EPA-600/2-75-007
April 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
PACT OF HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
ON WATER QUALITY
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series.
These five broad categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental technology. Elimination
of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The five series
are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY STUDIES series. This series describes research performed to
develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and methodology to
repair or prevent environmental degradation from point and non-point
sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved technology
required for the control and treatment of pollution sources to meet
environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the view and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute.endorsement or recommendation for use.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
This report is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
-------
EPA-600/2-75-007
April 1975
IMPACT OF HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
ON WATER QUALITY
By
Joginder Bhutan!
Richard Holberger
Peter Spewak
Willis E. Jacobsen
J. Bruce Truett
Grant No. 802310
Program Element: 1BB042
ROAP/Task: 21BEU-01
Project Officer
Donald J. 0'Bryan
Mining and Land Modification Branch
Non-Point Sources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the scope and magnitude of water pollution prob-
lems caused by hydrologic modifications (dams, impoundments, channel-
ization, in-water construction, out-of-water construction, and dredging),
Types of pollutants released by each class of hydrologic modification
are identified and quantitative estimates are made of the amount of
the major pollutant—sediment—that enters the Nation's surface waters
as a result of highway and urban construction.
Methods for controlling the release of pollutants from hydrologic modi-
fication activities are described and the effectiveness of sediment
control measures is estimated.
Two "loading functions" are developed for predicting the quantities of
sediment released from construction operations of given magnitude and
location. These functions are based on measurements of sediment yields
and other parameters at 10 construction sites. The accuracy and limi-
tations of the functions are analyzed.
Measurement data from all classes of hydrologic modifications are
reported in the 42 case studies of field projects summarized in the
appendices of this report.
The report is submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number R-802310-01 by
the MITRE Corporation under partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Work was completed in April, 1975.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Contents iii
List of Exhibits vii
Acknowledgments ix
Section
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 5
Purposes of the Study 5
Summary of Results 6
Magnitude of the Problem 6
Measures for Controlling Pollution from Hydrologic
Modifications 13
Source Loading Functions for Predicting Sediment
Loss from Construction Sites 13
IV NATURE OF WATER QUALITY EFFECTS FROM HYDROLOGIC
MODIFICATIONS 15
Types of Pollutants 15
General Factors Affecting Water Quality Impact 16
Short-Term Nature of Construction Activities 16
Climate and Terrain 24
V PRESENT AND FUTURE POLLUTANT LOADS FROM HYDROLOGIC
MODIFICATIONS 25
Better Procedures Needed for Estimating Pollutant
Loads 26
Pollutant Loads from Construction of Transportation
Facilities 27
Present Level of Highway Construction 27
Future Pollutant Loads from Highway Construction 32
Pollutant Loads from Urban Construction 34
Present Rates of Sediment Production from Urban
Development 35
iii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Projected Sediment Loads from Urban Development 35
Summary of Results for Out-of-Stream Construction:
Comparisons, Qualifications, and Caveats 37
Pollutant Loads from Dams, Reservoirs, and
Impoundments 39
Effects of Construction 40
Effects of Structure 40
Effects of Reservoir Operation 41
Regional and Local Nature of Water Quality Impact 43
Limited Quantitative Data on Water Quality Effects;
No Quantitative Projections 44
Pollutant Loads from Channelization 46
Nature of Effects of Channelization on Water Quality 47
Pollutant Loads from Channelization 48
Pollutant Loads from Dredging 50
Characteristics of Dredged Materials 51
Limited Quantitative Data on Water Quality Effects 55
Pollutant Loads from In-Water Construction 55
Nature of Water Quality Effects 56
Extent of In-Water Construction 56
Pollutant Load Data Not Available 57
Concurrent and Beginning Studies to Provide
Additional Data 58
Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material 58
Highways and Other Roads 60
Soils and Pollutant Runoff 61
In-Water Construction 62
References 63
VI LOADING FUNCTIONS 66
Approach 67
History of Sediment-Loss Equations 68
iv
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Equations for Agricultural Applications 68
Applicability to Construction Sites 71
Available Data 74
Locations of Data Sources 75
Completeness of Data; Parameters Reported 76
Presentation of Data Used to Fit Functions; Sediment
Yields Predicted by Universal Loss Equation 81
Summary of Data from All Case Studies 82
Selection and Fitting of Loading Functions 93
Characteristics of Loading Function Predictions 95
Averages, Standard Deviations, and Frequency
Distributions of Predicted/Observed Ratios iQO
Accuracy of the Loading Functions; Generality of
Application 105
How to Use the Loading Functions 107
Comments on Use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation 108
Estimation of Soil Loss by Use of Loading
Functions - A Numerical Example 110
References 112
VII METHODS OF CONTROLLING POLLUTION FROM HYDROLOGIC
MODIFICATIONS 115
Types of Control Measures 115
Out-of-Stream Construction 115
Control Measures for In-Stream Construction Sites,
Operation of Impoundments, and Dredging 117
Effectiveness of Control Measures 119
Out-of-Stream Construction 119
In-Stream Activities (Dredging, In-Water
Construction) 120
References 121
VIII CASE STUDIES 122
Generic Content of Case Studies 122
How to Access Case Study Data 123
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Types of Data in Each Case Study 123
Geographic Distribution of Case Study Sites 128
IX APPENDICES
A. Highway Construction 147
B. Urban Construction 202
C. Dams and Impoundments 310
D. Channelization 364
E. Dredging 378
F. Pollution Control Measures 461
G. References for Appendices A-F 520
H. List of Personal Communications 525
vi
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Number Page
1 Summary Assessment of Problems Associated
With Hydrologic Modifications 7
2 Effects of Construction Projects on Water
Quality 17
3 Water Pollution from Construction Activities 19
4 Land Areas in U. S. Transportation System 29
5 Total Road and Street Mileage in U. S. -
December 1971 30
6 Land Areas Per Linear Mile of Roadway in
Total U.S. 31
7 Projected Increases in Highway Mileage 33
8 Example of Stream Bed Degradation in Small
Stream in Mississippi 42
9 Locations of Hydroelectric Generators With
Capacities of 25,000 Kilowatts or Greater 45
10 Magnitudes of Agricultural and Conservation
Practices Involving Channelization 49
11 Dredge Spoil Disposal Flow Chart 52
12 Chemical Comparison of Slightly and Heavily
Polluted Bottom Samples 53
13 Guidelines For Limiting Concentrations of
Various Pollutants in Bottom Sediments 54
14 Dredged Material Research Program Technical
Structure 59
15 Data from Case Studies and Other Sources 78
16 Presentation of Basic Data and Yields Pre-
dicted by Universal Soil Loss Equation 83
17 Two Methods for Estimating Rainfall Effects 89
vii
-------
Exhibit Number Page
18 Comparison of the Effects of Seasonal
Variations of Sediment Yield 91
19 Comparison of Fitted Functions 96
20 Means and Standard Deviations of Predicted/
Observed Ratios Obtained by Three Estimating
Procedures 102
21 Percent Frequency Distributions of Predicted/
Observed Ratios 103
22 General Topics Covered in Case Studies 124
23 Parameters Measured or Monitored in Case
Studies 125
24 Parameters Controlled in Case Studies 126
25 Physiographic Region of Case Studies 128
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is based entirely on available data; no new field measure-
ments were made under the terms of the grant. Most of the data pre-
sented in the report are derived from published sources. The authors
acknowledge with gratitude the information and publications provided
by persons interviewed during the study. The number of persons who
cooperated is too great to permit listing here, but we have attempted
to identify individuals and their organizations in Appendix H. Some
of the newer data were made available prior to publication by the
following investigators: Mr. E. J. Carlson> U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver; Mr. John Baker, California Water Quality Control Board, South
Lake Tahoe; and Mr. William McCaw, Division of Environmental Protection,
Montgomery County, Maryland. We are particularly grateful for this
information.
We wish also to express thanks to Mr. Donald 0*Bryan, the EPA Project
Officer, for his technical guidance, sustained interest, and patience
throughout the project; to Dr. L. Donald Meyer, USDA Sedimentation Labora-
tory, Oxford, Mississippi; Captain William Allanach, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Vicksburg; Dr. Harold Guy and Dr. Thomas Maddock of
the U.S. Geological Service, Reston, Virginia, for their interest and
technical input during the early phases of the study; and to Dr. John
Nebgen of Midwest Research Institute for his suggestions concerning
parameters for the loading functions.
ix
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Runoff from highway and urban development construction sites has
a severe adverse impact on surface water quality. The preponderance
of this impact occurs in or near population centers throughout the
Nation, thus degrading the quality of intensively used waters. The
overall impact constitutes a problem of national scope with high
environmental and economic costs.
2. The major pollutant from out-of-stream construction operations
is sediment. Construction runoff also contains smaller but signi-
ficant amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, oils, lubricants, and
washings from concrete and bituminous mixing and finishing opera-
tions .
3. Quantities of sediment entering the Nation's waters from out-of-
stream construction are not known with exactness, but they are
estimated in the range of 40 to 60 million tons per year. Amounts
of other pollutants are unknown.
4. Major water quality problems resulting from out-of-stream construc-
tion operations are amenable to control by available methods of
demonstrated effectiveness, such as mulching, sodding, installation
of sediment basins, small dams, diversion structures, or sediment
basins.
5. Dredging operations have the potential for introducing large amounts
of toxic materials (from benthic sludges) in close proximity to
population centers. The quantities and concentrations of such
materials introduced into nearby waters by dredging are not known;
therefore, dredging should be regarded as a serious source of water
-------
pollution pending further research on the nature and quantities
of its pollutants. Few methods are available for control of pollu-
tion from dredging. The effectiveness of available methods is not
well known.
6. Operation of dams and impoundments can adversely affect water
quality by several mechanisms, including sediment retention,
thermal stratification, decomposition of trapped organic material,
and nitrogen supersaturation.
7. Demonstrated, effective methods do not exist for estimating the
quantities of water pollutants resulting from either out-of-stream
construction activities or in-water activities such as dredging.
Of the methods available, most are applicable only to out-of-water
construction and these are of highly dubious accuracy and validity.
A method (developed in this study) for estimating the quantity of
sediment lost from construction sites by water erosion yielded
results that fell between + 50 percent of observed losses in
53 percent of the cases tested. In comparison, only 24 percent
of the estimates obtained from a widely-used model (the Universal
Soil Loss Equation) fell with + 50 percent of observed values.
8. The lack of available methods for estimating effects of construction
on water quality is primarily a result of the absence of measured
data rather than lack of theoretical understanding.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the severe adverse effects of certain types of hydrologic
modifications on water quality, the unknown but potentially severe
effects of other types, and the general scarcity of quantitative data
for evaluation, MITRE Corporation recommends that EPA take the following
actions:
1. Initiate a program to monitor the release of sediment and other
pollutants from actual construction sites in all physiographic
regions and climatic zones of the U. S. where large-scale construc-
tion is occurring or is expected to occur in the foreseeable future.
The intent of this action is to develop a substantial data base for
making reliable estimates of pollutant loads from any major out-of-
water construction operation in any location. Parameters that
should be monitored include site characteristics (soil exposure,
slope length, slope steepness), position of construction relative
to receiving stream, characteristics of intervening terrain, rain-
fall, and sediment movement (measured continuously). These are
discussed more fully in Section VI of this report under the heading
"Recommendations for Improved Loading Functions." The data acquisi-
tion program should be based on a thorough statistical design to
assure that the range of conditions covered is representative of
all climatic and physiographic regions.
2. Acquire data necessary to determine the effects of dredging and
in-water construction on the quality of surrounding waters. In
particular, the nature, quantities, and dispersion of pollutants
introduced by dredging operations of different types and magnitudes
operating in different benthic conditions should be determined.
-------
Since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has underway a research
program on dredged materials (See "Concurrent and Beginning
Studies" in Section V), EPA should attempt to obtain dredging data
through coordination with the Corp's program. If such a joint
effort proves infeasible, EPA should initiate a separate program
to obtain quantitative data on the effects of both dredging and
in-water construction.
3. Since most construction occurs in or near population centers,
its impact on water quality affects drinking water supplies and
water-based recreation. In order to develop a clear and easily
understood measure of the economic and social costs of construction-
induced pollution, EPA should survey affected urban areas to obtain
accurate data on the technical and economic impact of this type of
pollution on these two strongly affected beneficial uses: water
supply and recreation.
4. EPA should move quickly to take advantage of sediment release data
from three ongoing or recently completed projects. One is the con-
struction of Vail Pass on Interstate 70 in Colorado, where an inter-
agency task force is now designing and/or implementing a data
acquisition program. The other two are urban/suburban construction
areas near South Lake Tahoe, California, and Germantown, Maryland,
where runoff and sediment release has been carefully monitored by
state and local authorities and where unusually complete records of
construction operations and site parameters are available in unre-
duced form. (See Case Studies 15 and 18 in Appendix B). These
three projects offer an opportunity to acquire sound data at
relatively little effort which would augment substantially the
currently available data base on effects of out-of-water construction.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
This study deals with a class of nonpoint sources of water pollution
termed "hydrologic modifications"—activities that disturb natural flow
patterns of surface water and groundwater. The study has two principal
purposes, each of which is intended to serve a different group of potential
users:
• To describe and to determine the magnitude of water quality
problems caused by the following categories of hydrologic
modifications:
- construction
- dams and impoundments
- channelization
- dredging
- land reclamation activities
Information on the nature and magnitude of water quality problems
from those activities, determined on a nationwide basis, is intended
for use in EPA's program planning process to aid in R&D program for-
mulation and fund allocation.
• To develop "source loading functions" for predicting quantities
of water pollutants released by out-of-stream construction
activities. These functions are intended for use by technical
investigators to estimate the amount of sediment entering a
watercourse from construction sites of known size and location.
A thorough survey was made of available information on the effects of
construction, dredging, and other types of hydrologic modifications for
-------
the purpose of assembling a data base to meet the above two objectives.
In the process of compiling and analyzing data, about 40 case studies,
most of which reported field measurements, were summarized to present
relevant data from each study. These data summaries constitute an
unusual and concise compilation of detailed, quantitative data, some
heretofore unpublished, on the water quality effects of hydrologic
modifications. The summaries are presented in the appendices to this
report.
The subjects of groundwater pollution, post-construction effects of
out-of-stream construction (such as runoff from impermeable areas),
offshore construction, and ocean disposal of dredged .materials were
specifically excluded from this study.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Magnitude of Problem
The relative severity of water pollution problems caused by each major
category of hydrologic modification was determined to provide a basis
for assignment of research priorities and allocation of funds. In terms
of quantity and very probably in terms of overall impacts, the largest
pollution load from most categories consists of sediment, and the
second largest for all categories except dredging consists of agricul-
tural chemicals.
Basic findings pertaining to the nature and magnitude of resulting water
quality problems are outlined, without attribution or qualification, in
the following subsections, and are further summarized in Exhibit 1.
This summary information is expanded and details are given on data
sources, methods, and limitation of results in Section IV and V of
the report.
-------
Exhibit 1. SDtMART. ASSESSMENT OF PKOBLBMS
ASSOCIATED WITH BTDBOL0GIC MODIFICATIONS
Type of Hydrologic Modification
Construction of Transportation Facilities Sediment
Urban Construction
Dredging
Dams and Impoundments
Quantity of Proximity to
Major Pollution/Tear Population
Pollutants (Nationwide) Centers
(tons)
Sediment
25 million 90Z close
101 remote
IS million
-Sediment Unknown
-Heavy
metals Unknown
-Other toxic
materials Unknown
Close
70Z close
Generally
renote
Geographic
Dispersion
Assessment of
Water Quality
Problem (Range)*
Dispersed Serious (No. 1)
(concentrated
near cities)
Dispersed
(concentrated
in or near
cities)
Concentrated
in coastal
areas
Serious (No. 2)
Serious (No. 3)
Generally dis- Locally Serious (No. 4)
parsed (dams
concentrated
on certain
rivers
Construction
Post-Construction Operation
Channelization
Sediment
Unknown
-Organic de- Unknown
composition
products
-Nitrogen
super-sat-
uration
-Sediment
•Organic de*-
composition
products
Unknown
Generally
remote
Dispersed
Not Serious (No. 5)
In-Water Construction
Generally
close
Dispersed
Not Serious (No. 6)
Construction
Post-Construction Operation
Sediment
Oil, fuel,
BOD
Unknown
Unknown
^Assessment and rank are based on judgement of present authors, and are relative
to other hydrologic modification in this table.
-------
Construction of Transportation Facilities -
Construction and maintenance of highways and other transportation facilities
cause three major types of pollution of surface waters. First, large
quantities of sediment enter the water as a result of erosion from exposed
areas of top soils and subsoils. Erosion from road construction sites is
particularly severe because of the steep slopes involved in this type of
construction. Second, runoff often contains fertilizers, pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals used in planting operations to stabilize
exposed soils. Third, runoff contains oil from machinery and washings
from concrete or bituminous mixing and finishing operations.
Runoff from transportation facilities construction sites releases an
estimated 25 million tons of sediment annually to the Nation's surface
waters. This amount represents the highest rate of pollutant release
for any of the types of hydrologic modifications for which quantitative
estimates could be developed. Available data were not adequate to
permit quantitative estimates of agricultural chemicals, oils, and
other chemicals. The rate of sediment release, in terms of tons/unit
area affected by construction, is the highest for any of the activity
categories considered. This rate of pollutant release could be greatly
reduced (up to 90 percent) by application of proven control measures.
About 10 percent of future roadway construction is expected to occur
in nonurbanized areas; thus about 22 million tons impact annually on
the surface waters of heavily populated centers. Even this reduced
amount leaves transportation construction as the largest contributor
(among those activity categories evaluated) of total pollution load to
the surface waters of densely populated areas.
Urban Construction -
The general characteristics of pollution from this category of construc-
tion activities are generally similar to pollution from highway construc-
tion, except that the rate of sediment release per unit of disturbed
area is lower.
8
-------
Urban construction releases about 15 million tons of sediment each
year to surface waters in or near heavily populated areas. This
release can be greatly reduced (up to 90 percent) by the use of con-
trol measures.
Dredging -
Dredging operations impact upon water quality primarily by causing
resuspension or redissolving of polluting materials on the bottom of
the waterbody. This resuspension or redissolution occurs when the
material is being removed, when it is being lifted from the water or
otherwise transported, and when it is being disposed of, either by
dumping back into the water or on land. In the latter case, the
pollutants are in runoff or seepage to groundwater.
The nature of the pollution caused by dredging is in large measure
dependent on the material being dredged. The major pollutant, in
terms of mass or volume, is sediment; however, other substances
such as toxic materials that had settled as a sludge covering the
area being dredged, may be far more damaging to marine life or other
beneficial uses of the surrounding waters.
Few studies have been made that quantify the effects of dredging
on certain water quality parameters in a limited situation (dredging
of small lakes; dumping of dredged materials in bays; runoff from land
disposal sites). The available data are grossly inadequate to permit
quantification of the effects of dredging in general.
A large volume of dredging occurs in the U. S. - about 400 million cubic
yards/year and increasing. Dredging is known to produce adverse effects
on the quality of surrounding waters. A large proportion of dredging
occurs near densely populated areas. Dredging is therefore considered
by the authors as a very important, although unquantified, source of water
pollution that should be the subject of immediate and intensive research.
9
-------
In-Water Construction -
No data were found on the effects of in-water construction (pile driving,
bulkhead construction, etc.) on quality of surrounding waters. Because
of the nature of this type of activity, its effects were assumed to be
similar to dredging. The number of in-water construction projects is
rapidly growing and is expected to reach 25,000 in 1975, most of which
are relatively small (for example, construction of private docks).
Because of the nature, magnitude, and geographic dispersion of such
projects, in-water construction does not seem to be a serious source
of water pollution. The post-construction operation of in-water
facilities such as docks, marinas, over-water restaurants, etc., will
be a source of oil releases and possible release of sanitary wastes.
The latter can generally be controlled through application of existing
water pollution control regulations.
Dams and Impoundments -
Much of the construction of these facilities occurs under dry condition
after diversion of the stream to a temporary bed. Such construction
produces water quality impacts similar to those of highway construction:
high sediment loss from exposed subsoil, washings from concrete mining
and finishing operations, etc. That portion of construction which
occurs in-water can produce high sediment loss during excavation
dredging. Some studies to determine effects of dam and tunnel con-
struction have monitored turbidity of the stream upstream and down-
stream of the construction site, and in a very few instances have
monitored suspended solids concentration. Because of the poor corre-
lation between turbidity and suspended solids measurements, the avail-
able data have not proved adequate for estimating quantities of sediment
loss.
Post-construction operation of dams and impoundments affects the quality
of downstream waters by several mechanisms:
10
-------
- Trapping and retaining sediment. This alters the natural
equilibrium of sediment downstream of the reservoir, causing
scour and erosion. Also, trapped sediment tends with time
to fill the reservoir when accumulated sediment is dredged
out, resuspension of sediment and other materials may produce
abnormally high concentrations that adversely affect aquatic
life downstream.
- Thermal stratification. Stable layers of water having differ-
ent density, temperature, chemical and biological makeup are
formed in the reservoir.
- Decomposition of trapped organic material. The reservoir
accumulates decomposition products, which can reduce the
level of oxygen dissolved in the water.
- Nitrogen supersaturation. Violent mixing of air and water
released through turboelectric generators or in high velocity
tailwash causes the water to become supersaturated with nitro-
gen from the air. This condition kills fish downstream.
- Surface evaporation. The large, relatively warm surface area
of an impoundment permits rapid evaporation of water, thus
increasing the concentration of salts and other dissolved and
suspended constituents in the water remaining in the impound-
ment.
Dam and reservoir construction operations may have a severe local
impact on downstream waters, primarily from silt and concrete washings.
The activities that cause these effects may extend over a protracted
period, perhaps over a number of years for large installations. The
activities are reasonably confined and the water quality effects are
11
-------
amenable to demonstrated control measures. Since large dams are not
built with great frequency and their construction sites are usually
remote from major populations centers, pollution from dam construction
is not judged to be a major problem of continuing nature.
Post-construction operation of dams and reservoirs, on the other hand,
presents a continuing problem in some regions. Nitrogen supersaturation
has caused fish kills in the Pacific Northwest and in Canada. In other
regions, reservoirs containing organic matter have caused municipalities
to treat their water supply for taste.
Available data were not adequate for making quantitative estimates of
water pollutant loads resulting from either construction of dams or
post-construction operations.
Channelization -
Construction and stabilization of channels for purposes of drainage,
irrigation, and stream realignment cause severe problems of erosion
and sedimentation. Some of these effects cover broad areas such as
the deltaic region of Louisiana. About 20,000 miles of channel modi-
fications exist in the United States, 77 percent of which is in 10
states that are coastal or border the Great Lakes.
This study revealed essentially no information on the water quality
effects of channelization other than the fact that it introduced
sediment into surface water. Since much of the channelization occurs
in coastal states, the introduction of sediment into estuarine areas
would adversely affect the survival of young fish and other aquatic
species in these rich breeding areas. The water quality impact there-
fore takes on a more serious aspect than would be the case if the
channelization projects were more uniformly distributed geographically.
12
-------
Measures for Controlling Pollution from Hydrologic Modifications
Conventional methods for controlling sediment loss from out-of-stream
construction sites typically range in effectiveness from 50 to 90
percent. Combination of these methods with flocculation can increase
effectiveness to over 96 percent. Sediment control measures are not
practiced uniformly in all parts of the Nation. Of the areas surveyed,
control measures are most stringently applied in Maryland, the Virginia
suburbs of metropolitan Washington, D.C., and in parts of California.
Methods for short-term control of sediment include covering denuded
surfaces with gravel, straw, chemical binders, etc; construction of
sediment-retention ponds; flocculation; and filtering runoff through
strawbales. These short-term measures are followed by quick revege-
tation of exposed areas by a variety of cover plants. Control costs
typically range from about $400 to $1500 per acre (1971 dollars).
However, when benefits are considered such as cost of soil lost,
damage to stream, and increased water treatment costs when receptor
stream is a drinking water supply, the costs of sediment control are
approximately offset by the value of the benefits.
Source Loading Functions for Predicting Sediment Loss from Construction
Sites
Two loading functions were fitted to sediment runoff data from 10
construction areas. Both functions were of the form of an established
sediment-loss equation (the Universal Soil Loss Equation) modified by
a "sediment delivery ratio". Factors included in the functions are:
- rainfall
- soil erodibility
- slope-steepness
- cropping management
- erosion control practice
13
-------
One of the functions also includes distance from construction site to
stream; the other function includes the percent of watershed area
disturbed by construction.
Comparison of sediment losses predicted by these equations with observed
losses indicates that, for the equation involving the distance-to-
stream factor, about 53 percent of the predictions fall within a range
of + 50 percent of observed values, and 90 percent of predicted values
lie within the range between one-fifth to five times the observed
values. For the function involving percent of watershed disturbed by con-
struction, the agreement between predicted and observed values was
not quite this close.
These functions were based on data covering a substantial range of
soil types, topography, and climate. The data do not, however, reflect
conditions in all parts of the Nation. Available information was not
adequate to estimate how closely the sediment loss predictions from
the equations could be expected to agree with observed losses under
conditions not included in the data used to fit the loading functions.
14
-------
SECTION IV
NATURE OF WATER QUALITY EFFECTS OF HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
The diversity of water pollution effects of hydrologic modifications
requires segregation of the various types of activities that modify
the hydrology into more easily defined categories. The following
activity categories are used in the present study:
- Transportation (linear configurations)
— Highways, pipelines, transmission lines
- Urban Development (areal configurations)
— Residential and commercial developments
Dams, reservoirs and impoundments
- Dredging
- Channelization
— Navigation, stream alignment, flood control
- In-water construction
— Docks, marinas, bulkheads
TYPES OF POLLUTANTS
Each of the above categories has the potential for releasing a
variety of polluting substances into surface waters, both during the
construction phase and post-construction or operational/maintenance
phase. When attention is focused on the construction phase, one water-
polluting material—sediment—appears to overshadow all others, certainly
in terms of overall quantity added to the receiving waters and very
possibly in terms of total economic and ecologic impact.
Damage from sediment appears in various forms. Erosion damage to con-
struction sites is evidenced by gullied slopes, waterways, and channels;
washed-out roads; undercut pavements and pipelines; clogged drains and
sewers; flooded basements; and dirtied work areas. Revegetation may be
hindered by the loss of topsoil. All of these effects cost the con-
tractor time, money and resources.
15
-------
An exception to the generalization that sediment is the major cause
of water pollution may possibly be found in the category of dredging ,
where other types of materials such as heavy metals and other toxic
substances may cause more serious pollution effects.
The nature of the water quality impact of the above listed categories
of hydrologic modification activities is shown by two exhibits. Exhibit 2
shows the relative amounts of various types of pollutants released
by each type of activity, and indicates the beneficial and adverse
effects on the receptor water body. The relative quantity (or release
rate) of each pollutant type is shown as three levels: high (H), mod-
erate (m), and low (L). For sediment, the release rate was estimated
relative to the release rate from a predisturbed land surface (which
may have been forested, grass covered or poorly vegetated) or a pre-
disturbed benthic area. For other types of pollutants, the quantities
released were estimated relative to the concentrations of the same
type of pollutant in urban surface runoff. These estimates of pollu-
tant quantity or release rate were made by the present authors and
are not based on field measurements or data reported in the literature.
Exhibit 3 identifies in greater detail the nature of specific pol-
lutants introduced by various types of hydrologic modification activi-
ties, and indicated the nature of the effects from each class of
pollutant.
GENERAL FACTORS AFFECTING WATER QUALITY INPACT
Short-Term Nature of Construction Activities
An alleviating factor in construction work, as contrasted with other
nonpoint source (NFS) activities which generate water pollution, is
that construction is a relatively short-term activity—disturbances or
16
-------
Exhibit 2. EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ON WATER QUALITY
COBSTRDCTtOH ACTIVITY
OUT-OF-STREAM ACTIVITIES (EARTH MOVING)
• AREAL (Suburban Devm't — residences,
streets, shopping centers, parking
lots, public buildings; Business/
Commercial Devm't; Reclamation Land-
fills — tunneling spoil disposal",
dredging spoil on-land, earth dams.
Construction — dams, reservoir areas,
bridges.)
• LINEAR (Highways; Railroads; Pipelines;
Power Lines; Channels/Canals/Flumes/
Floodway s /Drainage Ditches; Levees)
IN-STREAM
• Dredging Operation/ In-Water Channel
Excavation, Stream Realignment
aH(high), M (moderate) or L (low)
release rates are estimated relative
to expected yield from predlsturbed
surface on benthetic areas for
sediment, and relative to urban
runoff for chemical pollutants.
Outflow from exit considered to be a
point source.
RELATIVE QUANTITY
RELEASED BY CONSTRUCTION^
§
0
CO
H
H
|
B
s
M
M
«
sfa
|1
i|
o n
M
g
fj
3
L
i
2 "*
ii
« 0
L
O
if
Ss
« 0,
L
o5
jj
||
aB
O w
L
EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS
BBRFICIAL
Sediment produced which
may sustain a receptor
stream at equilibrium
suspended sediment load;
can help remove ions in
receptor water body by
adsorption.
Suction dredging of
benthal deposits may
remove undesirable heavy
metals and other chem-
ical pollutants to
accelerate recovery of
polluted
ADVERSE
May alter the physical and
and biological character
of the receptor water body,
if subjected to excessive
sediment. Results in costly
loss of flora and fauna,
stream cross-sectional
changes, altered flow regimes,
and added water treatment
requirements. Biostimulation
of water bodies from nutrient
runoff. May cause siltatlon
of downstream reservoirs.
Local temporary increase in
suspended sediment and
turbidity with potentially
damaging effects on marine
life and degraded water
quality for consumptive uses.
Can physically remove shell-
fish from their habitat. Can
change channel shape, with
ensuing scour or aggradation
imposes requirements for grade
linings, or rip rap to stabilize
the channel.
-------
Exhibit 2. EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ON WATER QUALITY
sv\MO*iTOTi/wmvi A/wi>Trr*mr
CUNS'lJUIUXJA/n ACTIVITY
IK-STREAM (Cont'd)
• Dredge Spoil Dumping in Water, In-Hater
Fills, Causeways, Retarding Basins,
Levees, Floodwalls
• Installation of PUas Bulkheads Dikes
Marinas
• Channelization (Stream ^Realignment,
Clearing- and Snagging)
RELATIVE QUANTITY
RELEASED BY CONSTRUCTION
g
S
M
S
H
H
CA
3
n
H
en
a
M
,-4
on
||
se
Qffi
H
ft
M
S
M
L
3
IS
cQ O
L
s
H
3 M
SU
O
«B
^ «
L
.
1
' o
o
OM
w H
M >.
Ooi
L
EFFECT OF POLLUTANTS
BENEFICIAL
May create new land for
waterfowl habitats and
decrease levels of In — -
sect breeding In fllled-
In marshes. Stream
blockages provide storm
water storage and trap
silt, provide fish and
wildlife habitat, aes-
thetic Improvement.
Improves flow efficiency
and navigation. BOD
lower with lower detri-
tus.
ADVERSE
Constructed channels scour
heavily during flooding.
Can smother marine life
on bottom, destroy fin
fishes, lower dissolved
oxygen levels, increase
turbidity thereby reducing
.light transmission. Change
original fish and wildlife
habitat. Aquatic life
stressed by temperature,
chemical and biochemical
equilibria changes.
Benthlc penetration and
some disturbance. of bottom
material ensues, causing
local resuspension of
sediments .
Temporarily increases sus-
pended sediment and turbidity
May decrease concentration
tine of peak runoff and
increase flooding downstream
Removes obstructions used by
fish for protection, food
support, and breeding areas.
Page 2_of 2_
-------
POLLUTANT
CLASS
Physical
• SEDIMEmT
Inert and organic
particle*; colloids;
microorganisms
(Note: during
transport, the sedi-
ment load comprises
the suspended load
plus the bed load.)
Exhibit 3. WATER POLLUTION
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
CAUSE/EFFECT MATRIX
SOURCE ACTIVITLES/OCCUBJtENCE
Und-DHturblng Operations I
Surface-clearing,
grading, excavating,
trenching, stockpiling;
(Mote: Subsoils often hare
different credibility char-
acteristic* than surface
soils)
Channel Modification:
Dredging, waste disposal,
excavation, fill, pene-
tration of bed
Cleaning Operations:
Aggregate washing,
cleaning; of masonry
surfaces, fora and
containers
QOAaTITT*
* H (high), M (Moderate) or L (low) release rates arm
estimated relative to expected yield from predisturbed
surface on benthetic areas for sediment, and relative
to urban runoff for chemical pollutants.
EFFECTS
BEHEFICIAL
Ma; provide material to
maintain a receptor stream
channel in equilibrium.
I.e., provide adequate
suspended sediment to
prohibit erosive degradation
of a fluvial channel.
In-stream sediment required
Information of silt-laden
farmlands along flood plains
and near river mouths. Fine-
grain sediment helps In the
removal of Ions which adhere
to and are transported by
partlculates, which settle
to the bottom. Dredge spoil
disposal may elso create new
land areas (for building sites,
beach restoration, waterfowl
habitat*) and decrease vectors
in marsh-filling.
ADVERSE
May exceed equilibrium
suspended load of receptor
stream altering many physical
and biological characteristics
of the channel; these Include
channel aggradation, silting
of reservoirs, undesirable
effects on marine life such as
blanketing and smothering of
benthlc flora and fauna; alter-
ing the flora and fauna as a
result of changes in light
transmission and abraalon,
destroying or altering the
species of fish due to changes
in the flora and fauna upon
which the fish depend, or
obstruction of their gill
function. Also a need may
arise for excessive.treatment
(sedimentation, clarification)
prior to consumptive use for
municipal, industrial, or
Irrigation purposes. Channel
siltatlon can adversely affect
Its capacity to carry flood
flows or support navigation
and recreation. Dredge spoil
disposal may destroy land areas
(salt marshes, wildlife refuge,
vegeted coverage), block flow
circulation or Increase vectors
in the spoil pile.
Page 1. of 5^
-------
Exhibit 3. WATER POLLUTION
FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
CAUSE/EFFECT MATRIX
POLLUTANT
CLASS
Chemical
• NUTRIENTS
MATERIALS
Ammonia, ortho-
phosphates ,
polyphosphates,
organic Nt
organic F
SOURCE ACTIVITIES/OCCURRENCE
Fertilization of re-
established vegetal
cover
EFFECTS
BENEFICIAL
Stimulates growth of plants
and grasses on areas de-
nuded by construction
(especially on slopes),
thereby reducing soil loss
In rain storms
N3
O
ADVERSE
Nutrients, especially from
excessive application of
soluble fertilizers, will
be transported from new-
growth surfaces at con-
struction sites in the
runoff of precipitation;
by then stimulating growth
of algae and marine plants,
nutrients can have adverse
effects on chemical exchange
processes, leading to eutro—
phication and lowered oxygen
levels, In addition to the
blostimulation impacts,
large concentration of
unoxldized nitrogen
(organic nitrogen and
ammonia) could represent
a significant oxygen demand
in the receiving waters.
Page 2_ of 5_
-------
Exhibit 3. WATER POLLUTION
FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
CAUSE/EFFECT MATRIX
POLLUTANT
CLASS
MATERIALS
SOURCE ACTIVITIES/OCCURRENCE
EFFECTS
BENEFICIAL
ADVERSE
DISSOLVED SOLIDS/
HEAVY METALS
Ionic Hg, Pb, Zn,
Ma, Co, Cr, Ag,
Cd. As, Cu, Al,
Fe
10
SALINITY
NaCl
CaCl,
Derived from construction
wastes such as discarded
metallic frames, ducts,
pipes, wiring, beams,
gypsum board; alao from
fuels, paints, pesticides,
and other construction
chemicals. Also, con-
crete operations produce
NFS, e.g., spilled cement,
washing water, curing
compounds.
Dredging activities may
reintroduce and disperse
within the water column
dormant layers (confined
by silt deposits) of
heavy metals trapped in
bottom sludge deposits
generally originating
over long time periods
from point industrial
sources and urban runoff.
Produced from saline Ice-
removal compounds in cold
climates (construction
roads), dust control on
graded areas, and concrete
additives (freezing-
depressant additives or
early strength-enhancing
agents, curing compounds).
Affected by hydraulic
changes resulting from
channelization.
H
Note: may be signi-
ficant in certain
sluggish rivers, lakes,
or bays, especially in
first-dredging; gen-
erally Insignificant
buildup would occur
by the time that
maintenance (repeat)
dredging is undertaken
Note: minor level,
depending on nature
and seasonality of
construction activity
A light, distributed
concrete spillage or
wash disposal may act
as a cementitious
stabilizer to reduce
soil erosion; also
it will add alkali-
nity which could
correct acid soils •
Suction dredging and
disposal of undesir-
able chemicals in
benthal deposits may
accelerate recovery
of polluted water
bodies, in parallel
with Introduction of
clean inflows.
Use of salt com-
pounds allows con-
tinuation of
projects throughout
a greater range of
climatic conditions,
reduces air pollution
from dust
When these materials weather,
decompose and disintegrate
(recognizing that many of the
substances such as plaster-
board are only-slightly
soluble in water), the resultant
oxides and salts 'dissolved
in water bodies|may damage
or destroy aquatic organisms;
also higher concentrations of
certain of the dissolved solids
are toxic to humans.
Dredging may mechanically
reintroduce these chemicals
into waters, with subsequent
diffusion and increase in
undesirable impact described
above.
Increased salinity of water
impacts upon nature of marine
life-plants and animals—
indigenous to the region;
quality may be degraded for
municipal, industrial, or
irrigation uses.
Page 1 of 5.
-------
Exhibit; 3. WATER POLLUTION
FBOH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
CAUSE/EFFECT MATRIX
POLLUTANT
CHEMICALS
BIODEGRADABLE
OKGAMICS
IO
to
• BEF&ACTORI
ORGANICS/
PESTICIDES
MATERIALS
Submerged or floating
brush, limber, tree
trunks or limbs,'
paper, fiberboard
SOURCE ACTiyiTIES/OCCURREHCE
Improper disposal of
building products or
poor clearing and
clean-up practices
EFFECTS
Highly persistent
chemicals, heat
resistant, or
effectively non-
degradable, e.g.,
certain pesticides
and other synthetic
organica (solid con-
struction materials
and tools of poly-
vinyl chloride,
thermoplastic poly-
esters, rubber, and
epoxy fibers and
liquid chemicals for
treatment of walls,
adhesive applications
crack-sealing, water-
proofing, painting,
and curing operations.)
Major categories of
Insecticides Include
the chlorinated hydro-
carbons—complex
organic molecules of
C,B,C1—such as
chlordane, malathion,
DDT, and the phos-
phorothioates—C,H,P.
Herbicides Include
2,4,0 and 4.5.T.
Improper care in
construction appli-
cations, overusage,
spillage. (Note:
some of these types
of pollutants,
particularly the
solids, are expected
to remain at the
source or point of
application, with
negligible overland
transport). Trend
in construction in
use of blocldes Is
away from inorganics
and toward synthetic
organics for use as
insecticides,
herbicides,
fungicides, and
fumigants.
L
Note: expected
level of production
la very low
because nost
pesticides are
too expensive to be
vastefully applied.
resulting in
efficient or optimal
usage.
BENEFICIAL
Larger submerged
objects may serve
as a temporary habitat
of fishes. Permitting
growth, wood chips,
and similar matter to
remain in place In a fu-
ture inundation area, will
temporarily reduce out-
of-stream erosive losses
by serving as a pre-
cipitation energy
absorber and a sheet
runoff retardent.
Underslab and foundation
treatment with long-
lasting insecticides,
especially for termite
control, la an important
usage; herbicidal
treatment of soil axeas
to remove herbaceous
and woody plants that
obstruct development
and for weed control
prior to revegetation
is necessary in many
construction projects.
ADVERSE
In degrading of the organics
an oxygen demand is exerted
on the receiving waters. The
dissolved oxygen depression,
or large resultant fluctuations
in DO, can lead to death of
aquatic organisms, severe
changes in types and numbers
of aquatic organisms, obnoxious
odors, and nuisances such aa
aesthetic Impacts, clogging
of pumps, screens, etc.
Toxic to a wide spectrum of
marine biota; can concentrate
(by biomsgnlficatlon) in aquatic
organisms, and the-effects
can be transmitted through
higher levels of the biological
food chain up to humans. Mbst
biocldes show a tendency to
accumulate in bottom muds.
Earth-moving say reexpose
pesticides previously applied
to a site. e.g., if used
previously for agriculture.
Page 4. of £
-------
Exhibit 3. WATER POLLUTION
FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
CAUSE/EFFECT MATRIX
POLLUTANT
CHEMICALS
O IIS AND SYNTHETIC
Petroleum products
such as oils, grease,
tars, asphalttc
materials, fuels,
solvents; paints,
detergents, soaps,
sealants, adhesives,
chemical soil stabi-
lizers
K3
CO
SOURCE ACTIVITIES/OCCURRENCE
Introduced into soils
through Improper con-
struction and mainte-
nance practices, (such
as not using adequate
caution and methods in
disposing of oil wastes,
transporting and trans-
ferring fuels and lubri-
cants, oil-laden rags,
and degreasing compounds),
and from spills, for
example, from storage
tanks. Spillages during
routine construction and
leaks Eton trucks and other
machinery are also serious
considerations. Production
of water-bitumen mixtures
from road paving, roofing,
and waterproofing jobs can
also cause NFS concern.
EFFECTS
BENEFICIAL
ADVERSE
Some of these chemicals
float over water, some
become entrained in
water —absorbed on
sediment—and some
dissolve in water; but
all are extremely
difficult to control
after entering water
bodies. These cate-
gories of substances
impair the use of water
for drinking and for
contact sports because
they Impart persistent
odors and tastes to
water. Some may block
the transfer of air
through a water-floating
substance interface,
suffocating aquatic
plants, organisms and
fish. Some petroleim
products contain
organo-metalllc com-
pounds and other
Impurities toxic to fish
and other organisms.
Biological
• COLIFOBM
Disease-causing
pathogens: soil
organisms and
those of htnan
and •niift^T
origin (bacteria,
fungi, viruses).
Improperly planned and
managed construction
sites where inadequate
sanitary conditions
prevail.
L M
Note: Majority of
biological pollutants
exist in topsoll layers
where they feed on dead
Sludge from waste-
water treatnent
plants may promote
and accelerate the
restoration of
organisms; however, con- graded areas.
atruetion often disturbs
the lower subsoils.
Can cause diseases In
humans and animals
when released or made
available in water
bodies.
Page 5 of ^
-------
displacements of soil and vegetal cover generally cause only tem-
porary and localized increases in the potential for erosion or pro-
duction of other pollutants. During the interval that the land is
disturbed, the soil loss or the runoff of chemicals will hinge on
probabilistic intensities, durations, and runoffs of precipitation.
Mining and agricultural pursuits, by comparison, might be expected
to last for decades or even indefinitely. A possible exception to
short-term nature of hydrologic modification acitivities is maintenance
dredging, that is, redredging to preserve navigation channels at speci-
fied depths and widths. This activity may be repeated intermittently
over the useful life of a channel.
Climate and Terrain
Construction in climates not conducive to growth of vegetation is
frequently followed by prolonged environmental recovery times. Slow
recovery or restoration of certain lands (for example, the tundra of
Alaska and arid areas of the Western U.S.) following roadbuilding or
pipelining activities is due primarily to a short growing season or
lack of water to reestablish vegetation rapidly. On the other hand,
the adverse conditions may be offset from an erosion potential stand-
point by minimal precipitation or essentially no runoff during
periods when the ground and streams are frozen solid.
Flat terrain or lands having low annual rainfall (or rainfall dis-
tributed seasonally in a way that results in minimal precipitation
or runoff during and immediately following the construction activity)
may be practically excluded as major nonpoint source problem areas.
Moreover, in regions having the highest annual precipitation, little
erosion normally occurs naturally because of the dense ground cover;
however, once this ground cover is disturbed by construction, such
regions could present formidable erosion problems during and following
the construction activities.
24
-------
SECTION V
PRESENT AND FUTURE POLLUTANT LOADS FROM HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
Construction activities and other types of hydrologic modifications
occupy an unusual position on the spectrum of non-point sources of
pollution. They are by no means the major producers of their most
voluminous pollutant—sediment. The annual sediment yield for such
major classes of construction activities as transportation facilities
and urban development is estimated at some 56 million tons,
which is small compared with the estimated 2-billion ton yield from
agricultural activities. Relative quantities of other types of
pollutants such as fertilizer and pesticides from construction are
even smaller in comparison to agricultural and urban runoff.
Experts in the field of sedimentation have rated the quantities of
sediment reaching streams from seven classes of non-point sources as
follows :(5~2)
(1) agricultural tillage
(2) grazing
(3) highway construction and maintenance
(4) timbering
(5) mining
(6) urban land development
(7) recreational land development
However, when pollution from construction activities occurs, its impact
can be severe in terms of local environmental impact. Construction
activities frequently occur in small watersheds in or near densely pop-
ulated areas. When a recreational lake fills with silt, a once-clear
stream becomes turbid, a drinking water supply requires additional
treatment, or a local aquatic species is destroyed, the effects are
very conspicious and can reasonably be assigned high economic costs.
25
-------
BETTER PROCEDURES NEEDED FOR ESTIMATING POLLUTANT LOADS
Although estimates of pollutant loads from various types of nonpoint
sources—usually on a nationwide basis but sometimes for localized
areas—have appeared in the literature,5'3 the availability
of quantitatively-based loading functions is expected to produce
estimates of improved accuracy. In addition to the loading functions
for construction activities presented in Section VI, similar functions
for other types of nonpoint sources (agriculture, forestry and mining)
are being developed in a companion study being performed by Midwest
Research Institute. The application of all of these functions to a
specific region, watershed, or across the nation is expected to yield
better estimates of nonpoint source pollutant loads than those currently
available.
Prior to the application of the source loading functions, it is of
interest to examine some of the current and projected estimates of
pollutant loads from hydrologic modifications. This is done in
the following subsections. A projection period of 1973-1990 was
arbitrarily assumed, since data for highway construction, housing con-
struction, and population change were available for this interval.
It should be recognized that the available procedures for estimating
pollutant loads vary greatly from one category of activities to another.
For example, research by a limited number of investigators, in partic-
ular M. G. Wolman and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins, have produced
results that permit quantitative estimates of sediment load from con-
struction of urban and highway construction. On the other
hand, research leading to procedures for estimating pollutant loads
from dredging and in-water construction is only now being undertaken
by the Corps of Engineers. Even less quantitative information is
available on the water pollutant loads caused by construction of open
channels, floodways, drainage mains and laterals, and irrigation canals
for agricultural purposes. There are statistics that indicate
26
-------
trends in the cumulative amount and magnitude of these activity cate-
gories for which cause/effect information on water quality is not
available. In such cases, this information on gross measures of
activity will be presented in the following subsections, since it is
indicative of the amounts of water pollution that would result in
the absence of control measures.
POLLUTANT LOADS FROM CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The construction of transportation ways, especially highways, is one
of the most conspicious, and, in many local affected areas the
largest sources of water pollution. The pollutant is mainly sediment,
but runoff from construction sites may contain fertilizers, pesticides,
and other agricultural chemicals used in planting operations to, sta-
bilize exposed soil as well as washings from concrete or bituminous
mixing and finishing operations.
Present Level of Highway Construction
In testimony before a Congressional Committee in April 1974, Secretary
of Transportation Claude Brinegar stated that the Nation's highway
system totals some 3.7 million miles (3.1 million rural, 0.6 million
urban), which represents a 12 percent increase since the end of World
War II. These total mileage figures correspond generally to the total
road and street mileage data for 1971. ~ ' The 12 percent increase
over the (approximate) 25-year period from the end of World War II
through 1971 implies an average growth rate of just under 0.5 percent
per year in the total highway system.
In 1972 the Federal Highway Administration developed statistics on the
land area covered by the Nation's highway and streets. The total
system covers some 9.4 million acres (paved surfaces and shoulders)
and includes within its rights-of-way a total of 21.7 million acres
27
-------
or about 34,000 square miles v-->~0-'. This affected area is broken
down as shown in Exhibit 4.
It is assumed that the total areas shown in Exhibit 4 are based
on data for the preceding year as reflected in Highway Statistics -
1971 ~ , and that the total acreage in each road-type category
corresponds to the total number of miles in these same categories (as
presented in Table M-12 of Reference 5-5 and summarized in Exhibit 5.)
Estimates of the area covered per linear mile of each type of road-
way are presented in Exhibit 6.
In an analysis for different types of roadways (4-lane divided or dual
highway, and 2-lane highway) in parts of Maryland having markedly
different geographic character (coastal plain, rolling Piedmont and
(5 -4 )
mountainous areas), Wolman and Schick found ratios of exposed
area per linear mile ranging from 8.8 acres/mile for 2-lane roads in
flat country to 25.5 acres/mile for 4-lane highways in rolling country.
(See Section VI for additional detail). These authors estimate that
construction of a dual-lane highway (arterials) in the Piedmont area
of Maryland would yield an average of 3000 tons of sediment per linear
mile, and 1500 tons per mile for 2-lane highways (collectors).
The estimated rate of sediment produced annually from construction and
maintenance of the Nation's highways has been reported in several
sources as about 56 million tons. This figure is the same
general magnitude as obtained by assuming a 0.5 percent per year
rate of increase in construction (i.e., about 0.5 percent of 3.7
million miles total - 18,000 miles new construction per year) and
applying an average sediment production ratio of 2200 tons/mile
suggested above for Maryland road construction. The result is an
estimate of some 40 million tons per year from new construction
but excluding maintenance.
28
-------
Exhibit 4. LAND AREAS IN U.S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(Entries in Millions of Acres)
(5-6)
RURAL
Type of
Roadway
Interstate
Primary
Secondary
Other
Total
Travel
Surface*
0.33
1.12
0.71
5.44
7.60
Right-of-way
1.40
3.26
1.91
12.10
18.67
URBAN
Travel
Surface*
0.09
0.18
0.05
1.46
1.78
Right-of-Way
0.31
0.26
0.08
2.39
3.04
*Paved surface and shoulders
29
-------
Exhibit 5. TOTAL ROAD AND STREET MILEAGE IN U. S. - DEC. 1971
(Entries in Miles)
(5-5)
Type of Roadway
Interstate
Other Primary
Secondary
Other
Total
Rural
34,700
189,100
609,000
2.356.300
3,189,100
Urban
8,200
25,300
27,400
479,300
540,200
30
-------
Exhibit 6. LAND AREAS PER LINEAR MILE OF ROADWAY IN TOTAL U.S.
(Entries in Acres)
RURAL
Type of
Roadway
Interstate
Primary
Secondary
Other
Overall Average
Travel
Surface*
9.5
5.9
1.2*
2.3
2.4
Right-of-Way
40
17
3.1
5.1
5.8
URBAN
Travel
Surface*
11
7.1
1.8
3.0
3.3
Right-of-Way
38
10
2.9
5.0
5.6
*This average area implies a very narrow roadway—about 10
feet. This apparently aberrant result is possibly caused
by including unpaved roadways in the total mileage (used as
the denominator) but only paved surfaces in the area (used
as the numerator in the ratio of acres/linear mile).
Source: Exhibits 4 and 5.
31
-------
Future Pollutant Loads from Highway Construction
In a report of their pioneering work on measuring and controlling
roadside erosion, Diseker and Richardson* stated in 1962 that the
41,000 miles of interstate-type highways yet to be built, plus
planned improvement of 750,000 miles of existing primary and secondary
roads, will expose some 17 million additional acres of cuts, fills,
and ditches that form potential sources of sediment. This suggests
an overall average of about 20 acres of exposed earth per mile of con-
struction. This ratio is much higher for the construction of a new
multi-lane interstate-type highway than for the improvement of an
existing secondary road.
Projections of roadway construction of various types in the U.S.
during the time period 1968-1990, as derived from the 1972 Highway
Needs Report, ~8^ indicate a total of about 350,000 linear miles of
new highway construction in the U.S. during this period.** Exhibit 7
gives a breakdown by type of roadway. Applying the right-of-way width
data from Exhibit 6, about 3,500,000 acres will be exposed during this
construction.
If it is assumed that sediment from construction of local streets
is accounted for in estimated yields from residential development,
the above-cited yield rates (observed by Wolman and Schick) may be
applied for arterials and collector roadways to obtain an estimated sedi-
ment yield of 325 million tons from highway construction during the period
* This investigation is summarized in Case Study 2 of Appendix A.
** This figure is interpreted here as not including improvements to
existing roadway.
32
-------
Exhibit 7. PROJECTED INCREASES IN HIGHWAY MILEAGE
(AS DERIVED FROM NATIONAL HIGHWAY NEEDS REPORT)(5~
1968 - 1990
(Entries are in thousands of linear miles)
u>
Arterials
Collectors
Locals
Totals
Total
81
49
223
353
Rural
10
19
-2
27
Small Urb
10
4
28
42
Urban
61
26
197
284
-------
1968-1990. (Since this period is 5 years longer than the 1973-1990
period considered above for aereal construction, the adjusted figure
for a 17-year period of highway construction would be about 265
million tons). This figure corresponds to an average annual rate of
sediment production from highway construction of 15 tons per year
nationwide during this period. This rate is about one-third of the
annual rate of sediment production estimated in the preceding sub-
section for the time period 1945-1971. The lower rate of sediment
production is a result of the projected lower rate of highway con-
struction during the 1973-1990 period (18,000 miles/year for 1945-1971
versus 6,000 miles/year for 1968-1990, not including local streets).
POLLUTANT LOADS FROM URBAN CONSTRUCTION
Around the turn of the century, the U.S. became an urbanized country,
marked by the threshold at which more Americans lived in cities than
in agricultural or rural settings. Urbanization continues today, but
in a different guise and for different reasons. Urbanization today is
a process of spreading out—of suburbanization.
When urbanization first began, major resources were fairly abundant.
As time passed, urban land as a resource became more and more scarce.
Transportation systems were improved and the logical result was sub-
urbanization. Today, about 0.04% of the land area of the United States
(about 1,500 sq. mi.) is urbanized annually.^ ' This is considered
as a minimum rate for years to come. As of 1972, only 2.5% of the
land surface of the U.S. was occupied by cities. ' Presumably,
available land will continue to be a valuable resource, but we are
also concerned here with other resources that are affected by the
development of land resources, particularly the quality of surface
waters.
34
-------
Present Rates of Sediment Production from Urban Development
While urban development is not the largest contributor of sediment
in our Nation's streams, it does add substantial amounts that often
produce a severe impact on water quality in heavily populated watersheds.
It is estimated that an average of 40 to 50 tons of sediment can be
expected per acre of urban construction. *°' Wolman showed that
sediment yields from urbanization ranged from 1,000 to more than
2
100,000 tons/mi /year, which for very small areas may exceed 2,000
to 40,000 times the amount eroded from farms and woodlands in an
equivalent period of time. (5~11' The Soil Conservation Service
estimates that sediment from construction in general produces 10
times the amount of sediment of land in cultivated row crops, 200
times more than pasture land, and 2,000 times more than timber land. 12^
Taking population into account, Wolman estimates that in Baltimore
County, Maryland, construction for one person results in 1.8 tons of
sediment and in Prince Georges County, Maryland, this figure is
0.7 tons/person. ^5~13'
Projected Sediment Loads from Urban Development
Several basic quantitative observations relating quantities of
pollutant (sediment) produced per unit increase in population form
the basis of our estimates of projected pollutant loads from
construction. These relations are summarized below^ 13':
1. In Prince Georges County, Maryland, an estimated 700 tons
of sediment were produced for each population increase of
35
-------
1000. (Of this amount, 62 percent or 430 tons was attributed
to highway construction and 38 percent or 270 tons to areal
construction).
2. In Baltimore County, Maryland, 1800 tons of sediment
were produced per 1000 increase in population (of which
36 percent or 650 tons was attributed to highway
construction and 64 percent or 1150 tons to areal
construction).
3. Approximately 10,000 tons of sediment are produced
per square mile of area urbanized. A typical housing
unit occupied about 0.000516 square miles (or about
14,000 square feet).
Averaging the sedimentation rates for the two Maryland counties
yields a total rate of about 1250 tons per 1000 population increase,
or a rate of 480 tons per 1000 population for areal-type construction
exclusive of highways. (Local city or subdivision streets are
included in the areal development rates discussed below.)
If these rates are applied to the projected population increase of about
54.5 million for the Nation over the period 1973-1990* a total sediment
production of 682 million tons is obtained from all construction, or about
263 million tons from areal construction alone.
A second approach to estimating sediment yield from areal construction
is to utilize the U. S. Department of Agriculture's projections for
new housing ~ , which total some 48.4 million units over the
1973-1990 time period. This figure, taken with Wolman's estimate
cited above of 0.000516 square miles/housing unit, implies that about
26,000 square miles would be affected. At the above-cited yield
rate of 10,000 tons sediment per square mile, an estimate of 260
million tons sediment yield for the 1973-90 time period is obtained.
*An average of the Bureau of Census1 Series C, D, E, and F projections
as reported in Reference 5-15.
36
-------
A third approach is to utilize the observation by Guy and
( S ? }
Jones v' that about 1500 square miles of land area are
urbanized annually in the U.S.; thus about 27,000 square miles
would be disturbed over the 1973-90 interval. At the sediment
yield rate of 10,000 tons/square mile cited above, a total of
270 million tons of sediment would be produced during the period
1973-90.
Thus three estimates for sediment yield from areal-type construc-
tion sources are obtained for the period 1973-1990: 263 million
tons, 260 million tons, and 270 million tons. These estimates
average to about 264 million tons for the 17 year period, or
about 15.4 million tons per year.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR OUT-OF-STREAM CONSTRUCTION: COMPARISONS,
QUALIFICATIONS AND CAVEATS
Since quantitative estimates of pollutant loads were developed
only for out-of-stream construction categories, it is appropriate
that the results be summarized and discussed prior to presentation
of results of those types of hydrologic modifications for which
available data do not permit quantitative estimates of load.
From the two preceding subsections the following totals are obtained;
Millions of Tons of Sediment Produced
1973-1990 Per Year
Areal Construction(Urban) 264 15
Linear Construction
(Roadways) 265 1.5
Total 579 30
37
-------
The accuracy of these amounts, which have been computed for the
entire United States, is dependent on the extent to which Wolman's
observed rates for urbanizing areas and highway construction
sites in Maryland may be applied to the entire country. Whether
or not the Piedmont area is representative of the entire nation
is highly debatable. Further, these rates also assume that con-
struction techniques will remain the same through 1990. Regardless
of what control measures may be applied, changes in construction
technique may have effects on the duration of activities or the
amount of area involved and thus could reduce the amount of sediment
produced. Further, while the projections used concerning popu-
lation are widely accepted, these, too, must be considered as
subject to revision in the light of recent trends in population
change and economic growth. These estimates are coarse and
should be treated as such.
For an area such as Piedmont, the rates presented here are con-
servative. In the construction area studies by Wolman, sediment
yield per square mile per year ranged from 140,000 tons to 1000
tons with an average of 34,335 tons/square mile/year. ^'
Holeman estimates that sediment yield in the Lake Barcroft area,
not 20 miles from the area of Wolman's study, is approximately
20,000 tons per year. ~16' The rates observed by Knott, et al.,
in the Colma Creek Study in California were similar. In 1969,
the total was 39,300 tons/square mile/year and in 1970 the rate
was 26,200 tons/square mile/year with a 2-year average of about
33,000 tons/square mile/year (See Appendix B, Case 8). For some
areas of the country with a different climate or with different
soils, a figure of 10,000 tons/square mile/year may be considerably
38
-------
higher than the actual rate. However, the areas in which most
development will probably take place is closer in climate and
geology to the Piedmont area than to places of climatic and geologic
extremes such as deserts or artic regions where the sediment yield
would be most likely to be less than the estimates quoted here.
Therefore, though the rates used in the estimates stated here are con-
servative for the Piedmont area, they are probably even more conserva-
tive for the Nation as whole.
It is the hope and expectation of the present authors that national
or regional estimates of pollutant loads from construction sources,
as obtained from the source loading functions described in Section VI,
will represent much more realistic and accurate results than the rough
estimates developed in the present section.
POLLUTANT LOADS FROM DAMS, RESERVOIRS, AND IMPOUNDMENTS
General
Water pollution is caused by this class of hydrologic modifications,
both during construction and during post-construction operation.
This study revealed limited amounts of quantitative information on
the effects of dam and tunnel construction on stream turbidity, and
on the effects of impoundments on streambed erosion and downstream
water quality. Extensive data were available on reservoir siltation.
The available information was not adequate, however, to permit quanti-
tative assessment of the effects of dams and impoundments on water
quality at the national level or for specific types of construction
sites.
39
-------
While noting the various adverse effects of dams on water quality, we
must also be aware that they provide a valuable resource: a lake for
recreational use, fish breeding, and sediment removal, as well as
flood control, water supply and electric power generation.
Effects of Construction
In general, the effects of reservoir construction are similar to
most other construction activities and depend on the type and size of
the dam. Pollution from dam construction can be separated into two
phases. In-stream sources include the construction and erosion
caused by the diverting structures, excavation in the stream channel,
and runoff from the gravel washing operations. Out-of-stream
operations include temporary access roads, borrow areas, storage
piles, clearing and grubbing operations. The effects of out-of-
stream sources are similar to those of other construction activities
associated with urbanization. The primary pollutant in both cases is
sediment, although other pollutants such as fertilizers and pesticides
are sometimes present.
Effects of the Structure
Because the dam structure changes the hydraulics of the stream, it
may upset natural hydrologic equilibria and cause the stream channel
to change its course and its erosion characteristics. In some
cases, downstream salinity is increased because of seepage through
saline deposits, evaporation and increased exposure to soluble rocks,
all caused by the formation of large bodies of standing water and
diversion of the waters for irrigation purposes.' '
-------
Many reservoirs are designed to function as sediment traps. This
means that a large portion of the influent sediment settles out of
the stream water as it flows through the reservoir. Consequently
the effluent stream usually carries much less than its sediment
capacity. The stream will tend to restore its equilibrium loading
by scouring the downstream channel. If the channel is soft, it will
be eroded very quickly. An example of this occurred in the
91.8-mile reach of the Colorado River from the outfall of Hoover
Dam to Lake Havasu. Between 1935 and 1951, approximately 152
million cubic yards of sediment were scoured from the river bed and
(5-2)
deposited in the lake, which averages to approximately 100,000
cubic yards per mile per year. Another example of this effect is
shown in Exhibit 8, which depicts a small stream bed in Mississippi
that has been degrading at the rate of about one foot per year.
Effects of Reservoir Operation
The water in large reservoirs is frequently stratified, that is,
composed of several layers, differentiated by density, usually
determined by temperature but sometimes additionally determined by
suspended solids concentration. These layers have different
dissolved oxygen concentrations, salinities, and biological communities.
The quality of water released from such a reservoir depends on the
height of the outlet. If stratification is not accounted for in
operation of the outlet works, downstream water quality might suffer.
Temperature affects the solubility of oxygen and therefore is impor-
tant in determining the waste assimilative capacity as well as the
types of organisms that can inhabit a stream. Releases from stratified
lakes must be carefully controlled to prevent damage to downstream
aquatic communities and to minimize adverse effects on downstream water
supplies.
41
-------
I
r -
Exhibit 8. Example of Stream Bed Degradation in Small
Stream in Mississippi
(Photo Courtesy of USDA Sedimentation Laboratory)
-------
Other characteristics of reservoir discharges that affect downstream
quality are the volume and continuity of flow, clarity, salinity,
and the presence of toxic chemicals. Intermittent discharges can
greatly disrupt the ecology of the receiving stream. (The effects of
very clear discharges on increased erosion have already been discussed.)
It has been suggested that in some cases, releases could be timed and
located to tap density currents containing a relatively large
concentration of fine sediments. This would have the effect of
reducing downstream erosion as well as extending the life of the
reservoir. Benefit would accrue to downstream farmers, since it
might be possible to manage the stream load such that rather than
eroding his fields (the stream would already contain its maximum
load), the stream would deposit some of the nutrient-laden fine
sediments.
When water from high-head dams is passed through turbines to drive
electric power generators, the violent mixing of air and water can
supersaturate the water with nitrogen. *-->~l°'» v5-19; xhere is some
evidence that supersaturation occurs also in the high-velocity spill
from high dams. Nitrogen supersaturated water has been responsible
for fish kills in the Northwestern States and in Nova Scotia.
Regional and Local Nature of Water Quality Impact
The nature of water quality effects is largely determined by the type
and size of dam and the configuration and capacity of reservoir.
Any dam will have some effect on water quality, if only in terms of
sediment load, but larger dams with high capacity, long-retention
reservoirs are more likely to produce the chemical and biological
effects associated with thermal stratification.
43
-------
Low dams that form small reservoirs are used in many sections of the
country to provide municipal water supplies. High dams with hydro-
electric generators and large capacity reservoirs are located primarily
in mountainous areas. Such installations are concentrated in the
Appalachian system of the eastern U.S., the Rockies, and the Pacific
Northwest. The geographic distribution of hydroelectric generators is
shown in Exhibit 9. It is this type of installation that has produced
nitrogen supersaturation that caused fish kills.
The large, multipurpose dams located mainly in midwestern and western
states have reservoir capacities great enough to cause thermal
stratification and concentration of pollutants by evaporation of
water from the surface. Our information has not included evidence of
nitrogen supersaturation from this type of facility.
Limited Quantitative Data on Water Quality Effects; No Quantitative
Projections
Our survey revealed relatively little information on the impact
of dams and impoundments on water quality, ot.ier than in terms of
turbidity which proved of dubious value in estimating pollutant loads.
There were some exceptions, however.
Quantitative data are provided on the effects of an impoundment on the
decrease in capacity of the Coosa River to assimilate oxygen-
demanding wastes by Case Study 19 in Appendix C. This study also
reports similar effects observed for European rivers.
Case Study 23 reports the results of laboratory simulation of the
effects of impoundment of water in a reservoir upon 22 water quality
parameters.
44
-------
Exhibit 9. LOCATIONS OF HYDROELECTRIC GENERATORS
WITH CAPACITIES OF 25,000 KILOWATTS OR GREATER
Number of Number of
Installations Installations
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
10
1
31
1
3
7
1
1
1
1
4
1
5
2
3
5
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
3
5
1
6
7
3
9
7
4
1
2
6
2
17
2
4
Source: U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Development Map, 1969.
45
-------
Case Study 22 reports interesting comparisons of turbidity measure-
ments upstream and downstream of construction sites at which various
sediment control measures were employed. Because of the incomplete
status of these projects and poor correlations of these preliminary
turbidity data with sediment concentrations, the data were not
useful in developing a quantitative relation between sediment loss
and construction site parameters.
Because of the sparsity of data, no estimates or projections were
made of water quality impact of dams and impoundments, either for
specific installations or on a nationwide basis.
POLLUTANT LOADS FROM CHANNELIZATION
Channel stabilization practices that protect either the waterway or
the land along the waterway are usually undertaken to prevent loss of
valuable property, reduce flood heights, conserve water through
diminution of evaporation and transpiration, or to provide and
maintain adequately navigable channels. These practices are accomplished
by riverbank modifications and by forming cutoffs; by constriction of
water to deep and narrow channels to minimize evaporation and
transpiration and to prevent shoaling; by alignment; by clearing;
and by guiding river flow in order to erode bars and shoals to
navigable depths. Through the operation of these projects, many
secondary goals such as aesthetics, fish and wildlife conservation
and recreation are realized.
Quantitative data on the impact of channelization on water quality
are exceedingly scarce, as indicated in Appendix E where the data
base for this activity category is summarized. In addition, our
data on the magnitude of channelization operations, while indicating
46
-------
general trends, has a major shortcoming as a basis for estimating
environmental impact: it is expressed in terms of linear miles of
operations (open channels, mains and laterals, etc.) rather than
weight or volume of excavated material. Available data have not
been adequate to permit estimation of the impact of channelization on
water quality.
Nature of Effects of Channelization on Water Quality
Channel realignment, deepening, or construction of cutoffs can be
designed to have the desired characteristics for producing width,
depth, velocity, and optimum bend; however, biotic and hydraulic
effects of such projects are not entirely understood. Upstream
effects may be considerable. As a stream attempts to seek a new
depth which is dictated by downstream deepening, extensive gullying
may occur (See Case Study 26 in Appendix E.)
Channel modifications might also have deleterious downstream effects.
The major pollutant from channelization is sediment. Depending on
the amount of organic matter (trees, roots, shrubs, etc.) in the
channel or on its banks, decomposition products of this material
may also be present. Generally speaking, the water quality conditions
existing in channelization project areas are transferred downstream to
some extent, the magnitude of which depends greatly on the increased
flow which might be caused by the project and by the carrying capacity of
the receiving water downstream. Increasing numbers of controls put
into effect on the Mississippi River have had disasterous effects
on the deltaic region of coastal Louisiana. The sedimentary input
to this area has been greatly decreased because of the extensive
47
-------
flood control and navigation improvements in the Mississippi River,
and the total deltaic area is, therefore, shrinking in size. Studies
indicate an average rate of loss of 16.5 square miles per year. ^5~20'
Even if the total sediment load of the lower Mississippi River were
deposited at the delta, only 12 square miles of new land could be
developed annually, which would be three quarters of the net annual
loss. <5-29>
Pollutant Loads from Channelization
We have been unable to estimate present or future pollutant loads
from channelization operations, either on a national or per project
basis, because of inadequate data. For purposes of forecasting changes
in the effects of channelization on water quality, this shortcoming may
not be too important. Although we lack an absolute baseline for esti-
mating such effects, the relative magnitude of water quality effects
will probably be proportional to the relative magnitude of
channelization operations. An examination of the extent of such
operations over the past five years reveals no large changes with time.
The above conclusion is based on the analysis of specific soil
conservation practices involving channelization as summarized in
Exhibit 10, together with observations of personnel from the
USDA Soil Conservation Service. Although the total number of miles
of channelization for the three types of channelization practices
summarized (plus a somewhat related operation—diking—that does not
necessarily imply channelization) indicate a decreasing trend during
48
-------
Exhibit 10. MAGNITUDES OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSERVATION PRACTICES INVOLVING CHANNELIZATION
(Entries are in Miles of Channel or Other Types of Installation)
Practices 1972 1971 1970 1969
Open Channel 503 619 896 1,098 l,016a
(mixed wet and dry excavations)
Drainage Mains and Laterals 5,106 4,652 5,715 5,950 6,415
Irrigation Canals or Laterals 209 171 228 254 225
TOTAL MILES OF CHANNEL 5,818 5,422 6,839 7,302 7,656
Dikes 330 333 326 303 300b
aThis operational category was termed "stream channel improvement" in the statistics.
bThis operational category was termed "dikes and levees" in the 1969 statistics.
-------
the interval 1969-1973, this decrease is slight and probably
reflects availability of funding for these specific practices during
the five fiscal years considered, rather than any long-term trend in
conservation practices.
Our estimated projection of the magnitude of channelization projects
for agricultural and conservation purposes for the next decade is
an average of the magnitudes over the 1969-1973 period, or about
6,600 linear miles per year.
POLLUTANT LOADS FROM DREDGING
General
Most current dredging in the U. S. is for the purpose of maintaining
existing navigation waterways. Approximately 300 million cubic
yards of bottom material are dredged annually from rivers and other
waterbodies for this purpose. An additional 80 million cubic yards
are dredged in the construction of new navigation channels. These
totals include 10.8 million cubic yards dredged annually from 115
lakes. To date, over 22,000 miles of waterways have been modified
for commercial navigation and each year approximately 19,000 miles
of waterways and 1,000 harbors are dredged in order to maintain our
(5—22)
Nation's waterborne commerce at present levels. Dredging is
also widely used to obtain fill materials (sand and gravel) for use
in construction or land reclamation.
Introduction or re-introduction of pollutants into surface waters
can occur at several steps in dredging operations. When benthic
material is scooped or sucked up from the streambed, some of the
50
-------
material can be resuspended or redissolved by the resulting turbu-
lence. As it is lifted out of the water and loaded onto a barge for
transport to a disposal site, a portion of the material is lost in
the runoff. If the material is dumped into water at another location,
more resuspension can occur. If it is placed on land, part of the
material may be lost in surface runoff, or may leach into groundwater.
Pollution also is introduced by the dredging equipment or spills of
oil, grease, fuel, or lubricants. Gross quantities of material
dredged and quantities placed on land or dumped into water are
summarized in Exhibit 11.
Characteristics of Dredged Materials
The nature of the pollutants depends on the nature of the dredged
materials. A few years ago dredging programs were undertaken to
safeguard the lives of water bodies such as reservoirs and lakes
without any apparent environmental pollution problem. In recent
years the sediment accumulating on the bottoms of harbors and channels
has become increasingly polluted as a result of effluents from
industries that utilize or manufacture a variety of chemical products,
and of the adoption of new kinds of fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides. As a result, the nature of the dredged material
originating in such areas now ranges from clean sand and gravel to
organic muck and sludge of natural origin, or to municipal and
industrial waste sludges containing a variety of toxic materials.
Examples of the concentration of pollutants in bottom samples is
shown in Exhibit 12.
The results of studies conducted by the Kansas City Office of EPA
appear in the following table of pollution parameters (Exhibit 13),
with limiting concentrations establishing by EPA as a guideline for
judging the state of pollution of a given sediment.
51
-------
s
0
u
R
C
E
D
I
S
P
0
s
A
L
300 MCY
(Million Cubic
Yards per Year)
80 MCY
50 MCY
Exhibit 11. Dredge Spoil Disposal Flow Chart
(Estimated from Statistics Given by Boyd)^5"22^
/- o
MCY = 10 yds /year
52
-------
Exhibit 12. CHEMICAL
HEAVILY POLLUTED
Parameter
Total Volatile Solids
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Kjehldal Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Grease and Oil
Initial Oxygen Demand
Oxygen Uptake
Sulfidesa
Units
%
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
COMPARISON OF SLIGHTLY AND
BOTTOM SAMPLES ^5~23^
Lightly
Mean
2.9
21
0.55
0.58
0.56
0.50
0.14
Polluted
Range
0.7-5.0
3-48
0.01-1.31
0.24-0.95
0.11-1.31
0.08-1.24
0.03-0.51
Heavily
Mean
19.6
177
2.64
1.06
7.15
2.07
1.70
Polluted
Range
10.2-49.3
39-395
0.58-6.80
0.59-2.55
1.38-32.1
0.28-4.65
0.10-3.77
values are conservative due to preservation method used.
53
-------
Exhibit 13. GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING CONCENTRATIONS
OF VARIOUS POLLUTANTS IN BOTTOM SEDIMENTS ^5~2^
„,. *. . T- t. JMJ yt *. Concentration Percent
Sediments in Fresh and Marine Waters ,_ tt . , _ . s
(Dry Weight Basis)
Volatile Solids 6.0
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 5.0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.10
Oil and Grease 0.15
Mercury 0.0001
Lead 0.005
Zinc 0.005
-------
Limited Quantitative Data on Water Quality Effects
Much of the total volume of dredging is done in close proximity to
population centers, yet relatively little information is available about
its effects on water quality or human health.
There is extensive literature on the problems associated with
turbidity, toxicity, depletion of oxygen concentrations, and low
oxygen levels, but very few studies specifically relate these
problems to dredging and disposal activities or provide quantita-
tive data about the effects on water quality. Case Studies 30 and 32
of Appendix E present data on the effects of dredging on water
quality in lakes. Case Studies 28, 31, and 33 contain data on
effects of dredge spoil disposal on certain water quality parameters
in bays and rivers.
The authors conclude that the available data base is not adequate
for making quantitative estimates of pollutant load attributable to
dredging on any general basis, although some load estimates might
be made for the two small lakes reported in Case Studies 30 and 32.
POLLUTANT LOADS FROM IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION
This category includes the following types of construction:
Piledriving or placement of piers into the bottom of
a water body to support over-water structures; also, the
construction of structures such as docks and marinas.
- Placement of bulkheads (vertical wall) in or adjacent
to a waterbody.
55
-------
Placement of structural sections (such as sections of
tunnel or pipe) on the bottom of a waterbody, or in holes
or ditches formed by hydraulic or mechanical means.
Nature of Water Quality Effects
No data were found on the effects of in-water construction operations
on water quality. We assume that the effects are similar to those
of dredging, especially for the third type of in-water construction
listed above; hence, the major pollutant is resuspended sediment, with
other bottom materials redissolved or resuspended in some degree.
Dredging is sometimes required in the preparation of an area for in-
water construction, or for obtaining fill material associated with
such construction.
Extent of In-Water Construction
The data base for in-water construction (marinas, docks, bulkheads,
jetties, etc.) is very sparse, both in regard to the number and
magnitude of such operation and their impact on water quality. One
gross indicator of the magnitude of such operations is the number of
permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for construction in
navigable waters. During the past six years, the following numbers
of permits were issued:
Number of Permits or
Fiscal Year Letters of Permission
1969 4,900
1970 5,000
1971 5,500
1972 6,500
1973 9,000
1974 15-17,000 (estimated)
The Corps anticipates issuing some 25,000 permits in FY 1975.
56
-------
These statistics show a trend of increasing activity in in-water con-
struction. This trend is probably real in view of the general increase
in water-related recreational activities as well as the general increase
in population; however, the actual increase is probably not as great as
implied by the above tabulation for two reasons. First and most impor-
tant is the fact that reporting requirements are being more stringently
observed and enforced. Projects that may have been undertaken with no
reporting a few years ago because they would not affect navigation must
now be reported because of potential effects on water quality or other
environmental parameters. The second reason is that the statistics
tabulated above include permits and letters of permission for all types
of projects (such as cable crossing), not only those involving in-water
construction. The gross number of permits (or number of projects) does
not indicate the size or type of these projects. The breakdown by size
and type is maintained for each Corps of Engineers' 38 districts in the .
respective District Offices, but is not consolidated in any central
location.(5-25>> <5-26>' <5-27>
Pollutant Load Data Not Available
Our survey revealed no data that would provide a basis for estimating
pollutant load from in-water construction, either on a per-installation
or nationwide base.
57
-------
CONCURRENT AND BEGINNING STUDIES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DATA
There is general recognition of the lack of quantitative information
on the effects of nonpoint sources in general, and hydrologic
modifications in particular, on the quality of surface water and
groundwater. Research is being performed on a modest scale to
develop needed information. The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency is currently sponsoring a project (being performed con-
currently with the present study) by Midwest Research Institute to
investigate effects of nonpoint sources, and to develop "source
loading function" for major categories of sources other than con-
struction (e.g., mining, agriculture, forestry). Within the sphere of
hydrologic modifications, the preponderance of ongoing research
appears in two activity categories: dredging and spoil disposal,
and highway construction. Research efforts proceeding in parallel
with the present study are identified in the following subsections.
Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station in
Vicksburg, Mississippi, has undertaken an aggressive and broad-gauged
program of research to develop better understanding of the effects
of dredging on the environment and to develop means for controlling
undesired effects. The program is being performed partly in-house
and partly under contract. The nature of the tasks and studies
included in the program is indicated by the listing of tasks appearing
in a status summary of the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP)
(See Exhibit 14). Results from certain of these studies are
summarized in the present report (Cases 28 and 29 of Appendix E).
Some of the studies fall outside the scope of this project (for
example, those concerned with ocean dumping); results of others
58
-------
Exhibit 14. DREDGED MATERIAL RESEARCH
PROGRAM TECHNICAL STRUCTURE
^5 ~2
Project/Till;
Aquatic Disposal Research Project
1A Coutil Diipoul Area Field Research
IB Movementi of Dredged Material
1C Eflectt of Dredging and Dbponl on Water
Quality
ID Effects of Dredging and Disposal on
Aquatic Drgmiimi
IE Pollution Status of Dredged Material
Habitat Development Research Project
2A Upland ind Minh Disposal Environmental
Impacta
4A Artificial Marsh and Island Creation
4B Habitat Development Research
2C Containment Area Operation Reseirch
SA Dredged Material DenaUlcatlon
5C Disposal Area Reuse Research
6B Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material
6C Turbidity Prediction and Control
7A Bade Equipment Related Studies
rVoductnt Utw Project
3A Aquatk Disposal Concepts Development
3B Upland Diipoeal Concept! Development
4C Land Improvement Research
40 Product! Research
SD Disposal Ana Land Use Concepts
Objective
Determine the magnitude and extent of effects of disposal sites on
organisms and the quality of surrounding water, and the rate, diversity,
and extent such sites are recolonized by benthlc flora ind fauna.
Develop techniques for determining the spatial and temporal
distribution of dredged material discharged into various hydrologic
regime!.
Determine on a regional basis the short- and long-term effects on water
quality due to dredging and discharging bottom sediment containing
pollutants.
Determine on a regional basis the direct and indirect effects on aquatic
organisms due to dredging and disposal operations.
Develop techniques for determining the pollutions] properties of
various dredged material types on a regional basis.
Identification, evaluation, and monitoring of specific short-term effects
and more general long-term effect! of confined and unconfined
disposal of dredged material on uplands, marsh, or other wetlands.
Development, testing, and evaluation of habitat creation concepts with
particular attention devoted to marsh creation and dredged material
island habitats.
Investigation of requirements for and technical feasibility of enhancing
land and water habitats, including development and testing of
wfldllfe-and-flshenes-oriented multiple-use concepts for confined
disposal areas.
Development of new or improved methods for the operation and
management of confined disposal area and associated facilities.
Development and testing of promising techniques for dewatering or
densifying dredged material using mechanical, biological, and/or
chemical techniques prior to, during, and after placement in
containment areas.
Investigation of dredged material Improvement and rehandling
procedure! aimed at permitting the removal of material from
containment areas for landfill or other uses elsewhere.
Evaluation of physical, chemical, and/or biological methods for the
removal and recycling of dredged material constituents.
Investigation of the problem of turbidity and development of a
predictive capability as well as physical and chemical control methods
for employment in both dredging and disposal operations.
Investigation of dredging equipment modifications and improvement!
and operational Improvements applicable to environmental Impact
reduction.
Investigation of environmental and economic factors involved In
deepwater (oceanic) disposal, disposal in subaqueous borrow pits, and
related possibilities.
Evaluation of new disposal possibilities such as using abandoned pits
and mines and investigation of systems involving long-distance transport
to large inland disposal facilities.
Evaluation of the use of dredged material for the development,
enhancement, or restoration of land for agriculture and other uses.
Investigation of technical and economic aspects of the manufacture
of marketable products.
Assessment of the technical and economic aspects of the development
of disposal areas as landfill sites and the development of
recreation-oriented and other public or private land-use concept!.
NOTE: This technical structure reflect! the first major program reevaluation made after the first full year of research accomplishment and is
effective as of June 1974.
59
-------
were not available at the time of preparation of the present report,
although reports on several of the tasks are expected to be completed
during 1974 and 1975.
Highways and Other Roads
The Utah Water Research Laboratory of the Utah State University at
Logan is engaged in a project to determine effectiveness of erosion
control measures applied to highway construction, and will undertake
to estimate quantitatively the effects of erosion and sedimentation
at a number of selected construction sites. The project, under
sponsorship of the U. S. Department of Transportation, will involve
visits to selected highway construction sites throughout the nation,
where on-the-spot determinations will be made of the physiographic
situation, climatic conditions, and specific characteristics of the
construction site. Quantities of sediment eroded or deposited will
be measured or estimated. Results were not available at the time of
our contact with Utah State project personnel. This project, which
is currently ongoing, should contribute substantially to the total
information base relating site characteristics to production of
sediment .(5"29)
The U. S. Geological Survey is engaged in an ongoing program of
measurement of sediment and runoff from highway construction sites
in the Lake Tahoe area of California.*
A study of the effects of construction of the Vail Pass on Inter-
state Highway 1-70 in Colorado has been undertaken by several
cooperating agencies, with the U. S. Forest Service (Ft. Collins
*Information from an earlier phase of this program is reported in
Case 7 of Appendix A of this report.
60
-------
Office) as the principal coordinating agency. A small number of
monitoring stations have been taking preconstruction measurements.
The project is scheduled for completion in about five years, but
data from various stages of construction should appear in the interim.
Soils and Pollutant Runoff
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently sponsored a
number of projects that bear upon the problem of sediment and other
pollutant runoff from construction sites, although two of these
investigations were performed in an agricultural context.
A recently issued report ~ ' (received too late to be included in
the present report) concerns the movement of herbicides in runoff
and.on sediment from fallow plots of four types of Coastal Plain
soils.
In a study for the EPA Southeastern Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, Georgia, Hydrocomp, Inc. has developed a model for
estimating pesticide transport and runoff from agricultural land
on a per-event basis. The model includes a Sediment subprogram
based on the sediment model of Moshe Negev of Stanford Univer-
sity. (5-3U This type of dynamic-effects model differs sharply from
the approach employed in sediment yield models such as the Universal
Soil Loss Equation, which generally utilize long-term average con-
ditions for estimating sediment yield over an extended period. The
Pesticide Transport and Runoff Model has thus far been tested with
the first of three years of runoff data, and is therefore considered
preliminary. These tests have been based on data from the Southern
Piedmont area. EPA expects to improve the model and extend its
applicability to other soil types and mixed land uses.
61
-------
In-Water Construction
Under sponsorship of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, The MITRE
Corporation is currently developing loading functions for estimating
the concentration and dispersion of pollutants introduced into
overlying waters by such construction operations as pile drivingk
bulkheading, and excavation.
62
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION V
5-1. Powell, M. D., et al., Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment Control,
W71 02276 FWQA 15030 DTL 113P, National Assoc. of Counties
Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., PB-196-111 (May 1970).
5-2. Guy, H. P., and Jones, D. E., "Urban Sedimentation in Perspec-
tive," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE (December 1972).
5-3. Dominick, D. D., et al., Clean Water for the 1970's, Federal
Water Quality Administration, U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D.C. (1970).
5-4 Wolman, M. G., and Schick, A. P., "Effects of Construction on
Fluvia Sediment, Urban and Suburban Areas of Maryland," Water
Resources Research, Vol. 3, No.2 (1967).
» '
5-5. U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Appropriations,
"Hearings on Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations for 1975," U.S.G.P.O. (1974).
5-6. McTavish, D., Highway Statistics Division, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Unpublished
Study Completed in 1972 (Personal Communication).
5-7. Diseker, E. G., and Richardson, E. C., "Erosion Rates and Control
Methods on Highway Cuts," Transactions, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers (1962).
5-8. National Highway Needs Report, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, House Document 92-266, Part 1,
U.S.G.P.O., p. 5 (March 1972).
5-9. Task Committee on Urban Sedimentation Problems, Urban Sediment
Problems; A Statement on Scope, ASCE, Committee on Sedimentation
on the Hydraulics Division, p. 1301 (June 1970).
5-10. Task Committee on Preparation of Sedimentation Manual, "Sediment
Sources and Sediment Yield," Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
ASCE, p. 1301 (June 1970).
5-11. McGriff, E. C., "The Effects of Urbanization on Water Quality,"
Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 87 (1972).
5-12. Soil Conservation Service, Controlling Erosion on Construction
Sites, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Information
Bulletin 347, p. 4.
63
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION V (Continued)
5-13. Wolman, M. G., Problems Posed by Sediment Derived from Construc-
tion Activities in Maryland, Maryland Water Pollution Control
Commission, Annapolis, p. 49 (July 1971).
5-14. Marcin, T. C., "Protection of Demands for Housing," U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (1972).
5-15. U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstracts of the United
States, U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D.C. (July 1973).
5-16. Holeman, J. N., and Geiger, A. F., Sedimentation of Lake Barcroft,
Fairfax County, Virginia, SCS-TP-136, Soil Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (March 1969).
5-17. Berkman, R. L., and Visivsi, W. K., Damming the Vest, Grossman
Publishers, New York, p. 34 (1973).
5-18. McDonald, J. R., and Hyatt, R. A., "Supersaturation of Nitrogen
in Water During Passage Through Hydroelectric Turbines at Mac-
taquac Dam," Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
Vol. 30, No. 9 (September 1973).
5-19. "EPA Regional Office Urges Action on Nitrogen in Columbia and
Snake Rivers," Environmental Reporter. Vol. 2, No. 21, pp. 610-611,
(1971).
5-20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Report on Mississippi River Flow
Requirements for Estuarine Use in Coastal Louisiana, U.S. Army
Engineer District, New Orleans, La., p. i (November 1970).
5-21. U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Status of Progress Items for
Fiscal Year 1969" (plus counterpart reports for Fiscal Years
1970, 1971, 1972, 1973), Soil Conservation Service (Records
Branch), Washington, D.C.
5-22. Boyd, M. B., et al., Disposal of Dredge Spoil, Technical Report
H-72-8, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss., p. 3 (November 1972).
5-23. O'Neal, G., and Sceva, J., The Effects of Dredging on Water Quality
in the Northwest, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Programs, Region X, Seattle, Washington (July 1971).
5-24. Krizek, R. J., et al., Engineering Characteristics of Polluted
Dredgings, Technical Report No. 1, Environmental Protection
Agency, p. 16 (March 1973).
64
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION V (Continued)
5-25. Personal Communication: Capt. W. C. Allanach, Office of Dredged
Material and Research, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi (April 24, 1974).
5-26. Personal Communication: Mr. Eugene B. Connor, Chief, Operations
Branch, Construction Operations Division, Directorate of Civil
Works, Office of the Chief of Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (October 3, 1974).
5-27. Personal Communication: Mr. James E. DeSistor, Chief Regulating
Functions Branch, Directorate of Civil Works, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army Corps of Engineer (October 3, 1974)
5-28. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dredged Material Research News-
letter, Miscellaneous Paper D-74-6, Office of Dredged Material
Research, Vicksburg, Mississippi (July 1974).
5-29. Personal Communication: Dr. Calvin Clyde, Utah Water Research
Laboratory, Logan Utah (May 13, 1973).
5-30. Personal Communication: Mr. Bruce Perry, Nonpoint Source
Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado (May 6, 1973).
5-31. Crawford, N. H., and Donigan, A. S., Jr., Pesticide Transport
and Runoff Model for Agricultural Lands, Hydrocomp, Inc., for
U. S. EPA Southeastern Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens,
Ga., EPA 660/2-74-13, Pre-publication copy, (December 1973).
65
-------
SECTION VI
LOADING FUNCTIONS
The major pollutant released from construction sites is sediment.
Most of the relatively small body of data collected on the release
of pollutants by construction activities has concerned sediment
and erosion. This is not to ignore the presence of other pollu-
tants in construction runoff — pesticides, nutrients, heavy metals,
oil, and other components of construction wastes — or the important
work being done for estimating concentrations of such pollutants,
especially in agricultural runoff. Because of the importance of
the sediment problem in construction runoff and the general
unavailability of data for other pollutants, the present effort to
develop source loading functions has been concentrated on sediment
release.
Two loading functions were fitted to sediment loss data from
eight field studies of construction sites. Both are adaptations
of the Universal Soil Loss Equation, and involve an empirically-
fitted factor to account for effects of intervening terrain between
construction site and point of sediment measurement in a nearby
watercourse. Comparison of predicted sediment yields (in tons/acre)
with observed yields indicates that, for one of the loading
functions, about 53 percent of the predictions fall within a range
of ±50 percent of observed values.
The form of the loading functions and the accuracy, limitations,
and other characteristics of their predictions are discussed in
the latter part of this section under the headings "Selection and
Fitting of Loading Functions" and "Characteristics of Loading
Function Predictions." Earlier subsections outlined the approach
used in developing the functions and the history of sediment-loss
model development, and describe in detail the nature and limitations
of available data used to fit the loading functions.
66
-------
APPROACH
Several equations for estimating sediment loss have been developed,
primarily for application to agricultural land. After some
experimentation with certain existing equations in which measured
or estimated values of the independent variables were used to
compute predicted values of sediment yield, which were then
compared with observed yields, it was decided that the loading
functions under development should be modifications of the Universal
Soil Loss Equation, but also on the completeness, ease of use, and
logical appeal of this equation
i
Two basic modifications of the Universal Soil Loss Equation were
fitted to available data from nine separate sites where actual
construction had occurred, and one additional site that contained
simulated construction conditions. One of the modifications — the
"delivery-ratio approach" — provided significantly better fit to
the observed data than was given by the other modification which
involved exponents arbitrarily fitted to the factors in the basic
equation. Consequently, the delivery-ratio approach was selected
for additional fitting.
Two variations on the delivery-ratio modification were fitted and
tested. In one, the delivery ratio-factor consists of a variable
"distance from construction site to receptor stream" raised to an
arbitrarily-fitted exponent. In the other, the ratio factor is
"percent of watershed area exposed by construction," also raised
to an arbitrarily fitted exponent. The resulting two equations
represent the source loading functions for out-of-stream
construction activities — primarily urban construction and
highways.
67
-------
From the standpoint of sediment loss, the main differences between
highway and urban construction are the configurations and slopes
of the exposed areas. These differences can be accounted for by
varying the parameters of slope length, steepness, and distance to
the receptor; thus it is assumed that one type of loading function
will suffice for both types of construction. This assumption is
borne out, as an ititial approximation, in the analysis that
follows.
HISTORY OF SEDIMENT-LOSS EQUATIONS
Equations for Agricultural Applications
Interest in the development of soil loss equations began in the
early 1940's. These first equations concerned the loss from
agricultural areas; most data were from the Midwest. The earliest
equations were based on length and percentage of slope with factors
for crop and conservation practices.. In 1946 Musgrave' ' added a
rainfall factor and reevaluated the others, producing the formula:
E- f CP3J'75 S1-35 L°'35
where:
• E is the net soil erosion in inches per year.
• f is a numerical value proportional to the erodibility of
the soil.
• C accounted for the lack of ground cover effectiveness for
erosion prevention.
o S is the percent slope.
• L is the slope length in feet.
• P~Q is the maximum 30-minute intensity, 2-year frequency
rainfall in inches. (6'2) The use of this e1uation was
68
-------
hampered by lack of information on the influence of rainfall
distribution over time, variations of soil erodibility, land
cover and other factors.
In the late 1950's this equation was restructured in an improved
form by Wischmeier and others working at the USDA Agricultural
Research Service Center at Purdue University. This new form became
known as the Universal Soil Loss Equation and is presented in
detail in Reference 6-3. Its general form is:
A = RKLSCP
o A is the computed soil loss in tons/acre.
• R is the rainfall factor, designed to account for storm
energy and intensity.
» K is the soil erodibility factor, expressing the sediment
loss from a specific soil on a unit plot 72.6 feet long with
a 9% slope.
• L is the slope-length factor, the ratio of soil loss from a
specific slope to that from a 72.6-foot slope of similar
characteristics.
• S is the slope steepness factor relating soil loss from a
specific slope to that from a 9% slope.
• C is the cropping management factor, a ratio of soil loss
from a field under one set of conditions to that from a
field under fallow conditions.
0 P is the erosion-control practice factor and compares the
soil loss from contouring, strip cropping or other struc-
tural control methods to that of up-and-down slope, straight-
row farming.
This equation represented a large improvement over earlier
equations since it was more widely applicable and presented
definite procedures for estimating the various factors. The
69
-------
rainfall factor was developed from individual storms '
and summed over the years. Average yearly values were computed for
various areas and an iso-erodent map was drawn for the eastern
U. S. Erosion-index distribution curves were drawn up for 33 areas
of the East. These curves can be used to determine the average
percent of the yearly erosion index that occurs within a specific
period of a year. Further work by the Soil Conservation Service
has developed several methods for estimating the rainfall index
based on the 2-year, 6-hour storm and has extended it to the West
Coast. This work is summarized in Reference 6-6.
The soil-erodibility factor was also improved. It was precisely
defined and measured for many "bench mark" soils across the country.
Wischmeier, Johnson and Cross developed a nomograph to estimate
the K-factor for surface soils based on 5 parameters (soil
properties such as particle size, permeability, percent organic
( 6-8)
matter, and structure). Using this nomograph and by comparison
with similar soils, the erodibilities of the various soil series
are being tabulated on a state-wide basis across the country.
Many states have completed estimating the values for the a, b and
c horizons (upper three layers) of all their major soils.
Verification of this work is continuing.
Slope length and steepness are combined into a composite term, LS,
that can be read off a graph or determined by an equation. Both
are normalized to a unit plot 72.6 feet long with a 9% slope.
C and P are the control factors. C accounts for the sediment
reductions due to the various ground covers that may be present on
a slope and P accounts for the reductions that may be due to any
control structures that are present. Many lists have been compiled
presenting values for different combinations of control systems.
70
-------
Examples are given in References 6-3, 6-6, and 6-7.
Although the Universal Soil Loss Equation has been widely accepted
for agricultural applications, some doubt exists as to its
applicability to short-term activities such as construction projects,
especially where steep slopes of mixed soil types are involved.
The yearly rainfall erosion index, R, and the distribution curves
are based on long term averages. Therefore, the shorter the time
period during which construction activities expose the soil, the
more likely that non-average rainfall will occur, allowing the
possibility of large errors in the soil loss prediction. Questions
also exist about its applicability to the West Coast and about the
effects of variations in the yearly distribution of rain.
Applicability to Construction Sites
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was designed for agricultural uses,
meaning generally long, regular, gentle slopes. Construction sites
are usually far from regular. Highways require a reasonably gentle
grade along the road bed, but the banks may be very steep. Urban
construction often includes excavation, providing very steep but
internally drained areas which trap the sediment eroding from their
walls and even surrounding areas. Thus, the effect of these steep
slopes may be to reduce the amount of sediment leaving the construc-
tion area since they can intercept and trap sediment from adjacent
areas. Land areas are subject to frequent reworking so that slopes
and lengths may change during construction periods. To get the
best composite LS (length/steepness) term for a given construction
area requires much effort in following and weighting the changes in
various eroding and depositional segments of the exposed area.
It is often assumed that the topsoil is removed from a construction
71
-------
site and only the subsoil is exposed to erosion. Frequently,
however, the topsoil is stockpiled on the site for later use.
Therefore, topsoil also must be considered when determining a K
factor for the "average" soil. The determinations for K factors
for fitting the loading functions described later in this section
involve the soil structure and permeability, as used in nomographs
(ft— 8^
developed by Wischmeier et^ al. During construction periods
the soil is frequently moved, reshaped and compacted, posing
difficult problems when using K values determined for the soils in
their natural states. Another nomograph applicable to high-clay
subsoils with other defined characteristics has subsequently been
developed by Roth et al. However, the 1971 Wischmeier
erodibility nomographs were considered better suited for determining
the K-factor for the overall range of soils included in the present
study.
Transport of Sediment from Construction Site to Watercourse -
The Universal Soil Loss Equation predicts the amount of soil lost
or eroded from its original position and moved to the bottom of the
slope, but does not account for any changes in the sediment load
that may occur while it is moving towards the stream. These
changes are usually in the form of deposition between the bottom of
the slope and the receiving stream and can be caused by many factors,
including the distance between the construction site and the
receptor stream and the character of the intervening terrain - its
roughness, cover, slope and shape.
Several investigators have undertaken to develop "delivery ratios"
that express the fraction of material eroded that reaches the
stream. (6-9)« • ^ • <6'22> The variables most often used
are distance, slope, and total basin area. Of these, some combi-
nation of slope and distance appears to be the most promising, as
72
-------
the distance may be broken down into segments and the slope of each
combined to account for any irregularity that may be present.
Most of the work that has been done in this area applies to total
watersheds rather than small segments of them. Their accuracy in
such situations has not been demonstrated. Guy and Jones note that
there are few if any data by which a delivery ratio can be
evaluated for small, rapidly changing basins undergoing develop-
.. (6-13)
ment.
A different approach used in the development of soil loss equations
utilizes hydraulics and mass transport mechanics to formulate a
theoretical model. Equations in the referenced document
analyze the interaction of the detachment capability of moving
water and its transport capacity. This model has given encouraging
results, but contains several constants that must be determined by
taking specific field measurements.
Seasonal Effects -
The effects of seasons represent a possible weakness of the Universal
Soil Loss Equation when applied to short-duration losses. During
the winter, erosion can occur by frost movements. Most precipitation
in northern areas occurs as snow. Snowfall lacks the energy of
rain and causes an insignificant amount of erosion. During the
spring, however, the runoff caused by snow melt often acts as a
scouring agent and can remove large quantities of soil. Such
processes can cause large errors in the soil loss predictions,
especially in short-term projects involving the winter or spring
months. Data on several of the watersheds used to fit the loading
functions described in a later subsection permit comparison of
predicted vs. observed soil losses during several seasons. The
results are described in connection with the presentation of data
for loading function development.
73
-------
Other Efforts to Apply Soil Loss Equations to Construction Sites -
In addition to the above-referenced studies on delivery ratios,
other investigators have recently considered the applicability of
soil loss equations to construction sites. Wischmeier and Meyer
illustrate the use of the soil erodibility factor and the erosion
equation to predict sediment yield from construction sites, and
interpret other factors in the soil loss equation relative to
conditions at the site in Reference 6-21.
Meyer, Wischmeier, and Daniel report a very close comparison
between a prediction by the Universal Soil Loss Equation for a
given subsoil and the average of observed sediment losses under
simulated rainfall losses from experimental plots shaped to
(6— 22^
simulate conditions in a construction area.v Plots were
graded to 12-percent slope with surfaces scalped, scarified, or
compacted-fill treatments. Close comparisons between observed
sediment losses at the experimental plot and predicted losses by
the Universal Soil Loss Equation were obtained in this study.
AVAILABLE DATA
There is a serious lack of field-measurement data on sediment loss
and related factors for construction sites. In the present study,
some 500 documents and unpublished studies were examined as
potential sources of data for the various parts of this report.
Forty of these were summarized and their relevant data abstracted
in the case studies reported in Appendices A and B. Of these case
studies, only eight were chosen to supply data for the development
of loading functions for construction activities.
It must be recognized that none of e case studies were designed
to supply data for developing a loading fu ition. It could not
74
-------
reasonably be expected that the data reported by such a study would
be perfectly suited to this purpose. Only the most complete of the
available sources were chosen. Even so, many approximations of
missing data had to be made. These are identified in a subsequent
section on completeness of data.
Locations of Data Sources
The study sites are located in several areas of the country, but do
not represent a cross-section of all conditions. Four are in the
Piedmont of Maryland and Virginia. Two are in the Southern
Piedmont: Georgia and North Carolina. One is in the mountains of
central Pennsylvania and one is near San Francisco Bay in California.
All of these studies, as well as many more that were not as useful,
are summarized in Appendix A.
The most complete studies of full-scale construction sites were
located near Washington, D. C., and include:
• Yorke and Davis of the U. S. Geologic Survey in the Rock
Creek-Anacostia River basins in Montgomery County, Maryland,
Case 14 (Case numbers refer to the study's
designation in Appendix A).
• Vice, Guy and Ferguson, USGS, in the Scott Run Basin in
Fairfax County, Virginia, Case A.^6~14)
• Guy, USGS, at Kensington, Maryland, Case 9.
• Guy and Clayton, USGS, at Reston, Virginia, Case 11. ~
The other studies used were by:
• Reeder, of the USGS, in the northwestern Wake County, North
Carolina, Case I.*6""17*
• Diseker and Richardson, SCS, in Cartersville, Georgia,
Case2.<6-18>
'•'"'• Reed, USGS, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Case 3. ~ '
75
-------
• Knott, USGS, in Colma Creek, California, Case 8.
Completeness of Data; Parameters Reported
For purposes of loading function development, each case study
would ideally include, as a minimum: descriptions of soil type,
description of terrain (contours/surface soils), time-correlated
measurements of rainfall, snowfall, total water runoff, sediment
yield, changes in area exposed by construction activities, changes
in slope of exposed areas, changes in type of soil exposed and its
compaction, and changes in location of exposed areas with respect
to receiving watercourse. None of the available data sources
included all of these variables, although it was possible to
estimate some of the missing data from maps, site layout sketches,
and general engineering knowledge of the type of construction. A
primary concern in the selection of case studies was to minimize
the number of estimates to be made.
Since the loading functions under development were closely related
to the Universal Soil Loss Equation, it was highly desirable that
the case studies include data that would permit evaluation of the
factors in this equation. Also, since the loading functions would
probably involve a "delivery-ratio" factor based on distance between
disturbed area and receiving stream or on percent of watershed
disturbed, it was desirable to have measurements of these factors
also. In sum, the desired variables are:
- sediment yield
- rainfall data
- soil type
- slope steepness of disturbed area
- slope length .of disturbed area
- condition of disturbed surface
76
-------
- type of erosion control measures (if any)
- distance of disturbed area from receiving stream
- percent of watershed disturbed by construction.
Exhibit 15 shows which of these variables were measured and reported
in the eight case studies used to develop the loading functions,
which were obtained from other sources, and which were estimated
from site layouts or engineering judgment.
It can be seen from Exhibit 15 that most of the needed data were
either provided by the author or obtained from reliable sources
such as weather records or Soil Conservation Service soil maps. In
only one study, Diseker/Cartersville, Georgia, was all of the needed
data reported, but this was a small experimental situation although
located on an actual construction site.
Soils Data -
Identification of soils were given by the authors for most of the
case studies, but real distributions were given for only a few
cases. For these, soil-type distribution data were obtained from
the county office of the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soil
erodibility K factors were either obtained from the Soil Conser-
vation Service and weighted according to the soil types present in
the area, or they were estimated by comparison with similar soils.
Slope Steepness and Length -
Construction slopes and slope length data were generally absent
from the original studies. One notable-exception was the highway
roadcut study in Georgia. The Rock Creek study listed slopes for
one year and these were assumed constant throughout the three-year
study. In general slopes were assumed to average 6% for urban
construction sites and 10% for highways when no other data were given.
77
-------
EXHIBIT 15. DATA FROM CASE STUDIES AND OTHER SOURCES
XI
oo
rke & Davis
Rock Creek Stu
Sediment yield
Rainfall
Soil type
Slope steepness
Slope length
Surface condition
Control measures
Distance to stream
Percent disturbed
f
X
x+U)
(3)
0
0
X
(7)
X
f
X
*KD
(3)
0
0
X
(7)
X
f
X
XKD
(3)
0
0
X
(7)
X
f
X
(2)
(5)
0
0
*
(7)
X
r
X
(2)
(3)
0
0
*
(7)
X
X
X
(5)
0
(6)
X
(6)
X
X
(2)
(4)
G
(6)
X
(6)
X
J
X
X+<2>
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
X
(2)
X
0
(6)
X
N A
X
X
X+(2)
(8)
0
0
A
*
(6)
X
Given by author of
referenced source
(1) - Supplemented by rav data
obtained from author
(2) - DS Weather Bureau TP
40 and Bischmeier rain-
fall distribution
(3) - USDA Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), Montgomery
County. Md., Office
(4) - SCS, Barrlsburg, Pa.
(5) • SCS, Fairfax Co., 7a.
(6) - Estimated from site
map/diagram
(7) - Estimated from SCS maps
(8) - Estimated by MITRE after
consultation with SCS San
Francisco office and com-
parison with other
California-soil data
N A - Not applicable; measurement
taken at end of experimen-
tal plot
* - When not stated by author,
surface condition was
assumed to be raw cut
or dense compaction with
no control measure
0 » Estimated by MITRE from
engineering judgement
based on type of con-
struction in given terrain
-------
Lengths of slopes on construction sites were estimated, where
appropriate, from site diagrams. Otherwise, an estimate of between
200 and 300 feet was made for urbanization construction, depending
on the amount of construction in the basin and ithe basin size.
Slope length and steepness are combined into a composite term, LS,
that can be read off a graph or determined by an equation. '
Both are normalized to a unit plot 72.6 feet long with a 9% slope.
Sediment Control Practices -
In most cases, sediment control practices were stated to be
negligible. In others there may have been occasional use of hay
bales or even more effective methods, but no data were given so all
C and P values were assumed to equal 1.0.
Sediment from Non-Construction Sources -
In some cases, especially in the larger basins, sediment yield
data were adjusted to account for non-construction sediment sources.
(This adjustment was made by the author of the Colma Creek study,
which was in the largest of the drainage basins considered here.)
In the other studies, it was assumed that all sediment came from
construction activities. This was generally a reasonable assumption
since these basins were usually quite small and the agricultural
activity in them was minimal or nonexistent.
Distance to Stream; PP cent Area Disturbed -
Distance between construction site and receiving stream where
sediment measurements were taken was generally estimated from site
diagrams or maps. Since the Diseker/Georgia sediment measurements
were made at the lower end of the disturbed area, data from this
important source could not be applied in establishing a delivery
ratio based on distance to stream.
79
-------
The area disturbed by construction was given by the author in all
case studies. This parameter varied during the period of construction
activity, and the variation with time is given for most of the
studies. From this information, the percent of the watershed
disturbed by construction was computed.
Both the distance parameter and the percent area disturbed were
needed for estimating the delivery ratio. The distance parameter
is probably the more obvious for this purpose. The percent area
parameter, while also commonly used for this purpose, was included
particularly to meet the needs of a related study being performed
concurrently by Midwest Research Institute.
Rainfall Data -
Rainfall and total precipitation information were given in several
forms. The rainfall factor, R, was evaluated by different methods
according to the form of the data. Most of the studies (Scott Run,
Kensington, Harrisburg, Georgia, North Carolina, and Colma Creek)
gave continuous data over periods from one month to a year. The R
value for these was computed by the average annual method using the
distribution curves and iso-erodent map given by Wischmeier and
/c_o\
Smith. For single storms where storm hydrographs were
available (Rock Creek, Reston, and one storm at Kensington), R was
computed by the method developed by Wischmeier as described in
References 6-4 and 6-5. For other single storms where only total
rainfall was available, R values were estimated using the equations
given by Hotes ej: al., which require only total rainfall and
storm duration. The latter was estimated; 24 hours most frequently
gave the best results.
Rainfall data available from the Rock Creek studies of Yorke and
Davis were sufficiently detailed to permit evaluation of the R
80
-------
factor by both of the single-storm methods referenced above.
Predicted sediment yields based on both values of R are presented
and compared in the subsequent presentation of data. Also, rainfall
data for the Scott Run studies of Vice, Guy, and Richardson are
sufficiently detailed to permit determination of separate R values
for both quarterly and yearly periods. Predicted sediment yield
values for these different-length periods are also compared in the
following data presentation.
Presentation of Data Used to Fit Function; Sediment Yields Predicted
by Universal Soil Loss Equation
The purpose of this section is to present the data used in fitting
the source loading functions described in the following section.
Some of the data were subjected to two types of analyses before the
loading functions were fitted.
- an analysis of predicted sediment yield based on different
methods of computing the rainfall factor, R.
- an analysis of predicted sediment yield for different
seasons of the year.
Since both of these lines of analysis have implications for the
accuracy of the loading functions, it is appropriate that they be
discussed in connection with the basic data. The analysis of the
effects of the methods for computing R is important since it
determined the method that was subsequently used to evaluate this
factor for the purpose of fitting the loading function.
Not all of the studies reported data in sufficient detail for these
preliminary analyses. Only the Yorke and Davies studies of Rock
Creek, Maryland, permit comparisons of different methods of
computing R (after additional raw data were obtained from these
authors). The Rock Creek studies and the Scott Run (Virginia) and
81
-------
Kensington (Maryland) studies by Guy, Vice, and Ferguson permitted
analysis of the effects of seasons.
The volume of data is large and its organization somewhat complex.
The basic raw data for all case studies are presented in a single
exhibit. Following this are two analytic exhibits. The first
compares the effects of different methods for computing the rain-
fall factor on the predicted values of sediment yield, with all
other factors held constant. The second shows the effects of
season of the year on predicted yields.
Summary of Data from All Case Studies
The basic data from all case studies used in fitting the loading
functions are tabulated in Exhibit 16. These data are used in a
variety of ways in the analyses that follow,, and each such application
does not, in general, present all of the information available for
a given site; storm event, time interval, etc. The reader who wishes
to know what data went into the estimates of sediment yield pre-
sented in subsequent analytical exhibits will find the comprehensive
summary of data in Exhibit 16 helpful.
In addition to basic data such as rainfall, size of construction
area, slope lengths, sediment yield, etc., Exhibit 16 also contains
values of the various factors of the Universal Soil Loss Equation:
R rainfall factor
K soil factor
LS slope-length factor
The computation of these factors is discussed earlier in this
section. The computation of R values in Exhibit 16 were made by
the method of Wischmeier and Smith ' ~ for single storms
and by the method reported in Hotes at al« ~ for cases based on
82
-------
EXHIBIT- 16. PRKSBHAIIOH OF BASIC DATA AMD YIELDS
PSZDICTED 0 DHIVTRSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATIOH
Case. Location Watershed
and Oats Ares
acres
Torke e Davis
Bock Creek -
Aoacoitia
Xutea ten
7/20/67 301
8/19/67
10/25/67
3/17/68
5/27/68
7/02/68
Bel Pre Creek
11/28/66 1082
«•» 5/07/67
7/20/67
8/03/67
8/24-25/67
6/19-20/68
7/2-3/68
Manor Run
11/28/66 646
5/07/67
8/03/67
8/24-25/67
6/19-20/68
7/2-3/68
X Area
Disturbed
br Constr
9.6
9.6
8.3
13.9
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.4
9.7
9.7
8.0
10.8
11
11
11.8
11.8
Distance
to
StreaiL frecip.
feet inches
300 1.42
1.42
1.14
1.49
2.76
2.03
400 1.29
2.01
.96
2.28
3.69
1.04
1.36
300 1.29
1.98
2.18
3.28
0.88
1.36
R* K . 1 S
feet Z
28.7 -S .37 200 6.5
17.1 -S
23.3 -S
4.17-S
9.07-S
32.6 -S
5.8 -S .35 200 5,4
14.1 -S
4.2 -S
30.0 -S
28.2 -S
17.1 -S
14.7 -S
5.8 -S 0.36 200 7.1
14.1 -S
30.0 -S
28.2 -S
17.1 -S
14.7 -S
1.1
.84
1.2
Yield
(Observed)
tons/acre
Yield
(Predicted)**
tons/acre
2.5
1.18
1.28
2.31
2.31
4.08
O. 36
1.11
0.39
3.58
3.07
1.00
0.50
0.25
3.8
6.15
19.44
6.49
3.04
11.7
6.95
9.48
1.69
3.69
13.23
1.71
4.15
1.24
8.82
8.29
4.98
4.32
2.51
6.10
12.96
12.18
7.38
6.36
4.6
5.9
7.4
0.73
1.6
3.2
4.7
3.7
3.2
2.5
2.7
5.0
8.6
10.2
1.6
2.1
0.63
1.1
2.1
R value cooputed by:
S - Single atom method (Reference 3-4 and 3-5)
A - Average annual method (Reference 3-3 and 3-6)
q - Quarterly method (Average annual nethod Modified to quarters
by Wischmeler's distribution curves. Reference 3-3.)
** By universal Soil Loss Equation
Page 1 of 4
-------
EXHIBIT 16.
Case, Location Watershed
and Date Area
1 Area
Disturbed
by Constr
acres
Vice, Guy,
Ferguson (3-14)
Distance
to
Stream Freclp.
R*
K
feet inches
Yield
L S LS (Observed)
feet I tons/acre
Yield
(Predicted)** Ratio
tons/acre
Scott Run
May
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jul
- Jun
- Sep
- Dec
- Mar
- Jun
- Sep
- Dec
- Mar
- JurL
- Sep
- Dec
- Mar
- Jun
- Sep
'61 2900
'61
'61
'62
•62
•62
'62
'63
'63
'63
'63
'64
'64
•64
8.6
10.7
10.3
10.7
10.5
9.8
8.4
5.5
3.8
3.6
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.9
300 7
11
7
9
8
4
11
9
9
12
9
10
7
7
.0
.5
.25
.5
.5
.25
.5
.5
.25
.5
.25
.5
.75
.00
50.0
100.0
30.0
12.0
58.0
100.0
30.0
12.0
58.0
100.0
30.0
12.0
58.0
100.0
-q 0.4
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-Q
-q
-Q
-Q
250 10.0 2.5 19.4
18.1
7,
11,
27,
0
10,
20
21
3
16
17
16
1
,84
.0
.3
.14*
.5
.9
.6
.2
.6
.3
.0
.82*
43.0
86.0
25. a
10.3
49.9
86.0
25.8
10.32
49.9
86.0
25.8
10.3
49.9
86.0
2.2
4.8
3.3
0.93
1.8
613.0"
2.5
0.49
2.3
18.8
1.6
0.6
3.1
47.3
z Only one storm reported on during quarter.
* Cover effects during the end of construction may have reduced this value.
(A) Sed. data is adjusted for non-const, sources - estimated by authors.
YEARLY S01MATIONS FOR ABOVE onARTKIU.Y DATA FOR SCOTTS RUN
1961 May - Dec 2900
1962
1963
1964 Jan - Sep
(3-16)
Guy - Storm
Agnes 6/72 49.1
10.0
9.8
3.8
1.8
49.1
300 25.75
33.75
40.5
25.75
500 13.84
180.0 -A
200.0 -A
200.0 -A
170.0 -A
283.0 -S
0-4 250 .,10.0 2.5 44,1 155 3.5
50.4 172 3.4
66.4 172 2.6
34.2 146 4.3
0.3 300 6.0 1.15 20.4 97.5 4.8
Page 2 of 4
-------
EXHIBIT 16.
Ul
Case. Location Watershed
and Date Area
acres
Guy (3-15)
**"-*"gton
Jul - Sep '59 58
Oct - Dec '59
Jan - Mar '60
Apr - Jun '60.
Jul - Sep '60
Jan - Mar '61
Apr - Jun '61
Jul - Sep '61
Oct - Dec '61
x Only one atom reported
Single Storm
8/04/60 58
(3-19)
Reed-Harri»burg
Road Conat.
Hay - Aug '70 490
Pond Conat.
Aug - Dec '70 490
(3-18)
Diteker &
Richardson
Georgia Plot 1 0.16
Plot 3 0.21
Plot 5 0.15
Plot 2 0.27
Plot 4 0.30
Plot 6 0.23
Z Area Distance
Disturbed to
by Conatr stream
feet
17.2 200
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
8.6
5.2
1.7
1.7
on during quarter.
17.2 200
3.1 500
2.2 100
69.0 0
67.0
78.0
67.0
67.0
65.0
Precip.
inches
1.7
2.14
1.5
3.1
8.4
0.4
2.12
1.2
0.5
1.8
45.28
40.1
40.1
45.78
40.1
40.0
R* K
100.0 -Q 0.41
30.0 -q
12.0 -q
58.0 -Q
100.0 -q
12.0 -q
58.0 -q
100.0 -q
30.0 -q
48.0 -S
58.5 -q 0.22
58.5 -q 0.22
250.0 -A 0.24
250.0 -A 0.24
250.0 -A 0.24
250.0 -A 0.24
Yield
L S LS (Observed)
feet I tons/acre
250 6.0 1.05 12.8
8.0
8.7
18.4
45.9
1.2
15.0
6.3
4.4
25.6
300 5.0 0.95 2.7
350 2.0 0.4 1.6
206 71.0 33.0 289.0
365 40.0 24.0 129.0
296 100.0 65.7 196
225 83.0 43.3 120.6
310 30.0 12.6 42.8
321 91.0 61.0 110.1
Yield
(Predicted)**
tona/acre
43.0
12.9
5.2
25.0
43.0
5.2
25.0
43.0
12.9
20.7
12.2
5.1
1973.0
1286.0
3941.0
2598.0
756.0
3660.0
Katio
3.4
1.6
0.6
1.4
0.94
4.3*
1.7
6.8
2.9
0.8
4.6
3.2
6.8
10.0
20.0
21.6
17.7
33.3
Page 3 of 4
-------
EXHIBIT 16.
00
Case, Location Watershed
and Date Area
acres
(3-17)
Reeder 1-40
7/13-9/16 '71 24
9/16-2/6 '72
2/6-4/24 '72
4/24-5/8 '72
5/8-6/9 '72
6/9-7/11 '72
7/11-8/15 '72
(3-20)
Colma Creek
(Knott)
Gaging Station
1969 6900
1970
1967
Z Area Distance
Disturbed to
by Constr Strean Precip.
feet inches
83.0 800 10.01
14.8
5.85
2.31
4.28
5.78
7.09
14.0 2500 28.2
8.0 2500 19.6
30.75
H* K L
feet
126.0 -Q 0.45 100
57.0 -Q
24.0 -Q
6.0 -Q
21.0 -Q
60.0 -Q
78.0 -Q
76.13 0.48 215
76.13
76.13
Yield
S LS (Observed)
Z tons/acre
20.0 4.2 67.0
97.0
0.68
51.0
58.5
128.5
75.0
7.0 1.25 £i-|
41.0
66.5
147.0
Yield
(Predicted)**
tons/acre
238.0
108.0
45.4
113.0
387.0
1134.0
1474.0
63.5
44.0
45.7
Ratio
35.3
11.2
66.7
2.2
6.8
8.8
19.7
0.74*
0.53
1.11
0.68
bTsT
x Top number is author estimate of sediments due to construction activity
(not available for 1967); lower number is total measured sedlnent.
Single Stor
Bicker Blvd-
2/11/69
Colma Creek
(aging
St. 2/11/69
Bicker Blvd.
1/20/69
Colma Creek
1/20/69
Avaloa
1/20/69
736
6900
736
6900
211
42.0
14.0
42.0
14.0
20.0
500
2500
500
2500
500
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.1
7.6
7.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
4.8
215
7.0
1.21
1.5
0.56
0.68
10.0
4.56
4.38
0.67
0.66
0.66
3.8
2.9
1.2
0.96
0.07
Page 4 of 4
-------
continuous records for quarterly or annual periods.
Method of Comparison; Ratio of Predicted-to-Observed Sediment Loss -
The basic parameter to be estimated by the loading functions is
quantity of sediment reaching the receiving water per unit of area
disturbed by construction. The unit is tons/acre. In order for a
case study to be useful for developing loading functions, one or
more measured values of this parameter must be reported. Such
values may be for a single-storm event or for defined time intervals.
As a means of coarsely assessing the effects of seasonal variations
or of methods of computing the rainfall factor on the predictive
capability of loading functions, the Universal Soil Loss Equation
was used to "predict" the sediment loss for each storm event or
time interval for which sediment-loss measurements were available.
The results were compared with measured (or "observed") values,
and a ratio of predicted/observed values computed. This ratio
forms the basic unit of comparison used in this section of the
report. A similar ratio based on "predicted" values from fitted
loading functions is used in a later section for evaluating the
accuracy of these functions. (A ratio value of 1.0 would indicate
perfect agreement between predicted and observed yields.)
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was chosen for these preliminary
analyses because it appeared to be the most nearly applicable
model available, prior to the development of actual loading
functions based on the data at hand, but primarily because the
investigators anticipated that the loading functions would be
variations of this equation.
Comparison of Two Methods for Computing R For Single Storms -
The rainfall data for the Rock Creek/Anacpstia River studies of
87
-------
Yorke and Davies were sufficiently complete when augmented by raw
data from the authors) to permit computation of the rainfall factor
R needed in the Universal Soil Loss Equation by two different
methods: one developed by Wischmeier and Smith ' and a
newer procedure reported in 1973 by Hotes et^ al. The resul-
ting values of R in the Exhibit are designated as R. and R«.
R- values were computed by both methods, and predicted sediment
yield per acre during each storm was computed by the Universal
Soil Loss Equation for each value of R. Results are given in
Exhibit 17.
To facilitate comparison, the ratio of predicted/observed yield was
computed for each R-value, and these ratios were averaged for all
storm events. Comparison of the two columns of ratios near the
right hand side of the exhibit reveals considerable divergence in
the results obtained from the two R-values, and these ratios were
averaged for all storm events. Comparison of the two columns of
ratios near the right hand side of the exhibit reveals considerable
divergence in the results obtained from the two R-values, although
the averages of ratios are similar for the two methods: 3.8 for R..
and 3.6 for R2« The range of ratio values for R., is smaller than
the range for R«-
Although the smaller average value of ratios for R£ might be
interpreted to mean that R2 provides a slightly more accurate
prediction (in the sense that predicted values agree more closely
with observed); the two averages were so close that the difference
was considered not to be significant. Also, the scatter (range of
ratio values) for R- was somewhat smaller than for R_.
In view of these results, neither method was judged clearly
88
-------
EXHIBIT 17. TWO METHODS FOB ESTIMATING
RAINFALL EFFECTS
Based on RI
Ratio
Based on R2
Ratio
Case, Location
and Date
York* & DavlB
Sect Creefc-
Anacovtla
lutes Bun
7/20/67
8/19/67
10/25/67
3/17/68
5/27/68
7/02/68
Bel Pre Creek
11/28/66
5/7/67
7/20/67
8/3/67
8/24-25/67
6/19-20/68
7/2-3/68
Manor Run
11/28/66
5/7/67
8/3/67
8/24-25/67
6/19-20/68
7/2-3/68
Precipitation
inches
1.42
1.42
1.14
1.49
2.76
2.03
1.29
2.01
0.96
2.28
3.69
1.04
1.36
1.29
1.98
2.18
3.28
0.88
1.36
R, (by Ref.
(3-3). (3-5)
28.7
17.1
23.3
4.17
9.07
32.6
5.8
14.1
4.2
30.0
23.2
17.1
14.7
5.8
14.1
30.0
28.2
17.1
14.7
R2 (by
Ref. 3-6
9.4
9.4
8.0
16.7
53.7
20.7
7.64
20.3
4.0
26,8
77.1
4.8
8.6
7.64
19.6
24.3
59.5
6.3
8.6
Yield
(Observed)
tons/acre
2.5
1.18
1.28
2.31
2.31
4.08
0.36
1.11
0.39
3.58
3.07
1.00
0.50
0.25
3.8
6.15
19.44
6,49
3.04
Vield
(Predicted)
tons/acre
11.7
6.95
9.48
1.69
3.69
13.23
1.71
4.15
1.24
8.82
8.29
4.98
4.32
2.51
6.10
12.96
12.13
7. 38
6.36
Predicted/
Observed
4.6
5.9
7.4
0.73
1.6
3.2
4.7
3.7
3.2
2.5
2.7
5.0
8.6
10.2
1.6
2.1
0.63
1.1
2.1
Yield
(Predicted)
tons/acre
3.84
3.84
3.26
6.77
21.85
8.42
2.2
6.0
1.2
7.9
22.6
1.4
2.5
3.3
15.5
10.4
25.6
1.7
3.7
Predicted/
Observed
1.5
3.3
2.5
2.9
9.5
2.1
6.2
3.4
3.0
2.2
7.4
1.4
1.5
13.2
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.42
1.2
Average
3.8
Average
-------
preferable to the other. If the time distribution of rainfall
during the storm is available, as in the Rock Creek studies, the
R approach is preferred by the present authors. If this informa-
tion is not available, the RZ approach should be used since it
requires only a knowledge of total rainfall during the storm and
an estimate of storm duration.
The R procedure, based on the method of Wischmeier and Smith, was
selected for subsequent analyses of single storm data, including
the fitting of loading functions.
Effects of Seasons on Predictive Capability -
Preliminary analysis of the predicted-to-observed ratios in
Exhibit 16 revealed a cyclic pattern with season for the four
case studies reporting seasonal data. Relevant data from these
four studies were abstracted and compiled in Exhibit 18 to show
the seasonal effect.
Predicted values of sediment yield rates for measures made during
the winter were generally equal to or lower than the observed
yield rates, while in the spring and fall the predicted values
averaged 3 to 5 times higher than the observed, and in the summer
averaged 6 to 7 times higher. The average of predicted-to-observed
ratios for the quarterly periods shown in Exhibit 18 are as
follows.
Quarter Ratio Average
January - March .. ,
JL« j
April - June . _
** • J
July - September ,
o. D
October - December . „
4.2
The interpretation of these results is by no means clear. The
90
-------
COMPAUSm OF THE EFftCTS OF SE&SOUL VlMAIUaS CM SEOMBKI YIELD
Caaa, Locacloa
•ad Data
U«aa ton
3/17/68
Scott too '62
•63
Ea~^.60
•61
totaato.
7/M/67
8/19/67
7/02/6*
>al Pr» Craak
7/20/67
8/03/67
1/24-25/67
7/2-3/6*
8/3/67
8/24-25/67
7/2-3/6*
Scott ton '61
'62
•63
' 64
tBnalnrton '59
'60
•61
8/4/60
• Ona atoim
Fraclp.
1.49
9.5
9.5
10.5
1.!
.4
1.42
1.42
2.03
.96
2.2*
3.69
1.36
2.1*
3.2*
1.36
11.5
4.25
12.5
7.0
1.7
8.4
1.2
1.8
gyHathad
lAjaiftai
4.17-S
12 -fl
12 -9
12 -0
12 -Q
12 HJ
JULY -
28.7 -S
17.1 -S
32.6 -8
4.2 -S
30.0 -S
2*. 2 -I
14.7 -*
30.0 -S
2*.2 -S
14.7 -S
100 -Q
10O -Q
100 -Q
100 -q
100 -q
100 -Q
too -4
48 -S
Ylald
(Obaarrad)
- MUCH
30
3475
3350
1040
87.3
6
mrann
73
34
53
37
519
445
53
437
13*0
231
4*44
40
4BO
100
121
459
6.3
256
YlaU
22
3200
1631
619
51.6
26
Ararat*
337
201
172
182
1,279
1,202
451
929
•65
413
10.750
24,510
9,030
4,730
430
430
43
207
Avaraga
•aclo
Tradletad/
Obaarrad
.73
.93
.49
.6
.6
4.3
1.3
4.6
5.9
3.2
1.2
2.5
1.7
1.6
2.1
0.63
2.1
2.2
S13*
i«.e
47.3
1.4
0.94
6.8
0.8
6.5
••—
CUaa, Locatlnn
and Data Pracl».
Inch..
5/27/6* J-7«
«.! Pr. Cr«k
5/7/67 2.01
5/19-2O/68 1.04
Utaar tun
5/7/67 1.91
6/19-20/61 O.M
Scott tun
Majr-Juna '61 ' 7.0
'62 0.5
'63 9.25
'64 7.75
C«T-toaaa
6/72 13.8*
"—
lanlUgton '60 3.1
•61 2.12
l**m. f~.
10/25/67 1.14
Hanor Kim
11/28/66 1.29
Scott Kan
Out-tee '61 7.25
•62 11. S
•63 9.25
Kemintton
Oct-Dac '59 2.14
•61 0.5
KVMatliod
APU1 -
9.07-S
14.1 -S
17.1 -S
14.1 -S
17.1 -S
50 -0
38 H)
58 -0.
58 -Q
283 -S
58 -Q
3* -0.
OCTOBES -
23.3 -S
5.8 -S
30 -Q
30 -Q
30 -Q
JO -Q
30 -q
1UU
fOhaagvad)
tona/acra
JUKE
30
165
1O6
266
493
4.B44
8,330
2,380
640
492
184
44
DECEtOEl
9.48
2.51
25.8
25.8
25.8
12.9
12.9
Yltld TTttdiCt«d/
XEUiUcxMlX fflunn^l
48 1.6
618 3.7
528 5.0
426 1.6
561 1.1
10,750 2.2
15,213 1.8
5,847 2.3
1,995 3.1
2,351 t.6
250 1.4
75 1.7
Averaga 2.5
1.28 7.4
0.25 10.Z
7.84 3.3
10.5 2.5
16.6 1.6
8 1.6
4.4 2.9
Ararage 4.2
-------
apparent seasonal differences may indicate unusual rainfall patterns
during the study periods or it may mean the distribution curves
for these areas need adjustment. The Kensington study results may
appear misleading because only selected storm results were reported,
totaling less than one-half the yearly precipitation. Presumably
most of the large storms are reported, since the results are
similar to those from the other areas in the vicinity.
All of the case studies covered in Exhibit 18 are located in close
proximity to one another — all lie in the Washington, D. C.,
metropolitan area. The results, therefore, cannot be considered
generally applicable to other areas. While data from the other
case studies in this report are not adequate for including season-
related effects in loading functions developed in the present
study, the patterns shown in Exhibit 18 appear sufficiently definite
to suggest that season-related effects should be investigated in
subsequent research on sediment yield prediction.
One Missing Case; Germantown, Maryland, Residential Development
Study -
A relatively new source of data in which essentially all of the
needed parameters were recorded was the development of a residen-
tial subdivision above Gunner's Branch near the Village of German-
town in Montgomery County, Maryland. Records of suspended sediment
concentration and rainfall are available over a period of
several years (1971-1974), during which time the development
occurred. Amount of disturbed area during each of the three
phases of development (1973-1974) is available. Detailed site
maps indicate slopes and can be used to determine distance to
waterways. Good soil data are available.
Unfortunately, this information could not be used for fitting the
92
-------
functions because it came to the attention of the study team too
late to permit reduction of the meteorological and hydrologic data,
most of which are in the form of stripcharts and other unreduced
records. Although no formal study of these records has been made,
they are written up as a "case study" (Number 18) in Appendix A to
indicate the completeness of available data, both reduced and
unreduced.
SELECTION AND FITTING OF LOADING FUNCTIONS
The endeavor to develop sediment yield loading functions began
early in this study with experiments in fitting established soil
loss models to the available data, then comparing computed yields
with observed to assess the fit. Models tested included established
soil loss equations such as the Musgrave* and the Universal Soil
Loss Equation*, as well as some arbitrary functions proposed by the
investigators. The latter were of the general form of the Musgrave
Equation: multiplicative factors raised to powers, but with the
additional feature of additive constants.
From the standpoint of estimating observed sediment yields, the
Universal Soil Loss Equation proved generally superior to the other
forms tested, to the extent that the investigators decided to
concentrate on modifying this basic equation to improve its fit to
construction-related data. Two types of modifications were
evaluated.
One modification set the C and P values (cropping and erosion
control factors) to unity, added a distance factor, D (average
*See the Approach subsection presented earlier for a more complete
description of these equations.
i •
93
-------
distance of overland travel from construction area to receptor
stream), and fitted empirically-determined exponents to the three
terrain-related factors to produce a new equation of the form:
Y = RKLaSbDC
where Y is sediment yield in tons/acre and the other factors are as
they appear in the universal and the Musgrave, and with its
exponential modification to slope and slope length, appears to
provide the flexibility needed for adaptation to construction
conditions. However, when the exponents were fitted to observed
data by the method of least squares, the resulting function gave
predicted yields that compared less closely with observed yields
than did the predictions of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. This
result is ambiguous at best, since the above equation with three
arbitrarily-fitted constants should theoretically have given at
least as close a fit as the deterministic Universal Soil Loss
Equation. This ambiguity was attributed to sparse data of unknown
reliability, and the above equation was abandoned in favor of a
simpler formulation bearing a close relation to the Universal Soil
Loss Equation.
The simpler form of model tested next was the basic Universal Soil
Loss Equation adjusted by a "delivery ratio" to account for the
difference in total sediment yield at the site and the amount
reaching the receptor stream. The concept of a delivery-ratio has
been suggested and applied by several investigators, ^ ~ '' ' ''
* but to our knowledge the forms of this factor used
in the present study and their application to construction-site
data have not previously been investigated. The resulting
equation is of the form:
Y - R K LS C P (Z)x
v
where (Z) is the delivery ratio and other elements are the elements
of the Universal Soil Loss Equation as defined above.
94
-------
Two intuitively relevant parameters that could be evaluated for
most of the case studies were chosen as the Z variable in the
delivery-ratio:
D - distance between construction site and receptor stream
%A - percent of drainage basin exposed by construction
Observed values for these two parameters were used in obtaining
a least square fit for the exponent x. (The factors C and P were
again set to unity but were retained in the resulting equation.)
The resulting functions were obtained:
.22
v-0.51
—n 99
Y-RKLSCPD
Y = R K LS C P (%A)
These two equations were considered by the investigators to be the
best sediment loading functions readily obtainable from the
available data.
Results obtained by applying these loading functions to the data
from all case studies are presented in Exhibit 19. Sediment yield
rates obtained from each function are expressed as ratios to the
observed rates. To facilitate comparison, these ratios are dis-
played together with the predictions obtained from the Universal
Soil Loss Equation and with values of certain critical parameters
that enter into the yield calculations.
CHARACTERISTICS OF LOADING FUNCTIONS PREDICTIONS
The sediment yield rate predicted by an equation such as the
Universal Soil Loss Equation refers to the condition at the
boundary of the area in question, whether this contains agricul-
tural lands or construction. The predicted rate might logically
be expected to be lower than the rate observed some distance away
in a watercourse. This expectation is borne out in the Exhibit 19
data, which shows predicted/observed ratios for the Universal
95
-------
EXHIBIT 19. COMPARISON OF PITTED FBSCtlOSS
By Loading
Function By Loading Function
By Universal Soil Adjusted For Adjusted
For
Loss Eouation Distance to Stream I Area Disturbed
Case, Location
and Date
(3-13)
Yorke & Davis
Kock Creek-
Aaacostia
Lutes Ron
7/20/67
8/19/67
10/25/67
3/17/68
5/27/68
7/02/68
Bel Fre Creek
11/28/66
5/07/67
7/20/67
8/03/67
8/24-25/67
6/19-20/68
7/2-3/68
Manor Kim
11/28/66
3/07/67
8/03/67
8/24-25/67
6/19-20/68
7/2-3/68
X Area Distance to
Method of Watershed Disturbed receptor
Computing R Area by Constr stream
acres feet
S 301 9.6 300
9.6
8.3
S 1082 13.9 400
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.4
9.7
9.7
S 646 8.0 300
10.8
11.0
11.0
11.8
11.8
Yield
(Observed)
tons/acre
2.5
1.18
1.28
2.31
2.31
4.08
0.36
1.11
0.39
3.58
3.07
1.00
0.50
0.25
3.8
6.15
19.44
6.49
3.04
Yield
(Predicted)
11.7
6.95
9.48
1.69
3.69
13.23
1.71
4.15
1.24
8.82
8.29
4.98
4.32
2.51
6.10
12.96
12.13
7.38
6.36
Ratio
Iredicted/
Observed
4.6
5.9
7.4
0.73
1.6
3.2
4.7
3.7
3.2
2.5
2.7
5.0
8.6
10.2
1.6
2.1
0.63
1.1
2.1
Yield
(Predicted)
3.3
2.0
2.7
0.5
1.1
3.8
0.47
1.1
0.33
2.4
2.2
1.3
1.2
0.73
1.7
4.9
3.5
2.0
1.8
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
1.3
1.7
2.1
0.21
0.46
0.92
1.3
0.99
0.85
0.66
0.72
1.34
2.3
2.9
0.46
0.80
0.18
0.31
0.60
Yield
(Predicted)
3.6
2.2
3.2
0.8
1.8
6.2
0.44
1.1
0.33
2.4
2.2
1.6
1.4
0.88
li
3.4
3.7
2.0
1.8
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
1.45
1.86
2.5
0.34
0.76
1.52
1.23
0.97
0.85
0.67
0.72
1.57
2.7
3.53
0.46
0.62
0.19
0.31
0.60
Page 1 of 4
-------
EXHIBIT 19.
Case, Location
and Date
Guy (3-15)
Kensington
Jul - Sep '59
Oct - Dec '59
Jan - Mar '60
Apr - Juo "60
Jul - Sep.'60
Jan - Mar '61
Apr - Jua '61
Jul - Sep '61
Oct - Dec '61
Single Storm
8/4/60
(3-19)
Beed-Harrisburg
Road Const,
May - Aug '70
Fond Const.
Aug - Dec '70
(3-18)
Dlseker &
Richardson
Georgia Plot 1
Plot 3
Plot 5
Plot 2
Plot 4
Plot 6
87 Loading
By Universal Soil Adjusted
Loss Equation Distance to
Method of
Computing R
Q
n& reported
S
Q
q
A
A
A
A
A
A
Z Area Distance to
Watershed Disturbed receptor
Area by Constr stream
acres feet
58 17.2 200
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
8.6
5.2
1.7
' 1.7
on during quarter.
58 17.2 200
490 3.1 500
490 2.2 100
0.16 69.0 0
0.21 67.0
0.15 78.0
0.27 67.0
0.30 67.0
0.23 65.0
Yield
(Observed)
tons/acre
12.8
8.0
8.7
18.4
45.9
1.2
15.0
6.3
4.4
25.6
2.7
1.6
289.0
129.0
196.0
120.6
42.8
110.1
Yield
(Predicted)
43.0
12.9
5.2
25.0
43.0
5.2
25.0
43.0
12.9
20.7
12.2
5.1
1973.0
1286.0
3941.0
2598.0
756.0
3660.0
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
3.4
1.6
0.6
1.4
0.94
4.3*
1.7
6.8
2.9
0.8
4.6
3.2
6.8
10.0
20.0
21.6
17.7
33.3
Function
For
Stream
Ratio
Yield Predicted/
(Predicted) Observed
64.8
4.0
1.7
8.1
13.3
1.6
7.9
13.6
4.0
5.2
3.2
1.9
1.06
0.50
0.44
0.44
0.29
1.34
0.53
2.12
0.90
0.25
1.17
1.16
3266.0 Not
2167.0 Applicable
6507.0
2605.0
608.0
3017.0
By Loading Function
Adjusted For
* Area Disturbed
Weld
(Predicted)
10.2
3.0
1.2
6.1
10.1
1.7
109.5
32.7
9.7
3.9
7.0
33.6
225.0
151.0
423.0
305.0
42.8
216,0
Katlo
Predicted/
Observed
0.80
0.37
0.14
0.33
0.22
1.4
7.3
5.2
2.2
0.19
2.6
21.0
0.78
1.17
2.16
2.53
1.00
1.96
Page 2 of 4
-------
EXHIBIT 19.
Case, Location
and Date
Vice, 007,
Ferguson (3-14)
Scott Run
May - Jun '61
Jul - Sep '61
Oct - Dec '61
Jan - Hit '62
Apr - Jim '62
Jul - Sep '62
Oct - Dec '62
Jaa - Mar '63
Apr - Jun '63
•Jul - Sep '63
Jg Oct - Dee '63
Jan - Mar '64
Apr - Jun '64
Jul - Sep '64
x Only one ato
By Universal
Z Area Distance to
Method of Watershed Disturbed receptor
Computing R Area by Constr Btrean
acres feet
Q 2900 8.6 300
10.7
10.3
10.7
10.5
9.8
8.4
5.5
3.8
3.6
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.9
rn reported on during quarter.
Tield
(Observed)
tons/acre
19.4
18.1
7.84
11.0
27.3
0.14*
10.5
20.9
21.6
3.2
16.6
17.3
16.0
1.82*
By Loading
Soil Adjusted
Loss Equation Distance to
Yield
(Predicted)
43.0
86.0
25.8
10.3
49.9
86.0*
25.8
10.32
49.9
86.0
25.8
10.3
49.9
86.0
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
2.2
4.8
3.3
0.93
1.8
613.0*
2.5
0.49
2.3
18.8
1.6
0.6
3.1
47.3
Yield
(Predicted)
12.2
24.8
7.4
3.0
13.9
24.5
7.5
2.9
14.3
17.2
7.6
2.9
14.1
24.6
Function By Loading
For Adjusted
Stream X Area Dis
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
0.63
1.37
0.94
0.27
0.51
174. 8*
0.71
0.14
0.66
5.36
0.46
0.17
0.88
13.49
Yield
(Predicted)
14.2
25.9
7.8
3.1
14.7
27.0
8.8
4.4
25.1
31.4
16.9
7.1
41.8
62.1
Function
For
turbed
Ratio
Predicte
Observe
0.73
1.43
1.0
0.28
0.54
191. 4X
0.84
0.21
1.16
9.8
1.02
0.41
2.61
34.1
* Cover effects during the end of construction may have reduced this value
(A) Sed. data la adjusted for non-const, sources - estimated by authors
YEARLY SUMMATIONS FOR
1961 May - Dec A
19«2
1963
W64 Jan - Sap
(3-16)
Guy - Storm
Agnes 6/72 S
ABOVE QUARTERLY DATA FOR SCOTTS RON
2900 10.0 300
9.B
3.8
1.8
49.1 49.1 500
44.1
50.4
66.4
34.2
20.4
Page 3 of 4
-------
EXHIBIT 19-
By universal Soil
Loss Equation
Z Area Distance to
Case, Location Method of Watershed Disturbed receptor
and Date Computltut K Area by Constr stress)
acres feet
(3-17)
teeder 1-40
7/13-9/16 '71 Q 24.0 83.0 800
9/16-2/6 '72
2/6-4/24 '72
4/24-5/8 '72
5/8-6/9 '72
6/9-7/11 '72
7/11-8/15 '72
(3-20)
Colaa Creek
(Knott)
Gaging Station
•O 1969 A 6900 14.0 2500
X>
1970 A 8.0
1967 A HA
x top nusiber Is author estimate of sediments due to construct!
(not available for 1967); lover nusiber Is total neasured eed
Single Stona
Blekey Blvd.
2/11/69 S 736 42.0 500
Calu Creek
gaging
St. 2/11/69 S 6900 U.O 2500
Hlckey Blvd
1/20/69 S 736 42.0 500
Colau Creek
1/20/69 S 6900 14.0 2500
Avalon
I/ JO/69 S 211 20.0 500
Yield
(Observed)
tons/acre
67.0
97.0
0.68
51.0
58.5
128.5
75.0
61.4*
85.2
41.0
66.5
147.0
n activity
Lnent.
1.21
1.5
0.56
0.68
10.0
AVERAGE OF RATIO VALUES FOR ALL C
Yield
(Predicted)
238.0
108.0
45.4
113.0
387.0
1134.0
1474.0
45.7
44.0
45.7
4.56
4.38
0.67
0.66
0.66
SE STUDIES
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
3.5
1.1
66.7
2.2
6.8
8.8
19.7
0.74*
0.53
1.11
0.68
0.31
3.8
2.9
1.2
0.96
0.07
7.37
By Loading Function
Adjusted For
Distance to Streaa
Ratio
Yield Predicted/
(Predicted) Observed
54.7
24.8
10.4
26.0
88.9
261.
339.
1571
7.8
12.6
1.3
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.82
0.26
15.3
0.51
1.52
2.0
4.5
0.18
0.19
1.1
0.52
0.4
0.17
0.03
1.33
By Loading Function
Adjusted For
Z Area Disturbed
Yield
f Predicted)
25.O
11.3
4.8
11.9
40.6
119.
155.
16. 0*
22.1
15.2
24.6
0.7
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
Ratio
Predicted/
Observed
0.37
0.12
7.0
0.23
0.69
0.93
2.03
0.26
0.37
0.56
0.75
0.18
0.25
0.02
1.78
Page 4 of 4
-------
Equation as generally greater than unity, the average value being
f (\ 9 ^^
7.37. In contrast, L. D. Meyers ~ reports a value very close
to unity (0198) at the foot of an experimental plot. This
difference is probably due, in part, to the effects of intervening
terrains.
The improvement in predictive capability of the two fitted loading
functions relative to the Universal Equation for construction sites
is indicated by the generally lower values of the predicted/ob-
served ratio values for the loading functions. The average values
over all case studies are as follows:
Average Value
of Ratio
Universal Soil Loss Equation 7.37
Loading function with adjustment
for distance 1.33
Loading function with adjustment for
percent of watershed area disturbed 1.78
The reader is reminded that the above values are averages of ratios
of predicted (or estimated) yields in tons/acre to observed yields
in the same unit. Thus a ratio of 1.00 indicates that the
estimated and observed values are equal.
Averages, Standard Deviations, and Frequency Distributions of
Predicted/Observed Ratios
It is with some reluctance that the writers report summary statis-
tics (averages, ranges, standard deviations) of the yield ratios
because of difficulties in interpretation of these statistics and
the potential for misapplication.
One problem of interpretation is in the meaning of an average of
ratios. Given the method of computing ratios used in this report,
100
-------
the values cannot be negative. Any estimate less than the corres-
ponding observed yield produces a ratio value between zero and
unity; any estimate greater than the observed yield produces a
value greater than unity — sometimes much greater since it is
not constrained by an upper bound as in the case of the less-
than-observed ratio. If, for example, an estimated value is one-
fifth the observed, the ratio is 0.20. If it is five times
greater, the value is 5.00. The average of these two ratio values
is 2.60, implying that "on the average" the predicted values are
2.6 times greater than observed. From one standpoint, the
average appears unduly weighted by the large ratio values when
the estimate exceeds the observed value. This weighting effect
is similarly reflected in measures of scatter such as the range
or standard deviation.
With the above observations and caveats, the summary statistics
of the yield ratios for values predicted by the Universal Soil
Loss Equation and the two loading functions are given in Exhibit 20.
In presenting these results, the authors emphasize that the
statistics have not been subjected to thorough analysis evaluation,
and therefore are not recommended for use in testing of hypotheses
concerning closeness of fit of predicted-to-observed yields or
similarity among results predicted by the three methods.
Perhaps more revealing and more easily interpreted than the
summary statistics are the frequency distributions of ratios
presented in Exhibit 21. As expected, the predictions by the
Universal Soil Loss Equation tend generally to overestimate the
sediment yield, because of the effects of terrain between disturbed
area and point of measurement. Additional analysis of the large
percent of cases with ratios greater than 5.0 might reveal a more
nearly symmetric tailing off of these higher estimates by the
101
-------
Exhibit 20. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PREDICTED/OBSERVED
RATIOS OBTAINED BY THREE ESTIMATING PROCEDURES
By Universal Soil
Loss Equation
By Loading Function
Adjusted for
Distance to Stream
By Loading Function
Adjusted for
% Area Disturbed
o
to
Average of All Ratio Values*
Standard Deviations
Number of Observations* in
above statistics
7.37
11.20
53
1.33
2.23
47
1.78
3.09
53
*For Scott Run, only annual averages were used, and the storm during quarter of July-September
1962 was excluded. For Colma Creek, only single storm results were used.
-------
PREDICTIONS BY UNIVERSAL
SOIL LOSS EQUATION
20 .25 .33.50.67 1.01.52.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PREDICTIONS BY LOADING FUNCTION
. ADJUSTED FOR DISTANCE TO
RECEPTOR STREAM
PREDICTIONS BY LOADING FUNCTION
- ADJUSTED FOR PERCENT OF
WATERSHED AREA DISTURBED
0 .20.25.33.50.67 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 > 5.0 0 .20 .25. 33 . 50 .67 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.04.0 5.0>5.0
£0
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
-
•
-
K
-
t-
-
PREDICTIONS BY UNIVERSAL
SOIL LOSS EQUATION
f^T
™
™
PREDICTIONS BY LOADING FUNCTION ADJUSTED
FOR DISTANCE TO RECEPTOR STREAM
PREDICTIONS BY LOADING FUNCTION ADJUSTED
FOR PERCENT OF WATERSHED AREA DISTURBED
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
T
.
-
-
r
-
-
-
"
r
^
P™
vfi;
!••.•:•:•:•
1
i^
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
'm
a :•:•:•:•
1
0 .20 .25.33.50.671.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.05.0>5.0
0 .20 .25.33.50.67 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 >5.0 0 .20 .25 .33.50.67 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
PREDICTED/OBSERVED RATIO INTERVALS
(NOTE: These distributions are based on a larger number
of ratio values than the statistics in Exhibit 20, since
quarterly and yearly estimates are included in the
histograms.}
EXHIBIT 21
PERCENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF PREDICTED/OBSERVED RATIOS
-------
Universal Equation. This line of analysis was not pursued since
our primary interest is in the fitted loading functions.
The frequency distribution for the loading function adjusted for
distance between disturbed area and receptor stream exhibits a
definite clustering near the ratio value of 1.00, and shows a
general symmetry about this value. Instead of tailing off at
either extreme, however, it displays a clustering at the extremes.
In this distribution, approximately 53 percent of the yield ratios
lie between values of 0.50 and 1.50, implying that 53 percent of
the estimated yields fell within ±50 percent of the observed. Also,
about 90 percent of the values lie between 0.20 and 5.00, implying
that 90 percent of the estimated yields fall within one-fifth and
five times the observed value. The median lies in the interval
0.67-1.00. These percentage intervals and ranges are based on the
case studies of this report, and should not be considered univer-
sally applicable.
The function adjusted for percent of basin area disturbed by con-
struction also exhibits a clustering about the ratio value of 1.0.
The distribution appears generally symmetric about this value.
Some 30 percent of the values lie within the ratio range of 0.50 to
1.50, implying that 30 percent of the estimated values fall within
50 percent of observed. Also, about 84 percent of the ratios lie
between 0.20 and 5.00. The median lies between ratio values of
1.01 and 1.50.
It should be noted that the ratio intervals used in forming these
distributions are arbitrary and highly non-uniform. Intervals for
values less than unity are arbitrarily based on the fractions 1/5,
1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 while those greater than unity are 1.5,
3, 4, and 5. If unit intervals between 0 and 5 had been used,
104
-------
roughly half of the observations would have been in the 0-1 interval
for both of the fitted functions. This arrangement would have
provided little detail about the low estimates.
Accuracy of the Loading Functions; Generality of Application
There are three general conditions that must be weighed and taken
into account when considering whether the fitted loading functions
should be used to estimate sediment yield for areas other than those
used to develop the study.
First, the potential user should recognize that the soil type,
terrain, and rainfall patterns of the case study sites are not
entirely general for the United States. In particular, the Great
Plains and Western Mountain areas are not included. Nevertheless,
the studies do include a substantial variety of soil types and
terrain features, and the importance of such a variety should not
be minimized.
Second, the functions were developed from available data from the
literature rather than from experiments designed specifically for
this purpose, and the results did not lend themselves readily to
straight-forward statistical analysis. The level of analysis
performed thus far has not been sufficiently detailed to permit
testing of hypotheses or setting confidence limits on the accuracy
of estimates. Possibly, further analysis of the data in Exhibits
19 and 21 may produce these types of results.
Third, and on the optimistic side of the picture, few if any models
for predicting sediment yield from construction sites have been
examined and analyzed to the extent of the loading functions
developed in this report. For computing sediment reaching a
105
-------
watercourse some distance from the disturbed area under the range
of conditions defined in the case studies, the superiority of these
loading functions to the Universal Soil Loss Equation seems intui-
tively apparent (although not statistically proven) from the fre-
quency distributions in Exhibit 21.
In summary, the authors conclude that the loading functions
developed here provide the best available means for predicting
the sediment yield from a construction site, in the absence of
specific yield data for that site. This conclusion is based on an
extensive review of the literature as well as the foregoing
analysis of data. Although no solid statistical basis has been
developed for assessing the accuracy of their estimates, some
general indications of the relation of estimated yields to observed
yields may be drawn from the frequency distributions of Exhibit 21.
Given that one of the loading functions is to be used, should it
be based on the distance-to-stream adjustment or the percent-
area-disturbed adjustment? Visual comparison of the frequency
diagrams in Exhibit 21 suggests that the former provides a somewhat
better agreement between estimated and observed values, but this
difference is sufficiently slight to be viewed as insignificant.
The user could base his choice on whether distance-to-stream data
or disturbed-area data are more readily available.
Recommendations for Improved Loading Functions -
Since the fitted loading functions have been empirically derived
from a rather small data set, they should be subject to further
testing, preferably in areas of the Midwest and central U. S. from
which no data were obtained. In view of the observed impact of
season on sediment yield, it appears important to obtain sufficient
data to permit treating seasonal effect as a separate variable.
106
-------
It would be advisable either to design and carry out a series of
experiments for this purpose or to locate similar experiments now
under way and to determine which factors necessary to the soil loss
equations are missing from those projects. Such data could then be
collected in conjunction with the ongoing studies in order to
eliminate the need for a large number of estimations.
Some of the data that should be gathered in future studies include:
- Accurate site descriptions including areas and timing of
soil exposure, slope length, slope steepness, and amount of
internal drainage.
- Position of construction with respect to stream.
- Character of land between stream and site including slope,
cover, and potential sediment traps.
- Continuous monitoring of both rainfall and sediment flow.
- Information on other sediment sources in the basin.
- Runoff and sediment data from control basins unaffected by
construction.
One construction site that appears particularly well suited to
providing needed data is the construction of Interstate 1-70 over
the Vail Pass in Colorado. This project is being monitored for
several environmentally-related parameters by a coordinating group
representing several Federal agencies, including the Denver
regional office of EPA. With minimal additional effort, excellent
data could be obtained for developing an Improved loading function
for construction activities.
HOW TO USE THE LOADING FUNCTIONS
Since both of the loading functions developed here are modifications
of the Universal Soil Loss Equation, their use essentially
107
-------
represents a manipulation of the results obtained by applying this
equation to a given area. If the Universal Soil Loss Equation is
used to estimate the sediment loss for a given area disturbed by
construction operations, the loading functions can be used to
modify this estimate to obtain a more accurate estimate of the
quantity of soil that will enter a receptor waterbody located a
distance from the disturbed area.
Comments on Use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation
The Universal Soil Loss Equation is shown in the preceding sub-
section titled "History of Sediment-Loss Equations," and the fac-
tors that make up the equation are briefly described there. This
presentation is not sufficiently detailed to enable a potential
user to apply the equation either to an agricultural area or a
construction site. The use of this equation is described in
detail in referenced publications, including Predicting Rainfall
Erosion from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains, published by
the USDA Agricultural Research Service (Reference 6-3), and
Comparative Costs of Erosion and Erosion and Sediment Control
published by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (Reference
6-6). Since the description of procedures for using the
Universal Soil Loss Equation are somewhat lengthy, and since the
procedures are detailed in other publicly available publications,
they will not be repeated here.
