Runoff Estimation, and Surface

Erosion and Control

Ali Fares, PhD

NREM 600, Evaluation of
Natural Resources Management
 What’s soil erosion?
Erosion is the process of detachment and
transport of soil particles by erosive agents
(Ellison, 1944)
Erosion is a natural geologic process

 WATER EROSION
 WIND EROSION
 TILLAGE TRANSLOCATION
 SOIL EROSION IS GLOBAL
PROBLEM
 1/3 WORLD’S ARABLE LAND LOST SINCE 1950
 MOST IN ASIA, AFRICA, S. AMERICA
 13-18 t/a/yr
 30% OF US FARMLAND ABANDONED
 EROSION
 SALINIZATION
 WATER-LOGGING
 90% OF US CROPLAND LOSING SOIL FASTER
THAN IT IS REPLACED
 >1 t/a/yr
SIGNIFICANT SOIL LOSS IN THE USA

WATER
3.5 X 109 T/yr

WIND
1.5 X 109 T/yr
 WIND EROSION
SUSPENSION
WIN SALTATION
D

CREEP

 SALTATION DETACHES PARTICLES

 SMALLER PARTICLES SUSPENDED
 LARGER PARTICLES CREEP
 SANDY AND SILTY SOILS MOST SUSCEPTIBLE
 SOIL ACCUMULATION IN DITCHES AND FENCE ROWS
 WIND EROSION CAN BE SIGNIFICANT

Near Mitchell, SD
Dust bowl
 1931-1939 there was a
drought called the
“dust bowl”. It caused
huge dust storms to
erupt that destructed
billions of acres of
farm land.
storms

 In the first year of

the drought there
were 14 storms
reported and the
second year there
were 38 storms. It
was getting worse.
Ruined land
 Tons of damage
was done to every
ones land and it
costs billions of
dollars to repair the
damages.
Black Sunday
 April 14th,1934
black Sunday was
the worst blizzard
of the dustbowl
which caused the
most extensive
damage.
 REDUCING WIND EROSION
 MAINTAIN SURFACE COVER
 CROP RESIDUE
 COVER CROPS
 INCREASE STUBBLE HEIGHT
 INSTALL WINDBREAKS
 EFFECTIVE 15x HEIGHT
 IRRIGATE
 STRIP CROPS PERPENDICULAR TO
PREVAILING WIND
The Shelterbelt Program
 WATER EROSION
PROCESS
 BEGINS WITH RAINDROPS STRIKING
BARE SOIL DISLODGING PARTICLES
 INTENSE RAINS SEAL SURFACE
 WHEN RAINFALL EXCEEDS
INFILTRATION WATER IS STORED IN
SMALL DEPRESSIONS
 ONCE DEPRESSIONS ARE FILLED,
RUNOFF BEGINS
 WATER EROSION
PROCESS
 Initially water flows in a discontinuous
sheet
 Eventually it concentrates into small
channels or rills. The runoff now has
energy to break off particles and cut
deeper
 The amount of erosion caused by sheet and
rill erosion increases with slope and
distance
 Rills may eventually form gullies
THE SOIL WATER EROSION
PROCESS
EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
 LOSS OF OM, CLAY, AND NUTRIENTS
REDUCES PRODUCTIVITY
 DAMAGE TO PLANTS
 FORMATION OF RILLS AND GULLIES
AFFECTS MANAGEMENT
 SEDIMENTATION IN WATERWAYS,
DIVERSIONS, TERRACES, DITCHES
 DELIVERY OF NUTRIENTS TO SURFACE
WATER
Quantifying Soil Erosion
 Standard USLE plot:

– 22.1m (72.6 ft) long

– 9% slope
– 4m (13.12 ft) wide.
 USLE
Universal Soil Loss Equation
 Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978.
Predicting rainfall erosion losses. USDA
Agriculture Handbook 537, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
 Empirical model:
– Analysis of observations
– Seeks to characterize response from these data.

 Based on:
– Rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, crop system and
management practices.

 Predicts:
– Long term average annual rate of erosion

 Subroutine in models such as:

– SWRRB (Williams, 1975), EPIC (Williams et al., 1980), ANSWERS
(Beasly et al., 1980), AGNPS (Young et al., 1989)
 The equation:

A = R x K x LS x C x P

– A = average annual soil loss (tons/acre year)

– R = rainfall and runoff erosivity index
– K = soil erodibility factor
– L = slope length factor
– S = slope steepness factor
– C= crop/management factor
– P = conservation or support practice factor
 R (rainfall and runoff erosivity index)

 Erosion index (EI) for a given storm:

– Product of the kinetic energy of the falling
raindrops and its maximum 30 minute intensity.

 R factor =  EI over a year / 100

A =R x K x LS x C x P
Average annual values of the rainfall erosion index (R).
 K (soil erodibility)

 Susceptibility of a given soil to erosion by rainfall

and runoff.

 Depend on:
– Texture, structure, organic matter content, and
permeability.

A =R x K x LS x C x P
Soil-erodibility nomograph.
 LS (slope length-gradient)

 Ratio of soil loss under given conditions to that at a

site with the "standard" slope and slope length.
A =R x K x LS x C x P
Topographic LS factor
 C (crop/management)
 Ratio of soil loss from land use under specified conditions
to that from continuously fallow and tilled land.
Crop Factor
Grain Corn 0.40
Silage Corn, Beans & Canola 0.50
Cereals (Spring & Winter) 0.35
Seasonal Horticultural Crops 0.50
Fruit Trees 0.10
Hay and Pasture 0.02
Tillage Factor
Fall Plow 1.00
Spring Plow 0.90
Mulch Tillage 0.60
Ridge Tillage 0.35
Zone Tillage 0.25
A =R x K x LS x C x P No-Till 0.25
 P (conservation practices)

 Ratio of soil loss by a support practice to that of

straight-row farming up and down the slope.
 Support Practice P Factor
Up & Down Slope 1.00
Cross Slope 0.75
Contour farming 0.50
Strip cropping, cross slope 0.37
Strip cropping, contour 0.25

A =R x K x LS x C x P
 RUSLE:
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
 USDA Agriculture Handbook 703 (Renard et. al. 1997)
 USLE factor values: updated, expanded, improved.
– Expanded isoerodents
– Ponded water on the soil
– Freeze-thaw cycle and soil moisture
– Complex slopes
– Conservation tillage and crop rotation
 Software
 WHAT IS RUSLE 2
 “GREAT GRANDSON” OF USLE
 MODEL TO PREDICT SOIL LOSS
– WHERE OVERLAND FLOW OCCURS
– COMPUTES ANNUAL SHEET/RILL EROSION
– COMPUTES PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION AND
RUNOFF
 CROPLAND, FOREST, LANDFILLS,
CONSTRUCTION SITES, SURFACE MINES
 WINDOWS “PULL DOWN” MENUS
 WHO AND WHAT OF RUSLE 2
 USDA-ARS, USDA-NRCS, VARIOUS UNIVERSITIES
 ON-GOING PROCESS OVER 70 YEARS
 THOUSANDS OF RESEARCH DATA
 SET UP WITH VARYING LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY
 COMPUTER REQUIREMENTS
– WINDOWS 98
– INTERNET EXPLORER BROWSER
– 64 MB RAM
 DOWNLOAD
– HTTP://BIOENGR.AG.UTK.EDU/RUSLE2/
 APPLICABILITY OF RUSLE 2
 ESTIMATES INTER-RILL AND RILL EROSION
 ESTIMATES SEDIMENT YIELD FROM OVERLAND
FLOW AND TERRACE CHANNELS
 DOES NOT ESTIMATE EPHEMERAL OR
PERMANENT GULLIES, MASS WASTING, OR
STREAM CHANNEL EROSION
 BEST SUITED TO CROPLAND, BUT IS USEFUL FOR
CONSTRUCTION SITES, LANDFILLS,
RECLAMATION PROJECTS, AND DISTURBED
FOREST LAND
 APPLICABILITY OF RUSLE 2 (cont.)
 BEST WHERE RAINFALL IS REGULAR AND
EXCEEDS 20”/YR.
 MEDIUM-FINE TEXTURED SOILS
 SLOPES 3-20% AND LESS THAN 600 FT.
 BEST AT CALCULATING “AVERAGE ANNUAL
SOIL LOSS”, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SINGLE
STORM EVENTS
 RUSLE 2 FACTORS
A = R x K x LS x C x P
 CLIMATE (R) AND SOIL (K) FACTORS ARE SET
FOR A GIVEN FIELD
 SLOPE GRADE (S) AND LENGTH (L) CAN BE
ADJUSTED WITH DIFFICULTY
 MOST FLEXIBILITY WITH COVER MGT. (C) AND
SUPPORTING PRACTICES (P)
 EROSION CONTROL
PRACTICES
Structures: diversions, terraces, waterways
 Reduce slope length
 Slow runoff velocity
 Divert excess water safely
 Avoid runoff over barnyard, feedlots, etc.
 CONTOUR TERRACES

