Study of Watershed Erosion and Reservoir Sediment Analysis

STUDY OF WATERSHED EROSION AND
RESERVOIR SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the
Fritz J. and Delores H. Russ
College of Engineering and Technology
Ohio University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Master of Science
by
Travis Duane Bayes
June 2000
THIS THESIS ENTITLED
.-STUDY OF U'.ATERSHED EROSION .4ND RESERVOIR SEDIhIENT .AN,ALYSIS"
By Tral is D. Bayes
has been approved
for the Department of Civil Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technolog)
Tiao J. Chang
Professor of Civil Engineering
V'nrren I(.Wraq. Dean
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ
College of Engineering and Tcchnolog>

...
Ill
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
I b~ouldlike to thank all those who supported me through my graduate studies and
those who contributed to the research and development of this thesis. I \\;is11 to extend
eternal thanks to Dr. Tiao J. Chang ~ ~ provided

h o his guidance and knowledge for this
thesis. for his guidance and assistance throu~houtmy graduate studies. I would also like
to thank Dr. Lloyd Herman and Dr. Gierlowski-Kordesch for serving on my examining
committee and providing me with comrnerits and suggestions. The financial support
partiall), by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District is acknowledged. Mr.
Scott M c K e e ~ e rserve as an external reviewer for this thesis is appreciated. I ~ ~ o ualso

ld
like to thank Timothy A. Bartrand. Mark Hoob~er.and David Beekman for their
helpful suggestions durins the begimliilg of my graduate research. Finally, I u ould like
to express gratitude to my friends and family. especially my best friend. Morgan Walker.
"A.lllthe ri~qersTtln into the sea.
1t.t the seer is not filll;
To the place porn which the ritter.c come,
There the?*return ~rgain.

..
Ecclesiastes 1 :7. NKJV

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... i ~ .

Table of Tables ..................... .................................................................................
..
Table of Figures .........................................................................................................v11
List of Symbols and Abbreviations ......................................................................... ix
Chapter I . Introduction ............. . . . .........................................................................

1
.....-3
I . 1 Types of Erosion ............................................................................................
1.2 Background of Erosion Modeling ...................................... A
1.3 Use of Geographic Information Systems............................ ................................-5
1.4 Nature of the Study .............................................................................................6
I .5 Objective of the Study ....................................................................................... 8
Chapter I1 . Selected Literature Review ......................................................................11

11.1 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation ...................................................................... 11
11.1.1 Detachment Mechanics .......................................................................... 12
11.1.2 Transport ................................................................................................
16
11.1.3 Contributing Factors of Erosion ............................................................. 19
11.1.4 Erosion Modeling ................................................................................... 23
11.2 Surface Interpolators .................................................................................... 27
11.2.1 Surface Interpolator Classifications ........................... . .......................28
11.2.2 Specific Surface Interpolators ...............................................................30
11.3 Fundamentals of Watershed Analysis ............................................................. 38
11.3.1 The Hydrologic Cycle ............................. ....... 9
Chapter 111 . Theory & Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................44

111.1 Lake Sedimentation ............................... . . ............................................. 44
111.1.1 Physical Analysis ..................................................................................45
111.1.2 Computational Analysis ........................................................................ 50
111.2 Watershed Data Acquisition iAnalysis ................................. . ...................52
111.2.1 DEM Interpolation ................................................................................ 53
111.2.2 Bathymetric Analysis 1 Interpolation .................................................... 58
111.2.3 Soil Erosion Pre-Processing .............................................................. 60
111.3 G I s Watershed Modeling .............................................................................. 61
Chapter IV . Application and Results ........................................................................ 68

IV . 1 Lake Bathymetric Anal~~sis ........................................................................... 68
IV.2 Lake Sediment Analysis .............................................................................. 76
IV.3 Erosion Modeling .................................. .... .................................................
79
IV.4 Erosion 1 Sediment Linking ...........................................................................90
IV.5 Erosion Analysis ........................................................................................ 98
IV.5.1 Soil Attributes ....................................................................................... 98
IV.5.2 Landuse .......................................................................................... 101
IV.5.3 Strean1 Order .......................................................................................
103
IV.S.4 Watershed 1-Iypsometric Curve ........................................................... 1 05
Chapter V Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................

. 136
V . 1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................
136
V.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 128
Bibliography ..............................................................................................................
130
Appendix .A .Sediment Deposit Sample Particle Diameter Distribution Analysis ..135

I0
Appendix B . Avenue Script GIs Programs ...................................................
. 1 5 6
Appendix C . Soil Type Abbreviations .....................................................................
200
Table of Tables
Table 1.1 Facts of physical fcatures of Charles Mill Lahe

and its matershed. ........ ... ........... ..... ...................... ........ ..... . .. . ....... ...., . .. 10
Table 11.2.1 Characteristics of various interpolation methods .....................................30
Table 111.3.1 A summary table of erosion potential according to the land use ............66
Table 111.3.: A cross tabulation of the 50'" percentile according to
the percent passing of sleve # 10 ............... ... ........................ ....... . .... . ...(37
7 .
Table IV.7.1 Landuses and the associated crop management "C" values ................. ..83
Table IV.3.2 Areas and \ d u e s associated with different
erosion potential percentiles ................................................................84
Table IV.4.1 Various estimates of eroded soil mass in Charles blill Lake .................94
Table of Fib(wres
Figure I . 1 Map of Charles Mill Lake watershed and surrounding area .......................10
-.
1- g u r e 11.1.1 Schematic diagram for the mechanics of erosion ................................... 1-7
Figure 11.1.2 Laminar sub-layers .................................................................................13
Figure 11.1.3 Schematic diagram of a particle being eroded ........................................ 15
Figure 11.1.4 Modes of transport .................................................................................. 17
Figure 11.1.5 Various soil classifications of various grain size .................................... 31
Figure 11.3.1 The local hydrologic cycle ......................................................................40
Figure 111.1.1 Gravity corer used to sample sediments ................................................46
Figure 111.1.2 Sediment sample locations in Charles Mill Lake ..................................47
Figure 111.1.3 Sediment sample location density in Charles klill Lake .......................48
Figure 111.1.-l Sampling sediment deposits in Charles Mill Lake ................................49
Figure 111.1.5 Schematic diagram of sediment analysis in GIS ...................................52
Figure 111.2.1 Cells within a DEM for calculating slope .............................................54
Figure 111.2.2 Locations where the slope is greater than or equal to nine percent ....... 56
Figure 111.2.; Locations where the slope is less than nine percent .............................. 2 I
--
Figure 111.2.4 Flow chart for originai bathymetric surface .........................................60
1:igure 111.3.I Erosion modeling flow chart ................................................................ 63
Figure 111.3.2 Cumulative l~istogramof the erosion model .........................................64
Figure IV . 1.1 Bathymetric surface of Charles Mill Lake in 1998 ...............................71
Figure IV . 1.2 Bathymetric surface of Charles Mill Lake in 1934 ...............................72
Figure IV . 1.3 Sediment depth in Charles Mill Lake in 1998.......................................73
Figure IV . I .4 Charles Mill Lake 1934 and 1998 hypsometric curves .........................74
Figure IV.1.5 Charles Mill Lake 1934 and 1998 hypsometric curves in percentages.75
Figure IV.2.1 Distribution of the percent of gravel in Charles Mill Lake ...................78
Figure IV.2.2 Distribution of the percent of silt in Charles Mill Lake ........................78
Figure IV.3.1 Charles Mill Lake watershed soil erosivity (IS)factor ..........................85
.
I*lgure IV.3.2. Charles Mill Lake watershed slope (S) factor .......................................86
Figure IV.3.3 Charles Mill Lake watershed slope length (L) factor ............................87
Figure IV.3.4 Charles Mill Lake watershed landuse (C) factor ...................................88
Figure IV.3.5 Charles Mill Lake watershed erosion potential .....................................89
Figure IV.4.1 Sieve analysis comparison ................................................................... 97
Figure IV.5.1 Erosion potential and makeup of various
geologic soil types in the Charles Mill Lake matershed .................... 107
L
Figure IV.5.2 Erosion potential and makeup of karious Unified Soil

Classification soil types in the Charles Mill Lake watershed ............ 1 1 1
I-'igurc 1V.j.3 Average erosion potential and makeup of various AASN7.O
soil types in the Charlcs Mill Lake watershed ................................. 112
Figurc IV.5.4 ISrosion potential versus the percent passing sieve #200
In the Charles klill Lahe ~vatershed................................................... 113
Figure 1V.5.5 Erosion potenti;il bersus the percent of clay
in the Charles Mill Lake \\atcrs!.cd. .................................................114
Figure IV.5.6 Erosion potential of various landuses
in Charles Mill Lake watershed ......................................................... 115
Figure 1V.5.7 Erosion potential and I( factor of various landuses
in the Charles Mill Lake watershed ................................................116
Figure IV.5.8 Avcrage slope of various landuses in the
Charles Mill Lake watershed .............................................................117
Figure IV.5.9 Percentage of the landuse within various erosion percentiles ............. 118
Figure IV.5.10 Gradient of various stream orders in the
Charles Mill Lake watershed .............................................................110
Figure IV.5.11 A\rerage erosion potential compared to areas that directly drain
to the various stream order subwatershed ..........................................120
Figure IV 5.12 Average slope compared to areas that directly drain
to various stream order subwatershed ................................................121
Figure IV.5.13 Charles Mill Lake watershed topography .........................................122
Figure IV.5.I4 Charles Mill Lake watershed hypsometric cur\. e ..............................123
Figure 1V.5.15 Slope versus the elevation ranges ...................................................... 124
Figure 1L7.5.
16 Erosion potentials versus the elevation ranges ..................................125
Figure 14.1 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 1-3 .........................136
Figure '4.2. Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 4 . 6 . and 7 .............137
Figure A.3 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 8- 10 .......................138
Figure A.4 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 1 1-13 .....................139
Figure A.5 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 14- 16 .....................140
Figure A.6 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 17- 19 ..................... 141
Figure A.7 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 20-22 ..................... 142
Figure A . 10 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 29-3 1 ...................145
Figure A . 1 1 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit sarnples 32-34 ...................146
Figure A . 12 Cirain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 35-37 ................... 147
Figure A . 13 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 38-40 ...................!48
Figure A . 14 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 41 -43 ................... 149
Figure A . 15 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 44-46 ................... 150
Figure A . I6 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 47-49 ................... 151
Figure i-I.!7 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 50-52 ...................153
Figure X . IS Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 53-55 ................... 133
Figure A . 19 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 56-58 ................... 154
Figure A.20 Grain size distribution of sediment deposit samples 59-6 1 ................... 155
List of Symbols and Abbreviations
Long term aLerage soil loss per unit area (USLE. RIJSLE)
Long term merage soil loss (Musgrave Equation)
Long term average soil loss (Rational Rlethod)
Amount of soil whose soil diameter range = 0.002 ilim - 0.1 nlnl
as percent
Soil erosion potential percelltile markers
Amount of soil wl~osesoil diameter range = 0.1 mm - 2 mm
as percent
Riil erosion to interrill erosion ratio
Crop management factor (USLE. RIJSLE)
Total solids concentration upstream
Total sc~lidsconcentration downstream
Coeffic~entof gradation
Inherent soil erodibility (blusgra~eEquation)
Rainfall factor (R~ltionalMethod)
I!niforn~ity cocf'tlcicnt
Channel depth
Soil particle diameter
Soil diameter pcrcent liner
Change in storage
($1 Depth o f the laminar sub-la~er
E Total storm energ:
E(S,,lrt) iLlembr;~nebending energq for regularized spline
Ell Amount of evaporation
E\t~(S\urt) Xlembrane bending energq for tension spline
Sburt) Membrane bending energ?, for tension
e'(u) Kriging locall> spatial variable
G Acceleration due to gravitj
G I1 Ground~vater-flo~\
G, Specific gravit) of soil
'id Dry specific \%eightof soil
Specific weight of water
Kriging semi-variogram
Channel slope
;\/laximum 30-minute storm intensit)
Soil erodibility factor (USLE. RUSLEj
Soil erodibility (Rational hletliod)
Slope length factor (USLE. RLTSLE)
Channel length
Horizontal slope length (iClusgra\ e Equation)
Slope length (Rational Method)
Liquid liniit
Fforizontal slope length
Viscosity
Slope length exponent
Soil size factor
Amount of organic matter within soil as percent
Total mass of sediment
Kriging global trend
Support practice factor (USLE, RUSLE)
Amount of precipitation
Support practice factor (Rational Method)
Permeability class value
?-year 30-minute rainfall
Fluid density
Density of soil
Density of water
Plastic Index
Discharge upstream
Discharge downstream
Surface runoff
First derivative ueiglit constant for tension spline
Rainfall and runoff factor (USLE, RUSLE)
Soil-Cover factor (hlasgrave Equation)

Degree of slope i n degrees (Musgravc Equation)
EIydrauiic Radius
Goodness-fit value
Slope steepness factor (USLE, RUSLE)
Sample point
Slope fictor (Rational Method)
Observed goodness-fit value
Trend goodness-fit value
Function in R3
Soil structure class \. alue
Kinematic viscosity
Tractive force
Amount of transpiration
Intermediate tractive force factor
Shear stress
Second derivative weight constant for regularized spline
Average slope angle from horizontal
Settling velocity
Volume
Equation weight
Channel width
Wcight of soil
Soil moisture content
Equation variables
Data points
Cell width
Cell height
Interpolated value
Observed r-alue
A\.erage of the observed \ d u e s
Interpolated \ alue from trend method
Kriging estimation
Kriging estimation
Equation coefficients
Cell values
Two dimensional space
Tlxee dimensional space
X,ASHTO Americar, Association of State Highnay and
Transportation Ofticals
DELI Digital Elekation LIodel
DLG Digital Line Graph
DThl Digital Terrain Model
EP.4 En\.ironmentnl I'rntection .4gency

CHAPTER I
INTRODC'CTION
De\ elopment of man) civilizations in the past has been at the expense of soil
conser~ation.Today the United States has a dilemma to face. Current11 the U.S. loses 4
billion tons of soil e\.ery year, 3 billion tons per year in agricultural areas alone. Soil
erosion has man! impacts. It has a direct correlation nith crop qield. Soil erosion also
reduces transport ability and storage capacity in rivers and resen oirs. it pollutes the water
supplq and increases the cost of hater treatment. Wildlife habitats are also greatlq
impacted bq the sediment silting over fish beds due to erosion. Suspended sediment in
the nater resu!ts in the reduction of dissolved oxqgen and light iniiltration. ~vhichaffects
aquatic life in the streams. lakes. reservoirs. and estuaries. After the eroded materials are
settled. the sediment deposits reduce the capacity of the channels and reservoirs. nhich
results in an o\ era11 increase in flooding.
This chapter introduces current practices of erosion modeling and pro\ ides the
motivation for this stud) First. the types of erosion and the background of the erosion
model nil1 be described. Kext. the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIs) nil1
be discussed. Finall:. the nature and objecti~eof this stud) nil1 be presented. A11 of this
information uill be utilized in the analysis of erosion in the Charles Mill Lake natershed.
1.1 Types of Erosion
Six t! pes of erosion take place 111 different stages of the \\hole erosion process.
The first tjpe is raindrop erosion. This starts as the raindrop is falling fro111the sl\> at
high telocities. Once the drop of rain hits the surface of the soil. it compacts the soil
directly under the drop and disperses the detached soil particles that are on the side.
These soil particles can tratel as far as 2-3 feet terti~allyand up to 5 feet horizontally.
On a slope o t er half of this material trax~elsdofin the slope. Hence. as one can imagine.
in a heat.? storm millions of these raindrops hit the slope and nlillions of soil particles
move dorm hill.
Just n~inutesinto a rainstorm. muddj hater begins to intiltrate the soil and
particles are thzn filtered out by the soil. These particles along &it11 compaction of the
soil and puddling, combine to form a layer of soil that has a much loner infiltration rate
than that of the soil before. Consequently, ~tcauses runoff rather than infiltration. In
runoff. \\ ater carries soil particles that are splashed b j the impact of the raindrop As the
rain continues. the raindrops continue to pummel the soil into smaller and smaller
particles. The sinaller the part~cles,the faster the particles nlo\ e as suspended materials
of runoff. The raindrop splashes cause particle trallsport donnhill to result in the nelt
stage of erosion. sheet erosion. The sheet erosion may go unnoticed because the effect of
this erosion is relati~el! slou and uniform.
Ot er time. sheet erosion deteriorates to form s~llallgrooLcs on the slope. This
sta1-t~ 11e\t tjpe of erosion called rill crc:bion. Small channels intensif? thc process of
LI
3
surt'acc erosion because the channels created reduce the friction and increase the \ elocity
of the \\ater. As the belocity increases, the particle diameter of the particles it can carry
increases. In other fiords. the faster the runoff velocity, the larger the particles it can
carr?. Furthermore. the larger the runoff discharge the more particles it can c a n ? .
Tlle next form of erosion is gully erosion, which is an extremity of rill erosion.
This t j pe of erosion creates large channels that include waterfalls. Large gorges allon
large amounts of water to move swiftly and these large amounts of water can pick up
even more soil. Within gullies freezing and thawing can lead to slides and movements of
large soil conglomerations. These movements of large soil conglomerates create even
more erosion because it is exposing uncompacted soil, which is more susceptible co the
water.
When the runoff reaches the main channel, the erosion process does not stop, but
rather the next form of erosion starts. As channels tend to meander: this causes erosion
along the bank of the channel. The water cuts into the bank and erodes the soils. Within
the channel. shear forces. due to the belocity gradient, act upon the soil along the bed and
banks of the channel and the soil erodes.
The last stage of erosion is the deposition of the soil particles. This usualij
happens in lakes, reservoirs, estuaries. and deltas. As the channel bed slope decreases,
the velocity of the water decreases. This leads to the settlement of soil particles. The
more the sediment deposits, the slobver the water velocity, because the channel effecti~elq
decreases its own slope. This cycle intensifies the settling process.
4
Rates of erosion depertd upon soil properties. Some soils are very vulnerable to
erosion ivhile others are not. Texture, organic matter content. structure. and permeabilit\.
are inlportant characteristics that affect the susceptibilit~to erosion of soils (Goldman.
c 1986). Cla? particles adhere to one another, therefore. reducing erosion. Home\ er. \\ it11
disregard to c l a ~the
. smaller the soil particle. the greater the amount of erosion.
1.2 Background of Erosion nilodeling
One of the early and successful equations used in erosion analysis \\as the
bIusgra\ e equation (M~~sgrave.

1947). The empirical equation taking into account the
effect of soil erodibilit?. ~ e g e t a coker,

l land slope. and rainfall intensit) can be expressed
as
o no I i, o 5:.
A ,,,:= C8>
R,, s L
uhere A,, is the long-term a\ erage soil loss from sheet and rill erosion in inches per J ear.
C,, is the inherent erodibility of the soil in inches per gear (soil erodibilit~factor). R,, is a
relative soil-cover factor (crop-management factor). S,, is the degree of the slope in
percent. is the length of tht. slope in fcet. and P;, is the '-year, 30-minute rainfall
amount in inches.
Baszd on the blusgra e equation. LVischmeier and Smith de\ eloped the Uni\ zrsal
Soil Loss Equation (IISLE) in 1958. It can be written as ('U'ischn~eierand Smith 1975)
\\here is the soil loss per unit area. R is the rainfall and runoff factor. K is the
erodibility factor, L is the slope length factor. S is the slope steepness factor. C is the
crop-management factor, and P is the support practice factor. The USLE is similar to but
more llersatile than the M ~ ~ s g r a vequation.

e The USLE is designed to predict long-term
al.erage soil losses for specific conditions.
In 1997. the USLE was modified by the Re\,ised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RCSLE). The revised version includes analysis of research data from the 1980s and
1990s. There has also been a computer prosram to facilitate the calculations of the
different factors. The calculations in the RUSLE are more complicated and complex than
those in the original CSLE.
1.3 Use of Geographical Information Systems
,A Geographic Information S>.stein.GIs, is not just a graphical and mapping tool.
A GIs is a type of tool similar to a database. except the data has a spatial reference and it
can be mapped on screen or media. Wit11 a GIs. a user can interrelate, manipulate.
anallrze. and nlodei spatial infi~rmationdirectly related to proble~nsthat are too
complicated, cornples. and too time consuming to solve without a GIS. The GIS
0
lilnctions can assist in identibing and visualizing patterns and relationships for problcm-
solving.
Many t\pes of maps euist. too many even to begin to list. These maps are useft11
for varied purposes. but it is difficult and time consuming to make overlays and to
understand these overlays without a CIS. With a GIS, these maps can not only be viewed
as layers. one on top of another. but also be analyzed in algebraic

si~ni~ltaneously
equations as spatial variables. Envirollmental quality values. evaporation and
transpiration values (Chang ,,I crl,,1997). and surface water quality analysis (Ibover.
1997) arc examples of this. Furthermore. parameters used for estimating soil loss such as
rainfall. r~moff.slope. \ egetal cover. and soil erodibility are spatial variables and can be
a~lalyzedbq GIS. Maps can be manipulated mith a GIS to ieu ansners to specific
%V
cluestions quickly and easily.
1.3 Nature of the Study
This stud! can be divided into t u o parts. The first part consists of 111odeling soil
erosion in the Charles htill Lake watershed. The second in\ olves analqzing sediment in
the Charles Mill Lake. In the past ~nodelillgsoil mas Iiln~tedto small plots of land. For
anj large areas. such as a whole watershed the nlodeling \+as not realistic due to the large
\ ariation of soil t) pcs. slope. and land ilse. The a\ ailabilit~of <;IS and digitized data
enables the n~odelinzfor large areas eficti\ely.

Data uscd in this study has been obtained from various agencies. The digital
topography contours and hqdrography \\as downloaded from the Ohio Department of
Administrative Services (DAS) Geographic Information System Support Center lveb
page on the Internet. The digital land use data was downloaded from Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) web page. The digital data was collected by U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and conk erted to ARCIINFO by the EPA. The digital geographic soil
data was retrieved from the Ohio Department of Yatural Resources (ODNR). The digital
soil attributes were downloaded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
(NRCS) web page.
Analysis of sediment characteristics in Charles Mill Lake was done using the
regionalization methods. Teoh (1 990) and Hoover (1997). respectively used the Kriging
technique as a regionalization method to determine drought severity levels and water
quality levels; however, there are many different techniques used for regionalization.
Each regionalization method or interpolator has positive and negative attributes to be
discussed further in Chapter 11. Data characteristics, qualities. and the extent of the
interpolation help determine which interpolator is appropriate.
The digital hydrography data was retrieved again from the Ohio DAS. The
contours of the Charles Mill Lake before the reservoir cvas built were obtained from the
Muskingum Watershed Consertancy District (MWCD). The lake was surveyed by the
U.S. Arm? Corps of Engineers in 1998 with cooperation with the IvIWCD. This digital
data was also used. The sediment data was collected and analyzed through a contract
between MWCD and Ohio Univcrsit>.

1.5 Objective of the Study
A number of studies have been conducted analyzing sediment in lakes. However.
there are only a handful of studies that have been conducted on nlodeling soil erosion for
\.\hole lakes. The association of these two can be extremely useful in determine ho\v
much soil is being eroded, where the bulk of the soil erosion is taking place, and what
type of material is being eroded. This study will attempt to show how much as well as
what types of particles are being eroded from the watershed and then transported and
deposited in the associated reservoir. This information will be useful for management of
the btatershed and the reservoir in addition to predicting how much and what type of
sediment \nil1 be trapped by the reservoir.
Erosion modeling in the past has been limited to srnall watersheds or a low
resolution of sampling (Sykes, 1992). With a GIs. a high resolution and a large
watershed can be modeled and analyzed.
The stud? area for the modeling and anal~dsisconsist of the whole watershed
draining to the Charles Mill Lake. The watershed lies on the boundary of the glaciated
portion of Ohio. Half of the matershed is flat nhile the other half is very steep. Charles
Mill Lake is located four miles east of hlanstield. Ohio in Richland and Ashland
counties. Charles Mill Lake receives its intlow from the Black Fork Creek, located on
the north of the lake. The water from Charles Mill Lake ultimately discharges to the
Ohio River via the Muskingum River. The dam holding Charles Mill Lake \\as
constructed in 1935 for the purpose of flood control. The MWCD owns the lake anci
9
surrounding land and is responsible for the conservation management and recreational
activities. The dam is owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
lake's average depth has decreased by about 0.3 meters in the last 63 years. This is a
decrease of about 20% of the volume of the lake. The watershed draining into Charles
Mill Lake is 562 km2. Table I. 1 lists other facts about Charles Mill Lake and its
watershed. Figure I. 1 is a map of Charles Mill Lake, its watershed, and surrounding area.
Knowledge of the different types of erosion and how erosion affects various soils
will be pertinent to the study. The advanced technology of GIs allows the completion of
an erosion model on this large of scale. That, along with analyzing sediment will give a
more complete picture than separate studies would be able to do. Hopefully, this study
will encourage and enable others to improve water quality and soil conservation through
these same means.
Table 1.1 Facts of physical features of Charles Mill Lake and its watershed.
Lake Length 20,700 feet 6,300 meters

I Lake Breadth 1 6,200 feet 1 1,900 meters
/ Original Average Depth I 5 feet 1 1.5 meters 1
1 Current Average Depth I 4 feet / --
1.2 meters 1
Maximum Depth 27 feet 8.2 meters
11369.0 acre-feet 14,034,230 krn3
Current Volume 8129.3 acre-feet 10,034,678 km3
1339.5 acres 5.42 krn2
/ Shoreline Length 1 34miles 1 53.5km 1
I Lake Elevation (normal pool) 1 997.1 feet (MSL) 1 304.0 meters 1
Lake Elevation (spillway) 1020.0 feet (MSL) 3 11.0 meters
2 17 mile2 562 krn2
CHAPTER I1
SELECTED LITER4TURE REVIEW
11.1 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
It is believed that sediment deposits in a reservoir are from the soil erosion from
the watershed that flows into the reservoir. Soil erosion is a very complicated subject.
Not only are the mechanics comple?; and difficult to determine, but the process of erosion
depends on several different criteria as well. As rnentioned in Chapter I, there are se\.eral
different types of erosion. The soil that is eroded is detached in different ways depending
upon types of erosion.
In raindrop erosion, the force of the raindrop delivered to the soil can be an agent
of detachment. Once the soil particle is detached from the bulk of the soil, it is
transported with greater ease down stream via different transport mechanisms. As for the
sheet. rill, and interrill erosions, the detachment phase of erosion can be caused by either
of two separate fashions. One way is by a direct push i.e. pressure or form drag force
from the water flowing by the particle as shown in Figure 11.I . 1. In this manner. the
particle detaching from the rest of the soil is protruding up into the flow of the \later.
The other method is b) the water flo~vingoverhead, creating a suction above the soil.
The looser particles will detach from the negative pressure force and be taken a-ay by
the current. In the real world. the detachment by erosion could be either of these t ~ b oor a
combination of these ~cen~lrios.

(a)
Figure 11.1.1 Sche~naticdiagram for tlie mechanics of erosion
11.1.1 Detachment ;Mechanics
The fluid dynamics must be discussed before the more complex mechanics of
erosion can be understood. Fluids experience surface drag. w hich is due to the shear
forces created betneen the solid particle and the fluid. Surface drag can occur along the
bed. bank. or the hater-air interface. A thin 1a)er of fluid on the boundary is significantlq
slomed dom11, i.e. boundarq layer. so that the velocity gradient in this laqer is appreciable.
The shear resistance between la) ers of fluids is not as appreciable as that between a fluid
and solid surface. So the velocitq of the fluid increases \\it11 distance from the surface.
Lanlinar tlon is the flow in \\ hich the fluid floms in layers. or laminas. Turbulent lion
has erratic motion of the fluid. Laminar t?o~\does not change kelocit) as much 11s
turbulent flon (Streetcr and LTiy Iic, 198-7). Ocerland flov on hill slopes 1naq either bc
I3
et er. most streams have turbulent flat\ with a

laminar or turbulent (Emmett. 1970) t-fo~i
a erj shallot\ laminar sub-layer.
When the aelocitq of \hater is slon and unidirectional within a layer. it is
considered a laminar sub-layer. When this sub-lajer depth is large compared to the
diameter of soil in the bed as shonn in Figure 11.1.2 (a), erosion is generall~lot\. The
forces on the soil particles are considerabl> less, in this scenario, than mhen the laminar
sub-layer is small compared to the soil particle diameter (Figure 11.1.2 (b)). The depth of
the laminar sub-layer determines 11oh much erosion n i l 1 occur at the boundaq .
turbulent
turbulent
Figure 11.1.2 Laminar sub-laq ers.

(a) Large sub-layer compared to the soil diameter.
(b) Small sub-layer compared to the soil diameter.
The laminar sub-layer can be defined uith the following equation (Carson. 1971 ):
\there ci,, is the dcpth of the la~ninarsub-1a)ier. v is the kinematic \ iscosit>. p. is the
density of the fluid. and T is the shear stress at the boundarjr
The a ai~lefor the dept11 of the laminar sub-layer is important n hen determining
tractive force. Tractitre force is the force that the water exerts on a part~cleto pull it a\vaJ
from the boundar) (Carson. 1071). The tractive force is defined b) the follo\\ing
equation:
and.
= j/uRi, (11.1.3)
where T is the tractive force of the current or stream. R is the hydraulic radius. D,is the
depth of the channel. LCis the length of the channel. W, is the c ~ i d t hof the channel. and
y,,is the specific weight of water. This equation can be broken d o ~ to:
n
p,,GDcLLF:sin^ = T(,(2DLi T Y ) L ' (11.1 .-I1
nhere p,, is the density of water. G is the acceleration due to srax it?, and i is the slope of
the bed. The tractive force can be determined for anq stream of nater using these
equations.
The diameter of the largest particle that can be moved along a bed by fluid flon is
a f~lnctionof the unit tractive force on the bed. In other ~kordsthe critical or threshold
unit tractive force necessary to initiate bed load movement is a function of the size of bed
material. U7henthe diameter dikided bq the laminar sub-la) er is less than 1. t k tracti~c
force has to be greater than that calculated to puli the particle out of the bed and laminar
sub-la) er. This discrepancq is due to the limitation that the angle between particles has to
be 90 degrees. to initiate nlotion.
When the particles are considered in Figure 11.1.3. and the angle bztneen the
~,lrticlesare less than 90 degrtieb. the eroding force nil1 be clifferent from the trnctix e
IS
force. The particles resist beilig eroded b the soil structure. Due to the shear force on
the particles. the resultant force is not 1.ertical and thus the particles resist the eroding. In
this model. the tracti1.e force i,s tuice as much as the first model for particles that protrude
the laminar sub-la) er (Carson. 197 1 ). Smaller particles have more chance of being in the
laminar sub-la1,er. Thus more tracti\.e force is required for smaller particles. This is part
of the reason v+h~r

\ erj. snlall particles are not easily erodible. The other reason is that the
clay tends to be platy and stick together
Strearn Flou f Tractive Force
m Shear Force
Figure 11.1.3 Schematic diagram of a particle being eroded.
This method of analyzing erosion is subject to Inan) assumptions (Carson. 1971).
The major assumption is that soil is uniform in size. Another assunlption is that l ~ a t e r
flov s at a uniform rate. MTithsparatic rain e\ ents and soil particle size de\ iation. it is
nearly in~possibleto model erosion at the micro-scale, described above.

11.1.2 Transport
Once the soil particles detach from the hard boundarq soil, the sol1 part~clesare
transported bq the \hater doa\i~streain.There are three modes of transport. The stream
a elocit?, particle size, tteight and shape determine the mode of transport as me11 as hon
far the particle is transported. For example. \er)i small particles such as cia! mill not
erode unless aelocities are high and \\ill not fall out until belocities are bery Ion (Carson.
1971: Selle). 1988). On the contrar?. somewhat larger particles like silt and sand mill
erode at lo\\ ~elocitiesand \\ill sediment out at aelocities higher than that of cla? but
loner than ~ t l l e nthe particle eroded.
The tirst mode of transportation is rolling. In this mode particles are transported
ro the shortest distance This happens \+hen the soil particle is large. iJThenrunning Into
the soil part~cles.the water has difficulties going around because the particles are large.
This produces a pressure drag force on the particle to inoa e it dobanstream. This mode is
identified as mode ,A shonn in Figure 11.1.I

(Selle?. 1988 ).
The second mode is bouncing or saltatins. Shown as mode B in Figure 11.1.4
(Selley. 1988). In this mode it can rransport smaller part~clesthan that of rolling. The
soil particle starts on the bottom of a channel. LVhen the \\ater passes o\ er the particle.
the traction forces of the water pull the particle up. Once the particle is dislodged from
the rest of the soil, the a elocit? of the nater pushes it do\vnstrearn \\liere it is settled out.
The process repeats o\ er again t Sellcl . 1088). This process M ill be ti~rtherdiscussed
later hlost o f soil particles ern !?A surt ~jl:t in this mode.
l\:hcn soil particle is small or becomes broken it is nloved by suspension.
(Selley. 1988). In this mode it transports particles to

denoted as ~ n o d rC in Figure 11.1.i
the longest distance since the particles are small and the velocity has to be greatly reduced
in order for the particles to settle. Once the sediment particles is in t~rrbulentwater they
tend to get mixed and thus stay suspended (Allen. 1985). When the velocity is high
enough and the particle is small enough. the water can carry soil panicles in suspension.
Current -\
Figure 11.1.1 \lodes of transpofl.

(A) Suspension.
(B)Saltating.
(C) Rolling.
Once a particle is being transported by suspension. it falls out of suspension nhen
the Iclocity reduces. -As the x.elocity reduces. smaller and sn~iillerparticles begill to s e t t l ~
and to be depobited on the boltom. This is due to thc settling ielocitj, of the particles.
The settling elocit: can be expressed (Sellej. 1988):
\\here L is the settling ~elocity.p, is the densit: of the soil particle. p,, is the densit: of
the uater. G is the acceleration due to gratit!. ~1 is the viscosity of the nates. and d, is the
particle dirulneter. This equation is based on the Stokes' L a t ~ i.e.

. the Reynolds ~luinberis
less than one. The settling velocity increases as the diameter of the particle increases. In
other words. as the particle increases in size the faster the particle settles dorm.
Hone\ er. this equation is based on the particle being a sphere and the iluid not floning.
In iilost instances, the current that carries the particles is turbulent and the particles are far
froin spherical. Turbulent currents call suspend the smaller particles for a verj long time.
Ne,ertheless. \\hen the current slows the particles ma) settle out. In zeneral. larger
particles settle d o n n first and the smaller particles settle down last.
The densit:. size and shape of particles are factors that determine the settling
\. elocit: of the particle. However. particles of \. aried shape and size can ha\ e the same
settling t elocit> . These particles are said to ha\ e the hq draulic equii alence (belle?.
1988). In general. the size or diameter of a particle carries the nlost \\eight in
detern~iningthe settling velocitj .

11.1.3 Contributing Factors of Erosion
Topography. climate. soil characteristics. and land usage are main contributors to
the erosion of soil. All of these factors \,ary geographically. Within Ohio. lays of the land
change drastically from the steep slope of the Appalachian foothills to the flat plains near
the Great Lakes. The soil characteristics can even change dramatically uithin 100 feet.
The land use changes from urban to agricultural or forested.
The topography plajvsa very important role on soil erosion. Many researchers
(Zincg
L. ( 1940). Borst and Wooburn ( 1940). and Musgrave (1 947)) ha1 e found an
exponential correlation between soil loss and the slope of the land. 1IcIsaac et ~ i (1987)
.
found a linear relationship between the soil loss and the sine value of the land slope. In
general the steeper the slope the faster the water runs off. The soil loss increases ~ v i t han
increase of ~vaterrunoff.
Studies conducted by Smith and Wischmeier (1957) indicated a relationship
between slope length and soil loss. Foster et al. (1 977) found a relationship betheen
slope length and rill to interrill erosion. Rill to interrill erosion erodes soil much morz
quickly than does sheet erosion. so that the slope increases the soil loss. Gabriel's (19981
evperilnents concluded that soil loss increases Lvith an increase of slope length.
Raindrops contribute more to sheet erosion than does the sheet flou of the runoff
(Roose. 1977). LVischmeier and Smith ( 1 978) indicated that soil losses during storms
\$ere direcrlj proportional to the ralnstorm parameter. \\ hich is the product of the total
30
storill energy and the maxilnuln 30-niiinute intensit\. The storm energy is dependent on
the amount of rain and the length of the storm.
On flat surfaces. nater tends to pond up ~ h i c hprotects the soil from being eroded
b j the impact of tlie raindrops (hlutchler 1970). Con\rersel\. tlie opposite is true oil
>teeper slopes. The raindrop impact causes detachment of soil. This soil splash is
u~iiformin all directions on a flat surface. Howel er. on steeper slopes nlore soil is splashed
do\\nliill. Ellison (1944) fourid that 75'41 of the splash \\as in the downhill direction on a
10°6 slope. Other climatic factors affecting soil erosion include temperature. \\ind.
humidity. and soiar radiation (Schkhab 1996).
The next agent in water erosion 1s soil characteristics. Loessial soils seem to lose
~ . 1. This is due to this t>pe of soil's

an extreme amount of soil to erosion ( B a r r o ~ 1991
susceptibility to compaction and uater logging n h e n cultivated. Texture. organic matter
content. structure. and permeability are the four basic soil characteristics that affect the
soil erodibility (Goldman. clC)56).
The soil texture depends on the composition of the soil, or the neight percent of
sand. silt. and clay. Figure 11.1.5 shows the classifications bq USDA. YSCS. ALASHTO.
and \[IT respecti~ely.It is noted that tlie differences around the particle are 0.074 mm 111
diameter. The engineering s~stems cross o\er at 0.075 mm while the USDX has a
specific type of classif~cationfrom 0.05 1nm to 0.1 nim. called LTer?fine sand. ?'he silt
and er\ fine sand. in the LiSDA s>stem. are the soil particles that arc tlie most \ ulnerablc
to erosion. In gel~~:ral,thc higher the perc2nt of silt in a soil. the more erodible i t is
(Goldman. c 1986: U'ischmeier and Smith. 1975)

Sand as a larger pdrticle is more difficult to erode. I-ione~er. once satld does
erode. it \ \ i l l be deposited quickl!. On the other hand, the clay particle can be carried for
\,er> long distances until still water is reached or salt ~vateris reached. Salt nater
increases the settling velocit) by causing the clay particles to clump together and
increasing the diameter of the particle.
Classachiisctts
Coarse
Gra~si Silt Institute o f
I Sand i Sand 'Iaq Technolog>
I
I
1
I L.S. Dep:~rtmeni
I Gra\ el ot..\gricuiture
i
i I
1
I
I .American .-\ssoci;ilion
I
Coarse Fine Siit
Transportation
Ofticiais (A.-\SIITO)
I I
L'nitieci Soil
Silt 2nd Cia! Cia.s s.'~-t ~ c a t i oC!n Ttsm
i 1 (USCS)
I V 1
Grain Size ( m m )
Figure 11.1.5 Various soil classifications of various soil grain size.
Organic matter helps bind soil together. similar to claj-. The organic nlater also
increases permesbilit). The soil penneability increases the abilit) to absorb nater during
raintall and reduce the an~ountof runofl.. The increased nater absorption attracts plants
to grou in the soil helping bind the soil and creating a better soil structure for resisting
t'rosion.
The soil structure refers to the arrangement of particles in the soil. The lo\\
e r o s i ~ esoil structure is a granular composition. Teiseira and hlisra (1997) coliducted
experiments that demonstrated the importance of aggregate stabilit~on the e r o s i ~itq
characteristics of the soils.
Land use affects the erodibility of soil due to the vegetation. Vegetation reduces
erosion by de\ eloping a canopy to intercept raindrops. In doing so the raindrop loses
energ? to erode the soil. The roots of the begetation increase the roughness of the
ground. reducing the runoff \elocit\. The roots also aggregate the soil. ~ ~ l i i increases
ch
porosity and reduces runoff. I'lants also increase organic materials in the soil and use up
the moisture in the soil. The organic material binds the particles of soil together mhile the
loss of soil moisture reduces runoff b\. making the soil "thirst> ".
Because of the coniplexitj of the mechan~cs.soil erosion has to be thought of on a
larger scale. Elsen on a large scale. it is still difficult to isolate indix idual factors that
promote or reduce erosion. It is generail) caused by a combination of man! factors.
Four basic factors that dominate soil erosion are belie\ ed to be topographq. climate. soil
characteristics and land use (Cioldman. 1 986).

11.1.4 Erosion Modeling
&Ian! attempts hake been made for soil erosion modeling bq empirical equations
in the past I, ears (Renard et CII . 1997). The history of modeling erosion reaches back to
the Great Depression in the United States. Due to the abuse of agricultural land.
researchers began to study erosion to det elop better agricultural techniques. Since then
erosion modeling has been det eloped and has become better at predicting erosion. As the
accurac) increases. erosion modeling has spanned from the agricultural field to other
tields such as construction. subdivision design. mine spoil (Barfield et ill. 1988). forestr?
(Dissme! er and Foster. 1980. 198 1). and tvatershed analysis (Baylor Geograp11~-U'eb
Page. 1998).
Cook (1 936) \\as one of the first researchers to link soil erosion to the three main
factors: susceptibility of soil to erosion. rainfall and runoff. and soil protection and plant
coa er. Zingg (1 940) linked slope and length of slope to soil erosion. S~nith( 1941)
researched the effect of cropping sq stems and support practices on soil erosion. Smith
( I 94 1 ) first det.eloped a graphical method for selecting conservation practices in the
agricultural field. Bronning et al.. (1947) researched soil erodibilit~introducing the
concept of using manageable factors to describe and model erosion.
hlusgra~e ( 1947) continued the concept of using factors to debelop the first
empirical erosion model as git en in Equation 1.2.1. This equation 1s still being used b j
the forestr) industr? . The ecl~iation.modified bq Smith and LVhitt ( 1'1.18). produce the
"rat~anal"equation as follo\\s:
4'
= C',,S,,L,,K,,P,,
.I,( (11.1.6)
\\here .4, is equal to the soil loss per J ear. C,, is thc rainfall factor. S , 1s the slope. L, is
the length of the slope. KRis the soil erodibilit). and P,, is the support practice. These
models did not totally represent soil erosion because it does not consider runoff or
cropping practices.
Jt'ischmeier (I 959) de\ eloped the Uni~ersalSoil Loss Equation (USLE) as g i en

~
in Equation 1.2.2. The USLE became not on14 popular. but also accurate in quantif>ing
soil erosion. The name uniLrersal suggests that all factors are represented in the modeling
of soil srosion. The model is also free fro111 an) geographic base and can be used
anynhere in the \xorld. The mathematical relationships ofthe factors for the USLE are
determined b) regression anal) sis. Wischmeier and Smith ( 1975) published a more
conlplete model with factors that c o er

~ larger range of variations.
The C'ni\.ersal Soil Loss Equation is used to estimate an annual soil loss average
espressed In tonlacre'yr or metric tonlhectacre/>ear. The resultant unit is soil \!eight per .
ini it area per !.ear. It is a long-term a! erage of soil loss and not a short-term value. Since
it is an a\ erage. portions of the analtzed area ma) hake higher or l o ~ t e values

r than the
computed soil loss
There are several assu~nptionsof the USLE nlodel that limit its ability to model
soil zrosion. First. some factors in the ecluation are based on probabilistic esti~nntesand
are not deterministic. It f ~ r t h c rassumes that areas. determined by the user. have the same
characteristics. This can causc large errors ifcharactcristics change greatly compared to
the areas chosen to hate the same characteristics. The USLE results are an a\ erage
tenlporai estimate. Soil loss may \ ar! annually. This model is not a time series
prediction nod el but rather an estimate of the time series average. The accurac) of the
USLE model depends on hou accuratelq plq sical and management conditions are
described.
Each factor has been researched estensitelq since 1954. The most recent
publication dealing with the USLE presented the Revised Uni~ersalSoil Loss Equation
(RUSLE) (Renard et al , 1997). The factors have been updated and re\ ised to make the
model more accurate.
The rainfall and runoff factor. R. is expressed by
R= (11.1.7)
\\here E is the total storm energy and I:, is the maximum thi@ minute intensit?. Local
\values can be deri\.ed from isoerodent maps (Ih'iscluneier, 1978). The isoerodent maps
are det eloped bq the USDA for the United States from rainfall intensity duration
frequency (IDF) data from the US Weather Bureau. The factor can also be calc~llatedfor
any location if the historical rainfall IDF data are known.
The soil erodibility factor. K. is expressed by
nhere 1 1 is estimated by
-11 = -4, * B,
M here .-I,is the percent of soil whose diameter is between 0.002 ninl and 0.1 111m as a
percent and B, is the percent of soil \.those diameter is between 0.1 mm and 2 nim as a
percent. hf, is the percent of organic matter within the soil. S' is the structure class ~ a l u e .
and P.is the permeabilit) class \ alue.
The slope length factor, L. is determined by the following equation
\\.here i, is the horizontal length in meters from the top of the slope to a point of
concentration of the runoff (Renard et al.. 1997) and m is the xrariable slope length
exponent defined as follows
where p is the rill erosion to interrill erosion defined by the following equation (Foster. et
sin B
n here 6.in degrees. is the axrerage slope of the soil from horizontal (hIcCool. e/ (11..
1989 1.
The slope factor. S, is defined b\

17
\\here 0. in degrees. is the a\erage slope of the soil from horizontal (bIcCool. et crl..
1989). Variations of this equation and other equations can be used when cases of
irregular slopes such as a compound concave-convex slope arise (Foster and Wischmeier.
1 974).
The crop-management factor. C, and the support practice factor. P. in Equation
11.1.6. currently are not developed from equations but rather tables. The crop-
management factor depends on land use, canopy. surface cover. surface roughness. and
soil moisture. The support practice factor is for agricultural areas in which methods are
used to reduce soil loss. This factor depends on crop rotation, reaping procedure,
contouring, and terracing. Both of these factors have been researched that an abundance
of tables exists for most situations (Renald. et al., 1997).
11.2 Surface Interpolators
Regionalization. or spatial interpolation. is a method in which a complete
representation of a surface. physical or abstract. can be modeled within a region (Hoover.
1998). The surface can either be defined by a contiguous set of zones in bkllich each zone
is assigned a single value or bq mathematical functions. bvhere ever), point has a value
that can be ehaluated ~viththe f~lnctions. A11 interpolator is an algorithm of mathematical
equations that can produce this surface.

28
Interpolation is most commonl>.used to display estinlated values for ail locations
on a map in GIS from the original sample points. The attributes of the sample points call
range from physical properties. such as ele\.ation or temperature. to abstract properties.
such as cost distance. The sample points are most generally taken from the real norld. It
is unrealistic, even impossible, to take samples at every location because of practical
constraints. larger data set results in a more accurate represelltation of the real lborld.
Honever, due to the expense of sampling in the field. a minimum number of sa~ilplesare
generally taken. So the best interpolation method has to be used.
11.2.1 Surface Interpolator Classifications
5.lany interpolators exlst and each one uses a different method to generate a
surface. Each interpolator has a different purpose. Interpolators are classified b> the may
in mhich data are input. the n a y data are analyzed. the output structure. and transitions of
the output. Depending on the attribute that is being interpolated and the desired results.
an interpolator can be chosen.
Spatial interpolators can be catzgorized by the different \va>s the interpolator uses
the Input data. The first classiticatioii is how many of the data points are used to
interpolate. Global interpolators use all of the data points to predict a surface. Local
interpolators onl> use a speciiied number of neighboring data points to d e ~ ~ e l othe

p
surface. The actual d'lta points ti:',t are used 13). *-: .,,: 1
, ,~;rcrpolatorare the closest points
to the location in \\hich the interpolation is being processed.

19
The interpolator can be e~therdeterministic or stochastic. Most interpolators use a
deterlninistic approach to develop a surlhce in nhich the surface must contain the actual
surfaces. Hoivet~cr.some interpolators use the statistics of the data to de~relopthe surface
that error variations can be estimated or even mapped. Sonle surfaces change in a
predictable way when stochastic interpolators are used; however. other surfaces are
unpredictable and a deterministic interpolator is the best choice.
Interpolators can also be categorized by the output data structure of the
interpolator. Some interpolators are raster-based, while others are vector-based. The
raster-based interpolators generally can only use point data to interpolate a surface. The
resulting surface is a grid theme of cells. each having its own associated value. On the
other hand, vector-based interpolators result either in a set of polygons or a I riangulated
Irregular Network (TIN). Some vector-based interpolators use only point data \x hile
others can use point or line data. Surfaces mith abrupt changes in elmation are better
anal) zed nith a vector-based interpolator while even or gradually changing surfaces can
be analyzed using raster-based interpolators.
Interpolators can also be classified b\ the transition and exactness of the output
data structure. -1 he transition applies to the changes in the surfhce. Some interpolations
result in a surface of faccs where the faces are either joined at angles or at different
heights. 1h1s causes abrupt clianges in the surlhce, while other interpolators result in
gradual surface changes. 7'he esactness of an interpolator ref'crs to \\hether the output
r;s~~lt
for an area of a11 origi~laldata point i \ I'(~.II~ !,) t!;: value of that data point. I 4 11~1;
?nc must consider all the characterist~csof the surtc~cc

choosinz a]: interpolnt<>~ a,-d
choose the most appropriate interpolating method. A list of interpolators and the
associated classes is given in Table 11.2.1.
Table 11.2.1 C11ar:lcteristics of various interpolation methods.
Interpolator
Local1
Determil~istic/Stochastic
Output -
I ransition Exact
I
Global I I
Structure I I
Edge-Finding Global Detertninistic Raster Abrupt

I
?. Polygon
I hiessen Local Ileter~ninistic Abrupt Yes
(Vector)
Trend Global Stochastic Raster Gradual No
I Fourier Global Stochastic Raster Gradual No
B-spline Local Deterministic Raster Gradual Yes
IDLV Local Deterministic Raster Gradual No
Kriging Local Stochastic Raster Gradual Yes 1
1
TIN
r r ~ ~ Local Deterministic
(Vector)
Abrupt Yes
11.2.2 Specific Surface Interpolators
The Edge-Finding method uses the data to find abrupt changes in a surface. The
result is a surface with defined edges. This interpolator is most often used in remote
sensing to define objects. I t is often used for man-made features, not fbr natural
landscapes. 71'11t2 edge-finding methocl does not norL \\ell on a nornlal landscape. such as
topography. m here changes arc gradual.
The I'hiessen metllod is the most popular method that uses proximal rcgions. '1
. .
proximal reglo!? .s used when thc ob-jective is to focus o n t1.c l.>c,ltion and magnitudes o f
3l
areas exhibiting relative uniformit\.. ?.heissen polygons are also called Voronoi
diagrams. Subditiding lines joining nearest neighbor points, drawii-. perpendicular
bisections, then conllecting the bisectors creates polygons. By doing this. the area that is
closest to a data point is found. This area is the area that the data point m i l l influence.
One disadvantage in this method is that the area and shape of the Tlieissen polygons are
dependent on tht. sample point distribution. This method is best for attributes that change
over land plots, such as crop yield (Star and Estes. 1990).
The Trend Surface method is a powerful global interpolator. This method relies
on the data points in a set to create a smooth surface. It uses a polyno~nialregression to
fit a least-square surface and explains a regional variation. The Trend method creates a
smooth surface that nil1 seldom pass through the original data points. since it is a global
and non-exact interpolator. As the order of the polynomial is increased. the surface
becomes progressively more complex. IIouever, the complexity of a polynonlial has
nothing to do mill the accuracy of the surface generated. The interplation also outputs a
goodness-fit value that helps the user to decide which order creates the best-fit surface.
The most common orders are 1. 2. and 3 as given in Equations 11.2.1.11.3.2. and 11.2.;
respectivelq. l'he coefficients are calculated by the least-square method so that Equation
11.2.3 is a mlnlmum. (Jones. 1'197)

32.
',el ln,lorr = (',,>$ - Zlrc,rli/ 1' . (11.2.4)
\\here Z is the interpolated value and (a,b,c,d,e.f,g,l~,i.j)are coefficients.
Three goodness-fit measurements are evaluated after the interpolation is done.
The first measurement is the sum of squares of the observed data represented by Equation
11.3.5. The second represents the sum of squares contributed by the trend function as
4 v e n by Equation 11.2.6. This value is due to the failure of the surface to coincide with
iz
the observed data. The third calculated using Equation 11.2.7 is the goodness-fit value.
The closer the goodness-fit value is to loo%, the better the surface fits the observed data.
The Trend method is mostly used for demonstrating and modeling broad features
or global generalizations that can be represented as a smooth curve studying local
deviations from this trend (Jones. 1997: Clarke, 1988). However, nhen using this
method and dealing with the edge effects and outliers, caution has to be heeded. It is also
noted that the polynomial coefficients used do not have any meaning.
Thz Fourier method is similar to the Trend method except that it does not
represent a surface by polynomials, but by Fourier series. Fourier series can describe
variations in time or space by n summation of periodic sinusoldal functions. This method
is used for attributes that have a significant periodic element that is represented by peaks
9 -
22
and t.alle\ s in the surface. Yk ith this method. terrain can be modeled. Because of its
stochastic nature, not on14 a goodness-fit L alue is produced. but also a scale of the
accuratacq of the data (Clarke, 1988). H o w e ~er. this method can only be applied to
large-scale data.
The B-spline interpolation method is popular due to the ease of use and the
excellent results it produces. This technique is also referred to as thin plate interpolation
or simply spline interpolation. The main benefit of splines o\?erstochastic interpolators is
that splines do not require estimation of spatial auto-covariance structure. This structure
can be ver? difficult and time consuming to estimate and validate. This method requires
that the surface must pass through the data points and the surface must have a minimum
curlrnture. The result is a continuous and differentiable surface with continuous first-
derit7ativesurfaces. Rapid changes in gradient or slope may occur near data points. This
method is most widely used to produce digital elaration models from sample points.
Hotvever, Hutchinson (1995) accurately nlodeled mean rainfall using a thin plate
interpolation. which is usually modeled tvith an inverse distance weighted interpolator.
An! surface that has a relatively smooth surface wit11 respect to the sampling densit? can
be interpolated this way.
The easiest n a y to think about the Spline interpolator is to consider it to be a thin.
tlchihle plate that is subject to external forces that cause the plate to be distorted. The
plate minimizes its bending energy and mill generallq trace a smooth surfacc. Let a thin
f l e ~ i b l eplate of elastic material be planar to pass through the point supports th'lt represent
34
the data. The ~llinimizationcan be expressed b) the follo~vingequation (hfitas and
blitasok a. 1988).
where S>,,,,is the surface function. x,, xz are data points and 9 1 ' denoted. I-Ioneber. due to
the elasticity of this model large gradients can occur. To account for these variations
stiffness can be applied to the model by using a phi factor.
1= ','
' i , / ~ ~ ~ ' , i i r / 1rr )'
~ /( F, f l y -
( s ~)T~9'~ ii:
~ ~ ~ 5 1 i r /
j i
1
CX::
1'1
~ s 5 1 i r ~
,
d ~ , d=~rninzfizz1177
, (112.9)
"here E,,p(S,,,,f) is the energy of the membrane. $ is a w-eight constant. When $ is near
zero the surface is equal to the thin plate as given in Equation 11.2.8. When $ approaches
the infinity the surface represents a rubber sheet membrane passing through the data
points. This \\eight controls the stiffness of the surface. This is the model for tension
splines (blitas and Mitasova. 1988).
JVhen the model is needed to consider second deri\ ntives a regularized spline is
used. This is just an extension of the tension spline. The resulting equation for the
regularized model is as follo~\s(blitas and hIitaso\ a. 1988).

=I?ZI~~~ZL~IIZ (11.2.10)
\\here t is a \\;eight greater than or equal to zero, t factor controls the second derit ati\ e of
the surface. If the neight is large then the stiffness is controlled 01er a large
nei~hborhood.that large gradients do not occur near data points.
The I n ~ e r s eDistance Weighted (IDW), or moving average. interpolation method
determines cell values using a linearlq txeighted combination of n set of sample points.
The \\eight is a function of interse distance. Best results using this method are obtained
rn hen sampling points are sufficientl) dense with regard to the location of variation
(Burrough, 1998). The general expression that this method uses is giben by the follott ing
equation.
uhere t\, is inversely proportional to the distance of the sample point from the estimation
point, i. and s, is the ~ a l u eat the sample point .i. (Da~ris.1986). The sum of the neights.
i = 1 . . . n ) . for all the included sample points is equal to one. The \\eight can be
i.e. (n,,
raised to potvers so that the user call control the significance of distance on the
interpolation. The higher the power the less the farther data points n i l 1 influence the
estimation and tlie less smooth the surface nil1 becoll~e.This method is used to
interpolate irregularl~distributed sample points resulting in a moderatel: smooth surface.
Honevcr. the results depend on tlie contiguration of the data pc>ints.

36
Kriging is a type of interpolation that mas developed in the geology field atnd is
often used in soil science and by oil drilling companies. Kriging is also called optimal
interpolation or optimal prediction (Journel and Huijbregts. 198 I). This interpolator is
mostly used where detailed estimates and errors are required. This method takes into
consideration the distance between data points, the degree of spatial continuity of
regionalized variables, and the specific error which may affect each data point (Teoh,
1990).
The method of kriging is based on the linear minimum variance unbiased
estimation. Kriging assumes that the ~ a l u e z

s(x) at a position x can be expressed as the
sum of t n o components. the global trend m(x) and the locally spatially variable. e'(u). as
expressed in Equation 11.2.12 (Jones. 1997). The global trend. or drift. of the data
= m ( x )+ ct("T)
,(.L.) (I1 2.12)
is typically modeled by either linear or quadratic equations. In the process of the
interpolation, a semi-variogram, y(h), is produced which plots half the mean squared
differences between samples against the linear distance as expressed by
~vhcrcZ(S) and z(x+h) are estimations. i\ model can then be fitted to the y(h). %.it11the
model weights are calculated and used to estimate values at the ~lnknounlocattons. I'hc
\\eights are calculated so that the lariancc is a minimum b! using Lagrangian optimiration
o r Lagrange multipliers (Hoover. 1097: Jones, 1097). This process can take a long time
anct i\ con~putationallqintense. One of the most valuable aspects of'tllis interpolation is

3 -
the Fact that a I ariance. or a confidence. is measured at e\ erq point. Ho\\e\ er. for
attributes that ha\ e abrupt changes, the assumption of drift ma) not hold.
.r\ Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) is constructed of points mith lines
connecting the points, fom~inga set of contiguous. non-overlapping. triangles. The points
ha\ e an associated value. A talue is recorded for each point or triangle node. Values
between nodes can be interpolated thus allowing for the definition of a continuous surface.
TINS can accommodate irregularly distributed as well as selecti~e data sets. This makes it
possible to represent a complex and irregular surface with a small data set.
TINS are adaptable to the sampling rate. In highlq \ ariable conditions the sampling
density increases. &'ith raster data. the cell size is aluaq s constant. So raster data tend to
o\ er sample flat surfaces and under sample surfaces with high variation. However. nit11 a
TTN. the triangles become smaller with a higher sampling density and become larger \kith a
l o l ~ e sampling
r density. Thus. TINS call represent a surface much better than a grid.
There are many different ways to ~nterpolatea surface. One has to consider the
surface characteristics. the number of sample points. the importance of exact \ d u e . and
allolhance for error versus cost and time. Each ma! has its o t ~ ntheor! and background.
\.Then inrzrpolating characteristics of a feature, the features have to be thought about to
insure a proper surface interpolation.

1.3 Fundamentals of Watershed ;Inalysis
-4 \katershed or drainage basin is a unit of land area in ~ t h i c hsurface Ikater flolks
donnllill to a common outlet (Black. 1991). The outlet. or base level. can be an) cross
section of a stream. Such a cross section is chosen so that the outlet discharges illto a
water body such as another stream. river. netland, lake. or ocean. Watersheds var) in
size and shape. The size depends on the chosen outlet. I f a base level is chosen on a
small stream, the natershed is likelq to be small. However. if the base lecel is chosen on
a large river. the ~vatershedcould be large. The Natural Resource Conservation Sert ice
of the United States Department of Agriculture states that a aatershed is not onl! the land
but an interrelationship betueen the land. nature, and the people that iniluence it
(http:l'lu~~~v.~1ha.nrcs.usda.gov1CCS/LVatrshd.l~tml).
,4 lvatershed can be visualized best if it is delineated. Using a topographic map. a
line can be dramn perpendicular to the contour lines starting at the base le\.el. Keeping in
mind that surface nater flows dounhill based on the theory of open channel flon. the line
mill continue until it reaches the base lexel again. The outer boundarq of the delineated
land enclosed uatershed.
The most fundamental knowledge of \~atershedsexplain \\ 11) natersheds are used
for anal? sis. L17ateris one of the important. if not the most important. natural resources.
Life. in co~nbinationnit11 many other systems. requires water and is affected b> the
quantit?. and clualit>rof it. A ckatershed sjstem is not broken up bq political di~isldns.but
39
based on the theory of open channel flons. Thus obkious ad\ antages can be obtained bq
considering the sq stems approach on the \\atershed analysis (Schwab, 1996).
Zandbergen (1998) de~elopeda conceptual kvatershed model to assess ecological
risks due to urbanization. The model described h o \ ~natural conditions. human acti~ities.
and characteristics of the natershed contributed to public health. Wang and Yin ( 1 997)
anal! zed the relationship between land use and mater quality by a uatershed approach.
The impacts of land use on stream water quality could be analqzed more completely on a
uatershed level than on individual points. Besides ecology and water quality. flood
control can be most effectively managed with a whole ~vatershedapproach. The sq stems
of locks and dams on the Ohio, Mississippi. and Missouri Rivers are managed using a
natershed approach to ensure the waterLvays navigation (Kational Research
Council. 1999). Furthermore, recreational activities watershed management can be better
managed using the watershed approach by pro1 iding adequate uater flow. storage. and
uater clualit)..
11.3.1 The Hydrologic Cycle
The basic concept of uatershed analq sis is the h j drologic c j cle. The hq drologic
c) clc is a continuous s>stem in hicl~ ater is transported b~ Trarious methods as she\\ n
in Figure 11.3.1 (Ponce. 1989). The nater is introduced to the ground surface bq
preci;:itation. From there, the \Later can infiltrate. or percolate. the soil and flo~vas
ground \cater or it can run L)ffto a bod) ofmater. Plants use the ground bkater and giie
40
off the nater to the air by transpiration. In addition. water is evaporated from the run-off
and bodies of liarel-. The e1,aporated and transpired \Later joins in the air to form clouds
and to start the cycle o\.er by precipitating.
Precipitation
f Percolation
Run-otr
v
\ Waterbody
Water Table Ground Water Flow -b
Figure 11.3.1 The local hydrologic cycle.
The h>drologic c) cle is global and the amount of nates a\ ailable is finite (Black.
199 1 ). Thus, this system can be considered closed and an equation can be used to
describe the \Later budget. The Lvater budget equation. shonn in Equation 11.3.1.
considers both surface uater and ground iiater.
AS=P1,-(E1,-T,l+G1l+Q,,). (11.3.1)
\\here 1S is the change in storage in the sqstem, P I , is the amount of precipitation. El, is
the amount of e~raporation.T,, is the amount of transpiration. G,, is the groundnnter flon
out of the system. and Q,, is the surface runoff. Gii en a sufficient time, the change of
31
storage \vithin a \\atershed beconles the difference bet~beenthe precipitation and the sum
of the evaporation. transpiration. groundmater flo~v.and runoff. The change in one of
these variables can influence mother (Dingman. 1994). Based 011 the bvatershed concept
Chang ef N I ( 1997) used the hydrologic budget to estimate the amount of e~aporationand
transpiration during drought periods.
LVitl~ina matershed many streams of varied sizes exist. Small streams collect
nater from springs and runoff. Smaller streams join creating a larger stream. This
continues ultimately building a netkvork of streams. Each stream has its own
cllaracteristics. LIany methods exist that rank streams (Dingman. 1994). U'ith stream
ranking analysis can be done based on a relative index to size (Yational Research
Council. 1999). Within a g i en

~ ~vatershed.the characteristics of the streams with similar
ranking are generall! similar (Dingman. 1994).
Two colnmon methods for ordering streams are the Strahler method and the
Shreve method (Dingman. 1994). Li'ith the Strahler method method. the 1" order stream
starts on a hillslope and ends at the joining of another stream. When t u o 1" order streams
merge, the! create a 2"" order stream. Motkever. if ct 1" order stream meets a 2"" order
stream. the resultant is a 2"" order stream. Therefore. a channel can change 01114 bq
merging streams of equal order. LVith this method. change rarel) occurs once the 6"' or 7"'
order is achiex ed (Dingman. 1994). The Shreve method is similar to the Strahler method
except eterq time t\\o strea~nsjoin, the order of thc stream changes. LJ7hentlso streanls
join the resultant stream has the order of the t u o streams added together. For esample. i f
a -3" 1 order stream and 3"' order stream merge the resultant stream \\auld be a 5"' ordcr
(National Research Council. 1999). The Shreve method is less popular because the larger
streams. such as large rivers. will continuously change order.
Each watershed is unique unto itself Watershed attributes vary from watershed to
Lvatershed and sometimes ~vithinthe \\aterslieds. Attributes in the physical l~ydrology
include:
Precipitation.
EvaporatiomTranspiration,
Groundwater.
Surface water,
Water quality.
Soil moisture.
Larger watersheds h a ~ ae much more complex water budget than smaller \\atersheds and
can have fluctuation of the physical hydrology eben within itself. m'atersheds also
respond differently due to the shape, size. and netkvork of streams nithin it.
Precipitation is the major supply of water to a watershed. Precipitation L aries
greatly in frequent? and magnitude. Precipitation can also \ arq in seasonal distributions.
The east coast r e c e i ~ e smost of its precipitation in the spring and fall \\here the nest coast
receives its bulk of precipitation in the ninter. Thesr: kariatlons can affect soil erosion.
Lkater suppl). and causes droughts and floods.
Each watershed contain^ different ecosystems and demographq. Plants and
animals interact with their environment as hell as people. Honever. people affect the
l'lnci more abusl\eI> than plants and animals. People causc drastic change to ~ a t c r
clualit!. soil crosititit). and matcr runoff b j affecting the land use. Populated areas :iffL'ct
the atmosphere and the earth ,ind overload nature'^ abilit) to clean itself. $,priculture
ma! clestroq canopies. add unusual concentrations of chemicals, and steal the
nourishment from the soil.
The slope and shape of a lkatershed affects how the watershed responds to ra~nf'lll
e\ ents ;I high slope and 11rou~ldshape tend to shorten the response tune, while a
~tatershedwith a mild slope and a narron shape has a lengthened response time. 'I'his is
due to the open channel tlom depending on the gravitational force. Beside the shape,
slopc. size. and network of the watershed. the topography of the watershed also affects its
responsil eness. From the topographj of a nratershcd. the n ~ i n i n ~ uand

~ l imaximum
elet ations can be identified. This may not imp1> much itselt however. the slope or
rrradient of streams as) greatl? depending on the topography of the matershed.

L
Glaciated areas tend to be flat and have a t e r j low slope. On the other I~andunglac~atcd
areas tend to have 3 steep slope. The natershed response to hydrologic etents is a
coniplex plienon~enonon which all mater-related subjects are based. LVith this in mind.
thc lbatershed related a11a14sis and modeling such as \\:ltcr surface prollles. contaminants.
and soil erosion should be done b). a s! s t a n approach.

CHAPTER I11
THEORY & METHODOLOGY
111.1 Lake Sedimentation
During the summer of 1998 sediment samples were taken in Charles hiill Lake
This process took four consecuti\,e days using a gravity corer, GPS. and a previousl~
generated grid of ideal sampling locations, as given in Figure 111.1.1. The gravit4 corer is
designed to let water pass through as it drops and picks up momentum to stick in to the
sediment. Once the corer is positioned in the sediment, a messenger is sent to the corer
d o n n the toe rope that seals the top of the sampling tube. When the corer is retrieved. the
seal makes a vacuum in the sampling tube and holds the sediment in the tube for retrielal.
The sampling tube can be removed to sa17ethe sample.
Since it %as known that the north end had accumulated more sediment than the
southern section of the lake and due to the unusual shape of the lake. the samples were
more heabily concentrated in the north end than the south end of the lake. A grid of ideal
sampling locations was set up so that the sampling \.\;as uniform throughout the \\hole
lake (r\/ludroch and MacIOlight, 1991). Samples were taken in the selected locations in
~khicha Global Positioning System (GPS) \\as incorporated to determine the exact
sampling location. Also more samples were taken at the locations near expected changes
in sediment make-up. For example. the sediment mas most likely to change upstream of
the bridge separating tile north and south portions of the 1aL.e due to the abrupt change in
45
flon. The sanlplc locations and their distribution densitjr in the lake arc shonn in Figure
111.1.2 and Figure 111.1.3 respectibeiq
111.1.1 Physical Analysis
Each core sample taken from the Charles Mills Lake kvas analyzed first by sight
and texture and later more thoroughly in the lab. Figure 111.1.4 is a picture of a sample
being retrie\.ed from the lake. Once a sample was taken. the location was noted as well as
the p11q sical description of the sample. The phj sical description included the color.
texture, and the approximate grain size of the sample. Once the sample was described.
the sample was placed in a sealable plastic bag and marked for transport to be analqzed
later in rhe laboratory. Sediment was dried and the sie\re analysis was run on each
sample. The results from the analysis mere used to produce soil gradation graphs s h o ~ % n
in Appendix \\here a best iit cur1.e mas drawn. From the curve the D , ,. D-,,. D;,7.D,,.
and D,,,
values \\ere obtained. The D,,,
value is the particle diameter corresponding to
1096 finer (Das. 1994). In other mords 10% of the soil particles are smaller. or finer. than
the D , ,value b j height. Also the percent of gra\el. coarse sand. fine sand. and silt claj
\\as determined for each sample from thc sieve analysis curbes. A11 of these ~ a l u e \\ere
s
coded Into a text file along ~ i t the

h corresponding locations (Northing. Easting) and
imported into the GIs.

Figure 111.1.1 Gra~it).corer used to sample sediments.
L;S 30 Bridge
Figure 111.1.2 Sediment sample locations in Charles Mill Lake.

,State Route 430 Bnc
Distance to Xearest
o - I 00 meters
r------
1-- - 500 - 1000 meters
I1000 - 1500 meters
Figure 111.1.3 Sediment sample density in Charles Mill Lake

Figure 111.1.4 Sampling sediment deposits in Charles Mill Lake.
ArcView GIs 3.1 'developed by the Environmental Systems Research Institute.
or ESRI was used. ArcView GIs is a powerful desktop GIs capable of vector and raster
analysis with the Spatial Analyst and 3D Analyst Extensions. It also has a lallguage
compiler built into the software so that the user can devclop programs that interact cvith
ArcView as well as other files and programs outside of the software environment. This
software was benef-icial because it could help process data in an orderly and effectively in
terms of time and data management.

50
Many GIS programs use raster algebra. Raster algebra is a way in which multiple
raster illlages or grid themes can be manipulated by mathematical equations. 'This is
possible because of the format of raster data. The raster images are made of'a grid of
cells similar to a matrix (Jones. 1997). In addition to mathematical manipulation. the grid
themes can be correlated as me11 as analyzed using Boolean logic.
Before any analysis of the data could be done the boundaries of the watershed
containing the lake and streams needed to be identified. The IJSGS 1:24,000 digital
quadrangle maps were downloaded from the Ohio Department of Administrative System
(ODAS). Once downIoaded the Digital Line Graphs (DLG) had to be converted to a
format that could be read by the GIs software. A program was written to convert and
project the DLGs into georeferenced layers witllill the GIs. This program was written so
that two different map scales, 1 : 100.000 and 1:24,000, and two different formats.
standard and optional, could be supported. This program also allocated the attributes of
each feature in the layer.
111.1.2 Computational Analysis
Once the CIS recognized the USGS Quadrangles. the boundarq lines of the lake
were conLerted to a polygon. The data was saved in both vector and raster format so that
it coulcl be used later in different applications.
The computational analysis started w ~ t hthe interpolation of the analyzed results
of thc sampled sedimentation data. Each variable of the grain size distribution and
51
classification percentages were interpolated so that a complete surface could be viewed
for the \\hole lake. Since sedimentation has a minimum variance over distances the
sample point mas considered to represent at least 10 square meters (Selley, 1988: Allen.
1985). A spline interpolator was chosen for the interpolation because of its ability to
model gently varying surfaces. The tension model of the spline interpolator was used so
that the stiffness could be adjusted to the characteristics of variables. The tension model
of the spline interpolator uses the Equation 11.2.10 to develop a surface. This
methodology within a GIs can be viewed by a schematic diagram shown in Figure 111.13.
Sediment
Anal> sis
Data
Data Format
V Conversion
y~
7
Interpolation
Flle Import
i Sediment
Classification
Shape (Vector)
0 Features
0 Grids (Raster) Sediment Grain

Size Distribution
Figure 111.1.5 Schematic diagram of sediment analysis in GIs.
111.2 GIS Watershed Data Acquisition / Analysis
To be able to analyze the erosion nlodel for analyzing sediment. data first has to
be con~ertedand formatted. The data acquisition and analysis will prepare for the GIS
nlodeling using the erosion model. Data were initial11 in many digital forms, from
53
norn~alASCII text to a complex GIS transfer format. For a better managenlent and
analysis. all the data were converted into the same format.
111.2.1 DEM Interpolation
The boundary of the Charles ,Mill Lake watershed was digitized using the
hydrography and hypsography DLGs that contain stream and contour data. The USGS
has 1 :250.000-watershed digital elevation model (DEM) prepared for use. However, this
scale was not appropriate for the analysis in this study. Instead the USGS 1 :24,000
hypsography DLGs were dounloaded and converted for the study. The hypsography
files. \\hicl~contained 3.048-meter contour intervals. was adequate for the analysis since
it was at a small enough scale to model soil erosion for the whole watershed accurately.
The hypsography data was in vector format. To use this data it had to be
converted into raster format. The line vertices were converted into points using the
program that was developed within the GIs software. A grid theme was produced using
the tension model of the spline interpolator on the point elevations. Elevation models are
a perfect application of the spline interpolation.
Smaller cell sizes produce better images and reduce error. Molnar and Julien
( 1997) and Mitra et a1 (1998) found that large cell sizes, such as 6 km', underestimate soil
loss and that the smaller cell sizes produce a more accurate estimation of soil loss.
Howe\,er. grid theme memory needs to increase four-fold compared to a decrease of cell
size by one half (Hoover, 1997). A cell size of 635 square meters \vas used so thai the
54
memory size would not be too great accomplishing the goal of modeling the n,atershed
elevation Lvith acceptable error. Once the DEM existed for the watershed. the slope for
each cell was calculated using the adjacent cells as given in Figure 111.2.1 and Equations
Figure 111.2.1 Cells within a DEM for calculating slope
and Y,,,,are
kvhere the Lrariables X,,,,,, , the cell size parameters and the values for a
through i are the elevations for the respective cell.
--
-7 -7
~vhereRiselRun is the slope ratio of the particular cell. This ratio is given in units of
meterslmeter or expressed as a percentage.
A slope steepness factor, S. was computed for all cells in the ~vatershed.
However. for the areas whose slope was greater than or equal to nine percent, the slope
steepness factor computation differed from the areas whose slope was less than nine
percent in the USLE. So the areas whose slope was greater than or equal to nine percent
were queried as well as the areas where the slope was less than nine percent. Examples
of these two images can be seen in Figure 111.2.2and Figure 111.2.3 respectively.
Using cartographic modeling. the following expression describes the slope
steepness factor. The variables in the brackets are the grid themes that \\;ere generated
earlier. Therefore, in the areas where the slope was greater than or equal to nine percent
the latter part of the equation kvas equal to a value and the foremost was equal to zero.
The effect is opposite when the area has a slope less than nine percent.
-
5 :
-
l ?, - -
a
C " 5 g u l -
I
,
L 1
I
a
I v
i
I
58
The slope length factor as defined in the USLE is a complicated matter n.it11out a
clear-cut estimation (Wischmeier, 1959; LVischmeier and Smith. 1978). In previous
applications of using the USLE in GIs. researchers often assumed an average \ d u e for
the slope length factor. Molnar and Julien (1 997) determined a slope length for the lvhole
watershed by using the drainage density of the watershed. The drainage density is the
length of the streams within the watershed divided by the area of the watershed
(Dingman. 1994). The length factor is more than just the slope distance of a particular
hill. It incorporates rill and interrill erosional parameters derived from the steepness of
the slope. For this analysis. the h value in Equation 11.1.10 used to estimate the length
factor. L. was set to 22.13 meters, since this is the standard length for testing erosion
parameters (Renard et al.. 1997). Furthermore. to compute the length factor for all cells.
the m and values were computed from the slope using Equations 11.1.11 and 11.1.12.
respectively.
111.2.2 Bathymetric Analysis / Interpolation
The original contour map of the Charles hlill Lake in 1934 Lvas digitized into
1,ector format. Several methods were used to develop a bathymetric image of the lake.
nhich include:
Spline - Tension
Spiine - Regularized
Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW)
These nere all used because of the irregularity of the data distribution. The flon chart in
Figure 111.2.4 probides further description for the execution. The IDW interpolation mas
chosen to best interpolate the original contour lines because the data points near the shore
mere \. ery dense compared to the data points within the lake. The IDW interpolation can
best model the surface with this data positioning. The 1998 bathymetric raster surface
was interpolated using the Tension method of the Spline interpolator. It was chosen
because the data points \\ere uniformly distributed. The data points were very dense. so
any of the interpolators ~vouldhave developed the same surhce because there was not
much to interpolate between points. With these two bathymetric raster surfaces. both in
ele.yation above the same datum. sedimentation depth. volume. and rate mere easilj
analyzed using raster algebra.
The cell size of the raster images is directljr determined by the topography as ~vell
as memory space. Therefore. a cell size was chosen to represent the data without
o~erextendingthe memory budget. A ten-meter cell size Lvas chosen because it produced
grid themes that required an affordable amount of memorj. The original topographq u a s
the controlling factor because of the topography of the lake in 1934.

Physical Digitized
Contour Map Contour Map
f Does the Grid

Represent the Original v
I
Raster
Bathymetric
Surface
Yes L
Figure 111.2.4 Flow chart for original bathymetric surface.
111.2.3 Soil Erosion Pre-Processing
The soil data was a fantastic data set. It was a set of polygons with the CSDA soil
type as the attribute. However, this was unacceptable for use in the erosion model. i.e.
CTSLE. The soil erodibility factors as well as sieve analysis. permeability. moisture
content. and organic matter content among other data for the erosion analysis mere
needed. The USDA made these digital data available for each of the soil types. After
cleaning and formatting the soil, the soil polygon table joined attribute table. The joining
of these tables produced a spatially based polygon theme of various soils alon, (7 \\ it11 the
associated attributes of each soil including the soil erodibility factor used in the USLE.
61
The soil erodibilitt factor was conberted from the \ ector polygon for111 to raster format
using the same cell size and extents of the grid the~ilesconstructed in the sanle I\ aterslied.
The c o ~ ~management
er factor was gleaned fro111the land use ' land caber theme.
Within the ~katershed.different areas are used for aried purposes. Each land use land
co\ er mas found in the tables developed by Wischmeier and Smith ( 1978) and Rznard et
LII (1997). This information h a s added to the land use I land cover theme and conr erted
to raster format.
In calculating the soil loss for the n-atershed, the balues for the rainfall-runoff
erosix it> factor and the support practice factor needed to be set. Since no erosion control
practices %ere available in the area, the support practice factor u a s assumed to be one.
The watershed is somewhat small compared to the variation of the rainfall-runoff
erosivitt value. Hence, a single value was used for the mhole watershed. The rainfall-
runoff erosivity factor Lvas found to be 1889.22 hlJ*mm/ha*h*y from the isoerodescent
maps (Renard et 01. 1997).
111.3 GIS Watershed Modeling
hlultiplying the raster images of the four factors as well as the rainfall-runoff
e r o s i ~it> factor and the support practice. using raster algebra. produced the soil loss
image expressed as follows:

wl~ere/I is the a1 eragt. annual soil loss potential grid theme, R is the rainfall-runoff
crosivit? factor. P is the support practice, I, is the slope length factor grid theme. S is the
slope steepness factor grid theme. K is the soil erosivity Factor grid theme. and C is the
crop management factor grid theme. In doing so, the average soil loss potential. .4, was
calculated for every 625 square meter cell. A fox\ chart illustrates the whole process in
modeling erosion for a watershed is given in Figure 111.3.1.
Within the watershed, there are many different types and sizes of streams. To
further analyze erosion within the watershed and to characterize the diff'erent locations of
high erosion potentials (*'erosion hot spots"), the streams were ordered using the Strahler
method (Dingman, 1994). Once a stream was assigned with an order number. its location
was allocated a stream order number with nhich the water at the location direct15 flowed.
The slope of a stream can become important in soil erosion. Steep streams will
carry more sediment domnstream than their counterparts with mild slopes. A program
was written to evaluate the elevations of x.ertices for the different streams included in
Appendix B. Using the stream theme as well as the DEM developed for the watershed,
the length of each stream segment as well as the elevation difference was conlputed bq
the program. Then the gradient of each stream scgment was calculated.
11 cumulati\e histogram producecl ti-om the erosion rnodel is shown as Figure
111.3.2. From the histogram, the 50'". 75'", 90'", 95"'. and 99'" percentile soil loss mas
t'ound. With this information, raster images were produced to shobb the locations that
have the soil loss of greater than the associated percentile. These images gixc the
I v
Land use Land cover Data S o ~ l sData / L factor

'/
7 'TI I
0 2-D Interpolation
Map Calculatioi~
or Deri~ration
Figlire 111.3.1 !?rosion m d e l i n g tlon chart.

65
approxin~atelocations of the erosion hot spots. These images n e r e also used to further
anal? ze the erosion model.
Once the erosion model identified the erosion hot spots. the nest step is to analyze
the soil and other physical characteristics of the erosion hot spots. There are several ways
to analyze and to compare the common attributes of a hot spot b> GIs methods. '4
summary table can work to cornpare a classif-ication theme tvith to a value theme. ,4 table
that relates the mean, maximum. minimum. standard deliation. and other statistics of the
value theme to each classification of the other theme was prepared as given in Table
111.3.1. Furthermore. another way to compare t u o themes is the cross tabulation function.
The cross tabulation function compares one Boolean theme to a classification theme. The
resulting table is a count of the number of cells for each classification that is either true or
false. The Value-0 and Value-1 correspond to false and true respectivelq. An example is
given in Table 111.3.2.
The most common engineering e\-aluation is to compare tm-o value themes. Since
there ikas no a\.ailable function in the GIs softnare, a program lvas developed for use in
the G I s . A sa111ple Lvas taken of each theme using identical cells. This sampling
approach \\.-asused because of the large number of cells in sach grid theme. The program
could take a sa~npleas many times as \\as needed b) the user and e\ e n l ~distributed the
salnples o\ er the surface of the natershed. The output Mas a table of t u o colun~ns.each
representing a theme. From this. a mathematical relationship could be found.
LVith the 60 samples taken from Charles Mill Lake and en\ironmental data Sor the
matersl~ed.::,?c s=:liment \+as anal) zed 11.ith col~junctionto the modeled erosion. The
66
sedi~nentsamples nere anall zed in the lab and were further analyzed b j G I s methods.
.As ~ic.11as the sediment data. the matershed data mas also analyzed in GIS. M7iththe
capabilities of GIS. data points \\;ere interpolated into surfaces, erosion was modeled. and
the ~iatersheddata n a s compared to the sedimentation data. The erosion modeling and
the comparison analysis was successf~il.
Table 111.3.1 A summary table of erosion potential according to the land use.
Value Label Count Area Min Max Range Mean Std Sum
Deciduous
I 65401 40875674 0 0.309 0.309 0.0266 0.024 1735.8
forest
7 Residential 41 534 25958750 0 2.0484 2.0484 0.2104 0.1838 8736.8
.
J
I Comlnercial
and Services
3894 1 2433750 0 1
I
0.3102 0.3102 0 . 0 2 9 9 0.0405 116.5 1
I
Ever,nreen
4 4749 2968125 0 0.8248 0.8348 0.1423 0.1171 675.9
forest
5 Orchards 227 141875 0.0576 5.169 5.1 114 0.5409 0.6039 122.7
7 Industrial 23 13 1445625 0 0.3 1 1 1 0.31 11 0.0313 0.0279 74.5

I I
Confined
8 feeding 28 17500 0.1247 0.3015 0.1768 0.1835 0.0421 5.1
operations
9 Strip mines 1027 641 875 1 0 7.9955 7.9955 1.6438 1,6363 3-14.1
Other Urbnn or
lo 1491 931875 0 0.7154 0.7154 0.1S06 0.1378 269.3
built up
11 Transportation 13367 7729375 0 2.7627 1.7627 0.291 1 0.142 1 3599.7
I
Nonforested
I1 , 3861 2413125 0 0.4644 0.4644 0.0537 0.0488 107.1
Wetland
Cropland and
1- 74870 1 367938 1 12 0 25.8963 25.8963 0.7909 0.79 l 592 18 1.5
Past~~re
Table 111.3.2 A cross tabulation of the 50"' percentile according to the percent
passing of sieve # l o .
50"' Percentile
Percent Passing G I0 Value-0 Value- l
45 98 125 58135
CHAPTER IV
iiPPLICATION AND RESULTS
IV.l Lake Bathymetric Analysis
The C.S. Army Corps of Engineers surveyed Charles Mill Lake in the summer of
1998. Using two real-time kinematic Global Positioning System. or RTK GPS, recei~~ers
and a sonar based depth gauge. point data were recorded for the lake. The real-time
kinenlatic survey requires that two or more receivers be used in conjunction uith a
computer that processes data in real-time (LVolf and Brinker, 1994). One GPS r e c e i ~er
mas mounted on the knohn benchmark near the lake ~vhilethe other receiver \+as
mounted on a boat along with a sonar system. Three times a second the on-board
computer took measurements from both receivers to establish precise coordinates as well
as from the sonar to record a depth for every point. The survey was conducted so that
135 cross sections were taken across the lake in different directions. The distance
between parallel cross sections was within 30 feet. These points were cleaned up
disregarding an>-outliers using a soft~varepackage named HYPAKr. The resL1ltwas a
data file consisting of 250.000 three-dimensional points.
In order to be manageable, these points mere converted into a digital terrain model
(DThI) that could be managed accurately for the bathymetric surface. 4 s described
edrlier. a raster surface nith a cell size ot'ten meters was used for the I?FM for further
analysis. Because p o d s mere extrernelq dense. ~bithinan-; siben ten-meter cell many
69
points exist. To interpolate this surface. the tension method of the spline model was used.
Because of the e w e m e densit? of points. a low ~ a l u was

e used for tile 4 factor. i.e. 1 .
This caused the model to be somewhat stiff so the surface nould not try to model t . erq
~
point in the cell location. Also, a large number of sample points mas used. i.e. 25 points
per region. for local approximation. so that the model could approvinlate the cur\ ature of
the surface farther awaq. The result was a bathymetric surface of the lake in 1998 as
shon n in Figure IV. 1.1. From this the volume of sediment was estimated to be 1.56 x
10%;. The acerage volume of deposited sediment over 64 years is 3.44 x 104 m h r .
This is a long term a\ erage and should not be treated as a predicted kalue.
With the bathqmetric surfaces of the lake in 1998 and 1934. the lake at tlie
different time periods mere compared and analyzed. ,4s mentioned in Chapter 111. the
bathymetric surface of the lake in 1934 was interpolated as shown in Figure IV. 1.3. The
1934 surface was subtracted from the 1998 surface. This produced a surface. gi\en in
Figure IV. 1.3, \\hich represented the depth of sedinlent deposited oher 64 years.
The sediment was largely deposited in a nou-uniform pattern. The largest
sediment deposits are in and around the original channel as can be seen in Figure IT. 1.3.
It is not unreasonable to assume the sharp changes in elekation of the origina! topograph~
near the original channel resulted in the largest deposits. Based on the bathqmetric
image. the sediment deposits filled those depressed sections resulting in a smooth surface.
Geographically the sediment took up the most I oiu~nein the north\\est and north sections
of' tile lake. The north section had the largest area \\it11 an average of greater than 1 ft o S
sedimc :: \\ 5,:~the south section is less than 1 ft of sediment. The north section is much
70
snlaller in area than the south section. so the total volume of sediment in the south section
is greater than that of the north section.
To produce a hypsometric curLre. the lake bathymetric grid themes \\ere used to
histograms. Figure IV. 1.4 sho\\s the total area of the lake that has a
d e ~ ~ e l ocun~ulati\~e
p
higher ele~rationin square meters at any given elevation. I11 other nords it shows the area
of the lake that is shallower than any given elevation. Figure IV. 1.5 shows the area in a
percentage of the total lake area. This histogram is similar to the previous histogram. but
can show a different perspective because of the base area is displayed as a percentage
rather than area. Both figures show the hypsometric curves for the lake in 1934 and
1998.
Most of the sedimentation takes place bet~veenthe e1e.i ations 985 ft to 991 fi. or
at normal depths of 5 - 12 ft. For instance. the accumulative area above 990 ft. or normal
depth of 7 ft. has increased 50.000 rn? from 1933 to 1998. This is an increase from 11hat
n a s originall? 6q0/0 of the lake being at an elebation higher than 990 ft to 52% of the lake
being higher than 990 ft. Not onl? has the lake decreased its depth in general. but also a
crucial portion of the lake has lost a considerable amount of depth.

US 30 Bridge ,
~\
\\
Figure IV.1 .I Bath5 metric map oi' Charles Mill Lake in 1098
State Route 430 BIidge
Bathyrn etric h'I ap

3 6 - 197 m
301 - 302 m
Figure IV.1.2 Bathymetric niap of Charles Llill Lake in 1934.

US 30 Bridge \
.'
0.5 0 0.5 1 Kilometers
Figure IV.2.3 Sediment depth in Charles Mill Lake in 1998.

IV.2 Lake Sediment Analysis
Samples of sediment deposits \$ere taken at sixty locations geographicallq
representing the lake. Mechanical s i e e~ analqsis and ~noisturecontent anal) sis mere
conducted on all the samples. From the mechanical sieve analysis. the Dlo.D;". Dqo.Di,,,,
and Dso values were determined. The percentages of gravel, coarse sand. fine sand. and
silt,clay were obtained from the grain size distribution curves. The grain size distribution
curl es used can be found in Appendix A. The moisture content anal) sis mas used later to
quantify the sediment volumes. The results from the mechanical sieve anal) sis v,ere used
later to identify eroded soils.
Based on the analyzed results of grain size information, they can be expressed bq
raster surfaces to geographicallq describe the sediment characteristics (Chang et al..
1998). The tension method of the spline model was used for the spatial interpolation. .I
lorn $ value. i.e.. 1 was used in the spline anal! sis. Since the data points mere distributed
evenl). except for the areas that had high sediment volumes, the surface of the s e d i m e ~ t
deposits u a s assunled to be smooth. A low value of $ factor creates a smooth surface
(hlitas and Mitasota, 1958). The surfaces for the percentages of a11 the clasFfied
sediments nere added together for a check in the interpolation. It shows that the
analqzed results are mithin 5'41 limits of error.
The raster images of the sediment grain sizes sllon the \ ariation throughout the
lakL. The percentage of g r a ~ e at

l each location can be seen in r'igure IV.2.1. '1
l located just south of the Route 430 Bridge. I t

s~gnificantlqgreat percentage o f g r a ~ e is
alsu appears to h a ~ ae large percentage of gravel on the southa~estsection of the lake.
Further anal! sis is needed to determine the reason for this unusual distributlo~~.
The percentage of siltlclay is slioabn in Figure IV.2.2. The sedinlent deposits in
the northeast section of the lake consist of up to 30°/6 of silt and claq. The islands
separating the consistencq of the sediment from the original channel may cause this.
Furthermore. the original depth in this area \vas relatively shallow. This could ha\ e
caused the finer sediment to be deposited before being carried any farther due to shear
resistance.
During a flood event. when nater has the greatest transportatloll potential. slnaller
sediment particles flows with nater through the reseraoir. However. because Charles
hlill Lake has a narroav bridge separating the north section from the south section. as
noted bq Figure 111.1.2. the \ elocitj nould become greater in the channel. Thus the t\ater
as it initiallq enters the reservoir axould slom do\\n and deposits most of suspended
sediments in the north section of the lake. The kelocity nould increase as it enters into
the narrom channel and erode the finer particles nithin this channel. Once the mates
enters the south section of the lake. the u ater slous don n and deposits most of suspended
sediments before it exits the reserloir o\ er the spill\vajr.

IV.3 Erosion Modeling
As discussed in Chapter 111, the erosion modeling using the Revised USLE
includes a number of factors. These factors consist of the amount of rainfall. the amount
of runoff. the soil erodibility. the length and steepness of the slope, the land use. and the
erosion prevention practices. All of these ha\ e been considered during the modeling of
the Charles h4ill Lake watershed.
The amount of rainfall and runoff varies over the years since the completion of
the dam in 1934. The rainfall and runoff erosivity factor for the RUSLE can be
determined for by using rainfall intensity duration frequencj (IDF) data from the LTS
Liieather Bureau. The rainfall -runoff erosivity. R, factor can gradually change o\.er a
!arge area. The Charles Mill Lake watershed is about 562 km2, which is relativel~small
compared to the variation of the rainfall - runoff erosivity factor. The ariation over the
matershed was less than 3%. Considering the lack of accuracq of the isoerodent maps. a
~ a l u eof erosivity estimated using the IDF maps b a s used as an average for the \\hole
cvatershed. The average value used for the rainfall and runoff erosivitq factor was
1889.22 MJ*mm/ha/ldy (inegajoule * millimeter 1 hectare : hour / year). If the \\ atershed
\\as signiiycantly large, a surface of the rainfall and runoff erosi~ityfactor can be
interpolated for the \vatershed.
The soil erosivity ~ a l u edepends on soil characteristics. A digitized soil map used
in this project contained about 125 different soil types. Soil data retrie~ed included
cliffxent soil par,.imeters. including grain size distributions. soil moisture. c ~ g n i ~ i c

content. pcrmeabilitc. etc. Using these parameters the soil erosik itq t alue can be
calculated bq Equations 11.1.8 and 11.1.9. Hockever the soil erosivit) for each soil tqpe in
this stud) ~ v a spredetermined b) the experimental analysis. The data for soil parameters
Mere 0111~in a database format and not in a geographically represented format. This
database of soil parameters based on soil t4pe was imported into the project and mas
joined uith the spatial database that was pre\riously established. Once joined the c ector
soil parameters, such as grain size distributions and soil erosivity, were concerted into
raster format with the same cell size as the rest of the modeling parameters. This enables
the anal? sis using the erosion model.
A nlap was generated to shou the soil erosi\rity. K, in Figure IV.3.1. The soil
erosi~itt.varies from near 0.0 to 0.43 throughout the watershed. The ~ariationis the
greatest in the northwest section of the watershed. Near the lake there is more of a
concentration of the same erosikit) values in large areas. Eken though the topographq of
the southeast section of the watershed tends to be more mountainous. the soil erosi\,itq is
generallq locker than that of the flatter areas. T h ~ could

s be due to the glacial till
conlmonly found in this area and less erosive than most soils.
The generation of the slope and slope length was more mathematicall> intense
than that of the previous erosion model parameters. After the creation of the DEb1 for
the \\atershed. the slope \\as computed bq the function using the GIs soft\vare based un
Equat~ons111.3 1 through 111 2.4. This produced the slope for ecerq 25 nl cell I\ ithin the
nat~'rshed.The data set \\as used to find the locations that had a slope greater than or
a lgc and those less t11,tn 9". U'ith this, the slope factor. S. \\as determilled for each
e q ~ ~to
81
cell using Equation 11.1.13 and Equation 111.2.5. As for the slope length factor. Ecluations
11.1.10 through 11.1.13 nere used. In this studj a11 parameters determined folloning
above procedures except h. The horizontal slope distance was not knomn and mas
difficult to generate for all locations using GIs analysis. Since the normal esperimental
value for >.is 32.13 meters that is close to the cell size used in this study. it mas assumed
that the average value for the horizontal slope distance is 25m. Using this value the slope
length factor, L, was generated for each cell.
The slope factor image is s h m n in Figure IV.3.2. The slope factor tends to be
\.er> lo\\. ranging from 0.03 to 1.5 in the northwest section of the watershed. due to the
tlat area. The slope factor tends to be much higher. ranging from 0.03 to 10.5 in the
southeast section. near the lake. It is also notekvorthq- to mention the significant
\ ariations near the streams throughout the ~ c h o l ewatershed.
Figure IV.3.3 shows the slope length factor for the watershed. This factor varies
slightl) tl~roughoutthe whole \\atershed. ranging from 1.0 to 1.38 though the average
horizontal slope distance, used in this study may affect the slope length factor. the rill and
interrill erosion plays an important role in determining the value. This results in the
northeast section. in general, having a loner slope length factor than the soutlmest
section of the \catershed.
The crop management factor. C. and the support practice factor. P. were m a i n l ~
de\ eloped bq axrailable tables from the EPX for the modeling process. The digital
spatially retirenced land use and land co\ er data set retrie~edfrom the EPA. The data
\\as originally stored geographicall> in Ohio South State Plane uith the datum as N.4;)
87
1927 in feet. This then had to be converted to CThI Zone 17 nit11 the sanle datum. N,AD
1927 but in nleters \\hich is the same geographicailj referenced mapping system used
\\it11 the rest of the data in this stud),. The crop management factor \\as established for
each t> pe of land use and attributed to the \ ector data set. This data set mas then
~ o n l e r t e dinto a raster format in a similar fashion in nhich the soil erodibilitl factor \\.as
con\.erted. The support practice factor was assumed to be equal to one since no methods
have been adopted to protect against soil erosion.
The land uses and the crop management factor. C. is shobvn in Figure IV.3.4. The
factor does not vary as much as other factors. Values for this factor range from 0.00 1 to
0.1. It reflects that the northnest section has some industrial and residential areas near
the tomn of Shelby. The land uses vary the crop management. C. factor according to
Table IL7.3.l.
Based on the erosion model, Figure IV.3.5 mas developed to show the a\ erage
s the uhole watershed \\as about 0.154 kglm' per year. This value is slightly
soil I ~ s for
higher than the estimate g i w by the IJSDA of . O l i S k g h ' (S?kes. 1992). It sho~xs that
there are areas having soil loss up to 5.8 kg/m2 per )ear. The erosion potential is much
higher in the east of the %atershed conlpared to the nest. especiallj the areas of great
erosion potential in the southeast pocket of the ~katershed.The erosion potential is
somen hat low near the lake. Not on14 \\as an a\ erage soil loss gained. but also a
complete soil loss grid theme was d e eloped

~ that mapped soil loss for eLrery25 m cell
Table IV.3.1 Land uses and the associated crop management "C" values.
I
I
Land use
1
C Value 1
I
Residential
Commercial and Services

!
1
1
1 Deciduous forest I
0.001 i
I
I I
Evergreen forest i 0.005
i
Orchards. groves, vineyards 0.042
Reservoir I 0.000 I
I
I
I Industrial 0.003
1 1
I
Confined feeding operations 0.100 I
I
I
7--
~
I
Strip mines, quarries, pits I
1
I
1
Other Urban or built up 0.013 I
r
k
I
Transportation. Corn. Utilities
Nonforested Wetland 0.003 1

I
Cropland and Pasture 1 0.050 I
This grid theme is not an exhaustive approach to modeling the erosion for
management purposes. For the verification purpose. a section of the watershed can be
f ~ ~ r t hanaiyzed
er using a smaller scale and more detailed data. cvhich can be gathered
directly. and are more accurate.
The soil loss grid theme was broken d o n n for a more manageable approach. '4s
discussed in Chapter 111. 50th. 75th, 90th. 95th, and 99th percentiles classified the areas.
The results shon the areas and values associated with the various percentiles as gi\ en i11
Table IV.3.2.
Table IV.3.2 Areas and \ d u e s associated ~vithdifferent erosion potential percentiles.
I
1 Percentile
II Area
I
,Area Values I
!
(km') I (96of Total) (kg n12 ~ r ) II
I \ - . l ErosionISediment Linking
It is of interest to investigate possible links betmeen the tvatershed erosion and the
lake sediment. The erosion model discussed in section IV.3 has provided the estimated
amount of soil eroded and possible areas of great potential for erosion. This section \\ill
use the capabilities of GIs to attempt to compare. the characteristics of the soil in the
~~.atershed
nith those of the lake sediment.
Given existing conditions, one type of soil may erode more readily than another.
The break down of the soil loss grid theme into a percentile as done in this study helps to
identifq the "hot spots" \\hose regions ha\ e a great potential for erosion. It is belie\ ed
that these regions have contributed the greatest percentage of lake sediment d o n n stream.
The characteristics of the soil in the 99"' percentile llot spots mere a n a l ~ r e dand compared
to those of the lake sediment.
Figure IV.4.1 shou-s the comparison of the grain size distribution for the soil in
the 99"' percentile hot spot, the soil not in the hot spot. and the lake sediment. The grain
size distribution for the lake sediment as an average was derived indirectly from the
mechanical sieve analq~sisin the laborator?. The matershed soil grain size distributions
\I ere developed from the NRCS data and were also averaged from the areas that
contained different soil types.
7he soil from the hot spot and the soil not from the hot spot are \ erq similar. This
suggests that the soil for thc watershed is near homogeneous. The coarse material
makeup of both soils is about the same. The soil fro111the hot spots consists of 5llg11tlq
91
less fine grain material than the other \\atershed soils. This trend leans touard the
makeup of the lake sediment. The soil. nhich eroded at a greater rate. has a smaller
percentage of finer materials than the average soil of the watershed. In general. the lake
sediment is poorly graded compared to the ~vatershedsoils (Das. 1994). The sediment
coarse material is about the same as the ~vatershedsoils. As the sediment material
becomes finer. it becomes less similar to the soil from the watershed. The sediment has
much less silty and clay material than the watershed soils. This is likely due to the fact
that clay material tends not to erode as easily. Further. the clay material eroded stays
suspended in the lvater longer than other materials. The coarse material is more likely to
be deposited in the reser\.oir than the finer material. This process may also cause the lake
sediment to be poorly graded.
The "hot spot" anaiysis provides a link. though weak. between the characteristics
of the sediment and those of the eroded soil from the watershed. The amount of the
eroded soil estimated from the watershed maj- have a better link to that of the lake
sediment. The estimation using the erosion model resulted in an average of 0.1 54 kg m2
per )-ear or 4.22 s 10"g per year. Over the 64 years this mould add up to be 2.70 x 10"
kg for the whole watershed.
The total volume of sediment \vithin the lake estimated based on the 1998 s u n ej
is 1.56 x 10" 1n'. The estimated value given by the USDA SCS (Soil Conservation
S e n ice of the US Department of Agriculture) in 1092 was 4.00 x 10" m' (Sq hcs. 1902).
Thz SCS estlmatlon \\as based on the samples using a marked probe to determine the top
of sedinle~itand bottom of sediment (Sq Les, 1993). The bottom of the sediment was
92
found by applying force to the probe until the probe stopped penetrating the sediment.
The SCS method is relatively crude and non-scientific to determine the current lake depth
and the original bottom of the lake.
The ayerage sediment over the 64 years based on the 1998 survey conducted by
the US Army C o p s of Engineers is estimated to be 7.55 x 10' 1;gIyear by using the
following.
where V is the volume of the soil, W, is the weight of the soil. yd is the dry specific
weight of the soil, w is the moisture content of the soil. Gs is the specific gravity of the
soil, and y, is the specific weight of water (Das. 1994). When the sediment was sampled
the moisture content of each sample was recorded. The specific gravity of soils range
kvithin 2.6 to 2.8. For instance, silty clays usually have a specific gravity of 2.8 (Das,
1994).
The total solids were analyzed upstream and downstream of the lake. The total
solids were recorded daily for one year (1 976). Since Charles Pvlill Lake receives the
bulk of its water from the main channel, a mass balance analysis was conducted assuming
the lake received no other waters. Using the flow data for the stream for that particular
year the mass of sediment was estimated just upstream and just downstrean1 of the lake.
The difference between the two is assumed to be the mass of solids deposited into the
lake. i.e.:
93
\\here b1 is the total nlass of the sedinlent deposited. Q I is the upstream dischar~e.Q2 is
the do~xnstreanldischarge. hli is the ~lpstreanlconcentration of the total solids. and M2 is
the do\%nstrean~
concentration of the total solids. Based on the given data and Equation
IV.4.3 the mass of sediment deposited is 1.12 x 10%g/~ear. It is noted that the data used
Lx;ere collected for the one particular year. In addition. the eroded materials from the
shoreline and other small streams directly draini~lgto the lake are taken into account.
Further data mere needed to 1-alidatethe erosion model using the mass balance analysis.
Table IV.4.1 provides the results of estimated eroded soil mass using various
methods. The first two results are based on erosion models. The erosion model using
GIS estimated about 15O6 more than that done bq the SCS. The other three results are
based on the analysis conducted using the sediment in Charles hlill Lake. The sedilnent
analysis done using GIs produced a lower \value than those of other methods though this
method is the most accurate in terms of the data used. The sediment probing method \\-as
relativelq inaccurate while the mass balance method used only the data of a particular
>.ear. Hence. the variations among the results are understandable. Gi\.en the fact that not
all the eroded rnaterial is transported all the way to a receiving stream. the coinparison is
plausible. Some of this soil is deposited in lo\\; laq ing areas. ditches. and chanilels
(LVischn~eier.1978 ).
Table IV.4.1 Various estimations of eroded soil mass in Charles Mill Lake and its
L\ atershed.
hletl~od Result (kg/>ear) I

Erosion Modeling using GIs 4.22 x 10"
i
I
SCS USLE
I I
I SCS Sediment Probing i

I 1.94 x 10"
I I
I
I
Sediment Analysis using GIs 7.55 x 10- i
I I
&lass Balance Analysis
The difference between the eroded material and the material that actually is
transported to a lake is called the sediment delivery ratio of the ~vatershed(Wiscllmeier.
1978). This term is some~vhatconfusing. The sediment delivery ratio is not a hnction of
h o ~ vwell the lake cleans the stream but how much of the eroded material from upstream
actually is transported to the lake as seen in the following expression (Wischmeier.
1978).
E r o ion
~
Sediment Delivery Ratio (%) = * 100% (117.4.3)
Sedimentutio~
The sediment delivery ratio usually is in~erselyproportionate to the size of thc natershed
that d e l i ~ e r seroded material to the lake. For the size of the watershed drainage to
Charles Mill Lake, the ~ a t e r s h e dsediment delivery ratio is rough11 10 - 15 '41
(% ischmeier. 1978). Based on the erosion model and the lake sediment anal) sis the
sediment deli\ ery ratio was estimated at 17.9%. The sediment delivery ratio from the
SCS data \+as estilnated at 52.8%. The lo\\ sediment deli~er: ratio needed for this
\satershed confirms the large difference bet~teenthe sediment \olume and the erosion
\ oluine.
Some assumptions made for analqzing the link betneen the eroded soil and the
deposited soil were as follows:
Watershed soils are constant.
Solely \;catershed soils contribute to the lake sediment.
Geographical positions of all layers were accurate.
Phq sical descriptions and data were accurate.
The sediment in Charles Mill Lake has been deposited for the past 64 years. Ox er
this time. the soil characteristics tvithin the natershed that delikers \Later to the lalie has
not changed. Likeuise the land use has not been changed much. Glhen the process in
nhich the land is cultivated and the population of the towns uithin the \;catershed. these
assumptions should be modified. Hone\ er. for the most part the watershed has changed
little o l e r the past 64 years.
All data sets were carefullq noted on the coordinate system in 1;chich the: mere
positioned. The ArcVieu softuare package con1 erted all the data sets into the UThI
Zone 1 coordinate system using the metric sq stem for length. All data mere ?ositioned
using the same horizontal datum. NrID 1927 (1927 Sort11 American Datum). Thc
t ertical datum used tt as the NAVD 1929 ( 1929 North American Vertical Datum) L sing
the same datum and the same coordinate sq sten1 ensured the geographical accurac!
needed for the study.

96
Some of the data sets were son~e\vl~at
dated. The topography of the watershed
mas established bq using the USGS quadrangles. The quadrangles Lvere developed using
the data from 1960. Ho~vever.most of the land was not much disturbed or changed to
cause major changes in the topography. land use. or soil characteristics of the ~vatershed.
A11 assumption made during the analysis lvas the fact that the interpolation of the
DEM.bathymetric surface. and the sediment grain size surfaces represented the surface
correctly. After each interpolation was complete. measures were taken to ensure a level
of quality in each surface. For the grain size analysis. the percentages of gravel, coarse
sand, fine sand. and siltlclay material \\;ere added together as discussed before. It \\as to
check that the percentages added up to 1 OOO/o. A statistical method was used for
evaluating the grid theme error. Visual checks were also used to check the interpolations.
Checking the surfaces using different ways. it is believed that the interpolations are
reasonably representative.
Just as annual precipitation can vary from year to >.ear.the erosion can vary too.
Hence, the erosion model does not predict erosion of a particular year. This has to be
kept in mind when using the results from this modeling. The erosion a\-erage lvas base
on the data for 64 years. The data o\er these >ears were long enough to assume the
sedimentation nould be approaching the overall average. As for the mass balance values
gi\.en in Table IV.4.1. the analysis \\.-asonly for one particular year.
IV.5 Erosion Analysis
How Lvatershed parameters affect erosion in a Lvatershed is of interest. Four
Lkatershed parameters commonly responsible for erosion are discussed in the following:
Soil Attributes.
Land use.
Stream Order, and
Watershed Hypsometric Curve,
IV.5.1 Soil Attributes
Some types of soil may be more abundant than others within a watershed. Also.
one type of soil may be more susceptible to erosion than others. To analyze the soil types
related to erosion in the watershed of Charles Mill Lake, the types of soil as obtained
from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) \+ere plotted against their
average erosion potentials and area percentages by which the types of soil make up
LL ithin the matershed. These plots were de~relopedusing GIs methods resulting in a
summarl table that compared the soil type grid themes with the soil loss potential grid
theme. It calculated statistical values of the comparison as discussed in Chapter 111.3.
The classiiications of soil t>pes are based on three methods: geologic soil t)ipes. CSCS
(Unified Soil Classification System) soil tjpes, and AASHTO (American Association of
State Highnay atld Transportation Officials) soil tgpes.

09
Figures IV.5.l a - 1 d sholk the classifications by the geologic soil t: pes. Soil tj.pe
BnB. has the highest percentage in the watershed as sho~vnin Figure IV.5. I . BnE3 made
up near 19O4 of the matershed folloned by CgB, nith 1136. These t\\o dominating sol1
types h a ~ an
e a\,erage soil erosion potential near that of the wlatershed. Soil t>pe LvC has
the highest erosion potential follo\ved by '4dE2. However, both soil types co~lstitutea
small area percentage of the natershed. Further. many soil types having large erosion
potential constitute small fractions of the watershed.
Figure IV.5.2 show-s the classification by the USCS, lvhere h1L CL CL-hIL soil
type has the highest areal percentage. making up about 34% of the total area. This soil
t) pe has a high content of clay matter and does not erode as fast as other soil types. The
average erosion potential for this soil t>pe is about 0.14 !q'n12 per > ear. On the other
hand. the soil type CL-hIL ,CIL CL has the highest erosion potential. but collstitutes about
496 of the LX atershed. The soil types having high erosion potential usually make up a
small portion of the natershed.
Figure IV.5.3 shows the result based on the AASHTO soil classification. I t Mas
not as detailed as the other two classifications for erosion anal: sis because of the feu soil
types resulting from the watershed. Three soil types, A-4 A-6. A-4. and A-6 A-7 make
up 95.8% of the ~vatershed.The other soil types make up a verlr small percentage of the
watershed. ,A11 three methods produced a select f e ~ vsoil classifications that constituted ;
I
large percentage of the natershed, nhich suggests that the natershed consists of
~ o i n e n h a homogeneous
t soils. This implication concurs uith that of the mechanical
anal: sis results. Fdr this \\atershed the AXSHTO soil classificatio~ldid not result in a
100
s A-4 A-
particular soil tqpe lhaling high soil erosion potential. Monecer. it is o b ~ i o u that
6 has the greatest amount of soil erosion potential in the watershed.
Tlle soil b a s also classified bq the percentage that passes s i e ~ No.

e 200. i.e.
smaller than 0.075 mm. Figure IV.5.4 shows the result of the a\ erage soil loss Lersus the
percentage passing sieve No. 200. This can be a representation of the a~iiountof silt and
cia?. AAsthe amount of silt'cla> increases the average soil loss increases slightl~and then
decreases sharpl! after 50Y0. As the percentage of silt/claq increases the silt dominates
the erosion process by increasing the amount of erosion up to about 50%. As the
percentage of silt/clay increase further, the clay dominates and slows the erosion process.
Figure IV.5.5 shows the result of the average soil loss versus the percent of claq
in the soil. The erosion potential in general decreases mhen the percentage of cia)
increases. especially after 20%.
Types of soil naturally result in \.aried erosion potentials and are helpful in the
erosion modeling. By applying GIs to the geologic soil types it can identifj. an)
particular types of soil having high erosio~lpotential for watershed management. .Also
the grain size characteristic of the soil can be used for a similar purpose. To be able to
determine and isolate areas of particular soil tq-pes or soil characteristics bq GIS rneans
has significantly enhanced watershed management tools.

IV.5.2 Land use
LVithin a natershed. the land can be used in man! different \bays. Land use can
range from residential areas to strip-mines. The land use affects the erosion potential by
the wa> the land is used. The land uses for the studied uatershed is spatiall! distinct.
Each type of land use was compared to different aspects ofthe erosion model as \\ell as
the phqsical characteristics of the studied \baresshed. Using the summar! tables produced
b! G I s as discussed in Chapter 111.2. the analysis of the akerage soil loss versus the land
uses in the lbatershed of Charles Mill Lake mas conducted.
The land uses were graphed against the a\.erage erosion potential and the areal
percentage bq nhich the soil makes up mithin the natershed. As shomn in Figure IV.5.6.
the most dominant land use in the natershed is the cropland and pastures. In the
natershed these areas are designated mostl) for corn with a small portion for cattle
pasture. This land use makes up 84.5% of the total ~vatershedand has the second highest
a\ erage erosion potential next to strip mines. The strip mines make up a 1 erq small
portion of the L\ atershed, 0. I %. but have the highest aa erage erosion potential. Other
land uses ha~rea moderate erosion potential \\it11 an evception of the orchards
The average erosi\rit> of the soil. or K factor. \\as compared graphicall! to the
'ilerage erosion potential for each land use as s h o i ~ nin Figure IV.5.7. The average soil
e r o s i ~it? for each land use does not \arq much compared to the average eros~onpotential.
The a\ erage erosion potential varies sigcilicantl! for different land uses. The land use of
.trip mines has the higl~estboth soil eroxi~it), and aberage soil erosion potential. Laid
102
uses exist on varied types of soil rn ith a range of soil erosivity. When an a\ erage is taken
for a11 the areas of a particular land use in the ~ a t e r s h e dthe

. airerage soil e r o s i ~it!. is
about the same as that of the \\hole natershed. Hence. it can be concluded that the soil
t! pes \as> ~ndependentlqof the land uses in the studied natershed.
Another phq sical characteristic of the \latershed. slope. mas also graphically
compared to the land use as s h o ~ z nin Figure IV.5.8. The average slope ~ a r i e bet\\een
s
each t>pe of land use kvith a range of 0.1'6 to 4.694. The land uses of forests and s ~ r i p
mines have the steepest average slopes nithin the \vatershed. This sho~vsthat the land
uses in this lvatershed affect the slope and the erosion potential. This implies that the
land use is critical for preventing soil erosion.
I11 order to show the amount of a particular land use classified in different erosion
potential percentiles. Figure II7.5.9m-as prepared. A cross-tabulation table created in GIs
was used to develop this figure. For example. nearlq 95% of the area designated as strip
mines have an erosion potential greater than 509'0 of the rest of the \vatershed as shoun in
Figure IV.S.9. The figure is more of a con~parisontool, to examine erosion potential
percentiles of different land uses. Approximately 30% of the strip mines are in the 99th
erosion potential percentile. This analjxis provides a tool to identifi~particular land uses
that have high erosion potentials.
The land use varies over the studied \vatershed and can be geographicall?
deternlined bq either clualitati\.e and quantitative means. The de\eloprnent bq humans in
a tbatershed influences the erosion potential resulting e\,entually in characteristics of thc

i 03
~batershed.GIs can be effectilely used to stud!. and ana14ze characteristics of a
tbatershed. to best manage the uses of the watershed for erosion prevention.
IV.5.3 Steam Order
The natershed of a lake is made up of a complex netnork of streams t l o iilg

~ to a
single point. Instead of thinking of it as a large area with continuousl! changing
characteristics. the watershed can be thought of as a network. The network consists of
streams of baried stream orders and drainageareas. Hence, a m atershed can be di\ ided bq
stream orders to analyze characteristics of the watershed for comparison with erosion
potential.
As discussed in Chapter 111.3. stream orders mere assigned to the network of
streams according to the Strahler method (Dingman. 1994). An Avenue \script. gi\ en in
Appendix B. was written to use the stream data and the DEM to analyze the gradient of
each stream for assigning stream orders. The script attributes a stream with the length of
the stream and the elevation at the beginning and the end of the stream. With this
information. the gradient lvas found for each stream.
Since there are numerous streams. the a\ erage and maximum gradient mere
compared to the different stream orders as shonn in Figure IV.5.10. It can be easilq seen
that the gradient decreases as the stream order increases. This pheno~llcnonhas a
significant impact on the amount of eroded materials that have deposited in the Charles
hlill Lake. As Lvater tloms nith sedllnents closer to the lake, the stream order increases
and the flow velocity decreases due to the decrease of the stream gradient. As the floli
I04
\ eloc~t?decreases. the suspended sediment begins to deposit at the bottom of the stream.
This has resulted in the significant sediment deposits at the upstream end of Charles Mill
Lake. It has become an issue due to the streams filling uith deposited sediment. resulting
in less capacit?. In fact. this has resulted in an expensi~e dredging problem for the
bluskingum Watershed Conservancy District. With GIs. stream orders can be targeted to
do f~lrtheranal! sis for dealing uith sedin~entproblems.
Using the Theissen method. areas flo~vingto a particular stream order mere
segregated. It was assumed that the ridges that split flon bet~veenstreams were equallq
spaced. It is noted that inaccuracies can be introduced because these areas are
determined by the topography. Howeher. because of the intensity of the streams this
assumption is not unreasonable. Once the areas mere di\ided into stream orders in nhich
streams flowed. they tvere compared hvitll the erosion potential srid theme and the slope
grid theme. Based on these comparisons. Figures IV.5.11 and IV.5.13 \\;ere developed.
L
Figure IV.5.11 shous the average erosion potential compared uith the stream
order. As the stream order increases the average erosion potential mild decreases
tilough not conclusively. Figure IV.S.13 is the graph of the a\-erage slope compared with
the stream order. It sho~vsthat the slopes of the ~vatershed\.arq little from strznl order 1
- 4. As seen in Figure IV.5.10 \\hen the gradient of the stream order decreased. the slope
of the land corresponding to the stream orders increases eLrenthough the stream order
increases. This is dependent of the topographic characteristics of the matershed. The
Charles Mill Lake ~vaterslleciis somenhat f l ~ in

t the areas that are the farthest a\\aq from
the lake compared to the areas near the lake. This can be seen in the topography of the
105
watershed in Figure IV.5.13. As the streanis approach the lake the stream orders
increase. so do the land slopes as shown in Figure IV.5.13. This would likely affect the
average erosion potential closer to the lake. This could be the reason for the
inconsistent> in Figure IV.5.1 1 .
IV.5.4 Watershed Hypsometric Curve
Another approach to the watershed erosion analysis is to exaluate the watershed
characteristics at \ arious elecation ranges. Since the DEM is general13 one of the most
important aspects of a uatershed. the analysis should reflect this. Based on the txatershed
DEM sho~cnin Figure IV.5.13. the following analysis was conducted on the Charles Mill
Lake lcatershed.
L'sing GIs. a hqpsometric curve as shown in Figure IV.5.14 Lvas deheloped for
the watershed from the ~+atershedDELI in a similar fashion to that of the Charles Mill
Lake. This h3psometric curve shons the percentage of the total uatershed area that is
higher than an! g i ~ ~ elevation.

en It is typical of a normal \catershed in the northeast of the
United States (Black. 1991). The elmations in the watershed ranse from 285 meters to
342. meters hISL.
With the ~batershedDEhI. the areas nithin a specific elevation ran,.re mere
isolated. Then the slope and the erosion potential correspondillg to b ~ r i e de l e ation
~
ranges mere compared. Each 1 O-meter range n a s queried to find all locations that \\ere
of the elevatioa range bq GIS. Each quer> mas reclnssified to be 1 if it is true and "\o
1 06
D,~ta"i f ' i t is false. The slope and erosion potential grid tl~emesthen n~i~ltiplied
tile
rec1,lssiticd queries. The statistics of the results \\ere then recorded and a n a l ~ z e d .
Figure IV.5.15 sho~vsthe a\ erage and maximum slope compared to the elel atio~l
range. The aL8erageslope decreases and later slightl: increases as the elex ation increases.
It is noted that the ele\ ation ranges nhose a\ erage slopes are the lonest contain a large
portion of the matershed as seen in Figure IV.5.1-i. The slope peaks tonard the mid-
elevation ranges of the L\atershed. The elexxtions of about 330 - 380 meters ha\ e the
greatest slopes in the ~vatershed.The rest of the watershed seems to be somen hat flat.
L
Figure IV.5.16 sho~vsthe average and ~nasimumerosion potential compared to
the elelration range. The maximum erosion potential tends to be greatest tomard the mid-
ele\.ation ranges. The mid-elevation ranges have the greatest masimum erosion
potentials. similar to the niaximum slope peak. The maximum erosion potentials peak
betueen 1.5- 5.7 kgtm">.r.
The n atershed analysis using the hqpsometric cur\ e shoxvs that the elel ations
having the maximum slope result in the maximum erosion potential. Both the slope and
the erosion potential tend to peak at the mid-ele~,ationranges. The axrerages do not shov
an! significant trends as the maximums. The mid-elevations 11al.e a larger ponuiation tn
choose a mauimum than their counterparts of lo\\ and high ele~ations.These figures
help characterize the natershed for the purpose of' erosion prexrention.
c'. -
Cb.t z
<
-Y
x
<
5
( y ), i ~ ! r ! o s J : l l ! o ~ ~ R . I J , \ v
-- - - - -
.5 .s .5
:.+ :.- #
+ + +
C C C C C
. ' J ' U ' D ' U ' U
" Y Y I
5 5 5 P I 5
L C C C C
c C C C =
.m2 -. 2 3 .2m .2m .2
m
-
'*
a
L -' Ci-
a
'-
5 5 c 0 0
z L l p " 2
?T-,5--,
co en on zn 2
.-C .-C .-C .- .-
.-s= .-=m C .-s C.-s
.- C
m
- - d + Y
C C C C C
5 3 5 0 0
U L I O ( I 0
-
.-
ffi
4
c
u
*
S
ZI
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V.1 Conclusions
As stated in the objective of this study in Chapter I, the sediment deposits in the
Charles Mill Lake of Ohio is of interest. It is found that the major sediment deposits are
along the original mainstem of the river. There is a minimum percentage of gra\.el in the
composition of sediment deposits, and the settlement of gravel deposits mainly occur at
two apparent locations as graphically shown in the analyzed result. Further, the images
of uniformity and gradation provide the geographical distribution of sediment deposits of
varied uniformities and gradations. These results can be used to form a \+orking program
for dredging in terms of priorities (Chang et al., 1999).
The investigation of the erosion potential reveals that there are significant
variations throughout the tvatershed. The maximum erosion potential in the watershed is
ox,er 16 times that of the watershed average. These extreme values have been designated
as "erosion hotspots" and require further analysis. With the shear size of the ~vatershed.
an erosion model that groups large areas would not give a good estimate for actual
erosion. Hence, this study by reducing to a 25-meter cell using GIs pro\lides an
opportunity for a more accurate estimation.
(;IS has played a vital role in this study of erosion and sediment analysis. Each
watershed grid themi: cci:jisted ~ t ' ~ ? t ? i i one

> million cells. each havi::: a value. and the
137
erosion rnodeiing anal) sis consisted of approsimatelq twenty-ii~e grid themes. The
amount of data applied and the intensit? of calculations conducted \\ere not be posslblq
accomplished nithout using G I s methods.
The classifications of soil tq pes are helpful in anal) zing the results of erosion
modeling. The geologic soil t]ipes help the analysis by dividing the soil into I aried tq pes
for comparison to enhance natershed management. The basic grain size anal! sis helps
identi& characteristics of the soil in a large natershed. GIs used in this fashion provides
an opportunity to determine and isolate areas of particular soil type or soil characteristic
to f~irtherthe anal? sis for an?, specific interest.
The n a y humans interact tvith the watershed influences the erosion potential.
This interaction results in characteristics of the watershed. The landuse \ aries o\ er the
\\hole ~vatershedand can be identified by GIS geographically. qualitati~elyand
quantitati~el). GIS is an effective tool to study and analyze the characteristics of the
lvatershed and the results of the erosion model in terms of land uses.
The analysis of the matershed bq the stream network provides a different \ ien for
tbatershed management. With a stream network database, streams can be anal) zed bq the
characteristics of the stream network, i.e. gradient. order. in relation to erosiom potential
With G I s , stream orders and areas in which uater directly flo~xscan be targeted for
111a1lagingand reducing erosion \\ithin a watershed
By the assistance of G I s graphically. the areas uith higher erosion potent~alscan
be targeted geographicallq for maintenance purposes. The erosion potzntial Ialues g i ~ '1e
possible alerage soil loss for the area, but morc important13 they give an erosion \ alue of
135
an area relative to the rest of the watershed. Using the .i.alue as a relative sense. areas can
be prioritized by the percentile analysis of erosion potential.
LVhile an erosion model and its associated analysis can obviously be used for the
natershed management. there are many other applications. For instance. landfill design
can pr0k.e beneficial from the analysis. Due to the extreme slopes of a landfill and the
importance of the top cap. erosion is an important factor in landfill design. By the
erosion anal~.sis.a drainage channel placement can be designed to decrease the erosion.
Transportation design. construction. and management can also benefit from this
method of erosion analysis. A design of transportation infrastructure has to incorporate
many factors including erosion control: The analysis described in this study can be used
to analyze the erosion for transportation construction and management to reduce
environmental degradation.
IV.2 Recommendations
The method of RUSLE used in this study is based on the methodology presented
by Renard (1 997). One factor that was not completely estimated in the analyris was the
slope length factor. L. The slope length factor uses the value as the horizontal slope
length. It is the length of the slope from the top of the designated slope to the point that
is analyzed for soil loss. This value could not be calculated for every cell in the
watershed grid theme to improve the accuracy. Further analysis needs to be conducted to
develop a GIS method to calculate this grid theme.

139
The results of this thesis are based on a single watershed study. Studies should be
done on other watersheds of different sizes to check the adequacy of the methods
described in this thesis. Furthermore. to verify the results obtained in this thesis. a stud?
on erosion analysis for a \.cry small Lvatershed ofthe magnitude of 1 km2 should be
det eloped. This will result in a more detailed method for special applications such as
bank and shoreline erosion. landfills, and transportation projects.
This study of watershed erosion analysis is not an exhaustive approach to
modeling and analyzing the erosion for management purposes. For the purpose of
calibration. a section of the watershed can be put under a microscope by using a smaller
scale and detailed data. which can be gathered directly. For instance, an area that has
been determined having high erosion potential can be examined in more detail. Also,
special applications. such as stream bank erosion and lake shoreline erosion can be
analyzed this lvay. It is recommended that further research be done in this matter.
Interpolations control a number of the factors of erosion modeling and sediment
analysis. -4 variet\- of interpolation methods can be conducted on the different grid
themes such as the DEhI and the lake sediment deposit. Analysis should be conducted to
determine the best interpolation method suitable for various parameters. This would
enhance the modeling accuracy.

Bibliography
Allen. J.R.L., Principles of Physical Sedimentology. G. Allen & Unwin, London. 1985
Barfield. B.J., R.I. Barnhisel, M.C. Hirschi, I.D. Moore, "Compaction effects on erosion
of mine spoil and reconstructed topsoil.". Trans ASAE 3 1 :447-452, 1988.
Barrow, C.J., Land Degradation: development and breakdown of terrestrial environments.

University Press, Cambridge. MA, 1991.
Baylor University Geology Web Page 1998

http://www.baylor.edul-Geology/
Black, P.E., Watershed Hydrology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey. 1991
Boorst. H.L., Wooburn, R., Rain simulator studies of the effect of slope on erosion and
runoff, U.S.D.A., SCS, TP 26. 1940.
Browning, G.M.. C.L. Parish, J.A. Glass, ".4 method for determining the use and
Limitation of rotation and conservation practices in control of soil erosion in
Iowa", Soil Sci. Soc. Am Proc 23249-264. 1947
Burrough, P.A., Principals of Geographic Information Systems for Land Resources

Assessment, Oxford. 1998.
Carson. M A . , The mechanics of erosion, Pion Limited, London, 1971
Chang. T.J., T.D. Bayes, S. McKeever, "Study of Sediment Deposits for Reservoir
Dredging", ASCE proceedings for Water Resources Engineering. August. 1999
Chang, T.J., R. Germain, and T.A. Bartrand, "Development of a GIS Procedure for the
Study of Evaporation and Infiltration in Case of Drought", Computing in Civil
Engineering, Proceedings of the Fourth Congress held in Conjunction with .4/E/C
SYSTEMS '97, ASCE proceedings, PP. 606-614, June 1997.
Clarke, K.C.. "Scale-Based Simulation of Topographic Relief-', The Americun

C'crrrographer,Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 173-181. 1988.
Cook, H.L, "The nature and controlling variables of the water erosion process". Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 1 :60-64. 1936.
Das. B.M., Principals of Geotechnical Engineering, jr*Edition. PLVS Poblishing

Company, Boston. MA, 1994.
Davis, J. C.. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986.
Dingman, S.L., Physical Hydrology, Macmillan, New York, 1994.
Dissmeyer, G.E., G.R. Foster, "Estimating the cover-management factor ( C ) in the

universal soil loss equation for forest conditions". J. Soil Water Conservation.
36:235-240, 198 1.
Ellison, W.D., "Studies of raindrop erosion", Agirc. Eng. vol. 25, pp. 13 1-136, 18 1-182,
1944
Emmett. The hydraulics of overland flow on hillslopes. USGS Prof. Paper 662A, 1970.
Foster, G.R.. L.D. Meyer, C.A. Onstad. "A runoff erosivity factor and variable slope
length exponents for soil loss estimates", Trans ASAE 20:683-687, 1977.
Foster, G.R., W.H. Wischmeier, "Evaluating irregular slopes for soil loss prediction",
Trans. ASAE 17:305-309, 1974.
Gabriels D., "The effect of slope length on the amount and size distribution of eroded silt
loam soils: short slope laboratory experiments on interrill erosion",
Geomorphology, 28, pp. 169-172, 1998
Goldman, Steven, Erosion and sediment control handbook, pp 5.2-5.15, McGraw-

Hill, New York, c1986.
Hoover, M.A., Analysis of Water Quality in Lake Erie Using GIs Methods, Master's
Thesis, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 1997.
Hutchinson, M.F., "Interpolating Mean Rainfall using Thin Plate Smoothing Splines",
International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. 9. No. 4, pp.
385-403, 1995.
Jones. C.B.. Geographical Information Systems and Computer Cartography, Addison

Wesley Longman Limited, London, 1997.
Journel, A.G. and Ch. J. Huijbregts, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press 198 1.
Laurini, R.. Thompson, D., Fundamentals of Spatial Information Systems, Academic

Press Limited, 1992.
McCool, D.K., G.R. Foster, C.K. Mutchler, L.D. Meyer, "Revised slope length factor for
the Universal Soil Loss Equation", Trans ASAE 32: 157 1-1 576, 1989.
IvlcIsaac. G.G., hlitchell. J.K, Hirschi, M.C.. "Slope steepness effects on soil loss from
disturbed lands", Trcms. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 30: 1005- 101 3. 1 987.
Mitas, L., hfitasova, H.. "General Variational Approach to the Interpolation Problem".
Compzrt. :tlath. Applic. vol. 16, no. 12. pp. 983-992. 1988.
Mitra, B., Scott. I-I.D.. Dixon, J.C., McKimmey, J.M., "Applications of fuzzy logic to the
prediction of soil erosion in a large watershed.", Geoderma, vol. 86, pp. 183-209.
1998.
Molnar. D.K., Julien, P.Y., "Estimation of Upland Erosion using GIs", C'omp~itersand
Geosciences. vol. 24, no. 2. pp. 183-192. 1998.
Mudroch, 4.. MacKnight, S.D.. Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediments

Sampling, CRC Press. Boca Raton. FL, 199 1.
IMusgrave. G.W., "The quantitative evaluation of factors in Water Erosion - A first

approximation". J. Soil and Water Conservation, 2: 133-138. 170. 1947
Mutchler, C.K., "Splash of a waterdrop at terminal velocity", Science. vol. 169. pp. 131 1-
1312. 1970.
National Research Council (US) Committee on Watershed Management. New strategies

for America's watersheds, National Academy Press, Washington. D.C.. 1999.
Ponce. V. M., Engineering Hydrology. Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, 1989.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.PI.. McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C.. Predicting Soil
Erosion by Water: A Guide for Conservation Planning with the Revised C'niversal
Soil Loss Eauation (RUSLE). USDA. 1997.
Roose, E.J., "Use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation to predict erosion in West Africa,
Soil Erosion: Prediction and Control", Soil Cons. Soc. Amer.., Anheny, Iowa. pp.
60-74. 1977.
Schwab. G.D.. Soil and Water Management Systems. 4"' Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Inc.. New York. N.Y., 1996.
Selley. R.C., Applied Sedimentology, Academic Press. London. 1988.
Smith. D.D.. "Interretation of soil conservation data for field use". .lgric. E17,q. 22: 173-
175, 1941
Smith. D.D. Whitt, D.M., "Evaluating soil losses from field areas", Agric. Eng. 29:394-
398. 1948.
Smith. D.D., Wischmeier. W.H., "Factors affecting sheet and rill erosion", Tmn.~..4m.
Geophys. Union, 38(6): 889-896, 1957.
Star and Estes. Geographic Information Systems: i2n Introduction, Prentice Hall.
Engletvood Cliffs, N.J., 1990.
Streeter. V.L and Wylie. E.B., Fluid Mechanics. 8"' edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York. NY. 1985.
Sykes, Karen, Forest Resources Plan for the Upper Mohican Watershed, USDA Forest
Service, 1992
Teixeira P.C., Misra, R.K., "Erosin and sediment characterisitics of cultivated forest soils
as affected by the mechanical stability of aggregates", Cnntenn 30 pp. 1 19- 134.
1997.
Teoh. C.B.. Investigation of Drought Severity Using Probabilistic Methods, Master's

Thesis, Ohio University, Athens. Ohio, 1990.
US NRCS watershed program role in locally-led conservation

http:~/ww.nha.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/Watrshd.html
Viessman. W.. Lewis. G.L., Knapp. J.W., Introduction to Hydrology, 3rdEdition. Harper
& Row, New York, 1989.
Wang. X., Yin. Z.. "Using GIs to assess the relationship between land use and water
quality at a watershed level", Ent,ironmentnl International, vol. 23. no. 1, pp 103-
114. 1997.
Wischmeier. W.H.. "A rainfall erosion index for a universal soil loss equation". Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 23:246-249. 1959.
h'ischl~eier.W.H.. and Smith. D.D.. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses - a Guide to

Conservation Planning, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Handbook
No. 537. 1978.
Wolf. P.R.. Brinker, R.C., Elementary Surveying. 9'" Edition, HarperCollins College
Publicaters, New York, NY, 1994.
APPENDIX A
Sediment Deposit Sample Particle Diameter Distribution Analysis

(3 6 rn
in in rn
ffl ffl ffl
-
.nn
-h
m
E
3
U
-
C
.z
C
-
.r/!
3
-f
a
rn
C
G
2
-.-
C
0
rn
APPENDIX B
Avenue' Script G I s Programs

Program: DLGl@SHP.AC'E
I ".,-,4: z: ad .
zc 5 , 3 / 3 6 z o cr.e:.< . rzr
- exiszirq s:pl:z r:-ss, -
and rrcci:-;
! -,.--.,
- - - - A
*- .- . .
- _ - . - er.z?.es fez z c s 9 . 3 - 2 z s - ~ a 2 c e s n -o:cl6
, - --
- .-,-A
1 V;TE: :..is -;a-s:sn ,cjl_- -,p.l;. zc;+-:erz .

sr3rLc:rc: . .
diqs :ilrr. - ,
-:roc
, ., - 1;; --A.e.Az
?:
- - - - a per
,,--"--p ->-,-
~ ~ y . 2
I
1 ~ , ; y ~ ~z,zp-7.-czrr
~ 2 : :: 2 2 , ,I), - ,-a-
2 L'-- 3 r d ::'LC:, -
- - .s z z l e z l z z z t a
1 ~ 1 1 ~
11 : :' :he sta-<:rs f;r-2: :a -. -

s,-.sper:_es, EtrZl3'::e -
l7:ZcrT,?,T:2Tl
,
1s
I sa-,-3a zo -- r v - ,-- -
.
ri..u-.lu
,
A=:$'
ui..r-
file5
, . ' -
t i t i e t 2 b e > l s e i i i r l t h i s si:ript_
,-:laiilc;
tFLe3T -
"5T.G t a shape"
' [jet t h e i n p u t d l ' q f i l e n a m e ( s )

t ~ c . x l ~ += r {"'.dig",
s "+")
t h e 2 e s : = ! "DL!; f i l e s ( + . d l q ] ", " 3 1 1 f i l e s ( - . * ) " )
L n F i l e s = F i l e D i a l o g . Z e t u r n F i I e s ( t h e F i l t + ~ - s ,t h e D e s c ,
VTd
LC' L l z c t :he
le DLG ' i l e t o i r n ~ ~ r t "0 ,)
. -
i+ ( i 5 F i l e s .C-uct = 5: t h e n
r - e t u r ~31.1
er?d
' determine o p e r a t i n g p l a t f o r n s o filenames can he defined c o r r e z z l q

wLr16 = f a l s e
t h e p i a t = Sys;sn.GetCS
i f ( t n e P l a t . A s S t r i c g = "SYSTEM-CS-MSW") t h e n
t h e i r a r i a n t = Systern. G e t O S V s r i a n t
:
f ( t h e V a r i z n t . A s S t r i n g = "SYSTEM-OS*JAXIANT-MSW16" ) :?.en
win16 = t r c e
end
e2c
f o r each in5ileNam i n i n F i l e s
i n F i l e = l i n e ? i l e . M a k ? ! i n F i l e N a n e , #FILE .-P<3Pl -- READ)
' k e e p t r a c k o f wnaE l i n e ths data i s b ~ > i ? ? r - a d f r z ~

I n e ? J ~ i ; n= 0
,
'
-
r e a d ir; r e c o r d z : ~ n b e r1 o f ~ b . 2 h e a d e r l n ~ o r m a t i c r ,
h e a d e r ~ n f o= i n F i l e . R e a d E l t
LrneN1:rr. = LineN~;m -- 1
' US? t h i s f i r s t l i n e a s a t e s t t o ma!k.e s u r e t h e CLc 52s L e e r
i f ( h e a d e r i n f o . C o u n t > i44 ) t h e n
MsgEox. E r r s r ( " D a t a n c t ~ a r s e c i , u s e PLG p a r s e f i r s r . " +
n l t "Aborting. . . ", theST)
1, . g-r .: l e . (:lose
r,2:-j:-r1 niL
end
L f ; h.?a-e r l?. t, ::-.(.ln? < 5 1\ t h ~ l r .

v .c,.-*q.Q p - _ f y t h e surpi:t s h a p e f i l e s
, - ,
o~;+[?:r?l?!n.? = ~ r,~ : I e N a n r e r. . . 2 t 3 - l r ~ C :.:l.i;:;trini;
ir
- - -
' N:.'I'S: :'ircci;?w : ~ n i ? e r s t a r ? c s-i forbjar,l si:i:;h or: ~ L rL _a;:L-:Y,.5
' (:nil_ :i.: L-',~,: zoot cjirectqr-;
i f ( ( : ~ u i : I l i r N ~ r n eriyht . (1) '>. " / " j or ( o u t C i r N a m ~ ?r. i l j k z 1% 1 ) .- . I, I,
'
then
o : i t i l i r N a . r e = c i ~ t E i r ? i a : n e 4- " / "
encl
<>11::, . --; !:- - - ' i , , " , " , ","',
I - . ,
,r.ese Ce:al:-t
i'
names ~ 3 . 2 1i23~ CC; 1373 a r n u - ~ ~ - ~ ? pDl . ~S t~ b 3 x
' t o 3--"V,\j- 7
c h " .LS"Z - n -:-a c.-.er,, z!,;t L . ~ - ~~ c r ; < c:<
- ~ >
- - - - " 0
A . y u s L,b2s-
. -
:r (:gir.16) t h e n
d e f ? o i n z N a n e = ( o u z C i r L < a ~ . te r o c t n a ~ . eL. s f t (7)
d e f L i n e P J a x e = ( o u ~ C i r > l a n e4 r c o t ~ a n el.e f r ( 7 ;
def ?cl;~Nane= (occ2irKar.e
"p.s k . ~ " .As;:leNar,e
)
"l.s h p " , .>.s;i:e>;aae
r s o t n z n e . L e f t (7) + "a.she"' . ; A s ~ i l ~ ~ ~ s e
--
d e f N o d e 2 L i n e L i n k N a m s = I,- v, ~ z C i r N a m e+ r c c c n a n e . L e f t (6; T
!In 7
.,, . Sbf" 1 .AsFileNane
def.~rea2L~n~~ifi~<h s , ~ r' M a r . e + r o o t r - a c e . L e f t (6' -
= : alo.--'
, m, -
11
=- 1- . 3 b f " ; . > - s ? i l e N a ~ , e
d e f F o i n t 3 . t r r i : c N a n e = ( n u ~ Z i r ! J a r r . e+ r c c z 2 a n e . L e f t (61
" ~ 2d .b f " ) . . J - s F l l e h ; z ~ e
-- , -
aez,12eA-A:rrikSane = ( c ~ ; ~ : ~ ! : z T , s + r s c ; : a ~ , e . l e f t i 6: -
!tl a. 4,- --- , . .BAsFi:sXzae
<7, !,
32 f = ' ;i~c":r>ia-s t r z c t r a r , e .l e f ; ( 6 . -
" a a , - & f ' \ , Ls"k>jar,e . A -
---
-
3 c+
<efp~:n:yame = : c i ~ t ' i r > I a ~ . e r c o t l a n s - " 3 n t . s k 1 c " ) .>-s'i:s>:zrz

4- z-
-
,~-,:ceName = =~tS:rYar,e :8 r z s r n a r e - " -l i n e . sh?" ' .As? i l e : ; a c e
+
def'o:-.;'.Jarne = ,(o,:t3Lr:;ar.e + r - c t z a p . 9 - " -col:;. j:?p" ; . ~ s ~ i 1 ~ : : ~ ~ , ~

~ e f > < = d e ~ ~ i ~ e i ~ n=: i' -,~.d-~- "La ~pr ,; \eJ a r e - r s s = - a ~ e t
" -r - 2 1 1 . d b f " ) . A & s ' < l e x a ~ , e
5 e f A r e a 2 L i n e L i n k t < a m s = (c~ z S i r M a r , sA r c c r ? a r . e t
,, > - - - d h f " 1 . A s ? i l e Y a ~ . e
-
d e f p-in-.2-t=rLbN;ae = 'c;:,t;,irpJa~e + rso:pane - "-~ a&.f" . ' ~ ~ ~ N a ~ ~
~ e ~ > i r - e - ~ a z ~ r : ~=, > ~. a ~p 4, e--\I=-,- + ,,,,r.ane -
+ " -1 a . d b f w ). L s ? i l ~ X a c %
7-onL
d e f - B . r e a . q r r r i j N a ~ . e = ;c-=C<r>:ar.e + r o c t - a a e + " -a a. dh"" - - 2- 1 -- s N a c e

. -2-s
--
T..d
- .
' r.ake s l J r e n=ne t?.e f:les 3: alreazi;. e x i s t s
-
fl,sL:st>
, ,--rci:.t!Ja~e,
= ;dir7 zsfL:rst;asz, acffslyI;ane,
a?f:;ode2iine;ink:Ga;r.et
T < C
- -
.,__.-- -.rsai~:r.eLir,kNarr.e, 5 e f ?c:.~.l.rrr~hNa;ne, d e f line.',zrribl:z-.?,
2 s f r e ~ ? ~rr:bNaclf ~; ;
---
Z,_ e a c h f i?. f l l e i i s t
, -
- ( F i l 3 .E : < i s t s : 5 ;
* 7
rhec
- - ,"- =_- _. .~- -. , ~ l =t eL~3sq33:i... r2sr.z.. "7k.e f:l-2" -- -c . ,"^+ ,-_ E a s i K a ~ . e- +
,
- .c,-
tv 7 zd;-lm , , e : ( i ~ ; 3 " + 31 - .. L L , -L?L -dIC..o,
" , ; - - ? : : j r ; ; ~ ? ", -4enTl \,
4 -d. -Ja, r s d r l t e . ? d ~ t )
rb.;n
= p:.]szE~x. I r . ? ~(?nt=--
t -;..I - , . .ii:-n2=?e ; in.:l~.:a?r.g ~ - i t I i . ;: " ,
L C . L A.
t r . n D T , f . H ~ S z r - ? .Jp. '
., -r-
-
,:
?
-
- - ; I > , +'?=-,
-,.-.
--
rL2iT'
A ..i
- . .rL
1
1
' c r s a x a 3 3 5 a s e f:les for s z s r i n g z h e l i ? . X a j e s
c a 3 ~ 2 L i c e L i n k \ - % a b = T a b . Makeye.&i d e f N o c e 2 L i ~ . e L i n : ~ N ~ ~dE.a.SE:
.e,
ars32 Ji?sLir.kTl"ab .
= Vyab. C+laI..exe:.i,eefL3Lre~2Li,-.~L:e:-.Na,.i..n,
,
eEA>SE)
-. - .
1
-,ci
;A the 2 e e d e 3 ~ l e l d szs t h e l i n e ;:a-
- ,
_:?.eIerl9 = ' i e l d . F ; a k ? line -i d " , 4F;EL; -SEC?\; 6 , I:,
s = a r t ? : - s -. : - - A d = F i - . l , d .>/Iake; " s m -f i - , c e V , # F I 3 L 7-,SCcI;.T, 5 , ;;

er.dh:odeFld = F i e l d . Yake : " e n d-ncde", #XIEL' -SkiC?.; 6 , 0'
-. -:::Ad-res:
- - -, -d = Flei2.Ma:<e ; " l e f t a r e s " , #TIE73 SELl3:, 6 , 2 :
r:c?.tSre3: --d = -':eld. >lase l "riyh=-a r e a " , f F I Z L 3-~~~~~,6, c ,
- -
..-T ,,-a = -
LC-
. 7
* , . L , , 3 , - '
r i e i & .Make : "?.LR-v e r r " , 5F;Z;E -S%3?~T, 5, 3 ;
nl:rr-:.t~rih"lc! = F i e l d . Y a k e ;"~.urn
8 ----
-~ ~ ; r i b " .,i - . _ c L C SEC3?, 6, 1;
-
, ----
ncr';ley:ld = Fieis.C,la!<e ( " ~ : ~ x , - a t i c r . " ,f : --,D ;ECF." 6,2 :
-
d:qLi~.eF?ab. PaddFie13s [ { l i n e I d F l d , s : a r c N s d e ? l d , e?z:gsSeF'LB,
-- = - L--~Lea:
,f+7 -- '_dl riql--zAc.re3J13, n;n:.ert?lc, -.
nui-Atrx:sFld, nusEleaFl-.
,-,
' 5-3 tee f i e l d s r , t~h e f i a 3 e - t o - l i n e l ; r w a nj
e --'- L - ~ =
- -_- _ :~ods~j~l(.;
; ; A
, . . -
-
= >-:?l-j.
_ L L ~ ~ . ~ I d ~~~j .- C
C.:a!<e "r.nde -i d " , 5 ~ 1 -.S1<DRT,
; i i~ ~ : ~ (. '~' l ~
i paL~? <
-
l;:e
", f "ZLE
-.
5 ~ ~ 6, 0'
ShaRT, 6, 0 '
3d,2
1 ""' ,
..c=c,es
. -. . .
r 1 e - z s f C rb.e Fair-Z Z t T t l ", ., l Z ? : a b l e
--
,,
+ ,_
-
-,,
--n:Tj:;j
-.a-
=
- , .
2 1 2 1 2 . >lake ( " p c < n : i d " ,
-
#FIELD-SEG37, 5, :,
-
c,z>IqcrIa'ld
- \<I :
,dL.,r.cr13?lc'
=
=
F i e l d . >)jake( " m a + o r ", i ,t zm LL-3
Field.:v!a!<e ( " m i n o r " ,
-
T - * -CHA?,, 3 , 3:
CSgR, 4 , 3
pa:l>lFld = F i e l d . !~!ake : "maj orn?ir,-.r", # F I Z L C -C:iA3, - , c,,,
~ : r . t ~ 2 ~ r ; r i j - J T a,L..d&Fields
k. :{~a>=lr.rIdFid, jz r I d ' 1 , cal.!;ncrl"d,
sa:.1[~17:& ] :
' add t h e n e e d e d f i ? l d s t c t h e a r e a z t r t i k u z e r z j l e
a.rz:IsFld = Field. ( " p a l 1 ;-id", -S3835?, 6, );'
- C _ . . C J V-L-I ~ :=- ~F i e l d . ~ " T & : < e " ' ~ ~ ; : r "$FIE;?
--,,,-;n--
C , C2-;3., 2 , ~ , '
0 .
>;>,~ir-~r--','~2 = -r , ~ ~- - ~ . : , ~ :, "=m: i<z ec r " , # T I E L ? C:-IA;3,

-
-. "
2
- 7 , -.
azr":I.:Fld = "eed. CJaxe ,: "3;: c r a i r . s r " , &FTE:; -
,3>-3,, 7, 0
r s a ; - , ~ r i b ; . ' r = . b . .;,C:d"e;-,s , !, aA2.:323^15Fl"; a,aCv:+ - .- 1 2 ,
c r x r i j , aat,:ir.,r_,-,.
z3:,!;,:F:Y;. :
?. -
! -.,-a
a :ex= 1;-e f e r s ~ a r l n q~ n f s ? , a r i czh?:z
~ 2iG
.,.,-, 2 3ata;:;e
r r C f
= l i n z F i l e . X a k e ; :ol;tCirNarre + rzcL7.arr.e -
!I
-...-- .
F372 z>:tll',
,
>qT:la,7-mD
-..-, +?TLE -?!CP,?*! ->TS.iTE)
lLL4a
' g e t t h e -:rber o f l i n e s in z h e f i l e
r c : a l l.i-n e s . -,
= 2n-i-s.SetSi;e
, . . r -- -
2 ~ t f z e f ; r s t r e c s r d cf t?.e rlie -. .
zc t h e ~ e z z d a z ?I-:-,;-
?+is r e c s r 2 w a r . z a d abo-ie a s 2 r e s t for c r s p e r l - ; c- a r s e d a 5 t z
1
TFt3;z;z:i15 ,r,:?: c L -a - 7-
-r - I. - ~
. v _ - - c;. d
--A .- U I ~ I.IL3)
n F
.,..,
I --
z?:a3acz'<le.
-
- I t - - -
,cz
;Tyi:eEl:
_-
- q,aal: f i e r : "
T+
;A~,~q:
catel>;all+isr
,c,a:?c',fSz;;r;e = n e a d e r I ; , f g . P J < d . j i e ;52, 5 '

T,~-J = " > - _ a l e .-
sf s c z r c e x a t 3 r : a l :
.
1 :" - s : a l z 2 f S c u r c e . l r i r L
z e = 3 3 a z a : i-e . n r : z e 3 I t ( T S ~ ;
, -
,cact:onA:cicat~r = header:-fa.>lidile (63, 3 '
as; = " s e c z i s n ; c e r . t i f i e r : " t + s e c t i a r L I r . d : c z r s r
r,lcapa:a'ile. : d r i t e 5 l t (msg)
I -
I--3-ue iz r e c ~ r dr:~mber 3 o f -,he h s a d e r ~ n f r : n a t i ' c n
. , -
heac3r:y-rc = ~ n c i ; 3 ~ ~. e a d S l r
112eNuz = LiceNan + i
p > 7 - o -,-
I
~ ~ ,,!e ~ r e c oar c , ~
1 3 r g e s = T r i n a r ~ ; C ~ c c o c=r n e a d e r I n f , = .Kid215 ( 41, 4 \'
r L s g = " - a r g e s t p r i n a r y $ccnts:r:" -- l a r q e s r F r i r t a r : j C o z t o : ~ r
T
, - + - n 2 - - a -~,3e; . ! V r i t e E l t imsg:
l a r ~ e s t l r i ~ . a r y E a t 5 L n e C r i ~= ~hCe ~ . iddle ( 4 6 ,
a dr e: r~I ~ .~f c~M 4)
.r.s ';= " L a z q e s t p r r x a r y ba:k.q?nztric z a n z c a r : " +-
lar~~~st?rixaryBathner_ricC~ntccr
metz2ztaTile.TFriteElC(nsq'
c n a ; ~ e s = ~ r i ~ . a r ~ ; C=~ n et z~c.~
-... 7 7
e r;--~
nf 2 . > l i z. c ; 3 , , :
. > ?
I,4 )
- .
~ s ;= " S ~ , a - - e s t p r i m z r y contc:r: " -- sm3llestPri~.ar:;Cn?x=cr
-efa&ra'il?. YpJritsE1: {m:j ;<:
c - a ~ ~ e s ~ ~ r i m a r y 3 a t ~ . ; j ~ e ~=
-.,L
r 1'--ezder;r.fs.
: C ~ n : ~ > ! i d c l e / 5 1, ;
psJ = "s3alles; p r i ~ a r yk a z n y ~ . e t r i c:sr?zl;r: " -+
--
sra-..es~~ri~ory3atk1,r~r~etr:cCsn~s~;r
T , e + - - - -_:F:Le. - - :Jr:~eElr- ( n s q ' '
x s c = ";ace p,:a=zk.:rg Stat7~s"
3 3 r a ~ z t s ~ ;$r:-eLl < ~ ~ -.. . - + ,'A ,T,
.- ~ , - ' I
-cBL;e:.;s = h L e a & e r I p . f s:dledk . : 64,

y,sg = " >:est e r j s e s z a t u s : " + A ,sae.ds
n e c z 3 a c C i l e . :jr;:eElz {resg:
--kY:
--Jn-rrr = h e a d e r I r f o . ? ~ l i d c l (65, e ;:
~ S - J= " Reascn f z r e&ge s = ? y l s : " A - sd,~e.".;r
r , e r z > z t a T i i e . W r i x e Z I t (y.33;
~ 3 ~ e r= . s r e a a e r I n f - . ~ u ~ il 6~6 ,j ~1'e
n s ; = " S o r t h e d g e s c a = . J s : " +- ?cisens
n e t s : z + a ? i l e . ; t : r < r e Z i t (P,SJ
,
c +,,,.
-.-. c n r = k . e a c e r I r . f a . :v!iddL~ 67 , 1'
-52 = " S e a a c n f s r n c r t ? . e d g e S Z ~ T . J S :l+ " edqe~.r
e ? r , ? 3 a : z ? i l e . L V r i r e E 1 ~( I T . s ~ ,
,- LA,-,-- - - - -
? l e a 3 e r I n f o . P!:sd~e , 5 S , 1 ,
-_L_-
c - A
= 1,
3 a s t e s g e ~ : 3 t i s : " -- e ' z ~ z e ~
- ,
r . e z a 2 3 x s k : l e . N r - r e E l t \i?,S?,
e , z ~ e e r= k - e z d e y ; - f a . ["liddie (69, 1 )
r s 3 = I' 3 e a s o n f o r e a s t n c j e stz:;s:" ed~ier
+ -
",'+ l r : --7- '

.L '- - =- T 3 t - 3 . ~ i : e ~ i,.-I
4
+
_.,_A- ,I'.SZ
cs ,<.Gc- - .-D-m,-7r-
- l ~ - d d =L - P.r9. > ' l i d d l e: 7 1 2 , 1 ;
-
2
xs; = " s o u t h e d , ~ ?s t a z ~ s : "--- a -d7y0 5 5

n z : - 3 3 : ~ 2 1 l e . , v r l : : + E I t (nss-;rj
7 . ,
--4. '3 - - - = !-.+3z51-;rLfL2\,;: &* A- A

-.;cy , a
-
1-
- , -: ,
_.^-
....% '2
= 0
x s a s c n f c r sc;uCy. ej;e sZit';.5: " + - ~ , i ; < ~ s r
-
L, ^ - - ~ - .iie.>;r!-:eE.:~:
- -- -2 : ':?.s\J;
r e z s r n ?xr,3er , . c z- :r.e r,ea;-ler ~r;rz.-:.a::,-r.
, -
'
i;- -
1 3 3 i :X
- .- l ' . i C - ? -
i-1.-
- . -. . - -
-
.-- -
:%e2dz:z
-..L
l:ne!,iu?, = ;:zeNuz 1 -
' psrse the recer2
.. -
c,,--eT.-elCsce = - e a d e r I - f c . tj]ec:- : 12, 6
C,S '7- = r r r- L e v e l C a d e : " ++ d 1 7 L e v e l C c d e
n e t a E a t a F ; l e . YWriteElt ( I ; I S ~ )
,I ~L vL-I ,_-Ind ~I Ir--L, C . qI v
u~ ~ l k . e a d e r I i _ f z .:-!:idle (6, C ;
I .~=
n s 3 = " ?, -,
- - .,\L..L
.YJ p l z r . i ~ . e t r i cr f f e r e ? . c e ~ y s r s ~" , : -r?;r2Cc:crdSys
+ -
s e r a 3 a r a 7 i 1 .:LTriteClc ~ \TS,G)
= :?eader-zfc .p.]i=c;e ,12, 6 ,
T S = ~ "C-r3unci p l a r . i r n e t r i c r s f - r e ? . c e sT;s:err z c r . 3 : " A - 2 , ~ o r d S . j s Z ; r . e
-.,-.-C-cz3azz?i:s.
- 3 r i ~ e z l !z( i r . S ~ ;
q-- , o z d S y s U n i t s = 2 e a d e r ; n f o . CJLdcle ( l a , 6
~ 3 =3 " C r s u n d plzr.i:,e:ric r e f + r e p . c e s : ; s t z ~ . f i r i t s : " +- ccsrd~,~-c-;y--rs
~ . s : a : a t a ' i ~ e- . ; ~ ,, ~ r i t e E(1r :r . ~ g )
F 7
resalxt:or. = kLeadcrInfz.C<:jelc. i 2 4 , - 5., \

T S - J = 'I 3 e s z l - t i c r A : " t ' re~cluci3-
a e t a C a r a T i l e . W r i t e E l t 8;rnsg)
r . u ~ : i l e ~ : , I a p T r a r A ~ ~ a r z= ~ . hea-'e:--r.;o.
s - - > ! i C : e 4 2 , 6'1
T?S; = ' I \ .- . .y - ~ c e rsf f:le ' tc: ;rsc z r a c s f s r ? . z t : c c ~zrzr.~'_er_= --: "
~ ; r ' : l e Z ; ~ ~ a ~ T r z ~ . s ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~
.y.etzzhta'i;e. : < r i - e E l ~ :(ms.7'
~ ~ ; ; r ~ ~ ~ ~ c : r a ~ v ~= ~hiesa cd eRr 3I 2cf ~3 .t4:ccle ( 4,. z, s )7
r;sg - .,-.L.,er o f z e ~ u r s . c v , ' x i s ~ ~ L 1 a ~ ~ rzscz' :ssr l s : " --

- I l l \ ; .-,-
r .I-L
. v A L p - . . v --2LI:Vlisc3e^s
---
~ L e t + ~ ~ a t 3k ~ e 1. : { y . s g 5
r i zi e' Z
.-
~ : x . ~ S z n r r z - = o isn t= h e a d e r I c f - . l : i a c l e , x, -- c r
~ , s g= " 9 u r 1 k e r o f c c n r r c l 3 c i r . t ~ : "+ t n x n . C c n r r a l l c i - ~ s
- , . --
T L e ~ z C a c a~ r l eW. r ~ c e s - t'T.s;\
9 --..~,ke s u r e :he r.:.zcer o f c s r - t r l p c i n z s I S 3 r.;;r;lher
, -
:r : ~ . u ~ ~ Z o r . ~ r o l F 3 : nT~ir,.
z s . I~P1~:r.Cer; t h e n
y. = r,7:rLCcr.~rclTsinr_s. Trim.; s'- .T--.--
.I.IL...~,L
=sg = "?he -
..L.~.-,-
.--a?- b- -c
c c n z r c l ~ c i n t si s r.cz a r.ur?Ber, s C c r ~ : - , - . . ."
r.s;5c:<. x ~ r ' s;r.s;, r ~l-.ezT;
reE.;rn r - i l
erci
n c r . ~ 3 z z e 3 3 r ; e s = > - e a d c r I z f c .>!i;cls ; hC, 6
Tsj = - ~ . b e ro f c a t e g o r i e s : " A+ n 1 ~ n Z s r ? 2 c r i e s
l T LxA l . -
~ , ~ ~, + - - zse 3 lt 8~: m s ' ~ ~

T,\TV: ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ .
1 . ,n-,C . : r ? rr.e r:;r?~er c f za:zcsr:es i s 2 :.;;,cer
. - '11:r;Sazeqsri~s. -. r ,l r r . Isi'iumk~er'~
-1 ?:-.en
= . ,. d-,,- . .- d
IT -
- c _ e 8 ~ ~ r :Te rs~. r n . . : + ~ ? l . ~ ~ . b e r
c.1~2
- = _.,, r-..-r-:.,er o f r t e z z r : e s i s t:.? a ni;?ker,
""'k3
.,. ?r:r::?.,z. .."
~ s z ' ; : . : . 3 ~ 1 3 ' : ~ : s ? , 'eez;,
'.?. - - 7- n
. -
- L - . A - . . ?
.
:
L
3°C
1 -D
A
-A
LaCI - - -no
-..- - vbc-7 u L2oiy.t
c z rA :--=--m>
L.-d-l zicr.
T.SJ = " C c n z r z l ~ 2 F . rLr.formazim;n: "
~.etaCasa?ile. W r l t e E 1 z ,rnsgj
f c r ESZL :TS~:< L K - . . ..
, ~ , -
- = i r . ? L l e . ?.eaiELt
7-
,
kle3cer:nrn
I:ne?;:;~. = >;ieX?;lrn + 1
_ - -- _ - -a- : . j
, " " - .-leacer:rfs:
1
- _' , '-..._
hS
7' +
,G-a-' ~ate.;ar>- r s c o r d
. .
T,S= = "Cat3 -- d- _+ e- j-urr - y 1c Y O C Z Z C inf3: "
- -- ?
~ . e t 2 , a t 3 i:-s. ;:r:teE1r ,ns?
f 3: eazn l r d e x L?. 1 . .3
- p 2 , , a l l r-*. =
..--
. .
A L L r,:
- .
- -
2-5. 7.s32ELz
PTLe;\I,;~, = 1 A
' p a r s ? th.e r z z c r S
-
,-=,-
. - + , -=- r, hsa&sr:r.?c. >,:i2ciie';'~:, L.!;
- . r - - ,:!2~,3
.4,d-
. A =
7
..
;:.;:y:c:ts'cr:.i;t(3cdes = >:eacsr:r.fc .:~ji631? '2-, .,
, ,
ri::=c<.:21c:2:.:n = h e , u e y l r f y .'!id:- '2:, 6 : . r ~ ~ : y . . . : . ~ ~ ~ ~ : x ~ + ~
. .
ci;r;Pj~-2s = 55~osr:r.f 3 .>.ii~(.;.1r+ (3C., 6 . Tz-ir;l..Z.s";~p,bs~
-*
hs-rcf~:cae~fire,L:pA43.ecs = k.~;l-i?rlnfa .?4iidd1e IS-, 1 ,
I --+
.>=_ rr.;3 z a a tsclsarL v 3 1 . i ~
-., --? ( 1-
..--.>\7-&.--
..<
.
..-..-, c L . - A T ~ S-L l. r ; . , : :-,' 2 7 5 = ":"" .
+; .C3 .?
b - a - ; ~ ~ : ~ ~ e 2 L i i ~ e 3 L i n !=i Ftr1.2~:
Fe~5
~ a - b - q ~ < c d e ~ A ~ r . ~ a L ~ ?=- > L3.->3?

b3:3cs
27.d
. .
. a v e N z d e 2 S i n e i i n , - : R e , z s = !-.e3,22r:~.:a. :~:i33:? (?a, 1)
, - 1 ..
' ssz :his tc a csc-ean ;sAdL
j z ;L
,..c,~~l,dLLd;ne-:nkKecs
,
-T-,.,,- - , = "- , - . -.
'-a7 .
rLa~.;e!~Ycde;Liz~;:r.,<3ezs = rr,j+
else
. i a - b - e M o ~ e 2 L i n e L i n ~ ~ ? e== :falses
2nc
..-.
L . ? ?rea-.',?J;;m
- = k.e3der:nf. :.!idd:-, 6',
r,:rL2+r-s = r.e3cerlnfc.;.]iddlee:4 6, E ' ,
kAs~e-zArec2?;oae;:c,<3ecs= he2der:nfg. ;]i-dle '53, 1;
' se= this 3 L c s ~ s 7 -~i ~~ e
.. --- ( i ; a v e B r e a 2 x c d e L i r r r < 3 e e z s = ": " ' - -e?-
A ., '
fiareLJArea2)JcdeLinX3eca = true
e-se
.. ,, c.~Ar2~2)~c3eLink~,~zs = f 2:s~
'ha--'-
s
L..
-
!-j
1.d
- -- eA~rea2iir.eLi::<3e~zs = ?l~zder:r,fc.:~lidd:e, 5 4 , 1)
' s2t zkis to a Booleap ~ a l , ~ e
. - , \ L * - - ~ ~ e g - r e a ? l i r A e ; i - : < 3=e ,"z-s" '
,
- + - A
- L
r .
- -..-.A
;
17
-
i'.s-:e-:-r~~i~:~e:in:<3e:s = tr.22
YL.25
-.l _ - -
---
I.=.,e.2Area2LineLin:<se-s
'L
= :z_se
a-
-. .-
r-
.
- - - r c > -
:IG. -..L
<?d,-
.Aub---:5cs
?,eazer:rL=2 . : . : L : ; ~ : ~ > E ::5,
-??r--
=
-
-- i
I
,-, L.L-S tC. 3 h2c1ez:_? slue
c = L -'-4
-
1; 'h~ce~2~reaCccre:ists= " -
,
- "',, :hen
- _ _- - .
:I-: =.--.reaZoor~-:sr_s = ;r.;e
I
?-SE
~ ~ - i e ~ L r 2 a C c c r ~ ~ =& --
f 3-Se
'-
i _ _ t -
--
: : , l ~ l e i ~ " u ~ = headeri?f- .[.::ddl+, 56, <:
- ,
2:~n~:nes = header-nfc.Yidcls, :5 6)
- - .
:.e ieL:-eC?ordLis:s = keadsr::-.f; .:.!F<dI? '1, 1
I - ,-- - --T.,:s, t 3 3 .3'23-52.3vZ_';e
. 7
- - ..a. -7 i r e r
-: I -.
5 = - - .. .
' , &'-"ri A 1
.?a-.-e1:neCoordLists = zrle
5 e
~ae~L:fieCccrj~:s+~ = false
;3 3
--
A
-.
~ s r =
j " Cate?cr,- care: 'I -=
--------x-'-
Ld 2L
2 a
"
-
- T.L
L\,3i?,e
,T531= nS;j 11 :-+
.., v .
, .
n . 7 -0 =--<----
--'-,,.C .,L--~-.
-,-,7s,<. -- a*tYib,;:s2
- .. ,I
,-,,------a-1c3:S -
.-
rrs: = nsg - " ~ i yAcc2~ i 2 r.,2yber:
b ~ -- I~ 'b- ---TF~,- ~ - -
~\ LgLu~L-.~.~~...-.s:zr~.-.z
.-
..-
m
T.sJ = "59 f " >J;~.bersf xcd?s : " + + rl;rNL>5;s. .Z.sSLri~qr

T, 7 =: y,, 37 - " > ~ L ~ ~ e - r >L ~.
- l~~ r: :~je
3 - re~;;r" z r < ~ ? y z ":
.- - .
~ -. .d- , ? ~
- r 4 0 'j- u . 2 F
-- - -
L : 7. .: - z d ~ L n . < ? \ ? ' 2 S . .+~ ~71~
1~ ~ ~ 3 ~
7 5 ; = n.3- -
" ;>jz3e-y;-'L,:--e k r - ! < q y~e ~ 2 ~ 0 ;,reserLc
s :"
'
1 ~ . ~ - : ~ ; < , ~ ~ ~ ~ L .r~:.sCt ~: L ~ +~ :71
~::~.: ; ~ C C S .
-755 = ':---,.. - -
., a>
.l - 11 ,
.- -"-;'=
~ . : , t z"~ -. . "
. 8 -. -,-. .. - :.:
:-!~..~:z-?zI:~.,':r~
L A 7-
n,s.:= -:,'
. - ,
11 L.Lp="r
,-,. :
f cress:"
+ - - -..
..ur.kireat II
'
-
, . 7.-
, ,u'~. - A ' ~
. - -. -
. F .L >.- -. , ~ - -
- ~. .-/-- .
?, . ,
: ~~.-,
: . .c4
.
A - -- -- >
P
~
- v- ,-. .- 7: :.ze:-.z: I'
-JL~-:.-
a
+T ~ . ~ - ; e - 2 - r e a 2 ? : ~ ( ~ L ~ n \ F F ~ ~ s . . 4-~ s;-~
:: ; y . ~ . ~ . ;
' a
:
? sf h e a d e r s t u f 5 , szart r'zdir.; ir. t?.e s z t s re2crAs
,
, r:na
-
:?.a ~ , e + d e dfields :n :-e ~ c i r ra : : y l .~, : ~ c e .,:~sb
- , ; l ' - , ; E + I > F l ~ = - - : - - _.---
L. a-.. - + - - - 11-
h,- .r w -1
A ,
A
". ; .- i r.-- ..-
&:isld, If--;
V " L . I _
--
. ;!II I
C s : ~ a - -, ,L
Y ~- -A
A: iu
n - = F O . q - - L - r i ' h ~- .s-b
-AL - - L U . - . Yind?ie1d, "na<cr";,
L ~ - .;>yI%:d = ~ 3 i n - , a z t r i C ' . ' : 3 b . Fin-J'<eld( " m i r A c r " )
-
-2'" & .
.,.,->La. = "'"-
ai..". ,'--..- A L ---, + - a b . Fir-dFiela
L - - ; ' h ; - r ,
"~~z:nrn?i.cr"
I r- l' n d t c e n e 2 ~ e ai z e l z s i n t h e a r e a 3:;rikcta ;'%b

1 : x 2 - '
-
id" 1
3r.'!aj =r--5';,3 = ,i?.e.2-c;rijl,'T&. F:cdFiel-, ("3,: c r " ,
:z:A:n-rIdYld
7 .
= Line.2at:ri5;z'ab. 'i-dF:e1", ' "~,ii2zf"
13:1:;.i?:& = L- ---. -L- ln'2F:e-c : "?.?j 2r~.:7lzz" ;

,k\Tm2n
7 s J - L v -
LA-,- J
I ;:-A t h e r.ee5ed f i e l d s i;, t h e a r e a az:ri*,:=.- -;"b

z a * 2 A r s a 1 2 c l d= ?rea,-- 'l
-'', -- "m
T?' I , = D . F i : ? d F i e l d i
-
13"',
aa>!a;crI3'ld = zre2.2-t-r: Lb-,,'Tzb,
- r;-.4r: - e l 5 ("ZI2j:r":
u .
2 -
- ~ ----
r J F ; - l 2= =re?A2At+ribTJTsk.
L - ?ir.d41sl=, ;
~ ~ ; " ~ ~=. :-- 2F,-cz2-L';
; ~ c - '.7T-"-nJ = - . 7 -niiL
A
4 - a_-- c( "naj c r - i n o r " j
AL'-
1 rezd . . - A ~ - - --.-
- ~ -.,- ~ ~L l n k a q e r ? c s r d s a n c s a - / e cr.err
L , L -
; % ' s ~ E czrrr3r
s. : "?Jz-s e t , ~ c - 3 ., .~ ~> J5o ~ e - t - a r a a. L i n i : a ~ e
. ,
L , - - L A L & -
I
, L,.5rT)
r i -
, >
zetcrn 3:
' r . o d ? - - t c - i i x e l:r,-ta?es .re sL3r-6 1; p e r 513 k.;tc? :in-

.
1:
- ( n ~ ; m S l i i n e L i s z n o d 12' = 2) t:]?n
!
~ u c M Z l l 3 e c s = n':~.%i5ic2;isz 1; ,I
0-3s
7.L-h-q , . . L7 ~ L L ~ ? , ~: iZcS" =
~ . Z l L i -r ,. e ~ ~ s t1;) . ? r c n z a r e ! / - 1
2
d
:
r.ZllTist = i;
I
. ~
,----
LC=-,
r t ,h e r - c d e - 5 2 - l i n e I r n k q f - 3 an- . , : r i t e t h e m t~ t h e 2 5 ~ s ~
-- -- - --
- . . -
;--
- L - e z c h i d e x in 1. . n l ~ r r . r l 2 l l 3 . e ~ ~
~ 2 1 1= ipA"le. z e s - z l t
lir.eZurr = l i r e N 1 ~ r ;+. 1
' c z r s e t h e linkam;? rezcrzis
-L ---- e a c n l ~ ~ a e;? x ' ~
. , *
2 . .11
,1-,.,--
: -=-r, = ..2ll.:"Cicidle : ':?.&ex2 - 6;, 6'1 -
., -
--
,. :
---I I
----
I_-. : c\7.;.,.'AF - r =?.er. - 3 1 1 L L L . U
l i n e I D = 1 ; r c T ? L - A . ~ . . . 3 - ~ x 1 ~ rA. >~e rs.

-7'
--. ,
r . ~ - _ L r s t..zsci , l i n e I Z
else
creak
eno
ezd
enc
' sa-:e t k e l i s t sf l i r e l:r.is t a t k e r:-,

- - 3
. - ,
fsr e a c h c211 ic r.2,~L:st
r.5-,qRerNl;rr: = n c c e 2 L i ? e L i c . < ~ . ~ T z. b
~. 5 d R e c o r s
rLcde2?ineii:.;c.;;>a5. Se-,-?~:l;s:.J,p.Eer ; . ; l ~ ~ ; : ~ e I ~ 7 1:~T,~~~,2:::~d~,,
Sr
GC:.-.t -:d!
r . ~ d ~ ; 2 L i n e ; i 3 k " : a > . s e ~ - ~ ' a l u e > : . l m b; e- ~
r 2 1 L L i ~ . e I & T l cn,? ~ ~ . j 3 ~ - > ; ; 2 ~ , ,
-- - ,
Ti& - -
en-
-, - : 3 ~ r ~ ~ . t z r ?L 22
) L?.?7.
, .
I z-eaa l r :n5 yalcr,r.::.cr za-rs
' 2r-3 a t t r i b u ~ ?r e c c r - s 2 1 5 s = - r ~ S6 - a i r s per 53 1 3 . ; ~ ~L ~ r . 5
;f , ( (j-.i;~-2.ttrib x 2 ' r;~:d 12) = 13; t ~ e n
n . , - - tt r ~ k z e z s= ( n , x i i l . : t ~ i b
,.-!!urn.~ 2 -- ,
0-s+
r . . ~ y . ~ l ~ ~ ~#, r' :r.~y~-L-:::rik
~ g ~ ~ ~ =* 2 ' ! L-,
,. ,
. Tr.ir.c?zc?, - 1
encl
ar=:;blisr = , :
' T F J :r
~ ~ tb.:j n;",? zt:y:b~::es :.1:::3;?s 3 2 ~ :7,.;r-:e ::-.:?y. zr :l-.s
-,-*--
AD::.- ~. .-
- - ,8 -
- A L L
. -
C ~ z , r s a c h indsx I n & . - ~ ~ ..A-
~ 2s
~ - 2 ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ =
, - .
-,z->. LYJ: : i s . ~ S S Z Z : Z :-
L A
1:neNurn = 1::"?1:1~ t 1
' c z r s s the 1 ir,ka,j~ r2f;nrds
r e r ? i i c h index' in C. . L 1
na'cr = attribRec.Middle ( ( ~1,.dex2* 61, 6 )
rn:L L 7.rC- = atkribRe(:.P~!':icldle( ( (.icde:.:?
+ 6 ' 7 5'1, 6)
if ( [maior. IsNumber) and (r.inor.1sMunk;er) 1 then
m a j o r = major .Trln.AsNurnber.SetF13rnzt( "cicid. " i . AsStrin?
ron!n = mincr.TrFm.AsNumbe~-.SetFormar (":~dnd.").AsStrir.c;
+-,,rlbL>ist
t . A d d ( {xajor, rni:!or) ;
el.53
break
erlu
<?nci
erlg
' save the list of line sttributes to the file
for esci d t t r i b in attriSLLsc
~e,dRecNum= p o i n t A t t r i b S ' T a b . A d ( l i R e c o r c !
noinSAttribVTab.SetVal~leNlinberipsFoin t I d F L d , n-wRecNurn,
---
,,,nt
-
id)
point.l.ttrlbVTab. SetVztl:;eStrl?c_ imaMz .i- j orIz!Fld, newRecNl:m,
-ti-.-:b-
0 - - - . 5et (CI) )
ncinr,Att-ikVTjb. SetT\lluciStrincj(paPIinorId7lci, ;-e~~.RecNi;rr;.,
atErLb. ';st \ :; )
---
.ic,Ln';.-irA~rih'~Tab.
Set_i7;;l.~eStri~ j(paPi!P!Fici, 2eiv.F.?i-Nurn,
a r t r L b . S e ~'0) -
attrib.Get (1);
e .-.3
enc
'co2-.7ertrke x and y coorlinaces csirg transfcrnation p 2 r a s e ~ e r s

--vc:;:rLables
-
(a? * xl) + a3
( 2 2 * 4'1)
:tlrpcd
.
I
,
y-xcd
?
-
.
=
=
= (a: * y l \
,- 7 4
(a2 - 1 24
v ? ) - (a2 * sl) t ~ : d
' acd a record ro the point 'Tab

ne;<RecMun = d l g P c ~ n FTabt . Add9.ecord
dLg2~:ntFTab. SetVal>le(Pz~r.rSi,apeFIzi,ne~,$RecNcr,, ~hePcint)
d;c;P;lnE?lab. Set'JaI~ueNi~mcer (pcj~.t1c!FId,newfiecMur,, p c i r . : -i-!
~ i l g P ~ i n t F T aSetVslueNumber
b. \pcint?ju~nElAreaOr?;cdeListFld,
ner,,iF,%c:,l'.~;?~,nurnZlAreaOrNocieLi sri !
dlql')int?Tab. SetVdlneNunoer (psint?l'~~lmEiIJineiisc?l:;, newPe!:N;13~,
LlunZILineL;stj
-,.
-i,L-jF;~iptFTjb.
i Set:J31uebjlL~mber( ~ o i r t N u r ~ ~ ~ t t r i n Fn ~l:d. ~,R c r c N : ~ n ? ,
: t r ib )
r: >LrJ"*.
: :-,E l
i
z-or3LisE = ,, ,,
, ,
:or zacn -.-.sex I n
. , . . . n.:nCcornLines
.
A
,
' r ? a s i n thz c ~ c r 3 i n ? ~ r ? s
-, :., s Z s c r d s = -r.Fil-.Xea&l~
.I -. rs'<ldn
.-- = lin??j~r,- 1
' p a r s e tk.2 z c o r d i r a t e s
~., - - - ? . ~ C J C Y.:"::dd.:e
~S - - . -Ayi~..'2.s>;lJ~,b~y
- q j
-----
L
:I(
.,,- - =
A -,--&a.
.'2
L
,
!
+a-
,
&-L<AL
, 7
- L ,
-- L , . -.
- 5 ,
'=or.-ert t h e x z - 2 7 cz?rz:?zr?s cs:ng trznsZcrza:~-;
- - v - -
L<-=...z-c-S
- + -- .
-;ar13cles
,
.. < - - - -
-
-
L \ ~ . , , ' ~ L .
I .<.?,,A
- ,-
d . t . k > u
=
-
{dl -
(21 * .,. >-'
ySj -
- (3: +
:a2 * x 3 ) -
SS\ 24
' - _ z d ~n the r.ajcrixir?zr arzr;n-xe

Y ; -
,
galrs ,
,. --
,n:rz:.czrib > C ) tnec
d a d .:1 tk-e na; c r /3.:?.cr ca:=s
-.,-=-
I
--D--
= IT ; attyjbcr_e rSlr,r-s a = ~ s z a r ~ c :6 -,airs cer $ 3 h i Ll-.t
~ ~
* 2) 7.~6 1 2 ; = c , cher
:
f n-yJ*yrr:b
rL;;Ti,,2A .
'
-E--'--Recs = ,..Y..--.i
,
2 , / :2
&L -,.-T------ --
i-i,
2-se
-..-
..l..;LcLikR.ecs= 'r.l~~-a-zt'~:b
, - - v '
" L : , - & , . Tr;~:-.cats' - 1 - , - ? \
5r.d
arzris;ist = : I ,
. , .
' rsad ic the c o d e - t z - l : c s l:?.~t;es ? n C 1,~riLe:hen z z :re 33232
L
8
&
2
A
7
L
-
-
-
- ,
Z,- e a c n :r.dex in 1. . r.7~rrS.r:riC3LSzs
T 12
5:;rijZec = in?ile.ReadZI:
= ~ ~ z e M u r-n I
> ,
li?.eS~~.
c ' c - J ~tne linkage reczrcs
I - - y - n
f3r o n -h index2 in .6 . :1
m i ~ o r= at-crlb2ec.>!iddle ' ; in3ex2 12,, 6 ' x
r , l n a y = atzribF~ec.:.liijl; : i?.de:<2 T i , + 6 ), c- ,;
>,,r,a; or.Is!;::rker:
+ , 2y.c ( ~ i ? . cIsX:x,berl'
I ~. , :?.ST.
'3ddlng eleva:ic- cc ?.:-cscqracc:j files

~f ( ~ ~ 3r. = 22) tk.en
3 2 Tri~...k?I:sr~~r
nu~.Elev= mlncr . TrLn..z.sPJ:r~er
2-se
<I ,- = - - --
-
'the ele-~acicr:Ilcr r.zn-5:;ps~grapk.;~rl-25 ;s
- ,
-
r' -,.
1
d- - =1-:-
..\*.,,Ll:3T:
T.,,.-- = "2" . ASX XI-!:?.^^^
er.'2
3nc
e r. s
er.d
I ?-te I:st of 11x2 3::ri~c:es t-c * A s = - ' 3
C.1-
far a"rlb i n a:trib:is=

r e - , ~ ; x ~ c > : u=- lip.e-Z+---r:CT,iTac. . 2 A c 3 + z 2 - ~
l i n e . q z t r ; 5 V T a b . S e z V a l 1 ~ e N , ~ ~~s ae -r i, n e I 5 7 1 4 , ne:.;Re-?j;r=,
3 -
.-= . ^
, .
-u,
-
. .
~:r,eAt:ric'i>b. S e t V a l , : e S z r i r : z , La:'IajcrIcFlci, newRec"un,
a:=y:c. .,
;eL / - '
, " I
)
/
l i r e A c t r i b S ' T a b , S e t 7 , ' a 1 1 i e 3 t r i r .j 1 1 3 ~ ~ ! ~ r ' . r , r n

j, I ?e t. ~ ~ R e z N ~ n ,
at:r:a., .
Ge- : 1 :
l i n e . A c t r i b T b 7 7 a Se=STalljeS~ri?~j7
b. 'laZ4M?ici1 ~ e ~ ~ ~ 3 e c N ~ n ,
at:r:j.Get(CI + a'r-rib.Get(l))
ens
er.d
d l - ~ L i . a ? T a bSez*JalueNurnber
. ( lir.e?Jurr.':ert?lZI n e > ; ? , e c ? j ~ n , num7:erz;
dlq:ir.e?'ab. S e t 7 i a l u e F J a r j e rr;1 1 : : e 1 . j i ~ y - 2 A ~- ~t . ,+ A.L ' ~ .,
. ~ 3 n - h4 uTr.
A < - L-
? L , ~ . ~ - : r. tiz b ;
., -
3 l g L I r . e ? T a b . S e t ' . ' a l c e > I u ~ ~ . k e: -r ~ r i e > ~ 1 : ~ . Z 1 e xe:.:Xes::-n,
-~, n c r . ~ ~ e - ~
7
i * r * *
-. --
, c
: ~ ~ e R e c = ~ q".\"'I ~ ,~ "
e-3efi
I
-..1 s I S a p~lyqcr,: z r e a ; r e c c r l l
-:
p ~ l-y:d = t h e R e s . > ! i d a l e : l , 5 , . -1 r;n. .ZAsNu~,kzr

$
:<: = t k A e 3 e c.:.!idclle :6, 1 2 ' . Trim..?-s!:c~.,?er

--
..V - -- ,:.-Rec. i.Iiddle (15, 12;. T r i c . .z.sP<:rr,cer
3L 3 3
break
*a:>
en-
e r.3
' s a v e :he l i s t o f l i n e l i - k s c o t h e f i l e
f o r l a z l : a211 i n a211L,ist
cewi?ncNun = a r e a 2 L l n e L i n k V T a b . A d d R e c o r r i
a : e a i ~-i r , e l i n i ; T j T a b . Set:/a;!jeNuy.ber ;a2ll.Zar.-3I.j:;rj, - =-.,vAxe~:~~L2T~,
.. -- '-
p o i ? i-j)
-
;re;;?',inei:n:<'/Tab. SetValueNumber ; a 2 1 l L i n e I F l d , ne!.iSer,?jcrr,
- 9 -
GLLL
-
er.c
if (naveAreaCacrdLists) then
' r e o d t h e c c o r d i n a c e s from t h e f i i e a n d n a k e :he pzl:jgoz
;4sqBcx. E r r o r ( " N c t s e t up t c h a n d i e r e a l p c l y g c n a r s o s " , t 5 e E T )
return pi1
, -
ir (nuAdttrib ? C) t h e n
, ,
' r z a d i 2 c h e major/rn:rcr pairs
. .
- ~ F o -
1
,--=I a t t r i b u t e r e c o r d s Bre s t c r e d 6 p z i r s z e r 3 ? 5 y z e ::ns
-
( I ( n u n A t z r i b * 2 ) mod 1 2 ) = C ) t h e n
:F
L-
n u ~ A t t r i b P ~ e c=s ( n u m 4 t r r i b 2) / 1 2
ZLSD
n l ~ ~ A t t r i b 3 e c s (=( ( n u & - t t r i b * 2) / 12) . T r ~ n c a t e ) 1
erd
- -r" ~
3 - i L - b L i s t= i )
' r e a d i n t h e p c l y g o n a t t r i b u t e s 2nd x r i t e t h e n ta = h e d - a s e
1
L-,e
_i:
f c r e a c h i ~ z i e xi n 1. . n ~ ~ i i t t r i b 3 e c s
a t t r i b R e c = in7ile.ReadEl:
- ,
11neNurn = llneNum + 1
' Farse t h e linkage reczrds
f c r e a c h i ~ d e x 2i n 0 . .11
m a j o r = a t z r i b R e c . M i d d l e ( ( i n d e x 2 * 6;, 63
m i n e r = a t t r i b R e c . Middle ( ( ( i n d e x 2 * 6 ) + 6' , 6
i f ( ( m a j c r . I s N u m b e r ) and ( n i n o r . I s N u r n 5 e r ) l = h e .
m a j o r = m a j o r . T r i m , AsNxnber . S e t F c r ~ . a(t"dcc?. " , . P-sS t r i 7 . g
m i n o r = r n i z o r . T r i r n . A s N ~ r n b e rSeLForif,a:
. ( " d d d d . ' I : .ASS'"'"
--I..?
a 2 l l L i s t .Add({major, n i n c r })
else
brsaX
en(?
ezd
.-nc
;ave tb.e : :
st ~5 Line .lir!<s:a the 5il~
z,s= e a c h a c t r i b ifi a t t r l b L , : ~ c
p.exwRe~:bj~pl. = ~ z ? s A t t r i b ' , ~ T a k.L5::?,?,;3rd
-.
' 253 a record tj-,e p a l , ; '>b
r.ey,.j3ecNu~,= j l g ? c l v ? > b . . 2 - 3 d ? , e c z r 2
d l g 2 o l y F T a b . S e t V a 1 x e ( p 0 1 y S h s ~ e ? l C :r.e;.i3ecN1~m,
~ zF.s;sl,;i
d l g 2 o l y F T a b . S e r ' ~ a l 1 ~ e ~ J l i r n(p817115?1d,
mksr ?e:.jIiecCl~~m, -colt: -id'a
dlgFol-:7Tah, S e ; i j 3 ~ ~ ~ e ) : 3 ~ ,I5-~r 3 ~ rl- - ~ ? : 1 . . r ; . ~ ~ & . r e 3 ,r ie~

~~
i
d? ' .a~- 'S
l -,. -
." i2.. -I,!,
~.~~r.~lArezList
7
fi~gFol:;FTab. S s c V a ; ~ ~ e ? J c ~,ccI-::\];;nE1Lir.eL:z: , -.- 2 ,

-. ~ s r ~~e~~;Rec>:;~,
r . ~ : y ~ E l : i r e L i s t ''
( 5 l g F s l y T T a E .Sez~Jcl.:eF~umkerZ , ? . ~ r ; r ; r ; l e r t n?~~rRec::zrr,
I1~, n1,;rr...- e r z :
..
c;=Fcl;;'Tac. S o ; ' , ' - l ; e N ~ ~ ~ ;~r-.2riTZaz-
~. . L c ~ ~ l x sezl;21,1~r-
, j ' ~ ~~-:r~~..!cer
~ . T.'
- P < L -
k ~ ~ - - - 7 :--, !l.F,,...?E?!~,ZL, T ~ X ~ ~ E Z
~ , - s -z:.,-s
: c ~ ~ ~ . i s I a ? . c s Fx1e ;~. ;, 5 ~ e c N . ~ ~uz: -
L E
' ac3 c '-b- -\ -

+ ee:~r,z:d t- th:? ~ c t n t'T-b
--a
. - c1y.t z
- - ; -,-
r :.!z!<e :<-:.czl
. . - A . u .
,
t
- .
x;lr.2c:'l
re!.~;Rec?:,~c = dl-:oinzfTak
3-
.:&33,ec&
dlg?cizrFTab. S e z T ; a l : j e C:F 3 i n y s h . a ~y.ew3ecx-~-,, - ? p P ~ i ~ . t ,
.- - --
; - g ~ ? ; n z r . a k . S ? t T l a l u ? N 1 ~ c c k ~aecri ? r I c i F l 5 , ?e:.~Rec\jcz, ?.i?;oisI1::;?, -
-- - ..-. -i d )
---
-\-':
-la"ii-t"ab. S e - 7 , - ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ J ,,b-..
.Lm --~u >e ~y ~, c r . ~ ~ A I A r e z <, r ~ <- -z-5,
~e::~:~
-p.-.,.;3>sc-<;n, n s ~ , E l ~ > ~ r z a L i z E ;
5 i g p o i r , t T ? ? k . Ss:',-aI~eNcmb-r ~,~:rz>:~:~.~::l:.s,:sz~ > - - 2 , :.~.,-;F.E:);.-:?,,
- , ,
i - . . ' d ~ . ~ : ~ ~ ~ . e ,- : s t
,-
-~c:F-.ir:::,k. S s ~ - v 7 2 ~ . ~ e : 'pc:r.r:;.;;~:.=tri,-T;:i,
<-~~,~er :.s-,.~?
---'-.-T2r
r,. ; ~ ~ l - r4 L-
',
I
end
' c L c ? r :he stzt;s nar

- , >
I ,
c i ? l e t ? ~ h uPr.eedeS
e err.^::; 1 2 - e ~
1 :F
..a - _~\~ccie~Li?eL.in:~R
I
'- T7axT
KCe Zc s' . ;he?.
, -2 1 -- e . 3 e l e ~ (s~ e f i ' : ~ d e 2 L i n e L i z ~ 1 ~ : a r r . e ,
1 --A
71.-
- ; '- - -?=
1
_- ..,=
!
. I r e a 2 L i n e l i n : h : 9 e c : s . : l c z ' zrler:
, _
7'7 -~ e l e t 'ea e f r~aisly.e~;:-:!l;a;r
e T , - . '#
1
., . - -
-.,i.
?x-.~s.>re31,:crdL:src . Kc: ; :.er.

~ z e- x
- ? ~ : y ! : ~ r ,..GSST~:.~~
-
- A ..4
-
r
e = zie5231y-?:zr~e
' A n - -
L..d.L .Al.sSzrL:.;. -2:: e -- &..- -
'---..-- 3
1 """A'-';'c;,TTaB
--.----
= rLll
L.----
I
-7 -- -1 - . P
LaL7 ~ e z(def.z.rsaALr~:5Ka?.s'
e 1 -ko-y;~n
- a:cr:z.:xs.;
1 - -
:: l e . C s l e z e (lefFolx;b:am.e,
I
.s L
t .
L-.
1 - -
;1 - 2 . E e l e z e ( ( b r a r . e + "shx" ..=.sF;lo:;z~.s: ' . sh::
' F i l e . 3 e l e c a ( : b c a ~ , e+ " c 3 f " : . ; ~ ~ i ~ ~ : ; ~ - ~ t; h f
I
-2-
7,
.. --
2.-
-AF)--.'
. ley,.:) tk-er.
-2 A ~ . * L
.,
T .._L
, - - --3 - -. -.- c f t h e T.rie:is ir, r.-.e d::.:rr.--- . .- .
c-,L
+- A . _
z _ ~c-s
- = ax-.G < r S r c ~ - - t 1.?2y;\2
. -5
L r.5...' 1, E s
.
= i
Z,-
+-.- - -
e;~:n aDoc i n :heLscs
-. L 1Y2c. IS
I _
,'lle!.:I , ther.
t h e v i e w s . Ada :aCcc ..:.sS:zins:
7 -
--..- r.
e r. 2
I add t h e c p z i s n f c r c r e a t l - 3 a nex T;:e>;
-..,
-'->I.;; ..Add ( "<New View>"
,,a
A<> ,-
' q:ve =k.e z s ~ ar c h z i z e o f .,.j:ich vie.;; t~ &Sd t > L e s n ~ p -e .: ~ ~2
- ~
r5e'Jie.w = rr.s?Box. LiszAsSerzr.; ':.h,e'llei.;s,
, , _ e c t rb.2 Tu-$ewz c a d d :he s t a p e f i l e r,'' , -- .p. C- F
f!q--
u
m "
-
s a k e s c z e t h e y a i d no:
I 2iFz;q cartel
; : ,-bo.,.-ew -.."
= K:1)
I :her.
reLLr3 9 i l
errl
shss2.A.Bd = d e f L i n e N a ~ e , c i e f ? ~ i n t K a - e l
, -
:
I : ? . a v e - l A r e a C o c r d L i s t s1 t?.e;:
s ; - A ~ s 2 > ~ cIi7d:.s e r t (defP01yYar.e)
C A L L A
-. --- '; thei;ie:u. = "<New V i e w > " ) t h e n

