RECLAMATION EFFECTIVENESS AT THREE RECLAIMED ABANDONED MINE SITES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA by Tara Christine Tafi A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Land Rehabilitation MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana May 2006 © COPYRIGHT by Tara Christine Tafi 2006 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Tara Christine Tafi This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and had been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Division of Graduate Education. Dennis Neuman Approved for the Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Dr. John Wraith Approved for the Division of Graduate Education Dr. Joseph Fedock iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for schol arly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed by the U.S. Copyright La w. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Tara Christine Tafi May 2006 iv ACKNOWLEGEMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my ma jor advisor, Dennis Neuman, for his guidance and support during my graduate education. It was Dennis who helped me get this project started and helped me every step of the way, and for this I am forever grateful. I also thank Cathy Zabinski for co-c hairing my committee and providing me with the guidance that I needed. Many thanks to Bill Insk eep and Clayton Marlow for sitting on my committee and being enthusiastic about my work. I would like to express my great appreciation to Stuart Jennings, Pam Blicker, Frank Munshower, and Dawn Major; they have been extremely supportive and helped me greatly during this experience. I thank Mike Browne (USFS) for his visi on and help developing this project, Floyd Thompson (BLM) and Huey Long (BLM) for thei r help in the field, and the Bureau of Land Management for funding this project. Than ks also to Loren Huggins for his help in the field. I may still be digging so il pits if not for his help. Finally, I would like to thank my parent s, Yolanda and Dennis Tafi, for without whom I would have been completely lost in life and graduate school. They have truly been an inspiration. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Research.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Study Area Description.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Geology.................................................................................................................. ...3 Climate .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....3 Reclamation Methods .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Study Site Descriptions..................................................................................................5 Gregory Mine............................................................................................................5 Comet Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 High Ore Creek .......................................................................................................10 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................13 Revegetation and Reclamation Effectiveness ..............................................................13 Metal Tolerant Plants .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Species Richness and Diversity ..............................................................................15 Limiting Factors for Plant Growth......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Electrical Conductivity ...........................................................................................17 Topsoil Depth.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Soil pH .................................................................................................................. ..18 Trace Elements in the Root Zone.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Zinc ................................................................................................................. ....20 Cadmium.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1 Copper............................................................................................................... ..22 Lead................................................................................................................. ....22 Arsenic .............................................................................................................. ..23 Upward Migration of Contaminants .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Nutrient Content......................................................................................................25 Nitrogen ............................................................................................................. .26 Phosphorous ........................................................................................................26 Potassium .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Organic Matter Content ......................................................................................28 Water Availability.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Page 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS.................................................................................30 Sample Area Selection .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Gregory and Comet Mines.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 High Ore Creek .......................................................................................................31 Sampling Design and Analysis .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Soil Sample Collection .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Soil Sample Preparation.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Soil Analytical Procedures...........................................................................................33 Acidity and Electrical Conductivity Determination .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 Nutrient Analysis ....................................................................................................33 Soluble Metal Analysis .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Total Recoverable Metals Analysis .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Vegetation Sample Collection and Preparation .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Canopy Cover .........................................................................................................32 Above Ground Biomass ..........................................................................................34 Statistical Methods.......................................................................................................35 ANOVA ..................................................................................................................35 Correlation .............................................................................................................. 36 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................37 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 37 Soil Chemistry .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Correlation Analyses.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 Gregory Mine...............................................................................................................44 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 44 Soluble Metals and Arsenic .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Total Metals and Arsenic ........................................................................................46 Nutrients................................................................................................................ ..48 Correlation Analyses ..............................................................................................49 Comet Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 52 Soluble Metals and Arsenic .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Total Metals and Arsenic ........................................................................................54 Nutrients................................................................................................................ ..54 Correlation Analyses...............................................................................................56 High Ore Creek ............................................................................................................60 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 60 Soluble Metals and Arsenic .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Page Total Metals and Arsenic ........................................................................................63 Nutrients................................................................................................................ ..63 Correlation Analyses...............................................................................................64 5. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................66 Vegetation Attributes and Soil Chemistry .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Gregory Mine.........................................................................................................67 Comet Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 High Ore Creek ......................................................................................................69 Established Vegetation...........................................................................................70 Monitoring Reclamation Effectiveness.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 REFERENCES CITED......................................................................................................73 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................79 APPENDIX A: Canopy Cover and Biomass Production Data .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 APPENDIX B: Species Lists for All Sites .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 APPENDIX C: Soil Chemistry Data ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 4 APPENDIX D: Statistical Analyses Output .............................................................154 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. General Seed Mix Used at the Gregory Mine.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Wetland Seed Mix Used at the Gregory Mine......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Streambank and Floodplain Se ed Mix Used at the Comet Mine.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Non-Streambank Seed Mix Used at the Comet Mine.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Upper Streambank Seed Mix Used at High Ore Creek ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6. Riparian Seed Mi x Used at High Ore Creek.........................................................11 7. Soil Salinity Guide ................................................................................................17 8. Effects of pH on the Availa bility of Trace Elements in Soil ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 9. Daubenmire Cover Classes and Midpoints......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 10. Vegetation Summary Across All Sites ................................................................37 11. Summary of Soil Trace Elements Evaluated for this Study ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 12. Summary of Soil pH and Metal Levels in Surface Soil Samples from the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, and High Ore Creek......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 13. Summary of Average Soil Nutrient (mg kg -1 ) and Organic Matter (%) Concentrations at All Sites.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 14. Gregory Mine Vegetation Summary....................................................................44 15. Species Located in Samp le Areas at the Gregory Mine ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 16. Soil pH (standard units) and Sol uble Metals and Arsenic (mg L -1 ) Levels at the Gregory Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 17. Total Metals and Arsenic (mg kg -1 ) in Surface Soil Samples from the Gregory Mine ....................................................................................48 ix LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED Table Page 18. Nutrient (mg kg -1 ) and Organic Matter ( %) Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from the Gregory Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 19. Comet Mine Vegetation Summary .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 20. Species Located in Sample Areas at the Comet Mine ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 21. Total Metal and As (mg kg -1 ) in Surface soil Samples from the Comet Mine......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 22. Nutrient (mg kg -1 ) and Organic Matter ( %) Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from the Comet Mine......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 23. High Ore Creek Vegetation Summary .................................................................60 24. Species Located in Sample Ares at High Ore Creek ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 25. Soil pH (standard units) and Soluble Metal and As (mg L -1 ) Levels in Surface Soil Samples from High Ore Creek ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 26. Total Metal and As (mg kg -1 ) Levels in Surface Soil Samples from High Ore Creek ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 27. Nutrient (mg kg-) and Organic Ma tter (%) Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from High Ore Creek ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 28. Field Canopy Cover Data, Total Percent Cover by Species and Sample Area, Standard Deviation, and Species Frequency from the Gregory Mine ........ . . . . . 8 1 29. Production Data from the Gregory Mine ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 30. Field Canopy Cover Data, Total Percent Cover by Species and Sample Area, Standard Deviation, and Species Frequency from the Comet Mine ........ . . . . . . 104 31. Production Data from the Comet Mine......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 4 32. Field Canopy Cover Data, Total Percent Cover by Species and Sample Area, Standard Deviation and Species Frequency from High Ore Creek ....... . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 x LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED Table Page 33. Production Data from High Ore Creek ..............................................................125 34. Species List from the Gregory Mine......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 35. Species List from the Comet Mine ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 30 36. Species List from High Ore Creek ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 32 37. Soil Nutrients Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at the Gregory Mine.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 5 38. Soluble Metals and As Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at the Gregory Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7 39. Total Metals and As Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at the Gregory Mine.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 9 40. Soil Nutrients Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at the Comet Mine ........ . 1 4 1 41. Soluble Metals and As Data from a Subset of Topsoil Samples Collected at the Comet Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 4 42. Total Metals and As Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at the Comet Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8 43. Nutrients Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at High Ore Creek .................151 44. Soluble Metals and As Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at High Ore Creek ..........................................................................152 45. Total Metals and As Data from Topsoil Samples Collected at High Ore Creek ..........................................................................153 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location Map for the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, High Ore Creek ..................................................................................................4 2. Correlation Analysis of Percent Canopy Cover and the Sum of Total Metals and Arsenic Levels (As, Cu, Pb, Zn)from All Mine Sites ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3. Correlation Analysis of Species Richness and the Sum of Total Metals and As Levels (As, Cu, Pb, Zn) from all Mine Sites .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4. Correlation Analysis of Percent Canopy Cover and Soil Potassium Concentration (A), a nd Correlation Analysis of Biomass Production and Soil Potassium Levels (B) ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 5. Correlation Analysis for Percent Canopy Cover and H-ion Concentration (A), and Percent Ca nopy Cover and Total Lead (B) at the Gregory Mine...................................................................................................48 6. Correlation Analysis of Percent Canopy Cover and Potassium Concentration from the Gregory Mine .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 7. Correlation Analysis of Percent Canopy Cover and the Sum of Total Metals and As Levels (As, Cu, Pb, Zn) from the Comet Mine.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 8. Correlation Analysis for Canopy Cover and Phosphorous Concentration (A), and Percen t Canopy Cover and Potassium Concentration (B), from the Comet Mine ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 9. Correlation Analysis of Biomass Production and Potassium Concentration (A) and Bioma ss Production and Phosphorous Concentration (B), from the Comet Mine ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 xii ABSTRACT Montana has an estimated 6000 abandoned mine sites, many with associated waste rock and tailings materials contri buting to the release of high levels of acidity, heavy metals, and other contaminants, creating a risk to human health and the environment. Many abandoned mine s ites in Montana have been reclaimed, however, little post-reclamation moni toring has been performed, and the effectiveness of reclamation has not been quantified. The goal of this project was to quantify the effectiveness of reclamation at three sites in Jefferson County, Montana based on soil suitability for sustaining plant growth. Vegetation and soil studies were execute d using a stratified random sampling design. Vegetation measurements included canopy cover using Daubenmire cover classes, above ground biomass, and species richness/diver sity. Co-located soil samples were excavated in increments to a depth of 60 cm, and determinations of pH, electrical conductivity, nutrients, soluble, and total metal levels were made. Canopy cover estimates ranged from 0-120% and biomass production estimates ranged from 0-4583 kg ha -1 . Differences in species richness and diversity were observed between sample st rata. The chemical properties of the soil varied greatly, with pH values ranging from 2.08 to 7.63, and soluble metal values ranging from <0.1 to1001 mg l -1 for Zn, .02 to 20.81 mg l -1 for Cu, <.01 to 7.39 mg l -1 for Cd, <.05 to 12.26 mg l -1 for As, and <.1 to 7.6 mg l -1 for Pb. Sum of total metal and arsenic (As, Cu, Pb, and Zn) concentrations ranged from 133 to 81448 mg kg -1 . Associations between vege tation and soil chemistry were determined using correlation. Signifi cant correlations between vegetation attributes and soil chemistry were found. These results indicate that reclamation at the selected sites was moderately effective in reducing human and environment risk of exposure to harmful contaminants. There are concerns with upward migration of contaminants, and the sustainability of plant communities at all sites within the study. Elevated levels of residual metals and arsenic, as well as low pH conditions may have a deleterious effect on the long-term stabili ty of the reclamation at these sites. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem Historic hard-rock mining in Montana has left over 6000 abandoned or inactive mine sites, each with associated waste materials posing a threat to human health and the environment (Pioneer Technologies Inc., 1995). Environmental problems associated with these sites include soil and water contamination from heavy metals and other contaminants. By 1991, the Montana Department of State Lands/Abandoned Mine Reclamation Bureau (MDSL/AMRB) had concluded that the imminent danger to human life had been eliminated at most mine sites in Montana, however; limited progress had been made in reducing the effects of contamination to surface and ground waters (Pioneer Technologies, 1995). In 1993 and 1994, 331 abandoned mine sites considered to have the highest hazard potential were inventoried and ranked based on severity of environmental hazards. Fifty-five sites were removed from the list due to lack of environmental hazards (Pioneer Technologies, 1995). Many of the remaining sites had limited vegetation cover or were completely devoid of vegetation. Reclamation of these sites began in the mid 1990’s [several sites have been reclaimed in the past decade]; however little post reclamation monitoring has been performed. Reclamation effectiveness has not been determined at many sites due to the lack of quantitative data, consistent and regular monitoring, and funding. 2 Purpose of Research Reclamation of abandoned metal mines is expensive and difficult. Therefore, it is important to understand the biological and chemical process occurring on reclaimed mine sites to ensure efficient and effective reclamation. Reclaimed mine sites are often characterized by large variations in vegetation cover, barren areas, low species diversity, and limited species composition. The goal of this project was to quantify the effectiveness of reclamation at three sites in Jefferson County, Montana, based on the soil suitability for sustaining plant growth. The primary objectives for this project included: 1. determination of whether variations in vegetation production and cover were related to soil chemistry; 2. identification of species that have colonized the reclaimed sites and make comparisons to the applied seed mix; and 3. determination of which removal method was most effective in an impacted riparian zone. Addressing these objectives will improve our knowledge of the effectiveness of current removal and replacement reclamation strategies, as well as enhance our knowledge of plant performance on reclaimed soils and natural occurrence of metal tolerant plants. 3 Study Area Description Geology The three sites chosen for this project are the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, and High Ore Creek. All are located in Jefferson County (Figure 1) and lie within the Boulder Batholith. The Boulder Batholith, located in southwest Montana, is a northeast trending intrusive complex of Late Cretaceous (approximately 68-78 m. y.) age, and runs from south of Butte to Helena (Tilling, 1973). Two distinct magma series formed the batholith and 75% of the batholith is quartz monzanite (Tilling, 1973 and 1974). The main ore body consists of lenses, veins, and replacement bodies of chalcopyrite, pyrite, arsenopyrite, sphalerite, and galena (Tetra-Tech, 2001). These mineralized veins were extensively mined in Montana beginning in the late 1860’s and continuing through the present. Climate Located on the eastern side of the continental divide, these sites have a modified continental climate. The closest weather stations to all three sites are in Boulder and Basin, Montana, where average temperature ranges of 26 oC to 7 oC in July, and 0 oC to -12 oC in January have been recorded. The average precipitation in these areas is approximately 30-36 cm yr-1, with significantly higher precipitation levels in the surrounding mountains (Tetra-Tech, 2001). The general range type for this area is a Silty Range Site, 15-19” (Ross and Hunter, 1976). 