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
47 <br /> irregular, and estimation of the effects of slope configuration on soil <br />• lass would have been subje ct to a great deal of interpretation (Dunne <br /> and Leopold , 1975, p. 524) an d possible error. Therefore, for ease of <br /> comparison between sites, for this report the L factor value is assumed <br />~ to be equal to a value of one (i.e., slope length is equal to 7 2.6 feet). <br />The slope gradient was measured precisely at each infiltration plot. <br />The ground cover factor, C, is an estimation of the effects of <br />vegetation, undecayed organic residue, and mulch on soil loss. If the <br />land is continuously clean tilled the C factor is equal to a value of <br />one. The conservation practice factor, P, is <br />of physical manipulation of the land, such as <br />or contour furrowing. On non-cultivated land <br />ipulations the P factor is equal to a value o <br />tion of C with various types of ground cover, <br />by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (1977) <br />report. <br />Soil Loss Estimates <br />a measure of the effects <br />contour pitting, gouging, <br />without any physical man- <br />f one. Tables for estima- <br />and P, have been developed <br />and were used for this <br />The soil loss, A, in tonnes per hectare per year was calculated for <br />each plot. The mean soil loss estimate for each sampling site is shown <br />in Table 5. The sites are ranked by the amount of mean estimated soil <br />loss, with the vertical lines connecting groups of sites where the esti- <br />mated soil losses are not significantly different with 95 percent confi- <br />dence limits. The most striking feature of the tabie is the range of <br />values--from 140 tonnes per hectare per year (64 tons per acre per year) <br /> at Delagua all the way down to only 0.09 tonne per hectare per year <br />• (0.04 tons per acre per year) at Energy Fuels No. 3. The soil loss <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.