Chapter 12.

1
DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
R ICHARD C. W ARNER

12.1.1 INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS Table 12.1.1. Stormwater and Sediment Controls
Stormwater conveyance
During past decades, industry has sometimes been viewed Diversions
by the public as an insensitive steward of the environment. Preoc- Temporary
cupation with mineral and energy resource extraction caused the Earthen
mining industry to neglect the integration of environmental cost Mats of straw, nylon, etc.
into their companies’ business plans and developmental policies. Geotextiles
The results of this missed opportunity are mandated regulations, Flexible membrane liners
leaving many critical decisions outside the control of companies. Permanent
With the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama- Rock riprap
tion Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Public Law 95-87, the goal of min- Gabion mattress
Concrete-filled geotextiles
imizing hydrologic impacts to offsite areas was enacted.
Concrete
Specific interpretations of this law in the form of changing Asphalt
regulations do not provide for regional differences with respect Grassed waterways
to the quality of receiving waters and climatologic regimes. Reg- Culverts
ulations focus on many specific criteria, yet neglect the benefits/ Corrugated metal
costs associated with an integrated overall strategy. For instance, Concrete
sediment standards are set for a peak concentration associated PVC
with a design storm (the specified size of storm for which the Polyethylene (PE)
strategy is designed), yet neglect the sediment duration-concen- Steel
Energy dissipators
tration relationship that influences aquatic invertebrates and dis-
Plunge pools
regards the water quality and multiple use of receiving waters. Rock aprons
Criteria quite appropriate for some locales may be entirely un- Gabions
justified, both environmentally and economically, for mine sites Concrete-filled geotextiles
in other regions. Despite regulatory constraints, opportunities Check dams
still exist to implement innovative approaches to achieving the Filter fabric fences
goal of minimizing hydrologic impacts. Brush barriers
What is meant by minimizing the hydrologic impact of a Dewatering
mining operation? Surface mining and surface disturbance from Sumps
System of wells
underground mining create changes to the hydrologic regime,
Sediment controls
usually in the form of increased storm runoff and generated Sediment basins
sediment loads. If minesite stormwater and sediment discharge Contour
can approximate predevelopment conditions, then no significant Dugouts
adverse offsite impacts are expected. The determination of prede- Embankment
velopment conditions should consider both onsite factors and Permanent pool
the quality of receiving waters. A stormwater and sediment con- Passively dewatered
trol plan is created to detain excess stormwater, reduce peak Infiltration
flow, and remove the higher sediment load caused by disturbing Sediment separators
Swirl concentrators
stable landforms. Similar to stormwater, the control of nuisance
Inertial separators
water is particularly important to mining operations. Sediment traps and check dams
For general coverage of environmental regulations, see Excavation pits
Chapters 3.4 and 7.3. Dozer basins
Filter fabric fences
Brush barriers
12.1.2 TYPES OF CONTROLS Vegetative filters

A comprehensive multifaceted approach to storm water, nui-

sance water, erosion, and sediment control, thoroughly integrated
throughout the entire planned life of the mine, can reduce poten-
tial environmental impacts, increase mine productivity, and be
achieved in a cost-effective manner. The types of controls fre-
quently utilized are (1) water conveyance structures, (2) reten-
tion facilities, (3) energy dissipators, and (4) pumps. A wide
spectrum of water and sediment controls is listed in Table 12.1.1.
As can be seen from this list, numerous options exist for
designing an integrated water and sediment control plan. Al-
though not explicitly enumerated in this section, two other con-
trol methods are crucial to a program that is successful overall:
(1) limiting temporal and spatial exposure of highly erodible
areas, and (2) the implementation of onsite controls for concur-
rent reclamation through use of grading, terraces, mulches, soil
amendments, grasses, etc.
The most common structures designed to minimize the hy-
drologic impact of mining are sediment basins, diversions, cul-
verts, energy dissipators, and dewatering systems. Methods,

1158
 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS 1159
equations, and discussions are provided to illustrate design pro- Table 12.1.2. Runoff Coefficients for the Rational
cedures for these controls. Method
Description of Area Runoff Coefficients
12.1.3 HYDROLOGY Residential
Single-family areas 0.30–0.50
Suburban 0.25–0.40
12.1.3.1 Selection of Analysis Method
Industrial
Stormwater and sediment control facilities are often based Light areas 0.50–0.80
on a design storm of a specified frequency. For simple controls Heavy areas 0.60–0.90
such as diversions or culverts, only a peak flow may be necessary. Unimproved areas 0.10–0.30
In contrast, the design of a sediment basin, which involves stor-
age routing, requires a complete hydrograph. Thus the required Lawns; sandy soil
control defines the complexity of the hydrologic analysis. Flat, ≤ 2% 0.05–0.10
The rational equation (Anon., 1969a; Rossmiller, 1982) is Average, 2–7% 0.10–0.15
Steep, > 7% 0.15–0.20
widely used for peak flow estimation due to its simplicity. Devel-
opment of a design storm hydrograph is more complex but has Rural Areas (clay and silt loam)
been greatly simplified through user-friendly application pro- Woodland
grams (Schwab and Warner, 1987; Anon., 1986b; Anon., 1970). Flat 0–5% 0.30
Rolling 5–10% 0.35
Numerous hydrology texts describe, in detail, all facets of Hilly 10–30% 0.50
peak flow estimation and hydrograph development (Hjelmfelt, Pasture
1975; Linsley et al., 1949; Overton and Meadows, 1976; Viess- Flat 0–5% 0.30
man et al., 1977; Eagleson, 1970; Barfield et al., 1981). Rolling 5–10% 0.36
Hilly 10–30% 0.42
Cultivated
12.1.3.2 Design Rainfall Event Flat 0–5% 0.50
Stormwater management designs are based on a specified Rolling 5–10% 0.60
design storm (e.g., 10 yr–24 hr) precipitation amount, temporal Hilly 10–30% 0.72
distribution of precipitation, and the infiltration characteristics Source: Adapted from Anon., 1969a; Schwab et al., 1962.
of watersheds. The design storm is normally specified by regula-
tions. Storm depth-duration-frequency values are provided in
HYDRO-35 (Frederick et al., 1977) and US Weather Bureau
TP40 (Hershfield, 1961) for the eastern United States and in counts for all hydrologic factors such as rainfall interception,
a series of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration infiltration, antecedent moisture conditions, etc. Representative
(NOAA) Atlases for the 11 western states. C coefficients are given in Table 12.1.2 for urban and rural areas.
