The Application of

USLE to
Construction
Erosion Control in
Mountainous
Regions

The Ruby Creek

Molybdenum Project

Lindsay Robertson, MSc

Outline

• Introduction
• Background
• Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
• Erosion Predictions
• Mitigation Options
• Conclusions
Purpose

• Estimate the potential sediment load from

construction activities to determine necessary
erosion control measures
Introduction – Project Description
Project Location
Environmental Conditions

• Coarse Silty Sand, Cobbles and Boulders

• Large Angular to Sub Angular Talus
• Snowpack from October to March
• Caribou, Marmot, Mountain Sheep, Grizzly Bears
• Slope >20%, Elevation 1000m – 1500m
• Current downstream disturbance
USLE

The RUSLE equation is:

A = R * K * LS * C * P
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)

The MUSLE equation is:

Y = 11.8(Q*qp)0.56 * K * LS * C * P
(Cambazoglu and Gogus 2004)
USLE Factors

• R = rainfall erosivity factor

• K = soil erodibility factor
• LS = the length slope factor
• C = cover management factor
• P = the support practices factor
• Q = storm runoff value
• qp = peak instantaneous 10y24h return runoff rate
Soil Erosion Potential

Soil Erosion Class Potential Soil Loss

(t/ha/year)
1. Very Low (ie tolerable) <6
2. Low 6 – 11
3. Moderate 11 – 22
4. High 22 – 33
5. Severe > 33
Results - TSS

• Current water quality monitoring: 2 mg/L to 13 mg/L

• Predicted for current conditions: 6 mg/L to 418 mg/L
• Predicted conditions once stripped: 374 mg/L to
11,417 mg/L

Not a realistic approximation!

Largest Erosion Concern: Soil Stockpiles

Mitigation Options

• Sediment Control Pond (P = 0.5)

• Diversion Ditches (P = 0.5)
• Sediment Control Barriers (P = 0.5-0.8)
• Vegetation (C = 0.1)
• Surface Roughening (P = 0.8)
 Predicted TSS
TSS Comparisons for Soil Stockpiles

Non-Organic Soils
CASE Organic Soils Stockpile Stockpile

Annual Storm Annual Storm

TSS (mg/L)
Baseline n/a n/a n/a n/a
Non-Mitigated 7,611 11,417 5,761 8,634
Mitigated 1,370 2,055 2,074 3,111

Percent Reduction 82% 82% 64% 64%

*Percent reduction calculated as ((non-mitigated - mitigated) / non-mitigated)

Predicted Sediment Yield
Sediment Yield Comparisons for Soil Stockpiles
Organic Soils Non-Organic Soils
CASE Stockpile Stockpile

Annual Storm Annual Storm

t/ha/year t t/ha/year t
Sediment Yield
Baseline n/a n/a n/a n/a
Non-Mitigated 35.7 49.7 27 37.6
Mitigated 6.4 8.9 9.7 13.5

Percent Reduction* 82% 82% 64% 64%

*Percent reduction calculated as ((non-mitigated - mitigated) / non-mitigated)

Conclusions

• Downstream TSS predictions high

• Predicted sediment yield a more realistic approach
• Potential soil loss from stockpiles classified as low to
moderate
• Mitigation options potentially reduce severe erosion
to moderate erosion
Conclusions

• The USLE equations are not adapted for rough

terrain and climatic conditions at elevation
• More detailed slope stability measurements for
particle size and vegetation need to be incorporated
for construction applications
• Still a tool that needs to be developed
Recommendations

• Utilize case studies to refine the RUSLE factors for

construction;
• Conduct field tests to determine the erosion potential
in mountainous terrain; and,
• Further develop factors to mimic more “real”
scenarios.
Acknowledgements

Rick Rodman P. Eng. Malcom Black P.Ag.

Manager, Nelson Office Senior Soil Resource Specialist
Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. Agriculture and Agrifood Canada