Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />to be 0.2 for Alternative I, which implies complete success in revegetating <br />the cut slopes. However, even with this relatively low unit yield, potential <br />soil loss is more than three times that of Alternative III. <br />TABLE 1 <br />POTENTIAL SOIL LOSS FOR THREE CHANNEL ALTERNATIVES: <br />UPPER BASIN DIVERSION <br />•1 <br /> AVG. CUT EST. <br /> SLOPE SLOPE DITCH AREA POT. <br /> LENGTH GRAD. A LENGTH DIST. EROSION <br />ALTERNATIVE* R K (FT.) (%) M LS VM (T/A) (FT.) (A) (T) <br />I 26. 0.28 472 67 0.6 60 0.2 87.4 3,400 36.8 3,215 <br />II 26 0.28 76 100 0.6 37 1.0 269.4 3,400 5.9 1,589 <br />III 26 0.28 72 100 0.6 35 1.0 254.8 2,400 4.0 1,019 <br />*ALTERNATIVE APPROX. ELEVATION CUTSLOPE LAYBACK <br />(FT.) (H:V) <br />I 7,650 1.5:1 <br />II 7,600 1:1 <br />III 7,400 1:1 <br />CONCLUSION <br />.' <br />Alternative III results in considerably less visual impact, requires a <br />shorter ditch, and disturbs the least amount of area. 14uch of the channel has <br />been constructed through an area already disturbed. Reclamation of the cutslopes <br />should considerably reduce soil loss even if initial revegetation activities are <br />only partially successful. <br />