Accepted Manuscript

Field assessment of surface runoff, sediment yield and soil erosion in opencast mines
in Chirimiri area, Chhattisgarh, India

G.K. Nigam, R.K. Sahu, M.K. Sinha, X. Deng, R.B. Singh, P. Kumar

PII: S1474-7065(17)30069-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.pce.2017.07.001
Reference: JPCE 2626

To appear in: Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

Received Date: 7 April 2017

Revised Date: 8 June 2017
Accepted Date: 5 July 2017

Please cite this article as: Nigam, G.K., Sahu, R.K., Sinha, M.K., Deng, X., Singh, R.B., Kumar, P.,
Field assessment of surface runoff, sediment yield and soil erosion in opencast mines in Chirimiri area,
Chhattisgarh, India, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2017.07.001.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Field assessment of surface runoff,sediment yield and soil erosion in opencast

mines in Chirimiri area, Chhattisgarh, India.
Nigam, G. K.1; Sahu, R. K.2; Sinha, M. K.3; Deng, X.4; Singh, R.B5;Kumar, P.6*

1 Gaurav Kant Nigam,

Ph.D. Research Scholar,

PT
Department of Soil & Water Engineering,
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering,
Indira Gandhi KrishiVishwavidyalaya,
Raipur - 492012, Chhattisgarh, India.

RI
e-mail: er.nigamgk@gmail.com

2 Dr.(Prof.) RajendraKumarSahu

SC
Dean,
BRSM College of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology,Mungeli
Indira Gandhi KrishiVishwavidyalaya,
Raipur - 492012, Chhattisgarh, India.

U
e-mail: rksahu56@gmail.com
AN
3 Manish Kumar Sinha
Ph. D. Research Scholar,
Department of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,
RWTH Aachen University, Lochnerstraße 4-20,
D-52064 Aachen, Germany.
M

Tel.: +49 (0)241/80 96787

e-mail: sinha@lih.rwth-aachen.de
D

4 Professor Dr. Xiangzheng Deng

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural
TE

Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, CAS
No 11A, Datun Road, Anwai, Beijing, 100110, China
e-mail: dengxz@igsnrr.ac.cn
EP

5 Professor Dr. Ram Babu Singh

Department of Geography,
Delhi School of Economics
University of Delhi
C

Delhi 110007
email:rbsgeo@hotmail.com
AC

6. Dr.Pankaj Kumar (Corresponding author)

Assistant Professor,
Department of Geography,
Delhi University
Delhi 110007
e-mail: pankajdsedu@gmail.com

Page 1 of 1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Field Assessment of Surface Runoff, Sediment Yield and Soil Erosion in Opencast Mines in Chirimiri
Area, Chhattisgarh, India
ABSTRACT
Chirimiri Coal field is located in the Koriya district of Chhattisgarh state of India. It lies in the valley of
the Hasdeo River and is spread over 125 km2 area. Ever increasing problem of declining forest resources and
water quality is a cause of concern particularly due to excessive soil erosion resulting into soil debris deposition
from the overburdened dump. Dwindling resources has compelled the policy makers to search for alternative
such as waste lands and mined areas to augment/improve soil and water resources for use in agriculture and

PT
allied sectors while maintaining the local ecology and hydrology. Most Opencast mines releases huge amount of
mining wastes as overburden dump (OBD) materials that are prone to soil erosion and create problems of

RI
sedimentation and water quality, affecting agriculture. Historical daily rainfall data for 21 years and daily
surface runoff as estimated by SCS-Curve Number method were analyzed. Sediment yield was estimated at
lower end of erosion face of OBD and near drainage outlet of opencast mine. Assessment of soil erosion from

SC
OBD materials was made by RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) method and was compared with
direct field measurements by placing plastic sheets in downstream portion of OBD. As results monsoon rainfall
constitutes 91.6 percent of the annual rainfall and surface runoff 31.7 percent of monsoon rainfall. The surface

U
runoff was found to be 4133 m3/ha while the sediment yield of drainage effluent was negligible. The soil loss
AN
from OBD as estimated by the RUSLE method (62.7 t ha−1 yr−1) was quite close (+13.2 percent) to the direct
field measurement 54.44 t ha−1. The sediment samples from OBD were found acidic in nature and exhibited low
values of EC, OC, WHC, N, P, and K. For controlling soil erosion of OBD, mechanical and vegetative measures
M

have been suggested along with installation of sediment traps inside and outside the mines. There is good scope
to backfill the mines with the OBD in the form of well laid out terraces to support plantation and later on used
for leguminous fodder/grass production.
D

Keywords: Runoff – Open cast mines – SCS Curve Number – Sediment – Soil erosion – RUSLE
TE

1. Introduction

The importance of mining and minerals for the sustainability of human civilization is self-evident.
Without minerals, the human race literally regresses to cave man existence and the evolution of human society
EP

from the Stone Age(Ghose 2002). Dump materials are left over the land in the form of OBD, these occupy large
amount of land, which loses its original use and generally gets soil qualities degraded (Barpanda et al., 2001).
C

As the dump materials are generally loose, fine particles,these get spread over the surrounding fertile land, plant
become highly prone to blowing wind and disturb their natural quality, and growth of fresh leaves. The OBD
AC

top materials are usually deficient in major nutrients. To arrest soil erosion from OBD, check declining water
table and maintain ecology in the area were the causative factors to undertake this study.
Changes in rainfall trend, variability, amount and its special and seasonal distribution critically
modify the river runoff pattern and regimes (Gosain et al., 2006), soil moisture, cropping pattern and
agricultural productivity (Roy and Singh, 2002). Climate variations have directly relationship with the rainfall,
stream flow variations are considered as the surrogates to rainfall (Sahu et al., 2003). The most of the problem
encountered in hydrological studies is the need for estimating runoff from opencast mining areas, which have
records of precipitation only and no any required records of runoff. An approach to solution of this problem is to
using SCS-Curve Number method for the estimation of runoff in opencast mine from a given amount of daily
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
rainfall, soil type and land use. The Soil Conservation Service Curve Numbermethod (SCS, 1956) is widely
used in hydrology and environmental engineering for computing the amount of direct runoff from a given
amount of rainfall and in same manner from opencast mine also.The Curve Number is a land-cover index for a
given land and soil type to determine the amount of rainfall that infiltrates into the ground and the amount that
becomes runoff for a specific storm event (USDA 1986). The CN method expresses runoff volume as a function
of rainfall volume, hydrologic storage, and initial abstraction (Young et al., 2006).
The structuralchange and pattern succession of the land system resultingfrom land conversions will