Where design situations require maximum assurance of The rainfall amount is found in HYDRO 35 (Frederick et al.,
safety, the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) events are 1977).
utilized. PMPs represent the theoretically greatest depth of pre- Time of concentration tc , is the length of time for runoff from
cipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a the hydraulically most remote point in the watershed to reach
given size area at a specific location at a given time of the year the watershed outlet. Several methods exist to estimate tc , such as
(Anon., 1985). the SCS upland method (Anon., 1973), kinematic wave analogy
To develop a hydrograph, it is necessary to know the design (Ragan and Duru, 1972), and Kirpich (1940). The Ragan and
storm depth-duration-frequency (e.g., 4.2 in. or 107 mm, 10 yr- Duru equation is
24 hr) and the temporal pattern of rainfall throughout the dura-
tion of the storm. The rainfall pattern is usually associated with (12.1.2)
a synthetic rainfall distribution. The Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) has developed four rainfall distribution curves, defined as where tc is time in minutes, n is Manning’s N, L is length in ft
SCS type curves, applicable to specific regions throughout the (m), ie is rainfall excess intensity in in./hr (mm/h), S is slope in
United States (Anon., 1986b). ft/ft (m/m), and C 1 = 0.928 in English units (C 1 = 1.977 in SI
units). Note the equation is valid only when the product of ie
and L is greater than 500 ft (152 m). The Kirpich equation for
12.1.3.3 Peak Flow Determination
estimating tc is
For design of diversions and culverts, only the design storm
peak flow is needed. The most widely used method for peak (12.1.3)
flow determination is the rational method (Anon., 1969a). The
rational formula is where L 1 is the maximum flow length in ft (m), H is elevation
English units difference in ft (m) between the hydraulically most remote point
q = CIA (12.1.1) in the watershed and the watershed outlet, and C 2 = 0.0078 in
SI units English units (C2 = 0.0195 in SI units).
q = 0.0028 CIA (12.1.la)
where q is peak flow in cfs (m3/s), C is a dimensionless runoff
12.1.3.4 Storm Hydrograph Development
coefficient, I is rainfall intensity in in./hr (mm/h) with a dura- A storm hydrograph is a graph of flow rate vs. time. It is
tion equal to the time of concentration tc , and A is the watershed necessary for evaluating alternative designs of basins, since rout-
area in acres or ac (hectares or ha). The runoff coefficient ac- ing of incremental storm volumes is used in determining peak
1160 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Table 12.1.3. Typical Topsoil K Factors for the USLE
Estimated K value
Texture (ton/ac/ R unit) (Mg/ha/ R unit)
Clay, clay loam, loam, silty
clay 0.32 0.72
Fine sandy loam, loamy very
fine sand, sandy loam 0.24 0.54
0.17 0.38
Loamy fine sand, loamy sand
Sand 0.15 0.34
Silt loam, silty clay loam,
0.37 0.83
very fine sandy loam
Source: Adapted from Anon., 1978.
stage, flow through principal and emergency spillways, detention
time, and sediment trap efficiency. A description of hydrograph
developmental methods is beyond the scope of this chapter,
but many excellent texts provide detailed methodologies and
illustrative examples (Barfield et al., 1981; Linsley et al., 1975;
Overton and Meadows, 1976). Also computer programs are
available that greatly simplify hydrograph development: SED-
CAD+—Sediment, Erosion, Discharge by Computer-Aided De-
sign (Warner and Schwab, 1990); SEDIMOT II (Wilson et al.,
1982; Warner et al., 1982); TR-55 (Anon., 1986b); and HEC-1
(Anon., 1970).
12.1.4 SEDIMENTOLOGY
12.1.4.1 Quantity of Sediment Determination
The quantity of sediment eroded from a slope depends on
the erosive power of rainfall, soil characteristics, slope length
and gradient, and type and amount of soil cover and conservation
practices. These parameters have been combined into the univer-
sal soil loss equation (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965,
1978):
A = R K LS C P (12.1.4)
where A is soil loss per unit area in tons/ac (Mg/ha or metric
tons/ha); R is a rainfall factor; K is soil erodibility in tons/ac/
R unit (Mg/ha/R units); LS is a dimensionless length-slope
factor that accounts for the actual length and slope compared to
a standard slope of 9% and 72.6 ft (22.1 m) in length; C is a factor
that accounts for the effectiveness of vegetal cover, mulches,
etc.; and P is a factor that accounts for the effectiveness of
conservation practices such as terraces. Values for these parame-
ters may be found in Wischmier and Smith (1978).
A prediction of soil loss from a regraded spoil that has been
recently topsoiled, seeded, and mulched at 2 tons/ac (4.5 Mg/
ha) will be used to illustrate the applicability of the USLE. The
design 10 yr–24 hr storm for western Kentucky (Hershfield,
1961) is 4.2 in. (107 mm). Assuming an SCS Type II rainfall
distribution and applying Eq. 12.1.5 (Barfield et al., 1981),
(12.1.5)
(12.1.5a)
yields Rst of 101.6, where Rst is the rainfall factor on a storm basis,
P is precipitation depth in in. (mm), and D is storm duration in
hr.
A fine sandy loam topsoil has been used during reclamation.
Table 12.1.3 lists estimated soil erodibility K values as a function
of soil texture. The K value for this example topsoil is 0.24 (0.54).
Table 12.1.4. Selected C Factors for the USLE
Surface Conditions C Factor
Bare soil, seed bed prepared, racked smooth 0.9
Bare soil, seed bed prepared, rough graded 0.8
Bare soil, compacted by a bulldozer 0.9–1.2
Undisturbed forest with > 90% ground litter and 0.0001–0.001
> 75% effective canopy
Undisturbed forest with 75 to 85% ground litter 0.002–0.004
and 40 to 70% effective canopy
Undisturbed forest with 40–70% ground litter and 0.003–0.009
20–25% effective canopy
Rangeland/idle land, no appreciable canopy, 0% 0.45
groundcover
Rangeland/idle land, no appreciable canopy, 0.10–0.15
40% ground cover
Rangeland/idle land, no appreciable canopy, 0.01
80% ground cover
Rangeland/idle land, 50% tall weed or short 0.26
brush canopy, 0% ground cover
Rangeland/idle land, 50% tall weed or short 0.07–0.11
brush canopy, 40% ground cover
Rangeland/idle land, 50% tall weed or short 0.01–0.04
brush canopy, 80% ground cover
Clear cut woodland, 20% residue on soil surface 0.06–0.44
Clear cut woodland, 60% residue on soil surface 0.05–0.20
Straw mulch at 1 ton/ac (2.26 Mg/ha) 0.1–0.2
Straw mulch at 2 tons/ac (4.52 Mg/ha) 0.02–0.08
Woodchip mulch at 2 tons/ac (4.52 Mg/ha) 0.65
Woodchip mulch at 4 tons/ac (9.04 Mg/ha) 0.4
Woodchip mulch at 8 tons/ac (18.08 Mg/ha) 0.1
Grass cover < 60 days after emergence 0.1–0.4
Grass cover > 60 days after emergence 0.05
Source: Adapted from Wischmeier and Smith, 1978.
