i < Fluvial Sediment in

f Salem Fork Watershed, 

\ West Virginia ,,

!

I

\ GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1798-K

!

1 Prepared in cooperation with the

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture

I Soil Conservation Service
Fluvial Sediment in 

Salem Fork Watershed, 

West Virginia

By RUSSELL F. FLINT

SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1798-K

Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

V. E. McKELVEY, Director

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600024

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 30 cents (paper cover)

Stock Number 2401-2165
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract............................................................................................................. Kl

Introduction...................................................................................................... 1

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................... 3

Environmental factors................................................................................... 4

Climate. ................................................................................................... 4

Geology....................................................................................................... 5

Soils and land use..................................................................................... 6

Hydraulic structures....................................................................................... 8

Runoff................................................................................................................. 11

Fluvial sediment............................................................................................... 11

Reservoir 11 A........................................................................................... 13

Suspended sediment.----.-.----...---...-------..-..-----...-.----...------.--.....--....-. 13

Deposited sediment, trap efficiency, and sediment yield........... 19

Reservoir 9, suspended sediment ...................................................... 20

Salem Fork at Salem, suspended sediment...................... ................. 22

Conclusions. . ...................................................................................... 25

References.......................... ... . ........................ ................. ................ 28

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

FIGURE 1. Map showing area of the Salem Fork watershed

evaluation project in western Harrison County.. . K2

2. Photograph of reservoir 9 in Salem Fork watershed,

showing structural rock benches.-----.-------.------... --.- 5

3. Photograph of Varner Hollow, looking upstream beyond

reservoir 11A construction site.. ........ .. . .............. 6

4. Map of Salem Fork watershed, showing generalized

use-capability classes of the land .................................... 7

5. Photograph of upstream face of detention dam of

reservoir 11A, showing outlet works, stage-recorder

house, and gage-well intakes............ ................................. 9

6. Photograph of reservoir 11A, showing part of

emergency spillway......-.......-..... ........................................ 10

7. Photograph of downstream face of dam of

reservoir 11A, showing outlet pipe and riprap section..... 13

8. Graph showing average relations of suspendedsediment discharge to water discharge--...-------....-----.... 23

9. Graph showing duration curves of daily flow for

the two 4-year periods of investigation............................... 24

Hi
IV CONTENTS

TABLES

Page

TABLE 1. Stage and capacity of reservoir 11A from survey

made in the fall of 1954........-...--...-...--.-.---.--- K 9

2. Stage and capacity of reservoir 9 from survey

made in November 1956........................................................... 10

3. Water discharge and miscellaneous reservoir 

computations, subwatersheds HA and 9 and 

Salem Fork at Salem-.-.. . . ... 12

4. Summary of outflow from reservoir HA, 1954-62......... . 14

5. Monthly water and sediment discharges, reservoir HA........ 15

6. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment, inflow

to reservoir HA......................................................................... 16

7. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment, outflow

from reservoir HA.................................................................... 17

8. Chemical analyses of water in Salem Fork basin................... 21

9. Sediment data for periods between surveys of

reservoir 11 A............................................................................. 21

10. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment, inflow

to and outflow from reservoir 9.............................................. 26

11. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment,

Salem Fork at Salem.................... ... .. 26
SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

FLUVIAL SEDIMENT IN SALEM FORK 

WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA

By RUSSELL F. FLINT

ABSTRACT

Suspended sediment discharged from the 8.32-square-mile Salem Fork study 

area in Harrison County, W. Va., averaged 3,500 tons per year during the 

first 4-year period of investigation and 1,770 tons per year during the second 

4-year period. The difference was attributed to increased flow control, effected 

by the completion of detention structures and other conservation measures, 

the absence of appreciable sediment-producing construction activities, and a 

reduction of the amounts of rainfall and runoff during the second 4-year period.

Particle-size distribution of the suspended sediment discharged from the 

watershed remained unchanged during the two 4-year periods. Although sand 

and some silt were deposited in upstream reservoirs, sands and other sediments were evidently entrained in the flow below the reservoirs.

During the 7.75-year period, reservoir 11A had a trap efficiency of 88 percent. The average annual sediment yield of subwatershed 11A was 1.31 tons 

per acre, or 837 tons per square mile. Outflow from reservoir 11A occurred 

during 81 percent of the investigation'period, October 1954 to June 1962, and 

78 percent of the sediment discharge from the reservoir occurred during less 

than 6 percent of the investigation period. A comparison of particle-size 

distribution of inflow sediment with that of outflow sediment revealed that 

practically all sands and some silts entering reservoir 11A were deposited in 

the reservoir. Chemical analyses of inflow water and the particle-size analyses 

suggested that flocculation of fine sediments occurred in the reservoir.

Analysis of the sediment data collected at the outflow of reservoir 9 during 

1956-62 revealed that the average annual sediment discharge was 128,000 

pounds per year. Limited particle-size data suggested that practically no sand 

was discharged from reservoir 9, even though the inflow contained sand.

Average annual inflow to reservoirs 11A and 9 compared favorably with 

average annual runoff for the entire watershed-study area.

INTRODUCTION

The Salem Fork watershed-evaluation project in Harrison 

County (fig. 1) was started in 1954 under the direction of the

Kl
K2 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, to 

evaluate the physical and economic effects of a watershed-protection program.

As part of the overall physical evaluation of the watershed 

area, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Soil 

Conservation Service, began to investigate streamflow and sedimentation on October 1, 1954. The investigations were designed

80°35'

(

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Subwatershed boundary

County line

City line 

9

Detention structure with 

reservoir and number

11A

Number of Subwatershed 

included in study

Daily sediment-sampling 

site and number

H 3

_ Periodic sediment-sampling 

site and number

A2

Water-stage recorder with tippingbucket rain gage and number

Post-Rogers recording rain gage

 39°15'

Base from U S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service map, January. 1954

V2 M I LE

FIGURE 1. Area of the Salem Fork watershed evaluation project in western Harrison County.
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K3

to yield continuous data on streamflow and periodic data on 

discharge and particle-size characteristics of suspended sediment 

at two locations, Salem Fork at Salem, which has a drainage area 

of 8.32 sq mi (square miles), and Salem Fork subwatershed 11A 

(Varner Hollow Run) near Salem, which has a drainage area of 

0.288 sq mi. (See fig. 1.) In February 1955, subwatershed 11A was 

selected as one station in a national network of sediment stations 

established to determine the trap efficiency of small floodwaterretarding basins. A daily record of sediment discharges from 

the reservoir and the collection of suspended-sediment samples 

in the inflow channel were started.

The collection of continuous streamflow and periodic suspendedsediment data at Salem Fork subwatershed 9 (West Branch 

Patterson Fork) near Salem, which has a drainage area 0.92 

sq mi, was started January 25, 1956 (fig. 1). The suspendedsediment data at reservoir 9 provide an index of the watersediment discharge relationship. Limited suspended-sediment data 

were also collected at the inflow of reservoir 9 for reasons similar 

to those mentioned for reservoir 11 A.

The streamflow station at Salem Fork at Salem was established 

January 1, 1951, with support from the Federal Inter-Agency 

River Basin Committee, and continued under this arrangement 

through the study period. Streamflow from the entire study 

area was measured at this station.

This report summarizes and interprets the basic sediment and 

chemical-quality data collected for each drainage area studied 

as part of the Salem Fork watershed evaluation project and 

presents sediment-yield and trap-efficiency figures for reservoir 

11 A. The report includes supplementary hydrologic characteristics of reservoirs 11A and 9 and their respective subwatershed areas.