PT
undoubtedly lead to changes inthe suitability and quality of land and directly influence landproductivity (Deng
et al. 2006). Opencast mining activities disturb hugeamount of land and produce sediment loads at downward
portion. Sediment production from surface mined areas can be more 100 to 2000 times that from a forested area

RI
and more than 10 times that from grazing lands (Curtis 1971; Environmental Protection Agency 1976).Sediment
production and delivery are affected by both physical and human factors (DeBoer 1997; Walling 1997; Neal et

SC
al., 1998; Sadeghi et al.,2008).Sediment is a major source of water pollution, the high sediment loads can create
the problem related to reduction in the agricultural potential, losses in storage capacity of reservoirs, increased
flooding due to reduced river channel capacities, geomorphic changes in stream structure and increased turbidity

U
and associated changes in all riverine life forms (Ward et al.,1984).Soil is often lost through erosion, a natural
process that can be fostered by inappropriate land use and intense precipitation, among other factors (Garcia-
AN
Ruiz 2011). Accelerated soil erosion has the adverse impact on economic and environment (Lal 1998). It creates
on-site and off-site effects on productivity due to decline in land/soil quality (Lal2001). Soil erosion causes the
loss of the services provided by ecosystems (Van Wilgen et al.,1996), and knowing about the spatial distribution
M

of erosion rates is a primary step for planning restoration. The adverse influences of widespread soil erosion on
soil degradation, agricultural production, water quality, hydrological systems, and environments, have long been
D

recognized as severe problems for human sustainability (Lal 1998). Many scientists have been involved in soil
erosion research for a long time, and many models for soil erosion loss estimation have been developed
TE

(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Nearing et al.,1989; Adinarayana et al.,1999; Shen et al.,2003). The RUSLE has
broadened its application to different situations, including forest, rangeland, and disturbed areas (Renard et
al.,1997).
EP

The RUSLE represents how climate, soil, topography, and land use affect rill and interrill soil erosion
caused by raindrop impact and surface runoff (Renard et al.,1997). It has been extensively used to estimate soil
C

erosion loss and to guide development and conservation plans in order to control erosion under different land-
cover conditions, such as croplands, rangelands, and disturbed forest lands (Millward and Mersey, 1999;
AC

Angima et al.,2003). The risk evaluation of soil erosion under different scenarios is valuable for land
management decisions because the results provide fundamental information for optimal utilization of land use
and prevention of ecological risks (Jin et al.,2007) .Opencast mine releases huge amount of mining wastes
material as a form of overburden dump materials that are prone to soil erosion and create problems of
sedimentation and water quality and affecting agriculture activity also. The present study was undertaken in
Chirimiri open cast mines, with objective to address these problems.In this paper, the methodology for
determination of runoff,soil erosion and sediment yield for Chirimiri open cast mines was described and this
approach could be applied in other open cast mines are for planning of various conservations purpose.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2. Study area
The study area Chirimiri lies in the district Koriya of Chhattisgarh state in India that is about 700 m
above MSL. It lies between 23009' to 23012' N-latitude and 82019' to 82022' E-longitude. A pilot study was
undertaken in representative open cast mine area of about 0.80 km2, which is 12.3% of the total area (6.49 km2)
under opencast mines of Chirimiri. The exact location of study site is depicted in Figure1. The climate of study
is sub-tropical with good amount of rainfall (1200 – 1500 mm, 20th June to 15th September). Rainwater
conservation through water harvesting structures and arresting soil erosion from OBD are focussed in the

PT
present study, to maintain local ecology.
3. Materials and Methods
Rainfall Analysis: Past 21 years daily rainfall data (1992 - 2012) was collected from South Eastern

RI
Coalmines Limited (SECL) office at Chirimiri, Koriya. This daily rainfall data was grouped into 52 (SMW: 1-
52). The monsoon period, as usual practice, was delineated from 22 to 43 standard meteorological weeks

SC
(SMW). The rainfall amount was worked out for the past 21 years for each standard meteorological week
independently, starting from January 1-7 (SMW 1) and ending with December 24-31 (SMW 52). The statistical
parameters viz. average, standard deviation and coefficient of variation were determined for each SMW,

U
thereafter the same was determined for annual (SMW: 1-52) and monsoon (SMW: 22-43) periods (Table 2). The
rainfall data was analysed for various statistical parameters viz. standard deviation and coefficient of variation
AN
indicating the extent of variation from every year.
3.1 Estimation of Surface Runoff using Curve number method
M

As per the developed runoff curve number by USDASCS the surface runoff was estimated by the equation:
D
TE

where,Q is the daily runoff (mm), R is the daily rainfall (mm), S is a retention parameter (mm), Ia is initial
abstraction (mm) during the period between the beginning of rainfall and runoff in equivalent depth over the
EP

catchment, it was taken as 0.2S for most of the watersheds in India and S is the potential maximum retention
(mm). The value of S (mm) was calculated by the following formula:
C
AC

CN is the curve number for average antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II.

Hydrologic soil group: As defined by the soil scientists, Soils may be classified into four hydrologic groups (A,
B, C and D), (USDA, 1985), depend on infiltration, soil classification and other criteria. As the soil texture,
infiltration study andother hydrologic characteristics of the study area also confirm that the study area comes
under hydrologic soil group B. This group of soil has moderately low runoff potential and when thoroughly
wetted exhibited rapid rate of water transmission. Almost whole of the study area showed moderately low runoff
potential. Therefore hydrological soil group B was taken for the study area to calculate surface runoff.

Antecedent moisture conditions: Antecedent moisture condition denotes the sum of past 5 day’s rainfall, prior to
current day rainfall, for which the runoff was to be estimated by curve number method.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Runoff curve numbers: The runoff curve numbers were worked out for hydrologic soil group – B, growing
season-monsoon. The present land use/cover was pasture or range land and for antecedent moisture condition II
and Ia=0.2S, the curve number for pasture or range land was taken as 79.0 for hydrologic soil group B under
poor hydrologic condition (Samra et al., 1996). This curve number was converted to AMC-I as 62.4 and for
AMC-III as 90.1.
3.2 Measurement of Sediment Load
Bottle sampling, one of the best manual methods was used to take samples during different periods of

PT
monsoon season. Five samples of runoff / drainage effluent were taken from 2 collection points. Thus in all 4
nos.samples were taken at a time for each date of sampling. The first collection point was located at the lower
end of erosion face, inside the opencast mine where the incoming runoff effluent used to enter in the opencast

RI
mines. The second collection point was located near drainage outlet portion of opencast mine from where
drainage effluent was either disposed out to natural outlet. The samples were taken in 10 different time step to

SC
cover entire monsoon period of the year 2013. These samples were analysed for the sediment load. 1 litre
volume of plastic bottles was used to collect the samples and bottles were air tightened and shifted to laboratory.
The settled sediment in bottle along with water was completely mixed by thorough shaking and passed through

U
filter paper (watman sheet). The dry filter paper was weighted before its use. Later on the filter paper along with
sediment was completely dried at room temperature for 24-48 hrs. The filter paper along with sediment was
AN
weighed again after drying. The difference in weight (grams per sample) was taken as sediment concentration in
gm/l of runoff effluent. The average of 02 samples at each location, date wise is shown in Table 5. The average
sediment concentration for the entire monsoon period was also worked out separately for both incoming runoff
M

effluent and outgoing drainage effluent. This average value of sediment concentration when multiplied with
total runoff volume (m3/ha) with appropriate units resulted in sediment yield (kg/ha) of both incoming runoff
D

effluent and outgoing drainage effluent.