4 Figure 1. Location map for the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, and High Ore Creek. Reclamation Methods Removal of waste materials and replacement with clean coversoil was the reclamation method used at the Gregory and Comet Mine sites, as well as some areas along High Ore Creek. Specific methods are detailed in the site descriptions. Limited post reclamation records are available, so much of the reclamation information was retrieved from the contract bids and expanded engineering evaluation and cost analysis reports that were compiled prior to reclamation. The actual reclamation methods may have differed from what is reported in the following sections. N Gregory Mine Comet Mine High Ore Creek I-15 5 Study Site Descriptions Gregory Mine The Gregory Mine is located in the Colorado Mining District, 9 miles southwest of Clancy, Montana, in Sections 4 and 5, Township 7 North, Range 4 West. The mine site lies within the Clancy Creek Drainage and has an elevation range of 1661 to 1707 meters above mean sea level. The general climax vegetation communities in surrounding areas are dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Columbia needlegrass (Ross and Hunter, 1976). Mining began at the Gregory Mine in 1864, and was one of the first silver-lead lodes mined in Montana. The site was mined sporadically until the 1950’s, and is currently owned by Helena Silver Mines, Inc. (Tetra-Tech, 2001). The primary metals mined at this site included lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), gold (Au), and silver (Ag; Tetra-Tech, 2001). An estimated 23,000 cubic meters (m3) of waste rock and 10,000 m3 of tailings were located on the site and in the Gregory Creek and Clancy Creek drainages (Tetra-Tech, 2001). Environmental concerns included high levels of Pb, manganese (Mn), and arsenic (As) in soil and water samples, and copper (Cu) and cadmium (Cd) levels exceeding the Montana Acute Aquatic Life criteria (Pioneer Technologies, 1995). Total disturbance at this site covered approximately 2.5 hectares (ha), including 1 ha of wetlands (Tetra-Tech, 2001). The Gregory Mine ranked 57th on the Montana Abandoned Hardrock Mine priorities list, and was reclaimed in the summer of 2002. 6 Reclamation methods implemented at this site included standard removal and replacement methods as described by Tetra-Tech (2001). Two onsite repositories were constructed, and waste materials were placed into the repositories. The repositories were capped with a geosynthetic clay liner, and covered with 30 cm of subsoil and 15 cm of coversoil. Following completion of repository capping, Gregory Creek active stream channels and floodplains were reconstructed. The entire site was covered with 30 cm of subsoil and 15 cm of coversoil and re-graded. Following re-grading, the seedbed was prepared and the entire area was fertilized with nitrogen and phosphorous. The site was then seeded using two seed mixes; a general seed mix (Table 1), and a wetland seed mix (Table 2). The site was then covered in straw mulch and the surface was crimped. Currently, the reclaimed Gregory Mine site is characterized by vegetation cover estimates ranging from 0 to 100+% canopy cover. Red top (Agrostis alba) is the dominant riparian grass species and Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) is the dominant forb. Areas of sparse to no vegetation have white salts precipitated on the soil surface. Wetland areas with poor vegetation have iron staining and acid rock drainage present on the surface. 7 Table 1. General seed mix used to reclaim the Gregory Mine (Tetra-Tech, 2001). Scientific Name Common Name Lbs/ PLS/acre Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch Wheatgrass 6.0 Festuca scabrella Rough Fescue 4.0 Agropyron dasystachyum Thickspike Wheatgrass 3.0 Stipa viridula Green Needlegrass 1.5 Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 1.5 Poa secunda Sandberg Bluegrass 16.5 Lupinus argenteus Silvery Lupine 0.5 Linum lewisii Blue Flax 0.5 Archillea millefolium Western Yarrow 0.5 Lolium multiflorum Annual Ryegrass 3.0 Medicago sativa Alfalfa 1.0 Table 2. Wetland seed mix used to reclaim the Gregory Mine (Tetra-Tech, 2001). Scientific Name Common Name Planting Method Wetland Status Carex nebraskenis Nebraska Sedge Seed Obligate Glyceria elata Fowl Mannagrass Seed Obligate Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass Seed Facultative-Wet Elymus cinereus Basin Wildrye Seed Facultative-Upland Alnus incana Speckled Alder Cuttings Facultative-Wet Salix spp. Willow Cuttings Facultative Comet Mine The Comet Mine is located in the Basin/Cataract Mining District, 5 miles northwest of Boulder, Montana in Sections 35 and 36, Township 7 North, Range 5 West. The elevation of the Comet Mine ranges from 1860 to 1950 meters above mean sea level (Brown et al., 2001). The general vegetation communities in surrounding areas are dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Columbia needlegrass (Ross and Hunter, 1976). 8 Mining began in 1880 at the Comet Mine, and is one of the oldest abandoned mine sites in the Basin/Cataract mining district. The site was mined intermittently until 1941, when the mine was closed (Browne et al., 2001). The primary metals mined at this site included Au, Ag, Pb, Zn, and Cu (Pioneer Technologies, 1995). Environmental concerns associated with the waste rock and tailings at this site were releases of As, Cu, mercury (Hg), antimony (Sb), Cd, Mn, Pb, and Zn. Releases of As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Mn, and Zn to the surface waters of High Ore Creek were found, with the Montana Acute Aquatic Life criteria exceeded for Zn, and the Montana Chronic Aquatic Life criteria exceeded for Cu and Zn. Total disturbance at the Comet Mine covered approximately 14 ha, with an additional 6 km of disturbance along High Ore Creek. The Comet Mine ranked 10th on the priorities list and reclamation began in 1997 (Pioneer Technologies Inc, 1996). Reclamation occurred in two phases: Phase 1 in 1997 and Phase 2 in 2001. Waste materials were removed to approximate pre-mining contour, or to native soil. Tailings and waste rock were excavated and placed into the onsite Comet repository, or the off-site Bureau of Land Management repository. Waste materials placed in the Comet repository were capped with a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) and a 60 cm soil cap (Pioneer, 2003). The entire site was covered with 45 cm of borrow soil, and re- graded to obtain uniform thickness (Olympus, 1999). Organic matter in the form of compost was incorporated to a depth of 30 cm. The re-graded soil was fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium fertilizers, and the seedbed was prepared (Olympus, 1999; Pioneer, 2003). The site was then seeded using two seed mixes; a 9 streambank and floodplain mix (Table 3) and a non-streambank mix (Table 4). After seeding, the entire site was covered in straw mulch and crimped (Pioneer, 2003). Table 3. Streambank and floodplain seed mix used to reclaim the Comet Mine (Olympus, 1999). Scientific Name Common Name lbs PLS/acre Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch Wheatgrass 8.0 Festuca scabrella Rough Fescue 12.0 Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 8.0 Stipa viridula Green Needlegrass 6.0 Koleria cristata Prairie Junegrass 2.0 Poa secunda Sandberg Bluegrass 4.0 Lupinus perennis Wild Lupine 0.5 Linum lewisii Blue Flax 0.5 Archillea millefolium Western Yarrow 0.5 Regreen 15 Table 4. Non-streambank seed mix used to reclaim the Comet Mine (Olympus, 1999). Scientific Name Common Name lbs PLS/acre Agropyron smithii Western Wheatgrass 10.0 Agropyron Trachycaulum Slender Wheatgrass 12.0 Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 4.0 Agropyron dasystachyum Thickspike Wheatgrass 6.0 Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass 4.0 Lupinus perennis Wild Lupine 0.5 Linum lewisii Blue Flax 0.5 Archillea millefolium Western Yarrow 0.5 Regreen 15 The post-reclamation landscape at the Comet Mine is characterized by highly variable vegetation with canopy cover estimates ranging from o to 100+%. Red top (Agrostis alba) is the dominant riparian grass at the Comet Mine. Areas of sparse vegetation have 10 white salts precipitated on the soil surface. Large seeps are located on and below the waste repository, and acid rock drainage and iron staining are present. High Ore Creek The High Ore Creek Drainage is located in the Basin/Cataract mining district, 5 miles northwest of Boulder, Montana in Sections 7, 2, 11, 14, 15, and 22, Township 6 North, Range 5 West, and Section 36, Township 7 North and Range 5 West. High Ore Creek runs 6 km from the Comet Mine to the confluence with the Boulder River and has an elevation range of 1555 meters above mean sea level at the Boulder River and 1920 meters above mean sea level at the Comet Repository (Pioneer, 2000). The general vegetation communities in surrounding areas are dominated by rough fescue, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Columbia needlegrass (Ross and Hunter, 1976). Mining in the High Ore Creek Drainage began in 1880 with the opening of the Comet Mine. There are a total of 26 abandoned or inactive mines along the 6 km stretch of High Ore Creek. Major mining activities were completed in this drainage in 1941 (Pioneer, 2000). The Comet Mine and Mill were the largest source of mining wastes into High Ore Creek, with an estimated 25,000 m3 of tailings in the floodplain (Pioneer, 1996). Metals of concern in the High Ore drainage included Sb, As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Au, and Zn. Reclamation of High Ore Creek occurred within the 6 km stretch from the Comet Mine to the confluence with the Boulder River in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000 (BLM, 2001). 11 Reclamation methods at High Ore Creek included total, partial, and no removal of tailings materials, followed by placement of a coversoil and revegetation (BLM, 2001). Waste materials were transported to two repositories: the Comet Repository and an off- site BLM repository. Two seed mixes were used in the revegetation phase of reclamation; an upper streambank mix (Table 5) and a riparian mix (Table 6). Table 5. Upper streambank seed mix used to reclaim High Ore Creek. Scientific Name Common Name lbs PLS/acre Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch Wheatgrass 8 Festuca scabrella Rough Fescue 12 Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 8 Achnatherum nelsonii Columbia Needlegrass 6 Koleria cristata Prairie Junegrass 2 Poa secunda Sandberg Bluegrass 4 Lupinus sericeus Silky Lupine 0.5 Eriogonum umbellatum Sulfur Flower 0.5 Archillea millefolium Western Yarrow 0.5 Table 6. Riparian seed mix used to reclaim High Ore Creek. Scientific Name Common Name lbs PLS/acre Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass 2 Agropyron Trachycaulum Slender Wheatgrass 6 Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 4 Calamagrostis spp. Bluejoint Reedgrass 3 Lupinus sericeus Silky Lupine 0.5 Eriogonum umbellatum Sulfur Flower 0.5 Archillea millefolium Western Yarrow 0.5 12 Moderately variable vegetation cover and composition characterize the post reclamation landscape at High Ore Creek, with canopy cover estimates ranging from 30- 80%. Variations in species richness and diversity were also present, and no barren areas existed in sample areas. 13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Revegetation and Reclamation Effectiveness Establishing vegetation on reclaimed sites is the final phase of reclamation, and is perhaps the most important step in a reclamation project. “…Essentially, the objectives of vegetation establishment are: long term stability of the land surface which ensures that there is no surface erosion by water or wind; reduction of leaching throughputs, lessening the amounts of potentially toxic elements released into local water courses and to groundwaters; development of a vegetated landscape or ecosystem in harmony with the surrounding environment; and with some positive value in an aesthetic, productivity, or nature conservation context (Johnson et al, 1994). ” Vegetation cover is effective in reducing erosion and reducing concentrations of heavy metals entering ground and surface waters (Tordoff et al., 2000), and is an important factor in the success of revegetation (Bleeker et al., 2002). There are three main approaches to revegetation; the ameliorative approach, the adaptive approach, and the agricultural approach (Johnson et al., 1994). Direct seeding with conventional species and fertilization is a common approach to revegetation of mine sites, due to low cost (Johnson et al., 1994). However, this approach is often unsuccessful in areas with high levels of metals residing in the root zone and low nutrient levels (Johnson et al., 1994). Brown et al. (2003) found the use of pioneer native species to be an effective approach to revegetation at the New World Mine in Montana, based on natural succession of plant species on adjacent disturbances of varying age. He suggests that these species have 14 adapted to the acidic metalliferous conditions present, and seeds should be collected from the adjacent areas to ensure successful and sustainable revegetation. Seeding one or more N- fixing species may help overcome nitrogen deficiencies by nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere (Johnson et al., 1994; Bradshaw, 1997). Using tolerant plant species may decrease the cost of revegetation during reclamation of metalliferous sites (Smith and Bradshaw, 1979). Metal Tolerant Plants Although waste materials may be removed during reclamation of mine sites, many trace elements such as As, Pb, Zn, Cu, etc., may still reside in the materials that lie within the rooting zone at levels that may restrict or prevent plant growth (Smith and Bradshaw, 1979). Plants growing in contaminated areas can develop metal tolerant genotypes called metallophytes or psuedometallophytes (Shu et al., 2005; Baker, 1987; Smith and Bradshaw, 1972). These plants have adapted to high metal levels and low nutrient levels, enabling them to grow on mine sites (Smith and Bradshaw, 1972). The mechanisms of metal tolerance are independent for each metal, although, they operate together (Wu and Antonovics, 1975). Metal tolerant plants may reduce the accumulation of metals in aboveground biomass, as well as delay phytotoxic responses (Bleeker et al., 2002). Commonly Agrostis and Festuca species are present on metalliferous spoils and soils (Smith and Bradshaw, 1979). Significant metal tolerance in multiple Agrostis species, specifically Agrostis tenuis, Agrostis capillaries, and Agrostis stolonifera, has been reported (Farago, 1981; Bleeker et al., 2002; Smith and Bradshaw, 1979; Wu and 15 Antonovic, 1975; Meharg and Macnair, 1991; Surbrugg, 1982). Agrostis species are known colonizers of mine wastes in Europe, and have developed an As tolerance on As- rich mine wastes (Bleeker et al., 2002). Species of Agrostis have also exhibited tolerance to high levels of Zn, Cu and Cd, due to lack of accumulation of metals in the shoots and leaves. Zinc tolerance in plant species may be attributed to the lack of uptake by the roots, minimal transport to the shoots and leaves, and accumulation in the root zone (Farago, 1981). Shu et al. (2005) concluded that plants growing on Pb/Zn mine tailings in China accumulated Pb, Cu, and Zn primarily in the roots, and Cd uniformly throughout the roots, shoots, and leaves. Bleeker et al. (2002) also found that minimal uptake of metals may contribute to the development of metal tolerance in Agrostis species. Festuca ovina and Festuca rubra have displayed tolerance to metalliferous spoils in Europe (Farago, 1981; Smith and Bradshaw, 1979). Deschampsia cespitosa has shown metal tolerance to phytotoxic levels of Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb (Frenckell-Insam and Hutchinson, 1993; Surbrugg, 1982), and arsenic (Meharg and Macnair, 1991). Species Richness and Diversity Plant communities growing in in-situ reclaimed mine wastes have lower species diversity and a higher frequency of grass species than both uncontaminated reference areas and contaminated vegetated areas (Brown et al., 2005). Current methods of reclamation including removal of wastes and replacement with cover soil do not allow for natural soil development in the short term, and can therefore limit the number of establishing plant species, reducing species richness and overall land potential (Shu et al., 16 2005). Bradshaw (1997) indicates that to achieve successful restoration, the soil must be remediated and vegetation must be re-established. Walli (1999) measured vegetation on reclaimed coal mine sites of differing ages (1, 7, 17, 30, and 45 years). Plant species richness increased from the youngest site to the oldest; however, species richness was double the oldest site in an adjacent undisturbed area. Initial colonizers of the disturbed sites resided for a long time, with a delay of colonization from other species due to chemical constraints of the soil. Species diversity was also lowest at the youngest site and highest at the undisturbed site. He postulates that species richness may not be relevant in judging reclamation success, due to thick vegetation and rapid colonization of a few species. He suggests that in the early stages of reclamation, focus be on cover of a few species rather than on establishing high richness and diversity. It was concluded that regardless of the seed mix used, the species composition was determined by the viable seeds present in the coversoil. Brown et al. (2003) found that species richness on a reclaimed site was comparable (slightly higher) to undisturbed reference areas with low production and diversity. He also found that grass species frequency was higher than low and medium production reference areas, but slightly less than high production references. Forb frequency and richness was much lower than all reference areas. He recommended that grasses be the only life form used in a seed mix, and the added cost of adding forbs be avoided. He also concluded that forbs and sedges will naturally encroach revegatated areas, based on the forb richness in adjacent disturbed areas. 17 Limiting Factors for Plant Growth Soil structure and function are degraded or lost during mining activities, which often results in soil toxicity, low nutrient availability, and poor soil texture. Soil structure and function, although only a part of an entire ecosystem, are analogous to the whole ecosystem. If these factors are not remediated, vegetation re-establishment and restoring ecosystem function will be difficult or impossible (Bradshaw, 1997). Reclamation and revegetation of abandoned mine lands is often limited by physical and chemical properties existing in the soil, including (but not limited to) low pH, high metal levels (including metal salts), low nutrient status, and poor or no soil structure. Electrical Conductivity Electrical conductivity (EC) is the measure of salinity in a soil. Soils to be used in reclamation typically have a target EC value of less than 4 dS. Salt sensitive plants may be inhibited at EC values less than 4 dS, while salt tolerant plants may not be affected by EC values greater than 8 dS (Munshower, 1994). Table 7. Soil salinity guide (SCS, 1983). Parameter Non-Saline Slightly Saline Moderately Saline Saline EC (dS/m) < 4.0 4.0-8.0 8.0-16.0 >16.0 18 Soil salinity reduces the availability of soil water to plants by increasing the soil-water potential, in particular the osmotic potential (Jurinak et al., 1987). This process stresses plants reducing or stunting growth. Both growth rate and size decrease as salinity increases (Jurinak et al., 1987). High soil salinity may also adversely influence the uptake of plant nutrients, especially nitrogen and potassium (Jurinak et al., 1987). Topsoil Depth The depth of soil necessary for revegetation is a function of the physiochemical properties of the underlying materials, the desired vegetation community, and the quantity and quality of soil available (Bell, 2002). It is suggested by Bell (2002) that sulfidic wastes be buried by at least one meter of non-contaminated material before 10-20 cm of coversoil replacement. Barth and Martin (1984) found 101-152 cm of coversoil was needed for optimum plant production over acidic (pH = 4.0) substrates. Approximately 40 cm of coversoil is needed for optimal plant production with neutral (pH = 7.0) substrate (Barth and Martin, 1984). Soil pH Low soil pH resulting from the weathering and oxidation of sulfide minerals is the most common toxicity problem in mine soils (Bradshaw, 1997). Weathering and leaching of sulfide minerals will occur over time, but may take 30-50 years (Bradshaw, 1997). The most common sulfide mineral responsible for acid production in mine spoils is pyrite (FeS2). When exposed to the atmosphere, pyritic materials are oxidized forming a series of soluble hydrous iron sulfates, which hydrolyze and increase acidity in 19 surface and groundwaters. The overall oxidation reaction of pyrite to form sulfuric acid and iron hydroxide is given as (Caruccio et al., 1988): FeS2 + 15/4O2 +7/2H2O = 2SO42- + 4H+ + Fe(OH)3 This reaction can be catalyzed in the presence of bacteria, specifically Thiobaccillus ferrooxidans, which thrive at pH 1.5-3.0, and can make the reaction occur 106 times faster (Caruccio et al., 1988; Johnson et al., 1994). Systems containing pyritic mine wastes can produce soils with a pH of less than 2.3. Montorroso et al. (1998) concluded that intense acidification (pH < 4.0) due to the oxidation of sulfide minerals, seriously limits root penetration and plant growth. Low soil pH has several adverse effects including Al and Mn toxicity and nutrient deficiencies (Ye et al., 2002). Table 8 outlines trace element availability in terms of soil pH. Table 8. Effects of pH on the availability of trace elements in soil (Dickinson, 2002). Soil pH Highest Mobility and Availability Low pH (<5.5) Al, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb Intermediate pH (5.5-7.0) NO3, PO4, K, Mg, S, B, Cu High pH (>7.0) Ca, Mo, As, Se Trace Elements in Root Zone Trace elements, specifically metals, are found in ore bodies, and released into the environment during the mining, milling, and smelting processes. These elements often 20 create toxicity problems in soils, and contaminate surface and ground waters, creating exposure risks to humans, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Once soils are contaminated with metals, metal levels are relatively static and will not be removed by natural processes (Bradshaw, 1997). Chemical properties of mine wastes are considered the greatest restraint to plant growth. The effects of heavy metals residing in the root zone restrict root development in plants, therefore inhibiting plant establishment (Tordoff et al., 2000). Phytotoxicity studies have shown root avoidance of soils with high metal levels, which may cause these plant systems to be more susceptible to drought, temperature stress, grazing impacts, and erosion (Kaputska, 2002). Certain heavy metals are essential trace elements at low concentrations, but can be toxic to pants at higher concentrations (Johnson et al., 1994). Trace elements considered essential for plant growth include B, Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Si, Se, and Zn (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Other trace elements have proven to have stimulating effects on plant growth; however, their functions have not been identified (e.g. As, Se; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Kapustka (2002) found that phytotoxic effects including, inhibited height, shoot discoloration, and mortality, are related to a combination of metals (As, Cu, and Zn) and soil pH. Zinc. Zinc minerals are common in igneous parent materials and occur in sediments and sedimentary rocks. Zinc primarily occurs in sulfide minerals (ZnS), but can also substitute for Mg2+ in silicates (Kabata-Pendias, 2001). The solubilization of zinc minerals occurs during weathering, producing mobile Zn2+ and very soluble mineral compounds (Krzaklewski and Pietrzykowski, 2002; Kabata-Pendias 2001). At neutral 21 pH values, Zn2+ readily forms complexes with soil organic matter and clay minerals, becoming relatively immobile and accumulates in the surface soil horizons (Kabata- Pendias, 2001). Zn2+ is significantly more soluble at lower pH values. Zinc is an essential element for plant growth; however, it can be phytotoxic at high levels, especially in acidic soils (Kabata-Pendias, 2001; Adriano, 2001). The phytotoxicity level of zinc in soils varies between 100-500 mg kg-1 depending on plant genotype and soil pH (Kabata-Pendias, 2001; CH2M Hill, 1987a,b; CDM Federal, 1997). Cadmium. Cadmium (Cd) occurs in magmatic and sedimentary rocks, is closely related to Zn in its geochemistry, and is highly soluble in acidic environments. Cd has a strong affinity for sulfur and its most common compound in nature is CdS (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Cd readily goes into solution during weathering and is known to occur as Cd2+ as well as in many other complexes. The mobility of Cd2+ is strongly dependant on soil pH and oxidation potential (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Cadmium is not considered to be an essential element for plant metabolic processes, but it is absorbed by both root and leaf systems as well as accumulated in soil organisms (Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Soil pH is the controlling factor for bioavailability of Cd to plants (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Soil Cd levels of 3-100 mg kg-1 are considered phytotoxic, depending on the plant genotype and soil pH (Kabata-Pendias, 2001: CH2M Hill, 1987a,b; CDM Federal, 1997). 