USDA
EPA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Northeast Watershed
Research Center
University Park PA 16802
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research
Washington DC 20460
EPA-600/7-84-041
March 1984
Research and Development
Erosion of
Strip Mine Lands
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
EROSION OF STRIP MINE LANDS
by
James I. Sams and Andrew S. Rogowski
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS
Northeast Watershed Research Center
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
EPA-IAG-D5-E763
Project Officer
Clinton W. Hall
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Washington, D.C. 20250
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20250
n s. Environmental Protection Agency
Recrion 5, Library (5PL-Jb)
So s! Dkrborn St,eet, Room 1670
Chicago, -IL 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minesoils and
Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Progection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in part,
stress the control of nonpoint source pollution. Sections 102 (C-l),
208 (b-2,F) and 304(e) authorize basin scale development of water quality
control plans and provide for area-wide waste treatment management. The
act and the amendments include, when warranted, waters from agriculturally
and silviculturally related nonpoint sources, and requires the issuance of
guidelines for both identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of
nonpoint source pollutants and the methods to control these sources.
Research program at the Northeast Watershed Research Center contributes to
the aforementioned goals. The major objectives of the Center are to:
study the major hydrologic and water-quality associated
problems of the Northeastern U.S. and
develop hydrologic and water quality simulation capability
useful for land-use planning. Initial emphasis is on the
hydrologically most severe land uses of the Northeast.
Within the context of the Center's objectives, stripmining for coal
ranks as a major and hydrologically severe land use. In addition, once
the site is reclaimed and the conditions of the mining permit are met,
stripmined areas revert legally from point to nonpoint sources. As a
result, the hydrologic, physical, and chemical behavior of the reclaimed
iii
-------
of the reclaimed land needs to be understood directly and in terms
of control practices before the goals of Sections 102, 208 and 304
can be fully met.
Signed
n
Harry B. Pionke
Director
Northeast Watershed
Research Center
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
The plot studies were carried out at Karthaus and Klingerstown to verify
the accuracy of the erosion pin method of soil loss evaluation compared to
soil loss measured in runoff samples. Subsequently, field studies at
Kylertown and Kittaning were used to apply these methods. Kylertown site
showed no concentrated areas of erosion for the 4 month study period.
However, over the 12 year existence of this site, observable rills and gullies
have accounted for large soil losses. The newly reclaimed site at Kittaning
was quite vulnerable to erosion, with one area experiencing a concentrated
soil loss of 12-16 mm during the study period.
When erosion pins are used with the surface contouring program areas of
potential concentrated soil loss can be readily located on reclaimed strip
mines. For best results it is recommended that the erosion pins be initially
placed in a grid network on slope of interest.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The methods described in this paper to quantify erosion were applied to
four different sites. The plot studies at Karthaus and Klingerstown estab-
lished the accuracy of the erosion pins compared to collected runoff samples.
The Alutin method could not be evaluated, as no rills were observed on the
plots. The field studies at Kylertown and Kittanning were used to apply the
methods described in the paper. The Kylertown site showed no concentrated
areas of erosion according to the erosion contour map produced for the 4
month study period. However, over the 12 year existence of the site, rills
and gullies have accounted for large soil losses. The newly reclaimed site
at Kittanning was quite vulnerable to erosion, as indicated by the contour
map drawn from the erosion pin data. One area had experienced a concentrated
soil loss of 12-16 mm over the study period. Rills developing on the site
resulted in noticeable erosion, particularly in the area of concentrated soil
loss noted by the contour maps.
In conclusion, the erosion pins with the surface contouring program offer
one method for locating concentrated areas of soil loss on reclaimed strip
mines. It is recommended that the erosion pins be initially placed in a grid
network across the slope profile in such a manner as to cover the slope by
equally spaced erosion pins. Erosion contour maps produced from this arrange-
ment can produce an overall picture of surface erosion. If concentrated areas
of soil loss are noted by these contour maps, it is recommended that more
erosion pins be placed in these areas for more detailed information. Once
located, areas of concentrated soil loss can then be stabilized by effective
soil and water conservation practices.
vi
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract v
Conclusions vi
Figures viii
Tables ix
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON EROSION PROCESSES 3
Splash erosion 3
Sheet-interrill erosion 5
Rill erosion 7
3. METHODS USED TO QUANTIFY EROSION 10
Erosion pins 10
Alutin rill erosion 14
Plot scale analysis of methods 15
Plot design 15
Estimating soil in runoff 17
Calculating plot erosion 18
Field scale application of methods 19
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20
Plot scale 20
Karthaus 20
Klingerstown 26
Field scale 31
Kylertown 31
Kittaning site 37
References 45
Appendices
A. Erosion pin program and format 48
B. Karthaus data 53
C. Klingerstown Data 60
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number page
1 Diagram of erosion pin and measuring technique 12
2 Plot design for rainfall simulator 16
3 Location of erosion pins at the Karthaus site 21
4 Karthaus erosion contour map after final run 25
5 Location of erosion pins at the Klingerstown site 27
6 Klingerstown erosion contour map after final run 30
7 Sketch map of Kylertown site 32
8 Kylertown erosion contour map after final run 36
9 Sketch map of Kittaning site 38
10 Kittaning erosion contour map after final run 44
11 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 1) 68
12 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 2) 69
13 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 3) 70
14 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 4) 71
15 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 5) 72
16 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 6) 73
17 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 7) 74
18 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 8) 75
viii
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Rainfall simulator summary at Karthaus 24
2 Rainfall simulator summary at Klingerstown 29
3 Summary of erosion pin data at Kylertown 34
4 Rill erosion using Alutin Method at Kylertown 35
5 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning 41
6 Rill erosion using Alutin Method at Kittaning 43
7 Erosion pin data from Karthaus 52
8 Runoff sample data from Karthaus 55
9 Density data from Karthaus 57
10 Rainfall data from Karthaus 57
11 Erosion pin data from Klingerstown 58
12 Runoff sample data from Klingerstown 64
13 Density data from Klingerstown 66
14 Calibration of V-notch barrel 66
15 Rainfall data from Klingerstown 67
xx
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The surface of a reclaimed strip mine may change
rapidly in response to erosional processes as this
relatively new land form evolves. Initially, large volumes
of soil (spoil) can be eroded from the reclaimed site and
transported throughout the drainage basin (Curtis, 1974).
The following conditions are likely to contribute to high
erosion rates; unaggregated fine material from crushed
rocks, the lack of a protective vegetative cover, and long
steep slopes. Runoff from these slopes can attain the
necessary volume and velocity to erode at an accelerated
rate. During a period of many years the original surface
will be eroded, transported, redeposited, and scarred with
rills and gullies.
To reduce the amount of eroded surface, it is first
necessary to locate areas where most soil is eroding. ' One
method used to monitor surface erosion has been erosion
pins. (Schumm, 1967). The erosion pin can act as a
reference point in the soil surface for noting ground
advance or retreat by measuring the distance between the
soil surface and pin head. Also the amount of surface
-------
eroded by rills has been estimated by using the Alutin
method (Oleson, 1977). This is accomplished by measuring
the cross-sectional area of rills occurring along the
surface. These methods are relatively simple to use,
inexpensive and require no specialized equipment.
The objectives of this study were to 1) review the
mechanisms and processes of soil erosion and 2) test the
use ,of erosion pins and the Alutin method for quantifying
surface erosion.
-------
SECTION 2
LITESATUREF REVIEW ON«EROSION PROCESSES
In the process of land form evolution, erosion by rain
and runoff can be considered the most effective mechanism.
Raindrops which impact on the soil surface initiate the
process of particle detachment by splash erosion. During a
storm the rain falling on the surface is initially absorbed
until the surface becomes saturated. Continued
precipitation may collect on the surface and begin moving
downslope as runoff. The eroding force of the runoff is
referred to as sheet erosion. When runoff by sheet flow
concentrates into small channels rill erosion starts. This
occurs where the erosive force (F) of the flow exceeds the
resistive force (R) of the surface. Rills merge to form
increasingly concentrated flow, which increases the ratio of
F to R, thereby accelerating erosion. The entire process
takes place in response to many interacting factors and
inherent properties of the surface soil or spoil. Following
is a review of some of these factors.
Splash Erosion
splash erosion is a direct result of raindrop impact.
A raindrop falling through the atmosphere attains a certain
-------
amount of kinetic energy which, upon impact with the soil
surface, is transferred to the soil particles. Mihara
(1951) calculated that a raindrop 2.5 mm in diameter
possesses a kinetic energy of 10* ergs. This amount of
energy is capable of elevating a 4.6 g particle 1.0 cm. An
increase in drop size would increase the energy available
for detachment. Laws (1940) found that rainsplash erosion
increased up to 1200 percent as drop size doubled. A
relationship between drop size and rainfall intensity was
developed by Laws and Parsons (1943):
D50 - 2.231(I°-182)
where:
DCQ - median drop size (mm).
I - rainfall intensity (in/hr).
Wischmeier and Smith (1958) developed an equation to
determine total storm energy based on rainfall intensity by:
Y - 916 + 331(Log10I)
where:
': » kinetic energy (foot tons/acre in).
I - rainfall intensity (in/hr).
The kinetic energy from a falling raindrop must attain
a critical lift force to elevate a soil particle from its
bed. The larger the particle, the higher the critical lift
torce for detachment. Particle size is influenced by the
-------
degree of aggregation which markedly affects soil detachment
(Young and Mutchler, 1977). The effect of binding agents in
the soil tends to increase the critical lift force. If
energy is sufficient, an impacting raindrop can expell soil
particles in a cratering fashion. Mutchler (1971) found
that raindrop impact was most erosive where a thin sheet of
water is present at approximately one-fifth the drop
diameter. However, splash erosion can be non-existent if
the water film is greater than three drop diameters.