3.3 Estimation of Soil Loss
TE

Two different approaches has beenadoptedfor estimation of the soil loss in the overburden dump in
opencast mine Chirimiri. These are described as below.
3.3.1 Direct in the field, downstream of overburden dumps (Ist Method - Practical)
EP

In this process at the beginning of monsoon season, total 15 locations/points were selected in the
downstream portion of overburden for the estimation of soil loss. In these 15 locations/points 1m×1m size of
C

plastics sheets were placed covering an area of one square meter during the monsoon season (July to Sept.) in
year 2013Figure2. After each month and finally at the withdrawal of monsoon season, the soil / sediments
AC

deposited in all the plastic sheets were collected carefully without any loss in handling, collection and packing.
These samples were dried at normal room temperature and weighed by weighing machine. Out of theses 15
dried samples, 8 samples were sent to the soil testing laboratory for their some physico-chemical analysis such
as pH, Organic Content (OC), Water Holding Capacities (WHC), Electrical Conductivity (EC), and Available
nutrient: Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K). The methods used for the determination of physic-
chemical analysis of sediment samples given in Table 1.
3.3.2 RUSLE Model (IInd Method - Empirical)
The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model was used for the assessment of soil loss in
OBD in the study area because in this model data requirements are not too large and complex, besides, it is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
relatively easy to use, parameterize and compute. The soil erosion in the Chhattisgarh state is mostly caused by
rain water resulting into the loss of top soil and terrain deformation. The losses of soil due to water erosion vary
from terrain to terrain depending upon different land use/cover and intensity of rainfall. The conservation
measure depends on type of soil and the degree of soil erosion. It thus becomes more important to understand
the amount of soil loss due to soil erosion (Tamgadge et al., 2003).
The RUSLE is an exceptionally well-validated empirical soil erosion prediction model which estimates
average annual soil loss and sediment yield resulting from inter-rill and rill erosion Equation. (Smith and

PT
Wischmeier 1962; Renard et al., 1993). The RUSLE was used to determine the average annual soil loss and its
spatial distribution on the study area. The RUSLE predicts soil loss for a given site as a product of five major
erosion factors (Eq. 4), whose values at a particular location can be expressed numerically. Thus, the RUSLE is

RI
suitable for predicting long-term averages, and the soil erosion is estimated as follows:

SC
where, A is average annual soil loss rate (t ha−1year−1), R is rainfall erosivity factor (MJ mm ha−1 h−1
year−1), K is soil erodibility factor (t ha h ha−1 MJ−1 mm−1), LS is topographic factor, C is crop management
factor, and P is conservation supporting practice factor (Figure 3).

3.3.2.1 Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R)

U
AN
Rainfall data of 21 years (1992–2012) were used for calculating R-factor (Ram Babu et al., 1978).
M

where, R = Rainfall erositivity factor in MJ mm ha−1 h−1 year−1, P = Average monsoon rainfall in mm.

3.3.2.2 Soil Erodibility Factor (K)

D

Soil erodibility factor indicates the case with which a soil can be eroded. The RUSLE estimates the K factor
using soil properties that are most closely correlated with soil erodibility (Renard et al., 1997). Few soil
TE

properties are needed to calculate the soil erodibility K-value, i.e., soil organic carbon content and soil particle
size distribution (sand, silt and clay) (Sharply & Williams 1990). The equation is as follows:
C EP

where, K is soil erodibility factor, (ton-ha-h ha-1MJ-1mm-1) SAN is the sand content, percent; SIL is the silt
AC

content, percent; CLA is the clay content, percent; C is the soil organic carbon content, percent; and SN1= 1-
SAN/100.

3.3.2.3 Slope Length and Steepness (LS) Factor

Slope Length and Steepness Factor is the combination of Length factor & Steepness factor. The influence of
terrain on erosion is represented by Length slope factor which reflects the fact that erosion increases with slope
angle & slope length. Soil loss is directly related to slope steepness. The L and S factor were calculated by the
following equation (USDA 1978).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
where,l is the slope length (m), S is the steepness of slope (Degree).

3.3.2.4 Crop management Factor (C)

The C factor reflects the effect of cropping and management practice on soil erosion rates, and is the factor used
most often to compare the relative impacts of vegetation cover and management options on conservation tactics
(Renard et al. 1997). This (C) Factor has a close connection to land use and land cover types and also
anthropogenic interventions on the soil erosion processes. The cover management factor ‘C’ was taken 1.0 due
to the bare fallow land.

PT
3.3.2.5 Conservation Practice Factor (P)
The P factor is the ratio between soil erosion with a specific support practice and the corresponding erosion with

RI
upslope and down slope tillage. These practices mainly affect erosion by regulating the flow pattern, direction of
surface runoff and by reducing the amount and rate of runoff (Renard and Foster 1983). Values for P are
generally difficult to determine and are the least reliable of all the RUSLE factors (Renard et al. 1994). In the

SC
study area of overburden dump, there was no supporting practice thus the value of ‘P’ was taken as 1.0.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Rainfall

U
The analysis of past 21 years of data (1992−2012) revealed that the monsoon rainfall (SMW: 22−43)
AN
constitutes 91.6 percent of the annual rainfall (Table 2). The Average annual and monsoon rainfall of the study
area was found to be 1423 mm and 1303.4 mm respectively. The past few decades witnessed the decline in
rainfall amount and its distribution (Figure 4) over the months and years. The annual rainfall for the past 21
M

years at the study site varied from 755.4 mm (1992) to 2402.6 mm (2011) and monsoon rainfall varied from
752.4 mm (1992) to 2227.2 mm (2011) with on an average 64 rainy days. Highest annual and monsoon rainfall
D

was 40.8 percent and 41.5 percent more than the average annual and monsoon rainfall. On the other hand, the
lowest annual and monsoon rainfall was 46.9 percent and 42.3 percent lower than the average annual and
TE

monsoon rainfall. This shows a moderate variability in year to year with regard to both annual as well as
monsoon rainfall and is reflected by the worked out values of standard deviations both for annual (361.1mm) as
well as monsoon periods (358.4mm). Another parameter, showing variability of rainfall is the coefficient of
EP

variation. It’s worked out values for weekly, annual as well as monsoon periods is shown in Table 3. The
coefficient of variation of annual and monsoon rainfall was found to be 25.4 percent and 27.5 percent
respectively. If we look the weekly values, there is a great variation in the coefficient of variation, being higher
C

in non-monsoon months and in season dry periods as compared to monsoon months as well as wet periods.
AC

