c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Athens GA 3061 3
EPA-600/6-82-004b
September 1982
Research and Development
Water Quality
Assessment:
A Screening
Procedure for Toxic
and Conventional
Pollutants—Part 2
-------
EPA-600/6-82-0045
September 1982
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT:
A Screening Procedure for Toxic
and Conventional Pollutants
Part 2
by
W.B. Mills, J.D. Dean, D.B. Porcella, S.A. Gherini, R.J.M. Hudson,
W.E. Frick, G.L. Rupp, and G.L. Bowie
Tetra Tech, Incorporated
Lafayette, California 94549
Contract No. 68-03-2673
Prepared in Cooperation with U.S. EPA's
Center for Water Quality Modeling
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
Monitoring and Data Support Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
Technology Transfer
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, Ohio
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30613
-....v^^Tvf.qj protection Agency
",-iv (5PL-16)
< n;:1:: Street, Boom 1670
ii, 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
n
-------
ABSTRACT
New technical developments in the field of water quality assessment
and a reordering of water quality priorities prompted a revision of Water
Quality Assessment: A Screening Methodology for Mondesignated 208 Areas
(EPA-600/9-77-023).The utility of the revised manual is enhanced by the
inclusion of information on the accumulation, transport, and fate of toxic
chemicals in the environment. The new subtitle—A Screening Procedure for
Toxic and Conventional Pollutants—reflects the added information.
Applying the manual's simple techniques, the user is now capable of
assessing the loading and fate of conventional pollutants (temperature,
biochemical oxygen demand-dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and sediments) and
toxic pollutants (from the U.S. EPA list of priority pollutants) in streams,
impoundments, and estuaries. The techniques are readily programmed on hand-
held calculators. Most of the data required for using these procedures are
contained in the manual.
Because of its size, the manual has been divided into three parts. Part
1 contains the introduction and chapters on the aquatic fate of toxic organic
substances, waste load calculations, and the assessment of water quality para-
meters in rivers and streams. Part 2 continues with chapters on the assessment
of impoundments and estuaries and appendices A, B, C, E, F, G and H. Appendix
D is provided in the third part (on microfiche in the EPA-printed manual).
This report is submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2673 by
Tetra Tech, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Work was completed as of February 1982.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 2
Page
DISCLAIMER ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES (PART 2) vi
LIST OF TABLES (PART 2) x
CHAPTER
5 IMPOUNDMENTS 1
5.1 Introduction 1
5.2 Impoundment Stratification 3
5.3 Sediment Accumulation 24
5.4 Eutrophication and Control 65
5.5 Impoundment Dissolved Oxygen 92
5.6 Toxic Chemical Substances 128
5.7 Application of Methods and Example Problem 140
References for Chapter 5 185
Glossary of Terms 187
6 ESTUARIES 191
6.1 Introduction 191
6.2 Estuarine Classification 207
6.3 Flushing Time Calculations 222
6.4 Far Field Approach to Pollutant Distribution in Estuaries 251
6.5 Pollutant Distribution following Discharge from a Marine 314
Outfall
6.6 Thermal Pollution 367
6.7 Turbidity 379
6.8 Sedimentation 390
References for Chapter 6 408
APPENDICES
A Monthly Distribution of Rainfall Erosivity Factor R A-l
B Methods for Predicting Soil Erodibility Index K B-l
C Stream and River Data C-l
D Impoundment Thermal Profiles D-l
iv
-------
APPENDICES (continued)
E Modeling Thermal Stratification in Impoundments
F Reservoir Sediment Deposition Surveys
6 Initial Dilution Tables
H Equivalents of Commonly Used Units of Measurement
-------
LIST OF FIGURES '
PART 2
Figure Page
V-1 Water Density as a Function of Temperature and Dissolved Solids 4
Concentration
V-2 Water Flowing into an Impoundment Tends to Migrate toward a Region 5
of Similar Density
V-3 Annual Cycle of Thermal Stratification and Overturn in an Im- 6
poundment
V-4 Thermal Profile Plots Used in Example V-1 19
V-5 Thermal Profile Plots Appropriate for use in Example V-2 23
V-6 Sediment Rating Curve Showing Suspended Sediment Discharge as a 27
Function of Flow
V-7 Relationship between the Percentage of Inflow-Transported Sedi- 29
ment Retained within an Impoundment and Ratio of Capicity to Inflow
V-8 Plot of C/R and CR2 Versus R 34
V-9 Drag Coefficient (C) as Function of Reynold's Number (R) and Par- 35
tide Shape
V-10 Schematic Representation of Hindered Settling of Particles in 36
Fluid Column
V-ll Velocity Correction Factor for Hindered Settling 38
V-12 Upper and Lo er Lakes and Environs, Long Island, New York 43
V-13 Impoundment Configurations Affecting Sedimentation 47
V-14 Kellis Pond and Surrounding Region, Long Island, New York 50
V-15 Hypothetical Depth Profiles for Kellis Pond 51
V-16 Hypothetical Flow Pattern in Kellis Pond 52
VI
-------
Figure Page
V-17 Hypothetical Depth Profiles for Kellis Pond Not Showing Signi- 53
cant Shoaling
V-18 Lake Owyhee and Environs 55
V-19 New Mi 11 pond and Environs. New Mill pond is Subdivided for Pur- 56
poses of Estimating Sedimentation in Regions A, B, and C
V-20 Significance of Depth Measures D, D1 , and D11 , and the Assumed 59
Sedimentation Pattern
V-21 Settling Velocity for Spherical Particles 60
V-22 Nomograph for Estimating Sediment Trap Efficiency 61
V-23 Formulations for Evaluating Management Options for Pollutants 70
in Lakes and Reservoirs
V-24 US OECD Data Applied to Vollenweider (1976) Phosphorus Loading 72
and Mean Depth/Hydraulic Residence Time Relationship
V-25 Relationship between Summer Chlorophyll and Spring Phosphorus 79
V-26 Maximal Primary Productivity as a Function of Phosphate Concen- 80
tration
V-27 Conceptualization of Phosphorus Budget Modeling 85
V-28 Typical Patterns of Dissolved Oxygen in Hyrum Reservoir 93
V-29 Geometric Representation of a Stratified Impoundment 96
V-30 Quality and Ecologic Relationships 97
V-31 Rate of BOD Exertion at Different Temperatures Showing the First 102
and Second Deoxygenation Stages
V-32 Quiet Lake and Environs 114
V-33 Thermal Profile Plots for Use in Quiet Lake Example 122
V-34 Nomograph for Estimating Sediment Trap Efficiency 141
V-35 Generalized Schematic of Lake Computations 147
V-36 The Occoquan River Basin 148
V-37 Thermal Profile Plots for Occoquan Reservoir 152
-------
Figure Page
V-38 Summary of Reservoir Sedimentation Surveys Made in the United 155
States through 1970
V-39 Dissolved Oxygen Depletion Versus Time in the Occoquan Reservoir 180
VI-1 Typical Main Channel Salinity and Velocity for Strati ied Estu- 196
aries
VI-2 Typical Main Channel Salinity and Velocity Profiles for Well 197
Mixed Estuaries
VI-3 Typical Main Channel Salinity and Velocity Profiles for Partially 199
Mixed Estuaries
VI-4 Estuarine Dimensional Definition 201
VI-5 Suggested Procedure to Predict Estuarine Water Quality 206
VI-6 Estuarine Circulation-Stratification Diagram 209
VI-7 Examples of Estuarine Classification Plots 209
VI-8 Circulation and Stratification Parameter Diagram 212
VI-9 The Stuart Estuary 214
VI-10 Stuart Estuary Data for Classification Calculations 215
VI-11 Estuarine Circulation-Stratification Diagram 218
VI-12 Alsea Estuary Seasonal Salinity Variations 220
VI-13 Estuary Cross-Section for Tidal Prism Calculations 223
VI-14 Patuxent Estuary Salinity Profile and Segmentation Scheme Used 237
in Flushing Time Calculations
VI-15 Hypothetical Two-Branched Estuary 241
VI-16 Cumulative Upstream Water Volume, Fox Mill Run Estuary 246
VI-17 River-Borne Pollutant Concentration for One Tidal Cycle 259
VI-18 Alsea Estuary River-Borne Conservative Pollutant Concentration 263
VI-19 Pollutant Concentration form an Estuarine Outfall 265
VI-20 Hypothetical Concentration of Total Nitrogen in Patuxent Estu- 271
ary
vm
-------
Figure Page
VI-21 Relative Depletions of Three Pollutants Entering the Fox Mill Run 281
Estuary, Virginia
VI-22 Additive Effect of Multiple Waste Load Additions 283
VI-23 Dissolved Oxygen Saturation as a Function of Temperature and Sa- 296
linity
VI-24 Predicted Dissolved Oxygen Profile in James River 298
VI-25 Definition Sketch for Pritchard's Two-Dimensional Box Model 302
VI-26 Patu ent Estuary Model Segmentation 311
VI-27 Waste Field Generated by Marine Outfall 316
VI-28 Example Output of MERGE - Case 1 326
VI-29 Example Output of MERGE - Case 2 327
VI-30 Schematic of Plume Behavior Predicted by MERGE in the Present 332
Usage
VI-31 Cross Diffuser Merging 336
VI-32 Plan View of Spreading Sewage Field 355
VI-33 Outfall Location, Shellfish Harvesting Area, and Environs 360
VI-34 Dissolved Oxygen Depletions Versus Travel Time 366
VI-35 Center!ine Dilution of Round Buoyant Jet in Stagnant Uniform 377
Environment
VI-36 Mean Suspended Solids in San Francisco Bay 381
VI-37 Water Quality Profile of Selected Parameters Near a Municipal 386
Outfall in Puget Sound, Washington
VI-38 Sediment Movement in San Francisco Bay System 396
VI-39 Idealized Estuarine Sedimentation 397
VI-40 Particle Diameter Versus Settling Fall per Tidal Cycle (12.3 hrs) 402
under Quiescent Conditions (Spheres with Density 2.0 g/cm3)
VI-41 Estuarine Null Zone Identification 405
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PART 2
Table Page
V-l Parameter Values Used in Generation of Thermal Gradient Plots 10
(Appendix D)
V-2 Temperature, Cloud Cover, and Dew Point Data for the Ten Geogra- 12
phic Locales Used to Develop Thermal Stratification (Appendix D)
V-3 Limpid Lake Characteristics 18
V-4 Physical Characteristics of Lake Smith 20
V-5 Comparison of Monthly Climatologic Data for Shreveport, Louisiana, 21
and Atlanta, Georgia
V-6 Hypothetical Physical Characteristics of Upper Lake, Brookhaven, 44
Suffolk County, New York
V-7 Hypothetical Physical Characteristics of Lower Lake, Brookhaven, 46
Suffolk County, New York
V-8 Hypothetical Physical Characteristics of Lower Lake, Brookhaven, 48
Suffolk County, New York (Assuming an Epilimnion Depth of 10 ft)
V-9 Classification of Lake Restoration Techniques 83
V-10 Oxygen Demand of Bottom Deposits 104
V-ll Solubility of Oxygen in Water 106
V-12 Characteristics of Quiet Lake 115
V-13 Water Quality and Flow Data for Tributaries to Quiet Lake. Data 115
Represent Mean Figures for 1970-1975
V-14 Precipitation and Runoff Data for Quiet Watershed. Values Are 118
Means of Data Collected from Both Stations.
V-l5 DO Sag Curve for Quiet Lake Hypolimnion 127
V-16 Significant Processes Affecting Toxic Substances in Aquatic 129
Ecosystems
-------
Table Page
V-17 Comparison of Modeled Thermal Profiles to Observed Temperatures 154
in Occoquan Reservoir
V-18 Annual Sediment and Pollutant Loads in Occoquan Watershed 157
V-19 Sediment Loaded into Lake Jackson 158
V-20 Calculation Format for Determining Sediment Accumulation in 159
Reservoirs
V-21 Particle Sizes in Penn Silt Load 160
V-22 Calculation Format for Determining Sediment Accumulation in 161
Reservoirs
V-23 Sewage Treatment Plant Pollutant Loads in Bull Run Sub-Basin 167
V-24 Calculated Annual Pollutant Loads to Occoquan Reservoir 168
V-25 Observed Annual Pollutant Loads to Occoquan Reservoir 170
V-26 Calculated and Observed Mean Annual Pollutant Concentrarions in 172
Occoquan Reservoir
VI-1 Summary of Methodology for Estuarine Water Quality Assessment 205
VI-2 Tidal Prisms for Some U.S. Estuaries 224
VI-3 Sample Calculation Table for Calcu ation of Flushing Time by 234
Segmented Fraction of Freshwater Method
VI-4 Patuxent Estuary Segment Characteristics for Flushing Time Calcu- 236
lations
VI-5 Flushing Time for Patuxent Estuary 239
VI-6 Sample Calculation Table for Estuarine Flushing Time by the Modi- 245
fied Tidal Prism Method
VI-7 Data and Flushing Time Calculations for Fox Mill Run Estuary 249
VI-8 Pollutant Distribution in the Patuxent River 257
VI-9 Incremental Total Nitrogen in Patuxent River (See Problem VI-5) 258
VI-10 Sample Calculation Table for Distribution of a Locally Discharged 267
Conservative Pollutant fy the Fraction of Freshwater Method
VI-11 Nitrogen Concentration in Patuxent Estuary Based on Local Dis- 269
charge
xi
-------
Table Page
VI-12 Typical Values for Decay Reaction Rates V 273
VI-13 Sample Calculation Table for Distribution of a Locally Dis- 277
charged Non-conservative Pollutant by the Modified Tidal
Prism Method
VI-14 Salinity and CBOD Calculations for Fox Mill Run Estuary 279
VI-15 Distribution of Total Nitrogen in the Patuxent Estuary due to 286
Two Sources of Nitrogen
VI-16 Tidally Averaged Dispersion Coefficients for Selected Estuaries 289
VI-17 Tidally Averaged Dispersion Coefficients 290
VI-18 Salinity and Pollutant Distribution in Patuxent Estuary under 310
Low Flow Conditions
VI-19a Water Densities Calculated using the Density Subroutine Found 320
in MERGE
VI-19b Water Densities Calculated using the Density Subroutine Found 321
in MERGE
VI-19c Water Densities Calculated using the Density Subroutine Found 322
in MERGE
VI-20 Plume Variables, Units, and Similarity Conditions 325
VI-21 Values of Equilibrium Constants and Ion Product of Water as a 343
Function of Temperature for Freshwater and Salt Water
VI-22 Estimated pH Values after Initial Dilution 346
VI-23 Dissolved Oxygen Profile in Commencement Bay, Washington 351
VI-24 Subsequent Dilutions for Various Field Widths and Travel Times 358
VI-25 Data Needed for Estuary Thermal Screening 370
VI-26 Maximum Allowable Channel Velocity to Avoid Bed Scour 393
VI-27 Sediment Particle Size Ranges 399
VI-28 Rate of Fall in Water of Spheres of Varying Radii and Constant 400
Density of 2 as Calculated by Stokes1 Law
xn
-------
CHAPTER 5
IMPOUNDMENTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains several methods for assessing water quality and
physical conditions in impoundments. The general topics covered are
sediment accumulation, thermal stratification, DO-BOD, euthrophication, and
toxicant concentrations. These topics cover the major water problems likely
to occur in impoundments. The methods developed are easy to use and require
readily obtainable data. Because the methods depend upon a number of
simplifying assumptions, estimates should be taken only as a guide pending
further analysis. Also, since pollutant inputs are dependent on previous
calculations, familiarity with the methods in previous chapters will be very
helpful and expand understanding of the various processes.
Some of the techniques are more mechanistic and reliable than others.
For example, the thermal stratification technique is based upon output of a
calibrated and validated hydrothermal model. The model has been shown to be
a good one, and to the extent that physical conditions in the studied
impoundments resemble those of the model, results should be very reliable.
On the other hand, the methods for predicting eutrophication are empirical
and based upon correlations between historical water quality conditions and
algal productivity in a number of lakes and reservoirs. Because algal
blooms are sensitive to environmental factors and the presence of toxicants
and factors other than those involved in the estimation methods, the methods
for predicting eutrophication will occasionally be inapplicable. Since the
planner may not be able to assess applicability in specific cases, results
may occasionally be inaccurate.
In using the techniques to be presented, it is important to apply good
"engineering judgment" particularly where sequential application of methods
is likely to result in cumulative errors. Such would be the case, for
example, in evaluating impoundment hypolimnion DO problems resulting from
algal blooms. If methods presented below are used to evaluate hypolimnion
DO, the planner should determine when stratification occurs, the magnitude
of point and nonpoint source BOD loads, and algal productivity and settling
-------
rates. From all of this, he may then predict BOD and DO levels in the
hypolimnion. Since each of these techniques has an error associated with
it, the end result of the computation will have a significant error envelope
and results must be interpreted accordingly. The best way to use any of the
techniques is to assume a range of values for important coefficients in
order to obtain a range of results within which the studied impoundment is
likely to fall.
Although scientists and engineers are familiar with the metric system
of units, planners, local interest groups, and the general public are more
accustomed to the English system. Most morphometric data on lakes and
impoundments are in English units. The conversion tables in Appendix H
should be thoroughly familiar before using these techniques and users should
be able to perform calculations in either system even though metric units
are simpler to use. Also, dimensional analysis techniques using unit
conversions are very helpful in performing the calculations.
The methods presented below are arranged in an order such that the
planner should be able to use each if he has read preceding materials. The
order of presentation is:
• Impoundment stratification (5.2)
§ Sediment accumulation (5.3)
• Eutrophication (5.4)
t Impoundment dissolved oxygen (5.5)
• Fate of Priority Pollutants (Toxics)(5.6)
It is strongly recommended that all materials presented be read and
examples worked prior to applying any of the methods. In this way a better
perspective can be obtained on the kinds of problems covered and what can be
done using hand calculations. A glossary of terms has been placed after the
reference section so that equation terms can easily be checked.
The final section (5.7) is an example application to a selected site.
This example allows the user to have an integrated view of an actual problem
-------
and application. Also "the goodness of fit" to measured results can be
evaluated.
5.2 IMPOUNDMENT STRATIFICATION
5.2.1 Discussion
The density of water is strongly influenced by temperature and by the
concentration of dissolved and suspended matter. Figure V-l shows densities
for water as a function of temperature and dissolved solids concentration
(from Chen and Orlob, 1973).
Regardless of the reason for density differences, water of lowest
density tends to move upward and reside on the surface of an impoundment
while water of greatest density tends to sink. Inflowing water seeks an
impoundment level containing water of the same density. Figure V-2 shows
this effect schematically.
Where density gradients are very steep, mixing is inhibited. Thus,
where the bottom water of an impoundment is significantly more dense than
surface water, vertical mixing is likely to be unimportant. The fact that
low density water tends to reside atop higher density water and that mixing
is inhibited by steep gradients often results in impoundment stratification.
Stratification, which is the establishment of distinct layers of different
densities, tends to be enhanced by quiescent conditions. Conversely, any
phenomenon encouraging mixing, such as wind stress, turbulence due to large
inflows, or destabilizing changes in water temperature will tend to reduce
or eliminate strata.
5.2.1.1 Annual Cycle in a Thermally Stratified Impoundment
Figure V-3 shows schematically the processes of thermal stratification
and overturn which occur in many impoundments. Beginning at "a" in the
figure (winter), cold water (at about 4°C) flows into the impoundment which
may at this point be considered as fully mixed. There is no thermal
-------
1.0090
1.0070
— 1.0050
E
o>
c
-------
STRATIFIED
IMPOUNDMENT
DENSITY
PROFILE
Density of
Warm Influent
Density
of Cool
Influent
Density
FIGURE V-2 !IJATER FLOWING INTO AN IMPOUNDMENT TENDS TO MIGRATE TOWARD A REGION
OF SIMILAR DENSITY
-------
LATE FALL-WINTER
FALL
OVERTURN
- Water
Displaced upward
0 i5 10 15 20 25 30
t T(«C)
Inflo.
Temperoture
0 5 10 15 20 25 :
TCC) i
SPRING
SUMMER
STRATIFICATION
FIGURE V-3 ANNUAL CYCLE OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION AND OVERTURN IN AN IMPOUNDMENT
-------
gradient over depth and the impoundment temperature is about 6 C. During
spring ("b"), inflowing water is slightly warmer than that of the
impoundment because of the exposure of the tributary stream to warmer air
and increasingly intense sunlight. This trend continues during the summer
("c"), with tributary water being much warmer and less dense than the deep
waters of the impoundment. At the same time, the surface water of the
impoundment is directly heated by insolation. Since the warm water tends to
stay on top of the impoundment, thermal strata form.
As fall approaches ("d"), day length decreases, air temperatures drop,
and solar intensity decreases. The result is cooler inflows and a cooling
trend in the surface of the impoundment. The bottom waters lag behind the
surface in the rate of temperature change, and ultimately the surface may
cool to the temperature of the bottom. Since continued increases in surface
water density result in instability, the impoundment water mixes
(overturns).
5.2.1.2 Monomictic and Dimictic Impoundments
The stratification and overturn processes described in Figure V-3
represent what occurs in a monomictic or single-overturn water body. Some
o
impoundments, especially those north of 40 N latitude and those at high
elevation may undergo two periods of stratification and two overturns. Such
impoundments are termed "dimictic." In addition to the summer
stratification and resulting fall overturn, such impoundments stratify in
o
late winter. This occurs because water is most dense near 4 C, and bottom
waters may be close to this temperature, while inflowing water is colder and
o
less dense. As the surface goes below 4 C, strata are established. With
o
spring warming of the surface to 4 C, wind induced mixing occurs.
-------
5.2.1.3 Importance of Stratification
Stratification is likely to be the single most important phenomenon
affecting water quality in many impoundments. Where stratification is
absent, water mixes vertically, and net horizontal flow is significant to
considerable depths. Since the water is mixed vertically, DO replenishment
usually occurs even to the bottom and anoxic (literally "no oxygen")
conditions are unlikely. Generally speaking, fully mixed impoundments do
not have DO deficiency problems.
When stratification occurs, the situation is vastly different. Flow
within the impoundment is essentially limited to the epilimnion (surface
layer). Thus surface velocities are somewhat higher in an impoundment when
stratified than when unstratified. Since vertical mixing is inhibited by
stratification, reaeration of the hypolimnion (bottom layer) is virtually
nonexistent. The thermocline (layer of steep thermal gradient between
epilimnion and hypolimnion) is often at considerable depth. Accordingly,
the euphotic (literally "good light") zone is likely to be limited to the
epilimnion. Thus photosynthetic activity does not serve to reoxygenate the
hypolimnion. The water that becomes the hypolimnion has some oxygen demand
prior to the establishment of strata. Because bottom (benthic) matter
exerts a further demand, and because some settling of particulate matter
into the hypolimnion may occur, the DO level in the hypolimnion will
gradually decrease over the period of stratification.
Anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion result in serious chemical and
biological changes. Microbial activity leads to hydrogen sulfide (HzS)
evolution as well as formation of other highly toxic substances, and these
may be harmful to indigenous biota.
It should be noted that the winter and spring strata and overturn are
relatively unimportant here since the major concern is anoxic conditions in
the hypolimnion in summer. Thus all impoundments will be considered as
monomictic.
-------
Strong stratification is also important in prediction of sedimentation
rates and trap efficiency estimates. These topics are to be covered later.
5.2.2 Prediction of Thermal Stratification
Computation of impoundment heat influx is relatively straightforward,
but prediction of thermal gradients is complicated by prevailing physical
conditions, physical mixing phenomena, and impoundment geometry. Such
factors as depth and shape of impoundment bottom, magnitude and
configuration of inflows, and degree of shielding from the wind are much
more difficult to quantify than insolation, back radiation, and still air
evaporation rates. Since the parameters which are difficult to quantify are
critical to predicting stratification characteristics, no attempt has been
made to develop a simple calculation procedure. Instead, a tested model
(Chen and Orlob, 1973; Lorenzen and Fast, 1976) has been subjected to a
sensitivity analysis and the results plotted to show thermal profiles over
depth and over time for some representative geometries and climatological
conditions. The plots are presented in Appendix D.
o
The plots show the variation in temperature ( C) with depth (meters).
Temperature is used as an index of density. Engineering judgment about
defining layers is based on the pattern of temperature with depth. If
stratification takes place, the plot will show an upper layer of uniform or
slightly declining temperature (epilimnion), an intermediate layer of
sharply declinging temperature (thermocline), and a bottom layer
(hypolimnion). A rule of thumb requires a temperature change of at least
1 C/meter to define the thermocline. However, this can be tempered by the
observation of a well defined mixed layer.
To assess thermal stratification in an impoundment, it is necessary
only to determine which of the sets of plots most closely approximates
climatic and hydrologic conditions in the impoundment studied. Parameters
which were varied to generate the plots and values used are shown in Table
V-l.
-------
TABLE V-1
PARAMETER VALUES USED IN GENERATION OF
THERMAL GRADIENT PLOTS (APPENDIX D)
Parameter
Geographic Locale
Geometry
Depth
(maximum,
feet)
20
40
75
100
200
Value
Atlanta, Georgia
Billings, Montana
Burlington, Vermont
Flagstaff, Arizona
Fresno, California
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Salt Lake City, Utah
San Antonio, Texas
Washington, D.C.
Wichita, Kansas
Surface ? 3
Area (feet ) Volume (feet )
8.28 x 106 7.66 x 107
3.31 x 107 6.13 x 108
1.16 x 108 4.04 x 109
2.07 x 108 9.58 x 109
8.28 x 108 7.66 x 1010
Mean Hydraulic Residence Time
Wind Mixing*
Days
10
30
75
250
High
Low
*See Appendix E.
10
-------
Table V-2 shows the climatological conditions used to represent the
geographic locales listed in Table V-l. For details of the simulation
technique, see Appendix E.
5.2.2.1 Using the Thermal Plots
Application of the plots to assess stratification characteristics
begins with determining reasonable values for the various parameters listed
in Table V-l. For geographic locale, the user should determine whether the
impoundment of interest is near one of the ten areas for which thermal plots
have been generated. If so, then the set of plots for that area should be
used. If the impoundment is not near one of the ten areas, then the user
may obtain data for the parameters listed in Table V-2 (climatologic data)
and then select the modeled locale which best matches the region of
interest.
Next, the user must obtain geometric data for the impoundment. Again,
if the impoundment of interest is like one for which plots have been
generated, then that set should be used. If not, the user should bracket
the studied impoundment. As an example, if the studied impoundment is 55
feet deep (maximum), with a surface area of about 4xl07 feet2, then the 40
and 75 foot deep impoundment plots should be used.
Mean hydraulic residence time (T , years) may be estimated using the
mean total inflow rate (Q, mVyear) and the impoundment volume (V,m3):
TW = V/Q (V-l)
Again, the sets of plots bracketing the value of T should be examined.
Where residence times are greater than 200 days, the residence time has
little influence on stratification (as may be verified in Appendix D) and
either the 200 day or infinite time plots may be used.
Finally, the wind mixing coefficient was used to generate plots for
windy areas (high wind) and for very well protected areas (low wind). The
11
-------
TABLE V-2
TEMPERATURE, CLOUD COVER, AND DEW POINT DATA
FOR THE TEN GEOGRAPHIC LOCALES USED TO DEVEOP THERMAL
STRATIFICATION PLOTS ( APPENDIX D). SEE FOOT OF TABLE FOR NOTES,
Temperature (°F)
Max. Mean
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Atlanta
54
57
63
72
81
87
88
88
83
74
62
53
killings
27
32
38
51
60
68
79
78
67
55
38
32
(Lat:
45
47
52
61
70
77
79
78
73
63
51
44
(Lat
18
22
27
38
47
54
63
61
52
42
29
22
Mm.
33.8°N,
36
37
41
50
57
66
69
68
63
52
40
35
:45.8°N,
9
12
16
26
34
40
46
45
37
30
20
14
Dew 0 C"
Point (°F) F
Long:84.4°W)
34
34
39
48
57
65
68
67
62
51
40
34
Long:108.5°W)
11
16
20
28
38
46
48
46
38
31
22
15
loud Cover Wind
raction (MPH)
.63
.62
.61
.55
.55
."58
.63
.57
.53
.45
.51
.62
.68
.68
.71
.70
.64
.60
.40
.42
.54
.56
.66
.66
11
12
12
11
9
8
8
8
8
9
10
10
13
12
12
12
11
11
10
10
10
11
13
13
12
-------
TABLE V-2 - CONT.
Temperature ( F)
Max.
Mean
Burlington (Lat:44
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
27
29
38
53
67
54
82
80
71
59
44
31
Fl
40
43
50
59
68
77
81
79
75
63
51
44
18
19
29
43
56
66
71
68
60
49
38
23
agstaff (Lat:35
27
30
36
43
51
60
66
64
59
47
36
30
Min.
.5°N,
9
10
20
33
44
77
59
57
49
39
29
15
.2°N,
14
17
22
28
34
42
50
49
42
31
21
17
Dew Cloud Cover Wind
Point (°F) Fraction (MPH)
Lat:73.2°W)
12
12
20
32
43
54
59
58
51
40
30
17
Long:111.3°W)
14
16
17
20
22
25
43
43
35
25
20
15
.72
.69
.66
.67
.67
.61
.58
.57
.60
.65
.79
.78
.59
.49
.50
.49
.41
.24
.54
.53
.29
.31
.34
.44
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
8
8
9
10
10
8
9
11
12
11
11
9
9
8
8
8
7
13
-------
TABLE V-2 CONT.
Temperature ( F)
Max.
Mean
Min.
Dew Cloud Cover Wind
Point (°F) Fraction (MPH)
Fresno (Lat:36.7°N, Long:119.8°W)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
55
61
68
76
85
92
100
98
92
81
68
57
Minneapol
22
26
37
56
70
79
85
82
72
60
40
27
46
51
55
61
68
75
81
79
74
65
54
47
is (Lat:
12
16
28
45
58
67
76
71
61
48
31
18
37
40
42
46
52
57
63
61
56
49
40
38
45.0°N,
3
5
18
33
46
56
61
59
49
37
21
9
38
41
41
44
45
48
51
52
51
46
42
40
Long:93.3°W)
6
10
20
32
43
55
60
59
50
40
25
13
.67
.61
.53
.44
.34
.19
.11
Ml "
.15
.28
.44
.70
.65
.62
.67
.65
.64
.60
.49
.51
.51
.54
.69
.69
6
6
7
7
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
11
11
12
13
12
11
9
9
10
11
12
11
14
-------
TABLE V-2 CONT.
Temperature ( F)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Max.
Salt Lake
37
42
51
62
72
82
92
90
80
66
49
40
Mean Min.
City (Lat:40.
27
33
40
50
58
67
76
75
65
53
38
23
8°N,
18
23
30
37
45
52
61
59
50
39
28
32
San Antonio (Lat:29.4°N,
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
62
66
72
79
85
92
94
94
89
82
70
65
52
55
61
68
75
82
84
84
79
71
59
42
42
45
50
58
65
72
74
73
69
60
49
54
Dew Cloud Cover Wind
/ O v * *
Point ( F) Fraction .
, Long:111.9°W)
20
23
26
31
36
40
44
45
38
34
28
24
Long:98.5°W)
39
42
45
55
64
68
68
67
65
56
46
41
.69
.70
.65
.61
.54
.42
'.35
.34
.34
,43
.56
.69
.64
.65
.63
.64
.62
.54
.50
.46
.49
.46
.54
.57
(MPH)
7
8
9
9
10
9
9
10
9
9
8
7
9
10
10
11
10
10
10
8
8
8
9
9
15
-------
TABLE V-2 CONT.
Temperature (
Max.
Mean
Washington, D.C.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
44
46
54
60
76
83
87
85
79
68
57
46
Wichita
42
47
56
68
77
88
92
93
84
72
34
45
37
38
45
56
66
74
78
77
70
59
48
43
(Lat:37.
32
36
45
57
66
77
81
81
71
60
55
36
F ) Dew
Min. Point (
(Lat:38.9°N,
30
29
36
46
56
65
69
68
61
50
39
31
7°N, Long:97.
22
26
33
45
55
65
69
69
59
48
44
27
Long:
25
25
29
40
52
61
65
64
59
48
36
26
3°W)
21
25
30
41
53
62
65
53
55
43
33
25
Cloud Cover Wind
F) Fraction - (MPH)
77.0°W)
.61
.56
.56
.54
.54
.51
. .51
.51
.48
.47
.54
.58
.50
.51
.52
.53
.53
.46
.39
.38
.39
.40
.44
.50
11
11
12
11
10
10
9
8
9
9
10
10
12
13
15
15
13
13
12
11
12
12
13
12
16
-------
TABLE V-2 CONT.
Notes:
Mean:
Max.:
Min.:
Wind:
Dew Point:
Normal daily average
Normal daily maximum
Normal daily minimum
Mean wind speed, MPH
Mean dew point temper
temperature,
temperature,
temperature,
•ature, °F.
°F.
°F.
°F.
*Complete data were not available for Billings. Tabulated
data are actually a synthesis of available data for
Billings, Montana and Yellowstone, Wyoming.
All data taken from Climatic Atlas of the U.S., 1974.
17
-------
user must judge where his studied impoundment falls and interpolate in the
plots accordingly (See Appendix D).
EXAMPLE V-l
Thermal Stratification
Suppose one wants to know the likelihood that hypothetical Limpid Lake
is stratified during June. The first step is to compile the physical
conditions for the lake in terms of the variables listed in Table V-l.
Table V-3 shows how this might be done. Next, refer to the indexes provided
in Appendix D to locate the plot set for conditions most similar to those of
the studied impoundment. In this case, the Wichita plots for a 200-foot
deep impoundment with no inflow and high mixing rate would be chosen (see
Table V-3). Figure V-4 is a reproduction of the appropriate page from
Appendix D.
TABLE V-3
LIMPID LAKE CHARACTERISTICS
1 ten
Limpid Lake
Available Plot
Location
Depth, ft (maximum)
Volume, ft3
Mean residence time (Tw)
i-'i xi na
Manhattan, Kansas
180
6xl010
500 days
high (windy)
Wichita, Kansas
200
7.66 x 1010
-=> (no inflow)
high coefficient
According to the plots, Limpid Lake is likely to be strongly stratified
in June. Distinct strata form in May and overturn probably occurs in
December. During June, the epilimnion should extend down to a depth of
about eight or ten feet, and the thenr,ocline should extend down to
-------
0
20
zz
i:
0
20-
5:
0_
a
40-
0
20-
r:
:c
Q_
LU
040
60
JUL
<^
I'D 2'0 3
TEMP. C
NQV
D
1
10 20 3
TEMP. C
60c
0
20
z:
i —
Q_
40
o 60c
0
20
sr
=
Q_
UJ
C3
40
60
0
DTK
10 20 3
TEMP, C
PUG
(^
3 I'D 20 3
TEMP. C
DEC
/
0
20
zr
i:
Q_
CD
40-
60
0 C
0
20-
sr
01
Q_
40
o 60
nf>i
^
10 20 3
TEMP, C
SEP
/
D 10 20 :
TEMP. C
NICHITF
0
20
3:
i —
Q_
SO
0 C
0
20-
sr
01
t—
Q_
C3
40
60
0
1 . K
JUN
^
10 20 30
TEMP. C
OC1
/
Q 10 20 30
TEMP. C
RN5R5
200' INITIRL MflXIMUM DEPTH
INFINITE HYOR. RES- TIME
MflXIMUM MIXING
D 10 20 30
TEMP. C
FIGURE V-4 THERMAL PROFILE PLOTS "SED IN EXAMPLE V-l
19
-------
about 30 feet. The gradient in the thermocline should be about 1 C per
meter.
END OF EXAMPLE V-l
•EXAMPLE V-2
Thermal Stratification
What are the stratification characteristics of Lake Smith?
The hypothetical lake is located east of Carthage, Texas, and Table V-4
shows its characteristics along with appropriate values for the thermal
plots.
TABLE V-4
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE SMITH
Item
Lake Smith
Plot Values
Location
Depth, ft (maximum)
Volume, ft
Mean residence time
Mixing
15 miles east of
Carthage Texas
23
3 x 108
250 days
low (low wind)
20
1.66 x 10
8
low mixing coefficient
From the available data for Lake Smith, it appears that plots for a
20-foot deep impoundment with no inflow and low mixing coefficient should
give a good indication of the degree of summertime stratification. The one
remaining problem is climate. Data for nearby Shreveport, Louisiana compare
well with those of Atlanta (Table V-5), for v.'hich plots are provided in
Appendix D, and latitudes are similar. Shreveport is so.-ewhat warmer and
insolation is higher, but this is a relatively uniform difference over the
20
-------
TABLE V-5
COMPARISON OF MONTHLY CLIMATOLOGIC DATA
FOR SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA AND ATLANTA, GEORGIA
DATA ARE PRESENTED AS SHREVEPORT/ATLANTA
(CLIMATIC ATLAS OF THE U.S., 1974)
Temperature,
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Max.
57/54
60/57
67/63
75/72
83/81
91/87
92/88
94/88
88/83
79/74
66/62
59/53
Mean
48/45
50/47
57/52
65/61
73/70
81/77
82/79
83/78
78/73
67/63
55/51
50/44
°F
Min.
38/36
41/37
47/41
55/50
63/57
71/66
72/69
73/68
67/63
55/52
45/40
40/35
Dew
Point, °F
38/34
40/34
44/39
54/48
62/57
69/65
71/68
70/67
65/62
55/51
45/40
39/34
Cloud
Cover,
Fraction
.60/".63
.5S/.62
.54/.61
.50/.55
.48/.5S
.44/.5S
.46/.6S
.40/.57
.40/.53
.3S/.45
.46/.51
.5S/.62
Wind,
MPH
9/11
9/12
10/12
9/11
9/9
8/8
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/9
8/10
9/10
Shreveport Lat:32.5°N, Long:94°W
Atlanta Lat:33.8°N, Long:84.4°W,
21
-------
year. The net effect should be to shift the thermal plots to a slightly
higher temperature but to influence the shape of the plots and the timing of
stratification little. As a result, the plots for Atlanta may be used,
bearing in mind that the temperatures are likely to be biased uniformly low.
Figure V-5 (reproduced from Appendix D) shows thermal plots for a 20-foot
deep Atlanta area impoundment having no significant inflow and low wind
stress. From the figure, it is clear that the lake is likely to stratify
from April or May through September, the epilimnion will be very shallow,
and the thermocline will extend down to a depth of about 7 feet. The
thermal gradient is in the range of about 7 C per meter, as an upper limit,
during June. Bottom water warms slowly during the summer until the
impoundment becomes fully mixed in October.
•END OF EXAMPLE V-2
22
-------
0
2 •
z:
x
0.
LU
CD
6
0
2 •
H
x
Q_
LU
4 •
6c
D
2
SI
X
CL
(.1 f
a
4
6
nnit
10 20 3
TEMP, C
JUL
/
) 10 2'0 3
TEMP. C
NQV
D 10
TEMP
0
2 •
ZI
x:
a_
LU
CD
D 0
0
2 •
SI
x:
LU
C3
0 C
0
2 -
sr
x:
Q_
4
HP*
10 20 3
TEMP, C
DUC
/
) I'D 2'0 3
TEMP. C
DEC
0
2 •
ZI
x:
Q_
LU
a
4 •
6
0 C
0
2 -
2C
x:
LU
C3
4 -
o 6
nf
11
/
i
10
TEMP,
SEP
/
20 3
C
/
3 10 20 :
TEMP. C
RTLRNTF
20 '
INF
MIN
0
2
zr
x:
Q_
LU
C3
6
0 C
0
2 -
31
X
Q_
LU
O
4
o 6
1. G
JUN
/
/
10 20 30
TEMP, C
OC1
3 10 2'0 30
TEMP. C
EDRGIR
NITIRL MRXIMUM DEPTH
INITE HYDR- RES. TIME
IMUM MIXING
20 3D 0 10 20 30
. C TEMP. C
FIGURE V-5 THERMAL PROFILE PLOTS APPROPRIATE FOR !'SE IN FXAMPLE v-2
23
-------
5.3 SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION
5.3.1 Introduction
Reservoirs, lakes, and other impoundments are usually more quiescent
than tributary streams, and thus act as large settling basins for suspended
particulate matter. Sediment deposition in impoundments gradually
diminishes water storage capacity to the point where lakes fill in and
reservoirs become useless. In some cases, sediment accumulation may reduce
the useful life of a reservoir to as little as ten to twenty years (Marsh,
et al_., 1975).
Just how much suspended matter settles out as water passes through an
impoundment, as well as the grain size distribution of matter which remains
suspended, is of interest to the planner for several reasons. Suspended
sediment within an impoundment may significantly reduce light penetration
thus limiting algal and bottom-rooted plant (macrophyte) growth. This, in
turn, can adversely affect food availability for indigenous fauna, or may
slow plant succession, as part of the natural aging process of lakes.
Settling of suspended matter may eliminate harborage on impoundment
bottoms thus reducing populations of desirable animal species. More
directly, suspended particulates impinging on the gills of fish may cause
disease or death.
Some minerals, particularly clays, are excellent adsorbents. As a
result, farm chemicals and pesticides applied to the land find their way to
an impoundment bottom and into its food chain. The sediment which settles
is likely to have a substantial component of organic matter which can exert
an oxygen demand, and under conditions of thermal stratification, anoxic
conditions on the impoundment bottom (in the hypolimnion) can result in
generation of toxic gases. Indigenous biota may be harmed or even killed as
a result.
Knowing the rate of sediment transport and the deposition within an
impoundment allows for effective planning to be initiated. If sedimentation
rates are unacceptable, then the planner can begin to determine where
24
-------
sediments originate, and how to alleviate the problem. For example, densely
planted belts may be established between highly erodible fields and
transporting waterways, farming and crop management practices may be
changed, or zoning may be modified to prevent a worsening of conditions.
These considerations, along with others relating to sediment carriage
and deposition in downstream waterways, make estimates of sedimentation
rates of interest here. Impoundment sediment computation methods discussed
in this section will permit the planner to estimate annual impoundment
sediment accumulation as well as short term accumulation (assuming constant
hydraulic conditions). Application of the methods will permit the planner
to estimate the amount of sediment removed from transport in a river system
due to water passage through any number of impoundments.
5.3.2 Annual Sediment Accumulation
Three different techniques are used to estimate annual sediment
accumulation, available data, sediment rating curves, and a three step
procedure to determine short-term sedimentation rates. As discussed under
each technique, caution should be used in selecting one method or another.
If data are not available, it may not be feasible to use one or more
techniques. The uncertainty in the results should be considered in drawing
conclusions based on whichever analysis that is selected.
5.3.2.1 Use of Available Data
Data provided in Appendix F permit estimation of annual sediment
accumulation in acre-feet for a large number of impoundments in the U.S.
The data and other materials presented provide some basic impoundment
statistics useful to the planner in addition to annual sediment accumulation
rates.
To use Appendix F, first determine which impoundments within the study
area are of interest in terms of annual sediment accumulation. Refer to the
U.S. map included in the appendix and find the index numbers of the region
25
-------
within which the impoundment is located. The data tabulation in the
appendix, total annual sediment accumulation in acre feet is given by
multiplying acerage annual sediment accumulation in acre feet per square
mile of net drainage area ("Annual Sediment Accum.") by the net drainage
area ("Area") in square miles:
Total Accumulation = Annual Sediment Accum. x Area (V-2)
To convert to average annual loss of capacity expressed as a percent, divide
total annual accumulation by storage capacity (from Appendix F), and
multiply by 100. Note that this approach, as well as those presented later,
do not account for packing of the sediment under its own weight. This
results in an overestimate in loss of capacity. Note also that other data
in Appendix F may be of interest in terms of drainage area estimates for
determining river sediment loading and assessment of storm water sediment
transport on an annual basis.
5.3.2.2 Trap Efficiency and the Ratio of Capacity to Inflow
Where data are not available in Appendix F for a specific impoundment,
the following method will permit estimation of annual or short-term sediment
accumulation rates. The method is only useful, however, for normal ponded
reservoirs.
To use this approach, a suspended sediment rating curve should be
obtained for tributaries to the impoundment. An example of a sediment
rating curve is provided in Figure V-6.
26
-------
10.000
u
100,000
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT DISCHARGE, S: (tons/day)
FIGURE V-6
SEDIMENT RATING CURVE SHOWING SUSPENDED
SEDIMENT DISCHARGE AS A FUNCTION OF FLOW
(AFTER LINSLEY, KOHLER, AND PAULHUS, 1958)
27
-------
On the basis of such a curve, one can estimate the mean sediment
mass transport rate (S.) 1n mass per unit time for tributaries. If
neither rating curve nor data are available, one may estimate sediment
transport rates on a basis of data from nearby channels, compensating
for differences by using mean velocities. To a first approximation,
it would be expected that:
(V-3)
where
Si = sediment transport rate to be determined in
tributary "i" in mass per unit time,
•
S. = known transport rate for comparable tributary
J
(j) in same units as S.,
V- = mean velocity for tributary i over the time
period, and
V. = mean velocity in tributary j over the same
J
time period as Vn-
Once average transport rates over the time period of interest
have been determined, the proportion, and accordingly the weight of
sediment settling out in the impoundment may be estimated. Figure V-7
is a graph showing the relationship between percent of sediment trapped
in an impoundment versus the ratio of capacity to inflow rate. The
implicit relationship is:
(V-4)
28
-------
UD
Median Curve for
Normal Ponded Reservoirs
Envelope Curves for
Normal Ponded Reservoirs
0.001
0.003
0.007
0.03 0.07 0.2 0.3 0.5
Ratio of Capacity to Inflow
5 7 10
FIGURE V-7 PELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF INFLOW-TRANSPORTED SEDIMFNT
RETAINED WITHIN AN IMPOUNDMENT AMD PATIO OF TAPACITY TO INFLOW
(LlNSLEY, KOHLER, AND PAULHUS, 1958)
-------
wh'jre
P = percent of inflowing sediment trapped
V = capacity of the impoundment in acre-feet, and
Q- = water inflow rate in acre-feet per year
Data used for development of the curves in Figure V-7 included
41 impoundments of various sizes throughout the U.S. (Linsley, Kohler,
and Paulhus, 1958).
To estimate the amount of suspended sediment trapped within
an impoundment using this method, the capacity of the impoundment in
acre-feet must first be determined. Next, average annual inflow, or
better, average flow for the time period of interest is estimated.
Then,
St = S^P (V-5)
where
S. = weight of sediment trapped per time period t
P = trap efficiency (expressed as a decimal) from Figure V-7
A word of caution is in order here. The above described
techniques for -evaluating sediment deposition in impoundments are
capable of providing reasonable estimates, but only where substantial
periods of time are involved - perhaps 6 months or longer. The methods
may be used for shorter study periods, but results must then be taken
only as very rough estimates, perhaps order-of-magnitude.
5.3.3 Short-Term Sedimentation Rates
The three-step procedure presented below provides a means
to make short-term sediment accumulation rate estimates for storm-event
analysis and to estimate amounts of different grain-size fractions
30
-------
passing through an impoundment. The steps are:
• Determine terminal fall velocities for the grain
size distribution
• Estimate hydraulic residence time
• Compute trap (sedimentation) rate
5.3.3.1 Fall Velocity Computation
When a particle is released in standing water, it will remain
roughly stationary if its density equals that of the water. If the
two densities differ, however, the particle will begin to rise or fall
relative to the water. It will then tend to accelerate until the drag
force imposed by the water exactly counterbalances the force accelerating
the particle. Beyond this point, velocity is essentially constant,
and the particle has reached terminal velocity. For spheres of specific
gravity greater than 1, Stokes1 law expresses the relationship between
fall velocity (terminal velocity) and several other physical parameters
of water and the particle.
where
V = terminal velocity of the spherical particle (ft see" )
max
_2
g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft sec )
p = mass density of the particle (slugs ft )
_ o
p = mass density of water (slugs ft )
w
d = particle diameter (ft)
_2
u = absolute viscosity of the water (Ib sec-ft )
D = weight density of particle (Ib ft )
31
-------
DW = weight density of water (Ib ft" )
Stokes1 law is satisfactory for Reynolds numbers between 1x10~4
and 0.5 (Camp, 1968). Reynolds number is given by:
D vd
* - ~ (V-7)
where
R = Reynolds number
v = particle velocity
v = kinematic viscosity of water
Generally, for particles of diameter less than 3 x 10 inches
(0.7 mm) this criterion is met. For large particles, how far conditions
deviate from this may be observed using the following approach (Camp,
1968). According to Newton's law for drag, drag force on a particle
is given by:
Fd = CAPwv2/2 (V-8)
where
F . = the drag force
C = unitless drag coefficient
A = projected area of the particle in the direction
of motion
Equating the drag force to the gravitational (driving) force for the
special case of a spherical particle, velocity is given by:
32
-------
Vmax =
4g (pp - pw)d (V-9)
All variables in the expression for V (Equation V-9) may be easily
Illu^
estimated except C, since C is dependent upon Reynold's number. Accord-
ing to Equation (V-7), Reynolds number is a function of v. Thus a
"trial and error" or iterative procedure would ordinarily be necessary
to estimate C. However, a somewhat simpler approach is available to
evaluate the drag coefficient and Reynolds number. First, estimate
O
CR using the expression (Camp, 1968):
CR2 = 4pw (Pp - pw) gd3/3u2 (V
Then, using the plot in Figure V-8, estimate R and then C. For R>0.1
use of Equation (V-9) will give better estimates of V ,v than will
max
Equation (V-6).
Generally, one of the two approaches for spherical particles will
give good estimates of particle fall velocity in an effectively laminar
flow field (in impoundments). Occasionally, however, it may prove
desirable to compensate for nonsphericity of particles. Figure V-9,
which shows the effect of particle shape on the drag coefficient C,
may be used to do this. Note that for R<1, shape of particle does not
materially affect C, and no correction is necessary.
A second problem in application of the Newton/Stokes approach
described above is that it does not account for what is called hindrance
Hindrance occurs when the region of fluid surrounding a falling particle
is disrupted (by the particle motion) and the velocity of other nearby
particles is thereby decreased. Figure V-10 shows this effect
schematically.
33
-------
10
Values of R =
FIGURE V-8 PLOT OF C./R AND rp2 VERSUS R (CAMP, 19B8)
34
-------
Drag Coefficient, C
CD
c:
I
'£>
>
-D
^3 a
-H m
— ' Tl
o -n
'•TI o
OO Tl
T; -2
> -H
~O
rn ^-v
-,o o
en H
oo •—
^-^ o
o
Tl
m
-<
^y
o
m
:o
O -
a>
»<
3
o _
O
ro
1—TT
o
o>
n r
O O OJ
I I I
O O
-------
Particles which
velocity is affected
by vertical velocity
field
Region of disruption,
upward fluid motion
Settling sphere
Water column
containing settling
particles
FIGURE v-10 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF HINDERED SETTLING
OF PARTICLES IN FLUID COLUMN
36
-------
A very limited amount of research has been done to determine the
effect of particle concentration on fall velocity.(Camp, 1968). Some
data have been collected however, and Figure V-ll is a plot of a velocity
correction factor, v'/Y>as a function of volumetric cancentration.
Volumetric concentration is given by:
C , = wt w (V-ll)
vol p u iu
where
C , = volumetric concentration
vol
C . = weight concentration
wt 3
As an approximation, the curve for sand may be used to correct v as a
function of C ,.
EXAMPLE V-3
Settling Velocity
Assume that a swiftly moving tributary to a large reservoir
receives a heavy loading of sediment which is mostly clay particles.
The particles tend to clump somewhat, and average diameters are on the
order of 2 microns. The clumps have a specific gravity of 2.2. Applying
Stokes1 law for 20°C water,
Vmax = lk (PP • Pw} d2
2
V = - — - r x (2. 2x62. 4/32. 2-62. 4/32. 2)x(6.56xlO"6)
max (18x2. IxlO'5)
= 8.53x1O"6 ft sec"1 = .03 ft hr"1
Thus the particles of clay might be expected to fall about 9 inches
per day in the reservoir. It should be noted that for such a low
37
-------
Correction Factor
m
r~
o
o
c— >
o
m
o
•H
o
—I
o
a
m
•TO
m
a
CO
C
3
n>
o —
O
o
3
O
CD
a
-4-
o
UD
CJ1
00
-------
settling rate, turbulence in the water can cause very significant
errors. In fact, the estimate is useful only in still waters having
a very uniform flow lacking substantial vertical components.
END OF EXAMPLE V-3
EXAMPLE V-4 —
Settling., Velocity, for a Sand and Clay
Suppose a river is transporting a substantial sediment load which
is mainly sand and clay. The clay tends to clump to form particles
of 10 micron diameter while the sand is of 0.2 mm diameter. The
sand particles are very irregular in shape tending toward a somewhat
flattened plate form. The specific gravity of the clay is about
1.8 while that of the sand is near 2.8. Given that the water tempera-
ture is about 5°C, the terminal velocity of the clay may be estimated
as in Example V-3:
Vmax = Ts (pp ' pw}
v = , - §2^2 - x (0.8x62. 4/32. 2)x(3.28xlO"5)
max 18x3.17x10
= 9.4 xlO"5 ft sec"1
= 8 ft day"1
For the sand, apply Equation (V-10)
CR2 = 4pw (pp - pw) gd3/3y2
62-4 v 1-8x62.4 3.2.2 x (6.56xlO"4)
32.2 x 32.2 x ; - IF"? -
3x(3. 17x10 V
CR2 = 82
39
-------
Referring to Figure V-8, a value of CR2 equal to 82 represents R^2.8
and C*10.3. From Figure V-9, the corrected drag coefficient for discs
is close to 10.3 (no correction really necessary). Then, using Equation
(V-9) as an approximation,
^ (Pn - Pw) d
ii -. ^i 2 w
max i 3Cp
W
V _ 14x32.2x(l.8x62.4/32.2)x6.56xlO"4
max "^3x10.3x62.4/32.7
Vmax = °'07 ft "c"1 = 252 ft hr'1
Thus the clay will settle about 8 feet per day while the sand will
settle about 6048 feet per day (252 feet per hour).
END OF EXAMPLE V-4
5.3.4 Impoundment Hydraulic Residence Time
Once settling velocities have been estimated for selected grain
sizes, the final preparatory step in estimating sediment deposi-
tion rates is to compute hydraulic residence time.
Hydraulic residence time represents the mean time a particle of
water resides within an impoundment. It is not, as is sometimes thought,
the time required to displace all water in the impoundment with new.
In some impoundments, inflowing water may be conceptualized as
moving in a vertical plane from inflow to discharge. This is called
plug flow. In long, narrow, shallow impoundments with high inflow
velocities, this is often a good assumption. As discussed later,
however, adoption of this model leads to another problem, namely,
is water within the plug.uniform or does sediment concentration vary
over depth within the plug?
40
-------
A second model assumes that water flowing into an impoundment
instantaneously mixes laterally with the entire receiving layer. The
layer may or may not represent the entire impoundment depth. This simpli-
fication is often a good one in large surfaced, exposed impoundments having
many small inflows.
Regardless of the model assumed for the process by which water
traverses an impoundment from inflow to discharge, hydraulic residence
time is computed as in Equation (V-l). That is,
T = V/Q
w x
The only important qualification is that to be meaningful, V must be
computed taking account of stagnant areas, whether these are regions of
the impoundment isolated from the main flow by a sand spit or" promontory,
or whether they are isolated by a density gradient, as in the thermo-
cline and hypolimnion. Ignoring stagnant areas may result in a very
substantial overestimate of T , and in sediment trap computations, an
overestimate in trap efficiency. Actually T computed in this way is
an adjusted hydraulic residence time. All references to hydraulic
residence time in the remainder of Section 5.3 refer to adjusted T .
Hydraulic residence time is directly influenced by such physical
variables as impoundment depth, shape, side slope, and shoaling,
as well as hydraulic characteristics such as degree of mixing, stratifi-
cation, and flow velocity distributions. The concepts involved in
evaluating many of these factors are elementary. The evaluation itself
is complicated, however, by irregularities in impoundment shape and
data inadequacies. Commonly, an impoundment cannot be represented well
by a simple 3-dimensional figure, and shoaling and other factors may
restrict flow to a laterally narrow swath through the water body.
-------
In most cases, hydraulic residence time may be estimated, although
it is clear that certain circumstances tend to make the computation
error-prone. The first step in the estimation process is to obtain
impoundment inflow, discharge, and thermal regime data as well as
topographic/bathymetric maps of the system. Since a number of configu-
ration types are possible, the methods are perhaps best explained using
examples.
EXAMPLE V-5
Hydraulic Residence Time in Unstratified Impoundments
The first step in estimating hydraulic residence time for purposes
of sedimentation analysis is to determine whether there are signifi-
cant stagnant areas. These would include not only regions cut off
from the main flow through the body, but also layers isolated by dense
strata. Consequently, it must be determined whether or not the im-
poundment stratifies. Consider Upper Lake located on the Carmans
River, Long Island,, New York. The lake and surrounding region are
shown in Figure V-12, and hypothetical geometry data are presented
in Table V-6. Based upon Upper Lake's shallowness, its long, narrow
geometry, and high tributary inflows, it is safe to assume that
Upper Lake is normally unstratified. Also, because of turbulence
likely at the high flows, one can assume that the small sac northeast
of the discharge is not stagnant and that Upper Lake represents a slow
movinq river reach. With these assumptions, the computation of
hydraulic residence time is as shown in Table V-6.
42
-------
FIGURE V-12 UPPER AND LOWER LAKES AND ENVIRONS,
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
43
-------
TABLE V-6
HYPOTHETICAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF UPPER LAKE, BROOKHAVEN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Distance
from
Miles
0.05
0. 10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Downstream
Inflow
(feet)
(264)
(528)
(792)
(1,056)
(1,320)
(1,534)
(1,848)
(2,112)
(2,376)
(2,640)
D
Average
Depth
ft.
3
4
6
7
7
8
7
8
7
10
W
Average
Width
ft.
63
no
236
315
340
315
550
550
354
350
CSA
Cross-secti
Area,_D x
ft2
189
440
1,416
2,205
2,380
2,520
• 3,850
4,400
2,478
3,500
onal
W
Total length = 0.5 mi. (2,640 ft.)
Inflow from upstream = 380 cfs
Outflow to downstream = 380 cfs
(steady-state)
mean CSA = 2,338 ft'
Computation
Volume (Vol) = Total length x mean cross-sectional area
Vol = 2,640 ft. x 2,338 ft2 = 6.17 x 106 ft3
Residence time (T ) = Vol/flow
W
-r = 6.17 x 105 ft3/(380 ft3/sec) = 1.62 x 104 sec (4.5 hr)
w
Velocity (Vel) = length/-^
Vel = 2,640 ft/1.62 x 104 sec = .163 ft/sec
44
-------
Also shown in Figure V-12 is Lower Lake. According to the
hypothetical data presented in Table V-7, Lower Lake is much deeper
than Upper Lake. Its volume is significantly greater also, but the
inflow rate is similar. In this case, particularly during the summer,
it should be determined if the lake stratifies. For this example, however,
we will assume that the time of the year makes stratification very un-
likely, and that Lower Lake is a slow moving river reach. We then
compute hydraulic residence time as shown in Table V-7. Figure V-13
in particular diagram 1, shows what these assumptions mean in terms of
a flow pattern for both lakes.
END OF EXAMPLE V-5
EXAMPLE V-6
Assume for this example that Lower Lake is stratified during the
period of interest. This significantly changes the computation of res-
idence time. To a first approximation, one can merely revise the
effective depth of the impoundment to be from the surface to the upper
limit of the thermocline rather than to the bottom. Figure V-13 shows
schematically what this simple model suggests for Lower Lake as a
stratified impoundment (diagram 2 or possibly 3). The figure also
shows wind-driven shallow, and deep impoundments. To the right of
each diagram is a plot of the temperature profile over depth. Actually,
the profile could represent a salinity gradient as well as a thermal
gradient.
Table V-8 shows the procedure to estimate travel time for strati-
fied Lower Lake. The upper boundary of the thermocline is assumed to
be at a depth of 10 feet. For all later computations of sediment
accumulation, this same 10 foot depth would be adopted. Such an assump-
tion is valid presuming that the thermocline and hypo!imnion are
relatively quiescent. Thus once a particle enters the thermocline it
can only settle, and can not leave the impoundment.
END OF EXAMPLE V-6
45
-------
TABLE V-7
HYPOTHETICAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF LOWER LAKE, BROOKHAVEN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Distance Downstream
from Inflow
Miles (feet)
0.075 ( 396)
0.150 ( 792)
0.225 (1,188)
0.300 (1,584)
0.375 (1,980)
0.450 (2,376)
0.525 (2,772)
0.600 (3,163)
0.675 (3,564)
0.750 (3,960)
0.825 (4,356)
0.900 (4,752)
0.975 (5,148)
1.050 (5,544)
1.125 (5,940)
Total length = 1 .125
Inflow from upstream
D
Average
Depth
ft.
15
20
20
25
35
30
35
35
40
42
41
51
42
40
37
mi (5,940 ft.
400 cfs )
> (
Outflow to downstream 390 cfs I
W
Average
Width
ft.
157
165
173
197
197
228
232
197
220
315
433
591
551
433
323
)
surface rising)
j /
CSA
Cross-sectional
Area,0D x W
ft2
2,355
3,300
3,460
4,925
6,895
6,840
8,120
6,895
8,800
13,230
17,753
30,141
23,142
17,320
11,951
mean CSA = 11 ,008
Average flow = 395 cfs
Computation
Volume (Vol ) - Total
length x mean
cross-sectional
area
Vol - 5,940 ft. x 11,008 ft2 = 6.54 x 107 ft3
Residence Time (T ) = Vol/flow
TW = 6.54 x 107/(395 ft3/sec) = 1.65 x 105 sec (46 hr)
Velocity (Vel) = length/Tw
Vel = 5,940 ft/1.65 x 105 sec = .036 ft/sec
46
-------
I.AIM>C tuttrAcro, >»»i- MOWN*
IMPOUW>«1 NT
ICIWWI
_j _
"* *"•""'•''•*
^SSfffffifff: $«<<•>«»' i "i" :v:v.v'.v.:x:x:''''
'V-HWW^vAVAVAv.v.v.vX-H'X*.* • •
Thermoclme (EtlcAtiolly Stagnonr)
L*R6E SU»F*CfO, UOOERATEtr SHALLOW j
iMPOUNOMtNT, VERY LOW VELOCITIES
Hypoltmnion
l d*tr««H\ i Millrtf
i Itt 4«pth with I ) dtcr*o*«4
t-I'X':v.'.vv.v.v.v.v.v.vX-X: '
1C ...I1)1
1 d«cr*a*«tf mtxiMi -S
(3) i ""«« «'«
SHALLOW, WIND MIXED (TURBULENT) IMPOUNDMENT
S«4lm«ni Laye
Ort(", SUPERFICIALLY TURBULENT
STRATIFIED IMPOUNDMENT
Rtcfiving
CMnntl
°l
FIGURE V-13 IMPOUNDMENT CONFIGURATIONS AFFECTING SEDIMENTATI
ON
47
-------
TABLE V-8
HYPOTHETICAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF LOWER LAKE, BROOKHAVEN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
(ASSUMING AN EPILIMNION DEPTH OF 10 FEET)
Distance Downstream
from Inflow
Miles (feet)
0.075
0.150
0.225
0.300
0.375
0.450
0.525
0.600
0.675
0.750
0.825
0.900
0.975
1.050
1.125
D
Average
Depth
ft.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
W
Average
Width
ft.
160
170
175
200
198
230
233
200
222
316
435
590
552
435
325
CSA
Cross-sectional
Area , 0D x W
ft2
1,600
1 ,700
1,750
2,000
1,980
2,300
2,330
2,000
2,220
3,160
' • 4,350 -
5,900
5,520
4,350
3,250
Total length = 1.125 mi (5,940 ft.)
Inflow from upstream 397 cfs
Outflow to downstream 393 cfs
Average flow - 395 cfs
mean CSA = 2,961 ft'
(steady-state surface, difference
due to loss to water table)
Computation
Volume (Vol) = Total length x mean cross-sectional area
Vol = 5,940 ft. x 2,961 ft2 = 1.76 x 107
Residence Time (T ) = Vol/flow
TW = 1.76 x 107/(395 ft3/sec) = 4.46 x 104 sec (12.3 hr)
Velocity (Vel) = length/T
w
Vel = 5,940 ft/4.46 x 10^ sec = 0.133 ft/sec
48
-------
EXAMPLE V-7
Large, Irregular Surface Impoundment
Figure V-14 shows Kellis Pond and surrounding topography. This-
small pond is located near Bridgehampton, New York and has a surface
area of about 36 acres. From the surface shape of the pond, it is
clear that it cannot be considered as a stream reach.
Figure V-15 shows a set of hypothetical depth profiles for the
pond. From the profiles, it is evident that considerable shoaling
has resulted in the formation of a relatively well defined flow
channel through the pond. Peripheral stagnant areas have also formed.
Hypothetical velocity vectors for the pond are presented in Figure
V-16. Based upon them, it is reasonable to consider the pond as
being essentially the hatched area in Figure V-15. To estimate
travel times, the hatched area may be handled in the same way as for
the Upper Lake example presented above. It should be noted, however,
that this approach will almost certainly result in underestimation of
sediment'deposition in later computations. This is true for two
reasons. First, estimated travel time will be smaller than the true
value since impoundment volume is underestimated. Second, since the
approach ignores the low flow velocities to either side of the central
channel and nonuniform velocities within it, heavier sedimentation
than computed is likely.
49
-------
SOUTHAMPTON
BRIDGEHAMPTON
KELLIS POND
WEST MECOX
VILLAGE
MILES
FIGURE V-14 KELLIS POND AND SURROUNDING REGION, LONG ISLAND,
NEW YORK
50
-------
FIGURE V-15 HYPOTHETICAL DEPTH PROFILES FOR KELLIS POND
51
-------
•STAGNANT
STAGNANT-
FIGURE V-16 HYPOTHETICAL FLOW PATTERN IN KELLIS POND
Still more difficult to evaluate is the situation where shoaling
and scour have not resulted in formation of a distinct central
channel. Figure V-17 shows hypothetical depth profiles for Kellis
Pond for such a case.
Here, velocity distribution data should be obtained, particu-
0
larly if the impoundment is of much importance. If such data are
not available but it is deemed worthwhile to do field studies,
methods available for evaluating flow patterns include dye tracing
and drogue floats. A simple but adequate method (at least to evalu-
ate the surface velocity distribution) is to pour a large number of
citrus fruits (oranges, grapefruit) which float just below the surface,
into the impoundment, and to monitor both their paths and velocities.
Although it is true that surface velocities may be greater than the
velocity averaged over depth, this will permit estimation of hydraulic
residence time directly or generation of data to use in the prescribed
method. In the latter case, the data might be used to define the
major flow path through an impoundment of a form like Kellis Pond.
END OF EXAMPLE V-7
EXAMPLE V-8
Comb!ex Geometries
The final hydraulic residence time example shows the degree of
complexity that sediment deposition problems may entail. Although
it is possible to make rough estimates of sediment accumulation, it
52
-------
PLAN VIEW
Ns,
V
TRANSECTS
A
B
D
FIGURE V-17 HYPOTHETICAL DEPTH PROFILES FOR KELLIS POND
NOT SHOWING SIGNIFICANT SHOALING
53
-------
is recommended that for such impoundments more rigorous methods be
used - mathematical modeling and/or detailed field investigations.
Figure V-18 shows Lake Owyhee in eastern Oregon. This impound-
ment is well outside the ranpo of complexity of rr.ter bodies which
can be evaluated using these calculation methods. Because of geometry,
the number of tributaries, and size, it isn't feasible to conceptually
reduce the impoundment in such a way as to estimate travel times. Flow
patterns are likely to be very complex, and sediment deposition is dif-
ficult to predict both in terms of quantity and location.
In contrast, Figure V-19 shows New Millpond near Islip, New
York and surrounding features. Although this water body does not have
a simple surface geometry, it can be reduced to three relatively
simple components as shown in the figure. Bearing in mind the limita-
tions imposed by wind mixing, stratification, and the presence of
stagnant regions described in earlier examples, deposition might
nevertheless be estimated in arms A, B, and C. Because of the diffi-
culty of predicting velocities and turbulence in section D, estimates
of sedimentation cannot be reliably made there. However, it is
likely that much of inflowing sediments will have settled out by the
time water flows through the arms and into section D.
END OF EXAMPLE V-8
5.3.5 Estimation of Sediment Accumulation
Estimation of quantities of sediment retained in an impoundment
follows directly from the computations of settling velocity and
travel time, although the computation depends upon whether the adopted
model is plug flow, or a fully mixed layer or impoundment.
In the case of plug flow, one of two subordinate assumptions is
made: that the plug is fully mixed as in turbulent flow, or that
1t moves in a "laminar" flow through the impoundment. In terms of
sediment accumulation estimates, the fully mixed plug assumption is
54
-------
LAKE
OWYHEE
SCALED
12345
FIGURE V-1% IAKE OWYHEE AND ENVIRONS
55
-------
NEWMILLPOND
FIGURE V-19 NEW MILLPOND AND FNVIRONS, HEW MILLPOND is
SUBDIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF FSTIMATING SFDI-
MENTATION IN REGIONS A, B, AND P.,
56
-------
handled in the same way as the fully mixed impoundment model. Thus
we have two kinds of computations:
Cases^
A • Plug flow with the plug not
mixed vertically
versus
t Plug flow assuming a vertically
mixed plug, or
• A fully mixed impoundment or stratum
Equation (V-12) is pertinent to both cases A and B. It defines
the mass of sediment trapped as a function of trap efficiency and
inflowing sediment mass. Equation (V-13) should be used for case A,
and Equation (V-14) for case B.
St = SjP (V-12)
P = ((TWV) + D" -Dj/D" (V-13)
P »^w
D1 (V-14)
where
P = mean proportion of S. trapped
$t = mass of sediment trapped per unit time
S. = mass of sediment in inflows per unit time
v = particle settling velocity
0 = discharge channel depth
D1 = flowing layer depth
D" = inflow channel depth
57
-------
Figure V-20 shows the significance of the various depth measures
D, D1, and D" , and the assumed sedimentation pattern. In case B,
in the absence cf substantial erratic turbulence and unpredicted
vertical velocity components, and within the constraints of available
data, it is clear that this approach can give reasonable estimates
of trap efficiencies. In case A, however, small changes in D or D"
can strongly affect trap efficiencies. It is important to remember
in applying case A that P is a mean, preferably used over a period
of time. It is also important to recognize that conditions within
an impoundment leading to selection of case A or B are subject to
change, thus affecting estimates.
For convenience, Figure V-21 is included to provide estimates
°f Vm3 f°r spherical particles of 2.7 specific gravity. The data
max
are presented as a function of particle diameter and temperature.
Figure V-22 is a nomograph relating trap efficiency, P (in percent)
to depth D1, V , , and T . The nomograph is useful only for case B
(TtG X W
assumptions.
EXAMPLE V-9
Sedimentation in Upper and Lower Lakes
Using the data from Table V-6 and settling velocities for the
clay and sand of Example V-4, for case A,
4
T = 1.6x10 sec
w
Vmax for clay = 8 ft day"1
Vmav for sand = 252 ft hour"
max
58
-------
PLUG FLOW, PLUG NOT MIXED VERTICALLY
Thermocl ine
Hypolimnion
Sediment Layer ;.;
IMPOUNDMENT -
D
J_
CASE A
Flow
PLUG FLOW, VERTICALLY MIXED PLUG
D" : .:
••• -:::
t
\
v.v.^
'••:•
c
1
)'
IvX'XvX'X'Sediment Layer >XvX'X->X*
DOUNDME
/:•:•:
>%'t"."."."
'•'•'
•'
: .'.':'".\ D
S^. " T
CASE B
Flow
FULLY MIXED IMPOUNDMENT OR STRATUM
;Sediment Layer vX-X
IMPOUNDMENT —
CASE B
FIGURE 20 SIGNIFICANCE OF DEPTH MEASURES D, D , AND
D , AND THE ASSUMED SEDIMENTATION PATTERN
59
-------
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-2--
-3--
u
'•£ -4
k_
o
Q.
0)
-6 -
o»
o
-8 - —
-9
.001 mm
.00075 mm
.0005 mm
00025 mm
I x 10 mm
FIGURE V-21 SETTLING VELOCITY FOR SPHERICAL PARTICLES
60
-------
10
-7.
IQ-0--
10
-s::
10
-4
IO"3--
10
-2J1
10°--
Tu)
io5-
--10
10'
10
St/Sj
10
-6
10
-4
IO°-3=l.99°/<
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
X
V : Settling velocity in feet/
second
T : Hydraulic residence time
in seconds
D': Flowing layer depth
S.: Mass of sediment trapped
S.: Mass of sediment entering
1 impoundment
L : Pivot axis
10
D'
4-
I03"
IQ2--
10'--
10°
|0I.699=50
FIGURE V-22 NOMOGRAPH FOR ESTIMATING SEDIMENT TRAP EFFICIENCY
61
-------
Although it is not specified in Table 7-6, the inflow channel depth
at the entrance to Upper Lake is 3 feet. The discharge channel depth
is 10 feet. Assuming "laminar" flow with minimal vertical components,
for clay:
[(Tw x v) + D" - D]
TW " DTi
P =
[(1.6xl04x9.3xlO"5) +3-10]
P = -5.5
The negative value implies that the proportion settling out is
virtually zero. Thus the clay will to a large extent pass through
Upper Lake. However, x for this examole is very small (4.5 hours)
w
Many impoundments will have substantially larger values.
For the sand,
p [(1.6x104x7xlO"2) +3-10]
3
P = 371
All of the sand will clearly be retained. Note that a clay or very
4 1
fine silt of vmax = 5x10 ft sec would be only partially trapped.
p [Q.6x1Q4x5x10"4) +3-10]
3
P = 0.33
62
-------
Thus about one-third of this sediment loading would be retained.
Note that if D is large, trap efficiency drops using this algorithm.
For the silt, a discharge channel depth (at the outflow from Upper
Lake) of 11 feet rather than 10 would give
[Q.6xlQ4x5xlO"4) + 3-11] n
- 3 u
Thus with D=ll, all silt exits the impoundment. If D is only 9 feet, then
p = [Q.6x104x5xlQ"4) +3-9] =
o
Two-thirds of the silt is retained. Remember that P represents a
mean value. Clearly during some periods none of the silt will be
retained (due to turbulence, higher velocities) while during other
periods, all of the silt will be trapped. The key here is the word
"mean."
If the impoundment is assumed to be vertically mixed (case B),
compute the mean depth D
n
D = z D./n
where
n = the number of cross-sections
Di = depth at the ith cross-section
For Upper Lake,
D = 6.7 = D1
63
-------
Then
V T
P-
D'
For the clay,
9.3x10"5x1.6x104
About one-fourth of the clay is retained.
For the sand,
„ 7x10"2xl.6x104
p = _
All of the sand will be trapped within about 1/167 times the length
of the lake. If the daily influent loading of sand is one ton, while
the loading of clay is fifteen tons, then the daily accumulation will
be one ton of sand and 0.22 x 15 = 3.3 tons of clay.
Finally, as an example of use of Figures V-21 and V-22, assume
that the sediment loading consists primarily of silt particles in the
size range of .002mm diameter, and that the water temperature is 5°C.
Further, assume T has been estimated as 2.77 days (10 seconds), and
that D'=50 feet. From Figure V-21, the settling velocity is about
-4
1x10 feet per second.
-4 d
In Figure V-22, draw a line from 10 on the V axis to 10 on the
T axis. The point of intersection with axis L.is L'. Next, compute
Iog1050=1.699. Draw a line from this point on the D' axis to !_' .
Where this line crosses the S./S. (%) axis gives the log of the percent
of the sediment trapped. This is 10 '=1.99=2%.
END OF EXAMPLE V-9
64
-------
5.4 EUTROPHICATION AND CONTROL
5.4.1 Introduction
The presence of nutrients in an impoundment generally favors plant
growth. Depending upon antecedent conditions, the relative abundance of
nitrogen, phosphorus, light, and heat, and the status of a number of other
physical and chemical variables, the predominant forms may be diatoms, other
microscopic or macroscopic algae, or bottom-rooted or free-floating
macrophytes. The quantity of plant matter present in an impoundment is
important for several reasons. First, plant cells produce oxygen during
photosynthesis, thereby providing an important source of dissolved oxygen to
the water column. During the sunlight hours plant cells also consume oxygen
through the process of respiration. Respiration occurs along with
photosynthesis during the day, but also occurs at night. Oxygen consumed at
night may be considerable, not only because it serves to sustain the plant
cells, but because the cells actively perform various vital metabolic
functions in the dark.
Plant growth within an impoundment is also important because plant
biomass is a major source of nutrition for indigenous fauna, and the growth
of plants constitutes what is called "primary production." The stored
energy and nutrients provide food for various grazers higher in the food
chain, either through direct consumption of living plant tissue by fishes
and zooplankton or through consumption of detritus by fishes,
microorganisms, and zooplankton. The grazers, in turn, provide food for
predatory fishes, mammals, insects, and other higher forms.
Finally, plant development in impoundments is important because it
tends to accelerate impoundment aging. As plants grow, organic matter and
sediment accumulate. As the impoundment fills with rock fragments, soil,
and plant detritus, an excellent substrate forms upon which more suspended
matter may be trapped and which may ultimately support the growth of higher
plants and trees. The gradual filling in of an impoundment in this way
reduces its usefulness, and may finally eliminate the impoundment
completely.
65
-------
5.4.2 Nutrients, Eutrophy, and Algal Growth
Eutrophy means literally a state of good nutrition. Plants require a
number of nutrients, but to vastly different degrees. Some nutrients, such
as carbon, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, are needed in large
quantity. These are termed macronutrients. The micronutrients, e.g. iron,
cobalt, manganese, zinc, and copper, are needed in very small amounts. In
nature, the micronutrients, carbon, and potassium are usually in adequate
supply (although not always), while nitrogen and phosphorus are commonly
growth limiting.
Nitrogen, particularly as nitrate and ammonium ions, is available to
water-borne plant cells to be used in synthesis of proteins, chlorophyll _a,
and plant hormones. Each of these substances is vital for plant survival.
Phosphorus, an element found in a number of metabolic cofactors, is
also necessary for plant nutrition. The biosynthesis and functioning of
various biochemical cofactors rely on the availability of phosphorus, and
these cofactors lie at the very foundation of plant cell metabolism.
Without adequate phosphorus, plant cells cannot grow.
Since nitrogen and phosphorus are commonly in limited supply, many
impoundments tend inherently to be clear and essentially free of clogging
algae and vascular plants. Because of society's ever-increasing size and
need for food, chemical sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are synthesized
and spread over vast tracts of farmland. Stormwater washes off these
nutrients, which then flow through streams and into natural and artificial
impoundments. Also, excessive nutrients occur in wastewaters from
municipalities and industry. Due to the fact that many impoundments have
very low flow velocities, impoundments represent excellent bioloaical
culturinq vessels, and often become choked with plant life when nutrients
increase.
Since a plant cell has at any point in time a specific need for
nitrogen and for phosphorus, one or the other or both may limit cell growth
or replication. Where nitrogen is the nutrient that restricts the rate of
plant growth, that is, where all other nutrients and factors are present in
66
-------
excess, we say that nitroqen is growth limiting. In general, N:P ratios in
the range of 5 to 10 by mass are usually associated with plant growth being
neither nitroaen nor phosphorus limited. However, in this range, plant
growth may well be limited by N and P collectively. Where the ratio is
greater than 10, phosphorus tends to be 1'miting, and for ratios below 5,
nitrogen tends to be limiting (Chiaudani, _et _al_., 1974).
In addition to nitroqen and phosphorus, any necessary nutrient or
physical condition may limit plant growth. For example, in highly
nutritious (eutrophic) waters, algal biomass may increase until light cannot
penetrate, and light is then limiting. At such a point, a dynamic
equilibrium exists in which algal cells are consumed, settle or lyse (break)
at the same rate as new cells are produced.
To summarize, the process of eutrophication (or fertilization) is
enrichment of a lake with nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus.
However, the problem of eutrophication resulting from increased plant
biomass caused by enrichment will be discussed. Some of the problems of
predicting algae and the screening method will be developed for screening
purposes, a nutrient approach will be taken so that control measures can be
evaluated and then, plant biomass (algal blooms and macrophytes), will be
estimated to provide a relationship with the problem of eutrophication.
5.4.3 Predicting Algal Concentrations
Predicting algal blooms or predominance of macrophytes using a
mechanistic approach can be a very complex problem, and most methods are not
suited to a simple hand calculation technique. Some relationships regarding
algal productivity have been derived, however, which permit an evaluation of
the eutrophic state of an impoundment. Because the methods permit algal
biomass to be estimated with relatively little, easily obtained data, and
because algae are very important in assessing impoundment water quality,
these techniques are useful here. The methods presented below are based
upon the fact that in most cases (perhaps 60 percent) phosphorus is the
biomass limiting nutrient (EPA, 1975). One such approach has been developed
by Vollenweider (Vollenweider, 1976; Lorenzen, 1976). It may be used to
67
-------
predict the degree of impoundment eutrophication as a function of areal
phosphorus loading. It does not, however, permit direct estimates of algal
biomass to be made.
Before considering application of any of the methods to assess
eutrophication, it is important to examine the nitrogen to phosphorus ratio.
This indicates whether any of the methods presented below is "likely to give
realistic results. ( ',^N
5.4.3.1 Nutrient Limitation .^xt .^ -• ^ )L^
/$*X '" {>C|0'>
Generally, an average algal cell has an elemental composition for the
macronutrients of Cioe Nie Pi. With 16 atoms of nitrogen for each atom of
phosphorus, the average composition bv weight is 6.3 percent nitrogen and
0.87 percent phosphorus or an N/P ratio of 7.2/1. For N/P ratios greater
than 7.?, phosphorus would be less available for growth ("limiting") and
less than 7.2, nitrogen would be limiting. In practice, values of less than
5 are considered nitrogen limiting, greater than 10 are phosphorus limitinq,
and between 5 and 10, both are limiting.
In many cases of eutrophic lakes, nitrogen is not limiting because of
the process of nitrogen fixation. Some blue-green algae, a particularly
noxious type of algae, have enzymatic processes for the biochemical
conversion of dissolved elemental nitrogen into reduced nitrogen (amine
groups) suitable for growth and metabolism. Special cells called
heterocysts perform this process and only appear when nitrogen is limiting.
It can be argued that in general nitrogen is not limiting and a "worst case"
analysis can be made for a screening approach using phosphorus. However,
the chlorophyll produced is affected by the N/P ratio as are the algal
species.
68
-------
5.4.3.2 Nutrient Availability
Availability of nutrients is also important. Participate nitrogen and
phosphorus in the inflowing tributaries generally settle and can therefore
be considered unavailable. Few estimates of bioavailable nutrients have
been made and only for phosphorus. Cowen and Lee (1976) indicated that 30
percent or less of urban runoff phosphorus was available to algae while
Dorich et aj_. (1980) found a value of 20 to 30 percent for sediment bound
phosphorus (as would occur in rural runoff). It appears that a fraction of
0.3 would provide a conservative estimate of bioavailable phosphorus in the
absence of actual measurements.
5.4.4 Mass Balance of Phosphorus
A material entering a lake or impoundment will partition between the
aqueous and solid phases. The solid phase can settle and become bottom
sediment or outflow can remove suspended and aqueous phase material. A
diagramatic presentation of this concept is shown in Figure V-23. The
concentration of the material can be calculated very simply after making
several assumptions: the lake is completely mixed, the lake is at steady
state and inflowing water equals outflow, and the annual average rates are
constant. Although these assumptions are not met entirely for phosphorus,
they are satisfied well enough to meet requirements for a screening analysis
of eutrophication. Based on its historical development the eutrophication
screening methods are termed the "Vollenweider Relationship."
As shown in Figure V-23, any of three different forms of the steady
state equation can be used to predict phosphorus concentrations in lakes.
Each form may be more or less suitable for a specific data set. The
important variables are the hydraulic flushing or dilution rate (Q/V,
inverse of residence time), lake volume to area ratio (V/A, equals mean
depth), phosphorus in the influent (PI), and the net rate of removal (K).
The variables Q, V, A must be determined from other data. The influent
phosphorus can be based on measurements or estimated from calculations
performed as in Chapter 3 and including any municipal and industrial
69
-------
QI = INFLOW
XI
CONCENTRATION
OF POLLUTANT
A = AREA
WATER
Y
OUTFLOW = Q
SEDIMENTS
V = VOLUME
X = CONCENTRATION IN LAKE
For Example - Phosphorus, P = X
LOADING
Lp = QI • PI / A, mg/m2 year
MASS BALANCE
Assumptions
Definitions
completely mixed, steady state, Q = QI , annual average
rates are constant
Mean depth, Z = V/A; hydraulic flushing or dilution
rate, D = Q/V; hydraulic loading, q = Q/A; M =
QI • PI; K = net rate of solid phase removal and
release (proportional to P), typically negative when
averaged over the annual cycle.
. KP ,
Solving for P,
D • PI
P =
P =
D + K
M /
1D + K
p = __
(Mass Balance Form)
(Mass Inflow Form)
(Loading Form)
FIGURE V-23
FORMULATIONS FOR EVALUATING MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
FOR POLLUTANTS IN LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
70
-------
effluents. Generally, effluents are considered totally available for
growth. Nonpoint sources should be assessed as 100 percent available and as
30 percent available to provide limits for screening purposes.
Estimation of the net rate of removal (K) is not as clear. Jones &
Bachmann (1976) estimated that K=0.65 by least squares fitting of data for
143 lakes.
Vollenweider (1976) and Larsen and Mercier (1976) independently
estimated the net rate of removal as a function of dilution rate:
This approach is best used for screening. Also the value of K can be
estimated from the ratio (R) of the measured mass phosphorus retained
(in-out) and the mass inflow:
QI-PI - Q.-_P. = PI-JL
"
._.
QI-PI " PI
P-Z
To assess the placement of a specific lake relative to a set of lakes,
phosphorus loading (PL) is graphed as a function of hydraulic loading (q )
(Figure V-24). The data for 34 U.S. surface waters are shown. (Some lakes
occur more than once because of multi-year studies.)
-EXAMPLE V-10
Big Reservoir and
The Voilen wej_c!er _Re_l_at,ionship
To use the Vollenweider relationship for phosphorus loading, data on
long-term phosphorus loading rates must be available. It is also important
that the rates represent average loading conditions over time because
transient phosphorus loading pulses will give misleading results. Big
Reservoir is a squarish reservoir end has the follc.-.ing characteristics:
71
-------
fj
001
™TT;
.6 JJ
10 i 1 i—i : ; ; 11; ——i 1—i—i—TTTT] ;r
35 O
« 29 16 128 /
EUTROPHIC • * /EXCESSIVE
? 8 4 / /
«n* o' °5° ° / /PERMISSIBLE
^ |- °14 «46 X X
47 22 «3' 30 49 / /
II ° °2 • • / /
9 54 X /
O C 3 13® 39«» *!,, / ^X
25
43
7 «" ./ *5I X
« «44 -^ ^
INVESTIGATOR-INDICATED -
O
"" — ~~ ' TROPHIC STATE :
^ , 53 23-B ^^ O -EUTROPHIC
o: ""
o o
CL
to
O
X
a.
24-A
_9-*^ A-MESOTROPHIC
O24-B O -OLIGOTROPHIC
012
o
35
I9
002I
'0 OLIGOTROPHIC
o \
I _, I 1 I I I M) I I I I _1 ,1 I l! I ' 1 I I Mil 1 . I .. .' 1 . 1 .M I
Ol I 10 100 1000
MEAN DEPTH Z/HYDRAULIC RESIDENCE TIME . T^
( m /yr )
FIGURE V-24 US OECD DATA APPLIED TO VOLLENWEIDER (1976)
PHOSPHORUS LOADING AND MEAN DEPTH/HYDRAULIC
RESIDENCE TIME RELATIONSHIP (TAKEN FROM RAST
AND LEE, 1973)
72
-------
Big Reservoir
Available Data (all values are means):
Length 2.0 mi = 3.22 km
Width 5. mi = .805 km
Depth (Z) 200 ft - 20 m
Inflow (Q) 50 cfs = 1.42 cms
Total phosphorus concentration in water column 0.482 ppm
Total nitrogen concentration in water column 2.2 ppm
Total phosphorus concentration in the inflow 1.0 ppm
In order to apply the plot in Figure V-24, the first step is to make as
certain as possible that algal growth is phosphorus limited. In this case,
the weight to weight N:P ratio is 2.2/.4S = 4.6. Presumably, algal growth
in Big Reservoir is not phosphorus limited, and the Vollenweider
relationship for phosphorus is not a good one to use. In this case a
rigorous model should be used. If nitrogen fixation is observed to occur
(heterocystous blue-green algae), an estimate of the potential problem can
be obtained by assuming phosphorus to be limiting:
V - 3220m • 805m • 20m = 51.8 million m3
1.42 m3 86400 sec 365 day .865
D = - — — - • - * - -
sec 51.8Mm3 day yr yr
T =1.16 years
K = VD = 0.93
P =
PI = 0.482 mg/1
D + K
2
Lp - Q • PI/A = 17.3 g/m2 yr
q = Q/A = Z/TW = 20/1.16 = 17.2 m/yr
73
-------
Plotting Lp and q on Figure V-24 shows that the reservoir could be
extremely eutrophic.
— -END OF EXAMPLE V-10
•EXAMPLE V-ll
Bigger Reservoir and
The Voile nwe i d er Re1 at i on ship
The physical characteristics of Bigger Reservoir are:
Bigger Reservoir
Available Data (all values are means):
Length 20 mi = 32.2 km
Width 10 mi - 16.1 km
Depth (Z) 200 ft = 61 m
Inflow (Q) 500 cfs
Total phosphorus concentration in inflow 0.8 ppm
Total nitrogen concentration in inflow 10.6 ppm
As in the preceding example, first determine whether phosphorus is
likely to be growth limiting. Since data are available only for influent
water, and since no additional data are available on impoundment water
quality, N:P for influent water will be used.
\ r>/? '- 7 ^
-JxSvXj-^^- i '
N:P = 10.6/0.8 = 13.25
Thus algal growth in Bigger Reservoir is probably phosphorus limited.
Compute the approximate surface area, volume and the hydraulic residence
time.
Volume (V) = 20 mi x 10 mi x 200 ft x 52802 =
1.12 x 1012ft3 = 3.16 x 1010m3
74
-------
Hydraulic residence time ( TW) = V/Q =
1.12 x 1012ft3/500 ft'sec"1 = 2.24 x 109sec = 71 yr
Surface area (A) = 20 mi x 10 mi x 52802 =
5.57 x 109ft2 = 5.18 x 10V
Next, compute q
"s •
q = 61 m/71 yr = 0.86 m yr'1
Compute annual inflow, Q
J
Q = Q x 3.15 x 107' sec yr"1
y
Qy = 1.58 x 1010ft3 yr"1
Phosphorus concentration in the inflow is 0.8 ppm or 0.8 mg/1. Loading (Lp)
in grams per square meter per year is computed from the phosphorus
concentration, in mg/1:
Lp , 28.3U x _LJL x O.Smg x - 1 - x 1>58xloio ft
ft3 lOOOmg * 5.18xlOBM2 yr
-? -1
Lp = 0.70 gm yr
Now, referring to the plot in Figure V-23, we would expect that Bigger
Reservoir is eutrophic, possibly with severe summer algal blooms.
-END OF EXAMPLE V-ll"
75
-------
•EXAMPLE V-12
The Vollenweider Relationship
Using Monthly Inflow Quality Data
Is Frog Lake eutrophic? Frog Lake's physical characteristics are as
shown below:
Frog Lake
Available Data:
Mean length 2 mi
Mean width 1/2 mi
Mean depth 25 ft
Available Inflow Water Quality Data:
Q (monthly mean, cfs) Total P (mg/1) Inorganic N (mg/1)
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
1972
50
80
40
-
-
60
80
75
40
-
38
38
1974
65
90
40
-
-
58
80
76
70
25
20
25
1972
0.1
0.02
0.03
-
-
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.03
-
0.09
0.06
1974
0.08
0.02
0.04
-
-
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.04
0.05
1972
7.2
6.3
3.1
-
-
. 2.0
2.3
0.55
1.20
-
3.50
2.80
1974
6.0
2.4
1.5
-
-
1.9
0.50
0.52
1.35
2.01
1.29
1.00
76
-------
First, estimate the mean annual flow and the hydraulic residence time. To
compute mean annual flow,
y ni y
Q - ( Z Z Q )/ Z n.
where
Q. . = the individual flow measurements
i >J
y = the number of years of data
n. = the number of observations per year
Q = 1050/19 = 55.3 cfs = 1.75 x 109 ft3/yr
Now estimate the volume, surface area, hydraulic residence time, and qs
V = 2 mi x 1/2 mi x 25 ft x 52802 = 6.97 x 108ft3 =
1.98 x 10V
A = 2 mi x 1/2 mi x 52802 = 2.79 x 107ft2 = 2.59 x 106m2
T = V/Q = 6.97 x 108ft3/55.3 cfs = 1.26 x 107sec = 0.4 yr
w
q = 25/0.4 = 62.5
Next, calculate the weighted mean inflow phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations P and N as follows:
n. n.
P (or N) = ( Z Z Q. x C. .)/( Z Z Q )
1=1 j-1 lfj lfj i=l j=l 1>J
P = 43.86/1050 = 0.042 ppm
N = 2671.902/1050 = 2.54 ppm
The N:P ratio in the inflows is 60. Therefore if one of the two is growth
limiting, it is probably phosphorus. Compute the phosphorus loading, Lp.
77
-------
L = j^-iAlJt x —-—y — x y^—^-^ x • - - x ^--i-^jy_LL_
P ft3 1000 mg £ 2.59xl06m2 yr
Lp = 0.80
Now, referring to the plot in Fiqure V- 23 with Lp = 0.80 and a = 62.5, the
impoundment is well into the oligotrophic region.
END OF EXAMPLE V-12
5.4.5 Phosphorus Levels in Predicting Algal Productivity and Biomass
Another technique, which is also based upon phosphorus loading, may be
even more useful than the Vollenweider relationship because it permits
summer chlorophyll _a concentrations to be estimated rather than general
impoundment trophic status. The method has been advanced by several
researchers including Sakamoto (1966), Lund (1971), Dillon (1974), and
Dillon and Rigler (1975). Briefly, the method relates mean summer
chlorophyll _a concentrations to spring mean total phosphorus. As shown in
Figure V-25, the relationship is highly correlated, and a regression of the
log of summer mean chlorophyll _a on the log of spring mean phosphorus is
linear. Using a least squares method gives the equation of the line as
(Lorenzen, 1978):
log (chl _a) = 1.5 log (P)-l.l (V-15)
or
chl a = O.OS(P)1-5 P
-------
1000-
fO
:ioo-
Q.
o
or
3
X
O
a:
UJ
10-
1.0-
CO
UJ
o.i-
• Japanese Lakes
a Other Lakes
a
10
100 1000
SPRING MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
MG/M3
FIGURE V-25 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUMMER CHLOROPHYLL AND
SPRING PHOSPHORUS (FROM LORENZEN, I'NPUBLISHED)
79
-------
CO
o
500
0 K
0.05 0.10
P04= (as P, mg/l)
0.15
FIGURE V-26 MAXIMAL PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF PHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION
(AFTER CHIAUDANI, EIAL,, 1974)
-------
carbon productivity, as in the plot in Figure V-26, may be converted to
total algal biomass. Since approximate analysis of dried algae has been
determined as (Stumm and Morgan, 1970):
1 0 6 2 6 s 1 1
1 6°
the gravimetric factor is ywr - 2.8. Thus, maximal carbon productivity may
be multiplied by 2.8 to give a rough estimate of maximal algal biomass
productivity.
The user should bear in mind that applying this technique can only lead
to rough estimates. If it is desired to predict biomass or productivity
with accuracy, more sophisticated approaches may be necessary.
EXAMPLE V-13
Spring Phosphorus and Summer Chlorophyll a
_3
Lake Sara mean spring total phosphorus concentration = .03 mg/1 = 30 mg/m
chl a^ = O.OS(P)1-5
chl a_ = 13.1 mg/m3
algal dry biomass = 13.1 x 33 = 430 mg/m3
Maximal carbon productivity in the impoundment may be estimated from the
_p _i
curve in Figure V-26 to be about 1950 mgCm day or about 5460 mg dry algal
O 1
biomass m'^day .
Observe that the two methods may lead to contradictions. In this case,
if Lake Sara is 5 meters deep, the concentration is 5460/5 = 1092 mg/m3.
This does not compare well with the 430 mg/m3 value just computed, and the
discrepancy reflects one inadequacy in usage of the Chiaudani curve, namely,
that it really does not permit estimates of concentration to be made. The
81
-------
discrepancy also reaffirms the importance of applying good judgment in
evaluating estimates and in using more than one technique.
END OF EXAMPLE V-13
In the absence of measured data, the in-lake concentration (P) can be
computed based on the various point and nonpoint loadings (n):
n
Lp = £ Q..PI,
1=1
Z (D+K)
Then chlorophyll _a can be estimated as shown in the previous paragraphs.
5.4.6 Restoration Measures
Control of eutrophication in lakes can be evaluated by a variety of
approaches (Table V-9). Some methods are directed at external sources (PI)
and others at in-lake sources (K). Changes in volume (V) and inflow (0)
obviously will affect predicted results. For example, dredging will
decrease the return of phosphorus for the sediments (i.e. increase K) and
increase the volume (i.e. decrease D). If the input concentration (PI) is
the initial variable, then source controls should be investigated. If
internal sources are involved, then in-lake controls should be evaluated.
In many lakes, both source and in-lake controls will be needed.
Problem treatment is directed at the productivity directly. These controls
are often the only alternative for many lake situations. These methods are
evaluated only in a qualitative way.
82
-------
TABLE V-9
CLASSIFICATION OF LAKE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
I. Source Controls
A. Treatment of inflows
B. Diversion of inflows
C. Watershed management (land uses, practices, nonpoint source
control, regulations and/or treatments).
D. Lake riparian regulation or modification
E. Product modification or regulation
II. In-Lake Controls
A. Dredging
B. Volume changes other than by dredging or compaction of
sediments
C. Nutrient inactivation
D. Dilution/Flushing
E. Flow adjustment ,
F. Sediment exposure and dessication
G. Lake bottom sealing
H. In-lake sediment leaching
I. Shoreline modification
J. Riparian treatment of lake water
K. Selective discharge
III. Problem Treatment (directed at biological consequences of lake
condition)
A. Physical techniques (harvesting, water level fluctutations,
habitat manipulations)
B. Chemical (algicides, herbicides, pesticides)
C. Biological (predator-prey manipulations, pathological
reactions).
D. Mixing (aeration, mechanical pumps, lake bottom modification)
E. Aeration (add DO; e.g. hypolimnetic aeration)
83
-------
5.4.7 Water Column Phosphorus Concentrations
The relationships described in 5.4.5 for predicting algal biomass are
predicated on phosphorus levels within the impoundment. A more precise
mechanism for estimating phosphorus lake concentrations based on
interactions between bottom sediments and overlying water has been
developed.
Lorenzen, e_t al. (1976) developed a phosphorus budget model
(Figure V-27) which may be used to estimate water column and sediment bound
phosphorus in a fully mixed system. A mass balance on both sediment and
water column phosphorus concentrations yields the coupled differential
equations:
dC , M K AC K, AC C Q
__
dt
dt
C = average annual total phosphorus concentration in water
w
column (g/m3)
C = total exchangeable phosphorus concentration in the sediments
(g/m3)
total annual phosphorus loading (g/yr)
lake volume (m3)
V = sediment volume (m3)
A = lake surface area (m2) - sediment area (m2)
Q = annual outflow (m3/yr)
KL = specific rate of phosphorus transfer to the sediments (m/yr)
K2 = specific rate of phosphorus transfer from the sediments
(m/yr)
K3 = fraction of total phosphorus input to sediment that is
unavailable for the exchange process
84
-------
C(w) Q(o)
CO
cn
Sediir.ent
FIGURE V-27 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF PHOSPHORUS BUDGET
MODELING (LORENZEN ET AL,, 1976)
-------
When the differential equations relating water column phosphorus to the
various controlling phenomena are solved analytically, the following
equation results for steady-state water column phosphorus concentration:
(V-19)
" Cv N rt
I + * 3
Q
or
r - M (V-20)
Cw- Q + K^H
where
C = steady-state water column phosphorus concentration in ppm
w
C. = steady-state influent phosphorus concentration in ppm
in
The steady-state sediment phosphorus concentration is then given by:
C =
- _
K2(l + (K-iKsA/QjT
It is important to observe that these relationships are valid only for
steady-state conditions. Where phosphorus loading is changing with time,
where sediment deposition or physical characteristics are changing, or where
there are long-term changes in physical conditions, the steady-state
solutions are not applicable.
Lorenzen applied the model to Lake Washington data and obtained very
good results. With their data set, the most satisfactory coefficients had
the following values:
Kj = 43 m/yr
K2 = 0.0014 m/yr
K3 = 0.5
It should be recognized, however, that this model is relatively untested and
that coefficient values for other impoundments will vary from those cited
here.
86
-------
_ f/75ft3 0.15 mg\ /22ft?- x .07 mg\ / 5ft3 .21 m
M - 3ec~x i+ -seT~x £ + \ sic~ x £
28.3U y 1 g 3.16x107sec
ft 1000 mg x yr
M = 1.24x10 7 gP yr
7.J
(75+22+5)ff3 3.16x107sec _ 3.22xlQ9ft3 _ 9.13x107m:
- sec yr " yr yr
'm^yr" ' 95-6
^s = 168/95.6 » 1.76 m yr"1
Compute phosphorus loading:
1 24x107 n vr -? -1
Lp = i.^xiu g yr = Q>24 gm ^yr l
5.2xl07 m2
Referring to Figure V-24 with q = 1.76 and Lp = 0.24, one can see that this
lake may have eutrophication problems under pre-diversion conditions.
After the diversion,
T = 8.73x109m3 = 125 yr
w ~6.98xl07m3/yr
Assuming the lake depth is not materially changed over the short term,
qs - 168/125 = 1.34 ^
For the new conditions,
M = 8.33 x 106 gP yr"1
89
-------
Lp = g.33xl06
5.2xl07 m2
Now, according to the Vollenweider plot (Figure V-24), this is in the
region between "dangerous" and "permissible" - the mesotrophic region.
Under the new circumstances, algal blooms are less likely than before the
flow diversions were established, but blooms are by no means to be ruled
out.
Turning now to an estimate of algal biomass under pre-diversion
conditions, we must calculate the inlake concentration (P).
First, D = I/TW = 1/125 = 0.008; K = VD = 0.09
Since our data are already in the loading form:
P =
' Z
\168/ \07008+0.09
Based on chlorophyll a,
chl A =
chl A = 0.08 (15)1'5 - 4.6 mg/m3
Dry algal biomass - 4.6x33 = 150 mg/m3
Under post-diversion conditions,
p = (isr) (ooskof) = 10
chl a = 0.08 (10)1'5 = 2.5 mg/m3
Dry algal biomass = 2.5x33 = 83 mg/m
90
-------
Note that these low levels of chlorophyll
-------
5.5 IMPOUNDMENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Organic substances introduced into an impoundment with inflowing water,
falling onto its surface, or generated in the water column itself through
photosynthesis, may be oxidized by indigenous biota. The process consumes
oxygen which may, in turn, be replenished through surface reaeration,
photosynthetic activity, or dissolved oxygen in inflowing water. The
dynamic balance between DO consumption and replenishment determines the net
DO concentration at any point in time and at any location within the water
column.
These processes result in characteristic dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations in the water columns of stratified lakes and reservoirs
(Figure V-28). During stratification, typically during summer months, the
DO is highest on the surface due to photosynthesis and reaeration. It
decreases through the thermocline and then, in the hypolimnion, the DO
decreases to zero in those lakes that have high organic matter
concentrations.
During spring, after turnover, when lakes are not stratified, the DO is
essentially uniform. However, in highly organic lakes benthic processes can
already begin to deplete oxygen from lower depths, as shown in Figure V-28.
Essentially, the patterns result from processes that are restricted due
to incomplete mixing. The overall effects of such patterns as shown in
Figure V-28, are to restrict fishery habitat and create water quality
problems for downstream users, especially for deep water discharge.
92
-------
o •-
10
CO
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
FIGURE V-28 TYPICAL PATTERNS OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) IN HYRUM RESERVOIR
(DRURY, EI AL,^ 1975)
-------
BOD exertion is not the only sink for DO. Some important sources and
sinks of impoundment dissolved oxyqen are listed below:
SOURCES AND SINKS OF
IMPOUNDMENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Sources
Sinks
Photosynthesis
Atmospheric reaeration
Inflowing water
Rainwater
Water Column BOD
Benthic BOD
Chemical oxidation
Deoxygenation at surface
Plant and animal respiration
Many of the processes listed above have a complex nature. For example,
the atmospheric reaeration rate is dependent in part upon the near-surface
velocity gradient over depth. The gradient, in turn, is influenced by the
magnitude, direction, and duration of wind, as well as the depth and
geometry of the impoundment.
Photosynthetic rates are affected by climatological conditions, types
of cells photosynthesizing, temperature, and a number of biochemical and
biological factors. Exertion of BOD is dependent upon the kind of
substrate, temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, presence of
toxicants, and dosing rate.
Despite this degree of complexity, a number of excellent models of
varying degrees of sophistication have been developed which include
simulation of impoundment dissolved oxygen.
5.5.1 Simulating Impoundment Dissolved Oxygen
Because an unstratified impoundment generally may be considered as
94
-------
a slow-moving stream reach, only stratified impoundments are of
interest here. For estimating DO in unstratified impoundments, one
should refer to the methods described in Chapter 4.
To understand the phenomena affecting dissolved oxygen in a strati'
fied impoundment and to gain an appreciation of both the utility and
limitations of the approach presented later, it is useful to briefly
examine a typical dissolved oxygen model. Figure V-29 shows a geo-
metric representation of a stratified impoundment. As indicated
in the diagram, the model segments the impoundment into horizontal
layers. Each horizontal layer is considered fully mixed at any point
in time, and the model advects and diffuses mass vertically into and
out of each layer. The constituents and interrelationships modeled
are shown schematically in Figure V-30.
The phenomena usually taken into account in an impoundment DO
model include:
• Vertical advection
• Vertical diffusion
• Correction for element volume change
• Surface replenishment (reaeration)
• BOD exertion utilizing oxygen
• Oxidation of ammonia
• Oxidation of nitrite
• Oxidation of detritus
• Zooplankton respiration
• Algal growth (photosynthesis) and respiration
f DO contribution from inflowing water
• DO removal due to withdrawals
Many of the processes,are. complex and calculations in detailed
models involve simultaneous solution of many cumbersome equations.
95
-------
tributary
inflow
evaporation
tributar
inflow
vertical
advection
control
slice
outflow
FIGURE V-29 GEOMETRIC REPRESENTATION OF A STRATIFIED
IMPOUNDMENT (FROM HEC, 1974)
96
-------
A Aeration
B Bacterial Decay
C Chemical Equiforium
E Excreta
G Growth
M Mortality
P Photosynthesis
R Respiration
S Settling
H Harvest
FIGURE V-30 QUALITY AND ECOLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS
(FROM NEC, 1974)
97
-------
Among the processes simulated are zooplankton-phytoplankton interactions,
the nitrogen cycle, and advection-diffusion. Thus it is clear that a
model which is comprehensive and potentially capable of simulating DO
in impoundments with good accuracy is not appropriate for hand calcu-
lations. A large amount of data (coefficients, concentrations) are
needed to apply such a model, and solution is most easily done by computer,
Furthermore, some of the terms in the model equation of state do not
improve prediction under some circumstances. This is true, for example,
where there are no withdrawals or in an oligotrophic impoundment where
chlorophyll a_ concentrations are very low.
Hand calculations must be based upon a greatly simplified model
to be practical. Since some DO-determining phenomena are more important
than others arid if some assumptions are made about the impoundment
itself, it is feasible to develop such a model,
5.5.2 A Simp1 if ied Impoundment_DijsoJ ved_ ^xy^en__ModeT_
For purposes of developing a model for hand calculations, the
following assumptions are made:
* The only condition where DO levels may become dangerously
low is in an impoundment hypolimnion and during warm
weather.
» Prior to stratification, the impoundment is mixed. After
strata form, the epilimnion and hypolimnion are each fully
mixed.
• Dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion is depleted essentially
through BOD exertion. Significant BOD sources and sinks to
the water column prior to stratification are algal mortality,
BOD settling, and outflows. A minor source is influent BOD.
Following formation of strata, sources and sinks of BOD are
BOD settling out onto the bottom, water column BOD at the time
98
-------
of stratification, and benthic BOD.
• Photosynthesis is unimportant in the hypo! imn ion as a
source of DO.
* Once stratification occurs (a tnermocline gradient of
1°C or greater per meter of depth) no mixing of thermo-
cline and hypolimnion waters occurs.
• BOD loading to the unstratified impoundment and to the
hypolimnion are in steady-state for the computation
period.
5.5.2.1 Estimating a Steady-State BOD Load to the Impoundment -
Equation V-25 is an expression to describe the rate of change of BOD
concentration as a function of time:
— - ' k k r - k C - ^- (V-
dt " a kSC 1 V {
where
C = the concentration of BOD in the water column in mgl"
k = the mean rate of BOD loading from all sources in mgl" day"
3
k = the mean rate of BOD settling out onto the impoundment
5 _T
bottom in day
k, = the mean rate of decay of water column BOD in day"
0 = mean export flow rate in liters day
V = impoundment volume in liters
99
-------
Integrating Equation V-25 gives:
(k + k c }^kh> \t
a kbVe. b - ka (V-26)
kb
where
C, = concentration of BOD at time t
CQ = initial concentration of BOD
kb = -ks-kr v
To estimate the steady-state loading of BOD, we set dc/dt = 0 and
obtain
Css = - k^ (V-27)
where
GSS = steady-state water column BOD
Thus Equation (V-27) may be used to estimate a steady-state water column
BOD concentration and Equation (V-26) may be used to compute BOD as a
function of time, initial concentration of BOD, and the various rates.
5.5.2.2 Rates of Carbonaceous and Nitrogenous Demands
The rate of exertion of BOD and therefore the value of k, is
dependent upon a number of physical, chemical, and biological factors.
Among these are temperature, numbers and kinds of microorganisms,
dissolved oxygen concentration, and the kind of organic substance in-
volved. Nearly all of the biochemical oxygen demand in impoundments
is related to decaying plant and animal matter. All such material
consists essentially of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins along with a
vast number of minor constituents. Some of these are rapidly utilized
by bacteria, for example, the simple sugars, while some, such as the
celluloses, are metabolized slowly.
Much of the decaying matter in impoundments is carbonaceous.
100
-------
ns
Carbohydrates (celluloses, sugars, starches) and fats are essentially
devoid of nitrogen. Proteins, on the Qther hand, are high in
nitrogen (weight of carbon/weight of nitrogen - 6) and protein:
therefore represent both carbonaceous and nitrogenous demands.
The rate of exertion of carbonaceous and nitrogenous demands differ.
Figure V-31, which shows the difference graphically and as a function of
time and temperature, may be considered to represent the system response
to a slug dose of mixed carbonaceous and nitrogenous demands. In each
two-section curve, especially where concentrated carbonaceous wastes are
present, the carbonaceous demand is exerted first, and this represents the
first stage of deoxygenation. Then nitrifiers increase in numbers and
ammonia is oxidized through nitrite and ultimately to nitrate. This later
phase is called the second phase of deoxygenation.
BOD decay (either nitrogenous or carbonaceous alone) may be repre-
sented by first order kinetics. That is, the rate of oxidation is
directly proportional to the amount of material remaining at time t.
dC . .r (V-28)
dt ' "KU
The rate constant, k, is a function of temperature, bacterial
types and numbers, composition and structure of the substrate,
presence of nutrients and toxicants, and a number of other factors.
The value of the first stage constant k, was first determined by
Phelps in 1909 for sewage filter samples. The value was 0.1 (Camp,
1968). More recent data show that at 20°C, the value can range from
0.01 for slowly metabolized industrial waste organics to 0.3 for
relatively fresh sewage (Camp, 1968).
The typical effect of temperature on organic reactions is to
double reaction rates for each temperature rise of 15°C. The
relationship for correcting k-, for temperature is:
101
-------
201
CD
cr
70
rn
OO CO ^3
H X >
> O H
CD s m
m •—<
co z o
CD TI
m
dd
CD
~n m
— • x
TO m
CO PD
> o
z 2:
a
>
CVO H
m
o C3
o •—
a
m
m m
o -z.
X H
CD -H
m m
H m
•— xj
o >
Z H
m
CO
Oxygen Used up
Parts per Million
-------
= kl,(20°C)
where
T = the temperature of reaction
8 = correction constant = 1.047
However, Thereault has used a value for fl of 1.02, while Moore
calculated values of 1.045 and 1.065 for two sewages and 1.025 for
river water (Camp, 1968).
Streeter has determined the rate of the nitrification or second
deoxygenation stage in polluted streams. At 20°C, k-j for nitrification
is about 0.03 (Camp, 1968). Mobre found the value to be .06 at 20°C
and .035 at 10°C (Camp, 1968). For purposes of this analysis, BOD
exertion will be characterized as simple first order decay using a
single rate constant.
Benthic demand, which is important in later computations, may
vary over a wide range because in addition to the variability due to
the chemical nature of the benthic matter, rates of oxidation are
limited by upward diffusion rates of oxidizable substances through
pores in the benthos. Since the nature of the sediment is highly
variable, benthic oxygen demand rates vary more than values for k,
in the water column. In a study using sludges through which oxygenated
water was passed, initial rates of demand ranged from 1.02 g/nr day
2
(see Table V-10) for a sludge depth of 1.42 cm up to 4.65 g/m day
for a sludge depth of 10.2 cm (Camp, 1968). In that study, the values
found were for initial demand since the sludge was not replenished.
The rate per centimeter of sludge depth, then, can vary from a low of
2 ?
0.46 g/m day for 10.2 centimeter depth sludge up to 0.76 g/m day
for 1.42 centimeter depth sludge.
103
-------
TABLE V-10
OXYGEN DEMAND OF BOTTOM DEPOSITS
(AFTER CAMP, 1968)
Benthic
Depth
(mean) cm
10.2
4.75
2.55
1.42
1.42
Initial
Vol ume of _~
Solids, kqm
3.77
1.38
0.513
0.188
0.188
Initial Area Demand
L (gin"2)
739
426
227
142
134
initial
Derr.and
-2 -1
am day
4.65
3.09
1.70
1.08
1.02
day'1
k4(20°C)
.0027
.0031
.0032
.0033
.0033
The constant loading rate (k ) used in Equation (V-25) is best esti-
a
mated from historical data. Alternatively, inflow loading (see Chapter
IV) and algal productivity estimates (this chapter) may be used. In
the latter case, a value must be adopted for the proportion of algal
biomass ultimately exerted as BOD. To a first approximation, k may
a
be estimated using this value and adopting some percentage of maximal
primary productivity (see Figure V-25). Thus,
where
ka(algae) = SMP x 10"3/D (V-30)
ka(algae) = algal contribution to BOD loading rate
S = stoichiometric conversion from algal biomass as
carbon to BOD = 2.67
M = Proportion of algal biomass expressed as an
oxygen demand (unit!ess)
-2 1
P = Primary production in mgCm day
104
-------
The difference between algal biomass and the parameter M repre-
senting the proportion of algal bio-mass exerted as BOD may be conceptu-
alized as accounting for such phenomena as incorporation of algal bio-
mass into fish tissue which either leaves the impoundment or is harvested,
, loss of carbon to the atmosphere as CH., and loss due to outflows.
The settling rate coefficient, k in Equation (V-25) must be esti-
mated for the individual case. It represents the rate at which dead
plant and animal matter (detritus) settles out of the water column
prior to oxidation. Clearly, this coefficient is sensitive to the
composition and physical characteristics of suspended matter and the
turbulence of the system. Quiescence and large particle sizes in the
organic fraction will tend to give high values for k while turbulence
and small organic fraction particle sizes will give small values for k .
5.5.2-3 Estimating aPre-Stratification Steady-State Dissolved Oxygen Level
Prior to stratification, the impoundment is assumed to be fully
mixed. One of the important factors leading to this condition is
wind stress, which also serves to reaerate the water. As a ru.le,
unless an impoundment acts as a receiving body for large amounts of
nutrients and/or organic loading, dissolved oxygen levels are likely
to be near saturation during this period (D.J. Smith, pers. comm.,
November, 1976). Table V-ll shows saturation dissolved oxygen levels
for fresh water as a function of temperature, and DO levels may be
estimated accordingly.
The hypolimnetic saturation dissolved oxygen concentration is
determined by using the average (or median) temperature for the hypolimnion
as determined during the period of interest throughout the depth of the
hypolimnion. Information on the hypolimnion are obtained using the
procedures described in Section 5.2. For example, hypolimnetic water at the
onset of stratification might be 4-5°C and during the critical summer months
be 10 C. The value 10°C should be used having a saturation DO of 11.3 mg/1.
105
-------
TABLE V-ll
SOLUBILITY OF OXYGEN IN WATER (STANDARD METHODS, 1971)
Chloride Concentration
Temp.
in
°C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
0 5,000
10,000
in Water - mg/1
15,000
Sea
Water
Difference
per 100 mg
Chloride
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
14.6 13.8
14.2 13.4
13.8 13.1
13.5 12.7
13.1 12.4
12.8 12.1
12.5 11.8
12.2 11.5
11.9 11.2
11.6 11.0
11.3 10.7
11.1 10.5
10.8 10.3
10.6 10.1
10.4 9.9
10.2 9.7
10.0 9.5
9.7 9.3
9.5 9.1
9.4 8.9
9.2 8.7
9.0 8.6
8.8 8.4
8.7 8.3
8.5 8.1
8.4 8.0
8.2 7.8
8.1 7.7
7.9 7.5
7.8 7.4
7.6 7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
13.0
12.6
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.9
10.6
10.4
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.9
12.1
11.8
11.5
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.5
11.3
11.0
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.1
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
106
-------
Most lakes are near sea level (<2000 ft elevation) and are relatively
fresh (<2000 mg TDS/1). For lakes that do not meet these criteria,
corrections for atmospheric pressure differences and salting out due to
salinity might be needed. Pressure effects can be approximated by using a
ratio of barometric pressure (B) for the elevation of interest and sea level
(BSTP) as follows:
e.g. B at 4600 ft elevation,
. in mm Hg. = 0.84
DOsat at 10°C = 0.84 x 11.3 =9.5 mg/1 .
Chloride is an estimator of dilutions of sea water in fresh water where
20000 mg Chloride/1 is equivalent to 35000 mg salt (TDS/1, that is, typical
ocean water.
5.5.2,4 Estimating Hypolimnion DO Levels
The final step in use of this model is preparation of a DO-
versus-time plot for the hypolimnion (or at least estimation of DO
at incipient overturn) and estimation of BOD and phosphorus loadings
which result in acceptable hypolimnion DO levels. An equation to
compute DO at any point in time during the period of stratification
is
dt T
where
0 = dissolved oxygen in ppm
-1
k. = benthic decay rate in day'
L = area! BOD 1
D = depth in m
_2
L = area! BOD load in gm
The second term in the equation requires that an estimate be made of
the magnitude of BOD loading in benthic deposits. To do this within
the present framework, it is assumed that BOD settles out ...
107
-------
throughout the period of stratification. Although many different
assumptions have been made concerning benthic BOD decay, it was
assumed that benthic demand was a function of BOD settling and the
rate of benthic BOD decay. This BOD includes that generated in the
system by algal growth and that which enters in tributaries and waste
discharges. Based upon the rate of settling used earlier in estimating
a steady-state BOD concentration (Equation (V-25)) and rate of decay
for conditions prior to stratification, the rate of benthic matter
accumulation is:
dT = ksCssD-k4L
where
C = concentration of BOD in the water column in gm
at steady-state
The assumption of steady-state BOD concentration reduces Equation
(V-32) to the same form as Equation (V-25) and integration gives:
, .
For steady-state deposition (dL/dt = 0, Dkscss= constant),
ksCssD
Lss » -VS- (V-34)
where
_2
L = steady-state benthic BOD load in gm
Application of Equation (V-34) with k and k. appropriately
chosen for the month or two preceding stratification will give an
estimate of the benthic BOD load upon stratification. Application
108
-------
of Equation (V-33) gives the response of L to different water column
BOD (steady-state) loading rates and changes in rate^ coefficients.
After strata form, benthic matter decays while hypolimnion water
column BOD decays and settles. The change in L over the period of
stratification is
HF = -k4L * Dksc (V-35)
Since
dC
and
Ct = Co e"(l<1 + ^^ (v-37)
^= -k4L + DksCQ e-(kl + ksH (V-38)
Water column BOD in the hypolimnion is given by Equation (V-36)
and the integrated form is Equation (V-37).
Note that k , the settling coefficient is equal to v /D where
o o
v is the settling velocity of the BOD, and D is the depth of the
hypolimnion (or when the impoundment is unstratified, D is the
depth of the entire impoundment). Also note that we usually assume
that the DO is at saturation at the onset of stratification. Thus
we can ignore the assumptions and calculations (Equation V-32 to V-34)
done for periods prior to onset.
109
-------
The equation presented earlier (Equation V-31) for hypo limn ion
DO was:
HT = -k!C -k4L/D
Equation (V-31) is not integrable in its present form, but since L
and C are defined as functions of t (Equations (V-39) and (V-37)
respectively), it is possible to determine dissolved oxygen in the
water column. The equation for oxygen at time t is:
°t = °o " AOL " A0c
where
0 = dissolved oxygen at time t
0 = dissolved oxygen at time t = 0
AO, = dissolved oxygen decrease due to benthic demand
AOC = dissolved oxygen decrease due to hypolimnion BOD
From Equation (V-39), and using L as L and C as C ,
(V-4T)
and from Equation (V-37),
(V-42)
Solution of Equation (V-40) gives an estimated DO concentration in
the hypolimnion as a function of time.
110
-------
To compute equation (V-40), a simpler form of equation (V-41) can be
derived by substituting as follows:
since
k C D
_ ss ss ,
"ss
AO.