The continuous impact of raindrops throughout a storm
can detach and make available for transport large amounts of
sediment. The process is most active during intense summer
storms (McGuiness et al., 1971).
Sheet-Interrill Erosion
This phase of the erosional process can be regarded as
a transporting mechanism of already detached soil particles
and an eroding mechanism through its velocity of flow. This
process is initiated when precipitation collected on the
surface is augmented by an outward component of flow. The
process is partly controlled by the infiltration capacity of
the soil.
Farmer and Richardson (1976), found that infiltration
capacity of the soil was related to the percent of clay and
-------
the percent of macro-pore space. Soil puddling, which
decreased infiltration, occurred when available pore space
in the soil became clogged with fine particles such as clay
or silt. Soil crusting, which generally follows puddling,
will also reduce infiltration since particles can bind to
each other more strongly from repeated wetting and drying
cycles. Tackett and Pearson (1965) found that crusting can
create a 1 to 3 mm seal on the soil surface.
Once the infiltration capacity of the soil has been
exceeded, other factors become more important in producing
sheet erosion. Young and Onstad (1978) found that as slope
increases from 4 to 9 percent the amount of soil lost from
interrill areas increased markedly. On shallow slopes the
transport capacity may be limiting. Although raindrops are
capable of detaching large soil particles, the particles are
not likely to be transported very far. The rate of
detachment and subsequent sheet erosion is also affected by
soil properties. This factor is represented in the
Universal Soil Loss Equation by the soil erodibility factor
K (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965).
The transport of particles by sheet flow is
significantly increased by falling rain. This creates a
turbulent state which more easily suspends particles in the
flow. This has been referred to as agitated laminar flow
(Emmett, 1970). The transport capacity is also influenced
-------
by runoff rate, roughness of the surface, and the
transportability of detached soil particles (Foster and
Meyer, 1975).
Rill Erosion
Rills develop when runoff by sheet flow becomes
concentrated in a small channel. Also, rill erosion will
occur in previously defined channels because of local
microrelief, equipment marks, and cracks. The rill can be
considered an ephemeral channel, the existence of which from
one season to the next depends upon the presence and
concentration of sheet runoff. If one of the channels
persists, it is generally able to develop its own valley and
capture other rills to become a master rill or gulley.
Rills are active in two processes: 1) the erosion of
their own channels by detaching soil particles in the
progressive deepening of the channel, and 2) the transport
of runoff and sediment delivered by sheet flow along with
the transport of material eroded from the rill channel.
Rill detachment or erosion occurs when the shear stress of
the flow overcomes the critical shear stress of the channel
(soil). This is influenced by soil properties in the
channel. Young and Onstad (1978) found that a loamy sand
which was well drained, unaggregated, and had a K value of
.11 was highly susceptible to rill erosion. The Yalin
-------
equation has been used to estimate rill detachment per unit
area per unit time (Yalin, 1963).
The transport of detached sediment in rills was found
to be primarily as a bedload by the process of rolling and
saltation along the channel bottom (Foster and Meyer, 1972).
Bedload equations have been used to estimate the transport
capacity of rills which is influenced by the following
hydraulic variables: 1) hydraulic radius, 2) percent
slope, 3) discharge volume, 4) average velocity, 5)
channel roughness, and 6) particle, size (Foster and Meyer,
1975). If the influx of sediment from sheet wash and rill
detachment exceeds the transport capacity of rill flow,
deposition will occur. Einstein (1968) developed the
following equation to estimate the rate of deposition:
Dd * Cd
wh e r e:
D^ » rate of deposition (weight/time).
Cj - a coefficient which is a function
of sediment-fall velocity, water
quality, and depth of flow.
TC - flow transport capacity at a
location (weight/unit width/time).
G - sediment load of flow at any
location on a slope (weight/unit
width/time).
In summary, the erosion process can be divided into 1)
sheet erosion in which soil is detached by raindrops
-------
(splash) and transported by a thin overland flow, and 2)
rill erosion in which soil is detached and transported by
concentrated runoff. Mathematically, Foster ££ .aJL- (1977),
in plot studies, developed an erosion equation based on the
source area of sediment:
(X Kr (ase) Ft Cr
rill erosion
(U + K± (bs + C) I£
sheet erosion
where:
?r +
a,b,c,e
X
A - average soil loss for slope
length X.
Ft « runoff erosivity.
It » rainfall erosivity.
£ » soil erodibility factors for
rill and interrill erosion,
respectively .
^ * cropping management factors
for rill and interrill erosion.
^ - supporting factors for rill
and interrill erosion.
coefficients.
length of a unit plot (22.1
m) .
s - sine of the slope angle.
U * length of a unit plot
Dr - average rill soil loss over
the slope length X.
DA » average interrill soil loss
over the slope length X.
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS USED TO QUANTIFY EROSION
The second objective of this study was to test the use
of erosion pins and the Alutin method for quantifying
erosion. The methods were used for a plot scale analysis
and for a field scale application.
Erosion Pins.
An erosion pin is essentially a rod placed in the soil
to measure the surface retreat or advance in relation to the
rod. A decrease in the length of the erosion pin exposed is
due to surface advance. An increase in pin exposure is due
to surface retreat. These processes may occur independently
of erosion or deposition due to expansion or contract ion of
the ground surface by wetting and drying, and freezing and
thawing. The technique of erosion pins was pioneered by
Schumm (1956) in the use of wooden stakes. Colbert (1956),
advocated the use of metal pins as being more permanent.
Ground retreat or advance was measured by recording the
differences between the top of the erosion pin and the
height of the soil. Schumm (1967) employed a removable
washer which was placed over the pin down to the soil
10
-------
surface. This helped to average out the unevenness of the
soil around the erosion pin. The time interval between
recordings varied from 7 days (Bridges, 1969), to over a
year (Schumm, 1956).
The erosion pins used in this study were five-eight's
inch diameter reinforcing rods approximately 1 m in length.
These pins were driven into the soil (spoil) using a 10
pound sledge hammer, leaving 5 to 10 cm of the pin above the
surface. The number and locations of the pins depended on
the site. Each pin was numbered or coded in a manner to
facilitate the use of a computer program developed to
compare pin measurements between recordings (Appendix A).
Following insertion of the erosion pins an initial pin
reading was recorded to note the difference between the top
of the pin and the soil surface. This was done by using a
pin measuring device and a removable metal washer. Using a
micrometer, accurate to within 0.02 mm, a pin measurement
was recorded (Figure 1). The pins were then measured
periodically to monitor changes in soil height. Each time
the pins were measured, a comparison was made to the initial
pin reading to note total changes, and to the last previous
reading to note changes between readings. The erosion
program was used to evaluate and list these comparisons. In
addition, the program calculated the average ground advance
11
-------
or retreat for a recorded event, plus indicating the order
of 10 pins which had the largest ground advance or retreat.
PIN
MEASURING
DEVICE
MICROMETER
Figure 1. Diagram of erosion pin and measuring technique.
To locate areas of erosion and deposition, SURFACE 2,
a contouring program was used to draw contour lines of
erosion from the erosion pin data (Simpson, 1975). Each
erosion pin is given an X and Y coordinate for determining
its location on a grid of a specified number of rows and
columns. A Z coordinate for each pin is used to represent
12
-------
changes in surface elevation at the pin. Using this
information, the SURFACE 2 program sets up a grid matrix
and estimates Z values at each node from the erosion pin
data points. To determine Z values at each node, a given
search radius is used to collect information in estimating
the node value. If a sufficient number of points is not
located, a Z value cannot be estimated at that node and the
contour map may be incomplete.
In addition to measuring the erosion pins, total
rainfall between measurements was also recorded. A
recording rain gauge was used at the two field sites to note
rainfall and intensities for each storm. Wischmeier and
Smith (1958) developed an equation for estimating the
rainfall erosion index (R) of a storm based on the maximum
30 minute intensity (^30^* **ne erosive potential is
calculated by the following method:
E X I3Q
where:
E - kinetic energy of a storm
in m-ton meters per hectare per cm of
rain
- [210 + 89(log10I30)]
30 minute intensity
(cm/h).
13
-------
By sunning the R values for each storn, the erosive
potential of rainfall between pin measuring events can be
determined.
Alutin Rill Erosion.
This method, developed by Oleson (1977), is used to
estinate soil loss fron rills in netric tons per hectare.
The nethod calls for adding the cross-sectional area of all
rills in cm occurring within a measured linear distance of
12.8 n across the slope. Based on this nethod, a number of
1 m sets of erosion pins (2 pins one m apart) were placed
along the slope at several contour intervals. At each
contour interval across the slope profile, the number of one
meter sets was sunned and divided by 12.8 n to give a
surface length across the slope equivalent to 12.8 m. The
area of rills occurring between the 2 pin sets was divided
by 6.45 to give the equivalent area in square inches. The
equation here is:
Soil loss by rills -
(metric tons/hectare)
rill area cm2 X 12.8 m X 0.75
6. 45 # 1 meter sets
14
-------
Plot Scale Analysis of Methods.
Plot studies were conducted to evaluate the methods
described for quantifying erosion. At this small scale it
was possible to sample runoff from the plots to estimate
soil erosion and compare this information to the erosion
pins and Alutin method. Following is a discussion on plot
design, soil sampling procedure, runoff sampling procedure,
and calculations to determine plot erosion in mm.
