Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I~vised 1/11/80 <br />Section 816.25 Continued <br />Sartq~ling for potassium as suggested by NII.RD appears unwarranted upon <br />examination of the reported levels of this nutrient in topsoil and over- <br />burden contained in Sections 779.14 and 779.21 on pages 779-296 and 297. <br />It is reported that potassium levels in topsoil are classified according <br />to Ludwick, et al. (1975, Fefer to refernce in permit bibliography) as <br />very high in regards to the plant requirement for this nutrient. Spoil <br />levels of potassium summarized on page 779-27 are lower, but this is <br />explained by the fact these materials aze unweathered. Even in their <br />• unweathered condition Ludwick reported that no deficiencies exist. <br />Power, et al (1978) stated that the potassium levels in mine spoils in <br />the western United States are sufficient and that application of supple- <br />mental potassium is unnecessary. <br />Since baseline levels of potassium exceed any threshhold deficiency <br />levels by large amounts and since no reported deficiencies of potassium <br />are known to occur on reclaimed strip mined lands at the Enen7Y Eliels <br />site or on any other surface mined sites in the ~,estern United States, it <br />would appeaz that the sampling of potassium is necessary. <br />• <br />816-20(a) <br />