Laserfiche WebLink
.? <br />the follown two soil complexes in approximately equal proportions: <br />Area 1 A is compnsed of g <br />- Pinion?'Progresso Loam Pinion ? = 0.37, Progresso K = 0.3?) <br />- PinionlUstic TalTorthents ?Ustc Tarriorthents K ^ 0. ? ?} <br />The weighted average K for this site is therefore: <br />x0.37 ?- I x0.15 =0.315 <br />4 <br />won er silt c1a loam and the PinianlPragresso complex. All of these <br />Area 1-B is compnsed of the 1?ys g y <br />soils have a "K" of 0.37 therefore the average is 0.37. <br />r silt cla loam and the PinionlPragresso complex All of these <br />Area ? is also compnsed of ?yswonge y y . <br />soils have a "?." ©f 0.37 therefore the average is 0,37. <br />e same soil redistributed over the regraded areas after mining; It is? <br />The reclaimed soil is pnrnanly th aimed areas have been <br />the re-mine soil and should also have a "K." factor of 0.37: The reel 1. <br />similar to p . . <br />2 ears and organic content, particle size analysis, density and other parameters .? <br />vegetated far 1? to ? y ? . , , <br />" to the "?"factor are similar to the original soil after this period of time. <br />incorporated in <br />Length Shope Factor "LS" <br />sian are determined by the dimensionless "L" and "?„ factors; ? which ; . ??:. <br />The effects of topography an sort ero revised since the initial ? ?, : ? ?' <br />? r bt}th rill and interrill erosion. These factors have been considerably - <br />accoun?fo . <br />new RUSLE care uter database for the combined "LS" factor is based ? { . . . <br />Universal 5011 Lass Equation. The p e e cations for law rill ? ? :, ; : ? . <br />.ratio of rill to znter?.ll erosion. For most western rangeland soils, th q <br />. ° on the sail s <br />from Predictin Soil Erosion by Water; A Guide to Canservation? <br />to interrill ratio are used. Table 1 ? g ? 'culture ??}97 shows <br />Universal Soil Loss E cation - US ?epartinent of Abn ? <br />Planning With the Revised q red in the reclaimed areas., ? ? .' <br />.. a chart based on these equations. Since approximate anginal contour was resto <br />? this factor will be identical for the pre-n?i.ne and post-mine cases. This <br />which have stapes of Oho to bar , b1e to the reference?area <br />s based on a s1o e of 3'?a and a length of 200 feet. This is basically applica <br />f actor i p <br />'med areas. Also, it is important to compare sites using the same L5 factor, since using <br />as well as all reclai <br />he results to one side or the other. Far Vegetation Sampling Area 2, a <br />a different factor would bias t ost-mine data usin the actual <br />meat com orison could be made of the pre-mine data compared to the p g <br />sedi p using 2300 feet C 3.???'o grade) however we do not <br />LS factor for this site ? which is approximately 0.71 b w?th two <br />l re-rninin ve station status and we would be comparing two different years i <br />l?now the actua p g g <br />different precipitation amounts. <br />L4 ,? m tin Areas 1-A and 1-E is 0.43 based on a length of 200 feet and <br />The L5 factor for Vegetation Sa p g <br />a grade of 3 ?/c?