The approximate original contour of a representative slope
has a gradient of 12% and is 200 ft (70 m) in length. Applying
these values to Eq. 12.1.6,
LS = (λ/72.6)m (0.043s2 + 0.30s + 0.43)/6.574 (12.1.6)
LS = (λ/22)m (0.043s2 + 0.30s + 0.43)/6.574 (12.1.6a)
where λ is slope length in ft (m); m is an exponential factor that
equals 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.3 for slopes of > l0%, >4 to l0%,
4%, and < 4%, respectively; and S is sin θ, θ is the slope angle
in degrees; an LS value of 2.8 is calculated.
Table 12.1.4 lists selected C factors reported in the literature
(Barfield et al., 1981). Since the example problem has a regraded
topsoil that has been recently seeded and mulched at 2 tons/ac
(4.5 Mg/ha), the C factor ranges from 0.02 to 0.08. An average
value of 0.04 is selected. Since no conservation practices such as
terracing were included, P = 1. Applying Eq. 12.1.4 yields
A = (101.6)(0.24)(2.8)(.04)(l) = 2.7 tons/ac
(A = (101.6)(0.54)(2.8)(.04)(l) = 6.1 Mg/ha)
If mulch was not applied, and rough-grade bare-soil condi-
tions were predominant, the C factor would be 0.8, and the
quantity of eroded sediment would be increased by the ratio of
C factors (that is, 0.8/0.04), or by a factor of 20. Thus 54.6 tons/
ac (122 Mg/ha) of eroded sediment would be predicted by the
USLE.
The USLE provides an estimate of sediment delivered from
a field size area. To determine the sediment yield at some point
beyond the base of the field, the eroded sediment needs to be
 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
routed to the point of interest. As such, the USLE provides an
estimate of the quantity of sediment eroded from a representative
area within a relatively homogeneous subwatershed. A delivery
ratio may be used to transfer eroded sediment to a point of
interest such as a sediment basin (Barfield et al., 1981). A deliv-
ery ratio is simply the ratio of the quantity of sediment that
reaches a structure to that quantity of sediment predicted by the
USLE. It is a rough approximation often based on drainage
area. As with hydrology, computer techniques have expanded
predictive capabilities well beyond delivery ratio estimates by
applying sediment detachment, transport, and deposition meth-
odologies. Popular programs include SEDCAD+ (Warner and
Schwab, 1990) and CREAMS (Chemical, Runoff, Erosion from
Agricultural Management Systems) (Knisel, 1980).
12.1.5 SEDIMENT CONTROLS
12.1.5.1 Sediment Basins
A wide variety of sediment basins has been used throughout
the mining industry. Small elongated basins are often located
along benches near the highwall in contour mining. Dugouts,
which are primarily excavated basins with 4- to 8-ft (1.2- to
2.4-m) berms, are prevalent in area mining and mountaintop
removal. The most common basins consist of a dam embankment
12 to 19 ft (3.6 to 5.8 m) in height with added storage capacity
provided through excavation of soils in the pool area. These
basins often use trickle tube (a straight pipe through the embank-
ment) or drop inlet principal spillways, and an emergency spill-
way. The principal spillway of a dugout is often a trapezoidal
channel that may also function as the emergency spillway. Con-
tour basins often have trickle tube principal spillways and an
emergency spillway.
Sediment basins are used to reduce peak flow and trap sedi-
ment. The efficiency of basins to accomplish these two functions
is directly related to the basin design with respect to (1) location
and gradient of inflow channel(s); (2) selection of type, size, and
location of principal and emergency spillways; (3) length-to-
width ratio of the pool measured at the crest of the principal
spillway; (4) basin shape; (5) percentage of basin capacity allo-
cated to sediment and permanent pool storage; (6) dewatering
method(s); (7) detention storage; (8) inlet baffles, turbidity cur-
tains, and internal check dams; (9) use of flocculation additives;
etc. As can be seen from this list of engineering considerations,
the performance of a sediment basin in reducing the incoming
peak storm flow and retaining sediment is directly achieved
through design rigor.
The objective of minimizing the hydrologic impact can be
assured if the peak discharge emanating from the basin is reduced
to near premining conditions and a significant percentage of the
incoming sediment load is captured. To achieve this objective,
consider the application of each of the design factors as explained
in Table 12.1.5.
A cost-effective sediment basin design that is expected to
minimize the hydrologic impact to offsite streams is illustrated
in Figs. 12.1.1 through 12.1.5. (Warner and Schwab, 1989). The
function of the identified features in these figures is described.
The length-to-width ratio is approximately 2:1. It may be smaller
than the recommended ratio due to the internal check dam.
Incoming flow energy is dissipated by the rock impact pool at
the basin entrance. The internal check dam is used to accomplish
many functions. It further slows and spreads out the incoming
flow by rapidly creating a pool of water in the primary chamber.
The larger-sized sediments rapidly settle out in this forward
chamber, which, in combination with the access road and/or
1161
a check dam wide enough for a backhoe, facilitates sediment
cleanout.
Small storm runoff is contained in the primary chamber and
is slowly dewatered by either a small drop-inlet perforated riser
and/or a wide rock riprap French drain (see Figs. 12.1.2 and
12.1.3). As the primary chamber fills with the larger-sized sedi-
ment, it also acts as a slow sand filter that greatly increases the
quality of discharged water. For larger storms, short circuiting
and dead storage are substantially reduced since the internal
check dam evenly distributes flow across the width of pool. The
check dam is protected by a geotextile fabric and rock riprap or
equivalent.
Optional principal spillway configurations are shown in Fig.
