Effects of Surface
Configuration in
Water Pollution Control on
Semiarid Mined Lands
Ivlontana Agricultural Experiment Station Montana State TJnlversity. Bozeman
-A.3DI-11 ie"77 Research R.e]?ort 114
-J-
~^-
Ls-*' ^
-*=*^ &=•»•'
r:- "'. -5= -SSB^^V:
•** -**^ ~ ~'-jij*-'- • ^=-
*r •*-•? --s^^--^**v ^-? «, ^i^^''^ 'S*^
^^^^^
r,,,^ «s^T^ '^- «*^
>A) .
Aquifer Recharge • Hydrologic Balance
Erosion • Runoff Chemistry • Soil Water Flow
it,.
-------
EFFECTS OF SURFACE CONFIGURATION IN WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ON SEMIARID MINED LANDS
by
D.J. Dollhopf, I.E. Jensen, and R.L. Hodder
Demonstration Grant Number R-803079-01-0
Project Officer
E.G. Grim
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Research Report 114
Soil Physicist, Principle Investigator - Range Plant Ecologist,
and Project Leader - Senior Reclamation Research Scientist &
Program Leader, respectively, Montana Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bozeman, Montana, 59715
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by either the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the Montana Agricultural Experiment
Station.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Project implementation and data collection in the three state
area of Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming continues to be a team
effort by many professionals and field assistants. The extensive
highway travel and months of construction activity during all seasons
in the Northern Great Plains could only have been accomplished by a
staff of dedicated researchers. The authors wish to express their
sincere thanks to Mr. E.S. Sundberg who was instrumental in implementing
the project in Montana and North Dakota. Dr. R.L. Meyn provided valuable
surface hydrological expertise during initial planning and implementation
stages and later in report preparation. Mr. J.H. Tibbs continues to
provide excellent field crew supervision and instrumentation expertise.
The many water analyses in this report should be credited to
Dr. F.F. Munshower and Mr. D.R. Neuman who provided necessary laboratory
expertise and supervision. Also we are grateful for the excellent
summer help provided by numerous college students who have performed
duties in a professional manner.
Credit for implementation of the Wyoming Demonstration Areas is
due to Mr. J. Olson of the M.A.E.S. and to Dr. P.A. Rechard's staff,
University of Wyoming. The authors wish to thank A. Bauer and G.W. Gee,
Soil Scientists at North Dakota State University stationed in Bismarck,
for their valuable suggestions and cooperation in data collection at
the North Dakota Demonstration Area.
Geohydrologists W.A. Van Voast, Montana Bureau of Mines and
G. Groenewold, North Dakota Geological Survey have provided valuable
ground-water information associated with the Demonstration Areas in
his respective state.
A special acknowledgement is in order to the following mine companies
at each Demonstration Area for our use of their personal time, equipment,
and for their tolerance of M.A.E.S. personnel: the Western Energy Company—
Rosebud Mine near Colstrip, Montana; the Knife River Coal Company Mine
near Savage, Montana; the North American Coal Company—Indian Head Mine
near Beulah, North Dakota; the Dave Johnston Mine near Glenrock, Wyoming;
and the Arch Mineral Corporation Seminoe One Mine near Hanna, Wyoming.
Lastly, the authors thank project officer Mr. E. Grim of the
Environmental Protection Agency, National Environment Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, for continued interest and financial support of this
research.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLAIMER ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS . iv
ABSTRACT V
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1
ORIENTATION AND DESIGN OF DEMONSTRATION AREAS 9
WATERSHED SOIL CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND CLAY MINERALOGY ANALYSES. 24
WATERSHED INFILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS 46
WATERSHED SURFACE STABILITY AND EROSION CHARACTERISTICS .... 53
SURFACE MANIPULATION DEPRESSION WATER CAPACITY AND SFDI1IENTATION
CHARACTERISTICS 56
THE CHEMISTRY OF RUNOFF FROM SPOILS 61
SOIL HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE 74
HYDROLOGIC BALANCE OF THE SPOIL BIOSPHERE 91
GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY 108
CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND-WATER CHEMISTRY .... 119
DISCUSSION 129
LITERATURE CITED 136
APPENDICIES 139
A. Lysimetry - Development and Testing 139
B. Volumetric Soil Water Contents 152
C. Soil Bulk Density 156
D. Hydrologic Balance 159
E. Soil Desorption Characteristics 176
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
A system of intensively monitored micro-watersheds was constructed
to demonstrate the effects of several specific soil surface manipulation
treatments on control of runoff, chemistry of runoff, soil water flow,
aquifer characteristics and vegetation establishment at five active coal
strip mine areas within the tri-state region of Montana, North Dakota and
Wyoming. Surface treatments were chiseling and gouging with and without
topsoiling .practices, and dozer basins with topsoiling.
Without exception, topsoiled watersheds underwent less runoff than
similar nontopsoiled watersheds. The total amount (depth) of surface runoff
at the Montana and North Dakota Demonstrations was 1.63 cm for topsoil-dozer
basins, 2.32 cm for topsoil-gouged, 4.76 cm for topsoil-chiseled,
13.74 cm for nontopsoil-gouged, and 16.70 cm for nontopsoil-chiseled.
Quantities of eroded soil material per treatment watershed resulting
in gullies at the Montana Demonstration Areas were 2.7 m3 for topsoil-
dozer basins, 8.1 m^ for topsoil-gouged, 23.7 m^ for nontopsoil-gouged,
26.4 m^ for topsoil-chiseled, and 43.1 m-* for nontopsoil-chiseled. Thus
the fundamental principle of less runoff - less erosion was substantiated
on these spoil watersheds.
The 'in situ hydrologic balance of the spoil biosphere was determined
using weighing lysimeters and neutron probe techniques. Deep percolation
characteristics were measured during precipitation periods. Most
watersheds eventually lost this deep percolated water through the
evapotranspiratibn process measured on a hydrologic year basis. A
minority of watersheds underwent a net loss of 10 to 20 cm of water as
deep percolation for the hydrologic year.
Levels of N03~N, Mg, Ca, soluble salts and most trace elements were
found in low concentrations in watershed runoff water. Exceptions were
Mn and Fe, where concentrations in runoff waters at all Demonstrations
often exceeded federal standards for drinking water. Occasional samples
contained Cd, Pb and PO^-P levels which exceeded desirable standards.
Surface spoil hydrology and aquifer characteristics interrelationships
are discussed, and the aquifer chemical quality presented. Manganese was
the only trace element in the ground water which consistently exceeded
federal standards for human consumption. A comparison of ground-water
quality among the Demonstration Areas indicates that highest concentrations
for most of the observed parameters were in the developing spoils aquifer
at the North Dakota site.
This interim report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
No. R-803079-01-0 by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
concentrates most directly on data collected during the period May, 1974
to May, 1976. Work is expected to be completed in September, 1978.
-------
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The strippable coal deposits in the western states are located
predominantly in arid areas of less than 35 cm of annual precipitation.
Of the limited annual precipitation which reaches the soil surface,
only minor amounts are stored in the soil. Over time drainage patterns
have developed which rapidly and efficiently shed nearly all the free-
standing surface water from an area, leaving water only in the small
depressions such as those formed by the burrowing of rodents and imprints
left by grazing animals. The efficient drainage topography combined with
soils of extremely low infiltration rates and rapidly formed interconnecting
patterns of rills and gullies results in the loss of significant amounts
of water which, if stored in the soil, could have been utilized for plant
growth. The generally smooth surfaced, recontoured terrain being left in
the wake of strip mining normally provides no depressions for impeding the
flow of water, but rapidly funnels sediment and nutrient laden excess
runoff into the adjacent gullies and streams, During the winter months,
snow is also blown from smooth, reshaped spoils surfaces and deposited in
nearby gullies and areas where it may augment the needs of standing
vegetation. Thus, large amounts of critically needed water falling on
smooth surfaced recontoured terrain are being completly lost and rendered
unavailable for plant establishment and development.
Conservation of much needed water may be increased by manipulation of
a soil surface to increase infiltration and reduce runoff of precipitation.
Range pitting and scarifying stable land surfaces have been relatively
common agricultural practices in the West for decades. During the dust
-------
bowl years, listering of the surface of bare and exposed fields was not
unusual as a soil saltation and erosion control practice. However, the
manipulation of the surface of drastically disturbed, unstable slopes such
as strip mine spoils is innovative.
The potential of surface manipulation of mine spoils was first
demonstrated in Montana in 1968 when the sharp ridges typical of old
spoils were levelled off and large depressions made to trap winter snow
and spring rains which were previously lost.
Research work in subsequent years has identified distinct advantages
offered by several configurations. Treatments have recently been employed
on extremely dry spoils in Arizona and New. Mexico as well-, as in semiarid
northern locations. The possibility of broad applicability of surface
manipulation in reclamation of mine spoils was recognized in 1973 by the
National Academy of Sciences in its report, Rehabilitation Potential of
Western Coal Lands. Because of favorable response, the potentials,
limitations and broad applicability of the process are now being demonstrated
with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) at five
locations in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.
Possible benefits of surface manipulation occur in two distinct
phases of mine spoils reclamation efforts: (1) in lending temporary
stability to loose steep slopes and reducing erosion while increasing
infiltration and soil water content, and (2) in promoting a more rapid
establishment of vegetative cover and the resulting permanent soil
stability which acceptable reclamation of the land must achieve.
Advantages in plant establishment with surface manipulation concern
-------
the accumulation of moisture in sufficient quantity to promote early
germination of seed, the lengthening of the growing season and the
protection of seedlings from exposure.
This project is designed to demonstrate and evaluate the practicality
of using three basic types of surface manipulation: deep chiseling,
gouging and dozer basins. Deep chiseling is accomplished with a commercially
available farm implement (Figure 1). The chisels are operated on the contour
and controlled to form 30 centimeter deep continuous grooves on 30
centimeter centers.
frrr
Figure 1. The chiseling apparatus consists of a commercially
available farm implement.
The gouging treatment is accomplished with a specially designed
implement. The basic machine consists of the hydraulically raised and
lowered frame of a chisel plow (Figures 2, 3). The chisels are removed
and replaced with three equally spaced, vertically positioned discs of
64 centimeter diameter from an offset disc plow. As the surface manipulator
is drawn forward by a tractor, the frame and discs of the implement are
-------
alternately raised above ground and lowered into the terrain surface,
thus forming elongated pits approximately 40 centimeters wide, 60
centimeters long and 15 centimeters deep. The gouges are applied along
the contour of the shaped spoils.
Dozer basins were originally formed with a bulldozer blade set on
angle to create basins approximately 6 meters long, 7.5 meters from center
to center, and one meter deep. Field experience with the method showed
that forming the basins with the front mounted bulldozer blade was a
rather difficult and inefficient operation resulting in basins of varying
size and form characteristics (Figure 4). In 1972 a new implement was
designed and constructed to improve the technique of forming large basins
(Figures 5, 6). This implement was mounted on the rear of a crawler
tractor attached to the ripper mechanism.
These three types of surface manipulation techniques could have an
appreciable influence upon spoil hydrology and ultimately upon reclamation.
Therefore, the effects of these surface manipulation techniques in
association with topsoiling practices are being evaluated according to
the following major objectives:
(1) to determine at each demonstration area the complete hydrology
of the soil biosphere which includes the precipitation, evapotranspiration,
runoff, soil moisture storage, and deep percolation components;
(2) to determine at each demonstration area the chemistry of runoff
water from spoil watersheds;
(3) to determine at each, demonstration area aquifer characteristics
and chemistry of the ground water in the immediate vicinity of the
Demonstrations;
-------
(4) and to study at each demonstration area the geometry and life
expectancy of surface manipulations and their suitability for stabilization
and reclamation of large contiguous areas.
This initial report concerns soil and water aspects of surface manipulation
techniques while revegetation results shall be presented in a later
publication.
-------
Figure 2. The gouging apparatus consists of three 64 cm
diameter discs mounted on a tool bar frame.
.Figure 3. This gouging surface manipulation treatment was
constructed as the operator alternately raised and
lowered the discs, thus forming elongated pits about
50 cm long. On the left deep chiseling treatment
contrasts with the gouging treatment.
-------
•Figure 4. Dozer basins being constructed with the angled front
blade of a crawler tractor.
-------
Figure 5. The dozer basin blade was mounted in the ripper shank
position of a crawler tractor.
Figure 6. This dozer basin surface manipulation treatment was
constructed as the operator alternately raised and lowered
the basin blade, thus forming elongated pits about 6 m long,
-------
ORIENTATION AND DESIGN OF DEMONSTRATION AREAS
During 1975, demonstration areas were established at the Western
Energy Company Rosebud Mine near Colstrip, Montana, Knife River Coal
Company Mine near Savage, Montana, and the North American Coal Company
Indian Head Mine near Beulah, North Dakota. In 1976, two additional
demonstration areas were established at the Dave Johnston Mine near
Glenrock, Wyoming, and at Arch Mineral Corporation Seminoe No. 1 Mine
near Hanna, Wyoming (Figure 7). The approximate size of each demonstration
was: Colstrip 30 ha, Savage 28 ha, Beulah 22 ha, Glenrock 16 ha, and
Hanna 12 ha.
Construction at all five demonstration areas has been completed. The
limited data collected to date at the Glenrock and Hanna areas will not
be presented in this report and the discussions will be limited to the
Colstrip, Savage, and Beulah demonstration areas.
Each study site was located in an area of different edaphic, topographic,
and climatic characteristics. Specific sites were selected to enable
maximum exclusion of confounding outside vectors such as excessive runoff,
flooding and sedimentation.. The types of drainage patterns, slope aspect,
degree of slope, and uniformity of slope were all important considerations
in final site selection. The contour of each drainage provides a
bisecting drainage channel with opposing relatively uniform gradients
and long slopes. The five treatments evaluated on shaped surface mined
spoils were topsoil-gouged, nontopsoil-gouged, topsoil-^chiseled,
-------
DEMONSTRATION AREAS: *
Scale:
Figure 7. Location of the five Demonstration Areas in the states of Montana, North Dakota,
and Wyoming.
-------
nontopsoil-chiseled and topsoil-dozer basins. Chiseling on spoils, which
demonstrated a minimum of surface reclamation, was considered the control
against which all other treatments were compared.
To address the project objectives, two types of treatment areas were
necessary. The more extensive of the two types includes the application of
each of the five treatments within a large area consisting of two opposite
exposures (Figures 8, 9, 10). More than 75 percent of each study consists
of this type of treatment. Such a treatment area provides large contiguous
areas for ground-water recharge, extensive areas for the development of
wind and water erosion patterns, comparison of opposite exposures, and
opportunity to evaluate equipment for efficiency and suitability for large
scale treatment application.
A second intesive treatment arrangement was used in conjunction
with the extensive application type. The second type consisted of five
microwatershed treatment areas near each other with provisions for intensive
continuous monitoring of the hydrologic budget of.the spoil-system
(Figures 8, 9, 10). Five microwatersheds, with approximate dimensions
of 60 m by 37 m (.206 ha) have been constructed at each study area
(Figures 11, 12, 13). The upper end and two sides of each watershed are
delineated with imperious asphalt impregnated strips of chopped strand
fiberglass mat supported by rough sawed 5 cm by 10 cm lumber (Figures 14, 15),
The lower boundary of each watershed consists of two runoff collection
ditches (Figures 15, 16).
11
-------
meters
"i i i
SO
Figure 8.
0 50 100
Topographic setting of the Colstrip Demonstration Area indicating
microwatershed locations and companion slope of opposite exposure.
See Figure 11 for more detailed analysis near microwatersheds.
-------
Figure 9. Topographic setting of the Savage Demonstration Area indicating
microwatershed locations and companion slope of opposite exposure.
See Figure 12 for more detailed analysis near microwatersheds.
-------
meters
tmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
6 ' s'o ' 160
Figure 10.
Topographic setting of the Beulah Demonstration Area indicating
microwatershed locations and companion slope of opposite exposure.
See Figure 13 for more detailed analysis near microwatersheds.
-------
N
Explanation
Q Microwatershed
x Neutron Access tube
O Lysimeter
• Meteorological station
H Instrumentation shelter
QGroundwater observation well
O Surf ace pond
METERS
30
60
Figure 11. Orientation of instrumentation and groundwater observation wells at the Cplstrip Demonstration.
Microwatershed treatment assignments were; 1) topsoil-gouged, 2) topsoil-dozer basins, 3} topsoil-
chiseled, 4) nontopsoil-gouged, and 5) nontopsoil-chiseled.
-------
N
Explanation
Q Microwatershed
x Neutron Access tube
O Lysimeter
• Meteorological station
II Instrumentation shelter
Q Groundwater observation well
O Surface pond
METERS
I I
I
0
30
60
Figure 12. Orientation of instrumentation and groundwater observation wells at the Savage Demonstration.
Microwatershed treatment assignments were; 1) topsoil-chiseled, 2) nontopsoil-gouged, 3) topsoil-
gouged, 4) nontopsoil-chiseled, and 5) topsoil-dozer bains.
-------
Explanation
Q Microwatershed
x Neutron Access tube
O Lysimeter
9 Meteorological station
H Instrumentation shelter
O Grpundwater observation well
O> Surf ace pond
METERS
I • I • I I
30
60
Figure 13. Orientation of instrumentation and groundwater observation wells at the Beulah Demonstration.
Microwatershed treatment assignments were; 1) topsoil-chiseled, 2) nontopsoi.'sd-gouged, 3)
nontopsoiled-chiseled, 4) topsoiled-gouged, and 5) topsoiled-dozer basins.
-------
Figure 14. Asphalt impregnated strip of chopped strand fiberglass mat
supported by lumber bounded each watershed. Above, the
fiberglass mat is being prepared for asphalt treatment.
Figure 15. In foreground, barrier strips are being constructed by
spraying heated liquid asphalt onto fiber mat. In the
background, a ditch is prepared at the top of the watershed
prior to installation of the asphalt fiberglass barrier.
18
-------
Figure 16. At both Wyoming Demonstration Areas, sheet metal strips
were substituted for the asphalting technique. The two
watersheds shown above have such metal strips at the top
and bottom with sides yet to be completed.
At the lower edge of the microwatershed, at a point where the runoff
collection ditches intersect, a concrete or metal flume collection box
was positioned so as to collect water from the ditches. A 7.6 cm (3 inch)
wide by 30.5 cm (12 inch) high Parshall measuring flume was bolted onto
the lower end of the flume box (Figure 17).
Each flume was equipped with a stage recorder that was fitted with
a gear driven potentiometric output device connected directly to one of
the data recording channels in the instrument shelter via an underground
wire in a plastic pipe.
An automatic water sampler was positioned adjacent to and connected
to the lower throat section of the Parshall flume (Figures 17, 18).
19
-------
Figure 17. Metal flume collection box with attached Parshall flume,
stage recorder and automatic water sampler. This design
was positioned at the flume end of each watershed.
Figure 18. The automatic water sampler can collect up to 24 samples
in a choice of timed increments from 2.7 minutes to once
per day.
20
-------
The cycle controlled sampler was capable of collecting up to 24-500 ml
water samples at time intervals varying from 2.7 minutes to 24 hours.
The sampler was controlled with an adjustable interrupt switch mounted
on the companion stage recorder. The switch initiated a water sample
collection cycle when a water flow of 5 cubic centimeters per second or
greater occurred.
A completely enclosed and insulated instrument protection building
was positioned at a central location within each of the Demonstration
Areas. Each building was used to house all delicate data logging systems.
Within approximately 30 m of each instrument building, a meteorological
station was installed (Figures 19, 20). All the electrical output sensors
were connected directly to the data acquisition system in the instrument
shelter by way of sensor wires extending through buried plastic pipe.
Each meteorological data recording station consisted of the following
sensors:
1. integrated wind speed
2. wind direction
3. direct solar radiation
4. relative humidity
5. precipitation (intensity and duration
6. barometric pressure
7. evaporation potential (type A pan)
8. air temperature at 2 meters
9. air temperature at 1 meter
10. soil temperature at four depths
Each system was monitored by a central data collection unit. This
unit contains the circuitry to perform 32 channel switching, the analog
to digital conversion, formatting, data recording, and employs a crystal-
controlled clock for time data. All data collected and processed by the
unit is stored on two-track, O90 standard cassette tapes. These data
stored on the tape are played back into computer storage files and computer
programs were developed for data compiling and analysis.
21
-------
Figure 19. Typical meteorological station at the Demonstration
Areas showing mast with sensors, evaporation pan with
stilling well recorder and instrument shelter.
Figure 20. Wyoming windshield design with precipitation gauge
was used at the two Wyoming Demonstration Areas.
22
-------
Aquifer development, recharge and/or discharge was monitored at each
Demonstration Area. Professional ground-water hydrologists were consulted
in determining the final location and depths of observation wells at each
study area (Figures 11, 12, 13). Wells were positioned and drilled so as
to maximize the opportunity to monitor existing and developing aquifer
fluctuations, determine hydraulic gradients and flow direction and monitor
possible changes in water quality. Water levels within three wells at Savage
and Beulah were monitored continuously with stage recorders. Water levels
in other wells were measured periodically.
Weighing lysimeters averaging about 1360 Kg (3000 Ibs.) in mass were
utilized in each watershed to determine evapotranspirative patterns in
spoils as a function of different treatments (Figures 11, 12, 13).
Recent lysimetry developments have made it possible to construct intermed-
iate size units by employing fluid bag transducers with manometer tube
readout. Also, one lysimeter per demonstration area had an electrical
output transducer connected to the data aquisition system. The reader is
referred to Appendix I for a discussion on the development and testing
of these lysimeters.
Five neutron access tubes (5.08 cm inside diameter aluminum pipe)
were place within the boundaries of each microwatershed to allow measurement
of soil water content (Figures 11, 12, 13). Soil profile moisture was
determined for each tube on a monthly basis using a neutron emission probe
and sealer (Troxler).
23
-------
WATERSHED SOIL, CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND CLAY MINERALOGY ANALYSES
Introduction
Detailed knowledge of the soil, chemical and physical characteristics
within watersheds aids in interpretation of data and observations on
ground-water quality, runoff water quality, soil water movement and plant
development. Also, an understanding of clay mineralogy is basic for
predicting watershed behavior. Soils dominated by clay minerals tend to
expand upon wetting, i.e. smectite (also known as montmorillonite). The
soil particles become oriented in a manner which restricts infiltration-
percolation processes. Conversely, in a soil dominated by clays that tend
to hold their structure upon wetting, i.e. kaolinite and illite, the
infiltration-percolation processes may be relatively rapid. Thus, the
dominant types of clay minerals in the surface material of a mine spoil
watershed may be a major factor affecting the amount of runoff and erosion.
Methodolgy
Each treatment watershed was core sampled to a depth of 275 cm at
three diagonally oriented sites. Each core was divided into four increments
of 0-30 cm, 30-90 cm, 90-150 cm, and 150-275 cm. These increments were
analyzed for texture, organic matter, electrical conductivity, NO»-N, NH.-N,
pH, exchangeable Ca-Mg-Na-K, B, Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe, Pb, Cd and Ni. Laboratory
procedures are specified in Table 1.
In each watershed, five subsamples from the 0-15 cm soil depth were
composited for mineralogy analysis. The particle size distribution was
24
-------
Table 1. Guide used in Montana for rating soil material for use as a final
plant growth medium cover for mined land. Lab procedures and Red Flag
levels listed are used for soil analysis and interpretation in this
report.
Sampling Scheme
Soil Survey Overburden
30 cm increment 3 m increment
f-n IRO rm HAnfVi
saturation % saturation %
mechanical mechanical
analysis analysis
conductivity conductivity
pH pH
Ca Ca
Me MR
Na Na
SAR SAR
B B
N03-N
NH4-N
Se
Mo
H8
Zn
Mn
Cu
Cd
Pb
Ni
P04-P
Suspect
Levels
clay>40%
^4rnFihn<^ /{*m
>8.3
>10
8 ppm
10 ppm
10 ppm
2 ppm
0.3 ppm
500 ppb
40 ppm
60 ppm
40 ppm
1 ppm
5 ppm
1 ppm
Laboratory Procedure
U.S.D.A. Handbook 60, p. 84,
method 2 & 3a.
A.S.A. Agronomy Monograph No. 9,
method 43-5, p. 563-566.
U.S.D.A. Handbook 60, p. 88-89.
U.S.D.A. Handbook 60, p. 102.
U.S.D.A. Handbook 60, p. 84,
method 2 & 3a. Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry.
Same as Ca.
Same as Ca.
as meq/L
Na/[(Ca + Me)/2]1/2
Hot water extraction with B free
condenser tubes.
A.S.A. Agronomy Monograph No. 9,
p. 1212, method 84-5.3.
Jackson, M.A. 1958. Soil chem.
anal., Prentice Hall, Inc.
p. 19, 194-195.
NaBH4 extraction, atomic absorp-
tion.
A.S.A. Agronomy Monograph No. 9,
p. 1054-1057, method 74-2.
Gaseous hydride-hot water extrac-
tion. EPA. 1774. Meth. chem.
anal, of water & wastes.
DTPA Extractable. SSSAP, Vol. 35,
No. 4. 1971. p. 600-602.
Same as Zn.
Same as Zn.
Sane as Zn.
Same as Zn.
Same as Zn.
WaHCOs extraction. Olsen, S.R.
1954. U.S.D.A. Circular No. 939,
March.
25
-------
determined using the pipette method. Clay mineralogy analysis was
performed with x-ray diffraction under supervision of Dr. M. Klages,
Professor of Clay Mineralogy at Montana State University.
Results;
Table 1 presents a guide used in Montana for rating soil material
for use as a surface plant growth medium cover on shaped mine spoils. The
column titled "suspect levels" indicates the predetermined level of concen-
tration at which an element may adversely influence plant growth and in
some cases, water quality. It should be realized that these suspect levels
are in a constant process of changing as our technology grows, and that
some trace element suspect levels are not confirmed due to the lack of
studies with consistent results. Tables 2 through 16 (pages 28-42) present
data which quantifies the chemical and physical nature of the soil in
microwatersheds located at the Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstration
Areas.
Tables 2 through 6 (pages 28-32) present soil analysis data from
watersheds located at the Colstrip Demonstration Area. Trace elements
were found to be in low to moderate concentrations. The area is neither
saline or alkali in nature. Nitrates were at relatively high levels as
compared to rangeland and there seemed to be nitrate accumulation at
depths greater than 90 cm. Soil profile texture was predominately sandy
loam.
Tables 7 through 11 (pages 33-37) present soil analyses data from
watersheds located at the Savage Demonstration Area. Nitrates and
26
-------
phosphates were present in relatively high concentrations as compared to
native rangeland. Trace elements, major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, NH,, and K)
and anions (NO_-N, PO.-P, SO. and B) were found consistently low to
normal concentrations in all watersheds. The soil profile texture was
predominantly a fine sandy loam but ranged from sand to clay, and contained
a considerable amount of gravel.
Tables 12 through 16 describe the soil status of the five watersheds
at the Beulah Demonstration Area. This site is saline in nature as most
electrical conductivity analyses exceed the suspect level of 4 mmhos/cm.
Sodium adsorption ratios (SAR) were not determined on these samples, however
additional soil samples were collected from the 0-20 cm (8 inch) det>th on
each watershed. Analysis of these samples indicated the average SAR across
all watersheds was 16.3, but ranged from 13.3 to 20.2. Thus the soil
material at this Demonstration was saline and sodic in nature. The soil
profile texture ranged from clay to loam but was predominately silty clay.
Nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate levels were relatively high. All trace
elements (Ni, C, Pb, Mn, Cu, Fe, and Zn) analyzed were found to be in
moderate concentrations except nickel which generally exceeded 1.0 ppm.
This level of nickel is considered excessive in Montana. What effect this
has on plant production has not been determined at this Demonstration Area.
The above soil characteristics indicate that all Demonstrations Areas
are individually unique, and differences between watersheds within an area
are small. The North Dakota area was more salty in nature which may affect
the plant-water balance and ultimately plant growth and production. This
area was also characterized by an abundance of clayey textured soil material
27
-------
Table 2. Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites in the nontopsoil-chiseled treated'watershed locate
Montana, demonstration area. Samples were collected during the winter, 1975.
-the. Colatrip,
Site
i
I
1
I
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.4
8.7
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.7
8.5
8.6
Organic j
%
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
2.73
1.78
1.87
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
<0.15
Uer.trical
nrohos/cn
0.18
0.25
0.20
0.53
0.22
0.24
0.52
0.84
0.78
0.40
0.68
0.70
MO — N
Dp:n
0.95
0.35
0.95
11.10
0.95
2.85
8.55
54.75
6.50
3.50
4.10
3.50
com
3.38
3.38
3.38
6.75
3.38
6.75
3.38
27.01
3.38
3.38
6.75
6.75
Ca
r>ieq /
100 X
16.37
13.00
14.25
13.37
12.50
17.25
11.25
9.52
452
4.50
8.75
4.50
Mg
meq/
100 a
1.75
2.20
1.55
2.00
1.75
1.55
2.20
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.28
1.55
Na
___ /
mcq/
100 z
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
c 0.13
= 0.13
< 0.13
< 0.13
88
63
2.5
2.5
88
88
2.5
88
88
2.5
2.5
2.5
S04
1.38
38.0
1.38
115.0
9.1
5.5
15.4
24.2
>138
95.6
115.0
98.3
SL
SL*
SL
L
SL
SL
L
L
SL*
SL*
slL
SL*
[>04-P
2.2'
4.0
2.2
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.1
0.8
5.1
2.2
1.5
2.0
Zn
0.64
o.o:
0.86
2.16
0.86
0.20
0.20
0.50
1.86
2.80
2.50
3.10
Fe
com
8.0
4.0
4.0
16.2
15.2
7.2
7.2
11.9
9.3
10.9
12.2
11.9
0051
0.6
< 0.1
0.1
1.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.0
Mn
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.8
3.2
0.4
0.4
2.8
2.0
1.8
2.4
2.0
Pb
0.69
0.64
1.19
0.80
1.24
0.80
0.80
0.97
1.24
1.35
1.63
1.46
Cd
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Nl
0.51
0.38
0.38
0.77
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.51
0.77
0.64
0.64
B
0.04
0.11
0.17
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.06
-
0.07
S3
CO
*insufficient sample, hand texture
-------
Table 3. Soil analyse from 3 sampling sites In the topsoil-chiseled treated watershed located at the Colstrip,
Montana, demonstration area. Samples were collected during the winter, 1975.
Site
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.7
8.7
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.2
8.6
7.8
8.2
8.3
Organic
Matter
X
<0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
1.97
1.01
1.30
1.78
< 0.15
0.92
0.15
1.30
lectrical
onductivity
ranhos/cm
0.21
0.22
0.16
0.29
0.31
0.42
0.86
0.76
0.28
0.82
0.68
0.62
NOj-S
ppm
3.50
0.15
0.95
4.90
5.95
4.10
12.85
13.30
7.95
10.90
13.30
13.30
\H/,-N
ppm
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
10.13
3.38
6.75
3.38
L3.51
3.38
6.75
Ca
ir.eq/
100 E
24.12
17.25
19.00
30.65
12.50
12.10
9.12
14.25
13.87
17.25
11.25
14.60
Mg
tneq/
100 e
2.00
2.45
2.68
2.95
0.80
1.55
1.55
2.20
2.20
2.45
1.75
2.00
Na
meq/
100 2
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.25
0.25
K
ppr
63
63
63
63
113
63
63
63
88
63
2.5
88
SO,
Dora
3.44
4.70
25.20
32.30
2.06
8.50
25.20
22.0
1.38
438
>138
>138
"^ituri
SL
LS
LS
SL
SL
SL
SL
L
SL
SL
SL
SL
P04-P
5.1
1.5
1.1
4.8
4.8
1.5
2.2
1.5
4.0
1.1
3.5
0.8
Zn
0.02
0.02
< 0.02
0.36
0.02
0.42
0.20
1.50
0.36
0.20
1.58
0.14
Fe
ppm
3.8
7.8
6.6
9.2
3.8
7.5
5.5
11.9
6.6
10.2
10.0
13.8
Cu
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
<0.1
0.4
< 0.1
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
< 0.1
Mn
1.2
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.8
1.0
2.4
2.8
1.8
Pb
0.69
0.69
0.86
0.80
0.58
0.80
0.91
1.19
0.91
0.80
1.19
1.30
Cd
0.35
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Ni
0.38
0.51
0.51 .
0.51
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.64
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
B
ppm
0.15
0.27
0.04
0.29
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.34
0.38
0.16
0.09
K)
-------
Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites In the
Montana, demonstration area. Samples were
nontopsoil-ROU|
collected duri;
;ed treated watershed located at tfie Colrf.rip,
.ng the winter, 1975.
Site
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.7
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.7
Organic
%
< 0.15
< 0.15
<0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
1.11
2.93
1.97
<0.15
<0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
lectrical
0.34
0.52
0.46
0.55
0.26
0.22
0.33
0.37
0.20
0.24
0.34
0.60
N03-N
4.10
2.90
10.00
7.95
0.35
0.95
4.90
7.15
0.95
0,95
4.10
13.30
NH4-N
6.75
: 1.00
:1.00
3.38
3.38
13.61
6.75
6.75
6.75
3.38
3.38
30.39
Ca
meq/
29.75
25.50
25.88
10.00
17.25
14.25
9.12
13.37
14.60
18.05
19.75
11.75
Mg
meq/
3.63
3.15
2.95
1.55
1.75
1.75
1.55
1.75
1.75
2.45
2.45
1.75
Da
meq/
0.13
0.13
0.13
<0.13
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.13
0.25
0.25
0.13
0.25
K
113
113
63
63
63
63
63
2.5
63
63
63
2.5
»4
6.1
>138
>138
>138
6.98
8.50
9.90
11.30
0.30
0.30
56.40
107.5
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL*
SL
POj-P
5.1
1.5
1.5
2.5
3.2
2.2
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
0.8
Zn
0.28
0.58
0.72
0.86
1.00
0.20
0.58
1.08
1.00
2.38
2.16
0.28
Fe
7.8
11.2
15.5
10.9
13.8
4.6
13.5
15.8
9.8
10.9
13.3
10.0
Cu
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
< 0.1
0.6
0.9
0.4
1.6
1.7
< 0.1
Mn
1.2
1.2
2.0
1.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
3.6
2.0
1.8
2.8
1.4
Pb
0.80
1 .02
0.97
0.97
1.19
0.80
1.24
1.52
0.97
1.41
1.08
0.91
Cd
0.23
0.23
0.35
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Ni
0.38
0.51
0.64
0.38
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.64
0.38
0.77
0.90
0.51
B
ppm
0.21
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.13
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.07
OJ
o
*insufficient sample, hand texture
-------
Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites in the topsoil-gouged treated watershed located at the
Colstrip, Montana, demonstration area. Samples were collected daring the winter, 1975,
Site
1
i
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Or.
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-J50
15C-275
1
pH
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.2
8.7
8.8
8.2
8.5
8.8
9.0
8.5
"•
Organic
latter
•/.
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
< 0.15
1.59
< 0.15
0.63
0.34
< 0.15
0.63
onductivlty
mmhos/cm
0.26
0.40
0.56
0.64
0.23
0.28
0.56
0.44
0.23
0.27
0.42
0.54
NOj-N
Opm
4.1
3.5
15.55
16.35
1.55
1.55
12.55
10.60
2.20
1.55
8.55
8.55
KH4-N
ppm
6.75
3.38
6.75
10.13
<'1.00
3.38
10.13
3.38
3.38
10.13
10.13
10.13
Ca
ir.eq/
100 R
27.12
19.75
20.62
16.37
15.5
10.4
8.25
13.87
21.05
9.12
14.60
17.70
Mg
meq/
100 f_
2.45
2.95
2.95
2.45
1.75
1.75
2.00
2.45
2.20
2.00
2.43
1.75
Na
meq/
100 e
0.25
: 0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
ODm
113
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
88
63
S04
DDIE
9.1
>138
>138
>138
0.3
49.2
>138
>138
17.1
1.38
61.1
5.5
V-xturp
SL
SL
SL
L
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
fOft
4.4
0.8
1.1
2.0
3.5
0.8
2.5
2.2
2.5
1.1
2.0
4.0
Zn
0.42
0.86
0.92
1.72
0.58
0.78
1.28
1.20
1.00
1.36
1.20
0.36
Fe
Dom
7.0
15.8
14.1
19.6
9.8
10.0
13.8
12.2
12.2
15.5
20.6
11.9
Cu
0.2
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.2
< 0.1
1.1
0.4
Mn 1
2.0
1.4
2.4
4.4
1.2
1.8
2.8
2.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
1.4
Ph
1.13
1.02
1.52
0.69
0.97
1.02
1.02
0.86
1.02
1.30
1.30
0 .69
Cd
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Nl
0,64
0.64
0.64
0.77
0.38
0.38
0.64
0.51
0.64
0.64
0.38
0.38
B
0.81
0.19
0.41
0.23
0.29
0.24
0.49
0.23
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.03
-------
Table 6.
Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites In
Colstrip, Montana, demonstration area.
the topsoll-dozer basin treated watershed located
Samples were collected during the winter, 1975.
Sire
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cn>
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 3C
[ 30- 90
| 90-150
1 150-2 7 5
pH
8.6
8.4
8.6
8.3
8.7
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.8
8.5
8.4
8.3
Organic
Matter
%
< 0.15
0.25
< 0.15
0.72
< 0.15
1.11
< 0.15
1.59
1.59
1.87
0.82
1.97
lectrlcal
0.31
0.52
0.49
0.67
0.22
0.56
0.44
0.27
0.23
0.72
0.64
0.78
H03-N
10.6
7.15
17.15
39.95
4.10
8.55
2.85
3.50
2.20
33.10
17.15
5.95
NH4-N
3.38
10.13
6.75
20.26
10.13
13.51
3.38
3.38
6.75
3.38
3.38
10.13
Ca
meq/
12.1
10.0
16.0
19.0
16.37
17.25
15.50
10.40
13.37
15.12
9.12
13.37
MS
meq/
1.55
2.00
2.20
2.00
1.75
2.20
2.20
1.55
1.28
2.20
1.55
2.00
Na
meq/
0.13
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
88
88
63
2.5
88
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
so.
5.5
115.0
>138
>138
6.1
>138
122.9
34.4
1.38
122.9
31.1
44.0
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
P04-P
2.5
1.5
2.2
1.5
5.1
7.2
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.1
Zn
0.72
1.80
0.86
0.78
0.42
0.78
0.36
0.36
0.42
0.72
1.14
0.92
Fe
7.8
12.2
9.0
17.0
7.2
18.4
9.3
7.2
16.6
17.6
17.2
15.5
Cu
0.5
1.9
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.1
1.0
Mn
1.8
2.4
1.4
3.4
1.4
4.8
1.8
1.2
1.4
3.4
3.6
3.4
Pb
1.24
0.86
1.02
0.80
1.02
0.75
0.80
0.86
0.80
1.13
1.13
1.13
Cd
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Nl
0.64
0.64
0.51
0.51
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
B
0.26
0.29
0.18
0.18
0.26
0.01
0.04
0.12
0.15
0.06
0.10
0.23
U)
NJ
-------
Table 7 Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites in the nnntopsotl-chlseled treated watershed located at J:hc
Savage, Montana, demonstration area. Samples were collected during the fall, 1975.
Site
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
nepth
0- 30
30- 90A
30- 90B
90-150
150-27S
0- 30
90-150
1.50-275
0- X
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.3
8.0
7.6
7.8
8.4
8.2
8.5
8.5
8.1
7.5
7.7
7.5
rganic
Matter
%
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
—
0.15
< .15
1.20
0.63
2.26
0.92
0.63
lectrical
onductivity
rmhos/cm
0.28
0 .30
0.68
0.48
0.76
0.73
0.60
0.83
0.76
2.55
1.68
1.75
N03-N
ppm
0.35
0.15
0.95
0.35
0.35
4.9
0.95
0.15
2.85
0.25
0.35
0.35
NH4-N
ppm
—
~
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
Ca
meq/
100 K
24.12
22.75
27.13
22.75
26.25
28.5
26.25
24.5
26.25
29.75
28.5
25.88
Mg
meq/
100 e
2.0
2.45
3.4
2.20
3.15
4.3
2.68
3.63
5.25
6.88
5.43
4.78
Na
meq/
100 e
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
DDm
3
63
63
3
3
88
63
63
63
63
63
63
SO,
otira
11.3
18.2
' >138
>138
>138
—
58.0
82.5
13.8
>138
>138
>138
exture
LFS
LFS
FSL
LFS
LFS
SL+
SL
FSL
SCL-
SCL
SL+
SL-
P>4-P
ivim
17.5
17.5
29.5
12.5
12.5
47.5
14.5
12.5
14.5
14.5
5.0
7.7
Zn
nim
< 0.02
<0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
0.28
< 0.02
0.20
0.02
0.20
0.08
0.08
0.02
Fe
HOTl
5.2
5.2
5.5
5.5
8.4
5.5
5.5
6.6
6.3
14.4
10.0
7.8
Cu
cum
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.4
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
Mn
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.8
2.0
1.8
Pb
< 0.23
<0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.78
0.50
0.50
< 0.23
<0.23
0.23
0.50
Cd
0.11
0.11
0.23
<0.11
0.35
< 0.11
<0.11
< 0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
< 0.11
Ni
<0.12
0.77
0 .12
<0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
< 0.12
<0.12
0.25
< 0.12
OJ
GJ
— No Sample
-------
Tabla 8. Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites In the topLOll-chiceled treated watershed located at the
Savage, Montana, demonstration area. Samples were collected during the fall, 1975.
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
j
pH
8.2
8.4
8.3
8.4
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.4
8.4
Organic tlectrical
Matter Conductivity
<.15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
0.53
< .15
< .15
1.09
0.92
0.97
0.87
1.64
1.96
1.38
0.78
0.58
0.72
1.17
0.83
NOj-N
2.85
0.35
0.25
2.20
1.55
0.35
0.15
0.95
0.35
1.25
0.35
0.35
N1L;-N
5.10
3.40
5.04
6.72
5.04
6.72
3.36
6.72
3.36
6.72
3.36
1.68
Ca
meq/
100 B
31.5
31.5
27.12
29.38
31.5
29.75
30.65
28.88
26.25
32.0
29.38
30.65
Kg
meq/
100 a
4.78
3.63
3.8
3.8
5.7
6.15
5.7
4.3
3.4
5.9
4.3
3.8
Na
meq/
100 e
0.50
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
150
150
188
113
188
113
113
113
88
150
88
63
S04
2.75
»138
>138
»138
*138
>138
»138
107.5
73.7
0,30
M 38
> 138
L
VFSL
VFSL
FSL
FSL
SiL
FSL
FSL
FSL
SL
FSL
FSL
POj-P
12.5
12.5
7.7
7.7
12.5
1.0
1.0
14.5
5.0
12.5
5.0
12.5
Zn
0.28
< 0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.08
0.02
Fe
<0.8
4.n
2.6
4.0
3.8
2.8
3.9
3.2
3.8
6.0
4.0
3.8
Cu
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.0
Mn
1.2
1.0
0.4
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.8
Pb
0.23
0.50
0.23
<0.23
0.50
0.23
< 0.23
<0.23
0.23
0.50
0.78
< 0 .23
Cd
0.23
0.23
<0.11
<0.11
0.35
0.11
0.11
0.11 '
0.11
0.23
0.35
0.11
Ni
1.58
0.25
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.25
0.90
0.38
0.38
0.20
0.12
<0.12
-------
Table 9, Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites In the nontopsoil-gouged treated watershed located at
Savage, Montana, demonstration area. Samples were collected during the fall, 1975.
Site
1
1
1
J.
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-3.50
15C-275
pH
6.7
6.5
7.9
8.4
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.1
Organic
Matter
%
4.07
2.73
1.11
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
0.44
0.72
0.15
<.15
lectrical
onductivity
mmhos/cm
4.75
4.9
1.6
1.11
0.52
0.58
1.28
1.23
1.12
2.25
—
1.32
NOj-N
ppm
0.35
0.25
0.95
0.35
2.85
0.15
0.15
0.15
2.85
0.15
0.15
0.35
NTU-N
ppm
6.72
10.19
1.68
5.04
6.72
5.04
1.68
3.37
6.72
5.04
3.36
6.72
Ca
meq/
100 R
34.9
33.7
32.38
29.75
30.18
28.88
28.0
28.5
29.75
32.0
31.5
31.5
Mg
meq/
ion *
7.1
4.55
5.43
4.55
2.68
3.4
2.68
2.95
5.43
6.88
5.9
5.25
Na
meq/
100 e
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
DOT
88
63
88
63
63
63
63
63
88
113
113
88
S°4
PDTC
>138
>138
>138
>138
51.7
>138
>138
>138
>138
>138
>138
>138
rextnrc
SL
SL
FSt
FSL
FSL
FSL
FSL
VFFL
SL+
CL-
L+
CL-
po4-p
pom
21.0
23.5
12.5
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
12.5
7.7
7.7
5.0
2n
1 PPm -
1.8
3.32
0.92
<0.02
<0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
< 0.02
0.72
1.2
0.42
0.2
Fe
DDri
100.0
112.0
13.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
7.0
8.4
6.6
6.0
Cu
Dom
2.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.8
2.4
1.6
0.9
Mn
OIJIC
4.2
4.4
2.4
0.4
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
rb
1.86
0.50
0.23
< 0.23
<0.23
<0.23
-0.23
0.23
1.59
0.50
1.32
1.05
Cd '
0.46
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.11
0.11
< 0.11
0.11
0.23
0.11
<0.11
0.35
Ni
1.86
0.38
0.90
0.38
1.04
0.38
0.20
0.12
0.38
0.64
0.38
0.38
No Sample
-------
Table 10- Soil analyses frrna 3 sampling sites in th2 topsail-gouged treated watershed located at the Savage,
Montana, demonstration area. Samples wer2 collected during the fall, 1975.
Site
I
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Co
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
|>H
8.1
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.1
7.7
8.6
8.7
8.3
7.9
8.3
8.3
Organic
Matter
*
0.15
< .15
< .15
< .15
0.15
< .15
* .15
< .15
0.15
1.20
< .15
< .15
lectrical
onductivity
0.72
0.33
0.45
0.99
0.99
0.96
0.40
0.56
0.73
0.92
1.09
1.56
NOj-N
1.55
0.35
0.15
0.25
2.85
0.15
0.15
0.35
2.85
0.15
0.15
0.15
NH4-N
ppm
3.36
6.72
1.68
5.04
6.80
3.40
1.70
1.70
3.40
5.10
1.70
-
Ca
raeq/
100 R
30.65
26.25
28.5
25.88
32.75
31.05
25.0
25.0
30.65
29.75
29.75
26.25
Mg
meq,/
100 E
5.25
2.20
2.45
4.3
7.1
5.0
2.68
3.15
6.63
5.9
6.15
6.15
Na
roeq/
100 e
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
pun
150
63
63
63
88
88
63
3
113
113
88
88
so4
5.5
29.2
93.0
138
31.1
>138
55.0
111.1
1.38
>138
>138
>138
S+
SL
FSL
LFS
FSL
SL+
LFS
PL
FSL
L-
L+
FSL
po4-P
12.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.7
5.0
5.0
2.5
21.0
29.5
12.5
17.5
Zn
PP7"
0.08
* 0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
0.02
0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
0.02
0.14
0.08
< 0.02
Fe
oprn
7.0
4.0
3.9
3.2
5.5
3.0
3.0
2.8
5.8'
7.5
5.8
5.5
Cu
JD31
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
Mn
arm
2.0
1.2
1.2
..1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
Pb
<0.23
0.78
< 0.23
<0.23
< 0.23
<0.23
<0.23
0.78
<0.23
<0.23
0.78
<0.23
Cd
0.35
0.23
0.11
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.11
<0.11
0.11
<0.11
0.58
0.11
Nl
0.38
0.25
0.12
0.38
0.64
0.25
0.38
0.12
0.38
0.12
0.38
0.38
OJ
— No Sample
-------
Table 11. Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites in the topsoil-dozer basin treated watershed located at the
Savage, Montana, deomonstration area. Samples were collected during the fall, 1975.
,J
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.4
8.1
8.5
8.5
8.6
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
Organic
Matter
;
< .15
< .15
< .15
<.15
1.97
< .15
< .15
< .15
0.25
0.63
< .15
0.15
lectrlcal
conductivity
mmhos/cm
1.05
0.73
1.40
1.08
1.26
0.50
0.48
0.53
2.09
2.33
2.61
2.63
NOj-N
ppm
5.25
0.95
0.35
0.95
35.3
7.15
3.5
0.15
12.55
1.55
2.2
0.15
Nfy-N
Dpro
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Ca
raeq/
100 E
26.7
26.7
27.12
24.5
34.12
25.0
22.38
22.75
30.65
29.75
28.5
30.65
Mg
meq/
100 a
4.13
4.3
4.3
3.63
6.15
2.95
2.45
2.0
5.9
5.43
5.0
6.4
Na
meq/
100 2
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
K
113
113
88
3
150
63
63
3
88
63
63
88
so4
. 9.9
>138
>138
>138
7.4 .
0.3
12.9
36.6
>138
127.1
115.0
>138
pxture
FSL+
LFS
SL
SL
CL-
LFS
LFS
LFS
L+
SCL
SL
L+
P04-P
14.5
12.5
12.5
7.7
21.0
7.7
7.7
7.7
41.5
12.5
7.7
7.7
Zn
0.14
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.14
<0.02
0.08
< 0.02
0.64
0.5
0.72
0.42
Fe
Dem
5.8
7.0
6.6
2.6
18.4
3.2
6.3
4.9
7.8
7.0
7.8
7.8
Cu
0.20
0.10
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
Mn
2.0
2.0
1.2
1.0
0.40
1.0
1.4
1.0
2.8
2.0
2.0
3.4
n
<0.23
1.05
1.05
<0.23
<0.23
0.50
<0.23
<0.23
<0.23
0.23
0.50
0.23
Cd
0.11
0.23
<0.11
0.11
0.35
0.11
0.23
0.23
0.35
0.35
0.23
0.11
Ni
0.12
<0.12
1.04
0.12
1.58
0.25
0.12
<0.12
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.25
OJ
-------
ahle 12. Soil
area
analyses from 3 sampling sites in the npntopsoil-chiseled treatment at
. Samples were collected during the spring of 1975 Immediately followinj
the Beulah. Nprth Pakcta
ig treatment Installation.
lite
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
9.1
9.0
9.0
8,8
8.1
8.9
8.6
8,9
8,1
8,6
8.8
8,7
Organic
Matter
X
-0.15
-0.15
0.15
0.72
2.16
0.53
1.87
2.26
2.06
1.11
0.44
0.92
Electrical
Conductivity
nznhos/cni
4.3
4.36
4.39
4.63
6,76
4.78
3.18
4.63
6.82
5.74
5.02
4.96
N03-N
ppm
10.6
0.35
3.50
11.95
5.95
7.15
4.9
7.95
7.95
8.55
7.95
8.55
HH4-N
ppm
11.76
15.12
16.80
8.40
3.36
20.16
33.60
15.12
3.36
5.04
35.28
13.44
Ca
meq/
1°°R
20.25
18.5
21.5
22.38
21.65
21.5
19.75
22.75
21.87
21.87
21.87
21.87
M*
maq/
100 „
7.1
6.88
9.38
7.55
10.55
7.1
7.33
8.7
9.88
8.7
8.7
7.55
Ma
meq/
100 g
10.05
10.5
8.03
8.88
7.68
8.7
11.15
9.93
7.25
8.8G
12.38
9.28
K
ppn
238
213
238
213
213
213
300
238
213
213
275
238
so*
ppm
+137.5
+ 137;5
+137.5
+137.5
+ 137.5
+137.5
+ 137.5
+137.5
—
+137.5
+137.5
+ 137.5
B
ppm
0.47
0.46
0.34
0.44
0.43
0.13
0.52
0.52
0.56
0.81
0.58
0.42
Texture
Slcl-X-
lil-M-
> Icl-M-
Sicl-M-
Sicl-M-
Sicl-MO
Slc-M-
i icl+H
-
Slcl-M-
! icl-M-
Sicl M-
.
P04.y
ppm
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
12.5
7.7
5.0
5.0
7.7
5.0
7.7
7.7
Zn
ppm
5.8
3.6
5.86
4.2
4.18
5.64
12.0
2.8
4.18
5.0
3.6
5.92
Fe
ppm
93.0
90.0
98.0
78.0
112.0
122.0
102.0
100.0
102.0
98.0
100.0
90.0
Cu
ppm
4.9
4.4
4.6
5.8
5.9
4.6
7.1
6.4
6.6
4.9
7.0
4.9
(to
ppm
7.4
7.4
5.8
6.4
2.0
10.2
13.4
7.4
1.8
4.8
8.2
6.2
Pb
PPffl
1.05
2.4
2.67
1.59
2.67
1.32
3.76
2.4
1.86
1.86
2.4
1.05
Cd
pjxn
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.23
0.23
0.35
0.35
4.17
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.35
Nl
ppB
1.72
3.43
2.28
3.00
3.87
3.00
6.56
0.35
4.62
3.87
3.87
3.43
u>
oo
— No Sample
-------
Table 13. gotl analyses from 3 sampling sites In the tops oil-chiseled treatment
demonstration area. Samples were collected during the spring of 1975
treatment install iticr..
at the Beulah, North Dakota
immediately following
;tte
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.0
8.8
9.0
9.1
8.5
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.1
8.7
8.8
8.8
Organic
Matter
Z
3.12
1.68
0.82
0.63
1.49
0.34
1.01
9.15
2.73
0.44
1.59
0.44
Electrical
Conductivity
mmhos/cm
2.0
4.9
4.66
4.36
3.26
4.93
4.74
5 .2
1.44
5.2
4.06
4.9
N03-M
ppm
13.3
17.15
7.15
7.95
13.3
5.25
4.9
9.15
10.6
8.55
7.95
5.25
NH4-N
ppm
3.36
11.76
28.56
18.48
3.36
13.44
16.80
11.76
10.50
21.84
13.44
15.12
Ca
meq/
100R
32.0
22.38
24.1
23.25
23.25
21.87
21.5
23.6
25.5
24.12
23.75
21.87
Kg
meq/
100 „
7.78
7.78
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.8
7.55
9.15
7.8
7.8
8.2
8.48
Ma
meq/
100 R
0.13
7.05
10.05
8.25
0.70
9.28
9.5
8.5
0.13
7.25
6.68
7.05
IT
PP"
188
213
238
213
238
213
213
275
213
275
238
213
SOj
ppm
-T
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
73.7
H37.5
+ 137.5
+137.5
B
ppm
—
1.04
0.42
0.36
0.30
0.55
0.41
0.52
-
0.69
0.58
0.47
Texture
—
CL-
Sicl-
Sicl-
L
Sicl-
Slcl-
S11+
-
Sicl-
Sicl-
Sicl-
P04-P
ppm
17.5
14.5
7.7
7.7
7.7
12.5
5.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
5.0
7.7
Zn
ppm
0.50
4.2
5.8
5.0
1.5
3.6
31.6
5.8
0.64
5.92
3.6
5.8
Fe
ppm
46.0
98.0
122.0
78.0
55.0
115.0
98.0
98.0
46.0
93.0 •
98.0
93.0
Cu
ppn
1.5
5.6
5.3
6.2
2.0
6.4
6.5
7.6
1.7
4.9
5.0
5.8
Mn
ppm
3.4
6.7
7.6
7.6
3.4
7.6
8.0
5.8
3.6
5.2
4.8
4.0
Fb
PPm
1.05
1.59
2.13
2.13
1.32
1.86
1.86
2.95
0.5
3.22
1.59
3.22
Cd
•ppm
0.11
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.11
0.23
0.11
0.23
-0.11
0.23
0.23
0.35
Hi
ppm
1.72
3.43
3.43
3.29 •
1.58
4.32
3.43
4.62
1.44
4.02
4.91
4.76
V£>
— no Lampie
-------
Table 14. Soil analyses from 3 sampling sites in the nontopsoil-gouped treatment aC the Beulah, North dakota Uenttmstratton
area. Samples were collected during the spring of 19?5 inmediately following treatment-Installation.
;ite
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
PH
8.6
8.8
8.7
8.0
8.0
8.5
8.2
8.4
7.9
8.9
9.0
8.0
Organic
Matter
Z
1.11
1.59
0.34
3.31
1.39
2.64
3.79
3.59
2.54
1.20
-0.15
0.72
Electrical
Conductivity
Enshos/cm
5.2
4.66
5.14
6.14
5.56
5.2
6.16
6.13
7.6
5.05
4.6
4.63
N03-N
ppm
11.95
12.55
13.3
10.6
7.95
7.15
7.95
14.1
7.15
10.0
1.55
7.15
HH^-N
ppm
21.84
5.04
16.80
13.44
1.68
10.08
10.08
6.72
8.40
1.68
33.60
20.16
Ca
meq/
100R
23.25
2J. 25
22.75
25.0
19.4
24.12
23.25
4.15
28.15
21.87
20.62
20.62
Mg
meq/
100 „
8.2
8.48
8.2
9.15
10.33
8.48
8.7
7.33
11.0
7.78
6.63
9.15
Na
meq/
100 R
9.5
10.9
10.5
11.15
5.2
11.15
11.75
11.5
7.68
10.5
10.75
8.03
K
ppm
275
300
275
300
213
238
350
300
213
300
213
238
so4
ppm
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+ 137.5
—
+137.5
—
+137.5
+137.5
B
ppm
0.33
0.49
0.66
1.28
0.76
1.66
0.80
—
0.94
0.60
1.38
0.53
Texture
Sicl-
Sicl-
Sicl-
S icl+
CL
-
Sicl
—
-
Slcl-
S icl-
Slcl-
PO^-P
ppm
17.5
7.7
12.5
7.7
14.5
12.5
14.5
12.5
21.0
7.7
7.7
1.0
Zn
ppm
5.5
5.0
10.0
10.8
3.02
19.4
13.6
18.0
5.28
13.6
3.6
6.4
Fe
ppm
102.0
109.0
109.0
125.0
84.0
133.0
141.0
98.0
133.0
66.0
102.0
92.0
Cu
ppn
7.4
8.8
8.2
9.2
4.4
7.6
9.8
9.7
6.8
7.3
5.9
5.9
'Mn
ppm
6.2
8.9
8.0
10.0
3.2
8.6
14.8
8.0
2.0
5.4
8.9
5.4
Pb
ppm
1.32
1.86
2.13
3.76
0.78
2.4
3.49
6.2.
1.59
3.22
3.49
2.40
Cd
Bpm
0.35
0.23
0.35
0.23
0.11
0.23
0.46
0.46
0.23
0.70
0.23
0.11
Mi
ppn
3.43
3.87
2.57
7.44
3.14
4.32
5.06
11.70
4.76
1.31
3.14
4.91
-P-
o
— No Sample
-------
Table 15. <•„<, anaivses from 3 sampling sites ta the topsoil-gouged treatment at the Beulah, North. Dakota demonstration
area". Spies were colUcted during the spring of 197? ^mediately following treatment Installation.
lite
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.1
7.9
7.7
8.4
8.1
8.7
8.2
7.3
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.9
Organic
Matter
Z
2.45
2.45
2.93
0.44
2.35
0.63
1.11
2.16
1.39
1.11
0.82
1.97
Electrical
Conductivity
mmhos/co
2.02
6.1
7.57
5.38
1.58
4.63
6,02
6,76
1.44
5.32
4.48
7.84
N03-N
ppm
4.9
17.95
11.95
11.10
7.15
10.6
11.95
9.15
4.1
5.95
5.25
4,15
NH$-N
ppm
5.04
6.72
10.08
6.72
26.88
5.04
25.20
8.40
3.36
5.04
10.08
25.20
Ca
meq/
lOOg
21.87
21.05
26.25
24.12
19.4
20.25
23.6
21.05
16.37
20.62
21.05
25.5
Kg
meq/
100 g
8.0
10.55
12.38
10,55
7.1
8.93
10.55
11.25
6.4
11.25
12.38
12.38
Na
meq/
100 g
0.13
4.18
5.8
6.45
0.13
7.5
7.5
7,1-5
0.13
7.5
4.0
5.8
K
ppm
213
213
188
213
150
188
213
213
213
213
213
213
S04
ppm
+137.5
+ 137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
111.1
+137.5
+137.5
+137.5
B
ppm
0.40
0.48
0.53
0.38
0.40
0.49
0.70
0.83
0.39
0.50
0,35
0.57
Texture
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
L+
Sicl
Sicl+
S ic1 +
P04-P
PP»
14.5
12.5
7.7
5.0
12.5
5.0
7.7
23.5
12.5
7.7
21.0
14.5
Zn
0.50
2.6
4.4
4.76
0.58
4.4
3.6
3.4
0.92
3.6
2.94
3.68
Fe
PPT
58.0
109.0
152.0
78.0
63.0
90.0
100.0
215.0
55.0
70.0
72.0
72.0
Cu
ppm
1.5
3.6
4.1
4.6
1.4
4.6
4.4
5.0
2,0
5.3
5.0
4,8
Mo
ppm
3.4
1.4
1.4
2.8
8.0
4.0
1.8
2.8
4.0
2.4
0.4
1.4
Pb
ppm
0.78
1.32
1.05
1.86
1.32
1.86
1.59
2.4
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.86
Cd
PJ»n
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.35
0 .11
0.23
0.11
0.11
0.23
0.11
SI
pun
1.17
2.57
4.62
3.73
1.17
3.73
3.14
3.29
1.58
2.71
2.57
3.43
-------
Tabli± 16. soil analyses from 3 sampling sites in the topsoil-dozer basin treatment at the Beulah, North Oakota demonstraulor
area. Samples were collected during the spring of 1975 Immediately following treatment installation.