However, there is great year to year variation in the amount of rainfall received in different meteorological
weeks during monsoon season. The minimum variation was found when the monsoon sets in, as reflected in the
26th SMW (CV: 60.7 percent). This variation was highest when the monsoon withdraws as reflected in the 43rd
SMW (CV: 409.6 percent). The year-to-year variation in weekly rainfall amount was comparatively higher in
non-monsoon weeks. The rainfall amount during the part of monsoon period: SMW (26−37) shows relatively
less variability (< 100 percent). This is the period when monsoon gets fully established, soils get fully saturated
and higher surface runoff produced regularly.
4.2 Surface Runoff
The surface runoff for pasture/range land under hydrologic soil group B was worked out for poor
hydrologic condition on daily rainfall basis and summed up on weekly basis and is shown in Table 4.The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
surface runoff on daily basis was estimated for the monsoon season during 1992-2012 and has been plotted in
Figure 5. The surface runoff averaged over 21 years was worked out to be at 413.3 mm against the average
rainfall 1303.4 mm during monsoon period (SMW: 22-43). The average runoff during this period constitutes
31.7 percent of the rainfall. The maximum runoff (1006.4 mm) was found during the year 2011, which
constituted 45.2 percent of the monsoon rainfall (2227.2 mm). On the other hand, the minimum runoff (165.2
mm) was found during the year 1992, which constituted 22 percent of the monsoon rainfall (752.4 mm).
Therefore, the year to year variation of runoff is evidently very high. This is reflected by the values of the

PT
coefficient of variation 52.5 percent of monsoon runoff, with standard deviation 217.2 mm. Similarly, there was
large variation in year-to-year in the amount of runoff received in different meteorological weeks (Table 4) and
result shows year-to-year variation in weekly runoff amount was quite higher as compared to mean rainfall

RI
received during the period. Similarly the monthly runoff during monsoon season was worked out.
The runoff depths are computed for each rainfall event for the years 1992-2012 and the relationship

SC
between rainfall-runoff is shown in Figure 6. For those rainfall events whose intensity is less than 0.2S, the
runoff depth is taken as zero. Correlation is a technique for investigating the relationship between two
quantitative, continuous variables. The linear correlation coefficient measures the strength and the direction of a

U
linear relationship between two variables. The correlation between rainfall and runoff were calculated based on
Pearson’s correlation factor. The linear correlation coefficients R2 was found to be 0.80 as shown in Figure 6.
AN
The correlation coefficients and the Pearson’s p-value <0.001 illustrates that the significant correlation
exists between the above-mentioned parameter.
4.3 Sediment Yield
M

The results of sediment concentration (g/l) during various dates of sampling, covering entire monsoon
period and worked out sediment content (kg/ha) separately each for incoming runoff effluent and outgoing
D

drainage effluent are presented inTable 5. The average sediment concentration of incoming runoff effluent over
the entire monsoon period was found to be 2.06 g/l whereas, the value of the same for outgoing runoff effluent
TE

was found to be 0.056g/l. The highest amount of the sediment concentration of incoming drainage effluent was
found to be 3.15g/l at the initial phase of monsoon period (22 July) and subsequently it continually decreased
and was found to be lowest at the end of monsoon (0.069 g/l on 8 September). Similarly the concentration of
EP

outgoing drainage effluent was found to be maximum (0.10 g/l) at the beginning of monsoon period (22 July),
thereafter it decreased gradually and was found to be minimum (0.03 g/l) near the end ofmonsoon period (8
C

Sept.). The sediment yield of incoming drainage effluent was found to be 8.514x10-3 kg/ha by taking the value
of average estimated surface runoff as 4133 m3/ha and average value of sediment concentration of incoming
AC

runoff effluent as 2.06 g/l. This value of sediment load of runoff effluent was quite low and can be considered as
safe. The sediment yield of outgoing drainage effluent was found to be 0.231x10-3 kg/ha by taking the value of
average estimated surface runoff as 4133 m3/ha and average value of sediment concentration of outgoing
drainage effluent as 0.056g/l. This value of sediment load of drainage effluent was very low, lower than that
obtained for runoff effluent and can be considered as safe.
4.4 Soil Erosion
4.4.1 Direct in the field, downstream of overburden dumps (Ist Method)

The process of direct measurement of soil loss in the downstream (d/s) portion of the OBD in the field
was attempted. The soil loss took place due to soil flow from overburden dumps by the action of rainfall and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
runoff and it got deposited in the previously laid out and anchored plastic sheets. The deposited soil in these
plastic sheets was measured directly by weighing the deposited materials of soil/sediments. The amount of
soil/sediments were found to be varied from 4.709 kg/m2 to 5.949 kg/m2in d/s portion of overburden dump in
opencast mine (Table 6). The total amount of soil/sediment yield over the entire sampling points (15 nos.) were
found to be 81.7 kg with coverage of total 15 m2 area (average: 5.444 kg/m2) in OBD in opencast mine during
the monsoon period. Thus the result found that the 54.44 t ha-1 of soil loss in monsoon periods by the direct field
measurement method. Out of these 15 samples; 8 samples were chosen for determination of their physico-

PT
chemical analysis such as pH, EC, organic carbon, water holding capacity, N, P, and K etc. The results of
physico-chemical analysis of these sediment samples are shown in Table 7.
The pH value of the samples was low ranging from 4.3 to 6.2 (Average: 5.7) indicating the acidic nature

RI
of all the samples (Figure7). Sample S4 was found to highly acidic (pH 4.3) as compared to other samples,
which were less acidic. The highest pH value was found in the sample S2 (pH 6.2).These pH values of sediment

SC
were quite similar to that obtained in native (near mining areas) soil samples (4.3 to 6.2 in various profile
depths) was worked out in previously by Nigam et al., 2015.On examining the pH of this carried over
sediments/soil (range: 4.3 – 6. 2) from OBD with pH in upper profile depth of native soil (range: 4.3 – 5.6), it

U
can be stated that the deposited material would not make the native soil more acidic, hence the productivity of
native soil, due to deposition of sediment/soil carried over by drainage effluent that passed over from OBD.
AN
Electrical conductivity of sediment samples varied from 0.07 to 0.21mScm-1 (Average: 0.3mScm-1) out of these
samples, highest and lowest value of EC was found in sample S2 and S1 respectively (Figure7). Saxena (1989)
M

stated that for mine soil, EC < 4 mScm-1 may be considered good for plant growth. The native soil possessed EC
value (0.01 - 0.11 mScm-1) Nigam et al., (2015), much less than that of deposited sediments/soil washed away
D

from overburden dumps of opencast mines.