Plot design. To test the correspondence between
erosion at a point and erosion over an area, a rota ting-boom
rainfall simulator, similar to the one developed by Swanson
(1965), was used on a plot scale at 2 sites. The simulator
was centered between 2 erosion plots 3.0 m by 9.1 m in each
of which were placed erosion pins. Plot borders were
constructed from 4 cm by 25 cm wooden planks. The planks
were buried 12 cm below the soil to keep runoff inside the
plot. The runoff from the study area was channeled into a
trough at the lower end of the plot from which was sampled
the runoff rate in cm /sec and soil concentration in mg/1
(Figure 2).
15
-------
PLOT 1
EROSION.
PINS
RUNOFF
TROUGH
<
.i. .
PLOT 2
\
RAINFALL
SIMULATOR
Figure 2. Plot design for rainfall simulator.
16
-------
Estimating soil in runoff. In order to estimate the
total soil eroded from the plot, runoff samples were
analyzed to determine the concentration of soil in mg/1.
Approximately 8 samples were taken from each plot during the
45 min simulated rainfall. The samples were taken back to
the lab and allowed to sit for 3 days so that suspended
sediment would settle. The water was then decanted off into
a graduated cylinder, measured and recorded. The sediment
left in the bottles was transferred to pre-weighed drying
pans and placed in a drying oven at 105° C. After 3 days
the weight of eroded soil in the cans was determined and
recorded with the other information.
Estimating runoff rate. Two methods were used to
estimate runoff rate in cm /sec. At the Karthaus site, the
rate of runoff at each sampling interval was estimated by
using a stop watch to record the amount of time (sec) to
fill the volume of the sample collected (cm ). This rate of
runoff was assumed to be a representative sample for che
sampling interval. Therefore, the total runoff for that
sampling period is estimated by multiplying the rate of
runoff by the sample time interval.
The runoff rate from the Klingerstown site was
determined by using a v-notch barrel equiped with a
revolving chart to record runoff. The v-notch barrel was
calibrated to determine the relationship between chart
17
-------
reading and flow through height (Appendix C). Using this
relationship and the equation developed by Cone (1916), the
O
rate of runoff in cmj/sec during any time of the run could
be determined from the chart height by the following
equation:
Q - (1.322 + 0.522 N ) tan(9/2) H *5
3.281cHmc
where:
Hm - head in m (from chart calibration).
6 « angle for v-notch.
N - 0.035 -I- 0.033[tan(9/2)]~°'8
e - 0.2475[tan(9/2)]°'09
+ 0.340[tan(9/2)]°'035
Calculating plot erosion.
For each sample collected, the amount of surface
decline in mm was calculated by solving the equation below.
The total surface decline of the plot surface for each
simulated rainfall was determned by summing the calculated
surface decline from the soil in each sample.
Total soil eroded in mm of plot surface m
sample interval X soil concentration
(sec) (g/cm3)
X flow
flow X dry bulk density
(cm /sec) (cm /g)
X plot area X conversion
(1/273000 cm2) (10 mm/cm)
18
-------
F ield Scale Application of Methods.
The erosion pins and Alutin method were used to
quantify erosion from strip mined sites for a field scale
application. These sites are described in the results
section of the paper.
19
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The methods discussed in this paper were applied to 4
sites, Karthaus and Klingerstown on a plot scale, and
Kylertown and Kittaning on a field scale.
Plot Scale
Karthaus. This site is located near Karthaus, Pennsylvania,
and is actively being strip mined. Mining and reclamation
are taking place simultaneously at this location. As the
coal is taken out, the trench is backfilled with overburden
from the next cut. Cover soil is then replaced, fertilized,
and seeded. The area where the two 3 m by 9.1 m erosion
plots were constructed had been reclaimed in this manner
approximately 1 month prior to the study. There was no
vegetation on the plots, which had a 5 percent slope and an
average bulk density of 0.95 g/cm .
For this plot study, 12 erosion pins per plot were
located according to Figure 3 on August 20, 1981. The pins
were measured for the first time on August 27 to determine
the initial height of the soil surface prior to the
simulated rainfall. The first simulated rainfall (run 1)
20
-------
9.1
SCALE IN METERS
Figure 3. Location of erosion pins at the Karthaus site.
21
-------
began at 11:00 AM on August 27 and lasted for 45 minutes.
During the rainfall, runoff samples were collected and
analyzed for sediment according to the procedure outlined in
the methods section of this paper. At the end of each run
the erosion pins were measured to note the change in soil
surface elevation. The erosion pin measurements were then
compared to the amount of sediment collected in the runoff
samples. Three runs were completed at the site before the
simulator and plots were disassembled.
Results:
The sequence of events for plots 1 and 2 is listed in
Table 1 along with the total rainfall and runoff collected
for each run. Little runoff occurred until the plots were
saturated. During run 1, both plots 1 and 2 absorbed the
initial rainfall, after which the runoff slowly increased.
The total estimated erosion in mm of surface decline is
relatively small when compared to the amount of surface
decline as measured by the erosion pins (Table 1). The
sediment eroded from the plot as noted by the erosion pins
may have been deposited in depressions in the plot surface.
Also, a significant amount of fine sediment was noted along
the upper lip of the collection trough as the plot was being
dismantled. Thus, the amount of surface eroded as measured
by the erosion pins may not have been transported into the
runoff samples.
22
-------
Using the X-Y-Z coordinates for each erosion pin, a
contour map from the SURFACE 2 program was drawn for plots
1 and 2 (Figure A). The contour values represent the total
change in sediment height since the initial reading.
The amount of measured erosion from the erosion pins at
the Karthaus site did not compare well with the estimated
erosion from the runoff samples. More runoff may have been
needed to transport the eroded sediment off the plot. Also
the number of pins in the plot may not have been sufficient
to calculate a more accurate amount of surface decline. The
data may not have compared based on 1) eroded soil was not
transported from the plot or 2) more erosion pins were
needed to give a better picture of surface erosion on the
plots. Contour maps from the plots were not very detailed
due to the small number of erosion pins. No areas of
concentrated erosion were evident therefore, the Alutin
method could not be evaluated.
Runoff and erosion pin data from the site is listed in
appendix B.
23
-------
liable 1,
(Date
1
1
1
1
18/27/81
1
18/28/81
1
ITotal
1
!
18/27/81
1
18/28/81
1
ITotal
Rainfall
Run
#
1
2
3
1
2
3
Total
rain
(cm)
9
9
9
27
9
9
10
28
.14
.40
.45
.99
.27
.40
. 16
.83
simulator Summary
Total Runoff
runoff % rain
(L) (%)
18.
106.
326.
451.
50.
153.
307.
511.
Plot
36
27
75
38
Plot
29
57
66
52
1
0.65
3.77
11.52
5.31
2
1.80
5.45
10.09
5. 78
at
Karthaus .
Estimated
erosion
(mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0012
.0061
.0143
.0189
.0094
.0241
.0342
.0633
Measured
pin change
(mm)
-2.
-1.
+0.
-3.
-3.
-1.
+0.
-4.
47
50
07
90
08
79
30
57
T
1
4
-f
4
24
-------
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
ai
Figure 4. Karthaus erosion contour map after final run.
25
-------
Klingerstown. This site is located near Klingerstown,
Pennsylvania at the field station for the Northeast
Watershed Research Center. Two erosion plots 3.0 m by 9.1 m
were constructed for use with the rainfall simulator. The
plot area was plowed, disked, and cultipacked. Each plot
was then raked to remove sod and produce a smooth surface.
There was no vegetation on the plots, which sloped 6.5
percent and had an average dry bulk density of 1.4 g/cm .
For this plot study, 40 erosion pins per plot were
located according to Figure 5. The pins were measured for
the first time on June 29, 1982 to note the initial height
of the soil surface prior to the simulated rainfall. The
first simulated rainfall (run 1) began at 11:00 AM on June
29 and lasted for 45 minutes. During the rainfall, runoff
samples were collected. Immediately following the first
run, a second run was made which also lasted 45 minutes. At
the end of run 2 the pins were measured to note the change
in surface height at each pin. After all the pins were
measured, the plots were covered with plastic to protect the
surface from natural rainfall. One week later the plots
were subjected again to two simulated rainfalls 45 minutes
each, after which the erosion pins were measured. At the
end of run 4 sediment remaining in the runoff troughs was
collected and dried.
26
-------
SCALE IN METERS
9L1
Figure 5. Location of erosion pins at the Klingerstown site.
27
-------
Results:
The sequence of events for plots 1 and 2 along with
total rainfall and runoff collected for each run is listed
in Table 3.
From the amount of soil collected in the samples and
runoff trough, the amount of surface decline was determined.
This was then compared to the measured pin erosion (Table
2). The total overall surface decline was very little, less
than 1 mm. An erosion contour plot after the final run
notes an overall redistribution of sediment to the effect of
leveling the surface in both plots 1 and 2 (Figure 6).
The plot scale analysis of the Klingerstown site seems
to compare favorably with the estimated erosion from the
soil collected in the runoff samples. At this site a total
of 4 simulated rainfalls may have produced a sufficient
amount of runoff to transport the eroded sediment off the
plot. Also, the number of erosion pins used on the plot
produced a more detailed erosion contour map of the surface.
The contour maps overall indicate a redistribution of
sediment to the effect of leveling the plot surface. Soil
eroded may have deposited in depressions in the plot surface
such that the average amount of surface decline was very
small. This agreed with the actual amount of surface
28
-------
Table 2. Rainfall
Date Run Total
# rain
(cm)
6/29/82 1 7.10
2 9.34
7/ 5/82 3 10.97
4 9.45
simulator summary at Klinger stown.
