USDA
EPA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Science and Education
Administration
Cooperative Research
Washington DC 20250
CR 3
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/7-79-123
May 1979
Research and Development
Classification of
Coal Surface Mine
Soil Material for
Vegetation
Management and
Soil Water Quality
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports o< 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. "Special1 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-600/7-79-123
May 1979
CLASSIFICATION OF COAL SURFACE MINE SOIL MATERIAL FOR
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND SOIL WATER QUALITY
by
E. S. Lyle, Jr., Paul A. Wood, and B. F. Hajek, Jr.
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Department of Forestry and Department of Agronomy and Soils
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36830
SEA-CR IAG No. D6-E762
Project Officer
Ronald D. Hill
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This study was conducted
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC 20250
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
The views and conclusions contained in this report are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official
policies or recommendations of the Science and Education Administration-
Cooperative Research, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on
our health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.
This report discusses the classification of five Alabama minesoil
classes. Based on the characteristics of these minesoils, limestone and
fertilizer recommendations are made. In addition a method of calculating
the potential erodibility of Alabama minesoils is presented. This report
should be of interest to those persons planning mine land reclamation projects
in Alabama and other states that have similar minesoils. The method
developed for predicting erosion should be of assistance to those developing
erosion control system and evaluating the impacts of surface mining on
water quality.
Further information may be obtained from the Resource Extraction
and Handling Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
An Alabama minesoil classification system was developed based on soil
texture, soil color value and soil pH. Only five different soil classes
were found in this study. However, the classification scheme allows for the
inclusion of any minesoil that occurs on the basis of its texture, color
value and pH.
Limestone and fertilizer recommendations are given for soils of the five
minesoil classes. Research evidence showed that the limestone recommenda-
tions will maintain a pH favorable to plant growth and surface soil water
quality for a period of at least one year. The scope of this project did not
allow determination of water quality where the water had leached downward
through the minesoil. The recommended fertilizer rates should supersede
those of a soil testing laboratory if the laboratory recommends lesser amounts
of fertilizer. Also, the recommended rates can be used if soil test recom-
mendations are unavailable.
A method of calculating the potential erodability of Alabama minesoils,
by use of a modified form of the Wischmeier universal soil loss equation, is
described and potential erodabi1ities are calculated for several minesoils.
Also, a method of estimating yearly soil loss from Alabama minesotls is des-
cribed and the soil losses to be expected from selected Alabama minesoils
are calculated. These minesoil erosion prediction methods can be used to
help prevent excessive sedimentation of fluvial systems, to simplify the task
of surface mine reclamation and to reduce the costs of reclamation. Both of
the methods described can be used anywhere for soil erosion predictions by
following the methods described and developing applicable equation factors.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgments viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 6
4. Materials and Methods 9
Minesoil selection and collection 9
Minesoil analysis ... 9
Experimental plantings 11
Field plantings 11
Greenhouse planting 14
Liming effects 14
Erosion 18
5. Results and Discussion 22
Minesoil classification ... 22
Minesoil analysis 22
Light and dark colored minesoil
comparisons 22
Light colored minesoil
characteristics 22
Dark colored minesoil characteristics. 25
Subdivision of the dark colored
basic minesoils 28
Subdivision of the dark colored
acid minesoils 28
Vegetation production 29
1977 plantings 29
1978 plantings 29
Greenhouse planting 33
Liming effects 33
Erosion 36
Relative Erodability Index 36
Soil loss prediction 38
Bibliography 41
-------
FIGURES
Number
Nomograph for determination of soil erodabllity
factor K (10)
Amounts of rock mulch required to provide a VM
value of 0.01 at varying RKLS values (5) 21
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Minimum initial limestone and fertilizer recommendations
for forage crops grown on the indicated Alabama mine-
so i 1 classes .................................................. 7
2 Locality number, name of mine and Alabama location of
minesoils studied in this project ............................. 10
3 Limestone added and soil cover obtained on spring 1977
plots [[[ 12
*» Soil amendments and seed applied to spring 1978 plots ......... 13
5 Soil analyses and amendments for minesoils used in green-
house exper } ment .............................................. 15
6 Amount of rock retained and passed by a 2.51* cm x 2.5** cm
(1 in. x 1 in.) mesh screen ................................... 17
7 Mean values for chemical and physical properties of eleven
Alabama minesol Is...., ........................................ 2k
8 Comparisons of nine minesoil characteristics among eight
minesoi Is [[[ 26
9 Comparisons of five minesoil characteristics among eight
minesoil s [[[ 27
10 Percent of soil surface covered by vegetation seven weeks
after germination (1977 plantings) ............................ 30
11 Mean values for percent of soil surface covered and ovendry
yield of forage six months after sowing (1978 planting) ....... 31
12 The effect of limestone and fertilizers on ovendry yield
of two forage crop combinations grown in a greenhouse ......... 34
13 Changes in soil water pH with time for limed and unlimed
minesoils [[[ 35
14 Soil factors and Relative Erodability Index (REl) for
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Drummond Company of Jasper, Alabama provided equipment and assis-
tance in establishing field plantings. The assistance of Mr. Dwfght R. Hicks
of The Drummond Company is recognized in particular. This help is gratefully
acknowledged.
Dr. Stanley P. Wilson, Associate Director of the Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station served as Project Officer for the experiment station. Dr.
E51 if V. Miller of Cooperative Research, United States Department of Agricul-
ture served as coordinator for the project.
viii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Well over 405,000 hectares (1 million acres) have been surface mined for
coal in 29 of the United States. This acreage is being increased at a rapid
rate as the nation develops a greater need for the energy provided by coal.
This is a small amount of land when the country is considered in its entir-
ety, but since the coal is concentrated in relatively small areas the effects
of surface mining in these restricted areas become disturbing. However, de-
trimental effects of surface mining can be prevented or alleviated if known
reclamation techniques are applied and research keeps pace as new information
is needed.
Surface mine reclaimers often approach their job with little information
about the minesoil to be vegetated. They have developed standard techniques
and plants that they tend to use indiscriminately on all minesoils regardless
of the differing minesoil characteristics. Operational reclamationists do
practically all planting without the preliminary surveys that would assure
the success of their plantings. Most of the past revegetation of surface
mines in Alabama has been with pine trees. Pines provide a future source of
income from the mined areas but they do not provide erosion control immedi-
ately after mining when it is most needed. There has been no attempt to
classify minesoils for planting pines because most of the older minesoils
are more or less acid and pines usually survive and grow well. However, many
of the recent mines are producing neutral or alkaline minesoils and pines do
not survive or grow well on these minesoils.
Previous research in Alabama indicated that a minesoil classification
system was feasible and desirable. The minesoils appeared to group them-
selves into classes with differing characteristics affecting plant establish-
ment and growth. Experiments and ongoing reclamation have shown that the
detrimental minesoil characteristics can be ameliorated by cultural treat-
ments such as the application of limestone, fertilizers, discing and mulching.
Of course, none of these cultural treatments avail when weather extremes
occur. This point has been difficult for many people to accept if they have
not had experience in the production of field crops.
Under present state and federal laws, minesoils must be stabilized
quickly with grasses and legumes. These crops require more planning and soil
treatment than the past pine tree crops. The purpose of the research work
described in this report was to characterize and classify those features of
coal surface mines in Alabama that could affect plant establishment, plant
growth and soil water quality. It is believed that the classification sys-
tem developed in this study can be used to predict cultural treatments neces-
sary for plant production on coal surface mines. The use of this system
could save millions of dollars in reclamation costs and promote faster and
-------
more complete revegetation. This promotion of revegetation would mean less
minesoil erosion and stream sedimentation. Another benefit from erosion
control by vegetation is the lowered cost of sediment pond maintenance.
Quick and complete revegetation would reduce the amount of soil material
moving into sediment ponds and the ponds would not have to be cleaned as
often. Finally, a successful revegetation operation means the return of
lands to continuing economic returns for the good of the local and national
economy.
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS
Light colored minesoils (Munsel 1 color value of the soil sized fraction
> k when moist) of Alabama are similar in a majority of their physical and
chemical characteristics. Therefore, they have been grouped as a single
minesoil class in this study.
The dark colored minesoils (Munsel1 color value < k when moist) had sev-
eral differing characteristics and were divided into four classes according
to groupings of characteristics. After comparing the chemical and physical
properties of these minesoils it was obvious that they could be divided into
an acid group and a neutral or alkaline group. These two broad groups were
further separated into two sub-groups on the basis of soil characteristics
and vegetation management practices.
The minesoil classification scheme developed in this study is shown on
the following page. The actual classes that were found in this study are
underlined. It is possible that more classes of minesoil will be found in
Alabama. Therefore, .the entire classification scheme is shown and any new
minesoils can be given the appropriate designation.
The necessity for limestone when revegetating minesoil classes IIB2 and
IIA2 was demonstrated in a field experiment and the need on class MA1 mine-
soils by a greenhouse experiment. Fertilizer recommendations from the soil
testing laboratory as used in this study were found to be adequate except in
the case of phosphorous. Phosphorous in high pH Alabama minesoils (classes
IA4 and IIA4) is plentiful according to the usual soil test but apparently
unavailable to plants according to field tests.
The pH of some class IIA1 minesoils can be increased and maintained for
at least one year by the application of 11.2 metric tons/ha (5 T/A) of lime-
stone. The pH of other class IIA1 minesoils can be increased temporarily but
not maintained by the same amount of limestone. However, it was found that
the next level of limestone (22.4 metric tons/ha) used in this study will
maintain a favorable pH on all class IIA1 minesoils for at least one year.
Under these conditions, it is concluded that a minimum of 22.4 metric tons/ha
(10 T/A) should be applied to IIA1 minesoils for successful revegetation and
water quality maintenance. The water quality of IIA2 and IIB2 minesoils
should be maintained easily for at least one year with an application of 11.2
metric tons/ha of limestone.
The other minesoil classes do not require liming. There is a possibili-
ty that the large amounts of sulfur in some of these soils will oxidize and
lower the pH of these presently near neutral to alkaline minesoils. However,
this study has shown that they maintain a favorable pH for at least one year
-------
ALABAMA MINESOIL CLASSIFICATION
I. Lithoclast - More than 50% of the minesoil particles are > 2 mm in their
smallest diameter. These particles are characteristically
composed of clay, silt and sand, and cannot be broken with
hands alone. Gravel fragments are angular, flaggy or
blocky.
A. Dark colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction <_ A when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH <_ 3.5)
2. Very acid (pH 3-5-5-5)
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH 5.5-7-5)
k. Alkaline (pH > 7.5)
B. Light colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction > 4 when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH <_ 3.5)
2. Very acid (pH 3.5~5.5)
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH 5-5-7.5)
4. Alkaline (pH > 7-5)
II. Pedoclast - More than 50% of the minesoil particles are <_2 mm in their
smallest diameter.
A. Dark colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction <_k when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH £. 3.5)
2. Very acid (pH 3.5-"575T
Near neutral or neutral (pH 5.5*7.5)
Alkaline (pH > 7.5)'
B. Light colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction > k when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH <_ 3.5)
2. Very acid (pH 3.5-5.5)
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH 5.5-7.5)
k. Alkaline (pH > 7-5)
-------
and should present no surface water quality problems for at least this period
of time.
The results and conclusions presented in this paper are concerned with
the top layer of soil to a maximum depth of approximately 30.A8 cm (12 in).
Therefore, the effects of deeper layers of minesoil on plant growth are not
known. There is a significant degree of soil variation within any area of
minesoil. However, this does not appear to significantly effect growth
when the recommended limestone and fertilizer applications are used.
Several research workers have worked with the problem of predicting
erosion on agriculture soils and highway slopes. There is no reason why this
information cannot be modified and applied to minesoils, although, field
experiments with soil erosion prediction and minesoils is meager. It is be-
lieved that the results shown in this work can be used for erosion predic-
tion on minesoils until field research can be used to refute or confirm these
results. The relative erodability index, (REl) developed in this study can
be used to compare minesoils in Alabama and make decisions regarding time
of regrading, speed and completeness of revegetation and degree of erosion
control needed. The soil loss prediction method developed in this study can
be used to estimate the size and number of sedimentation ponds needed for
a particular drainage area.
-------
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
The minesoil classification system developed in this study can be used
by Alabama reclamationists to increase their chances for successful revege-
tation operations. The only equipment needed to apply the system is a 2mm
sieve, Munsel1 soil color charts and an instrument or kit for pH determina-
tion. After the minesoil class has been identified, soil samples should be
sent to a soil testing laboratory for limestone and fertilizer recommenda-
tions. These recommendations will be valid for use in Alabama except for
phosphorous and limestone recommendations on some soils. Table 1 shows the
minimum initial amounts of fertilizer to use on Alabama minesoils. These
values will probably agree closely with those obtained from a soil testing
laboratory. However, as the minesoil pH increases toward 6.0 and above, the
soil testing laboratory will often obtain a high phosphorous determination.
Field plantings on these minesoils indicate that this phosphorous is unavail-
able to forage plants, and additional phosphorous in plant available form
must be added. Also, undisturbed surface soils seldom become as acid as some
minesoils. For this reason, the soil testing laboratory may only recommend
their maximum amount of limestone for agriculture soils, and this is often
not enough for acid minesoils. The recommendations in Table 1 should super-
sede those of the soil testing laboratory when those of the laboratory are
less than the Table 1 recommendations. Also, the recommendations in Table
1 can be used when laboratory tests are unavailable.
It is known that limestone and fertilizers for agronomic crops should
be incorporated into the soil by discing or other means. This holds true for
minesoils. Present research work in Alabama shows that the sequence of mine-
soil cultivation for best plant establishment and growth should be: (1) ap-
plication of soil amendments, (2) incorporation of amendments into minesoil,
(3) application of seed to freshly turned minesoil, and (k) mulch.
The Relative Erodability Index (REl) described in the Experimental
Methods section can be used by coal mine reclamationists in Alabama to esti-
mate the relative erodability of the various minesoils. This information
can be used to estimate the allowable slope, optimum slope length, speed of
revegetation needed and amount of mulch needed. All of these factors affect
minesoil erosion and can be modified to help prevent excessive erosion when
the erosion potential is high. In order to calculate this index, the percent
sand, percent silt + very fine sand, soil structure, soil permeability, soil
erodability factor and percent soil sized material (< 2mm dia.) for the mine-
soil must be known or estimated. The percent sand, percent silt + very fine
sand, soil structure, soil permeability and percent soil sized particles can
be determined in the field. The soil erodability factor, K, can then be
estimated by using the nomograph from Figure nine. These operations will
provide all values needed for calculating the REl as described in the Exper-
-------
Table 1. Minimum initial limestone and fertilizer recommendations for forage
crops grown on the indicated Alabama minesoil classes.
Minesoil
Class
IA4
1 IA1
1 IA2
IIA3
IIB2
N
kg/ha
67.2
67.2
67.2
67.2
67.2
Ibs/A
60
60
60
60
60
P2°5
kg/ha
224.0
13^. A
112.0
224.0
112.0
Ibs/A
200
120
100
200
100
K20
kg /ha
56.0
134.4
56.0
56.0
56.0
Ibs/A
50
120
50
50
50
Limestone
metric T/ha
0
22.4
11.2
0
5.6
T/A
0
10.0
5.0
0
2.5
-------
imental Methods subsection, entitled Relative Erodability Index.
Minesoils to be reclaimed should be examined in the light of known ero-
sion factors. If the Relative Erodability Index (REl) described in this
study indicates that a minesoil is highly erodable, the reclamationist should
use all the techniques at his disposal to prevent the movement of sediment
from that minesoil into streams or lakes. This is especially true in Alabama
where rainfall intensity is greater than in the rest of the eastern coal
fields. Minesoils with a low REl should not require as much effort or ex-
pense in order to prevent soil loss and sedimentation.
The method for predicting soil loss developed in this study can be used
on any minesoil so long as the correct values are used in the soil loss equa-
tion defined in Materials and Methods (Soil Loss = RKLSVM). Values used in
Table 8 apply to Alabama and the LS values are for an assumed 10% slope and
slope length of 30.47m (100 ft.). However, all of the factors can be cal-
culated for any set of conditions. This soil loss prediction can be used for
sediment pond information needs such as: size of pond, wet or dry pond,
number of ponds and amount of pond cleaning that will be necessary.
-------
IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS
MINESOIL SELECTION AND COLLECTION
Twenty-seven active mines and six abandoned mines were examined in the
coal mining region of Alabama. The purpose of these examinations was to in-
clude at least one mine that would be representative of each of the different
minesoil classes to be found in Alabama. In selecting sites for detailed
study, the primary concern was to include at least one representative of
each apparently different minesoil that could be identified by such field
and laboratory techniques as color determination, reaction, texture, mineral-
ogy, and nutrient element content. A particular effort was made to include
minesoils that would afford the greatest difficulties to revegetation efforts.
Test plantings had been established on many of the mines in the course of
previous research. The results from this earlier work were of incalculable
value to the selection procedure. Ten active mines were chosen for detailed
study. Table 2 shows the number, name and location of all mines studied in
detail. An additional mine (location no. 28) was later sampled in less de-
tail. This minesoil had the lowest pH found at any site but no significant
differentiating characteristics could be found between it and a previously
selected minesoil of low pH.
In the active mining areas samples were collected immediately adjacent
to plots where experimental plantings were made. These samples were col-
lected from parallel rows 3.66m (12 ft.) apart and every 3.66m (12 ft.) along
the rows. Samples contained from 500g to 1500g and were collected from the
upper 10.16cm (k in.) of minesoil.
It seemed reasonable to collect samples from an area comparable in size
to the planting area. Therefore, the sampling area formed a rectangle or
square depending on the number of rows sampled.
MINESOIL ANALYSIS
Minesoil samples were dried at 105 C until they reached a constant
weight. Each sample was then crushed lightly with mortar and pestle until
the material was segregated into fairly cohesive particles. This operation
required subjective evaluation for the final particle size determination.
After the samples were crushed, the relative amounts of coarser mater-
ials were determined by passing them through sieves and weighing the frac-
tions. Soil sized materials (< 2mm In diameter) were sent to the Auburn
University Soil Testing Laboratory where the following analyses were per-
formed: pH, buffered pH, Ca, Mg, P, K, CEC, % base saturation, percent Ca,
Mg, and K saturation. Soil pH was determined by adding 20ml of distilled
-------
Table 2. Locality number, name of mine and Alabama location of minesoils
studied in this project.
Local ity
Number
2
5
10
16
20A
20B
21
25
26
27
28
Mi ne
Name
Burgess
Adger
Winston
Robertson RA61
Fort Payne A
Fort Payne B
Sunl ight
Kel lerman k
Kel lerman 3
Kel lerman 5
Blue Goose
Location
Sec k R5W T22S about 3 miles NW of West
Blockton in Bibb County
Sec 13 R&W T19S near western edge of
Jefferson County
Sec 15 R10W T12S, S.W. corner of Winston
County
Sec 2 R8E T3S about 1 mile S. of Fabius in
Jackson County
Both Fort Payne A and B are located in same
area. Sec 31 R8E T5S. DeKalb County.
Sec 7 R6W T13S, about 4 miles N. of Jasper fn
Walker County.
The Kel lerman and Blue Goose localities are
located in a large mining area in Tuscaloosa
County including sections 29, 30, 31, R7W
T19S and Sections 25, 35, 36 R8W T19S.
-------
water to 20cc of oven dry soil that had been sieved through a 10-mesh screen.
A standard glass and calomel pH meter was used. The same water and soil mix-
ture was used to obtain buffered pH by adding 20ml of Adams-Evans buffer solu-
tion and interpreting the resulting pH obtained from a standard pH meter (1).
A double acid of 0.05 N. HCL and 0.025 N_ H SO^ described by Mehlich (A) was
used for P, Ca, K and Mg extraction. Phosphorous was determined by the
method of Watanabe and Olsen (6). Calcium, potassium and magnesium were
determined by reading absorbance on a Perkin-Elmer model 330AA with flame ad-
justed for maximum sensitivity. Sulfur content was determined by Leco ana-
lyzer. Three determinations were made for each sample and the average used
as the final value.
EXPERIMENTAL PLANTINGS
Field Plantings
The first series of field plantings was made in the spring of 1977- At
this time, the minesoil classification system was not sufficiently developed
to choose proven planting sites by applying the classification system. Six
sites of differing characteristics were chosen and six plots of 2.01m x 2.01m
(6.6 ft. x 6.6 ft.) were established at each site. Three of the plots were
randomly chosen for lime and/or fertilizer applications. The three remaining
plots received no lime or fertilizer. All plots were cultivated to a depth
of approximately \5.2kcm (6 in.). Forage seed appropriate for the minesoil
were then sown on all plots and raked lightly.
Table 3 shows the amount of limestone applied to each minesoil. All fer-
tilized plots received 72.8 kg/ha (65 Ibs/A) nitrogen, 107.5 kg/ha (96 Ibs/
A) P.O and 107.5 kg/ha (96 Ibs/A) K0. All plots were seeded with common
bermuda (Cynodon dactylon) and serala sericea (lespedeza sericea) except those
of mine number 26 which were seeded with dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum)
and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) because of the minesoil alkalinity.
The second series of field plantings was scheduled for February 1978.
However, drought conditions delayed plantings until March 1978. The mine-
soil classification system was sufficiently developed at this time to choose
representative m-inesoils for experimental plantings. One minesoil for each
of the classes was selected and a field experiment established to test revege-
tation recommendations.
Five treatments were used at each of the sites. Limestone and fertili-
zer were applied to all plots except control plots. All plots were then
disced, including control plots, and cottonwood cuttings and loblolly pine
seedlings were planted in March 1978. Table k shows soil amendments and
forage seed applied to the different minesoils. It appeared in March that
the drought had ended but it continued and practically all loblolly and
cottonwood were dead by the end of April. All loblolly seedlings, both dead
and alive, were replanted at the end of April. There were no cottonwood cut-
tings available for replanting. All plots were raked in May 1978 and for-
age crop seed planted on all plots. Finally, all plots were mulched with hay.
Soil cover was determined by dividing the entire plot into 5.08 cm x
11
-------
Table 3. Limestone added and soil cover obtained on Spring 1977 plots.*
Locality
No.
21
26
5
27
25
10
Soil
Pert.
c
77.7
71.0
0
0
90.0
87.3
Cover
Unfert.
&•___________
46.7
37.0
0
0
61.0
67.7
Limestone
Added
metric T/ha
0
0
11.2
15.7
0
4.48
* All fertilized plots received 72.8 kg/ha N, 107-5 kg/ha
P205» 107.5 kg/ha IC^O. All plots were planted with
common bermuda (Cynodon dactylon) and serala sericea
(Lespedeza sericea) except those on mine no. 26 which
were planted with dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) and
a 1 fa 1 fa (Medicago sativa).
12
-------
Table 4. Soil amendments and seed applied to Spring 1978 plots.
Loca I i ty
No.
21
28
2
25
10
Treat.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
k
5
1
2
3
i*
5
1
2
3
4
5
N
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
0
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
0
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
0
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
0
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
0
Soil
P2°5
268.8
128.8
268.8
0
0
128.8
128.8
0
128.8
0
128.8
128.8
0
128.8
0
268.8
128.8
268.8
0
0
128.8
128.8
0
128.8
0
Amendment:
K20
i__ /k~____.
128.8
128.8
0
0
0
128.8
0
0
128.8
0
128.8
0
0
128.8
0
128.8
128.8
0
0
0
128.8
0
0
128.8
0
5
lime
0
0
0
0
0
44800
44800
44800
0
0
22400
22400
22400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11200
11200
11200
0
0
Seed Planted
Sorghum-sudan (Sorghum bicolor x Sorghum sudanensis)
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Sweet clover (Mel i lotus of final is)
Brown top millet (Pan i cum fasciculatum)
Common bermuda (Cynodon dactylon)
Serala sericea (Lespedeza sericea)
Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum)
Browntop millet (Panicum fasciculatum
Common bermuda (Cynodon dactylon)
Serala sericea (Lespedeza sericea)
Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum)
Browntop millet (Panicum fasciculatum)
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Serala sericea (Lespedeza sericea}
Browntop millet (Panicum fasciculatum)
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Serala sericea (Lespedeza sericea)
-------
5.08 cm (2" x 2") squares and counting each square that contained live vege-
tation. This figure was then converted to percent cover. This method proba-
bly yields a valid estimate of soil cover for erosion control so long as the
plants are growing close to the soil surface. However, the method probably
underestimates the soil coverage of taller plants.
Forage crop yield was determined by removing all plants from the central
0.368m2 (A ft^) of each plot. Plants were clipped at approximately 1 cm from
the soil surface and oven dried at 70°C.
Greenhouse Planting
A greenhouse study was established in August 1977 in order to test some
of the soil amendment recommendations without having to contend with the
vagaries of local weather. The same six minesoils were used as in the 1977
field plantings. Each minesoil received four treatments and each treatment
was replicated six times. The randomized complete block design was used with
each treatment replicated once in each of six blocks.
Common bermuda and Kobe lespedeza (Lespedeza striata) were planted to-
gether and the minesoils limed and/or fertilized for treatment one (Table 5).
Treatment two was the same as treatment one except that no amendments were
added to the minesoil. Treatment three was the same as treatment one except
that Johnsongrass and alfalfa were planted instead of bermuda and lespedeza
and in treatment four Johnsongrass and alfalfa were planted with no soil
amendments. Table 5 shows soil analyses for each of the minesoils before
soil amendments, after amendments, after plants were grown in the soils, and
the amendments added.
The soil material used in this experiment was obtained by sieving each
of the minesoils through a 2.5^ x 2.5^ cm (l x 1 inch) screen and discarding
all material that did not pass through the screen. The results of these
sievings are shown in Table 6. Soils for both amended and unamended treat-
ments were placed in pots of 20.32 cm (8 inch) diameter to a depth of 19.05
cm (7.5 inches) and seeded and watered. All legume seed were inoculated.
The prepared pots were placed in a greenhouse equipped with a wet wall to
prevent extremely high ambient temperatures. All pots were watered twice
each week unless incipient wilting indicated need for a more frequent water-
ing. All plants were harvested at the end of four weeks and the oven dry
weight for each species was obtained for each pot.
LIMING EFFECTS
Five minesoils were chosen for a study to determine the effects of
liming on soil water reaction over a period of time. Two of these minesoils
were extremely acid, two were alkaline, and one was neutral in reaction.
Soil sized fractions were obtained from each minesoil by sieving with a 2 mm
mesh sieve.
For the two extremely acid sites, sixteen 100 g samples from each site
were placed in separate 1000 ml beakers. For each of the other sites, four
100 g samples were placed in separate 1000 ml beakers. These beakers were
-------
Table 5. Soil analyses and amendments for minesoils used In greenhouse experiment.
V71
Mine
Location No. Treatments
27 Before amendments
Amendments
After amendments
F-BK*
F-JA**
C-BK#
C-JAt
5 Before amendments
Amendments
After amendments
F-BK
F-JA
C-BK
C-JA
10 Before amendments
Amendments
After amendments
F-BK
F-JA
C-BK
C-JA
21 Before amendments
Amendments
After amendments
F-BK
F-JA
C-BK
C-JA
pH N
3.*
67.2
5.6
6.7
6.7
3.4
3.4
4.5
67.2
6.2
7-2
7.1
4.3
4.3
4.9
67.2
6.6
7.7
7.5
4.6
4.4
7.0
67.2
7.5
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.2
P
7.8
134.4
28.0
26.9
31.4
15-7
14.5
138.9
56.0
50.4
51-4
59.4
60.5
65.0
2.2
67.2
40.3
28.0
26.9
3.4
3.4
113.1
112.0
184.8
159.0
154.5
118.7
113.1
K
_!,_ /(.__
40.8
134.4
181.4
84.0
109.8
22.4
17.9
\Q6. 4
147.8
106.4
121.0
87.4
84.0
32.5
33.6
49.3
38.1
40.3
45.9
43.7
123.2
112.0
254.2
149.0
166.9
137.8
126.6
Mg
341.6
894.9
1118.9
1118.9
957.6
974.4
838.9
894.9
1118.9
1118.9
885.9
891.5
90.7
380.8
366.2
387.5
95.2
90.7
838.9
894.9
1013.6
1067.4
1034.9
1055.0
Dolomitic
Ca 1 i me stone
. * T /L»
376.3
15.7
3512.3
4076.8
4849.6
795.2
739.2
1854.7
11.2
2844.8
3169.6
3080.0
1064.0
1108.8
134.4
4.5
750.4
722.8
806.4
134.4
112.0
3682.6
0
4309.8
4569.6
4916.8
4188.8
4491.2
-------
Table 5 (cont.). Soil analyses and amendments for mlnesoils used in greenhouse experiment.
Mine
Location No. Treatments
25 Before amendments
Amendments
After amendments
F-BK
F-JA
C-BK
C-JA
26 Before amendments
Amendments
After amendments
F-BK
F-JA
C-BK
C-JA
pH N
7.0
67.2
7.1
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.8
8.1
67.2
7.7
8.1
7.9
8.3
8.1
P
128.8
0
154.5
152.3
161.3
149.0
137.8
70.6
112.0
142.2
108.6
118.7
71.7
81.8
K
kg/ha-
50.4
56.0
118.7
87.4
88.5
73.9
65.0
100.8
56.0
215.0
134.4
124.3
143.4
143.4
Mg
332.6
422.2
526.4
499.5
458.1
472.6
838.9
894.9
1118.9
1118.9
1118.9
1118.9
Ca
1012.5
1084.2
1321.6
1243.2
1097.6
1086.4
8422.4
6089 . 4
7212.8
6630.4
6563.2
5429.6
Dolomltic
1 imestone
metric T/ha
0
0
" Soil amendments, common bermuda, Kobe lespedeza.
** Soil amendments, Johnsongrass, alfalfa.
# No amendments, common bermuda, Kobe lespedeza.
t No amendments, Johnsongrass, alfalfa.
-------
Table 6. Amount of rock retained and passed by a 2.54 cm x 2.54 cm
(l in. x 1 in.) mesh screen.
Local ity
No.
27
5
10
21
25
26
Minesoil
>
kg
77.3
265. A
50.4
49.3
236.3
70.6
2.54 cm
Ibs
69
237
45
44
211
63
dia.
%
26.9
53.6
18.6
18.5
54.2
25.2
<
kg
209.4
229.6
220.6
217.3
199.4
209.4
2.54 cm
Ibs
187
205
197
194
178
187
dia.
%
73.1
46.4
81.4
81.5
45.8
74.8
17
-------
then used to arrange a complete randomized block design of four blocks with
one replication of each treatment in each block.
Two hundred ml of distilled water were added to each beaker. Three of
the beakers containing extremely acid minesoils from each site were limed
with powdered ACS grade CaCO^. The rates of liming were 0, 11.2, 22.^, and
kk.Q metric tons per hectare. The same rates of CaC03 were added to 200 ml
of distilled water to serve as controls. All beakers were then stirred and
the first pH readings recorded.
The beakers were completely covered with a flexible plastic cover except
when stirring or pH readings were required. Reaction readings were taken
immediately after water and CaCO^ were added and all beakers were stirred.
The second pH reading was taken the following day and a third reading 27 days
later. A final pH reading was taken 331 days after the initial reading. The
beaker contents were stirred weekly for the first month and then monthly
thereafter.
EROSION
Wischmeier and his associates (7, 8, 9, 10) developed a universal soil
loss equation for the prediction of soil loss. A modification of this equa-
tion developed by Utah Research Laboratory was used in this study (5).
The universal soil loss equation modified by the Utah Research Labora-
tory is as follows:
A = RKLSVM
where A = the amount of soil lost per unit area
R = rainfal1 factor
K - soil erodability factor
LS = topographic factor (length and steepness of slope)
VM = vegetative and mechanical control factors (equivalent to
Wischmeier's CP factors)
Values of R have been calculated for most areas in the United States and
maps that give plots of R values for the various regions are available. The
R value of 375 for the Northern Alabama mining area was obtained from Erodent
(R) value maps from the Utah Research Laboratory Study (5).
Wischmeier (11) reports that silts and very fine sands (particles 0.05
to 0.10 mm in diameter) are the most easily eroded of all soil size particles
and that soils become less erodable as their sand or clay content is in-
creased. Also, the rate of decrease in erodability with increased clay con-
tent declines even further with higher concentrations of organic matter. In
addition, Wischmeier found that while there was an increase of erodability
with additional increments of silt size material; the rate of increase of
erodability became less as either the organic matter or clay to sand ratio
increased.
These relationships were correlated quantitatively by Wischmeier (10)
and expressed in a nomograph reproduced here in Figure 1. By determining the
-------
30
50
60
80
9O
;8o
\
\
TO.IO- i
Perce it sane
/ ^
' S $
30
I- v*ty fine granular
2- fine granular
3- med. or coarse granular
4-blocky.platy.or massive
*Soil structure I
.20 -Z .70
100
Procedure: With appropriate data, enter at left and pro-
ceed to points representing the soil's sand (O.IO-2.0mm), %
organic matter,structure, and permeability, in that sequence,
Interpolate between plotted curves. The dotted line illustrates
procedure for a soil having: si + vfs 65%,sand 5%, OM 2.8%,
structure 2. permeability 4. Solution • K = 0.31.
Permeability
^*6-very slow
5-slow
4-slow to med.
3-moderate
2- mod. to rapid
I - rapid
Figure 1. Nomograph for determination of soil erodability factor K (JO).
-------
percent of silt and very fine sand, the organic matter (generally nil in
minesoils), the soil structure and permeability and by following the pro-
cedure outlined in Figure 1 a soi 1-erodabi 1 i ty factor (K) can be determined
and applied in the universal soil loss equation. Soil structure and perme-
ability are not always easy to estimate. However, the nature of the nomo-
graph is such that an estimation error of one structure or permeability
class will not seriously affect the K value estimate.
The topographic factor (LS) was determined with an equation from Utah
Research Laboratory (5) after Wischmeier (12) and Foster and Wischmeier (2)
o '
10,000 + s2
where: \ = slope length in feet
S = steepness of slope in percent
m = exponent dependent upon slope steepness
0.3 for slopes < 0.5%
0.5 for slopes 0.5 to 10%
0.6 for slopes > 10%
The VM factors are also applied in the universal soil loss equation as
a single unit. Included in this unit are such factors as type of vegeta-
tion, mechanical manipulation of soil (not including such features as ditches
and berms which are included under LS factors) and the presence of mulches.
The Utah Research Laboratory (5) study observed that mulches have VM
values of about 0.01 until RKLS values exceed a certain critical level at
which point the mulch partially fails. Figure 2 illustrates the relation-
ship existing between the RKLS factor and the quantity of stone mulch that
is required to maintain the VM factor at a level of about 0.01 or one ton per
acre per year. The amounts of rock shown in Figure 2 for each RKLS value
are the minimum amounts needed to hold soil loss to a point below one ton
per acre per year. The erosion control effect of any lesser amounts of rock
would be so small that it could be considered wasted.
20
-------
CfeU
iycif\
COO
Z4O
O Tt/\
Z3O
O I /N
ZIO
r-*
x ISO
1ft tOf\
a loU
O
r 170
« 160
K ISO
s w°
g 130
- I2°
o HO
'5 »00
c 9°
1 80
§ 70
UJ
60
50
40
30
20
10
8
I
/
/
'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
1
I
1
1
ooooooooooc
ooooo o o o o o c
Rock Mulch (tons/A)
Figure 2. Minimum amounts of rock mulch required to provide
a VM value of 0.01 at varying RKLS values (5).
-------
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
MINESOIL CLASSIFICATION
An Alabama minesoil classification system was developed based on soil
texture, soil color value and soil pH. Only five different soil classes were
found in this study. However, the classification scheme allows for the in-
clusion of any minesoil that occurs on the basis of its texture, color value
and pH.
Light colored minesoils (Munsel1 color value of the soil sized fraction
> 4 when moist) of Alabama are similar in a majority of their physical and
chemical characteristics. Therefore, they have been grouped as a single
minesoil class. The dark colored minesoils (Munsell value < 4 when moist)
had several differing characteristics and were divided into four different
classes according to groupings of characteristics. After comparing the chem-
ical and physical properties of these minesoils it was obvious that they
could be divided into an acid group and a neutral or alkaline group. These
two broad groups were further separated into two sub-groups each on the basis
of soil characteristics and vegetation management practices.
The minesoil classification scheme shown on the following page was de-
veloped and all classes that were identified in the field are underlined. It
is possible that more classes of minesoil will be found in Alabama. There-
fore, the entire classification scheme Is shown and any new minesoils can be
given the appropriate designation.
MINESOIL ANALYSIS
Light and Dark Colored Minesoil Comparisons
A summary of fourteen properties for eleven different minesoils Is pre-
sented in Table 7. The light colored (value >*t when wet) minesoils CIIB2) ex-
hibit much lower concentrations of magnesium and sulfur than dark minesoils
(value <4 when wet). The calcium, potassium and phosphorous content of light
colored minesoils are either lower than any of the dark minesoils or equiva-
lent to those dark minesoils having the least concentration of these ele-
ments. The pH of light colored minesoils ranges from A to 5 and the buffer
pH is above 7.6. These same values are also commonly found In dark mine-
soils. There are no apparent textural differences between dark and light
minesoiIs.
Light Colored Minesoil Characteristics
Of the two light colored minesoils (||B2) studied, one probably repre-
sents C-horizon material related to modern soils Oocality 20B) and the other
22
-------
ALABAMA MINESOIL CLASSIFICATION
I. Lithoclast - More than 50fc of the minesoil particles are > 2 mm In their
smallest diameter. These particles are characteristically
composed of clay, silt and sand, and cannot be broken with
hands alone. Gravel fragments are angular, flaggy or
blocky.
A. Dark colored (Munsel 1 color value of soil sized fraction <_ b when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH <_ 3.5)
2. Very acid (pH 3.5-5.5)
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH 5.5-7-5)
k. Alkaline (pH > 7.5)
B. Light colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction > k when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH <_ 3.5)
2. Very acid (PH 3.5-5.5)
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH 5.5-7.5)
k. Alkaline (pH > 7.5)
II. Pedcclast - More than 50% of the minesoil particles are <_ 2 mm in their
smallest diameter.
A. Dark colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction <_ k when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH < 3.5)
2. Very acid (PH 3.5-5T5T
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH 5.5-7.5)
k. Alkaline (pH > 7^57
B. Light colored (Munsell color value of soil sized fraction > k when
moist)
1. Extremely acid (pH<_3.5)
2. Very acid (pH 3.5-5.5)
3. Near neutral or neutral (pH- 5.5-7.5)
A. Alkal ine (pH > 7.5)
23
-------
Table 7. Mean values for chemical and physical properties of eleven Alabama mlnesolls.
Soil
Property
PH
Buffer pH
Ca, ppm in Sol 1*
Mg, ppm In Soil
K, ppm in Sol 1
P , ppm In So 1 1
CEC of Soil (meq/IOOg)
CEC of Clay (meq/IOOg)
Acidity (% of CEC)
Ca* of CEC
Mg* of CEC
Kfc of CEC
S, (ppm In Soil)
S/Ca
$ >4 mm In minesoil**
% >2 mm In mlnesoll
% >0.05 mm In mlnesoll
% 4-2 mm In minesoil
% 2t mm in minesoil
% VFS In minesoil
% si 1 1 in minesoi 1
% clay In minesoi 1
% sand In soi 1
* silt In soil
% clay In soil
Ca % CEC
Mg % CEC
% >2 mm
% clay In minesoi 1
IA
-------
(locality 10) probably represents very deeply weathered, material that was
first weathered during the late cenozoic period. The evidence for this is
as follows: at the Fort Payne site (locality number 20) some individual mine-
soil piles were light colored while, immediately adjacent ones were dark.
The overburden material in the highwall had a 5 to 7 meter capping of light
colored material that was relatively friable (it could be broken by hand).
This overburden also contained occasional tree roots and graded gradually
downward into unweathered rock material. At the Winston site (locality num-
ber 10, class IIB2) the highwalls exhibited 17 or more meters of light colored
material that was too coherent to break by hand but would break relatively
easily by hammering. No ferromagnesium minerals were observed and the
common cement was hydrated iron oxides. Such a deeply weathered zone which
has been secondarily cemented clearly predates recent conditions.
To summarize, there are at least two types of light colored minesoll
materials; (1) a younger, relatively friable, surftclal type related to
modern soils, (2) an older, non-friable, often very thick sequence re-
sulting from a long interval of weathering and cementing.
Dark Colored Minesoil Characteristics
The mean values for fourteen different properties of the eight dark
colored spoils were compared by Duncan's new multiple-range test. The
results are given in Tables 8 and 9- Nine of these characteristics are used
in comparing the spoils in Table 8 and on the basis of these comparisons the
spoils may be classified as belonging to either an acid or an alkaline
group. Differences are considered to be significant at the 5% level.
The alkaline group (pH >5.5) is identified as the upper four localities
listed under the column giving the pH values In Table 8 and includes locali-
ties numbered 26, 21, 20A, and 25; the other four localities are in the acid
group. Each of the localities exhibits a pH which Is significantly different
from the pH value of any locality from the opposite group. The same general
grouping occurs in the upper and lower parts of the columns listing the
values for buffer pH, phosphorous, ppm, and Ca% of CEC. With regard to these
properties each of the members of the alkaline group Is significantly differ-
ent from any member of the acid group. The particular sequence within the
groups and the relationships within the groups varies but for each of these
four categories the same localities constitute two separate and distinct
groups.
Two localities in the alkaline group, numbered 26 and 21, are differ-
ent from any member of the acid group in eight of the nine categories listed
in Table 8. One acid locality, number 27, is different from any member of
the alkaline group in all nine properties. With regard to the five charac-
teristics represented by the five columns on the right side of Table 8, five
of.the localities are sometimes transitional or intermediate In value be-
tween the acid and alkaline groups in that they have values which are not
significantly different from one or two members of the opposite group. These
localities are listed in each of the right hand columns between the dotted
lines. Of the localities in the alkaline group, locality 20A is transition-
al two times and locality 25 four times; in the acid group locality 16 is
25
-------
Table 8. Comparisons of nine mlnesoil characteristics among eight mlnesolls.
Buffer
o
o
z
2
_l
N>
a.
o
CtL
0
<
toe.
26
21
20A
25
16
2
5
27
pH
Hean
7.83
7-64
6.74
5.75
5.00
4.22
3.79
3.20
SP*
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
toe.
20A
26
21
25
16
2
5
27
PH
Hean
7.97
7.96
7.93
7.92
7.79
7.55
7.40
6.98
SP
A
A
A
A
B
C
0
E
loc.
25
21
20A
26
5
16
2
27
P
ppm
Hean
71.88
70.22
50.61
49.80
15.87
9.57
5.68
5.16
SP
A
A
B
B
C
CD
CD
0
loc.
26
21
20A
25
16
5
2
27
Ca *
CEC
Hean
70.6
62.5
43.9
43.0
20.9
8.5
8.2
3.5
SP
A
B
C
C
D
E
E
E
Ca
Hg
loc.
26
21
25
20A
16
5
2
27
% CEC
* CEC
Hean
2.92
2.57
1.52
1.14
0.96
0.78
0.43
0.25
SP
A
A
B
C
CD
D
E
E
%
loc.
26
21
20A
25
16
2
27
5
Clay
Hean
4.23
7.75
8.16
9.64
12.54
15.0
17.53
18.40
SP
A
B
B
BC
C
D
D
D
x
f
loc.
26
21
20A
25
2
27
16
5
>2mm
clay
Hean
19-43
9-78
6.56
3-92
3-12
2.85
2.83
2.60
Ca ppm
SP
A
B
C
D
DE
E
E
E
loc.
26
21
20A
25
16
5
2
27
Mean
2531
(452
446
397
202
185
152
123
SP
A
B
C
CD
DE
DE
E
E
loc.
21
26
20A
25
16
2
5
27
S/Ca
Hean
0.35
0.46
1.53
2.40
2.62
6.14
15.14
37.85
SP
A
A
AB
AB
AB
B
C
0
- SP (statistical population) mlnesolls with the same letter are not significantly different from each other at 5% level. Analysis was made by
Duncan's New Multiple Range Test.
-------
Table 3. Comparisons of five minesoil characteristics among eight mlnesolls.
S, ppm
loc.
2]
16
20A
2
25
26
5
27
Mean
499
500
692
900
930
1083
2011
4502
SP*
A
A
AB
AB
AB
B
C
D
CEC clay
loc.
16
25
20A
5
2
21
27
26
Mean
14.77
15.85
17.67
18.69
18.98
28.96
36.58
48.82
SP
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
D
% Particles
> 4 mm
loc.
26
21
20A
5
25
27
2
16
Mean
67.23
51.93
39.16
36.10
33.57
30.73
29.11
27.64
SP
A
B
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
D
K, ppm
loc.
20A
21
26
16
5
2
25
27
Mean
80.4
72.5
70.4
64.4
49.3
44.9
42.8
35.5
SP
A
B
BC
C
D
D
DE
E
Mg ppm
loc.
26
27
21
20A
2
25
5
16
Mean
519.9
352.3
340.1
263.8
244.9
159.9
159.2
129.7
SP
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
D
* SP (statistical population) minesoils with the same letter are not significantly different from each
other at 5£ level. Analysis was made by Duncan's new multiple-range test.
-------
transitional four times, locality 2 twice, and locality 5 once. In all nine
categories, when the mean values of the properties are listed in ascending
or descending order the four alkaline and acid localities always occur ad-
jacent to each other, in other words, the value for an acid locality never
intervenes between two alkaline values nor does the value for an alkaline
locality intervene between two acid values.
The other five properties that were not listed in Table 8 but were used
in comparing the dark spoils are listed in Table 9. These properties can not
be related directly to the alkaline or acid groups but they are useful in
comparing the various localities. In three of the five categories the values
for locality 21 are significantly different from the values of all other lo-
calities except for those of locality 26 and in three of five categories the
values for locality 26 are significantly different from those of all other
localities except those of locality 21. Thus, the two most typical of the
alkaline localities (numbers 21 and 26) are significantly different from all
other localities in eleven out of fourteen characteristics used in comparison
(eight listed in Table 8 and three in Table 9). The most acid locality, num-
ber 27, exhibits values significantly different from those of all other
localities in two of the five characteristics listed in Table 9 and so lo-
cality 27 has values significantly different from those of all other locali-
ties in eleven of the fourteen categories studied (nine listed in Table 8 and
two in Table 9). Each of the other five localities also exhibit values that
are different from those possessed by all the other localities. The locali-
ties and the total number of significantly different features that each lo-
cality has are as follows: locality 20A, three unique values; locality 25,
two unique values; locality 16, four unique values; locality 5, four unique
values.
>
Evidence has been presented in the paragraphs above that an alkaline and
an acid group exists within the dark colored spoils and the differentiating
value between these two groups is between the values found for localities 25
and 16. The pH of the soil at locality 25 is 5.75 and for locality 16 It is
5.00. A pH value of 5.50 was selected to separate the two groups.
Subdivision of the Dark Colored Basic Minesoils
The two localities numbered 26 and 21 clearly represent a very distinct
grouping. They are significantly different from all other localities in
eleven of the fourteen categories studied and they never exhibit characteris-
tics that are similar to those of the acid group. The other two localities
are much less distinct and often exhibit characteristics similar to those ex-
pressed by the alkaline group. The boundary line between these two groups
passes between the pH value of 6.7** shown by locality 20A and pH 7.6A ex-
hibited by locality 21. A value of pH 7.5 was selected to separate the neu-
tral or near neutral (pH 5.5-7.5) minesoil class from the alkaline class
(pH >7.5).
Subdivision of the Dark Colored Acid Minesoils
Locality number 27 is distinct, in the acid group it is significantly
different in eleven of fourteen categories studied and is sharply different
28
-------
from the other three localities in the acid grouping. A differentiating
value of pH 3.5 was selected to separate the very acid (pH 3.5-5.5) and
extremely acid (pH <3.5) classes. The value of 3.5 lies between the pH value
of 3.20 for locality 27 and pH 3.79 for locality five.
VEGETATION PRODUCTION
1977 Plantings
The percent of soil cover was determined for the 1977 plantings seven
weeks after sowing. Table 10 shows the percent of the minesoil surface that
contained newly established seedlings. The two planting sites in class I IA1
produced no soil cover due to the drought during this time. There was enough
rainfall at the other sites to establish some seedlings but not enough to
keep them alive beyond the seedling stage. Shortly after soil cover measure-
ments were taken, all seedlings on all plots were killed by drought. Other
research being conducted at this time indicated that mulching would have
Increased the chances for seed germination and seedling establishment on the
class IIA1 sites. It is also possible that mulching would have kept the
seedlings alive on the other sites until the drought ended.
The amended plots had significantly better soil cover than the un-
amended plots in all cases where seedling establishment was obtained. It
is possible that germination was the same on all sites but such factors as
minesoil acidity, nutrient content and crusting probably prevented seedling
establishment on IIA1 sites.
Alfalfa and dallisgrass were planted on one of the IAA sites. There
does not appear to be any reason for the dallisgrass not to become estab-
lished. However, there was no dallisgrass at the seven week interval, but
an adequate stand of alfalfa. The other IAA site was seeded with common
bermuda and sericea. Neither of these species is suited for an alkaline
site such as IA*K However, the sericea did survive for the seven week period,
but probably would not have grown well even if the drought had not occurred.
At the IIA3 site, bermuda became established only on the amended plots while
the sericea became established on all plots. At the IIB2 site, bermuda and
sericea both became established on all plots. The IIA3 and IIB2 sites were
both sandy soils but they differed greatly in acidity. The IIA3 site had a
pH of 5.7 and the 11B2 had a pH of 4.3.
J978 Plantings
Percent of soil surface covered and oven dry yield were determined in
August, 1978. The mean values for both of these determinations are shown in
Table 11. The total yield on the IIB2, IIA3 and IIA2 minesoils was composed
of browntop millet. The total yield on the IAA minesoil was composed of
sorghum-sudan. Some of the other seed (Table k) may have germinated but they
did not survive beyond the seedling stage.
The percent cover and yield were both satisfactory for classes IAA,
IIB2, and IIA3 when adequate soil amendments were supplied. The failure or
29
-------
Table 10. Percent of soil surface covered by vegetation seven weeks after
germination (1977 plantings).
Plots
Mine
Kel lerman No. 5
Adger
Kel lerman No. 3
Sunl ight
Kel lerman No. 4
Winston
Amended*
Class
IIA1
1 1 A1
IA4**
IA4#
IIA3f
I IB2
1
0
0
68
77
87
92
2
0
0
74
74
87
92
3
0
0
71
82
89
85
Unamended
1
-
0
0
42
48
58
76
2
0
0
33
47
61
60
3
0
0
36
45
64
67
* All amended plot soil covers were significantly different from
unamended plot soil covers at the 0.01 level within a minesoil
class.
** Alfalfa only on all plots.
Sericea only on all plots.
Bermuda on amended plots only and sericea on all plots.
Bermuda and sericea on all plots.
30
-------
Table 11. Mean values for percent of soil surface covered and ovendry yield of forage six months
after sowing (1978 plantings}.*
Treat. Cover
%
] 98. Oa
2 77. Oc
3 88. Ob
4 7.7d
5 5.3e
IA4
Yield
kg/ha
4876.0a
2240.3°
3795. Ob
32. Od
37. 7d
I
Cover
IB2
Hinesoll Class
MAS
Yield
Cover
% kg/ha %
99. 3a
95. Ob
55. 7C
I8.7d
9.0e
3063.
2798.
795.
68.
21.
7a
3b
Oc
7d
3e
100.03
99. 3a
100. Oa
72. 3b
34. Oc
Yield
IIA1
Cover
kg/ha %
3456.
1598.
1479.
66.
55.
7a
7b
7b
3C
3C
0
0
0
0
0
Yield
kg/ha
0
0
0
0
0
IIA2
Cover
%
38. oa
36. 3a
9.7b
1.7C
0.7C
Yield
kg/ha
1459. Oa
1164. 7b
460. Oc
28. 7d
10. 3e
* Values in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the
0.01 level.
-------
partial failure of classes IIA1 and IIA2 is believed to be due to the con-
tinuing drought during the growing season. Germinating seed were observed
on all plots shortly after sowing. However, soil moisture was inadequate
for seedling establishment on classes MA1 and IIA2. Forage crops have be-
come established on these minesoils in other experiments during periods of
adequate soil moisture. Therefore, it is assumed that failure to obtain a
stand of forage was due to drought.
Minesoil class IAA had a significantly higher cover and yield when
adequate amounts of phosphorous were added (Tables A and 11). Soil test re-
commendations for this high pH minesoil indicated that no phosphorous was
needed. However, cover and yield were significantly increased in treatments
1 and 3 where the greater amounts of phosphorous were added (Table 11). The
soil testing laboratory at Auburn University now uses an extracting solution
for near neutral to alkaline minesoils that is designed to show a more
realistic soil phosphorous content than the extracting solution used for acid
minesoils (3, A) . The yield and cover comparisons between treatments 1 and
3 also indicate a need for potassium on this minesoil (Tables A and 11).
When treatment 5 is compared to the rest of the treatments, the need for
nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium is confirmed.
Soil test recommendations for minesoil class 11B2 are confirmed by cover
and yield results shown in Table 11. Results from treatments 1, 2 and 3 show
the need for phosphorous and potassium. However, the greatest need appears
to be for limestone for soil acidity reduction. Treatment A received the
maximum amounts of fertilizer but cover and yield were poor when no limestone
was added.
Minesoil class IIA3 was near neutral in soil reaction and again the
soil testing laboratory recommended that no phosphorous be added. However,
results shown in Table 11 reveal that phosphorous is needed on this minesoil.
An adequate soil cover was obtained with lesser amounts of phosphorous than
were required for class IAA, but yield for class IIA3 was significantly re-
duced when less phosphorous was applied (Tables A and 11). When phosphorous
was eliminated completely, both cover and yield were poor (Treatment A). The
elimination of potassium fertilizer from treatment 3 did not significantly re-
duce cover or yield. However, the extra phosphorous of treatment 3 may have
masked the potassium effect.
The addition of potassium fertilizer did not significantly increase the
amount of soil cover obtained on class IIA2 minesoil but it did increase the
yield (Tables A and 11). Phosphorous significantly increased both cover and
yield for this class, and nitrogen alone increased yield but did not increase
cover. Lime gave a significant increase in both cover and yield when nitro-
gen was also added (Treatments 3 and A).
The cottonwood plantings were almost a total failure and they were not
replanted. Loblolly pine survived moderately well after the second planting.
Survivals for loblolly on IAA, IIB2, I IA3, MAI, and MA2 were 87%, 33%, 96%,
37% and 50? respectively. There were no significant survival differences a-
mong treatments. It Is not believed that loblolly will survive or grow well
on the IAA and IIA3 minesoils due to the alkalinity. Past experience shows
32
-------
that southern pines exhibit extreme iron deficiency symptoms when planted on
these minesoils and usually die within one or two years.
Greenhouse Planting
An examination of Table 12 shows that common bermuda produced the best
overall yield of the four forage crops sown. Bermuda also showed the great-
est response to soil amendments. Kobe lespedeza had the least response to
soil amendments. In fact, there was no response if the yield from location
27 is omitted. However, the apparent poor response of Kobe lespedeza was
probably due to competition from the fertilized bermuda since they were grown
in the same pots. Johnsongrass responded to amendments on four of the six
minesoils and alfalfa responded on five of the six minesoils. There is no
obvious explanation for lack of response to amendments by Johnsongrass or
alfalfa.
The MAI minesoil at location 27 showed the greatest response to soil
amendments. The lack of yield in the control pots was probably due to the
low pH of the unlimed minesoil. However, this minesoil also forms a strong
crust after wetting, and this crust may have interfered with seedling emer-
gence. Liming appears to alleviate this crusting problem on IIA1 minesoils.
The MAI minesoil at location 5 showed little response to soil amend-
ments. This could have been due to a lack of available phosphorous. Table
5 shows that available phosphorous was reduced significantly after the ad-
dition of other fertilizers. This circumstance could be due to the effect
of added fertilizers or to a faulty original soil test.
The MB2 minesoil responded positively to amendments. The yield of all
four forage plants was increased by liming and fertilizing. Phosphorous con-
tent was low in this minesoil and the addition of phosphorous fertilizer ac-
counts for the increased yield of amended MB2 minesoils.
The poor yield of the MAS minesoil is probably due to the fact that
no phosphorous fertilizer was included in amendments. Soil tests indicated
that the minesoil phosphorous content was high. It was known at this time
that extra phosphorous was needed for IA4 minesoils but not for IIA3 mine-
soils. Results from this study and other studies now indicate that the stan-
dard Alabama test for soil phosphorous is not valid for IIA3 minesoils.
Phosphorous was added to both IA4 minesoils. These minesoils are alka-
line and soil tests indicated a high phosphorous content. However, phosphor-
ous was added because past experience had shown the need. All plants re-
sponded to the fertilizers except Kobe lespedeza. The reason for the lack
of response in lespedeza is not known.
LIMING EFFECTS
The effect of lime and leaching on pH of selected minesoils is shown in
Table 13. The pH of the extremely acid minesoil (IIA1) at locality 2? was
not changed at the end of 331 days by the addition of 11.2 metric tons/ha of
limestone. There was an increase at the end of 28 days but this effect was
33
-------
Table 12. The effect of limestone and fertilizers on ovendry yield of two forage crop combinations
grown in a greenhouse.*
Location Minesoil
No. Class
27 MAI
5 1 IA1
10 1 1 B2
25 IIA3
21 IA*»
26 IA*t
Average
Bermuda
F** C#
3687a Od
1416C 893a
2678b 338b
2k6d 125°
2156b 92C
23t»0b 153C
2103.8 266.8
Lespedeza Johnsongrass
F
279a
185C
308a
2A3b
213b
153C
230.2
C F C
Oc 1137b Od
246a I87d 248a
123b 2155a 30C
2k3a 62d 155b
275a 708b 64C
2?0a 677° 121b
195.0 821.0 103.0
Alfalfa
F
nioa
277b
U4la
2l4b
132/ta
1139a
867.5
C
Oc
I84a
6kb
211a
I89a
215a
143.8
Ave rage
F
1578.2
516.3
1570.5
191.2
1100.2
1077.3
C
0
392.7
138.7
185.0
155.0
191.5
* Values in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.01 level.
** Limed and/or fertilized (see Table 5).
*
Controls.
Bermuda and Kobe lespedeza were grown together In the same pots.
Johnsongrass and alfalfa were grown together In the same pots.
-------
Table 13. Changes in soil water pH with time for limed and unlimed mine-
soils.
Locality Minesoil
No. Class
27 MAI
5 IIA2
25 MA3
26 |A4
21 IA4
Limestone
Added
T/U
Metric T/ha
0
11.2
22.4
44.8
0
11.2
22.4
44.8
0
0
0
0 day
3.23*
4.45*
4.90#
5.12*
4.15*
5.55#
5.72#
5.87#
6.08*
8.00*
7.92**
1 day
3.22**
4.88*
5.65**
5.92#
4 . 08*
6.30#
6.40#
6.18*
7.65*
8.00**
Time
28 days
3.45**
6.02#
6.88*
6.90*
4.25**
6.92*
7.10*
7.12*
6.35*
7.90*
7.98**
331 days
2.58
4.57
6.70
7.12
3.62
7.00
7.30
7.38
6.75
7.52
7.15
* This pH not different from pH at 331 days at 0.05 level.
** This pH different from pH at 331 days at 0.05 level.
This pH different from pH at 331 days at 0.01 level.
35
-------
apparently overcome by oxidation of additional sulfides. Limestone additions
at the rate of 22.k and 44.8 metric tons/ha did increase the pH of the mine-
soil water significantly over a period of 331 days.
Another extremely acid minesoil (IIA1) at locality 5 contained less sul-
fur than the one at locality 27 and behaved differently. The pH here in-
creased significantly after addition of 11.2 metric tons and remained so.
The pH of the neutral or alkaline minesoils did not change drastically
over the 331 day period. However, the alkaline minesoil at locality 21 did
show a significant decrease in pH. Sulfides would be expected to cause such
a change as this, but the other two high pH minesoils contained more total
sulfur (Table 7) and their pH did not fall. Also, the pH at locality 25 did
not change even though it had significantly less calcium than the soil of
locality 21.
EROSION
Relative Erodability Index
In surface coal mines a large percent of the minesoil is generally com-
posed of particles that are larger than soil size (Table 6). These larger
particles are not as readily susceptible to erosion as are soil sized parti-
cles. Their rate of erosion is not only less but they constitute a mulch
which acts to decrease the erosion rate of the associated soil sized parti-
cles.
A method of predicting the erosion potential of a minesoll is needed
in order to make decisions concerning the degree of water control needed,
season when topographic manipulation is to be performed and amount of mulch
needed. The optimum institution and use of these reclamation operations can
significantly reduce the amount of erosion and stream sedimentation in the
vicinity of a coal surface mine. The following paragraph describes a method,
developed in this study, for determination of the potential erodability of
coal surface mines in Alabama.
In order to determine potential erodability, the percent soil sized
material in the minesoil and the K value are needed. The soil sized frac-
tion is the only part of the minesoil that is likely to erode and the K fac-
tor for a particular soil rates the soil's erosion susceptibility. There-
fore, these two values can be used to predict the erodability of a bare
minesoil. The product of these two values was used in this study to evaluate
the potential erodability of minesoils (Table 14). In order to compare eroda-
bilities of minesoils, a relative index is needed. Such a Relative Erodability
Index (REl) was developed. The index is calculated by relating the potential
erodability values to a common base which was arbitrarily selected.
The potential erodability (PE) and relative erodability index REl were
calculated by using the information from Table 7 and the nomograph in Figure
one. Table 14 shows the PE and REl for all of the minesoils used in this
study. The highest PE value obtained was 26.97 for locality 20B. The next
greatest decimal (30) was selected as a datum value to which all minesoil
36
-------
Table 14. Soil factors and Relative Erodabillty Index (REl) for eleven Alabama Minesoils and five
minesott classes.
Local ity
No.
2
25
21
26
16
5
20A
27
28
20B
10
Minesoil
Class
1IA2
HA3
IA4
IA4
HA2
IIA1
1IA3
MAI
IIA1
IIB2
IIB2
% Silt
+ VFS
51
43
60
38
46
49
71
51
34
53
62
Soil
Structure
1
I
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
1
Soli
Permeabll Ity
2
I
2
1
2
5
2
5
5
2
1
K
Value
.27
.24
.37
.21
.27
.44
.45
.42
.29
.31
.42
%
Soil
64
64
39
23
68
56
54
58
72
87
63
Potential
Erodabil ity
17.28
15.36
14.43
4.83
18.36
24.64
24.30
24.36
20.88
26.97
26.46
REl
0.58
0.59
0.48
0.14
0.61
0.82
0.81
0.81
0.70
0.90
0.88
-------
PE values were related. If minesoils with PE values above 30 are found, they
will have REI values greater than one.
This erodability index can be used to determine the necessity for speed
and completeness of revegetation. Localities 2, 25, 21, 26 and 16 have lower
indexes than the rest of the localities. Locality 26 had a significantly
lower index than any other locality.
The same process used in this study can be used or modified to calculate
erodability indexes in other mining regions.
Soil Loss Prediction
A valuable piece of information for reclamationists would be the amount
of soil material expected in sedimentation ponds over a yearly period. The
following method for estimation of soil loss in Alabama was developed from
the Utah Research Laboratory soil loss equation.
Armored minesoils are defined as minesoils that contain sufficient
naturally occurring stone at the surface to provide a VM factor of about 0.01.
Minesoils with less surface stone are called unarmored. The VM value of
soils that are loose to a 12 inch depth, unvegetated and without surface
stone is estimated to be about 0.8 by the Utah Water Research Laboratory (*t).
In Table 15, the slope (s) was assumed to be 10% and the slope length (L) 100
feet. Under these conditions the LS factor 5s 1.59^*1. The R value for North
Alabama is 375, and the K values were calculated by the method described in
the Methods section titled Soil Loss Equations.
Column A values in Table 15 were obtained by applying the RKLS values
for each minesoil to Figure 2 and finding the amount of rock mulch needed to
provide a VM value of approximately 0.01. Four of the minesoils with the
highest mulch requirements call for approximately 1,000 tons of stone parti-
cles to provide a VM of 0.01. Since an acre of stone particles six inches
deep weighs approximately 1,000 tons, a six inch depth of stone will protect
a variety of highly erodable minesoils against erosion. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to assume that no significant erosion will occur where there are
six or more inches of stone at the minesoil surface. Column B values repre-
sent the weight of the stone in tons per acre actually present In the upper
six inches of minesoil. These B values were obtained by the formula:
B = (* mlnesolj^materlal > k m^ (] >OOQ tons).
Subtracting the values of Column B from Column A indicates whether or not the
minesoil can be considered armored.
The column labeled A in Table 15 estimates the minimum tons per acre of
rock mulch needed to provide a VM value of 0.01. These values were obtained
from Figure 2 using the RKLS values of Table 15. The column labeled B repre-
sents the calculated tons per acre of rock mulch present on the minesoil.
These values were obtained by calculating the amount of rock mulch > b mm in
the upper 6" of minesoil. If the value B minus A is positive, the minesoil
38
-------
Table 15. Calculated soil loss to be expected from bare Alabama minesolls with 10% slopes of 100
feet length.
Location Minesoil
No. Class
26
21
2
25
16
28
20A
27
5
10
2 OB
* R for
LS =
RLS =
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IA4
IA4
IA2
IA3
IA2
IA1
IA3
IA1
IA1
IB2
IB2
study area =
assumed slope
LS = 1.5941.
375 X 1.5941
K RLS* RKLS
.21 598
.37
.27
.24
.27
.29
.45
.42
.44
.42
.31
126
221
161
143
161
173
269
251
263
251
185
A**
520
890
655
590
655
700
1,070
1,000
1,045
1,000
750
B#
770
610
360
360
320
280
460
420
440
370
130
375 (from Erodent (R) values map i
10%, assumed slope length 100 feet
= 598.
** Minimum tons/acre of rock mul
#
Tons/acre > 4 mm in minesoil
ch needed
to a depth
to provide VM
Of 6"' R = I
B-A
250
-280
-295
-230
-335
-420
-610
-580
-605
-630
-620
VM
.01
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
n Utah Water
. Using Utah
(T/A/yr.)
1.3
176.8
128.8
114.4
128.8
138.4
215.2
200.8
210.4
148.0
148.0
Research
Research
of 0.01
% minesoil material > •
._C/-t i 1 1 ,-.«• «• _
(Metric
2
396
288
256
288
310
482
449
471
331
331
Laboratory (
Laboratory
T/ha/yr.)
.8
.0
.5
.2
.5
.0
.0
.7
.3
.5
.5
5).
Eq.
^ Tm\ (\ nnn +nnc\
-------
is armored and the VM value is 0.01. If the value B minus A is negative, the
minesoil is unarmored and the VM value is 0.8. Table 15 shows the soil loss
to be expected from the minesoils studied in this project. These values were
obtained by using the Utah Research Laboratory equation (A = RKLSVM) and the
RKLS and VM values found in Table 15. Only one minesofl (locality 26), is
classified as an armored soil. The soil loss for this minesoil was esti-
mated as 2.8 metric T/ha/yr (1.26 (T/A/yr); whereas, the loss for an unar-
mored minesoil such as the one at locality 10 was 331.5 metric T/ha/yr
(148.0 T/A/yr).
-------
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Adams, F. and C. E. Evans. 1962. A rapid method for measuring lime
requirement of red-yellow podzollc soils. Soil Scl. Soc. Amer. Proc.
26:355-357.
2. Foster, G. R. and W. H. Wischmeler. 1973. Evaluating Irregular slopes
for soil-loss prediction. ASAE Paper No. 73-227. Annual Meeting,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
3. Lancaster, J. D. 1970. Determination of phosphorous and potassium in
soils. Miss. Agr. Exp. Sta., State Coll. Miss., Mimeo.
4. Mehlich, A. 1953. Determinations of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH/, by North
Carolina soil testing laboratories. University of N. Carolina, Raleigh.
MImeo.
5. Utah Water Research Laboratory. 1976. Erosion control during highway
construction. Manual of Erosion Control Principles and Practices. Vol.
II. NCHRP Project 16-3.
6. Watanabe, F. S. and S. R. 01 sen. 1965. Test of an ascorbic acid method
for determining phosphorous in water and NaHCOo extracts from soil.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29:677-678. 5
7. Wischmeier, W. H., D. D. Smith, and R. E. Uhland. 1958. Evaluation of
Factors In the soil-loss equation. Ag. Eng. Vol. 39, No. 8, pp 458-464.
8. Wischmeier, W. H. 1959. A rainfall erosion index for a universal soil-
loss equation. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Vol. 23, pp 246-249.
9. Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith. I960. A universal soil-loss equa-
tion to guide conservation farm planning. 7th Int. Cong. Soil Science
Transactions. Vol. 1, pp 418-425.
10. Wischmeier, W. H., C. B. Johnson, and B. V. Cross. 1971. A soil eroda-
bility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. Jour, of Soil and
Water Conservation, Vol. 26, No. 5.
11. Wischmeier, W. H. and L. D. Meyer. 1973. Soil erodabillty on construc-
tion areas. Highway Research Bull. Special Report 135, National Acade-
my of Science, Washington, D.C. pp 20-29.
12. Wischmeier, W. H. 1975. Estimating the soil-loss equation's cover and
management factor for undisturbed areas. Present and Prospective Tech-
nology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources, Proceedings of the
Sediment Yield Workshop, Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS, ARS-S-40,
pp 118-124.
41
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-123
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
CLASSIFICATION OF COAL SURFACE MINE SOIL
MATERIAL FOR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND SOIL
WATER QUALITY
5. REPORT DATE
May 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
E. S.Lyle,Jr,
Paul A. Wood, B. F. Hajek, Jr.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Dept. of Forestry & Dept. of Agronomy & Soils
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36830
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE623
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG D6-E762
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
An Alabama minesoil classification system was developed based on
soil texture, soil color value and soil pH. Only five different soil
classes were found in this study. However, the classification scheme
allows for the inclusion of any minesoil that occurs on the basis of its
texture, color value and pH. Limestone and fertilizer recommendations
are given for soils of the five minesoil classes. Research evidence
showed that the limestone recommendations will maintain a pH favorable
to plant growth and surface soil water quality for a period of at least
one year. The scope of this project did not allow determination of wate
quality where the water had leached downward through the minesoil. The
recommended fertilizer rates should supersede those of a soil testing
laboratory if the laboratory recommends lesser amounts of fertilizer.
Also, the recommended rates can be used if soil test recommendations are
unavailable.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Soila
Coal Mines
Reclamat ion
Soil Tests
Coal
Extraction
Mine soil
Alabama
Surface mining
Fertilizer
Limestone
48G
98A
98D
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to the public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassi fied
21. NO. OF PAGES
50
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
42
u.s. eo*aM«n mnm orncL u?9-657-060 / S343
------- |