TE

Organic carbon of these samples low varied from 0.31% to 0.47% (Average: 0.4%). The maximum value of
organic carbon content was found to be 0.47% (sample S8) and the minimum was 0.31% (sample S1) (Figure 7).
EP

Water holding capacity of the samples varied from 17.06% to 22.42% (Average: 19.5%). The sample S1 and
sample S6 exhibited lowest and highest values respectively (Figure 7). Aggregate instability values were higher
C

in eroded soils possibly to loss of binding agents to the erosive runoff.

AC

The availability of nitrogen (N) in these samples varied from 112 kg ha-1 to 188 kg ha-1 (Average: 153.1 kg ha-1).
The sample S4 and S8 were found to possess lowest and highest amount of the nitrogen content respectively
(Figure 7).

The availability of phosphorus (P) in these samples varied from 0.1 kg ha-1 to 0.7 kg ha-1 (Average: 0.3 kg ha-1).
Samples S1, S2 and S8 were found to possess low amount of the phosphorus content (0.1 kg ha-1) whereas
highest amount of the phosphorus content was found in the sample S3 (Figure7). These low pH and organic
matter values could be responsible for the lower available phosphorus in eroded soils. Again, soil phosphorus is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
lost through surface runoff, erosion of sediment, leaching and plant uptake (Gillman et al. 1989). These losses
endanger the environment to non-point-source pollution, such as eutrophication.

The availability of potassium (K) in the samples varied from 21.7 kg ha-1 to 43.7 kg ha-1 (Average: 34.2). The
lowest and highest amount of potassium content was found in sample S6 and sample S8 respectively (Figure7).
4.4.2 RUSLE Model (IInd Method)
Using thehistorical 21 years (1992-2012) rainfall data, the average monsoon rainfall erosivity factor R was
calculated, using Equation 5 and found to be 557.0 MJ mm ha−1 h−1 yr−1, for a mean monsoon rainfall of 1303.4

PT
mm. The highest value of R factor was found to 916.4 MJ-mm ha−1 h−1 yr−1, for monsoon rainfall 2227.2 mm in
the year 2011 whereas the lowest value of R factor was found to be 342.7 MJ-mm ha−1 h−1 yr−1, for monsoon

RI
rainfall 752.4 mmin the year 1992(Table 8). The soil erodibility factor was determined by using the equation 6.
The data on soil erodibility indicate that the K values ranged from 0.10 to 0.22 ton-ha-h ha-1MJ-1mm-1 (Table 9).

SC
It is the intrinsic property of the soil and is governed by the soil characteristics like texture, structure, organic
matter content and permeability. The average value of K was found to be 0.1ton-ha-h ha-1MJ-1mm-1.Challa et
al.(2001) suggested that the K values greater than 0.3 indicate high erodibility and lower than 0.3 indicate low

U
erodibility.Soils having lower values are less susceptible to erosion and vice-versa. Soil erodibility will be
helpful in planning appropriate soil conservation measures. Slope length and steepness (LS) factor was
AN
calculated by using the equation 7. It was found to be 1.1. As the waste rock dumps were relatively fresh in the
study area, they were without any vegetative cover. Therefore, the cover management factor (C-factor) was
considered as equal to unity. The support practice factor (P-factor) in Equation 4 is based on the practices such
M

as contouring, strip cropping, and terraces. Most often this variable is set to unity in mining land management
application due to absent of support practice.
D

Quantification of soil loss in the study area has been done with inserting the best estimated values for
TE

the various factors of RUSLE in Equation 4 yield the estimated soil loss was found to be 62.7 t ha−1 yr−1. The
results of soil erosion show that it comes under the erosion classes very severe. Observation of the areas
identified as high erosion potential zone, namely more than 5 t ha−1 yr−1, indicated that they have already
EP

undergone severe erosion due to undulating topography. It is also apparent that maximum soil losses are in the
areas of high, rainfall erosivity factor, LS factor and conservation factor (1.0) (i.e. in areas having undulating
C

topography and where large percentage of area is still not covered by conservation measures). Singh et al.
(1981) got an iso-erodent map with R factor for amount of annual rainfall more than 700 mm showed the serious
AC

hazard of water whereas annual rainfall less than 400 mm showed the tolerable limit. There is a close correlation
between the rainfall characteristics and soil loss. An increase in rainfall amount is generally accompanied by an
increase in soil loss. In fact, topography plays a crucial role in controlling soil movement in an area. Therefore,
these areas need immediate attention from soil conservation point of view.Most of the forest villages, where
agricultural production was taken, were situated quite away from the sites of opencast mines. Hence there was
practically no evidence of their production being affected by the deposition of soil/sediment brought by either
soil erosion/ soil loss directly taken place from OBD or brought down through runoff effluent.As such
agricultural fields were unaffected by the mining activities particularly due to soil erosion from OBD as these
were located many kilometres away from mining sites. Even the forest villages, where in some area agricultural
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
production was taken, were also at a long distance away from the mining sites.Moreover the forest area serves
as buffer zone between mining sites and agricultural land. It was also found during the investigation that the
OBD were stored inside the mined areas, after extracting coal in due course of time.
5. CONCLUSION
The soil erosion from OBD was found in very severe range. Agricultural land was quite away from the dumps,
forest cover acts as buffer zone hence agricultural productivity was mostly unaffected. The sediment yield was
found low proportion. Excess runoff from OBD after passing through sedimentation traps, can be safely

PT
disposed through drainage system and stored in water harvesting tanks to improve local hydrology. The mined
areas can be reclaimed through mechanical measures by backfilling with OBD in the form of terraces and
establishing plantation and leguminous fodder/grass on terrace beds with all safety measures to bring back the

RI
original ecology. The sediment materials were poor in organic carbon, available N, P, K and acidic in nature
which requires addition of extra fertilizer, manures and amendments such as powder lime for the fast growing

SC
plant stabilization so that erosion might be control effectively in opencast mining areas.

6. Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

U
One of the authors would like to thank South East Coal Field Limited (SECL) Chirimiri, Chhattisgarh for
AN
providing valuable data and help during this study.

REFERENCE
M

Adinarayana, J., Rao, K.G., Krishna, N.R., Venkatachalam, P., Suri, J.K., 1999.A rule-based soil erosion model
for a hilly catchment. Catena 37:309–318.

Barpanda, P., Singh, S.K., Pal, B.K., 2001. Utilization of coal mining wastes: An Overview, National Seminar
D

on Environmental Issues and Waste Management in Mining and Allied Industries. Regional Engg
College, Rourkela, Orissa, India.pp177-182.
TE

Curtis, S.R., 1971. Strip mining erosion and sedimentation. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engrs 14: 434-436.

De Boer, D.H., 1997. Changing contribution of suspended sediment sources in small basins resulting from
EP

european settlement on the canadian prairies. Earth.Surf.Proc. Land.22 :623–639.

Deng,X., Huang, J. Rozelle,S., Uchida,E. 2006., Cultivated landconversion and potential agricultural
productivity in China,Land Use Policy, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 372–384.
C

Environmental Protection Agency., 1976 Effectiveness of surface Mine Sedimentation Ponds. EPA Report
AC

600/2-76-117.

Ghose, R. 2002. Land use in mining areas of India. Envis Monograph No. 09 CME, ISSN: 0972 4656.

Gosain, A.K., Roa, S., Basuray, D., 2006. Climate change assessment on hydrology of Indian river basin.
Current Science 90:346-353.

Gracia-Ruiz, J.M., 2011. The effect of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: a review. Catena 81:1-11.

Jina, D., Deng, X., Yunan, Y., Mad, D., Lib, Z., Shib, S., 2017. Scenario simulated of land exploitation and risk
assessment of soil erosion in the low slope hilly area of the Erhai Basin. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth.

Lal, R., 2001. Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation & Development, 12:519-539.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lal, R., 1998 Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality: critical reviews. Plant
Sciences 17: 319–464.

Millward, A.A., Mersey, J.E., 1999.Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous
tropical watershed. Catena 38: 109–129.

Neal, C., Robson, A.J., Wass, P., Wade, A.J., Ryland, G.P., Leach, D.V. Leeks, G.J.L., 1998. Major, minor,
trace element and suspended sediment variations in the River Derwent. Sci. Total Environ. 210: 163–
172.

PT
Nearing, M.A., Foster, G.R., Lane, L.J., Finkner, S.C., 1989.A process-based soil erosion model for USDA-
Water Erosion Prediction Project Technology. Transactions of the ASAE 32: 1587–1593.

Nigam, G.K., Sahu, R.K., Sinha, J.,Yadav, N.K., 2015.Physico-chemical characteristics of overburden dump

RI
materials and native soil of opencast coal mine in Chhattisgarh. Green Farming Vol. 6 (1): 205-210.

Ram Babu, Tejwani, K.G., Agarwal, M.C. Chandra, S., 1978.Rainfall Erosion Potential and Isoerodent Map of

SC
India. Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradun, Bulletin No. 2,
p. 47.

Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R.,Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C., 1997.Predicting Soil Erosion by Water:

U
A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).Handbook
703. US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC; 404.
AN
Renard, K.G.,Laflen, J.M., Foster, G.R., McCool, D.K., 1993. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. In:
Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Erosion Research Methods. 2nd ed. Soil and Water Conservation Society, St. Lucie
Press, 105–124.
M

Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., 1983. Soil Conservation: Principles of Erosion by Water. In: Dregne, H.E., Willis,
W.O., (Eds.), Dryland Agriculture, Agronomy Monograph No. 23. American Society of Agronomy,
Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, 155–
D

176.
TE

Renard, K.G., Laflen, J.M., Foster, G.R., McCool, D.K., 1994.The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. In:
Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Erosion Research Methods. 2nd ed. Soil and Water Conservation Society, St. Lucie
Press, 105–124.
EP

Roy, S.S., Singh, R.B., 2002. Climate variability, extreme events and agricultural productivity in mountain
regions. Oxford and IBH Publication Co Pvt Ltd: New Delhi.

Sahu, N.,Singh, R.B., Kumar, P., Da Silva, R.V.,Behera, S.K., 2013. La Niña Impacts on Austral Summer
C

ExtremelyHigh-Streamflow Events of the Paranaíba River in Brazil. Hindawi Publishing

CorporationAdvances in MeteorologyVolume 6.
AC

Saxena MM (1989) Environmental Analysis: Water, Soil and Air, Agro Botanical Publishers, Bikaner,
Rajasthan, pp 121140.

SCS (1956) National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology, Section 4, Soil Conservation Service, US Department
of Agriculture, Washington DC.

Sedeghi, S.H.R., Mizuyama, T., Miyata, S., Gomi, T., Kosugi, K., Fukushima, T., Mizugaki, S., Onda, Y.,
2008.Development, evaluation and interpretation of sediment rating curves for a Japanese small
mountainous reforested watershed.Geoderma144 :198–211.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sharma, K.D., 1996. Soil erosion and sediment yield in the Indian arid zone. Erosion and Sediment Yield:
Global and Regional Perspectives (Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium, July 1996). IAHS Publ. no.
236.

Sharply,A.N.,Williams, J.R., 1990. EPIC-Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator I, model

documentation.U.S.Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, No. 1768. (Washington, DC: USDA
Agricultural Research Service) pp 235.

Shen, D.Y., Ma, A.N., Lin, H., Nie, X.H., Mao, S.J., Zhang, B., Shi, J.J., 2003.A new approach for simulating
water erosion on hillslopes. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24: 2819–2835

PT
Singh, G., Babu, R., Chandra, S., 1981.Soil loss prediction research in India. Tech. Bull T-12/D-9.Central Soil
and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradun, India.pp 70.

RI
Tamgadge, D.B., Tiwari, A.K.,Maji, A.K., 2003.Soil Erosion Chhattisgarh, NBSS, Tech. bul., Pub.No.103.
NBSS&LUP, Nagpur, pp-10.

SC
USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985.National Engineering Handbook, USA.

USDA Soil Conservation Service 1986.Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical Release 55, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

U
USDA 1978.Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses – A Guide to Conservation Planning.United State Department
AN
of Agriculture, Washington DC.

Van Wilgen, B.W., Cowling, R.M., Burgers, C.J., 1996.Valuation of ecosystem services. Bioscience 46:184–
189.
M

Walling, D.E., 1997. The response of sediment yield to environmental change; In: Human impact on erosion and
sedimentation. IAHS Press, Wallingford, 245:77–89.
D

Ward, A., Smith, A. Caldwell, J., 1984. Surface erosion and sediment control at opencast mines in southern
Africa. Challenges in African Hydrology and Water Resources Proceedings of the Harare Symposium,
TE

IAHS Publ. no. 144.

Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978 Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A Guide to Conservation.Agricultural
Handbook 537. US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC
EP

Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1962. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses from Cropland East of rocky
mountains, USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 282, Washington, DC.
C

Young, D.F. 2006. Carleton JN Implementation of a probabilistic curve number method in the PRZM runoff
model. Environ. Modell.Softw., 21, 1172–1179.
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Laboratory methods used for chemical analysis of soil

S.N. Particulars Method used
1 pH (1:2.5) Glass electrode pH meter (Piper, 1967)
-1 0
2 EC (dSm at 25 C) Solubridge conductivity meter method (Black, 1965)
3 Organic carbon (%) Walkey and Blacks method (Piper, 1967)
4 Water holding capacity (%) Veihmeyer and Hendrickson (1931)

PT
5 Available N (kg/ha) Alkaline permanganate method (Subbaiah and Asija, 1956)
6 Available P (kg/ha) Olsen’s method (Olsen et al., 1954)
7 Available K (kg/ha) Flame photometric method (Jackson, 1967)

RI
Table 2: Pattern of Annual, Monsoon and SMW Rainfall in mm (Data base: 1992-2012)

SC
Monsoon Rainfall Weekly Statistical Parameters
Annual
Year As % of Rainfall
Rainfall Amount Rainfall mm S.D. C.V. %
SMW
annual
1992 755.4 752.4 99.6 22 13.7 21.0 153.0

U
1993 1206.2 1165.8 96.7 23 28.7 52.5 183.1
1994 2025.0 1991.9 98.4 24 46.0 47.9 104.2
AN
1995 1135.0 884.9 78.0 25 84.3 95.4 113.1
1996 1482.9 1333.3 89.9 26 77.1 46.8 60.7
1997 1117.7 913.6 81.7 27 81.3 69.9 86.0
M

1998 1330.7 1041.2 78.2 28 116.6 86.0 73.8

1999 1326.9 1323.1 99.7 29 93.5 68.7 73.5
2000 1231.4 1199.8 97.4 30 106.6 94.9 89.0
D

2001 1675.7 1610.8 96.1 31 107.0 89.6 83.8

2002 975.2 946.4 97.0 32 98.8 65.5 66.3
2003 1551.7 1434.3 92.4 33 70.3 58.9 83.9
TE

2004 1578.1 1499.2 95.0 34 70.0 68.4 97.7

2005 1335.0 1241.9 93.0 35 62.9 49.0 77.8
2006 1268.2 1133.5 89.4 36 82.1 63.2 76.9
EP

2007 1077.8 991.1 92.0 37 65.2 61.0 93.5

2008 1817.1 1738.1 95.6 38 33.4 35.3 105.8
2009 1361.4 1147.1 84.3 39 43.4 65.5 151.8
2010 1594.4 1407.8 88.3 40 17.2 27.9 161.9
C

2011 2402.6 2215.3 92.2 41 1.6 25.1 318.3

2012 1634.4 1388.1 84.9 42 1.2 2.0 171.8
AC

Mean 1423 1303.4 91.6 43 2.6 10.7 409.6

S.D. 361.1 358.4
C.V. 25.4 27.5

Page 1 of 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3: Statistical parameters of weekly rainfall of study area (Data base: 1992-2012)

Weekly Statistical Parameters Weekly Statistical Parameters

Rainfall Rainfall
SMW Rainfall, mm S.D. C.V. % SMW Rainfall, mm S.D. C.V. %
22 13.7 21.0 153.0 1 7.3 16.5 225.8
23 28.7 52.5 183.1 2 4.5 9.8 218.5
24 46.0 47.9 104.2 3 3.9 8.4 214.0

PT
25 84.3 95.4 113.1 4 6.9 17.4 253.0
26 77.1 46.8 60.7 5 6.6 12.6 190.8
27 81.3 69.9 86.0 6 3.7 6.5 174.9
28 116.6 86.0 73.8 7 5.0 8.5 172.2

RI
29 93.5 68.7 73.5 8 3.7 8.0 216.8
30 106.6 94.9 89.0 9 3.2 8.3 256.0
31 107.0 89.6 83.8 10 4.7 11.5 245.7

SC
32 98.8 65.5 66.3 11 4.8 9.9 205.7
33 70.3 58.9 83.9 12 1.0 2.6 251.7
34 70.0 68.4 97.7 13 1.9 0.6 263.3

U
35 62.9 49.0 77.8 14 4.1 7.5 185.8
36 82.1 63.2 76.9 15 1.3 3.3 258.5
AN
37 65.2 61.0 93.5 16 3.2 7.7 242.2
38 33.4 35.3 105.8 17 1.2 3.4 272.5
39 43.4 65.5 151.8 18 3.6 9.0 251.3
40 17.2 27.9 161.9 19 2.7 7.1 266.1
M

41 1.6 25.1 318.3 20 6.0 10.9 179.7

42 1.2 2.0 171.8 21 3.2 6.9 215.9
43 2.6 10.7 409.6 44 8.9 16.8 188.9
D

45 2.9 2.9 334.6

46 5.8 16.7 289.9
TE

Annual 1423 361.1 25.4 47 1.8 33.3 309.8

(1-52) 48 1.3 4.1 447.2
49 1.8 5.9 330.0
Monsoon 1303.4 358.4 27.5 50 4.6 18.5 400.6
EP

(22-43) 51 4.3 10.7 245.0

52 5.8 16.7 285.6

Table 4: Year and SMW estimated runoff by SCS CN method and its variability
C

Statistical Parameters (mm)

AC

Monsoon
Runoff as % of
Year Rainfall Runoff, mm SMW
rainfall Mean S.D. C.V. %
(mm)

1992 752.4 165.3 22.0 22 0.8 2.2 263.9

1993 1165.8 255.2 21.9 23 1.0 2.2 223.1
1994 1991.9 855.3 42.9 24 11.0 23.1 210.4
1995 884.9 179.8 20.3 25 29.4 59.5 202.5
1996 1328.0 344.5 25.8 26 27.6 35.3 128.0
1997 913.6 172.2 18.8 27 17.6 18.8 106.8

Page 2 of 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1998 1041.2 210.5 20.2 28 41.2 65.1 158.0

1999 1323.1 529.5 40.0 29 36.0 40.3 112.0
2000 1199.8 414.9 34.6 30 36.3 75.0 206.4
2001 1610.8 639.9 39.7 31 32.3 32.6 101.0
2002 946.4 226.9 24.0 32 46.4 75.8 163.3
2003 1434.3 353.1 24.6 33 29.7 34.7 116.8