12.1.1 and detailed in Figs. 12.1.4 and 12.1.5. The drop-inlet
perforated riser should be sized to reduce peak flow to near
premining conditions. The tapered riser perforations slowly de-
water the storm pool, thereby providing additional storage for
subsequent storms. This also reduces the peak stage, compared
to the permanent pool option, thus reducing embankment con-
struction cost. Dewatering reduces peak discharge, increases sed-
iment trap efficiency with respect to total sediment load, and
reduces peak and average effluent sediment concentrations. The
floating siphon tube (Fig. 12.1.5) provides an added advantage
by dewatering only the uppermost water level, thus increasing
sediment trap efficiency. Stationary or floating siphon tubes can
be used in conjunction with either trickle tubes or drop-inlet
principal spillways (Warner and Schwab, 1989, 1990).
Impact pools with depressed outlet channels dissipate the
energy of concentrated pipe discharge to reduce downstream
impacts (Warner and Schwab, 1990).
Design of stormwater retention basins is facilitated by using
computer programs such as DAMS2 that routes water through
principal and emergency spillways (Putnam et al., 1982; Anon.,
1965). Principal and emergency spillway designs, stormwater
and sediment routing, inflow and outflow hydrographs and sedi-
mentgraphs, dewatering options, impact pools, sediment trap
efficiency, embankment earthwork volumes, etc., can be calcu-
lated through use of the SEDCAD+-Version 3.0 Model (Warner
and Schwab, 1990).
12.1.5.2 Infiltration Basins
An infiltration basin has no direct discharge for surface
waters and is used to recharge an aquifer constructed during
mountaintop or area mining (Dinger et al., 1988). A vertical
durable rock core is constructed during spoil placement to facili-
tate the rapid downward movement of stormwater. Infiltration
basins have the advantages of recharging groundwater, complete
containment of stormwater and sediment, relatively simple con-
struction, avoidance of potential embankment stability problems,
and allowance of a large degree of flexibility in a spatial siting.
12.1.5.3 Sediment Basin Hydraulics
Design aspects of basin hydraulics encompass (1) principal
spillway design, (2) emergency spillway design, (3) pond stage-
area-capacity, and (4) routing the inflow hydrograph. The basic
steps in developing an outflow hydrograph for a sediment basin
are listed in Table 12.1.6.
12.1.6 SEDIMENT SEPARATORS
The swirl concentrator and inertial separator have both been
designed to intercept sediment-laden inflow. The swirl concen-
trator separates sediment from the incoming flow through the
1162 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Table 12.15 Application of Sediment Basin Design Principles
Design Consideration
1. Location of inflow channels
2. Inlet flow channel gradient
3. Size of principal spillway
4. Location of principal spillway
5. Pool length to width ratio (L/W)
6. Basin shape
7. Sediment storage
8. Permanent pool storage
9. Pool dewatering (gated risers, perforated risers, station-
ary and floating siphon tubes, small trickle tubes)
10. Detention storage (time difference between inflow and
outflow hydrograph peaks or hydrograph centroids.)
11. Inlet baffles, turbidity curtains, and internal check dams
12. Flocculation additives
13. Outlet stabilization
centrifugal force generated by the inherent inertia of the flow
(Warner and Dysart, 1983). Effluent with a high sediment load
is transmitted to a small sediment trap while the clearer flow is
discharged directly to a stream. Fig. 12.1.6 shows a schematic
of the swirl concentrator. The inertial separator is designed to
retain incoming sediment in a tank between a series of V-cut
bottom-slotted troughs (Sterling and Warner, 1984). The sedi-
ment-laden influent is transferred from shallow influent troughs
into the tank, and clearer flow is withdrawn by deep troughs.
Plan and elevation cross section of the inertial separator are
shown in Fig. 12.1.7.
The numerous advantages of these devices call attention to
their use as primary sediment control structures on surface-
mined lands. Both devices are relatively simple, containing no
moving mechanical parts, and no onsite energy requirements are
needed. Since the devices are relatively small, they can be easily
transported on flat-bed trucks and modularized to facilitate rapid
installation and relocation once reclamation and bond release
have been accomplished. The added advantage of the swirl con-
Implementation
Locate inlet(s) to provide the hydraulically longest flow path between inlet(s)
and outlet(s). This will help reduce short circuiting of flow.
Provide a wide, shallow slope entrance. Stabilize steeper slopes with rock
riprap or equivalent protection to avoid severe gully formation.
Size to significantly reduce the incoming peak flow to near premining condi-
tions.
Depending on size, and associated flow rate, locate a minimum of at least 2
to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m) above the sediment storage level. Also, locate farthest
point away from inlet(s).
The L/W ratio measured at the crest of the principal spillway should be 2:1
or greater.
Provide a L/W ratio of 2:1 or greater and the basin deep enough such that
resuspension of settled sediment is avoided. Refer to design considerations
4 and 5.
Base sediment storage needs depend on (1) estimated loads for at least the
life of the project or (2) for the expected sediment load associated with the
10-yr, 24-hr design storm. Sediment storage volumes, based on project life,
may be reduced dependent upon a sediment approval plan.
Both advantages and disadvantages exist for permanent pools in contrast to
a dewatered or partially dewatered pool. The major advantage is dilution of
the incoming sediment concentration. Disadvantages are (1) higher peak flow
discharged and greater peak stage, (2) increased fall depth of incoming
sediment prior to retention in the sediment storage area, (3) shorter detention
time, and (4) discharge of warm, low-oxygen water during summer months.
Dewatering provides numerous advantages when compared to the perma-
nent pool option—(1) lower peak discharge, (2) lower storage volume, (3)
higher sediment trap efficiency.
Detention storage is an indicator of basin performance. Longer detention
times indicate reduced peak flow and poentially more efficient sediment
trapping.
All of these devices increase the flow path between inlet(s) and outlet(s). In
addition, they decrease dead storage which improves sediment trap effi-
ciency.
Long chain polymers create flocs, a group of soil particles, which settle at
rates significantly faster than individual soil particles, thus increasing sedi-
ment trap efficiency.
The outlet of principal and emergency spillways should be stabilized by en-
ergy dissipators such as impact pools constructed of rock riprap, gabions, or
concrete-slurry-filled geotextiles to avoid downstream bed scour.
centrator is that no sediment maintenance is needed since it is
self-cleaning; that is, the concentrated sediment-laden flow,
which represents 5 to 15% of the incoming flow, is automatically
discharged to a small sediment basin.
12.1.7 DIVERSIONS
Diversions are designed to be stable and convey a specified
peak flow. Stability is usually interpreted as avoidance of signifi-
cant erosion of the channel bed or sidewalls. Diversions can
be classified as temporary or permanent structures. Temporary
diversions may be constructed of soil and/or a soil/spoil mixture,
and protected by straw or nylon blankets, geotextiles, and flexible
membrane liners. For these diversions, the determination of sta-
bility is based on either a permissible velocity or a critical tractive
force, the assumption being that if the specified velocity or
tractive force is not exceeded, the diversion will remain stable.
Conveyance capacity is calculated using Q = VA and Manning’s
 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Fig. 12.1.1. Efficient and cost-effective sediment basins.
Fig. 12.1.2. Plan view (cross section A-A1 ) of dewatering type of
internal check dam. Conversion factor: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
1 discharge, type of culvert, entrance configuration, pipe length
Fig. 12.1.3. Cross section B-B of dewatering type of internal
check dam.
1163
Fig. 12.1.4. Schematic of perforated riser with tapered
holes for dewatering.
equation (12.1.7) where Q is discharge in cfs (m3/s), V is the
average channel velocity in fps (m/s), and A is the cross-sectional
area in ft2 (m2), and Manning’s equation is
(12.1.7)
(12.1.7a)
where R is the hydraulic radius in ft (m), which is the cross-
sectional area divided by the wetted perimeter, and s is the
hydraulic gradient (channel slope) in ft/ft (m/m).
Permanent diversions are often constructed of rock riprap,
gabion mattresses, grass, asphalt, concrete, concrete slurry-filled,
double-layer geotextile forms, and interlocking concrete blocks.
Stability of these products is often related to discharge, diversion
gradient, or velocity (Maccaferri, undated; Anon., 1989; Anon.,
1982.) Rock riprap stability is based on selecting riprap that
is large enough such that the gravitational force exceeds the
overturning forces (Anon., 1982). Also an underlying rock filter,
consisting of a range of smaller rocks, is required to avoid erosion
of the base soil. The design of grassed waterways is a function
of grass type and height, permissible velocity, slope, Manning’s
n, and hydraulic radius. Use of retardance classes simplifies the
design process (Anon., 1969b). Computer programs, such as
SEDCAD+ Version 3.0 (Warner and Schwab, 1990), simplify
design procedures.
12.1.8 CULVERTS
The selection of a properly sized culvert is based on design
and slope, headwater constraints, and tailwater condition (Fig.
12.1.8). Two of three primary design parameters must be known.
1164
Fig. 12.1.5. Schematic of floating siphon tube used for dewatering.
The primary parameters are (1) discharge, (2) pipe size, and (3)
headwater. Thus, if discharge is known, the headwater can be
determined for a specific size of culvert. Depending on these
parameters, the culvert may function with inlet, outlet, or full-
pipe flow control.
Design procedures have been somewhat simplified through
the development of culvert capacity charts (Anon., 1962). Such
a chart is illustrated in Fig. 12.1.9. Headwater values are indi-
cated on this chart on the ordinate and discharge values on the
abscissa. The solid curves designate inlet control and the dashed
curves indicate outlet control. Also listed is an index value I,
defined as
(12.1.8)
(12.1.8a)
where L is pipe length in ft (m), and So, is pipe gradient in ft/ft
(m/m).
Example 12.1.1. Use of the culvert capacity chart is illus-
trated by a design example. Inputs are (1) a design discharge of
70 cfs (2m3/s), (2) concrete culvert, (3) grooved-edge entrance,
(4) culvert length of 200 ft (61 m), and (5) a slope of 0.02 and
0.002 ft/ft (m/m), respectively.
Solution. The solution procedure begins with the calculation
of the index value. When the calculated index value is less than
or equal to the index value of a specified culvert, the culvert
will be in inlet control, and the solid line will describe culvert
performance. Applying Eq. 12.1.8 to the design input values
mentioned above and using a 0.02-ft/ft (m/m) slope yields an I
of 100. A vertical line at 70 cfs (2 m3/s) intersects the solid 300
index value for the 36-in. (910-mm) culvert (Fig. 12.1.9). Since
the calculated index value is less than the 300 solid line, inlet
control is specified, and the headwater height of 5.2 ft (1.6 m) is
determined by extending a horizontal line to the ordinate. In a
similar manner for the 0.002 ft/ft (m/m) culvert gradient, an
index value I of 1000 is calculated. Since the calculated index
value lies between the solid and dashed curve of the 36-in. (9l-
cm) culvert, outlet control is specified. Referring to Fig. 12.1.9,
a headwater of 6.1 ft (1.9 m) is determined from the interpolated
index value. A calculated index value greater than the dotted
curve indicates full pipe flow, and an applicable nomograph
should be used. A detailed analysis of culvert design procedures
is available (Normann et al., 1985).
The user of these culvert analysis charts should be cautioned
that neither the open-channel flow regime nor submerged outlet
conditions are accommodated by the culvert capacity charts.
Computer programs for culvert designs are available (Anon.,
1986; Warner and Schwab, 1990). The SEDCAD+ Version 3.0
program provides complete performance curves of headwater
versus discharge for all culvert flow regimes.
12.1.9 PUMPS
Pumps are widely used throughout the mining industry for
dewatering deep mine operations, an active pit, and predraining
 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS 1165
Table 12.1.6. Development of an Outflow Hydrograph
for a Sediment Basin
Item Method
Principal spillway 1. Drop-inlet riser stage-discharge (Bar-
relationship field et al., 1981)
—Weir flow equation
—Orifice flow equation
—Pipe flow equation
2. Trickle tube
Interactive solution to mild and steep
slopes with submerged or unsubmerged
outlets (Warner and Schwab, 1990)
3. Perforated riser
(Warner and Schwab, 1990)
—Step-function orifice flow equation
4. Siphon tubes
(Warner and Schwab, 1989)
—Pipe flow equation
—Siphon flow equation
Emergency spillway 1. Broad crested weir with backflow
analysis
(Putnam et al., 1982)
S t a g e - a r e a - v o l u m e 1. Stage-area from contour map
2. Volume from prismoidal rule Fig. 12.1.7. Inertial separator.
Routing 1. For each time increment, ∆t
a. determine volume of inflow
b. from the stage-volume curve, deter-
mine the stage associated with the
increase in inflow volume
c. from the stage-discharge curve, de-
termine the volume of outflow

Fig. 12.1.8. Culvert input design parameters.

Fig. 12.1.9. Culvert design capacity chart.

adjacent areas prior to pit excavation. Control of groundwater

Fig. 12.1.6. Swirl concentrator.
and surface water can alleviate numerous production problems
and provide safer working conditions. For example, a series of
wells installed adjacent to an area to be mined can decrease
groundwater migration, reduce construction of large sumps, and
enhance slope stability.

Fig. 12.1.10. Centrifugal pump components.
12.1.9.1 Basic Principles of a Centrifugal Pump
Centrifugal pumps are probably the most popular type in
mining (Bise, 1986). The basic components of a centrifugal pump
as illustrated in Fig. 12.1.10 are an inlet, the eye of the rotating
impeller, curved impeller vanes, volute, and discharge connec-
tion. A centrifugal pump is a simple device with the only moving
part being the impeller which is attached to the shaft of a motor
or engine. Assuming that the suction pipe and pump housing
(volute) is filled with water to the level of the eye (i.e. primed),
as the impellers rotate, a partial vacuum is created that allows
atmospheric pressure to lift more water into the pump housing.
The water, which entered the inlet opening at the eye of the
impeller, is set in rotation by the impeller and creates centrifugal
force resulting in pressure at the outer perimeter of the impeller.
Water moves outward from the impeller at a high velocity and
pressure into an expanding volute and is discharged.
A single-stage centrifugal pump, that is, a single impeller,
usually operate against low to moderate heads. For heads greater
than approximately 250 ft (75 m), multistage pumps are gener-
ally used. A multistage centrifugal pump consists of two or more
stages and is essentially a high-head pump. The single-stage
pump is normally used for high volume and relatively low head.
12.1.9.2 Calculating Dynamic Head
The essential information needed to properly select a pump
is the required flow rate in gpm (L/s) and the total dynamic
head in ft (m). Flow rate is dependent primarily on operational
factors such as the anticipated rate of flow into a pit or under-
ground mine. Determination of the total dynamic head requires
consideration of suction lift, elevation difference between the
pump and discharge point, pressure requirements, if any, at the
discharge outlet, friction along pipes and fittings, and velocity
head.
Dynamic lift of water at the suction side is calculated as the
required pressure needed to raise water from the water surface
to the height of the centerline of the pump and to overcome
frictional resistance in the intake pipe and fittings. Twenty-three
ft (6.7 m) is considered the practical limit of suction lift. This is
further reduced by long or undersized intake pipes, a large num-
ber of fittings, higher mine site elevation, and warmer waters.
Table 12.1.7 contains the practical static suction lift as a function
of site elevation and temperature.
Friction loss in pipes is a function of pipe diameter and
length, type of pipe material, and flow rate. The Hazen-Williams
equation is often used to calculate friction loss:
(12.1.9)
where Hf100 is friction loss per 100 ft (100 m) of pipe; K is the
conversion constant, 1045 with English units and 1.22 × 1012
with SI units; Q is flow rate in gpm (L/s); C is retardation
coefficient = 120 for coated steel and = 150 for PVC; and D is
inside pipe diameter in in. (mm).
Friction loss in fittings is usually approximated by the equiv-
alent pipe length (Table 12.1.8).
The velocity head hv , in ft (m) is usually small and may often
be neglected. It can be calculated using the following relation:
(12.1.10)
where V is velocity of liquid in fps = 0.408 × gpm/ D 2 (English
units) and = 1273 × L/s/D2 (SI units), D is pipe diameter in
in. (mm), and g is acceleration due to gravity = 32.2 fps2 (9.81
m/s 2 ).
Example 12.1.2. Consider a pump that is to be located 4 ft
(1.2 m) above the water level of a sump. The mine is at 6000 ft
(1830 m) and the water temperature is not expected to exceed
70°F (21°C). A flow rate of 900 gpm (56.8 L/s) is required. A 6-
in. (152-mm), 40-ft (12.2-m) long suction line was specified with
two 45°, 6-in. (152-mm) ells, a gate valve, a vacuum gage installed
on a tee, and a check valve. Will the total practical lift of the
pump be exceeded?
Solution. Total Dynamic Suction Lift = Lift Height + Fric-
tion Head + Velocity Head. Lift height is given as 4 ft (1.2 m).
The equivalent pipe length of fittings totals 153.5 ft (46.8 m).
Pipe friction head is calculated for the 40 ft (12.2 m) section
from Eq. 12.1.9 as 7.1 ft/100 ft of pipe. For the total equivalent
pipe length of 193.5 ft (59 m), the friction head loss is 13.7 ft
(4.2 m).
Flow velocity is approximately 10.2 fps (3.1 m/s), and the
velocity head is 1.6 ft (0.5 m) (Eq. 12.1.10). Thus the total
dynamic suction lift is 4 + 13.7 + 1.6 = 19.3 ft (5.8 m). The
practical lift at 6000 ft (1830 m) for water at 70°F (21°C) from
Table 12.1.7 is 18.3 ft (5.6 m). Thus the practical lift of the pump
approximated in Table 12.1.7, will be slightly exceeded, causing
pump cavitation and a drop in pump performance.
Pump manufacturers provide either static suction lift or net
positive suction head (NPSH) curves for each pump model over
the entire operating range. The NPSH subtracted from the values
listed in Table 12.1.7 provides an estimate of the maximum
allowable dynamic suction lift for a given model at a specified
operating point. Selection of a more efficient check valve, reduc-
tion of intake pipe length, lowering the pump closer to the water,
eliminating fittings, or increasing the suction pipe size will reduce
the total dynamic suction head. It should be noted that improper
design and installation of the suction line are primary causes of
poor pump performance.
In a similar manner to suction head calculations, the total
dynamic pumping head must be calculated prior to pump selec-
tion. The total dynamic head is the sum of (1) suction head, (2)
the elevation difference between the center line of the pump and
the discharge point, (2) friction loss in pipes and fittings, (3)
discharge pressure (zero if atmospheric discharge), and (4) veloc-
ity head.
Example 12.1.3. Assume that a 900-gpm (56.8-L/s) dis-
charge is required to dewater a pit. The elevation difference
between the pump and discharge point is 70 ft (21.3 m) and a
400-ft (122-m), 6-in. (152-mm) PVC pipe will be used to convey
the pumped water. No fittings are needed.
 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS 1167
Table 12.1.7. Practical Suction Lift1
Elevation 50°F (10°C) 70°F (21°C) 90°F (32°C)
ft (m) ft (m) ft (m) ft (m)
0 0 23.8 7.2 23.2 7.1 22.6 6.9
1000 305 22.9 7.0 22.4 6.8 21.8 6.6
2000 610 22.0 6.7 21.5 6.6 20.9 6.4
4000 1220 20.4 6.2 19.9 6.1 19.3 5.9
6000 1830 18.9 5.8 18.3 5.6 17.8 5.4
8000 2440 17.5 5.3 16.9 5.2 16.4 5.0
1
70% of theoretical siphon lift.