Total
runoff
(L)
287
400
485
410
(sediment in
Total 36.86
\~ mt -r
6/29/82 1 7.10
2 9.34
7/ 5/82 3 10.97
7/ 5/82 4 9.45
1582
177
260
320
330
(sediment in
Total 36.86
1087
Runoff
Z rain
(*)
Plot 1
13.0
14.0
14.7
14. 1
trough)
13.9
Plot 2
8.3
9.3
9.7
11.6
trough)
9.7
Es timat ed
eros ion
(a»)
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.41
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.30
Measured
erosion
(mm)
0.56
0.17
0.73
0.68
0.24
0.92
29
-------
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
Figure 6. Kllngerstown erosion contour map after final run.
30
-------
decline estimated from -tire collected soil. Finally, no
rills were observed on the plots to evaluate the Alutin
method.
Runoff and erosion pin data for the site is listed in
appendix C.
Field Scale
Kylertown. This site, located near Kylertown,
Pennsylvania, was strip mined in 1969. Reclamation laws at
that time did not require the replacement of top soil.
Since 1969, pedogenic development was minimal and the
resulting minesoil consisted of coarse fragments of shale,
sandstone, and coal. The average bulk density of the
minesoil is 1.7 g/cm3. The 2.02 hectare study site, ranging
from 0 to 10 percent slope, does support various weeds in
discontinuous patches. Due to the lack of erosion control
practices, the site has undergone severe erosion, as
evidenced by several deep gullies.
Erosion pins inserted into the minesoil during the fall
of 1980 were measured in the spring of 1981. A total of 68
pins were used, 42 of which occurred in 2 pin sets 1 m
apart. The pins were arranged in clusters and along various
slope contours (Figure 7). Also,the slope profile was
divided into 5 cross-sections to calculate rill erosion by
31
-------
SCALE IN METERS
SLOPE 3
CROSS-
SECTION
4
EROSION PIN
RAIN GUAGE
Section A_A'
Figure 7. Sketch map of Kylertown site.
32
-------
the Alutln method. Pins were identified by 3 numbers:
cross-section, set, and member. The pins were measured on
April 21, 1981, to note the initial height of the minesoil
surface in relation to the top of the pin. During the next
4 months, the pins were measured 6 times to determine the
progressive change in ground surface and also the total
surface change in comparison to the initial measurement. A
recording rain gauge was located on the site to determine
total rainfall between pin readings and R values for each
storm. Also, on June 16, 1981, the cross-sectional area of
all the rills occurring between the 2 pin sets were measured
*
to determine soil loss by rills using the Alutin method.
Results:
The data collected from the Kylertown site is
summarized in Table 3. During the study period, 15
rainfalls delivered a total of 22.05 cm of rain, which
resulted in an average surface decline of 0.42 mm according
to the erosion pins.
The rill erosion estimated from the Alutin method is
summarized in Table 4. The 14 rills measured at the site
had been developing within the past 12 years since the site
was reclaimed.
33
-------
iTable 3
1 Reading
1 Date
I
1
1
1
14/30/81
1
1
15/15/81
1
1
1
1
1
16/16/81
1
1
I
16/23/81
1
1
1
1
1
17/23/81
1
1
18/13/81
1
1 Grand
.
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
Summary of
Rain
Date
/24/81
/28/81
Total
/ 6/81
/11/81
Total
/ 2/81
/ 3/81
/ 3/81
/ 4/81
Total
/21/81
/22/81
Total
/ 1/81
/ 1/81
/20/81
/21/81
Total
/26/81
Total
Total
Storm
#
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
15
Erosion
Rain-
fall
cm
0
4
5
0
5
5
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
2
2
22
.38
.85
.23
.33
.13
.46
.14
.40
.76
.64
.94
.76
.13
.89
.51
.38
.18
.30
.37
. 16
.16
.05
Pin Data
Maxi-
mum I
cm/h
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
2
.38
.76
.13
.52
.02
.40
.64
.64
.52
.25
.25
.25
.30
.61
.54
at Kylertown. I
R
(E*I)
0
1
2
0
3
3
2
3
1
1
7
2
0
3
0
0
8
1
10
6
6
33
.67
.54
.21
.16
.44
.60
.14
.12 "
.22
.22
.70
.80
.41
.21
.41
.41
.45
.17
.44
.25
.25
.41
Pin ErosionZ I
Deposit (-/+) 1
(mm) 1
net total I
I
1
-o.io -o.io !
1
1
1
-0.09 -0.19 1
1
1
1
I
1
-0.83 -1.02 !
1
1
1
-0.65 -1.67 I
I
1
1
1
+1.21 -0.46 I
1
1
1
+0.04 -0.42 I
I
-0.42 I
34
-------
Table 4. Rill Erosion Using Alutin Method at Kylertown.
Slope Location
profile of rills
# I
3 1.64
1.93
1.99
2.09
2.99
2.09
3.99
4.34
6.76
7.47
10.65
4 1.40
1.99
5 2.80
Total 14 rills
Area of Number of 1 Soil loss
rills meter sets (m tons /
cm # hectare)
72 .0 9
15.0
240.0
210.0
280.0
22.5
20.0
37.5
35.0
30.0
108.0
176.95
80.0 2
45.0
93.02
999.0 3
495.63
765.60
35
-------
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
ISO
i oo -
i oo
ISO
Figure 8. Kylertown erosion contour map after final run.
36
-------
Using the X-Y-Z coordinates from each erosion pin, a
contour map from the SURFACE 2 program was drawn (Figure
8). The contours represent the total change in sediment
height since the initial reading. The contour map indicated
no concentrated areas of erosion.
Kittaning site. This site is located near Kittaning,
Pennsylvania and is part of the Allegheny River drainage
basin. A sketch of the study area is shown in Figure 9.
Approximately 15 acres of land make up the study site. In
1980 the entire area was strip mined for coal. As part of
the mining operation, the overlying soil was reclaimed under
the direction of the Soil Conservation Service in Kittaning.
Spoil piles were regraded to approximately 15 percent
slopes, which conformed to the surrounding topography. The
stock-piled top soil was then replaced. The slope of the
land is very steep and ranges between 10 and 20 percent.
The average bulk density of the soil is 0.91 g/cm^. Due to
the steepness of the slope, terraces were constructed to
reduce the effective length of runoff. A sedimentation pond
was also constructed at the base of the slope to collect all
runoff water before it entered a nearby receiving stream
draining into the Allegheny River. Finally, the soil was
fertilized, planted with grasses, and mulched with straw.
By the end of May, 1981, reclamation was completed and a
grass cover was developing.
37
-------
SCALE IN METERS
f
100
20O
7
EROSION PIN
RAIN GUAGE
Figure 9. Sketch map of Kittaning site.
38
-------
To quantify erosion, 138 erosion pins in sets of 2
pins, 1 m apart, were placed at the site on June 20, 1981.
The 69 sets of erosion pins were located along the contour
line on each terrace interval 30.5 m apart (Figure 9). The
pins were identified by 3 numbers: terrace row, pin set,
and pin member. For example, Pin 1-2-1 occurs in terrace
row 1, set 2, and member 1. On June 29 the pins were
measured to note the initial height of the soil surface in
relation to the top of the pin. During the next 3 months
the pins were measured 8 times to note the progressive
change in ground surface and also the total change in
comparison to the initial measurement. On July 28 the
cross-sectional area of all rills occurring between the 1 m
pin sets at each terrace interval were measured to determine
soil loss from the rills by the Alutin method.
Results:
The data collected from the erosion pins is summarized
in Table 5.
Overall, a total of 25 storms resulted in 31.52 cm of
rain and a average surface decline of 2.71 mm. The amount
of erosion due to the rills is summarized in Table 6. A
total of 9 rills was measured at the site at 5 terrace
intervals. Rill erosion produced an estimated soil loss of
309.20 m ton/hectare.
39
-------
Using X-Y-Z coordinates from the erosion pin data a
contour map from the SURFACE 2 program was drawn (Figure
10). The contour values represent the total change in
sediment height since the initial reading. One particular
area undergoing concentrated erosion is evident at the site.
This area noted on the contour map as 12 to 16 mm of erosion
was exposed to a greater length of runoff due to the longer
distances between terraces on this side of the slope. Also,
grass cover in this area was not complete (55Z).
Appendix D contains contour maps for each time the pins
were measured.
40
-------
liable 5. Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning. I
+ +
\ Reading
1 Date
Rain
Date
Storm
#
Rain-
fa
11
Maxi-
R
mum I (E*I)
1 cm
1
1
1 6/31/81
1
1
1
1
|7/ 8/81
1
1
1
17/14/81
I
I
17/21/81
1
1
I
1
17/28/81
1
1
|
1
1
18/18/81
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
/ 2/81
/ 3/81
/ 5/81
Total
/13/81
Total
/19/81
/21/81
Total
/26/81
/28/81
Total
/ 3/81
/15/81
/16/81
Total
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
3
6
0
0
4
19
2
2
3
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
.48
.13
.15
.19
.95
.03
.03
.68
.25
.94
.52
.89
.41
.76
.38
.25
.40
3
0
0
3
2
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
cm/h
.81
.13
.15
.56
.03
.56
.25
.52
.38
.02
.13
.50
9.
0.
0.
9.
19.
4.
4.
9.
0.
9.
3.
0.
4.
2.
0.
0.
3.