To the potential user of the Universal Soil Loss Equation for the
purpose of obtaining inputs to the loading functions presented
here, we offer the following comments concerning evaluation of
certain factors of the equations.
R-Factor (Rainfall) -
108
-------
If sufficiently detailed precipitation and hydrographic data are
available, the "single-storm" method may be used. If not, the
"average annual" method may be used. References 6-3 and 6-6
describe slightly different approaches for evaluating R by the
single-storm method. The results of these methods are compared in
an earlier subsection titled "Comparison of Two Methods for
Computing R for Single Storms" (See page 87).
The importance of seasonal effects on predictive capability of
loading functions has also been discussed in a previous subsection.
When the average annual method is used, it is possible to account
(to some degree) for seasonal variations in rainfall by a
procedure described in Reference 6-3.
C-Factor (Cropping or Ground Cover) -
In all of the cases used to fit loading functions, the assumption
was made that the soil was denuded and possibly subsoils were
exposed. Since there was no cover crop, the C-Factor was assigned
a value of "1". These same conditions will probably obtain at any
construction site, arid a value of "1" used for C.
P-Factor (Erosion Control Practice) -
P represents the reduction in soil loss by use of control measures.
The procedures described for evaluating P in References 6-3 and
6-6 pertain primarily to agricultural practices. In fitting the
loading functions, a value of "1" was assigned to P, corresponding
to no control measures. We suggest that the user also assigned
this value to P when no control measures, or measures of
undetermined efficiency, are used. When measures of known and
proven efficiency are used, P may appropriately be assigned the
value of its efficiency. (Thus, if the control measure reduced
soil loss to 60 percent of the loss if no control were employed,
lb9
-------
P would have a value of 0.60.)
Estimation of Soil Loss by Use of Loading Functions - A Numerical
Example
When an estimate of soil loss from a construction area has been
obtained by use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation, it is then
adjusted by means of the "delivery-ratio" portion of the loading
function. This can be done in either of two ways, depending on
what data are available:
- If the distance between the lowest part of the construction
site and the receiving stream is known, this distance,
expressed in feet, can be used in the equation:
M=YAD-°-22
where: M is tons of soil delivered to stream
Y is soil loss in tons/acre, as estimated by the
Universal Soil Loss Equation
A is size of area disturbed by construction in acres
D is distance from construction site to stream.
- If the area of the watershed is known and the area dis-
turbed by construction is known, then the ratio of the
disturbed area to the total watershed area, expressed as a
percentage, may be used in the equation:
M = Y A (%A)~°<51
where M, Y, and A are as defined above
(%A) is percent of watershed area disturbed by
construction.
As an example, let us assume that a 20-acre site within a 200-acre
watershed is denuded or otherwise disturbed by construction. The
Universal Soil Loss Equation predicts a soil loss rate of 25 tons
per acre over the estimated period during which the soil is
110
-------
disturbed. If the average distance between the lower boundary of
the site (from which drainage will occur) and the receiving stream
is 400 feet, then the estimated amount of soil lost to the stream
will be:
M = (25) (20) (400)~°*22
= 134 tons
Or, if the loading function involving percent area disturbed is
used, the calculation would be:
M = (25) (20) (10)"°*51
= 155 tons
The authors recommend that the function involving distance-to-
stream be used when data are available, since this function gave
better fit of estimated to observed soil losses.
Ill
-------
REFERENCES
6-1 Musgrave, G. W., "The Quantitative Evaluation of Factors in Water
Erosion - A First Approximation," Journal of Soil and Water Con-
servation. 1947.
6-2 Spraberry, J. A., Predicting Sediment Yields From Complex Watersheds,
Paper No. 68-208, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Sedimentation
Lab., Oxford, Miss., June 18-21, 1968.
6-3 Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D., Predicting Rainfall-Erosion
Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains. Soil and Water
Conservation, Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,
Washington, D.C., May 1965.
6-4 Wischmeier, W. H., "A Rainfall Erosion Index for a Universal Soil
Loss Equation," Soil Science Society Proceedings, Vol. 23, 1959,
246-249.
6-5 Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D., "Rainfall Energy and Its
Relationship to Soil Loss," Transactions, American Geophysical
Union. Vol. 39, No. 2, April 1958, 285-291.
6-6 Hotes, F. L., Ateshian, K. H., and Sheikh, B., Comparative Costs
of Erosion and Sediment Control, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Program Operating, Water Quality and Non-
Point Source of Control Division, EPA-430/9-73-016, Washington,
D.C., July 1973.
6-7 Brandt, Gerald H., et al., An Economic Analysis of Erosion and
Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing Urbanization,
W72-08236, The Dow Chemical Co., 191P, February 1972, PB-209-212.
6-8 Wischmeier, W. H., et al., "A Soil Erodibility Nomograph for Farm-
land and Contruction Sites," Journal of Soj.1 and Water Conservation.
Vol. 26, 1971. ~~~~
6-9 Piest, R. F.,and Miller, C. R., "Sediment Sources and Sediment
Yields," Chapter IV Proposed ASCE, Manual of Sedimentation Engi-
neering, Journal of Hydraulics Division. Vol. 96, HY 6 June, 1970,
1283-1329.
6-10 Roehl, J. W., "Sediment Source Areas, Delivery Ratios and Influencing
Morphological Factors," International Association of Scientific
Hydrololgy. Pub. No. 59, 1962. " ~~"
6-11 Williams, Jimmy R., and Berndt, Harold D., "Sediment Yield Computed
With Universal Equation" Journal of Hydraulics Division. Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, HY 12, Vol. 98, Dec. 1972,
2087-2098.
112
-------
6-12 Foster, G. R.,and Meyer, L. D., "A Closed Form Soil Erosion
Equation for Upland Areas", Ch. 12, Sedlmentat ion-Pro c eedings
of Symposium to Honor Prof. H. A. Einstein at Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins, Colo. 1972.
6-13 Yorke, T. H., and Davis, W. J., Sediment Yields of Urban Construc-
tion Sources, Montgomery County, Maryland, A progress report,
Rock Creek-Anacostia River Basins, U. S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey, Parkville, Md., 1972.
6-14 Vice, R. B., et al., Sediment Movement in an Are_a_ of Suburban
Highway Construction Scott Run Basin, Fairfax County, Virginia,
1961-64; Hydrologic Effects of Urban Growth, U.S. Geological
Survey Water - Supply 1591-E, 1973.
6-15 Guy, H. P., "Residential Construction and Sedimentation at
Kensington, lid." Reprint from Proceedings of the Federal Inter-
Agency Sedimentation Conference, 1963, Misc. Pub. No. 970,
Agricultural Research Service, Paper No. 3, June 1965,30-37.
6-16 Guy, Harold P., and Clayton, Terry L., "Technical Notes, Proc.
Paper 10024," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Vol. 99, No.
HY 9, September 1973, 1651-1658.
6-17 Reader, Howard E., Sediment Resulting From Construction of an
Interstate Highway in the Piedmont Area of North Carolina,
U.S. Geological Survey, North Carolina State Highway Commission,
Open-File report, 1973.
6-18 Oiseker, E. G., and E. C. Richardson, "Erosion Rates and Control
Methods on Highway Cut," Transactions^ American Society of
Agricultural Engineer ing. Vol. 5, 1962, 153-155.
6-19 Reed, L. A., Effects of Roadway and Pond Construction on Sediment
Yield Near Harrisbure. Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey,
Open-File Report, August 1971.
6-20 Knott, J. M., Effects of Urbanization on Sedimentation and Flood-
flows in Colma Creek Basin, Calif., U. S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Menlo Park, Calif.,
February 22, 1973.
6-21 Wischmeier, W. H., and L. D. Meyer, "Soil Erodibility on Construc-
tion Areas", Soil Erosion: Causes and Mechanisms; Prevention
and Control. Highway Research Board Special Report No. 35, Wash-
ington, D. C., 1973.
6-22 Meyer, L. D., W. H. Wischmeier, and W. H. Daniel, "Erosion, Run-
off and Vegetation of Denuded Construction Sites", Transactions
of the ASAE. Vol. 14, No. 1, 1971.
113
-------
6-23 Guy, H. P. and D. E. Jones, "Urban Sediment in Perspective",
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, December 1972.
6-24 Roth, C. B., et al.. Prediction of Subsoil Erodibilitv Using
Chemical. Mineralogical. and Physical Parameters. Office of
Research and Monitoring. US EPA, Washington, D. C.,
December 1973.
114
-------
SECTION VII
METHODS OF CONTROLLING POLLUTION FROM HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
A variety of methods are available for controlling water pollution from
hydrologic modification activities. The diversity is illustrated by the
following combinations of methods and applications:
Actual or Proposed
Application Control Method
Suction Dredging In-line oxidation of dredged
material
Operation of dams and Selective release and mixing
impoundments of different layers from a
stratified impoundment
Out-of-water construction Installation of storm drain-
(residential or commercial age system prior to con-
development) struction of buildings, and
use of silt filters around
storm drains
Most of the available data on control methods pertain to out-of-stream
/
construction, where the materials to be controlled and the methods of
control are fairly well defined. This situation is contrasted to cer-
tain dredging activities where it is sometimes difficult to define
which parameters should be controlled in order to prevent pollution
(or perhaps re-pollution) of the water.
TYPES OF CONTROL MEASURES
Out-of-Stream Control Methods
Most of the available information addresses the control of erosion
and sediment. No additional information has been revealed by the
present survey on controlling the transport of pesticides or pollutants
other than sediment from construction sites, although a model of
115
-------
pesticide transport has been developed for the EPA Southeastern
Environmental Research Laboratory and is expected to be tested for
various soil types.
Out-of-stream control methods fall into two main categories: vegetative
controls and structural controls. Vegetative controls are those mea-
sures involved in establishing or reestablishing a ground cover at the
construction site. This includes the various mulching and tilling
operations and combinations thereof. The mulching and tilling processes
are considered only as a part of the vegetative control measures because
they are not meant to be permanent. Rather, the different appli-
cations of organic mulches, rock, chemical mulches (such as polyvinyl
alcohol, resin products, elastomeric polymer emulsions, etc.) and
sheets of jute netting or plastic, are meant to serve as protection for
the topsoil until the vegetation becomes established.
Structural control measures for out-of-stream construction include small
flood control dams, dikes, levees, sediment basins and outfall structures,
terraces, diversion structures and channels, grassed waterways and outlets,
grade stabilizing structures such as chutes, checkdams and drop spillways,
serrated side slopes for highway cut sections, filter berms, flexible
downdrains, flexible erosion control mats, and temporary basins. During
the past two years several publications issued by Federal and local
governmental agencies have described and evaluated many of the available
methods for controlling silt from out-of-stream construction.^7"2^7
These publications present descriptions and constructions detail for
many of the structural control methods. References 7-3 and 7-4
present cost data for certain of the control methods. Reference 7-4
also provides cost comparison for specific control measures for different
areas of the Nation.
116
-------
An economic analysis of control methods, unusual in its synthesis of
field observations, construction company estimates, and theoretical
sediment yield estimates, is the study of control methods as applied
to the Seneca Creek watershed in Maryland.\'~^} This study is sum-
marized as Case 42 of Appendix F.
Control Measures for In-Stream Construction Sites, Operation of
Impoundments, and Dredging
In the Fryingpan-Arkansas and Teton Dam Construction sites presented
in Case 22 of Appendix C, the use of closed water processing systems,
settling basins, filters, and flocculants has been successful in con-
trolling water turbidity. A filtering system was used at Cunningham
Tunnel. Where there is more space available, larger settling basins
may be effectively substituted for filtering systems.
Increased suspended sediment and resulting increased deposition can
be controlled, at least in part, by channel control structures in-streato.
Increased flow rates caused by stream realignment, etc., also increase
bank erosion. This, too, can be controlled by structures.
Revetments such as riprap (dumped, hand-placed or windrowed), cement
concrete or asphalt concrete, filter blankets, jetties, vegetation,
or chemical stabilization as well as.different types of mattresses
all protect stream banks from .increased erosion potential caused by channel
modification. To guard against deposition of sediment in navigable
channels, dikes may be constructed which cause deposition along the
sides of a river and direct an increased flow toward the channel which
is consequently scoured by the greater velocity and kept open for
navigation. Channel straightening and subaqueous lining also increases
velocity and thus decreases deposition.
117
-------
Sediments and other pollutants will be deposited in reservoirs to some
extent. If the reservoir is large enough, the water it contains will
probably be stratified. This offers another opportunity to control
the quality of the water downstream. By selective withdrawal of stra-
tified layers of the reservoirs waters, the quality of the water that
reaches points downstream can be enhanced.
Few methods exist to control water pollutants released by dredging or
other types of bottom disturbances. Perhaps the most effective approach
is appropriate planning.. Since bottom material is usually deposited
in layers, harmful deposits may exist under several layers and cause
little or no harm when left undisturbed. Thorough surveys should
precede any dredging operation in order to determine whether or not
any toxic substance will be released by the activity.
Oxygen level is severely diminished for a certain short time following
disposal of dredged material. Research has been done concerning the
possibility of oxidation of the dredge material before it is deposited in
order to alleviate this condition. Approaches include in-line oxidation
during suction dredging and induced-turbulance aeration during sludge
hauling. Methods of filtering dredge material before disposal as well
as the use of flocculants are being experimented with. '
The type of control used during dredged material disposal depends on
whether or not containment or dispersal is sought. Containment is
usually the course of action when the dredged material being deposited
is toxic. In this case, it is usually deposited on land within dikes,
but some work has been done on the use of chemicals that will allow the
material to be disposed of as solid aggregate. Control measures in
dispersal depend largely on planning to insure that the receiving
water and its benthic environment are compatible with the material
to be dispersed. ''
118
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL MEASURES
Published information on the effectiveness of control measures is
scarce and available information incomplete. Most of the available
quantitative data is for out-of-stream construction, with practically
none for in-water activities.
Out-of-Stream Construction
Most published information is based on results of soil loss measure-
ments from experimental plots rather than actual, large-scale con-
struction operations:
• By application of various combinations of netting, seed, ferti-
lizer, and polymer emulsion to 10 x 44 ft. plots on a roadside
fill with 80 percent gradient, Bethamy and. Kidd(7"8^
obtained soil loss reductions ranging from 70 to 95 percent
compared with an untreated plot, over an 11 month period.
(See Case Study 35 in Appendix F )
• By application of various combinations of seed, mulch, straw,
and asphalt emulsion and by using various tilling and pressing
methods on 6 x 30 foot experimental plots of 40 percent gra-
dient on highway slopes in 4 north Georgia counties, Barnett,
et al. obtained soil loss reductions ranging from about 50 to
90 percent relative to bare plots. The experiments extended
over a 2-year period. (See Case Study 39)
• By applying staw mulch to 10 x 30 foot experimental plots on
a 15 percent slope, Meyer, Wischmeier, and Foster obtained
soil loss reductions ranging to 33 to 96 percent relative to
bare plots. Measurements were made during a simulated rain-
storm totaling approximately 5 inches and applied over a period
of about 4 hours. (See Case Study 40)
119
-------
• By application of woodchips and stone chips, gravel, straw,
and Portland cement mulches in various combinations to 6 x 35-
foot plots with 20 percent gradient at a highway construction
site in Indiana, Meyers, Johnson, and Foster observed soil
loss reductions ranging from 83 to 5 percent relative to bare
soil, following simulated rainfall totaling 5 inches and applied
during a two-day period. (See Case Study 41 )
In addition to these experimental results obtained from small plots,
soil loss reductions from various types of control measures are reported
(7 •*)
in the Fairfax County, Virginia, Erosion Siltation Control Handbook v/ J'
(7-4 )
and in another EPA publication. The reported values, which will
not be repeated here in detail, range from 90 percent (for wood cellu-
lose fiber and ryegrass) to 99 percent (for grass sod), all relative
to bare soil. The experimental results summarized above, and pre-
sumably those given in the Fairfax County handbook, refer to sediment
lost from a disturbed area, not to the amount reaching a receptor
watercourse.
The question of soil loss from large construction sites and developing
areas is addressed by Brant, et al., in an interesting synthesis of
field data and theoretical analysis. ~5' These investigators estimate
that for large, developing areas, soil loss reductions of around 60
percent can be achieved by relatively simple and inexpensive measures
such as seeding, fertilizing and mulching, if applied well in advance
of construction. Reductions of exceeding 95 percent can be achieved by
addition of structural measures such as sediment basins. (See Case
Study 42 )
In-Stream Activities (Dredging. In-Water Construction)
Virtually no quantitative data are available. The reader may be able
to draw some rough conclusions by examining the partially reduced tur-
bidity data for dam construction operations presented in Case Study 22.
120
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION VII
7-1. Crawford, N. H., and Donigan, A., Jr., Pesticide Transport
and Runoff Model for Agricultural Lands, Hydrocomp, Inc., EPA
660/2-74-13, Prepublication copy (December 1973).
i
7-2. Becker, B. C., et al., Guideline for Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Implementations, Hittman Associate, Inc., for Mary-
land Department of Water Resources and the U. S. EPA, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
7-3. Fairfax County (Virginia) Erosion-Siltation Control Handbook,
Fairfax, Virginia (December 1973).
7-4. Hotes, F. L., et al., Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment
Control for Construction Activities, EPA-430-73-016, Engineering-
Science, Inc., for U.S. EPA, Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington, D.C. (July 1973).
7-5. Brandt, G. H., et al., An Economic Analysis of Erosion and
Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing Urbanization,
W72-08246, The Dow Chemical Co., 191P, PB-209-212 (February 1972).
7-6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Dredge Materials Research," ODMR,
Misc. Paper D-73-3 (July 1973).
7-7. Andreluinas, V. L., "Real or Imaginery Dilemna?," Water Spectrum
Vol. 4, No. 1 (1972).
7-8. Bethlahmy, N. , and Kidd, W. J., Jr., Controlling Soil Movement
from Steep Roadfills, Boise, Idaho, U. S. Forest Service Research
Note INT-45, USDA, Inter-Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station (1966).
121
-------
SECTION VHI
CASE STUDIES
In the data acquisition phase of this study, some 500 published data
sources were reviewed and 104 personal communications made. Rela-
tively few of the publications contained data of value to the study,
although many of the personal communications produced useful informa-
tion. Certain of the publications and unpublished projects revealed
by personal communications contained information of such value that it
was summarized as "case studies", which outline the project and present
essentially all of the reported data considered useful for the present
project. These case studies were prepared primarily for use in the
present study, but contain an extensive compilation of data that might
well be useful in other investigations. For this reason, 42 case
studies are presented in Appendices A through F of this report.
GENERIC CONTENT OF CASE STUDIES
In addition to presenting quantitative data, each case study describes
the basic study in which the data were developed. In certain of the
case studies, the findings are compared with results reported in other
studies. The following information is included in the case studies:
- Reference to source of information
- Purpose of study
- Site location and description
soil type
— topography
— climate
- Study method
- Parameters measured
- Time frame
- Results
122
-------
All of the cases summarized did not contain information on each of the
above topics nor did each one fit easily into this pattern of presen-
tation, but by-and-large the above format is followed for all case
studies.
HOW TO ACCESS THE CASE STUDY DATA
Case studies pertaining to each of the major categories of hydrologic
modifications are presented in separate appendices. In addition,
there is an appendix for case studies or control methods.
Appendix Category
A Highway Construction
B Urban Construction
C Dams and Impoundments
D Channelization
E Dredging and In-Water Construction
F Control Methods
Types of Data in Each Case Study
Many of the case studies Include data on more than one of the above
categories. In particular, most of those on highways, urban construc-
tion, or dams also contain data on control methods. To aid in indi-
cating more completely the types of information contained in each
case study, two cross-indexes were prepared. Exhibit 22 shows which
case studies contain information for general topics within each cate-
gory of hydrologic modifications. Exhibit 23 shows which specific
parameters were monitored or measured in each case study.
Several of the case studies report data from controlled experiments.
Exhibit 24 lists the parameters controlled in each of these cases.
123
-------
Exhibit 22. GENERAL TOPICS COVERED
IN CASE STUDIES
Topics Case Study Number
Highway Construction
Causing Sedimentation on Land 1,2,3,4,6
Affecting Water Body 1,3,4,5,7
Control of Sediment Loss 2,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42
Areal Construction
Causing Sedimentation on Land 9,11,12,13
Affecting Water Body 1.9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19,22,23
Control of Sediment Loss 17,12,39,40,41,42
Dam and Reservoir Construction 21,25,26,27
Dredging and Dredged Material
Disposal 28,29,30,31,32,33,34
Control Measures
Economic Considerations 42
Mulches 2,35,26,28,39,40,41,42
Revegetation 2,36,39,41,42
Mechanical-Structural 21,22,33,37,42
124
-------
Exhibit 13. PARAMETERS MBASPfrlP
m CASE STUDIES
10
Oi
Chaan*l/Str*WL*L* Morphology
Cho»lc«l Characteristic* of frrf<%^nt
Ef f*cu oa Btota
trad OM
HlMTalo(lc Chn«cc*rlaclCB of 8*dlMHC
&•««(• tatloo
Soil LBM 0«riT«I from tJal«r«*l Soil Lose Equation
TurtWltj
Itour Dl»dnrj.
Z X III X
X X X X XX
X XX XXXXXI
xxx x
XX XX
x x
x xxx
XXI XIX X X X X
-------
Exhibit 24. PARAMETERS CONTROLLED
IN CASE STUDIES
Topics
Case Study Number
Fertilization
Mulch Rate
Mulch Type
Rainfall
Revegetation
Structural Controls
Topography
2,36,39,42
40,41,42
2,35,36,38,39,41,42
2,12,38,39
2,36,37,42
21,22,33,37,42
12
126
-------
Geographic Distribution of Case Study Sites
To aid the potential user in identifying data sources within particular
physiographic regions, those case studies located within each major
physiographic region of the U.S. are shown in Exhibit 25.
REFERENCES AND EXHIBITS WITHIN THE CASE STUDIES
All references to bibliographic or other sources within the case studies
appearing in Appendices A through F are consolidated in a single List of
References which appears in Appendix G.
Exhibits within any case study are, in general, reproduced from the
referenced source document for that case study. Except where a case
study involves more than one referenced source, the source is not, in
general, shown on each separate exhibit. All exhibits reproduced
photographically utilized the best copy available to the authors.
Some of the "originals" were of poor quality, such as xerographic copies
of stripchart records. Most data tabulations were retyped when the
quality of the original was poor, except when the tabulation was
unusually extensive or complex. The authors regret that some of the
exhibits in the appendices are not of the best quality, but believe
that they serve adequately to convey the information contained in the
original.
127
-------
Exhibit 25. PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION OF CASE STUDIES
(EXCLUDING DREDGING)
Region
Atlantic Plains
Case Number
16
37
Cascade - Sierra Mountains
Case Number
15
21
Interior Plains
Case Number
12
13
23
25
26
38
41
Intermountain Plateau
Case Number
35
Nationwide
Case Number
27
Northern Rocky Mountains
Case Number
5
Pacific Border
Case Number
8
Page
291
469
286
326
244
253
342
365
369
472
490
462
373
184
203
Page 1 of 2
128
-------
Exhibit 25 (Continued). PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION
OF CASE STUDIES
(EXCLUDING DREDGING)
Region
Piedmont
Case Number
1
2
4
9
10
11
14
17
19
20
24
36
39
41
Southern Rocky Mountains
Case Number
22
Valley and Ridge
Case Number
3
6
148
156
173
225
234
238
262
294
311
317
351
465
479
490
329
161
187
Page 2 of 2
129
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDICES
LIST OF APPENDICES AND CASE STUDIES WITHIN EACH APPENDIX
Appendix Case Study Page
A Effects of Hignway Construction Activities on Water
Quality
Case 1. Sediment Resulting from Construction of
a Section of Interstate Highway 1-40 in
North Carolina. 148
Case 2. Cartersville, Georgia, Highway Cuts and
Erosion 156
Case 3. Construction at the Site of Interstate
Highway 1-81, Near Harrisburg, Pa. 161
Case 4. Highway Construction in Scott Run Basin,
Virginia 173
Case 5. Effects of Highway Construction on a
Montana Stream 184
Case 6. Sediment Runoff Control at Highway
Construction Sites (1-80) in Pennsylvania 187
Case 7. Sediment Discharge in the Lake Tahoe Basin,
California: 1972 Water Year 192
B Effects of Urban Construction on Water Quality
Case 8. Effects of Urbanization in the Colma Creek
Basin, California 203
Case 9. Residential Construction and Sedimentation
at Kensington, Maryland 225
Case 10. Effects of Construction on Fluvial Sediment,
Urban and Suburban Areas of Maryland 234
130
-------
Appendix Case Study Page
Case 11. Some Sediment Aspects of Tropical Storm
Agnes 238
Case 12. Prediction of Subsoil Erodibility Using
Chemical, Mineralogical, and Physical
Parameters 244
Case 13. Soil Erosion in the Detroit Metropolitan
Area 253
Case 14. Rock Creek-Anacostia River Basins 262
Case 15. Coyote Creek and Cold Creek Sediment Studies
near South Lake Tahoe, California 286
Case 16. Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization 291
Case 17. Joint Construction Sediment Control Project,
Columbia, Maryland 294
Case 18. Subdivision on Development Above Gunner's
Branch, Near Germantown Montgomery County,
Maryland. 303
C Effects of Dams and Impoundments on Water Quality
Case 19. Studies of Waste Assimilation in Impoundments
and Its Effects on Water Quality 311
Case 20. Effects of Urban Construction on Lake Barcroft 317
Case 21. Environmental Effects During Construction Martis
Creek Dam in California 326
Case 22. Construction of Dams and Tunnels on the Fryingpan-
Arkansas and Teton Dam Projects 329
Case 23. Behavior of Water in a Southwestern Impoundment -
Lake Thunderbird 342
Case 24. Sedimentation of Loch Raven and Prettyboy
Reservoirs, Baltimore County, Maryland 351
D Effects of Channelization on Water Quality
Case 25. Channelization of Blackwater Creek in Missouri 355
131
-------
Appendix Case Study Page
Case 26. Effects of Man's Manipulation of the Willow
River Channel, Iowa 369
Case 27. Evaluation of Forty-Two Channel Modification
Projects 373
E Effects of Dredging and In-Water Construction on
Water Quality
Case 28. San Pablo Bay - Dredge Spoils Disposal
Monitoring 379
Case 29. Study of Dredged Material Disposal in
San Francisco Bay 387
Case 30. Effects of Dredging on the Nutrient Levels
and Biological Populations of a Lake 401
Case 31. Study of Engineering Characteristics of
Polluted Dredging 420
Case 32. Hydraulic Dredging and the Effect of a Method
of Spoil Disposal on Water Quality and Juvenile
Salmon Survival in Port Gardner, Everett,
Washington 429
Case 33. Demonstration of the Separation and Disposal
of Concentrated Sediments, Prince George's
County, Maryland 438
Case 34. Characterization of Pollutant Availability for
San Francisco Bay Dredge Sediments 449
F Application of Control Measures
Case 35. Controlling Soil Movement from Steep
Roadfills, Boise, Idaho 462
Case 36. A Fertility Survey of Exposed Subsoils from
Highway Road Banks in the Coosa Watershed of
Northwest Georgia 465
Case 37. Erosion Control Study of Louisiana Road Side
Channels 469
Case 38. Protecting Steep Erosion Slopes Against Water
Erosion, Progress Report 2 472
132
-------
Appendix Case Study Page
Case 39• Study of Erosion Control on Highway
Slopes - Mulching 479
Case 40. Mulch Rates Required for Erosion Control
on Steep Slopes 487
Case 41. Stone and Woodchip Mulches for Erosion
Construction Sites 490
Case 42. An Economic Analysis of Erosion and
Sediment-Control Methods for Watersheds
Undergoing Urbanization 499
G References for Appendices A through F 520
H List of Personal Communications 525
133
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN APPENDICES
Exhibit Number
26 Project Site, 1-40, near Nelson, N.C. 149
27 Sediment Deposited and Precipitation, 1-40 151
28 Accumulation and Relation of Sediment
Deposited and Precipitation, 1-40 152
29 Comparison of Sediment Deposition and
Rainfall During Two Consecutive Survey
Periods, 1972 153
30 Sediment and Trap Characteristics, 1-40 154
31 Characteristics of Roadbank Plots near
Cartersville, Ga. 157
32 Average Annual Runoff and Erosion from Bare
Roadside Cuts and Flow Channels near
Cartersville, Ga. 159
33 Effect of Mulches on Density of Crownvetch
Cover, near Cartersville, Ga. 160
34 Location of Basins and Data-Collection Sites,
1-81 162
35 Monthly Water Discharge, 1-81 near Harrisburg,
Pa. 167
36 Hydrographs for Base-Flow Periods and Corre-
sponding Suspended Sediment Concentrations,
1-81, near Harrisburg, Pa. 169
37 Double-Mass Relation of Average Base-Flow
Suspended Sediment Concentrations by
6-Day Periods, 1-81, near Harrisburg, Pa. 170
38 Cumulative Suspended-Sediment Discharge, in
tons, Conodoguinet Creek Tributary Basin 171
39 Average Base-Flow Turbidities and Corre-
sponding Water Discharges, 1-81, near
Harrisburg, Pa. 172
40 Storm Runoff Events by Rate of Runoff and
Season, Scott Run Basin, Va., 1961-64 175
41 Land Use in Scott Run Basin, Va., 1961-64 176
42 Summary of Water Discharge, Sediment Yield,
and Related Variables by Storm Events for
Scott Run, McLean, Va. 178
43 Relation between Runoff and Sediment Discharge
for Storm Events in Scott Run Basin, Va. 181
44 Variations in Mean Concentrations of Sediment
for Storm Runoff, Scott Run Basin, Va.,
1961-64 182
45 Size Composition of Suspended Sediment
Transported by Storm Runoff from Scott
Run Basin, 1961-64 183
134
-------
Exhibit Number
46 Size Composition of Sediment Transported
by Scott Run, 1961-64 183
47 Game Fish Captured by Electric Shocker from
300 Foot Section of Flint Creek, Montana,
1955 and 1957 186
48 White Deer Creek Watershed 188
49 Lick Run Drainage Basin and Related Con-
struction Areas 189
50 Hydrographs and Sediment Concentration Graph,
Lick Run Area, Pa. 191
51 Gaging Stations and Gutter Flow Measuring
Installations, Lake Tahoe Basin, California 194
52 Daily Mean Runoff in Grass Lake Creek near
Meyers, California 195
53 Monthly Runoff at Selected Gaging Stations,
Lake Tahoe Basin, California , 196
54 Water Discharge at Gaging Stations Lake
Tahoe, California 197
55 Monthly Suspended Sediment Discharge at
Gaging Stations, Lake Tahoe Basin, Cali-
fornia 198
56 Suspended-Sediment Discharge, Lake Tahoe,
California 199
57 Suspended Sediment and Particle Size at
Selected Gaging Stations, Lake Tahoe,
California 200
58 Particle Size of Bed Material at Selected
Gaging Stations, Lake Tahoe, California 201
59 Aerial Photograph of Colma Creek Basin,
California (1971) 204
60 Soils Occurring in the Colma Creek Basin,
California 206
61 Generalized Land Use, Colma Creek Drainage
Basin, 1956 207
62 Land Use in Colma Creek, Drainage Basin,
1970 208
63 Hydrologic Data Stations, Colma Creek Basin 210
64 Summary of Precipitation Data, Colma Creek
Basin 212
65 Water Discharge of Colma Creek and Spruce
Branch at South San Francisco 213
66 Rainfall, Runoff, and Land Use During
November to March Storm Seasons 214
67 Relation Between Water Discharge and Time 215
135
-------
Exhibit Number
68 Water Discharge at Coima Creek Gaging
Station and Rainfall at San Francisco
Airport, January 20-21, 1967 216
69 Water and Sediment Discharge of Colma
Creek and Spruce Branch at South San
Francisco 218
70 Total Sediment Yield, Baain Upstream from
Colma Creek Gaging Station, 1966-70 219
71 Sediment Yield Indices for Various Land
Uses and Sediment Particle Sizes, Colma
Creek, Calif. 220
72 Annual Sediment Yields Upstream from Colma
Creek Gaging Station 222
73 Comparison of Sediment Yield from Open-
Space Areas in the Colma Creek Basin
With Sediment Yields from Selected
San Francisco Bay Areas Streams 224
74 Runoff Hydrograph and Suspended Sediment
Concentration Graph, August 4, I960
on 58 Acres at Kensington, Maryland 228
75 Water and Sediment Discharge, August 4,
1960, Kensington, Maryland 229
76 Rainfall, Streamflow, Sediment Discharge
at Total and Peak Intensity, August 4,
1960, Kensington, Maryland 229
77 Hydrologic and Sedimentologic Data by
Storm Events 'from a Drainage Area Affected
by Construction, Kensington, Maryland 230
78 Variation of Mean Sediment Concentration of
Storm Runoff from an Area of Residential
Constructioh, Kensington, Md., 1957-62 231
79 Cumulative Sediment Discharged from the
Construction Area with Time, Kensington,
Maryland 232
BO Sediment Yield from Selected Drainage Basins:
Maryland and Other Areas 236
81 Sediment Yield, Drainage Area, and Construc-
tion Activity 237
82 Rainfall Intensities and Recurrence Intervals
for Different Time Intervals, June 21, 1972,
Stave Run, Virginia 239
83 Rainfall Intensity - Duration - Frequency
Curves at Washington, D.C., Showing Maximum
Intensities on August 20, 1963 in Washington,
D.C., and on June 21, 1972 in Reston, Va. 241
136
-------
Exhibit Number
84 Cumulative Rainfall and Runoff June 21-23,
1972, With Instantaneous Relative Runoff,
as Percentage, Stave Run, Virginia 242
85 Sediment Eroded, Site Deposited, and Trans-
ported by Stave Run Past Gaging Site,
in Tons 242
86 Observed and Predicted (per Wischmeier) Soil
Erodibility Factors for Tilled Subsoils 247
87 Observed and Predicted (per Wischmeier) Soil
Erodibility Factors for Scalped Subsoils 248
88 Observed and Predicted (per Wischmeier) Soil
Erodibility Factors for Surface Soils 249
89 Nomograph for Predicting Erodibility Factor
"K" of High Clay Subsoils 251
90 Comparison of the Soil Erodibility Factor
"K" Determined in Field Experiments and
those Computed from the Subsoil Nomograph 252
91 Detroit Metropolitan Area Erosion Study:
Townships and Subareas 255
92 Curve for Determining Erosion Rates, After
Schmidt and Summers 256
93 Land Disturbed by Building and Construction
Activity, Summer 1968 257
94 Erosion Rates in Subareas near the Detroit
Metropolitan Area 258
95 Tons of Erosion from Building and Construc-
tion Activity, Summer 1968 260
96 Average Annual Erosion Rates from Construc-
tion and Non-Construction Sources, Summer,
1968 261
97 Map of Study Area, Rock Creek-Anacostia
River Sedimentation and Hydrology Project,
Maryland 263
98 Land Use in Percent of Drainage Area, in
Selected Basins in Montgomery Co., Maryland,
1959-68 265
99 Land Use in Rock Creek-Anacostia River Project
Study Basins, 1966-6.8, in Acres 266
100 Compilation of Hydrologic and Sediment Data,
1960-68 . 267
101 Rainfall Distribution of June 19, 1968, in
the North Branch-Rock Creek and Upper
Northwest Branch-Anacostia River Basins,
Maryland 275
137
-------
Page
Exhibit Number
102 Relation Between Storm Runoff of Bel Pre
Creek and Northwest Branch-Anacostia
River, 1963-67 276
103 Cumulative Plot of Annual Mean Discharges
of Northwest Branch-Anacostia River near
Colesville and Seneca Creek at Dawsonville,
Maryland, 1951-68 277
104 Cumulative Plot of Suspended-Sediment
Discharge and Storm Runoff of Northwest
Branch-Anacostia River near Colesville,
Maryland, 1960-68 278
105 Cumulative Plot of Suspended-Sediment
Discharge and Storm Runoff on Bel Pre
Creek at Layhill, Md., 1963-67 279
106 Cumulative Plot of Suspended-Sediment Dis-
charge and storm Runoff of Lutes Run at
Lutes, Md., 1963-68 280
107 Relation Between Suspended-Sediment Dis-
charge and Storm Runoff of Rock Creek-
Anacostia River Project Basins of Less
than Three Square Miles, 1967-68 280
108 Relation Between Suspended-Sediment Dis-
charge and Storm Runoff for Storms in
Williamsburg Run near Olney, Md., 1967-68 282
109 Relation Between Suspended-Sediment Dis-
charge and Storm Runoff in Williamsburg
Run After Adjustment for Peakedness Ratio 282
110 Relation Between Sediment Yield of Three
1967 Growing Season Storms and Percentage
of Land Under Construction Within the
Study Basin 283
111 Relation Between Sediment Yield and the
Amount of Construction After Adjustments
for Percentage Construction Within 300 ft.
of Stream Channels 284
112 Sediment Concentration and Gage Height at
Four Stations, Coyote Creek, Calif. 289
113 Channel Enlargement Effects on Land Uses in
a'1-Square-Mile Basin 293
114 Geographic Location of Demonstration Area 295
115 Demonstration Watershed and Subwatershed
Locations, Columbia, Md. 296
116 Planned Land Development: Village of Long
Reach, Phelps Luck Neighborhood, Columbia,
Maryland 297
138
-------
Exhibit Number
117 Planned Land Development for Demonstration
Watershed, Columbia, Md. 298
118 Reference and Experimental Subwatershed
Characteristics as Related to Storm Runoff
Produced, Columbia, Md. 300
119 Storm Runoff Hydrograph for Storm of
July 29-30, 1971, Columbia, rfd. 301
120 Storm Runoff Hydrograph for Storm of
August 1-2, 1971, Columbia, Md. 302
121 Location of Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges
and Stream Monitoring Stations in Region
II: Seneca Creek Watershed 304
122 Water Quality of Gunner's Branch at Clopper
Road, Montgomery County, Md. 306
123 Oxygen Sag Curves Free Flowing Condition,
Coosa River, Ga. 313
124 Oxygen Sag Curves-River Impounded, Coosa
River, Ga. 314
125 Waste Assimilative Capacity of Coosa River
at Georgia Kraft Co. Mill-River Flow -
940 c.f.s., Coosa River, Ga. 315
126 Lake Barcroft and Drainage Area 318
127 Land Use Changes of Lake Barcroft Watershed,
Fairfax Co., Va. 321
128 Reservoir Sedimentation Data Summary 322
129 Total Sediment Accumulation in Lake Barcroft,
Fairfax Co., Va., by Year 323
130 Distribution of Sediment in Lake Barcroft 325
131 General Location of Major Facilities in the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project 330
132 Map of Area near Pueblo Dam 'Construction Site 331
133 Pollution Control Facilities at Pueblo Dam
Construction Area 333
134 Pollution Control Facilities at Cunningham
Tunnel Construction Area 334
135 Turbidity Readings Upstream and Downstream
from Pueblo Dam Construction Area 337
136 Graphs of Turbidities at Three Stations near
Pueblo Dam Construction Area During 1972 339
137 Graphs of Turbidities at Three Locations
near Hunter Tunnel Construction Site 340
138 Turbidities Upstream and Downstream of Teton
Construction Project, 1972 341
139
-------
Page
Exhibit Number
139 Map of Watershed at Norman Reservoir (Lake
Thunderbird) 343
140 Location of Monitoring Stations 345
141 Summary of Chemical Analyses—Lake Thunder-
bird 346
142 Chemical Analyses of Samples from Various
Locations in the Watershed 347
143 Bacteria Counts—Lake Thunderbird 349
144 Summary of Particle Size Distribution of
Sediment—Lake Thunderbird 350
145 Area and Proportional Extent of Soil
Associations 353
146 Distribution of Slope 353
147 Estimated Sheet Erosion in 1940 and 1960 353
148 Land Use Changes in Loch Raven and Pretty-
boy Watersheds 355
149 Land Use in Baltimore County, Md. 355
150 Percent of Agricultural Land in Various
Conservation Uses 355
151 Area and Proportionate Extent of Land-
Capability Classes 356
152 Loch Raven Reservoir 357
153 Prettyboy Reservoir 357
154 Distribution of Sediment in Loch Raven
Reservoir 358
155 Distribution of Sediment in Prettyboy
Reservoir 358
156 Summary of Sedimentation Data for Loch
Raven Reservoir 36C
157 Summary of Sedimentation Data for Pretty-
boy Reservoir 361
158 Rate of Sediment Accumulation for 16
Reservoirs in Northern Part of Piedmont
Province 362
159 Dimensions of the Present Blackwater River
in Johnson and Saline Counties, Mo. 367
160 Summary of Channel Modifications on Willow
River 370
161 Longitudinal and Transverse Profiles of
Willow Drainage Ditch During Specific
Years 372
162 Drainage Net of Thompson Creek Watershed
Showing Extent of Major Entrenchment 372
163 Deepening and Widening of Thompson Creek 372
140
-------
Exhibit Number
164 Location of Projects Covered 374
165 Channel Modification Evaluated (Miles) 375
166 Summary of Effects Relative to Significant
Issues 378
167 Dredge Spoil Disposal Site 380
168 Parameters Measured During Dredge Spoil
Disposal Monitoring 382
169 Receiving Water Parameters (Releases
1 and 2) 383
170 Receiving Water Parameters (Releases
3 and 4) 384
171 Receiving Water Parameters (Releases
5 and 6) 385
172 Study Area in San Franciso Bay 388
173 Results of Analyses on Samples of Sediment
from Dredge Harding, 29 January 1973 389
174 Grain Size Distribution of Sample from
Dredge Harding Taken 29 January 1973 390
175 Oxygen Values Observed During Releases by
Biddle 17 January 1973 392
176 Oxygen Values Observed During Release
Number 6 by Dredge Biddle 17 January 1973 393
177 Oxygen Values Observed During First and
Second Releases from Dredge Harding
29 January 1973 394
178 Oxygen Values Observed During Third and
Fourth Releases from Dredge Harding
29 January 1973 395
179 Oxygen Values Observed by R/V Camanche
During Fifth ar.d Seventh Releases by
Dredge Harding 29 January 1973 396
180 Oxygen Values Observed by R/V Evie-K
During Fifth and Seventh Releases by
Dredge Harding 29 January 1973 39(i
181 Oxygen Values Observed by R/V Evie-K
During Sixth Release from Dredge
Harding 29 January 1973 397
182 Oxygen Values Observed"During Sixth
Release from Dredge Harding on
29 January 1973 397
183 Oxygen Values Observed by R/V Camanche
During Sixth Release from Dredge
Harding 29 January 1973 393
141
-------
Exhibit Number
184 Redox Potential Plotted Against Depth of
Measurement in Sediment Cores Taken at
Disposal Site 399
185 Lake Herman: Its Tributaries and Sampling
Sites 402
186 Lake Herman with Watershed 403
187 Silt Deposit Area in Relation to Lake Herman 405
188 Orthophosphate Levels in Lakes Herman and
Madison During 1970 408
189 Total Phosphorus Levels in Lakes Herman and
Madison During 1970 409
190 Orthophosphate Levels in Lake Herman During
1971 410
191 Total Phosphorus Levels in Lake Herman
During 1971 411
192 Alkalinity Levels in Lakes Herman and Madison
During 1970 412
193 Silica and Turbidity Levels in Lakes Herman
and Madison During 1970 413
194 Silica Levels in Lake Herman During 1970 414
195 Calcium Levels in Lakes Herman and Madison
During 1970 415
196 Total Phytoplankton Population Densities in
Lake Herman During 1968 and 1970 416
197 Changes in pH from Lake to Silt Deposit Area 417
198 Changes in Orthophosphate from Lake to Silt
Deposit Area 418
199 Example of Detailed Maps Showing Location of
Sampling Sites Material Study 422
200 Example of Results of Chemical Analyses
Performed by Northwestern University 424
201 Example of Results of Chemical and Minera-
logical Analyses of Several Dredgings,
Performed by University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee 425
202 Example of Results of Pesticide Analyses of
Bottom Sediments Performed by EPA Laboratory
in Chicago) 426
203 Example of Results of Chemical Characteriza-
tion of Field Samples at Toledo 427
204 Location of Stations and Sediment Types 430
205 Water Quality Data Observed Prior to Dredging 432
206 Water Quali'ty Data Observed During Dredging
of Coarse Material 433
142
-------
Page
Exhibit Number
207 Water Quality Data Observed During Dredging
of Sludge Material 434
208 Percent Mortality of In-Situ Bioassays for
24-Hours Exposure (Unless Otherwise Noted) 435
209 Settling Basin Water Quality Parameters 436
210 Demonstration Pond Characteristics (Bowie,
Maryland) 439
211 Physical Characteristics of Composite Sedi-
ment in Pond Before Dredging 439
212 Pond Water Quality Before Dredging Operations 440
213 Flow Chart and Solids Balance for Processing
System 442
214 Destination of Dredged Sediment 444
215 Analyses of Composite Pond Water Sample and
Dredged Slurry Samples 445
216 Resuspension of Pond Sediments 446
217 Suspended Solids Concentrations in Pro-
cessing System 448
218 Location of Sampling Stations 450
219 Description of Sediment from Various
Stations 452
220 Total Acid Soluble Sulfide and H S Concen-
trations 453
221 Particle Size Distribution 455
222 Particle Size Distribution of Sediment-Clay
Fraction and Qualitative Results for
Montmorillonite Clay 456
223 Cation-Exchange Capacity Data 457
224 Organic Carbon and Carbonate Data 458
225 Concentration of PCB's and Pesticides in
Sediment Samples 459
226 Results of Sediment Analysis for Selected
Heavy Metals by X-Ray Fluorescence,
Neutron Activation, and Atomic Absorption 460
227 Cultivation: Sequence of Treatment 464
228 Comparison of Cumulative Erosion from
Treated Plots on a Steep Road Fill 464
229 Average Oat Forage Yields in the Greenhouse
With Six Fertility Treatments 467
230 Soil Acidity Level as Affected by Lime
Treatment of Two Tons per Acre 467
231 Original Potash Levels of All Samples, and
the Response of Oats to Potash Fertiliza-
tion in the Greenhouse Tests 468
143
-------
Exhibit Number
232 Summary of Observation Channel Charac-
teristics 471
233 Loss of Phosphorus in the Soil Removed and
Water Runoff from Plots with Various
Mulch Treatments for a Series of Three
Simulated Rainstorms. Highway Project,
Wahoo, Nebraska, 1966 474
234 Mulch Treatments Ranked According to
Relative Effectiveness for Protection
Against Water Erosion 476
235 Rates of Erosion as Related to Various
Rates to Runoff on Four Mulch Treatments,
2:1 Fill Slope, Wahoo, Nebraska, 1966 477
236 Summary of Mulch Materials Arranged
According to Desirable Traits, (Least
Erosion and Loss of Seed and Phosphorus).
Highway Project, Wahoo, Nebraska, 1966 478
237 Mechanical Analysis of Plot Surface Soils
at the Test Locations 481
238 Summary of Rainfall, Runoff, and Soil Loss
at Test Locations 484
239 Cover and Stand Evaluations, March 2-3 and
November 1-2, 1965 485
240 Erosion, Runoff, and Infiltration for
Rainulator Study of Rates of Straw Mulch 489
241 Effect of Straw Mulch Rate on Erosion Rate
for Several Conditions 489
242 Effect of Straw Mulch Rate on Runoff Velocity
for Several Conditions 489
243 Erosion Plots Following Rainstorm Applied
By Rainulator. 491
244 Soil Losses from 5 Inches of Simulated Rain
on Denuded Slopes for Various Types and
Rates of Mulch 493
245 Typical Treatments on a 20 Percent Denuded
Slope 494
246 Flow Velocities at Various Distances Down-
slope (Slope Steepness, 20 Percent; Rain
Intensity, 2.5 Inches per Hour) 496
247 Rating for Erosion Control Effectiveness
on Denuded Slope of 20 Percent Steepness
(Best to Worst) 497
248 Location of Seneca Creek Watershed with
Respect to Major Surrounding Metropolitan
Areas 500
144
-------
Page
Exhibit Number
249 Seneca Creek Watershed in Montgomery County,
Maryland, Showing Land Use Distribution,
Major Population Centers and Location of
Watershed Segments Chosen for Study Scales:
1 Inch =2.08 Miles 501
250 Gross Erosion Within the Gaithersburg
Segment Assuming No Sediment and Erosion
Control on Construction Areas (Factor C
Value = 1) 504
251 Impact of Controlling Erosion and Sediment
from Urban Construction in the Gaithers-
burg Sediment 505
252 Gross Erosion With Germantown Segment 506
253 Weighted Average and Range of Erosion and
Sediment Control Structures from Seven
Gaithersburg Plans 508
254 Erosion and Sediment Control Alternatives
for the Gaithersburg 509
255 Erosion and Sediment Control Alternatives
for Germantown 510
256 Average Factor C Values for Various Surface
Stabilizing Treatments 511
257 Factor P Values for Components of Erosion
and Sediment Control Systems 513
258 Estimate Developer Costs for Erosion Control
Structures 514
259 Costs for Surface Stabilizing Treatments 514
260 Summary of Damages in Potomac Below Seneca
Creek 515
261 Erosion and Sediment Control Alternatives
for Gaithersburg Segment with Costs 517
145
-------
Exhibit Number
262 Erosion and Sediment Control Alternatives
for Germantown Segment with Costs 518
263 Cost and Effectiveness of Most Promising
Control Systems 519
146
-------
APPENDIX A: EFFECTS OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY
General
This appendix summarizes seven case studies that contain data on the
effects of highway construction on water quality. Data from the case
studies are included in the summaries. For clarity, each case study
begins on a separate page. (See Appendix G for list of references)
147
-------
Case 1. Sediment Resulting from Construction of a Section of Inter-
state Highway I-4Q in North Carolina
Source -
Reeder, Howard F., Sediment Resulting from Construction of Interstate
Highway 1-40 in North Carolina, USDI, Geological Survey, Open File
Report, Raleigh, N.C., 1973.^A~41)
Purpose -
The investigation was undertaken to provide information to the North
Carolina State Highway Commission concerning means of controlling ero-
sion at and transport from highway construction areas.
Site Location/Description -
The study was made at the headwaters of Hollow Creek at the point where
1-40 crosses the Southern Railway in Research Triangle Park in Wake
County, near Nelson, N.C. The total area which is drained by Hollow
Creek above the settling basin monitored in this study is 24 acres (See
Exhibit 26).
Soil Type -
Reddish brown sand-silt loam, about 25% sand, 54% silt, and 20% clay
prevails in this small basin. About 1% of the soil material is larger
than 2 mm in diameter.
Land Use/Ground Cover -
Highway construction and waste dump covered 83%, or 20 acres, of the
area which formerly was entirely a forested area.
Time Frame -
This construction activity began April 1971 with the clearing opera-
tions. Rough grading began in May 1971 and the initial survey of
Superscripts refer to List of References in Appendix G.
148
-------
vo
Exhibit 26. Sketch of Project Site on Interstate 40 in the
Research Triangle Park Near Nelson, N.C.
-------
sedimentation commenced in July.
Study Method -
In order to observe the effects that storm events had on sedimentation
and erosion at certain phases of road construction, the volume of
sediment deposited in a settling basin was measured over time. This
settling basin was formed by an earthen dam 85 feet long which had an
initial capacity of some 720 cubic yards with depths varying from 3.5
to 5 feet. Culverts, one from the waste dump area and one from the
highway cut area, drained into the basin.
Parameters Measured-
Several parameters which were measured through conventional methods
and through the use of the settling basin are of interest for develop-
ing loading functions: daily rainfall (continuous measurement); water
level (continuous); total runoff; sediment deposition; sediment con-
centration at culverts, a dam spilling, and overflow pipes (from
samples taken during certain rainfall events); and sediment particle
size (from samples). These measurements offered adequate information
to derive an analysis of trap efficiency and other selected parameters.
Results -
The referenced study contains summary presentations of data for all
of the parameters listed above. Of particular interest for the
present study are the relationships between quantities of sediment
deposited, precipitation, and condition of the construction site.
These are summarized in Exhibit 27. Rainfall and sediment deposition
relationships are shown in Exhibits 28 and 29. Performance of the
sediment basin as a sediment trap is shown in Exhibit 30.
150
-------
Exhibit 27. SEDIMENT DEPOSITED AND PRECIPITATION, 1-40
Survey
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Date
July 13,
Sept. 16,
Feb. 16,
Apr. 24,
May 8,
June 9 ,
July 11,
Aug. 15,
Scd. deposited
since
previous survey
(cu yd)
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
126.5
180.9
10.6
80.1
91.8
147.6
84.7
722.2
Precipitation
since
previous survey
(in)
initial survey
10.01
14.80
5.85
2.31
4.28
5.78
7.09
50.12
Sed. deposited
per inch
of precip. Conditions in project area at time of survey
(cu yd/in)
Clearing of project area started Apr. 23, 1971.
Timber and vegetation stripped from about 30 par-
12.6 cent of area. Construction and grading have dis-
turbed surface over most of the area.
12.2 Entire construction area rough graded. Most of
roadbed at final >jrade.
1.81 Period of rough and smooth grading. Cuts and
roadbed nearina completion.
34.7 Smooth grading almost completed. No grass on
other soil cover. Gravel, roadbed in place.
Smooth grading completed. Area partially grassed
21.4 mulched on June 9. About half of pavement in
pi ace .
25.5 Grass and mulch over most of area. Grass growing
but not yet effective against erosion.
11.9 Grass cover completely covering construction
area. Pavement and road shoulders complete.
-------
50-
LJ
I
^ 40-|
z
d 30-]
5 10-j
80 -x
-*V-700 o
^600 c~
j I
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
I 1971
Example:
Survey No.3,Fet>. 16, 1972
Cumulative deposition- 307 yds.
Cumulative rainfall - 24.8 in.
o >-
-400
LJ <_>
r300 >5
JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
I97Z I
-!00 x-
o 3
(a) Cumulative rainfall and sediment deposition.
o
% °c
a. <•
UJ >-
a
Z 03
S
-------
EXPLANATION
A-Cubic yor(Js sediment
B- Inches of roinfnil
C-Role of deposition-, cu.yd./in. of rcinfoll
D-Number of intense storms
A-10.6
B-5.85
C-I.8I
D-N'one
to
UJ
X
o
z
K>
O
V)
t
cc
•a
o
, I. ,., ,111111 II .
A-80.1
B-2.31
C-34.7
D-Or»e
o
CO
CO
16 20 29
FEE
10 20
MAR
31
tO 20
APR
30
10
MAY
Exhibit 29. Comparison of Sediment Deposition
and Rainfall During Two Consecutive Survey Periods in 1972.
153
-------
Exhibit 30. SEDIMENT AND TRAP
CHARACTERISTICS
Trap.eff. Avg. trap Avg. Amt. Sedi- Total Total Sedi-
Sediment Specific Sediment Median at end of eff.during of sedi- ment sedi- sedi- ment
Inclusive Pariod deposited weight3 deposited diameter period period ment lost lost ment ment lost
Survey Nos. (cu yd) (Ibs/ft3)- (tons) (ram) (percent) (percent) (percent) ttons) (tons) (cu yd) (cu yd)
Init.survey Prior to
•0* Jul.12,1971 0 56 0 0.021 83
0-2 Jul.12,1971
to
Feb. 16,1972 307 65 270 0.037 76 82 18 59 129 435 126
2 -
5 -
5
7
Total*
Feb. 16 to
June 9 182 66 162 0.047 64
June 9 to
Aug. 15 232 69 216 0.082 42
721 648
70 JO 69 231 306 124
S3 47 192 408 540 308
*320 968 1281 S6t>
••Provided by Soil Testing Laboratory of State Highway Commission.
-------
Also of interest are the concentration of sediments in particular
locations in the study area during the storm event of July 31, 1972
(See Exhibit 30 ). At the storm's peak, sediment concentration was
about 7,050 mg/1 at the inflow from the waste area; 1,170 mg/1 at the
culvert that drained the construction area where grass covers had been
established; and 2,920 mg/1 at the spillway and 2,520 mg/1 at the out-
flow pipe of the dams.
Additional information on trap efficiency, the size characteristics of
the sediment, and the relation to size of sediment particles to loca-
tion of deposition (distance from dam) are given in the report, but
the information will not be reproduced here since it is not needed
for the development of loading functions.
155
-------
Case 2. Cartersville, Georgia, Highway Cuts and Erosion
Source -
Diseker, E. G., and Richardson, E. C., "Erosion Rates and Control Methods
on Highway Cuts," Transactions, American Society of Agricultural
Engineering, Vol. 5, 1962, 153-155.(A~14)
Purpose -
The study was designed to determine the various factors that affect
the rates of runoff, erosion, and sediment production from highway
cuts and to find the most effective types of plant cover which might
be established quickly in order to alleviate the erosion problem.
Site Location/Description -
Six plots were selected within the Coosa River watershed near Carters-
ville in Barton County, Georgia and were to remain unvegetated for
three years. Exhibit 31 summarizes the characteristics of the in-
dividual plots used.
Soil Type -
All plots were comprised of Cecil clay soil which was exposed to the
B and C horizons.
Time Frame -
Study was begun in the fall of 1956.
Study Method -
In order to make the needed measurements, a runoff sampler was in-
stalled at the lower end of each plot ditch. These ditches had
masonry head and side walls while concrete aprons and sheet metal
covers were constructed for each of the samplers. Of the runoff
collected by the sampler, 0.5 percent was diverted to a storage tank
156
-------
Exhibit 31. CHARACTERISTICS OF ROAD-
BANK PLOTS NEAR CARTERSVILLE, GA.
Plot
No.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Bank
slope,
1 on
1.4
1.2
2.5
3.3
1.0
1.1
Range of
bank
height, ft
5-16
5-14
2-10
2-12
4-15
5-15
Bank
length,
ft.
206
225
365
310
296
321
Runoff
area,
acres
0.16
.27
.21
.30
.18
.23
Erodible
area
acres
0.11
.21
.14
.20
.12
.15
Aspect
N70°W
S70°E
N70°W
S70°E
N70°W
S70°E
-------
located below the flume where the samples were removed for analysis.
Scour and deposition were determined by installing rows of metal stakes
or pins in each plot. In a separate study to determine the effective-
ness of various types of vegetation in controlling erosion, more than
30 plant species and varieties were planted in 800 experimental plots
in the same project area on the road banks. Species that were in-
cluded are the cool season annual and perennial grasses, legumes, and
vines as well as warm season species.
Parameters Measured -
Parameters that were dealt with which relate to this study include:
Bank of slope; range of bank; bank length; runoff area; erodible area;
aspect; soil loss through the flume; soil loss deposited in channel;
and total soil loss (soil loss data in tons/acre).
Results -
The following tables present data compiled in this study. Exhibit 32
gives average annual runoff and erosion from bare roadside cuts and
flow channels near Cartersville, Georgia. The data were compiled
through the use of runoff samplers which were installed in each of
the plot ditches. The ditches also had masonry head and side walls
so that channel deposition could be recorded. The sampler collected
only 0.5 percent of the total runoff from each plot.
Effects of various mulch treatments on establishing crownvetch cover
for erosion control are summarized in Exhibit 33. Additional results
of the study of the effectiveness of vegetative covers in controlling
erosion is given in Case Study 39.
158
-------
Ul
ve>
Exhibit 32. AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF AND EROSION FROM
BARE ROADSIDE CUTS AND FLOW CHANNELS NEAR CARTERSVILLE, GA.
(January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1960)
Average Annual
Plot
I (medium)
11 (medium)
Ill(flat)
IV (flat
V (steep)
Vl(steep)
Slope
1 on
1.4
1.2
2.5
3.3
1.0
1.1
Aspect
N70°W
S70°E
N70°W
S70°E
N70°W
S70°E
Rainfall,
in.
45.28
45.28
40.10
40.10
40.10
40.10
Runoff,
in.
3.86
5.46
8.54
3.80
4.12
3.20
Through
flume3
23.8
26.5
127.2
42.8
41,2
23.9
Soil loss, tons per
Channel
deposition^1
265.5
94.1
Erosion^
Erosiond
232.6
114.3
acre
Total area
erosion0
289.2
120.6
129.2
42.8
196.3
110.1
Slightly less than half of the 68 rains produced runoff.
aSoil losses from the bare bank and channel calculated from water stage recorder data.
^Soil losses from the bare bank deposited in the channel calculated from the lower three rows of
metal hub stakes.
cTotal area erosion loss is the sum of loss through flume and channel deposition.
^Erosion from the channel indicated by hub stake calculations was accounted for by the measuring
device.
eThese are 2-year averages. The first year these steep slopes were firm because they had just been
resloped. This condition made them resistant to infiltration and frost action during 1958.
-------
Exhibit 33. EFFECT OF MULCHES ON DENSITY OF
CROWNVETCH COVER NEAR CARTERSVILLE, GA.a
Percent of Crownvetch coverb
Mulch and date of planting
Bank sections
Upper Middle Lower Average
Planting of September 17, 1959
No mulch (average)
Jute
Jute
Pine straw
Wheat straw 2 T/A
Wheat straw 4 T/A
White plastic
Sawdust
. No mulch
Average
6 Mulch
Planting of March 21, 1960
No mulch (average)
Pine straw
Wheat straw 2 T/A
Wheat straw 4 T/A
Sawdust
White plastic
Jute
Water-soluble latex
No mulch
Average ^^
41
31
47
74
78
90
35
51
41
58
15
52
55
62
42
29
22
25
15
41
17
19
24
50
75
90
18
46
17
46
13
78
80
79
60
29
41
23
13
56
9
18
21
45
73
87
17
32
9
42
22
72
86
69
53
58
55
34
22
61
22
23
31
56
75
89
23
43
22
49
17
67
74
70
52
39
39
27
17
53
aSite 36: Cecil soil, 20-30-ft bank, west exposure, l-on-2 slope.
bCover ratings were made on the same date by four individuals and the
average of the four ratings is shown.
160
-------
Case 3. Construction at the Site of Interstate Highway 1-81, Near
Harrisburg, Pa.
Sources -
(a) Reed, L. A., "Effects of Roadway and Pond Construction of Sedi-
ment Yield Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania," Open File Report, U.S.
Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, August 1971.
(b) Reed, L. A., et al., Progress Reports No. 17 (Jan. 1, 1973 to
March 31, 1973), and No. 21 (Jan. 1, 1974 - March 31, 1974), on
Research Project No. 68-34, "Evaluation of Erosion Control Measures
Used in Highway Construction," U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Harrisburg, Pa.(A~40)
(c) "Evaluation of Erosion Control Measures Used in Highway Construc-
tion," Undated project summary, received by MITRE in June, 1974, from
U.S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pa.(A~53^
Purpose -
To determine the effectiveness of sediment control measures during
highway construction on stream sedimentation, the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Transportation and the U. S. Geological Survey initiated a
study of five adjacent stream basins.
Site Location/Description -
The basins were located just west of Harrisburg, Pa. (See Exhibit 34)
Four of the basins are crossed by Highway 1-81, and the fifth basin
serves as a control.
Topography -
The configuration of the land ranges from relatively steep to nearly
flat. Mountain slopes average 30 percent with some as high as 50
161
-------
9
N
PENNSYLVANIA N 1
Location of basins
BLUE
\ 5 acre
'. farm pond
Basin boundary
Basin number
Planned Interstate highway
Recording rain gage
Stream gage
MILES
Exhibit 34. Location of Basins and Data-Collection Sites, 1-81
-------
percent, while valley slopes between bases of mountains and gaging
stations average about 4 percent.
Soil Types -
The soil types in the five basins range from stony to stony-and-
gravelly loams. Some valley soils are shaley silt loams.
Land Use/Ground Cover; -
Mountainous areas and the steeper slopes of valleys are forested,
while flatter areas of the valleys are open fields and are partially
used as farmland. The rest of the area is grassland.
Special Note -
Two separate investigations were undertaken at the site described
above. Both involved the measurement of sediment yield, and the
measurement of meteorological, hydraulic, and land use parameters. The
first case (3a) is a project currently in progress involving the con-
struction of 1-81. The second case (3b) is an earlier project on the
same site involving a description of the effects of two smaller con-
struction projects in one of the basins prior to the construction of
1-81. These two smaller projects are a one-lane road and a five-acre
pond. Case 3b has been completed and a report has been issued covering
that material ^A~^. case 3a is currently in progress and, as a
result, complete data were not available at the time of this writing.
163
-------
Case 3a. Evaluation of Erosion Control Measures Used in Highway
Construction
The following is extracted from the above source reference (c) listed
at the beginning of Case 3.
Study Method -
"Streamflow and precipitation parameters are being monitored from five
adjacent basins located just west of Harrisburg. Four of the basins
are being crossed by 1-81 construction and the fifth, which is not
being distrubed, is serving as a control."
"The roadway in the four basins will be subject to different types of
erosion and sediment control, most of which have been incorporated
into the construction contract and roadway design. In general, drain-
age in one of the four basins (2A) will be kept separate. The existing
streams will be piped through the construction area and drainage or
runoff from the construction area will be detained in off-stream ponds
designed to hold 1-inch of runoff. Existing regulations regarding
seeding and mulching, diversions, maximum velocities, rock dams, dikes,
and berms will also be enforced."
"The roadway in basin (2B) will also be constructed according to
existing regulations. In addition, a large farm pond-type desilting
structure is being provided downstream of the construction. The addi-
tional sediment caused by the construction of the pond is being measured."
"The existing sediment control regulations will be the only controls
enforced in Basin 3. Sediment control prior to 1968 will be practiced
in Basin 2, and a desilting structure will be placed below the stream
gage in Basin 2 to trap excess sediments."
164
-------
"The data will be analyzed to show the decrease in suspended sediment
realized through enforcement of the existing regulations by comparing
Basin 2 to Basin 3; to show the effectiveness of large on-stream struc-
tures by comparing Basin 2 and 3 with 2B; and to show the effectiveness
of keeping the drainage separate and treating the runoff from the con-
struction before allowing it to enter the stream by comparing Basins 2
and 3 with 2A."
Parameters Measured -
"Stream data being collected from the five basins include three items:
stream flow, sediment concentration, turbidity levels. The data are
collected as frequently as 15-minute intervals to enable us to compute
and tabulate maximum and mean water discharge, maximum and mean sus-
pended-sediment concentration, maximum, mean, and water weighted tur-
bidities, and the weight of suspended-sediment discharge, all on a
daily basis."
Time Frame -
"Construction of the roadway, 1-81 was started in November 1972; to
date, the clearing operation has been completed. Drainage and embank-
ment work are still in early stages."
"To date, we have about 3 years of preconstruction data and 6 months
of construction data analyzed (through May 30, 1973). A report has
been written regarding the construction of a farm pond by a local
property owner.* A report on 2 years of the preconstruction data has
been prepared but is not yet approved for release. A short paper on
the clearing operation is now in preparation."
Results -
Little data for this project have been released as of this writing;
however, some reports containing measurement data are expected to be
See Case 3(b).
165
-------
issued within a short time (October or November 1974).
Preliminary observations indicate that the amounts of sediment dis-
charged, as the cut and fill work in the interstate approaches final
grade, range from 5 to 10 times the yield normally expected (i.e., in
the absence of construction). The watersheds exhibiting the lower
rate of increase contain one or more sediment ponds.
Preliminary observations also show an increase in the proportion of
clay contained in the soil materials being transported—from 40 percent
before construction to 70 percent during construction. Top soil in the
area averages 16 percent clay; subsoils, 25 percent. Preliminary data
indicate that the amount of sand being transported has not been changed
but that the quantities of silt and clay have increased some 4-fold and
15-fold, respectively.
Case 3b. Effects of Roadway and Pond Construction
Source -
See Source Reference (c) listed at the beginning of Case Study 3.
Study Method
Data were collected from Basin 2 (Conodoguinet Creek tributary) before
and after the construction of a one-lane roadway and a farm pond with-
in .the basin as part of the pre-construction data collection program
for the 1-81 study. The normal storage capacity of the completed 5-
acre area and construction of the pond disturbed a 10.5-acre area.
The drainage area above the pond is 302 acres. All streamflow was
retained by the pond (after completion) until November, 1971, when
the pond overflowed.
Continuous water discharge data were collected at the gaging sites on
Conodoguinet Creek Tributary 1 (control) and Conodoguinet Creek
166
-------
Tributary 2 (construction) in order that the data from each may be
compared to determine the effects of the roadway and pond construction.
Suspended sediment concentration data were collected periodically
during base-flow periods and every 15 minutes during storm events at
a point downstream of the construction sites. Turbidity was also
measured downstream of the construction with a surface-scatter turbidi-
meter.
Parameters Measured -
- Water runoff
- Suspended sediment concentration
- Turbidity
Time Frame -
The road was constructued during June and July 1970, and the pond was
constructed during August and September of the same year.
Results -
Monthly water discharge from Basin 1 (control basin, no construction)
and Basin 2 (where pond and a one-lane roadway were built) prior to
construction is shown in Exhibit 35.
EXHIBIT 35
MONTHLY WATER DISCHARGE, IN CFS-DAYS, 1969-70
Oct. Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Total
Basin 1 2.5 7.8 23 16 78 35 96 32 12 19 4.2 330
Basin 2 3.2 14 31 19 81 37 100 25 13 26 4.4 350
167
-------
Suspended sediment concentration for Tributaries 1 and 2 (corresponding
to Basins 1 and 2) is shown in Exhibit 36, together with average water
discharge for base-flow periods. It is noted that during June and July
the roadway construction reached within 300 ft. of Tributary 2 channel*
but that a large storm was required (see early July) to transport much
of the sediment to the stream channel. The suspended sediment concen-
tration in the runoff from both basins was approximately the same priot"
to construction but changed markedly during construction. This is
shown by Exhibit 37 which presents a plot of suspended sediment con-
centration (cumulative) for Tributary 2 versus the same parameter for
Tributary 1.
Similarly the basins discharged roughly equal quantities of sediment
prior to construction; for example, Tributary 1 discharged 62 tons
while Tributary 2 discharged 58 tons. The quantities discharged from
each basin during and prior to the construction period are shown in
Exhibit 38, which is a plot of the cumulative amounts of sediment dis-
charged by the two basins.
Turbidity of the streams also was affected by construction activities,
particularly the pond construction. Quantitative effects are shown in
Exhibit 39, with both turbidity and water discharge measurements.
In summary, the base-flow sediment concentration increased from an
expected 6 mg/1 to an average of 35 mg/1 during pond construction.
After the pond had been overflowing for one month, the sediment con-
centration below the dam averaged about twice the expected value.
Sediment discharge attributable to construction of the road and pond
was about 55 tons, which is some 66 percent of the yearly amount
expected from the basin in the absence of construction.
168
-------
o
•c
Pi
03
tl 2
c/> o
<: M
^H
u aa
c" '
c:
c>
fa
_ u
O M
t/T CQ
Cri f .
W M
O M
< «
U bj
Czj CU
CONODOGUINET CREEK TRIBUTARY 1
CONODOGUINET CREEK TRIBUTARY 2
2 .
NOV DEC
1969
JUNE JULY
1970
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV DEC
Exhibit 36. Hydrograph Showing Average Water Discharge for Base-Flow Periods and Corresponding Suspended-
Sediment Concentrations, Conodoguinet Creek Tributaries 1 and 2, October 1, 1969, to December 31, 1970
-------
900r
c-j 800-
DECMBER 31, 1970
04 pa
£ S
W H
O W
04
H CJ
2;
W H
2 W
H 2
Q M
W ^
CO CJ
I O
O Q
W O
Q Z
2: o
W O
CO -
3 P4
CO H
O
•J
tl-l
CO
<;
H
<:
W
PL.
700;-
j SEPTEMBER 30, 1970
I
600)-
i
|
500!^-
i START OF POND CONSTRUCTION
400 —
START OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION
300|—
200-
O
* °
O EXPECTED VALUES
/ O
MAY 30, 1970
MARCH 31, 1970
100
0
DECEMBER 31, 1969
100
200
300
400
500
CUMULATIVE BASE-FLOW SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER, CONODOGUINET CREEK TRIBUTARY 1
Exhibit 37. Double-Mass Relation of Average Base-Flow
Suspended-Sediment Concentrations by 6-Day Periods,
Conodoguinet Creek Tributaries 1 and 2.
October 1, 1969, to December 31, 1970
600
170
-------
140
M 52
M
" CO
w <
o PQ
o >*
co pc;
M <
Q H
M
o *:
w w
CO W
i &
o o
w
H
PU M
to o
p
w o
> £=
M O
H 0
o
120
100
80
60
20 -
DECEMBER 31, 1970 1»-
START OF POND CONSTRUCTION
JULY 31, 1970
START OF ROAD CONSTRUCT]*)
f "^ EXPECTED VALUES
APRIL 30, 1970
MARCH 31, 1970
JANUARY 31, 1970
20
60
80
100
120
CUMULATIVE SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT DISCHARGE, IN TONS,
CONODOGUINET CREEK TRIBUTARY 1 BASIN
Exhibit 38. Double-Mass Relation of Sediment Discharge, Conodoguinet
Creek Tributaries 1 and 2, October 1, 1959, to December 31, 1970
171
-------
£W
OCT
KOV DEC
1959
JAN FEE MAR APR MAY
JIJHE . JULY AUG
1970
SEPT OCX XOV DEC
Exhibit 39. Average Base-Flow Turbidities and Corresponding Water Discharges,
Conodoguinet Creek Tributary 2, October 1, 1969 to December 31, 1970
-------
Case 4. Highway Construction in Scott Run Basin, Virginia
Source -
Vice, R. B., Guy, H. P., Ferguson, G. E., Sediment Movement in an Area
of Suburban Highway Construction. Scott Run Basin. Fairfax County,
Virginia, 1961-1964, Hydrologic Effects of Urban Growth, U. S. Geo-
logical Survey, 1591-E, U.S. GPO, Washington, D. C., 1969. ~5^
Purpose -
A study was undertaken in the Scott Run basin from 1961 to 1965 in
order to determine the extent to which soil disturbed by highway con-
struction and associated activities might be eroded and carried away
by runoff.
Site Location/Description -
The Scott Run basin lies in Fairfax County, Virginia, and it extends
from the mouth of Scott Run at the Potomac River (60 feet above sea
level) southward about 4.5 miles to the basin's source at Tysons Corner
(about 330 feet above sea level). The total drainage area is about
4.54 square miles.
Topography -
The slopes of the stream channel vary from 0.10 to 0.04, and the
average slope of the ground is approximately 0.02.
Soil Type -
The soil in this area is mostly friable and is derived from deep
weathering of schist in the Wissahickon formation. Some of the southern
stretch is comprised of a remnant of the Bryn Wawr gravel which overlies
the Wissahickon formation.
Climate/Rainfall -
The climate is fairly moderate with January and February averages
ranging from 20 to 50F. The July average is in the upper 80's F.
173
-------
The average frost-free season is April 10 through October 28. Rainfall
during the time of the study averaged 40.4 inches per year. Runoff is
presented in Exhibit 40.
Land Use/Ground Cover -
Land use in the Scott Run Basin is varied- (See Exhibit 41.)
Study Method -
Samples of sediment concentration during 29 storms were taken for analy-
sis. For 59 unmeasured storms, the sediment discharge in tons was
computed by the equation
sediment discharge = YTAE
where Y = mean storm event sediment-transport rate in tons/day/
acre of construction corresponding to the measured
mean of 29 storms.
T = duration of storm runoff in days
A = area of construction in acres
E = mean seasonal erodibility factor
Parameters Measured -
- Water discharge (duration, mean rate, volume)
- Sediment yield (per day, accumulated)
- Construction area
- Size composition of suspended sediment transported
Results -
The Scott Run Study is a well known case in erosion and sedimentation
monitoring from highway construction. The data concerning water dis-
charge sediment yield and related variables by storm events are pre-
sented in Exhibit 42. This data allowed for the computation of
sediment discharge of 59 unmeasured storms through the derivation of
Y-(mean storm event sediment-transport rate in tons/day/acre of con-
174
-------
Exhibit 40. DISTRIBUTION OF STORM-RUNOFF EVENTS BY RATE
OF RUNOFF AND SEASON, SCOTT RUN BASIN, 1961-64(A"5^
January
April -
July -
October
Quarter
- March
June
September
- December
Average rate
10-20
7
6
4
21-40
11
15
4
R
of storm runoff (cubic feet
per second)
41-80
11
5
3
L
81-140
1
2
1
7 - -
141-200
1
1
Total
30
29
13
16
Total
19
38
23
88
-------
Exhibit 41. LAND USE IN SCOTT RUN BASIN, 1961 - 64
(A-5 4)
Low-ykld area
Time
Forest
iaereO
IM1
April
July
October
ttet
January
April... _
July
October ..
1SC1
January .
April
July
October
1W<
January - - --
April
July
,320
,280
,270
,270
,270
,270
,270
,270
,270
,270
,270
,270
,260
,260
Averaee 1, 272
Grass
(acres)
920
820
910
970
935
915
995
1,140
1, 170
1,175
1, 190
1,230
1,230
1,205
1,057
Estab-
lished
uibin
{•eras)
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
310
310
330
340
299
Total
(acres] (percent)
2,530
2,390
2,470
2,530
2,495
2,475
2,555
2,700
2,730
2,735
2,770
2,810
2, 820
2,805
2, 630 .
87.0
82.2
84.9
87.0
85.8
85. 1
87.9
92.8
93.9
94.0
95.2
96.6
96. 9
96.5
Intermediate-yield
area
Cultivated and
quarry
(acres) (percent)
130
210
140
70
110
150
110
50
70
70
70
40
50
50
94 .
4.4
7.2
4.8
2.4
a7
5. 1
as
1.7
2. 4
2.4
2.4
1.4
1.7
1.7
High-field u*a
Highway
construction
Other
construction
(acres) (percent) {acres) (percent)
250
310
300
310
300
270
230
140
85
70
35
35
10
10
168 .
8.6 _.
10.6 ..
10.3 ..
10.6 ..
10.3
9.3
7.8
4.8
2.9
2.4
1.2
1.2
.3
.3
5
15
15
20
25
35
35
25
30
45
18 ..
. — -
0.2
.5
.5
.7
.8
1.2
1.2
.8
1.0
1.5
-------
struction corresponding to the measured mean of the 29 measured storms)
in the equation:
sediment discharge = YTAE (Factors as defined above)
Exhibit 43 presents the relation between runoff and sediment discharge
for storm events which was used to derive Y. Exhibit 44 shows changes
in sediment concentration with time.