Table 12.1.8. Equivalent Length of Pipe, ft

Nominal pipe size, in. (mm)
1 (25) 2 (50) 3 (75) 4 (100) 6 (150)
90° ell 2.7 5.5 8.0 11.0 16.0
45° ell 1.3 2.5 4.0 5.0 8.0
Tee 6.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 33.0
Globe valve, open 13.0 29.0 45.0 60.0 110.0
Gate valve, open 0.6 1.3 2.0 2.5 4.5
Check valve 8.0 19.0 32.0 43.0 100.0
Conversion factor: 1 ft = 0.3048 m.
Source: Adopted from Bise, 1986.

marked 5 (1.5), 10 (3.0), 15 (4.6), 20 (6.1), and 25 ft (7.6 m)

Fig. 12.1.11. Pump characteristic curves for engine-driven pump.
(Modified from Anon., 1966.)
Solution. Applying Eq. 12.1.9 yields a friction loss Hf on the
discharge side of 4.7 ft (1.4 m). The total dynamic head is the
sum of the dynamic suction head 19.3 ft (5.8 m), elevation differ-
ence 70 ft (21.3 m), and discharge friction loss 4.7 ft (1.4 m),
which yields 94 ft (28.6 m). Thus the selected pump must have
the capacity to pump 900 gpm (56.8 L/s) at a total dynamic
head of 94 ft (28.6 m), and a dynamic suction lift at this operating
point of 19.3 ft (5.8 m).
12.1.9.3 Pump Selection
A pump characteristic curve shows the relationship among
discharge in gpm ( L / s ) , total dynamic head in ft (m), and either
suction lift or NPSH in ft (m). A representative pump character-
istic curve is illustrated in Fig. 12.1.11. Along the vertical axis,
the amount of head that will be developed, expressed in ft (m),
is shown. The x axis contains discharge in gpm ( L / s ) . The lines
indicate the maximum flow in gpm ( L / s ) the pump is capable
of delivering at designated suction lifts. To read the curve, start
at either the x or y axis.
Example 12.1.4. Assume 200 gpm (12.6 L /s) is needed.
Solution. Follow across the bottom scale until 200 gpm (12.6
L / s) is reached; then proceed up this line until the 3800-rpm
line is intersected. Reading across, it is found that the pump is
capable of discharging 200 gpm (12.6 L /s) against a total head
of 65 ft (19.8 m), provided the suction lift is no more than 7 ft
(2.1 m).
Example 12.1.5. Similarly, if a total head of 80 ft (24.4 m)
is required, proceed horizontally across to the 3800-rpm line and
then vertically to the gpm ( L / s ) axis to read 160 gpm (10.1 L /
s). If the suction lift is 15 ft (4.6 m), the maximum discharge is
150 gpm (9.5 L /s).
Pump characteristic curves for an electric-motor-driven
pump contain additional information on pump speed, efficiency,
horsepower, and suction head. Motors operate at a constant
speed. Their rpm cannot be varied like a gasoline or diesel engine.
A V-belt pulley arrangement is used to adjust a motor to the
desired operating speed.
Example 12.1.6. (a) For a specified operating rpm, (e.g.,
1750) the brake horsepower (brake watts) can be directly deter-
mined from Fig. 12.1.12. A ½-hp (0.4-kW) motor is needed. At
3450 rpm, a 3-hp (2.3-kW) motor is required since the 3450-rpm
line is between the 2 and 3 hp (1.5 2.3 kW) scale. Pump efficiency
is indicated by the U-shape curves, e.g., 56, 50, 45%. Brake
horsepower can be calculated from Eq. 12.1.11:
(12.1.11)
(12.1.11a)
1168 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Fig. 12.1.12. Pump characteristic curves for electric-motor-driven
pump. (Modified from Anon., 1966.)
where Q is flow rate in gpm (L/min), H is total dynamic head
in ft (m), and Eff is pump efficiency expressed as a decimal.
(b) The required net positive suction head (NPSH) is the
minimum net energy required by the pump at the eye of the
impeller to avoid cavitation and reduce pump performance.
NPSH is a function of pump design. If the total dynamic suction
lift (i.e., static suction lift plus friction loss and velocity head)
exceeds the NPSH required by the pump, then cavitation will
occur (Anon., 1983).
At a flow rate of 60 gpm (3.8 L / s ) , the NPSH, read from
the lower dashed line and the NPSH axis, is 6 ft (1.8 m). The
total dynamic suction lift is determined by subtracting the NPSH
from the appropriate value listed in Table 12.1.7. For example,
at 1600 ft (305 m) and 70°F (21°C), a 22.4-ft (6.8-m) practical
suction lift is needed. Thus, for the above values, the total dy-
namic suction lift must be less than 16.4 ft (5.0 m), i.e., 22.4 to
–6 ft (6.8 to –1.8 m).
The total head and pump discharge can be changed by plac-
ing pumps in series or parallel or by changing the operating
speed. To plot characteristic curves for parallel and series pump-
ing installations, it is required to secure each pump’s characteris-
tic curve. For parallel pump characteristic curves, the flow rates
are added at a given head; for series pump characteristic curves,
the heads are added at a given flow rate. As the pump speed is
increased, (1) the discharge is proportionally increased, (2) head
varies as the square of the RPM ratio, and (3) BHP (brake watts)
varies as the cube of the RPM ratio. Refer to Bise (1986) for
detailed examples.
12.1.9.4 Pump Troubleshooting
A properly designed and installed pump will reduce potential
operational problems. A vacuum gage, installed a minimum of
one pipe diameter from the pump inlet, can solve the majority
of problems. A high gage reading indicates a partially blocked
suction line, whereas a low reading often indicates air leakage
through fittings on the suction side. A vacuum gage can easily
detect common problems such as a non-primed pump; too high
a dynamic lift; excessive air in the water due to the intake being
near the water surface; air leakage in the inlet pipe, fittings, or
stuffing box; or the strainer, foot valve, or suction pipe is too
small or restricted by debris. If a discharge pressure gage reads
too low, the pump may not be primed, rpms too low, total
dynamic head is too high, impeller rotating in the wrong direc-
tion, excessive air in water, mechanical defects, etc. Excess pump
vibration may indicate misalignment, worn bearings, bent shaft,
or an obstruction has lodged in one side of the impeller.
REFERENCES
Anon., (multi-years), “Precipitation-frequency Atlas of the Western
US,” NOAA Atlas II., Superintendent of Documents, US Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC. (Vol. 1, Montana; Vol. 2,
Wyoming; Vol. 3, Colorado; Vol. 4, New Mexico; Vol. 5, Idaho;
Vol. 6, Utah; Vol. 7, Nevada; Vol. 8, Arizona; Vol. 9, Washington;
Vol. 10, Oregon; Vol. 11, California).
Anon., 1962, “Culvert Design Aids: An Application of US Bureau of
Public Roads Culvert Capacity Charts,” Portland Cement Associa-
tion, Chicago, IL.
Anon., 1965, “Computer Program for Project Formulation-Hydrology,”
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washing-
ton, DC.
Anon., 1966, “Gorman-Rupp Pump Manual,” Mansfield, OH.
Anon., 1969a, “Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers,
Manual of Practice 9,” American Society of Civil Engineers Manual
of Engineering Practice No. 37, Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1969b, “Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices,”
Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washing-
ton, DC.
Anon., 1970, “HEC-1 Generalized Computer Program Flood Hy-
drograph Package,” Hydrologic Engineering Center, US Army
Corps of Engineers.
Anon., 1973, “A Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in
Small Watersheds,” SCS-TP-149, Soil Conservation Service, US
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1975, “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,” Technical Re-
lease No. 55, Engineering Division, Soil Conservation Service, US
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1978, “Water Management and Sediment Control for Urbanizing
Areas,” Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture,
Columbus, OH.
Anon., 1982, “Surface Mining Water Diversion Design Manual,” OSM/
TR-8212, Office of Surface Mining, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Anon., 1983, Irrigation, Irrigation Assn., Silver Springs, MD.
Anon., 1985, Safety of Dams-Flood and Earthquake Criteria, National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1986a, “HY8-FHWA Culvert Analysis Software,” Bridge Divi-
sion, HNG-31, Federal Highway Administration, Report prepared
by Pennsylvania State University.
Anon., 1986b, “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,” Technical
Release No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1989, “Design Manual for Armorform Erosion Protection Mats,”
Nicolon Inc., Norcross, GA.
Barfield, B.J., Warner, R.C., and Haan, C.T., 1981, Applied Hydrology
and Sedimentology for Disturbed Areas, Oklahoma Technical Press,
Stillwater, OK.
Bise, C.J., 1986, Mining Engineering Analysis, SME, Littleton, CO.
Dinger, J.S., Warner, R.C., and Kemp, J.R., 1988, “Building of an
Aquifer in Coal-Mine Spoil-Concept and Initial Construction at the
Star Fire Tract, Eastern Kentucky,” Proceedings National Sympo-
sium on Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Eagleson, P.S., 1970, Dynamic Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Frederick, R.H., Myers, V.A., and Auciello, E.P., 1977, “Five to 60
Minute Precipitation Frequency for the Eastern and Central United
States,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tech-
nical Memorandum NWS HYDRO-35, US Department of Com-
merce, Washington, DC.
Hershfield, D.M., 1961, “Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States,”
Technical Paper 40, US Department of Commerce, Weather Bu-
reau, Washington, DC.
Hjelmfelt, A.T., and Cassidy, J.J., 1975, Hydrology for Engineers and
Planners, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Kirpich, P.Z., 1940, “Time of Concentration of Small Agricultural Wa-
tersheds,” Civil Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 362.
Knisel, W.G., 1980, “CREAMS: A Field-Scale Model for Chemicals,
Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems,” US
Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report No. 26.
Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., 1949, Applied Hydrol-
ogy, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., 1975, Hydrology for
Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Maccaferri, G. (undated), “Flexible Reno Mattress and Gabion Linings
for Channel and Canalized Water Courses,” Maccaferri Gabions,
Inc., Williamsport, MD.
Norman, J.M., Houghtalen, R.J., and Johnson, W.J., 1985, “Hydraulic
Design of Highway Culverts,” (FHWA-IP-85-15, HDS No. 5), Fed-
eral Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Overton, D.E., and Meadows, M.E., 1976, Storm Water Modeling, Aca-
demic Press, New York.
Putnam, E., et al., 1982, “DAMS2 (Interim Version) Structure Site
Analysis Computer Program,” Hydrology Unit, Engineering, US
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington,
DC.
Ragan, R.M., and Duru, J.O., 1972, “Kinematic Wave Nomograph for
Times of Concentration,” Proceedings American Society of Civil
Engineers, 98(HY10), pp. 1765–1771.
Rossmiller, R.L., 1982, “Rational Formula Revisited,” Stormwater De-
tention Facilities, W. DeGroot, ed., American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York.
Schwab, G.E., et al., 1962, Elementary Soil and Water Conservation
Engineering, Wiley, New York.
Schwab, P.J., and Warner, R.C., 1987, “SEDCAD+ (Sediment, Erosion,
and Discharge by Computer Aided Design) Design Manual,” Civil
Software Design, Lexington, KY.
1169
Sterling, H.J., and Warner, R.C., 1984, “The Inertial Separator as a
Sediment Control Device,” Proceedings, National Symposium on
Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, Uni-
versity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Viessman, W., Jr., et al., 1977, Introduction to Hydrology, Intext Educa-
tional Pub., New York.
Warner, R.C., and Dysart, III, B.C., 1983, “Potential Use of the Swirl
Concentrator for Sediment Control on Surface Mined Lands,” Pro-
ceedings, Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology,
and Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Warner, R.C., and Schwab, P.J., 1989, “Alternative Designs of Sediment
Basins: Environmental and Economic Considerations,” ASAE Sum-
mer Meeting, Paper No. 89-2020, Quebec, Canada.
Warner, R.C., and Schwab, P.J., 1990, “SEDCAD+ (Sediment, Erosion
and Discharge by Computer Aided Design) Version 3.0. Design
Training Manual,” Civil Software Design, Lexington, KY.
Warner, R.C., et al., 1982, A Hydrology and Sedimentology Watershed
Model. Part II: User’s Manual, Department of Agricultural Engi-
neering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Wilson, B.N., Barfield, B.J., and Moore, I.D., 1982, “A Hydrology and
Sedimentology Watershed Model. Part I: Modeling Techniques,”
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY.
Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D., 1965, “Rainfall Erosion Losses
from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains,” Agricultural Hand-
book No. 282, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D., 1978, “Predicting Rainfall Erosion
Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning,” Agriculture Hand-
book No. 537, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.