To simplify computations, the following stepwise solutions can be made:
A =
ksCss
ks+krk4
Then,
B -
C =
E =
r _
"
kl Css
kl+ks
L = A (
AO =
B - c -
A0 - E - F
111
-------
5.5.3 Temper ;atu re Correct ions
All reactions are computed on the basis of the optimum temperature, but
the environment is often at different temperatures. Some rate coefficients
for chemical and biological reactions vary with temperature. A simple
correction for such rate coefficients to 20°C is as follows:
K = K x 1 047 (T - 20°C)
T T20 X 1'U4/
For example, if a rate at 20 C = 0.01 and the lake is at 10°C, then
K = 0.01 x 1.047 (10 - 2°)
KT = 0.00632
Generally the following optima are used:
ki - first order decay rate for water column BOD,
use 20°C.
ki» - benthic BOD decay, use 20°C.
P - productivity rate, use 30° C.
In the screening methods we do not have to correct for temperature except in
the oxygen calculation for the rate coefficients, Kj , K4, P and in the
toxics section (5.6) for the biodegradation rate coefficients.
112
-------
EXAMPLE V-15
Quiet Lake
(Comprehens i ve Examp1e)
Quiet Lake is located a few miles south of Colton, New York. The
lake is roughly circular in plan view (Figure V-32) and receives
inflows from three tributaries. There is one natural outlet from
the lake and one withdrawal used for quarrying purposes.
The first step in evaluation of lake hypolimnion DO levels
is physical and water quality data collection. Table V-12 shows
characteristics of Quiet Lake, Table V-13 shows tributary discharge
data along with withdrawal and outflow levels, and Table V-14
provides precipitation and runoff information.
In order to evaluate hypolimnion DO as a function of time, the'
very first question to be answered is, does the impoundment stratify?
If so, what are the beginning and ending dates of the stratified period,
how deep is the upper surface of the hypolimnion, and what is its volume,
and what is the distribution of hypblimnion mean temperatures during
the period? To answer these questions, either use field observation
data, or apply some computation technique such as that presented earlier
in this section. Assuming that methods presented earlier are used, the
selection of appropriate thermal profile curves hinges around three
factors. These are
• Climate and location
• Hydraulic residence time, and
• Impoundment geometry
113
-------
SUUSVILLE
QUIETOWN
Ol PUMP HOUSE
[-1 STREAM QUALITY
"—' AND FLOW STATION
RUNOFF QUALITY
SAMPLING STATION
SAMPLES TAKEN FROM SMALL
EROSION CHANNELS NEAR LAKE
FIGURE V-32 OUIET LAKE AND FNVIRONS
114
-------
TABLE V-12
CHARACTERISTICS OF QUIET LAKE
Length (in di
Width
Mean Depth
Maximum Depth
Water Column
Quiet Lake
rection of flow)
P
TABLE V-13
3.5 miles
4.0 miles
22 ft.
27 ft.
= 18,480 ft.
= 21,120 ft.
0.014
-------
TABLE V-13 (Continued)
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
First Creek (
Mean Flow, cfs
5
3
2
2
3
4
6
8
10
8
6
4
Second Cree
Mean Clow, cfs
14.0
13.0
12.5
5.0
1.2
2.0
2.5
4.0
8.0
12.0
8.0
5.5
Station 5)
Total N
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.2
1.3
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.5
0.8
k (Station 4)
Total N
15
16
10
9
12
13
8
6
5
7
6
8
Total P
ppm
.01
.01
.02
.01
.02
.01
.01
.02
.01
.01
.00
.00
Total P
ppm
.15
.08
.20
.15
.12
.10
.11
.07
.08
.20
.22
.25
BOD
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.2
BOD
7
8
10
7
7
6
7
9
12
3
4
8
116
-------
TABLE V-13 (Continued)
Swift River (Stations 2 and 3) and Pumped Withdrawal
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Pumped
Withdrawal, cfs
22.6
22.0
3.5
1.2
0.8
0.4
12.0
24.0
30.7
89.5
29.8
43.9
Mean Monthly
Station 2
69.5
50.0
20.0
7.5
1.2
9.1
44.5
63.2
100.0
168.5
80.6
91.3
Flow, cfs
Station 3
77.0
55.0
'2.0
9.0
1.4
10.1
48.75
69.5
110.0
184.8
88.5
100.25
Notes: All three tributaries have their headwaters within the shed.
The net inflow-outflow to the groundwater is known to be close to
zero in the two creeks. Swift River is usually about 10% effluent over
its entire length (10% of flow comes into the river from the
groundwater table).
117
-------
TABLE V-14
PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF DATA FOR QUIET LAKE WATERSHED
VALUES ARE MEANS OF DATA COLLECTED FROM BOTH STATIONS
(SEE FIGURE V-31). THE WATERSHED HAS AN AREA OF 55
SQUARE MILES INCLUDING THAT OF THE LAKE
Mean Total
Monthly Precipi
_Month tation, inches
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Total
3.0
2.4
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.6
2.0
2.8
4.2
7.6
3.5
4.2
32.1
Runoff Qual ity
Total N
6.0
6.5
4.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
2.5
3.2
3.6
7.0
7.8
9.2
Total P
ppm
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.008
0.07
0.1
0.15
0.25
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
BOD
27
37
46
34
33
30
40
50
40
37
45
50
Note: Infiltration to the water table on a monthly basis accounts for
roughly 30% of precipitation volume.
In terms of climate and location, the Quiet Lake area is similar to
Burlington, Vermont. Examination of the Burlington plots from Appendix
D reveals that a 20-foot maximum depth impoundment can stratify in an
area shielded from the wind. The area surrounding Quiet Lake does pro-
vide good shielding, so the next task is to estimate the hydraulic
residence time to select a specific set of plots.
118
-------
Inspection of all Burlington plots indicates that stratification
is likely to .occur at most from May to August. Accordingly, for pur-
poses of plot selection, we are most interested in a mean hydraulic resi-
dence time based on flows in the period from about March to August. Since
hydraulic residence time (T ) is given by T = V/Q, we compute mean Q
(Q). Q represents the average of tributary inflows during this
period, computed as follows:
* 8+40+55+85+150+70 4+6^+10+8*-6 . 2+2.5+4•»8+12+8
Q = _ + _ , fi
(Swift River) (First Creek) (Second Creek)
Q = 68+7+6.08 = 81.1 cfs
However, in order to fully account for mass transport as well .as properly
estimate hydraulic residence time, one more factor should be considered.
This is non-point inflow. At this point, we have enough information
to estimate the stormwater contribution directly to Quiet Lake. In view
of the available data, the computation is as follows:
QS= APK(l-L)-
where
Q = stormwater or non-point inflow in cfs (excluding rivers and creeks)
A = area of shed in square miles
n = number of tributaries
Q. = monthly mean pickup (in cfs) in the ith tributary
P = monthly total precipitation, in inches per month
I. = percent (expressed as a decimal) of flow
contributed by exfiltration (from the water
table into thr channel)
119
-------
L = the proportion of precipitation lost by infiltration
into the soil (expressed as a decimal)
K = unit correction = 0.895 ft mo mi"2in"1sec"1
As an example, the computation for October is:
Q = 55 mi2 x 3.0 -J£ x 0.896 -|^-°— x (1-0.3) -
nri in sec
(54(1-0. l)+5(l-0.0)+14(l-0.0) + (77-69. 5)(l-0.1)j - 29.1 cfs
Now, since we know the pumped withdrawal rates as well as the difference
between flows at stations 2 and the sum of 1 , 4, and 5, and that the im-
poundment surface is at steady-state over the mouth, we also can estimate
the net infiltration rate from the lake into the groundwater. The infil-
tration rate is (again, for October):
Net efflux = Q(sta U4+5) -Q2+QS-QW
= 73.0 - 69.5 + 29.1 - 22.6 = 10.0 cfs
Note that the pickup in each channel above Quiet Lake is equal to
the flow at the pertinent sampling station. This is the case because
the three channels have their headwaters within the watershed. If
one were concerned about a subshed with tributary headwaters above the
subshed boundary, the difference in Q between each of stations 1, 4, and 5
and the respective flows at the upstream subshed boundary would be used.
To estimate hydraulic residence time add the mean stormwater con-
tribution over the months of interest to that of the tributaries, as
computed earlier. The individual stormwater computations are not shown.
The method is as just described.
Q -81.1+
120
-------
Then the hydraulic residence time is given by:
= V/Q ~ Trr2D/Q
v* «
x 5280
where
L = length of the lake in mi.
W = width of the lake in mi.
D = mean depth in ft.
r = radius in ft.
r i2
T = 3.14 x 3.5+4 5280 x 22/119
w [4 J
= 5.69xl07 sec = 658 days
Accordingly, the infinite hydraulic residence time plots for a 20-foot
deep, wind-protected, Burlington, Vermont, impoundment should suffice.
Note that the entire impoundment volume was used in the above computation.
Strictly, one should use the epilimnion volume during stratification.
In this case, such a change would not alter selection of the plots
because T,, would still be greater than 200 days. A reproduction of the
W
appropriate plot from Appendix D is presented in Figure V-33., As indi-
cated, Quiet Lake is likely to be weakly stratified from May to August
inclusive, with a thermocline temperature gradient of about l°ft" . The
hypolimnion should extend downward to the bottom from a depth of about
3-1/2 meters, giving a mean hypolimnion depth of
22 ft - 3.5 m = 3.2 meters
--
" 3.28 ft nf '
121
-------
0
2
jr
x
Q_
UJ
a
6c
»r« nn,
2
zr
x:
a.
CD
6
JUL
n r ••
2 •
x:
x
t—
Q.
UJ
a
4 •
g
0
To
TEMP
/
/
/
/
20
. C
NQV
3
C
0
2
x;
X
a.
UJ
Q
4 •
6o
) 10 20 3
TEMP, C
sue
/
/
I'D 2'0 3
TEMP. C
2
X
0_
Q
G
0 C
0
2 •
sr
x
Q_
UJ
a
4 .
6o
/
/
1
I 10 20 3
TEMP, C
SEP
10 20 3(
TEMP. C
2
zr
x
a.
LU
O
4 •
o c c
0
2
X
a_
4 -
. 6o
/
/
/
1
) 10 20 30
TEMP, C
OCl
10 20 30
TEMP. C
DEC
10
TEMP
20
. C
2
X
Q_
a
4
1
BURLINGTON, VERMONT
20* INITIRL MRXIMUM DEPTH
INFINITE HYDR. RES- TIME
MINIMUM MIXING
30 0 10 20 30
TEMP. C
FIGURE V-33 THERMAL PROFILE PLOTS FOR USE IN QUIET LAKE EXAMPLE
122
-------
The approximate hypolimnion volume, then, is
v«= i x VTotai
x 1.9X1011*, = 9.2xl010S<
Over the period of interest, the hypolimnion mean temperature dis-
tribution is:
Mean
Month
March 2.0
April 5.5 . .
May 9.5
June 12.5
July 14.0
August 15.5
The next step in use of the DO model is to determine a steady-
state or mean water column BOD loading (k ) and DO level prior to stratifi
a
cation. This is a multi-step process because of the several BOD
sources. The sources are tributaries, runoff, and primary productivity.
First, we estimate algal productivity using methods of this chapter
(or better, field data).
Using the curve in Figure V-26 and phosphorus data from Table V-13,
the maximal primary productivity should be in the range 1,400 mg
-2 -1 -2-1 11
Cm day to 1,900 mgCm day . To convert to loading in mgl day ,
divide by (1000 1m x 6.7m). This gives the loading as 0.21 to 0.28
mgl" day" .
123
-------
Now assuming that maximal productivity occurs at about 30°C and
that productivity rates obey the same temperature rule as BOD decay,
temperature-adjusted estimates of productivity rates can be made. Using
the maximal rate range of 0.21 to 0.28 mgl" day" , the adjusted rates
are:
Productivity = (0.21, 0.28) x 1 .04?(3-75-30)
= (.06, .08) mgl"1 day"1
Then, according to Equation (V-30) and assuming M = 1 , k, due to algae
a
is estimated by:
k (algae) = 2.67 x (.06, .08) = (.16, .21) mgl^day"1
a
The next contributor to water column BOD is BOD leading of inflow-
ing waters. The value to be computed is the loading in milligrams per
liter of impoundment water per day.
/ " LI \ /"
Daily BOD loading rate = \ I I d-Q- . C. . I / VZ d,
\i = l j=l 1 1)J 1>J/ / k=l k
where n' = the number of time periods of measurement
V = volume of impoundment in liters
d = the number of days per time period
L = the number of inflows
For all inflows, the value is therefore approximately:
ka(Trib) = (2185 + 48'3 + 643'9 + 14240) x 2'45xl°6 x 117 = °'22
(Swift (First (Second (Storm (Units (Impound-
River) Creek) Creek) water Conversion) ment
Runoff) Volume)
Now, summing the two contributions:
ka = ka(algae) + ka(Trib)
k = (.16, .21) + .22 = (.38, .43) mgl^day"1
a
124
-------
The value of k, will be assumed as 0.1 at 20°C with 9 in Equation
(V-29) equal to 1.047. Then at 3.75°C,
kl(3.75°C)=kl(20°C) xl
= .1 x 1.047(~16'25) = 0.047
Now Q( discharge) (mean for March and April) and V are known, with
Q(discharge) = 26'8 (Sw1ft River' Stat1on 2>
+ 6.2 (pumped withdrawal) x 28'^2A = 935£ sec"1
ftj
V = 1.9 x TO11*,
Then C = _ -38' -43 _ = 4 94 5 58
55 (.03+.047+(935/1.9xl011))
For further computations, C = 5.25 will be assumed.
Since k has been defined as .03, a steady-state areal concentra-
tion of benthic BOD prior to stratification can be estimated. If
k4(20°C) = '°03 and Css = 5<25' usin9 Equation (V-34),
ksCssD
-ss " k
4(3.75°C)
k4(3 75°C) = -003x1. 047(3'75"20) = -0014
i .03x5.25x6.7 7,. -2
Lss= - - = 754
The next step in evaluating hypolimnion DO depression is to
estimate pre-stratification DO levels. If we assume saturation at the
mean temperature in April (5.5°C), the dissolved oxygen concentration
at onset of strata should be about 12.7 (from Table V-ll).
125
-------
Now-we have all values needed to plot hypolimnion DO versus time
using Equations (V-40) through (V-42).
Using L0 = LS$
Co = Css
k, = O.lxl.047(9'5~20) = .062, (T = 9.5°C for May)
ks = 0.03,
k4 = .003x1. 047(9<5~20) = .002, and
t = 5 days ,
and applying Equation (V-42),
AH 0.062x5.25 , -(0. 062+0. 03)5
A0c " 0.062x0.03
Then, according to Equation (V-41 ) ,
L kC kC k4
/754 . 0.03x5.25 \ /, -0.002x5 \ / 0.03x5.25 \
L= I 372 0.03+0.062-0.002 H / ^0.03+0.062-0.002J
I 0.002 \ L -(0.062+0.03)5)= 2.35
(0.062+0.03 I l'"e /
Then from Equation (V-40)
°t = °o -
0, = 12.7 - ^- - 1.94 = 10.26
0 D . /
Solving the same equations with increasing t gives the data in Table V-15.
126
-------
If it has been necessary to develop more data for the remainder of
the stratified period, appropriately updated coefficients might be used
starting at the beginning of each month.
TABLE V-15
DO SAG CURVE FOR QUIET LAKE HYPOLIMNION
Date
t = 0
5/5
5/10
5/15
5/20
5/25
AOL
0
2.35
4.68
6.99
9.22
11.54
AOC
0
1.30
2.13
2.65
2.98
3.18
°t
0
9.05
5.89
3.06
0.50
0.00
Finally, if it is desired to evaluate the impact of altered BOD or
phosphorus loadings, the user must go back to the appropriate step
in the evaluation process and properly modify the loadings.
END OF EXAMPLE V-15 '
127
-------
5.6 TOXIC CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES
Although reasonably accurate and precise methods have been prepared for
screening only a few of the many priority pollutants (Hudson and Porcella,
1981), a reasonable approach for assessing priority pollutants in lakes
based on the methods presented in Chapter 2 can be made if certain
assumptions are made:
• The major processes affecting the fate and transport of
toxicants in aquatic ecosystems are known.
• That reasonable safety factors are incorporated by making
reasonable most case analyses.
t Because it is a screening approach, prioritization can be done
to identify significant constituents, lakes where human health
or ecological problems can realistically be expected, and
processes which might require detailed study.
The major processes affecting toxicants are listed in Table V-16. The
primary measure of the impact of a toxic chemical in a lake depends on its
concentration in the water column. Thus, these screening methods are
primarily directed at fate and transport of toxic chemicals. A secondary
target is the concentration in aquatic biota, principally fish. Because of
the complexity of various routes of exposure and bioaccumulation processes,
the approach of bioconcentration is used to identify compounds likely to
accumulate in fish. These can be applied to lakes using the following
method:
t A fate model is used that incorporates sediment transport,
sorption, partitioning, and sedimentation.
• Significant processes include the kinetic effects of
sedimentation, volatilization and biodegradation.
128
-------
TABLE V-16
SIGNIFICANT PROCESSES AFFECTING
TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Physical-Chemical Processes
Rate Coefficient Symbol, time
-1
Sorption and sedimentation
Volatilization
Hydrolysis
Photolysis
Oxidation
Precipitation
SED
not assessed
not assessed
Biological Processes
Biodegradation
Bioconcentration
B
BCF (unitless)
129
-------
• Significant biochemical processes can affect the fate of a
toxic chemical as well as affect biota, such, as,
bioaccumulation, biodegradation, and toxicity.
• In keeping with the conservative approach of the toxics
screening methodology, some important processes are neglected
for simplicity; for example, lake stratification, photolysis,
oxidation, hydrolysis, coagulation-flocculation, and
precipitation are neglected. Also, it is assumed that the
organic matter is associated with inorganic particles and
therefore organic matter settles with the inorganic particles.
Generally the toxic chemical concentrations are calculated
conservatively, that is, higher concentrations are calculated than would
occur in nature because of the assumptions that are made. The water column
concentrations are calculated as the primary focus of the screening method.
Then bioconcentration is estimated, based on water concentration. To
determine concentration and bioaccumulation, point and nonpoint source
loadings of the chemicals being studied are needed. Other data (hydrology,
sediments, morphology) are obtained from the problems previously done in
earlier chapters or sections of this chapter. The person doing the
screening would have to compile or calculate such data.
Occasionally, such information must be estimated based on production,
use, and discharge data. Information on chemical and physical properties is
important to determine the significance of these estimates.
5.6.1 Overall Processes
Several processes affecting distribution of toxic chemicals are more
significant than others. Equilibrium aquatic processes include suspended
sediment sorption of chemicals. Organics in sediments can have a
significant effect on chemical sorption. Hydrolysis and acid-base
equilibria can alter sorption equilibria. Volatilization is an equilibrium
process that tends to remove toxic chemicals from aquatic ecosystems.
Removal processes include settling of toxics sorbed on sediments,
130
-------
volatilization, and biodegradation. Chemical reactions for hydrolysis and
photolysis are included and precipitation and redox reactions could be
included if refinement of the method were desired. Generally,
bioaccumulation will be neglected as a removal process.
These removal processes are treated as first-order reactions that are
simply combined for a toxicant (C,mg/l) to give:
dC/dt = - K x C (V-44)
where
K = SED + B + ky + k + kh
SED = sedimentation rate, toxicant at equilibrium with
sediments.
volatiliza'
B = biodegradation rate.
k = photolysis rate.
kh = hydrolysis rate.
k = volatilization rate.
This equation is analogous to the BOD decay rate equation used in the
hypolimnetic DO screening method.
The input of toxic chemical substances is computed simply (refer to
Figure V-23):
dt = V x Cin " f (V-45)
w
where C. is the concentration in the inflow (tributary or discharge) and
flow (Q), volume of reservoir (V) and time (t) are as defined previously.
At steady state, accounting for inflow (Q-C. ) and outflow (Q-C), and
using Q/V = I/TW,
dT= ? (Cin - 0 - K x C = 0 (V-46)
w
131
-------
and solving,
C = W^1 + Tw x K> (
To determine the concentration at any time during a non-steady state
condition (assuming C is a constant):
C
C = -^ (I - e-ft) + CQ e-ft (V-48)
where
f = 1 + T x K
w
C = reservoir concentration at t = 0.
o
5.6.1.1 Sorption and Sedimentation
Suspended sediment sorption is treated as an equilibrium reaction which
includes partitioning between water (Cw) and the sediment organic phases
(C ). The concentration sorbed on sediment can be computed as follows:
Cs. = a x K x S (V-49)
where
C = the total concentration (Cw + Cs), mg/1
S = input suspended organic sediment = OC x So, mg/1
OC = fraction of organic carbon.
So = input of suspended sediment, mg/1
K = distribution coefficient between organic sediment and water
a = fraction of pollutant in solution
= 1/(1 + (Kpx S)
If K is large, essentially all of the compound will be sorbed onto the
sediments. Note that S and C must be estimated or otherwise obtained.
The organic matter content of suspended sediment and the lipid
solubility of the compound are important factors for certain organic
chemicals. Other sorption can be ignored for screening. A simple linear
132
-------
expression can be used to calculate the sediment partition coefficient (K )
based on the organic sediment carbon concentration (OC) and the
octanol-water coefficient (kow) for the chemical:
K = 0.63 (kow) (OC)
P
The sedimentation rate (SED) of a toxic chemical is computed as
follows:
SED = a x D x K (V-50)
P
where
D = P x S x Q/V, sedimentation rate constant
P = sediment trapping efficiency
Q/V = I/T
5.6.1.2 Biodegradation
The biodegradation rate (B) is obtained from the literature or is
computed as follows:
B - -
Modification to the rate can be made for nutrient limitation using
phosphorus (Cp) as the limiting nutrient:
B (0.0277)C
(v-52)
Temperature correction can be performed using the following equation:
B(T) = 6(20^) x 1.072(T"20) (V-53)
Previous exposure to the pollutant is important for most toxic organic
compounds. Higher rates of degradation occur in environments with frequent
or longterm loading (discharges, nonpoint sources, frequent spills) than
133
-------
infrequent loadings (one-time spills). In pristine areas, rates of one to
two orders of magnitude less should be used.
It is assumed that the suspended sediment decay rate is the same as
aqueous phase decay. Also benthic decay is disregarded because bottom
sediment release may be negligible.
5.6.1.3 Volatilization
Many organics are not volatile so this process is applied only to those
which are. It is assumed that the mass flux of volatile organics is
directly proportional to the concentration difference between the actual
concentration and the concentration at equilibrium with the atmosphere. The
latter can be neglected in lakes. Also, only the most volatile are
assessed.
Thus,
- - ky x C (V-54)
where
kv = volatilization rate constant, hr
The rate coefficient is derived from the 2 resistance model for the
liquid-gas interface, but it can be estimated using correlation with the
oxygen reaeration coefficient (based on Zison _et _al_., 1978):
k = Ka (Dw/Do) (V-55)
and estimate (Dw/Do) =
and the surface film thickness, SFT = (200-60 - \/w~) x 10"6
and Kal = Do/SFT
Ka = Kal/ZB
where
Ka = reaeration rate, hr~
Dw = pollutant diffusivity in water
134
-------
-9 o
Do = diffusivity of oxygen in water (2.1 x 10 m2/sec, 20 C)
mw - pollutant molecular weight
W = wind speed, m/sec
Z = mean depth, m
The volatilization rate coefficient (k , hr~ ) is determined by ky = Ka x k
where k is obtained from literature values or computed as above (V&w/Do)•
The rate should be corrected for temperature (k .) even though temperature
has only a relatively small effect:
k = k x 1.024
vt v
(T-20)
(V-56)
5.6.1.4 Hydrolysis
Not all compounds hydrolyze and those that do can be divided into three
groups: acid catalyzed, neutral, and base catalyzed reactants. A pseudo
first-order hydrolysis constant (k ) is estimated for the hydrolysis of the
compound:
d
(V-57)
The rate constant (k ) is pH dependent and varies as discussed in Chapter 2.
The typical pH of the lake for the appropriate season should be obtained for
the necessary calculations. Generally, the pH is a common measurement and
is available for most lakes. If not, pH values for most open lakes lie
between 6-9 and can be estimated based on the following empirical values
based on Hutchinson, (1957):
Hardness (or Alkalinity) pH
acid lakes
neutral lakes
hard water lakes
eutrophic and alkaline lakes
<25
25 - 75
75 - 200
0 - 300
6 - 6.5
6.5 - 7.5
7.5 - 8.5
8.0 - 10.0
135
-------
Median values on a range of values can be used to evaluate the significance
of hydrolysis as a factor affecting the fate of compounds.
5.6.1.5 Photolysis
Generally, photolysis is a reaction between ultraviolet light (UV, 260
to 380 nm is most important) and photosensitive chemicals. Not all
compounds are subject to photolysis nor does UV light penetrate
significantly in turbid lakes. In the absence of turbidity data, light
transmission can be estimated by seasonally averaged Secchi disk readings
according to the following equation:
In (ISD/Io) = -ke(SD) * In 0.1 = -2.3
ke = 2.3/SD
where
ke is the extinction coefficient and
SD is the Secchi depth in meters.
(ISD/Io = 0.1) is the relative intensity based on Hutchinson (1957).
Photolysis for appropriate chemicals (discussed in detail in Chapter 2)
depends on a first order rate constant (k ) incorporating environmental
variables (solar iradiance, lo) and chemical variables (quantum yield, 4>,
and absorbance, E). Turbidity effects are included as estimated as above
since turbidity data are generally not available. These values are
incorporated into the rate constant and the concentration reduced as
follows (details described in Chapter 2):
31 = - V (v-58>
where
kr = f (lo, cf>, E, ke, Z)
and
ko - kr
KP -
ke-Z
136
-------
-9 o
Do = diffusivity of oxygen in water (2.1 x 10 m2/sec, 20 C)
mw = pollutant molecular weight
W = wind speed, m/sec
Z = mean depth, m
The volatilization rate coefficient (kv> hr" ) is determined by ky = Ka x k
where k is obtained from literature values or computed as above (Vfjw/Do).
The rate should be corrected for temperature (k .) even though temperature
has only a relatively small effect:
k = k x 1.024
vt v
(T-20)
(V-56)
5.6.1.4 Hydrolysis
Not all compounds hydrolyze and those that do can be divided into three
groups: acid catalyzed, neutral, and base catalyzed reactants. A pseudo
first-order hydrolysis constant (k ) is estimated for the hydrolysis of the
compound:
dt
(V-57)
The rate constant (k ) is pH dependent and varies as discussed in Chapter 2.
The typical pH of the lake for the appropriate season should be obtained for
the necessary calculations. Generally, the pH is a common measurement and
is available for most lakes. If not, pH values for most open lakes lie
between 6-9 and can be estimated based on the following empirical values
based on Hutchinson, (1957):
acid lakes
neutral lakes
hard water lakes
eutrophic and alkaline lakes
Hardness (or A1kalinity) pH
<25 6 - 6.5
25 - 75 6.5 - 7.5
75 - 200 7.5 - 8.5
0 - 300 8.0 - 10.0
135
-------
Median values on a range of values can be used to evaluate the significance
of hydrolysis as a factor affecting the fate of compounds.
5.6.1.5 Photolysis
Generally, photolysis is a reaction between ultraviolet light (UV, 260
to 380 nm is most important) and photosensitive chemicals. Not all
compounds are subject to photolysis nor does UV light penetrate
significantly in turbid lakes. In the absence of turbidity data, light
transmission can be estimated by seasonally averaged Secchi disk readings
according to the following equation:
In (ISD/Io) = -ke(SD) * In 0.1 - -2.3
ke = 2.3/SD
where
ke is the extinction coefficient and
SD is the Secchi depth in meters.
(ISD/Io = 0.1) is the relative intensity based on Hutchinson (1957).
Photolysis for appropriate chemicals (discussed in detail in Chapter 2)
depends on a first order rate constant (k ) incorporating environmental
variables (solar iradiance, lo) and chemical variables (quantum yield, ,
and absorbance, E). Turbidity effects are included as estimated as above
since turbidity data are generally not available. These values are
incorporated into the rate constant and the concentration reduced as
follows (details described in Chapter 2):
dt
where
kr = f (lo, cj>, E, ke, Z)
and
ke-Z
• - kc
136
-------
Do = diffusivity of oxygen in water (2.1 x 10" m2/sec, 20 C)
mw = pollutant molecular weight
W = wind speed, m/sec
Z = mean depth, m
The volatilization rate coefficient (k , hr" ) is determined by ky = Ka x k
where k is obtained from literature values or computed as above (vt)w/Do).
The rate should be corrected for temperature (k ,) even though temperature
has only a relatively small effect:
k = k x 1.024
vt v
(T-20)
(V-56)
5.6.1.4 Hydrolysis
Not all compounds hydrolyze and those that do can be divided into three
groups: acid catalyzed, neutral, and base catalyzed reactants. A pseudo
first-order hydrolysis constant (k ) is estimated for the hydrolysis of the
compound:
dC
dt
(V-57)
The rate constant (k ) is pH dependent and varies as discussed in Chapter 2.
The typical pH of the lake for the appropriate season should be obtained for
the necessary calculations. Generally, the pH is a common measurement and
is available for most lakes. If not, pH values for most open lakes lie
between 6-9 and can be estimated based on the following empirical values
based on Hutchinson, (1957):
Hardness (or Alkalinity) pH
acid lakes
neutral lakes
hard water lakes
eutrophic and alkaline lakes
<25
25 - 75
75 - 200
0 - 300
6 - 6.5
6.5 - 7.5
7.5 - 8.5
8.0 - 10.0
135
-------
Median values on a range of values can be used to evaluate the significance
of hydrolysis as a factor affecting the fate of compounds.
5.6.1.5 Photolysis
Generally, photolysis is a reaction between ultraviolet light (UV, 260
to 380 nm is most important) and photosensitive chemicals. Not all
compounds are subject to photolysis nor does UV light penetrate
significantly in turbid lakes. In the absence of turbidity data, light
transmission can be estimated by seasonally averaged Secchi disk readings
according to the following equation:
In (ISD/Io) = -ke(SD) * In 0.1 = -2.3
ke = 2.3/SD
where
ke is the extinction coefficient and
SD is the Secchi depth in meters.
(ISD/Io = 0.1) is the relative intensity based on Hutchinson (1957).
Photolysis for appropriate chemicals (discussed in detail in Chapter 2)
depends on a first order rate constant (k ) incorporating environmental
P
variables (solar iradiance, lo) and chemical variables (quantum yield, 4>,
and absorbance, E). Turbidity effects are included as estimated as above
since turbidity data are generally not available. These values are
incorporated into the rate constant and the concentration reduced as
follows (details described in Chapter 2):
4r = - k C (V-58)
dt p
where
kr = f (lo, 4>, E, ke, Z)
and
ke-Z
136
-------
-9 o
Do = diffusivity of oxygen in water (2.1 x 10" m2/sec, 20 C)
mw = pollutant molecular weight
W = wind speed, m/sec
Z = mean depth, m
The volatilization rate coefficient (k , hr" ) is determined by ky = Ka x k
where k is obtained from literature values or computed as above (Vbw/Do).
The rate should be corrected for temperature (k ,) even though temperature
has only a relatively small effect:
k = k x 1.024
vt v
(T-20)
(V-56)
5.6.1.4 Hydrolysis
Not all compounds hydrolyze and those that do can be divided into three
groups: acid catalyzed, neutral, and base catalyzed reactants. A pseudo
first-order hydrolysis constant (k ) is estimated for the hydrolysis of the
compound:
_dC_
dt
(V-57)
The rate constant (k ) is pH dependent and varies as discussed in Chapter 2.
The typical pH of the lake for the appropriate season should be obtained for
the necessary calculations. Generally, the pH is a common measurement and
is available for most lakes. If not, pH values for most open lakes lie
between 6-9 and can be estimated based on the following empirical values
based on Hutchinson, (1957):
Hardness (or Alkalinity) pH
acid lakes
neutral lakes
hard water lakes
eutrophic and alkaline lakes
<25
25 - 75
75 - 200
0 - 300
6 - 6.5
6.5 - 7.5
7.5 - 8.5
8.0 - 10.0
135
-------
Median values on a range of values can be used to evaluate the significance
of hydrolysis as a factor affecting the fate of compounds.
5.6.1.5 Photolysis
Generally, photolysis is a reaction between ultraviolet light (UV, 260
to 380 nm is most important) and photosensitive chemicals. Not all
compounds are subject to photolysis nor does UV light penetrate
significantly in turbid lakes. In the absence of turbidity data, light
transmission can be estimated by seasonally averaged Secchi disk readings
according to the following equation:
In (ISD/Io) = -ke(SD) * In 0.1 = -2.3
ke = 2.3/SD
where
ke is the extinction coefficient and
SD is the Secchi depth in meters.
(ISD/Io = 0.1) is the relative intensity based on Hutchinson (1957).
Photolysis for appropriate chemicals (discussed in detail in Chapter 2)
depends on a first order rate constant (k ) incorporating environmental
variables (solar iradiance, lo) and chemical variables (quantum yield, $,
and absorbance, E). Turbidity effects are included as estimated as above
since turbidity data are generally not available. These values are
incorporated into the rate constant and the concentration reduced as
follows (details described in Chapter 2):
4r = - k C (V-58)
at p
where
kr = f (lo, $, E, ke, Z)
and
kr
kp =
ke-Z
136
-------
where
k is the photolysis rate constant uncorrected for depth and
turbidity of the lake.
Depth (Z) is generally applied only to the photic zone and mean depth
(7) is an appropriate measure since it approximates the mixed depth and the
photic zone.
5.6.1.6 Biocqncentration
Bioconcentration is a complex subject that depends on many variables.
The simplest approach has been developed for organic compounds using the
octanol-water coefficient (kow) to calculate tissue concentrations (Y):
Y = BCF x C, g/kg fresh weight of fish flesh. (V-59)
where BCF = Bioconcentration factor and log BCF = 0.75 log kow - 0.23, (The
coefficients for the equation (0.75, - 0.23) are median estimates obtained
from correlation equations and are default values for occasions where no
other data are available.)
5.6.2 Guide 1jjT_es_f_g.r Toxics Screening
Generally metals do not biodegrade nor volatilize. However, pH,
hardness, alkalinity and other ions are very important and can cause their
removal by precipitation. The conservative approach is taken here and
metals are calculated without removal (K = 0).
Organics may have variable sorption, volatilization, and biodegradation
rates. If data are available in the literature, these should be used.
Otherwise, a conservative approach should be used and calculations made
without removal (K = 0). For chlorinated (and other halogens) compounds or
refractory compounds, biodegradation should be assumed to be zero.
137
-------
EXAMPLE V-16
Estimating Trichloroethylene and Pyrene
Concentrations in an Impoundment
An impoundment with a single tributary is located in a windy valley.
The following conditions are known for E.G. Lake:
Mean tributary flow rate = 3.6 x 101* m3 /hour
Total volume = 1.1 x 108 m3
Mean depth = 11 m
Tributary average sediment load = 200 mg/1
Sediment average organic carbon content = .05
Inlet average pyrene concentration = 50 ug/1
Inlet average trichloroethylene concentration = 100 ug/1
Lake average phosphorus concentration = 50 ug/1
Mean water temperature = 15°C
Mean wind speed = 6 m/sec (35 mph)
Secchi depth = 1 m
Determine the steady state concentration of pyrene and trichloroethylene in
_. k\
the lake, assuming V max for the sediment (mostly clay) is 3.2 x 10
feet/second. The trapping efficiency is obtained from Figure V-33.
Other data Pyrene Trichloroethylene
kow 148000 190
B IxlO"4
k - 0.45xKa
v
The processes of photolysis and hydrolysis can be neglected because
turbidity prevents photolysis (SD = 1 meter) and these compounds have
negligible hydrolysis (see Chapter 2).
We use the summary equation (V-47) for the analysis:
C - C1n/(l + TW-K)
138
-------
The hydraulic residence time of E.G. Lake is:
T - 1.1 x 108 m3/(3.6 x lOTnVhr)
= 3048 hours
= 127 days
= .349 year
= 1.1 x 105 seconds
Sedimentation
First, the suspended sediment concentration in E.G. Lake must be
estimated. The trapping efficiency of the impoundment is estimated from
Figure V-34.
Data: log 10
V max = 5 x 10"6 fps -5.30
T = 1.1 x 106 sec 6.04
D1 = 11 m = 36.1 ft 1.56
A value of 101-95 is obtained which yields
P = 90 = 0.9
In the inflowing stream, the toxicants are assumed to be at equilibrium
with the organic matter. Thus,
S = OC x So - .05 x 200 x 10"6 = 1 x 10"5 kg/1
Therefore, for pyrene
K = 0.63 x 148000 x 0.05 = 4660
P
+ 4660 x 1 x 10"5) - 0.955
139
-------
IO''-1-
10
-&:'.
\c-='-i-
::\
IO-^TA
10
-3.
10
0 L
To)
L
10
3llo-6
St/Sj
"\ 0-
4No \
X
\N
N
V : Settling velocity in feet/
second
T : Hydraulic residence time
in seconds
D': Flowing layer depth
S : Mass of sediment trapped
S.: Mass of sediment entering
impound.r:ent
L : Pivot axis
D
.699-
= 50
10
I_L
FIGURE V - 54 NCXCGRAPH FOR ESTIMATING SEDIMENT TRAP EFFICIENCY
140
-------
- = 0.955 x 4660 x 1 x 10"5 = 0.044
and
SED - a x D x K
P
D = P x S x Q/V
D = 0.9 x 200 x 10'6 x - hours
-8
D = 5.91 x 10 hour
SED = .955 x 5.91 x 10"8 x 4660
SED = 2.63 x 10"4 hr"1
For tr ich• 1oroethylene
K = .63 x 190 x 1 x .05 = 6
P
1 + 6 x 1 x 10 ) = 1
= 1 x 6 x 1 x 10"5 = 6 x 10"5 = 0
and
SED = 1 x 5.91 x 10 x 6
SED = 3.54 x 10"7 hr"1
B i_qd e q radati q_n
Assume that the presence of trichloroethylene does not affect the
biodearadation of pyrene. Trichloroethylene does not biodegrade. The
141
-------
temperature corrected and nutrient limited rate constant for microbial decay
of pyrene are:
Bo = 1. x 10"4 hr"1
B = .0277 x 50/ (1 + .0277 x 50)
= .58
8(15) = .58x 1. x 10"4x 1.072 (15
= 4.1 x 10"5 hr"1
Volatilization
The reaeration coefficient for E.G. Lake will be estimated for
trichloroethylene only, because pyrene does not volatilize:
Kal = 2.1 x 10"9 / (200 - 60 x 6^ 10~6
= 3.96 x 10"5 m/sec
= .143 m/hr
Ka = (.143 m/hr) / 11 m = .013 hr"1
For trichloroethylene (TCE):
kv = [MW(TCE)/MW(02)f2 • Ka = .45 x .013 = .0058 hr'1
When adjusted for temperature:
(15"20)
"1
kv = . 0058 x 1.024
- .0052 hr
142
-------
Volatilization for pyrene may be neglected.
Pollutant Mass Balance
The overall decay rate constants are: K = SED + B + k
Pyrene: K = 2.63 x 10"4 + 4.1 x 10"5
= .000304 hr"1
Trichloroethylene: K = 3.54 x 10" + 0 + 0.0051
= .0052 hr"1
Using the steady state equation:
v
C = Cin/(l+TwK)
For Pyrene
C - 50 yg/1 / ( 1 + 3048 hr x .000304 hr'1)
C = 27 yg/1
Note: WQC for human health is 0.0028 yg/1 at 10"6 Risk (FR: 11/28/80
p. 79339).
For Trichloroethylene
C = 100 yg/1 / (1 + 3048 hr x .0052 hr"1)
= 5.9 yg/1
Note: WQC for human health is 2.7 yg/1 at 10"6 Risk (FR: 11/28/80
p. 79341)
143
-------
Tissue burdens (Y) can be calculated:
Y = BCF x C
where
log BCF = .75 log kow - 0.23
For Pyrene
Y = 4330 x 27 = 120000 yg/kg fish flesh
For Tri ch1oroethy1ene
Y = 30 x 6 = 180 yg/kg fish flesh
Comments
Several conclusions are apparent from this analysis
t Certain processes dominate the overall fate for a specific
toxic chemical so that, practically speaking, errors in
estimating coefficients are negligible except for the
important processes. After identifying the important
processes, the coefficients can be varied to determine the
range of concentrations. For example, sedimentation of
trichloroethylene can be ignored; however, volatilization
should be studied.
i The more stringent Water Quality Criteria are for toxicants
that have significant bioconcentration; e.g. compare pyrene
to trichloroethylene.
• Volatilization of trichloroethylene would be investigated in
detail since this process might not be significant in this
lake because of its depth. Also, the physical properties are
important; e.g. trichloroethylene has a specific gravity of
144
-------
about 1.5. Thus, it may accumulate on the bottom of the
reservoir and remain there unless it is completely dispersed,
• Based on this analysis, sources of pyrene would be assessed
first, then trichloroethylene.
• What other observations can you draw from this analysis?
-END OF EXAMPLE V-16
145
-------
5-7 ^iJCATIp_N OF METHODS AND EXAMPLE PROBLEM
This chapter has presented several approaches to evaluation of five
impoundment problem areas. These are thermal stratification, sediment
accumulation, eutrophication, hypo!imnion DO/BOD, and toxic chemicals.
Figure V-35 shows how the different approaches are linked together with
their data needs. In studying any or all of the potential problem areas in
an impoundment, the user should first define the potential problems as
clearly as he can. Often the nature of a problem will change entirely when
its various facets are carefully described and examined en masse.
Once the decision is made that an aspect of impoundment water quality
should be evaluated and the problem is clearly stated, the user should
examine available solution techniques presented both in this document and
elsewhere. The examination should address the questions of applicability,
degree of accuracy, and need for data. The user will generally know what
funds are available for data collection as well as the likelihood of
procuring the needed data from previously developed bases. Also, the
decision concerning needed accuracy rests with the user, and he should make
decisions based upon the way in which his results will be used.
Once appropriate methods have been selected, the next task is to set
down the data and to manipulate it according to computational requirements.
Data are best displayed first in tabular form and then plotted in some
meaningful way. Careful tabulation of data and graphing can themselves
sometimes provide a solution to a problem, negating need for further
analysis. To illustrate these steps, a comprehensive application to a river
basin system was performed in this section.
.7.1 THE OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
The Occoquan River basin in Virginia was used to demonstrate the
screening approach. A basin map is shown in Figure V-36. Because the
Occoquan Reservoir is a public drinking water supply downstream from
metropolitan areas, v/ater quality data were available to compare to the
screening method's outputs.
146
-------
PROCEDURES
APPLIED
INPUT DAT* FOR
RESERVOIRS AND LAKES
VOLUME, AREA, MAX DEPTH
INFLCH(S) - HIGH, LOU,
AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS
HI 110 SHIELDING*
MEAN WIND VELOCITY*
NEAREST CITY*
PREDICT
SEDIMENT
FILLING OF
RESERVOIR
^
'
PREDICT
EUTROPH1CATION
LEVEL
^
P-
<„
AND
STRATIFICATION
SEDIMENT
TRAPPING
EFFICIENCY
t,
I
*
J
\
r
SEDIMENT LOADS (MEASURED
CALCULATED)
SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO*
SEDIMENT TYPE AND PARTICLE SIZE*
NUTRIENT LOADS (MEASURED
OR CALCULATED)
SETTLING VELOCITY*
BOD CECAY RATE*
BENTHIC OXYGEN CONSUMPTION RATE*
TRIBUTARY BOD LOAD
SATURATION DO*
TOXICANT TYPE
SEDIMENTATION RATE
REAERATION RATE
ACATiON RATE
BlOACCUMULATION
OBTAINED FROM SCREENING MANUAL.
FIGURE V-35 GENERALIZED SCHEMATIC OF LAKE COMPUTATIONS
147
-------
Dulles Airport
PRINC
WILLIAM
COUNTY
0 12345
ccoouan
Dam
FIGURE V-36 THE OCCOQUAN RIVER BASIN
148
-------
5.7.2 Stratification
Occoquan Reservoir is about 32 km southwest of Washington, D.C. and
has the following morphometric characteristics:
Volume, m3 = 3.71 x 107
Surface area, m2 = 7.01 x 105
Maximum depth, m = 7.1 (Occoquan Dam)
Mean depth, m = 5.29
Based upon the above geometry and the thermal plots, determine whether
the lake will stratify, the thickness of the epilimnion and the hypolimnion,
the depth to the thermocline, and the interval and starting and ending date
of stratification. Also note the temperature of the hypolimnion at the
onset of stratification.
Predicting the extent of shielding from the wind requires use of
topographic maps. The reservoir is situated among hills that rise 25 meters
or more above the lake surface within 200 meters of the shore. The relief
provides little access for wind to the lake surface. Average annual wind
speeds are 15.6 km/hr in Washington, D.C. and 12.6 km/hr in Richmond, VA.
Inflow comes essentially from two creeks, the Occoquan River and Bull Run
River (Figure V-36).
First, determine needed information and then do metric/English
conversions as necessary.
The first step in assessing impoundment water quality is to determine
whether the impoundment thermally stratifies. This requires knowledge of
local climate, impoundment geometry, and inflow rates. Using this
information, thermal plots likely to reflect conditions in the prototype are
selected from Appendix D.
149
-------
For the thermal plots to realistically describe the thermal behavior of
the prototype, the plots must be selected for a locale climatically similar
to that of the area under study. Because the Occoquan Reservoir is within
32 kilometers of Washington, D.C., the Washington thermal plots (Appendix D)
should best reflect the climatic conditions of the Occoquan watershed.
The second criterion for selecting a set of thermal plots is the degree
of wind stress on the reservoir. This is determined by evaluating the
amount of protection from wind afforded the reservoir and estimating the
intensity of the local winds. Table V-2 shows annual wind speed frequency
distribution for Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia. The data suggest
that winds in the Occoquan area are of moderate intensity.
Predicting the extent of shielding from the wind requires use of
topographic maps. The reservoir is situated among hills that rise 25 meters
or more above the lake surface within 200 meters of the shore. The relief
provides little access for wind to the lake surface. The combinatiuon of
shielding and moderate winds implies that low wind stress plots are
appropriate.
The geometry of the reservoir is the third criterion used in the
selection of thermal plots. Geometric data for the Occoquan Reservoir are
summarized in the problem. The volume, surface area, and maximum depth are
all nearly midway between the parameter values used in the 40-foot and
75-foot maximum-depth plots. However, the mean depth is much closer to the
mean depth of the 40-foot plot.
The mean depth represents the ratio of the volume of the impoundment to
its surface area. Because the volume and surface area are proportional to
the thermal capacity and heat transfer rates respectively, the mean depth
should be useful in characterizing the thermal response of the impoundment.
It follows that the 40-foot thermal profiles should match the temperatures
in the Occoquan Reservoir more closely than the 75-foot profiles. However,
it is desirable to use both plots in order to bracket the actual
temperature.
150
-------
Flow data provide the final information needed to determine which
thermal plots should be used. The inflow from the two tributaries adds up
to be 20.09 mVsec.
The hydraulic residence time can be estimated by using the expression
, V . 3.71 x 10' .'
20.09 x 86400
- . 21-4 days
Since the residence time is midway between the thermal plot parameter values
of 10 and 30 days, both should be used to bracket the mean hydraulic
residence time in the prototype. It should be noted that these flow
estimates do not include runoff from the area immediately around the lake.
However, the upstream Occoquan watershed is large enough relative to the
immediate runoff and direct precipitation to justify the assumption that the
contribution of the immediate area is not significant.
The likelihood that the Occoquan Reservoir thermally stratifies can now
be evaluated. For a hydraulic residence time of ten days, the thermal plots
show that stratification is not likely for maximum depths of 40 to 75 feet.
In the case of a 30-day hydraulic residence time, the profiles suggest that
the reservoir develops a thermal gradient between 1°C m and 3°C nf * for
either value of maximum impoundment depth. The 40-foot plots (Figure V-37)
indicate stratification occurs from May to August at 5-7 meters depth.
However, the 75-foot plots predict that the impoundment will have a thermal
gradient greater than 1°C m"1 only at depths greater than 17 meters. Since
the Occoquan Reservoir is 17.1 meters deep at the deepest station, this
suggests that the impoundment does not stratify.
The mean hydraulic residence time can be computed using either the
average annual flow rate or the flow rate just prior to stratification. In
order to use the latter method, the flow rate during the months of March and
April should be computed. The flow rate for this period, 25.4 m3 sec"1,
reduces the hydraulic retention time to 17 days. Since the model predicts
no stratification for a ten-day residence time, the judgment as to whether
stratification occurs becomes difficult.
151
-------
4 •
4 •
CL
UJ
o
Q_
UJ
°
Q-
UJ
o
a.
U-l
o
0 10 20 3D
TEnr. c
t?
X
t—
a.
17
x
t—
O_
LLJ
O
1?
0 10 20 3D
TEnr. C
BUt
0 10 20 30
TEnr. c
0 10 20 30
TEMP. C
o 10 ;o 30
TFf.P. C
12
0 10 20 30
TEMP. C
DEC
o 10 ^o 30
TEMP. C
0-
LU
o
0 10 20 30
TEMP. C
12
10 20 30
TEMP. C
OC1
0 10 20 33
TEMP. C
WASHINGTON, B.C.
40 ' INI T IRL MRXIMUM DEPTH
30 DOT HTDR- RES. TIME
MINIMUM MIXING
FIGURE V-37 THERMAL PROFILE PLOTS FOR OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
152
-------
Because lower flows occur during the summer, the 30-day residence time,
40 foot depth and minimum mixing should be used. In borderline cases such
as this, the reservoir will almost certainly stratify during some part of
the summer.
The temperatures predicted by the thermal plots match those actually
measured in the reservoir quite closely. A comparison of predicted and
observed monthly mean temperatures (1974-1976) in both the epilimnion and
hypolimnion can be made using observed data (Table V-17) and the plot of the
40 foot, 30 day residence time, minimum mixing (Figure V-37). The
difference between the two epilimnion temperatures averages 1.0°C and varies
between 0.2 and 1.8 C. The difference in the hypolimnion temperatures
averages 1.0°C and ranges from 0.2 to 2.7°C.
The close agreement of the predicted and observed impoundment
temperatures probably results from the relatively long hydraulic residence
times observed in two of the three years on which the averages are based.
In 1974, 1975, and 1976, the mean hydraulic residence times were 31, 18, and
25 days, respectively. The 30-day thermal plots should predict results
relatively close to the two low-flow years. The differences expected for
1975 would be less pronounced when averaged with the other two.
In conclusion, Occoquan Reservoir does apparently stratify, the depth
to the thermocline or the epilimnion approximates the mean depth (5.29), the
hypolimnion has a depth of 11.8 m (17.1-5.3), and the interval of
stratification approximates May 1 to mid September or 138 days. The
hypolimnetic temperature is about 11 degrees C, typically.
5.7.3 Sedimentation
To evaluate potential sedimentation problems, Appendix F is examined to
see if any data exist on the upstream reservoir (Jackson) or Occoquan
Reservoir (Figure V-36). Some data exist for Jackson but not for Occoquan
Reservoir (Figure V-38 taken from Appendix F). Thus, we can determine the
trapping of sediment in Jackson Reservoir but trapping must be calculated
153
-------
TABLE V-17
COMPARISON OF MODELED THERMAL PROFILES TO OBSERVED TEMPERATURES IN OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
Month
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Hean EpU imnion
40-foot Plot (°C)J;
7
13.5
19
24
26
26
22
17
11
7
Temp.
Observed
8.4
12.6
20.5
24.8
26.6
26.5
23.8
17.2
12.2
6.2
Hean llypol imnion
40-foot Plot ("C)b)
6
10
15
18
20
21
20
16
10
7
Temp.
Observedc
6.3
9.2
14.4
. 17.2
21.2
23.7
20.2
15.8
11.6
5.8
Epil Imnion Depth
(m)
40-foot P)ott;
--
--
4.5
5.0
6.5
7
--
--
--
--
*J(lean temperatures In ep1l1mn1on from thermal plots with T » 30 days and a maximum depth of 40 feet.
temperatures 1n therrrocline and hypolimnion from thermal plots with T • 30 days and a maximum
depth of 40 feet.
c>Means of observed temperatures 1n "upper" and "lower" layers of Occoquan Reservoir for 1974-1976,
at Sandy Run.
Source: northern Virginia Planning District Commission, January , 1979.
-------
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
|
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL [ NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
(ACRE-FT.
PER
AUHfc-Kll
SPECIFIC
WEIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PEB S(J. MI.
OF NET DB.
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
POIOMC, UPFAIUIIKXX, TOM, UK JAWS HID BASIK5
tn
tn
5-3
5-3
5-4b
5-6
5-7b
5-8
5-10
5-13
5-13
6-1
6-3
6-3
6-4
n hit
Tt*"rt *"
d
5ta t
**
•o ion
Triadelphia L. (Brignton D. )-
rt
.°
.
*°
'*rt r
South Rl»«r, Site 26 >
l
* ** *
Laki Ap^ic — — — —
Frankllnton-
Oreensboro (L. Brandt)
High Point
to
If. h. Br, AncoovtU River-
t
rib. o ndlui r
rt
'rv.»
.IfKlMrl
""
rto
_ _
^°
0.
PatttJtent RiYfP-
Inch B
v ^ ««C
Ll
. t « aturent
allU lanoy Craoic
F
e oj r
»dged in 1937-1939.
Oroooee, T*.
Silw Spring, Md.
hi t »M
reen el ,
do
Sta ton T
. '
^
Hk 7
*'
fiV-f«tit° nVt
d '
do
°
•1 fftnn >M
5"*"*
W^n.rtoro, V.
*'
CHCW4N, ROANDKE, TAfi,
High ftiint, N. C
33.21
27.0
337
•1.4
60
105.0
132.8
2.7
1.8»
NEUSE, AND CA!
4.0
1.13
62.8
" &
33.07
25
336.4
to.y
59.6
104.44
50.14
2.7
1.S5
>E F£AH Rl
4.0
1.12
73.4
62.3
Kevls.d 1
9 .cr»-r.
F*. 1938
*««. 1957
F*. 1907
F*. 1938
*/ 1930
lUr. 1938
Julj 1936
F*. 1938
A««. 1957
Jmm 1968
DM. 1925
J*Q. 1940
Jan* 1957
July 1930
Au». 1937
Jui. 1942
Oct. 1950
S«pt. 1958
Aug. 1964
S^rt. 1913
Apr. 1940
M.r. 1932
Apr. 1940
««r. 1952
Kir. 1956
ttor. 1954
Aug. 1964
H*J 1956
Hoi. 1970
S.pt. 1966
Aug. 1968
Aug. 1969
VER BASINS
— 1925
June 1941
J«n. 1925
*J 1938
F«b. 1923
Aug. 1934
Jui. 1928
Aug. 1934
Apr. 1939
968.
•t c*lned br dr<
23.1
17.5
31
1.6
19.5
14
17.5
7.2
8.3
7.9
5.9
26.6
8.1
4.0
10.4
14.5
1.9
1.0
16
13.3
11.5
~6.5
3.75
jA*762
i'e6o
1.72J
181
95
1%
186
151
UA47
373
350
4,500
4,158
20J089
19,633
19,045
3,129
3,004
7,312
7,394
20,300
20,020
21,390
20,789
6X0.4
607.0
196.97
170.99
163.72
106
94
34.7
27.3
2,870
2,610
4,354
4,135
4,038
.134
.161
•.312
•.596
•.240
.234
_
.327
.324
.317
.308
.172
.169
.28
.28
.140
.122
.117
—
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•50
•50
61.1
•60
67
•60
•60
•60
67
•60
50.6
.257
.728
.134
.408
7.91 10
2.27 2
1.52 1
.034
.053
.141
.20
.72
1.25 1
U/.090
.036
~.643
1.15 1
.087
12/7.3916/11
3.93 5
.19
.509
.308
.541
.416
336
950
533
,337
,970
.945
184
218
784
,663
r'a
,678
110
,278
.133
743
402
596
458
SCS
SC3
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
scs
s:s
SCS
2/ Partial vurv«r covering e«gn«nta 1-11 In 3ton«y Brook Am Onlj.
\jj Net Mdlaent contributing area was 299.4 mq. ml. until 1933 "ban Prtttyboy Daa M*B oomplet*d.
this ar*a was uo«d In tha I9iJ calculations.
*/ Rr*ia»d aft«r 1961 flttrr«y.
6/ Conaarwtlon or »»din«nt pool only.
2/ Mot datamlnod - aaauned equal to that d»t*rmin«d in 1963.
fl/ 6a*«d on origin*! •pillvsj oreat alrratlon 20^ f««t a. B. 1.
O/ tafu*4 nn (tpillwi* rront •l«ratl'>n 210 fo«t n. ". 1. and natlnwtM eamolty nf 2,WO acr^-f**!
Revieed due to movable control gat^s.
Koon Lake, upstream, was built In 1932.
Baaerl on total sediment in both Gordon Lake and Koon Lake.
Does not include U.JU acre-feet dredged.
Include* U.3U acre-feet dredge4 In early spring I960.
FIGURE V-38 SUMMARY OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
-------
for the Occoquan. To refine the analysis, calculations on Jackson Reservoir
will also be made and the results calibrated.
To apply the Stokes1 law approach to a reservoir, we need to know the
loading first. The necessary sediment loading estimates for the tributaries
were provided by the methods in Chapter 3 and are listed in Table V-18 (Dean
e_t aj_., 1980) Before they are used in further computations, a delivery
factor must be applied to these values. This factor (the sediment delivery
ratio or SDR) accounts for the fact that not all the sediment removed from
the land surface actually reaches the watershed outlet. Nonpoint loads from
urban sources are presumed to enter the reservoir through Bull Run River
since most of the urbanized portion of the watershed lies in this sub-basin.
Computing the annual sediment load into Occoquan Reservoir is
complicated by the presence of Lake Jackson immediately upstream from the
reservoir. The trap efficiency must be computed for Lake Jackson as well in
order to determine the amount of sediment entering the Occoquan Reservoir
from Lake Jackson. The steps involved are to compute the sediment delivered
(Table V-19), the size range, the fraction trapped for each size range and
the total amount trapped. A table has been devised to simplify these steps
(Table V-20).
Soil types provide an indication of the particle sizes in the basin
under study. Soils in the Occoquan basin are predominately silt loams.
Particle size data on the principal variety, Penn silt loam, are given in
Table V-21. These data and all calculations are transcribed into Table
V-22.
Some effort can be conserved by first calculating the smallest particle
size that will be completely trapped in the impoundment. To do so, P, the
trap efficiency, must first be computed. Because both reservoirs are long
and narrow and have relatively small residence times, the flow will be
assumed to approximate vertically mixed plug flow (Case Bl). In this case,
P is found from the expression:
156
-------
TABLE V-18
ANNUAL SEDIMENT AND POLLUTANT LOADS IN OCCOQUAN
WATERSHED IN METRIC TONS PER
en
Type of Load
Total Nitrogen
Available Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Available
Phosphorus
BOD,.
D
Rainfall Nitrogen
'Kettle
Run
46,898
164.46
16.45
39.01
2.18
328.92
0.72
Cedar
Run
396,312
1,457.42
145.74
341.95
14.95
2,925.63
5.50
Broad
Run
142,241
518.91
51.89
114.22
5.57
1,042.45
2.00
Bull
Run
232,103
789.24
78.92
202.71
12.50
1,578.47
3.92
Occoquan
River
139,685
469.46
46.05
119.42
8.43
925.85
2.48
Urban
Runoff
12,699
12.88
5.38
2.59
1.27
77 .47
-
a)
Estimates provided by Midwest Research Institutes Nonpoint Source Calculator.
These values have not yet had a sediment delivery ratio (SDR) applied to
them. We will use 0.1 and 0.2 as lower and upper bounds. The SDR does not
apply to rainfall nitrogen.
Note: A large number of significant figures have been retained in these
values to ensure the accuracy of later calculations.
-------
TABLE V-19
SEDIMENT
TRIBUTARIES
TO
LAKE JACKSON
KETTLE RUN
CEDAR RUN
BROAD RUN
TOTAL
LOADED INTO LAKE JACKSON,
1,000 KG/YEAR
AVAILABLE
SEDIMENT
46,898
396,312
142,241
SEDIMENT
LAKE
CASE I
(SDR=0,1)
4,690
39,630
14,220
58,540
DELIVERED To
JACKSON
CASE II
(SDR=0,2)
9,380
79,260
28,440
117,080
158
-------
TABLE V-20
CALCULATION FORMAT FOR DETERMINING SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN RESERVOIRS (NOTE UNITS)
Size
Fraction
Percent
Composition
Density
Absolute
Bulk
Mean
Particle
Diameter
vmax
Fraction
Trapped (P)
A
B
Test Case
Incoming
Sediment
•
Trapped
Sediment
en
-------
TABLE V-21
PARTICLE SIZES IN PENN SILT LOAM
Particle Size * of Particles Smaller Than
(imp (By Weight)
4.76 100
2.00 99
0.42 93
0.074 84
0.05 78
0.02 50
0.005 26
0.002 16
160
-------
TABLE V-22
CALCULATION FORMAT FOR DETERMINING SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN RESERVOIRS (NOTE UNITS)
Size
Fraction
cin
.000514
.00050
.00035
.00020
>. 000518
Percent
Composition
0.3
5
5
16
73.7
Example
Calculation
Density
Absolute
2.66
2.66
2.66
2.66
2.66
SDR = C
Vol = 2
Vol of
(75 yrs
Bulk
2.24
2.24
2.24
1.28
2.33
average'
.115
4750 m3/
Jackson
lifetim
Mean
Particle
Diameter
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
/r
Reservoir
e)
Vpiax
m/day
1.90
1.79
0.88
0.29
-
Totals
Trapped
ast per y
Fraction
Trapped (P)
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>a Y* ~~ -.
1
B
1.00
0.94
0.46
0.15
1.00
24750
593000
Test Case
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
I mtons/y
II mtons/y
I m3/yr
II m3/yr
n3/yr _ -, r/
n3
m tc
Incoming
Sediment
176
352
2927
5854
2927
5854
9366
18732
43144
86288
- 48822
- 97644
21523
43046
'year
n/yr
Trapped
Sediment
m3/yr
176 79
352 158
2751 1228
5502 1356
601
2582 1209
1405 1098
2810 2196
43144 19000
86288 37000
-------
max T_w
P = D'
where D1 = mean flowing layer depth, m.
To calculate the smallest particle that is trapped in the impoundment,
P is set equal to unity and the above equation is solved for V
max
V
vmax
w
This expression for V is then substituted into the fall velocity equation
max
(Stokes1 law), which in turn is solved for d.
.4-8 x 1Q6 (DP - DW) d2 = rr
%ax " p T
The resulting expression is:
d» °' y
6
v 4.8 x 10" /D - D ^ • T
^ p w^ w
The trap efficiency of Lake Jackson is calculated first. The data
required for these calculations are:
V = 1.893 x 106 m3
Q = 12.47 m3 sec"1
D = 3.34 m
p = 1.11 (Assuming T = 16°C as in Occoquan Reservoir)
and Tw=l= 1.893 x 106 m3 .- 1.76 days
Q 12.47 m3 • sec • 86400 sec • day"1
The minimum particle size for 100 percent trapping is computed as:
d = /3-34m x 1'11 = 5.14 x 10-4 cm
V 4.8 x 106 (2.66 - 1.0) • 1.76
162
-------
The amount trapped of each size fraction is computed separately for
Case B-l from the equation
p _ max Tw
D1
For example, for size fraction 0.00035 cm,
p . loBm . 0.46
A composite trapping efficiency can be obtained by determining the total
percent trapped (48822/58540 = 0.83).
The sediment accumulated in Lake Jackson for each size range is
determined from the expression:
S = P • S
\ i
where
P = trap efficiency
S. = sediment load from tributary i
S = sediment trapped
For the two cases (I, II):
St = (0.1, 0.1) x 0.83 [46898 + 132241] metric tons/year
= (48822, 97644) metric tons/year.
Data obtained from Appendix F of the screening manual show that the
estimated rate of sedimentation in Lake Jackson is 56,153 metric tons/year.
This indicates that an SDR of 0.115 would be appropriate.
Bulk density (g/cc) includes the water that fills pore spaces in
sediment that has settled to the bottom and this must be accounted for when
determining volume lost due to sedimentation. Bulk density varies with
particle size and some approximate values for the size ranges for sand
(0.005-0.2 cm), silt (0.0002-0.005 cm), and clay (<0.0002 cm) are as
follows: 2.56 for sand, 2.24 for silt and 1.28 for clay. Thus, using an
163
-------
SDR of .115, 24,750 m3 (or 1.3%) of reservoir volume would be lost per year.
In comparing to Appendix F data, we find that this value is conservative.
The loss of volume was estimated by the SCS to be 47.5 acre feet/year while
these calculations show only 20 acre feet/year being lost. The estimated
bulk density used by the SCS was 0.93 g/cc and we used a more conservative
value. If the SCS figure is used, the volume lost is determined to be 46.4
acre feet/year.
Now we compute the sedimentation in Occoquan Reservoir. The minimum
particle size that is completely trapped is computed using the following
values:
D' = 5.29
u = 1.11 (T = 16°C = mean of Table V-17)
DW = 2.66 g cm "3
Dw = 1.0 g cm"3
TW = 21.4 days
Under stratified conditions, the epilimnion thickness should be used for D'.
Since stratification is uncertain in this case and the predicted average
hypolimnion thickness, 5.75 m, is greater than the mean depth, the latter
value will be used. All particles with diameter, d, such that:
rs
= V ~4.
1.11
3 x 106 (2.66 - 1.0) • 21.4
will be completely trapped in the Occoquan Reservoir. Because this value is
smaller than the smallest size calculated for Lake Jackson (2 x 10 cm),
our computations are simple. We assumed that 84 percent of the sediment is
totally trapped and the remainder is trapped at an efficiency calculated for
particle sizes of 0.0001 cm:
4.8 x 106 (2.66 - 1.) (1 xjgjjJL
= I_TI
= 0.072 in/day
164
-------
D »•— Tw 0.072 • 21.4
P = ^ = - 5729-
The annual sediment trapped is
St = P ' Si
but corrections for sources and SDR must be made:
S = SDR x sediment from each source.
i
S. = 13390 (Lake Jackson, already corrected for SDR)
0.115 (232103) (Bull Run) + 0.115 (139685)
(Occoquan River) + 12699 (Urban Runoff)
S. = 68845 metric tons/year
Assuming the distribution of particle sizes for all sources are essentially
the same and accounting for the fractions (f) of material that are in the
two different size ranges:
S. = f, Px S. + f2 P2 S.
S = (0.84) (1.0)(68845) + (0.16) (0.29) (68845)
I*
S = 57830 ; 3194 = 61024 metric tons
Lr
The volume lost is -^"._•• = 65620 m3 /year or 0.2 percent per
year of the reservoir volume.
5.7.4 Eutrophication
What would be the consequences to eutrophication in Occoquan Reservoir
of instituting 90 percent phosphorus removal at the treatment plant? If, in
addition to phosphorus removal, nonpoint source (NPS) phosphorus was reduced
by 90 percent by instituting urban runoff and erosion control, green belts,
and other NPS controls, would an improvement in lake quality occur?
165
-------
Several assumptions concerning pollutants in the Occoquan
watershed-reservoir system are necessary in order to calculate the desired
annual loads:
• The unavailable phosphorus is adsorbed on sediment particles.
Therefore, of the unavailable forms coming into Lake Jackson,
only the fraction (1 - P [Jackson]) is delivered to the
Occoquan Reservoir; Available P gets through Jackson.
• All of the phosphorus and nitrogen from the sewage treatment
plants (STPs) is in available form;
• The output of STPs outside the Bull Run sub-basin is
negligible compared to that of the STPs in Bull Run. This is
justified by the fact that during the period: under study,
the plants in Bull Run had a combined capacity several times
larger than the few plants outside the sub-basin.
• The problems of eutrophication depend on loading of
phosphorus.
By applying these assumptions to the nonpoint source data in Tables
V-18 and V-23 the total load of each pollutant type may be calculated (Table
V-24). The computation for the total annual phosphorus load in Occoquan
Reservoir is computed in the following paragraphs. First the quantity of
total phosphorus coming into the Occoquan Reservoir through Lake Jackson is
calculated by:
TP, , = (1 - P ) x [Total P - Available P] + Available P
Jackson cjackson
The total phosphorus from Broad Run, Cedar Run, and Kettle Run are summed
and the available phosphorus loads are subtracted to give the unavailable
load. This load is multiplied by the trap efficiency of the lake,
P = 0.83, which yields the unavailable load passing through. This value,
plus the available load, is an estimate of the total phosphorus entering
Occoquan Reservoir from Lake Jackson. This quantity is 103.24 metric tons
yr~ (Table V-24). This value is aded to the non-urban, nonpoint source
166
-------
TABLE V-23
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT POLLUTANT LOADS IN BULL RUN
SUB-BASIN IN METRIC TONS PER
Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus BODr
108.0 11.92 54.80
a;
Averages for July 1974 - December 1977
Source: Northern Virginia Planning District Commission,
March 1979.
167
-------
TABLE V-24
CALCULATED ANNUAL POLLUTANT
LOADS TO OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
Load Source
Urban runoff
Sewage treatment
Rainfall
Other Nonpoint Source*
TOTAL
Nonpoint Source %
Point Source %
Total N
12.38
103.00
14.62
391.00
526.50
80
20
Metri
Ava i 1 . N
5.38
108.00
14.62
39.10
167.10
35
65
c Tons/Year
Total P
2.59
11.92
-
48.83
63.34
81
19
Avail .P
1.27
11.92
-
2.65
15.84
25
75
BODs
77.47
54.80
-
802.00
934.27 -
94
6
Used SDR of 0.115.
168
-------
loads from Bull Run and areas adjacent to the Occoquan Reservoir (Table
V-18):
TPNPNU = 202-71 + I19-42 + 103.24
= 425.37 metric tons yr .
This quantity is modified by the sediment delivery ratio. The urban
nonpoint loads and STP (Table V-24) loads are added to complete the
calculation:
TP = (0.115) (425) + 2.59 + 11.92
= 63.3 metric tons yr" .
Similarly the SDR was applied to nonpoint sources of nitrogen and BOD5. The
results of load calculations are summarized in Table V-24.
The calculated annual total phosphorus and nitrogen loads (Table V-24)
may be compared with the observed loads listed in Table V-25. The loads
observed are 1.5 to 6 times higher than highest calculated loads for
nitrogen. Comparison of loadings (kg/ha year) with literature values
suggest that Grizzard is most accurate (Likens e_t^ aj_. , 1977).
The first method of predicting algal growth is known as the
o
Vollenweider Relationship. In the graph of total phosphorus load (g m
yr ) versus mean depth (m) divided by hydraulic retention time (yrs) (see
Figure V-24), areas can be defined that roughly correspond to the
nutritional state of the impoundment. For the Occoquan Reservoir, the
values of the parameters are:
Lp . (63.34) x 10* g/yr „ g^ g m-2 yr-l
7.01 x 106 m2
L- = „ 5-29 m = on m vr-l
TW (J.0586 yr ^ m yr
According to the Vollenweider Relationship, Occoquan Reservoir is well
into the eutrophic region for loading of total phosphorus. Based on these
predictions a more in-depth study of the algal productivity seems to be in
order.
169
-------
TABLE V-25
OBSERVED ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS TO OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
Mean Flow3'1
Rate Total Nitrogen Load
Period (m sec~ ) (metric tons year" )
10/74
7/75
7/76
- 9/75 24.7 805i;
- 6/76 24.0 1905C')
- 6/77 10.4 4763cj
Total Phosphorus Load
(metric tons year )
Il0b)
188c;
454c;
^Source: USGS Regional Office, Richmond, Virginia.
i;Grizzard et al_., 1977
c;Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, March, 1979.
Data gathered by Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory.
-------
Solving for the phosphorus concentration in this reservoir
Lp 1 9.04 g m"2 yr""1
P = —
Z D+VcF 5.29mi(I7.1+VrTl)yr-1']
? = 0.0305 g/m3 = 80.5 yg/1 .
Calculated and observed pollutant concentrations are listed in Table
V-26. The mean summer concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen are closer
to the concentrations calculated than would be expected on the basis of the
comparison of annual loads.
The ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus concentration in the reservoir can
be used to estimate which nutrient will limit the rate of plant growth. For
the Occoquan Reservoir, the N:P ratios are 10 to 1 for total N to total P.
The calculated nutrient ratios and the N:P ratio of the observed data (11.0)
indicates that phosphorus is probably growth limiting.
The available data also permits the estimation of the maximal primary
production of algae from the Chiaudani and Vighi Curve (Figure V-26). The
theoretical phosphorus concentration should be about 0.08 g nf^ according to
calculations. The maximal primary production of algae is found from Figure
? 1
V-26 to be about 2500 mgC m day . This level of algal production is
roughly the maximum production shown on the curve. Both this result and the
Vollenweider Relationship suggest algal growth will contribute significantly
to the BOD load in the impoundment.
• Effects of 90 percent P removal at treatment plant on TP
loading:
M = 52.61 m ton/yr
q = 90 m yr'1
171
-------
TABLE V-26
CALCULATED AND OBSERVED MEAN ANNUAL POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS IN OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
Total L Available Total
Nitrogen Nitrogen Phosphorus
(9 m 3) (g m 3) (g nf3)
Calculated (SDR = 0.115) 0.831 0.264 0.08
Observed Values
Mean
Max.
Min.
0.88
1.50
0.35
0.16
0.24
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.04
a)Assuming no removal processes for nitrogen.
b)Averages for April-October between 1973 and 1977.
Source: Northern Virginia Planning District Commission,
March, 1979.
172
-------
Although improved, we conclude that loading is still too great
according to Figure V-24.
• Effects of 90 percent STP removal of TP plus 90 percent NFS
removal of TP:
M = 6.334 m ton/yr
. 6.334 x 106 n Qn -2 -1
LP = 7.01xlOb = °-909m y
This would move Occoquan Reservoir into the bottom of the
mesotrophic range.
Lake concentrations of total P would be:
p = > / = 66 9
n on
P = Tr
Although the screening method shows marked improvement in Occoquan
eutrophication, 90 percent control of phosphorus NPS would be very
expensive. Careful analysis of assumptions made in the screening method and
of control alternatives would be necessary before proceeding to map such a
control strategy. Moreover, careful study of reservoir TP sources and sinks
and of algal productivity would be necessary. The screening method has
served to illustrate the feasibility and potential value of such further
analysis.
5.7.5 Hypolimnetic DO Depletion
Excessive nutrient loading plus inputs of BODs suggest that DO problems
in the hypolimnion could result. We will use the data obtained in the first
three problems to determine the hypolimnetic DO. These data are summarized
below. All rate coefficients listed have already been corrected for
temperature.
173
-------
Physical/Biological
Area = 7.01 x 106 m2
Volume = 3.71 x 107 m3
Q = 20.09 m3 sec"1 = 1.74 x 10b m' day
Depth to thermocline = 5.29 m (average depth)
Interval of stratification (May to mid-September) = 138 days
BOD loading = 934.27 106g . yr"1
Algal loading = 11800 mgCnf day'1
BOD concentration = 934.27 x 106 g/yr = 0.069 mg/1
3.71 x 10V x 365 days/yr
Temperature = 10°C
Rates and Input Values
M = 0.8 kj = 0.063 day"1
S = 2.67 k = 0.0378 day"1
P = 0.824 gC m"2 day ~l k^ = 0.0019 day"1
D = 5.29 m DO = 11.3 mg/1
TW = 21.4 day t = 138
The simplified model used to predict hypolimnion dissolved oxygen
levels assumes that the only substantial dissolved oxygen sinks are water
column and benthic deposit BOD (Section 5.5). Additionally, all sources of
oxygen, photosynthesis, etc., are neglected in the hypolimnion after the
onset of stratification. Thus, the procedure requires that
pre-stratification levels of BOD and dissolved oxygen be estimated in order
to compute the post-stratification rate of oxygen disappearance. The
pre-stratification concentration of water column BOD is determined first. A
simple mass balance leads to the following relationship, if steady state
conditions are assumed:
k
a
174
-------
where
C = steady state concentration of BOD in water column, mg/1
SS _o _i
k = mean rate of BOD loading from all sources g m day
a i
k = -k - kz - -L
b s Tw
where
k = V /I - mean rate of BOD settling out onto impoundment
s s ,
bottom, day
kj = mean rate of decay of water column BOD, day"
Q = mean export flow rate, m3 day"
V = impoundment volume, m3
V = settling velocity, m day"
I = impoundment mean depth, m.
The BOD load to the impoundment originates in two principal
sources: algal growth and tributary loads. The algal BOD loading rate
is computed from the expression:
k , . . = SMP/Z
a(algae) '
S = stoichiometric conversion from algal biomass as carbon
to BOD =2.67
M = proportion of algal biomass expressed as oxygen demand
2
P = algal primary production, g m day
Since the Chiaudani and Vighi curve (Figure V-26) gives the
maximal algal production, a correction should be made for the actual
epilimnion temperature. If the maximal rate occurs at 30 C and the
productivity decreases by half for each 15°C decrease in temperature,
175
-------
the algal production can be corrected for temperature using the
expression:
P = P x 1 047("1""^ C)
P(T) P(30) X 1>04/
According to the data in Table 1, the epilimnion temperature during the
month prior to stratification is approximately 13°C. Thus:
P
-------
Ideally these would be determined by using values of the physical
properties of the particles and the water in the settling velocity
equation, (V-6). Because such data are lacking, a settling velocity of
0.2 m day reported for detritus will be substituted. The reported
values lie between 0 and 2 meters day" , with most values close to 0.2
m day"1 (Zison et al_. , 1978). Then,
k = 0.2 m day"V5.29 m = .0378 day"1
The second constant comprising k, is the first-order decay rate
constant for water column BOD. Reported values of kj. vary widely
depending on the degree of waste treatement. Zison e_t aj_. (1978)
presents data for rivers, but contains only two values for kx in lakes
and estuaries. Both are ki = 0.2 day" . Camp (1968) reports values
from 0.01 for slowly metabolized industrial wastes to 0.3 for raw
sewage. Because there is considerable sewage discharge into the
Occoquan Reservoir, k: may be assumed to be in the upper range of these
values, between 0.1 and 0.3 or 0.15 day" . Like the algal production
rate, ^ must be corrected for the water temperature. In April, the
mean water temperature is about 11 C.
Then :
k = 0.095 day"1 x 1.047 (n C"20
= 0.063 day"1
Finally, k, is evaluated as follows:
k, = -0.0378 day"1 - 0.063 day"1 L.
D 21.4 days
= -0.148 day"1
Next, ka and kb may be substituted into the following equation to
obtain Css.
177
-------
Once the water column BOD concentration is known, the benthic BOD
is computed from the expression:
k C D
_ s ss
where
k4= mean rate of benthic BOD decay, day'1.
Values for the benthic BOD decay rate constant span a greater
range than those for water column BOD. Camp (1968), however, reports
values of ku very near 0.003 day for a range of benthic depth from
1.42 to 10.2 cm (Table V-10). Assuming this to be a good value, a
temperature-corrected value of k4 may be computed at an April
hypolimnion temperature of 10°C (Table V-17):
k, = 0.003 day'1 x 1.047(10'2°) = 0.0019 day'1
Then,
L = 0-Q378 day -1 x 2.72 g m'3 x 5.29 m
SS 0.0019 day"1
= 286 g m"2
Prior to stratification the impoundment is assumed to be fully
mixed and saturated with oxygen. During April, the hypolimnion
temperature is 10°C. Saturated water at this temperature contains 11.3
ppm oxygen (Table V-ll).
Finally, the dissolved oxygen level in the hypolimnion may be
predicted during the period of stratification. The applicable
expressions are:
178
-------
A B C E B
AOL = (1.04) [(53.1) (0.231) - (1/53.1)]
AOL - 12.74
F E
A0c = (1.7) (1) = 1.7
Ot = 11.3 - 12.74 - 1.7
Therefore the hypolimnion is depleted of oxygen at the end of the
stratification period (138 days). By selecting different conditions
for decay rates and for time of stratification a family of curves was
generated that can be compared with actual observations (Figure V-39).
As can be seen situations 3 and 4 (BOD decay of 0.3 later corrected for
O 1
temperature and a total BOD loading of 0.36 or 0.57 g . m day )
gave a reasonable fit of observed data at the deepest station (Occoquan
Dam, 1973).
Interpretation of the dissolved oxygen-time data at High Dam in
1970 presented in Figure V-39 is complicated by the introduction of
fresh oxygen after the onset of stratification. Although a direct
comparison of oxygen depletion times is not possible, the rates of
oxygen level follows curve 2 of Figure V-39 very closely, while during
the second period of oxygen consumption the oxygen concentrations
closely match those of curve 1. Since the reservoir is shallowest at
High Dam and the substantially lower than average flow rate in 1970
resulted in strongly stratified conditions, the oxygen depletion rates
in this case should be among the highest likely to be observed in the
impoundment. Curve 1 represents the fastest decay rates predicted by
the model. Thus, the observed oxygen consumption times should be
greater than the lower limit predicted by the model in nearly all
cases.
The above agreement of the observed with the predicted limits for
the range of oxygen depletion times in Occoquan Reservoir implies that
the typical or average time must also fall within the predicted range.
Since it was for "average" conditions that the impoundment was modeled,
179
-------
12r
Curve k,,,o, (day1) Ka(g m" day")
oo
o
E
Ol
Z
in
x
O
n
O
(/)
u)
5
iY,L.-o-v^-
V X ,v \7
0 1
0.1
03
03
Dam (1970)
Occoquan Dam (1973)
057
03G
057
03G
• •Calculated Points
Q O Observed Points
20
30 -10 50 60 70
TIME AFTER STRATIFICATION (DAYS)
00
90
-XM
100
FIGURE V-39 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEPLETION VERSUS TIME IN THE
OCCOQUAN RESERVOIR
-------
it may be concluded that the model does accurately describe the
behavior of the Occoquan Reservoir.
5.7.6 Toxicants
It was not possible to obtain data on toxicants in Occoquan
Reservoir. In order to provide a problem with some realism, published
data on a priority pollutant in another reservoir were obtained. In
Coralville Reservoir, Iowa, commercial fishing was banned in 1976
because of excessive accumulation of dieldrin residues in flesh of
commercially important bottom feeding fish (Schnoor, 1981). The
dieldrin arose from biodegraded aldrin, an insecticide in wide use
along with dieldrin before cancellation of registration of both
pesticides by USEPA in 1975.
After 1976 there was steady diminution of dieldrin in the waters,
fish, and bottom sediments of Coralville Reservoir, until the late
1970's when dieldrin levels in fish flesh declined to less than 0.3
mg/kg (Food & Drug Administration guideline). In 1979, the fishing ban
was rescinded.
Using the screening methods and data abstracted from Schnoor's
paper, the potential dieldrin problem can be evaluated in Coralville
Reservoir. Available and back-calculated data include the following
values:
Reservoir Dieldrin
TW - 14 days = 336 hrs kow = 305000
Z = 8 feet = 2.4 m koc = 35600
C . = 0.05 yg/1 dieldrin solubility in fresh water = 200 yg/1
OC = 0.05 (estimate)
So = 200 yg/1 (estimate) = 200 x 10 "6 kg/kg
P = 0.9 (estimate)
181
-------
Assuming that conditions remained constant, the steady state
concentration of dieldrin can be computed using the approach described
in Section 5.6 as follows:
C = C1n/ (1 + TW • k)
where
K = SED + B + k + k + kh-
Evaluation of K depends on estimation of the separate rate
constants. Information in Chapter 2 and in Callahan, et cfU (1977)
indicate that the biodegradation rate (B) in aquatic systems is
extremely small. Similarly volatilization (k ) and hydroloysis (k,)
are negligible processes affecting the fate of dieldrin. Photolysis
(k ) can be significant in some circumstances but the high turbidity in
Coralville Reservoir indicates that minimal photolysis takes place.
Consequently, K = SED. These assumptions are supported by Schnoor
(1981).
Calculation of the sedimentation rate constant (SED) is as
follows:
SED = a x D x K
P
K = 0.63 x kow x OC
P
= 0.63 x 305000 x 0.05
= 9610
D = P x 50 x i
i
w
D = 0.9 x 200 x 10"6 x ~ = 5.36 x
336
182
-------
a =!/(!+ kpS)
S = OC x 50 = .05 x 200 x 10"6 = 1 x 10"5
a = 0.912 x 5.36 x 10"5 x 9610
= 0.0047 m"1
The steady state concentration of dieldrin in Coralville Reservoir
is estimated to be:
C = 0.05 yg/1 (1 + (0.0047 hr'1 x 336 hr))
C = 0.019 yg/1
This value is much greater than the present fresh water quality
criteria of 0.0023 dieldrin yg/1 (Federal Register: 79318-79379.
Nov. 28, 1980) and would indicate a serious potential problem in the
reservoir that would require significant action and study.
Evaluation of bioconcentration supports this conclusion:
Y = BCF x C
If the default estimate is used (Section 5.6.1.6):
log BCF = 0.75 log KOW - 0.23
= 3.88
BCF = 7642
Y - 7642 x 0.019 = 145 yg/kg fish flesh
This value would be less than the FDA guideline. However, two
published BCF values are available: 35600 from Chapter 2; 70000 from
Schnoor (1981). These values produce nuch higher tissue burdens, both
of which violate the FDA guideline:
183
-------
Y = 35600 x 0.019 = 676 yg/kg
Y = 70000 x 0.019 = 1330 yg/kg
In 1979, it is estimated that CI = 0.01 (calculated from
Schnoor, 1981). Therefore, assuming other conditions are constant:
C = 0.01/ (1 + (.0047 x 336))
= 0.0039 yg/1
A value about double the water quality criterion. Flesh concentration would
be (using BCF = 70000):
Y = 70000 x 0.0039 = 270 yg/kg
This value (0.27 yg/kg) would be less than the FDA guidelines of 0.3 yg/kg
and support the conclusion to lift the fishing ban. Schnoor (1981) shows
the following measured data that can be compared to the screening results:
1970 1979
Water f_ish_ Hater FJ_sh
Screening 0.019 1300 0.04 270
Measured 0.015 1100 0.005 250
184
-------
REFERENCES
Callahan, M., M. Slimak, N. Gabel, I. May, C. Fowler, R. Freed, P. Jennings,
R. Durfee, F. Whitmore, B. Maestri, W. Mabey, B. Holt, C. Gould, 1979.
Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants, Volumes
I, II. USEPA Report, EPA 440/4-79-029a,b. NTIS Reports: PB80
204373, PB80 204381. b.
Camp, T.R., 1968. Water and Its Impurities. Reinhold Book Corporation.
New York.
Chen, C.W., and G.T. Orlob, 1973. Ecologic Study of Lake Koocanusa Libby
Dam. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Seattle District.
Chiaudani, G., and M. Vighi, 1974. "The N:P Ration and Tests with
Selenastrurn to Predict Eutrophication in Lakes", Water Research,
871063^1069.
Cowen, W.F. and G.F. Lee, 1976. Phosphorus Availability in Particulate
Materials Transported by Urban Runoff. J. Wat. Pol. Control Fed.
48:580-591.
Dean, J.D., F.J.M. Hudson, and W.B. Mills, 1979. Cheasapeake- Sandusky:
Non-designated 208 Screening Methodology Demonstration. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. USEPA Respt. for Env. Res.
Lab., Athens, GA. In Press.
Dillon, P., 1974. "A Manual for Calculating the Capacity of a Lake for
Development", Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Dillon, P. and F. Rigler, 1975. Journal Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. Vol. 32, No. 9.
Dorich, R.A., D.W. Nelson and L.E. Sommers, 1980. Algal Availability of
Sediment Phosphorus in Drainage Water of the Black Creek Watershed.
J. Environ. Qua"). ^.-557-563.
Drury, D.D., D.B. Porcella, and R.A. Gearheart, 1975. ThE effects of
Artificial Destratification on the Water Quality and Microbial
Populations of Hyrum Reservoir. PRJEW011-1. Utah State University,
Logan, UT.
Grizzard, T.J., J.P. Hartigan, C.W. Randall, J.I. Kim, A.S. Librach, and
M. Derewianka, 1977. Characterizing "Runoff Pollution-Land Use".
Presented at MSDGC-AMSA Workshop, Chicago. VPISU, Blacksburg, VA
24061. 66 p.
Hudson, R.J.M., and D.B. Porcella, 1980. Selected Organic Consent Deere
Chemicals: Addendum to Water Quality Assessment, A Screening Method
For Non-designated 208 areas. USEPA Rept for Env. Res. Lab, Athens,
GA, In Press.
Hutchinson, G.E., 1957. A Treatise on Limnology. Vol. I. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. New York. 1015 p.
185
-------
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Corps of Engineers, 1974. Hater
Quality for River-Reservoir Systems. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
Jones, J.R. and R.W. Bachmann, 1976. Prediction of Phosphorus and
Chlorophyll Levels in Lakes. JWPCF 48:2176-2182.
Larsen, D.P. and H.T. Mercier, 1976. Phosphorus Retention Capacity of
Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 331731-1750.:
Likens, G.E. _et _al_., 1977. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem.
Springer-Verlog, New York. 146 p.
Linsley, R.K., M.A. Kohler, and J.H. Paulhus, 1958. Hydrology for
Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Lorenzen, M.W. et &±., 1976. "Long-Term Phosphorus Model for Lakes:
Application to Lake Washington:, in Modeling Biochemical Processes in
Aquatic Ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science Publishers.pp 75-91.
Lorenzen, M.W., 1978. "Phosphorus Models and Eutrophication", in Press.
Lorenzen, M.W., and A. Fast, 1976. A guide to Aeration/Circulation
Techniques for Lake Management: For U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Lund, J., 1971. Water Treatment and Examinatjon, Vol. 19. pp 332-358.
Marsh, P.S., 1975. Siltation Rates and Life Expectancies of Small Headwater
Reservoirs in Montana. Report No. 65, Montana University Joint Water
Resources Research Center.
Rast, W. and G.F. Lee., 1978. Summary Analysis of the North American (US
Portion) OECD Eutrophication Project. EPA-600/3-78-008. USEPA,
Corvallis, Oregon 93770. 454 p.
Sakamoto, M., 1966. Archives of Hydrobiology, Vol. 62. pp 1-28.
Schnoor, J.L., 1981. Fate and Transport of Dieldrin in Coralville
Reservoir: Residues in Fish and Water Following a Pesticide Ban.
Science. 211:804-842.
Stumm, W., and J.J. Morgan, 1970. Aquatic Chemistry. Wiley-Interscience,
New York.
Vollenweider, R.A., 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for
Phpsphorus in Lake Eutrophication. Mem. 1st. Ital. Idrobiol. 33:
53-83.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1974. Climatic Atlas of the United States,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Sciences Services
Administration Environmental Data Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. National Water Quality
Inventory. Report to Congress, EPA-440/9-75-014.
Zison, S.W., W.B. Mills, D. Deimer, C.W. Chen, 1978. Rates, Constants, and
Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling.
EPA-600/3-78-105. USEPA, Athens, GA 30605. 316 p.
186
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Significant variables are shown with typical units. Units must be
compatible or use conversion factors (Chapter 1). Note that some symbols
are used for more than one term.
A Lake surface area, m2 - sediment area, m2
a Fraction of pollutant in solution = 1/(1+(K x S)), unitless
-1 P
B Biodegradation rate, hr
B(T) Biodegradation rate, corrected for temperature T, hr~
BCF Bioconcentration factor, unitless
Bo Initial microbial biodegradation rate, uncorrected
for temperature or nutrient concentration, hr~
C Reservoir concentration at time, t, mg]
C Initial concentration, mgl~
-1
C Concentration of phosphorus, ygPl
P _3
C Total exchangeable phosphorus concentration in the sediments, g m
-1
C Toxicant concentration sorbed on sediment, mg 1
-1
C. Concentration of BOD at time t, mg 1
-1
C Concentration in water phase, mg 1
w -1-3
C Steady-state water column phosphorus concentration, mg 1 , g m
W
C- Steady state influent concentration, mg/1
in o
C Steady-state water column BOD, g m
C t Weight concentration
C -j Volumetric concentration
D Depth, m
D Discharge channel depth, ft
D Sedimentation rate constant = P x S x Q/V, mg 1" day"
D Dilution rate, day"
D1 Flowing layer depth, ft
D" Inflow channel depth, ft
D Mean depth, m
D Depth to thermocline, m
D, Mean hypolimnion depth, m
Di Depth at the ith cross-section, m
Do Diffusivity of oxygen in water (2.1x10 m2 sec , 20°C)
187
-------
D Weight density of a particle, Ib ft
33
Dw Weight density of water, Ib ft , g cm
2-1
DW Pollutant diffusivity in water, m sec
d Number of days per time period, days
d Particle diameter, cm
f 1 + (T x K), unitless
-2
g Acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft sec
ISD Intensity of light at Secchi depth, relative units
I Initial intensity of light at surface, relative units
K Pollutant removal rate, = SED + B + k + k + k, , hr"1
-1 v P n
K Net rate of phosphorus removal, hr
K, Specific rate of phosphorus transfer to the sediments,
m yr~
l<2 Specific rate of phosphorus transfer from the sediments,
m yr
K., Fraction of total phosphorus input to sediment that is available
for the exchange process, unitless
K Reaeration rate, hr
a -1
Ka. Reaeration coefficient, m hr
K Distribution coefficient between organic sediment and water,
unitless
K.. First order decay rate for water column BOD at 20°C, day"
K. Benthic BOD decay rate at 20°C, day"1
4 -3 -1
K Mean rate of BOD loading from all sources, g m day
-3 -1
K (algae) Algal contribution to BOD loading rate, g m~ day
cl
K (trib) Tributary or point source contribution to BOD loading rate,
a -3 -1
g m day x
Kb - -«s -KJ -(1/TW), day'1
k Extinction coefficient, m
e -1
k. Hydrolysis rate, hr
-1
k Photolysis rate, hr
k Photolysis rate constant uncorrected for depth and turbidity
of the lake, rf
kr Mean rate of BOD settling out onto the impoundment bottom,
-1
day"1
k Volatilization rate, hr
v
188
-------
koc Organic carbon based partition coefficient, unitless
kow Octanol-water coefficient, unitless
_?
L Areal BOD load, gm
-2 -1
L Phosphorus loading, g m yr
P -2
L Steady-state benthic BOD load, g m
ss _j
M Total annual phosphorus loading, g yr
M Proportion of algal biomass expressed as an oxygen
demand (unitless)
MW Molecular weight, g mole"
OC Sediment organic carbon fraction, unitless
AO Dissolved oxygen decrease due to hypo!imnion BOD,
mg I"1
AO. Dissolved oxygen decrease due to benthic demand, mg 1
L _i
0 Dissolved oxygen at time t = 0, mg 1
o i
Ot Dissolved oxygen at time t, mg 1
p Sediment trapping efficiency, unitless 1 >_ P ;> 0
-2 -1
P Primary productivity rate, g Carbon m day
P Total phosphorus in the water column, mg m~3
PI Influent phosphorus, mg I"1
QI Mean annual inflow, m3 yr
Q Mean Annual outflow, m3 yr~*
q Hydraulic loading (Z/T J.myr'1
s w
R Reynolds number, unitless
r Radius, ft
S Stoichiometric conversion from algal biomass
as carbon to BOD, 2.67, unitless
S Input suspended organic sediment = OC x So, mg 1"^
S- Mass of sediment in inflow per unit time, mg 1~^
S Input of suspended sediment, mg 1
S. Sediment trapped, metric tons yr
SD Secchi depth, m
SDR Sediment delivery ratio, unitless
SED Sorption and sedimentation rate (toxicant at
equi1ibriurn with sediments), hr~*
T Temperature, degrees centigrade
189
-------
V Lake or impoundment volume, m3
V,. Hypolimnion volume, 1
H
V Sediment volume, m3
V Terminal velocity of a spherical particle, ft sec"
max
W Wind speed, m sec"
Y Tissue concentration of pollutant,
ug kg" fish flesh
y number of years
Z depth, m
Z mean depth, m
~2
u Absolute viscosity of water, Ib sec ft , g sec cm '
p Mass density of a particle, slugs ft
P 0
p Mass density of water, slugs ft
W
T Mean hydraulic residence time (V/Q),days
190
-------
Chapter 6
ESTUARIES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.1.1 General
Estuaries are of primary social, economic, and ecologic importance to
America. Forty-three of 110 of the Department of Commerce's Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas are on estuaries (DeFalco, 1967). Estuaries
are the terminal or transfer point for essentially all waterborne national
and international commerce in this country, and biologically are more
productive on a mass per unit area basis than any other type of water body.
Essentially all conservative wastes and much of the nonconservative wastes
discharged into any inland stream in America eventually pass into an
estuary. Yet these coastal formations on which there is such a demand for
services are less stable geologically than any other formation found on the
continent (Schubel, 1971). Sedimentation processes, for example, are
filling, destroying, or at least altering all estuaries. While this process
is always rapid in a geological sense, the actual length of time required
for complete estuarine sedimentation is a function primarily of the
stability of the sea level, the rate of sediment influx, and the
intra-estuarine circulation pattern (Schubel, 1971). The instability,
variation, and complexity of estuaries make water quality assessment and
prediction especially difficult, yet the demands placed on estuaries require
a most active water quality management program.
This chapter will describe a systematic approach which may be used to
provide estuarine water quality assessment and prediction. Its purpose is
two-fold. First, the planner will be provided the capability of making
elementary assessments of current estuarine water quality. Second,
methodologies are presented by which the planner can evaluate changes in
water quality which might result from future changes in waste loading.
191
-------
Chapter 3 provided methodologies for assessing the waste load directly
entering an estuary. Chapter 4 provided methodologies which can be used to
assess the water quality of a river or stream as it enters an estuary. The
output of these chapters will provide information about present and
projected estuarine water quality which can be used to identify regions
having greatest water quality problems, water quality parameters of special
concern, and areas for which subsequent computer study is necessary.
Methods presented below comprise a screening tool which may be used by the
planner to focus attention on critical spatial regions and water quality
parameters. These can then be fully assessed using computer models or other
techniques, as desired.
6.1.2 Estuarine Definition
It is difficult to provide a concise, comprehensive definition of an
estuary. The basic elements included in most current definitions are that
an estuary is:
a. a semi-enclosed coastal body of water,
b. freely connected to the open sea,
c. influenced by tidal action, and
d. a water body in which sea water is measurably diluted with
fresh water derived from land drainage (Pritchard, 1967;
Pritchard and Schubel, 1971).
The seaward end of an estuary is established by the requirement that an
estuary be semi-enclosed. Because this boundary is normally defined by
physical land features, it can be specifically identified. The landward
boundary is not as easily defined, however. Generally tidal influence in a
river system extends further inland than does salt intrusion. Thus the
estuary is limited by the requirement that both salt and fresh water be
measurably present. Accordingly, the landward boundary may be defined as
the furthest measurable inland penetration of sea salts. The location of
192
-------
this inland boundary will vary substantially from season to season as a
function of stream flows and stream velocities and may be many miles
upstream from the estuarine mouth (e.g. approximately 40 miles upstream on
the Potomac River, 27 miles on the James River, and approximately 16 miles
upstream for the small Alsea Estuary in Oregon) (Pritchard, 1971). This
definition also separates estuaries from coastal bays (embayments) by the
requirement for a fresh water inflow and measurable sea water dilution.
6.1.3 Types of Estuaries
While the above definition provides adequate criteria for segregating
estuaries from other major types of water bodies, it does not provide a
means to separate the various types of estuaries from one another. The
variations in estuarine circulation patterns and resulting variations in
pollutant dispersion from estuary to estuary make classification a necessary
part of any water quality assessment. Two basic estuarine classification
systems have been used in recent years to accomplish estuarine subclass
separation: a topographical system and a physical processes system (Dyer,
1973, Chapter 2 or Ippen, 1966, Chapter 10).
6.1.3.1 Topographical Classification
Under a topographical system, estuaries are divided into four
subclasses. These are briefly described below.
a. Drowned River Valley (Coastal Plain Estuary). These estuaries
are the result of a recent (within the last 10,000 years) sea
level rise which has kept ahead of sedimentation processes at
a river's mouth. Such estuaries are, quite literally, rivers
whose lower basins have been drowned by the rising oceans.
Coastal plain estuaries are characteristically broad,
relatively shallow estuaries (rarely over 30 m deep) with
extensive layers of recent sediment.
193
-------
b. Fjord-like Estuaries. These estuaries are usually glacially
formed and are extremely deep (up to 800 m) with shallow sills
at the estuarine mouth. Fjord-like estuaries are restricted
to high latitude mountainous regions and are not found in the
United States outside of Alaska and Puget Sound in the state
of Washington.
c. Bar-built Estuaries. When offshore barrier sand islands build
above sea level and form a chain between headlands broken by
one or more inlets, a bar-built estuary is formed. These
estuaries are characteristically very shallow, elongated,
parallel to the coast, and frequently are fed by more than one
river system. As a result bar-built estuaries are usually
very complex hydrodynamically. A number of examples of
bar-built estuaries can be found along the southeast coast of
the United States.
d. Tectonic Process Estuaries. Tectonic estuaries exist as the
result of major tectonic events (movement of tectonic plates
with associated faulting or subsidence and coastal volcanic
activity). San Francisco Bay is a good example of an American
estuary of this type.
Based on this topographic classification system, the vast majority of
American estuaries fall into the drowned river class. As a result, this
system is not functional for categorization of American estuaries. The
classification system described below is based on physical processes and is
more useful. Further, the parameters used in physical classification are
directly applicable to estuarine pollution analysis. Consequently, a
physical parameter classification system will be used for the water quality
assessment approach to be presented.
194
-------
6.1.3.2 Physical Process Classification
Physical process classification systems are generally based on the
velocity and salinity patterns in an estuary. Using these two parameters,
estuaries can be divided into three classes, each of which is of potential
importance to planners concerned with American coastal plain estuaries. The
classes are: stratified, partially mixed, and well mixed.
The general behavior of salinity and velocity regimes in the three
types of estuaries has been described by a number of researchers
(Glenne, 1967, Duxbury, 1970, Pritchard, 1960, and Dyer, 1973, among others)
and is summarized below.
a. Stratified (Salt Wedge) Estuary. In this type of estuary,
large fresh water inflows ride over a salt water layer which
intrudes landward along the estuary bottom. Generally there
is a continuous inland flow in the salt water layer as some of
this salt water is entrained into the upper seaward-moving
fresh water flow. Tidal action is not sufficient to mix the
separate layers. Salinity (S) and Velocity (U) profiles and a
longitudinal schematic of this flow pattern are shown in
Figure VI-1. The Mississippi River Estuary is usually a salt
wedge estuary.
Well Mixed. In a well mixed estuary, the tidal flow (or the
tidal prism*) is much greater than the river outflow. Tidal
mixing forces create a vertically well mixed water column with
flow reversing from ebb to flood at all depths. Typical
salinity and velocity profiles and a longitudinal flow
schematic for a well mixed estuary are shown in Figure VI-2.
As examples, the Delaware and Raritan River estuaries are both
normally well mixed.
*The tidal prism is that volume of water which enters an estuary
during an incoming (flood) tide and equals high tide estuarine
volume minus low tide volume.
195
-------
SALINITY
*l.etters cnrrcspond to cross sections
FIGURE VI-1 TYPICAL MAIN CHANNEL SALINITY AND VELOCITY
FOR STRATIFIED ESTUARIES
196
-------
SURFACE
BOTTOM
SURFACE
BOTTOM
c
o
a>
o
O
VELOCITY
C,D-
•jr >•
O i-
ll
-------
c. Partially Mixed. Partially mixed estuaries lie between
stratified and well mixed in terms of flow and stratification
characteristics. Tide-related flows in such estuaries are
substantially greater than river flows. Significant salinity
gradients exist as in fully stratified estuaries, but are much
less steep. While velocity at all depths normally reverses
with ebb and flood tide stages, it is possible for net inland
flow to be maintained in the lowest layers. Typical salinity
and velocity profiles and a longitudinal schematic flow
diagram are shown in Figure VI-3. There are many partially
mixed coastal plain estuaries in the United States; the lower
James River Estuary is typical.
Classification primarily depends on the river discharge at the time of
classification. Large river flows result in more stratified estuaries while
low flow conditions in the same estuaries can lead to full mixing. Thus the
classification of any single estuary is likely to vary from season to season
as river flows vary. As examples, many west coast estuaries are partially
mixed in winter when river flows are high and are well mixed in summer when
river flows are very low.
6.1.4 Po11u t ant F1ow in an Est uary
The importance of understanding the basic types of estuarine systems
may be appreciated by briefly reviewing the general advective movements of a
pollutant released into each of the three types of estuaries (summarized
from Pritchard, 1960). The associated spatial and temporal variability of
pollutant levels have water system management as well as water quality
implications.
If a pollutant flow of density greater than the receiving water column
is introduced into a salt wedge type estuary, the pollutant tends to sink
into the bottom salt water layer and a portion can be advectively carried
inland toward the head of the estuary. Frictionally induced vertical
entrainment of the pollutant into the surface water flow is slow, residence
time of the pollutant is high, and the time required to flush the pollutant
198
-------
SURFACE
BOTTOM
SURFACE
BOTTOM
I
o
O
VELOCITY
0
a> u>
I U)
SALINITY
*Letters denote channel cross-sections
FIGURE VI-3 TYPICAL MAIN CHANNEL SALINITY AND VELOCITY
PROFILES FOR PARTIALLY MIXED ESTUARIES
199
-------
from the estuary is also high. Some pollutants which are sufficiently dense
and stable remain in or settle to the bottom layer of water, and are not
transported out of a salt wedge estuary. Such constituents build up in the
estuarine sediment layer.
Conversely, if a pollutant of lower density than the receiving water
column is introduced into a salt wedge estuary, it remains in the surface
layer and is readily flushed from the system. This is the case because
seaward flows strongly predominate in this layer.
At the opposite end of the estuary classification scale, a pollutant
introduced into a well mixed estuary is advectively transported in a manner
independent of the pollutant's density. Tidal forces cause turbulent
vertical and lateral mixing. The pollutant is carried back and forth with
the oscillatory motion of the tides and is slowly carried seaward with the
net flow.
Pollutants introduced into partially mixed estuaries are dispersed in a
manner intermediate between the transport patterns exhibited in well mixed
and stratified estuaries. Pollutant transport is density dependent but
nevertheless involves considerable vertical mixing. Eventual flushing of
the pollutant from an estuary in this case depends on the relative
magnitudes of the net river outflow and the tidal seawater inflow.
6,1.5 Estuarine Complexity and Major Forces
Before outlining the complexities of estuarine systems, a brief review
of the nomenclature used in this chapter will be helpful. This information
is shown in Figure VI-4. This figure shows top, side, and cross sectional
views of an estuary and indicates the basic estuarine dimensions.
Additionally, the relationship between tidal elevation (or tidal stage) and
surface water velocity is shown in the upper right quadrant of Figure VI-4.
The complexities of estuarine hydrodynamics are evident from even the
brief qualitative descriptions presented above. Many variations in flow
pattern and many of the forces acting on an estuarine water column have been
?GO
-------
IOZ
Mouth
CO
d
|_H
Z
m
j—i
m
co
o
m
Tl
o
Head
O
m
<
rn
a) a>
Q Q
I!
TIDAL
VELOCITY
^-Ebb
TIDAL
ELEVATION
-------
omitted in order to permit a verbal description of the normally predominant.
phenomena, and it should be understood that the descriptions do not fully
account for the complexities of estuarine motion. Estuarine circulation may
be conceived as a three-dimensional flow field with variations possible in
salinity and velocity along the longitudinal, the vertical, and the lateral
axes. As a result of this complexity, and because an estuary is a
transitional zone between fresh water and marine systems, great variations
in a number of major water quality and physical parameters are possible.
For example:
a. pH. Typical ocean pH is 7.8 to 8.4. Typically, rivers are
slightly acidic (pH<7). Thus the pH can change from slightly
acidic to basic across an estuary with resulting major changes
in chemical characteristics of dissolved and suspended
constituents. pH variations from 6.8 to 9.25 across an
estuary have been recorded (Perkins, 1974, p. 29).
b. Salinity. Over the length of an estuary, salinity varies from
fresh water levels (typically less than 1 ppt) to oceanic
salinity levels (usually 32 ppt to 34 ppt)*. Moreover
salinity at any given location in an estuary may vary
substantially over one tidal cycle and over the depth of the
water column at any single point in time. Salinity variations
are especially significant in estuarine calculations for a
variety of reasons. First, salinity distribution can be used
to predict the distribution of pollutants; second, salinity
is a prime determinant of water density; and third,
variations in salinity affect other major water quality
parameters. For example, the saturated dissolved oxygen
concentration normally diminishes by 2 mg/1 as salinity increases
from 0 to 35 ppt.
c. River Flow. River flow is a major determinant of estuarine
circulation and flushing characteristics. Instantaneous flow
rates for some western rivers vary by orders of magnitude from
*opt represents parts per thousand by mass. Sometimes the symbol
°/oo is used.
202
-------
winter high flow to summer low flow periods (Goodwin, e_t a_l_.,
1970). These differences in river flow result in major
variations in estuarine water quality characteristics.
d. Time. Estuarine water quality parameters vary over several
separate time scales. First, variations occur with each tidal
cycle over a period of hours. Second, tidal cycles vary in
mean amplitude from spring (maximum amplitude) to neap tides
(minimum amplitude) every two weeks. This affects water
quality since flushing characteristics are in part dependent
on the tidal prism which is, in turn, dependent on tide stage.
Third, there are seasonal variations in river flow,
temperature and waste loadings.
The four factors just listed affecting the range and rate of variation
of estuarine parameters pose part of the difficulty in analyzing estuarine
water quality. In order to avoid large errors, both small time increments
and small spatial increments must be used. This, in turn, necessitates a
large number of individual calculations to fully analyze the variation of
even a single parameter over the estuary and sometimes requires the use of a
computer model.
Further complicating the analytical process is the large number of
independent forces acting on the estuarine water column which should be
considered. This group includes (from Harleman and Lee, 1969):
a. Ocean tides
b. Local wind stresses
c. Bottom roughness and bottom sediment types
d. Channel geometry
e. Coriolis forces'*
f. Nearby coastal features and coastal processes
*Coriolis forces reflect the effect of a rotating reference plane (the
earth) on particle motion. The net effect is to cause a water flow to
drift to one side as it propogates down a channel. The same effect tends
to laterally segregate fresh water flows (moving from head to mouth) and
salt water inflows (moving from mouth to head) in an estuary and in the
northern hemisphere to create a counterclock-wise flow pattern with fresh
water to the right (looking from the head of the estuary toward the mouth)
flowing toward the sea and salt water on the left flowing toward the head
of the estuary.
-------
6.1.6 Methodology Summary
A variety of techniques are presented in this chapter to assess water
quality in estuaries. Table VI-1 summarizes the techniques and indicates if
they are applicable to one-dimensional (well-mixed) or two-dimensional
(vertically stratified) estuaries. Many of the techniques can be applied to
conventional or toxic pollutants. If decay rates for toxic pollutants are
needed, Chapter 2 can be used.
It is redundant to describe in detail each method at this point in the
chapter, because, the procedures are presented later. As a general
statement, however, most of the methods for prediction of water quality
apply to continuous, steady-state discharges of pollutants. The discharges
can be located anywhere within the estuary, from head to mouth. Multiple
sources of pollutants can be analyzed by applying the method of
superposition, which is illustrated subsequently.
Although no single sequence of calculations must be followed to use the
methodology, Figure VI-5 shows a suggested procedure. It is often useful to
begin by classifying the estuary by season to find out when it is well mixed
and when it is stratified. If the estuary is never well mixed, then the
tools listed in Table VI-1 pertaining to one-dimensional estuaries should
not be used.
Users are cautioned that the methods in this chapter are of a
simplified nature, and consequently there are errors inherent in the
calculations. Additionally, inappropriate data can produce further
systematic errors. Data used should be appropriate for the period being
studied. For example, when salinity profiles are needed, they should
correspond to steady flow periods close to the critical period being
analyzed.
Even though the methods presented in the chapter are amenable to hand
calculations, some methods are more difficult to apply than others. The
fraction of freshwater and modified tidal prism methods are relatively easy
to apply, while the advective-dispersion equations offer greater
computational challenge. Since the advective-dispersion equations require
numerous calculations, the user might find it advantageous to program the
methods on a hand calculator (e.g. TI-59 or HP-41C).
204
-------
TABLE VI-1
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY FOR ESTUARINE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Calculations
Methods
Type of Estuary Applicable*
Estuarine Classification
Flushing Time
Pollutant Distribution
Thermal Pollution
Turbidity
Sedimentation
• Hansen and Rattray
• Flow ratio
Fraction of freshwater
Modified tidal prism
Fraction of freshwater (conservative
pollutants)1"
Modified tidal prism (conservative or
first-order decay pollutants)'"
Dispersion-advection equations
(conservative,first-order decay pollutants,
and dissolved oxygen)
Pritchard's Box Model (conservative
pollutants)"
Initial dilution
Pollutant concentration at completion
of initial dilution (conservative
pollutants, PH, dissolved oxygen)
Farfield distribution (conservative and
first-order pollutants, and dissolved
oxygen)
AT of water passing through condenser
Maximum discharge temperature
Thermal block criterion
Surface area criterion
Surface temperature criterion
Turbidity at completion of initial
dilution
Suspended solids at the completion of
initial dilution
Light attenuation and turbidity
relationship
Secchi disk and turbidity relationship
Description of sediment movement
Settling velocity determination
Null zone calculations
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one-dimensional
one-dimensional
one-dimensional
one-dimensional
one-dimensional
two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
two-dimensional
not applicable
not applicable
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
one- or two-dimensional
two-dimensional
*0ne dimensional means a vertically well mixed system. A two dimensional estuary is vertically stratified.
These methods apply to either conventional or toxic pollutants.
205
-------
CLASSIFY ESTUARY
< tSTUAHY VERTICALLY >
^\ "iXED s'
T YES
CALCULATE FLUSHING
TIMES
V
PREDICT POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTIONS
USING ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING METHODS,
_ _
(CONSERVATIVE POLLUTANTS)
MODIFIED TIDAL PRISM
METHOD (CONSERVATIVE AND
TOXIC POLLUTANTS)
ADVECTlQN-DlSPERSlON
LOCATIONS (CONSERVATIVE AND !
TOXIC POLLUTANTS AND
j DISSOLVED QXYG6N)
1
No ./'is rue POLLUTANT ^\^^
* *X^^ Ul SLMAWGtL) 'HKOlKjH S*
^^^ AN OUTFALL .s
[YES
V _._
COMPUTE CRITICAL
INITIAL DILUTIOMS
^f
FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION,
CONCENTRATIONS, rt',
DISSOLVED OXYGEN, ETC.
SOLIDS AHD Toulon-* foLLOvti«r,
INITIAL DILUTIOM
T
PREDICT FARFIELD POLLUTANT AND
D!SSOv,VED OXYGEH CONCENTRATIONS
m tSTUARY IS \
I STRATIFIED J
CALCULATE CONSERVATIVE POLLUTANT
DISTRIBUTION USING PRITCHARD'S
Box MODEL
1 f
No s<^ Is SOURCE ^x^^
V
PREDICT TEMPERATURF
DISTRIBUTION
fel
w^
PREDICT TURBIDITY
IMPACTS
V
PREDICT SEDIMENTATION
^
f END OF St-RFENING \
I CALCULAT IONS J
^j
SELECT MARIIINAL AND
CRITICAL AREAS FOR ^
FURTHER STUDY
PERFORM I
DETAILED l-
ANALYSIS j
FIGURE VI-5 SUGGESTED PROCEDURE TO PREDICT ESTUARINE WATER QUALITY
206
-------
6.1.7 Present Water-Quality Assessment
The first step in the estuarine water quality assessment should be the
evaluation of existing water quality. Before an analysis of the impact of
future waste load changes is made, the planner should know whether or not
current estuarine water quality is acceptable, marginal, or substandard.
By far the best way to assess existing water quality is to measure it.
The planner should attempt to locate other agencies which might have already
collected acceptable samples and/or data. Candidate organizations include
the United States Geologic Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state
water quality control and monitoring agencies, and engineering and
oceanographic departments of local colleges and universities. If such data
cannot be located, a data collection program could be undertaken. If at all
possible, high tide, and especially low tide in-situ measurements and
samples should be collected along the full length of the estuary's main
channel and in all significant side embayments. Analyses should then be
made in an appropriate laboratory facility. If funds for such data
collection efforts are not available, the use of a mathematical estimation
of existing water quality is an alternative. The methods presented in
subsequent sections and applied to the existing discharges can be used.
However, it should be remembered that actual data are preferable to a
mathematical estimate of existing water quality.
6.2 ESTUARINE CLASSIFICATION
6.2.1 General
Section 6.1.7 discussed making a first estimate of current estuarine
water quality. This section begins a calculation methodology designed to
look at the effect of future changes in waste loading patterns.
The goal of the classification process presented below is to predict
the applicability of the hand calculations to be presented. The
classification process is normally the first step to be taken in the
207
-------
calculation procedure since it reveals which techniques can be applied.
6.2.2 C1 a^ssification Methodo 1ogy
The classification system recommended for purposes of hand calculations
is based on salinity and velocity profiles within the estuary. As both of
these parameters vary seasonally and spatially for each estuary, their use
will result in a range of values rather than in one single classification
number. The following section will describe in detail the procedure for use
of this system, and show examples of the procedure.
6.2.3 C a 1 c u_1 a t i on P r o c e d u re
Hansen and Rattray (1966) developed an estuarine classification system
using both salinity stratification and water circulation patterns (based on
water column velocities). This procedure involves the calculation of values
for two parameters at various points along the main estuarine channel and
the plotting of these intersections on the graph shown in Figure VI-6.
Figure VI-7 shows plots made by Hansen and Rattray for various estuaries at
a single point in time. It should be noted that each estuary is not
represented by a point but by a line connecting the points calculated for
the mouth and head areas.
The area designations (e.g. la, Ib, 2b) on Figure VI-6 were related by
Hansen and Rattray to previously used classification titles (e.g.
stratified, well mixed). In general, area la corresponds to well mixed
estuaries. Area Ib has the water circulation pattern of a well mixed
estuary yet shows increased stratification. Areas 2 and 3 correspond to the
"partially mixed" class of estuaries with area 3 showing more significant
lateral circulation within the estuary. Designations 2a/b and 3a/b, as was
true of la and Ib, indicate increasing degrees of vertical stratification.
Type 3b includes fjord-type estuaries. Area 4 represents highly stratified,
salt wedge estuaries.
208
-------
Increasing longitudinal circulation
AS „:!
t
FIGURE VI-6 ESTUARINE CIRCULATION-STRATIFICATION DIAGRAM
10
O
10
io'2h
115
(Station code: M, Mississippi River mouth; C, Columbia
River estuary; J, James River estuary; NM, Narrows of
the Mersey estuary, JF, Strait of Juan .de Fuca; S,
Silver Bay. Subscripts h and 1 refer to high and low
river discharge; numbers indicate distance (in miles)
from mouth of the James River estuary. t
FIGURE VI~7 EXAMPLES OF ESTUARINE CLASSIFICATION PLOTS
(FROM HANSEN AND RATTRAY, 1966)
209
-------
6.2.4 Stratification-Circulation Diagram Interpretation
The closer an estuary falls to the lower left hand corner of a
stratification-circulation diagram the more vertically and laterally
homogeneous it is. On the stratification-circulation diagram (Figure VI-6),
two types of zonal demarcation can be seen. First are the diagonally
striped divisions between adjacent estuarine classifications used by Hansen
and Rattray to indicate a transitional zone between separate
classifications. The second is a wide solid band arching around the lower
left corner of the diagram. Estuaries falling primarily inside of this band
(to the lower left of the band) are those for which the one dimensional
calculation methods may be applied to obtain reasonably accurate results.
If an estuary falls outside of this band, the planner should use only the
methods presented which pertain to stratified estuaries, or use computer
analyses. Within the band is a borderline or marginal zone. Calculations
for one-dimensional estuaries can be used for estuaries falling principally
within this zone, however the accuracy of the calculations will be
uncertain.
The two parameters used with the stratification-circulation diagram are
described below:
a. Stratification Parameter: The stratification parameter is
defined as:
AS
Stratification Parameter = =— (VI-1)
*o
where
AS = time averaged difference in salinity between
surface and bottom water (S. . . - S £ \
v bottom surface),
ppt
and,
SQ = cross-section mean salinity, ppt
210
-------
The diagramatic relationship of these values is shown in Figure
VI-8.
b. Circulation Parameter: The circulation parameter is defined
as:
U
Circulation parameter = rr- (VI-2)
Uf
where
U = net non-tidal sectional surface velocity (surface
velocity through the section averaged over a tidal
cycle) measured in ft/sec. See Figure VI-8 for a
diagramatic representation of Us-
and,
U- = mean fresh water velocity through the section,
ft/sec.
In equation form,
Uf=-f (VI-3)
where
R = fresh water (river) inflow rate, ft3/sec,
and
A = cross-sectional area of the estuary through the point
being used to calculate the circulation pattern and
stratification parameters based on a mean tide surface
elevation, ft2.
If good cross-sectional area data are not available, cross-sectional
profiles can be approximated from the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) coastal series
topographical maps, or, more recently, from NOAA National Ocean Survey charts.
211
-------
CIRCULATION PARAMETER
Velocity *
STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
Salinity *
i/ AS
u -
Uf" A
* Both velocity and salinity values for these profiles are averaged over a tidal
cycle (net velocity and salinity) rather than being instantaneous values. Of
the two the stratification parameter is much less sensitive to variations over
a tidal cycle and can be approximated by mean tide values for salinity. Surface
velocity (U } must be average over a tidal cycle.
FIGURE VI-8 CIRCULATION AND STRATIFICATION PARAMETER DIAGRAM
212
-------
The circulation and stratification parameters should be plotted for high and
low river flow periods and for stations near the mouth and head of the
estuary. The area enclosed by these four points should then include the
full range of possible instantaneous estuary hydrodynamic characteristics.
In interpreting the significance of this plotted area, by far the greater
weight should be given to the low river flow periods as these periods are
associated with the poorest pollutant flushing characteristics and the
lowest estuarine water quality. The interpretation of the
circulation-stratification diagrams will be explained more fully after an
example of parameter computation.
EXAMPLE VI-1
Calculation of Stratification and Circulation Parameters
The estuary for this example is the Stuart Estuary which is shown in
Figure VI-9. The estuary is 64,000 feet long, is located on the U.S. west
coast, and is fed by the Scott River. Two stations were selected for
parameter calculation (A and B) with station A located on the southern edge
of the main channel 6,500 feet from the estuary's mouth and station B in
center channel 47,500 feet from the mouth (16,500 feet from the head of the
estuary).