Exhibits 45 and 46 show the eroded sediment size distribution by year
for highway construction areas.
177
-------
Exhibit 42. SUMMARY OF WATER DISCHARGE, SEDIMENT YIELD,
AND RELATED VARIABLES BY STORM EVENTS FOR SCOTT RUN NEAR MCLEAN, VA.1
(A-54)
00
Sediment-transport
Storm runoff
Date
net
5-12.
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-25
Total
7-13
g-26
9-4
Total
10-21
11-23
12-12 -.
12-17
12-18
Total
measure- Dura-
ment tlon
No. (days)
1 0.58
17
21
2 .21
125
1 30
29
3 .31
31
91
4 .42
.50
5 .42
29
65
2. 28
Mean Volume structlon
rate (cb-days) area
(els) (acres)
57.
28.
34.
195
19.
105
183
53.
64.
25.
40.
16.
35.
8
2
8
2
8
8
0
0
2
4
33.
4.
7.
41.
2.
89.
30.
56.
16.
104.
27.
12.
16.
4.
21
84.
•M
8
3V 250 <
1
6 } [
7 } 310
7 j 1
0
2 1
5
8 } 300
JJ 1
2
Rate
adjust- (tons per day
meat per acre of
(actor construction)
1
0.82 a
1. 23 2.
1. 22 3.
1. 23 52.
1. 16 1.
1. 07 21.
. 65 47.
.84 7.
f . 96 10.
. 60 2.
.67 4.
.60 1.
.60 4.
4
9
9
0
6
0
5
6
0
3
8
2
0
2
6.9
3.6
4.8
64.6
1.9
22.4
30.7
6.4
9.6
1.4
3.2
.7
2.4
(tons)
995
150
250
3,390
59
4,844...
2,040
2,950
610
5,600 „
1,210
210
402
61
470
..2,353 .
Accumulated
Water Sediment
(cfedays)
aae
38.4
45.7
86.7
89. 1
119.7
176.4
193. 1
220.3
232.8
249.6
254.3
277.3
(tons)
995
1,145
1,395
4,785
4,844
6,884
9, 834
10, 444
11,654
11,864
12, 266
12, 327
12, 797
Page 1 of 3
-------
Exhibit 42 (Continued). SUMMARY OF WATER DISCHARGE,
SEDIMENT YIELD, AND RELATED VARIABLES BY STORM EVENTS FOR
SCOTT RUN HEAR MCLEAN, VA.
5, 3
mo
17.8
C«>. BMtontl
•tninion ad-usu
*ru nunt
(Km) (KtOt
I 0.60
103 { 1. OS
I .72
39.1
A. 8
88.0
9.0
19.7
na.2
11. 1
22.0 ]
27.9
20.8
83.7
35.6
11.8
24,2
U.4
5.9
16.7
:8
70, ;g
:SS
r .eo
.84
en -60
00 .60
.60
( .60
f .80
» :I1
I .84
BtdlnHil-utiuiMrl
Hill
(tons t«r day
per ken el
comtiuctlon)
1 3
1. 5 1. 4
9. 8 10. 6
6.1 4.4
1. 0 .«
14.1 11.2
1 5 2. 1
13.2 3.7
11.3 ft 8
10 1.8
12 1.9
8.0 6,7
1.8 1.1
11. 0 6.6
4.6 2.8
J. 1 1.3
2.7 1.6
6.1 3.4
1.8 .7
2.9 1.9
(leiu)
4!)
279
ISO
.. fxa
18
741
43
6.1
380
48
81
202
66
3(0
150
39
»«
194
16
66
Actumulittd
Wittr Stdimint
, 129
3,->, 19»
35, 535
3.1, 705
35,744
35, 829
35, 183
35,999
36,065
tj ::
4-10 ----- -..
j~4A
£?§:::::
£&::::::::::::::::::
£f ::::::::::::::
ifc~
•-19
»-2fl
•-30
TeUl
Qnnd loUI.. -
6'J
67
83
21 .40
31
25 .77
28 .3*
17
17
. 4.32 .
124
n .17
38 .17
25
28 .23
1.16 .
24.2
21 1
36.3
245
29. 1
44.0
3ft 7
21.2
2ft 6
16.8
22.4
300
20.4
29. &
2H4
15. 0 '
14.8
30. 1
JO. 1
9.0
33.9
15. 1
3.6
3.S
135. 1
2.1 '
3.8
& 1
5. 1
6. 2
6.5
28.8
1,734.6
40 <
68 1
.80
1.02
1.04
1.31
1.38
1.54
1.96
1.31
1.17
11.09
1.10
.00
.76
.n
.66
2.2
2.0
4.2
2.4
a o
5.6
4.S
1.9
1.8
1.3
2.0
311
1.8
11
1. 8
2.0
4 4
2.9
4 1
K.6
«. 4
2.5
i I
1.4
2.2
18
1.4
11
1.9
45
54
150
47
SI
2)5
143
17
14
10
20
M
19
25
24
124
3*,9J5
1 5H5. 7
1 600 5
]' 430! B
1 640. 7
j (£3_ 5
1,6917
1,7013
1.705.8
1, 707. 9
1,711.7
1, 716. 8
1, 721. 9
1, 728. 1
1, 734. 6
36, 110 •
36 164
3fl' 361
36 677
36.H20
36.K37
36,811
36.R61
3S.HH1
36,007
36,1126
36, 951
36,975
nrrt« win T n UMI p« t>r pic ten »| >M.
Unl pw d.» »•
Page 2 of 3
179
-------
Exhibit 42 (Continued). SUMMARY OF WATER DISCHARGE,
SEDIMENT YIELD, AND RELATED VARIABLES BY STORM EVENTS FOR
SCOTT RUN NEAR MCLEAN, VA.(A~5A>
Storm
measure-
ment
No.
Dura-
tion
(dayi)
Mean
rate
Con-
Voturoe itructlon
{els-days) area
(•em)
8*dln»nt-tr»nsport
adjust-
ment
factor
Ratl
(tons per day
per acre oi
comtrucllon)
(tons)
Accumulated
Water Sediment
(eb-dan) (toni)
IKl
1-6
1-15
2-19
2-19
2-26
2-27
3-12
3-21
0. 00
. 21
. 29
15
6 . 48
. 52
7 .79
56
27.6
58.fi
45.9
18. C
60.7
27/3
50. 1
26.3
24. 8 1
12.3
13. 3
2.8
29. 1
14. 2
44. 4
14.7 .
0. 60
.60
. 60
. 60
. 64
. 60
'. 44
.64
2.7
8.7
5.9
1.5
9.0
2.7
8.0
2.0
1.6
5.2
3.4
.6
5.8
1.6
3.5
1.7
450
340
310
42
865
2130
858
300
302.1
3U. 4
327.7
330.5
3S9. 6
373. «
418.2
432.9
13,247
13,587
13,897
13, 930
14, 804
15, 064
15, 922
16,222
3,425
4-1
4-12
4-13
5-1
5-24
5-24
5-26
5-31
6-19
6-20
71
. 44
.19
42
.35
. 1ft
. 35
8 19
. 125
9 . 52
28.2
18.4
17.8
122
13 4
18. 4
79 0
21 1
15.2
30.0
18 6
8. ]
3.4
51 1
4.7
3. 5
27 6
4 0
1.9
15. 6
305
72
21
. 23
39
. 30
30
29
2 28
. 18
. 10
2 6
1 5
1.4
26. 0
.9
1. 5
13.2
1. g
1. 1
3. 1
1.9
1. 8
1. 7
36. 1
1. 2
2 0
17.0
4. 1
1.3
a 4
410
240
98
4,630
130
120
1,810
236
50
536
451.5
459.6
463.0
514. 1
518.8
522.3
549. 9
553.9
555.8
671. 4
16, 632
16, 872
16, 970
21,600
21,730
21, 850
23.660
23, 89ft
23,946
24, 482
Total
9-27..
Tot»l
11-2
11-10
11-18
11 21
12-6
Tot»l
HtS
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-19
2-5
2-6
2-22
3-6
3-6
3-12
3-18
3-18
Total
4-30
6-3
6-7 — ..
6-20
»-30
Total
349
10 .23
23
33
11 .84
31
12 .79
58
.. 2. 5S
... .33
71
42
... .25
21
17
42
29
13 .40
14 1.00
79
15 .83
5.88
21
18 .79
25
17 . 21
18 .38
1.81
13.5
23.3
129
24.5
47.7
26.9
25.1
33.8
26.0
14.4
19.5
16.5
52.2
89.0
50.0
-a 9
19.8
42.2
27.6
02.9
40.4
50.5
101
138.5
3. 1 'i
3.1 ....
7.7 \
68.1
7. a \ 'A
37.7 I
15.6 }
136.7
8.3 1
24.0
10 9
3.6
4.1
2.S
21.9
25.8
22.9
78.9
15.6
35.3
234. 1
5.8-1
49.8
10.1 }
!0.6 |
38.1 J
114.4 ....
'85 . 67
162
68
60
32
60
.60
. 60
.60
.60
60 • .60
.60
.60
.«7
.60
.60
60 .62
.40
11.40
.84
1. 23
1. 00
1.70
2.
23.
2.
6.
2.
2.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
7.
16.
6.
13.
1.
5,
2.
9.
4.
A,
19.
ft
1
U
3
'I
b
1
;
b
u
6
a
3
0
6
3
7
3
7
3
e
R
1
.6
1.3
13. 3
1. 4
2.0
1.8
1.4
2. 2
1 5
6
1 0
8
4 4
9. »
6.4
8.0
1. 1
2.1
as
7.8
6.0
7.4
32.5
8,260 .
39
39 .
100
1,770
110
390
260
2,630 .
74
250
100
24
34
22
300
450
469
1,280
140
283
3,426 .
88
683
160
171
1,360
2,162 .
574.5
582.2
.650. 3
657.9
645. 6
711.2
719.5
743. 5
754.4
758.0
762.1
764.9
786.8
812.6
835.5
912.2
930.0
965.3
971. 1
1, 020. 9
1,031.0
1,041. 6
1. 079. 7
24, 521
26, 891
27, 151
27,225
27,575
27,599
27, 633
27,655
27,955
28,405
28,874
30,154
30,294
30,577
30,665
31,348
31,508
31, 689
33,039
Page 3 of 3
1BO
-------
g
i-
o
cc
i—
to
z
o
o
(X
o
200
100 -
60
40
20
>-
£* 10
u.^
W7
Q E
LU
s
Q
UJ
00
a:
O
co
Z
1
0.6
0.4
0.2
_L
6 10 20 40 60 100 200 400 600
MEAN STORM FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Exhibit 43. Relation Between Runoff and Sediment
Discharge for Storm Events in Scott Run
18L
-------
Zi 30,000
ce.
5 25,000
<:
o:
O
_ i
20,000
is;ooo
^ 10.000
o
5000
_
O
1961
1962 1963
PROJECT TIME, BY QUARTERS
1964
Exhibit 44. Variations in Mean Concentrations
of Sediment for Storm Runoff, 1961 - 64(A-54)
182
-------
Exhibit 45. SIZE COMPOSITION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
TRANSPORTED BY STORM RUNOFF FROM SCOTT RUN BASIN, 1961 - 64.
(A-54)
Year and quarter
1961
2»...
3.-
4
mi
1
2
3
4
19CS
1
2
3..
4
1994
2
3
Total
Percent
Mean
flow of
•term
runofl
(cfs)
69
. 116
37
40
40
16
43
64
43
61
37
31
24
Sediment
(tons) i
4,844
5,600
2,353
3, 42;>
8,200
39
2,630
3,426
2,462
502
1,305
1,219
786
124
36 975
100
Site composition
(percent)
Sand
12
16
7
8
8
1
10
9
12
9
11
7
&
4
Silt
62
60
65
64
64
63
63
64
62
64
62
65
66
66
Clay
26
24
28
28
28
36
27
27
26
27
27
28
28
30
Period discharge (tons)
Sand
580
000
165
275
660
0
260
310
290
45
145
85
45
5
3,765
10
Silt
3,000
3,360
1,530
2,100
5,280
25
1,660
2.190
1,530
320
810
790
520
80
23,285
«3
Clay
1,260
1,340
660
960
2,320
15
710
020
C40
135
350
340
220
35
9,905
2T
> Computed ausrwndcd-stdlmrnl discharge from lahlc 3.
' Data available only (or part of quarter.
Exhibit 46. SIZE COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENT
TRANSPORTED BY SCOTT RUN, 1961 -
Site composition
Flow (percent)
(cfs-
Sediment loads
(tons)
days) Sand
and Silt City Sand
travel
Silt
City Total
Suspended sediment
loads for storm
rinioir 1, 735
Additional sediment
loads for storm
runoff l
Estimated sediment
loads for intervals
between storm
events 2,952 25 75
10 63 27 3,765 23,285 9,905 36,975
85 15 1,570 280 1,850
80
235
315
*.68Q 14 60 26 5,335 23,645 10,140 39,140
183
-------
Case 5. Effects of Highway Construction on a Montana Stream
Source -
"Shorter Papers and Notes: Detrimental Effects of Highway Construc-
tion on a Montana Stream," Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, Vol. 88, 1959, 72-73.(A~A7)
Purpose -
This study concerns the effects of highway construction on water
quality as indicated by changes in a fish population.
Site Location/Description -
The study took place at Flint Creek which is a tributary of the Clark
Fork of the Columbia River, located near Granite County.
Physical Characteristics of the Stream -
The stream has an average width of 20 feet, an average depth of 6
inches, and an average flow of 15 c.f.s.
Biota -
Fish life consisted mainly of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerii), mountain
whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki), and
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
Study Method -
Fish counts were made before the beginning of a highway construction
project that drained into the stream, and after completion of the
project. In order to capture fish for tagging in the census-taking
process, a 230 volt d.c. portable generator was used for electric
shock; the sections of stream to be shocked were blocked off with
1/2-inch mesh seines placed about 30 feet apart.
Time Frame -
The study took place from the fall of 1956 until the summer of 1957.
184
-------
Results -
This study, conducted to identify any effects which may have overcome
the fish population of a small mountain stream because of contingent
highway construction, indicated that an overall reduction in both
numbers and weight of large size game fish occurred at a rate of 94
percent. Small sized game fish (under six inches total length) had
a reduced population by 85 percent and an overall weight loss of 76
percent. Exhibit 47 shows the details of the samples collected.
185
-------
Exhibit 47. GAME FISH CAPTURED BY ELECTRIC SHOCKER
FROM 300 FOOT SECTION OF FLINT CREEK, MONTANA, 1955 and 1957(A~47)
£
Species
Rainbow and cutthroat
trout
Eastern brook trout
Mountain whitefish
Total large sized fish
Rainbow and cutthroat
trout
Eastern brook trout
Mountain whitefish
Total small-sized fish
Total fish, all sizes
Number
68
7
16
91
46
6
1
53
144
1955
Lbs.
Large-sized
12.63
3.86
2.25
18.74
Small— sized
1.32
0.17
0.04
1.53
20.27
1957
Number
fish
6
0
0
6
fish
6
2
0
8
14
Lbs.
1.19
0.00
0.00
1.19
0.26
0.10
0.00
0.36
1.55
-------
Case 6. Sediment Runoff Control at Highway Construction Sites (1-80)
in Pennsylvania
Source -
Swerdon, P. M. and Kountz, S. R., Sediment Runoff Control at Highway
Construction Sites. Engineering Research Bulletin BIOS. The Penn-
sylvania State University College of Engineering, University Park,
-.„..» (A-48)
January 1973. '
Purpose -
The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the necessity of having
some control measure provided during highway construction in order to
safeguard the municipal water supply from deterioration. The site under
investigation was known to have produced sediment runoff during actual
highway construction which resulted in increased costs of 1 to 3
million dollars for water treatment.
In this study, actual measurements of parameters—rainfall and climatic
conditions, topography, etc.—were used to compute pollutant loads by
means of mathematical models.
Site Location/Description -
Selected for this study was a 7,000 foot section of 1-80 in Union
County, Pa. Exhibit 48 shows the layout of highway 1-80 and the whole
watershed of White Deer Creek; Exhibit 49 shows the Lick Run drainage
basin and related construction areas under study.
Topography -
The east side of the construction, which comprises 37 percent or 5.8
acres of the total area exposed, has a flow path of 2200 feet. The
average slope of this 15.7-acre drainage area is 4 percent. The west
side of the construction takes up the remaining 46 percent of the
exposed area (7.1 acres). The largest flow path in this 15.4-acre
drainage area is 31,000 feet.
187
-------
-
:•
\ Lycoming County
\
Clinton
County
Logontown
Water Treatment
Plant —'
Union County
6 miles
Lewisburg
Exhibit 48. White Deer Creek Watershed
(A-48)
-------
:•
-
5.000ft.
Exhibit 49. Lick Run Drainage Basin and
Related Construction Areas(A-48)
-------
Soil Type -
The soil is predominantly a fairly homogeneous Appalachian DeKalb-
Lehew-Laidig, stony sandy loam which is derived from grey and brown
acid sandstones. This series is of Hydrologic Group C.
Climate/Rainfall -
Rainfall in this part of Pennsylvania is fairly moderate with an
average 24 hour storm of 1.11 per year frequency yielding 1.8 inches
of rainfall.
Study Method -
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was used to compute the sediment
yield, and the various factors involved were determined from the actual
field data.
Also under this study, an analysis was made of the comparative costs
between the actual treatment which became necessary during 1-80 con-
struction with regard to the municipal water supply, and the alternative
pollution which would have occurred without treatment. Control by a
system of ditches and impoundments was also investigated in terms of
cost, and this method was shown to be the least expensive.
Result -
In this study,the Universal Soil Loss Equation was used to compute
the sediment yield. The various factors involved were determined from
the actual field data. Exhibit 50 represents the hydrograph and sedi-
ment concentrations that were derived using the equation. The maxi-
mum, recorded sediment concentration was 7,000 mg/1. Sediment
yield equaled 256 tons from construction plus 31 tons overland for a
total of 287 tons. For the total project in the drainage basin, the
sediment yield equaled 1,282 tons (construction—1,024 tons; overland—
258 tons), which is 41 percent of the average annual sediment load for
the whole watershed of the White Deer Creek area (42 square miles).
190
-------
so ..
LICK RUN + (EAST + WEST)
o .
to 11
Exhibit 50. Hydrographs and Sediment Concentration Graph,
Lick Run
191
-------
Case 7. Sediment Discharge in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California: 1972
Water Year
Source-
Carl G. Kroll, Sediment Discharge in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California:
1972 Water Year, Open file Report, U. S. Department of the Interior
(A-34)
Geologic Survey, Water Resources Division, Menlo Park, Calif., 1973.
Purpose -
The purpose of the study was "to determine the amount of sediment
transported from highway cuts in relation to the quantity transported
by principal tributaries to the lake." Other objectives were (1) to
determine the effects of revegetation and other measures to control
erosion at highway cuts, and (2) to "obtain base-line stream flow and
sediment—discharge data from selected streams for use in the design
of future highways."
Site Location/Description -
2
The Lake Tahoe drainage basin (excluding a lake surface of 191 mi )
2
is 315 mi . Lake level is maintained at 6,225 feet above sea level,
with the highest point in the basin 10,881 feet. Outflow is con-
trolled by a dam at Tahoe City.
Sail Type -
Soils from the northern parts of the basin are derived from volcanic
deposits, while the southern soils are formed from granitic rocks.
Glaciation has been a major influence on the landscape and a major
source of sediment to the lake. In the past, the lake level has been
higher than at present, causing the deposition of alluvial sediments
in the shallows at the former margins of the lake. These deposits
are presently adjacent to, but above, the lake. They are level and
therefore subject to intensive development; they are highly erodible.
192
-------
Climate/Rai'nfall -
During the period of this study, October 1971 through September 1972,
the precipitation was only 77 percent of the 30-year average from
1931-1960. The precipitation between November and March was 18 inches.
During the rest of the year, there were no major storms. Two local
showers produced moderate to heavy precipitation of short duration.
Study Method -
Seven gaging stations were installed on stream tributaries to the lake.
Water discharge and suspended sediment were measured daily and total
sediment discharge was determined periodically. In addition, data
were taken from three older gages and from stations set up in highway
gutters at 17 locations. The older gaging stations also furnished
historical data for comparison with the data being collected.
Result j^ -
Exhibit 51 lists the locations of the stations and gutters from which
samples were taken. Exhibit 52 shows a representative daily runoff
hydrograph and Exhibits 53 through 58 give samples of the data. Daily
data are given in appendices to the reference report. Note that rain-
fall was below average for this period.
Eighty-seven percent of the annual suspended discharge carried by snow-
melt occurred during the early spring. A large sediment source for
spring highway runoff is sand that is applied to the roads during the
winter. This is of prime importance in the spring and may be signi-
ficant throughout the year. Suspended sediment discharge is given
in Exhibit 55 and 56.
193
-------
Exhibit 51. SEDIMENT DISCHARGE, LAKE TAHOE BASIN, CALIFORNIA
GAGING STATIONS AND GUTTER-FLOW MEASURING
(Stations are listed in downstream order with the same numbering system
used in water-supply papers and annual data reports of the Geological
Survey. Gutters listed under a gaging station are at sites near the
creek in the station name.)
Station
number
Station name
Drainage
area (mi2)
Highway
mileposti/
10336593
10336600
10336610
10336630
10336640
10336650
10336660
10336684
10336780
10336790
Grass Lake Creek near Meyers 6.99
Gutter
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Upper Truckee River near Meyers 33.1
Upper Truckee River at South
Lake Tahoe 54.8
Eagle Cr near Camp Richardson 6.38
Gutter
Do.
Meeks Creek at Meeks Bay 8.08
Gutter
Do.
Do.
Quail Lake Cr at Homewood .95
Gutter
Do.
Blackwood Cr near Tahoe City 11.2
Dollar Cr near Tahoe City 1.07
Gutter
Do.
Trout Cr near Tahoe Valley 36.7
Trout Cr at South Lake Tahoe 40.4
(at mouth of creek)
89 ED
70
94
11
21
44
99
37
4.45
50 ED 76.41
89 Ed 17.13
16.61
16.87
89 Ed 24.82
24.49
24.65
25.44
89 PL 1.55
1.27
1.43
89 PL 3.91
28 PL 3.50
3.38
3.50
(at Martin Avenue)
50 ED 77.33
1 Numbers are taken from milepost markers along highways. First 2 digits
designate highway number; the two letters designate county—ED for El Dorado,
PL for Placer; the last series of numbers designates distance in miles from
southern boundary of designated county.
194
-------
t
.
!r
S = jo
i
-
"
OC T
^JU^
N o v ' ij * c
1 AS
J\
/^
FtB ] »«R
/v^
APR
AA/
MAY
S
JL>E
^
J I LV
A L'C
-
™
5F.TT
i I
Exhibit 52. Daily Mean Runoff in Grass
Lake Creek Near Meyers(A-34)
-------
Exhibit 53 . MONTHLY RUNOFF AT SELECTED GAGING STATIONS
(A-34)
vo
Station
Runoff (acre-feet)
1971
Oct.| Nov. | Dec.
Jan. | Feb. j
Mar. ]
Apr. |
1972
May | June j
July
Aug.
Sept.
Totali/
Grass Lake Creek
near Meyers 123 227 200 164 157 1,010 1,020 1,720 1,480 304 122 127 6,650
Upper Truckee
River at South
Lake Tahoe
910 1,450 2,370 1,880 1,950 10.700 8,310 17,000 13,700 1,960 686 668 61,600
Eagle Creek near
Camp Richardson 41 337 310 202 251 1,580 1,090 4,040 3,530 643 90 117 12,200
Meeks Creek at
Meeks Bay
Quail Lake Creek
at Homewood
Dollar Creek near
Tahoe City.?'
Trout Creek at
South Lake
Tahoe
26 100 174 143 286 1,910 1,580 3,600 1,730 82 13 27 9,670
24 37 30 23 18 137 207 612 349 54 12 15 1,520
12.4 3.9 4.1 6.9
1,460 1,480 1,520 1,690 1,430 2,580 2,420 4,000 4,340 1,490 899 914 24,200
1. Rounded.
2. Period of record, June through September 1972.
-------
Exhibit 54. MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WATER DISCHARGE AT GAGING STATIONS
(A-34)
\O
Station
Daily mean discharge ( ft Is)
Date
Minimum
Date
Maximum
Instantaneous discharge (ft /s)
Date
Maximum
Grass Lake Creek
near Meyers
Upper Truckee River
near Meyers
Upper Truckee River
at South Lake Tahoe
Eagle Creek near
Camp Richardson
Meeks Creek
at Meeks Bay
Quai1 Lake Creek
at Hmnewond
Blackwood Creek
near Tahoe City
Dollar Creek
near Tahoe City.
II
Trout Creek
near Tahoe Valley
Trout Creek
at Soutli Lake Tahoe
Aug. 26-28, 1972 1.5
Aug. 26 4.4
Aug. 25,26,
Sept. 22
Sept. 25
Aug. 20-25
Aug. 23-28
Aug. 27,28,
Sept. 7-9
July 17,18
Aug. 8,15
Aug. 21,22, 27
Aug. 20-24,
26-28
Sept. 25
.18
.17
2.2
.03
12
12
June 4-6, 1972
May 31
8.5 June 1
.23 June 1
May 15
May 29
May 28
June 8, 9
June 7
June 7
44
299
441
112
84
15
94
109
June 4, 1972
June 4
June 1
May 31
May 15
May 14, 17
188 May 13
0.38 June 8
June 7
June 4
102
402
518
128
104
17
287
0.43
100
124
1. Period of record, June through September 1972.
-------
Exhibit 55- MONTHLY SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT DISCHARGE AT GAGING STATIONS
(A-34)
vo
CO
Station name
Grass Lake Creek
near Meyers
Upper Truckee
River at South
Lake Tahoe
Eagle Creek near
Camp Richardson
Meeks Creek at
Meeks Bay
Quail Lake Creek
at Homewood
Dollar Creek at
Tahoe City 2/
Trout Creek at
South Lake
Tahoe
Suspended-sediment discharge (tons)
Oct.
0.32
7.0
.01
.03
0
—
16
Nov.
1.6
58
.41
.39
.08
—
45
Dec.
0.36
20
.09
.34
0
—
18
Jan.
0.34
8.0
.06
.11
0
—
21
Feb.
0.40
21
.13
.36
.03
—
27
Mar.
14
487
4.6
7.5
.51
—
108
Apr.
8.8
165
.78
4.9
.63
—
87
May
29
572
11
31
2.9
—
229
June
52
353
6.6
14
1.3
.01
387
July
1.5
9.4
.43
.20
.18
0
38
Aug.
0.52
14
.06
.01
0
0
32
Sept.
0.39
5.0
.74
.29
.03
0
29
Total1'
109
1720
25
59
6
—
1040
Percent
during
March-June
snowmelt
95
92
92
97
94
—
78
1 Values rounded to three significant figures.
2 Period of record, June through September 1972.
-------
Exhibit 56. MAXIMUM AND SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT
DISCHARGE AT SELECTED GAGING STATIONS^'34)
Station
Grasa Lake Creek
near Meyers
Upper Trnckee River
at South Lake Tahoe
Eagle Creek near
Camp Blcbardaon
•eeke Creek at
leeks Buy
Quail Lake Creek
at Hoswvood
Dollar Creek near
Taboe City2/
Trout Creek at
South Lake Tahoe
Daily extreee&
Mean concentration (
Date^ Minimi*
«/l>
Date Maxima
Dec. 1971-Feb., 1 June 4, 1972 113
Aug.. Sept. 1972
Dec. 1971, Jan., 2 Mar 3. 1972 ZOO
July-Sept. 1972
Mov. mi-Apr.. 0 Mar. 3, 1972 20
Jnoe-Aug-. 1972
Dec. 1971- 0 Sept. 1, 1972 31
ttb. 1972
Dec. 1971- 0 Sept. 26, 1972 11
Jan. 1972
Sept. 1972 1
July 4,5, 1972 7
Sept. 25, 1972 3 Aug. 30, 1972 186
Mean discharge (tons per day)
I/
Date MiniaUM Date Maxlaua
Aut., Sept. 1972 O June 4, 1972 22
Aug., Sept. 1972 .05 Mar. 3 87
Oct. 1971-Apr., 0 Mar. 3 1.5
June-Sept. 1972
Oct. 1971-Feb., 0 May 15 2.5
July-Sept. 1972
Oct. 1971-Mar., D June 1 .21
July-Sept. 1972
June-Sept, 1972 0 June 8 .01
Sept. 25, 1972 .10 June 4 51
Instantaneous Extrea.es—
Concentration (»g/l)
Date Maxiausi
June 4, 1972 500
Aug. 30 590
Mar. 3 35
Sept. 1 150
Sept. 26 23
Aug. 16 18
Aug. 30 730
Discharge
(tons per day)
Date
June 4, 1972
Mar. 3
Oar. 3
Apr. 5
June 1
Aug. 16
June 4
MaxleUM
124
159
3.3
4.3
38
02
137
vo
VO
1. Minimal daily «ean extrw*«« occurred Bore than once vhen specific day is not indicated.
2. Estimated tram temporal concentration curve.
3. Period of record, June through September 1972.
-------
Exhibit 57. SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AND PARTICLE SIZE AT SELECTED GAGING STATIONS
(A-34)
Date
Time
(Hours)
Water
temper-
ature
(°C)
Water
Discharge
(ft3/s)
Suspended sediment
Concen-
tration
(mg/1)
Discharge
(tons per
day)
Particle size
Percent finer than size (in
millimeters) indicated
0.062
0.125
0.250
0.500
1.00
Method
of
analysis
Upper Truckee River at South Lake Tahoe
o
o
Nov. 11, 1971 1520
Apr. 10, 1972 1230
May 8 2355
May 12 1400
May 17 1420
June 13 0850
June 16 1400
Mar. 4, 1972 1415
Apr. 10 1240
May 9 0015
6.0
—
9.5
9.5
9.0
14.0
52
116
276
226
318
188
166
270
3
14
11
13
15
19
38
.94
10
6.7
11
7.6
8.5
99
68
39
50
36
39
22
100
—
50
50
44
27
—
100
80 100
70 100
52 94 100
Sieve
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do,
Do.
7.5
6.5
Trout Creek at South Lake Tahoe
43 38 4.4 35 49 69 100
36 7 .68 19 20 36 93
61 26 4.3 51 58 83 100
100
Do.
Do.
Do.
-------
Exhibit 58. PARTICLE SIZE OF BED MATERIAL AT SELECTED GAGING STATIONS
(A-34)
N>
O
Date
Tine
(Hours)
Water
temperature
(*C)
Number
of sampling
points
Water
Discharge
(£t3/s)
Particle size
Percent finer than size
0.125
Upper Truckee River at
lay 12, 1972 1450 9.5 4 218 1
July 3 1140 14.5 5 62 1
0.250
South
7
7
0.500
1.00
(in millimeters) indicated
2.00
4.00
8.00
16.0
32.0
Method
of
analysis
Lake Tahoe
28
22
38
35
53
47
75
65
96
90
100
99
Sieve
100 Do.
April 10 1240
May 3 1300
Trout Creek at South Lake Tahoe
6.5 2 36 2 22 44 53 77 100
2 55 —2 26 55 80 95 100
Do.
Do.
-------
APPENDIX B: EFFECTS OF URBAN CONSTRUCTION ON WATER QUALITY
This appendix summarizes 11 case studies that contain data on the
effects of urban-area construction on water quality. Data from the
studies are included in the summaries. For clarity, each case study
begins on a separate page. See Appendix G for List of References.
202
-------
Case 8. Effects of Urbanization in the Colma Creek Basin, California
Source -
Knott, J. M., Effects of Urbanization on Sedimentation and Flood Flows
±n Colma Creek Basin, California, Open File Report, U. S. Geological
Survey, Menlo Park, California, February 22, 1973/A~32^
Purpose -
This study was undertaken "to document the water and sediment discharge
of streams in the basin during periods of active development, and to
estimate the probable effect of urbanization on flood flows and sediment
yield." Special emphasis was placed on the quantities of sand trans-
ported by the creek, since this tends to deposit in the lower reaches
of the creek and contributes to flooding.
Site Location/Description -
"Colma Creek, a tributary to San Francisco Bay, drains a 16.3 square-
mile area on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The basin
is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by
the ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Elevations range from sea level
at the mouth of Colma Creek to more than 1,300 feet above mean sea
level on the San Bruno Mountain." (See Exhibit 59)
Topography -
"Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two
relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast
and are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the
area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast
where it drains into San Francisco Bay.
"Most of the population of the area is centered in the cities of Daly
City and South San Francisco. The remaining population is divided
among Colma, Pacifica, and San Bruno."
203
-------
Source: Knott, J. M. (1973)
Exhibit 59. Aerial Photograph of the Colma Creek Basin (1971).
Drainage Divide is Indicated Approximately by Line(A-32)
204
-------
Soil Types -
Soil types are tabulated in Exhibit 60.
Vegetation -
"Vegetal cover consists primarily of lawns, parks, and native grasses
in urban and foothill areas, and chaparral at higher elevations in
the undeveloped areas. Exotic trees and shrubs, although present in
many varieties, cover a small part of the basin. Flowers and vege-
tables are grown commercially in areas adjacent to Colma Creek and in
foothill areas adjacent to San Bruno Mountain."
Land Use -
"In 1946, about 70 percent of the land in the Colma Creek basin was
used for agriculture or was undeveloped. About half of the remaining
land was set aside for open spaces (cemetaries and parks) and half was
developed (urban and industrial). Most of the urban and industrial
areas were located near the mouth of Colma Creek where harbor facili-
ties were available.
"After 1950, urbanization progressed along the flatter valley lands
between South San Francisco and Daly City. By 1956, 34 percent of
the basin was urbanized, 51 percent was undeveloped, 12 percent was
agriculture, and 3 percent was under construction (Exhibit 61).
During the next decade (1971-1980) construction and open space areas
are expected to be reduced and urban areas are expected to increase.
Land use during the latter part of the decade is expected to be about
62 percent urban, 35 percent open space, and 3 percent agriculture."
(Exhibit 62).
Parameters Measured -
- Rainfall
- Water discharge (from basin and component sub-basins)
205
-------
Exhibit 60. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS OCCURRING
IN THE COLMA CREEK BASIN (A~32)
ro
o
Soil ftSMciatloa V
Tan it J s-Lecfcvood J
Trofll.
Surface | Subsoil
CI*y toaa, loaa Claj, clay loa*
tUhora-Colmi 3 Sandy loan Sandy clay lou,
lean
llerra-CalK* t,
Sandy loaai Sandy clay* Ion
Los Cacos-Hull* 6 Loasi Clay loan, lou
Cavlota-Kockland 7
Hade aaUa( ov«r 9
Had. *>1U 10
Loaa. sandstone Loaat sandacan*
anj shale and shale
Clay lou Sandy clay Loa»,
Sandv >llt» clay. Saad, tilt. clay.
and crushed and crusfeed .
roc-t . reek
(Variable ««t«ri uDC«n«>lidaE
| w"ri*l
Sedimentary alluviua
Clay aLluvtun
Coastal; sedioentc.
frarlnn! S*dl»*nt«
Coastal sedlcencc,
Huirjne S«d1*rnts
SandstcC* an<] shale..
sandstone and
Baste i|neou> rock.
Cl«y
«J ^c.cl.l)
L«n
fperc
£t) M»rd°
Gently sloping fans 0-5 KORC to
Level, low valley >0
buttons
None
Terrac>« 5-15 Slight to
Tnrace* 4-13 Koder«t^
Hilly, BOuntalnous 30-50 HlgU
Mountainous 30-10 High
TId.,1 «.r.h=a >0
Aenclxcii hL!L»
h>««
Hl,h
-------
EXPLANATION
Gmir.l l.nd-uie anal '"' "'
!••• tram U.S. C*olo|lnl Survay
|M FrMitUco South. 1 24,000, lfl
fhotor.vi.lon M of 1968
IM in«i cMipiud br
• tram ••rt«l photogr»(
Exhibit 61. Generalized Land Use in the
Colma Creek Drainage Basin, 1956(A-32)
207
-------
!*•• fro- U.S. 6wla|l»l Surviy
S«n Fruielico South, 1-24,000. 1956
Photorcvtilon u of 1)68
Exhibit 62. Generalized Land Use in the
Colma Creek Drainage Basin, 197o(A~32)
208
-------
- Concentration of suspended sediment In discharges
- Sediment deposited in debris basins (surveyed by transit-
stadia transverse or prismoidal methods)
- Constituents of suspended sediment discharged (sand, clay-
silt)
- Land use (from aerial photographs)
Study Method -
The above listed parameters (except land use) were measured at the
locations shown in Exhibit 63.
Measurement data for the above listed parameters were used to deter-
mine quantities of water discharge and sediment yield per square mile
of the entire basin and certain sub-areas.
Quantities of suspended sediment in runoff were computed from the
measured quantities of water discharged, concentrations of sediment
in the discharged water, and specific gravity of the sediment.
Sediment yield for various types of land use was estimated by prorating
the annual sediment discharge at a particular (downstream) measurement
station. The prorating procedure takes into account: (1) the percent-
age of land in each use category (urban, open space, agriculture, and
construction) in the area drained by the stream above the measuring
station; and (2) an index of sediment yield for each land use category.
The study also projected future yields of sediment from the basin at
such time as the basin was fully urbanized (defined as 65 percent urban,
35 percent open space). Under these conditions, the total yield is
expected to be lower than the 1971 yield because of the reduction in
exposed soil for construction and agricultural purposes.
209
-------
*++-
/
ji ^ — /
? u^ vj /I
/' (
"> ^
V '^-EI«!» ^.
\ ClIIIB
\J\-^
\
\
EXPLANATION
HALT PITY
Drainage-basin divide
-. — i . ..~S i .• Subbasin drainage divide
/ ' I
) Daily-record, water-discharge,
j r^ sin inu Mimtiii » and sediment-discharge station
^ Principal debris basin
\ s »
k •. Rainfall station
• ^-.
m"*\ / /v^0""^;^
xjF^ / f ^-^
^ M ^ /
N< S>" i
io 1 S \
u — -^ \ / ( v- I
.-^... / X / \ x
{ / SOUTH / )
~4*u 1 "" r"«i«e». /
•^ =ff= /
.X J.!!!* -^"^ •"- / '• — . I
<- s-S- \ >-_ \
'C^-S- ..... \ ) .-^^ S "- -r-... \ 'S^
x*^^- .
^N
\
"'",t
V , . , , T , , i
0
IM* frw U.I. C*olo|lul Su.-v«jr
•M rrwet«CQ South, 1: 14, 000, WS4
Photor.irt.lon M of 1961
"\- y-'-'^' ~^\ / ~^^ ^ ''\
*s*~~J"*^j> f ^''^h-'V' \ y
' "X / f / .'j ' -A. ^-^yf
^ A / ,/ 1 ^S^fl]
\ \..,J ( \ /' \ r'gZLJ
*»fc_ / ^^* % !
^^^^•« jX^ • ^w* | /
i V "ILI \ /" s" "Ml «" Ft""iKi (»
. Cut 6«irt \ f *lr>*"
• [rill ItlllM X-.-
Exhibit 63. Hydrologic Data Stations in the Colma Creek Basin^A~
210
-------
Time Frame -
The study was based on records of stream flow, sediment, and land use
data acquired during the interval 1964 - 1971 when the basin was under-
going rapid urbanization.
Results -
Rainfall; Precipitation data were available from measurement stations
at four locations in or near the basin. Historical data at one location
and short-term data at three locations are summarized in Exhibit 64.
Water Discharge; Runoff data at two locations are summarized in Exhi-
bit 65• This information for certain time periods is related to changes
in land use in Exhibit 66> which indicates the changing fraction of
rainfall discharged as runoff.
Exhibits 67 and 68 show time and quantity relations between rainfall
intensity and rate of runoff.
Sediment Discharge: Sediment concentration and water discharge rate
were measured concurrently at two locations. Suspended sediment trans-
ported past the gaging stations at these locations was calculated by
the relation:
8(3 ^^T
O W
where
A is the sediment discharge, in tons per day
K is a constant (equivalent to 0.0027 for sediment having a
specific gravity of 2.65)
GS is the concentration of suspended sediment, in milligrams
per liter
0 is the water discharge, in cubic feet per second
211
-------
EXHIBIT 64
SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION DATA IN THE COLMA CREEK BASIN (A~32'
IO
fo
Period of Eleva
Station record * °
location (water .
Year) ™
San Francisco 1927-70 8
Airport near 19*64
South San 1965
Franciscoa 1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1964-71
**°n Average Range in
annual monthly
^ precipitation precipitation
. (inches) (inches)
b!8.69
12.72
20.80
17.65
30.75
15.88
28.24
19.56
18.71
20.33
0.00-12.30
Trace-4.38
Trace-5.42
Trace-5.40
Trace-10.43
Trace-5.25
Trace-8.92
Trace-8.33
Trace-6.41
Trace-10.43
Station
location
Collins Avenue
maintenance
yard at Colmac
Coast Guard
radio station
near Pacifica
San Bruno
Mountain near
Colma
Period of Elevation
record above
(water mean sea
year) level
(feet)
1965-70 170
Dec. 1968- 930
Feb. 1971
Oct. 1970- 970
Feb. 1971
Average Range in
annual monthly
precipitation precipitation
(inches) (inches)
d22.5 0-10.8
24.1 0-9.6
— 0-4.7
aU.S. Weather Bureau Station.
^Standard normal precipitation (1931-60).
cRecorda maintained by San Mateo County subsequent to December 1968.
dIncludes precipitation data for Christen Ranch (1961-65).
-------
Exhibit 65- WATER DISCHARGE OF COLMA CREEK AND
SPRUCE BRANCH AT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCIo(A~32}
Dra
Station a1
(sq
Lr.age , .
ref, (Oct.l to
mL) Sept, 30)
Colma Creek al: 10.8 1964
South San
Francisco
Spruce Branch 1
at South San
Francisco
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1070
1971
1964-71
.68 !1D66
1967
1968
.70 21969
Water discharge
Annual
Cfs-days
353
2,040
1,700
3,540
1,920
3;890
2S900
2,750
2 .,460
416
740
364
304
Acre-feet
1,690
4,060
3,360
7,220
3,800
7,710
5,750
5,450
4,880
825
1,470
722
603
Maximum
Daily
(cfs)
236
113
160
462
198
162
205
203
.-
43
113
60
13
Instan-
taneous
(cfs)
1,050
671
318
1,120
1,260
1,180
918
1,900
_
219
372
389
137
M-Jater discharge records began February 20, 1965.
2Station discontinued September 30, 1969.
213
-------
Exhibit 66. RAINFALL, RUNOFF, AND LAND USE DURING
NOVEMBER TO MARCH STORM SEASONS, 1964-71(A~32)
N>
Water
year
Rainfall
(inches)
Runoff
(inches)
Ratio of
runoff to
rainfall
Land use (percent)
CD
0
CO
Q.
CO
c
0)
ex
o
§
.a
n
o
0)
M
3
4-1
1-1
3
c
0
u
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
10.44
15.78
16.89
24.31
14.51
25.84
17.01
16.83
2.58
5.28
5.38
9.52
5.10
11.24
7.58
7.30
0.25
.33
.32
.39
.35
.43
.45
.43
"34
—
42 38 5 15
41 40 5 14
42 46 4 8
— — — —
aUpstream from Colma Creek gaging station
blnterpolated from land-use data determined for 1956 and 1967.
-------
2000
to
»-•
Ui
w
u
w
o
u o
M, 8
M rj
Q en
S
H
^
§
w
55
H
in
£5
1000
500
- Total runoff, 2.36 inches
100
50
10
Exhibit 67- Relation Between Water Discharge and Time
During Storm of January 20-21, 1967(A-32)
-------
s
di
W
CO
W
33
H
H
CO
»
W
H
0.6
0.5
O.A
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Total rainfall, 5.98 inches
20
JANUARY
21
Exhibit 68. Water Discharge at Colma Creek Gaging Station and Rainfall
at San Francisco Airport During the Storm of January 20-21, 196?(A~32)
-------
Results are presented in Exhibit 69. The reported values of sediment
transported do not include bedload, which is stated to constitute only
a small fraction of the total sediment load.
Substantial proportions of the sediment were trapped in debris basins,
the number of which in use during any given year varied from 5 to 10
during the study period. Quantities trapped were determined by surveys
of certain basins. The trapped sediment consisted primarily of sand
(e.g., in one location, sand constituted 59 percent, silt-clay 41 per-
cent). During a single year, one debris basin above the Colma Creek
measurement station prevented some 12,300 tons of sediment from reaching
the station. This compares with 65,100 tons transported past the sta-
tion during the same period.
Total sediment yield from specific areas were determined by combining
the measured quantities transported by measurement stations plus the
quantities retained by debris basins. Total yields, determined in this
manner, are shown in Exhibit 70.
Sediment Discharge from Specific Types of Land Use. - "The annual
quantity of sediment transported from various land-use areas was com-
puted by prorating the annual sediment yields at the Colma Creek gaging
station during 1969 and 1970 on the basis of sediment yield indexes
characteristic of moderate-to-large storms and the distribution of land
use upstream from the gaging station. Because index data were comparable
for different storm sizes, a series of composite sediment-yield indexes
was assigned for average sediment-transport conditions.(See Exhibit 71).
217
-------
Exhibit 69. WATER AND SEDIMENT DISCHARGE OF COLMA CREEK
AND SPRUCE BRANCH AT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO(A-32)
N>
I-
co
Streamflou
and
sediment
station
Drain-
age
area
(sq mi)
year
(Oct. 1
to
Sept. 30}
Water discharge
Annual
(cfs-days)
Col ma Creek at 10.8 1966 1,700
South San 1967 3,640
1969 3,890
1970 2,900
Spruce Branch 1.68 1966 416
at South San 1967 74O
Francisco 1968 364
2.70 1969 304
Maximum day
(cfs)
Suspended sediment
Total
Discharge
(tons)
160 32,100
462 122.OOO
162 65,100
205 24,900
43 4,760
113 9,800
60 339,300
13 327,000
Mean
concen-
tration
(TO/1)
6,990
12 ,400
6,200
3,180
4,240
4,900
340,000
332,900
Sand
Discharge
(tons)
1 11, 800
'60,800
34,200
14 ,300
2,220
5,580
"
Mean
concen-
tration
(ntt/1)
2,570
6,190
3,260
1,830
1,980
2,790
-
TOTAL SUSPENDED SEDIMEJU
Maximum day Katio to H^O Discharge
Total
5,790
27,000
4,290
5,560
854
2,300
"
Ola charge
Sand (ton.)
'2,480 19
'14,800 34
2.610 16.7
3.590 8.4
523 11.3
1,400 13.
108.
89.
Concentration
(Bg/1)
•
10.2
6.6
110.
105.
'Revised from Knott (1969).
Drainage area reduced by upstream diversion.
Result of highway construction, real estate development,•and ineffective debris basin.
-------
Exhibit 70. TOTAL SEDIMENT YIELD OF THE BASIN UPSTREAM
FROM THE COLMA CREEK GAGING STATION INCLUDING SEDIMENT
TRAPPED IN UPSTREAM DEBRIS BASIN, 1966-70(A-32)
Water year
(Oct. 1 to Total
Sept. 30) Tons
N3
*° 1966 45,300
1967 153,000
1968 47,500
1969 82,500
1970 36,800
Tons per sq mi 1
Annual sediment yield
Sand
tons Tons per sq mi
Silt clay
Dons Tons per sq mi
4,190 21,600 2,000 23,700 2,190
14,200 81,300 7,530 71,300 6,600
4,400 27,700 2,560 19,800 1,830
7,640 46,500 4,310 36,000 3,330
3,410 23,300 2,160 13,500 1,250
-------
Exhibit 71. SEDIMENT YIELD INDICES FOR VARIOUS LAND
USES AND SEDIMENT PARTICLE SIZES(A~32)
Sediment Sediment
Land use transported yield index
Open space Sand 1.0
Urban Sand 2.2
Agriculture Sand. 70
Construction Sand 70
Open space Silt - clay 1.0
Urban Silt - clay 3.0
Agriculture Silt - clay 60
Construction Silt - clay 120
Open space Total 1.0
Urban Total 2.4
Agriculture Total 65
Construction Total 85
220
-------
"Annual yields from land-use areas were computed from the equation:
XI P
Y - (o.u.a.c) (o.u.a.c)
(o,u,a,c) j p +i p +i p +i p
oo uu aa cc
where
Y - the annual sediment yield from a specific land-use area, in
tons
X = the annual yield at the Colma Creek gaging station, in tons
I • the sediment yield index
P = the percentage of a specific land use upstream from the
gaging station
The subscripts o, u, a, and c refer to the type of land use (open space,
urban, agriculture, or construction)." These annual yields are given
in Exhibit 72.
"Construction areas, representative of 14 percent of the basin, contri-
buted 59,000 tons or 72 percent of the sediment transported from areas
upstream from the Colma Creek' gaging station in 1969. About 17,000
tons of sediment transported from these areas were trapped in debris
basins. Agricultural areas contributed 16,000 tons of sediment (20
percent), none of which was deposited in debris basins. Urban and
open-space areas, representative of 81 percent of the basin, contri-
buted 6,800 tons of sediment or about 8 percent of the total sediment
yield.
"In 1970, sediment yield from all areas was less than in 1969 because
of reduced storm activity. Construction areas contributed 23,000 tons
of sediment, of which about 12,000 tons was trapped in debris basins.
221
-------
Exhibit 72. ANNUAL SEDIMENT YIELDS FROM DIFFERENT
LAND-USE AREAS UPSTREAM FROM THE COLMA CREEK GAGING STATION^ ^
Year
Land use
Type Percent
Sediment yield
Total
Tons
1969 Open space 41 2,000
Urban 40 4,820
Agriculture 5 16,190
Construction 14 59,470
Tons per
so mi
Sand
Tons
452 1,310
1,120 2,800
30,000 11,150
39,300 31,230
Tons per
sa mi
Silt-clay
Tons
296 689
648 2 ,020
20,600 5,040
20,600 28,240
Tons per
so mi
156
463
9,330
18,700
Total
100
82,500 7,640 46,500 4,310 36,000 3,330
1970 Open space
Urban
Agriculture
Construction
42
46
4
8
1
3
8
22
,410
,750
,990
,660
20
26
311
755
,800
,200
2
6
13
995
,400
,640
,270
15
15
219
483
,400
,400
411
1,350
2,350
9,390
91
272
5,440
10,900
Total
100 36,800 3,410 23,300 2,160 13,500 1,250
Computed from other data in this case study.
222
-------
Of the remaining sediment yield upstream from the Colma Creek gaging
station, agricultural, urban, and open-space areas contributed 9,000,
2,800, and 1,400 tons, respectively."
Comparison of Estimated Sediment Yield from Open-Space Areas with
Sediment Yields from Selected Nearby Streams. - "The validity of
sediment-yield estimates from open-space areas in the Colma Creek
basin was tested by comparing sediment yields for 1967, 1969, and
1970 (years when land-use percentages were determined) with concurrent
data for sediment stations on streams in the San Francisco Bay area
which are relatively undeveloped (Exhibit 73). Estimated sediment
yields fall within the range of yields for other bay area streams,
but large variations in runoff suggest that rainfall characteristics
are quite different and that storm events may not be related. It is
assumed that estimated yields are reasonable."
223
-------
Exhibit 73. COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT YIELD FROM OPEN-SPACE
AREAS IN THE COLMA CREEK BASIN WITH SEDIMENT YIELDS
FROM SELECTED BAY AREA STREAMS(A-32)
Year
1967
1969
1970
Sediment station
Uvas Creek above Uvas
Reservoir, near
Morgan Hill
Coyote Creek near Gilroy
Arroyo Valle near
Llvermore
Alameda Creek near Niles
Open-space areas in
Colma Creek basin
Uvas Creek above Uvas
Reservoir , near
Morgan Hill
Coyote Creek near Gilroy
Alameda Creek near Niles
Open-space areas in
Colma Creek basin
Uvas Creek above Uvas
Reservoir , near
Morgan Hill
Coyote Creek near Gilroy
Alameda Creek near Niles
Open-space areas in
Colma Creek basin
Drainage
area
(sq mi)
21
109
147
633
4.6
21
109
633
4.4
21
109
633
4.6
Runoff
(acre-feet
per sq mi)
1,020
320
155
112
t>669
1,820
868
174
b714
1,020
328
91.8
t>532
Sediment yield
(tons per sq mi)
2,290
721
1,000
a454
780
1,140
1,540
a256
452
580
179
a!37
311
aYield reduced by reservoirs.
^Runoff per square mile at Colma Creek gaging station.
-------
Case 9. Residential Construction and Sedimentation at Kensington,
Maryland
Source -
Guy, H. P. "Residential Construction and Sedimentation at Kensington,
Maryland" Proceedings of Federal Inter-Agency Conference, 1963,
Miscellaneous Publication No. 920, USDA Agricultural Research Service,
June 1965.(A-19)
Purpose -
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between
sediment yield and construction activities in an 20-acre tract being
transformed from rural to residential use. The tract is located
within a drainage basin of 58 acres, much of which had previously
been developed for residential use.
Site Location/Description -
Selected for this study was a 58-acre drainage area in Kensington,
Maryland, a suburb northwest of Washington, D. C.
Topography -
Natural slopes range from 3 to 10 percent; artificial slopes range
from 3 to 25 percent.
Soil Type -
An average of two subsoil samples shows 14 percent clay, 30 percent
silt, 43 percent sand, 13 percent gravel; a very friable soil and
subsoil.
Climate/Rainfall -
Typical of mid-Atlantic coastal states, the rainfall is about 42
inches per year. Stream runoff averages about 16 inches, of which 4
inches is surface runoff.
225
-------
Land Use/Ground Cover -
This area is largely residential.
Study Method -
Most of the 58-acre watershed was developed for residential use during
the period July 1957 through April 1962. Measurements of rainfall,
runoff, and suspended sedimentation were taken during construction of
89 houses on a 20.5 acre tract within the watershed during the interval
July 1957 through January 1962. Measurement of these parameters
within the watershed was made during 25 specific storm events, although
continuous measurements of water discharge are available for Rock Creek,
to which the watershed undergoing development is a tributary. Sediment
concentrations in the runoff from the watershed during unmeasured
storms were estimated by correlation with water discharge from Rock
Creek.
Construction was performed in stages. Subareas ranging in size from
5 to 20 houses were developed, and as many as 3 subareas were exposed
at a time. Some subareas were exposed for only 8 months while others
were exposed as long as 2 years.
Layout of streets in the development was irregular. One street is in
the main drainageway of the upper part of the basin, where the 20-acre
tract undergoing construction was located.
Detailed data (rainfall, streamflow, sediment discharge) are reported
for one major storm event, and summary data are given for all 25
storms during the study period. In addition, estimates of sediment
concentration are presented for storm events.
Parameters Measured -
- Rainfall
226
-------
- Sediment concentration as discharge (from watershed) was
obtained from depth integrated samples; these samples were
sieved to size distribution
- Water discharge (from watershed)
- Water dischrage (from Rock Creek)
- Amount of area under construction (from aerial photograph)
Results -
Detailed data were reported for a single heavy storm, and summary data
were reported for 25 storm events. In addition, estimates of sediment
concentrations during other events were computed by use of a model
that correlates sediment discharge with flow conditions in Rock Creek,
which is monitored continuously.
Single-storm data are presented in Exhibits 74 (suspended sediment
graph and runoff hydrograph); Exhibit 75 (tabulation of runoff dis-
charge, sediment concentration, and sediment discharge during short
intervals throughout the storm); and Exhibit 76 (total and peak inten-
sity of rainfall, streamflow, and sediment discharge).
Data covering major storms that occurred during the entire study
period are presented in Exhibit 77 (precipitation, water discharge,
sediment discharge, and concentration, and air temperature). Observed
sediment concentration as well as computed estimates are shown plotted
against time in Exhibit 78. Cumulative sediment discharged from the
construction area is shown plotted against time in Exhibit 79.
The referenced article states that the sediment yield from the con-
struction area averaged 189 tons/acre (121,000 tons/sq. mi.) during
the period of construction and return to stable conditions. This
amounts to some 2.1 tons per dwelling unit constructed.
227
-------
Bi
O TO
:•
60
in 4O
-
0
Streomfiow
9.00p.m. 9 JO 1000 1030
AUG. 1.19601 EOT)
11-00 pm
Exhibit 74. Runoff Hydrograph and Suspended-Sediment
Concentration Graph for Storm of August 4, 1960, on 58-Acres
at Kensington, Maryland (A-19)
228
-------
Exhibit 75. Subdivision and Computation of Water
and Sediment Discharge for Storm the Evening of August A, 1960
Time
(p.m.)
9:00-9:06.
9:06-9:12.
9:12-9:18.
9:18-9:30.
9:30-9:36.
9:36-9:42.
9:42-9:48.
9:48-10:00
10:00-10:12
10:12-10:42
Total...
lotcrvftl
HW
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/5
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/5
1/5
1/2
—
discharge
C.fj.
6.5
39
74
84
79
.56
34
13
4.7
1.7
•50.04
Sediment
"oncentratiun
f.p.m.
7.000
28.000
43,000
51,200
51,700
49,000
41,500
27.000
14,400
6,000
—
DuichargG
Tom
0.5
12.3
37.1
100.3
47.7
32.0
16.5
7.9'
1.5
.5
256.3
1 In c.f.s. - hours.
Exhibit 76. Summary of Rainfall, Streamflow, and
Sediment Discharge, Both Total and Peak Intensity, for Storm
of August 4, 1960(^-19)
•Storm it«n
Rainfall
Streamflow..
•Sediment...
Total
1.82 inches from
9to ll;20p.m.
1.68 inches from
9 to 9:33 p.m.
2.1 c.f.s.-days
0.87 inch.
260tons.
'cik nun for maximum
12-miauu penud
Estimated 4 inches
per hour.
84 c.(.s. (from
58 acres)
927 c.f.s. per sq. mi.
1.44 inches per hour.
51,200 parts per
million.
8.4 tons per minute
for 58 acres.
12,000 tons per day
for 58 acres.
132,000 tons per day
per sq. mi. .
229
-------
Exhibit 77. HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENTOLOGIC DATA BY STORM EVENTS FROM
A DRAINAGE AREA AFFECTED BY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION(A-19)
Date
JSS9
July 1
Oct. 1
Nov. 7
Dec. 28
I960
Jan. 3
Feb. 18
Apr. 3
Mav&
May 21
May 22
July 11
July 30
Aug. 3
Aug. 4
Sept. 12
196:
Mar. 8
May 7 . .
May 12
June 9
June 14
July 24
Aug. 9
Sept, 3
Oct. 21
ises
Jan. C
Precipitation
<*c>
India
1.7
.9
.8
.44
.8
.7
.4
1.5
.6
.6
.7
1.0
.8
1.8
4.1
.4
.6
3
32.
1.0
.30
.«
.30
.5
.6
Water discharge (Qu,) Sediment
C.f.s.-day»
0.81
.39
.25
.048
.156
.59
.194
.76
.23
.39
.158
.53
.52
2.08
2.68
.233
.149
.37
.032
.48
.042
.21
.125
.45
.23
Inches
0.332
.160
.103
.020
.064
.242
.080
.312
.094
.160
.064
.218
.213
.854
1.102
.096
.061
.152
.013
.197
.017
.086
.051
.185
.094
Discharge
(C.)
TDM
128
CO
14.7
5.0
14.3
73
20.3
55
37
72
11.7
20.2
48
256
123
6.0
11.7
12.6
.7
18.9
.3
4.1
1.4
4.4
.9
Concentra-
tion (C)
P.p.m.
59,200
54,500
21,800
37,200
32,800
46,700
38,700
26,800
57,300
65,300
27,400
14,000
34,000
44,000
17,000
9.600
29,000
12,700
7,700
14,600
6,900
7,350
4,200
3,550
1,490
Peak
flow
-------
•-
„
100.000
6O.OOO
toopoo
I
w 2O.OOO
10.000
I
<
cr
4.OOO
2.000
I.OOO
/
/
/
/
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
1
1
i
1 .
.»-""
X
f
/
/
/
/
f
* Observe
O Comput
•
0
o S °cP
o°e "°<
»
•
d
»rt
O
0
?° .
• 0
• 0 £*
&
9
•
O
«?
o
0
o
o
o
•
1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 196
Exhibit 78. Variation of Mean Sediment Concentration
of Storm Runoff from an Area of Residential Construction at
Kensington, MD , 1957-62.(A-19)
(The Line to July 1959 is Estimated on Basis of Visual
Observations of Construction Areas and the Drainage Channels.)
-------
i
s
ft
§
£ 70
Q.
§
Q
DtSCMARC
5 I
SEDIMENT
5 J
&
•
y 30
s1
, ><
?
*'.
1>.*
i
1 •
*
-1 .*
i
•
t*
X
•
10
20 10 40
TIME. IN MONTHS
50
£0
Exhibit 79. Cumulative Sediment Discharged from the
Construction Area With Time.(A-19)
(Note the Higher Rates of Yield During Summer Months.)
232
-------
Considering that the study period covered about 2.5 years, this result
is equal to 75 tons/acre/year. Sediment yield from the previously-
developed portions of the watershed was estimated to be 0.75 tons/acre/
year.
The sediment yield from the construction area of the Kensington water-
shed was 121,000 tons/square mile total, or about 48,000 tons/square
mile/year for a 2.5 year period. This rate is compared to the rate
of sediment accumulation at Lake Barcroft in Fairfax, Virginia (also
a suburb of Washington, B.C.). which averaged 1,300 tons/square mile/
year of urbanized area, over an urbanized area of 9.5 square miles
and over a period of about 19 years. One reason postulated for this
difference is the building method. The homes in the Virginia suburb
were custom built, exposing a relatively small area of soil at each
home site, while in the Maryland suburb the building method involved
exposing a much larger area (a 3 to 10-acre subarea) during the con-
struction period.
233
-------
Case 10. Effects of Construction on Fluvial Sediment, Urban and
Suburban Areas of Maryland
Source -
Wolman, M. G. and Schick, A. P., "Effects of Construction on Fluvial
Sediment, Urban and Suburban Areas of Maryland/1 Water Resources
Research. Vol. 3, No. 2, 1967.
Purpose -
This study was undertaken to determine the amounts of sediment being
contributed to Maryland streams and the effects of that sediment;
and to search for courses of action to combat the problems of erosion
and sedimentation.
Site Location/Description -
Study sites were in metropolitan Baltimore and part of metropolitan
Washington, D.C., lying in the state of Maryland. Population: about
2,000,000 inhabitants in each metropolitan area.
Topography -
Average slopes in this area range from 1 to 10 percent with some places
20 percent or more.
Soil Type -
Very deep soils prevail in this area with outcrops of bedrocks in only
very few locations.
Climat e/Rainfal1 -
Annual rainfall is 42 inches. During the summer, 2-iph intensity
rainfalls occur with a frequency of 10 years. Snowfall and snowcover
during the winter months remain generally less than two weeks.
234
-------
Study Method -
Sediment yield
construction sites in Washington, D.C. and Maryland.
2
Sediment yield figures in tons/mi /yr were compiled for 12 different
Results -
Sediment Yield from Construction Areas:
The sediment yields from areas undergoing construction ranges from
1000 to 100,000 tons per square mile per year depending upon the size
of the drainage area. Exhibit 80 presents the sediment yield from
some selected drainage basins undergoing development. For comparison,
Exhibit 81 gives the sediment yield from rural drainage areas in the
same study areas, and depicts the relationship between sediment yield,
drainage area, and construction activity.
Sediment Concentration:
Suspended sediment concentration from areas undergoing construction
ranged from 3,000 to 150,000 ppm; in natural and agricultural catch-
ment areas, the value was about 2,000 ppm.
Duration and Amount of Land Exposed during Construction;
The study showed that about 50 percent of sites were open for eight
months, 60 percent for nine and 25 percent more than one year. The
total land area exposed to construction remained almost constant
throughout the year. Average size of construction site for one
building was 14,400 square feet. The total area cleared for construc-
tion in all the four counties in Maryland between Baltimore and
Washington, D.C., was about 7.2 square miles (housing and other
builQin8s: 5-7 square miles, for highways: 1.5 square miles).
235
-------
Exhibit 80. SEDIMENT YIELD FROM SELECTED
DKAINAGE BASINS: MARYLAND AMD OTHER AREAS (A~56'
Reference
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Stream and Location
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Md.
Tributary, Minebank Run
*IV\»jttrt*i VtA
i owson , no •
Tributary, Kensington, Md.
Tributary, Gwynns Falls, Md.
Oregon Branch, Cockeysville,
Md.
Cane Branch, near Somerset,
Ky.
Greenbelt Reservoir,
Greenbelt, Md.
Little Falls Branch,
Bethesda, Md.
Drainage
Area,
sq mi.
0.0025
On^i
. U JX
0.091
0.094
0.236
0.67
0.83
4.1
Sediment
Yield
tons/mi^/yr
140,000
on f\t\e\
oU,ULKJ
24,000
11,300
72,000
1,147
5,600
2,320
Condition
Construction
construction site covered entire
drain area
housing subdivision [Guy, 1963]
housing (yield computed from small
stilling basin, probably low trap
efficiency)
industrial park
strip mine [Collier et_ al. , 1962]
housing [Guy and Feguson, 1962]
urban and development (includes
9 Lake Barcroft, near
Fairfax, Va. 9.5
10 Northwest Branch Anacoatia
River near Hyattsville,
Md. 49.4
11 Rock Creek, Sherrill Dr.
Washington, D.C. 62.2
12 Northeast Branch Anacostia
near Riverdale, Md. 72.8
urban area as well as area under-
going development. Hark and
Keller [1963J
32,500 housing subdivision (for maximum
year, Holeman and Geiger [1959]
1,850 urban and development (includes
urban area as well as area under-
going development. fWark and Keller,
1963; Keller, 1962] "
1,600 urban and development (includes
urban area as well as area under-
going development). [Wark and
Keller, 1963; Keller, 1962]
1,060 urban and development (includes
urban area as well as area under-
going development). [Wark and
Keller, 1963; Keller, 1962]
-------
10*
I0
o.a
SEDIMENT YIELD AND DRAINAGE ARFA
• WATERSHEDS UriOeRGONO
CONSTRUCTION
o "NATURAL" WATERSHEDS
% Area Under Construction
High
Low
Zero
01
1
01
JO.
10
DRAINAGE AREA
J00_
100
1000
kmz
100O mi2
Exhibit 81. Sediment Yield, Drainage Area,
and Construction Activity(A-56)
237
-------
Case 11. Some Sediment Aspects of Tropical Storm Agnes
Source -
H. P. Guy and I. L. Clayton, "Some Sediment Aspects of Tropical Storm
Agnes," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. HY9, Technical Notes,
Proc. Paper 10024, Sept. 1973, pg.
Purpose -
The purpose of this study was to document the effects of Tropical Storm
Agnes on the runoff and sediment loading from a small watershed exposed
by construction activities.
Site Description -
The watershed of interest is that of Stave Run at Reston, Va., 20
miles west of Washington, D.C. The basin area is 49.1 acres. Of
this, 13.7 acres contain hardwood forests; 8.6 acres are covered by
asphalt paving; and 2.7 acres are covered by the main building for
the new U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters. The remaining 24.1 acres
are exposed for construction purposes, including storage areas; vehicle
access roads; and a 1.6 acre pile of stockpiled topsoil. Much of the
drainage from this construction area is through storm sewers, with hay
bales placed in front of inlets frora potential erosion areas.
Time Frame -
The storm and measurements took place in the three-day interval June
21 through June 23, 1972.
Precipitation -
The total daily precipitations during the storm were: June 20 — .49
inches; June 21 — 10.29 inches; June 22 — 2.34 inches; June 23 — .81
inches, a total of 13.44 inches over the last three days. Exhibit 82
238
-------
Exhibit 82.
FOR DIFFERENT TIME INTERVALS, JUNE 21, 1972
RAINFALL INTENSITIES AND RECURRENCE INTERVALS
(A-20)
STAVE RUN, VA.
Period
(1)
16 hr.
8 hr.
4 hr.
2 hr.
1 hr.
30 min.
15 min.
10 min.
5 min.
Beginning
time, in
hours
(2)
1440
1630
1855
1855
1912
1855
1912
1912
1914
Rainfall
amount ,
in inches
(3)
11.15
9.14
5.76
3.41
1.90
1.30
0.75
0.57
0.33
Intensity
in inches
per hour
(4)
0.70
1.14
1.44
1.70
1.90
2.60
3.00
3.43
3.90
Recurrence
interval,
in years
(5)
>100
>100
>100
20
3
1.6
<1
<1
<1
239
-------
shows the maximum rainfall intensities and gives their recurrence
intervals for various time periods during the storm. Exhibit 83 com-
pares this data with the 50-year intensity-duration curve for Washing-
ton, B.C. In general this was a high intensity, long duration storm,
although it was comparatively low in intensity for shorter intervals
during the storm.
Study Method -
Runoff was measured as it passed through a flume into the stream.
Samples were taken at the flume and analyzed for sediment concentra-
tion and particle size. These data were taken continuously throughout
the storm.
Results -
A trapezoidal flume was constructed at the north end of the construc-
tion area. Mean flow for the storm was: June 21 — 11.6 cfs; June
22 — 3.66 cfs; and June 23 — 1.73 cfs. The 3-day total runoff was
8.24 inches, or 61 percent of the total rainfall for the 49.1 acre
basin. Exhibit 84 shows the cumulative rainfall and runoff.
Sediment yield was determined by taking samples from the flue, these
samples were verified by integration of hand sampling. The average
concentrations were determined and multiplied by the average discharge
to determine the total sediment discharge. These figures came to 459
tons on June 21; 25.9 tons on June 22; and 7.4 tons on June 23. The
sediment concentration was 14,700 mg/1 on June 21. Over the three-day
period, a total of 492 tons was transported past the flume, an average
yield of 20.4 tons/acre, assuming negligible yields from woods, paved
area and building structure. During the half-hour peak flow, sediment
yield came to 102 tons, equivalent to 8.5 tons/acre/hour.
240
-------
WASHINGTON. D C
1896 97, 1899 195'
10 11 30
MINUTES
1 12
HOUIS
Exhibit 83. Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves
At Washington, D.C., Showing Maximum Intensities on August 20, 1963,
in Washington, D.C., and on June 21, 1972 in
Reston, \a. (Return Period Graphs from USWB Tech. Paper 25, 1955r
241
-------
Exhibit 84. Cumulative Rainfall and Runoff June 21-23, 1972,
With Instantaneous Relative Runoff, as Percentage
STAVE RUN, VA.
242
-------
Particle size analysis is reported in Exhibit 85. Distributions of
various samples ranged from 2-10 percent sand, 36-60 percent silt and
30-59 percent clay, averaging 6 percent gravel, 25 percent sand, 46
percent silt and 23 percent clay. Much of the eroded sediment was
site deposited at the bases of steep slopes and in depressions in the
construction area.
This study points out the effects that a large storm can have on an
exposed area. In three days, water moved 961 tons of sediment,
carrying 492 tons completely off the 24-acre site.
Exhibit 85. SEDIMENT ERODED, SITE DEPOSITED, AND
TRANSPORTED BY STAVE RUN PAST GAGING SITE, *IN TONS (A-20)
Process
(1)
Eroded and exposed
Site deposited
Transported
Gravel
(2)
58
58
0
Sand
(3)
240
210
30
Silt
(4)
442
201
241
Clay
(5)
221
0
221
Total
(6)
961
469
492
243
-------
Case 12. Prediction of Subsoil Erodibility Using Chemical. Mineralogi-
cal, and Physical Parameters
Source -
Roth, C. B., Nelson, D. W., Romkens, M. J. M., Prediction of Subsoil
Erodibility Using Chemical, Mineralogical and Physical Parameters,
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, December
1973.(A-43)
Purpose -
The purpose of this study was to test the soil credibility model on
soils characterized by textural extremes such as the subsoils at
construction sites. A second task was to determine various character-
istics which were peculiar to these subsoils and to improve the soil
erodibility model so that these soils would be included, or to develop
a new, separate model for the subsoils.
In 1971, W. H. Wischmeir presented a simple method of determining the
K factor (erodibility factor) of soils through the use of a nomograph.
It was found in the present study that this nomograph could not be
improved upon in estimating the K factor for surface soils. However,
the nomograph was found to be inadequate in determining the K factor
of subsoils.
Soil Type -
Six subsoils were selected from a wide geographical area in the
middle west; these soils, chosen primarily for their clay content,
were: McGary silty clay near Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana;
Portageville clay near Portageville, New Madrid County, Missouri;
St. Clair silty clay near Woodburn, Allen County, Indiana; Wymore
silty clay near Burr, Otoe County, Nebraska; Pawnee clay loam near
244
-------
Burr, Otoe County, Nebraska; Mayberry clay loam near Burr, Otoe County,
Nebraska. The clay content for each of these was: McGary 39.8 percent;
portageville 66.5 percent; St. Clair 38.7 percent; Wymore 38.5 percent;
Pawnee 35.4 percent; and Mayberry 33.9 percent.
Topography -
Top soil was removed and each site area was sloped to 9 percent steep-
ness.
study Method -
Simulated rainstorms were applied to each study plot with a rainulator.
Soil loss and runoff were computed by integrating the measured hydro-
graph and the acquired sediment content values of collected runoff
samples. For each soil type and treatment, three simulated storms
were administered in durations of 60 minutes, 30 minutes, and 30
minutes. Slope ranged from 8.7 percent to 9.1 percent but was generally
9.0 percent. For the combination of 3 storms, the adjusted soil loss
for each soil type was:
McGary Scalped 95.10 t/ha
Semi Compacted
Fill 90.48 t/ha
Tilled 52.32 t/ha
Portageville Scalped 12.93 t/ha
Semi Compacted
Fill 13.92 t/ha
Tilled 3.31 t/ha
St. Clair Scalped 127.92 t/ha
Semi Compacted
Fill 106.92 t/ha
Tilled 81.24 t/ha
Wymore Scalped 126.99 t/ha
Tilled 16.09 t/ha
245
-------
Pawnee Scalped 125.60 t/ha
Tilled 77.43 t/ha
Mayberry Scalped 174.41 t/ha
Tilled 11.99 t/ha
An observed K factor for each subsoil was computed using observed soil
loss measurements for each storm and treatment, which were adjusted to
the standard conditions of 9 percent slope and 72.6-ft slope length.
The K factors are computed as the average soil loss per unit R, where
R represents the number of erosion-index units for a given storm as
defined in the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Figures were also adjusted
to be annual in basis, and an adjustment was also made to account for
the simulated nature of the storms. The--observed K factors (K , ) were
obs
then compared to the K factors for the subsoils (tilled and scalped)
which were derived using the Wischmeir nomograph. The results are
presented in Exhibit 86 and Exhibit 87- It can be readily seen that
the nomograph is not very effective in determining the K factor of
i
subsoils. Its effectiveness in computing K factor of surface soils,
however, is demonstrated in Exhibit 88-
A nomograph was generated for estimating the K factor of high clay
soils through laboratory characterization of the soils in this study
in terms of physical, chemical, and mineralogical properties; and by
applying these characterizations to a statistical regression analysis.
Parameters Measured -
Physical;
Particle size distribution, sand fractions, new silt, new sand, M (see
page 250), structure, permeability.
Chemical:
Citrate-dithinite extractable total P, total N, total C, pyrophosphate
extractable carbon, hot H~0 extractable carbon, periodate consumed.
246
-------
Exhibit 86. OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (PER WISCHMEIER) SOIL
ERODIBLITY FACTORS FOR TILLED SUBSOILS<
ro
Soil
McGary
Porcageville
St. Glair
Wymore
Pawnee
Mayberry
Soil
ID
number
19 IE
192E
212E
210E
206E
208E
Kobs
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
17
01
31
03
24
04
Total3
organic
carbon
7.
0.34
1.23
0.75
0.92
0.82
0.82
a Determination according to Mebius
, matter was taken to be 1.72.
Organic3 Sand
matter ( 100 ),
7. %
0.54
2.12
1.29
1.58
1.41
1.41
(1960) .
0.46
0.00
9.80
2.01
20.56
7.56
Conversion
s±itb
(2-100 ),
%
59.05
32.15
48.82
53.45
38.68
54.18
facto? for
Struc-
ture
4
4
4
4
4
4
"organic
0 Perme-c
ability
6
6
6
6
6
6
carbon to
d
Knomo
0.43
0.21
0.34
0.34
0.29
0.37
organic
Evaluations were made from soil profile descriptions.
Soil credibility factor, K, as determined from the nomograph bf Wischmeier et al., 1971.
-------
Exhibit 87. OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (PER WISCHMEIER) SOIL
(
ERODIBILITY FACTORS FOR SCALPED SUBSOILSv
IX
Soil
McGary
Portageville
St. Clair
Wymore
Pawnee
Mayberry
Soil
ID
number
191S
192S
212S
210S
206S
208S
Kobs
0.36
0.05
0.48
0.49
0.45
0,67
a
Determinations according
, matter vas taken to be 1.
Totala
organic
carbon
7.
0.34
1.23
0.75
0.92
0.82
0.82
to Mebius
72.
Organic
matter
%
0.58
2.12
1.29
1.58
1.41
1.41
(1960).
Sand
( 100 ),
%
0.46
0.00
9.80
2.01
20.56
7.56
Conversion
Siltb
(2-100 ),
7.
59.05
32.15
48.82
53.45
38.68
54.18
factor for
Struc-c
ture
4
4
4
4
4
4
organic
c
Perme-
ability
6
6
6
6
6
6
carbon to
d
Knoiao
0.43
0.21
0.34
0.34
0.29
0.37
organic
^ d. V^> %••«<• \*tf W •» W. ta fc» »»*»*. V "^"H". i^K* «^-H* «*«•«• «^ A K V •
Evaluations were made from soil profile descriptions.
Soil credibility factor, K, as determined fron the nomograph of Wischmeier et al., 1971.
-------
Exhibit 88. OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (PER WISCHMEIER) SOIL
ERODIBILITY FACTORS FOR SURFACE
Soil name
Bedford
Bewleyville
Cincinnati
Murcn
Russell
Rossmoyne
Switzerland
Parr
Morley
Miami
Miami
Fox
Princeton
Princeton
Princeton
Pembroke
Morley
Elkinsville
Varna
Frederick
Morley
Russell
Ockley
Gray ford
Miami
Warsaw
Zancsvillc
Marlove
Markland
Zanesville
Celina
Celina
Morley
Uea
Parr
Foxgrav
Morley
Avonburg
Pawnee Topsoil
Maybcrry Topsoil
Wvroore Topsoil
Sample ID
number
101
103
104
105
106
112
114
115
117
119
121
123
125
126
128
131
133
135
140
144
145
147
149
150
152
154
155
157
160
162
164
166
168
169
170
171
172
174
176
178
179
180
182
207
209
211
Soil erodibility factor3
ICnono
.46
.39
.36
.52
.42
.44
.51
.41
.47
.45
.30
.30
.26
.24
.28
.24
.41
.08
.50
.08
.53
.31
.41
.29
.43
.38
.44
.39
.51
.32
.13
.52
.34
.22
.40
.26
.38
.48
.24
.24
.09
.37
.54
.28
.31
.32
Kobs
.46
.39
.39
.54
.43
.42
.55
.40
.51
.43
.33
.26
.22
.25
.28
.25
.42
.07
.39
.07
.54
.25
.42
.27
.39
.37
.48
.41
.58
.36
.11
.52
.36
.20
.36
.24
.34
.47
.26
.25
.09
.38
.55
.37
.31
.34
Knomo is the K factor derived
developed by Wischmcicr ct al,
measured.
from the soil credibility nomograph
(1971) and Robs is the K. factor actually
249
-------
Mineralogical (Clay mirieralogical composition, of soils);
Percent of the clay fraction of vermiculite, mica, kaolinite plus
halloysite, amorphous material, montmorillonite, quartz plus feldspar,
chlorite.
Time Frame -
Site preparation for field tests started August 16, 1971; tests were
run in September and October 1971 and again the following summer in
August and September. Laboratory tests immediately followed field
tests.
Results -
The nomograph shown in Exhibit 89 was derived for use in estimating
the K factor of high clay subsoils.
The equation used to derive this nomograph is:
Kpred = 0.32114 + 20.167 x 10~5 M - 0.14440 (IFe^ + % A12°3>
- O.B3686 (% Si02)
where M - (% new silt + % new sand) % new silt)
Exhibit 90 shows a comparison of observed and derived K factors using
this new nomograph of subsoils.
250
-------
-
I 10
n
O
0
0 20
Q
3 30
40
> JO
ee
LU
>60
- 70
Z 80
LU
u
jb90
100
^Q(/
PERCENT
x
X
X
X
,ol, + AiLo,) —>
t P ? 3 O
ERCE
0.1-
IT S
1 mm)
o.s
AQ_
50
4O
7O
IS
IO
1OOO 2OOO 3OOO 4OOO
Factor M
/
/
PERCE NT
/
T
0.4
0.3
O.J
O O.2 O.4 -O.6 0.8
SOIL ERODIBILITY FACTOR, K
Exhibit 89. Nomograph for Predicting the Erodibility
(A-43)
Factor K of High Clay Subsoils
-------
EXHIBIT 90
COMPARISON OF THE SOIL ERODIBILITY FACTOR, K,
DETERMINED IN FIELD EXPERIMENTS AND THOSE COMPUTED FROM
THE SUBSOIL NOMOGRAPH(A-43)
Soil
Dayton
Me Gary
Portageville
St. Clair
Pawnee
Maybe rry
Wymore
Sample ID
number
188
191S
192S
212S
206S
208S
210S
Soil erodibility factor, K
Observed
.54
.36
.05
.48
.45
.67
.49
Nomograph a
.57
.39
.08
.39
.42
.69
.49
a
Soil erodibility factor, K, as determined from Exhibit 89-
The investigators believe that this nomograph can be used with a fair
degree of confidence in soils similar to those in the study. However,
its use with soils with large concentrations of iron and aluminum
should be avoided, as this nomograph would tend to underestimate K
factor in these cases. More investigation is also needed in subsoils
with varying structures and permeabilities.
252
-------
Case 13. Soil Erosion in the Detroit Metropolitan Area.
Source -
Thompson, J. R., "Soil Erosion in the Detroit Metropolitan Area,"
(A-49)
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 25, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., 1970.
Purpose -
This study was undertaken in order to place quantitative values on
the rates and amounts of erosion from urban construction sites in
the Detroit area.
Site Location/Description -
It is estimated that 80 percent of the population of the Great Lakes
Basin is concentrated in 18 metropolitan complexes which cover only
a small part of the land. In 1960, there were approximately 1.2
million housing units in the Detroit and Ann Arbor areas alone and
30 percent of these units were built between 1950 and 1960. Popula-
tion is expected,to grow 225 percent above the 1960 level by the year
2020.
Topography -
The Southeast Michigan Rivers Survey area is about one-half rolling
glacial drift plains and one-half Huron-Erie lake plains. The area
ranges from level to gently rolling on the lake plains to rolling to
steep on the glacial drift.
Soil Type -
The lake plains are comprised largely of poorly drained silts and
clays with some sandy soils on broad low ridges. The glacial drift
plains are comprised mainly of sandy soils; large areas of productive
clay and mixed sand and clay soils; and deep soils in level, low-lying
pockets.
253
-------
Study Method -
A total of 760 plots was chosen from the Conservation Needs Inventory
plots (380 plots, generally about 160 acres) and from random methods
(380 quarter-section samples). Data concerning soil type, slope,
erosion, land use, and conservation treatment needs were compiled
for each plot and inventoried by computer. This represented a 4
percent sample. An arbitrary delineation was made of the Detroit
metropolitan area comprising 33 townships in Oakland, Macomb, Wayne,
and Washtenaw Counties and excluding the city of Detroit. This zone
is where the bulk of the urbanization is taking place. This delineation
also establishes a zone in which a systematic statistical sampling
procedure can be used. The sample was increased to 7 percent in this
high urbanization zone (See Exhibit 91). In addition to the other
information that was compiled for all of the other plots, current
information on construction activity was also compiled for these highly
urbanized plots.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was used to compute soil loss for
rural plots. Data on soil type, slope, erosion, land use, and conser-
vation needs were obtained by field observation for the sample plots.
Soil loss in the urban areas was computed using the soil loss curve
developed by Schmidt and Summers ~ (See Exhibit 92). Acreage of
land disturbed by construction is shown in Exhibit 93. Drainage sub-
areas were derived from drainage or watershed boundaries and were
ascribed mean annual erosion rates which were computed as the arith-
metic average of the sample plots lying within the subarea (See
Exhibit 94).
254
-------
OAKLAND MACOMB
IVASHTENAW
Exhibit 91a. Detroit Metropolitan Area
Erosion Study: Townships^A~
Exhibit 91b. Subareas (See Table 80 for Average
(A-49)
Annual Erosion Rates by Subarea)
255
-------
150
O!
UJ
QL
r*
UJ
.
Q.
01
O
100
50
/
J.o
3.0
PRODUCT OF SOIL ERODIBILITY
SLOPE, COVER, AND RAINFALL
FACTORS
Exhibit 92. Curve for Determining Erosion Rates,
After Schmidt and Summers'A '
256
-------
NJ
Ln
Exhibit 93. LAND DISTURBED BY BUILDING AND
(
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, SUMMER 1968v
County
Macomb
Oakland
Washtenaw
Wayne
Total
Townships
5
14
4
10
33
Sample
Plots
45
140
40
100
325
Sample
Acres
123.5
484.0
126.5
360.5
1,094.5
Totals
% of Area
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.1a
Acres-Entire
Urban Zone
1,981
6,967
1,815
5,184
15,947
Weighted average.
-------
Exhibit 94. EROSION RATES IN SUBAREAS NEAR THE
DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA(A-49)
Subarea
Huron River
Upper (l)a
Mill Creek(2)
Lower (3)
Total
Rouge River
Upper (4)
Middle (5)
Lower (6)
Total
Clinton River
Upper (7)
North(8)
Lower (9)
Total,.
Number of
Sample Plots
83
27
47
157
50
27
20
97
70
42
53
165
Erosion
(tons/acre/year)
Mean
2.8
4.9
2.7
3.0
0.6
1.9
2.3
1.3
1.9
2.1
0.5
1.5
0
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0
Range
- 23.8
- 10.7
- 13.2
- 23.8
- 10.9
- 10.1
- 8.2
- 10.9
- 13.8
- 18.0
- 3.4
- 18.0
South Detroit
Tributaries(10)
North Lake
St. Clair
Tributaries(11)
24
19
1.4
1.5
0.1 - 4.4
0.1 - 5.2
Numbers in parentheses indicate location of subarea
258
-------
Results -
The erosion rates of the established urban sector, which are already
developed, are usually significantly below the erosion rates attri-
buted to agricultural areas with similar soils and topography. How-
ever, while these rates are usually lower than the rates for agricul-
tural land, these lower rates are overshadowed by the high rates of
erosion generated by construction activity. Exhibits 94, 95, and 96
present the erosion data that support these conclusions.
259
-------
Exhibit 95. TONS OF EROSION FROM BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, SUMMER 1968(A-49)
County
Ma comb
Oakland
Washtenaw
Wayne
Total
Tons
80,813
519,041
152,147
359,251
1,111,252
Average
Tons/Acre/Yea;
42
75
84
69
69a
O
Weighted average.
260
-------
Exhibit 96. AVERAGE ANNUAL EROSION RATES FROM CONSTRUCTION
AND NON-CONSTRUCTION SOURCES, SUMMER 1968(A-49)
Tons/Acre/Year
County
Ma comb
Oakland
Washtenaw
Wayne
Total
Sample
Plots
45
140
40
100
325
Construction
Sources
0.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.53
Non— construction
Sources
0.6
1.5
3.3
1.3
1.5*
Total
1.3
3.1
4.9
2.9
3.0a
aWeighted averages.
-------
Case 14. Rock Creek-Anacostia River Basins
Source -
T. H. Yorke and W. J. Davis, "Sediment Yields of Urban Construction
Sources, Montgomery County, Md.," United States Department of the
Interior Geological Survey, Open-file Report, Rockville, Maryland,
1972.(A-57)
Purpose -
"To evaluate some features of the sediment control as practiced in
the County (Montgomery) and to provide information for improving
erosion-control techniques." This report covers only the first phase
of the study which measured the sediment yields due to essentially
uncontrolled construction activities. The second phase (unreported)
is to measure and evaluate the various sediment control programs in
the basin.
Site Description -
The watersheds under study were those of the upper Rock Creek and
Anacostia Rivers, an area of 34 square miles. These basins are in
eastern Maryland, about 7 miles north of the District of Columbia.
This area lies in the eastern Piedmont physiographic province, typified
by rolling topography. Slopes range between 0 and 8 percent along
drainage divides and up to 25 percent adjacent to the streams. The
bedrock is comprised of Precambrian igneous and meta-igneous rocks of
variable erodibility (See Exhibit 97).
Climate -
This area has a typical mid-Atlantic temperate, moderately humid
climate. Mean annual temperature is 13°C. The growing season is
175 days, between late April and mid-October. Average annual precipi-
tation is 43 inches, distributed evenly over the year. Average
262
-------
EiriANATION
O SlftMlfUw-Manual il.li
A K«i«rdi«| rtin |i|i
Q N*Hr»c*r4nf rmtn |«|i
Exhibit 97. Map of Study Area, Rock Creek-Anacostia
River Sedimentation and Hydrology Project, Maryland
263
-------
juonthly precipitation ranges between 2.7 inches in February to 5.15
inches in August. Summer precipitation tends to occur as brief high-
intensity storms. Actual precipitation during the study averaged
41.3 inches/year. Average runoff from the Northwest Branch of the
Anacostia River near Colesville was 17.7 cfs compared to the 45
year average of 20.2 cfs.
Soil Type -
The predominant Manor-Chester-Glendes soil is primarily derived from
a soft micaceouschist. The soils range from 18-40 inches deep with a
0-8 inch silty loam surface soil. The surface soil size distribution
is 0-30 percent clay, 0-30 percent sand, and 50-90 percent silt.
Permeability ranges .63 to 2.0 inches per hour. These soils are
highly susceptible to erosion and in places the surface soil has been
eroded away, exposing the subsoils.
Land Use -
The area studied is essentially rural but is shifting rapidly to
urban; see Exhibits 98 and 99. This is especially apparent in the
lower third of the area; however, subdivisions and commercial develop-
ments are being built throughout the basin.
Study Method -
Land use changes were determined from grid counts on aerial photographs.
Streamflow and sediment concentration data were measured at nine sites
shown in Exhibit 98. Streamflow was based on the water level at each
station, calibrated to discharge measurements. Precipitation data
were collected at approximately 15 stations shown on Exhibit 97.
Results -
Exhibit IX)O(a-g) contain the Streamflow and sediment load data for
the well-sampled storm periods. The storm runoff was determined
264
-------
Exhibit 98. LAND USE IN PERCENT OF DRAINAGE AREA, IN SELECTED
BASINS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, 1959-68'A~57>
Date
Cultivated
Grass
Woodland Urban
Construction
Bel Pre Creek at Layhill
Nov. 1959
Mar. 1963
Dec. 1964
July 1965
June 1966
June 1967
June 1968
Lutea Run
Nov. 1959
Mar. 1963
Dec. 1964
•July 1965
June 1966
June 1967
June 1968
Northwest
Nov. 1959
Mar. 1963
Dec. 1964
July 1965
June 1966
June 1967
June 1968
12.4
12.4
.6
0
.9
.8
.8
at Lutes
0
0
1.3
1.3
0.3
0
0
Branch Anacostia
33.3
-
15
15
14.6
14.6
14.3
28.5
26.5
38.0
33.6
41.4
40.4
43.3
26.0
29.3
29.3
29.3
14.6
13.9
13.6
River
33.1
-
45.5
44.8
44.7
44.1
44.5
57.5
57.5
56.7
46.8
38.5
36.4
36.1
64.7
31.5
29.0
29.0
27.6
22.3
22.3
near Colesville
29.6
_
33.9
33.3
32.9.
32.3
32.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
5.2
8.5
9.9
7.4
18.9
32.1
33.7
44.2
54.2
59.8
3.5
_
4.0
4.2
4.5
5.2
6.0
0
0
3.1
18.0
14.0
13.9
9.8
1.9
20.3
8.3
6.7
13.3
9.6
4.3
0.5
2.3
1.6
2.7
3.3
3.8
3.0
265
-------
Exhibit 99. LAND USE IN ROCK CREEK-ANACOSTIA
RIVER PROJECTS STUDY BASINS, 1966-68^A~57^
LAND USE, IN ACRES
k
Basin
Farntland
\^ , o \
\s\\\*
Wllllamsburg Run
near Olney
N. Br. Rock Creek
near Norbeck
Manor Run
near Norbeck
Northwest Branch
Anacostla River
at Norwood
Nursery Run
at Cleverly
Bel Pre Creek
at Lay hi 11
Lutes Run at Lutes
northwest Branch
Anacostla River
near Colesvllle
June 1966
June 1967
June 1968
June 1966
June 1967
June 1968
June 1966
June 1967
June 1968
June 1966
June 1967
June 1966
June 1366
June 1967
June 1968
June 1966
June 1967
June 1966
June 1966
June 1967
June 1966
June 1966
June 1967
June 1966
Parks
Golf Coui
Residential
•ses Rural j Urban
\ \ \
^&. y* N. %*> x*i t> *"**" V. ~V> -<*v, ~f >v
4* ®/ \. V f ^y ®s ^* ^ *ii ®/ \
615 358 209 0 1 30
603 3O3 206 0 1 25
597 287 197 0 1 25
1806 1805 1439 62 4 95
1795 1742 1434 62 1 9O
1769 1731 1425 62 t 90
12 245 122 57 0 10
12 210 121 55 0 9
12 184 118 56 0 9
320 482 574
367 421 574
367 406 574
19 110 46
13 HO 46
19 11O 46
10 187 297
9 180 274
3 2O€ 271
1 29 62
0 24 48
0 23 48
2 J 23
2 3 23
2 3 23
940
904
904
8 0 12
8 0 12
8 0 13
OOO
000
000
196S 4171 3544 166 11 212
197 O 4O49 3452 168 11 2O9
1932 4027 3421 166 11 210
68 5 1 2
68 5 1 2
63 5 1 Z
332 73 6 11
332 73 C 11
332 73 6 11
22 27 0 4
21 27 0 4
21 27 O 4
000 0
ooo o
000 O
000 0
ooo o
OOO 0
173 66 4 2
169 66 4 2
171 66 e 2
OOO O
000 0
000 0
729 344 8 36
725 338 6 36
727 338 10 36
Public &
Commercial
\
^ %N
65 13 1C
74 12 18
67 14 17
264 116 51
273 116 53
281 118 56
58 30 15
SB 3O 15
58 3O 15
48 49 16
48 49 16
59 50 IB
21 1 8
21 1 8
21 1 8
70 46 20
70 46 20
71 46 20
15 21 4
16 19 3
18 19 3
S7O 369 251
921 399 270
987 412 eS6
I
Construction
\ x>
V* X ^
Total Basin Area
\
<& ^*-> N. t*L? *^* ^v
0 1
O 1
58 19
7 4
11 S
68 23
0 2
6 3
19 b
0 0
O 1
0 1
0 0
O O
0 0
13 19
25 43
34 49
79 46
90 C4
95 75
147 1O2
176 149
221 18&
8 4
8 4
8 6
9 6
9 12
14 15
0 5
O 5
6 7
33 15
33 15
43 20
2 3
3 3
3 3
1 3
O 4
O 4
1 1
3 3
4 5
74 28
73 33
84 4O
44 O
102 7
65 3
1OO 35
170 3O
118 12
36 1
69 1
73 3
3 0
17 O
3 0
1 0
0 0
O O
14B 3
144 6
106 0
35 5
22 7
13 0
442 1O
458 59
S97 12
1440
1440
1440
6227
6228
6228
646
646
646
1S68
1569
1569
224
224
224
1092
1082
1082
301
301
301
13EO4
13504
13504
-------
Exhibit 100(a). COMPILATION OF HYDROLOGIC
AND SEDIMENT DATA, 1960-68(A~57)
Stern
Total Storm
runoff runoff
(cfs-days) (cfn-days)
Suspended Sediment
sediment discharge 'precipitation
(mg/1) (tons) (incheu)
Peak
dlacnarce
Wllllamsburg Run near Olney 2.25 sq mi
Kov.
Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
VAT.
Hay
June
July
AUg.
Aug.
Oct.
Oct.
!!ov.
Dec.
Dec.
Jan,
Mar.
Apr.
Kay
Jur.e
Jur»
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Nov.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
May
june
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Nov.
Deo.
Dec.
Jan.
Mar.
Kir.
Kay
June
June
June
Sept.
28-29, 1966
7-9, 1967
27-28
15-16
6-8
7-e
22-23
20-21
3-5
24-2!;
10,11
2E-2S
2-1
1O-12
26-29
14-15, 1963
17-18
24-25
27-29
19-20
2«-i»
19-20
6
10-11
28-29, 196C
£7-26, 1967
15-16
6-8
15-16
7-8
22- 23
3-5
24-25
27-28
2-3
3-4
10-11
14-15, 1968
'12-13 "
17-18;
27-29
16
19-20
26-28
10-11
7.4
14
IS
11
70
19
2.9
3.9
22
60
2.1
4.5
5. 8
SO
25
51
25
5.5
38
12
20
2.2
l.t
6.8
33
55
40
SOS
£5
90
14
92
218
54
22
CO
82
204
82
113
136
17
48
88
30
5.0
£.2
11
6.9
62
IS
1.5
2.5
20
58
.8
2.7
4.2
29
20
46
18
2.1
33
8.5
16
1.4
1.2
6.2
North Branch Rock
20
38
20
266
38 '
66
7.5
78
203
36
1*
50
62
182
53
66
118
12
37
74
87
435
193
4,860
239
2,230
1,270
2,430
266
6,650
1,690
106
749
830
864
341
378
1,720
245
877
2.470
2,260
2,020
741
2,890
Creek near Norbeclc
303
2,150
70
2,440
296
992
503
5,030
3,720
4,150
253
365
294
741
429
'603
955
2,980
2,720
1,690
4,120
6.7
7.3
197
7.1
421
65
19
2.8
394
274
.6
9.1
13.0
70
£3
52
116
S.S
90
80
122
12
2.8
53
9.73 sq nl
27
320
7.6
2,050
52
241
19
1,250
2,190
60S
15
67
65
4 OS
95
184
356
137
3S3
401
334
1.16
(.26)
1.02
-•
2.68
1.92
1.14
1.02
2.61
3.20
(.84)
.90
1.00
(1.65)
(1.50)
1.50
1.25
(.97)
3.00
.96
1.84
(.70)
.83)
1.57
1.14
.97
...
Z.67
1.02
1.94
1.17
2.42
3.06
_•
.97
(1.34)
(1.66)
1.49
1.95
1.20
2.96
(1.12)
.93
1.82
1.80
20
17
71
15
242
51
16
If
127
40!
6.7
26
19
49
64
110
46
11
84
69
70
15
9.E
46
£3
164
41
600
98
167
33
317
823
132
50
104
163
413
99
139
233
123
196
25b
126
267
-------
Exhibit 100(b).
AND SEDIMENT DATA 1967-68
COMPILATION OF HYDROLOGIC
(A-57)
Storm
Storm
runoff
(cfa-days)
Storm
runoff
(era-days)
Suapended
Sediment
(mg/D
Sediment
discharge "Precipitation
(tons) (Inches)
Peak
discharge
Manor Run near Norbeck 1.01 sq ml
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Aug.
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
May
June
June
June
June
July
Sept.
28, 1966
27-28, 1967
6-8
15-16
17-18
7-8
22-23
3-5
24-25
25
2
14-15, 1968
12-13
17-18
27-29
12-13
16
19-20
26-28
2-3
10-11
4.4
8.6
47
8.4
2.6
16
4.6
8.7
37
2.5
2.6
29
8.4
13.1
19
3.2
10
11
1O
6.5
9.5
4.0
5,9
44
6.1
1.3
14
4.1
7.8
36
2.2
2.2
26
5.9
9.5
17
2.2
9.3
9.3
a.o
5.2
8.9
1,090
9,170
3,540
1,150
499
6,160
9,820
18,60O
13,800
17,600
3,560
1,520
1,630
5,740
6,840
6,710
19, 000
16, 600
10,400
13,200
22,700
Northwest Branch Anaoostla River at
Mar.
May
June
Aug
Nov
Jan
Mar
Mar
May
June
June
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
May
June
July
Aug.
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
Hay
June
June
Sept.
IS, 1967
?-e
22-23
4-5
2-3
14-15
12-13
17-18
27-29
19-20
27-26
28, 196C
27-28, 1967
6-7
IS
7-8
22
29-20
3-E
24-25
25-2C
2
14-15, 1966
12-1J
17-18
27-28
19
26-28
10-11
14
23
3.7
14
3.8
46
18
30
39
14
12
.94
1.2
7.1
1.1
3.5
1.1
1.9
4.9
11
1.1
.83
7.1
2.0
3.6
3.3
2.3
1.4
.82
11
16
2.6
12
2.3
42
14
21
33
10
7.8
Nursery Run at
.64
.59
6.1
0.60
2.4
0.8
1.4
3.7
9.6
.54
.60
6.4
1.0
2.4
2.3
2.0
.61
.54
344
3,030
2,200
6,06O
205
346
556
728
693
2,090
2,650
Cleverly 0.
39
185
480
34
106
370
1,690
1,130
1,180
202
45
511
74
62
146
2,740
26
90
13
213
449
26
3.S
266
122
437
1,380
119
25
119
38
203
351
SO
513
493
280
231
582
Norwood 2.45 sq ml
13
188
22
229
2.1
43
27
59
73
79
ee
35 sq ml
0.1
0.6
9.2
0.1
1.0
1.1
9.7
15
35
.6
.1
9.8
.4
.6
1.3
17
0.1
.2
1.29
0.82
2.61
.95
(.66)
1.98
l.SO
2.18
3.28
.97
.98
1.49
1.73
1.29
2.83
(.94)
(1.21)
.88
1.61
(1.36)
1.99
.95
2.03
1.30
£.64
I. OK
1.54
1.90
1.56
2.92
1.04
1.75
1.15
0.72
2.55
.85
2.00
1.46
(1.47)
2.98
3.67
.95
1.03
1.61
1.76
1.68
1. 15
1.24
1.26
1.41
23
57
182
26
5.0
66
110
77
299
42
13
97
21
56
01
19
161
194
114
95
19 f.
44
75
3d
20L
13
139
45
09
121
159
1O2
2.C
4.0
35
2.9
o.e
is.
31
51
2U
fi.7
3.7
29
4.«
6.8
0.7
53
2.9
C.4
268
-------
Exhibit 100(c). COMPILATION OF HYDROLOGIC
AND SEDIMENT DATA, 1967-68
Storm
Storm
runoff
(of i-day*)
Storm Suspended
runoff •ediment
(ofa-dayi) (ng/1)
Sediment
dlaoharge "Precipitation
(tone) (Inohea)
Peak
dlioharge
Bel Pre Creak at Layhlll 1.69 aq ml
Oct. 18-19, 1966
Nov. 36-29
Jan. 27-28, 1967
Mar. 6-8
Mar. 15-16
Apr. 17-16
May 7-8
June 22-23
July 20-21
Aug. 5-5
Aug. 21-25
Oot. 25-26
NOV. 2-3
Deo. 3-4
Dec. 28-29
Jan. 14-15, 1968
Mar. 12-13
Mar. 17-16
Hay 27-29
June 16-17
June 19-20
June 27-28
July z-3
Sept. 6
Sept. 10-11
Nov. 28, 1966
Jan. 27, 1967
May 7
June 22
July 20
July 29-30
Aug. 3-5
Aug. 19
Oot. 25-26
Nov. 2
Jan. U-15, 1968
Mar. 17-18
May 27-29
June 19-20
July 2-3
Sept. 2
Nov. 28-30, 1966
Deo. 16-19
Jan. 27-28, 1987
Feb. u-17
Mar. 6-6
Mar. 15-17
Apr. 6-7
May 7-9
June 22-23
July z-4
July 20-21
July 29-51
35
13
9.S
59
18
3,8
34
10
7.3
26
67
12
9.3
31
29
48
25
35
44
17
16
20
16
2.7
9.7
3.4
2.9
9.1
5.0
5.9
3.7
15
2.7
2.6
3.0
12
6.0
10
6.7
9.2
.68
Northmat
94
41
99
142
616
1S4
44
264
64
80
49
40
34
12
8,3
55
15
2.5
30
9.0
6.6
24
64
11
8.3
28
27
45
22
28
40
15
14
18
15
2.5
9.2
Lute a Run at
3.2
2.6
8.0
4.8
5.8
3.5
12
2.5
2.3
2.9
11
4.7
9.1
6,2
8.5
.82
1,320
1,540
3,740
2,370
1,170
1,070
1,800
4,040
2,890
7,390
2,460
4,010
1,230
358
600
478
874
1,260
976
2,270
2,450
4,520
4,120
892
2,060
Lutea 0.47
1,740
10,900
2,730
4,440
4,580
2,400
2,850
4,660
4,560
728
617
1.850
1,110
3,370
2.130
2,310
125
54
96
378
57
11
165'
109
57
S19
44S
130
31
30
47
62
59
119
116
104
106
244
178
6.5
54
>q ml
16
85
67
60
73
24
100
34
32
5.9
20
30
30
61
53
5.5
2.45
1.29
.75
2.55
.85
(.66)
2.01
1.49
.96
2.26
3.69
1.14
1.02
[1.421
(1.48)
1.36
1.79
1.49
2.76
(1.21)
1.04
1.70
(1.361
(.76)
1.50
1.17
.74
2.06
1.39
1.42
(1.09)
2.67
(1.42)
1.32
.97
1.45
1.84
3.13
.70
(2.03)
(.S2)
84
63
56
193
52
11
96
130
85
156
358
135
58
68
ei
159
S3
95
106
157
178
134
114
29
104
23
44
43
189
194
153
221
88
101
26
65
51
75
270
218
46
Branch Anaeoitla River near Coleavtlle 81.1 aq nl
70
16
60
67
550
97
13
216
51
59
38
25
666
61
1,950
501
1,720
580
73
1,570
4,020
2,150
3,420
3,020
169
9
520
192
2,860
241
8.6
1,120
695
465
453
326
1.21
(.54)
.75
_.
2.55
.85
(.66)
1.98
1.39
(1:S}
(.68)
149
41
149
107
1,300
158
44
498
316
195
291
131
269
-------
Exhibit 100(d). COMPILATION OF HYDROLOGIC
AND SEDIMENT DATA, 1967-68(
Aug.
Auz.
AUK.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
Jar..
Feb.
Mar.
Kar.
Bar.
Apr.
Kay
June
June
June
June
July
Sept
Sept
Storm
3-G, 19C7
19-20
24-2.'.
10-11
2S-2t
2-3
3-4
10-12
14-15, 19€B
2-3
12-14
17-19
•23-24
24-rr>
27-^-J
12-13
IE-IB
19-20
2C-28
2-3
. 6-7
. 1^-11
Total
runoff
(cfs-days
Northwest
249
45
035
27
57
58
196
262
4flO
Cl
210
327
C8
53
310
59
101
174
122
98
IB
40
Storm
runoff
) (cfs-daya)
Branch Anacostla
220
30
607
18
44
42
164
251
444
24
145
221
26
26
Zl +
36
69
146
92
77
13
55
Suspended
sediment:
(-G/D
Sedlrnent
discharge
(tons)
River near Colesvllle 21.1
2,310
1,560
2,150
329
2,030
843
1,100
861
602
334
1,120
1,000
136
245
1,830
1,720
1,690
2,210
2,960
2,240
247
4,050
1,550
192
5,690
24
313
132
582
609
793
55
636
8B5
25
35
1,530
274
462
1,038
975
593
12
329
aPreclpltatlon
(inches)
sq ml
2.58
(1.30)
3.67
(.84)
1.05
1.02
(1.35)
1.61
1.42
(.38)
1.S6
1.63
(.50)
(.94)
2.87
(1.15)
{i.eoj
1.09
1.47
(1.45}
(.64)
1.31
Feak
dischar.-e
7c2
103
l,-(45
61
2S4
119
164
363
..25
€9
2«9
454
72
66
511
160
190
574
30S
322
54
I7e
a Precipitation Is average value computed by isohyetal method except those values In parentheses,
measurements at the nearest rain gage.
which are
-------
Exhibit 100(0. HYDROLOGIC AM) SEDIMENT DATA.
OF BEL TOE CREEK A3 LAYHILL, MD., 1963-66<
ro
Storm
Mar. 6-7, 1963
Bar. 12-13
Kar. 20-21
June 2-3
Aug. 20-21
Sept. 29
Nov. 6-7
Jan. 9-10, 1964
Aug. 3
Dec. 27-28
Har. 5-6, 196S
Aug. 26-27
Jan. 6, 1966
Feb. 13
Apr. 12-13
July 5-6
Aug. 11
Sept. 14
Total
runoff
era-days
27
21
7.4
23
20
4.5
40
27
1.3
11
75
71
6.3
65
23
5.6
3.2
59
. Storm
runoff
cfs-days
25
19
5.4
22
20
4.2
36
26
1.2
10
71
70
4.5
63
19
4.1
2.6
55
HYDROLOGIC AND
Suspended
sediment
(mg/1)
584
145
115
274
204
107
130
165
256
125
694
4,780
1,180
2,250
1,950
X 650
*,510.
2,100
SEDIMENT DATA
Sediment
discharge
(tons)
26
8.2
2.3
17
11
1.3
14
12
0.9
3.7
181
917
20
394
121
25
Z9
334
OF LUTES
Precipitation
Inches
.87
1.46
.86
2.95
2.75
2.10
3.30
1.16
1.95
.72
2.95
2.81
.89
1.73
2.20
: 37
.91
5.48
RUN
Peak
discharge
(cfs)
54
41
24
61
102
18
80
117
14
31
260
410
22
18O
62
44
49
370
AT LUTES, MD., 1963-66
Storm
Feb. 20-21, 1963
Mar. 6
Kar. 11-12
Mar. 19-2O
June 2-3
Kov . 6-7
Jan. 9, 1964
Aug. 3
Feb. 7-8, 1965
Mar. 26
Oct. 7-8
Feb. 13, 1966
Aug. 11
Total
runoff
ifs-days
3.3
6.2
8.2
4.4
9.1
9.7
7.7
3.4
7.6
4 8
3".
ie
3.4
Storm
runoff
cfs-days
2.7
4.7
4.7
i.a
8.1
8.8
7.1
2.8
5.8
3.6
34
12
2.4
Suspended
sediment
(ng/1)
4.04C
15,700
4,070
2,950
8,710
8,440
10,700
8,930
4,630
2,930
3,520
5,970
4,680
Sediment
discharge
(tons)
36
262
90
35
214
221
223
82
95
38
352
290
43
Precipitation
inches
.63
1.36
1.54
.88
2.93
2.80
1.16
1.95
1.38
1,26
3.45
1.71
1.00
fsak
discharge
(crs)
13
27
ie
6.7
50
37
42
48
36
46
E3SO
E170
E67
E Estlgiated.
-------
Exhibit 100(f). HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT DATA OF NORTHWEST
BRANCH ANACOSTIA RIVER NEAR COLESVILLE, MD., 1960-66 (A~57)
Sept.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Apr.
Aug.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
May
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
May
June
June
July
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Nov.
NOV.
Nov.
Dee. -
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar
Apr.
May
July
July
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Storm
11-13, 1960
1-2, 1961
18-20
22-24
12-14
26-27
18
6-7, 1962
24
26-28
11-13
31 to Apr. 2
23-24
4-5
9-11
1P-19
21-22
11-14, 1963
19-21
11-13
19-22
5-7
12-14
16-20
29-31
2-4
21-22
14-16
13-15
19-22
29-30
29-30
1-3
6-8
23-24
29 to Dec. 1
' 8-10
9-11, 1964
20-22
25-26
6-8
2-5
21-23
3O to May 1
13-14
8-9
13-14
2-4
29 to Oct. 1
25-26
4-7
12-14
26-29
8-11, 1965
22-26
7-9
25-27
5-8
Total
runoff
cfa-daya
275
182
563
318
524
99
85
160
50
338
588
209
125
32
134
43
140
239
89
140
148
363
274
257
32
244
23
24
S3
220
11
76
28
343
43
254
94
369
227
223
185
245
197
153
42
20
25
32
39
63
62
158
125
117
234
253
62
647
Storm
runoff
cfa-daya
239
140
428
183
434
80
59
126
20
254
478
137
98
23
110
25
114
188
47
92
104
306
206
131
11
203
10
13
28
202
3.1
66
14
314
25
215
58
294
152
171
119
115
122
98
11
11
15
20
25
49
30
154
76
65
156
217
29
575
Suaoended
sediment
(mg/1)
677
381
621
525
469
1,780
549
553
96
987
882
429
2,240
440
1,060
198
646
426
150
698
1,910
2,140
902
262
185
2,230
64
216
5,390
6,890
135
3,960
79
2,080
620
1,430
1,220
1,930
418
1,320
1,430
311
884
1,290
432
1,040
1,360
3,090
1,020
2,990
1,030
2,630
1,200
187
948
5,500
215
2,700
Sediment
discharge
(tona)
503
187
944
451
664
475
126
239
13
901
1,400
242
757
38
382
23
244
275
36
264
764
2,100
667
182
16
1,470
4
14
460
4,090
4
813
6
1,930
72
961
310
1,920
256
787
712
206
470
534
49
56
92
267
107
509
172
1,120
406
59
599
2,590
36
4,720
aPreclpltatlon
Inches
3.32
3.34
.41
1.07
2.01
1.05
1.09
1.60
.14
1.74
1 12
1.46
1.35
2.31
2. 14
.94
1.02
0.81
"fifl
,58
.95
1.12
1.26
.83
.'so
1.03
1.12
2.64
.30
2.39
1.22
3.30
.82
2.00
.97
1.13
.40
.97
.66
.36
1.36
.70
.30
.80
.88
1.15
2.46
1.51
.77
1.61
1.08
1.16
.83
1.36
0.58
2.91
Peak
discharge
(cfa)
630
268
538
399
1,050
307
224
223
108
600
798
307
444
70
316
70
252
146
61
149
327
642
335
151
32
386
34
28
66
684
17
171
24
619
71
261
151
814
272
534
166
143
240
307
61
38
72
94
135
103
394
171
49
253
513
51
1,210
272
-------
Exhibit 100(g). HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT DATA OF NORTHWEST BRANCH
ANACOSTIA RIVER NEAR COLESVILLE, MD., 1960-64^
Mar.
Hay
June
July
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
June
July
July
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Storm
25-27, 1965
28-30
2-4
11-12
21-23
26-28
24-25
7-9
6-7, 1966
10-15
26 to Mar. 2
24-25
12-14
22-23
30 to May 2
18-20, 1966
27-30
28-29
5-6
15
11-12
14-16
20-22
29-30
Total
runoff
cfs-days
200
37
44
59
16
240
17
379
49
741
333
40
220
34
143
78
115
12
19
5.1
11
681
146
45
Storm
runoff
cfs-days
140
13
22
47
6
230
10
361
34
649
275
IS
178
9
80
48
73
4.4
12
3.1
8.7
669
122
20
Suspended
sediment
(mgA)
1,280
270
530
4,160
116
5,940
1,570
2,970
310
1,480
1,710
222
1,560
54
394
1,530
2,040
1,230
1,540
1,740
2,260
2,090
1.42O
568
Sediment
discharge
(tons)
693
27
63
663
5
3,850
72
3,040
41
2,960
1,540
24
924
5
152
322
632
40
79
24
67
3,840
560
69
aPreclpltatlon
Inches
.86
.26
1.03
1.4O
1.10
2.10
.70
3.30
.82
1.74
1.20
.76
2.18
.53
1.01
1.56
1.22
—
0.75
.22
.86
6.45
1.76
.42
Peak
discharge
(cfs)
442
39
45
502
22
792
G9
1,010
59
1,030
600
51
282
26
127
62
205
32
S3
40
53
2,100
334
37
a From Brighton Dam non-recording gage September 1960 to March 1964.
thereafter.
From Norwood South non-recording gage
-------
by subtracting the base flow from the measured flow. Base flow was
determined by drawing a line between the initial rise of the stage
hydrograph and the point at which it levels out again after the storm.
Suspended sediment concentration was determined weekly at three
stations and during storms at the remaining six. Exhibit 101 gives
the rainfall distribution.
Urban Development and Runoff -
Exhibit 102 shows a comparison of the runoff from Bel Pre Creek and
the Northwest Branch Anacostia River both before and during construc-
tion activities covering 15 percent of the 1.69 square mile drainage
basin of the Bel Pre Creek. It can be seen that there is an increase
of runoff due to construction activities for small rainfalls, while
the runoff for larger storms remains essentially unchanged.
Average streamflow also remained essentially the same. This is
illustrated in Exhibit 103, a comparison of cumulative discharge for
the Northwest Branch near Colesville, an area undergoing considerable
construction activity, and Seneca Creek, an essentially rural area.
These two statements are reconciled by changes in the amounts and
timing of the groundwater inflows.
Urban Development and Sediment Transport -
Exhibits 104 through 106 show the changes in suspended sediment discharge
during the urbanization of three basins. Exhibits 104 and 105 show the
effects of construction while Exhibit 106 shows the eventual decrease
as the area is finally urbanized. Exhibit 107 gives the sediment
runoff relationships for six of the secondary basins. Manor Run has
an area of 1.01 square miles, of which 11 percent is under construction.
This is the second largest percentage of all the basins. (Bel Pre
Creek had the largest, 14 percent). Nursery Run is the smallest basin,
274
-------
O iliMall«>->WMwil
A ••
-------
ANALYSIS OF DATA
o
o
z
o
H
Z)
o:
*:
UJ
UJ
UJ
a:
a.
_i
UJ
03
100
10
EXPLANATION
o PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
A DURING CONSTRUCTION
10 100 1000
NORTHWEST BRANCH STORM RUNOFF; IN CFS-DAYS
Exhibit 102. Relation Between Storm Runoff of (A-57)
Bel Pre Creek and Northwest Branch-Anacostia River, 1963-67
276
-------
SEDIMENT YIELDS OP URBAN CONSTRUCTION SOURCES
< o
CC y
m o
i_ O
UJ
a:
£300
a: H
o LU
z UJ
uT"-
o o
§200
X O
o z
Z UJ
2-100
> h-
58
1968,
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
u CUMULATIVE MEAN DISCHARGE OF SENECA CREEK,
IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Exhibit 103. Cumulative Plot of Annual Mean Discharge of
Northwest Branch-Anacostia River Near Colesville and
Seneca Creek at Dawsonville, Md., 1951-68(A-57)
277
-------
z
o
(9
cr
<
o
n
LJ
s
o
UJ
S
UJ
o
z
UJ
Q.
•s.
o
o
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
2O,000
UJ
> 10,000
4,000 8,000 12,000
CUMULATIVE STORM RUNOFF, IN CFS-DAYS
Exhibit 104. Cumulative Plot of Suspended-Sediment Discharge
and Storm Runoff of Northwest Branch-Anacostia River Near
Colesville, Md., 1960-68(A-57)
278
-------
p
z
5 4,000 -
uT
o
o
V)
5
5 3,000 - ^
z
Ul
§
a
ui
2
UJ
a
(A
Ul
2,000 •
1,000 -
3 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 CUMULATIVE STORM RUNOFF, IN CFS-DAYS
Exhibit 105. Cumulative Plot of Suspended-Sediment
Discharge and Storm Runoff of Bel Pre Creek at
Layhill, Md., 1963-67(A-57)
279
-------
CUMULATIVE SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT DISCHARGED TONS
1,000P
o
o
09
O
o
N
o
o
£
8
8
o
o
•
o
ro
oo
o
o
c
2
c
o
•33
2
wo
c o
z
O
-
-no
-<
to
.MAR. 1963
120% CONSTRUCTION)
AR. 1965
(7
O
O
0
Ul
o
z
111
Q.
C/l
100
1.0 10
STORM RUNOFF, IN CFS-DAYS
IOO
Exhibit 106. Cumulative Plot of Suspended-Sediment
Discharge and Storm Runoff or Lutes Run at
Lutes, Md., 1963-68CA-57)
Exhibit 107. Relation Between
Suspended-Sediment Discharge and Storm Runoff
of Rock Creek-Anacostia River Project Basins
of Less than Three Square Miles, 1967-68(^-57)
-------
.35 square miles, and is without construction. Average sediment
concentrations are computed to be 10,000 mg/1 in Manor Run and 700
rog/1 in Nursery Run.
Not all cases were as clear cut as those presented in Exhibits 105
through 107. Other factors were found that influenced the sediment
yield-runoff relationships. These include mean air temperature,
total precipitation, runoff/precipitation rates and peakedness ratio.
The peakedness is the ratio of peak discharge in cfs to storm runoff
in cfs-days. It is a general indicator of the intensity of the rain-
fall and the response of the drainage system. When adjusted for this
ratio, the sediment discharge curves of at least one basin showed a
markedly better fit, as shown in Exhibits 108 and 109.
Another important consideration was difference of sediment yields
during summer and winter. This is due to the fact that in the winter
the land, though still exposed, is usually frozen or too wet to work.
The sediment surface then gradually increases in particle size as the
fines are carried away. Eventually a protective surface forms which
is composed of relatively large soil particles that are not easily
carried off and shield the lower surface from active erosion. During
the summer, this does not occur, since the soil is constantly being
moved.
Exhibit 110 shows the variations of unit sediment yield over the basins
studied. An analysis was carried out to determine what conditions
caused these variations. It was determined that two parameters greatly
reduced the variations: land slope and the percentage of the total
construction within 300 feet of the channel. When adjusted for these
parameters, a much closer fit was obtained (see Exhibit 111).
281
-------
ANALYSIS OF DATA
1,000
00
ISJ
cn
z
o
u
CD
o:
<
u
-------
SEDIMENT YIELDS OP URBAN CONSTRUCTION SOURCES
I 2,000
UJ
I
a
UJ
a
to
o
3
UJ
Ul
5
ui
1,000
800
600
400
ZOO
100
80
60
40
** A Williomsburg Run
B N.Br. Rock Creek
C Manor Run
DN.W. Br. at Norwood
ENursery Run
F Be! Pre Creek
6 Lutes
H N,W. Br.neor Colesville
J_
I I
I
I
J I
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
PERCENTAGE OF DRAINAGE BASIN UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Exhibit 110. Relation Between Sediment Yield of Three
1967 Growing Season Storms and Percentage of Land Under
Construction Within the Study Basin (A-57)
283
-------
a
g zpoo
UJ
ec
< 1,000
O 80O
en
600
cr
UJ
a.
UJ
>-
o
UJ
400
200
100
80
60
40
J L
.J-
_L
J I I L
J L
0 5 10 15
PERCENTAGE OF DRAINAGE BASIN UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Exhibit 111. Relation Between Sediment Yield
and the Amount of Construction After Adjustments
for Percentage Construction Within 300 ft. of Stream Channels (A~57)
284
-------
This paper concluded that although construction increases the sediment
loads to streams, it could be reduced to at least a small degree by
keeping it further from the stream channels and at a shallow slope.
This was, of course, only a report of the first phase. The second
phase will involve a more detailed study of control -measures.
285
-------
Case 15. . Coyote Creek and Cold Creek Sediment Studies near South
Lake Tahoe, California
Source -
Unpublished information obtained through personal communications with
(1) California Regional Water Resources Control Board (Lahontan
Region), and (2) Department of Plans and Permits, City of Lake Tahoe,
California. May
Purpose -
The Lahontan Regional Office of the State Water Resources Control
Board took measurements upstream and downstream of construction sites
on four local watersheds in an effort to determine (1) the effects of
construction on the suspended sediment concentration of the streams,
and (2) the effects of suspended sediment on the population of silt-
sensitive insects in or near the stream bed.
Site Location/Description -
The measured portions of all four watersheds are on the southern
side of Lake Tahoe, lying within El Dorado County and partly within
the city limits of South Lake Tahoe, California.
Topography -
Generally mountainous except for flat areas near the lake. Estimates
of the slope for specific construction sites:
Coyote Creek area - 5 to 10 percent
Cold Creek area - 10 to 12 percent
Lonely Gulch area - 30 to 45 percent (highway construction)
Soil Type -
Decomposed granite; a loose, sandy material with little adhesive
characteristics .
286
-------
Land Uses/Ground Cover -
These differ for the four watersheds. The uses of areas where
measurements were taken can be roughly characterized as follows:
Coyote Creek—residential
Cold Creek—control stream, some residential area
Heavenly Valley—ski area (no upstream measurements)
Lonely Gulch—general land use not specified, but contained some
road construction
The Coyote Creek watershed (for which land-use data are most complete)
drains some 1,020 acres.
Climate/Rainfall
After snowmelt, only one or two rains occur during summer and fall.
(Average precipitation not quoted for South Lake Tahoe, but at Tahoe
City, about 20 miles northwest, it is about 30 inches annually.)
Parameters Measured -
Two types of measurements were taken: physical and biological.
Physical parameters: automatic gaging to yield daily average flows
(gage heights)
suspended sediment concentrations (weekly)
Biological parameters: Number of larvae per square foot (based
on sample counts) for the following orders:
— flat worms (tricladia)
— segmented worms (oligochaeta)
— May flies (ephemeroptera)
— stone flies (plecoptera)
— caddis flies (tricoptera)
— common flies (diptera)
287
-------
These insects spend most of their life cycles in streams, providing
food for fish, birds, etc.
In addition, a coarse measure of land use for two of the watersheds
was obtained by examining city and county records to determine the
number of sewer hook-ups during the time period covered by the physical
and biological measurements. Since all buildings are required to be
connected to a central sewerage system, the number of building sewer
connection permits issued provides a rough indication of the amount of
residential and commercial construction.
Time Frame -
November 1972 - January 1974 (approximate)
Results -
The data on suspended sediment and gage height were provided by the
Lahontan Regional Office of the California Water Resources Control
Board. This information is given in Exhibit 112.
The following reductions were observed in concentration of insect
larvae (number of larvae per square foot of streambed) based on up-
stream and downstream of construction sites:
Observed downstream concentration
Order was approximately:
Tricladia (flat worms) 1/3 of upstream concentration
Oligochaeta (segmented worms) 1/8 of upstream concentration
Ephemeroptera (May flies) 3/4 of upstream concentration
Plecoptera (stone flies) 1/4 of upstream concentration
Tricoptera (caddis flies) 1/10 of upstream concentration
Diptera (common flies) 1/3 of upstream concentration
The following information about the state of development in the
288
-------
Exhibit 112. SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION AND GAGE HEIGHT AT FOUR STATIONS
COYOTE CREEK, CALIFORNIA^ ^
K>
CO
VO
COYOTE CREEK
Upstream
Downstream
COLD CREEK
Upstream
Downstream
LONELY GULCF
Upstream
Downstream
HEAVENLY VAI
Downstream
1
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONC.(PPM) GAGE HEIGHT (FT)
Mean
6.00
7.04
38.4
68.0
[
3.58
104.6
,LEY
58.9
Std.
Dev.
22.09
12.23
68.9
190.8
5.91
304.2
106.3
Range
0-139
0-51
1.89-350
0. 38-1107
0-33
0-1378
0-651
Mean
0.24
0.18
0.68
0.23
0.22
0.49
Std.
Dev.
0.57
0.18
0.148
0.22
0.195
0.266
Number
Samples
Range
0.01-0.64
0.01-0.84
0.50-0.93
0.01-0.79
0.04-0.80
0.01-0.90
38
35
47
47
38
40
65
-------
Coyote Creek and Cold Creek watersheds was obtained from records in
the Department of Plans and Permits of the City of South Lake Tahoe.
Sewer Connection
Permits issued during
Total Lots Total Number of the Period Fall 1972- Prior
on Plat Book Sewer Connections Spring 1974 Connections
630 15 13 2
844 159 27 132
Note: The above figures are intended to provide only a gross indica-
tion of the state of residential development in the watersheds before
the measurement program began, and the amount of development during
the period in which sediment measurements were taken. Time did not
permit detailed verification of these counts. Similar data were not
obtained for the Lonely Gulch and Heavenly Valley measurement areas.
290
-------
Case 16. Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization
Source -
Hammer, J. R. , "Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization,"
Journal of Water Resources Research, Vol. 8, No. 6, December, 1972. tA-
Purpose -
The purpose of this study was to study the effects of urbanization
on stream channel enlargement and the water quality of the channel.
Site Location/Description -
The study took place in the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area which consists of the city of Philadelphia, plus
Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester Counties. Seventy-eight
watersheds (1 to 6 sq. mi. in size) were covered by this study. Some
degree of urbanization in the form of large scale residential, com-
mercial, or industrial development was taking place in 50 of the
watersheds while in the remaining 28 watersheds most activity was
rural in nature.
Study Methods -
For better results each watershed was divided into 40-acre size grid
squares; for each grid square the different characteristics were
measured and recorded. Land use activities were divided into 17
categories within the grid square. The major emphasis was, however,
placed on the land in impervious uses and the impervious areas were
divided into three categories: (a) area of all paved streets, high-
ways, rural roads, expressways, and the area of paved sidewalks;
(b) area of single-family or two-family houses (the houses themselves) ,
paved driveways, walks, and patios, and adjoining areas such as
garages, sheds and small barns; and (c) the area covered by commercial
buildings, apartment houses, factories, airport runways, shopping cen-
ters, row houses, parking lot, etc.
291
-------
Each impervious-area category was further divided into three sub-
categories: (i) area less than 4 years old, (ii) area 4-15 years
old, and (iii) area greater than 15 years old.
The non-impervious area connected with street storm sewage was also
taken into consideration.
Parameters Measured -
Average land slope
- The length and average slope of the flow path from the grid
square to the point at which the flow reached the stream
channel; and also from the grid square to the mouth of the
watershed
- Man-made alterations
- The channel measurements for overall channel width, depth and
cross-sectional area
Watershed shape index
- Soil drainage index
Results -
The results of this study of the effects of urbanization on stream
channel size are given in Exhibit 113. These results were computed
through regression analysis of land use in a one-square mile basin in
relation to channel enlargement.
Discussion of -Results -
The results show that the process of urbanization causes an increase
of the peak flow rates due to the increase of impervious area, which
increases the volume of runoff, causing the channel enlargement which
results in further reduction in the aesthetic and recreational values
of the stream and the deterioration of the water quality.
292
-------
Exhibit 113. CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT EFFECTS ON
LAND USES IN A 1-SQUARE-MILE BASIN (A-22)
Land in cultivation
Wooded land
Land in golf courses
Impervious area <4 years old and unsewered
street and house area
Area of houses fronting on sewered streets
Houses 4-15 years old
Houses 15 - 30 years old*
Houses >30 years old**
Area of sewered streets
Steets 4-15 years old
Streets 15 - 30 years old*
Streets >30 years old**
Other impervious area
Area 4-15 years old
Area >15 years old
Nonimpervious developed land plus impervious
area <4 years old and unsewered streets and
houses
Open land (residual category)
A Factor
Factor by which channel
size was increased
(1.0 no change)
1.29
0.75
2.54
1.08
3.36
4.15
1.08
4.20
5.16
3.76
6.26
7.99
1.08
0.90
*Built after 1940
**Built before 1940
293
-------
Case 17. Joint Construction Sediment Control Project, Columbia, Maryland
Source -
Hittman Associates, Inc., Joint Sediment Control Project, Columbia,
Maryland, HIT-546, Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Research and Development, Columbia, Maryland, June 1973. t^"1')
Purpose -
This project consisted of three phases: 1) the implementation and
evaluation of erosion control practices in two adjacent sub-basins;
2) the construction and operation of a storm retention pond to control
pollution due to storm runoff; 3) the construction and operation of
methods for the handling and ultimate disposal of sediment. These three
phases were combined with a monitoring program to determine the effects
of urbanization on the hydrology and water quality of the adjacent
streams.
Site Description -
This project was conducted in a 190-acre demonstration area, the village
of Long Reach. This village is part of the planned city of Columbia,
Maryland. Its location is shown on Exhibit 114 and the watershed bound-
aries are given in Exhibit 115. At the beginning of the project,
the area was mostly rural. Land development plans are shown in
Exhibit 116 and listed in Exhibit 117. The topography is generally
hilly, with dense forests growing along the major stream channels. Two
sub-basins, shown in Exhibit 115, were chosen for separate analysis. One
of these was termed the reference watershed. In this basin, standard,
state-approved erosion control methods were used. The second basin
was the experimental sub-watershed in which advanced and unique con-
trol techniques were studied. These two basins were to be extensively
monitored and the water quality correlated with the urbanization in
each basin.
294
-------
1C
HOWARD COUNTY
MARYLAND
Hinman Associates. Inc.
COLUHtl* MAtt LANS I
Exhibit 114. Geographic Location of Demonstration Area (A-17)
-------
Q REFERENCE SUB-WATERSHED
(f) EXPERIMENTAL SUB-WATERSHED
Exhibit 115. Demonstration Watershed and
Subwatershed Locations, Columbia, Maryland (A~l7)
296
-------
II OPEN SPACI
I 1 IOW DENSITY HOUSING
MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING
APARTMENTS & TOWNHOUSES
FJ COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
Exhibit 116 • Planned Land Development: Village of
Long Reach, Phelps Luck Neighborhood,
Columbia, Maryland (A-17)
297
-------
Exhibit 117. PLANNED LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DEMONSTRATION
WATERSHED, COLUMBIA, MARYLAND (A-17)
vo
oo
Single-i
Commercial
Open space
Roads
nily,
nsity
nily,
i- density
ts and
ises
ill
13.1
:e
al in Columbia
in Columbia
al Watershed
Demonstration
Watershed
(Acres)
51.7
53.1
19.0
17,6
22.7
164. 1
26.1
190.2
Reference
Watershed
(Acres)
12.5
6.6
4.0
2.5
25.6
9.2
34.8
Experimental
Watershed
(Acres)
24.2
0.4
3.7
28.3
16.9
45.2
-------
Time Frame -
This study was performed between 1970 and 1973. During this time
urbanization was supposed to have been essentially completed.
Project Description -
Contrary to plans, construction delays resulted in development of only
31 percent of the lots in the experimental watershed. Therefore, it
was difficult to determine the comparative effects of these develop-
ments. There was also a series of difficulties with the samplers
which resulted in the loss of all comparative data for the two basins.
Qualitative information was obtained, however, on the changes of the
biological components of streams and quantitative results for the
changes in streamflow. Exhibit 118 gives the runoff characteristics
of the two watersheds and Exhibits 119 and 120 give hydrographs for two
separate storms during the survey.
In general the experimental watershed had less runoff per unit area
than the reference subwatershed. As the study progressed, the running
water (lotic) ecosystem of the stream degenerated almost completely.
Its chances of natural recovery without assistance are very low. The
still water (lentic) ecosystem of the newly created sediment basin
was stressed due to the sediment influx, but it should be able to
recover quickly. The pond will then become a valuable asset to the
community.
299
-------
Exhibit 118. REFERENCE AND EXPERIMENTAL SUBWATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
AS RELATED TO STORM RUNOFF PRODUCED, COLUMBIA, MARYLAND (A-17)
GJ
o
o
Characteristic
Natural ground
cover
Storm sewers
Development
Average slope
of ground
Reference Subwatershed
Description
60% open field, 40%
wooded
Experimental Subwatershed
Description
95% wooded, 5% open field
Storm sewers empty into No natural stream channels,
natural stream channel. completely storm sewered.
Medium and low density All low density housing.
housing. Approximately
20% of area devoted to
school site, including
parking lot.
Approximately 4% Approximately 4%
Subwatershed with greater
storm runoff
per unit area
as a result of
characteristic
Reference
Experimental
Reference
Equal
-------
1.6
.1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
.8-
= . 6-
C .05
.04
.03
o;
. :
t\\ \xx\i
S Denotes trace of rainfall
Reference Subwatershed
Experimental Subwatershed
250 300 350
Time, min.
400 450 500 550 600
Exhibit 119. Storm Runoff Hydrograph for
Storm of July 29-30, 1971, Columbia, Maryland (A-17)
-------
i.
.2-
0.7-
0.5-
0.1-
buhwatershed
-- Experimental Suhwalershed
I
200
— —I
50 100
I
—r—
400 450 bOO
Time, min.
—I
700 750 800 850 900
Exhibit 120. Storm Runoff Hydrograph for
Storm of August 1-2, 1971, Columbia, Maryland (A-17)
-------
Case 18. Subdivision Development Above Gunner's Branch, Near
Germantown, Montgomery County, Maryland.
Source -
At present data in raw or partially reduced form are available from
EPA STORET data system (water quality) and from the Montgomery Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, Division of Resource Protection,
Water Quality Control Section (precipitation and stream flow). Con-
struction timing was obtained from the developers, U. S. Homes-Page
Corp., Wheaton, Maryland.
Case Description -
This is an unusual case, in that it does not describe a study
that has already been performed. Instead, its intent is to present
data acquired from various sources that could be combined with other
available data to produce an outstanding study of sediment loads
derived from residential construction activities.
Site Location/Description -
Gunner's Branch is a small tributary to Seneca Creek in Montgomery
County, Maryland. (Exhibit 121). Seneca Creek runs into the Potomac
River approximately 10 miles north west of Washington, D. C. The
Montgomery County Water Quality Control Section maintains a sampling
station on Gunner's Branch at Clopper Road (Maryland Route 124). The
drainage basin area above this point is approximately 1900 acres.
This area is part of the eastern Piedmont province and consists of
gently rolling hills. (Compare with the area in Case Study 42.)
Sod Type -
The soils are principally Glenelg and Manor silt loams. These are
generally well draining, strongly sloping, and micaceous.
Climate/Rainfall -
The climate is typical of the mid-Atlantic coast with an average
rainfall of 42 inches. Rainfall data and stream stage records taken
303
-------
POOLESVILLE
Exhibit 121. Location of Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges and Stream
Monitoring Stations in Region II: Seneca Creek. Watershed (A-35)
-------
during the study period are in unreduced form and are on file at the
Montgomery County Water Quality section.
Time Frame -
The Montgomery County sampling station has been active since January
1971. In February 1973, U. S. Homes-Page, a local contractor, began
work on a 32-acre section for a housing development. This first
section remained exposed until May 1973. A second 22-acre section was
opened from August 1973 to October 1973. The third and last section
(32.1 acres) was developed between June 1974 and August 1974.
Sediment Control Measures -
Sediment control ponds were installed at the time of initial grading
and before heavy cuts were made. Other sediment control devices such
as berms, v-ditches and stone filter traps were installed as shown by
the developers plans on file with Montgomery County's Construction Per-
mit Records Division.
Data -
• Sediment load - Turbidity as ppm Si02 from U. S. EPA STORET*
reproduced as Exhibit 122. Stream stage and stage hydrograph
are in raw (charts, etc.) form at the Montgomery County Office
Building, EPA Water Quality Section.
• Construction area - data from U.S. Homes-Page Corporation:
February 1973 - May 1973 32 acres
August 1973 - October 1973 ^ 22 acres
June 1974 - August 1974 32.1 acres '
• Rainfall - raw data on file at Montgomery County Office Build-
ing, EPA Water Quality Section.
EPA: Automated storage and retrieval system for water data.
305
-------
EXHIBIT 122.
WATER QUALTIY OF GUNNER'S BRANCH AT
CLOPPER ROAD, MONTOGOMERY COUNTY, MD.
Date
71/11/03
71/11/10
71/11/17
71/12/01
71/12/07
71/12/15
71/12/28
72/01/10
72/01/25
72/02/10
72/02/25
72/03/09
72/03/22
72/04/05
72/04/19
72/05/02
72/05/15
72/05/26
72/05/09
72/06/20
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/21
72/06/22
72/06/22
72/06/23
72/07/11
72/07/25
72/08/03
72/08/03
72/08/03
72/08/04
Time
of
Day
11:40
13:35
13:55
10:10
09:30-Ra
11:50
12:50
10:35-R
R
09:50
10:10-R
10:15
10:05-R
09:55-R
10:30
10:00-R
11:20-R
10:45
10:45
19:25
22:15-R
11:30
12:30-R
13:30-R
15:30-R
16:30-R
17:30-R
18:30-R
19:30-R
14 :45-R
15:35-R
10:45-R
10:00-R
10:15-R
18:00-R
19:10-R
20:00-R
11:30-R
Turb
ppm SiO.
12.5
1.0
10.0
4.5
13.0
0.0
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
1.0
9.0
4.5
3.0
2.5
5.0
5.0
3.0
550.0
175.0
64.0
49.0
520.0
610.0
1220.0
880.0
62.0
60.0
45.0
2.5
5.0
18.0
24.0
17.0
3.0
NO, & NO
me /I
"*!&' •*•
2.4
3.7
3.2
2.4
2.6
3.1
3.4
3.3
2.6
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.2
2.5
2.7
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.3
1.7
1.4
2.4
3.1
2.1
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.6
Total P04
mg/1
0.40
1.40
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.31
0.10
6.16
0.34
0.15
0.24
0.30
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.29
0.29
2.20
0.60
0.60
0.85
0.50
0.90
0.69
0.68
0.25
0.50
0.43
0.17
0.09
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.18
Total
Coliform
MPN
930
430
1500
9300
460000
23000
1500
15000
3900
430
3900
4300
3900
930
7500
9300
430
2300
930
4300
23000
1100000
460000
240000
93000
460000
1100000
240000
1100000
4300
23000
23000
4300
4300
23000
23000
15000
9300
Fecal
Coliform
MPN
230
230
230
2300
9300
2900
230
930
210
230
230
2300
430
430
2300
9300-
430
930
930
930
930
1100000
240000
4300Q
23000
43000
240000
240000
23000
4300
23000
9300
750
2300
23000
9300
4300
4300
R Indicates rainfall during period
Page 1 of 3_
306
-------
EXHIBIT 122 (Continued)
Date
73/03/30
73/04/04
73/04/04
73/04/04
73/04/04
73/04/05
73/04/23
73/05/09
73/06/01
73/06/25
73/07/13
73/08/01
73/08/15
73/08/31
73/09/17
73/10/03
73/10/23
73/11/08
73/11/29
73/12/14
74/01/10
74/02/01
74/02/22
74/03/12
74/04/02
74/04/04
74/04/04
74/04/04
74/04/04
74/04/04
74/04/04
74/04/05
74/04/08
74/04/23
74/05/14
lit/05/16
Tine
of
Day
10:40-R
12:30-R
13:30-R
14 :30-R
15:00-R
10:45-R
10:50
10:10-R
10:45
10:15-R
10:05
09:50-R
10:30
09:10
10:30
10:00-R
10:25
10:30
10:10-R
10:30-R
10:45-R
10:20
11:25-R
10:00-R
11:20-R
09:30-R
10:30-R
11:50-R
13:00-R
14:00-R
15:05-R
15:10-R
09:40
10:40-R
10:30
11:30
Turb
ppm S102
37.0
690.0
615.0
270.0
141.0
141.0
22.0
9.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
29.0
5.0
1.0
10.0
120.0
6.0
112.0
6.0
10.0
210.0
140.0
51.0
44.0
49.0
42.0
46.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
12.0
NO, & NO.
2 3
mg/1
3.4
4.1
2.2
2.9
2.4
4.6
4.0
2.8
3.7
4.0
2.5
2.9
2.6
2.5
3.0
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.3
2.6
3.7
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.5
3.4
4.0
3.8
4.5
4.2
2.3
5.5
3.7
4.7
4.1
Total PO^
mg/1
0.09
0.08
0.29
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.16
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.12
0.36
0.05
0.08
0.28
0.16
0.42
0.15
0.37
0.16
0.13
0.56
0.72
0.64
0.56
0.69
0.46
0.33
0.09
0.12
1.56
0.22
Total
Coliform
MPN
43000
240000-L
240000-L
240000-L
240000-L
110000
9300
240000
9300
930
4300
9300
3900
3900
3900
7300
230
930
240000-L
15000
9300
930
2300
2300
9300
93000
240000
460000
93000
93000
460000
240000
2300
15000
93000
4300
Fecal
Coliform
MPN
930
24000
110000
24000
24000
230
1500
2300
230
230
230
930
230
280
430
930
230
930
9300
930
930
36
930
230
930
23000
93000
39000
23000
43000
7500
9300
930
930
7500
930
Page 1 of ^
307
-------
EXHIBIT 122 (Continued)
Date
72/08/07
72/08/18
72/09/06
72/09/14
72/09/14
72/09/20
72/10/05
72/10/06
72/10/31
72/11/14
72/11/14
72/11/15
72/11/17
72/11/30
72/11/30
72/11/30
72/11/30
72/11/30
72/12/01
72/12/01
72/12/05
72/12/19
73/01/09
73/01/26
73/02/09
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/14
73/02/15
73/02/15
73/02/15
73/02/15
73/02/16
73/02/27
73/03/15
Time
of
Day
-*
10:10-R
10:20-R
11:00-R
20:25-R
22:20-R
10:00-R
15:40-R
10:33-R
10:10-R
10:30-R
15:15-R
12:50-R
10:15-R
19:30-R
20:35-R
21:30-R
22:30-R
23:30-R
00:30-R
09:45-R
10:00
10:00
10:15
10:00
10:00-R
13:50-R
14:45-R
15:45-R
16:45-R
17:45-R
19:15-R
20:15-R
21:15-R
22:15-R
08:50-R
09 :40-R
10:20-R
12:15-R
09:10-R
09:35-R
09:20-R
Turb
ppm SiO-
1.0
2.5
4.0
245.0
65.0
2.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
174.0
38.0
4.0
3.0
38.0
32.0
27.0
24.0
21.0
17.0
11.0
7.0
7.0
260.0
30.0
12.0
9.0
5.0
9.0
14.0
9.0
35.0
64.0
118.0
174.0
11.0
18.0
14.0
25.0
13.0
5.0
5.0
NO. & NO,
£. J
mg/1
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.8
3.2
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
2.1
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.4
3.8
3.3
3.6
4.4
3.8
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.9
4.3
4.8
4.5
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.3
Total P04
mg/1
0.14
0.30
0.10
0.86
0.50
0.18
0.11
0.22
0.80
0.75
1.03
0.43
0.13
0.59
0.53
0.39
0.29
0.18
2.89
0.07
0.08
2.77
0.19
0.07
0.10
0.43
0.28
0.13
0.13
0.35
0.66
0.25
0.85
0.15
0.17
0.10
0.07
0.17
0.20
0.08
0.33
Total
Coliform
MPN
2300
2300
430
460000
43000
750
4300
2300
4300
290000
460000
9300
2300
460000
240000
460000
240000
240000
1100000
9300
2300
4300
3900
4300
750
2300
230
2300
1500
4300
2300
15000
43000
75000
2100
4300
2300
2300
930
750
Fecal
Coliform
MPN
430
430
230
93000
43000
390
230
430
150
23000
9300
930
210
43000
23000
43000
43000
23000
9300
430
93
43
75
75
430
93
230
93
150
230
430
930
230
930
150
430
43
93
43
75
Page 1 of 3_
308
-------
• Soil Erodibility Factor - data from Montgomery County Soil
Conservation Service indicates a K factor value of approxi-
mately 0.4.
• Length and slope can be estimated from the developer's sedi-
ment control maps on file at the Montgomery County Office
Building (Sediment Control Section).
• Sediment Control methods and their timing are on file at the
Montgomery County Office Building (Sediment Control Section).
At present Montgomery County has cut the funding for their water
quality monitoring projects. Consequently the rainfall and stream
stage data will most likely remain in unreduced form for the forsee-
able future, unless a special need develops for this information.
309
-------
APPENDIX C: EFFECTS OF DAMS AND IMPOUNDMENTS ON WATER QUALITY
General
This appendix contains summaries of six case studies containing data
on turbidity effects of dam and tunnel construction projects; effects
of dams on the ability of a stream to assimilate oxygen-demanding
wastes, and siltation of reservoirs.
310
-------
Case 19. Studies of Waste Assimilation in Impoundments and Its
Effects on Water Quality
Source -
Elder, Rex A., Krenkel, Peter A., and Thackston, Edward L., "Studies
of Waste Assimilation in Impoundments and Its Effects on Water Quality,"
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Current Research into the
Effects of Reservoirs on Water Quality, Technical Report No. 17, Depart-
ment of Environmental and Water Resource Engineering, Vanderbilt Uni-
versity, January 1968, pp 1-50.(A~16)
Purpose -
To investigate the effects of the construction and operation of im-
poundment on the waste .assimilative capacity of the Coosa River.
Site Location/Description
The study took place near the Kraft Company Paper Mill on the Coosa
River in Georgia.
Study Method -
A paper mill owned by the Georgia Kraft Company, located on the bank
of the Coosa River, at one time discharged its waste effluent with the
free flowing stream. With consturction of impoundment the mill has
been forced to limit its waste-water discharge, the reason being the
reduction in the waste assimilative capacity of the Coosa River. The
presence of a steam electric generating plant nearby has further re-
duced the self-purification capacity of the stream.
The investigators monitored the daily discharge of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the Coosa
River at this site.
311
-------
Results -
Several observations were made concerning the effects of a stream
impoundment on the ability of that stream to assimilate wastes:
a. Before water resources development BOD discharge per day =
28,000 pounds. Maximum safe temperature for required minimum
DO concentration of 4 mg/1 = 30°C.
Exhibit 123 represents the oxygen sag curve for free flowing
conditions.
b. After water resources development BOD discharge per day =
28,000 pounds. Maximum safe temperature for required minimum
DO concentration of 4 mg/1 = 15 C.
Exhibit 124 represents the oxygen sag curve for impounded
river conditions.
The quantitative effect of temperature on the waste assimilative capacity
of the Coosa River is shown in Exhibit 125 by plotting the BOD load
that will keep the DO contents above 4 mg/1 versus the temperature
of the stream water. It is clear from the curves (the curve for
free flowing conditions and the curve for impounded conditions) that
the impoundment of the Coosa River has contributed significantly to-
ward the reduction of its waste assimilative capacity; the mill has to
reduce its discharge of waste water going into the river from 28,000
pounds per day to less than 20,000 pounds per day to meet the require-
ments of the Georgia Water Quality Control Board.
In addition the following results of the studies made by other
researchers are given.
1. Manczak has reported reduction in waste assimilative
capacity due to impoundments in Poland. He states in
his paper that the reaeration coefficients were from 1.5
312
-------
WASTE LOAD- 28.000 Ib/doy BOD
RIVER FLOW,-10OOcfs
RIVER BOD-1.5mg/l
k,(20«)*010/day
M2O") = 0.12/day
3 4 5 6 7
TIME OF FLOW FROM MILL - days
Exhibit 123. Oxygen Sag Curves-Free
Flowing Condition, Coosa River, Ga. (A-16)
313
-------
12
11
10
WASTE LOAD-28.000 IWdoy BOD
u
£}
K
O 3
RIVER FLOW-1000cfs
RIVER BOD-1.5mg/l
k,<20*) * 0.10/doy
O.O3/doy
45678
TIME OF FLOW FROM MILL-days
10
Exhibit 124. Oxygen Sag Curves-River Impounded,
Coosa River, Ga. (A-16)
314
-------
100
90
Q
O
m
b
CM
I 70
i
tn
60
50
f
D
040
Id
< 30
UJ
O
a.
10
FREE FLOW CONDITIONS
RIVER IMPOUNDED
10 15 20 25 30'
TEMPERATURE- °C
Exhibit 125. Wast Assimilative Capacity of Coosa River
at Georgia Kraft Co. Mill - River Flow - 940 (A-16)
315
-------
to 2.5 times higher in free flowing waters than in im-
poundments and that the BOD rate coefficients were 2.5
times smaller in impoundments than in the free flowing
sections.
2. Bohke has stated that a dam on the Lippe River has caused
reduction in the permissible load to 20 percent of that in
the free-flowing river. He has pointed out a relationship
between the allowable organic load in an impoundment and
free flowing water which is directly proportional to the
reaeration capacities and flow periods and inversely
proportional to the mean depths.
316
-------
Case 20. Effects of Urban Construction on Lake Barcroft
Source -
Holeman, J. N. and Gelger, A. F., Sedimentation of Lake Barcroftt
Fairfax County, Virginia, SCS-TP-136, Soil Conservation Service, USDA,
Washington, D. C., March 1959.(A~28)
Purpose -
The main purpose of the study was to examine the adverse effects of
urban construction on.Lake Barcroft and on the life of the lake by
comparing the sediment yeild during the year 1957, when two-thirds of
the area of the watershed had been urbanized, with the sediment yield of
1937 and by measuring the loss of capacity of the lake by aerial and
land surveys.
Site Location/Description -
The lake, constructed in 1915 by Alexandria Water Company, once
served as a reserve source of water supply for the city of Alexandria,
Virginia. It is located in Fairfax County approximately one mile west
of Bailey's Cross Roads and 8 miles from downtown Washington, D. C. In
1950 its use as a water supply reservoir was abandoned and it was sub-
sequently purchased and used by Lake Barcroft Corporation for real
estate development. A dam constructed across Holmes Run impounds
water in the valleys of Holmes Run and its tributary, Tripps Run.
Exhibit 126 shows the lake and its drainage area.
The following are the specifications of the dam and the reservoir:
a. Dam
(i) Length: 400 feet
(ii) Spillway height after raised by 5 feet in 1942: 62 ft.
b. Reservoir
(i) Length: Length of the lake in the Holmes Run arm from the
dam to the head of back water - 1.4 miles and length of
the lake in the Tripps Run arm - 0.7 miles.
317
-------
—
—
;
Exhibit 126. Lake Barcroft and Drainage Area (A-28)
-------
(ii) Surface Area: The original surface area of the lake
(1915) = 115.4 acres. Surface area in 1938 = 115.0
acres. Surface area in 1942 after raising spillway
height by 5 feet = 135 acres. Surface area in 1957 =
129 acres
(iii) Storage Capacity:
Original (1915) = 1,847 acre-feet
In 1938 = 1,762 acre-feet
In 1942 = 2,380 acre-feet
In 1957 = 2,092 acre-feet
The drainage area of the watershed is 14.5 sq. mi. (Holmes Run =
2 2
7.6 mi ; Tripps Run = 5.5 mi ; and drained directly into the lower
2
reach of the basin = 1.4 mi ).
Topography -
Moderately rolling to hilly with average relief of 100 feet.
Soil Type -
Glenelg silt loam =53.9%
Chewacla silt loam
Wehadkee silt loam 3 -9%
Mixed alluvial sand
Manor silt loam
Gravelly sediment = 6.7%
Beltsville silt loam =5.3%
Beltsville loam =2.9%
Fairfax loam = 1.9%
Elioak silt loam =1.8%
About 1/3 of the area, mainly in the head waters, is chlorite-muscovite
schist and some thin layers of quartzite. The remaining area is granite,
gneisses, and diorites. Near the lake are deposits of sand, gravel,
and clay. Generally several feet of soil cover the drainage area, but
bedrock is also exposed on steeper slopes near the lake.
319
-------
Land Use/Ground Cover -
Exhibit 127 represents the land use changes that occurred in the
watershed from 1915 to 1957. The possible changes are also extended
up to 1970. From the exhibit it appears that the average rate of
conversion of land from agricultural to urban use from 1937 to 1957
was 3 percent annually. Peak rate occured during 1951 and 1952 with
a conversion rate of 9 percent annually. Total area urbanized from
1937 to 1957 was 9.5 square miles.
Climate/Rainfall -
Normal annual precipitation is 40.48 inches. The monthly normal ranges from
2.44 inches in February to 4.75 inches in August. (A rainfall of in-
tensity 1 inch or more in 30 minutes occurs twice a year on the average
Mean annual runoff is 17 inches (3/4th from groundwater flow and l/4th
from surface runoff or storm flow).
Study Methods -
Data were collected from the following sources:
1. Past records of the lake obtained from U. S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Division Sedimentation Studies.
2. U. S. Geological Survey Department - Surface Water Supply of
the United States.
3. Actual field and aerial survey of the lake for sedimentation data.
Sediment in Reservoir -
Exhibits 128 and 129 present the rates of silting of Lake Barcroft
as determined by two surveys—February 1938 and August 1957.
It appears from these figures that the rate of deposition before 1938
was 3.68 acre-feet per year; total accumulation from 1915 up to 1938
was 85 acre-feet. Rate of deposition during the period from 1938 to
1957 was 10.41 acre feet per year; total accumulation for this period
was 203 acre feet. It is also apparent from the figures that the rate
of deposition from the rural land during the latter period is about
320
-------
-
100
-
r 70
H
UJ
ft 60
ill
a
2 50
x
uJ 40
30
to
1937
1940
1945
1950
YEARS
1955
I960
1965
1970
Exhibit 127. Land Use Changes of Lake Barcroft Watershed, Fairfax County, Va. (A-28)
-------
Exhibit 128. RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION DATA SUMMARY (A-28)
SCS-34.
Jin. 1954
US OlfAftTMCNT Of AGRICULTURE
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION
DATA SUMMARY
Z
««
a
RESERVOIR
WATERSHED
| SURVEY DATA
1OIL COWlEHMTtON ItRVCC
Lake Barcroft 5-1
HUH Of BtSenVOld DATA iu£ET 1*1
'OWNER r^ke Barcroft Corp. ' *'«» Trib. of Potomac R.
4 SEC. TWP. RANCt * NEAREST TOWN falls CllUrch
7 STREAM BED ELEV. 148 HI . 3 . 1 . ' TOP OF 0AM ELEV. 2J-1 1
STATE Virginia
COUNT r Fairfax
SPILLWAT CREST ELEV. 210
'* STORAGE " ELEVATION "' SURFACE "' STORAGE '* ACCUMULATED
ALLOCATION TOP OF POOL AMA ACRES ACRE- FEET ACRt-fEET
0 FL000 CONTROL
*• POWER
* WJITE* SUPPLY (i?38) 205 115. 4 1,847 1.847
*. IRRIGATION
•• CONSERVATION
' INACTIVE (1157) 210 123. 6 2,092 2,092
11
QATF. STORA9C
BEGAN
Jan 1915
DATE NORMAL
OPE* BESAN
" LENSTH OF RESERVOIR ^.4 MILES AV. WIDTH OF RESERVOIR 007 "H.C9
18 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA 14.5 SO. Ml. "• MEAN ANNUAL PdEClPHAT ION 40 INCHES
" NET SEOrHEMT CONTfflBUTWS AREA 14.3 SO. Ml. SJ- MEAN ANNUAL HUNOFF J_y INCHES
« LENGTH 6emoo "'ACCL. Trptor
TEARS TEARS SUXVET
23.1 23.1 tiange
detail,
19.5 42.6 Rtxnge
14.
PERIOD ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION
"• CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION Humid
° NO.O' RANGES
OR COMO'Jf INT.
d 41
41
51 SURFACE
ARIA ACRES
115.4
115.0
128.6
" PERIOD WATER INFLOW ACRE-FEET
°'M£AN ANNUAL
b MAX. AKNU4L
" PERIOD SEDIMENT DEPOSITS ACRE-FEET
"PERIOD TOTIL
35
203
* AV. our WST.
IBS PER eu.rr.
2 60
'• AV. ANNUAL
3.68
10.41
:PER SO.HI.-YEAR
0.257
.723
*?SED.OEP. TONS PER SO.MI.-yR.
' F-EHIOff
336
950
6 TOt*L TO 0«Tt
336
613
e PESIOO TOTAL
58 CAPAClT»
aCRE-FEET
(L.8M
^2,380
1,762
2,092
"' % RATIO
AC.-fT. PC« 50. Ml.
127
122
144
'* WATER WFL.TO DATE AG-FT.
° MEAN ANNUAL
" TOTAL TO DATE
"TOTHL SED. DEPOSITS TO DATE ACRE-FEET.
" TOTAL TO BATE
85
263
0 AV ANNUAL
3.6*3
6.76
C'P(LH SO Ml-rEAR
0.257
.473
41 STOllAGF. LOSS PCT. '* SEO. INFLOW PPM
a*V SNM)4L "TOT.TOOATE ' fEfllOO b-TOI.TOOATE
0.20 4.60
1 .38 ^is.l
Based on capacity of ilO-foot crest ijlevation.
2Assumcd,
322
-------
350
JOG
u 250
p 200
g
«.
ti
j 100
I
1920
1925
1930
"I9J5
IMO
YFAR
1*43
Exhibit 129. Total Sediment Accumulation in Lake Barcroft,
Fairfax County, Virginia, by Year (A-28)
323
-------
1/3 that of the first interval due to a large reduction in cultivated
land and better land use practices. It can be concluded that the
accumulation of sediment from residential construction only was 179
acre-feet.
Characteristics of Sediments -
The samples taken from the lake show the sediment to be mainly of silt
and very fine sand with clay and some fine-to-medium sand. It contains
mica flakes derived from the schists in the watershed. Organic matter
is common throughout the lake as leaves and bits of branches and stems
buried in the accumulated sediments. Exhibit 130 shows the distribu-
tion of sediment in the lake.
The density of the dried sample sediment was 49 pounds per cubic foot.
Calculations in the referenced report indicate that if one specific
square mile of area goes under urbanization in one year, it will yield
about 20,000 tons of sediment. With annual runoff of 17 inches, this
will cause sediment concentration of about 16,500 ppm; the sediment
concentration for the storm runoff portion only from this square mile
will be about 66,000 ppm.
Discussion -
It is apparent from the calculated results that during the actual con-
struction phase of urbanization, large quantities of exposed earth
material and subsoil cause adverse sediment concentration in the runoff
and deposition in the reservoir during heavy rainfall. This will ulti-
mately result in the accumulation of large quantities of sediment in the
reservoirs and thus decrease the usefulness and life of the reservoirs
unless some preventive measures are taken to control erosion and trans-
port of sediment.
324
-------
Exhibit 130. DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENT IN LAKE BARCROFT
CO
N>
Ui
Section
Total reservoir. . . .
Original capacity
at 205-foot
spillway level
Acre -fret
429
820
598
1,847
Original capacity
at 210-foot
level
Acre -feet
573
1,053
753
2,380
1957
sediment
volume
Acre-feet
101
144
43
288
1957
capacl ty
loss
Percent
17.6
13.7
5.7
12.0
1957
surface
area
Acres
30.7
64.7
33.2
128.6
Average
sediment
thickness
feet
2.61
2.32
1.12
2.01
-------
Case 21. Environmental Effects During Construction of Martis Creek
Dam in California
Source -
Sciandrone, Joseph C. "Environmental Protection of a California Dam,"
Journal of Civil Engineering. ASCE, March 1974.(A~45>
Purpose -
This study records the problems related to the construction of Martis
Creek Dam and makes several recommendations for erosion control during
similar projects.
Site Location/Description -
The Martis Creek is a popular clear water trout stream in an undeveloped
area 12 miles north of Lake Tahoe. It is a tributary to the Truckee
River. The dam is an earthen dam constructed for flood control pur-
poses and was finished in 1972. The reservoir has a capacity of
20,400 acre-ft., a length of 2 miles and shoreline of 10 miles.
Soil Type -
The soils of the valley floor were primarily glacial and alluvial
deposits.
Land Use/Ground Cover -
The natural ground cover was meadow grass in the area now occupied
by the reservoir. Sage brush occurs on the low hills and conifers at
higher elevations.
Climate/Rainfall -
The annual precipitation is about 25 inches at the dam site and 35
inches in the upper sections of the watershed. The most important
source of runoff is melting snow that accumulates during the winter.
Frequent local thunderstorms occur during the summers. One storm that
326
-------
caused significant erosion was on July 20, 1971, during the second
year of construction. Four-tenths inch of rain fell in 45 minutes,
washing away significant quantities of exposed soil, increasing the
stream's turbidity to 165 JTU (Jackson Turbidity Units) below the dam
and to 18 JTU upstream. It took two days for the stream to return to
normal conditions (0-10 JTU).
Study Method -
During the construction of Martis Dam Creek, several events were
recorded which contributed to stream turbidity. This turbidity was
measured in terms of JTU. Several corrective measures were employed
to minimize runoff from exposed areas as well as turbidity from in-
stream disturbances.
Results -
On several occasions events occurred that caused the downstream
turbidity to exceed the maximum allowable concentrations (10 JTU
during any consecutive 4-hour period, 20 JTU during any 1-hour period
or 100 JTU at anytime). One incident was on the day water was first
routed through the outlet work conduit. The outlet became blocked by
debris, causing the cofferdam to overflow and wash away the embankment
material, raising the turbidity to a maximum of 83 JTU before returning
to normal the next day. As a result, a log boom was built and the
embankment was lined with cobbles.
The primary corrective measures were the construction of temporary
settling ponds by means of dikes set to intercept runoff from exposed
areas, and the use of polyethylene sheets to cover the exposed soil at
the crests of the dikes to provide erosion-free spillways. Other
measures such as jute mulches and chemical sprays were considered but
discarded. At the project end, the exposed slopes were seeded and
327
-------
fertilized. The steeper slopes were further mulched with a wood cell-
ulose fiber and a diluted chemical (non-toxic) binder.
When the dam was completed and the reservoir filled, the turbidity
in the pond was quite high (46 JTU) due to the silt from the cofferdam
which had just been destroyed. It was decided to use a commercial
flocculent to reduce the turbidity before releasing any water. Based
on estimates by the manufacturer's representative, a dosage of 5 ppm
was applied to the reservoir. After two weeks, the turbidity was down
to 10 JTU and subsequently released. During the next week over 1000
fish died within two miles downstream. The dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion one-half mile below the dam was reported as 10.4 percent*, which is
quite sufficient for fish life. It was concluded that the flocculent
was the responsible agent, and that the desired dosage should have been
2 ppm.
Conclusions -
The referenced report recommends construction design to minimize soil
erosion, more stringent contract specifications pertaining to seeding
and ground cover (including tree) removal, and additional (beyond seed-
ing) protection for steep slopes. It further recommends the use of
plastic sheeting to protect exposed areas from heavy rainfall and spill-
way overflow, that dikes be designed with a freeboard of at least 3
feet above expected maximum water elevations, and the controlled use of
non-toxic flocculents to remove suspended solids in ponds. One further
control would be to use a sprinkler system to spray water pumped from
the (turbid) sedimentation ponds into vegetated areas or areas of
very permeable soil.
The present authors are uncertain about the interpretation of this unit.
328
-------
Case 22. Construction of Dams and Tunnels on the Fryingpan-Arkansas
and Teton Dam Projects*
Sources -
(a) Personal Communication: Carlson, E.J. , Hydraulics Branch,
Research Division of Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, May 14,
1974.
(b) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Specifications, No. 6910, Paragraph 60,
Supplemental Notice No. 6 (Undated).
(c) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "Fryingpan-Arkansas Project,"
Brochure, 1971.
Purpose -
By specification, each contractor is required "to perform his con-
struction activities by methods that will prevent entrance into the
river of contaminants such as oil, refuse, sewage, cement and concrete,
and to control within certain limits the turbidity of the river caused
by excavation and other direct construction operations in or near the
river channel." This case discusses some preliminary measurements of
turbidity upstream and downstream of construction sites as indicative
of compliance with these monitoring and control specifications.
Site Location/Description -
Pueblo Dam is being constructed about 6 miles west of Pueblo on the
Arkansas River in Colorado. (See Exhibits 131 and 132). The earthfill
structure will stand approximately 180 feet above the stream bed and
will impound about 400,000 acre feet of water.
*This case pertains to the water quality effects of construction of
dams, impoundments, and tunnels, as opposed to the effects of
operating these facilities. (The latter subject is addressed in other
case studies of this section.) It pertains also to measures for con-
trolling water pollution from these types of construction.
329
-------
CJ
CJ
O
—^Ai""7"- ««""•_ .0"
"*'• '/ .75 c-f*•*_' «.
Colorado
»ro^^|Sr*"9S
Source: Reference (c)
Exhibit 131. General Location of Major Facilities
in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
-------
-------
The Teton Dam Site, located on the Teton River in Idaho, contains
a damsite, two diversion channels at the damsite, and a diversion
channel at the borrow area.
The Hunter Construction site is located near the confluence of Chapman
and Sawyer Creeks in the collection area of the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project.
Various control measures were incorporated at each of these sites.
The construction area of the Pueblo Dam is a closed system which re-
cycles the water used in the construction processes (gravel washing,
concrete mixing and washing, etc). This system is shown in Exhibit 133.
Pretreatment is provided by a Dorr-Oliver Pretreator.
The control methods used for the Teton Dam project are similar to
those used at the Pueblo site. The Dorr-Oliver Pretreator was also to
be used at the Teton site. However, because of delayed delivery, a
40' x 160* settling basin was established temporarily by driving steel
sheet pilings vertically into the ground near the river at the downstream
end of the construction site. Flocculating agents were then added and
clear water was discharged into the river. Flocculating agents were
also added to the turbid water of new channels. The channel was also
moved away from the borrow area to guard against any sediment runoff
from that area.
The turbidity control measures being used at the Hunter Tunnel are
similar to those being used at the Cunningham Tunnel as shown in
Exhibit 134. However, instead of having the filtering system which is
outlined for the Cunningham Tunnel, the Hunter tunnel makes use of a
larger settling basin which is possible because there is more available
area at this site. Flocculants are added to the settling basin.
332
-------
co
w
(«)
MATER TUADOSn FLUft UKBT
133. PollutltKi Catiersl Faciliti** at ^u^lo SM Coa«tnaction Are*
-------
CO
HARRISON WESTERN CORP.
CONTRACTORS - ENGINEERS
DENVER COLORADO
-IS-74
Source: Reference (a)
UNIT LAYOUT
Exhibit 134. Pollution Control Facilities
At Cunningham Tunnel Construction Area
-------
Climate/Rainfall -
The annual precipitation in the Fryingpan-Arkansas area is 11.6
inches. The maximum temperature is 114°F while the minimum tempera-
ture recorded is -32 F and the mean temperature is 52°F. The growing
season is 163 days.
Topography -
The drainage area near Pueblo,Colorado is 4,686 square miles. The
average annual runoff is 519,100 acre feet. Exhibit 132 gives a general
idea of the relief of the area.
J3tudy Methods -
Each site had several monitoring stations:
Pueblo Dam
Area Use Station //
Borrow Pit 1
(for construction
material-gravel
aggregates, soil 2
fill 3
4
Temporary and 5
Permanent 6
channel realignment 7
for borrow and 8
stream straightening
Teton Dam
Temporary and 1
permanent channel 2
realignment,
general construction
Hunter Tunnel
Above outlet portal 1
below Settling Ponds 2
confluence of Chapman 3
and Sawyer Creeks
Location in Relation to
Construction
2 1/2 mi. upstream
(or 1/3 mi./downstream of
Canyon Dam Rock Barrier)
7 mi. upstream
limned, downstream
3/4 mi. upstream
2 1/2 mi. upstream
4 mi. upstream
5 mi. upstream
6 mi. upstream
2000 feet upstream
3300 feet downstream
NA
NA
NA
335
-------
At each of these sites, turbidity readings were made with a Hach 2100
colormeter/turbidmeter twice daily. These readings were made in JTU
(Jackson Turbidity Units) or FTU (Formazin Turbidity Units). At the
Pueblo Dam area, turbidity readings were compared with results of
weighed filtered residue which generated suspended sediment load
figures in ppm's. These results did not correlate well.
Parameters Measured -
- Turbidity
Results -
Continuous measurements of turbidity were made upstream and downstream
of each construction site, in some cases at several locations. Results
are in a very preliminary stage at this time. Some of the partially
processed data from three construction sites are presented below as
an example to indicate the nature of the information being obtained.
Turbidity readings at one station upstream and one station downstream
of the Pueblo Dam construction site are shown in Exhibit 135. Exhibit
136 is an example of turbidities at three stations at the Pueblo site,
plotted for the year 1972.
Turbidity readings above and below the settling pond at the Hunter
Tunnel construction area are shown for the year 1972 in Exhibit 137.
Turbidities upstream and downstream of the Teton Dam construction area
are shown for a portion of the year 1972 in Exhibit 138. The occurrence
of certain major construction events is indicated on this graph.
It is assumed that the data contained in these exhibits can be corre-
lated in time with phases of construction and meterological events
when project construction records become available. This correlation
was not undertaken in the present study, since the parameter measured—
turbidity—is not of primary value in the development of loading func-
tions.
336
-------
Exhibit 135. TURBIDITS HEADINGS UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM
FROM PUEBLO DAM CONSTRUCTION AREA
CONTRACTOR-STATIONS
u>
•id
tu
OQ
(D
DATE
02 02 73
02 12
02 15
02 IS
02 16
02 16
02 19
02 19
02 19
02 19
02 20
02 20
02 20
02 20
02 21
02 21
02 21
02 21
02 22
07 99
TIME
16:15
16:45
08 30
09:00
08:45
0905
0945
1020
lelo
1617
0945
1130
1610
1625
0815
0825
1400
1440
0945
nqso
Turbidimeter Reading (FTU'S)
STA. NO. 3 STA. NO. 2
14.9
5.5
4.3
5.5
4.1
14.0
5.5
6.5
5.5
14.9
6.0
7.5
5.3
6.3
6.2
17.0
6.5
6.9
6.5
6.5
-------
Exhibit 135. (Continued)
— — — —
DATE
•02 ' 22 • " ~J3-~
02 22
02 23
02 23
02 26
02 26
02 27
02 27
02 28
02 20
02 28
02 28
03 01
03 01
03 02
03 02
03 02
03 02
03 05
03 05
u.5 u;> 73
03 05
03 06
03 06
03 06
03 06
03 07
03 07
03 07
03 07
03 08
03 08
03 09
03 09
03 09
03 09
03 12
03 12
03 13
03 13
TIME
1 r r\ r\
1600 -
1G15
1315
0845
1600'
1610
0850
0905
0810
0840
1550
1630
0915
0930
1015
1030
1615
1630
0815
0830
164&
0810
0820
1630
1640
0830
0840
1620
1630
1600
1615
0830
0855
1600
1615
1430
1444
0830
0040
T -1 ' 1« •
J. UI UlCl IJI1L.LC.
STA. NO. 3
,1,1 n.,_. „ .
14 . 3
6.5
•
3.0
4.5
6.0
4.4
3.5
6.4
4.5
4.9
3.4
3.6
3.4
4.0
2.5
3.5
4.7
4.9
3.5
3.5
r I?onrh'nn /VTTT'Q^
l jvUUUUivj \i i w Oy
STA. -NO. 2
X4.0
5.5
6/0
6.3
4.5
4.7
7.5
7.7
G 9
5.0
3.9
4.5
3.7
3.0
3.8
4.9
*
4.1
34.0
15.7
338
Page 21 of l_
-------
PUEBLO 'DAM
r~ '"
r- -
1972 - I
Exhibit 136. Graphs of Turbidities at Three Stations
Near Pueblo Dam Construction Area During 1972
-------
HUNTER TUNNEL
L ! ' '• ' \l
r '~ -. • • i{
\-' l >x^
i ' : " 1
r -- L:: 1
"T"»
'Li! J |_j
r i • ': ]
•-.••' ''•' !'. '
V .'•:.' 1
i • -"— : ; ••
• Mitt MAT
' 1 j ' j 1 ' ' ' 1
11' 1 ]
! ' ,
_),, /x-/v ! l \
^ -J
II
; ^^ , ' i • ' . i j • i ' i ' , '
C*»n~»<.e -i cLf-*. , »«y s-r«r Cf «»»
.
i j
\ J \ }
* " "" ' "\ J' ' '"- __f
' 1
OCTO.I.
i 1
-i— r— - -
~r "- y~. *"
-0..-.I- DtCf..[.
• ^ ' : ' ! ' = : : J
, . . • ! - " -
l
• .- ^ ..', - .'.\
._• • ' j ___ _'_..; __
1972
Exhibit 137. Turbidities at Three Locations Near
Hunter Tunnel Construction Site
-------
TETOU DAM
Trrow 6*si«J
*wav«T •IPTCMBEII OCTOerH ncvt-at* DlCfwBCK
. 2<^>5 . Ff. «il__^.1
.
1172
Exhibit 138. Turbidities Upstream and Downstream
of Teton Dam Construction Project
-------
Case 23. Behavior of Water in a Southwestern Impoundment - Lake
Thunderbird*
Source -
Edwin H. Klehr, "Behavior of Water in a Southwestern Impoundment -
Lake Thunderbird." Technical completion report, OWRR Project No.
A-013-OKLA. School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.(A~31)
Purpose -
To monitor physical, chemical, and biological water quality para-
meters; and to develop a physical sediment-water mixing model to cor-
relate the quality of the lake water with the characteristics of its
watershed.
Site Location/Description -
Exhibit 139 shows the location of Lake Thunderbird and its watershed
situated in Oklahoma and Cleveland Counties. The watershed is 256
square miles in area. This lake acts as a major source of surface
water supply for Norman, Midwest, and Del city.
Soil Types -
It is estimated that about 65 percent of the area is underlain by
Garber-Wellington Sandstone at shallow to moderate depths. The re-
maining 35 percent area is Hennessey Shale at moderate depth.
Climate/Rainfall -
Rainfall averages 33.4 in./yr. Only about 11% of the rainwater
reaches the lake.
Parameters Measured -
The following parameters were monitored for the Thunderbird Lake.
*This case pertains to the performance of an impoundment in changing
the chemical and biological characteristics of surface water.
342
-------
""^"ZX'/" i .'V^CLDfCLANP COUIIYY
V •* (
k r ^
.1 /
ar/ sjw,
v^o \i ,, rBrji1^
Exhibit 139. Watershed at Norman Reservoir (Lake Thunderbird)
343
-------
Exhibit 140 shows the locations of the sampling stations. Some para-
meters were also measured for the watershed's main streams.
1. pH 12. Chlorine
2. Turbidity and particle size 13. Alkalinity
3. Total dissolved solida 14. Total Hardness
4. Sulphates 15. Calcium Hardness
5. Iron 16. Dissolved Oxygen
6. Manganese 17. Biological Oxygen Demand
7. Ammonia 18. Chemical Oxygen Demand
8. Nitrate 19. Sodium
9. Nitrite 20. Water - Temperature
10. Orthophosphate 21. Bacteria
11. Total phosphate 22. Coliform
Results-
A laboratory model was studied involving the percolation of aerated
distilled water through small columns (1" x 5" and 5 3/4" x 5") of
watershed soil in order to simulate watershed runoff. The percolated
water collected in a container served as a model of the lake itself.
Using total dissolved solids as an index of comparison between the
results obtained from the field measurements and the lab study, it
was concluded that laboratory simulation of watershed and lake or
impoundment can be possible.
The results of chemical analyses of the lake and its tributaries
are given in Exhibits 141 and 142. Results of a biological analysis
at one location are given in Exhibit 143. Exhibit 144 gives the
summary of the particle size distribution of sediment at various
locations in the lake.
344
-------
Hog
reel;
| Norrnon Mtohfl (0,9,10)
Dave Blue
Creel;
DAM.
Clear CreeU
Exhibit 140. Location of Monitoring Station (A-31)
345
-------
Exhibit 141. SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS - LAKE THUNDERBIRD
(A-31)
Per
Fall,
w xlnter
O\
Sprir,n
Sun-.r.er
Fall,
ril'
r-
Vinter
iod
1957
, 1967
, 1963
, 1963
1963
1969
1969
. 1069
"H.
3.6
8.2
7.8
8.6
7.6
7 8
/ • O
8.0
fi.O
—i
JS
= O O o
t-« l-i W Sa
25 277 16 <.l
18 305 15 .06
200 267 —
29 242 —
65 231 17 .3
54 ??n is nfi
t*» l~ 1 \J l*J . V/v
76 77'' -- ---
s ?R? in ^-i
e =: o o^
x. ^ Z 2
.43 .61 .32 .01
.17 .54 .31 .01
— 1.0 .44 ---
.9 .50
.41 — .14 —
--_ m IR -__
--- --- 77 ---
0.1
0*
C-,
o
°i 0 ^i
OHO
.02 .26 26
.10 .15 25
.01 — —
.12 —
.17
•J C ___ ._
• 4.J
1Q ->=;
5.
X. "
t—t xj
•i. o
-2- 193
180 193
T§J l"
7^7 214
1/4
m ™
* "6
0 10,
204
0
2C2
—2- on?
-3
5
~ O
*. 00
V Q cs
100 11 -
102* 13 -
... 8 -
8 2
— 7 1
7 o
--- / j
11 0
--- 11 z
i n?i i A A
n.
e
c
§0
Q CN!
CJ 5S —
12
4
17
13 17 28
13 — 23
/i fi t ft O f.
lit* lo Zo
•5^ 1 *>
J/ ~~ 1J
32
82
"7Q
/7
-------
Exhibit 142.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 0¥ SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS
LOCATIONS IN WATERSHED^-31)
(July 25, 1968)
Station
2
5
6
7
i
o
fc»i
•3
*±
£
O
Q.
e
H
S ^-*
H <
A.M.
7:30 24.5
8:15 26.5
8:35 24.5
8:50 24.5
9:CO 24.0
V
U
3
u
U
a
f
o
t-1
o
23
24.5
26
24
24
32
(0
a>
>> -5
^j - [ «^
•^ c s:
•a —i
!a o* "« "K
u en n a, j<; ij Q
S3QOO i -*OO
aHE-iQ2O
-------
Exhibit 142. (Continued) CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN WATERSHED (A-31)
(August 7, 1968)
oo
Station
2
4
5
6
7
c
3
|^J
tS
Jj
O
0.
E
O
E_t
e
•J — (
H <
A.M.
8:15 25.5
8:45 26
9:15 27
9:30 27
10:00 31
CJ
3
5
u
o
a.
5
H
O
__CM ~
23 8.5
24.5 8.4
26 8.2
24 8.4
25.5 8.4
x
.^i
"Q
r*
u to f>
S 0 0 0
H H Q S:
25 330 8.5 0.1
20 450 1.5 0.2
30 550 4.5 0.1
8 330 7.4 0.1
12 340 7.6 0.2
X
u
c
>a- i-<
0 a
C-: .*
0 <
0.11 288
0.06 436
0.26 388
0.21 280
0.21 304
Vi
c
•5
c
f— *
r}
— O O <*1
o o o « =:
H S3 U Z Si
290 1 -- 10
356 4 -- 42
376 3 -- 42
278 2 -- 14
290 2 -- 16
2. Clear Creek
4. Dave Blue Creek
5. Little River
6. Eln Creek
7. Little River
Page _2 of ^
-------
Exhibit 143. BACTERIA COUNTS—LAKE THUNDERBIRD
(A-31)
Depth
BACTHKIA
Colonies por 100 Millilitcrs
Diurnal - Sampling, Station L-4
Toli.il Bar trv ?' a
Date and Tima
November 2, 1968 November 21, 1968 November 22, 1968
2m era 8/ai
Surfncc
6 meters
12 meters
Surface
6 meters
12 mftcro
7,500
6,000
5,500
0
20
30
6,000
4,000
7,500
Col J.fojm
30
50
20
11,500
9,000
6,500
40
20
20
349
-------
Exhibit 144 . SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
OF SEDIMENT—LAKE THUNDERBIRD
Poicont: of sediment with dinract:or let:;; than
Locntion 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.01
TI,-1 2 It
L-2 14
L-3 44
L-4 66
L-5 61
L-6 34
TL-7 14
35
21
61
85
82
16
15
41
26
70
90
90
22
18
67
41
83
99
99
60
65
90
62
90
100
100
90
92
(millimeter;;)
0.15 1.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
roo
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
350
-------
Case 24 < Sedimentation of Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs,
Baltimore County, Maryland*
Source -
John N. Holeman, Sedimentation of Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs,
Baltimore County, Maryland, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Service, SCS-TP-145, February 1965. (A-27)
Purposes-
1. To compare the present rate of sedimentation with that before
1943 to evaluate the effects of land use changes and soil
conservation measures implemented since 1943.
2. To determine the present and predict the future capacities
of the two reservoirs.
3. To develop a method to estimate the effects of land treatment
as a way to extend reservoir life (for the Northern Piedmont
Physiographic Province).
Site Location/Description -
Both reservoirs are located on the Gunpowder Falls River in Northeastern
Baltimore County. The River empties into the Chesapeake Bay just north
of the City of Baltimore. The Loch Raven Dam is 9 miles above the Bay
and Prettyboy Dam is 22 miles above the Loch Raven. The stream extends
another 18 miles beyond the Prettyboy Dam into York County, Pennsyl-
vania.
Both reservoirs are long and narrow (Loch Raven - 10-1/2 miles; Pretty-
boy 7-1/4 miles) within irregular shoreline. The Prettyboy drainage
basin is 80 sq. mi. and Loch Raven drains 223 sq. mi. (excluding the
area draining into the Prettyboy.) The original areas of the reservoirs
*This study pertains to the operational aspects of impoundments and the
effects of siltation, rather than the pollution effects of reservoir
construction.
351
-------
were 2,391 acres for the Loch Raven and 1,498 acres for Prettyboy.
The Loch Raven Dam is 75 feet above the streambed and 246 feet above
sea level. The Loch Raven was built in 1881 and the Prettyboy added
in 1933. They are used as a water supply for Baltimore.
Topography -
The elevation of the drainage basins extends to 920 feet for a
vertical rise of 749 feet from the base of the Loch Raven Dam. There
are three main types of topography: summit uplands, narrow valleys
and wide meadows. The most important are the steep narrow valleys which
control the shape of the Prettyboy reservoir, and to a lesser extent the
Loch Raven causing an irregular shoreline with many narrow coves. There
is a little residual soil on the valley walls and much of the lake bot-
tom is exposed bedrock. This topography also limits development. The
lower reaches of the Loch Raven are underlain by a less resistant marble
allowing broader bays and therefore greater sediment accumulation. The
streams draining the basin tend to be steep and have formed deep valleys
through the crystaline rocks. The meadows occupy a small part of the
lower watershed.
Soil Types -
The authors have defined 6 soil associations. The extent and estimated
erosion losses are' given in Exhibits 145 through 147. The most important
are numbers 1, 2, and 3. Association 1 is the Conestoga-Hagerstown
group, occupying the lowlands of the south-central part of the Loch Raven
watershed. It is based on the weathered calcareous bed rock and is the
most productive in the watershed. Hence they are intensively cultivated.
Because of their gentle slopes and their moderate erodibility, they have
not been a major sediment source.
Association 2 is the Chester-Glenergy-Elioak Association occupying the
plateaus of the uplands. This soil type is moderately erodible and quite
productive, being the most intensly culitvated soil of the Prettyboy
352
-------
Exhibit 145. AREA AND PROPORTIONAL
EXTENT OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
(A-27)
Soil association
1. Con«o toga -H*gers town
2. Ch»«ter-Glenelg-
3. Manor-Glenelg
4. Manor channery loin.
6. Stony steep land....
Reservoir surface
Loch Raven
Watershed
Acres Percent
20,490 14.4
56,410 39.5
0 0
12,350 8.6
2,390 1.7
00 0
'
Prettyboy
taterohed
Acres Percent
Q 0
6,910 13.5
2,730 5.3
7,160 1A.O
1.50O 2.9
Two weteraheda
Acrea ptrcent
20,490 10.5
63,320 32.7
2,730 1.4
19,510 10.1
3,890 2.0
Exhibit 146. DISTRIBUTION OF SLOPE
loch Raven latershed (excluding Prettyboy)
(A-27)
Slope
Nearly level (0-3 percent)...
Moderate (8-15 percent)
Very iteep O45 percent)
Soil aaaoeiatlon
1
Pet.
13
72
1}
0
0
0
U.6
2
Pot.
5
61.9
30
3
0.5
0
35.6
3
Pet.
5
22
35
27
11
0
40.2
4
Pet..
0
0
0
Of
0
0
0
5
Pet.
0
37
61
2
0
0
0.9
6
Pet.
37
11
2
7
35
8
8.8
Total
land
area
Pet.
9
42
27
13
8
1
100
Pnttyboy taterahed
Nearly level (0-3 percent)...
Moderate (8-13 percent)
Strong (15-25 percent)
Very at«ep v>45 percent)
0
o
0
0
o
0
11
32
8
0
10
28
36
0
0
33
30
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
9
13
9
27
13
2
Exhibit 147. ESTIMATED SHEET EROSION
IN 1940 AND 1960^A"27)
Loch Raven Weterehed
Soil
aeaoel-
atlon
1
2
3
5
6
Total
Soil lose In 1*40
Ajaount
Tone
124,580
479,620
1,119,170
3,410
35,570
1,762,350
Proportion
of total
lOM
Percent
7.1
27.2
63,5
.2
2.0
100.0
Annual
rat«
Tone
per acre
6.08
9.60
19.84
3.04
2.88
12.56
Soil loee In 1960
Anount
Tone
45,900
191,840
433,230
1,790
23,710
696,470
Proportion
of total
lOM
Percent
6.6
27.5
62.3
.2
3.4
100.0
Annual
rate
Tom
per acre
2.24
3.84
7.68
1.60
1.92
4.96
Prettyboy reunited
2
3
4
6
Total
263,200
U0.420
64,640
37,810
906,070
92.0
27.7
12.8
7.5
100.0
8.00
20.32
23.68
5.28
9.98
126,340
74,060
29,700
37,810
267,930
47.2
27.6
11.1
14.1
100.0
3.84
10.72
10.88
5.28
5.28
353
-------
watershed (the Conestoga-Hagerstown is absent). Because of the
scarcity of well defined channels, little of this soil reaches the
Loch Raven, while in contrast, due to its extensiveness and proximity
to the reservoir, it accounts for nearly half the sediment of the
Prettyboy.
Association 3 is the most prevalent of the Loch Raven watershed and is
also common above the Prettyboy, although not as extensive. This
soil occurs on the moderate slopes between sloping uplands (2) and steep
valley walls (6). These soils are highly erodible, especially when the
subsoil has been exposed. Due to the steep slope, intensive cultivation
and its high degree of erodibility, this soil is the major sediment
source to Loch Raven and an important source to Prettyboy.
Land Use -
According to the records of the Division of Agriculture, U. S. Bureau of
Census, the area of farm land greatly decreased during the period be-
tween the two studies. In addition, 47 percent of the remaining farm
land was being operated under a basic conservation program (see Exhib-
its 148, 149, 150, and 151.
Method of Survey -
Water depths and sediment cores were taken along 43 ranges across the
lakes at various places (Exhibits 152 and 153. The cores were then
examined to determine the depth of recent deposits. The data were then
used to compute the original capacity, sediment volume and the accumula-
tion rates. These were compared with the results of a 1943 survey by
L. C. Gottschalk of the Soil Conservation Service. In addition, some
interesting observations were made on sediment distribution in the
reservoirs (see Exhibits 154 and 155.)
Time Frame -
The original Loch Raven Dam was built in 1881. A new dam was built in
1912 just upstream from the first, and was heightened by 50 feet in 1922.
354
-------
LAND USE CHANGES IN LOCH RAVEN
(A-27)
Exhibit 148.
AND PRETTYBOY WATERSHEDS
Land UM
Other Itnd In fun
Loch Raven
1939
Percent
41.5
8.5
15.8
9.3
24.9
1959
Percent
18.4
6.0
6.6
2.4
66.6
Prettyboy
1939
Percent
58.1
4.0
16.2
12.1
9.6
1959
Percent
15.3
5.8
2.1
1.0
75.8
Exhibit 149. LAND USE IN BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD. ~ '
Land uae
Woodland
1940
Percent
1943
Percent
1950
Percent
1955
Percent
1960
Percent
Exhibit 150. PERCENT OF AGRICULTURAL
LANDS IN VARIOUS CONSERVATION
On cropland:
Conrervation crop rotations.
Contour farming
Cover cropping..........
Strip cropping ,
Percent of agri-
cultural land
On grassland:
Hayland planting
Pasture Improvement..
Pasture planting...
Rotation grazing
On farm woodland:
Tree planting
Woodland Improvement.
Woodland protection
22
22
2
17
7
7
7
20
2
4
5
355
-------
Exhibit 151. AREA AND PROPORTIONATE EXTENT OF LAND-CAPABILITY CLASSES
(A-27)
Land -capability class
Land suitable Cor cultivation Snd other uses:
Class I — These soils have few or no conditions that limit their use. They can be
safely cultivated without special conservation treatment.
Class II — These soils have some natural condition that limits the kinds of plants they
can produce or that calls for some easily applied conservation practice when they
are cultivated.
Class III — These soils have more serious or more numerous limitations than those in
Class II. The limitations may be natural ones — such as steep slope, sandy or shallow
soil, or too little or too much water. Or the limitations may be erosion brought on
by the way the land has beeti used. Thus they are more restricted in the crops they
can produce or, when cultivated, call for conservation practices more difficult to
install or keep working efficiently.
Land suitable for occasional cultivation and other uses:
Class IV — These soils have very severe limitations that restrict the kind of plants
they can grow. If cultivated, they require very careful management. In humid areas,
they are suitable for occasional but not regular cultivation; in subhumid and semi-
arid areas, crops fail in years of low rainfall.
Land generally not suitable for cultivation but suitable for other uses:
Class V — These soils have little or no erosion hazard but have some condition imprac-
tical to remove that limits their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, recrea-
tion, or wildlife food and cover.
Class VI — These soils have very severe limitations that make them generally unsuited
to cultivation and restrict their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, recrea-
tion, or wildlife food and cover.
Class VTI — These soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to culti-
vation and that restrict their use to pasture, range, woodland, recreation, or wild-
life food and cover with careful management.
Class VIII— These soils and landforms have limitations that prevent their use for
commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreation, water supply,
or wildlife food and cover with careful protection.
Loch Raven
Watershed
Per-
Acres cent
420 0.3
52,480 37.4
37,330 26.6
11,230 8.0
0 0
27,790 19.8
9,960 7.1
1,120 .8
140,330 100.0
Prettyboy
Watershed
Per-
Acres cent
15 0.1
16,350 32.9
13,760 27.7
6,410 12.9
0 0
8,000 16.1
4,720 9.5
445 .9
49,700 100.0
-------
' --^ f
»,4, , - J
", -/ « .»
LOCO'ion Map
i - Rcmge on wr^ch sediment
,\«V
Exhibit 152- Loch Raven Reservoir
x
Exhibit 153. Prettyboy Reservoir (A.-27)
-------
EE a: a:
FH-r-i-
*See Exhibit 152 for
location of ranges (R's)
Exhibit 154. Distribution of Sediment
in Loch Raven Reservoir(A-27)
See Exhibit 153 for
location of R's
Exhibit 155. Distribution of Sediment
in Prettyboy Reservoir(A-27)
358
-------
The Prettyboy Dam was built in 1933, removing 80 square miles of the
Loch Raven watershed. Gottschalk's study was performed in October,
1943 and the present study in 1961.
The average annual precipitation increased from 41.83 inches between
1914 and 1943 to 44.4 inches between 1944 and 1960, an increase of 6
percent. The average annual rainfall from large storms (exceeding 2,
3 and 4 inches/24 hours) also increased during this period. The com-
puted average annual surface runoff increased from 3.07 to 3.53 inches.
The data summary sheets are presented as Exhibits 156 and 157. In con-
trast to the runoff figures, the sediment accumulation rates determined
in the 1961 study were less than a third of the 1943 rate for the Loch
Raven and just over half the 1943 rate in the Prettyboy. The data is
given in Exhibit 158. According to the sediment distribution charts
and the clarity of the discharge at the dams, it is apparent that both
reservoirs trap essentially all the influent sediment so that the
measured accumulation rates are valid.
Conclusions -
Gottschalk's 1943 report concluded that the primary sediment source was
sheet erosion of cultivated land. He suggested improved soil conserva-
tion measures. Since then, there has been a large reduction of agri-
cultural land and the remaining land has been subject to soil management
programs (see Exhibit 150). In addition the change from agricultural to
nonfarm (mostly residential) uses has been scattered and did not include
extensive deundation, as might have occurred for shopping centers or
other large urban developments. The third major factor helping to re-
duce the sediment load is the forested land owned by the city of Balti-
more which borders the reservoirs. This land comprises about 6 percent
of the watershed and is being maintained for recreation and timber
development.
359
-------
Exhibit 156.
FOR LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENTATION DATA
(A-27)
RESERVOIR SEDIMENT
DATA SUMMARY
SCS-J4 fttw. f-tl
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
4 - 1
DATA SHEET NO.
IJept. Public WbMtg.
SETT
altt
Baltimore
a. STREAM Gunpowder Palls
a. STATE Maryland
4. SEC.
TWP.
RANGE
S. NEAREST TOWN
Tovson
COUNTY Baltimore
7. STREAM BID ELEVATION 171
j. TOP OF DAM ELEVATION 246
9. SPILLWAY CREST ELEV.
"256"
10. STORAGE
ALLOCATION
11. ELEVATION
TOP OF POOL
12. ORIGINAL
13. ORIGINAL
SURFACE AREA ACRES CAPACITY ACRE-FEET
14. (MOSS STORAGE
ACRE-FEET
15. DATE
STORAGE BEOAN
>. MULTIPLE USE
b. FLOOD CONTROL
d. WATER SUPPLY
2.591
IRRIGATION
70.169
16. DATE NOR-
MAL OPER. BEQAr
I. CONSERVATION
(. SEDIMENT
h. INACTIVE
1914
17. LENGTH OF RESERVOIR
10.5
MILES !AV. WIOTH Of RESERVOIR
.3
II. TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA
303
SQ. Ml. 22. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION 42 .53
19. NET SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTING AREA 219 ^^ SO.~i
-------
Exhibit 157. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENTATION
DATA FOR PRETTYBOY RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR SEDIMENT
DATA SUMMARY
SCS-34 Key. 6-C2
Prettyboy Reservoir
NAME Or KESENVOIR
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONDtHVATION SERVICE
1* - 2
DATA SHEET HO.
X
«r
O
WATERSHED I RESERVOIR
O
>-
UI
£
r>
v>
1. OWNERfeV^.,^1-1-1-'
4. SEC. TWC.
worKs 2 STREAM Gunpowder Falls
RANGE 5. NEAREST TOWN Hereford
7. STREAM I»KD ELEVATION JB7 •• TOP OF DAM ELEVATION Jj |0
10. STORAGE 11. ELEVATION 12. ORIGINAL 13. ORIGINAL
ALLOCATION TOP OF POOL SURFACE ARfA ACRES CAPACITY AC.Hr-FF.KT
>. MULTIPLE USE
b. FLOOD CONTROL
c. POWER ,
d. WATER SUPPLY 520 1,1*98 60.Q70 -J
t. IRRIGATION
1. CONSERVATION
t. SEDIMENT
h. INACTIVE
3. STATE Maryland
«. COUNTY Baltimore
9. SPILLWAY CREST ELEV. 520
14. GROSS STORAGE
ACRE-FEET
,
60,979 ^
J5. DATE
STORAGE BEGAN
April 10
1923
16. DATE NOR-
^AL OPER. BEGAf
October
1933
17. LENGTH OF RESERVOIR 7.25 . MILES JAV. WIDTH OF RESERVOIR .^2 MILES
19. TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA
SO SO. Ml. 22. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION Jj-2 . 55 INCHES
19. NET SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTING AREA 77.5 SO. Ml. 23. MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF INCHES
20. LENGTH 1? MILES | AV. WIDTH 6.67 MILts *4- MEAN ANNUAL HUNOFF AC.-F T.
21. MAX. ELEV. 920
2S. DATE OF
SURVEY
April 1933
Oct . 19l*3
Sept. 1961
26. DATE OF
SUhVSY
26. DATE OF
SURVEY
Oct. 191*3
Sept. 1961
25. DATE OF
SURVEY
Ost . 191*3
Sept. 1961
27. PERIOD'
YEARS
10.5
18
| MIN. ELEV. 387 25. CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION Humid
33. ACCL. 29. TYPE
YEARS OF SURVEY
10.5 Range
Rccon.
28.5 Range
Data!
34. PERIOD
ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION
30. NO. OF RANGES
OR CONTOUR INT.
23
31. SURFACE
AREA ACRES
11*98
35. PERIOD WATER INFLOW ACRE-FEET
*. MEAN ANNUAL
b. MAX. ANNUAL
37. PERIOD SEDIMENT DEPOSITS ACRE-FEET
i. PERIOD TOTAL
569
5>*6
39. AV. DRY WGT.
LRS, PER CU. IT.
60 &
62.8(11*)
b. AV. ANNUAL
5l*. 2
30.3
c.PERSQ. MI.-YEAR
.699
•391
40.SED.DEP.TONS fr.RSQ.MI.-YR.
,. PERIOD
913
b. TOTAL TO DATE
913
705
c. PERIOD TOTAL
32. CAPACITY
ACRE-FEET
60,979 f7/
60,1*10 ^
33. C/W RATIO
AC.-FT.PERSQ.MI.
755 ^
71*8
36. WATER INFL. TO DATE AC.-FT.
a. MEAN ANNUAL
b. TOTAL TO UATE
38. TOTAL SED. DEPOSITS TO DATE ACRE-FEET,
•. TOTAL TO DATE
569
1115
b. AV. ANNUAL
51*. 2
39-1
c. PER SQ. MI.-YEAR
.699
.501*
41.STORAGE LOSS PCT. 42. SED. INFLOW HPM
., AV. AN. b.TOT.TODATF. >. PERIOD
0.09 o
0.06 1
.93
.83
b.TOT.TODATE
I/ Revised after 196! survey
2/ Assumed
361
-------
Exhibit 158. RATE OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN 16 RESERVOIRS
IN NORTHERN PART OF PIEDMONT PROVINCE(A-27)
Reservoir
New Glatf alter..
Prettyboy. ......
Burnt Mills
U11Ha»« JMfl
Atkisson
Coatesville
Triadelpnia
Pedlar
Old Glatfeltei..
Icedale
Fishing Creek...
Location
Greenbelt, Md.
York, Pa,
Hereford, Md.
Alex^ntfr i*, Va.
Silver Spring, Md.
York, Pa.
Bel Air, Md.
Coatesville, Pa.
Ash ton, Md.
Manas aas , Va.
York, Fa.
Frederick, Md.
Age at
date of
survey
Years
21 1
1.6
47
2
28.5
42.6
7.8
27
12
35
16.2
7.2
31
55
51
12
Original
capacity
Acre-feet
196
63
70,169
62
60,979
1,847
181
2,686
896
1,019
20,222
4,500
1,860
147
137
236
Total
drainage
area
Square
miles
0.83
2.91
303
3.0
80
14.5
27.0
42.9
45.46
5.0
81.4
337.0
33.21
74.3
20.0
8.5
Latest
capacity-
vatershed
ratio
Acre-feet
per square
mile
182
21
211
21
748
144
3.5
52
16
194
241
12.3
52
0.1
5.3
28
Annual
storage
loss
Percent
1.09
3.09
.18
2.85
.06
.38
6.08
.63
1.78
.14
.08
1.06
.24
1.69
04
.03
Annual
sediment-
accumula-
tion rate
Acre-feet
per square
mile
2.57
.669
,593
.592
.504
.473
.408
.394
.351
.28
.20
.141
.134
.033
.03
.007
to
-------
This study demonstrates the benefits of sensible conservation measures,
both in improved agricultural practices and in reforestation of the
land adjacent to the reservoirs. These techniques have effectively
decreased the sediment loading and considerably extended the life of
the lakes.
363
-------
APPENDIX D: EFFECTS OJ CHANNELIZATION ON WATER QUALITY
General
This appendix contains summaries of three case studies on channelization.
One of these contains limited information about water quality effects
based on fish concentration; the others pertain largely to channel
characteristics and hydrologic effects.
364
-------
Case 25. Channelization of Blac'kwater Creek in Missouri
Source -
John W. Emerson, "Channelization - A Case Study," Science, Vol. 173,
July 1971, pp 325-326.(A~17)
Purpose -
This study was conducted to determine the effects of channelization
in the Blackwater River, 60 years after the original channel was
dredged.
j>ite Location/Description -
The Blackwater River originates in northwest Jackson County, Missouri,
approximately 65 km east of Kansas City. The river flows east, join-
ing the Missouri River west of Boonville, Missouri. In 1910 a new
channel was dredged for a 53.6 km section of the river in the eastern
part of the county.
.Topography -
The original channel had an average of 1.8 meanders per Jcilometer with
a meander radius between 60 and 140 km. The replacement channel was
9 m wide at the top, 1 m at the bottom and 3.8 m deep. The cross-
sectional area was 19
gradient of 3.1 m/km.
2
sectional area was 19 m . The new channel length is 29 km for a
Geology -
The lithology of the channelized area consists of thin-beeded Pennsyl-
vanian shale, coal, sandstone and limestone. This composition changes
near the Saline County line to the harder rfississippian limestone. The
softer rock in Jackson County permitted easy dredging up to the harder
limestone at the county line.
365
-------
Study Method -
Present channel dimensions and bridge lengths were compared to the
original ditch size and both the old channel and original new channel
bridge lengths. The amount of fish expressed as Kg per acre was com-
pared for the present channelized and unchannelized reaches. The
frequency of flooding before and after channelization is also noted.
Results -
2
The original dredged channel increased in size from 19 m area and 9 m
2 2
width at the top to sizes ranging from 130 m and 29 m wide to 484 m
and 71 m wide during the 60 years since its modification. (See Exhibit
159.) This increase in width has caused the destruction by erosion of
almost all the bridges over the new channel. One bridge has been
replaced five times.
The river has not begun to meander and ±iows in essentially the same
channel. The rate of erosion for the central section has been determined
to cause an increase of 1 meter in width and 0.16 m in depth each year.
Erosion of the soft bedrock has produced a.smooth chutelike channel
bottom that does not support bottom fauna. This has resulted in a
concentration of only 51 kg of fish per acre compared to 256 kg per
acre in the unchannelized portions.
A further problem is caused by the transition from the soft rock under-
lying the new channel to the harder, less erodible rock downstream.
Erosion of the unchannelized downstream reach hasn't kept pace with
the erosion of the channelized reach. Therefore, where the channelized
o
reach has a capacity of 280 to 850 m per second, the downstream reach
o
has a capacity of only 170 to 255 m per second. This results in
frequent flooding and consequent silt and debris deposition in the area
around the end of the channelized stream, whereas extensive flooding
366
-------
Exhibit 159. DIMENSIONS OF THE PRESENT BLACKWATER RIVER IN JOHNSON
AND SALINE COUNTIES, MISSOURI. SIZE OF THE ORIGINAL CHANNEL: WIDTH AT
TOP, 9m; WIDTH AT BOTTOM, 1m; AND DEPTH, 3.8m (A-17)
w
(*
Present Channel Dimensions
Bridge Location
a. North Fork, Route 131
b. South Fork, Route 131
c. North Fork
d. South Fork Route 50
e. Elevation, 729 feet (222 m)
f . Elevation, 711 feet (217 m)
g. Elevation, 696 feet (212 m)
h. Bear Creek
i. Valley City
j. Route J
k. Dunksburg
1. Sweet Springs
Top
Width
(m)
21.9
20.1
67.6
45.7
53.3
60.9
64.0
71.0
51.8
35.0
29.8
42.7
Bottom
Width
(m)
7.0
5.0
9.2
12.2
12.8
11.6
22.8
12.5
15.8
15.2
15.2
15.3
Depth
(m)
4.7
4.1
9.2
9.4
10.9
10.0
10.0
11.6
8.2
6.4
5.8
5.8
Cross-
Sectional
Area
(m)
67.9
51.2
353.2
280.1
360.2
362.5
434.0
484.3
277.1
160.6
130.5
168.2
-------
of this area was uncommon before 1910. Overbank deposits 2 meters deep
have buried two generations of fence posts on the flood plain at the
county line.
The referenced study points out the true cost elements of arbitrary
channelization in terms of bridge repair, erosion loss, and flood
damage.
368
-------
Case 26. Effects of Man's Manipulation of the Willow River Channel,
Iowa
Source -
Ruhe, R. V., "Stream Regimen and Man's Manipulation," in Environmental
Geomorphology. Coates Publishing Co., 1970. ^"^
Purpose -
This study was performed to analyze the effects of the straightening
of the channel of the Willow River in Southwestern Iowa in order to
design conservation programs which will aid in alleviating the problems
that have resulted.
Site Location/Description -
Willow River heads in Crawford County Iowa, approximately 50 miles north-
east of the Missouri River and flows southwest through Monona and
Harrison Counties where it joins the Boyer River which eventually
drains into the Missouri River.
Soil Type -
The stream and drainage ditch cut into compact silts which were gener-
ated by the upland loess. Sands and gravel which came from glacial
till appear only in certain areas of the valley.
.Stream Topography -
Prior to engineering improvements, stream length in Harrison County
was 23.6 miles for a valley length of 20.2 miles. Bank width ranged
from 60 to 100 feet with a channel depth of 10 to 12 feet. Lower
reach gradient ranged from 1.7 to 7.9 ft/mi with an average of 5.2
ft/mi. Upper reach gradient averaged 7.5 ft/mi within a range of
4.6 to 12.2 ft/mi. Engineering modifications to the channel are
summarized in Exhibit 160.
369
-------
Exhibit 160. SUMMARY OF CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS OF WILLOW RIVER
A
Improvement #
1 (lower reach)
2 (middle reach)
3 (upper reach)
Date of
Construction
1906-1908
1916-1919
1919-1920
Length
6.6 mi.
10.2 mi.
11.5 mi.
Channel Bottom
Width
18 ft.
12 ft.
12 to 8 ft.
Side
Slope
1:1
1:1
1:1
Depth
15
15
11
Gradient
2 ft /mi
7.5 ft/mi
8.5 to 12 ft/mi
u>
-J
o
-------
.Study Method -
Longitudinal profiles of the channel bottom and transverse profiles
of the ditch were made at various times by R. B. Daniels using bridge
records from official state and county highway files ("Entrenchment of
the Willow Drainage Ditch, Harrison, Co., Iowa, "Am. Journal of Science,
Vol. 258, pp. 161-176). Daniels also measured nickpoints which were
reported by residents.
Results -
Willow Creek drainage ditch has deepened its channel over the years.
This deepening is seen in Exhibit 161. At the mouth of Thompson Creek,
the ditch has deepened about 9 feet between 1919 and 1936, about 4
feet between 1936 and 1942, and about 5 feet between 1942 and 1957.
The effects of this deepening on stream profiles in the Thompson
Creek Watershed are shown in Exhibits 162 and 163.
Generally, the effect has been to cause entrenchment of Thompson
Creek and its major branches (See Exhibit 162). In 1916, the Thompson
Creek channel was only 14 feet deep and in 1908, near the junction of
Turton Branch and Thompson Creek, the channel was 10 to 15 feet deep.
Now the depth of the channel approaches 40 feet at the confluence of
Thompson Creek and Willow River.
Effects have been felt in the transportation network of the area.
Roads and bridges pose a major maintenance problem while agricultural
vehicles have to go around or over stream tributaries rather than
through them. The water table has also been lowered from the 1918
level of 20-25 feet to a present depth of 35 feet or more. The
flood control aspects of the project have been successful, however.
371
-------
v Mouth-lh.(Jmf>Mii Cf«ek
Exhibit 161. Longitudinal and Transverse Profiles
of Willow Drainage Ditch During Specific Years
2 3 4567
Stream lengih-miles
Exhibit 163. Deepening and
Widening of Thompson Creek
Exhibit 162. Drainage Net of Thompson Creek
Watershed Showing Extent of Major Entrenchment
372
-------
Case 27. Evaluation of Forty-two Channel Modification Projects
jjpurce -
Arthur D. Little Inc., Report on Channe_JJto_dif_lcations, The President's
Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, B.C., 1973.(A~2)
Purpose -
This report was compiled to provide a factual assessment of selected
channelization projects in the United States; it assesses environ-
mental, economic, financial, and engineering aspects of channel
modifications as well as the various alternatives which are considered
by the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Tennessee
Valley Authority, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
jiite Locations and Descriptions -
Forty-two different sites were chosen for study in this report using
the following criteria: geographic dispersion; climate, soil, and
water variations; habitat variations; terrain variations; differences
in purpose; whether or not water impoundments are involved, in conjunc-
tion with water conveyance capacities; rural or urban locale, or both;
whether "in tandem," upstream or downstream of another agency project;
time of installation; availability of pre-project data; and magnitude
of channel works. By definition of these criteria alone, it is apparent
that all sites differed greatly in terms of topography, soil type,
ground cover and land use, climate and rainfall. An adequate range of
conditions existed in each of these categories. Exhibit 164 shows the
location of the sites listed in Exhibit 165. The latter exhibit
gives a gross indication of the magnitude of each project.
Study Method -
Forty-two channelization projects were chosen as study sites through
the criteria outlined above. Each site evaluation was overseen by
373
-------
V
LJ
'
&%&$$$& A
,^»«^r
~~~i '
1 i k
i !__ ;•
! . JGWA
\
£•— . \
\
J JjJU.'SSO'JRI
KANSAS {
>
•xX^ •"
:iCON:">iN /A
'iff
\ I
\ \
. ILu. \
.-*' 1
\
V
1
\
1 1
^'KLNTUCKY ^ ,../
Location of 42 Projects Evaluated
10 States Covering 77 Percent of Channel Modifications
'Vv
Exhibit 164. Location of Projects Covered
(A-2)
-------
Exhibit 165.
CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS EVALUATED
(Miles)
Project
Oliver Springs
North St, Lucie River
Yantic River
Owasco Outlet
Mt. Clemens
Batvaia
Palmetto Creek
Sevierville
River Rouge
Corning
North Nashua
Muskrat Creek
Town Bank
Little Wea Creek
Kings River
Pine Bluff
Bois-de-Sioux
Red Run Drain
Ft. Pierce Farms
Bull Creek
Elk Creek
Pequest River
N. Branch Mill Creek
Caw Caw Swamp
N. Branch Forest River
Wild Rice Creek
Taylor Creek
Fish Bayou
N. Fork Broad River
Crow Creek
Chicot, Desna, Drew
Prairie Creek
Wild Rice River
Kissimmee
Beech River
Bayou Bartholomew
Grady-Gould
North Tensas
Ahoskie-Cutawhiskie
S. Florida Conservancy District
Middle Rio Grande
Boeuf-Tensas-Bayou Macon
Total
Total
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.4
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
8.6
9.0
9.6
9.7
11.0
11.5
13.5
14.0
15.0
15.7
16.5
19.3
24.7
29.9
35.0
36.0
44.2
45.8
46.6
50.9
58.0
70.3
74.0
88.0
102.4
119.6
120.0
186.0
972.4
2299.5
Natural
Stream
1.2
1.5'
3.7
3.9
4.0
2.0
•3.5
3.6
9.0
7.6
13.5
2.5
10.0
0.1
12.2
9.0
5.0
5.9
5.0
16.0
40.2
26.9
18.0
48.0
70.0
2.2
24.0
49.7
186.0
593.0
1177.2
Ditch
Rehabilitation
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.4
2.2
0.8
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.0
2.0
9.7
11.0
11.5
11.5
5.0
15.6
4.3
10.3
19.7
24.0
30.0
20.0
4.0
45.8
46.6
24.0
40.0
22.3
4.0
85.8
78.4
69.9
120.0
379.4
1122,3
375
-------
one of the responsible or interested Federal agencies such as S.C.S.,
Corps of Engineers, TVA, or Bureau of Reclamation. Each evaluation
consisted of a general orientation and project briefing session, a
field survey of the project area, and a wrap-up session which was
usually held at a place and time which would encourage local-interest
participation. The field evaluations consisted of the local groups
as well as the professional observations of the investigators who note:
"Our professional observations may or may not be accepted as a part
of the body of factual data, but we have exercised extreme caution
to avoid surmise and conjecture. After all, professional observations
are a part of any assessment."
Parameters -
Besides presenting all relevant descriptive material concerning each
site, including location, topography, soil, land use and ground cover,
climate/rainfall, history, and configuration of the proposed project
itself, assessments were made on the physical effects such as wetland
drainage and land-use changes, cutoff of oxbows and meanders, watertable
changes and stream recharge, erosion, sedimentation, channel maintenance,
downstream effects, aesthetics, and other specified purposes. Economic
considerations and alternatives to construction were also considered.
A biological evaluation was also done for each site by the Academy of
Natural Sciences (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Again, as the investigators point out, much of the factual data of the
field reports consist of professional observations. Because of the
nature of this data, there is little quantitative information presented
that is based on measurement of water quality or hydraulic parameters.
Exhibit.166 summarizes the types of possible physical effects at each
of the 42 project sites.
376
-------
Exhibit 166. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS RELATIVE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
(A-2)
Channel(Works of Relatively Minor
Significance to the Issue of
Project listing
(frora smallest to largest
sice of channel works)
Oliver Springs
Yantlc River
Owasco Lake
Mt. Clemens
Batavla
Palmetto Creek
Seviervllle
River Rouge
Corning
North Nashua
Mi krat Creek
Town Bank
Little Uea Creek
Kings River
Pine Bluff
Bols-de-Sloux
Red Run Drain
Ft. Pierce Faros
Bull Creek
Elk Creek
Fequest
N. Branch Mill Creek
Caw Caw Swamp
N. Branch Forest River
Wild Rice Creek
Taylor Creek
Fish Bayou
N.Fork Broad River
Crow Creek '
Chlcot, Desha. Drew
Prairie Creek
Wild Rice. River
Kissinmee
Beech River
Bayou Bartholomew
Grady-Gould
North Tensas
Ahoskie-Cutawhlskle
S.Florida Conservancy
Middle Rio Grande
Boeuf-Tensaa-Bayou Maeen
•H
•*
Channel n
If
• z
1C
. J
1.5
1.8
2.4
3.7
3.9
4n
.U
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
8.6
9.0
9.6
9.7
11.0
11.5
13.5
14.0
15.0
15.7
16.5
19.3
24.7
29.9
35.0
36.0
44.2
45.8
46.6
50.9
S8.0
70.3
74.0
88.0
102.4
119.6
120.0
186.0
972.4
Wetland
Drainage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SJ
X
X
X
Hardwood
Clearing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
*
X
Cut-off
Meanders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
« «l
Croundwat
& Recharg
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x-
X
X
X
1
I*
Erosion &
Sedlaento.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
Downs trea
Effects
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O)
Aesthetic
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'Channel Works of Uncertain
Significance to the Issue of
Channel Works of Relatively Pronounced
Significance to the ssue of
•H •* -a n
c c ** m
•H e « u
)U tl .-J 3(1) Li U ftj o *
Q 3:0 U E O *« U W Q
c u T-
3 O 3!
O Pi O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
-------
APPENDIX E: EFFECTS OF DREDGING AND IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION ON WATER QUALITY
General
This appendix presents summaries of seven case studies that contain data
on several aspects of dredging, including: impact of release of dredge
materials on certain water quality parameters; effects of dredging on
phosphate concentration in a lake; concentration of chemical constituents
(ions, suspended solids, and other chemical compounds) in a lake before,
during, and after dredging. None of the case studies pertains directly
to in-water construction operations other than dredging.
378
-------
Case 28. San Pablo Bay - Dredge Spoils Disposal Monitoring
Source -
Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc., "Dredge Spoils Disposal Monitoring
San Pablo Bay - February 5, 1974," for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District, March 1974.
Purpose -
To monitor the depletion of dissolved oxygen content of the receiving
water and its recuperation period after the disposal of dredge spoil
into the water.
Site Description -
Exhibit 167 shows the location of the disposal area and the survey site
in San Pablo Bay, San Francisco.
Study Method -
Six loads of dredge spoil of 2,700 cubic-yard capacity each were released
at a distance of 30 to 60 meters (first three) and 150 to 125 meters
(second three) from a survey vessel anchored in the disposal area for
monitoring purposes. Water quality parameters were monitored in situ
at different depths downstream at five-second intervals. At various
times during the monitoring period, samples were also taken for labor-
atory determination of dissolved oxygen and calibration of the elec-
tronic monitors being used.
Parameters Measured -
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Turbidity and light transmittance
3. Specific electrical conductivity
379
-------
1 '•
11 K
fl
j..,,.. ,.ft " " •<•"
* " »">' j»-«" ^ •;.'
t" :x
. ^. fi; :"
^:i: /X: '
/ .^f;v'i:f^ j
/.^ ^4'
„
'N P A
i
" .
B L O
/ /
I :
|^:?::>r ' su"vs>^
%^Ji----l.'"®: '
: • I*' / " V '
/ "• ^0 J;! '
/ ' n^^
7' %
/"o
•^ / / < "f f ti / y u
«y , / «"V>* / °
i\-' ' ; / • ^ l '-'
/ ^ ,„ "J ;•/*•*'
/<,«• o /
/ /
/* . 7[> .'/
Yirdf
"S" ^^^^. t ,/. a ..
naVK-^*V. , ' 7 «,U -r^
/ '" - /V
• "" ,\ I /v'
\ v r, (,;.-•
f;\ "; --U- Si-, J*'.,J;.
\ '3
=~
M.lir.
J»-'" - ""
Fig. 1 Dredge Spoil Disposal Site
Exhibit 167. Dredge Spoil Disposal Site
380
-------
4. Temperature
5. Depth
6. pH
7. Current speed and direction
Exhibit 168 presents the method of measurement, accuracy, and recording
method for each parameter. The first six are important from this study
viewpoint.
Time Frame -
January 18, 1974 to February 5, 1974
Results -
Exhibits 169 through 171 present the monitored results of the six-dredge
spoil releases.
The following were the background values during the sampling period of
various releases.
Release
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
D.O.
8.2 mg/1
8.6 mg/1
8.6 mg/1
8.3 mg/1
8.9 mg/1
9.4 mg/1
Salinity
21.4 ppt
22.0 ppt
22 to 23 ppt
22.6 ppt
17.8 ppt
8.5 ppt
JES
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.0
Temperature
10.7°C
10.7°C
10.7
10.6
10.4
10.0
Light
Transmittance
1 percent
1 to 2 percent
5% decreasing to
1 percent
1 percent
1%
381
-------
Exhibit 168. PARAMETERS MEASURED DURING DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL MONITORING
(A-51)
Ul
00
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Turbidity, Ughtc
Transmittance
Specific Electrical
Conductivity
Temperature
Depth
PH
Current Speed
and Direction
Method of
Measurement
Auto-Temperature
Compensated Polaro-
graphic Gold/Silver
Electrode
25-cm Path
XMS Transmissometer
10-cm Path
Hydro Products
Model 612 Trans-
mis someter
Five-Electrode
Guarded Kelvin Cell
Transistor Probe
Pressure Transducer
Glass and Silver/
Silver Chloride
Electrodes
Ducted Current-
Meter
Accuracy
± 1% Full Scale,
* 0.2 Parts Per
Million
± 1% Full Scale
± 2% Full Scale
±0.02 millimho/cm
±0.1 C
± 0.01 C Resolution
± 1% Full Scale.
± 1 Foot
* 0.1 pH Unit
± 0.01 Unit Resolution
* 0.03 kt. and
±5Deg.
Indicating and
Recording Methods
Digital.
Printed Paper Tape
ASCII Coded Mylar
Tape
Digital,
Printed Paper Tape
ASCII Coded Mylar
Tape
Digital.
Printed Paper Tape
ASCII Coded Mylar
Tape
Digital,
Printed Paper Tape
ASCII Coded Mylar
Tape
Digital,
Printed Paper Tape
ASCII Coded Mylar
Tape
Digital,
Printed Paper Tape
ASCII Coded Mylar
Tape
Analog Chart Paper
Recorder
a Calibrated during survey using Winkler tltration procedure.
b Temperature measuring systems are checked for accuracy with N.B.S. calibrated thermometers.
c The 25-cm transmissometer was used on the fifst run; the 10-cm unit was used on all other runs.
-------
•Ill
fOTtP^
E4U-
Exhibit 169- Receiving Water Parameters
(Releases 1 and 2)
-------
:
• -
.is
5- '
>
-
. !
^ t
MM ;
j 1 / / / f f / f /•/ P//////0
..-.'.., _ r
'""'"'' -'-VVX'ij^C^
* J • 5 "?"
•*nr - • • . .
j j J.
i ! i i
• •
M
^-^-
M
"-L.
j
— ^»—
.....
f
"^•MM
~
,
^"^—
,
,
,
,
•_^—
*
f
^^^M
till
m "
i
,,
• —
.,
m —
• T ' rTTTi : 1
j i . . . : . . ....
1 ' 1 I 1 j RELEASE 3
I ' 1 Ave»*Jlf DI^TM OF UCASU»(MC1T
4 WCIifl
1 . 1 . . . . .... . . . — ,
| .. i ..: j •
,iL (**»!•.* t*Cfft, '
» W ,
•-*••• r-
•!1' •" •;'; / / / j / /'V i i f t \l \\ c-J.,-.,.i,lil • / / j / / / j /1 •/1 / j /1 (11 it}} /. / / / / / /1 in 11111111 n 11
t -• — •^'~~s ^ s -« ^—: ! ! _______^—^^___^^.^
i l
J, 5 «-Jl
V .! j J J ,
F : • j 1
-— « • ' i 1
' i -4
; f
j^ "^Vvuj1^
-------
Exhibit 171. Receiving Water Parameters
(Releases 5 and 6)
(A-51)
-------
Discussion -
The results of the referenced study show that the effects of dredge
spoil disposal are short term, but other studies reveal that even
short term effects can be detrimental by destroying the spawning area
and suffocating the organisms. The changes in the bottom geometry and
bottom substrate after the disposed-of material settles can bring sub-
sequent alterations in water velocity and current patterns, salinity
gradient and the exchange of nutrients between the bottom sediments and
the overlying water. These studies also point out that although there
is insufficient information to show that dredge spoil disposal creates
gross water quality degradation, enough information is available to
conclude that there is a presence of and a potential for water quality
degradation and the resultant adverse effects on the benthic community.
*See References 5-22 and 5-23 of Section V.
386
-------
Case 29. Study of Dredged Material Disposal in San Francisco Bay
Source-
Brown and Caldwell, Inc., "Effects of Dredged Materials on Dissolved
Oxygen in Receiving Water," Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Contract Number DACW07-73-0051, March 1973. (A~8)
Purpose -
To determine the effect of dredged-material disposal on dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the receiving water, and to analyze the dredged
sediments and their redox potentials in the disposal area.
Site Description -
Exhibit 172 shows location of the study area in San Francisco Bay
south of Mare Island and at the lower end of the Napa River. The depth
of the disposal area ranged from 50 to 60 feet.
Dredged-Material Characteristics -
Exhibits 173 and 174 describe the results of the analyses of sediment
samples and their grain size distribution. The sediments were fine
grained and moderately polluted, having high COD and redox potential
sufficient to reduce sulfate contents to sulfide.
.Study Method -
The study involved two days of field work. On each day six discharges
of dredged material were observed. On the first day the capacity of
discharge was 3000 cubic yards and on the second day 2600 cubic yards.
The monitoring was done by two boats—one boat for the unaffected area
and the other for the affected area. On each of the two field studies
387
-------
>•
1
* » » n
• -f- - . " ' < .
J^r^TX* - - *
\ ' / ',
' •'IS
• ' • il * ''
r»_m-i-f .
i » • /
>* . /^ ^^ 1 S • 7 • » •
" " » "^''-"-,. , ' -" «
.1 2. . '
» „ -. » .7
*i X * • -
,.
• *° • —- — Ji '*
** *J I
"» . . <> x • .
r~ r;> • • ./
- /
\ ^r&n -^> /.'S^fSK.
5fc$l A" fa >C% LOCATION OF
^>^f~" } -^ MARKED BY ,
/PVm~n£il -v^
(A-8)
172. Study Area in San Francisco I
-------
Exhibit 173. RESULTS OF ANALYSES ON SAMPLES OF
SEDIMENT FROM DREDGE HARDING, 29 JANUARY 1973
10
oo
vo
Sample
Total solids, percent wet wt
Volatile solids, mg/kg dry wt
Chemical oxygen demand, mg/kg dry wt
Total sulfides, S, mg/kg dry wt
Eh, volts
pH
A
40
85,000
46,000
14
-0.47
7.0
B
40
84,000
45,000
90
-0.47
7.1
C
41
85,000
42,000
150
-0.47
7.0
Samples A, B and C are replicates, results are in excellent agreement except
for sulfides.
-------
U.S. Standard
Sieve Opening Size
U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers \ Hydrometer
10 16 20 30 40 506O IOO 2VO 27O
HJU
90
K.
a:
to
ly C0
i
CD ^n
lu
Uj
Uj
Q.
0
1
r-
;
•T^-
'^.
|
\
|
\
\
V
1
\
V
n
s
\
\
\
N
S
100 50
10 5 I 0.5 O.I O.OS
GRAIN S/Zf IN MILLIMETERS
0.01 O.OOS
0.001
GRAVKL
COARSE
Y INE
S AND
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
SILT OR CLAY
Exhibit 17A. Grain Size Distribution of Sample From
Dredge Harding Taken 29 January 1973(A"8)
390
-------
dredge spoil samples were taken from the hopper for laboratory analyses.
Divers also collected samples of water from the bottom for laboratory
studies of redox potential and other parameters.
Parameters Measured -
1. Oxygen uptake
2. Sulfides
3. Grain size distribution
4. pH
5. Total solids
6. Volatile solids
7. Chemical oxygen demand
8. Temperature
9. Turbidity
10. Redox potential.
j!ime Frame -
January 17 and 29, 1973.
Results^ -
The first set of field data showed little variations with background
data. Slight oxygen depressions were observed as depth increased.
The reduced data are given in Exhibits 175 and 176 for oxygen concen-
trations. Exhibits 177 through 183 represent the reduced data for
second set of observations.
"From the results it appeared that the oxygen depressions were no
longer than 3 or 4 minutes in duration. Turbulence was also noted
immediately following dumping. Exhibit 184 shows the decreasing
redox potential with depth measured for the sediment core samples.
391
-------
0
10
Ul
Ul
u.
£ *
0.
Ul
Q 40
50
60
0
10
». l°
Ul
• 30
*
u
tt.
Q 40
50
60
-
-
-
—
i
(a)
--•
/
Prior !o Release
"Time; 0730
1 , 1
40 60
-
-
-
-
(e)
I
-
-
-
-
1
80 100
"~
P
-
Release; 4 ot 12
• Time: 1215
1 i i
40 CO
B
3
'
'•> 10
0
-
-
•
-
(b)
I
Release: 1 ot 0740
"Time: 0755
i i
-
••
<
-
<
(c)
1
1
Release: 2 at 09
Time: 0902
1 !
/
02
1
(d)
Release: 3 at 10
Time; 1034
i i i
/
34
i
40 60 80 100 40 60 80 100 40 60 BO 100
DISSOLVED OXYGEN. PERCENT SATURATION
-
-
-
-
-
1
(f)
f
Release-. 5 at 131
' Time: 1349
i i
-
-
-
7
i
to 60 80 Kt.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN.
?
r
-
-
-
-
-
(•g)
/
Release: 6 ot 15
" Time: 1515
1 i
i
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
•
(h)
II02S
Release: 3 at 103
" Time-. 1034
1 1
1027 -
IQJO_
1034 -
1035
1036 -
1037
,1039 ~
•
4
40 60 80 100 40 • 60 80 100
ERCENT SATURATION
0
10
V, 20
Ul
Ui
U,
%
d.
Ul
Q 10
SO
60
•
•
' 12
-
R
' T
4
14
(i)
elcosc;
ime: 1
1 1
0 C
— r —
IH5
1 at 12
211-1?
0 (
DIS
I22&
1225 -
1223 -
1219 -
1217
•
3
26
J....I
0 10
SOLVEL
•)
~
-
•
-
-
Re
T
J
•)
OX
(j)
i
/
«/.
\
I3S4 .
51
1347
-
lease: 0 at I3<17
mo: 1342-1354
i j i
-
•
-
- $
-
•V"
(k)
J5>«r*
x^"
1 r —
-
4
513
1512 -
-
Release: 6 at 1513
" Time: 1512-1518
1 1 I
^ CO BO 100 40 60 GO /«
fGCN. PERCENT SATURATION
NOTE:
Profiles (a) through (g)
taken from Evie K .
Profiles (M,
-------
I70
ObMfvtd by Camoftcht
Dtplh • J3 (t
0 ft t i
Tlllt rfOM KCLCtSt,
Exhibit 176. Oxygen Values Observed During Release
Number 6 by Dredge Biddle, 17 January 1973 (A~8
393
-------
K»
90
I
80
TO
SO
SO
4O
X
so
10
0
Releon i I at 0834
_ Observed by Evie K
Dtpth: 50-65 ft
9 9 7 a 9-1
TIME FROM HELCASE, MINUTES
_
-
-
-
-
1
\
\ ,
\/
V
1
1
/^
f
Release : 1 of 0
Obierved by Com
Depth: 44 ft
1
-
-
-
-
834
anche _
i
104-12345
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
Release > Z at 0920
I0_ Obeerved by Cvie K
Depth i 50-60 ft
I i
S 4 5 6 7-1
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
-
\
-
-
-
\
k „
1
1
>
A/
V
-
/
-
-
Releose: Z at 09ZO
Observed by Camanche -
Depth: 44ft
i t 1
1 0 -H i 3 4 36
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
Exhibit 177•
Oxygen Values Observed During First and Second Releases
From Dredge Harding, 29 January 1973 (A~8)
39A
-------
Release: 5 at 1032
Observed by Comancht
Depth: 40 ft
I 1
eo
Release: 3 at 1032
IO\- Observed by Evie K
Depth i 94-60 ft
2
TIME
3 •» S
FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
O IS 3
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
100
90
* 60
tC
I"
W
RtltOM: 4 at 1122
_ Obttrvtd by Evl* K
Depth i 40-90 ft
i I
I X 3 4 S -4
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
1
-
-
1
1
1
^ ^ )
^vV
1
V
-
Release: 4 at 1122
Obterved By Comonche
Depth: 40 ft
i i
-3
-Z -I O I 2
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
Exhibit 178. Oxygen Values Observed During Third
and Fourth Releases from Dredge Harding 29 January 1973
395
-------
o
£!
^
it
^
k.
s
v>
t~
hi
-------
Release : 6 at 1304
_ Observed by Evie K
Depth: 30-45 ft
2345
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
Exhibit 181. Oxygen Values Observed by R/V Evie-K During
Sixth Release From Dredge Harding, 29 January 1973 (A-8)
a
too
9O
0.0. PERCENT SATURAT
* 5 S S § 8 • 8 S.
1
"
-
-
Releatti 6 at
Observed by Co
r Depth: 36 ft
|
1
\
v
*s
1304
monche
1
-
-
-
-2
-I
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
Exhibit 182. Oxygen Values Observed During Sixth
Release by Dredge Harding on 29 January 1973 (A-8)
397
-------
u>
VO
oo
© Observed by Carnanche
Depth = 35 ft
Observed by Evie K
Depth = 40-48 ft
1234
TIME FROM RELEASE, MINUTES
Exhibit 183. Oxygen Values Observed R/V Camanche During
Sixth Release from Dredge Harding, 29 January 1973 (A-8)
-------
Core taken 17 January
D.O. in water column = 10.7 mg/1
pH in water column = 7.4
pH ronge in core *> 6.9-7.3
Core taken 29 January
0.0. in water column - 5.8 mg/l
pH in water column = 7.6
pH range in core = 7.0-7.4
DEPTH, cm
Exhibit 184. Redox Potential (Eh) Plotted Against
Depth of Measurement in sediment Cores Taken at Disposal Site
399
-------
Discussion -
The referenced study concludes that given an area subject to adequate
tidal mixing, short term effects on water quality due to disposal of
moderately polluted spoil will occur. Depressions in oxygen concen-
tration of up to 50 to 70 percent of the original dissolved oxygen
levels can result near the point of disposal lasting for 3 to 4 minutes.
The report further points out that the depression of D.O. is of such
brief duration that no harmful effects could be assigned toward the
deterioration of water quality. Various other studies, however, as pointed
out in the San Pablo Bay Study (Case Number 28 of this report), show
that even short term water quality degradations can be harmful to a
benthic community. Servizi et al conducted studies to determine
the effect of dredging and disposal of sediments, and recommended that
before dumping polluted sediment in open waters, four factors should
be considered: (a) turbidity created during disposal, (b) the oxygen
demand (COD) of the sediment, (c) the release of toxic hydrogen sulfide
during disposal, and (d) generation of hydrogen sulfide by the sediments
after they have settled. Separate field and laboratory studies made
by the U. S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service on hopper
disposal operations in certain reaches of the San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays reveal that the effectsof spoil disposal were not apparent in deep
areas due to rapid changes in variables such as salinity; however, in
other areas, it was concluded that spoil disposal and dredging operations
reduced the number and species of benthic organisms and demersal fish to
such an extent that for some species it took several months to reestablish
the species diversity index to the level as observed prior to dredging.
400
-------
Case 30. Effects of Dredging on the Nutrient Levels and Biological
Populations of a Lake
Source -
Constance L. Churchill, et al. Effects of Dredging on the Nutrient
Levels and Biological Populations of a Lake. Brookings Water Resources
Institute, South Dakota State University, August 1972.
Purposes -
1. To determine the change and rate of change of nutrient
levels due to dredging.
2. To determine the effects of these nutrient level changes
on the biological populations of the lake.
Site Description -
Lake Herman is located in Lake County, South Dakota, four miles
southwest of the city of Madison. An undisturbed lake nearby, Lake
Madison, was used as a control. Its average depth is 6-1/2 feet; its
surface area approximately 1,350 acres. Lake Herman's watershed is
56 sq. mile, a large part of it cultivated corn and small grain fields.
There are very few cabins or homes on the lake, although there is a
popular state park on the eastern shore, as well as a number of other
public and semipublic recreation areas.
Three major streams drain the watershed. These streams carry heavy
sediment loads, especially during the spring thaws and after storms
when large volumes of water are being transported. At present, 6 to
7 feet of silt have accumulated on the lake bottom. Exhibit 185 shows
the confirguration of the lake and basin; Exhibit 186 shows the water-
shed .
The lake is iced over from mid-November through mid-April. There are
frequent winter fish kills which have lately been prevented by coal
401
-------
Exhibit 185. Lake Herman: Its Tributaries
and Sampling Sites (A~9)
402
-------
N
(
.-I'
^ V/
\
W E
s
V —
One mile
Lake Herman and Its
Feeder Streams
Boundaries of Lake Herman
Watershed
Exhibit 186. Lake Herman with Watershed
(A-9)
%
J
/
403
-------
dusting and pumping. During the summers, the lake is often turbid due
to disruption of the sediment surface by wind and wave action. Heavy
algal blooms are common.
Time Frame -
Area landowners obtained a hydraulic dredge and began dredging the
bottom in July 1970, continuing through October. The same schedule
was used in 1971. The third dredging season began in May, 1972, and
continued through the end of the monitoring period used in this study.
The study project was carried out from July 1, 1969, through June 30,
1972.
Project Description -
The dredge pumped the sediments through a pipeline, floated on barrels,
to a low lying area on the Northern Shore of the lake (see Exhibit 187 ).
In the first two dredging seasons 52,000 cubic yards of sediment were
moved from the lake and deposited in the disposal area.
Study Method -
Water samples were periodically taken from four sites on the lake be-
fore and during the dredging activities. These samples were analyzed
for various chemical parameters and for the numbers and types of
various algal and planktonic organisms. Pre-dredging data was compared
with post-dredging data and both were compared with data from nearby
Lake Madison. Samples were also collected from the dredge pipe, the
silt deposit area, and the outlet from the deposit area where the water
was returned to the lake. Another plase of the study was the biologi-
cal analysis of the dredge spoil induced changes to the vegetation in
the silt deposit area.
A 04
-------
Silver Creek
LAKE HERMAN
Silt Deposit Area
Road
Exhibit 187. Silt Deposit Area in
Relation to Lake Herman (A-9)
405
-------
Parameters Measured -
Chemical
PH
Dissolved oxygen
COD
Chloride
Silica
Or tho-Pho sphorus
Ammonia
Nitrate
Nitrite
Hardness
Potassium
Phosphorus
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Physical
Conductivity
Temperature
Depth of Sample
Secchi Disk
Turbidity
Biological
Population densities
9 Green Algaes
2 Euglenoid
11 Diatoms
6 Blue Green Algaes
3 Copepoda
2 Cladocena
Results -
Of all the chemical parameters examined, the ones that were most affected
by the dredging were total phosphate and ortho-phosphate. Predredging
trends in Lake Herman and continuing trends in Lake Madison were charac-
terized by phosphorus levels rising sharply in the spring, rapidly level-
ing out and fluctuating during the summer and fall. The initiation of
dredging in 1970 resulted in a 300% increase in ortho-phosphate and a
slightly greater increase in total phosphate between the end of June and
October. Dredging was confined to the dredge bay, but phosphate in-
creases were throughout the lake. This was due possibly to a thick
growth of aquatic vegetation which cut this section off from the
406
-------
remainder of the lake. During the next winter, (1970-71), levels
remained high. They peaked at the first spring runoff in February and
declined to a level that was still higher than the previous year.
Dredging again caused sharp rises which remained high throughout the
dredging season. During the fall and winter, levels decreased to normal
values. (See Exhibits 188 through 191.)
Other changes noted were a sharper rise of alkalinity in the spring, a
slight, long range increase of silica and a greater increase in turbidity.
In addition both hardness and calcium levels decreased. This was attrib-
uted to the formation of insoluble calcium phosphates that occurred due
to the increased phosphate concentrations. (See Exhibits 192 through 195 .)
The changes in the biological activities that were observed were deter-
mined to be unrelated to the dredging activities. This observation and
the very lovr nitrogen levels indicate that phosphorus is not the limiting
nutrient in this lake. Exhibit 196 shows the total phytoplankton den-
sitites in 1968 and 1970.
Examination of the samples taken from the disposal area provided some
interesting results. The pH of the water returned to the lake from the
disposal area averaged 7.86 while the lake water from which it was origi-
nally pumped (and to which it returned) averaged 9.06. The data is given
in Exhibit 197.
The other major effect was that the ortho-phosphates in the spoils area
were lower than in the lake (see Exhibit 198 ). At the initiation of
dredging, the concentrations in the silt deposits were 75 percent of the
lake values. This value decreased in the next four months while dredging
continued to 10 percent of the value in the lake. The reason for this is
not completely understood, but at least one author has suggested that the
primary concentration of phosphorus is in the top few inches of sediment
and that the disruption of this layer at the initiation of dredging
caused the increase in lake phosphates, leaving the sediments with lower
407
-------
2.5-
2.0- •
1.5- •
.-
c
DC
X!
P.
O.
O
1.0- -
0.5- -
0.0
O
flC-
(3 O^
»-» r-
•Lake Madison (average of 3 sites)
Lake Herman (average of 3 sites) x
Southeast Lake Herman /
r
r
£1
i.
0
h
a.
a
a
c
i
N
Pi
c
Cfl
c
O
O
z
Exhibit 188. Orthophosphate Levels in Lakes Herman
and Madison During 1970 (A-9)
-------
3.75 --
p
a
V,
vr
o
CL-
OD
B
00
n
o
•g.
.-.
J
-
3.00 -
2.254-
1.50
0.75
— Lake Madison (average of 3 sites)
— • Lake Herman (average of 3 sites)
..... Southeast Lake Herman
0.00
O
o r-
£1
e
-
-
I
-
>-,
H
3
I
U
O
U
Exhibit 189. Total Phosphorus Levels in Lake Herman
and Madison During 1970 (A-9)
-------
Of
4*
to
Q.
tn
o
a.
o
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
average of four
sites
0.4
Jan
' Feb '
Mar
April
May ' June ' July ' Aug ' Sept ' Oct
Exhibit 190. Orthophosphate Levels in Lake Herman
Durin* 1971 (A"9)
-------
7.0 -
6.0 .
5.0 .
3f— Average of 4 sites
>
o.
in
fe
o
s
•s.
4.0 .
2.0 -
1.0 .
1 Jan ' Feb ' Mar ' April ' May ' June ' July ' Aug ' Sept * Oct
Exhibit 191. Total Phosphorus Levels in
Lake Herman During 1971(A~9>
-------
Exhibit 192. ALKALINITY LEVELS IN LAKES HERMAN
AND MADISON DURING 1970 (A-9)
Values are Averages for Multiple Sitesi
And Collections During Month
Lake Madison
Lake Herman
Month Alkalinity (mg CaCOVl)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
177
183
94
144
158
174
168
170
170
170
167
172
Alkalinity (rr,g CaC03/l)
212
224
46.1
144
151
157
140 (150)*
154 (161)*
170 (177)*
187
189
220
*Represent averages excluding southeast samples which were much lower
than remainder of lake
412
-------
Exhibit 193. SILICA AND TURBIDITY LEVELS
IN LAKES HERMAN AND MADISON DURING 1970 (A-9)
Values are Averages for Multiple Sites and Collections During Month
Lake Madison Lake Herman
Silica Silica
Lake Madison
Turbidity
Lake Herman
Turbidity
Month (m« SiOjl)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
4.38
5.12
5.84
0.69
3.14
11.6
22.7
29.2
29.9
23,7
18.4
19.3
(mg SiOn/l) ( Jackson Units'*
10.2
22.8
6.57
12.7
10.6
11.0
14.0 (15.8)*
20.4 (22.7)*
24.0 (24.8)*
21.8
16.6
19.7
..
--
25
23
16
13
25
24
14.4
14.5
14.2
18.6
(Jackson Units)
•MM
29
25
15
14
27.8
30.4
33.1
23.2
22.5
21.6
*Represent averages excluding southeast samples which were much lower
than remainder of lake.
413
-------
mg S102/1
30.0 ~
~X~ Average of north, center, and dredge sites
-£>- - Southeast site
24.0 -
18.0
12.0 -
6.0 ~
0.0 - Jan
< Feb I Mar I April I May I June I July I Aug i Sept t Oct * Nov ! Dec
Exhibit 194. Silica Levels in Lake Herman
During 1970 (A-9)
-------
ng/1
120.0 -
100.0 .
80.0 -
60.0 -
40.0 -
20.0
O---O-
G'
\ \
\
\
Lake Hernan (average of 4 sites)
- -G-- Lake Madison (average of 3 sites)
Jan Feb Mar * April ' May June July Aug Sept ' Oct
Exhibit 195. Calcium Levels in Lake Herman
and Madison During 1970 (A-9)
-------
10,000-
1,000 -
-X-
100
10 -
0-
iq
.0
o
u.
I-
S
4
o
o
Q
Exhibit 196. Total Phytoplankton Population Densities
in Lake Herman During 1968 and 1970
-------
Exhibit 197. CHANGES IN pH FROM LAKE
TO SILT DEPOSIT AREA
-------
Exhibit 198. CHANGES IN ORTHOPHOSPATE
FROM LAKE TO SILT DEPOSIT AREA (A
mg P04/1
Date
7/28/70
8/11/70
8/18/70
8/26/70
9/3/70
9/22/70
10/6/70
10/13/70
10/21/70
11/3/70
7/13/71
8/18/71
8/25/71
9/13/71
Dredge Bay
of Lake
0.88
1.14
1.16
—
1.48
1.52
1.66
1.61
1.72
1.72
1.47
1.29
1.59
1.25
Dredge Pipe
Effluent
—
0.72
0.72
0.72
1.08
0.40
0.32
0.88
0.38
•P «•
0.29
0.19
0.35
0.54
Silt Deposit
Area
0.45
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.60
0.34
—
00
—
0.19
--
0.45
0.48
0.30
Deposit Area
Outlet
..
0.80
--
0.62
0.35
0.38
0.51
0.29
0.27
0.17
..
—
0.57
• OT
418
-------
phosphorus levels. As dredging proceeded, the lower layers with less
phosphorus were dumped in the disposal area, causing the phosphate
levels to decrease still further.
The primary results of this study indicate that although dredging caused
a large increase in phosphate levels, this change had no discernible ill
effects on the biological components of this ecosystem.
419
-------
Case 31. Study of Engineering Characteristics of Polluted Dredging
Source -
Krlzek, R. J., Karadi, Gabor M. and Nammel, P. L., Engineering Charac-
teristics of Polluted Dredging, Northwestern University Department of
Civil Engineering, Evanston, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, March 1973.
Purpose -
To examine the various physical, chemical, biological and engineering
properties of the polluted maintenance dredgings taken from dredge hop-
pers, discharge pipes, fill areas, overflow weirs, and adjoining waters
of several harbors along the Great Lakes. The results of the tests were
to be used (a) to determine the pollution potential of the dredged
materials, (b) to estimate the variations of the different water quality
parameters measured for different locations; (c) to understand the en-
gineering properties of the landfills and disposal sites, and (d) to
identify the proper additive to improve the suitability of dredgings as
building construction material or landfill material which may easily be
used for wildlife refugees or recreational parks. The main idea of this
overall investigation was to alleviate the environmental degradation
caused by unsightly, unhealthy, and useless dredge disposal sites, and to
transform the worthless dredging wastes into useful landfill materials.
Period of Study -
From October to July 1971.
Study Sites -
(a) Sampling sites were the following seven cities along the Great Lake.
1. Chicago, Illinois 5. Monroe, Michigan
2. Cleveland, Ohio 6. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
3. Detroit, Michigan 7. Toledo, Ohio
4. Green Bay, Wisconsin
420
-------
The specific locations at which the samples were taken are shown in a
series of detailed maps. (See Exhibit 199 as an example.)
(b) Testing was done primarily at Northwestern University. Some supple-
mentary tests were conducted at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
and in the field at Toledo, Ohio. Some laboratory tests were performed
by the EPA laboratory in Chicago.
Sampling Techniques and Scope of Tests/Study -
In order to get representative dredging samples, selective samples were
taken at several different stages of dredging activities, e.g., before
and during dredging operations, and during and after disposal operations.
Generally, sampling was accomplished by use of an Ekman dredge or flap
valve sediment sampler. The testing procedures used were generally those
given in the Thirteenth Edition (1971) of Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Waste Water.* but due to high concentrations of inter-
fering compounds in some tests, small modifications were made.
Parameters Measured -
1. Northwestern University performed tests on 75 samples for the fol-
lowing parameters:
(a) Metals: aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, calcium, copper, soluble
and total iron, lead, mercury, potassium, and sodium.
(b) Inorganics: ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate
nitrogen, soluble and total phosphate, sulfide, and cyanide.
(c) Organics: Organic nitrogen, hydrocarbon, oil and grease, and
phenols.
(d) Biological: chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand,
and dissolved oxygen.
(e) Other: hydrogen ion concentration (pH), oxidation - reduction
potential, turbidity, acidity, volatile solids, suspended sol-
ids and total solids.
^Published by American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
421
-------
Penn 7 Disposal Area
Penn 8 Disposal Area
BH-I BH-2
• *
BH-3. .
BH-4
BH-0
BH-6
Discharge Pipe
C22TO\ BH-8
C23TO
BH-9
BH-7.
Island Disposal Area
Exhibit 199. Example of Detailed Maps Showing
Location of Sampling Sites (A~33)
422
-------
2. University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee tested thirteen samples for:
(a) clay minerology
(b) cation exchange capacity
(c) relative concentration of ions (seven)
(d) calcium carbonate - calcite and dolomite
(e) hydrogen ion concentration (pH)
(f) organic carbon
3. Field Tests at Toledo - Ohio
(a) For Surface: pH, turbidity, nitrogen, total alkalinity,
phosphate, total hardness and iron.
(b) Bottom Sediment: hydrogen sulfide, odor
4. EPA Laboratory; Pesticide tests of bottom sediments
Results -
Space limitations preclude inclusion of all quantitative results of in-
terest that are contained in the referenced source document (about 330
pages). Examples of the analytical results obtained by the various test-
ing organizations that participated in the study are reproduced in a
series of exhibits in order that the reader may be aware of their nature
and to aid him in deciding whether to go to the source document for addi-
tional detail.
- Examples of results from Northwestern University tests appear
in Exhibit 200 ,
- Example of University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee test results
appears in Exhibit 201 .
- Example of EPA Chicago Laboratory test results appears in
Exhibit 202.
- Example of a special Field Task at Toledo, Ohio appears in
Exhibit 203.
423
-------
Exhibit 200 • EXAMPLE OF RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
PERFORMED BY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
•5
u
A9
A10
All
Alt
All
Alt
All
All
All
AI9
All
s
"5
%
0.0909
0.01*1
0.09H
0.0141
B.OI44
0.0451
O.Oill
0.0441
0.04N
0.0111
0.041)
0.0)90
V
a •»
o-'H
> 0
o10
t°
%
9.40
10.91
10. U
11.04
11.11
11.11
15.99
11.17
19.44
14.15
11.11
JI.4I
•O
-c
C
!.«
"Z
a
£
°-',
O.H
0.44
1.16
1-tk
10.17
1.4f
7.t4
4.11
1.16)
5.9k
14.09
Total Volatile
Suspended Sol
% j
0
0
.50
.it
.04
.21
.15
.41
.•I
.11
.11
.ll
>s
'•5
JTIJ
.10
.11
.1
.4
.0
1 .0
11.0
lt.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
19.0
U
rt>?/!jm
115
119
109
415
111
111
111
Ml
111
Ml
lit
r*
Hydrogen lo
Concentration (
1.1
1.1
1.4
7.5
1.9
7.1
l.t
7.1
7.1
,b~
Dxidation-Rj&K:
Potential (Eh
mv
o
ms/jm
0.1
U.I
1.3
lt.0
•4.4
W.l
11.1
:».»
11. •
&~
o o
'5> E
ffi
t.l
0
79.1
tl.l
11.0
79. 7
45.1
0.9
0.1
•z.
§i
°I
r,g/?m
1.44
4.71
1.11
1.11
l.ll
1.11
l.U
>.«>
1.41
—
±L*
° s
If
E 2
10.71
0.07
0.60
O.tl
0
I.IO
0.91
0.09
1.94
*
0
Nitrite (N02
Nitrogen (N
mcj/gm
1.01
1.17
0
0.04
0.0)
1.90
l.ll
0.04
l.ll
1.41
ii
O 0
Z Z
rnq/?m
11.11
7.H
0.01
0.14
0
1.95
10.01
i.9)
0
0
.-5
Total
Phosphote (PC
rr*)/«m
.»
1 .)•
.11
.41
.51
.11
.11
.11
.51
.41
.44
.M
5
Soluble
Phosphote (PC
mfl/'jm
«...
1.01
«.99
1.47
1.71
1.04
1.19
I.It
0.01
1.14
1
U
Al
A9
AIO
All
All
All
Alt
Alt
All
All
AI9
Alt
HI
All
8
o
6
1x3,91.
Hydrocarbons
T.g/^T.
^^
Aluminum (A
-r/STi
0
t
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.59
7.15
0
CO
u
'c
CO
-nq/yr.
0
0
0
Calcium (Co
TVly*J.T
144
11
119
U
19
70
711
lit
14)
tit
141
170
til
441
tit
3
w'
6)
a
o
o
ng/<;m
0
t
0
It. 71
104. 1)
11 .94
.70
.19
.»
.01
.00
.51
.51
.11
.to
o
mg/^m
a. 40
.0
0.44
4.0!
1.10
15. )0
«.M
1.44
l.ll
U.ll
11.17
17.01
l.ll
).ll
l.M
l*"
C
O
35
1
T.g/7T.
0.01
0.07
0
0
0
0
,
0
I.It
1.19
1.14
Potassium (i
rrg/^T
15.1
11.0
50.0
1.1
l.t
II. t
11.5
11.1
It.t
io, r
U.I
n.i
10.7
11.7
11.1
0
j/5
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
o
t/)
ITXJ/ST,
5).l
tl.l
116.4
11.9
16.6
14.1
41.7
40.0
il.J
45.1
It. I
41.1
tl.l
57.1
a>
T.q/grr
„
Cadmium (Cc
^q/qm
y
*
c
o
o"
.9^'
0
0
t
o
1
0
0>
_J
uq/ym
in
ID
909
S
1
,V3/
-------
Exhibit 201. EXAMPLE OF RESULTS OF CHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL
ANALYSIS OF SEVERAL DREDGINGS, PERFORMED BY UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN AT -MILWAUKEE(A-33)
-F-
N>
*
CIOM
CJDK
OTO
C4TO
MCO
C7MU
91DM
ono
54CO
Clay Mineral (t)
—
C
70
60
50
50
60
--
—
65
50
75
<>
^J
e
3
X
30
20
15
15
20
•'
--
35
15
25
v
^
X
X
Trace
20
35
35
20
—
--
Trace
35
Trace
^
••
•i
m
o
.a
b
U
31.8
29.3
35.6
36.4
36.6
39.9
38.4
24.6
28.1
39.9
W
u
*
22.2
19.0
19,7
21.8
«
9.9
9.6
16.9
g
•
^4
8
o
9.6
10.3
15.9
14.6
—
30.0
28.8
11.2
—
f
S r
00 «
•a c
X V
1
8.2
7.6
7.4
7.2
8.0
6.4
7.1
7.2
6.9
7.8
s
o
b
**4
C
«Q
fi
9.5
8.8
3.6
3.7
10.5
15.1
7.7
8 a
10. 1
5*1
6.8
x
u
HS
0 w'u
00 O u
S2S
K U K
0,0
u
13.6
15.1
IS. 2
15.3
15.3
21.9
14.8
14.0
15.8
11.9
Ian a
(meq relative to mllllequlvalent of Calcium)
.-
•<
E
^•i
6-. 7
3.3
1.7
2.8
2.8
3.6
4.4
3.7
1.4
2.6
.3,
u
g
a
«
0
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
«
^^
c
£
0.36
0.31
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.21
0.15
0.32
0.19
**,
2
0.043
0.008
...
...
...
...
...
§
«
O
in
0.230
0.170
0.060
0.120
0.050
0.035
0.035
0.060
0.050
0.070
^
^*
.4
O
a.
0.052
0.030
o.oia
0.033
0.030
0.019
0.023
0.033
0.023
0.028
"5
*^
0
«
M
C
£
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
-------
Exhibit 202. EXAMPLE OF RESULTS OF PESTICIDE ANALYSES
OF BOTTOM SEDIMENTS PERFORMED BY EPA LABORATORY IN CHICAGO
Pesticide
(ng/kg or ppt)
Llndane
Hcptachlor
Aldrln
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Dicldrln
Endrln
o, p-DDE
P, p'-DDE
o, p-DDD
P. p'-DDT
o, p-DDT
EPA Sample Number
8211
8212
8213
8214
Northwestern University Sample Number
C2DM
35,309
70,955
44,876
98,645
<1
<1
16,365
120,563
110,053
68,148
89,293
121,637
C3TO
33,194
9,563
32,566
43,335
<1
<1>
<1
47,379
43,127
20,964
34,305
15,558
C5TO
1,819
24,818
28,959
82,463
-------
Exhibit 203. EXAMPLE OF RESULTS OF CHEMICAL
CHARACTERIZATION OF FIELD SAMPLES AT TOLEDO(A~33)
Irf
«
u
5
«*
o
-------
The results of the above-cited analyses, when compared with suggested
EPA guidelines for limiting concentrations of bottom sediments (See
Exhibit 10), clearly show that the dredgings tested here are polluted
though the extent of pollution varies from harbor to harbor and from
sample to sample within one harbor. In some cases, the intensity of one
or two parameters makes the dredgings highly polluted. The results also
reveal that the dredgings are highly rich in plant nutrients, and when
used as landfills, they will result in rapid growth of dense vegetation
which will serve as food and shelter for animals in those areas or as
flora for recreational parks. But before initiation of such actions,
other processes which might involve possible pollution of groundwater,
reservoirs and the subsequent effects of man must be considered.
428
-------
Case 32. Hydraulic Dredging and the Effect of a Method of Spoil
Disposal on Water Quality and Juvenile Salmon Survival In
Port Gardner, Everett, Washington.
Source -
G. S. Jeane, II, and R. E. Pine, Hydraulic Dredging and the Effect
of a Method of Spoil Disposal on Water Quality and Juvenile Salmon
Survival in Port Gardner, Everett. Washington, Washington State Univer-
sity Department of Ecology, February 1973.(A~3°)
Project Description-
To determine the effects of a dredging project in Everett Harbor,
Washington, on the water quality of the harbor and bay, and to provide
background data for the development of guidelines for dredging and
dredge spoil disposal.
Project Description -
3
Approximately 66,300 m of sediment were pumped into a two-cell settling
basin by a cutter suction dredge. The project was designed to expand
the cargo handling and ship docking capacity at the Hewitt Avenue ter-
minal in the Fort of Everett. Settling basins were constructed on
both sides of Pier 3 (Exhibit 204). These basins were filled with the sedi-
ments dredged from the berthing areas adjacent to the pier. The
berths were dredged to 7.6 m on the north and 12.8 m on the south side
of the pier. The fill areas were built up to 6 m above MLLW (mean
lower low water). In addition, an old pier was removed.
The dredged sediment fell into two classes: coarse sand and a fine-
grained sludge-like material consisting of organic material and indus-
o
trial wastes. The dredge had a pumping capability of 94.6 m /min of
water containing 15 to 18 percent solids. The settling basins were
equipped with an effluent weir.
429
-------
XXX XX
COARSE MATERIAL
SLUDGE LIKE MATERIAL
FILL AREA
SAMPLING STATION
SCOTT PAPER
COMPANY
WORTH CELL
SOUTH CELL
N
WEYERHAEUSER
SULFITE PULP MILL
Exhibit 204. Location of Stations and Sediment Types (A-3°)
430
-------
Study Method -
Water quality and mortality rates of juvenile chinook salmon were
determined both before and during dredging. The two sediment types
were dredged separately. Fourteen stations were used, distributed to
provide information on the dilution of the settling basin effluent
(1, 2, 3, 4, 6); the efficiency of the basin (12, 13, 14); and the
local effects of the dredging activity (station locations are shown in
Exhibit 204). Samples were taken at 0.5 and 4.0 m depth. Five fish
were kept at each station in live boxes made from 18-inch pieces of
12-inch fiberglass pipe.
Parameters Measured -
Conductivity Turbidity
Salinity Sulfides
Temperature Settleable solids
pH Volatile solids
Dissolved oxygen Mercury
Pearl Benson Index (FBI) Secci transparency
Results -
Water quality in the harbor before dredging is indicated in Exhibit 205.
Water quality data observed during dredging of coarse materials and
sludge are shown in Exhibits 206 and 207, respectively, salmon mortality
data are given in Exhibit 208, and water quality data for the settling
basins are presented in Exhibit 209.
Dissolved oxygen levels fell to approximately 60% of the predredge
levels during the dredging of the sand, and to about 50% of the pre-
dredge level during the removal of the muds. FBI values decreased
during' coarse material dredging, but were up to twice the predredge
values during the removal of the sludge-like material. Turbidity
was excessive only in the immediate dredge area and near the
settling basin outlet. Mercury values were 0.2 to 0.3 ppb during
431
-------
Exhibit 205. WATER QUALITY DATA OBSERVED
PRIOR TO DREDGING (A-30)
TOTAL
Hg SULFIDES
STA METERS mg/1 mg/1 JTU METERS (%) ppb mg/1
3.0 N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
4.9
1.4
N.D.
1.6 N.D.
3.5 N.D.
N.D.
2.7 N.D.
2.1 N.D.
N.D.
2.1
3.0
N.D.
2.3 N.D.
4.3 N.D.
5.1 N.D.
5.4 N.D.
2.9 N.D.
4.5 N.D.
2.9 N.D.
1.7 13
10
2.6 N.D.
3.0 N.D.
1.8
11
2.4 N.D.
3.5
N.D.
432
DEPTH
METERS
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
mg/1
7.4
7.3
6.1
6.4
6.3
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.4
6.3
6.8
6.3
6.5
8.7
7.7
8.1
7.1
8.2
7.5
7.1
FBI
mg/1
18
90
118
90
104
240
63
95
95
113
86
45.
203
72
63
90
68
59
99
68
68
41
36
41
41
90
63
27
81
59
72
TURB
JTU
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
SECCHI
DISK
METERS
1.2
1.4.
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
VOLATILE
SOLIDS
(%)
13
13
10
15
15
15
12
14
17
20
13
12
14
16
16
11
11
13
16
17
16
16
19
16
11
13
13
17
18
17
19
None Detected
-------
Exhibit 206. WATER QUALITY DATA OBSERVED DURING
DREDGING OF COARSE MATERIAL (A-30)
STA
10
11
DISSOLVED
DEPTH OXYGEN
METERS mg/1
0.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
6.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
0.5
4
4.8
5.0
4.2
4.7
5.1
5.6
4.7
4.7
5.5
4.1
5.4
4.0
5.7
4.5
4.3
3.7
5.5
4.6
4.1
3.9
5.8
5.6
4.2
5.0
6.1
4.5
4.0
3.4
6.0
5.0
4.2
3.8
5.6
4.3
FBI
mg/1
9
14
14
18
18
14
9
23
14
41
14
14
14
18
14
23
9
18
14
18
14
23
18
18
9
27
14
23
18
23
14
18
23
23
TURB
JTU
1
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
SECCHI
DISK
METERS
1.5
0.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
•2.1
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.4
2.4
1.5
1.8
VOLATILE TOTAL
SOLIDS Hg SULFIDES
(%) PPb mg/1
13.5
15.0
13.5
15.7
14.1
12.6
15.0
12.5
13.2
11.9
13.5
11.5
11.8
11.3
11.8
11.7
11.8
10.8
13.1
11.2
11.8
16.3
12.6
11.7
13.6
12.4
11.4
13.2
16.2
10.4
10.4
10.7
0.14
0.80
0.21
N.D.
0.25 N.D.
N.D.
0.33 N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.21
0.11
0.21
0.33 N.D.
N.D. a None Detected
433
-------
Exhibit 207. WATER QUALITY DATA OBSERVED
DURING DREDGING OF SLUDGE MATERIAL (A-30)
STA
DISSOLVED
DEPTH OXYGEN
METERS mg/1
10
11
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.1
4.0
3.6
3.4
2.6
4.5
4.1
3.0
3.9
3.2
3.4
3.6
4.7
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.7
3.4
2.6
3.5
4.8
3.4
4.0
3.5
5.1
2.9
3.5
4.0
3.7
3.6
4.0
FBI
mg/1
360
325
330
115
465
85
370
75
610
70
500
105
500
90
340
70
435
75
315
80
565
85
465
60
435
70
330
100
320
70
295
60
345
65
60
45
TURB
JTU
25
30
26
6
15
4
15
1
2
1
2
5
3
1
6
5
3
1
6
8
3
1
5
15
1
0
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
SECCHI
DISK
METERS
0.9
0.3
1.1
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
VOLATILE TOTAL
SOLIDS Hg SULFIDES
(%) ppb mg/1
15.3
16.0
15.4
15.9
18.2
52.5
18.2
25.9
18.7
36.4
19.1
39.3
18.6
51.7
19.9
45.8
19.9
49.6
16.9
31.9
17.5
89.6
19.2
60.8
21.7.
39.1
23.1
57.8
10.9
18.1
11.6
17.7
11.3
16.5
5.5
0.11
.0.25
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.08
N.D.
N.D.
N.D. « None Detected
434
-------
Exhibit 208. PER CENT MORTALITY OF IN SITU BIOASSAYS
FOR 24 HOURS EXPOSURE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)(A~30'
STATION PREDRED6E .COARSE MATERIAL SLUDGE MATERIAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7_
8
9
10
11
0
0 (7 hours)
0 (7 hours)
0
0
0
0
0
0 (7 hours)
0
0 (5 hours)
60%
100
0
0
20
20
0 (4 hours)
0
0
0 (4 hours)
0
20
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0 (5 hours)
435
-------
Exhibit 209. SETTLING BASIN WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS(A~3°)
STATION
12
13
14
12
13
14
TOTAL
SULFIDES
mg/1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
4.0
1.5
N.D.
N.D.
0.5
N.D.
8.0
N.D.
SETTLEABLE VOLATILE
SOLIDS SOLIDS
ml (%)
COARSE MATERIAL
Trace
Trace
37
25
150
Trace
SLUDGE MATERIAL
2.5
0.5
250
200
50
125
STUDY
10.9
10.8
11.1
11.9
11.0
9.0
STUDY
18
TURB
JTU
50
25
40
35
750
750
180
70
2000
2000
2000
1000
FBI
mg/1
9
9
5
9
9
5
23
41
570
41
23
5
Hg
PPb
0.21
0.29
0.17
0.27
0.25
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.11
N.D. = None Detected
-------
dredging, compared with 2 to 5 ppb prior to- dredging. Sulfides
ranged to 8 mg/l.at the spoil landing, but were nil at the outlet
weir. Salmon mortalities were not significant in the dredging and
outfall areas, although some stress was noted in the salmon located
near the spoil discharge. The only high mortality rate was observed
at station 3 which was not near either the dredging area or the out-
flow, but happened to be near the outfall of a nearby paper mill.
The referenced report shows the results of a well-prepared dredging
and spoil disposal program that did not significantly affect the
surrounding bay, even during the actual removal of material.
437
-------
Case 33. Demonstration of the Separation and Disposal of Concentrated
Sediments, Prince George's County. Maryland.
Source -
Hittman Associates, Inc., Demonstration of the Separation and Disposal
of Concentrated Sediments. Prince George's County. Maryland, HIT-570,
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Columbia, Maryland,
February 1974.(A"25)
Purpose -
This project was designed to demonstrate: 1) a technique for small
maintenance dredging operations which would have minimal adverse effects
on the surrounding water body; and 2) a sediment processing system re-
quiring a relatively small area, capable of removing most of the solids
and returning clean water to the pond.
Site Description -
The pond chosen for this project was a small pond at the Bowie Airpark
Site in Prince George's County, Maryland. Its characteristics are
presented in Exhibit 210. Two years after it was built, it was 99
percent filled with sediment. The spillway elevations were raised in
order to acquire the necessary depth (21 inches) to operate the dredge.
Sediment characteristics were determined from cores of the undisturbed
sediment deposits. Sediment sizes are shown in Exhibit 211• Approxi-
mately 80 percent were between 10 and 100 microns in diameter. The
initial water quality was determined from water samples taken two
months before the dredging operations. Results appear in Exhibit 212.
Project Description -
The dredging operations consisted of two main components - the dredge
itself and the processing and treatment equipment. The dredge used in
this study was a Mud Cat, designed for use on small lakes
438
-------
Exhibit 210. DEMONSTRATION POND CHARACTERISTICS
(BOWIE, MARYLAND)(A-25)
Surface Area
Maximum Depth
Present Condition
Age
Estimated Capacity
1.7 acres
9.0 feet
99 percent filled with sediment
2 years
14,000 cubic yards
Exhibit 211. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPOSITE
SEDIMENT IN POND BEFORE DREDGING
Grain Diameter (microns)
250
150
100
40
8
3
1
Percent Finer
99
95
91
12
7
6
2
Average Specific Gravity =2.3
In-Place Moisture Content - 28.8 to 50.3 percent
439
-------
Exhibit 212. POND WATER QUALITY BEFORE
DREDGING OPERATIONS
Constituent
Concentration (mg/1 unless stated otherwise)
Location
Sulphate
Phosphate
Iron
Copper
Zinc
NH
COD
Total Nitrogen
Coliform (Presumptive)
PH
Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Solids
Turbidity (JTU)
Oxida t ion-Reduc t ion
Potential (mv)
Location Description:
1 2
10
0.9
0.45
0.35
0.00
0.8
-
12.0
Positive 5/5
6.0
_
531
-
2980
-
50
3
23
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.7
3.4
9.0
-
6.75
381
67
57
505
130
60
4
50
1.4
0.7
0.5
3.25
1.6
7.6
13.0
-
6.1
745
68
21
834
135
75
5
28
0.2
0.25
0.15
0.00
0.4
1.6
14.0
-
6.1
37
42
48
137
13
20
1 - Pond inflow from watershed
2,3 - Near the inflow end of the pond
4 - Near the discharge end of the pond
5 - Pond discharge
440
-------
to impart minimum turbidity to the water during its operation. Its
capacity is approximately 2000 gallons per minute with a slurry solids
concentration of 10 to 30 percent. Its maximum operating depth is
10.5 feet.
The processing system was composed of a pair of elevated settling bins,
a bank of hydrocyclones, a standard cartridge-type water filter unit,
and a bag-type filter. This filter is composed of a number of large-
diameter hanging hoses through which the dirty water is pumped. The
clean water filters through the hose and the sludge is periodically
flushed. The system also incorporates a local temporary holding basin
and a sludge disposal area. Exhibit 213 is a flow chart for the processing
operations, including a mass balance.
Study Method -
During the dredging operation, water samples were taken from directly
behind the dredge. These samples were analyzed to determine the amount
of sediment resuspension due to the dredging activity. In addition,
samples were taken from undisturbed water and compared with samples
from the dredged slurry. Additional samples were taken after various
phases of processing.
Parameters Measured -
Sulfate NH, Suspended Solids
Phosphate COD Volatile Solids
Iron Total Nitrogen Total Dissolved Solids
Copper Coliform Total Solids
Zinc pH Turbidity
Redox Potential Concentrations of
resuspended solids
at various distances
from dredge
Additional parameters were also measured for certain samples.
441
-------
2109 Ib/mln.
HUD CAT
discharge
3152 Ib/min.
Temporary
Holding/Settling
Basin
Initial
Separation
Two 36-yard
Elevated Bins
trucl ing
782 11
/min.
Final
Filtration
Secondary
Separation
Uni-Flow
Filter
Hydro cyclones
Filter Unit
backflush
108 Ib/min
backflush
90 Ib/min.
backflush
62 Ibs/min.
Bin Solids
Disposal Area
Sludge Disposal
Area
Return Water
to Pond
Ib/min.
260 Ib/min. totoal
Exhibit 213. Flow Chart and Solids Balance for
Processing System
-------
Results -
During this study, 10,000 cubic yards of sediment was dredged from the
pond. Exhibit 214 lists the fractions (of the total volume of sediment
removed from the pond) that were removed by the various processing
operations.
Exhibit 215 compares the chemical data for the dredged sediment and
the lake water. Exhibit 216 gives the resuspension data. Exhibit 217
gives the results for the water quality after passing through various
stages of treatment.
Average sediment concentration coming from the dredge was 170,300 mg/1.
Average output from the processing system was 445 mg/1. Resuspension
was low, its effects limited to within 20 feet of the dredge. The
maximum concentration measured within the plume was 1,260 mg/1.
Altogether, this study describes an effective dredging program that
can be used to extend the life of sediment-clogged ponds without adverse
effects to the water quality.
443
-------
Exhibit 214. DESTINATION OF DREDGED SEDIMENT
Destination
Quantity (cu.yd.)
Settled in Bins
Processed Through Remainder of System
Total Removed by System
Bins Overflow to Holding Basin
Total Pumped to Head End of System
Pumped to Conventional Settling Basin
Total Removed from Pond
750
250
1,000
2.000
3,000
7,000
10,000
444
-------
Exhibit 215. ANALYSES OF COMPOSITE POND WATER
SAMPLE AND DREDGED SLURRY SAMPLES
Constituent Concentration (ppm unless stated otherwise)
Pond Water Dredged Slurry
Zinc, as Zn 0.0 0"^
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 0.000 0-000
Oil and Crease 24 7.5
Total Organic Carbon 12 68
Mercury, as Hg 0.0 0.0
Lead, as Pb ' 0.0 0.0
Oxidation-Reduction Potential -4 mv +14 mv
Total Dissolved Solids, @ 105° C. 148 77
Phenolphthalein Alkalinity, as CaCO 0 0
Total Alkalinity, as CaCO 36 15
Carbonate Alkalinity, as CaCOs 0 0
Bicarbonate Alkalinity, as CaC03 36 15
Carbonates, as CO3 0 0
Bicarbonates, as HCO3 43.9 18.3
Hydroxides, as OH 0 0
Carbon Dioxide, as CO2 6 200
Chloride,as Cl 42 30
Sulfate, as SO/, 52 39
Fluoride, as F 0.0 0.0
Phosphate, as PO4 0.3 0.55
pH (Laboratory) 7.1 5.1
pHs 8.8 9.3
Stability Index 1Q.5 .13.5
Saturation Index --1.7 -4.2
Total Hardness, as CaCO3 39 15
Calcium Hardness, as CaC03 18 -12
Magnesium Hardness, as CaCO3 21 3
Calcium, as Ca 7.2 4.8
Magnesium, as Mg 5.1 0.7
Sodium, as Na 9.6 8.1
Iron, as Fe 5.6 9
Manganese, as Mn 0 3.7
Copper, as Cu 0.02 0.0
Silica, asSi02 6 n
Color, Standard Platinum Cobalt Scale 65 go
Odor Threshold • 0 5
Turbidity, Jackson Units 20 100+
445
-------
Exhibit 216. RESUSPENSION OF POND SEDIMENTS
(a) RESUSPENSION OF POND SEDIMENTS
DURING DREDGING
7/5/73
Operating
Condition
Before
Dredging
Dredging
(forward cut)
Distance from
Front of Dredge
(ft.)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
20
Depth below Suspended
Surface (ft.) Solids Concen.
1
3
5
7 (bottom)
1
5
7 (bottom)
1
5
1
(b) RESUSPENSION OF POND SEDIMENTS DURING DREDGING
Operating
Condition
Before
Dredging
Dredging
(forward cut)
Dredging
(forward cut)
Dredging
(forward cut)
Distance from
Front of Dredge
(ft.)
5
4
10
10
20
Depth below
Surface (ft.)
Depth Integrated
Composite - 0 ft.
to bottom
1
1
5
1
(mg/1)
39
50
64
523
88
179
1260
54
86
39
- 7/6/73
Suspended
Solids Concen
(mg/1)
89
900
649
175
226
446
Page I of 2.
-------
Exhibit 216 (continued). RESUSPENSION OF
POND SEDIMENTS
(c) RESUSPENSION OF POND SEDIMENTS DURING DREDGING - 7/11/73
Operating Distance from
Condition Dredge (ft.)
Before Dredging 5 ft. from front
Dredging
(forward cut) 5 ft. from front
Dredging
(forward cut) 5 ft. from side
Dredging
(forward cut) 1 ft. behind
Depth below
Surface (ft.)
• 1
4
7 (bottom)
1
7 (bottom)
1
1
Suspended
Solids Concen
(mg/l)
18
75
1000
72
1257
89
1262
(d) RESUSPENSION OF POND SEDIMENTS DURING DREDGING - 7/18/73
Operating
Condition
Distance From
Front of Dredge
(ft.)
Depth below
Sgrface
Suspended
Solids Concen.
(mg/l)
Before Dredging
34
Dredging
(forward cut)
5
10
83
19
Page 2 of 2
447
-------
Exhibit 217. SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
IN PROCESSING SYSTEM
Suspended Soh.K .11 Sampling I'nhit (iwj.'l) AVPI.KJO
Rvnurk*
(o IS It II 11
»/JS/J3 ISI.OOO 29.500 *
•
«/26/73
7/1/71 * 211,000 231,700 1W.500 105.400
7/11/73 *
*.
•
T/12/73 195,200 151,200 IOt.000 »7.200
7/11/73 7MOO 52.400 •
254,000 254,000 171,600 50.401
7/14/71
7/23/7J 129.200 (1,300 40.1100 26,200
7/76/73 107, (00 87,600 31.400 22,700
7/27/73 107,000 67,400 44,700 26.200
7/30/73 131.000 55, MO 49.500 14.700
1/1/73 110.500 101.000 94.400
1/6/73 4 «
151.200 115,900 * •
+ •
M.200 70.100 + •
+ e
145.100 •*4.500 * •
« hydro«yctone< bypassed
* certrld'jo fillers bypassed
Saepling Point Key
11 Syslrnt Mow
(ni>n>)
190
1440
ISO
136
340
740
47
491
1127
100
114
227
1*4
230
570
6(0
520
1770
201
127
424
300
100
250
250
250
300
250
250
250
200
200
IOC
250
100
100
300
250
200
ISO
120
70
60
SO
10
3 hr. compoftllc ftamplct;
2 Uitl-Flnw hose* with hotel
sample after 1 Unl-Flow
host burst •
2 hr. compo 1 psl
IS mln. «v. now; Unl-Flow
pressure > 10 psl; 1/2 hr.
composite samples
IS mln. iv. now; Unl-Flow
pressure « 12 psl
IS mln. av. now; Unl-Flow
pressure * 12 psl; 1/2 hr.
composite sample*
IS mln. av. now; Unl-Flow
pressure = 10 psl
.IS mln. av. flow; Unl-Flow
pressure * It psl; I/I hr.
composite samples
5 - MUD CAT discharge Into elevated bin*
1 - Bin effluent - influent to hydrocyclone*
2 - Hydro cyclone effluent - Influent co cartridge fliceri
3 - Cartridge filter effluent - influent to Uni-Flov 'liter*
4 • t'nt-riow effluent (return weter to pond)
448
-------
Case 34. Characterization of Pollutant Availability for San Francisco
Bay Dredge Sediments
Source -
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute, Characteri-
zation of Pollutant Availability for San Francisco Bay Dredge Sediments.
Prepared for U. S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, California.
Richland, Washington, January 1974.(A~38)
Purpose -
This report describes a crystalline matrix study of sediments dredged from
San Francisco Bay. It is the first phase of a larger study to "determine
the quantity and nature of certain heavy metals and polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (PCB's) that are released from selected San Francisco Bay
sediments." The case study was selected for inclusion in the present
report because it reveals the types of pollutants likely to be released
by dredging in industrialized bay areas.
Site Description-
Ten sampling stations were picked from the shipping channels located
throughout the estuary. They were selected to represent the range
of sediment types and pollution concentrations commonly involved in
maintenance dredging. They are shown in Exhibit 218. The sampling
was done between August 14 and August 17, 1973.
Sediment Characteristics -
Physical, chemical and mineralogical characterization was performed for
sediments from each sampling station. Total acid soluble sulfide con-
centrations varied from 4 to 2000 ppm. Most samples were about 60%
clay with 10% sand, while Outer Harbor Channel samples contained 50%
or more sand. The cation exchange capacities of the sediments ranged
between 10 and 35 millequivalents per 100 grams of dry sediment. The
clay mineral montmorillonite was the chief source of this exchange
449
-------
SUISUN BAY
SAN
PABLO
BAY
•
1 OAKLAND OUTER HARBOR
2 OAKLAND OUTER HARBOR
TURNING BASIN
! OAKLAND INNER HARBOR
4 ISLAIS CREEK SHOAL
RICHMOND HARBOR CHANNEL
SAN
SOUTHAMPTON SHOAL CHANNEI
PINOLE SHOAL CHANNEL
ISLAND STRAI" CHANNEL
GOLDEN
GATE
9 REDWOOD CREEK
CHANNEL MOUTH
10 REDWOOD CREEK CHANNEL
BY CORKSCREW SLOUGH
• FRANCISCO
M^Kf- BAY.."
Exhibit 218. Location of Sampling Stations
450
-------
capacity. Average organic carbon was 1.4 percent. Carbonate concen-
trations ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 percent. PCB concentration varied from
0.03 ppm to 0.9 pptn. Lead and mercury concentrations varied in the
range 10 ppm to 110 ppm for lead and 0.05 ppm to 1.1 ppm for mercury.
Copper varied from 80 to 190 ppm and zinc from 90 to 270 ppm both slightly
higher than the accepted levels cited in most of the literature; cadmium
ranged from 0.5 to 1.6 ppm, although the data is subject to verification.
Addition detailed data from these unusually complete characterizations
of bottom sediments appear in Exhibits 219 through 226.
It was determined that in general, copper and lead are difficult to
extract and that cadmium is the easiest of the metals studied to remove
by chemical extraction. The cadmium in the samples used for the
extraction studies was concentrated on ion exchange sites. Much of
the copper, lead and mercury appeared to be bound in mineral lattice
positions and with hydrous oxides and iron oxides. Acid conditions
were generally needed in order to remove significant amounts of these
metals from the sediment.
The referenced report provides abundant information on the sediments
most likely to be dredged from the channels of the San Francisco
Bay. It will be helpful in the determination of potential pollution
during dredging and disposal operations.
451
-------
Exhibit 219. DESCRIPTION OF SEDIMENT FROM VARIOUS STATIONS
SAMPLE
Oakland Outer Harbor
(Seventh Street)
Oakland Outer Harbor
Turning Basin
Oakland Inner Harbor
Islais Creek Shoal
Richmond Harbor
*" Channel
m
to
Southampton Shoal
fl-V
12-H
tl-V
12-V
fl-V
12-V
fl-V
12-V
fl-V
f2-V
fl-H
ICED SAMPLES
SOIL/SOLUTION
High solids
High solids
Medium solids
Low solids
High solids
High solids
Medium solids
Medium solids
High solids
Low solids
High solids
WET
Black mud/some sand
Black mud/ some sand
Black mud
Black mud
Black mud
Black mud, oily
layer
Rich black
Black, sticky layer
Black
Rich black
All sand
DEBRIS/ODOR
None
None
Large clam shell
Large shell , piece
wood
Clam shell, looked
alive; oil smell
Broken bits of
DRY
Brownish powder ,
traces of quartz
Brownish powder,
visible sand
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
faint
sand
no
Brown sand, shell frag-
Channel
Pinole Shoal
Channel
Mare Island Straits
Channel
Redwood Creek Chan-
nel at mouth
Redwood Creek by
Corkscrew Slough
12-V High solids All sand
shell
One small clam
shell, many broken
bits
fl-V
f2-V
fl-V
f2-V
fl-V
f2-V
(Al)
fl-V
Low solids
Low solids
Medium solids
Medium solids
3/4 Empty
Medium solids
Black mud
Medium solids Black mud, some
brownish sand
Sewage odor
A small shell
ments
Brown sand, shell frag-
ments
Brownish powder
Brownish powder (very
little sample)
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
Brownish powder
*Refers to material of
Brownish powder
which collection apparatus was constructed. See Footnotes on Exhibit 204-
-------
Exhibit 220. TOTAL ACID SOLUBLE SULFIDE
AND H2S CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLES VMOSH
to
LOCATXOH
Oakland Qatar
Harbor (Seventh
Street)
Oakland Outer
Harbor Turning
»asin
Oakland loner
Harbor
tslais Creek Shoal
Richmond Harbor
Channel
Southampton Shoal
Channel
Pinole Shoal Chan-
nel
Hare Island Strait
Channel
Redwood Creek Chan-
nel at the nouth
Redwood Creek Chan-
nel by Corkscrew
Slough
HOOKING
Buoy *3"
Fl 4 see 8
Northern dock by D. 8.
Any cranes, across
from first crane
Southern dock at Ala-
neda Amy supply dock
Docked on south side
about one-third of the
way in
Docked on east side at
Terminal 1 3
Tied off Buoy "IBS'
on S.E. corner of
channel
Tied off northern
black can. Buoy 1 5
Moored off west cable
crosiing
Moored off Buoy "5',
130 ft S.M. into
channel
Moored off buoy
marked "IS" on
Chart S53I
SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION
Top few inches mud, hard
under layer
Black mud for more than
2 ft depth
Black soft mud for more
than 2 ft depth
Black soft mud for more
than 2 ft depth
Black soft mud for more
than 2 ft depth
Brownish sand
Top 5.5 inches—brownish
sand/mud: 4 inches—black
mud to bottom—gray mud
Black mud
Black mud
Black mud
ALUMINUM
11 Vertical
12 Horizon-
tal
fl Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
fl Vertical
ir Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
tl Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
(3 Vertical
11 Vertical
PVC
11 Vertical
12 Horizon-
tal
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
13 Vertical
14 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
fl Vertical
12 Vertical
tl Horizon-
tal
12 Vertical
13 Vertical
14 Lost
»1 Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
11 Vertical
11 Vertical
12 Vertical
»3 Vertical
REMARKS
12 Samples con-
tained more water
than fl samples
High solids con-
tent
•2 Samples taken
100 ft further
east from fl sam-
ple location >
ouch debris on
bottom
Ho debris evident
Debris evident )
sediments smelled
oilyi 12 taken
100 ft north
fl Aluminum only
half full.- 14 PVC
lost when boat
moved , pul 1 ing
diver away from
sampling tube
Looked for sand
with grab sampler
but could not find
Strong current;
brown colored
water; water at
other locations
colored green
Samples contain
much water; fl
PVC — most lost in
transit
Samples contain
much water ; lost
end cap on 13 PVC
Page 1 of 2^
-------
Exhibit 220(continued). TOTAL ACID SOLUBLE SULFIDE AND H_S CONCENTRATIONS
H2S
TOTAL SULFIDtf** INTERSTITIAL WATER
SAMPLE TYPE* (ppm) (ppm)
Mare Island Strait PVC 1 V 185
Channel PVC 2V 1000
AL 1 V 365*** .034
Redwood Creek PVC IV 1020
*. Channel at the mouth AL 3 V 1150
£ AL 1 V 952 .016
Redwood Creek by PVC IV 570
Corkscrew Slough AL1V 1210*** .016
*Samples taken in PVC or aluminum (AL) pipe in a vertical (V) or
horizontal (H) position.
**Dry weight basis.
***Dewatered frozen core samples stored in contact with air for a
period of 3.5 weeks. Results may be low by a factor of 2.
Page 2_ of _2
-------
Exhibit 221. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SAMPLE
TYPE*
PARTICLE
SIZE**
(Hydrometer)
Redwood Creek by
Corkscrew Slough
PVC 1 V
12-31-56
PARTICLE
SIZE**
(Hope-Kittrick)
Oakland Outer Harbor
(Seventh Street)
Oakland Outer Harbor
Turning Basin
Oakland Inner Harbor
Islais Creek Shoal
Richmond Harbor
Channel
Southampton Shoal
Channel
Pinole Shoal
Channel
Mare Island Strait
Channel
Redwood Creek
Channel at the mouth
PVC
PVC
AL
PVC
PVC
AL
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
AL
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
AL
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
AL
PVC
AL
AL
1 V
2 H
1 V
1 V
2 V
1 V
1 V
2 V
1 V
2 V
1 V
1 V
2 V
1 H
2 V
2 V
I V
2 V
] V
7 V
1 V
1 V
3 V
1 V
50-22-28
31-30-39
59-17-24
2-28-70
6-25-69
3-28-69
16-26-58
1U-21-48
6-34-60
7-:n-60
6-32-62
9-33-58
91. -5-4
9J-3-7
12-38-49
9-:i3-R8
6-4.1-51
9-18-53
H-41-51
8-J5-57
5-37-58
6-35-59
44-33-23
60-24-16
1-47-52
1-51-48
12-45-43
1-52-47
1-53-46
92-6-2
!>-58-33
3-58-39
4-54-42
1-57-42
2-45-53
9-S2-39
*Samples taken in PVC or aluminum (AL) pipe in a vertical (V)
or horizontal (H) position.
**Values represent percent sand, percent silt, and percent clay,
rounded to the nearest percent respectively.
455
-------
Exhibit 222. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENT-CLAY
FRACTION AND QUALITATIVE RESULTS FOR MONTMORILLONITE CLAY
% Total Sample
Percent of Total for Each Size Fraction „<<.>, jiontmoril-
ON
Sample Location
Oakland Outer
Harbor
Oakland Outer
Harbor Turning
Basin
Oakland Inner
Harbor
Islais Creek
Shoal Channel
Richmond Harbor
Channel
Southampton
Shoal Channel
Pinole Shoal
Channel
Mare Island
Straits Channel
Redwood Creek
Channel at Mouth
Redwood Creek
Channel at Cork-
screw Slough
<.2t»
8.5M**
24. 7M
16. 4H
22. 1M
23. 3M
0.8H
12. 2M
18. 1M
14. OH
13. 3M
.2— 2y
14. 4H
28. 1M
26.2
25.1
22. 9M
1.2
20. 8H
21. 2M
27. 8M
25. 7M
2-5y
6.3
16. 3M
14.6
14.2
13. 9M
1.6
13.4
13. 1M
12.8
13.5
5— 20y
9.3
21.4
17.5
19.4
22.5
2.0
24.5
22. 1M
19.7
21.0
20-75V
17.3
9.4
13.2
19.2
16.3
2.4
21.0
22.5
24.8
17.5
23.9
15.9
69.1
16.4
22.1
60.1
0.8
33.0
75.5
41.8
35.2
26.2
33.1
32.2
10.3
31.1
28.1
30.3
39.0
33.4
**M denotes montmorilrlonite detected
-------
Exhibit 223. CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY DATA
Sample Location
Oakland Outer Harbor
Oakland Outer Harbor
Turning Basin
Oakland Inner Harbor
Islais Creek Shoal
Richmond Harbor
Channel
Southampton: Shoal
Channel
Pinole Shoal Channel
Mare Island Shoal
Channel
Redwood Creek Channel
at Mouth
Sample
Type
Clean Beach
Sand
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 2
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
AL 1
PVC 1
PVC 2
NO. Of
Determi-
nations
7
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
Sample
Average
(meq/lOOcr)
0.088
11.8
15.2
20.7
37.5
36.0
33.2
24.7
28.6
26.0
33.4
33.4
32.0
33.7
32.0
26.1
11.9
9.5
10.4
34.1
28.4
29.3
29.5
26.2
29.6
31.0
29.3
31.2
Location
Average
Redwood Creek Channel
at Corkscrew Slough
PVC 1
33.4
15.9
35.2
26.2
33.1
30.6
10.6
31.1
28.1
30.3
33.4
457
-------
Exhibit 224- ORGANIC CARBQN AND CARBONATE DATA
Sample Organic
Type* Carbon%
Organic %
Matter%** Ash
Carbonate Carbonate
Content% Content
by by
Difference Calcimeter%
Oakland
Outer
Harbor
Oakland Outer
Harbor Turning
Basin
Oakland
Inner
Harbor
Islais
Creek
Shoal
Richmond
Harbor
Channel
Southampton
Shoal
Channel
Pinole
Shoal
Channel
Mare Island
Straits
Channel
Redwood Creek
Channel
at Mouth
Redwood Creek
Channel by
Corkscrew
Slough
PVC1
PVC1
PVC2
AL 1
PVC1
PVC2
AL 1
PVC1
PVC2
AL 1
PVC1
PVC2
AL 2
PVC1
PVC2
AL 1
PVC1
PVC2
AL 1
PVC1
PVC2
AL 1
PVC1
PVC2
AL1
PVC1
PVC2
PVC1
1.10
0.63
1.06
1.72
1.63
1.58
1.16
1.49
0.97
-
1.76
1.79
1.40
1.56
1.48
0.05
0.14
1.17
1.08
1.56
1.65
1.69
1.48
1.34
1.33
1.33
1.98
1.13
1.91
3.10
2.93
2.84
2.09
2.68
1.75
-
3.17
3.22
2.52
2.81
2.66
0.09
0.25
2.11
1.94
2.81
2.97
3.04
2.66
2.41
2.39
2.39
83.7
92.8
88.18
86.7
95.9
82.6
92.0
83.4
96.7
82.7
85.3
86.9
88.8
84.8
87.6
95.9
85.7
79.6
88.3
88.5
86.6
94.2
86.4
76.6
82.2
0
0.15
3.35
0.55
1.90
0.45
0
0.25
0.45
-
0.65
0.35
0.65
0.30
1.10
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.40
1.55
0.05
0.10
0.50
0.65
0.15
5.55
0.25
0.39
0.63
0.42
0.85
0.09
1.31
0.42
0.58
3.30
*Samples taken in PVC or aluminum (AL) pipe in a vertical (V)
or horizontal (H) position.
**0rganic matter % - 1.8 x Organic C%
458
-------
Exhibit 225-
CONCENTRATION OF PCB's AND PESTICIDES
IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Sample Location
Dry Weight. Basis (ppm)
Southampton Shoal Channel*
Oakland Inner Harbor
Oakland Outer Harbor
Turning Basin
Redwood Creek Channel
at Mouth
Redwood Creek Channel
at Corkscrew Slough
Oakland Outer Harbor
Mare Island Straits Channel
Richmond Harbor Channel*
Islais Creek Shoal
Pinole Shoal Channel
DDE
0.002
0.041
0.011
0.007
0.002
0.009
0.010
0.024
0.010
0.001
ODD
0.007
0.091
0.029
0.014
0.006
0.016
0.017
0.083
0.026
0.002
DDT
0.006
0.118
0.037
0.021
0.004
0.012
0.007
0.065
0.032
0.002
PCB
0.030
0.833
0.239
0.137
0.052
0.099
0.084
0.189
0.280
0.026
Dieldrin
<0.001
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.002
<0.001
*Samples taken from AL 2 cores. All other samples were taken from
AL 1 cores.
-------
Exhibit 226. RESULTS OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED HEAVY METALS BY
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE, NEUTRON ACTIVATION, AND ATOMIC ABSORPTION
Metal Concentrations, mg/kg Dry Weight
Pb
Sample
Oakland Outer
Harbor
Oakland Outer
Harbor Turning
Basin
Oakland Inner
Harbor
Islais Creek
Shoal
Richmond Harbor
^ Channel
O
Southampton Shoal
Channel
Pinole Shoal
Channel
Mare Island
Strait Channel
Redwood Creek
Channel at the
Type
PVC IV
PVC 2H
PVC IV
PVC 2V
PVC IV
PVC 2V
PVC IV
PVC 2V
PVC IV
PVC 2V
PVC 1H
PVC 2V
PVC IV
PVC 2V
PVC IV
PVC 2V
PVC IV
AL 3V
XKF*
30
38
89'
68
102
118
85
95
63
71
13
6
12
38
SO
40
51
56
AA*
27
-* —
- —
130
70
91
— -
_ —
«-_
63
— —
41
Cu
XRF
106
111
170
145
170
207
165
164
143
157
56
78
126
136
142
138
121
104
AA
—
__
—
121
—
77
—
76
--
—
—
—
71
— -
60
—
Cd
AA
0.66
— -— —
1.25
~ - —
l.SO
1.31
~ —
— _-
_
0.61
__ —
0.89
Hg
NAA*
0.3
1.6
1.1
2,5
— _ —
3.2
1.5
_!i
1.1
_ — _
0.8
___
<1
AA
0.26
0.47
0.48
0.67
1.02
1.13
0.62
0.64
0.56
0.60
0.05
0.03
0.32
____
0.64
0.47
0.56
0.32
Zn
XRF
105
150
212
189
214
230
218
247
196
234
91
90
140
161
181
160
174
177
Aa
NAA
6
8
15
—
13
— ~
13
— ""
13
-—
6
10
— ™
14
..—
9
-—
Mouth
Redwood Creek PVC IV 85 172 —
Channel by
Corkscrew Slough
•XBT « x-ray fluorescence; AA - atomic absorption; and NAA - neutron activation analysis.
1.1
0.41
266
10
-------
APPENDIX F: APPLICATION OF CONTROL MEASURES
General
This appendix presents summaries of eight case studies dealing with
the observed effectiveness of various control measures as applied at
construction sites. Quantitative information concerning the amounts
of sediment generated by a given type of construction activity on a
site with known pertinent parameters is available to the greatest ex-
tent for out-of-stream construction. This also holds true for observa-
tions of the effectiveness of control measures. Applicable physical,
topographic, climatic and soil information are given when available,
in addition to all information concerning the control measures and the
effects of these measures.
461
-------
Case 35. Controlling Soil Movement from Steep Roadfills, Boise, Idaho
Source -
Bethlahmy, N. and Kldd, W. J. Jr., Controlling Soil Movement from Steep
Roadfills. Boise, Idaho. U. S. Forest Service Research Note INT-45, USDA,
(A-5)
Inter-Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1966.
Purpose -
To compare and evaluate different soil-stabilizing treatments on the fill
slope of a newly constructed mountain road.
Site Location -
The study took place along the side of Bogus Basin Road, a two-lane high-
way between Boise and Bogus Basin ski resort. The highway is built
through the steep terrain and erodible soils of the Boise National Forest.
The soils are derived from weathering of the granitic Idaho batholith.
Project Description -
Eight adjacent test plots A3.6 feet in length and 10 feet wide were con-
structed along a raw fill slope with an average gradient of 80 percent.
A sediment trough was placed at the bottom of each plot. One plot was left
untreated, while the other seven were subjected to various combinations of
seeding, mulching and netting. Cumulative records of precipitation and
sediment loss were collected during the study period.
Time Frame-
This project began in the fall of 1962. Time zero was November. Six
measurements were taken during the next 11 months, ending October 11,
1963.
Parameters Measured -
Cumulative time, cumulative precipitation, cumulative sediment due to
erosion from each of eight plots (thousands of pounds per acre).
462
-------
The Experiment -
The eight plots were treated as shown In Exhibit 227. They can be
effectively divided Into three groups: Group A containing (Plots 2
and 4) - seeding and fertilizer; Group B (Plots 3 and 8) - seeding,
fertilizer and straw mulch; Group C (Plots 5, 6 and 7) - seeding,
fertilizer, straw mulch and netting. Plots 2 and 3 were contour furrowed
with a 6-foot spacing between the furrows. They were also punched with
2-inch holes at 6-inch intervals. The straw mulch was applied at a rate
of 2 tons per acre. The polymer emulsion, "Soil Set," was diluted to
one-tenth strength, with five gallons of the dilution applied before
seeding and five gallons after 300 Ibs. of asphalt emulsion per acre
were applied to Plot 8. The netting was fastened with 12-inch staples
of No. 9 wire.
Results -
Exhibit 228 shows that the combination of all three methods gives the
best results. Plots 2 and 4, which were seeded only, showed more
erosion than the control plot, which had no treatment at all. The
averages for each group were: Group A - 97.1 x 10 Ibs/acre; Group B -
3 3
24.0 x 10 Ibs/acre; Group C - 0.5 x 10 Ibs/acre.
No cost comparison was included in this paper, so an economic analysis
cannot be made. It would, however, appear that Plot 3, which was
treated by contour furrowing, mulching, and fertilizing might be a
feasible solution if netting costs are high. This plot yielded only
3 3
11.9 x 10 Ibs/acre over 11 months compared to 84.2 x 10 Ibs/acre for
the untreated plot. A more complete cost analysis is needed as an addi-
tion basis for choice of method in any given application.
463
-------
Exhibit 227. CULTIVATION TREATMENTS
Plot number Sequence of treatment
1 Control--no treatment at all.
2 Contour furrows, seed, fertilizer, holes.
3 Contour furrows, straw mulch, seed, fertilizer, holes.
4 Polymer emulsion, seed, fertilizer.
5 Straw mulch, paper netting, seed, fertilizer.
6 Straw mulch, jute netting, seed, fertilizer.
7 Seed, fertilizer, straw mulch, chicken wire netting.
8 Seed, fertilizer, straw mulch with asphalt emulsion.
Exhibit 228. COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE EROSION FROM
TREATED PLOTS ON A STEEP ROAD FILL
(in 1,000 Ibs. per acre)
Cumulative
elapsed time
(days)
17
80
157
200
255
322
Cumulative
precipi-
tation
Inches
1.41
4.71
12.46
15.25
17.02
20.40
\ Control
:
31.9
70,0
72.2
79.1
82.3
84.2
\ Group A \
| (seed, fertilizer) ;
:
: 2
38.
99.
100.
101.
102.
104.
:
7
2
2
0
8
7
4
38.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
;
0
7
9
6
8
4
Group B :
(seed, fertilizer, :
mulch) :
3 :
0.1
7.4
11.1
11.4
11.5
11.9
Group C
(seed, fertilizer,
mulch, netting)
Plot number
8
32.6
34.6
35.1
35.7
35.8
36.0
5 :
0
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
: 7
0
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
464
-------
Case 36. A Fertility Survey of Exposed Subsoils from Highway Road Banks
in the Coosa Watershed of Northwest Georgia.
Source -
Hendrickson, B. H., "A Fertility Survey of Exposed Subsoils from High-
way Road Banks in the Coosa Watershed of Northwest Georgia," Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation. Vol. 13, No. 1, January 1958.^3'
Purpose -
This study was performed to gain knowledge that might be helpful in
reestablishing vegetation on unprotected road bank cuts, which constitute
a major silt source.
Site Location/Description -
The investigation took place at virgin roadbank cuts in the Coosa Water-
shed of Northwest Georgia. Laboratory tests were conducted at the
University of Georgia in Athens.
Topography -
Road banks ranged in slope from 1:1 to 1:3. Height of slope was gener-
ally 10 to 20 feet, but some were as high as 30 or 40 feet. The banks
had many gullies and were subject to large amounts of rapid runoff, with
resulting high rates of soil removal.
Soil Types -
The seven soil series investigated in this study included Cecil, Lloyd,
Helena, Madison, Louisa, Talladega, and Louisburg. All of these soils
were developed from old igneous and metamorphic rock formations comprised
of granite, granite-gneiss, schist, mica-schist, and hornblende gneiss.
Six of these profiles are deeply weathered soils. Talladega is a shallow
rick, A-C soil.
465
-------
Study Methods -
Soil material from both B and C horizons of five soil types, Cecil,
Lloyd, Helena, Madison, and Louisa, and from the C horizon of A-C pro-
files of the Talladega and Louisburg series were collected from road-
bank cuts. The samples were transported to the laboratory where soil
analyses were made on 12 lots and then the soil material was placed in
1-gallon pots. Six fertilization treatments were added to each sample.
Uniform rates of 200 Ibs/acre of N, 400 Ibs/acre of P 0 and 200 Ibs/
acre K 0, 2 tons/acre of dolomitic limestone, and 100 Ibs/acre of Esminel
were applied in the following 6,combination treatments.
Serial No. Combinations
1 NK only
2 PR only
3 NP only
4 NPK
5 NPK + lime
6 NPK + lime - Esminel
Southland Oats were planted and 6 successive forage clippings were made
above the 3-inch height. Oven dried weights were recorded.
Results -
It was found that as a whole, these soils were acid In reaction and
contained only a trace of available phosphorus. Potash content was
variable but generally low. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization
afforded strong responses and should be considered essential in the
establishment of vegetation on subsoils. Results are given in Exhibits
229, 230, and 231.
466
-------
Exhibit 229. AVERAGE OAT FORAGE YIELDS IN THE
GREENHOUSE WITH SIX FERTILITY TREATMENTS
Yields in
I
II
III
V
VI
IV
VII
Soil
Series
Cecil
Lloyd
Helent
Madison
Louisa
Talladega
Louiiburg
Horizons
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
C
C
NK
.32
.09
.21
.21
.20
.25
.17
.19
.09
.12
.33
.67
PK
1.29
3.05
.57
1.36
1.58
1.70
1.10
.30
.70
.51
2.02
.77
grains per pot
NP
3.81
3.15
5.90
6.60
3.86
5.00
2.39
2.59
4.49
2.35
4.03
3.02
NPK
4.25
3.73
6.49
3.62
5.48
6.69
4.11
4.00
4.60
2.58
3.63
5.27
treated
NPK +
Lime
7.72
6.98
7.04
6.19
6.66
7.52
6.72
6.78
7.58
6.28
5.91
4.85
with
NPK +
Llme +
Eunlnel
8.40
6.24
8.76
7.91
7.24
5.89
5.34
6.04
6.60
5.31
6.71
5.09
Exhibit 230. SOIL ACIDITY LEVEL AS AFFECTED
OF LIME TREATMENT OF TWO TONS PER ACRE
Soil and
Cecil
Lloyd
Helena
Madiion
Louiu
Talladega
Louisburg
Horizon
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
C
C
Treatment
without lime
PH
4.S
4.7
5.1
5.1 '
5.1
5.2
4.9
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.6
5.1
Average 5.0
with lime
PH
6.1
6.2
6.5
ft.4
6.3
6.1
6.5
6.6
ft.S
6.6
6.3
6.6
6.4
467
-------
Exhibit 231. ORIGINAL POTASH LEVELS OF ALL SAMPLES, AND THE RESPONSE
OF OATS TO POTASH FERTILIZATION IN THE GREENHOUSE TESTS
B-Horizons
Soil K20
Series _
Content
Ibs/acre
Madison 20
Helena 40
Cecil 60
Lloyd 92
Louisa 148
Louisburg —
Talladega —
Oat Forage Yields
in treatments K 0
MD MT>W Differences „
NP NPK Content
grams grams grams % Ibs/acre
2.39* 4.11 +1.72 +72 36
3.86 5.48 +1.62 +42 40
3.81 4.25 + .44 +12 52
5.90 6.49 + .59 +10 64
4.49 4.60 + .11 +2 80
- - - 36
- - - - 124
C-Horizons
Oat Forage Yields
in treatments
NP NPK
grams grams
*
2.59
5.00
3.15
6.60
2.35
3.02
4.03
4.00
6.69
3.73
*
3.62
2.85
5.27
3.63*
Differences
grams %
+1.41
+1.69
+ .58
-2.98
+ .50
+2.25
- .40
+54
+34
+18
-45
+21
+75
-10
A low-yielding erratic replicate is involved with each average. These data are regarded as unreliable.
-------
Case 37. Erosion Control Study of Louisiana, Road Side Channels.
Source -
Cox, A. L. et al., "Erosion Control Study, Part 11 - Roadside Channels"
Highway Research Report, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, April 1971.(A~10>
Purpose -
This study was performed by the Louisiana Department of Highways to
develop erosion control measures for controlling erosion in the roadside
drainage channels with varying soil conditions, slopes, lengths and
runoff rates.
Site Location/Description -
The grass-lined channels which were involved were located on opposite
sides of State Highway 67; two are about 8-1/2 miles north of Clinton,
Louisiana, and two are about 8 miles south of the town. The bare,
eroded channels were located on the opposite sides of State Highway
441, eight channels lie along the side of State Highway 32 in the area
around Greensburg. One channel was located along U. S. 61 about 12
miles north of Baton Rouge.
Topography -
The bare channels differed slightly in slope, length and soil type.
Slope percentages ranged from 1 to 5; the average was 3.9. Channel
length varied from 450 to 850 feet and averaged 586.36 feet.
Soil Type -
Most of the sites were comprised of Providence Silty Clay Loam, although
Lexington Silty Clay Loam was evidenced at two channels and Ruston Sandy
Clay Loam was found at two others. Oliver Silty-Clay Loam was also found
at one channel site.
469
-------
Study Methods -
The study was done in two phases, the first covering field observa-
tions for four stable grass-lined channels and 11 severely eroded
channels. This phase started in the winter of 1964-65 and lasted until
the spring of 1966. During the second phase, eight of the observed
channels were reworked and tested for various types of ditch liners.
Parameters Measured -
The main characteristics which are considered in this study are
plasticity index, pH, channel slope percent, channel length in feet,
observed peak discharge in c.f.s., and increase in cross sectional area
of channel by erosion in square feet.
Results -
Roadside drainage channels with varying soil conditions slopes, lengths,
and runoff rates were compared for their efficiency in handling erosion
problems (see Exhibit 232). The results indicate that the channels with
runoffs of five cfs or less are eroding soils up to one cubic foot per
linear foot of channel per year, and those conveying larger flows are
losing quantities of soil. This erosion is occuring in channels which
have acid soils low in essential plant nutrients.
This study also points out that some kind of temporary channel liner is
required for protection of newly seeded channels against erosion during
critical periods between seeding and the establishment of protective
growth. Protective growth can be rapidly developed by lining the channel
with solid slab sod or with some approved temporary liners.
470
-------
Exhibit 232. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATION
CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS*
Channel
441-1L
441-1R
• 37-1L
37-1R
37-2L
37-2R
37-3L
37-3R
37-4L
37-4R
61-1L
Soils
Name
Lexington
Lexington
Providence
Providence
Providence
Providence
Providence
Providence
Ruston
Ruston
Oliver
Type
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Sandy Clay Loam 11
Sandy Clay Loam-14
Silty Clay Loam
P.I
14
12
19
20
10
9
14
16
11
14
10
£H
4.8
4.8
5.0
5.1
4..8
4. 7
4.5
4.6
4.2
4.3
5.0
Channel
Slope
Percent
5
5
3
3
3
3
5
.5
5
5
1
Channel
Length
Feet
450
450
550
550
500
500
550
550
750
750
850
Observed
Peak
Discharge
c. f. s.
5.0
4.3
16.0
6.0
3.6
3.6
-
-
3.2
3.2
40.0
Increase in
Cross sectional
Area of Channel
by Erosion
1.2
1.4
1.3
0.8
2. 3
2. 1
1.4
1.2
3.6
2.8
6.0
Sq. Ft
* Observations conducted over 18-month period beginning in winter of 1964-65 and ending in the spring
of 1966.
P. I. - Plasticity Index
pH - Soil Acidity
-------
Case 38. Protecting Steep Erosion Slopes Against Water Erosion.
Progress Report 2
Source-
U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Protecting Steep Construction Slopes
Against Water Erosion," Progress Report 2, Soil and Water Conservation
Research Division, Lincoln, Nebraska, September 1967.(A~52^
Purpose -
This study was conducted by the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Soil
and Water Conservation Division to evaluate the effectiveness of dif-
ferent mulching materials in protecting the freshly shaped roadside
cuts and embankments against erosion. Simulated rainstorm experiments
were used for these experiments.
Site Location/Description -
The study site was located on the back slope of a dam on the V. Karsan
farm, north and west of Wahoo, Nebraska, about 30 miles north of Lincoln.
Soil Type -
Twenty-two plots of Sharpsburg silty clay loam (sand 9%, silt 55%, clay
36%) at a slope of 2:1 made up the actual study area. Each plot was
10 feet x 20 feet.
Study Methods -
During the study period, which lasted through 1966 and 1967, 13 different
mulching materials or combinations of.materials were applied and measure-
ments were made for losses of soil, grass seed, and phosphorus fertilizer
which were contained in the run-off from the plots.
The simulated rainfall was produced by a tractor-mounted machine
(rotator-type) which produced raindrops with energy close to that of
natural raindrops. A sequence of four storms was used for the experiments
472
-------
to each pair of plots: 2.0 hours @ 2.5 inches per hour (iph); 1.0 hr.
@ 2.5 iph; 0.3 hr. @ 5 iph; 0.8 hr. @ 2.5 iph.
