My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-05-11_PERMIT FILE - C1981012 (13)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981012
>
2017-05-11_PERMIT FILE - C1981012 (13)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2017 9:30:22 AM
Creation date
7/11/2017 9:15:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/11/2017
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 15 CSU REVEGETATION STUDY 1979-1981
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
57 <br />the same number of plants on Treatment 2 versus the mulched treatments, but • <br />the overall plant size is smaller in the latter group. One would expect mulch <br />to enhance the growth of seeded species by decreasing evaporation, reducing <br />erosion, increasing infiltration, hindering the establishment of invading <br />species, and moderating surface temperatures. However, it may still contribute <br />to the decline in overall plant biomass and cover through one very important <br />mechanism: it appears to provide a very desirable habitat for field mice!. <br />Eight treatments were observed to have moderate to heavy infestations of mice, <br />six of which were mulched, thus showing 50% of the mulched treatments to be <br />Infested. Gypsum amendments did not influence rodent activity. The other <br />two disturbed treatments were similar to Treatments 5-8 in that they contained <br />nitrogen amendments. Nitrogen added to the soil increases the protein con- <br />tents in plants making them more desirable to herbivores. Such observations . <br />suggest one more reason why Treatment 2 can have similar overall density <br />levels to other treatments but with higher biomass and cover values. <br />In future work, considering the results of gypsum versus nongypsum <br />applications in each treatment, it does not appear that gypsum will need to be <br />applied to the coal waste material. It was originally applied because soil <br />tests indicated a relatively high SAR value with a low conductivity suggesting <br />sodic soil problems might develop (initial soil data in Appendix, page 74). <br />The reason -for gypsum's ineffectiveness is due to the very low soil conduc- <br />tivity values. The high SAR values indicate that most of the salts in the <br />soil are sodium; but, since the conductivity is so low, there is not enough . <br />sodium to cause any deflocculation problems. <br />In conclusion, Treatment 2 with no Added qXpsum appear,; to he the hest <br />technique for recta�in9 the Allen Mine spoils when plant growth stand . <br />diversity, minimal rodent impact, and costs of implementation are considered. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.