No other reports of similar investigations in this area are 

available; however, Mundorff (1964) reported the results of 

a similar investigation conducted during 1955-61 in Kiowa Creek 

basin in northeastern Colorado.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

R. E. Quilliam, State conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 

provided data on soil descriptions and rainfall in the project 

area. John W. Roehl, geologist, Soil Conservation Service, provided data on stage-capacity relations for reservoir 11 A, and a 

summary of current data for reservoir 11 A.
K4 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS 

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

The Salem Fork basin lies in western Harrison County and 

is included on 7.5-minute topographic maps of the Salem and 

Big Isaac quadrangles. Salem Fork rises near the west edge 

of the county and flows east into Tenmile Creek, a tributary of 

the West Fork River, which is a tributary of the Monongahela 

River. The Salem Fork watershed project area (fig. 1), 8.32 

sq mi (5,325 acres), is in the headwaters of the Salem Fork 

basin and includes those areas drained by Patterson Fork in the 

south and Jacobs Run and Dog Run in the north. The town 

of Salem, whose population is 2,510, lies near the center of the 

area, about 14 miles west of Clarksburg.

The area is served by east-west U.S. Highway 50, which passes 

along the main street of Salem. State Highway 23 follows Jacobs 

Run, enters Salem from the northwest, and terminates near 

the center of town. A paved county highway follows Patterson 

Fork before entering Salem from the south. A main line of the 

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad parallels Salem Fork and U.S. 

Highway 50 as it passes through Salem.

The area, part of the unglaciated Allegheny Mountain section 

of the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province (Fenneman, 

1938, p. 283), has rugged topography. Elevations range from 

about 1,030 feet above sea level near the mouth of Dog Run to 

about 1,500 feet in the extreme southern and western parts of 

the area. Hillside slopes are long and steep, but some are broken 

by structural rock benches as shown in figure 2. Thornbury 

(1954, p. 112) attributed the formation of such benches to the 

alternating weak and strong underlying strata.

CLIMATE

The climate in the Salem-Clarksburg area is temperate and 

of the humid-continental type. Clarksburg's mean annual precipitation of about 42 inches is fairly evenly distributed throughout 

the year. However, high-intensity rainstorms are common during 

June and July. Many of these storms are cloudbursts and cause 

flash flooding. The rugged topography of the area includes many 

small drainage basins which are subject to frequent severe flash 

flooding. Snow, which constitutes about 20 to 25 percent of the 

winter precipitation, averages about 25 inches annually and 

occurs mostly between December and April (Weedfall, no date).

Mean daily temperatures range from a minimum of 22 °F for 

January to a maximum of 87 °F for July. The lowest recorded 

temperature for Clarksburg was 32 °F in February 1932, and
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K5

the highest temperature, 102 °F, occurred in July 1934 and 

September 1953. The length of frost-free season averages about 

150 days but varies owing to differences in elevation (U.S. Dept. 

Agriculture, 1954, p. 2).

Pan-evaporation data collected at Clarksburg indicate average 

evaporation ranging from about 2 inches in October to 5.5 inches 

in July (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1965) and an average annual lake 

evaporation of about 30 inches (Kohler and others, 1959).

FIGURE 2. View of reservoir 9 in Salem Fork watershed, showing structural rock benches 

which break the long hillside slopes of the area. Photograph reprinted by permission of West 

Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

GEOLOGY

The Salem area is strongly dissected. The hills are worn down 

and rounded by erosion. Ridge skylines are irregular, and there 

are many gaps in the watershed divides (fig. 3).

The rocks which underlie the area were formed during the 

Permian and Pennsylvanian Periods of the Paleozoic Era. Nace 

and Bieber (1958, p. 24) stated that these rocks, collectively 

called the Dunkard Group, are the youngest sedimentary rocks 

in West Virginia. The group is composed of interstratified gray, 

green, and brown sandstone, red and varicolored sandy or limy 

shale, black carbonaceous shale, limestone, and impure coal. Two
K6 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

formations of the Dunkard Group, the Greene and the Washington, 

are in the Salem area. The Proctor Sandstone of White (1883), 

the topmost unit of the Greene Formation, caps some of the 

higher hills of the area; rocks of the Washington Formation 

are about 600 feet below the Proctor Sandstone (Nace and Bieber, 

1958, p. 17). The relief of the area indicates that rocks of the 

Greene Formation make up the principal parent materials for 

the soils of the Salem area.

FIGURE 3. View of Varner Hollow, looking upstream beyond reservoir 11A construction site 

and showing dissected area and irregular skyline which is typical of the area. Photograph by 

Soil Conservation Service.

SOILS AND LAND USE

The soils of the upland areas of the Salem Fork watershed are 

part of the Upshur-Gilpin complex, a result of the erosion 

and intermingling of the Upshur and Gilpin soils. Vandalia 

soils occur on the footslopes, and Moshannon, Senecaville, and 

Melvin soils make up the bottom lands (R. E. Quilliam, written 

commun., 1970). The Upshur soils are moderately deep or deep, 

well drained, and clayey; the Gilpin soils are loamy, moderately 

deep, gently sloping to very steep, and well drained (Beverage and 

others, 1968). Vandalia soils are typically deep and well drained, 

and their subsoil textures range from silty clay to clay. The 

deep Moshannon, Senecaville, and Melvin soils, formed from 

alluvium washed into the bottom lands from upland areas, are
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K7

well drained, moderately well drained, and poorly drained, respectively. Their textures range from silt loam to silty clay loam 

(German and Rayburn, 1961).

Detailed acreage figures are not available for the different 

soils of the watershed; however, the land of the watershed was 

divided into capability classes by the Soil Conservation Service 

in 1954. Figure 4 shows this classification. Less than 9 percent of 

the land comprised classes 1, 2w, and Se and was suitable for

80°35'

1

EXPLANATION

w, flood or wetness hazard; e, erosion hazard 

SYMBOL CLASS CONSERVATION AND USE PROBLEM

No conservation problem; can be 

cropped intensively

2w Can be cropped. Moderate 

flood hazard. Impeded 

drainage

Se Can be cropped if erosion 

is controlled

4 e Erosive land. Best suited 

to pasture. Occasional 

cropping

Be Steep land. Best kept 

in pasture or forest

7e Very steep land or badly eroded. 

Should be kept in forest

80°35'

39°15'- 39° 15'

Adapted from U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service map, January. 1954

 Watershed boundary 

FIGURE 4. Map of Salem Fork watershed, showing generalized use-capability classes of the land.
K8 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

cropping, but most of this land had flood or wetness and erosion 

hazards, denoted by subclasses w and e, respectively (Buckman 

and Brady, 1960, p. 333). Class 4e included 34 percent of the land 

and could be used for occasional cropping though it was erosive 

and recommended for pasture. The 39 percent of the land in class 

6e was steep and best suited to pasture or forest. The remaining 

18 percent of the area was steep or badly eroded land in class 

7e and was recommended for forest only (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 

1954, p. 2).

Dairying and beef production are the chief enterprises of the 

grassland farming that is carried out in the area. The hillsides 

tend to be overgrazed since bottom lands are reserved principally 

for hay crops (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1954, p. 3). Some pasturing 

is allowed in the bottom lands during selected seasons of the year.

HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

Seven of the eight detention structures shown in figure 1 were 

built for flood control. The structure on Dog Run, completed in 

November 1954 by the city of Salem to impound water for municipal water supply, has a limited flood-control capability.

The principal detention structure with which this report deals 

is that of reservoir HA, on Varner Hollow Run. Storage in 

reservoir HA began in 1954 when the earth dam was completed. 

The structure detains runoff from a drainage area of 184 acres 

(0.288 sq mi). At the time of its completion, reservoir HA had 

a storage capacity of 53.00 acre-feet and a surface area of 6.75 

acres at the crest of the emergency spillway (elev 1,145.6 ft above 

mean sea level). The permanent (sediment) pool had an area of 

0.92 acre and a capacity of 7.05 acre-feet at elevation 1,132.7 

feet. The reservoir is 211 feet wide and 1,390 feet long (U.S. 

Dept. Agriculture, 1970). Table 1 gives the stage and capacity 

of reservoir HA for 1-foot increments of elevation.

The outlet structure of reservoir 11A (fig. 5) consists of a 3- 

foot-square concrete drop inlet which is 17 feet in depth and 

connects to a 24-inch steel outlet pipe. A 12-inch horizontal steel 

pipe serves as a low-stage outlet which carries the flow from the 

reservoir to the drop inlet. An emergency earth spillway, 44 

feet wide, is at the left end of the dam (fig. 6).

Reservoir 9 (see fig. 2) is on West Branch Patterson Fork 

in the southwestern part of the Salem Fork basin. The detention 

structure was completed and storage began in January 1956. 

The structure detains runoff from a drainage area of 590 acres 

(0.92 sq mi). As calculated from a survey made in November 

1956, reservoir 9 had a storage capacity of 180.72 acre-feet at the
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K9

crest of the emergency spillway (elev 1,105.1 ft above mean sea 

level). The permanent (sediment) pool had a capacity of 19.07 

acre-feet at elevation 1,088.1 feet. Table 2 gives the capacity of 

reservoir 9 for 1-foot increments of elevation.

The outlet structure of reservoir 9 consists of a 3-foot-square 

concrete drop inlet which connects to a 24-inch steel outlet pipe.

TABLE 1. Stage and capacity of reservoir 11A from survey made in the fall

of 1954

Gage 

height 

(feet)

0.00

.82

1.82

2.82

3.82

4.82

5.52

5.82

6.82

7.82

8.82

9.82

10.82

11.82

12.82

13.72

13.82

14.82

15.82

16.82

17.82

18.42

Elevation 

(feet above 

mean sea level)

1,127.18

1,128

1,129

1,130

1,131

1,132

1,132.7

1,133

1,134

1,135

1,136

1,137

1,138

1,139

1,140

1,140.9

1,141

1,142

1,143

1,144

1,145

1,145.6

Capacity 

(acre-feet)

0.28

.67

1.60

2.78

4.18

5.76

7.05

7.55

9.44

11.50

13.82

16.45

19.09

22.05

25.66

29.40

29.80

33.83

38.40

43.59

49.30

53.00

Remarks

Datum of gage.

Level of 12-inch outlet pipe.

Level of principal spillway.

Level of emergency spillway.

FIGURE 5. View of upstream face of detention dam of reservoir 11A, showing outlet works 

(middleground), stage-recorder house (background), and gage-well intakes (foreground). 

Photograph by C. R. Collier.
K10 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

FIGURE 6. View of reservoir 11A, showing part of emergency spillway (right foreground). 

Photograph by Soil Conservation Service.

TABLE 2. Stage and capacity of reservoir 9 from survey made in November

1956

Gage 

height 

(feet)

0.00

.20

1.20

2.20

3.20

4.20

5.20

6.20

7.20

8.20

8.30

9.20

10.20

11.20

12.20

13.20

14.20

15.20

16.20

17.20

18.20

19.20

20.20

21.20

22.20

23.20

24.20

25.20

25.30

Elevation 

(feet above 

mean sea level)

1,079.80

1,080

1,081

1,082

1,083

1,084

1,085

1,086

1,087

1,088

1,088.1

1,089

1,090

1,091

1,092

1,093

1,094

1,095

1,096

1,097

1,098

1,099

1,100

1,101

1,102

1,103

1,104

1,105

1,105.1

Capacity 

(acre-feet)

0.40

.59

1.60

3.07

5.15

7.51

10.00

12.72

15.70

18.76

19.07

22.05

25.88

30.10

35.51

41.25

48.10

55.50

64.06

73.60

83.71

94.00

105.01

117.80

131.63

146.50

162.15

179.00

180.72

Remarks

Datum of gage.

Level of 16-inch outlet pipe.

>

Level of principal spillway.

Level of emergency spillway.

A 16-inch horizontal steel pipe serves as a low-stage outlet and 

connects the reservoir with the drop inlet. An emergency spillway 

is at the right end of the dam.
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA Kll

There is a total capacity of 376 acre-feet below the emergency 

spillways of the seven flood-control reservoirs of the watershed. 

In addition, the municipal reservoir on Dog Run has a capacity 

of 155 acre-feet.

RUNOFF

Outflow from the Salem Fork study area was determined from 

gaging-station records at Salem Fork at Salem. (See fig. 1.) 

Flow from 1,498 of the total 5,325 acres of the area was partly 

controlled by seven floodwater-detention reservoirs. The municipal 

reservoir on Dog Run exerts a slight additional control over the 

flow from its 566-acre drainage area.

Gaging-station records at the outlets of reservoirs 11A and 9, 

shown on figure 1, were the bases for computations of outflow 

from their corresponding subwatersheds.

Records of streamflow for the period October 1954 to September 

1962 for Salem Fork at Salem and for reservoirs 11A and 9 

are published in U.S. Geological Survey water-supply papers 

(U.S. Geol. Survey, 1957; 1958; 1959; 1960a, b; and 1961a) and 

in basic-data releases entitled "Surface Water Records of West 

Virginia" for water years 1961 and 1962 (available from the 

U.S. Geol. Survey, Charleston, W. Va.). Summaries of water 

discharge and other hydrologic data pertaining to the two reservoir stations and for Salem Fork at Salem are given in table 3. 

Total inflow to and runoff from the two reservoirs have been 

computed and are also included in table 3.

The average annual inflow to reservoir 11A was 20.5 inches 

during a 7.75-year period. During this same period, the average 

annual runoff for Salem Fork at Salem was 21.6 inches. The 

average annual inflow to reservoir 9 was 23.6 inches, compared 

with an average annual runoff of 22.1 inches for Salem Fork at 

Salem during the 6.5-year period of record. The computed inflow 

values for both reservoirs compared favorably with the runoff 

values of the entire watershed as measured at Salem Fork 

at Salem.

FLUVIAL SEDIMENT

Fluvial sediment can be divided into two general classes, bedload and suspended load. Bedload is sediment that moves along 

and stays in almost continuous contact with the streambed. Suspended sediment is either colloidally suspended or held in suspension owing to upward components of turbulence.

The suspended-sediment discharge of a stream depends chiefly 

upon the physical characteristics of the drainage basin and the
K12 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

hydraulic characteristics of the stream. Precipitation intensityduration relations, the erodibility and transportability of soil 

material, land use, and topography affect the amounts of sediment 

delivered from an area. The nature of the fluvial-sediment study 

in the Salem Fork watershed did not afford an opportunity 

to evaluate the importance of each of the above factors but only 

the net effect of all factors. The effects of some of the individual 

factors were observed in the course of the study, however.

For the reservoir outflows, the entire depth of the flow was 

sampled at the outlet pipes; thus the total sediment discharge 

was represented by these samples. Because the sand fraction, 

some coarse silts, and some flocculated fine sediments were deposited in the reservoirs, sediment discharges at the reservoir 

outflow stations did not reflect the total sediment delivered from 

their watersheds.