>ite
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cm
Depth
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
0- 30
30- 90
90-150
150-275
pH
8.3
8.2
7.9
7.7
8.0
8.0
8.1
8,4
8.0
8.5
7,6
J.8
Organic
Matter
1.
0.72
-0.15
1.87
3.31
1.68
0.63
0,82
0,63
2,16
2.16
2.73
0,82
Electrical
Conductivity
mmhos/cm
3.05
6.4
6.4
5.8
7.84
6.49
6,34
5,74
1.16
5 .2
6.43
5.5
N03-N
ppm
5.25
12.55
7.15
5.25
37.6
14.9
11,1
11,95
4,9
99,15
3,5
2.85
HH4-N
ppm
5.04
3.36
5.04
6.72
6.72
10.08
5.04
5.04
-0.50
28.56
-0.50
6.72
Ca
meq/
lOOg
17.7
24.5
27.12
27.12
25.5
27.72
26.7
23.25
21.5
22,38
24.5
20.62
Mg
meq/
100 g
8.0
13.13
12.88
13.55
11.0
11.5
11.65
11.65
7.1
7.55
10.05
11.25
Na
meq/
100 g
2.25
7.5
5.8
5.63
8.03
6.45
7.05
6.45
0.13
11.28
7.25
4.53
K
ppm _
213
238
213
275
238
213
213
213
213
275
213
213
S04
ppm
+137. 5(
+137.5
+137.5
+ 137.5
+137.5
+137.5
+ 137.5
--
+137.5
+ 137.5
+ 137.5
B
ppm
0.31
0.27
0.43
0.78
0.49
0.47
0.24
0.23
0.33
0.42
0.86
0.28
Texture
-
Sicl
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
L
L
Sicl-
CL
Sll
P04-P
pp» .
12.5
12.5
7.7
12.5
1 2.5
12.5
23.5
23.5
14.5
12.5
17.5
14.5
Zn
ppm
0.78
0.92
2.3
2.08
4.04
1.80
1.20
1.44
0.28
4.84
2.50
1.20
Fe
ppm
32.0
55.0
70.0
92.0
84.0
49.0
44.0
49.0
46.0
80.0
66.0
52.0
Cu
ppm
2.4
2.8
3.6
4.1
5.7
3.6
2.9
2.8
1.2
6.1
3.6
2.9
Mn
ppm
1.4
1.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.0
4.0
5.4
2.8
1.2
Pb
ppm
1.05
1.05
0.5
1.86
1.86
1.05
1.86
1.05
1.32
0.78
1.32
1.05
Cd
''P-Pm
-0.11
-0.11
0.23
0.11
0.23
0.23
-0.11
0.11
-0.11
0.23
0.11
0.11
Nl
0.77
1.31
2.14
2.42
3.29
1.72
0.64
1.31
1.17
2.85
1.58
0.90
-p-
NJ
— No Sample
-------
as compared to the two areas in Montana. This heavy texture has created
a number of problems associated with watershed installation, operation,
and maintenance. Slumping has occurred which caused alteration of surface
flow gradients in several watersheds. Consequently, surface flow water
collection facilities were rendered useless until modified. Also, numerous
large and small, extremely deep holes (termed "piping") have developed on
these watersheds. Remedial tactics in plugging these holes with bentonite
and straw have been successful.
Table 17 presents results of the particle size analyses of the
surface 15 cm of soil in each watershed. The Colstrip site was found to
Table 17. Particle size analyses of the surface 15 cm of soil in
each treatment watershed at the Colstrip, Savage and
Beulah Demonstration Areas. Samples were collected
during the summer of 1975.
Watershed
Treatment
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basin
% Sand
68
74
67
78
59
51
57
56
37
41
11
64
17
58
55
% Silt
Colstrip
21
14
23
11
29
Savage
34
27
26
39
34
Beulah
49
20
46
23
25
% Clay
11
12
10
11
12
15
16
18
24
25
40
16
37
19
20
Textural
Class
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
loam
loam
silty clay loam
sandy loam
silt clay loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
43
-------
be typically a sandy loam while the Savage site was loam and sandy loam
in texture. At the Beulah site the topsoil was a sandy loam texture with
spoils material a silt clay loam texture. Therefore, the effect of surface
manipulation is being evaluated on the variety of textural classes from
sandy at Colstrip to clayey at Beulah.
Table 18 presents results of the clay mineralogy analyses. It should
be pointed out that clay mineralogy determinations by any technique are
Table 18. Clay mineralogy analyses for the Colstrip, Savage and Beulah
Demonstration Areas. Samples were collected during the summer
of 1975 from the surface 15 cm of each treatment watershed.
Watershed
Treatment
nontops oil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basin
nontop soil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basin
* very high = 75-100%
high = 50-75%
moderate = 25-50%
low = 5-25%
Type and Predominance* of Clay Mineral
Smectite
low-mod
low
mod
0
low
mod
mod-high
mod
mod-high
mod-high
high
mod-high
high
mod-high
high
Illite
low-mod
mod
low
mod
mod
mod
low-mod
mod
low-mod
low- mod
low
mod
low
low
low
Kaolinite
Colstrip
mod
mod
low-mod
mod
mod
Savage
low
low
low
low
low
Beulah
tr-low
low
trace
tr-low
tr-low
Quartz
0
0
trace
0
0
0
trace
0
trace
trace
0
0
tr-low
0
0
Chlorite
low
low
tr-low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
Vermiculite
trace
0
low
0
0
trace
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
trace = less than 5%
44
-------
qualitative in nature, thus exact numbers are not derived. Watersheds
at the Colstrip Demonstration are dominated by nonexpanding clays, i.e.
illite and kaolinite. Expanding smectite clay was also present in
quantities as high as 50%, but the dominance of illite and kaolinite would
permit little swelling effect in this spoil system. The demonstration
areas at both Savage and Beulah are dominated by smectite clay.
Therefore, if all three demonstrations had identical slope and were
similar in all other respects, the runoff would be expected to be greater
at the Savage and Beulah watersheds as compared to the Colstrip watersheds.
This could be attributed to the swelling of the smectite clays upon
wetting at both Savage and Beulah, thus reducing the infiltration-
percolation rates and increasing runoff.
The surface 15 centimeters of soil at the Savage Demonstration Area
was dominated by expanding clay, i.e. smectite. The nature of this clay
in the soil system tends to close the water conducting pores upon wetting.
Figure 23 (page 49) demonstrates this principle as the infiltration rate
decreased rapidly with time for all treatments. The Beulah Demonstration
Area was also dominated by expanding clays, but as shown in Figure 24
(page 50) the infiltration rates did not decrease rapidly with time as
compared to the results noted at the Savage Demonstration Area. One
possible explanation for this observation was that the salt concentration
in the bulk soil solution was higher in concentration than that in the
overlapping diffuse layers of the clay particles, as described by Gouy
(1910) diffuse layer theory. By osmosis mechanisms, this would mean water
could not readily flow between clay particles and cause this clay to expand,
thereby decrease infiltration. Soil analyses from this site indicated
saline conditions,so this is a potential mechanism to explain our
observations. 45
-------
WATERSHED INFILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
Infiltration is the process by which water enters the soil through
the surface. The rate of this process is of prime concern in watershed
studies because infiltration rate on slopes with little vegetation is
an important factor in determining runoff and erosion characteristics.
The infiltration rates were determined at the Cols trip, Savage and
Beulah Demonstrations on three types of surface manipulation treatments.
Methodology
The infiltrometer apparatus is shoxra in Figure 21. Meeuwig (21)
Figure 21. Infiltration apparatus in operation showing runoff into a cup.
46
-------
described construction of this apparatus. Basically the device consists
of a plexiglass water reservoir which delivers a raindrop effect onto
the soil surface through 517 capillary tubes. A flowmeter registers
the water application rate while soil surface runoff is funneled into
2
a measuring cup. The infiltrometer encompasses a .31 m sample area.
Simulated rainfall was applied at a rate of 15 cm/hr and readings were
made every 2.5 minutes during a 30 minute test. The high rate of water
application simulated a severe rainstorm in volume of water applied,
but not in raindrop collision force.
No infiltration measurements were made on watersheds with the
gouge treatment. The spacing and size of these gouges compared to the
infiltrometer dimensions invalidated the technique. No complications
arose on watersheds that were chiseled and topsoil-chiseled. The
infiltrometer was set up in the bottom of dozer basins rather than
between the basins.
Results
Figures 22, 23 and 24 describe the infiltration characteristics at
the three Demonstration Areas. The surface 15 cm of soil at the Colstrip
Demonstration was dominated by non-expanding clays, i.e. kaolinite and illite
(see Clay Mineralogy section in this report). When this clay type is
present,the infiltration rate tends to remain rapid with time since these
clays swell little upon wetting, thus the water conducting pores remain
open. Figure 22 substantiates this principle as the infiltration rates
remained relatively rapid throughout the 30 minute test in the chiseled
watersheds. The topsoiled-dozer basin watershed infiltration rate
47
-------
2 Ibpsoil dozer basin
3 Tbpsoil chiseling
5 Chiseling
10 15 2O
Time (Minutes)
25
30
Figure 22. Infiltration rates as a function of three surface manipulation treatments at the
Colstrip Demonstration Area during August( 1975. The first identification digit
represents treatment while the second denotes replication.
-------
/ Topsoil chiseling
Chiseling
5 Topsoil dozer basin
-<>
-< 5-2
-m 5-3
10 15 20
Time (Minutes)
Figure 23. Infiltration rates as a function of three surface manipulation treatments at the Savage
Demonstration Area during August, 1975. The first identification digit represents
.treatment while the second denotes replication.
-------
Ln
O
16
± 12
o
8
/ Topsoil chiseling
3 Chiseling
5 Topsoil dozer basin
10 15 2O
Time (Minutes)
25
30
Figure 24. Infiltration rates as a function of three surface manipulation treatments at the
Beulah Demonstration Area during August, 1975. The first identification digit
represents treatment while the second denotes replication.
-------
decreased with time, but the rate of decrease was considered moderate.
Although the watershed with dozer basins was topsoiled, the base of these
basins lies below the topsoil layer. Therefore, the comparatively lower
infiltration rate measured in the bottom of these dozer basins was, in part,
due to no topsoil. The watershed that was topsoiled and chiseled had the
greatest infiltration rate at the Colstrip Demonstration.
Figure 23 shows the infiltration rate over time for three surface
treatments at the Savage Demonstration. As previously discussed, the
dominant clay mineral located in the surface soil at this demonstration
was smectite. Therefore, a rapidly decreasing infiltration rate during
a precipitation event could have been expected, since substantial swelling
of the soil particles would probably occur resulting in closure of soil
water conducting pores. Figure 23 demonstrates this phenomenon. A rapid
decrease in infiltration rate was measured in these watersheds, regardless
of surface modification type or the presence of topsoil. Since there
was little difference in infiltration rates between watersheds, a valid
comparison of runoff as a function of surface manipulation treatment
depression volumes is possible at this Demonstration Area.
Figure 24 shows the infiltration rate over time for three surface
treatments at the Beulah Demonstration. The surface clav mineralogy at
this demonstration was dominated by smectite, and the physical analysis
indicated a high percentage of clay was present. Also the soil material
at this site contains relatively high concentrations of sodium. These
characteristics would generally result in a soil with extremely low
infiltration rates. However, data in Figure 24 demonstrate that during
51
-------
a 30-m±nute test the infiltration rates did not in all cases decrease
substantially. The infiltration rate of the dozer basin treatment was
low after 30 minutes, but neither chiseling treatment underwent a substan-
tial decrease with time. The soil surface on these watersheds exhibited
considerable cracking due to the forces of swelling and shrinking. On
such surface the infiltration rate may initially be high as water is
transmitted through the cracks, but the infiltration rate would nrobably
decline rapidly with time as the cracks closed due to swelling. Therefore,
if the infiltration test on these chiseled watersheds would have been
conducted longer than 30 minutes, it is highly probable that the rate of
infiltration would have approached zero. The foregoing prediction was
substantiated through field observations completed several days following
an intense precipitation event which revealed large quantites of water
remaining ponded in depressions formed in nontopsoiled treatments.
52
-------
WATERSHED SURFACE STABILITY AND EROSION CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
Several severe rainstorms occurred during the spring of 1975 at the
Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstration Areas. At that time the sur-
face manipulation treatments had not been installed at the Beulah area,
and watershed boundary and surface flow diversion installations had not
been completed at the other two areas. Consequently, during these storms
the watershed areas upslope from the microwatersheds contributed extra
runoff across the surface manipulation treatments. Following these
rains many gully systems were present, but the degree of severity
varied between treatments.
Methodology
Sketches were made of the gully patterns in each watershed and the
volume of these gullies were determined by on-site measurements.
Results
Figure 25 illustrates the gully formation patterns across watersheds
located at the Colstrip and Savage Demonstration Areas. The volume of
each gully, identified by an alphabetic letter, is shown in Table 19.
These data show that compared to all treatments, watersheds with top-
soil-dozer basins were most effective in reducing erosion processes
which led to gully formation. Topsoiled watersheds with the gouged
53
-------
Savage Demonstration
Dozer Basins Chiseled
Topsoiled
B
Gouged
Ibpsoiled
BC
Gouged
Chiseled
Ibpsoiled
A B
Colstrip Demonstration
Gouged Dozer Basins Chiseled Gouged
Ibpsoiled Ibpsoiled Ibpsoiled
Chiseled
Figure 25. Gully formation patterns across watersheds located at
the Colstrip and Savage Demonstrations. Data were
collected during August 1975.
54
-------
Table 19. Volume of individual gullies as illustrated in Figure 25.
Watershed
Treatment
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basins
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
topsoil-dozer basins
3
Gully Volume (m )
A B G D E F Total
Savage Demonstration
6.20 2.40 0.30 0.30 3.40 1.40 14.00
0.05 2.20 3.20 1.40 6.85
1.00 14.70 11.30 0.40 5.00 4.10 36.50
12.7 8.0 20.70
0.60 2.10 2.70
Colstrip Demonstration
8.10 1.00 0.60 9.7
0.20 .06 0.40 0.60 1.26
3.90 2.70 6.6
0.50 5.20 5.70
NONE
treatment were more effective in controlling erosion as compared to
nontopsoil-gouged, topsoil-chiseled and nontopsoil-chiseled watersheds.
These data demonstrate that topsoiling had the effect of reducing
erosion. Both the gouged and chiseled watersheds with topsoil underwent
less gully formation as compared to nontopsoil-gouged and chiseled
watersheds.
55
-------
. SURFACE MANIPULATION DEPRESSION WATER CAPACITY
AND SEDIMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
The main objective of surface manipulation treatment is the
reduction of surface runoff and associated sedimentation. Depressions
that are created roust have a sufficiently long life to reduce erosion
while vegetation is being established.
The capacity of basins to hold surface runoff is of prime
importance. Depression capacity is defined as that volume of water
that may be held in the basins without overflow occurring. Infiltration
is prevented in the field measurement of depression capacity. Therefore,
in reality, infiltration is expected to increase the depression water
capacity of all surface treatments.
Methodology
Surface detention capacity of each treatment was determined at
all three Demonstration Areas during the summer of 1975 and again
during the summer of 1976. A light weight plastic sheet was placed
2
over a chiseled area and a wooden frame, 1m in dimension, was placed
over the plastic. As water was applied onto the sheet the weight
adjusted the plastic to conform with the soil surface. Excess
water was allowed to drain , and that detained was measured in a graduated
cylinder. This measurement was replicated three times in each
chiseled watershed and data were extrapolated to a per unit hectare
basis.
A similar procedure was used on watersheds with gouged and
dozer basin surface manipulations. Here, a single gouge or dozer
56
-------
basin was lined with a plastic sheet and then filled to capacity
with water, and the water volume was measured. This test was
replicated three times and the data extrapolated to a per unit
hectare basis. In order to determine sedimentation characteristics
in each treatment, the associated loss of water storage capacity
with time was determined.
Results
The density of surface depressions varies considerably from
treatment to treatment (Table 20). Chiseling as a treatment is not
Table 20. Mean surface density of depressions created by surface
manipulation techniques at the Colstrip, Savage and
Beulah Demonstration Areas.
Treatment Depressions per unit area (ha)
Colstrip Demonstration
topsoil-gouged 7,815
nontopsoil-gouged 4,775
topsoil-dozer basin 1,220
Savage Demonstration
topsoil-gouged 6,230
nontopsoil-gouged 5,646
topsoil-dozer basin 825
Beulah Demonstration
topsoil-gouged 5,325
nontopsoil-gouged 4,025
topsoil-dozer basin 375
intermittent across an area, but consists of closely spaced, contin-
uous channels which are placed on the contour. As a treatment,
chiseling can be considered more easily to have a capacity to hold
water than to have a density. The spacing of channels is controlled
57
-------
by the distance between chisels on the chisel plow. The density of
a surface manipulation treatment varies from several hundred to
thousands of depressions per hectare. Even with the most dense
gouging treatments, not all of the land surface will be actively
entrapping precipitation.
The detention capacity of the surface manipulation treatments
evaluated was greatest for dozer basins, intermediate for gouging,
and least for chiseling (Table 21). A considerable amount of variation
Table 21. The average water depression capacity on mine spoil
watersheds as a function of five treatments at the
Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstration Areas.
Surface Water Holding Capacity (L/Ha x 103)'
Treatments Colstrip Savage Beulah
Before Sedimentation*
nontopsoil -chiseled
topsoil -chiseled
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil -chiseled
topsoil -chiseled
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil -chiseled
topsoil -chiseled
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
topsoil-dozer basin
--
--
24.7
68.2
522.9
186.5
81.4
11.3
52.8
516.4
29.1
3.7
1.4
7.4
295.8
--
__
38.2
25.6
128.8
July, 1975
37.9
0.0
0.7
0.0
125.3
June, 1976
0.4
0.3
5.1
2.2
207.9
122.2
176.4
133.8
189.5
—
--
--
--
--
--
27.2
30.9
113.5
198.7
"
* The Colstrip and Savage Demonstration Areas were measured during April,
1975 and the Beulah Area in August, 1975.
-- Data not collected.
58
-------
was observed between field sites and topsoiled and non-topsoiled
areas. The depression capacity of topsoiled surface treatments was
greater on the average than the same treatments on non-topsoiled
areas. This may have been the result of larger gouged and dozer
basins being constructed in the softer topsoiled areas.
The capacity of a surface treatment to hold water is of little
value if the treatment is not long lasting. The rate of sedimentation
of basins in a period of time should give an indication of life
expectancy. The rate of sedimentation of the surface treatments
between April, 1975 and June, 1976 was measured (Table 22) by the
Table 22. Estimated rate of sedimentation and life expectancy of
5 surface manipulation treatments constructed at the Colstrip,
Savage, and Beulah Demonstration Areas.
Treatment Detention Capacity
Decrease per Year (%)
Minimum Effective
Life of Depression (yrs.)
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
topsoil-dozer basin
nontopsoil-chiseled
topsoil-chiseled
nontopsoil-gouged
topsoil-gouged
topsoil-dozer basin
Colstrip Demonstration
92 < 2
85 < 2
96 < 2
94 < 2
47 > 5
Savage Demonstration
100. < 1
100. < 1
100. < 1
100. < 1
Beulah Demonstration
85
90
17
0
< 2
< 2
> 5
> 5
Missing data
59
-------
methods previously described. It is apparent from these data that
additional measurements will be necessary to better quantify this
sedimentation process. There are some data discrepancies where the
detention capacity for a treatment increased over time. This error
originates from not conducting sedimentation measurements at the same
locations on these watersheds. Apparently the sedimentation process
is variable across each watershed. Permanent markers have been installed
in order to perform these measurements at the same location over a
period of time.
60
-------
THE CHEMISTRY OF RUNOFF FROM SPOILS
Introduction
Major streams draining intensive agricultural areas have been
monitored for water quality for at least 30 years (3, 14, 27, 37).
These data indicate no significant change in water quality even though
fertilizer use has increased severalfold in these areas. However,
other researchers who have studied runoff from agricultural lands on
a smaller scale have measured excessive concentrations of elements,
particularly NO -N (23, 24, 35, 5). Therefore, in addition to trace
element concerns, the quality of runoff waters from spoils is of
importance since moderate to near maximum rates of fertilizer may be
used on newly seeded spoils for vegetation establishment to gain surface
stability in the shortest time possible.
The physical, chemical and biological effects of sediment in water
makes it a primary hazard to water quality. Wadleigh (33) estimated
that four billion tons of sediment wash into the United States' waterways
each year and each ton contains 0.9 Kg of N and 0.6 Kg of P.
It has been well established (15,22,30) that sediment contains
higher concentrations of nutrients than the soil that remains. For
example, in Wisconsin (19) investigators found that eroded material
contained 2.7 times as much N, 3.4 times as much P, and 19.3 times as
much exchangeable K as the soil that remained. It could be assumed
this same phenomenon would apply to most anions and cations. Little
fertilizer P leaches through the soil or runs off as inorganic PO, in
solution, but it can wash off as phosphorus absorbed in sediment
(17, 29, 31).
61
-------
Sediment acts as a scavenger with the ability to absorb or desorb
elements on its chemically active surface (11» 20). Therefore, sediment
as a pollutant has a two-fold detrimental effect on the environment.
It depletes the land resource from which it came and often impairs the
quality of the water resource in which it is deposited.
Methodology
At the flume of each xvatershed, a portable, automated water sampler
was installed to collect samples during each runoff event. Each unit
was set to collect a sample at the event initiation and at equal time
increments until the event ended or the 24-bottle capacity was filled.
The sampler was designed with a high velocity fluid transport system to
help prevent settling out of suspended solids. Thus, a rather represen-
tative sediment sample can be attained.
Sample preservation prior to laboratory analysis was as outlined by
the Environmental Protection Agency (8). Table 23 describes the preserva-
tion methodology. The H SO. acts as a bacterial inhibitor, the UNO
prevents metal precipitation, and refrigeration acts as a bacterial
inhibitor. All water sample containers underwent a cleansing process
before use which included scrubbing with soap, rinsing several times with
tap water, rinsing with a dilute HC1 solution and finally rinsing several
times with distilled water. Specific procedures used in the analysis of
water samples are summarized in Table 24.
62
-------
Table 23. Water sample preservation treatment and corresponding
analyses performed. All samples were refrigerated upon
treatment.
Preservation
Treatment
Analysis Performed
None
H SO, to pH < 2
HNO- to pH< 2
pH, electrical conductance, settleable
matter, SO , CO , HCO , PO.-P, B
NO -N
Se, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Mn, Cu, Zn, Pb,
Cd, Fe (Dissolved metals)
Table 24. Summary of laboratory procedures used for runoff water
analyses.
Element
Procedure *+
Pb, Cd, Cu, Fe, Zn, Mg, Mn,
Ca, Na, K
Se
Settleable Matter
PH
Conductivity . .
HC03, 0)3 ...
Sulfate
P04-P
Boron
Nitrate-N ....
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Gaseous Hydride Method
Imhoff Cone
Electrode
Conductance Bridge - Meter
Titration
Turbidimetric
Persulfate digestion—colorimetric
Curcumin Method
Cd reduction
*A11 procedures were from "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes." EPA (8).
+A11 metal analyses are dissolved metals. EPA specifications state
water samples for dissolved metal analyses should be filtered
(.45 micron) soon as possible to remove sediment material. This
operation was performed in the lab at Montana State University which
was generally several days after the sample had been collected at
the field sites. Current plans are to filter future samples in the
field.
63
-------
Results and.Discussion
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the quality of
runoff waters from spoils. In order to do this, surface water quality
not associated with spoils must be considered, that is, baseline water
quality characteristics should be determined. Thus, a discussion
follows which indicates what the literature considers acceptable levels
of water quality.
On a national basis, federal agencies have published water quality
criteria for various uses (Tables 25, 26). Although these standards
Table 25. Drinking water standards of the U.S. Public Health Service
Substances
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium (Cr^6)
Copper
Cyanide (Cn)
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Nitrate (NO.,)
Phenols
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate (804)
Total dissolved solids
Zinc (Zn)
Recommended Limits of
Concentrations mg/1
0.01
-
-
250.0
' -
1.0
0.01
0.6-1.7
0.3
-
0.05
45.0
0.001
-
-
250.0
(TDS) 500.0
5.0
Mandatory Limits of
Concentrations mg/1
0.05
1.0
0.01
-
0.05
-
0.2
-
-
0.05
-
-
-
0.01
0.05
-
-
—
United States Public Health Service standards, 1962.
Public Health Service Publication 956.
64
-------
21
Table 26. Recommended surface water criteria for public water
supplies, including agricultural irrigation.
Constituent or Characteristic
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chloride +fi
Chromium (Cr )
Copper
Iron (filterable)
Lead
Manganese (filterable)
Nitrates plus nitrites
pH (range)
Selemium
Silver
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
(filterable residue)
Zinc
Permissible
"Criteria mg/1
0.5(as N)
0.05
1.0
1.0
0.01
250.0
0.05
1.0
0.3
0.05
0.05
10 (as N)
6.0-8.5
0.01
0.05
250.0
500.0
5.0
Desirable
Criteria mg/1
< 0. 01
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
< 25
Absent
Virtually absent
Virtually absent
Absent
Absent
Virtually absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
<50
< 200
Virtually absent
21
Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria, F.W.P.C.A., U.S.
Department of Interior, 1968.
are widely quoted for water quality, they are not directly
applicable to every situation. In some sections of the United
States, such as eastern Montana, the quality of water available from
domestic supplies and some municipal supplies does not meet the
following standards in one or more respects. Nevertheless, people
in such areas have used these waters for lifetimes or
generations.
To further orient the discussion on runoff water quality from
spoils, surface water quality records from eastern Montana are
presented. The U.S. Department of Interior Geological Survey (32)
65
-------
has collected surface water quality records in Montana for many years.
Two of these years, 1964 and 1972, are presented in Table 27. These
two years were chosen because they represent a time span and contained
the most complete and intensive data from the twelve sites discussed
(compared to adjacent years). Although neither Tables 25 and 26 nor
Table 27 present the complete list of macro and trace elements, a
general overview is attained. In instances where these tables can be
compared, the surface waters of eastern Montana do not, on the average,
contain element concentrations in excess of national standards.
Tables 28, 29, and 30 present runoff chemistry data from the surface
manipulation spoil watersheds at the Cols trip, Savage and Beulah
Demonstrations. Three sample bottles were generally required to obtain
a complete chemical analysis due to the need for the different preser-
vation treatments (Table 23). As a result, analyses for a single runoff
event on a calendar date, shown in Tables 28-30, usually represent a
combination of samples which may have been obtained several hours or
several days apart. This technique could result in chemical relationships
which appear contradictory within the complete analysis, such as ionic
balance or the ratio between dissolved solids and specific conductance.
It is felt, however, that the technique is adequate for establishing and
monitoring baseline chemical characteristics. The following paragraphs
discuss the chemical characteristics of runoff from mine spoils at the
three Demonstration areas.
66
-------
Concentrations of the major cations (calcium, magnesium, and
sodium) are not particularly high at any of the Demonstration Areas. The
concentrations, in general, are consistent with values for other surface
waters in southeastern Montana (Table 27). There was some indication that
sodium values may have increased during the spring and summer of 1976.
However, due to sample contamination and analytical problems, this trend
could not be confirmed. Average values for the major anions (bicarbonate
and sulfate) were generally within the range of values shown in Table 27.
Concentrations of PO.-P ranging from .02 to .05 ppm have been
reported (1, 31) as minimal for supporting algal blooms. Applying this
criterion, the PO.-P levels measured in these runoff samples frequently
attained or exceeded this concentration. However, it should not be
concluded that this PO.-P runoff phenomenon is peculiar only to spoil
systems. For example, about 161 km (100 mi) from Colstrip in the
irrigated Yellowstone Valley , a three-year study (7) included measurements
of PO.-P concentrations in runoff waters from fertilized crop land. Here
concentrations ranged from .15 to 1.0 ppm, which is generally higher than
the levels measured at all three spoil watershed sites.
The sodium absorption ratio (SAR) is defined by Equation 1 where
%
SAR = Na/(Ca * % ' Eq. 1
the concentrations are in milliequivalents per liter. The SAR concept
is important regarding the suitability of waters for agricultural irrigation.
The sodium content of a soil system can increase when irrigation water is
applied with SAR>15. This is an undesirable process which could result
67
-------
in the development of a soil with sodic characteristics. Such, soils have
poor physical conditions, very low infiltration rates and can create
difficulties associated with soil-plant water relations. The SAR levels
in runoff waters at all three Demonstration Areas were somewhat sporadic
with time. In addition, problems with the sodium analysis limited the
amount of SAR data available for review. Hopefully, as this study matures,
these SAR data will develop a pattern.
Most trace elements were found in low concentrations in runoff waters
at all three Demonstrations. Manganese and iron were the only consistent
exceptions. Concentrations of these elements in runoff waters at all
Demonstrations often exceeded federal standards for drinking water, but
were probably acceptable for irrigation purposes. Both lead and cadmium
were found in generally acceptable concentrations at all Demonstrations
with only occasional samples exceeding drinking water standards. Selenium
concentrations in runoff waters were found to be consistently low, and
this laboratory determination was eventually discontinued. Both copper
and zinc were present in low concentrations at all three Demonstrations.
There were few distinguishable characters between Demonstration Areas
and between treatments in terms of the chemistry, of runoff waters.
Although there are some exceptions to the above statements, more data
are needed to substantiate these relationships.
Data in Tables 28, 29, and 30 are arranged sequentially by date and
runoff event. One might anticipate that the chemistry of the runoff would
change during an event, and certainly differences in the sediment load
could be expected. At present these data do not demonstrate such trends.
68
-------
There do not appear to be trends in these runoff data as a
function of surface manipulation treatments. However, the point should
be made that these data are presented in terms of concentrations and the
concentration multiplied by the runoff volume is the nutrient load
leaving the watershed. Different volumes of runoff as a function of the
surface manipulation were measured, and are discussed in another section
of this report (Hydrologic Balance of the Spoil Biosphere); thus, the
surface treatments have an indirect effect on the amount of actual
chemical load that was leaving spoils as runoff.
69
-------
Table 27. Surface water quality records* in southeastern Montana during 1972 and 1964.
•K
O as
S S Fe Mn Ca Mg
to £
1 .021 .015 17.9 5.56
2 .033 — 34 11.2
3 .025 .020 68.9 22.6
4 -- — 65.6 21.8
5 .0181 .0125 58.1 23.6
6 .0139 .020 57 33.8
7 .0236 — 69.2 23.7
8 .0141 .0145 46.8 16.1
9 .1383 — 66.8 41.3
10 .0308 — 60.7 41.2
11 — .0167 126.6 52.7
12 .0291 .0109 53.5 21
2 .0012 40.7 11.5
3 .OOuG 77.4 25.8
7 .012 79 24.6
10 .006 66.2 48.4
12 .015 53 22.3
of the Interior Geological Survey.
*Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ppm)
SAB
Na K SO, Cl N03 P CO, HCO,
+ N02
1972
14.6 3.42 25.3 6.9 .05 .065 0 86.2 .72
21.5 3.02 63.3 5.8 .19 — 0 136.7 .82
71.2 3.24 254 12.4 — — 0 177.7 1.9
54 — 238 9.6 .28 .093 — — 1.6
20.9 1.71 112 1.5 .07 .03 0 224 .61
48.9 2.7 190 3.2 .08 .04 0 236 1.2
71.8 3.6 252 9.5 .26 — 2.7 188 1.9
46.3 3.3 144 8.0 .34 .07 .58 156 1.4
31.7 3.1 182 3.8 — — .58 233 .76
68.7 5.2 235 4.0 .14 — 0 269 1.7
180.4 — 582 .33 .03 — — 3.38
63.3 3.9 198 11.6 .20 .03 0 183 1.84
1964
27.3 3.2 78.7 5.9 .72 0 145 .94
90.9 3.6 294.1 13.5 1.04 0 195 2.16
90.7 3.3 308.3 10.1 .98 0 204 2.26
67.3 4.3 237.7 5.0 .26 0 272 1.58
63.9 3.9 205.9 10.0 3.04 0 180 1.65
Location
Yellowstone River near Livingston, MT
Yellowstone River at Billings, MT
Bighorn River at Kane, WY
Bighorn River near Hard In, MT
Little Bighorn River below Pass Creek near Wyola, MT
Little Bighorn River near Hardln, MT
Bighorn River at Bighorn, MT
Yellowstone River near Miles City, MT
Tongue River at State Line near Decker, MT
Tongue River at Miles City, MT
Powder River at Moorhead , MT
Yellowstone River near Sidney, MT
w
u 1 ?
C u ~o> pH
Roo
«ll
(^ O B
V) u '-'
.208 7.7
.348 7.8
.789 7.9
.766 8.0
.542 8.0
.716 8.1
.815 8.1
.555 7.8
.706 8.1
.860 7.9
1.640 7.8
.700 7.9
.407 7.4
.920 7.6
.957 7.7
.862 7.8
.718 /.8
U.S. Dept.
70
-------
Table 28. Chemical analyses of runoff water from mine spoil watersheds subjected to different surface manipulation treatments located at the Western
Energy Mine near Colstrip, Montana.
Date of
Collection
10/30/75
06/29/76
06/29/76
06/29/76
06/29/76
06/29/76
07/14/76
10/30/75
05/05/76
05/12/76
nfi/i s/7fi
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
04/28/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/12/76
05/12/76
05/28/76
06/15/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/12/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/05/76
05/12/76
05/28/76
05/28/76
t
o
2 T3
.8 •
2t £
s"
8.3
6.6*
7.1
7.0
6.9«
6.9*
8.4
7. 9
7 0
'
8.5
8.6
8.3
8.2
8.5
8.3
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.9
7.8
7.4
7.5
6.6*
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.6
8.8
9.1
8.7
8.8
8.4
7.6
8.0
7.0
7.5
8.9 '
7.8
8.0
7.6
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.6*
6.6*
2 f
n) u '.: ^ a) ~ 8 a . •
j;~ K s-., i v, ii,! 1- i- V~
uu op mo no n.o Q ^ e *•• OIM -H to 9™
n X .oO *- <7> u £ M o. 8 * 0 « e £ uu -HZ
-4Q3 •* £ O O « W O
mow K £ o. m r o «
mg/1
TOPSOIL GOUGED
213 0 127 .01 .15 4 - 5.0 37.0 130
223 0 11.5 0 .03 - .17 50.4 301
92 0 11.4 0 .01 - .03 11.2 57.0
94 0 6.9 .18 0 - .03 16.6 81.5
107 0 11.3 .16 .05 - .06 11.0 50.5
75 0 12.9 0 .08 - .06 11.4 54.0
TOPSOIL DOZER BASINS
213 0 135 .33 .36 6 - 13.0 37.0 110
128 0 61 - 02—07- - -
TOPSOIL CHISELED
147 - 9.8 .24 .04 - - 7.6 11.3 <1
154 - 15.6 .80 0 - - 7.1 12.0 <1
161 0 19.5 1.28 0 7.8 15.0 <1
183 0 11.3 .20 0 - - 7.4 12.7 <1
268 - 19.7 1.15 0 - - 8.1 10.8 <1
268 0 24.1 .94 0 - - 9.8 19.4 <1
102 0 7.1 .10 .02 - - 2.8 38.0
74 0 4.8 .07 .01 - - 2.5 40.0
51 0 4.2 .16 .01 - - 3.3 44.5
40 0 3.7 .13 .03 - - 3.0 33.8
46 0 3.5 .15 .01 - - 1.5 27.5
40 0 9.3 .04 .02 - - 1.8 33.3
37 0 8.4 1.62 0 - - 4.1 48.0
43 0 10.6 6.61 0 2.8 27.6
153 0 4.1 .14 0 - .05 3.4 45.0
129 0 5.5 - .01 - .07 -
NONTOPSOILED C.OUGED
107 0 19.6 .11 0 - - 9.8 4.2 2.0
95 0 17.2 .13 0 - - 6.6 8.8 <1
93 0 52.8 .28 .01 - - 7.1 7.6 <1
102 - 8.8 .16 0 - - 7.4 6.1 <1
89 - 8.6 .99 0 - - 7.4 4.9 ' <1
97 - 9.6 .26 0 - - 7.4 5.1 <1
157 - 10.3 4.54 0 - - 7.6 12.5 <1
153 0 11.0 .35 0 7.6 7.4 <1
57 0 7.1 .16 .02 - - 4.5 31.5
57 0 5.0 .12 .01 - - 4.5 27.5
63 0 9.4 . .02 .55 - - 4.6 11.3
58 0 9.1 2.55 0 - - 6.0 19.9
NOBTOPSOILED CHISELED
107 - 26.1 .17 0 - - 17.2 9.8 <1
89 0 15.1 .43 0 - - 7.6 4.4 <1
. - 0 16.0 .53 0 - - 7.5 7.4 <1
55 0 6.8 .16 .01 - - 5.3 27.0
53 0 6.3 .18 .01 - - 5.0 24.8
55 0 10.1 .13 .01 - - 6.8 27.8
49 0 7.5 .15 .01 - - 5.5 24.5
68 0 10.8 .07 .03 - - 4.3 12.5
48 0 8.1 .08 .03 - - 6.0 29.8
55 0 25.6 2.61 0 - - 6.9 16.1
147 0 27.1 .82 .01 - .10 9.0 24.0
89 0 6.0 .57 .16 - .04 4.6 11.5
•«
5.30
-
-
-
-
-
3.96
.
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
.12
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
V
3 1 |
ec£ O.U UN «> « -o ft. _g <-> C t*
c- g.~ c~ ~~ J~ -5- o-
X u M w -i o M
U8/1
298 44 95 3 145 0 24
1500 59 380 - <10 <4 12500
229 19 18 - <10 <4 930
294 24 50 - <10 <4 1775
338 30 150 - <10 <4 980
214 31 285 - <10 <4 1195
1564 90 661 - 15 11 13560
380 17 435 5 55 0 33
101 22 82 00 549
33 11 01 00 295
5 15 01 00 173
72 11 0 <1 07 275
20 16 0 1 22 3 294
25 16 61 <1 53 429
119 4 38 - 12 < 5 <20
74 8 21 - 18 <5 <20
24 <1 10 - 15 < 5 <20
15 3 8 - 10 < 5 <20
<1<1 5 - 14 < 5 <20
33 <1 7 - 20 < 5 <20
155 46 200 - 15 8 208
90 41 71 - 20 7 61
32 42 <10 - <10 <4 106
-_-_-<$
113 19 80 <1 0 8 362
75 13 20 1 35 1 450
40 15 17 1 00 393
31 12 0 1 10 0 195
15 10 01 52 110
27 11 41 <1 00 103
133 15 20 1 00 1622
32 10 0 <1 00 263
165 <1 19 - <10 <5 <20
90 5 22 - <10 <5 <20
46 <1 17 - <10 6 <20
205 58 605 - 20 12 1520
133 22 15 1 10 0 716
17 14 0 <1 00 131
20 19 10 <1 0 0 145
164 12 10 - 15 8 <20
177 4 54 - 17 7 < 20
150 12 133 - 21 < 5 <20
98 4 12 - <10 <5 <20
64 5 11 - <10 <5 <20
185 6 14 - <10 <5 60
100 52 74 - 40 8 170
87 57 <10 - <10 <4 100
23 51 <10 - <10 <4 88
S
c
w "S
S.O
limbos/
en
520
320
140
130
170
140
600
isn
n
180
170
200
170
170
210
190
180
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
170
170
180
150
160
140
140
150
140
150
150
<100
<100
<100
200
140
150
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
115
200
160
«J
3
3 2
w> £
ml/1/
hr
5.3
30.0
6.8
2.9
5.1
1.7
10.0
0.
50.0
52.0
52.0
48.0
92.0
62.0
_
-
-
-
_
_
3.2
36.1
24.1
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.8
2.0
1.3
3.4
3.3
_
_
4.5
2.0
1.9
4.1
_
_
_
_
_
2.9
9.3
5.4
LSuspected contamination or analytical problem for Na after 3/25/76.
71
-------
Table 29. Che
slcal analyses of runoff water fr
:r Mine near Savape, Montana.
spoil watersheds subjected to diffe
nlpulatlun treatments located at the Knife
Dace of
Collection
06/02/76 x
06/02/76
06/07/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
03/25/76
06/02/76
06/02/76
06/03/76
06/03/76
06/03/76
06/07/76
06/07/76
06/07/76
06/13/76
08/09/76
03/25/76
06/02/76
06/02/76
06/07/76
08/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
02/09/76
03/25/76
03/25/76
03/25/76
06/02/76
06/02/76x
06/07/76
07/01/76
08/09/76
08/09/76
08/13/76
06/02/76X
06/02/76
08/09/76
08/09/76
L
m 2
-------
Table 30. Chemical analyses of runoff water from mine spoil watersheds subjected to different surface manipulation treatments located at the Indian Head
Mine near Beulah, North Dakota.
Date of
Collection
02/28/76
06/07/76
06/07/76
09/30/75
02/14/76
02/28/76
09/30/75
02/28/76
02/28/76
02/28/76
02/28/76
03/25/76
06/12/76
06/12/76
o
CO ^N
tJ T3
O •-<
'a %
^J U<
X
a
-
7.7*
7.8*
-
'-
-
-
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.0
6.7*
8.0*
8.8*
cj a.
•CO CJ 55 ^~* 4) ^ E E
O n co.y^ CJ *~* • (1) 1 CO 1 ft f* E ^^
"So oc^no^ co c cue $ ^ c •-* n)«p -^ » 345
a ac .0 c_; u-i in t< E: en a. co s^ o 03 c s: uu -HZ
(jO l^v^^^x 4J ^-' 0s—1 AJ* — U *-* OC — ' fH^-' t) • —
^4rg3 >H XoO^3 CCO
mg/1
OJ
en
a '
CJ 3 E
n'c CU^ CCQ) J3-HT3 CU
C* — o.*— ' c*-' ^H* — ro* — *o* — °' —
CO O -H (1) ft) CO ^
S: O csj t/3 ~) U M
ug/1
TOPSOIL GOUGED
7.3 .12 .03 - - 4.0 12 4.6
3.0 16
2.6 12
.3
-
-
39 2 58 I 50 91
175 41 40 - 40 5 78
42 40 < 10 - < 10 5 40
TOPSOIL DOZER BASINS
84.0 - - 3.3 - 13.5 9 159
293 0 29.1 .40 0 - - 4.5 15 14
7.8
.8
20 28 <5 2 <5 <1 140
81 4 70 1 55 79
NONTOPSOIL GOUGED
18.6 .04 - - - 9.0 40 - - I 410 91 182 2 30 0 179
NONTOPSOILED CHISELED
- 113 - 6.2 - 10.0 13 158
118 0 82.6 <.01 0 - - 34.5 105 17
73 0 21.2 00 - - 11.5 36 14
74 0 57.8 00 - - 11.0 29 22
56 0 - <.01 0 - - 10.5 32 24
85 0 15.5 < .01 0 - - 2.5 15
28.2 98
30.6 82
8.0
.4
.5
.9
1.0
.
-
-
10 42 <5 .8 <5 <1 40
3210 200 688 1 68 0 83500
1560 118 362 2 28 0 42800
1410 84 580 2 25 3 38000
1505 87 298 2 33 2 41000
82 14 202 2 <5 13 380
1556 72 20 10 6 20
388 41 10 10 6 20
CD
U
C
U CO
•H 4J
•H 3
o -a
a. o
C/3 CJ
umhos/
cm
<100
-
-
-
200
220
-
238
140
198
105
160
-
-
CJ
.a
cc
i-t 0)
a) ca
c/l S
ml/1/
hr
-
.
-
-
-
-
.02
24.3
10.6
12.0
4.9
13.9
-
^'•Suspected contamination or analytical problems for Na after 3/25/76.
-------
SOIL HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE
Introduction
Five surface manipulation treatments were designed to capture and
retain precipitation on the slopes of shaped mine spoils. The value of
each treatment is dependent upon its erosion control characteristics and
upon the quantity of water stored for beneficial effects such as vegetation
development. Also, the concern exists that these treatments may retain
greater than normal precipitation, which could initiate deep leaching
effects. This chapter presents data which describe the soil water charac-
teristics over time in each watershed.
Methodology^
Intensive soil moisture content evaluations were completed within
each of the previously described treatment watersheds. In each watershed
five-5 cm inside diameter aluminum neutron access tubes, each extending
approximately to the 250 cm soil depth, were monitored on a monthly basis.
The soil moisture determinations were completed with the neutron scattering
method at 15- to 30- cm increments. A Troxler gauge was used with a
100 millicurrie Americium-Beryllium source emitting high speed neutrons.
Soil moisture data are presented as the volumetric water content,
and one mean value per depth of the five tubes in each watershed is
presented with the standard deviation of the mean.
Soil water desorption characteristics for these watersheds were
determined at the 0.0, .3, and 15 bar pressure levels using standard
pressure plate apparatus (Appendix E). Three cores in increments of 30 cm
taken in each watershed were composited for analysis. All soil samples
74
-------
were air dried and passed through a 2.0 mm sieve. Following pressure
plate analysis the resulting water content at each pressure was multiplied
by the corresponding soil bulk density to convert from water content on a
weight basis to water content on a volume basis.
Bulk density profiles were determined in each watershed (Appendix C).
At the Colstrip and Savage Demonstrations this determination was made
using a Troxler . depth density gauge with a 3.0 millicurrie Radium-226
source emitting gamma radiation. This gauge was lowered down one neutron
access tube in each watershed at 15- to 30- cm increments. This gauge
3
measured the wet soil density in g/cm . The moisture content of this
same soil profile was determined with a Troxler soil moisture gauge. The
dry soil bulk density was then calculated by subtraction.
ResuTts_
Figures 26, 27, and 28 summarize the soil hydrologic cycle recorded
at the Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstrations. Due to consistent soil
moisture trends and the need for legible figures, some monthly readings
are excluded. However, all monthly readings are presented in Appendix B.
As shown in these appendix tables, the five tubes in each watershed were
averaged by depths and standard deviations of these means were determined.
Sometimes the number of tubes (n) was less than five, indicating a tube
could not be used on that date due to a temporary blockage. The standard
deviation of the mean (S-) between tubes within a watershed ranged between
X
about 3 to 13 percent water by volume. Most of this variation was
attributed to actual field moisture variations due largely to soil
textural differences around each tube. Although not shown in these
appendix tables, the standard deviation of the mean for th.e error mean
75
-------
o 5O
g IOO
CO
? ISO
X
PL 200
VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT, %
IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O O IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O O
Topsoil-dozer basins
Nontopsoil- chiseled
IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O
Nontopsoil- gouged
cr-
COLSTRIP
A Feb. 26
O
Date of Sampling
1975 1976
O Feb. 13
O June I
• Aug. 19
- Appro*, plant wilting line
" Appro*, field capacity line
Appro*, soil saturation line
Soil Water Potential Zones
GU3 O.O bars (staturation)
BB O.O to -O.3bars
EH ~O.3to ~I5bars
CH < ~I5 bars (approx.plant wilting zone)
e
O
o
a_
CO
50 -
IOO -
== 150 -
CL
UJ
Q
2OO -
6O
IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O O IO 2O 3O 4O 5O
Figure 26. Soil profile water distribution over time as a function of surface manipulation
treatments at the Colstrip Demonstration.
-------
IO
VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT, %
2O 3O 4O SO 6O O IO 2O 3O 4O SO 6O O
E
°_ 50
IOO
on
— iso
X
jjj 200
Q
Topsoil- dozer
basins
till
Nontopsoil-
chiseled
:::::
iiiii
2O 3O 4O 5O 6O
SAVAGE
Date of Sampling
1975 1976
O Aug. 6
O Oct. II
• Dec. 9
A Jan. 27
O May I
E
o
Approx. plant wilting line
~ ~ - ~ Approx. field capacity line
Approx. soil saturation line
Soil Water Potential Zones
OSO O.Obars (staturation)
1~~1 O. O to -O.3 bars
EH] ~O,3to ~I5 bars
I I < ~/5 £<7/-s (approx. plant wilting zone)
O
a.
CO
Q_
LL)
Q
IO 2O 3O
5O
IOO
— ISO
2OO
5O 6O O IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O
Topsoil-
chiseled
l-::::
liiiii
Topsail-
gouged
Figure 27. Soil profile water distribution over time as a function of surface manipulation
treatments located at the Savage Demonstration.
-------
VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT, %
'Q° O IO 2O 3O -4O 5OJOOIIO O
- Nontopsoil
chiseled
IO 2O 3O 4O 5O
Nontopsoil-
gouged
no
BEULAH
So Date of Sampling
1975 1976
O June 23
O Aug. 25 A April 3
• Nov. 28 O May 5
Appro*, plant wilting line
»•••- Approx. field capacity line
Approx. soil saturation line
Soil Water Potential Zones
E3 O.Obars (staiuration)
r~l O.O to ~O,3bars
H -O.3 to-/5 bars
Ell <-/5 Zja/'S (approx plant wilting zone)
IO 2O 3O 4O 5O JIOI2O O IO 2O 3O 4O
o
O
5O
100
z 150
LJ
Q
2OO
25O
Topsoil-
chiseled
iiii
1
i
i
i
t
i
i
!
I
I
Topsail-
gouged
Figure 28. Soil profile water distribution over time as a function of surface manipulation
treatments located at the Beulah Demonstration.
-------
square term was consistently less than 1.0 percent, indicating the
operator and instrument error was very small.
The approximate plant wilting, field capacity, and soil saturation
lines shown in Figures 26, 27 and 28 define how much water the soil material
will contain at soil water potentials of -15.0, -0.3 and 0.0 bars,
respectively. Saturation (0.0 bars) is that point at which a soil will
no longer absorb water, meaning all the air spaces in the soil matrix are
filled with water. When a soil has been near saturation and then the
gravitational water has been drained away, it is said to be at field
capacity (-0.3 bars). If we were to use many types of plants from many
types of climatological regimes and determined at what soil water potential
they will permanently wilt, their average would be near -15 bars, and the
percentage of water in the soil when this permanent wilting occurs is the
wilting point. The authors realize the technical limitations of these
terms (i.e., wilting point), but also recognize their usefulness in
describing these data to the reader. Further, in our attempt to determine
the desorption characteristics it was realized a certain amount of error
was derived by using samples passed through a 2 mm sieve. The hydraulic
boundary conditions which characterize the field situation are extremely
difficult to reproduce for a soil sample removed from the profile. It has
been suggested by some scientists to use undisturbed core soil material in
this desorption analysis rather than sieving the soil, thereby retaining
some of the physical characteristics such as porosity. Although this
could decrease error and would be an advisable procedure to follow in the
future, the complex problem of reproducing the hydraulic boundary conditions
surrounding the soil core in its profile environment must still be faced.
79
-------
Soil water can be subjected to several different energy forms.
These different forms: of energy direct the flow of soil water and dictate
plant uptake of water from the soil. A detailed discussion of these energy
factors is complex and not necessary for this report. Let it suffice to
say that soil water potential, which is a numerically negative value, is
the criterion for this energy and composed largely of gravitational, matric,
osmotic, and pneumatic potentials (Equation 1).
V=V+V+V+V Eq.l
t g m o p n
where V = total soil water potential
V = gravitational potential; attraction of water
towards the earth's center
¥ = matric potential; adsorption forces between solid
surfaces and water, including cohesive forces
between water molecules .
4* = osmotic potential; attraction between ions and
water molecules
*P = pneumatic potential; forces arising from unequal
pressures in gas phase
For a plant root to absorb water from the soil, it must have an energy,
or plant potential (¥ ), lower (more negative) than the soil water potential
(¥ ). Even though the plant attains a f < V , it may wilt if its roots
cannot physically conduct sufficient water to meet biological and
transpirational demands.
The boundary soil water potential lines in Figures 26, 27 and 28 were
determined from soil desorption work in the laboratory (Appendix E). It
should be noted that this technique .determines the matric potential (4* )
m
component of the total potential (Y ), discussed previously in Equation 1,
80
-------
which is a close approximation of 4* , since the osmotic potential (¥ ),
pnuematic potential (V ), and gravitational potential (V ) would probably
r o
be small in comparison.
Figure 26 presents soil water data from the Colstrip Demonstration
area during the period February, 1975, to May, 1976. Instrumentation
problems associated with the topsoil-dozer basin treatment did not permit
collection of soil water data until late 1975. Only during August, 1975,
was soil near the surface so dry that permanent wilting of vegetation
would likely occur. This was characteristic of all watersheds, although
the topsoil-gouged treatment remained at a somewhat higher moisture level
during this severe dry period. Watershed soil profiles lost considerable
water from June through August. For example, the nontopsoil-chiseled
watershed lost during this period 20.5 cm of water within the soil zone
zero to 225 cm deep. This water was lost by the evapotranspiration process
and additionally by possible drainage deeper than 225 cm. The dominant
plant species during the 1975 summer was Russian thistle (Salsola kali),
while the first year growth of yellow sweetclover (Meli-lotus offioinalis)
was apparent. Annual and perennial grasses were found to be sparse. In
Montana, Baker (2) measured the water use efficiency of a monoculture
Russian thistle crop. He determined that this species had a very high
water use effciency requiring only 200 g of water to produce each gram of
dry matter. It was also found that, compared to a bare soil check plot,
this species used about 34 cm of water from a soil profile 2.5 m deep
during the entire growing season. The level of soil water loss observed
in these spoil watersheds due to evapotranspiration is thus not surprising.
81
-------
General moisture characteristics shared by all treatments showed
that above 50 cm, the soil moisture was maximum in February, 1975, while
below 50 cm, the soil moisture was maximum in June, 1975. Also the profile
water content was at a higher level in 1975 than at the equivalent date in
1976. The high level of moisture in the upper 50 cm of the profile during
February may result from unsaturated flow from substrata towards the
frozen surface. This phenomenon has been observed by researchers (36, 9)
in the northern United States in many types of soils. The mechanism of
this flow is still not resolved, but it has been in part attributed to soil
temperature gradients.
This upward flow occurs as either liquid or vapor flow, or both, and
is a characteristic which may be important in reclamation. If this upward
flow occurs largely in the vapor phase then salt movement towards the
surface is not a factor. However, if this flow is largely in the liquid
phase, the magnitude of these flows appear sufficient to translocate salt
towards the surface. This is a phenomenon that will require further research.
The profiles beneath the topsoil-gouged and topsoil-chiseled treatments
were usually at a somewhat higher moisture level during the year than their
counterparts without topsoil. This suggests that topsoil may tend to increase
the infiltration rate. However, this difference was small, about 5 percent,
and could be due to soil textural differences between watersheds. A profile
high in silt or clay content would characteristically contain more water.
The effects of surface manipulation treatments on detention and storage
of water were best demonstrated during the 1976 spring moisture recharge
period (i.e., the period of February through May, 1976, Figure 26).
82
-------
Snowmelt and precipitation were considerable. During this period the
topsoil-dozer basin treatment underwent a profile recharge equivalent to
13.0 cm of water while the other treatments underwent a recharge of
8.0 cm for topsoil-chiseled, 7.5 cm for nontopsoil-chiseled, 5.0 cm for
topsoil-gouged and 4.5 cm for nontopsoil-gouged(May not included).
These data show that topsoiling in both the chiseled and gouged treatments
resulted in greater profile water recharge compared to the nontopsoil
counterparts. The topsoil-dozer basin treatment had a much greater
surface water detention capacity compared to other treatments which
resulted in maximum storage of precipitation.
These data from the Colstrip Demonstration indicate soil water in
the unsaturated state was flowing below the 250 cm depth, a deep leaching
effect. This can be deduced by the large increases in profile water during
certain months (i.e., June), and these increases were just as prevalent
at the 250 cm depth as they were near the surface. The quantity of water
leaching past the 250 cm depth may have been substantial since the soil
water content in most of the profile when the leaching occurred exceeded
field capacity. The destination of this deep flow could be the saturated
ground-water region at the base of the mine pit. Once this water flows
below the 250 cm depth,it is out of the direct influence of water use by
roots and evaporation, and the likelihood of its continued flow downward
is great. This topic is further discussed in the next chapter of this
report.
Figure 27 presents soil water data from the Savage Demonstration
during period August, 1975, to May, 1976. Instrumentation problems associ-
ated with the nontopsoil-chiseled treatment did not permit collection of
83
-------
soil water data until late 1975. The topsoil-chiseled treatment stored
the greatest amount of soil profile water during the measurement period.
Compared to all watersheds, the nontopsoil-chiseled treatment stored the
least soil profile water, and at any one time contained on the average
about 8% less water than the topsoil-chiseled treatment. This comparison
would suggest topsoiling had the beneficial effect of permitting more
surface water to enter the profile. However, it should be recalled from
an earlier discussion of infiltration rates on these watersheds that no
large differences in infiltration were evident between the topsoil-
chiseled and nontopsoil-chiseled treatments.
A comparison between the gouged treatments indicates the nontopsoiled
treatment contained on the average about 5% more soil water than the
topsoiled treatment. This was true both near the surface and at lower
depths. The soil profile water for the topsoil-dozer basin treatment
demonstrated characteristics similar to the nontopsoil-chiseled and
nontopsoil-gouged treatments.
It should be realized in the above discussion, which indicated
different levels of soil water content between watersheds, that these
soil differences could be due to textural variation as well as to surface
manipulation treatments. Review of an earlier section in this report
shows these watersheds were predominantly .fine sandy loam in texture but
varied from sand to clay. If a watershed contained slightly more silt
or clay, it is conceivable that the water holding capacity of the profile
would be characteristically higher, perhaps by as much as 5% to 10%.
Future studies will evaluate the influence of soil texture at each sampling
site.
84
-------
The monthly profile patterns of recharge and discharge in Figure 27
were very similar between surface treatments. In the root zone, the highest
level of soil moisture was present in May, 1976 in all watersheds, and the
topsoil-chiseled treatment ranked the highest. A high soil moisture content
near the surface during this time of the year is important for successful
vegetation establishment. Sufficient soil water in the top 30 cm of the
profile is critical for survival of both seedlings and second year plant
growth. The driest period near the surface occurred in early October, 1975,
when all treatments contained less than 9% soil water. This level of soil
moisture in predominantly sandy loam soils would place most plants under
extreme water stress. At the deeper depths,soil moisture was at a maximum
in August, 1975. Apparently percolating water from spring precipitation
was sufficient to cause substantial late summer recharge from the 50 cm to
250 cm soil depth. The 0 cm to 50 cm zone was quite dry in late summer due
to the low precipitation during August coupled with the high evapotrans-
piration demands associated with warm temperatures.
Differences between these surface treatments at the Savage Demonstration
were demonstrated most clearly during the 1976 spring recharge period
(i.e., the period February, 1976, to May, 1976, Figure 27). This was a
time when snowmelt and precipitation would test the effectiveness of surface
manipulation to the full extent. During this period the topsoil-gouged
treatment underwent a recharge of 8.0 cm of water in its profile compared
to 6.5 cm for the nontopsoil-gouged, 5.0 cm for the topsoil-chiseled, 4.5 cm
for the nontopsoil-chiseled and 3.5 cm for topsoil-dozer basin treatments.
These data show that gouging was an efficient means of storing precipitation,
and topsoiling provided an added water storage advantage over nontopsoiling
practices.
85
-------
If measurements had been made beyond the 250 cm depth, the soil
profile recharge may have been considerably greater than that indicated
by the above values. The above data indicate that considerable water
movement past this depth occurred between dates of measurement, and this
water was never really quantitatively defined. The amount of leaching past
the 250 cm depth could have been substantial since, as at the Colstrip
Demonstration, the soil water content in most of the profile (when leaching
occurred) was more moist than the estimated field capacity (-0.3 bars).
Figure 28 presents soil water data from the Beulah Demonstration
during the period June, 1975, to May, 1976. Soil moisture content near
the surface never dropped below the -15 bar line. This is not to say that
the surface 1.0 cm to 2.0 cm of soil did not dry out, since severe crust
formation was a strong characteristic of these soils. However, immediately
below the crust, the soil contained sufficient moisture to sustain plant
growth.
The soil texture at this demonstration was predominantly silty clay.
but ranged from loam to clay. The topsoil-gouged watershed was noticeably
higher in clay content compared to the other watersheds,which is the reason
soil moisture in this watershed varied little in the entire profile during
the year. These data in Figure 28 demonstrate that very little profile
recharge occurred during the year. This was probably due to the heavy
texture of these soils, which would tend to lower permeability rates.
Likewise, discharge of soil water in the profile was minimal due to the
high porosity of heavy textured soils which allows the retention of large
amounts of water.
86
-------
The pattern of these data suggests the occurrence of some downward
flow beyond the 250 cm soil depth. However, the amount of this flow was
small since the water content of the profile ranged between field capacity
and wilting point, probably near a soil water potential of -5 to -8 bars.
Thus, very little water was available for the translocation of salts by
leaching.