22 Copper. Copper (Cu) occurs in mafic and intermediate rocks, and forms several mineral complexes including sulfides (Kabata-Pendias, 2001). The most abundant mineral form of copper is chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) (Adriano, 2001). These minerals are very soluble during the weathering process and release Cu ions, especially in acidic environments (Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Cu2+ is the most common form of mobile Cu in the surface environment; however Cu2+ can be held by inorganic and organic soil constituents by the process of adsorption, occlusion or coprecipitation, organic chelation and complexing, and microbial fixation (Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Cu contamination in soils is primarily driven by the high affinity of surface soils to accumulate Cu (Kabata- Pendias, 2001). Cu is an essential micronutrient for plant nutrition; however it is only required in small amounts (5-20 mg kg -1) (Adriano, 2001). Plants primary accumulate Cu in the roots, where it is held with minimal transport to the shoots and leaves (Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Phytotoxic levels of Cu vary from 100-1636 mg kg-1 depending on plant genotype and soil pH (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992; CH2M Hill, 1987 a,b; CDM Federal, 1997). Lead. Lead (Pb) naturally occurs in magmatic and sedimentary rocks, and typically forms sulfide and carbonate minerals. The most common mineral forms of lead include galena (PbS), cerrusite (PbCO3), and anglesite (PbSO4). Although the dominant form of lead in rocks is as a discrete mineral, Pb can replace K, Ba, Sr, Na and Ca in the mineral lattice and on sorption sites (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). The 23 solubility of lead is significantly lower than other trace metals in the environment, and is primarily controlled by soil pH. Lead minerals are very insoluble, and therefore Pb is considered to be the least mobile of the heavy metals in natural environments, being 100 times less soluble than Cd in the pH range of 5-9 (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias, 2001). Lead has a strong affinity for organic mater and tends to accumulate in the surface layers of the soil profile (Adriano, 2001). Lead is not considered to play an essential role in any metabolic process in plants. It is considered a major environmental pollutant and is phytotoxic to plants in the 100-1000 mg kg-1 range (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992; CH2M Hill, 1987 a,b; CDM Federal, 1997). Low Pb concentrations in soils may inhibit some plant processes; however Pb poisoning has rarely been observed under field conditions (Kabata-Pendias, 2001 and Adriano, 2001). Lead is very toxic to fish, waterfowl, livestock, humans, and soil microbiota (Adriano, 2001). Arsenic. Arsenic is a uniformly distributed element in the major rock types. As occurs naturally in most soils and is dependant on the parent material from which the soil formed. Soils formed from mineralized sulfide deposits are typically enriched in As (Adriano, 2001). There are over 200 As bearing minerals (Adriano, 2001; Kabata- Pendias and Pendias, 1992). The two most common oxidation states of arsenic are As (III) and As (V). Arsenic (III) is much more toxic and more mobile than As (V) (Adriano, 2001). Arsenic compounds are readily soluble, but have limited mobility due to strong sorption by clays, hydroxides, and organic matter (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). The bioavailability of As is controlled by the oxidation state of the soil, the 24 amount of phosphorous (P) in the soil, soil pH, and soil organic matter (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Arsenic and phosphorous have been found to react similarly in soils in terms of sorption capacities and bioavailability (Adriano, 2001). Arsenic is a constituent of most plants, and root growth stimulation has been observed in some species, yet arsenic is not considered an essential element for plant metabolism (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Phytotoxic levels of soil As have been recorded as 15-315 mg kg-1 (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992; CH2MHill, 1987 a, b; CDM Federal, 1997). Total As is a relatively poor indicator of phytotoxicity. Multiple studies have shown higher correlation between plant growth and soluble As than total As (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Symptoms of As phytotoxicity in plants include wilted leaves, violet coloration, root discoloration, and growth reduction (Adriano, 2001; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Inorganic As is a known carcinogen in humans and bioaccumulates in the food chain (Adriano, 2001). Upward Migration of Contaminants Upward migration of soluble metals ions and salts may occur in reclaimed areas in the presence of a shallow water table (Tordoff et al., 2000). Monterroso et al. (1998) found that following coversoil application to metalliferous-acid producing soils, upward migration of acid sufficiently decreased the beneficial effects of soil replacement. In addition, plant growth in these areas was significantly limited. Soil replacement over sulfidic materials may initially provide a successful growth media for revegetation, but over time, the upward migration of contaminants will decrease the productivity of the applied soil (Bell, 2002). To avoid upward migration of contaminants, it is suggested 25 that sulfidic wastes are placed out of the root zone, or an ameliorating layer is applied between the waste materials and coversoil. A capillary barrier may also be used to halt capillary action and reduce upward migration of contaminants (Bell, 2002). Kapustka (2002) found that both irrigation and evapotranspiration affected the metal levels in surface fill material. Over a thirteen week study, contaminant levels increased by 350% in the 10 cm of fill material closest to the buried tailings. It was concluded that mobility of contaminants from buried tailings pose a substantial risk to plants growing in the riparian zone (Kapustka, 2002). Nutrient Content Nutrient uptake from soils is primarily from the soil solution. Nutrient uptake through the roots causes diffusion gradients of major nutrients (N, P, K), increasing desorption of elements from clays and organic matter. Nutrients also enter the soil solution from decomposition of organic matter, soil minerals, atmospheric deposition, and symbiotic mycorrhizal associations (Dickinson, 2002; Munshower, 1994). Nutrient deficiencies are common in mined lands, and are often difficult to overcome by natural processes (Bradshaw, 1997). This is due to the lack of clay minerals and organic matter in the wastes, which provide cation exchange sites for the retention of nutrients. The absence of these materials often leads to rapid leaching of inorganic nutrients (Tordoff et al., 2000). Fertilizers can be used to overcome deficiencies of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, and calcium (Bradshaw 1997). Waste products such as sewage sludge can be as effective as fertilizers in overcoming nutrient deficiencies (Bradshaw, 26 1997). Fertilizing reclaimed land may not influence re-vegetation due to limiting factors such as low soil pH and high salinity (Dickinson, 2002). Nitrogen. Nitrogen is the most important nutrient for plant re-establishment, and is required in the greatest amounts. Nitrate (NO3- ) is the most common plant-available form of nitrogen (Munshower, 1994). Nitrate concentrations in soils vary as a function of season, plant growth rates, climate, and plant community (Munshower, 1994). Soil nitrate levels are typically very low during peak growing season because plants have taken up available nitrate. The average plant-available nitrogen level in rangeland soils is approximately 30 kg ha-1 (Munshower, 1994). Nitrogen levels up to 1000 kg ha-1 may be needed on reclaimed land to overcome the amount that would be provided by decomposing organic matter (Dickinson, 2002). Nitrogen deficiencies can be problematic because nitrogen is absent from primary minerals (Bradshaw, 1997). Nitrogen deficiency produces chloritic plants and inhibits growth (Munshower, 1994). The establishment of nitrogen fixing plants and biological fixation can overcome nitrogen deficiencies. Nitrogen can then be transferred to the soil by the decomposition of plant materials, where it accumulates in the organic form (Bradshaw 1997). Phosphorous. Phosphorous plays an important role in plant metabolism, and is usually present in soils as the phosphate ion (PO42-). Phosphorous deficiency symptoms include reduced growth in seedlings, reddish-purple discoloration, and death of leaf tips (Munshower, 1994). The majority of soil phosphorous is unavailable to plants due to its 27 tendency to form complexes with soil organic mater, metals, and calcium (Munshower, 1994). Phosphate deficiencies may arise from the formation of non-soluble metal- phosphate complexes (Tordoff et al., 2000). Plant available phosphorous levels increase with high levels of decomposing organic matter, due to the release of phosphorous during the decomposition of organic matter (Munshower, 1994). Phosphate availability is limited in acidic and alkaline soils (Dickinson, 2002). The presence of phosphate may reduce the toxicity of lead, zinc, and copper through precipitation and ion competition reactions (Johnson et al., 1994). Potassium. Unlike N and P, K is not bound to soil organic matter. Almost all soil potassium is derived from the mineral fraction of soil (Foth and Ellis, 1997). Potassium uptake is involved in photosynthesis, organic compound synthesis, and translocation of organic compounds. Potassium may be leached from plants during the growing season, due to lack of organic complexes (Foth and Ellis, 1997). Potassium deficiency symptoms include yellowing of older leaves, necrosis, yellow mottling, curled leaf margins, early leaf fall, and eventual death (Foth and Ellis, 1997). Plants often remove 200 kg ha-1 of potassium from the soil per growing season. Average soil potassium concentrations have been reported as 0.2%-5% (Dickenson, 2002; Munshower, 1994). Potassium uptake from plant roots is related to the concentration gradient between soil and root, rate of K diffusion through soil to root surfaces, and root surface area (Foth and Ellis, 1997). Soil moisture is the driving factor for potassium uptake, and as soil dries, uptake becomes increasingly difficult (Foth and Ellis, 1997). 28 Organic Matter Content. Organic matter is a measure of the soil carbon content and is typically defined in two parts; recognizable organic matter (wood chips, mulch, straw, etc.), and humus (Munshower, 1994). Soil organic matter increases water holding capacity of the soil, soil porosity, infiltration, and cation exchange capacity (CEC) (Munshower, 1994; Dickenson, 2002). Soil organic matter also provides a source of nitrogen and other nutrients and impairs the mobility of heavy metals and contaminants in the soil (Farago, 1981; Bleeker et al., 2002; Monterroso et al., 1998; Brown et al., 2005; Munshower, 1994; Dickinson, 2002). Organic matter levels in Northern Great Plains soils range from 1-5% (Munshower, 1994). Mine waste materials and contaminated soils are often deficient in organic matter and humus (Farago, 1981). Metal ions and metalloids may sorb to organic matter particles, decreasing uptake of these contaminants by plants (Farago, 1981 and Bleeker et al., 2002). Metals will readily form stable complexes with both humic and fulvic fractions of organic acids in soil, depending on soil pH (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). High soil metal levels and low soil pH inhibit organic matter decomposition, limiting nutrient availability (Dickinson, 2002; Ye et al., 2002). Water Availability Soil water holding capacity and water availability are vital to successful re-vegetation on disturbed lands (Bell, 2002). Reclaimed soil texture and sufficient depth of rooting medium are two important factors in ensuring plants have adequate available water in a revegetation project (Bell, 2002). Cover soil with sandy or coarse textures often have 29 poor water holding capacity. This may be overcome by adding organic matter in the form of manure or sewage sludge, or mixing the soil with fine-grained materials such as fly-ash (Bell, 2002). Soil water is important for microbial activity, gas exchange, and soil chemical reactions (Khan, 2002). 30 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS Field studies for this project occurred at three sites; the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, and High Ore Creek. Soil and vegetation samples were collected during the July and August of 2005 at eighteen sites at both the Gregory and Comet Mines, and at six sites along the 6 km stretch of High Ore Creek from the Comet Mine to the confluence with the Boulder River. Sample Area Selection Gregory and Comet Mines Sample areas were selected in the riparian zone of the Comet and Gregory sites. Two soil moisture regimes exist in the riparian zone: sub-irrigated (SB) (1-2yr floodplain) and overflow (OV) (10yr floodplain). The sub-irrigated and overflow areas were identified by determining proximity to surface water, and by digging exploratory holes to discover the depth to ground water. Vegetation cover was the criterion used to delineate sample areas. Vegetation criterion were the following: • Poor (0-25% vegetation cover); • Moderate (26-75% vegetation cover); and • Good (76-100+% vegetation cover). 31 Three sample areas within each vegetation class and within both moisture regimes were identified at both the Gregory and Comet Mines. This created a total of eighteen sample areas at each mine site. Soil and vegetation samples were collected and measurements were made at each sample area. High Ore Creek Sample areas at High Ore Creek were along the creek in the riparian zone. Sample areas were based on two of the reclamation methods used during the reconstruction of High Ore Creek: • No removal: tailings were left in place due to historic structures, trees, or relatively good vegetative cover; • Partial/Total Removal: All or some of the waste materials were removed, and cover soil from a borrow area was placed on the surface. Three sample areas within each reclamation method were selected along High Ore Creek. Exploratory soil pits were dug to identify the removal type at each location. Soil and vegetation samples were collected and measurements were made at each sample area. Sampling Design and Analysis Three soils pits, ten canopy cover frames, and ten aboveground biomass production frames were sampled at each area. A species list was compiled for each site, and included a list of species present in sample areas as well as species present on the whole site. 32 Soil Sample Collection Soils were collected in three randomly located pits within each sample area. These pits were excavated using a sharpshooter and standard shovel to 60cm in overflow sample areas, and to 46cm in sub-irrigated areas. Ground water was typically encountered within 30 cm in soil pits developed in sub-irrigated areas. Sub-samples of soils were collected based on visual or textural differences in the soil profile. Samples were collected using stainless steel shovels and placed into labeled plastic bags. Wet decontamination of sampling equipment was performed and a clean shovel was used for each sample. Wet decontamination included the following steps: 1) dry decontamination using a wire brush to remove excess soil from the shovels, 2) soapy wash consisting of 1 tablespoon of Alconox soap mixed with one gallon of deionized water 3) deionized water rinse, and 4) deionized water spray. Field quality control was performed at a rate of 5% (one set of QC samples for every 20 natural soil samples), and included field duplicates (split field sample), cross-contamination blanks (SiO2 that has been in contact with a shovel following decontamination), and field blanks (pure SiO2). Soil Sample Preparation Soil samples were transported to the Reclamation Research Unit (RRU) laboratory. Soils were air dried, de-aggregated with a mortar and pestle, and passed through a 2mm sieve. Rock fragments larger than 2mm were discarded. Composite samples were formed from soils within sample areas, based on similarities in physical properties and field description. 33 Soil Analytical Procedures Acidity and Electrical Conductivity Determination Saturated paste extracts were prepared in the RRU laboratory using standard techniques and analyzed for pH and EC. Soil solution pH analysis was performed using USDA Handbook 60, Method 3a, 21c methods (U.S. Salinity Lab, 1969). Initial and end of the day pH meter calibrations were performed using pH 4.01, 7.00, and 10.00 standard buffer solutions. Continuing calibration of the pH meter was performed at a rate of 5% using the same standard solutions. Electrical conductivity was performed using USDA Handbook 60, Method 3a, 4b methods. Initial and end of day EC meter calibrations were performed using 447μS, 1500 μS, 2764 μS, and 8974 μS standard solutions. Continuing calibration of the EC meter was performed at a rate of 5% using the same standard solutions. All measurements and solution temperatures were recorded. The saturated soil paste solutions and additional volumes of the prepared soils were sent to the MSU Soil and Water Analytical Laboratory (SWAL) for determination of total and soluble metals, nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K), and organic matter (OM) levels. Nutrient Analysis Dry soils were sent to the MSU soils testing laboratory for N, P, K, and OM analysis. Nitrogen analysis (NO3-N) was performed using Method 4500 F, H (APHA, 1989). Potassium analysis was performed using Method 13-3.5 (ASA, 1982). Phosphorous was analyzed using the Bray-P method, Method 24-5.1 (ASA 1982). Total organic matter analysis was based on total organic carbon using Method 29-3.5.2 (ASA 1982). 34 Soluble Metals Analysis Saturated paste solutions were analyzed for soluble As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) following standard EPA-CLP methods (SOW 787, U.S. EPA). Total Recoverable Metals Analysis Additional volumes of dry soils were sent to the MSU Soil and Water Analytical Laboratory for total extractable metals digestion and analysis of Cu, As, Pb, and Zn. The soils were digested using nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and metal concentrations were determined by ICP following standard EPA-CLP method 3050 (SOW 787, U.S. EPA). Vegetation Sample Collection and Preparation Canopy Cover Canopy cover measurements were taken by species using Daubenmire (1959) cover classes (Table 9). Ten 20 x 50 cm frames (0.1 m2) were randomly located within each Table 9. Daubenmire (1959) cover classes and midpoints. Class Coverage Range Midpoint 1 0 – 5% 2.5% 2 5 – 25% 15% 3 25 – 50% 37.5% 4 50 – 75% 62.5% 5 75 – 95% 85% 6 95 – 100% 97.5% 35 sample area and cover was estimated and recorded. Live cover by species, litter, rock, and bare ground cover classes were recorded on BLM cover sheets. Mean cover by species, mean total live cover, and standard deviation were calculated for each sample area. Species richness and diversity were also calculated for each study site. Species diversity was calculated using the inverse Simpson’s index (D=1/Σpi2, where p is the proportion of individuals in the ith species) for species located in sample areas. Above Ground Biomass Aboveground biomass frames were co-located with cover frames, and clipped by life form. Life forms included: perennial grass, annual grass, forbs, and shrubs. Ten 25 x 25 cm frames (0.0625 m2) were clipped within each sample area. Clipped vegetation was placed in labeled paper bags to allow moisture to escape. After drying at 75oC for 48 hours, samples were weighed to the nearest 0.01 gram and total aboveground biomass production and standard deviations were calculated. Statistical Methods ANOVA One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-tests (R version 2.0.1, Sigma Stat version 3.0) were used to determine statistical differences within and between sample strata in terms of soil and vegetation data. A conservative version of the F-max test for equal variances (Largest SD/smallest SD<2) was used to determine equal variances in data sets. Data transformations were used to meet the normality and equal variances assumptions, where needed. Several data sets were unable to meet these 36 assumptions using standard transformations, and data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test based on ranks. Significant differences were based on P-values less than 0.05. ANOVA and non-parametric test output is located in Appendix D. Correlation Correlation (Sigma Plot version 9.0, Sigma Stat version 3.0) was used to determine associations between vegetation and soil chemistry data. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to determine significant association between soil and vegetation parameters. Associations are reported with vegetation cover and biomass as a function of soil chemistry. The correlation coefficient (r) is given with the P-value for each test. Significant correlation was assigned to tests with P values less than 0.05. 37 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Vegetation The vegetation at all three mine waste site s was highly variable. The Gregory Mine had the greatest average canopy cover and biomass production, as well as the greatest species richness (Table 10). High Ore Creek had the greatest species diversity, probably due to older plant communities residing in no removal areas. The plant communities at the Comet and Gregory Mines are less than ten years old and have had less time to establish a diverse community. Vegetation da ta for all analyses are in Appendix A. Table 10. Vegetation summ ary across all sites. Mean Cover* Mean Production* Species Richness Species** Site (%) (kg ha -1 ) Entire Sample Diversity Site Areas (D) Gregory 70.9 1652.9 60 37 4.70 Comet 38.1 873.6 39 12 2.38 High Ore Creek 66.6 1447.1 52 28 7.55 * Cover and production are given as mean values for each site. Soil Chemistry Soil chemistry was highly variable at all sites, and may be attributed to the characteristics of the original waste mate rials and the applied reclamation method. Tailings and waste rock materials that were present below the borrow soil will be 38 discussed in the following sections. Soil pH, soluble metal levels, total metal levels, and soil nutrients play a role in soil productivity and vegetation re-establishment. Electrical conductivity may also affect plant re-establishment at elevated levels (EC>5mS); however, electrical conductivity values were within suitab le levels in all samples collected at the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, and High Ore Creek, and will not be discussed further. Several soil samples reve aled concentrations of total As, Cu, Pb, and Zn that were one to three orders of magn itude greater than regional background levels, and likely phytotoxic, which may contribute to the high variability in vegetation cover and production. Depth of coversoil may also contribute to the high variation in vegetation. The depth of the imported cove r material was variable within and among sites, varying from thick (>30 cm) to thin (<5 cm), and in some areas non-existent. Phytotoxic and regional background metal levels are given in Table 11, and site-specific metal levels are given in Table 12. The effects of metals residing in the root zone restrict root development in plants, therefore inhibiting plant establishment (Tordoff, 2000). Table 11. Summary of soil trace el ements evaluated for this study. Regional Plant Nutritional Background Level** Phytotoxicity* Requirement* Trace Element (mg kg -1 ) (mg kg -1 ) (Y/N) Arsenic 9.3 15-3 15 N Cadmium 0.9 3-100 N Copper 22.4 100-1636 Y Lead 35.7 100-1000 N Zinc 66.1 100-500 Y * Data summarized from: Adriano, 2001; CDM Federal, 1997, CH2M Hill, 1987a,b; and Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992; ** Data summarized from PTI, 1997. 39 Table 12. Summary of soil pH and metal levels in surface soil samples from the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine and High Ore Creek. Site Mean Mean Sum of Metals* Soluble Metals** (mg L -1 ) Soil pH Soil pH (mg kg -1 ) surface† lower† As Cd Cu Pb Zn Gregory 3.92 3.05 1817±1 395 1.2±2.7 1.1±3 .1 0.4±1.2 0.6±1.4 62.4±176 Comet*** 6.41 6.28 16998±21837 0.2±0.2 1.1±1 .9 0.3±0.4 0.3±0.4 163 ±190 High Ore Creek 6.17 6.24 6447±7614 0.3±0.4 0.1±0.2 .08±.04 0.3±0.1 75.5±1 95 * Sum of total As, Cu, Pb, and Zn, give n as means and standard deviations. ** Values given as means and standard deviations of sol uble metals for all samples throughout the 0-60cm soil profile. *** Soluble metal levels from subset of 10 samples. † Surface increment was typically 0-30cm and lower increment was 30-60cm, though, there was some variation in these increments, and sample collection was delineated as a f unction of soil layers, not distinct numerical increments. 40 The average soil N level at all sites was ve ry low, most likely due to sampling during peak growing season (Table 13). Soil ni trogen concentrations are dynamic throughout the growing season, with the hi ghest values occurring at the beginning of the season, and the lowest values occurring during peak gr owing season. This is due to the plant available nitrogen being assimilated in plant tissues. Nitrogen is returned to the soils as organic matter following se nescence (Foth and Ellis, 1997). Phosphorous levels were very high at all sites and we re probably not a limiting factor for plant growth at these concentrations. Elevated phos phorous levels (eg., 700 mg kg -1 ) may cause a calcium deficiency in soils, due to the formation of insoluble Ca-P minerals (Jones and Jacobsen, 2005); however, only a few soils at the Comet Mine had levels this high. Potassium levels are in the low to moderate range for all sites. The critical value for potassium is approximately 250 mg kg -1 (Korb et al., 2005). Organic matte r levels were in the low to high range, and fell within the average range (1-5%) for Northern Great Plains soils (Munshower, 1994). Soil chemistry data for all analyses is in Appendix C. Table 13. Summary of aver age soil nutrient* (mg kg -1 ) and organic matter* (%) concentrations at all sites. Site Macronutrient* N-NO 3 P K OM Gregory 1.5±2.5 40.9±15.4 222±102 5.2±2.1 Comet 1.2±1.3 238±219 196±129 5.1±3.2 High Ore Creek 2.4±1.9 163±167 111±64 3.7±1.4 * Soil nutrient and organic matter levels gi ven as means and standard deviations. 41 Correlation Analyses Correlation was used to determine associa tions between soil chemistry and vegetation data collected at all sites, in order to identify common trends among all three mine waste sites. Total metals and As, and nutrient da ta were used to assess these relationships. Soluble metals and As data we re excluded from these analyses due to an incomplete data set from the Comet Mine. Relationships between vegetation response, soil pH, and sum of total metal levels have been postulated by EPA (1999), PTI (1994), Neuman et al., (2002), and Kaputska (2002). Mine wastes typically contain a mixture of metals, and it is difficult to identify the effects of individual metal levels in terms of a phytotoxic response (Kaputska et al., 1995). Therefore, it is importa nt to identify the level of association that vegetation attributes have with sum of total metal levels and soil pH. A significant negative correlation was dete rmined between canopy cover and the sum of total metals and arsenic (As, Cu, Pb, and Zn; Figure 2). A significant negative correlation was also determined between speci es richness and the sum of total metal and arsenic levels (Figure 3). Significant negative correlations were determined between canopy cover and total As (r=-0.319, P= 0.039), Cu (r=-0.428, P=0.0129), and Zn (r=- 0.400, P=.009) levels. Zn had the highest degree of association with canopy cover, most likely because it consistently had the highest levels at all sites (Appendix C). Canopy cover and biomass production were positively co rrelated with K concentrations (Figure 4 A, B). However, when all data points we re used, correlations were not found between vegetation cover or production and soil N, P, or OM levels. Results for individual mine sites are discussed in detail in the following sections. 42 S u m of Total Metal and Arsenic (As, Cu, Pb , Zn) Concent r a t i o n s (mg kg -1 ) 1 e+ 1 1e + 2 1e +3 1 e+ 4 1e +5 1e +6 Percent Canopy Cover 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 r =-0. 4 00 Figure 2. Correlation analysis of percent canopy cover and the sum of total metal and arsenic levels (As, Cu, Pb, Zn) from all mine sites (p=0.009). Sum of tota l Me ta l and Ars en i c Conc e ntr atio ns (mg kg -1 ) 100 1000 1000 0 Species Richness (# of species) 0 5 10 15 20 r =-0. 423 Figure 3. Correlation analysis for species rich ness and the sum of total metal and arsenic levels (As, Cu, Pb, Zn) from all mine sites (p=0.005). 43 (A) P ot a s s i u m Conce n t r a t i o n (mg kg -1 ) 0 1 0 0 20 0 3 00 4 0 0 5 0 0 60 0 Percent Canopy Cover (%) 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 r =0 . 4 94 (B) Po ta s si um Con ce ntra ti on (mg kg -1 ) 0 100 200 3 00 400 5 00 600 Biomass Production (kg ha -1 ) 0 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 r =0.465 Figure 4. Correlation analysis of percent canopy cover and soil potassium concentration from all sites (A), and Correlation analysis of biomass production and soil potassium levels from all sites (B), (p=0.0009 and p=0.002, respectively). 44 Gregory Mine Vegetation The vegetation at the Gregory Mine was ch aracterized by high variability in canopy cover and biomass production (Table 14). Ca nopy cover estimates ranged from 2-171%. Table 14. Gregory Mine vegetation summary. Vegetation Mean Cover* Mean Production* Species Richness Criteria (%) (kg ha -1 ) in Sample Areas Good 127±26a 4202±1519a 35 Moderate 73±16b 1498±491b 24 Poor 13±11c 473±377c 9 * Cover and production values are given as means and standard deviations. a,b,c Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different (P>0.05). Sample areas initially categorized as Good typically had over 100% canopy cover. Poor areas had limited vegetation cover, typically in small patches, while Moderate and Good areas had relatively uniform vegetation throughout the sample area. Sample area above ground biomass ranged from 10-4583 kg ha -1 . Thirty-seven species were found within sample areas (Table 15), and the site speci es list contained 60 species (Appendix B). The three species that dominated this site were Agrostis alba, Festuca idahoensis, and Achillea millefolium, which contributed approximately 78 % of the total cover in sample areas (Table 15). Two seed mixes containi ng 17 species were used during revegetation of the Gregory Mine. Poa secunda, Stipa viridula, Agropyron spicatum, Linum lewisii, and Lupinus sericeus were seeded species that did not occur in sample areas. F. 45 idahoensis, Phleum pratense, Achillea millefolium, and Medicago sativa were the only seeded species to contribute greater than 0.5% of the cover in sample areas. Table 15. Species** located in samp le areas at the Gregory Mine. Common Species Name Major Sp ecies* Seeded Native Relative Cover Name (Y/N ) (Y/N ) (Y/N ) (%) Red Top Agrostis alba Y N Y 33 Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium Y Y Y 23 Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis Y Y Y 22 Alfalfa Medicago sativa Y Y N 3.0 Sedge Carex sp. Y N 2.0 Timothy Phleum pratense Y N N 1.8 Red Clover Trifolium pratense Y N N 1.4 White Clover Trifolium repens Y N N 1.0 Kentucky Bluegrass Poa Pratensis Y N N 0.9 Baltic Rush Juncus balticus Y N Y 0.8 Smooth- Equisetum laevigatum Y N Y 0.8 Scouringrush Dwarf Fireweed Epilobium latifolium Y N Y 0.7 Moss Y 0.7 Slender Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Y N Y 0.6 Rocky Mountain Iris Iris missouriensis Y N Y 0.6 Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Y Y Y 0.5 Sulfur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta Y N Y 0.5 Thickspike- Agropyron dasystachyum N Y Y 0.4 Wheatgrass Nebraska Sedge Carex nebrascensis N Y Y 0.3 Fowl Mannegrass Glyceria striata N Y Y 0.3 Goldenrod Solidago missouriensis N N Y 0.1 Tar Weed Madia sativa N N Y 0.1 Strawberry Fragaria vesca N N Y <0.1 Toad rush Juncus bufonius N N Y <0.1 Ryegrass Lolium multiflorum N Y Y <0.1 Purple Aster Machaeranthera canescens N N Y <0.1 Woods Rose Rosa woodsii N N Y <0.1 Tall Buttercup Ranunculus acris N N N <0.1 Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides N N Y <0.1 Cudweed Sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana N N Y <0.1 Switch Grass Panicum virgatum N N Y <0.1 Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major N N N <0.1 Rough Fescue Festuca scabrella N N Y <0.1 Pussytoes Antennaria spp. N N Y <0.1 Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare N N N <0.1 Unidentified Forb #1-4 N <0.1 * Major species contribute >0.5% of th e total cover within sample areas. ** Species data adapted H itchcock et al., (1973). 46 The species Agrostis alba was not seeded, but contributed 33 % of the total cover. This may be attributed to metal tolerance of Agrostis species (Bleeker, 2002 and Farago, 1981), and aggressive colonization in disturbed areas (Munshower,1998). Soluble Metals and Arsenic Soil pH levels were determined for all so il samples collected at the Gregory Mine. The pH range for topsoils was 3.84-6.91, and pH ranged from 2.08-7.05 for subsoils. Average pH values for sample areas are displayed in Table 16. Water soluble soil metal and As concentrations were determined in topsoils from all sample areas, and average values are also presented in Table 16. Soil pH is a significant determining factor in the solubility of metals (Kab ata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). Poor sample areas had significantly higher soluble metal levels than Good and Moderate areas. Soluble Pb levels were below detection limits for Good and Moderate sample areas, most likely due to limited solubility of lead in relation to other metals (Kabata-Pendias, 2001 and Adriano 2001). Soluble metal concentratio ns were greatest in Poor sa mple areas due to lower soil pH values. Total Arsenic and Metal Levels Total metal and As levels were determined in topsoil samples in all sample areas. Mean concentrations and standard deviations are displayed in Table 17. One-way analysis of variance showed no significant di fference (P>0.05) among sums of total metal levels between Good, Moderate, and Poor areas . This is due to the large variation in metal levels at the site and large standard deviations among sample areas. 47 Table 16. Soil pH (standard units) and soluble so il metals and As levels at the Gregory Mine. Vegetation Soil pH Soil pH Metal*(mgL -1 ) Criteria surface** lower** As Cd Cu Pb Zn Good 5.28a 3.71 .13±.11a .01±.004a .045±.037a <.1 4.2±3.1a Moderate 4.88a 3.07 .21±.21ab .02±.01a .056±.037a <.1 4.8±6.2a Poor 3.49b 2.85 1.63±2.05a 1.5±2.6a 1.5±1 .6 b 1.63±2.65 217±355b * Metals data are presented as means and standard deviations. ** Surface increment was typically 0-30cm and lowe r increment was 30-60cm, though, there was some variation in these increments, and sample collection was delineated as a function of soil layers, not distinct numerical increments. a,b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P>0.05). 48 Table 17. Total metals* and arsenic (mg kg -1) in surface soil samples from the Gregory Mine. Vegetation As Cu** Pb Zn Sum of Metals*** Criteria Good 172±179† 80±46 259±226 540±323† 1224±716a Moderate 1123±1240† 100±98† 701±653 394±214 † 1867±2285a Poor 813±519† 115±40† 1274±1094† 636±629† 2361±1068a * Total metals displayed as means and standa rd deviations in topsoil samples within sample areas. ** Copper data from the overflow zone only. ***Sum of As, Cu, Pb, and Zn from overflow zone only. a Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P>0.05). † Indicates possible phytotoxicity. Nutrients There are no significant differences in soil N, P, or OM levels among Good, Moderate, and Poor sample areas at the Gregory Mine (Table 18). Soil N levels were very low for all sample areas at the Gregory Mine. This was expected because samples were collected during peak growing season, when plants have taken up soil N. Soil P, K, and OM were all within reasonable levels for sustaining plant growth. Significant differences were found in K levels between Good and Poor sample areas (Figure 18), where levels were significantly lower in Poor areas compared to Good sample areas. Significant differences were not found in K levels between Good and Moderate and Moderate and Poor sample areas. 49 Table 18. Nutrient (mg kg-1) and organic matter (%) concentrations in surface soil samples from the Gregory Mine. Vegetation Macronutrient Criteria N P K OM Good 2.7±3.8 a 35.3±9.3a 294±83.4a 6.6±1.9a Moderate .77±1.0 a 37.4±17.5a 225±56.3ab 4.3±1.9a Poor .95±1.7 a 50.1±16.2a 148±110 b 4.6±1.9a a,b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p>0.05). Correlation Analyses Correlation was used to determine the level of association between vegetation, soil pH (Figure 5, A), and soil metal levels, as well as between vegetation and soil nutrients. A significant negative correlation (r= -0.65, P=0.004) was determined between percent canopy cover and soil pH (H-ion concentration). A significant negative correlation was not found between the sum of total metals and the percent canopy cover (r= -0.41, P=0.09). A significant association was not found between soil pH and sum of total metals. Phytotoxic levels of As, Cu, Pb, and Zn were observed in topsoil samples (Table 17). Although Zn and As levels lie within the phytotoxic range in all vegetation groups, no significant correlation exists between either metal level and percent canopy cover. Significant negative correlation was found between total Pb and percent canopy cover (r = -0.55, P=0.02) (Figure 5, B). 50 (A) H - ion Conc e ntr a ti on 0. 0000001 0. 000001 0. 00001 0. 0001 0. 001 0. 01 Percent Canopy Cover 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Good Modertae Poor r= -0. 6474 (B) T o t a l Pb (mg kg -1 ) 0 5 00 10 00 15 00 20 00 2 50 0 3 00 0 Percent Canopy Cover 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 Go o d Mo de r at e Poo r r =- 0 .54 6 6 Figure 5. Correlation analysis for percent canopy cover and H-ion concentration (P=0.004) (A), and percent canopy cover and Total Lead (P=0.02) (B) at the Gregory Mine. 51 Significant correlations were not found between canopy cover and N concentration, canopy cover and P concentration, or canopy cover and organic matter. These were not the expected results due to the high variability in vegetation cover and production. It was expected that areas of poor vegetation would have lower nutrient levels compared to areas of good vegetation. Significant positive correlation was found between canopy cover and potassium levels (r= 0.604, p=0.008; Figure 6). Biomass production was not significantly correlated with soil nutrients. P o t as si um Conce n tr at i o n (mg kg - 1 ) 0 1 00 20 0 3 00 40 0 5 00 Percent Canopy Cover 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18 0 Good Mode rate P o or r=0.60 4 Figure 6. Correlation analysis of percent canopy and potassium concentration from the Gregory Mine (P=0.008). The species richness at this site was moderately high, with 37 species located within sample areas. Species richness (Table 14) decreased as total metal concentrations increased (Table 17) and soil pH decreased (Table 16) from Good to Moderate to Poor areas. This was the expected result based on an EPA study on the Clark Fork River in 52 1999. The study concluded that species richness and sum of total metal levels were inversely correlated (as metal levels increased, species richness decreased; EPA, 1999). Comet Mine Vegetation Vegetation at the Comet Mine was highly variable. Canopy cover estimates ranged from 0-88% and biomass production ranged from 0-3598 kg ha-1 (Table 19). Barren areas were scattered throughout the site, and the species richness and diversity were extremely low (12 and 2.83 respectively). Good sample areas had dense vegetation, but mostly comprised of Agrostis alba and Agropyron trachycaulum. Moderate areas had uniform cover and slightly higher species evenness and richness. Poor areas typically had very sparse to no vegetation, and cover was limited to Agrostis alba and Agropyron trachycaulum. Twelve species were present in sample areas (Table 20) and 39 species are present at the site (Appendix B), including upland areas. Table 19. Comet Mine vegetation summary. Vegetation Mean Cover* Mean Production* Species Richness Criteria (%) (kg ha -1 ) in Sample Areas Good 74±9a 2025±926a 7 Moderate 37±4b 562±198b 8 Poor 3±3c 22±24c 3 * Cover and production values are given as means and standard deviations. a,b,c Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. 53 Table 20. Species** located in samp le areas at the Comet Mine. Common Species Name Major Species* Seeded Native Mean Cover Name (Y/N ) (Y/N ) (Y/N ) (%) Red top Agrostis alba Y N Y 60.0 Slender wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Y Y Y 23.0 Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii Y Y Y 5.5 Western yarrow Achillea millefolium Y Y Y 5.2 Dwarf fireweed Epilobium latifolium Y N Y 2.0 White clover Trifolium repens Y N N 1.6 Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense Y N Y 1.3 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis N Y Y 0.4 Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa N N Y 0.3 Cudweed sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana N N Y 0.1 Willow Salix spp. N Y Y <0.1 Unidentified Grass #1 N 0.1 * Major species contribute >0.5% of th e total cover within sample areas. ** Species data adapted Hitchcock et al., 1973. Two grasses, A. alba and A. trachycaulum, were the dominant species at this site, comprising of approximately 83% of the total cover in sample areas. Two seed mixes comprised of 13 species were used at the Comet Mine during revegetation. The only seeded species found in sample areas were Agropyron smithii, Agropyron trachycaulum, F. idahoensis, and Achillea millefolium. The species Agrostis alba was not seeded, and made up 60% of the total cover. This may be due to Agrostis species being colonizers of mine sites, and displaying metal tolerance (Bleeker et al., 2002 and Farago, 1981). Soluble Metals Soil pH levels for all topsoil samples were determined, and values ranged from 5.90- 7.21. Soluble metals were determined in a subset of 10 samples. Thirty percent of the samples had high (200-800 mg L-1) soluble zinc at pH≈6, which was not expected because zinc solubility is significantly reduced at pH>5.0 (Adriano, 2001). Natural soils 54 with pH values near neutral typically have low soluble metal levels. Contaminated soils and mine wastes however, may exhibit high levels of soluble metals at neutral pH due to extremely high levels of total metals. Total Metals Total metal and As levels were determined for all topsoil samples collected at the Comet Mine. Table 21 displays mean concentrations and sum of total metal concentrations. Metal levels in all sample areas were within or above phytotoxic levels for plant growth. Lead and Zn concentrations were particularly elevated in all vegetation areas. There was no significant difference in the sum of total metal levels between Good and Moderate areas, and both are significantly lower than total metal levels in Poor areas. Table 21. Total metal and As levels (mg kg-1) in surface soil samples from the Comet Mine. Vegetation Metal* Sum of all Metals Criteria As Cu Pb Zn Good 1004±603† 348±205† 1766±1214† 3219±2004† 7580±3535a Moderate 749±764† 250±147† 1420±1014† 3170±2822† 6060±3030a Poor 3916±3444† 1220±900† 10988±12453† 17462±13856† 37356±29187b * Total metal levels displayed as means a nd standard deviations in topsoil samples within sample areas. a,b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05). † Indicates possibl e phytotoxicity. Nutrients There were significant differences in N levels between Good and Moderate, and Moderate and Poor sample areas at the Comet Mine (Table 22). Moderate areas had significantly less soil N than Good and Poor areas. Significant difference was not found 55 Table 22. Nutrient (mg kg-1) and organic matter (%) concentrations in surface soil samples from the Comet Mine. Vegetation Macronutrient Criteria N P K OM Good 1.9±1.9a 343±192a 264±119a 5.4±2.6a Moderate 0.38±0.13b 315±251a 230±152a 5.7±3.9a Poor 1.4±1.0 a 55.5±53.5b 94.8±22.6b 4.1±3.3a a,b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p>0.05). in N levels between Good and Poor areas. Nitrogen levels were very low in all soil samples from this site. Poor areas had very little vegetation, which may explain why N levels were significantly higher than in Moderate areas, where vegetation cover and production were greater. Soil P levels were very high in all samples at the Comet Mine. Significant difference was not found in soil P levels between Good and Moderate sample areas. Poor areas had significantly lower P levels than both Good and Moderate sample areas. Soil K levels were significantly higher in Good and Moderate areas than in Poor sample areas. Significant difference was not found in K levels between Good and Moderate sample areas. Soil K levels in Good and Moderate areas were in the medium to high range, with many samples around the critical value of 250 mg kg-1. Potassium levels in Poor areas were in the low to very low range, with all sample concentrations below the critical value. Significant differences were not found in soil organic matter levels between Good, Moderate, and Poor sample areas. Organic matter levels were in the medium to high range for all sample areas. 56 Correlation Analyses Correlation was used to determine associations between vegetation cover and soil metal levels (Figure 7). Significant negative correlations were found between percent canopy cover and total As (r=-0.5, P=0.03), total Zn (r=-0.58, P=0.01), total Cu (r=-0.57, P=0.01), total Pb (r=-0.50, P=0.03), and the sum of total metals (r=-0.58, P=0.01). No significant relationship was found between percent canopy cover and soil pH (H-ion concentration). This was the expected result due to the narrow range of circum-neutral soil pH values. Metal levels in all sample areas were representative of mine waste materials, not borrow soil. There are three possible explanations for this: 1) waste materials left in place during reclamation were exposed after the borrow soil was eroded away, 2) borrow soil was placed as a thin veneer, or never placed on these areas, or 3) upward migration of metals has contaminated the clean borrow soil. Metal and As levels in all topsoil samples indicate possible upward migration. This is most likely due to waste materials located within 30 cm from the surface, and a positive water balance (groundwater within 1 meter). Correlation analyses on nutrients data indicate significant positive correlation between percent canopy cover and K levels (r=0.61, P=0.007), and percent canopy cover and P levels (r=0.596, P=0.009; Figure 8 A and B). A significant positive correlation was also found between biomass production and K (r=0.633, P=0.005) and biomass production and P (r=0.57, P=0.01) (Figure 9; A,B). No association was found between vegetation attributes and organic matter or N levels. 57 Sum of Total Metals and As (mg kg -1 ) 100 0 1000 0 100000 Percent Canopy Cover 0 20 40 60 80 100 Good Moder a te Poor r =- 0.5813 Figure 7. Correlation analysis of percent canopy cover and the sum of total metals and As levels (As, Cu, Pb, Zn) from the Comet Mine (P=0.01). The species richness was very low, with only 12 species found in sample areas. Species diversity was negatively correlated with high total metal levels (species diversity decreased with increasing metal levels) for contaminated areas in the Clark Fork River (CFR) Superfund site (EPA, 1999). Species richness was similar in the Good and Moderate areas, as expected, but was reduced in the Poor areas, where metals levels were two to three orders of magnitude higher. 58 (A) Phosphorous Concentration (m g kg -1 ) 0 10 0 2 0 0 3 00 40 0 5 0 0 6 00 70 0 Percent Canopy Cover 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 G oo d Moderate Po o r r =0.5 9 6 (B) P o t as si um Concen t ra t i on (mg kg -1 ) 0 1 00 2 00 300 400 500 60 0 Percent Canopy Cover 0 20 40 60 80 100 Good Mode r ate Poor r=0.608 Figure 8. Correlation analysis for canopy cover and phosphorous concentration (p=0.009) (A), and percent canopy cover and potassium concentration (p=0.007) (B) from the Comet Mine. 59 (A) P o t a ss ium Con ce nt r at i on (m g kg -1 ) 0 1 00 200 300 4 00 500 600 Biomass Production (kg ha -1 ) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 G o o d Moder ate Poor r =0.633 (B) P ho s ph o r o u s Con c e nt r a ti on (mg kg -1 ) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Biomass Production (kg ha -1 ) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 G ood M o d e r a t e P oor r = 0 . 5 6 6 Figure 9. Correlation analysis of biomass production and potassium concentration (p=0.005) (A) and biomass production and phosphorous concentration (p=0.01) (B), from the Comet Mine. 60 High Ore Creek Vegetation Vegetation at High Ore Creek was moderately variable, with the highest variation being in areas designated as No Removal areas. Canopy cover estimates ranged from 30- 89%, and biomass production ranged from 468-2288 kg ha-1 (Table 23). Mean cover and production were not significantly different in No Removal and Partial Removal sample areas. Table 23. High Ore Creek vegetation summary. Removal Mean Cover* Mean Pr oduction* Species Richness Type (%) (kg ha -1 ) in Sample Areas Partial 70±17a 1446±328a 12 No removal 63±29a 1448±918a 21 * Cover and production values are give n means and standard deviations. a Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. Cover in all areas was relatively uniform, and there were no barren areas within the study area. Study areas contained 28 species (Table 24), and the entire site had 50 species (Appendix B). Two seed mixes comprised of 12 species were applied in the revegetation phase of reclamation. The seeded species that made up >0.5% of the total cover in sample areas included Agropyron spicatum, F. idahoensis, K. cristata, Agropyron trachycaulum, and Achillea millefolium. The species Agrostis alba, J. balticus, E. arvense, and M. officinalis were not seeded species, and comprised of 44% of the total cover in sample areas. The only species to be present in both No and Partial Removal areas were Agrostis alba and Achillea millefolium (Appendix A). 61 Table 24. Species** located in sa mple areas at High Ore Creek. Common Species Name Major Sp ecies* Seeded Native Relative Cover Name (Y/N ) (Y/N ) (Y/N ) (%) Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium Y Y Y 25.0 Red top Agrostis alba Y N Y 15.0 Baltic rush Juncus balticus Y N Y 12.6 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Y Y Y 12.0 Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis Y N N 9.3 Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense Y N Y 7.4 Bluebunch- Agropyron spicatum Y Y Y 3.3 Wheatgrass Red clover Trifolium pratense Y N N 2.7 Prarie Junegrass Koeleria cristata Y Y Y 1.9 Slender wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Y Y Y 1.4 Intermediate- Agropyron intermedium Y N N 1.3 wheatgrass Willow Salix spp. Y Y Y 1.0 Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Y N N 0.9 Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Y N Y 0.9 Western wheatgrass Agropyon smithii Y N Y 0.8 Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis Y N Y 0.7 Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa N Y Y 0.4 Cudweed sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana N N Y 0.4 Dandelion Taraxacum officinale N N N 0.3 Canada bluegrass Poa compressa N N N 0.2 Dwarf fireweed Epilobium latifolium N N Y 0.1 Columbia- Achnatherum nelsonii N Y Y <0.1 needlegrass Ragwort Senecio spp. N N Y <0.1 Unidentified Forb #1-2, 6-8 N 1.0 * Major species contribute >0.5% of th e total cover within sample areas. ** Species data adapted fr om Hitchcock et al., 1973. Soluble Metals Soil pH levels were determined in all samples, and ranged from 5.48-7.63 (Table 25). As expected, soluble metal levels were very low, due to relatively high pH values. Soluble Zn and Cd levels were significantly higher in No Removal areas than in Partial Removal areas. Soluble As, Cu and Pb concentrations were not significantly different between No and Partial Removal areas. 62 Table 25. Soil pH (standard units) and soluble metal and As (mg L -1 ) levels in surface soil samples from High Ore Creek. Vegetation Soil pH Soil pH Metal* Criteria Top** Bottom** As Cd Cu Pb Zn Partial 7.23a 7.39 .40±.29a .01±.005a .088±.035a <.1a 0.19±0.07a No 5.99a 5.90 .17±.09a .23±.22b .077±.034a .17±.13a 58.9±7 7.4b * Metals data are presented as means and standard deviations. ** Top increment was typically 0-30cm and bottom increment was 30-60cm, though, there was some variation in these increments, and sample collection was delineated as a f unction of soil layers, not distinct numerical increments. a,b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. 63 Total Metals Total metal and arsenic levels were determined for topsoil samples collected at High Ore Creek (Table 26). Metals levels in No Removal areas were significantly higher than in Partial Removal areas, because tailings were left in place in No Removal areas. The total metal concentrations in No Removal areas are well above the phytotoxic range for all metals. Table 26. Total metal and As levels (mg kg -1 ) in surface soil samples from High Ore Creek. Removal Metal* Sum of all Metals Type As Cu Pb Zn Partial 120±118† 72±33 323±336† 353±292† 769±925a No 3993 ±1244† 498±221† 2735±15 41† 4806±2872† 12126±6880b * Total metal levels displayed as means a nd standard deviations in topsoil samples within sample areas. a,b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. † Indicates possibl e phytotoxicity. Nutrients There were no significant di fferences in N and organic matter concentrations between No Removal and Partial Removal areas at High Ore Creek (Table 27). Soil N levels were very low for all samples collected at Hi gh Ore Creek, most likely due to sample collection during peak growing season. Soil organic matter levels were in the low medium range for all samples collected at this site. 64 Table 27. Nutrient* (mg kg -1 ) and organic matter* (%) concentrations in surface soil samples from High Ore Creek. Removal Macronutrient** Type N-NO 3 P K OM Partial 3.0±2.4a 303±106a 167±9.9a 4.5±. 93a No 1.8±1 .5a 23.8±5 .6b 53.8 ±18 .9b 2.9±1.4a a,b Means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly different (p>0.05). Significant differences were found in P and K levels between No Removal and Partial Removal areas. Phosphorous levels were very high in Partial Removal areas, and low in No Removal areas. Potassium concentrations were in the medium range for Partial Removal areas, and in the very low range for No Removal areas. Potassium levels in No Removal areas may restrict plant grow th due to very low concentrations. Correlation Analyses Correlation was used to determine associa tions among vegetation and soil chemistry. Significant correlations were not found between vegetation a ttributes and soil pH or metal levels. Correlation was also used to determine asso ciations between vege tation attributes and soil nutrients. Significant correlations were not found among vegetation cover or biomass and any soil nutrient. This may be due to the low number of samples collected at this site. Although the cover and production were not si gnificantly different between No and Partial Removal areas, the species composition was very different. No Removal areas 65 had much higher species richness than Partial Removal areas (21 and 12 respectively). This was not expected due to the high levels of total metals present in No Removal areas. The plant community in No Removal Areas was dominated by Agrostis alba, Juncus balticus, and Equisetum arvense , which made up approximately 70% of the total cover. Partial removal areas were dominated by F. idahoensis and Achillea millefolium, which comprised of 64% of the total cover. Th e only species that occurred in both removal types were Agrostis alba and Achillea millefolium. Differences in species richness may be a function of the age of the plant community. Plant communities in No Removal areas have had several decades to establish, while Partial Removal areas were seeded 5 years ago. The difference in species composition may also be a result of the soil metal levels. The dominant species in No Removal areas may have metal tolerant genotypes that have adapted the metal enriched soils over time. The dominant species in Partial Removal areas were seeded species th at are reproducing successfully and are adapted to the borrow soil properties. 66 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that vegetation attributes of cover, production, species richness, and diversity were generally re lated to soil metal levels and acidity at the study sites. Aesthetically, the sites were greatly improve d, however, there were mine wastes residing under the soil cap and on the soil surface, wh ich may affect the long-term sustainability of these sites. A major de termining factor in the effectiveness of revegetation is the depth of applied coversoil. Bell (2002) sugge sts sulfidic wastes need to be buried by one meter of non-contaminated materials and 10-20c m of coversoil replacement for effective revegetation. Barth and Mart in (1984) determined that 101-152 cm of coversoil was necessary over acidic materials and 40 cm of coversoil was nece ssary over non-acidic materials for effective revegetation. Coverso il depths varied at all sites, however, no areas had sufficient coversoil with reference to either coversoil report. Specifically, Some areas at the Gregory and Comet Mine sites had little to no coversoil, and mine wastes were exposed on the soil surface. All three sites had soil metal levels considerably higher, often several orders of magnitude greater than regional background meta l levels. This was not expected, but is most likely a result of the reclamation im plementation. Monterroso et al. (1998) found decreased plant growth following coversoil application due to upward migration of contaminated materials. There are indicat ions of upward movement of both low pH solutions and metals from underlying contaminants into the soil cap, based on 67 soil chemistry findings, vegetation dieback, and field observations. A shallow water table (45-60 cm below the surface) was observe d at all three sites, and may be a major concern for the mobility of contaminants into the clean soil cap, consistent with Tordoff et al. (2000), Kapustka (2002), and Bell (2002). The Gregor y Mine and High Ore Creek had soil metal levels drastically lower than pre-reclamation waste materials (Pioneer Technologies Inc., 1995), and had well-establis hed vegetation in most areas. The Comet Mine had extremely elevated metal levels, indi cative of residual wa stes, not coversoil, and had the lowest vegetation cove r, production, and richness. Vegetation Attributes and Soil Chemistry Significant negative correlations between vegetation attributes (cover, biomass, species richness) and soil chem istry (pH, As and metal leve ls) were found at both the Gregory Mine and the Comet Mine. Per cent canopy cover and biomass production were negatively and significantly correlated to total As and metal levels at both sites. Significant negative correlation was also f ound between species richness and soil metal levels. These relationships are consistent with an earlier EP A phytotoxicity model developed for the Clark Fork River and Anaconda Smelter Superfund sites (EPA, 1999). Gregory Mine Reclamation at the Gregory Mine has been effective in creating a productive vegetation community. Average canopy cover was approximately 70%, with 60 species present across the site; however, low pH soils exist 30 cm below the surface, and soil pH 68 was strongly correlated to percent canopy c over and biomass production. This may be problematic in the future if upward migrati on of acidic water into the soil cap occurs. There is evidence that upward migration is o ccurring, with topsoil pH values below 5 in some areas. Soil pH values could continue to decrease, affecting the overall plant production, cover, and species richness. Only th e most tolerant plant species may be able to persist. Soluble and total metal levels were not correlated to canopy cover or biomass production with the exception of total lead concentration. Comet Mine Reclamation at the Comet Mine has been effective in producing an aesthetically improved landscaped with moderate vegetation cover. The established vegetation should reduce erosion, and protect the surface water from runoff of contaminated sediments. The metal levels at this site are extremel y elevated; up to three orders of magnitude higher than background levels. Strong nega tive correlations were found between the canopy cover and the sum of total metals, as well as canopy cover and total concentrations of each element ( As, Zn, Pb, and Cu). The average canopy cover at the site was approximately 38%, and extensive barren areas exist in many areas within the riparian zone. Metal salts were observed on the soil surface in dry weather. There are mine wastes residing within 30 cm of the so il surface, and a shallow water table (<60 cm below the soils surface) was observed during fi eld sampling. A total of 39 species were identified, with very low species divers ity. Metal tolerant species, such as Agrostis species, dominated most sample areas. The me tal concentrations in surface soils may 69 continue to rise with upward migratio n of soluble metal salts, decreasing the effectiveness of reclamation and revegetation. Overall, it is concluded that maintenance needs to be done on this site to inhibit the deterioration of the vegetation community, and the upward migration of contaminants. High Ore Creek The reclamation at High Ore Creek was very e ffective in Partial/Total Removal areas. The soil metal levels were only slightly el evated above background, and soil pH values were near neutral. Surface crusts were not observed in Partial/Total Removal areas, indicating that upward migrati on of contaminants may not be occurring. No Removal areas had metal levels one to two orders of magnitude higher than Partial/Total Removal areas. However, neither total metal levels nor pH were correlated with biomass production or plant cover at this time. Plant community composition in No Removal areas are quite different than that in Partial/Total Removal areas; however, there was no difference in the mean cover or mean production between removal types. This suggests that species composition may be influenced by total metal levels; driving the differences in species composition at this site. Metal tolerant species dominated No Removal areas where soil metal levels are elevated. The resu lts of this study were inconclusive as to which removal type was the most effective. Metal levels were elevated in No Removal areas, but the percent cover and biomass production we re not significantly different compared to Partial Removal areas. No Re moval areas had higher species richness, but were dominated by metal tolerant species. Pa rtial/Total Removal areas had lower species 70 richness, but had less variation in cover and production, and higher occurrence of grass species. Established Vegetation The grass species Agrostis alba was not seeded at any of the study sites, but was the dominant grass species in most areas. This species colonized all reclaimed sites, most likely due to high metal tolerance and aggressi ve colonization of disturbed sites (Farago, 1981; Bleeker et al., 2002; Munshow er, 1998). Two seeded species, Achillea millefolium and F. idahoensis, successfully established on all sites. There is some question as to whether the Festuca spp . is a mix of F. idahoensis and Festuca ovina. The species F. ovina is a known metal tolerant grass speci es (Farago, 1981) and is physically very similar to F. idahoensis. Several of the native seeded species were rare or had not established at these sites. In particular, F. scabrella, S. viridula, Agropyron spicatum, P. compressa, Calamagrostis spp., and Linum lewisii were not successful and would not be recommended for use at similar mine sites. Monitoring changes in the species richness and diversity over time will be the most e ffective way to determine what species are successfully establishing at metalliferous mine reclamation sites. It is recommended that the seed mix be adjusted and unsuccessful sp ecies eliminated in order to increase cost effectiveness and allow faster establishmen t of successful species. Seeding metal tolerant species can significantly increase the success of revegetation, allowing for faster establishment and long term sustainability. Often, metal tolerant genotypes are present on or near disturbances, and seeds could be harvested for the reclamation project. This 71 would allow for faster re-establishment and greater sustainability than commercial seeds, because the plants are adapted to the unfavorable conditions present at metalliferous mine sites. The Bridger Plant Materials Center has been researching metal tolerant plant genotypes for ten years, using seeds collected from plants growing on the Clark Fork River Superfund Site. The seeds were collected and cultivated, with th e goal of releasing native plant materials that demonstrate high tolerance to acidic conditions and metal contamination (Marty, 2000). Metal tolerant plants may not provide ideal forage for grazing species, thus it is important to plan the seed mix for revegetation based on post reclamation land use. Monitoring Reclamation Effectiveness Long-term monitoring of reclaimed ab andoned mine sites is essential for understanding the effectiveness of reclamation. The data presented in this thesis are not intended to imply causal relationships between soil chemistry and vegetation attributes, but to provide insight into associations that may impact the future of the Gregory Mine, the Comet Mine, and High Ore Creek reclam ation. These quantitative data provide baseline information that could be used to track future changes in soil chemistry and vegetation at these sites. A monito ring plan should include the following: • Topsoil sampling with analytical analysis of soil pH, soluble metal levels (if sites are acidic), total metal levels (sp ecifically As, Cu, Pb, and Zn), and if possible, soil nutrients (N, P, K, and OM). • Canopy cover estimation (by species). • Species richness and species composition estimation. 72 • Staking the perimeter of barren areas and locations into a GPS database. • Establishing permanent photo points. Monitoring based on these factors will increase the understanding of what is occurring at these sites over time. It is recommended that monitoring occur every three years. Qualitative evaluation of reclaimed sites provides a relatively inexpensive and efficient method for tracking changes, and can be an indicator of when quantitative monitoring should occur. Qualitative evaluation should be used to observe changes to ascertain if sites are degrading and at what pace. This could be done on an annual basis, using a check-sheet that includes questions about public safety, repositories, removal areas, wetland and streambank areas, and uplan d areas. Development of a qualitative monitoring program will help land managers assess long term vegetation stability and target problem areas for future remediation. 73 REFERENCES CITED American Public Health Association. 1989. St andard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 17 th edition. American Public He alth Association, American Waterworks Association, and Water pollu tion Control Federation, Washington D. C. Adriano, Domy C. 2001. Trace elements in te rrestrial environments: Biogeochemistry, bioavailability, and risks of metals, sec ond edition. Springer, New York, NY. 867p. Baker, A. J. M. 1987. Metal tolerance. New Phytologist. 106 : 93-111. Barth, R. C. and B. K. Martin. 1984. Soil de pth requirements for revegetation of surface mined ares in Wyoming, Montana, and No rth Dakota. Journal of Environmental Quality. 13 : 399-404 Bell, L. C. 2002. Physical limitations. Pages 38-49 in A. D. Bradshaw and Ming H. Wong, editors. The Restoration and Ma nagement of Derelict Land, Modern Approaches. World Scientific, New Jersey. Bleeker, P. M., A. G. L. Assuncao, P. M. Tiega, T. de Koe, and J. A. C. Verkleij. 2002. Revegetation of the acidic, As contaminated Jales mine spoil tips using a combination of spoil amendments and tolerant grasses. The Science of the Total Environment. 300 : 1 - 1 3 . BLM, 2001. U. S. Department of Interior/B ureau of land Management. High Ore Creek Streamside Tailings Reclamation. http://www.mt.blm.gov/aml/HOC_Report/HOC_Report.htm Bradshaw, A. D. 1997. Restoration of mined lands-using natural processes. Ecological Engineering. 8:255-269. Brown, Ray, Micheal C. Amacher, Walter F. Mueggler, and Janic Kotuby-Amacher. 2003. Reestablishing natural succession on acidic mine spoils at high elevation: Long-term ecological restoration. Resear ch Paper RMRS-RP-41. Ogden UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p. Brown, Sally, Mark Sprenger, Amanda Maxemchuk, and Harry Compton. 2005. Ecosystem function in alluvial tailings after biosolids and lime addition. Journal of Environmental Quality. 34 : 139-148. Browne, Michael, Ben Quinones, and James Ma dison. 2001. High Ore Creek Watershed Restoration. Presented at the 25th An nual National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs Conference, Park City, Utah. 74 Caruccio, F. T., L. R. Hossner, and G. Geidel . 1988. Pyritic materials: Acid drainage, soil acidity, and liming. Pages 159-189 in L. R. Hossner, editor. Reclamation of Surface Mined Lands, Volume 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. CDM Federal. 1997. Anaconda ARWWS baseline eco logical risk assessment. Used in the ARWWS OU Record of Decision. CH2MHill. 1987a. Assessment of the toxicity of arsenic , cadmium, lead, and zinc in soil and plants and livestock in the Helena Va lley of Montana for East Helena Site (ASARCO), East Helena, Montana. Prepared by the Reclamation Research Unit, Montana State University. CH2MHill. 1987b. Assessment of the toxicity of copper, mercury, selenium, silver, and thallium in soil and plants in the Helena Valley of Montana for East Helena Site (ASARCO), East Helena, Montana. Prepared by the Reclamation Research Unit, Montana State University. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage met hod of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science. 33 : 43-64. Dickinson, N. M. Soil degradation and nutrien ts. 2002. Pages 50-65 in A. D. Bradshaw and Ming H. Wong, editors. The Restora tion and Management of Derelict Land, Modern Approaches. World Scientific, New Jersey. Farago, M. E. 1981. Metal tolerant plan ts. Coordination Chemistry Reviews. 36 : 1 55- 182. Foth, Henry D., and Boyd G. Ellis. 1997. Soil Fertility, Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 290p. Hitchcock, C. L. a nd A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 730pp. Johnson, M. S., J. A. Cooke, and J. K. W. Stevenson. 1994. Revegetation of metalliferous wastes and land after metal mini ng. Pages 31-48 in R. E. Hester and R. M. Harrison, editors. Mining and its E nvironmental Impact. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Jones, Clain, and Jeff Jacobsen. 2005. P hosphorous cycling, testing, and fertilizer recommendations. Montana State Univers ity Extension Servi ce, Publication 4449-4. 75 Jurinak, J. J., Joe Bowden, Fred Samson, a nd Tom Portal. 1987. Electrical conductivity. Pages 27-34 in R. Dean Williams and Gera ld E. Schuman, editors. Reclaiming Mine Soils and Overburden in the Western Un ited States, Analytic Parameters and Procedures. Soil Conservation Soci ety of America, Ankeny, Iowa. 336p. Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1992. Trace elements in soils and plants, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 365p. Kabata-Pendias, A. 2001. Trace elements in soils and plants, 3 rd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL. 413p. Kahn, A. G. 2002. The importance of microbes. Pages 80-92 in A. D. Bradshaw and Ming H. Wong, editors. The Restora tion and management of derelict land, modern approaches. World Scientific, New Jersey. Kapustka, L. A. 2002. Phytotoxicity tests on so ils from the Grant-Kohrs ranch national historic site, Deer Lodge, Montana. Fina l report prepared for the University of Montana, Missoula under contract to the National Park Service. 37 pages. Kapustka, L.A., Lipton, J., Galbraith, H., C acela, D., and K. LeJune. 1995. Metal and arsenic impacts to soils, vegetation communities and wildlife habitat in Southwest Montana uplands contaminated by smelter emissions: II. Laborato ry phytotoxicity studies. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 14 :1905-1912. Korb, Nathan, Clain Jones, and Jeff Jacobse n. 2005. Potassium cy cling, testing, and fertilizer recommendations. Montana State University Extension Service, Publication 4449-5. Krzaklewski, Wojciech and Marcin Pietrz ykowski. 2002. Selected physio-chemical properties of zinc and lead ore tailings and their biological stabilization. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 141 : 125-142. Marty, L. 2000. The use of local ecotypes for the revegetation of acid/heavy metal contaminated lands in western Montana. Proceedings from the 2000 Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, Billings, Montana. Pages 218-228. Meharg, Andrew A. and Mark Macnair. 1991. The mechanisms of arsenate tolerance in Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) Beauv. and Agrostis capillaris L. New Phytologist. 119 : 291-297. 76 Monterroso, C., F. Macias, A. Gil Bueno, and C. Val Caballero. 1998. Evaluation of the land reclamation project at the As Pontes Mine (NW Spain) in relation to the suitability of the soil for plant growth . Land Degradation and Development. 9 : 441- 451. Munshower. F. F. 1994. Practical Handbook of Disturbed Land Revegetation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 265p. Munshower, F. F. 1998. Grasses and grasslik e species for revegetation of disturbed lands in the northern Great Plains and adjacent areas with comments about some wetland species. RRU, Bozeman, MT. Neuman, D. R., Jennings, S. R., and M. K. Reeves. 2002. Plant growth and soil metal concentrations: a spatial eff ects model. Paper presente d at the 2002 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington, KY, June 9-13, 2002. Published by ASMR. Olympus Technical Services. 1999. Montan a Department of Environmental Quality- Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau. Invitation fo r bid; Comet Mine and millsite phase II reclamation project, Jefferson County, Mont ana. Prepared by Olympus Technical Services, August 1999. Pioneer Technolgies Inc. 1995. Montana Depa rtment of State Lands-Abandoned Mine Reclamation Bureau. Abandoned Hardrock Mine Priorities Sites. 1995 Summary Report. Prepared by Pioneer Tech nical Services, Inc. April, 1995. Pioneer Technologies Inc. 1996. Montana Depa rtment of Environmental Cleanup, Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau. Final reclamation wo rk plan for the Comet Mine. Prepared by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. May 1996. Pioneer Technologies. 2000. Unite d States Army Corps of Engineers. High Ore Creek streamside tailings reclamation project fi nal construction report. Prepared by Pioneer Technologies Inc, December 2000. Pioneer Technologies Inc. 2003. Montana De partment of Environmental Quality-Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau. Draft 2003 reclaime d mine inspection report for the Comet Mine and millsite. Prepared by Pioneer Technologies Inc., Novermber, 2003. PTI. 1997. Anaconda regional soils remedial inve stigation. Report prep ared for Atlantic Richfield Company by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. February 1997. Document No. 2210403/460194. 77 Ross, Robert L. and Harold E. Hunter. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana, based on soils and climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Bozeman, MT. 64 p. Shu, W. S., Z. H. Ye, Z. Q. Zhang, C. Y. Lan, and M. H. Wong. 2005. Natural colonization of plants on five lead/zinc mine tailings in southern China. Restoration Ecology. 13 : 49-60. Smith R. A. H. and A. D. Bradshaw. 1972. St abilization of toxic mine wastes by the use of tolerant plant populations. Transactions of the Institute of Mineral Metallurgy, Sect. A. 81 : 230-237. Smith, R. A. H. and A. D. Bradshaw. 1979. The use of metal tolerant plant populations for the reclamation of metalliferous wa stes. Journal of Applied Ecology. 16 : 595- 612. Surbrugg, John Edward. 1982. Copper and zinc tolerance in two Montana grass species growing on copper mill tailings. Montan a State University Master's Thesis. Tetra-Tech, 2001. Montana Department of Environmental Cleanup, Mine Waste Cleanup Bureau. Final reclamation i nvestigation report for the Gregory Mine and associated areas, Colorado Mining District, Jefferson County, MT. Prepared by Tetra-Tech, February, 2001. Tilling, Robert. 1973. Boulder Batholith, Mont ana; A product of two contemporaneous but chemically distinct magma series. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 84 : 3879-3700. Tilling, Robert. 1974. Composition and time relations of plutonic and associated volcanic rocks, Boulder Batholith region, Montana. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 85 : 1925-1930. Tordoff, G. M., A. J. M. Baker, and A. J. Willis. 2000. Current approaches to the revegetation of metaliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere. 41 :219-228. U.S.D.A. Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1969. Diagnosis of saline and alkali soils. Agriculture Handbook No. 60: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 160p. U. S. EPA. 1999. Clark Fork River Ecological Assessment. Prepared by ISSI Consulting Group for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Denver, CO. December, 1999. 78 Von Frenckell-Insam, Beatrix A. K and Thomas C. Hutchinson. 1993. Occurance of heavy metal tolerance and co-tolerance in Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. from European and Canadian populations. New Phytologist. 125 : 555-564. Wali, Mohan K. 1999. Ecological succession and re habilitation of disturbed terrestrial ecosystems. Plant and Soil. 213 : 195-220. Wu, Lin and Janis Antonovics. 1975. Zinc and copper uptake by Agrostis stolonifera, tolerant to both zinc and copper. New Phytologist. 75 : 231-237. Ye, Z. H., A. J. M. Baker, and M. H. Wong. 2002. Problems of Toxicities. Pages 66-79 in A. D. Bradshaw and Ming H. Wong, edito rs. The Restoration and management of derelict land, modern approaches. World Scientific, New Jersey. 79 APPENDICES 80 APPENDIX A: VEGETATION DATA 81 Table 28. Field canopy cover data , total percent cover by species and sample area, standard deviation and species frequency from the Gregory Mine. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-SB- G - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 62.5 62.5 62.5 97.5 97.5 85 62. 5 62.5 62.5 37.5 69.2 5 1 8 . 6 4 100 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 1 5 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 2.5 13.75 3 . 9 5 100 Timothy Phleum pratense 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.75 1.21 70 Switc h gras s Panicum virgatum 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Rough fescue Festuca scabrella 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.5 1.05 20 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 White yarr ow Achillea millefolium 85 62.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 62.5 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 15 15 47.75 22 . 9 0 100 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 1.05 80 Strawbe rr y Fragaria vesca 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Puss yto es Antennaria spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 White clove r Trifolium repens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.75 1.21 30 Golden r od Solidago missouriensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 82 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Unidentified forb #1 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 1 1.29 40 Unidentified forb #2 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 1.75 4.72 20 Unidentified forb #3 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 3.75 3.95 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 5 5.27 Litter 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Total Live 162.5 14 7 . 5 1 4 3 198 158 1 7 0 1 2 3 145 105 62.5 141 . 2 5 GR-SB- G - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 6 2 . 5 8 5 85 97.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 43.43 40 Timothy Phleum pratense 3 7 . 5 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 15.81 20 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 1 5 15 15 2.5 15 37.5 37. 5 3 7 . 5 37.5 62.5 27. 5 17.87 100 Kentucky blue gr as s Poa pratensis 0 15 0 2.5 0 15 15 2.5 37.5 15 10.25 1 1 . 8 7 70 Thickspike wheat g r ass Agropyron dasystachyum 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Sedge Carex spp. 0 0 0 2.5 0 15 15 15 0 0 4.75 7.12 40 83 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Baltic rush Juncus balticus 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 15 0 0 0 1.75 4.72 20 Purple aster Machaeranthera canescens 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Alfalfa Medicago sativa 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 3.75 11.86 10 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 3.75 11.86 10 Woods rose Rosa woodsii 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 3 7 . 5 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 8 5 85 62.5 62. 5 85 85 64 20.76 100 Tar weed Madia sativa 2 . 5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Strawbe rr y 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 2.5 2.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.68 30 Tall buttercup Ranunculus acris 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.5 1.05 20 Sulfur cinquef o i l Potentilla recta 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 3 6.32 20 Unidentified forb #3 15 15 15 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 6.25 7.57 50 Rye grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.75 3.95 Rock 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 3.5 4.12 Litter 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 2.5 15 8.75 6.59 Total Live 170 217.5 1 9 5 175 120 1 9 3 1 6 0 163 160 165 171.75 84 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-SB- G - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 37.5 2.5 62.5 37.5 9 7 . 5 85 62.5 45.2 5 3 1 . 1 7 100 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 1 5 37.5 15 37.5 62. 5 6 2 . 5 1 5 0 0 0 24.5 24.26 70 Sedge Carex sp.? 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 2.5 0 0 15 15 20 20.07 80 Tufted hair gr ass Deschampsia caespitosa 0 0 15 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.75 4.72 20 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 0 0 0 0 2.5 15 0 0 15 15 4.75 7.12 40 Thickspike wheat g r ass Agropyron dasystachyum 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 White clove r Trifolium repens 0 0 0 0 0 15 37.5 0 0 0 5.25 12.27 20 Broadlea f plantain Plantago major 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.25 0.79 10 Smooth scour in gr us h Equisetum laevigatum 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 5 5.27 100 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 4.5 7.25 30 Quak ing aspen Populus tremuloides 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.5 1.05 20 85 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Unidentified forb #1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #3 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 15 15 0 0 2.5 3.75 6.04 50 Moss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.05 20 Bare ground 15 37.5 37.5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 37.5 15 2.5 37.5 25 13.69 Litter 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 8.5 11.44 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Total Live 130 92.5 85 110 123 1 7 8 1 3 8 100 122.5 11 5 118.75 GR-SB- M - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 37.5 37.5 15 2.5 62.5 2 .5 37. 5 15 62.5 62.5 33. 5 23.98 100 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 15 15 15 2.5 15 37.5 15 11.5 11.62 70 Toad rush Juncus bufonius 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Timothy Phleum pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 0 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 8.5 6.89 90 86 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Tar weed Madia sativa 2 . 5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 1 1.29 40 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 15 2.5 2.25 4.63 40 White clove r Trifolium repens 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0.75 1.21 30 Strawbe rr y Fragaria vesca 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Sulfur cinquef o i l Potentilla recta 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #1 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #3 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 1 1.29 40 Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Rock 15 37.5 62 . 5 3 7 . 5 2 . 5 37. 5 37.5 6 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 29.75 23. 1 7 100 Bare ground 37.5 15 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 15 15 15 15 21.75 10 . 8 7 Litter 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.25 6.04 Moss 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 Total Live 72.5 82.5 85 62.5 95 70 92.5 123 137.5 92.5 61.5 87 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-SB- M - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 15 0 37.5 2.5 15 37.5 37.5 2.5 17.75 14 . 8 3 100 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 2.5 2.5 15 15 15 15 15 14.75 9 . 5 3 100 Kentucky blue gr as s Poa pratensis 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1.75 4.72 20 Tufted hair gr ass Deschampsia caespitosa 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Nebr as ka sedge Carex nebrascensis 2 . 5 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.75 4.72 20 Thickspike wheat g r ass Agropyron dasystachyum 2 . 5 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.25 4.63 40 Toad rush Juncus bufonius 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Timothy Phleum pratense 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Alfalfa Medicago sativa 0 0 62.5 62.5 6 2 . 5 8 5 37.5 15 2.5 62.5 39 32.11 80 Ryegrass Lolium perenne 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Fowl mannegr a s s Glyceria striata 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 3.75 11.86 10 88 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Cudw ee d sagewo r t Artemisia ludoviciana 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 15 15 15 15 15 37.5 37 . 5 2.5 15 18.25 1 0 . 8 7 100 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 1 1.29 40 Sulfur cinquef o i l Potentilla recta 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 2.5 15 15 37.5 15 13.5 10.29 Rock 15 37.5 15 2.5 15 15 15 37.5 15 37.5 20 . 5 12.35 Litter 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Total Live 90 65 115 97.5 12 0 1 5 8 1 1 3 105 65 103 103 GR-SB- M - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 37.5 85 62.5 37.5 37.5 62.5 62. 5 3 7 . 5 37.5 37.5 49.7 5 1 7 . 1 0 100 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 1 5 0 15 15 15 0 15 2.5 37.5 15 13 10.92 80 89 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Smooth scour in gr us h Equisetum laevigatum 0 15 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2 4.68 30 Thickspike wheat g r ass Agropyron dasystachyum 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Timothy Phleum pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 15 1.75 4.72 20 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 15 0 37.5 0 0 0 5.25 12.27 20 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0.5 1.05 20 Moss 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.75 4.48 60 Bare ground 62.5 15 37.5 62.5 62. 5 62.5 37.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 52.75 16.85 Rock 15 15 15 15 15 15 2.5 15 15 15 13.75 3 . 9 5 Litter 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Total Live 67.5 105 80 57.5 70 62.5 135 42.5 77.5 72.5 74.25 90 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-SB- P - 0 1 a , b Red top Agrostis alba 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Moss 0 0 15 15 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.75 6.46 80 Bare ground 85 85 97.5 85 97. 5 85 62.5 97. 5 37.5 15 74.75 28 . 0 5 Rock 15 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 6.25 6.04 Litter 15 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 37. 5 15 2.5 62.5 37.5 17.7 5 2 1 . 2 0 Total Live 0 2.5 15 17.5 2.5 2.5 15 5 2.5 2.5 6.5 GR-SB- P - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 37.5 2 .5 15 37.5 0 62.5 62. 5 15 2.5 25 23.72 90 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2 4.68 30 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Tufted hair gr ass Deschampsia caespitosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1.5 4.74 10 Sedge Carex spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.5 4.74 10 Bare ground 62.5 37.5 1 5 15 62. 5 37.5 1 5 15 2.5 62.5 32.5 23.27 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 15 15 15 2.5 2.5 7.5 6.45 Litter 15 15 62.5 62.5 2 . 5 37. 5 15 2.5 67.5 2.5 28.25 26. 8 5 Total Live 15 52.5 5 15 52.5 0 62.5 62.5 30 20 31.5 91 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-SB- P - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 62.5 0 0 7.75 19.81 20 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Tufted hair gr ass Deschampsia caespitosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 3 6.32 20 Nebr as ka sedge Carex nebrascensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 2.5 1.75 4.72 20 Smooth scour in gr us h Equisetum laevigatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 3 6.32 20 Moss 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 15 2.5 4.56 50 Bare ground 97.5 85 97.5 97.5 9 7 . 5 9 7 . 5 8 5 15 85 97.5 85. 5 25.46 Rock 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.25 6.04 Litter 2.5 15 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 15 7.5 6.45 Total Live 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.5 32.5 108 17.5 17.5 15.75 92 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-OV- G - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 0 0 0 15 2.5 0 0 13.25 21 . 1 2 50 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 1 5 37.5 15 15 15 62.5 15 15 15 2.5 20.75 1 6 . 9 6 100 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 0 15 0 15 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 3.25 6.24 30 Canada blue gr as s Poa compressa 0 15 15 15 37.5 15 37.5 62. 5 62.5 62.5 32. 2 5 2 3 . 6 4 90 Ryegrass Lolium perenne 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 37.5 37.5 37. 5 6 2 . 5 62.5 37.5 28.2 5 2 4 . 6 7 90 Sulfur cinquef o i l Potentilla recta 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 0 2.5 2.5 4.56 50 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Alfalfa Medicago sativa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 62.5 85 85 85 37.5 37. 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 15 47.5 29.65 Total Live 80 107.5 47. 5 4 7 . 5 9 2 . 5 1 2 0 1 1 3 158 142.5 105 101.25 93 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-OV- G - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 8 5 85 15 15 2.5 92.5 85 92.5 2.5 62.5 53. 7 5 3 9 . 8 1 100 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 37.5 37.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 0 0 0 32.5 37.5 33. 2 5 2 5 . 6 9 70 Unidentified gras s #2 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 37.5 15 37.5 0 0 15 37.5 15 37.5 21 15.33 80 Unidentified forb #2 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.25 0.79 10 Unidentified forb #4 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0.75 1.21 30 Bare ground 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 2.5 7.5 6.45 Rock 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.75 3.95 Litter 15 15 37.5 37.5 2 . 