Results -
Measurements were derived from 22 plots of land following simulated
rainstorms of varying duration and intensity. Exhibit 233 represents the
loss of phosphorous during three simulated rainstorms and Exhibit 234
gives the erosion rates for various mulch treatments which are graphed
in Exhibit 235 . All treatments have been compared to jute net mulch as
a check. Mulch materials are ranked according to their effectiveness in
Exhibit 236.
All treatments resulted in high seed and fertilizer retention, although
their movement within the plot was not determined. Eleven of the plots
failed through "soil slides," the mass downslope movement of saturated
mud. This generally occurred in the fourth storm, after the soil had
absorbed the equivalent of several inches of water. The plots that did
not fail were generally the plots that allowed greater runoff and there-
fore more erosion.
Incomplete results from the increased runoff studies indicate that
glassroot anchored by asphalt provides the greatest protection at high
runoff rates.
473
-------
Exhibit 233. LOSS OF PHOSPHORUS IN THE SOIL REMOVED AND WATER RUNOFF FROM PLOTS
WITH VARIOUS MULCH TREATMENTS FOR A SERIES OF THREE SIMULATED RAINSTORMS.
HIGHWAY PROJECT, WAHOO, NEBRASKA, 1966.
Mulch treatment
Glassroot
Asphalt eculsion
• *
* •
.Rep :I
* •
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
Jroded :
soil :
.02
.07
.04
.00
.00
.00
Storm 1
Water:
runoff:
.04
.37
.20
.01
.00
.00
• *
Storm 2 I
» *
Total I
.06
.45
.25
.01
.00
.00
Eroded:
soil :
nn1
.00
.07
.03
.00
.00
.00
Water:
runoff:
Storm 3
*
,:Eroded: Water: , :
Total: soil :runoff:Total :
unds per acre .
.01
.16
.08
.03
.00
.01
.01
.23
.12
.03
.00
.01
.00
.12
.06
.00
.00
.00
.01
.16
.08
.00
.00
.00
.01
.29
.15
.01
.00
.00
Total
for
three
storms
.08
.97
.52
.05
.00
.02
Prairie hay and
esphalt emulsion
Woodchips and
asphalt emulsion
Corncobs and
asphalt erculsion
Wood excelsior
1
2
Av.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
00
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
iOO
.00
.02
.00
.01
.03
.00
.01
.03
.00
.01
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.09
.04
.00
..00
.00
.00
.05
.02
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
.03
.00
.11
.05
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
.02
.01
.03
.02
.00
.01.
.00
.00
.03
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.08
.04
.02
.04
.03
.00
.02
.01
.00
.15
.07
.03
.03
.03
.00
.08
.04
.02
.10
.06
.03
.01
.02
.00
.10
.05
.03
.25
.14
.06
.05
.05
.00
.11
.05
.03
.39
.21
.08
.20
.13
Page JL of 2^ pages
-------
Exhibit 233 (continued). LOSS OF PHOSPHORUS IN THE SOIL REMOVED AND WATER RUNOFF FROM PLOTS
WITH VARIOUS MULCH TREATMENTS FOR A SERIES OF THREE SIMULATED RAINSTORMS.
HIGHWAY PROJECT, WAHOO, NEBRASKA, 1966.
Ul
Mulch treatment
• •
* «
» «
.'Rep !
• *
* •
i •
, Storm 1 !
Eroded;
. soil :
Water;
runoff:
Tot:al ;
*
Eroded:
soil :
Storm 2 .
Water:
runoff:
Storm 3
Total :Erodf:
: soil :
Water:
runoff:
Total
'Total
'for 3
'storms
oounds oer acre
Soil Retention Matt
Excelsior end wood
cellulose
Jute -net
Conweb
Silva-fiber
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
1
2
Av.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.01
.00
.00
.00
.08
.00
.04
.00
.00-
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.03
.01
.00
.00
.00
.04
.01
.02
.00
.00
.00
.03
.00
,00
.01
.05
.03
.00
.00
.00
.13
.02
.P/
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
.21
.11
.02
.00
.01
.06
.06
.06
.01
.01
.01
.03
.05
.02
.02
.16
.09
.00
.08
.04
.04
.05
.04
.01
.02
.01
.04
.05
.04
.03
.37
.20
.03
.09
.06
.11
.12
.12
.03
.03
.03
.04
.05
.04
.10
.52
.31
.01
.03
.02
.05
.06
.05
.12
.07
.09
.05
.07
.06
.04
.09
.06
.01
.06
.03
.04
.03
.03
.05
.06
.05
.10
.12
.11
.14
.62
.38
.02
.10
.06
.10
.09
.09
.18
.13
.15
.14
.17
.15
.18
1.04
.61
.05
.19
.12
.34
.23
.28
.21
.16
.18
Page 2_ of 2^ pages
-------
Exhibit 234. MULCH TREATMENTS RANKED ACCORDING TO RELATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST WATER EROSION.
ALL TREATMENTS ARE COMPARED TO A JUTE-NET MULCH AS A CHECK.
HIGHWAY PROJECT, WAHOO, NEBRASKA, 1966
Mulch
' Rate applied [
per acre '
Relative erosion
(Number of times the
erosion from
jute-r.et mulch)
Asphalt emulsion
Woodchips anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Jute-net
Prairie hay anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Soil Retention Matt
Corncobs anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Silva-fiber
Glassroot anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Excelsior
Conweb
Excelsior and cellulose
1200 gal
6 tons with
150 eal
1 ton with
150 gal
5 tons with
150 gal
1400 Ib
1000 Ib and
150 gal
2 ton
1400 Ib
350 Ib excelsior
and 1050 Ib
cellulose
0.16
0.28
i.oo2/ and 3/
1.04
1.59
2.34
3.10
3.45
3.91
8.11
15.00
17 Total erosion of three simulated rainstorms replicated twice for
each mulch treatment
2J Mulch treatment used for comparison purposes
I/ Average erosion rate for Jute net mulch =0.33 tons/acre.
476
-------
140 -
46 8 10
RUNOFF- INCHES PER. HOUR
Exhibit 235. Rates of Erosion as Related to Various Rates
of Runoff on Four Mulch Treatments, 2:1 Fill Slope,
Wahoo, Nebraska, 1966
477
-------
Exhibit 236. SUMMARY OF MULCH MATERIALS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO DESIRABLE TRAITS
(LEAST EROSION AND LOSS OF SEED AND PHOSPHORUS). HIGHWAY PROJECT, WAHOO, NEBRASKA, 1966
Soil erosion
Lincoln bromegrass
seed loss
Total phosphorus loss
oo
1 Asphalt emulsion
2 Woodchips (6 ton/acre) anchored
with asphalt emulsion (150 gal/acre)
3 Jute-net
4 Prairie hay (1 ton/acre) anchored
with asphalt emulsion (150 gal/acre)
5 Soil Retention Matt
6 Corncobs (5 ton/acre) anchored
with asphalt emulsion (150 gal/A)
7 Silva-fiber
8 Glassroot (1000 Ib/acre) anchored
xvith asphalt emulsion (150 gal/A)
9 Excelsior (2 ton/acre)
10 Conveb (1400 Ib/acre)
11 Excelsior (350 Ib/scre) and
cellulose (1050 Ib/acre)
Asphalt emulsion
Excelsior
Soil Retention Matt
Corncobs anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Corncobs anchored with
asphalt emulsion
filva-fiber
Prairie hay anchored
with asphalt emulsion
jut£-net
Woodchips anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Glassroot anchored
v?ith asphalt emulsion
Asphalt emulsion
Prairie hay anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Woodchips anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Jute-net
Excelsior
Soil Retention Matt
Silva-fiber
Corncobs anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Conweb
Glassroot anchored with
asphalt emulsion
Excelsior and cellulose Excelsior and cellulose
-------
Case 39. Study of Erosion Control on Highway Slopes in Georgia
Sources -
(a) Barnett, A. P. and et al., "Evaluation of Mulching Methods for
Erosion Control on Newly Prepared and Seeded Highway Backslopes,"
Agronomy Journal. Vol. 59, 1967, 83-85.(A~3)
(b) Diseker, E. G., and E. C. Richardson, "Roadside Sediment Production
and Control," Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 4, 1961, 62-68.(
(c) Diseker, E. G., and E. C. Richardson, "Erosion Rates and Control
Methods
153-155.
Methods on Highway Cuts," Transactions of the ASAE. Vol. 5, 1962,
(A-19)
(d) Wolman, M. Gordon, "Problems Posed by Sediment Derived from Con-
struction Activities in Maryland," Report to Maryland Water Pol-
lution Control Commission, Annapolis, Maryland, January 1964,
P. 125.(A-55>
(e) Diseker, E. G., and Richardson, E. C., "Control of Roadbank Erosion
in the Southern Piedmont," Agronomy Journal. Vol. 53, 1961, 292-
294.
Purpose -
Determination of relative effectiveness of a number of straw mulching
methods to control runoff and soil loss and the evaluation of plant
establishment and survival.
Study-Site -
The four test sites were selected for the study in Oconee, Peach, and
Wilkes counties in Georgia.
Period of Study -
From 1964 to 1965.
479
-------
Slope and Soil Characteristics -
(a) Slope; (2.5:1) - 40%
(b) Soil Characteristics;
Oconee site - Cecil sandy loam
Peach site - Facereille sandy loam
Wilkes sites - Georgeville silty clay
Exhibit 237 represents the detailed analysis of soil constituents for
each site.
Site Preparation and Treatment -
Plots of size 6 x 30 feet in size were prepared and each plot was
graded to 2:1 slope and applied with 1,000 pounds of 8-8-8 fertilizer
and 2 tons of lime per acre. This was followed by rototilling to a
depth of 4 to 6 inches and seeding was done as follows:
(i) Oconee and Peach County Sites: seeded in the fall with 2 pounds
of tall fescue grass, 20 pounds of Pensacola bahia grass, and 3 pounds
of crownvetch per acre.
(ii) Wilkes County Sites: seeded in spring with 10 pounds of common
Bermuda grass, 20 pounds of Pensacola bahia grass, and 3 pounds of
Crown vetch per acre.
All plots were firmed with cultipacker after seeding. The treatment
was done with grain straw at the rate of 2 tons per acre and the following
treatments were applied.
1. Bare, no mulch
2. Surface-applied mulch in place with 200-500 gallons
AE-5 asphalt per ton of straw
3. Mulch mixed in the previously tilled soil surface with a
rotovator, then seeded and cultipacked
480
-------
Exhibit 237. MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF PLOT SURFACE
SOILS AT THE TEST LOCATIONS
*-
oo
Treat-
ment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Avg
Rep la
Oconee County
%
Sand
57
55
57
55
53
52
53
57
55
%
Silt
17
15
15
15
16
15
16
13
15
%
Clay
26
30
28
30
31
33
31
30
30
Rep 2a
Peach County
%
Sand
64
64
66
67
66
62
64
57
64
%
Silt
5
5
5
5
2
4
4
5
4
%
Clay
31
31
29
28
32
34
32
38
32
Rep 3a
Wilkes Co.
%
Sand
15
15
16
25
34
34
32
35
26
%
Silt
28
30
30
27
28
28
34
28
29
(1)
%
Clay
57
55
54
48
38
38
34
37
45
Rep 4a
Wilkes Co. (2)
%
Sand
39
29
29
28
26
29
31
32
30
%
Silt
27
30
28
28
32
30
29
29
29
%
Clay
34
41
43
44
42
41
40
40
41
aTextural classes: Rep 1 & 2, sandy clay loam; Rep 3 & 4, clay.
-------
4. Simulated Florida method or "whisker dams" in which straw
mulch is embedded or pressed into the prepared soil, using
a 3-ft. diameter weighted roller equipped with blunt
coulters spaced 8 to 12 inches apart, toller operated on
the contour.
5. Simulated California method, which is similar to treatment
4 except the coulters are replaced with blunt stubs that
are staggered along alternate rows (These stubs punch the
mulch into the prepared soil about 12 inches apart in a
checkered pattern).
6. Mulch mixed into the prepared soil surface with a roto-
vator, then seeded and cultipacked followed by an appli-
cation of AE-5 asphalt at the rate of 200 to 250 gallons
per ton of straw. (Hot asphalt from an asphalt truck was
applied with a standard patch nozzle. Precision was
limited due to the hand application technique used and to
the fact that no precise method was available for control-
ling the application rate on small plots.)
7. Standard Cartersville method: surface-applied mulch after
planting and cultipacking.
Simulated Rainfall Data -
The intensity of the test storm was 2-1/2 iph in two increments of 30
minutes each with 10-minute interval of no rain in between. Actually,
in accordance with the geographic region of the test sites, the first
increment of 1-1/4 inches in 30 minutes represents the 1-year frequency
storm and the entire intensity of 2-1/2 inches represents 10-year fre-
quency storm. The second increment of 1-1/4 inches alone represents a
1-year frequency storm under very wet antecedent soil moisture condi-
tions.
482
-------
Results -
Exhibit 238 presents the summary of results for all four sites. It is
apparent from the results that for the first rainfall, increment average
runoff and soil loss for all mulch treatments were 0.23 inch (17%) and
3.4 tons per acre, respectively, compared with 0.50 inch (38%) of rain-
fall and 20.2 tons per acre for no mulch treatment. For total simulated
storms, the soil losses from bare untreated and best mulched treatment
were 97 tons and 10 tons per acre respectively. In all cases where
asphalt spray was used as part of treatment, the effectiveness of mulch
was decreased due to less impendence to overland flow and erosion taking
place under the straw mulch canopy, showing that the asphalt had no
beneficial effect. The results also showed that the Florida method
(Treatment 4) was the best treatment and Treatment 7, the Cartersville
method, was second in rank. Exhibit 239 represents the stand cover
evaluations made on March 2-3 and November 1-2, 1965. Stand reflects
the success of various mulch treatments during the early stages of
growth, and cover is indicative of durability of the mulch and the
cover provided by the plants themselves.
Discussion -
It is well known that the rate of annual soil loss on bare and unprotected
roadcuts and highway ditches reaches alarming proportions, causing great
damage to water bodies. Separate studies made by Diseker and Richardson
(Source references A-13, A-14, and A-15), show the erosion rates as
great as 300 tons per acre per year. Wolman reports erosion rates from
an acre of ground under construction in developments and highways may
exceed 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount eroded from farms and woodland
in an equal period of time. It is clear that unless some preven-
tive measures are taken against soil erosion, there can be destruction
of natural beauty and creation of unsightly terrain and hazardous driving
conditions in addition to the serious loss of soil to water bodies. These
studies made in middle and northeast Georgia also report that adaptable
483
-------
Exhibit 238. SUMMARY OF RAINFALL, RUNOFF,
AND SOIL LOSS AT TEST LOCATIONS
oo
Trot-
Bint
.No.
1
5
2
a
6
4
T
Mean
Treatment
Bare, no mulch
Calif, method
("checkered dams")
Surface mulch
+ asphalt
Mulch mixed In
surface
Mulch mixed In
surface + asphalt
Florida method
(-whisker dams")
Surface mulch
(Cartersvllle)
Incr.
no.
1
2
Tot.
1
2
Tot.
1
2
Tot.
1
2
Tot.
1
2
Tot.
1
Tot.
1
2
Tot.
1
2
Tot.
Oconee County (Rep 1)
Rain-
fall
in.
1.36
1.29
2.65
1.33
1.28
2.61
1.41
1.29
2.70
1.33
1. J9
2.77
1.33
1.35
2. 88
1.3S
1. 37
Z.75
1.33
1.55
2.-3S
1.361
1.39 a
2. 75 a
Run-
off
In.
0.74
1.00
1.74
0.26
1.00'
i.26
0.30
1. 15
1.15
P. 39
1.08
1.15
0.15
0.83
0.93
0.27
0.92
1.19
0.31
1.14
1.45
0.39 a
l.Olb
1.40a
Soil
loss
t/ac
23.43
86.54
109. 97
1.4S
W. 78
32.26
2.00
10.42
12.42
1.03
4.43
5.53
0. IS
10.14
10.32
1.64
9.21
10.63
1.83
6.52
8.35
Peach County (Rep 2)
Rain-
fall
in.
1.32
1.32
2.64
1.24
1.2&
2. an
1.40
1.36
2.7S
1.39
1.47
2.66
1.33
1.29
2.62
1.39
1.47
2.86
1.33
1.29
2.62
6. as ah 1.343
30.551 1.35 a
37. 45 a 2. 69 a
Run-
off
in.
0.49
1.10
1.59
0.13
0.90
1.03
0.2*
1.06
1.34
0.20
O.M
1.16
0.05
0.81
0.56
0.19
0.5!
0.73
0.01
0.79
0.30
0.23b
0. Bib
1. 14b
Soil
loss
t/ac
36.07
85.95
J22. 02
3. 82
32.42
35.24
11.14
55.33
66.47
5.01
34.73
39.79
1.53
10. 6 3
12.21
4.79
9. S9
14. IS
0.33
9.14
9.47
12.351
40.461
52. 51 a
Wilkes County (Rep 3)
Rain-
fall
in.
1.31
1.37
2.63
1.43
1.45
2.91
1.20
1. 2G
2.46
1.31
1.20
2.51
1.27
1.43
2.75
1.31
1.20
2.51
1.27
1.45
2.75
1.301
1.33 a
2. 65 a
Run-
off
In:
.28
1.24
1.52
0.03
0.77
0. SO
9.00
0.64
9.64
B. 02
0. 96
0.93
0.46
1.13
1.64
0.00
0.89
0.89
0.09
0.70
0.79
0. Kb
0. 95 b
1. 10 b
Soli
loss
t/ac
4.20
73.25
79.43
0.16
55.03
58.19
0.00
15.53
13.53
0.7S
22.30
23.03
5. S3
29.79
33.62
0.00
2.71
2.71
0.2?
6.25
6.56
1.93b
35. 65 a
37. 3? 1
Wllkes County (Rep 4)
Rain-
fall
in.
1.33
1.38
2.71
1.32
1.35
2.70
1.33
1.39
2.72
1.34
1.43
2.77
1.42
1.42
2. M
1.34
1.43
2.77
1.42
1.42
2.64
l.tta
1.40 a
2. 76i
Run-
off
in.
.50
1.23
1.73
0.31
1.43
1.74
0.43
1.11
1.59
0.37
1.30
1»67
0.43
1.13
1.36
0.39
1.21
1.63
0.34
1.02
1.36
0. 42a
1.21a
1.63a
Soil
loss
.t/ac
16.94
57.83
71. 82
5.11
46.10
51.24
6.24
25.50
31.74
11.34
25. SO
40.14
11.34
40.87
52.21
3.03
8.70
11.79
2.10
18.32
20.42
9. 14 ab
35. 51 a
44. 65 a
P.ain-
fall
in.
1.33a
1.34 a
2. 67 a
1.331
1.351
2. 63 a
1.343.
1.33 a
2.67a
1.36 a
1.37 a
2. 73 a
1.34 a
1.131
2. 77 a
1. 36 a
1.36a.
2. 72 a
1.34 a
1.433
2. 77 a
Means
Run-
off
in.
.501
1.14 a
1.64 a
0. 18b
1. 03 ab
1.2lb
0.27b
0.93ab
1. 26 b
0. 25b
1.07ab
I.32b
0,27b
0.99ab
1.2«b
0. 21b
O.SOb
l.llb
0.19b
0.91b
I. lOb
Soil
loss
t/ac
20. 16 a
76. 41 a
96. 57 a
2.65b
41.83b
44.43b
•I. !5b
26. 69 be
3 1.54 be
4.35b
22.39C
27. 14 be
4.72b
22. S7c
27. 53 be
2.37b
7.51 =
9.88c
1. 14 b
10. We
11.20C
* Data In the same row, column and increment followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different at I he 5^ level according to Duncan's multiple range tests.
-------
Exhibit 239. COVER AND STAND EVALUATIONS ON MARCH 2-3
AND NOVEMBER 1-2, 1965
Cn
Treat-
ment
No.
Treat-
ment
March 2-3, 1965
Oconee
St.
Cov.
Peach
St.
Cov.
Oconee
Cova
November 1-2, 1965
Peach
Cova
Wilkes(l)
Covb
Wilkes(2)
Covb
1
6
5
2
7
3
8
4
Bare
Bare
California
Mulch +
ashpalt
Mulch mixed
+ asphalt
Mulch mixed
Mulch (Car-
tersville)
Whisker dams
(Florida)
48
7
37
92
28
77
87
67
10
1
15
27
4
23
25
27
30
18
77
63
65
75
88
75
4 30
3
22
18
27
20
37
20
10
40
90
80
80
95
70
25
50
98
95
95
75
100
80
40
90
95
80
85
95
95
100
75
40
45
90
90
95
50C
90
Mostly fescue, som crownvetch, treatments 2 and 4.
Mostly common bermuda-grass with some bahiagrass on all plots.
°Unexplained bare area on upper half of this plot.
i some
-------
plants on properly fertilized areas can develop an effective cover
which can control erosion on newly cut road banks and highway cuts to
a great extent. The various measures for obtaining vegetative cover-
growth are also applicable and beneficial to other similar slope
conditions.
486
-------
Case 40. Mulch Rates Required for Erosion Control on Steep Slopes
Source -
Meyer, L. D., Wischmeier, W. H., and Foster, C. R., "Mulch Rates Re-
quired for Erosion Control on Steep Slopes," Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings, Vol. 34, No. 6, November - December 1970, pp.
928-931.(A~37)
Purpose -
"To determine the relative effectiveness of several rates of straw
mulch on a steeply sloping soil of low permeability."
Site Description -
The soil used in this study was a moderately eroded Fox loam with a
moderate to slow permeability. The plots 3.7 m wide and 10.7 m long,
inclined at a 15% slope. Rainfall was provided by a machine called
a Rainulator at a uniform intensity of 6.35 cm (2.5 inches) per hour
for an initial run of 50 minutes and two 30-minute runs at 15-minute
intervals.
Study Method -
Five different mulch rates were studied with two duplicate series of
plots. The rates were 0, 0.56, 1.12, 2.24 and 4.48 metric tons per
hectare (0, 1/4. 1/2. 1, and 2 English tons per acre). One of the dupli-
cate series also contained a sixth plot which was treated with 8.96
M.T./ha. The portions of the soil surface that were physically covered
by straw were 34, 49, 71, 92 and 95% for the five application rates.
Parameters Measured -
Soil loss, runoff and infiltration rates, and flow velocity from soil
plots treated with 6 different application rates of straw mulch.
487
-------
Results -
Exhibit 240 contains the averaged results for each application rate
for each "Rainulator run. The data indicates that even on steeply
sloping soils of below average permeability, small amounts of straw
mulch can cause considerable reductions of soil loss. 0.56 MT/ha
reduced the soil loss to less than one-third of the loss of the un-
treated plot under the storm conditions of this experiment.
The results of this study are compared to those from sililar studies
in Exhibit 241 . It is apparent that as slope increases, more mulch
is needed for similar erosion protection.
Exhibit 242 contains the runoff velocity data for similar studies.
One of the mechanisms for the velocity decrease is the variation of
the flow path as the water is forced to follow an indirect, winding
route through the straw. This is especially true for high loading
rates.
The referenced paper concludes that although several metric tons of
straw mulch per hectare are desirable for a good erosion control pro-
gram, smaller amounts may be beneficial for the reduction of erosion
where larger amounts are not practical. Perhaps low rates of mulch
can be supplemented with other control measures to provide an optimal
economic solution.
488
-------
Exhibit 240. EROSION, RUNOFF, AND
INFILTRATION FOR RAINULATOR STUDY OF
RATES OF STRAW MULCH0
Exhibit 241. EFFECT OF STRAW MULCH
RATE ON EROSION RATE FOR
SEVERAL CONDITIONS
oo
VO
Mulch Soil Run- SL/RO Infiltration now
riteT Bun) loss! offl ratio Totall Rate** vel.tt
KT/ha MT/lu cm % by wt. cm ci
0 All runa 62. 3 1 8. 7 7. 2 4. 0
0. 56 All runs 20. 1 6 7. 6 2. 6 5. 1
1.12 All runs 19.41) 8.3 2.3 4.4
2. 24 All runs 11. S be 8. 6 1. 3 4. 1
4. 48 All runa 2. 5 £ 7.0 0. 4 5.7
8. 96 All runs 1. 5 7. 7 0. 3 5. 0
0 Initial 36.2s 4.1 8.9 2.2
0. 56 Initial 9.91 3.1 3.1 3.2
1.12 Initial 10.11 3.6 2.8 2.7
2.24 Initial 6.2g 3.8 1.6 2.5
4.48 Initial 1.2 1 2.7 0. S 3.6
8.96 Initial 0.9 3.0 0.4 3.3
0 Wet 13.1] 2.2 6.0 1.0
0.56 Wet 5.1k. 2.2 2.4 1.0
1. 12 Wet 4. 5 k 2. 3 1. 9 0. 9
2.24 Wet 2.4km 2.3 1.0 0.9
4.48 Wet 0.6ffi 2.0 0.3 1.2
8.96 Wet 0.4 2.2 0.2 1.0
0 Very wet 13. Of 2.4 S. S 0.8
0.56 Very wet 5. 1 3 2.3 2.2 0.9
1.12 Very wet 4.83 2.4 2.0 0.8
2. 24 Very wet 2. 9 or 2.5 1. 1 0.7
4.48 Very wet 0.7 j 2.3 0.3 0.9
8.96 Very wet a 2 2.5 0.1 0.7
n/hr cm/sec
.4 13. 9
.7 7.1
.4 6.9
.2 5.6
.8 5.3
.4 6.0
.3
2.2
.7
.6
2.3
.1
.5
.4
'.1
.5
0
4
6
3
0
5
0
* Plata were 3. 7 by 10. 7 m and averaged 15% slope. Values given are the averages
of two replications, except the unrepUcaied 8. 96- MT/ha rate.
t Mulch ratea were 0. 1/4, 1/2. 1, 2, and 4 tons per acre, respectively.
t Initial runs were 60 mln In duration; -wet and very wet rona, 30 mln each.
1 Adjusted to an application Intensity of 6. 35 cm/hr and 15% alope. Within each type
of run, differences are significant at the 5% level If the same letter does not appear.
T Adjusted to an application Intensity of 6. 35 cm/hr. Total water applied waa 12. 7
cm.
** Average rate during the last 5 mln of the runs,
tt Average velocity between 3. 8 and 9. 9 in downslope aa determined visually by rate of
dye advance.
Soil loss for conditions Indicated
Fox loam,
unplowed.
Mulch S=15SG
rate Is 10. 7m
Xenla silt loam,
plowed & disked,
U10.7m (10)
Wea silt loam,
plowed & disked,
S=5%
L-10. 7m (!)
Laboratory study,
121fi spheres,
L=12m (5)
S=S%
XT/ha
0
0.56
1.12
2.24
4.48
8.96
MT/ha
62.3
20.1
19.4
11.5
2.5
1.5
MT/ha
32.4
13.0
8.2
3.8
MT/ha
27.8
7.2
3.2
0.7
0
0
MT/ha MT/ha
13.3
6.9
4.4
3.9
43.3
16.7
9.8
9.3
Exhibit 242. EFFECT OF STRAW MULCH RATE
ON RUNOFF VELOCITY FOR SEVERAL CONDITIONS
Velocity of flow for conditions Indicated
Mulch
rite
MT/ha
0
0.56
1.12
2.24
Fox loam
unplowed,
S=15%
cm/ sec*
13.9
7.1
6.9
S.6
Xenla silt loam,
plowed & disked,
&a% (io)
cm/sec*
13.1
6.9
6.3
3.4
Laboratory study,
121, spheres (5)
3=6% S=8% S.10%
cm/ sect
15.6 17.1 19.4
8.3 8.9 12.3
6. 9 6. 9 10. 1
5. 9 5. 9 7. 5
* Average for plot section from 3. 8 to 9. 9 m downslope.
f Average for section from 9.0 to 12.0 m downalope.
-------
Case 41. Stone and Woodchip Mulches for Erosion Construction Sites
Source -
Meyer, L. D., Johnson, C. B., and Foster, G. R., "Stone and Woodchip
Mulches for Erosion Construction Sites," Journal of Soil and Water Con-
servation. Vol. 27, No. 6, November - December 1972, p. 264 ff/A~36)
Purpose -
This study compares erosion rates for various application rates of straw,
stone, gravel, woodchip and Portland cement mulches in order to deter-
mine a cheap, effective erosion deterrent for exposed soils.
Site Description -
The experiment area was the sideslope of a borrow pit dug during con-
struction of Highway 1-65 near Dayton, Indiana. The soil was a compacted
calcareous till underlying a Wingate silt loam. It's bulk density was
1.6 to 1.7 grams/cubic centimeter. Particle-size distribution was 12
percent coarse than 2 mm. (See Exhibit 243.)
Study Method -
Six inches of subsoil were spread over a uniform 20 percent slope. The
surface was compacted, then released smooth. Sixteen 6-foot by 35-foot
plots were laid out and covered with various mulches. Many of the
mulches were run in duplicate and tests on several plots were repeated
with larger application rates. In all, 20 tests were run on six types
of mulch at 14 application rates.
Simulated rainfall was applied at a rate of 2-1/2 inches per hour for
1 hour on the first day and two 30-minute periods the following day.
In addition, water was added uniformly across the high end of each plot
to simulate longer slopes and their effects on mulch stability. The
inflow was applied at rates equal to, twice and three times the runoff
490
-------
--
-
Exhibit 243. Erosion Plots Following Rainstorm Applied by Rainulator,
Four of Eight Plots in Group Were Tested Simultaneously.
-------
rate anticipated from rainfall on a 35-foot plot. Runoff, erosion
rates and flow velocities were determined on all tests.
In September, after the testing was complete, the plots were seeded
with approximately 30 Ibs per acre of rye grass and fescue and 400 Ibs
per acre of 15-15-15 fertilizer. The plots weren't tilled and erosion
damage was not repaired. They were left as they were at the completion
of the testing. Weather during that period was relatively favorable for
revegetation.
Results -
Exhibit 244 gives resulting soil losses from 5 inches of intense rain-
fall on the 35-foot plots. They fall into three groups. The best per-
formances were by the high application rates of stone (>135 tons/acre)
and woodchips (> 7 T/A).. The middle group included 4 T/A woodchips,
60 T/A stone, 2.3 T/A wheat straw and 70 T/A gravel. The last group
contained the lightest applications of stone and woodchips, Portland
cement and no mulch.
The development of rills greatly influenced several of the treatments,
especially in the last group where the rills grew to 4-6 inches deep.
Rill development was much less pronounced in the middle group, except
that the rills tended to form under the straw to allow unimpeded flow.
The stone and gravel tended to settle in place and the woodchips were
occasionally carried down slope. The plots with the highest application
rates of stone and woodchips did not develop noticeable rills.
Exhibit 245 gives the results of the studies with inflow water added
in addition to rainfall. Again, rilling developed on several of the
plots. Once serious rilling began, mulch rate did not appreciably
effect the erosion rates. Woodchip mulches were the most seriously
492
-------
39.6 I NO MULCH
25.6
32.7 | PORTLAND CEMENT
27.11 2 T/A HOODCWPS b
15 T/A STONE b
70 T/A GRAVEL
2.3 T/A STRAW
60 T/A STONE
4 T/A HOOOCHIPS
7 T/A HOODCHIPS b
135 T/A STONE b
] <2 ,240 & 375 T/A STONE b h
J . M2 & 25 T/A.UOODCHIPS b
10 20 30
SOIL LOSS (T/A)
40
. 'Based on one replication only. The
other no-mulch plot wa* severely damaged 'by
erosion during a natural rainstorm when its
cover was blown off. Repairs prior to testing
apparently caused abnormally high erosion
touting 95.9 tons per acre. bUnreplicated treat-
ment. Values for other treatments are averages
for two replications.
Note: Rain Intensity, 2.5 inches per hour; slope length,
35 feet; slopq steepness, 20 percent; soil, calcareous
till beneath wingate silt loam.
Exhibit 244. Soil Losses from 5-inches of Simulated Rain on
Denuded Slopes for Various Types and Rates of Mulch
493
-------
No mulch
1 5 tons per acre stone
60 tons per acre stone
135 tons per acre stone
£
-
4 tons per acre w oodchips
7 tons per acre woodchips
Note: Actual straw and woodchip rates varied from those given on the 3 x 5-inch
cards. Heavier rates of stone and woodchips (not pictured) provided
complete cover.
Exhibit 245. Typical Treatments on a 20 Percent Denuded Slope
-------
affected. When their breakdown point was reached, the slope rapidly
deteriorated forming large deep rills. Perhaps anchoring them with
some kind of emulsion may improve their effectiveness.
The most effective treatment studied was 135 tons per acre of stone
mulch. This averages less than 1-inch deep and can be delivered and
spread for about a penny per square foot. Woodchip mulch applied at
a rate of 25 tons/acre was also quite effective. Woodchips can often
be obtained at hauling costs. Stone, gravel and woodchips are also
more resistant to being blown away than straw.
Flow velocities are tabulated in Exhibit 246. They tend to correspond
closely with the erosion rates in that mulches effective against
erosion also reduce runoff flow velocities. Rilling had similar results
in that once rills become established, runoff rates increased. Stones
and gravel tended to inhibit rill flow although erosion still occurred.
Prior to rilling, high rates of woodchips were the most effective re-
tardant, probably due to smaller pores in the mulchis mass.
Revegetation was evaluated the following spring. The plots with^the
best cover were those with 240 and 135 T/A stone, 12 T/A woodchips,
gravel and straw mulch. The grass appeared healthiest and yellowish
on the woodchip and straw plots. Considerable amounts of grass grew
through the thickest layers of stone and woodchips (2-1/2 and 1-1/2
inches respectively). The plots with deep rills developed their best
grass in the rills.
•
Conclusions -
The authors ranked the most effective treatments for the different slope
lengths on a 20 percent slope. Their list is presented in Exhibit 247.
Stone mulch at 240 tons/acre is one of the most effective treatments at
every length. Other effective treatments include 135 tons/acre of stone
and 12 and 25 tons/acre of woodchips. These are all relatively cheap
495
-------
Exhibit 246. FLOW VELOCITIES AT VARIOUS DISTANCES DOWNSLOPE
(SLOPE STEEPNESS, 20 PERCENT; RAIN INTENSITY, 2.5 INCHES PER HOUR),
Average Velocities (ft/sec)
Treatment
No mulch
Straw
2.3 tons/a
Stone
15 tons/a
60 tons/a
135 tons/a
240 tons/a
375 tons/a
Gravel
70 tons/a
Woodchips
2 tons/a
4 tons/a
7 tons/a
12 tons/a
25 tons/a
Portland cement
12 to 32 ft
Section
0.67"
.32
.51"
.32
.18
.18
.18
.30
.41"
.22
.23
.09
.16
,46b
55 to 75 ft
Section*
1.20"
.42
.83"
.50
.31
.29
.22
.50
.96"
.52
.60
.14
.17
.65"
95 to 115 ft
Section*
1.58b
.47
1.13"
.59
.40
.36
.26
.60
1.48"
.72
1.21"
.21
.18
.98"
140 to 160 ft
Section*
1.62b
.48
1.36"
.65
.46
.43
.27
.72
1.62"
1.20"
1.50"
.42°
.18
1.50b
•Obtained by adding inflow to produce flow approximately equivalent to runoff from 2)»-inch-
per-hour rainfall application at the distances downplot shown.
bSevere rilling caused flow to occur in rills rather than across mulched areas.
'Before breakdown; see note d of table 2.
496
-------
Exhibit 247. RATING FOR EROSION CONTROL
EFFECTIVENESS ON DENUDED SLOPE OF 20 PERCENT STEEPNESS
(BEST TO WORST)3
Slopes less than 40 feet long
^ 240 tons/a stone; > 12 tons/a wood-
chips
135 tons/a stone
7 tons/a woodchips
4 tons/a woodchips
60 tons/a stone and gravel; 2.3 tons/a
straw
Slope kngths of 40 to 100 feet
— 240 tons/a stone; 25 tons/a woodchips
12 tons/a woodchips
135 tons/ a stone
Slope lengths of 100 to 160 feet
& 210 tons/a stone; 25 tons/a woodchips
135 tons/a stone
|Other treatments were much less effective
in reducing erosion.
497
-------
and easy to apply. In addition they can later be seeded and produce
good stands of grass. These treatments can be applied following re-
shaping to provide immediate protection in construction areas.
498
-------
Case 42. An Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sediment-Control Methods
for Watersheds Undergoing Urbanization
Source -
Brandt, Gerald H., et al., An Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sediment-
Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing Urbanization, W72-08246, The
Dow Chemical Co., 191P, February 1972, PB-209-212.(A~7>
Purpose -
To compare cost and effectiveness of erosion and sediment control systems.
Site Description -
Two sub-basins in the Seneca Creek watershed in Montgomery County, Mary-
land were chosen for study: see Exhibits 248 and 249. A 2003 acre segment
near Gaithersburg, Maryland was undergoing urbanization. Its 1970 land
use consisted of:
Acres
Grassland 1,035
Urban 380
Urbanizing 241
Woodland 237
Cropland 60
Lakes 50
2,003
This area's topography is predominately made up of gently rolling hills
with an elevation ranging from 310 to 480 feet above sea level. The
basin includes part of Montgomery Village, a new town being constructed
in the area. The village is growing at a rate of 1000 people per year.
The second study area was a 1,960-acre segment near Germantown. This
area was not subject to construction activities, although plans have
been made for its future urbanization. It was included for use as a
499
-------
.
i
Exhibit 248. Location of Seneca Creek Watershed With
Respect to Major Surrounding Metropolitan Areas
-------
\ ^Clarksburg
s^^Sl^^^S^^^^fe^
S&k ;.,: ,,.K ^ ^^I^^SiP^5
&£. •£; y* ~^s v^>j>^-r.•^z%'f'?/:v
\?+^\ \;>\ • ' ' ; - • • ' ' • ^^ ' i -.» -^ 1^^^ jj •
.:i^^&^:^: ^r^f^^f
1971 LAND USE
ACRES
CROP LAND 10,579
GRASS LAND 43,582
WOOD LAND 23,404
URBAN 4,676
OTHER 238
82,479
.
Note: Segments chosen for study scales: 1 inch » 2.08
miles.
Exhibit 249. Seneca Creek Watershed in Montgomery County,
Maryland, Showing Land Use Distribution, Major
Population Centers and Location of Watershed
501
-------
test basin for the control methods developed In this study. Its land
use was broken down as follows:
Acres
Grassland 987
Cropland 258
Woodland 480
Urban 235
Urbanizing 0_
1,960
The elevation ranges from 280 to 520 feet.
The 1970 population of this area was less than 1000, but is expected
to rise to 20,000 by the year 2000. This area is planned to contain
a core of high-rise office buildings, apartments and shopping centers
surrounded by residential communities.
The soils of both segments consist of the Glenelg and Manor series.
The Glenelg is a deep well-drained soil developed from a soft mica-
schist. The Manor series is rather shallow, excessively drained, and
has a poorly developed subsoil.
Study Method, Results -
Sediment Yield - After selecting the watershed and the two study seg-
ments, their sediment yields were estimated using the Universal Soil
Loss Equation. The K* values used for the soil erodibility were those
of the A horizon of the soils involved. The other factors in the
equation were either taken from published tables or estimated based
on established practice.
*The K, C and P factors refer to the factors of the Universal Soil
Loss Equation. See Section VI.
502
-------
After determining the amount of soil eroded with the soil loss equa-
tion, the results were multiplied by a sediment delivery ratio based
partly on the work of Roehl.^ ~ ' This ratio adjusted the computed
yield to account for intermediate deposition.
Both basins were subdivided into small segments of relatively con-
sistant land use and soil characteristics. The sediment yields of
each segment were computed and tabulated by land use. It was assumed
that construction activities were uncontrolled sources (C=P"=1.0).
These results were compared with the effects of controlling construction
sedimentation to varying degrees (see Exhibits 250 to 252).
Gross erosion from the Gaithersburg segment with no sediment control
measures taken in the construction area was 50,700 tons/year. Of this
amount, 43,300 tons were due to construction activity on 241 acres, a
rate of 188 ton/acre/year. The yield for the rest of the basin averaged
3 tons/acre/year. Net erosion, or the amount of sediment that reaches
the stream, was determined by multiplying the gross erosion values by
a sediment delivery ratio of .39. The use of a 90% effective erosion
control program would reduce the net sediment yield from an average
uncontrolled rate of 9.9 tons/acre/year to 1.9 tons/acre/year.
Since the Germantown segment was undergoing a construction activity,
its yield was about 1 ton/acre/year, or approximately the same as the
non-construction areas of the Gaithersburg segment. The effects of
uncontrolled construction in this basin could increase the sediment
output by a factor of 10.
Control Measures - Standard control measures were in use in the
Gaithersburg segments. These measures included diversion and inter-
ceptor berms, sodded ditches, grade stabilization structures, level
503
-------
Exhibit 250 . GROSS EROSION WITHIN THE GAITHERSBURG SEGMENT
ASSUMING NO SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ON CONSTRUCTION AREAS
(FACTOR C VALUE = 1)
Gross
_ , „ Erosion Percent
land Jse _ Acres (Ton/Year) of Erosion
Construction 241 45,347 89.4
Cropland 60 596 1.2
Grassland 1,035 3,242 6.4
Woodland 237 328 0.6
Urban $80 1,218 2.4
Nonsediment
contributing 50 0
Total 2,003 50,731
-------
Exhibit 251. IMPACT OF CONTROLLING EROSION AND SEDIMENT FROM
URBAN CONSTRUCTION IN THE GAITHERSBURG SEDIMENT
In
O
Ui
Degree of
Control
0
50
75
90
95
Construction
(Ton/year)
45,3^7
22,675
11,537
4,535
2,267
Construction
All Sources Contribution
(Ton/ year) (Percent)
50,731
28,057
16,721
.9,919
7,651
89.4
80.8
67.6
45.7
29.6
Sediment
Yield*
(Ton /mile2
year)
6,322
3,495
2,083
1,236
953
*Assumes sediment delivery ratio of
-------
Exhibit 252. GROSS EROSION WITHIN GERMANTOWN SEGMENT
Gross Erosion Percent of
Land Use Acres (Ton/year) Erosion _
Cropland
Grassland
Urban
V/oodland
256
9S7
235
460
2,270
1,817
339
505
Total 1,960 4,981 100-C
-------
spreaders and sediment basins. Seven representative plans were
analyzed. Exhibit 253 gives the range and number of structures on
an average acre of the 241 acre construction area. All cost and
effectiveness analysis was based on the average acre.
In addition, variations of current practices were considered (shown in
Exhibit 254. System number 10 corresponds to the conventional treat-
ment shown in Exhibit 253. Systems 11 to 15 differ from 10 only in the
method of surface stabilization. System 16 eliminates surface stabili-
zation. Systems 20 through 26 eliminate sodded ditches, grade stabili-
zation structures and level spreaders. Systems 30 through 36 rely on a
6-month waiting period after seeding to allow grass to become established
before building activity. The cost of the two chemical treatments are:
type A - $150 per acre, and type B - $250 per acre. Both are generally
effective for only a few months.
For the Germantown segment, more innovative control measures were
examined. These included a third erosion control chemical, chemical
straw tacking, downstream sediment basins with and without flocculants
and grading variations such as strip or spot building. The various
combinations are listed in Exhibit 255.
Chemical X* costs $150 per acre and is effective for about one year.
The chemical straw tacking is substituted for the more conventional
asphalt emulsion or disking methods of anchoring the mulch. Special
building practices including strip, spot and natural terrain building
reduce the amount of exposed area, but impose a high price on the
resulting buildings.
The effectiveness of these various treatments was again estimated
with the Universal Soil Loss Equation by assigning each surface treat-
ment combination a C-factor value (listed in Exhibit 256 ). Similarly,
*The specific chemical is not identified, but properties are assumed.
See Exhibit 255.
507
-------
Exhibit 253. WEIGHTED AVERAGE AND RANGE OF EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURES FROM SEVEN GAITHERSBURG PLANS
Weighted
Structures Range Average
Diversion Berms 12-162 ft/acre 101 ft
Interceptor Berms 0- 31 ft/acre 12 ft
o Sodded Ditches 3-103 ft/acre 37 ft
Grade Stabilization 1- 22 ft/acre 8 ft
Level Spreaders 0- 1^ ft/acre 5 ft
Sediment Basins 0- .07/acre .O^/acre
-------
Exhibit 254. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE GAITHERSBURG SEGMENT
System
Number
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
oc
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Surface Stabiliz.ition
Seed &
Fertilizer
Straw
Mulch
•:•:•:•:•:*:•:•:•:•:•
• * • • • i
i'.'. ! .•,'!
...*.-*-
~n . i I •
Chemical
A
vX-
X'X1
o'.Vo
B
:X:X
:•:•:•:•
Time Between
Seeding &
Building
None
n
NA
NA
m
/////-
n
NA
NA
/////.
NA
'////
////
NA
f////\
V//S
G Months
'//////
y///*///.
y/////,
w///f
//////'
/////A
Vy///*.
Erosion
Reducing
Structures
fsjormsi
=—
m
Hi:::i
Diver-
sion
Berms
*•* 00
• o« »•»
• O * 0 •
• »• 9«
O*O <> *
OO • OO
oo* «•»
000*0
ooooo
04000
ooooo
00000
ooooo
oo a oo
ooooo
oooov
Sedinent
Basins
04/Acre
.OS/Acre
•
Effec-
tiveness
%
91
84
78
78
87
87
75
90
81
73
73
84
84
70
86
60
65
94
87
91
91
93
91
77
509
-------
Exhibit 255. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES FOR GERMANTOWN
System
Number
Surface Stabilization
Seed l
Fertilizer
Straw
Mulch
Chemical System
Straw
Tack
Erosion
Reducing
Structures
•Normal
On-Site
Sediment
Basins
.04/Acre
Downstream
Sediment Basins
Normal
With
Flocculant
Strip
Build-
ing
Effec-
tiveness
10
17
18
19
40
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
60
61
70
80
Natural Terrain Building
9 OOtlO
• OOwft
• «•••
oeo*»
»aao»K
«•*•••
0««0*»
a <>••<•»
• e » » » »
[with spot building]
91
84
90
91
93
87
87
92
96
94
94
96
93
97
510
-------
Exhibit 256. AVERAGE FACTOR C VALUES FOR VARIOUS
SURFACE STABILIZING TREATMENTS
Treatment
Seed, fertilizer and straw mulch.
Straw disked or treated with asphalt
or chemical straw tack.
Seed and fertilizer
Chemicals A and B
Seed and fertilizer with Chemicals
A and B
Chemical X
Seed and fertilizer with Chemical X
^Assumes 18-month construction period.
**Assumes 24-rnonth construction period.
Factor C Values
Time Elapsed- Between
Seeding and Build ing
None*
0.35
0.64
0.89
0.52
0.56
0.38
o Months*-'
0.23
0.38
-------
control structures were assigned the P-factor values listed in
Exhibit 257 . The combined system effectiveness was determined using
an equation derived from the soil loss equation:
% effectiveness - (1 - CP) x 100
The effectiveness of the various treatments is listed in Exhibit 253
and 255. The conventional practices were estimated to be 91%
efficient under active construction while systems incorporating down-
stream impoundments and chemical flocculation ranged from 94 to 97%.
Costs - The unit cost of the control structures is listed in Exhibit 258,
The cost of plan design and approval was averaged to $34 per
acre. Field engineering costs were assumed to be 5% of the structure
cost. The structure costs for the seven conventional plans analyzed
in the control section ranged from $180 to $780 per acre, with a
weighted average of $420 per acre, resulting in a design and engineer-
ing cost of $55 per acre. Property value was placed at $5000 per
acre. Taxes were computed to be $144 per acre per year in the graded
state. Seeding fertilizer and mulch bring the total treatment cost
for the conventional control system to $976 per acre. Surface stabi-
lizing costs are listed in Exhibit 259.
Two further costs are estimated. Maintenance costs include the dredging
of sediment basins, erosion damage and restoration. This cost was
estimated through contacts with developers and contractors. Some sedi-
ment escapes all interception mechanisms and eventually ends up in the
stream and, in this case, the Potomac River. The damaged areas include
metropolitan water supply, electric power, dredgings, conuaerical fishing,
recreational fishing, boating, flood relief and esthetics. The estimated
results come to a total of $6.80 per ton of sediment. The breakdown is
given in Exhibit 260 . Damages to the stream and river below the two
study areas were estimated at $1,500 per acre undergoing construction.
512
-------
Exhibit 257. FACTOR P VALUES FOR COMPONENTS OF
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Factor
Component P Value
(1) Small sediment basin:
0.04 basin/acre 0.50
0.06 basin/acre 0.50
(2) Downstream sediment basin:
With chemical flocculants 0.10
Without chemical flocculants 0.20
(5) Erosion reducing structures:
Normal rate u:sage 0.50
High rate usage 0.40
(4) Strip building 0.75
513
-------
Exhibit 258. ESTIMATE DEVELOPER COSTS FOR
EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES
Structure Cost
Diversion berms $1.25/lir.ear foot
Interceptor berrr.s $1.25/linear foot
Sodded ditches $4.50/linear foot
Grade stabilization structure $2.80/linear foot
Level spreader $2.80/linear foot
Small sediment basin $1,500 eath
Exhibit 259. COSTS FOR SURFACE STABILIZING TREATMENTS
Treatments $/Aere
None 0
Seed, fertilizer, mulch 500
Seed only 209
Chemical A 500
Chemical B 587
Chemical X 500
Seed, fertilizer, Chemical A 480
Seed, fertilizer, Chemical B 567
Seed, fertilizer, Chemical X 480
Seed, fertilizer and straw tack
514
-------
Ol
I-1
Ln
Exhibit 260. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES IN POTOMAC
BELOW SENECA CREEK
K $/Year $/Ton of sediment
Metro water supply 2^6 »51
Industrial
Electric power cooling 0 —
Dredging 520 .67
Commercial fishing 990 1.27
Recreational
Fishing 692 -88
Boating 655 •&*
Aesthetics 2,000 2.56
SUBTOTAL 53101 6.55
Flood damage abatement benefit
accrued to impoundments —L^X.
TOTAL 6-8°
-------
Exhibits 261 and 262 give the cost breakdowns for the various control
systems. Note that control costs are significantly lower than the
damage cost of uncontrolled construction. The treatment systems in-
corporating spot strip and natural terrain building were eliminated due
to prohibitive construction costs. Exhibit 263 compares the cost and
effectiveness for the most promising of the control systems under study.
For the Gaithersburg segment the conventional system is recommended for
continued use, with system 20 as an adequate alternative. System 20
incorporated fewer structural diversions but larger sediment basins
than the conventional plan. Of the more advanced treatments considered
for the Germantown segment, the most beneficial were the systems in-
corporating downstream sediment basins. These gave high efficiencies
and trapped sediment from sources other than the construction area
alone.
516
-------
Exhibit 261. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES FOR GAITHERSBURG SEGMENT WITH COSTS
System
Number
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Surface Stabilization
Seid H
•:•:•:•:•:•
Fx-x-x
:•:•:-:•:•:
::::x:x
*' ! *X"X
x-x-x
-K- .• ; ; ;
•X-X-:-
x-x-x
:x*:v
Slr.iw
Mukh
:•:•:•:•:•:
:•:•:•:•:•
•:•:•:•:•:
IvX'l*
:x;x::l
A
:•:•:'•:
:•:•:•
•:•:•:•
:-:•:
B
v:::::
Xvl'
X;X
*!*X-!
Time Between
Socding &
Mom
NA
NA
I
NA
NA
It
NA
NA
'
C Months
^p:
/////,
%222
%%
y/////
'4%%,
Erosion
Reducing
r*,™
==
High
•=aM«
Diver
sion
Berms
*
*••**
Sediment
.04/Acre
06/Acie
Effec-
tiveness
91
84
78
78
T
'5
faO
81
73
73
84
84
70
86
60
65
94
87
91
91
93
91
77
Treatment Costs. S/Acie
Structures
& H*ini
421
421
421
421
421
421
421
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
467
467
421
421
421
421
234
467
Engi-
neering
55
55-
55
55
55
55
55
37
37 '
37
37
37
37
37
62
62
' 16
55
55
55
55
37
62
16
Sur (ace
500
209
3CO
387
480
567
500
209
300
387
480
567
500
500
500
209
480
567
500
500
500
Interest
Ta«
-
-
-
-
337
328
340
344
332
342
321
noun.lcd
Tot.1l
975
685
775
865
955
1,045
475
770
480
570
660
7EO
840
270
1,030
530
515
1,315
1,315
1,295
1,385
1,105
1,370
835
Maintenance Costs
S/Acre
Construction Peiiod
Sediment
50
90
125
125
75
75
140
140
255
350
350
205
205
390
30
100
70
70
90
Damage A
Rest oca !<
-------
Exhibit 262. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES FOR GERMANTOWN SEGMENT WITH COSTS
System
Number
10
17
18
19
'•,1
42
43
50
51
52
53
60
61
70
80
Surface Stabilization
Seed >
Fertili«r
:•:•:•:•:•:•:
>'»*i"i-t*t*-'
£M
:•:•••:•:-:•:
•°«°!".*r*i**
Natural
.".V.V.V
Si> aw
Mulch
.•.•.•.'.
:•:•:•:•:•
Terra
Oonncal System
Straw
Tack
n Builc
X
iiii
•.*-•.*.•
v.-X-
•:x:x
ling
Erosion
fleductng
Slri'ciures
-Normal
'%%%
s^sss//
///////,
<%W//
'f^W,
'///////,
y//7///
On Site
Scdimrnl
Basins
.04/Acre
Downstream
Sediment Basins
Normal
•
•
[with
With
Ftocculiint
••••••
•••»••
spot bull
Strip
Build-
ing
ding]
Effec-
tiveness
91
84
90
91
93
87
87
92
96
94
94
96
93
97
ISM text)
(tern text)
Trndtment Costs, S/Acre
Structure!
& Basins
421
421
421
421
108
103 '
108
108
185
185
185
185
421
185
Engi-
lecting
55
55
55
55
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
55
21
"
Surf ja
Stabilization
500
300
480
493
500
209
300
480
500
209
300
480
500
500
Rounded
Total
975
775
955
970
630
340
430
610
705
415
505
685
see text)
see text)
N.E.
N.E.
Maintenance Costs
S/Acre
Constfuciion Period
jodiment
Basin
50
80
55
50
220
360
320
-235
245
400
360
260
40
200
Oenvigt &
lestomion
100
150
100
100
200
250
250
200
200
250
250
200
100
200
Total
150
230
155
150
420
610
570
435
445
650
610
460
140
400
N.E.
M.E.
(.-rjiment
Damages
o Stream
S/Acrc
140
215
145
140
185
340
295
200
140
250
220
150
100
105
3i.-sidu.il
Value
S/Acre
-100
-100
-100
225
-225
-125
225
-235
-235
-135
-235
-100
-235
Grand Total
S/Ar.re/
Construction
Period
1.165
1.220
1,155
1,160
1.010
1,065
1,170
1,020
1,055
1,080
1,200
1,060
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
N.E.
.
-
(
-------
Exhibit 263. COST AND EFFECTIVENESS OF MOST
PROMISING CONTROL SYSTEMS
System
Number.
50
51
52
52
Components
Effec-
tiveness
10 Seed, fertilizer, s'traw 91
mulch. Erosion structures
(normal). Sediment basins
18
19
20
Same as (10) except chemical 90
X replaces straw mulch.
Same as (10) except chemical 91
straw tack replaces asphalt.
.Seed, fertilizer, straw 90
mulch. Diversion bervns.
Sediment basins (.06/acre).
Seed, fertilizer, straw 93
mulch. Downstream sediment
basin.
Seed, fertilizer, chemical 92
X. Downstream sediment
basin.
Seed, fertilizer, straw 96
mulch. Downstream sediment
basin using flocculants.
Same as (50) without straw 91*
mulch.
Chemical X. Downstream 9'f
sediment basin using
flocculants.
Same as (52) with seed, 96
fertilizer.
Costs, $/Acre
Treatment*
Maintenance Stream
-Residual Damage Total
1,025
1,155
1,010 11*5 -1-155
1,020 1^0 1,160
1,010 145* 1,155
82?
185 1,010
820 200 1,020
915 1*10 1,055
830 250 1.080
1,080 220 1,200
910 150 1.060
* Stream damage costs for System 1 are $130 and $140/acre for
Gaithersburg and Germantown segments respectively. The difference
is due to the higher delivery ratio used for the Germantown segment
to calculate sediment damage costs in Section IX.
** Sediment damage cost would be a few dollars higher if this system
had been imposed on Germantown segment.
519
-------
APPENDIX G: REFERENCES FOR APPENDICES A THROUGH F
A-l Andreluinas, V. L., "Real or Imaginary Dilemna?," Water Spectrum,
Vol. 4, No. 1 (1972).
A-2 Arthur D. Little, Inc., Report on Channel Modifications, Council
on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. (1973).
A-3 Barnett, A. P., and et al, "Evaluation of Mulching Methods for
Erosion Control on Newly Prepared and Seeded Highway Backslopes,"
Agronomy Journal, Vol. 59, pp 83-85 (1967).
A-4 Becker, B. C., Mills, T. R., and Maryland Department of Water
Resources, Guideline for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and Implementations. Hittman Associates, Inc., for Maryland Depart-
ment of Water Resources and the U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D. C.
A-5 Bethlahmy, N., and Kidd, W. J. Jr., Controlling Soil Movement from
Steep Roadfills, Boise, Idaho, U. S. Forest Service Research Note
INT-45, USDA, Inter-Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
(1966).
A-6 Bobb, W. H., and et al, Effects of a Proposed 35 ft Channel to
Richmond on the Currents and Salinities Over the Seed Oyster Beds
in James Rivera U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss., (September 1966).
A-7 Brandt, Gerald H. , et al, An Economic Analysis of Erosion and
Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing Undergoing
Urbanization, W72-08246, The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Michigan,
191P, PB-209-212 (February 1972).
A-8 Brown and Caldwell Inc., "Effects of Dredged Materials on Dissolved
Oxygen in Receiving Water," U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, San
Francisco District (March 1973).
A-9 Churchill, Constance L., et al, Effect of Dredging on the Nutrient
Levels and Biological Populations of a Lake. W73 00938, South
Dakota State University, Brookings Water Resources Institute,
164P, PB-212-718 (August 1972).
A-10 Cox, A. L., et al, "Erosion Control Study, Part II - Roadside
Channels," Highway Research Report, U. S. Department of Trans-
portation, Federal Highway Administration (April 1971).
520
-------
A-ll Coyote Creek and Cold Creek Sediment Studies near South Lake
Tahoe, California. Unpublished information obtained through
internal communication with (1) California Regional Water
Resources Control Board (Lahontan Region), and (2) Department
of Plans and Permits, South Lake Tahoe, California.
A-12 Crawford, N. H., and Donigan, A. Jr., Pesticide Transport and
Runoff Model for Agricultural Lands, Hydrocomp, Inc., EPA 660/2-
74-13, (Prepublication copy) (December 1973).
A-13 Diseker, E. G., and Richardson, E. C., "Control of Roadbank
Erosion in the Southern Piedmont," Agronomy Journal. Vol. 53,
pp 292-294 (1961).
A-14 Diseker, E. G., and Richardson, E. C., "Erosion Rates and Control
Methods on Highway Cuts," Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 5,
pp 152-155 (1962).
A-15 Diseker, E. G., and Richardson, E. C., "Roadside Sediment Pro-
duction and Control," Transactions of the ASAE. Vol. 4, pp 62-68
(1961).
A-16 Elder, R. A., et al, "Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on
Current Research into the Effects of Reservoirs on Water Quality,"
Technical Report No. 17, Department of Environmental and Water
Resource Engineering, Vanderbilt University, pp 1-50 (January 1968).
A-17 Emerson, J. W., "Channelization: A Case Study," Science. Vol. 173,
pp 325-326 (July 1971).
A-18 Fairfax County (Virginia) Erosion-Siltation Control Handbook.
Fairfax, Virginia (December 1973).
A-19 Guy, H. P., "Residential Construction and Sedimentation at Kensing-
ton, Maryland," Proceedings of Federal Inter-Agency Conference,
1963, Miscellaneous Publication No. 920, USDA, Agricultural Research
Service (June 1965).
A-20 Guy, H. P., and Clayton, I. L., "Some Sediment Aspects of Tropical
Storm Agnes," Journal of the Hydraulics Division. ASCE, Vol. 99,
No. HY9, p 1653 (1973)
A-21 Guy, H. P., and Ferguson, G. E., "Sediment in Small Reservoirs
Due to Urbanization," Journal of the Hydraulic Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers (March 1962).
A-22 Hammer, T. R., "Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization,"
Water Resources Research. Vol. 8, No. 6 (December 1972).
521
-------
A-23 Hendrikson, B. H., "A Fertility Survey of Exposed Subsoils from
Highway Road Banks in the Coosa Watershed of Northwest Georgia,"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 13, No. 1 (January
1958).
A-24 Hendrickson, B. H., "A Fertility Survey of Exposed Subsoils from
Highway Roadbanks in the Coosa Watershed of Northwest Georgia",
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 27, No. 6, p 264
(November - December 1972).
A-25 Hittman Associates Inc., Demonstration of the Separation and
Disposal of Concentrated Sediments, Prince George's Co., Maryland.
USEPA, Washington, D.C. (February 1974).
A-26 Hittman Associates, Inc., Joint Construction Sediment Control
Project, Columbia, Maryland, USEPA, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Washington, D. C. (June 1973).
A-27 Holeman, J. N., Sedimentation of Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reser-
voirs. Baltimore Co.. Maryland. SCS-TP-145, USDA Soil Conservation
Service (February 1965).
A-28 Holeman, J. N., and Geiger, A. F., "Sedimentation of Lake Barcroft
Fairfax County, Va.," SCS-TP-136, Soil Conservation Service, USDA,
Washington, D. C. (March 1959).
A-29 Hbtes, F. L., et al, Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment
Control for Construction Activities. EPA-430-9-73-016, Engineering-
Science, Inc., for U.S.E.P.A., Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington, D. C. (July 1973).
A-30 Jeane, G. S., and Pine, R. E., Hydraulic Dredging and the Effect
of a Method of Spoil Disposal on Water Quality and Juvenile Salmon
Survival in Port Gardner. Everett. Washington. Department of
Ecology, Washington State University (February 1973).
A-31 Klehr, E. H., Behavior of Water in a Southwestern Impoundment -
Lake Thunderbird. A-013-OKLA, School of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
A-32 Knott, J. M., "Effects of Urbanization on Sedimentation and Flood
Flows in Colma Creek Basin, California," Open File Report, U.S.
Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California (February 1973).
A-33 Krizek, R. J., et al, "Engineering Characteristics of Polluted
Dredging," U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D. C. (March 1973).
A-34 Kroll, C. G., Sediment Discharge in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Cali-
fornia; 1972 Water Year. USDI Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Menlo Park, Calif. (1973).
522
-------
A-35 McCaw, W. J., Water Quality of Montgomery County Streams and
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents December 1969 - January 1974.
Montgomery County, Maryland, Division of Environmental Protection,
Rockville, Maryland (August 1974).
A-36 Meyer, L. D., et al, "Stone and Woodchip Mulches for Erosion
Construction Sites," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
Vol. 27, No. 6, p 264 (November - December 1972).
A-37 Meyer, L. D., et al, "Mulch Rates Required for Erosion Control
on Steep Slopes," Soil Science Society of America Proceedings.
Vol. 34, No. 6, pp 928-931 (November - December 1970).
A-38 Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Inst.,
Characterization of Pollutant Availability for San Francisco
Bay Dredge Sediments. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Fran-
cisco District (January 1974).
A-39 Reed, L. A., Effects of Roadway and Pond Construction of Sedi-
ment Yield Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Open File Report,
U. S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pa. (August 1971).
A-40 Reed, L. A., et al., Progress Reports No. 17 (Jan. 1, 1973 -
March 31, 1973), and No. 21 (January 1, 1974 - March 1974), on
Renach Project No. 68-34, "Evaluation of Erosion Control Measures
Used in Highway Construction," U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division, Harrisburg, Pa.
A-41. Reeder, H. F., Sediment Resulting from Construction of Interstate
Highway I-4Q in North Carolina. USDI, Geological Survey, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
A-42 Roehl, J. W., "Sediment Source Areas, Delivery Ratio and Influ-
encing Morphological Factors," International Union of Geodesy
and Geophysics, International Association, Scientific Hydrology,
Pub. No. 59, pp 202-213 (1962).
A-43 Roth, C. P., et al, Prediction of Subsoil Erodibility Using
Chemical, Mineralogical and Physical Parameters, (Contract
No. 6709, Project No. 15030, HIX), National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (December 1973).
A-44 Ruhe, R. V., "Stream Regimen and Man's Manipulation," Environ-
mental Geomorphology, Coates Publishing Co., (1970).
A-45 Sciandrone, J. C., "Environmental Protection at a California Dam,"
Civil Engineering. ASCE, pp 80-83 (March 1974).
A-46(a) Schmidt, J. H., and Summers, A. W., "The Effects of Urbanization
on Sedimentation in the Clinton River Watershed," Unpublished
Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1967).
523
-------
A-46(b) Servizi, J. A., et al., "Marine Disposal of Sediment, from
Bellingham Harbor as Related to Sockeye and Pink Salmon
Fisheries," Program Report No. 23 International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission, New Westminister B.C. (1969).
A-47 "Shorter Papers and Notes: Detrimental Effects of Highway Con-
struction on a Montana Stream," Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. Vol. 88, pp 72-73 (1959).
A-48 Swerdon, P. M., and Kountz, S. R., Sediment Runoff Control at
Highway Construction Sites. Engineering Research Bulletin BIOS,
The Pennsylvania State University, College of Engineering,
University Park, Pa. (January 1973).
A-49 Thompson, J. R., "Soil Erosion in the Detroit Metropolitan Area,"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 25, No. 1 (January -
February 1970).
A-50 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Dredge Materials Research," ODMR,
Misc. Paper D-73-3 (July 1973).
A-51 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Dredge Spoils Disposal Monitoring
San Pablo Bay: February 5, 1974," Corps of Engineers San Francisco
District (March 1974).
A-52 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Protecting Steep Construction
Slopes Against Water Erosion, Progress Report 2, Soil and Water
Conservation Research Division, Lincoln, Nebraska (September 1967).
A-53 U. S. Geological Survey, "Evaluation of Erosion Control Measures
Used in Highway Construction," Undated Project Summary, Received
by MITRE from U.S.G.S., Harrisburg, Pa.
A-54 Vice, R. B., et al^ Sediment Movement in an Area of Suburban
Highway Construction. Scott Run Basin, Fairfax Co., Virginia.
1961-1964. Hydrologic Effects of Urban Growth, U. S. Geological
Survey, p 1591-E (1973).
A-55 Wolman, M. G., "Problems Posed by Sediment Derived from Con-
struction Activities in Maryland," Report to Maryland Water
Pollution Control Commission, Annapolis, Md., p 125 (January 1964).
A-56 Wolman, M. G., and Schick, A. P., Effects of Construction of
Fluvial Sediment in Urban and Suburban Areas of Maryland, Water
Resources Research, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1967).
A-57 Yorke, T. H., and Davis, W. J., Sediment Yields of Urban Con-
struction Sources, Montgomery Co., Maryland, USDI, Geological
Survey, Rockville, Maryland (1972).
524
-------
APPENDIX H: LIST OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
(all Dates are in 1974)
(T-telephone, V-visit, L-leter)
Alabama State Highway Department
Mr. C. A. Bowles, Construction Engineer T
Arizona Highway Department
Mr. Sandlin, Assistant State Engineer in
Construction T
Arkansas State Highway Department
Mr. Steve Wilson, Environmental Development
Office T
California Division of Highways
a. Mr. Roy Chalmers T
b. Mr. Roy Forsyth, Chief Foundation Section T
c. Mr. John Skog, Head, Physical Environmental
Section, Transportation Lab., Sacramento T Apr. 30
California Water Quality Control Board
a. Mr. John Baker, Sanitary Engineering Specialist,
Lahontan Region V May 8
b. Mr. Alvin Franks, Supervising Engineering
Geologist V May 7
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Mr. James Spencer, Chief, Hydraulics and Drainage
Section T
Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation
a. Office of the Director of Highways T
b. Department of Resources and Controls T
Dow Chemical Company
Mr. M. B. Ettinger, Pollution Specialist T July 9
Fairfax County, Virginia
a. Mr. William W. Smith, Jr., Division of
Design Review V May 1
b. Mr. Don Koeing, Bonding Coordination V May 1
Florida Department of Transportation
Mr. Grover Rivers, Office of Road Operations T
525
-------
Georgia Department of Transportation
Mr. Paul Stimke, Planning Office T
Illinois Department of Transportation
Mr. George Rose, Bureau of Environmental
Science T
Kansas State Highway Commission
Mr. John McNeal, State Highway Engineer T
Kentucky Department of Transportation
Mr. Phillip Booker, Roadside Development T
Louisiana Department of Highways
a. Mr. George Landry, Environmental Engineer T
b. Mr. Joe Tumey, Specifications Section T
Maine Department of Transportation
Mr. Bill Reid, Bureau of Planning T
Maryland Water Resources Administration
a. Mr. Ward Brenner, Sedimentation Specialist T Mar. 21
b. Mr. Michael Ports, Civil Engineer Surface
Water Division V Mar. 29
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
Mr. Robert Horigan T
Michigan Department of State Highways
Mr. Tom Coleman, Soil Division T
Minnesota Department of Highways
Mr. Stanley Ekern T
Missouri State Highway Commission
Mr. Breuer, Construction Department T
Mississippi State Highway Department
Mr. Jesse Whitten, Environmental Section T
Montana Department of Highways
Mr. Bahls, Environmental Quality Office T
Nebraska Department of Roads
Mr. Dick Webb, Environmental Studies
New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways
Mr. Robert Dowst, Special Services T
526
-------
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Mr. William Davis, Soils Specialist T
New Mexico State Highway Department
Mr. Harley Parr, Hydraulic Engineer T
New York State Department of Transportation
Mr. Hofmann, Technical Services T
North Carolina Department of Transportation
and Highway Safety
Mr. Bowen, Landscape Department T
North Dakota State Highway Department
Mr. Charles Gullicks, Environmental Group T
Ohio Department of Transportation
Mr. Robert Allen, Environmental Studies Group T
Oregon Department of Transportation
a. Mr. Gary Potter, Environmental Department T
b. Ms. Priscilla Harney, Environmental
Department T
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Mr. William G. Weber, Research Engineer, Bureau
of Materials, Testing and Research V Apr. 16
South Dakota Department of Transportation
Mr. Windal Andrews, Roadside Development T
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Mr. Ben Smith, Environmental Section T
Tennessee Valley Authority
Mr. Roger Betson, Head, Hydrologic Research T July 16
and Analysis Section T July 18
Texas Highway Department
Mr. R. L. Lewis, Chief Engineer of Highways
Design T
U. S. Agricultural Research Service
a. Mr. A. P. Barnett, Coosa Watershed Research
Project, Watkinsville, Georgia T Apr. 19
b. Dr. Harold Barrows, National Programs
Office, Washington, D.C. V Apr. 20
527
-------
U. S. Agricultural Research Service (continued)
c. Mr. J. B. Borford, Hydrologic Data Lab,
Beltsville, Md. V Apr, 23
d. Mr. Andy Bowie, Sediment Yield Group, USDA
Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, Miss. V Apr. 23
e. Dr. Earl H. Grissinger, Sediment Properties
Group, USDA Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, Miss V Apr. 24
f. Dr. W. Campbell Little, Stream Stabilization
Group, USDA Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, Miss. V Apr. 24
g. Dr. Jesse Lunin, Sedimentation Branch
Beltsville, Md. T Mar. 22
h. Dr. L. Donald Meyer, Soils Specialist
USDA Sedimentation, Oxford, Miss. V Apr. 23
i. Dr. Calvin K. Mutchler, Sediment Yield Group
USDA Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, Miss. V Apr. 23
j. Dr. M.J.M. Romkens, Soil Physicist
USDA Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, Miss. V Apr. 23
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
a. Capt. William Allanach, Office of Dredged
Material and Research, Waterways Expt.
Station, Vicksburg V Apr. 24
b. Dr. Robert M. Engler, Research Soil
Scientist, Waterways Expt. Station V Apr. 25
c. Mr. J. L. Grace, Jr., Chief, Structures
Group, Hydraulics Br., Waterways Expt. Station,
Vicksburg V Apr. 25
d. Major F. H. Griff is, Jr., ODMR, Waterways Expt.
Station, Vicksburg, Miss. V Apr. 25
e. Capt. Robert Meccia, District Coordinator,
ODMR, Waterways Expt. Station, Vicksburg V Apr. 25
f. Mr. Stafford, Construction Branch, Vicksburg
District Office T Apr. 25
g. Mr. Thomas Wakeman, San Francisco District V May .5
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
a. Mr. E. J. Carlson, Hydraulics Branch V May 6
Denver Federal Center V May 14
b. Dr. John C. Peters, Environmental Specialist
Denver Federal Center V May 6
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Mr. D. Earl Jones, Jr., Environmental and Land
Use Division, Hq., Washington, D.C. V Mar. 29
U. S. Department of Transportation
a. Dr. Mylo D. Cress, Implementation Manager,
Washington, D.C. V Apr. 8
528
-------
U. S. Department of Transportation (continued)
b. Dr. Byron Lord, Environmental Engineer
Environmental Design and Control Division,
Washington, D.C. V Apr. 8
c. Mr. Douglas irtcTavish, Highway Engineer
Highway Systems Branch, Washington, D.C. T
d. Mr. Douglas Smith, Environmental Design and
Control Division, Washington, D.C. V Apr. 8
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
a. Dr. George Bailey, Soil Physical Chemist T Apr. 4
Southeastern Environmental Research Lab Apr. 19
b. Mr. Kenneth Feigner, Seattle Regional Office T Apr. 19
c. Mr. Fred Hoffman, Non-Point Source Division
San Francisco Regional Office T Apr. 30
d. Mr. Will C. LaVeille, Non-Point Pollution
Control Div. Hq., Washington, D.C. V Mar. 20
e. Mr. J. J. Mulhern, Mining Engineer, Hq.,
Washington, D.C.
f. Mr. Bruce Perry, Non-Point Source Division V May 6
g. Mr. John Riley, Denver Region, Effluent
Guidelines Division, Hq., Washinton, D,C. T May 29
h. Mr. Robert Thronsin, Office of Water Programs
Hq., Washington, D.C. V Mar. 21
i. Mr. John Weiss, San Francisco Regional Office T Apr. 29
U. S. Forest Service
a. Dr. Ted Dyrness, Forest Science Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon V May 9
b. Mr. Ed Johnson, Watershed Management,
Washington, D.C. V Mar. 27
c. Dr. J. Sam Krammes, Div. of Forest
Environmental Research, Washington, D.C. V Mar. 27
d. Mr. Ralph Maloney, Water Yield Management,
Washington, D,C, V. Mar. 27
e. Dr. Paul Packer, Forestry Science Laboratory
Utah State University, Logan V May 13
f. Dr. Douglas N. Swantson, Forestry Sciences
Lab, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis V May 9
U. S. Geological Survey
a. Dr. Harold P. Guy, Research Hydrologist,
Reston, Va. V May 1
b. Mr. James M. Knott, Hydrologist Water T May 2
Resources Division, Menlo Park, Calif. L May 3
c. Dr. Thomas Haddock, Jr., Sedimentation L Jan. 25
Specialist, Reston, Va. V Mar. 13
d. Mr. Lloyd Reed, Project Chief, Harrisburg, Pa. V
529
-------
U. S. Office of Water Resources Research
Mr. Herbert A. Swenson T July 9
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
a. Mr. R.C. Barnes, Engineering Division V Apr. 2
b. Mr. John N. Holeman, Engineering Division V Apr. 2
c. Mr. Henry H. Williamson, District
Conservationist, Fairfax, Va. V Mar.
Utah Water Research Laboratory (Utah State
University, Logan)
a. Dr. Calvin G. Clyde V May 13
b. Dr. Earl Israelson V May 13
Vermont Department of Highways
Mr. Schribner, Assistant to the Chief Engineer T
Virginia Department of Highways
Mr. William Clemis, Environmental Quality
Engineer T
Washington State Department of Ecology
Mr. John R. Raymond, Water Investigations
Division V May 10
Washington State Department of Highways
a. Mr. Charles Gosney, Construction Engineer V May 10
b. Mr. Herbert W. Humphres, Chief Construction
Engineer V May 10
c. Mr. Warren Imus, Specifications Engineer
West Virginia Department of Highways
Mr. Joseph Jones T
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Mr. Aten, Construction Section T
World Dredging Conference, San Pedro. Calif.
a. Mr. Arve Arresen T Apr. 29
b. Mrs. Hogar, Editor, World Dredging and
Marine Construction T Apr. 29
Wyoming Highway Department
Mr. Bastrom, Environmental Services T
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1f»-210410tM
530
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
IPleate read InUructtoat on the reverse before completing)
\. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-75-007
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Impacts of Hydrologic Modification on Water Quality
5. REPORT DATE
April 1975 (Date of Approval)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. Bhutan!, R. Holberger, W.E. Jacobaen, P. Spewak,
J.B. Tniatf
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MTR-6887
The MITRE Corporation
Weatgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R802310
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EFA-OR&D
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
is. ABSTRACT :
This report describes the scope and magnitude of water pollution problems caused by
hydrologic modifications (dams, impoundments, channelization, in-water construction,
out-of-water construction, and dredging). Types of pollutants released by each class
of hydrologic modification are identified, and quantitative estimates are mad* of the
amount of the major pollutant—sediment—that enters the Nation's surface waters as a
result of highway and urban construction.
Methods for controlling the release of pollutants from hydrologic modification activ-
ities are described, and the effectiveness of sediment control measures is estimated.
Two "loading functions" are developed for predicting the quantities of sediment
released from construction operations of given magnitude and location. These functions
are based on measurements of sediment yields & other parameters at 10 construction
sites. The accuracy and limitations of the functions are analyzed.
Measurement data from all classes of hydrologic modifications are reported in the 42
case studies of field projects summarized in the appendices of this report.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Sedimentation - 1407
Water Quality - 1302
Hydrology- 0808
Construction- 1302, 1313
Dredging - 1303
Reservoirs- 1307
Surface Runoff
Soil Loss
Reservoirs
13-02
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
IB. SECURITY CLASS (TMtRtporlf
Unclassified
21. N6. OP PAGE*
540
2O. SECURITY CLASS (TMlffft)
EPA Form 1220-1 («-7J)
531
------- |