My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-12-11_PERMIT FILE - C1981019 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2001-12-11_PERMIT FILE - C1981019 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2020 5:20:15 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 3:42:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 07 Item 06 Hydrologic & Erosional Characteristics of Regraded Surface Coal Mined Land
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i~ <br />~~~ <br />^ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />• <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1~ <br />1 <br />9 <br />The four treatments were native range, topsoiled revegetated, topsoiled <br />nonvegetated, and nontopsoiled revegetated. The hydraulic conductivity <br />of the native range was found to be about 3.5 times greater than the <br />hydraulic conductivities of the other three treatments on the regraded <br />land. There was no significant difference between the hydraulic con- <br />ductivities for each of the three treatments on the regraded land. The <br />higher hydraulic conductivity of the native range was attributed to <br />textural differences between the native range soil and the regraded soils. <br />In the same study, Arnold and Dollhopf also investigated infiltration <br />rates for the same four treatments at the mine site near Colstrip. They <br />used a needle-drop-former infiltrometer described by ~4eeuwig (1971), <br />and they applied simulated rainfall to the plots at a rate of 16.3 cm/hr, <br />The rainfall simulation equaled a severe rainstorm in volume but not in <br />raindrop impact velocity at the soil surface. Three replications at <br />each treatment yielded mean infiltration rates of 11.90, 7.81, 4.46, and <br />1.87 cm/hr for the native range, topsoiled revegetated, topsoiled non- <br />vegetated, and nontopsoiled revegetated treatments, respectively, and <br />all mean infiltration rates were significantly different at the 0.01 level. <br />The differences in infiltration were attributed primarily to vegetation, <br />degree of sail structure development, and the presence of topsoil. Arnold <br />and Dollhopf speculated the higher rate of infiltration on the native <br />range as compared to that of the topsoiled revegetated treatment was at <br />least in part due to the more highly developed soil structure on the <br />native range. The authors believed two characteristics of the nontop- <br />soiled surface probably contributed to its lower mean infiltration <br />rate. First, the nontopsoiled revegetated treatment had higher silt <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.