5 37.5 15 37.5 2.5 15 21.5 14.59 Total Live 140 162.5 92. 5 1 1 5 6 7 . 5 9 2 . 5 1 0 0 130 52.5 143 109.5 94 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-OV- G - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 85 37.5 2 .5 37.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 0 2.5 15 36.75 30.71 90 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 2 . 5 15 0 0 0 2.5 15 37.5 15 62.5 15 20.41 70 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 37.5 37. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 15.81 20 Timothy Phleum pratense 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 37.5 2.5 4.75 11.57 50 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 8 5 37.5 2 .5 15 37.5 62.5 37.5 15 39.25 25. 2 0 100 Rock y Mountain iris Iris Missouriensis 0 37.5 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 15.81 20 White clove r Trifolium repens 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 37.5 15 0 0 15 7 12.35 40 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 3 6.32 20 Bare ground 2.5 15 2.5 15 37.5 15 15 37.5 37.5 15 19.25 13 . 5 4 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 15 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 15.75 12 . 8 0 Total Live 152.5 12 7 . 5 1 2 5 150 65 120 133 118 92.5 125 120.75 95 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-OV- M - 0 1 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 6 2 . 5 1 5 37.5 15 37.5 62.5 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 15 37.5 35. 7 5 1 7 . 4 4 100 Cudw ee d sagewo r t Artemisia ludoviciana 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Alfalfa Medicago sativa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 15 15 15 15 15 37.5 37 . 5 37.5 15 21.75 1 0 . 8 7 100 Bare ground 37.5 85 62.5 62.5 62. 5 37.5 37.5 15 62.5 62.5 52.5 20.10 Rock 2.5 2.5 15 37.5 15 15 2.5 15 15 15 13.5 10.29 Litter 15 15 15 15 2.5 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 11.25 6. 0 4 Total Live 77.5 30 52.5 30 52.5 77.5 77.5 77.5 52.5 52.5 58 GR-OV- M - 0 2 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 3 7 . 5 1 5 37.5 37.5 37. 7 5 1 1 . 2 1 100 Red top Agrostis alba 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 62.5 2.5 15 8.25 19.62 40 Unidentified gras s #5 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 1.25 1.32 50 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 2.5 15 2.5 37.5 15 37.5 15 37.5 15 19.25 13 . 5 4 100 Sulfur cinquef o i l Potentilla recta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.05 20 96 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Bare ground 37.5 62.5 37.5 37. 5 1 5 37.5 37. 5 1 5 15 37.5 33. 2 5 1 4 . 7 7 Rock 2.5 15 15 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 5.27 Litter 15 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 2.5 15 15 2.5 15 12.25 10 . 8 3 Total Live 52.5 40 52.5 40 103 57.5 77.5 92.5 82.5 72.5 67 GR-OV- M - 0 3 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 3 7 . 5 2 . 5 2.5 15 15 15 15 15 15 37.5 17 11.95 100 Red top Agrostis alba 0 62.5 15 62.5 37. 5 0 2.5 0 37.5 0 21.75 26. 0 9 60 Timothy Phleum pratense 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 37.5 2.5 15 6 11.97 50 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 15 37.5 15 2.5 15 15 15 15 37.5 18 . 2 5 1 0 . 8 7 100 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 2.5 0 2.5 15 2.5 37.5 2 .5 15 15 9.25 11.79 80 Unidentified forb #5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 85 62.5 62.5 37.5 3 7 . 5 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 6 2 . 5 15 15 47.75 22. 9 0 97 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y Rock 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 9.75 11.39 Litter 15 15 2.5 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 13.75 3 . 9 5 Total Live 55 82.5 55 95 72.5 32.5 7 2 . 5 7 0 85 105 72.5 GR-OV- P - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 2 . 5 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1.75 4.72 25 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 37.5 2.5 15 62.5 62. 5 62.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 62.5 41.75 21.21 Rock 62.5 92 . 5 8 5 37.5 15 37.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 55.5 23.68 Litter 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 15 0 0 2 4.68 Total Live 17.5 0 0 0 17.5 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 98 Table 28. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover Standard Deviati o n F r e qu e nc y GR-OV- P - 0 2 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 15 0 0 0 2 4.68 30 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 85 85 62.5 85 62. 5 85 62.5 15 37.5 62.5 64.2 5 2 3 . 2 8 Rock 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.75 4.72 Litter 15 15 37.5 15 15 15 15 85 62.5 37.5 31. 2 5 2 4 . 7 8 Total Live 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 17.5 0 0 0 2.25 GR-OV- P - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 2.5 0 0 15 0 2.5 2.5 15 6.75 7.17 70 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 2 . 5 15 15 15 15 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 11.25 6 . 0 4 100 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 . 5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 15 2.5 0 3 4.38 70 Unidentified forb #6 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 85 62.5 62. 5 8 5 85 85 62.5 62. 5 85 85 76 11.62 Rock 2.5 2.5 15 15 15 2. 5 37.5 15 2.5 2.5 11 11.19 Litter 15 15 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.25 6.04 Total Live 20 30 20 17.5 20 17.5 17.5 3 2 . 5 20 17.5 21.2 5 4 3 . 4 3 * GR=Gregory, SB=Subirrigated, OV=Over flow, G=Good, M=Moderate, P=Poor 99 Table 29. Production data from the Gregory Mine. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Mean STD Kg/ha GR-SB-G-01 Grass 44.12 208.09 98.18 80.73 107.78 70.57 4311 .20 Forb 14.99 16.11 15. 57 8.68 6.92 3.47 276.75 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4587 .9 5 GR-SB-G-02 Grass 187.92 187.65 65.24 17.52 114.58 86.74 4583 .30 Forb 13.62 10.57 36.56 30.08 22.71 12.60 908.30 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5491 .60 GR-SB-G-03 Grass 64.55 42.16 41.64 94.58 60.73 24.96 2429.30 Forb 0 0.81 9 0 2.45 4.38 98. 10 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2527.40 GR-SB-M-01 Grass 46.2 10.19 13.28 17.83 21.88 16.52 875.00 Forb 1.74 1.62 13.36 6 5.68 4.77 227.20 Shrub 0 0 0.53 0 0.13 0.27 5.30 Total 1107.50 100 Table 29. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Mean STD Kg/ha GR-SB-M-02 Grass 14.8 57.5 14.75 20.75 26.95 20.56 1078.00 Forb 31.16 30.51 30.19 5.08 24.24 12.78 969.40 Shrub 0.19 0 0 0 0.05 0.10 1.90 Total 2049.30 GR-SB-M-03 Grass 52.37 25.56 29.22 22.65 32.45 13.55 1298.00 Forb 1.04 0 0 3 1.01 1.41 40.40 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1338 .40 GR-SB-P-01 Grass 9.53 1.5 0 4.85 3.97 4.22 158.80 Forb 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 158.80 GR-SB-P-02 Grass 42.41 4.16 25.49 17 22.27 16.04 890.60 Forb 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 890.60 101 Table 29. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Mean STD Kg/ha GR-SB-P-03 Grass 0 0 0 36.92 9.23 18.46 369.20 Forb 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 369.20 102 Table 29. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha GR-OV-G-01 Grass 3.77 9.07 3.77 6.51 6.5 6.39 10.84 16.4 17.03 10.71 9.10 4.71 1455.84 Forb 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.03 1.28 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 3.85 9.07 3.77 6.51 6.5 6.39 10.84 16.4 17.03 10.71 9.11 4.70 1457.12 0.00 GR-OV-G-02 Grass 12.28 11.77 6.17 7.1 1 1. 87 3 4. 46 18.85 4 3.29 11.29 26.81 1 8 . 3 9 1 2 . 4 7 2 9 4 2 . 24 Forb 1.76 3.47 1.1 8 0.45 1 .8 8 0 0 0.04 0.7 1.63 1.11 1.11 177.76 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 14.04 15.24 7.35 7 .5 5 1 3. 75 3 4. 46 18.85 4 3. 33 1 1. 99 28.44 1 9. 50 1 2 . 0 2 3 1 2 0 . 00 0.00 GR-OV-G-03 Grass 15.04 10.25 5.46 10.24 5.81 8 .07 16.76 6.85 3.9 5 4.5 8.69 4.38 1390.88 Forb 3.38 3.68 13.92 14.06 0.18 4.5 3 1 .9 4 8 .5 7 2.3 5.3 5.79 4.86 925.76 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 18.42 13.93 19. 38 24.3 5 .9 9 12.6 18.7 1 5. 42 6.25 9.8 14.48 5.96 2316.64 0.00 GR-OV-M-01 Grass 7.52 2.25 3.15 2.4 4.46 7.01 2.1 4.3 7 5 .25 5.34 4.39 1.93 701.60 Forb 1.3 0.53 0.47 0.7 0.2 0.55 1.8 5 3 .25 1.22 0.75 1.08 0.90 173.12 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 8.82 2.78 3.62 3.1 4.66 7.56 3.95 7 .62 6.47 6.09 5.47 2.13 874.72 103 Table 29. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha GR-OV-M-02 Grass 3.1 3.65 5.23 2.81 5.08 3.5 6.87 28.11 4 .5 8 4.24 6.72 7.61 1074.72 Forb 1.2 0.07 0.43 0.22 2 1.2 3 2 5.76 3.72 1.96 1.79 313.60 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 4.3 3.72 5.66 3.03 7.08 4.7 9 .8 7 30.11 10.34 7.96 8.68 7.94 1388.32 GR-OV-M-03 Grass 3.73 13.27 0.71 14. 16 13.48 1 .08 2.71 4.46 7.83 2.14 6.36 5.40 1017.12 Forb 3 0.21 5.02 1.47 0.78 4 .7 8 3 .8 1 2.26 1.11 14. 72 3.72 4.21 594.56 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 6.73 13.48 5.7 3 1 5.63 14.26 5.86 6.52 6.72 8.94 16.86 10.07 4.46 1611.68 0.00 GR-OV-P-01 Grass 8.35 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 2.62 149.60 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 8.35 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 2.62 149.60 0.00 GR-OV-P-02 Grass 0 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.07 0.14 10.40 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 0 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.07 0.14 10.40 0.00 GR-OV-P-03 Grass 1 1.46 1.9 1 0.1 1.07 0.54 1 0.73 8.4 1.72 2.40 275.20 Forb 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.63 0.3 0.25 0 0.18 0.21 28.48 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total 1 1.46 2.2 1.3 0.1 1.07 1.1 7 1 .3 0.98 8.4 1.90 2.34 303.68 * GR=Gregory, SB=Subirrigated, OV=Over flow, G=Good, M=Moderate, P=Poor 104 Table 30. Field canopy cover da ta, total percent cover by species and sample area, standard deviation and species frequency from the Comet Mine. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-OV- G - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 37.5 15 37.5 15 15 15 37.5 15 21.75 10 . 8 7 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 3 7 . 5 6 2 . 5 1 5 15 37.5 37.5 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 15 67.5 38.75 20 . 1 5 1 0 0 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 1 5 15 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 15 2.5 7 6.95 80 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 1 5 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 8.75 6.59 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 60 0.00 Litter 37.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Total Live 70 92.5 52.5 30 77.5 55 82.5 67.5 67.5 85 68 CT-OV- G - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 37.5 62.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 1 5 62.5 85 32.5 44.5 19.85 10 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 15 37.5 37.5 37.5 2 .5 15 37.5 2.5 0 2.5 18.75 16.93 100 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 1 5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 4.56 50 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 105 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.25 0.79 10 Dwarf Firew e ed Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.25 0.79 10 White clove r Trifolium repens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1.5 4.74 10 Bare ground 1 5 2.5 15 15 15 15 37.5 15 2.5 2.5 13.5 10.29 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.25 11.33 Litter 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 37.5 62. 5 1 5 15 62.5 15 37.5 31.25 19 . 4 1 Total Live 67.5 103 77.5 77.5 40 52.5 55 67.5 100 42.5 68.25 CT-OV- G - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 37.5 7 11.47 90 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 62.5 62.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 85 85 37.5 37.5 15 49.75 23 . 0 2 1 0 0 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 2 . 5 37.5 37. 5 6 2 . 5 1 5 15 15 15 62.5 0 26.25 22 . 7 1 9 0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.75 4.48 60 Bare ground 2 . 5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 37.5 2.5 37.5 10.75 14. 6 3 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 62.5 15 15 37.5 15 62.5 31.25 19 . 4 1 Total Live 82.5 105 8 0 105 70 105 103 55 100 52.5 85.75 106 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-OV- M - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 15 37.5 15 2.5 15.75 12 . 8 0 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 2 . 5 2.5 15 37.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 15 37.5 11.5 14.78 80 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0.75 1.21 30 Unidentified gras s #1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 . 5 15 37.5 15 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 7.25 12.22 50 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 85 37.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 62.5 62. 5 6 2 . 5 62.5 15 52.5 20.10 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 5 5.27 Litter 1 5 62.5 62. 5 1 5 37.5 15 37.5 37. 5 15 85 38.25 24 . 7 8 Total Live 20 35 55 55 42.5 15 32.5 40 32.5 42. 5 37 CT-OV- M - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 15 15 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 37.5 15 21.75 10 . 8 7 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 2 . 5 0 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 1.5 1.29 60 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 107 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.25 4.63 40 White clove r Trifolium repens 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.75 11.86 1 0 Bare ground 32.5 15 62.5 37.5 62.5 62.5 6 2 . 5 6 2 . 5 37.5 85 52 20.58 Rock 1 5 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 8.5 11.44 Litter 2 . 5 37.5 15 15 37.5 15 15 15 37.5 15 20.5 12.35 Total Live 32.5 55 22.5 22.5 1 5 40 37.5 17.5 40 15 29.75 CT-OV- M - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 15 15 37.5 15 2.5 15 2.5 15 14.75 9 . 5 3 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 1 5 2.5 15 2.5 15 37.5 15 15 37.5 37. 5 19.25 13 . 5 4 1 0 0 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0.25 0.79 10 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.5 0 0 0 1.75 4.72 20 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 15 85 62.5 62.5 37. 5 55 19.58 Rock 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 5.27 Litter 1 5 37.5 15 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 15 15 37.5 24 11.62 Total Live 30 17.5 30 17.5 52.5 67.5 20 32.5 42.5 52.5 36.25 108 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-OV- P - 0 1 Bare ground 6 7 . 5 6 7 . 5 8 5 85 67.5 85 85 85 85 67.5 78 9.04 Rock 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 37.5 15 15 15 2.5 37.5 22.75 13 . 2 5 Litter 2 . 5 15 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 15 15 15 15 10 6.45 Total Live 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT-OV- P - 0 2 Bare ground 9 7 . 5 8 5 97.5 85 97.5 62.5 8 5 85 97.5 62.5 85.5 13.48 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 2 . 5 15 2.5 15 2.5 37.5 15 15 2.5 37.5 14.5 13.48 Total Live 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT-OV- P - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 1.25 1.32 50 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 3 7 . 5 9 2 . 5 8 5 85 85 85 85 62.5 85 85 78.75 16 . 4 3 Rock 62.5 2 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.75 18.95 Litter 2 . 5 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 15 62.5 15 15 16 17.37 Total Live 0 0 0 2.5 5 2.5 17.5 2.5 0 0 3 109 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-SB- G - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 8 5 62.5 62.5 8 5 85 37.5 62.5 3 7 . 5 62.5 85 66.5 18.60 10 0 Horsetail Equisetum arvense 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare groun d 2 . 5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 37.5 15 15 15 2.5 11 11.19 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 15 37.5 37.5 37.5 15 37.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 37.5 35.5 13.32 Total Live 85 62.5 62.5 85 87.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 62.5 85 66.75 CT-SB- G - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 62.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 15 37.5 85 37.5 62.5 85 54.75 22 . 4 7 1 0 0 Horsetail Equisetum arvense 1 5 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 15 6.25 7.57 50 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 . 5 2.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.68 30 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 2. 5 37.5 2.5 15 6.75 11.61 80 Bare groun d 1 5 15 15 37.5 85 15 2.5 15 15 2.5 21.75 24 . 1 8 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 1 5 15 15 37.5 15 62.5 37. 5 3 7 . 5 37.5 15 28.75 16 . 3 0 Total Live 2.5 82.5 95 37.5 15 40 87.5 75 67.5 115 69.75 110 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-SB- G - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 8 5 85 85 62.5 97 . 5 8 5 85 62.5 85 85 81.75 1 0 . 8 7 1 0 0 Horsetail Equisetum arvense 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.75 1.21 30 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 . 5 0 0 2.5 2.5 15 0 0 15 15 5.25 6.82 60 Bare ground 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 5 5.27 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 1 5 37.5 37. 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 15 37.5 15 15 24 11.62 Total Live 87.5 85 87.5 67.5 1 0 0 1 0 3 8 5 62.5 100 100 87.75 CT-SB- M - 0 1 Red Top Agrostis alba 1 5 2.5 37.5 62.5 1 5 62.5 2 .5 15 2.5 2.5 21.75 24. 0 1 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 15 0 0 0 0 32.5 2.5 15 15 8 11.04 50 Tufted hair gr ass Deschampsia caespitosa 0 2.5 15 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2 4.68 30 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 0 15 2.5 2.75 4.48 60 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 1.25 1.32 50 White clove r Trifolium repens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.5 4.74 10 Bare ground 8 5 85 2.5 37.5 85 62.5 37.5 8 5 62.5 37.5 5 8 28.48 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 37.5 15 15 37.5 13.2 5 1 4 . 0 0 Total Live 17.5 25 57.5 62.5 15 67.5 37.5 17.5 35 37.5 37.25 111 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-SB- M - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 37.5 37.5 15 37.5 37.5 37.5 1 5 37.5 37.5 15 30.75 10 . 8 7 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 15 5.25 12.27 2 0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 15 0 3.25 6.24 30 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.05 20 Cudw ee d sagewo r t Artemisia ludoviciana 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare ground 6 2 . 5 1 5 85 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 37.5 62.5 62. 5 43 24.38 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.00 Litter 15 62.5 2 .5 62.5 37.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 15 15 34.75 22.47 Total Live 37.5 37.5 32.5 40 37.5 37.5 52.5 37.5 55 32.5 40 CT-SB- M - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 6 2 . 5 6 2 . 5 1 5 2.5 15 15 15 15 15 15 23.25 2 1 . 0 5 1 0 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.32 20 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0.75 1.21 30 Willow Salix spp. 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0.5 1.05 20 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.74 10 112 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 2.5 15 15 15 15 15 7.75 7.68 60 White clover Trifolium repens 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 37.5 2.5 0 0 4.25 11.73 30 Cudw ee d sagewo r t Artemisia ludoviciana 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.79 10 Bare groun d 15 37.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 37. 5 62.5 37.5 62.5 47.75 16.93 Rock 2 . 5 2.5 37.5 15 15 37.5 15 15 37.5 37.5 2 1 . 5 14.59 Litter 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 15 15 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 15.75 12 . 8 0 Total Live 62.5 62. 5 1 5 47.5 35 40 70 35 30 30 42.75 CT-SB- P - 0 1 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.68 30 Bare Groun d 8 5 85 85 85 62.5 85 85 85 85 85 82.75 7 . 1 2 Rock 2 . 5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 15 2. 5 2.5 2.5 15 6.25 6.04 Litter 2 . 5 15 15 15 37.5 15 15 15 15 2.5 14.75 9. 5 3 Total Live 15 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CT-SB- P - 0 2 Red top Agrostis alba 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 2.5 2.5 3.5 6.15 40 Horsetail Equisetum arvense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 15 1.75 4.72 20 Bare groun d 9 7 . 5 8 5 97.5 85 85 85 97.5 62.5 97.5 62.5 8 5 . 5 13.48 Rock 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2. 5 2.5 2.5 37.5 7 .25 11.33 Litter 2 . 5 15 2.5 15 15 2.5 2.5 37.5 2.5 2.5 9.75 11.39 Total Live 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 5 17.5 5.25 113 Table 30. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) CT-SB- P - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 15 0 2.5 4.56 50 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0.75 1.21 30 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 15 0 2.5 0 15 0 0 3.25 6.24 30 Cudw ee d sagewo r t Artemisia ludoviciana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.25 0.79 10 Bare Ground 8 5 85 97.5 85 85 62.5 97. 5 8 5 85 97.5 86.5 10.29 Rock 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 15 37.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 8.5 11.44 Litter 1 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 15 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 7.5 6.45 Total Live 0 0 5 17.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 17.5 15 5 6.75 * CT= Comet, SB=Subirrigated, OV=Over flow, G=Good, M=Moderate, P=Poor 114 Table 31. Production data from the Comet Mine Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha CT-OV-G-01 Grass 6 7.34 4.9 4.82 6.98 4.2 9.55 8.2 4.97 1 7 . 2 6 7 . 4 2 3.85 1187.52 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6 7.34 4.9 4.82 6.98 4.2 9.55 8.2 4.97 17.26 7 . 4 2 3.85 1187.52 CT-OV-G-02 Grass 6.08 27.06 12.47 13.22 3.42 6.22 2.81 10.83 13.04 6.5 10.17 7.10 1626.40 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0 0.04 0.11 5.60 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.08 27.06 12.47 13.22 3.42 6.22 2.81 10.83 13. 39 6.5 1 0 . 2 0 7 . 1 2 1632.00 CT-OV-G-03 Grass 20.63 28.29 12.06 20 4.17 60.76 49.19 4 .64 21.4 3 . 5 5 22.47 19. 2 7 3595.04 Forb 0.07 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.03 2.56 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 20.7 28.29 12.06 20 4.26 60.76 49.19 4 .64 21.4 3.55 2 2 . 4 9 1 9 . 2 6 3597.60 CT-OV-M-01 Grass 0.66 2.07 0.82 2.46 2.63 1.3 2.22 2.09 3.15 4 . 2 3 2.16 1.07 346.08 Forb 0.03 0.27 1.36 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.42 29.12 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.69 2.34 2.18 2.62 2.63 1.3 2.22 2.09 3.15 4.23 2 . 3 5 0.96 375.20 115 Table 31. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha CT-OV-M-02 Grass 2.29 11.62 1.56 0.81 1.16 2.45 3.39 3.28 4.39 1 . 9 2 3.29 3.12 525.92 Forb 0.13 0.84 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.26 16.48 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.42 12.46 1.56 0.87 1.16 2.45 3.3 9 3.28 4.39 1.92 3 . 3 9 3.37 542.40 CT-OV-M-03 Grass 1.19 1.3 8 1.66 0.95 4.74 3 0.97 1.46 1.56 2 . 3 4 1.93 1.17 308.00 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.17 0 0 0 0.03 0.06 4.32 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.19 1.3 8 1.66 0.95 4.7 4 3.1 1.1 4 1.46 1.56 2.34 1 . 9 5 1.17 312.32 CT-OV-P-01 Grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 CT-OV-P-02 Grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 116 Table 31. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha CT-OV-P-03 Grass 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 1.28 0 0 0 0.14 0.40 22.88 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Total 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 1.28 0 0 0 0 . 1 4 0.40 22.88 CT-SB-G-01 Grass 1 7 . 5 4 8.55 10.28 9.8 3 16.19 2.1 2 5.08 5.57 5.44 10.18 9.0 8 4.89 1452.48 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1 7 . 5 4 8.55 10.28 9.8 3 16.19 2.1 2 5.08 5.57 5.44 10.18 9.0 8 4.89 1452.48 CT-SB-G-02 Grass 1 0 . 9 7 11.44 9.23 1.94 1.81 5.76 16.46 9.0 6 10.41 20.62 9.7 7 5.86 1563.20 Forb 0 . 0 7 0.28 0.42 0 0 0 0 0. 54 0 0.5 0.18 0.23 28.96 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1 1 . 0 4 11.72 9.65 1.94 1.81 5.76 16.46 9.6 10.41 21.12 9.9 5 5.96 1592.16 CT-SB-G-03 Grass 1 8 . 0 5 10.04 13.74 23. 0 3 3 4 . 8 8 1 1 . 9 7 1 6 . 6 1 5 . 2 8 15.5 16.42 16. 5 5 8 . 0 3 2648.32 Forb 0 . 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0 1.27 0.43 0.25 0.41 40.32 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1 8 . 5 1 10.04 13.74 23. 0 3 3 4 . 8 8 1 1 . 9 7 1 6 . 9 7 5 . 2 8 16.77 16.85 16. 8 0 8 . 0 3 2688.64 117 Table 31. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha CT-SB-M-01 Grass 2 . 2 0.49 7.19 6.01 0.26 14.65 4. 5 6 2.12 1.96 1.65 4.11 4.35 657.44 Forb 0 0.05 0.08 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.14 0.12 0.04 0.05 6.88 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2 . 2 0.54 7.27 6.01 0.26 14.69 4. 5 6 2.12 2.1 1.77 4.15 4.35 664.32 CT-SB-M-02 Grass 5 . 5 4 7.3 1.48 9.53 4.31 3 5.94 5.19 3.5 6.47 5.23 2.30 836.16 Forb 0 0 0.74 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.13 0.10 0.23 15.52 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5 . 5 4 7.3 2.22 9.53 4.31 3 5.94 5.19 3.6 6.6 5.32 2.18 851.68 CT-SB-M-03 Grass 1 1 . 0 6 5.16 1.53 3 0.33 7.48 1.76 3.51 1.2 0.47 3.55 3.45 568.00 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 1.71 0.59 0.61 0.47 0.38 0.54 60.16 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1 1 . 0 6 5.16 1.53 3 0.33 7.86 3.47 4.1 1.81 0.94 3.93 3.35 628.16 CT-SB-P-01 Grass 0 . 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.15 7.52 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0 . 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.15 7.52 CT-SB-P-02 Grass 0 0 0 0 0.45 0 0 1.15 0 0 0.16 0.38 25.60 Forb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.02 0.06 3.20 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Horsetail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.39 0.14 0.44 22.24 Total 0 0 0 0 0.45 0 0 1.15 0 1.59 0.32 0.58 51.04 118 Table 31. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha CT-SB-P-03 Grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.64 0 0.16 0.52 26.24 Forb 0 0 0 0.85 0 0 0 0.72 0 0 0.16 0.33 25.12 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0 0 0 0.85 0 0 0 0.72 1.64 0 0.32 0.57 51.36 * CT=Comet, SB=Subirrigated, OV=Overflow, G=Good, M=Moderate, P=Poor 119 Table 32. Field canopy cover da ta, total percent cover by species and sample area, standard deviation and species frequency from High Ore Creek. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) HOC-P - 0 1 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 0 15 2.5 0 15 15 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 7 6.952 80 Red top Agrostis alba 0 2.5 0 0 0 37.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 4.75 11.57 50 Yellow sweetc lo v e r Melilotus officinalis 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 85 37.5 37. 5 6 2 . 5 1 5 2.5 15 37 26.35 10 0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 37.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 37.5 15 37. 5 37.5 62.5 37.5 4 0 . 2 5 1 3 . 6 7 1 0 0 Dandel i o n Taraxacum officinale 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Dwarf firew ee d Epilobium latifolium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.25 0.791 1 0 Bare ground 15 15 15 2.5 37. 5 15 2.5 15 37.5 37.5 1 9 . 2 5 1 3 . 5 4 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 Litter 2.5 15 37.5 15 15 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 13.5 10.29 Total Live 103 92.5 8 0 123 90 105 105 70 70 57.5 89. 5 120 Table 32. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) HOC-P - 0 2 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 3 7 . 5 1 5 15 37.5 37. 5 2 . 5 37.5 15 15 15 22.75 13 . 2 5 1 0 0 Bluebu nc h wheat g r ass Agropyron spicatum 1 5 0 37.5 0 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 7 12.35 40 Red top Agrostis alba 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Prarie june gr as s Koeleria cristata 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.743 1 0 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 15 0 0 2 4.684 30 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.5 4.743 1 0 Columb i a needle g r a s s Achnatherum nelsonii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.25 0.791 1 0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 1 5 37.5 2 .5 37.5 15 62.5 37.5 3 7 . 5 15 15 27.5 17.87 100 Bare ground 15 62.5 62. 5 1 5 15 15 15 15 85 37.5 33. 7 5 2 6 . 6 7 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.75 3.953 Litter 37.5 15 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 37.5 37.5 2.5 37.5 27.25 13.72 Total Live 67.5 55 55 90 70 67.5 77.5 6 7 . 5 30 47.5 62.7 5 121 Table 32. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) HOC-P - 0 3 Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 1 5 37.5 15 15 15 15 2.5 37.5 15 15 18.25 1 0 . 8 7 1 0 0 Prairie june gr as s Koeleria cristata 2 . 5 0 15 0 0 15 0 15 0 15 6.25 7.569 5 0 Bluebu nc h wheat g r ass Agropyron spicatum 2 . 5 0 15 15 15 0 0 0 15 0 6.25 7.569 5 0 Red top Agrostis alba 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0.75 1.208 30 Slender wheat g r ass Agropyron trachycaulum 0 0 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 15 2.5 3.5 6.146 4 0 Wester n wheat g r ass Agropyron smithii 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 2.5 1.75 4.721 2 0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 3 7 . 5 0 2.5 15 2.5 37.5 62. 5 1 5 2.5 15 19 20.55 90 Dandel i o n Taraxacum officinale 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 1.291 40 Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Bare ground 37.5 62.5 37.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 15 37.5 62.5 37.5 42.75 15.3 Rock 2.5 15 15 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.25 6.038 Litter 15 2.5 2.5 15 2.5 2. 5 37.5 2 .5 2.5 15 9.75 11.39 Total Live 60 37.5 62.5 50 32.5 82.5 67.5 75 50 52.5 57 122 Table 32. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) HOC-N - 0 1 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 37.5 37. 5 1 5 37.5 15 15 15 26.25 11 . 8 6 1 0 0 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 15 37.5 37. 5 85 37.5 33. 2 5 2 1 . 3 5 1 0 0 Horsetail Equisetum arvense 2 . 5 15 0 2.5 15 2.5 15 15 0 15 8.25 7.173 8 0 Unidentified forb #1 2 . 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 0 0 2.5 37.5 0 15 0 0 2.5 5.75 12.08 40 Willow Salix spp. 2 . 5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.054 2 0 Unidentified forb #2 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0.75 1.208 30 Ragw or t Senecio spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Bare ground 62.5 15 37.5 15 15 62.5 2.5 15 15 37.5 27.7 5 2 1 . 2 3 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 Litter 2.5 37.5 15 15 2.5 15 15 15 15 15 14.75 9. 5 3 4 Total Live 60 70 55 80 105 32.5 110 70 100 70 75.25 HOC-N - 0 2 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 15 5.75 12.08 40 Intermediate wheat g r ass Agropyron intermedium 1 5 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 0 15 0 0 0 5.25 6.816 60 Canad a blue gr as s Poa compressa 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 2.5 1 1.291 40 123 Table 32. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Freque nc y (%) Tufted hair gr ass Deschampsia caespitosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1.5 4.743 1 0 Red top Agrostis alba 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 37.5 15 0 6.75 12.47 3 0 Quak in g aspen Populus tremuloides 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.75 11.86 1 0 Horsetail Equisetum spp. 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 4.743 1 0 Golden r od Oligoneuron spp. 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.75 1.208 30 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1.5 4.743 1 0 Cudw ee d sagewo r t Artemisia ludoviciana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1.5 4.743 1 0 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0.5 1.054 2 0 Dwarf Firew e ed Epilobium latifolium 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Bare ground 92.5 92.5 92.5 85 37.5 92.5 6 2 . 5 1 5 37.5 15 62.25 33. 1 1 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 16.5 18.07 Litter 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.75 3.953 Total Live 15 5 17.5 42.5 60 17.5 32.5 55 32.5 22.5 30 124 Table 32. Continued. Frame # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trans ec t ID* Common Name Species Name Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point Mid point M e a n %cover SD Frquenc y (%) HOC-N - 0 3 Red top Agrostis alba 1 5 15 37.5 15 15 2.5 15 15 15 2.5 14.75 9 . 5 3 4 1 0 0 Horsetail Equisetum arvense 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 37.5 37. 5 2 . 5 15 0 2.5 15 20 16.03 90 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 6 2 . 5 3 7 . 5 1 5 2.5 37.5 0 0 0 15 15 18.5 21.02 70 Nebr as ka sedge Carex nebrascensis 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 3 6.325 2 0 Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 1 5 15 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 3.5 6.146 4 0 Red clove r Trifolium pratense 2 . 5 0 2.5 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 3.5 6.146 4 0 Unidentified forb #6 0 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.325 2 0 Unidentified forb #7 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.791 1 0 Willow Salix spp. 1 5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 15 0 3.75 6.038 50 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 62.5 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 13.25 25. 9 8 5 0 Unidentified forb #8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1.5 4.743 1 0 Bare ground 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 15 2.5 15 2.5 2.5 5 5.27 Rock 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 Litter 2.5 15 37.5 37. 5 1 5 37. 5 15 62.5 62.5 62.5 3 4 . 7 5 2 2 . 4 7 Total Live 148 108 90 70 125 67.5 123 17.5 67.5 35 85 * HOC=High Ore Creek, P=Partia l Removal, N=No Removal 125 Table 33. Production data from High Ore Creek Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha HOC-P-01 Grass 0 1.96 0 0 0.44 6.38 3.9 0 0.16 0 1.28 2.20 205.44 Forb 15.38 9.06 7.93 12.67 10.35 8 16.05 8.46 6.55 6 . 7 4 10.12 3.44 1619.04 Shrub 0.00 Total 15.38 11.02 7.93 12.67 10.79 14.38 19. 95 8 .46 6.71 6.74 1 1 . 4 0 4.27 1824.48 HOC-P-02 Grass 5.38 0.11 11.57 3 .92 11.74 0 2.49 4.58 1 4 . 4 1 4.52 4.21 723.20 Forb 2.21 10.23 1.66 3.12 0.23 8.36 4.11 3.7 9 0.26 0 . 4 3.44 3.42 549.92 Shrub 0.00 Total 7.59 10.34 13.23 7.04 11.97 8.36 6.6 8.37 1.26 4.81 7 . 9 6 3.46 1273.12 HOC-P-03 Grass 4.2 2.83 5.28 11.45 7.9 2.73 0.06 7.03 9.7 5 . 4 3 5.66 3.45 905.76 Forb 5.17 0 0 0.91 0 5.79 3.5 5 0.65 0.37 0 . 9 2 1.74 2.23 277.76 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Horsetail 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 1.78 0.69 0 0 . 3 1 0.35 0.58 56.48 Total 9.37 2.83 5.28 12.36 8.65 8.52 5.39 8.3 7 10.07 6.66 7 . 7 5 2.75 1240.00 HOC-N-01 Grass 10.96 13.91 15.39 1 8. 89 20.67 8.71 16.52 9.64 14.33 9 . 5 5 13.86 4.12 2217.12 Forb 0 0 0 0.06 3.04 0 1.32 0 0 0 0.44 1.00 70.72 Shrub Horsetail Total 10.96 13.91 15. 39 1 8. 95 23.71 8.7 1 17. 84 9 .64 14.33 9.5 5 1 4 . 3 0 4.84 2287.84 126 Table 33. Continued. Life Form Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Frame 7 Frame 8 Frame 9 Frame 10 Mean Standard Deviation Total Production Transect ID* Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) Wt (g) (g) kg/ha HOC-N-02 Grass 0.24 0.21 0.2 0.9 9 1 1.04 3.5 3.5 9 2 . 0 2 2.17 2.71 347.20 Forb 0 0.14 0.1 0.17 0 0 0.31 0 0.82 0 0.15 0.26 24.64 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 Horsetail 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.40 20.00 Tree 4.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 1.50 75.68 Total 4.97 0.35 0.3 1.07 10.25 1 1.35 3.5 4.4 1 2.02 2 . 9 2 3.06 467.52 HOC-N-03 Grass 19.07 10.41 10.44 2.81 10.86 0 2.48 1.28 4.3 3 . 7 9 6.54 5.96 1047.04 Forb 0 1.54 0.41 0.82 0.51 3.7 7 5.23 0.11 1.1 3 0 . 2 5 1.38 1.75 220.32 Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Horsetail 4.74 1.7 1.16 4.88 3.4 8 0.1 1.56 0 0 2 . 5 1 2.01 1.85 322.08 Total 2 3 . 8 1 13.65 12.01 8.5 1 14.85 3.8 7 9.27 1.39 5.43 6.55 9.93 6.49 1589.44 * HOC= High Ore Creek, P=Partial Removal, N=No Removal 127 APPENDIX B: SPECIES LISTS 128 Table 34. Species list from the Gregory Mine. Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Graminoids: Agropyron dasystachyum Thickspike Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Slender Wheatgrass Agrostis alba Red Top Carex garberi Elk Sedge Carex nebrascensis Nebraska Sedge Carex spp. Sedge Danthonia spp. Oatgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue Festuca scabrella Rough Fescue Glyceria striata Fowl Mannegrass Hordeum jubatum Foxtail Barley Juncus balticus Baltic Rush Juncus bufonius Toad Rush Koeleria cristata Prairie Junegrass Lolium multiflorum Italian Ryegrass Lolium perenne Ryegrass Panicum virgatum Switch Grass Phleum pratense Timothy Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass Poa Pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass Typha spp. Cattail Forbs and Legumes: Achillea millefolium Western Yarrow Antennaria spp. Pussytoes Artemsia ludoviciana Cudweed Sagewort Astragalus spp. Milkvetch Brassica rapa Field Mustard Cardaria draba Whitetop Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Epilobium latifolium Dwarf Fireweed Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouringrush Fragaria vesca Strawberry Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup Gumweed Hieracium cynoglossoides Hounds Tongue Iris missouriensis Rocky Mountain Iris Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian Toadflax Machaeranthera canescens Purple Aster 129 Table 34. Continued. Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Forbs and Legumes: Madia sativa Tarweed Medicago sativa Alfalfa Mentha arvensis Wild Mint Orthocarpus spp. Owl Clover Plantago major Broadleaf Plantain Potentilla recta Sulfur Cinquefoil Ranunculus acris Tall Buttercup Rosa woodsii Woods Rose Rumex crispus Curly Dock Solidago missouriensis Goldenrod Stellaria Americana Chickweed Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Trifolium pratense Red Clover Trifolium repens White Clover Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein Unknown Forb #1 Unknown Forb #2 Unknown Forb #3 Unknown Forb #4 Trees and Shrubs: Populus Cottonwood Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Rosa acicularis Prickly Rose Salix spp. Willow 130 Table 35. Species list from the Comet Mine. Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Graminoids: Achnatherum nelsonii Columbia Needlegrass Agropyron smithii Western Wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Slender Wheatgrass Agrostis alba Red Top Carex spp. Sedge Catabrosa aquatica Brookgrass Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue Hordeum jubatum Foxtail Barley Juncus balticus Baltic Rush Phleum pratense Timothy Poa Pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass Poa secunda Sandberg Bluegrass Typha spp. Cattail Forbs and Legumes: Achillea millefolium Western Yarrow Artemsia ludoviciana Cudweed Sagewort Epilobium latifolium Dwarf Fireweed Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail Euphorbia esula Leafy Spurge Linum perenne Blue Flax Lupinus perennis Wild Lupine Machaeranthera canescens Purple Aster Medicago sativa Alfalfa Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweetclover Mentha arvensis Wild Mint Mimulus spp. Monkeyflower Nasturtium officinale Watercress Potentilla recta Sulfur Cinquefoil Rumex crispus Curly Dock Solidago missouriensis Goldenrod Trifolium pratense Red Clover Trifolium repens White Clover 131 Table 35. Continued. Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Trees and Shrubs: Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry Artemisia tridentate Big Sage Cornus spp. Dogwood Ericameria nauseosa Rubber Rabbitbrush Salix spp. Willow 132 Table 36. Species list from High Ore Creek. Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Graminoids: Achnatherum nelsonii Columbia Needlegrass Agropyron dasystachyum Thickspike Wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium Intermediate Wheatgrass Agropyron smithii Western Wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum Slender Wheatgrass Agrostis alba Red Top Bromus japonicus Japanese Brome Bromus marginatus Mountain Brome Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Carex nebrascensis Nebraska Sedge Carex spp. Sedge Catabrosa aquatica Brookgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted hairgrass Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue Juncus balticus Baltic Rush Koeleria cristata Prairie Junegrass Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass Poa secunda Sandberg Bluegrass Forbs and Legumes: Achillea millefolium Western Yarrow Artemsia ludoviciana Cudweed Sagewort Brassica spp. Mustard Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Clematis Leather Flower Epilobium latifolium Dwarf Fireweed Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail Fragaria vesca Strawberry Lepidium spp. Pepperweed Linum perenne Blue Flax Lupinus perenni Wild Lupine Medicago lupulina Black Medic Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweetclover Mentha arvensis Wild Mint Mimulus spp. Monkeyflower Packera glabella Butterweed Potentilla recta Sulfur Cinquefoil Senecio spp. Ragwort Solidago missouriensis Goldenrod 133 Table 36. Continued. Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Forbs and Legumes: Sonchus arvensis Field Sowthistle Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Thelypodiopsis Tumble Mustard Tragopogon porrifolius Salsify Trifolium pratense Red Clover Trifolium repens White Clover Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein Musk Thistle Trees and Shrubs: Alnus Alder Artemisia tridentate Big Sage Ericameria nauseosa Rubber Rabbitbrush Rosa acicularis Prickly Rose Rubus spp. Wild Raspberry Salix spp. Willow 134 APPENDIX C: SOIL CHEMISTRY DATA 135 Table 37. Soil nutrients da ta from the Gregory Mine. Transect ID Sample # Pit # Depth in Profile (cm) K (mg/kg) NO3-N (mg/kg) Bray P (mg/kg) % OM GR-SB-G-01 1 1,2,3 0-20 234 0.3 30.4 3.9 2 1,2,3 20-30 96 0.2 18.5 0.99 GR-SB-G-02 3 1,2,3 0-20 366 0.5 37.7 7.4 4 1,2,3 20-30 156 0.4 17.3 0.7 GR-SB-G-03 5 1,2,3 0-30 238 0.3 19.6 9.63 GR-SB-M-01 6 1,2,3 0-15 284 0.4 39.5 5.57 7 1,2,3 15-30 214 0.4 13.7 0.76 GR-SB-M-02 8 1,2,3 0-10 276 0.5 38.8 4.74 10 1,2,3 10-30 308 0.5 30.4 5.16 GR-SB-M-03 11 1,2,3 0-18 162 0.2 30 0.72 12 1,2,3 18-30 128 0.3 19.6 1.31 13 1 0-8 218 0.4 34 4.84 GR-SB-P-01 14 1,2,3 0-5 188 0.4 24.8 3.16 15 1,3 5-25 70 0.3 33.4 2.97 16 1 25-30 66 0.2 26.8 0.38 17 2,3 0-15 90 0.1 68.1 2.64 18 2 15-30 120 0.3 42.4 5.73 GR-SB-P-02 19 1,2,3 0-13 76 0.2 49.2 3.61 20 1,2,3 13-30 104 0.3 83.3 3.42 GR-SB-P-03 21 1,2,3 0-5 246 0.3 60.7 8.15 22 1,2,3 5-30 158 0.5 85.5 4.25 23 1,2,3 0-13 204 0.4 23.7 10.6 24 1,2,3 13-30 148 0.1 1.7 3.61 GR-OV-G-01 27 1,2,3 0-20 430 5.8 37.4 6.72 28 1,2,3 20-61 GR-OV-G-02 29 1,2,3 0-20 248 0.2 40.1 6.61 136 Table 37. Continued. 30 1,2,3 20-61 GR-OV-G-03 31 1,2,3 0-25 248 1.8 46.7 5.6 32 1 25-61 33 2 15-61 34 3 25-61 GR-OV-M-01 35 1,2,3 0-30 222 9.1 29.5 6.08 36 3 30-61 37 1,2 30-61 GR-OV-M-02 38 1,2,3 0-13 252 2.8 17.3 5.06 40 1,2,3 13-46 41 1,3 46-61 GR-OV-M-03 42 1,2,3 0-51 154 0.3 69.1 3.6 44 1,2 51-61 45 3 41-61 GR-OV-P-01 46 1,2,3 0-15 36 <.1 42.4 4.52 47 1,2,3 15-61 GR-OV-P-02 48 1 0-18 46 0.3 51.2 3.1 49 1 18-61 GR-OV-P-03 50 1,2,3 0-15 296 4.4 72.4 5.31 51 1,2,3 15-61 52 3 46-61 sample #8 dup. 9 1,2,3 0-15 232 0.2 30.9 5.64 Sample #38 dup. 39 1,2,3 0-13 242 3.5 18.5 5.32 Sample #42 dup. 43 1,2,3 0-51 178 0.4 81.4 3.99 137 Table 38. Soluble metals and As da ta from topsoils collected at the Gregory Mine. Transect ID Sample # Pit # Depth in Profile (cm) pH EC (μS) Soluble Cu (mg/L) Soluble Zn (mg/L) Soluble Cd (mg/L) Soluble As (mg/L) Soluble Pb (mg/L) GR-SB-G-01 1 1,2,3 0-20 5.07 1450 0.02 5.9 0.01 <.05 < .1 2 1,2,3 20-30 6.29 870 0.13 11.5 0.08 <.05 < .1 GR-SB-G-02 3 1,2,3 0-20 6.14 2980 0.02 0.3 < .01 0.09 < .1 4 1,2,3 20-30 6.55 1730 0.02 1.4 < .01 0.09 < .1 GR-SB-G-03 5 1,2,3 0-30 5.83 2180 0.02 7.9 0.01 0.05 < .1 GR-SB-M-01 6 1,2,3 0-15 5.39 2320 0.03 6.1 < .01 0.07 < .1 7 1,2,3 15-30 7.05 1130 0.03 0.3 < .01 <.05 < .1 GR-SB-M-02 8 1,2,3 0-10 6.6 2900 0.04 0.5 < .01 0.19 < .1 10 1,2,3 10-30 6.64 2950 0.06 < .1 < .01 0.21 < .1 GR-SB-M-03 11 1,2,3 0-18 6.07 1820 0.15 18.6 0.06 0.49 < .1 12 1,2,3 18-30 6.85 2560 0.02 2.1 < .01 1.01 < .1 13 1 0-8 6.23 1810 0.06 10.7 0.05 0.63 < .1 GR-SB-P-01 14 1,2,3 0-5 3.05 2800 4.00 64.1 0.51 0.2 0.3 15 1,3 5-25 2.97 2880 1.01 10.5 0.08 <.05 < .1 16 1 25-30 3.19 790 0.97 5.8 0.07 <.05 < .1 17 2,3 0-15 3.78 830 0.2 50.9 0.37 0.11 < .1 18 2 15-30 3.26 1210 0.92 23.1 0.11 0.13 < .1 GR-SB-P-02 19 1,2,3 0-13 3.96 960 3.51 496.6 3.35 3.45 3.4 20 1,2,3 13-30 5.64 4480 0.05 95.5 0.02 9.99 0.6 GR-SB-P-03 21 1,2,3 0-5 3.84 3310 2.55 1001.3 7.39 3.42 7.6 22 1,2,3 5-30 4.39 6720 0.09 603 0.15 12.26 4.8 23 1,2,3 0-13 5.16 4120 0.03 68.2 0.06 5.2 0.9 24 1,2,3 13-30 5.67 3370 0.04 5.6 0.03 2.48 0.3 GR-OV-G-01 21 1,2,3 0-20 4.94 2931 0.03 4.61 0.01 0.05 <.1 22 1,2,3 20-61 2.87 1904 2.94 47.16 0.35 0.12 0.1 GR-OV-G-02 23 1,2,3 0-20 5.19 1869 0.11 5.89 0.02 0.29 <.1 138 Table 38. Continued. Transect ID Sample # Pit # Depth in Profile (cm) pH EC (μS) SolubleCu (mg/L) SolubleZn (mg/L) SolubleCd (mg/L) SolubleAs (mg/L) SolublePb (mg/L) 24 1,2,3 20-61 5.14 1174 0.11 5.04 0.09 0.41 <.1 GR-OV-G-03 25 1,2,3 0-25 5.55 233.3 0.07 0.63 <.01 0.25 <.1 26 1 25-61 5.32 295.6 0.1 2.85 0.02 <.05 <.1 27 2 15-61 5.18 568 0.03 3.56 <.01 <.05 <.1 28 3 25-61 4.95 433.9 0.06 2.81 0.01 <.05 <.1 GR-OV-M-01 29 1,2,3 0-30 5.21 596 0.03 0.77 <.01 <.05 <.1 30 3 30-61 2.24 7.48 mS 4.78 77.49 0.65 2.72 2.6 31 1,2 30-61 2.88 3492 1.62 43.96 0.38 0.14 1.2 GR-OV-M-02 32 1,2,3 0-13 5.11 427 0.04 0.62 <.01 <.05 <.1 34 1,2,3 13-46 6.24 674 0.07 10.97 0.06 <.05 <.1 35 1,3 46-61 5.69 869 0.06 9.13 0.04 <.05 <.1 GR-OV-M-03 36 1,2,3 0-51 4.12 476 0.06 3.42 0.03 0.16 <.1 38 1,2 51-61 4.05 1071 0.29 15.38 0.09 0.15 0.2 39 3 41-61 3.38 508 1.09 8.16 0.09 0.2 <.1 GR-OV-P-01 40 1,2,3 0-15 3.35 3711 0.55 38.2 0.26 0.22 0.3 41 1,2,3 15-61 2.08 12.95 20.81 136.63 1.52 10.4 1.5 GR-OV-P-02 42 1 0-18 3.09 1493 1.14 18.78 0.2 0.21 0.3 43 1 18-61 2.69 4254 1.81 67.53 0.54 0.26 2.1 GR-OV-P-03 44 1,2,3 0-15 4.49 1419 0.04 5.45 0.04 0.25 <.1 45 1,2,3 15-61 3.23 1235 1.22 17.9 0.15 0.2 0.1 46 3 46-61 3.01 2029 2.13 37.44 0.42 0.32 0.2 Sample #8 dup. 9 0-15 6.31 3240 0.15 0.4 < .01 0.15 < .1 Sample #32 dup. 33 1,2,3 0-13 6.91 250.7 0.05 0.36 <.01 <.05 <.1 Sample #36 dup. 37 1,2,3 0-51 4.63 505 0.04 2.22 0.02 0.22 <.1 X-cont. blank 25 7.22 87.5 0.02 0.1 < .01 < .05 < .1 pure sand SiO2 26 7.46 74.6 139 Table 39. Total metals and As data fr om topsoil samples collected at the Gregory Mine. Transect ID Sample # Pit # Depth in Profile (cm) pH Total Zn (mg/kg) Total Cu (mg/kg) Total As (mg/kg) Total Pb (mg/kg) GR-SB-G-01 1 1,2,3 0-20 5.07 382.6