Necessary salinity data were obtained from the coastal engineering
department of a nearby university. USGS gage data were available for river
flow, and, as a result of its own dredging program, the local district
office of the U.S. Corps of Engineers could provide cross-sectional
profiles in the approximate areas of both stations. The cross-sections are
labeled (1) and (2) on Figure VI-9. The mean low tide depth reading on NOAA
Coastal charts was used to verify Corps data. Current meters were tied to
buoy channel markers at A and B to provide velocity data. The information
obtained from these various sources is shown in graphical form in
Figure VI-10.
213
-------
OCEAN
FIGURE VI-9 THE STUART ESTUARY
214
-------
S(%o) AT MEAN TIDE
Surface
Bottom
B
c
Flood
(FT/SEC)
10
15
\B
35
2000
1700
-2 Years Ago
-Last Year
-Average
J F M A M J Id lA
MONTHS
* Monthly Average Discharge Rates
0 N D
WINTER _
SUMMER
CROSS SECTION OF A
N
CROSS SECTION OF
s
N
FIGURE VI-10 STUART ESTUARY DATA FOR CLASSIFICATION CALCULATIONS
215
-------
The calculations proceed as follows:
a. Stratifiction Parameter:
STATION
Jbp_ttpm __ surface
-—s --
33 - 30 . gc
11 R
31.5-24.2 ,,
27.8 " ----
14.5 - 10.5 „
" 1 7 £.' " •3t
4 - 2'1 - 58
3.25 " —
ci r-if-trD
1 1 1 MTTD
b. Circulation Parameter
1. Calculate A^'s using cross sectional information on Figure
VI-10
Aa = (630 ft) (20 ft) (%) + (630 ft) (20 ft) + (1590 ft)
(20 ft) (Jg) = 34,800 ft2
Ab = (2580 ft) (16 ft) (h) + (1720 ft) (16) (h) = 34,400
ft2
For most cross-sections it is advisable to use more finely
divided segments than in the simple example above in order to
reduce the error associated with this approximation. The
method for this calculation, however, is identical regardless
of the number of regular segments used.
2. Calculate U^'s (with R and A^ values obtained from Figure
VI-10) STAT.OH
550 ft3/sec „ . rBj.]0-2,,,,e..
3.48xl
-------
3. Calculate
Si
Jf
Us values are read from Figure VI-10. The precise value
for Us is the integral of the velocity curve (area under
"ebb" velocity curve minus the area under the "flood"
velocity curve) divided by the elapsed time period (length
of one tidal cycle). If the elapsed time for flood flow
at a station is only slightly below the elapsed time for
ebb flow Us may be approximated as
(uebb(max) - uflood(max)
STATION
. 0.15 ft/sec . , 5
1.58xJO"2ft/sec iii
0.2 ft/see . 3 ,
5.17xlO~Zft/sec ~
0.3 ft/sec ._
1.60x)0"'ft/$ec
0.* ft/iec . ,
5. Z3xlO ft/see
SUtVKR
The circulation-stratification plots for the Stuart Estuary are shown
in Figure VI-11 with points As (station A, summer value), Aw (station A,
winter Value), Bs (station B, summer value), and BW (station B, winter
value).
As indicated, this estuary shows a significant amount of vertical
stratification (especially at station A) but little evidence of major
lateral non-homogeneity.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-1
217
-------
AS
Uf
FIGURE VI-11 ESTUARINE CIRCULATION-STRATIFICATION DIAGRAM
218
-------
Turning to Figure VI-11, the Stratification-Circulation diagram for the
Stuart Estuary, it is apparent that this estuary lies principally within the
marginal area. Moreover, the low flow classification (line A -B ) also lies
o j
primarily within the marginal area. Thus, the planner for the Stuart
Estuary should calculate an additional criterion (see below) to help
determine the suitability of using the calculation procedures for well mixed
estuaries. If the Stuart Estuary plotted more predominately below the
marginal zone, the planner could proceed with flushing time calculations
since the estuary would then meet the well mixed classification criteria.
It should be noted that the data for the Stuart Estuary produced a
fairly tight cluster of data points. As can be seen in Figure VI-12, the
salinity profiles for one west coast estuary (the Alsea River and Estuary
along the central Oregon coast) vary considerably more from season to season
than those of the Stuart Estuary. This increased variation would produce a
far greater spread in the summer and winter AS/S0 parameter values.
6.2.5 Flow Ratio Calculation
If application of the above classification procedure results in an
ambiguous outcome regarding estuary classification, another criterion should
be applied. This is the flow ratio calculation. Schultz and Simmons (1957)
first observed the correlation between the flow ratio and estuary type.
They defined the flow ratio for an estuary as:
R
F =- (VI-4)
where
F = the flow ratio,
R = the river flow measured over one tidal cycle (measured in m3
or ft3 )
and
219
-------
I-'
U-
Q.
Ld
Q
25 15
0
10
20
'
ALSEA RIVER
S(%o) AT HIGH TIDE
0
WINTER-Feb. 9,1968
20
33 30 2511510 5
SPRING-May 9,1968
33 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
SUMMER-Aug. 9,1968
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
MILES UPSTREAM
FIGURE VI-12 ALSEA ESTUARY SEASONAL SALINITY
VARIATIONS (FROM GIGER, 1972)
220
-------
P = the estuary tidal prism (in m3 or ft3)
Thus the flow ratio compares the tidally induced flow in an estuary
with the river induced flow. Schultz and Simmons observed that when this
ratio was on the order of 1.0 or greater, the associated estuary was
normally highly stratified. Conversely, ratios of about 0.1 or less were
usually associated with very well-mixed estuaries and ratios in the range of
0.25 were associated with partially mixed estuaries. A flow ratio of 0.2 or
less warrants inclusion of the estuary in the hand calculation process for
one dimensional estuaries. Flow ratios in the range 0.2 to 0.3 should be
considered marginal. Estuaries with flow ratios greater than 0.3 should not
be included in the one-dimensional category.
EXAMPLE VI-2
Calculation of the Flow Ratio for an Estuary
The following data apply to the Patuxent Estuary, Maryland:
R, total river discharge over one
tidal cycle = 1.42 x 105m3
(low flow)
and 3.58 x 106m3
(high flow)
P, estuary tidal prism volume = 3.51 x 107m3
The flow ratios for the Patuxent Estuary at low and high river flows are
thus:
5 3
1.42xl05 m
3.51x10'
F - - a o 10
high flow 3.51xl07 m3
221
-------
Values of F<0.1 are usually associated with well mixed estuaries. The F
values calculated above indicate a well mixed estuary. However, historical
data indicate the Patuxent River Estuary is partially stratified at moderate
and high river flows.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-2
When tidal data are not available, NOAA coastal charts may be used to
estimate the difference between mean high tide and mean low tide estuary
surface areas. As can be seen in the cross-section diagram in Figure VI-13
the estuarine tidal prism can be approximated by averaging the MLT and MHT
surface areas and multiplying this averaged area by the local tidal height.
Mean tidal heights (approximately 1 week before or after spring tides)
should be used for this calculation. As indicated in Figure VI-13, the
estuary can be conveniently subdivided into longitudinal sections for this
averaging process, to reduce the resulting error. Table VI-2 lists tidal
prisms estimated for many U.S. estuaries. These values may be used as an
alternate to tidal prism calculations.
6.3 FLUSHING TIME CALCULATIONS
6.3.1 General
Flushing time is a measure of the time required to transport a
conservative pollutant from some specified location within the estuary
(usually, but not always, the head) to the mouth of the estuary. Processes
such as pollutant decay or sedimentation which can alter the pollutant's
distribution within the estuary are not considered in the concept of
flushing time.
222
-------
Mean Tide-
MHT Surface'
/-MLT Surface*
X
TIDAL
HEIGHT**
.,,,...
P. (section i) = section Length x tidal height x I
/MHT width + MLT width \
P estuary
for all sections
* Widths obtained from NOAA tide table for the area
**Avai Table from local Coast Guard Stations
FIGURE VI-13 ESTUARY CROSS-SECTION FOR TIDAL PRISM CALCULATIONS
223
-------
TABLE VI-2
TIDAL PRISMS FOR SOME U.S. ESTUARIES
(FROM O'BRIEN, 1969 AND JOHNSON, 1973)
Estuary
Plum Island Sound, Mass.
Fire Island Inlet, N.Y.
Jones Inlet, N.Y.
Beach Haven Inlet (Little
Egg Bay), N.J.
Little Egg Inlet (Great
Bay), N.J.
Brigantine Inlet, N.J.
Absecon Inlet (before
jetties), N.J.
Great Egg Harbor Entr, N.J.
Townsend Inlet, N.J.
Hereford Inlet, N.J.
Chincoteague Inlet, Va.
Oregon Inlet, N.C.
Ocracoke Inlet, N.C.
Drum Inlet, N.C.
Beaufort Inlet, N.C.
Carolina Beach Inlet, N.C.
Stono Inlet, S.C.
North Edisto River, S.C.
St. Helena Sound, S.C.
Port Royal Sound, S.C.
Calibogue Sound, S.C.
Wassaw Sound, Ga.
Ossabaw Sound, Ga.
Sapelo Sound, Ga.
St. Catherines Sound, Ga.
Coast
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Tidal Prism (ft3)
1.32 x 109
2.18 x 109
1.50 x 109
1.51 x 109
1.72 x 109
5.23 x 108
1.65 x 109
2.00 x 109
5.56 x 108
1.19 x 109
1.56 x 109
3.98 x 109
5.22 x 109
5.82 x 108
5.0 x 109
5.25 x 108
2.86 x 109
4.58 x 109
1.53 x 1010
1.46 x 1010
3.61 x 109
8.2 x 109
6.81 x 109
7.36 x 109
6.94 x 109
224
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont.)
Estuary
Doboy Sound, Ga.
Altamaha Sound, Ga.
Hampton River, Ga.
St. Simon Sound, Ga .
St. Andrew Sound, Ga.
Ft. George Inlet, Fla.
Old St. Augustine Inlet,
Fla.
Ponce de Leon, Fla.
(before jetties)
Delaware Bay Entrance
Fire Island Inlet, N.Y.
East Rockaway Inlet, N.Y.
Rockaway Inlet, N.Y.
Masonboro Inlet, M.C.
St. Lucie Inlet, Fla.
Nantucket Inlet, Mass.
Shinnecock Inlet, N.Y.
Moriches Inlet, N.Y.
Shark River Inlet, N.J.
Manasguan Inlet, N.J.
Barnegat Inlet, N.J.
Absecon Inlet, N.J.
Cold Springs Harbor
(Cape May), N.J.
Indian River Inlet, Del.
Winyah Bay, S.C.
Charleston, S.C.
Savannah River (Tybee
Roads) , Ga.
Coast
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Tidal Prism (ft3)
4.04 x 109
2.91 x 109
1.01 x 109
6.54 x 109
9.86 x 109
3.11 x 108
1.31 x 109
5.74 x 108
1.25 x 1011
1.86 x 109
7.6 x 108
3.7 x 109
8.55 x 108
5.94 x 108
4.32 x 108
2.19 x 108
1.57 x 109
8.46 x 10
1 .48 x 108
1.75 x 108
6.25 x 108
1.48 x 109
6.50 x 108
5.25 x 108
3.02 x 109
5.75 x 109
3.1 x 109
225
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont.)
Estuary
St. Marys (Fernandina
Harbor), Fla.
St. Johns River, Fla.
Fort Pierce Inlet, Fla.
Lake Worth Inlet, Fla.
Port Everglades, Fla.
Bakers Haulover, Fla.
Captiva Pass, Fla.
Boca Grande Pass, Fla.
Gasparilla Pass, Fla.
Stump Pass, Fla.
Midnight Pass, Fla.
Big Sarasota Pass, Fla.
New Pass, Fla.
Longboat Pass, Fla.
Sarasota Pass, Fla.
Pass-a-Grille
Johns Pass, Fla.
Little (Clearwater)
Pass, Fla.
Big (Dunedin) Pass, Fla.
East (Destin) Pass, Fla.
Pensacola Bay Entr. , Fla.
Perdido Pass, Ala.
Mobile Bay Entr., Ala.
Barataria Pass, La.
Caminada Pass, La.
Calcasieu Pass, La.
San Luis Pass, Tex.
Coast
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Tidal Prism (ft3)
4.77 x TO9
1.73 x 109
5.81 x 108
9.0 x 108
3.0 x 108
3.6 x 108
1.90 x 109
1.26 x 1010
4.7 x 108
3.61 x 108
2.61 x 108
7.6 x 108
4.00 x 108
4.90 x 108
8.10 x 108
1.42 x 109
5.03 x 108
6.8 x 108
3.76 x 108
1.62 x 109
9.45 x 109
5.84 x 108
2.0 x 1010
2.55 x TO9
6.34 x 108
2.97 x TO9
5.84 x 108
226
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont.)
Estuary
Venice Inlet, Fla.
Galveston Entr., Tex.
Aransas Pass, Tex.
Grays Harbor, Wash.
Willapa, Wash.
Columbia River, Wash. -Ore.
Necanicum River, Ore.
Nehalem Bay, Ore.
Tillamook Bay, Ore.
Netarts Bay, Ore.
Sand Lake, Ore.
Nestucca River, Ore.
Salmon River, Ore.
Devils Lake, Ore.
Siletz Bay, Ore.
Yaquina Bay, Ore.
Alsea Estuary, Ore.
Siuslaw River, Ore.
Umpqua, Ore.
Coos Bay, Ore.
Caquille River, Ore.
Floras Lake, Ore .
Rogue River, Ore.
Chetco River, Ore.
Smith River, Ca.
Lake Earl, Ca.
Freshwater Lagoon, Ca.
Stove Lagoon, Ca.
Big Lagoon, Ca .
Coast
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Paci fie
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Tidal Prism (ft )
8.5 x 107
1.59 x 1010
1.76 x 109
1.3 xlO10
1.3 x 1010
2.9 x 1010
4.4 x 107
4.3 x 108
2.5 x 109
5.4 x TO8
1.1 x TO8
2.6 x 108
4.3 x 107
1.1 x 108
3.5 x 108
8.4 x 108
5.1 x 108
2.8 x 108
1.2 x 109
1.9 x 109
1.3 x 108
6.8 x 107
1.2 x 108
2.9 x 107
9.5 x 107
5.1 x 108
4.7 x 107
1.2 x 108
3.1 x 108
227
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont.)
Estuary
Mad River, Calif.
Humbolt Bay, Calif.
Eel River, Calif.
Russian River, Calif.
Bodega Bay, Calif.
Tomales Bay, Calif.
Abbotts Lagoon, Calif.
Drakes Bay, Calif.
Bolinas Lagoon, Cal if.
San Francisco Bay, Calif.
Santa Cruz Harbor, Calif.
Moss Landing, Calif.
Morro Bay, Calif.
Marina Del Rey, Calif.
Alamitos Bay, Calif.
Newport Bay, Calif.
Camp Pendleton, Calif.
Aqua Hedionda, Calif.
Mission Bay, Calif.
San Diego Bay, Calif.
Coast
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Tidal Prism (ft3)
2.4 x 107
2.4 x 109
3.1 x 108
6.3 x 107
1.0 x 108
1.0 x 109
3.5 x 107
2.7 x 108
1.0 x 108
5.2 x 1010
4.3 x 106
9.4 x 107
8.7 x 107
6.9 x 107
6.9 x 107
Q
2.1 x 10tt
1.1 x 107
4.9 x 107
3.3 x 108
1.8 x 109
228
-------
It was mentioned earlier in this chapter that the net non-tidal flow in
an estuary is usually seaward* and is dependent on the river discharge. The
non tidal flow is one of the driving forces behind estuarine flushing. In
the absence of this advective displacement, tidal oscillation and wind
stresses still operate to disperse and flush pollutants. However, the
advective component of flushing can be extremely important. Consider
Tomales Bay, California as an example. This small, elongated bay has
essentially no fresh water inflow. As a result there is no advective
seaward motion and pollutant removal is dependent upon dispersion and
diffusion processes. The flushing time for the bay is approximately 140
days (Johnson, e_t &]_., 1961). This can be compared with the Alsea Estuary
in Oregon having a flushing time of approximately 8 days, with the much
larger St. Croix Estuary in Nova Scotia having a flushing time of
approximately 8 days (Ketchum and Keen, 1951), or with the very large Hudson
River Estuary with a short flow flushing time of approximately 10.5 days
(Ketchum, 1950).
6.3.2 Procedure
Flushing times for a given estuary vary over the course of a year as
river discharge varies. The critical time is the low river flow period
since this period corresponds with the minimum flushing rates. The planner
might also want to calculate the best flushing characteristics (high river
flow) for an estuary. In addition to providing a more complete picture of
the estuarine system, knowledge of the full range of annual flushing
variations can be useful in evaluating the impact of seasonal discharges
(e.g. fall and winter cannery operation in an estuary with a characteristic
summer fresh water low flow). Further, storm sewer runoff normally
coincides with these best flushing conditions (high flow) and not with the
low flow, or poorest flushing conditions. Thus analysis of storm runoff is
often better suited for high flow flushing conditions. However, the low
flow calculation should be considered for use in primary planning purposes.
*While net flow is always seaward for the estuaries being considered here,
it is possible to have a net upstream flow in individual embayments of an
estuary. While this occurrence is rare in the United States, an example
of such a situation is the South Bay of San Francisco Bay where freshwater
inflows are so small that surface evaporation exceeds freshwater inflow.
Thus, net flow is upstream during most of the year.
229
-------
There are several ways of calculating flushing time. Two methods are
presented here: the fraction of freshwater method and the modified tidal
prism method.
6.3.3 Fraction of Fresh Hater Method
The flushing time of a pollutant, as determined by the fraction of
freshwater method is
Vf
f R
where
Vf = volume of freshwater in the estuary
T^ = flushing time of a pollutant which enters the head of the
estuary with the river flow
Equation VI-5 is equivalent to the following concept of flushing time which
is more intuitively meaningful:
M
Tf = 7 (VI-6)
T M
where
M = total mass of conservative pollutant contained in the estuary
M = rate of pollutant entry into the head of the estuary with the
river water
Since the volume of freshwater in the estuary is the product of the
fraction of freshwater (f) and the total volume of water (V), Equation VI-5
becomes:
230
-------
T =-
'f R (VI-7)
If the estuary is divided into segments the flushing time becomes:
fiVi
Tf"r "V (VI'8:
Equation VI-8 is more general and accurate than the three previous
expressions because both f^ (the fraction of freshwater in the ith segment)
and R- (the freshwater discharge through the itli segment) can vary over
distance within the estuary. Note that the flushing time of a pollutant
discharged from some location other than the head of the estuary can be
computed by summing contributions over the segments seaward of the
discharge.
A limitation of the fraction of freshwater method is that it assumes
uniform salinity throughout each segment. A second limitation is that it
assumes during each tidal cycle a volume of water equal to the river
discharge moves into a given estuarine segment from the adjacent upstream
segment, and that an equal volume of the water originally in the segment
moves on to the adjacent one downstream. Once this exchange has taken
place, the water within each segment is assumed to be instantaneously and
completely mixed and to again become a homogeneous water mass. Proper
selection of estuarine segments can reduce these errors.
6.3.4 Calculation of Flushing Time by Fraction of Freshwater Method
This is a six step procedure:
1. Graph the estuarine salinity profiles.
2. Divide the estuary into segments. There is no minimum or
maximum number of segments required, nor must all segments be
of the same length. The divisions should be selected so that
mean segment salinity is relatively constant over the full
231
-------
length of the segment. Thus, stretches of steep salinity
gradient will have short segments and stretches where salinity
remains constant may have very long segments. Example VI-3
provides an illustration.
3. Calculate each segment's fraction of fresh water by:
f _ Ss - S1
Ss (VI-9)
where
f-j = fraction of fresh water for segment "i"
Ss = salinity of local sea water*, °/oo
and
S.j = mean salinity for segment "i", °/oo
4. Calculate the quantity of fresh water in each segment by:
W. = f. x V. (VI-1Q)
i i i
where
Wi = quantity of fresh water in segment "i"
and
V.j = total volume of segment11!" at MIL
*Sea surface salinity along U.S. shores vary spatially. Neuman and Pierson
(1966) mapped Pacific mean coastal surface salinities as varying from
32.4 o/oo at Puget Sound to 33.9 o/0o at the U.S.-Mexico border; Atlantic
mean coastal surface salinities as varying from 32.5 °/oo in Maine to
36.2 °/oo at the southern extreme of Florida; and Gulf coast salinities
as varying between 36.2 o/0o and 36.4 °/oo. Surface coastal salinities
in Long Island Sound (Hardy, 1972) and off Long Island south coast
(Hydroscience, 1974) vary between 26.5 and 28.5 °/oo.
232
-------
5. Calculate the exchange time (flushing time) for each segment
by:
(VI-11)
where
T. = segment flushing time, in tidal cycles
and
R = river discharge over one tidal cycle
6. Calculate the entire estuary flusing time by summing the
exchange times for the individual segments:
n
where
Tf = estuary flushing time, in tidal cycles
n = number of segments.
Table VI-3 shows a suggested method for calculating flushing time by the
fraction of freshwater method.
233
-------
TABLE VI-3
SAMPLE CALCULATION TABLE FOR CALCULATION OF FLUSHING TIME
BY SEGMENTED FRACTION OF FRESHWATER METHOD
Segment
Number
Mean
Segment
Salinity
S.(ppt)
Mean
Segment
Length
(m)
Mean Segment
Cross-sectional
Area (m2)
Segment Mean
Tide Volume
V,- (m3)
Fraction of
River Water
f _ Ss-Si
fi Ss
River Water
Volume
W.= fixVi
(m3)
n
EV
1=1
Segment
Flushing Time
T. = WI./R
(tidal cycles)
ro
oo
I/I
LU
Q.
ZD
I
-------
EXAMPLE VI-3
Mashing Time Calculation by Fraction of Fresh__Wa_ter_Me^th_od_
This example pertains to the Patuxent Estuary. This estuary has no
major side embayments, and the Patuxent River is by far its largest source
of fresh water. This estuary therefore lends itself well to analysis by
the segmented fraction of fresh water method.
Salinity profiles for July 19, 1978 are used to find segment salinity
values. Chesapeake Bay water at the mouth of the Patuxent Estuary had a
salinity of 10.7 ppt (S.). The Patuxent River discharge over the duration
of one tidal cycle is
R = (12 m3/sec)(12.4 hr/tidal cycle)(3600 sec/hr)
= 5.36 x 105 mVtidal cycle
A segmentation scheme based on the principles laid out above is used to
divide the estuary into eight segments; their measured characteristics are
shown Table VI-4. The segmentation is shown graphicaly on the estuary
salinity profile (Figure VI-14).
The next step is to find the fraction of fresh water for each segment.
For segment 1,
V S'
f l = -—
where
j = fraction of fresh water, segment 1
S = salinity of local seawater
235
-------
TABLE VI-4
PATUXENT ESTUARY SEGMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR
FLUSHING TIME CALCULATIONS
no
GO
Mean Segment Salinity
Segment Number S., ppt
8 10.3
7 9.5
6 8.7
5 7.6
4 5.8
3 3.3
2 1.8
1 0.8
Segment Length
meters
10,400
10,400
6,100
6,100
5,800
5,000
4,650
4,650
Mean Segment
Cross-Sectional Area
meter2
16,000
12,500
11,400
7,500
4,300
3,100
2,200
1,700
Mean Tide
Seqment Volume
Vl 3
meters "
16.6xl07
13-OxlO7
6.95xl07
4.58xl07
2.49xl07
1.55xl07
1.02xl07
0.79xl07
-------
GO
—I
10
8
SALINITY
(PPD
4
2
10
20 30
DISTANCE FROM HEAD OF ESTUARY (Km)
40
50
CHESAPEAKE BAY
FIGURE VI-14 PATUXENT ESTUARY SALINITY PROFILE AND SEGMENTATION SCHEME USED
IN FLUSHING TIME CALCULATIONS,
-------
Sa = measured mean salinity for segment 1
= 10.7 ppt-0.8 ppt = Q g3
i 10.7 ppt
The calculation is reported in Table VI-4 for segments 2 through 8.
The volume of fresh water (river water) in each segment is next found
using the formula
W. . f. x V,
For segment 1,
Wt = fi x Vi = 0.93 (0.79 x 107m3)
= 7.35 x 106m3
The flushing time for each segment is next calculated by
For segment 1,
= 7.35 x 106m3/(5.36 x 105m3/tidal cycle)
= 13.7 tidal cycles
Fraction of freshwater, river water volume and flushing time values for the
eight segments are compiled in Table VI-5.
The final step is to determine the flushing time for the estuary. In
this case,
8
Tf = Z T. =
T 1 = 1 1
11.4 + 27.2 + 24.6 +24.8 + 21.5 + 20.0 + 15.8 + 13.7
= 159 tidal cycles, or 2.74 months
238
-------
Co
TABLE VI-5
FLUSHING TIME FOR PATUXENT ESTUARY
Segment Number
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1*
Mean Segment
Salinity
Si, PPt
10.3
9.5
8.7
7.6
5.8
3.3
1.8
0.8
Segment Length
meters
10,400
10,400
6,100
6,100
5,800
5,000
4,650
4,650
Mean Segment
Cross-Sectional Area
meter2
16,000
12,500
11,400
7,500
4,300
3,100
2,200
1,700
Segment Mean
Tide Volume
Vi
meter3
16.6x10'
13.0x10'
6.95x10'
4.58x10'
2.49x10'
1.55x10'
1.02x10'
0.79x10'
Fraction of
River Water
(Ss =\0.7)
0.037
0.112
0.19
0.29
0.46
0.69
0.83
0.93
River Water
Volume
Wi = fi x Vi
(meters3)
6.14xl06
14.6xl06
13.2xl06
13.3xl06
11.5xl06
10.7xl06
8.47xl06
7.35xl06
Segment
Flush Time
Ti = wi/R
tidal cycles
11.4
27.2
24.6
24.8
21.5
20.0
15.8
13.7
Sum = 159 tidal cycles
or 2.74 months
*In this numbering scheme segment 1 is the most upstream segment.
-------
END OF EXAMPLE VI-3
6.3.5 Branched Estuaries and the Fraction of Freshwater Method
Branched estuaries, where more than one source of freshwater
contributes to the salinity distribution pattern, are common. The fraction
of freshwater method can be directly applied to estuaries of this
description. Consider the estuary shown in Figure VI-15, having two major
sources of freshwater (River 1, Rl; and River 2, R2). The flushing time
for pollutants entering the estuary with river flow R2 is:
Tf (R2) = T! + T2 + T3 + T4 + T5 + T6 =
fjVi f2V2 f3V3 f4V, f5V5 f6V6
For the pollutants entering with RJ5 the flushing time is:
T ,„ . Va Vb Vc fsVs
T f ( R i) - __ + —- + — +
f Ri Ri Ri Ri+R2 Ri+R2
The flushing time computations are similar in concept for the case of a
single freshwater source, modified to account for a flow rate of Rj + R2 in
segments 5 and 6.
6.3.6 Modified Tidal Prism Method
This method divides an estuary into segments whose lengths are defined
by the maximum excursion path of a water particle during a tidal cycle.
Within each segment the tidal prism is compared to the total segment volume
as a measure of the flushing potential of that segment per tidal cycle
(Dyer, 1973). The method assumes complete mixing of the incoming tidal
prism waters with the low tide volumes within each segment. Best results
have been obtained in estuaries when the number of segments is large (i.e.
240
-------
ro
FIGURE VI-15 HYPOTHETICAL TWO-BRANCHED ESTUARY
-------
when river flow is very low) and when estuarine cross-sectional area
increases fairly quickly downstream (Dyer, 1973).
The modified tidal prism method does not require knowledge of the
salinity distribution. It provides some concept of mean segment velocities
since each segment length is tied to particle excursion length over one
tidal cycle. A disadvantage of the method is that in order to predict the
flushing time of a pollutant discharged midway down the estuary, the method
still has to be applied to the entire estuary.
The modified tidal prism method is a four-step methodology. The steps
are:
1. Segment the estuary. For this method an estuary must be
segmented so that each segment length reflects the excursion
distance a particle can travel during one tidal cycle. The
innermost section must then have a tidal prism volume
completely supplied by river flow. Thus,
where
PO = tidal prism (intertidal volume) of segment "0"
and
R = river discharge over one tidal cycle.
The low tide volume in this section (V0) is that water
volume occupying the space under the intertidal volume P0
(which has just been defined as being equal to R). The
seaward limit of the next seaward segment is placed such that
its low tide volume (Vj) is defined by:
V = P + V (VI-13)
i o o
242
-------
P! is then that intertidal volume which, at high tide,
resides above Vi. Successive segments are defined in an
identical manner to this segment so that:
Vi ' PM + Vl (vi-14)
I
Thus each segment contains, at high tide, the volume of
water contained in the next seaward section at low tide.
2. Calculate the exchange ratio (r) by:
r. = —— (VI-15)
1 Pi+Vi
Thus the exchange ratio for a segment is a measure of a
portion of water associated with that segment which is
exchanged with adjacent segments during each tidal cycle.
3. Calculate segment flushing time by:
T_J_ (VI-16)
where
T.J = flushing time for segment "i", measured in tidal
cycles.
4. Calculate total estuarine flushing time by summing the
individual segment flushing times:
n
Tf = L Ti
243
-------
where
L. = total estuary flushing time
and
n = number of segments.
Table VI-6 shows a suggested method for calculating flushing time by the
modified tidal prism method.
EXAMPLE VI-4
Estuary Flushing Time Calculation by the
Modified Tidal Prism Method
The Fox Mill Run Estuary, Virginia, was selected for this example.
During low flow conditions, the discharge of Fox Mill Run has been measured
at 0.031 m3/sec.
R = river discharge over one tidal cycle
= 0.031 m3/sec x 12.4 hrs/tidal cycle x 3600 sec/hr
= 1384 mVtidal cycle.
The estuary flushing time is found in four steps:
1. Segmentation
From bathymetric maps and tide gage data, cumulative
upstream volume was plotted for several positions along the
estuary (See Figure VI-16).
244
-------
TABLE VI-6
SAMPLE CALCULATION TABLE FOR ESTUARINE FLUSHING TIME BY
THE MODIFIED TIDAL PRISM METHOD
Segment
Number
Segment Dimensions
Starting
Distance
Above Mouth
(m)
Ending
Distance
Above Mouth
(m)
Distance
of Center
Above Mouth
(m)
Segment
Length
(m)
Subtidal
Water
Volume, Vi
(m3)
Intertidal
Water Volume
(m3)
Segment
Exchange
Ratio
ri
n
£ T< =
Segment
Flushing
Time, Ti
(Tidal Cycles)
ro
rs
t/i
UJ
-------
1000-,
500-
intertidal volume
co
OT
Q)
-------
Since
P~ = R
P0 = 1384 m3.
Reading across the graph from "a" to the intertidal volume
curve, then down the subtidal volume curve and across to "b",
VQ = 490 m3.
The known cumulative upstream water volume also establishes
the downstream segment boundary. Reading downward from the
subtidal volume curve to "c", a VQ of 490 m3 corresponds to
an upstream distance of 2,700 meters for the segment 0 lower
boundary.
The low tide water volume for the next segment can be
found by the equation:
V = P + V
Vl P0 V0
or
V, = 1384 + 490 = 1874 m3
Since the graphs of Figure VI-16 are cumulative curves, it is
necessary, when entering a V- value in order to determine a
P. value, to sum the upstream V. 's. For Vj the cumulative
upstream low-tide volume is:
VQ + V = 490 + 1874 r 2364 m3
Entering the graph where the subtidal volume is equal to
2,364 m3 (across from "d"), we can move upward to read the
corresponding cumulative intertidal volume "e" on the
vertical scale, and downward to read the downstream boundary
of segment 1 at "f" on the horizontal scale. The cumulative
upstream intertidal volume is 5900 m3. Since
5900 m3 = PQ + Pj
247
-------
P, = 5900-1384 = 4516 m3
For segment 2,
Vz = PJ + Y! = 1874 + 4516 = 6390 m3
To find P2, it is necessary to enter the graph at a
cumulative subtidal volume of
V0 + Vl + V2 = 49° + 1874 + 639° = 8759 m3(across from "9")
This yields a cumulative intertidal volume of 14,000 m3
(across from "h") and a downstream segment boundary of 1,650
m3 "i".
The tidal prism of Segment 2 is found by:
14000 = PQ + Pj + P2
or
P0 + 14000 - 1384 - 4516 + 8100 m3
The procedure is identical for Segment 3. For this final
segment,
''3
and P3 = 36,000 m3
V3 = 14,490 m3
Dimensions and volumes of the four segments established by this
procedure are compiled in Table VI-7.
2. The exchange ratio for segment 0 is found by
PO 1384 m3
0 PQ+VO 1384 m3+490 m3
248
-------
TABLE VI-7
DATA AND FLUSHING TIME CALCULATIONS FOR FOX MILL RUN ESTUARY
Segment Number
0
1
2
3
Segment Dimensions
Starts at this
Distance Above Mouth
meters
3,200
2,700
2,240
1,650
Stops at this
Distance Above Mouth
meters
2,700
2,240
1,650
180
Center Point
Distance Above
Mouth
meters
2,950
2,470
1,945
915
Segment
Length
meters
500
460
590
1,470
Water Volume
at Low Tide
Vi
meters3
490
1,874
6,390
14,490
Intertidal
Vol ume
Pi ,
meters3
1,384
4,516
8,100
36,000
Exchange Ratio
For Segment i
ri
0.74
0.71
0.56
0.71
Flushing Time
for Segment i
Ti
1.35
1.41
1.79
1.41
ro
£T. = 5.96 tidal
cycles
-------
Exchange ratios are calculated similarly for the other three
segments .
3. Flushing time for each segment "i" is qiven by
so
T - _L - _I_ = i 35
To " r0 0.74 i>JD
Exchange ratios and flushing times for the four segments are shown
in Table VI-7.
4. Flushing time for the whole estuary is found by
3
Tf * * Ti
or T i=0
T = 1.35+1.41+1.79+1.41 = 5.96 tidal cycles
= 73.9 hours
= 3.1 days
END OF EXAMPLE VI-4
250
-------
6.4 FAR FIELD APPROACH TO POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTION IN ESTUARIES
6.4.1 Introduction
Analysis of pollutant distribution in estuaries can be accomplished in
a number of ways. In particular, two approaches, called the far field and
near field approaches, are presented here (Sections 6.4 and 6.5,
respectively). As operationally defined in this document, the far field
approach ignores buoyancy and momentum effects of the wastewater as it is
discharged into the estuary. The pollutant is assumed to be instantaneously
distributed over the entire cross-section of the estuary (in the case of a
well-mixed estuary) or to be distributed over a lesser portion of the
estuary in the case of a two-dimensional analysis. Whether or not these
assumptions are realistic depends on a variety of factors, including the
rapidity of mixing compared to the kinetics of the process being analyzed
(e.g. compared to dissolved oxygen depletion rates). It should be noted
that far field analysis (either one- or two- dimensional) can be used even
if actual mixing is less than assumed by the method. However, the predicted
pollutant concentrations will be lower than the actual concentrations.
Near field analysis considers the buoyancy and momentum of the
wastewater as it is discharged into the receiving water. Pollutant
distribution can be calculated on a smaller spatial scale, and assumptions
such as "complete mixing" or "partial mixing" do not have to be made. The
actual amount of mixing which occurs is predicted as an integral part of the
method itself. This is a great advantage in analyzing compliance with water
quality standards which are frequently specified in terms of a maximum
allowable pollutant concentration in the receiving water at the completion of
initial dilution. (Initial dilution will be defined later in Section 6.5.2)
The following far field approaches for predicting pollutant
distribution are presented in this chapter:
• fraction of freshwater method,
t modified tidal prism method,
• dispersion-advection equations, and
251
-------
• Pritchard's Box Model.
The near field analysis uses tabulated results from an initial dilution
model called MERGE. At the completion of initial dilution predictions can
be made for the following:
• pollutant concentrations
• pH levels, and
• dissolved oxygen concentrations.
The near field pollutant distribution results are then used as input to an
analytical technique for predicting pollutant decay or dissolved oxygen
levels subsequent to initial dilution. The remainder of Section 6.4 will
discuss those methods applicable to the far field approach.
6.4.2 Continuous Flow of Conservative Pollutants
The concentration of a conservative pollutant entering an estuary in a
continuous flow varies as a function of the entry point location. It is
convenient to separate pollutants entering an estuary at the head of the
estuary (with the river discharge) from those entering along the estuary's
sides. The two impacts will then be addressed separately.
6.4.2.1 River Discharges of Pollutants
The length of time required to flush a pollutant from an estuary after
it is introduced with the river discharge has already been calculated, and
is the estuarine flushing time. Now consider a conservative pollutant
continuously discharged into a river upstream of the estuary. As pollutant
flows into the estuary, it begins to disperse and move toward the mouth of
the estuary with the net flow. If, for example, the estuary flushing time
is 10 tidal cycles, 10 tidal cylces following its initial flow into the
estuary, some of the pollutant is flushed out to the ocean. Eventually, a
steady-state condition is reached in which a certain amount of pollutant
enters the estuary, and the same amount is flushed out of the estuary during
252
-------
each tidal cycle. The amount of this pollutant which resides in the estuary
at steady-state is a function of the flushing time. From the definition of
flushing time, the amount of fresh water (river water) in the estuary may be
calculated by:
= Tf R
where
W = quantity of freshwater in the estuary
T = estuary flushing time
and
R = river discharge over one tidal cycle.
Using the same approach, the quantity of freshwater in any segment of the
estuary is given by:
W. = T. R (VI-19)
where
Wi = quantity of freshwater in the ith segment of the estuary
and
T. = flushing time for the ith segment calculated by the fraction
of freshwater method.
253
-------
If a conservative pollutant enters an estuary with the river flow, it can be
assumed that its steady-state distribution will be identical to that of the
river water itself. Thus,
M. = W. C = T. R C
i i r i r
and
where
M- = quantity of pollutant in estuary segment "i"
C = concentration of pollutant in the river inflow
C,- = concentration of pollutant in estuary segment "i" assuming
all of pollutant "i" enters the estuary with the river
discharge. Thus direct discharges into the estuary are
excluded
and
V- - water volume segment "i".
The same values for C^ and M^ may also be obtained by using the fraction of
freshwater, fj , for each segment by:
. = f. Cr (VI-22)
254
-------
and
M. = C. V. (VI-23)
Thus both the quantity of a pollutant in each segment and its
concentration within each segment are readily obtainable by either of the
above methods. The use of one of these methods will be demonstrated in
Example VI-5 below for calculation of both C- and M-.
EXAMPLE VI-5
Calculation of Concentration of Conservative
River Borne Pollutant in an Estuary
The Patuxent Estuary is the subject of this example. The problem is to
predict the incremental concentration increase of total nitrogen (excluding
N2 gas) in the estuary, given that the concentration in river water at the
estuary head is 1.88 mgN/1.
Assume that total nitrogen is conservative and that the nitrogen
concentration in local seawater is negligible. The segmentation scheme used
in Example VI-2 (fraction of freshwater calculation) will be retained here.
For each segment, the total nitrogen concentration is directly proportional
to the fraction of freshwater in the segment:
C1 = fi Cr
The total nitrogen concentration for the uppermost segment is therefore
given by:
Ci = 0.93 (1.88 mgN/1) =1.75 mgN/1
255
-------
For the next segment it is:
C2 = 0.83 (1.88 mgN/1) = 1.56 mgN/1, and so on.
Nitrogen concentrations for all the segments are compiled in Table VI-8.
Note that these are not necessarily total concentrations, but only nitrogen
inputs from the Patuxent River.
The incremental mass of nitrogen in each segment is found by:
M. = W. C
i i r
The W. values for the eight segments were determined in Example VI-2. For
segment 1, the incremental nitrogen is given by:
= (7.35xl06m3)(1.88 mgN/1)(103l/m3)
= 1.38xl010 mg or 13,800 kg
Increased total nitrogen (in kilograms) for the entire estuary is shown in
Table VI-9.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-5
In this example, low tide volumes were used to calculate M- since low
tide volumes had been used to calculate f^'s. The approach assumes that
C.j 's are constant over the tidal cycle and that M.J 's are constant over the
tidal cycle. This leads to the assumption that calculation of a low tide C-j
and M.J will fully characterize a pollutant in an estuary. This, however, is
not strictly true. Figure VI-17 depicts one tidal cycle in an estuary and
256
-------
TABLE VI-8
POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTION IN THE PATUXENT RIVER
Segment Number* Fraction
in
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
River
* From Example VI-2
** These are the increment
of Freshwater*
Segment fn-
0.037
0.112
0.19
0.29
0.46
0.69
0.83
0.93
1.00
concentrations
Resultant Pollutants**
Concentration
= f; x 1.88 mgN/1
0.07
0.21
0.36
0.55
0.86
1.30
1.56
1.88
1.88
of total nitrogen in the estuary due to
the river-borne input.
257
-------
TABLE VI-9
INCREMENTAL TOTAL NITROGEN IN PATUXENT RIVER,
EXPRESSED AS KILOGRAMS
(See Problem VI-5)
Segment Number
River Water
Volume
W-=f.xV
meters3
Incremental Total N
M,= W^l.88)
Kilograms
8
7
6
5
6.14xl06
14.6xl06
13.2xl06
13.3xl06
11,500
27,40
24,800
25,000
ll.SxlO6
21,600
10.7xl06
20,100
8.47xl06
15,900
7.35xl06
13,800
258
-------
Period for tidal
flushing of
"pollutant from
estuary \
TIDAL
ELEVATION
W,,
Nominal
"Mean"
Period of
river dis-
charge into
estuary
FIGURE VI-17 RIVER BORNE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
FOR ONE TIDAL CYCLE
259
-------
shows the periods of the cycle during which a pollutant is flushed out of
the estuary and during which river discharge brings pollutants into the
estuary. During periods of high tide, rising tidal elevation blocks river
discharge and backs up river flow in the lower stretches of the river.
Figure VI-17 also shows the resulting quantity of a pollutant in residence
in the estuary (W ) over the tidal cycle. This variation over the tidal
cycle as a percentage of NL is dependent on the flushing time but is usually
small. The change in the total volume of water in an estuary over a tidal
cycle is equal to the tidal prism which is often of the same magnitude as
the low tide volume. As an example, the Alsea Estuary in Oregon has Pt =
5.1 x 108 ft3 while Vt = 2.1 x 108 (Goodwin, Emmet, and Glenne, 1970). Thus
the variation in estuarine volume is 2.5 times the low tide volume. As a
result, estuarine volume variations over a tidal cycle have a much greater
impact on variations in pollutant concentrations in the estuary than do
changes in the quantity of pollutant present in the estuary over a tidal
cycle. It is important to note, however, that low tidal volume and low MF
nearly coincide, so that variations in mean pollutant concentrations are
less severe than are estuarine water mass changes.
This qualitative description of pollutant flow into and out of an
estuary is somewhat simplistic since it assumes that high tide and low tide
at the mouth of an estuary coincide with those at the head of the estuary.
This is usually not the case. There is normally a lag time between tidal
events at an estuarine mouth and those at its head. Thus river discharge
into the estuary which depends on tidal conditions at the head, and tidal
discharge which depends on tidal conditions at the mouth, are not as
directly tied to each other as indicated in Figure VI-17.
While WF does not vary substantially over a tidal cycle under
steady-state conditions, the mean concentration of a pollutant in an estuary
(CF) does. Alsea Estuary data can be used to show this CE variation over a
tidal cycle. Using data for the estuary as a whole (mean concentration),
the equations for this comparison are:
W£ = Wp Tf (VI-24)
260
-------
and
CE = ME/(Vt Pt), (VI-25)
with
Wr = (566.4 Mg/ft3) (4.64xl06 ft3/tidal cycle),
or
W = 2.628xl09 yg/tidal cycle.
Then,
Mr = (2.628xl09 yg/tidal cycle)(20.8 tidal cycle),
ME = 5.466xl010ug,
and
C . = 5.466xl010 yq/2.1x!08 ft3,
E(low)
or
Cp,-, x= 260.31 yg/ft3, or 46 percent of river concentration.
However,
CE(hi h) = 5.466xl010yg/(2.1xl08 ft3+5.1x!08 ft3),
C,-,, . , N = 75.92 yq/ft3, or 13 percent of river concentration.
E(rngn)
In an actual estuary, the concentration of a pollutant is not a
stepwise function as indicated by segment C. values, but is more
realistically a continuous spectrum of values. By assigning the
longitudinal midpoint of each segment a concentration value equal to that
261
-------
segment's C-, a resulting continuous curve can be constructed as shown in
Figure VI-18. This type of plot is useful in estimating pollutant
concentrations within the estuary. It can also be used, however, to
estimate maximum allowable Cr to maintain a given level of water quality at
any point within the estuary. This latter use of Figure VI-18 is based on
determining the desired concentration level (Cv) and then using the ratio of
A
C to C to calculate an allowable C .
x r r
6.4.2.2 Other Continuous Conservative Pollutant Inflows
In the previous section, an analysis was made of the steady-state
distribution of a continuous flow pollutant entering at the head of an
estuary. The result was a graph of the longitudinal pollutant concentration
within the estuary (Figure VI-18). This section addresses a continuous,
conservative pollutant flow entering along the side of an estuary. Such a
pollutant flow (e.g. the conservative elements of a municipal sewer
discharge, industrial discharge, or minor tributary) is carried both
upstream and downstream by tidal mixing, with the highest concentration
occurring in the vicinity of the outfall. Once a steady state has been
achieved, the distribution of this pollutant is directly related to the
distribution of fresh river water (Dyer, 1973).
The average cross-sectional concentration at the outfall under
steady-state conditions is:
c ~ P f (VI-26)
o R o
where
C = mean cross-sectional concentration of a pollutant at the
point of discharge, mass/volume
262
-------
DISTANCE (x) FROM HEAD OF ESTUARY (in 1000FT)
(M9/D
FIGURE VI-18 ALSEA ESTUARY RIVERBORNE CONSERVATIVE
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
263
-------
Q = discharge rate of pollutant, mass/tidal cycle
fQ = segment fraction of freshwater
R = river discharge rate, volume/tidal cycle.
Downstream of the outfall, the pollutant must pass through any cross
section at a rate equal to the rate of discharge. Thus,
X
cx= C0 r= co
0
v*x\
ss
VSo
\S= j
- 1"
Lo
,
Ss-Sx
VSo
= £
(VI-27)
where
Sv, Cv and fv denote downstream cross-sectional values
A A A .
and
S0, C0 and f0 denote the cross-sectional vaues at the discharge
point (or segment into which discharge is made).
Upstream of the outfall, the quantity of pollutant diffused and
advectively carried upstream is balanced by that carried downstream by the
nontidal flow so that the net pollutant transport through any cross section
is zero. Thus, the pollutant distribution is directly proportional to
salinity distribution and (Dyer, 1973):
C = C —
x o s
(VI-28)
o
Downstream of the outfall, the pollutant concentration resulting from a
point discharge is directly proportional to river-borne pollutant
concentration. Upstream from the discharge point, it is inversely
proportional to river-borne pollutant concentrations. Figure VI-19 is a
264
-------
DISTANCE FROM HEAD_x_
L*
'L = Total Estuanne Length
FIGURE VI-19 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION FROM AN
ESTUARINE OUTFALL (AFTER KETCHUM,
1950)
265
-------
graph of f versus distance from the estuary head for a typical estuary. The
A
solid fx line is also a measure of pollutant concentration for all points
downstream of a pollutant outfall (either discharge location A or B). The
actual concentration (Cv) for any point is equal to this f value multiplied
X X
by Q /R which is a constant over all x. Upstream concentrations decrease
from C0 in a manner proportional to upstream salinity reduction (see dotted
lines). It is important to note how even a small downstream shift in
discharge location creates a very significant reduction in upstream
steady-state pollutant concentration. Table VI-10 shows a suggested format
for tabulating pollutant concentrations by the fraction of freshwater method.
EXAMPLE VI-6
Calculation of Conservative Pollutant Concentration
for a Local Discharge
This example will again utilize the eight-segment scheme devised for the
Patuxent Estuary in Example VI-2. The objective is to predict the
concentration distribution of total nitrogen in the estuary resulting from a
discharge of 80,000 mgN/sec into segment 4.
The first step is to determine the nitrogen concentration in segment 4.
From Equation VI-26,
QD (8xlO"mgN/secxl2.4 hrs/tidal cyclex3600 sec/hr)(0.46)
c = JL f = _ _ _
0 R ° 5.36xl05 mVtidal cycle
3065 mgN
= = 3.065 mgN/1
m3
For segments 1-3, upstream from the discharge, nitrogen concentration is
found by Equation VI-28,
c. = c ii
o SQ
266
-------
TABLE VI-10
SAMPLE CALCULATION FABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF A LOCALLY DISCHARGED
CONSERVATIVE POLLUTANT BY THE FRACTION OF FRESHWATER METHOD
From Table VI-3
Segment
Number
Segment
Containing
Discharge
in
UJ
Fraction of
Freshwater
Mean Segment
Salinity
(ppt)
Pollutant
Concentrations*
(mg/1)
*Pollutant concentration =-
f.
C0 — , down estuary of the discharge
o
si
CQ — , up estuary of the discharge
o
-------
For segment 1,
= 0.8%
SQ = S, = 5.8%0
CH = 3.065 mgN/1
so
/ Q g
-------
TABLE VI-11
NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN PATUXENT ESTUARY
BASED ON LOCAL DISCHARGE
Segment
Number
Fraction of
Freshwater
s.
Mean Segment g—
Salinity o
z— Concentration
o mgN/1
0.037
10.3
0.08
0.25
7
6
5
Discharge 4
3
2
1
0.112
0.19
0.29
0.46
0.69
0.83
0.93
9.5
8.7
7.6
5.8
3.3
1.8
0.8
-
-
-
1
0.57
0.31
0.14
0.24
0.41
0.63
1
-
-
_
0.74
1.26
1.93
3.06
1.75
0.95
0.43
269
-------
The same procedure yields nitrogen concentrations in segments 6-8, also
downstream of the discharge.
Figure VI-20 below shows the nitrogen concentration distribution over
the entire estuary. Note that the nearer a discharge is to the estuary's
mouth, the greater the protection rendered the upstream reaches of the
estuary.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-6
6.4.3 Continuous Fl_cw_No_n-Conservative Pollutants
Most pollutant discharges into estuaries have some components which
behave non-conservatively. A number of processes mediate the removal of
compounds from natural waters, among these:
• sorption by benthic sediments on suspended matter
• partitioning
• decay (by photolysis or biologically mediated reactions)
• biological uptake
t precipitation
• coagulation.
The latter two processes are particularly significant in estuaries. Thus,
in addition to dispersion and tidal mixing, a time-dependent component is
incorporated when calculating the removal of non-conservative pollutants
from estuarine waters. The concentrations of non-conservative pollutants
are always lower than those of conservative pollutants (which have a decay
rate of zero) for equal discharge concentrations. The results of the
previous section for conservative constituents serve to set upper limits for
270
-------
4.0-1
3.0-
ro
•—i
ra
~ 2.0 H
O)
o
z
"cc
° 1.0-
10
20
30 I
discharge
40
Distance above estuary mouth (1000's of meters)
FIGURE VI-20 HYPOTHETICAL CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN
IN PATUXENT ESTUARY
-------
the concentration of non-conservative continuous flow pollutants. Thus, if
plots similar to Figure VI-17 for river discharges and to Figure VI-19 for
other direct discharges have been prepared for flow rates equal to that of
the non-conservative pollutant under study, some reasonable approximations
can be made for steady-state non-conservative pollutant concentrations
without requiring additional data. Assuming a first order decay rate for
the non-conservative constituent, its concentration is given by:
= CQe"kt (VI-29)
where
C - pollutant concentration at time "t"
C = initial pollutant concentration
k = decay rate constant
For conservative pollutants k = 0 and C = CQ under steady-state
conditions. Decay rates are determined empirically and depend on a large
number of variables. Typical decay rates for BOD and coliform bacteria are
shown in Table VI-12. If data are not available for a particular estuary,
the use of these average values will provide estimates.
272
-------
TABLE VI-12
TYPICAL VALUES FOR DECAY REACTION RATES 'k1*
Source BOD Coliform
Dyer, 1973 .578
Ketchem, 1955 .767
Chen and Orlob, 1975 .1 .5
Hydroscience, 1971 .05-.125 1-2
McGaughhey, 1968 .09
Harleman, 1971 .069
*k values for all reactions given on a per
tidal cycle basis, 20°C.
273
-------
It should be noted that decay rates are dependent upon temperature. The
values given assume a temperature of 20°C. Variations in k values for
differing temperatures are given by Equation VI-30:
k = k 0 9T"20° (VI-30)
where
k = decay rate at temperature T
k?0 = decay rate at 20°C (as given in Table VI-12)
and
0 = a constant (normally between 1.03 and 1.05).
Thus an ambient temperature of 10 C would reduce a k value of 0.1 per tidal
cycle to 0.074 for a 0 = 1.03.
Decay effects can be compared to flushing effects by setting time equal
to the flushing time and comparing the resulting decay to the known pollutant
removal rate as a result of flushing. If kt in Equation VI-29 is less than
0.5 for t = Tf, decay processes reduce concentration by only about one-third
over the flushing time. Here mixing and advective effects dominate and
non-conservative decay plays a minor role. When kTf > 12 decay effects
reduce a batch pollutant to 5 percent of its original concentration in less
than one-fourth of the flushing time. In this case, decay processes are of
paramount importance in determining steady-state concentrations. Between
these extremes, both processes are active in removing a pollutant from the
estuary with 3 < kTf < 4 being the range for approximately equal
contributions to removal. Dyer (1973) analyzed the situation for which decay
and tidal exchange are of equal magnitude for each estuarine segment.
Knowing the conservative concentration, the non-conservative steady-state
concentration in a segment is given by:
274
-------
i=l/..,n
r.
for segments downstream
of the outfall
(VI-31)
and
' i o i = 1,.., n S
r.
T_
o \l-(l-r.)e
for segments upstream /.., ~^\
-kt / of the outfall
where
C = non-conservative constituent mean concentration in segment "i"
C = conservative constituent mean concentration in segment of
discharge
r. - the exchange ratio for segment "i" as defined by the modified
tidal prism method
n = number of segments away from the outfall (i.e. n=l for
segments adjacent to the outfall; n-2 for segments next to
these segments, etc.)
and other parameters are as previously defined.
In the case of a non-conservative pollutant entering from the river,
n = 1, and the only concentration expression necessary is
f.
,'nerf
r.
1
(VI- 34)
275
-------
Table VI-13 shows a suggested format for tabulating pollution concentrations
by the modified tidal prism method.
EXAMPLE VI-7
Continuous Discharge of a Non-Conservative Pollutant
into the Head of an Estuary
The Fox Mill Run Estuary (see Example VI-3) is downstream of the
Gloucester, Virginia, sewage treatment plant. Knowing the discharge rate of
CBOD in the plant effluent, the purpose of this example is to determine the
concentration of CBOD throughout the estuary.
It is first necessary to determine the concentration of CBOD in Fox Mill
Run as it enters the estuary (assume no CBOD decay within the river). The
following information has been collected:
C , Background CBOD in river = 3 mg/1
Q , River flow below treatment plant discharge - 0.031 m3/sec
Q ,, Treatment plant discharge rate = 0.006 m3/sec
Cd, Treatment plant effluent CBOD = 45 mg/1
The CBOD concentration in the river downstream of the treatment plant is
found using the equation:
C (Q -Q.) + C.Q,
rwr xd'
-------
TABLE VI-13
SAMPLE CALCULATION TABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF A LOCALLY DISCHARGED
NON-CONSERVATIVE POLLUTANT BY THE MODIFIED TIDAL PRISM METHOD
From Table VI -6
Segment
Number
Distance of
Center Above
Mouth
(m)
Segment
Exchange
Ratio
r .
Mean Salinity
(from salinity
plot)
Si
PPt
Fraction of
River Water
f - S- 1
1 Ss
B,
1
Pollutant
Concentration
i-1 n
(mg/1)
-------
To find the CBOD concentration distribution in the estuary, the following
additional data are used:
S$, Chesapeake Bay salinity = 19.0 °/oo (at the mouth of
Fox Mill Run Estuary)
k, CBOD decay constant = 0.3/day
T, Tidal cycle = 12.4 hours
so
kt = 0.3/day x 12.4 hr x 1 day/24 hours = 0.155
Also necessary are mean salinity values for each estuary segment. Values for
the Fox Mill Run Estuary are summarized in Table VI-14. Fraction of
freshwater values for each segment are found using the formula:
where the variables are as previously defined.
Next, values of the coefficient B. must be calculated for each segment
"i". For segment 0,
TO, the segment exchange ratio, = 0.74
and
- rO = _ 0.^4 _ = o 95
B° = l-(l-r0)e-kt = l-(l-0.74)e-°-155 =
Coefficient values for all segments are compiled in Table VI-14.
278
-------
"vj
UD
TABLE VI-14
SALINITY AND CBOD CALCULATIONS FOR FOX MILL RUN ESTUARY
1
' From Problem VI -3
i
Center Point
i Distance Above
i Est. Mouth,
| Segment Number Meters
|
1 River \ (>3200)
0 2950
i 2470
j
I 2 i 1945
3 915
i . - _. . 1 i
Exchange Ratio
For Segment
_
0.74
0.71
0.56
0.71
Mean Segment
Sal ini ty
Si , ppt
(From Sal . Plot)
-0
4.7
8.6
11.6
15.3
Fraction of
Fresh (River)
fi Ss
(Ss= 19.0)
1.00
0.75
0.55
0.39
0.19
BT
-
0.95
0.94
0.90
0.94
i
i
Concentration of I
CBODU
r -r . n
Ci Ci-l fM Ci '
(mg/1 ) :
i
i
11.1 j
8.1 !
i
5.5 j
3.6
1.6
i
-------
Finally, CBOD concentrations for the individual segment are calculated,
beginning with the uppermost segment and working downstream. The
concentration in segment "i" is found by:
f.
For segment 0, the river is taken as segment "i-1", and the calculation is as
follows:
CQ = 11.13 mg/1 ( ~J 0.95 - 8.1 mg/1
For segment 1,
/.55 \
Ci = 8.1 mg/1 I—- I 0.94 = 5.6 mg/1
and so on.
Figure VI-21 depicts this estimate of the distribution of CBOD in the
estuary. In addition, hypothetical concentrations of a conservative
pollutant (k = 0) and coliform bacteria (k = 1.0) are plotted. Downstream
concentration diminishes faster for substances having larger decay constants,
as might be expected.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-7
6.4.4 Multiple Waste Load Parameter Analysis
The preceding analysis allowed calculation of the longitudinal
distribution of a pollutant, either conservative or non-conservative,
resulting from a single waste discharge. However, the planner will probably
want to simultaneously assess both conservative and non-conservative elements
from several separate discharges. This can be accomplished by graphing all
desired single element distributions on one graph showing concentration
280
-------
182
Relative Concentration Units
co
cn
i
hO
~n PO
o rn
x i-
I- <
r~ m
^o cr)
c rn
GO
O
:z:
(/>
o
rri
m
>
2:
CO
m
"2.
m
i—i
z
CD
X
m
a
CO
O
CD
cr
o
CD
o
c
3"
g
m
en
c
0)
O
q
w"
3
CO
*-*•
CD
-^
CO
CO
O
CO
o
cn
-------
versus length of the estuary. Once graphed, the resulting concentration may
be linearly added to obtain a total waste load.
The pollutant concentration increment from each source is calculated by
assuming the source is the sole contribution of pollution (i.e. other waste
loadings are temporarily set equal to zero). This method, called
superposition, is valid as the long as volumetric discharge from any of the
sources does not signicantly influence the salinity distribution within the
estuary. This assumption is typically true, unless the estuary is extremely
small and poorly flushed, and the volumetric discharge is large relative to
tidal and advective flushing components.
An example of the superposition procedure is shown in Figure VI-22.
Three local point sources of pollutants discharge at locations A, B, and C.
A background source enters the estuary with the river discharge. The
contribution due to each source can be found from the fraction of freshwater
method (assuming the pollutants act conservatively) as follows:
-Ji f
R fX
x > 0, where x is measured from the head
of the estuary
CA=^
R x
Wn S.
x B
R x
W S
T fs T ' * < B
wc
T fx '
R C R *
282
-------
00
CO
CD
C
70
m
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
a
<
m
m
o
o
"O
r~
m
CO
m
ET
o
a
i—i
-i
o
CO
oHead
g
o
m
o
i
m
>
o
Mouth
-------
where
C = concentration due to river discharge
b
C , C , C = concentrations due to sources A, B, and C,
M D \j
respectively
R = river flow rate
fn > fp,> fr = fraction of freshwater at locations A, B, C,
ABC
respectively
S., SB, Sc = salinity at locations A, B, and C, respectively.
The pollutant concentration (above background) at any location in the estuary
is:
Sum = CA+CB+CC
and is shown in Figure VI-22. When this is added to the background level,
the total pollutant concentration becomes:
CT = (WV + Cb
The dotted line in Figure VI-22 depicts CT<
The technique of graphing outfall location and characteristics with
resulting estuarine pollutant concentration can be done for all anticipated
discharges. This will provide the planner with a good perspective on the
source of potential water quality problems.
Where the same segmentation scheme has been used to define incremental
pollutant distributions resulting from several sources, the results need not
even be plotted to determine the total resultant concentrations. In this
case, the estuary is evaluated on a segment-by-segment basis. The total
pollutant concentration in each segment is calculated as the arithmetic sum
of the concentration increments resulting from the various sources.
284
-------
EXAMPLE VI-8
The previous two example problems involved calculations of nitrogen
concentration in the Patuxent Estuary resulting from individual nitrogen
sources. The objective of this example is to find the total nitrogen
concentration in the estuary resulting from both nitrogen sources.
The eight-segment scheme of Examples VI-6 and VI-7 is retained for this
problem. For each segment, the incremental nitrogen increases are summed to
give the total concentration:
C = Cb + CA
where
C, is the concentration resulting from the N source discharging into
the estuary at point A
For segment 1, the calculation is:
C = 1-75 mg/1 (from river) + 0.43 mg/1 (from local source)
= 2.18 mg/1 total nitrogen
Necessary data and final concentrations for each segment are shown in Table VI-15.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-8
6,4.5 ^sj)ersj[oji-A^dvection Equations for Predicting _P_o_llutant_l^sjtrj_bjjtj_ons
Dispersion-advection equations offer an attractive method, at least
theoretically, of predicting pollutant and dissolved oxygen concentrations in
estuaries. However, from the point of view of hand calculation, the
advection-dispersion equations are usually tedious to solve, and therefore
mistakes can unknowingly be incorporated into the calculations.
Dispersion-advection equations have been developed in a variety of forms,
including one-, two-, and three-dimensional representations. The equations in
this section are limited to one-dimensional representations in
285
-------
TABLE VI-15
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL NITROGEN IN THE PATUXENT ESTUARY
DUE TO TWO SOURCES OF NITROGEN
Segment Number
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
River
Results From
Problem VI-4
Total Nitrogen
From River
mgN/1, Cfa
0.07
0.21
0.36
0.55
0.80
1.30
1.56
1.75
1.88
Results From
Problem VI-5
Total Nitrogen
From Point A Source
(Segment 4)
mgN/1, CA
0.25
0.74
1.26
1.93
3.06
1.74
0.95
0.43
0.00
Resultant
Concentration
c=cb + CA
mgfl/1
0.32
0.95
1.62
2.48
3.92
3.04
2.51
2.18
1.88
285
-------
order to reduce the amount of data and calculations required.
One-dimensional dispersion-advection equations can be expressed in quite
divergent forms, depending on boundary conditions, cross-sectional area
variation over distance, and source-sink terms. O'Connor (1965), for
example, developed a variety of one-dimensional advection-dispersion
equations for pollutant and dissolved oxygen analyses in estuaries, some of
which are infeasible for use on the hand-calculation level.
The advection-dispersion equations to be presented subsequently in this
chapter can be used to predict:
• distributions of conservative or non-conservative pollutants,
t pollutant distributions in embayments, and
• dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Solutions from advection-dispersion can be superposed to account for multiple
discharges. Example VI-9, to be presented subsequently, will illustrate this
process.
As the name of the equations implies, dispersion coefficients are needed
in order to solve advection-dispersion equations. Tidally averaged
dispersion coefficients are required for the steady-state formulations used
here. The tidally averaged dispersion coefficient (EL) can be estimated from
the following expression:
E = ___ (VI-35)
L A dS/dx
(VI-36)
287
-------
where
S = tidally and cross sectionally averaged salinity in vicinity
of discharge
2Ax = distance between the salinity measurements Sx+Ax (at a
distance Ax down estuary) and SX_AX (at a distance Ax up
estuary)
R = freshwater flow rate in vicinity of discharge
The distance interval 2Ax should be chosen so that no tributaries are
contained within the interval.
In the absence of site specific data, the dispersion coefficients shown
in Tables VI-16 and VI-17 can provide estimates of dispersion coefficients.
For pollutants which decay according to first order decay kinetics, the
steady state mass balance equation describing their distribution is:
E ££ _ UdC . kc __ (VI.37)
L dx* dx
The solution to Equation VI-37 is:
C e J2X x > 0(down estuary) (VI-38a)
CeJlX x<0(up estuary)
o
where
2AEL
2AEL
288
-------
TABLE VI-16
TIDALLY AVERAGED DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS FOR SELECTED
ESTUARIES (FROM HYDROSCIENCE, 1971)
00
UD
Estuary
Delaware River
Hudson River (N.Y.)
East River (N.Y.)
Cooper River (S.C.)
Savannah R. (Ga. , S.C.)
Lower Raritan R. (N.J.)
South River (N.J.)
Houston Ship Channel (Texas)
Cape Fear River (N.C.)
Potomac River (Va. )
Compton Creek (N.J. )
Wappinger and
Fishkill Creek (N.Y.)
Freshwater
Inflow
(cfs)
2,500
5,000
0
10,000
7,000
150
23
900
1,000
550
10
2
Low Flow
Net Non tidal
Veloci ty ( fps)
Ik- dd - Mouth
0.12-0.009
0.037
0.0
0.25
0.7-0.17
0.047-0.029
0.01
0.05
0 .48-0.03
0.006-0.0003
0.01-0.013
0.004-0.001
Disiiorbio i
Coef f i c iuii t
(iin^/diiy )
5
20
H)
30
10-20
5
5
27
2-10
1-10
1
0.5-1
*1 mi2/day = 322.67 ft2/sec
-------
TABLE VI-17
TIDALLY AVERAGED DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
(FROM OFFICER, 1976)
Estuary
Dispersion
Coefficient
Range
(ft2/sec)
Comments
San Francisco Bay
Southern Arm
Northern Arm
Hudson River
fiarrows of Mercey
Potomac River
Severn Estuary
200-2,000
500-20,000
4,800-16,000
1 ,430-4,000
65-650
75-750
(by Stommel)
580-1,870
(Bowcien)
Measurements were made at slack
water over a period of one to a
few days. The fraction of
freshwater method was used.
Measurements were taken over
three tidal cycles at 25
locations.
The dispersion coefficient was
derived by assuming E|_ to be
constant for the reach studied,
and that it varied only with
flow. A good relationship
resulted between E. and flow,
substantiating the assumption.
The fraction of freshwater
method was used by taking mean
values of salinity over a tidal
cycle at different cross
sections.
The dispersion coefficient was
found to be a function of dis-
tance below the Chain Bridge.
Both salinity distribution
studies (using the fraction of
freshwater method) and dye
release studies were used to
detemi ne E. .
Bowden recalculated |_ values
originally determined by
Stoiuiuel , who had used the
fraction of freshwater method.
Bowden included the fresh-
water inflows from tributaries,
which produced the larger
estimates of E. -
290
-------
TABLE VI-17 (continued)
Estuary
Tay Estuary
Dispersion
Coefficient
Range
(ft2/sec)
530-1,600
Comments
The fraction of freshwater
(up estuary) method was used. At a given
1,600-7,500 location, EL was found to vary
(down estuary) with freshwater inflow rate.
Thames Estuary 600-1,000 Calculations were performed
(low flow) using the fraction of fresh-
3,600 water method, between 10 and
(high flow) 30 miles below London Bridge.
Yaquina Estuary 650-9,200 The dispersion coefficients for
(high flow) high flow conditions were sub-
140-1,060 stantially higher than for low
(low flow) flow conditions, at the same
locations. The fraction of
freshwater method was used.
291
-------
U = net velocity
k = decay rate
W = discharge rate of pollutant (at x=0)
For Equations VI-38a and VI-38b to accurately estimate the pollutant
distribution in an estuary, the cross-sectional area of the estuary should be
fairly constant over distance, and the estuary should be relatively long.
For screening purposes the first constraint can be met by choosing a
cross-sectional area representative of the length of estuary being
investigated. If the estuary is very short, however, pollutants might be
washed out of the estuary fast enough to prevent attainment of a steady-state
distribution assumed by Equations VI-38a and VI-38b. For shorter estuaries
the fraction of freshwater method, modified tidal prism method, or near field
approach are more appropriate.
At times when the freshwater flow rate in an estuary is essentially zero
pollutant concentrations might increase to substantial levels, if tidal
flushing is small. Under these conditions the mass-balance expression for a
pollutant obeying first order kinetics is:
E. d2C - kc = 0
L "377"?
(VI-39)
The solution to this equation is:
C =
for x > 0 (down estuary) (VI-40a)
for x <0 (up estuary) (VI-40b)
where
(VI-41)
292
-------
When the pollutant is conservative (i.e. k=0), Equation (VI-39) reduces to:
The solution is:
CQ , x < 0 (up estuary) (VI-43a)
W
c =
I
(L-x) + C , x > 0 (down estuary) (VI-43b)
where
WL
C . = C. +
0 L ELA
C. = background concentration of the pollutant at the mouth of the
estuary
L = distance from the discharge location to the mouth of the
estuary.
Equation VI-43 illustrates the important concept that the concentrations of
conservative pollutants are constant up estuary from the discharge location
(when the river discharge is negligible) and decrease linearly from the
discharge point to the mouth of the estuary. Equations VI-40 and VI-43 apply
to estuaries of constant, or approximately constant, cross-sectional area
(e.g. sl.oughs). If the cross-sectional area increases rapidly with distance
toward the mouth, the methods presented in Section 6.5 are more appropriate.
The dissolved oxygen deficit equation (where deficit is defined as the
difference between the saturation concentration and the actual dissolved
oxygen concentration) for one-dimensional estuaries at steady-state
conditions is:
I'dD . E d2D
dx dx'
293
-------
where
D = dissolved oxygen deficit
L = BOD concentration
k2 = reaeration rate
k = BOD decay rate
Using Equation VI-38 to represent the BOD distribution, the expression for
the deficit D is:
D = —
kW
A(k,-k)
exp
2 E,
_- -- x
\
exp
2 C,
(VI-45)
where
The plus (+) sign is used to predict concentrations up estuary
(x<0)
The minus (-) sign is used to predict concentrations down estuary
(x>0)
= 2
= U2 + 4kE
= 2
= U2 + 4k2E,
M = mass flux of dissolved oxygen contained in the discharge
294
-------
The advantage of expressing the dissolved oxygen concentration in terms of
the deficit is that the principle of superposition can be invoked for
multiple discharges within a single estuary. Specifically
D = Z D.
and
C = Cs - Z Di (VI-47)
where
D- = dissolved oxygen deficit resulting from the i^L discharge
C = final dissolved oxygen concentration
C = dissolved oxygen saturation level.
Figure VI-23 shows the relationship between dissolved oxygen saturation and
temperature and salinity.
EXAMPLE VI-9
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Resulting from Two Sources of BOD
Two municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge significant
quantities of BOD into the James River in Virginia. One discharges near
Hopewell, and the second 10 miles further down estuary, near Uest Point.
Calculate the dissolved oxygen concentration in the estuary as a function of
distance. Pertinent data are:
295
-------
CD
C
70
IT]
IND
i^O
CPl
en
— l en
m o
2 I-
-D <
m m
73 O
C X
pa <
m o
m
> z
•z.
O 00
>
CO H
> C
-<
c:
2:
o
OXYGEN SATURATION CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
-------
• BOD5 in Hopewell plant effluent = 69,000 Ibs/day
t BOD in West Point plant effluent, located 10 miles downstream
from Hopewell = 175,000 Ibs/day
• freshwater flow rate = 2,900 cfs
• dissolved oxygen saturation = 8.2 mg/1
• cross sectional area = 20,000 ft2
• reaeration rate = 0.2/day
• deoxygenation rate = 0.3/day
• dispersion coefficient = 12.5 mi2/day
• effluent dissolved oxygen = 0.0 mg/1.
The dissolved oxygen deficit due to each of the two contributions can be
determined independently of the other using Equation IV-45. The results are
plotted in Figure VI-24. The deficits are added to produce the total deficit
(0(x)) due to both discharges (Figure VI-24a). The distance scale in Figure
VI-24a is referenced to the Hopewell plant. The West Point plant is placed
at mile 10. When the deficit at this location due to the West Point plant is
calculated, set x = 0 in Equation VI-45. The dissolved oxygen concentration
then becomes C(x) = 8.2-D(x), and is shown in Figure VI-24b.
One example calculation of dissolved oxygen deficit will be shown to
illustrate the process. Consider the deficit produced at mile 0.0, due to
the Hopewell plant. The waste loading from the Hopewell plant is:
69,000 x 1.46 = 100,000 Ibs/day, BOD-ultimate =1.16 Ibs/sec
297
-------
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration, mg/l
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit, mg/l
00
CD
c:
xi
m
i
ro
-Cr
m
c_ a
> — •
2 O
m H
co m
m co
XI CO
O
m
O
O
X
m
~a
XI
o
o-
(D
cn
CD
^^ O
a- 5
I ro
o o
•a
(D
CD
cn
O"
CO
b
i
i
i
i
t
03
b
i
CD
0)
CD
G>_
O
o
•a
CD
CD
-j. !\3 w -C». cn cn -^
b b b b b b b
I i i I 1 I I
cn
I
o
CD-»O-
$
CD
I
cn
r»o-
cn
o'
HOD
O 03 CD
D.
CD
§• c
CD CD
<—*• <-*-
o o
if o
cn ^3
-<• CD
-------
When
x = 0 Equation VI-45 simplifies to:
D =
kW
_ _
A(k2-k) \\fa7
_! ___ L
so
so
Ql = U2 + 4k E
/ 2900 \2
i — i -f-
L \20000/
4(.3)(12.5)(5280)(5280)
81400 • 86400
= .077
ft2
sec'
\TaT = .278 ft/sec
2 lr.n~2
'a2 = U2 + 4k2EL = 0.058 ft2/sec
= .242 ft/sec
The deficit is:
D =
(.3)(1.16)
20000(.2-,3)
' 1
. .278
1 -
.242
= 9.3 x ID'5 lb/ft3 = 1.5 mg/1
This value is then plotted in Figure VI-24 at mile point 0.0. The deficit at
this location due to West Point is evaluated at x = -10 miles in Equation
VI-45, since West Point is located 10 miles down estuary of Hopewell. A
deficit of 0.6 mg/1 is found, and is plotted in Figure VI-24 at mile point
0.0. The total deficit at Hopewell is 1.5 +0.6 = 2.1 mg/1, as shown in the
figure.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-9
299
-------
6.4.6 Pritcnard's Two-dimensional Box Model for Stratified Estuaries
Many estuaries in the United States are either stratified or partially
mixed. Because the circulation of stratified systems is fairly complex, few
hand calculation methods are available for their analysis. Instead
computerized solutions are generally used.
One method developed by Pritchard (1969) which predicts the
distribution of pollutants in partially mixed or stratified estuaries is
suitable for hand calculations provided the user does not require too much
spatial resolution. This method, called the "two-dimensional box model",
divides the estuary horizontally from head to mouth into a series of
longitudinal segments. Each segment is divided into a surface layer and a
bottom layer. The analysis results in a system of n simultaneous linear
equations with n unknowns, where n equals twice the number of horizontal
segments. The unknowns are the pollutant concentrations in each layer.
Division of the estuary into only two horizontal segments results in
four simultaneous equations, which is probably the most one would like to
solve entirely by hand. However, many programmable hand calculators contain
library routines for solving systems of 10 or more simultaneous equations,
which would allow the estuary to be divided into 5 or more horizontal
segments. If many more segments are desired, the solution could be easily
implemented on a computer using a numerical technique such as Gaussian
elimination to solve the resulting system of simultaneous linear equations.
The following information is required for the two-dimensional box
analysis: 1) the freshwater flow rate due to the river; 2) the pollutant
mass loading rates; and 3) the longitudinal salinity profiles along the
length of the estuary in the upper and lower layers, and the salinity at the
boundary between these two layers. The upper layer represents the portion
of the water column having a net nontidal flow directed seaward, and the
lower layer represents the portion of the water column having net nontidal
flow directed up the estuary. If no velocity data are available, these
layers can generally be estimated based on the vertical salinity profiles.
300
-------
Figure VI-25 shows the parameters used in the analysis, which are
defined as follows:
n = segment number, increasing from head toward mouth
(S ) = salinity in upper layer of segment n
(S ) - salinity in lower layer of segment n
(S ) - salinity at the boundary between the upper and lower
layers of segment n
(S ) , = salinity in the upper layer at the boundary between
u n~15 n
segments n-1 and n
(S ) = sal-inity in the lower layer at the boundary between
i n** x 5 ''
segments n-1 and n
(Q ) , = net nontidal flow rate in the upper layer from
u n— i, n
segment n-1 to n
(Q ) , = net nontidal flow rate in the lower layer from
i n, n-1
segment n to n-1
(Qv)n = net upward vertical flow from the lower to the upper
layer of segment n
E = vertical exchange coefficient between the lower and
upper layers of segment n
R - freshwater flow rate due to river
(qu)n = pollutant mass loading rate to upper layer of segment
n (from external sources)
301
-------
o
ro
n-1
n + 1
>u'n-1,n
(Qu>n-1,n
u - — -
(Su)n
(Cu)n
(Qu)n,
.*.'•"• >:i.'"!<.": a'•/••*'i?'!V"V'-?V'";V-1 • ":•;• •^-•'''•''^.;:'''>>"';'-;<'-'.-''-'>'.;:;'-"'t;':^' VJ?'' '.V-';«-v'»'.'.''/1X.' -V-'^-o•'.••.«.•,•.•.
•'•V;''-X'-\'v\'-'V.:';''-»A\-V':X:-i-%>':'';-:'^\:;«:^V;p^V/o;\
FIGURE V 1-2:5 DEFINITION SKETCH FOR PRITCHARD'S TWO-DIMENSIONAL Box MODEL
-------
(qJri = Pollutant mass loading rate to lower layer of segment
n (from external sources)
(C ) = pollutant concentration in the upper layer of segment
u n
n
(C1)n = pollutant concentration in the lower layer of segment
n
Pritchard's two-dimensional box analysis as presented here requires the
following assumptions:
1. steady-state salinity distribution
2. the pollutant is conservative
3. the concentration of the pollutant is uniform within each
layer of each segment and
4. the pollutant concentration at the boundary between segments
or layers is equal to the average of the concentrations in the
two adjacent segments or layers.
Application of the two-dimensional box model involves six steps. These
are:
1. Plot the longitudinal salinity profiles in the upper and lower
layers, and at the interface between the two layers. If
information on the net nontidal velocity distribution is not
available to define the layers, the boundary may be estimated
for a given section of the estuary as the depth at which the
vertical salinity gradient is maximum. The resulting plots
will be used to determine the average salinities in each
segment and layer, and the salinities at the boundaries
between each segment and layer.
303
-------
2. Segment the estuary. The number of segments will depend on
the degree of spatial resolution desired, and the limitations
of the hand calculators used to solve the system of
simultaneous equations. The accuracy of the results will
generally increase with the number of segments used, since the
assumptions of the analysis are better satisfied. A minimum
of three horizontal segments should probably be used to obtain
even a rough estimate of the pollutant distribution in the
estuary. This will require the solution of six equations and
six unknowns.
3. Compute the net nontidal flows in the upper layer and lower
layer at the boundary between each horizontal segment using
Knudson's Hydrographical Theorem (Dyer, 1973):
l, n
(n ) , = R -—- (VI-48)
n-l, n
'n. n-1 (S ) , -(S ) , (VI-49)
v i'n-1, n v u n-1, n
At the upstream freshwater boundary of the estuary,
«>'>„. n-1- °"
4. Compute the net upward vertical flows between layers for each
segment using the continuity equation for the upper layer of the
seginent:
= (Qu}n, n+1 " ^n-l, n (vi-50)
-------
5. Compute the vertical exchange coefficients between layers for each
segment using the salinity balance equation for the upper layer of
the segment, which can be arranged in the following form:
Vn. n+1
-------
Since most pollutant discharges are buoyant, they should be considered as
loadings to the upper layer, even though they may be physically introduced at the
bottom. Pollutants which are denser than the upper waters and which would sink
to the bottom should be considered as loadings to the lower layer. However, the
analysis is not applicable to pollutants which tend to remain near the bottom and
accumulate in or react with the bottom sediments.
The above mass balance equations can be simplified and rearranged into the
following form:
2En+ (Vn| '-,'„
-, (VI-54)
[-n
n]
(VI-55)
for the lower layer of segment n. This pair of equations is written for each
segment, resulting in a system of simultaneous equations where the
concentrations, (Cu)n and (Ci)n, are the unknowns, the terms enclosed in square
brackets are the coefficients, and the terms on the right hand side of the
equations are the constants.
However, since each equation involves both the uptream and downstream
segments for a given layer, the boundary conditions at both the upstream and
downstream end of the estuary must be applied so that there will not be more
306
-------
unknowns than equations. At the upstream end of the estuary, the following
boundary conditions apply:
(Qu)n_l5 n = R = river flow rate
(C ) T = CD - pollutant in river
u n-i K
(Q ) , =0 (no salt water movement upstream into the river)
These conditions simplify the previous equations to
u\ + [2E. + i +
R = ~z
(VI-56)
for the upper layer of the first upstream segment and
[2E< - (Qyh] (cu), + [-2E,] (cj, + [(QA.J (c,)2 -2(qi)i (vi-57)
for the lower layer of the first upstream segment.
For the lower layer of the last downstream segment at the ocean end of the
estuary, the following boundary condition is used to simplify the equation:
(Cj = 0 (no pollutant, entering the lower layer from the ocean
waters outside the mouth of estuary)
which simplifies the corresponding equation to:
n. n-l] K.Jn-l +[2En '
< Vn
For the upper layer of the last segment at the mouth of the estuary, some
assumption must be made about the pollutant concentration in the upper layer just
outside the mouth to eliminate the (n+1) term from the equation. If actual data
307
-------
are available based on field measurements, a measured value of (C ) +, can be
used. This simplifies the corresponding equation to:
>n-l. n] n-l + ['2En] (Cu>n + [ 2En + <«v>n] ^n = ~2^n + „-! ' ['2En ' 'c <«„>„. n+l ] n + [«„ * (Qv)n] (C, )„ = -2(qu)n
Step (6) of the two-dimensional box analysis involves computing all of the
coefficients and constants in the system of equations defining each segment and
layer (equations VI-54 and VI-55) and applying the boundary conditions to produce
equations for the first upstream and last downstream segments in the estuary
(equations VI-56 through VI-60). The coefficients and constants are functions of
the variables previously computed in steps (3) through (5). The resulting
equations are then solved using library routines in programmable hand
calculators, or by programming an appropriate numerical technique such as
Gaussian elimination on either a programmable hand calculator or a computer.
308
-------
Since the analysis requires application of the boundary conditions at the
freshwater head of the estuary and the coastal mouth of the estuary to obtain the
same number of equations as unknowns, the entire estuary must be included in the
first cut analysis. The initial analysis will yield the overall pollutant
distribution throughout the entire estuary. Once this is determined, the
analysis could be repeated to obtain more detail for smaller portions of the
estuary by using the first cut results to estimate the pollutant boundary
conditions at each end of the region of concern, and then rearranging equations
(7) and (8) so the terms involving the concentrations outside the specified
regions are treated as constants and moved to the right hand side of the
equations.
The Pritchard Model theoretically allows external pollutant loading to be
introduced directly into any segment along the estuary. By moving external
loadings from the head to near the mouth of the estuary, the planner can predict
how pollutant levels are affected. However, experience with the model has shown
that when external side loadings are considerably larger than those which enter
at the head of the estuary, model instabilities can arise. When this occurs, the
pollutant profile oscillates from segment to segment, and negative concentrations
can result. It is recommended that the user first run the Pritchard Model by
putting all pollutant loading into the head of the estuary. This situation
appears to be always stable, and, as the following example shows, reasonable
pollutant profiles are predicted.
EXAMPLE VI-10
Pollutant Distribution in a
Stratified Estuary
The Patuxant River in Maryland is a partially stratified estuary, where the
degree of stratification depends on the freshwater flow rate discharged at the
head of the estuary. Table VI-18 shows the salinity distribution within the
estuary under low flow conditions for each segment and layer. The location of
each layer is shown in Figure VI-26. Also shown in the table is the pollutant
distribution by layer and segment for a mass flux of 125 Ibs/day (57 kg/day) of
309
-------
TABLE VI-18
SALINITY AND POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTION IN PATUXENT
ESTUARY UNDER LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
Segment Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
boundary
Salinity
(as Chloride,
mg/1)
Upper Layer Lower Layer
496.
1831.
3771.
6050.
8040.
9310
10010.
10790.
11240.
11830.
12100.
12750.
13500.
524.
1940.
3970.
6280.
8220.
9910.
10660.
11070.
11760.
12120.
12650.
12850.
13500.
Pollutant
Upper Layer
0.193
0.173
0.144
0.100
0.081
0.062
0.051
0.040
0.033
0.025.
0.021
0.011
0.0
Concentration
(mg/1)
Lower Layer
0.192
0.171
0.141
0.108
0.078
0.053
0.042
0.036
0.025
0.020
0.013
0.009
0.0
310
-------
FIGURE VI-26 PATUXENT ESTUARY MODEL SEGMENTATION
311
-------
conservative pollutant input at the head of the estuary.
The pollutant distribution was predicted by solving on a computer the
12-segment, 2-layer system (24 simultaneous equations). The salinity
distribution shown in Table VI-18 was used as input data. As a point of
interest, the same network was solved using the model WASP (courtesy of
Robert Ambrose, ERL, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia), which
is a dynamic two-dimensional estuary model. Instead of using salinity directly,
UASP predicts the salinity distribution based on dispersive and advective
exchange rates. The salinity distribution predicted by WASP is the same as shown
in Table VI-18, which was used as input to Pritchard's Model. After running WASP
to steady-state conditions, the pollutant distribution throughout the estuary was
virtually the same as predicted by Pritchard's Model.
The pollutant distribution in the Patuxant estuary will be solved in detail
using 4 segments instead of 12. The resulting system of 8 simultaneous equations
can be solved on a variety of hand-held calculations. The tabulations below show
salinities at each segment boundary, and the horizontal flow rates in the upper
and lower layers.
Boundary (Vn-l,n
n-l,n mg/l-Cl
0, 1
1, 2
2, 3
3, 4
4, 5
*This
0.0
4960.
9420.
11445.
13500.
is the specified
mg/l-Cl
0.0
5080.
9640.
11860.
13500.
river inflow
«Un-l,n
mVsec
3.3*
116.7
139.5
94.3
156.8
rate, R.
(Q, ) ,
m3/sec
0.0
113.4
136.2
91.0
153.5
The flow rates were calculated from Equations VI-48 and VI-49, while the
salinities were found directly from Table VI-18.
312
-------
The salinities within each layer, the salinity and flow rate between the
interface of each layer, and the exchange coefficients are tabulated below.
Segment
n
1
2
3
4
(Su>n
mg/l-Cl
1830
8040
10790
12100
n
mg/l-Cl
1890
8130
10930
12380
(S])n
mg/l-Cl
1940
8220
11070
12650
(Qv)n
m3/sec
113.
23.
-45.
63.
En
m 3/sec
3260.
3140.
930
280.
The flow rates were found from Equation VI-50, and the exchange coefficients
from Equation VI-51.
Substituting these data into the pollutant mass balance expressions
(Equations VI-54 through VI-59), the following system of equations result:
-6523. 6638. -117. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.~
6411. -6525. 0.0 113. 0. 0. 0. 0.
117. 0.0 -6275. 6297. -139. 0. 0. 0.
0. -113. 6252. -6275. 0.0 136 0. 0.
0. 0. 139. 0.0 -1856. 1811. -94. 0.
0. 0. 0. -136. 1901 -1S56. 0.0 91.
0. 0. 0. 0. 94. 0.0 -561 624.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -91. 499. -561
f(C T
(c,)
(C )'
U 2
i
" •"
-1.32"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
The value -1.32 in the first row of the right-hand side column vector is
twice the loading of pollutant which comes into the upper layer of the "first
segment, as required in Equation VI-56. The units are in gm/sec to be
compatible with the units of the remaining terms in the equations:
so
M = 125 Ibs/day = 0.66 gm/sec
21-1 = 250 Ibs/day =1.32 gm/sec
313
-------
The pollutant distribution which results from solving the eight linear
equations is:
(Cu)i = (0.17)
(C-,)i = (0.17)
(Cu)2 = (0.08)
(Ci)2 = (0.08)
(Cu)3 = (0.04)
(C})3 = (0.04)
(CUK = (0.02)
(c1)4 = (o.oi)
These values are nearly the same as found when 12 segments were used, which
indicates 4 segments are sufficient to accurately predict pollutant distribution
for this problem.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-10
6.5 POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTION FOLLOWING DISCHARGE FROM A MARINE OUTFALL
6.5.1 Introduction
Numerous coastal states have enacted water quality standards which limit the
maximum allowable concentration of pollutants, particularly metals and organic
toxicants, which can be discharged into estuarine and coastal waters. The
standards normally permit that an exempt area, called a mixing zone, be defined
around the outfall where water quality standards are not applicable. For
example, the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (State
Water Resources Control Board, 1978) sets forth the following statement directed
at toxic substance limitations:
"Effluent limitations shall be imposed in a manner prescribed by
the State Board such that the concentrations set forth ... as water
quality objectives, shall not be exceeded in the receiving water upon
314
-------
the completion of initial dilution."
The mixing zone, or zone of initial dilution (ZID), is non-rigorously
defined as the volume of water where the wastewater and ambient saline water mix
during the first few minutes following discharge, when the plume still has
momentum and buoyancy. As the wastewater is discharged, it normally begins to
rise because of its buoyancy and momentum, as illustrated in Figure VI-27.
If the ambient water column is stratified and the water depth is great
enough, the rising plume will not reach the surface of the water, but rather will
stop at the level where the densities of the plume and receiving water become
equal. This level is called the plume's trapping level. (See Figure VI-27.)
Due to residual momentum, the plume might continue to rise beyond the trapping
level, but will tend to fall back after the momentum is completely dissipated.
Once the plume stops rising, the waste field begins to drift away from the ZID
with the ambient currents. At this time, initial dilution is considered
complete. Section 6.5.2, which follows, shows how initial dilution is
calculated, and then Sections 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 illustrate how pollutant
concentrations at the completion of initial dilution can be predicted.
Sections 6.5.5 and 6.5.6 explain methods of predicting pollutant and dissolved
oxygen concentrations, respectively, as the waste field migrates away from the
ZID.
The methods presented in section 6.5.2 through 6.5.6 are applicable to
stratified or non-stratified estuaries, ernbayments, and coastal waters. The
methods assume that reentrainment of previously discharged effluent back into the
ZID is negligible. Reentrainment can occur if the wastewater is discharged into
a confined area where free circulation is impaired or because of tidal reversals
in narrow estuaries.
315
-------
Participates
(which settle out
of drift field)
Effluent leaving
diffuser ports
*. '.« *'•.•'.'„'*-''- o •'-'• '•"•'••a •"."•">'', o'.'- :.''-*'°-'.''"_'.' •' - ".•,;'• • '.'-o '.••-*•.' • •*.'«•'•".•' '••» '••'.'•'.- •'.'• ••-. „., •••.
' . .'' .• "A « • '• .",•.'••-••,'-°- ••' .'• '•'• ;• . •*•-.'-.-• r •• - .'•?.-•()•.•••.•»?;.'.•.'•'•'•.•*•" •'•V'"*"»
FIGURE VI-27 WASTE FIELD GENERATED BY MARINE OUTFALL
316
-------
6.5.2 Prediction of Initial Dilution
6.5.2.1 General
Discharge to bodies of water through submerged diffusers is a common waste
water management technique. A diffuser is typically a pipe with discharge ports
spaced at regular intervals. Such discharges are often buoyant with high exit
velocity relative to the ambient velocity. The resulting waste streams act as
plumes or buoyant jets. The velocity shear between ambient and plume fluids
results in the incorporation of ambient fluid into the plume, a process called
entrapment. Initial dilution results from the entrainment of ambient fluid into
the plume as the plume rises to its trapping level.
The magnitude of initial dilution depends on a number of factors including,
but not limited to, the depth of water, ambient density stratification, discharge
rate, buoyancy, port spacing (i.e. plume merging), and current velocity. These
factors may be referred to collectively as the diffuser flow configuration or
simply the flow configuration. Depending on the flow configuration, the initial
dilution may be less than 10 or greater than 500. As attaining water quality
criteria may often require relatively high initial dilution, the need to be able
to estimate initial dilution for various flow configurations becomes apparent.
Other than actually sampling the water after a facility is in operation,
there are various ways to estimate pollutant concentrations achieved in the
vicinity of a particular diffuser. A scale model faithful to all similarity
criteria could yield the necessary dilution information. Dimensional analysis
and empirical formulae may also be very useful. Alternatively, a numerical model
based on the laws of physics may be developed. This method is chosen to provide
initial dilution estimates here because it is more cost-effective than field
sampling and more accurate than a scale model.
Any numerical model used to provide dilution estimates should faithfully
replicate the relevant plume relationships and should be verified for accuracy.
The plume model MERGE (Frick, 1981c) accounts for the effects of current ambient
density stratification and port spacing on plume behavior. In addition, it has
been extensively verified (Frick, 1981a, 1981b; Tesche et al., 1980;
317
-------
Policastro et aj_._, 1980; Carhart et al_._, 1981).
There are several ways of presenting the initial dilution estimates. MERGE
may be run for specific cases or run for many cases spanning a range of
conditions and presented in nomogram or tabular form. The latter method is the
most compact. The resulting initial dilution tables display values of dilution
achieved at the indicated depths and densimetric Froude numbers. One hundred
tables are presented in Appendix 6 for various combinations of port spacing,
density stratification, and effluent-to-current velocity ratio.
Before describing the tables in more detail and discussing examples, it may
be helpful for some users to read the following, occasionally technical,
discussions of the plume model MERGE (Section 6.5.2.2) and of basic principles of
similarity (Section 6.5.2.3). Others may want to advance directly to
Section 6.5.2.4 describing table usage.
6.5.2.2 The Plume Model JCRGJE
MERGE is the latest in a series of models whose development began in 1973.
Various stages of model development have been recorded (Winiarski and Frick, 1976
and 1978; Frick, 1981c). In the realm of plume modeling, MERGE belongs to the
Lagrangian minority since more models are Eulerian. The model can be
demonstrated to be basically equivalent to its Eulerian counterparts (Frick and
Winiarski, 1975; Frick, 1981c). Time is the independent variable which is
incremented in every program iteration based on the rate of entrainment.
To simplify the problem, many assumptions and approximations are made in
plume modeling. In MERGE, steady-state is assumed and the plume is assumed to
have a round cross section everywhere.
The MERGE user may input arbitrary current and ambient density profiles.
The model includes a compressible equation of continuity so that the predictions
are also valid for highly buoyant plumes. It accounts for merging of adjacent
plumes but only when the ambient current dilution is normal to the diffuser pipe.
In many cases, this is not a significant restriction as many diffusers are
oriented to be normal to the prevailing current direction.
318
-------
The model contains an option for using either constant or variable
coefficients of bulk expansion in the equation of state. The water densities in
Table VI-19 are generated using the model's density subroutine based on actual
temperatures and salinities (i.e. effectively using variable coefficients). If
temperature and salinity data are unavailable then the model can be run based on
density data alone. The latter method is satisfactory for relatively high
temperatures and salinities because the equation of state is relatively linear
with these variables in that range. However, for low densities and temperatures
gross inaccuracies may result. Unfortunately, the initial dilution tables are
based on the latter method. A more accurate representation would greatly
increase the number of tables necessary to cover all the cases. Users with
applications involving cold, low salinity water are urged to run the more
accurate form of the model.
The success of MERGE in predicting plume behavior is primarily attributable
to two unique model features. The first of these relates to the expression of
forced entrainment. Entrainment may be attributed to the velocity shear present
even in the absence of currents, i.e. aspiration, and to current-induced
entrainment, sometimes called forced entrainment.
The forced entrainment algorithm in MERGE is based on the assumption that
all fluid flowing through the upstream projected area of the plume is entrained.
This hypothesis is based on well-established principles and observations (Rawn et
a!., 1960; Jirka and Harlman 1973). Paradoxically, the hypothesis has never
been implemented in numerical models before. The projected area normally
contains linear and quadratic terms in plume diameter, whereas in conventional
modeling, forced entrainment is generally expressed as a linear function of
diameter. It is necessary to include additional sources of entrainment to make
up the difference when so expressed.
The second feature is the use of a constant aspiration coefficient. This
coefficient is often considered to be variable (e.g. Fan, 1967). The need for a
variable coefficient is attributable to the fact that many models predict
centerline plume values. For plumes discharged vertically upward into density
stratified ambient water, such models are expected to predict the maximum
penetration of the plume. To achieve agreement requires a relatively small
aspiration coefficient. However, when the same models are used to predict the
319
-------
Table VI-19a
WATER DENSITIES (EXPRESSED AS SIGMA-T)* CALCULATED USING THE
DENSITY SUBROUTINE FOUND IN MERGE
TEMPERATURE(°C)
24 5 8 10 12 14
u
5
10
15
-0.993
.721
1.535
2.31.8
3.159
3.978
9.590
6.399
7.207
8. 015
8.822
9.628
12.01.5
-0.031.
.776
1.586
2.395
3.203
d.Olfl
5.623
6.1.28
7.233
8.037
8.81.0
9.61.3
10.1.1.6
11. 2*8
12.01.9
.007
.Sid
1.628
2.1.25
3.230
d.G33
d. 836
5.639
6.1.1.1
7.21.2
8.0d2
8.8ii2
9.61.2
lO.ddl
11.21.0
12.038
.331
.835
1.637
2.d39
3.21.0
- d.OVO
d.81.0
5.639
6.dI7
7.235
8.032
8.829
9.625
10.1.21
11.217
12.012
.039
.839
1.638
2.1.37
3.23d
d.031
d.828
5.623
6.1.18
7.213
8. 007
8.821
9.59d
10.387
11.179
11.971
.030
.827
1.623
3.213
d.007
d.SOQ
5.593
6.385
7.176
7.967
. 8.758
9.5d8
10.338
11.127
11.916
. BC6
.BOO
1.593
2.385
3.177
3. 968
d.758
5.5d8
6.337
7.125
7.913
8. 7 Gl
9. d88
10.275
11. 062
11. 8d8
-0.032
.758
1 .5d8
2.338
3.126
3.911.
d.701
5.d88
6.271.
7.060
7.8«.5
8.630
9.dl5
10.199
10.983
11 .766
-C.086
.702
1.1,89
2.276
3.061
3.81.7
d.631
S.dl5
6.199
6.982
7.761.
8.51.6
9.328
10.109
10.890
11.671
-0.15d
.632
1.1.16
2.200
2.983
3. 765
d.5d7
5.329
5.109
6. 890
7.670
8.1,1.9
9.228
10.007
10.786
11 .56<«
-8.235
,5dS
1.329
2.111
2.891
- 3.671
1..I.50
5.229
6.007
6.785
7.563
8.31.0
9.116
9.893
10.669
11.1.1.5
-0.330
. d50
1.230
2. ooa
2.786
- 3.56d
d. 3dl
5.117
5.893
6. 66S
7. dd3
8.218
8.992
9.766
10.5dO
11.313
-0.d3B
1.117
1.893
2.669
— S.ddd
d.218
d.992
5.766
6.539
7.S12
- 8.081.
8.856
9.628
10.399
11.170
-0.558
.217
.992
1.766
2.539
3.312
d.856
5.627
6.398
7.168
7.939
8.708
9.d78
10.21.7
11.016
-0.691
.•82
. 85d
1.626
2.397
-s.iea
3.938
d.7CS
6.2d5
7.91*
- 7.782
6.?d9
9.317
l«.3Sd
10. 851
f\j 0 12.850 12.851 12.836 12.807 12.763 12.705 12.63d 12.51.9 12.d52 12.3d2 12.220 12.087 11.91.1 11.785 11.618
O 5 13.65d 13.652 13.63d 13.6D2 13.555 13.d9d 13.d20 13.332 13.232 13.120 12.996 12.860 12.712 12.55d I2.38d
<3^- Id.d59 id.d53 Id.1.32 Id.196 Id.3d6 l'd.2B2 Id.205 Id.115 Id.013 13.898 13.771 13.633 13.1.83 13.322 13.151
-— on IS.263 I5.25d 15.229 15.190 15.137 15.071 Id. 991 Id.898 Id.793 Id.676 Id.5d7 Id.d06 ld.25d Id.091 13.917
20 16.067 16.05d 16.027 15.985 15.929 15.85° 15.777 15.681 15.573 15.d53 15.322 15.179 15.025 Id.860 ld.68d
£H 16.870 16.855 io.82d 16.779 16.720 16.6d7 16.562 16.d6d 16.35d 16.231 16.097 15.952 15,796 15.628 15.d51
i—i 17.67d 17.655 17.621 17.573 17.511 17.1.36 17.3d7 17.2d7 17.13d 17.009 16.873 16.725 16.566 16.397 16.217
Z 18.d78 18.1,55 I8.dl8 18.367 18.302 18.22d 18.133 18.030 17.91d 17.787 .17.6d8 17.d98 17.337 17.166 16.98d
>~\ 19.281 19.255 19.215 19.161 19.093 19.012 18.919 18.813 19.69', 18.565 18.d2d 18.271 16.108 17.935 17.751
-------
Table VI-l9b
WATER DENSITIES (EXPRESSED AS SIGMA-T)" CALCULATED USING THE
DENSITY SUBROUTINE FOUND IN MERGE
TEMPERATURE (°C)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0
5
10
^ 15
o
c^
r 2°
-0.836
-0.065
.7C5
2.21,1.
3.012
3.780
5.315
6. 082
6.81.8
8.379
9.11.5
9.910
10.675
11. «.39
12.201.
12.969
iiiiii.
-0.993
-0.221.
.51.1.
1.312
2.079
2.e<.5
3.611
«,. 377
5. 11.2
5.9Q7
6.671
7.*i35
8.198
3.962
9.725
13. 1.48
11.251
12.013
12.776
1 3.539
11,. 331
-1. 161
-0.391.
.372
1. 133
1.9C3
2.667
3.1.31
<». 195
<>.958
5. 721
6,1.33
7.21.5
8. 007
8. 768
9.530
10.291
11.052
11.813
12.573
13.331,
-1. Ji.1
-0.576
.189
.952
1.715
2.1.78
3.21.0
i.. 002
I..763
5.521,
6.285
7.QI.5
7.805
8.565
9.321.
10. 083
10. 81.3
11.602
12. 361
13. 120
13. 879
-1.532
-0.763
-0.836
.756
1.518
2.279
3.039
3.799
<..S58
5.317
6.076
6.335
7.5=3
8.351
9.108
9.866
10.623
11. 381
12. 138
12.395
13.653
-1.733
-3. 971
-0.211
.550
1.309
2. 063
2.8Z7
3.585
I..31.3
5.100
5.857
6.611,
7.371
8.127
8.883
9.639
10.395
11.150
11.906
12.652
I3.m7
-1.91,5
-1.185
-0.1.26
.333
1.091
1.81.8
2.605
3.362
«.. 118
<>. 873
5.629
6.381,
7.139
7.893
8.61,8
9.1, 32
10. 156
10.910
11. 661,
1 Z . •» 1 8
13. 173
-2.167
-1.1.09
-0.651
.106
.862
1.613
2.373
3.128
3.882
I.. 636
5.390
6.11,1,
6.397
7.650
8 .1.03
9.15t
9.908
10 .661
12.166
12.919
-2.399
-1.6I.Z
-0. 887
-0.131
.623
1.377
2.131
2.381.
3.637
•,.390
5.11,2
5.891.
6.61.6
7.397
8.1<>9
8.900
9.651
10.1.02
11.153
11.901.
12.655
-2.61.1
-1.386
-1.132
-0.378
.375
1.127
1.830
2.631
3.383
1..8S5
5.635
6.385
7.135
7.885
3.635
9.385
10.131.
10. 381.
11.631.
12.381,
-2.893
-2.139
-1.387
-0.635
.117
.868
1.619
2.369
3.119
3.868
',.618
5.367
6.116
6.861,
7.613
8.361
9.109
9.453
10.606
11.351.
12.133
-3. 151.
-2.1.02
-1.651
-C.901
-0.150
.599
1.31.8
2.397
2.81.6
3.591.
<.. 31.2
5.089
5.837
6.581.
7. 331
8.078
8.825
9.572
10.319
11.066
11. 913
-3.1.25
-2.671,
-1.925
-1 .176
-fl.i.27
.321
1.069
1.816
Z.563
3,310
I.. OS 7
<«.S03
5.51.9
6.295
7.01,1
7.786
8.512
9.278
10.023
10.769
11.515
-3. 731,
-2.956
-2.208
-1.1.60
-0. 713
.031.
.780
1.526
2.272
3.017
3.763
W.507
5.252
5.997
6. 71,1
7.1,36
3.230
8.975
9.719
10.1,61.
11.203
-3.993
-3.2«,6
-1.753
-1.007
-0.262
.%83
1.228
1.972
2.716
3.S60
5.690
6.1,33
7.176
7.920
8.663
9.* 86
10.893
16.027 15.827 15.617 15,397 15=168 H..929 n,.6m 11..I.3I. 1U.158 13.881, 13.600 13.308 13.007 12.698 12.381
16.792 16.590 IS.378 IS.155 15.925 15.685 15.W36 15.177 11..910 H. bji» l«,.3i.9 K..056 13.75U 13.1.1.3 13.125
o c J---557 17.353 17.139 16.91& 16.683 16.t.iil 1&.19Q 15.931 15.662 15.381. IS.098 lt.,803 H. 500 !»*. 189 13.869
18.322 18.115 17.901 17.576 17.1.1.1 17.19a 16. 91.516.681. 16.1.11. 16.135 1S.8I.8 15.552 15.21.7 1<>.935 llt.6t»
19.087 18.880 18.662 18.1,36 18.200 17.955 17,701 17.1.38 17.166 16.886 16.597 ~16.30 0 15.995 15.681 15.359
19.853 19.61,3 19.1.2<. 19.196 18.958 16.712 18.H56 18.192 17.919 17.637 17. 3<,7 17.0<,9 16.71.Z 16. <,28 16.185
20.619 20.1,08 20.187 19.957 19.717 19.1.69 19.Z12 1S.9<,& 18.672 18.339 13.098 17.798 17.«.90 17.175 16.851
Qn 21.385 21.172 20.91.9 20.718 20.1.77 20.227 19.96S 19.701 19.1.25 19.11.1 1S.B1.9 18.51.8 18.239 17.9Z2 17.597
^U 2_2_._152 21.937 21.713 21.U79 21.236 20.985 20.725 20.1.56 20.179 19.891. 19.600 19.298 18.988 18.670 18.3«»*
22.919 22.702 22.1.76 22.21,1 21.997 21.71.1. 21.I.8Z 21.212 20.931. 20.61.7 20.352 20.01,9 19.738 19.1,19 19.091
23.687 23.1,68 23.2<,0 23.003 22.757 22.503 22.?«,0 21.968 21.689 21.WJ1 21.10«> 20.800 20.".88 20.168 19.8«tO
2I..1.55 Z1..235 2I..OC5 Z3.766 23.519 23.263 22.998 22.725 22. <»«* 22.155 21.857 21.552 21.239 20.917 20.588
on 1^-221. 25.001 ?<.. 770 2U.530 2»,.2ei 2I..023 23.75r 23.1.83 23.200 22.910 22.611 22.3QI. 21.990 21.668 21.338
fes-993 25.769 25.536 25.291. 25.QI.3 21..78I. 21..51& 2i,.2i>l 23~.957 23.665 23.365 23.058 22.71,2 22.S19 2270^8
26.763 26.537 26.302 26.058 25.806 25.51.5 25.277 21..999 24.711. 2V.1.21 2^.120 23.811 23.1.95 23.171 22.839
27.53U 27.306 27.069 26.821. 26.570 26.308 26.037 25.759 25.1,72 25.178 21..876 21..566 2 28.866 28.599 ?TT32i. 28.31.2 27.751 27.1.53 27. mB 26.835 26.511, 26.186 25785T
•*• ~ ~~ '
Sigma-t (at) is defined as: (density-1) x 103. For example,
for seawater with a density of 1.02500 g/cm3, at = 25.
-------
Table VI-19c
WATER DENSITIES (EXPRESSED AS SIGMA-T)* CALCULATED USING THE
DENSITY SUBROUTINE FOUND IN MERGE
TEMPERATURE (°C)
5 I
10
.177 -0.138 -fl.ii61--0.7g3 -1.131. -l._ 10.569 10.237 9.897 9.5U9 9.192 8.827 8. yi5 8.07^ 7.685 7.288 6.881. 6.1.71 6.050 5.622 5.188
[_ 11.312 10.979 10.638 10.288 9.931 9.56S 9,191 8.809 8. ".20 8.022 7.617 7.203 6.782 6.353 5.915
I—" 12.055 11.721 11.378 11.028 10.669 13.303 9.92s 9.5C.& 9.155 8.757 8.350 7.936 7.51«i 7.081. 6.6«.6
^ 12.798 12.".63 12.119 11.768 H.i.08 11.0«.l 10.666 10.282 9.891 9. ".91 9.06U 8.669 8.2".6 7.816 7.377
—I or 13.5M 13.205 12.861 12.508 12.m8 ll.?80 11.1.03 ILQIS 10.627 10.227 9.819 9.J.33 8.980 8.51.8 8.109
eC C. 5 1<«.285 13.9<.8 13.602 13.21.9 12.888 12.519 12.11.2 11.757 11.361. 1J.953 10.551. 1C.138 9.71«t 9.282 B.8'>2
00 15.029 1<».691 li,.3<.5 13.990 13.628 13.258 12.881 12.<»9S 12.101 11.700 11.291 10.871. 10.".1.9 10.016 9.576
15.773 15.1.3". 15.087 I",.732 1<..3&9 13.999 13.620 13.233 12.839 12.1.37 12.027 11.610 11.181. 10.751 10.310
16.518 16.178 15.830 15.".75 15.111 li.,739 1I..3&Q 13.973 13.578 13.175 12.765 12.3<»7 11.921 ll."»87 11.0 1&.9Z3 16.57^ 16.217 15.853 iS.i.81 15.101 j!.. 713 Id.317 13.911* 13.503 13.08fe 12.658 12.22". 11. 762
30 18.010 17.668 17.318 16.981 16.596 16.223 15.BJ.2 15.'i.5it 15.057 l<..65t» 1<».2^2 13.823 13.396 12.962 12.520
18.757 18.1.11. 18.063 17.7&5 17.339 16.965 le.Seu 16.195 15.798 15.39". 1J..9S2 ln.563 lis.136 13.701 13.258
19.50". 19.160 18.809 18.1.50 18. 0 «3 17.709 17.32? 16.937 16.51.0 16.135 15.723 15.303 11..S76 !•.. <.<.! 13.9«8
20.252 19.907 19.555 19.195 18.826 18.1.53 1S.S70 17.680 17.283 16.878 16.1.&5 16.0^.5 15.617 15,182 1"..739
0 c 21.300 23.655 20.332 19.91.1 19.573 19.19"i 18.t»15 I'.'.Z'. 18.026 17.621 17.208 16.767 16.359 16.921; 15.1.81
JD M-71.9 21.1.03 21.05D 20.688 20.320 19.9".% 19.S6Q 19.169 <8.771 18.366 IT.952 17.531 17.103 16.667 16,22'.
22.1,99 22.153 21.798 2l.«.3& 21.067 20.69Q 20.3C6 19.915 '9.516 19.110T8.696 18.276 17.8".7 17.1,12 16.969
23.250 22.903 22.S<.7 22.185 21.315 21.1.38 21.05s. 20.662 20.263 19.856 ig.'.'.Z 19.H21 18.593 18.157 17.71V
2«toOQ2 23.653 23.298 22.935 22.561. 22.187 21.802 21.1.09 21.010 20.603 20.190 19.766 19.31.0 1S.90<> 18.W61
/in ?«>-754 2U.1.C5 21..0-.9 23.615 23.3H. 22.97 6_2r «j«i 1 22.158 21.759 21.352 20.938 7B.S17 20.088 19.653 19.210
^U ?_5.5C8 2S.358 Z».80i Ji..^T7 ju.oss Z3.6"97 23.$01 2^..aa& 21.Sit, 2.Z.101 L\. 6i7 il. Z&» 25-836 ? ^ 0 ? J 3 .,9 6 C
*
Sigma-t (at) is defined as: (density-1) x 103. For example,
for seawater with a density of 1.02500 g/cm3, at = 25.
-------
trajectories of horizontally discharged buoyant plumes, a larger coefficient is
required. Consequently the aspiration coefficient must be variable.
Although relatively advanced, MERGE does have its limitations. Some of
these are a result of the assumptions already discussed. For example, the plumes
are assumed to be round, whereas some evidence indicates substantial deviation
from this idealization (Abramovich, 1963). Other important limitations are
listed below.
1. Diffuser parallel current: The model does not predict plume
dilution for cases of current flowing parallel to the diffuser
pipe. This is a severe limitation especially in some ocean
applications because this case may be expected to result in the
lowest initial dilutions.
2. Surface entrainment interference: The model does not properly
account for interfacial boundary conditions. Dilutions near the
surface or bottom may be overestimated because entrainment will be
assumed where water is unavailable for entrainment.
3. Horizontal homogeneity: The model assumes homogeneous horizontal
current although bottom topography, internal waves, or other
factors may cause considerable spatial flow variations. This is in
addition to temporal variations which are excluded by virture of
assumed steady-state.
4. Uniform discharge: It is assumed that an infinitely long diffuser
exists for which there is no port-to-port variation in effluent
characteristics.
323
-------
6.5.2.3
The success of a set of tables in describing an infinite number of possible
diffuser, effluent, and ambient flow configurations depends on the principles of
similarity. Basically, similarity theory states that model and prototype will
display equivalent behavior if a limited number of similarity conditions or
parameters are preserved. Equivalent behavior means that relative to appropriate
measures the behavior will be equal. For example, if all similarity parameters
are preserved, then the height of rise predicted by the model and observed in the
prototype will be equal when measured in terms of the initial diameters of the
corresponding plumes.
The number of similarity conditions is determined by the difference between
the number of independent variables and primary variables involved in the problem
(Streeter, 1961). Primary variables must include mass, time, and distance. The
present problem involves eleven independent variables implying eight similarity
conditions. The independent variables, corresponding symbols, units, similarity
parameters, and their names are listed in Table VI-20. As the dilution tables
are based on a linear equation of state, the effluent and ambient densities p
and p, , respectively, replace four independent variables: the effluent and
a
ambient salinities and temperatures. This effectively reduces the number of
similarity conditions by two to six.
It is advantageous to further reduce the number of similarity conditions to
minimize the number of tables necessary to represent the flow conf iguratons of
interest. From experimental observations, it is found that plume behavior is
basically invariant for large Reynolds numbers reducing the number of similarity
conditions to five. Finally, the ratio Pe/Pa and the stratification parameter
can be combined in a composite stratification parameter, SP, where,
SP = (pa-pe)/(d0dpa/dz)
This is a satisfactory similarity parameter providing that differences in
model and prototype densities are not too great. The assumption is valid for
discharge of municipal waste water into estuarine or coastal waters.
Figures VI-28 and VI -29 demonstrate the effectiveness of this parameter. The
same similarity conditions are shared for both cases. The two figures show rise
324
-------
Table VI-20
PLUME VARIABLES, UNITS, AND SIMILARITY CONDITIONS
Variable
Symbol
Units
Dimension!ess Sim. Farm
Name
OJ
r\j
en
Effluent density
Effluent velocity
Effective diameter
Ambient density
Reduced gravity
Density stratification
Current velocity
Kinematic viscosity
Port spacing
Pe
v
do
Pa
9'
dpa/dz
v
Si
ML
LT
L
ML
LT"
-3
-1
-3
ML"
LT
-i
none—primary variable
none—primary variable
none—primary variable
Pe/Pa
Pe/(d0dpa/dz)
ua/v
d0/v
none
none
none
density ratio
densimetric Froude
number: Fr
stratification parm.
current to effluent
velocity ratio: k
Reynolds number: Re
Port spacing parm.:
PS
Notes: 1. g1 = ((pa-pe)/pe)g where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.807 msec ")•
2. In the present application a composite stratification parameter, SP, is used in
lieu of the density ratio and the stratification parameter. SP = (pa-pe)/(d0dpa/dz)
3. The diameter, d is taken to be the vena contracta diameter.
-------
CASE NUHbER 1
• ••*» TEST OF COMPOSITE STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
INPUT DATA PSEUDO-ECHO
U
7.0200
0.0000
A
0.1160
T
0.0000
s
0.0000
B SPC
0.0500 100.0000
ALT PEN
0.0000
NDP ITFR IFRQ NAA NAB MAC IDENSM
2 1000 25 0 0 0 1
(IF IDENSrfrl THEN DENSITY VERSION USED—USE 2ND SIGMAT COL)
AMBIENT STRATIFICATION (AND CALCULATED SIGMAT)
OJ
ro
DEPTH(M) TEKP(C) SAL(OXOO)
0.000 0.000 0.000
. 10.000 0.000 0.000
EFFLUX TO CURRENT RATIO(K) . .
DFN5IHETR1C FROIIOE "0. ....
VOLUME FLUX (H»* 3/S) . .....
DEPTH AVE STRATIFICATION PARK.
PORT
PORT
CUR(MSS) SIGMAT
0.000 -0.093
0.000 -0.093
99999.0
43.1
SIGHAT(DEN
0.000
27.000
VER)
0.055
3703.
10.
7
0
7.02
0.000
O.OSOO
MODEL OUTPUT AFTER -J-
J
1
25
SO
75
100
125
IbO
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
J75
400
425
450
HOR CUH(X)
0.001
0.040
O.OP7
O.I4J
0.210
0.200
0.395
0.497
0.632
0.792
0.982
1 .208
1.477
1.797
2.177
2.628
3.162
3.792
4.534
NOMINAL TRAPPING
469
475
500
519
5.164
5.408
6.457
7.4(17
DEPTH(Z)
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
9.999
9.999
9.998
9.996
9.993
9.989
9.9H1
9.967
9.944
9.907
9.845
9.747
9.601
LEVEL REACHED
9.454
9.403
9.196
?.m
D1AMETFR
0.100
0.110
0.140
0.167
' 0.198
0.235
0.279
0.3J2
0.395
0.469
0.55P
0.6t.3
0.7b8
0.936
1.113
1.321
1 .56R
1.659
2.202
2.508
2.615
3.130
3.592
VOL OIL
.007
.1«4
.403
.664
.973
2.342
2.7RO
3.301
J.97J
4.657
5.534
6.576
7.815
9.2S9
11.042
13.127
15.606
18.555
22.064
25.169
26.238
31.204
35.Fff(.
HOR VEL(U)
6.972
5.903
4.964
4.174
3.510
2.952
2.482
2.087
1 .755
1.476
1.241
1 .044
0.878
0.730
0.620
0.522
0.439
0.369
0.310
0.272
0.261
0.219
0.192
ITERATIONS (MKS UNITS)
VF.R VEL(V)
0.000
0.001
0,003
0.004
0,006
0.008
0.010
0.012
. 0.015
0.018
0.021
0.026
0.031
0.037
0.043
0.051
0.058
0.065
0.067
0.062
0.059
0.033
-O.Oof
TOTAL VEL
6.972
5.903
4.964
4.174
3.510
2.952
2.482
2.08 '
1.755
1.476
1.241
1 .044
0.876
0.73V
0.622
0.524
0.443
0.375
0.317
0.279
0,268
0.222
0.192
DEN 01FF
26.013
22.704
19.002
16.0S4
13.500
U.3S1
0.545
8.025
6.746
5. 66«
4.760
3.991
3.336
2.772
2.276
1.P22
1 .3«2
0.9?3
0.417
-O.OP1
-0.135
-0.627
-0.740
TIME
0.000
0.006
0.015
0.027
0.045
0.070
0.105
0.155
0.226
0.326
0.468
0.668
0.951
1.352
1 .917
2.715
3.839
5.416
7.b24
9.877
10.720
J5.U7
I9.7k9
CURRENT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.0«0
0.000
O.ono
o.ooo
o.ono
O.oon
O.OOfl
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ono
o.ooo
0.0<>0
o.ooo
FIGURE VI-28 EXAMPLE OUTPUT OF MERGE - CASE 1
-------
CASt NUMBER 2
*««*» TEST Of COMPOSITE STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
INPUT DATA PSEUDO-ECHO
II
2.J400
V
0.0000
0.1160
T
0.0000
0.0000
n SPC
0,0500 100.0000
ALT DEN
0,0000
NDP 1TCR IFRQ NAA NAB NAC IDENSW
2 1000 25 0 0 0 t
(IF IDENSHit THEN DENSITY VERSION USED—USE 2ND SIGMAT COL)
AMBIENT STRATIFICATION (AND CALCULATED SIGMAT)
CO
DEPTHt") TEMPIC) SAt(0/00)
0.000 0.000 0.000
10.000 0.000 0.000
EFFLUX TO CUHRFNT RA1IO(IO . .
DEPTH AVE
DEPTH(M)
DISCHARGE
STRATIFICATION PARM.
PORT HADIUS(H) .
PORT SPACINC(N)
CURCM/5)
0.000
0.000
, 99999.0
• 43.1
SIGMAT
-0.093
-0.093
SIGMATCDEN VER)
0.000
3.000
0.018
J3333.3
i 10.0
2.34
, 0.000
0.0500
100.00
NODtL OUTPUT AFTER -J-
J HOR
1
25
50
75
100
175
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
COR(X)
0.001
0.041
0,0«9
0.146
0.214
0.295
0.392
0.506
0.643
0.905
0,996
1.227
1.500
1.624
2.209
2.666
3.206
3.643
4.592
NOMINAL TRAPPING
469
475
500
517
5.213
5.476
6.537
7.J90
DEPTH(Z)
10.000
10.000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10.000
9,999
9,999
9.999
9.996
9.993
9.98«
9.980
9.966
9.942
9.902
9.939
9.736
9.595
LEVEL REACHED
9.443
9.392
9.177
s. in
DIAMETER
0.100
0.118
0.141
0,167
0.199
0.237
0.292
0.335
0.398
0.473
0.563
0.669
0.796
0.946
1.124
1.336
1.565
1.B79
2.22S
2.518
2.644
3.167
3.583
VOL OIL
1.007
1.169
1.413
1.680
1.997
2.374
2.873
3.356
3.991
4.746
5.643
6.710
7.979
9.49R
11.203
13.417
15.955
18.973
22.563
2S.561
26.R32
31.909
35-.960
HOR VEL(U)
2.324
1.968
1,655
1.391
1.170
0.964
0.927
0.696
0.585
0,492
0.414
0.34R
0.2^.'
0.246
0.207
0.174
0.146
0.123
0.103
0.091
0.087
0.07J
n.Ob*
ITERATIONS (HKS UNITS)
VER VEL(V)
0,000
o.ono
0,001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.017
0,020
0.022
0.023
0.021
0.020
0.010
O.OOff
TOTAL VEL
2.324
1.96b
1,655
1 .391
1.170
0.984
0.827
0.696
0.585
0.492
0.414
0.34H
0.293
0.246
0.207
0.175
0.148
U.125
0.106
0.094
0.089
0.074
0.06!>
DEN DIFF
2.979
2.573
2.121
1.7g4
1 .500
1 .761
1 .061
0.«92
0.749
0.630
0.529
0.443
0.370
0.10R
0.252
0.201
0.152
0.100
0.04)
-0.002
-0.019
•0.073
-0,0*3
TIME
0.001
0.019
0.046
0,084
0.138
0.214
0.322
0.474
0.6S9
0.994
1.425
2.034
2.895
4.112
5.HJO
8.254
1 1 .666
16.450
23.140
29.563
32.525
45.931
58.379
CURRENT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0,000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
n.ooo
0,000
0.000
n.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.o°o
o.ooo
FIGURE VI-29 EXAMPLE OUTPUT OF MERGE - CASE 2
-------
and dilution to be within about a percent of each other even though the
stratification and initial buoyancies are much different. With only four
similarity conditions to be satisfied, the problem can be represented by
considerably fewer model runs than if six similarity conditions were
required.
6.5.2.4 Table Usage
To use the dilution tables to estimate dilutions, it is necessary to
calculate the appropriate similarity parameters and know the depth of the
outfall. Calculation of the four similarity parameters Fr, SP, k, and PS,
given in Table VI-20 requires knowledge of all the variables except v. The
dilution tables are shown in Appendix G.
The depth used in the dilution tables is expressed in terms of the
diameter of the ports; that is, the vena contracta diameter. For
bell-mouthed ports, this diameter is approximately equal to the physical
diameter of the port. Thus, if the actual depth of water is 10 m and the
port diameter is 10 cm, then the depth of water is 100-port diameters.
The dilution tables are numbered from 1 through 100 and are grouped by
port spacing as listed below:
Tables Port Spacing (PS) (Diameters)
1-20 2
21-40 5
41-60 10
61-80 25
81-100 1000 (effluent from each port
acts as a single plume)
Each group of 20 is further subdivided by current velocity to effluent
velocity ratio (k), i.e.,
328
-------
Current. Velocity to Effluent
Tables Velocity Ratio (k)
1-5 0.1
6-10 0.05
11-15 0.02
16-20 0.00 (no current)
Each subgroup of five tables is comprised of tables of varying composite
density stratification (SP):
Tables Composite Stratification Parameter (SP)
1 200 (high stratification)
2 500
3 2000
4 10000
5 infinity (no stratification)
Finally, each table includes densimetric Froude number, Fr = 1, 3, 10, 30,
100, and 1000 to represent cases ranging from highly buoyant plumes to
almost pure jets. The dilutions are tabulated with plume rise. The
following examples demonstrate how the tables may be applied.
EXAMPLE VI-11
Calculation of Initial Dilution
ExampleA. This example demonstrates many of the basic features of the
dilution tables and their usage. It also includes a method for estimating
the plume diameter indirectly using information derived from the tables.
The method is used in cases of unmerged or slightly merged plumes and is
necessary to better estimate plume dilution when the plume is shown to
interact with the water surface.
329
-------
Given that waste water is discharged horizontally at a depth of 66 m from a
simple pipe opening and that:
u = the current velocity = 0.15 m/s
a
v = the effluent velocity = 1.5 m/s
Pe = the effluent density = 1000 kg/m3
p = the ambient density at discharge depth = 1015 kg/m3
a
L = the port spacing = 3.4 m
d - the port discharge vena contracta diameter = 1.7 m, and
dpa/dz = the ambient density stratification = 0.0441 kg/m4.
The four similarity parameters necessary to use the tables are:
Fr = the densimetric Froude number = 3.0
k = the current to effluent velocity ratio = 0.1
SP = the composite stratification parameter = 200, and
PS = the port spacing parameter = infinity.
The infinite port spacing indicates that the dilutions will be found in the
last 20 tables of the dilution tables in Appendix G, i.e. Tables 81-100. These
tables are appropriate because merging does not occur with PS = infinite. The
current to effluent velocity ratio of 0.1 indicates that the appropriate
dilutions are among the first five of these 20 tables. The stratification
parameter 200 identifies the first of these five tables as the correct reference
location. Finally, the densimetric Froude number of 3.0 isolates the second
column as the one containing the information of interest.
330
-------
The column of dilutions contains a wealth of information about the plume
whose overall behavior is described in Figure VI-30. After rising one diameter
(1.7 m), the average plume dilution (expressed in terms of volume dilution) is
2.8. In other words, a given amount of plume volume has been diluted with 1.8
times as much ambient fluid. After rising 2 diameters (3.4 m), the average
dilution is 3.7, and so on. At 15 diameters rise, the dilution is 21.4. The
next entry follows in a line headed by "T", indicating that the initial trapping
level has been reached. This means that the plume and ambient densities are
equal at this level and momentary equilibrium has been attained. The "trapping"
level dilution is 26.2 and the corresponding plume rise, set off in parentheses
to the right of the dilution, is 17.0 diameters. The parentheses are a mnemonic
for indicating trapping while values set off in square brackets are merging level
plume rises.
When a plume intercepts the water surface, it is deprived of some of its
entraining surface and consequently the dilution is less than that indicated in
the tables. For well-diluted, unmerged or slightly merged plumes, with k not
equal to zero, the plume diameter, d, may be estimated:
d = d0/D/T (VI-61)
In dimensionless units, or diameters:
d/d - \/D/k (VI-62)
In the present case, the diameter at maximum rise calculated in this way is 25.2
diameters (42.8m). Thus the top of the plume is 34.8 diameters (22.2 + 12.6)
above the level of the outfall, i.e. 12.6 diameters above the plume centerline,
and 5.2 diameters below the surface. Therefore, surface interaction does not
occur.
For the sake of comparison, the plume diameter calculated by the program at
maximum rise is 23.5 diameters which compares favorably with the simplified
estimate made above.
331
-------
co
CO
no
';• .».•; -.'; -.": • -.o>^d if f u ser
'. '•". T.'°..•'.-- •«,.;.';f«>-»>^
FIGURE VI-30 SCHEMATIC OF PLUME BEHAVIOR PREDICTED BY MERGE IN THE PRESENT USAGE
-------
,
a
Example B. Suppose that all the conditions given in Example A apply here
except that the depth of water is only 29.7 diameters (50.5 m). Table 81 is
again used to provide dilution estimates; however, surface interaction does
occur. A conservative estimate of initial dilution is obtained by assuming that
entrainment stops as soon as the top boundary of the plume intersects the
surface. In reality, some additional ambient water could be expected to enter-
through the sides of the plume.
When the centerline depth of the plume is 20 diameters, its dilution is 37.3
and its approximate diameter is 19.4 diameters (33 m). Consequently, the top
boundary of the plume is 29.7 diameters above the level of the outfall and is
equal to the depth of water. Thus the dilution of 37.3 provides a conservative
estimate of initial dilution in this case.
Example C. Suppose the following data apply:
- 0.15 m/s
v =1.5 m/s
pe = 1000 kg/in
pa - 1015 kg/m
S-j = 0.34 m
dQ - 0.17 m, and
dpa/dz - 0.0441 kg/m".
Then, Fr = 9.5, k = 0.1, SP - 2000, and PS = 2, and Table 3 in Appendix G is the
appropriate source of dilution information. As the Froude number is almost equal
to 10, column 3 information can be used without modification although
interpolation may be appropriate in some applications. The plumes merge almost
immediately at a dilution of 2.1. The initial trapping level is encountered
after the plume rises 89.4 diameters (15.2 m). The maximum dilution is 76.2
after rising 125 diameters (21.3 ).
333
-------
For closely spaced plumes, the diameter may be estimated from the
relationship:
d/do = (irD) (4 k PS) (VI-63)
The maximum diameter estimated in this way is 299 diameters (50.9 m). In
contrast, the program gives a value of 268 diameters (45.5 m). No surface
intraction occurs in deep water. In very shallow water, a conservative estimate
of dilution may be made by dividing the total flow across the length of the
diffuser by the flow through the diffuser. It is conservative because no
aspiration entrainment is included in the estimate.
Table 3 contains a blank entry in the second column of the 90-diameter rise
line. The previous entry in the column indicates trapping. This means that
trapping and the 90-diameter rise level occurred in the same iteration.
Therefore, the dilution of 41.3 is the appropriate value for this blank.
Example D. The methods given in Examples A and C for estimating the plume
diameter are not accurate when intermediate degrees of merging exist. If surface
interaction is important, it may be necessary to run the model to obtain accurate
plume diameter predictions.
Example E. Sometimes outfalls or diffusers are located in water only a few
port diameters deep and, as a result, initial dilutions may be expected to be
quite small. However, after the plumes reach the surface, they still have
substantial horizontal velocity and continue to entrain ambient water more
vigorously than a plume whose trajectory is unhindered by surface constraints.
The workbook by Shirazi and Davis (1976) may be consulted to estimate additional
dilution.
Example F. Strong stratification inhibits plume rise. As stratification
weakens, plume rise and dilution tend to increase. Predicting large dilutions
and plume rises can require more program iterations than used to develop the
tables in Appendix G. On the other hand, very large dilutions are usually of
lesser interest. Consequently, the number of iterations is arbitrarily limited
to 1000 and rise to 300 diameters. Table 94 provides examples in which the runs
334
-------
for each densimetric Froude number are limited by the permitted number of
iterations. The final dilutions listed are underlined to remind the user that
larger dilutions and plume rises occur. When the rise limitation criterion has
been reached, a rise of 300 diameters or slightly more will be indicated.
Example G. Many diffusers have horizontally discharging paired ports on
each side of the diffuser. In cross current, the resulting plume behavior
appears somewhat like that shown in Figure VI-31. The upstream plume is bent
over by the counter flowing current and ultimately may be entrained by the
downstream plume. The entrainment of pollutant laden fluid will reduce the
overall dilution in the merged plumes. Estimates of the magnitude of this effect
may be made if it may be assumed that:
1. the interaction occurs
2. there is merging of adjacent plumes to assure cross diffuser
merging and not interweaving of plumes
3. the opposite plumes have similar rise and overall entrainment
4. there are no surface constraints, and
5. the actual (not permitted) rise is provided in the tables.
The final dilution of the merged plumes, Df, is approximately:
Df = (D2) (2D - De) (VI-64)
where D is the dilution at maximum rise of the downstream plume as given in the
tables and De is the dilution of the downstream plume upon entry into the bottom
of the bent over upstream plume (see Figure VI-31). De is estimated by finding
the distance in diameters, 1Q, between the depth at entry and the port depth.
The dilution at this depth is read from the appropriate line in the dilution
tables or interpolated. The maximum radius of the plume is added to the depth at
which maximum rise occurs. The difference between the port depth and the depth
so calculated is Ze.
335
-------
current
merged
dilution
Df
CO
CO
'a •.' >'• -,•*' '«• ',' °.". •.'" ••» '.'<•••'••«': .-..•'" .. .-! '»—"i o.'o' . • . ' '. „• ,. .. • . "..••.. ?
..-..'• •''._•»•".•.•_"' •'-:.".•:'• ...' i .*'•.'•'•'.'.• .a. * •.' . '• .".'.'•.. ° •.._•:• o' *• a ;..*•*.'..*'•.*•'. ^
FIGURE VI-31 CROSS DIFFUSE-R MERGING
-------
Given that Fr = 3, PS = 25, SP = 2000, and k = 0.1, and that identical
plumes are injected into the ambient water from both sides of the diffuser. From
Table 63, it is found that the dilution is 270 and the rise is 55.1 diameters.
The width of the plumes may be estimated:
d/d0 = (7r270)/[4(0.1)(25)] = 85
(cf. the computer calculated width of 83 diameters). Therefore, the vertical
distance between the ports and the plume entry level is 55.1-85/2 = 12.6
diameters, and, De = 15.5 as estimated from the table at rise equal to 12
diameters. D^ may now be calculated:
Df = 270/[2(270) - 15.5] = 139
This result may have been anticipated: the dilution is effectively halved. This
is the outcome whenever the entry level, Z , is small. In many cases, halving
the dilution provided in the tables gives an adequate estimate of the overall
dilution achieved by the cross diffuser merging plumes.
Example H. Given that PS = 25, SP = 200, k = 0.0, Fr = 10, and that an
estimate of the centerline dilution at maximum rise is required. By consulting
Table 77, it is found that the average dilution at maximum rise is 26.0. Since
there is no current and virtually no merging, this value can be divided by 1.77
to obtain the centerline dilution (based on a gaussian profile, see Teeter and
Baumgartner, 1979). The centerline dilution is 14.7.
With identical conditions except for port spacing of 2 instead of 25,
Table 16 shows that the dilution at maximum rise is 11.6. The centerline
dilution is again smaller but not by the same percentage amount. For the 3/2
power profile, similar to the gaussian, the peak-to-mean ratio in stagnant
ambient and complete merging is 1.43 (Teeter and Baumgartner, 1979). Thus the
centerline dilution may be found to be 8.1.
The peak-tc-rr;ean ratios given above are flow-weighted and are obtained
through a stre-icht.for.vard integration. Unfortunately the problem is not as
si.r.ple v;hen current is present because the caussian or other arbitrary profiles
of velocity are superimposed onto a non-zero average velocity. Hence, in high
337
-------
current, the peak-to-mean ratio for single plumes assuming the 3/2 power profile
is 3.89. For merged plumes, the ratio is lower. For intermediate currents, the
ratio is between the corresponding extremes depending on the degree of merging
and the actual current velocity.
Fortunately, many standards and regulations - for example, the
Federal 301(h) regulations - are written in terms of average dilutions. Also,
repeated measurements in the field are likely to provide estimates of average
concentrations before estimates of maximum concentrations are possible. Thus,
the user of MERGE is normally not concerned with centerline dilutions. It is
useful to remember that estimating average dilutions using centerline models
involves not only the use of variable peak-to-mean ratios but also variable
aspiration coefficients.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-11
338
-------
6.5.3 Pollutant Concentration Following Initial Dilution
The concentration of a conservative pollutant at the completion of
initial dilution is expressible as:
Ce"Ca
Cf = Ca + (vi-65)
where
C = background concentration, mg/1
a
C = effluent concentration, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution (flux-averaged)
Cf = concentration at the completion of initial dilution, mg/1.
When the background level, CQ, is negligible Equation VI-65 simplifies to
(VI-66)
This expression can be used to predict the increased pollutant concentration
above ambient, as long as the effluent concentration greatly exceeds the
ambient concentration. It is interesting to note that when the effluent
concentration is below ambient, the final pollutant concentration is also
below ambient.
Since water quality criteria are often prescribed as maximum values not
to be exceeded following initial dilution, it is useful to rearrange
Equation VI-65 to express the maximum allowable effluent concentration as
follows:
339
-------
(cj = c
e max a
-Ca>
(VI-67)
where
(C ) = maximum allowable effluent concentration such that water
c f I IQA
quality criteria are not exceeded.
= applicable water quality criterion
(Sa)min = minimum expected initial dilution
Since initial dilution is a function of discharge and receiving water
characteristics, as discussed in detail in Section 6.5.2, finding an
appropriate "minimum" initial dilution is not a trivial problem. Most
often, initial dilutions are lowest when density stratification is greatest.
For a given stratification profile, dilutions generally decrease at lower
ambient current speeds and higher effluent flow rates. Based on expected
critical conditions in the vicinity of the discharge, the tables in Appendix
G can be used to predict
EXAMPLE VI-12
Analysis of the effluent wastewater from a treatment plant discharging
into a large west coast estuary revealed that the effluent contained a
number of priority pollutants. A few of the pollutants and their measured
concentrations are shown below.
Priority Pollutant
Concentrations (yg/1) Criterion Level
Dry Weather Wet Heather (yg/1)
copper
zinc
mercury
lindane
32.3
33.0
not detected
8.6
61.9
180.0
3.5
not detected
4.0
58.0
0.025
0.16
340
-------
The critical initial dilution has been determined to be 30. If the
criterion levels are designed to be complied with at the completion of
initial dilution, determine if the criteria for the four priority pollutants
are contravened.
A cursory review of the tabulations above shows that all detected
effluent pollutant concentrations (i.e. undiluted concentrations) exceed
the criteria levels, other than zinc during dry weather flow conditions.
Hence if initial dilutions were to become low enough, each of the four
priority pollutants could violate water quality criterion for either dry or
wet weather conditions.
Using the minimum initial dilution of 30, the final pollutant levels
can be predicted using Equation VI-66, by assuming background levels are
neglible. The final pollutant levels compared with the criterion levels are
shown below.
Final Concentrations (yg/1) Criterion Level
Priori ty Po 11 utant Dry Weather Wet Weather (yg/1)
copper
zinc
mercury
lindane
1.1
1.1
-
0.3
2.1
6.0
0.1
-
4.0
58.0
0.025
0.16
Both mercury and lindane violate the criteria while copper and zinc do not,
However, copper levels are sufficiently close to the criterion of 4.0 yg/1
to warrant further attention.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-12
341
-------
6-5.4 pH Followlng Initia! Pi 1ution
The pH standard governing wastewater discharges into estuarine or
coastal waters is usually quite strict. Typically, state standards require
that the pH following initial dilution not deviate by more than 0.2 units
from background. A step by step approach is presented here that can be used
to determine whether a discharge will comply with a standard of this type.
Step 1. The following input data are required:
Sa = initial dilution
Alk = alkalinity of receiving water, eq/1
Alk = alkalinity of effluent wastewater, eq/1
pHg = pH of receiving water
pHe = pH of effluent wastewater
Ka j, cKa j = equilibrium constant for dissociation of
carbonic acid in wastewater and receiving water,
respectively (first acidity constants)
K-, o >cKa „ = equilibrium constant for dissociation of
Q , 2. Q , /
bicarbonate in wastewater and receiving water,
respectively (second acidity constants)
KW CK = ion product for wastewater and receiving water,
respectively.
Table VI-21 shows values of the equilibrium constants and ion product of
water. For seawater, typical values of pH and alkalinity are 8.3 units and
2.3 meq/1, respectively.
342
-------
TABLE VI-21
VALUES OF EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANTS AND ION PRODUCT OF
WATER AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE FOR FRESHWATER
AND SALT WATER
Temperature, °C
5
10
15
20
25
Temperature, °C
5
15
20
25
-log \f
Freshwater
6.52
6.46
6.42
6.38
6.35
-log Xw
Freshwater
14.63
14.35
14.17
14.00
f
Seawater
6.00
5.97
5.94
5.91
5.84
Seawater
14.03
13.60
13.40
13.20
-log
Freshwater
10.56
10.49
10.43
10.38
10.33
Ka,2
Seawater
9.23
9.17
9.12
9.06
8.99
343
-------
Step 2. Calculate the total inorganic carbon concentrations in
the effluent wastewater (Ct ) and receiving water (C ):
K
Alk - -^r— + [H+]
+ Ln J
and
where
e H+ e
A1K, - _Kw + [H+]
a
a
(VI-68)
C = 5 (VI-69)
a / . « .
1 [H+]2 + [H+] K. + K K (VI-70)
d> 1 a> i 3,2
[H+]2 + [H+] K + K Ks
a, i a, i a,2
Note: CK and CK are used in a, and a, to calculate
a,i a,2
344
-------
Step 3. Calculate the akalinity (Alk ) and total inorganic carbon
(C,f) at the completion of initial dilution:
Alk - Alka (VI-72
Alk, = Alk + — ( L
' a
Sa (VI-73)
Step 4. Express the final alkalinity as:
CK
Alkf = Ctr (a, + 2a2)f + - [H+]f (vi-74)
-f
Rather than solving for [H ~\^ directly in Equation VI-74, it is easier to
calculate Alk, in Equation VI-72 for a range of [H ] values, until the
alkalinities computed from Equations VI-72 and VI-74 match.
In most cases pH, will not differ from the ambient pH by more than 0.1 to
0.3 units. Consequently it is usually most expeditious to begin by assuming
pH = pH . If pH >pH , then each subsequent calculation should be at 0.1 pH
T a e a
units higher than pH . If pH
-------
TABLE VI-22
ESTIMATFD pH VALUES AFTER INITIAL DILUTION
Seawater
Seawater
pH
5'C
10
In it
25
al Oi
50
ution
75
100
15 'C
Initial Dilution
10 25 50 75
Effluent pH = 6.0 Alk
7 0
7 5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8 0
8.3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8 3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8 5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
6.94
7.37
7.56
7.88
8 ?1
8^43
6.74
6.')8
7.07
7.27
7.56
B.01
6.63
6.80
6 86
6.98
7.21
7.51
6.45
6.55
6 58
6.64
6.73
6.83
6.92
7.32
7.49
7.80
8.15
8.38
6.85
7.18
7.31
7.60
8 00
8.26
6.75
6.99
7.07
7.25
7.61
7.95
7.03
7.52
7.71
8.00
8.30
8.50
7 07
7.54
7.71
8.00
8.30
8.50
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.95
8.26
8.47
6.87
7.23
7.39
7.70
8.08
8.33
6.81
7.10
7.2J
7.48
7.91
8 20
6.68
6.88
6.96
7.11
7.41
7.78
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.92
8.24
8.45
6.93
7.35
7 53
7.84
8. 19
8.41
6.88
7 23
7.38
7.67
8.06
8.30
7.01
7 51
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.0)
7.51
7.70
8 00
8.30
8.50
6 98
7.47
7 67
7.97
3.28
8.48
•
6.93
7 35
7 53
7.35
8.20
8.42
6.89
7.27
7.43
7.75
3.12
8.35
6.81
7 11
7.23
7.49
7.91
8.20
6.98
7 45
7.65
7.96
8 26
3.47
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.92
8.24
8.45
6.93
7 K
7 53
7.84
8.18
8.40
7 00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7 50
7.70
8 00
3.30
8.50
6 98
7.47
7 67
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.95
7.40
7.59
7.90
8.23
8.44
6.92
7.34
7.52
7.83
3.18
3 10
6.86
7.21
7.36
7.66
3.06
8.31
6.98
7.47
7.66
7.97
8.27
8.48
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.95
8.26
8.47
6.95
7.39
7.58
7.89
8.22
3.43
7 00
7.50
7.70
8 00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
6 99
7.48
7.68
7.98
3.29
8.49
6.96
7. ',2
7.61
7.93
8.25
8.46
6.94
7.37
7.56
7.87
8 21
8.42
6.39
7 27
7.43
7.75
3.12
8.36
6 99
7.47
7.67
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.98
7.46
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.92
8.24
8.45
7 00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
6 95 6.97 6.98
7.40 7 45 7 47
7.59 7 65 7.67
7.91 7.96 7.98
8.24 8.27 8.28
8.45 8.48 8.49
Effluent pH * 6.0 Alk
6.77 6 89 6.94
7.03 7.27 7.38
7.16 7.45 7 57
7 44 7.79 7 90
7.89 8.15 8.23
8.18 8.38 8.44
Effluent pH = 6.0 AH
6.66 6.83 6.90
6.86 7.15 7 31
6.94 7.30 7.49
7.12 7 63 7 82
7 51 8.04 8.17
7.89 8.28 8.39
Effluent pH = 6.0 Alk
6.48 6.71 6 83
6.60 6.94 7 16
7.64 7.04 7.31
6.73 7 28 7.65
6.89 7.73 8.06
7.10 8.07 8.30
Effluent pH <• 6.5 Alk
6 93 6.97 6.98
7.34 7.43 7.46
7.53 7.63 7.66
7.85 7.94 7.96
8.19 8.25 8.27
8.40 8.45 3.47
Effluent pH = 6.5 Alk
6.87 6.94 6.97
7.22 7.37 7 43
7.39 7.57 7.63
7.72 7.89 7.94
8.09 8.22 8 26
8.33 8.43 8.46
Effluent pH » 6.5 Alk
6.78 6.89 6.94
7.04 7.27 7.17
7.15 7.44 7.56
7.41 7.77 7.88
7.84 3.13 8.21
8.12 8.35 8.42
Effluent pH = 9.0 Alk
7.04 7 01 7.00
7.51 7.50 7.50
7.70 7.70 7.70
8.00 8.00 8.00
8.30 8.30 8.30
8.50 8.50 8.50
Effluent pH * 9.0 Alk
7.03 7.03 7.01
7.54 7.51 7.50
7.71 7.70 7.70
8.00 8.00 8.00
8.30 8.30 3.30
8.50 8.50 8.50
Effluent pH = 9.0 Alk
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.10
7.56
7.72
8.00
8.30
8.50
7 04
7.52
7 71
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.02
7.51
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.00
7.70
8.00
8 30
3 50
7.01
7.50
7 70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.11 7 04 7.02
7.56 7 52 7.51
7.71 7.70 7 70
8 00 8.00 8.00
8.30 8.30 8 30
8.50 8.50 8.50
= 0.1
6.99
7 43
7.63
7 98
a. 29
8.49
• 0.6
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.93
8.25
8.46
= 1.0
6.93
7.36
7.56
7 83
8.21
8.42
= 2.0
6.83
7.25
7.43
7.77
8 14
8.37
= 0.5
6.98
7.47
7.67
7.97
8.27
8.47
= 1.0
6.98
7.45
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
- 2.0
6.96
7.41
7.61
7.92
8.23
8.44
=• 2.0
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8 50
= 4.0
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
= 6.0
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
100
6 99
7.48
7 63
7.99
8.29
8.49
6.97
7.44
7.63
7.95
8.26
3.47
6.95
7.39
7.59
7.91
8.23
8.44
6 90
7.31
7.50
7.83
8.13
8.40
6 99
7 48
7.67
7.98
8.28
8.48
6.98
7.46
7.66
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.97
7.43
7.63
7.94
8.25
8.45
7.QO
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8 00
8.30
8.50
25°C
10
6.95
7.42
7.62
7.94
8.25
8 46
6.77
7.08
7.24
7.60
8.02
8.27
6 67
6.90
7 01
7.29
7.76
8.06
6 50
6.64
6.70
6.')j
7.11
7.48
6.93
7.37
7.56
7.88
8.20
8.40
6.38
7.26
7.45
7.80
8.14
8.36
6.79
7.08
7.23
7.55
7.96
8.20
7.04
7.51
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.08
7.53
7.70
8.00
8.30
3.50
7 11
7.54
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
Initial Dl
25 50
6 93
7 46
7.66
7.97
8.25
8.48
6.89
7.31
7.51
7 35
8.19
8.41
6.84
7.20
7.38
7 73
8.10
8.32
5.72
6.99
7.12
7.45
7.91
8.18
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.94
8.2C
8.44
6.94
7.40
7.60
7.92
8.24
8.44
6.90
7.30
7.49
7.82
8.16
8.36
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.03
7.51
7.70
8.00
8.30
3 50
7.05
7.51
7 70
8.00
8.30
8.50
6.99
7 48
7.68
7.98
8.29
8.49
6.94
7.40
7.60
7.93
8.24
8.45
6.91
7.33
7.53
7.86
8.19
8.40
6 84
7.20
7.39
7.75
8.12
8.35
6.98
7.46
7.66
7.96
8.26
8.46
6.97
7.45
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
6.94
7.39
7.59
7.90
8.22
8.42
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
7.02
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
ution
75
6,99
7.48
7.68
7.99
8.29
8.49
6.96
7 43
7 64
7.95
8.26
8.47
6.93
7.38
7.58
7.90
8.22
8.42
6.88
7.29
7.49
7.84
8.18
8.40
6.98
7.47
7 67
7.97
8.27
8.46
6.98
7 46
7.66
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.96
7.42
7.62
7.93
8.24
8.43
7.00
7.50
7.70
3.00
8.30
8 50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8 30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7 70
8.00
8.30
8.50
100
6.99
7.49
7.69
7 99
8.29
8.49
6.97
7.45
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
6.95
7.41
7.61
7.92
8.23
3.43
6.91
7.34
7.54
7.88
3.21
8.42
6.99
7.48
7.67
7.97
8.27
8.46
6.98
7.47
7.67
7.98
8.28
8.48
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.94
8.25
8.44
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
Note Value-, are shown to 2 decimal places to allow interpolation but should be rounded to 1 decimal plate for
compdrison to s tandards.
346
-------
EXAMPLE VI-13
A wastewater treatment plant receives alkaline waste process water, and
because of the low level of treatment received in the plant, effluent pH
values as high as 11.1 units have been observed. The effluent wastewater is
discharged into a water body where the pH standard permits a 0.2 unit
deviation from ambient at the completion of initial dilution. Determine if
the standard is violated by the discharge. The required pertinent data are:
pH = 8.3
a
Alka = 2.3 meq/1
a
Alke = 2.0 meq/1
CKW = 6.3 x 10~14, for the ambient water
K.. = 10~7 , for the wastewater
W
CK, = 8xlO~7,for the ambient water
a»i
K = 5xlO~7, for the wastewater
a, i
'K = 4.68xlO~ , for the ambient water
a,2
K = 0.5xlO"10, for the wastewater
a,2
Sa = 20
The dissociation constants for the wastewater, a1} and cx2, are:
IP"11-1 x 5 x IP"7
(10"11'1)2 + 10"11'1 x 5 x 10'7 + 5 x 10"7 x 0.5 x 10"10
= .137
5 x 10'7 x 0.5 x 10'10
a2 = _ = .863
(lO'11-1)2 + 10'11-1 x 5 + 10'7 -H 5 x 10~7 x 0.5 x 10~:
10
347
-------
The total inorganic carbon of the wastewater is:
.002 - -^~Y + 10"lla
Ct = = 0.000398 mole/1
e 0.137 + 2 x .863
The dissociation constants for the ambient water are:
10'8"3 x 8 + 10~7
——
(10-8-3)2 + 10-8-3 x 8 x KT7 + 8 x ID'7 x 4.68 x HT10
and
a2 = 0.085
The total inorganic carbon content is:
6.3 x lO'1"
0.0023 — + 10"8'3
"a .909 + 2 x 0.085
The final alkalinity and inorganic carbon are:
Ct = - = .00212 mole/1
0.002 - 0.0023
Alk, = 0.0023 + - = 0.00229 eq/l
f 20
0.000398 - 0.00212
Ct = 0.00212 + - = 0.0020 mole/1
lf 20
Using Equation VI-74, the alkalinity is calculated for the range of pH
values tabulated below, beginning at 8.3 and incrementing by 0.1 units.
348
-------
£H Alkalinity, eg/1
8.3 0.00217
8.4 0.00222
8.5 0.00228
8.6 not needed
8.7 not needed
8.8 not needed
The actual and calculated alkalinities match at a pH barely exceeding 8.5.
Since this slightly is more than 0.2 units above ambient, the pH standard is
violated. The pH problem that results from this discharge could be
mitigated in a number of ways, such as increasing initial dilution, or by
treating the wastewater in order to lower the effluent pH.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-13
6.5.5 Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Following Initial Dilution
Dissolved oxygen standards in estuarine and coastal waters can be quite
stringent. For example, the California Ocean Plan (State Water Resources
Control Board, 1978) specifies that:
"The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not at any time be
depressed more than 10 percent from that which occurs naturally,
as the result of the discharge of oxygen demanding waste
materials."
Since dissolved oxygen concentrations can naturally range as low as 4.0 to
5.0 mg/1 at certain times of the year in estuarine or coastal waters,
allowable depletions under these conditions are only 0.4 to 0.5 mg/1.
The dissolved oxygen concentration following initial dilution can be
predicted using the following expression:
349
-------
DO, = DO +
• a
DO - IDOD - DO
e a
Sa
(VI-75)
where
DOf - final dissolved oxygen concentration of receiving water at
the plume's trapping level, mg/1
D0a = ambient dissolved oxygen concentration averaged from the
diffuser to the trapping level, mg/1
D0e = dissolved oxygen of effluent, mg/1
IDOD - immediate dissolved oxygen demand, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution.
The immediate dissolved oxygen demand represents the oxygen demand of
reduced substances which are rapidly oxidized during initial dilution
(e.g. sulfides to sulfates). The procedure for determining IDOD is found in
standard methods (APHA, 1976). IDOD values are often between 1 and 5 mg/1,
but can be considerably higher. When the effluent dissolved oxygen
concentration is 0.0 mg/1 and IDOD is negligible (which is a common
situation), Equation VI-75 simplifies to:
°°f = °°a I1 -7: (VI-76)
The ambient dissolved oxygen concentration which appears in Equations VI-75
and VI-76 is the concentration in the water column averaged between the
location of the diffuser and the trapping level, while the final dissolved
oxygen concentration is referenced to the plume's trapping level.
350
-------
The dissolved oxygen concentration can change significantly over depth,
depending on the estuary or coastal system as well as on seasonal influences
(e.g. upwelling). As the plume rises during initial dilution, water from
deeper parts of the water column is entrained into the plume and advected to
the plume's trapping level. If the discolved oxygen concentration is much
lower in the bottom of the water column than in the top, the low dissolved
oxygen water is advected to a region formerly occupied by water containing
higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and then a "pseudo" dissolved
oxygen depletion results, solely caused by entrainment and advection and not
consumption of oxygen-demanding material. The following example illustrates
this process.
EXAMPLE VI-14
Puget Sound, located in the northwest corner of the state of
Washington, is a glacially carved, fjord-type estuary. The average depth of
water is about 100 m (330 ft). During periods of upwelling, low dissolved
oxygen water enters the estuary at depth and produces a vertical dissolved
oxygen gradient throughout much of the estuary. In Commencement Bay, near
Tacoma, dissolved oxygen profiles similar to the one shown in Table VI-23
have been observed. Suppose the trapping level is 43 ft (13 m) above the
bottom and the minimum initial dilution is 28. Find the final dissolved
oxygen concentration and calculate the percent depletion.
The dissolved oxygen concentration varies significantly over depth,
from 5.0 mg/1 at the bottom to 7.8 mg/1 at the water's surface. The average
concentration over the plume's trapping level is:
5.0 + 6.1
=5.6 mg/1
Using Equation VI-76, the final dissolved oxygen concentration at the
trapping level is:
DO, = 5.6 I 1 ) = 5.4 mg/1
), = 5.6 f 1 |=5.'
f \ 28 /
351
-------
TABLE VI-23
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE IN
COMMENCEMENT BAY, WASHINGTON
Depth ft(m)
0 (0)
3 (1)
7 (2)
10 (3)
16 (5)
23 (7)
33 (10)
49 (15)
66 (20)
98 (30)
108 (33)
Temperature, °C
14.0
12.0
12.0
11.7
11.7
11.7
12.5
13.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.5
6.1
5.3
5.0
352
-------
Compared to the ambient concentration at the trapping level (6.1 mg/1), the
percent depletion is:
6>1 " 5'4 x 100 = 11 percent
6.1
Compared to the average over the height of rise, the percent depletion is
only:
5.6 - 5.4
x 100 = 4 percent
5.6
END OF EXAMPLE VI-14
In contrast to the deep estuaries on the west coast of the United
States, those on the east coast are quite shallow. In the Chesapeake Bay,
the largest east coast estuary, water depths are often in the 20- to 30-ft
(6 to 9 m) range, with channels as deep as 60 to 90ft (18 to 27 m) in
places. Because of the shallow water depths, initial dilution is often
limited by the depth of the water and can be 10 or less at times of low
ambient current velocity.
6.5.6 Far Field Dilution and Pollutant Distribution
After the initial dilution process has been completed, the wastefield
becomes further diluted as it migrates away from the ZID. Since
concentrations of coliform organisms are often required not to exceed
certain specified values at sensitive locations (e.g. public bathing
beaches), a tool is needed to predict coliform ,(or other pollutant) levels
as a function of distance from the ZID. This can be accomplished by solving
the following expression:
353
-------
u 3x = £ 3y*~ " kC (VI-77)
where
C = pollutant concentration
u = current speed
£y = lateral turbulent diffusion coefficient
k = pollutant decay rate.
Figure VI-32 shows how the sewage field spreads laterally as a function of
distance from the ZID. The concentration within the wastefield, C(x,y),
depends on both x and y, with the maximum concentrations occurring at
y = 0,for any x value.
It is the maximum concentration C(x,y = 0) which is of interest here.
Solving Equation VI-77, the maximum concentration as a function of distance
x is:
= C + exp-^ (VI-78)
where
DS = dilution attained subsequent to the initial dilution and is a
function of travel time
and all other symbols have been previously defined.
The subsequent dilution is unity when x = 0 (i.e. at the completion of
initial dilution), so C = C^ at x = 0, as required. In many instances, the
background concentration is negligible, so that Equation VI-78 simplifies
to:
354
-------
Line source
Sewage
field
FIGURE VI-32 PLAN VIEW OF SPREADING SEWAGE FIELD
355
-------
cf
C = — exp (-kt) (VI-79)
Subsequent dilution gradually increases as the wastefield travels away
from the ZID and depends on mixing caused by turbulence, shear flows, and
wind stresses. Often, dilution caused by lateral entrainment of ambient
water greatly exceeds that caused by vertical entrainment. This is assumed
to be the case here.
In open coastal areas, the lateral dispersion coefficient is often
predicted using the so-called 4/3 law (Brooks, 1960), where the diffusion
coefficient increases as the 4/3 power of the wastefield width. In
mathematical form:
e = e I —1_ i / 3
1 ' ' (VI-80)
where
£Q = diffusion coefficient when L = b
L = width of sewage field at any distance from the ZID
b = initial width of sewage field.
The initial diffusion coefficient can be predicted from:
eo = O.OOlbVa
where
e = initial diffusion coefficient, ft2/sec
356
-------
b = initial width of sewage field, ft.
Based on Equation VI-80, the center!ine dilution, D , is given by:
D =
erf
1.5
1 +
I/
-1
(VI-82)
where
t = travel time
and erf denotes the error function.
The 4/3 law is not always applicable and in confined estuaries might
overestimate the diffusion coefficient. Under these circumstances, it is
more conservative to assume the diffusion coefficient is a constant.
Equation VI-81 can be used to estimate the constant diffusion coefficient,
unless the user has better data. Under these circumstances, the subsequent
dilution is expressible as:
Ds =
erf
1 b2 \
16 £ t
\ ° 1
l/2
-1
(VI-83)
Equations VI-82 and VI-83 are cumbersome to use, especially if repeated
applications are needed. To facilitate predicting subsequent dilutions,
values of DS are tabulated in Table VI-24 for different initial widths (b)
and travel times (t). The initial sewage field widths range from 10 to
5,000 feet and travel times range from 0.5 to 96 hours.
357
-------
TABLE VI-24
SUBSEQUENT DILUTIONS* FOR VARIOUS INITIAL
FIELD WIDTHS AND TRAVEL TIMES
00
Travel Time(hr)
0.5
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
12.
24.
48.
72.
96.
10
2.3/ 5.
3. I/ 13.
4.3/ 32.
6. I/ 85.
8.5/>100.
10. />100.
15. />100.
21. />100.
26. />100.
29. />100.
50
5 1.5/ 2.0
2.0/ 3.9
2.7/ 8.5
3.7/ 21.
5.2/ 53.
6.3/ 95.
8.9/>100.
13. />100.
15. />100.
18. />100.
Initial Field
100
1.3/ 1.6
1.6/ 2.6
2.2/ 5.1
3.0/ 11.
4. I/ 29.
5. I/ 50.
7. I/ 100.
10. />100.
12. />100.
14. />100.
Width (ft)
500
l.O/ 1.1
1.21 1.3
1.4/ 1.9
1.9/ 3.5
2.5/ 7.3
3.0/ 12.
4.2/ 30.
5.9/ 80.
7.3/>100.
8.4/>100.
1000
l.O/ 1.0
l.l/ 1.1
1.2/ 1.5
1.5/ 2.3
2.0/ 4.4
2.4/ 6.8
3.4/ 16.
4.7/ 41.
5.8/ 73
6.6/100.
5000
l.O/ 1.0
l.O/ 1.0
l.O/ 1.0
l.l/ 1.2
1.4/ 1.7
1.6/ 2.3
2. I/ 4.4
2.8/10.
3.4/17.
3.9/24.
*
The dilutions are entered in the table as Nj/N2,
where Nj. is the dilution assuming a constant diffusion
coefficient, and N2 is the dilution assuming the 4/3 law.
-------
The dilutions presented in the table reveal that as the initial field
width increases, the subsequent dilution decreases for a given travel time.
For a wider wastefield, a larger time is required to entrain ambient water
into the center of the wastefield, so dilutions are lower. This illustrates
that a tradeoff exists between large diffusers where initial dilution is
high but subsequent dilution low, and small diffusers where initial dilution
is low and subsequent dilution high.
The table also reveals that the predicted dilutions are significantly
different, depending on whether Equation VI-82 or VI-83 is used. In many
cases likely to be evaluated by users of this document, the 4/3 law might
overestimate subsequent dilution, even if the outfall is in coastal waters.
To attain the subsequent dilutions predicted by the 4/3 law at large travel
times, a significant amount of dilution water must be available. Since many
outfalls, particularly small ones, are often not too far from shore, the
entrainment rate of dilution water can be restricted by the presence of the
shoreline and the depth of the water. The wastefield from diffusers located
further offshore might entrain water at a rate corresponding to the 4/3 law
for an initial period of time. As the wastefield widens significantly, the
rate of entrainment could decrease, and the 4/3 law no longer obeyed.
When travel times are small (e.g. 12 hours or less), there is less
discrepancy between the two methods of calculating subsequent dilution,
except for the very small initial wastefield widths.
EXAMPLE VI-15
Figure VI-33 shows an outfall which extends about one mile offshore. At the
end of the outfall is a multiport diffuser, 800 feet in length.
Occassionally, fecal coliform bacteria counts as high as 10,000 MPN/100 ml
have been detected in the effluent of the treatment plant.
The allowable fecal coliform level at the shellfish harvesting area
inshore of the diffuser is 70 MPN/100 ml. Typically, the ambient current is
parallel to shore so that effluent is not carried onshore. However, when
359
-------
CO
en
o
shellfish harvesting
60
•120 .
0
I
contours in feet
1 nautical miles
J
•180
1.5 kilometers
FIGURE VI-33 OUTFALL LOCATION, SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREA, AND ENVIRONS
-------
wind conditions are right, onshore transport has been observed, and the
sustained transport velocity is 4 cm/sec (0.13 ft/sec). Determine whether
the coliform standard is likely to be violated or not. Other information
needed are:
t coliform decay rate = 1.0/day
t minimum initial dilution = 35.
The width of the diffuser is 800 feet and will be used as the initial
field width. Note, however, that the diffuser is not exactly perpendicular
to shore, so that the initial field width is probably less than 800 feet in
the travel direction. Using 800 feet is conservative because subsequent
dilution will be somewhat lower under this assumption.
The coliform count following initial dilution is, using Equation VI-76:
10000
C, = - = 290 MPN/100 ml
f 35
The travel time to the shore is:
5280
= 11 hours
0.13 x 3600
Interpolating from Table VI-24, the subsequent dilution is about 2.6. Using
Equation VI-79, the coliform concentration at the shoreline is:
290 I 11 ,
C = exp - 1 x — =70 MPN/100 ml
2.6 24 '
The predicted coliform count is equal to the water quality standard. Since
the subsequent dilution was conservatively estimated, it is possible that
actual coliform counts will be less than 70 MPN/100 ml. However, the
361
-------
prediction does indicate that careful monitoring of coliform levels at the
shoreline is needed to see that the standard is not violated. Since
shoreward transport of effluent is infrequent, sampling has to be conducted
at times when the transport is shoreward; otherwise detected coliform
levels might not represent worst-case conditions.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-15
6.5.7 Farfield Dissolved Oxygen Depletion
Oxygen demanding materials contained in the effluent of wastewater
treatment plants can produce dissolved oxygen deficits following discharge
of the effluent into receiving waters. A method will be presented here to
predict the depletion following discharge from a marine outfall. The most
critical cases occur when the plume and wastefield remain submerged, so that
reaeration does not occur. The analysis presented here is applicable to
submerged plumes only. When the wastefield is mixed uniformly across the
estuary, the methods presented earlier in Section 6.4.5 are applicable.
The oxygen-demanding materials in the wastewater are the sum of the
carbonaceous and nitrogenous materials (CBOD and NBOD, respectively). It is
possible that the nitrogenous demand might not be exerted if a viable
background population of nitrifiers is absent from the receiving water.
Under these circumstances, the wastefield is likely to be dispersed before
the nitrifying population can increase to numbers capable of oxidizing the
NBOD. The user can perform analyses with and without NBOD exertion and then
determine whether NBOD is significant or not. If it is, it is suggested
that some sampling be conducted to find out whether nitrification is
occurring.
The dissolved oxygen concentration in the receiving waters can be
expressed as a function of travel time as follows:
362
-------
DO, - DO
I O
D0(t) = D0
a
f
D,
[l-exp(-Kt)]
s
(VI-84)
where
D0(t) = dissolved oxygen concentration in a submerged wastefield
as a function of travel time t, mg/1
DO = ambient dissolved oxygen concentration, mg/1
a
DOf = dissolved oxygen concentration following initial dilution
(see Equation VI-75)
= BOD decay rate
Lf = ultimate BOD concentration above ambient at the completion
of initial dilution
D = subsequent centerline dilution
Equation VI-84 expresses the dissolved oxygen deficit which arises due to an
initial deficit at the completion of initial dilution (D0f-D0a) plus that
caused by elevated BOD levels in the water column (If). The elevated BOD
level is either the CBOD or sum of CBOD and NBOD. The initial dissolved
oxygen deficit tends to decrease at longer and longer travel times because
subsequent dilution increases. However, BOD is being exerted simultaneously
and tends to cause the dissolved oxygen level to drop. Depending on the
particular case being analyzed, one influence can dominate the other over a
range of travel times so that a minimum dissolved oxygen level can occur
either immediately following initial dilution, or at a subsequent travel
time. The following example illustrates both cases.
363
-------
EXAMPLE VI-16
A municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges its effluent through
an outfall and diffuser system. The maximum daily CBOD value is 270 mg/1,
and the critical initial dilution is 114. Limited analyses have been
performed on IDOD and the results vary widely, from 0 to 66 mg/1. The
length of the diffuser is 500 m (1,640 ft) and can be used as the initial
sewage field width. Determine the dissolved oxygen deficit produced by the
discharge, assuming the wastefield remains submerged and the ambient
dissolved oxygen concentration is 7.0 mg/1.
The BOD concentration at the completion of initial dilution is:
270
114
= 2.4 mg/l,BODc
= 3.5 mg/1, BOD-ultimate
The dissolved oxygen concentration at the completion of initial dilution is
(from Equation VI-75):
D0f = 7.0 +
or
0.0 - 66. - 7.0
114
= 6.4 mg/1, when IDOD = 66
D0f = 7.0 +
0.0 - 0.0 - 7.0
114
= 6.9 mg/1, when IDOD = 0
Note that the IDOD of 66 mg/1 produces a deficit of 0.6 mg/1.
Since values of IDOD vary widely due to the limited analyses, the
far field oxygen depletion curves will be calculated for the following three
IDOD's: 0, 40, and 66 mg/1. A BOD decay rate of 0.2/day is used. When
IDOD = 66 mg/1, the following oxygen depletions are predicted:
364
-------
Travel Time(hr)
1
4
8
12
24
48
72
96
Ds(Table VI-24)
1.
1.4
1.9
2.3
3.2
4.6
5.5
6.3
DVDOt (Equation VI-84)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
These results are plotted in Figure VI-34 (Curve A), along with the cases
for IDOD = 40 mg/1 (Curve B), and IDOD = 0.0 mg/1 (Curve C).
When the IDOD is 66 mg/1, the maximum dissolved oxygen deficit is
0.6 mg/1 and occurs at the completion of initial dilution (a travel time of
0.0 hr). Thus, the processes which occur during initial dilution are more
significant than the subsequent BOD exertion. Curve C (IDOD = 0.0 mg/1)
shows the opposite situation: farfield BOD exertion is primarily
responsible for the maximum oxygen depletion of 0.3 mg/1. The middle curve
(Curve B) shows the case when the oxygen depletion remains relatively
constant over time and both the near field and farfield processes are
important.
In summary, when the IDOD is above 40 mg/1, in this example the maximum
oxygen depletion is controlled by the processes occurring during initial
dilution. When IDOD is below 40 mg/1, BOD exertion in the far field is
primarily responsible for the oxygen depletion. For primary treatment
plants, IDOD values of 66 mg/1 are atypical; values from 1 to 10 mg/1 are
much more common. Depending on whether the state dissolved oxygen standard
is violated by Curve A, the user might need to make further IDOD
determinations to firmly establish the true range of IDOD values.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-16
365
-------
CD
C
73
m
OJ
Crt
cn
%i co
co co
c o
co r~
—H m
^3 O
>
< CD
m x
r- -<
CD
—I m
m
m
m
-l
h—t
O
CO
Dissolved oxygen deficit, mg/l
p
b
CD
B
CD
Q.
01
we
CO
ro —
co -
p
I
p
Ko
I
p
CO
p
Ol
I
p
a>
P
bo
p
CD
1
o
CO
Ol
o
o
CD
co
Ol
0
o
>
CO
en
O)
O)
o
O
c
03
0
o
c~
-T
3
B
6
o
p
3
-------
6.6 THERMAL POLLUTION
6.6.1 General
The presence of one or more major heat sources can have a significant
impact on both the local biotic community and local water quality. As a
result, consideration of significant thermal discharges by the planner is
essential in any comprehensive water quality analysis. Thermal power plants
account for the vast majority of both the number of thermal discharges and
the total thermal load. However, some industrial processes generate
significant amounts of excess heat.
The most important of the impacts of heat discharge are:
1. Ecological Effects: Water temperature increases change the
productivity of planktonic and many benthic species. As a
result local community structures are altered. Many of the
species benefited by warmer conditions (e.g. blue green
algae) may be considered to be undesirable. In addition, many
species can perform certain life cycle functions only within a
limited temperature range. Elevated temperatures may prevent
some species from completing one or more life stages, thus
disrupting the reproductive cycle and destroying the stability
of the population.
2. Water Quality Effects: Figure VI-23 showed the relative
effect of salinity and ambient temperature on oxygen
saturation. From this figure, note that a 10° C* rise in
temperature decreases the oxygen saturation concentration by
1.5 to 2.0 mg/1.
*Such a rise is common near power plant thermal plumes.
367
-------
Sediment Effects: Estuarine sedimentation rates are increased
by increasing local water column temperature. The
significance of this increase was discussed by Parker and
Krenkel (1970). They concluded that not only are
sedimentation rates be increased, but vertical particle size
distribution, particle fall velocity, and thus bottom
composition are also affected.
Beneficial Effects: The effects of thermal discharges are not
all negative. It has been shown for example, that marine
biofouling is substantially reduced in warmed waters (Parker
and Krenkel, 1970). In fact, the recirculation of heated
discharge through the condenser has proven to be a less
expensive and equally effective method of biofouling control
than chlorination for several California coastal power plants.
Estuarine contact recreation potentials are increased by
increasing local water temperatures, and extreme northern
estuaries have reduced winter ice coverage as a result of
thermal discharges.
6.6.2 Approach
A number of the algorithms which appear in this section were originally
prepared by Tetra Tech, (1979) for the Electric Power Research Institute.
The thermal screening approach for estuaries is composed of procedures that
can be used to evaluate the following standards:
• The AT Criterion: The increase in temperature of water
passing through the condenser must not exceed a specified
maximum.
t The Maximum Discharge Temperature Criterion: The temperature
of the heated effluent must not exceed a specified maximum.
368
-------
• The Thermal Block Criterion: The cross-sectional area of an
estuary occupied by temperatures greater than a specified
value must not exceed a specified percentage of the total
area.
• The Surface Area Criterion: The surface area covered by
isotherms exceeding a specified temperature increment (above
ambient) must not exceed a specified maximum.
• The Surface Temperature Criterion: No discharge shall cause a
surface water temperature rise greater than a specified
maximum above the natural temperature of the receiving waters
at any time or place.
Table VI-25 presents a summary of the information needed to apply the
thermal screening procedure. Data needed for the AT criterion and the
maximum discharge temperature criterion were included earlier in the thermal
screening section for rivers and are not repeated here. That the maximum
discharge temperature criterion for rivers can be applied to estuaries
assumes the intake temperature is near ambient, and that tidal action does
not cause significantly elevated temperatures near the intake.
6.6.3 Application
The AT criterion and the effluent temperature criterion can be
evaluated first following the procedures outlined in the river thermal
screening section. The maximum allowable flow rate through the plant, which
needs to be identified for use in evaluating those criteria, may not always
have a readily determinate upper limit, unlike plants sited on rivers. For
estuaries that are essentially tidal rivers, a fraction (say 20%) of the net
freshwater flow rate might be used as an upper limit.
The remainder of the estuary physical screening procedure consists of
evaluating the following three criteria: the thermal block, the isotherm
surface area, and the surface water temperature criteria. Because of the
complexity of the flow field in estuaries, slack tide conditions have been
369
-------
TABLE VI-25
DATA NEEDED FOR ESTUARY THERMAL SCREENING
Variable
ATc
Dp
r
u
Qp
ATtb
Atb
dtb
R
W
At
D,
K
P
c.
P
s
n
U
Rh
n
Criteria Where
Variable Used
All
All
Thermal block.
surface area
All
Thermal block
Thermal block
Thermal block
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block,
surface area,
surface temperature
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block,
Thermal block,
surface area
Thermal block,
surface area
Definition
Temperature rise across the condenser (°F)
Diameter of discharge pipe or equivalent diameter of
discharge canal (m)
Exit velocity of thermal discharge (m/s)
Flow rate of discharge (m3/s)
Temperature rise in estuary cross section that
constitutes a thermal block (°F)
Portion of estuarine cross-sectional area that
constitutes a thermal block (m2)
Average depth of estuary from discharge location to
ATtb Isotherm at slack tide (m)
Average freshwater flow rate flowing in the estuary
past the power plant site (m3/s)
Width of estuary at power plant site (m)
Cross-sectional area at power plant site (m2)
Longitudinal dispersion coefficient (m2/s)
Surface thermal transfer coefficient (Btu/m2 -d • °F)
Average mass density of ambient water at power plant
site (kg/mj)
Specific heat of water (Btu/kg • °F)
Tidally and cross-sectionally averaged salinity
(ppt. °/oo
Manning's n (m'/6)
Maximum tidal velocity over a tidal cycle (m/s)
Hydraulic radium (cross-sectional area divided by
wetted perimeter) (m)
Default Value
20
--
5
25% of the estuarine
cross-sectional area
70.!,,
--
see text discussion
1000 (zero salinity)
22
--
0.016 - 0.06
__
..
Surface area Isotherm associated with legal surface area constraint (°F)
Surface area Average depth under the surface area calculated for the
surface area constraint (m)
Surface area Legally allowable surface area surrounded by isotherms
equalling and exceeding AT (m2)
S3
temperature Gravitational constant (m/s2)
temperature Mass density of thermal effluent (kg/m3)
temperature Depth to centerline of discharge jet (m)
temperature Maximum legally allowable surface temperature produced hy
a submerged discharge (°F)
-dp
dz
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
temperature
temperature Linear density gradient over water column depth (kg/m3 • m)
Mass density of water at depth of submerged discharge
(kg/m3)
9.8
4
1000
370
-------
chosen as a basis for computations when possible. It is during these
conditions that the effects of plume momentum and buoyancy are propogated
the greatest distance across the estuary from the discharge site. It is
also during slack tide that the thermal block is most likely to occur
because of the absence of an ambient current that normally enhances plume
entrainment of ambient water.
As the plume spreads across the estuary, the methodology assumes it to
be vertically mixed. Although most plumes do not generally exhibit this
behavior due to such effects as buoyancy and stratification, this approach
will roughly estimate the capacity of the estuary at the power plant
location to assimilate the excess heat.
In some instances, when the estuary is relatively narrow, the plume may
extend across the estuary's entire width. In these cases (guidelines are
given later to determine when this occurs) the near field momentum approach
can be used. By using the well mixed assumption (even if the actual estuary
is stratified) a lower limit on the expected temperature elevation across
the estuary is obtained.
Slack tide conditions will also be used to evaluate the maximum surface
temperature produced by a submerged discharge. Both vertically homogeneous
and linearly stratified conditions can be evaluated.
6.6.3.1 Evaluating the Thermal Block Constraint. Based upon momentum
considerations, the relationship between the ATy isotherm and the distance
(y) it extends from the discharge point is given by (Weigel, 1964):
(VI-85)
where
AT = temperature rise across the condenser (°F)
371
-------
AT = temperature excess at a distance y from the discharge outlet
y = distance measured along the jet axis originating at the
discharge point (m)
yQ = virtual source position (m)
The virtual source position is usually about two to ten times the
diameter of the discharge orifice. The equivalent diameter of a discharge
canal is the diameter of a circle whose cross-sectional area is the same as
that of the discharge canal.
Brooks (1972) has shown that for round orifices, the virtual source
position is approximately six times the orifice diameter. At the virtual
discharge position (y = y0) the average excess temperature is approximately
70 percent that at the discharge location.
Since one of the assumptions used in developing Equation VI-85 is that
momentum is conserved along the jet axis, an upper limit on y must be
established to prevent the user from seriously violating this assumption.
The upper limit can be chosen to be where the plume velocity has decreased
to 1 ft/sec or 0.31 meters per second. This implies that the minimum AT
that can be evaluated using the equation is:
AT
„'min " U
where
Up = exit velocity of thermal discharge (m/s)
(ATy)m-jn = minimum excess temperature that can be evaluated using
Equation VI-86 (°F)
This constraint generally does not restrict practical application of
Equation VI-85.
372
-------
Using the value estimated by Brooks (1972) for the virtual source
position, Equation VI-85 can be rewritten as:
/ATc \ 2
y= 3DP AT^ 1 *fory - 6DP (AT ) .
tb p[ ATtb I tb - v y'nnn
The cross sectional area to the ATtb isotherm is (assuming the plume
remains vertically mixed):
Ac = ytb "dtb (VI-89)
where
A = cross sectional area measured out to the distance ytb (m2)
d , = average water depth over the distance y., (m)
If Ac
-------
where
AT = steady state well mixed excess temperature (°F)
In this steady state approach, ATSS can no longer be estimated independently
of the estuarine flow field characteristics. The surface transfer
coefficient K can be determined by reference to the equilibrium temperature
discussion in the river thermal screening section. Although the equilibrium
temperature does not appear explicitly in Equation VI-90, its effect is
indirectly included since K can not be determined independently of E. In
the process of finding K, the ambient surface water temperature of the
estuary generally should not be assumed to be at equilibrium because of the
combined influence of ocean and river water (TRACOR, 1971), each of which
may be at different temperatures.
The dispersion coefficient, E[_, is dependent on estuary
characteristics. A value obtained from past studies in the vicinity of the
power plant site should be used if possible. Alternatively, the methods and
data provided earlier in Section 6.4.5 can be used.
6.6.3.2 Surface Area Constraint. The surface area constraint can be
evaluated employing the same approach used to evaluate the thermal block
constraint. Before beginning, Equation VI-86 should be evaluated to ensure
that AT exceeds (AT ) - , since (ATv)m-;n establishes the minimum excess
isotherm that can be evaluated using these methods.
The distance offshore to the ATsa isotherm (the isotherm associated
with the legal surface area constraint) can be found as:
ysa - 3Dp I ^- I for y > 6D. <«-91>
where
374
-------
ysa = distance offshore at Al"sa isotherm (m)
The surface area enclosed by that ATsa isotherm can be estimated as:
- 6D
W + D
- 6Dp I ^
(VI-92)
where
2Q
When the estuary depth drops off rapidly from the outfall location, an
appropriate average depth would be the depth to the bottom of the discharge
orifice. If A_ J
ss
(VI-93)
where
W = width of estuary (m)
d = 1/2 IR/^DX)
C2 = 1/2 R/(ADi)
+ (4WL/(pCpAtD • 24 - 3600))
(WK/(pCpAtD! - 24 • 3600))
and ATSS was given by Equation VI-90.
When A. -Aca the surface area constraint is not exceeded.
S So
375
-------
6.6.3.3 Surface Temperature Constraint. This section provides a method for
estimating the surface temperature of a buoyant plume resulting from a
subsurface discharge. Slack tide conditions and a horizontal discharge
configuration are considered. A horizontal configuration should approximate
conditions under which the lowest maximum surface water temperature excess
is attained.
When the ambient water density is constant over depth the following two
dimensionless parameter groups are needed:
f - ~^-
Dp (VI-94)
and
1.07 Up
F (Froude Number) =
v/P - Pp Dpg (VI-95)
After calculating G and F, Figure VI-35 can be used to find SQ, the
centerline dilution relative to the virtual source position. From this
information, the maximum surface temperature elevation can be estimated as:
AT
urface
If ATsurface
-------
4 6 8 10 20
F (Froude Number)
40 60 80 100
FIGURE VI-35
CENTERLINE DILUTION OF ROUND BUOYANT
JET IN STAGNANT UNIFORM ENVIRONMENT
(AFTER FAN AND BROOKS, 1969)
377
-------
I- 3/
~D~ = 3'86 r T 8 (VI-97)
where
1.07 IL
yppp^ c
PS P-
0.87 (ps -
2 = maximum height of rise of thermal plume (m)
max 3 K \ /
-£ = linear density gradient (kg/m3/m)
Using Equation VI-97, the maximum rise of the thermal plume can be
estimated. If it is less than the depth of water, the plume remains
submerged. If, however, z exceeds the water depth, the plume will
II Id /\
surface. In this case the methods given previously for the nonstratified
case can be used to estimate the maximum surface temperature where the
ambient water density should be chosen to be the depth-averaged mean.
378
-------
6.7 TURBIDITY
6.7.1 Introduction
Turbidity is a measure of the optical clarity of water and is dependent
upon the light scattering and absorption characteristics of both suspended
and dissolved material in the water column (Austin, 1974). The physical
definition of turbidity is not yet fully agreed upon, and varies from
equivalence with the scattering coefficient (Beyer, 1969), to the product of
an extinction coefficient and measured pathlength (Hodkinson, 1968), and to
the sum of scattering and absorption coefficients (VandeHulst, 1957).
Turbidity affects water clarity and apparent water odor, and hence is of
aesthetic significance. It also affects light penetration, so that
increased turbidity results in a decreased photic zone depth and a decrease
in primary productivity.
Turbidity levels in an estuary are likely to vary substantially in both
temporal and spatial dimensions. Temporal variations occur as a function of
seasonal river discharge, seasonal water temperature changes, instantaneous
tidal current, and wind speed and direction. Spatially, turbidity varies as
a function of water depth, distance from the head of the estuary, water
column biomass content, and salinity level. Much of the complexity in the
analysis of turbidity results from different sources of turbidity responding
differently to the controlling variables mentioned above. As an example,
increased river discharge tends to increase turbidity because of increased
inorganic suspended sediment load. However, such an increase curtails light
penetration, thus reducing water column photosynthesis. This, in turn,
reduces the biologically induced turbidity.
Methods employed to monitor turbidity include use of a "turbidimeter".
Light extinction measurements are commonly given in Jackson Turbidity Units
(JTU) which are based on the turbidity of a standard clay suspension. Once
standardized, this arbitrary scale* can be used as a basis to measure
changes in turbidity.
*The JTU scale is an arbitrary scale since it cannot be directly related
to physical units when used as a calibration basis for turbidimeter
measurement.
379
-------
The turbidity calibration scale is given in APHA (1980). From a measured
change in turbidity a relative change in water quality may be inferred.
Estuarine water is almost always extremely turbid, especially when compared
to ocean or lake waters.
The JTU scale is not the only available turbidity scale. In 1926
Kingsbury and Clark devised a scale based on a Formazin suspension medium
which resulted in Formazin Turbidity Units (FTU's). More recently volume
scattering functions (VSF) and volume attenuation coefficients have been
proposed (Austin, 1974). However, JTU's are still most commonly used as an
indicator of estuarine turbidity levels.
As a rough indication of the wide variations possible in turbidity,
Figure VI-36 shows suspended solid concentrations for the various sub-bays
of San Francisco Bay for one year (Pearson, jrb ji]_, 1967). The solid line
shows annual mean concentrations while the dashed lines indicate
concentrations exceeded by 20% and 80% of the samples taken at each station
over the one year time period. These variations at stations located near
bay heads (left and right extremities of Figure VI-36) typically exceed 300%
of the annual 20th percentile values. Use of extreme high/low values would
produce correspondingly larger annual variations.
6.7.2 Procedure to Assess Impacts of Wastewater Discharges on
Turbidity or Related Parameters
Numerous states have enacted water quality standards which limit the
allowable turbidity increase due to a wastewater discharge in an estuary or
coastal water body. The standards, however, are not always written in terms
of turbidity, but are sometimes expressed as surrogate parameters such as
light transmittance or Secchi disk. The following three standards provide
illustrations:
380
-------
SOUTH I LOWER CENTRAL! NORTH I SAN PABLO I
BAY J/ BAY
FIGURE VI-36 MEAN SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY
FROM: PEARSON EI AL,, 1967, PG V-15
381
-------
For class AA water in Puget Sound, State of Washington:
Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU over background turbidity when
the background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or have more than a 10
percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is
more than 50 NTU.
For class A water in the State of Hawaii:
Secchi disk or Secchi disk equivalent as "extinction coefficient"
determinations shall not be altered more than 10 percent.
For coastal waters off the State of California:
The transmittance of natural light shall not be significantly
reduced at any point outside of the initial dilution zone. A
significant difference is defined as a statistically significant
difference in the means of two distributions of sampling results at
the 95 percent confidence level.
These standards illustrate the need for developing interelationships between
turbidity related parameters, since data might be available for one
parameter while the state standard is expressed in terms of another. Based
on these considerations methods will be presented to:
• predict the turbidity in the receiving water at the completion
of initial dilution
• predict the suspended solids concentrations in the receiving
water at the completion of initial dilution
• relate turbidity and light transmittance data, and
• relate Secchi disk and turbidity data.
382
-------
By treating turbidity as a conservative parameter the turbidity in the
receiving water at the completion of initial dilution can be predicted as:
where
If = turbidity in receiving water at the completion of initial
dilution (typical units: JTU)
Ta = ambient or background turbidity
Te = effluent turbidity
S, = initial dilution
a
Initial dilution can be predicted based on the methods presented
earlier in Section 6.5.2. Equation VI-98 can be used, then, to directly
evaluate those standards written in terms of maximum allowable turbidity or
turbidity increase.
An expression similar to Equation VI-98 can be used to evaluate the
suspended solids concentration in an estuary following completion of initial
dilution. Specifically
SSQ - SSa
SSf = SSa + _e - * (VI-99)
a
where
SSf = suspended solids concentration at completion of initial
dilution, mg/1
SS = ambient suspended solids concentration, mg/1
SSP = effluent suspended solids concentration, mg/1
383
-------
S, = initial dilution
a
Consider now a situation where light transmittance data have been
collected but the state standard is expressed in terms of turbidity. A
relationship between the two parameters would be useful. Such a
relationship can be developed by first considering the Beer-Lambert law for
light attenuation:
T. = exp(-ad)
d (VI-100)
where
Td = fraction of light transmitted over a depth d, dimensionless
a = light attenuation, or extinction coefficient, per meter
d = vertical distance between two locations where light is
measured, meters
Austin (1974) has shown that the attenuation coefficient is expressible in
terms of turbidity as:
a = k -JTU (VI-101)
where
JTU = turbidity, in Jackson turbidity units
k = coefficient ranging from 0.5 to 1.0
Combining Equations VI-100 and VI-101 the turbidity is expressible as:
JTU = ' Td~ ln Td (VI-102)
The increased turbidity ( JTU) is expressible as:
384
-------
(VI-103)
where
Td2 = light transmittance at the final turbidity
= light transmittance at the initial turbidity
EXAMPLE VI-17
Vertical profiles of several water quality parameters, including
percent light transmittance, have been collected in the vicinity of a
municipal wastewater discharge in Puget Sound. Figure VI-37 shows each
of the three profiles. If the maximum allowable turbidity increase is
5 NTU, does the discharge, based on the light transmittance profile
shown in Figure VI-37, violate this requirement?
It is known that the wastefield is submerged between about 10 to 20 m
below the water's surface. Light transmittances at these depths are about
18 to 20 percent. Deeper within the water column light transmittances are
at background values of about 55 percent. Note that in the top few meters
the light transmittances are between 0 and 10 percent. These low
transmittances are not due to the wastefield, but rather are caused by a
lens of turbid freshwater. Consequently, the following data will be used
here:
t k =0.5
t d = 1 m (i.e. percent transmittance measured over 1 m)
• Td2 = 18 percent
• Td = 55 percent
385
-------
• - /o Light transmission
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
• - Density crT
14.0 15.5 170 18.5 20.0 21.5 23.0 24.5
A -Salinity °/oo
170 18.5 200 21.5 230 24.5 26.0 27.5
Q J L _ 1 __....
2- M
CD °
W
INJ
01'
CO
CO
Ol
T
\
^r
"^
=c
)
^x_
— - — .
-^n^
_
•* ^.
^
^A
\
^**-^.
k
\
x \
\\
<
L
^-^
80
26.0
29.0
7
^
t
<
j
90 100
27.5 29.5
305 32 5
\
I
^
FIGURE VI-37 WATER QUALITY PROFILE OF SELECTED PARAMETERS
NEAR A MUNICIPAL OUTFALL IN PUGET SOUND,
WASHINGTON
386
-------
The turbidity increase is:
1n
Assuming JTU ancl NTU units are equivalent (EPA, 1979), then the increased
turbidity is less than the 5.0 NTU allowable.
It is of interest to calculate the percent light transmittance within
the plume that would cause a 5 NTU increase in turbidity. Using a typical
background light transmittance of 50 percent found in central Puget Sound,
the minimum light transmittance (Td ) is computed to be:
_, percent for k = 0.5
f4 p
" 10.5
5 percent for k = 1.0
Light transmittances as low as 0.5 to 4 percent have been found due to
causes other than the plume (e.g. plankton blooms and fresh water runoff),
but the lowest light transmittances associated with the plume have been
about 18 percent per meter.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-17
Secchi disk and turbidity can be related to each other in the following manner.
Assume that the extinction coefficient, of visible light (a) is directly
proportional to turbidity (T) and inversely proportional to Secchi disk
(SD), or:
a - kx T (VI-104)
and
a =
SO (VI-105)
where ki and k2 are constants which have not yet been specified. These two
relationships have theoretical bases, as discussed in Austin (1974) and
Graham (1968). Combining those two expressions, the relationship between
387
-------
Secchi disk and turbidity becomes:
k2
T =
kj SD
Typical values of kx and k2 are:
k = 0.5 to 1.0, where T is expressed in JTU's
k = 1.7 where Secchi disk is expressed in meters
Thus Equation VI-106 provides a method of correlating turbidity and Secchi
disk data.
When state standards are written in terms of Secchi disk, it is
convenient to combine Equations VI-98 and VI-106 to yield:
1 1
1 . l + SDe " SDa (VI-107)
_
SD- SDa S
T a a
or
SD
e IVSDf SDj-a'SDa
(VI-108)
where
SDf = minimum allowable Secchi disk reading in receiving water
such that the water quality standard is not violated
SDg = ambient Secchi disk reading
Sa = minimum initial dilution which occurs when the plume
surfaces
388
-------
SDe = Secchi disk of effluent
Since Secchi disk measurements are made from the water's surface downward,
critical conditions (in terms of the Secchi disk standard) will occur when
the initial dilution is just sufficient to allow the plume to surface. It
is notable that maximum turbidity or light transmittance impacts of a
wastewater plume will occur when the water column is stratified, the plume
remains submerged, and initial dilution is a minimum. Under these same
conditions, however, Secchi disk readings might not be altered at all, if
the plume is trapped below the water's surface at a depth exceeding the
ambient Secchi disk depth.
EXAMPLE VI-18
A municipality discharges its wastewater through an outfall and
diffuser system into an embayment. The state standard specifies that the
minimum allowable Secchi disk is 3m. Determine whether the discharge is
likely to violate the standard. Use these data:
SD = 5 to 10m, observed range
S, = 75, minimum initial dilution when the plume surfaces
a
One method of approaching the problem is to assume that violation of
the water quality standard is incipient (i.e. SDf = 3m). Under these
conditions the effluent Secchi disk would have to be:
SDe
-1
= 0.1 m
= 4 inches
Thus, if the Secchi disk of the effluent exceeds 4 inches, the standards
will not be violated even under these critical conditions. It would be a
simple matter to measure the Secchi disk of the treated effluent to see
whether the standard could be violated or not.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-18
389
-------
6.8 SEDIMENTATION
6.8.1 Introduction
Like turbidity, sedimentation is a multifaceted phenomenon in
estuaries. As in rivers, estuaries transport bed load and suspended
sediment. However with the time varying currents in estuaries, no
equilibrium or steady state conditions can be achieved (Ippen, 1966).
Additionally, while any given reach of a river has reasonably constant water
quality conditions, an estuary can vary from fresh water ( 1 ppt. salinity)
to sea water ( 30 ppt. salinity), and from a normally slightly acidic
conditon near the head to a slightly basic condition at the mouth. The
behavior of many dissolved and suspended sediments varies substantially
across these pH and salinity gradients. Many colloidal particles*
agglomerate and settle to the bottom. In general, all estuaries undergo
active sedimentation which tends to fill them in. It is also true for
essentially all U.S. estuaries that the rate of accumulation of sediment is
limited not by the available sources of sediment but by the estuary's
ability to scour unconsolidated sediments from the channel floor and banks.
6.8.2 Qualitative Description of Sedimentation
Before presenting what quantitative information is available concerning
sediment distribution in an estuary, a qualitative description of sediment
sources, types and distribution will be helpful. Sediment sources may be
divided into two general classes: sources external to the estuary and
sources internal to the estuary (Schultz and Simmons, 1957). The major
sources of sediment within each category are shown below. By far the
largest external contributor is the upstream watershed.
*Co11oidal particles are particles small enough to remain suspended by
the random thermal motion of the water.
390
-------
1. External:
• Upstream watershed
• Banks and stream bed of tributaries
t Ocean areas adjacent to the mouth of the estuary
• Surface runoff from land adjacent to the estuary
t Wind borne sediments
• Point sources (municipal and industrial)
2. Internal:
• Estuarine marsh areas
• Wave and current resuspension of unconsolidated
bed materials
• Estuarine biological activity
• Dredging
General characterizations of U.S. estuarine sediments have been made
by Ippen (1966) and by Schultz and Simmons (1957). Many individual case
study reports are available for sediment characterization of most of the
larger U.S. estuaries (i.e. Columbia River, San Francisco Bay, Charles
Harbor, Galveston Bay, Savannah Harbor, New York Harbor, Delaware River and
Bay, etc.). In general, estuarine sediments range from fine granular sand
(0.01 in. to 0.002 in. in diameter) through silts and clays to fine
colloidal clay (0.003 in. or less in diameter) (Ippen, 1966). Very little,
if any, larger material (coarse sand, gravel, etc.) is found in estuarine
sediments. Sand plays a relatively minor role in East Coast, Gulf Coast and
Southern Pacific Coast estuaries. Usually it constitutes less than 5% by
volume ( 25% by weight) of total sediments for these estuaries with most of
this sand concentrated near the estuarine mouth (Schultz & Simmons, 1957).
By contrast, sand is a major element in estuarine shoaling for the north
Pacific estuaries (i.e. Washington and Oregon coasts). These estuaries are
characterized by extensive oceanic sand intrusion into the lower estuarine
segments and by extensive bar formations near the estuarine mouth. The
relative distribution of silts and clays, of organic and inorganic material
within different estuaries, and, in fact, the distribution of shoaling and
scour areas within estuaries, varies widely.
391
-------
6.8.3 Estuarine Sediment Forces and Movement
As sediments enter the lower reaches of a river and come under tidal
influence they are subjected to a wide variety of forces which control their
movement and deposition. First, net velocities in the upper reaches of
estuaries are normally lower than river velocities. Additionally, the water
column comes under the influence of tidal action and thus is subject to
periods of slack water. During these periods coarse sand and larger
materials settle. The scour velocity required to resuspend a particle is
higher than that required to carry it in suspension. Thus, once the coarser
particles settle out in the lower river and upper estuarine areas, they tend
not to be resuspended and carried farther into the estuary (U.S.
Engineering District, San Francisco, 1975). Exceptions to this principle
can come during periods of extremely high river discharge when water
velocities can hold many of these particles in suspension well into or even
through an estuary. Table VI-26 lists approximate maximum allowable
velocities to avoid scour for various sizes of exposed particles. Values
are approximate and are for unarmored sediment (sediment not protected by a
covering of larger material).
Sediments are subject to gravitational forces and have size-dependent
settling velocities. In highly turbulent water the particle fall velocities
can be small compared to background fluid motion. Thus gravitational
settling occurs chiefly in the relatively quiescent, shallow areas of
estuaries or during periods of slack water. As mentioned earlier, particle
settling attains a maximum in each tidal cycle during high water slack and
low water slack tides. During periods of peak tidal velocity (approximately
half way between high and low water) resuspension of unconsolidated sediment
may occur. Thus during a tidal cycle large volumes of sediment are
resuspended, carried upstream with flood flow, deposited, resuspended, and
carried downstream on the ebb tide. Only those particles deposited in
relatively quiescent areas have the potential for long term residence.
Compounding this cyclic movement of sediments are seasonal river discharge
variations which alter estuarine hydrodynamics. Thus, sediment masses tend
to shift from one part of an estuary to another (Schultz and Simmons, 1975).
392
-------
TABLE VI-26
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CHANNEL VELOCITY TO AVOID BED SCOUR (FPS) (KING, 1954)
Original material excavated
Clear
water,
no
detritus
Water
trans-
porting
colloidal
silts
Water trans-
porting non-
colloidal silts,
sands, gravels
or rock
fragments
Fine sand 1-50
Sandy loarr 1.75
Silt loam 2.00
Alluvial silts 2.00
Ordinary firm loam 2.50
Volcanic ash 2.50
Fine gravel 2.50
Stiff clay 3.75
Graded, loam to cobbles 3.75
Alluvial silt 3.75
Graded, silt to cobbles 4.00
Coarse gravel 4.00
Cobbles and shingles 5.00
Shales and hardpans 6.00
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.50
6.00
5.50
6.00
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.25
2.00
3.75
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
6.50
6.50
5.00
393
-------
As fresh waters encounter areas of significant salinity gradients
extremely fine particles (primarily colloidal clay minerals) often
destabilize (coagulate) and agglomerate to form larger particles
(flocculate). The resulting floe (larger agglomerated masses) then settles
to the bottom. Coagulation occurs when electrolytes, such as magnesium
sulfate and sodium chloride, "neutralize" the repulsive forces between clay
particles. This allows the particles to adhere upon collision
(flocculation), thus producing larger masses of material. Flocculation
rates are dependent on the size distribution and relative composition of the
clays and electrolytes and upon local boundary shear forces (Ippen, 1966,
and Schultz and Simmons, 1957). Flocculation occurs primarily in the upper
central segments of an estuary in the areas of rapid salinity increase.
Movement of sediments along the bottom of an estuary does not continue
in a net downstream direction as it does in the upper layers and in stream
reaches. In all but a very few extremely well mixed estuaries upstream
bottom currents predominate at the mouth of an estuary. Thus, upstream flow
is greater than downstream flow at the bottom. This is counterbalanced by
increased surface downstream flow. However, net upstream flow along the
bottom results in a net upstream transport of sediment along the bottom of
an estuary near the mouth. Thus, sediments and floes settling into the
bottom layers of an estuary near the mouth are often carried back into the
estuary rather than being carried out into the open sea. Consequently,
estuaries tend to trap, or to conserve sediments while allowing fresh water
flows to continue on out to sea. At some point along the bottom, the
upstream transport is counter-balanced by the downstream transport from
the fresh water inflow. At this point, termed the "null zone", there is
essentially no net bottom transport. Here sediment deposition is
extensive. In a stratified estuary this point is at the head of the saline
intrusion wedge. In a partially mixed estuary it is harder to pinpoint.
Nonetheless, sedimentation is a useful parameter to analyze and will be
handles in a quantitative manner beginning with Section 6.8.4.
To this point, flow in a fairly regular channel has been assumed.
However, in many estuaries geomorphic irregularities exist. Such
irregularities (e.g. narrow headlands) create eddy currents on their lee
sides. These eddy currents, or gyres, slow the sediment movement and allow
394
-------
local shoaling. Additionally, large shallow subtidal or tidal flatlands
exist in many estuaries. Such areas are usually well out of the influence
of primary currents. As a result local water velocities are usually low and
increased shoaling is possible.
Wind and waves also have a major influence on estuarine sediment
distribution. Seasonal wind driven currents can significantly alter water
circulation patterns and associated velocities. This in turn determines, to
a large extent, the areas of net shoaling and scour throughout an estuary.
Local wind driven and oceanic waves can create significant scour forces.
Such scour, or particle resuspension, is particularly evident in shallow
areas where significant wave energy is present at the sediment/water
interface. Local wind driven waves are a major counterbalancing force to
low velocity deposition in many shallow estuarine areas (U.S. Engineering
District, San Francisco, 1975).
Finally, oceanic littoral currents (long shore currents) interact with
flood and ebb flows in the area of an estuary mouth. Particularly in the
Pacific Northwest, sandy sediment fed from such littoral drift is a major
source of estuarine sediment, and the interference of littoral drift with
normal flood and ebb flows is the major factor creating estuarine bars.
Figure VI-38 shows the schematic flow of annual sediment movement
through San Francisco Bay. With the exception of the magnitude of annual
dredging, this is typical for most U.S. estuaries. The most important
thing to observe is the dominance of resuspension and redeposition over all
other elements of sediment movement including net inflow and outflow. Also
note that there is a net annual accumulation of deposited sediment in the
bay. This figure is also helpful in conceptualizing the sediment trap or
sediment concentration characteristic of estuaries. In any year, 8-10
million cubic yards flow into the estuary and 5 to 9 million cubic yards
flow out. However, over 180 million cubic yards are actively involved in
annual sediment transport within the estuary.
Figure VI-39 is an idealized conceptualization of the various
sediment-related processes in an estuary. It must be remembered that these
processes actually overlap spatially much more than is shown and that the
395
-------
processes active at any given location vary considerably over time.
NET ANNUAL DEPOSITION
FIGURE VI-38
SEDIMENT MOVEMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY SYSTEM
(MILLION CUBIC YARDS), FROM: U,S, ENGINEERING
DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, 1975)
From this qualitative analysis, there are some general statements which
can be made. Ippen (1966) drew the following conclusions on the
distribution of estuarine sediments:
a) The major portion of sediments introduced into suspension in
an estuary from any source (including resuspension) during
normal conditions is retained therein, and if transportable by
the existing currents is deposited near the ends of the
salinity intrusion, or at locations of zero net bottom
velocity.
b) Any measure contributing to a shift of the regime towards
stratification causes increased shoaling. Such measures may
be: structures to reduce the tidal flow and prism, diversion
of additional fresh water into the estuary, deepening and
396
-------
PLAN VIEW
MAJOR EDDY DEPOSITION
^CHANNEL BANK DEPOSITION
:;...;., AREA OF LOW ENERGY DEPOSITION
4)
PROFILE
AREA OF MAXIMUM
SALINITY GRADIENTS
-FLOCCULATION
SEDIMENT TRAP AREA
Q>
NULL ZONE
"SETTLING
-SEDIMENT MOVEMENT (NET)
-WATER COLUMN MOVEMENT
HEAVY
PARTI CLE
SETTLING
FIGURE VI-39 IDEALIZED ESTUARINE SEDIMENTATION
397
-------
narrowing of the channel.
c) Sediments settling to the bottom of an estuary are generally
transported upstream and not downstream. Such sediments may
at some upstream point be resuspended into the upper layers
and carried back downstream.
d) Sediments accumulate near the ends of the intrusion zone and
form shoals. Shoals also form where the net bottom velocity
is zero (in the null zone).
e) The intensity of shoaling is most extreme near the end of the
intrusion for stratified estuaries and is lessened in the well
mixed estuary.
f) Shoals occur along the banks of the main estuarine channel
where water is deep enough to prevent wave induced scour and
where velocities are reduced from main channel velocities
sufficiently to allow settling.
Schultz and Simmons (1957) made similar conclusions but added the
presence of shoaling at the mouth where flood and ebb currents intercept
littoral drift.
6.8.4 Settling Velocities
As was stated in the previous section, settling velocities do not play
a great role in controlling sedimentation patterns in estuaries as they do
in lakes. However, it is informative to assess settling rates for various
size particles. The possible size classifications of particles and their
general inclusive diameter sizes are shown in Table VI-27 Table VI-28
lists terminal settling velocities for each particle size assuming spherical
particles and density of 2.0* in quiescent water. From this table it can be
*The density of many inorganic suspended particles is approximately equal to
that of sand (2.7 gm/cm3) while that of biomass and organic detritus is
usually much closer to that of water and can be assumed to be about 1.1 gm/cm3,
398
-------
TABLE VI-27
SEDIMENT PARTICLE SIZE RANGES (AFTER HOUGH, 1957)
Derrick STONE
One-man STONE
Clean, fine to coarse GRAVEL
Fine, uniform GRAVEL
Very coarse, clean uniform SAND
Uniform, coarse SAND
Uniform, medium SAND
Clean, well -graded SAND AND GRAVEL
Uniform, fine SAND
Well -graded, silty SAND AND GRAVEL
Silty SAND
Uniform SILT
Sandy CLAY
Silty CLAY
CLAY (30 to 50% clay sizes)
Collodal CLAY (-2p>50%)
PARTICLE SIZE RANGE
Inches Millimeters
D D .
max. mm.
120
12
3
3/8
1/8
1/8
—
--
--
—
--
--
—
--
--
36
4
1/4
1/16
1/32
1/64
--
--
--
—
—
—
--
--
—
max.
--
80
8
3
2
0.5
10
0.25
5
2
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.01
D .
mm.
--
10
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.25
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.0005
10'6
(After B. K. Hough, Basic Soils Engineering, p. 69, Values listed are
approximate)
399
-------
TABLE VI-28
«
RATE OF FALL IN WATER OF SPHERES OF VARYING RADII AND
CONSTANT DENSITY OF 2a AS CALCULATED BY STOKES1 LAWb'° (MYSELS,1959)
Radius
mm.
10
1
0.1
0.01
10'3
ID'4
10-5
10"6
io-7
Terminal
cm. /sec.
(>D
(>D
(>D
2.2xlO-2
2.2xlO-4
2.2x10-6
2.2xlO~8
2.2xlQ-10
(2.2x10-12)
velocity
cm./min.
1.3
0.013
1.3x10-4
1.3xlO'6
1.3xlO-8
To-apply to other conditions, multiply the u value
by the pertinent density difference and divide it
by the pertinent viscosity in centipoises.
Values in parentheses are calculated by Stokes' law
under conditions where this law is not applicable.
c Stokes law states that the terminal velocity is nro-
portional to the particle radius squared, the differ-
ence in density and inversely proportional to the
liquid viscosity.
400
-------
inferred that particles of the medium sand class and coarser probably settle
to the bottom within a very short time after entering an estuary.
Turning to the other end of the particle size scale of Table VI-28,
particles with a diameter of 10" mm fall only 3.1 x 10~ inches per hour in
the most favorable environment (calm waters). Such a settling rate is not
significant in the estuarine environment. Figure VI-40 shows the quiescent
settling rates for particle sizes in between these two extremes since this
intermediate size group is of real significance in estuarine management
(primarily silts). For particles smaller than those shown in Figure VI-40,
gravitational settling is not a significant factor in controlling particle
motion. Particles substantially larger than the range shown in Figure VI-40
tend to settle above, or at, the head of an estuary.
Combining Figure VI-40 (fall per tidal cycle)** with known segment
flushing times (in tidal cycles) the size of particles tending to settle out
in each segment can be estimated. If such predictions reasonably match
actual mean segment sediment particle size, then this method can be useful
in predicting changes in sediment pattern. Anticipated changes in
river-borne suspended sediment load by particle size can be compared to
areas where each size of particle would tend to settle. This would then
identify areas which would either be subject to increased shoaling or
reduced shoaling and increased scour. This type of analysis has been more
successful when applied to organic detritus material than for inorganic
suspended loads.
A number of simplifying assumptions have gone into this settling
velocity analysis. The most significant of these are:
1. Water column density changes have been ignored. Inclusion of
this factor would slightly reduce the settling velocity with
increased depth. This effect will be more significant for
organic matter because of its lower density.
2. Dispersive phenomena and advective velocities have not been
considered.
**Based on a 12.4 hour tidal cycle.
401
-------
3.
4.
Table VI-27 and Figure VI-40 are based on the fall of
perfectly spherical particles. Non-spherical particles have
lower settling velocities.
Interference between particles has not been considered.
However, in a turbulent, sediment-laden estuary such
interference is possible (hindered settling). The analysis of
the effect of interference on settling velocities was covered
in Chapter V for lakes. This analysis is also basically valid
for estuaries. The effects introduced there can be applied to
Figure VI-40 velocities to adjust for particle interference.
05 10 15
FALL DISTANCE PER TIDAL CYCLE (FT)
FIGURE VI-40
PARTICLE DIAMETER vs SETTLING
FALL PER TIDAL CYCLE (12,3 MRS)
UNDER QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
(SPHERES WITH DENSITY 2,0
6.8.5 Null Zone Calculations
It was previously mentioned that substantial shoaling occurs in the
area of the null zone. It is possible to estimate the location of this
zone, and hence the associated shoaling areas, as a function of water depth
and river discharge. In addition to the importance of the null zone to
402
-------
shoaling, Petersone and Conomos (Peterson, ert aj_., 1975) established the
biological and ecological importance of this area in terms of planktonic
production. The null zone, therefore, is both an area of potential
navigational hazard and an area of major ecological importance to the
planner.
Silvester (1974) summarized the analysis for estimating the location of
the null zone with respect to the mouth of an estuary. The basic equation
used in this analysis is:
S U 2
n _ 1000 _r (VI-109)
So 0.7S F2
o n
where
S = mean salinity (averaged vertically and over a tidal cycle) at
the null point (n), (ppt)
S = ocean surface salinity adjacent to the estuary in parts per
thousand (ppt),
Ur = fresh water flow velocity, (ft/sec)
g = gravational acceleration = 32.2 ft/sec2,
d = estuarine depth, (ft)
= densimetric Froude number at the null zone where F is
defined by:
where
403
-------
Ap/pn = difference between fresh water density and that at the
null zone (averaged over the depth of the water column)
divided by the density at the null zone. This value may
be approximated for estuarine waters by:
Combining Equations VI-109 and VI-110 and solving for — yields
pn
Ap 0.7 *
Pn 1000 bn (VI-111)
This formulation is particularly good for channels which are either
maintained at a given depth (dredged for navigation) or are naturally
regular, as "d" represents mean cross section channel depth at the null
zone.
The use of these equations first requires location of the present null
zone. This can most easily be done by measuring and averaging bottom
currents over one tidal cycle to locate the point where upstream bottom
currents and downstream river velocities are exactly equal, resulting in no
net flow. This situation is schematically shown in Figure VI-41.
When this point has been established for one set of river discharge
conditions, Equation VI-111 can be substituted into Equation VI-110 to
calculate Fn. This Fn value is an inherent characteristic of an estuary and
can be considered to be constant regardless of the variations in flow
conditions or null zone location (Silvester, 1974).
With this information and a salinity profile for the estuary (SY
/\
plotted against x from x = 0 at the mouth of the estuary to x = L at the
head) the location of future null zones may be calculated. Given the new
conditions of Ur (changes in river discharge) or of d (changes in channel
depth, as by dredging activity), Equation VI-109 will allow calculation of a
new Sn. This may be plotted on the salinity profile to caculate the
location of a new null zone position. Even though these changes will
produce a new estuarine salinity profile, the use of Equation VI-109 and the
old (known) salinity profile will produce reasonably good estimates of
longitudinal shifts in the location of the null zone. Salinity profiles for
404
-------
Mouth
U,
'09
.**
.JNULLZONE
NULL ZONE
U0.9
* U
" U
R
= tidally averaged velocity at a depth equal
to 0.9 of the water column depth.
= river flow velocity
FIGURE VI-41 ESTUARINE NULL ZONE IDENTIFICATION
405
-------
appropriate seasonal conditions should be used for each calculation (e.g.
low flow profiles for a new low flow null zone calculation).
EXAMPLE VI-19
Estimation of Null Ipn e_location
An estuary has the tidally averaged salinitv profile shown in the
Salinity Table below. Mean channel depth in the area of the existing null
zone is 18 feet and the salinity at that point is 10 parts per thousand
(ppt). Current (low flow) river discharge velocity is 0.5 ft/sec. Normal
winter (high flow) velocity is 1.8 ft/sec. It is desired to know where the
null zone will be located in summer and winter if a 30 ft deep channel is
dredged up to 70,000 feet from the mouth.
SALINITY DATA FOR EXAMPLE VI-19
Dis
tance from mouth (1
Salinity, (ppt)
000ft)
5
30
15
28
25
25
35
20
45
13
55
8
65
6
75
4
85
1
From equation VI-43 and equation VI-44
F = U
n
(Sn) (g) (d)
= 0.5 ft/sec/ 1 (7xlO-4) (10 ppt) (32.2 ft/sec2) (18 ft)
or,
F - 0.248
n
406
-------
From equation VI-109 the null zone salinity with a deeper channel will
be:
Srt 1000 U2
5=0 r
n 5 0.7 F2 gd
o n 3
= (1000) (0.5 ft/sec)2 /0.7 (0.248)2 (32.2 ft/sec3) (30 ft)
Sn = 6.0 ppt
From the prevous tabulation this will occur approximately 65,000 ft
from the mouth of the estuary.
Under winter flow conditions,
1000 U2
S = - r
0.7F2gd
= (1000) (1.8 ft/sec)/O.7 (0.248)2 (32.2 ft/sec2) (30 ft)
$n = 77.9 ppt
This Sn is greater than ocean salinity and will not actually be
encountered. Thus, null zone shoaling will occur at the mouth if it occurs
at all. This condition is common for rivers with seasonally variable flow
rates.
END OF EXAMPLE VI-19
407
-------
REFERENCES
Abramovich, G., 1963. The Theory of Turbulent Jets, MIT Press.
American Public Health Association, 1976. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. Fourteenth edition.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1980. Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. Fifteenth Edition. APHA, Washington, D.C., 1134 pp.
Austin, R.W., 1974. "Problems in Measuring Turbidity as a Water Quality
Parameter," Proceedings of Seminar on Methodology for Monitoring the
Marine Environment. EPA Environmental Monitoring Series, Number EPA
6QO/4-74-004.
Beyer, G.L., 1969. "Turbidimetry and Nephelometry," Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology, New York, pp. 738-798.
Brooks, N.H., 1972. Dispersion in Hydrologic and Coastal Environments.
California Institute of Technology, Division of Engineering and
Applied Science, Report No. KH-R-29.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1978. Water Quality Control
Plan for Ocean Waters of California. State Water Resources Control
Board Resolution No. 78-2. 15 pp.
Carhart, R.A., A.J. Policastro, S. Ziemer, K. Haake, and W. Dunn, 1981.
Studies of Mathematical Models for Characterizing Plume and Drift
Behavior from Cooling Towers, Volume 2: Mathematical Model for
Single-Source (single-tower) Cooling Tower Plume Dispersion.
Electric Power Research Institute, CS-1683, Vol. 2, Research Project
906-1.
Chen, C.W. and Orlob, G.T., 1975. "Ecologic Simulation for Aquatic
Environments", Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, Vol. III.
Academic Press, Inc., New York, pp. 475-558.
DeFalco, Paul, Jr., 1967. "The Estuary-Septic Tank of the Megalopolis,"
Estuaries; Ed: G.H. Lauff, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Publication No. 83, pp. 701-707.
Duxbury, A.C., 1970. "Estuaries Found in the Pacific Northwest,"
Proceedings, Northwest Estuarine and Coastal Zone Symposium. Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Dyer, K.R., 1973. Estuaries: A Physical Introduction, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Edinger, J.E., 1971. "Estuarine Temperature Distributions," Estuarine
Modeling: An Assessment. Chapter 4, Environmental Protection Agency
Water Pollution Control Research Series, No. 16070DZV 02/71.
Edinger, J.E. and E.M. Polk, 1969. Initial Mixing of Thermal Discharges
into a Uniform Current. Water Center Report #1, Vanderbilt
University.
408
-------
Fan, L.N., 1967. Turbulent Buoyant Jets into Stratified or Flowing Ambient
Fluids. KH-R-15, W.M. Keck Laboratory, Cal Tech, Pasadena,
California.
Fisher, H.B., 1968. Methods for Predicting Dispersion Coefficients in
Natural Streams, with Applications to Lower Reaches of the Green and
Duwamish Rivers, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 582-A, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Frick, W.E., 1981a. Projected Area in Plume Modeling. Submitted for
publication September 1981. Corvallis, Oregon.
Frick, W.E., 1981b. Comparison of PLUME and OUTPLM Predictions with
Observed Plumes. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Frick, W.E., 1981c. A Theory and Users's Guide for the Plume Model MERGE.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon.
Frick, W.E., 1980. Findings and Recommendations On the Use and Modification
of the EPA Computer Model DKHPLM. Tetra Tech, Inc., Corvallis,
Oregon.
Frick, W.E. and L.D. Winiarski, 1980. Why Froude Number Replication Does
Not Necessarily Ensure Modeling Similarity. In: Proceedings of the
Second Conference on Waste Heat Management and Utilization, Miami
Beach, Florida.
Frick, W.E. and L.D. Winiarski, 1975. Comments on "The Rise of Moist
Buoyant Plumes." Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 14, No. 3,
page 421.
Giger, R.D., 1972. "Some Estuarine Factors Influencing Ascent of Anadromous
Cutthroat Trout in Oregon," Proceedings of the Second Annual
Technical Conference on Estuaries of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon
State University, pp. 18-30.
Glenne, B., 1967. "A Classification System for Estuaries," Journal of the
Waterways and Harbors Division. February, 1967, pp. 55-61.
Goodwin, C.R., E.W. Emmett and B. Glenne, 1970. Tidal Studies of Three
Oregon Estuaries. Oregon State University Engineering Experiment
Station Bulletin No. 45.
Graham, J.J., 1968. Secchi Disc Observations and Extinction Coefficients in
the Central and Eastern North Pacific Ocean. Limnology and
Oceanography, pp. 184-190.
Green, J., 1968. The Biology of Estuarine Animals. University of
Washington Press; Seattle, Washington.
Hansen, D.V. and M. Rattray, 1966. "New Dimensions in Estuarine
Classification," Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. XI(3), pp. 319-326.
Hardy, C.D., 1972. Movement and Quality of Long Island Sound Waters, 1971.
State University of New York, Marine Sciences Research Center,
Technical Report #17.
409
-------
Harleman, D.R.F., 1964. "The Significance of Longitudinal Dispersion in the
Analysis of Pollution in Estuaries," Proceedings 2nd International
Conference on Water Pollution Research. Tokyo, Pergamon Press, New
Harleman, D.F.R., 1971. "Hydrodynamic Model - One Dimensional Models."
Estuarine Modeling: An Assessment, Chapter II-3, EPA Water Pollution
Control Research Series, No. T5D70 DZV 02/71, pp. 34-90.
Harleman, D. and C.H. Lee, 1969. The Computation of Tides and Current in
Estuaries and Canals. U.S. Corps of Engineers Committee on Tidal
Hydraulics, Technical Bulletin No. 16.
Hodkinson, J.R., 1968. "The Optical Measurement of Aerosols," Aerosol
Science. Ed: Davies, C.N., Academic Press, Inc., New york,
pp. 287-357.
Hough, B.K., 1957. Basic Soils Engineering. The Ronald Press Co., New
York, pg. 69.
Hydroscience, Inc., 1971. Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water
Quality. EPA, Water Quality Management Planning Series, Washington,
D.C.
Hydroscience, Inc., 1974. Water Quality Evaluation for Ocean Disposal
System - Suffolk County, New York. Bowe, Walsh and Associates
Engineers, New York.
Ippen, A.T., 1966. Estuary and coastline Hydrodynamics. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
Jirka, G. and D.R.F. Harleman, 1973. The Mechanics of Submerged Multiport
Diffusers for Buoyant Discharges in Shallow Water. Report No. 169,
Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT,
pg. 236.
Johnson, R.G., W.R. Bryant, and J.W. Hedgpeth, 1961. Ecological Survey of
Tomales Bay: Preliminary Report of the 1960 Hydrological Survey.
University of the Pacific, Pacific Marine Station.
Johnson, J., 1973. "Characteristics and Behavior of Pacific Coast Tidal
Inlets," Journal of the Waterways Harbors and Coastal Engineering
Division, August, 197, pp. 325-339.
Ketchum, B.H., 1950. "Hydrographic Factors Involved in the Dispersion of
Pollutants Introduced Into Tidal Waters," Journal of the Boston
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 37, pp. 296-314.
Ketchum, B.H., 1955. "Distribution of Coliform Bacteria and Other
Pollutants in Tidal Estuaries," Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
Vol. 27, pp. 1288-1296.
Ketchum, B.H. and D.J. Keen, 1951. The Exchanges of Fresh and Salt Waters
in the Bay of Fundy and in Passamaquoddy Bay. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Contribution No. 593, Reference Number
51-98.
410
-------
King, H.W., 1954. Handbook of Hydraulics. Revised by E.F. Brater.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 7-33.
McGauhey, P.H., 1968. Engineering Management of Water Quality, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, San Francisco.
McKinsey, D., 1974. Seasonal Variations in Tidal Dynamics, Water Quality,
and Sediment in Alsea Estuary, Oregon State University, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Corvallis, Oregon.
Mysels, K.J., 1959. Introduction to Conoid Chemistry, Interscience
Publisher, New York, pg. 61.
Neumann, G. and W. Pierson, 1966. Principles of Physical Oceanography,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
O'Brien, M.P., 1969. "Equilibrium Flow Areas of Inlets on Sandy Coasts,"
Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 43-51.
O'Connor, D.J., 1965. Estuarine Distribution of Nonconservative Substances.
Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE. SA1, pp. 23-42.
O'Connor, D.J. and R.V. Thomann, 1971. "Water Quality Models: Chemical,
Physical, and Biological Constituents," Estuarine Model ing: An
Assessment, Chapter III, EPA Water Pollution ControTTesearch Series
No. 16070 DZV 02/71, pp. 102-169.
Parker, F.L. and P.A. Krenkel, 1970. CRC Physical and Engineering Aspects
of Thermal Pollution, The Chemical Rubber Company Press, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Pearson, E. ejt aj_., 1967. Final Report: A Comprehensive Study of San
Francisco Bay, Volume V: Summary of Physical, Chemical and
Biological Water and Sediment Data, U.C. Berkeley Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory, Report No. 67-2.
Perkins, E.J., 1974. The Biology of Estuaries and Coastal Waters, Academic
Press, London.
Peterson, O.H. et a^., 1975. "Location of the Non-tidal Current Null Zone
in Northern San Francisco Bay." Estuarine and Coastal Marine
Science, (1975) 3, pp. 1-11.
Policastro, A.J., R.A. Carhart, S.E. Ziemer, and K. Haake, 1980. Evaluation
of Mathematical Models for Characterizing Plume Behavior from Cooling
Towers. Dispersion from Single and Multiple Source Natural Draft
Cooling Towers, NUREG/CR-1581, Vol. 1, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois.
Pritchard, D.W., 1960. "The Movement and Mixing of Contaminants in Tidal
Estuaries," Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment, University of California,
Berkeley.
Pritchard, D.W., 1967. "What is an Estuary: Physical Viewpoint,"
Estuaries. Ed: Lauff, G.H., American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Publication No. 83, pp. 2-6.
411
-------
Pritchard, D.W., 1969. Dispersion and Flushing of Pollutants in Estuaries.
Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, HY1, pp. 115-124.
Pritchard, D.W. and J.R. Schubel, 1971. "What is an Estuary," The Estuarine
Environment-Estuaries and Estuarine Sedimentation, American
Geological Institute.
Rawn, A.M., F.R. Bowerman, and N.H. Brooks, 1960. Diffusers for Disposal of
Sewage in Seawater. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
ASCE, SAR, pg. 80.
Schubel, J.R., 1971. "The Origin and Development of Estuaries," The
Estuarine Environment-Estuaries and Estuarine Sedimentation, American
Geological Institute.
Schultz, E.A. and H.B. Simmons, 1957. Freshwater-Salt Water Density
Current, a Major Cause of Siltation in Estuaries. Commission on
Tidal Hydraulics, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Bulletin
No. 2.
Serne, R.J. and B.W. Mercer, 1975. "Characterization of San Francisco Bay
Delta Sediments - Crystalline Matrix Study." Dredge Disposal Study
of San Francisco Bay and Estuary, Appendix F, U.S. Army U.S. Corps
of Engineers, San Francisco, District.
Shiraza, M.A. and L.R. Davis, 1976. Workbook of Thermal Plume Predictions:
Surface Discharge, USEPA Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
Oregon.
Silvester, R., 1974. Coastal Engineering, II: Sedimentation, Estuaries,
Tides, Effluents and Modeling, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, New York.
Stommel, H., 1953. "Computation of Pollution in a Vertically Mixed
Estuary." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 25(9), pp. 1065-1071.
Streeter, V.L. (Editor-in-Chief), 1961. Handbook of Fluid Dynamics,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New York.
Stumm, W. and J.J., Morgan, 1970. Aquatic Chemistry: An Introduction
Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Natural Waters,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 507-513.
Teeter, A.M. and D.J. Baumgartner, 1979. Prediction of Initial Mixing for
Municipal Ocean Discharges, CERL-043. USEPA Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory, Oregon.
Tesche, T.W., W.D. Jensen, and J.L. Haney, 1980. Modeling Study of the
Proposed SMUD Geothermal Power Plant: Model Application Protocol.
SAI No. 118-E780-11, Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael,
California.
Tetra Tech, Inc., 1979. Methodology for Evaluation of Multiple Power Plant
Cooling System Effects. Volume: General Description and Screening.
Electric Power Research Institute Report EA-1111. Palo, Alto,
California
412
-------
Tracer, 1971. Estuarine Modeling: An Assessment For: Water Quality
Office, Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Engineer District - San Francisco, 1975. Draft Composit Environmental
Statement for Maintenance Dredging of Federal Navigation Projects in
San Francisco Bay Region, California, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1^79. Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020.
Van de Hulst, H.C., 1957. Light Scattering by Small Particles. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.
Winiarski, L.D., and W.E. Frick, 1978. Methods of Improving Plume Models.
Presented at the May 2-4, 1978, Cooling Tower Environment 1978
Conference, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Winiarski, L.D. and W.E. Frick, 1976. Cooling Tower Plume Model,
EPA-600/3-76-100. USEPA Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
413
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF RAINFALL EROSIVITY FACTOR R
Figure A-l - Key Map for Selection of Distribution Curves
for Eastern United States
Figure A-2a through A-2i - Distribution Curves for Eastern
United States
Distribution Curves for Hawaii (Figures A-3a through A-3c)
Methods for Developing R Distribution Curves for the
Western United States
A-l
-------
>
INS
FIGURE A-l KEY MAP FOR SELECTION OF APPLICABLE EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVE
(WlSCHMEIR AND SMITH, 1965)
-------
e-v
C1
d
;O
m
3>
I
ro
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
i\> ^ o> oo o
o o o o o o
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
ro -t> O) oo o
o o o o o o
-< o
CO CO
o •—
DC O
m I
m z
PO O
m
> x
O E 3
OO CO
l .
x to
^ c:
H
t— > — •
LO O
cn z
m
co
H
-JL
m
co
H
m
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
ro -& a) oo O
o o o o o o
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
ro .& cn oo o
o o o o o o
m
a
co
H
m
co
-------
T3
C
100
80
o
^
UJ
60
^ 4°
H-
O
- 20
o>
o
0
100
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
xlOO
a>
c 80
o
to
o
60
40
o
c
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
12/1
FIGURE A-2e
EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
(WlSCHMEIER AND SMITH, 1965)
-------
9-V
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
CD
d
73
m
i
ro
o
r=: 73
—• o
CO CO
O —i
re o
m i
m z
73 o
m
> X
a a
CO CO
2 H
X CO
^ cr
H
(_-i H-i
CO O
CD Z
un
m
CO
Tl
o
H
X
m
m
>
CO
H
m
m
a
GO
m
CO
i i i I I i I I I I M i i i i i
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
-------
9-V
Percent of Annual Erosion Index Percent of Annual Erosion Index
o
cz
73
m
i
ro
a
— • o
CO CO
o — .
re o
2 -Z.
m i
m z
73 a
rn
> X
•z.
G C3
CO CO
X D3
cn
Percent of Annual Erosion Index Percent of Annual Erosion Index
rn
CO
•n
o
m
m
>
CO
H
m
73
a
oo
m
CO
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
-------
100
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1 12/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
100
c 80
D
3
C
0>
o
l_
0)
0_
60
40
20
2/1
19
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1 12/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
FIGURE A-2E
EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
(WlSCHMEIER AND SMITH, 1965)
-------
>
oo
x 100
O)
•o
c
c 80
o
o
TJ
C
o
o
D
c
o
t_
a>
Q_
60
o
3
I 40
o
£ 20
o
L.
w
°- 0
2/1
100
80
uJ 60
40
20
21
I
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
22
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
T3
^
C
O
55
o
o
3
C
C
<
«4-
o
c
o>
o
L_
CL
C
a>
o
100
80
60
40
20
100
T3
_C
c 80
o
60
40
20
23
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
24
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
FIGURE A-2p
EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
(WlSCHMEIER AND SMITH, 1965)
-------
>
xlOO
o>
c 80
o
60
o
3
4°
C
o>
o
i_
o>
Q.
20
100
2/1
100
80
CO
e
UJ
o
o
c
c
a>
o
L.
a>
Q.
60
40
20
0
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
26
J I
I I I I
J I
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
a>
c 80
o
C.
Q>
O
60
40
20
2/1
x 100
9)
c
g
in
o
O
80
60
40
= 20
Q>
O
4/1
6/1 8/1
Dote
10/1
12/1
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
FIGURE A-2G
EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
(WlSCHMEIER AND SMITH, 1965)
-------
4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
2/1
4/1
6/1 8/1
Date
10/1
12/1
x 100
_c
c 80
o
to
o
uj 60
o
I 40
*4-
O
c 20
0>
o
6/1 8/1
Date
FIGURE A-2n
EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
(WlSCHMEIER AND SMITH, 1965)
-------
100
X
0)
•o
- 80
c
o
'tn
o
uj 60
c
< 40
§ 20
i_
-------
I
I-J
to
o
'(A
2
UJ
o
3
c
o
s.
100
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
KAUAI, Brydeswood Area
Koloa District
KAUAI, Southwest Port
of Island, Waimeo District
2/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
Date
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
KAUAI, Lihue Area
Lihue District
MOLOKAI, North Central
Part of Island, Hoolehua
and Kualapuu Areas
2/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
Date
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
LANAI, Lanai City Area
MOLOKAI, South Central Part,
of Island, Kaunakakai Area
2/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
Date
FIGURE A-3A EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR HAWAII
(SOILS TECHNICAL NOTE No, 3, 1974)
-------
>
100
80
60
X
O)
40
c
O
"55
o
UJ
5 20
c
<
0
100
OAHU, Leeward Side
of Island
o 80
c
«
2 60
s.
40
20
OAHU, Windward Side
of Island
2/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
Date
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
HAWAII, Western Part
of Island
ill
HAWAII, Eastern Part-
vicinity of Hilo, North
Hilo, South Hilo, Puna,.
Dists.
2/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
Date
100
80
60
40
20
100
80
60
40
20
HAWAII, Northern Port
of Island, Hamakua
District
HAWAII, Southern Port
Ka'u District
2/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 12/1
Date
FIGURE A-3B EROSION-INDEX DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR HAWAII
(SOILS TECHNICAL NOTE No, 3, 1974)
-------
CD
C.
33
m
I
v~M
o
GO 73
O O
f-i CO
r~ -<
co o
m i — i
n z:
x o
z rn
— X
o
> cm
O
CO
i
m co
c:
^. -\
o —
m
co
TI
O
>
s:
>
Parcent of Annual Erosion Index
o 8 S 8 §
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
S
03
o
ro
a>
o
o
CD
ro
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
ro
O
O)
o
8
o
o
Percent of Annual Erosion Index
8 $ 8
CO
o
o
o
ro
o
a
Co
ro
-------
METHODS FOR DEVELOPING R DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE WESTERN UNITED
STATES (Conservation Agronomy Technical Note No. 32, 1974)
R is significant in portions of this area. Divide the annual
R for the location by the average annual precipitation to obtain a
factor. Multiply each month's precipitation by this factor to obtain
monthly R values. Add the prorated monthly R values to R for the
months when snowmelt occurs, to obtain the monthly R values. Compute
the monthly accumulative percent. The following example is for
Hylton, in Elko County, Nevada. The 2-6 rainfall for this area is
0.9 in. The annual R determined from the Type II curve on Figure
III-4, is 18. Annual precipitation average is 12.72 in. Factor is
18 ~ 12.72 = 1.42.
Monthly precipitation (water depth) for December through March
is 4.92 in. Rg = 4.92 x 1.5 = 7.38. This is prorated, based on
local judgment to
January 10% or 0.7
February 20% or 1.5
March 50% or 3.7
April 20% or 1.5
Month
(1)
January
February
March
April
May
Precipi-
tation
(Inches
Water
Depth)
(2)
1.18
1.14
1.29
1.49
1.48
R
r
(3)
1.68
1.62
1.83
2.12
2.10
Rs
(4)
0.7
1.5
3.7
1.5
-
R*
15}
2.38
3.12
5.53
3.62
2.10
Cumul
R
.(A)
2.38
5.50
11.03
14.65
16.75
ative
°i
10
(7)
0.093
21.6
43.3
57.5
65.8
^Columns (3) + (4).
A-15
-------
Month
(1)
June
July
August
September
October
November-
December
Precipi-
tation
( Inches
Water
Depth)
(2)
0.91
0.63
0.52
0.63
1.17
0.97
1.31
Rr
131
1.29
0.89
0.74
0.89
1.66
1.38
1.86
R R*
(4) (5)
1.29
0.89
0.74
0.89
1.66
1.38
1.86
Cumul
R
(6)
18.04
18.93
19.67
20.56
22.22
23.60
25.46
ative
01
lo
(7)
70.9
74.4
77.3
80.8
87.3
92.7
100.
*Columns (3) + (4).
Values in cumulative percent column (7) are the points used in
plotting the monthly R distribution curve.
f°T A-2, A-3, and A-4 Areas Shown in Figure II1-4
RS is not significant in most parts of these areas. Use the monthly
rainfall distribution as the R distribution. Simply accumulate monthly
precipitation amounts and divide each by the annual precipitation. The
results obtained for each month will be the points for plotting the
monthly R distribution curve.
For B-1 and C Areas Shown in Figure III-4
R in most parts of these areas is significant.
1. "Multipliers" are used to time average monthly precipitation
amounts. Sum the results of multiplications to obtain the
"factored annual precipitation". Divide the annual R for
A-16
-------
the location by the "factored annual precipitation" to
obtain a factor which will be used to convert monthly
precipitation amounts to the monthly R values (see
the previous section for A-l area). Values of
multipliers are:
Month(s) Multipliers
January, February,
March 0.1
April 1.0
May 4.0
June, July, August 7.0
September, October 2.0
November, December 0.1
Add the prorated R values to the months when the snowmelt
occurs to obtain the monthly R values. Compute the monthly
cumulative percents which are points used in plotting
the monthly R distribution curve. The following example
is for a hypothetical area which has an annual rainfall
factor Rr of 25, and a RS factor of 7.5 (4.94 x 1.5 rounded
to 7.5). The 4.94 in. is total precipitation for December.
January, February, and March. R factor is prorated to:
January 0% or 0 in.
February 33.3% or 2.5 in.
March 33.3% or 2.5 in.
April 33.3% or 2.5 in.
A-17
-------
Month
(1)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Month
TIT
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Precipi-
tation
(in.)
(2)
1.33
1.14
1.35
1.48
1.43
1.00
0.80
0.78
0.85
1.14
0.92
1.12
13.34
Monthly
Rs
(6)
-
2.5
2.5
2.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
Multiplier
(3)
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
0.1
Monthly R
=Rr + Rs
(7)
0.11
2.59
2.66
3.74
4.80
5.87
4.69
4.58
1.43
1.91
0.08
0.09
32.5
Factored
Monthly
pptn. (Col. 2
x Col. 3)
(4)
0.13
0.11
0.13
1.48
5.72
7.00
5.60
5.46
1.70
2.28
0.09
0.11
29.81
Cumulati
R
W
0.1
2.7
5.4
9.1
13.9
19.8
24.5
29.0
30.5
32.4
32.4
32.5
Monthly
R *
r*
(5)
0.11
0.09
0.11
1.24
4.80
5.78
4.69
4.58
1.43
1.91
0.08
0.09
25.0
ve
%
w>
-
8
17
28
43
61
75
89
94
99
100
100
*In this example, the calculated factor value is 0.84 (25 + 29.81).
Monthly R is obtained by multiplying each "factored monthly pptn."
with 0.84:
A-18
-------
For B-2 Area Shown in Figure II1-3
In this area, no R values are needed. Follow the same procedure
and use the same set of multipliers as the preceding section for areas
B-l and C, except that steps for obtaining monthly R values are not
used. The cumulative R and cumulative percent are computed from monthly
R (column 5 in the preceding example).
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
Conservation Agronomy Technical Note No. 32, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, West Technical Service
Center, Portland, Oregon, September, 1974.
Soils Technical Note No. 3, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii, May, 1974.
Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D., "Predicting Rainfall—Erosion
Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains," Agricultural
Handbook 282, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Research Service, May, 1965.
A-19
-------
APPENDIX B
METHODS FOR PREDICTING SOIL ERODIBILITY INDEX K
Nomograph for Predicting K Values of Surface Soils Using
Chemical and Physical Parameters.
Nomograph for Predicting K Values of High Clay Subsoils
Using Chemical Mineralogical and Physical Parameters.
B-l
-------
NOMOGRAPH FOR PREDICTING K VALUES OF SURFACE SOIL
In 1971 Wischmeier, et al. (1971) presented a soil credibility
nomograph derived from statistical analysis of 55 soil types. Five
soil parameters are included in the nomograph to predict credibility:
percent silt plus very fine sand; percent sand greater than 0.10
millimeter; organic matter content; soil structure; and permeability.
Values of the parameters may be obtained from routine laboratory
determinations and standard soil profile descriptions.
The nomograph is reproduced here as Figure B-l.
Description of Factors (Water Resources Administration, 1973)
Grain Size Distribution
Grain size distribution has a major influence on a soil's
credibility: the greater the silt content, the greater the soil's
credibility; the smaller the sand content, the greater the soil's
erodibility.
Particles in the very fine sand classification behave more
like silt than sand. Therefore, the percentage of very fine sand
should be subtracted from the total percentage of sand and added to
the percentage of silt.
Organic Matter
The percentage of organic matter was determined, in work
by Wischmeier, et al., by the Waikley-Black method (Walkley and
Black, 1934). The organic matter content is approximately 1.72 times
the percent carbon. Soil erodibility decreases as organic matter
content increases.
B-2
-------
s-g
c:
33
m
CO
I
GO
o
o
a
»—«
ro
o
o
33
co
o
m
m
2
UD
Metric Tons/Hectare/Metric R Unit
First Approximation of K
Soil-Erodibility Factor K
Metric Tons/Hectare/Metric R Unit
o ooooooo
o
:_ ro w
o o o o
8 8 3 S 8
Tons/Acre/English R Unit
'ro CM >
oooo
-------
Soil Structure
The soil structure is descriptive of the overall arrangement
of the soil solids. The four parameter values and their descriptions
are as follows:
Parameter
Value Descriptions
Granular - All rounded aggregates may be placed in this
category. These rounded complexes usually lie loosely
and are readily shaken apart. When wetted, the voids
are not closed readily by swelling.
1 Very fine granular - less than 1 mm.
2 Fine granular - 1 to 2 mm.
3 Medium granular - 2 to 5 mm.
3 Coarse granular - 5 to 10 mm.
4 Blocky - Aggregates have been reduced to blocks,
irregularly six-faced, and with their three dimensions
more or less equal. In size, the fragments range
from a fraction of an inch to 3 or 4 in. in thickness.
4 Platy - Aggregates are arranged in relatively thin
plates or lenses.
4 Prismatic - Aggregates or pillars are vertically
oriented, with tops plane, level, and clean cut.
They commonly occur in subsoils of arid and semi-arid
regions.
B-4
-------
Parameter
Value Descriptions
4 Columnar - Aggregates or pillars are vertically
oriented, with rounded tops. They commonly occur
when the soil profile is changing and the horizons
are degrading.
4 Massive - Soil units are very large, irregular,
featureless as far as characteristic aggregates
are concerned.
Soil Permeability
Soil permeability is the ability of the soil to transmit water.
Since different soil horizons vary in permeability, the relative perme-
ability classes refer to the soil profile as a whole. The relative
permeability classes are as follows:
Class Permeability Rates in In/Hour
1 Rapid over 6.0
2 Moderately rapid 2.0 to 6.0
3 Moderate 0.6 to 2.0
4 Moderately slow 0.2 to 0.6
5 Slow 0.06 to 0.2
6 Very slow less than 0.06
Reading the Nomograph
Entry values for all of the nomograph curves, except permeability
class, are for the upper 6 or 7 in. of soil. For soils in cuts, the
entry values are for the upper 6 or 7 in. of the newly exposed layer.
In reading the nomograph, interpolate linearly between adjacent curves
when the entry data do not coincide with the plotted curves of percent
B-5
-------
sand or percent organic matter. The percent of coarse fragments may
be significant and is not included in the nomograph. Therefore, reduce
the value of K read from the nomograph by 10% for soils with strati-
fied subsoils that include layers of small stones or gravel without a
seriously impeding layer above them.
Enter the left scale of the nomograph with the appropriate
percent silt plus very fine sand, move horizontally to intersect the
correct percent-sand curve (interpolating to the nearest percent),
vertically to the correct organic matter curve, and then horizontally
to the right scale for first approximation of soil credibility.
For soils having a fine granular structure and moderate perme-
ability, the value of K can be obtained directly from this scale.
However, if the soil is other than of fine granular structure, or
permeability is other than moderate, it is necessary to proceed to
the second part of the nomograph, horizontally to intersect the
correct structure curve, vertically downward to the permeability
curve, and horizontally to the soil erodibility index scale.
NOMOGRAPH FOR PREDICTING K VALUES OF HIGH CLAY SUBSOILS
Subsoils are commonly heavier in texture than the surface soils,
In addition, subsoils likely have aggregating agents that are very
much different from those found in surface soils and the degree of
aggregation is known to have a profound influence on erodibility.
From an EPA study (Roth, et al., 1974) conducted at Purdue
University, a multiple linear regression equation and nomograph were
developed which can be used to estimate the erodibility factor, K,
of many high clay soils. Multiple regression analysis revealed that
B-6
-------
amorphous iron, aluminum and silicon hydrous oxides serve as soil
stabilizers in subsoils (whereas, organic matter is the major
stabilizer in surface soils). The nomograph was developed from
the multiple linear regression equation relating the credibility
factor to the soil texture factor, M, the amount of CDB (citrate-
dithionite-bicarbonate) extractable iron and aluminum oxides, and
the amount of CDB extractable silica.
The equation used to derive the nomograph was:
K . = 0.32114 + 2.0167 x 10"4 M - 0.14440 (% Fe^ + % Al^)
- 0.83686 (% Si02)
where
K d = predicted K value of subsoil
M = soil texture factor, defined by percent new silt
(percent new silt + percent new sand). "New" silt
has 2 to 100 urn mean diameter. "New" sand has 100
to 2,000 ym mean diameter.
% Fe,>03 = percent CBD extractable iron oxide of soil.
% A1203 = percent CDB extractable aluminum oxide of soil.
% Si02 = percent CDB extractable silica in soil.
The nomograph for estimating the credibility factor, K, of high clay
subsoils is reproduced in Figure B-2.
B-7
-------
? o
E
6 '0
3 20
O
£ 30
1 40
c/>
I 5°
L
? 6°
> 70
+
*• Of)
— OU
c 90
o>
u
« inn
rerceni \ re2^>^ T AI2U3 ; n
• * • • a
-BB=.
/
^
^
^
/
/
/
^
x
__,« —
^
X
/
x
/
/>
/'
•,
^
^
P«rc
(O.I
x
//
/x/
x
^
f
f
/
"^^ *
^
^
ent
— 2
x
//
X
x
^
x'
/
/
, T***!^
^
^
*><
Sand
mm )
T
0
0.5
2
3 —
4
/;
60
.50
•-^.40
__—- 30
^
X
-20
• 15
NO
0
Percent
/
'/
'/
^ X
X
/
'/
/
/ s
jf
'/
' ,'
/ ,
/
/
/
J
A
f *
s
s
/'
/
/ ,
f
',*' ' 'j
f s
f
s
S J
/
/
__/
/ .
t J
• X
: x
X j
'•/
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
*
*
•
/
//
;/
X 1
/
X
'/
/
/ f,
f
'/
f t
s
X
/
/
/,
'/
r ,
X
X
X
/
' 1
0.4
1
,.j
0.3
0.2
0. 1
o
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Tons /Acre/English R Unit
i i
0 1000 2000 3000 40OO
Factor M
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 I.I
Metric Tons/Hectare/Metric R Unit
Soil Erodibility Factor K
FIGURE B-2 NOMOGRAPH FOR ESTIMATING THE ERODIBILITY
FACTOR K OF HIGH CLAY SUBSOILS
(ROTH ET AL,, 1974)
B-8
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
Roth, C.B., Nelson, D.W., and Romkens, M.J.M., 1974. "Prediction
of Subsoil Erodibility Using Chemical, Mineralogical, and Physical
Parameters," for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA-660/2-74-043), Washington, D.C.
Walkley, A., and Black, I.A., 1934. "An Examination of the Degtjareff
Method for determining Soil Organic Matter," Soil Sci., 37,
pp. 29-38.
Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B., and Cross, B.U., 1971. "A Soil
Erodibility Nomograph for Farmland and Construction Sites,"
J. Soil and Hater Conservation, 26:189-193. "Technical Guide
to Erosion and Sediment Control Design (Draft)," 1973. Water
Resources Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Annapolis, Maryland.
B-9
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
STREAM AND RIVER DATA
Table C-l Stream and River Reaeration and Deoxygenatlon Rates
(From Hydroscience, 1971)
Table C-2 Deoxygenatlon Rate Constants (From Bansal, 1975)
Table C-3 Alluvial Channel and Sediment Data (From Schumm, 1960)
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l
STREAM AND RIVER REAERATION AND DEOXYGENATION RATES (FROM HYDROSCIENCE, 1971)
River Name Category
Grand River Shallow
(Michigan)
Clinton River Shallow
o (Michigan)
i
Truckee River Shallow
(Nevada)
Fl int River Shallow
(Michigan)
Jackson River Shallow
(Virginia)
N. Branch Shallow
Depth
(ft. )
1.9
1.58
1.67
1.67
1.67
2.1
2.6
2.6
1.7
1.9
3
2
Area
2
320.0
44.6
150.
150.
150.
210.
200.
400.
290.
400.
365.
100.
Flow
(cfs)
295.
33.
180.
195.
271.
134.
174.
174.
204.
204.
100.
100.
Velocity
(fps)
0.92
0.72
1.20
1 .30
1.81
0.64
0.83
0.44
0.73
0.51
0.27
1.0
k
a
@20°C
(I/day)
4.5
5.9
5.6
5.7
6.6
3.5
3.9
3.1
5.0
2.2
4.1
9.0
k
@20°C
(1/da.y)
0.59
3.37
0.36
0.36
0.96
0.56
0.63
0.69
0.69
0.69
1 .25
0.40
Potomac River
(Md., W.Va.)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
River Name
Category
Depth
ft.
Velocity
(fps)
ka
@20 C
kL
1320 C
(I/day) (I/day)
o
i
oo
Clarion River
(Penna.)
South River
Ivel River
(England)
Shallow
Lark River
(England)
Shallow
Shallow
1
1.9
1-2
1 .21
1.51
1.09
1.50
1.08
0.38
1.12
1.46
1.31
2.44
2.03
1.74
1.47
1.82
2.41
1 - 10.
35.
10.07
10.94
10.94
36.20
36.20
0.55
4.86
4.15
3.87
15.40
4.86
4.15
3.87
15.40
15.40
10.07
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.37
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.38
0.47
0.23
0.22
0.28
0.37
0.50
0.43
2.26
35
06
20
37
57
09
18
18
18
0.90
1.66
0.78
2.12
1.41
0.31
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
o
River Name
Derwent River
(England)
Black Beck
River
(England)
St. Sunday's
Beck (Eng.)
Yewdale Beck
(England)
Category
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Depth
[ft.
Elk River
(Penna.)
Shallow
0.72
0.89
0,85
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.60
0.69
1.00
0.82
0.78
0.64
0.48
0.72
0.66
0.67
0.69
0.9
Flow
(cfs)
21 .60
21 .60
21.60
2.70
2.70
2.70
17.70
17.70
17.70
19.10
19.10
5.10
5.10
17.30
17.30
17.30
17.30
Velocity
(fps)
1.37
1.19
1.07
0.44
0.56
0.63
1.83
1.81
1.54
1.07
1.27
0.46
0.60
1.16
1.31
1.30
1.25
a
@20°C
kL
@20 C
0.97
(I/day) (I/day)
31 .80
24.53
34.57
25.59
28.34
22.80
49.17
30.77
18.46
21 .05
16.06
12.04
30.32
18.90
20.25
17.09
19.16
5.84
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
o
C71
River Name
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
(New York)
North Branch
Susquehanna
New River
(Virginia)
Wabash
(Indiana)
Clinch River
(T.V.)
Holston
(T.V.)
Category
Shallow
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medi urn
Medium
Depth
(ft.)
Area
9
(ft2)
Flow
(cfs)
Velocity
(fps)
k
a
@20 C
(I/day)
k,
L
@20°C
(I/day
3
15
5-7
3.27
5.09
4.42
6.14
5.65
7.17
11.41
2.12
2.93
4.54
9.50
6.29
143.
3,800.
1,700.
1,720.
800.
1,000.
1,200.
.21
0.60
0.70
.07-4.0
1.5
1.04
1,000-
5,000
3,300.
4,500
3,190
5,890
5,910
5,930
10,385
3,230
6,400
14,085
10,440
6,540
3.07
3.69
3.10
2.68
2.78
2.64
2.92
2.47
3.44
4.65
3.94
2.51
2.27
1.44
.98
.50
.74
1 .13
.28
3.36
2.79
1.57
.46
.39
.23
.40
0.35
2.5
0.5
.40
-------
TABLE C-1 (continued)
River Name
Category
Depth
!ft.
Flow
'cfs'
Velocity
(fps)
ka
@20°C
@20°C
(I/day) (I/day)
n
Holston River
(T.V.)
Fr. Broad
(T.V.)
Medium
Medi urn
Wautaga River
(T.V.)
Hiwassee River
(T.V.)
Medium
Medium
7.52
7.07
5.44
8.06
3.98
9.38
10.19
3.29
4.74
5.72
6.98
4.29
6.01
7.16
9.49
3.42
3.02
2.83
10,500
10,500
5,590
11,930
952
12,
17.
44,
8.
12.
17,
4.
8.
12.
010
120
105
775
455
270
150
775
455
17,270
3,112
1 ,145
1,145
3.15
3.30
3.11
4.28
2.73
.41
.06
.40
.46
4.02
52
85
.75
.23
3.71
5.0
3.05
3.91
.27
.55
.54
.60
1.25
1
.27
.23
.88
.84
.88
.91
.00
.55
.98
.25
43.
11
21
5.6
1.7
3.2
Ohio River
Deep
32
43,000
6,000
.14
.06
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
River Name
Category
Flow
[cfs'
Velocity
(fps)
kan
(?20 C
@20°C
(I/day) (I/day)
o
-q
Upper Hudson
(Troy, N.Y.-
Saugerties)
Lower Sacramento
River
Upper James
River (Va.)
Deep
Deep
Deep
Illinois River
Deep
17.5
21.0
15-20
15.5
10-12
9.2
9.0
8.9
6,000
6,750
8,000
11,500
14,500
14,500
14,000
14,500
13,500
15,000
3,000
4,500
10,000
1,800
2,600
9,000
7,500
4,500
3,800
1,350
8,000
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.16
0.18
0.63
0.53
0.31
0.28
0.13
1.37
1.57
1.63
.34
.34
.28
.15
.24
,15
.14
.12
.13
.22
.24
.22
,225
.269
,224
.125
.165
.40
.48
.30
.31
.41
.39
.38
.43
.07
-------
TABLE C-2
DEOXYGENATION RATE CONSTANTS (FROM BANSAL, 1975)
X-section
Discharge area Top Width
cfs sq ft. ft.
Kansas River at
15,200
2,160
2,090
2,440
1,300
828
632
1,080
Kansas River at
1,750
1 ,360
2,060
2,300
1 ,040
793
1,170
Kansas River at
3,040
1 ,460
1 ,800
2,690
1 ,900
764
631
608
Bonner Spri
4,300
1,200
1,170
1 ,300
850
550
425
710
Lecompton,
750
590
880
1 ,000
450
350
500
ngs, Kansas
770
505
500
525
450
415
405
432
Kansas
725
660
774
757
592
538
620
kj_ rates
base e/day
Temp
°C
25
28
25
24
9
5
9
14
27
32
28
10
6
0
16
Observed
.02
.12
.12
.24
.02
.16
.26
.17
.19
.15
.35
.30
.47
.23
.05
Estimated
(From Fig.
C-l)
.258
.249
.242
.241
.204
.190
.195
.213
.232
.239
.236
.201
.184
.169
.206
Topeka, Kansas
1,450
700
865
1 ,285
910
365
310
290
468
437
447
466
450
405
368
364
22
31
27
18
7
7
11
15
.08
.07
.1
.37
.14
.06
.23
.10
.241
.248
.243
.230
.200
.189
.196
.204
C-8
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
kj_ rates
base e/day
Di
X-section
scharge area Top Width Temp
cfs sq ft. ft. °C
Republic River below Mil ford,
Smoky Hill
Smoky Hill
Solomon Ri
258
657
609
201
15
36
249
River
215
100
373
146
113
210
157
River
185
67
734
ver at
61
35
117
184
412
392
140
10
26
177
at Enterprise
122
57
211
83
65
120
88
at New Cambri
87
35
252
Niles, Kansas
65
40
125
Kansas
196
251
249
166
68
77
192
, Kansas
119
69
131
91
75
118
97
dge, Kansas
86
79
88
53
49
61
24
28
24
14
1
0
16
27
32
24
6
0
15
14
27
31
29
28
30
21
Observed
.18
.19
.07
.25
.14
.23
.29
.09
.26
.16
.32
.14
.17
.24
.09
.19
.27
.21
.19
.06
Estimated
(From Fig.
C-l)
.224
.242
.283
.203
.153
.161
.208
.232
.238
.234
.193
.173
.207
.204
.232
.225
.255
.237
.234
.231
C-9
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
k|_ rates
base e/day
X-section
Discharge area Top Width
cfs sq ft. ft.
Temp.
°C
Observed
Estimated
(From Fig.
C-l)
Kansas River at Wamego, Kansas
890
1,540
2,530
1,470
680
535
483
Big Blue River
1 ,060
162
90
810
961
232
50
50
Kansas River at
1 ,250
559
1,200
511
390
670
1,080
730
300
225
190
at Tuttle Creek,
1,050 -
70
42
490
1 ,000
108
30
30
Manhattan (Fort
4,250
1 ,750
4,050
367
413
468
540
462
395
381
375
Kansas
194
76
62
191
194
92
52
52
Riley),
533
493
530
247
27
26
27
15
0
2
7
22
24
27
23
8
1
6
13
Kansas
26
32
26
25
.23
.13
.30
.26
.28
.11
.06
.21
.14
.23
.28
.6
.37
.15
.2
.26
.15
.10
.09
.231
.236
.244
.214
.171
.172
.181
.251
.224
.225
.240
.217
.179
.181
.195
.268
.265
.267
.234
C-10
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
k|_ rates
base e/day
Di
Solomon Ri
scharge
cfs
ver at
44
47
79
30
48
33
30
X-section
area
sq ft.
Glen Elder
38
40
58
30
41
31
30
Top Width
ft.
, Kansas
49
49
53
33
49
36
33
Temp.
°C
28
28
24
7
0
0
5
Observed
.20
.23
.10
.35
.34
.37
.35
Estimated
(From Fig.
C-l)
.229
.23
.227
.21
.172
.173
.185
Saline River at Tescott, Kansas
Smoky Hill
Smoky Hill
8.3
5.8
132
River
138
35
675
River
77
147
493
249
14
21
18
81
14
10
75
at Mentor,
88
20
288
at Langley
60
85
210
122
15
21
19
60
19.4
17.8
30
Kansas
83
81.5
92.5
, Kansas
57
67
90
75
20
23
22
58
2.7
28
21
24
26
26
23
27
24
23
7
1
6
11
.37
.25
.26
.10
.15
.42
.42
.51
.14
.14
.20
.28
.29
.33
.226
.224
.235
.226
.207
.25
.224
.236
.240
.232
.186
.176
.186
.199
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
k[_ rates
base e/day
Discharge
cfs
iver, Michi
295
X-section
area
sq ft.
gan
320
Top Width
ft.
168.4
Temp.
°C
20
Observed
.59
Estimated
(From Fig.
c-D
.228
River, Michigan
33
44.6
28.22
20
3.37
.225
River, Nevada
180
195
271
iver, Michi
134
174
174
204
204
150
150
150
gan
210
200
400
296
400
89.8
89.8
89.8
100
76.9
153.8
170.6
210.5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.36
.36
.96
.56
.63
.69
.69
.69
.226
.226
.226
.230
.233
.233
.226
.228
Jackson River, Virginia'
100 365
122
20
1.25
,236
North Branch Potomac River (Maryland, West Virginia)
100 100 50 20 .4
,229
North Branch Susquehanna
1,000 1,700
425
20
.35
,241
C-12
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
k|_ rates
base e/day
X-section
Discharge area
cfs sq ft.
New River, Virginia
1,200 1,720
Upper Hudson, Troy, New York
3,000 6,000
4,500 6,750
Lower Sacramento River
10,000 8,000
Upper James River, Virginia
1,800 8,000
2,600 11,500
9,000 14,500
7,500 14,000
4,500 14,500
3,800 13,500
1,350 15,000
Cooper River, South Carolina
10,000 40,000
Savannah River, Georgia and
7,000 10,000
6,800 40,000
Top Width
ft.
344
343
321
457
742
935.5
935.5
903.2
935.2
871
967.7
1,000
South Carol
1,000
1,428.6
Temp.
°C
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
ina
20
20
Observed
.5
.125
.165
.4
.48
.30
.31
.41
.39
.38
.43
.3
.3
.3
Estimated
(From Fig.
c-D
.245
.269
.273
.269
.267
.267
.267
.267
.267
.267
.267
.286
.258
.279
C-13
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
k^ rates
base e/day
X-section Estimated
Discharge area Top Width Temp. (From Fig.
cfs sq. ft. ft. °C Observed C-l )'
South New Jersey
23 2,500 208.3 20 .2 .262
Compton Creek, New Jersey
10 1,000 69 20 .23 .265
10 790 75 20 .23 .259
C-14
-------
TABLE C-3
ALLUVIAL CHANNEL AND SEDIMENT DATA
(FROM SCHUMM, 1960)
Location
Willow Creek near Cheyenne Wells, Colo-
Smoky Hill River near Arapahoe.Colo---
Smoky Hill River near Sharon Springs,
Smoky Hill River at Russell Springs,
Smoky Hill River near Arnold, Kans
Smoky Hill River near Russell, Kans
Smoky Hill River at Dorrence,Kans
Smoky Hill River near Kanopolis
Smoky Hill River near Bridgeport
Smoky Hill River near Junction City,
Kansas River near T^ek'a^ans
Arlkaree River near Ankaree , Colo
Arikaree River at Haigler,Nebr
Republican River near Stratton.Nebi
South Fork Republican River near Benk-
Republican River near Benkleman,Nebr--
Republican River near BostwickfHardy ) ,
Republican River at Concordia.Kans
Republican River at Junction City, Kans
South Fork Powder River near Kaycee,
Middle Fork Powder River above Kaycee,
Middle Fork Powder River near Kaycee,
Powder River below Arvada,Wyo
Powder River near Locate, Mont
Crazy Woman Creek near Arvada.Wyo —
Little Powder River at Broadus, Mont-
Bighorn River near Kane, Wyo
Badwater Creek near Lysite,Wyo
Badwater Creek at Lysite.Wyo
Cottonwood Creek at Winchester, Wyo--
Gooseberry Creek at Pulliam,Wyo
GraybuJl River near Basin, Wyo
Bates Creek near Alcova, Wyo ---
Med i a n
grain
size,
(mm)
1.10
85
.41
1.30
.80
93
.81
1 30
63
.40
023
1.20
.70
.75
1 10
.25
38
.48
25
52
.63
.70
60
0.63
?2.0
.40
21
42
.50
4 10
16
43
24
21
1 0
8.0
50
90
Smoky Hill -Kansas Rivers system
Weighted
Silt- Silt- mean
clay in clay in silt-clay
bank channel M Width
(percent) (percent) (percent) (feet)
72
49
25
21
63
30
76
69
96
85
97
90
93
57
82
65
31
44
23
88
29
34
59
71
60
69
70
58
75
82
35
47
58
69
15
45
72
63
3 16
3 6 1
4 45
2 2.4
3 43
2 24
1 5 3
.5 44
4 14
3 13
87 89
5 6
1 3 8
5 3
Republican River System
3 4.7
3 8
3 3.4
15 34
6 67
5 44
1 2 8
2 1 .4
1 3.4
Powder River System
9 11.3
14 20
15 23
4 65
13 15
2 17
65 22
20 21
3 6.7
5 7 3
2 14
8 84
25 57
7 9 9
14 18
15
65
200
263
226
345
115
130
92
69
125
153
636
800
206
68
400
100
123
115
154
250
300
119
35
47
175
234
33
40
220
50
109
35
133
59
134
69
Depth
(feet)
1 7
2 3
2 5
3 0
2 5
2.5
3 5
4.0
5 5
5 0
18
5 0
10
18
2 2
3 0
3.0
2.3
2 5
2 7
5 0
5.0
6 5
2.3
2.5
4 4
3.5
4 5
4 4
5 5
8 5
2.3
2 5
3.9
3.5
2 4
3 1
2 8
Width
depth
ratio
(F)
8 8
28
80
88
90
138
33
33
17
14
7
31
64
44
94
23
133
43
49
43
31
50
46
52
14
11
50
52
7.5
7 3
26
22
44
9.0
38
25
43
25
Gradient
(S)
0 003
.00066
.0007
.0005
0004
0008
0005
0 002
002
003
.009
.0008
0007
0007
0.004
.005
0015
.0011
.0037
.0037
.0015
.006
.0015
0035
Mean
annual
flood
(cfs)
5,800
8,000
9,200
6,750
11,500
13,000
39,000
48,000
3,500
4,500
2,175
12,000
13,000
15,000
3,900
574
1,630
9,400
1,150
1,280
16,100
585
311
3,140
500
Mean
annual
discharge
(cfs)
30(est)
65 2
215
314
340
1,254
1,454
4,398
5,155
19.6
56 8
105
843
1,000
35
58
133
639
40
39
2,888
34
10
178
16
Drainage
area
(sq mi)
5,220
6,965
7,857
8.110
18,830
19,900
55,240
56,710
1,460
2,580
4,770
5.760
22,400
23,540
24,900
1,150
450
980
956
15,900
484
371
1,130
377
C-15
-------
TABLE C-3 (continued)
Locati on
Sage Creek, S Dak. •
\£ I
Sand Creek, Nebr-
Arroyo Calabasas, N. Mex. •
Bayou Gulch , Colo. :
Medano Creek, Colo •
Paradise Creek near Paradise, Kans
North Fork Solomon River near Downs Kans
Solomon River at Benmngton(Ni IPS ) ,Kans-
raine og
Sappa Creek at Reaver City, Nebr
y
Frenchman Creek at Hamlet, Nebr
Blackwood Creek at Culbertson, Nebr
Red Willow Creek near Red Willow, Nebr --
South Loup River near Cumro, Nebr
Niobrara River near Colclesser ,Nebr
White River at Interior, S Dak
Median
grain
size,
DSO
(mm)
0 06
06
12
12
.73
35
84
.50
75
.58
55
.24
24
.24
3 57
50
80
41
90
60
70
70
1 10
27
02
25
33
15
50
7^
Silt-
clay in
bank
(percent)
93
93
96
70
60
65
18
26
16
13
6
5
.5
5
93
74
89
90
82
97
96
95
95
93
91
91
80
47
86
89
5f,
Silt-
clay in
channel
(percent)
55
68
40
14
15
10
3
3
5
4
4
1
1
5
5 7
8
1 2
4
1 5
2
17
2
2 5
8 7
75
30
9 4
2
32 5
2
f,
Weighted
mean
•nit-clay
M
(percent)
73
79
54
23
22
20
4.1
4 8
5.8
4.4
4 1
1
1
5
11
30
16
11
19
23
43
19
35
31
81
45
16
3.3
56
5 3
3
Width
(feet)
16
20
31
75
65
36
79
92
100
130
128
340
800
820
93
32
82
112
45
43
26
40
28
36
27
45
143
224
25
293
221
Depth
(feet)
7
7
5
7
7
4
3
4
4
3
1.5
2
3
2 5
3
7.8
8.6
5
6.2
6.0
6 3
4 5
8 0
6 5
8 4
7 1
7 3
3 4
10 0
5 8
5 0
Width
depth
ratio
(F)
2 3
2.9
6 2
10 7
9 3
9.0
26.3
23.0
25.0
43
85
170
267
328
31
4.1
9 6
22
7.2
7.2
4.1
8.9
3 5
5 5
3.2
6 3
19 6
65.9
2 5
50 6
44 2
Gradient
(S)
0.0055
0045
.0045
.0015
.003
.001
013
.009
on
.010
.016
.017
.019
.016
.001
0006
0005
0013
.003
.001
001
.0013
0021
001
003
003
002
0025
Mean
annual
flood
(cfs)
4,300
1,300
8,000
7,000
2,600
1,800
1,360
1,000
450
850
690
2,220
2,080
880
10,900
3.660
Mean
annual
discharge
(cfs)
88 3
11 1
151
558
33 2
111
39 1
28 8
12 5
101
5 8
43 1
165
20 4
302
113
Drainage
area
(sq mi)
1 7
3 4
9.5
17.9
22 2
22 5
3 8
24 2
25.8
19 7
22.9
25 8
26.1
28 8
1,602
212
2,390
6,770
721
3,840
1,500
2,060
1 ,460
1 ,480
290
400
1,340
2,000
676
7,143
C-16
-------
APPENDIX D
IMPOUNDMENT THERMAL PROFILES
Thermal profile plots are provided (on microfiche in enclosed envelope
for EPA-published manual; as Part 3, EPA-600/6-82-004c, for paper copies pur-
chased from the National Technical Information Service) for a variety of im-
poundment sizes and geographic locations throughout the United States. The
locations are arranged in alphabetical order. Within each location set, the
plots are ordered by depth and hydraulic residence time. An index to the
plots is provided below, and the modeling approach is described in Appendix F,
Atlanta, Georgia
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-4
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-14
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-24
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth .... D-34
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth .... D-44
Billings, Montana
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-54
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-64
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-74
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth .... D-84
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth .... D-94
Burlington, Vermont
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-104
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-114
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-124
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-134
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-144
Flagstaff, Arizona
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-154
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-164
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-174
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-184
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-194
D-l
-------
Fresno, California
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-204
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-214
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-224
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-234
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-244
Minneapolis, Minnesota
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-254
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-264
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-274
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-284
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-294
Salt Lake City, Utah
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-304
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-314
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-324
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-334
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-344
San Antonio, Texas
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-354
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-364
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-374
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-384
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-394
Washington, D.C.
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-404
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-414
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-424
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-434
200-ft Initial Max.imum Depth . . . .D-444
Wichita, Kansas
20-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-454
40-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-464
75-ft Initial Maximum Depth D-474
100-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-484
200-ft Initial Maximum Depth . . . .D-494
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
MODELING THERMAL STRATIFICATION IN IMPOUNDMENTS
Figure E-1 Comparison of Computed and Observed Temperature
Profiles in Kezar Lake
Figure E-2 Comparison of Computed and Observed Temperature
Profiles in El Capitan Reservoir
Figure E-3 Log of Eddy Conductivity Versus Log Stability—
Hungry Horse Data
E-1
-------
IMPOUNDMENT THERMAL PROFILE MODEL: BACKGROUND
The model used for computation of impoundment temperature profiles
is based on the Lake Ecologic Model originally developed by Chen and
Orlob (1975). The model was modified for this application to compute
temperature alone. The purpose of the model application was to
simulate the effects of mixing, impoundment physical characteristics,
hydraulic residence time, and climate on the vertical profiles of
temperature.
Physical Representation
Each configuration simulated was idealized as a number of horizon-
tally mixed layers. Natural vertical mixing is computed by the use
of dispersion coefficients in the vertical mass transport equation.
Values of the dispersion coefficients for different size lakes were
estimated from previous studies (Water Resources Engineers, Inc.,
1969).
Temperature
Temperatures were computed as a function of depth according to
Equation (E-l).
77 3T _ 1 J ,. n 3Tx 9_ ,OTx + ^ , , _0_ _ T 97 (E-
v 9l ' c7 9z ( z°z 9z j " 9z igU + cp U AU cp '9t
where T = the local water temperature
c = specific heat
p = fluid density
A = cross-sectional area at the fluid element boundary
E-2
-------
t = time
z = vertical distance
D = the eddy diffusion coefficient in the vertical direction
Q = advection across the fluid element boundaries
A = cross-sectional area of the surface fluid element
o
M»A = coefficients describing heat transfer across air-water
interface
0 = sum of all external additions of heat to fluid volume
of fluid element
v = element volume
Application/Verification
The model has recently been used in a lake aeration study
(Lorenzen and Fast, 1976). In that study, the model was applied to
Kezar Lake in New Hampshire and El Capitan Reservoir in California
to verify that artificial mixing could be adequately simulated.
Computed temperature profiles were compared to observed values
as shown in Figures E-l and E-2. The model performance was judged to be
good for the intended purpose of providing guidance for further study.
PREPARATION OF THERMAL PROFILES
The thermal profiles in Appendix D of this report were prepared by
inputting the selected climatological conditions, inflow rate, impoundment
physical conditions, and wind. Of these, only wind warrants special dis-
cussion here. The remaining model parameters are discussed in the text
of Chapter 5.
Wind-Induced Mixing and the Eddy Diffusion Coefficient
Figure E-3 is a plot of the eddy conductivity coefficient versus
stability. It was used to obtain coefficients for wind mixing for the
E-3
-------
0
TEMPERATURE (°C)
20 0 10
26 JUL. 1968
FIGURE E-1
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
TEMPERATURE PROFILES IN KEZAR LAKE
E-4
-------
EL CAPITAN 1964 - NO MIXING
TEMPERATURE (°C)
10 15 20 10 15 20 1C 15 20 25 \l
"H 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1——-i——y
C 0
Q 20
40
60
80
-A
1 \
•Simulated
-Prototype
I SO DAYS 165 DAYS I8ODAYS
EL CAPITAN 1966 - WITH AERATION
TEMPERATURE (°C)
10 15 20 10 15 20 10 15 20 10 15 20 25 V7
n I i i i i . . i i i i.i • . v
80
100
6ODAYS
I
90 DAYS TODAYS ISODAYS
FIGURE E-2 COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
TEMPERATURE PROFILES IN EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
E-5
-------
9-3
EDDY CONDUCTIVITY COEFF. D (z,t), m* seer1 x |Q4
CD
I
Ovl
m
cy^
CO H
r~ o
H *• X
m m
33 m
x—> rn
pa M a
m s. o
co —i -<
O '—'
c c—>
33 -n o
o o z
m 33 O
co c:
»• mo
d H
i—i 2: >—
z: CT^ <
h-1 o (->
UD 33 O
cn co m
UD m -n
m o
co •-<
m m
O
t)
M
m
33
co
c
CO
CD
r;
H
m
N
3 _
O
cn
3 r
/
7
D C
0 J
m r
D O
< 5
o" ~"
XJ
o>
Y
/
1
D C
/
>
//
I (
>
/
^
B -
/
O
c
o
<
<
;
/'c
f
-
0
/
'D/
X
r
i
0>
°
>
O
•C
<
<
±>
D
C
u
,
o J
>
>
0
0
o
o
^ ^
x D
X
~! •• O-^
y
/
/
^ C
[
[
C
&n
0 ^
f
X
n c
U
a
3 C
fe
J
/
/
o c
r
c
n
f
a
x
r
D C
3
D C
a
a
D
D>
t>
>
p /
/ O
/f
X 1
o
D
U
-1
I
J
x
o
y
X
n
<
a
c
x
a
•i
c
>
1%
>
O ^
x
T C
> X>
L ro
> ~*
i
>
t» c
3 C
O
O
o
5 /
I> C
D C
o
oc
o
x
D C
3 C
-\
c
)
(0
(0
a>
3
a.
x O
ro —
a> ~
M
2 >
m ^
«3 CD
O> O)
O1 O)
D O
«>
01 CD
cn
c
r~
CD
O)
01
-------
model runs. The upper envelope represents high wind mixing conditions
and the lower envelope represents low wind mixing conditions. Note
that the plot in Figure E-3 was developed for this model, and the
model was then verified with data from Hungry Horse Reservoir, which
is located on the South Fork of the Flathead River in northwestern
Montana. Accordingly, the extremes of wind mixing and the effects on
impoundment stability are as found for Hungry Horse Reservoir. The
coefficients should be applicable elsewhere, however, because the
eddy diffusion coefficient is relatively insensitive to climate and
location.
The significance of the eddy conductivity coefficient and its
implications for wind mixing may be understood by examining an
equation describing transport within the system. Mixing implies the
transfer of materials or properties within a system from points of
high concentration to points of low concentration, and vice versa.
For a system which is undergoing forced convection, it has been
observed that the time rate of transport, F, of a property, S,
through the system is proportional (other things being equal) to the
rate of change of concentration of this property with distance, z.
In equation form, this rule is expressed as:
F = - D || (E-2)
where D is the coefficient of proportionality. The mixing process
as defined by Equation (E-2) is variously called "effective diffusion,"
"eddy diffusion," or the "diffusion analogy" because it is identical in
form to the equation describing the process of molecular diffusion.
The difference between the two processes, however, is that for molecular
diffusion,D is constant, while for turbulent transfer, D is a function
of the dynamic character, or the turbulence level, of the system.
In general, D is a temporal and spatial variable, and thus will be
E-7
-------
referred to here as-D(z,t); 'Equation (E-2) rewritten for heat flow over
the reservoir vertical axis is
H = -pcD(z,t) fl (E-3)
where H = heat flux, HL'V1
_3
p - density of water, ML
c = heat capacity of water, HM D
O "I
D(z,t) = coefficient of eddy conductivity, L T
T = temperature, D
z = elevation in the reservoir, L
t = time T
From Equation (E-3), therefore, it may be seen that the rate of
heat flux (H), which describes the rate of energy transfer vertically
in an impoundment, is a function of the temperature gradient over
J\T
depth (g^) and the degree of turbulence (induced by wind and other
factors) and is characterized by the eddy diffusion coefficient D(z,t)
in the equation. It is this coefficient, D(z,t) which is plotted on
the ordinate (stability is on the abscissa) in Figure E-3.
Surface Heat Flux
The simulation of temperature involves the following steps:
1. The net heat transfer at the air-water interface is
evaluated for all surface nodes as a function of the
meteorological variables and nodal temperatures.
2. The heat input due to shortwave solar radiation is
distributed with depth according to the light trans-
missibility characteristics of the water (which are a
function of the suspended particulates).
E-8
-------
3. Heat is distributed within the water body by hydro-
dynamic transport (advection and dispersion) in the
same manner as conservative dissolved constituents.
The net rate of heat transfer across the air-water interface is
computed according to the following heat budget equation:
H = q + q - q -q + q (E-4)
Msn Mat ^w He - Mc v '
where
H - Net rate of heat transfer (Kcal/m2/sec)
q = net shortwave solar radiation across the air-water
Msn
interface, including losses by absorption and scattering
in the atmosphere, and reflection at the water surface
(Kcal/m2/sec)
q = atmospheric long wave radiation across the air-water
at
interface (Kcal/m2/sec)
q = long wave back radiation from the water surface to the
1w 3
atmosphere (Kcal/m2/sec)
q = evaporative heat loss (Kcal/m2/sec)
q = convective heat exchange between the water surface and
the atmosphere (Kcal/m2/sec)
The heat transfer terms for long wave back radiation, evaporative
heat loss, and convective heat exchange depend on the water temper-
ature in the surface nodes (A values), while the solar radiation
and atmospheric long wave radiation (y values) are independent of
water temperature. Algorithms for the various terms of Equation E-2
are used for separate computation and then summed as shown in
Equation E-l.
E-9
-------
NOTE:
For a more detailed description of the model, its applicability,
and the eddy diffusion coefficient, the reader is referred to a
report entitled "Mathematical Models for the Prediction of Thermal
Energy Changes in Impoundments." (See the list of references at the
end of this Appendix.)
E-10
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E
Chen, C.W., and Orlob, G.T., 1975. Ecologic simulation for aquatic
environments in systems analysis and simulation in ecology. Academic
Press, N.Y., San Francisco, and London. 111:475-588.
Lorenzen, M.W., and Fast, A., 1976. A Guide to Aeration/Circulation
Techniques for Lake Management: For U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Corvallis, Oregon.
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 1969. Mathematical Models for the
Prediction of Thermal Energy Changes in Impoundments. Water Quality
Office, Environmental Protection Agency.
E-ll
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
RESERVOIR SEDIMENT DEPOSITION SURVEYS
The material in this appendix consists of a reproduction of a
bulletin compiled by F. E. Dendy and W. A. Champion, which provides
data on rates of sedimentation in U. S. reservoirs.
INTRODUCTION
Data from known reliable reservoir sedimentation surveys made
in the United States through 1970 are summarized in this bulletin.
Additional data from surveys made after 1970 are included for a few
reservoirs.
This bulletin supersedes USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1143,
which was published in May, 1969.- All reservoir surveys reported in
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1143 have been repeated in this bulletin.
In addition, it includes surveys made before 1965, but not previously
reported, and new data on reservoirs surveyed or resurveyed since 1965.
The reservoirs are located in all of the 48 conterminous United States,
except Florida, and in Puerto Rico. In addition to data on storage
reservoirs and ponds, some information on debris basins is included.
A supplement to this bulletin, from which the data were extracted
and summarized, contains detailed information about each of the reservoirs
]_/ Dendy, F.E. and" Champion, "W.A., Compilers. Summary of Reservoir
Sediment Deposition Surveys Made in the United States Through 1965. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 1143, 64 pp.,
May, 1969. (Cooperative report with the Sedimentation Committee. Water
Resources Council).
F-l
-------
listed in the summary table. The method used in presenting this infor-
mation is given on pages F-2, F-3, F-4 and F-5. The supplement has not
been distributed with this bulletin because of its bulk and because the
detailed information is not of general interest. Copies are available
in the offices of the agencies represented on the Sedimentation
Committee of the Water Resources Council. Reprints of data sheets
for specific reservoirs may be obtained on request from the Director,
USDA Sedimentation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Oxford,
Miss. 38655. Requests for information not contained in this bulletin
or in the supplement should be directed to the agency supplying the
data.
The accuracy of the survey data varies greatly. Surveys range
from reconnaissance measurements of sediment depth at a few locations
to detailed surveys based on closely spaced cross sections or contours.
No attempt has been made to classify the surveys according to degree
of accuracy.
Information in this bulletin and in the supplement should prove
useful to engineers and watershed planning specialists in private and
public practice who are concerned with problems of reservoir sedimen-
tation. Engineers, engineering firms and local government agencies
who have data on similar reservoir surveys are invited to make this
information available to the Sedimentation Committee, WRC, for inclusion
in supplements to this publication.
EXPLANATION OF THE SUMMARY TABLE
Data in the summary table of this bulletin were obtained from the
reservoir sedimentation survey data sheets contained in the supplement.
Dashes in columns of the table signify that data were unavailable or
that the column is not applicable for the reservoir.
Reservoirs are grouped according to the 79 drainage areas into which
the United States has been divided as shown in the publication, "River
Basin Maps Showing Hydrologic Stations," compiled under the auspices of
the Subcommittee on Hydrology, Federal Inter-Agency River Basin
F-2
-------
2/
Committee.— An index map of these drainage areas is shown on page F-78.
The drainage areas in which the reservoirs are located are shown as
subheadings in the si'mrnary table. The first of the two numbers identi-
fying a reservoir indicates the drainage basin in which it is located.
The second number denotes the particular reservoir in the drainage area
and is based upon the order in which the data were prepared. These
numbers are the same as those identifying the corresponding survey
data sheets in the supplement. When a survey data sheet is revised
or when another sheet is prepared with information for additional surveys,
the identification number is modified by the addition of letters beginning
with a; for example, 13-2, 13-2a, and 13-2b.
Total drainage area includes the reservoir area and the area lying
above all upstream dams but generally excludes noncontributing drainage
areas lying within the watershed boundary. Where available, the drainage
area figure published by the U.S. Geological Survey in Water-Supply
Papers is usually used. The net drainage area is the sediment-contrib-
uting area and generally excludes the reservoir area and the drainage
areas above upstream reservoirs, or other structures which are effective
sediment traps.
The first date shown usually corresponds to the beginning of
storage when sediment deposition began. However, for some reservoirs
the first date represents the date of the contour or range survey made
after the reservoir had been in operation for some time.
For most reservoirs, the storage capacity given is the total
storage below the level of the crest of an ungated spillway or the top
of gates (less gate-height freeboard, if any) of gated spillways.
Where capacity values below the spillway crest elevation are given,
footnotes are used to explain.
2J U.S. Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee
on Hydrology. River Basin Maps Showing Hydrologic Stations. U.S.
Dept. Com., Weather Bur., Notes on Hydrol. Activ. Bui. 11, 79 pp., 1961.
F-3
-------
The capacity-average annual inflow ratio (C/I ratio) was derived
from the reservoir storage capacity and the average annual inflow.
Normally the average annual inflow for the entire period of record
was used to compute the C/I ratios. This time period may or may not
correspond to the period for which sediment accumulation was given.
Generally, the C/l ratio was not given if upstream structures con-
trolled 25 percent or more of the drainage area.
The specific weight of deposited sediment is an average or weighted
value for the reservoir, determined generally from samples of deposits.
In view of the variations with depth and location within the reservoir,
specific weight is generally an approximation for the reservoir. The
entry is marked by an asterisk where the specific weight is assumed or
is calculated from field data or the size-frequency grading of the
deposits.
The average annual rate of sediment accumulation (acre-feet and
tons per square mile of net drainage area) pertains to sediment
deposited in the reservoir below the full pool elevation. Sediment
deposited in deltas above full pool level or sediment discharged from
the reservoir is not included unless explained by footnote. For
reservoirs with more than one survey and where the latest survey
indicated an increase in the specific weight of deposited sediment,
the annual sediment accumulation rate in tons per square mile was not
always computed in the same manner. For some reservoirs, compaction
of earlier sediment was considered and in others it was not. All of
the deposited sediment was assumed to have been transported into the
reservoir by water.
The agency supplying data is shown in the last column of the table.
This agency either has the basic data available or has access to it
through cooperative arrangements. The symbols used in this column
apply to the following agencies:
F-4
-------
ARS - Agricultural Research Service ODW - Ohio Department
. .. , ^. Natural Resources--
BR - Bureau of Reclamation Division of Water
CE - Corps of Engineers $cs _ So1] Conservation
FS - Forest Service Service
GS - Geological Survey TVA - Tennessee Valley
T.,^ T-II- • r-,. x .14- Authority
IMS - Illinois State Water J
Survey
FORM FOR REPORTING RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION
A completed sample of the reservoir sedimentation data sheet from
the supplement is shown on pages F-79 and F-80. This sheet is a
convenient and standard form for reporting results of reservoir surveys.
An invitation is extended to readers, particularly those practicing
engineering individually, in engineering firms, or in local government
agencies, to prepare sheets covering surveys known to them but not
included in this publication. A blank "Reservoir Sedimentation Data"
sheet is enclosed as a tear sheet on pages F-81 and F-82. Additional
data sheets may be obtained from the department offices listed on the
title page or the form may be reproduced if desired. The completed
forms may be sent to any one of the agencies represented on the Sedi-
mentation Committee for inclusion in supplements to this bulletin.
F-5
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS HADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
os
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
2-1
2-2
2-1
2-1.
2-5
2-6
2-7
3-2
1-3
4-la
,.-2.
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7a
4-8a
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL | NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
(ACRE-FT
PEB
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PERSQ MI.
OFNETDH
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
JT. JUH» »CHI*T, PENOBSCOT, SKWEBKC, ANDROSCROOCDI, AND PREciUMPSCOT RIVES BAilN
HounLAin 3tre*t
Plant* Pond
SnuthllU(ton ReMrvolr
do
4Mt field •
Schoharie (Cllbaa Ehutj
do
fio
t»
do
do
!±-St!L
Crirfin
*Ur£rt"
do
d°
Wllllxw- Dricffo
do •
do
do
^__?1o— - -
Broad Brook River
Trib. of Bo»vor Brook
Kightsil* Run
Budd River
*,
do
Hoose Mountain Branch
*'**. n rB
0
> i;
pping
junpo «r , a v«r
0
do
Griffin Greek (Legget,}
ing
- rrl "
J° °*~1" "F
"* ff i-ri Msart B k
^ ror rwa o roo
do-
— do
ucan jTncK
3
— 1C
.•"!„,,,.,, "•
n«ir«Bt, *.
13.9
HOUSA-TUt*!", CONHtCTICUT, THAJCS, -I
Broad Brook, xxw, 5.13
Greenfield, Haas.
Plaflt8-/6G,410
59,864
1,991
1,953
3,746
3,686
2,686
2,232
i,on
1,0,6
3V6.19
"05.32
617. !16
56.04
<5.9C
55. M.
1P7."1
L87.13
186.70
2V..11
.oa
—
-
-
.005
.002
.025
.01')
.017
.130
.129
.128
.250
.250
.^49
•50
•50
•50
57.3
*6C
bi.,2
.01
.10
.04
.012
.094
609.8
10.9
108.9
43.6
13.07
102.4
•Su I/.156 1/217
•00 ."2 2o.lt.
'V, 2/.20 217.8
.01
4/.618 4/808
.187 23'
.699 913
.'"I '47
.237
.034 —
.394 421
.022
. )51 459
.r>7 Jii
scs
scs
SC3
SCS
-------
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-U
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
fc-19
4-20
5-3 a
5-3
5-6
5-7b
s-e
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
\f Tic
2/ Inc
3/ Par
4/ Net
This area
y Rev
tl Con
O/ B"
Old :ia.TJfelter
Palinjfton Reserv«ir
' ^c '
Ice-aal*
" 111
-oatsviile-
Lloerty leservcir
do
Llttl*oDeer %°'
!tount Morr-ia
do
Patterson Greek flfl-
Latce Barcroft
do—
m
do
do
J°
btamiton
do
Jackson .
Triadelphia L. (Brighton D.)-
do
do
Cordon Lake
Thomas W. Koon Lake
Savage River Dam
Rocky Gorge-
do —
South River, Site 26
Lak
ao
Lake Ap?x
do
do
High Point
do
iudes 103 acre-feet of sediment d
tial survey eoverir.c sequent s 1-1
sediment contributing area wa« 2
was used in the 194J calculations
pervasion or sediment pool only.
*. 3r. :oioms >e«k—
>o»der ;r«e*
% ~ ,
. Jo _
Patapaco
do __
Genesee River
do
Pattern :rwk
Trib. of Potomac Ri *'er
do
Pedlar River
ao-
0
?~
" Ivor
. do
Patuxerit Siver
rt°~
Zvitta Creek
Patuxent River
do
Inch Brancn
do
Swift Creak
do
Sallie Keaney GreeK
dc
Deep River
0
redged in 1937-1939.
4 in Stoney brook Arm Only.
99.4 iq. ui. antl_ 1933 wher Pre
Spring Grove, Pa.. — —
do
do-
Joatsville, Pa.
do
rfards Shaped , Hd.
Mount t>rri3, N. Y.—
Endwsll, '<. Y.
POTOMAC, H^P
rails Church, ^a.
do
Oronooo, Va.
Silver Spring, Hd.-
Jo
Greenbelt, Hd.
do
St t V
aon on, a.
do-
Kanassas, Va.
Brighton, Hd.
Cuj^erland, Md.
do
31oomington, Md.
Laurel, HI. •
«ayne9boro, Va.
CHOhAN, ROANOhE, TAR,
do
Franklinton, N. C.
jreensboro, S. C.
High Point, N. C.
ttyboy Dam was couple ted.
»M,v of J,l«) ,cr,-f-e.
74.3
2.91
60.7
5.0
164
.74
1,07?
4.3
1.C4
2.90
-
159.1
1,011
4.3
1.64
PAriAt-.O^K, YORK, AND J
14.5 14.3
)3.21
27.0
10/.82
25
337
81.4
64
60
105.0
2.7
l.SR
33.07
26.97
.79
25
336.4
80. 0
59.6
104.44
50.14
2.7
1.85
f-TUSE, Ai'.T GAPE F-.A- R
4.0 4.-
1.13 1.12
74.1
62.8
10/
?/
i2''
73.4
62.3
Revised
tievlged
Koon "..a*
3a3ed on
Apr. 1939
1937
Apr. 1939
— 1925
Oct. 1951
July 1951
— 1916
July 1951
Julj 1954
Jan. 1962
June 1958
t.ov. 1%2
Soy. 1951
H»J 1957
May 1963
Oct. 1968
Oct. 1970
Oct. 1908
Oct. 1970
AMES RIVEH oAJLN
Jan. 1915
Feb. 1938
Aug. 1957
Feb. 1907
Feb. 1938
Mny 1930
Hw. 1938
July 1936
reb. 1938
Aug. 19^7
June 1968
Dec. 1925
Jan. 19i.O
June 1957
July 1930
Aug. 1937
Jan. 1942
Oct. 1950
Sept. 1958
Aug. 1964
3.pt. 1913
Apr. 1940
Har. 1932
Apr. 194
Kar. 1952
thr. 1956
Mar. 1954
Aug. 1964
May 1956
Nov. 1970
Sept. 1966
Aug. 1968
Aug. 1969
1325
June 1941
Jan. 1925
Aug. 1934
Jan. 1928
Aug. 1934
Apr, 19j8
19c8.
due to -_vable c
total sediment
5'
1.6
20
51
35
-.9
4.4
5.5
5.9
2
2
19.5
31
7.8
1.6
19.5
10.8
.4
17.5
7.2
8.3
7.9
5.9
8.1
4.3
10.4
14.5
1.9
1.0
16
11.5
6.5
3.7
bull
in bo
59.9 —
a, ooc
27,426
-37
1,019 —
970
138,762.4 1.133
133,227.0 1.129
0/23.3" --
£/!<,. IS --
336,611 .345
335,393 .344
891.43 .229
887.95 .228
272 . 18 )
271.38 .182
3/1,847 .142
8/1,762 .134
2/2,092 .161
1,860 —
1,723 -
181 —
95
196 -.312
186 *.296
151 *.2»0
U/147 -234
385 —
373
350
4,500
4,158
12/20,222 .327
20,089 .324
*9,633 .317
19,045 .338
3,129 —
7,312 —
7,294 —
20, -00 .172
20,020 .169
21,390 —
20,789 —
610.4 .28
607.0 .28
196.9- .140
170.99 .122
103.72 .117
1'jb
34.7 —
2,870
2,610
4,354
4,135 —
5 4,033
ed in early sp-ing 1968.
'3.2
»60
*50
77
*30
•60
«60
•50
•50
61.1
67
"60
»60
»60
=0.6
.669
.37
.03
.28
.426
6/1.055 1
.25
.20
0/.19 6,
.257
.723
.134
.408
7.91 *.
2.27 2
1.52 1
.034
.053
.141
.20
.72
1.2' i
.036
.643
1.15 1
.087
15/7. 3916/U
3.93 5
.19
.509
.308
.541
.416
—
433
434
3}
305
,378.
419
335
,'r,96
336
533
,337
,970
,°45
181,
213
784
,€63
840
,678
110
',133
402
596
458
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MAUE [N THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
00
...
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
1
i !
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
, TOTAL j NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
t
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
RATIO
(ACRE-KT
PER
ACHt-KIl
SPECIFIC
WEIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT )
AVG ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PER SO MI.
OF NET DH
AREA FOB
PERIOD SHOWN
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
AC.-FT.I TONS
(-5
6-6
6-7
6-S
6-9
6-lOa.
6-11
fc-12
7-7
7-4
T-5
7.6
7-7
7-10
7-11
"-1"-
--16
^ _.
"ic—
Roxboro City Uk«
Burlington Municipal
do
John H. K«rr-
Phil pott
do— -
Apptlaahl*
*
Albeaarl* 1-y -Ak«-
- do- —
Entwhistl* No. 3;
Hlgfi Rock
L*.ka L««
P«« DM Mfg. 3o.
do
Norwood L. (""illflry^
J0
3
°
*
,
3»tt«rfUld Cr««k
3w»4=«*
do
Roanok* Rlirsr—
do
3«ith Rlvtr
sindy
T\irk«y Quarter ^r««K
South P»col«t Rivap
South Tyg«r Hirer
, r .
ong
Hi'chcock Oraek
Little River
Yadkin Biver
„ rw.lt
c i as n
Hitchcock Jr««k-
do
S«1M ;r«k
°ee De« River
^
_ -to
HOWA-V, BOANOKS, TAJi, KEU3E
Durhas, N. 7. — . • —
koxboro, N C.--
Burllrigton, H. -.-
South Kill, 7*.
BtMtt, V-.
PSE BEE. SAHTffi,
. '
L*nc*st*r, 3. C.
Flng.nrtll., o. :.
do
Gr~r, 5. C.
Lumapoll*, N. C..
- do_ -
do
~5b.M«ll, H. C
Troy, N. :.
Salisbury, S. -.
Rocklngham, H. 0.
do
Wlr.ston-ialen, N. 0.--
Ht jllead, N. 0.
__ -io -
State .vills, N. 0.
AMI CAFE
107.5
3.75
30.6
7.62
397
7,800
212
AWJ roisrc
16.05
9.40
91.33
63.0
33. C
18.0
4.7
168.")
^69
3,930
50. SO
176
27.63
4,600
6.75
U,*li
FUVfi SIV-a BJO
166.7
3.73
30.3
7,52
105.0
397
7,391
185.7
5IVER BiSISS
15.92
9.34
90.6
62.8
n.7
4. 54
yil.o
269
3,863
50.34
V25
27.26
6/431
0.66
4.74
INS (0.
pr.
Ul.
«>.
tn«
pr.
pr.
HOT.
S.pt.
Apr.
July
DM.
D«.
Hov.
HOT.
Oct.
FA.
J\in«
"«J
July
Kir.
Oct.
Oct.
July
*i«.
July
Jun.
Har.
)far.
Mar.
NOT.
Aug.
Apr.
June
«a'.
Nov.
S.pt.
July
*u«.
Apr.
*y
Sept.
Mar.
Har
«pr
OKTIHU
1926
1935
1927
1941
1932
1935
1924
1941
1940
1928
1938
1949
1924
1932
1952
1959
1951
1960
1926
1937
1925
1938
1926
1934
1=>47
1*5
1965
1904
1934
1924
1939
1939
1941
1925
1935
1892
1940
1915
1940
1927
1935
1927
1938
1874
1940
1"19
1939
1928
1940
1935
1940
1951
19'7
1962
1965
.969
EC)
8.75
14.33
2.9
17.2
10.0
11.3
2/9
7.4
8.9
11
13.4
8.2
12.7
18.6
30
15.5
1.9
1 L . ?
«a.o
25.0
7.8
11.1
66
19.8
11.75
1.6
11.1
J.
12,671
12,276
103
95
1,115
1,851
531.2
460.3
448.4
1J25
1,202
974
209
2,808,400
2,750,349
201,500
198,000
682
585
190
1/3,506
.2/21891
1/2,593
4/3,109
2,500
1,600
1,070
918
2,600
2,574
1,201
1,122
184
163
1,104
976
289,432
'821
652
464
404
3,099
2,860
136,823
133,300
462
441
419
961.4
948. 5
9<.5 9
°L\I
-
— —
- ~
— 63
.002 —
.001 *43
.494 —
.484 32.6
.966 —
.949 46.2
— 65.3
- -
_ —
— 61.8
_ —
45.5
*4S5
.186
.184 7/62.2
.183 2/62-2
0.271
.150
.728
.545
1/.342
.155
.104
.2U
1.06
3.06
.55
.417
J/.412
J/.174
.48
.302
.774
1.71
.024
.019
.462
.302
.036
.696
.692
.299
.61
.18
.14
_
—
-
213
143
2OO
754
2,103
593
406
-
367
685
296
826
244
1*
SCS
SOS
scs
scs
scs
3.
3
SCS
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
305
so:
scs
scs
scs
scs
-------
3AVAIUUH, XXKXSS.. UK ALTAMAUA RIVER BASIUS
Uh. I«WW
Lloyd 3ho»lB
North Pork Bn>*4 No. 6
«iorth ^ork Broad >te. ll
tiorth fork Broaa So. 1
Horth Pork Broad No. U
^
Omit.. *,.r
do
Bear Craak- — — —
To»'e Creek .
do
*ortto Fork Broad River
1-1 -J"*
do
Jac
Ml,
Bas
Toe
—do
kson, Oa.
., 0.
tonolle*, da.
do
«». G»-
—do
__ do
1,414
-yo
3.62
3.79
5.75
1.2
—
2A3.86
1,407
3.50
3.67
3.70
1.191
Apr.
De*.
J.IT
Julv
JVM
Oct.
Mar.
Apr.
1941
1910
1956
1970
1956
1958
1954
1962
1964
1969
2.9
24-3
10.8
7.4
4.5
1,748
112,538
98,578
12/780. 9
751.55
1Q/792.4
763.9
633.2
281.1
276.«
267.0
-
.176
.199
.193
.186
.148
.146
~
49.82
•60
55.1
74.8
73.8
63.2
ii/68.6
12/66.2
2.22
.335
.50
.34
,2O5
.49
.93
2.410
1,140
532
676
4O2
1,645
814
2,234
547
362
1,341
SCS
SCS
3CS
3CS
3C3
3A7LUJI, ST XAKrs, ST. JOHH3. UTO SUWUOK! RIVK BASIIO
30UTHIW FLOtltu UUHUJt
APAUlCHICOLi AM) OCHLOCKOHB R1VS BASDtf
U-l
11-2
11-3
12-1
12-2
U-3
12-i.
12-5
12-4
12-7
12-fl
13-1
13--1*
IV
••w*- - •-.
-ii
-do
White Hanganeae Ho. 6
Lake Auburn
T ^
Lak* Pyrdy
do
High Pln« 3u Mo. 5
Barvlew- ._.---
Lake Karri*
do
*
" U> , ** * nd
JL°
Trlb. of Chickamiaga Cr*ek
do
__
Pattlt Craek
Towi Creak (*rlb. of)
Coo RlT
Looaa^tti
Llttl. cahrti tl«r
.^tir»^o^i:m
Trlb. of Htgh Plna
Village r>«ek -
Tello* Crwk
do
Hn I ^
ogue UM
^*^
*i i f
CHOCTAHUTCHKE, reLLOW,
Cart«r«Tille. Qa.
Auburn, Ala.
Clanton, Ala.
K^^f^, AU.
11 r
iz£r^———~-
Sowwkfl, Ala. •
TUiCI^SKS, PAS-JiOCAJL
Blnaingham, Ala
TuacaloOM, Ala.
d°
*
° g*do**' *'
2.34
J.9
E3CA«1A,
1.60
12.46
1.6
9,087
41.74
7.45
.63
1.8
A, Affi) 0Fi
72.3
30.0
.13
2.31
2.8
AMD ALABAMA
1.51
12/U.o
1.6
9,076.5
40.22
7.18
.61
1.55
RL Rival BA3]
71.6
29.8 -
.13
»o». 1937
F*. 1945
JUM 1925
Ikl 1956
IOT! 1970
RJVKR BASICS
Julj 1929
JulJ 1939
Oct. 1929
•o.. 1938
T*>. 1931
Jan. 1937
D~. 1913
»aj 1936
Sapt. 1910
tor. 1935
Oct. 1948
"W 1957
Jug. 19S4
*7 1957
*r. 1961
Ka/ 1970
LHS
*y 1911
0~. 1935
f*. 1929
•or. 1935
Aug. 1953
Aug. 1949
War 1963
13.4
7.3
31
10.9
10.0
9.2
6.3
22.3
25.2
8.5
3
9.17
24.6
6.75
17.75
13.5
354
218.4
176.6
535.2
•90
865
1,021
900
102
95
156,525
138,520
19,0*3
18,594
1,448.0
1,325.4
65.5
60.5
389.7
385.3
11,866
9,514
2,421
2,373
15/2,636
7.631
6.963
.116
.095
.014
.012
.U2
.167
.090
».163
«.161
.061
.059
.066
.044
.040
'50
67
75.8
63.7
42.5
44.2
14/53.99
59.9
1.45
.41
3.92
1.66
1.20
.66
.089
.479
2.0
2.74
.32
1.34
.239
.110
.377
1.5*0
846
6,472
1,"40
2,63»
376.3
144
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SC3
SCS
LOWER HISSI53IPPI HI/KB BA3IM (MATGHEZ TO THE fCU^H)
C&loiaivu, Htrawitau, and V*r»illon filv«r Baaina
ExdudiiV? 2.04 acr«-f**t or ssdiaw
•'si-'n f"T58" repo O.
Els>att->n o' dam
•*• \ cv
or '
l«T,t
tlsert "—* -"5.0 to I''"
- feet anl o-I^lnal ~a
»c ty a" e'f J*t.— """'
fro« lak» in March 194
; s«« H. D, 65, 75th ^o
Sept. 1956. Dat. bas.n
iy
In 1940
In 19..9
VO/ Changed on ba»i» of 1970 sur-fey.
Lj./ Average of 9 aaMplea.
lg/ Average of 1C sajaplaa.
lj/ Drainage aroa above reeervolr "o. 3 excluded.
14/ Weighted average Subaergwl sedljwnt 51.75 pcf
' ' ' With s-foot flashboaHs Added In IQf*
Eatlaatod or aseuaad.
-------
SUMMARY OF
KESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
!
!
NEAREST TOWN ! DRAINAGE AREA
j (SQUARE
| TOTAL
MILES)
DATE OF
PERIOD STORAGE
BETWEEN CAPACITY
SURVEY SURVEYS (ACRE -FT.)
i (YFARS)
NET
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
UCRE-FT
SPECIFIC
»EIGHT
(DRY)
LB PER
:u FT )
AVG ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PER S<3 MI.
OF NET DR
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
PERIOD SHOWN '
I
AC -FT ! TONS
i (CSSISSIPP1 RIVER BA3IN5 (HELENA TO
15-2
15-3
15-4
1 5
15-6
15 7
15—8
15-10
1S-U
15-12
15-13
15-15
15-16
15-17
15 1
15-19
15-20
15 --2
15-23
15-24
l<-2<
15-26b
15-27a
ls-28a
Lake Wijiona
0. P. White Pond
B. H. Honnescuker Pond
* H PtinH
C. -. Hurdle Pond
Agnes Jon«s Pond
h
L«e Johnaon Pond
H~A1
r. T. HcAicxandcr
2°
j *t"COKa
H
Like oooLniid
Fletcher Hurdle Pond (North ;-
h ( So li 1
do
Gayooo Lake
Ben 0. Pettis Pond
do
R. X. Williams
ifenry W. Ramsey Pond
do
Dr. Braalett Pond
do
• ' lrl0 Pond
Ben P. Smith Pond
do
A. L. Rodman Pond
Charles Dockery Po'-d
do
V.. ¥. Murphy Pond
do
do
j
Alu,-n Fork Saline River
Trib. of Chewalia Creek
Trib. of Coldwater Siver--
H
""rib. of Coldwater liver—
,°^
'r * ' * Ur
"" ' C Ri
no o oiauato i r
T r
"
0
Trib. of Red Banks Creek—
Trib. of Byhalia Creek
0
do
Tric.^of Coffa-a Creek—
Trib. of "ississippi River
Trib. of Toby Tubby Creek-
do- ^
"Yib, of Sartor Cr-ee*
do
.rid. o. aiiarat^nle
Trib. o" Pigeon Roost ~r -
Trib. of Kurncare Creek—
do
Trib. of Jones Creek
do
East Goose Creek
P g > ."*
Little Rock, Ark. 43.0
Holly Springs, Hiss.— .OO97
Slayden, Hiss. .0625
0 ^^
H "
Holly Springs, Kiss.— .0473
H° <~,"\
do . }
o . yj4
Warsaw, MISS. .1019
Victoria, Miss. .0406
do
riolJy Springs, Mna.— .0342
Horn Lake, Mi-is. .2196
Oxford, Kiss. .OO75
ao
do . 4iU
Taylor, Kiss. .02'>9
Cxloru, MibS. .1375
do
ates i^.e, _ss. .0456
Holly Springs, Miss.— .0278
Arkabutla, Mi-53. .1563
Eudora, Miss. .0644
Arkabutla, Miss. 1,000
do __
'•oily Springs, Mlsa.-- .206
do
..^ord, Mi-is. ,^P6
j
'
a ^
.0069
.0597
• J^
.0^51
• ' "
•4''
.0954
,011k
.0389
__
.0320
.20J.7
.'K6?
. 413
.1289
._'"
.0398
.0264
.14^8
.0566
943
.200
".4-7
Cc-,.
May
Oct.
Jan.
in
i c-
Oct.
I111"
*
UK.
""
Feb!
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Aug.
Feb.
Feb.
u
^ar.
Sept.
Xar.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
July
Sept.
Mar.
Apr.
toy
Mov.
Sept.
Nov.
Apr.
c '
1937
1950
19*7
iq^A
1QM
1940
iqjj*
IQ^l
1942
1951
191b
1951
1947
1951
1948
1951
1942
1916
1951
1946
1951
1933
1951
1951
1951
1947
1951
1945
1946
1951
1939
1962
1953
1959
1963
1953
in a
12.6
4.0
i
f
' J
i -7
j. f.
35.0
4. -
4.0
2.7
-
-
35.0
1-;
u
IS. 2
14.2
">
-
r T
—
n»I»2
"
'.3
'~'i
521,
:i
i,
I,
12!
p
36,
29.
8,
6,
2,
1,
2?6
94
^8,
If,
12.
12,
q.
4.
2.
5.
3.
6.
4.
53.
1.
9.
fc.
4.
2
31.
24,
lu
17.
16.
3.
3.
30.
29.
23.
22.
,300
540
060
/2P.
19.
17.
/J"
' ^s!
?i.
19.
::
.46 —
.07
,0 —
.35 —
.1* —
,0
.80
.40
.8
, i,h
,11
__
—
.1 —
.9
,1
.3
.66 —
,61
,67
,48
,cl
.47 —
,23
,0
,63 —
,07
,93
.70
,43
r4
,C
,9
,4
,6
,77
29
5 —
0 —
C
0
.499
.495
-4S7
-jg 5.194
1? >.169
84 «.152
77 *.l,-5
Po
3^
40
"SO
*50
—
63,
—
60,
—
o~,
o7,
7b.
84,
bl,
—
39.
—
66.
63,
—
63.
—
83.
—
78.
.6?
.09
.9
.27
.13
.24
.05
.9
,fi
,3
,0
,1
,e
51-85
—
'6,
—
55.
—
47.
—
41.
*37
—
52.
—
67.
—
r50
—
*44
—
**>G
*60
-*90
*90
*90
66
70
70
«70
,72
72
.7..
• 75
,04
58
0
—
13
—
I1;
—
7
12.
16
.11
.37
.1 18
.3 20
.78 10
.4 18
.6 27
12.4 ?2
"^
—
5.
-_
i,
—
•j,
12,
— .
16,
—
.Oj 10
. '2 4
.*P 6
.55 9
.5 17
.8 30
26.0 44
1.13 i
—
2,
.._
3.
—
r,1
—
2.
1.
—
3.
—
4.
—
1.
—
3,
2/8.
"3/3
2/3.
2A
2/5!
2/5.
2/1.
.19 j
T, i.
5 21
,61 2
.12
.14 3
,3° 7
.95 2
60 3
,627
620
.4 t/16
5 "a/-"
5 i/6
66 2/8
87 2/8
30 2/8
38 2/2
120
403
—
,200
—
',000
—
,700
,200
,500
,?00
,»OC
—
,800
—
,520
,040
,100
—
,400
—
,600
,530
—
,060
—
,0"0
—
i3"r
—
,37C
913
--
,'60
—
,200
—
,120
—
,420
—
819
810
,465.
,448.
,860.
,136.
,949.
,080.
,103.
^
e
7
±
4
4
o
-------
15-31
15-32
16-1
16- 2
16-3
16-4
16-5
i6-6
16-7
16-9
16-10
16-11
16-12
16-15
16-16
16-17
16-18
16-19
16-20
16-21
16-22.
16-23
1
ac
Enid Reeervclr —
^°
" en&cU
r oer o r-
°
-loan
°
in fl -a »
_ ..
rl
Loch H.ry
" 1
Dering -o*l Co. Pond
„ rnrtfl
Horodo
W»at Fr»nkfort •
rfn
?° , ^
er,
Plnevlew (Middle)
f illarnay — —
0
' L*k
d °~
Crab Orchard L*K«
LUt-le Graa»y Like
Herrln Reservoir No. 1
.•)*dia»n'_ .ir conservation pool inly.
Original i**rfiiB«nr -ang" surveys.
Used *i ra^'rininff ,Ute of sediment da
do
Xooona River
lal b eh* Si
"
-*rc
„
.^o ings ~I*««K
Browi Creek
r t
Trib. of Wolf Creek
°
° „ ,
ut o o r««*
(i
°
0
Big Creek
q °
" H^°C 3 aP~
F rtf
" °
rt
" elf
Limb B
run ,
Little Grassy
Unnamed
.
_,
fX) S 1 *- 3 .
^°
0
*'
Enid, Miss.
3
LC«ER KISSIS5IPFI n
St. Fran
"!*r ,
a°~ a-
*rto^'
Kwlington, Ky.
T*m ° i m
Eldorado, 111.
W*«t Frankfort, Ul.-
0
amington ,
rf
0
Q
0
Annapoln, Mo.
fcpi.r fliorr, MO.
c
«Tion, il.
0
rf
r -^ °
iarbondal.. 111.
1«rrin, 111.
—lo
11 d t J
1,545 1,454
foO 516
IVEP. BASIN (3HE5TEB IX, Hn
,cio fiiv.r Basin
1.90 1.87
3.99 3.96
3.81 3.65
3.00 2.77
.219 .206
2.23 1.87
4.03 3.75
.63 .07
.56 .06
.49 .48
51 51
1,310 1,206
4.65 4.43
.339 .316
.26 .25
171 160
0.5 ^.31
15.7 14.2
1 . ^8 1 . 70
.33 .32
1.24 1.22
.925 .858
M«T 1956 2.5
S.pi.. 1959 3.3
Hov. 1963 4.1
lar. 1937 — 1
tfaj 1960 20.6 1
1940 —
— 19513/ —
Xfj 1961 9.83
1942 — 1
July 1953V ~
Hsj 1965 11.13 1
»Ai
Oct. 1930 —
July 1939 8.8
July 1939 1^
July 1939 10
— 1888 —
Dec. 1908 20
3»pt. 1948 22.1
— 1919 —
Oct. 1949 30
Oct. 1949 29
S«pt. 1936 10.1
July 1949 12.8
1939 7
1«9 9
193B7y 10
1910 —
1939 »
July 19408/ —
July 1947 7.0
Mar. 1964 16.7
P«b. 1944
June I960 16.3
1919 --
1951 32
— 1937 —
dug. 1951 14
MJJT 1940 —
July 1951 11.2
1921
July 1951 30
Mar. 1942 —
July 1951 9.3
1913 —
— 1951 38
Dec. 1925 —
»ug. l»5l 25.7
*.ug. 1954 14
1925 —
— .ulj 1960 35
6/ Net sediment volume in 1949 was 120. 5
2/' CAJH failed spring 1938, surrey conduct
3/ ^riginal data fron topographic survey
5/ Based on tncoDrlett rMurvey; 1963 ™]
* Estimatea or assumed.
18.83
17 .T)
16.47
,569,900
,549,336
060,030
657,201
, '37.400
,320,020
24.05
19.56
87.7
82.9
171
158
1,228
1,184
1,386
1,193
89.3
73.0
844.4
726.0
i/lf6*-1-
1,515.0
1,487.8
8.9
8.2
30.9
29.1
8.2
5.4
818
622
625,000
624,651
613,161
1,746
1,659
58.1
46.8
24.0
21.7
67,320
63,894
705
590
25,741
25,365
19"
178
74. b
64.7
150
138
383.94
353.59
ac.-ft. du
-,ed July 24
of 1935-36
lue of 0.57
'.102
•.096
•.089
.934
.922
1.073
1.068
.969
.957
•.0^7
•.063
-
—
-
•.025
•.016
.540
.539
.530
.613
.582
.265
.214
.143
.129
.611
.580
.168
.141
2.543
2.506
.173
.155
.350
.304
.201
.184
.598
.551
e to compaction
, 1939.
is nK>re reliabl
•90 2/6.2 2/12,153.2
•90 2/2.07 2/4,^57.6
•90 2/1.87 2/3,665.6
•60
•60
•40
7S4
54.8
64
•60
73. V
•76
•67
•60
•60
•65
•60
34.0
56.6
36.8
47.5
34.5
38.7
27.5
62.9
44.5
37.1
o1" earlii
e.
.667
.558
1.205
1.133
.a3
.33?
.600
3.15
2.64
2.18
6/933
1.43
3.3
.583
.133
2/.0414
.5705
1.20
.64
1.91
.61
2.85
.32
1.22
896
729
1 ,575
1,860
254
1.71
784
',,070
4,370
3,180
1,870
4,310
825
174
888
1,368
1,976
1.58
2,402
192
1,671
.69 692
1.01 816.1
er deposits.
Ci
CE
6CS
SOS
MS
IWS
IW
505
SCS
IWS
MB
Mi
MS
IWS
rws
MS
I.'S
MS
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IK THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
1
1 |
STREAM NEAREST TO»N ; DRAINAGE AREA
I | (SQUARE MILES)
| TOTAL | NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
RATIO
(ACHE-rr
PER
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
[DRY)
IB. PER
CU FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDMENT
ACCUMULATION
PER SO MI.
OF NET OR
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOW
AC -FT. | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
i HISSicSlPPI RIVVi BASIS (CHE3T«B TO HKLBU)
St. prancis River 3*«ln (Conttnuad)
IS-36.
\^-n
lfe-2s
16-31
16-32
U-J1
16-3e
17-1
17-2a
17-3
17-j.
l"-ft
17-7
I"1-"*
17 9
17-10
17-13
17-lU
17-U*
n-1-
"'-IS
"W £~T^»«.rtU.-
Uk* .ohnton :ity
— -«o -
Heat rrankfort (Sewi
~ '" ' • 1
-to —
Hough River rtS Ho. 1
Oblon Creoh PRS 124
Had Hlver FRS Ho. 14
~^ LUX- flT
.«ii*J .t»«k Mr j f u
" - ^~ "
Kuntlnifburg (Uoper)
Oakland "ity if?
• n1O
Chafer Uto-
5pr;r,a Mill
10
Yerallion Lake
Brown Park Lace
'rfc1^ avUaon 3 c
Furina Lake
Graham Lake
ICRK at BlufoH
Olney Reservoir (New)
--- 1o
Plum Creek No. 15
— ili,-
HUM "r*ek No. 1"
- ---Ho -- -
-t*lner Lake--
Trib. of Rwlng Creek
Lake Crwk
C°
*ndy Cr««
5t**«» ^rwir
Buf^*^*
Unnajw^ Trib. Llttl* Cr««k
Antioc- :r»-k
_
™
P rt-
• at rorlc
Trib. of Patoka RiT«r
3. Fork Pttoka River
Tippec.no* W.er
Mill Cr*«k
in
Trib. of Kidoan-aas Riyer—
N. Fork Vtrnliion SlYer
Trib. of fUccoon 3rcek
1
do
*>"» '
Trlb of Veale Cre«k
Trib of Flat Creek
Trio, of Saat Fork
1b *% Dianal " ek
Little Plum Creek
do
Trib. of Little Pljm Creek
1o
'Yib. of Pon-1 ..r-e* — --
T>iompsonTlli«, HI.
Johniton City, in. —
^ in
r'
«est Frankfort, 111.—
M K
do
'anay farv, Ky.
Sharon Grove, K/
ReedTvill K
' '
(^HIU HIrftR
Huntingburg, Ino,
Oakland City, Ind.
tentisello, Ind. — • —
Hltch«H, T-nd.
Charleston, 111.
Danville, m,
Flora, 111.
Ucled.. 111.—
Washington, Ind.
Bluford, 111.
Otwell, Ind.
Olney, 111.
Taylorovllle, Ky.
®
— fa
"airfield, 111.
.519
1.799
^.85
2
7.62^
2.86
.37
9.59
BASIN KOI SON TO
Wabash Hirer Basi
.67
.52
1,700 1
15.03
1.41
267
1.34
-53«
3.353
.034
">.36
1.03
-56
.300
.512
1.725
3.75
7.288
2.85
.36
8.56
UKOHTOWN
.63
.40
,698
2/5.29
1.38
266
1.33
.531
31
3.199
-031
3.1)
1.02
.55
-'^
July
June
ug.
Kay
NOT.
Kov.
Jan.
July
June
Oct.
Sept.
Apr.
Sapt,
Jun*
June
Aug.
Aug.
June
Oct.
Sept.
Sept.
Dec.
1957
1945
1960
1926
1922
1945
1964
1955
1960
1965
1964
197O
1894
1921
1923
1940
1938
1940
1941
1947
1915
1940
1938
1959
1928
1950
1956
1926
'960
1154
1954
1926
1956
1956
1960
1945
20
15
34
16
o.33
19.0
17.2
13.1
25.3
12
6
34
1,5
1,870
35.56
27.41
300.63
471
2,654.7
515.-
617
1/30.35
1/28.90
1,379.87
_~
1,355-4
998
137
2/850.8
2/835. 8
aii.o
14,722
14,041
127
306
Z6O
X87.4
171.9
4/8,643
7,438
49. OS
37.75
187.75
175,18
13.3
104,8
104.4
67O.7
10.7
10. (3
1,555.3
1,517.4
316.75
224.3
213.2
126.3
1^3.7
121.2
53.68
4fl.fc2
.295
.103
.079
.2*3
.195
.502
.296
.236
'.23
«.22
-15
.15
.33
.154
150
".264
•2.116
•2.079
2.017
".016
-.016
•.023
*.020
::
•.061
•.052
.044
.631
.588
.046
.300
.723
.706
.516
.268
.262
.254
.263
.25?
.261
.237
38.3
51.5
48.7
35.9
•65
*eo
75.78
77. 7<
77.58
•40
•40
70
'75
•67
_
•70
72.4
•70
58.6
33.14
61.94
~
30.3
48.54
45
53
56
47
a. 3
0.64
1.06
.R80
2.41
4.6
y «
_j.
!/. 54
.617
1.937
2.490
.023
.975
,140
1.75
.179
.40
—
2.46
.19
,218
2.10
1.7O
—
1.18
1.84
4.19
2.00
3.11
1-15
534
1,1*9
934
530
1,884.4
6,512.2
i/1,498
1/742
1/1 710
1/912 4
538
1,720
3,796
38
1,420
__
213
2,760
273
510,5
—
1,775.6
256.35
1,460
—
1,247.5
1,803
4,837
2,439
3,180
1,034.3
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
sn
scs
scs
scs
scs
srs
scs
scs
scs
srs
5CS
IWS
SOS
IVS
scs
IWS
IWS
scs
scs
IWS
-------
co
l-»_io
17- a
17-22
17-73
1H-1
18- 2»
l«-1e
Ifl-flc
18-1?
in-n
19-?
io-3
19-4
10- So
I/ ">*ii
In *h« 106*1
y T*-«
*/ -
IP
•*•
Scott aburg Uk«
£agl*.. Kill (Cataract
rfa
>«t Falls
"""
— 1°"
— to-
_..
7°
3O
Wll °"~
°
0
0
°
Pickwick Undi^ —
•to
1o
Dal« FUllow-
,*>
J rf fto"0*7
Wolf ^r««k 'Lake Cta**
U|m*r Gn*n Rirer *< '
_., °
rora
F IttwLv,
4l*
I
— to
M Pool or,'.?
survny.
•>»-< fro« ?2P ,"i """i o '!'
tjo
*nKfl r •'*
** t*k
**T*do"r*
Trlb. of Aueatatuck
La**;-- Mill Crock
j
1 Ittl Rl
"
it
C*ney Fork River
ao
fto
T Rl
*""*"** 8r~
•to
rin
1
°
7°
°
tn
1
°
do
rtn
do
°
(to
Obey Biw
,lo
-u-*>«rtam1 Hlvar
, . ^°
JO
pllot - South Fork —
j_
*"
stm*5
rte-°r
c
-JO _
Scioto Ri»«r
^_
••am i- -h>ry Clo«d or 1
'.T'O ic. -ft.
™
l*» Ind.
Seottgourg, Ii*d.
ClovM-dal*. Ind.
TOKE33EE RI\
HorAiosTlll
Hvh-KJaia 1J.1.I. Ky.
fto
— — — Sock I aland, Terui.
rto
~_
Cunt «irtll
^^ "'^ *
do-
•Vv
Tow Cr»«k. Al«.
^°
rto
ao
Fl 41
_A
— *,
do
to
"^^ ' T*""1'
do
d
do
dn "
t*llb.rt»yille, Ky.
~~
do
CelUia T«nn
to-
Old 11l.k«rj, T4.U1. 1^
'
do
Palls of Hough, Ky.
Stanford, Ky.
OHIO RIVER BASI
Kanaka, Big Sandy, Licking
I~*nca3t«r, '•
do
flAJ Turd , Va .
^ ™-
Dayton, Ohio
^ r*1
1o- l' °
do
igfged li»e stone sinkhole-.
.342
".294
3.95
2.98
295
rER BASlf, (B
rid and Ore.
2.1
6.10
1,675
24,450
29,590
__
30,750
-
32 820
-
40,200
935
11,674
5,789
454
1.44
N (POINT ?U
, Kentucky,
.20
329
651
270
1,053
—
.327 — 1950
— Jun. 1959
.278 — 1906
3.57 Oct. 1955
Oct. 1964
2.98 Fall 1949
Oct. 1961
287 DK. 1952
— FA. 1962
ELOV HALES BAH DAK)
n River Ba.in*
2.0 liar. 1915
— »0». 1940
— Jan. 1941
— June 1959
1,671 S^t. 1935
— Aug. 1947
Sfl*. 1960
— No*. 1969
2,550 Ko». 1940
— Jun. 1947
— Hay 1956
July 1961
675,033 Oct. 1936
— Jun. 1947
— lay 1953
June 1956
1,135 0«. 1928
D«. 1931
— 0«!. 1936
— June 1951
— Au(. 1961
1,997 F*. 1938
— 3^>t. 1946
— June 1956
Auf. 1961
7,131 Aug. 1946
Hay 1951
July 1956
Oct. 1961
987 Apr. 1943
— Jun. I960
2,741 June 1954
Jun. 1965
5,690 Aug. 1950
Jun. 196)
437.56 OK. 1959
— July 1969
1.41 S^it. 1955
- Apr. 1966
EA.ANT TO MADI30NI
Scloto, and Hiaan RiT.r Baeli
.20 Oct. 1902
— S.pt. 1941
329 Aug. 1934
July 1944
639 — 1927147
264 — 1927147
1942
1,0*2 -- 1905
— 1935
1951
8/ 1953 survey revised.
9/ Used drainage area beloM
10/ Swtlwent contributing ar
Uj Nljiue (-) indicates ecou
12/ Uncontrolled drainage ar
137 Including 19,000 cu. yd.
147 lMr survey -anges «re
Estimated or assuned.
— 52.11
9 46.5
53 54.50
9 2,409.8
— 749.02
12 713.24
i/232,370
9.17 2)0,906
— 1,31)
25.7 1,279
— 769
34 564
18.5 509
— 54,925
12.0 52,370
6.4 51,836
6.6 51,591
9.2 51,281
— 1,09", 380
6.6 1,080,897
8.9 1,073,164
5.1 1,064,228
10.7 771,071,717
6.0 8/1,061, 411
3.0 1,061,005
5.1 1,050,303
— 687,000
3.0 674,000
5.0 652,000
9.8 651,000
4.7 650,000
5.0 648,000
5.1 641,000
1,130,313
8.6 1,116,389
4-7 1,118,082
5.1 1,116,811
5.2 1,105,256
4.7 772|855!440
5.2 2/2,814,388
5.2 772,79O,«55
— 1,706,000
17.2 —
— 467,000
11 453,703
— 6,089,000
12.83
332,940
9.75 329,670
— 320.71
10.5 316.59
114
J8.9 95
1,646
10 1 ,018
15 311,648
15 105,618
— 4,563
30 3,920
16 3,928
13 3.737
Halee Bar Dam (8,935 sq.
«a reduced by eloeing Wh
IT (treated as negative •
>ea 2,776 aq. nd.
dredged in 1930.
established.
.238
.212
.391
.316
».7«7
•.76)
•.294
•.280
1.123
1.116
.135
.099
.089
.024
.023
.OJ3
.022
.023
-
1.533
.8c6
.857
.23
.19
-
•.810
*.8O9
'.554
•.552
.008
.007
.007
.007
mi.).
—l.r Da.
•diaent).
48.0
47.61
55
60.8
62.8
43
43
•60
•60
•60
•60
•55
•55
•55
•55
•55
•55
•55
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
•53
70.27
59.9
-
•70
77.5
1.89
.87
2.38
1.00
.54
.600
1.00
.495
.127
.050
.022
.02
.979
.141
.687
.141
.027
.417
S/.479
2/.490
J.120
.120
.401
.274
.811
U/-.180
.125
1.113
.719
1.107
.635
.441
.765
I/. 26
1372.50
.191
.037
79.5 .097
•65 .020
59.4
.014
i.Oct. 3, 1936, to 1,
1,975.9
902. 1
2,851
1,324.2
739
936
463
166
29
26
1,171
4O8
523
32
500
552.9
565.6
138. «
138.5
462.0
1,471.0
936
144
1,285
830
1,278
7)3
1,170
i'339
291
63
168
28.3
135 aq. 91.
IKS
ns
SCS
SCS
SCS
TV*
75*
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
CE
CE
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
ODU
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET RESERVOIR
NUMBER
STREAM NEAREST TO»N DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
)
j TOTAL { NET
OHIO RIVES BASLH (PO1BT PUUSAJTr TU XAEISOM
lananfta, Big Sandy, ticking, Kentucky, Scioto, and tttaaj. River
19-6 °hl° Con*- K"** *> 73 Blacklick Cr**k Colu*w», Ohio ^ 24
jr* _, *
' ™'*- tJ- no. ,4 .to
19-Ba U*» ifclte— P*« D««
~° An
^^ „
do -to
Valto »^ L
j_ j-
1 n D_1 1 ° • fH~
19 1? Bjllewiy ww nir*
llu 0'3hju*hn Sciot fi
™ •™*W1"""'
do
rtr rln
Deck Lak Pa't
*";
do
j- j
,, (V«nt L«t 3 11
™ ^"*n **" ~*
do do
d
19-17 Caldwell Lake Trib of
19-19 Pine Lake Tar Holl
do do-
^
19-33 Kweole Run (Trib. an of Bweole
11-23 Alien Lake Trib. of
•*•
do 2}
Creek Waverlj, Oo^0 37-4 36.9
ii
„ **
"alien, y. .^, .21,
WilllaMaUju
uutotai , Sy . . 4 , .1,7
Dublin*1 Ohl
ublln, Ohio ^iSJ *rf/
ft Pioua Ohl
n ^an 'T1*, (*hio ~. } -.30
•» London, Ohio 5,.~ ,,.0
do
rJo
Ml 3° • —
un nt. Grab, Ohio ^j.^j ^4.97
rt
d
j
Stonej Creek fcrerlj, Ohio 1.02 1.00
Chill 1° th Ohl
ow Creak Gillaspierille, Ohio — 2.42 2. 40
do— L- - _- '
do
K» Dublin, Ohto 13.8 13.7
Silver Creek Kenton, Ohio .50 .50
^ do~
""**• J 1.85 1.39
19-24 Sylwn Lake (Uf-pen do do .40 .38
19-25 Hoatermn Lake — Trib. of
19-36 Reynold* Pond Trib. of
19-5fl Scbott Pond Mb. of
do d
fed HiTer Sprin«ri»ld, Ohio 1.50 1.53
Bar-en Creek Bidwell, Ohio .70 .70
^ —
nt.^Ciload, Ohiu 8. ,} i/5.50
Bi^ »(alnut Creek- Westerrille, Ohio .82 82
19- TO ftaplo CTOT« Lake 3aB» Creek Mt. Gllead, Ohio 3.05 3.04
do — do do — —
19-U Pond Lick Lake- — — Pond Lick Run Friendship, Ohio 2.54 2.53
—
^° .40 .4 i
]«-«, HcBrid* -ak« — Trib. of
Pnrd Run do - .61 61
|
PERIOD
DATE OF BETWEEN
SURVEY SURVEYS
{YEARS^
Basina {Continued/
June 1939 2.fr
JM. 19'7
fc». 1939 2.8
Oct. 1935 —
Dec. 1947 12 0
Aug. 1951 4 0
Oct. 1941 lo
%7 193* 23.66
— 19344/ 9
— 19424/ «
Julj 1951 9
Jane 195O 10
IStA —
Jure 1949 2.6
June 1951 2.0
June 1954 3.0
D.,:. 194« —
July 195O 1.6
Sept. 1957 7.0
Aug. 1962 5."
July 1971 9.0
— 1937 —
Sept. 1949 12
— 1939 —
Sept. 1951 12.3
Fall 1938
Aug. 1950 11.7
Jan. 1940 —
Jan. 1950 10.5
July 1954 4.0
June 1962 3.0
— 1925 —
1938 —
Aug. 1951 13
Aug. 1951 1-8
1948
Aug. 19->1 2.8
Mov. 1938
Aug. 1951 12.7
1940
Aug. 195O 1J
1930
Oct.. 1948 18
1921
Aug. 1951 30
— 1901
S*pt. 1951 50
— 1932 —
Sept. 1949 17
— 1938
Juljr 1950 12.3
— 19 J6
July 1950 14.3
193 c
July 1950 15.3
1917 —
2.53
1.04
.52
3,734
3,338
i/3,706
2SP,949
*S5f?n*
128
122
113
1O6
8,892
3,538
3/16,67-*
15,604
14,538
14,162
115
^4
594.0
530.2
511.0
486.7
1,140
1,111
1,068
1,027
965
88
85
74
71
134
123
3,215
3,010
2,929
2,867
384
7.3
4.8
774
744
28.1
23-9
48
39
25.4
23.1
Tl
32
13
*.D26
*.02i.
*.023
*.022
*.084
-.069
.0564
.0550
.0529
.0508
.0478
'.120
.073
.06?
.575
.539
.524
.513
•.029
'.006
*.OO5
.014
.012
.02i
.019
.053
.048
.086
.083
.027
.02..
*9.0
1.5.9
49-9
52.6
44.8
*45
66.2
57.4
*60
57.1
^5. 5
fl3.2
58.8
59.9?
f>7.02
34.01
'.394
1.73
2.13
2/.184
.121
.135
.063
.913
.43
.17
.14
.721
.247
.324
.274
2.«D
2.48
.95
2.73
3.53
. iS
.441
.039
.10
.84
.079
in
191
60.5
459
l^O
331
1,137
59S
2,*>10
2,144
3C^
29H
2,664
3,400
548
551
51
124
1,015
143
35-
35r
ODW
ODW
OOW
ODW
3D*
ODW
ODW
ODW
COW
OOW
TOW
-------
!->
01
19-17
19-38
19-39
19- 4C
.0-42*
19-.J.
19-50
19- n
19-53
20-lb
20- 2b
20-3b
!'
T '
• *" t
~A~
4o
w"r oc"in* ™°- -
^tt
j
00
Lak
,
gu a e-
**re~
W. n,. «11 Creek Reservoir
(Wlnton Lake)
C*~ k h
ni" ^ r • • riulr
Whit t Lak
Ji»co Uk«
j
Lak
A t Lak
j
Hi-Idle Pork Restrvolr
" 1 ial Mln Lak
*~
"1" S+°i M1 1 Ir
r p t LMte-
5o H 1 to
*ui::::::::::::::::::::::
do
OI" rt ^^
d°~
~w. 1.°"
H
Without 1 't. flashboards a-lde^ In i«
Surrey lates Sept, -Nov. 1914, Sep'.
10"' rorr»c*lon for Marl* 'jfovs.
Rf*r-v- r ivirtla ^ j 1red*ed -n Mar-'-
*"-"" " eaK
do
Morgan Pork
U*lt*d* """
' ami " ak
,
7°
iia
~ k
''"rib. of :iear -reek
Olentangy . irer-
W Pork Mill Creek
°"reek
<*
Trib. of ^ittle Salt Creek
_M«
k1° " A
M. Fork or E. Pork White
Water ReaervoLr
°
"d'"
f^t ~" i, n i
-rcnk
do
Wat4u«a River
do
.. p
n or o a n iver
do
A
a
d
do-
0
Ar-1 34r. Oa-t on amount r
__„
to° )hi
' °
d«-
J.u.»,td,.. 'hi=
-•ric*, *r, -.fi.o-
d*i'i
T°
~^
Wil i
' 1111
*rc * i1-*' h'°
KiHsboro, 3hio
*°
Uelai«re, vfiiv.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Butlervllle, Ind.
A°~
Jackaon, Ohio
QC
oo
° ' Jhio
hcUMd. Ind.
B«il h
D< vl j r
do
iO.JO J.?.^D
4.45 4. '9
10.9 10.7
1 . - J. 3 . 42
1.87 1.""
>a •> T>
,«.< 48.5
t>.60 6.4U
.73 .69
3«1 379
29.5 2B.6
13.4 13.11
19.29 19.0
1.67 :.•#
6.88 6.72
"•* 1O6.5
AS. 14 47.87
1.05 1.00
.009 .000
TBWE3SEE RIVER BASIN (ABOVE KALES BAR 0AM
Hampton, Tenr..
do
„
do
•lo
do-
do
1 19S1 surveys ar- not
468 453
_
1,840 662
'..903 62
,
Julj 1950 1'.3
Spring 1947
July 1950 j.5
Aug. 1960 10.0
— 1937
June 1949 12
July 1952 3
— 1937 —
Aug. 1950 13
Apr. 1956
June 1961 5.0
1951 11
1960 120
— 1942 2.3
— 1949 ..0
— 19-SO 1
1956
1960 4,
1955 9
Ntr. 1951
Nej 1960 9.25
Dec. 19-2
•tey 1961 8.42
July 19 > 9.6
Sept. I
.86!
.612
.432
.79
.642
20.16
.249
.611
.609
.568
.430
.284
.520
.468
.012
.340
186
1.03»
820
22
963
940.711
"5
156
1,936
\720
2,104
923
1 .190
8/2O8
1,6»9
1,516.8
1,529
6-38
2,108
978.79
15,824
732
•>30
680
515
340
623
561
14.4
407
OOW
ow
OOW
-CS
OEM
OOW
ODw
OW
OOW
OOW
3
s:s
scs
cow
cow
COW
scs
SC5
SCS
TV*
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
.241 2*9
.276 331
a*_er capacity at a-i' Iway cr«9* el.vatio-1.
Til. to I,*?"7 oq mi. by closing o' katauga
r D«c. It, 19
-------
Sl'MMARY Of
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH WTO
h-'
Ci
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
2O-6d
iO-7c
20-8c
2O- 9b
20-lOfc
20-llc
r-v; a-(= Ila Ionnc33.c rtlvcr
do- - - - -o
^ T
"hatug* Hiwaeaee Tiiver
Bottelj Nottoly River
•1.
do do
._„: „..._ .
!^l!^^*r"-iiiiiri"-~ -- "i^ ""inniiii "„!
""- lk)
NEAREST TOWN . DRAINAGE -\REA
•SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL NbF
TEMKESSEE -tl ,"ER r^Jv rABCX'i HALES dA>: DA«i
^
Jc - _
jo
10
~ H-°,~, ~ ,
j0 ' .
. - do -
Unolr ;ityf Tenn. ^,550 1,;56
GlenvUle, N. C. 36. ^ ;-.,4
do
do —
Fontana, N. C. . , *TL ,.,426
do —
do
,0
f!Z£::l'™:-~ ~Q' --"
do
1
\.-rn, Ten- <,<^. ^.«'i
_d^
30
ao
-0 _
fiayesvi- - f .. . -89 1 «
--^—
snr^ ;r-T-=: ^ 2^
-- --;--; 9- ^.r.
^o
?arne^ >nr. I.JI8 ^
3,
'T"
DATE OF
1 SURVEY
(Continued
Fall 1^1 '
(•pb. 1^33
Apr. 194"
Oct. ^^
Jily 19i.9
Kaj 15"
--•b. 19U
Sept. 1-50
toy L969
Kar. 1950
Get. 196"
Sept. Lu
s.c
0.-
c,.l
5.0
7.6
0.0
4.0
7.5
5.8
5.0
6.°
7.5
STORAGE
' CAPACITY
(ACRE -I- 1
'21 T~
- ^^-1
12,010
"•."6C
,,1,32-
;i 5r~'^?
:,49fc,"i2
400,9^=
)98,OoO
*" "'o =137
70,487
13?,159
i' Is'r-1
1 ,^,3,262
39,OjC
1.C52
1,580
.,347
1,118
2,047,527
2,036,324
1,195,229
1,17:., 954
242,0-2
241,502
240,516
3/176,521
175,865
174,429
174, i -7
2/439, "41
435,630
-.34,243
433 , ^68
57^979
^7,75,-
CAPACITY
•\VG ANN
INFLOW
RATIO
(ACRE-PT
PFR
ACRE-FT)
.011
.00^
.OCR
. JO6
Ct
. 00 7
.002
312
.308
,3Q \--> \
PER SO Ml • .rPL\IN
OFNETDR i ATA
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN '
AC -FT7
0,252
.2.:k
.299
.32->
.107
.975
.lt>8
.83C
i/-.251
.7 US
.""CT
— .
-21 4
.181
.rili.
.ol
-i;
—
.28 i»
.7^)1
—
TONS "
_ ™
At.1-,
126
35"
11"
82
183
'•VA
^94
—
895
"47
— TVA
25c
il"?
807
TVA
—
731
160
TVA
34C
^..1
— TVA
.692
.6^1
.690
.689
.705
.704
.702
.701
.699
.586
.534
.581
*55
*55
•55
"55
*55
«55
*55
*55
»55
*55
*55
*55
.l&O
.305
.155
.667
.589
.219
.595
.472
.590
.415
.758
.415
.GS7
.536
.132
y-
1,401.7
337.6
186
799
706
TV*
262.3
712."
565.4
— TVA
497.1
9O8.0
521.0
104. u
TVA
8/--
125
642
213
1,124
l,-58
-------
20-2Oc
20-21d
20-22d
20-23c
20-24d
20-25
20-26
20-2?
20-28
21-1
21- 2a
21-3*
21-4
21 6
21-^a
1,
T
6/
it
±LL/
nldge-
io
H°
Ocoe. .to. 3
do
•°
- CO
do
do-
do-
do
do
°
C O. 1
0
J
do
^ UgQ
do
do
do
rfC
H
do
oo
do-
Oaceola Lax*
Melton Hill
Upper Ollis Creek ^e^ervoir —
,0
Senecaville
Varies "ill
riinckston nun
Juemahoning
'alt Lick .
Srirt^eport (Uope")
do •
Prior to 1925 dam was 35 ft. lower.
Original volume comouted froa prooin
ed from dam closure in 1913. Five fo
Revised.
in Mar. 1944.
Blue Ridge Reservoir closed 3ec. L ,
Hi
occoa i er
i
Ocoe. Hiver
J°
Co
do
do
do.™.
do-
ao-
10
Tenressee River
"
"°
r,°
"°
rto
Shepard Creek
Clinch River
' ^
do
Seneca Fork
t R
nincKDton un
Phoning Creek
Salt Lick Run
Jacobs 3reek
j
d°
Ducktown, T«nn. 496
0
0
rf
TJJ
do—
do —
d
Chattanooga, Tenn. 20,790
0
^
0
do-
Clinton, Tenn. 3,343
1 1 T
o^ e, aim.
OHIC RIVER 3A5IH { ABOVE KJINT PLEASJU
do —
Senecaville. C hio 121
do —
Mansfield. Ohio ao
. p T 1C,
° *
do- 92
do- —
Ht. Pleasant, Pa. 18/31.64
£3 obtained Feb. 1933. Pediment deposits and nater inflow
•ot lash boards removed ^ept. lao,,.
• -napa.
1930. Oco-^ f> closed Aug.
15, 1942.
227 Apr. 19*4 —
— Aug. 1949 5.3
Aug. 1954 5.0
Apr. 1966 8.8
263 Aog. 1942 —
July 1945 2.9
- MOT. 19*6 1.3
— July 1953 3.0
Oct. 1955 2.1
Oct. 1958 3.0
— Oct. I960 2.0
Mar. 1968 2.6
10/96 D«*. 1911 — 1
— Oct. 1940 28.3
— 3«pt. 1949 8.9
- Aug. 1954 5.0
14/1,805 »OT. 1940 —
— July 1947 6.7
— Ifcy 1956 1.8
15/990 Oct. 1935 —
_ Oct. 1940 5.C
July 1947 6.7
— Aug. 1954 7.1
— Kay 1956 1.8
— June 1961 5.1
Dec. 1967 6.5
1.50 — 1908 —
— Oct. 1956 48
4.39 — 1923 —
Oct. 1956 33
422 July 1963
— Maj 1970
10.75 Apr. 1964
— Oct. 1970 0.5
JT AND LAKE EB1E DRAINAGE
195 Oct. 1938 —
— Feb. 1945 6.25
113 Oct. 193612/ —
— Xar. 1945 8.3
207 June 1938
- Sept. 1946 8.25
July 1954 7.75
^0.57 — 1905 —
— Sept. 1937 32
90.7 Jan. 1912 —
Sect. 1937 25.8
Sect. 1937 2'
13/31.52 Mar. 1887
Nov. 1937 50.6
— No*. 1964 27.0
12; Volume computed by average end
conditions.
137 Volume computed from contours
14/ Sediment contributing area redi
^ara, Feb. li., 1943.
15_/ Sorris Da* closed Mar. 4, 1936
contributing area to 99O »q. mi.
l^/ Determined during 1956 survey.
Conservation Service, U3DA.
ley Original data revised. 1964 s
from transit survey (1963).
*> estimated or assumed.
197,427
196,080
195,981
196,522
195,908
14,304
12,140
11,349
10,570
9,849
8,696
8,042
6,766
5,920
5,286
4,653
4,026
.1/109,200
12/91 , ?OO
11/86,737
87,267
86,809
16,466
746, 95i
734,970
745,178
740,367
738,320
153,483
152,928
152,251
152,992
153,032
154,002
154,012
16/246
190
125,900
125,578
461
649
87,700
87,424
88,500
87,667
88,000
85,886
85,483
3,453
3,315
35,295
34,413
.462
.454
.454
.455
.454
.017
.005
.091
.0056
.120
.093
.055
.045
.0429
.0428
.051
.050
.076
.674
.962
.953
•.657
•.641
«.638
2,432 -
642.0 .016
453.0 .011
338.5 .008
area method from first ar
cased on 1949 survey.
uced by closing .atts Bar
, and ^hickamau^a Dam clos
ranges established and sur
•55
•55
•55
•55
•64
•64
64
•64
•64
•64
•64
•64
•64
•64
•64
64
•64
•64
•64
•60 :
•60
•60
•60
61
•61
•61
•61
•01
43.1
45.7
•55
•62
•65
•65
•65
•65
•60
•60
65.4
curate ar
Dam on Ja
ed Jan. 1
veyed IT.
1.119 1,340.5
.881 1,055.35
V--498 —
.308 368
2/2.114 2/2,947
2.312 3,223
1.646 2,294
1.3T3 1,914
1.460 2,035
1.1B3 1,649
1.616 2,253
1.608 2,242
1.388 1,865
.753 1,050
.916 1,27*
4/-1.10 —
.974 1,358
.406 566
iy— iV—
U481 1,935
.168 220
.102 135
4/-.105 —
V--022 —
V--192 —
i/- —
.780 732
.428 426
.109 131
.172 232
.227 321
.89 1,260
1.24 1,755
.253 358
.408 533
.~fn —
.22 287
18/.L18 168
.134 191
ea— volume curves - ,
n. 1, 1942, and Apa]
c, 1940, reducing si
Dec. 1937 by Soil
tion and topography
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
SCS
SCS
TVA
TVA
CE
CE
CE
SCS
SCS
.achia
idijaent
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1»70
OO
1
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
I 1
RESERVOIR STREAM i NEAREST TOWN
i |
|
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
j [ TOTAL
KLES)
DATE Of
SURVEY
NET j
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT )
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
(ACHE-FT
PEB
SPECIFIC
rciGHT
;DRY>
LB. PER
CU. FT)
AVG. ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PER SQ. Ml,
OFNETDB
AREA FOB
PBUODSBOVN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
OHIO Rr.Ef- 8ASIN (AF^VE PI INT PLEASANT) AJ»D I UE EHIE DKA1NAC2 (Continued)
-" 8
71-9
n i"
71-11
21 16
a.m.
71-19
71--V
a-?2t>
n-TO>
,! „„
21-27a
?\ ?S
?i --»o
] ^
?1
>l-''4fc
Sarbertim Wolf >«<* Barborton, Ohio 2S.2
Puckey^'aXe s- ?o-* '-Ickin* Riw MUl«raport, 5hio 1/49.2
Le«»vlllfl- tGuire >e«k LeesrUJe, Ohio 40,0
-,o — do do
— 'to - - T ih OM Rl do I1
Onto Cons. Pond No. SI- rrib. o. hio iver-
3hlo Miia. FtmJ HO, }*. 3~ 0
"• *" T ' v fifi '" i to P 300
x>rl«y5 Lake- ri , o. oi^n.ogn ny n on ,
d°~ 10 ui * DM ->p< •;
i-ue fiocKwll y 3 ,^^
Stony Like McGwire Creek-^ — > — Perrysville, Ohio 11.75
~''° ° -.
Tabor Slub Lake Snail br. tt.skinguM R ver- do . 56
do do do
do do do
LoyaJhanna Lcyalhannfl Creak Saltsburg, Pa, 29C
j
- -- jj do GO
MahoninK Creek-- Ma^orinR -reek Dayton, Pa. 340
do 1o do
" " 'ri " f T-H Cit P5 277
^ga-t River Tygsrt River Grafton, -*. 7«. 1,184
do • do do
~^° R " f P
Toughlo^henr H,»#r oughiogheny iver ' ,
Atwoor" Reserroir Indian Fk. , Conottou "re«k Sherrodaville, Ohio 70
110 ^ Rl hft Irf Oh 02
Babb Pond Unnamej Icnrl* , i
° >1 17
do -io -do
^hrlstener pond no Parma, Ohio .09
^°~ " 1 h*1
.^hufinbowlc ond o lcn.1 , hio
^ df • i k^ "h
do do- do-
do io do
28.0
45-.1
A5.7
.31
3/1 "4 1
"^
11. --2
.54
2.93
285
336
—
1,179
—
4*;8
66.2
.09
"
__
7.4S
-
__
MOV!
D«c.
S^pt.
June
June
Aug.
Oct.
Apr.
Apr.
—
pr.
July
Aug.
Dec.
1926
m
1936
1939
1915
195C
1927
1923
1938
1936
1941
1949
1942
1941
194B
1937
1940
1951
1940
1949
1955
1969
1935
1956
1961
—
12
36
ll.o
15
8.0
7
10.2
5.9
14.2
6
5
2,056
2/19,940
37,400
37,390
9. U
6,88?
121
61
53.6
42.4
133,400
132,571
.5/95,300
6/74, 20C
289,600
49,700
3.24
3.40
1.29
2.B4
1,511
1,451
178
134
131
-.101
".083
•1.159
• .159
.042
.116
.028
.025
-
•iii5
•.034
.210
.209
.276
.180
.177
.307
.307
,175
.405
.994
.991
.019
.015
.016
,058
,076
,066
.027
.195
.187
.025
.OC2
.021
__
•55
»5O
•68
"60
46
•65
•65
•65
•44
43
*65
51
*fc5
•65
•65
•60
•60
•60
"60
•60
74.8
_
17.9
--
.067
.151
.135
.120
.319
.156
VI. 38
.326
.203
.358
.326
.178
.062
.277
.341
.29
-15
.281
.611
.567
.100
.442
.213
.199
.466
.078
__
73
224
120
452
1,500
462
287
343
272
167
87.0
30ft
106
483
410
196
367
798
741
131
720
—
164
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
ODW
-------
21-36
21-37
21-38
21-39«
21-40
21-41
21-42
21-43
21-44
21-45
21-46
21-47
21-48
21-49
5. Br. Cuyahog. liver
Trill, of HehonUu Si»er-
Alliance, Oh]
do-
Berlin Center, Ohi
Broad fort Bun —
Trlb. of Sttidy Creek
Ml. Lake Park,
Hljwrvm, Ohio——
Hilton, Ohio -
Lvica.t«r, Ohio
Logui, Ohio—
Orchard Pwk, ». I.—
ElngKood, ».
C«t.rrlU. Mil. Uk
loungatow., Ohio-
do
Salem, V. Va.
«• Fork
rredvrlcktoMn, Ohio—
— Lwcijigton, Ohio
•lellijigton, Ohio
jo
Logan, Ohio—
leehiia Creek Site f2
FranklinriUe, ». T.—
21-5)
21-54
I/ Drainage are* has been 115 sq. «1. (n«t) part of the tine in the past, when fed partly by
feeder from S. Fork Mrkerwille River.
2/ At present spillway eleTatlon (lowed in 1908). Pro* 1836 to 1908, spillway -levation
was 893.4, surface area 3,636 acres, and capacity 22.09O ae.-ft. Pro-i 1832 to 1836, spillway
eleTatlon was lower and surface area was 3,13« acres. Natural lake of 650 acres origijially.
£/ Oa* failfl earlier In 1938 but little sedinnnt lost.
S/ At elevation 7"^ rJ.«»ation top of gatea - 97* ft.
S' At e'.ev&tion l,lo^. KleTatinn top of gates - 1,164 ft.
8.66
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— .
— .
— .
—
—
—
—
16.88
—
8.22
—
246
—
7.4
—
.07
—
.12
—
277.4
—
.11
—
.58
—
—
—
—
—
10.38
—
81.76
—
.29
—
—
—
— 1948
— 1949
— 1950
— 1951
— 1952
1953
- 195*
1955
— 1956
— 1957
1958
1959
1961
- 1962
1963
— 1964
— 1966
1967
1968
— 1969
1970
— 1939
1mm 191.9
- 1913
Aug. 1950
July 1943
•OT. 1951
— 1880*
July 1957
— 1931
1938
— 1930
— 1938
— 1916
— 1941
— 1946
— 1954
— 1930
— 1948
— 192H
Oct. 1951
— 1902
June 1952
— 1855
— 1949
— 1929
1949
Oct. 1954
Oct. 1956
Oct. 1958
D«c. 1960
—
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
9.7
—
37
—
8.4
—
76
—
7
—
8
—
25
8
—
18
—
23
—
50
—
94
—
20
—
2.0
2.0
2.2
30.66 uAaii 1949 —
—
—
19.79
—
—
—
32.05
—
6.12
—
U.17
—
2.75
—
—
b.iX
—
—
It elevati«
Aug. 1960
July 1970
"ay 1954
July 1955
July 1960
Aug. 1966
Oct. 1948
Aug. 1956
July 1962
Mar. 1956
June 1961
Feb. 1955
Aug. 1966
Aug. 1964
July 1967
Sept. 1969
Aug. 1964
Aug. 1967
i;epl. 1969
>n 920. Spilli
7
10
—
1.2
5
6
—.
a
6
—
5.6
—
11.8
—
2.91
2.16
—
3
2.12
ay cr*ot •!<
234
217
206
202
199
197
193
192
187
183
177
176
170
166
163
159
150
148
146
145
142
4,659
4,535
994
933
—
91.200
122.75
77.02
.15
.0
.11
.00
28,100
22,250
9.46
9.11
11.5
4.65
169.99
161.26
144.8
117.3
86.3
38.3
32,400
31,835
69.58
68.95
68.77
68.60
3,502
3,399
3,283
1,111
1,092
1,059
1,009
13,176
12,886
12,731
760.4
745.5
3,142
3,081
465
464.72
464.33
1,085
1,083.77
1,082.95
tvation - 9
.037
.035
.033
.032
.0)2
.031
.031
.031
.030
.029
.028
.028
.027
.026
.026
.025
.024
.024
.023
.023
.023
•.340
•.331
.551
~
.010
.004
.597
.586
.265
.262
.261
.261
.146
.142
.137
.0642
.0631
.0612
.0583
.565
.553
.546
.190
.186
.291
.285
.156
.156
.156
.159
.159
.159
9/55.7
9/50.6
"S/53
3/55.6
2/65.3
J/68.2
—
»
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
•40
—
66
•100
—
—
_
•65
—
65
__
•65
_
43.1
__
— .
—
to
•50
•65
—
•65
•60
—
_
.
*80
80
—
*«O
80
_ .
1.00 10/1
1.27 1
.45
.34
.25 1
.41
.14
.55
.47
.64
.18
.37
.42
.33
.45
.55
,22
.236
.136
.319
—
.759
—
.20
1.30 2
—
.081
__
.29
.08
.84 1
-_
.36
__
.657
.
.23
__
.117
_
.0493
—
.346
1.09 1
.31
.27
— .
.48
.378
__
.787
.341
.419
—
1.13
.806
—
.435
—
.363
—
.0345
.Ob65
—
.Oo5
.062
,03
,177
693
609
.239
926
-
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
661
—
287
,830
—
—
_
410
113.3
_
,199
377
__
—
_
300
_
127
—
69.6
—
489
—
,424.4
405.1
352.8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
60.;
116
—
113.3
108
ODW
ODU
DOW
SCS
ODH
COW
ODH
ODW
ODW
SCS
3CS
ODW
ODW
•rs
ODW
ODU
ODW
ODW
ODW
SCS
scs
2/
8/ In view of the United «jwunt of M-tLMtnt computed in the X94S report (384 He.-ft. ), the vtluaa
of the 1945 report &re not included And were not used In computing eurrey d»t* for the 1959 reoort.
It is considered that the longer period (21.5 JT.) waa necesBstry to develop * voluBe c«p«bl* of
being measured with & rttaaoncble degree of Accuracj.
9y Density for antire period of record.
10/ Computed from differences in totil sedlnent accuntilation in tons »t each vurvvy
U/ Gate closed Pall 194?. Drained Karch 195C. Oate closed Jtaj 1954.
* EstijButed or aaeurMd.
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 19TO
to
o
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
'PA-4
•a -58 Salem -
10
21-S9 Uprer ri
-ic
13-? ">..ronac
22-4a Auglaiz
dc
0
do
dc
dc
dc
— - dc
dc
22-1" •IjciT
22 1 a Bu.t i-=
22-14 Kohart
22-15 Vio <5u
r\(
22 lo -Jorvel
ic
?2-17 5ba-on
22-19 irookl;
22-20 Iron Md
22-21 Phoeni3
22-22 Sa-ine
22-21, artdge
22-?< Prankl
22-26 ' I'-e-1'
I ; j
i ' '
RESERVOIR STREAM i NEAREST TOWN DRAIN4C
' (SQUARE
i
TOTAL
ork No. 11A Varr.er Hollow alei, *. Va .288
ockiug No. 1 Hunt-pr* -"Jin -anca •?•,<•-, Ohio 1.04
^:^5^-,. :.^M
. _ . . _ aL - ------ 1o
^ pine P.. of "tanistee liver- *ellston, wich. -91
POIld do - - -ao -
e P.. Power Auglaize ^Ivar dc 2,329
° J°
-d '^ 3
do do —
IT "° O^ "1 "fl ""'S
^!!I_!T lo do--
..!: - — io — ^
. ^nat., ri , 3. j
do do
-,-esk5/ Sixmile :reek Defiance, Ohio '1.6
' , - ,f0 d ^h ?^
nn ,
Pond_ _ __ L'-j.amei Oro/er dill, ^hio .021
e- Jake tocky Ford >->sk -indUv, Ohio 22. PO
io — - ^'
Lake Hi', er ".aisin '.'o" /ell , ''o.s'i. 59. 5
Hollo* 4o Manchn->*. : , v:ch. ^^.7
TI Mill Pond do Brooklyn, tch. 29.6
<*o io
11 ftond Iron Creek—— -do 1- U
c "ond Middle "iver Houge ?lyrcwuth, Mich. ^.-^
vill ?oid Saline Ri- er- Saline, Mich. 'I?.6
jay lake Unnamed Dexter, 'ich. ". 5
dt, -do
n ^11 Onnd - - - Pranklin Branch Houep - — "ranklir, "icn, "" - . J
rri Vr,-- Middle River 2ouge — Northville, 'ich. r4
. io do
i
!
JEST TOWN DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
i
DATE OF
SURVEY
i
PERIOD ] STORAGE
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN
INFLOU
RATIO
(ACRE-FT
PER
SPECIFIC
»EIGHT
(DRY)
;LB. PER
CO. FT.)
AVG. ANN.
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PEB SQ. MI.
OF NET DR.
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
Aug. 1962 —
—
.237
—
.94
—
July
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Dec.
June
Apr.
June
1967
195.*
1956
1958
1960
1962
1956
1962
4.9
—
c
2
2.1'
1.51
—
>.a
'1AbW-? RIVER BASIN
93
23 1
.024
—
2,326
5.20
—
1.91
—
.012
—
37.0
.035
—
2.79
—
.13
-
-"1.4
—
.7k
—
.019
22.72
—
—
25.3
—
25
—
6.2
—
6.4
—
5.2
—
56.8$
—
63
17
__
7.5
7.8
—
__
*ug.
Jan.
tfer.
Aug.
—
—
Julj
_
Aug.
AfiC.
July
—
June
July
Jan.
July
—
June
—
—
July
Sept,
July
Sept
July
Spring
Nov.
AU?.
—
Hay
—
fej
May
•fey
—
Aug.
b.pt.
Mar.
May
—
Mar.
—
»pr.
1844
1940
1912
1953
1945
1951
1912
1951
1912
1951
1912
1951
1947
1951
1941
1149
1951
1945
1951
1919
1949
1947
1951
1962
1912
1951
1943
1951
1943
1051
1939
1948
1951
—
1969
1927
1969
1948
1069
1945
1969
—
1969
—
1969
1937
1969
1906
1969
1927
1969
1833
1969
96
41
t>.k
—
39
—
39
39
—
4.3
—
g,3
2.1
— -
6.7
—
30
—
4
6
—
39
—
2.3
7.8
—
9.5
2.8
— .
10C.H
—
42
21
—
23
—
100
—
JOO
—
31
63
—
U
—
136
Sept. 1969 100
JA30
106
./u
11
1
1
654.13
653.89
53
52.25
52.O5
51.95
51.75
450
U6.13
,175
,605
6U>
27
9.5
9.1.
,400
,600
129
74
U8
104
2.6
2.5
991
929.1
902.4
5.03
». 71
242
218
9.2
7,0
7.4
6.3
975
696
59
57
2.4
2.3
248
205
186
717.6
502.3
258.1
143.9
249.3
1B6.3
288.9
259.5
,551
,159
225
170
240.1
129.6
a. 33
10.9
76.7
47.9
97.?
13.1
173
101
.21
IiSe
.166
.165
.165
.164
.882
.875
*2.193
•1.796
J.003
".0001
'.761
'".753
.012
.009
.050
.029
«.15t
*.109
•.417
•.401
.Oil
,049
.046
».239
«.22I
.120
.108
.133
.114
.10?
.091
.094
.066
.155
.150
.229
.219
.022
.019
.017
.026
.018
.016
.009
.016
.012
.09
.08
.224
.168
.0074
.0056
.0061
.0033
.0026
.0013
.0250
.0156
.Olj3
.0018
.067
.0039
•55
110. 4
W.5
73.4
53.2
•53
53.7
43.4
57.8
•49.3
43. f
37.2
26.1
53.6
57.9
23.3
30.1
43.4
31.5
41.8
44
38
46
50
39
i/o. 01;
1.3O7 1,706
455
209
.348
.16
.443
2.64
.064
.92
.031
.27
.59
2.75
.34
1.71
.2fi
2.10
!969
.36
1.13
.53
.20
.31
.065
.11
.434
.20
3,162
154
902
-
347
675
4,396
232
392
2,001
277
3,270
1,460
343
924
301
233
391
43
72
457
137
.75
-OO97
.057
.01
OQ3
.079
.013
SCS
535
ODW
ODH
ODW
03W
ODW
COW
ODW
ow
ODW
ODH
ODH
ODW
SCS
5CS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
93
86
n
-------
to
22-27
22- 2P
22-29
22-30
22-32
22-33
22-34
24-l»
24-3b
24-4a
24-5
24-6
24-8
24-9
24-10,
24-11.
24-12
24-1 ^a
Jl-16
24-17
24-20
P4-21
24-22
34-23
11
TpcnmiHi fill Pond
Belleville Lake
Ford Lako
Barton Pond ~ —
''ill ond
M. H. Fry Pond —
U J. -*. I I,'
o urgh a o
AH
1 c JVdrion
Lake WilUa»on (Artie Pond)-
do
do
do
do
H° T^
to
Lake Decatur
do
Shaefer Pond
™
Lako pringfiold
1°
Brack on
do
do
Lock and Dara 2^ (Winfield)
do
do
Mt. Sterling
Lake Jacksonville
do
do
do •
Lanj^don Pond
Franklin Ou.ine ~ub e
do
Nav-rly City
Vo
Roodhouse Park District Lake-
rtoodbine Co'im-y Club Lake
, ? "
Dale _ole c.ii
3e«ly Por>d —
;j -is •)?n(i,'x) ac.-'t.
•" C ok
" M13 r°
Huron River
j
7*
zz3rzzzzzzzzz
ppor
Squaw Creek
do
"^
r°
reefc
MISSISSIPPI H
Trib. of Honey Creek
)to
do
/•
' "rc
do
'
,„
Sangaaon River
A
Trib. of Cahokia Creek
„
3u**r J^1*1 i r 3
"*" ^^ re
ru ro
do
Mississippi River
fa.
00
7°
Trib. of Shelby Creek
Sandy Creek
do
Unnamed
do-
do •
do
0
j
do
do
do
do _
do
rt
ri
J°
rjQ —
Belleville, Mich. 810
T 41 * * i« 1_ T«-.
pau.an , men. fyu
Ann Arbor, Mich. 708
Qnrtead, Mich. 12.45
th l«
if f c . 5t-J
Adrian, Mich.— 65
26. 3 — 1827
20.3 — 1929
— July 1969
11.2 -- 1933
183 - 1915
— July 1969
12.45 B«rly 1962
— S^rt. 1969
59 — 1942
GREAT LAKES DHAINAGi U« MICHIGAN AND *I3QONSIN)
IVEE BASIN (LOUISIANA TO CHESTER) ILLINOIS, KA5KA5KIA, AND MERAMJ
Carlinvllle, 111. — -- .53 -51 — 1922
u j T-il £1
"°rto
rto
Sa
T A ' '
do
Decatur, IU. 906
rt
Edward sville, IU. .087
° _,
pring ,
-do-
Winfield, Mo. 1^2,000
A
Hn
do
Mt. Sterling, IU. 1.90
Jacksonville, in. 10.8
do — 32.6
•>
-io
PVanklin, 111. .358
0
Waverly, 111. ^.^i.
do —
Hoodhouse, 111. .-.51
*'*)
jrocnrlcid,
Hl'lTlm '11. .093
60 Dec. 1929
— tag. 1952
— July 1955
25.79 Jun. 1939
July 1954
Sept. 1959
902 Apr. 1922
.083 *>». 1937
July 1949
258 Jan. 1934
Aug. 1946
20.1 Apr. 192?
S^>t. 1947
8.85 Dec. 1923
— June 1949
— Dec. 1946
— July 1939
Hay 1945
Deo. 1947
Ifcy 1959
1.75 — 1935
— — 1951
10.1 — 1939
June 1952
32.2 — 1921
2.72 — 1900
June 1952
.348 — 1907
— July 1952
July 1952
9.16 Oct. 1938
— July 195*
July 1952
.439 — 1917
July 1952
.120 — 1926
— July 1952
.221 — 1924
July ' 952
.091 — i«S
V rrlbut-.-, .,-
6/ Ul flg
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
to
to
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
1
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG \NN
(ACHE-l-1
PER
SPECIFIC
VE1GHT
;DRYJ
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PER SQ MI.
OF NET DH
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
, KASKA3KIA, AMD KERAKBC RIVK8 BASINS (Continued)
24-24
24-25
24-30
2A-11
24-3^
74 JY
24-38
24-39
24-40
24-41
24-44*
24-45
24 47
24 4B
*•-"
TineyaM Pond
Knapp
•lo
do
-ah«lal, runt]
do • • •
•: B * Q 1. R. Lak«-
Bduarda Lake —
<3o
: : . "fa
Klnmind
do
do
Pa
L^kv Buiikc ril I
L*ke Gilleipie-
Uke Nashville
Lake Staunton
do
""V ^°
^"* A
Parana Lak*
Po*»r Fan** °onds—
n ~° i v.
C°A^ ^^*
Pn
if"
rt
do
— *,
Walton lub k«
Lock and Da» 26- —
*
do
do
do
Jnnaaed
do
Aw
tf
**
Trib. of Sangaacn River
V In Irf
Tr-b. of Kaakaskia Ivar-
^°
Loa, -rcofc:
K* ska ski* River
"Vlh f Gahoki '" elt
* ° -r«ek
!•
f?
nooa tu. or
3ry Pork
Nashville Cr*ek
~ r ky*n
JI" 'rtn """
d
°
Trib. of Indian Cr*«k
Trib. of Sanganon River — -
0 ^ I,
Hac.oon .rook
"° ok
-erra -ro
Trib " r " k
" j^"
°
dc
Hiasiaalppi River
-do .
j°
-lo
dc-
Whlt«hall, 111.-
Springfield, 111.
a4
•a am.
BrwnsJl k Irw1
"^ '
TalliOa, 111.
do
Gillaapie., IU.
V A 1 < Til
anoolia, 111,
R rrlll I1!
Gillespie, 111.
Sashvill*. HI.
Staunton, 111.
do—
Urlinville, 111.
~...
*
Panam, 111.
Cantrall, Ul.
r- 4. n T-n
*" ' *
° 111
• *
*"
-L-ai — :
. '
Alton, 111. •
— do
do
J*°
do
do
0.054
3.49
-i -it
-.. ',
.85
' '
5. ^3
1.39
3.68
.85
.668
fl
48.4
"
in ,4?o
--
0.052
3.43
l
*
T
^.JV
.84
.40
,
•
.4«
5.62
1.13
3.5.
.84
.666
—
-
,_
—
Jan.
July
.
un
July
j
,
u«.
-
Jul
May
Hay
Dec.
Oct.
1937
1907
1906
1^A7
1902
1952
1949
1923
1936
1926
1954
1928
1940
1QT3
1950
193S
1945
1945
1947
1954
'
50
57
-
28
in
17
7.
1.
16. )3
15
1.58
181.8
?9
44 a
31.7
15-4
74.2
^09
320
1,243
1,140
IT?. «
116
395,000
390,200
406,200
85,231
.053
.093
*062
*"cT6
.067
.033
.351
.272
.3^6
.6^0
.575
.536
.011
.003
.260
.136
-
.0017
51. J
49.3
28.1
54.9
46.8
-W)
4A 4
_
-
—
—
"
9
.39
1.09
1 76
1.01
.36
.70
36
2.70
.73
-
.004
—
419
667
996
1,130
430
406
713.51
2,352
769.5
-
—
7WS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
IWS
rws
IWS
TWS
IWS
TW*
CE
CE
-------
ro»l ». 19 (Uto
MlMlMlppl KiV
KIHISSIP-I airai BA5i» (rAimoirf TO LOUISLUU)
toi«. Stoat, «nd D.. fctn.j U'«r Bxliii
low— 119,000
479,550
to
co
25-2
25-3
25-4
25-5
25-t
25-7
25-«
25-*
25-10
25-11
25-13.
25-U
25-15
25-1°
25-17
25-U
25-19.
26-1.
2*-2
24-3
27-1
27-2
27-3
27-4
H
*•
IteCrwMr »•* •— Bvailtli
Buia
a.vll *
do
do
r1
dn
•-fltt*^" L*Jw { PoTMtvlll.,
•t t If* Mill ~
dn ^^ '
f i *• =-
iri» i«i "mo
do
!i
,
— IktOAMd
Tl-ih t* m " *-
^'^ ita ''•*
no
do
rt
Tfe 1
Ml «i lnoi to
T* *Q.T*r
do
i
r°
JUW HJ.IM
do
OPPBB
_, "
do
* "~
on
do
Ihqnok*t« River
^^ do
* "i". owwr Cr««k
W 1
™*
ConMnvtion Pool.
All 31 rugM MMW •oaur, partially du* to re«ov*l of bon
Splllwy r«lMd 2.89 ft. in 1946. Origin*! capacity MS
do
^_
An
Elnrtarhctlk HI
'
j
_
^rt*
••w Cant-on
'
~^
^'
do
HA^COfi, toW
7°
^U*"~» lwl*
Pkli-flolil
j
Qnthrl C«vt
JUUVl* LHILU r 1(IIM
KUC.UI.., Io«.
111
UU1DCT, *•"••
*
K»« ^1 IJ, Io>«
do
13.9
13.1
13.8
13.0
2.94 2.88
52.0
50.2
15.34 15.24
77.0 4/72.7
77.0
66.0
31.8
2.54
2.05
2.1
99,400
134,300
2.25
99,600
135,000
3,115
4/72.7
i/59.6
31.6
2.52
2.00
2.1
—
Z.13
3,076
WSSISSIPPI RIVER 8ASIH (PRAIRIE DU CHIZN TO SOCK ISLAND) A
Rock and Uapilpinicon River Basini
Rock laland. 111. 88,500
io
do
j
d
d°
SlraiAsrrT Pt. , Ioi« —
rto
Dubuqu., Iowa
UPPIB HISSIS3IPPI RIVER
Wlaconaln, Root, Ch
" do^*' lBC"
• .. l\. u*
A'
111 Wi
^L^**do 3C'
Pr»iri« du Sac, Wiac.-
MS.6 ac.-rt. All sedimentation
-
116
81,600
BASIN (ST.
ippeua , anc
60
50.75
138.6
fl,900
-
116
—
PAUL TO '1UIRIE
St. Croije River
60
50.73
138.2
6/600
4/ Excl
5/ Excl
?> Flo.
June 1939 10
Jun. 1946 8
Sapt. 1947 13.3
S.pt. 1924 —
Aiic. 1936 11.9
Julj 1947 11.0
kmr. 1926
A««. 1949 23.4
Dae. 1936
D.C. 1939 3
— 1941 2
1924 —
Klnter 1932 t
1921
1936 15
Dec. 1936
Dae. 1939 3
Dec. 1939 3
1935
ln*6 11
1918 15
1934
J«lT 1953 19
Har. 1938
*>v. 1949 11.7
Oct. 1937 —
Hov. 1950 13.1
Sept. 1937
Sapt. 1951 14.0
«mr. 1954 15.6
K«r. 1954 15.7
Sapt. 1958
Jan. 1964 5.33
Apr. 1968 4. >3
HO LAKE MICHIGAN DRAINA
Har. 1934
Au«. 1938 4.5
Nov. 1944 6.2
Dae. 1946 2.1
Hov. 1948 1.9
Nov. 1950 2.0
Nov. 1952 2.0
Jul7 1934
Feb. 1942 7.6
Fab. 1949 7.0
Apr. 1938
Feb. 1953 14.8
DU CHUN)
Baalna
— 926
Oct. 1541 15
June 1939 68
Juni. 1939 72
— 1933 19
udes 3.8 aq. mi. Kiaala
udea 5.B aq. mi. Miaala
312,216
660
452
273 -
308.2
•2,400 -
•1,664
738
552
3,000
1,845
3,080
2,556
•2,800
•2,290
1,154
1,070
43
25
207
166
135
185
172
113,370
87,740 -
896
831
70,800
78,040
69,570
492,000
485,400
4«0,110
SE
39,432
39,224
37,881
37,086
608
473
683
457 <
127
46
1,677 •
683 •
91,851 —
aippl River bottom
alppl River bottom
"
.145 —
.099 «60
-
•50
•85
"85
.148
.111 *60
•067
.041 *85
.068
.057 "85
.059 "85
.069
.064 *65
.069
.040 «70
.303
.242 '51.6
.198 51.6
.386 —
.359 «50
-.616 «*0
.
.46 40
.46 45
-
75.1
.018
.012 »70
•80
.022
.009 72.5
•90
land.
land.
1.11
.977
1.12
1.45
4.U
1.06
1.52
1.06
2.41
2.85
.24
.476
2.96
.795
.638
_
2.16
.001
.004
.402
.397
.002
.001
-.005
.009
-.001
.004
.078
.082
.014
.252
.023
.100
.717
•1,490
1,190
1,370
1,5»0
7,740
1,960
•1,990
1.960
4,460
5,280
340
726
3,327
893
695
2,823
—
350.2
443.2
-
127
134
384
40
158
1,4OO
SC&
ns
IMS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
CE
3
SCS
d
CE
CE
CE
SCS
CE
SCS
SCS
SCS
CE
loss data b*Md an higher opillwy «levatie>a.
* Eotimated c
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
CO
27-5
27-6.
27-7
27-8
27-»
27-10
27-11
27-12
27-13
30-1
10-2
30-4
30-5
30-6
30-7
30-9
30-10
30-11
30-12
30-13
30-14
30-15
30-16
30-17
DATA
S8E£T
NUK3ER
RESERVOIR
1
STREAM
|
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
! PERIOD
DATE OF
SURVEY
NET
STORAGE
BETWEEN! CAPACITY
SURVEYS (ACRE -FT.)
(YEARS)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
PER
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
DRY)
La PER
CU. FT.)
SEffflMfTtT
ACCUMULATION
PEB9Q. ML
OF NET DR.
AIEAFOR
PERIOD sacriN
AC.-FT
TONS
AG8XCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
UPPSB HSSISSIPPI RIVES BASIH tST. PAUL TO PRAUUE DU 3HIDI)
WSCOKSIJf, SOOT, 3HIPPIMA, AW) 3T. JBOII RIVER BASIN vConti™*l)
Prt*h»it Pam Pi
Stalpl.ttgh r*™ Pond
Hjfcl*1!*! Par-i Pond
Wold Pan. Pond
rB-28 Structure aaet Willow
E-3 Itanalnk—
1.29
1.181
.26P
.230
.384
.193
.433
July
P*b.
do
Kov,
Mar. 1960
Apr. 3964
Hay 1958
Jun* 1962
S*pt. 1957
Mv 1962
Julv 1955
Majr 1962
Ao«. 1954
Jan. 1962
Oct. 1954
Jun* 1962
MBJ 1956
Mar. 1960
Apr. 1964
UPPEH MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIM (X80VS ST. PAUL)
LAIS SUPERIOR WO) LATS OF THE W30DS AREA (II W1WE30TA)
RED RIVER Cf TWE HURTH BA3IM
;»*- Bronao«
Blabon TH«
°!^-:±-zz-.ii--i^:
nviimar 3»* •
do
'*'***? rik ' r°"d
Magnolia Da»
io
r%"jon 31dln«; 3a»
MalHrln Ballarud Fara Pond
do , „
Pterb, o«_
I.* Item
Ralalgtl D..*
Sioux R»tlro*'l iUawfoir
B«ld*iUl Out ''I^ika A*ht*bul*)
HCMM Du (P»i-k River)
Lake o' '.h« Otnrka (Bapi«U
^. 7hi^Ui«.
n. Hi™,
Ott.tr Till Kiv-ir
Trlb. of GOOM Ri»«r
M. Br. Por«8t Siv.r
'*"* .^"r
Trlb. of Wild Sic* Hivw—
0- T* _!
d^
Buffalo Crselt
Ruah Rlvar
do
d
Trlb. of Wild Sic. Riv«r—
Dog Tooth 3r««k
Park River
Trlb. of Wild Ric« Riv«r —
3h«7«nne Rlvar —
S. Br. Park Rl»*r
Trlb. of Waal NodaWtf Rlvar
BroDaon, Minn.
4o
Fr*»»«, Him.
,10
Blabon, N. Dale.
Adama, N. Dak.
Owinnar, N. Dak.
. j ti n L,
t^C' '
Havana, H. Dak.
Ral«lgh, M. Oak.
Ad&ma, N. Dak.
Vallay City, N. Dak.
Park Rivar, N. Dak.
"CSSOURI RIVER BA!
atantort, Iowa
do
439
210
1.219
20.2
3.755
.226
27.76
12,16
30.2
1.125
14.375
.181
4.45
16.855
37.0
i/4,138
229
SIN (NEBRASKA
14,000
.166
438.5
1.188
14.6
3.670
.222
27.76
11.72
30.2
1.121
14.356
.183
4.45
16.66
21.06
2/1,979
229
CITY. TO KERHj
13,900
.163
Oct.
Oct.
Aug.
Ma?
Jun*
Jun*
Maj
July
D*c.
Jan.
Jan.
Mar.
INN)
Peb.
Oct.
Juna
1*V
194C
195C
1926
1952
1935
1955
1935
19^7
1941
1955
1936
195fc
1939
1956
1908
1956
1912
1956
1942
1955
1934
1955
1934
1956
1909
1956
1911
1955
1938
H»
1958
1953
1958
1931
1948
1938
1949
3.4
4.1
4.1
6.8
4.7
6.8
7.3
3.83
4.08
$8
168.7
166.5
164.1
110.5
104.5*
14.27
13.29
19.O9
18.04
27.98
26.71
10.50
10,03
56.79
55.18
292.2
291.0
287.2
.474
.468
.461
.345
.327
.166
.155
.313
.296
.227
.217
.157
.150
.444
.431
.340
.338
.334
•90
—
•70
•TO
—
•65
49.5
__
•45
—
•55
--
51.86
—
•65
—
•50
•50
-
__
0,51
.43
—
1.23
.52
.96
_,.
.49
—
.331
—
.48
_
.11
.30
-
_-
778
656
—
1,741
560
1,359
—
5*7
—
374
~
6AO
—
120
330
CI
SCS
scs
scs
SC3
SCS
305
3CS
SOS
3,792
3,626
155
137.1
13O.69
107.29
150.7
139.6
38.70
33.36
12.92
10.29
22.82
19.10
157.92
127.40
43.15
35.40
16.78
14.47
66. S9
46.19
5.227
4.467
175.47
145.23
88.37
69.16
1,995.6
1,808.8
76,400
75,410
3,650
3.382
—
—
—
—
•3.354
•2.753
•-2O9
•.194
•.284
•.245
•2.494
•1.986
•.026
*.022
•.406
-.328
•.045
•.037
*.412
•.355
•.128
•.089
•1.191
•1.018
•.925
•.766
•.145
'.113
—
—
—
.204
.189
32
•90
•90
.03«
.029
.98
.034
.101
.59
.0078
.052
.0058
.1579
.0676
.188
.144
.026
.2167
.0981
225
__
25.6
12.6
__
875
—
18. al
76.99
372.6
5.95
39.64
—
4.44
114.68
51. 93
—
184.3
109.8
18.88
—
151
192
—
441
SCS
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
sea
CB
CI
17.8
10.9
1,972,531
3/9.46
2.59
.283
-.231
•.063
.464 598
3.87 4,200
a
scs
-------
BBS 8883 888838888838888 S 8 2 S 8 8 8 S S
C 8 SRC8 8*8 5 43 8
' ' ' ' '
' 1*1
1 "1
3 n
I Sift 5 I 3 If If 125* I 3 ISCIflfclPlflflllflJIflEIS If 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333 I S IS I d If I SiRS^S* & 2 SI
38 * 3g««8S53IS2 35x1
.• .• , | .' .•^^jSp.-.-j!.'.'.'. .,,!!,....
I3!
3SB^
--
« O r4 O O" ** H -* *-<-l ^ *•
'tai 3.aiJi*inss i» i Ja is i* i<
1 a i-* i
OW«^ P~*^3 N 8 "*
isia iaij i"!-* i" id is i*4 '•* i"' 'J i™J>4 i
(VNP-1
is i
!*
IS8I8
i | J | « |^| ^ | ^ | | | ~ | * | |" | ' | ' | •< | •< |» | ' | ' I ' I ' | ' . ' | ' | | | ' I I I J I I I ' I I I ' I ! I ' I ' I - I ' I"' I I I I I I I
S-3 BSSS £8 S
' ' '
3 § S P3
I a I - I " I "' I ' I • I 1 1 " I *' I I ™ I ' I ' I J I "' I •*' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I I I I ' 1 1 I rt I I I III III I I " I I * I 1 1 I I
r
li
I
i
e
Mill
i
•
:a
;? .
3 g
:- |
iiK
It I
111
58-
•J , "
c u
B!
it
I I
w
is
h <-*
• l^
B R rt B
sa ssstsasas
*|* «c
-------
SUIDIARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDDIEMTATION SURVEYS HADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL ] NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG- ANN
(ACRE-FT
PER
SPECIFIC
fEIGHT
[DRY)
LB. PER
01. FT.)
AVG. ANN
sfmffxr
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ. ML
OF NET DR.
A1EAFOB
PERIOD SBOWH
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
to
(CSSOUHI RIVER BASIH (NESHASXA HTT TC HSRWV) (Cent nu«i)
n-3t
n-3?
n-«o
n-u
n-u
n-u
n-45
n-47
n-w
31-52
31-53
31-54
31-55
n-56
n-57
31-5H
32-1
32-2
31-4
»-»
110 "~
%lrl^ rwal ^
*"
Tl WLMII ^
dp* _ do
"" *
do oo
Rl«la»vlllo Old Cltj UJw Trlb. of Carlo Crook
do *-
.fc do
d, - -—do
J»it33nb«rwr - *>-
Ljji SI1 T lb r tail**! a'»«r
do do
fa*«r — Trlb. of *»»h« Slvw
Cosily Cr. tot^r*- (C-l)- a-u-cl^ Bnnch
dp — do
do— — -do ^ r-o.,^111
Muarlxud i"_ . j«.
** THh 3t l_Mht r Mfc
to — ^do — —
RM«r do
81*1 SOD
. ,_ao — — do
LfjMm — . Trib. of KM Cr^k-
Qko Cum lU^rTOlr Trii>. Bull CrMk
f_1_h'*? _.. ^
WBiniUoUi ruiLl oo
ltljd.mjiiul Lit OTT 1 oti
to 4o
H»1I ftMMl *rib. Litti* 3u^r
JohtMcn Port do
Pltam jomttf Hat* -»K« -r
Shvrtdui CooBtj SUt« Uk* 3*»llj,e Rir«r^
• UtBKtoo JUMi-Tolr Sicily Crttok
• • ^° , jj rt
B^^T^ mr^lr ^
** do * ^n
*
UfJrwiJ* K*n«
. '
do*
to
1 s """
HM^ll..*.—
do
do
aiohl^d Kan..
Zt»dor&, K-m». •
ifantuttan, Kana.—
3*b*tS' K*n***"
ColtQobi*. Ko.
do- .-. .
Holt Etui
do
do '- •
G«n-*tt, Kan».
ftrk«r, fan*. —
Soj*,or, to.
Edgorton, Kana.
SichBcnd, Kane.-.
Bluo Mound, Kana
do —
S"OKT HILL AND I
" " ~Jy?°n'
Quinter, Kans.
Kanopolia, Kans
Boatrico, Nobr.
do
do
.18
18
1.17
3.78
2.728
.334
.119
.23
.125
3.20
.284
5.62'
—
.83
.16
.28
.23
1.17
.19
.77
.57
.86
.38
AVER RSPUBL
20.47
493
^,860
.52
.67S
-
.18
.18
1.16
3.75
—
2.633
.117
.22
.122
3.14
.280
5.515
.82
.16
.27
.23
1.16
.19
.69
.50
.84
.37
.93
ICAN RIVES BA:
20.26
463
3/2,560
.512
.661
.171
Oct.
fer.
*>».
"ay
Oct.
Sopt.
Apr1!
Nov.
Apr.
July
JoBO
July
Sopt.
July
Oct.
Oct.
June
Jan.
"ay
Apr.
"ay
Hay
June
Spr.
Apr.
Apr.
Aug.
July
July
Oct.
July
Pali
July
July
July
June
June
July
July
Sopt.
Sept.
Sept.
July
Peb.
July
July
SINS
Apr.
Aug.
AUJ.
July
Sept.
Hay'
1957
1939
1956
1947
1955
1946
1957
1937
1949
1951
1955
1962
1968
1924
1964
1950
1964
1949
1962
1950
1962
1937
1962
1955
1962
1949
1965
1956
1962
1967
1967
1969
1971
1936
1967
1958
1968
1957
1968
1956
19M
1936
1967
1961
1967
1960
1970
1960
1970
1955
1967
1955
1967
1936
1967
1929
1937
1937
1948
1946
1960
1936
1956
1947
1956
1937
1958
7.7
17,7
6.4
11
12.6
1.4
4.3
6.9
6.1
39.8
13.8
12.67
12.4
25.1
7.1
16.33
5.9
.25
2
1.9
31
9.75
11
12
31
6
10.2
10
12
12
31
8.0
10.8
20
8.75
21
50.86
20.86
19.05
1/3.78
2.42
1/29.13
17.7
290.48
212.01
2OB.14
202.23
186.07
171.52
520.0
304.0
32.26
25.55
7.94
6.73
6.77
6.26
tt.D
54.27
1/7.52
5.68
206
176
1A3-"
11.32
1,017.07
1,010.8
989.3
974.9
19.67
11.06
18.07
16.18
64.35
59.98
31.26
27.3
22.8
14.1
6,7
6.16
204.3
191.1
14.683
11.03
232.86
222.06
46.22
42.87
24.03
17.3
1,001
930
777
436
446, COO
436,320
33.101.
14,704
30.5
22.22
8.058
2.301
-
-
-
—
-
.103
.259
-
—
.05
.03
.39
.35
.80
.74
.47
.41
.049
.03
.08
.06
.607
.568
.061
.045
.68
.65
.25
.24
.05
.039
r
•60
86.7
62.01
•60
69
68
•68
69.4
64.7
55.94
58. ^4
56.8
47.9
46.7
56.2
75
50.7
41.6
53
58.2
•60
•60
•60
67
60
•60
•65
•60
•60
•60
66.5
•50.0
•65
•65
•65
1.88
.56
.90
.90
1.44
.73
.36
.62
.62
2.061
2.686
.«5
.07
1.27
2.13
.58
1.61
4.57
1.94
1.38
.34
1.19
1.47
1.43
.24
.47
1.88
.77
1.07
.76
.24
.438
.0681
1.77
1.400
1.566
2,457
1.057.5
1,201
1.1^6
2,178
807
543
1.038
614
2,511
3,436
1,051
73
1,294
2,609
947
1,777
4,144
2,379
2,059
444
1,555
1,921
1,869
350
614
2,457
1,090
1,398
993
313
98.6
294
2,506
1,982
2,217
SCS
s:s
SCS
AEJ.
AKS
AI3
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
AttS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
3CS
SCS
SCS
cz
SCS
SCS
SCS
-------
a a n s 8 g B a a g B s g s 8 s a 8 n B s e 8 8 g g s B 8 s a a B s g s B § s
.
' I J I - I ' I » | •> I ' I ' I ' I ' ! ' I ' I •* I " I J I ' I "' ! ' I * I H' I ' I " I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I " I I ' I ' ! I ' I ' I ' I ' ! !
a"--J«^gg^Ri}ggR*gMpsirtgi|ssJiiBSsi8a3^^^"S**!'**a'^ ^
efe^ 5
*O °
^ -
"' I | | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' : ' I - I ' I H° I - I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I I £1 ' I 4 IJ I ' I ' I 4 I ' I "•' I "' I '! '! ' I I ' I ' I "' ! •"' I ' I ' I
' I || ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I - I ' I - I - I ' I ' I ' ! ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I R I ' I H' I H' I H' I - I H' I ' I H' I H' I ' ! H' I ' I ' I ' I ' ! ~ I -«' I ~ I ' I
s"
I !
11
iii
iirntr i
•lil
ill
i
liil J
jisiJlimi iijijiiiiHiiiiiiii
"p
si 5
5lI33s3al?§5SS?O3§XSs§l§?ISiS§II??l3[I^I
F-27
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE HI THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1770
DATA
SHEET
SVMBEP
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOW
i
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL i NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -IT.)
CAPACITY
AVa ANN
(AOU5-FT.
PER
ACBE^T)
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
JWY)
[La PER
CU. FT.)
ACCUMULATOR
PERSQ.Mt
OF NET M.
AJtEAFt*
AC.-W. | TONS
Aoncr
SUPPLYING
DATA
SWCT HILL AH) LOUE2 KSPUO.ICAI RIVSB BASIftS (£ontlnu*d)
Trtb. S. P. Sol
2.32
1.61
.67
.59
16.93
Ifcr. 1954
A«J. 1970
Jar 1954
J»l7 1970
B0T. 1960
Jon. 1770
Aug. 1970
Jan. 1954
ImLj 1970
%j 1922
"•J 1966
16.4
16
9.6
12
332.12
307.5
12.896
6.8
127.1
123.3
69.32
63.64
J9.05
24.52
2,180
1,455
3.519
3.271
.058
.030
1.088
1.053
.389
.357
.331
.276
.68
.45
•65
„
•70
__
•60
__
•60
—
•65
—
•70
__
0.65
.24
.59
.12
—
.a
—
.96
_
917
-
361
767
_
162
—
MO
—
1,463
SCS
SCS
3CS
SCS
3CS
3C3
UPPBE REPUBLICAN, KJ&TH PLATT1, aiVtt BA3IM3 (FT. LABAKIE TO NORTH PUTTS)
AM) SOUTH FUTTK BITD BASH (3UBLETTB TO •BRTK PLATTI)
to
oo
n~3 u
J3-3*. H«
3V4« n
33-5« Gi
n-6 n
3V7 B*
33-fc a«
1>9 D«
33-10 ?>
1V11 *
1V12 3t
n-i3 P'
*3-U Be
U..L1.LOTI _.tu. HII
My 1
UUOULJ 11 IHM
irrr Strwite L*k* ((todloln* Ktdleln* <
CrMk Du)
*
f. CLatt* Bli
d
GwriM5 I«br
"So
-_^ 11 Kb
.MMhfin *«««rvotr— Trib. of &*publla*n ftlivr- B»rtl«yf N«br.-— - —
ill* tin 3«ixrTOljr-- --•
n j
'* rtB *"rTO
Tiavl
••J1 J ^
-1
iioh*lt Stock Pond
mbmba P jd
"* ^* <5r
° P
^ ana
PMMI
*rto^*V
n_ j
•rOU'^_ftlnd
•*l*tow-Pfcrtc«r H-l H'I
oli^i 1 Stock Pociid
do
Trlb. of 1
do
Uhnwd—
Trib ^B**'
* * **
Trib 3«
ITl ,^3«PH
B
r "do°*
*_*!. I
Trlb. Joni
toad— Willow Cr.
3«l«wlek
J«W Cr«k-
i«prtlle&n B]
EftBt Curtis C
w Crw*
" **k
P* r
r r«
Itobmv, »*r.
, M ^ L 11 !
Jo _
* dfl1*'
— — AtMDod, tan.. — — -
No t° b.
j— * *
Atwoed JUn
.' °'
it G«njon Cr««k — HcDoiuld, Rani.-' —
Draw
c,, « ,
"** ° ' J°10'
Lodg.pola. Krtr...
.500 .497 -
3.*A 3.09 Apr.
— 1.59 1.57 —
— — Jan.
— 1.41 1.4 «OT.
^f'
UC1-.
— .83 .82 HOT.
Una
— 1.5 1.5
Dor
19)7
1939
1952
19*9
1951
1962
1956
1946
1956
1936
1956
1949
1953
1958
1950
1957
1948
1970
1958
1970
1948
1970
1958
197O
1963
1967
1952
1967
5.6
12.9
2.16
11.17
16
10.4
X
4
4.9
7
21.8
11.6
21.8
11.7
4
464
15.64
8.83
92,817
90,920
88,663
9.71
4.89
419.5
381.6
106.2
56.0
11.00
10.10
9.12
22.12
20.69
18.19
9.74
72.48
63.17
20.96
13.82
111.25
1O2.01
387
337.4
27.68
23.88
.229
.129
1.691
1.656
1.615
-
—
_
.968
.541
.683
.596
.329
.215
10.053
9.274
•1.92
•1.67
1.20
1.O4
•65 .66 934
57.3 .206 257
71. A 1.34 2,084
70.3 .3! 475
•TO ,6O2 918
•70 1.18 1,800
•70 1.58 2,4O9
• ii
75.6 .392 645
80.4 .28 490
•70 .28 422
•60 .24 320
•70 .07 105
•70 .96 1,467
— 1.6 —
•75 .17 277
SC3
BE
SCS
SCS
SCS
us
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
MOUTH PLATTE RI?EB BA3UI (ABOTE FT. LAHAKIE) SOUTH PLATTBH RIVEK BA3IK (ASOVS SUBUTTZ)
34-1
34-2
L*tc« ChtMMJV
South Platts R. auid Gooso
or last P«rlr Cr.
, Colo. 1,766
166.9
—
386
—
~
675
—
—
„.
—
—
—
—
—
—
,460
—
i/Aug.
tor.
June
Jan.
Feb.
Jan.
Ju.
Jan.
ab.
»b.
an.
an.
ulj
Ju.i«
D«o.
Oct.
1890
1933
1936
1918
1939
1127
H31
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1944
1947
1957
1966
1900
—
43
—
2.25
1.00
—
3.83
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.50
9.92
9.40
—
3,834
3,126
9,802
9,710
9,424
73,810
67,840
65,050
62,940
60,930
58,430
56,600
53,180
49,150
44,800
4/45,228
79,064
7". 5
75.6
60.7
54
.106
.741
.26
.20
.18
.23
.17
.21
.21
.103
17!
1,220
243
107
SCS
SCS
77,958
-------
** | I I I I || I | H M | I H 5
2
p;i<«
"I'll
M
r
ill
H
i
f
tf
«l i u inn
Will
I I §11 II II II II M II II I I II I I 1^ I I I II I I I I I I E ly.1 I,-I iplpl ..iSl 8
s f s ii K 'st g s g a s h * u b a Sfi«s'SE59 :: s 3 * '- » s
V< ff- Ul O -O O • F ^ •* ui -4O4 PHvi^BOiH
i icii ii ii ii M ii ii ii i i ii nip) i i ii i i i i i i 3 i-i i~i i pi pi.oi 2i S
'" '• it w • » a
*" ?' «' •»' Sl Bl ?' F1 P '
I'l?
lii
ul>
k s
at sc is
l Zf\ Kj.|^-l „! f,| ffl f,t,p\ r
~K He tk i a fcs etc s
- -
.I
I I I ..I I ..I I Mj-l
it* 'y'n
11 li li iisi li i iii a i
H
. I. I. I. '. I. '.
\* MM M
a a a a a B a B a a B a
i wi C -* to M
11^i^151 ii5i3iJiai3iiiaiSi
B 8 B B B B 9 B 8 B B B B B B B • •
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL j NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG- ANN.
(ACRE-FT
PER
ALHfc-KIl
SPECIFIC
tEIGHT
PRYJ
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG ANN
SEfflUFNT
ACCUMULATION
PER SQ. HI.
OF NET DR.
AREA FOB
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
T
w
o
35-25
35-26
35-27
35-28
35-29
35-30.
35-31
35-32
•>5-33
35-34
35-35
35-36
35-37.
3^3«
35-39
35-40
35-41
35-42
35-43
35-44
35-45b
fcller Fan* Pond-
KLSSOUHI RIVER BASIN (A3CV-: 3LAIR TO NEBRASKA JIT:) PLATTE RIVER BASIN I.EZLOW UQPTH ]
Trio, of Dead Horse Creek- Loup City, Nebr.
Trib. of Oak Cr*«k Farwell, Nebr.
Cook Hea*rroir-
Ingweraon Heserroir No. 1
Trib. of Papillion Creek— Arlington, ^hr.
Turkey Creek—. Louisville, Nebr.
O'Brifn Rasermlr-
O'icill 1
Trib. of L. NoKha River— Dunbar, Nebr. • —
South Cedar Creek Manley, Nebr.
Trib. of L. Mewaha River— Syracuse, Nebr.
Russell Creek Unadilla, Nebr.
L.79
.354
.26
.1RO
.383
.209
.073
. '31
.779
.257
.15*
.412
.130
.326
.100
.086
.113
.09°
.074
.29R
.177
-3'S
.3?3
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
J«ly
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
Jan.
Oe=.
Feb.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Mar.
Aug.
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
Jan.
Dec.
Feb.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
June
July
Oct.
Sept.
1948
1953
1949
1953
1949
1953
1952
1957
1934
1957
1952
1957
1952
1957
1954
1957
1916
1957
1946
195?
1949
1957
1937
19C7
1936
19^7
1949
1957
1954
195^
1939
19=7
1934
1957
1936
19C7
1948
1957
1949
195?
1954
195b
1957
1958
I960
19L.C
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
I960
1969
19^4
19C6
1957
195S
1Q6C
I
1969
1954
1956
1957
—
5
—
u
—
u
—
5
—
23
5
—
5
—
3
21
—
11
—
8
—
20
—
21
—
a
—
3
18
—
23
—
21
—
9
—
8
—
2.33
.92
l.CP
1.33
.92
1/1.00
.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.17
—
2.1?
.92
1.08
1.33
.92
1/1- *
.92
l.CC
1.00
1.00
.58
2.75
—
2.33
.92
15.6
13.9
15.40
14.39
30.74
28.03
11.78
9.93
29.4
21.1
12. 1'
10.19
.^2
.19
18.73
17.01
61.5
11.2
12.8
4.33
14.48
10.92
22.09
7.28
35.69
23.98
35.76
32.35
3.18
2.96
5.04
1.40
2.30
1.60
7.63
4.38
8.12
6.71
12.7
4. U
43.9
42.0
40.?
39.6
38.9
36.5
36.0
34.7
i/35.54
34.45
?1.97
32.81
30.88
31.37
55.3
52.6
51.8
50.3
47.6
47.1
45.1
43.5
44.6
42.7
36.5
39.89
40.069
76.2
73.8
69.1
•.163
-.145
*.811
•-757
•2.135
•1.947
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
•1.109
•1.061
•1.015
•1.000
•.982
*.922
*.909
«.876
•.897
•.870
*.807
.828
.780
.792
•.684
•.651
•.641
•.623
*.589
•.583
*.558
•.538
*.552
•.528
".452
.494
.50
—
—
—
"65
—
"65
_
•65
—
•65
—
•65
•65
•65
•65
—
•65
—
"65
•65
•65
•65
—
•65
—
•65
—
•65
—
•65
—
•65
—
•65
•65
—
73.4
73.4
72.3
58.7
60.3
2/60.3
69.5
2/60.3
2/60.3
2/60.3
2/60.3
2/60.3
1/75.5
—
72.6
69.5
59.2
67.2
55.3
2/55.3
62.1
51.8
51.8
51.8
51.8 I
V71.64"
—
53.9
66.1
.20
—
.71
—
2.62
—
2.01
—
.921
1.89
1.43
—
1,71
—
2.90
—
2.93
__
2.72
—
1.77
—
4.29
—
1.27
—
.725
—
2.31
—
.272
—
1.55
2. 04
3.57
—
4.63
11.40
3.11
2.99
14.50
2.99
7.85
i/-4.66
6.20
13.99
4/-6.22
10.91
V-2.372
—
3.31
2.55
3.64
5.52
1.55
5.11
4.73
4/-2.8S
4.92
16.91
I/-1 5 . 704
V--298
3.28
15.50
263
—
1,005
—
3,709
2,646
1,304
2,676
2,O24
—
2,421
—
4,233
4,148
3,851
—
2,506
6,073
—
1,798
1,026
—
3,270
—
385
—
2,194
2,888
5,054
—
7,400
18,200
4,900
3,800
19,000
3,940
11.8PO
—
tt,140
18,370
—
U.328
—
—
5,200
3,900
4,700
8,100
1,900
6,150
6,400
—
5,550
19,OftO
—
—
—
3,900
22,300
SCS
S^S
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
JGS
-------
CO
35-50
35-51
35-52
35-53
35-54
Oak-Mlildle Creak *>terAed
51t« 67-»
Split Bock-
36-3
36-4
36-5
34-6
36-8
' Ditch Old
Dealltlnj; Baain
Ifcstere Unoer Reservoir-
I/ Adjusted to correct oreviouo ye
2/ Based on Decker I960 sample.
i/ fond dry when surYeyed.
4/ *Sjnua (-} indicates scour or conpaction, (treated aa negative sediment).
5/ Weight datemined by ^nim proop.
•fc
do
Trlb f Ifcl C ofc
' **"
!*-
do
do
rto
rto
(to
do
~o
rto
rto
rto
d
°
rto
.
Plmtt
°
rto
rtn
A
rt
Horth Platte
R
Trib. of Big Sioux RiT-r—
"""rto
Faraera1 Ditch
Trib. of Clay Creek
*>
Unnamed
rto
zn2=zzrjzz:^i-
j
rt
rtn
rror.
0
^
'°
1
0
— do
do
A
rt
H
rl
'7°
,o
-°
^°
,o
H°
10
d°
rf
-°
*,
°
°
-d
^ °K
vozad, «br.
rt
j°
°
°
7°
^°
Dwight, Nebr. —
IVER BASIN (NIOBRARA TC ABOVE
a ta, ow:l
0
0
Bronson, Iowa
Mayfisl-i, S. Dak.
Volin, S. Dak.
Hapleton, Iowa
0
^°
H
~.~t-~--~-~~:
1°
H
°~
— — Dec.
— ''eb .
— — Jan.
.063 .O6C Oct.
— — No».
— — Sept.
— — Jan.
— — Jan,
.819 .''96 Oct.
- Sept.
— — Dec.
— — Feb.
— — Jan.
— Jan.
— — "eb.
— - Sept.
.49 .49
1.13 1.13 —
— Oct.
.89 .89 Jan.
— — Dec.
BLAIH) JAKES ASD BIG SICUX HI
41.3 41.1 July
_ Jin*
.593 .572 Dec.
— — Feb.
22.9 21.4 Apr.
. 408 . 4^ July
2.46 2.45 July
.178 .169 Dec.
.196 .186 Mar.
- - July
— — July
.075 .069 Har.
6/ Includes upstream
1960
1960
1962
1963
1964
1965
1969
1955
1956
1957
1958
1960
1960
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
196'
1968
1969
19<5
1956
1957
1958
1960
1960
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1969
1939
1964
1948
1964
1940
1964
1940
1964
1958
1964
VE» BA
1938
194°
1=>40
1949
1950
1913
1941
1945
1947
1953
1951
1953
1949
1950
1951
1952
1952
1949
1950
1<=51
1952
1949
1950
1951
1952
struct
1.33
.92
1A.OO
.92
1.00
1.00
4.11
1.08
.83
1.00
1.33
.92
1.17
.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.0
1.0
i.ce
1.00
.9'
l.CC
1.33
.92
1.17
.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.08
25
16
24
24
GINS
10.9
8.3
2.4
5.?
6
2
.79
.87
.73
.60
1.37
1.01
1.31
1.42
.98
1.30
ures.
67.8 _
06.9 —
c.4.9 —
(.4.1 —
cl.b —
63. 59
59.88
57.58
19.4 •
18.6 •]
17.7 •
17.6 •
17.1 "
16.3 •
16.1 •
15.4 *1
— —
14.7 •]
13." *
14.361
13.793
13.751
103
100
?7.4
97.2
94.6
93.2
90.8
88.7
_
86.0
80.5
73.867
ZA.°i
.72 -
16.18
13.06 -
5.97
4.99
15.7
12.7 -
175.7
59.8
61.9
55.2
2/55.2
58.0
57.8
65.44
i/65.44
.470 —
.409 77.2
.341 57.8
.333 72.8
.295 44.5
.235 56.5
.220 2/56.5
.167 60.3
56.0
.114 54.3
.038 54.3
.088 54.3
.045 5A.3
.042 5/69.5
.595 —
.578 64.4
.563 64.4
.562 64.8
.547 55.6
.539 55.7
.525 2/55.7
.513 59.4
51,1
.497 49.9
.46-5 49.9
.423 5/66.29
—
104
—
70
—
95
—
95
—
3.90
1.98
6.69
2.60
8.42
4/-6.19
11.49
1.71
—
13.30
17.9O
1.50
5.83
15.30
2.67
12.17
0
11.43
17.32
V-7.767
9.467
.65
4.17
3.98
.40
2.39
1.93
2.61
4.21
4/-2.02
5.46
6.86
1.055
—
.05
.21
—
.08
—
.11
—
5
2
8
3
10
1
22
22
2
5
18
3
16
13
20
U
30
6
5
2
2
3
5
5
7
13
,100
,700
,000
,120
,640
—
,048
112
—
.400
,500
.400
,600
.900
.300
,000
0
.500
.500
,196
,756
—
,000
,600
600
,900
,300
,200
,400
,900
,500
,419
-~
113
__
320
—
166
—
228
—
899.0
692.1
78.G
70.7
69.1
67.7
8/674
275
4.09
'.37
25.19
20.10
37.95
5/38.20
35.25
34.10
34.80
38.1
37.8
34.4
34.4
8.45
8.45
7.88
314
242
394
347
335
326
178
073
157
.129
.160
.128
949
955
881
870
870
866
859
782
782
497
497
464
464
46.9 1.54
•57.8 1.82
57.8 .98
•77.7
•77.7
77.7
•76.1
•76.1
76.1
•72.7
•72.7
72.7
20.1
1.67
1.25
17.96
8.41
0
— SCS
8,064
1,580
2,300
1,240
7,300
411
1.2A6
34,015
6,211
2,070
29,768
13,319
0
2/ Water 3Lcoly pool capacity. Reservoir capacity is greater at spillway crest elevation.
8/ Conservation pool capacity. Flood pool capacity is 1,952 ac.-ft.
9/ Increase in capacity in 1950 was due to settlement of dam.
* Estimated or assumed.
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
— scs
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS HADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RLSERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL ! NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETVEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG- ANN.
BIFU)*
(ACB&fT
pa
Aawn
SPECIFIC
•EIGHT
DBV)
La PER
=U. FT.)
. — ^ —
AVG.ANM.
ACaMULATDN
PSBSQ. MU
OF NET ML
AkEA POt
PESiaU iftirt*
AC.-FT. | TOWS
AO0CT
SOPPLYBW
DATA
CO
to
RIT1S BASH (EOOOUfiA TO ABOVE BLAIfi) JAMES AH) BIG SIOUX SITO BASIMS (C
_,_1 -
36-16
, —
37-lm
37-3
37-7
37-9
do .
(to *-
*
" .
,
™
*h*r*wil'rt !_.t ID do
7li*^tHild L4t-«n«I . 00
™ *
J da
(tir-tjJi da
Bartlott T9*Ktt*m
»* 1 Ci-wh
Liki HltclMll * *
rtn
1°_ C™^
Sola [fe»
^ 5 tt (V«^
3COlt »0. - 00 i
?° r?
LUn S*.*llllon *n»LJLiloo
it TiHh f Vm-^n 1
•(•lllljri ••l-rshod BO. . u * on
d° **
sr~™~ *r "
0 . rs ^^ *
°°
*^ " «^-
"*" "*
Elklns Stock Pond »o. 1 Br. of Pro*an»i Cr^k
** 7°
ClilnB Stock Pond Pk>. 2 co
L*nd Otill»«tion Project Trtb. of S*d Ri¥«r
Ho. 226-1.
f° Pm< Ti^h ^r in
Ho. 226-2.
•_! B D
Ho. 226-4.
°^ Prr. TiHh «M *^
Ho. 226-«.
Land Otlli»atlon Project Trib. of Bad Ri.T«r
No. 226-13.
Ho. 226-21.
Land OtlllMtion Projact Trlb. o' Bad Rl»er
•o. ^26-22.
• -M^J
do 250
do
do
ore
do
^^
do ' " ^^
F 11 S Dak 1 «
*
ftwit S Dak LO2
1 r^*** " " WJ--7
^^
' " *
° S Dak 8^
do *
MISSOURI RITES BASIN (ABOVE PIERRE
Nlobrara and White Hirer B*
Hay**, S. Dak. .58
0
rto . })
Pi«rr«, 3. Dak. .203
J 110
^_ T
do .166
tlo . 514
do
234
089
.«r#
'
*
16 27
73 *
TO MKBRARA
3i/ia
.57
.197
.163
.511
Ma
x»l7
Mar"
)
*y
Mu-.
Oct.
Jul)
MOV.
.I'llT
19W
19^
1936
•1897
1963
1907
1936
1936
1945
1936
1945
*
8.7
8.7
7.*6
5,183
18.61
16.7
9.1
8.3
9.2
8.3
.909
2.234
2.198
6.84
~
_
—
••*
•6.7 9
26
•65
51.8
_
—
7 65
"
.87
.26
1.785
.378
.16
.822
.458
.539
.285
.521
1.389
.200
•
492
368
2,527
426
144
—
—
•fcj
S3
9CS
nret
sea
scs
3C3
SCS
acs
3C3
SCS
9CS
SCS
SCS
3CS
-------
BBBfiB 98898888888
I II II II II II II II II M M I l§IRl§ I* IS
R 8 S 1 8 C
igishgsgiggm
SSS85
I I I I I I I ~ I I I I till!
I II II II II II M II M II II I If If If If IS
3 8 SSS R3 3
I 'I '\J~ 'I-- I 'UJJJJ I I
IR IR i RPS :
§S
N CM N (V vfl (V c% •OO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO
I » I R I •s-ij I '*' I S I "'^'-J-'- | -rt--!- | Jrt-jJ^ | P.
i li II !* !«' !J ii Is II II Ijrs'w'iissll |.
£ £ k « ^ Sg ^ E S * S
M I ~ I 2 I 3 t I I I I I rf ! I g I I I I I I Mill I I I I
3 SJ
S P
S S S 3 C R
I I I
I I I 131 l~ I S I S. I I M I" M8 I Mill Mill M I I IS I
|U
I I
!H
i i
I ! I I I I I | I a
f I l| i j ij m
II 11 11 h I li nil}
*«
!l
g i
* I I I I
ajiM
i\a\ i
«
I 5 -
INI
tlti'iliti
it
'. 4 °. * °. «
I i? if i
T
«t3t*Mi f «.t * i ^ 11 f'
^ -^ T1 1 -d I* •*!
t Is I? ! MS le sill
1 3 1 J ~ 1' S i
t t
2oSE55'33p j,5-i CJ I
--HsH^^flpK t'ac fee ^
s3j*f;3^!l-3o'!ld'sj*iM "'It * *i^ *
3 a 2 ISji ^J |sJ o=!j!|sj. \s i s |" K 1 M "i*il illl li'ii'ir*
-liSllJljIiiJiiJliJlilSlllilil JinsiiiiiiJiiliiiir
MlS
* f K
fc R R
F-33
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA DATE OF
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES) ! SURVEY
!
i
NET I
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
1
CAPACITY
AVG.ANN.
INFIOI
RATIO
(ACRE-FT
PER
ACRE-FT)
iPEdFIC
(EIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT)
AVG. ANN.
SEDBfiVT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ. m-
OF NET DR.
ARIA FOB
P. >K)D SBOWN
"AC~.-FT. | TOMS
AcncY
SUPPLYING
DATA
I
CO
39-1
39-2.
39-3
39-1
39-5
39-4
39-7
39-8
40-1
40-2
41-1
41-2.
41-3
MISSOURI HIVES BASIN (HOBHIDGE TC ABOVE prERRE)
h«r«nn* and Bella Fourche Siver Basins (Continued)
42-2
12-3
S*v Dtyta-HDod .UwnTolr— -
Pr«d«rick Stock Dv*
do
KanMaeh Rasa-Tolr
-itt
""do
Col* Ra^ervoii •
Battle Creak Detention Dta
lellou Haiei
*>
*>
*J
ind^rvon RtMi-volr
IjuVV
Ifclstoo
°
TO
do
^^rtn "do
-do Mew Undarwod, 3. Dak.
MISSOURI RIVER
Horwu, Grand, Ctnnonb*!:
LjUBC(^"eQil n do' --- - -
Hiddanmod Cn* S«lby. S. D«Jt.
.40,. , . . .... -i-5
161.8
803
724
471
75
338
_ SCS
183
— SCS
33
— SCS
166
— SCS
1.74 1,478
1.21 1,553
2.08 1,288
.188
.403
28*. 7
614
-------
UPPKt TELLOUSTGKE RIVES BaSIH
CO
Ol
43-lb
43-2
43-3
43-4
43-5
43-6
43-7
44-U
44-2
44-3
44-4
44-5
44-6
44-7
44-»
44-9
44-10
Buf'alo Blll-
E«d Spires-
Lake Boonerllle
Lake Fort Sent*
Luke Bailey-
Charleston Lake-
Slji Mile Creek Mo. 2—
Sli Mile Creek Ho.
do
do
Sli Mile Creek Ho.
i' Conservation pool capacity. Reservoir has greater capacity at !
2/ Includes 0.03 ac.-ft. above crest deposits.
I/ 1937-1955-39,097 eq. lai.; 1956-1961-34,692 eq. mi.
lj Suspended - lend inflow was 608 ae.-ft.; supsended - load outflc
p-rtod. Deposits too small to Measure by range surrey.
v*
Trlb. of rme«rudle CI-M*
Orahaa Draw —
do
dn
.
do
Rock Uaterhale Cr*»*
do
Trlb. of Petit J«*n CrMk-
Jaek and Jones Cr-sekn
Wiito Hirer-- •-
Poorche La Pave Hirer
Arkansas River Trlb.
3ha C 0ek
.
do
do
Trlb. of Hurricane Creek —
do
do
fin
°
j
-oa
aa
Morland, **y.
~_
*
u_
AUUUiSAS RIVER BA3I1 (VAN
•on**/, vx.
Booaerllle, Ark.
Hoantainburg. Ark.—
r **H» ™*
Brmn rfa
Horfork, Ark.--
Paris, Apk.
Charleston, Ark.
*
rf-
rf
do
Peter Fender, Ark.
~°
.942
27.4
.81
.38
5.24
7,700
.918
27.4
.81
.38
5.20
7,670
BUSf.ll TO LITTLE BOCI) VH:
4.16 4.11
2.60
65
15.2
4,610
680
1,806
10.90
1.03
5.38
1.90
4.16
2.57
64
15
4,606
652
1,772
10.66
.93
5.26
1.81
3.91
Oct. 1954
Oct. 1955
Oct. 1958
Oct. 1961
Oct. 1954
Oct. 1958
Hov. I960
June 1949
Nov. 1949
Hay 1952
Oct. 1955
Oct. 1957
Oct. 1960
July 1948
•or. 1949
Hay 1952
Oct. 1955
Oct. 1957
Oct. 1960
Oct. 1954
Oct. 1955
Oct. 1958
Oct. 1961
Oct. 1951
Aug. 1964
tTE HITCB BaSM
June 1935
HOT. 1935
Hov. 1946
Mar. 1929
«ov. 1935
Peb. 1936
Apr. 1940
S«pt. 1937
May 1940
Mar. 1913
Aug. 1935
May 1942
Apr. 1950
June 1943
May 1950
May 1938
Dec. 1953
Apr. 1937
Dec. 1953
Oct. 1954
July 1961
Oct. 1954
July 1961
Dec. 1954
July 1961
Dec. 1954
July 1961
July 1955
July 1961
July 1955
July 1961
31.7
17.0
1
3
3
4
2
.42
2.54
3.42
2.00
3.00
1.25
2.54
3.42
2.00
3.00
1
3
3
12.8
0.4
11.0
6.75
4.2
2.7
22.4
7.9
1.9 i
15.5
16.66
6.67
6.67
6.63
6.63
6.00
6.00
455,838
439,851
421,333
99.2
98.1
96.0
93.2
90.2
87.7
83.3
12.30
11.73
11. ca
10.83
10.61
10.58
3.13
2.94
2.54
2.62
2.59
2.47
193.4
191.3
176.1
154.5
819,132
802,004
494
490
481
289
282
•13,810
13,727
629
602
43,980
23,714
336,000
i/336,000
1,560,500
A, 560, 500
2,206
2,141
325
264
6/1,613.93
6/1,608.15
1/221.96
7/215.77
6/989.25
i/983.27
2/75.92
2/70.64
.492
.474
.455
3.906
3.862
3.780
3.669
1.797
1.747
1.659
4.241
4.045
3.797
3.734
3.659
3.648
3.817
3.585
3.098
3.195
3.159
3.012
1.098
1.086
1.000
.877
.625
.612
.130
.127
.532
.532
1.138
1.138
«.298
•.290
•.455
*.370
.469
.467
.090
.087
.708
.703
.183
.177
.372
.369
.029
.027
.34
.62
1.2
.8
1.0
.02
.08
1.68
.35
.06
.14
.01
.39
.42
0
.05
.11
.40
.98
1.38
2.43
.20
.455
.31
.66
.196
- V-
.39
3.94
6/.17
I/. 21*
6/.S3
I/. 51
6/.26
2/.23
307
SCS
CK
cz
SCS
SCS
SCS
ipillway crest elevation.
pw was 200 ac.-ft. during
$j Sediaent inflow volune was computed to be 2,350 ac.-ft.; Much of this probably settled out
over a large area in deposits too thin to be Measured accurately by echo sounders.
6/ Both sedinent and flood pools.
2/ Sediment pool only.
* Estljiated or assivsed.
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE ffl THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
hrj
oo
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
i
RESERVOIR STREAM
NEAREST TOWN DRAINAGE AREA
i
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
(ACRE-FT
PEB
SPECIFIC
*EIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. \NN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ ML
OF NET DH.
AREA FOB
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYOK
DATA
ARKANSAS RIV5K BASIN (vAN BURQI IT, LITT.S ROCK) WHITE RIVER BA3TN (
44-r<
45-1
45-2
45-3
4"i-4b
45-S
45-6
45-P
45-9
4S-1C
45-11
45-12
4^13
4S-15
45-r7
45-18
45-19
45-20
45-a
45-22
45-23
45-24
45-25
45-26
Dardanelle Reservoir
do
f
.-do
,1o
Like McAl eater
3°
do-
Pretty Water Lake
Greenleif Lake
do
Kirk Lake
Lowell
Neosho County State Lake
(Lake McKinley).
^" — -
do
State Fish Hatchery Lake
do
do
WutAiktt Lake-
- lo
Wetumka "ity Lake
do
3 e voy —
Arkansas River
do .
Trib. of Illino e er
-10,,
Wilson -rente
Ei
do
hi " air
Paa.eab.Lc urcofc
do
Bull Creex
n° •
do
'P
do
do
Fourche Maline Creek
do
Big Greenleaf Creek—
nnamc
Sprg. 3. * Shoal Creek
Smll Trib. of Neosho River
Dog Creek •
. -
par a rcc
Pr^ C
. r/ui-3 ice
A
Trib. of Pryor Creek
" C° 5 Ine '"-
~oon r. o p ing
Salt Creek .
do-
N. Caney River
Big Caney River
Dardanelle, Ark. 1/1
do
do—-
ARKANSAS RIVER
Grand, Verdigris, at
do
do
0
do
0 ° ~
Wilburton, Okla.
do
do
Sapulpa, Okla.
Muakogee, Okla.
do
Baxter Spring?, Kana.-
Parsons, Kans.
do
Claremire, Okla.
ins Okl
Wetumka, Okla.
Sedan, Kans.
Cedar Vale, Kans.
do
3,703
BASIN (TULSA
4.06
2.35
8.72
20.9
30.7
40.1
21.2
2.3
19.8
fi.95
2.43
81. -5
2.41
2,210.0
3.38
56. 4A
400.0
.28
1.21
3.07
16.27
4.15
-33
.16
11,333
4.07
TO VAN BU
dian Ri»*r
3.92
2.30
S.57
19.9
28.2
39.2
18.9
2.2
4.29
19.7
8.30
2.40
79.84
2.36
2,208.6
3.24
55-70
397.2
.27
1.20
3.04
15.72
3.88
.33
.16
Oct. 1964
Oct. 1965
Apr. 1968
Oct. 1954
May 1964
Oct. 19"0
REX)
Basins
July 1937
Aug. 1947
Oct. 1930
June 1940
1913
Dec. 1935
Hay' 1943
July 1952
Apr. 1963
1919
Sept. 1941
1928
Apr. 1950
Aug. 193737
Mar. 1957
1937
Sept. 1947
1936
Apr. 1950
1933
July 1947
June 1931
Apr. 1950
Mar. 1936
Dec. 1946
Mar. 1937
Mov. 1941
1R97
Sept. 1939
Mar. 1905
Aug. 1939
July 1927
Aug. 1939
May 1931
Oct. 1939
Apr. 1924
July 1935
1923
1934
1939
1931
1939
uly 1925
pr. 1945
eb. 1954
an. 1931
eb. 1954
Mar. 1953
Sept. 1960
Jan. 1938
Sept. 1960
1.08
2.^
9.58
6.42
10.1
9. "5
22.5
11.0
9.2
10.75
22
22
12.3
9.2
10
14
14
n.e
10.75
4.7
42
34.4
12.1
8.4
11
16
5
8
19.6
8.0
23.2
'.5
22.7
4oO,3OO
,52,hOO
443,500
1,304.03
1,275.62
1, 253.26
1,260
1,249
522
517
1,094
911
4,995
4,660
4,525
18,397
17,509
10,355
9,896
3722,600
24,468
i/23,816
23,429
2/22,327
580
574
2,341
2,158
6/570
511
9,844
9,030
344
322
13,005
12,828
111
69
10,4O4
7,580
680
651
4,258
3,909
31,686
30,509
28
26.5
34.0
32.9
123
U1.9
2/4,961
4,489
4,357
2,076
1,898
20.9
20.2
22.8
a. 2
2/.0532
2/.0532
1/.0540
.446
.436
.429
-
.640
.597
.580
-
-
__
-
-
1.02ft
.930
.903
1.341
1.226
"
*80
80
68.8
76.1
54.2
94.72
94.72
-
48.10
•60
»60
51.17
-
55
60
C.o26
.321
.73
.86
.278
.23
.949
.732
1.83
.63
1.43
.532
2.8
2.7
.29
3.05
.21
.85
.47
.43
.04
.74
.749
.269
.35
.18
.46
1.51
8/1.05
1.98
.44
1,090
560
1,093
1,425
2,160
743
5.776
5,339
-
450
52.3
967
574
•x
SCS
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
-------
T1
co
-q
45-28.1
45-29
45-30
45-31
45-32
45-33
45-34
45-35
45-37
45-38
45-39
45-40
45-41
45-42
45-43
45-44
45-45
45-46
45-47
45-48
45-49
45-50
45-51
45-52
45-53
45-54
45-55
46-lb
F
p ...
**trto
Double CreeJc Sit* No. 5
(1 "" r
T t° Ink
"iVOIido
_ _ , T>v
Hound Valley Experimental Sta.
0 -*«.
0
*r
„ p°
ono
Cane Creek Site No. 11
Big Wewoka Site No. 17
.
-" * *^
,
raddle -*noy HlTer
" Ri
mn ' r
do
rfn
^^
^
C* *
7°
anadlan
Trib. Neoaho River
Trib. of Pumpkin Creek
Trib. Verdigris River
K
Trib. o o
„
*
7°
Trib Duck C ok
* r°
rtn
d
ri
rtn
7°
Cans Creek
Big Wewoka
°
,
Dunlap. Sans.
3od*Ij Ifiin
^K^» ^U11*
llnrtfl Kan
UI' do°n' ^U1I>"
p
.odarvalo, Kana.
u i w ni.i
Ao^*~
Hamona, utL*.
~°
irk
ron.
** "*rto* *^*-
t Ban
Toronto, rn.
Wiitefield, Okla.
do °n*
Hound Valley. Kana.
Edna
_^do
^Lr"*t' '*QD-
K«n
d * *
™°
La Fontaine, Eana.
°°
do
Lonirto Kan
Lonffton, nano.
Burlln.rto Ka
ington, no.
^°^
HoldcmoJ.!!), Ukla.
Olomilgee. Okla.
Wowoka, Okla.
ARKANSAS RIVER
Middle Canadian, Lower
° dQPI^* ^t^°"
A
2.25
.25
.194
15.9
.2
.345
.49
732
2.39
7.65
10.16
123
730
47,522
.19
.42
.22
.23
.20
.38
1.75
.13
.23
.41
.25
2.26
8.96
2.16
BASIK (GARDEN
Cljaarron, and
1,735
2.25
.25
.192
15.3
.2
.345
.49
712
2.36
7.58
10.06
117
714
13,693
.18
.42
.22
.23
.19
.37
1.73
.13
.23
.40
.25
2.20
8.89
2.11
cm TO HJLS,
Salt Fork Ri'
1,485
Sapt. I960
Jan. 1951
Aug. 1960
Sapt. 1936
Sapt. 1960
Jan. 1939
J«l7 1957
Dae. 1936
Apr. 1954
1920
S«pt. 1960
Jan. 1938
Jul7 1957
Jan. 1943
Sapt. 1960
Fab. 1950
Jtna 1958
Feb. 1955
Apr. 1964
Sapt. 1969
Hal-. 1943
Oet. 1961
Sapt. 1936
Sapt. 1965
Bar. 1950
Dae. 1959
Mar. I960
*7 1966
Fab. 1964
June 1969
Oct. 1939
Aug. 1967
Jnna 1954
June 1968
•OY. 1953
June 1968
Dae. 1956
June 1968
Aug. 1967
Aug. 1967
— 1933
Jul7 1967
Jul7 1937
J«l7 1967
June 1937
Jul7 1967
Oct. 1948
Aug. 1967
— 1939
Aug. 1967
June 1960
Aug. 1969
HOY. 1965
Sapt. 1969
Har. 1963
Sept. 1968
O
rer Basins
Jan. 1943
June 1949
June 1958
TW 1 Q60
26
9.5
24
18.5
18.3
40
19.5
17.7
8.4
9.2
5.5
18.58
28.9
9.8
6.21
1.33
28
14
14.6
11.8
33
40
34
30
30
19
28
9.1
3.85
5.53
6.42
9,0
48.5
484
477.8
10.66
9.26
10.59
8.56
6,491
5,935
23.9
21.6
54.97
44.12
81.46
77.94
295,130
292,565
747.36
734.29
730.53
361.44
325.78
771.0
604.7
59,650
57,270
195,300
192,060
3,848,000
3,798,400
4.74
3.54
6.90
4.77
5.01
3.92
12.0
11.1
24.41
20.1
15.37
8.72
53.04
29.69
3.8
3.0
5.3
4.5
16.38
15.0
8.09
4.17
690.3
679.0
2,983.6
2,954.7
691.3
680.7
107,340
106,150
101,750
L
-
•1.591
•1.455
-
1.109
1.099
.83
.81
.81
.059
.053
.316
.248
1.447
1.389
.559
.550
.89
.88
.07
.05
.032
.022
.044
.034
.10
.093
.33
.27
.110
.062
.080
.045
.080
.062
.062
.052
.n
.098
.09
.045
.95
.94
.96
.95
1.36
1.34
1.27
1.26
1.21
1 .fA
SO
55
60
•60
70
57
60
44.2
54.3
54.3
•60
77.23
50.4
62.2
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
•60
62
55
60
57.8
67.0
ft1;.-*
.45
.29
.23
J/.60
1.99
.28
1.61
.41
.429
.60
.29
.25
.57
2.08
.731
.68
.24
.36
.32
.35
.68
.46
.40
.23
.13
.18
.56
.56
.85
.91
.125
.329
.ttil
490
347
300
J/S10.2
2,236
427
1.9W.8
536
413
710
343
745
3,499
802
921
314
470
418
457
888
601
522
300
170
235
731
762
1,018
1,189
157
498
74
SCS
aa
aa
03
scs
scs
scs
a
scs
scs
scs
a
a
a
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
ex
I/ 22,241 sq. ni. is probably noneontrlbuting.
2/ Based on inflow from net sediment contributing area.
2/ Original topo-rraphic survey.
i/ Prom "A" reconnaissance investigation, Shawnee Lake, by Victor H. Jones, Geologist, SGS.
%/ Present ac.-ft. as showi by the two surveys.
6/ Lake drained and dam raiaed 1937. Original capacity at 1938 crest.
I/ Dam raised 11 feet Mar. 1946; all values based on prevent elevation.
8/ Dan broke Apr. 1945; rebuilt Mar. 1946; this period not included.
2/ Includes 0.03 ac.-ft. above crest deposits.
* Estimated or assumed.
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 197C
CO
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL | NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
BATO
(ACRE-FT
PER
ACRE-FT)
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
(DRY)
T.B. PER
CU. FT)
AVG. ANN
SEDMENT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ ML
OF NET DR-
AMA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT.
TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
[ BASDJ {OAHDEN CITY TC TULSjO
•ron, and 5»lt Fork River Basira Continued)
,^.
46-7
fc*-8
46- 9
46-10
46-11
46-12*
46-1
46-17
46-25
46-26
46-?7
46-28
46-29
46-30
46-n
'Veat Salt Plain* 3*it PV. oT Arkansas rllvsr
do do
^° at
]u- *°
(Lake L»rrmb»»).
I*°~ „ , i-d« "rrih
do. , do —
Suita F« Indiana!* Cr**k
Outhrie- . Trib. of Cc-ttonwood Cr*«fc-
«!„.. «x* F«d lioi.JUr.Cr~
H*rrlB Stock hand do
Lak.Eldor.do - - ^tchel Cr«k
Lake Pry«r- — — tolf Cr**k
dC- , ~ , M,
_ . ,io do
do oo
*o. 2.
^°~ r _k.
' 1 d° UmaMxl
" C3 1 - " ^r-
LongUm- *> —
^° \ • -.™a.
ci rj «lty Lake-- • -ow ""**
°~ „ ...
^° Trtb f So Ganadi R,
0, r . ^iott . ondn Tri _ . r ^. m/mui
IM? P Trfh f Rrlrl nt*
rcr« Hill Pond rrt -^ r unag
^ SI Cr**k
Nichlaua- Trib. Jl^uji 1 e«U
110 T-lh SI " ak
e^__ " do_
Koulouris Trib. Sand Creek
trtj.— . Trib. Bluff :r*ek
5«ith - Case "rib. Little Ark. River
Uorkmri Trib. Medicine Lodi?e River
^n^ 1^0
Barrett - - «1H >•*
' 1°~ °~'
XUlei (MI r r
Jet, Okla.
1 if
d
MH.) r
'
Au«urta, Uno. -
Gwthrle, Okla.——-
^"T"- <«--— -
dT
Eldor.*-, fan,.- -
fir1
n fio * *
" . -_
st m in
d* r" *'
^Imrron, Kan».
Andal T
nruii ^,
r
'
Wellin^to K
do
Newton, Kana.
Little BiY«r, Kans.
Medicine Lodge, Karn.-
Anthony , Kans.
3,200
13.30
.31
35.1
108
, _
3.36
.55
.24
.24
.56
.59
.30
.34
.67
1 20
3,156
1.84
12.95
.31
34.3
108
3.36
.54
.63
.526
.24
.23
.56
.59
.30
.34
1.20
Juno
Doc.
Apr.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Apr.
Apr.
Sfipt.
S-pt.
June
July
Aug.
Oct.
Sept.
3«pi.
Dec.
June
Aug.
Mar.
June
Aug.
Spring
July
Aug.
July
1941
1949
1929
194O
1937
1920
1935
1939
1940
1940
1928
1937
1939
1947
1953
1959
1966
I960
1942
1956
1935
1955
1955
1955
1949
1941
1943
19.32
1967
1958
1967
1948
1968
196S
1958
1936
1968
1955
1968
1956
1968
19S7
196B
1959
1968
8.5
11.4
H.2
8.6
14.5
1.0
2.5
9
7.4
5.83
6.42
6.92
11.40
14
20
13
17.9
14
11.8
35
9
19.92
33.92
32.17
13.42
12.1?
9
.i 08 ,000
292,000
2,fll2
2,641
33
819
365
295
1,595
3,064
2,608
3.74
3.43
12.37
3,213
3,082
A44
717
385,900
2,945.06
Si/56
20.44
9.62
50.28
2/8.50
4,371
3,986
14.87
8.97
?6.3
30.7
13.38
6.43
46.14
5/13.6
4.O9
3.38
9.64
6.95
5.76
66. 89
62.29
10,0
1.79
25.26
20.29
26.73
21.91
39.92
32.24
6.08
2.87
1.067
1.011
—
—
—
.316
2.10
2.CT7
2.06
1.391
1.283
—
1.311
1.196
.085
.067
.147
071
.15
.04
-It
.13
.158
.24
1.86
1.73
.18
.03
.87
.70
.81
.66
.59
.47
.0^8
.013
48. b
58.9
*60
69.47
•60
98.52
58.1
•60
•65
•65
66
"
.
TO. 9
50.2
5^.1
95.66
•60
94.89
85.7
72. O*7
83.5
103.4
—
fc5.4
—
—
.
TO
-(SO
"60
'6C
•60
*60
•60
*60
•60
—
"60
0.586
1.93
2.68
.459
3.40
.45
2.42
1.0
.495
.426
.16
.30?
.063
1.92
2.61
—
2/.2P
.0*7
.32
1.33
—
yi.o
—
.2'
—
1.12
—
.22
—
.57
.58
1.00
.84
.44
1.23
1.1S
1.01
—
.30
62O
2.522
4,055
600
7,296
569
3,162
1,416
701
612
_
4,6^4
65.3
76.4
4.0O0.27
3,410.75
—
i/578.68
134
—
•^12
—
2,419
—
V2,?52
313
—
—
—
335
—
745
75«
1,307
1,098
575
1,607
1.542
1,320
—
392
OS
sns
scs
scs
scs
scs
ZK
sea
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
xs
xs
scs
scs
-------
to
CO
46-33
46-34
46-35
46-36
46-37
46-38
46-39
46-40
46-41
46-42
46-43
46-44
46-45
46-46
46-47
46-48
46-49
46-50
46-51
46-52
46-53
46-54
He^B^
Pond
0*1-^*^ FW.J
~°
lebcrt
do
rt
D«Tl °
Trtt
bcboo Pond
0
Harbor
„ ?°
or~'
" n_ i
u*lth rona
.
^^*^
den
^
CO.
Conchas Reservoir
rt^
do
A
°
oo
n
ttoocrroir »o. ~
do
''^ *" Ui
Reservoir No. 11
Eleservoir Ho. 1? —
Kcucrvoir o. 1J
noacrvoir "o. 14
e _,
-BlU
Trib. Kedicine Lodge Hiver
Ti-ib Pn B.1
Trll*. IXtnOO HiTBr
Trib. ¥et Walnut Cre«*
Trib. BU Sandy-
do
rt
H«^kti* Ci-Mlr
..Q* ^reak
*"Q*eL
"
rtn
Trib. Ark. River
Trib. Buffalo Creek —
*_«v * Bj
. awnoo
Trih SLat C ok
F0
rto
3trinjj Ci-««k
^^*i r»«*
Trib. Little Sandj Creek—
,,, Jw ^ ,, t
r "il* -^frroj
m rf ' «rt:
TIIL. lurr ur
Canadian and Conchas
do
7°
rt
do .
, ° ,
^
j
°
do
— do
0
A
°
•
Hadlcine Lodge, K&na.-
Jet«i Kan
• ^ma'
Dighton, Eana.
rt * '
d
~°
H
fianlEnd, tana.
Kal *ta Kan
* r v
- °
1
rt
Little Siv«r, Sans.
Ba «1 Kan
^l*fcj*p*
THohtn° Kan
nffi . i ,
dT' n '
fiuah Cimt Kan
T™ * ' aaft3-
Con S™H S«
'd ** *B;'' ^
*" San
™~* mna"
— ^>
^°
J j J"13"
ohlond, tana.
AHKAN3AS RIVEE
U^per Ciaarron ai
Conches Da*, X. Hex.—
~°
d
T°
j
^°
0
do
do
J°
'°
0
0
Liberal, Kans
1.73
3.0
3.e
.23
1.07
7.57
1.98
2.40
1.83
1.20
1.01*
.57
2.1
.30
1.63
.56
.31
2.17
.95
.82
2.13
BASIS tLAHAE Tn
Id Upper "jnafHA
7,409
-
_
.36
1.71
3.0
2.2
.23
.90
4.75
1.97
2.37
1.82
1.20
1.07
.57
2.1
.30
1.61
.56
.31
2.0
.93
.52
2.17
GA1DEN
n Blysr '
6,976
-
-
-
.36
Sept.
Feb.
Aug.
Har.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Jan.
June
*W
June
Oct.
June
»>r
Julj
Jan.
Sept.
Dec.
Aug.
July
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
June
June
Aug.
Aug.
Dec.
Aug.
Oct.
«ug.
Aug.
Aug.
June
Julj
No-r.
July
Juni
July
JulJ
3ITY'
BasljiB
Maj
June
Oct.
Feb.
Oct.
Oct.
-
Mar.
1963
1%1
1968
1952
1967
1940
1967
1952
1966
1961
1966
1962
1966
1947
1966
1951
1967
1952
1967
1956
1967
1949
1968
1962
1968
1946
1967
1951
1967
1958
1967
1949
1967
1956
1967
1951
1966
1956
1966
1952
1966
1954
1966
1939
1940
1942
1942
1944
1949
1963
1970
1912
1946
1912
1946
1912
1946
1912
1946
1912
1946
1912
1946
1962
1QA*
18.12
7.5
15.5
27
14.5
5.2
3.7
19.2
16.75
14.75
11.13
19
6.2
21
15.75
8.8
18
11
15.1
7.75
14.5
12
1.4
2,1
ll?
4.3
14.7
6.92
34
34
34
34
34
34
47-2
47-3
47-4
47-5
47-6
i.7-7
47-S
I/ Excludes 4,642 sq. mi. of watershed not contributed to runoff, 1,735 »q. nd. above Port Supply Dam,
and 25 sq. mi, surface area of Canton Reservoir,
2/ Includes 2.33 ae.-ft. above crest deposits.
JJ/ Water supply pool capacity. Reservoir has greater capacity at spillway crest elevation.
4/ Includes 0.39 ac.-ft. abov* crest deposits.
5/ Spillway eroded 2 ft.
o/ Capacity based on surface area x 1/3 deepest fill.
If During the period 1^12-46, a total of 2,435-ac.-ft. capacity was added by reservoir enlargement.
8/ During the period 1912-4r>, a total of 126-ac.-ft. capacity was added by reservoir enlargaMnt.
2/ Dorijig the period 1912-46, a total of 6?2-ac.-ft. capacity was added by reservoir enlargement.
10/ During the period 1912-46, a total of 490-ac.-ft. capacity was added by reservoir enlargement.
ll/ During the o«riod 1912-46, a total of 264-ac.-ft. capacity was added by reservoir enlargenent.
* Estia-ateri or assumed.
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W THE UNITED STATES THROUGH WTO
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
— 1 ' ]
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL
NET
, 1
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVa ANN.
INFLOW
RATIO
(ACBE^T.
PER
ACRE-FT)
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
jxuimm
ACCUMULATHN
potso. m.
OFNCTDB.
AREA FOB
PQUODSBOW
AC.-FT TONS
AGncv
SUPPLfWG
DATA
^
o
47-9
47-10
47-11
47-12
47-13
47-14
4S-2
48-3
48-4
48-5
4S-6
48-7
48-8
48-9
49- la
49-21
49-3
40-4
49-5
40-6
ARKANSAS RIVER BAS1X (LAKAR TO GARDEN J1TT)
"regory -
L*h«y —
Hart shorn
A/wrine
ik;
John H>rt In R*aerroir
'ror-wrly Caddoa Rea. ProJ.).
£
--do
• - . do
-Ju
Qrowi Reservoir Ho. 1
Moddy Greek
3-1 3i« Sandy Creek iVqterflhed
— 4 __
— do
— 1o
Jenkins Pond
'xj-don :"unt,ry :iub Lake
-\-j
Trib. *rk. River
Trib. Cimrron
Trib. Little Bear Creek—
Trib. Cimn-en
do
(to *
:mirl«7
ArkarMs River
to
rfn
to
Vin Brewer Arroyo-
Muddy Creek. Johnny Creek-
40
TUrlt*5n
-Jo
Bl* 5andy Creek
Rio Chana
do
Kins -ra»K
Trlb. of Lewi* Creek
(JO •••• ••
1 U Qj
Upper dafti-ron and Upper !
!*OSC^-_^B1
Syraauae, Kan a.
4a-_
* do
6.5
2.78
1.90
1.06
.47
3.42
8.91
RIO ORA1BB BASIN (ABOVE B5PANOLA)
Harty, Colo.- 1/11.715
do
Trinidad, Colo.
Caddoa, Colo.
fto
*, .
Peyton, Colo.
Abiqnio, H. Hex. 2
Fowler, Colo.
RED RIVER B^SLN
Little and
do
°_
Mansfield, U.
Paris, Tax.—
" VI1 LA
do
-
-
74.6
154.2
52.01
78.8
608
"
5.4
,146
13.48
(DEHISOK
Sulphur
51.6
10.4
.35
1.41
683
Rivar Baaina
6.5
2.75
1.89
1.06
.46
3.40
8.91
AND ARKANSAS
18,102
-
74.4
152.4
47.44
78.5
606
5.3
2,127
13.34
TO GRAND SCOR
Rivar Baaljis
49.6
1.26
10.3
.32
1.30
613
(Contlm
Apr.
Juna
Oct.
Juna
Mar.
Juna
Juna
Juna
•»«.
Jane
Oar.
Juna
*pr.
Juna
RIVHi U
Apr.
July
Dae.
S*A.
Oct.
*UJ.
Har.
Sapt.
Au,.
Nor.
Fan
Dae.
HOT.
Apr.
Har.
Fab.
July
Apr.
Oct.
Har.
B!
Fab.
Tkr.
July
Har.
July
Har.
July
Sapt.
Juna
Nov.
"ay
lad.)
1951
1967
1960
1966
1950
1966
1961
196t
1961
1966
1953
1966
1951
1967
IS III
1942
1942
1943
1944
1948
1951
1957
1962
1966
1968
1900
1939
1919
1939
1900
1940
1911
1940
1912
1937
1939
1962
1965
1963
1967
1908
1968
1923
1936
1956
1900
1936
1956
1931
1941
1925
1954
1898
1959
1949
1961
16.5
5.7
16.2',
5
4.8
13.3
16.5
0.3
1.4
0.7
3.7
3.4
5.7
4.6
4.5
1.9
39.4
28.9
25
2
3
4.58
60
13.1
19.7
36
20.3
10.3
29
61.0
11.5
62.2
50.83
Ij5.6
133.8
14.6
8.75
4.5
3.75
31.8
31.2
128
119
92.7
78.2
— 701,775
690,345
688,5?)
683,257
675,097
662,870
645,512
642,390
631 ,121
618,668
758
82
16,918
15,287
36,203
30,738
4,005
2,463
38,274
25,020
23,040
326
302
579,039
572,695
563
527
11,487
10,755
9,964
6/1,394
1,324
1,285
181
128
157
150
558
430
967,900
967,900
1.79
1.50
4.6
4.5
.72
.43
.40
.33
6.4
6.2
3.5
3.3
1.97
1.65
.418
.391
.362
1.792
1.702
1.652
.561
.536
.742
.572
1.516
1.516
70
•50
•75
•75
65
•75
•TO
0.11
.11
.19
.U
.28
.20
.10
— SCS
167
— SCS
1JD
— SCS
310
— SCS
229
— SCS
396
— SCS
327
IK
2.43
2.43
2.41
2.38
2.34
2.28
2.26
2.22
2.18
—
_
__
—
~
l.°0
1.76
•3.9
•3.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
•75.7
89.07
75.25
68.36
75.4
"
•80
•75.7
—
—
.075
.443
.129
.210
.178
.0398
.147
.362
.233
.5J5
I/. 241
.680
.87
1.63
1.5
.65
V-045
—
124
no
213
346
29J
65.6
242
597
—
452
ST7
__
4/1.515
_
1,117
_
—
—
2.613
1,072
—
—
3CS
9CS
3C3
3CS
91
3CS
OK
SCS
36.4
31.5
68.6
33.14
1.13
.81
1.54
1.52
.50
.78
1.62
642
— SCS
1,043
— SCS
— SCS
1,165
_ SCS
1,169
— d
-------
49-7.
W-8
49-9
50-1
50-2
50-3
50-4
50-5
so- 6
50-7
50-9
50-10
50-llc
50-13
50-1 5a
50-16
50-17
50-18
50-19
50-21
50-22
50- J3
50-24a
50-25
&
tola
Lake Texarkana
fin
H
T .
Ai-Jj-ui-a Club Lake
R-r» ^1
Bymr3 - L*ko
f i
artSj ^L^°
J. J. Harrison Lake
C. W. Lester Farm Pond Ho. 1-
C. W, Lester Farm Pond Ho. 2-
-anta Hona Lake
nf
Lake Duncan
i?
Like -ilnton
OOllcTUO
do
Jj°
T IT T (Q.WI D* 1
HUcc ToxoBtt tUeniasn Una;
do
A
r+in PnnH
bartHDur Pond
r tutte SI Hn
Cavalry Greek -Ate No. 1
ri°
0
Chigley Sandy Site ho. 5
dn
™ B
-oit Pond No. 1
n D
Dean Pond No, ^
n 0
Doan Pond No, - • •
George Pond
p
Hal_ Pond Nc, 1
w t
Harrison o.
. „ i
riaon No. ~
K
^-np
" -In
Hill ^reok No. 17
do
Muncrlef Farm "ond —
Drainage area adjusted to conform
Off chainel -egervoir.
Excludes wat^- and sediment divert
Per 100 ac.-ft. of water diverted
erroir between 191C and 1939.
Sulphur liver — .
0
Crnroan Barn
JW ^ J
do
3uj.pimr r
-iJdu Cro
Mri =Tt
101 rto
tu rn° f L.
3° ° r
(in *ah*ta ttiV*r
Trib. of Broken Leg Cre«k-
Beaver Creek
tr-t k- «k
d
Turk Cr t*
TirKQy UTeefc
rfe
P lr
LTay ^r00*
h P L- D»H
ortn or aod iu.vcr
0
BI
lirer
°°
Trib. of Little Washita R.
*
71
0
Chigley Sandy
Jnna-nod
„
H° ^^* "r«*k
do
do
Unnamed
rt
^°
rt
d
aahita
Trib. of Sandy Creek
with 'J 5.G.S. publis^e-i drama
ed from Arkansas River a.-.d Hor
froni Ark. River and Horse Cr.
Tejcarkana , Tex.
do
Shreveport, La.
rtn
Sulphur Springs, Tex.-
RED RIVS
ni»jrc, UKll.
Bn Okl
oya ,
u_jni I-»_T
'
Lindsay, ukla.
Cheyenne, Okla.
do
ern°d' ax
'
C t OtLa
anuto, UlciA.
~°
"""»
' H
T
on^3"1' "^^
~°
"hi Inaha
, *.
^ rd 11
° °ri«' **
do
do
Wynnewood, Okla
do
~i j . 1^.1
Ilnton, UKla,
^hoycnno, Ulcln.
rt
Canadian, Tejc.
odoy, UlLLa.
f rt?°
*
3
°
° T
yno , ex.
Mill Creek, Okla.
flo
Wynnewood, Okla.
ge irea.
ae Creek.
Total of 564.918 ac.-ft.
3,400
266
52.50
S BASIS {ABOVE
4.15
2.66
1.81
.88
2.04
.64
336
11.0
23.6
•1.5
2,515
39,719
.68
2.19
.81
.39
.0359
.164
.535
.20
.237
.292
2,099
1.61
.031
diverted
3,213
251
51.46
DENI50N'/
3.91
2.55
1.7O
.81
2.03
.63
334
10.4
23.1
l.U
2,104
28,925
.67
2.15
.79
.38
.0354
.161
.535
.20
.237
.292
2,067
1.58
.029
43-yr
Sept. 1954 — 2,654,300
Aug. 1958 3.92 2,654,300
July 1970 12 2,654,300
Dec. 1946 — 96,100
Oct. 1951 4.8 9fa,100
Apr. 1961 9.5 96,100
Sept. 1962 9 2,787.9
June 1938 15.5 1,644
1904 — 507
1936 — 865
Hat. 1949 13 837
Feb. 1932 — 349
Ifer. 1950 18 282
— 1945 — 42.4
June 1949 4 22.8
June 1944 — 16.3
June 1949 5.0 13.1
Oct. 1929 — 15,755
Jan. 1948 18.2 11,5*8
Oct. 1937 — 6,291
Aug. 1950 12.8 5,783
June 1938 7.4 3,961
Nov. 1950 12.4 3,343
Kay 1938 50 85
June 1948 7.5 185,035
July 1953 5.1 178,610
Apr. 1967 13.8 168,117
Oct. 1948 0.2 5.718.COO
June 1954 5.7 5,553,000
Mar. 1962 7.8 5,392,900
Sept. 1935 - 59.9
Maj 1955 19.7 41.8
July 1948 — 505.4
Sept. 1959 11.15 476,6
Aug. 1964 4.89 471.8
June 1969 4.85 458.8
June 1955 — 263.67
Aug. 1959 4.12 258.74
Oct. 1963 4.15 242.20
July 1957 10.28 21.53
Mar. 1955 11 .807
Spring 1941 — 15.8
ter. 1955 14 13.4
June 1952 — 15.197
Apr. 1958 5.796 13.463
May 1939 — 17.59
Aug. 1957 18.25 13.47
Apr. 1958 5.93 a. 706
Apr. 1958 6.59 14.242
Oct. 1922 — 560,000
Sept. 1958 36 461,757
Dec. 1948 — 498.45
July 1959 10.63 492.13
Aug. 1966 7.06 487. 11
Aug. 1935 — 8.710
Nov. 1957 22.22 7.968
Little deposition due to daai washout,
period was about 0.063 ac.-rt./nu2-yr.
Spillway crest was lowered 3 ft. in 1
Date of original survey for new dftffi o
Estinated or assumed.
.13
.13
.13
.405
.405
.405
.125
.100
—
-
—
-
-
1.74
1.61
.512
.357
3.05
2.87
2.84
2.77
1.410
1.384
1.327
.706
.591
.469
.J51
1.505
1.276
.407
.361
.239
.183
.594
.581
.419
.382
2.493
2.056
1.06
1.04
1.03
1930-47. True
932; capacitiea
ver deposits pi*
—
-
•85
40.7
~
63.4
63.3*
65.9
-
52.3
66.9
70.2
52.1
57.9
62.5
•75
74.5
74.5
60.3
60.3
61.49
91
88
70.95
•70.2
79.68
68.53
-
—
1.53
2.52
1.16
1.26
4.59
2.41
1.02
.689
3.«2
2.54
2.23
.64
.495
.599
.361
.785
1.00
.709
1.37
1.20
.46
1.25
1.52
3.22
1.07
.69
1.06
.559
-
2,832
2,234
5,275
3,505
3,201
5*4
1.104
588
991
1,2*1
9*5
2,23»
1,94*
74*
1,993
1,996
4,229
1,433
1,368
2,032
863.82
1.15 1,758.30
.325 5*4.01
.733 1,094.06
1.32 -
70 .37 564
•75 .45 816
•60 1.15 1,502.82
aediJoent accuwlation rate f
are based on present elevati
iced behind old dan.
CE
a
scs
scs
so
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
EB
a
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
op
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS HADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
!
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN
PER
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
DRY)
ILB. PER
CU. FT.)
SfnffiHT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ W-
OFNETDR
AREA FOB
PEUODSMNN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGEHCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
HED RIYER BA3H (ABOVE DEKI30M) (Continuad)
to
5O-29»
50-30b
50-31»
50-32b
50-36b
50-38
50-39
50-40
50-4lb
3.89
6.46
3.50
2.87
.171
.162
.205
8.18
—
—
—
5.22
_
—
—
—
.61
—
—
—
3. 84
—
—
—
5.2*
—
—
3.46
_
—
—
2.80
—
__
—
1.00
—
—
—
11. 28
—
—
5.11
—
—
10.04
—
—
—
—
2.20
—
.171
.162
—
.205
.60
—
—
—
.95
—
—
—
1.73
—
—
Jan.
A«e.
Oct.
*«,.
"«I
Apr.
*7
Aug.
July
Apr.
Oct.
Oct.
July
MU-.
July
S«pt.
July
Apr.
Oct.
Sept.
fer.
Oct.
Oct.
5«pt.
Apr.
Oct.
S.pt.
July
Sept.
»ay
Aug.
July
Aug.
July
S^t.
Aog.
Dm.
Oct.
S.pt.
Aug.
Aug.
Oct.
Oct.
Aug.
June
Aug.
Oc'..
Oct.
Sc.pt.
Jan.
Apr.
Oct.
Apr.
D«c.
Apr.
Ju.
S«pt.
Aug.
June
Hay
July
Oct.
July
Mar.
S«pt.
Aug.
1957
I960
1961
1970
1951
1956
1960
1965
1970
1951
1956
1961
1966
1951
1957
1961
1966
1951
1962
1967
1951
1957
1962
1967
1951
1956
1961
1966
1951
I960
1965
1970
1952
1957
1961
1966
1951
1956
1961
1966
1951
1956
1960
!%•;
1970
1951
1957
1962
1967
1947
1958
1945
1958
1944
1958
1949
1959
1964
1969
1949
1959
1963
1968
1950
1960
1965
—
3.5!
4.14
5.81
—
4.96
4.06
5.02
4.92
—
5.47
5.00
4.80
—
6.39
4.19
4.81
—
11.53
4.96
—
6.5»
5.0
4.93
_»
5.50
4.90
4.80
—
3.68
5.25
4.98
—
4.92
4.2.
4.86
—
4.62
4.88
4.86
—
5.13
4.04
4.79
4.91
—
6.16
5.0
4.96
—
11.266
—
12.564
—
13.33
—
10.70
4.91
4.85
—
10.25
4.2>
4.82
—
10.50
4.95
2,401.1
2,303.3
2,277.3
2,213.1
1,591.29
1.453.69
1,380.47
1,344.75
1,338.82
157.68
148.40
139.98
125.60
1,273.21
1,217.58
1,152.23
1,127.06
1,956.05
1,813.2
1,806.22
1,275.09
1,217.59
1,178.72
1,175.25
1,046.02
1.01B.8
943.9
888.0
315.15
283.09
286.79
275.82
4,463.43
4,294.49
4,164.87
4,038.34
2,065.88
2,033.89
1,987.93
1,979.45
1,584.9
3,465.8
3,322.4
3,292.7
3,276.0
970.7
942.12
913.51
873.9
15.794
13.943
a. 035
16.627
7.353
6.673
223.4
207.7
199.6
179.9
242.4
236.2
233.8
229.3
587. 3P
566.24
548,66
2.72
2.61
2.58
2.51
4.67
4.26
4.05
3.94
3.93
4.38
4.12
3.89
3.4?
4.45
4.26
4.03
3.94
4.12
3.82
3.80
4.94
4.72
4.57
4.56
6.23
6.06
5.62
5.29
4.85
4.43
4.40
4.24
7.29
7.02
6.81
6.60
4.41
4.35
4.25
4.23
5.53
5.15
5.13
5.06
5.06
b.14
5.97
5.78
5.63
.329
.290
.438
.346
.197
.179
4.33
4.02
3.87
3.49
1.11
1.08
1.07
1.05
1.780
1.716
1.663
90
90
•91
—
61.49
83.11
83.11
•83
70.20
77.87
•77
—
95.7
—
•80
70.7
•72
—
75.78
79.4
•SO
—
79.3
82.8
•75
—
93.08
68.1
*75
—
77.94
74.85
•76
—
8O.6
79.79
•77
70.4
59
59
•60
81.53
79.4
•83
77.65
—
85.34
82.73
75.68
75.68
•75
61
61
•61
—
85
74
3.34
.77
1.24
—
5.31
3.16
1.36
.23
2.79
2.75
4.92
—
2.27
4.06
1.36
2.36
.27
_—
2.52
2.20
.20
—
1.77
5.46
4.16
1.12
.25
2. 20
—
3.04
2.73
2.31
—
1.30
1.84
.34
__
2.31
3.53
.62
.34
2.08
2.W.
3.63
—
.959
—
2.167
.249
2.45
2.75
6.77
.63
.60
.98
—
1.16
2.05
6,547
1,509
2,563
__
7,111
6,263
2,462
360
„
4,266
4,672
8,184
—
4,731
5,501
1,980
3,634
529
_
4,160
4,148
436
__
3,057
9,996
5,627
—
6,320
371
3,611
—
5,161
4,209
3,874
—
2,281
3,131
402
3,540
5,418
797
526
3,694
4,445
7,036
—
1,621.88
—
4,027.81
448.66
4,038.4
4,532.9
10,872
834.1
794.4
1,274.6
—
2,147
3,304
9C3
scs
so;
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
-------
*>•
00
50-4 5*
50-46
50-47«
5O-48
50-49
5O-5O
50- 5i
50-52
1-1
51-2
51-3
51-4
51-5
51-*
51-7
51-«b
51-9
51-10
5i-n
51-12
51-13
51-14
51-15
51-16a
51-17
51-18
51-19
51-20
~ . -
^
Chigley Sandy Sit* Ko. 4
do
Floo-1 H*t*rdirtg 3tmctor« Bo.
2 Su* O. Hftter*«J
Rarnlt fc 1A
. "
3ng»r Cr*** Site ft>. 13
Upp*r tbahlta River Sit* *2<-
Kmt Cr** *.t«-«h«d Site «.-
r? ti r L a, •>
Saddl* Mowtaln W>. 2
T«T*U City talw
Variety Club Boys* Ranch Lake
Brid*rimort
1O^ f-Ll
do .
do
tin
S-W-- =~*
«a*ita KiT.r
7*.
Saddle toontain Cr*«k
(to
ft!
HM Fk.of Trinity B±T«X>
Tri». »r a. cr~t
*
r
_ ^^
""^ Ul*ftrti
U* lu»hf rv.nk
*
~" Jw
. r '
W«»t Fork of Trtjiity 81r«r
o .ccur fvr««t
J '
rto
_lnt
• t*li-
do
Hloton, Okla.
dim T
-anaflla t r
*do*' T
n 1 rfci
rto ***' *'
J_
CariMgi., Okl*.—
SaBlBK, MECKSS,
do
IVwto T
^^ do "^
'
^
°» «r.
ao
^
_^_
D .. , •
° *
RlHrtMnm^
^ ^dfl"1" ' VX'
f r± Uartii T
° d«r^' ta~
_,_
P«l sti
1»J.O 1J1e, Tcx-
ShmtsrlU T
do *
1
3.80
2.13
4.22
1.99
7.14
l.W
2.13
3.43
AID TSltlTT
9.20
.91
.58
.3/9.48
.59
99.1
2.12
6.24
3.14
1.48
.30
1.83
,051
,875
1.05
.36
2.55
3.1S
J.73
2.05
4.11
1.93
6.96
2.05
3.37
SIYKS B1SI
8.71
.82
.54
1^157
8.56
.43
274.4
97.4
2.02
6.18
2.87
1.42
.29
1.75
1,033
J/809
1.01
.33
2.50
3.05
»««.
CM.
A<«.
*r.'
J«lj
^oljr
HOT.
rtf>!
Oct.
«0».
Julj
Apr.
Jan.
AX-
Jail
Apr.'
Apr.
S^>t.
IS
Oct.
»«.
S^t.
S^fi.
S^t.
S^rt..
Mc>!
Apr.
Apr.
fbr.
Oct.
Apr!
«OT.
OK.
JmM
Apr.
Jane
Apr.
Apr.'
F.b.
Har.
Har.
•or.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
JulT
1959
1963
1968
1955
1958
1963
1969
1959
196!
1958
1963
1968
1964
1965
1961
1966
1964
1966
1959
1965
1970
1959
1*5
1970
1921
1949
1895*
1949
1880
1949
1928
1938
1921
1949
1885
1949
1937
1946
1910
1935
1956
1970
1925
1730
1938
y
1950
1926
1939
1942
1950
1914
1938
1932
1943
1934
1939
1952
1899
1939
1926
1939
1919
1939
1930
195O
10.32
4.12
4.84
2.62
5.52
5.76
5.90
4.85
1.87
1.70
4.6
2.1
5.9
5.19
6
5.26
28.25
54
69
10.5
28
64
9.7
25
20.9
14.6
13.25
8.5
12.8
7.8
23.6
10.8
5
13
40
13
20
20
200.0
194.0
190.3
1,075.3
1,054.8
1,018.0
966.7
655.99
639.60
1,72). 2
1,645.9
1,633.9
532.17
503.79
1,315.92
1.3U.74
622.01
613.83
656.0
639.6
635.4
771.3
^751.4
2^19
1,605
319
205
181
92
180,759
167,072
8,012
6,657
756
659
37,520
27,100
18,158
14,276
12,321
10,743
531
509
370
328
i/2,085
iA,7U
376
298
38
33
396
275
6/292,000
283,240
6/211,000
205,175
182,000
270
204
295
271
222
199
lakea in watershed »*»ich contributes
y Lake Clark «aa built in 1940 downvtreaii fro* "Ermis H«v Lake'
in 1«95. Club Lake and a Kmli pond now sub»erg«#iich lias upatr
me of all Uk**
• flood storage.
*JB fro* Eagle Mt. Ras«rvolr.
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN.
RATIO
(ACRE-IT.
PER
ACRt-KT)
SPECIFIC
WEIGHT
[DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
sfsmmrr
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ. m,
OFNETDB.
AREA FOB
PERJOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGBICV
SUPPLYING
DATA
SABIlffi, HECHES, AH) THIMITT RIVER BASINS (Continued)
5i-a
51-22
51-23
51-21
51-25a
51-26b
51-?7b
51-28a
51-29
51-30
5i-3ia
51-32
51-33
51-34
51-35
51-36
51-37
51-36
51-39
51-10
51-41
52-1
53-2
Hun*? Lake—
Kerens City Lake-
Variety Club Lake
Clear Fit. Watershed Site
Ho. 10.
do-
Honey Creek Site »o. 12
Damon City Lake-
do
Lake Cherokee
Lavon Reservoir
Site Ho. 11B Kin Fk. Watershed
Gar«a-Little Sim Reserroir
(Lewisville Dan).
* ~ ":
Clear Cre«k Watershed Site
Ho. 21.
Upper Lake Fit. Watershed
Site 23
Lake Ai.cn G. Carter
Thanbers Creek Site 37
Chanters Creek Site 101-A
Clear Fork Watershed
Site Ho. 7.
Denton Creak Watershed
Site Mo. 17.
to
East Keechi Creek Site No. 1-
Lake Corpus Christ!
Hedine Lake
do
last Fork of Trinity River
_ do
Cow Cr«ek
Trib. of Trinity River
Trinity River •
do . .-
" *l .
-------
71
en
53-3
53-4
52-5
52-6
52-7
52-8a
52-9
52-10
52-11
52-12
52-13
52-14
52-15
52-16*
52-17
53-1
53-2
53-3
53-4
53-5
53-6
53-7a
53-S
53-9
53-10
53-11
53-12
53-13
53-U
53-15
53-16
53-1?
53-18
I/ Ot
•toss Ranch Stock Pond
Moss Ranch Stock Pond
Reims Tank
do
Bakor Lake
Calaveras Creet- Site Ho. 6
Steith Pond
do
Site Ho. 1 Escondido Creak
CuKiirigs Creek Watershed
Site Mo. 6.
3D
Lake Scarborough •
do
Lake Bants —
-Jo •• » •• •
Hubbard City Lake Ho. 3
Hubbard City Lake No. 4
Rogers Lake
do
Hnbbard City Lake Ho. 1
rfej ' — — —
Hubbard City Lake No. 2
Hubbard City Lake No. 5
Lake Law
Loraets— • • —
Heridian Lake
Killer Lake
?os»u« Kingdom Lake
flock .ruahcr
Old Santa Anna City Lake — - —
•ieijial capacity fron nap by stere
do
S. Bull Creek
"». Bull Creek •
Trib. of Sandy Creek
Trib. of San Antonio fii-er
C 1 ° "
r_aia araa TOOK
IVIh A<>f ' *Ar> (>••*
'do' "S"°n °
Trib. of Llano Elver
^ H rvir, " *V
Trio, u c. -re
Trib. of Bonito Creek
Cib»lo Greek —
Qm.daJ.upo i r
Trib. of Deer Creek
GuadJtlnpe River Basin.
San Antofu.0 River
do- — - —
e r— *
do
BRAZOS
Trib. of Jia Ned Creek
-~° -^
do
Mercer Creek —
nm r (*•
Oi-uHi* Croak
Trlb. of E. Cottonwod Cr-
Trib. of Little River
Trifc. S. Cottonwod Creek-
do
East Cotton-ood Creek
Hedbank Cree*
Salt & Emory Creeks
Trib. of Horse Creek
d
Brazos River
liacncior Lrocic
ftikexater Creak
o photogramoetric aethods.
p/i
do
Llano, Tex. —
do — ,
do
So T
r *
San Antonio, Tex.
Hext, Tex.
°
*
Jourdanton, Tex.
Bo«me, Tex.
do *
T
Kenedy, Tex.
do
idd^a, «.
RIVEB BASIN (SOUTH BEMD TO
Colemn, Tex.
Santa Anna Tex
do
Cooanche, Tax.
Hubbard, Tot.
Rogers, Tex.
Hubbard, Tex.
" do
do
Lam, Tex.-
Lonata, Tax.
do
Meridian, TEE.
do
San Saba, Tex.
Graford, Tex. 13_/
Colemm Tox.
j '
Santa Anna, Tex.
9,350
.07
.20
.15
3.17
7.01
8.43
1.35
.769
.191
1.54
2.34
2.76
3.01
2.99
WASHINGTON)
10.8
1.17
13.76
11.65
.16
1.40
.55
.03
.11
13.0
4.74
3.30
.56
16.5
1' .
19,313
.07
.19
.14
3.10
6.70
7.94
1.34
.74'
.188
1.52
2.32
2.75
2.83
2.76
KIDDLE, AND
10.6
1.05
13.57
11.50
.14
1.35
.51
.5
.03
.10
12.8
4.60
3.20
.38
.55
12,955
16.48
Oraindge ar
June 1937
Feb. 1941
1909
Feb. 1941
— 1903
Feb. 1941
— 1916
Feb. 1941
Sept. 1950
Aug. 1955
Deo. 1956
Mar. 1968
July 1958
July 1960
Aug. 1951
Aug. 1955
Feb. 1951
Sept. 1955
Aur. 1953
Aug. 1955
Sept. 1952
Aug. 1955
Jan. 1949
June 1964
Sept. 1949
June 1964
Sept. 1954
June 1964
July 1969
Aug. 1958
Sept. 1963
Aug. 1969
COLORADO RIVER
May 1923
May 1940
May 1923
Apr. 1940
May 1926
Sept. 1946
May 1917
May 1940
— 1913
May 1949
— 1917
May 1949
Fall 1922
Sept. 1934
1896
H»y 1949
— 1912
May 1949
— 1925
May 1949
— 1911
— 1912
Feb. 1941
Apr. 1948
Sept. 1913
Mar. 1941
July 1925
July 1949
May 1941
Feb. 1949
1910
Feb. 1941
Jan. 1910
June 1940
e« it 31,250 sq
3.7
32
38
25
4.95
11.25
2.0
4
4.54
2.4
2.91
15.42
14.75
9.8
5.1
5.1
5.9
BASINS
17
17
20.3
23
36
32
12
51
37
24
29
14
27.5
24
7.75
31
30.5
- "i- ,
370,010
954,859
4.7
4.5
9.3
9.1
12
11.6
251
226
1,697.82
1,661.12
2,728.0
2,667.8
11.96
11.45
80.3
76.5
6.41
5.60
142.4
135.2
10/48.97
43.75
10/45.12
41.51
924.7
906.2
890.1
858.3
855.2
854.1
2,153
2,007
766
745
1,313
1,221
962
855
11/104.5
90.2
U/318.2
255.4
164
126.5
IgAlO
84
12/36.3
33.0
44.8
37.8
530
354
759
732
723
692
83
75
75.1
52.6
729,985
672,420
153
30
153
118
of which 11 , 900
".649
«.639
-
.595
.540
1.65
1.62
2.022
1.978
.081
.078
1.959
1.866
.361
.315
.578
.549
.078
.070
.061
.056
2.30
2.26
2.22
.77
.77
.76
-
-
•jq. mi. are n
34.65
66.17
47.08
45.6
27.8
28.3
49.6
51.41
45.2
43
-
.21
.07
.021
.12
1.50
.49
3.79
.09
1.12
1.80
1.64
.15
.09
.67
1.12
.22
.07
.81
1.18
.334
.40
2.86
1.45
6.12
1.0
3.0
3.0
.46
.20
.69
— .71
— 1.71
- .57
.14
1.31
oncontributing.
— SC9
_ S3
— 3C3
— SO
— SC3
1,132
— SCS
706
— 505
3,886
— SCS
— SOS
1,112
_ SCS
1,090
_ SCS
3CS
92
— SOS
97
— SCS
1,710
— SCS
— SCS
907
_ SCS
1,162
— SCS
— SCS
375
— SCS
_ SCS
— SOS
_ SCS
_ SCS
— SCS
— SCS
_ SCS
_ SCS
_ SCS
— SCS
— SCS
— SCS
Z/ "Original" or 191.5 capacity adjusted in 1961 by range 1.
i»e "Oct. 53" area and capacity.
3_/ Sediment pool oily.
L/ Adjusted for l°-2 survey of Lake Dallas.
y Adjusted in Aor. 1963 for detailed range survey in 1952-53-5^-
£/ Determined by USGS Nov. 1961.
2/ 1951 adjusted data.
£/ Deposits above Highway 190 bridge only. Sot corrected for de^
trola ost-abliahad in 1953
Original capacity doterained by spudding on 1964 survey.
ll/ Daa was raised in 1925 and 1949. Capacities based on 1949 l
12/ Dam was raised in 19.25. Capacity based on 1925 level.
1J/ Includes 1,111 sq. mi. of partially contributing drainage as
3,900 sq. mi. of non^ontributing drainage at head of nwtershed.
* Eatinated or assuaed.
i in waterahed, excluds
i Between highway and
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W THE UNITED STATES THROUGH
05
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
1
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TO»N
DRAINAGE: AREA
(SQUARE WLES)
! i TOTAL
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
\ACRE-FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG ANN
INFLOW
RATIO
(ACHE-FT
PER
ACHt-r-T)
SPECIFIC
WEIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ ML
OF NET OB.
AREA FOB
PERJOC SHOWN
AC.-FT. ] TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN (SOUTH BUID TO
) "IDDLE, AND :CLORADO ^IVER BAJIK5 'Continued)
53- 21
53-22
5V 24
53-25
5-5-26
53-27
53-28
53-29
53-3Cfc
53-31*
53-32
53-3U
53-36a
53-37
^3-38
53-39
53-40
53-U
'3-1,5
53-46
Old ColMM City Lake
ilO
dx>'
Uke^tt^TirtU » •
du
R. G. Boll lagWDrth Stock
Pood.
J. S. Wan Stock PonA.
Milt* Tank
7l«.rerle« Stock Pond (Horth)-
Stlth lake
Philpeeo Lake-
do
LtUleV Bi-ilUll
-- u.
do
do
do
• do
LlkL EiliJlnuji
Site Mo. 3 Cow Bayou — •
do
Co** Bajou Mo. i.
do
Green Creek Mo. 1—
do
^°
do
Silver I-nke
Main Res. Deep Creek Site 5 —
Upper Rea. Deep Creek Site 5-
• do
to
Sulfur Creek Site 3
-- -do-
Whitney Reeervolr
Site No, 1O-A Hukevstar Creek
Ukn Daniel •
"He 9 Lower 3an J«ba Bi«er--
Hra Creek
». ..CT - _i-
~*r
ai
dO
0
do
Trib. of Brady Cr»«k
Trtb.^of Jl. M =r^_
Redbank Cr^k
Paint Creek
Paean Bayou (Colo. BiTer)-
j~
U*i
*
~°
do
Fiiiit^iTeait
"do
j
j *
° „
'-^te *°"
Sreen Cr.*
j
H. K. Trib. of Leon Ri»er-
' do°
y*
do
i"
Mid. oloradG or
^
L.^..,., M,.r
do
to
' **"rtn °r
1 An^
do
GOT^e, .reek
Morado R,,.r
ColaMai , TBJL.
„ . ••
do
^^cr^~ ° ' 'at'*
*
do' ~*~
da
Brady, Ttau
Bro«TWod, T-tt.
La», T«
do
Pioneer, Tax*
Brownwod, T«x. 1
.
yo. T 'A
C°'dj ~"
do
C *iaja TOOL.
j^ '
Pfc&JJ, ex.
do
do
Dublin, Tax.
Brad T
BTTU1J, ta'
"^ , '
ui-j» » i An
— !!Sl_±
d *I"
n T
ng3, ex.
ftreckenrldge, rex.
--» -»•-. T«
0.73
12.0
225
74.4
1.73
2.60
.80
.13
1.04
9.04
,649
"
42
1.40
5 'lr
3.42
3.57
.37
2.91
2.19
4.75
10.81
,656
4.26
15.^6
115
3.03
0.69
11.9
224.7
1.71
2.58
.35
.60
.13
9.00
1,533
2/1,645
41.4
1.32
5.2C
3.19
3.38
.334
2.72
2.18
4.55
10.58
.2/3,480
4.02
,4.59
113
2.88
Nov.
June
fer.
Jane
Ibr.
Dec.
Feb.
Jm>e
Feb.
K»r.
«W
Feb.
»"«-
ipr!
Feb.
Jiilj
Feb.
Sept.
Apr.
Feb.
Feb.
0»:.
Oec.
Feb.
»J
Nov.
»"«.
»»«.
Ipr.
July
Sept.
HOT.
•»«.
Apr.
Jan.
Apr.
June
Julj
*ug.
July
Aug.
July
J»n.
June
July
Deo.
«o,.
Aug.
Dec.
Ap,.
Dec
Sept
Har.
A»g.
*>».
Jen.
iept.
1906
1940
1923
1941
1920
1941
1922
1941
1900
19*1
1937
1941
1927
1941
1936
1941
1941
1926
1941
1925
1941
1932
1940
195°
1930
1935
1936
1947
1964
1929
1954
1955
1960
19*5
1970
1956
1969
1953
1960
1955
1957
1962
1967
1910
1960
1953
1961
19'3
1961
1961
1965
1970
1959
1962
1968
1941
1959
1951
1966
1965
1966
1949
19^0
1960
33.6
17.-5
20.75
19.5
41
3.7
14
4.8
14.6
15.9
7.6
19.6
4.9
1.0
11.8
17.0
25.25
4.75
5.04
4.69
13.2
6.8
1.8
5.2
5.2
50
7.9
7.9
4.42
5.1
2.8
5.8
- 6/
7.4
14.8
1.4
21.4
299
273
610
560
1/1,637
1,275
iO,7U
9,032
33
29
20
14
13
12.2
4.5
3.6
1.12
.80
1O2
93
173
149,925
145,720
135,963
)9,378
33,717
31,588
22,026
15,427
6,583
5,917
458.5
393.3
375.4
366.7
l.'flS
1,833.53
925.18
881.30
1,095
1,080
1.O65
1,063
153.3
145.0
1,326.7
1,295.7
15.2
11.2
732.94
7O8.42
703.41
3,229.2
3,224.7
3,223.3
'2,013,600
1,999,500
1,409.81
1,367.81
3,164.89
3,157.99
10,731
9,515
645.79
635.49
1.011
.983
.917
1.144
1.028
.23
.05
.00
.98
.24
.19
.821
.688
.98
.96
.93
.93
.435
.296
.755
.644
.072
.053
.38
.33
.32
.6
.6
.6
.70
.62
.85
-
a. 9
i*2.2
•M.5
*5fl.5
*5«.5
49,2
_
—
7b.57
73.6
—
49.9
—
,-
—
55
62.6
US
—
0.67
.2.4
.06
1.19
.058
.66
.16
.24
.10
.63
.07
.361
.325
.695
1.28
.487
.236
.64
—
10.40
-J.69
l.U
1.19
2.0O
—
.11
—
.527
—
1.4*
.23
1.22
.22
—
I/. 02
.55
.71
-34
.49
.1*6
-
_
329
299
886
1,631
621
—
687
—
—
—
1,572
—
1,149
3.335
—
i/S
—
—
250
—
—
y*
749.88
—
—
—
512
723
XS
SCS
scs
SCS
scs
SOS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
9CS
CS
SCS
SCS
SCS
5SS
SCS
SCS
SCS
3CS
SCS
SCS
a.
SCS
SCS
iCS
SCS
-------
i ri i s I s i i ft
rt 38 3 6| R £ 3 B
I " I ' ' I ' I ' ! ' I ' ! ' ! ' I
Sfl t H i-l J tV ^
O O O O O O t
I "' I -1 I ' ! ' I ' I ' ! ' ! I
1 I !f^i£)£>l2l'ii'
i fi
b S .
""
i I
5
15 I
~-l£~-3-3U-,,IQ~r4
^^^.^^^^^^^S:
r i o- i i w i
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
^
00
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
'
RESERVOIR
STREAM
I
1
NEAREST TOf N
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL ] NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN.
WFUJt
BATTO
(ACRE-IT.
PEB
Al.RM'T)
KECmC
•EIGHT
DRY)
LR PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN.
samam
ACdMDLA-nOK
POSQ. H.
OF NET W.
A3EAFDB
PERIOD SBOtJN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGCMCY
SUPPLYBIG
DATA
RIO GRiSDE BAiIli (BSPAJELA TO TOUT CJUITKU
<7-lb
57-2
57-3a
57-4
57-5
57-7
57-11
57-12
57-15*
57-16
57-17
57-19
«-?
Klaph*nt Butt— Wo Gr«*. RiTT
_,
j£ - *•
to *>
|y - - *l •
Ao . - *»
Corofl»ld Ifcrti (1) — Trlb. of Eio Ptwroo tt»«^
Cornfiald fa* (2) do
C«-nfield Utah (4) <*•
_' *° - ,
_. .A, ... — do
Oorafiald *.* (15) do-
San Luis (1) do •
•* ** Trlh T J n
™*" do
Caballo Arroyoa Sit* 1 Oodcrwood Arroyo
J? A
_t* ^ 9 ™-OJO ^ JO
Sit* /3 (Rawonaa Arroyo) Haaon«8 Arroyo
10 ^l
Horth *ltm Sito f2 toi-th 3u« ioyu
**? IF A fl TjiJ A
RoJwj (HnLi.h 7«llt/ Ariuju »j. *^. inT^-
Pwcoa RlTor
-^k. • rto-
J° tin
do do
•Jo i-
*T4*oi, .J.«o Arolany- trz-i I»c
___^ , do
Klaphant Butt*, *. Hex. 25,923
do
do
do
do —
*>
.-do- ...
Troth or Cons«»qu«nc«»,2/3O,7OO 3^
1. fex.
B^noU, 1. NKK. 93.1
a**, «. ««. .29
do .87
—— * 1-ls
. 1 nj.
do
do
(U>
do 1.04
do 1 06
B.™llllo, «. Itox. 1,034
_i_
do
Cuba, 1. ttot. .74
Dcrrr, *. Max. — .87
rto 1.17
j
uprea PECOS HTVER BASI«
°~
n
ai-.sba<. , . ex.
*,
5,866
—
93.1
.28
.85
1.17
1.03
1.05
66
1,034
.74
.87
39.9
3,749
ofvn
'
-
Jan.
Oct.
pr.
pr.
NOT.
2«i
Apr.
Oct.
Apr.
Oct.
Apr.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Doc.
Oct.
Oct.
Jan.
Julj
Jul/
HOT.
D*c.
Sapt.
pr'
July
1915
1925
1947
196"?
1957
1929
1951
I960
1951
I960
1951
I960
I960
I960
I960
1953
1952
I960
I960
1953
1958
1965
1952
1962
1959
1968
1931
1936
5.0
5.5
6.5
12.2
19.9
27.4
4/10
V
4/10
4/10
4/10
4/10
4/7
4/8
Vs
v^
5/4 25
5/1.6?
i/6.33
6.7
6.3
15. 2S
2,634,900
2,339,380
2,270,300
2,219,000
2,137,219
343,990
3J58
24.0
10.3
54.1
2.6
22.1
17.4
9.2
3.0
3.1
.3
16.3
22.6
19.6
19.0
117,213
115,821
112,809
*3.0
73.21
232
160
69
190.82
17O.91
141.25
1,180
1,150
156,750
110,655
5,64?
-
2.2O
2.31
.190
.160
1.446
.620
3.127
2.607
.711
.313
1.277
1.006
-474
.155
.639
.023
6.593
.676
2.155
.683
2.844
2.810
2.763
2.737
15.9
14.9
6.9
4.76
5.5
•9.4
15.4
12.7
_
.946
.797
--
-
•60
60.0
62
80
—
—
_
__
—
—
.
—
•75.7
*75.7
•75.7
_
m
noo
•110
•no
98.5
85
—
•73-5
•73.5
•73.5
76.7
.475
.361
.22
.0761
.27
4.89
1.06
1.32
.40
.60
1.67
2.15
.01
.58
2,43
.317
1.1M
.162
.62
.64
3.30
6.03
27.16
.35
1.55
.083
.876
1.03
.281
6/.0263
.0599
-
621
357
470
_
_
-
—
—
—
523
1,860
267
1,547
7,187
LA, 44*
102,597
750.9
2,869
_
—
1,410
1,649
450
-
a
scs
OS
OB
OS
OS
OS
OS
nil
OS
scs
acs
acs
scs
acs
an
at
-------
T*
oo
*
uaruL L "1L fl
ui^ji-iLamlu Jlte fl
T*
j
7°
ft *7
™ncrv"t *^
do
*
rf-
1°
*in
** jT
*
*
Aft
*lrD°" **^
-
i*o*rnon f20
^
San Carlos (Coolidge Du)
0
do
Stock Tank Ho. 16 (Bryce Dam)
Roosevelt- Salt River Project-
j°
do
°
A
do
^_
do
da
do
da
do
Agu Frl* Rlw
^^ da ™
^
rin
-i in «. T r «*
da " **" °
~°
do
da
do
do
Cap! tan, 1. Max.— 122 93.92
do
da
do
.
COLOUDO RIVER BASIN (BHJ3W HOOTER DAK
Williams and Lower Gila Hirer Basins
GILA RIVER BASIM
Phoenix, Ari«. • 1,450 1,4-Wt
m », »_j 11 r«ifi .11 drtrt
, Ul*. J-.9OO ,VU"J
do
j
do
ii-I 6*? 69
Ml,
r ,_ r ,
do
do
— Oo
do
•ov.
»aj
Jane
Dec.
Jan.
July
*v
Oct.
MT
Mr.
Feb.
Jan.
Feb.
Oct.
Feb.
Oct.
Feb.
Oct.
Mr.
*v
»pr.
Oct.
Nar.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Oct.
•ov.
Oct.
MX.
*v
Jan.
Oct.
Oct.
MX.
Oct.
MX.
Oct.
ipr.
Feb.
aov.
Feb.
Jan.
Mar.
Hav
Dec.
Oct.
Sept.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
1904
1910
1915
1925
1932
1940
1956
1959
1959
1961
1962
1963
1965
1955
1965
1955
1965
1955
1965
1955
1957
1959
1965
1955
1956
1958
1959
1965
1954
1965
1955
1957
1958
1958
1965
1955
1965
1955
1965
1928
1941
1928
1935
1937
1947
1966
1936
1941
1909
1914
1916
1925
1935
1939
1946
10.42
6.42
4.50
10.08
7.50
7.08
16.50
.42
1.58
.83
.92
1.92
10.67
10.67
10.67
2.17
1.91
6.50
1.75
1.08
1.00
6.75
10.92
2.17
.67
.75
7.00
10.67
10.58
12.9
6.3
1.9
10.0
19.6
5.2
5.7
1.8
8.9
9.3
4.0
7.0
73,000
61,500
45,500
42,000
40,500
38,655
2/39,400
4,972.14
4,946. 54
4,896.60
4,818.00
4,796.41
4,749. 54
4.77
3.52
7.20
1.59
4.09
1.59
2.21
1.60
1.52
.49
5.45
4.30
3.62
3.02
.55
23.78
16.05
20.19
18.04
17.99
17.58
16.05
15.60
2.20
6.55
5.77
184,500
176,456
1,266,837
1,232,725
1,230,695
1,209,343
1,170,118
11.43
5.13
1,522,200
1,495,460
1,460,150
1,425,813
1,418,013
1,398,430
1.381.580
5»-6
5»-7
58-8
58-9
58-11
58-12
58-13
58-14
60-1
60-2.
60-3
60-4
I/ Total storage ehows a gain of 9,180 ac.-ft. since 1947 survey attributable priaarily to compaction.
2/ Includes 2,940 sq. Hi. in closed basin in Sen LniB Valley, Cole.
3/ Drainage aree between gaging station below Elephant Bntte Du and gaging station below Caballo Dan
lees original water surface area of Caballo Besexvoir at elevation 4,225.3.
^/ Bnnoff seasons.
5/ Tljes periods adjusted.
y Coejpected sediieent for 1,080 eq. ed.; values for 16,03O sq. id. are given in appendix
.344
.276
.232
J.7Z
.159
.153
046
.149
•70
5/62.4
•75
75
75
75
75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
•75
6.054
5.891
5.882
5.780
5.592
1.886
1.853
1.809
1.767
1.757
1.733
1.712
•70
•70
•70
•70
•70
•70
.116
.120
.238
.023
.013
.017
.004
.65
.34
1.01
.25
.26
.01
1.46
.24
.83
2.75
2.63
2.49
1.53
.45
1.39
.14
.7*
.31
.70
.46
.432
.455
.090
.179
.168
1.75
.819
3.350
.670
.145
.850
.418
1,060
555
1,649
403
424
16
1,500
554
2,380
391
1,352
4,555
4,260
4,130
2,519
734
2,262
228
1,241
505
1,142
752
scs
3CS
sea
scs
3C3
GS
1,248
5,107
1,021
221
1,296
637
?/ Increase in capacity due vainly to compaction.
8/ Only surface samples (1.0-3.1 ft.) in approxlmtely 1/3 of r»s«r»lr area below
crest.
2/ Drainage area is 100 ae. plus pipe flow from Pearson Al. t-hieh has a drainage a
10 ac., plus pipe and emergency spillway flow fro« Pearson AS, which haa a drainage are
1.80 sq. KL.
* Eotiimted or assumed.
a of
of
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W TOE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
^.va*
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
1
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL
DATE OF
SURVEY
NET :
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVtt ANN.
INFIX)*
RATIO
(ACHE-FT.
PEB
AC8E-FT)
iPEOFIC
RIGHT
[DRY)
La PER
:u. rr.)
AVG. ANN
stxatan
ACOMJLATnN
PE8SQ. •*,
OF NET OB.
AtEAFOB
fSUCtH^MH
AC.-FT. | TOWS
ACBICY
SWPLYKG
DATA
en
O
•0-5
60-&
40-T
«M
•O-*
60-10
40-11
40-13
40-13.
60-14
40-H
ID-It
40-17
•o-u
10-11.
40-20
„ *
-B- Bt, fe. I, *
•o- m. •.. 5 do
^* a. iw< «.. < *>
B^c OaftaMa ate. 4 9f Trii. of KUXMOI Bry Uka —
BtlftBa M». «f OU« tt»«r
ai do
nuaaninii do
Loaar »«*• "aak f*ot« «aa»
fc^fc. 1 >»a.lbaB
*•»*>- 3 *>
•fetal fc. 3 *
Bl*Mr fmtm Ifcah Foot* "»*
«dU*« Trtt. of Foot, lull
ItoU IhA PM M Tl*b. of (Mia Mm.
imilii^ r^liannr tad A Trtb. of QM«D Cr«dc
minim n»nnn n™i *a — *>
Big ••*« Ml. ttak fl 1Mb. of Cmtaonial Utah —
W* bra ». T«* *2 do
•»»*„* do
•tot TMk *>
,1,. do
Open- «» T»ik tl«n- IhA
BirojMbAla Mt. Tank A THb. of BrowR>s CaoTon
U.A
J«H* *.*. hrt«i4«, Arix.
Saffbrd, Arix.
do— -. - -
Sunflow«r. Ariz.
Safford, Arls. — —
Flor«nc« Junction, Ariz.
—do.
Tonopah, Ariz.
do
-£
— _do- — —
Saloaa, Aril
igulla, *rlz.
do • -• -
Solonn, irlz.
J BtSIK (Continual)
l/t." t-1'
.a
10.92
2.18
.36
12.3
5.6«
.6
.38
.2
.9
•.80
1.78
.33
21.9
.6
1..9S
.71
5,312
5,618
.60
.33
1.09
.65
.51
.U
2/.60
2/1-88
.29
1.83
.11
4. 60
.21
10.92
.36
12.3
5.63
.6
.38
.2
.9
V.63
1.78
.38
*7.0
.6
4.95
.74
190
5,614
.58
.33
1.09
.65
.51
.U
J/.60
9/1-88
.29
1.83
.U
4.57
HOT.
B3T.
Sapt.
H&r.
Nov.
•or.
Ho*.
HOY.
Oct.
«•»»
fcr
Pab.
»V
fcj
Oct.
June
June
F.b.
iug.
HOT.
Jan.
tor.
Oct.
Kov.
Jan.
Jan.
July
July
Juna
Oct.
July
Oct.
*J
Hay
Juna
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Juna
Oct.
Jan.
Jan.
July
1936
1958
1917
1958
1938
1958
1947
195«
1*2
1958
1943
1958
1%1
1958
15*9
1960
1940
1960
1941
1960
1954
1960
1936
1958
19*8
1959
1954
1959
1949
1959
1946
I960
1936
1958
1950
I960
1939
1942
1950
1964
1945
1950
1963
1936"
1964
1936*
1964
1931
1961
1944
1%1
1960
1964
1960
1964
1954*
1965
1945
1965
1960
1964
1944*
1964
1958
1964
1957
1964
1964
41
20
2/7
2/12
1/5
4/6
11
20
19
6
22
11
5.4
10
14
22
10
3.50
8.33
4.9
13.1
•28
•28
30
17
4.3
4.3
•11
4.3
JO
6.3
7
.6
279
253
2.94
Z.5.
2.55
.70
14.7
.0
.43
.0
3.0
2.7
.8
,6
6.0
4.1
4.7
2.8
6.8
3.9
6.00
1.83
14.8
13.0
5.7
2.7
1.6
1.3
6.0
3.8
1.9
1.4
24.2
19.5
3.4
1.8
132,608
179,480
7/179,548
178,4*8
67,900
8/142,830
139,238
19,10
17.10
b.462
5.325
2,10
1.00
9.33
8.95
21.30
ZJ.O6
11.46
11.26
1.27
.67
7.61
4.08
10.09
9.93
2.21
^iS
6.50
158.79
154.24
153.16
2.847
2.582
.516
.44*
.009
.002
.218
0
.009
.008
.005
.004
.312
.214
.385
.230
1.889
1.083
.368
.112
.17*.
.084
.232
.183
.099
.073
.209
.168
.254
.134
.241
.507
.494
•1.705
•1.527
•1.04,9
-.864
.197
.094
1.3*6
1.291
•7.83
•7.74
•4.88
*4.79
.397
.209
.759
.407
*6.5l
*6.41
*.22S
'.173
•11.25
•11.02
•1.649
•1.796
•1.784
•75
•75
««5
•75
•75
•90
•90
•85
•90
•SO
««5
•75
•8O
•85
76.2
72.6
60
60
47.6
•50
91.97
52.5
46
•50
76.9
•76.9
.05
.008
.85
.10
.006
.006
.29
.26
.75
.78
.13
.15
.15
.03
.06
.23
6/-154
.044
.049
.12
.12
.033
.034
.11
.U
.09
.13
.015
.18
.14
.39
_
81.7
13.1
1,573
9.8
9.8
559
520
1,388
1.530
261
278
49
105
426
199
190
43
44
114
ia>
180
148.7
15
196
234.5
653.2
sea
9CS
3C3
3C3
S3
S3
3d
913
S3
3CS
xs
9CS
9C8
9CS
xs
xs
3CS
SC3
Bt
B>
scs
so
3CS
scs
3CS
S3
scs
3CS
3C3
3CS
acs
9CS
-------
60-41
60-42
60-43
6O-46
60-47
60-48
6O-49
Three 3ar B Deoris Basin
0
0
.
^
"^hree B*r " Debris Basin
0
0
0
0
^
0
-lo
Tb Bar D Deb &a
r "n
0
0
d
_jo
d
j
Tft-ie Bar p Debris Basin
"°
°
0
0
,j
9 *t
cnnc.. u.
Horsethi-f Basin
L71U[ ^ke
Granite Basin
n ° Tank
" C
_ t _
""^do
Trib. of Bock Creak
rf
It
a
do
to
1°
j°
j°
ri
da
H
°
~°
0
'
rt
rt
d
~°
0
0
°
do
j^
d
dQ
1°
1°
_,
^°
ainut uulcn
d
rf°
Horiethief Canyon —
Lynx Creek —
V rri R'
i . crae Kivcr
°
jcn • a
Trio. Flying »E" Wash
°
"do ^ a
Roosevelt, Ariz. .O?3
0
do-
do
°
j°
rt
iC
^4°
do
.0-
•10
rt
do
j°
°~ T>^
do .l-b
do
do
do
0
rf
rt
H
do
do-
J°
-O .107
0
do
do
do
j0
-O
-c
i^^stone, Ariz. .6
do
do ...
Crown King, Aris. .85
Prescott, Ariz. 18.14
o i,, & ;
icottsdale. Aria. .06
A AA
onopah, Ariz. .00
Wi k b A J "Q
" urS> - j-z. . V
do
.073 Aug.
Oct.
c
n^t*
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
.U9 Aug.
Oct.
-~t-
Oct.
Let.
Oct.
.126 Aug.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
n"'
Oct.
Oct.
.107 Mar.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
.6 June
June
June
.35
Nov.
«10 Mov.
3 /„ °V*
AJg.
.06 Jipr.
«Ug.
.^45 June
Apr.
.77 Kay
Sept.
.I2"f Hay
1959
I960
1961
1962
196 L.
1965
1966
3967
1966
1969
1970
1959
I960
1961
1962
196A
19o5
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1959
I960
1962
1964
1965
1166
1967
1968
1969
1970
1963
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1963
1069
10?0
1961
1967
1963
1967
1934
1969
1<^2
1939
1967
19U
1970
1939
1967
1956
1970
1965
107C
1.17
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
l.CG
l.oc
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.1'
1.00
1.00
^.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.1'
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
,51
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6
36
6
23
-:9-2
27.9
H.3
11/.23
LITTLE :OLORADO AND SAN JUAN RIVS? BASINS
•erted from Hawk Hollow.
Zuni, N. Hex ------
do
Oct. 1954 —
Hay I960 14/6
U/.01,
18
17
14
13.5
42.4
35.6
1,472
1,460
89
58
21
79.1
77.3
.99
.91
334.8
148.0
.6
.6
1.7
1.7
.44
.37
1.07
1.06
*.32
*.21
1.529 *1.91
6.63
20.87
20.39
1.59
1.46
1.425
.630
•uo
mo
•uo
•uo
mo
•110
•uo
•uo
•uo
mo
•uo
•uo
•uo
•uo
mo
mo
•110
•uo
•uo
•uo
•110
•110
•uo
•110
mo
•uo
mo
•uo
•uo
•110
mo
•110
•uo
•uo
•uo
•uo
•uo
•uo
75
75
-
-
-
-
74.8
94.1
88.2
12/L8.77 12/44,969
12/4.66 12/U,159
0 0
12/.55 12/1,313
12/.14 12/328
12/.27 12/656
0 0
12/.14 12/328
0 0
0 0
12/5.57 12/13,345
12/.67 12/1,008
12/.67 IgA.oOS
0 0
0 0
12/.34 12/804
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
12/12.70 12/30,427
12/3.73 12/8,937
12/.63 12/1,521
12/.04 12/95
f.08 12/190
.08 12/190
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
12/.37 12/886
12/.09 12/224
12/.19 12/448
0 0
0 0
0 0
13./.08 13/2,°16
.2 326
.25 410
.22 —
.197 —
.236 -
.09 —
.21 342
.16 328
.10 192
PS
FS
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
\/ Drainage area includes 1.97 so. mi. diverted from Hawk Hollow. 9/ Drainage area is aiiallest area that could be pc-gitively
V Heserroir wag fjll of sedl-nent in 1954. 10/ Storage capacity at original spUlway crest elevatio
^/ Const^-cte^ ! 043 t -leaned 1953. elevation 0.53 ac.-ft,
4/ Constructed 1041, cleaned 1952. ll/ Basin cleaned as needed to maintain capacity.
from the 4.17 sq. -^. above this daw. 13/ Basin filled during storm of 9-5-70 and undetermined
6_/ Baaed on total drainage area of 5,812 sq. ni. before construction of Horseshoe Dara upstream. 14/ Runoff seasons.
7/ Increase in caoacity probably flue to compaction. * EstinBted cr assumed,
8/ Capacity Lncreased 76,130 =ic.-ft. b? ijiatallation of spillway gates in ^une 1950.
- storage capacity at eroded spiUwoy
nt of sediAant ascapea froa pond.
-------
SOMIIAHYOF
RESERVOIR SEDMEH TATWN SURVEYS HADE Bi THE UMTED STATES THBOUGH BWO
DATA
ITOMBEB
RKSSKVCSE
STREAM
IfEAREST TOWi
DHAJHAGE AREA
(SQUASZ MLES)
TOTAL
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWKEH
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPAaTY
(ACHE -FT.)
CAPAorr
AVG.ANN.
BfFUM
PS)
ACiE-TO
•Plane
HLKJil!
L&ns
•». FT.)
A**a,ARM.
rSSMT*
OP 1ST 98.
ASUUKMi
***** aW*"
AC.-FT. | TOHS
^^
BATA
to
OCLOSACO i«D 3*3 J«i« BIT3X 3A33K! (Cottin
61-3
61-4
61-3
61-4
61-7
61-6
62-1
62-2
63-3
62-4
62-;
62-6
62-7
62-S
62-9
62-10
62-11
63-13
62-14
62-15
62-16
62-17
63-1
do do
JO : |8». - -
•Bumf* tank I do
do do
Ql«KSrtli Tru* mb. fenr Lew Craaft —
"•" "J* Wb.JJa««.a»« Matt-
*wt Kail Taas — -*j
%nu Tm* H nib. Plsfclae %rUg Bi
Breofcdtir teak— trtb. of JeSoe^i HwS~
do *>
M«;s rut Cbaroti Ssody Oajra Kaab
* ~^ (Tf F h Prarf-
troCU^ Ce««re°l Streeteir*.
i-i "
Bill 9aow Pond . Trib. Santa Clazv 9±rsa
do do
40
Saanflaa, IrM. -48
do .55
IWto,4rta. .25
aemaato, Aria. 2.45
ov *-rt-«'. *•*>• •»
nv- . .^o .10
qp|tx)B^go BXmS Ba3B! (HAJX3 CS03S
j«,.- — .
do 57.«S
I(K2i«a Bbeeesia., A2^a. 1.27
IVaao^E, fall. 5/3.49
b^TiociM, Otai. 9.2
do
p St. Gaergs, Utah .03
de —
te .09
do 1.09
— de .85
do .59
de 2.3
r — — —
-------
8 3 888
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ! I IS
8 8
ISM I M;
.1 '& 'S'
R*«i
,-t
it t 8£ * 8 88 R« SK* . 3 P3fi*K RX fc £*<« S f S
-*O«O*J^»*VoJoJ^j"*-4 "|J«N *l*jO'«Oii?««V'***l«>'OO«lJ|i4*t*-t"-t-'fi'p^''O'O^3'*«O'iO>^w>'O-*-*«*v«*\«<">f*\pj «
* J«H rfrf-1 H- !
•«-«OOOO <«-«OOOO -O O O -O O O
t^^^^^N J ^1 ,4 ^^1 .HO? IfVrHrv liNrJiN |
' «OOO -Oc^Oi-JOOOOOOOOO >O«^O^OOOOOOOOO * *"* -H
j|SI?IBIISS*l?l?ilsllll I15'?!
S £ £ 8 S f= 2 3 d »<9-
a
-------
SUWIARYOF
RESERVOIB SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE » THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1OTO
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN.
INFLOW
(ACRE-FT.
PEB
SPECIFIC
•EIGHT
:DR¥)
LR PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDUENT
ACCUMULATION
PERSQ. M.
OFNETDB.
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
Oil Itall <3-i>
Trlb. or Badger Uuti-
63-11
63-13
COLORADO UiXB BASH (ABOVJ KAILS C2OS3IHG)
Cunnleon, Dolores and Prewont RiTar Basins (Continued)
tack, Colo. •—
0.059
—
—
—
— .
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
.019
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
.158
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— .
—
.048
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
_
—
—
—
D«c.
July
HOT.
Oct.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
•or.
Oct.
HOY.
HOT.
Oct.
D.C.
July
Her.
Oct.
Sor.
HOT.
Nor.
SOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
Oct.
SOT.
HOT.
Dec.
July
HOT.
Oct.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
Oct.
HOT.
HOT.
Dec.
July
HOT.
Oct.
HOT.
HOT.
HOT.
Hov.
HOT.
NOT.
HOT.
Oct.
NOT.
NOT.
Oct.
1953
1955
195*
1957
195S
1959
1961
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1966
1969
1970
1953
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1961
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1953
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1961
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1953
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1961
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
__
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
12.92
12.18
12.18
11.90
13.90
11.64
11.31
11.25
11.21
10.73
10.82
10.62
10.15
10.13
9.99
4.52
4.31
4.31
4.19
4.19
4.16
4.14
4.12
4.03
3.89
3.89
3.81
3.74
3.83
8.45
6.05
6.05
5.94
5.94
2/24.80
24.18
23.89
23.45
23.15
23.23
22.86
21.88
22.12
8.10
7.69
7.69
7.58
7.58
7.51
7.38
7.10
7.05
6.81
6.81
6.54
6.07
6.18
6.13
5.71
5.39
5.39
5.26
5.26
5.15
5.00
4.98
4.96
4.75
4.79
4.70
4.49
4.48
4.42
9.62
9.17
9.17
8.91
8.91
8.85
8.80
8.76
8.57
8.28
8.28
8.11
7.96
8.15
2.14
1.53
1.53
l.W
1.50
6.28
6.12
6.05
5.94
5.86
5.88
5.79
5.54
5.60
4.60
4.37
4.37
4.31
4.31
4.27
4.19
4.03
4.00
3.87
3.87
3.72
3.45
3.51
3.48
•93
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
__
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
"90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
__
•90
•90
"90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
•90
«90
7.30
0
4.75
0
4.40
2.71
.51
.68
8.14
1A-
3.39
7.9*
.3*
2.3«
-_
6.85
0
6.32
0
1.58
.53
.53
4.74
7.37
0
4.21
3.68
l/-
9.50
0
.70
0
2.15
1.96
.95
2.78
1.90
i/-
2.34
6.20
i/~
5.4Z
0
2.29
0
1.46
1.46
2.92
1.04
5.00
0
5.63
9.80
y-
1.04
15,»9
«
9.S02
—
8,638
5,482
»97
1,329
15,947
—
6,645
15,615
664
4,651
_
13,427
—
12,380
—
3,095
1,032
1,032
9,285
14,443
—
8,253
7,222
—
18,622
_
1,365
—
2,840
3,846
1,110
5,459
3,722
4,590
12,158
—
__
10,624
—
4,492
—
2,859
2,654
5,717
2,042
9,801
-~
11,026
1«,194
—
2,042
OS
as
as
-------
SS-i
II
i in
:?:lsI• I• f y • I• i• s§• svi•!• I• I•!•
I!
I I M
c
V&fri'
I • I • r «• I • I • I • I •
*»*» •(•( ft
, M M I II I ! M ! I I I ! ,- ! I II I M M M M ! M M I M I I M M !!!!!! I M I M M I I I I !
8
fssirsfsgff.fjrsfifjr^
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo ooooow ooooow
PS cJ« C
o*fc
»-r-*"
5ai Si; Si
*«8
»5s;i!ok ftfesssc tt
8 a
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL [ NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
!
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS!
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVtt ANN.
INFLOW
RATIO
(ACRE-FT
PER
ACRt-TO
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVfl. ANN.
SEDWENT
ACCUMULATION
PEHSQ. tO.
OF NET DR.
AREA FOB
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
en
COLORADO arras BASH (ABOVE HALLS CSDSSIBG}
Gumison, Dolorvo and Frwont EUror Basins (Continued)
63-20
63-21
64-2
64-3
64-4
64-*
64 7
64-«
65-2
"""jo""" tlr
to
*
__ do
do
East St. Louis Creek Weir
£
do
llL
HW-1 "oatcap Wash Watershed -
South Soda Cre«k Weir .
North Fish Cr«k Weir
do •
West Walton "reek Weir
_-;0 __
- do
Niles Haalea Pond
Ejjt ^y°n
-do---
„
^'do'8
do
do
Easi, St. Loula Creak
do
do—
.-do
Roatcap fasti
' c"u" v
South Soda Creek
do •
Trib. Walton Creek
do
40 —
Trib P " el
do
Trib. Twelve Mile Wash
j. ^ar.^n rcoc ^
Weber River
do(.
-do
7 do
Col
do
— do—-
do
do-
oo
Steamboat Springs
do
do
do
_-JO
do-
do
Echo, Utah
Snnt i Utah
do
- —
-
3.10 3.10
-
__ _
11.6 11.5
G8EKN RIVER BASIN
, Colo. 3.40 3.4G
2.24 —
1.33 1.33
— —
11 11
1.41 1.41
.65 .65
G8ZAT SALT LAKE BASIN
732 732
SEVIER RIVBH BASIN
5.0 4.9
Oot.
Oct.
Oot.
Oot.
Oct.
Oot.
Oct.
Oot.
Oot.
Oot.
Oot.
Oot.
Oot.
Oot.
Oct.
Oot.
Oat.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
•or.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oot.
Oot.
Oct.
Oot.
Oct.
Sopt.
Oct.
Dec.
Oct.
1955
1956
1957
195*
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1964
1965
1966
1967
1963
1969
1970
1970
1942
1962
1967
1968
1969
1970
1968
1969
1967
1968
1969
1938
1968
1936
1968
1967
1942
1968
1896
1954
1930
1957
1895
1940
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6
20
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
30
22
15
26
58
24
3
75
—
—
-
-
—
—
810.0
718
1/870
-
—
.
*5.0
•5.0
»2.0
•8.0
1/3,850
28,730
73,900
•65
607
598
__ _
— —
— —
— «1OO
— *100
— «100
— »ioo
•100
— *100
•6.9 —
•.236 —
•.286 «60
— »135
— 135
— "135
— «135
— «UO
— «70
— «60
— *70
•90
.098 —
.733 4/77.1
.364 V71
.008
.006 «90
— —
__
O.OO5
.011
.002
.002
.0003
.005
.0002
.O03
.003
.002
.001
.001
.001
.002
.002
.001
.002
.002
.001
.002
.»
.14
.005
.0003
.001
.016
.020
—
2/.T9
.cai
2/.67
2/.23
.124
.104
.47
.024
_
10.24
21.12
3.84
3.52
.64
*32
2.88
5.7«
2.24
1.73
1.50
1.50
4.00
5.45
1.35
3.40
4.20
2,90
4.25
183
13.43
1.08
1.62
11.74
38.28
47.90
—
1,204
14
1,021
450
208
161
—
—
n
re
xa
n
n
FS
SCS
SCS
SCS
303
BB
SCS
SCS
-------
66-3
66-4
66-5
66-4
66-7
66-8
66-9
66-10
66-ru
66-12.
R fcT F rrt
dn°
n v — '
itoeHj o
TL 1 *•
1
rt
Sari Bi-lrt
:>«n.flr arias*
Chalk Creek Debria Baain
rt
Fiddler* Canyon Debris Baaln-
ftll Canyon Retarding
Structure
-. „.
"T. ) CT \
dO*
r L
" "
_. ., .
rin
rtn
°?
Fiddler.* Canyon
T1
P3QT»TF
7°
IffUrO^
C 1 t Tti. t
do
_
CI^ *
_ Utah
do'
Utah
""'"dn** '
•pnl, ton
„
'*do''
" ii ci nr.h
n » »*
,
J.-.U
— 900
— 10.0
— 25.0
— 2,W£
— i9.5
508
900
9.92
23.4
6.9
2,436
1,089
«*0
12.6
19.5
HOT.
r«b.
HOT.
«OT.
Uov.
HOT.
Dec.
*>».
Julj
H>r.
HOT.
D«c.
DM.
19W
1915
19W3
1890
1940
1893
mo
1909
19U)
1926
19U>
1910S/
1938
1908
1932
1936
1946
1955
1947
1956
1957
I960
42
25.8
50
47
31
14
28
24
.5
10
8.5
9
3
299
23,260
21,509
2,115
790
667
430
9,000
8,550
2,500
2,200
81,200
74,010
250,000
234,462
44.12
0
0
15.00
208
ltd.
-
-
—
__
.002
0
0
«.089
•1.600
*1.431
-
-
-
__
*70
•75
75
•TO
•TO
.038
.134
.029
.508
.620
3.10
~.106
.5%
6/-T3
J/.U
a/, us
.38
1,112.9
228.7
221
578
90
xa
S3
90S
SCS
SC3
SCS
SCS
90S
SCS
67-
Ul
-3
BASIS {»CHTHHi3TBal PAST in ULITOHIilA, HEVADi DTD ORKXTH!
GS£
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
Ol
CO
DATA
SHEET RESERVOIR
NUMBER
7O-a» Ch«t.«wc
70-10 La*w» •
TO- 11 btclno
i :
1
STREAM WEAKEST TOWN DRAINAGE AREA [ DATE
(SQUARE WLES) ' SURV
i
1 j TOTAL NET
3JU.70S SEA AMD SOUTHERN itLIFORNIA XJASTAL AND GS1AT BASIN DRAIh
Trib. of Loa ln^«l«a tLi-rer — • — do 5.40 4. -.5 Apr,
1Y1U. of Sa:. Jaclflto RiT.r H«it, Caiif. 66.0 15.3
trtb. of Kw-port Baj Orang., Calif. .*>; .72 ^sb.
Bnclno Cr»* Loa Ang^«o, Calif. 1.42 1.30 Maj
7CU13 r_Ln_jut -• »rrr«1op« »•! 1 «y 81™r Lancaster, Calif. 2.-4 2.37 Oct.
70-13b littl* fcx* Irrigation M«t.- Little tock Cr»ok nOatalii, Calif. 68.0 67.84 Apr.
, _ _ ^ rlrt -. ,. - — — JHfl»
~r£" -* - -*. - - oet.
_^0 —
— do -
TO-Ue L!T» Oa* DM
_to —
4o
___<*> —
do
(to
Li« 0»k CrtxA • •• La?«rn«, Calif.- 2.3 ^.3
— do • t*o — — »OT.
A, - -do --• -. - ">^.
~Jj — *- *« — — Har.
ID I" Kjima 'Vt-trtrwmti "rr* San Diego, Calif. 112.0 109.4 Mar.
7O-l6b Pr*do Flood-Control R«a«rtolr Santa Ana ftlTar Corona, Calif. 2,233 1.1J1 S«pt
TO- 17 ftoca-ianbir-i Canyon $/
— tecklflgbirt Can/on Arlington, Calif. 11.6 11.5
70-18c fUn— n Floot-Control Basin "ujxw$i Cr^k • San Farnando, Calif.— 147 U6 $«pt
eta
T-t-19 Br«a ?. C. 5»sin-—
_do do - a"t •
IP do :|>n
* d ^'8
.rtr, _ fW-1 .
70-20c G»KM«11 (San G*bri«l Dam #2) San Gabriel Riw Aiusa, Calif. — 39.2 39.0 Apr.
rfO
ik>
10
__£-
___v.
PERIOD STORAGE
OF BETWEEN CAPACITY
EY 1 SURVEYS (ACRE -FT
(YEARS)
ACT Continued)
1931 -- 36,500
1939 1M '6,i36
1939 3. 10,077
19U) *8 11.702
1938 — i7t
1939 1/J 266
1921 — 3,229
1939 18 3,210
1913 — 7.A37
1939 l/2t 7,393
1921 — k,17
1936 iAl-0 1,139
1938 3.0 3,6iS
19^3 5.C 3,U>i
1946 3.0 3,352
1951 5.0 3,297
1953 2.2 3,313
19192/ — 2i7
1929 6.3 Ji7
1936 7.0 2U2
1939 1.! 228
1952 1..5 221
1961 9.0 17O
1962 1.0 166
196" k. 3 i/221.8
196<- 1.75 197.1
197C 1.75 251.1
1910 — 66,767
1935 25.7 60,699
I°t8 12.6 58,933
19U — 222, SW
1960 18.9 216,960
19U. - «1,000
19U 26 961
19^40 — 35.8UO
19U .8 35,200
191.3 2.3 3)., 100
19/.5 2.1 33,500
1962 16.2 33,265
1969 ^.58 29,700
19i.2 — i.,16S
19i.9 7.5 4,097
1935 -- 12,881
1936 .8 12,298
1938 2.2 10,766
1939 1.6 11,029
1°*0 l.C 11,102
1941 1.0 10,915
1043 1.9 10,501
1045 1.2 10,536
1946 1.7 10,597
1947 1.0 10,634
1957 10.2 10,585
1958 .•• 10,446
196 •• ..1 10,228
1966 3.7 9,999
1969 2.75 9,339
1937 -- 8/53,344
1938 9 47,191
T940 2.1 46,335
1941 8 45,862
1942 1.0 '.5,759
1943 l.C 44,032
1944 1.1 44,388
194' 1.0 44,342
194P 3.0 ..3,825
1951 3.0 43,928
1953 1.2 43,853
.71
.97
.612
.643
.642
.512
•85
•«5
.72
.25
.15
.275
.130
.12
2.48
1.4
1.62
6.IS
28.3
1.69
.23
.94
1,190
J..84C1
710
185
4,460
1,330
460
278
SCS
3C5
SCS
scs
3C3
SCS
-------
•61L
~
~
-
~
~
-
'
G UOfSJSAfQ
$zi
60 S
2?
SO 9
92 02
i*7 I
f
£0 2
ZVT
.
6S'£
LI T
TT T
.
c?
f^T"
auoiBifuippry
--
—
-
PUP 'urea
8i
-
iO
80
iO
17 •
TO
90*
65.
r •
S£-
«!•
L '
£*7
C*7'
&7
9T)
esi
£56
761' I A
(??
OOc
OIL
en
IDT
8*1 VT
STS'T
6£I(T
7t£ T
6ZL
t
5£0_
TiO
68T
SBQ'Qi
ATS'ff
*^f
^T'Cf
viiL^st
AO* f
^»//-
8ii,^8t.
y?ii2
^Q«fZ
i« .
Q UBg iq ps
BSJT; »2miT».
i V
I £
r./-
0
^.
t. I L
i9 C
2°.^
c6 -
AT 2
fii'T
f?*
/•
/-.*,
"
T L
8 6
6 I
•T
0 I
8'£
c IT
I C
.
r.^^
*•
?'T
•c
[Toj^uo= -pu -be vie /Tl
p BEU-TQ nreg sapnt^ui /of
" " "Tsed" "a*'">'s ^
?^/ .
Q£6T -irer ^-V S-7
7^
^ ,
?C T ^UB^
" , j '
, ,, .
6e6l "1=0 AP6I/OI o'6T
Oi6T 'AON
696T ^ „
i7ol * 0
oto T ,J
0961 ^ °fj
ovol u
?^T • ^ • r~ c
^tO^i ^ _1 ^ *-*L£/D t I L£
/ .9^
?Q^T *AO
TQ^ 'Od
^
op
op
Of.
op
op
op
op
op
'JTIBC 's-iopuais
Op
op
op
op
op
op
^
op
Op
P
^
op
Op
op
~^~
. . op
p
op
op
op
op
op
op
p
p
"
op
• °P
op
op
O
p
Op
p
p
Op
°p
op
F
"
p
op
p
op
0
•pof j»d
op
op
op
op
op
cp
^
op
op
^-t^ UO^-^G 2Ta
Op
op
Op
op
op
op
op
op
op
op
op
op
op
op
OT-
op
p
op
op
op
op
op
op
or • . .
^_!^_!!s_
op
op
Op
op
op
op
op
OD
^
op
op
op
p
op
p
2tr[jnp jriooe jo eaneasq pa^rximoo
•Buoseee jjoinu uu ps
op
Op
CP
Op
0[,
Op
op
^
op
°r
trfseg -5 ',., UO^^BQ SIQ
ct
""
op
°l-
op
Op
°t-
p
op
Jp
-«rea UOTSJBAIG suoisd^p^ry
0[,
Op
op
op
^
op
°l-
^
Op
°t-
ot
, op
!2™__^!.'!op-J!!-
01-
op
op
Op
Op
op
Op
*"
p
op
Op
Op
^
°N /9
3t A
°N K
°N /T
»a A
39t-0i
LO
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE » THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL | NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. AWN
INFLOW
RATIO
(ACRE-FT
PER
SPECIFIC
•EIGHT
[DRY)
1,8. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
ACCUMUl^TrON
PERSQ Ml.
OFNETDR
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. | TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
AND SOUTHH1N CALIFORNIA COASTAL AND (5SKAT DASIJi DRAINAGE (Continued)
» 3anta Anita F. :. Basin-- Santa AnlU Creek — Arcadia, Calif. 10.8
70-»= Sit Tojwwa r. C. Beiln Big TXJunga Creek Sunland, Calif.-
05
O
70-3CU F.»t
-------
8 88 Be 8
I II II I ! I II ! I I I I I I I I ! I I ! I I I I ! I II I I I ! ! ! I I I I I I I I ! ! ! II ! I I I I I I
u c
A
I IS33fJ:SP£;*33 i I I M I ! I i I I I I I I !
;O •O*O^*u^*^w\lf\J*<. *<^
Si "' -^
i-o i
tVr* *tv I N ol t~ •* *wr?H |^OH<^ ^ r*J -4 (\ t H H <^i *^ f*
.fa o.
I I
11
*
lit)
Jl
i i i i 4 .
jl|TfT77=
t $?°fl>?? : ' ! : ! ! i : i ! !,-' ' ! i i ! ! : i f I
f"\
'.:
s
!ll
rt
1
i
i
i I
« 1
!8°,
tT
J= 1
tn
i i
L,
f
|f '
,
"
,T
•
1
1 ^
"
T •
11
,.
-1 1
•
,
!,
!
j
, 4
' "7
. i i
H
i 4 i
„,
I
j
: i
:lV
n
8*
!
' L
,T
i
-
!n
;,
i7
!'
•
,
^ i
|T
n
• i
i
i
i
i
,i ..
'| '
!
I
1
I
- 4
" "
i
!
<^<
i
•0
;<
1
i
I
m
•v -t "* - ;
|
I
TJ
!
i
I
1
•D '
j
! -c, -
I
!
i
i
, i
^ ^
i
!
„-!
F-61
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE W THE UNITED STATES THROUGH »70
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST T09N
i
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL | NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN.
INFLOW
RATO
(ACRE-FT.
PER
ipcctnc
(EIGHT
PRY)
LB.PER
:u. FT.)
AVG, ANN
SEQMENT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ.IO.
OF NET DR.
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
SALTC* SEA AHD 30UTHHH1 CALITORMIA COASTAL AM) OKEAT B&SXI OttlBAGS (ContlnMd)
Slam fed™, Cilif 0.60 0.60
Sept. 1946
J-I*. 1947
S«l*. 194«
Svt. 1949
Sept. 1950
Sept. 1952
S**. 1959
Sfft. 1962
S^t. 1968
3*1*. 1970
3«ptl 1941
hpt. 1943
a«t*.
1945
1946
s«pl.
S^t.
Altadon*. Calif.
do
S^t.
s^.!
s^t.
s^tl
A«.
s^t!
S«pt.
Sept.
.21 Sept.
Sept.
S^l.
S^t!
Sept.
Sept.
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1952
1956
1960
1961
1966
1970
1936
1938
1941
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1
1
1
1
1
2
4.8
3.0
6.0
2.0
5
3«pt. 1949
S*pt. 1950
3«pt. 1952
3q*. 1964 U
3*pt. 1970
S«pt. 1936
So>t! 1940
3»pt. 1941
S«pt. 1942
Sq*. 1943
3»pt. 1944
S«pt. 1945
S^t. 1946
Sq>t. 1947
3^>t. 1948
S«pl. 1949
3^*. 1950
Sept. 1954
3«pt. 1959
3^>t. 19TO 11
' 1939
19U
y-
i/-
— 2/0.84
>.t3
.86
2.33
0
0
.09
0
0
0
1.59
1.17
27.86
2.87
2/.69
29.0
8.14
8.74
.27
10.3
Z.87
.56
3.13
1.15
0
0
0
4.07
.36
3.17
1.58
j/a.2
11.7
7.03
.34
15.7
4.59
1.11
.59
.41
.07
2.66
.02
1.67
2.05
5.28
5.87
J/46.4
47.6
3.9
4.8
.24
1.71
7.86
1.95
-------
05
O3
70-44c Gould Debris Basin Gould Canyon Channel La Canada, Calif.-
do—.—_ do —
do do
do do
70-45a Haines Debris Basin hsiies Canyon Tujunga, Calif. 1.53
-io do — do
fto io —.—do —
do • do do
do do do -—
-do-
-do—
do do- do
70-46c Hall's Debris Basin Ball - Beckley Canyon U Canada, Calif. 3/.S4
do do do
do do do
do do do —
do do do— 2/1.06
do . do . do
do—- do do
do-
do-
do do di
I/ Canaelty of debris basin varies. Debris excavated at various times.
2/ Sediiientation values as comouted by LACFCD are based on complete water yea
Sept. 1948 1 — — .019
— Sept. 1949 1 — — — 0
— Sept. 1950 1 _ — _ 0
— Sept. 1952 2 — — — 4.57
Oct. 1956 4.1 — — .U
— June 1958 1.7 — — — 19.05
— Sept. 1963 5.2 — — 4.76
— Sept. 1966 3 _____ 10.14
Sept. 1968 2 — — — 3.10
— Sept. 1969 1 — — — 46.9
.30 Sept. 1936 1 I/— — — 2/31.2
— Sect. 1938 2 _____ 41.3
Sept. 1941 3 — — 3.30
Sept. 1942 1 — — 0
— Sept. 1943 1 — — _ 22.0
Sept. 1944 1 — — — 6.17
Sept. 1945 1 _ _ — 3.07
— Sept. 1946 1 _____ 2.77
Sept. 1947 1 — — -43
Sept. 1948 1 — — 0
Sept. 1949 1 — — — 0
— Sept. 1950 1 — — —0
Sept. 1952 2 — 5.47
Sept. 1964 12 — — 1.23
Sept. 1966 2 ------ 16.67
Sept. 1968 2 — — — 11.5
Sept. 1969 1 — — — 24.6
.47 Sept. 1948 1 I/— — — 2/0
— Sept. 195O 2 — — — 0
— Sept. 1952 2 — — — 5.32
-one 1958 5.8 — — — 3.29
Sept. 1962 4,2 — — -- 5.83
Sept. 1966 4.0 — — — 9.04
Sept. 1968 2 — — 1.98
— Sept. 1969 1 — — 28.7
1.53 Sept. 1938 3 i/— — — 2/6.93
— Sept. 1940 2 — — _ 2.31
— Sept. 1941 1 — — — 5.09
— Sept. 1943 2 — — 4.22
— Sept. 1944 1 — -- — 3.58
Sept. 1945 1 — — — 2.59
Sept. 1946 1 — 0
Sept. 1947 1 — — — .37
— Sept. 1948 1 — _-o
Sept. 1949 1 — — 0
Sept. 1950 1 — o
Hay 1952 1.6 — -- — 1.57
.84 Sept. 1936 1 I/— — — 2/17.2
Sept. 1937 1 - 13.7
— Sept. 1938 1 _- — _ 75.4
— Sept. 1941 3 — — — 12.0
Sept. 1943 2 — — — 17.9
Sept. 1944 1 — 6.10
1.06 Sept. 1945 1 — 2.97
Sept. 1946 1 — — — 1.00
— Sept. 1947 1 _____ 2.60
Sept. 1948 1 — — —
— Sept. 1949 1 — — —
— Sept. 1950 1
Sept. 1952 2 — 6.40
— Feb. 1957 4.4 — — — .14
— Sept. 1959 2.6 — — 11.03
— Sept. 1962 3 — — — .063
— Sept. 1964 2 — 4.48
Sept. 1968 4 — — — 3.49
Sept. 1969 1 „ — _ 34.4
Drainage area 0.84 sq, mi. to 1945; L. 0659 sq. mi. beginning 1945.
-------
s*§ai
MiSse;
fc
> 2 o
! 3 S
C r f ^*
Bile
II
ll
8 B S B
I I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! II I I ! M II I M I I I I M I I M I I M I II I I I I I II I ! I I I I
£c rfj H00000-l«««,j^jm 000-I.J,^.; .}-rf O rf , , , H ^H
I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I t I I I M I ! M I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I
a s R *
°' i M i 11 i 11 M 11 11 i ' 11 i 111 i i i i i i i i ' I i i i i i i 11 M i 11 i ' i i t i it i 11 it i 11 i
8 3 R *
°' II I I M ! I I ! M I I I I ' I I I M I I I II I t I I ' ! II I II I I I I II I I I ' ! I I II I ! I ! II II II
w\
i! J
f
I
1
1
i
tC
'!
1
f>r
1
I I
!
• •$€£ £££
MM I!1
I I i ! 1 ! i I
F-64
-------
Paradise Debris Basin Paradise Canyon — LA Canada, Calif. .96 .96 Sept. 1945 1 l/~- — — 2/1.18
-do- . do 4o — — Sept. 1946 1 — — — .92
Sept. 1947 1 — — — LOO
Sept. 1948 1 — -U
Sept. 1949 1 — — -10
— Sept. 1950 1 — — — o
.58 Apr. 1952 1.4 — — — 5.38
Htr. 1956 3.9 — — „ •*
1.84 Sept. 1936 1 I/— - — 2/11.0
Sept. 1937 1 — 6.89
Sept. 1938 1 — — — U.9
Sept. 1939 1 — 2-95
— Sept. 1940 1 — 4.75
— Sept. 1941 1 — — — 11-6
— Sept. 1943 2 — — — 9.03
— Sept. 1944 1 -- — -- 3-00
— Sept. 19»5 1 — — — -51
S^,t. 1946 1 — — .23
Seot. 1947 1 — — — .37
_ Sept. 1948 1 — — -- -15
Sept. 1949 1 — — " 0
Sept. 1950 1 — — 0
— Sept. 1952 2 — — — 2.25
Sept. 1959 7 — — 2.81
— Sept. 1966 7 — -- — 3.41
Sept. 1970 4 — — i-W
1.3 Sept. 1946 3 I/- — — i/-69
Sept. 1947 1 — — — .32
— Sept. 1948 1 — — — 0
Sept. 1949 1 — _ 0
Sept. 1950 1 — — 0
Stpt. 1952 2 — — 1.23
Apr. 1957 4.7 — — — -05
— Sept. 1966 9.4 — — — 2.07
-_- — Sept. 1969 3 — 10.0
Scholl i>ebris Basin Scholl Canyon Glendale, Calif. .66 .66 Sept. 1947 2 I/— — " 2/.32
ao —do- do — — Sept. 1950 1 — _ o
Q5 do do do- - Sept! 1970 9 — - - .88
f-n ^0-550 Shields Debris Basin Shields Channel La Crescenta, Calif.— .27 .27 Sept. 1938 1 I/— — — 2/77.0
'- — '- — Sept. 1939 1 ~ 10.1
Sept. 1941 2 ~ 10.9
— Sept. 1943 2 — 5.85
— S«pt. 1944 1 — 2.33
— Sept. 1945 1 — — — -52
— Sept. 1946 1 — — — 1.04
— Sept. 1947 1 -- — — -04
Sept. 1948 1 — — — 0
Sept. 1949 1 — — 0
Sept. 1950 1 — — — 0
Sept. 1952 1.5 — — — 10.9
Sept. 1961 9.5 — — — 2.07
— Sept. 1966 5 — — — 6.81
.23 Sept. 1938 2 I/— - — 2/22.6
Sept. 1939 1 — 57-°
Sect. 1941 2 — 4.4
Sept. 1943 2 — 8.30
— Sept. 1945 2 — — — .65
— Sept. 1952 7 — — — 1-09
— S«pt. 1961 9 — — — .06
— Sept. 1968 7 — — — 3.30
— Sept. 1969 1 — — — 56.5
.84 Sent. 1947 .6 I/- — — i/°
Sept. 1948 1 — _ 0
Sept. 1949 1 — — 0
Sept. 1950 1 — — 0
Mar. 1952 1.5 -- — — 3.56
— Feb. 1956 3.9 — — — 1-13
1.65 Sept. 1943 3 I/— — — 2/4.22
Sept. 1944 1 — 2-81-
Sept. 1945 1 — I'76
— Sept. 1946 1 — — 0
Sept. 191,7 1 — — "
Sept. 1950 3 — — — °
— Apr. 1952 1.6 — — 2.73
— Sept. 1958 6.4 — " — -37
Sept. 1960 2.0 — — — .75
I/ Capacity of debris basin varies. Debris excavated at various times. 2/ Sedimentation values as conmuted by LACFCD are based on complete water year.
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
SOLES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN.
BAUD
(ACBE-FT.
PEE
ACBE-FT)
SPECIFIC
(EIGHT
;DRTO
O.B. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDHENT
ACCUMULATION
PEBSQ.ML
UK NET DR.
ABEAFOR
PHUODSBOWN
AC.-FT. j TONS
AGBICY
SUPPLYING
DATA
70-60
70-610
CT>
Ol
70-64
70-6 5k
70-66
70-67«
3ALTO8 3E4 AND SOUTHJ3N
CO»3TAL AJO OSSAT 1US1K DUIHAOI (Continual)
3«*. 1942
1.08
15.5
1/.64
1.6
.58
Aohurn D«brl« B*«in
Bradbury D«brl« Basin
—
—
—
__
—
—
1.00
—
_
10,0
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
y.64
__
—
—
—
—
—
.25
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.59
—
.58
—
—
.19
—
.6fl
—
—
—
—
3«pt. 1944
Sapt. 1945
Sapt. 1946
Sapt. 1950
Sapt. 195J
3«Rt. 1959
Sapt. 1966
3«pt. 1969
S.pt. 1946
3**.. 1947
Sapt. 1950
Sapl. 1938
Sapt. 1941
Sapt. 1943
Sapt. 1944
Sapt. 1950
3«pt. 1952
S«pt. 1953
•V 1956
Jan. 1959
^pt. 1960
S«pt. 1964
Sapt. 1966
Vpt. 1968
3»pt. 1970
S^it. 1945
Sapt. 1946
3*pt. 1947
S^jt. 1948
Sapt. 1949
S^it. 1950
rah. 1952
Apr. 1952
Sapt. 1956
s«pt. 1958
S*pt. 1936
S.pt. 1«37
S^rt. 1938
3^*. 1940
Sapt. 1941
3
-------
88 88 88 H88 888H8 B 8 B
I I i i i : i i M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i : : i i i i M I i I i i i M i i i i M i '. i i i M I i i i i i i M i i i i i M i : i i i i i
5!
ft
as ss; ss sss
' I I I ' I I I I I ' I "* I I I I I ' II ! I ' M I I I ' I I I I ' I I I I ' I I I !
\XSSSXS i >.
I. O
«
f t-
SfdSsiS j 8» *" ** 2
i ' i M ' i i ' i i i"' i : iH' i i i i ' i i i ' i i i ' i i i c t
8 3
F) a
11
Ill]
3 ^
I i i i o i
ill\\s\
! 1
M
r'l
ft
'
fr'
"j|4f
a 11 I !
PC ?
it it i
it £ * * 4
F-67
-------
SUMMARY OP
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE Df THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVa ANN.
(ACKE-FT.
PEB
ACRE-FT)
SPECIFIC
•EIGHT
PRY)
L8. PER
:u. FT.)
AVG. ANN
snwnrr
ACCUMULATION
PDSQ. ML
OF NET M.
AREAPOi
PEHJOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
C-3
OO
AID 30t.
S^t.
itopt'.
In.'
In.
Jwi.
AFT.
In.
*r.
Jon.
*"«.'
J«n.
D«.
Oat.
Ihr.
Ifcr.'
S^t'.
iimmiiliiHiHsijjiiiiiiijMlii
1956
1957
1958
1959
1967
1968
1969
1941
1944
1961
1943
1949
1959
1961
1967
1949
1969
1966
1966
1968
1969
1970
1970
1961
1969
1963
1966
1964
1968
1970
1961
1969
1970
1958
1969
1970
1967
1969
1970
1964
1966
1969
1970
1966
1969
1970
1960
1962
1969
1164
19W
1956
1969
1963
1967
1965
1967
1959
1962
1968
1970
1963
1967
.8
1.0
1.0
8
1
1
3.0
16.6
~6.6
9.3
2.2
5.7
1.6
.9
.96
1.86
.43
1.41
3
8.5
3
4
2
8
1
11
1
2
1
1.92
3
1
3
1
2.6
7
S
12.91
4.2
2.7
2.8
6
2
4.2
i/— —
_ _
-
16,720 1.00
17,437 1.04
17,296 1.03
J4.670 —
34,276 —
33,987 —
33JK5 —
2.30 .234
- -
v- -
7,033 10.0
6,615 9.45
it/
y-
- -
-*
y-
i/-
9,285 .90
6,718 .65
V-
u-
V_
- 2/30.1
— 39.3
- 17.5
.4
— 3.1
— 2.91
— 1.51
— 13.32
123.
— 1.16
— 0
2/ 71
— 2.54
— 2/8.81
— 1/10.4
- 13.5
— 2/6.77
- 16.3
— 2/66.7
— 2.78
- 2/10.50
— 21.65
— 12.70
— 19.'4
12 4
2/2 95
— 7.45
2/19.1
67
2/5.23
-------
see
SOS
SOS
COS
SOS
COS
COS
SOS
COS
SOS
COS
COS
COS
COS
COS
SOS
SOS
SOS
COS
COS
SOS
COS
COS
SOS
soc
COS
COS
SOS
COS
CDC
E
T9-itT/8
—
ow
—
184
—
ZZI
8£*Z69/8
%4/8
9£i/5
—
4Tt
—
tCT
—
99*61
—
Z'OTT
—
if9
—
£'J6
—
92
—
6TZ
—
5oe
—
T6Z
—
75T
—
iJI
—
5-01
—
m
—
9«
—
WZ
—
1t£
—
LTZ
—
i'01
—
LSI
—
961
—
izy
—
—
~
_
-
cr/S
—
61"
—
168-
—
n-
8i4'/8
Z8t'/9
960 75
—
890*
_—
si-
—
9iO'
—
II'
—
99'
—
£50*
—
itO'
—
toe'
—
2«r
—
00£-
—
TOT'
—
£90'
—
oco-
—
Z£T
—
i9T"
—
OTZ-
—
TSZ"
—
191-
—
ito-
—
TV
V
41 "A
—
w
—
TVT
2'8ZA
5f6>^
51*
—
04.
—
0£.
—
01.
44.
01.
49.
09»
—
01
—
OC
—
71
—
SI
—
oe
—
QU
—
04*
—
£9*
—
S1»
—
Ci*
—
cu*
-_
29^
—
05
—
?9
—
Z9*
—
C9
—
Z9.
—
S4
—
01
• —
09.
—
09.
—
—
_
-
CO
ir.i 'fm-»» i*»«o PIWIPTW
901-0.
>n»»e «m»o P«<»VTV< wi-oi
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
j
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL j NET
1 1"
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
STORAGE
CAPACITY
SURVEYS i (ACRE -FT. 1
(YEARS)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN
INFLOW
(ACRE- FT
PER
SPECIFIC
'EIGHT
;DRY)
LB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
SEDIMENT
ACCIMUI.AT1ON
PEHSQ Ml.
OF NET M.
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
AREA FOB
PERIOD SHOWN !
AC -FT. ! TONS
SAK JCAQUIN AND KEEN RIVLR oASINS AND ADJACENT COASTAL QRA IMAGE (Continued)
T«aVettl» R««5rroir Ko. 1 Teak«ttl« Cr»«lc Fresno, Calif.
""
do
j0
0
^
-rtrt
~rt
rl
0
°
^
^°
""
ri°
j
°
°
H
°
ri
°
do-
°~
.
rto
7°
~
A
j '
°
do-
0
0
rt
0
^°
-ao
do
0
-no
0
0
io
FaU
FaU
Fan
FaU
Fan
Fan
FaU
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
'ill
Fan
Fall
FaU
Fan
Fall
FaU
Pall
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
Fan
F«U
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
Fall
Fan
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
Fall
FaU
Fall
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
FaU
Fall
FaU
FaU
Fall
FaU
1938
1948
1951
1955
1956
1957
1956
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
196*
1965
1938
1941
1948
1951
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1938
1948
1951
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1938
1940
1941
1948
195137
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1%5
1956 (1
1957
1958
1959
1960
10. C
3.0
4.0
-^
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
3.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
10.0
3.0
4.0
—
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
—
2.0
1.0
7.0
3.C
—
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
938-56)
19.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0,39
.18
.002
1/.352 —
.079
.068
.050
.030
.015
2/.066
.134
.078
.021
.0022
2/.101
.131
.127
.109
.040
.007
2/.U7
.222
.181
.178
.182
.178
.159
.129
.127
.130
.127
0.0271
.UOO
.0078
.0591 —
0 —
.3158
0 —
.0065 —
.3228 -
.0*89 —
.0054 —
.0146 —
.0084 —
.028O
.0110 —
.0241
.0059
.0003
.0462
.0572
.0066
.0250
.0080
.0166
0
.0032
.0032
.0015
.0474
.0026
.0204
.0112
.0160
.0073
.0042
.0003
0
.0049
.1457
.0619
.0338
.029
4/-.013
-------
71-36
71-37
71-39
71-40
71-41
71-42
71-«
•T.-/J,
72-la
72-2a
72-3
72-4
72-5
72-6
72-7b
72-8
72-9
72-10
72- lib
72-12
72-13
72-14
72-15
72-l6a
72-17
72-18
I/ Overt
2/ Sedin
y Last
sediment was
4/ Loss
ji/ Perio
6/ Retire
-V Origi
8/ Origi
do
Salijias Soys Ranch
Ai
Oibralter
do
do
rf°
p
-janttt ollcla
Success Lake
do
-do
do
Lake Kaveah {Terminus
do
A
0.0
Big Canyon
°
Blodjott
Bullarda Bar
Co*!* (V*n Oeisen)--
1 do
„
,
Dan)
_
Paulke Lake ("alae Lake)
Gerber —
te^alia
Stony Gorge —
Misselbeck
Lake Pillabury (Sco*t
, ,
Uatacoula Bar itf)
Ac
Mllliken
Dam) —
Onion Creek No. 1
do-
- - do
Onion -reek No. 2
A
A
d°
n ljrc* °- 3
GO
db a- t
lent removed in aunmer
. itiy. _ ,„
H°
Trlb. of Natividad Creek—
°
Santa Inez
do
Tule River
— do
rt°
Kawean River—
cr _rc
°°
."r
0
0
Big Canjon Creek
Tib. of Co^es River-
North Tub« Rivev
T T %
-ittlc bton; -recK
N, Tk. Jenney Creek —
Trib. of Burch Creek
Little Butte Creek —
Stony Creek —
S. Fk. Cottonwool Creek
Eel River
u- n 1 1 r>
til n Croclc
Onior, Creek, trib. of
Amer. liver.
1°~
j°
do
-°
"
°
0
sits taken in 19J6; sediment r>
ratershea as a whelp.
1956, '0 Nov. 15, 19%.
ed from 1965 survey.
0
Salinas, Calif.
Santa Barbara, Calif. -
0
0
Portarville, Calif.
, ^0
A
Leiaon Cove, 3alif.
3A CRAMPS TO
1 "
H
H
French Torn, Calif.
:a»ptomdU., :allf.-
frt* " -M *
itonyrord, ^a^i>.
Shasta, Calif.
Corning, Calif.
Chico, Calif.
Elk Creek, Calif.— —
Redding, Calif.
Potter Valley, Calif. -
v f i t r
ap^' j
Soda Springs, Calif.—
^
H
do
A
.13 .13
.205 .203
216 6/202-2
-
425 425
393 393
_
560 560
, EEL AND tl'SSIAN RI\"ES BASI
5.7 5.6
5.1 5.03
5.50 5.48
3.12 3.05
480 479
130 129
11/101.5 98.9
.71 .68
.31 .28
li/8.23 8.08
li/199 197
12.0 11.8
283 284
.71 .69
10.5 10.4
.19 .19
.48 .48
.65 .65
vy
•irainag
12/
$
a/
rom Oct. 1 , 19"), -&l
=srt II
il/
Feb. 1954
Nov. 1956
Oct. 19537/
Sept. 1964
Sept. 1964
Oct. 1919
Aug. 1923
Aug. 1944
Feb. 1956
Aug. 1969
Oct. 1955
Oct. 1965
Sept. 1960
SOY. 1965
HOY. 1967
Dec. 1968
June 1953
Sept. 1956
Dae. 1968
Nov. 1961
Nov. 1967
Jin. 1953
Aug. 1969
June 1966
1927
May 1960
May 1966
SOY. 1934
Oet. 1945
Mar. 1940
Oct. 1945
Oct. 1919
Jan. 1939
June 1928
Oct. 1935
Dec. 1910
kc-v. 1962
1851
Dec. 1945
June 1917
Dec. 1945
Jan. 1918
Jan. 1946
Nov. 1928
Nov. 1962
May 1920
Dee. 1945
D«e. 1921
May 1959
— 1953
Nov. 1958
1924
Oct. 1958
- 1957
1959
I960
1957
1958
1959
1958
1959
e basin after
Spillway ele
Based on the
Excluding 3
The natural
., 1798-F.
Net sediment
Estijnated or
jj/1.8 1,013,200
6/3 1,011,950
2/9.65
11 9.34
— 8/8.40
13 8.15
— 15,296
3.83 13,674
a 7,720
11.42 14,777
13.5 9,654
— 101,200
10 98,730
— *86,160
5.2 86,160
2.C 83,610
1.1 83,680
539,665
•".3 539,115
12.2 534,465
— 149,599
6 147,099
16.58 10/192,574
313
36 21t
3 *775
36 660
6 643
200
11 195
— 258
5.6 254
— 31,500
19.2 28,893
7.3 7,840
52 48,940
— 130
94 120
_ 190
23.5 182
3,718
28 3,648
— 1!/50,OOO
34.1 48,160
4,300
25.5 4,086
94,396
37.5 86,785
183.0
5 181.4
2,000
34 1,938
.114
1.0 .f'i
1.0 .097
1.0 .093
1.0 .083
1.0 .081
l.C .069
— .191
1.0 .205
1.0 .186
ation 748 (limit of 8-7
1914.
vation (flashboard eras
natural drainage area.
sq. -d. above P. G. & E
.612
.611
.42
.33
.21
.41
.27
.681
.681
.660
.06!
.51
.81
.803
.389
.382
.07
.12
.29
.24
.24
.80
_
.29
.248
.228
C39
.033
.033
.032
.042
.026
.026
.0^2
.062
.067
.061
-59 surrey).
t elevation
*62
*65
•65
52
«62
*62
•62
•62
•62
"7.5
"50
50.3
44.7
46
•70
*70
55
54
78.3
48,8
54
«75
73
—
Spillway
reservoir
50,900); '1.
0." reclamation capacity curv» (3-31-45,, UjG
loss - treated as 0 gain.
assumed.
.04 54
.29 392
.23 325.6
.10 141.6
1.96 —
.43 -
1.38 —
.58 658
*o ^o
3.2»4 4,3'!3
-.163 -218.7
.074 100
.186 252
.745 1,006
10./3.79
.48 1.063
.63 686
.56 642
.069 67.2
.217 217
.284 433
.749 1,140
12/.37 U/443
.147 173
.971 1,656
.307 326
U/.27 11/319
.711 1,161
.71 1,129
.04 —
.074 —
.071 —
.0004 —
.0206
il/.ocoo —
.0273
from Stony Gorge
voir. Flow diverted
3 «ater-Sup-ly paper
SCS
SCS
GS
GS
tS.
BR
SCS
3CS
MS
scs
SCS
SCS
SCS
SCS
GS
SCS
3C3
SCS
FS
FS
FS
ft.
s 1635
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
-3
to
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
1
RESERVOIR
f
STREAM
NEAREST TOWN
DRAINAGE: AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT )
CAPACITY
AVa ANN.
(ACBE-FT
PER
ACHE-FD
ipeanc
•EIGHT
PRY)
LB.PER
CU. FT.)
AVG. ANN
9XMENT
ACCUMULATON
PCI SO. ML
OFNTTDB.
AIEAFOt
AC.-FT. | TOMS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
EEL AM) BJ331AI RI7IH WSDO (Continue:)
72-2OB
72-a
72-22
72-23
72-24
72-25
72-26*
72-2*7.
72-26
72-29
72-31
73-1
73-2
7V 3
71-..
Ottloo Crook Be. 5 Onion »•*, trib. of
AMP. Ri»«r.
d* do
J-ta do
*~J ^°
tfrllon £!"••" ' 7 T'
da do
Lac Trvitadu*-* . Trib. of Dry Cr**k
* dci^ do
VlalMn . Trib. of Santa ROM Cr**-
dn d
do ita
** do
de d
do
d do
rVi •*-
>^r Cr~k - Horth for* *>
rta 1-to
d do
do do
- ""j~
T°
do do
fcOttir- nrufci Cr^k
Laiy OP.* U»y Cr«k
Aonlr' Unra^rt
H _|° • unniXM.- j
talgi^it ^ ^^ Cr><4
Coyot* Cr**k fl Trib. South U^qua RiT«r —
. j
u
p °" («k ,f2 d
A ' * J
j j
& H°
•1°
-—- at*0" ^ *? rf
' rewc w) ao
do d
j j
0 ^°
Sog 19611/
Oot 1965
Oot 196«.«o- 1963
»— • 1964
3.— 1965
3»_r 1966
liimii 1967
"mm,, 1968
'i i 1969
.n in 1970
Fill 1962
3u_or 1963
Illl l 1966
a— .r 1967
Smmmr 1968
3u_«-1969
"i—ii 1970
July 1967
A«g. 195;i/
July 1967
AM. 195P5/
Aug. 1967
July 1952i/
July 1967
Oot. 1924
Oot. 1951
Jun. 1965
Aug. 1966
Aug. 1967
Aug. 1968
July 1969
July 1970
Jm. 196;
Aug. 19.'*
Aug. 196^
Aug. 1968
July 1969
July 197O
Jun. 1965
Aug. 1966
Aug. 1967
Aug. 1968
July 1969
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4
5
7
4
5
.80
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.78
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
13
12
17
15
27
1.12
1.01
1.0
.94
.98
1.11
1.01
1.0
.94
.98
1.11
1.01
l.O
.94
0.177
.112
.101
.046
.0754
.0723
.0605
1/10.30
9.86
1/21.50
21.04
1/5*»*S
46.76
2/17.36
16.62
i/6.78
4.61
—
-
—
—
-
7.3
7.07
26.94
19.50
25.18
24.24
14.06
13.02
4/8,300
7,500
7/.019
2/.012
2/.011
-
0.058
.037
.033
.015
.025
.024
.020
•-2ZI
•.211
•.099
•.097
•.027
•.023
.092
.on
•.010
•.007
-
—
^
_
—
.11
.11
.038
.027
.189
.182
•.040
".037
.0001
-
.00004
—
.0001
•—
«46
•oS
•W.9
"*5
4/87
—
-
-
-
•60
67
59
•60
~~
-
O.L2U
.0256
.1750
.0069
rmn
2.97
.52
.69
.96
.73
.054
.038
.139
.119
.068
.083
.143
.091
.039
.043
.425
.491
.037
.033
.242
.141
.21
.94
.37
.24
.214
.0052
.0005
.0016
.0002
.0019
.0031
.0003
.0004
.0002
.0004
.0147
.002
.0023
.oca
—
-
4,269
73*
1J5»
1.JC
-
274
1,372
475
314
—
-
-
pa
n
S3
aa
sa
3C9
9C3
n
P5
SC3
9C3
scs
xs
m
n
n
FS
-------
*J
co
do -
do
do
-
.0
fin
j
do
0
0
j
•r^- :o: XBIA v: -35 BASIN AND '-A :-:c COAST BASINS IN
74-1 Oondit (White Spiral) KhiU Silnon R- ,.-r 'nderwoo, wan. 'J 337
71-2
74-3
74- 5«
74-6
74-7
71-9
74-11
-4-1J
74-13
74-14
74-15
74-16
74-17
74-18
74-19
74-20
I/
y
Laxe Harri-t (Oak "rove)
McK*y
Cottage Grove
McKay Creek
Goast Fk. Willamette River
Lather Claypool Pond Trib. of Beaver Creek —
Paul Jasgar No. 1 fond—
i
Paul va«;ar No. 2 Pont.
Paul Jae^ar No. 3 Pond—
Trib. of John Day River —
°1.
.rib. o. c ,recic
Trib. of John Day River
J. M. Wilson Pond Trib. of Deschuteo River —
n_
Wlllard Barnet Pond
Rock Creek Improvemer.t C
Vernon Christ Pond
HIM
ilu . A. t-n ond
~"
j
o.— Trib. of White Biver
Jj°
_,
Hunt Livestock Co. Pond Trib. of Buck Creek
, ^°
" Spring^
do
H. J. Andrews **. 126 126
c't,a,»e Gr-T*. 7. - 104 10?
Post, Orts-. 1,^ 1.09
Jondon. Creg. — ,n25 .624
3
do ._ . 4 .
_— __^, .250 .249
Moro, Ore?. l.SO 1.50
° ^^ ^^_
nnt, L eg. .
T?8h Valley, Ore?. 5.6i '.oO
° ^
»es, g.
Shaniko, Or«g. .050 .OJo
" Id Sn i 3 138 13b
°° ^Dr K3> ree"
" * " " 0 261
"*d0 ^ ' " S"
0
do
j°
' °
rt°
H
j°
H°
r!°~
00 OVl .JV1
A
A
-H°
-do-
th flashboaras = " 21 ao.-ft.
Aug.
»u«.
Aug.
Julj
July
NORTH!
Maj
Aug.
Aug.
Oct.
JulT
Oct.
Dae.
Oct.
Cet.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
f tfb.
May
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
^ig.
Aug.
>.*?.
Aug.
Aug.
July
Aug.
Aug.
Dec.
Apr.
Aug
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
%
a/
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Hi :RZEOI
1913
1936
1924
1948
1926
1946
1942
19..7
1946
1951
1943
1'51
1946
1951
1944
1951
1946
1951
1941
1951
19uO
1951
19?=
17519/
1941
1951
194A
1951
1942
19O8
1951
1949
. 1958
1966
19i7
19o3
1969
1T>C
1965
1966
1%7
I960
1969
-970
1965
1966
1967
1969
1970
Sediment
Da.n was
istiiute
u
1.11
1.01 —
1.0
.94
N
- a/i,oei
23 1,054
24 252
19.75 "3U74
'3,000
5.1 32,873
3.79
5 3.59
— L.82
e 1.40
3.19
5 3.51
3.04
7 2.81
— l.OB
5 .97
10 2.41
— 2.X
250
13 247
— 1.61
1C 1.39
2.72
2.58
2.25
9 2.15
49,709
u3 44,068
8.9 77,150
— l/.l;
.92
.96
7/.056
.98
1.0
1,0
7/.Q61
.97
1.0
1.0
.96 —
measured and removed
raised < f^et in 1927.
d or assumed.
-
.001
.001
*.165
•.164
-
-
-
—
.143
.142
.0001
.0001
.00005
periodical] y.
-
•40
•70
*70
•70
*70
•70
*70
*70
*70
*70
»70
*?0
78
--
~
-
.0094
.0009
.0027
.001
.0049
.004
.0013
.244
.037
.085
.299
.12
.01
.24
.03
.0*5
.227
.29
.20
.63
.150
.011
.214
.243
.332
.095
.0311
' .XII
.015'
.0155
.054
.041
.10
.076
1945.
61
56.4
130
45*
183
15.24
366
45.73
68.61
346
305
1,070
—
-
-
SCS
scs
scs
CE
SCS
s;s
SOS
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
scs
xs
CE
FS
FS
FS
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
DATA
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
STREAM
NEAREST TOSN
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE
TOTAL
MILES)
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
BETWEEN
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
CAPACITY
AVG. ANN
(ACHE-FT.
PER
SPECIFIC
WEIGHT
(DRY)
rLB. PER
CU. FT.)
AVG, ANN
SEDBOMT
ACCUMULATION
PER SO. Ml.
OF NET DR.
AREA FOR
PERIOD SHOWN
AC.-FT. TONS
AGENCY
SUPPLYING
DATA
75-1
75-2
75-3
75-4
75-5
75-6
75-7
75-10
75-11
75-12
75-13
75-14
7S-15
75-16
75-17
75-18
75-19
75-20
75-21
75-22
co.uieiA iuvis BASDI (GMJO COULES TO UWTIUJ) mm ntciric oour ounuz r» i
i, and Cfcanogan Rlvar Basins
BeUlngha., "ask..
1,100
Teroilliger (TO 273, BM- l)
Wilbur, Wash.
•do-
Ednall, Wash
Warden, Wash
.184
.312
6.47
.482
1.82
1.985
.475
1.25
i.15
.71
.092
.356
.17
.80
4.77
2.26
.05
1,100
I..10
.184
.312
6.47
.480
1.82
Roby .
do—•
Davenrort, Wash.-
4.10
1.985
.11
1.25
4.15
.71
.31
.092
.356
.17
.80
4.77
2.26
.05
3.85
— 1930
July 1936
1939
Oct. 1951
Oct. 19r
— 191..
Oct. 1951
Oct. 1951
— 1939
Oct. 1951
1965
1966
1968
1969
1970
1971
Sama- 1966
• 1967
• 1968
• 1969
• 1970
• 1971
• 1965
• 1966
Sunaer 1967
• 1968
-------
COLBBI* SOTB BASK (WTHMT10BU. WMUXl TO (SUE) COOLS) AMD PACITLC COAST MUDUGK IX 1ULSHI1CIO*
rondorlollo, Spokono, Italia *»Ua, and Loner Snoke Ri*«r
7
-q
Ol
76-1
76-2
76-3o
76-4
7«-5
76-6
76-7
76-8
76-9
76-10
76-12
76-13
76-14
76-15
76-16
are. Uoloo Bo. 1 Pond
ftt. Holu Ba. 2 Pond
Uotor H Bo. 1 Pood
Looter toiT.i Bo. 2 Pood
do
to, 1. Mood Pond
Bd baoltoB Pood
oeldon fcooo. Pood
BOBIT IorteB»ler Pood
-•ui(i Baldol Pond
to .....
Johonn. lolooa Pood
K Oaiamtr Pond
A. I. T»ood7 food
•kilo "«11« tinr in
MBvy lloooi iiuir
do
i. rio •
do
Ihl* Pork Bono Crook
do
do
da
do
Boot Pork Bono Crook
do
do
*"*1dt, r
Trib. of ««otln Crook
— — AeotiB Crook 1. * S. Perk-
Aootia Creak
... — Lotofl Crook
Trib. of doorootor tiver-
aoorvtor M»er
PoloBoeRleer
do
do
do
Cloorvotor River
»*11» Mill* K.TOT
do
do
do
do
Boroo Crook
bit Pork Horoo Crook
do
do
do
do
do
do
•overly, "«*•
Leoletan, Iae*xs
do
OroffLno. T^ !r*
do
Be. Pierce, Idoho
Potloteh. Idelio
0«-fl*.,
da
».. Pierce, I»«0
feillola, kun.—
-------
SUMMARY OF
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION SURVEYS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH 1970
SHEET
NUMBER
RESERVOIR
- — —
STREAK
NEAREST TO*N
DRAINAGE AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
TOTAL
NET
DATE OF
SURVEY
PERIOD
HETTCEH
SURVEYS
(YEARS)
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(ACRE -FT.)
1
1 _ ._
CAPAOTlf
AVG. ANN
RATIO
{ACBE-FT
PER
SPECIFIC
BIGHT
(DRY)
LB. PER
CO. FT)
AVG. ANN.
snaorr
ACCUfULATKW
PEBSQ. H,
OFNETDB.
AKEAFOI
PEUODSBOW
AC.-FT. 1 TONS
AOWCY
SUPPLYWG
DATA
78-1
78-8
78-9
TS-10
78-11
78-12
78-13
78-U
78-15.
78-16
(F20M KIBG SUL TO (SLUBB 1
78-18 CaMn
tt* RJWB) (CoatiinMd)
0.53*
—
.a?
—
1.61
_-.
.191
—
1.06
_
.4»3
—
—
_
.098
—
—
_
.775
—
—
—
__
.40
—
—
—
.
.41
— .
—
_
—
__
.75
__
—
__
—
_
.47
—
—
JLog.
—
s-pt.
S*pt.
_
5^t.
ijpt.
Ort.
J^j
—
"W
IhJ
*»«.
Jon.
Jon.
J»l/
On.
Jon
Aog.
Joly
3^*.
Jm
Jon.
J«ly
JOM
tog.
Jon.
s^pt.
Joly
Jon.
Jon.
Jol,
fcv.
Jon.
Aog.
Jon.
S^Jt.
S^rt.
Jon.
Jon.
Jnlj
•or.
Jw.
*««.
Jon.
!fept.
Aug.
Jm.
Jon.
JoJJ
Dot.
Jon.
Au«.
Jone
S^Jt.
July
Jon.
Jon.
1*3
1951
19*5
1951
19U
1951
19U
1951
1939
1951
1939
1951
1956
1951
195*
1948
1956
1965
1966
1967
196S
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
1965
1966
1967
1968
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
1965
1966
1967
1968
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
1965
1966
1967
1968
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
1965
1966
1967
1968
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
196}
1966
1967
8
—
6
—
10
-~
10
—
12
—
U
"^
—
4
__
8
_
.80
.98
1.09
.35
.60
.21
.8*
.21
—
.79
1.0
1.07
.36
.62
.17
.83
.a
—
.n
.99
1.07
.37
.60
.19
.82
.a
—
.75
1.0
1.O7
.36
.56
.23
.82
.21
—
.80
.98
1.08
.30
.60
.24
.82
.21
—
.85
.99
17.58
16.57
2.90
2.71
7.82
7.52
i.y,
Ui9
12.1.1
11.81
1.08
.84
1.5*
1.52
6.%
6.76
52.27
31.97
1/.008
1/-013 —
y.023 -
i/,0207 —
1/.017 —
«70
•70
„
•70
*70
*70
*70
—
~
__
—
—
—
™
—
—
_
—
—
__
—
~~
—
—
n
—
__
—
—
_
_
—
—
__
_
__
0.240
—
.147
—
.02
.05
.03
.04
—
,079
— .
.17
—
__'
.OOCJ
.0007
.0047
.0003
.0409
0
.0194
0
.0002
.CQU
.0006
.0011
.OCTT9
0
.0028
0
—
.0002
.0008
.0028
.0081
0
.0162
0
.0006
.0107
.0039
.002
.067
0
.0214
0
,0103
,007
.00011
,0177
,04
0
.0276
0
.0017
.0187
__
366
—
224
_
30.49
76.23
45-75
61.0
—
—
—
—
-*
—
—
__
—
__
—
—
_
—
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— .
—
__
—
—
»
—
—
—
__
—
_—
—
—
—
3C3
3C3
9CS
SC5
9CS
3CS
xs
3C3
XS
IPS
re
FS
rs
FS
-------
-q
78-22
79-1
70-2
7O-1
79- it
79-5
79-6
79-7
to to_... _^-_ - _ J«1T 1<*R
_do to • -• • -*> • - Jin» 1969
* ^° JHD« 177C
^ rtn do 5«ot 1970
ECS*™ Crwk 3*diarat DM do do -5 .5 Aog. 1965
0P -- do • ito - — - J«» 19W
do do .,..., ,43 Brrr 19HJ
do do do - Jim* 1 °70
yUKE RIVER BASIX I 4BQVI KINGS HILL) AJD SALJCB 8IYEH BA5DI
Rattlesnake »8tt« Port Bit Wood River Gooding, Idaho--— — 4.81 4.8O — 1943
-to . do do — — S«pt. 1951
Smlmx "alls Stimon Falla Cr*«lc 2o«a-»on, Idaho 1,560 1,555 — 1910
Tailholt "A" Crwak SediMtit Trlb. South Fork Saliaon Tallo* Pln«, Idaho- .845 -84 Aog. 1967
^ do do do »-y 1(**
Tailholt -B- CrMk S«U»nt do • -to • .61 ,61 Aug. 1967
Du
40 . do —do - - Oct. 1«68
Tailholt *C" S^dl^nt DAB Trio. South Fork Salmon T«llo« Pine, Idaho- .556 .548 Aug. 1967
rt do do Hay 1969
rt** do do ^rt 1969
d do dc Juno 1T70
Tailholt tola S«ii»«rt 0«a — do — do 2.54 3/2. 5O — — ^
^ rta ^aot 1966
!• do do fcy 1967
^° ^*f. le^-T
rtn do (to *faj 1969
d°» ^_B « i/e-i i teo nn*
j ^° rt ^fl^t 19*7
Fuearo RICO
rift Kov 19??
1.09
.35
.22
.92
.81
1.01
1.08
.35
.58
.21
.82
a
.74
.34
.63
.34
.64
.62
.72
.68
33
66
.64
.35
42
.40
4.1
—
I/. 013
-
—
_.
25.56
23.89
229,650
227,282
1,264
898
I/. 0164
—
1/.012
-
1/.015
1/.0552
-
3.5
1.88
12.6
8.96
49.883
—
""
—
—
_
-
—
-
-
_
-
•.007
* 004
*.OOB
•.006
.566
.563
2/J
0
.002
.0036
.0012
.0054
.0013
.0012
•70
•50
_
—
_
—
—
__
—
_
—
—
—
—
—
__
_
_
__
_
—
—
—
—
_
95.3
79.8
.04
.034
.04
.001
.0002
.0017
.017
0
-
.0015
.0096
.0067
.0159
_-
.0039
.001
.0373
.0009
.0134
.0066
.0019
.012
*QL4A
.0002
.0191
.0037
.0187
_
.0169
.OOL6
.0159
.0163
.0052
.0006
.0144
.0014
.0024
_
.025
—
.027
61
—
37
—
—
_
—
— -
_
__
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
_-
—
—
—
—
—.
—
—
—
—
52
—
45
9CS
5C3
5C3
n
n
n
n
FS
90S
scs
i/ Pond uo«d to take bodlaad saa^les and organic matter.
2/ All raluBs lost du« to Incorrect wrvay.
2/ Total drmifw^e Tor this da* includes drainage for Tailholt A,
i and C Cracks after 8-22-67.
CaonUlas oxtancton project increased th« dralnaga an
D«t«T«ln«d by 1952 surrey.
Estimated or aa*uaad.
3GS
38.1 1.29 1,070
, to 85.5 «q. mi.; pat into operation Oat. 1992.
-------
00
Index number corresponds to first of two numbers
in summary table, which appear in column headed
"Data Sheet No"
INDEX OF
RIVER BASIN MAPS
-------
RESERVOIR SEDIMENT
DATA SUMMARY
CONCHAS RESERVOIR
NAME OF RESERVOIR
47-lb
DATA SHEET NO.
1. OWNER,
frfllTBIfT *»"«<"•«"
2. STREAM Canadian and Concluu
3. STATE
New Mexico
4. SEC. 33 TWP. 14N RANGE 26E
5. NEAREST P O Conchas Dam
6 COUNTY San Miguel
7 LAT 35' 24* 10"LONG 104* u' 2B'
TOP OF DAM ELEVATION 4240
9. SPILLWAY CREST ELEV. 4201 U
10. STORAGE
ALLOCATION
II.
ELEVATION
TOP OF POOL
12. ORIGINAL
SURFACE AREA.
13. ORIGINAL
ACRES CAPACITY. ACRE-FEE!
14. GROSS STORAGE,
ACRE-FEET
15. DATE
STORAGE BEGAN
• FLOOD CONTROL
4.218
13.715
201-834
S9J.U2
b. MULTIPLE USE
1 Jan. 1939
c. POWER
d. WATER SUPPLY
16 DATE NOR
MAL OPER. BEGAN
«. IRRIGATION
f. CONSERVATION
4.201
10,073
g. INACTIVE
Jan. 1939
4.156
8,520
17. LENGTH OF RESERVOIR
Canadian 23
MILES
11. TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA
7,409
SO Ml.
AV. WIDTH OF RESERVOIR
4200 Contour 0
MILES
22. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
INCHES
INCHES
19. NET SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTING AREA
6,976
SQ. Ml.
23. MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF 0.4864^ (65.6)
20. LENGTH
100 MILES ] AV. WIDTH 73 MILES
24 MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF 192.200 (66.6)
AC.-F T
21. MAX. ELEV.
26.
DATE OF
SURVEY
13,000
| MIN. ELEV. 4.074
25 ANNUAL TEMP MEAN 49" RANGE 20-75^
27.
PERIOD
YEARS
28.
ACCL
YEARS
29.
TYPE OF
SURVEY
30 NO OF RANGES
OR CONTOUR INT.
31 SURFACE
AREA ACRES
32. CAPACITY,
ACRE-FEET
33.
AC.
C/l. RATIO,
FT. PER AC.-FT.
Jan. 193 8
May 1940
June 1942
Nov. 1942
Oct. 1944
Feb. 1949
Oct. 1963
Oct. 1970
1.4
2.1
.4
1.9
4.3
14.7
6.92
1.4
3.4
3.8
5.7
10.1
24.83
31.75
Contour
Range
Range
Range
Contour
Contour
Range (D)
Contour
10 feet.
14 ranges
24 ranges
28 rangss
10 feet
10 feet
45 ranges
5 faet
13,715
13,349
13,552
.13,677
13.664
601,112
599,712
585,112
581,112
576,756
566,16;
550,791
528,951
3.13
3.12
3.04
3.02
3.00
2.95
2.87
2.75
26.
DATE OF
SURVEY
347 PERIOD
ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION
35
PERIOD WATER INFLOW, ACRE-FEET
36. WATER INFL. TO DATE, AC.-FT.
4 MFAN ANNUAL h MAX ANNUAL c. PERIOD TOTAI
a. MEAN ANNUAL b. TOTAL TO DATE
May 1940
June 1342
Nov. 1942
Oct. 1944
Feb. 1949
Oct. 1963
Oct. 1970
Inches
14.26
22.40
12.50
14.82
13.68
13.01
12.04
72.700
859,780
1,079,980
148,760
120,600
144.340
157,100
1,059,699
1,168,350
168,858
336,514
394,190
101,780
1,805,640
431,990
273,180
618.140
2.121,850
1,087,100
72,700
580,980
615,607
468,320
309,960
211,790
199,670
101,780
1,907,320
2.339,310
2,612,440
3,130,680
6,252,430
6,339.530
26
DATE OF
SURVEY
37
PERIOD CAPACITY LOSS, ACRE-FEET
38. TOTAL SED. DEPOSITS TO DATE, ACRE-FEET
• PERIOD TOTAL b AV ANNUAL c PER SO Ml YEAR
a TOTAL TO DATE b AV ANNUAL c PER SO Ml YEAR
May 19 4O
June 1942
Nov. 1942
Oct. 1944
Feb. 1949
Oct. 1963
Oct. 1970
1.4OO
14,600
4.0OO
4.366
10,593
15,364
21,848
6,962
2,290
2,460
1,046
3,157
0.996
.328
.353
.160
.463
1.4OO
16,000
20.OOO
24.356
34,949
50,313
72,161
l.OOO
4,710
6,260
4,270
3,460
2,030
2.273
O.143
.675
.764
.612
.496
.291
.326
DATE OF
SURVEY
39 AV DRY WGT .
LBS PER CU FT
40 SED DEP..TONSPERSQ Ml -YR
4i STORAGE LOSS. PCT
a PERIOD
b TOTAI. TO DATE
• AV ANN. b TOT TODATE
42 SED INFLOW. PPM
PERIOD
b. TOT TO DATE
May 1940
June 1942
Nov. 1942
Oct. 1944
Feb. 1949
Oct. 1983
Oct. 1970
75.7*
75.7
76.7
76.7
76.7
75.7
76.7
1,643
641
581
247
746
286
1.113
1,243
1.O09
818
479
537
0.17
.78
.88
.71
.58
.84
.38
0.23
2.66
3.33
4.05
5.81
8.37
12.00
16,887
9,810
11.233
19,348
24.802
8,748
24,876
16,687
10,177
10,372
11,310
13.543
11,621
13.8O8
'Estimated
F-79
-------
M. DATE OF
8URV8Y
May 1940
June 1942
Nov. 1942
Oct. 1944
Fab. 1949
Oct. 1963
Oct. 1970
26. DATS OF
8URVBV
May 3640
SI
Juiia 1942
Nov. 1942
•IS.
43.
^78-^28
ft
16
13
9
3
DEPTH DESIGNATION RANGE IN FEET BELOW. AND ABOVE.
J28-108 fl08-88
PERCENT
4
4
9
7
7
5
8
12
44. REACH
0-SO
10-20
£0-90
88-98
38-68 | 68-48
48-38
38-28
CREST ELEVATION1
28-Cntt
Creat-17 17
-29
OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN DEPTH DESIGNATION
10
9
15
10
6
5
9
6
10
7
11
6
DESIGNATION PERCENT OF
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
16
11
13
8
16
14
11
11
ia
14
8
33
16
7
4
2
1
TOTAL ORIGINAL LENGTH OF RESERVOIR
70-SO
80-90
90-100
-
PERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN REACH
114
30
8
20
8
•1
23
22
3
21
2
0
3
7
4
12
5
1
-26
10
4
12
8
2
-36
18
22
13
16
19
2
13
14
27
16
67
27
5
29
5
18
14
16
1<
2
2
3
S. Csun^
Concrii
S. Can
Concb
S. Can,
Conch
105J
-110 -11
S -120
-125
DESIGNATION
diatt rt-t
s Arm
dian Ai
s Arm
di«n Ai
a Arm
a
a
a
RANGE IN RESERVOIR OPERATION
WATER YKAB
?947
1948
1949
I960
1961
19b2
1963
1954
1956
1956
1967
1968
4C.
KLEVATION
4,230
4,220
4,218
4,210
4,201
4.2OO
4,190
MAX, «LIV.
4,202.46
4,201
.48
4,200.97
4,198. &9
4,194.68
4,184.15
4,176.16
4,173.22
4,190.37
4,189.98
4,176.40
4,201.82
WIN ELEV.
4,199.00
4,198.83
4,182,50
4,185.85
4,184,24
4,168.23
4,182.07
4,3 55.80
4,167.10
4,173.19
4,163.80
4,173,97
INFLOW. AC.-FT.
129,330
154,700
163,260
131,410
108,770
125,930
107,950
32,030
297,760
51,880
(28,930
336.610
1 WATER YEAR
1S59
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
I960
1967
1968
1969
1970
MM. ELEV,
4.2O0.38
4.199.37
4,201.75
4.2O1. 13
4,193.01
4,178.58
4,201.83
4,200.77
4.195.35
4,193.13
4,193.65
4,197.58
RSIN. ELBV.
4,193.40
4,192.88
4,
196.56
4,193.03
4,
176.16
4,156.06
4,167.61
4,192.25
4,
4,
4,
185.79
183.51
180.C5
4,189.30
INFLOW,
AC.-FT.
112,620
131.520
216,440
119,280
76,510
31,060
394.190
108,660
142,740
113,130
192,830
105.630
ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
AREA
IS. 380
14,110
13,864
11,845
9,692
9.463
7,290
CAPACITY
709,119
556,724
528,961
•426,866
330,124
320,546
237,119
ELEVATION
4,180
4,170
4,160
4,150
4,140
4,130
4,120
AREA
6.513
4,323
3,394
2,642
1,959
1,323
797
. CAPACITY
173,912
125.102
86.519
56,348
33.495
17,170
6.690
[ELEVATION
4,110
4,100
4,090
4,080
4,070
4,060
AREA
311
2
1
0
0
CAPACITY
1.299
24
9
2
0
0
47. REMARKS AND REFERENCES
lj Emergency Spillway Owst at 4218.
'2J Conchas 13.8 miles.
BJ From climatic Atlas dated June 1968.
4/ This figure affected by water taken out above reservoir for irrigation.
5/ Totals computed to end of each month shown.
6/ Only dates computed,
48. AGENCY MAKING SURVEY Albuquerque Dhtrict Corps of Engineers
49 AGENCY StlPPLVINQ DATA rv,™. „» ir.,_i
50
DATE
Mir 197ft
t
Dril 1966
F-80
-------
RESERVOIR SEDIMENT
DATA SUMMARY
NAME OF RESERVOIR
DATA SHEET NO
5
0
RESERVOIR
WATERSHED
H
Q
UJ
OL
1 OWNER 2 STREAM :
4 SEC TWP RANGE 5 NEAREST P 0
(
7 LAT * ' " LONG * ' "8 TOP OF DAM ELEVATION
10 STORAGE 11 ELEVATION 12 ORIGINAL
ALLOCATION TOP OF POOL SURFACE AREA, ACRES
a FLOOD CONTROL
b MULTIPLE USE
c. POWER
d. WATER SUPPLY
e IRRIGATION
f. CONSERVATION
g INACTIVE
STATE
> COUNTY
) SPILLWAY CREST ELEV.
13 ORIGINAL 14 GROSS STORAGE,
CAPACITY, ACRE-FEET ACRE-FEET
15. DATE
STORAGE BEGAN
" 16 DATE NOR
. MAL OPER BEGAIN
17 LENGTH OF RESERVOIR MILES AV WIDTH OF RESERVOIR MILES
18 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA SO Ml 22 MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION INCHES
19 NET SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTING AREA SQ. Ml. 23 MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF INCHES
20 LENGTH MILES ] AV WIDTH MILES 24 MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF AC -F T
21 MAX ELEV [ MIN ELEV. 25 ANNUAL TEMP MEAN RANGE
26 DATE OF
SURVEY
26. DATE OF
SURVEY
26. DATE OF
SURVEY
26 DATE OF
SURVEY
27 28
PERIOD ACCL
YEARS YEARS
34 PER OD
ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION
29 TYPE OF
SURVEY
30 NO OF RANGES
OR CONTOUR INT
31 SURFACE
AREA, ACRES
35 PERIOD WATER INFLOW, ACRE-FEET
a MEAN ANNUAL
b MAX ANNUAL
37 PERIOD CAPACITY LOSS, ACRE-FEET
a PERIOD TOTAL
39. AV DRY WGT,
L8S. PER CU. FT.
b AV. ANNUAL
c PER SQ. Ml
YEAR
40 SED. DEP..TONS PERSQ. MI.-YR.
a. PERIOD
b TOTAL TO
DATE
c PERIOD TOTAL
32 CAPACITY,
ACRE-FEET
33 C/l RATIO,
AC -FT PER AC FT
36 WATER INFL. TO DATE, AC -FT.
a MEAN ANNUAL
b. TOTAL TO DATE
38 TOTAL SED DEPOSITS TO DATE, ACRE-FEET
a. TOTAL TO DATE
b AV ANNUAL
c PER SQ Ml. -YEAR
41 STORAGE LOSS, PCT. 42. SED. INFLOW, PPM
a.AV ANN. b TOT TO DATE a PERIOD b. TOT TO DATE
F-81
-------
26 DATE OF
SURVEY
DEPTH DESIGNATION RANGE IN FEET BELOW, AND ABOVE, CREST ELEVATION
PERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN DEPTH DESIGNATION
DATE OF
SURVEY
44
REACH DESIGNATION PERCENT OF TOTAL ORIGINAL LENGTH OF RESERVOIR
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 -105 -110 -115 -120 -125
PERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN REACH DESIGNATION
RANGE IN RESERVOIR OPERATION
WATER YEAR
MAX ELEV
WIN ELEV.
INFLOW, AC.-FT,
WATER YEAR
MAX. ELEV
MIN ELEV INFLOW, AC FT
46
ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA
ELEVATION
AREA
CAPACITY
ELEVATION
AREA
CAPACITY
ELEVATION
AREA
CAPACITY
47 REMARKS AND REFERENCES
48 AGENCY MAKING SURVEY
49. AGENCY SUPPLYING DATA
50. DATE
Apr,
F-82
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1266, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, Mississippi, July, 1973.
F-83
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
INITIAL DILUTION TABLES
The Tables are ordered as follows:
Tables
Port Spacing (PS) (Diameters)
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
2
5
10
25
1000 (effluent from each port
acts as a single plume)
Tables
h.
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Current Velocity to Effluent
Velocity Ratio (k)
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.00 (no current)
Tables
Composite Stratification Parameter (SP)
1
2
3
4
5
200 (high stratification)
500
2000
10000
infinity (no stratification)
After finding N,, N~> and N3 the appropriate Table number is:
Nl + N2 + N3
G-l
-------
TABLE 1
PORT SPACING
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
200
H5CCUIM
t
2
20
25
33
OIL AT
ON
DKNS1MC1RIC rPOUDE NUMbHH
3 in 30
100
1000
T)
*J
T)
1]
1)
M]
T)
K)
T)
HI
T)
HI
T)
M)
T)
HJ
T)
M]
T)
T)
M)
T)
f]
T)
V]
1.9
2.7
3.5
4.3( J.71
4.5
S,4
7.0
8.5
10,7
12, «
16,1
16. 9( 21,3)
19,2
2.2C 0,4)
3.7
3.3
3.8
4.2
4.7
5.6
6.6
7.8
9.2
11.3
13. 5( 25.0)
17.5
2. If 0.0]
4.3
5.1
5.7
6.2
6.7
7,7
8.6
9.9
11.2
13.6
14. 3( 21.7)
16.2
2. 1C 0.0] 2. It. 0.0) 2. It 0.0]
7.0 13.0 4U.5
B.5 15. 8 60.9
9.5 17.0 70.5
7S.SC 1.6)
10, J 19.6 1«. 7
11.1 21.1 ti8.fi
12.6 23.6
.
13.8 26.0
27. 1C 10,0)
15.8 29.4
17.6 33.6
18. 1C 15.9)
21.0
I
REAL
KIBE
3S.J( 3t.O) 26.8< 36,6) 23. 0( 32.5) 2S.6C 24.6) 37. 2( 16.2) 104. 0( 5.H)
G-2
-------
TABLE 2
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
UFNSIHETRIC FROUDE NUHHER
3 10 30 100 1000
KJSF.(DIA)
1
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
IS
20
25
33
42
54
:
i
:
:
•
•
•
:
•
•
:
•
•
:
>
•
>
:
i
:
:
•
:
!
:
:
:
•
•
•
•
i
:
:
;
:
:
•
•
t
!
D
T)
Ml
T)
M 3
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M j
T)
HI
T)
H]
T)
M
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
Mj
1.9
2.7
3.b
4.31 3.H]
4.5
b.4
7.0
8.5
10.9
13.1
16.7
20.3
25.5
26. 5( 34. H)
30.7
2.2f 0.4]
2.7
3.3
3.8
4.2
4.7
5.6
6.6
7.8
9.2
11.4
13.6
16.9
20.8
21. 0( 42.6)
26.5
2. It 0.0]
4.3
5.1
5.7
6.2
6.7
7.6
8.5
9.8
11.0
13.0
15.0
1R.5
21. 4( 39.2)
22.9
32.2
2.H 0.0) 2.H 0.0] 2. It 0.0]
7.0 12.9 48.1
8.4 15, R bO.l
9.b 17.7 68.5
10.3 19.4 7b.b
11.1 20. R 81.5
12.5 23.3 93.0
94. 3( 7.3)
13.7 25.3 104.0
15. b 28.0
17.3 30.7
3b.0( 20.2)
20.0
22.8 39.4
25. 6( 30.0)
27.5
33.4
OIL AT MAX REAL
OR PERMITTED KISE 59.3( 50.2) 44.9( 61.0) 36.8( 56.8) 37.0( 45.6) 48.3( 31.9) 131.0( 11.7)
G-3
-------
TABLE 3
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DtUSIMETRIC FROUDl- HUMBfh
3 10 30
100
1000
RISE(DJAJ
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
T)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
H]
1)
M]
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
V]
T)
MJ
T)
V)
T)
M)
T)
X)
T)
")
T)
f)
T)
«)
T)
1.9
2.7
3.6
1.3C 3.8)
-------
TABLE 4
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
= 10000
DENSIMtTRIC FPOUDE NUMHEH
3 I" 30
100
1000
RlSF(niA)
1
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
244
T)
M)
T)
M)
T)
")
T)
M ]
T)
M)
T)
P)
T)
111
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
VJ
T)
*IJ
T)
HJ
T)
»}
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
«)
T)
MJ
T)
M
T)
")
T)
MJ
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.3t 3.8)
4.S
b.4
7.0
8.6
10.9
13.3
17.0
21.0
27.1
33.8
42.8
54.9
69.3
U7.0
109.0
117.0(161.0)
133.0
2.2C 0.4]
2.7
3.3
3.8
4.2
4.7
5.6
6.6
7.9
9.2
11.4
13.6
17.1
21.1
26.3
33.3
41.9
52.6
66.5
83.9
91 .5(209.0)
107.0
2. It 0.0]
4.3
5.1
5.7
6.2
6.7
7.6
8.5
9.7
10.9
12.8
14.7
17.6
21.0
25.3
31.1
38.3
47.5
60.1
77.5
90.4(717.0)
107.0
2. It 0.0)
7.0
8.4
9.5
JO. 3
11 .0
12.4
13.6
15.3
17.0
19.7
22.2
26.2
30.5
36.5
44.0
53.6
66.2
H2.9
101 .0(1 82.0)
lOh.O
140.0
2. It 0.0]
12.9
15.8
17.7
1^.3
20.7
27.9
24.9
27.7
30.0
33.6
37.2
47.5
4H.1
55.3
64.7
76.0
90.4
100.0
110. 0( 150.0)
133.0
2. It 0.0)
48.1
59.7
67.6
74.0
79.3
88. n
95.6
105.0
i
113.0
125.0
135.0
149.0
163.0
180.0
200. 0( 6P.9)
201.0
226.0
OIL AT ."AX RKAL
OP PERMITTED RISE 2?5.0(732.0) 774.0(793.0) 176.0(797.0) 152.0(260.0) 155.0(774.0) 244.U( 9Q.9)
G-5
-------
TABLE 5
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER - INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
HISECDIAl
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
Ib
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
14H
190
244
DENSlMtTKIC K
3 10
NUMHEK
30
100
1000
: MI
:
MJ
M)
M]
K]
Ml
M]
M]
M
M]
M]
M]
M)
M]
M)
Ml
M]
Ml
M]
I M]
S
• " ]
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.31 3.8]
4.5
5.4
7.0
H.6
10.9
13.3
17.1
21.0
27.1
34.0
43.1
55.3
7t.O
89.6
115.0
147.0
IfaS.O
2.2t
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
11.
13.
17.
21.
26.
33.
42.
53.
67.
85.
109.
0.4)
7
3
8
2
7
6
6
9
2
4
6
1
1
3
3
2
0
5
8
0
2.1
4
5
5
6
b
7
8
9
10
12
14
17
20
25
30
38
46
b8
73
9?
t 0.01
.3
.1
.7
.2
.7
.6
.5
.7
.9
.8
.6
.6
.8
.1
.9
.0
.8
.3
.0
.0
2.1
7
H
9
10
11
1 2
13
15
17
19
22
26
30
36
4)
53
64
79
98
123
I 0.0]
.0
.4
.5
.3
.0
.4
.6
.3
.0
.6
.2
.2
.5
.2
.7
.0
.5
.5
.«
.0
2.1
12
15
17
19
20
22
24
27
30
33
37
42
47
54
64
75
89
107
130
15H
[ 0.0]
.9
.fi
.7
.3
.7
.9
.9
.7
.0
.6
.0
.2
.a
.9
.4
.5
.2
.0
.0
.0
2. 1C
46.
59.
67.
74.
7y.
bb.
9b.
lob.
in.
124.
133.
147.
Ib9.
174.
191.
210.
232.
0.0]
1
3
6
0
3
0
6
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DTI. AT MAX PtAL
OR PTRMITTED RISE 231.0(300.0) 134,0(301.0) 111.0(300.0) 149,0(300.0) 188.0(301.0} 257.0(147,0)
G-6
-------
TABLE 6
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING « 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DENSIMKTR1C FRdUOE NUMBCH
3 10 30 100 1000
K I Hf. {. U 1 »
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
: T)
: M]
i
: 1)
I H]
t
1 T)
: H)
:
: T)
i M )
:
: 1)
i * J
!
: T)
: M)
j
1 T)
: M
:
J T)
: HJ
:
J T)
J H)
:
: T)
: MJ
:
: T)
: H]
:
I T)
: M]
I
: T)
: «]
1.9
2.7
3.0
4.2f 3.7)
4.5
b.4
6.9
8.4
10.4
12.5
15.6
16. 5( 21.6)
18.4
2. It 0.4]
2.6
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
5.1
5.9
7.0
8.1
9.8
11.4
12. )( 27.2)
13.8
2. 1C O.OJ
4.0
4.6
5.1
5.5
5.8
6.4
7.0
7.7
8.5
9.7
10.9
11. 1C 25.9)
13.0
2. 1C O.OJ 2. 1C 0.0) 2. If 0.0)
b.3 10.9 36.5
7.4 13.0 44.1
8.1 14, S bl.2
B.H 15,7 56.5
59. 3( 4.6)
9.3 16.7 61.8
10.2 18,5 74.0
11.0 20.0
22. 2( 12.1)
12.0
13.0 24.2
14. 2C 18. R)
14.6
16.5
'
OIL AT MAX REAL
OH PEVMlTTtD RISC 29.4C 31.7) 20.4C 40.7) 17.OC 40.3) 19.6C 30.5) 29.9C 19.6) 81.1C 7.41
G-7
-------
TABLE 7
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
500
DFrtSIMKTRIC FHfJUni> NUMRFR
3 JO 30
ion
1000
RlStl(OIft)
20
25
I i
42
54
70
1 )
M)
1.9
1)
MJ
2.7
TJ
MJ
3.6
T)
»} 4.31 3.7]
4.5
T)
M)
5.4
T)
6.9
1 )
MJ
H.4
T)
MJ
10.6
T)
12.7
T)
MJ
16.2
T)
MJ
19.6
T)
MJ
•J 4 . h
7) 2b.8( 35.4)
29.4
T)
HJ
T)
M)
T)
M)
2.11 0.4)
2.6
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
5.2
5.9
7.0
8.1
9.9
11.7
14.4
17.4
18. 6( 46.3)
21.0
2. It 0.0)
4.0
4.6
5.1
5.5
5.B
6.4
7.0
7.7
8.4
9.6
10.7
17. •>
14.4
15. 9C 48.6)
17.3
22.0
2.11 0.0] 2.11 n.O] 2. If 0.0]
6.3 JO. 9 36.5
7.4 13.0 44.6
8.1 14.4 50.2
8.8 15.6 54.9
9.3 16.6 59.3
10.1 1H.2 66.2
10.9 19.7 72.4
73. 5( 9.3)
11.9 21.4 82.7
12.7 23.1
14.1 25.4
27. 5C 24.5)
15.6 27.8
17. t, 11.7
1P.9( 37.fi)
20.1
24.2
:
DIb AT MAX PFAI,
OR PE.KMJTTFD RISE 50.6( 51.5) 34.8( 68.1) 26.9( 73.2) 27.2( 5n.l) 37.4( 39.8) 101.0( 15.0)
G-8
-------
TABLE 8
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
= 2000
DFNSICKTHIC FROUDF f'UMHER
3 10 -*<
100
1000
RISIf(DIA) -
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
S4
70
90
115
14fl
T)
MJ
1.9
T)
MJ
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
"] 4.3C 3.71
4.5
T)
MJ
5.4
T)
M )
6.9
T)
8.5
T)
f ]
10.6
T)
M J
12.8
T)
16.4
T)
20.1
T)
M]
75. 8
T)
32.0
T1
Ml
39.0
T)
M]
49.6
T) 51.1 ( 72. b)
60.0
1 )
"1
T)
M]
T)
2. 1C 0.4J 2. 1C 0.0] ?.U 0.0] 2. 1C 0.0] 2. 1C 0.0)
2.6 4.0 6.3 10.9 36.5
3.2 4.6 7.4 13.0 44.3
3.6 5.1 8.1 14.4 49.8
4.0 5.5 8.7 15.6 54.5
4.4 S.B 9.3 16.6 58.0
5.2 6.4 10.1 18. \ 64.4
6.0 6.Q 10.9 19.4 69.5
7.1 7.7 11.8 21.1 76.6
8.2 8.4 12.6 22.6 82.3
10.1 9.5 14.0 24. R 91.3
11.9 10.6 15.? 26.7 99.4
101. 0( 26.5)
14.8 12.4 17.1 29.6 112.0
1R.O 14.3 19.2 32.7 131.0
22.3 16.8 21.9 36.7
41. 4( 68.8)
27.7 20.2 25.3 41.8
34.3 24.4 30.1 48.7
36. 7( 98.7) 29.6(115.0) 31. 9( 98.1)
41.5 36.7
37.9
OIL AT «,AX PEAL
OR PFPHITTF.D
SE 117.0(105.0) 77.9(143.0) 53.3(1*7.0) 51.0(147.0) 5fi. 0(109.0) 140. 0( 43.3)
G-9
-------
TABLE 9
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DENSIMETKIC FHOUOE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
RISECDIft)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
244
T)
MJ
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
"J 4.3[ 3.7]
4.5
T)
M]
5.4
T)
M]
6.9
T)
8.5
T)
"]
10.7
T)
M]
12.9
T)
16.6
T)
MJ
20.2
T)
M]
26.0
T)
M]
32.7
41.3
T)
M]
52.7
T)
"J
66.6
T)
83.1
T)
M)
104.0
T) 114.0C If-'j.O)
127.0
T)
T)
, AT "AX HtAL
PEKMjnfcD klSF IPS. 0(23". (i)
2. It 0.4] 2. It 0.0]
2.6 4.0
3.2 4.6
3.6 5.1
4.0 5.5
4.4 5.R
5.2 6.4
6.0 6.9
7.1 7.7
8.2 8.4
10.1 9.5
11.9 10.6
14.8 12.4
18.2 14.3
22.6 16. R
28.4 20.?
35.7 24.4
44. f- 29.4
55. R 3t.4
69.6 44.9
81 .4(229.0)
R5.° 55. R
M.O(2f'S.O)
1"! .Of 300. 0) 67. 3( 500.0)
2.1t 0.0] 2.1t O.OJ
6.3 10.9
7.4 13.0
8.1 14.4
8.7 15.6
V.3 16.4
10.1 18.1
10.8 1Q.4
11. 6 21.1
1246 22.5
13.9 24.6
15.1 26.5
17.0 29.2
1 H.9 32.2
21.4 3fi.O
24.6 40.4
28.6 46.1
33.5 53.0
40.0 62.1
48.5 74.0
77.7(214.0)
60. 4 R9. H
bh.OC?67.0)
75.7(301.0) 1 Oft.0(30n.o)
2. It 0.0]
36.2
44.3
49. P
54.1
58.0
63.9
69.0
75.5
60.8
BH.6
95.4
105.0
113.0
124.0
136.0
151. 0( 89. fl)
151.0
170.0
19I.OM3P.O)
6-10
-------
TABLE 10
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
I
1
,
1
4
b
7
9
12
13
20
75
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
244
MJ
1.9
2.7
M]
3.6
"I 4.31 3.7]
4.5
5.4
6.9
8.5
M]
10.7
MJ
12.9
"J
16.6
20.2
26.2
M]
32.7
M]
41 .6
f]
53.0
68. 1
V)
86.3
110.0
141.0
M]
180.0
DENSIMtTKIC FRfHinE NUMBFP
3 10 30
2.1t 0.4]
2.6
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
5.2
b.O
7.1
8.2
10. 1
11.9
14.9
18,2
22.6
29.6
36.0
45.2
57.5
73.0
92.7
2.H 0.0]
4.0
4.6
5.1
5.5
5.8
6.4
6.9
7.7
8.4
9.5
10.fi
12.4
14.3
16.8
20.2
24.4
29.6
36.5
45.1
56.3
2. It 0.0)
6.3
7.4
8.1
8.7
9.3
10.1
10.8
11.8
15.6
13.9
15.1
16.9
1«.9
21.4
24.6
28.4
33.1
39.1
46.8
56. b
100
2. It 0.0]
10.9
13.0
14.4
15.6
Ib.-l
18.1
19.4
21.1
22.5
24.6
26.5
29.2
32.?
35.7
40.3
45.7
52.2
eo.9
71.3
84. a
1000
2. It 0.0)
36.2
44.3
49.fi
54.J
58.0
63.9
69.0
75.0
80.8
8B.2
94.5
103.0
112.0
121 .0
132.0
144.0
156.0
172.0
1B9.0
OIL AT MAX RfcAl,
OK Pt-H«UTIEl> KISt 221.0(300.0) 113.0(301.0) 67.8(300.0) 66.5(301.0) 98.4(301.0) 201 .0(221 .0)
6-11
-------
TABLE 11
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER =
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.02
200
RISE(DIA)
12
15
20
25
13
42
DEHSIMtTRIC FKOUDK NIIMBF.H
3 10 30
100
1000
T)
M]
1 )
M
T)
MJ
'I)
**)
T)
Ml
1 )
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
*]
T)
T)
MJ
T)
M]
: T)
: MJ
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.21 3.7]
4.5
5.3
6.8
8.2
10.3
12.2
15.3
16.21 21.8)
17.9
2. If 0.4]
2.6
3.1
3.5
3.9
4.3
5.0
5.7
6.7
7.7
9.3
10.9
11 .6( 26.0)
13.0
15.5
2.0C 0.0]
3.8
4.4
4.B
5.1
5.4
6.0
6.4
7.0
7.6
8.R
9.3
V.9( 28.3)
10.6
12.2
2. Of 0.0] 2. Of 0.0] 2.0( 0.0] [
5.» 9.7 27.8
*.7 11.2 33.3
7.4 12.4 37.2
7.8 13.3 40.5
8.3 13.9 43.4
45. i>( 5.8)
8.9 15.2 4«.8
9.5 16.2 5S.7
10.3 17.6
18. 5( 14.2)
10.9 18.9
12.0 71.1
12. 2( 21.4)
13.0
14.8
i
1
nil AT MAX RRAL
OR PKPH1TTED PISE 24,0( 32.1) 16.6( 47.2) 13.5( 45.1) 16.0( 35.2) 24.1C 23.2) 60.7( 9.5)
G-12
-------
TABLE 12
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
1
T)
I
2
3
4
«j
-j
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
•O
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
*•)
3.6
r )
", J 4.21 3.7]
4.5
1 )
MJ
5.4
T)
M
6.9
T)
MJ
8.4
7 )
M]
10.4
T)
12.6
T)
15.9
1 )
19.2
T)
M)
23.9
f) 25. 5C 35.8)
28.6
1 )
M 1
T)
M)
T)
OEN5IMETH1C FPnUPF: NUMBFH
3 10 30 100 1000
2.1 [ 0.4)
2.6
3.1
3.5
3.9
4.3
5.0
5.7
6.8
7.8
9.5
11.2
13.7
16.5
18. 0( 47.8)
19.7
23.5
2. Of 0.0) 2.0t 0.0] 2.0[ 0.0] 2.0t 0.0)
3.8 5.8 0.7 27.8
4.4 6.7 11.7 33.1
4.8 7.4 12.3 36.7
5.1 7.8 13.2 39.6
5.4 8.2 13.9 42.2
6.0 8.9 15.0 46.5
6.4 9.5 16.0 50.2
55. 3C 12.1)
7.0 10.2 17.3
7.6 10.8 18.2 60.4
8.5 11.7 19.8
9.3 12.5 21.1
22. 3( ?9.6)
10.6 13.6 23.2
12.0 14.9 25. R
13. 8( 54.0) 15. 1< 44.2)
16.5
16.2 19.5
OIL AT MftX RKAL
OR PF;HM1TTKD H15K 40.S( 52.2) 27.4( 70.8) 19.9( 83.6) ?0.5( 71.6) 29.3C 48.4) 73.9( 19.6)
G-13
-------
PORT SPACING
TABLE 13
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.02
DENSIMLTRXC FROUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
SK(DIA) •
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
146
190
! T)
' M]
T)
Ml
T)
*J
T)
M)
T)
»)
T)
M)
T)
"I
T)
*]
T)
MJ
T)
HI
T)
H)
T)
-)
T)
»J
T)
*•)
T)
«]
T)
HJ
T)
Ml
T)
KJ
T)
M
T)
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.2[ 3.7]
4.5
5.4
6.9
8.4
10.5
12.6
16.2
19.7
25.3
31.3
39.1
48.6
50. 3( 73. f)
5B.4
2.11 0.4]
2.6
3.1
3.5
3.9
4.3
5.0
5.7
6.8
7.8
9.6
11.3
14.0
17.1
21.1
26.2
32.2
35.4(102.0)
38.9
47.2
2. or o.oi
3.8
4.4
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.9
6.4
7.0
7.6
e.5
9.3
10.7
12.2
14.1
16.7
19.7
23.4
2b. 3(129.0)
27. fl
J4.7
2.0U 0.0]
5.8
6.7
7.4
7.B
8.2
8.9
9.5
10.1
10.7
11.6
12.3
13.4
14.5
15.1
17.6
19.7
22.2
23.1 (174.0)
2S.7
32.6
2.0t 0.0]
9.7
11.2
12.3
13.2
13.8
15.0
15.9
17.0
18.0
19.4
20.5
22.2
23.8
25.6
2R.O
30. 3( R7.0)
30.8
34.4
,
2. or o.o] t
27.8
33.1
36.1
39.4
41.9
45.9
49.1
53.0
56.8
61.8
66.4
72.9
74. b( 35.4)
80.0
91.1
AT VAX PE*L
OR FERMriEO HJSE 93.0(107.0} 61.3(149.U) 41.1fl<>4.0) 34.S(1<>4.0) 41.2(143.0) 101.0( 5f>,2)
G-14
-------
TABLE 14
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DENS1WETRIC FPOUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
RISf(DIA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
J4b
1VO
244
T)
T)
Ml
T)
T)
M)
T)
»•]
T)
V]
T)
Ml
T)
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
K]
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
I)
ri
T)
H]
I)
>>)
T)
Pi
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
HI
L AT "AX FE*t,
PifcwiTTtD KISf
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.2C 3.7]
4.5
5.4
6.9
6.4
10.6
12.7
16.3
19.8
25.4
31.8
40.2
51.2
64. e
61.1
101.0
112. 0( 16 7.0)
123.0
161.0(2*1.0)
2. It 0.4] 2. OC 0.0)
2.6 3.8
3.1 4.4
3.5 4.8
3.9 5.1
4.3 5.4
5.0 5.9
5.7 6.4
6.B 7.0
7.8 7.6
9.6 8.5
11.4 9.3
14.1 10.7
17.3 12.2
21.4 14.2
26.9 16.°
33. R 20.1
42.2 24.1
52.8 29.4
65.8 35. <*
7b. 6(230.0)
80.9 43.9
93.3(300.0) bl.7(3"0.0)
2. or o.nj
5.8
6.7
7.4
7.8
8.2
8.9
9.5
10.1
10.7
11.6
12.3
13.4
14.4
15.8
17.4
19.4
21.8
2b.l
29.0
34.0
39. 1 (301 .0)
2.0t 0.0]
9.7
11.2
12.3
13.2
13. R
14.9
15.9
17.0
18.0
19.3
20.4
22.0
23.5
25.2
27.2
29.6
32.2
35. e
39.7
45.0
4".M2P9.0)
50.8(101.0)
*
2.01 O.OJ
27. e
33.1
3b.S
39.4
41.6
45.5
48.8
52.7
56.1
60.8
64.5
70.1
75.2
81.2
88.2
96.1
105.0
107.0(173.0)
116.0
134.0
1 40.0C 1 Q9.0)
G-15
-------
TABLE 15
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0 02
RISE(D1 A)
1
2
3
4
5
7
q
1?
15
70
75
33
42
54
70
4(1
1 1 S
149
1^0
74;
DEN51METRIC
3 10
NUMBF'R
30
100
1000
Ml
H J
M)
MJ
MJ
M]
M]
M)
M)
M]
M 1
MJ
"J
Ml
Mj
v
M|
MJ
MJ
H]
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.2t 3.7]
4.5
5.4
6.9
4.4
10.6
12.7
16.3
19. P
25.6
32.0
40.5
51.9
66.2
«4. 1
lOS.O
1 37.1
175.0
2.U 0.4]
2.6
3.1
3.5
3.9
4.3
5.0
5.7
6.8
7.8
9.6
11.4
14.1
17.3
21.5
27.1
34.0
42.8
54.3
69.0
87.7
2.0C 0.0]
3.8
4.4
4.8
5.1
5.4
5."
6.4
7.0
7.6
8.5
9.3
10.7
17,7
14.7
16.9
20.7
24.4
29. R
36.6
45.6
2.0( 0.0]
5.8
6.7
7.4
7.8
8.2
8.9
9.5
10.1
10.7
11.6
17.3
13.4
J4.4
15.7
17.4
19.4
21 .8
25.0
29.0
34.0
2.0[ 0.0]
9.7
11.7
12.3
13.2
13. fl
14.9
15.0
17.0
18.0
19.3
20.4
22.0
23.4
25.1
77.1
29.2
31.8
35.1
J8.7
43.3
2.0 C 0.0]
27. H
33.1
36.5
39.4
41.6
45.5
48.8
52.7
55.7
60.5
64.2
69.5
74.4
80.0
86.4
93.1
100.0
109.0
117.0
128.0
DM. AT MAX HF.At,
OH PERMnrHD HIPE 215.0(301.0) 107.0(300.0) 54.7(301.0) 39.2(301.0) 47.9(302.0) 137.0(300.0)
G-16
-------
TABLE 16
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.00
DENS1MKTRIC FPOUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
KISF(DIA) -
1
2
3
4
b
~J
9
1 2
15
20
2b
jj
12
T)
MJ
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
"1
3.6
T)
«) 1.21 3.6]
4.b
T)
MJ
5. 3
T)
6.8
T)
H.2
T)
M]
10.2
T)
12.1
T)
M)
lb.1
T) 16.1 ( 22.0)
17.6
T )
*]
T)
MJ
T)
2.11 0.4)
2.6
3.0
3.5
3.8
4.2
4.9
5.6
6.6
7.5
9.0
10.5
11. 3( 28.4)
12.5
14.1
2.0C 0.0]
3.7
4.2
4.6
4.9
5.7
5.7
6.1
6.6
7.1
8.0
8.7
9.3( 29.4)
9.9
10. H
2.0[ 0.0) 2. Of 0.0) 2.0[ 0.0)
5.6 8.8 22.2
6.3 10.1 25.4
6.V H.O 27.8
7.3 11.7 29.6
7.6 12.3 31.1
'
8.2 13.2 33.8
34. 0( 7.3)
B.7 13.9 J6.2
9.3 14.9 40.8
9.8 15.8
15. 9( 15. B)
10.6 17.0
11. Of 23.2)
11.3 1R.7
12.4
OIL AT MAX KFAL
OR PF.RM1T1FI) USE 20.1( 32.3) 14.2( 43.2) 11.6( 47.8) 13.R( 38.8) 19.9( 26.7) 42.8( 12.4)
G-17
-------
TABLE 17
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENSIMKTRIC FHCH'Dt
3 10
30
100
HISt(DIA)
1
2
»
3
4
5
7
q
12
15
70
25
33
42
54
70
1000
T)
"J
1.9
T)
HJ
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
"1 4.21 3.6)
4.5
T)
M]
5.4
T)
6.8
T)
M)
8.3
T)
Ml
10.3
n
M)
12.4
T)
15.7
T)
M)
18.9
T)
MJ
23.6
T) 25. H 3b.°)
M]
2H.7
T)
K)
T)
M)
T)
MJ
2. 1C 0.4)
2.6
3.0
3.5
3.8
4.2
4.9
5.6
6.6
7.6
9.2
10.8
13.3
15.9
17. 5( 48.4)
18.9
21.8
2.01 O.OJ
3.7
4.2
4.6
4.9
5.7
5.6
6.1
6.6
7.1
8.0
8.7
9.9
11.2
12.7
13. 0( 56.5)
14.6
2.0t 0.0)
5.6
6.3
6.9
7.3
7.6
8.2
8.6
9.2
9.7
10.4
11.1
12.0
12.8
13. 5( 48. P)
14.0
15.3
2.0[ o'.O] 2.0[ 0.0)
8.8 22.2
10.1 25.4
U. 0 27.7
11.6 29.2
12.2 30.7
13.1 32.9
13.7 34.8
14.6 37.2
15.3 39.3
39. 8( 15.8)
16.4 42.6
17.3 46.5
18. S
18. 6( 33.8)
19.8
21.9
.
;
.
*
j
i
j
•
:
:
i
•
r
•
t
'•
,
•
.
j
j
.
:
j
•
*
s
!
t
i
*
•
.
;
•
•
5
•
*
•
:
•
;
1
•
OIL AT "AX PtAl,
OR P^HMITTfD RISF 31.5( 52.6) 22.0( 72.5) 16.3f 89.0) 16.«) ( B0.4) 23.3( 57.1) 49.7( 26.7)
6-18
-------
TABLE 18
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
= 2000
10
30
100
1000
HISE(PIA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
T)
M]
1.9
T)
MJ
2.7
T)
«]
3.6
T)
"] 4.?[ 3.7]
4.5
T)
"J
5.4
T)
V]
0.8
T)
8.3
T)
M)
10.4
T)
12.6
T)
M]
16. n
T)
IV. 4
T)
24.9
T)
30.7
T)
38.3
T)
47.7
T) 49. 9( 74.4)
57.3
T)
"
T)
"1
T)
M]
T)
2.U 0.4)
2.6
3.0
3.5
3.P
4.2
4.9
5.6
6.6
7.6
9.3
10.9
13.6
16. *
20.4
25.3
31.1
34.6(104.0)
37.3
43.2
2.0[ 0.0)
3.7
4.7
4.6
4.9
5.2
5.6
6.0
6.6
7.]