PT
2004 1499.2 566.1 37.8 34 12.6 14.4 114.3
2005 1241.9 347.4 28.0 35 17.5 26.4 151.1
1133.5 391.4 34.5 24.8 39.4 158.7

RI
2006 36
2007 991.1 204.2 20.6 37 18.9 23.3 122.9
2008 939.2 556.5 32.0 38 13.1 21.9 167.1

SC
2009 1147.1 388.1 33.8 39 7.4 13.6 182.5
2010 1407.8 413.6 29.4 40 7.3 20.4 278.5
2011 2227.2 1006.4 45.2 1.8 7.0 384.2

U
41
2012 1388.1 457.4 33.0 42 0.3 1.1 321.7
AN
Average 1303.4 413.3 31.7% 43 0.1 0.3 447.2
M

Table 5: Sediment yield of incoming drainage effluent and outgoing drainage effluent after filtration in opencast
mines

incoming drainage effluent outgoing drainage effluent after filtration

D

Weight Weight
S.N. Date S.N. Date
(gm/l) (gm/l)
TE

1 22/7/2013 3.15 1 22/7/2013 0.10

2 23/7/2013 3.14 2 23/7/2013 0.09
EP

3 27/7/2013 2.85 3 27/7/2013 0.05

4 29/7/2013 2.14 4 29/7/2013 0.05
5 02/8/2013 2.07 5 02/8/2013 0.05
C

6 04/8/2013 2.04 6 04/8/2013 0.05

7 18/8/2013 1.85 7 18/8/2013 0.05
AC

8 20/8/2013 1.40 8 20/8/2013 0.05

9 28/8/2013 0.93 9 28/8/2013 0.04
10 08/9/2013 0.69 10 08/9/2013 0.03
Average sediment concentration 2.06 Average sediment concentration 0.056
3 -1
Runoff effluent 4133 m ha Amount of drainageeffluent 4133 m3 ha -1
Sediment yield of incoming drainage 8.5140 x 10-3 kg Sediment yield of outgoing drainage 0.231 x 10-3 kg ha
effluent ha -1 effluent -1

Page 3 of 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6: Measured sediment loss in samples at downstream of overburden dump in Opencast mines

Locationpoint Weight of plastic(gm) Weight ofplastic withsediment (gm) Actual soilloss in (gm) in1 m2 area
S1 180 5036 4856
S2 200 5524 5324
S3 140 5829 5689
S4 100 5977 5877

PT
S5 120 5223 5103
S6 150 5107 4957
S7 110 4819 4709

RI
S8 100 5820 5720
S9 112 5660 5548
S10 140 5532 5392

SC
S11 148 5978 5830
S12 132 5301 5169
S13 120 5964 5844
S14 125 5823 5698

U
S15 135 6084 5949
AN
Average 5444.3

Table 7: Physico-chemical properties of sediment samples

M

Available nutrients
Soil characteristics
(kg ha-1)
D

S.
Sample
No. EC OC Water Holding
Sand Silt Clay classification pH N P K
(mScm-1) (%) Capacity (%)
TE

1 S1 84 8 8 Loamy sand 5.7 0.07 0.31 17.06 125 0.1 29.1

2 S2 92 4 4 Sand 6.2 0.21 0.38 19.99 175 0.1 36.9
3 S3 92 4 4 Sand 5.5 0.11 0.42 17.14 150 0.7 21.9
EP

4 S4 88 6 6 Loamy sand 4.3 0.9 0.30 22.20 112 0.2 51.1

5 S5 88 8 4 Loamy sand 5.7 0.9 0.43 19.23 137 0.3 36.9
6 S6 82 14 4 Sandy Loam 6.0 0.15 0.30 22.42 175 0.6 21.7
C

7 S7 92 6 2 Sand 5.9 0.12 0.33 20.04 163 0.4 32.1

8 S8 80 14 6 Loamy sand 6.0 0.18 0.47 18.19 188 0.1 43.7
AC

Average 5.7 0.3 0.4 19.5 153.1 0.3 34.2

Page 4 of 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 8: Values of rainfall erosivity factor (R), in MJ-mm ha−1 h−1 yr−1

PT
Annual Annual
Year Value of R Year Value of R
Rainfall (mm) Rainfall (mm)

RI
1992 752.4 342.7 2004 1499.2 633.2
1993 1165.8 503.5 2005 1241.9 533.1
1994 1991.9 824.8 2006 1133.5 490.9

SC
1995 884.9 394.2 2007 991.1 435.5
1996 1333.3 568.7 2008 1738.1 726.1
1997 913.6 405.4 2009 1147.1 496.2

U
1998 1041.2 455.0 2010 1407.8 597.6
AN
1999 1323.1 564.7 2011 2227.2 916.4
2000 1199.8 516.7 2012 1388.1 590.0
2001 1610.8 676.6 Average 1303.4 557.0
M

2002 946.4 418.1 Maximum 2227.2 916.4

2003 1434.3 607.9 Minimum 752.4 342.7
D

Table 9: Values of soil erodibility factor (K) of different samples

Sample OC (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) K factor (t-ha-h ha-1 MJ-1mm-1)
TE

OB1 0.16 86 8 6 0.12

OB2 0.16 68 18 14 0.22
OB3 0.20 82 4 14 0.11
EP

OB4 0.46 82 8 10 0.13

OB5 0.24 84 4 12 0.10
Average 0.10
C
AC

Page 5 of 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Figure1: Location map of the study area (Outer red line indicating Chirmiri mining lease area of open cast mine
and inner red line indicating sampling location for this study)
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 2: Field setup for sediment collection in downstream portion of overburden dumps
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 3: Parameter description of RUSLE model

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Figure 4: Monthly variation in rainfall (1992-2012)

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 5: Trend of rainfall and runoff during Monsoon (1992-2012)
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Figure 6: Relationship between rainfall and runoff

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Figure 7: physico-chemical analysis of Sediments

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
• The physico-chemical characteristics of the deposited sediments from overburden dumps was
not much different than those of the native soils, except that of low productivity (N,P,K and
organic carbon).

• Low productivity of deposited sediments is compensated by the rich nutrient content of runoff
effluent generated from surrounding forest areas enriched with deep litter.

• The sediment load of drainage effluent was very low, lower than that obtained for runoff
effluent and can be considered as safe.

PT
• The soil erosion comes under the very severe in range as per the both methods adopted. For
minimizing the soil erosion, overburden dump materials are planned to be stored inside the

RI
mined area, there is scope to put these material in terraced form so that the terraced bed could
be used for plantation and later for leguminous fodder/grass production.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC