DOA
EPA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Science and Education Administration
Federal Research
University Park PA 16802
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry
Washington DC 20460
EPA-600-7-78-1 62
August 1978
            Research and Development
            Comparison  of
            Some Properties of
            Minesoils and
            Contiguous
            Natural Soils

            Interagency
            Energy/Environment
            R&D  Program
            Report


-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination of traditional grouping  was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.   Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2.   Environmental  Protection Technology
      3.   Ecological Research
      4.   Environmental  Monitoring
      5.   Socioeconomic Environmental  Studies
      6.   Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.   Interagency  Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.   "Special" Reports
      9.   Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series.  Reports in this series result from the
effort funded  under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research  and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of,  and development of, control  technologies for energy
systems; and  integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                            EPA-600/7-78-162
                                            August 1978
        COMPARISON OF SOME PROPERTIES OF MINESOILS
               AND CONTIGUOUS NATURAL SOILS
                            by
Tom A. Pedersen, Andrew S. Rogowski, and Roger Pennock, Jr.
   U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education
             Administration, Federal Research
            Northeast Watershed Research Center
            University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
                      EPA-IAG-D5-E763
                      Project Officer

                      Clinton W. Hall
          Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
                 Washington, D. C.  20250
            Office of Research and Development
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Washington, D. C.  20250

-------
                                    DISCLAIMER




     This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minesoils and Industry,




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.  Approval does




not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or




commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                         ii

-------
                                       FOREWORD







     The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in part, stress the




control of nonpoint source pollution.  Sections 102 (C-l), 208 (b-2,F) and 304(e)




authorize basin scale development of water quality control plans and provide for




area-wide waste treatment management.  The act and the amendments include, when




warranted, waters from agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources,




and requires the issuance of guidelines for both identifying and evaluating the




nature and extent of nonpoint source pollutants and the methods to control these




sources.  Research program at the Northeast Watershed Research Center contributes to




the aforementioned goals.  The major objectives of the Center are to:




     . study the major hydrologic and water-quality associated problems of the




       Northeastern U.S. and




     . develop hydrologic and water quality simulation capability useful for




       land-use planning.  Initial emphasis is on the hydrologically most




       severe land uses of the Northeast.




     Within the context of the Center's objectives, stripmining for coal ranks as a




major and hydrologically severe land use.  In addition, once the site is reclaimed




and the conditions of the mining permit are met, stripmined areas revert legally




from point to nonpoint sources.  As a result, the hydrologic, physical, and




chemical behavior of the reclaimed land needs to be understood directly and in




terms of control practices before the goals of Sections 102, 208 and 304 can be




fully met.
                                          iii

-------
     The following report considers an important component of the reclaimed strip-

mined area—the minesoil.  The chemical, physical, and morphological properties of

minesoil control oxygen and water movement to the underlying spoil, the amount of

available water retained for supporting a protective or productive vegetative

cover, and the erosivity of the material.  The pertinent minesoil properties need

to be identified and compared with the properties of the original undisturbed soil

before the hydrologic and chemical impact of stripmining and reclamation practices

can be predicted adequately.  The following report takes a major step in this

direction by comparing minesoils with contiguous natural soils to establish the

effects of mining and reclamation procedures.
                                  Signed:
                                  Harry B. Pionke
                                  Director
                                  Northeast Watershed
                                    Research Center
                                          iv

-------
                                       ABSTRACT




     Investigations were conducted to evaluate soil changes due to surface coal mining




and reclamation operations in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.  Objectives included




comparison of minesoils with contiguous natural soils to establish what effect mining




and reclamation procedures have on the properties of minesoils.




     Four minesoil pits located within the disturbed area and four natural soil pits




located in adjacent undisturbed areas were described and sampled.   Three of the




natural soils were classified as Typic Dystrochrepts and one was an Aquic Fragiudult.




The minesoils were classified as Udorthents.




     Bulk densities were determined at 10 randomly located sites.   Microlysimeters




were subsequently installed at these sites and used to determine saturated hydraulic




conductivities and evapotranspiration.




     Pedogenetic development in the minesoils was minimal and the most prominent




feature of the minesoils was their high degree of coarseness and their high rock




fragment content.  Roots tended to concentrate along soil-coarse fragment




interfaces.  Few roots penetrated the massive minesoil material in the C horizons.




     In general, the chemical constituents of the minesoils resembled the natural




soils.  However, the weathering of the natural soils has leached bases from them




and significantly more extractable aluminum was found in these soils than in




minesoils.  Organic carbon and nitrogen determination was affected by the high




content of carboniferous shale and coal fragments in the minesoils.  The clay




minerals present in the minesoils had not been weathered as much as those in the




natural soils.  The mineralogy suggests that these minesoils and the natural




soils were derived from the same materials.

-------
     Results showed that minesoils contained 75% coarse fragments (by weight) as com-



pared with 50% for contiguous natural soils.  Minesoils also contained significantly



less sand and clay than natural soils.  The minesoils studied had lower specific



surface than natural soils due to their lower organic matter and vermiculite contents.


                                                          3             3
Average bulk density of the minesoil surface was 1.70 g/cm  vs 1.26 g/cm  for



adjacent soils.



     The natural soils retained an average of 14.3%  (by weight), whereas the minesoils



retained an average of 10.3% available water.  The range of water retained between



-0.3 and -15 bar matric potential of the minesoil ranged from 5.5 to 16.7% as compared



with 7.1 to 39.2% in the natural soils.  "In situ" determinations of field-capacity



yielded values between 6 and 12% (by weight), whereas microlysimeters retained from



12 to 19% after 2 days of drainage.



     Microlysimeter data indicated that evapotranspiration of minesoils could be



approximated by A-pan results.



     Single ring infiltrometer studies indicated that infiltration rate of the mine-



soil ranged from 0.5 to 34.3 cm/hr.



     Extreme variation existed in saturated hydraulic conductivity values obtained



using microlysimeters.  Use of a small plot to determine unsaturated hydraulic



conductivity of the minesoil indicated that infiltrating water followed voids



present in the minesoil.



     This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of EPA-IAG-D5-E763 by the



Northeast Watershed Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and



Education Administration, Federal Research, under the sponsorship of the U.S.



Environmental Protection Agency.  This report covers a period from September 1,



1975 to August 31, 1977, and work was completed as of November 30, 1977.
                                          vi

-------
                                      CONCLUSIONS




     Soil changes due to surface coal mining and reclamation operations in Clearfield




County, Pennsylvania were evaluated.  Morphological, chemical,  physical and hydraulic




properties of minesoils were compared to those of contiguous natural soils.




     Studies showed that pedogenetic development in the minesoils was minimal and the




most prominent feature was their high degree of coarseness and their high rock-




fragment content.  Clay mineralogy data suggested that these minesoils and natural




soils were derived from the same materials.




     Minesoils contained more rock fragments (by weight) and less sand and clay than




did adjacent natural soils.  The natural soils had higher specific surface than the




minesoils studied due to their higher organic matter and vermiculite contents.  The




minesoils were denser than the natural soils due to their higher coarse fragment




content and lack of structural development.




     Results showed that natural soils retained more water at equal matric potentials




than did minesoils.  Infiltration rate of minesoils was highly variable as was




saturated hydraulic conductivity determined using microlysimeters.  Use of a small




plot to determine unsaturated hydraulic conductivity indicated that water flow




followed voids present in the minesoil.
                                           VII

-------
                                       CONTENTS

Foreword	    ±±±
Abstract 	      v
Conclusions	    vii
Figures	      x
Tables	     xi
Acknowledgments	    xiv

     1.  Introduction and Experimental Site	      1
              Introduction  	      1
              Experimental  site	      1

     2.  Morphological and  Chemical Characteristics	      5
              Introduction  	      5
              Materials and methods	      7
                   Profile  descriptions and field sampling 	      7
                   Laboratory characterization 	      7
                   Statistical analysis. ... 	      9
              Results and discussion 	     10
                   Soil and minesoil morphology	     10
                        Field morphology	     10
                        Soil classification	     12
                        Root distribution	     15
                   Laboratory analyses 	     17
                        Chemical characterization data 	     17
                   Spectrometric and spectrographic analyses 	     24
                   Clay mineralogy	     28
                   Organic  carbon and organic nitrogen 	     29
              Summary	     33

     3.  Physical Characteristics	     34
              Introduction  	     34
              Materials and methods	     36
                   Laboratory analyses 	     36
                   Field studies	     37
                   Statistical analyses	     39
              Results and discussion 	     41
                   Physical properties 	     41
                        Particle size	     41
                        Specific surface 	     54
                        Bulk density and porosity	     54
                   Soil water	     61
                        Moisture characteristics 	     61
                   Water retention	     63
                        Field soil water	     69
                        Evapotranspiration 	     69
                                         viii

-------
                   Soil-water movement 	      71
                        Infiltration 	      71
                        Saturated hydraulic conductivity 	      76
                        Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity 	      76
              Summary	      81

References	      82
Appendices

     A.  Profile descriptions for soils and minesoils	      88
     B.  Laboratory characterization data for pedons described in
         Appendix A	      99
     C.  Organic carbon (Walkley-Black) values for selected
         horizons	     116
     D.  Size distribution data for pedons described in Appendix A	     118
     E.  Moisture characteristics for pedons described in Appendix A ....     127
     F.  Meteorological data	     136
                                           IX

-------
FIGURES
Number
1
2



3

4

5

6
7

8

9

10

11

12

13
14

15
16

17

18

19


20


Location of experimental site 	
Schematic diagram of study area and location of experimental sites.
P-l through P-8 are soil pits, L-l through L-13 are lysimeter sites,
1-1 through 1-9 are infiltration sites, and K is the unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity plot . . 	
Cation exchange capacity, base saturation, pH and total acidity for
the natural soils 	 	
Cation exchange capacity, base saturation, pH and total acidity
for the minesoils 	
Schematic representation of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
plot 	
Particle size summation curves for composite samples 	
Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution with depth
for Pit 1 	
Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution with depth
for Pit 2 	
Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution with depth
for Pit 3 	
Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution with depth
for Pit 4 	
Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution with depth
for Pit 5 	
Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution with depth
for Pit 7 	
Clay (<2 pm) distribution with depth for Pits 1 through 8 	
Coarse fragment (>2 mm) distribution with depth for Pits 1
through 8 	
Dry bulk densities of minesoil determined by various methods. . . .
Moisture characteristics for A2 horizon, Pit 1, and Ap
horizon, Pit 6 	 	 	
Moisture characteristics for B22 horizon, Pit 2, and C2 horizon,
Pit 8 	
Cumulative evapotranspiration (ET) from lysimeters, and
evaporation from A-pan during study 	
Infiltration on minesoil using single ring inf iltrometer (I) , and
infiltration on the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity plot
(K-Plot) 	
Volumetric water content within the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity plot 	
Page
2



4

18

19

40
43

44

45

46

47

48

50
51

52
57

62

64

73


74

79
   X

-------
                                        TABLES




Number                                                                         Page
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19
Total sulfur, sulfate sulfur, pyritic sulfur and organic sulfur
of selected horizons 	
Quantitative spectrometric analysis of selected horizons 	
Semiquantitative spectrographic analysis of selected horizons. . . .
Carbon/nitrogen ratios for natural soils 	
Carbon /nitrogen ratios for minesoils 	
Composite sample-size distribution 	 	
Calculated values of specific surface area for Pits 1 through 4. . .
Calculated values of specific surface area for Pits 5 through 8. . .
Bulk density standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of
minesoils determined by various methods 	
Bulk densities of natural soils 	
Bulk densities of minesoils determined by the clod method 	
Gravimetric water content at -15 bar matric potential for
natural soils 	
Gravimetric water content at -15 bar matric potential for
minesoils 	
Water retained between -0.3 and -15 bar matric potential for
Pits 1 through 4 	
Water retained between -0.3 and -15 bar matric potential for
Pits 5 through 8 	 *
Gravimetric (G) and volumetric (V) water contents of lysimeters
at saturation and "field capacity" 	
Gravimetric (G) and volumetric (V) water content at
"field capacity" 	
Particle size distribution of lysimeters by weight 	
Evapotranspirational loss estimated by various methods 	

23
25
27
31
32
42
55
56

58
59
59

65

66

67

68

70

70
71
72
                                          xi

-------
                                  TABLES (continued)

Number                                                                          Page

  20    Infiltration rates on minesoils and natural soils 	     75

  21    Saturated hydraulic conductivities (K),  sampling variability (S),
        and relative measure of variability (S/K), before (I)  and after
        (II) 4 months of exposure	     77

  22    Tensiometer readings on minesoil during unsaturated hydraulic
        conductivity study	     77

  23    Gamma and neutron depth probe standardization of K-Plot.   Bulk
        density (BD) and volumetric water content (V) 	     80

 B-l    Physical characterization data for Pit 1	    100

 B-2    Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  1	    101

 B-3    Physical characterization data for Pit 2	    102

 B-4    Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  2	    103

 B-5    Physical characterization data for Pit 3	    104

 B-6    Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  3	    105

 B-7    Physical characterization data for Pit 4	    106

 B-8    Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  4	    107

 B-9    Physical characterization data for Pit 5	    108

 B-10   Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  5	    109

 B-ll   Physical characterization data for Pit 6	    110

 B-12   Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  6	    Ill

 B-13   Physical characterization data for Pit 7	    112

 B-14   Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  7	    113

 B-15   Physical characterization data for Pit 8	    114

 B-16   Chemical and mineralogical characterization data for Pit  8	    115

 C-l    Organic carbon of selected horizons determined by the
        Walkley-Black method	    117

 D-l    Particle size distribution for Pit 1	    119

 D-2    Particle size distribution for Pit 2	    120

 D-3    Particle size distribution for Pit 3	    121

 D-4    Particle size distribution for Pit 4	    122
                                          xii

-------
                               TABLES (continued)




Number                                                                          Page




 D-5    Particle size distribution for Pit 5	    123




 D-6    Particle size distribution for Pit 6	    124




 D-7    Particle size distribution for Pit 7	    125




 D-8    Particle size distribution for Pit 8	    126




 E-l    Moisture characteristics for Pit 1	    128




 E-2    Moisture characteristics for Pit 2	    129




 E-3    Moisture characteristics for Pit 3	    130




 E-4    Moisture characteristics for Pit 4	    131




 E-5    Moisture characteristics for Pit 5	    132




 E-6    Moisture characteristics for Pit 6	 .    133




 E-7    Moisture characteristics for Pit 7	    134




 E-8    Moisture characteristics for Pit 8	    135




 F-l    Meteorological data	    137
                                         xiii

-------
                                  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS




     Appreciation is extended to Drs. Daniel D. Fritton and Marvin L.  Risius for




their beneficial suggestions and review of this manuscript.




     Special thanks also go to Dr. Edward J. Ciolkosz, Joseph Hallowich, and




Alex Topolanchik for their assistance in describing the soils; to Dr.  Robert L.




Cunningham and members of the Soil Characterization Staff for laboratory




characterization of the soils.
                                         xiv

-------
                                       SECTION 1




                           INTRODUCTION AND EXPERIMENTAL SITE






INTRODUCTION




     Increased occurrence of surface coal mining to provide for energy needs has




spurred renewed concern about its environmental effects.  Employment of modern




reclamation techniques (Grim and Hill, 1974) may minimize pollution potentials




of reclaimed areas.  However, acid mine drainage, erosion, and increased sediment




loads are among the problems that will most likely continue to be associated with




stripmined land (Van Voast, 1974) in the future.




     Stabilization of spoil banks through rapid vegetation is very important.




Properties of minesoils determine, to a large extent, if rapid revegetation is




possible.  This study was initiated to establish what effect surface mining and




reclamation operations have on the properties of minesoils.  Our objective was to




determine the morphological, chemical, and physical characteristics of minesoils




as compared with contiguous natural soils, both in situ and in the laboratory.







EXPERIMENTAL SITE




     The experimental site consists of a recently reclaimed 4~ha bituminous coal




stripmine adjacent to undisturbed land.  The site is located about 1.2 km




northeast of Kylertown in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania  (Figure 1).  The site




lies within the Pittsburgh Plateau section of the Appalachian Plateau Province.




The geologic system is Pennsylvanian, characterized by cyclic sequences of




sandstone, shale, coal, and clay.  The area is underlain by flat-lying to gently




folded sedimentary rocks (Glass, 1972) consisting of reddish, yellowish and




brownish clay shale and yellowish brown sandstone, shale and siltstone.  The coal

-------
Figure 1.  Location of experimental site.

-------
      PENNSYLVANIA
EXPERIMENTAL
    SITE
          SCALE =  I: 2,000,000

-------
seams include the middle and lower Kittanning seams (C & B) of the Allegheny group.




Silt shale, thin bedded sandstone, siltstone and clay shale underlie the middle




Kittanning C-seam under which the lower Kittanning B-seam is found.  The general




topography of the area is broad with slightly rounded divides, which are separated




by narrow V-shaped valleys (Glass, 1972).  Mean elevation of the site is about




450 m with a northern to northeastern aspect.




     Before stripmining, the vegetation of the area was hardwood forest in which oak




and hemlock predominated.  Grasses and legumes have become established on the site




after reclamation.




     Continuous meterological data was obtained from instruments located at the




site (Figure 2) from May 24, 1976 through May 24, 1977 (Appendix F).  Precipita-




tion was measured by a universal recording raingauge.  A U.S. Weather Bureau Class




A evaporation pan was used to monitor evaporation.  Maximum-minimum thermometers




and a hygrothermograph were also located at the site.  A pyreheliometer was used




to record solar radiation.




     The climate of the study site is humid.  The average annual precipitation is




107 cm with an average 150 days without frost.

-------
Figure 2.  Schematic diagram of study area and location of experimental




           sites.  P-l through P-8 are soil pits, L-l through L-13 are




           lysimeter sites, 1-1 through 1-9 are infiltration sites, and




           K is the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity plot.

-------
WEATHER
STATION

-------
                                       SECTION 2




                      MORPHOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS






INTRODUCTION




     Surface mining for coal inevitably disturbs the soil and rock strata, which




overlie the coal.  The soils present before stripmining in many cases were




moderately well to well-developed and reflected properties associated with the




components of the soil-forming factors.  Many areas that have been stripmined were




previously forested, like our site.  The soils associated with these areas are




generally not suited for agricultural production.  These forest soils usually have




some characteristic that limits their agricultural use.  In some cases, slopes or




stoniness are excessive and in others the depth to a limiting layer, like bedrock




or a fragipan, is shallow, making agricultural use impractical.




     Soil reconstruction aims to duplicate soils that existed before mining




(McCormack, 1974) and when possible to eliminate any limiting factor.




     Rapid establishment of vegetation on these disturbed areas is essential to




initiate soil development has to control erosion and to stabilize minesoil.




     Jones et al. (1975) stated that the amount of organic matter added during the




initial stages of soil development has the greatest affect on profile




differentiation.




     Sobek et al. (1976) showed that minesoils are young pedogenically and reflect




the properties of their parent material more closely than mature undisturbed soils.




Grube et al. (1974) showed that the unweathered sedimentary rocks exposed from




mining contain a wealth of primary minerals.  Values of extractable P, K, Ca, and




Mg in incremental depth samples of overburden showed that concentrations of these

-------
cations are likely to be higher in pulverized unweathered rock than in old soils and



veathered rocks.  However, Barnhisel and Massey (1969) reported that levels of Ca,



X, and P were low in Kentucky spoil materials.  They also reported that Mg levels



vere sufficient for plant growth, but an imbalance in the Ca/Mg ratio was evident.



     Sobek et al. (1976) stated that the primary properties of overburden materials



are pH and relative proportions of acids and bases.  Massey and Barnhisel (1972)



reported that the most difficult chemical problem in minesoils is their acid



condition.  These acid conditions arise if iron sulfide (pyrite), present in the



material are oxidized, yielding sulfuric acid and metal sulfates (Massey and



Barnhisel, 1972).  Most of this acidity is attributed to H  resulting from oxidation


                                   +3
of sulfide minerals and not from Al   (Barnhisel and Massey, 1969).



     In Pennsylvania, soils that have formed from sandstones tend to be coarse-



textured, highly pervious, and lower in base status and plant nutrients than soils



derived from shale (Sobek et al., 1976).  Sobek et al. (1976) also showed that



sandstone overburden contained moderate amounts of pyrite, whereas shales generally



were finer in texture and contained higher amounts of carbonates.



     Upon oxidation of the metal sulfides present in the material, some Cu, Zn, and



Ni could be solubilized and remain in solution if pH remained sufficiently low



(Massey and Barnhisel, 1972).  These elements could be present in minesoil at levels



that are toxic to plants.  Barnhisel and Massey (1969) found high levels of Fe, Mn,



Cu, Ni, Mg, Al, and SO. in acid-forming spoils in Kentucky.



     Due to free salts in minesoils, no clear relationship exists between the



amount of cations extracted and CEC.  No clear relationship exists among



mineralogy and amount of cations extracted or CEC either (Barnhisel and Massey,



1969) .  Barnhisel and Massey (1969) also reported that high amounts of mica



could supply part of the K, and that clay minerals serve as a "buffer" by re-



acting with acids produced by oxidation of sulfides.

-------
MATERIALS AND  METHODS


Profile  Descriptions and  Field Sampling


      Eight  pits,  labeled  P1-P8 in Figure  2, were  located  in and around this recently


stripmined  and reclaimed  area.   Four  pits about 2 m deep,  3 m long, and 1.5 m wide


were  excavated around  the periphery of the mined  land in  the material representative


•of soils originally present  in the disturbed  area.  Detailed morphological descrip-


tions of the profiles  (Appendix A) were made  according to  the Soil Survey Manual


(Soil Survey Staff, 1951)  and the soils were  subsequently  classified according to


Soil  Taxonomy  (Soil Survey Staff, 1975).  i Soil pH was determined in the field on


moist samples  using indicator dyes (Soil  Survey Staff, 1951).


      Three  to  five soil clods were removed from each horizon, when possible, and


coated with saran solution in the field.   In  addition to  clods, bulk samples of

             3
about 5000  cm   were collected from each horizon.


      Within the mined  and reclaimed area  four pits  were located at random.  These


profiles were  also sampled and described  morphologically.  Bulk samples from each


horizon  were sieved in the field and  material less  than 1.9 cm was retained for


analysis.   When possible,  clods were  also collected.  From each of the eight


profiles, composite samples  combining material from all horizons were obtained


(25-35 kg) .  The  bulk  samples and clods were  submitted for analysis to The


Pennsylvania State University Soil Characterization Laboratory.



Laboratory  Characterization


      Bulk soil samples collected in the field were  allowed to air dry.  The samples


were  sieved to separate coarse fragments  from the fine earth  (<2 mm).  The fine


earth and coarse  fragments were weighed and stored  in cardboard containers for


subsequent  analyses.   Percent moisture  (Ciolkosz  and Fletcher, 1974) was determined


on all air-dried  samples  and used later to convert  all laboratory data to an


oven-dry basis.   All characterization data reported are on an oven-dry, <2-mm


basis.

-------
     Soil pH was determined in  the laboratory with a pH meter and glass electrode



on a soil .'solution suspension (1:1 by weight) with distilled water, IN KC1 and



0.01M CaCl2.



     The Ca, Mg, K and Na were  extracted with IN NH.OAc solution at pH 7  (Peech



et al., 1947).  Levels of Ca and Mg were determined by atomic absorption



spectrophotometry, and K and Na contents were determined by flame emission



spectrophotometry (Perkin-Elmer Corporation, 1968).  Exchangeable acidity was



determined by titration of BaCl - triethanolamine soil extract of pH 8.1  (Mehlich,



1948).  The Aluminon method (Yuan, 1959) was used to determine Al, which was



extracted with a IN KCl solution.  Free Fe00_ extracted with Na.S-O.—Na^C^BLO-^H-
                  —                       23                  /Z43DD/2


was analyzed colorimetrically.  Organic C was determined by the ignition method in



a Fischer induction furnace (Young and Lindbeck, 1964) and, subsequently, by the



Walkley-Black method (Richards, 1965).



     The Pennsylvania State University Soil Testing Laboratory determined total N



by the Kjeldahl method (Jackson, 1958).



     Samples from each horizon  were prepared for X-ray diffraction analysis (copper



radiation) by removing free iron oxides and organic matter (Anderson, 1963).  Clay



material  (<2 ym) was removed by centrifugation and two subsamples obtained.  One



subsample was saturated with Mg and the other with K.  X-ray diffraction patterns



were run on the Mg-saturated slides at room temperature (25 C) and again after



solvation with ethylene glycol  at 80°C.  Patterns were also obtained from the



K-saturated slides at room temperature (25 C), after 2 hours of heat treatment at



300°C, and again after 2 hours  of heat treatment at 500 C.  X-ray diffraction



traces were analyzed for relative peak height.  Clay mineralogy data are presented



to the nearest 5% of the clay minerals present in the <2 inn soil material.



     The Pennsylvania State University Mineral Constitution Laboratory determined



the types and amounts of S present in selected horizons of the minesoils and



natural soils.  The horizons selected for analysis were representative of surface

-------
or subsurface horizons for each pit.  Horizons to be subsampled were compared as to




Munsell color, pH, CEC, and percent base saturation.




     Pyritic sulfur was determined either by atomic absorption spectroscopy of Fe




when small amounts of S were present, or by Eschka method D271-70 (ASTM, 1971).




Sulfate sulfur was obtained by ASTM D2492-68 (ASTM, 1971) method as adapted by




The Mineral Constitution Laboratory.  Quantitative spectrometric and semiquantitative




spectrographic analyses of these samples were also obtained.






Statistical Analysis




     Statistical analyses of chemical data were made using an experimental design




with nested classification.  Natural soils were compared with minesoils with four




replications within each soil type (with three missing values).  Soil depths




within each pit were compared as follows:




     (1) Al and A2 horizons in natural soils were compared with surface




         horizons in minesoils.




     (2) The first B horizons encountered in the natural soils were compared




         with the Cl horizons in the minesoil.




     (3) B22, B23 (Pits 1, 2, and 4) and Bxlt through Bx3t  (Pit 3) horizons




         in soils were compared with the C2 and C3 horizons of the minesoil.




     (4) C horizons of natural soils were compared with C4 and C5 horizons of




         minesoils.  (No horizons from Pits 3, 4, and 6 were compared at this




         depth.)




     Fixed effects included soil types and depths.  Replications within soil types




are random effects.




     Statistical calculations were made using library programs provided by the




Computation Center of The Pennsylvania State University.  The RUMMAGE program




was used to obtain analysis of variance and the FOLUP program was utilized for




mean separation using Tukey's WSD criterion.  Square root transformations were




used to insure that the experimental errors had common variances.

-------
     Chemical factors analyzed included Ca, Mg, Na, K, total bases, percentage base




saturation, H, CEC, Al, percentage Fe 0 , and percentage of N.







RESULTS AND DISCUSSION




Soil and Minesoil Morphology




Field Morphology—




     The undisturbed Hazleton and Dekalb soils, at Pits 1 and 2, were located in an




area that had a natural forest vegetation, while the trees on the Cookport and




Hazleton soils, at Pits 3 and 4, had been removed.  The pedogenetic features common




in well-developed soils were expressed in the soils at these four locations.




Soils at Pits 5 through 8 were located within the area, which has been stripmined




and reclaimed, and exhibited characteristics of minimal pedogenetic development.




     Structural development and horizon differentiation (Appendix A) are evident




in the Hazleton silt loam taxadjunct soil (Pit 1).  The very dark grayish brown




(10YR 3/2) color of the Al horizon due to the influence of the solum ranges from




brown (10YR 5/4) to dark brown (7.SYR 5/8).  The reddish yellow (7.SYR 6/6)




color of the C horizon is lithochromic.  Clay films in the B22t and B3t horizons




indicated pedogenetic development; however, the amount of clay accumulated does




not make either of these horizons as argillic.  The texture of the soil ranges




from silt loam to loam and reaction (pH) of the solum ranges from 4.8 to 5.6.




     The Dekalb silt loam, taxadjunct soil (Pit 2) resembles the Hazleton soil




(Pit 1), except in depth to bedrock.  The Hazleton soil is deep (>75 cm to




bedrock), whereas the Dekalb is moderately deep (50-75 cm to bedrock).  Except




for depth, the morphologies of the two profiles (Pits 1 and 2) were virtually




identical.




     The Al horizon of the Cookport channery loam, taxadjunct (Pit 3) was compacted




depositional material.  This material seemed to have been eroded from the upper




areas of the stripmine.  The very firm thick platy structure of this horizon was an




evidence of compaction.  This soil (Pit 3) was also the only one described with a




fragipan.  Clay films were evident in the Exit through the Bx4t horizon and the
                                          10

-------
Exit horizon had enough illuvial clay to qualify as an argillic horizon.  Mottles




in the Bx2t through the Bx4t horizons indicated the impeded drainage of this




pedon.  The fragipan extended from 66 cm to the bottom of the pit at 167 cm.




     The Hazleton channery silt loam, taxadjunct (Pit 4) also had a surface horizon




which has been subjected to erosion as a result of stripmining and reclamation of




adjacent areas.  Beneath this horizon, the soil appeared undisturbed.




     The Hazleton channery silt loam, taxadjunct (Pit 4) soil resembled the soil




encountered in Pit 1; the difference was the higher percentage of channers in




the particle-size-control section.  In this profile, a weathered coal seam (coal




blossom) was found at a depth of 94 cm (IIC1) overlying mottled underclay (IIIC2).




     The surface horizon of minesoil in Pit 5 had moderate medium platy structure




parting to weak very fine subangular blocky structure, indicating that some




soil-forming processes had already taken place.  The abrupt color change from the




Ap to the Cl horizon indicated the topsoiled nature of this profile.  The C




horizons were all structureless with textures ranging from loam to loamy sand.




The moist consistence ranged from friable to firm and wet consistence ranged from




slightly sticky, slightly plastic to nonsticky, nonplastic.




     The Ap horizon of the minesoil in Pit 6 had granular and weakly developed




subangular blocky structure.  The vegetation had exerted its effect enhancing




this development.  The transitional (AC) horizon had subangular blocky structure




grading to structureless, massive soil material.  The C horizon (as in Pit 5)




exhibited no structural development.  The C3 horizon was composed entirely of




rock fragments with about 15 to 20% void space.




     The surface horizons, Apl and Ap2, in Pit 7 had a weakly developed fine




subangular blocky structure grading to massive material at about 30 cm.  This




minesoil did not have an abrupt color change from the A to C horizon because




no topsoil was spread over this area of the site.  The color of Ap horizons in




this profile seemed to be influenced largely by the shale fragments present.




The C horizons of this profile all had structureless, massive soil.  In the C3
                                          11

-------
horizon of this profile, no fine material was present.  The horizon was composed




mainly of rock fragments with 20% void space.




     The Ap horizon in the Pit 8 minesoil had developed a weak fine granular and a




weak very fine subangular blocky structure.  The subsurface horizons of this




minesoil were all structureless and massive.  The texture ranged from loam to




loamy sand.  Bands of different colored materials were present in the C4 and C5




horizons, and the C5 horizon (145 cm) was composed primarily of rock fragments.




     Pedogenetic development was minimal in the minesoils studied.  The greatest




amount of development had taken place in the surface horizons.  The C horizons




in all cases were structureless and massive with wavy horizon boundaries.  An




extremely large portion of the soil consisted of coarse fragments.  The minesoils




described herein contained an average of 67% coarse fragments by volume.  In




contrast, the average coarse fragment content of 14 West Virginia minesoils,




described by Sobek et al. (1976), was only 24% by volume.




     The continuity of larger pores in natural soils with well-developed structure




is well documented (Crompton, 1967).  These cavities drain quickly after rain and




provide essential aeration channels for root respiration and growth.  Many fine




capillaries are also present which retain water for plant utilization.   Minesoils




studied lacked structural development.  The larger pores, created in part by the




large volume of coarse fragments, generally were not as effective in their




water-holding capacity, and lack of fine capillaries inhibited water utilization




by plants.  The most prominant characteristics of minesoils seemed to be extremely




high rock fragment content and lack of pedogenetic development.






Soil Classification—




     Field morphology (Appendix A) and laboratory characterization data (Appendix




B) were used in the classification of the eight pedons (Pits 1-8).




     The soil in Pit 1 was classified as a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic




Dystrochrepts.  This pedon falls slightly outside the range of characteristics




of the Hazleton series (Typic Dystrochrepts; loamy-skeletal, mixed,  mesic)  and







                                          12

-------
is a taxadjunct to that series.  The pedon contained less than 35% rock fragments




by volume in the particle-size-control section (25-100 cm) and, therefore, did




not fit the modal concept of the Hazleton series.




     Hazleton soils have developed from weathered gray and brown acid sandstone.




The soils are generally found on nearly level to very steep uplands and ridges.




Modal Hazleton soils, in general, have a thin organic (02) horizon overlying a




dark gray sandy loam mineral (Al) horizon.  The subsoil ranges from dark reddish




brown through dark brown sandy loam and channery sandy loam.  The C horizon is a




reddish yellow very channery sandy loam.  Solum thickness ranges from 65 to 130




cm and depth to bedrock ranges from 100 to 180 cm or more.  Usually, there are




from 5 to 70% angular sandstone fragments in the solum and from 35 to 80% in the




C horizon.  Reaction is strongly acid to extremely acid where unlimed.  The most




abundant clay minerals are kaolinite, illite, and vermiculite.  The soil is




typically well drained with rapid permeability.




     The soil in Pit 2 was classified as a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic, Typic




Dystrochrepts.  This pedon falls slightly outside the range of characteristics




of the Dekalb series (Typic Dystrochrepts; loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic) and




is a taxadjunct to that series.  It contained less than 35% rock fragments by




volume in the particle size control section (25-100 cm) and, therefore, did




not fit the modal concept of the Dekalb.  The pedon was well drained and




moderately deep.  In general, Dekalb soils have formed in material weathered




mainly from sandstone on gently sloping to very steep uplands and ridges.




     The modal Dekalb soil, in wooded areas, has a surface layer of very dark gray




channery sandy loam over light yellowish brown channery sandy loam.  The subsoil,




typically, is yellowish brown channery sandy loam and the substratum is dark brown




very flaggy loam.  Depth to bedrock ranges from 50 to 100 cm.  Flat sandstone




fragments increase with depth ranging from 10 to 60% in the B horizons and from




50 to 90% in the C horizons.  The reaction of the soil is extremely to strongly




acid when unlimed.  Common clay minerals are predominantly illite, kaolinite, and
                                          13

-------
vermiculite.  The soil typically is well drained with moderately rapid (6.3-12.5




cm/hr) through rapid  (12.5-25 cm/hr) permeability.




     The soil in Pit  3 was classified as a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Aquic




Fragiudult.  This pedon falls slightly outside the range of characteristics of




the Cookport series (Aquic Fragiudults; fine-loamy, mixed, mesic) and is a




taxadjunct to that series.  The fine-earth fraction of this pedon contains less




than 18% clay in the  particle-size-control section (25-100 cm) and, therefore,




does not fit the modal concept of the Cookport series.  This pedon was moderately




well drained.




     Cookport soils have formed in materials weathered from acidic sandstone and




siltstone.  They are  found on nearly level to strongly sloping broad ridge tops




of the Allegheny Plateau.  The modal Cookport soil has a very dark grayish brown




and brown loam upper  horizon and a yellowish brown, friable fine gravelly clay




loam subsoil, which is mottled below about 40 cm.




     A firm, brittle  fragipan is usually encountered at a depth of 50 to 95 cm.




The substratum is grayish brown very channery sandy loam and is underlain by




sandstone bedrock below 100 cm.  The surface layer and upper part of the subsoil




is moderately permeable, and the lower part of the subsoil has a slow (0.13-0.5




cm/hr) to very slow (<0.13 cm/hr) permeability.




     The soil in Pit  4 was classified as a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic




Dystrochrept.  The pedon falls slightly outside the range of characteristics




of the Hazleton series (Typic Dystrochrepts; loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic) and




is a taxadjunct to that series.  This pedon contains less than 35% rock fragments




by volume in the particle-size-control section (25-100 cm) and, therefore, does




not fit the modal concept of the Hazleton series.




     General properties and occurrence of the Hazleton series was described in




detail for Pit 1.




     The soils in Pits 5-8 were classified as loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic




members of the Udorthent group.  The minesoils (Pits 5-8) were classified as
                                          14

-------
Entisols because of their lack of horizon differentiation.  The epipedons of the




minesoils were the only horizons to exhibit any pedogenetic development.  Pits 5,




6, and 8 were located in C-Spoil material and Pit 7 was located in B-Spoil




material (Figure 2).  The color changes from the A to C horizons in minesoils of




Pits 5, 6, and 8 were due to the "topsoiling" practice.  The "topsoil" stockpiled




before stripping is now required to be spread over the spoil material after




stripmining.  Operators, in general, consider any material above unconsolidated




bedrock as topsoil.  The "topsoil" that was placed on the spoil at this experi-




mental site was a mixture of all the loose surface material pushed aside before




the actual stripping.




     Ciolkosz et al. (1977) sampled and characterized 25 minesoil pedons in




Pennsylvania.  They found most of these minesoils to have pH values of 4 to 5.




The texture of these samples was usually sandy loam to loam.  The Research




Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in Pennsylvania (1971) also found that




minesoil developed from Lower Kittanning and Middle Kittanning spoil in




Pennsylvania generally had loam texture.




     Rock fragment content of the 25 minesoils analyzed by Ciolkosz et al. (1977)




ranged between 50 and 90% (by volume), while the fine earth content of Lower and




Middle Kittanning minesoils was found to be 30 and 25% (by weight), respectively




(Research Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in Pennsylvania, 1971).






Root Distribution—




     Root penetration in natural soils (Pits 1-4) was controlled by either bedrock




or a limiting zone.  Direct comparison of root distributions in Hazleton and




Dekalb soils (Pits 1 and 2) with the minesoils (Pits 5-8) cannot be made since the




forest vegetation of Pits 1 and 2 is not comparable to the grass and legume




vegetation in Pits 5 through 8.  However, vegetation in Pits 3 and 4 is comparable




to that on minesoils, and a comparison of root distribution can be made.  Detailed




root-distribution descriptions are given in Appendix A.
                                          15

-------
                         2
     Few roots  (10,000/m ) to a


depth of 43 cm, below which they decreased  in number and size until they reached


the fragipan at 66 cm.   Below this, the root number decreased significantly with


only a few fine (1-2 mm  diam.) roots penetrating the fragipan.  The roots seemed


to grow laterally along  the upper boundary  of the fragipan and those that


penetrated the fragipan  were located along  prism walls.


     Many roots were present in the Al horizon of the Hazleton taxadjunct profile


in Pit 4.  Most of them  were present in the A2 horizon  (8-20 cm) and few were


present below this horizon.  No roots penetrated the IIIC2 horizon at 125 cm.


     Many very fine  (
-------
     Many very fine to fine fibrous roots were evenly distributed throughout the AC



horizon (0-18 cm) in Pit 8.  Many fine to medium (2-5 mm diam.) taproots extended



to 3 cm in this horizon.  Nodules and lesions were observed on these taproots.  Few



very fine roots penetrated the Cl horizon (18-36 cm) to 20 cm.  Taproots within the



Cl horizon became increasingly branched and followed ped faces and voids associated



with coarse fragments.  Few very fine roots extended to a depth of 124 cm.



     Roots seldom penetrated the massive C horizons of the minesoils.  The roots



within the minesoils were located predominantly on coarse fragments.  These roots



were associated with the cracks and fissures in the soil material near the coarse



fragments.  Although deeper profiles for root proliferation do exist in minesoils,



the structureless nature of the subsoil limits root extension.



     Roots also will not penetrate horizons, which do not supply adequate moisture.



The large pores associated with horizons composed entirely or predominantly of



rock fragments drain rapidly leaving little available water for roots.  These



horizons are effective barriers to root extension as well.





Laboratory Analyses



Chemical Characterization Data—



     Complete chemical characterization data for the natural soils and minesoils



are given in Appendix B.  Cation exchange capacity, percent base saturation, pH



and total acidity are also depicted on Figures 3 and 4.  The cation exchange



capacity ranged from 8.5 to 61.2 meq/100 g in the natural soils and from 7.3 to



22.4 meq/100 g in the minesoils.



     The IIC1 horizon of Pit 4 represented a seam of decomposing coal.  The high



absorptive capacity of carbonaceous matter (Rankama and Sahama, 1950) accounts



for the high CEC value of this horizon.  The high CEC's of the Al horizons of



Pits 1 and 2 are attributed to the high organic matter content of these



horizons—6.3 and 3.6% organic carbon (Ignition), respectively.  Most of these


                                             +       +3
exchange sites are likely to be occupied by H  and Al   ions.
                                          17

-------
Figure 3.  Cation exchange capacity, base saturation,  PH and




           total acidity for the natural soils.
                               18

-------
PIT HORIZON
DEPTH
 (cm)
         CATION EXCHANGE  CAPACITY
                 (meq/lOOg)
BASE SATURATION
      A I
      A2
      B2I
      B22t
      B3t
      C
      t
      A I
      B2I
      B 22
      B23
     lc

      Al
      A2
      B I
      B XI t
      Bx2t
      B X3t
      Bx4t

      'A I
      A2
      B 2lt
      B 22t
      B 23t
      nci
      fflC2
 0-3
 3-10
 10-41
 41-74
 74-109
109-176

 0-10
 10-33
 33-51
 51-71
 71-74

 0-15
 15-43
 43-66
 66-91
 91-117
117-135
135-167

 0-8
 8-20
 20-48
 48-74
 74-94
 94-125
125-183
                          10
                          I
                   20     30    40     0
                    I	I	I	
                                             10    20    30 2
                                             I	I	I
pH TOTAL ACIDITY
(hi. soil: water) imeq/iOOg)
2 4 60 10 20 30 40
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1












1

























1

["
|
1


i


1
1

1


1
1

\

1
1

66.3
1 1
II III


-------
Figure 4.  Cation exchange capacity, base saturation, pH and




           total acidity for the minesoils.
                             19

-------
PIT
7
8
ORIZON
Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
'Ap
AC
Cl
C2
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
AC
C 1
C2
C3
C4
C5
DEPTH
(cm)
C
0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-1 14
114-152
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-157
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY
(meq/lOOg)
) 10 20 30 40
1 1 1 1
1
1
1


1

1

ZT1
i



i

I — I
i


i

BASE SATURATION
     pH
(1:1, soil:water)
TOTAL  ACIDITY
   (meq/iOOg)
0 10 20 30 i
\ \ \
\

|
1
	 1
J

1

|
1

~~1
1
1
I

T 45;2
— i
jm


i
zr
I 4
1 1














1

|
|






6 (
1 1
J






1











1




) 10 20 30 4
1 1 1 1
1

|

1


1

|
j

1
1

1

|

~~l
1

|
|

-------
     The average CEC in the minesoils (17 meq/100 g) was higher than in the natural




soils (14 meq/100 g).  The differences, however, were not significant at the 5%




level.  Because of inconsistencies with depth, a significant (soil x depth)




interaction was found.  The relative CEC values were not equal over depth.




     Smith et al. (1971) found lower cation exchange capacities and total bases




for Fe ore spoil than for the upper layer (3 cm) of natural Gilpin and Dekalb




soils.  Below this depth the exchange capacities, bases and base saturation for




natural soil horizons were lower than that for corresponding spoil.




     The percentage base saturation for the AC horizon of Pit 8 and the Ap




horizon of Pit 6 showed the effect of liming.  In general, the percentage base




saturation was higher in the minesoils; Pit 7 was an exception.  Pit 7 is




composed primarily of shaly materials, which could account for this discrepency.




The lower base saturation of the natural soils was due to leaching which has




taken place over time.  The fragipan horizons of Pit 3 have a higher base




saturation than overlying horizons because these horizons do not transmit much




water and, therefore, are not as extensively leached as the overlying horizons.




Some of the bases measured in the minesoil could also have been due to free




salts, like gypsum.
                                          20

-------
     The amount of Ca (Appendix B) present in the natural soils ranged from 0 to




1.9 meq/100 g and from 0 to 5.1 meq/100 g in the minesoils.  The high values of




5.1 and 2.4 meq/100 g for surface horizons of Pits 6 and 8, respectively, are due




to effects of liming.  In general, the amount of Ca decreased with depth, except




where fragipans or lithologic discontinuities were present.  No significant




difference between minesoils and natural soils in respect to Ca existed.




     Extractable Mg ranged from 0.1 to 2.2 meq/100 g in natural soils and from




0.4 to 1.5 in minesoils.  Magnesium behaved similarly to Ca in its distribution




throughout the soils, but slightly more Mg 'was present in the minesoils.




     The surface horizons of natural soils contained slightly more K than did the




corresponding horizons of the minesoils.




     Grube et al. (1974) reported that high levels of plant available Ca, Mg, and




K are found in young minesoils as compared with old natural soil.  In this study,




no significant differences between the minesoils and natural soils existed for




these three elements and in general; the natural soils tended to have slightly




higher levels of these elements.  These results can also be contrasted with the




results of Smith et al. (1971), who found that fresh spoil derived from non-




calcareous acid shales and fine grained sandstones retained slightly more basic




cations (Ca, Mg, K) than did the natural soils.




     The average amount of extractable Na present in both minesoils and natural




soils was 0.06 meq/100 g with very little variation between horizons, sites, or




soils.  Excess amounts of Na tend to disperse clays, but quantities sufficient




to adversely affect the soils and minesoils were not present in any of the




horizons.




     The pH values of the natural soils (Pits 1-4) were generally lower and total




acidity generally higher due to leaching of bases in these soils over time.  The




high total acidities of the Al horizons of Pits 1 and 2 are attributed to the




high organic matter content of these horizons and the effect of an acid leaf
                                          21

-------
litter overlying these mineral horizons.  The large difference in total acidity for




the AC horizon of Pit 8 is again due to the liming of the minesoil.




     The pedogenetically younger minesoils have not been exposed to the leaching




that the mature natural soils have.  The relatively equal pH values throughout




the natural soils indicated that these soils are in equilibrium with their




environment .




     The low pH values of Pit 7 can be attributed to its high S content (Table 1).




The oxidation of sulfides to sulfates has contributed to the acidity.  The




oxidation reaction which liberates H-SO, is as follows:
                    4 FeS2 + 15 02 + 2 H20 = 2 Fe^SO^ + 2 H2S04.






     This oxidation reaction produces Fe (SO.) , which is characterized by a yellow




color (Black, 1968).  These yellow colors were observed at the site on shale




fragments, and on the minesoil surface.




     The range of SO, found in the minesoils was 0.01 to 0.16%, and total S content




in the natural soils was not high enough to warrant further analyses.  In




comparison, Jackson (1964) reported that the total SO, content of humid temperate




soils ranged from 0.01 to 0.15%.  The minesoils would be expected to retain more




SO  because of their lower pH's.  High levels of Fe (Chao et al., 1963) and the




presence of kaolinite clay (Russell, 1961) also enhance SO, retention.




     The amount of S present in the minesoils ranged from 0.03 to 0.38%.  Total S




of some eastern Kentucky acid-forming coal spoil materials ranged from 0.11 to




3.86% (Barnhisel et al., 1969).  The amount of S present in the minesoils of




this study was comparatively low, however, the S present in the minesoils is in




an environment optimum for acid production.  The rainwater, which percolates




through the soil, could be expected to solubilize much of the S present.  The S




is not concentrated in a localized seam, as it would be in coal, but is




distributed throughout the minesoil and spoil.  The amount of S, therefore,




distributed throughout this material with depth might contribute significantly
                                          22

-------
            TABLE 1.  TOTAL SULFUR, SULFATE SULFUR, PYRITIC SULFUR AND
                      ORGANIC SULFUR OF SELECTED HORIZONS

Site

P-l
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
Depth
cm
3-10
41-74
0-10
33-51
15-43
43-66
117-135
8-20
48-74
94-125
0-10
74-114
0-13
58-84
10-31
51-66
0-18
58-102
Horizon

A2
B22t
Al
B22
A2
Bl
Bx3t
A2
B22t
IIC1
Ap
C4
Ap
C2
Ap2
C2
AC
C3

Total S

0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.19
0.03
0.13
0.03
0.13
0.10
0.38
0.04
0.08
Form of S
Sulfate-S Pyritic-S Organic-S
%
*
_ _ _
- - -
0.01 0.03 0.15
0.05 0.07 0.01
0.05 0.08 0.00
0.05 0.02 0.03
0.16 0.07 0.15
0.04 0.04 0.00

*
 Total S <0.05%, no further analysis.




to acid production.  However, Sobek et al. (1976) reported that total S only


accurately quantifies the materials' potential acidity when all the S is


present in the pyritic form.


     Barnhisel and Massey (1969) reported that most of the acidity present in the


minesoils was from the H  resulting from the oxidation of sulfide minerals.  In


the minesoils (Pits 6, 7, and 8), the amount of H increased with depth, whereas


the concentration of H decreased with increasing depth in the natural soils.
                                          23

-------
Pit 5, however, showed no clear trend with depth.  The shaly material at this site




probably supplied enough S throughout to offset any leaching effects.




     In old Fe ore spoil, Smith et al. (1971) found no significant pH differences




with depth.  They found the pH range resembled that in the natural Dekalb soils.




They concluded that long-time soil forming processes, in their region, did not




change soil horizon pH appreciably when the soil material initially was within




the acid range.




     The natural soils contained significantly more extractable Al than the mine-




soils (Appendix B).  The higher levels of extractable Al present in the natural




soils were due to their more mature state.  The leaching of these soils has lead




to weathering of clays, release of Al, and removal of bases.  Toxic levels of Al,




however, did not exist in any horizon.




     Iron oxide redistribution in soils is associated with weathering.  Increasing




concentration of Fe~0_ is an indication of increasing weathering (Buol et al. ,




1973).




     The natural soils had greater percentage of Fe^O^ in general; however, Pit 7




contained an appreciable quantity of the oxide.  This was probably related to




the weathering of the FeS7 present.




     Iron oxides tend to render a reddish yellow color to the soil.  They also




promote aggregate stability.  Over time the Fe weathering in the minesoils




might be of benefit in this respect.






Spectrometric and Spectrographic Analyses




     Quantitative spectrometric analyses (Table 2) revealed that very little




difference existed between soil and minesoil composition.




     The higher SiO? contents of the natural soils were due to their higher con-




centration of quartz.  Since these soils are derived from sandstone, these




results were expected, whereas the minesoils which are developing from a mixture




of soil, sandstone, and shale have lower contents of quartz.
                                          24

-------
Ul


TABLE
2. QUANTITATIVE SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF SELECTED HORIZONS

Component Oxides
Site
P-l
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
Depth
cm
3-10
41-74
0-10
33-51
15-43
43-66
117-135
8-20
48-74
94-125
0-10
74-114
0-13
53-84
10-31
51-66
0-18
58-102
Horizon
A2
B22t
Al
B22
A2
Bl
Bx3t
A2
B22t
IIC1
Ap
C4
Ap
C2
Ap2
C2
AC
C3
Ash

94.03
94.81
90.05
96.12
95.22
96.47
95.76
94.35
94.10
70.12
95.43
94.27
95.03
94.07
92.96
77.09
95.54
91.80
sio2

79.0
76.5
84.0
86.0
84.0
83.0
81.5
78.5
74.0
71.0
82.0
90.5
82.0
79.0
78.5
73.0
86.0
77.5
A1203

12.0
13.8
9.0
8.7
9.3
10.0
12.1
14.1
15.8
18.9
12.6
11.7
11.2
12.6
13.3
15.5
8.3
14.2
Ti02

0.92
0.89
0.80
0.74
0.79
0.79
0.79
1.04
1.02
1.19
0.87
0.63
0.82
0.69
0.77
0.92
0.64
0.91
Fe2°3

4.75
5.75
2.92
2.71
2.65
3.30
4.58
4.55
5.95
5.30
4.22
5.62
3.93
6.80
5.23
8.75
3.85
6.55
MgO

-
0.78
0.61
0.76
0.39
0.39
0.49
0.75
0.69
0.91
0.68
0.53
0.49
0.48
0.54
0.51
0.72
0.37
0.69
CaO

0.11
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.08
0.32
0.18
0.11
0.40
0.15
0.09
0.19
0.27
0.10
MnO

0.061
0.076
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.049
0.075
0.069
0.046
0.067
0.046
0.058
0.074
0.055
0.088
0.074
0.064
0.102
Na2°

0.33
0.27
0.29
0.24
0.25
0.28
0.47
0.37
0.40
0.03
0.26
0.12
0.24
0.12
0.14
0.19
0.20
0.30
K2°

1.96
2.24
1.43
1.46
1.63
1.85
2.25
2.35
2.67
3.10
2.09
2.23
1.87
2.39
2.40
2.66
1.37
2.53
Total

99.9
100.3
99.4
100.4
99.1
99.9
102.7
101.8
100.9
100.9
102.8
101.5
101.0
102.4
101.0
102.0
101.1
102.9

-------
     The Fe2°o content of soils, generally, ranges from 1 to 6% (Jackson, 1968).




Data obtained for the natural soils fall within this range but the minesoils




subsurface horizons approach the upper end of this range or exceed it.  These




higher values are due to the dissolution of FeS  and redistribution of this




compound in the soil, as previously discussed.




     According to Jackson (1968), CaO and MgO contents of natural soils, are




generally less than 1%.  Values obtained from minesoils and natural soils agreed




with this value, however, we noted no distinct trend in distribution of these




compounds.




     The K_0 content of the minesoils was slightly higher than that of corresponding




natural soil horizons.  The K 0 content of soils ranges from 0.05 to 3.5% according




to Jackson (1968).  The greater proportion of K_0 in the minesoils is possibly due




to the weathering of illite which liberates K.




     All other elements analyzed for spectrometrically fell into expected ranges




for natural soils.




     Little, if any difference, was observed between trace elements of minesoils




and natural soils (Table 3), when semiquantitative spectrographic analysis was




performed.




     The amount of Cu present in the minesoils, composed dominantly of shale coarse




fragments (Pits 7 and 8), was slightly higher than that in natural soils.  The Cu




content of the soils and minesoils, however, fell within the range of Cu found in




natural soils (Baker and Chesin, 1975).




     The amount of Co present in the Ap2 of Pit 7 and C3 of Pit 8 exceeded the




1 to 40 ppm range reported by Baker and Chesin (1975).  This higher amount of Co




could be attributed to the shaly nature of these profiles, which generally




contain more Co than sandstone materials.




     The amounts of Ba, Cr, V, Be, and Ni found in the minesoils and soils fell




within ranges established by Baker and Chesin (1975) for natural soils.
                                          26

-------
                        TABLE 3.  SEMIQUANTITATIVE SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF SELECTED HORIZONS
N>

*
Element
Site

P-l

P-2

P-3


P-4


P-5

P-6

P-7

P-8

Depth
cm
3-10
41-74
0-10
33-51
15-43
43-66
117-135
8-20
48-74
94-125
0-10
74-114
0-13
53-84
10-31
51-66
0-18
58-102
Horizon

A2
B22t
Al
B22
A2
Bl
Bx3t
A2
B22t
IIC1
Ap
C4
Ap
C2
AP2
C2
AC
C3
Ba


350
380
390
310
380
320
350
410
430
300
340
300
340
270
390
440
290
430
Be


<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
4
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
Ce


120
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
120
100
<100
120
<100
<100
110
<100
<100
Co


<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
39
<20
<20
<20
<20
50
<20
<20
43
Cr


74
100
74
56
70
66
84
100
100
120
76
80
86
60
96
110
50
100
Cu


23
31
16
16
15
18
24
20
32
54
22
26
21
30
35
50
12
50
Ga


23
25
15
18
19
18
21
25
28
39
22
23
23
22
26
26
16
29
La

ppm
40
32
23
30
30
31
38
48
52
60
43
34
50
43
43
44
29
40
Ni


25
32
<25
<25
26
<25
31
25
33
74
<25
44
<25
27
27
40
<25
46
Sc


12.0
15.0
6.6
8.0
8.4
10.0
12.0
12.0
17.0
25.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
18.0
5.4
16.0
Sr


41
47
35
30
50
43
50
64
86
160
42
46
45
45
64
120
41
80
V


96
100
66
62
72
74
100
110
130
150
110
100
100
100
110
120
120
120
Y


31
33
33
26
26
36
29
35
40
60
32
22
33
35
30
37
30
39
Zr


420
390
440
290
340
340
340
340
410
330
340
250
490
310
240
370
380
310

     Not detected in all samples:  Ag, Bi, Ge, Mo, Nb, Pb, Sn, Yb.

-------
Clay Mineralogy




     Clay mineralogical data for the natural soils and minesoils are presented in




Appendix B.




     Vermiculite and kaolinite were the dominant clay minerals in the natural soils




(Pits 1-4), while illite and kaolinite were dominant in the minesoils (Pits 5-8).




     In Pennsylvania soils, the dominant clay-weathering transformation is the




conversion of illite to vermiculite or to vermiculite-chlorite intergrades




(Ciolkosz et al., 1975).




     The illite of the natural soils has been weathered to vermiculite.   Over time




the amount of vermiculite in the minesoils will most likely increase at the expense




of illite.  The high proportions of illite in the minesoils, however, could be




expected to supply part of the K needed for plant growth (Barnhisel, 1969).




Kaolinite, the most resistant of common clays, occurs when leaching is extensive.




This explained the high proportion of kaolinite found in the highly weathered




natural soil.




     Barnhisel (1969) reported that the clay minerals serve as "buffers" by reacting




with acids produced by the oxidation of sulfides.




     The large amount of montmorillonite in Pit 3 can be attributed to the impeded




drainage of this profile.  The fragipan effectively slows down the rate of




weathering of this mineral within this horizon.  The fact that montmorillonite is




present in Pit 4 is possibly due to this soil's topographic position.  The




montmorillonite in the minesoils will probably be weathered from the soil over




time because this mineral is unstable in leaching environments.




     The clay minerals present in the IIC1 and IIIC2 horizons of Pit 4 agreed with




generalizations proposed by Grim (1953).  Bituminous coal is usually high in




kaolinite, whereas kaolinite and illite are associated with underclay.




     Smith et al. (1971) found no great differences between clay mineralogy of




natural soils and minesoils.  They also found similarities between young minesoil
                                          28

-------
and contiguous natural (Gilpin) subsoil, which they claimed indicates that the




mineralogy of the minesoils may be inherited from disintegration of parent rock.




     From mineralogical data obtained, minesoils seem to be similar to the con-




tiguous natural soils.  The minesoils, however, have not been exposed to the




weathering processes that natural soils have encountered.




     Sand grain mineralogy of the minesoils might give a better idea of what




minerals will be present in the future and better predict soil development.






Organic Carbon and Organic Nitrogen




     Organic C data are presented in Appendices B and C, and organic N data are




presented in Appendix B.




     As indicated in the Materials and Methods section, two methods were used to




determine the amount of organic C present in the soil.  The values obtained by




the ignition method seemed high in some instances, and we questioned the validity




of this procedure for these materials since carboniferous shale and coal fragments




in the samples could account for the high organic C contents obtained.




     Organic matter has a marked effect on minesoil development.  Organic matter




acts as a cementing agent which aids in the formation of aggregates.  Jones et al.




(1975) reported that newly reclaimed minesoils generally contain less than 0.3%




organic matter.  Caspall (1975) found that 30- and 76-year-old minesoils, which




were improperly managed, also had low organic matter contents.




     In general, organic C content decreased with depth in the natural soils and




increased with depth in the minesoils.  The highest amounts of organic C were




found in the IIC1 horizon of Pit 4, followed by the Al horizons of Pits 1 and 2.




The IIC1 horizon (Pit 4) was a partially decomposed coal seam.  The horizons




above (B23t) and below  (IIIC2) this seam also had high organic C values.  The Al




horizons (Pits 1 and 2) seem to have accumulated organic matter over time from




the forest vegetation at these locations and the darker colors of these surface




horizons were due in part to their organic matter contents.  The soil at Pit 7




had very high organic C content.  This soil is composed mainly of material
                                          29

-------
derived from carboniferous shale and the high C values could possibly be due to




this material.




     The Walkley-Black method seemed to agree in general with the ignition method




values for the surface horizons of the natural soils, but gave lower values for




subsurface horizons.  The values obtained by the Walkley-Black method for the




tninesoils did not agree with those determined by ignition.  The values obtained




by ignition were 1/3 to 6 times higher than those obtained by the Walkley-Black




method; however, this relationship was not constant and the AC horizon of Pit 8




had higher organic C when determined by Walkley-Black method.




     Apparently the organic C in minesoils cannot be accurately determined by




either of these methods when shale and coal fragments are present.  Alternate




methods should be sought, which could give more reliable determinations.




     The organic N of the natural soils decreased with depth, whereas in minesoils




it increased with depth.  Carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratios are presented in Tables




A and 5 for natural soils and minesoils, respectively.  The C/N ratios for the




natural soils were higher than expected and generally became smaller with depth.




The organic-N values (Appendix B) fell within the range of those expected for




natural soils (Black, 1968); however, the organic C values were suspect.  Values




obtained for organic C  (Appendices B and C) were high.




     The C/N ratios for Pit 4 are inconsistent with those obtained for the other




three natural soils.  The coal blossom (IIC1) and underclay (IIIC2) had high




organic C content and resulting high C/N ratios as expected.




     The C/N ratios obtained for the minesoils were very eratic.  In general, the




rainesoils higher in shaly material and darker in color had higher organic C values




and higher C/N ratios than could be attributed to organic matter alone.
                                          30

-------
TABLE 4.  CARBON/NITROGEN RATIOS FOR NATURAL SOILS

Pit Depth
cm
1 0-3
3-10
10-41
41-74
74-109
109-176
2 0-10
10-33
33-51
51-71
71-74
3 0-15
15-43
43-66
66-91
91-117
117-135
135-167
4 0-8
8-20
20-48
48-74
74-94
94-125
125-183
Horizon

Al
A2
B21
B22t
B3t
C
Al
B21
B22
B23
C
Al
A2
Bl
Exit
Bx2t
Bx3t
Bx4t
Al
A2
B21t
B22t
B23t
IIC1
IIIC2

Ignition

18.1
33.3
10.5
8.7
2.1
3.5
21.4
15.1
14.3
10.5
5.9
12.4
26.7
7.7
10.9
6.9
12.6
9.5
61.9
14.7
26.2
7.2
26.5
36.3
34.4
Method
Walkley-Black

20.2
15.0




18.0




14.4
15.4





34.5


11.8


27.5
                            31

-------
TABLE 5.  CARBON/NITROGEN RATIOS FOR MINESOILS

Pit Depth
cm
5 0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152
6 0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
7 0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-157
8 0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
Horizon

Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Ap
AC
Cl
C2
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
AC
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5

Ignition

10.5
26.6
27.1
38.2
28.5
27.5
13.5
37.5
27.8
36.5
39.7
42.2
37.2
40.0
34.6
70.0
13.8
7.6
25.5
36.8
29.7
24.5
Method
Walkley-Black

4.9
8.3
7.5
11.5
11.2
9.3
12.6
20.3
13.9
17.0
18.4
00.6
11.7
8.2
4.7
4.1
18.7
16.7
11.4
14.7
15.0
21.3
                          32

-------
SUMMARY




     A study was conducted to determine soil changes that have occurred as a result




of coal stripmining and reclamation procedures.  Soil and minesoil morphology and




root distributions were described in the field.  Samples were obtained from each




horizon and soil chemical tests were performed.  Pedogenetic development in the




minesoils was minimal and the most prominent feature of the minesoils was their




high degree of coarseness and their high rock fragment content.  Roots tended to




concentrate along soil-coarse fragment interfaces.  Few roots penetrated the




massive minesoil material in the C horizons.




     In general, the chemical constituents of the minesoils resembled those of




natural soils.  However, the weathering of the natural soils has leached bases




from them and significantly more extractable Al was found in these soils than




in minesoils.




     Organic C and N determination were affected by the high content of




carboniferous shale and coal fragments in the minesoils.




     The clay minerals present in the minesoils have not been weathered as




much as the clay minerals in the natural soils.  The mineralogy suggested




that these minesoils and the natural soils were derived from the same




materials.
                                          33

-------
                                       SECTION 3




                               PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS






INTRODUCTION




     Typically, minesoils are low in organic matter and high in coarse fragments,




with little or no natural structure.  Their surface horizons contain the greatest




amounts of fine soil material, less than 2 mm in diameter.  Large boulders and




fragmented rock pieces are common.  During the mining operation, overburden rock is




shattered by blasting, and as a result many "fines" essentially consisted of pul-




verized unweathered rock materials.




     This chapter deals with the effects of surface stripmining and reclamation




operations on some physical and hydrologic properties of minesoil.  The objectives




of this study were to determine the moisture characteristics, particle-size




distributions, and specific surface of minesoils as compared with contiguous natural




soil; to establish the range and variation in bulk density of the minesoil; to




determine the hydraulic conductivity of the material; and to ascertain evapotrans-




piration from the minesoil.




     Bulk densities of minesoils are usually greater than those of undisturbed soils




because of their compacted state, immature pedogenetic nature and higher coarse




fragment content.  Natural soils tend to be more porous with an intricately develop-




ed system of cracks and fissures.  Although, in general, the total porosity is




lower, pores in minesoils are typically larger.




     Physical and morphological properties of both natural soils and minesoils in-




fluence water retention and movement within a profile.  Soil-water retention




depends mainly on the amount of the "soil" fraction (<2 mm) and soil structure.
                                          34

-------
The degree of tension with which the water is held determines its availability to




plants.  The specific retention decreases with an increase in particle size (Farmer




and Richardson, 1976), resulting from a decrease in surface area and an increase in




pore size; however, it does not seem to be changed significantly by the shape or




type of fragments, nor by the time allowed for drainage (ElBoushi, 1966).




     It is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples for determination of hydraulic




properties of minesoils because of the large percentage of coarse fragments and




weak structural development of these materials.  Sieved samples, although not




necessarily representative of the natural minesoil, give a useful estimate of




hydraulic properties, like moisture characteristic and hydraulic conductivity,




particularly when corrected for coarse-fragments content.




     Shaykewich (1970) showed that sample disturbance lowered the limit of avail-




able water and that disturbed samples differed in water retention more frequently




at the lower tensions.  Moisture tension data for natural soils indicated that




moisture content at -15 bars of sieved sample and loose aggregate samples was




highly correlated, and moisture content at -0.3 bar of natural clods and loose




aggregate samples was also highly correlated (Holtan et al., 1968).  Unger (1975)




found that at -0.3 bar, cores retained more water than sieved samples when water




content was below 11% and the opposite was true at higher moisture contents.




Unger (1975) also found that throughout the encountered water-content range,




cores contained about 1% more water than sieved soils at -15 bar.  Young and




Dixon (1966) have shown that sieved samples have higher gravimetric water con-




tents due to an increase in total pore space and an increase in the number of




pores that hold water at -0.3 bar.  Bruce (1972) concluded that sieving of




coarse-textured, organic-matter-deficient materials does not significantly




modify their water retention properties.  In general, research results (Bruce,




1972; Unger, 1975) indicated that if natural soil structure is present, any




type of sample disturbance will disrupt it, modifying pore-size distribution




and pore volume.  However, in soils with little or no structured development,
                                          35

-------
like minesoils, this effect should either be minor or absent.  Because of the mine-




soils' coarser texture, greater rock fragment content and associated larger pores,




storage of plant available water is reduced.  However, Plass and Vogel (1973)




reported that under normal conditions minesoils can supply ample water to plants.




     Rates of infiltration and hydraulic conductivity usually increase as the soil




becomes coarser textured.  The coarser texture, however, restricts unsaturated




moisture movement within the profile due to a decrease in area for flow and




increase in tortuosity (Mehuys et al., 1975).  Minesoils may occupy up to 25%




greater volume than the natural material (Van Voast, 1974), with the subsurface




containing large channels which allow rapid drainage.  Therefore, values for water




movement into and through minesoils are highly variable.  Coleman's (1951) results




showed that infiltration on minesoils had a lag period after which it increased




significantly.  In contrast, adjoining natural soil generally had lower infiltra-




tion rates which leveled off or decreased with time.  In related studies,




ElBoushi (1966) has shown that water infiltrating through loose granular material




(similar to subsurface horizons of many minesoils) tends to concentrate into




discrete paths.  Similar flow due to wetting front instability has been discussed




by Hill and Parlange (1972), and more recently by Raats (1973) and Philip (1975).






MATERIALS AND METHODS




Laboratory Analyses




     Bulk samples from individual horizons were analyzed for particle-size distribu-




tion by the pipette method (Kilmer and Alexander, 1949), and sand-size particles




were sieved to obtain required separates.  To obtain an overall average of the




particle-size-distribution, composite samples, obtained from each soil pit,  were




sieved and weighed.




     The Soil Characterization Laboratory determined the bulk densities,  1/3 and 15




atmo water retention (Brasher et al., 1966), and coefficient of linear extensi-




bilities (Grossman et al., 1968) as outlined by Ciolkosz and Fletcher (1974).
                                          36

-------
     Soil moisture characteristics of sieved (<2 mm) materials from each horizon of




the soils and minesoils were obtained experimentally by desorption (Richards, 1965).




Triplicate samples were run emphasizing the low tension end of the curve.




Subsequently, these values were corrected for coarse fragments by multiplying the




value obtained by the percentage of material <2 mm and adding a correction factor




which was multiplied by the percentage of material >2 mm.  Correction factors were




obtained by determining the amount of water retained by the coarse fragments.  The




correction factor for sandstone fragments was 0.0282 and for shale fragments it




was 0.0687.                                     <




     Percentage of organic matter (OM) was estimated by multiplying the percentage




C, determined by the Walkley-Black or the ignition method by a factor of 2.5.




This value, along with -15 bar water content (W) of the matrix soil,  was used to




estimate specific surface of the mineral fraction (SS) (in square meters per gram




of soil) using a recently proposed equation of Young and Onstad (1976):





                        SS = -2.36 + 7.96 (W) - 4.49 (OM).







Field Studies




     Bulk densities were determined at 10 sites randomly located within the reclaimed




area (L-l to L-10; Figure 2), and three sites located in adjacent natural soils (L-ll




to L-13; Figure 2).  Five replicate readings around each site were made with a gamma




density probe (Blake, 1965; Troxler, 1970) at the 15 and 30 cm depths.  Bulk density




was also determined gravimetrically using a modified excavation technique (Bertram,




1973).  At each of the 10 sites a steel ring 90 cm in diameter was placed on the




spoil surface and loose stones and excessive vegetation were removed.  A pliable




rubber liner was then fitted inside the steel ring and the volume of water needed to




fill the ring was determined.  The minesoil within the ring was then removed to




about the 45 cm depth and weighed.  Small grab subsamples were taken to determine




gravimetric water content.  The rubber liner was then replaced in the excavation and




water added to the same level as before.  From volume differences and soil weight,
                                        37

-------
corrected  for water  content,  dry bulk density was  determined.   Soil  clods were obtain-




ed when possible  to  make  an  additional check on  the  bulk  density at  these sites.




     Some  of the  excavated minesoil  at each site was repacked by hand into small




plastic microlysimeters  (20  cm  ID x  30 cm)  (Rogowski and  Jacoby, 1977), to approxi-




mate field wet bulk  density.  The microlysimeters  were seeded with ryegrass  (Lolium




perenne L.) and set  on collecting pans in the excavations.  Acrylic  liners were




placed around each microlysimeter and the minesoil returned to  its original  level.




Vegetation was reestablished  at each site and an evapotranspiration  (ET) study




initiated.  The amount of water seeping through  the  minesoil and the weight  of each




cylinder was recorded twice weekly.   Rainfall, evaporation, maximum-minimum




temperatures and  solar radiation data were also  monitored during this time.  Follow-




ing the ET study, bulk densities of  the minesoil in  each  microlysimeter were




determined by oven drying.




     Field capacity  estimates were also made.  When  saturated from below, tops of




the microlysimeters  were  covered with plastic film to prevent evaporative loss




and the weight after 2 days of  drainage was obtained.  Concurrently, field capacity




was studied on the experimental site.   Two days  after a 3 cm rain, which effectively




saturated  the minesoil, gravimetric  samples were obtained from  the surface and




subsurface of minesoils in close proximity to each of the 10 microlysimeter  sites




within the reclaimed area.  Water content was determined  on the dried and weighed




samples and apparent field capacity  was calculated.




     Before and after the evapotranspiration study,  saturated hydraulic conductivities




were measured in  the 10 microlysimeters.  The microlysimeters used for ET study were  ;




saturated  from below by raising the  water level  to expel  any trapped air and ensure




total saturation.  Hydraulic  conductivities were run under a low head (Klute, 1973).




     Infiltration values  were computed  using steel cylinder infiltrometer data




following Coleman (1951)  at nine sites  (1-1 - 1-9; Figure 2).   Three sites each




were located within  the B-spoil, C-spoil, and the natural soil, respectively.         :




Soil was excavated from the circumference of the ring to  a depth of  10 to 15 cm




and the infiltrometer installed.  Bentonite clay was used to form an impervious




                                        38

-------
barrier to lateral flow from the bottom of the cylinder.  Clay was also used to




decrease the seepage down the side of the cylinder.  Coleman's (1951) procedure




for determining infiltration was followed with some slight modifications.  The




cylinder was 50.8 cm in diameter and about 20 cm in height.  Five liters of water




were added to the cylinder and allowed to infiltrate.  This amount was equivalent




to an application of 2.5 cm of water.




     "In situ" determination of water-holding capacity and unsaturated conductivity




was attempted on the minesoil using a modification of a procedure outlined in




Nielsen et al. (1964), Davidson et al. (1966), Cassell and Sweeney (1974), and




Cassell (1974).  The experimental plot is denoted by K on Figure 2.  The modifica-




tion included trenching to the 1-m depth, using a metal perimeter coated with a




corrosion-resistant paint, backfilling in place and predrilling holes for the




access tubes and tensiometers.  Subsequently, the space around the tensiometers




was packed with a slurry of fine minesoil (<2 mm).  Because of safety considera-




tions and remoteness of the site, gage-type tensiometers, rather than mercury




tensiometers, were used.  Duplicate tensiometers and two neutron access tubes were




placed at 60, 90, 120 and 150 cm below the minesoil surface within the plot.




Figure 5 is a schematic diagram of the plot.  The plot was irrigated several times




before the run to insure stability of the repacked material.  Moisture and density




determinations were made using nuclear methods before the initial run.




     Water was then applied to the plot  (890 liters) and when one-half the surface




area of the plot remained ponded, the initial readings time zero were taken.  The




surface was then covered with black polyethelene to prevent evaporative loss and




tensiometer readings and moisture determinations, by nuclear methods, were made




periodically during the drainage period.






Statistical Analyses




     Physical data were analyzed using a nested classification analysis of variance.




Natural soils were compared with minesoils with four replications within each soil




type as described previously in Section 2.






                                          39

-------
Figure 5.  Schematic representation of unsaturated




           hydraulic conductivity plot.
                        40

-------
Housing

                               Coated
                         Steel Border
             Access Tubes  -
             Tensiometers:
                60cm Depth
                90 "
                120 "
                150 "
II  II
II  II
II  II
    -o
                                  E
                                  10
                                  CVJ
           2-5m

-------
     Fixed effects include soil types and depths.  Replications within soil types




are random effects.




     Statistical calculations were made using library programs provied by the




Computation Center of The Pennsylvania State University.  The RUMMAGE program




was used to obtain analysis of variance and the FOLUP program was utilized for




mean separation using Tukey's WSD criterion.  Square root transformations were




used to insure that the experimental errors had common variances.




     The MINITAB II program was used to run unpaired t-tests on means.




     Physical factors analyzed included percent sand, silt, and clay in <2-mm




material and percent sand, silt, clay, and various rock fragment fractions of




the total material.




     The means and standard deviations for other physical parameters were also




obtained.







RESULTS AND DISCUSSION




Physical Properties




Particle Size—




     Particle-size-distribution data for the natural soils and minesoils are




reported in Appendix B.  Summation percentages for 2- to 254-mm material are




presented in Appendix D.  Summation percentages, for 0.15- to 102-mm material,




of the composite samples (Table 6) indicated the general difference between




natural soils (Pits 1-4) and minesoils (Pits 5-8).  About 50% (by weight) of




the natural soil consisted of soil-size material, in contrast to the minesoil




where only 25% of the material was made up of soil-size material.




     The composite sample of the natural soil contained significantly more material




between 0.15 to 0.30 mm in diameter than the minesoils.  The other size fractions of




the composite samples were not significantly different from each other.




     In Figure 6 summation curves of selected composite samples are presented.  The




curves for Pits 5, 6, and 8 approximated each other.  Pit 7, composed largely of




shaly material, was coarser.  The summation curve for Pit 2 approached that of the
                                          41

-------
                     TABLE 6.  COMPOSITE SAMPLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Fraction
mm
0.15
0.30
0.60
1.18
2.36
4.75
9.50
19.1
25.4
50.8
76.2
101.6

P-l


4.1
15.5
38.7
45.8
52.5
58.8
63.6
69.0
73.2
82.3
91.9
99.8

P-2


10.0
18.0
29.8
36.3
40.6
43.8
47.6
54.2
•58.0
74.2
82.8
93.1

P-3


7.1
22.7
35.5
41.9
47.3
54.0
61.7
69.7
75.2
86.1
98.1
99.9

P-4
- % finer
3.5
18.7
32.6
43.9
56.6
72.0
86.7
93.7
95.9
97.2
97.6
100
Pit
P-5
by weight -
1.7
7.3
17.6
22.7
28.0
33.1
36.8
41.8
44.2
52.5
67.7
80.7

P-6


1.3
5.9
16.9
22.7
29.3
36.1
42.0
49.9
55.8
66.3
78.4
100.2

P-7


0.1
2.6
5.9
8.6
12.8
17.0
21.2
25.2
25.4
30.7
43.0
57.8

P-8


2.6
8.6
18.6
22.8
27.8
34.1
41.1
49.6
54.1
69.2
88.0
100.1

minesoils at the coarser end of the curve.  Pit 4, however, differed from the others




in having most of its material less than 2 mm in size.  Figures 7 through 12 show




the sand, silt, clay, and coarse fragment (>2 mm-25 cm diam.) distribution with




depth for selected soil and minesoil profiles.




     The distribution with depth of sand, silt, and clay in Pits 1 and 2 (Figures 7




and 8)  agreed with each other.  These two soils, which are derived from the same




material, would be expected to be similar.  The distributions for Pits 3 and 4




(Figures 9 and 10) also seemed to agree, but Pit 4 had considerably less sand than




Pit 3.   The percentage of 2-mm material for Pit 5 (Figure 11) indicated that the




Ap horizon in the minesoil had weathered or was finer because of its topsoiled




nature.  The sand content increased sharply in the Cl horizon and the silt and




clay fractions decreased.  The increase in percent of rock fragments (>2 mm diam.)




in the Cl horizon indicated that the Ap horizon had been topsoiled.  The distribu-




tion of materials in Pit 6 resembled that of Pit 5.
                                          42

-------
Figure 6.  Particle size summation curves for composite samples.
                              43

-------
h-
0
UJ
CD
tr
UJ
C
UJ
o
o:
UJ
a.
IUU
80

60


40

20

n
o PIT 4
D PIT
          PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

-------
Figure 7.  Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution




           with depth for Pit 1.
                             44

-------
    0
     0
   40
£
o
Q.
CD
Q
   80
  120
20
Percent  by Weight
 40          60
80
100
                                                     Al
                                                    A Clay
                                                       Silt
                                          <2 mm
                                   O Sand
                                     Rock Fragments
                                 B3t
  160

-------
Figure 8.  Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution




           with depth for Pit 2.
                             45

-------
   0
    0
20
Percent by Weight
40          60
80
100
§40
Q.
CD
Q
  80
                    Al
                   B2
                    B22
                     B23
    C
                              I
                    I
              I
                            A Clay
                            • Silt}<2mm
                            O Sand
                                  9
                            A Rock Fragments

-------
Figure 9.  Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution




           with depth for Pit 3.
                             46

-------
                              Percent by Weight
    0
     0
20
4 0
6 0
8 0
100
            I    A  I      I
   40 -
E
o
a
(U
a
   80
   20
   60
                                        I       I
                                   A Clay
                                   0 Silt
                              <2mm
                                                     O Sand
                                                     A Rock Fragments
                                                          i	i

-------
Figure 10.  Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution




            with depth for Pit 4.
                             47

-------
    0
     0
   40
E
o
Q.
Q)
Q
   80
  120
20
Percent  by Weight
40          60
80
100
                                                 B2lt
  160
                                  A Clay
                                  • Silt
                             <2mm
                                  O Sand
                                         /
                                  A Rock Fragments
                                                 nC2

-------
Figure 11.  Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution




            with depth for Pit 5.
                             48

-------
    0
     0
   40
£
o
I"  80
  120
20
Percent by Weight
40          60
80
                           A Clay'
                              Silt
                 <2 mm
          O Sand
          A Rock' Fragments
IOD
                                      I

-------
     A slight increase in sand content was apparent in the C2  horizon at  Pit 7




(Figure 12).  The sand, silt, and clay content in the Apl and  Ap2  were virtually




the same.  The Cl horizon had less clay and more silt than the overlying  horizons.




The rock fragment content of the Ap2 was much less than that of the Apl horizon.




This could indicate that fines have been eroded from the surface horizon.   The




rock fragment content again increased in the Cl and was eratic below 40 cm.   The




distribution of fines in Pit 8 was consistent with depth, and  no changes  were




apparent either in the fines or in the rock fragment content with  depth.




     In general, the minesoils were dominated by sand in their fine earth fraction.




The distribution of rock fragments in the minesoils was eratic and generally




greater than 60%, whereas the rock fragment content of the natural soils  was




generally less than 50%.




     In general, the minesoils had considerably less silt and  more sand in their




fine earth fraction, than did the natural soils.




     Figure 13 shows depth distributions of percent clay (<2  urn).   Clay content of




the natural soils ranged from 9.6 to 24.9% and for the minesoils it ranged from




8.8 to 17.5%.  The decrease in clay at about 110 cm for Pit 4  was  associated with




the coal blossom (IIC1).  The clay content of the fine earth did not vary signif-




icantly from horizon to horizon nor from pit to pit.




     The percent coarse fragments in the natural soils and minesoils is shown in




Figure 14.  The data showed that most materials in minesoils (by weight)  were




coarse fragments.




     Surface horizons of the natural soils contained an average of 8.3% clay,




33.3% silt, and 19.7% sand.  The remaining 38.7% was made up of material




>2 mm.  The surface horizons of the minesoils contained an average of 4.1%




clay, 11% silt, 13% sand, and 71.9% consisted of material >2 mm.




     The surface horizons of minesoils contained a greater percentage of fine soil




material (<2 mm) than any underlying horizon.  The amount of fine material would




increase as weathering continued if removal of fines by erosion was not greater
                                          49

-------
Figure 12.  Sand, silt, clay and coarse fragment distribution




            with depth for Pit 7.
                             50

-------
    0
     0
   40
E
o
Q.
O
Q
   80
  120
20
Percent  by Weight
40          60
                               I
                            A Clay
                               Silt
                  <2 mm
           O Sand"
           A Rock Fragments
80
100
                                               Cl  —
                                                                C2 _
                                                             C4    —
  160

-------
Figure 13.  Clay (<2 ym) distribution with depth




            for Pits 1 through 8.
                       51

-------
                       PERCENT CLAY
              PITS 1-4
             10     20
30  0
    20
    40
    60
E
o
Q_
UJ
Q
    80
    100
    120
   140
    160
PITS  5-8
10     20
30
                 oPIT  I
                 oPIT  2
                 A PIT  3
                 oPIT  4
                 ©PIT  5
                 • PIT  6
                 A PIT  7
                 » PIT  8

-------
Figure 14.  Coarse fragment (>2 mm) distribution with




            depth for Pits 1 through 8.
                         52

-------
             PERCENT  COARSE FRAGMENTS

           20    40     60    80     100
   20
   40
   60
   80
8]
  120
  140
   160
o
D
A
O
   180
PIT I
PIT 2
RT3
PIT 4
PITS
RT6
PITT
RT8

-------
than their genesis.  Plass and Vogel (1973) reported that the percentage of soil




material (<2 mm) of natural soils in areas adjacent to minesoils ranged between




35 and 95%, whereas minesoils contained from 17 to 64% of fine material.




     The minesoil contained significantly more material between 19 and 254 mm than




did the natural soil.  Minesoils typically were high in coarse fragment content.




The high percentage of coarse material was due to the mixing of consolidated




materials with the subsoil in spoil piles.  The coarse fragments in the minesoils




were distributed throughout the profile, possibly causing a proliferation of




irregularly sized and spaced pores.  These larger pores would be expected to drain




faster by gravity.  Coarse fragments have less surface area than equal volumes of




finer material, thus reducing the surface area for adsorption of water.




     Coarse-fragment data of several researchers (Smith et al., 1971; Plass and




Vogel, 1973; Coleman, 1951) showed that coarse fragment content (by weight) can




range from about 40 to 70%.  Plass and Vogel (1973) found that for 39 West




Virginian minesoils, 63% (by weight) of the minesoil was greater than 2 mm.  Smith




et al. (1971) studied about 100-years-old minesoil derived from Fe ore surface




mining in West Virginia.  The methods used to extract this ore resembled strip-




mining techniques currently in use.  Higher proportions of coarse fragments were




found in minesoils derived from fine-grained sandstone and silty brown shales,




possibly due to the increased resistance to weathering of the material, as compared




with minesoils derived from dark gray and brown shales.




     The soil-size material (<2 mm) of the minesoils was predominantly sand-sized,




whereas silt-size-material predominated in all but Pit 3 of the natural soils.




     The silt present in the natural soils was significantly greater than that in




the minesoils, and the minesoils contained significantly more sand than the




natural soils.




     There was a highly significant difference between the minesoil and natural




soil with respect to clay and sand content of the total material; the minesoil




containing generally less clay and more sand.
                                          53

-------
Specific Surface—




     The amount of surface area in soils is determined largely by the amounts and




type of colloidal material (<2 ym) present.  Of the common clay minerals, mont-




morillonite has the greatest specific surface per unit weight, followed by




vermiculite, illite, and kaolinite (Baver et al., 1972).  The specific surface




areas of the natural soils and minesoils studied are presented in Tables 7 and 8,




respectively.  Organic C values, determined both by ignition and the Walkley-Black




methods, were used to calculate specific surface of the mineral fraction.




     Horizons in which montmorillonitic clays were detected (Appendix B) had high




specific surface.  The B21 and B22t horizons of Pit 1, and the Bx2t and Bx3t




horizons of Pit 3 had higher specific surface than all other subsoil horizons.




These higher values were attributed to the presence of montmorillonite.  The Ap




horizon of Pit 5 had a greater specific surface than any underlying horizon in




this pedon also due to the presence of montmorillonite.




     In general, those horizons which had greater quantities of vermiculite than




illite had higher specific surfaces.  The specific surface values of the mine-




soils were slightly less than those of the natural soils.  This was probably due




to their higher kaolinite and illite contents.






Bulk Density and Porosity—




     Bulk density values of 10 minesoil sites are illustrated in Figure 15.  Bulk




densities were determined by three methods.  A Troxler gamma moisture/density




probe gave lower bulk density values than the other two methods at most sites




(L-l, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10).  However, at L-5, results for gamma probe were higher




than either of the other methods, while at L-7 and L-8 gamma-probe-density values




were higher than the excavation technique but lower than microlysimeter values.




The steep slopes at sites L-9 and 10 made excavation difficult and measurements




questionable.  We found greater differences in bulk densities measurements




between the methods when a larger percentage of the rock fragments was made up of




shale.  Average values of bulk density obtained by various methods are listed in






                                          54

-------
TABLE 7.  CALCULATED VALUES OF SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA FOR PITS 1 THROUGH 4

Pit Depth
cm
1 0-3
3-10
10-41
41-74
74-109
109-176
2 0-10
10-33
33-51
51-71
71-74
3 0-15
15-43
43-66
66-91
91-117
117-135
135-167
4 0-8
8-20
20-48
48-74
74-94
94-125
125-183
Horizon

Al
A2
B21
B22t
B3t
C
Al
B21
B22
B23
C
! Al
A2
Bl
Bxlt
Bx2t
Bx3t
Bx4t
Al
A2
B21t
B22t
B23t
IIC1
IIIC2
Specific Surface
Ignition Walkley-Black
m /g
72.21 64.26
34.86 48.02
63.77
69.03
45.23
39.93
34.47 40.95
40.79
56.33
60.08
49.06
68.74 66.05
32.24 39.46
49.11
53.69
65.92
65.86
51.58
36.03
43.82 45.82
59.05 48.39
65.15
43.18
35.03
39.79
                                     55

-------
TABLE 8.  CALCULATED VALUES OF SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA FOR PITS 5 THROUGH 8

Pit

5





6



7





8





Depth
cm
0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-157
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
Horizon

Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Ap
AC
Cl
C2
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
AC
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Specific
Ignition
2
m
50.49
24.29
25.91
30.06
36.09
30.06
49.30
29.73
26.51
29.01
1.28
31.46
-
-
-
—
33.04
43.83
19.86
21.11
22.18
34.78
Surface
Walkley-Black
/g
52.83
38.26
38.07
44.74
46.39
40.67
49.87
39.02
35.72
34.71
27.59
45.72
26.03
28.52
18.78
17.67
30.31
36.64
37.54
39.71
38.81
38.72
                                     56

-------
Figure 15.  Dry bulk densities of minesoil determined by




            various methods.
                          57

-------
u
o
X.
o>
CO

Z
    2.2
2.0
CD
 1.8
     1.6
     14
   = GAMMA  PROBE



QsMICROLYSIMETER



J9J = EXCAVATION
                                  MICROLYSIMETER SITE

-------
Table 9.  The bulk density values obtained with the gamma probe,  excavation,  lysimeter

and clod methods were not significantly different from each other at the 0.05% level.


          TABLE 9.  BULK DENSITY STANDARD DEVIATION, AND COEFFICIENT OF
                    VARIATION OF MINESOILS DETERMINED BY VARIOUS  METHODS

Method

Excavation
Gamma Probe
Lysimeters
Clods
Mean
g/cm
1.81
1.70
1.81
1.78
SD

0.24
0.19
0.08
0.12
CV%

13
11
5
7

     The average value obtained by the excavation method agreed with density of the

material handpacked into the lysimeters.  These lysimeters were exposed to environ-

mental conditions after packing, after which their oven-dry densities were

determined.  The density of these lysimeters remained essentially unchanged after

the exposure.  Bulk-density determinations at three sites (L-ll, L-12 and L-13) in

undisturbed soil are presented in Table 10.  The excavation method was not used at

site L-13 because the soil material exhibited properties (i.e., platy structure,

shale fragments) which indicated that it was disturbed.  The A horizons at site

L-ll had been eroded and the density values obtained here were probably represent-

ative of the natural soil B horizon.  At site L-12 the natural soil litter layer

was removed before density determinations.  Excavation was difficult in this

wooded area because of the many large roots present in the soil and voids in the

soil material were created when roots were removed.  These voids, as well as the

roots, tended to lower the bulk density value of the soil determined by excavation.

     Clod data (Appendix B) showed that bulk densities of the natural soils in-

creased with depth.  Bulk density of surface horizons of the natural soils

(Pits 1 and 2) ranged from 0.88 to 1.39 g/cm .  Very few clods were obtained for

determination of surface bulk density in the minesoils.  Bulk densities of clods
                                          58

-------
obtained at the lysimeter sites are presented in Table 11.  The average density of


the surface minesoils obtained at the lysimeter sites was 1.78 g/cm ,  whereas the

                                                                        3
density of the surface clods obtained at Pits 5 and 7 averaged 2.20 g/cm .



                     TABLE 10.  BULK DENSITIES OF NATURAL SOILS

Site

L-ll
L-12
L-13
Method
Gamma Probe Excavation
, 3
g/cm
1.75 1.99
1.26 1.52
1.79

         TABLE 11.  BULK DENSITIES OF MINESOILS DETERMINED BY THE CLOD METHOD

Bulk Density
Site Uncorrected
g/cm
L-l 1.78
1.71
1.60
L-4 1.83
L-5 1.71
1.89
1.72
L-6 1.65
1.86
1.73
L-7 1.68
1.69
1.72
L-8 1.40
1.56
1.43
L-9 1.97
1.69
1.80
Values
Corrected

1.42
1.65
1.58
1.63
1.66
1.65
1.57
1.52
1.75
1.51
1.61
1.63
1.63
1.39
1.51
1.37
1.80
1.60
1.75
                                          59

-------
     The excavation technique had the highest coefficient of variation,  whereas the



lysimeters had the lowest.  The mean bulk density value of the sites did not vary




significantly from one another.  The gamma probe gave reasonable results, which




were comparatively easy to obtain.  This method was acceptable when total density




was desired, however, when values corrected for coarse fragments were desired,



additional samples were needed.




     Bulk densities reported by Smith et al. (1971) for minesoil ranged from 1.41


            3                                                               3
to 1.52 g/cm , whereas those for natural soils ranged from 0.90 to 1.13 g/cm .




The corrected values obtained from the surface minesoils in this study ranged from


                 3

1.39 to 1.85 g/cm .  The surface soils of Pits 1 through 4 had average bulk densities




of 1.02, 1.08, 1.63, and 1.40, respectively.




     The higher bulk densities in the minesoils were attributed in part to the higher



coarse fragment content of these materials.  The minesoils were also coarser




textured (loam to sandy loam) than the natural soils (silt loam to loam).  The




coarser-textured materials tended to pack closer increasing the bulk density.  Higher




bulk densities could also be attributed to the compacted state of this material.




The effect of organic matter on decreasing bulk density in the natural soil is




usually correlated with structural development.




     Calculated porosities for B-spoil and C-spoil surface minesoil were 39 and 34%,




respectively, whereas the surface soils of Pits 1 and 2 had an average of 65% pore




space.  Smith et al. (1971) found minesoils had from 40 to 47% pore space as




compared with 57 to 66% for associated soils.




     Coarse-textured soils with little organic matter usually have porosities




between 30 and 40% (Nielsen et al., 1964).  Natural soils are porous due to their




intricately developed system of cracks and fissures.  Pores in minesoils are




generally larger but fewer.




     The degree of soil structural development decreased as profile depth of the




minesoil increased.  The subsurface horizons were usually characterized as




structureless and massive.  Because of structural deterioration related to
                                          60

-------
mining processes, minesoils tended to be denser and less porous than naturally




occurring soils.




     Freeze, thaw, root action, and organic matter accumulation normally would be




expected to decrease the bulk density and increase the porosity of the minesoil




with time.






Soil Water




Moisture Characteristics—




     Detailed moisture characteristics of soils and minesoils studied are tabulated




in Appendix E.




     The average amount of water retained (uncorrected) at any matric potential by




the A or B horizons of the natural soils was greater than that retained by the A




horizons of the minesoils.  The fragipan horizon at Pit 3 also was more effective




in retaining water than the minesoils.  At equal matric potential, the amount of




water retained by the C horizons of the natural soils resembled that retained by




the C horizons of the minesoils.




     The minesoils generally had loam A horizons and sandy loam C horizons,




whereas the natural soils had silt loam to loam A horizons and loam to fine




sandy loam C horizons.  The textural differences and organic matter deficien-




cies of the minesoils accounted for their lower water-holding capacities.  When




corrected for coarse fragments, the minesoils retained substantially less water




than comparable natural soil horizons.




     Moisture characteristics for the A2 and Ap horizons of Pit 1 and Pit 6,




respectively, are presented in Figure 16.  These horizons were found at about




the same depth and both had silt loam textures.  When corrected for coarse




fragments, the curve of the A2 horizon (Pit 1) was not displaced as much as




that of the Ap (Pit 6) horizon.  The Ap horizon, corrected for coarse




fragments, retained much less water at comparable matric potential than the




A2 horizon.  At higher water contents, the water retained by both horizons




approximated each other.






                                          61

-------
Figure 16.  Moisture characteristics for A2 horizon, Pit 1,  and




            Ap horizon, Pit 6.
                              62

-------
                                                                     -i0.5
                                             A2(PIT DUNCORRECTED
                                                     6)UNCORRECTED
                                               A2(P!T I) CORRECTED
                                Ap(PIT6) CORRECTED
                                                                       0.4

                                                                          o
                                                                          o
                                                                      0.2
                                                                      O.I
                                                    \-

                                                    UJ
                                                                         (T
                                                                      0
-1000
-100                   -10

MATRIC POTENTIAL (cm of water)
-I

-------
less water at comparable matric potential than the A2 horizon.   At higher water




contents, the water retained by both horizons approximated each other.




     Figure 17 shows the moisture characteristics of the B22 (Pit 2) and C2 (Pit 8)




horizons.  Both of these horizons were found at about the same depths and both had




loam textures.  The uncorrected curves of the soils and minesoils did not differ




from one another appreciably.  However, corrected curves showed the effect of




coarse fragments on moisture retention.






Water Retention




     The percentage of water retained (by weight) at -15 bar matric potential of




the natural soils and minesoils corrected for coarse fragments are tabulated in




Tables 12 and 13, respectively.  The surface horizons of the natural soils retained




more water at this matric potential than any subsoil horizons, except the IICl




horizon of Pit 4.  This horizon, being composed largely of organic material, was




able to retain more water than other horizons within this pedon.  The surface




horizons of minesoils did not retain significantly more water at -15 bar than their




subsurface horizons.




     Tables 14 and 15 give values of water retained between -0.3 and -15 bar matric




potential, for natural soils and minesoils, respectively.  The amounts of water




retained in both natural soils and minesoils generally decreased with increasing




depth of the pedons.  The surface horizons of the natural soils were able to retain




more water due to their organic matter content and structural development.  The




natural soils retained an average of 14.3% (0.143 g of water/g of soil), whereas




the minesoil retained only 10.3%.  This difference is even more pronounced when




moisture characteristics are corrected for coarse fragments.  The water  content in




the separate horizons of the minesoil ranged from 5.5 to 16.7% as compared with




7.1 to 39.2% in the natural soils.  The minesoil located within the B-spoil  (Pit 7)




had the lowest water content.




     Plass and Vogel  (1973) reported that minesoils were able to supply  ample water




to plants under normal environmental conditions.  However, under stress  conditions




the amount of water available  to plants  in minesoils could be critically low due




                                          63

-------
Figure 17.  Moisture characteristics for B22 horizon, Pit 2, and




            C2 horizon, Pit 8.
                               64

-------
                                              B22 (PIT 2) UNCORRECTED
                                               C2(PIT8)UNCORRECTED
                                                                      0.5
                                                                      0.4
                                               B22 (PIT 2) CORRECTED
                                          C2(PIT8) CORRECTED
                                                  O.I
                                                                         LU
                                                      o
                                                      o
                                                      fe
                                                                         I-
                                                                         UJ
                                                                         o:
-1000
  -100                   -10
MATRIC POTENTIAL (cm of water)
-I

-------
     TABLE 12.  GRAVIMETRIC WATER CONTENT AT -15 BAR MATRIC POTENTIAL FOR
                NATURAL SOILS

Site

P-l





P-2




P-3






P-4






Depth
cm
0-3
3-10
10-41
41-74
74-109
109-176
0-19
10-33
33-51
51-71
71-74
0-15
15-43
43-66
66-91
91-117
117-135
135-167+
0-8
8-20
20-48
48-74
74-94
94-125
125-183+
Horizon

Al
A2
B21
B22t
B3t
C
Al
B21
B22
B23
C
Al
A2
Bl
Exit
Bx2t
Bx3t
Bx4t
Al
A2
B21t
B22t
B23t
IIC1
IIIC2
Mean
g/g
0.1821
0.0768
0.0890
0.0942
0.0612
0.0544
0.0976
0.0621
0.0798
0.0815
0.0670
0.1109
0.0649
0.0679
0.0738
0.0886
0.0905
0.0727
0.0728
0.0700
0.0866
0.0896
0.0785
0.1365
0.0812
*
SD

0.0104
0.0003
0.0028
0.0042
0.0004
0.0019
0.0048
0.0007
0.0010
0.0002
0.0021
0.0037
0.0001
0.0015
0.0009
0.0023
0.0008
0.0001
0.0009
0.0012
0.0025
0.0042
0.0009
0.0015
0.0008
cvf
%
5.73
0.42
3.14
4.46
0.71
3.40
4.92
1.11
1.24
0.19
3.08
3.31
0.15
2.14
1.16
2.64
0.89
0.19
1.23
1.68
2.87
4.67
1.08
1.06
0.92

Standard deviation.
Coefficient of variation.
                                          65

-------
      TABLE  13.   GRAVIMETRIC WATER CONTENT AT -15 BAR MATRIC POTENTIAL
                  FOR MINESOILS

Site

P-5





P-6



P-7





P-8





Depth
cm
0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-154
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
Horizon

Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Ap
AC
Cl
C2
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
AC
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Mean
g/8
0.0719
0.0590
0.0592
0.0671
0.0696
0.0609
0.0759
0.0657
0.0594
0.0528
0.0662
0.0776
0.0661
0.0721
0.0645
0.0620
0.0542
0.0655
0.0681
0.0684
0.0731
0.0853
*
SD

0.0012
0.0019
0.0016
0.0013
0.0017
0.0014
0.0009
0.0009
0.0040
0.0006
0.0020
0.0011
0.0008
0.0015
0.0013
0.0005
0.0007
0.0005
0.0009
0.0001
0.0006
0.0009
cvf
%
1.67
3.30
2.75
1.86
2.39
2.24
1.14
1.33
6.74
1.04
3.00
1.38
1.21
2.02
1.96
0.74
1.20
0.81
1.25
1.50
0.82
1.02
 Standard deviation.
t
 Coefficient of variation.
                                           66

-------
TABLE 14.  WATER RETAINED BETWEEN -0.3 AND -15 BAR MATRIC POTENTIAL
           FOR PITS 1 THROUGH 4

Site

P-l





P-2




P-3






P-4






Depth
cm
0-3
3-10
10-41
41-74
74-109
109-176
0-10
10-33
33-51
51-71
71-74
0-15
15-43
43-66
66-91
91-117
117-135
135-167+
0-8
8-20
20-48
48-74
74-94
94-125
125-183+
Horizon

Al
A2
B21
B22t
B3t
C
Al
B21
B22
B23
C
Al
A2
Bl
Exit
Bx2t
Bx3t
Bx4t
Al
A2
B21t
B22t
B23t
IIC1
IIIC2
Water
Retained
8/g
0.3918
0.2020
0.1136
0.1214
—
—
_
—
0.1302
0.0856
0.1259
0.0804
0.1931
0.1410
0.1338
0.1468
0.0936
0.0709
0.1525
0.1240
0.1478
0.1420
0.1323
0.1673
0.1100
                                     67

-------
TABLE 15.  WATER RETAINED BETWEEN -0.3 AND -15 BAR MATRIC POTENTIAL
           FOR PITS 5 THROUGH 8

Site

P-5





P-6



P-7





P-8





Depth
cm
0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-154
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
Horizon

Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Ap
AC
Cl
C2
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
AC
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Water
Retained
8/8
0.1078
0.0862
0.0804
0.1013
0.0989
0.0973
0.1396
0.0975
0.0696
0.0605
0.0999
0.0996
0.1108
0.0928
0.0660
0.0550
0.1667
0.0957
0.1246
0.1394
0.1175
0.1668
                                    68

-------
to the larger pores, coarser texture, and greater percentage of rock fragments in




the minesoils.






Field Soil Water-




     Gravimetric and volumetric water contents of the lysimeters at saturation and




"field capacity" are shown in Table 16.  The amount of water retained by the mine-




soils 2 days after 3 cm of rain along with water retained by clods at -1/3 bar




matric potential are shown in Table 17.  The clods retained less water than the




gravimetric sample at "field capacity" in all cases.  However, water retention of




sieved samples from the surface horizons of the minesoils, corrected for coarse




fragments, at -0.3 bar, agreed with values obtained from the gravimetric samples.




The average corrected values for the surface horizons retention for Pits 5 through




8 (Appendix E) was 9.1% as compared with 8.3% retained by gravimetric samples.




     The field capacity of the minesoils (determined gravimetrically) did not




agree closely with values obtained from the lysimeters.  "In situ" determinations




yielded between 6 and 12% (by weight) of water retention, whereas the minesoils




in the microlysimeters retained from 12 to 19% of water after 2 days of drainage.




     Particle-size-distribution data for the lysimeters are presented in Table 18.




Lysimeters, which contained greater amounts of material >76 mm had lower field




capacity values.  Thus, L-8, which had the greatest amount of material >76 mm




retained the least amount of water at "field capacity."






Evapotranspiration—




     Meteorological data collected during the evapotranspiration study are




presented in Appendix F.  Evapotranspiration losses (ET), determined by a




model (Ritchie, 1972), A-pan data, and lysimeter data are presented in Table 19.




     Lysimeter 4 had an average ET of 0.22 cm/day for the period of October 19




through November 2.  During this same period, the model gave a value of 0.15




cm/day and the A-pan a value of 0.23 cm/day.
                                          69

-------
 TABLE 16.  GRAVIMETRIC (G) AND VOLUMETRIC (V) WATER CONTENTS OF LYSIMETERS AT
            SATURATION AND "FIELD CAPACITY"

Saturated
Site

L-l
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
*
G
g/g
0.213
0.258
0.193
0.158
0.234
0.218
0.198
0.218
0.232
0.222
vf
3, 3
cm /cm
0.367
0.502
0.365
0.324
0.352
0.353
0.279
0.331
0.484
'• 0.489
"Field Capacity"
G
g/g
0.185
0.187
0.155
0.120
0.176
0.150
0.173
0.129
0.123
0.147
V
3. 3
cm /cm
0.318
0.364
0.294
0.246
0.264
0.241
0.245
0.195
0.256
0.323

 G is water content by weight.
t
 V is water content by volume.
TABLE 17.  GRAVIMETRIC (G) AND VOLUMETRIC (V) WATER CONTENT AT "FIELD CAPACITY1

Site
L-l
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
Gravimetric
G
g/g
0.106
0.088
0.082
0.082
0.091
0.092
0.105
0.079
0.062
0.121
*
Samples
V

0.180
0.155
0.150
0.159
0.161
0.177
0.125
0.103
0.130
0.128
Clods -1/3 Bar
V
3/ 3
cm /cm
0.143
-
-
0.106
0.109
0.116
0.114
0.078
0.085
-

 Gravimetric samples obtained 2 days after 3 cm rain.
                                           70

-------
           TABLE 18.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF LYSIMETERS BY WEIGHT

Site
L-l
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
Particle Size
>76 nun 76-19 mm
%. ,
4.95 7.03
3.89 22.17
6.71 23.75
0 18.45
0 10.87
8.05 16.11
0 13.02
15.25 20.70
7.20 16.42
0 25.97

<19 mm

88.02
73.94
69.54
81.55
89.13
75.84
86.98
64.05
76.38
74.03

     Figure 18 presents the cumulative evapotranspiration during the study period




measured by lysimeters and A-pan evaporation.  The evapotranspiration from both




the B and C spoil minesoil by the lysimeters was approximated by A-pan evaporation.




     Because of the large amount of rainfall over the study period, many seepage




values obtained were inaccurate.  Seepage in excess of the amount of rainfall




indicated that water collected in the pans and bags due to either interflow,




runoff, or both.  Temperatures also fell below freezing during the study period




having an adverse effect on the evapotranspiration estimates.






Soil-Water Movement




Infiltration—




     Infiltration data (Table 20) indicated the extreme heterogeneous behavior of




the minesoil.  In Figure 19, cumulative infiltration was plotted against elapsed




time.  The infiltration rates on the shaly B-spoil (1-7, 1-8, K-Plot) and those on




the C-spoil (1-4, 1-6) were lower on the average than on natural soil (1-1, 1-2).




     The surface horizons of the soil at infiltration site 1-1 had been eroded.




The infiltration rates probably represented natural subsoil (B horizons).






                                          71

-------
                            TABLE 19.  EVAPOTRANSPIRATIONAL  LOSS  ESTIMATED BY VARIOUS  METHODS
S3
•
Mo /Day
9/28
10/1
10/5
10/8
10/12
10/15
10/19
10/22
10/26
10/29
11/2
Total
Model

.49
.24
.68
.26
.50
.53
.58
.29
.26
.47
.41
4.71
A-Pan

.62
.46
.61
.50
.76
.44
.89
.85
.33
.52
.35
6.33
Lyslmeter
12 34 567

cm
.8 .3 .3 5.4 .3 .2
2.2 .6
2.1
1.4 2.3 .5
.7 .8 1.2 .8 .5
.4 .4 .7 .3 .2 .2
.7
.6
4.3 .6 .5 .5 .5
.2 .3 .4 .4


8 9

.1
.2 .2
.6
.1
2.3
.7 .7
.2 .5
.2
.6
.4 .3
.2
5.8

10






.6
.2


.6



-------
Figure 18.  Cumulative evapotranspiration (ET) from lysimeters, and




            evaporation from A-pan during study.
                                73

-------
E
E
  60
  50
a.
o
CL
u
  20
  10
   0
    0
         OCT. I
           1
                          DATE
                         I  I
                 LYSIMETERS->
                          1
                 NOV. I
                    I
           • CLASS A-PAN
           O ET-MODEL
                         i
                             0
                             10 ~
                             20 J
                             30 z
                             40 <
                             50
                             60
  500
TIME (hrs)
1000

-------
Figure 19.  Infiltration on minesoil using single ring infiltrometer (I),




            infiltration on the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity plot




            (K-Plot).
                                      74

-------
100 r
                1-2
                                         1-6
         40
 80    120    160
ELAPSED TIME (MIN.)
200    240

-------
          TABLE 20.  INFILTRATION RATES ON MINESOILS AND NATURAL SOILS

Site

1-1
1-2
1-4
1-6
1-7
1-8
K-Plot
Material

Soil
Soil
C-spoil
C-spoil
B-spoil
B-spoil
B-spoil
Infiltration
Initial
, , , ., jim /T-iT-
cro/ nr
14.01
60.30
1.91
28.57
9.52
0.48
0.75
Rate
Final


2.67
28.22
0.32
0.48
0.32
0.48
0.11

At site 1-2, the organic litter layer was removed before installation of the




infiltrometer.




     The B-spoil minesoil at 1-8 and K-Plot sites had lower initial infiltration




rates than the 1-4 and 1-6 C-spoil because of compaction and packing of these




shaly materials, which have broken down more easily than the sandstone material




of the C-spoil.  The higher infiltration amounts on the 1-6, C-spoil could be




related to better structural development and vegetative cover.  Infiltration curves




for sites 1-4, 1-6, and 1-7 showed the characteristic decrease in infiltration rate




with time, as contrasted with Coleman's (1951) findings that infiltration rates on




minesoils had a lag period, after which they increased significantly.  The




increasing infiltration rates, reported by Coleman (1951), could possibly have been




due to washing of fines from the surface horizons.  Coleman (1951) studied spoil




that had not been topsoiled and found higher infiltration rates on shaly materials




(>240 cm/hr) than on adjacent natural soils (<70 cm/hr).  Verma and Thames (1975)




reported lower final infiltration rates on minesoils as compared with natural




soils.  They found the average final infiltration rate on the minesoil was 0.4




cm/hr as compared with 14.7 cm/hr on the natural soils.  Jones et al. (1975) found




infiltration rates on minesoils ranging from 0.08 to 0.74 cm/hr using a double-ring
                                          75

-------
infiltrometer.  Final infiltration rate on Kylertown minesoils was 0.40 cm/hr, which

agreed with values reported previously (Jones et al., 1975; Verma and Thames,  1975),

and final infiltration on contiguous natural soils was 15.4 cm/hr.  Smith et al.

(1971) noted significantly higher infiltration rates for soils as compared with

associated minesoils.  Rates of infiltration also tended to decrease with increasing

percentage soil-size material on minesoils (Coleman, 1951).  The dense compact

nature of the surface horizon of minesoils also contributed to lower infiltration

rates.

     Infiltration on the K-Plot was extremely slow and decreased with time from

0.75 cm/hr after 1.5 hr to less than 0.11 cm/hr after 60 hours.  Because water

was added to the plot at a slow rate, the initial infiltration reading was taken

after the maximum rate had passed.

                             i
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity—

     Saturated hydraulic conductivity values of the 10 lysimeters are presented in

Table 21.  The conductivities were measured before (I) and after  (II) 4 months of

field exposure.  Extreme variability in conductivity existed between the

lysimeters.  The very high values obtained for the second run  (L-6, L-8) were due

to initial washing out of fine material from the lysimeters.  The conductivities

generally were less after being exposed to the elements and ranged from 0.4 to

>300 cm/hr.

     Use of these lysimeters as an estimate of saturated hydraulic conductivities

did not prove successful.  Problems associated with flow along the walls of the

container as well as voids created by packing were evident.


Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity—

     Tensiometer readings taken during water addition are presented in Table 22.

From these data, no indication of a uniform wetting front advance was apparent.

The matric potential of the minesoils over time indicated a general drying trend.
                                        76

-------
TABLE 21.  SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES (K), SAMPLING VARIABILITY (S), AND
           RELATIVE MEASURE OF VARIABILITY (S/K), BEFORE (I) AND AFTER (II) 4
           MONTHS OF EXPOSURE

I
Site

L-l
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
K
cm/hr
3.0
17.5
7.0
12.5
743.4
170.8
148.2
297.3
123.2
47.3
S

2.0
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.8
1.4
2.0
2.3
log S/log K
%
63
26
30
25
4
4
12
6
14
22
K

0.3
2.0
2.8
2.2
150.5
-
304.4
1930.5
14.2
15.3
II
S
cm/hr
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.0
2.2
-
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2

log S/log K
%
>100
14
9
3
16
-
2
<1
7
8

    TABLE 22.  TENSIOMETER READINGS ON MINESOIL DURING UNSATURATED HYDRAULIC
               CONDUCTIVITY STUDY

Time (Hours)
Depth
cm
60
90
120
150
0

*
50
50T
90
90
100
110
150
120
20

50
40
80
80
90
110
120
140
48

60
50
90
90
100
110
140
120
115

70
70
100
100
100
120
140
120
138

70
50
100
90
110
120
140
120
168

80
70
80
100
110
120
160
140

 Values for Box 1.
t
 Values for Box 2.
                                         77

-------
     Tensiometer readings taken during the course of water addition and drainage




indicated no clear wetting front or an insensitivity of the tensiometers to the




water movement through the material.  The water movement was extremely slow and




the volumetric water content indicated that the minesoil was drying after initial




time.  The readings at the 90-cm depth for both Box 1 and 2 behaved similarly.




However, at the 60-, 120-, and 180-cm depth, variations existed.




     The volumetric water content at time zero and after 138 hours (Figure 20) also




indicated that the minesoil has dried over this period.  The general drying trends




for both Box 1 and 2 approximated each other.




     Neutron depth probe standardization data (Table 23) indicated varying water




contents with depths.  These variations could be attributed to pockets of fine




material interspersed within the coarse material.




     The tensiometers utilized in this study were gauge-type and, possibly, were




not sensitive enough to record matric potential changes as water moved past them.




Poor tensiometer, ceramic cup/minesoil contact could contribute to problems.




However, these results could also support the idea of channelized flow within the




minesoil.




     The dense surface layer of the K-Plot accounted for the extremely slow infil-




tration on this material.  However, beneath this layer coarse fragments and void




space predominates.  Coarse-textured horizons, underlying finer textured ones,




will not conduct significant amounts of water until many of the pores in the upper




horizon are saturated and a pressure-head develops  (Miller, 1973).  ElBoushi  (1966)




has shown that water infiltrating through loose granular material  (similar to




subsurface horizons of many minesoils) tends to concentrate in small parts of the




total area into discrete paths.  This leads to a decrease in percentage of, surface




wetted by percolating waters.
                                           78

-------
Figure 20.  Volumetric water content within the unsaturated




            hydraulic conductivity plot.
                            79

-------
0.
0
     18
0.20
VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT

    0.22          0.24
0.26
0.28
  30
6 60
o
  90
  120
  150
           •BOX  I

           •BOX  2
                                                            HRS.
                                                                138 HRS.
                                                           OHRS.

-------
TABLE 23.  GAMMA AND NEUTRON DEPTH PROBE STANDARDIZATION OF K-PLOT.  BULK DENSITY
           (BD) AND VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT (V)

Depth

cm
15
20
25
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
97
102
107
112
117
122
127
132
137
142
147

1


1.82
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.83
1.80
1.77
1.75
1.75
1.74
1.72
1.72
1.68
1.67
1.70
1.70
1.72
1.71
1.66
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.60
1.58
1.61
1.63
1.65
(BD)
2
3
g/cm
1.74
1.76
1.75
1.79
1.80
1.79
1.80
1.77
1.71
1.68
1.62
1.56
1.57
1.57
1.59
1.64
1.67
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.69
1.61
1.60
1.61
1.60
1.59
1.57

1


0.2800
0.2777
0.2755
0.2718
0/2620
0.2546
0.2514
0.2469
0.2491
0.2529
0.2565
0.2586
0.2516
0.2321
0.2221
0.2116
0.2092
0.2103
0.2158
0.2246
0.2340
0.2404
0.2474
0.2541
0.2583
0.2564
0.2501
(V)
2
0 0
J / J
cm /cm
0.2974
0.2999
0.2935
0.2846
0.2813
0.2647
0.2473
0.2367
0.2241
0.2178
0.2213
0.2327
0.2404
0.2367
0.2355
0.2300
0.2245
0.2183
0.2056
0.1887
0.1814
0.1847
0.1993
0.2123
0.2206
0.2216
0.2235
                                           80

-------
SUMMARY




     Comparison of physical and hydraulic properties of minesoils  with contiguous




natural soils indicated that surface mining and reclamation operations have had




a significant effect on the particle-size distribution.  The minesoils studied




had a greater percentage of rock fragments but less sand and clay  than natural




soils due to lower organic matter and vermiculite contents.  Average bulk




densities of the minesoils were greater than that of adjacent soils.




     The average amount of water retained by the A and B horizons  of the natural




soils at any matric potential was greater than that retained by the A horizons




of the minesoils.  The natural soils also retained more water between -1/3 and




-15 bars than did the minesoils.  Evapotranspiration from the minesoil was




approximated by A-pan results.




     Single-ring-infiltrometer data and saturated hydraulic conductivity values




of minesoils varied considerably.  Use of a small plot to determine unsaturated




hydraulic conductivity indicated that water flow followed voids present in the




minesoil.
                                           81

-------
                                      REFERENCES




Anderson, J. L.  1963.  An improved pretreatment for mineralogical analysis of


     samples containing organic matter.  Clays and Clay Minerals.  10:380-388.


ASTM.  1971.  Standard methods of coal analyses.  Am. Soc. for Testing


     Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.


Baker, D. E., and L. Chesin.  1975.  Chemical monitoring of soils for environmental


     quality and animal and human health.  Adv. Agron.  27:305-374.


Barnhisel, R. I., and H. F. Massey.  1969.  Chemical, mineralogical and physical


     properties of eastern Kentucky acid forming coal spoil materials.  Soil Sci.


     108:367-372.


Baver, L. D., W. H. Gardner, and W. R. Gardner.  1972.  Soil physics.  4th Edition.

                            I
     John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.
                            i

Bertram, G. E.  1973.  Field tests for compacted rockfill.  pp 1-20.  In R. C.


     Hirshfield and S. J. Poules (ed.) Embankment-Dam Engineering Casagrande


     Volume.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.


Black, C. A.  1968.  Soil plant relationships.  2nd Edition.  John Wiley and


     Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.


Blake, G. R.  1965.  Bulk density.  _In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of Soil Analyses,


     Part I.  Agronomy.  9:374-390.  Am. Soc. of Agron., Madison, Wis.


Brasher, B. R., D. P. Franzmeir, V. Valassis, and S. E. Davidson.  1966.  Use of


     saran resin to coat natural soil clods for bulk density and water retention


     measurements.  Soil Sci.  101:108.


Bruce, R. R.  1972.  Hydraulic conductivity evaluation of the soil profile from


     soil water retention relations.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.  36:555-561.


Buol, S. W., F. D. Hole, and R. J. McCracken.  1973.  Soil genesis and


     classification.  Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.


Caspall, F. C.  1975.  Soil development on surface mine spoils in western Illinois.


     _In Third Symp. on Surface Mining and Reclamation, National Coal Association,


     Volume II.  pp 221-228.




                                          82

-------
Cassel, D. K.  1974.  "In situ" unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity for selected




     North Dakota soils.  North Dakota Agr. Expt. Stn. Bull. No. 494.




Cassel, D. K., and M. D. Sweeney.  1974.  "In situ" soil water holding capacities of




     selected North Dakota soils.  North Dakota Agr. Expt. Stn. Bull. No. 495.




Chao, T. T. , M. E. Harward, and S. G. Fang.  1963.  Cationic effects of sulfate




     adsorption by soils.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.  27:35-38.




Ciolkosz, E. J., R. L. Cunningham, and G. W. Petersen.  1979.  Characteristic




     interpretations and uses of Pennsylvania minesoils.  Pa. Agr. Expt. Stn.




     Prog. Report.  (In Press).




Ciolkosz, E. J., G. W. Petersen, R. L. Cunningham, and R. P. Matelski.  1975.




     Soils developed from colluvium in the ridge and valley area of




     Pennsylvania.  1973 Int. Geobotany Conf. Proc., University of Tennessee




     Press.  (In Press).




Ciolkosz, E. J., and R. M. Pletcher.  1974.  Laboratory procedures of the




     Pennsylvania State University soil characterization laboratory.  The




     Pennsylvania State University Agronomy Series I No. 36.




Coleman, G. B.  1951.  A study of water infiltration into spoil banks in central




     Pennsylvania.  Unpublished M.S. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University,




     University Park, Pa.




Crompton, E.  1967.  Soil formation.  In Selected Papers on Soil Formation and




     Classification.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Spec. Pub. No. 1.




Davidson, J. M., D. R. Nielsen, and J. W. Biggar.  1966.  The dependence of soil




     water uptake and release upon the applied pressure increment.  Soil Sci.




     Soc. Am. Proc.  30:298-304.




ElBoushi, I. M.  1966.  Geologic interpretations of recharge through coarse gravel




     and broken rock.  Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.  Stanford University, Stanford,




     Ca.
                                          83

-------
Farmer, E. E. , and B. Z. Richardson.  1976.  Hydrologic and soil properties of coal




     mine overburden piles in southeastern Montana.  In Fourth Symposium on Surface




     Mining and Reclamation, National Coal Association,  pp 120-130.




Glass, G. B.  1972.  Geology and mineral resources of the Philipsburg 7-1/2 minute




     quadrangle, Centre and Clearfield Counties, Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania Geol.




     Survey 4th Series.  Dept. of Environ. Res., Harrisburg, Pa.




Grim, R. E.  1953.  Clay mineralogy.  McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.




Grim, E. C., and R. D. Hill.  1974.  Environmental protection in surface mining of




     coal.  Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-670/2-74-093.




Grossman, R. B., B. R. Brasher, D. P. Franzmeier, and J. L. Walker.  1968.  Linear




     extensibility as calculated from natural-clod bulk density measurements.




     Soil Sci.  Soc. Am. Proc^  32:570-573.




Grube, W. E., Jr., R. M. Smith, J. C. Sencindiver, and A. A. Sobek.  1974.  Over-




     burden properties and young soils in mined lands,  jn Second Research and




     Applied Technology Symposium on Mined-land Reclamation, Bituminous Coal




     Res., Inc., Monroeville, Pa.




Hill, D. E., and J. -Y. Parlange.  1972.  Wetting front instability in layered




     soils.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.  36:697-702.




Holtan, H. N.,  C. B. England, G. P. Lawless, and G. A. Schumaker.  1968.  Moisture-




     tension data for selected soils on experimental watersheds.  USDA Agr. Res.




     Service Publ. ARS 41-144.




Jackson, M. L.  1958.  Soil chemical analysis—advanced course.  University of




     Wisconsin, Dept. of Soils, Madison, Wis.




Jackson, M. L.  1964.  Chemical composition of soil.   In F. E.  Bear  (ed.) Chemistry




     of the  Soil.  2nd Edition.  Am. Chem. Soc. Monograph  Ser.  No.  160.




Jones, J. N. , Jr., W. H. Arminger,  and 0. L. Bennett.  1975.  Forage grasses aid




     the  transition  from spoil to soil.   T_n Third  Symp. on Surface  Mining and




     Reclamation, National Coal Association, Volume  II.  pp 185-194.
                                           84

-------
Kilmer, V. J., and L. T. Alexander.  1949.  Methods for making mechanical analyses




     of soils.  Soil Sci.  68:15-24.




Klute, A.  1973.  Soil water flow theory and its application in field situations.




     In R. R. Bruce, K. W. Flack, H. M. Taylor  (ed.) Field Soil Water Regime.




     Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Spec. Publ. No. 5, Madison, Wis.  pp 9-35.




Massey, H. F., and R. I. Barnhisel.  1972.  Copper, nickel and zinc released from




     acid coal mine spoil materials of eastern  Kentucky.  Soil Sci.  113:207-212.




McCormack, D. E.  1974.  Soil reconstruction:   for the best soil after mining.  In




     Second Research and Applied Technology Symposium on Mined Land Reclamation,




     National Coal Association,  pp 150-161.




Mehlich, A.  1948.  Determination of cation and anion exchange properties of soils.




     Soil Sci.  66:429-445.




Mehuys, G. R. , L. H. Stolzy, J. Letey, and L. V. Weeks.  1975.  Effect of stones




     on the hydraulic conductivity of relatively dry desert soils.  Soil Sci.




     Soc. Am. Proc.  39:37-42.




Miller, D. E.  1973.  Water retention and flow  in layered soil profiles.  In R. R.




     Bruce et al. (ed.) Field Soil Water Regime.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Spec. Publ.




     No. 5, Madison, Wis.  pp 107-117.




Nielsen, D. R., J. M. Davidson, J. W. Biggar, and R. J. Miller.  1964.  Water




     movement through Panoche clay loam soil.   Hilgardia.  35:491-506.




Perkin-Elmer Corporation.  1968.  Analytical methods for atomic absorption




     spectrophotometry.  Norwalk, Conn.




Philip, J. R.  1975.  Stability analysis of infiltration.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am.




     Proc.  39:1042-1049.




Plass, W. T., and W. G. Vogel.  1973.  Chemical properties and particle size




     distribution of 39 surface-mine spoils in  southern West Virginia.




     Northeast For. Expt. Stn. Res. Paper NE-276.




Raats, P. A. C.  1973.  Unstable wetting fronts in uniform and non-uniform soils.




     Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.  37:681-685.
                                          85

-------
Rankama, K., and T. G. Sahama.  1950.  Geochemistry.  The University of Chicago




     Press, Chicago, 111.




Research Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in Pennsylvania.  1971.  A guide




     for revegetating bituminous strip-mine spoils in Pennsylvania.




Richards, L. A.  1965.  Physical conditions of water in soil.  In C. A. Black (ed.)




     Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I.  Agron.  9:128-152.  Am. Soc. Agron.,




     Madison, Wis.




Ritchie, J. T.  1972.  Model  for predicting evaporation from a row crop with




     incomplete cover.  Water Resour. Res.  8:1204-1213.




Rogowski, A. S., and E. L. Jacoby, Jr.  1977.  Assessment of water loss patterns




     with microlysimeters.  Agron. J.  69:419-424.




Russell, E. W.  1961.  Soil conditions and plant growth.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,




     New York, NY.           \




Shaykewich, C. F.  1970.  Hydraulic properties of disturbed and undisturbed soils.




     Can. J. Soil  Sci.  50:431-437.




Smith, R. M.  1971.  Properties of coal overburden  that influence revegetation and




     economic use  of minesoils.  Proceedings  of the Revegetation and Economic Use




     of Surface-mined Land and Mine Use Symposium.  West Virginia University.




Smith, R. M., E. H. Tryon, and E. H.  Tyner.   1971.  Soil development on mine




     spoil.  West  Virginia Agr. Expt. Stn. Bull. 604T.




Sobek, A. A., R. M. Smith, W. A. Schuller, and J. R. Freeman.  1976.   Overburden




     properties that  influence minesoils.  In Fourth Symposium on  Surface  Mining




     and Reclamation.  National Coal  Association,   pp  153-159.




Soil Survey  Staff.  1951.  Soil Survey Manual U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Handb. No. 18.




     U.S. Govt. Printing  Off., Washington, D. C.




Soil Survey  Staff.  1975.  Soil taxonomy:  A basic  system of classification  for




     making  and interpreting  soil  surveys.   U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Handb.  No. 436.




     U.S. Govt. Printing  Off., Washington, D. C.
                                           86

-------
Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc.  1970.  240 Series COMPAQ, Surface moisture-




     density gauge manual.  Raleigh, N. C.




Unger, P. W.  1975.  Water retention by core and sieved samples.  Soil Sci. Soc.




     Am. Proc.  39:1197-1200.




Van Voast, W. A.  1974.  Hydrologic effects of strip coal mining in southeastern




     Montana—Emphasis:  One year mining near Decker.  Montana College of




     Mineral Science Technology.




Verma, T. R. , and J. L. Thames.  1975.  Rehabilitation of land disturbed by surface




     mining coal in Arizona.  J. of Soil and Water Conserv.  30:129-132.




Young, J. L. , and M. R. Lindbeck.  1964.  Carbon determination in soils and organic




     materials with a high frequency induction furnace.  Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.




     28:377-381.




Young, K. K., and J. D. Dixon.  1966.  Overestimation of water content at field




     capacity from sieved sample data.  Soil Sci.  101:104-107.




Young, R. A., and C. A. Onstad.  1976.  Predicting particle-size composition of




     eroded soil.  Trans. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng.  19:1071-1075.




Yuan, T. L.  1959.  Determination of exchangeable hydrogen in soils by a titration




     method.  Soil Sci.  88:164-167.
                                           87

-------
                 APPENDIX A
PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOILS AND MINESOILS
                     88

-------
                        Soil and Minesoil Profile Descriptions






     Soil pits 1 through 8 were located within a 4 ha site.   Pits 1 through 4 were




located in undisturbed soils and pits 5 through 8 were located in minesoils.   The




site is located 1.2 km northeast of Kylertown in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.




The area is in the Pittsburgh Plateau section of the Appalachian Plateaus




Province; the geologic system is Pennsylvanian.  Sedimentary bedrock is horizontal




to gently folded.  Coal seams in the immediate vicinity are the Middle and Lower




Kittanning (C & B) of the Allegheny group.  The mean elevation is 450 m and the




climate is humid temperate.  All colors were described moist.
                                           89

-------
                          Hazleton Silt Loam, Taxadjunct, Pit 1






     This pedon is classified as a member of the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Family




of Typic Dystrochrepts, it is well drained  and has developed in gray acid sand-




stone residuum.  Site characteristics include:  oak and hemlock native vegetation,




no erosion, moderate to moderately rapid permeability!, north 30 degrees east




aspect and a 6% slope.  This pedon was described by J. Hallowich, R. Pennock, Jr.,




and T. Pedersen on May 4, 1976.






01—8-3 cm, Deciduous leaf litter mainly from oaks.




02—3-0 cm, Black (SYR 2.5/1) decomposed and partially decomposed oak leaf litter.




Al—0-3 cm, Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam; moderate very fine




     granular structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; very strongly acid




     (pH 4.8); clear wavy boundary.




A2—3-10 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silt loam to loam; weak medium platy




     structure parting to moderate fine and medium subangular blocky; friable,




     nonsticky, nonplastic; many medium and fine roots; medium acid (pH 5.6);




     clear smooth boundary.




B21—10-41 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; weak medium platy structure parting




     to moderate fine and medium subangular blocky; friable, nonsticky, slightly




     plastic; many fine roots; 7% sandstone fragments; strongly acid (pH 5.4);




     gradual smooth boundary.




B22t—41-74 cm, Brown (7.5YR 5/4 and 7.5YR 4/4) channery loam; weak coarse sub-




     angular blocky structure, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few thin clay




     films; some bridging of sand grains; abundant fine roots; 15% sandstone




     fragments; strongly acid (pH 5.4); clear wavy boundary.




B3t—74-109 cm, Strong brown (7.SYR 5/8) and brown (7.SYR 4/4) channery silt loam




     and light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) weathered sandstone; weak coarse sub-




     angular blocky structure; firm, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots below 74




     cm; few thin patches in pores and bridging sand grains; 40% sandstone




     fragments; strongly acid (pH 5.2); gradual wavy boundary.




                                            90

-------
C—109-176 cm, Reddish yellow (7.SYR 6/6)  very channery silt loam,  loamy sand around
     rock fragments; weak medium subangular blocky structure and single grained
     around rock fragments; firm, nonsticky, nonplastic; 80% sandstone fragments;
     strongly acid  (pH 5.2); gradual wavy boundary.
R—176-203 cm, Pale red (2.SYR 6/2) bedded sandstone.


                           Dekalb Silt Loam, Taxadjunct, Pit 2
     This pedon is a member of the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Family of Typic
Dystrochrepts, it is well drained and has developed in gray acid sandstone residuum.
Site characteristics include:  oak and hemlock native vegetation, no erosion, moderate
permeability, a north 30 degrees east aspect and a 6% slope.  This pedon was described
by J. Hallowich, R. Pennock, Jr., and T. Pedersen on May 4, 1976.
                             !
01—8-5 cm, Deciduous leaf litter mainly from oaks.
02—5-0 cm, Black (SYR 2.5/1) decomposed and partially decomposed oak leaf litter.
Al—0-10 cm, Very dark gray brown  (10YR 3/2) silt loam; moderate fine granular
     structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 5% sandstone fragments; very
     strongly acid  (pH 4.8); clear smooth boundary.
B21—10-33 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loam; weak, fine and moderate subangular
     blocky structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 7% sandstone fragments;
     strongly acid  (pH 5.4); gradual wavy boundary.
B22—33-51 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) channery loam; moderate medium subangular
     blocky structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 15% sandstone fragments;
     strongly acid  (pH 5.2); gradual wavy boundary.
B23—51-71 cm, Strong brown  (7.SYR 5/6) channery loam; moderate medium subangular
     blocky structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 40% sandstone fragments;
     very strongly  acid (pH 5.0); clear wavy boundary.
C—71-74 cm, Reddish yellow  (7.SYR 6/6) very channery loam; structureless massive;
     firm to friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 60% sandstone fragments; very strongly
     acid (pH 4.8); clear wavy boundary.

                                            91

-------
R—74-122+ cm, Pale red  (2.SYR 6/2) bedded sandstone.









                       Cookport Channery Loam, Taxadjunct, Pit 3




     This pedon is classified as a member of the coarse—loamy, mixed, mesic Family




of Aquic Fragiudult; it  is moderately well drained and has developed in sandstone




residuum.  Site characteristics include:  white pine and black cherry vegetation,




slow permeability, north 5 degrees east aspect and a 14% slope.  This pedon was




described by J. Hallowich, A. Topolanchik, R. Pennock, Jr., and T. Pedersen on




May 6, 1976.






Al—0-15 cm, Overburden material (not described).  Soil very firm with thick platy




     structure due to heavy machine activity; very strongly acid (pH 4.6); diffuse




     irregular boundary.




A2—15-43 cm, Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) channery loam; weak fine and medium




     angular blocky structure; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; abundant roots to




     43 cm; 20% rock fragments; very strongly acid (pH 4.8); gradual wavy boundary.




Bl—43-66 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) channery loam; moderate medium angular




     blocky; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; 25% rock fragments;




     strongly acid (pH 5.2); clear wavy boundary.




Exit—69-91 cm, Dark brown (7.SYR 4/4) channery loam; weak very coarse prismatic




     structure parting to fine angular blocky; firm, slightly sticky, plastic;




     few thin discontinuous clay films in pores and on ped faces, common fine




     Mn concretions; few roots below 66 cm; 20% rock fragments; very strongly




     acid (pH 4.8); gradual wavy boundary.




Bx2t—91-117 cm, Brown (7.SYR 4/4) clay loam; few fine distinct light brownish




     gray (10YR 6/2) mottles; weak very coarse prismatic structure, parting to




     weak medium subangular blocky; firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;




     few thin discontinuous clay films in pores and on ped faces; 15% rock




     fragments; very strongly acid (pH 5.0); gradual wavy boundary.
                                          92

-------
Bx3t—117-135 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4)  silt loam;  many medium distinct strong




     brown (7.SYR 5/6) and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)  mottles;  weak very coarse




     prismatic structure parting to weak coarse subangular blocky;  firm, sticky,




     plastic; few thin discontinuous clay films in pores and on ped faces;  10% rock




     fragments; very strongly acid (pH 5.0);  clear wavy boundary.




Bx4t—135-167+ cm, Dark brown (10YR 3/3) very channery loam; few medium distinct




     light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) mottles;  weak very coarse prismatic structure




     parting to weak coarse subangular blocky; very firm,  nonsticky, slightly




     plastic; few thick clay films discontinuous in pores and on ped faces; prism




     face light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) matrix strong brown (7.SYR 5/6); 70% rock




     fragments; very strongly acid (pH 5.0).









                     Hazleton1 Channery Silt Loam, Taxadjunct, Pit 4




     This pedon is classified as a member of the coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Family




of Typic Dystrochrepts, it is moderately well drained and has developed in sandstone




residuum.  Site characteristics include:  white pine and black cherry natural




vegetation, moderate permeability, north 5 degrees east aspect and a 12% slope.




This profile was described by J. Hallowich, A. Topolanchik, R. Pennock, Jr., and




T. Pedersen on May 6, 1976.






Al—0-8 cm, Dark gray brown (10YR 4/2) channery silt loam; moderate very thin platy




     structure parting to weak very fine granular; friable, slightly sticky,




     plastic; many roots; 15% rock fragments; strongly acid (pH 5.2); clear wavy




     boundary.




A2—8-20 cm, Yellowish brown  (10YR 5/4) channery silt loam; moderate very  thin and




     thin platy structure parting to weak very fine and fine subangular blocky;




     friable, sticky, plastic; abundant roots; 15% rock fragments; very strongly




     acid (pH 5.0); clear wavy boundary.




B21t—20-48 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) channery silt loam; weak fine and medium




     subangular blocky structure; friable, sticky, plastic; few thin clay  films in





                                           93

-------
     pores; few roots; 15% rock fragments; very strongly acid  (pH 4.8); gradual




     irregular boundary.




B22t—48-74 cm, Dark yellowish brown  (10YR 4/4) channery silt  loam; few fine faint




     mottles; moderate fine subangular blocky structure; firm, slightly sticky,




     slightly plastic; thin discontinuous clay films in pores  and on ped faces;




     few fine and medium Mn concretions; few roots; 15% rock fragments; very




     strongly acid  (pH 4.8); gradual  irregular boundary.




B23t—74-94 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) channery silt loam; moderate fine sub-




     angular blocky structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; thin




     discontinuous  (thick in places)  clay films in pores and on ped faces and on




     coarse fragments; few roots; 15% rock fragments; very strongly acid (pH 4.8);




     abrupt wavy boundary.




IIC1—94-125 cm, Black (N 2/0) very channery silt loam; weathered coal; structureless,




     massive, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; 75% rock fragments; abrupt




     irregular boundary.




IIIC2—125-183+ cm, Light gray (10YR  6/1) and light yellowish  brown (10YR 6/4) very




     channery silt loam varigated with strong brown (7.SYR 5/8); structureless,




     massive; very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 90% rock fragments; very strongly




     acid  (pH 4.8).









                           Minesoil Very Channery Loam, Pit 5




     This pedon is classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic member of the Udorthen




great group and is well drained.  Site characteristics include:  grass and legume




vegetation, slight erosion, moderate  permeability, northeast aspect and a 5% slope.




This pedon was described by E. J. Ciolkosz and T. Pedersen on  June 9, 1976.






Ap—0-20 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) very channery loam and dark yellowish brown




     (10YR 4/4) very channery loam; moderate medium platy parting to weak very fine




     subangular blocky structure and  weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable




     to firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many very fine grass roots






                                          94

-------
     predominantly parallel to plates on ped faces and through some plates to 3 cm,




     common, very fine fibrous roots flattened along coarse fragments to 20 cm; 55%




     rock fragments; strongly acid (pH 5.2); abrupt wavy boundary.




Cl—20-36 cm, Dark brown (10YR 3/3) very channery sandy loam; structureless, massive;




     friable, slightly sticky, nonplastic; few very fine roots on surface of coarse




     fragments; 65% rock fragments; very strongly acid (pH 5.0); gradual wavy boundary.




C2—36-56 cm, Dark brown (10YR 3/3) very channery sandy loam, structureless, massive,




     friable, slightly sticky, nonplastic; no roots; 65% rock fragments; very strongly




     acid (pH A.8); diffuse smooth boundary.




C3—56-74 cm, Dark brown (10YR 3/3) very channery sandy loam; structureless, massive;




     firm, slightly sticky, nonplastic; 65% rock fragments; strongly acid (pH 5.2);




     clear wavy boundary.




C4—74-114 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) very channery sandy loam; structureless,




     massive; firm, slightly sticky, nonplastic; 65% rock fragments; strongly acid




     (pH 5.2); gradual wavy boundary.




C5—114-152 cm, Dark brown (10YR 4/3) very channery loamy sand; structureless, massive;




     friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 75% rock fragments; strongly acid  (pH 5.4).









                           Minesoil Very Channery Loam, Pit 6




     This pedon is classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic member  of the Udorthent




great group  and is well drained.  Site characteristics include:  grass and legume




vegetation, slight erosion, moderate permeability, northeast aspect and an 11% slope.




This pedon was described by E. J. Ciolkosz and T. Pedersen on June 9, 1976.






Ap—0-13 cm, Yellowish brown  (10YR 5/4) very channery  silt loam; moderate fine granular




     and weak very fine subangular blocky; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;




     many very fine fibrous grass roots, on and  through weakly  developed granules,




     roots  decreased in number below 12 cm; 55%  rock fragments; medium  acid  (pH 6.0);




     abrupt wavy boundary.
                                            95

-------
AC—13-28 cm, Dark brown  (10YR 4/3) very channery sandy loam; weak very fine sub-




     angular blocky to structureless, massive; friable to firm, slightly sticky,




     slightly plastic; many very fine roots flattened between structural units,




     roots concentrated on, around, and below coarse fragments to 20 cm; common




     very fine roots in and around pockets associated with coarse fragments, few




     roots penetrating massive material to 25 cm; 55% rock fragments; strongly




     acid (pH 5.2); gradual wavy boundary.




Cl—28-53 cm, Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) very channery sandy loam;




     structureless, massive; firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few




     very fine roots to 41 cm, no roots below 41 cm; 55% rock fragments;




     very strongly acid (pH 5.0); clear wavy boundary.




C2—53-84 cm, Brown (7.SYR 5/4) very channery loamy sand; structureless, massive;




     friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; 85% rock fragments; very strongly acid




     (pH 4.8); gradual irregular boundary.




C3—84-152 cm, 100% rock fragment, about 15-20% void space.









                            Minesoil Very Shaly Loam, Pit 7




     This pedon is classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic member of the




Udorthent great group and is well drained.  Site characteristics include:  grass




vegetation, moderate erosion, moderate permeability, northeast aspect and a 9%




slope.  This pedon was described by E. J. Ciolkosz and T. Pedersen on June 9, 1976.






Apl—0-10 cm, Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) very shaly loam; weak fine subangular blocky;




     friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many very fine grass and clover




     roots, roots flattened on sandstone fragments; 55% rock fragments; very




     strongly acid (pH 4.6); abrupt broken boundary.




Ap2—10-31 cm, Dark brown (10YR 4/3) very shaly sandy loam; weak fine subangular




     blocky to structureless, massive; friable to firm, slightly sticky, slightly




     plastic; one fine tap root extending to 13 cm, common very fine roots




     flattened between ped faces and in pores, few roots on shale fragments to






                                          96

-------
     13 cm, few very fine roots, one very fine root extending to 33 cm on ped faces




     and surfaces of coarse fragments; 55% rock fragments;  extremely acid (pH 4.4);




     abrupt broken boundary.




Cl—31-51 cm, Grayish dark brown (10YR 4/2) very shaly sandy loam;  structureless,




     massive; firm, slightly sticky, nonplastic; no roots;  55% rock fragments;




     extremely acid (pH 4.2); gradual wavy boundary.




C2—51-66 cm, Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) very shaly loamy sand; structureless,




     massive; friable; nonsticky, nonplastic; 70% rock fragment 5% voids; extremely




     acid (pH 4.4); clear wavy boundary




C3—66-127 cm, 100% rock fragment, 20% void space; few Fe 0_ coatings, few gypsum




     crystals, clear wavy boundary.




C4—127-152 cm, Very dark gray  (10YR 3/1) very shaly loamy sand and black (N 2/0)




     loamy sand coal bands; structureless, massive; friable, nonsticky, nonplastic;




     65% rock fragments; extremely acid (pH 4.0).









                         Minesoil Very Shaly Sandy Loam, Pit 8




     This pedon is classified as a loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic member of the




Udorthent great group and is well drained.  Site characteristics include:  grass




and legume vegetation, slight erosion, moderate permeability, northeast aspect




and a 16% slope.  This pedon was described by E. J. Ciolkosz and T. Pedersen on




June 9, 1976.






AC—0-18 cm, Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) very shaly sandy loam; weak fine granular




     and weak very fine subangular blocky; friable, slightly sticky, slightly




     plastic; many very fine to fine fibrous roots, and fine to medium tap roots




     extending to 3 cm, common very fine to fine roots evenly distributed to 18




     cm, nodules and lesions on roots; 50% rock fragments; medium acid (pH 5.6);




     abrupt smooth boundary.




Cl—18-36 cm, Dark brown (10YR 4/3) very shaly sandy loam; structureless, massive;




     friable to firm, slightly sticky, nonplastic; few very fine roots to 20 cm,






                                          97

-------
     tap roots becoming increasingly branched following ped faces and voids




     associated with coarse fragments; 65% rock fragments, very strongly acid




     (pH 5.0); gradual wavy boundary.




C2—36-58 cm, Dark brown (10YR 3/3) very shaly sandy loam; structureless, massive;




     firm slightly sticky, nonplastic; no roots; 65% rock fragments; very




     strongly acid (pH 4.8); gradual wavy boundary.




C3—58-102 cm, Dark grayish brown  (10YR 4/2) very shaly sandy loam; structureless,




     massive; firm, slightly sticky, nonplastic; 65% rock fragments; extremely




     acid (pH 4.4); gradual wavy boundary.




C4—102-145 cm, Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) with bands of dark yellowish




     brown (10YR 4/4) very shaly loam; structureless, massive; firm, slightly




     sticky, slightly plastic; some very fine roots at 124 cm; 65% rock




     fragments; very strongly acid  (pH 4.6); clear irregular boundary.




C5—145-183+ cm, Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) with bands of dark yellowish brown




     (10YR 4/4) very shaly loamy sand; structureless, massive; firm, nonsticky,




     nonplastic; 90% rock fragments; 5% fines; strongly acid (pH 5.2).
                                          98

-------
                            APPENDIX B
LABORATORY CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PEDONS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX A
                                99

-------
TABLE B-l.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 1
Coarse

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm
0-3
3-10
10-41
41-74
74-109
109-176

Horizon
Al
A2
B21
B22t
B3t
C

>76






76-
19
10.6
5.6
11.5
7.3
25.0
29.5
Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)
19- 4.7-
4.
4.
6.
8.
10.
9.
22.
7 2.0
1 8.5
5 11.0
8 11.9
9 15.8
3 10.0
7 5.2
Total
Wt.
23.2
23.1
32.2
33.9
14.3
57.4
Textural
Total Class
Vol
17.3
12.6
13.6
14.4
16.9
23.8
Lab Field
SIL
SIL
L
L
FSL
FSL
SIL
SIL
L
L
SIL
SIL
Total
Bulk
Density
(g/cm3)
0.88
1.39
1.78
1.92
2.07


Particle
Size
Distribution (mm) (%
Sand

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.0-
1.0
7.3
9.4
11.5
11.5
1.1
2.3
1.0- 0.5-
0.5 0.25
5.0 6.7
4.6 7.9
5.5 10.0
7.3 11.0
2.9 23.7
3.6 23.3
0.25-
0.10
9.7
10.2
11.2;
10.8
22.0
27.1
0.10- 0
0.07 0
3.
2.
2.
2.
6.
3.
1
8
8
6
3
3
.07-
.05
2.9
2.4
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.9
Silt
0.02- 0
0.002 0
36.3
33.2
24.4
25.2
19.4
15.9

.005-
.002
9.5
9.8
8.0
7.0
6.3
7.1
<2mm)
Sand
2.0-
0.05
34.8
37.3
43.9
45.6
58.7
62.5

Silt
0.05-
0.002
55.6
51.1
42.0
40.3
29.7
23.4

Clay
<
0.002
9.6
11.6
14.1
14.1
11.7
14.1






Moisture (%) Retained
Bulk Density (g/cmJ)


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1/3 Atm
Entire
Clod
0.83
1.38
1.69
1.84
1.95

Moisture
<2mm in
Clods
0.82
1.31
1.59
1.70
1.87


Dry
1/3 Atm
<2rnm in >2mm in
Clods
1.02
1.32
1.66
1.73
2.02

Clods
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.

32
84
36
62
41

COLE
<2mm
0.027

0.015
0.017
0.025

Entire
Clod
26.1
20.6
15.6
13.1
10.6

15 Atm
<2mm in <2mm
Wt
at
1/3 to
15 Atm
cm/ cm
Clods Sieved (%) of Soil
24.
22.
19.
16.
12.

8 18.4
2 5.6
0 7.2
8 7.1
9 4.9
4.8
5.
12.
7.
6.
4.

6 0.046
7 0.177
8 0.155
4 0.123
5 0.093

                           100

-------
TABLE B-2.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 1

Extractable Cations (Meq/100 g <2 mm material)
Base

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm
0-3
3-10
10-41
41-74
74-109
109-176

Horizon
Al
A2
B21
B22t
B3t
C

Ca
1.9
0
0
0
0
0

Mg
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2


Na
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
08
06
06
06
06
06
Total
K Bases
0.18 3.0
0.08 0.3
0.07 0.5
0.07 0.6
0.06 0.3
0.10 0.3
CEC
H (SUM)
40.1 43
14.7 15
12.7 13
15.6 16
12.7 13
8.9 9
.1
.0
.2
.2
.0
.2
Sat.
Al I
6.22
4.17
4.95
5.09
3.61
3.82
(%) Ca/Mg
6.9 2.7
2.3 0
3.2 0
3.5 0
2.0 0
3.5 0



No.
1
2
3
4
5
6


Water
4.8
4.7
4.8
5.0
4.8
5.0
PH
IN 0

.01M
Organic

Matter


KC1 CaCl- C(%) N(%)
2
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
6.27
2.13
.42
.32
.10
.09
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
346
064
040
037
048
026
Feo03
<*>
3.3
2.8
3.1
3.2
2.6
2.2
Clay Minerals

Mont Verm
45
40
15 30
15 20
5 15

(%) of

111
15
20
25
30
35

(<0.002

Kaol
40
35
35
35
45

mm material)

Int Qtz
tr
5
5
tr



-------
TABLE B-3.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 2

No.
1
2
3
4
5

Depth
cm
0-10
10-33
33-51
51-71
71-74


Horizon

Al
B21
B22
B23
C
Coarse
76-
>76 19
22.4
5.6 12.4
4.8 15.2
21.5
27.7
Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)
19-
4.7
16.8
12.8
12.5
12.0
11.8
Textural
4.7- Total Total Class
2.0 Wt. Vol. Lab Field
2.5 41.7 41
6.9 37.7 16
5.8 38.3 16
7.0 40.5 17
6.3 45.8
.7 L SIL
.9 L L
.7 L CNL
.7 L CNL
L VCNL
Total
Bulk
Density
(g/cm3)
0.99
1.78
1.88
1.89

Particle Size
Distribution (mm) (% <2 mm)
Sand

No.
1
2
3
4
5
2.0-
1.0
2.0
3.8
4.0
3.4
2.4
1
0
3
3
4
4
4
.0- 0.5-
.5 0.25
.2 17.9
.6 20.4
.8 20.9
.7 19.8
.1 20.8
0.25- 0
0.10 0
i
7.9
14.6 \
13.7
6.7
14.2
.10- 0
.07 0
6.2
2.6
2.5
9.4
3.8
.07-
.05
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.3
3.1
Silt
0.02- 0
0.002 0
34.4
27.7
29.0
26.3
26.9

.005-
.002
10.8
6.9
7.2
8.0
8.2
Sand
2.0-
0.05
39.1
47.3
47.9
46.2
48.4
Silt
0.05-
0.002
46.7
38.8
39.0
40.9
41.4
Clay
<
0.002
14.1
13.8
13.1
12.9
10.2





•3
Moisture
(%) Retained at
Bulk Density (g/cmJ)


No.
1
2
3
4
5
1/3 Atm
Entire
Clod
1.00
1.71
1.79
1.81

Moisture







<2mm in
Clods
1.00
1.58
1.69
1.67

Dry
<2ram in
Clods
1.08
1.55
1.67
1.64

>2mm in
Clods
1.00
2.23
2.29
2.38

COLE
<2mm
0.021
0.004
0.013
0.005

1/3
Entire
Clod
19.4
13.1
13.3
11.8

Atm
<2mm in
Clods
15.4
17.4
16.8
16.5

15 Atm
<2mm
Sieved
9.5
5.1
4.9
5.5
4.2
1/3 to
15
Wt.
(%)
3.4
7.7
7.4
6.6

Atm
cm/ cm
of Soil
0.035
0.137
0.138
0.124

                         102

-------
TABLE B-4.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 2

Extractable Cations (Meq/100 g <2 mm material)

No.
1
2
3
4
5
Depth
cm
0-10
10-33
33-51
51-71
71-74


Horizon





Al
B21
B22
B23
C

Ca Mg
0 0.4
0 0.5
0 0.3
0 0.2
0 0.2

Na
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07

K
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.05
Total CEC
Bases H /SUM)
0.7 31.5 32.2
0.7 11.0 11.7
0.4 11.0 11.4
0.4 11.0 11.4
0.4 9.5 9.9

Al
6.22
2.76
2.76
3.54
2.97
Base
Sat.
(%) Ca/Mg
2.1 0
5.7 0
3.8 0
3.2 0
3.6 0



No.
1
2
3
4
5


Water
5.0
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
pH
IN
KC1
3.6
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0

0.01M
CaCl2
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
Organic

C(%)
3.64
.56
.43
.22
.17
Matter

N(%)
0.170
0.037
0.030
0.021
0.029

FeoOa
(%)
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
Clay Minerals (%) of

Mont Verm 111
tr 50 20
55 15
55 15
tr 50 20
tr 35 30
(<0.002

Kaol
30
30
25
30
35
mm material)

Int Qtz
tr
tr
5
tr
tr

-------
TABLE B-5.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 3
Coarse Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Depth
cm
0-15
15-43
43-66
66-91
91-117
117-135
76- 19- 4.7-
Horizon
Al
A2
Bl
Bxlt
Bx2t
Bx3t
>76






135-167+ Bx4t
19 4
17.0 25
13.8 14
28.0 8
21.5 18
12 . 3 11
7.5 8
16.4 24
.7 2.0
.0 13.7
.9 9.8
.2 8.4
.2 10.0
.9 12.3
.0 13.5
.1 9.0
Total
Wt
55.
38.
44.
49.
36.
29.
49.
•
7
5
7
6
5
0
5
Total
Vol.
25.2
13.1
26.1
26.8
20.4
16.9
26.5
Textural

Lab
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Class
Field

CNL
CNL
CNL
CNL
SIL
VCNL
Total
Bulk
Density
(g/cm3)
1.84
1.95
1.93
2.13
1.90
1.85
2.22

Particle Size Distribution


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2.0-
1.0
11.3
3.6
2.9
4.0
4.6
3.1
4.9

1.0- 0.5-
0.5 0.25
7.8 10.8
3.7 16.0
4.4 15.9
4.5 14.9
4.6 13.3
3.9 12.0
5.4 12.4
Sand
0.25-
0.1Q
5.7
13.5
15.5
12.0
11.3
5.5
10.4

0.10- 0
0.07 0
8.0
3.0
3.1
3.3
2.3
6.2
2.4

.07-
.05
3.5
2.9
3.2
2.7
2.1
2.0
2.6

0.02-
0.002
25.9
30.6
27.4
27.2
28.4
32.7
29.7
(mm)
Silt
0.
0.







(% <2

005-
002
7.9
9.2
7.3
6.8
6.3
7.5
7.9
mm)
Sand
2.0-
0.05
47.1
42.7
45.1
41.4
38.4
32.6
38.2

Silt
0.05-
0.002
37.5
44.0
42.2
44.3
43.4
47.4
44.4

Clay
<
0.002
15.4
13.3
12.7
14.3
18.2
20.0
17.6

Moisture (%)
Bulk Density


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1/3 Atm
Entire
Clod
1.76
1.79
1.91
2.08
1.82
1.76
2.18
Moisture
(g/cm3)



Dry
<2mm in <2mm in
Clods
1.52
1.63
1.66
1.89
1.69
1.68
2.10
Clods
1.63
1.72
1.71
1.85
1.79
1.72
1.87
>2mm in
Clods
2.21
2.93
2.44
2.43
2.47
2.44
2.38
COLE
<2mm
0.024
0.018
0.010
0.008
0.012
0.019
.021


1/3 Atm
Entire
Clod
10.
13.
10.
10.
8
0
8
2
13.7
15.8
9.9

15
Retained

Atm
<2mm in <2mm Wt.
Clods
18.7
17.8
18.4
16.2
17.7
18.5
15.3
Sieved (%)
6
5
5
6
7
8

.3 5.4
.1 7.8
.0 7.4
.5 4.9
.9 6.2
at
1/3 to
15 Atm
cm/ cm
of Soil
0.101
0.148
0.140
0.104
0.118
.6 7.1 0.130

0.114
                       104

-------
                           TABLE B-6.   CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 3
o
Ul

Extractable Cations (Meq/100 g <2 mm material)


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Depth
cm
0-15
15-43
43-66
66-91
91-117
117-135
135-167+


Horizon
Al
A2
Bl
Exit
Bx2t
Bx3t
Bx4t


Ca Mg
0 0.6
0 0.3
0.7 1.3
1.1 1.3
1.6 1.1
1.5 1.3
0.6 1.2


Na
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06


K
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.14
0.10

Total
Bases
0.7 16
0.4 12
2.1 6
2.6 7
3.0 10
3.0 10
2.0 9


H
.5
.7
.4
.2
.1
.1
.8











CEC
(SUM)
17.2
13.1
8.5
9.8
13.1
13.1
11.8


Al
4.17
2.76
.99
1.06
2.62
2.97
3.54
Base
Sat.
(%) Ca/Mg
4.1 0
3.2 0
25.0 0.5
26.8 0.8
22.8 1.5
22.9 1.2
17.0 0.5



No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7


Water
4.0
4.6
5.0
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.9
PH
IN 0.01M
KC1 CaCl2
3.4 3.8
3.8 4.3
4.0 4.7
4.1 4.8
4.0 4.6
4.0 4.6
4.1 4.6
Organic

C(%)
1.53
1.52
.23
.24
.20
.34
.35
Matter

N(%)
0.123
0.057
0.030
0.022
0.029
0.027
0.037

Fe2°3
(%)
4.1
2.2
2.7
3.0
3.3
3.7
4.5
Clay

Mont
10
10
10
10
15
20
15
Minerals (%) of (<0.002



Verm 111







15
20
20
15
15
15
15
35
25
30
30
35
30
30

Kaol
40
45
40
45
35
35
40
mm material)

Int Qtz
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr

-------
TABLE B-7.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 4
Coarse Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Depth
cm Horizon
0-8 Al
8-20 A2
20-48 B21t
48-74 B22t
74-94 B23t
94-125 IIC1
125-183+ IIIC2
76- 19-
>76 19 4.7
2.
2.
1.
2.
0.
4.
2 12.6
4 11.7
0 10.9
7 12.2
5 10.6
5 14.8
15.3
Total
Textural Bulk
4.7- Total Total Class Density
2.0 Wt. Vol. Lab Field (g/cm3)
19.2 34.1 15
21.4 35.5 15
22.2 34.2 13
23.8 38.8 15
23.4 34.5 14
11.9 31.2 13
19.8 35.1 14
.4 SIL CNSIL 1.57
.3 SIL CNSIL 1.82
.9 SIL CNSIL 1.85
.9 L CNSIL 1.86
.1 L VCNSIL 1.81
.7 SIL VCNSIL 1.45
.0 VCNSIL 2.01

Particle Size


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2.0-
1.0
5.9
5.0
7.3
8.0
9.7
4.8
6.0

1.0- 0.5-
0.5 0.25
4.1 7.3
4.7 6.8
5.3 6.8
8.8 8.2
8.9 8.8
7.0 9.9
6.2 3.5
Sand
0.25-
0.10
3.4
4.6
4.7
5.7
0.7
11.5
2.2
Distribution (mm) (% <2
Silt
0.10- 0
0.07 0
3.0
1.9
1.7
2.3
7.2
5.1
1.0
.07-
.05
2.1
2.6
1.9
2.5
2.8
4.2
2.6
0.02- 0
0.002 0
41.6
41.7
35.9
31.1
28.8
29.2
21.0
.005-
.002
11.6
11.7
10.9
7.1
5.4
8.6
14.5
mm)
Sand
2.0-
0.05
25.7
25.6
27.8
35.4
38.0
42.5
21.4

Silt
0.05-
0.002
58.0
57.1
54.3
46.7
47.2
47.4
53.7

Clay
<
0.002
16.3
17.3
17.9
17.8
14.8
10.1
24.9






Bulk Density
1/3 Atm Moisture

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Entire
Clod
1.54
1.71
1.74
1.76
1.69
1.41
1.84

(8/cm3)




Dry
<2mm in <2mm in
Clods
1.36
1.62
1.64
1.62
1.59
1.25
1.82
Clods
1.40
1.67
1.71
1.68
1.67
1.39
1.98
>2mm in
Clods
2.22
2.32
2.45
2.43
2.44
2.28
2.51
COLE
<2mm
0.010
0.009
0.013
0.012
0.017
0.038
.029


Moisture

1/3 Atm
Entire
Clod
17.1
15.4
16.2
14.3
15.7
21.5
16.1
<2mm in
Clods
24.5
18.4
19.6
18.8
19.0
29.1
16.8
(%) Retained at

15 Atm
<2mm
Sieved
7.1
6.6
7.3
8.1
6.9
12.3
7.1
1/3
15
Wt.
to
Atm
cm/ cm
(%) of Soil
11.4
7.7
8.1
6.6
7.9
11.6
6.3
0.177
0.138
0.150
0.122
0.143
0.168
0.128
                       106

-------
TABLE B-8.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 4

Extractable Catipns (Meq/100 g
<2 mm
material)



Base

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Depth
cm
0-8
8-20
20-48
48-74
74-94
94-125
125-183+

Horizon
Al
A2
B21t
B22t
B23t
IIC1
IIIC2

Ca
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.4


Mg Na K
0.2 0
0.3 0
0.3 0
0.3 0
0.8 0
1.1 0
2.2 0
.06 0.11
.06 0.07
.06 0.07
.06 0.05
.06 0.07
.07 0.05
.06 0.07
Total
Bases
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.9
2.0
2.7

H
16.
13.
16.
15.
16.
59.
16.
CEC
(SUM)
7 17.1
9 14.3
2 16.7
9 16.3
5 17.4
2 61.2
2 18.9
Sat.
Al
2.97
3.82
4.95
5.94
5.38
7.07
3.54
(%'
2
2
2
2
5
3
14
) Ca/Mg
.3 0
.7 0
.8 0
.4 0
.3 0
.3 0.7
.2 0.2



No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7


Water
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
PH
IN
KC1
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.9

0.01M
CaCl2
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
Organic

f f*3/\
L* \fo )
6.25
.85
0.67
0.34
1.51
12.59
2.03
Matter

N(%)
0.101
0.058
0.058
0.047
0.057
0.347
0.059

Fe203
(%)
3.0
3.3
3.4
3.8
4.0
1.7
4.0
Clay

Mont
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
Minerals

Verm
25
25
25
20
10
5

(%) of (<0

.002

111 Kaol
20
20
25
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
50
55
mm material)

Int Qtz
tr
tr
tr





-------
           TABLE B-9.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 5
Coarse Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm
0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152


Horizon >76
Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
33.3
43.9
19.3
32.2
29.5
32.2
76-
19
11.5
25.9
36.9
30.2
37.7
46.8
19-
4.7
10.9
10.2
17.0
13.3
9.9
8.1
4.7-
2.0
8.7
4.6
6.5
3.7
3.3
2.9
Total Total
Wt.
64.4
84.6
79.7
79.4
80.4
90.0
Vol.
25.7





Lab
L
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
Total
Textural Bulk
Class
Field
VCNL
VCNSL
VCNSL
VCNSL
VCNSL
VCNLS
Density
(g/cm3)
2.19






Particle Size Distribution (mm)


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

2.0- 1.
1.0 0.
4.0 4.
8.1 8.
8.2 9.
9.0 8.
8.3 7.
8.6 7.

0- 0.5-
5 0.25
9 11.1
3 22.8
0 23.8
3 22.7
7 23.5
5 25.2
Sand
0.25- 0
0.10 0
14.9 1
15.1
11.3
14.0
15.6
15.8

.10- 0
.07 0
6.7
3.8
6.9
4.5
3.4
4.4

.07-
.05
3.8
3.3
3.1
3.7
3.8
3.0

0.02-
0.002
25.4
16.4
15.3
14.7
15.6
13.9
Silt
0.005-
0.002
7.0
5.3
5.4
4.8
4.4
4.8
(% <2 mm)
Sand
2.0-
0.05
45
61
62
62
62
64
.5
.4
.3
.1
.3
.6
Silt
0.05-
0.002
38.3
26.6
27.2
25.4
24.3
22.2
Clay
<
0.002
16.3
12.0
10.5
12.4
13.3
13.2






Moisture (%)
Retained
Bulk Density (g/cnr3)


No.
1/3 Atm
Entire
Clod
Moisture
<2mm in
Clods

Dry
<2mm in >2mm
Clods

in
Clods

1/3
Atm
COLE Entire <2mm in
<2mm
Clod
Clods
15
Atm
<2mm Wt.
Sieved (%)
at
1/3 to
15 Atm
cm/ cm
of Soil
1.91
1.79
1.85
2.51
0.013  11.5
14.8
6.4   3.0
0.066
                                   108

-------
TABLE B-10.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 5

Extractable Cations (Meq/100
g <2 mm
material)
Base

No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm

0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152


Horizon Ca

Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5

1.4
0
0.1
0
0
0

Mg

0.2
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
Total
Na K Bases

0.06 0.07 1.7
0.06 0.07 0.6
0.06 0.09 1.1
0.07 0.08 0.8
0.07 0.09 0.9
0.06 0.07 0.8

H

11.8
9.8
14.0
14.9
14.6
13.0
CEC
(SUM)

13.5
10.4
15.1
15.7
15.5
13.8


Al

3.
1.
,
1.
1.
»

54
41
99
34
27
71
Sat
(%)
12

6.
7.
5.
5.
5.
.
Ca/Mg
8 70

0 0
5 0.1
4 0
6 0
8 0



No.
1
2
3
4
5
6


Water
5.1
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.9
PH
IN
KC1
4.2
3.7
3,7
3.8
3.9
4.1

0.01M
CaCl2
4.6
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.7
Organic

c(X)
.39
1.81
1.68
1.87
1.51
1.43
Matter
Fe2°3
N(%) (%)
0.037 1.7
0.068 1.9
0.062 2.1
0.049 1.8
0.053 1.8
0.052 1.8
Clay

Mont
10


5
5
5
Minerals

Verm
15
10
10
10
5
5
(%) of

111
35
45
40
45
40
45
(<0.

002

Kaol
40
40
45
40
45
40






mm material)

Int Qtz
tr
5
5
tr
5
5

-------
              TABLE B-ll.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 6
Coarse Fragment Distribution
(mm) CO
No.
1
2
3
4
Depth
cm
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
76-
Horizon >76 19
Ap
AC
Cl
C2
52
7
21
52
.1 10.2
.0 36.6
.7 37.5
.3 32.0
19-
4.7
8.7
19.8
16.7
7.0
4.7-
2.0
2.3
7.7
3.5
1.5
Total
Wt.
73.3
71.1
79.3
92.8
Total
Textural Bulk
Total Class Density
Vol. Lab Field (g/cm3)
L
SL
SL

VCNSIL
VCNSL
VCNSL
VCNLS



*








Particle
Size
Distribution
Sand

No.

1
2
3
4
2.0-
1.0

4.6
6.8
8.5
12.5
1.0-
0.5

4.9
7.6
8.5
10.1
0.5-
0.25

11.9
18.5
22.2
24.2
0.25- 0
0.10 0
1
15.2 :
13.0 1
8.3
10.1
.10-
.07

7.0
3.5
7.8
6.5
0.07-
0.05

4.0
3.6
3.5
3.2
(mm) (% <2
Silt
0.02-
0.002

24.3
18.9
15.8
12.6
0.005-
0.002

7.8
4.9
4.8
4.5
mm)
Sand
2.0-
0.05

47.6
53.0
58.8
66.5

Silt
0.05-
0.002

35.7
31.0
26.1
20.3

Clay
<
0.002

16.7
16.0
15.2
13.2

No clods were obtained from  this profile.
                                          110

-------
TABLE B-12.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 6

Extractable Cations (Meq/100 g <2 mm material)


No.
1
2
3
4

Depth
cm
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84


Horizon Ca
Ap 5.1
AC 0.8
Cl 0.2
C2 0


Mg
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.6


Na
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.08

Total CEC
K Bases H (SUM)
0.08 5.6 16.8 13.8 0
0.10 2.0 19.2 22.4 1
0.07 1.1 7.5 21.2 2
0.06 0.7 5.9 8.6 1
Base
Sat.
Al (%) Ca/Mg
.14 25.1 12.7
.70 9.4 0.8
.62 12.4 0.3
.34 1.34 0



No.
1
2
3
4


Water
5.9
4.8
4.2
4.6
PH
IN 0.01M
KC1 CaCl2
5.0 5.7
4.1 4.7
3.7 4.0
3.9 4.4
Organic

C(%)
0.78
1.80
1.64
0.95
Matter

N(%)
0.058
0.048
0.059
0.026
Clay Minerals (%) of
Fe2t>3
(%) Mont Verm 111
1.2 10 15 30
1.7 10 40
1.6 tr 5 50
2.2 10 40
(<0.002 mm material)

Kaol Int Qtz
40 tr 5
45 5
45 tr
50

-------
TABLE B-13.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 7
Coarse Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-154
Horizon
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4




76- 19-
>76 19 4.7
21.3 47
9.0 19
36 . 7 30
25.5 45
17
45
.0 9.3
. 6 16. 5
.0 14.4
.0 14.2
.7 40.7
.6 24.8
4.7-
2.0
4.6
9.0
5.3
4.2
7.6
10.5
Textural
Total Total
Wt . Vol . Lab
82
54
86
88
66
80
.2 33.97 L
.1
.4
.9
.0
.9
SL
SL
COSL
COSL
COSL
Class
Field
VSHL
VSHSL
VSHSL
VSHLS

VSHLS
Total
Bulk
Density
(g/cm3)
2.21






Particle Size


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

2.0-
1.0
9.8
6.6
13.3
18.1
18.9
22.1

1.0-
0.5
7.5
6.5
10.3
11.6
14.7
19.7

0.5-
0.25
14.3
19.9
12.7
13.7
14.5
12.5
Sand
0.25-
0.10
9.4
13.5
9.8
8.9
10.2
6.8

0.10- 0
0.07 0
6.3
3.8
3.6
5.6
4.2
1.9
Distribution (mm) (% <2 mm)

.07-
.05
4.4
3.3
3.8
3.6
3.2
1.5

0.
0.
20
19
19
17
15
16
Silt
02- 0
002 0
.3
.2
.7
.3
.3
.8
Sand
.005- 2.0-
.002 0.05
7.5 51.7
7.0 53.6
7.0 53.5
6.0 61.4
5.5 65.7
6.1 64.6
Silt
0.05-
0.002
31.9
28.9
32.7
28.1
25.5
26.1
Clay
<
0.002
16.4
17.5
13.8
10.5
8.8
9.3

o 	 	
Moisture (%)
Retained
Bulk Density (g/cmJ)
1/3 Atm Moisture

No.
1
Entire
Clod
1.81
<2mm in
Clods
1.
6
Dry
<2mm in
Clods
1.67
>2mm in COLE
Clods
2.42
<2mm
0.015


1/3 Atm 15
Entire
Clod
10.8
Atm
<2mm in <2mm Wt.
Clods Sieved (%)
16.5
6.6 1.8
at
1/3 to
15 Atm
cm/ cm
of Soil
0.039
                        112

-------
                           TABLE B-14.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 7
u>

Extractable Cations (Meq/100 g <2 mm

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-154


Horizon






Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4

Ca Mg
0 0.5
0 0.8
0 1.5
0.4 0.8
0 0.5
0 0.6

Na
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05

K
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
Total
Bases H
0.6 12
0.9 12
2.0 14
0.9 15
0.6 11
0.6 20
material)
CEC
(SUM)
.7
.7
.3
.2
.8
.5
13.
13.
16.
16.
12.
21.
3 3
6 3
3 2
1 2
4 2
1 1
Al
.61
.11
.62
.76
.12
.84

Sat.
(%) Ca/Mg
4.4 0
6.7 0
12.4 0.3
5.3 0
4.9 0
3.1 0



No.
1
2
3
4
5
6


Water
4.4
4.4
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.6
pH
IN
KC1
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.1

0.01M
CaCl2
4.2
4.3
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.5
Organic

C(%)
4.37
2.49
6.88
11.40
19.90
22.83
Matter

N(%)
0.110
0.059
0.185
0.285
0.576
0.644

Fe203
(%)
2.3
2.2
2.3
1.9
2.4
3.1
Clay

Mont
tr
5
tr
5
5
5
Minerals









Verm
10
10
5
5
10
5
(%) of

111
40
40
45
40
40
40
(<0.002

Kaol
50
45
45
45
40
40
mm material)

Int Qtz
tr
tr
5
5
5
10

-------
                 TABLE B-15.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 8
Coarse Fragment Distribution
(mm) (%)

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
cm
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
76- 19- 4.7-
Horizon >76
AC 26.7
Cl 44.3
C2 41.6
C3 31.7
C4 14.2
C5 22.0
19 4
23.7 13
12.2 14
20.0 15
25.4 18
29.7 22
22.0 21
.7 2.0
.3 4.1
.7 5.3
.4 4.0
.2 6.0
.1 5.6
.0 4.8
Total
Wt.
67.8
76.5
81.0
81.4
71.6
69.9
Total
Vol.






Textural
Total
Bulk
Class Density
Lab
SL
SL
L
L
L
L
Field
VSHSL
VSHSL
VSHSL
VSHSL
VSHL
VSHLS
(g/cm3)
*






Particle Size Distribution


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

2.0-
1.0
4.0
9.7
8.8
10.6
9.3
5.9
Sand
1.0- 0.5- 0.25-
0.5 0.25 0.10
5.3 21.5 17.5
8.1 16.3 8.5
7.5 14.8 9.2
8.7 12.8 5.9
7.8 13.4 10.9
5.1 11.8 11.8
(mm) (%
Silt
0.10-
0.07
4.4
8.3
6.8
8.2
3.5
2.9
0.07-
0.05
2.3
3.7
3.5
3.7
3.0
3.6
0.02-
0.002
22.8
21.3
23.7
24.7
27.0
31.1
0.005-
0.002
7.3
7.2
6.0
7.6
8.7
8.7
<2 mm)
Sand
2.0-
0.05
55.1
54.8
50.6
50.0
48.0
41.1

Silt
0.05-
0.002
35.1
33.1
37.1
38.9
41.7
46.5

Clay
<
0.002
9.8
12.1
12.3
11.1
10.3
12.4
No clods were obtained  from  this profile.
                                           114

-------
TABLE B-16.  CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PIT 8

Extractable Cations (Meq/100 g <2 mm material)


No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

Depth
cm
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183




Horizon Ca
AC
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
2.4
1.0
0.2
0.1
0
0


Mg
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5


Na
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07


K
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.09

Total CEC
Bases H (SUM)
3.3 4.0 7.3
2.0 18.8 20.8
0.9 11.2 12.1
0.7 13.0 13.7
0.6 13.3 13.9
0.6 19 . 2 19 . 8


Al
.14
1.91
2.62
2.76
3.61
5.09
Base
Sat.
f °/ \
\/o /
45.2
9.4
7.4
5.2
4.5
3.2


Ca/Mg
3.4
1.3
0.3
0.2
0
0



No.
1
2
3
4
5
6


Water
5.9
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.6
PH
IN
KC1
5.0
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0

0.01M
CaCl2
5.8
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.4
Organic

C(%)
0.69
0.53
2.85
2.76
3.00
2.74
Matter

N(%)
0.050
0.070
0.112
0.075
0.101
0.112

Fe2°3
(%)
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
Clay Minerals (%) of

Mont Verm 111
5 30 20
5 10 45
10 15 35
5 15 35
5 20 35
10 15 30
(<0.002

Kaol
35
40
40
40
35
40
mm material)

Int







Qtz
10

tr
5
5
5

-------
                        APPENDIX C
ORGANIC CARBON (WALKLEY-BLACK) VALUES FOR SELECTED HORIZONS
                          116

-------
TABLE C-l.  ORGANIC CARBON OF SELECTED HORIZONS DETERMINED
               BY THE WALKLEY-BLACK METHOD

Pit

1

2
3

4


5





6



7





8





Depth
cm
0-3
3-10
0-10
0-15
15-43
0-8
74-94
125-183
0-20
20-36
36-56
56-74
74-114
114-152
0-13
13-28
28-53
53-84
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-157
0-18
18-36
36-58
58-102
102-145
145-183
Horizon

Al
A2
Al
Al
A2
Al
B23t
IIIC2
Ap
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Ap
AC
Cl
C2
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
AC
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Organic
Carbon
%
6.978
0.958
3.063
1.770
0.877
1.742
0.672
1.620
0.182
0.565
0.596
0.562
0.593
0.485
0.729
0.973
0.820
0.442
2.026
1.214
2.158
2.326
2.691
2.612
0.933
1.170
1.276
1.103
1.516
2.589
                          117

-------
                        APPENDIX D
SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR PEDONS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX A
                          118

-------
                                  TABLE D-l.   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT I
VO

Horizon
Fraction
nun
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
> 254
Al


7.37
14.67
35.25
50.07
52.30
54.68
62.13
67.28
71.12
76.80
85.30
89.40
100


A2


8.92
16.46
34.45
48.22
50.07
52.22
60.06
66.14
69.68
76.90
87.90
94.40
100


B21
W f J-__
A rinsr
9.56
17.56
28.68
38.04
39.94
41.84
49.43
56.21
59.94
67.80
79.70
88.50
100


B22t
,
by wGlgnt
9.32
16.32
28.35
35.96
37.55
39.27
46.41
53.68
58.51
66.10
81.90
92.80
100


B3t


6.52
12.82
20.12
23.06
24.51
28.02
40.27
53.47
55.09
55.70
65.70
75.00
100


C


6.01
13.11
16.86
15.98
17.22
18.63
30.18
40.11
41.64
42.60
47.80
70.50
100



-------
TABLE D-2.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT 2

Fraction
mm
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
g 2.0
4.7
19
76
254
>254

Al

8.22
14.52
28.28
35.45
36.50
40.11
44.72
55.16
57.03
58.30
60.80
77.60
100



B21

8.60
12.90
25.86
32.77
34.14
35.76
44.86
57.57
59.81
62.30
69.20
82.00
94.40
100

Horizon
B22
%C J _ _ — t 	 	 J __1_ j_
r iner oy weignc
8.08
12.52
25.97
32.14
33.37
34.91
43.36
56.26
59.22
61.70
67.50
82.00
95.20
100


B23

7.68
12.44
23.33
32.02
33.39
38.98
42.97
54.75
57.55
59.50
66.50
78.50
100



C

5.53
8.53
18.63
27.97
29.65
31.71
39.41
50.68
52.90
54.20
60.50
72.30
100



-------
TABLE D-3.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT 3
Fraction
mm
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
> 254

Al

6.82
10.32
18.29
23.43
27.20
30.74
33.27
38.05
4.1.51
44.30
38.00
83.00
100



A2 .

8.18
13.84
27.00
35.24
37.02
38.87
47.17
57.01
59.29
61.50
71.30
86.20
100



Bl

7.02
11.06
22.18
30.36
32.13
33.84
42.41
51.20
53.63
55.30
63.70
71.90
99.9
100

Horizon
Bxlt
% finer by weight
7.21
10.64
20.92
28.48
29.84
31.50
37.55
45.06
47.33
50.40
60.40
78.60
100.1



Bx2t

11.56
15.56
29.59
39.12
40.45
41.91
49.09
57.54
60.46
63.50
75.80
87.70
100



Bx3t

14.20
19.53
37.42
47.85
49.27
53.67
57.58
66.10
68.87
71.00
84.50
92.50
100



Bx4t

8.89
12.88
23.89
31.31
32.62
33.83
39.08
45.34
48.07
50.50
59.50
83.60
100



-------
                                  TABLE D-4.  PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR  PIT  4
N>

Fraction
mm
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
> 254

Al

10.74
18.09
37.86
48.96
50.34
52.32
54.56
59.37
62.07
65.90
85.10
97.70
99.90



A2

11.16
18.71
38.06
47.99
49.67
50.89
53.86
58.25
61.28
64.50
85.90
97.60
100



B21t

11.78
18.95
35.40
47.51
48.76
49.88
52.97
57.45
60.93
65.80
88.00
98.90
99.90


Horizon
B22t
% finer by weight
10.89
15.24
29.93
39.47
41.00
42.41
45.90
50.92
56.30
61.20
85.00
97.20
99.90



B23t

9.69
13.23
28.56
40.61
42.44
47.16
47.62
48.27
54.10
65.50
88.90
99.50
100



IIC1

6.95
12.87
27.04
39.56
42.44
45.96
53.87
60.68
65.50
68.80
80.70
95.50
100



IIIC2

16.16
25.57
29.79
51.01
52.70
53.35
54.77
57.08
61.07
64.90
84.70
100




-------
                                  TABLE D-5.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT  5
to
LO
Horizon
Fraction
mm
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
> 254
Ap


5.80
7.15
13.70
19.43
20.78
23.17
28.47
32.42
34.17
35.60
44.30
55.20
66.70
100

Cl


1.85
2.36
4.07
5.95
6.46
7.04
9.37
12.88
14 . 16
15.40
20.00
30.20
56.10
100

C2
%f -! «»•>•••
liner
2.13
2.76
4.77
7.65
8.28
9.68
11.97
16.81
18.63
20.30
26.80
43.80
80.70
83.44
16.56
C3

by weight 	 "
2.55
3.31
5.35
7.78
8.54
9.47
12.35
17.03
18.74
20,60
24.30
37.60
67.80
73.20
26.8
C4


2.61
3.36
5.56
7.37
8.14
8.78
11.84
16.44
17,95
19.60
22.90
32.80
70.50
100

C5


1.32
1.62
2.53
3.54
3.84
4.28
5.86
8.38
9.13
10.00
12.90
21.00
67.80
100


-------
                                 TABLE D-6.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT 6
S3

Fraction
ram
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
>254

AP


4.46
5.53
9.94
13.99
15.06
16.92
20.99
24.16
25.47
26.70
29.00
37.70
47.90
100


AC


4.62
5.66
4.34
13.59
14.62
15.63
19.39
24.74
26.93
28.90
36.60
56.40
93.00
100

Horizon
Cl

finsr by wsignt
3.15
3.87
6.15
8.55
9.28
10.89
12.61
17.20
18.96
20.70
24.20
40.90
78.40
100.1


C2


0.95
1.18
1.76
2.41
2.64
3.11
3.84
5.58
6.31
7.20
8.70
15.70
47.70
59.82
40.18

-------
TABLE D-7.,  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT  7

Horizon
Fraction
mm
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
>254
Apl


2.92
3.70
5.98
8.60
9.38
10.50
12.17
14.72
16.06
17.80
22.40
31.70
78.70
100

Ap2


8.03
9.54
15.14
21.30
22.81
24.56
30.76
39.89
42.87
45.90
54.90
71.40
91.00
91.78
8.22
ci
"/ fjr..
k rint
1.88
2.40
4.13
6.33
6.85
7.34
8.65
10.38
11.78
13.60
18.90
33.30
63.30
73.11
26.89
C2

jr by weight
1.17
1.57
2.82
4.29
4.69
5.31
6.30
7.82
9.11
11.10
15.30
29.50
74.50
76.36
23.64
C3


2.99
4.08
7.41
11.66
12.75
14.18
17.64
22.57
27.57
34.00
41.60
82.30
100


C4


1.78
2.07
4.11
6.65
6.94
7.30
8.60
10.99
14.75
19.10
29.60
54.40
100



-------
TABLE D-8.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR PIT 8

Horizon
Fraction
mm
0.002
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
4.7
19
76
254
>254
AC


3.16
3.90
8.89
14.46
15.20
16.62
22.25
29.18
30.88
32.20
36.30
46.90
73.30
100

Cl


2.84
3.71
7.02
10.62
11.49
13.44
15.44
19.27.
21.17
23.50
28.80
43.50
55.70
100

C2
"' f-ir-lf
^ rint
2.34
3.01
6.37
9.39
10.06
11.35
13.10
15.91
17.33
19.00
23.00
33.40
58.40
100

C3

jr by weight
2.07
2.76
5.94
9.31
10.00
11.52
12.62
15.00
16.62
18.60
24.60
42.80
68.20
99.90

C4


2.93
3.78
8.98
14.77
15.62
16.62
19.71
23.52
25.73
28.40
34.00
56.10
85.80
100

C5


3.73
4.81
11.55
17.73
18.81
19.69
23.24
26.79
28.33
30.10
34.90
55.90
77.90
99.90


-------
                        APPENDIX E
MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PEDONS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX A
                           127

-------
                                      TABLE E-l.  MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS  FOR PIT  1
S3
c»

Matric Potential (cm
Depth Horizon
cm
0-3 Al
3-10 A2
10-41 B21
41-74 B22t
74-109 B23t
109-176 C
0

.9315*
.7218
.4372
.3427
.3839
.2694
.3604
.2478
.3582
.2120
.3531
.1666
-10

.8581
.6655
.4017
.3154
.3512
.2472
.3220
.2224
.3297
.1961
.3230
.1537
-20

.8551
.6632
.3808
.2993
.3168
.2239
.3179
.2197
.3048
.1822
.3006
.1442
-40

.8275
.6420
.3699
.2909
.2685
.1911
.2980
.2065
.2780
.1673
.2830
.1367
-60

.7833
.6080
,3495
.2752
.2387
.1709
.2713
.1889
.2651
.1601
.2695
.1310
-80

g/g
.7450
.5786
.3322
.2619
.2279
.1636
.2542
.1776
.2458
.1494
.2483
.1219
of water)
-100

.6585
.5122
.3031
.2395
.2241
.1610
.2349
.1648
.2250
.1378
.2222
.1108
-150

.6266
.4877
.2963
.2343
.2086
.1505
.2294
.1612
.2180
.1339
.2115
.1062
-240

.6050
.4711
.2884
.2282
.2071
.1495
-
.2107
.1248
.1959
.0996
-330

.5739
.4472
.2788
.2208
.2026
.1465
.2156
.1521


-1000

.5180
.4043
.2607
.2069
.1977
.1431
.2153
.1519



        Uncorrected.
        Corrected for coarse fragments.

-------
                                     TABLE E-2.  MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS  FOR PIT  2
N>
VO

Matric Potential (cm of water)
Depth Horizon
cm
0-10 Al
10-33 B21
33-51 B22
51-71 B23
71-74 C
0

•7963*
.4760T
.4400
.2847
.4232
.2717
.3899
.2433
.3354
.1946
-10

.7506
.4493
.4118
.2671
.4097
.2633
.3701
.2316
.3297
.1915
-20

.6808
.4087
.3691
.2405
.3794
.2446
.3442
.2161
.3113
.1816
-40

.6071
.3657
.3280
.2149
.3334
.2163
.2982
.1888
.2902
.1701
-60

.5713
.3448
.2998
.1973
.3062
.1995
.2743
.1746
.2744
.1616
-80

g/g
.5255
.3181
.2709
.1793
.2887
.1887
.2585
.1652
.2629
.1553
-100

.4594
.2796
.2565
.1703
.2659
.1746
.2498
.1600
.2457
.1460
-150

.4426
.2698
.2478
.1649
.2476
.1633
.2249
.1452
.2323
.1388
-240

.4265
.2604
.2377
.1586
.2398
.1585
.2111
.1370
.2194
.1318
-330



.2100
.1401
.1671
.1108
.1929
.1174
-1000



.1982
.1328
.1481
.0995
.1817
.1113

        Uncorracted.
        Corrected for coarse  fragments.

-------
                                        TABLE E-3.   MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PIT 3
CO
o

Depth Horizon
cm
0-15 Al
15-43 A2
43-66 Bl
66-91 Exit
91-117 Bx2t
117-135 Bx3t
135-167+ Bx4t
0

.3595*
.1749T
.4623
.2952
.3965
.2318
.3994
.2152
.4133
.2769
.4023
.2938
.3436
.1875
-10

.3465
.1691
.4164
.2669
.3449
.2033
.3540
.1924
.3794
.2512
.3785
.2769
.3131
.1721
-20

.3186
.1568
.3854
.2479
.3239
.1917
.3326
.1816
.3569
.2369
.3611
.2645
.2999
.1654
-40

.2845
.1417
.3460
.2236
.2943
.1753
.3019
.1661
.3207
.2139
.3144
.2314
.2582
.1443
-60

.2659
.1334
.3288
.2131
.2763
.1653
.2777
.1539
.2978
.1994
.2965
.2187
. 2402
.1353
-80

g/8
.2535
.1280
.3092
.2010
.2608
.1568
.2629
.1465
.2801
.1881
.2789
.2062
.2259
.1280
-100

.2416
.1227
.2982
.1942
.2477
.1495
.2538
.1419
.2707
.1821
.2654
.1966
.2201
.1251
-150

.2290
.1171
.2850
.1861
.2225
.1430
.2384
.1341
.2576
.1738
.2524
.1874
.2113
.1207
-240

.2199
.1131
.2740
.1794
.2225
.1356
.2220
.1258
.2460
.1665
.2290
.1707
.1834
.1066
-330

.1913
.1004
.2580
. 1695
.2089
.1281
.2076
.1186
.2354
.1597
.1841
.1389
.1436
.0856
-1000

.1797
.0953
.2497
.1644
.1939
.1198
.1974
.1134
.2229
.1518
.1764
.1334
.1285
.0788

         Uncorrected.
         Corrected for coarse fragments.

-------
                              TABLE  E-4.  MOISTURE  CHARACTERISTICS  FOR PIT  4

Matric Potential (cm of water)
Depth Horizon
cm
0-8 Al
8-20 A2
20-48 B21t
48-74 B22t
74-94 B23t
94-125 IIC1
125-183+ IIIC2
0

*
.4715
.3203T
.3554
.2392
.4184
.2849
.4089
.2611
.3992
.2711
.4753
.3358
.3797
.2563
-10

.4246
.2894
.3263
.2204
.3790
.2589
.3721
.2386
.3533
.2411
.4229
.2997
.3204
.2178
-20

.3834
.2622
.3073
.2082
.3577
.2449
.3469
.2232
.3297
.2256
.4125
.2926
.3037
.2070
-40

.3197
.2202
.2733
.1862
.3098
.2134
.2997
.1943
.2927
.2014
.3826
.2720
.2736
.1874
-60

.2969
.2052
.2573
.1759
.2925
.2020
.2840
.1847
.2789
.1923
.3625
.2582
.2602
.1787
-80
.
g/g
.2838
.1966
.2494
.1708
.2780
.1925
.2819
.1833
.2642
.1827
.3471
.2476
.2511
.1728
-100

.2777
.1926
.2445
.1677
.2735
.1895
.2645
.1727
.2549
.1766
.3376
.2410
.2431
.1676
-150

.2703
.1877
.2376
.1632
.2669
.1852
.2603
.1702
.2502
.1735
.3342
.2387
.2255
.1562
-240

.2480
.1730
.2277
.1568
.2457
.1712
.2384
.1568
.2244
.1593
.3118
.2233
.2135
.1484
-330

.2253
.1580
.1940
.1351
.2344
.1638
.2316
.1526
.2108
.1477
.3038
.2178
.1912
.1339
-1000

.2153
.1514
.1887
.1317
.2301
.1610
.2205
.1458
.1997
.1405
.2901
.2083
.1826
.1284

 Uncorrected
t
 Corrected for coarse fragments.

-------
                                     TABLE E-5.  MOISTURE  CHARACTERISTICS  FOR PIT  5
u>

Depth Horizon
cm
0-20 Ap
20-36 Cl
36-56 C2
56-74 C3
74-114 C4
114-152 C5
0

.4205*
.1678T
.3271
.0734
.3267
.0888
.3483
.0931
.3588
.0966
.3308
.0584
-10

.3494
.1425
.2856
.0678
.2786
.0790
.2828
.0798
.3009
.0846
.2771
.0531
-20

.3337
.1369
.2727
.0658
.2650
.0762
.2696
.0771
.2848
.0813
.2636
.0517
-40

.2975
.1241
.2337
.0598
.2249
.0681
.2289
.0688
.2395
.0720
.2231
.0477
-60

.2766
.1166
.2208
.0579
.2158
.0663
.2141
.0658
.2189
.0677
.2098
.0463
-80
_/_ „
8/g
.2650
.1125
.2128
.0566
.2017
.0634
-
-
-
-100

.2569
.1096
.2098
.0562
.1989
.0628
.1999
.0629
.2017
.0642
.1934
.0447
-150

.2265
.0988
.1890
.0530
.1799
.0590
.1792
.0593
.1823
.0602
.1783
.0432
-240

.2122
.0937
.1715
.0503
.1686
.0567
.1772
.0589
.1790
.0595
.1724
.0426
-330

.1797
.0821
.1452
.0462
.1396
.0508
.1684
.0570
.1685
.0574
.1582
.0412
-1000

.1667
.0775
.1370
.0449
.1338
.0496
.1621
.0557
.1634
.0563
.1510
.0405

        Uncorrected.
       t
        Corrected  for  coarse  fragments.

-------
                                     TABLE E-6.   MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PIT 6
M
10

Matric Potential (cm of water)
Depth Horizon
cm
0-13 Ap
13-28 AC
28-53 Cl
53-84 C2
0

*
.4250
.1341
.3457
.1200
.3409
.0929
.2921
.0472
-10

.3777
.1215
.2900
.1039
.2852
.0814
.2270
.0425
-20

.3577
.1162
.2716
.0985
.2801
.0803
.2255
.0424
-40

.3115
.1038
.2343
.0878
.2564
.0754
.1930
.0400
-60

.2892
.0979
.2081
.0802
.2193
.0677
.1690
.0383
-80

8/g
.1983
.0774
.2084
.0647
.1492
.0369
-100

.2687
.0924
.1930
.0758
.1999
.0637
.1426
.0364
-150

.2331
.0829
.1816
.0725
.1780
.0592
.1312
.0356
-240

.2273
.0813
.1678
.0685
.1483
.0530
.1201
.0348
-330

.2155
.0782
.1632
.0672
.1290
.0491
.1133
.0343
-1000

.1956
.0729
.1524
.0641
.1207
.0473
.1017
.0335

        Corrected for coarse fragments.

-------
                                     TABLE E-7.  MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PIT 7
to

Matric Potential (cm of water)
Depth
cm
0-10
10-31
31-51
51-66
66-127
127-154
Horizon
Apl
Ap2
Cl
C2
C3
C4
0

.3087*
.1114T
.3309
.1890
.3815
.1112
.3680
.1019
.3574
.1668
.4057
.1331
-10

.2668
.1039
.2954
.1727
.3092
.1014
.3034
.0947
.2905
.1440
.3066
.1142
-20

.2568
.1022
.2779
.1647
.2972
.0998
.2970
.0940
.2724
.1379
.2764
.1084
-40

.2328
.0979
.2498
.1518
.2525
.0937
.2509
.0889
.2162
.1188
.2314
.0998
-60

.2007
.0922
.2134
.1351
.2244
.0899
.2156
.0850
.1794
.1062
.2073
.0952
-80
.
g/g
.1930
.0908
.2005
.1292
.2084
.0877
.1924
.0824
.1679
.1023
.1920
.0923
-100

.1876
.0898
.1946
.1265
.1999
.0865
.1875
.0819
.1610
.1023
.1770
.0894
-150

.1786
.0882
.1900
.1244
.1865
.0847
.1774
.0807
.1466
.0951
.1559
.0850
-240

.1677
.0863
.1815
.1205
.1749
.0831
.1587
.0787
.1365
.0917
.1361
.0816
-330

.1661
.0860
.1772
.1185
.1769
.0834
.1573
.0785
.1305
.0896
.1170
.0779
-1000

.1544
.0839
.1641
.1125
.1615
.0813
.1440
.0770
.1241
.0874
.1071
.0761

        Uncorrected.
       t
        Corrected for coarse fragments.

-------
                                      TABLE E-8.   MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PIT 8
OJ

Matric Potential (cm of water)
Depth Horizon
cm
0-18 AC
18-36 Cl
36-58 C2
58-102 C3
102-145 C4
145-183 C5
0

•4277*
.18431"
.3912
.1445
.3969
.1310
.3779
.1262
.3054
.1359
.4418
.1810
-10

.3954
.1739
.3558
.1362
.3621
.1244
.3503
.1211
.2953
.1331
.3943
.1667
-20

.3523
.1600
.3261
.1292
.3276
.1179
.3206
.1155
.2775
.1280
.3556
.1550
-40

.3102
.1465
.2899
.1207
.2890
.1105
.2835
.1086
.2507
.1204
.3398
.1503
-60

.2921
.1406
.2676
.1155
.2708
.1071
.2692
.1060
.2352
.1160
.3022
.1390
-80

g/g
.2757
.1354
.2515
.1117
.2592
.1048
.2569
.1037
.2240
.1128
.2843
.1336
-100

.2559
.1290
.2349
.1078
.2386
.1009
.2421
.1009
.2123
.1094
.2704
.1293
-150

.2403
.1240
.2085
.1016
.2192
.0973
.2278
.0983
.2003
.1061
.2607
.1265
-240

.2313
.1211
.1993
.0994
.2025
.0941
.2212
.0970
.1963
.1050
.2561
.1251
-330

.2209
.1177
.1612
.0900
.1927
.0922
.2078
.0946
.1906
.1033
.2521
.1239
-1000

.2053
.1127
.1538
.0887
.1771
.0892
.1876
.0908
.1833
.1013
.2450
.1217

        Uncorrected.
        Corrected for coarse fragments.

-------
    APPENDIX F
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
        136

-------
TABLE F-l.  METEOROLOGICAL DATA
DATE
MO DAY YR
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6



24
1
3
4
7
9
14
18
21
23
24
26
28
30



76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76



TIME
OF
OBS
EST
9:10
13:00
12:00
10:30
10:30
12:00
9:00
9:30
8:20
9:15
10:20
13:10
9:30
8:55



AIR TEMP °C
MAX
MIN
OBS
HYGROTHERMOGRAPH
TA
°C

26.7
23.9
18.3
21.7
23.9
29.4
30.0
30.6
27.8
27.2
28.3
27.2
30.6
29.4



1.1
0.6
5.6
5.6
6.7
10.6
10.0
11.7
14.4
17.2
16.1
15.0
14.4
15.6



13.3
17.8
20.0
17.2
20.6
26.7
21.7
21.1
19.4
24.4
26.1
26.7
29.4
18.3



13.9
17.2
17.8
20.0
18.3
26.7
22.8
21.1
20.6
23.9
25.6
26.7
25.6
19.4



RH
%
54
100
48
42
88
46
100
81
100
72
58
41
60
100



MAX
TA °C

25.6
22.8
21.1
23.3
26.7
28.3
26.1
26.7
25.0
27.8
26.1
27.2
30.6
30.6



MIN
TA °C

2.2
4.4
6.7
6.1
11.7
12.2
13.3
11.7
15.0
17.2
16.1
15.0
16.1
16.7



A PAH
WATER TEMP °C
MAX
35
26.7
24.4
26.7
27.8
31.7
31.1
31.1
29.4
30.0
32.2
32.8
32.8
32.2



MIN
-0.6
4.4
7.8
5.0
7.8
10.6
10.6
13.9
16.1
17.2
17.2
14.4
13.9
15.6



OBS
12.2
15.6
18.9
14.4
—
26.7
21.7
19.4
17.8
23.9
26.7
32.2
23.3
17.2



EVAP
LITERS

21.0


17.4

48.8

-85,6



0




ONE
METER
WIND
KM/HR

3.48
12.24
3.54
4.24
4.84
7.78
6.61
6.70
4.71
3.96
6.70
4.44
4.60



PPT
CM
0
1.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.81
0
0.51
0
0.38
0.89




-------
                                         TABLE F-l  (continued)
DATE
MO DAY YR
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
1
2
6
7
9
12
13
14
16
19
20
26
30
2
6
18
26
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
TIME
OF
OBS
EST
7:05
9:35
9:25
8:20
8:50
8:45
8:20
8:30
3:55
9.10
9:05
8:20
11:00
13:10
13:30
10:25
10:30
AIR TEMP °C
MAX
MIN
OBS
HYGROTHERMOGRAPH
TA
°C

23.9
20.0
32.8
27.2
23.3
28.3
20.0
21.7
28.9
26.1
27.8
27.8
29.4
25.6
26.7
29.4
30.0
14.4
11.1
11.1
15.6
10.6
9.4
2.8
11.7
14.4
9.4
12.2
6.1
12.2
6.7
6.1
8.9
8.3
15.6
19.4
23.3
17.2
16.7
17.2
16.7
16.7
20.6
22.2
23.9
18.9
23.9
21.7
21.7
21.1
27.2
16.7
19.4
23.9
16.7
16.1
17.2
16.7
16.7
20.0
21.7
23.3
18.3
22.2
22.2
21.7
21.1
27.2
RH
%
88
64
60
100
93
73
67
76
90
59
64
58
86
40
92
50
70
MAX
TA °C

18.9
13.3
31.1
26.7
23.3
19.4
21.1
21.1
25.6
26.7
27.8
26.7
25.0
23.3
23.3
25.6
28.9
MIN
TA °C

13.3
11.7
11.7
16.1
13.3
14.4
12.2
12.2
16.1
12.2
13.3
7.8
17.8
7.8
18.3
10.0
13.3
A PAN
WATER TEMP °C
MAX
23.9
20.6
26.1
30.6
30.0
30.6
17.2
21.1
30.0
27.8
31.1
29.4
32.2
26.7
29.4
30.6
33.3
MIN
12.8
10.6
10.6
16.1
14.4
12.8
11.7
11.7
14.4
10.0
13.9
11.7
12.8
7.2
5.6
9.4
10.6
OBS
13.3
18.9
25.0
16.7
16.1
16.7
14.4
15.6
23.3
18.9
21.1
16.7
22.2
25.6
23.3
19.4
26.7
EVAP
LITERS

8.0
15.5
-14.2
- 1.0
- 6.0

6.8

- 4.7

19.0

19.0
16.0
-27.0
20.0
ONE
METER
WIND
KM/HR
6.53
7.65
3.71
3.43
4.01
4.85
11.02
9.28
4.27
5.86
2.49
6.34
3.89
4.16
3.63
3.78
3.21
PPT
CM
0
0
0
2.16
0.13
0
0
1.52
0.13
0
0
0
0.13
0
0.13
0
0
(continued)

-------
                                         TABLE F-l (continued)
DATE
MO DAY YR
0
9
9
9
9
r>
j
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10


2
7
14
21
24
23
1
5
8
12
15
19
22
26
29


76
76
76
76
Id
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76


TIME
OF
OB'S
EST
9:40
3:50
8:40
12:45
14:00
S:50
10:30
3:50
10:05
8:45
10:30
9:00
10:00
9:20
10:00


AIR TEMP. °C
MAX
MIN
OBS
HYGROTHERMOGRAPH
TA
°C

29.4
25.6
29 . 4
28.3
23.3
13.9
17.2
21.7
20.6
12.8
20.6
22.2
7.8
11.7
5.0


3.3.
2.8
5.0
8.9
—
-11.1
1.7
3.3
8.9
- 3.9
2.2
- 6.1
1.1
- 6.1
- 9.4


14 . 4
16.1
16.1
16.7
15.6
10.6
11.1
10.6
11.1
4.4
19.4
1.1
1.1
1.7
4.4


14.4
16.1
16.1
16.7
16.1
1.1
11.7
11.1
11.7
3.9
19.4
1.1
2.2
2.2
5.0


RH
%
93
60
90
43
39
84
100
94
100
90
37
61
75
64
54


MAX
TA °C

24.4
26.7
28.9
28.9
17.2
19.4
17.8
22.2
16.7
15.6
20.0
22.2
3.3
12.2
11.1


MIN
TA °C

14 . 4
14.4
9.4
9.4
4.4
5.6
3.9
5.0
10.0
1.7
3.9
- 3.9
0.6
- 1.7
- 7.8


A PAN
WATER TEMP °C
MAX
31.1
26.7
30.0
28.9
21.7
21.7
18.9
22.2
21.7
14.4
17.2
21.7
6.1
10.6
6.1


MIN
4.4
4.4
4.4
9.4
1.1
1.7
2.8
6.1
8.9
-1.1
1.7
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-2.2


OBS
15.0
12.8
13.9
18.3
21.7
10.0
10.6
10.0
10.6
1.7
12.8
0
0.6
1.7
-0.6


EVAP
LITERS
22.5
22.3
19.5
34.0
8.7
-25.3
3.8
- 1.9
- 9.0
-52.6
2.9
5.9
-27.2
-29.7
6.1


ONE
METER
WIND
KM/HR
4.64
5.21
4.93
4.52
6.36
3.26
3.70
2.73
5.95
5.91
7.92
6.39
9.33
7.32m
7.44


PPT
CM
1.14
0
1.27
4.45
0
2.79
0.13
0.95
1.27
5.27
0.32
0.3G
3.18
2.87
0


(continued)

-------
                                        TABLE F-l  (continued)
DATE
MO DAY YR
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

2
9
15
22
29
6
13
20
27
3
21
28
2
9
16
23

76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
77
77

TIME
OF
OBS
EST
12:30
9:35
12:25
9:50
9:45
10:10
11:00
10:35
14:40
10:45
9:00
12:00
12:30
10:45
12:05
10:00

AIR TEMP °C
MAX
MIN
OBS
HYGROTHERMOGRAPH
TA
°C

10. C
11.1
5.6
11.7
15.6
—
10.0
11.1
3.9
10.0
- 1.7
-
0
0.6
5.0
12.8

- 5.6
-11.1
- 6.7
-10 . 6
- 7.8
—
-25.6
-15.0
-16.7
-22.8
-29.4
-
-26.1
-21.1
-15.0
-19.4

7.8
- 3.3
1.7
- 3.9
- 4.4
-
- 9.4
12.8
- 9.4
- 7.8
-10.0
-
- 6.1
- 6.1
- 9.4
12.8

5.0
- 2.8
2.2
- 3.3
-4.4
-
-10.0
9.4
10.0
- 7.8
- 8.9
-11.1
-5.6
- 3.3
- 9.4
10.0

RH
%
51
71
56
81
88
-
100
92
60
98
93
94
72
52
54
51

MAX
TA °C

10.6
11.1
6.1
11.7
15.6
1.1
10.0
21.1
10.0
- 2.2
- 1.7
- 1.7
1.1
0.6
10.0
10.0

MIN
TA °C

- 3,9
- 8.9
- 4.4
- 6.1
- 5.0
-15.6
-12.8
-14.4
-13.9
-20.0
-17.8
-23.3
-22.2
-18.9
-12.8
-19.4

A PAN
WATER TEMP °C
MAX
6.7
















MIN
-0.6
















OBS
5.0
















EVAP
LITERS
-10.2
















ONE
METER
WIND
KM/HR
7.65
7.42
7.57
7.80
8.63
8.35
10.07
7.07
9.96
8.87
-
12.83
5.25
10.73
9.65
7.99

PPT
CM
1.22
0.23
0.25
0.13
1.24
0.38
2.92
0.13
0.76
1.24
1.35
-
0.13
0.76
1.19
0.41

(continued)

-------
                                         TABLE F-l  (continued)
DATE
MO DAY YR
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5




1
9
16
23
30
6
13
20
27
5
11
in
24




77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77




TIME
OF
OBS
EST
12:00
9:20
10:50
10:35
11:40
9:45
10:35
9:55
12:50
15:35
11:00
10:15
10:35




AIR TEMP °C
MAX
MIN
OBS
HYGROTHERMOGRAPH
TA
°C

16.1
11.7
20.0
10.0
25.6
26.7
27.2
26.7
26.7
24.4
26.7
30.0
30.0




- 6.1
-19.4
- 2.2
- 6.1
-10.0
- 3.3
-10.6
- 2.2
- 0.6
- 4.4
- 3.9
0
9.4




0
11.7
6.7
2.2
25.6
- 0.6
23.9
15.6
15.0
22.2
15.6
25.6
25.6




0
11.1
6.7
2.2
25.6
0
23.9
15.6
15.6
22.2
16.7
26.1
26.1




RH
%
69
46
58
38
42
84
43
54
36
75
44
58
62




MAX
TA °C

16.1
11.1
19.4
10.0
_
26.7
27.2
26.7
26.7
24.4
26.7
30.0
30.6




MIN
TA °C

- 4.4
- 7.8
0
- 3.3
- 9.4
- 2.2
- 8.9
- 0.6
1.1
- 2.8
1.7
1.1
12.2




A PAH
WATER TEMP °C
MAX










26.1
-
30.6




MIN










- 1.1
-
12.2




OBS










16.7
-
24.4




EVAP
LITERS







27.0
6.8
13.0
22.0
-
24.0




ONE
METER
WIND
KM/HR
11.50
8.50
7.71
11.88
10.96
12.58
9.32
6.08
6.60
6.81
11.06
6.94
4.49




PPT
CM
1.91
3.81
2.79
3.48
1.91
7.37
0
0.20
1.65
1.84
0.25
0
0.57




(continued)

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/7-78-162
                              2.
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
A. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Comparison of  some properties  of minesoils and
  contiguous natural soils
                                       5. REPORT DATE
                                         August  1978 issuing date
                                       6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  Tom A. Pedersen,  Andrew S. Rogowski, and
  Roger Pennock.  Jr.
                                       8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.


                                                      1
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Northeast Watershed Research Center
  USDA-SEA-AR,  110 Research Building A
  University Park, Pennsylvania  16802
                                       10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                         EHA-541
                                       11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                         EPA-IAG-D5-E763
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Research & Development
     Office of Energy,  Minerals & Industry
     Washinaton,  D.C.   20460
                                       13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                         Interim 9/1/75-8/31/77
                                       14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                              EPA-ORD
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
     This project is part of the EPA-planned and coordinated Federal Interagency
     Energy/Environment  R&D  Program.
 16. ABSTRACT
      Four minesoil pits located within the disturbed area and four natural soil pits
 located in adjacent undisturbed areas were described and sampled.  Bulk densities
 were determined at ten randomly located sites.  Microlysimeters were subsequently
 installed at  these sites and  used to determine  saturated hydraulic conductivities
 and evapotranspiration.
      The most prominent feature of the minesoils was their high degree of coarseness
 and their high rock fragment  content.  Roots  tended to concentrate along soil-coarse
 fragment interfaces.  Few roots penetrated the  massive minesoil material in the C
 horizons.
      The weathering of the natural soils has  leached bases from them and significantly
 more extractable aluminum was found in these  soils  than in minesoils.   Organic carbon
 and nitrogen  determinations were affected by  the high content of carboniferous shale
 and coal fragments in the minesoils.  The clay  minerals present in the minesoils had
 not been weathered as much as the clay minerals in  the natural soils.
      Average  bulk density of  the minesoil surface was 1.70 g/cc contrasted with
 1.26 g/cc for adjacent soils.
17.
            (Circle One or More)
            KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
 Ecology
 Environments
 Earth Atmnsprprp	
 (Environmental Engineering*1^
 Geography
   JLimnology
r.enustry
-. Hydrosphere
rustion
Energy Conversion
Physical Chemistry
Materials Handling
Inorganic Chemistry
Organic Chemistry
Chemical Engineering
                                                                          8H
                                                                          48A  48E  48F
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Release  unlimited
                          19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                            unclassified
                                        21. NO. OF PAGES
                                             141
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------