For Salem Fork at Salem, nearly all the sediment moved as 

suspended sediment. Therefore, the records of suspended sediTABLE 3. Water discharge and miscellaneous reservoir computations, subwatersheds 11A and 9 and Salem Fork at Salem

Subwatershed 

11A

Subwatershed 

9

Salem Fork 

at Salem

_____________Water discharge, in acre-feet, for the indicated water year_____________

1955......................................................................................... 297.1 ........ 9,823

1956......................................................................................... 382.2 H.264 11,290

1957......................................................................................... 251.8 968 7,840

1958........................................................................................ 405.1 1,415 11,552

1959......................................................................................... 216.9 794 6,858

1960 ....................................................................................... 303.4 1,097 9,053

1961............................... .... .................................................... 304.2 1,054 9,378

19622...................................................................................... 281.1_________953_________8.432

Total............................................... ........................... 2,441.8_______7,545________74,226

________________Precipitation, in inches, for the indicated water year_______________ 

19553............... ........................................................................ 43.03 ........ 43.03

19564 ....................................................................................... 57.16 !49.89 57.16

1957^....................................................................................... 33.90 33.90 33.90

1958n .............................................................................. ........ 55.79 55.79 55.79

19595 ............ ...................... ............ ............ .. ...... ... 36.19 36.19 36.19

I960-''....................................................................................... 47.79 47.79 47.79

19615....................................................................................... 41.92 41.92 41.92

1962- '.. ..................................................................................___3_L58_________31.58_________31.58

Total................. ......................................................... 347.36________297.06________347.36

__________________Miscellaneous reservoir computations, 1954-62_________________ 

Drainage area.............................................. . acres.. 184 590 5,325

Do........................................................... . ..........sqmi.. .288 .92 8.32

Average surface area................................ ............acres.. 1.81 3.54

Estimated evaporation from surface6..... ....acre-feet. 35 57

Change in storage......................................................do.... +6 +19

Estimated seepage loss.............................................do.... 3 6

Precipitation onto reservoir surface..... .......... ....do.... 52 88

Total runoff for watershed7 ....................................do.... 2,486 7,627

Total inflow into reservoir1*......................................do.... 2,434 7,539

Average annual inflow..... ................................inches.. 20.5 23.6

1Period from January to September only.

2Period from October to June only.

"Average of totals for Clarksburg and Smithburg (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1965).

4 Salem official rain gage, unpublished data.

G Salem Post-Rogers official rain gage (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1957-62).

6Based on pan-evaporation data at Clarksburg (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1965) and on inform 

tion from Kohler, Nordenson, and Baker (1959).

'Total runoff above dam = outflow from reservoir + evaporation from reservoir surface 

estimated seepage loss + change in storage during period.

8Inflow = total runoff precipitation on reservoir surface.
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K13

ment were considered as the total load, and no adjustments were 

made for bedload.

Depth-integrated stream samples, collected by standard 

samplers, were analyzed in the laboratory to obtain the suspendedsediment concentration. Particle-size determinations for selected 

suspended-sediment samples were made by sieve-sedimentation 

methods or by sedimentation methods alone. Sedimentation 

methods are based on the fall velocity of the particles. Suspendedsediment data collected at the three sediment stations are presented in the following three sections.

RESERVOIR 11A

SUSPENDED SEDIMENT

All discharge from reservoir 11 A, which occurred 81 percent 

of the time, was through the outlet pipe (fig. 7) during the period 

of sediment record. Daily sediment discharges in excess of 500 

pounds occurred on 163 days during the period of investigation, 

or 5.8 percent of the total time. For these days, sediment discharge totaled 357,266 pounds, or 78 percent of the total sediment 

discharge. Thus, 78 percent of the sediment discharge occurred 

during less than 6 percent of the period of investigation. Table 

4 summarizes data for all outflow periods at reservoir 11A.

FIGURE 7. Downstream face of dam of reservoir HA, showing outlet pipe and riprap section.

Photograph by C. R. Collier.
K14 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS 

TABLE 4. Summary of outflow from reservoir 11 A, 1954-62

[mg/1, milligrams per liter]

Outflow 

period

Oct. 15, 1954-May 25, 1955..... 

June 7-18, 1955..........................

Aug. 22-Sept. 2, 1955.............

Oct. 7, 1955-May 30, 1957....... 

Oct. 24, 1957-May 27, 1958..... 

June IS^July 2, 1958.................

July 6-Aug. 22, 1958.... ............

Aug. 24-Sept. 12, 1958... ..........

Sept. 17-Oct. 21, 1958...............

Oct. 26, 1958-June 10, 1959-.. 

Aug. 9-14, 1959..........................

Nov. 4, 1959-June 8, 1960....... 

June 12-18, 1960........................

June 21-28, 1960........................

July 1-8, I960.....

July 11-12, 1960.........................

July 14-Oct. 16. 1960... .............

Oct. 19, 1960-July 1, 1961....... 

July 3-9, 1961........ . .........

July 13-Aug. 29. 1961...............

Oct. 5-9, 1961.............................

Oct. 14-27, 1961.........................

Oct. 31-Nov. 2. 1961.. ...............

Nov. 4, 1961-May 14, 1962...... 

May 27-29, 1962......

June 5-8, 1962......... . .....

June 11-13, 1962.....

Total...... ............ ............

Water discharge

Total 

days

223 

12 

12 

602 

216 

20 

48 

20 

35 

228 

6 

2 

218 

7 

8 

8 

2 

95 

256 

7 

48 

5 

14 

3 

192 

3 

4 

3

2,297

Cubic feet 

per 

second-days

146.84 

.58 

2.36 

319.59 

151.00 

1.79 

45.17 

1.22 

6.31 

107.82 

.28 

.02 

125.04 

.46 

.33 

.77 

.02 

26.60 

140.43 

.27 

12.41 

.08 

.82 

.05 

140.67 

.06 

.10 

.04

1,231.13

Acre-feet

291.26 

1.15 

4.68 

633.91 

299.51 

3.55 

89.59 

2.42 

12.52 

213.86 

.56 

.04 

248.02 

.91 

.65 

1.53 

.04 

52.76 

278.54 

.54 

24.62 

.16 

1.63 

.10 

279.02 

.12 

.20 .08-

2,441.97

Sediment 

discharge

Pounds

66,339 

48 

1,492 

140,829 

52,127 

433 

14,365 

47 

749 

31,585 

17 

1 

33,322 

13 

8 

56 

1 

10,319 

35,919 

33 

4,045 

5 

87 

3 

63,608 

4 

6 

2

455,463

Tons c(

33 

.02 

.75 

70 

26 

.22 

7.2 

.02 

.37 

16 

.01

17

.01

"".03

"H.2 

18 

.02 

2.0

"".04 

32

227.89

Dischargeweighted 

suspendedsediment 

jncentration 

(mg/1)

84 

15 

117 

82 

64 

45 

59 

7 

22 

54 

11 

9 

49 

5 

4 

13 

9 

72 

47 

23 

60 

12 

20 

11 

84 

12 

11 

9

Table 5, a summary of monthly water and sediment discharges 

from reservoir 11 A, shows that 76 percent of the water and 78 

percent of the sediment, on the average, were discharged during 

the 5-month period from December to April. At no time during 

December to April was flow interrupted. Flow usually persisted 

from October to May.

During the entire period of record for reservoir 11 A, the discharge-weighted suspended-sediment concentration was about 

69 mg/1 (milligrams per liter). The maximum observed instantaneous concentration during the period of record was 626 mg/1 on 

May 5, 1958. The maximum daily mean concentration during the 

period of record was 309 mg/1 on December 30, 1954.

The maximum daily load during the period of record was 

13,000 pounds on December 30, 1954. The maximum observed 

instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge of reservoir 11A 

was 25,600 pounds per day on May 5, 1958.

Particle-size analyses of both the inflow and outflow samples 

from reservoir 11A were made by standard sieve and sedimentation methods. The results of these analyses for the inflow and 

outflow of reservoir 11A are shown in tables 6 and 7, respectively. 

Inflow sediment averaged 51 percent clay (0.0002-0.004 mm), 42 

percent silt (0.004-0.062 mm), and 7 percent sand (0.062-2.00 

mm). Outflow sediment averaged 81 percent clay and 19 percent 

silt and no sand.
TABLE 5. Monthly water and sediment discharges, 

Water Oct. 

year

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 

Water discharge, in cfs-days

1958.......................................................... 1.50

1959......................................................... 1.40

1960......................................................... 0

1961......................................................... 1.26

1962......................................................... .92

Percentage of total......... ................... 1

3.92 

4.48 

.66 

6.60 

4.28 

6.35 

6.39 

9.71

42.39 

3

28.25 

3.56 

36.95 

41.69 

7.70 

15.01 

9.80 

19.15

162.11 

13

13.51 

14.91 

26.98 

22.40 

32.00 

22.24 

13.81 

25.72

171.57 

14

40.48 

42.93 

28.02 

25.05 

21.07 

25.69 

30.81 

27.80

241.85 

20

32.38 

50.80 

9.42 

11.54 

11.18 

21.83 

33.23 

26.40

196.78 

16

Sediment discharge, in

1955......................................................... 6,840

1957......................................................... 115

1961................................................ ........ Ill

1962......................................................... 93

Monthly total.................................... 7,428

Percentage of total............................. 2

478 

837 

66 

1,241 

374 

906 

395 

3,011

7,308 

2

19,389 

250 

17,269 

17,074 

397 

1,503 

826 

2,570

59,278 

13

3,713 

8,509 

14,220 

5,154 

10,757 

13,906 

678 

11,029

67,966 

15

13,088 

17,582 

11,704 

6,188 

9,761 

4,726 

8,502 

18,064

89,615 

20

11,687 

30,786 

862 

1,022 

901 

7,478 

11,722 

13,985

78,443 

17

17.50 

12.23 

22.11 

16.54 

19.21 

11.80 

29.37 

31.55

160.31 

13

pounds

10,944 

2,781 

7,962 

3,106 

4,897 

2,150 

12,097 

14,932

58,869 

13

1.84 

13.07 

1.90 

25.68 

10.23 

21.59 

7.38 

.43

82.12

7

200 

1,660 

170 

18,232 

4,323 

2,635 

902 

23

28,145 

6
TABLE 6. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment, inflo

[Method of analysis: B, bottom-withdrawal tube; W, in distilled water; C, chemically dispersed; S, sieve; 

Vya tpr Suspended sediment

Date

1955

Mar. 11

Apr. 24

June 7

June 7

Aug. 22

Aug. 22

1956

Jan. 29

Jan. 29

Feb. 25

Feb. 25

Mar. 14

Mar. 14

June 23

June 23

July 17

July 17

Aug. 5

Aug. 5

Aug. 28

Aug. 28

Dec. 14

Dec. 14

1957

Jan. 9

Jan. 9

Apr. 8

Apr. 8

Dec. 7

Dec. 7

Dec. 20

Dec. 20

1958

Apr. 29

Apr. 29

May 5

May 5

July 15

July 15

Aug. 8

Time

0755

2300

1350

1350

1540

1540

1140

1140

1000

1000

0735

0735

1835

1835

1235

1235

1420

1420

1810

1810

0730

0730

2335

2335

2135

2135

1750

1750

1540

1540

0810

0810

0715

0715

2250

2250

0320

discharge Concentration 

(cfs) (mg/1)

........ 1,710

........ 1,660

........ 7,500

........ 7,500

........ 1,450

........ 1,450

........ 1,950

........ 1,950

........ 6,250

........ 6,250

14.6 781

14.6 781

........ 3,890

........ 3,890

........ 3,410

........ 3,410

........ 1,760

........ 1,760

........ 643

........ 643

........ 1,490

........ 1,490

........ 4,160

........ 4,160

........ 4,760

........ 4,760

........ 544

........ 544

........ 3,180

........ 3,180

........ 2,060

........ 2,060

........ 5,080

........ 5,080

........ 183

........ 183

........ 1,190

L

0.002

56

35

40

23

59

41

21

18

41

31

32

25

35

27

23

25

36

21

42

29

32

14

27

16

30

22

40

15

31

12

36

10

28

20

42

13

38

Percentage finer than indicated si

0.004

67

49

56

34

75

53

32

27

59

43

44

35

52

41

50

43

50

39

57

46

48

29

40

32

43

31

58

30

46

23

48

20

40

30

56

34

51

0.008

82

62

75

52

87

81

47

40

78

60

56

48

70

63

70

65

63

55

74

69

65

52

56

48

57

48

76

58

65

36

60

31

56

46

70

59

65

0.016

93

76

93

71

96

97

60

53

91

81

70

65

87

81

89

85

80

73

88

88

79

76

72

60

72

68

89

90

79

58

74

51

73

62

83

90

79

0.031

98

89

98

97

99

100

74

74

98

98

81

79

94

96

97

98

90

89

96

96

88

88

83

80

84

85

93

94

87

83

85

84

81

84

90

91

87

0.062

100

94

99

100

100

80

81

99

99

87

86

98

99

99

99

94

95

98

98

93

93

91

85

93

91

95

96

93

94

90

90

88

89

91

94

92
1959

Jan. 15

Jan. 15

Jan. 20

Jan. 20

Feb. 10

Feb. 10

Apr. 10

Apr. 10

May 4

May 4

1960

Jan. 15

Jan. 15

Aug. 4

Aug. 4

Aug. 21

Aug. 21

1961

Dec. 18

Dec. 18

1530

1530

1355

1355

1240

1240

1130

1130

1335

1335

0320

0320

0420

0420

1435

1435

0930

0930

711

711

913

913

7,200

7,200

2,200

2,200

5,080

5,080

4,380

4,380

664

664

725

725

992

992

31

19

31

20

37

21

34

21

35

28

42

30

48

35

39

23

42

14

47

34

41

30

50

33

45

33

48

38

54

41

64

52

56

37

57

35

59

49

55

54

64

52

58

46

61

54

69

60

77

73

69

59

68

59

73

69

70

69

81

74

70

62

77

70

83

76

89

88

83

80

83

81

83

82

82

83

88

87

82

80

87

86

91

90

96

96

95

94

93

88

88

87

86

88

93

91

88

84

91

91

95

95

99

99

98

98

96

94

TABLE 7. Particle-size analyses of suspended-sediment, outfl

[Method of analysis: B, bottom-withdrawal tube; W, in distilled water; C, chemically dispersed; S, sieve

Date

1955

Mar. 1

Apr. 25

1956

Feb. 25

Feb. 25

Mar. 8

Mar. 14

June 23

June 23

Aug. 5

Aug. 5

Aug. 6

Aug. 6

Dec. 14

Dec. 14

Dec. 14

Time

1330

0230

1700

1700

1810

1300

2200

2200

1710

2205

0310

0310

0955

1400

1400

Water 

discharge 

(cfs)

7.0

7.2

5.9

5.9

7.4

7.2

3.4

3.4

7.1

10.0

10.9

10.9

10.0

10.0

10.0

Suspended sediment

Concentration

(mg/1)

109

340

226

226

257

164

205

205

260

362

217

217

315

212

212

0.002

60

64

52

50

78

37

71

68

70

59

79

52

58

65

48

Percentage finer than indicated 

0.004

84

83

86

74

94

80

87

82

84

77

95

76

77

83

72

0.008

94

95

98

96

99

91

96

95

96

94

98

94

93

94

92

0.016

97

98

99

100

100

97

99

97

99

98

98

97

98

98

96

0.0

10

9

9

9

9

10

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
TABLE 7. Particle-size analyses of suspended-sediment, outfloiv from 

Date

1957

Jan. 10

Jan. 10

Apr. 8

Dec. 20

Dec. 20

Dec. 20

1958

May 5

May 5

M.ay 5

July 16

Aug. 8

1959

Feb. 10

Feb. 10

May 4

1960

Jan. 15

Jan. 15

Jan. 15

Mar. 31

Aug. 4

Aug. 4

Aug. 21

1961

Feb. 25

Feb. 25

Apr. 26

1962

Feb. 26

Mar. 21

Time

0010

0410

1050

1800

2100

2100

0840

1440

1440

0200

0405

1730

1730

1450

0800

1010

1010

0755

0710

0710

1720

1900

1900

1915

1220

1830

Water 

discharge 

(cfs)

7.5

8.3

5.0

7.0

7.3

7.3

7.6

9.8

9.8

7.2

7.2

6.8

6.8

3.6

8.2

8.2

8.2

7.0

6.6

6.6

6.2

6.0

6.0

2.6

6.3

7.0

Suspended sediment

Concentration

(mg/1)

515

323

322

358

247

247

626

316

316

102

381

233

233

292

301

253

253

236

231

231

158

216

216

160

215

536

0.002

38

60

50

64

75

37

34

65

53

64

58

67

50

52

70

69

60

70

68

43

64

70

38

93

67

48

Percentage finer than indicated s

0.004

57

79

70

77

81

67

57

83

76

84

74

79

72

72

88

86

79

87

86

65

84

83

65

95

82

66

0.008

78

93

83

92

94

93

81

96

97

97

88

90

93

87

94

95

95

95

94

94

95

92

91

98

93

85

0.016

92

98

94

98

99

100

97

99

100

99

98

94

97

97

98

98

97

97

98

98

97

99

99

99

98

94

0.03

97

99

98

99

100

99

100

100

99

99

98

98

99

99

98

99

99

99

99

100

99

100

99

100
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K19

For practically all of the inflow samples and many of the 

outflow samples of reservoir 11 A, particle-size distribution of the 

silt-clay fraction was determined in both distilled- and nativewater settling mediums. To determine the percentage distribution 

of the primary particles, a chemical dispersing agent was added 

to the distilled-water medium to cause deflocculation. Analyses 

were made of samples in the native-water medium to partially 

preserve the particle-size characteristics of the sediments, including the floccules of particles. Native-water analyses could 

then be used to predict the likelihood of flocculation and the 

settling characteristics of the sediments for the natural setting. 

These native-water analyses did show flocculation. The results of 

26 pairs of analyses of inflow samples from reservoir 11A in 

which both settling mediums were used showed an average of 15 

percent less clay in the native-water settling medium than in the 

distilled-water medium.

A high calcium-sodium ratio in water causes flocculation of 

soil colloids, and a high sodium-calcium ratio causes dispersion 

of soil colloids (Rainwater and Thatcher, 1960, p. 127, 265). 

Chemical analyses of the inflow water of reservoir 11A (table 8) 

indicate an average calcium-sodium ratio of about 3:1; but, 

because calcium and sodium concentrations are extremely low, 

the ratio is probably insignificant relative to the flocculation of 

the sediments. Dissolved solids, calculated from conductance values 

(0.6 X conductance), are low, ranging from 31 to 109 mg/1 and 

averaging 49 mg/1. The slightly acid condition of the water 

(pH 6.4) may encourage some of the flocculation.

About the same degree of flocculation was detected in the 

particle-size analyses of outflow and inflow. Dissolved solids again 

averaged 49 mg/1. The calcium-sodium ratio of 3.3:1 for the 

outflow was as insignificant as that for the inflow because concentrations of calcium and sodium were very low; the pH of the 

outflow was about equal to that of the inflow. Because natural 

conditions of temperature and turbulence cannot be duplicated in 

the laboratory, the degree of flocculation in the natural setting 

is uncertain.

DEPOSITED SEDIMENT, TRAP EFFICIENCY, AND SEDIMENT YIELD

Surveys of reservoir 11A, made by the Soil Conservation Service in October 1954, 1956, and 1958, December 1960, and June 

1962 (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1970), consisted of 19 ranges 

across various parts of the reservoir. The original survey indicated a reservoir capacity of 53.00 acre-feet (below the emergency 

spillway) ; the capacity after the 1962 survey was 51.75 acre-
K20 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

feet. The 2.36-percent decrease in capacity was attributed to sediment deposition. The average dry weight per cubic foot of the 

deposited sediment was assumed to be 60 pounds (U.S. Dept. 

Agriculture, 1970). The computed weight of the sediment which 

accumulated during the 7.75-year period was 1,633 tons.

Listed in table 9 are sediment discharge, weight of deposited 

sediment, computed trap efficiency, and sediment yield during each 

of the periods between surveys of reservoir 11 A. The high sediment yield of the first 2-year period was due largely to the high 

and continuous flow during the 1956 water year. During the 

1955 and 1956 water years, 65 percent of the water and 73 

percent of the sediment was discharged during December 1954, 

February and March 1955, and February, March, and August 

1956. (See table 5.)

The trap efficiency, 88 percent, is about 3 percent below the 

estimated figure based on the capacity-inflow ratio method given 

by Brune (1953, p. 414). The capacity-inflow ratio used for 

reservoir 11A was 0.169.

RESERVOIR 9, SUSPENDED SEDIMENT

From January 1956 to June 1962 periodic suspended-sediment 

samples at Salem Fork subwatershed 9 (West Branch Patterson 

Fork) near Salem were collected to provide an index of the 

water-sediment discharge relationships and to provide data pertaining to the particle-size characteristics of the incoming and 

outgoing suspended sediment of the reservoir.

Instantaneous sediment discharges were computed for all 

samples taken at the outflow from reservoir 9. During most of 

the period, samples were collected too infrequently to make 

possible the computation of daily loads.

An average annual sediment discharge of 128,000 pounds 

per year was computed from measured flow-duration data for 

the outflow and from a computed curve showing the relation 

of instantaneous sediment discharge to instantaneous water discharge. This method was described by Jordan, Jones, and Petri 

(1964, p. 61-62). The curve rating instantaneous sediment discharge was applicable for all periods of outflow.

Particle size was analyzed for selected inflow and outflow 

samples. The limited data on inflow particle size suggest that the 

inflow contained up to 12 percent sand. The outflow contained an 

average of 20 percent silt and 80 percent clay and no sand. 

Particle-size analyses using native water and chemical analyses 

were not made for reservoir 9, but all particle-size analyses of 

suspended sediment for reservoir 9 are given in table 10.
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K21

TABLE 8. Chemical analyses of water in Salem Fork basin

Date 

of 

collection

Instwnattae'Jeous Calcium,

Reservoir HA (sampling; site 1,

June 7,

Aug. 22,

Jan. 29,

Feb. 25,

Mar. 14,

June 23,

July 17,

Aug. 5,

Aug. 28,

Dec. 14,

Jan. 9,

Apr. 8,

Dec. 7,

Dec. 20,

Apr. 29,

May 5,

July 15,

Jan. 15,

Jan. 20,

Feb. 10,

Apr. 10,

May 4,

Jan. 15,

Aug. 4,

Aug. 21,

Feb. 25,

Dec. 18,

Feb. 26,

1955

1955

1956

1956

1956

1956

1956

1956

1956

1956

1957

1957

1957

1957

1958

1958

1958

1959

1959

1959

1959

1959

1960

1960

1960

1961

1961

1962

'i'i.'e

4.8

11

6.7

7.5

4.9

3.3

3.3

4.6

6.8

4.2

7.6

5.1

8.6

8.7

14

7.3

6.8

9.2

6.9

7.5

6.4

7.8

9.0

5.3

5.2

5.6

7.8

6.5

Reservoir HA (sampling; site 2,

Feb. 25,

June 23,

Aug. 6,

Dec. 14,

Dec. 20,

May 5,

Feb. 10,

Jan. 15,

Aug. 4,

Feb. 25,

July 17,

Feb. 25,

Apr. 8,

Dec. 7,

May 5,

Feb. 10,

Jan. 15,

1956

1956

1956

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1960

1961

1955

1956

1957

1957

1958

1959

1960

5.9

3.4

10.9

10

7.3

9.8

6.8

8.2

6.6

6.0

Salem Fork

72

152

231

388

916

270

302

6.0

7.6

5.2

6.2

6.7

6.0

6.5

8.4

9.5

10

o j- Specific 

^j ' conductance

shown in fig;. 1)

4.1

2.6

2.6

3.6

1.5

1.6

3.1

2.3

2.4

1.6

2.3

1.6

1.8

1.7

2.4

.8

2.1

2.6

2.1

2.1

2.0

3.2

4.1

.4

2"."3

3.2

2.8

shown in fig. 1)

2.7

2.7

2.2

3.1

2.3

1.0

2.5

1.9

.8

2.8

79

111

96

91

59

50

58

69

82

52

59

58

93

95

182

82

86

108

80

85

75

100

81

72

69

79

90

65

69

84

66

76

88

66

75

77

122

100

PH

6.6

7.1

6.5

6.9

7.1

5.9

6.1

6.4

7.2

6.6

6.8

7.2

6.3

6.1

4.3

5.4

7.1

4.5

5.9

6.3

7.0

5.9

5.5

6.3

6.1

6.5

7.5

7.3

6.8

6.8

6.5

6.9

6.5

6.0

7.2

6.6

5.4

7.1

(sampling; site 5, shown in fig. 1)

20

7.1

9.2

7.1

6.7

11

10

21

3.0

2.0

1.8

1.6

3.4

3.5

253

81

81

78

71

108

87

7.6

7.0

7.2

6.6

6.8

6.6

6.4

TABLE 9. Sediment data for periods between surveys of reservoir 11A

Sediment load 

(tons)

Oct. 

Oct. 

Oct. 

Dec.

Period

1954-Sept. 1956 

1956-Sept. 1958 

1958-Nov. 1960 

1960-June 1962 

Oct. 1954-June 1962

Number 

of 

years

2 

2 

2.17 

1.58

7.75

Discharged 

from 

reservoir1

78 

60 

38 

52

228

Deposited 

in 

reservoir2

980 

261 

131 

261

1,633

Total

1,058 

321 

169 

313

1,861

Sediment yield 

(tons per year) 4

Trap 

efficiency 

(percent) 3

93 

81 

78 

83

88

Per 

square 

mile

1,843 

559 

271 

690

837

Per 

acre

2.88 

.87 

.42 

1.08

1.31

'Computed from table 5.

2Based on an assumed average dry weight of 60 pounds per cubic foot of deposited sediment 

(U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1970).

3Trap efficiency (percent) = weight of deposited sediment (tons) X 100 -f- weight of sediment 

(tons) delivered into reservoir.

4From contributing area of 0.287 sq mi (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1970).
K22 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS 

SALEM FORK AT SALEM, SUSPENDED SEDIMENT

Periodic records of suspended sediment were compiled for this 

location (see fig. 1) throughout the period from October 1954 to 

June 1962. Because more frequent sampling was carried on during 

the first 2 water years, 1955 and 1956, daily loads were determined. During periods of increased runoff, samples were collected more than once each day. During steady flow, samples 

were collected weekly. Instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge was determined for each sample.

The effects of intense storms that occur during the summer 

months were observed, to a degree, at this sediment station. The 

highest instantaneous concentration, 5,980 mg/1, was measured 

June 7, 1955; the highest instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge, 10,500 tons per day, was measured August 22, 1955.

In analyzing sediment data for Salem Fork at Salem, the study 

period was divided into two periods, from October 1954 to 

September 1958 and from October 1958 to June 1962. During the 

first period, which was one of reservoir construction, conditions 

in the watershed were generally unstable, but during the second 

period, after completion of conservation measures, conditions in 

the watershed were fairly stable. A curve rating instantaneous 

suspended-sediment discharge for each of the two periods was 

plotted on the basis of average relations of instantaneous 

suspended-sediment discharge to water discharge (fig. 8). Average 

annual sediment discharges were determined for the two periods 

(Jordan and others, 1964) from flow-duration curves (fig. 9). 

The average annual sediment discharge for water years 1954-58 

was 3,500 tons, adjusted by daily records collected from October 

1954 to September 1956. During the second period, the average 

annual sediment discharge was 1,770 tons.

The average annual sediment discharge of 1,770 tons during 

the second period was only 51 percent of the adjusted average 

annual sediment discharge for the first period. Some of the factors 

contributing to the difference are as follows: (1) At the beginning 

of the first period, control or partial control of the flow from the 

watershed existed only on 899 of the 5,325 acres in the watershed, 

but during the second period, control or partial control had been 

increased to, and remained at, 2,064 acres, (2) construction 

activities in the watershed and the implementation of other conservation measures which were in progress during the first period 

were essentially complete at the beginning of the second period, 

(3) average annual rainfall was 8.1 inches higher for the first 

period than for the second, and (4) average annual runoff at the
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K23

gaging station at Salem Fork at Salem was 3.8 inches higher 

for the first period than for the second. Neither the relative 

importance of the above factors nor the importance of other contributing factors was evaluated in this study.

10,000

5000

2000

1000

500

200

100

50

20

10

0.5

0.2

0.1

7

EXPLANATION

1955-58 water years 

1959-62 water years

2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 

INSTANTANEOUS WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

FIGURE 8. Average relations of suspended-sediment discharge to water discharge, Salem Fork

at Salem.
K24 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

500

10.0

I 

o

% 1-0

>

\

s

s

\

\ \ 

\

\

\

\

\\A

\\

\

\\

\\

\ i

\

\

EXPLANAT ON

1955-58 water years

1959-62 water years

\

\

^V

^

V

^

\

\ 

\

\

\

\> \

^ \

.\

\\

\

\ \

\x

\

\ 

\

N

\

X'

\

\

s'

\

\

\

\

^*

^

^-,

0.1

0.04

0.01 0.1 125 10 20 30 50 70 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.99

PERCENTAGE OF TIME INDICATED DISCHARGE WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

FIGURE 9. Duration curves of daily flow for the two 4-year periods of investigation, Salem

Fork at Salem.

Particle-size analyses of the samples from the first period were 

compared with those from the second. There was no appreciable 

difference between the averages of the analyses for the two periods.
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K25

Thus, although the amount of suspended sediment discharged was 

reduced following reservoir completion, the particle-size distribution of the suspended sediment carried past the main-channel 

station did not change. Particle-size analyses for Salem Fork at 

Salem are summarized in table 11.

Flow leaving the reservoirs was essentially free of sand; however, the capacity of the flow for carrying various sizes of particles 

did not decrease. Apparently, adjustments in particle-size distribution in the flow were made below the reservoirs by the entraining 

of available channel sediments above the Salem Fork station.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigations of runoff and fluvial sediment, made at three sites 

in the Salem Fork basin from October 1954 to June 1962, have 

resulted in the following conclusions:

1. Both water discharge and sediment discharge were significantly affected by upstream developments which began in 

October 1954.

2. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment of the inflow and 

outflow from reservoirs 11A and 9 indicated that sand delivered to the reservoirs was deposited in the reservoirs.

3. Clay and silt constituted the bulk of sediment discharged from 

reservoirs 11A and 9.

4. Laboratory analyses indicated that the native water of both 

inflow and outflow from reservoir 11A was capable of causing flocculation of the clay. The degree of natural flocculation 

could not be determined from the data.

5. Average annual sediment discharge of 3,500 tons at Salem 

Fork at Salem during the unstable 4-year period from 1954 

to 1958 was about twice the amount of 1,770 tons for the 

stable 4-year period from 1958 to 1962. Factors which may 

have contributed to this difference during the latter period 

are (a) there was more control of the flow in the watershed 

resulting from completed detention structures and conservation measures, (b) there were fewer sediment-contributing 

construction activities, and (c) there was less rainfall and 

runoff than during the 1954-58 period.

6. Trap efficiency of reservoir HA for the period of investigation 

was 88 percent and ranged from 73 to 93 percent for periods 

between surveys.

7. The annual sediment yield of subwatershed HA for the entire 

period of investigation was 1.31 tons per acre.
TABLE 10. Particle-size analyses of suspended sediment, inflow to a

LMethod of analysis: B, bottom-withdrawal tube; W, in distilled water ; C, che

Inflow to reservoir. Sampling site 3,

Date

1957

Apr. 8

Oct. 7

1958

May 5

May 5

July 15

1959

Feb. 10

1960

Aug. 4

Aug. 5

[Method

Date

1954

Oct. 15

Dec. 29

Dec. 30

1955

Feb. 6

Mar. 1

Mar. 11

Mar. 22

June 7

June 7

July 17

July 17

July 17

Time

1135

1130

1215

1535

2330

1600

1440

2330

of analysis :

Time

1445

1100

0100

1830

1200

0925

0940

1430

1430

1510

1615

1615

Water

shown in fig. 1

Suspended sediment

discharge Concentration

(cfs)

19.2

21.3

13.7

10.6

19.0

16.9

TABLE

(mg/1)

445

223

432

372

411

287

417

173

0.002

30

56

Outflow

52

62

58

57

77

84

11. Particle-size

B, bottom-withdrawal tube ;

Water

0.004

41

66

Percentage finer than indicated s

0.008 0.016

53

81

63

88

from reservoir. Sampling site

74

79

73

73

87

97

analyses

W, in distilled water ;

discharge Concentration

(cfs)

375

515

268

98

118

150

150

80

72

72

(mg/l)

1,730

2,680

721

797

620

1,270

508

5,980

5,980

454

3,260

3,260

0.002

32

34

32

28

29

52

44

44

29

47

41

30

0.004

46

48

41

36

39

70

59

58

44

65

56

49

88

95

89

88

98

99

of

97

97

96

96

99

99

suspended

0.031

73

94

4, shown

99

99

99

98

99

99

0

in fig

sediment, S

C, chemically dispersed ; N,

Suspended sediment

in na

Percentage finer than indicated s

0.008

62

62

53

49

52

85

77

75

63

82

77

70

0.016

77

77

67

61

66

96

91

90

83

91

94

93

0.031

89

87

74

71

76

99

97

97

98

98

98

99

0.062 

94 

94 

82 

81 

87 

100

100

100

99 

99 

100

100
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K27

ooooooo oooooo oo o o ooo ooo

Illllllnllllll llnln Inn Illnl I I

WWWWWWWWWWWWWW MWWWW WWW MWMWW W W

;o :oo : : :o : : o o O5 :oooo oo : oo 

:o :oo : : :o : :ooos :oooo oo : oo

O O5O O500 OO O O5OO OO OO t- O O5 O5 O5 O5 t-OO O O5 O5 O O O O

05 co 05 co eg co oo oo * * t 05 co co co 05 co us co w o CM oo ua ua oo oo co ua o

- co us o 05 esj esj esj co TH 05 co t-o usoosc n-*u3 o co eg TH oo oo tO5 OO O5 Ci t O5 O5 O5 OO OS O5 OS OO O5 O5 Ci OO O5 OO OO OO Oi Ci OO O5 O5 OO OO O5

<M CO 00 Oi I t- «O OS U5 O CO ) esl 00 *

O5 OO t t CO OO OO OO t OO O5 O> OO OO OO OO t OO OO t~ OO Oi 00 t-OO OO OO t O5

O * O »H CO -^ Ifi O O OO OO * CO i-(

3 CO IO IO *^< CO

O Oi W CO Oi "^ Oi CO U3

co o to i-c us 05 05 esi eg oo M o TH t- *)< 05 05 i-c *(« co eg co I-CCOOTHCO t- oo

co «* co co *^ * * co co * C CO CSJ IO CO CO CO U3 *^< CO *^ CO * * *^ IO

OOOO U5 t-iH O O O U5O IM "* i-C O CO CO OO OO

W T-H "^ W W3 Oi »H T-H OO CO CO O OO CO "^ l> t- CO CO

N Oi TH OO "d" TH O O OO 03 OO U3 Oi Oi W CO CO U3 IO

iH TH CSJcJ I-T «"

U3 IO CO OO OO *

O O O O CO IN

00 iHOOO O O CSJ CSJ 00 U5 00 O O O USrHiHOOOO CO CO CO OOU5OOU5 t co us co oo \a \a \a oo oo CM 010101 oscocooooo IHIHO ococ-t-esj esj esj co co IN TH IH rH co IH i-c oo o ^ esj esj esj co co oioit- IN<NIN<N'*C

l O O U3 O U3 O *

OOOOUS
K28 SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS

REFERENCES

Beverage, W. W., Steputis, W. J., and Hatfield, W. F., 1968, Soil survey of

Barbour County, West Virginia: U.S. Dept. Agriculture Soil Survey

Ser. 65 p. 

Brune, G. M., 1953, Trap efficiency of reservoirs: Am. Geophys. Union Trans.,

v. 34, p. 407-418. 

Buckman, H. M., and Brady, N. C., 1960, The nature and properties of soils

[6th ed.] : New York, The Macmillan Co., 567 p. 

Fenneman, N. M., 1938, Physiography of the eastern United States: New

York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 714 p. 

German, J. L., and Rayburn, J. B., 1961, Soil survey of Jackson and Mason

Counties, West Virginia: U.S. Dept. Agriculture Soil Survey Ser. 92 p. 

Jordan, P. R., Jones, B. F., and Petri, L. R., 1964, Chemical quality of surface

waters and sedimentation in the Saline River basin, Kansas: U.S. Geol.

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1651, 90 p. 

Kohler, M. A., Nordenson, T. J., and Baker, D. R., 1959, Evaporation maps

for the United States: U.S. Dept. Commerce Tech. Paper 37, 13 p. 

Mundorff, J. C., 1964, Fluvial sediment in Kiowa Creek basin, Colorado: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1798-A, 70 p. 

Nace, R. L., and Bieber, P. 0., 1958, Ground-water resources of Harrison

County, West Virginia: West Virginia Geol. and Econ. Survey Bull. 14,

55 p.

Rainwater, F. H., and Thatcher, L. L., 1960, Methods for collection and analysis of water samples: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1454, 301 p. 

Thornbury, W. D., 1954, Principles of geomorphology: New York, John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., 618 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1954, Work plan, Salem Fork watershed,

Harrison County, West Virginia: 12 p. 

_____1970, Reservoir sediment data summary, Salem Fork No. lla: U.S.

Soil Conservation Service, 4 p. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Hourly precipitation data, annual summaries

for West Virginia, 1957-62: U.S. Weather Bur.

_____1965, Climatic summary of the United States, Numbers 86-40, Supplement for 1951 through 1960, West Virginia: U.S. Weather Bur., 54 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1957, Surface water supply of the United States 1955

 Part 3-A, Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee River

basins: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1385, 581 p. 

_____1958, Surface water supply of the United States 1956 Part 3-A,

Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee River basins: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1435, 561 p. 

_____1959, Surface water supply of the United States 1957 Part 3-A,

Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee River basins: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1505, 553 p. 

_____1960a, Surface water supply of the United States 1958 Part 3-A,

Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee River basins: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1555, 574 p. 

_____1960b, Surface water supply of the United States 1959 Part 3-A,

Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee River basins: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1625, 565 p.
SALEM FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA K29

_____1961a, Surface water supply of the United States 1960 Part 3-A,

Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee River basins: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1705, 583 p. 

Weedfall, Robert 0., [no date], Climate of Clarksburg, West Virginia: U.S.

Dept. Commerce, ESS A, Climatic summary of the United States No.

20-46, 2 p. 

White, I. C., 1883, Notes on the geology of West Virginia: The Virginias,

v. 4, p. 123-126.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:!972 O 468-967