Basin Information Rich McLaughlin

to:
Jesse Pritts

03/17/2011 05:03 PM

Cc: ryan brown

Show Details

History: This message has been replied to.

Jesse -

I've attached a summary of info that Ryan Brown has on the si te. We are not always sure if they put out PAM so the dosing is somewhat unknown, but we didn 't put more out if we could actually see it. Our interest here has been more on the erosio n and modeling side of things,
but since we were there anyway we have made some effo rt to get some turbidity control
treatment as well. The upper basin (#3) drain age area wasn't of interest to the erosion side so we have requested that informati on and I'll forward. We are hoping to add another basin on
this site soon.

Rich

Note: I didn't double check the table of data against w hat I sent earlier - I had left out some storm events w/ only 1 or 2 samples taken.

-- Richard A. McLaughlin, Ph.D. Professor and Extension Specialist Department of Soil Science

Box 7619

100 Derieux Street North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695

919-515-7306 office

919-215-5090 cell http://go.ncsu.edu/richmclaughlin web
http://go.ncsu.edu/estcworkshops training Page 1 of 1

3/30/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ jp ritts\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web4891.htmWake County I

- 540 Turnpike Basin Monitoring

Note: Because of the scope of the project I mostly looked at the lower basin. Even though we have sampling data for each of the basins, I looked at the upper basin’s mass flow out as that

would be an addition of sediments that wouldn’t be seen/accounted for by RUSLE2. Therefore I don’t have drainage area, soil analysis, etc. for the upper basin. The following information is for the lower basin on the site, 11.4 B according to the plans from NCDOT.

Site Size /Drainage Size : Period 9.14.10

- 12.14.10: 2.54 Acres

Period 12.14.10

- 02.03.11: 2.92 Acres

Period 02.03.11

- 03.03.11: 2.70 Acres

Predominant Soil Types: From Web Soil Survey: (MfB2) Mayodan Sandy Loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderat ely eroded (MgC2) Mayodan gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded (WyA) Worsham Sandy Loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

From Soil Texture Analysis of samples from Site:

Sand: 66

- 74%

Silt: 11

- 15% Clay: 15

- 20%

Site Name Date

Collected Date of Rain

Event Average Turbidity per Storm (NTU) Average TSS
per Storm (mg/L) Number

of

Bottles Rain (in) Sediment Load (kg)

11.3 C I n 11/23/2010 11/16/2010 17020.86777 18323 1 0.33 344.16

11.3 C E xit 11/23/2010 11/16/2010 72.5450668 94.3 4 0.33 1.27

11.4 B I n 11/23/2010 11/16/2010 21622.74922 51273 16 0.33 2634.63

11.4 B E xit 11/23/2010 11/16/2010 124.4094669 234 18 0.33 30.93

11.3 C I n 12/6/2010 12/1/2010 1276.839918 840.59 1 0.2 3.29

11.3 C E xit 12/6/2010 12/1/2010 70.8348753 68.8 2 0.2 1.27

11.4 B I n 12/6/2010 12/1/2010 1716.801822 4985 2 0.2 34.75

11.3 C I n 12/14/2010 12/12/2010 331.999872 549 4 0.5 8.24

11.4 B I n 12/14/2010 12/12/2010 1011.938172 2467 9 0.5 116.57

11.3 C I n 1/4/2011 12/16

- 17/2010 94.409624 217.34 1 3 0.58 7.798

11.3 C E xit 1/4/2011 18.8330096 15.7 1 Grab 0.17 0.7456

11.4 B I n 1/4/2011 12/16

- 17/2010 490.9607517 1227.38 17 0.58 78.39

11.4 B E xit 1/4/2011 215.971274 128.2033898 1 Grab 0.17 12

11.3 C E xit 1/13/2011 1/6/2011

- 1/12/2011 72.8893688 168.6 1 0. 09

, 0.13 0.638

11.4 B I n 1/27/2011 1/26/2011 35.97018253 83.23500238 3 0.39 0.919198232

11.4 B I n 3/3/2011 2/4

- 2/5

- 2/28/11 739.0911547 1494.929304 24 0.53,

0.31,

0.63 125.9761385More PAM was put out by us on 11.23.10 and 1.4.11 when we collected the samples on those days. That isn’t to indicate that PAM was not put out by anyone else at other times.

Rain data: The data for the rain event, 12.16

- 17.11, is for a storm that occurred overnight during that time. The other rows with multiple rain event dates are for multiple events that were collected at one time (i.e. every row represents a time that we went to collect samples where

there was sometime more than one rain event). These rain events are split up in the same order

as the dates are listed.

Basin 11.3 C Inlet : A fter samples were taken for the 12.12.10 event the flow data shows variable levels between 0.5 gpm to 13 gpm for about 24 hours. I would assume t hat this would be due to water freezing in the bubbling tube or the bubbling tube getting clogged. This could also be due to water freezing in the purging tube and the sampler not being able to collect samples. Although, with all of these cases being pos sible, looking at this size storm and catchment 4 samples wouldn’t seem atypical. With regard to the same basin, during the next storm, 12.17.10, a similar instance occurred with flows between 14 gpm and 0.05 gpm recorded by the sampler for about 24 hours after the last sample was taken. Similar instances could have occurred. Again the catchment area for this

basin was small.

Basin 11.3C Exit: F or the storm on 12.1.10, only two of the bottles were taken during

that event. The others were taken on 12.4.1 0 and 12.5.10, a time with insignificant if any rain.

For the 12.16

- 17.10 event the reason it is a grab sampler is because there were no samples in the sampler for this storm, and the inlet had so many it seemed inconsistent. It isn’t clear why no sampl es were taken but based on the flow and time data it was found the approximate volume that passed during this time was 12558 gallons.

On 1.1

- 2.11 high flows were taken by the sampler. Even though it isn’t known for sure, this could easily be from snow mel t. It isn’t clear why samples weren’t taken during these flows. The half of the sample that was taken is from the first event (01.6.11) and the other half from the second event (01.12.11).

Note: Basin 11.3 C was removed according to the plans at the be ginning Februrary.

Basin 11.4 B Inlet: Flows for the 11.16.10 storm were as great as 800 gpm. Very large flows like this were seen for about 28 minutes and for 14 samples and are unlikely. Normal flows were seen for the other two samples taken. The re were also significant flows after samples were taken between 12 and 1 gpm for about 3 days. For the 12.1.10 storm, after samples were taken, flows between 6 and 1 gpm were also seen for about 3 days.

After the 12.16

- 17.10 storm, flows between 1 and 10 gpm were seen for about a week. 11.4 B E xit 3/3/2011 2/4

- 2/5

- 2/28/11 170.0351674 319.6384267 21 0.53,

0.31,

0.63 48.25529329From 12.26.10 to 01.04.11 flows between 3 and 12 gpm were seen. This could be due to snow melt, but doesn’t explain the lack of samples from this period. During the 2.4.11 storm flows between 100 and 200 gpm were seen duri ng a majority of the time that samples were taken. Based on the flow data, it seems that all the samples were full by the middle of the rain on 2.4.11 since flows between 200 and 300 gpm were seen for about an hour

and a half after which the flow decrease d normally for four hours to 20 gpm then increased to 750 gpm during the next storm and finally decreasing over the course of a couple of days. During the last storm on 2.28.11 similarly the flows increased to 700 gpm at the beginning of the event and gra dually decreasing to minimal over the course of a couple of days.

Basin 11.4 B Exit:

For the 12.1.10 storm, flows starting at 20 gpm and decreasing to minimal levels were seen over the course of 4 to 5 days. Similarly, for the 12.16.10 storm, flows beg an at 10 gpm and decreased to minimal levels over the course of 2 days. And again for the 1.2.11 storm, flows began at 13 gpm and decreased to minimal levels over the course of 3 days. The estimated volume that passed for this (1.2.11) period was 24659 ga llons. It was at this last collection time discovered that the tubing to take samples was torn apart within the housing of the pump. Flow data is missing from 2.10.11 to 3.3.11. This could be because of a power loss and the solar panel recharged the battery so that it would turn on again on 3.3.11.