98
16
22
34
70
81
81
26
41
67
43
67
10
14
17
92
23
Pin ErosionZ
Deposit (-/+)
(mm)
net total
+1.12 +1.12
-2.16 -1.04
-1.14 -2.18
+0.14 -2.04 1
1
1
1
1
1
-1.05 -3.09 |
41
-------
liable 5. (Continued)
8/24/81 1 0.33 0.66 1.30
8/28/81 2 1.02 2.03 4.81
8/30/81 3 0.64 0.38 0.67
8/30/81 4 0.76 1.02 2.14
9/ 1/81 5 0.38 0.38 0.67
9/ 1/81 6 0.76 1.52 3.44
9/ 1/81 Total 6 3.89 13.02 -0.56 -3.65
9/ 2/81 1 0.25 0.25 0.41
9/ 3/81 2 2.92 0.25 0.41
9/ 8/81 3 2.03 2.54 6.25
9/ 8/81 Total 3 5.21 7.07 -1-1.32 -2.32
9/12/81 1 0.25 0.25 0.41
9/15/81 2 0.76 0.63 1.20
9/26/81 3 0.51 1.02 2.14
9/27/81 4 0.07 0.18 0.27
9/29/81 Total 4 1.70 4.02 -0.38 -2.71
>M» < ^^ *m « W» » ^ « ^ ^ « ^ « « ^ «» *
-------
Table 6.
Terrace
number
*
1
3
3
4
4
8
10
10
10
Total of
Rill
Locatio
of rill
#
1.
1.
5.
5.
7.
4.
1.
2.
3.
9 rill
erosion
n
s
60
25
50
09
75
43
35
55
30
s
Area
rills
cm2
125
60
120
150
40
195
75
500
75
using
of
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Alutin method
Number of 1
meter sets
#
13
9
9
8
8
8
5
5
5
at
Ki ttaning.
Soil loss
(m
hec
14
29
35
36
193
309
tons /
tare)
.31
.77
.35
.28
.49
.20
43
-------
200
200
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
i oo -
1 00
200
.300
400
SOD
Figure 10. Kittaning erosion contour map after final run.
44
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bridges, E.M. 1969. Eroded soils of the lower Swansea
Valley. J. of Soil Science 20(2): 236-245.
Colbert, E.G. 1956. Rates of erosion
Formation. Plateau 28(4):73-76.
in the Chinle
Cone, V.M. 1916. Flow through weir notches with thin edges
and full contractions. Journal of Agricultural
Research. 5(23): 1051-1111.
Curtis, W.R. 1974. Sediment yield
watersheds in eastern Kentucky.
2nd Res. and Applied Technology
Land Reclamation, Louisville,
1974. Nat'l. Coal Association,
from strip mined
pp. 88-100. In:
Symposium on Mined
KY. 22-24 Oct.
Washington, D.C.
Einstein, H.A. 1968. Deposition of suspended particles in
a gravel bed. J.of the Hydraulics Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 96 (HY5):1197-1205.
Emmett, W.W. 1970. The hydraulics of overland flow.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper
662-A. 68 pp.
Foster, G.R. and L.D. Meyer. 1972. Transport of soil
particles by shallow flow. Trans, of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 15(1): 99-102.
Foster, G.
R . and L.D
of upland
mechanics.
Technology
Sources.
Workshop, U.S.D.A.
U.S. Agr. Res. Se r
Meyer. 1975. Mathematical simulation
erosion using fundamental erosion
In: Present and Prospective
for Predicting Sediment Yields and
Proc. of the 1972 Sediment-Yield
Sedimentation Lab.
(Rep) ARS-S-40:
Oxford, MS
207.
Foster, G.R., L.D. Meyer, and C.A. Onstad. 1977. A runoff
erosivity factor and variable slope length
exponents for soil loss estimates. Trans. of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 20(4):
683-687.
Laws, J.O. 1940. Recent studies in rain drops and erosion.
Agricultural Engineering 2: 431-434.
Laws, J.O. and D.A. Parsons. 1943.
drop size to intensity.
American Geophysical Union
The relation of rain
Transactions of the
24: 452-459.
45
-------
McGuiness, J.L., L.L. Harrold, and W.M. Edwards. 1971.
Relation of rainfall energy and streamflow to
sediment yield from small and large watersheds.
J. Soil and Water Conservation 26(6): 233-235.
Mihara, Y. 1951. Raindrop and soil erosion. Bulletin of
the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences,
Series A, 1. 51 pp.
Mutchler, C.K. 1971. Splash amounts from waterdrop impact
on a smooth surface. Water Resources Research 7:
195-200.
Oleson, M. 1977. Procedure for computing sheet and rill
erosion on project areas. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Technical Guide Reference no. 37.
Sampson, R.J. 1975. Surface 2 Graphics Systems. Kansas
Geological Survey, Kansas.
Schumm, S.A. 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes
in badlandsin Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological
Society of America, Bulletin 67, 597-646.
Schumm, S.A. 1967. Erosion measured by stakes. Revue de
Geomorphologie Dynamique 17: 161-162.
Swanson, N.P. 1965. Rotating-boom rainfall simulator.
Trans. of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 6(1): 319-322.
Tackett, J.L., and R.W. Pearson. 1965. Some
characteristics of soil crusts formed by simulated
rainfall. Soil Science 99:407-413.
Wishcmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1958. Rainfall energy and
its relationship to soil loss. Transactions of
the American Geophysical Union 39: 285-291.
Wishcmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall
erosion losses. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Science and Education Administration, Agriculture
Handbook 537. Washington, D.C.
Yalin, Y.S. 1963. An expression for hedload
transportation. J. of the Hydraulics Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 89(HY 3): 221-250.
Young, R.A. and C.K. Mutchler. 1977. Erodibility of some
Minnesota soils. J. Soil and Water Conservation
32(4): 180-182.
46
-------
Young, R.A. and C.A. Onstad. 1978. Characteristics of rill
and interrill eroded soil. Trans, of the A.S.A.E.
21(6): 1126-1130.
47
-------
APPENDIX A
EROSION PIN PROGRAM AND FORMAT
48
-------
APPENDIX A
EROSION PIN PROGRAM AND FORMAT
PURPOSE: TO COMPARE EROSION PIN MEASUREMENTS AND COMPUTE THE
DIFFERENCE FROM THE LAST MEASUREMENT AND THE INITIAL
MEASUREMENT.
TO AVERAGE THE DIFFERENCES AND COMPUTE THE AVERAGE
SURFACE ADVANCE OR DECLINE AT EACH SLOPE CROSS-
SECTION AND FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.
TO LIST THE TOP 10 EROSION PINS WHICH UNDERWENT THE
LARGEST CHANGE IN ELEVATION SINCE THE LAST RUN.
INPUT FORMAT:
COLUMNS INFORMATION
1-3 LOCATION
4-9 DATE
10-11 RUN
12-16 PIN
17-21 READING
23-27 PIN
28-32 READING
34-38 PIN
39-43 READING
45-49 PIN
50-54 READING
56-60 PIFT
61-65 READING
67-71 PIN
72-76 READING
-------
PROGRAM:
o AVEB-0
CHARACTER * 3 LOG
INTEGER DATE,DAT(100),RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER,COUNT,A,B.C.D,ORDER(200)
REAL DRUNA, DRUNB,READNG(20,11,21,3),SUMA,SUMB.TOTALA,TOTALB
1,AVEA,AVEB,AVEC,AVED,DIFF
DIMENSION DIFF(200),A(200),B(200),C(200),D(200)
WRITE (6,9)
FORMAT ('O',/,IX,'LOCATION',5X,'DATE',5X,'RUN*N',5X ,
l'PIN',5X,'READING(MM)',5X,'DRUN l',5X,'DRUN N-l')
SUMA=0
SUMB-0
TOTALA=0
TOTALB-0
AVEA-0
AVEC-0
AVED-0
ICOUNT-0
COUNT-0
KOUNT-0
DO 12 RUN - 1,10
DO 13 ROW - 1,10
DO 1A SET - 1,21
DO 15 MEMBER -1,3
READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER)-0
15 CONTINUE
14 CONTINUE
13 CONTINUE
12 CONTINUE
LOOP
-------
READ (55,11,END-20)LOC,DATE,RUN,(ROW,SET,MEMBER,READNG(RUN,ROW
1,SET,MEMBER),1-1,6)
DAT(RUN)-DATE
END LOOP
11 FORMAT (A3,16,12,6(12,12,11,F5.2,IX))
20 DO 16 RUN - 2,10
DO 17 ROW = 1,10
DO 18 SET - 1,21
DO 19 MEMBER -1,3
IF(READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER).EQ.111.11) GO TO 40
IF(READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER).EQ.O.O)GO TO 40
COUNT=COUNT+1
ICOUNT-ICOUNT+1
DRUNB = READNG(RUN-1, ROW,SET,MEMBER)-READNG(RUN,ROW.SET,MEMBER)
DRUNA=READNG(l,ROW,SET,MEMBER)-READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER)
IF (ABS(DRUNB).NE.READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER)) THEN DO
IF (ABS(DRUNA).EQ.READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER))DRUNA-DRUNB
M KOUNT-KOUNT+1
DIFF(KOUNT)-DRUNB
D(KOUNT)=ABS(DRUNB)
A(KOUNT)=ROW
B(KOUNT)=SET
C(KOUNT)=MEMBER
SUMA»SUMA+DRUNA
SUMB=SUMB+DRUNB
TOTALA-TOTALA+DKUNA
TOTALS"TOTALB+DRUNB
WRITE(6,21)LOC,DAT(RUN),RUN,ROW,SET,MEMBER,READNG(RUN,ROW,SET,M
1 EMBER),DRUNA.DRUNB
END IF
40 CONTINUE
19 CONTINUE
18 CONTINUE
IF(COUNT.EQ.O) GO TO 17
AVEA=SUMA/COUNT
AVEB=SUMB/COUNT
-------
Ul
M
IF(AVEA.NE.O.O) WRITE(6,30)AVEA,AVEB
COUNT-0
AVEA-0
AVEB-0
SUMA-0
SUMB=0
17 CONTINUE
IF(ICOUNT.EQ.O) GO TO 16
AVEOTOTALA/ICOUNT
AVED-TOTALB/ICOUNT
IF(AVEC.NE.O.O) WRITE(6,31)AVEC,AVED
ICOUNT-0
AVEC-0
AVED-0
TOTALA-0
TOTALB»0
IF (KOUNT.NE.O) THEN DO
CALL QSORT(D(1),D(2),ORDER,KOUNT,1,20)
WRITE(6,27)
WRITE(6,28)
DO 10 1=1,10
J-KOUNT-I+1
JJ=ORDER(J)
WRITE(6,29) A(JJ),B(JJ),C(JJ),DIFF( JJ)
10 CONTINUE
KOUNT-0
END IF
WRITE (6,9)
16 CONTINUE
21 FORMATC ',3X,A3,6X,I6,5X,I2,5X,I2,12,11,3(7X ,F6.2 ) )
27 FORMAT('0','LARGEST SEDIMENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS RUN
28 FORMAT('0',/,10X,'PIN',5X,'SEDIMENT CHANGE(MM)',/)
29 FORMAT ('0 ' , 8X,12 ,12,11,1 OX , F6.2 )
30 FORMAT('0',50X,'AVEA=',F6.2,3X,'AVEB-' ,F6.2,/)
31 FORMATC0',48X,'TOTALA-',F7.2,IX,'TOTALB-' ,F7.2,/)
STOP
END
-------
APPENDIX B
KARTHAUS DATA
53
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE 7. EROSION PIN DATA FROM KARTHAUS
RUN*N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PIN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
READI
36
37
28
34
39
42
24
39
5
37
27
29
37
30
32
23
33
29
31
17
17
35
38
41
PLOT 1
NG(MM) DRUN 1
.43
.34
.00
.78
.00
.30
.60
.20
.65
.10
.70
.30
.10
.44
.58
.72
.90
.80
.46
.20
.50
.00
.84
.00
-4
-0
-0
-1
-5
-7
0
-0
-1
-2
-1
-4
AVEA- -2
PLOT 2
-1
-9
0
-5
-4
-3
-0
-5
4
-2
-0
-8
AVEA- -3
.73
.64
.08
.46
.38
.20
.08
.20
.30
.50
.60
.68
.47
.80
.34
.24
.72
.28
.23
.18
.80
.70
. 13
.44
.95
.08
DRUN
-4.