Differences between these surface treatments at the Beulah Demonstration
were demonstrated most clearly during the 1976 spring period, i.e., the period
February 1976, through April, 1976 (Figure 28). During this period the
accumulation of snow melted and an additional 6.6 cm of precipitation was
measured. The nontopsoil-chiseled treatment profile lost 8.0 cm of water,
nontopsoil-gouged lost 6.5 cm, topsoil-gouged lost 5.5 cm, topsoil-chiseled
lost 5.2 cm, and the • topsoil-dozer basin treatment neither lost nor gained
water in its profile. 'These data indicate a trend where topsoiled watersheds
conserved soil water better than nontopsoiled watersheds, and dozer-basins
conserved water better than either chiseling or gouging. However, none of the
watersheds underwent a profile recharge during a climatologically wet portion
of the year. This silty-clay spoil material, dominated by smectite clay that
was saline and sodic in nature, epitomizes the combination of soil character-
istics most difficult to reclaim in Western areas. Apparently little
infiltration of precipitation can occur in this spoil material. Topsoiling
may enhance infiltration, but the spoil material below acts as a barrier
to water recharge of the deep profile. These data suggest that in heavy
clay soils which are saline-sodic in nature, relief of compaction and
chemical amendments may be necessary corollary procedures in association
with topsoiling and surface depression techniques in order to attain
successful reclamation.
87
-------
Conclusion
Surface manipulation treatments will have varying degrees of success
across different geographic locations when soil profile water recharge is
the main concern. This variation is due to several important factors
affecting the relationship between profile recharge and surface treatment,
including depression volume, depression stability, soil texture, soil
compaction and slope.
Results show the creation of soil surface depressions alone will not
assure the recharge of soil profile water. At this time, these data
indicate that an optimum combination of sufficient topsoil and long life-
large capacity depressions constructed in permeable soil with terrain not
too steep for the type of depressions will result in maximum water recharge
rates.
Data collected at the Beulah Demonstration show that large stable
depressions (dozer basins) as well as gouges were not able to substantially
increase levels of soil profile water recharge. Large volumes of water
were captured by the depressions, but the compact clayey soil restricted
infiltration. The ponded water was eventually lost through evaporation.
As a result, it was observed that concentrations of sodium and other
soluble salt were deposited around the perimeter of each depression.
At the Cosltrip Demonstration, it was shown that dozer basins caused
large increases in soil profile recharge. Further, it was observed that
water detained in the depressions entered the soil profile in less than 24
hours. Unlike those at the Colstrip Demonstration, the dozer basins at
the Savage Demonstration were constructed with the front blade of a smaller
88
-------
cf
o
Figure 29. Dozer Basin constructed at the Savage Demonstration with the
front blade of a dozer (b-above) resulted in a compacted basin
with only one-fourth the detention volume compared to those
produced by the dozer basin blade (a-above).
89
-------
bulldozer because a larger bulldozer required to operate the dozer basin
blade was not available (Figure 29). Data indicated that the depressions
formed with the front mounted blade were unsatisfactory compared to the
basin formed with the rear mounted designed basin blade. Depressions
formed with the front mounted dozer blade had a water detention capacity
only one-fourth as great as the depressions formed with the basin blade
(Table 21, page 58). It was observed that the front mounted blade also
formed a highly compacted, smooth depression bottom which was unsuitable
as a seedbed and apparently reduced water infiltration rates.
At both the Colstrip and Savage Demonstrations the topsoil-gouged and
topsoil-chiseled watersheds consistently underwent more soil profile water
recharge during a precipitation event, compared to their nontopsoiled
counterparts. Compared to the subsoil, the topsoil is a loose-friable
material that provides an ideal medium conducive to construction of
gouged and chiseled surface manipulation techniques. This ability to
physically manipulate the topsoiled surface in an efficient manner and
to influence and enhance infiltration rates resulted in greater soil
water recharge.
The amount of water leaching beyond the 250 cm depth at the Colstrip
ana Savage Demonstrations could be substantial. At the Beulah Demonstration
it appeared that very little soil water flow occurred downward through the
profile. The next chapter attempts to further quantify the leaching effect.
90
-------
HYDROLOGIC BALANCE OF THE SPOIL BIOSPHERE
Introduction
Soil surface manipulation treatments were designed to increase the
conservation of surface soil moisture and to control erosion due to
runoff. In order to evaluate treatment effectiveness and determine
overall treatment influence on soil water relationships, the hydrologic
balance was quantified. The hydrologic balance is simply a budgeting
procedure which presents the inputs and outputs of water from the soil
system.
Methodology
The principle of conservation of energy states that energy entering
and leaving the earth's surface must balance. In a similar manner, water
entering and leaving the soil system must also balance. The water relation-
ships may be expressed in the form of the water balance Equation 2.
ASWC = PPT - ET - RO (±) WF Eq. 2
where ASWC = change in soil water content in the zone of measurement
PPT = precipitation
ET = evapotranspiration
RO = runoff
WF = soil water flow by unsaturated or saturated processes
into or out of the zone of measurement
Equation 2 implies no specific time period and could be considered to
entail 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 year. At this stage in the project the
hydrologic balance is considered on a calendar month basis. Of the five
hydrologic components in Equation 2, change in soil water content (ASWC),
91
-------
precipitation (PPT), evapotranspiration (ET), and runoff (RO) are measured,
while soil water flow (WF) is found by difference and is subject to the most
error. The probable accuracy of the data of the various components can be
assembled in descending order as follows: ET, ASWC, RO, PPT, and WF.
Evapotranspiration (ET) was measured with weighing lysimeters (see
Appendix A), with one lysimeter in each watershed. The change in soil water
content (ASWC) was measured on a monthly basis at five locations within
each watershed to a depth of 250 cm with neutron scattering equipment, and
these data can be either positive or negative depending whether the soil
profile water content increased or decreased during the month. The reader
is referred to Schultz (26) for details on theory of the neutron scattering
method. The microwatershed design (see Orientation and Design of Demonstration
Areas) enabled the measurement of runoff (RO) through a Parshall flume.
Precipitation (PPT) for this project refers to the water equivalent of all
forms of precipitation which strikes the surface. The precipitation data
from all Demonstration Areas are point catches, and it should be noted
that there are possible errors involved in assuming that point estimates are
equivalent to actual aerial precipitation.
A number of other terms used in this chapter need some definition.
Detention storage is that water which is temporarily detained on the soil
surface (in rills, basins, or other depressions) or within the zone of
aeration as excess water which cannot be held against the flow of gravity
(25). It is necessary that there be a distinction made between detention
and retention storage. Retention storage is that water which is held or
retained by the soil pores against the force of gravity (25). Depression
volume is the term used to describe the volume of water held by a depression,
excluding all other water within the soil matrix.
92
-------
Results
Figures 30, 31 and 32 summarize the hydrologic balance variables
recorded during the period July 1975 to May 1976, for watersheds located
at the Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstrations. Appendix D contains
fifteen tables which present numerical data depicted in these figures.
Figure 30 shows the monthly hydrologic balance for the five surface
manipulation treatments at the Colstrip Demonstration Area. Evapotrans-
piration was greatest during the period May through August, with July being
the month of most intense evapotranspiration. These data show that
evapotranspiration totals for the eleven month period appeared not signifi-
cantly different between the five treatments and ranged between 45 cm and
50 cm for the period. Therefore, during a twelve month hydrologic year
it is estimated that these spoil watersheds with a southerly aspect lost
55 cm to 60 cm of water by the evapotranspirative process.
No major runoff events have been recorded from the watersheds during
the period of measurement. Several trace flows occurred but were determined
to be of no significance to the hydrological balance. However, these
trace flows were monitored for chemical quality, the results of which were
presented in an earlier section.
The changes in soil water content in the uppermost two meters of spoils
have reflected the inputs from spring rains, as well as outputs from
evapotranspiration. From July 1975 to May 1976 all watershed soil profiles
to a depth of 2.0 m experienced a net loss of water, except the topsoil
dozer basin treatment. Here a net gain of 19.5 cm resulted, although
missing data from the July through September period would have decreased
93
-------
Treatment \ JULY
+101
NON-
TOPSOIL- O
CHISELED
o TOPSOIL-
2 CHISELED
COLSTRIP 1975
AUG. SEPT.
E
5
TOPSOIL- o
GOUGED
TOPSOIL -
GOUGED
TOPSOIL-
DOZER o
BASINS
-10
LEGEND
Precipitation
Soil Water Content Gain
| ~\ Evapotranspiration ^^ Soil Water Content Loss
* No Data -See Appendix D.
0-250
cm zone
I Flow into 0-250 cm Zone From Substratum
I Leaching Below 250 cm
Figure 30. Summary of the monthly hydrologic balance of the spoil biosphere at the Colstrip Demonstration,
On each plot the hydrologic parameters are presented left to right as precipitation,
evapotranspiration, surface runoff, change in soil water content, and unsaturated flow.
-------
this value somewhat. The topsoiled-gouged treatment lost 7 cm of water
and the other three treatments lost 10 to 18 cm of soil water during an
eleven month period.
Data in Figure 30 indicate that in the topsoil-chiseled, nontopsoil-
gouged, and nontopsoil-chiseled watersheds unsaturated soil water flow (WF)
was draining from the surface 2.0 m zone toward the ground-water zone during
the late spring to early fall period. Conversely, during late fall through
early spring the net flow was from subsurface soil depths toward the
surface 2.0 m of spoils. This trend could not be confirmed in the
topsoil-dozer basin watershed since data for the year were incomplete.
The topsoil-gouged watershed demonstrated very little deep drainage
during the year, and generally experienced flow from substratum towards
the surface, particularly during the winter.
The net flow (WF) toward the surface during late fall to early spring,
when the surface soil material was frozen and often snow covered is a
phenomenon observed by other researchers (36, 9). The mechanism of this
flow is still not resolved, but it has been attributed in part to soil
temperature gradients. It has also been shown that this flow can occur
against a water content gradient, that is, flow has been observed from
the dryer subsoil towards the wetter frozen zone. Figure 30 indicates
these types of processes were occurring in spoils during the winter.
Figure 31 presents the monthly hydrologic balance data for the five
surface manipulation treatments at the Beulah Demonstration Area. Evapo-
transpiration (ET) was greatest during the May through August period,
with the peak rate during May. Although data were somewhat incomplete
for the hydrologic year, the rate of ET does not appear significantly
95
-------
VO
ON
Treatment
+IQ-
NON-
TOPSOIL- o
CHISELED
o
l_
<
_•*-
"c
« TOPSOIL-
CHISELED
Q.
0>
Q
E
o
NON-
TOPSOIL- o
GOUGED
7OPSOIL-
GOUGED
TOPSOIL-
DOZER O
BASINS
-IO_
SEPT
SAVAGE 1975
OCT NOV. DEC.
^LT
El
y
a
u
1976
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
tn
TT
_*
*
* *
y
LEGEND
Precipitation
I Soil Water Content Gain
[ ~] Evapotranspiration ^^ Soil Water Content Loss
* No Data-See Appendix. D.
cm zone
• *t* ^ ^ ^ n=nn- ^
• v j.. ..*!*
^t*^
Flow into 0-250 cm Zone From Substratum
Surface Runoff (Ml Leaching Below 250 cm
Figure 31. Summary of the monthly hydrologic balance of the spoil biosphere at the Beulah Demonstration.
On each plot the hydrologic parameters are presented left to right as precipitation,
evapotranspiration, surface runoff, change in soil water content, and unsaturated flow.
-------
different between treatments. Evapotranspiration ranged between about 40
ctn and 50 cm for the measurement period, which did not include the month
of June. Therefore, during the hydrologic year it was possible that
all watersheds lost between about 42 cm and 52 cm of water by the evapo-
transpiration process.
Two major runoff events were recorded during the period July, 1975,
to May, 1976, and both events occurred in March. In the nontopsoil-
chiseled watershed,2.4 cm of water were lost as runoff, and in the nontop-
soil-gouged watershed 8.4 cm of water were lost. It should be noted that
the magnitude of both runoff events in March exceeded precipitation for
the month. The runoff was apparently due to snowmelt or a combination of
snowmelt and rainfall. No other watersheds experienced runoff events.
Although these data represent a small sample, the fact that runoff occurred
only on watersheds without topsoil cannot be overlooked. The topsoil-
chiseled and topsoil-gouged watersheds were subjected to the same
meteorological effect, yet no runoff occurred. This implies that top-
soiled watersheds may have had greater surface water holding capacity
and/or a greater infiltration rate.
The monthly changes in soil water content of the surface two meters
of each watershed at the Beulah Demonstration Area are shown in Figure
31. During the measurement period July 1975 through April 1976, the
topsoil-gouged and topsoil^-chiseled treatments experienced a small net
loss of soil water, 1.0 - and 2.2 - cm respectively. However,
during this same period the nontopsoil-chiseled and nontopsoil-
97
-------
gouged watersheds experienced a loss of 0.5 cm and no change in soil water
content respectively. This implies topsoiling of the clayish soil
at the Beulah Study area did not induce recharge of spoil profile water
for plant production. This relationship was previously discussed in the
section entitled "Soil Hydrological Cycle". The topsoil-dozer basin
watershed soil profile increased 3.5 cm in water content during a
corresponding period.
The net unsaturated water flow (WF) pattern was consistent in all
five watersheds where a positive flow of water was measured into the
surface 2 m of soil; that is, unsaturated flow occurred from the sub-
surface zone towards the surface. The quantity of this flow varied from
about 10 cm to 20 cm of water during the July, 1975 to April, 1976
measurement period.
As discussed above, for a ten-month period the net flow was towards
the surface. However, data indicate that a substantial deep leaching
event occurred during April 1976 in all watersheds, and smaller such
events were observed during other months at the Beulah Demonstration.
This result is somewhat of a contradiction to the previous chapter
(Soil Hydrological Cycle) where it was shown the soil water content of
these profiles, although high due to the heavy soil texture, was between
soil water potentials of -15.0 and -0.3 bars, generally near -5 bars. At
these soil water potentials, it is doubtful that a leaching event
could occur of the magnitude determined for April 1976. The sources
of error in this type of research are recognizable and are discussed at
the end of this chapter.
98
-------
Figure 32 presents the monthly hydrologic balance for the five
surface manipulation treatments located at the Savage Demonstration Area.
During the measurement period, September, 1975, to May, 1976, evapo-
transpiration (ET) was similar between watersheds. The nontopsoil-
chiseled and the topsoil-dozer basin treatments lost less water
through the ET process than did the other treatments. Each lost about
37 cm of water. During the complete hydrologic year it can be estimated
that these watersheds would lose approximately 70 cm to 80 cm of water
by ET. This rate of evapotranspiration loss was considerably greater
than that observed at either the Colstrip or Beulah Demonstration Areas.
Major runoff events occurred during January and May, 1976 in all
five watersheds (Figure 32). During January, the nontopsoil-gouged
watershed lost 3.1 cm of water as surface runoff, but there was no
measureable runoff from the other four treatments. In May, three to four
times more runoff occurred on the nontopsoiled treatments as compared to
the topsoiled treatments. For example, during May, 1976 the nontopsoil-
gouged and nontopsoil-chiseled watersheds lost 1.2 cm and 0.9 cm of runoff.
These data show that at this area, topsoil treated watersheds detained
additional surface water and thereby reduced water erosion. The topsoil-
dozer basin watershed experienced the least runoff, 0.1 cm, as compared
to all other treatments.
Earlier in this report (Soil Hydrological Cycle), it was shown that
the soil profile of the dozer basin watershed at the Savage Demonstration
generally contained the least soil moisture at any one time, compared to
the other treatments. These dozer basins were made with the front blade
of a dozer (Figure 29) which left basins with very compact and, possibly,
99
-------
BEULAH 1975
1976
Treatment
+10
o
<
'E
=>
g-
Q
I
p
5
NON-
TOPSOIL-
CHISELED
TOPSOIL-
CHISELED
TOPSOIL- O-
GOUGED
TOPSOIL-
GOUGED
TOPSOIL-
DOZER O
BASINS
-10
LEGEND
JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
_*
*
LJ
U
U
U
_» * >
U
^H Precipitation liil Soil Water Content Gain I „ ^
^" "™ V 0-250
[~~| Evapotran- ^^ Soil Water Content Loss ' cm zone
spiration
^ No Data—See Appendix D.
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR.
I Flow into 0-250 cm Zone From Substratum
| Leaching Below 250 cm • Surface Runoff
Figure 32. Summary of the monthly hydrologic balance of the spoil biosphere at the Savage Demonstration.
On each plot the hydrologic parameters are presented left to right as precipitation,
evapotranspiration, surface runoff, change in soil water content, and unsaturated flow.
-------
impermeable bases. This situation apparently may have reduced water
infiltration and percolation substantially. Conversely, with a dozer
basin implement this compacted situation is alleviated with a set of
scarifying teeth that loosens the basin bottom.
The changes in soil water content in the uppermost two meters of
soil for a nine-month period at the Savage Demonstration are presented
in Figure 32. These data show that all the treatments resulted in a
net equilibrium or gain of profile water from September, 1975 to May,
1976. The greatest gain in soil water content was the watershed with
a topsoil-gouged treatment.
During the nine-month measurement period the watersheds underwent
a net movement of unsaturated soil water flow (WF) from the subsurface
depths toward the surface. This means that soil water available in the
surface two meters of spoils could not be accounted for by runoff,
precipitation, and evapotranspiration. Thus, soil water in the unsaturated
phase had to flow upward and into the surface 2 m zone.
Conclusion
This section has quantitatively described the hydrologic balance of
the spoil biosphere as a function of surface manipulation treatments at
three demonstration areas.
During the hydrologic year, the five surface manipulation treatments
were estimated to have lost between 40 cm and 80 cm of water by the
evapotranspirative (ET) process. There was little ET variation between
watersheds at each area, but some variation between Demonstration Areas.
The ET demands at Savage, Colstrtp and Beulah Demonstration Areas were
approximately 75 cm, 57 cm and 47 cm, respectively. The major reasons
101
-------
for variation were plant cover, climate, and soil characteristics of the
three demonstration areas. The Beulah Demonstration was most recently
seeded, and thus vegetation was less developed with transpiration
demand correspondingly lower. Also the soils at Beulah crust severely,
forming a barrier to the loss of soil water by evaporation.
The unsaturated flow of soil water in the spoil biosphere is a prime
concern in reclamation. If a flow gradient develops towards the surface,
salinization of the surface soil is a potentially detrimental process.
Conversely, if a flow gradient develops toward the ground water, leaching
of excess salts into an aquifer is a possible undesirable development.
The unsaturated soil water flow characteristics of these watersheds
generally indicated the net flow during the year was near zero or towards
the surface. At the Colstrip Demonstration Area, some watersheds had a
downward gradient which existed for nearly six months of the year while
flow towards the surface occurred during the remainder of the period, the
net result being a near balance for the period. However, at the Savage
and Beulah Demonstration Areas, the unsaturated flow was consistently
toward the surface. At both of the latter areas unsaturated soil water
flow from the subsurface zone into the surface 2 m of spoil amounted to
10-20 cm annually. This process can serve the useful purpose of
supplying water to the root zone of plants, but also entails the hazard
of surface soil salinization.
The flow of unsaturated soil water towards the surface should not be
considered a special case common only to newly reshaped, revegetated soils.
However, the concern is whether these spoils, which have undergone complete
102
-------
disarrangement of location and characteristics relevent to original
overburden, contain soluble salts which can become mobile in the biosphere.
Whether salinization will occur or not in these spoils is not known at
the present time.
The effectiveness of these surface manipulation treatments in
controlling runoff and erosion is most clearly demonstrated by spoil
overland flow data. Unfortunately,this discussion on the spoil biosphere
hydrologic balance was prepared during a period of an unusually few
number of runoff events. However, during June, 1976, a substantial number
of events occurred and clearly demonstrate the effects of these treat-
ments on control of overland flow. Table 31 describes runoff events
which have occurred on the Demonstration Areas from inception to June 15,
1976. These data clearly demonstrate that topsoiling management in spoil
reclamation improved control of overland flow. In every case when runoff
events occurred on both a chiseled and topsoil-chiseled or a gouged and
topsoil-gouged watershed, the topsoiled treatment experienced less runoff.
Without exception the topsoiled dozer basin treatment demonstrated the
maximum control of overland flow compared to all treatments. This
relationship was constant at all three Demonstration Areas.
103
-------
Table 31. Surface runoff events which have occurred on the Demonstration
watersheds from inception to June 15, 1976. Runoff in cm means
that volume of water x cm deep over an area equivalent to the
defined watershed.
Demon-
stration Date of
Area Runoff Event
Savage Jan 17, 1976
May 25, 1976
June 2, 1976
June 7, 1976
June 11, 1976
Colstrip June 6, 1976
June 11, 1976
Beulah May 16, 1976
Watershed
Treatment
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Nontopsoil-Chiseled
Topsoil-Chiseled
Nontopsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Gouged
Topsoil-Dozer Basin
Total Event
Event Runoff
1 2 3 A (surface cm)
0
0
2.1, .4,. 6
0
0
.86
.22
1.35
.34
.13
.76,. 84, .34, .33
.73, .94,. 16
.84, 1.00, .36
malfunction
.05, .15,. 30, .05
1.26,1.15
1.26
1.26,1.19
malfunction
.17, .06
0
.49
0
malfunction
0
1.26
.64
.84
.62
.43
1.40
.32
1.40
1.36
.29
8.5
0
2.4
0
0
0
0
3.1
0
0
.86
.22
1.35
.34
.13
2.27
1.83
2.20
—
.55
2.41
1.26
2.45
—
.23
0
.49
0
—
0
1.26
.64
.84
.62
.43
1.40
.32
1.40
1.36
.29
8.5
0
2.4
0
0
104
-------
Hydrological Measurement Error
The results presented In this chapter are significant in spoil
hydrology technology, and it is appropriate to briefly discuss the degree
of error inherent in these hydrologic measurements. There appeared to
be some error associated with the runoff measurements, but this component,
to date, has played a rather small role in the hydrologic budget of the
spoil biosphere.
The weighing lysimeter in each watershed appeared to produce reliable
data. However, it was realized that there were complications which may have
contributed to error in these data. These lysimeters were 1.0 m deep and
soil water transport was measured to flow below this depth. Therefore it
must be assumed that some water logging at the bottom of the lysimeter
occurred. Measurements with neutron access tubes in each lysimeter on a
monthly basis indicated a very wet bottom in a few Instances, but this
situation was temporary. Apparently evapotranspiration utilized this water,
since the waterlogged situation often disappeared within a month time period.
Therefore, at certain times of the year when this waterlogged condition was
being dissipated by the evapotranspirative process, the actual watershed
evapotranspiration was possibly overestimated. If evapotranspiration
from these spoils was actually less than that reported in this chapter, it
would influence the results by enhancement of the deep leaching process.
There was less vegetation on the surface of lysimeters compared to
the rest of the watershed. The lysimeter construction period coincided with
seeding of these demonstration areas, therefore seeding of the lysimeters
was delayed by at least a month. Less vegetation would have the effect of
underestimating actual evapotranspiration of the watershed. Blowing snow,
105
-------
which apparently accumulated excessively on these lysimeters, created a
problem. During winter months certain lysimeters occasionally indicated
water gains in excess of precipitation, and these-data were .generally dis-
carded. Even with the above discussed limitations, the lysimeters functioned
according to specification in a very reliable manner and data were of
the correct magnitude for the type of environment being monitored.
As discussed in the previous chapter, the soil water content data in
this report, which are presented as means of five sites within a watershed,
contained error described by the standard deviation of the mean which
averaged about 5- percent, and ranged from 3- to 13- percent. This error
was largely attributed to field soil variations, while less than 1- percent
was attributed to operator and instrument error. Also, it should be noted
that in situ field calibration equations were not derived for the neutron
probe method at the Colstrip and Savage Demonstrations. Factory calibrations
were used which were supplied with the instrument. Quantitatively, this
could present some error, but qualitatively, i.e. changes in water content
over time, essentailly no error was introduced. At the Beulah Demonstration
an in situ calibration was determined for the neutron probe equipment.
The precipitation results presented in this chapter can be expected
to contain the greatest percentage of error compared to the other hydrological
parameters measured. Malfunction of on-site instrumentation often necessitated
utilization of precipitation catches from nearby stations. At the Colstrip
and Beulah Demonstrations these alternative stations were within 100 m, but
at the Savage Demonstration the alternative station was about 8.0 km distant.
Hydrologic researchers realize that point catches of precipitation provide
106
-------
only estimations of actual precipitation, and that the error becomes
larger as the wind velocity increases and when the precipitation occurs
in the form of snow. This phenomenon has been demonstrated very clearly
by Caprio (4) who, at numerous field sites in Montana and through methodology
described by Hamon (12), determined that point catches during windy
snow storms recorded about 30 percent less precipitation compared to that
which actually occured. The Savage and Beulah Demonstration sites
were particularly windy in nature.
Since this type of large scale nonreplicated research often does
not lend itself to sound statistical analyses, the magnitude of possible
error associated with measurements must be constantly recognized.
Generally, it can be stated that the results presented in this chapter
are those which have demonstrated consistent patterns and consistent
differences over time. The anticipated measurement error would not be
expected to substantially change such interpretations.
107
-------
GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY
Introduction
The following section presents data on ground-water character-
istics at the Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstration Areas. This
phase of the project was subcontracted to geohydrologic experts
stationed in the area of each Demonstration. The work at the
Colstrip Demonstration was supervised by hydrogeologist Wayne Van Voast,
Montana Bureau of Mines. Much of the field work and interpretation at
the Savage and Beulah Demonstrations was completed by geologist
G. Groenewold of the North Dakota Geological Survey.
Methodology
At the Colstrip Demonstration Area spoil reshaping was completed
in May, 1975. Wells were installed during October, 1974. Observation
well descriptions are shown in Table 32. Locations are shown in
Figures 33 and 34.
At the Savage Demonstration, 18 observation wells were installed
in November, 1974 (Table 32). Eight of these wells had a one-inch PVC
casing and the remainder had four-inch PVC casings. All wells had two-
foot inlet screens installed at the bottom. Eight of these wells have
the screens located in or near thin undisturbed coal seams underlying
the mine spoil. The remainder of the well screens are located at or near
the bottom of the mine spoil (Figures 35 and 36). Although these wells
extending to the bottom of spoils are shallow in depth it was predicted
that an aquifer may develop at this depth since the underlying zone was
108
-------
Table 32. Observation well information for the Colstrip, Savage, and Beulah Demonstration Areas.
Site
Colstrip
Savage
Beulah
(1 Survey
(2 Wells
Well
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5(2
6
7(2
8
9
10
11
12
13(2
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7(2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16(2
17(2
18
19
20
21
22
23
Casing Size(ID)
(in) (cm)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
by Christian
equipped with
(3 Elevation calculated
(4 Depth
and Casing
10
10
10.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2.5
10
2.5
10
10
10
10
2.5
2.5
2.5
10
10
10
10
2.5
10
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
10
10
10
10
10
2.5
10
2.5
2.5
10
2.5
10
2.5
10
10
10
10
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Spring, Sielbacl
Well
Termination"
Coal
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coa'.
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Spoil
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Coal
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Spoil
Coal
Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Elevation(l
Top of Casing
(feet)
3207.48
3207.06
3207.76
3207.64
3206.95
3208.14
3208.30
3207.57
3214.86
3214.90
3213.79
3214.54
2289.80
2289.57
2289.76
2289.47
2286.99
2289.87
2276.31
2277.48
2290.94
2310.91
2312.48
2309.85
2314.33
2317.05
2303.06
2304.20
2335.00(3
2359.08
1967.81
1967.21
. 1968.92
1980.60
1981.16
1990.44
1990.06
1965.55
1965.73
1981.38
1980.93
1975.80
1970.93
1971.58
1967.77
1954.99
1955.43
1968.29
1982.59
1981.56
1970.24
1983.30
1976.08
(meters)
977.64
977.51
977.73
977.69
977.48
977.84
977.89
977.67
979.89
979.90
979.56
979.79
697.93
697.86
697.92
697.83
697.07
697.95
693.82
694 . 18
698.28
704.37
704.84
704.04
705.41
706.24
701.92
702.32
711.71
719.05
599.79
599.61
600.13
603.69
603.86
606.69
606.57
599.10
599.15
603.92
603 . 79
602.22
600 . 74
600.94
599.78
595.88
596.02
599.93
604.29
603 . 98
600.53
604.51
602.31
Depth of Well
Below Top of Casing
(feet)
59.34
31.60
28.62
30.75
27.60
28.67
52.59
28.73
37.15
58.28
59.35
35.40
84.79
13.65
83.45
15.60
63.10
93.39
14.90
90.39
100.70
89.38
26.75
30.40
75.85
41.49
101.78
31.30
59.85
73.57
91.2(4
83.1(4
58.84
90.3(4
53.1(4
89.90
68.93
91.6(4
48.35
63.3(4
52.9(4
58.1(4
85.3(4
55.4(4
48.6(4
71.30
44.16
53.53
62.67
94.6(4
86.7(4
101.8(4
89.5(4
(meters)
18.09
9.63
8.72
9.37
8.41
8.74
16.03
8.76
11.32
17.76
18.09
10.79
25.84
4.16
25.44
4.75
19.23
28.46
4.54
27.55
30.69
27.24
8.15
9.27
23.12
12.65
31.02
9.54
18.24
22.42
27.80
25.33
17.93
27.52
16.18
27.40
21.01
27.92
14.74
19.29
16.12
17.71
26.00
16.89
14.81
21.73
13.46
16.32
19.10
28.83
26.43
31.03
27.28
Approximate
Casing Height
(feet)
4.19
3.88
4.92
4.97
3.18
4.20
3.84
3.40
4.17
5.00
3.09
2.68
3.00
3.11
3.45
2.98
0.25
3.80
1.32
3.55
2.84
3.33
3.18
2.81
0.25
4.54
1.82
3.63
3.89
2.82
3.8(4
3.2(4
2.84
4.4(4
3.6(4
2.60
.90
4.0(4
3.10
2.5(4
3.2(4
3.2(4
3.8(4
4.0(4
3.7(4
.75
.85
2.78
3.86
2.3(4
3.5(4
3.7(4
3.2(4
(meters)
1.28
1.18
1.50
1.51
.97
1.28
1.17
1.04
1.27
1.52
.94
.82
.91
.95
1.05
.91
.08
1.16
.40
1.08
.87
1.01
.97
.86
.08
1.38
.55
1.11
1.19
.86
1.16
.98
.87
1.34
1.10
.79
.27
1.22
.94
.76
.98
.98
1.16
1.22
1.13
.23
.26
.85
1.18
.70
1.07
1.13
.98
4 Associates—April 1976.
Leupold and Stevens Water Level
from previous survey, Sielbach
height scaled from
well log charts
Recorder.
& Associates,
, not field me
1974.
isurements
109
-------
ORIENTATION OF PROFILE A
EPA-a
EPA-6
EPA-IO
EPA-9
100 feet 200
300
30.5 . 61.0 91.4
meters
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
o McKay observation well
• Spoils observation well
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
EXPLANATION
Spoil
Coal, McKay bed
~'.T-" .r~~^ Clay and silt
EPA-3
Observation well
Perforated casing
Piezometric surface, spoils
Piezometric surface, McKay Coal
Figure 33. Observation well orientation located at the Colstrip Demonstration Area.
The legend applies to companion Figure 34.