8.0
8.P
10.0
11.3
13.1
15.3
1B.1
21.1
23.9(136.0)
25.7
2°.0
2 . 0 C 0.0]
b.6
6.3
6.9
7.3
7.6
8.2
8.6
9.2
9.7
10.3
10.9
11.8
12.7
13.7
15.0
16.6
18. A
19.8(138.0)
70. S
27.9
2.0[ 0.0)
8.8
10.1
11.0
11.6
12.1
13.0
13.7
14.5
15.7
16.7
16.9
18.0
19.1
20.7
21.5
27.9
23.9(104.0)
24.6
76.7
2.0t 0.0)
22.0
25.4
27.5
29.7
30.5
32.7
34.3
36.5
38.2
40.6
42.6
45.2
47.9
49. 9( 49.4)
51.2
55.4
OIL AT >*AX
OR PERMITTED PISF 62.b(10«.0) 43.4(153.0) 29 . 9(2"7 . 0 ) 24.9(225.0) 30.0(170.0) 62.7( 84.6)
G-19
-------
TABLE 19
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENSlMtTRlC FPOtiOf: M1MBRR
3 10 30
ion
1000
HISE(niA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
Q
12
Ib
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
lib
148
190
244
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
Ml
T)
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
1 )
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
T)
AT «.AX F-E&t
PKRCirTEP KJSF
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.2[ 3.71
4.5
5.4
6.9
8.3
10.5
12.6
16.1
19.6
25.1
31 .3
39.6
50.5
63.9
79.7
99.6
11 1.0( 169.0)
121.0
139.0
139.0(245.0)
2. If 0.4J 2. Of O.OJ
2.6 3.7
3.0 4.2
3.5 4.6
3.8 4.9
4.2 5.2
4.9 5.6
5.6 6.0
6.6 6.6
7.6 7.1
9.3 (j.O
11.0 B.fi
13.7 10.0
16.7 11.4
20.7 13.2
26.0 15.6
32.7 19.5
40.8 22.3
50.9 27.1
63.4 32.9
76.9(240.0)
77.8 40.?
90.2(300.0) 47.4(300.0)
2.0C O.OJ 2.0[ O.OJ 2.0C O.OJ
5.6 8.8 22.0
6.3 10.1 25.3
6.9 11.0 27.5
7.3 11.6 29.0
7.6 12.1 30.5
8.2 13.0 32.7
8.6 13.6 34.3
9.2 14.5 36.2
9.7 15.1 38.0
10.3 16.1 40.2
10.9 lfi.9 42>0
11.8 17.9 44.5
12.6 18.9 46.8
13.7 19.9 49.2
15.0 21.2 52.0
16.7 22.5 54.8
18.5 23.9 58.0
20.9 25.6 61.5
65.1 (1 87.0)
23.9 27.5 65.4
27.6 29. a 70.3
31.7(301.0) 31.^(302.0) 76.^(300.0)
G-20
-------
TABLE 20
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 2 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
OENSIMKTK1C
3 10
NUMBER
10
100
1000
RISE(01 A)
1
;
J
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
2I>
33
42
54
70
90
115
14B
190
244
M)
M]
Ml
M
Ml
M]
M)
M)
MJ
Ml
M]
M]
M]
S "]
1
2
3
4.7
4
5
6
a
10
12
16
19
25
31
39
bl
65
82
106
135
173
.9
.7
.6
t 3.7]
.5
.4
,q
.3
.5
.*>
.1
.6
.3
.5
.9
.2
.3
.5
.0
.0
.0
2. If
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
11.
13.
16.
20.
26.
32.
41 .
52.
66.
84.
0.4J
6
0
5
fi
2
9
6
6
6
3
0
7
8
e
2
9
3
5
6
7
2.0
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
10
11
13
15
18
22
27
33
41
( 0.0]
.7
.7
.6
.9
.?
.6
.0
.6
.1
.0
.8
.0
.4
.2
.7
.6
.5
.5
.8
.8
2.0
5
6
6
7
7
8
R
-------
TABLE 21
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DEN5IHETK1C FPOUnF NUUBKK
3 10 30
100
1UOO
« i or ii'isj
1
2
1
4
b
;
9
12
15
20
75
T)
M J
T)
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
M
T)
MJ
T)
M )
T)
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
T)
1 M 1
1.9 2.8
7.7 3.7
3.5 4.6
4.5 5.6
5.6 6.6
8.1 8.6
9. It 7.3)
10.8 11.0
15.4 14.0
18.11 13.7]
20.3 17.0
23. 9( 17.7) 20. 4( 18.3)
26.9 22.5
34.1
b.3f 1.0] b.2t n.U 6.2f O.Oj 6.2T 0.0)
6.4 11.8 27.7 85.6
8.7 14.4 27.3 110.0
117. 0( 2.4)
9.6 lb.4 31.1 131.0
10. P 18.2 34.3
12.0 20.0 37.3
41 ,6( 6.b)
14.4 23.3 42.fi
16. P 26.3 48.5
28. 4( 10.3)
20.4 31.3
23. 1( 14.2)
24.4 3fi.7
33.1
UIL AT MAX REAL
OR PfHfJTTFD RISfc b2.7( 24.4) 41.31 25.6) 35.9( 70.8) 40.0( 16.0) 57.5( 10.6) Ib3.0( 3,fl)
G-22
-------
TABLE 22
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
HI SEC 01 A)
1
20
75
DFN51MKTHIC FKOUME NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
T)
M
T)
«]
T)
M]
T)
Ml
T)
HI
1 )
Ml
T)
Ml
T)
V)
T)
Ml
T)
"1
1 )
Ml
T)
Ml
T)
Ml
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.9
15.6
19.61 14.31
20.8
28.?
35.0
37. 8( 27.3)
44.9
2.8
3.7
4.f<
5.6
6.6
8.8
9.31 7.5]
10.9
14.0
17.0
21.9
26.7
31. 8( 30.0)
35.3
fa . 3 ( 1.0]
6.4
8.2
9.6
10. R
12.0
14.2
16.4
19.7
23.1
28. «
35. 0( 24.9)
35.2
48.8
6.21 0.1) 6.?[ 0.0] b.2t 0.0]
11.7 22.7! 85.0
14.3 27.1 107.0
16.3 30.9 123.0
18.1 13.8 137.0
146. OC 4.7)
19.8 3b.5 150.0
22.9 41.3 180.0
26.0 45.9
30.3 51.9
54. 2( 13.1)
34.8 58.4
40. 5( 19. t)
41.9 70.5
49.8
i
DIL AT MAX RLAl,
OR PtHMIlTtD RISC 87.4( 37.9) 6B.4( 41.7) 56.6( 35.8) 58.1( 29.1) 75.2( 20.7) 204.0( 7.6)
G-23
-------
TABLE 23
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
HISECOIA)
IS
20
2b
54
70
UENS1MKTBIC FROUDE NUMBKR
3 10 30
too
1000
D
M)
D
Ml
D
M]
Tl
T)
M]
T)
HI
T)
V]
T)
T)
M 1
T)
MJ
T)
»}
T)
MJ
D
T)
"J
D
M]
1)
M)
1 • Q
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.9
15.7
20. 2 t 14.6]
21.0
28.8
36.2
47.5
59.7
74. OC 53.2)
75.2
95.2
2.8
3.7
4.6
b.b
6.6
8.7
9.4t 7.h]
10.9
14.0
17.0
21.8
26.7
34.3
42.8
54.5
62. 6( 62.3)
71.5
b.3C 1.0)
6.4
8.2
9.5
10.8
12.0
14.2
16.3
19.4
22.5
27.7
32.7
41.0
51 .2
66.2
68. 1( 55.4)
93.7
6.2[ 0.1]
11.7
14.3
16.3
18.1
19.7
22.8
25.8
30.0
34.0
40.8
47.5
58.4
70.5
75. 4( 45.6)
87,8
6.2C O.OJ b.2t 0.0)
22.0 84.4
27.1 105.0
30.7 120.0
33.6 132.0
36.2 143.0
40.8 161.0
44.9 176.0
50.5 197.0
206. 0( 13.3)
56.1 217.0
64.4 257.0
73.0
85.7
88. 1C 34.6)
101.0
OIL AT MAX Rf»L
OR PFRMjm-n HTSF 181.0( 75.0) 143.Of 85.9) 114.OC 77.5) 109.0( 66.7) 123.0( 53.1) 288.0( 21.5)
G-24
-------
TABLE 24
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
PFMSIMKTRIC FROUDF NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
ISt:(DIA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
1 15
14K
190
T)
M]
1.9
T)
M]
2.7
T)
3. fa
T)
4.5
T)
5.6
T)
M]
8.1
T)
Ml
10.9
T)
M]
lb.7
T)
M) 20.41 14.7]
21.1
T)
M]
29.0
T)
M)
36.5
T)
46.5
T)
M
61.3
T)
M]
78.7
D
M]
101 .0
T)
123.0
T)
"1
160.0
T) 1 6«.0< 1 1 H.O)
U] ;oo.d
T)
V}
T)
J ftT "AX RFftL
PFRMITTKP P t S K 257.0(166.0)
2.8
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.7
9.5[ 7.7]
10.9
14.0
17.0
21 .8
26.7
34.3
42.8
54.2
69.5
PH. 2
112.0
1 JH. 0(1 42.0)
145.0
241.0
31 B. 0(1 95.0)
6.31 1.0]
6.4
8.2
9.5
10. P
12.0
14.1
16.3
19.4
22.5
27.5
32.2
40.2
48. P
60.9
77.1
98.6
12P.O
152.0(132.0)
177.0
256. 0( 1 PI .0)
6.2C 0.1] 6.7C O.OJ 6.2C 0.0]
11.7 22.0 84.4
14.3 27.1 105.0
16.3 30.7 119.0
lfl.1 33.6 131.0
19.7 36.2 141.0
22.8 40.8 157.0
25.6 44.9 171.0
29.8 50.5 189.0
34.0 55.7 204.0
40.5 63.9 227.0
47.1 71.9 247.0
57. b 84.4 276.0
69.0 97.5 305.0
312. 0( 44.2)
84.4 115.0 34b.O
105.0 138.0
131.0 166.0
162.0(113.0) )73.0( 95.3)
165.0 202.0
212.0
232.0(1M.O) 237.0(139.0) 3 M . 0 ( 5 5 . « 1
G-25
-------
TABLE 25
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
1
J
1
2
3
•\
t
7
9
12
15
20
2b
13
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
244
1.9
Ml
2.7
M]
3.6
M)
4.5
"1
b.6
"J
8.1
Ml
10.9
lb.7
M 20. 5t 14.7]
21.1
M]
29.0
36.7
M)
48.5
M!
61 .8
MJ
79.3
M]
103.0
132.0
MJ
169.0
216.0
Ml
277.0
"1
M]
L AT MAX PFAt,
) PKHMrfTKI) RISE 333.0(278.0)
DF.NMKITHIC FRnUDE
3 10
2.R
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.7
9.St 7.71
10.9
14.0
17.0
21 .8
26.7
34.3
42.8
54.1
69.5
8R.2
112.0
143.0
183.0
234.0
?«6. 0(209.0)
6.3C 1.0)
6.4
8.2
9.5
10. B
12.0
14.1
16.3
19.4
22.3
27.3
32.?
39.9
40.5
60.1
75.0
93. R
117.0
149.0
188.0
239.0
284.0(204.0)
N11WHF.H
30
6.2C 0.13
11.7
14.3
16.3
18.0
19.7
22. b
25.6
29.9
33.9
40.5
47.1
57.2
68.5
H3 .8
104.0
128.0
159.0
200.0
251.0
312.0(240.0)
ion
6.2( 0.0}
22.0
27. 1
30.7
33.6
36.2
40.fi
44.6
SO. 2
55.7
63.9
71.4
83.8
96.7
114.0
136.0
164.0
198.0
242.0
297.0
315.0(204.0)
1000
6.2f 0.0)
84.4
105.0
119.0
131.0
141.0
157.0
170.0
188.0
203.0
223.0
242.0
267.0
291.0
320.0
355.0
i
1
362. 0( 73.4)
G-26
-------
TABLE 26
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
PFNSIMF.TRir FPOUDF NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
RISK (1)1 A)
1
2
J
4
5
7
9
12
li
20
25
T)
V )
1 .9
T)
MI
2.7
T)
M|
3.6
T)
4.6
T)
M)
5.6
T)
8.1
T)
M]
10. R
T)
"M
15.4
T)
Ml IB. Of 13.7]
20.0
T) 23. 4( 17.9)
M]
25.6
T)
Ml
1 )
M]
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.2[ 8.9]
9.4
11.7
13.8
17.2
17. 3( 20.3)
20.4
5.7[ 0.9] 5.6C 0.1] 5.6[ 0.0) 5.6[ 0.01
S.P 9.9 IT.f, 62.2
7.1 11.8 21.3 77.6
90. 4( 3.0)
8.0 13.2 23.9
R.7 14.? 26.0 103.0
9.4 15.2 28.0
10.6 16.9 31.3
33. 1( R.l)
11.8 18.6 34. R
13.5 21.0 40.2
21. 6( 12.8)
15.1 23.4
16. 7r 17.7)
18.3 28.6
22.3
DIL AT MAX HEAL
DH PPRVIIIEO WTSF: 44.2( 25.0) 31.H 29. t>) 26.3( 27.1) 29.9( 70.1) 45.1( 11.2) 124.0( 4.9)
G-27
-------
TABLE 27
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
KISE(DIA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
IS
70
?.b
33
\'i
T)
Ml
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
M|
T)
M)
T)
M J
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
* )
D
T)
M)
T)
Ml
T)
M |
V)
M)
DENSI^ETHir FPOUDE NUMflKR
t 3 10 30 100 1000
5.7t 0.9] 5.6C 0.1] 5.6f 0.0] 5.6C 0.0)
1.9 2.8 5.B 9.9 17.6 61. «
2.7 3.6 7.1 11.8 21.3 76.6
3.6 4.4 8.0 13.1 23.7 87.4
4.6 5.1 8.7 14.1 75.8 96.3
S.7 6.0 9.3 15.1 27.7 104.0
112. 0( 6.1)
8.1 7.6 10.6 16.8 30.7 119.0
10.9 9.4 11.6 18.2 33.3 U7.0
9.5C 9.1)
15. S 11.8 13.3 20.4 36.7
19.4 t 14.3)
20.7 14.0 14.8 22.5 40.2
41. fit 16.4)
77.5 17.5 17.4 25.8 45.8
29. 2( 25.0)
33.6 21.0 20.0 29.4 52.6
36. 2( 27.5) 24.lt 32.7)
41. « 76.0 24.7 35.5
26. St 33.9)
n .8 ao.s
OIL AT MAX HtAl.
OH REMITTED RISfJ 74.4C 39.0) 52.7( 48.9) 42.OC 4P.7) 42.4( 38.7) 57.2( 7.6.4) 154.0( 9.8)
G-28
-------
TABLE 28
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
HISK(DIA) •
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
1 2
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
1
T)
M]
1 .9
'I )
2.7
T)
Ml
3.6
T)
4.6
T)
M]
5.7
1 )
8.1
T)
Ml
10.9
D
M]
15.6
T)
Ml 20.11 14.6]
21.0
T)
M]
78.4
T)
Ml
35.2
T)
V J
45.9
1 )
Ml
56.8
D
70.7
T) 71.0( 54.5)
M 1
85.6
T)
V )
F)
3
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
9.6[ 9.3]
11.9
14.1
17.8
21.3
26.9
33.1
41.0
51 .0
51. 6( 71.1)
63.2
FTRIC FROHDF
10
5.7T 0.9]
5.8
7.1
8.0
8.7
9.3
10.5
11 .6
13.2
14.7
17.1
19.6
23.4
27.8
33.6
41.6
45. 2f 77.2)
53.1
NUMBER
30
5.6[ 0.1]
9.9
11.8
13.1
14.1
15.0
16.7
18.1
20.2
22.2
25.3
28.2
32.9
38.3
45.5
51. 6( 63.4)
56.3
74.4
100 1000
5.6t 0.0] 5.6f 0.0)
17.6 61.8
21.1 76.0
23.6 86.1
25. h 93.6
27.5 101.0
10.3 112.0
32.7 123.0
36.0 1J6.0
39.1 147.0
156. OC 17. 5)
43.7 166.0
4B.1 187.0
54.5
(-2.0
64. 3( 44.9)
72.1
S8.2
nil, AT MAX
OH HKHMjm'n PJSK 160.U( 77.9) 116.0(107.0) 89.7(110.0) 7Q.4(
90.3' 7'i.b) 71h.0( ?8.7)
G-29
-------
TABLE 29
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DENSIMCTKIC FPOUDE r'U«BER
3 10 30
100
1000
1
2
3
4
5
7
Q
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
1 15
143
190
244
T)
M]
1.9
T)
2.7
D
M)
3.6
T)
M]
4.6
T)
Ml
5.7
T)
M]
8.1
T)
M]
10.9
T)
1*]
15.7
T)
M 20.4[ 14.7]
21.0
T)
M]
2H.6
T)
35.7
T)
M)
46.8
T)
M]
58.8
T)
75.0
T)
95.6
T)
120.0
T)
MJ
150.0
T) 156.0(121.0)
1*2.0
D
M)
T)
Ml
T)
'j AT "AX PEAL
FEkylTTED MSE 2OS . O ( 1 7 3 . 0 )
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
9.7C 9.3]
11.9
14.1
17.9
21.4
27.1
33.6
41.0
53.0
66.5
83.4
101.0
1 H.O(lhb.O)
129.0
262.0(235.0)
5.7[ 0.0) 5.6C 0.1]
5.P 9.9
7.1 11.8
8.0 13.1
8.7 14.1
9.3 15.0
10.5 16.7
11.6 19.1
13.2 20.1
14.7 22.0
17.1 25.1
19.6 27.8
23.4 32.4
27.7 37.2
33.1 43.7
40.9 52.3
49.R b2.9
61.6 76.9
77.3 97.0
98.0(190.0) 109.n(lhn.0)
98.1 127.1)
140.0
214. "(265.0) 177.0(237.0)
5.6C 0.0]
17.6
21.1
23.6
25.6
27.3
30.3
32.7
35.7
38.8
43.1
47.5
53.8
60.5
69.4
80.7
94.9
113.0
124.0(130.0)
137.0
160.0
175.0(1 Ofa.O)
5.6C 0.0)
61.8
75.5
85.6
93.6
100.0
111.0
120.0
132.0
142.0
157.0
169.0
18 ;.0
204.0
226.0
233. 0( 58.3)
254.0
276. 0( PI . 1)
G-30
-------
TABLE 30
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.05
M]
1
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
Ib
20
2b
j 3
42
54
70
90
115
1 4H
1 40
244
M]
MJ
MJ
M)
M J
MJ
M)
MJ
M]
M]
MJ
M]
M J
M]
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
M]
1
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
b.7
B.I
10.9
lb.7
20.41 14.7]
21.0
?8.6
3b.7
47.1
59.3
76.0
9 b * 3
12b.O
160.0
204.0
2h2.0
DFNSlMtTHIC PROUD
3 10
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
9.7t 9.3]
11.9
14.1
17.9
21.4
27.3
33.6
42.2
53.4
67.6
85.5
109.0
138.0
176.0
5.7T O.o
5.8
7.1
8.0
8.7
9.3
10.5
11.6
13.2
14.6
17.1
19.6
23.3
27.5
33.1
40.5
49. 0
61.5
76.6
95.7
120.0
E NIIMBKK
30
] 5.6[ 0.11
9.9
11.8
13.1
14.1
15.0
16.7
18.1
20.1
22.0
25.1
27.8
32.2
37.0
43.4
51.2
61.5
73.6
90.0
110.0
136.0
1 00
5 . 6 t 0.0]
17.6
21.1
23.6
25.6
27.3
30.3
32.7
35.7
38.8
43.1
47.1
53.4
60.1
69.0
80.2
9J.7
110.0
132.0
159.0
194.0
1000
5.6C 0.0]
61.8
75.5
85.6
93.0
99.6
111.0
120.0
131.0
141.0
155.0
166.0
1H3.0
198.0
216.0
237.0
260.0
OIL AT MAX HEAL
OR PERMITTED HTSE 325.0(237.0) 216.0(300.0) 146.0(301.0) 163.0(300.0) 229.0(300.0) 286.0(114.0)
G-31
-------
TABLE 31
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
12
IS
20
: T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
T)
*
T)
"]
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
T)
M]
T)
: HI
1
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10. H
lb.2
18.01 H.7]
19.8
23. 1( 17. P)
25.3
29.5
PENSJMETRIC TROUPE HUMPEH
3 10 30 100 1000
5.3t 0.9) 5.3t 0.1) 5.3[ 0.0] 5.3t 0.0)
2.7 5.5 8.9 14.7 44.6
3.6 6.6 10.3 17.3 54.7
4.3 7.3 11.2 19.0 60.9
67. 1( 4.0)
5.1 7.9 12.0 20.5 67.6
5.9 8.4 12.7 21.7 73.5
7.5 9.3 13. R 23.9
9. It 8.93
9.2 10.1 14. R 25. P
26. 5C 10.0)
11.3 11.2 16.1 2ft. 4
17. 4C 15.2)
13.3 12.2 31.8
U.8( 20.1)
16.1 19.fi
16. 5( 20.8)
18.6 15.5
AT MAX RF;AL
OH PEPMHTfcD RISK 35.8( 25.1) 24.2( 30.9) 19.4( 32.1) 23.0( 24,R) 34.9( 16.2) 90.3( 6.5)
G-32
-------
TABLE 32
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DENS1MKTHIC FROUD? NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
HISF(DIA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
) I
42
54
T)
M
) .9
T)
M)
2.7
T)
HJ
1.6
T)
4.6
D
Ml
5.7
T)
M]
8.1
1)
10.9
T)
M)
15.5
T)
Ml 19.41 14.3]
20.5
T)
M]
27.3
T)
33.1
T) 35. 7( 27.6)
f]
40.9
1 )
T)
MJ
T)
M]
2.7
3. *
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
9.3T 9.2]
11.5
13.6
16.7
19.7
24.3
25. 1( 34.9)
28.6
5.3[ 0.9]
5.5
6.6
7.3
7.8
8.4
9.2
10.0
11.1
12.1
13.7
IS. 4
17. R
19. J( 38.4)
20.4
24.3
5 . 3 t 0.1] 5.3[ 0.0] 5.3[ 0.0]
8.H 14.7 44.3
10.3 17.3 53.4
11.2 19.0 59.7
12.0 20.4 65.3
12.6 21.5 69.5
13.7 ?3.4 77.6
82. 1C 8.2)
14.6 ?S. 1 85.5
15.8 27.3 97.9
16.9 29.0
lfi.5 32.0
32. 2( 70.6)
20.0 34.8
21. 7( 31.0)
22. S 41.0
25.4
OIL AT MAX REAL
UK PFPM11TFD RISF 60.6( 39.4) 40.2( 51.4) 29.2( 59.5) 30.0( 50.0) 42.7( 33.6) lll.OC 13.3)
G-33
-------
TABLE 33
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATION = 0.02
RISECD1A)
12
15
70
25
33
42
54
70
115
DENSIHETRIC FPOUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
T)
M)
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
n
4.6
T)
M)
5.7
T)
M)
8.1
T)
MJ
10.9
T)
M]
15.6
T)
"] 20. 1C 14.61
20. B
T)
28.2
T)
M]
34. H
T)
44.9
T)
55.7
T)
M]
68.8
T) 69. 5C 54.9)
82.8
T)
T)
T)
M]
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
9.5f 9.3]
11.6
13.6
17.0
20.2
25.4
30.9
38.0
47.0
48. 9C 74.1)
56.3
5.3[ 0.9]
5.5
6.6
7.3
7.8
R.4
9.2
10.0
11.1
12.1
13.7
15.3
17.9
20.7
24.2
29.0
34.5
35. 3C 93.1)
41.3
5.3C 0.1]
8.8
10.3
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.6
14.5
15.7
16.7
18.1
19.6
21.5
23.7
26.5
30.2
33. SC 85.4)
35.0
42.2
5.3t 0.0] b.3C 0.0]
14.7 44.3
17.3 53.0
18.9 59.3
20.2 64.4
21.4 68.5
23.3 75.5
24.7 80.9
26.7 88.3
28.4 95.2
30.9 105.0
112. OC 23.8)
32.9 114.0
35.8 129.0
39.0
43.1
44. SC 59.7)
4P.4
56.3
OIL AT *AX REAL
OR PERMITTED RISE 136.OC 79.1) 90.1(108.0) 61.5(13".0) 52.7C133.0) 61.9( 97.2) 152.OC 39.0)
G-34
-------
TABLE 34
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DFNSIHEThIC FPTiUDF NUMBER
3 IP 30
100
1000
H1OC.VUL*./
1
2
3
4
5
7
Q
12
15
2U
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
14b
190
244
T)
H]
1.9
T)
M]
2.7
T)
M)
3.6
T)
M]
4.6
T)
"1
b.7
T)
8.1
T)
10.9
T)
MJ
15.6
T)
«1 20. 2[ 14.6]
21 .0
T)
M)
28.4
T)
M]
35.2
T)
M]
45.9
T)
M]
57.6
T)
MJ
73.5
T)
"]
93.0
T)
v]
t 17.n
T)
M)
145.0
T) 151.0(123.0)
"J
176.0
T)
«]
T)
T)
M]
L AT MAX F-EAL
PEfMlTTtD HIS? 194.0( 1 7f .0)
2.7
3.6
4.3
S.I
5.9
7.5
9.2
9.5[ 9.3]
11.6
1J.7
17.1
20.4
25.6
31.5
30.4
49.5
61.7
77.0
95.5
1 08.0(1 71 .0)
117.0
1 39.0
1 91 .0(249.0)
5.3t 0.9)
5.5
6.6
7.3
7.8
8.4
9.2
10.0
11.1
12.1
13.7
15.5
18.0
20.8
24.6
29.6
35.7
43.3
52. Q
64.7
76.0(232.0)
79. ?.
93. 7( 300.0)
5.3t 0.1]
8.8
10.3
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.6
14.5
15.7
16.7
18.1
19.4
21.4
23.4
26 .2
29.6
33.7
39.0
45.8
54.4
65.7
66.2C247.0)
79.2(300.0)
5.3f 0.0)
14.7
17.3
18.9
20.2
21 .4
23.3
24.7
26.7
2P.2
30.7
32.7
35.4
38.1
41.6
46.0
51.?
57.5
65.9
76. H
77.2(192.(.)
9?. R
1 1 5.0(?96.0)
5.3[ 0.0]
44.3
53.0
59.3
63.9
68.1
75.0
80.4
87.2
93.1
102.0
109.0
119.0
128.0
140.0
153.0
163. 0( PI. 6)
170.0
192.0
201 .0( 1 74.01
G-35
-------
TABLE 35
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.02
DEN5lMfc.TH.lC FROIIDE
3 C. I L/ 1 M /
1
2
1
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
2b
33
42
b4
70
90
115
148
190
744
"1
H]
M)
M)
M]
M)
Ml
H)
" J
H
M]
Ml
M)
M)
*)
M]
Ml
M]
M)
Ml
AT M»X KEAb
EMITTED HISC
1
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
0.1
10.9
15.7
20. 41 14.71
21 .0
28.4
35.5
46.2
b8.4
74.0
95.6
122.0
154.0
198.0
253.0
321.0(242.0)
3
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
9.5( 9.4)
11. b
13.7
17.1
20.5
25.8
31 .8
39.6
•50.2
63.1
79.7
101.0
128.0
163.0
200.0(300.0)
10
5.3C 0.9)
5.5
6.6
7.3
7.8
fl.4
9.2
10.0
11.1
12.1
13.7
15.5
18.0
20.8
24.fi
29.6
36.0
43.7
54.1
67.3
83.9
101.0(300.0)
NtlMBFP
30
5.3[ 0.1)
8.8
10.3
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.6
14.5
15.7
16.7
18.1
19.4
21.4
23.4
26.2
29.4
33.6
38.7
45.4
53.9
64.5
75.7(301.0)
100
5.3C 0.0)
14.7
17.3
1H.9
20.2
21.4
23.3
24.7
26.7
78.2
30.5
37.4
35.2
- 37.9
41.5
45.5
50.5
56.3
63.6
72.5
83.4
94.6(300.0)
1000
5.3T 0.01
44.3
53.0
59.3
63.9
68.1
74.5
79. fl
86.6
92.6
101.0
108.0
117.0
126.0
136.0
148.0
160.0
173.0
189.0
207.0
208.0(194.0)
G-36
-------
TABLE 36
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DF.NSlMb'TKIC FROtlDF UIIMMKR
3 10 30
100
1000
C. I I) 1 » 1
1
?
3
4
b
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
I
t T)
M]
1.9
T)
Ml
2.7
T)
MJ
3.6
T)
M]
4.6
T)
MJ
5.7
T)
8.1
T)
M]
10.8
T)
M)
15.2
1 )
M] 18. 0[ li.7)
19.fi
T ) 2 3 . 1 ( 17.9)
25.1
T)
28.3
T)
M)
T)
" J
2.7
3.5
4.3
s.o
5.8
7.4
9.0C 8.9J
9.1
11.2
13.0
15.7
16. 1C 21.1)
17.9
5. It 0.9)
5.3
6.2
6.9
7.4
7.fl
8.6
9.3
10.3
, 11.1
12.5
12. SC 21.6)
13.6
15.4
5.0t 0.1) S.Ot O.OJ 5.0t 0.0)
8.2 12.9 32.0
9.3 14.8 37.0
10.1 16.0 40.5
10.7 17.0 43.1
11.2 17.9 45.5
46. 5( 5.5)
12.1 19.2 50.2
1?.8 20.4 56.2
21. 7( 11.8)
13.7 21.9
14.6 23.4
15. 0( 16.9)
15.9
17.?
OIL AT "AX RF.AL
OR PtHMlTTKD RISE 2B.3C 25.2) 19.8( 31.5) 16.0( 34.7) 18.8( 28.3) 27. OC 19.b) 58.0( 9.1)
G-37
-------
TABLE 37
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
PENSIMKTR1C FRDUDF
3 10
30
100
1000
i>ior. llUflj
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
lt>
20
25
33
42
54
T)
f]
T)
M)
T)
^ J
T)
M)
T)
H]
1)
H]
T)
M)
T)
M)
T)
MJ
1 )
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
"1
T)
V]
1.9 2.7
2.7 3.5
3.6 4.3
4.6 5.0
b.7 5.8
8.1 7.4
10.9 9.1
9.21 9.1]
15.5 11.3
19. 3t 14.2]
20.5 13.3
27.1 16.3
32.9 19.2
3b.!>( 27.7)
40.3 23.4
24. 4( 35.3)
27.4
5.11 0.9]
5.3
6.7
6.9
7.4
7.8
8.6
9.3
10.3
11.2
12.6
13.9
16.0
17.8( 40.9)
IP. 1
20.5
5.01 0.1)
8.2
9.3
10.1
10.7
11.2
17.0
12.7
13.5
14.3
15.5
16.4
17.9
18. 2( 35.3)
19.4
21.4
5.0t O.OJ 5.01 0.0]
12.9 32.0
14.7 36.7
16.0 39.9
16.9 42.5
17.7 44.6
19.0 47. 8
20.0 50.8
53. 9( 11.6)
21.3 54.5
72.5 58.2
24.0
25. 2( 74.7)
25.4
27.5
OIL AT *AX Rf.AL
OR PEHMITIKD MSK 41.8( 39.6) 30.3( 52.6) 22.2( 64.8) ?2.fl( 58.9) 31.6( 41.9) 67.5( 19.6)
G-38
-------
TABLE 38
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
FROUDE NUMBER
10 30
100
1000
0 t V U 1 f* 7
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
1 4s
T)
*J
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
3.6
T)
M]
4.6
T)
5.7
T)
8.1
T)
M]
10.9
T)
M
15.6
T)
M] 20.11 14.6]
20. fl
T)
*)
28.0
T)
M]
34.5
T)
44.6
T)
54.9
T)
M]
67. f
T) 63. 5( 55.1)
"J
31. 1
T)
Ml
T)
M|
T)
"]
T)
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
9.4[ 9.3)
11 .4
13.5
16.7
19.6
24.6
29.fi
36.7
45.1
47. 5( 75.6)
53.7
5.1t 0.9]
5.3
6.2
6.9
7.4
7.S
8.6
9.3
10.3
11.2
12.6
14.0
16.2
IB. 8
21. Q
25.8
30.6
32. 5( 99.3)
35. H
40.4
5.0t 0.1]
8.2
9.3
10.1
10.7
11 .2
12.0
12.6
13.5
14.2
15.3
16.3
17.8
19.2
21 .0
23.1
25.7
27.0(101 .0)
28.6
31.4
5.0t 0.0] 5. Ot 0.0]
12.9 32.0
14.7 36.7
16.0 39.6
16.9 42.2
17.6 44.0
18.9 47.1
19.8 49.9
21.1 52.7
22.2 55.4
23.4 58.7
24.7 61.8
26.3 66.1
67. 7( 36.4)
27.7 70.5
29.5 76.5
31.7
32. 5C 77.2)
34.0
37.1
OIL AT "AX WFAL
TP PKKMITTED fISt « S . «> ( 7>».9) 59.2(111.0) 40.7(151.0) 33 . fl ( 1 h1). 0 ) 40.7(111.0) 85.Of 67.3)
G-39
-------
TABLE 39
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DFN51METRIC KRDUPF NUMBFH
3 10 30
100
1000
H j at. i ui« >
1
2
3
4
5
7
Q
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
146
190
244
T)
*]
1.9
T)
M)
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
M]
4.6
T)
M]
5.7
T)
8.1
T)
M)
10.9
T)
V]
15.6
T)
V] 20.21 14.6)
21.0
T)
Ml
28.2
T)
35.0
T)
f]
45.5
T)
"1
56.8
T)
71.9
T)
MJ
91 .8
T)
"J
115.0
T)
142.0
T) 151.0(124.0)
V)
172.0
1 )
»}
T)
«]
T)
MJ
L AT PbX PEAI.
PErtfllTED PIfE 195.0(179.0)
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.P
7.4
9.1
9.4[ 9.3]
11.4
13.5
16.7
20.0
24.9
30.5
37.8
47.5
59.2
73.4
91.2
105.0(176.0)
111.0
129.0
131 ,0(257.0)
5. It 0.9)
5.3
6.7
6.9
7.4
7.P
8.6
9.3
10.3
11.7
12.6
14.1
16.3
18.9
22.?
26.5
32.0
38.6
47.1
57.5
60.6
7U. 3(748.0)
80. 3( 300.0)
5.0[ 0.1)
8.2
9.3
10.1
10.7
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.5
14.2
15.3
16.2
17.6
19.2
21.0
23.3
25.9
29.3
33.5
3P.7
45.1
51 .1 (300.0)
51 ,2( 301 .0)
5. 0[ 0.0)
12.9
14.7
16.0
16.9
17.6
18.9
19.8
21.1
22.0
23.4
24.5
26.0
27.4
29.1
31.0
33.0
35.3
37.9
41 .1
44. S
46.H(?76.0)
4". 3( 300.0)
5.0t 0.0)
31.8
36.5
39.6
41.9
44.0
47.1
49.5
52.4
54. P
58.0
60.7
64.4
67.7
71.2
75.3
79.7
84.5
88.3(137.0)
90.1
97.1
107.0(234.0)
G-40
-------
TABLE 40
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 5 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
1
l
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
jj
42
M
70
90
1 15
14fl
ion
244
A)
nfNSIMETHIC FROUDK NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
M)
1 .9
M)
2.7
Ml
3.6
Mj
4.6
5.7
8.1
M
10.9
w J
15.7
M ] 20.4[ 14.7)
21 .0
M]
?a.2
M]
35.0
M]
45.9
M)
57.6
72.9
M]
93.6
M]
120.0
152.0
M)
194.0
248.0
V)
31H.O
Ml
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
9.4[ 9.3]
11 .4
13.5
16. P
20.0
24.9
30.7
38. n
4H.1
60.5
75.7
96.1
122.0
156.0
5.1 f 0.9]
5.3
6.2
6.9
7.4
7.8
8.6
".3
10.3
11.2
12.6
14.1
16.3
IB. 9
22.3
26.7
32.2
39.4
48.5 '
60.0
75.1
5.U [ 0.1)
8.2
9.3
10.1
10.7
11.2
12.0
12.6
13.5
14.2
15.3
16.2
17.6
19.2
21 .0
23.3
26.0
29.5
34.0
39.6
46.8
5 . 0 t 0.0]
12.9
14.7
16.0
16.9
17.6
1B.P
19.8
21 .0
22.0
23.4
24.5
26.0
27.4
29.0
30.8
32.8
35.1
37.7
40. q
44.6
5.0C 0.0]
31 .8
36.5
39.6
41.9
44.0
46.8
49.5
52.4
54.8
57.7
60.4 •
63. P
67.1
70.5
74.3
78.1
82.1
86.3
90.9
95.6
DIL AT MAX RFAL
OR PFHWITTEP RISK 318.0(245.0) 190.0(301.0) 90.6(301.0) 54.2(301.0) 48.3(300.0) 99.8(300.0)
6-41
-------
TABLE 41
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
HISKCDIA)
1
12
15
20
DFNSJMETHIC FROIIDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
•M
MJ
1)
VJ
T)
H]
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M]
1}
M]
T)
V\
1)
M]
T)
M)
T)
I M]
1 .9
2.7
3.5
4.5
b.6
8.1
10.8
15.4
20.5
25. 5( 17.6)
10.7
35. Ot 21 .7)
2.8
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.8
11.3
15.8
21.4
26. OC 17.1)
24.lt 16.2]
34.1
15. «C 0.9] 15. 9[ 0.1] 15. 9[ 0.0]
6.4 16.4 34.3 134.0
163. 0( 1.7)
B.8 21.4 42.8 177.0
11.1 25.1 49.1
13.5 28.8 54.5
58. 4( 4.8)
t
16.1 32.0 60.1
16. 6t 5.2]
21.3 38.6 72.0
3<3.<>( 7.5)
26.3 44.9
32. 4( 11.31
34. R
44.6
1
OR PFKKirTED 'PISE 64.5( 23.5) 54.7( 22.6) 49.7( 16.1) 56.2( 11.*.) 80.?( 7.6) 227.0( 2.7)
G-42
-------
TABLE 42
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
D
1
2
3
4
5
7
n
12
15
20
?S
33
M]
T)
")
T)
MJ
I )
M 1
T)
"1
T)
M]
T)
MJ
T1
«J
T)
M)
T)
V J
1 )
M]
T)
«: J
T)
J M]
1
1 .''
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
8.t
10.9
15.6
21.0
31 .1
43.1
45. 6( ?6.0)
4R.21 27.0]
65.3
OENSIhtTRIC FPnUOE NIIMHF.H
3 10 30 100 1000
2.B
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.8
11.2
15.6
20.7
26. 9t 18.1)
30.9
41.3
43. 4( 26.1)
70.5
15. 91 0.9] lb.9C 0.1) 15.9C 0.0]
ft. 4 16.3 34.3 132.0
8.8 21.4 42.2 168.0
11.0 25.1 48.1 195.0
20b.0( 3.4)
13.4 28.4 53.4 221.0
16.0 31.8 58.0 254.0
16. 7[ 5.3]
21.0 37.8 66.7
25. P 43.7 75.0
76. 0( 9.4)
32.9 52.7 87.3
57. 6C 13. B)
40.5 61.4
50. 2( 18.7)
54.2 77.7
70.9
OIL AT MAX HEAL
OR PKPMirTKD MSE 114.0( 34.4) 92.0( 34.4) 78.2( 26.5) 81.9C 20.B) 106.0( 14.8) 285.0( 5.4)
G-43
-------
TABLE 43
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DFNSIMETRIC FKOtmF. NUMBER
3 in 30
100
1000
p I s F ( D I A )
1
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
15
20
25
n
42
54
1 )
»}
T)
M
T)
Ml
T)
Mi
T)
«}
1)
X)
T)
M)
1 )
M
T)
M
T)
M
T)
CD
1 )
Ml
T)
M]
T)
T)
MJ
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4.5
b.6
8.1
10.9
lb.7
21.1
31.5
44.0
59.7 [ 30.7]
66.2
B8.0
97. 9( 46.4)
115.0
? . H
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.7
11.2
15.5
20.4
2R.6C 19.2)
30.3
39.9
54.9
72.5
97. 4( 49.4)
99.0
6.4
B.fl
11 .0
13.4
15.9
16.8 t 5.4)
20.8
25.4
3?.?
39.1
50.2
61.6
81.5
99. 7( 39.8)
107.0
150.0
15. 9[ 0.11 15.
-------
TABLE 44
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DENSIMETR1C FROUDE MJ-REH
3 10 30
100
1000
R1SEIDIA)
1
2
3
4
c
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
lib
T)
*4]
T)
»]
T)
M]
1 )
M)
T)
M
T)
» }
T)
K]
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
* J
T)
VI
T)
"i
T)
M]
T)
M 1
1 )
T)
"J
T)
L, *T MAX PCM,
PKP-MT1FD RISE
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.9
15.7
21 .1
31. a
44.0
63.51 31.8]
67.1
91.1
121.0
158.0
204.0
21b.0( )5.7)
260.0
_
TIC). 0(178.0)
2.8
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.7
11.2
15.5
20.4
29. Ot 19.5]
30.3
39.9
54.5
71.0
93.0
122.0
159.0
194.0(107.0)
21 3.0
307.0(1 42.0)
6.4
P.H
11. P
13.4
lb.9
16. 9f 5.4)
20. P
25.4
32.2
38.6
49.5
60.1
77.6
97.6
124.0
162.0
216.0
221. 0( Q1.7)
299. p
331.0(123.0)
15. 9t 0.9] 15. 9t 0.1] 15. 9C 0.0]
16.3 34.0 131.0
21.3 42.2 163.0
25.1 47. H IBb.O
2P.4 57.7 205.0
31.5 57.2 221.0
37.5 65.3 248.0
43.1 72.4 271.0
51.6 82.6 299.0
59.7 92.3 325.0
72.9 10H.O 3b3.0
86.1 124.0 398.0
439. 0( 31.5)
108.0 146.0 449. P
131.0 173.0
163.0 207.0
245. 0( 67.7)
204,0 252.0
231. OC 79.7)
259.0 309.0
.
31 3. Of too. (1) 370. 0( 91.8) 456. Of 34.15
G-45
-------
TABLE 45
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
RISt(DlA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
51
70
90
115
M8
190
DENS1MK.TRIC FPOUPF
3 10
30
100
1000
MJ
V)
V)
* J
(
M]
M)
MJ
" ]
MJ
M]
MJ
M)
MJ
M]
MJ
J M |
\
i
3
4
5
d
10
15
21
31
44
64.8
67
91
123
162
212
273
354
.1
.7
.6
.5
.6
.1
.9
.7
.1
.P
.3
t 32.2)
.6
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
3
4
5
6
8
11
15
20
29.2
30
39
54
71
92
121
156
201
259
333
.8
.7
.6
.6
.6
.7
.7
.3
.4
1 19.6)
.3
.9
.5
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
fc
8
11
13
15
16.8
20
25
32
38
49
60
76
95
121
154
1 V6
247
316
.4
.P
.0
.4
.9
[ 5.4]
.8
.4
.0
.6
. )
.1
.6
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
15.9
16
21
25
28
31
37
43
51
59
72
86
107
130
161
202
252
315
398
1 0.0)
. J
. )
.1
.4
.5
.5
.1
.6
.7
.9
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
15.9
34
42
47
52
57
64
72
82
92
10R
1?3
146
171
205
249
303
369
t 0.1]
.0
.2
.8
.7
.2
.8
.4
.6
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
15. 9C 0.0)
131.0
163.0
186,0
205.0
220.0
246.0
268.0
296.0
320.0
354.0
383.0
425.0
OIL AT MAX RF.Al,
OP PEHMlTTKt) PISE 397.0(1fth.O) 356,0(703.0) 376.0(177.0) 400.0(149.0) 400.0(1^7.0) 464.0( 41.7)
G-46
-------
TABLE .46
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
= 200
1
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
T)
T)
M]
2.7
1 )
3.6
T)
M)
4 .h
T)
M]
5.6
T)
M )
8.1
T)
M]
10.8
T)
M]
15.4
T)
M)
20.3
T) 24. 9( 17.7)
29.3
T)
M] 33.41 22.4]
T)
f 1
DFNMMtTRir FROUOE NUMBER
3 10 30 100 1000
2.e
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.5
20. 5( 19.2)
21.7
22. 6t 20.7)
28.9
12. 6[ 0.8] 12. fit 0.1] 12. 6t 0.0)
5.9 13.6 26.2 94.9
7.6 16.9 32.0 121.0
124. Or 2.2)
9.1 19.2 36.0 145.0
10.3 21.1 39.6
11.7 22.8 4?.«
45. i>C 5.9)
14.01 6.8)
14.3 26.2 49.1
16.8 29.2 56.5
29. 8( 9.4)
20.3 34.3
22. 9( 14.3)
23. Q
32.7
.
Oil AT MAX REAL
OH PERMITTED RT5E 54.2( 24.0) 41.fit 26.6) 36.6( 21.1) 41.6( 14.9) 62.0( 9.6) 172.0( 3.5)
G-47
-------
TABLE 47
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DRNS1METR1C FPDUDE
3 10
30
inn
1000
HI RFC in A) -
I
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
Ib
20
25
3}
T)
"1
T)
M 1
T)
Ml
1)
MJ
'1 )
"J
r)
M 1
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
M)
I )
M
T)
V )
1)
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
B.i
10.9
15.5
20.8
30.7
41.3
44. 01 26.2)
47. bt 27.8]
56.5
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21 .6
27. H 24. OJ
28.4
34. 5 C 30.1)
38.0
17. 6t 0.8] 12. 6f O.U 12.6C 0.0]
5.9 13.5 26.2 94.3
7.6 16.9 31. R 117.0
9.0 19.0 3S.7 134.0
10.3 21.0 3H.fi 150.0
Ib5. 0( 4.4)
11.6 22.6 41.9 164.0
14.21 7.1)
25.6 46.8 205.0
16.6 28.6 51.6
57. 6( 11.9)
19.7 32.9 58.0
22.9 37.0 64.8
41. 3C 18.1)
28.0 44.3
33. 8( 25.2)
52.6
46.7
OIL AT MX RF»L
OH PfcRMHTEn MSE 98.4( 35.3) 72.4( 41.4) 58.7( 3fi.4) 59.5( 27.9) 79.3( 19.1) 215.0( 7.1)
G-48
-------
TABLE 48
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DKNSlMtThIC FROUDK MIMRER
3 10 30 100 1000
K I or i in ft
1
2
i
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
: T)
: MJ
:
: T)
S MJ
:
8 T)
: M)
:
: T)
: M]
i
: l)
: MJ
;
: T)
: M]
:
: T)
: M 1
:
: T)
: .Ml
:
: T)
: M]
:
: T)
: MJ
;
: T)
: M]
:
: T)
: M)
:
: T)
: M
:
: T)
I
: T)
I M]
J
: T)
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.6
21.0
31.3
43.1
60. 1C 31.6)
64.0
82.7
92. 4( 47.3)
104.0
2.8
3.b
4.4
5.1
b.O
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21.7
28.6
30.lt 26.0]
39.4
50.2
64.0
68. 7( SB. 5)
81.8
12. 7t O.H] 12. 6f 0.1J 12. 6[ 0.0]
5.9 13.5 26.2 93.6
7.6 16.8 31.5 115.0
9.0 19.0 35.5 131.0
10.3 20.8 38.6 144.0
11.6 22.5 41.3 155.0
14.1 25.4 46.2 174.0
14. 3[ 7.2]
16.4 28.2 50.2 191.0
19.6 32.2 56.1 214.0
217. 0( 1?.6)
22.5 36.0 61.8 236.0
27.3 42.2 70.0 287.0
32,0 48.5 78.7
90. 6( 32.4)
39.6 58.4 92.0
48.5 70.5 107.0
73. 9( 44.7)
60.9 88.3
64. 0( 56.7)
84.0
OIL AT MAX RFAL
OR PtRMITTED FdSK 21).0( 65.2) 157.0( 81.4) 123.0( 79.9) lll.OC 66.0) 127.0( 50.6) 302.OC 20.3)
G-49
-------
TABLE 49
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DtUSIMETHIC FROUDE
3 10
30
100
1000
RISECDIA)
1
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
Ib
20
2b
33
42
54
70
90
lib
14H
T)
u)
1.9
T)
"I
2.7
T)
M)
3.6
T)
MJ
4.6
T)
M]
5.7
T)
8.1
T)
U]
10. T
T)
MJ
15.7
T)
Ml
21.0
T)
MJ
31.3
T)
MJ
43.4
T)
MJ 63. 9[ 32. ft]
05. 3
T)
*]
87.4
T)
114.0
T)
147.0
T)
1K5.0
T) 201. 0( °9.1)
M)
227.0
T)
"J
T)
Ml
IL AT MAX PEAL
R PKRMJTTF.D USE 7b9.0(Mh.O)
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21.7
28.8
30. 9[ 2t-.5J
39.6
50.9
65.3
84.3
107.0
135.0
151.0(129.0)
172.0
2 9 4 . 0 ( 1 H 0 . 0 )
12. 7t 0.8]
5.9 13.5
7.6 16.8
9.0 19.0
10.3 20.8
11.6 22.5
14.0 25.4
14. 3f 7.23
16.3 28.2
19.8 32.0
22.5 35.7
27.3 41.9
31.8 47.8
39.1 56.8
47.5 67.6
59.0 81.5
72.9 100.0
91.0 125.0
158.0(115.0)
116.0
140.0(1 38.0)
153.0 211.0
284.0(1R9.0) 240. 0(163. 0)
12. 6[ 0.1]
26.2
31.5
35.5
38.6
41.3
45.9
50.2
55.7
60.9
69.5
77.1
89.1
103.0
120.0
143.0
172.0
175. 0( Q2. b)
208.0
239.0(135.0)
12. 6t 0.0]
93.6
115.0
131.0
143.0
153.0
171.0
185.0
204.0
220.0
244.0
265.0
295.0
326. 0( 41.8)
326.0
361 .0( 51 .»)
G-50
-------
TABLE 50
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DFNSIMETRIC FPOI'DK NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
rt lot v vi » )
t
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
Ib
70
25
3J
42
S4
70
90
115
148
100
244
M]
Ml
MJ
M]
M)
MJ
M)
M)
M]
MJ
H]
M)
M]
M]
MJ
M]
M]
MJ
MJ
i AT MAX RF:AL
PERMITTED H1SF
1.9
2 .7
3.6
4.6
S.7
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.1
31.5
43.4
64.81 32.81
65.7
88.0
116.0
152.0
196.0
2bl.O
324.0
392,0(174.0)
?. 8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21 .7
28.8
31.lt 26.6)
39.9
51.2
65.7
85.6
109.0
140.0
179.0
229.0
294.0
310.0(258.0)
5.9
7.6
9.0
10.3
1 1 .6
14.0
14.31 7.3)
16.3
19.6
22. S
27.1
31 ,R
39.1
47.1
57.6
71.9
B9.4
111.0
141 .0
177.0
224.0
273.0(300.0)
12. 7[ n.83
13. b
16.8
19.0
20.8
22.5
25.4
28.?
32.0
35.7
41 .9
47.5
5b.R
66.7
70.8
97.2
119.0
146.0
181 .0
226.0
2R3.0
295.0(256.0)
17. 6f 0.1]
26.2
31.5
35.5
38.6
41.3
45.9
50.7
55.7
60.0
69.0
77.1
89.2
102.0
119.0
141.0
168.0
201.0
245.0
300.0
317.0(700.0)
12. 6[ 0.01
93.6
115.0
131.0
143.0
1S3.0
170.0
184.0
202.0
218.0
240.0
259.0
284.0
310.0
339.0
I
370. 0( 67.5)
G-51
-------
TABLE 51
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DKMSIMtlRIC FROHDK NUMBRH
3 10 30
100
1000
i n
: M]
: T)
: M]
T)
M]
T)
Ml
T)
HI
T)
HJ
TJ
M]
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
K]
1)
M]
T)
M]
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.8
15.2
20.3
24. 8( 17.6)
29.0
32. 9t 22.4]
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
14.9
19. 7( 19.6)
20.1
22. Ot 21.8]
24.9
ii.it o.Bi n. of o.n 11. or o.o)
5.5 11.7 20.8 64.8
7.1 14.1 24. (> 79.8
90. 4( 2.9)
R.2 15.7 27.1 91.7
9.3 16.9 29.4 104.0
10.2 17.9 31.3
12.0 19.7 34.8
35. 2( 7.4)
12. 8C 8.0]
13.fi 21.3 38.0
22. 9( 11.4)
15.6 23.4 44.7
17.4 25.8
18. 3C 16.5)
20.4 £
24.9
12
20
25
OIL AT MAX REAL
OK PERM1TTFD RISE 44.1( 24.0) 32.0( 27.7) 26.1C 2S.4) 30.7( 18.8) 46.7C 12.2) 123.OC 4.8)
G-52
-------
TABLE 52
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
1
n
VJ
1 .9
T)
2.7
T)
3.6
T)
1.6
T)
MJ
b.7
T)
8.1
1 1
MJ
10.9
T>
15.5
T)
MJ
20.7
T)
30.5
T)
MJ
41.3
T) 43. 7( 26.2)
MJ 47.51 27.9]
55.2
T)
MJ
T)
M)
PENSIMKTRIC FRnUOF NUMBER
3 10 30 100 1000
1 1 . 1 [ O.B] 11 .Ot 0. 1 J 1 1 .0[ 0.0]
2.7 5.5 11.7 20.8 64.4
3.6 7.1 14.1 24.4 VH.7
4.3 8.2 15.7 26.9 88.6
5.1 9.3 16. H 79.0 96.9
5.9 10.? 17.7 30.7 105.0
lll.OC 6.0)
7.5 11.9 19.4 33. B 11B.O
13. 2t 8.6]
9.2 13.5 20.8 36.2 135.0
12.0 15.6 22.8 39.6
15.1 17.4 24.4 42.8
43. l( 15.4)
20.7 20.1 27.3 48.0
29. 0( 23.3)
26. 9[ 25. 2J
22.8 30.1 56.2
32. 7( 30.9) 25. 5( 30.1)
34.5 ' 27.1 35.4
41.5 32.4
12
Ib
20
25
33
42
nil AT »&X KEAL
OK PKPMTTTEI) RISK 81.4( 35.6) 54.6( 43.6) 40.0( 46.1) 40.7( 37.5) 57.7( 25.1} 152.OC 9.8)
G-53
-------
TABLE 53
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DFNS1METRIC FPOUDK NUMhER
3 10 30
100
1000
H I5t IUJ H ) •
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
T)
M 1
T)
M]
T)
Ml
T)
M)
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
Ml
T)
")
T)
M)
1)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
1 )
MJ
T)
MJ
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
B.I
10.9
15.6
21.0
31.1
42.8
59. 7[ 31.5]
63.5
B2.1
90. 8( 47.3)
101 .0
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
15.1
21.0
27.5
29. 8t 26.9]
37.0
46.2
57.6
63. 4( 61.1)
70.4
5.S
7.1
fl.?
9.3
10.1
11.9
13. 4t R.91
13.5
15.5
17.3
20.2
22.9
27.3
31.8
37.8
45.6
46. 4( 71.7)
5S.5
11 .H 0.8)
11.7
14.1
15.6
16. «
17.7
19.3
20.7
22.5
24.1
26.5
28. B
32.4
36,5
41.8
46. 5( 64.1)
49.7
62.6
11 .Ot 0.1 ] 11 .Of 0.0)
20.7 63.9
24.4 77.6
26.9 87.3
2 8 . B 94.9
30.5 101. 0
33.3 112.0
35.7 121.0
38.6 134.0
41,3 144.0
Ib2.0( 17.4)
45.2 162.0
48.7 181.0
53.9
60. 1
61. 5( 44.4)
69.1
81.7
OIL AT "»X Uf.M
DR PKMJTTI-:!) RISK 1 fl 4 .1) ( fth.O) 122.0( P7.2) Bb. 1 (1 06.0) 71.5( °7.9) RS.If "M . «j) VOQ.O( ?«.6)
G-54
-------
TABLE 54
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DKN5IMETKIC FPOUDK N
3 10
30
100
1000
KISECIUA)
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
lib
14b
r-»o
244
T)
Ml
1.9
T)
M)
2.7
T)
MJ
3.6
T)
MJ
4.6
T)
MJ
5.7
T)
MJ
8.1
T)
M J
10. g
T)
MJ
15.6
T)
MJ
21.0
T)
"1
31.3
T)
MJ
43.4
T)
MJ 63.51 32. 5)
o5.3
T)
86.1
T)
112.0
T)
M]
143.0
T)
179.0
T) 196.0(100.0)
"J
219.0
T)
V]
T)
T)
"]
T)
V)
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
15.2
21.0
27.5
30. 9t 27.53
37.8
47.5
60.5
76.6
96.1
119.0
137.0(136.0)
147.0
176.0
5.5
7.1
8.?
9.3
10.1
11.9
13.41 R.9J
13.5
15.5
17.3
20.2
22.9
27.3
32.0
3R.3
46. S
56.7
69.2
65.3
99.4(17
-------
TABLE 55
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DFNS1MMKIC FHOUPF
3 10
30
100
Id 0 (I
kJSECDU)
1
7
j
4
5
7
9
17
15
2U
25
3 )
42
54
70
90
1 15
1 4|j
1 90
244
" )
1 .
?.
3.
M ]
• •
I")
5.
"^ 1
8.
M ]
) ".
15.
C)
21 .
M]
31 .
M]
43.
M] 64.81
65.
M
87.
M]
114.
M 1
14%.
ft
191 .
744.
MJ
314.
MJ
M 1
M]
b HT MAX HKAL
PF.HWJTTtr KISE 375. 0(
^
7
6
6
7
1
q
7
0
3
4
32.8]
7
3
0
0
[1
0
0
17H.O)
2
3
4
5
5
7
9
12
15
21
27
31 .1
37
47
60
78
99
125
160
704
260
.7
.*•
.,
.1
.9
.5
.2
.0
.2
.1
.7
f 27. b)
.8
.8
.9
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
295.0(278.0)
5.
7.
8.
".
10.
11.
13. 5f
15.
17.
20.
22.
27.
32.
38.
46.
b7.
70.
87.
110.
137.
166. 0(
5
1
7
3
1
q
9.11
5
3
7
9
3
2
6
8
2
3
6
0
0
101.0)
11.11
1 1 .
14.
15.
16.
17.
19.
70.
27.
23.
26.
28.
32.
35.
40.
46.
54.
63.
75.
91 .
111.
131. 0(
O.R]
7
1
6
7
7
3
4
3
9
J
6
0
7
5
8
2
7
7
•).
0
300.0)
11.0[ 0.1]
70.7
24.4
26.0
28. B
30.5
33.1
35.5
38.3
40. «
44 .6
47.8
52. fl
57.7
64.0
72.0
81.5
93.1
108.0
176.0
149.0
173.0(300.0)
11.01
63.
77.
«b.
94 .
100.
Ill .
119.
130.
138.
151 .
162.
17b.
190.
206.
225.
245.
268.
271. 0(
0.0]
9
6
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119.0)
G-56
-------
TABLE 56
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DFNSlMfcTHIC FROUDE NUPBEK
3 10 30
100
1000
KI3CIU1AJ
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
Ib
20
25
T)
y J
T)
M]
T)
1
D
M]
T)
M
T)
* J
Tl
H 1
Tl
*J
I)
*]
T)
M]
T)
MJ
Tl
: VI
1.9
7.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.8
15.2
20.3
24. &( 17.7)
28. 8
32.91 72.5]
2.7 5.3
3.5 6.7
4.3 7.8
5.0 8.7
5.8 9.6
7.4 11.2
12.lt R.3)
9.1 12.6
11.8 14.3
14.7 15.8
19. 6( 19.8) 16. B( 17.5)
19.8 17. 9
21. 91 22.0)
24.1 19.6
10. 1 [ 0.91 10.lt 0.1) 10.lt 0.0)
10.6 17.3 42.5
12.5 1<). R 49.1
13.6 21.5 53.8
14.4 22.8 57.6
5B.4( 4.3)
15.2 23.9 60.9
16.4 25.8 b9.6
27. 5( 9.2)
17.4
18.8 29. R
19. 3( 13.4)
20.0 32.8
22.1
1
OIL AT *AX PEAL
OH PERTlTfcD PISE 34.1C 24.1) 25.4( 28.1) 20.7( 27.b) 23.9( 22.2) 34.3( 15.4) 73.3( 7.3)
G-57
-------
TABLE 57
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENS1METRIC FROIJDE NUMHKK
3 10 30
100
1000
Kiar i u i « ; *
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
9
12
Ib
20
25
33
42
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
yj
Tj
M]
T)
M)
T)
T)
t* 1
T)
M]
T)
HI
T)
T)
M]
T)
V J
T)
M)
T)
K]
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.5
20.7
30.5
41.1
43. 7( 26.2)
47.21 27.8)
54.6
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
11.9
14.9
20.5
26.5
32. 2( 31.2)
26.71 25.3)
33.6
38.9
5.3
6.7
7.7
8.7
9.5
11.2
12. 5t 8.fl]
12.6
14.4
16.0
18.3
20.4
23.1 ( 32.1)
23.4
26.3
s
10.11 0.9) 10.lt 0 . 1 J 10.lt 0.0]
10.6 17.3 42.2
12.5 19.7 4B.5
13.5 21.4 53.0
14.4 22.6 5b.l
15.1 23.7 5H.8
16.2 25.4 b3.5
67. 8( 9.2)
17.3 26.7
18.5 2H.4 73.6
19.6 30.0 81.0
31. 9( 19.4)
21.1 32.2
22.6 34.3
23. 2( 27.6)
24.7 39.4
27.0
OIL AT PAX REAL
OR PEK»lTTEn PISE 56.4( 35.6) 39.5( 44.2) 28.6( 50.7) 29.0( 46.3) 40.0( 33.1) 85.1C 15.6)
G-58
-------
TABLE 58
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DFNSIMKTR1C FROUDE NUMBF.K
3 10 30
100
1000
RISF.(DIA) -
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
lib
T)
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
M]
4. ft
T)
M)
b.7
T)
MJ
8.1
T)
K)
10.9
T)
M]
15.6
T)
M]
21 .0
T)
Ml
31.1
T)
f]
42.9
T)
M] 59. 7[ 31, S]
63.5
T)
M)
81 .5
T) 90. 4( 47.6)
M]
99.9
T)
«]
T)
M)
T)
«]
T)
2.7 5.3
3.5 6.7
4.3 7.7
5.0 R.7
5.8 9.5
7.4 11.1
12. 6C 9.n
9.1
17.0 14.4
15.0 16.1
20.8 18.5
27.1 20. S
29. «f 27.1]
36.5 24.4
45.2 28.2
55. 7 33.1
61 .4( 61.6)
67.4 39.2
41. 6( 77.3)
45.6
51.3
10.lt 0.91
10.6
12.4
13.5
14.4
15.0
16.2
17.1
18.4
19.4
21.0
22.3
24.4
2b.5
29.2
32.5
34. 2( 90.0)
36.1
40.1
io.it o.n io.it o.o]
17.3 42.2
19.7 46.5
21.4 52.7
22.6 55.7
23.6 58.4
25.3 62.2
26.5 65.5
28.0 70.0
29.4 73.3
31.2 7b.O
32.9 82.3
85. 2( 28.7)
35.0 88.5
37.1 95.7
39.7
41. 0( 60.9)
42.7
46.6
OIL AT MAX Ft.Ab
OR PKk.«ITTED R1SF 111.0( 66.4) 76.
89.3) 51.7(118.0) 42.8(130.0) 51.3(104.0) 107.0( 49.5)
G-59
-------
TABLE 59
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
FPOUDE M
10 30
100
RISE(DIft)
1
2
3
1000
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
190
244
T)
M]
T)
T)
«)
T)
M)
T)
M)
T)
«]
T)
M]
Tl
M]
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
*IJ
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M}
T)
^
T)
M]
1.9 2.7
2.7 3.5
3.6 4.3
4.6 5.0
5.7 5.8
8.1 7.4
10.9 9.1
15.6 12.0
21.0 15.0
31.3 20.8
43.4 27.3
63. 5[ 32.5] 30. 7[ 2T.5]
65.3 37.2
85.6 46.5
110.0 5H.4
Hl.O 73.9
176.0 92.2
193.01 101.0)
214.0 114.0
133.0(140.0)
139.0
163.0
5.3
6.7
7.7
8.7
9.5
11.1
12.6
12. 7C 9.2]
14.5
16.1
14.6
21 .0
24.8
2?. 8
34.0
41.0
49.5
59.fi
72.6
B7.6
88.0(194.0)
104.0
10. 1 [ 0.9]
10.6
12.4
13.5
14.4
15.0
16.2
17.1
18.4
19.4
21.0
22.3
24.4
26.5
29.2
32. a
37.0
42.1
48.6
56.5
64.6(237.0)
65.7
10.1[ 0.1]
17.3
19.7
21.3
22.5
23.6
25.1
26.5
28.0
29.2
31.0
32.5
34.6
36.6
38.8
41.6
44.4
47.6
51.6
56.2
59.0(21H.O)
61 .5
10. It 0.0]
42.2
48.*
52.3
55.7
58.0
62.2
65.1
69.3
72.3
76.6
80.2
84.9
89.4
94.4
100.0
106.0
111.0(109.0)
113.0
122.0
OIL AT MAX HEAL
OR PCHCITTKD PISF 239.0(140.0) 1 >»6 .0 ( ?03 . U ) 112.0(790.0) 73.9(300.0) 66.6(300.0) 1 32 . 0 ( 1 PO
G-60
-------
TABLE 60
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING - 10 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.00
DKNS1MLTR1C FPOUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
RISE(nTA) -
I
2
3
4
5
7
9
1 2
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
244
Ml
«]
M
Ml
"1
MJ
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
M]
M)
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
M]
Ml
"1
HI
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.7
21 .0
31.3
43.4
64.81 32.91
b5.3
86.7
113.0
14b.O
188.0
239.0
306.0
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.P
7.4
9. 1
12.0
15.0
20.8
27.3
30. 9[ 27.6]
37.2
47.1
59.3
75.5
95.0
120.0
152.0
193.0
246.0
5.3
6.7
7.7
R.7
9.5
11.1
12.6
12. 7[ 9.21
14.5
16.1
IB. 6
21.0
24.7
28.fi
34.3
41.3
50.7
61.3
76.0
94.3
118.0
10. 1C 0.<))
10. b
12.4
13.5
14.4
15.0
16.2
17.1
18.4
19.3
21 .0
22.3
24.4
26.5
29.2
32.9
37.3
42. b
49.5
58.5
69.9
i o . i r o.n
17.3
19.7
21.1
22.5
23.6
25.1
76.3
28. 0
29.2
31 .0
32.6
34.6
36.5
38.8
41.3
44.7
47.4
51.3
55.9
61.6
10.lt O.OJ
42.2
48.5
52.3
55.7
58.0
62.2
65.1
68.9
72.0
76.3
79.9
84.5
88.6
93.1
98.1
103.0
108.0
114.0
120.0
U6.0
OIL AT MAX FtKAL
OH PFPMTrfcD KTSK 37t.OU80,0) 288.0(287.0) 143.0(301.0) 81.8(300.0} 67.2(300.0) 132.0(300.0)
6-61
-------
TABLE 61
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
FpnilOE NUMREH
in 30
100
1000
r lor l IM » j •
1
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
15
20
D
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
I)
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
T)
«J
T)
«]
T)
71. OC 0.0]
1.9 2.B 6.4 16.4 51.6 258.0
261. OC 1.1)
71. OC 1.9]
2.7 3.7 8.8 23.3 72.9
3.5 4.6 11.1 29.4 BB.6
92. 3C 3.3)
4.5 5.6 13.5 35.7 103.0
5.6 6.6 16.1 42.2 173.0
53. OC 6.5)
8.1 8.fl 22.2 57.2
71. 5C R.6]
10.8 11.3 29.6 75.5
38. OC 10.8)
15.4 15.8 44. <»
20.5 21.4
25. 5C 17.6) 26. 2C 17.0)
30.7 37.3
OIL AT MAX
OR PERMITTED PlSf 67.2( 23.4) 63.3( 22.2) 66.1C 14.7) 83.?C 9.4) 128.0( 5.1) 361.OC 1.7)
G-62
-------
PORT SPACING =
TABLE 62
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DKNSIMKTRIC FBOUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
klSE(DiA) -
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
T)
f ]
T)
M)
T)
"J
T)
M
T)
M
T)
M]
Tl
M]
T)
M]
T)
")
T)
VI]
T)
«)
D
f)
T)
Ml
71. 0[ 0.0]
l.q 2.8 6.4 16.4 M.2 249.0
71. Ot 2.0J
2.7 3.7 8.8 23.1 71.0 319.0
326.01 2.1)
3.6 4.6 11.0 29.0 R6.1 390.0
4.5 5.6 13.4 35.2 «7.6
5.6 6.6 16.0 41.3 103.0
121. Ot 6.2)
b.l 8.R 21.7 54.9 130.0
10.9 11.2 28.6 70.0 153.0
85. Ot 11.0)
71. 5t 9.?]
IS. 6 15.6 41.6 93.0
21.0 20.7 bB.O 117.0
69. 5( 16.7)
73.51 17. n
31.) 31.3 94.3
43.1 46.5
45. 6( 26.0) 4«.9( 25.6)
82.71 30. 5J
72.5
90. bt 33.7)
OIL AT MAX REAL
OW PFIRMJTTFD P1SF 126.0( 34.0) 118.Of 32.3) 114.0( 22.1) 125.0( 15.7) 16B.O( 9.6) 452.0( 3.4)
G-63
-------
TABLE 63
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DTCirrnlAil •
nAd&ll'JM/
i
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
T)
MJ
1)
M]
T)
H)
T)
MJ
1 )
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
MJ
D
ft
1 i
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
1
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.1
31.5
44.0
67.1
98.3
112. 0( 45.5)
157.0
159.01 54.41
DENS1KKTHIC FROUOE NUMBER
3 10 30 100 1000
71. U[ O.OJ
2.8 6.4 16.4 50.9 245.0
71. 0[ 2.0]
3.7 8.P 22.9 306.0
4.6 11.0 29.0 85.0 352.0
5.6 13.4 35.0 96.? 391.0
fi.6 15.9 41.0 106.0 425.0
458. 0( 6.0)
1.7 21.5 54.2 124.0 492.0
11.2 28.2 68.5 142.0 573.0
71. 4[ 9.4]
15.5 40.2 90.4 166.0
20.4 55.3 111.0 191.0
197. 0( 15.8)
75. 5C 18.4]
30.5 86.2 146.0 232.0
166. 0( 23.1)
42.8 119.0 181.0
155. Of 30.5)
69.5 174.0
109.01 41.2)
114.0
129. 0( 44.4)
239.0
OIL AT MAX REAt,
OR PtRMITTtD WISE 312.0( 5B.3) 270.0( 55.1) 236.0( 40.6) 23H.O( 37.7) 275.0( 24.1) 617.OC 9.6)
G-64
-------
PORT SPACING
TABLE 64
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
PtNSlMETRIC FRflUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
K J 5 E ( D 1 A J
1
2
3
4
5
7
Q
12
15
20
2S
33
42
54
70
90
1 )
M)
1 )
? ]
T)
MJ
T)
VI
T)
"1
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
T)
VI]
T)
»•}
T)
M]
T)
*J
T)
M]
T)
*)
T)
M]
T)
T)
M]
T)
M)
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.5
b.6
B.I
10.9
IS. 7
21.1
31 ,H
44.0
67.6
99.0
150.0
234.0
309. 0( 83.7)
247.0[ 72.4)
343.0
2.8
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
1.7
11.2
15.5
20.4
30.3
42.5
67.1
103.0
124. 0[ 46.1)
163.0
244.0
318. 0( 82.4)
379.0
71. 0[ O.OJ
6.4 lh.4 bO.9 244.0
71. 0[ 2.0)
8.8 22.4 304.0
11.0 29.0 84.4 347.0
13.4 35.0 95.6 380.0
15.9 41.0 105.0 411.0
21.5 54.1 124.0 461.0
28.0 68.1 141.0 bOb.O
71.41 9.S)
39.9 h9.8 164.0 563.0
54.5 111.0 187.0 615.0
76.0[ lfl.7)
84.4 144.0 725.0
115.0 177.0 261.0
164.0 230.0 317.0
219.0 289.0 381.0
364. OC 53.2) 3H7.0( 43.0)
297.0 369.0
355. OC 62.6)
408.0
OIL »T MAX Rr*L
OH PERMITTED KISE 447.0(103.0) 510. 0( 99.9) 4h2.0( 77.1)
. 0(
461. 0( S3. 4) 629. 0( 15.9)
G-65
-------
TABLE 65
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DENSIMETRIC FPOUDE NUPHFH
3 10 30
100
1000
seiui» >
i
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
Ib
20
2b
33
12
b4
70
90
1 15
M)
1.9
I* J
2.7
3.6
4.5
MJ
b.6
H.l
K]
10.9
M]
lb.7
M)
21.1
M)
31.8
MJ
44.3
67.6
MJ
99.6
MJ
151.0
M]
234.0
MJ 2«9.0t 79.2)
352.0
487.0
2.B
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
6.7
11.2
15.3
20.4
30.3
42.2
66.7
102.0
129.0[ 47.7)
160.0
232.0
321.0
431.0
6.4
8.R
11 .0
13.4
IS. 9
21.4
28.0
39.9
54.1
76. 6t 18.9]
83.8
114.0
162.0
215.0
284.0
37B.O
495.0
16.4
22. P
28.fi
34. R
41 .0
S3. 8
68.1
71. 4t 9.5)
H9.8
110.0
144.0
177.0
228.0
2P7.0
364.0
468.0
71. Ot 0.0]
50.9 244.0
71. Of 2.0)
302.0
B4.4 345.0
95.6 378.0
105.0 407.0
124.0 4b6.0
140.0 497.0
164.0 550.0
1R7.0 595.0
223.0
239.0
315.0
377.0
458.0
OIL AT MAX REAL
OH PERMITTED RISE 535.0(124.0) 487.0(128,0) 528.0( 95.9) 541.0( 61.6) 536.0( 65.9) 633.0( 17.9)
G-66
-------
TABLE 66
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
PENSIHETRIC FROUDF NUMHKR
3 JO 30
100
1000
W Idt \U 1 « >
I
?
^
•1
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M
T)
M]
1 )
MJ
T)
I")
T)
MJ
T)
• Ml
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.6
b.l
10.8
15.4
20.3
24. 9( 17.7)
29.3
49.21 23.9)
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.5
20. 5( 19.2)
21.7
30.9
45. 61 26.4]
44. 9( 0.0]
5.9 13.7 40.5 172.0
195. OC 1.4)
44. 9f 1.3J
7.6 18.6 54.5 232,0
9.1 22.5 63.5
71. 0( 4.0)
10.3 26.2 71.5
11.7 29.8 78.7
14.3 37.8
41. 3( 7.8)
45. ?,t 8.7]
17.3 46.8
22.3
26. 0( 13.8)
29.0
45. 6t 19.1]
nil, AT "AX HFAI.
QH PEHMITTEU HISF 56.1( 23.9) 46.2( 26.4) 48.5C 19.4) 62.6( 11.7) 97.2C 6.4) 269.0( 2.J)
G-67
-------
TABLE 67
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DENSIMt'TKIC FPOUDK
3 10
30
100
1000
pistiuiAj
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
T)
I")
D
i" 1
T)
M
r)
M)
T)
t> }
T)
Ml
T)
M
T)
f J
T)
MJ
T)
*)
T)
w ]
T)
MJ
D
: M j
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4.6
b.7
8.1
10.9
15.5
20.8
30.7
41.3
44. 0( 26.2)
59.6
71. 2t 34.9}
44. 9[ 0.0)
2.8 5.9 13.7 40.2 169.0
44. 9[ 1.3J
3.6 7.6 IP. 5 53.P 214.0
242. 0( 2.8)
4.4 9.0 22.3 67.2 249.0
5.1 10.3 25.8 69.0 289.0
6.0 11.6 29.4 7b.O
7.6 14.? 36.5 86.2
90. 4( 7.H)
9.4 16.9 44.3 96.9
45. 5[ 9.4)
12.3 21.4 55.7 116.0
62. 6( 13.9)
15.6 26.5 67.1
21.6 37.3 89.2
45. 2( 72.8)
51. 2f 74. b)
28.6 53.1
36. 2( 29.9)
42.2
61. Ot 38.7] :
OIL 4T MAX REAL
OR PERMITTED RISE 108.0( 35.1) 89.1( 39.9) «4.4( 30.7) 91.6C 20.2) 124.0( 12.4) 3J5.0( 4.5)
G-68
-------
TABLE 68
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
J T)
1
2
J
4
5
7
9
12
Ib
20
2b
33
42
54
70
MJ
T)
K 1
T)
MJ
1)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
M
T)
M]
T)
V}
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
M]
1
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
a.i
10.9
15.6
21.0
31.3
43.1
64.4
91.1
105. 0( 46.4)
130.0
143.01 57.71
*
DENSIMKTR1C fROUDE
3 10
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21.7
28.6
41 .6
58.9
87.4
88. 6( 54.6)
99. 71 58.5)
167.0
5.9
7.6
9.0
10.3
11 .6
14.1
16.7
21.0
25.8
35.0
45.9
57. 2C 29. 3]
67.6
93.6
102. OC 44.5)
144.0
NtlMHKR
30 100 1000
44. 9T O.OJ
13.7 39.9 16b.O
44. 9t 1.3]
18.5 53.4 20B.O
22.2 61.3 237.0
25.6 68.1 261.0
29.0 74.0 262.0
36.0 83.8 320.0
339. OC 8.0)
43.4 93.6 357.0
45. 9C 9.7]
54.2 107.0 420.0
64.4 119.0
80.9 140.0
143. OC 20.9)
97,6 160.0
118.0C 30.8)
126.0
161.0
OIL AT MAX HEAL
OH PRWMTTED RTSE 274.0( 61.2) 222.0( 71.0) 1H3.0C 59.0) 173.0( 44.3) 200.0( 32.4) 471.OC 13.0)
G-69
-------
TABLE 69
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DENSIME.IRIC FPCUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
HI SKI Ui A ) -----
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
3 J
42
54
70
90
115
T)
Ml
T)
V]
D
*]
T)
M]
D
MJ
T)
M]
T)
«]
1 )
-------
TABLE 70
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
OtNSIMlTKir FPOUDE NMHBEK
3 10 30
100
1000
1
?
1
•1
3
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
M]
1.9
WJ
2.7
«J 3>h
4.6
K)
5.7
M]
8.1
Mj
10.9
^1
15.7
21.1
V]
31.5
43.4
Ml
65.7
94.9
141 .0
Ml
2)2.0
M] 299. OC 87.0]
316.0
429.0
M]
; *,
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
17.3
15.6
21.7
28. fl
41.9
59.3
86.1
131.0
139. OC 72.9]
187.0
257.0
337.0
5.9
7.6
9.0
10.3
11.6
14.0
16.7
21.0
25.4
34.3
44.6
60. •>[ 31.6]
64.4
86.1
114.0
151 .0
196.0
251.0
326.0
13.7
1H.5
22.2
25.6
29.0
36.0
43.1
45. 0[ •».£
53. 8
63.5
79.8
94.9
119.0
147.0
183.0
231.0
290.0
365.0
3°.9
44. 9t 1.3]
53.4
M.3
67.6
73.5
Hi. 7.
92.3
1
105.0
117.0
136.0
155.0
183.0
215.0
757.0
310.0
378.0
44. 91 0.0] j
168.0
206.0
234.0
256.0
2/5.0
306.0
333.0
366.0
396.0
436.0
472.0
OIL AT MAX Pf.AL
OH PERMITTED RISE 503.0(132.0) 40B.0(176.0) 386.0(175.0) 422.0(135.0) 428.0(105.0) 512.0( 31.4)
6-71
-------
TABLE 71
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
RISKCOIA:
DENSIMtTRIC FROUOK NUMBEH
3 10 30
100
1000
T)
M)
1."
T)
MJ
2.7
T)
MI
3.6
T)
M]
4,h
T)
MJ
5.7
1 )
M]
8.1
T)
M
10.8
T)
P]
15.2
T)
20. }
T) 24. HI 17.6)
MJ
29.0
T)
MJ 39.31 24.0]
T)
J *U
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
14.9
19. 7( 19.6)
20.1
25.6
33. 4C 27.5]
32. Ot 0.0]
5.5 11." 30.5 111.0
138. 0( 2.0)
32. 0[ 1.1]
7.1 15.5 39.1 140.0
8.? 18.2 44.3 171.0
9.3 20.5 48.5
10.2 22.6 52.7
53. 0( 5.2)
12.0 26.5 60.5
13.7 30.5
31. 5C 9.5)
32.
-------
TABLE 74
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
FPOUPF MI"BtK
10 30
100
1000
KiablUlrtJ _--,-_.--..
T)
t
•J
3
4
5
7
Q
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
143
"j
1.9
T)
*l )
2.7
T)
"' 3.6
T)
4.6
T)
5.7
8.t
T)
10.9
T)
*)
15.6
T)
w j
21.0
T)
MJ
31.3
T)
"U
43.1
T)
65.3
T)
M)
94.3
T)
138.0
T)
M]
204.0
T) 276. 0( S7.3)
MJ 246. 0( 79.5]
295.0
Tl
«]
T)
MJ
T)
I, AT "AX RE'At,
PFR*irTF:i) RISt 340.0(112.0)
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
15.2
21.0
27.5
39.4
54.5
77.6
112.0
131. OC 7h.2J
156.0
194.0(112.0)
199.0
248.0
759.0(152.0)
5.^
7.1
H.2
9.3
10.1
11 .9
13.5
lb.9
18.4
22.6
27. t
35.2
45.2
60.1
61.3 f 55.1]
79.3
101 .0
128. ft
146.0(133.0)
163.0
-
295.0C 1 35.0)
11.9
15.3
18.0
20.2
22.2
25.4
2H.b
33. 1
34. OC 12.7]
37.2
43.1
48.5
56. S
65.7
77.4
93.2
114.0
141 .0
147.0(120.0)
191,0
251.0(170.0)
30.5
32.01 1.1]
38.6
43.4
47.1
50.2
55.3
59.7
65.3
70.5
78.2
85.7
97.6
110.0
126.0
148.0
175. OC 99.1)
176.0
215.0
241 .0(131 .0)
32. OC 0.03
108.0
132.0
148.0
162.0
172.0
191.0
207.0
226.0
244.0
268.0
291.0
323.0
345. OC 31.1)
356.0
374. 0( 46.7)
G-75
-------
TABLE 75
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
RISE(l)IA)
1
2
i
4
5
7
9
12
lb
20
25
33
42
5-4
70
90
115
148
190
244
10
10
100
1000
»]
MJ
MJ
Ml
M
MJ
MJ
M]
MJ
M]
MJ
^
M)
MJ
»)
M]
MJ
MJ
MJ
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.0
M.I
43.4
65.7
94.9
140.0
211.0
297.0t 86.9)
J14.0
423.0
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
15.2
21.1
27.7
39.4
54.9
78.2
114.0
144.01 81.9]
163.0
217.0
2H3.0
367.0
s.s
7.1
8.2
9.3
10.1
11 .0
13.5
15.9
IP. 2
22.6
27.1
35.0
45.2
60.1
63.1 t 56.4]
79.8
103.0
129.0
166.0
211 .0
269.0
11.9
15.3
18.0
20.2
22.2
25.4
28.o
33.1
34. K 12.9]
37.2
43.1
4ft. 5
56.4
65. 3
76.5
91.4
110.0
132.0
161.0
198.0
245.0
30.5
32. OC 1.1]
38.6
43.4
47.1
50.2
55.3
59.3
65.3
70.0
78.2
85.3
96.4
109.0
124.0
144.0
169.0
199.0
239.0
2BR.O
32.0t 0.0]
108.0
131.0
148.0
161.0
172.0
190.0
205.0
225.0
241.0
264.0
2B3.0
310.0
336.0
367.0
!
UIL AT MAX RfcAl.
OR PKHMITTFD WISE 496.0(133.OJ 375.0(194.0) 29B.0(272.0) 273.0(276.0) 295,0(196.0) 380.0( 59.0)
G-76
-------
TABLE 76
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DfNSIMETHIC FPOUOt NUMBE.H
3 10 30
100
1000
1 1 m n >
1
2
j
4
b
7
9
U
15
20
25
T)
M 1
T)
M J
T)
Ml
T)
Ml
T)
HI
T)
MJ
TJ
V]
T)
M)
T)
"'
T)
"1
T)
M]
T)
Ml
1.9
2,7
3.6
4.6
5.7
H.I
10.8
15.2
20.)
24. 8( 17.7)
28.8
34. 9[ 24.11
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.R
7.4
9.1
11.8
14.7
19. 6( 19.8)
19.8
24.9
27. 4t 27. 9J
2b.lt 0.0]
5.3 10.6 23.6 62.2
25. 3f 1.2]
6.7 13. b 2b.R 71.9
7.8 lb.5 31. 5 79.3
79. bC 3.2)
ft. 7 17.1 33. H Bb.6
9.6 18.6 35.5 93.5
38. 3( 6.9 )
11.2 21.3 38.6
12.7 23.7 41.5
26. 0( 11.0)
26. S[ 11 .51
14.9 27.1
17.3 29.8
18. 5( 16.8)
21.0
25.0
2b.7f 26.5)
OIL AT MAX
OR PFRrflTTtO RISE 34.9( 24.0) 27.5( 27.8) 26.OC 25.6) 33.3( 17.b) 47.3( 11.3) 99.9( 5.3)
G-77
-------
TABLE 77
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
= 500
HtSK
RKNSIMfcTHIC FROUDE NUMBER
3 10 30
100
1000
M u i » ; •
J
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
lb
20
25
33
42
T)
M)
T)
M]
1)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
K]
T)
M)
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4 .6
b.7
8.1
10.9
15.5
20.7
30.5
11.1
4J.7( 26.2)
58.0
61.41 35.2]
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
11.9
14.9
20,5
26.5
33. »( 30.9)
36.8
46.81 41. B]
47.0
5.3
6.7
7,7
B.7
9.5
11.2
12.6
14.9
17.1
2t .0
24.8
2«.4T 29.7)
31.1
35. 9[ 39.2]
37.6
25. 1C 0.0)
10.6 23.6 bl.8
25.31 1.3]
13.4 2R.6 71.0
15. b 31.3 77.1
17.0 33.3 B2.1
16.5 35. n «6. 1
92. 5C 6.7)
21.0 37.8 y3.5
2J.1 19.9 101.0
26.2 42.6
44. 3( 14.3)
27. 5t 13.5]
2a.b 45.0
32.0 4B.9
32. 7( 21.5)
34.6
38.6
OIL AT MAX REAL,
OR PKHMI1TED RISE 61.5( 35.3) 47.2( 42.6) 38.6( 43.9) 40.5( 34.7) 54,9( 24.1) 116.0( 11.4)
G-78
-------
TABLE 78
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENSIMtlHIC FROUDfc
3 10
JO
100
loot)
NISKtUJA)
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
T)
H)
T)
M)
t)
M]
I)
M]
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
HJ
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
V)
T)
«]
T)
M]
T)
M 1
T)
M]
! T)
: "I
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.6
21.0
31.1
42.8
64.0
90.4
104. 0( 46.4)
127.0
138. OC 58.21
2,7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
12.0
15.0
20,8
27»1
38.6
53.0
74.0
79. 3( 57.3)
93. 6t 65.3]
99.7
5.3
6.7
7.7
P. 7
9.5
11.1
17.6
14.8
17.1
21.0
25.1
31.8
40.2
52.0
59. 3C 63.4)
53. Of S5.4J
63.7
72.6
10.6
13.4
lb.3
17.0
18.4
20.8
2?. 9
25.8
28. 2t 15.0]
28.4
31 .8
34.3
38.3
41.9
46.7
4H.K 58.3)
52.1
57.7
:
25.lt 0.0]
23.4 hi. 8
25. 3t l.JJ
28.6 70. S
31.3 76.6
33.1 bO.9
34.8 84.4
37.2 90.5
39.1 95.4
41.6 102.0
43.7 107.0
46.5 114.0
116. 0( 21.1)
48,9 121.0
52.3 134. n
55.6
56. 3C 44.1)
59.8
65.7
OIL »T *AX PEAL
OR PKRMITTFO PISE Hi.OC 61.8) 105.0( 77.6) 73.1C "2.2) 59.4( 94.1) 70.2( 75.3) M5.D(
G-79
-------
TABLE 79
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
CENSI METRIC FRDUDF NUKHEP
3 10 30
100
1000
NI&ML!1HJ
1
2
3
4
5
1
n
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
149
190
T)
" 1
T)
"1
T)
"1
T)
M]
T)
*)
T)
*'
T)
"
T)
M]
D
M)
T)
V)
T)
"
T)
Ml
T)
H)
T)
WJ
T)
MJ
T)
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
"
T)
T)
U 1
- j
244 :
: T)
L «T MAX BF&L
PERMITTED HISt
1.9 2.7
2.7 3.5
3.6 4.3
4.6 5.0
5.7 5.8
M.I 7.4
10.9 9.1
15.6 12.0
21.0 15.0
31.3 20.8
43.4 27.3
65.3 39.1
94.3 54.2
138.0 76.6
204.0 111.0
275. 0( P7.4)
246. OC 79.5) 131. Of 73. 7)
283.0 154.0
189.0(11 3.0)
192.0
228.0
334.0(112.0) 232.0(154.0)
5.3
6.7
7.7
8.7
°.5
11.1
12.6
14.8
17.1
21.0
25.1
32.0
40.5
53.0
60. 9C 61.3)
69.5
U6.2
105.0
125.0(146.0)
126.0
148.0
154.0(713.0)
10.6
13.4
15.3
17.0
18.4
20.8
22.9
25.6
28.2
28. 6t 15.6)
31.5
34.3
38.3
42.5
47.4
53. fl
61.7
70.7
HI. 9
89.0(171.0)
94.6
107.0
1 1 1 .0(267.0)
23.4
25. 3t 1.3)
28.6
31.3
33.1
34.8
37.2
39.1
41.3
43.5
46.2
48.2
51.4
54.4
58.0
62. 1
66.7
72.1
7fl.s
80. 6( 160.0)
86.0
94.9
99.9(2ft7.0)
25. U 0.0]
61.3
70.5
76.0
80.4
84.4
90.0
94.5
100.0
105.0
111.0
116.0
123.0
130.0
137.0
146.0
151. 0( 80.5)
156.0
168.0
173. Of 1 2 3.0)
G-80
-------
TABLE 80
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 25 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENSIMfTFUC
3 10
, NUMRKR
30
ion
1000
MISE(nlA)
1
3
4
5
12
15
20
25
33
42
St
70
90
115
148
190
244
M)
1 .9
MJ
2.7
3.6
4.6
Ml
5.7
B.I
M]
10.9
HJ
15.7
MJ
21 .0
M)
31.3
M)
43.4
K)
65.7
94.9
M]
140.0
MJ
211.0
"1 297. OC 86.9)
31 3.0
MJ
119.0
M)
^
M]
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
12.0
15.0
20.8
27.3
39.1
54.1
77.6
114.0
143. Ot 81.9]
162.0
212.0
274.0
351.0
5.3
b.7
7.7
8.7
9.5
11.1
12.6
14.8
17.1
21 .0
25.1
32.0
40.8
53.4
63. 5[ 63. 1J
70.5
80. 6
110.0
138.0
172.0
216.0
10. fe
13.4
15.3
17.0
1 6.4
20. 8
22.9
25.6
28.2
28. 6t lb.61
31.5
34.3
38.3
42.5
47.7
54.3
62.4
72.7
85.5
J02.0
123.0
23.4
25. 3T 1.3)
2R.6
31.3
33.1
34.B
37.2
39.1
41.3
43.2
45.9
48.2
51.3
54.1
57.7
61.7
66.3
71.6
78.3
86.4
96.3
25. If 0.0]
61 .3
V0.5
76.0
BO. 4
B4.4
90.o
94.
-------
TABLE 81
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DFKSIMETH1C FHOUDE NUMBKK
F t n i A ) «
i
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
T)
Ml
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
D
*}
T)
M]
T)
V)
1)
"J
T)
1
1.9
2.7
3.5
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.8
15.4
20.5
25. 5( 17.6)
30.7
3 10 30 100 1UOO
43b.OC 0.7)
2.8 6.4 16.4 51.6 571.0
3.7 8.B 23.3 73.5
4.6 11.1 29.4 93.0
96. 9( 3.2)
5,6 13.5 35.7 114.0
6.6 16.1 42.2
53. 0( 6.5)
8.8 22.2 57.2
11.3 29.6 76.1
3B.OC 10.8)
15.8 44.9
21.4
26. 2( 17.0)
37.3
OIL ftT MAX Hl-'ia
OH PtHVlTl'ED HISK b7.2( 23.4) 63,3( 22.2) 66.1( 14.7) 84.7( 9.4) 152.0( 4.9) 684.0( 1.1)
G-82
-------
PORT SPACING =
TABLE 82
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DTCb*f[\f&A •
KJPtlwiAj "
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
PENSIMtTHIC FRnUDE NUMBFH
1 3 10 30 100 1000
T)
1.9 2.8 6.4 16.4 51.2 497.0
T) 592. OC 1.3)
2.7 3.7 8.8 23.1 71.9 893.0
T)
W]
3.6 4.6 11.0 29.0 89.2
T)
4.5 5.6 13,4 35.2 J05.0
T)
M)
5.6 6.6 16.0 41.1 122.0
T) 13f>.0( 5.9)
M]
8.1 8.8 21.7 54.9 156.0
T)
X)
10.9 11.2 28.6 70.0
T) 86. 2C 11.0)
15.6 15.6 41.6 96.3
T)
Ml
21.0 20.7 68.0 129.0
T) 69. 5C 16.7)
M]
31.1 31.3 97.0
T)
MJ
43.1 46.5
T) 45. 6C 26.0) 48. 8C 25.6)
M)
77.5
7)
OIL AT *AX REAL
0» PtRMimD hISE 128.OC 14.0) 121.0( 32.3) 120.0( 22.0) 138.0( 15.4) 215.0( 8.B) 929.0( 2.0)
G-83
-------
TABLE 83
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
OEN5IHETRIC FPOtlDf: NUHRfR
3 10 30
100
1000
PJSIHUJAJ
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
1)
MJ
T)
"J
T)
»}
T)
M)
T)
Mj
T)
«}
T)
•'I
T)
M]
T)
M
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
Mj
T)
«•)
T)
M]
T)
M)
1.9
2.7
3.b
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.1
31.5
44.0
67.1
98.3
112. OC 45.5)
157.0
2.8 6.4 16.4 50.9 477.0
3.7 8.8 2?. 9 71.0 689.0
4.6 11.0 29.0 87.3 867.0
929. 0( 3.4)
5.6 13.4 35.0 102.0
6,6 15.9 41,0 117. n
8.7 21.5 54.2 147.0
11.2 28.7 68.5 176.0
15.5 40.2 92,3 224.0
254. 0{ 13,8)
20.4 55.3 120.0 277.0
510.5 86.8 173.0
197. 0( 22.0)
42.8 129.0 236,0
178. 0( 29.8)
69.5 218.0
114.0
132. 0( 44.3)
303.0
OIL AT MAX PEAL
OR PERMITTED PISE 326.0( 58.2) 310.0( 54.2) 297.0( 38.1) 314.0( 29,8) 402.0( 20.0) 974.0( l.b)
G-84
-------
TABLE 84
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.10
DENSIMETRir FROUDfc NIWHFR
3 10 30
100
1000
r. i v i « j •
1
i
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
2b
33
42
54
70
«*0
T)
«]
T)
M
T)
H)
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
MJ
T)
«J
T)
KJ
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
V]
T)
MJ
T)
»J
T)
MJ
T)
M]
T)
"J
f)
MJ
1.1
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.1
31.8
44.0
67.6
99.0
150. n
234.0
372. OC 83.6)
375.0
2.8 6.4 16.4 50.9
3.7 8.R 22.9 71.0
4.6 11.0 29.0 87.3
5.6 13.4 3->.0 102.0
6.6 15.9 41.0 116.0
8.7 21.5 54.1 145.0
11.2 28.0 66. 1 173.0
15.5 39.9 91.7 218.0
20.4 54.5 118.0 265.0
30.3 85.0 170.0 351.0
42.5 124.0 230.0 444.0
611. OC 32. 9)
67.1 203.0 344.0 613.0
103.0 319.0 500.0
525, 0( 54,1) 544. OC 44.4)
171.0
317.0
432. OC 77.8)
474.0
670.0
619.0
9b4.0
OIL AT PAX BFAL
OH PFRUJTIFD RISE 546.0C101.0) 720.OC OH.9) 671.0C M.O)
-------
TABLE 85
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.10
DtNSIMETHlC FHOIIDE
RISE (01A) -
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
ls
20
2b
33
42
54
70
90
115
•]
Ml
M)
"'
M)
M]
M]
Ml
*)
M]
MJ
M]
MJ
Ml
X)
M]
«J
MJ
IL AT MAX RHa
« PtRKITTtn RISE
1
1.9
2 .7
3.6
4.5
5.6
B.I
10.9
l-i.7
21.1
31. e
44.3
67.6
99.6
lbl.0
234.0
3o3.0
563.0
620.0C121 .0)
3
2.8
3.7
4.6
5.6
6.6
8.7
11.2
15.3
20.4
30.3
42.2
66.7
102.0
164.0
278.0
481.0
730.0(108.0)
to
6.4
8.8
11.0
13.4
15.9
21.4
2H.O
39.9
54.1
84.4
123.0
199.0
311.0
bOl.O
795. 0( 68.6)
NUMBER
30 100 1000
16.4 bO.9 474.0
2?.y 71.0 666.0
28.8 8b.7 813.0
34.8 102.0 934.0
41.0 116.0
53. « 144.0
68.) 172.0
91.7 217.0
118.0 263.0
170.0 347.0
229.0 438.0
342.0 601.0
492.0
737.0
794. 0( 56.6) 787. 0( 41.2) 974. 0( 4.4)
G-86
-------
TABLE 86
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
1
DFNSIMETKIC FPOIJPE NUHHEH
3 10 30
100
12
15
20
25
7)
Ml
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
T)
M]
T)
Ml
T)
M]
MJ
T)
f J
T)
w]
T)
H
1 .9
2.7
3.6
4.6
b.6
9.1
10.8
15.4
2.8
3.fc
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
5.9
7.6
9.1
10.3
11.7
14.3
17.3
22.3
26.0( 13.B)
13.7
18.6
22.5
26.2
29.8
37. a
41.3( 7.8)
46.»
40.5
56. R
71 .0
81. Sf 3.6)
64.4
100.0
1UOO
364.0( 0.9)
407.0
20.3 15.5 29.0
24.9( 17.7) 20.5( 19.2)
29.3
21.7
30.9
D1U AT MAX REAL
OK PERHITTED RISC 56.b( 23.9) 46.11 26.4) 48.«»( 19.4) 66.7( 11.6) 127.0( 5.8) 571.OC 1.3)
G-87
-------
TABLE 87
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.05
Irff^PfliiAl •
niOrlUJAs *
i
2
3
4
5
7
(i
12
15
20
25
33
1
T)
M) 1.9
T)
M)
2.7
T)
M)
3.6
T)
4.6
T)
MJ
5.7
T)
Ml
8.1
T)
10.9
T)
M)
15.5
T)
M]
20.8
T)
M)
30.7
T)
M)
41.3
D 44. 0( 26.2)
59.6
T)
M)
Dfc.NSIMtTRIC FPCHinE NUMBER
3 10 30 100 1000
2.8 5.9 13.7 40.2 374.0
491 .OC 1.6)
3.6 7.6 18.5 56.1 5B3.0
4.4 9.0 22.3 68.5
5.1 10,3 25.8 79.8
6.0 11.6 29.4 90.4
112. 0( 7.0)
7.6 14.2 36.5
9.4 16.9 44.3 137.0
12.3 21.4 57.2
65. «C 13.7)
15.6 26,5 73.0
21.6 37.3
45. 2C 22.8)
28.6 53.1
36. 2( 29.9)
42.2
nil AT MAX REM-
OR PFRMITTEO HISt 109.0( 35.1) 91.4( 39.9) 90.9( 30.5) 108.OC 19.5) 176.0( 10.6) 770.0( 2.4)
G-88
-------
TABLE 88
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
DENSIMETKIC FROUOE MUHHKR
3 10 10
100
1000
N I ar i u i A j «
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
'I )
1.9
T)
2.7
T)
Ml
3.6
T)
M)
4.6
T)
H)
5.7
T)
MJ
8.1
T)
VJ
10.9
T)
M]
15.6
T)
21.0
T)
Ml
31.3
T)
MI
43.1
T)
64.4
T)
91.1
T) 105. Q( 4fi.4)
130.0
T)
"3
T)
2.9
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21.7
28.6
41.6
58.9
87.4
88. 6( 54.6)
208.0
5.9 13.7 39.9 364.0
7.6 18.5 b5.7 519.0
9.0 22.2 67. f. 647.0
10.3 7b.6 78.2 770.0
774. 0( 4.1)
11.6 ?9.0 88.0 906.0
14.1 36.0 107.0
16.7 43.4 126.0
21.0 55. J 155.0
25.8 68. f> 186.0
205. 0( 16. b)
35.0 94.9 244.0
45.9 125.0
150. 0( 28.5)
69.0 187.0
108.0
117. 0( 43.7)
214.0
I>I1, AT KM HEAL
OR PEHHITTF.D RISK 285. OC 61.1) 745.0( 70.5) 236.0( 55.4) 247. OC 38.5) 324.OC 74.4) 914.OC «>. 1 )
G-89
-------
TABLE 89
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
= 10000
DENSI«ETKIC FPOIIOE MJ"Bf.R
3 10 30
100
1000
* la* 11/1 A j
1
2
3
1
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
T)
Wl
J
T)
M 1
^ J
T)
»}
T)
«)
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
«J
T)
<•]
T)
MJ
T)
«)
T)
V1
T)
-I
T)
«]
T)
*1
T)
«1
T)
«]
T)
«]
D
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.0
31.3
43.4
65.3
94.3
1J9.0
205.0
285. 0( 87.2)
299.0
2.8 5.9 13.7 39.9 362.0
3.6 7.f 18.5 55.3 508.0
4.4 9.0 ?2.2 67.1 621.0
5.1 10.3 25.6 77.6 719.0
6.0 11.6 29.0 87.3 807.0
7.6 14.0 36.0 106.0
9.4 16.7 43.1 124.0
12.3 21.0 54.9 152.0
15.6 25.6 67.6 180.0
21.7 34.5 92.3 230.0
28.8 44.9 122.0 285.0
41.6 65.3 177.0 382.0
486. 0( 40.6)
58.8 94.9 254.0 506.0
86.2 14S.O 379.0
426. 0( 57.9)
131.0 256.0
374. 0( (31.7)
201.0 492.0
258.0(103.0)
332.0
otb AT MAX REAL
OR
410.0(109.0) 558 .0(127 .0) 602. 0(
577. n( 6«.0)
1H.O) 914. 0( 6.4)
G-90
-------
TABLE 90
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.05
FHOUOt NUHBF.H
10 30
100
1000
Kisfc UH A;
1
'I
3
4
"l
7
9
12
15
20
25
3)
42
54
70
90
115
149
VI
M)
M
M)
M)
M |
V }
MJ
H)
M)
M]
M]
H)
M)
HJ
MJ
M]
1 .9
2.7
3.b
4.6
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.7
21.1
31.5
43.4
65.7
94.9
141.0
212.0
317.0
470.0
2.8
3.6
4.4
5.1
6.0
7.6
9.4
12.3
15.6
21.7
28.8
41.9
59.3
86.1
131.0
199.0
302.0
476.0
5.9
7.6
9.0
10.3
11.6
14.0
16.7
21.0
25.4
34.3
44.6
64.4
92.3
141.0
227.0
379.0
637.0
13.7
18.5
22.2
25.6
29.0
3h.O
43.1
54.5
67.6
92.3
121 .0
175.0
249.0
367.0
564.0
39.9
S5.3
67.1
77.6
87.3
105.0
124.0
151.0
180.0
229.0
282.0
376.0
493.0
670.0
362.0
5U8.0
617.0
710.0
791 .0
OIL AT MAX HEAL
OH PfHHITTKD RISE 571 .0(130.0) 551.0(160.0) 689.0(119.0) 717.Q( BO.7) 708.0( 56.5) 914.0( 6.7)
6-91
-------
TABLE 91
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.02
UFNSJMtTMC FPOIIPK NUMRKH
3 JO 30
100
1000
K lit. IL'J ft J
1
2
3
4
t
7
9
12
15
20
25
1)
1.9
T)
M]
2.7
T)
MJ
3.6
1)
4.6
T)
Ml
5.7
H)
8.1
T)
H)
10.8
T)
K )
15.2
T)
Ml
20.3
T) 24. 8C 17.6)
M]
29.0
T)
"'
T)
MJ
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.2
12.0
14.9
19. 7( 19. b)
20.1
25.6
5.5 11.9 30.5 ifab.O
2H2.0C 1.1)
7.1 15.5 41.6
8.2 18.2 50.5
9.3 30. •> S8.4
64. 0( 4.7)
10.2 22.6 66.7
12.0 26.5 89.8
13.7 30.5
31. 5( 9.5)
16.2 37. S
19.0
19. 8( 16.0)
24.4
OIL AT MX REAL
OR PERMITTED KISE 45.8( 24.0) 34.8( 27.6) 33.5( 23.8) 49.2( 14.5) 9<>.7( 7.2) 43y.0( 1,7)
G-92
-------
TABLE 92
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DFNS1METKIC fPOlmt NUMBKR
3 10 30
100
1000
mar. mini •
1
2
3
4
•>
•j
9
12
li>
20
25
33
42
T)
M)
1.9
T)
MJ
2.7
D
M]
3.6
T)
M]
4.6
T)
5.7
T)
8.1
T)
10,9
T)
M]
15.5
T)
K J
20.7
T)
«*)
30,5
T)
HJ
41.3
T) 43. 7C 26.2)
"J
58.4
T)
M]
T)
M J
2.7 5.5 11.9 30.5 254.0
3.6 7.1 15.5 41.0 374.0
380. OC 2.1)
4.3 B.2 1H.1 49.1 526.0
5.1 9.3 20.4 56.5
5,9 10.2 22.3 63.1
7.5 11.9 25.8 75.0
86. 2C «.9)
9.2 13.5 29.2 87.4
12.0 16.0 34.3 109.0
15.1 18.5 39.6
44. 9C 17.7)
20.7 22.9 50.2
26.9 27.9 65.8
34. 1C 30.7) 30. 9C 2B.1)
37.3 37.0
58.3
OIL AT MAX PEAl
OR PEKMJTfED RISE 90.6( 35.3) 67.9( 42.1) 59. 1C 40.2) 74.4( 26.3) 135.OC 13.b) 594.OC 3.1)
G-93
-------
TABLE 93
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO = 0.02
= 2000
UtNSJMKTRIC FROIIDE NUMhKR
3 10 10
100
1000
HISPID! A) -
1
2
3
4
c
7
9
12
15
20
2b
33
42
54
70
T)
«*)
1.9
T)
M]
7.7
T)
MJ
3.6
T)
HI
4.6
HI
5.7
T)
K]
fl.l
T)
M]
10.4
T)
M)
15.6
T)
21.0
T)
Ml
31.1
T)
M]
42.8
T)
MJ
64.0
T)
K]
90.4
T) 104. 0( 46.4)
127.0
T)
K]
t)
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
5.9
7,b
9.2
12.0
1S.1
21.0
27.5
38.8
53.4
74.5
79. 8( 57.0)
105.0
5.5 11.9 30.5 249.0
7.1 15.3 40.8 3b2.0
8.7 lfl.0 48.8 433.0
9.3 20.2 5b.7 bOb.O
10.1 22.2 61.3 578.0
b94.0( 5.2)
11.9 25. h 71.9 744.0
13.5 2B.B H?.i
15.9 33.3 96.3
18,4 38.0 111.0
22.6 46.2 137.0
149. nc 27.2)
27.3 54.9 166.0
35.2 71.0
91. 7 ( 41.1)
45.5 94.9
60.9 147.0
b9.0( 59.5)
89.2
DIL AT MAX REAL
OR PKRMITTCD RISt 251.0( 61.6) 190.0( 76.4) 160.0{ PO.l) 170.0( 56.8) 238.0( 32.7) 807.0( 7.5)
G-94
-------
TABLE 94
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
DErtSIhElRIC FROUDP NUMBER
3 JO 30
100
1000
msEituAj
T)
1
•I
3
i^
5
7
^
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
!!•>
14H
"1
1 .°
T)
2.7
T)
3.6
T)
4.6
T)
3.7
T)
8.1
T)
10.9
T)
WJ
15.6
T)
Ml
21.0
T)
H]
31.3
T)
43.4
T)
65.3
T)
Ml
94.3
T)
HI )
138.0
T)
M J
204.0
T) 2R2.0( 87.2)
M]
295.0
T)
Ml
T)
T)
L AT M»X WEAL
PERMITTED RISK 384.0(110.01
2.7 S.5
3.6 7.1
1.3 8.2
5.1 9.3
5.9 10.1
7.5 11.9
9.2 13.5
12.0 15.9
15.2 19.4
21.0 22.6
27.5 27.1
39.4 35.2
54.5 45.2
77.6 60.1
112.0 83.2
162.0 118.0
216.0(110.0)
229.0 171.0
193.0(174.0)
293.0
337.0(144.0) 470.0(15R.O)
11.9 30.5 249.0
15.3 40. « 347.0
18.0 48.8 421.0
20.2 55.3 487.0
22.2 60.9 545.0
25.4 71.4 644.0
28.6 80.9 735.0
33.1 94.9
37.5 108.0
45.2 131.0
53.4 156.0
67.6 199.0
86.1 252.0
115.0 334.0
347. 0( 55.8)
165.0 466.0
257.0
264. 0( 91.5)
461.0
467.0(116.0) 47».0( 71.3) 807. 0( 10.7)
G-95
-------
TABLE 95
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.02
KISK(DU)
\
2
3
4
b
7
9
12
Ib
20
2b
33
42
54
70
90
lib
148
190
DKNS1HITR1C FFMIUDK MIPRKH
3 10 30
100
1000
J M]
M]
M]
M)
«)
M)
M]
M)
M]
M]
M)
M)
M]
M]
M]
M]
M]
H3
: Ml
1 .
2.
3 •
4.
5.
8.
10.
15.
21.
31.
43.
65.
94.
140.
211.
316.
4fa8,
9
7
6
6
7
1
9
7
0
3
4
7
9
0
0
0
0
?
3
4
b
5
7
9
12
15
21
27
39
54
7R
114
167
243
360
.7
.6
.3
.1
.9
.5
.2
.0
.2
.1
.7
.4
.9
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
5
7
8
9
10
1 1
13
15
18
22
27
35
45
60
83
117
166
247
371
.5
.!
.2
.3
.1
.9
.5
.9
.2
.6
.1
.0
.?
.1
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
11
15
18
20
22
25
28
33
37
45
53
66
84
11 1
154
221
328
512
.9
.3
.0
.2
.2
.4
.b
.i
.5
.2
.0
.1
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
30
40
48
55
60
71
80
94
108
131
154
195
24b
320
435
,S
.8
.5
.3
.9
.4
.9
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
249.0
347.0
421 .0
4b4.0
539.0
6J2.0
712.0
OIL AT MAX HEAL
OH PKB^ITfED HTSE 570.0(130.0) 496.0(179.0) 460.0(216^0) 565.0(156,0) 596.0( R9.6) 807.0( 11.7)
G-96
-------
TABLE 96
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 200
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
RISK(DIA) -
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
IS
20
25
1
T)
1.9
T)
M]
2.7
T)
M]
3.6
T)
4.6
T)
MJ
5.7
T)
8.1
T)
10.8
T)
15.2
T)
MJ
20.3
T) 24. «( 17.7)
«]
28. 8
T)
HI
T)
HJ
3
2.7
3.5
4.3
•>.o
5.8
7.4
9.1
11. 0
14.7
19. 6( 19.8)
19.8
24.9
;ihir FROUDE NUMBER
10 30 100 1000
5.3 10.6 23.6 1J1.0
144. 0( 2.0)
6.7 13.5 29.8 146.0
7.8 15.5 34.5 187.0
8.7 17.1 38.6
9.f. 18.6 41.9
45, 5( b.l)
11.2 21.3 48. P
12.7 23.7 56.9
26. 0( 11.0)
14.0 27.3
17.3 30.9
18. 5( 16.8)
21 .0
25.0
Oil AT MAX REAL
OR PERMITTED RISK 34.9( 24.0) 27.5( 27.8) 26.1( 25.6) 36.6( 17.3) 64.3( 9.8) 203.0( 3.1)
G-97
-------
TABLE 97
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 500
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DkNSIMETKIC FRCJUDE
3 10
30
100
1000
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
T)
A]
1 )
"
T)
Ml
T)
M]
1 )
W]
1 )
M)
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
Ml
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
M)
: T)
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.b
5.7
8.1
10.9
15.5
20.7
30.5
41.1
43. 7C 26.2)
5H.O
2.7
3.5
4.3
S.O
5.8
7.4
9.1
11.9
14.9
20.5
26.5
33. 8( 30.9)
36.8
47.0
5.3
6.7
7.7
8.7
9.5
11.2
12.6
14.9
17.1
21.0
24.8
28. 4( 29.7)
31.1
38.1
10.6 23.6 110.0
13.4 29.6 140.0
15.5 34.0 163.0
Ibl.OC 3.9)
17.0 37. H 1 8 b . 0
18. *> 40. R 206.0
21.0 46.?
23.1 50.9
57. 6C l?.l)
26.2
28.8 64.4
33.3
34. 3( 21.3)
37.8
46.7
OIL AT MAX REAL
OR PERMITTED WISE 61.t( 35.3) 47.5( 42.6) 40.0( 43.9) 48.2( 33.3) 81. H 19.4) 255.0( 6.2)
G-98
-------
TABLE 98
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 2000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENSIME1RK FROUDK NUMBER
3 tO 30
100
1 000
n i or 1 1' i « ;
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
!
T)
H
1)
M)
T)
"J
T)
MJ
1)
MJ
T)
MI
T)
M]
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
MJ
T)
M)
T)
"1
T)
M)
T)
M]
T)
MJ
T)
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.b
5.7
8.1
10.9
lb.6
21.0
31.1
42. B
64.0
90.4
104. 0( 46.4)
127.0
2.7
3.5
4.3
5.0
5.8
7.4
9.1
12.0
15.0
20.8
27.1
38.6
53.0
74.0
79. 3( 57.3)
102.0
5.3
6.7
7.7
8.7
9.5
11.1
12.6
14. B
17.1
21 .0
25.1
31 .8
40.2
52.0
60. 9( 63.3)
68.1
10.6 23.4 109.0
13.4 29.6 138.0
15.3 34.0 Ib9.0
17.0 37.5 175.0
IB. 4 40.5 190.0
20. H 45.2 213.0
22.9 49.5 23ti.O
255. 0( 10.8)
25.8 54.9 2fc7.0
28.4 59.7 302.0
32.4 b6.6
36.2 73.1
42.2 82.fi
S3.fi( 33.8)
49.1 93.8
57. 8( 54.1)
69.8
;
OIL AT MAX RE:AL
OP PF.wmt.O RISF. 146. OC 61.7) lll.Of 77.3) 85.8t P9.6) 81.5( 82.4) 117.0( 53.7) 359.0( 17.4)
G-99
-------
TABLE 99
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = 10000
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
DENSIHtTRIC FROtJDt NUH6KK
3 10 30
100
1000
RISE(DIA)
12
15
20
25
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
T)
M)
1.9 2.7
1)
2.7 3.5
T)
3.6 4.3
T)
M]
4.6 5.0
T)
«]
5.7 5.8
7)
8.1 7.4
T)
10.9 9.1
T)
*]
15.6 12.0
T)
MJ
21.0 15,0
T)
M]
31.3 20.8
T)
M]
43.4 27.3
T)
65.3 39.1
T)
94.3 54.2
T)
M)
13S.O 76.6
T)
f]
204.0 111.0
T) 282. 0( 87.3)
X]
79b.O 160.0
T ) 215.0(1 11 .0)
M]
226.0
T)
M]
T)
M)
T)
"I
5.3
6.7
7.7
8.7
9.5
11.1
12.6
14.8
17.1
21 .0
25.1
32.0
40. S
53.0
71.4
96. 8
1 31.0
160.0(1 35.0)
179.0
10.6
13.4
15.3
17.0
18.4
20.8
22.9
25. h
28.2
32.2
36.0
41.9
48. H
58.0
70.4
67.0
109.0
1 30. 0(13°. 0)
1 38.0
174.0
23.4 109.0
?9.6 137.0
33. P 157.0
37.7 173.0
40.2 186.0
45.2 208.0
49.1 228.0
54.5 251.0
58.8 272.0
65.7 302.0
71.2 328.0
79.3 367.0
381. Ot 36.0)
88.0
98.3
112.0
127.0
139.0(106.0)
147.0
173.0
OIL AT '<»X PEAL
OR PKRWITTED HISE 381.0(110.0) 298.0(145.0) 225.0(1«4.0) 1B3.0(201.") 187.0(162.0) 407.0(
G-100
-------
TABLE 100
DIFFUSER PLUME DILUTION
PORT SPACING = 1000 DIAMETERS, STABILITY STRATIFICATION PARAMETER = INFINITE
CURRENT TO EFFLUENT RATIO =0.00
RISE(DIA)
1
2
J
4
b
7
9
12
Ib
20
2b
33
42
54
70
90
115
148
190
244
DKN5IHKTRIC FROUDE NUMBPR
3 10 30
100
1000
M]
MJ
MJ
M)
M
"J
M]
MJ
M]
M]
M)
M)
ft
M]
«)
MJ
f J
M)
MJ
MJ
: MI
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.7
U.I
10.9
15.7
21.0
31.3
43.4
65.7
94.9
140.0
21 1 .0
315.0
468.0
2
3
4
5
5
7
9
12
15
20
27
39
54
77
114
165
242
357
,7
.5
.3
.0
.8
.4
.1
.0
.0
.8
.3
.1
.1
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
5
6
7
B
9
11
12
14
17
21
25
32
40
53
71
99
136
193
276
400
.3
.7
.7
.7
.5
.1
.6
.8
.1
.0
.1
.0
.8
.4
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
10
13
15
17
18
20
22
25
28
32
3b
41
4B
58
70
87
111
144
191
259
.6
.4
.3
.0
.4
.8
.9
.b
.2
.2
.0
.9
.8
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
23
79
33
17
40
4b
49
54
58
65
70
79
B7
97
110
125
143
168
200
244
4
6
,R
.2
.?
.2
.1
. 1
.8
.3
.8
.1
.2
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
108
137
156
172
18b
208
22b
248
268
295
316
348
378
j
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
DfL »T MAX REAL
OR PEHM1TTED RISK 569.0(130.0) 485.0(180.0) 402.0(245.0) 329.0(294.0) 248.0(250.0) 407.0( 52.5)
6-101
-------
-------
APPENDIX H
EQUIVALENTS OF COMMONLY USED UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
H-l
-------
TABLE H-l
EQUIVALENTS OF COMMONLY USED UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
English Unit
acre
acre
acre-ft
Btu
Btu
Btu/hr/sq ft
Btu/lb
cfm
cfs
cfs/sq miles
cu ft
cu ft
cu in.
cu yd
°F
°C
ft
ft-lb
gal
gal
gpd/acre
Multiplier
X4. 046. 724;*
•"2.471X10" X
X0.405*
* 2.471X
XI, 233. 5-*
*• 8.11X10""X
XI. 055*
•"0.9478X
X0.252*
*• 3.968X
X3.158*
--0.316X
X0.555*
<- 1.80X
X0.028*
«- 35.71X
XI. 7*
* 0.588X
X0.657 +
*- 1.522X
X0.028*
* 35.314X
X28.32*
«- 0.0353X
XI 6.39*
+ 0.061X
X0.75 +
*• 1.3709X
0.5S5(°F-32)*
* 1.8(°C)+32
plus 273*
•«- minus 273
X0.3048*
*• 3.28X
XI, 356*
*0.737X
X3.785H-
*0.264X
XO. 003785*
•H264.2X
X0.9365*
•H1.068X
SI Unit
m2
ha*
m3
kJ
kg-cal*
J/s-m2
kg-cal/kg*
m '/mi n
mVnrin
mVmin km2
m3
1*
cm3
B»
°c
K
m
J
1*
m3
mVday km2
English Unit
gpd/ft
gpd/sq ft
gpm
gpm
gpm/sq ft
hp
hp-hr
in.
Ib/day/acre-ft
lb/ 1,000 cu ft
Ib/day/cu ft
Ib/mil gal
mil gal
mgd
mgd
mile
ppb
ppm
sq ft
sq in.
sq miles
Multiplier
XO.C124*
+-80.65X
X0.0408*
^-24. SIX
X0.0631*
-15.85X
X0.0631*
+• 15.85X
X40.7*
-0.0245X
X0.7454*
+ 1.341 X
X2.684--
t- 0.372X
X2.54n-
- 0.3937X
X3.68*
* 0.2717X
X116.0-
* 0.0625X
XI 6*
«- 0.0625X
XO.92-^-
t- 8.333X
X3.785+
* 2.64X10-'*X
X3.785*
•>-2.64X10'ltX
X0.0«8*
* 22.82X
XI. 61*
- 0.621X
XI O"3*
* 1 ,OOOX
approximately
equal to
X0.0929*
i- 10.76X
X645.2*
- 0.00155
X2.590*
i-0. 3861 X
SI Unit I
mVday m
mVday m2
dm3/s
l*/s
l*/min m2
kW
MJ
cm
g/day m3
g/m3
kg/ day m3
g/m3
m3
mVday
m'/s
km
mg/1*
mg/1*
m2
mm2
km2
Other commonly used conversions:
1 MGD * 1.55cfs
yc =62.4 BTU/ft3/°F
1 MW «3.414 X 106 BTU/hr
1 BTU • 778 ft-lb
1 BTU = 252 cal
1 Langley/day =3.7 BTU/ft.2/day
*Not an SI unit, but a term commonly used and preferred as a wastewater unit of expression.
H-2
-------
| |