-0.
-0.
-1 .
-5.
-7.
0.
-0.
-1 .
-2.
-1 .
-4.
AVEB- -2
-1 .
-9.
0.
-5.
-4.
" -3 .
-0.
-5.
4.
-2.
-0.
-8.
AVEB- -3
N-l
73
64
08
46
38
20
08
20
30
50
60
68
.47
80
34
24
72
28
23
18
80
70
13
44
95
.08
TOTALA- -2.78 TOTALS'
-2.78
LARGEST SEDIMENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS RUN
PIN SEDIMENT CHANGE(MM)
2 12 -9.34
2 43 -8.95
1 23 -7.20
1 22 -5.38
2 21 -5.72
2 32 -5.80
2 22 -4.28
2 33 4.70
1 43 -4.68
1 11 -4.73
54
-------
TABLE 7. CONTINUED
RUN*N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
PIN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
PLOT 1
READING(MM) DRUN 1
36
35
27
34
39
43
35
38
6
38
32
32
36
32
35
23
37
31
33
18
27
37
39
38
.92
.80
.26
.84
.06
.41
.10
.00
.28
.24
.18
.26
.38
.24
.12
.00
.02
.64
.74
.60
.00
.28
.15
.87
-5
0
0
-1
-5
-8
-10
1
-1
-3
-6
-7
AVEA- -3
PLOT 2
-1
-11
-2
-5
-7
-5
-2
-7
-4
-4
-0
-6
AVEA- -4
.22
.90
.66
.52
.44
.31
.42
.00
.93
.64
.08
.64
.97
.08
.14
.30
.00
.40
.07
.46
.20
.80
.41
.75
.82
.87
DRUN
-0.
1.
0.
-0.
-0.
-1 .
-10.
1.
-0.
-1.
-4 .
-2.
AVEB- -1
0.
-1 .
-2.
0.
-3.
-1 .
-2.
-1 .
-9.
-2 .
-0 .
2.
AVEB- -1
N-l
49
54
74
06
06
11
50
20
63
14
48
96
.50
72
80
54
72
12
84
28
40
50
28
31
13
.79
TOTALA- -4.42 TOTALS- -1.64
LARGEST SEDIMENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS RUN
PIN SEDIMENT CHANGE(MM)
1 31 -10.50
2 33 -9.50
1 42 -4.48
2 22 -3.12
2 43 2.13
2 31 -2.28
2 13 -2.54
2 41 -2.28
1 43 -2.96
1 23 -1.11
55
-------
TABLE 7. CONTINUED
RUN*N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
PIN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
PLOT 1
READING(MM) DRUN 1
36
34
27
34
37
43
36
38
6
37
34
32
38
27
37
23
39
31
31
18
28
35
41
33
.28
.30
.20
.10
.53
.65
.75
.88
.30
.12
.18
.24
.00
.44
.80
.37
.42
.40
.20
.40
.80
.60
.75
.30
-4
2
0
-0
-3
-8
-12
0
-1
-2
-8
-7
AVEA- -3
PLOT 2
-2
-6
-4
-5
-9
-4
0
-7
-6
-2
-3
-1
.58
.40
.72
.78
.91
.55
.07
o!2
.95
.52
.08
.62
.90
.70
= 34
.98
.37
.80
.83
.08
.00
.60
.73
.35
.25
DRUN
0
1
0
0
1
-0
-1
-0
-0
1
-2
0
AVEB-
-1
4
-2
-0
-2
0
2
0
-1
1
-2
5
N-l
.64
.50
.06
.74
.53
.24
.65
.88
.02
.12
.00
.02
0.07
.62
.80
.68
.37
.40
.24
.54
.20
.80
.68
.60
.57
AVEA- -4.57
AVEB =
0.30
TOTALA"
-4.24 TOTALS'
0.18
LARGEST SEDIMENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS RUN
PIN SEDIMENT CHANGE(MM)
2 43 5.57
2 12 4.80
2 42 -2.60
2 13 -2.68
2 22 -2.40
1 42 -2.00
2 31 2.54
2 11 -1.62
2 41 1.68
1 41 1.12
56
-------
TABLE 8. RUNOFF SAMPLE DATA FROM KARTHAUS
UN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIME
MIN
1
5
12
15
18
19
20
22
29
32
36
41
45
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
2.14
2.42
2.62
6.87
14.25
20.35
18.52
18.52
6.90
10.18
25.89
35.92
38.92
S.CONC
MG/L
1894.
1055.
2200.
1500.
1842.
1944.
1814.
1663.
909.
1004.
1803.
1473.
1542.
EROSION
MM
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0007
0.0006
CUMA
0.0028
RUN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RUN
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIME
MIN
3
5
10
15
20
27
34
41
TIME
MIN
3
3
12
15
18
24
25
30
33
35
38
38
40
41
42
43
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
7.91
58.50
67.00
88.20
86.06
78.85
99.58
1.51
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
1 1. 19
10.71
46.56
89.42
11 .67
15.50
14.75
13.50
23.16
21.05
33.14
33.14
94.20
14.75
55.67
34.86
S.CONC
MG/L
2157.
2222.
1876.
1579.
1663 .
1695.
1404.
1362.
S.CONC
MG/L
3854.
1785 .
1258.
1204.
1130.
1255.
1242.
1145.
1197 .
1087.
1288.
1137.
1146.
1133.
1113.
1123.
EROSION
MM
0.0001
0.0007
0.0017
0.0018
0.0019
0.0025
0.0026
0.0000
CUMA
0.0113
EROSION
MM
0.0003
0. 0000
0.0014
0.0009
0.0001
0.0003
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0003
0.0000
0.0006
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
CUMA
0.0048
57
-------
TABLE 8.
RUN
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
RUN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RUN
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CONTINUED
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TIME
MIN
1
5
9
13
17
18
20
21
28
30
36
40
44
TIME
MIN
1
4
10
14
20
26
33
40
TIME
MIN
2
3
10
14
18
23
25
30
33
35
37
38
40
41
42
43
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
8.31
8.42
8.22
13.06
12.22
22.00
30.20
28.13
44.90
42.31
51.44
57.75
56.00
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
35.38
58.00
65.57
49.14
63.79
60.13
57.81
74.16
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
83.09
81 .64
87.69
99.13
92.92
12.25
31.78
50.00
56.79
60.36
62.86
40.00
25.71
32.00
49 .67
55.00
S.CONC
MG/L
3939.
3326.
3650.
4311.
6084.
6000.
5350.
5467.
5234.
5327.
4536.
4416.
4732.
S.CONC
MG/L
5130.
4935.
4423.
3843.
3843.
3764.
3319.
3312.
S.CONC
MG/L
3654.
3296.
2982 .
2961 .
2892 .
2806.
2838.
2933.
2733.
2918.
2697.
2634.
2818.
2619.
2606.
2645.
