My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV96883
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV96883
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:25 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:04:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Name
APPENDIX 3 MINE RECLAMATION STUDY SECOND ANNUAL REPORT
Type & Sequence
TR53
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.
/
101
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
• '~ <br />~~ <br /> <br />noticeably warmer throughout the latter half of the sampling <br />period. <br />d. On 2:1 south aspect plots, both mulch treatments are signifi- <br />cantly cooler than the control at 5® indicating a definite <br />mulch advantage. These differences are most apparent in the <br />spring and fall between the control and hydromulch treatment <br />and in the fall between the control and excelsior treatment. <br />This trend is also apparent for the hydromulch treatment at <br />15® though temperature differences are not as great. This <br />trend was not evident for the control vs. excelsior treatment <br />at this depth. At the 25 and 50cm depths little mulch advan- <br />tage was apparent with mulch treatments being slightly warmer <br />than the controls in some cases. Comparison between mulch <br />treatments shows that the hydromulch maintains slightly cooler <br />temperatures from spring through the summer at 5 ®. At 15 ®, <br />the excelsior treatment was slightly cooler during the spring <br />but warmer from late summer through fall. At 25 and 50® the <br />eacelsior treatment was slightly warmer than the hydromulch <br />treatment from late spring through mid-summer but the dif- <br />ferences are not considered significant. <br />e. 2:1 Slope - West (Appendix C-16, C-17) <br />On the west end plots, the excelsior treatment was cooler by <br />varying degrees than the hydromulch treatment at 5 and 15cm <br />throughout most of the sampling period. At 15 ®, the hydro- <br />mulch treatment was warmer by 4 to 8F during this period while <br />differences at 15® were not as great. There was some indica- <br />tion that the hydromulch treatment is somewhat more sensitive <br />to ambient air temperature fluctuations. There vas little <br />variation between treatments at 25 and SOem. It was noted <br />that the 15, 25, and SOcm temperatures of the excelsior plot <br />were clustered through the fall indicating more uniform <br />temperatures in the lower portion of the profile. This was <br />not as pronounced for the hydromulch treatment. <br />f. Level Slope - Refuse x Topsoil (Appendix C-13, C-14) <br />The topsoiled plot was consistently cooler than the refuse <br />plot at 5 and 15®. The greatest differences at Scm occurred <br />in spring and fall when. the topsoiled plot was 9F and SF <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.