-------
32OO-
UJ -
LU o
**• * 3I8O-
h 5 3I6CM
<Ǥ
3I4O-
EM-I
McKay coal b«d
-975,4
-969,3
CO
cc
111
UJ
Hi
O
D
-963,2
9571
I
feet O
meters O
1
1
IOO
30,5
2OO 3OO 40O
61.0 91,4 121,9
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
1
5OO
152,4
Figure 34. Water level elevation diagram for both the McKay and spoil aquifers on two dates
at the Colstrip Demonstration. The legend is shown on companion Figure 33.
-------
relatively impermeable. Pea gravel was placed around the screens to pre-
vent clogging and they were then backfilled with spoil around the casings.
Cement caps were poured around the casings at the ground level to prevent
ground-water contamination by overland flow. Three wells with four-inch
casings were selected for installation of Leopold and Stevens Type F water
level recorders. These wells were selected on the basis of their
recovery response to pumping tests conducted in October, 1975. The
recorders were put into operation in January, 1976.
The spoil material at Savage contains large amounts of sand and
gravel which created cave-in problems during drilling at several well
locations. In some instances, the well locations had to be abandoned.
Some wells were completed by using bentonite mud to stabilize the
wells during the drilling operation. At two locations large voids
were encountered and mud pump circulation could not be maintained.
Due to these problems, it was not possible to obtain a precise record
of the geologic strata in which the wells are located.
At the Beulah Demonstration a total of 23 observation wells were
installed in October, 1974 (Figure 37). Twelve of these wells moni-
tored aquifer development in spoils above coal while eleven wells were in
the coal (Table 32).
Results
To date, measurement of Colstrip wells indicates that a rise in
water levels has occurred in both the new spoil aquifer and the
deeper undisturbed aquifer associated with the McKay coal bed
(Figures 33, 34). Since surface drainage at this site is confined, and
112
-------
the winter-spring seasons of 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 resulted in above
average snowmelt and precipitation, the area produced a pond.
These data indicate ground-water recharge is occurring beneath
the Demonstration Area. We can speculate that the pond area constitutes
the major recharge source for the developing saturated zone at the
bottom of the spoils. Also a smaller portion of this ground water could
be attributed to the movement of soil water in the unsaturated phase
through the spoil profile. The source of this water would be precipi-
tation that has infiltrated the spoils at the surface. This phenomena
was shown to exist, particularly during the spring, in a previous
section titled "The Hydrologic Balance of the Spoil Biosphere."
At Savage, the observation wells located in the deep and thin
coal seam (Figures 35, 36) have shown no distinct trends in water
level changes. There have been small seasonal changes in elevations.
This suggests that the geologic strata lying between the mine spoils and
the thin coal seam has a very low transmissivity. Therefore, at this
time, mining activity appears to have very little, if any, influence
on the hydrological characteristics of the underlying undisturbed
aquifers.
The observation wells extending to the base of the spoils at Savage
indicate that little or no recharge of the spoil aquifer has occurred
since measurements were initiated. There was a gradual drop in the
water levels for the spoil aquifer from August, 1975 to May, 1976.
On June 2, 1976, a high intensity short duration convective storm
caused a significant surface runoff event. A pond located near
113
-------
Ss
704
696'
',3 686
677 _
672 _
IS
300 600 900
91.4 182.9 274.3
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
1200 feet
365.8 meters
horizontal distance
0 200 400 600 f««l
I I I I
0 61.0 121.9 182.9 meters
I I I I
E X PIANATION
SPOIL
UNDISTURBED
LOWER COAL
OBSERVATION WELL
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
March 1", ll>'-'6
• June 17, 1976
Figure 35. Savage demonstration area piezometric elevation diagram
for well numbers 1, 3, 5 and 15. Data collected during
1975 and 1976.
114
-------
H 698 H
0)
•'-*• May 1, 1976
———'- June 17, 1976
Figure 36. Savage demonstration area piezometric elevation diagram for
well numbers 2, 4 and 7. Data collected during 1975 and 1976.
115
-------
well number 7 rapidly underwent significant recharge. Two hours
after this event, well number 7 began to respond to this hydrologic
event. During the seven day period from June 2-9, the water
level in this well raised approximately 2.1 meters. Unless
other large surface runoff events occur, water levels will
probably stabilize and then gradually recede. Although this well
number 7 was only 4.7 meters deep, it was felt that water did not
infiltrate down the walls of the casing. This well was sealed at the
surface with concrete, and the casing perforated only in the bottom
one meter.
At the Beulah Demonstration Area, the soils are sodic in nature,
therefore at least two phenomena must be taken into account when
considering the hydrologic characteristics. These are the possible
developments of a surface crust on the spoils prior to topsoiling and
the possible development of surface cracks which in turn result in
piping features and localized surface subsidence and collapse (Groenewold,
personal communication, 1976).
The development of impermeable surface crusts commonly seems to
eliminate any possibility of effective infiltration. Piping failures
on the other hand, greatly increase infiltration and often result in
nearly all surface runoff being channeled downward into the spoils.
It should be noted that a number of "pipes" did develop on these
demonstration watersheds but were plugged up with straw and bentonite.
The rates and patterns of water movement in spoils via pipes is
unknown at this time. However, data from the demonstration seem to
indicate that the channeled water has little effect upon saturation
116
-------
of the spoils, surface spoils or recharge of aquifers. Apparently
then, this channeled water moves rapidly through the spoils and
discharges rapidly, probably along the surface traces of slumping
failures.
At the Beulah Demonstration Area (Figure 37 ), initial data
suggest that the main source of ground water in the spoils is from
lateral seepage from the area of "orphan spoils" immediately to the
south of the demonstration. There seems to be a migrating water
"front" which presently has saturated the lower six meters of spoils
in the southern part of the study area, which rapidly dissipates to
the north. Whether this is the case or not will only be known
after long term observation of the area. However, it appears to be
a logical extension of the surface conditions which exist in the
Demonstration Area, and therefore, may once again indicate the need
for complete knowledge of the entire landscape if reclamation is to
be successful.
Conclusion
The busy work schedules of Mr. Wayne Van Voast and Mr. G. Groenewold
have limited the activities of these scientists on this project. The
basic aquifer characteristics of these Demonstration Areas have been
outlined and monitoring programs established. The chemistry
of these aquifers is discussed in the next section.
117
-------
130 m
00
10
8 9
O«
Scale
3 O m
4
O
20
16
O
•
17
t
N
0 Observation We 11 in Coal
Q Observation Well Above Coal
Figure 37. Experimental design of observation wells located at the Beulah Demonstration.
The five micro watersheds are centrally located as can be seen in Figure 13.
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROUND-WATER CHEMISTRY
Introduction
The leaching of solutes through spoils and into an aquifer system
is a potential problem, but the possibility of this phenomenon occurring
appears remote under semi-arid climate. Earlier in this report it was
shown that at the Colstrip Demonstration deep percolation as unsatu-
rated flow occurred part of the year while the remainder of the year
experienced flow towards the surface. At the Savage and Beulah Demon-
strations the net unsaturated flow for the hydrologic year was towards
the surface, however, during several months deep percolation occurred.
Whether these short term flows towards the ground water could eventu-
ally transport significant quantities of salt into an aquifer cannot
be answered at this time.
Perhaps a more important source that could affect the aquifer
chemistry is surface pond formation. In Montana and North Dakota, ponds
exist on recontoured spoils where they were nonexistant before the
advent of strip mining. Some such ponds attain an area of several
hectares in area and three or more meters deep. If sufficient spoil
fill is not present between the base of the old pit and the bottom
of the pond, a saturated zone of salt translocation could develop
across this zone.
At the Colstrip, Savage, and Beulah Demonstrations such ponds have
developed in the immediate area. Consider the Colstrip Demonstration
;• AWBERC LIBRARY. U.S. EPA
119
-------
where during the 1974-75 winter there was no pond in the immediate
vicinity. Yet in the spring of 1975 a pond about 150 m long by
50 m wide by 3 m deep developed in the valley base of the Demonstration
Area (Figure 38). To date this pond is still present and appears to
be a permanent, but fluctuating, feature of the area.
Figure 38. This pond developed during the spring 1975 and,
to date, has remained a permanent feature of the
Colstrip Demonstration Area.
The interactions of spoil ponds and deep percolation through
spoils with a developing aquifer are not known. For this reason the
hydrochemistry of the developing aquifer at the base of the spoils
and associated deeper aquifers was monitored at each Demonstration Area.
Methodology
Observation wells were installed at each of the three Demonstration
Areas to monitor subsurface hydrologic characteristics of the spoil
120
-------
material and the underlying coal. Locations and monitoring zones for
these wells are presented in the previous chapter. Water from selected
wells was sampled several times during the course of the investigation
to provide baseline hydrochetnical data for future review and evaluation.
The observation wells were pumped to obtain water for analysis.
Sample bottles were treated with preservatives and then kept refrigerated.
Table 48 describes the current preservation methodology as recommended
by the Environmental Protection Agency (8).
Table 33. Ground-water sample preservation treatment and corresponding
analyses performed. All samples were refrigerated after
collection.
Preservation
Treatment Analyses Performed
None pH, electrical conductance, SQi,
C03, HC03, P04-P, Cl, B
H2S04 to pH <2 N03-N
HN03 to pH <2 Ca, Mg, Na, K, Mn, Cu, Zn, Pb,
Cd, Fe (dissolved metals)
The H2S(>4 treatment and the refrigeration act as bacterial inhibitors,
The HN03 prevents metal precipitation. When new sample containers were
unavailable, previously used bottles underwent a cleansing process before
each use which included scrubbing with soap, rinsing several times with
tap water, rinsing with dilute HCL solution and finally rinsing several
121
-------
times with distilled water. Even with this extensive cleaning
procedure, there was some indication in the results of several
analyses that contamination may have occurred when bottles were
reused. Present procedure is to use new containers (as available)
for each sample and to rinse the container three times with the
water to be sampled before obtaining the final sample.
The filled containers were transported to the lab at Montana
State University in ice chests filled with crushed ice to maintain
the proper temperature. Unavoidable delays due to long travel times
sometimes prohibit analysis of the samples within the recommended
time limits of the Environmental Protection Agency (8). The most
noticeable effects of this delay would be reflected in the determinations
for alkalinity, bicarbonate, carbonate, pH (when not measured in the
field), nitrate-N, and total phosphate-P. Procedures for measuring
these parameters in the field are presently being evaluated. Specific
procedures presently used in the laboratory for analysis of the water
samples are summarized in Table 34.
Some concern was expressed by the Montana Bureau of Mines that
the Zn procedure may contain error due to the type of filter paper used.
To clarify this point, the following test was performed. Three 0.4 micron
Nuclepore Membrane Filters (VWR Scientific, Seattle, Washington #28157-
960) were wet digested in a 3:2 mixture of redistilled
122
-------
Table 34. Summary of laboratory procedures used for groundwater
analyses.
Element
Procedure*
Pb, Cd, Cu, Fe, Zn, Mn,
Ca, Mg, Na, K
Cl
PH
Conductivity
S°4
PO.-P
4
NO -N
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Hg(NO ) titration
J ^
Electrode
Conductance Bridge-Meter
Titration
Turbidimetric
Persulfate digestion—colorimetric
Curcumin Method
Cadmium Reduction
*A11 procedures are from "Methods for chemical analyses of water and
wastes", EPA (8). All metal analyses are dissolved metals. EPA
specifications state water samples for dissolved metal analyses should
be filtered (.45 micron) as soon as possible to remove sediment
material. This operation was performed in the lab at Montana State
University which was generally several days after the sample had been
collected at the field sites. Current plants are to filter future
samples in the field.
transferred to 25 ml flasks and brought to volume with distilled
deionized H~0. The Zn content was measured using a Varian AA6 with
automatic background corrector. The mean Zn content of the filters
was 492.9 parts per million. Two samples of distilled deionized
H20 were acidified to a pH< 2 with HNO . One was then filtered
through a Nuclepore filter. The Zn content of each sample was less
than 10 parts per billion. Therefore, no measurable Zn leached from
the filter; and no error in the Zn procedure can be attributed to
these filters.
123
-------
Water analyses from observation, wells at the three Demonstration
Areas were reviewed with regard to charge mass balance. The purpose
of this check was to identify, if possible, any contaminated samples
or procedural errors in analysis. Theoretically, the sum of anions,
expressed in milliequivalents per liter, must equal the sum of cations,
in milliequivalents per liter, in any water sample. In practice,
the sums are seldom equal because of the unavoidable variations in
analysis. This inequality increases as the ionic concentrations
increases. A factor which may affect the balance is the presence in
the sample of undetermined species. Results of analyses from
selected wells at the three Demonstrations Areas are discussed in the
following section.
Results
The limited amount of data collected to date are not sufficient
to show any significant trends in ground-water quality, however,
general characteristics of the waters in the various zones can be
described. At the Colstrip Demonstration Area (Table 35), specific
conductance is generally highest in the water samples pumped from
the spoil materials. Calcium and magnesium are the dominant cations
in both the spoils and coal zones. The bicarbonate anion is
dominant in .samples from the McKay coal zone, whereas, sulfate is the
major anion in the developing spoils aquifer. Sulfate concentrations
124
-------
generally exceed recommended limits for drinking water (Table 25) in
the spoils zone and in one well, #7, in the coal. Dissolved solids
and manganese concentrations in both aquifers exceed recommended limits.
As previously mentioned, a pond has developed at the Colstrip
site. Preliminary chemical data for pond water collected in June,
1976, indicate that concentrations for most of the major cations and
anions are significantly lower than found in the underlying aquifers:
Ca, 13 mg/1; Mg, 5.0 mg/1; Na, 8.0 mg/1; HC03, 103 mg/1; and SO,,
178 mg/1. Trace element concentrations are also lower in the ponded
water than in the developing spoils aquifer but approach the levels in
the McKay Coal: Mn, 51 yg/1; Cu, 29 Mg/1; Zn, 30 yg/1; Pb, 40 yg/1;
and Cd,< 4 yg/1. These data suggest that trace element concentrations
in the underlying aquifers will not be significantly increased in the
future by vertical recharge from the pond.
Hydrochemical data from selected wells at the Savage Demonstration
Area are shown in Table 36. Dissolved solids, sulfate and manganese
generally exceed recommended limits (Table 25) in both zones. Calcium
and magnesium are the dominant cations in the spoils water whereas
sodium is dominant in samples from the coal beds. Bicarbonate and
sulfate are the dominant anions in both zones. The sodium absorption
ratio (SAR) is highest in waters from the coal.
125
-------
At the Beulah Demonstration Area (Table 37), sodium is the
dominant cation in both the spoils and the coal. The major anion in
the developing spoils aquifer is sulfate, while bicarbonate is
dominant in the coal waters. Concentrations of manganese, sulfate,
and dissolved solids exceed recommended limits for drinking water in
both zones (Table 25). Relatively high sodium values result in high
sodium absorption ratios (SAR) in waters from both the coal beds
and the spoil materials.
126
-------
Table 35.
Chemical analyses of groundwater from observation wells in the immediate vicinity of the watershed study located at the Colstrip
Demonstration Area.
Well Date of
Number Collection
1 03/25/76
1 05/29/76
1 09/13/76
2 03/25/76
2 05/29/76
2 09/13/76
3 03/25/76
3 05/29/76
3 09/13/76
4 05/29/76
5 03/25/76
6 03/25/76
6 05/29/76
7 03/25/76
7 05/29/76
7 09/13/76
8 03/25/76
8 05/29/76
9 03/25/76
9 05/29/76
9 09/13/76
10 03/25/76
10 09/13/76
11 03/25/76
12 03/25/76
12 09/13/76
•£
0
4J X-*
O CU
ja •*•<
CO (M
1-1 «
ffi
a.
7.3
6.9*
7.6
7.2
6.5*
7.8
7.3
6.4*
7.5
6.4*
7.1
7.0
6.5*
7.2
6.7*
7 .4
7.2
6.5*
7.2
8.8
7.7
7.1
7.7
7.3
7.1
7.5
CU
CJ
CJ CO
•H U
14-1 O
•H 3
CU C
ex o
en o
ymhos/
cm
830
770
930
1850
1450
900
1100
1360
1580
1300
2620
2800
2250
1950
850
1780
1900
1800
620
550
700
1620
1100
650
1590
1610
3 CO CO oo E CO
5 o cj j? 3 z
O •— ' C -H ^^
,H- oo -a
CO CO o
cj S en
mg/1
62 57
54 65
97 78 64
187 190
86 110
98 71 72
110 98
75 80
96 180 54
83 105
246 275
245 290
127 152
177 162
71 80
184 192 55
215 158
100 91
54 43
20 25
72 64 66
173 168
118 80 48
46 36
138 103
156 116 70
CO
CU C e H 3 C J33T3
fc CO E CU U N eu-HU
O ti O. C CO t3
V4 co o -H a) co
M SO CJ • -J CJ
us/1
565 130 32 435 < 5 11
96 60 30 22 <10 < 2
8920 372 84 123 18 12
72 288 31 653 < 5 10
148 139 27 14 <10 <2
2720 152 60 68 12 <5
52 108 22 350 < 5 8
155 112 12 14 <10 < 2
2820 520 45 58 <10 <10
172 72 12 24 <10 <2
70 600 28 388 < 5 10
68 1360 27 725 < 5 5
182 450 6 16 <10 <2
88 245 23 904 < 5 4
200 30 6 11 < 10 <2
800 252 58 33 < 10 <5
78 348 22 535 < 5 8
210 120 4 10 <10 <2
73 70 13 332 < 5 12
208 < 10 < 4 4 <10 <2
6640 518 96 73 <10 <5
94 305 20 770 < 5 10
6400 476 124 70 <10 <5
70 47 19 325 < 5 12
74 127 13 218 < 5 15
2200 180 60 50 < 10 <5
CU ^ "m
ffl m z 9s aj fi. w
e CM ij <-\ *-* ,
IS
o. u
en S
1 II
en £
M
M
M
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
M
M
M
S
S
M
M
M
S
S
M
S
S
CO
4J
C
CU
o
CJ
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
NJ
—I
Comments: suspected sample contamination or analytical problem; (1) iron; (2) zinc.
-------
Table 36. Chemical analyses of groundwater from observation wells in the immediate vicinity of the watershed study at the Savage Demonstration Area.
NJ
00
Well
No.
2
2
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
13
13
Date of
Collection
10/01/75
02/27/76
02/27/76
07/04/76
09/11/76
02/27/76
09/11/76
02/27/76
07/04/76
02/27/76
07/04/76
X
O ^ U
U* -13 .- u o z: = z
-J*-' OT3 U ^ C ^ .^^
o. cn u cj 2 c/>
umhos/
cm mg/1
6.1*
6.2*
6.2*
7.6*
6.4*
7.0*
5.9*
7.04
_
6.3*
2270
1950
920
1500
850
1820
2070
1650
1450
' 600
860
244 205 59
204 223
80 73
135 116
49 19 170
40 34 624
67 37 499
125 136 46
150 128
60 45
76 50
tn
o e a c to -a
" Z U N! -J 0
yg/1
<10 330 21 <5 <5 5
51 642 46 410 0 8
52 152 7 43 0 8
94 251 0 <10 <10 <4
11100 340 120 190 <10 5
29 30 5 10 0 10
10200 360 68 192 < 10 10
13 30 9 24 00
107 118 38 <10 <10 <4
81 148 8 30 0 5
72 220 37 <10 < 10 <4
a ^ ^ ^ i
c '"?•> w -^ r~. a ~f ^ 2^ co
2" 3 ~ "2^ ~ ~ •2"' £ "•" S ""' w 'rc
pa oaoc/i u z a, H v
mg/1
- - 1164 - - .13
393 0 1408 - 0 0
- 403 0 412 - 0 0
.84 694 0 418 - 0 .03
358 0 170 19 0 .24 615
702 0 831 - 0 0 1875
955 0 498 26.4 .01 .26 1607
515 0 805 - 0 .01 1365
1.12 510 0 543 - 0 .12
- 391 0 103 - 0 0
.53 592 0 97 - 0 .11
a:
M
.67
-
_
-
5.23
17.49
12.16
.68
-
_
-
o
CO
>
m *-»
'" a™
0 "S
£=5u
m 30
S
S
C
C
c
C
C
S
s
c
c
M
1
(1)
(2)
(D(2)
Comments: Suspected sample contamination or analytical problems; (1) iron; (2) sodium.
Table 37. Chemical analyses of groundwater from observation wells in the immediate vicinity of the watershed study at the Beulah Demonstration Area.
Well
No.
6
16
17
19
Date of
Col lection
03/25 76
03 25/76
03/25/76
07 05 76
-£
o a
c- T3 n e
^ -H U d 3
o a — i ij E -i
rau. -HD -_
mg/1
1099 0 514 - - 0 1676
1281 0 1505 - <.01 .01 3350
1428 0 2096 - <.01 .01 4515
.24 2119 0 3119 - .20 .05 5773
CZ
26.90
35.08
21.87
20.94
a)
3
en u
0 T3 CC
O. C O
11 tl II
VI 3 CJ>
C
c
S
S
-------
DISCUSSION
At five active coal strip mine areas within the tri-state
region of Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming a system of intensively
monitored micro-watersheds were constructed to demonstrate the effects
of several specific soil surface manipulation treatments on control of
runoff, chemistry of runoff, soil water flow, aquifer characteristics
and vegetation establishment. Treatments were chiseling and gouging
with and without topsoiling practices, and dozer basins with topsoiling.
This early report and discussion is limited to the three original of
five locations: Colstrip, Montana; Savage, Montana; Beulah, North Dakota.
Construction of these sites was initiated during summer 1974 and
intensive monitoring initiated summer 1975.
These study sites were located in mined areas of individually
unique edaphic, topographic, and climatic characteristics. The Colstrip
spoil's watersheds are characterized .as having a sandy loam profile
dominated by illite and kaolinite clay mineralogy resulting in relatively
rapid infiltration characteristics. The average degree of watershed
slope is 15° but ranges from 9° to 16°. Watersheds at Savage are
characterized by having gravelly sandy loam soil profile dominated by
smectite clay resulting in initial rapid infiltration rates which
decrease rapidly, conditions extremely conducive to excessive erosion.
The average degree of watershed slope is 15°, but ranges from 13° to 17°.
The Beulah watersheds are characterized as having silty clay soil profiles
that are saline-sodic in nature and dominated by smectite type clay
mineral, that typically results in a crusted and very deeply cracked
129
-------
soil surface. At the initiation of a precipitation event, infiltration
rates for all treatments varied from rapid to slow depending upon the
influence of surface cracks, but eventually the rate became slow as the
volume of conducting pores decreased from soil swelling. The average
degree of watershed slope is 3.75°, and ranges from 3.5° to 4.5°.
Topsoiling management is unequivocally a major reclamation tool
in the control of surface runoff by increasing infiltration. Without
exception, during a runoff event topsoiled watersheds underwent less
runoff than similar nontopsoiled watersheds. Not all precipitation
events produced measureable runoff at these Demonstration Areas, but
eight events resulted in runoff from one or more watershed treatments.
The total quantity of runoff from these eight events was 1.63 cm for
topsoil-dozer basins, 2.32 cm for topsoil-gouged, 4.76 cm for topsoil-
chiseled, 13.74 cm for nontopsoil-gouged, and 16.70 cm for nontopsoil-
chiseled.
The control of runoff and erosion is the initial basic prerequisite
to mine spoil reclamation. The degree of erosion at a site is largely
a function of slope, precipitation intensity and duration, and soil
characteristics, therefore each Demonstration was subjected to a
different combination of erosive forces. Erosion characteristics
at each Demonstration correlated in a positive manner with runoff
results. For example, the amount of soil material displaced resulting
in gullies at the Colstrip and Savage Demonstration watersheds was
3 33
2.7m for topsoil-dozer basins, 8.1 m for topsoil-gouged, 23.7 m
3 3
for nontopsoil-gouged, 26.4 m for topsoil-chiseled, and 43.1 m for
for nontopsoil-chiseled. Thus, the fundamental principle of less
130
-------
runoff - less erosion was substantiated on these spoil watersheds. At
this stage of the study it seems apparent that surface manipulation,
particularly gouging and to a greater extent dozer basins, will be
an effective means of controlling runoff on many types of site conditions
in the semiarid West. The inclusion of topsoiling processes enhances
this result.
Perhaps the most unknown and difficult to measure component in
spoil hydrology is deep percolation. Since surface manipulation
techniques are designed to decrease runoff and increase soil water,
the theoretician may expect deep leaching to be enhanced. Without
'in-s-ltu studies, such as the one at hand, we can only theorize that
deep percolation is or is not occurring in mine spoils which may or
may not cause eventual leaching into ground-water resources.
Deep percolation events do occur on mine spoils, but generally this
is an infrequent event rather than a constant process. In watersheds
of this study, deep percolation events were measured, and this
phenomenon was generally enhanced by techniques that reduced runoff
such as topsoiling, gouging, and dozer basia treatments. But it is
important to consider the final destination Of these deep percolation
events on a hydrologic year basis. Although a quantity of precipitation
may move in the unsaturated state to perhaps the 7- to 10- m depth
or deeper in a short period of time, and leach anions and cations to
some extent, we must realize this is a reversible process. Such an event
is typically followed by a period of evapotranspirational loss and this
water, which attained a depth of 7- to 10- m and is continuing downward,
may undergo a reversal of direction to satisfy the evapotranspiration
demand. Not only may the soil water reverse flow direction but any
131
-------
movement of anions and cations may also reverse movement direction;
a salinization process. Therefore, this is a very dynamic process,
difficult and time-consuming to measure since this requires a constant
monitoring scheme over a long period of time.
The importance of the deep percolation phenomenon is demonstrated
by the "Saline Seep" problem in Montana and North Dakota. This is a
situation where change in surface management over several decades
caused enhancement of deep percolation which created a salt seepage
problem. It is a remote possibility that a similar situation might
develop on some mine spoils locations, therefore unsaturated soil water
flow in mine spoils should not be dismissed as an insignificant effect
in spoil hydrology. Rather, this process may dictate the long term
success or failure of reclamation. Certainly proper surface management
will enter into and influence this process. This reasoning formed a
major objective in this study which was to measure the deep percolation
phenomenon concerning treatments associated with these surface
manipulation watersheds.
At the Savage and Beulah Demonstrations a net 10- to 20- cm of
water moved from the subsurface zone into the surface 2 m zone in four
of the five watersheds during the hydrologic year. In these watersheds
deep percolation events occurred during this time but ultimately this
water was evapotranspired, and an additional 10- to 20- cm of deep
stored water that existed before the initiation of our measurements
flowed into the surface 2 m zone. If this process were to continue
over decades there would be some potential of salinization of the
surface soil, particularly at the North Dakota Demonstration where the
132
-------
spoil contains high levels of salt that could translocate toward the
surface. This hydrologic situation exists in all watersheds except the
nontopsoil-chiseled treatment.
The nontopsoil-chiseled watersheds at the Savage and Beulah
Demonstrations experience a near equilibrium condition and net downward
flow, respectively. In these watersheds, deep percolation occurred but
at the Savage Demonstration this water was ultimately consumed by
evapotranspiration. At the Beulah Demonstration, however, this deep
water was not all evapotranspired and percolation in excess of a 2.0 m
depth was the result. At the Colstrip Demonstration the gamut of
situations occurred between watersheds for the hydrologic year, meaning
net equilibrium flow, net upward flow, and net downward flow.
Deep percolation phenomenon derived from these demonstration water-
sheds cannot be conclusively described with just the one year of data
presented in this report. However, the trends to date have been presented
and as this study matures, these data should reveal the patterns of
deep percolation in spoils at their representative locations in the
semiarid West.
These evapotranspiration data measured in each watershed with
weighing lysimeters were necessary for evaluation of the deep percolation
process in this study. In addition, these data shall serve a corollary
function to other scientists engaged in the study of water interactions
with strip mining in the semiarid West who do not have the opportunity
to employ lysimeter technology. Lysimetry is expensive and very involved
so these published evapotranspiration data in mine spoils, to the best
of our knowledge, are otherwise nonexistent and such data from these
watersheds should be a useful reference.
133
-------
In retrospect, it appears that dozer basins should not be
constructed with the tipped front blade of a crawler tractor as a
substitute for the rear mounted dozer basin implement. When the front
blade is used a basin of relatively low water detention capacity and
a very compacted-impermeable base is produced. Although these basins
are still very effective in the control of runoff, our data show very
little of this detained runoff is absorbed as soil water. Rather,
the water is ponded and evaporated, thus lowering somewhat the reveg-
etation potential.
The quality of surface runoff water from spoil watersheds is of
major concern. Levels of NO»-N, Mg, Ca, soluble salts and most trace
elements were found in low concentrations in watershed runoff water.
Exceptions were Mn and Fe, where concentrations in watershed runoff
waters at all Demonstrations often exceeded federal standards for
drinking water, but were probably acceptable for irrigation purposes.
Occasional samples contained Cd, Pb and PO.-P at levels which exceeded
desirable levels. The quality of runoff as a function of watershed
surface manipulations shows, to date, no trends.
The relationship of surface spoil hydrology to aquifer characteristics
is discussed, and the aquifer chemical quality presented in this report.
Preliminary data indicate that some ground-water recharge is taking place
at the Colstrip demonstration area. However, water level observations at
Savage and Beulah show no significant trends to date. At all Demonstration
134
-------
Sites, manganese was the only trace element in the ground water which
consistently exceeded federal standards for human consumption.
Surface manipulation treatments will have varying degrees of
success at different sites in the semiarid West depending upon several
site factors and the true intent of such techniques. If the intent
is to control runoff and erosion, then surface manipulation techniques
should be useful under most conditions. However, if the conservation
of soil water is of equal or higher priority, then surface manipulation
techniques will have varied influence. For example, at the Colstrip
and Savage sites the recharge of soil water during a precipitation
event was related in a positive manner with topsoiling and surface
detention capacity. But at the Beulah Demonstration this was not
the case. This site is characterized as having a silty clay soil
profile with saline-sodic conditions, and these data show that neither
topsoiling, gouging nor dozer basins will increase soil moisture more
than chiseling alone.
Because of mine site specificity, there will be no universally
best surface manipulation treatment. At this stage of research, it is
apparent that surface manipulation techniques will be widely applicable,
but there will be instances when such techniques will have explicit
limitations.
This report covers about a one year time span of field measurements,
and another year or more is yet to follow. Therefore, this is an
interim report and not a final report, and the discussions and results
to date should be considered preliminary.
135
-------
LITERATURE CITED
1) American Public Health Assoc., 1965. Standard, methods for the
examination of water and waste water. 12th Ed. Amer. Pub.
Health Assoc., N.Y.
2) Baker, L.O. 1972. Annual crop report. Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station, Plant and Soil Science Department, Bozeman,
Montana.
3) Bower, C.A. and L.V. Wilcox. 1969. Nitrate content of the upper
Rio Grande as influenced by nitrogen fertilization of adjacent
irrigated lands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33:971-973.
4) Caprio, J.M. 1977. Unpublished data. Plant and Soil Science
Dept., Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
5) Carter, D.L., J.A. Bondurant and C.W. Robbins. 1971. Water-
soluable NOg-N, PO^-P and total salt balances on a large
irrigation tract. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:331-335.
6) Dickenson, W.T., M.E. Holland, and G.L. Smith. 1967. An experi-
mental rainfall runoff facility. Hydrology Papers. Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, 80 p.
7) Dollhopf, D.J. 1975. Soil and water relationships with gypsum
and land disposed feedlot waste. Ph.D. Thesis, Montana State
University, Bozeman, Montana.
8) Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastes. Environmental Monitoring and
Support Lab. Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
9) Ferguson, H., P.L. Brown, and D.D. Dickey. 1964. Water movement
and loss under frozen soil conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 28:700-703.
10) Gouy, G. 1910. Sur le construction de la charge electrique a la
surface a un electrolyte. J. de Physique. 9:657-668.
11) Grissinger, E.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1970. Sediment in relation
to water quality. Water Resources Bui. 6(1):7-14.
12) Hamon, W.R. 1972. Computing actual precipitation.. Symposium on
Distribution of Precipitation in Mountainous Areas. Geilo,
Norway, July 31 - Aug 5.
13) Hanks, R.J. and R.W. Shawcroft. 1965. An economical lysimeter
for evapotranspiration studies. Agron. J., Vol. 57, p 634-636.
136
-------
Hanson, V.L. 1968. Nitrates in playas. Agri. Research.
USDA 15, Dec.
15) Hinkle, M.E. and R.E. Learned. 1969. Determination of mercury
in natural waters by collection on silver screens. U.S.G.S.
Prof. Pap. 6500:251-254.
16) Hodder, R.L., D.E. Ryerson, R. Mogen and J. Buchholz. 1970.
Coal mine spoils reclamation research project. Mont. Agr.
Ex. Sta., Res. Report 8.
17) Holt, R.F., D.R. Timmons and J.J. Latterell. 1970. Accumulation
of phosphates in water. J. Agr. Food Chem. 13:781-784.
18) Kohnke, H. 1968. Soil Physics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 220 p.
19) Massey, H.F. and M.L. Jackson. 1952. Selective erosion of soil
fertility constituents. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 16:353-356.
20) McDowell, L.L. and E.H. Grissinger. 1966. Pollutant source and
routing in watershed programs. Proc. 21st Am. Meeting Soil
Cons. Soc. Am. p. 147-161.
21) Meeuwig, R.O. 1971. Infiltration and water repellency in granitic
soils. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-Ill.
22) Menzel, R.G. 1960. Transportation of strontium-90 in runoff.
Science 131:499-500.
23) Moe, P.G. 1967. Loss of fertilizer N in surface runoff water.
Soil Sci. 104:389-394.
"24) Moe, P.G., J.V. Mannering and C.B. Johnston. 1969. Fertilizer
runoff higher on moist and sodded soil than bare soil. Crops
and Soils. Vol. 24, No. 4:21-22.
25) Satterlund, D.R. 1967. Wildland watershed management. The
Ronald Press Company, New York. 370 p.
26) Schultz, J.D. 1966. Current status of soil moisture measurement
by the neutron method. In: International Symposium on Forest
Hydrology, Pergamon Press—Oxford and New York, 791-796.
27) Schuman, G.E., et al. 1973. Nitrogen losses in surface runoff
from agricultural watersheds on the Missouri Valley Loess. J.
Env. Qual. 2:299-301.
28) Smith, F.M. and W.D. Striffler. 1969. Pawnee site micro-
watersheds: selection description and instrumentation. USIBP
Grassland Biome. Tech. Report 5, Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins,
50 p.
137
-------
29) Standford, G., C.B. England and A.W. Taylor. 1970. Fertilizer
use and water quality. ARS 41-168. USDA, Washington, D.C.
19 p.
30) Stoltenberg, N.L. and J.L. White. 1953. Selective loss of plant
nutrients by erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 17:406-410.
31) Taylor, A.W. 1967. Phosphorus and water pollution. J. Soil and
Water Cons. 22:228-231.
32) U.S. Dept. of the Interior Geological Survey. Water resources
data for Montana water quality records.
33) Wadleigh, C.H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agriculture and
forestry. Misc. Pub. No. 1065. USDA, Washington, D.C., 112 p.
34) Westinghouse Environmental Systems. 1973. Colstrip generation
and transmission project: Applicants environmental analysis.
35) White, E.M. and E.J. Williamson. 1973. Plant nutrient concen-
trations in runoff from fertilized cultivated erosion plots
and prairie in eastern South Dakota. J. Environ. Qual.
4:455-463.
36) Willis, W.O., H.L. Parkinson, C.W. Carlson, and H.J. Haos. 1964.
Water table change and soil moisture loss under frozen conditions.
Soil Sci. 98:244-248.
37) Witzel, S.A., N. Minshall, M. Nichols and J. Wilke. 1969.
Surface runoff and nutrient losses'of Fennimore Watersheds.
Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. Trans. 12:338-341.
138
-------
APPENDIX A. LYSIMETRY - DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
139
-------
LYSIMETRY - DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
Introduction
An economical lysimeter has been developed,, field tested
and found very useful for measurements of evapotranspiration. The
principle is not original with the author as Ekern in Hawaii, Tanner
in Wisconsin and Hanks in Colorado (13) have used the pressure
pillow type of lysimeter for several years.
The Colstrip, Savage and Beulah Demonstration Areas have one
lysimeter in each of 5 watersheds, for a total of fifteen units.
Each Demonstration Area has four lysimeters equipped with pressure
pillow transducers. The fifth lysimeter in each area was equipped
with a load cell transducer.
Methodology
Figure 39 shows the two types of lysimeters. The tanks were
constructed of corrugated galvanized steel culvert. The inner
tank had a 0.476 cm thick metal plate welded to one end. The inner
tank was equipped with a soil water vacuum extraction system and
aluminum neutron access tube. The soil moisture status of the lysi-
meter was determined with a neutron probe on a monthly schedule
as were the other neutron tubes located throughout each watershed.
Thus, it could be confirmed that the soil moisture status of a
lysimeter was representative of the entire watershed. If a lysimeter
became waterlogged, the vacuum extraction unit enabled removal of
soil water. The extraction unit consisted of two 0.635 cm O.D.
copper tubes leading from the soil surface to three porous extraction
140
-------
NEUTRON TUBE
_ 0»H
S»STEi
Figure 39. Lysimeter construction details for both pressure pillow (a) and loadcell
(b) type transducers.
-------
tubes located near the bottom of the lysimeter. One copper tube
served for vacuum extraction operations while the second copper
tube allowed air entry during extraction.
Pressure Pillow Transducer
Figure 39 shows that the total weight of the lysimeter was
distributed over two wooden blocks which sat upon two rubber pillows.
21
These pillows were constructed of nylon-reinforced butyl rubber
irrigation tubing, 20.32 cm in diameter. The fluid in the pillows
was a mixture of 507o anti-freeze solution and 507o distilled water.
The pressure of the fluid in the bags was equal to the total weight
of the inner tank and contents, divided by the area of the two
wooden support blocks. The wooden blocks were used to maintain
a constant area over which the weight was distributed. The two
pillows were connected to a pipe tee by 0.476 cm O.D. copper tubing
and to an above-ground manometer by a single 0.635 cm O.D. "active"
copper tube. A "dummy" 0.635 cm O.D. copper tube used for temperature
correction, paralleled the active tube and terminated on the floor
of the lysimeter chamber. At the soil surface both the active and
dummy copper tubes were connected by a tygon tubing sleeve to 0.635
cm O.D. glass tubing. This glass tubing was mounted next to a meter
30.48 cm long by 1.27 cm diameter porous tubes were supplied by Soil
Moisture Equipment Co., Box 30025, Santa Barbara, CA 93105.
2/
Supplied by Watersaver,Co. Inc., 3560 Wynkop St., Denver, CO 80216.
142
-------
stick. The lysimeter soil weight was measured as a function of the
height of the fluid in the active manometer tube. A cabinet with
doors housed the manometer tubes up to a maximum height of 4.0
m (Figure 40). This cabinet was located about 7 m from the lysimeter
and was oriented so as not to cast a shadow over the lysimeter during
the day. All hydraulic lines were buried 60 cm below the soil
surface.
Figure 40 Housed in a wooden cabinet, two glass manometer tubes
registered changes in mass of a lysimeter located
about 7 m away. In the background another manometer
cabinet can be seen.
142a
-------
Load Cell Transducer
Researchers have devised force transducers that produce voltage
output which is directly proportional to the applied force. Thus,
transducers provide an opportunity to connect weighing lysimeters
to automatic data acquisition systems.
3/
rigure 39 shows the position of a 908 kg capacity load cell
under a lysimeter. Figure 41 shows the mounting bracket which enabled
the lysimeter to be placed on the load cell. The load cell, center
of photo, was screwed onto a steel plate. The load cell button, top,
:
Figure 41. Load cell mounting bracket. Entire lysimeter mass
sat upon a single .95 cm diameter ball bearing,
center of photo.
3/
Load cell type C3P1 was supplied by BLH Electronics, Inc., 42-4th Ave
Waltham, MA 02154.
143
-------
contains a 0.95 cm diameter ball bearing. A second steel plate,
Figure 42, which had a 0.95 cm socket machined into it, rests
-
, - • *
.- .
. -<•:*., .. • .-
>>.'. *~vfV>i
•<>.- \jt3s*;
Figure 42. Complete load cell transducer unit.
upon the top steel plate. Thus the entire lysimeter mass was
concentrated onto one ball bearing, which ideally converted all
lysimeter motion into a vertical force on the load cell. The chains
and angle iron braces shown in Figure 44 protected the load cell
in case excessive tipping of the lysimeter occured during installation.
The load cell transducer used for this system was rated at 15070
capacity, or 1362 kg. This was an important factor since these
lysimeters ranged in weight from about 900 to 1200 kg. Therefore,
load cell output when loaded with the lysimeter was between about
45 and 60 mV, depending on actual lysimeter mass. Our goal was
to detect evapotranspiration changes of 1 mm which was equivalent
144
-------
to a change in lysimeter mass of .656 kg. A change in mass of
.656 kg would have resulted in a load cell output differential of
about 30 mV. This was the magnitude of signal that could be success-
fully amplified by the circuit drawn in Figure 43. Basically,
this circuit was designed to amplify the load cell voltage signal
to a level that the data acquisition system could accept.
The load cell lysimeter interface (Figure 43) was powered by
a Dynamic Measurements Corporation, type 402-C Modular Power supply.
This power supply provided regulated + 15 volts from the 115 VAC
line voltage input. Two operational amplifiers were used in conjunc-
tion with a battery summing circuit. An analog Device, type 232-J,
chopper stabilized operation amplifier converted the dual outputs
from the load cell to a single amplified output of approximately -1
V maximum. This negative voltage was summed with a variable positive
voltage from a 1.3 V battery to provide an input of approximately
-.1 V to the second operational amplifier. An Analog Device
type 118-A, discrete operational amplifier converted the summed
output of the 232-J to a positive voltage suitable for use with
the data collection system, 1.0 V maximum.
Even though the operational amplifiers used were temperature
compensating, the discrete components used were affected by temperature
extremes. Therefore, a constant temperature circuit was designed
and fabricated. This was attached piggy-back on the interface board.
A 2K-0.1 W power resistor, enclosed in a finned heat sink, was the
heater element. Alternating current to the power resistor was switched
145
-------
1,4 meg.
vw
.5 meg.
Figure 43. Circuitry used to interface lysimeter load cell
to data acquisition system.
146
-------
by an MR-512C relay, 12V-800 meg. The relay control circuit was a
LM 741 driving an N.P.N. transistor, type 2N1302. A series-parallel
voltage divider network provided the dual inputs to the LM741.
One series leg was a 10K resistor and a UUA35J thermistor. The other
series leg was a 10K resistor and a 10K potentiometer. One potentio-
meter could be adjusted to balance the two series legs and thereby
Table 38. Load cell lysimeter interface parts list.
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Capacitors
1
1
2
Resistors
3
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
2
1
Description
118A - Analog Devices, operation amplifier
232J - Analog Devices, chopper stabilized operational
amplifier
402C - Dynamic Measurements Corp., power supply
(+ 15 vdc)
C3P1 - BLH load cell, 2000 Ib. capacity, 3 ma/A
LM741 - operational amplifier
MR-512C 12 V relay, International Rectifier
E-9 Everready, 1.4 mercury battery
44A-35J1 UniCurve, thermistor
2N-1302 transistor
1N-914 diode
270 pf, 500 V, MICA
1 mfd, 25 V, tant.
.22 mfd, 12 V, ceramic discs
100K, 15 turn trim potentiometer
10K, 20 turn trim potentiometer
1.5 meg, 20 turn trim potentiometer
10K, l/8w, 20% carbon
15K, l/8w, 20% carbon
10K, precision, film, l/8w
40K, precision, film, l/8w
100K, precision, film, l/8w
1.4 meg, precision, wirewould, l/2w
2K, wirewould, 10%, lOw
147
-------
set the switch on temperature of the heater. Table 38 presents the
load cell lysimeter interface parts list. This circuit was being
successfully used in the field but additional development will further
improve the system.
Installation
A backhoe was used at each demonstration area to excavate
necessary pits. The soil was removed in 1-foot depth increments and
piled separately. To avoid soil moisture loss these piles were
covered with plastic. The lysimeter tanks were incrementally packed
4/
as soon as possible. During the packing process a pocket penetrometer
was used intensively to make sure the original spoil density was
obtained. Table 39 shows the profile density configuration for 15
Table 39. Compaction factor in the 15 lysimeter soil profiles is
given in kg/cm .
Lysimeter
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Topsoil
.25
.25
.5
--
--
.5
—
.5
--
.5
.25
--
—
.5
.5
Soil Depth
1 foot 2 feet
Colstrip Demonstration
1.5 2.5
1.3 3.0
.6 1.75
1.75 1.25
1.0 2.0
Savage Demonstration
1.25 1.25
.5 1.5
1.5 1.75
1.0 1.25
.75 1.25
Beulah Demonstration
1.0 2.5
4+ 4+
4+ 4+
2.5 2.25
2.0 2.5
3 feet
4.0
2.25
3.0
2.5
4.0
1.75
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.75
4+
4+
2.75
3.0
4/Model CL-700 by Soil Test, Inc., 2205 Lee St., Evanston, IL 60202
148
-------
lysitneters. The lysimeter soil surfaces were seeded with the identical
perennial grass seed mixture planted on the watersheds.
As shown in Figure 39, the lysimeter foundation consists of
a re-bar reinforced 10 cm thick concrete pad placed on gravel fill.
When the concrete had cured sufficiently, the outer tank was centered
on the pad and backfilled around the outside.
The force transducer was then prepared and positioned on the
concrete pad. The transducer pillows were filled with fluid and
then the connectors were soldered to the 0.635 cm outside diameter
copper tube leading to the manometer cabinet. A portable overhead
hoist system (Figure 44) was designed for this lysimeter work. It
Figure 44. Portable overhead hoist system was used to install
the lysimeter.
149
-------
consisted of four adjustable legs (7.62 cm diameter pipe) and an
overhead 3.6 m long by 15 cm I-beam. The major stress points were
braced with angle iron. A trolley with a 1362 kg capacity chain
hoist on the I-beam enabled one person to lift and position the
inner tank into the outer tank. Once the lysimeter was in place
atop the transducer, a suspension system was installed to prevent
the inner tank from tipping. This consisted of three equidistant
points of connection around the circumference of the lysimeter.
Each connection was made with airplane cable which extended in
triangular pattern from the outer tank--to the inner tank--and back
to the outer tank. Test showed that this arrangement allowed the
tank to move free vertically, yet prevented any tipping motion.
Since these lysimeters were installed on a slope, a cutting
torch was used to match the tank soil surface edge to the slope.
No balancing complications were introduced by this procedure,
apparently because the mass of the section removed was insignificant
compared to the entire mass of the lysimeter. Installation was
completed with the installation of a black polyethylene collar between
the inner and outer tanks.
Calibration
Lysimeters were calibrated by applying a known force and recording
the response. Table 40 presents these data for the pillow transducer
lysimeters. Lysimeter number 2 located at the Savage Demonstration
was apparently tipped during the calibration since the sensitivity
was reduced. On the average 1 mm evapotranspiration loss registers
150
-------
a lysimeter manometer change of 2.4 mm. Therefore, these lysimeters
registered evapotranspiration accurately to a fraction of a millimeter.
The sensitivity of these lysimeters was very satisfactory.
Table 40. Lysimeter calibration during August, 1975. A mass change
of 656.7 g was equivalent to a loss-gain factor of 1 mm
of H20.
Lysimeter
No Force (cm)
Active Dummy
Applied
Force
kg
Force (cm)
Active Dummy
Calibration*
Savage Demonstration
1
2
3
4
5
65.62
40.10
186.22
112.92
122.77
141.80
136.79
166.17
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
67.79
40.27
191.10
117.41
122.77
141.80
136.22
166.17
1.10
.09
2.48
2.28
Colstrip Demonstration
1
2
3
4
5
170.32
160.28
175.78
178.86
55.70
54.15
99.60
88.72
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
172.00
162.31
177.64
180.55
55.70
54.15
99.60
88.72
2.20
2.73
2.50
2.27
Beulah Demonstration
1
2
3
4
5
155.90
140.72
148.49
152.20
86.92
81.08
73.08
65.30
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
159.33
144.26
152.12
156.04
86.92
81.08
73.08
65.30
2.60
2.69
2.76
2.92
mm manometer deflection per 1 mm of evapotranspiration.
151
-------
APPENDIX B. VOLUMETRIC SOIL WATER CONTENTS
152
-------
43 JJ .02°! 12 .nmn n\
i i '>? .0109 j: .0101 73
7 -.6 .-j_i-j 4 t .12.!.'. /,i
0 3j .OJV. 4J .T2V, 4[
=J O .0176 il .1237 i
3 3h .0:01 42 .0:36 6
., ti .lltii If. .Ol7f. 1
.
Old 27*
108 3»i
J71 If.
16 '• 39
1 34 3fi
242 3.".
139 38
)070 _>6 .0137 16 ."-147 lu* .0157 17 -OO66 U .Om J?* .011? ?d .003*- 13 .009
13-'
161
10'-
•H1A
nu
3 .0105 30 .6
7 .0150 37 .OUB 37 .Did
7 .0156 38 .0186 40 .042
'I .0120 40 .0177 41 .039
0 . 023-'. 27 -i'2ri« 15 29 .0235 ?ft .0212 30 .02
7 .0122 27 .0145 28 -DOS* J7 .0123 20 .OK
0-22.3
22.S-17.5
17.5-52.j
32.5-07.J
67.5-82.5
B2.5-10.-,
lli-135
135-163
165-195
195-225
Ln
OJ
22. 5-37. 3
52.J-67.5
67.5-82.5
IJI-'hS
165-195
195-
46 .010 43
11 .015 36
31 .017 34
i: . '260 ?2
33 .0238 32
.r>07R re ,oo9fl
.0190 43 .0130
.0195 41 .0075
.'••'" 34 .0290
10 .01*9 14
47 .Oi)2 37
45 .004 38
35 .-'.c; ii
.0040
.0062
.109
.0182
.1211
15 .U135
25 .0230
^ .0133
35 .0169
38 .0178
17 .0278
09 .0043
13 .0183
24 .0133
26 -01J8
36 .0161
35 -Ol9ii
09 .0050
13 .0072
21 .0132
22 .0153
33 .Ol'U
11 .0)48
10 .0(129
16 .0133
13 .0077
23 .0258
25 .0138
26 .OOS2
20 .017"
19 .0198
21 .0208
23 -0079 19
29 .0092 27
2f ."145 27
21 .0168 26
.00*4 32 .0067
.0127 28 .0139
.0144 27 .0159
55
M.S. "4
Nontopsr.il-
Gouged
%
*.S. *5
Nontopsoil-
Chlseled
sx
n-22.">
22.5-J7.5
37.3-52.5
32.5-67.3
67.5-C2.5
82. 5-105
13J-163
165-195
193-225
0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
52.5-67.5
67.5-82.3
82.5-105
135-165
165-195
.0395**
32*
40
17
28
24
26
31
31
.1)233**
n-5
39*
18
33
27
27
28
29
32
31
.0531**
n-5
level
.0 7 ft
.0 48
.0 07
.0 86
.0 43
.0 59
.0 82
.0053
.3199
.0114
.0352
.0340
.0363
.0286
.0206
.0228
.0214
n-4
18
43
40
36
26
20
32
33
30.
.0204ns
rl-3
23
41
15
31
33
35
35
34
.0422 ns
n-5
.0540
.0085
.0117
.0225
.0219
.0145
.0203
. 0076
.0339
.0064
.0250
.0436
.0363
.0363
.0211
.0226
.0237
n-4
04
29
39
37
36
37
35
32
33
30
.0406**
n-5
04
30
37
37
39
40
39
33
.0436
n-5
.0410
.02R1
.0004
.TOS7
.0167
.0203
.0057
.0144
.0404
.0312
-0351
.04 5"
.0413
.0294
n-3
03
32
42
41
38
40
19
42
39
3f
. J473**
n-1
03
31
1*
17
41
33
35
.0436*
n-5
.017
.072
.093
-111
.055
. 038
.035
-
.0113
.0287
.0115
.0342
.0329
.0276
.0262
These
n-4
25*
3H
17
33
37
37
37
31
34
n-1
26*
33
34
35
36
39
39
38
.0905**
n-3
onoo
0000
0000
0000
0000
oooo
OOP"
0000
.0187
.0345
.0530
.0574
.0140
.0368
.0122
.0303
data plotted In
.0404**
10
33
30
29
35
38
40
40
n-1
IS
25
27
30
32
13
33
37
.1007**
n-3
figure 91
-0951
.1635
.1512
.1470
.1740
.1911
.1898
.1999
--
.0230
.0439
.0606
.0598
.0370
.0376
.0241
.0147
f
.0306**
n-5
07
16
15
13
24
28
30
35
36
.0595**
n-3
08
16
19
22
26
30
36
36
.0658**
n-5
ns Sot
.0252
.0422
.0396
.0439
.0566
.0637
.0862
-
.0264
.0298
.0332
.0363
.0149
.0443
.0301
.0226
.0112
."25?**
n-5
07*
15
13
16
21
23
33
13
.0764**
n-3
07*
12
17
21
24
28
32
35
36
.0606**
.0285
.0340
.0321
.0338
.0479
.0536
.0722
-
.0243
.0202
.0282
.0336
.0349
.0447
.0302
.0199
.0108
""n-4*
12
14
11
12
15
16
24
2=
.0538ns
n-3
10
10
11
13
16
20
23
25
26
.0431**
.0776
.0556
.0526
.0472
.044
.045
.064
-
.0269
.0105
.one
.0239
.0277
.0354
.0199
.0186
.0127
.?«!*-*
n-5
28
21
16
16
17
20
27
26
-0371ns
n-4
1-10-76
20
20
21
21
21
23
26
26
25
.05H6**
n-5
. 500
. 186
. 320
. 106
. 286
.0135
-
.0121
.0238
.0360
-042f-
.0340
.0299
.0173
.0173
.0114
.OJM-
2-25-76
22*
28
21
20
27
25
.0327ns
n-5
2-2K-/5
2~3*
23
23
23
23
24
27
26
.0581**
,0D5f
.0233
.0146
.-J18?
.0211
.0170
-
.0182
.0116
.0333
.046
.044
.036
.018
.015
.009
.0176**
18
25
23
20
22
2.
26
.0737**
n-4
19
21
21
24
23
24
25
27
25
.0551**
.0401**
.0054 27* .0779
.0131 27 .0704
.0130 23 .0533
.0137 21 .0531
.0171 24 .0550
.0072 27 .0675 !
2ft
n-5
.0173 27* .0170 !
.0203 26 .0215 i
.02f«7 26 .0333 t
.03C1 25 .0402
.0422 25 .0332
.0343 26 .0322
.0195 27 .0168
.0143 28 .0137
.0132 27 .0120
.0565**
n-5
significant
-------
Table 42. Volumetric soil water
average from five alte
Surface Increment
Treatment Depths (cm)
W.S. #1 0-22.5
37.5-52.5
Topsoil- 52.5-67.5
Chiseled 67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
195 225
. 225-245
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
195-225
225-245
W.S. *3 0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
Gouged 67.5-82.5
105-135
135-165
165-195
195-225
225-245
S_
W.S. 9 it 0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
r.ontopsoil- 52.5-67. 5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
195-225
225-245
W.S. #5 0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
Oozer Basins 67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
195-225
225-245
14+
32
34
33
33
37
40
39
38
.0679**
n-5
23
27
33
30
29
34
34
33
29
34
.135**
n-4
09+
18
23
27
28
26
29
27
26
. 0890**
n-4
18+
23
22
30
30
37
35
38
31
42
,0417na
n-4
S_ "
.0432
.0143
.0250
.0270
.0180
.0410
-06M
.0856
.0495
.0585
.0446
.0568
.0440
.0296
.0200
.0563
.0313
.0548
.0317
.0537
.0340
.0328
.0419
.0213
.0118
.0235
.0436
.0347
0243
0335
0556
0542
contenta with depth and time «re presented far each
a and the standard error of thase means are shown.
9-08-75
11 .0363
34 .0130
33 .0237
33 .0258
38 .0118
41 .0420
40 .0664
39
.0673**
24 .0847
29 .0482
34 .0608
29 .0475
35 .0600
33 .0291
30 .0206
35
.139**
n=4
1 3 . 0000
13 .0000
13 .0000
16 .0000
1 7 . nooc
20 . 0000
23 .0000
27 .0000
27 .0000
.0885**
n-1
10-12-75
08+
27
28
27
33
38
3ft
37
.0372ns
n-5
08+
18
24
29
25
30
28
28
31
. 136**
n-4
10-11-75
05
11
17
17
20
22
20
25
24
.0832**
07+
16
16
16
21
22
29
26
36
.055*
n-4
S-
.0307
.0105
.0213
.0177
.0176
.0353
.0612
.0544
.0469
.0641
.0418
.0772
.0182
-0203
.0407
• C238
.0461
.0478
.0525
,0302
.0364
0106
0185
0219
0289
0454
0405
0483
0460
11-04-75
14
25
25
25
31
38
37
27
-0477n
17
27
30
26
32
26
28
. 0385 n
n-3
11
15
16
'P
19
71
20
22
23
.0739**
11-03-75
16
18
1C
20
21
21
29
24
32
n-4
S.
X
.0136
10254
.0174
.0521
.0971
.0620
.0326
.0582
.0290
.0661
.0106
0494
0174
0418
0427
"f-Jl
0289
0363
0095
0215
0201
0239
O4 31
0367
0410
0426
watershed
! 2-09- 7 5
25
27
30
34
34
32
.0415 n
29+
25
25
23
24
28
25
2*
.0752*
n-4
8+
8
9
19
21
22
.0814**
12-08-75
25+
18
16
'0
20
20
28
22
32
.04M na
treatra
Sj
.0190
.0071
.0139
.0108
.0385
.0642
.0236
.0419
.0405
.0268
.0521
.0061
.0414
.0408
.0277
.0342
0130
0186
0167
0363
0427
0400
0407
0389
ent at th
1-13-76
22
26
27
30
36
35
39
31
.0480 n«i
26
24
27
27
27
.0523**
19
20
.72
20
23
23
.0901**
n-4
23
20
19
23
23
24
34
. 0430**
n-5
24
18
19
21
21
23
25
22
32
,0475ns
n-4
in f Inure
e Sava
S-
.0177
.0157
.0154
.0150
.0357
.0661
.066?
.0165
.0456
.0205
.0250
.0402
.0090
0486
0383
0440
"492
0269
0338
0229
0201
0219
0185
0205
005"
0132
0280
0239
0158
0434
0366
0418
0391
ft
e Demons!
2-28-76
Trjoz —
27
25
26
30
34
31
33
31
.0472*
27
25
23
25
24
26
.0581**
2-27-76
3
2
4
1
22
22
. 1072**
23
21
18
18
22
21
23
29
.0408**
n-5
26+
20
18
20
20
21
26
31
.0328 n»
n-4
ng 1975 and 1976.
S-
.0202
.0100
.0179
.0130
.0622
.0583
.0357
.0272
.0196
.0177
.0085
.0468
.0465
.0454
.0498
.0368
.0315
.0368
.0245
.0157
.0210
.0201
.0235
.0092
.0135
.0122
.0219
.0111
.0432
.0364
.0261
.0408
nB Not
4-01-76
20
30
28
27
31
34
33
.0495*
13
28
29
23
27
25
27
.0772**
n-5
24
23
24
22
24
22
23
.1067**
n-4
24
24
20
19 '
21
21
23
28
.0417**
24
22
19
21
21
33
.0350 n»
n-4.
« Igniflc
s-
.0319
.0242
.0171
.0193
.0111
.0623
.0675
.0223
.0310
.0203
.0457
.0227
.0093
.0328
.0447
.0449
.0517
.0427
.0387
.0390
.0143
.0203
.0202
.0191
.0203
.0211
.0215
.0238
.0120
.0196
.0131
.0168
.0145
.0332
.0392
0231
0397
nt
5-01-76
«2°*
32+
34
35
29
28
27
33
35
35
.0700**
31+
32
32
28
26
28
26
28
.0626**
n-5
28
27
25
25
22
24
24
24
23
.0971**
28+
27
25
25
23
21
22
23
. 21
23
30
.0427**
n-5
28+
25
22
22
22
25
25
22
31
.0276ns
S-
.0099
.0158
.0244
.0140
.0206
.0195
.0154
.0603
.0690
.0202
.0165
.0280
.0277
.0284
.0200
.0092
.0323
.0401
.0442
.0520
.0408
.0388
.0331
.0413
.0163
.0205
.07.03
.0141
.0202
.0197
.0239
.0273
.0111
.0118
.0124
.0166
.0083
.0399
.0376
.0158
.0246
.0368
154
-------
Ui
Watershed
Surface
Treatment
U.S. $1
Topsoil-
Chiseled
s_
W.S. #2
Nontopsoil-
Gouged
S_
X
U.S. S3
Nontopsoil-
Chiseled
S-
X
W.S. «4
Topsoil-
Gouged
S_
X
W.S. »5
Topsoil-
Dozer
Basins
error of these means are shown. Samples collected on eleven dates during 1975 a-H 1076
Sampling
Increment
Depths (cm)
0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
52.5-67.5
67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
52.5-67.5
67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
52.5-67.5
67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
52.5-67.5
67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
0-22.5
22.5-37.5
37.5-52.5
52.5-67.5
67.5-82.5
82.5-105
105-135
135-165
165-195
6-23-75
H20%
39+
36
34
33
32
32
36
33
35
0.0321**
n-5
35+
35
37
39
40
41
41
39
39
0.0519**
n-5
35+
35
34
32
32
35
34
36
38
0.0648**
n-5
38 +
39
33
34
34
34
33
32
33
0.0042 ns
n=2
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
Sx
.0072
.0112
.0168
.0187
.0201
.0128
.0192
.0163
.0127
.0117
.0211
.0359
.0377
.0300
.0152
.0173
.0222
.0192
.0215
.0155
.0159
.0281
.0278
.0308
.0290
.0220
8-5-75
H2OZ
21
35
36
34
33
32
35
35
34
0.0288
n-5
33
35
38
39
40
42
42
40
40
0.0343*
n-5
30
37
36
35
35
36
37
37
38
S*
.0323
.0129
.0166
.0225
.0179
.0132
.0096
.0208
.0138
ns
.0146
.0207
.0267
.0322
.0277
.0062
.0168
.0174
.0116
.0332
.0216
.0207
.0200
.0275
.0314
.0264
.0298
0.0638**
.1171
.1199
.1055
.1067
.1065
.1066
.1035
.1022
.1035
n=5
34
39
38
36
36
34
32
32
34
0.0227*
n-5
26
35
35
31
31
32
34
32
31
.0085
.0077
.0133
.0109
.0106
.0155
.0140
.0104
.0262
.0336
.0189
.0267
.0175
.0199
.0082
.0173
.0097
.0131
Sx 0.0151 ns
n-5
8-25-75
HjOZ
19+
35
34
34
33
32
34
35
34
0.0297*
n-5
36+
40
40
44
44
44
43
44
43
0.0372**
n-5
28+
36
35
45
34
34
37
36
39
0.0648**
n-5
31 +
39
38
35
35
34
33
32
33
0.0233*
n-5
28 +
36
36
31
32
32
35
33
32
0.0101 ns
n-5
Sx
0311
0125
0163
0236
0156
0130
0114
0192
0143
0137
.0183
.0317
.0333
.0288
.0084
.0182
.0170
.0114
.0305
.0194
.0176
.0210
.0259
.0295
.0257
.0267
.0209
.0079
.0110
.0081
.0115
.0148
.0144
.0119
.0249
.0325
.0156
.0268
.0192
.0229
.0061
.0178
.0098
.0137
10-25-75
H2OZ
34
36
35
35
33
35
37
35
36
0.0329**
n-5
36
40
40
44
44
44
44
43
44
0.0409**
n-5
37
38
37
36
38
38
38
40
43
0.0695**
n-5
40
41
39
39
39
38
36
33
35
0.0550**
n-5
37
40
37
33
35
36
37
32
32
0.0095 ns
n-5
S-
X
.0173
.0141
.0173
.0179
.0202
.0103
.0214
.0205
.0152
.0152
.0233
.0329
.0269
.0134
.0121
.0144
.0358
.0121
.0227
.0210
.0131
.0292
.0304
.0265
.0291
.0253
.0297
.0073
.0185
.0177
.0219
.0262
.0220
.0261
.0342
.0400
.0200
.0136
.0221
.0172
.0149
.0143
.0133
.0153
11-28-75
34+ •
35
34
34
32
34
37
34
35
0.0320**
n-5
35 +
38
38
42
43
43
42
43
41
0.0462**
n-5
36+
36
36
36
37
37
37
40
41
0.0762**
n-5
38+
39
37
36
37
35
34
32
33
0.0292*
n-5
35 +
38
35
31
33
34
35
30
33
0.0148 ns
n-5
Sx
0181
0149
0162
0205
0203
0101
0194
0192
0152
0180
0210
0390
0269
.0157
0136
.0156
.0335
.0158
.0234
.0219
.0136
.0316
.0327
.0278
.0283
.0258
.0270
.0094
.0177
.0105
.0102
.0214
.0147
.0167
.0275
.0351
.0169
.0146
.0222
.0167
.0138
.0158
.0140
.0154
11-29-75
35
36
35
35
33
35
37
35
36
0.0365**
n-5
37
39
39
42
44
44
43
43
42
0.0440**
n-5
36
36
36
36
36
37
36
39
41
0.0693**
n-5
32
39
38
37
37
36
34
33
33
0.0406ns
n-5
39
37
34
31
33
33
34
31
33
0.0049 ns
n-5
sx
0181
0141
0210
0206
0240
0130
0196
0189
0136
.0174
.0247
.0337
.0297
.0168
.0105
.0148
.0315
.0121
.0198
.0201
.0129
.0292
.0334
.0271
.0271
.0244
.0788
.0071
.0164
.0084
.0099
.0209
.0164
.0162
.0281
.0992
.0959
.0890
.0816
.0860
.0868
.0880
.0836
.0858
1-31-76
34
35
33
33
32
34
3F,
34
35
0.0344**
n-5
36
38
38
42
43
42
42
42
41
0.0434**
n-5
36
37
34
34
37
37
36
39
41
0.0676**
n-5
38
39
38
37
37
35
34
33
34
0.0237 na
n-5
38
36
33
31
32
33
32
32
33
0.0294*
n-4
S5
.0076
.0103
.0143
.0288
.0317
.0204
.0180
.0197
.0174
.0134
.0197
.0333
.0309
.0161
.0116
.0140
.0309
.0109
.0229
.0194
.0107
.0283
.0315
.0283
.0289
.0230
.0288
.0112
.0174
.0108
.0069
.0173
.0126
.0169
.0242
.0968
.0918
.0849
.0828
.0850
.0857
.0842
.0846
.0867
2-29-76
H2OZ
38
36
34
34
33
35
37
37
36
0.0445**
n-5
39
38
38
42
42
42
45
43
41
0.0434**
n-5
36
35
34
34
35
36
36
38
41
0.0687**
n-5
38
39
37
37
37
35
32
32
33
0.0225ns
n-5
40
38
36
33
34
36
36
33
34
0.0382**
n-4
Sx
0128
0159
0217
0201
.0218
.0156
.0206
.0172
.0161
.0208
.0178
.0350
.0316
.0164
.0096
.0158
.0293
.0137
.0205
.0160
.0102
.0267
.0341
.0274
.0285
.0260
.0252
.0091
.0140
.0116
.0105
.0159
.0124
.0167
.0250
.1020
.0978
.0928
.0887
.0894
.0933
.0925
.0857
.0886
4-3-76
H20%
39+
37
34
35
36
36
39
36
37
0.0361**
n-5
38+
41
40
42
44
44
43
43
42
0.0514**
n-5
36 +
37
35
35
37
37
37
39
41
0.0658**
n-5
39 +
40
37
38
37
36
34
33
34
0.0338**
n-5
36 +
40
36
34
34
36
37
32
33
s.
0065
0174
0197
0187
0212
0150
0177
0175
.0143
.0138
.0330
.0353
.0257
.0145
.0143
.0154
.0275
.0130
.0209
.0152
.0130
.0268
.0298
.0254
.0265
.0230
.0272
.0068
.0185
.0109
.0122
.0204
.0144
.0191
.0301
.0358
.0154
.0116
.0204
.0195
.0141
.0159
.0224
.0162
0.0236 as
n=5
^ 4
36+ .0082
33 .0125
31 .0132
32 .0099
32 .0118
33 .0153
34 .0200
31 .0238
32 .0163
0.0314**
n-5
32+ .0100
35 .0199
35 .0306
38 .0253
39 .0106
38 .0126
38 .0136
39 .0342
37 .0140
0.0403**
n-5
33+ .0177
32 .0154
32 .0126
32 .0247
33 .0242
33 .0205
32 .0238
35 .0213
36
0.0583**
n-5
5-6-76
36+ .0168
37 . 0100
34 .0145 .
33 . 0090
34 . 0046
35 .0135 '
32 .0174
32 .0140
33 .0187
0.0276**
n-5 1
35 + .0170
35 .0151
33 .0125
33 .0199
32 .0170
32 .0210
32 .0174
28 .0198
29 .0136
0.0272*
n-5
* Significant at the 0.05 level ** Significant at the 0.01 level + These data plotted in figure 28 ns Not significant
-------
APPENDIX C. SOIL BULK DENSITY
156
-------
Table 44.. Soil profile bulk density (g/cm ) in each watershed at the
Colstrip Demonstration. Measurements were made with a
Troxler depth density probe and Troxler depth moisture
neutron probe.
SOIL
DEPTH (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-150
150-180
180-210
TOPSOIL
GOUGED
2.14
2.17
2.14
2.14
2.10
2.10
2.15
2.11
2.13
2.02
DOZER BASINS
1.92
1.81
1.91
1.88
1.88
1.85
1.74
1.77
1.70
1.66
CHISELED
1.90
1.65
1.73
1.74
1.74
1.93
1.86
1.74
1.84
1.76
NO
GOUGED
2.16
1.85
-
-
1.91
1.97
1.65
1.77
2.06
2.06
TOPSOIL
CHISELEI
1.49
1.35
1.43
1.59
1.45
1.48
1.48
1.52
1.39
-
Table 45. Soil profile bulk density (g/cm ) in each watershed at
the Savage Demonstration. Measurements were made with
a Troxler depth density probe and Troxler depth moisture
probe.
SOIL
)EPTH (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-150
150-180
180-210
TOPSOIL
GOUGED
1.44
1.65
1.69
1.65
1.59
1.45
1.39
1.42
1.29
1.38
DOZER BASINS
1.68
1.55
1.29
1.33
1.20
1.15
1.43
1.41
1.58
1.63
CHISELED
1.58
1.55
1.51
1.56
1.61
1.59
1.37
-
-
-
NO
GOUGED
1.87
1.83
1.72
1.40
1.11
1.24
1.08
1.46
1.51
1.38
TOPSOIL
CHISELEE
1.63
1.39
1.29
1.25
1.25
1.18
1.26
1.13
1.08
1.11
157
-------
Table 46. Soil profile bulk density (g/cm ) at five sites in each
watershed at the Beulah Demonstration. Determinations
were made with mass and volume measurements of profile
cores.
Soil
Depth (cm)
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-12
120-15
150-18
180-21
210-24
240-27
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-12
120-15
150-18
180-21
210-24
240-27
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-12
120-15
150-18
180-21
210-24
240-27
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-12
120-15
150-18
180-21
210-24
240-27
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-12
120-15
150-18
180-21
210-24
240-27
Site 1
1.06
1.42
1.29
1.38
1.16
1.24
1.29
1.22
1.27
0.56
1.36
1.04
1.74
0.99
1.45
1.37
1.28
1.26
1.12
1.42
1.40
1.19
1.05
1.34
1.20
1.25
1.56
0.73
1.48
1.47
1.47
1.90
1.33
1.51.
1.47
1.30
1.14
1.46
1.27
1.33
1.25
1.25
1.29
1.24
1.17
Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Topsoil Chiseled
0.65 1.42 0.51
1.39 1.46 1.34
1.30 1.44 1.50
1.48 1.37 1.46
1.22 1.07 0.89
1.24 1.15 0.72
1.37 1.07 1.22
1.27 1.22 1.28
1.35 1.51 1.16
Nontopsoil Gouged
1.35 1.38 0.80
1.36 1.24 1.42
1.36 0.71 1.37
1.30 0.94 1.45
0.55 1.04 0.95
0.94 1.32 1.25
1.38 - 1.14
0.95 - 1.48
0.99 - 1.63
Nontopsoil Chiseled
1.07 1.11 0.58
1.33 1.49 1.38
1.20 1.55 1.29
1.20 1.00 1.62
1.28 1.04 1.05
1.12 1.22 0.79
'1.20 1.25 1.42
1.41 1.18 1.35
1.30 1.34 1.37.
Topsoil Gouged
0.88 - 1.58
1.39 - 1.42
0.81 - 1.54
1.31 - 1.45
1.11 - 1.34
1.12 - 1.22
1.39 - 1.26
1.39 - 1.13
1.21 - 1.21
Topsoil Dozer Basins
1.38 1.27 1.40
1.34 1.26 1.58
1.39 1.38 1.35
1.33 1.35 1.24
1.30 1.24 1.18
1.39 1.51 1.26
1.52 1.16 1.58
1.36 1.58 1.37
1.28 1.59 1.61
Site 5
1.23
1.40
1.43
1.29
1.25
1.30
1.20
1.16
1.23
1.48
1.26
1.29
1.48
1.32
1.34
0.92
1.42
1.39
0.96
1.46
1.25
1.00
0.95
1.87
1.09
0.40
1.11
1.19
1.41
1.55
1.27
1.14
1.16
1. 20
1.09
1.32
0.86
1.39
1.22
1.33
1.32
1.42
1.30
1.11
1.47
Mean
0.97
1.40
1.39
1.40
1.12
1.13
1.23
1.23
1.30
1.11
1.33
1.15
1.38
0.97
1.26
1.20
1.28
1.32
0.97
1.42
1.34
1.20
1.07
1.27
1.23
1.12
1.34
1.10
1.43
1.34
1.37
1.37
1.21
1.34
1.27
1.26
1.21
1.41
1.32
1.31
1.26
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.42
158
-------
APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGIC BALANCE
159
-------
Table 47. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the nontopsoil-chiseled
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Colstrip, Montana. :
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
July Aug Sept Oct Rov Dec Jan Feb Mar A"prHay Total
"Precipitation(PPT)
EvapotranspirationC El)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow(WF)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWC )
4.4
-10.1
0.0
-4.8
-10.5
1.8
-5.6
0.0
-3.2
-7.0
1.5
-2.3
0.0
-4.2
-5.0
2.0
*
0.0
—
-4.5
3.6
-3.2
0.0
2.6
3.0
3.6
-1.5
0.0
1.4
3.5
2.2
-0.8
0.0
1.1
2.5
1.6
-3.0
0.0
2.4
1.0
1.8
-3.1
0.0
0.8
-0.5
4.8
-2.8
0.0
3.0
5.0
—
-3.8
0.0
—
2.0
27.3
-36.2
0.0
-0.9
-10.5
Monthly precipitation computed by averaging collections of two storage gauges, one located approximately
800 m north and one 700 m northeast of the EPA Demonstration Area.
^Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
—Insufficient data for calculation.
-------
Table 48. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-chiseled
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Colstrip, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975 1976
JulySugSeptOctNovDec JanFebHarSprHay Total
Precipitation ?PT
Evapotranspiration £T
Runoff RO
Watcrflow WF
Change Soil Water
Content £SWC
4.4
-9.9
0.0
-7.0
-12.5
1.8
-6.0
0.0
-4..
-9.0
1.5
-2.6
0.0
-5.4
-6.5
,2.0
-0.7
0.0
-6.8
-5.5
3.6
-3.2
0.0
5.6
6.0
3.6
-1.8
0.0
4.7
6.5
2.2
-1.6
0.0
1.9
2.5
1.6
-3.9
0.0
3.3
1.0
1.8
-3.2
0.0
1.9
0.5
4.8
-3.6
0.0
4.3
5.5
—
-9.5
—
—
1.0
27.3
-46.0
0.0
-2.3
-10.5
Monthly precipitation computed by averaging collections of two storage gauges, one located approximately
800 m north and one 700 m northeast of the EPA Demonstration Area.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
*Evapotranspiration values were computed by averaging the available data from the other four watersheds.
-------
Table 49. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the nontopsoil-gouged
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area,Colstrip, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975 1976
July Aug sept Oc"ENov Dec TJan Fe~EHa? 5pi Hay Total
Precipitation (PPT)
%vapotranspiration (ET)
Runoff (RO)
Waterf lov;
-------
u>
Table 50. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-
gouged treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Colstrip, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
"JulyAug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Total
Precipitation fcPT )
Evapotranspiration (ET
Runoff (RO )
Waterflow (WF)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWC )
4.4
-11.0
0.0
1.1
-5.5
1.8
-6.4
0.0
0.6
-4.0
1.5
-3.6
0.0
-6.4
-8.5
2.0
*
trace
—
-7.5
3.6
-2.4
0.0
4.3
5.5
3.6
-2.4
0.0
3.8
5.0
2.2
-2.9
0.0
3.7
3.0
1.6
-3.9
0.0
2.8
0.5
1.8
-2.9
0.0
-0.9
-2.0
4.8
—
0.0
—
4.5
—
-10.1
0.0
—
2.0
.27.3
-45.6
trace
11.3
-7.0
+ Monthly precipitation computed by averaging collections of two storage gauges, one located approximately
800 m north and one 700 m northeast of the EPA Demonstration Area.
// Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method CSee Appendix A).
*Cain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
— Insufficient data for calculation.
-------
Table 51. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-dozer basin
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Colstrip, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total
Precipitation (PPT)
*
Evapotranspiration CET
Runoff &0)
Waterf low (WF)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWCl
4.4
-10.0
0.0
—
_ —
1.8
-5.4
0.0
—
_^
1.5
—
0.0
—
__
2.0
—
0.0
—
-1.5
3.6
*
0.0
—
2.5
3.6
-0.9
0.0
-0.2
2.5
2.2
-1.1
0.0
1.9
3.0
1.6
-4.2
0.0
5.1
2.5
1.8
-3.5
0.0
1.7
0.0
4.8
-3.1
0.0
2.8
4.5
-12.0
0.0
—
6.0
27.3
-40.2
0.0
11.3
19.5
"'"Monthly precipitation computed by averaging collections of two storage gauges, one located approximately
800 m north and one 700 m northeast of the EPA Demonstration Area.
'' Evapotranspiration was meaoured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A)-
—Insufficient data for calculation.
*Gain in lysimeter weight exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water,blowing soil,
blowing snov; or errors in precipitation catch).
-------
Table 52. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the nontopsoil-chiseled
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Beulah, North Dakota.
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total
+Precipitation(PPT)
Evapotranspiration(ET)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow (WF)
Change Soil Water
Content C(\SWC )
3.2
-6.6
0.0
3.9
0.5
0.9
-8.0
0.0
9,1
2.0
3.1
-3.9
0.0
4.8
4.0
1.5
-7.1
0.0
8.6
3.0
X
1.1
*
0.0
—
-2.0
X
0.4
*
0.0
—
0.0
X
2.6
*
0.0
—
0.0
X
0
*
0.0
—
-2.0
X
1.5
*
-8.4
—
2.0
5.1
-3.9
0.0
-9.2
-8.0
1.6
-1.3
—
—
—
21.0
-30.8
-8.4
17.2
-0.5
+Precipitation data collected from North Dakota State University, Rangeland Study Site located approximately
.75 miles north of EPA Demonstration Area.
*Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (?ee Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
xPrecipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for North Dakota, Beulah, North Dakota.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
-------
Table 53. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-chiseled
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area.Beulah, North Dakota.
ON
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total
^Precipitation (PPT )
Evapotranspiration (El)
Runoff (RO)
Water f low- (WF)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWC)
3.2
*
0.0
--
-4.0
0.9
-4.7
0.0
3.3
-0.5
3.1
-5.2
0.0
5.6
3.5
1.5
-4.9
0.0
6.4
3.0
X
1.1
-4.1
0.0
1.5
-1.5
X
0.4
-1.8
0.0
3.9
2.5
X
2.6
-4.6
0.0
-1.0
-3.0
X
0
*
0.0
—
3.0
X
1.5
*
0.0
--
2.8
5.1
-1.7
0.0
-11.4
-8.0
1.6
-3.4
0.0
—
21.0
-30.4
0.0
8.3
-2.2
-^Precipitation data collected from North Dakota State University Rangeland Study Site located approximately
.75 miles north of EPA Demonstration Area.
//Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
of errors in precipitation catch).
xPrecipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for North Dakota, Beulah, North Dakota.
--Insufficient data for calculation.
-------
Table 54. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the nontopsoil-gouged
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Beulah, North Dakota.
1975
1976
Hydrologic
Component July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total
+Pr ecipitation (PPT)
£vapoltranspiration(ET)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow(WF)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWC)
3.2
-10.1
0.0
7.9
1.0
0.9
-4.0
0.0
5.1
2.0
3.1
*
0.0
—
4.0
1.5
-9.9
0.0
11.4
3.0
X
1.1
-3,1
0.0
-0.5
-2.5
X
0.4
-2.7
0.0
-6.8
4.5
X
2.6
-3.2
0.0
-4.9
-5.5
X
0
-1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
X
1.5
-2.6
-2.4
4.1
3.0
5.1
-3.1
0.0
-11.5
-9.5
1.6
-1.2
—
—
—
21.0
-41.1
-2.4
6.0
0.0
+Precipitation data collected from North Dakota State University, Rangeland Study Site located approximately
.75 miles north of EPA Demonstration Area.
#Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
xPrecipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for North Dakota, Beulah, North D.akota.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
-------
Table 55. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-gouged
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Beulah, North Dakota.
VO
1975
1976
Hydrologic
Component July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total
+Precipitation,(PPT)
*Evapotranspiration(ET)
Runoff(RO)
Waterflow (WF)
Change Soil Water
Content(ASWC)
3.2
-8.3
0.0
7.1
2.0
0.9
-5.8
0.0
4.4
-0.5
3.1
-4.2
0.0
5.6
4.5
1.5
-6.6
0.0
7.6
2.5
X
1.1
-3.6
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
X
0.4
-2.2
0.0
1.3
-0.5
X
2.6
-3.9
0.0
2.8
1.5
X
0
-4.0
0.0
2.5
-1.5
X
1.5
-2.9
0.0
3.4
2.0
5.1
-2.5
0.0
-8.6
-6.0
1.6
-2.2
—
—
—
21.0
-46.2
0.0
23.6
-1.0
+Precipitation data collected from North Dakota State University, Rangeland Study Site located approximately
.75 miles north of EPA Demonstration Area.
xPrecipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for North Dakota, Beulah, North Dakota.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
*Evapotranspiration values were computed by averaging the available data from the other four watersheds.
-------
Table 56. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-dozer
basin treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Beulah, North Dakota.
o
Hydrologic
Component
1975 1976
TulyAug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Fet> Mar Apr Hay Total
+Precipitation(PPT)
fevapotranspiration.C ET)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow(wp)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWC)
3.2
-8.2
—
—
—
0.9
-6.5
0.0
9,1
3.5
3.1
-3.6
0.0
4.0
3.5
1.5
-4.5
0.0
5.5
2.5
l.lx
*
0.0
—
-4.5
0.4X
*
0.0
—
1.0
2.6X
*
0.0
—
-2.5
ox
-6.8
0.0
13.8
7.0
1.5X
-3.2
0.0
0.7
-1.0
5,1
-1.4
0.0
-9.7
-6.0
1.6
-3.0
—
—
—
21.0
-37.2
0.0
23.4
3.5
+Precipitation data collected from North Dakota State University, Rangeland Site located approximately
.75 miles north of EPA Demonstration Area.
#Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
xPrecipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for North Dakota, Beulah. North Dakota.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
-------
Table 57. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the nontopsoil-chiseled
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Savage, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
beptDec NOV Dec JanFeoMarAprMay
Total
+Precipitation(PPT)
''Evapotranspiration(ET)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow(WF)
Change Soil Water
Content CaSWC)
1.7
-6.9
0.0
—
—
2.9
-4.5
0.0
—
—
1.7
-3.4
0.0
' —
—
1.8
-3.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
-2.4
0.0
0.7
-0.5
trace
*
0.0
—
-0.5
0.6
*
0.0
—
0.5
5.7
-3.4
0.0
0.7
3.0
1.2
—
-0.9
—
1.5
16.8
-23.6
-0.9
2.6
4.0
+Precipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for Montana, Savage, Montana.
—Insufficient data for calculation
/£vapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
-------
Table 5S. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-
chiseled treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Savage, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975 1976
Sept OcTNov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Total
+Precipitation(PPT)
*Evapotranspiration(ET)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow (WF)
Change Soil Water
Content (A SWC)
1.7
-6.8
0.0
-1.9
-7.0
2.9
-5.3
0.0
0.4
-2.0
1.7
-4.8
0.0
4.1
1.0
1.8
-5.1
0.0
5.3
2.0
1.2
-3.6
0.0
4.4
2.0
trace
-3.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.6
-2.9
0.0
0.3
-2.0
5.7
-5.1
0.0
4.9
5.5
1.2
—
-0.3
—
1.5
16.8
-37.0
-0.3
20.9
1.0
+Precipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for Montana, Savage, Montana.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
Evapotranspiration values were computed by averaging the available data from the other watersheds.
-------
Table 59. Monthly hydrologic balance of the surface two meters of spoil for the nontopsoil-gouged
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Savage, Montana.
UJ
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
Sept Oct Nov Dec "Jan Pel! Har SprMay Total
+Precipitation (PPT)
Evapotranspiration (El)
Runoff (RO)
Waterflow (W)
Change Soil Water
Content @SWC )
1.7
—
0.0
—
-7.0
2.9
-8.5
0.0
7.1
1.5
1.7
*
0.0
—
-0.5
1.8
-0.5
0.0
-0.3
1.0
1.2
*
-3.1
—
-1.5
trace
*
0.0
—
-2.5
0.6
-1.8
0.0
1.2
0.0
5.7
-7.2
0.0
8.0
6.5
1.2
—
-1.2
—
2.5
16.8
-18.0
-4.3
16.0
0.0
+Precipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for Montana, Savage, Montana.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
//Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method.(See Appendix A).
*Gain in lysimeter exceeded precipitation (may have been caused by inflow of surface water, blowing snow
or errors in precipitation catch).
-------
.Table 60. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-gouged
treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Savage, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975
1976
SeptOctNovDec JanFebMarAprMay Total
+PrecipitationCPPT)
EvapotranspirationCET)
Runoff (RO)
Water flow(WF)
Change Soil Water
Content(ASWC)
1.7
-6.8
0.0
2.1
-3.0
2.9
-5.3
0.0
3.4
1.0
1.7
-4.8
0.0
4.1
1.0
1.8
-5.1
0.0
5.8
2.5
1.2
-3.6
0.0
3.9
1.5
trace
-3.4
0.0
4.4
1.0
0.6
-2.9
0.0
3.3
1.0
5.7
-5.1
0.0
3.4
4.0
1.2
—
-0.3
—
2.0
16.8
-37.0
-0.3
30.4
11.0
+Precipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for Montana, Savage, Montana.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
*Evapotranspiration values were computed by averaging the available data from the other watersheds.
-------
Table 61. Monthly hydrologic balance (cm) of the surface two meters of spoil for the topsoil-dozer
basin treatment, EPA Demonstration Area, Savage, Montana.
Hydrologic
Component
1975 1976
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total
+Precipitation (PPT )
Evapotranspiration (ET )
Runoff (&0)
Waterflow (J^F)
Change Soil Water
Content (ASWC )
1.7
-6.8
0.0
-2.4
-7.5
2.9
-3.0
0.0
-0.9
-1.0
1.7
-1.4
0.0
-0.3
0.0
1.8
-1.6
0.0
1.8
2.0
1.2
-1.2
0.0
0.5
0.5
trace
-3.4
0.0
2.4
-1.0
0.6
-4.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
5.7
-4.8
0.0
2.1
3.0
1.2
—
-0.1
—
1.5
16.8
-26.2
-0.1
6.6
2.5
+Precipitation data collected from Climatological Summary for Montana, Savage, Montana.
—Insufficient data for calculation.
*Evapotranspiration was measured by the weighing lysimeter method (See Appendix A).
-------
APPENDIX E. SOIL DESORPTION CHARACTERISTICS
176
-------
Table 62. Desorption characteristics (% 1^0 by Volume) of soil profiles
from the Colstrio Demonstration..
SOIL
DEPTH
(cm)
0-,30
30-60
60-90
90-120
120-150
150-180
PRES-
SURE
(bars)
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
TOPSOIL
GOUGED CHISELED DOZER BASINS
52.5 44.6 48.4
31.6 22.4 24.5
8.1 8.9 8.0
57.3 45.8 53.0
32.3 25.4 28.1
9.5 7.0 10.5
52.9 46.9 47.7
26.0 23.5 26.0
10.3 6.1 9.4
58.4 53.5 50.1
28.7 29.2 27.5
8.7 6.9 8.5
49.4 51.6
26.4 29.4
8.1 8.9
51.5 45.5
28.8 28.3
9.4 7.1
NO TOPSOIL
GOUGED CHISELED
49.7 36.9
27.9 20.4
6.5 3.6
52.5 43.4
29.6 24.3
4.2 4.2
49.5 47.9
27.7 25.6
4.8 3.9
55.1 50.8
30.4 28.4
7.9 7.4
52.9 41.2
29.4 21.2
8.5 8.1
47.3 42.5
26.1 19.4
5.2 6.5
177
-------
Table 63. Desorption characteristics (% 1^0 by Volume) of soil profiles
from the Savage Demonstration.
SOIL
DEPTH
(cm)
0-30
30-60
60-90
,
90-120
120-150
150-180
PRES-
SURE
(bars)
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
TOPSOIL
GOUGED CHISELED DOZER BASINS
44.5 56.3 48.4
27.2 29.1 26.5
6.2 12.8 8.2
50.1 59.0 36.1
37.0 . 33.5 22.5
5.6 11.5 8.6
46.2 56.3 39.5
28.9 31.1 21.0
7.1 9.4 5.7
42.2 36.5 39.4
24.2 22.7 22.2
4.5 7.1 7.4
36.3 - 42.8
23.1 - 24.9
3.7 - 9.1
41.8 - 54.9
26.18 - 29.7
4.4 - 10.1
NO TOPSOIL
GOUGED CHISELED
39.9 39.1
23.4 23.0
8.2 15.4
34.3 43.6
19.0 24.4
4.3 6.5
26.9 36.9
15.2 20.4
5.7 7.4
36.4 40.8
20.1 18.7
5.1 8.1
31.6
18.9
3.8
-
16.3
-
178
-------
Table 64. Desorption characteristics (% HrjO by Volume) of Soil profiles
from the Beulah Demonstration.
SOIL
DEPTH
(cm)
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-120
120-150
150-180
PRES-
SURE
(bars)
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15'
0
0.3
15
0
0.3
15
TOPSOIL
GOUGED CHISELED DOZER BASINS
38.28 32.9 32.5
28.5 26.9 26.0
13.1 12.7 12.0
88.6 122.1 76.1
45.9 .47.7 41.7
19.0 21.0 19.0
100.1 125.7 100.7
45.8 49.1 47.2
20.0 24.0 17.0
104.2 118.1 95.4
55.1 62.1 50.9
17.0. 22.0 22.5
101.7 103.5 109.7
56.1 57.7 60.2
22.0 22.0 26.0
92.9 112.8 109.6
49.8 47.9 54.4
20.9 19.8 18.0
NO TOPSOIL
GOUGED CHISELED
89.4 66.9
54.2 36.8
25.6 19.0
116.1 111.4
54.0 48.9
31.0 18.1
110.7 125.6
58.5 62.3
26.0 17.0
110.6 118.3
55.3 50.8
28.0 16.5
91.4 122.5
53.4 58.4
24.0 20.2
115.2 74.3
50.6 40.7
23.7 16.0
179
------- |