EROSION
MM
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
0.0006
0.0008
0.0003
0.0009
0.0004
0.0043
0.0012
0.0037
0.0027
0.0028
CUMA
0.0184
EROSION
MM
0.0005
0.0023
0.0046
0.0020
0.0039
0.0036
0.0035
0.0045
CUMA
0.0248
EROSION
MM
0.0016
0.0007
0.0048
0.0031
0.0028
0.0005
0.0000
0.0019
0.0012
0.0009
0.0009
0.0003
0.0004
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
CUMA
0.0201
58
-------
TABLE 9. DENSITY DATA FROM KARTHAUS
(9/11/81)
DRY DENSITY
(G/CC)
0.97
0.89
0.88
1.10
0.94
0.84
0.95
0.87
0.91
1.16
MOISTURE
12,
10,
10,
12,
6,
14,
7,
9,
7,
8.7
TABLE 10. RAINFALL DATA FROM KARTHAUS
CAN #
111
112
121
122
131
132
211
212
221
222
231
232
RUN 1
RAIN
(FT)
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.07
0.12
0.19
0. 11
0. 14
0.07
0.10
0. 10
0.21
RUN 2
RAIN
(FT)
0.36
0.28
0.31
0.12
0.35
0.43
0.32
0.37
0.13
0.24
0.30
0.49
RUN 3
RAIN
(FT)
0.39
0.29
0.28
0.13
0.37
0.40
0.27
0.43
0.12
0.34
0.37
0.47
59
-------
APPENDIX C
KLINGERSTOWN DATA
60
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLE 11. EROSION PIN DATA FROM KLINGERSTOWN
PLOT 1
RUN*N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PIN
1 11
1 12
1 13
1 14
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
1 31
1 32
1 33
1 34
1 41
1 42
1 43
1 44
1 51.
1 52
I 53
1 54
1 61
1 62
1 63
1 64
1 71
1 72
1 73
1 74
1 81
1 82
1 83
1 84
1 91
1 92
1 93
1 94
1101
1102
1103
1104
READING(MM)
12.64
,96
,10
,82
,45
2
5
3
12
6,
10
7
13
,05
,22
,54
.22
.12
,73
.50
,55
,77
,24
,88
,56
,54
,22
,35
,35
,72
,27
,90
58
,50
42
,50
08
20
86
00
16
04
58
00
10.92
6.50
13.22
14.23
11,
13
7,
16
4,
4,
19,
12,
12,
8,
15,
13,
11,
6,
9.
7.
9.
21,
8.
13.
4.
18.
9.
8.
11.
11.
DRUN 1
-4.14
10.96
4.48
1.28
-3.95
-2.05
-1.84
-1 .96
-0.52
-4.92
-2.37
-0.75
4.61
-1.73
0.76
0.06
-6.96
0.50
-0.58
1.73
-4.23
-0.02
1.13
6.15
-3.83
-1 .76
-7.22
11.20
-0.48
-2 .92
2.47
-3.70
-0.06
2.36
-1 .98
-2.22
-0.62
5.84
4.33
7.77
DRUN N-l
-4 .14
10.96
4.48
1.28
-3.95
-2.05
-1.84
-1 .96
-0.52
-4 .92
-2.37
-0.75
4.61
-1.73
0.76
0.06
-6.96
0.50
-0.58
1.73
-4 .23
-0.02
1.13
6.15
-3 .83
-1 .76
-7 .22
-11 .20
-0.48
-2 .92
2.47
-8.70
-0 .06
2.36
-1 .98
-2 .22
-0 .62
5.84
4.33
7.77
AVEA- -0.56
AVEB- -0.56
61
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
PLOT 2
RUN*N PIN
2 2 11
2 2 12
2 2 13
2 2 14
2 2 21
2 2 22
2 2 23
2 2 24
2 2 31
2 2 32
2 2 33
2 2 34
2 2 41
2 2 42
2 2 43
2 2 44
2 2 51
2 2 52
2 2 53
2 2 54
2 2 61
2 2 62
2 2 63
2 2 64
2 2 71
2 2 72
2 2 73
2 2 74
2 2 81
2 2 82
2 2 83
2 2 84
2 2 91
2 2 92
2 2 93
2 2 94
2 2101
2 2102
2 2103
2 2104
DING(MM)
2.20
6.00
6.22
4.88
13.52
7.56
10.80
12.60
12.30
14.80
19 .26
6.70
6. 18
13.00
7.82
10.18
2.60
11.60
11.30
6.65
13.00
4.84
13.65
7.30
8.42
5.00
7.38
13.20
18.00
9.76
14.05
6.78
8.20
16.58
10.62
3.25
11.10
10.06
7.00
12.06
AVEA
DRUN 1
3.80
3.90
4.68
-2.32
-5.14
-1.76
-4. 15
-2.80
0.38
5.20
-10.50
-0.32
5.44
-1.46
1.94
-7.04
3.40
2.24
-1.45
-3.35
-2.20
5.54
-4.03
4.32
-0.04
-1 .00
1.27
-5.27
-6.57
-2 .99
-2.70
-0.56
0.88
-1 .01
0.92
0.15
-4. 10
1.49
3.44
-5.36
- -0.68
DRUN N-l
3.80
3.90
4.68
-2.32
-5.14
-1 .76
-4.15
-2 .80
0.38
5.20
-10.50
-0.32
5.44
-1.46
1.94
-7.04
3.40
2.24
-1.45
-3.35
-2.20
5.54
-4.03
4.32
-0.04
-1 .00
1.27
-5.27
-6.57
-2.99
-2 .70
-0.56
0.88
-1.01
0.92
0. 15
-4.10
1.49
3.44
-5 .36
AVEB- -0.68
TOTALA- -0.62 TOTALS- -0.62
62
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
LARGEST
SEDIMENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS RUN
PIN SEDIMENT CHANGE(MM)
1 74 -11.20
1 12 10.96
2 33 -10.50
1 84 -8.70
1 73 -7.22
1104 7.77
2 44 -7.04
1 64 6.15
2 81 -6.57
1 51 -6.96
63
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
PLOT 1
RUN*N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
PIN
1 11
1 12
1 13
1 14
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
1 31
1 32
1 33
1 34
1 41
1 42
1 43
1 44
1 51
1 52
1 53
1 54
1 61
1 62
1 63
1 64
1 71
1 72
1 73
1 74
1 81
1 32
1 83
1 84
1 91
1 92
1 93
1 94
1101
1102
1103
1104
READING (MM) DRUN 1
13.63
2.46
5.34
5.52
10.74
7.80
8.97
4.20
14.00
7.70
7.10
14.00
7.27
15.80
6.37
2.88
14.73
14.45
13.00
8.00
17.65
17.73
13.20
8.50
9.73
8.23
10.52
20.34
12.82
13.74
6.00
17 .60
10.00
8.00
12.71
14.70
11.57
6.00
13.80
15.47
-5.13
11.46
4.24
-0.42
-2 .24
-3.80
-0.59
1.38
-1.30
3.50
2.26
-1.25
4.89
-0.76
-1.37
2.06
-2. 13
-1.41
-1 .36
2.08
-6.53
-4.03
-0.80
4.55
-3.98
-2.49
-8.32
-10.04
-5.22
-3.46
1.33
-8.30
-0.90
2.40
-3.11
-5.92
-1 .27
6.34
3.75
6.53
AVEA= -0.73
DRUN N-l
-0.99
0.50
-0.24
-1 .70
1.71
-1.75
1.25
3.34
-0.78
8.42
4.63
-0.50
0.28
0.97
-2,13
2.00
4.83
-1.91
-0.78
0.35
-2 .30
-4 .01
-1 .93
-1 .60
-0.15
-0.73
-1 . 10
1.16
-4.74
-0 . 54
-I .14
0.40
-0.84
0.04
-1 . 13
-3.70
-0.65
0. 50
-0.58
-1 .24
AVEB- -0.17
64
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
PLOT 2
RUN*N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
PIN
2 11
2 12
2 13
2 14
2 21
2 22
2 23
2 24
2 31
2 32
2 33
2 34
2 41
2 42
2 43
2 44
2 51
2 52
' 2 53
2 54
2 61
2 62
2 63
2 64
2 71
2 73
2 74
2 81
2 82
2 83
2 84
2 91
2 92
2 93
2 94
2101
2102
2103
2104
READING(MM) DRUN
4.11
3.84
3.10
1.20
13.30
10.00
4.64
14.48
6.33
19.50
17.22
12.80
5.70
8.70
9.20
4.50
6.44
12.10
3.70
2.00
6.30
14.20
4.00
12.24
8.00
9.45
13.88
22.35
7.48
16.30
8.30
4.14
16.53
6.36
1.00
12.70
21.02
3.25
14.34
1.89
6.06
7.80
1.36
-4.92
-4.20
2.01
-4.68
6.35
0.50
-8.46
-6.42
5.92
2.84
0.56
-1 .36
-0.44
1.74
6. 15
1.30
4.50
-3.82
5.62
-0.62
0.38
-0.80
-5.95
-10.92
-0.71
-4.95
-2.08
4.94
-0.96
5. 18
2.40
-5.70
-9.47
7.19
-7.64
AVEA- -0.24
DRUN N-l
-1.91
2.16
3.12
3.68
0.22
-2.44
6.16
-1 .88
5.97
-4
2
-6
70
04
10
0.48
4.30
38
68
84
-1
5
-3
-0.50
7.60
4.65
6.70
-9.36
9.65
-4 .94
0.42
-2 .07
-0 .68
-4.35
2.28
-2 .25
-1 .52
4.06
0.05
4.26
2.25
-1 .60
-10.96
3.75
-2.28
AVEB- 0.42
TOTALA'
-0.48 TOTALS'
0. 12
65
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
LARGEST
SEDIMENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS RUN
PIN SEDIMENT CHANGE(MM)
2102 -10.96
2 62 -9.36
2 63 9.65
1 32 8.42
2 53 7.60
2 61 6.70
2 23 6.16
2 34 -6.10
2 31 5.97
2 44 5.68
66
-------
TABLE 12. RUNOFF SAMPLE DATA FROM KLINGERSTOWN
RUN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RUN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RUN
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RUN
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
45
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
45
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
106.43
S.CONC
MG/L
9778.
9067.
11818.
12000.
10933.
9333.
8593.
4500.
S.CONC
MG/L
13846.
2923.
9077.
9429.
10462.
9217.
8966.
8667.
S.CONC
MG/L
6333.
4154.
2647.
3095.
3733.
3188.
4026.
3766.
S. CONG
MG/L
4853.
3286.
3611 .
3662.
4737.
4444.
3867.
4242.
EROSION
MM
0.0090
0.0083
0.0108
0.0110
0.0100
0.0086
0.0158
0.0041
TOTAL
0.0776
EROSION
MM
0.0127
0.0027
0.0083
0.0087
0.0096
0.0085
0.0082
0.0159
TOTAL
0.0745
EROSION
MM
0.0058
0.0038
0.0024
0.0028
0.0034
0.0029
0.0037
0.0035
TOTAL
0.0284
EROSION
MM
0.0045
0.0030
0.0033
0.0034
0.0043
0.0041
0.0035
0.0039
TOTAL
0.0300
67
-------
TABLE 12. CONTINUED
RUN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RUN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RUN
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RUN
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PLOT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
45
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
45
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
45
TIME
MIN
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
45
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
RUNOFF
CM***3/SEC
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
65.55
S.CONC
MG/L
8250.
8320.
7680.
6769.
7111.
6444.
5833.
4727.
S.CONC
MG/L
9273.
7375.
6909.
6261.
6261 .
6308.
6133.
5600.
S.CONC
MG/L
2321.
1286.
1452 .
1154.
1667.
1467.
2286.
1818.
S.CONC
MG/L
3553 .
3000.
2571 .
2615.
1852.
3766.
3077.
11053.
EROSION
MM
0.0047
0.0047
0.0043
0.0038
0.0040
0.0036
0.0066
0.0027
TOTAL
0.0345
EROSION
MM
0.0052
0.0042
0.0039
0.0035
0.0035
0.0036
0.0035
0.0063
TOTAL
0.0337
EROSION
MM
0.0013
0.0007
0.0008
0.0007
0.0009
0.0008
0.0013
0.0021
TOTAL
0.0086
EROSION
MM
0.0020
0.0017
0.0015
0.0015
0.0010
0.0021
0.0017
0.0125
TOTAL
0.0240
68
-------
TABLE 13.
DENSITY DATA FROM KLINGERSTOWN
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
DRY DENSITY
(G/CC)
Z MOIST
DRY DENSITY
(G/CC)
1.53
1.41
1.41
1.37
1.36
TABLE 14.
Chart
value
(in.)
1.36
To get Hm
(chart
Chart
value
(In.)
0.80
21.7
28.2
25.2
28.1
27.3
CALIBRATION OF
V-no tch
head
(in.)
2.00
in m .
value )
V-no tch
head
(in.)
2.40
PLOT 1
factor
(in.)
1.47
(0.0374)
PLOT 2
factor
(in.)
3.00
1.40
1.47
1.50
1.45
1.47
V-NOTCH BARREL
factor
(m)
0.0374
factor
(»>
0.0762
2 MOIST,
25.6
24.4
24.1
23.7
23.8
To get Hm in m.
(chart value)
(0.0762)
69
-------
TABLE 15. RAINFALL DATA FROM KLINGERSTOWN
DISTANCE
OF
CAN
FROM
CENTER
(feet)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
RUN 1
RAIN
cm
3.6
3.6
11.0
7.1
5.0
7.1
9.3
10.1
RUN 2
RAIN
cm
6.6
7.4
9.9
10.7
6.9
12.1
9.6
11.5
RUN 3
RAIN
cm
12.2
10.2
13.9
8.9
9.4
9.9
10.2
13.3
RUN 4
RAIN
cm
13.2
12. 1
13.7
9.9
8.8
9.3
9.9
7.7
70
-------
Figure 11' Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 1)
Ave. Pin
(-) Erosion
(+) Deposit
Erosion
Measured
Date
Rain
Date
6/31/81
7/ 2/81
7/ 3/81
7/ 5/81
Rainfall
cm .
6.48
0.13
0.15
4.19
Maximum
Intensity
cm/hr
3.81
0.13
0.15
3.56
R
9.98
0.16
0.22
9.34
7/ 8/81
Total
10.95
19.70
+1.12
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
300
SOO -
100
1 00
200
500
4-00
SOO
71
-------
Figure 12 Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 2)
Erosion Rain Rainfall Maximum R Ave. Pin
Measured Date cm. Intensity (-) Erosion
cm/hr (+) Deposit
Date
7/14/81
7/13/81 2.03 2.03 4.81
Total
2.03
4.81 -2.16
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MMJ
200
200
100 -
1 00
200
200
400
SOO
72
-------
Figure 13 . Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 3)
Erosion
Measured
Date
7/21/81
Rain
Date
Rainfall
cm.
7/19/81 3.68
7/21/81 0.25
Maximum
Intensity
cm/hr
3.56
0.25
Av e. Pin
(-) Erosion
(+) Deposit
Total
3.94
9.26
0.41
9.67
-1.14
300
200 -
TOO
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS /N (MMJ
400
soo
73
-------
Figure 14
Erosion
Measured
Date
7/28/81
SumBar, of erosion pin data at Kictanlng (run 4)
R
Rain Rainfall Maximum
Date cm. Inte°^Cy
cm/hr
7/26/81 1.52
7/28/81 0.89
*
2.41
1.52
0.38
Total
Av e. Pin
(-) Erosion
(+) Deposit
3.43
0.67
4.10 +0.14
300
200-
100 -
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MMJ
74
-------
Figure 15 . Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 5).
Ave. Pin
(-) Erosion
(+) Deposit
Erosion
Measured
Date
Rain
Date
8/ 3/81
8/15/81
8/16/81
Rainfall
cm «
0.76
0.38
0.25
Maximum
Intensity
cm/ hr
1.02
0.13
0.50
R
2.14
0. 17
0.92
8/18/81
Total
1.40
3.23
-1.05
300
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS /N (MM)
200 -
1 00
4-00
soc
75
-------
Figure 16. Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 6)
Erosion
Measured
Date
9/ 1/81
Rain
Date
Rainfall
cm .
8/24/81
8/28/81
8/30/81
8/30/81
9/ 1/81
9/ 1/81
0.33
1.02
0.64
0.76
0.38
0.76
Total
3.89
Maximum
Intensity
cm/hr
R
Av e
0.66
2.03
0.38
1.02
0.38
1.52
1.30
4.81
0.67
2.14
0.67
3.44
13.02
Pin
Erosion
Depo si t
-0.56
200
£00 -
100 -
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
4-00
500
76
-------
Figure 17. Summary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 7)
Ave. Pin
(-) Erosion
( + ) Deposit
Erosion
Measured
Date
Rain
Date
9/ 2/81
9/ 3/81
9/ 8/81
Rainfall
cm .
0.25
2.92
2.03
Maximum
In tensi ty
cm/ hr
0.25
0.25
2.54
R
0.41
0.41
6.25
9/ 8/81
Total
5.21
7.07
+1.32
300
200 -
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS IN (MM)
100
4-00
soo
77
-------
Figure 18. Sucaary of erosion pin data at Kittaning (run 8)
Ave. Pin
(- ) Erosion
(+) Deposit
Erosion
Measured
Date
Rain
Date
9/12/81
9/15/81
8/30/81
9/27/81
Rainfall
cm .
0.25
0.76
0.76
0.07
Maximum
Intensity
cm/ hr
0.25
0.63
1.02
0. 18
R
0.41
1.20
2.14
0.27
9/29/81
Total
1.70
4.02
-0.38
500
SCALE IN METERS
CONTOURS /N (MMJ
eoo
100 -
200
300
400
soo
78
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inslructions on the reverse before completing}
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-84-Q41
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
March 1984
Erosion of Strip Mine Lands
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
James I. Sams and Andrew S. Rogowski
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
5
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Northeast Watershed Research Center
USDA-ARS, 110 Research Building A
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-D5-E763
12. SPO_NSO.RING_AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Anency
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim 9/1775-8/31/8Q
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/16
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
>rr t_i_ivil^iv I *-*r» i IHVX I fci-J
This project is part of the EPA-planned and coordinated Federal Interagency
Energy/Environment R&D Program.
16. ABSTRACT
The plot studies were carried out at Karthaus and Klingerstown to verify the
accuracy of the erosion pin method of soil loss evaluation compared to soil loss
measured in runoff samples. Subsequently, field studies at Kylertown and
Kittaning were used to apply these methods. Kylertown site showed no concentrated
areas of erosion for the 4 month study period. However, over the 12 year existence
of this site, observable rills and gullies have accounted for large soil losses.
The newly reclaimed site at Kittaning was quite vulnerable to erosion, with one
area experiencing a concentrated soil loss of 12-16 mm during the study period.
When erosion pins are used with the surface contouring program areas of
potential concentrated soil loss can be readily located on reclaimed strip
mines. For best results it is recommended that the erosion pins be initially
placed in a grid network on slope of interest.
(Circle One or More)
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Ecology
Environments
Earth Atmosphere
Environmental Engineering
Geography
Hydrology Limnology
Biochemistry
Earth Hydrosphere
Combustion
Refining
Energy Conversion
Physical Chemistry
Materials Handling
Inorganic Chemistry
Organic Chemistry
Chemical Engineering
6F 8A 8F
8H 10A 10B
7B 7C 13B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page/
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |