19.0
-
t 5/2
23.8
25.5
26.3
26.8
26.8
25.0
21.8
21.8
21.3
5/16
17.8
21.3
25.0
25.0
23.8
21.3
21.8
20.0
-
t 6/6
9.8
12.3
17.8
20.8
20.0
18.3
19.0
17.8
H9
6/14 t
9.3
11.3
15.5
17.8
19.0
17.8
17.8
17.3
6/29
8.0
10.5
12.5
14.0
16.3
15.8
17.3
17.3
7/16
9.0
10.5
10.5
12.0
16.8
16.8
17.3
16.3
16.8
8/17
9.3
9.8
10.8
14.5
14.5
15.5
16.5
15.5
9/13
8.8
10.3
11.3
14.5
14.5
15.0
16.0
16.0
4/23
18.3
20.8
20.8
17.0
17.0
16.0
18.3
t 5/2
21.8
23.8
23.0
22.5
22.5
21.3
22.5
22.5
21.3
5/16
20.0
21.3
19.5
16.3
17.3
16.3
19.5
-
t 6/6
11.3
12.8
15.0
15.5
15.5
15.5
17.3
Hll
6/14 t
11.0
12.0
13.8
14.3
14.8
14.8
16.5
6/29
9.5
11.0
11.0
12.0
14.0
14.0
17.3
--
7/16
8.5
10.5
10.5
11.0
13.0
15.3
17.8
17.8
8/17
9.8
9.8
10.3
11.8
12.3
13.3
15.0
9/13
9.8
9.8
10.8
11.8
12.3
12.8
16.0
* Values are In percent nlsture by voluae as determined fnm a standard sod moisture curve.
t Indicates the anollcatlon of additional sprinkler Irrigations - 4/24/79 - average of 8 Inches applied to simulate spring snowelt.
5/21/79 - average of 0.9 Inch applted
6/18/79 - average of 1.0 Inch applied
68
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 13. CONTINUED.
60 cm Soil
Depth
(cm)
\S
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
Depth
(cm)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
Depth
(cm)
J
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
4/23
13i8*
19.5
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
19.5
4/23
19.5
22.0
23.0
24.5
24. S
24.5
23.0
22.0
4/23
14.5
19.0
23.8
25.0
26.3
25.0
23.8
22.5
17.8
t 5/2
22.5
23.0
21.3
17.3
17.8
16.5
19.5
20.0
t 5/2
23.0
23.0
23.0
20.5
18.3
19.5
20.0
23.5
."
t 5/2
25.0
24.3
21 3
IE...
16.5
17.8
20.8
23.0
5/16
17.8
22.5
22.5
21.3
21.8
21.3
21.3
21.8
5/16
21.3
21.8
23.5
25.5
25.5
24.8
23.0
21.3
- .- -
5/16
15.3
21.8
24.3
26.8
27.3
27.3
27.3
26.0
26.0
t 6/6
8.8
12.8
16.0
17.3
19.5
19.5
20.0
20.0
t 6/6
12.3
14.5
19.0
21.3
22.5
23.0
23.8
21.3
t 6/6
8.3
14.5
15.5
19.0
22.5
22.5
23.8
23.8
25.0
HI 3
6/14
9.5
11.0
13.3
15.5
17.0
18.3
19.0
19.5
H17
6/14
10.3
11.8
15.0
19.0
20.0
20.8
21.3
.20.0
--
H21
6/14
8.0
12.8
13.8
14.8
17.8
20.8
23.0
23.0
24.5
t 6/29
9.3
11.3
12.3
12.3
15.0
lb.5
17.3.
' 19.0
t 6/29
9.0
12.0
13.5
14.5
17.3
19.5
19.5
19.5
t 6/29
7.0
11.5
12.5
13.5
15.3
15.3
15.8
19.5
21.3
7/16
8.3
9.8
10.3
9.8
13.3
12.8
14.8
,
7/16
9.5
11.0
13.5
16.3
14.5
15.3
16.8
17.3
7/16
9.0
16.3
14.5
13.5
13.5
15.8
16.3
19.5
8/17
10.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
13.3
15.5
17.3
17.8
8
,8/17
10.0
11.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
16.3
17.3
17.3
8/17
7.0
11.0
12.5
12.5
13.0.
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
9/13
9.3
10.8
10.8
11.8
14.0
15.0
17.3
17.8 ,
0 cm Soil
9/13
9.3
10.8
12.3
12.8
12.8
15.0
16.5
17.8 .
Soil
9/13
7.B
11.3
11.8
12.8
13.3
12.8
12.8
14.0
13.3
Cover/Paraho
4/23
17.0
20.8
22.0
25.8
27.0
24.5
22.0
19.5
t 5/2
20.0
21.8
24.3
26.8
26.3
21.8
21.8
. 19.5
5/16
19.5
23.5
24.3
25.5
25.5
23.5
20.5
19.5
t 6/6 t
11.5
13.0
15.8
20.5
23.0
20.5
20.0
17.8
HIS
6/14 t 6/29
10.8 10.0
12.3 11.5
12.8 11. 5
15.0 14.0
20.0 16.8
19.5 18.3
18.3 18.3
17.8 15.8
t 7/16
10.3
10.8
13.3
16.0
16.0
17.8
16.0
8/17
9.8
11.3
11.3
12.3
15.5
17.3
16.5
16.0
9/13
9.8
10.8
11.3
12.8
16.0
16.5
16.5
16.5
Cover/Paraho
4/23
13.8
19.5
22.0
22.0
23.0
24.5
22.0
18.3
19.5
Control
4/23
13.3
21.3
26.3
27.5
26.3
25.0
23.8
16.5
t 5/2
21.3
23.8
24.3
21.3
14.5
11.8
11.3
15.5
.--
t 5/2
20.8
20.8
19.5
19.0
18.3
19.0
23.0
~
5/16
16.3
21.3
22.5
24.3
24.3
24.8
20.5
18.3
19.5
5/16
14.0
21.8
21.3
21.7
28.0
28.0
28.0
23.5
t 6/6 t
9.3
12.3
14.0
17.8
20.8
. 23.8
20.0
17.3
19.5
t 6/6
9.8
12.8
16.0
18.3
21.3
23.8
24.3
20.8
H19
6/14 t 6/29
8.3 8.3
11.3 11.3
11.8 12.3
13.5 12.3
16.5 14.5
22.5 19.0
20.0 18.3
17.8 16.5
20.0 19.0
H23
6/14 t 6/29
8.5 7.5
12.0 10.5
14.3 12.5
15.0 13.0
16.0 13.5
17.8 12.5
20.8 12.5
20.8 13.0
~
7/16
7.0
10.0
10.5
13.5
11.5
9.0
9.0
7/16
4.3
8.5
11.0
13.0
14.5
16.8
20.5
-
8/17
8.3
9.8
9.8
10.8
12.3
16.0
16.5
15.5
17.3
8/17
7.3
10.8
11.8
11.8
11.3
10.8
10.8
10.8
9/13
7.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
11.3
16.0
15.5
15.0
17.3
9/13
7.0
9.5
10.5
11.0
11.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
--
* Values are in percent moisture by volume as determined from a standard soil moisture curve.
t Indicates the application of additional sprinkler irrigations - 4/24/79 - average of 8 inches applied to simulate spring snoumelt
5/21/79 - average of 0.9 inch applied
6/18/79 - average of 1.0 inch applled
69
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 14.
MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS (NEUTRON PROBE) FROM THE HIGH-
ELEVATION LYSIMETER, NORTH-ASPECT, 2% SLOPE TREATMENTS,
1979.
Paraho Spent Shale
Oesth
(o)
15
31
«5
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
Depth
(01)
15
30
45
El
75
911
135
120
135
Depth
(c.)
15
30
45
CO
75
90
105
135
4/23
11. S-
18.3
17.0
17.0
20. B
24.5
23.0
22.0
22.0
-
4/23
17.0
22.0
jo. a
17.0
14.S
12.8
14.8
"
4/23
16.0
18.3
19.5
20.8
23.0
24.5
25.8
-
t 5/2
15.0
20.8
20.0
20.0
22.5
25.0
26.8
25.5
23.8
~
t 5/2
19.5
22.5
23.0
17.3
15.8
14.0
14.5
"
t 5/2
22.5
24.3
21.3
22."
24.:
26.3
26.8
-
5/16
13.3
20.0
18.3
17.8
22.5
24.3
24.3
23.0
23.0
5/16
18.3
21.8
21.3
17.3
15.3
14.0
14.0
"~
5/16
17.8
21.3
19.5
20.5
21.8
25.5
25.5
-
t 6/6
9.3
17.8
15.5
15.5
20.0
21.8
24.3
23.0
21.8
"
t 6/6
9.8
15.5
16.5
15.S
14.5
.12.8
12.8
-"
t 6/6
9.8
12.3
14.0
17.3
20.8
22.5
23.8
--
H2
6/14 t
8.3
16.0
15.5
15.5
20.0
21.8
22.5
22.5
20.8
"
H6
6/14 t
9.3
13.3
16.0
14.5
13.3
12.3
12.3
~~
mo
6/14 t
9.5
11.0
12.8
16.0
18.3
20.8
21.3
-
6/29
6.0
14.0
14.0
15.3
18.3
19.5
21.3
20.5
20.0
~
6/29
7.3
12.3
14.5
14.0
12.8
12.3
12.3
~
6/29
9.0
10.5
11.0
14.5
16.7
19.0
21.8
-
7/16
3.0
9.3
13.3
14.0
16.5
21.3
20.8
20.0
19.5
-~
7/16
6.3
11.3
13.3
12.8
12.3
11.8
11.8
7/16
7.8
10.3
10.3
12.3
16.5
18.3
20.0
-
8/17
4.3
8.0
12.0
14.0
17.3
18.3
19.5
19.5
19.5
"
8/17
8.3
11.3
13.3
13.3
12.3
11.3
11.3
8/17
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.5
15.3
17.3
19.5
--
9/13
3.8
6.S
10.0
12.0
17.3
17.8
19.5
18.3
18.3
~~
20 on Soil
9/13
7.3
10.8
13.3
13.3
12.3
11.8
11.3
40 cm Soil
9/13
7.8
10.8
10.3
10.3
15.5
17.8
20.0
-
4/23 t 5/2
20.0 20.8
15.3 16.0
9.8 11.3
8.8 9.3
9.8 9.8
15.3 15.5
20.0 19.0
..
" "
Cover/Paraho
4/23 t 5/2
15.5 21.3
19.0 21.8
19.0 21.8
14.5 16.5
11.3 11.8
11.3 11.8
19.0 18.3
Cover/Paraho
4/23 t 5/2
19.5 21.8
19.5 22.5
24.5 25.5
24.5 25.0
22.0 20.8
18.3 20.8
20.8 21.3
25.8 27.5
5/16
20.0
16.5
10.8
9.3
9.3
15.0
17.8
--
"
5/16
15.5
21.3
20.0
14.5
11.3
11.3
16.5
5/16
18.3
21.8
24.3
24.3
19.5
17.3
19.5
24.8
+ 6/6
16.5
13.3
8.8
8.8
8.8
14.0
18.3
--
"
t 6/6
9.3
13.3
16.0
12.8
10.8
10.3
17.3
* 6/6
11.0
13.0
16.7
20.5
17.8
15.3
17.3
21.3
H4
6/14 t
14.5
13.3
9.3
7.8
8.3
12.8
17.3
--
H8
6/14 t
8.3
11.8
14.5
13.3
10.3
9.8
15.0
HI 2
6/14 t
10.3
12.3
14.5
17.8
16.0
15.0
16.5
20.0
6/29
13.0
12.5
9.0
8.0
9.0
13.0
17.3
"
6/29
8.0
11.0
13.0
12.0
9.5
10.5
16.3
6/29
9.3
10.3
11.3
15.5
15.0
14.5
16.0
21.3
7/16
9.5
11.0
8.5
7.0
8.5
13.0
15.8
"
"
7/16
7.0
9.5
12.0
11.5
9.5
9.0
15.8
7/16
7.8
9.8
10.3
14.0
15.0
14.5
15.5
20.8
8/17
9.5
10.0
9.0
7.0
8.0
12.0
15.8
"
8/17
9.3
10.8
12.8
11.3
9.3
9.3
14.0
_.
8/17
10.0
10.5
11.5
13.0
13.5
13.5
15.3
17.8
9/13
7.0
9.0
7.5
7.0
8.5
12.0
14.5
"
9/13
8.3
10.3
11.3
11.8
9.3
9.3
15.5
__
9/13
9.5
10.5
10.5
13.0
13.5
13.5
15.8
17.8
* Values are In percent Mixture by volune as determined froe a standard soil moisture curve.
t Indicates the application of additional sprinkler Irrigations - 4/24/79 - average of 8 Inches applied to simulate spring sm
5/21/79 - average of 0.9 Inch applied
6/18/79 - average of 1.0 Inch applied
70
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 14. CONTINUED.
(OT)
IS
30
45
60
'5,
90
105
120
135
Depth
(0.)
IS
30
45
60 .
75
90
105
135
150
Depth
(on)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
60 at Soil
4/23
22.0*
23.0
23.0
19.5
19.0
17.0
17.0
20.8
4/23
12.8
22.0
23.1)
23.0
23.0
23.0
19.0 ,
4/23
13.8
20. B
24.5
23.0
25.8
25.8
24.5
23.0
22.0
+ 5/2
23.0
23.8
23.8
21.3
19.0
17.8
17.3
21.3
t 5/2
15.5
23.0
23.0
24.3
24.3
22.5
20.0
t 5/2
16.0
25.5
25.5
25.5
26.3
26.3
26.8
27.5
27.5
5/16
20.5
21.3
21.3
20.0
18.3
16.3
17.3
19.5
5/16
12.0
21.3
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
19.5
' .
5/16
12.8
23.8
26.3
25.5
26.3
25.5
25.5
25.5
26.3
t 6/6
10.5
12.8
15.0
17.3
16.5
16.0
15.5
19.0
t 6/6
6.5
12.0
15.8
18.3
20.0
20.0
18.3
t 6/6
7.3
12.8
15.0
16.5
19.0
21.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
H14
6/14
10.0
10.0
11.5
13.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
17.0
HIS
6/14
6.7
10.5
13.8
16.5
18.3
19.0
18.3
."