Grant Co.
 EROSION CONTROL
PRACTICES
Management practices
– Cover crops
– Crop residue management
 30% residue reduces erosion 50-60%
– Contour tillage
 Slope < 8% and 300’ long
– Contour strip cropping and buffers
 Alternating sod strip for steep land
 Controlling Water
contaminants at the Source,
Kaiaka-Waialua Watershed
 Kaiaka and Waialua bays, are water quality
limited segments due to high levels of total P,
NO-3, chlorophyll a, and turbidity exceeding
the maximum allowable levels (HI-DOH).
 Sediment loads from agricultural lands and
effluent discharged from household cesspools
are two of the major sources of pollution.
 Sediment losses are generated from cropped
and fallow zones as a result of an intensive
agricultural system that includes a
crop/fallow cropping combination.
 Objectives
 The goal of this project is to implement and
demonstrate erosion control practices to
help manage erosion throughout Kaiaka-
Waialua watershed, thereby reducing
sediment and potential pollutant loads (P, N)
into the surface water resources, and
consequently improving water quality of the
coastal area.
 Materials and Methods
 Field in a commercial farm,
 Ewa Silty clay soil, a mean
Ksat = 3.5 cm d-1 (Candler 15
m d-1)
 Three cover crops (Sunn hemp,
Sudex & Oats) were replicated
3 times in a RCB design.
 Suction cups were installed in
each plot to collect soil solution

 Surface runoff was collect from

each plot following rainfall.
 Soil water contents (10,20,30
& 50cm) from each treatment
 Materials and Methods
 Soil physical properties
were determined: Ksat, BD
& soil water release curve
 Soil samples were collected
before, in the middle and at
the end of the trial.
 Total dissolved and total
suspend solids (TDS, TSS)
were determined (EPA’s
160.1, 160.2 methods)
 NO3, NH4 and P were
determined by UH-ADSC
Materials and Methods
 Subsurface Water Quality
Analysis
 Collected soil solution
samples were analyzed
at the University of
Hawai’i (ADSC) for:
– Ammonium
– Nitrate
– Total Nitrogen and
– Phosphorus
 Results
 Runoff water quality
 Subsurface water quality
 Rain Intensity (mm/hr)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2/25
2/28
3/2
3/5
3/8
3/11
3/14
3/17
3/20
3/23
3/26
3/29
4/1
4/4
4/7
4/10
4/13
Average Rainfall Intensity

4/16
4/19
4/22
4/25
4/28
5/1
5/4
5/7
5/10
5/13
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Series1)

5/16
 292 mm occurred in 11 hr, 2/27 at a rate of 24 mm hr-1
300
280
260
240
220
200
Rainfall (mm)

180
160 March 3
140
May 18
120
100 April 27
80 March 31 April 18
03-16
60 March 22
40 March 25 April 22
20 April 7
0
2/25

4/1
4/4
4/7

4/25
2/28
3/2
3/5
3/8
3/11
3/14
3/17
3/20
3/23
3/26
3/29

4/10
4/13
4/16
4/19
4/22

4/28
5/1
5/4
5/7
5/10
5/13
5/16
 ANOVA Runoff Results
--------------
---------------March---------------- April------------ May
Variable 3 16 22 25 31 7 18 22 27 18
TSS NS NS * ** * NS * * * **
TDS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ** NS NS
Nitrate * NS NS * NS ** NS ** NS **
Ammonium NS NS NS ** ** NS ** NS ** NS
TN * NS NS ** ** ** ** NS ** NS
Phosphorous NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ** ** **
*, ** denotes a significant or highly significant difference was detected between
treatment means, respectively.
Surface Runoff Collection

Sunn hemp Oats

Fallow Sudex
 Runoff water Quality
 TSS, 70% there was statistically significant
treatment effect
 Nitrate, 50% there was statistically significant
treatment effect
 Ammonium, 40% there was statistically
significant treatment effect
 TN, 60% there was statistically significant
treatment effect
 Removal Efficiencies
 Calculation for Removal Efficiencies (RE):

 RE = [1- (Cover Crop (g) / Fallow (g))]x100

 A positive RE means that there was a reduction in

pollutant levels in comparison to the fallow

 A negative RE means that there was an increase in

pollutant levels in comparison to the fallow
treatment
 Removal Efficiencies for TSS

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG
Rainfall
(mm) 406 21 19 17 8 24 9 5 17 105  

Sudex 73 72 57 84 51 81 86 60 52 94 74
Sunn
Hemp 77 58 70 93 70 72 90 95 87 91 77

Oats 86 42 80 97 79 80 91 96 90 83 85
 Removal Efficiencies for Total Dissolved Solids

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG
Rainfall
(mm) 406 21 19 17 8 24 9 5 17 105  

Sudex 4 18 18 27 6 -27 -38 -98 34 -295 -35.1

Sunn
Hemp -9 24 55 34 6 -68 -150 -83 -4 -96 -29.1

Oats 11 -19 39 -1 -43 -55 -270 -189 -58 -150 -73.5

 Total Dissolved Solids May 18
1.2 A
TDS (g)

0.8 A
A

0.4 A

0.0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = sudex, 2 = sunn hemp, 3 = oats, 4 = fallow
Total Suspended Solids May 18
20 A

15
TSS (g)

10

5 B
B B
0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = sudex, 2 = sunn hemp, 3 = oats, 4 = fallow
 Removal Efficiencies for Total Nitrogen

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG
Rainfall
(mm) 406 21 19 17 8 24 9 5 17 105  
Sudex -7 -4 -7 0 44 46 72 -9 -58 51 13
Sunn
Hemp -53 -53 -52 -196 -8 -38 19 -17 -102 34 -47
Oats 43 -69 -68 18 57 70 60 61 12 31 22
 Means of Nitrate for April 18
3.2 A
Nitrate (10E-4 g)

2.4 A
A
1.6 A

0.8

0.0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow
Means of Ammonium for April 18
Ammonium (10E-3 g) A
8

6 AB

4 B
B
2

0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow
 Removal Efficiencies for Ammonium 

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG
Rainfall
(mm) 406 21 19 17 8 24 9 5 17 105  
Sudex 2.4 -5 -25 -15 45 -132 67 -46 -68 57 -12
Sunn
Hemp -43 -65 -83 -242 -13 36 35 -43 -145 32 -53
Oats 49 -53 -75 30 73 65 61 53 -12 39 23
 Soil Solution Samples ANOVA
Variable 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7
Nitrate ** * ** NS
Ammonium NS NS NS NS
TN ** * ** NS
Phosphorous NS NS NS NS
* denotes a significant difference was detected

** denotes a highly significant difference was detected

Ammonium (10E-3 g) Means of Ammonium for March 25
5 A
4
3
2 AB
B
B
1
0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow
 Means of Nitrate for April 7
A
2.4
Nitrate (10E-2 g)

AB
1.6
B
0.8 B

0.0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow
 Means of Total Nitrogen for March 25
6
A
TN (10E-3 g)

2 B B
B

0
1 2 3 4

Treatment
1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow
 Summary & Conclusions
 The presence of cover crops reduced the nitrate
and total nitrogen levels in the soil solution
compared to the fallow treatment regardless of
the sampling date.
 95 to 97% of the total nitrogen collected was
nitrate.
 The sunn hemp treatment had the second
highest nitrate and total nitrogen levels after
the fallow treatment.
 Statistical Analyses Results

 There were statistically significant effects

of the cover crops on:
– Nitrate and total nitrogen for all reported
sampling dates: March 21, 25, 31 & April 7
 However, cover crops effect was not
statically significant for:
– Ammonium and Total Phosphorus
 CONTOUR STRIP CROPPING

Crawford CO
Terracing & Contour Farming
 References
 Millward,  A. A., and Mersey,  http://www.bsyse.wsu.
J. E.,(1999) Adapting the edu/cropsyst/manual/si
RUSLE to model soil erosion mulation/soil/erosion.
potential in a mountainous
tropical watershed, Catena,
htm
38(2), 109-129.  WOLKOWSKI,
DeRoo A.P.J. (1998)
Modelling runoff and D.Soil Science
sediment transport in Dept. UW-
catchments using GIS.
Hydrological Processes Madison.
12(6),905-922.