H22
6/14
5.8
10.8
12.3
13.3
16.0
17.8
20.0
22.5
22.5
t 6/29
8.3
10.8
10.8
10.8
13.3
12.8
14.5
17.8
t 6/29
5.0
10.5
11.5
12.5
14.5
16.3
14.5
t 6/29
4.3
10,5
11.5
12.0
12.0
14.5
17.3
19.0
20.5
7/16
7.8
9.3
9.8
9.8
12.3
12.8
12.8
17.8
7/16
4.8
9.5
10.5
10.5
11.0
14.0
14.0
7/16
4.3
9.8
12.8
11.8
12.3
13.3
14.5
16.0
16.5
8/17
8.5
9.5
10.0
9.5
11.0
12.0
13.0
16.8
I
8/17
6.8
9.3
10.3
10.3
11.8
14.0
14.5
8/17
6.0
10.5
12.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.0
14.0
9/13
8.3
9.3
10.3
9.8
10.8
11.8 '
12.3
17.3
30 on Soil
9/1.3
5.0
9.0
10.0
10.5
11.5
12.5
'14.0
Soil
9/13
5.5
10.5
11.5
11.5
12.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Cover/Paraho
4/23
18.3
. 20.8
22.0
22.0
19.5
13.8
12.8
14.8
t 5/2
21.3
24.3
25.0
24.3
20.8
15.0
14.5
15.5
5/16
19.S
23.0
24.3
22.5
19.0
14.0
12.5
15.3
t 6/6
9.8
12.8
15.5
16.5
16.5
12.3
11.8
14.5
HI 6
6/14
8.5
11.5
12.8
14.3
14.8
12.0
11.5
12.8
t 6/29
9.0
11.5
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
10.5
13.0
7/16
7.0
10.5
10.5
9.5
11.0
10.5
10.5
13.5
8/17 9/13
9.5 8.0
10.5 9.5
10.5 10.5
10.0 10.0
10.5 11.0
11.0 10.0
11.0 9.5
13.0 12.5
Cover/Parabo
4/23
11.5
18.3
19.5
22.0
23.0
20.8
23.0
Control
4/23
11.5
22.0
23.0
25.0
25.8
25.8
24.5
24.5
24.5
t 5/2
8.5
20.0
21.8
22.5
21.8
21.3
24.3
t 5/2
14.5
23.8
25.5
26.3
26.3
28.0
27.5
26.3
28.0
5/16
6.3
17.8
21.3
22.5
22.5
21.8
23.8
5/16
11.3
21.8
23.8
26.3
27.5
26.8
26.1
26.3
28.0
t 6/6
4.0
10.3
12.3
14.5
16.5
19.0
21.3
,
t 6/6
6.0
12.0
15.3
17.8
20.5
21.3
21.8
22.5
23.5
H20
6/14
3.3
'9.3
10.8
12.3
14.0
15.5
19.0
H24
6/14
5.5
10.5
12.0
16.5
19.5
21.3
22.0
22.5
23.8
t 6/29
3.3
10.0
11.0
11.5
12.0
13.0
17.8
t 6/29
4.3
10.0
10.0
12.0
14.5
14.5
17.3
18.3
21.8
7/16
2.5
8.8
10.3
11.3
10.3
10.8
13.3
_
7/16
4.8
8.5
9.5
11.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
15.3
16.8
8/17 9/13
4.3 3.3
8.5 8.3
10.5 9.8
10.5 10.8
10.5 10.3
10.5 10.8
14.5 14.0
..
8/17 9/13
5.0 4.8
8.5 8.5
9.0 8.5
10.0 10.0
11.5 11.5
12.0 11.5
12.0 11.5
13.0 11.5
14.0 12.5
*, Values ire in percent moisture by volume as determined from 3 standard soil moisture curve.
t Indicates the application of additional sprinkler Irrigations - 4/24/79 - average of 8 Inches applied to simulate spring snowmelt
S/21/79 - average of .09 Inch applied
6/18/79 - average of 1.0 inch applied
71
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 15.
MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS (NEUTRON PROBE) FROM THE LOW-
ELEVATION LYSIMETER, SOUTH-ASPECT, 25% SLOPE TREATMENTS,
1979.
Paraho Spent Shale
Dtptli
trm\
15
X
45
60
75
90
105
120
115
150 '
Depth
(c»)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
Dtpttl
(t»)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
LI
4/23
9.3*
14.5
15.5
17.8
19.0
20.0
20.0
10.3
~
4/23
3.3
17.B
20.5
21.8
15.3
13.0
13.0
15.8
~
4/23
11.3
19.0
19.0
21.3
21.3
Z2.5
21.8
20.0
*~
5/16
10.3
15.0
16.5
17.8
17.8
19.0
19.5
18.3
""
5/16
4.3
18.3
20.0
20.0
14.5
12.8
14.0
15.5
~
5/16
10.5
18.3
18.3
19.5
20.0
20.0
19.5
19.0
~_
6/14
5.3
9.3
12.3
15.0
15.0
17.8
17.8
17.8
"
6/14
3.3
9.3'
14.5
15.5
12.3
11.3
11.8
14.3
6/14
6.5
10.5
12.8
16.5
17.8
18.3
18.3
18.3
17.0
7/17
2.5
5.0
10.5
14.0
16.3
16.8
17.3
16.8
15
7/17
1.5
7.3
10.8
12.8
11.8
10.3
11.8
13.3
"
19
7/17
4.8
10.0
10.0
12.0
15.8
16.3
16.3
16.3
8/17
3.5
5.5
10.5
13.3
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
8/17
3.5
8.5
10.5
12.8
11.0
11.5
11.5
13.8
~~
8/17
6.5
9.5
10.5
13.8
14.8
16.0
16.5
16.0
9/13
3.3
4.8
8.8
11.8
14.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
20 CM Soil
9/13
3.3
7.3
10.3
12.3
12.3
10.8
11.8
12.8
40 cm Soil
9/13
5.8
8.3
10.3
12.3
14.5
16.5
16.0
15.0
--
4/23.
17.8
21.3
23.0
22.5
23.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
"
Cover/Paraho
4/23
14.5
19.0
21.8
22.5
20.0
20.0
21.8
21.8
Cover/Paraho
4/23
15.3
21.5
22.3
22.8
24.5
21.5
21.0
18.5
15.8
5/16
19.0
20.5
20.5
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
20.5
5/16
16.3
17.3
20.0
21.3
20.0
19.5
20.0
20.0
5/16
16.3
20.5
20.5
21.8
21.8
19.5
18.3
17.8
"
'1.3
6/14
10.8
16.0
17.8
18.3
19.0
19.5
19.5
19.5
L7
6/14
8.5
12.8
18.3
18.3
17;8
17.8
19.0
20.8
Lll
6/14
7.5
11.5
13.1
15.5
17.0
17.0
16.0
16.5
7/17
4.5
9.8
13.8
15.8
16.8
17.3
18.5
17.8
7/17
7.5
11.5
15.3
16.8
16.8
17.3
19.0
20.0
7/17
5.5
9.0
9.0
12.5
14.5
15.3
15.3
15.3
8/17
5.3
8.3
11.8
16.5
16.5
16.5
17.8
18.3
8/17
9.5
10.5
13.8
17.0
16.5
17.0
18.3
18.3
8/17
9.5
9.5
10.0
12.0
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.3
9/13
5.5
8.0
12.0
16.0
17.8
17.5
17.5
18.3
9/13
7.8
11.3
14.5
16.0
16.5
17.8
19.5
19.5
9/13
6.3
8.3
9.3
11.8
13.3
14.0
13.3
14.5
__
Values «ra In percent nolsture by voluw as determined from a standard soil moisture curve.
72
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 15. CONTINUED.
(on)
IS
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
15D
Depth
(cm)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
Depth
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
ISO
4/23
19.0*
20.8
22.5
23.0
20.8
16.5
16.S
14.8
'
4/23
16.5
23.8
22.5
22.5
23.8
21.8
19.0
17.8
.
~
4/23
13.3
21.3
22.5
21.3
20.0
16.5
12.3
9.8
'
"
5/16
17.3
20.0
20.5
21.8
18.3
16.3
15.8
15.3
. . ..
5/16
16.5
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
19.0
19.0
'
5/16
12.0
19.5
19.5
19.0
18.3
16.3
14.0
11.5
LI 3
6/14
8.0
11.5
12.8
15.5
14.8
14.3
14.8
14.8
LI 7
6/14
8.3
11.3
12.3
14.5
19.0
18.3
17.3
16.5
..
. .
L21
6/14
6.5
10.5
11.5
12.0
12.0
12.8
12.0
12.0
.
7/17
7.3
10.3
11.3
11.8
11.8
12.3
11.8
13.3
'
7/17
6.0
10.0
11.0
11.5
13.0
14.0
14.5
14.5
"
7/17
4.8
9.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
8.5
9.5
8/17
9.5
9.5
10.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
11.5
12.8
..
8/17
8.5
9.5
10.5
10.0
10.0
11.5
13.3
13.8
"
8/17
7.5
9.5
9.5
8.5
9.0
9.0
8.5
9.0
"
60 cm Soil
9/13
6.8
8.8
9.8
10.3
9.3
9.3
9.8
11.8
..
80 cm Soil
9/13
6.8
9.5
10.0
10.5
10.0
10.5
12.0
12.0
~
Soil
9/13
5.0
8.5
9.5
9.0
9.0
8.5
8.5
9.0
"
Cover/Paraho
4/23
17.3
22.5
22.5
23.8
23.0
22.5
21.3
18.5
..
Cover/Paraho
4/23
15.0
21.8
21.3
21.8
20.0
18.3
19.0
16.0
7.8
-*
Control
4/23
9.3
19.0
19.5
20.8
22.5
21.3
.
"
5/16
17.3
22.5
21.8
23.0
22.5
20.5
.-
5/16
IS. 3
21.8
20.5
20.5
18.3
18.3
18.3
16.8
11.0
5/16
8.3
17.8
17.8
20.0
20.0
20.8
LI 5
6/14
9.0
12.0
13.8
16.5
18.3
18.3
18.3
..
LI 9
6/14
6.5
11.0
11.0
11.5
12.8
15.5
16.5
16.0
12.0
-
L23
6/14
4.0
10.0
11.5
12.0
13.8
14.8
--
~~
7/17
6.5
10.3
9.8
10.3
12.3
14.3
14.8
7/17
5.0
9.0
9.5
9.5
8.5
9.5
12.0
13.0
10.5'
~
7/17
2.8
7.5
8.5
10.0
11.5
11.0
~
--
8/17
8.3
9.3
10.3
9.3
10.3
13.3
13.3
~
8/17
6.8
7.8
9.3
9.3
8.8
8.8
11.3
11.3
11.8
"
8/17
4.3
8.8
9.3
9.3
10.3
10.3
,
9/13
6.3
9.8
9.8
9.3
9.3
11.8
12.8
--
9/13
5.3
8.3
8.8
8.8
8.3
7.8
9.3
11.8
11.3
:
9/13
3.8
7.8
9.3
9.8
10.3
10.8
~
Values are in percent moisture by volume as determined from a standard soil moisture curve.
73
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 16.
MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS (NEUTRON PROBE) FROM THE LOW-
ELEVATION LYSIMETER, NORTH-ASPECT, 2% SLOPE TREATMENTS,
1979.
Paraho Spent Stale
Otplh
trm\
15
30
45
60
7S
90
IDS
120
US
150
tUTtn
<«)
15
30
45
W
75
90
120
13S
150
Otpth
IS
X
45
60
75
.90
105
120
135
150
4/23
U.O*
17.0
16.0
17.8
21.3
23.0
20.8
20.8
~
4/23
20.8
21.3
20.8
17.0
17.0
* 1C.O .
_«
4/23
19.0
22.5
23.0
21.3
14.S
13.3
13.3
17.8
~
5/1 6
15.3
17.3
15.B
17.3
20.5
21.3
19.5
19.5
"~
5/16
19.5
19.5
19.0
1E.3
15.3
14.5
~ ~
5/16
17.3
21.8
21.3
19 i
13.5
12,0
13.0
16.3
,
~
12
6/14
11.3
14.5
15.0
15.5
18.3
19.5
20.0
20.0
~
16
6/14
11.0
14.8
15.5
13.8
13.3 ;
13.8
~~
L10
6/14
7.3
10.8
11.8
13.3
11.8
11.3
12.8
14.5
--
7/17
6.0
11.5
13.5
15.8
16.3
18.3
18.3
17.8
7/17
9.'o
12.0
14.0
12.0
12.5
12.5
~
7/17
5.0
9.5
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
14.0
"
8/17
6.3
9.8
12.3
14.5
16.5
18.3
19.0
17.3
~
8/17
9.3
12.3
13.3
12.3
12.8
13.3
-
8/17
8.3
9.8
9.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
11.3
13.3
9/13
6.3
8.3
11.8
14.5
16.0
19.0
17.8
17.8
20 en Soil
9/13
9.0
11.5
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.5
--
40 en Sod
9/13
7.3
e.e
9.8
10.3
10.3
10.8
11.3
14.0
""
4/23
18.3
17.8
14.8
17.0
18.3
18.3
21.3
20.8
.
Cover/Paraho
4/23
8.3
21.3
22.5
21.3
19.0
17.8
IE. 5
17.8
~~
Cover/Paraho
4/23
20.0
23.0
22.0
20.8
19.5
18.3
17.0
20.8
5/16
17.3
17.3
15.3
IE. 3
17.3
17.8
20.0
20.0
5/16
9.3
21.8 '
21.3
20.0
16.5
16.5
16.5
IS. 3
5/16
17.3
20.5
19.5
19.5
17.3
16.3
16.3
19.5
L4
6/14
13.3
14.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.3
19.5
19.5
18
6/14
5.0
12.0
1E.O
17.0
16. 5
15.5
15.5
17.0
L12
B/14
9.8
10.8
11.3
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.3
7/17
8.3
12.8
12.3
14.3
14.3
15.8
18.5
1E.8
7/17
3.5
11.3
14.5
15.0
15.5
15.0
15.0
16.0
7/17
8.5
10.0
11.0
12.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
18.3
8/17
7.5
11.0
11.5
14.3
14.8
15.5
18.3
17.8
8/17
5.3
12.3
14.5
15.0
15.0
14.5
14.5
15.0
8/17
9.8
10.8
10.8
12.3
13.3
14.0
14.0
17.8
9/13
5.8
9.3
10.8
12.8
14.5
15.0
17.3
16.5
9/13
4.3
10.8
14.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
14.5
14.5
9/13
8.3
10.3
10.8
11.8
12.3
13.3
14.5
16.5
Values are 1n percent moisture by volume as determined from a standard soil uofsture curve.
74
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 16. CONTINUED.
(cm)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
(on)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
(o»>
15
30
45
eo
75
90
105
120
135
150
4/23
22.5*
24.3
23.8
22.5
24.3
25.0
21.3
21.3
--
'
4/23
17.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
22.5
21.3
20.0
20.0
"
4/23
20.0
22.S
23.0
22.5
22.5
23.8
25.0
22.5
5/16
21.3
23.8
23.0
21.3
24.3
23.8
22.5
20.8
...
5/16
16.3
21.8
21.8
21.3
20.5
21.3
19.5
19.5
19.5
5/16
18.1
20
21 .8
21.3
20.5
23.5
24.3
21.8
"
L14
6/14
10.3
12.3
12.8
14.0
17.3
19.0
20.0
18.3
...
U8
6/14
8.0
11.0
12.8
12.8
14.3
17.8
19.0
19.0
19.0
~" .
122
6/14
9.5
11.5
14.3
16.0
17.0
20.8
22.0
22.0
~
7/17
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.5
14.5
15.8
16.3
7/17
6.3
8.8
9.3
9.3
10.3
14.5
16.0
17.3
17.3
""
7/17
7.0
9.0
11.0
11.5
12.5
14.0
16.3
16.8
_
8/17
8.0
9.0
9.5
9.5
10.0
12.5
14.0
14.0
...
8/17
7.5
9.0
9.5
9.5
10.0
13.8
14.3
14.8
16.0
"
8/17
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
11.5
12.8
13.8
14.3
_
"
60 en Soil
9/13
8.0
9.0
9.5
9.0
9.0
11.5
13.5
15.3
,.
80 0 Soil
9/13
6.8
8.8
9.3
9.3
9.3
12.3
14.0
14.5
16.0
~~
Soil
9/13
7.3
9.8
11.3
10.8
10.8
11.8
12.3
12.3
__
Cover/Paraho
4/23
14.8
22.5
22.5
22.0
22.0
20.8
20.8
22.5
__
-
Cover/Paraho
4/23
18.3
22.5
22.5
23.8
23.8
23.8
21.3
16.5
15.5
Control
4/23
14.5
18.3
16.5
19.0
21.3
23.0
23.8
..
5/16
15.3
19.5
20.0
19.5
20.0
19.0
18.3
20.0
.
-
5/16
18.3
23.0
21.8
22.5
23.0
22.5
19.5
15.3
15.3
5/16
14.0
17.3
15.3
16.3
19.5
20.5
-.
_
Lie
6/14
6.8
10.5
11.0
14.3
17.0
16.5
17.0
19.5
-
L20
6/14
9.5
12:0
13.8
15.5
18.3
19.0
19.0
1S.5
14.3
"
124
6/14
7.5
10.0
9.5
10.0
12.8
14.3
16.0.
..
__
7/17
5.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
12.0
13.5
14.5
16.8
-
7/17
6.5
10.0
9.5
10.5
11.0
13.5
14.0
12.0
12.5
7/17
6.3
7.8
7.8
7.8
9.3
10.8
..
__
._
8/17
8.0
10.5
9.5
10.0
11.0
13.3
14.3
16.0
--
8/17
7.8
9.3
9.3
9.8
9.3
11.8
12.8
11.8
12.3
_
8/17
7.8
8.3
7.8
8.3
9.8
10.3
10.3
._
9/13
7.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
11.0
13.3
14.3
16.5
-
9/13
7.3
8.8
9.8
9.3
9.8
11.3
11. 8
11.3
12.3
9/13
6.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.5
10.5
__
--
Values are in percent moisture by volume as determined fron a standard soil moisture curve.
75
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 17. SALINITY MEASUREMENTS (EC) OF CORE SAMPLES FROM THE HIGH-
ELEVATION LYSIMETER TREATMENTS, OCTOBER 1979.
2% Slope - North Aspect
Depth
(cm)
Surface
20
40
60
80
100,
120
140
160
Depth
(cm)
Surface
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160 '
Paraho
Spent Shale
H2
5.5*
5.0
5.6
5.4
3.7
2.0
1.0
4.8
3.8
H4
2.0
1.6
5.0
4.2
5.4
5.8
6.2
6.0
5.7
Paraho
Spent Shale
HI
1.5
1.2
5.0
6.2
6.8
5.0
6.3
5.4
6.2
H3
1.1
1.8
5.4
7.2
5.7
6.8
3.8
3.8
5.4
20 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
H6 H8
0.9 1.0.
1.0 0.6
2.2 5.2
6.6 6.5
6.4 6.2
6.3 6.0
5.8 6.6
5.0 5.4
6.2 5.5
25% Slope -
20 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
H5 H7
0.1 1.0
0.6 0.8
3.1 3.4
5.5 3.5
7.0 7.2
5.6 6'8
6.5
6.8 6.2
4.4 6.5
40 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
H10 H12
2.0 1.0
0.7 0.9
0.7 0.7
5.7 2.4
7.2 5.6
7.6 5.2
7.2 6.2
6.6 12.0
10.6 12.3
South Aspect
40 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
H9 Hll
1.2 0.8
0.8 0.9
0.7 0.6
2.4 4.0
7.3 5.3
6.4 5.8
5.7 5.5
5-5 7.6
8.4
Soil
Control
K22
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
__
««.
H24
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
Soil
Control
H21
1.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
H23
0.6
0.8
O.b
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
* EC values are in mmhos/cm @25°C measured on a 1:1 spent shale or soil to
. water by weight sample.
No sample collected.
76
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 18.
SALINITY MEASUREMENTS (EC) OF CORE SAMPLES FROM THE LOW-
LYSIMETER TREATMENTS, OCTOBER 1979.
Depth
(cm)
Surface
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Depth
(cm)
Surface
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160 .
Para ho
Spent Shale
12
1.3*
3.2
5.0
7.4
7.4
7.0
L4
1.4
3.0
5.5
6.2
6.1
5.6
6.2
6.0
6.0
Paraho
Spent Shale
LI
1.9
2.0
3.4
8.6
6.6
6.1
7.7
7.9
6.6
L3
1.0
4.7
5.8
5.5
4.7
5.5
2% Slope -
20 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
L6 L8
0.9 0.8
1.4 0.8
4.6
6.2 7'4
5.9 5.0
7.2 4.6
6.8
6.8 -6'6
6.6
25% Slope -
20 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
L5 L7
1.1 0.8
0.7 0.7
5.0 4.3
9.0 6.0
8.0 6.7
7.4 7.0
5.1 5.7
8.6 7.1
8.2 6.2
North Aspect
40 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
L10 L12
1.5 1.2
0.6 0.5
0.7 0.5
6.6 2.5
8.4 3.2
9.0 4.5
10.4 5.4
9.4 7.6
10.0 12.2
South Aspect
40 cm
Soil Cover/
Paraho
L9 111
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.7 0.7
' -- 7.0
10.1 8.0
10.0 8.5
19.0
18.0
11.6
;Soil
Control
L22
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
L24
1.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.3
Soil
Control
L21
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.7
2.2
0.7
L23
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
* EC values are in mmhos/cm @25 C measured on a 1:1 spent shale or soil to
water by weight sample.
-- No sample collected.
77
-------
EH
O
W
A.
I
CO
05
W
S
S
H
CO
f4
§
H
EH
rf
g
ij
H
£s
H
33
E
EH
O
|
j|
S
TV)
CO CO
Is oo
Jv* i
W« rH.
to
CO EH
W W
iJ EH
fC fS
Z D3
S S
VEGETATIVE
25% SLOPE 1
_.
i-H
§
EH
X
H
Q
W
Pi
u>
b
i
1
1
«»
a.
UJ
S
u
I
.c
I
*
£
"5 "c
w
^
o p
*" ^j;
8|
CO
=:
5£
I1
^
m^
£
>
o o
ef
°
s|=;
L, O_g
cu
o
s
CO
CM
3=
2
3:
£
a:
in
as
a;
S
^
3;
m
CO
=
ar
5lO IIII IIII 1
58 . , . . ....
in CM i i i i iiii i
tr oo
co m i i i i iiii i
eo*r
r-. iiii iiii i
O>«3- IIII IIII 1
Or «*
co en i i i i itit
in en in
en* en
O 1 1 1 I IIII
r O 1 1 1 1 IIII
cntiiii tiii i
i i i i i iiii i
2
in en
S £ S w .=
03 cn
v> IO-E: BS cn u i u
i/>fj:uia m v> *J
J/j i .e y*J-«t 4^ 3 w
^ O L»"O CJlfBtO) W f
S c C «-o S c£.aen i UJ
C3 U. 3 4-> . t
o »
^ _l
1
*-
4J
s
I
L
55
O .C
*« s
O t*-
4-* O
10 m
-^
Sfe
cl
a.
o***
5.S
u*"
"1
. *
|i-
c
f1^
Is
o*^
> iT
i!
§«
3 C
CJ)"1
II
»*- ^
°*5
C °*
ues are total centime
roxlmately 350 cm in
» ea.
3£
*
78
-------
EH
O
w
w
fS
1
S3
S
o
3
»
OS
1
M
S
"
J2J
0
M
S
3
w
o
H
S
w
S
fe
o
^"^
Q
O
K
EH
S
B
H
W
53
i£ O
PS 00
,-H
W -
M EH
W 3
>< H
3 EH
* g
W EH
H H
EH fU
W W
Is
O
§
EH
X
Q
a
c
cu
1
5
o
re
UJ
O)
a:
I
«
5
1
_ "a
5I
55
n
CO
-5
?!
S
i
55
e|
S
^
B^'
- O
' CM
o"S
JE -W^
I|l
1 '
S
^
1
CM
3=
CO
to
z
CM
a:
o
to
2
CM
ar
Ro i i i i i *** °* *~
CM. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fjg
vocn iiiro iiii ! iiiiiiiiii cS J£
SS iiii iiii i VMIIIIIIIICM S S
M^ IIII IIII 1 Ollllillll to *-
in 10 tn es r-
to CM iiii iiii i 0111111111 m en
CM, * IO
V CO O
f*r- n C\J
Sro iiii iiii i Siiiiiiiii CM S
- ui
co o eo rv. to
» i tf>
*a- O en o r^ m
fo co iiii iiii *iiiiiiiii v rs.
tr t in
tyj en IA m en
to en iiii iiii i en i i i i i i i i t CM in
CM r- *r
t- CO
«« ' § a 2
Scnto en r*.
i i i i iiii i wco i i i i i i i i in t
V CM **1
M
w» £
£ « S*
01*10 o» «o s js u f u ee
+J 0) -4-* S- -U *- «-» 3 LU
t/tfOJCncna) f cu u> *» g
O t- 3 *J oi c £ -r-k+Jio m M* cn«at .5 a) +J «j C i o »- trt . U4->T>ta-^p ^oj^^j H-
H a 3*« £"c c O-^'Q*? -»J tn -C033H3. +jii.»2 uj
^ S ca o (J > ' t/i u.3eeeo = o a^ £ ee t/xco o o_ o_ u ee
:E CQ v> ce LU LU
£ a: o t o HH
o_ to u. o £ J
0)
c
u
S
i
0)
o -«=
«s
i%
>O ro
Si
|o
££
o"
.Cp«
S-n
^ «
Tt S
eu-2
a. E
°c^i
II
Sfc
(Q O.
1-
3 C
O)
ll
"°-£
in en
ojg
ic
Is
£4*
S
11
*
PJ
79
-------
W
1
O
w
fc
Oi
w
EH
H
OT
t-3
B
0
H
<
1
g
s
g
EH
&
^-X
§
SB
EH
g
EH
0
W 0
p^ CO
Ji "*
EH
W g
H a
§ g
EH
^ W
H Oj
S3
E-< W
8 OP
W tr>
> 01
iH
OJ
C
i
"Irt
c
o
"3
aj
UJ
1
1
J2
I
~s
5I
CM
_J
CM
1
^^
w5
§ 2
f 2
§
s
R
io
"§
o£
U)
.J
en
to _J
lo
I1
5
3
"o p
1/1 £
OJ
D
3
o-g
)=£,£
" °S
"
en
2
i S i i t ,,. ,
*"
«r u) en
a , s , , , , , i , ,
, ,s . , , , , , . ,
. ,s . . , " , , .
R~2 , , . 3 . . .
r~ , 0 . , , , , , ,
2 ,S" , , . , , , .
...... . , , ,
*D
...111 U> 1 1 I I
« 2
as a f f
2S1 SSS S ^
O» rtJ Ol *0 S .J3 U
wi re .c « CT> a> ^- *J
| *s *ll Usso | a
1 E5S-S = | ^tSS1 5 S
_, S-S^!t!425 ESS1" * g
CCW)3^(UT3-M 3CJ3D1 « O;
1 SS3&5= g £555 S 2
1 g | g
K ^ £ £
8
EH
X
Q
r- CM mO
r-. i i i i i i i i CM co
£i2iiiiiii £ g
CMI^IIIIIII «f d
*O CVI I I | 1 IO C
₯f m
01 m o* - co
rni iiiiiii e\j «n
g i ^ i i i i i i i « S
u» *o 09 in
a , .,,,... m 5
g,-, ...... S 8
^ n
CSJ 9 O CO
a " a
S3 ," g g
cog; >r CM «> nj L.)5o *+-+» aii « >-*
4J4= «»*- . j<: tu^-M h-
fOJZ+JW*JHJOiUC *C
S o « tfir-t*-^- E-^ «J £r
SS^ci^S^o^^ « £
o H
i 3
1
z
U
1
I
o
U **
J= O
*o j=
58
S^
x.
I fe
O O
15
5"
O.J
ai
0)2
S" E
c
> s
Si^
It
SI
-------
w
ft
?
S3
O
0?
EH
M
W
^
§
H
EH
S
ft
S
w
S
"
EL,
o
§
ffi
EH
. s
'B
K
'- W
S O
3 oo
' . EH .-)
w oT
H EH
W S
S S
S «5
§
W EH
M W
EH ft
gs
. g w
pa *
, p> CM
' ;
CM
CM
§
EH
X
Q
2
H
ft
ft
rt
01
I
I
* o f»» tn
en o>^ i t i ciiii i ,-. i r_ i t i i i i i f^. g
o> o oo oo 10 m ot
n
, 2roc; . , . "* CTI CM < «o co
-»«' - .'. E .
<*> 1 < 1 1 1 "1 < 1 1 1 S 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 ? 0
*" Ut ft
tn <\j
s*" . . . , ^ ,* , , s , , . . . -10 , . s a
r*. cy
i »r> cvj
^ i i i i i °* i i i . ,£,,,,.,,, S 53
S
s 1 s ^
S 01 13 o S "5
J- 4J i. « 4= 3 j= 41 O)
ai c uj
c c io -a 5 c ^ js CT> S u E -a c QJ « -»- -o x-^ >
: s sJili-,1 "* ii^^ s i Jf^i'SSr il.1 S
z ^"*^ 03 en a: LU uj
UJ '3; O S O >~
a. vj u. O £ _J
1
u
V
I
lo
si
O V-
4-* 0
II
go
^
+j ro
5«
Q. C
J= i
U
ra
ll
O "&
§*
^"
II
I CL.
s =
|s
I"!
g?
O .C
ct
01 O)
|c
§"1
"s
«<>
s^
£^
« E
i!
SI
*
81
-------
SC
o
W
W
H
CO
I
a
a
cs
H
g
Io
tf CO
P< CT>
Q,
W
S
CN
w w
H CU
W
CO
01
H
9
£
S
a
Si
s
3
V
I
<«
:
1
£
£
x'
=
H
O
CM
a
*
ft
01
S
s
0
vo
a
omeoeococomcooin
"""""SSSSEiS
r> oS m «-' 10 in v in -' r^
£;222:2E22
KS R! S22S S
rJ u> ot oJ CNJ to* i-." co
nrtm'ocotftcocotoeo
""^S^^*"01?
-
r ^ CO i*> ui *n CM Cki-ci^.
!3S!£2SS2g
KS!2 = 2t2S!
m'~inet^^^
tn O O oo tn >n co
ot ot o« t^ w crt CM
SR«8e8gS«g
s
s
5
g
1
=
s
=
Is
2
CJ
*
o
en
cS
0
Ul
2
Ol
°
ft
5
i
01
-
to
s
~«<»««>c22-2
erv^r-cnehe»»j-j2jj2
Men^ *Nuico'io«u>
omooococommin
«->eo«»wf>eoeoeco
eyeo^^-^iioin^^co
r-^^^.^-^.^r-
o tn tn r*
r.u.nou.oomoo
tnnootntnotntno
- -'-
mcnomtncooeo
sssssesssss
2
i
£
ia
fc
1
5
6
z
01
=
=
§1
en
0
«
ON
co
fj
^
5
ON
^
Q
U)
S
**
tn
°
\o
3;
--o-gS"-"
eoi incooo'- oencn
("10*'~2£!2"2£
"
eoo.inococoino
-ssaaasas
<*'*> CO <-. CO CO
«25!SS2S2^S
-«SRISSKiJyS
^tneoCTieno^^M^
r-^i«eoenoocyf->c-i
tneo^'cofneOfiMOf-i
oocomocoocoo
~~^-^
o^t-ieooaooioo^
inmcoiAinominino
- f- *-
cotncoooocoo
I-! !!!!!!
en,
-------
» V
ffi
O
S
H
s
M
GH-ELEVA1]
H
£
EH
S
o
2
H
8 .
K O
ft 00
g 2
1 W
W BC
EH H
a S
H EH
H H
D C
W M
CM i
EH 0
H ft
APPENDIX TABLE 24 . MC
A£
:
I
m Soil Cover/Parah
jo
|
i
1-
1
S
i
.
i
co
!
s?
~ !
i
!
11
! ^
ch
|s
) <^
! 2
CTi
Q?
S
10
v
CT«
S
^
^
0%
co
s
«s
1»
«,
oococoooomco
m !»
incomcoroirtfnr^tn
- S = 2 - = S!
1 00 0 0 *T O r^ f^ ' ' '
o« »»,.,.
~0~u,mf-,m
mcocooocorntnooco
~ 2 = 2 2 S S a g S
^£S2^°22,
ocoor.^o.n^o
1
"S
s
I
e
.
'\
z
X
o
[1
GO
0
u
e&
O
«o
*
en
a
s
*
en
CO
&
In
^.
> tococnotcncncocot
' '
CVICMPJCM.-I ;-:.-
rnincococoooraooo
«n eo
incommcocotncom
mcootAincocom
8.BSSSSb
----S==SSS
M0«««000
ocoooomesino
cococommooo
w ~- ^ J£ 2 °
Ul CO O m O CD ro
O in co in co co in
a a .s 2 s g a ' ' '
I
"S
i
L.
a
1
=
=
i
=
H
c
5
S
if
i
c
10
S
*
5
CTi
S
io
in
5
O
f?
-"^toaio'enCTioo'
«._«,» 0,0000,0
~ S = 2 2 2 2 SJ 2 ~
CO COCO O.O U1CO t~i m
t^.«-(OOO«^»»^
SSSSSiSSiSS
2SSSSS^-S =
^-in^eBOieOCT.*-
« en <* a. ^
CM co O _t- i cJ in ' '
oocotsjcsieridoi ' '
r-CM(MCMCW>
-------
I, SOUTH-
1
s
H
CO
Sj
3
!Z
2LEVATIO
hJ
u
s
EH
S
s
fa
s
ra
o o
« CO
P< ai
rH
OJ (/}
fC
g i
21 r~i
2 W
ss
D tJ
<
%fn
Cvl
s .
EH O"
CO U
i-j n,
APPENDIX TABLE 25. MO
AS!
|
u
w
I
X
8
M
«
I
I
|
S
n
5
tl
«=
3
LU
Ol
a
'2.
*n
*?
°
5
~
S
»
&
to
to
Jg
in
»
*
e
5
to
*-*nefi«*>«nin«i-to*ori^
Oininincooomo
c\ieo^^mtar^invo
mrtoeoficomf) (
Ocoouirootnoo |
IO O J tM W e»J
_CMCMCvic\tiM<\jcjc\i
mmrominocooo
. tncn. O0»0i
«-r^escj^0t0»^£J
tnoooo
^-tMCJCJCJCMrocaca
^*\j^o>» J^^^^S
OCM*«)~»«*S«
oj eo o o « <2
eo^-tovocoetmr^
CM «« «> m oj o o o; o>
SSSSHgSSSS
1 Cover/Ptrsho
^
g
to
2
H)
HI
I
^
g
0
m
^
-)
a
1-
o
01
St
0t
10
»
%
i
o*
'^.
in
*
g
01
£
Ol
to
09
3?
a
ir>O
^ioa>oi^**>**it^«'
inmo^pocofiecf)
0 u> ra
i « U> CO OV 0\ CO
_^j eoominmcooo
tsssjsjsigs
MUi«^MOOOMO«n
^tocnenooocc
mminooooscf^
cyeo^*^-t^^-'^'^''li*c2
cofifiinomoc
CD r tniOtO^1^-!^
Oinmomotncc
r^oi*~MCOP^tn9
,-. cgcu*-*-*
otnooscocoecmo
mr^oioeijcvjtMM^
ineouiou>oou:C(r>
^-uJa»O»< jjW^injtt
ointnintoomecco (
CVjfs.O^^n**1 PO f*» **
inc»coco("»ini/*M
ocooo^cnoico
oeootncooracoeo^
J£SSjcuSKStM(M
o-iciintninift
»r)co-aoco(*iirtotn
cvii^ooointoua
cocoeooooococo
sssasssisg
sssssssgss
1
1
^
E
!
E
u
§
M
!j
J
!'
g
en
CO
en
(*) O co o ( ( (
*~ *** ^~ cC c3 S K
M«icooco'")eo(*ir^(**
» uschnjccecp^cccccc
ocooromocoinm (
"^^SS^SSS
comwor^O*****! t (
.SBetsss
IOOM* o%to**i^c
omoooooncccc
OCO»*»f>oC}nicoinifi
oint^«*i«*i**iosectn
-------
1
i
0?
1
W
S
§
i 1-1
s
s .
;w
S
,_q
H
S
EH
.§
9
fa
1 .
rt o
-; ft 00
Ol
g <-<
D 0
''S3
is
, S OP
CM
§ .
D EH
EH U
. W W
' M ft
APPENDIX TABLE 26. , MC
A£
«
ts
a.
s
3
g
S
e>
£
o
M(r>^OOme3o
' «SOn(-)i^-.
^ooouitnom
f^crioo<£iio\or-»
coointnmcoooaro
ouifocoeacocoo
^ "* " 2 2'^ o C3 ,
r*>cotntniAtnoo
in 01 tM esi o «M (\j
i«t*»^»tf>mo»o«*>
«M oi r^' *a-~ ^r W tn c^ '
o co co in in a
co 03 tn tn u> o
O 0 OJ to 10 IO
^coinoootnotno
*->O*-. e
oooommcoco -'
£tsES2oo.
eonuitnnmcoco
Oco^JOCOCDOO
Or^coeootntntnuim
m en^cMp)^-i/>tn«r
cooeoootntnoo
Otncnr csic^^tnie
(sjotmuiinp^cnocnco
IT) lO 1£> h~. O ^- ^- Ol
ococomcoomcoco
SE£2SSl~Sg
^n^rSr^.oioiNjfom
|
5
1
s
g
^
E
£
3
»
S
O
2
-1
-J
ll
o"
en
&
^
eo
S
*
S
en
ecT
crv
^
m
0
Ol
to
01
ir
CO
""
2
o*
s
^>
^-ror-eoaicoCTi cv»«r
Ofoeoeocoroeofomo
mcr>cncocnoc4mu>
cyl^jlSi2J22^"i2o'
t^cooc*)(*)intnco
.rt j«ov«ocf»e*j
22S£tSSS
cococoootnmam
S*i oocnujtooiJ '
NCMcaf ^- <5 (M
minmooonoo
Voodoooo>oc\I '
loeoenovencooi «vi
tnmrafomooeomiA
moienenvdJoIio ' *
m o as
Cfttsjtsjoinror^vo
. coSioKenoSSS
£
1
1
1
u
s
s
2
*W
=
S-
&
s
er.
CO
in
fj
5?
*"
o
01
£
en
£
R
*
0
cn
£
cn
.10
S
*
5
£
en
10
viouiuir^cocd
0*riOIOiOf»COCO
to r- r^ co O o
O <*1 CM m CO t\J
o in ..» o o ci co
en ov -o to »o n CM
f-rtvoeocncocnooo
Otnt^coencncoooo
ioenr-^r-cg«r*rro
p^Ofncoeorof^o
W f-' Co' f-' r^ CO EX) 1^"
ncotA^ooocoin
- r-eviF ooor^io
CaNCMNCMNCUi
^loencncnchp c eri
tMtocnovioo^enoi
veni oj en *» i£> «r c\j evj
i*>enenocoiOLnc\icM
^^i CVJ r- ^ ^- ^ ^>
^^rorMOir^^oc^n
1 *~ *~ *~
inoe>j(ntn
85
-------
"i .
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCE!
TITLE AND SUBTITLE ~
Field Studies on Paraho Retorted Oil Shale Lysimeters
Leachate, Vegetation, Moisture, Salinity and Runoff,
1977-1980.
REPORT DATE
July 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
M. K. Kilkelly; H. .P. Harbert, III; W. A. Berg
8. P
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Agronomy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
10. PROGRAM ELEMEN
CCZN1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CR804719
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Energy Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
US EPA, Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 1977-1980
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 600/12
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
A disposal scheme for Paraho retorted shale utilizing lysimeters to simulate a
low-elevation (dry site) and a high-elevation (moist site) was constructed. Objectives
of the study were to investigate^!) vegetative stabilization of Paraho retorted shale,
as affected by leaching and soil cover treatments; and 2) moisture and soluble salt
movement through the soil/shale profile.
After intensive management and four growing seasons, only a sparse (2% to 3%)
cover of perennial vegetation resulted on the Paraho retorted shale.' In contrast, good
to excellent cover was established and maintained on the soil control and soil-covered
retorted shale treatments.
Initial leaching and irrigation for plant establishment produced percolate from
drains below the compacted shale zone. The percolate from the Paraho retorted shale
treatment measured a maximum electrical conductivity (EC) of 35 mmhos/cm and pH of
11.4. The soil control produced percolate with a maximum EC of 8.5 mmhos/cm and a pH
of 8.3. Each spring the high-elevation lysimeter received supplemental irrigation to
simulate a zone of higher precipitation. Percolate produced from these irrigations
exhibited a general overall reduction in both EC (33 to 11.4 mmhos/cm) and pH (11.4 to
8.6) by 1980 on the Paraho retorted shale treatment. The low-elevation lysimeters did
not receive additional spring irrigations and no percolate was produced from the
unleached treatments. : .
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Resources Management
Synthetic Fuels
Oil Shale
Waste Disposal
Pollution
Agronomy
Land Reclamation
Colorado
Solid Waste
Land Disposal
Paraho Spent Shale
Anvil Points
Piceance
68D
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
IF PAGES
97
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
86
-------
------- |