' ,2rea;e = h e neT,<v i e w
-_-, . e , / ~ e s =< 'Jieiq. ?!vla:~e
else
I r- i z d t h e e x i s t i n g view
+, . ,-. - = a v . G e t ' r a j e c . ~
'A F:~.aDcc ~::he~Iieet:j
^
>P..^
'd
f s r s a c 5 skp2-Add i n s k ~ s 2 A d d
t h e S r c S a c e = S r c K a n e . Make ( s h p 2 A d d d 2 s S t r i 2n ,n ~
.., N , n e n e = Tkeme. Make (zkeSrc!Ja7e)
- 1 1
ene7,:iew.AddThene ( newThe?,e )
e2c
-..- . G,o f-A:;.T T , Gcer.
-A,
!
duu ,ne t a b l e s r o t h e p r s t e c t
L '
.: -
L
- - - - = \ln
, -,=': -.Jude2L:r.eL~r.:<3ecs, E:-.e?.
-.--.---
- a . c . \ . ~ - l T a b l e= T a b l e . Y a i e ,r.cde2Li~.eLL;.:<-iTsc,
--
--:l=>;2L:>h;e. Set$jame [ r c ; t ~ ~ a r , -e+ " F z L L i n : < s " , ' ?si?t2L;2e 1ir.k~
- --,--
-..u
- -f
1 (..a .--,
'1- - ~, -"0 2 - 0 3 2 ; i ~ ~ L ~ n , 4 F ; e ~:hen
s:
r - ,,
0 2 3 3l - - A : = = T a b l e . blake ; a r e a 2 L i r . e L i n k 7 T z c ~
- .
_..-.,,- 1 T a b l s . Se-,Na.v,e ( r o o z ~ . a ~ +-
-bn3'- . e ".:.2L 2 i r . k ~ )" h- r e s 2 i i . e -:?..<s
ez-
-.,..-..
'-o;cir.krr:jTajle = > E e . :,!a:<e ; ~ c i r . r _ > . ~ : r i 5 ~ I I T a b ;
z ? . e ? o i r t L A z t r i j T a b l e , Set?;am,e( r o c t n a ~ ~-- e "Fclnt A t = r i b C _ _t -~ q, "
-- 1.-Q:
.-,-..-1 ~ . r z r i S T a b l e= T a b l e .Ka!<e(lir.e.J-rtrib-,'?b:
mF-
--..=;;y.eL:zri22able,
,. -, 3ezbJap.e (r:c'~i-.arne ++ "Li?.t A t t r i b . : t s s r ' ;
-:
. +
?,aye-:.reaCcsrdLiszs) t h e r
> > 2 l - - -v-. ;bTa.D;e =
-- ? c : r.- L L
pb<a:<e' ? e ~ - 2 , , ~ r _ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~
.-+02Y-2z:--v
-
.
,
A
-
_ _- - - ~ T a b l eSet>,:ar~e
, eerz3:na?,e + - i "?sL':'jc~. ; t ~ r i 3 ~ i r _ e t ' '
2,-n
-- -.
-..d
c.1-
2-se
I
1 c-
,? p>- L
iZ\r
Ll
=k.e ~ l ; : p , ~ t sh",apefi;es
ci;z3ir?iamt: = i n ? i i e N a : n e . R e t u r r , l z r ..SsS:ri?.';
s -
: l z ~ ; r ~ ] , ~ . ~ ;.;t3ir'jane.Sci^,s::yct5
- : ~- s ? \ I a xZe:Zx:er.sic:.
fl t!
I
n
'
!!
>.L \ 7 -
L - -
- ~.
-. --
, -
Sic:. CJ'LTL~ 2 1 ;F.~P.
1 --1,
s+ , - - ntta e x t e n s i s 2 s r- r-
.=
?:.:I.
<n
C132-i. - -. ,
l
\ - - - -
1 i r - ~ x tf i l e d i d ~.st? ~ a y ea n e x t e r . s i c r
L
- .n
.La
r z , s ~ c 2 ~= . e :zi- .; - e N a ~ ~ S
e .e z 3 a s e : \ I ~ ~ . e
7
-
Z..d m
- -
1
. Y I L ~ . ~ I z r.amss a c c ? d k e c u t :~.zc a ~ , :- _ z, : -, : ~ ~ c crr1z=
" Q - - .
= 5c:f
I _--
- _ e--z.,,; -,-a . c a y
cl- -- t z ~ ? ~ 3 ? .;?.eyl, ~5 ..-A .- c , ~
h,:t - 5 - c ...--'<=
- -
: . . - - 0-
.l-..- :he9
l ~ L y c : : z ? : a ~ e = : cu;Dir?lar!e - r c c t ~ a ~-, es r.- r - , - 1 1 ,2- - . -c .. A. y7 , T . -2s:
A-Z-
. --
- ' -
:-?!:zr.%
)
-
zs:2:-Lsxa:le = ,u - - ,- , -
- ~- - t c i r > j 3 r , e- ~ C C - X ~ - - , + .~e--:
- - . c - - f I
, .. ? S ? I ~ E : ; E . T F J -
- \ , \ - - m...-n = ; c u r Z : r J ~ ~ ~ ~- ?e , - - - -
-
L.Aa,
- -
- o ; Y -
U u _ L I-Y L ~ 3 _ b U C - _ C ~ e . L e7; ,c : ' I -c -h-lt,,. .--A -.- ::e
+
. - >krne
--- -
Ao:zn2
A
.--:-,-,-4A\1-T3- -L..~.,.L = ' -
-ij;pir)!aci. A r ~ z t - r . 3 L~? ~ f =~ ..:
"ca.f -
&
.
" ' .2.-s"-1 ---e'Jame
..
5ef llyeAAtrr:=fiane = ,;ou:zi->---a Id...r - . ----
1 - 6 -
II - _ z k f " ' ..L-s':le);aae
_ " ; ~ f . 2 A r ~ ~ . A ~ - : r r i=
~ ? j, ;~Pr >
r .. c- ~-":7r.e
d--L---<-.
- + r z c = n 3 ~ e:sf
. = 5) -
czc. 2;- , . ->2
;?p--T,,
- -l?Y~r.e
7 - 7 2
C CQ
'2 f 1 c < 3 ~ > : 2 y . f =

' ; ~ t r i ~ > ] -~ r~, z ~ s. r ez , ~ , ~ " C C z . ..-.-.--
+
a: - :\:-.>z.r2sCclI
-
-3;-
u , ~ ~ , ~ i r l : -a ~
- --':--=
=..=...r = r ae= = r a r s + " ? i n + . s t . = " .A2-s;ll?;;a-2
-
~ ~ f F ~ ~ ~= , : ~.jtDirMz--,e
- ~ j a ~ - + r-ot?-ar;e - " - -'- - - - - I T
-. . . 3 . . c ...--
A 2 T :- - C -?,----
<."- .,d. ,'Z
7
= !zut:lr>jap,e
-.
+ y c > t - , z r . z - 'I -L c . s . - = , , , . .--S --
- C :-e?i~:~.S
- dL-
- '
-
I-LL:.-.---Atrrik!Ja~,e
?,-ZT '
= , 3 U - p : -,;-n e rso:n-me
, - - - A . y c - " -' 5
+ - . -'-"'‘- ; . .?s FFIZ~:ST.E --
end
end
?zd
' creace the shapefiles

2I~FointFTab= Ftab.MakeNew idefPointNarne, Point;
3lgLineFTab = Ftab.Yakan'e:i idefLineName, PolyLine)
dlgPolyFTab = Ftab.MakeNew(defFolyName, Pclygon:
' create a dEase files t~ store the attribu~ecodes

cointAttribVTab = VTab.YakeNewjdefPointAtrr:bNane, dBF.SZi
- .
-1ne4ttribVTab = VTab.MakeNe~~(defLine'.trribNarne, d3fiSE)
areaAttrib-dTab = VTab.MakeNe1.g (ciefAreaEEtrribName,dSASE)
zdd the needed fields to the point f c a b

cointIdFld = Field.Make ( " ~ d " ,#FIELD-SHQ3?, 6, 0)
nurAttribFld = Field.Make ("n~~rn -attrib", #?IESD-SEORT, 6, 0)
dlgDgintFTab.AddFie1ds({~oinrIdFld~ numAttribFldj)
add che needed fields te the line ftaj

;IncIaFld = Field.Make("line-id" , #FIZLD-SBORT, 6, C:
startNode7ld = Field.Makei"sEart-node", #FIELD-SHOR" 6, C )
endtJoaeFld = Field.Make ("end-code", #FIELD-SHORT, 6, 3)
ieftAreaFld = Field.?la!<e< "left-area", #FIELD-SHORT, 6, 0)
rightAreaFld = Fiel5.!4ake("ri?ht -area", 4FIELl)-SESRT, 6, C :
numVertFld = Fieid.Paxe ("nun-vert" , $FIELD-SEORT, 5, O j
nxmkttribFid = Field.Make("num-attrib", #PIEL3-SEORT, 6, 0 )
nur,ElevFid = Fieid.YaLe ("elevation",#FIEL2-SHORT, 6,O)
dlgLineFTab.AadFields({lineICZIdI startNodeFld, endNodeFld,
lef~AreaFld,rightArcaFid, numVertFld, ncrrAttrib?ld, r.umEle7;?12:.:
' acid the needed fields ts the polygcc ftab

polyIdFld = Fie1d.Yake !"pcly-id", #FIELD-SHORT, 6, 0)
numT,'ert?ld = Fieib.Make ("nurn-vert ", #FIELD-SHORT, 6, C :
numqttri5Fld = Fieid.:Yake ; "num-attrib", #FIELC-SEORT, 6, 3 )
dlgPolyFTab .AddFields ( {polyIdZci, nurnVertF;d, nclnirrritF;cij,
' add the needed fielcis 70 the point atrtibute table

paPointIdFld = Field.Make("pcint-id", #FIZLD-SHORT, 6, 3)
paMajorIdFld = Field.?Yake("major", #FIELD-CXAR, 3, 0)
~aMinorIdFld= Field.Yake ("minor", #FIELD-CFiAR, 4, 0)
caMKFld = Field.Make ( "rial ~ ~ r x i X o z "#FIELD
, -CHAR, 7, 0 :
~cinthttribVTab.AadFieIds({paPointIdFlc, paNajorIdFld, pa?IiccrId5ld,
paP!NFld} l
I add the needed fields tc t5e Line attribute t a ~ l e

LdLineidFid
1- = Fiela.Ma:<e! "line
- id", #FIZLD-SEORT, 6, (6)
laMajorXdF'ld = Field.?.Iake("ma;or", #FIELC-CZAR, 3, 0)
laMinorIdFld = Field.Xake :"minor", #"ESC -CHAR, 4, 0:
laP:MF13 = Field.Mzke ( "majorminor" , # F I S L G.-CH.21R, 7, 0 j
( (laiineIdFl~,liMajorIdFld, la>!,r.,:,rrd_'lci,
llneAttrib~lTak~.A~~dc~FieLds
laMMFidj )
' add the needed fields t g t?.s area atrcibure table

acArsaIdFld = Field.i!aXe i "pcly-id", #FISLD-SHORT, 6, 0)
aa?,]a<orIdFid= Field.daXs,"majsr", iFI5;D CHAR, 3 , 3 )
-
aaplinorIdFld = Field.Ma%e : "m-n=r", Y F I E L 3-CHAR, 4 , 3 )
aaMMFld = Field.Make ( "xa; orninor", +FIELD-CHAR, 7 , 0 j
areaAttrlbVTab .AddFields : {aaAreaIdFld, aaMa] orIdFld, aat.linorIrjSlS,
aaYMFld} )
' creace a Lest file for storlng inf2mation abcut the 3L[2
metaDacaFile = lineFile.!qake((outDirNarne + roctname +
"-meta. tutu).AsFileName, $FILE-PEXM-NRITE)
' get :he number of lines ir the fils

c o ~ a l L i ~ e=s inFi1e.GetSize
1 .,--
&,Lte out the firsr reccrd of the file to the metadata file
' this record was read above 3s a test for properly parsed data
asg = " * * - DLG-STANDAl7D FORMAT"

m a+ - --
..,..Lo~ciaFile.
? - WriteE1t (nss)
d i g i t a l C a r o g r a p h l ~ U n i t N a r ~=e headerTnfo.ieft(40;
~ . s g= "Nane of diqitial cartograpnl: u c i ~ : "-+
digitalCarographic3nitName
metaCata?ile.WriteElt(ms~)
crig:':atrialCate = i?es.derInfc. >!iaile 4 1 , 10)
3.sg = "Date of oriyinai scarce inaterial:" ++ 3rigMatrialDaxe
ne~aCataFile. WriteElt (ns;)
datecualifier = headerInfo.giddle(51, 1)
msg = "Date qualifier:" -- cateGualifier
meta3ataFile .WriteElt (msg)
scaleCfScurce = headerIr.fz .!Iiddle (52, 8:
xsg = "Scale cf source msterlal: 1:" - scaieOfSource.Trim
neCa3ataFile.WriteE1t {~r,sqj
zrbitraryQuadNurnber = healer~n'c.Xidcle(63, 3 )
- -
n s g = "Arbitrary Quad NunDer:" ++ arDitraryQuadNurnber
m~taCataFile.WriteGlt!nsg!
l a r g e s t P r i m a r y C o n t a u r I ? . t e r v a l = headerInfo.Middle(ll3, 4 ;
nsg = "Largest Primary Csuntour I n t e r ~ a i : "++
larqestPrimaryCantcu~'1~~t~r~:al
me~aSataFile.WriteElc~msj)
-.l.a.,rgq e s t"Largest
c- =
? r i m a r v B a t h I ~ t e r ~ . i a 1 headerIr.fo.Middle(llS, 4 )
=
Primary Barhyxetric Csntcl~r Ir,teroal:" r+
largesrPrinaryBathInterva1
r,etaSztaFiie.WriteElt (msg,
m a l l e s t P r i n a r y C o n t ~ u r i n z e r T j a 1= heac!erIrLfo.E4idd1e(i23, 4)
y.sg = "Smallest Erimar?; Ca,~.~.zozrInterval : " C t
s~.zlles t?rimaryContcurIn~e_*_*~aI
r,?taCacaFi;e. WriteE1t (rnsh;!
smal;esxTr:v.aryBathIlirer~:a1 = b.eaderInfs.Middle(l28, 4:
r , s g = "Saallest Primary Rathymetric Conyour interval:"
sr,~~LlzstPri!narySathIr~~~zrr~d~
metaCata5le .Write51t (n~sq)
.>!idi!le (132, 3 ;
c:3Cief1!?1ags = k e a d e r I n f ~
msy = "Caded Flags: " tt ,:odedF?-~s
metaDacaFilz .:\jriteElt(msg)
rnsg = "Edge Matchinq Status"
.~.stzCazaEil .IJriteSlt(msg)
ejqews = 5eaaer;nfa. Middle (136, 1)
asg = "Nest Edge Status:" +' edgews
7.eraDa:aF;le .WriteElz imsg)
edrnwr = headerInfo. Middle (137, 1)
xsg = "Reason for Nest Edge Status:" + + ed2ewr
xetaCacaFile.NriteElt (msg)
edgezs = 5.eaderInfo .Middle(138, 1)
n s g = "Norzh Edge Status:" ++ edgens
metaDataFiie .Writezit(rnsg)
edgenr = headerInfo.Middle ( l 3 9 , 1)
msg = " K e a s o ~for North Edge Status:" ++ edgenr
metaDataFii?.WriteEit(msg)
edgees = hea5erInfo. Middle (140, 1 )
msg = "East Edge Status:" + T edgees
metaDataFile.Krif eElt (msg)
edgeer = neaderInfo.Middie(l4l1 i!
i-.sg = "Sezison for East Zdge S ~ a z ~ > s :r"L edgeer
;?.etaDataFile. :drit2Elt (nsg)
ecgees = >eaderInfz.Mi3dle(L42, 1)
~ s =g " S c u ~ hEdge Status:" i+ edgees
neta5ataTiie.WriteElt(rnsg)
edgesr = headerInfs.Middle(i43, 1)
msg = "Reason for South Edge Status:" + T edgesr
n.ecaEataFile.Writezit (mscj)
' read in recora ncmber 3 of tF.e header i n f o r ~ z ~ i o n

keaderizfo = inFile.ReadElt
- ,
IlneNum = LineNum r 1
' parse recor~
c l g l e ~ ~ e i C o d=e hezderInfo.Middl2 ( C, 6 )
xsg = " D , G Level Code:" t + clgLevelCode
metaDataFile.Write'lt (msg)
qroundCocrdSys = headerInfo.Middle(6, 6)
~ . s g= "Grccnd planimetric reference systen:" TI groucdCoordSys
r.eta3ataFile.WriteZlt (msg)
-
zoordSysZone = headerInfo.Midale(12, 6)
- = "Gr,-cnd pla~imerric refeFence sl-stem zcr.e:" + t ,:?orc?S:;i.;:~t3
..~>g
m?taDa+aFile.WritePit(msg)
? ~ a p P r o j e c z l o n F a r a a e c e r s = headerIp.50 .Middle ( l ? , 120)
rsg = "pia~ projeczion Parameters : " 7 - ~,apPro; 9c':onParameters
' read in rezsrd ncnwer 5 of the neadsr i~.for~.atior

.,_:I~sr:nfs
-a7 4 = inFile.ReadElt
Ilnt3Num = LineNum 1 +
net2CataFile.WriteE1t (heai!erI~.fo)
' read in recori number 7 of the heacisr inforxation

F~eaderinfo = inFile.XeadElt
IinsXum = LineNurn t 1
' parse t h e rsccrd
r r . z ~ ? r ~ i ~ ~ z r i , ? r . F a r a , ? ~=. e ht e ra sd e r I r . f o . :!iddleIZ, ?$
n e r a i 2 a - a ? i l s . P J r i t e Z l ~( ~ a p F r oe;~ ~ : t i ~ r : P a r a r : . e z ? r s :
n i s t a - c e L n i i - s = . s a d e r I n f c . : ~ ] i j d l e(96, 6:
-
A,1J
-" = T.I - : - : 7 - d i s : a ? c e ' J n i t s
L.
1, 11
p.era3zra"is. NriteZlz (as91

. ,
t--scii;::sr. = ; ? e a d e r I r . f s . Yidd1e (1'2f I 24:
7,sg = " R e s o l u t i c n : " --
resolutisn
7 , e z a 3 a t a ? i l e . N r i z e E 1 t (rLscj!
acCi;rac:j = ? . e a c i e r i c f o . > ! i d a l e (126, 5 ,
p.s: = " 2 2 A c c 1 i r a c y :'4 " azcarac:;
r . e : a z a t a F i l e . X r i z e Z l t (p.59)
nS;deCc-;erage = h e a d e r I n f o . M i d d l e : 132, 51
~ . s ?= " $ o f s i d e s i n c c a e r a g e p c l y q o ? . : " -- nS:cieCsceraqe
a e z a 3 a t a F ; l e . N r i t e Z l t (IT.SJ)
r e a d i l :?.e p r o j e c t i o r . p a r z l e t e r s f s r x a p tracf>rna::.=c ;rz~:arcis

9 ,:I!
~ ~ =3 "2P r o 7 e c t i o n p a r a m e t e r s f s r n a p t r a n s f e r r , a ~ : s z : "
r r . e z a _ ? a t a ? i l e .: . J r i t e E l z ( m s g )
neaderinfo = inE1e.ReadElt
l1-eblcr. = LineNzm + 1
n e z a 2 a t a i L l e . $ J r i t e " t (kiearJ,erirIfe)
h e a c e r ~ n f c= i r F i l e . R e a d E l t
?
- --Nur. = -2:ne?!l;~.
&&..L
, ,
t 1
pLetapat--">. . : I J r i t e z l t ( h e a d e r i n f 3 )
' r s a d 12 t 5 e i n t e r n a l f i r e :e 33: c r c ; s c z i c n : r s n s f c r x a t i a n
p a r a z e t e r s ( l i c e 13)
3eaderinfs = inFi1e.ReadElt
1 L l r . e K u ~ ,+ 1
l F n e > i 1 ~=
n s g = " -_-l-."bv- - n a ; f i l e Z J n a p ~ r s l e c t ~ z= r a n s f s r ~ . 3 c i ~~r .a r ~ n e c ~ r -5 : "
I ~ , a. . < et r a r . s Z n r r . a t i c n p a r a n e t e r s v a r i a b l e s
a1 = ? i e a d e r i r f o . M i d c l ? ( O , 24; . T r l n . h s ! < u n b e r
a2 = b.;aderinfo. Y i d d l e I24, 2 4 :' . Trim.As?Jl~nber
23 = j e a d e r i n f c . p i d d l e (48, 2 4 ) . T r i - . k s K u ~ . b e r
= he3Qer-r.fo.C.3idC;;e !7ZI i - ,. Trirn.As?ll~r?ker
- 8 )
' r e a s. .
t h e c o r ~ r o l~ o i n t: n f s r T a z l c n
1-
msg = p c i n t informazi-n: "
"-, c r . r r s l
n e z a C a t ; ? i l a . \ $ r i t e z i t t,v,sgi
hcaderinfo = infiil.ReaaElr
: = . + 1
p z r s e zh? r e c o r d
c p l a b e ; = h e 3 d e r i n f c . lidal ale,, , 2
. ,
~ p ~ =z ht? a a e r i r A f2 . MiCdle i Z , 6 '
cpLon = ' h e a d e r i n f o . >!ids;e ( 3 , 6 '

m e c a C a t a F i l e . : $ r i t e E 1 L (cOIIa'..el t - c0L.2: t i ':?LO?
_, -.., .. . =- h e a d e r i n f ~C'iddle(14,
~..-,_.,:,,-.. . 2)
--,sg= "x,j-nBer of cazec-r:es : " -- -.!-Tlua
,. ^-+--a - - ~-e3
-: 5u-
7,etaDataFile.WrizeElt t,r;~s$
' aa:<e snre the nunber cf cz~teqcr:es Is 2 ncxker
F
7
L A
,?..-,--- Trim. IsXcrrber :?--.en
.iLI..da-eqcr;es.
1
- -3-
. , -,.IE ?I--- ----,
~ = - e JCT;' 2 ? ' 3 3 _ ' ~ > S
~ , s g= ";ar~ ~ a t e ~ q a ri3
y recor- :.f,;:"
_a-o-z-: l s .>JrizeEIt:T.s;
- s T - 7 - -
.L,
- '
fsr E S C ~:?.de:x in 1. . J
?.e~Serinfc= icFile.3eadElz
- -c.~~;,;m
' = ::ney:;n 1 +
T r r T r i * x i * - + + - r + * r i + ~ Y x ~ ~ t t T t t t + t i T i i + t t + * - ~ * * ~ T T y ~ + ~ ~ - * t t y T ~ T ~ ~ T . ~ + * ~ ~
. x + T t - *
' 3 n 3. c r- n e a d e r stc'f, szar: .,

r%an:rg ir t h e d a z a r e c ~ r 5 s
1
I ~4
_ A . A ,-.., . + ~ - _ d e r if i e l d s i n ::-.E s r 8 i r . ; ' 2 5
+..b0
---r
ub +L.ape:ld
~ ~ = d l g P c i r . ~ F T a i =?.L n e ? i e l l ( "Sb.ape";
c o l n r I l r l d = -1qp3:nr"~ab. F::.cpel2 ( ''l:jf"
--. - + \ - ~ L..2A;tr:CF1ci=
---..-., -,? ci>Pr,;r.tFTak. T i n c F i e l a . "num a t r r i k "
-
I c 2 -,ne ?.eeced fields i?. tP.e ~ c i n ts c z r , ~

G ' . c ~ l zTrTak
e
~a?r,i-:Id:ld = point-.3ati--:b;-T-k. Firid?:3ld : " c o i ; ~-.i5",
~
- x r - l c r ~ d c ; d = F o i r - ~ + t ,_. n
--a-.= .-L-~Lc_id,,
: c .5 i n a F : e l d " m a j o r " )
- 7 7 F -
ca)]<ncr-Fld = ~ o ~ r ~ > - ' ~ i - &t F i~e l d ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ .

i b"n;cor"
>->"q?*'r- 4 = ~-:cz>.:rrib-,'Tau. ::725:~13
L.- - ~ A ' " ~ , SZK.:?.~~:"',
~ 7
I ,~,=
4 - - - - - - - L..e +_ne y n r s r c ! t : i ~ e 3nd p r e s s
_,-LL. ~,ZCI:!~T~Z~:;
> -
t:-!?Ret:I-;~? = tneRec.L e f t : l'
. -
-- -- --
, - .21.-
-. > 0 1 --hen
~ ~ ;c-L t r5i
, , ,
re;,= 12 :r.e rr.2; o r , m1r,<2r ca:rs
' ; , r s a a t t r < h u r e r 2 c - r ~2:~ s
. .- ---
-, ,aAys ~ e z /
-~ .
p:-tt li~."
-- ,, ,, n . ~ n = l z t r i b* 2 ' 2 2 2 2 4 : =
-
, -
7
A t ~ e n 8::'
-..-
L he = ? t 2) ' 2 :
--SF3
a
.
2) / 2;; . ?r:nca;?
.
::;&:cr:cZecs= : :r.~rr-:~ctrFb T ?L
_-
3-TJ
& - --
La- -
-
i:
' :n cP.9 r . ~ d ~ - l:y.:,$yes
~ ~ - ~ ~37.d
~ ;~ir-cs
e ~ 5 . e~2~ xy.5
~ 2. -5 3 . 5 ~
.. .
- - - --
- 4
-L A- - .
?
" 2 c b i?.Cie:< :r. - . - , .- JA:zrlsF.2z5
,
..Ad-.-
..
z+--?;'2FD,- ; - r --
& . l L --2.5e22z:c
\ - -
- -cy,-.,.=
. .. i:neN.ian? + 1
. .
' c a r s e zb.e _:n,~a?e r e c c r z s
-Z L- -.- ~ ? a = ? ;ndexZ :r~ 2 . . 11
r.3; ~r = Z ~ L Y L ~ ~.!*lldeLe
E ? , ~ ~ r . d e : ~ : *I 5: , 6:
-
t
- - -= at;ri!-:<
,ec".,"- .._\
4*criS
47 - ' , 4 ?\4,>..;:
L.L-L - A
C' - '- - > ,
'3
-. - -- ? Z ) ( ~ : T . < O Y . T.sN,.:?.ksr; ' k ~ e ~ .
f ~ . + o r I.S P , J ~ I T . ~ Eap.c
. - -,
.- !
. ~.-
~ , a ; ; r = ~ ~ . a j i : r - . T r ~ r r . . A c ? ; u r r . h ~ ~ . S ~ : &:"27i~1.
~ : r r ~ a : .;--2- -.,-. i 5 " ' 8
7.
. .
: = . Q ' 2 .' ..,~C':-~LC;-
. -
2;c.c:rdi5c .>.d:-i ' ~ T 31, ~ I ~!i:,.,-::,
~
e _ 3 t3
---L-
..
ir
%
: ci
-3'3
,
.
- _-- ,
,
.
, x L .I s N m k e r ' ar.c ":1. Is:?un:cep , ti--er.
xl = xl . T r i ~. A. sN1~~,ker
.,,.1 = yl.T r i r n . . A s N ~ s 5 e r
' c z r A T ~ e t5.e
rt x 3: ~ 1- ; s s r + r - a - e s ;sin,; --
- % -3- .- .c1 ~-.,,
r -- 7 ---3: ..-2C
r 2 - F -e-t e r s v a r i a k l - s
x l ~ 2 2= i a l c X2; ' Z
- L * x ,. - - ,\,
_3
- 6 -I
--
A 9
' vlr.oC, = ,, a -_ * 1':; + ,a2 x l : + a$

,
vlncrJ= [a:* yl! - 2 -^ x_; - a%
' r s a d ir. t5.e r.2j c r , ' ~ ~ i ? ~

a tcz r l = l : z s rairs
- -
A
-
A
..
:?.l27r-fiAtZr:D ? 2'1 :?.eT.
' r e a d i n t h e rn&;2r/rL:rcr p a i r ?
' a r e a a t t r i b u t e rf.-~r.2ar e s c - r e 1: p a i r s p e r 14; 5 i . z::
~:1 -
-. -F ( ( (nijmAy=rib ' 2) n n & 24) = 3 ; then
n,:n*>-=+rij?<scs = ,ri~r?-:.t:rib * 2' ; 24
2 e
r~:~J.ztrib4ecs= . 2 I I, 4 .c + I
e r.7.
. , ..
z,3=";~,1sr = ' .
*
- ,
r,?a;l ;z t?,e cc-z-:,-_l:.~e - ,
an-
-l:.,<~-.~~ .,,,--re
--- :"2~ :z c:. -- -
A:=-- 3-z
~.
*, - --
- -_ r s a a h inae:;
A
:n 1 . .?::r.1:zr:zi-e:~
. -
-;TZ;bR$- = -7 . .- A .
-.
> 83
-L
7
-. ?es:x:t
: 7 n
-..-L
-,,,he
-,--
n h - , ' T
~ -,,, = -
-:?.2!:l~i-.
. .
- 1
I
tkAe ~ : r . < a g e re:crds
f 5 a r e a c h ~ n c e x Z;I-. , - . . ,-
- 1
(:.r.-Jz:.:2
nhl c r = a t : r i , ? R a c . ~ . j i c : ~ I~ + 1:: , 6 ) ;8
n i z c y = .-.~
, -
i ' L v ' - .:.li\:eLe : : :?.c!~?x3 + - --,' - :. ;:
m-Ll,E~.?L ;8 -
- ( 1.
7
A A ,-_ , - - - 2 -. 4 I . S T .
.L,! :?.I;?.
- , ~-. - P - . Tr:m. . ~ . s b l ~ ; ~ , b e r
~ ~ . d ? z l e= .tL-ilu-
elss
It'
5 - r : c c - ~ -: :- ~ s c s r a. z ~ . ~r l l e s :s
- ,
- n e sleT:a:isr, A A C by
defa,;lt
ncnZlev = ?
erla
- ,
r . a ; o r = r . s j c r . L r : z . A 4 s N s ~ . k eS --...
r .e t F, - - c- L "cnJ=!." ) ..2sSrz::.~
m i - o r = m i n c r . Trri~~.As?,;:mber.S e t F a r m a t : " d d c d . " . > s S r r L z q
a t t r l b l i s : ..AdC, l n s r c r , m:?.cr) ;
else
krea:i
end
ena
e-ci
-.
' s a v e t h e l i s t o f i i z e a~zrib1;:es r o t i e r:le
for e a c h a t t r i b i r a t t r i k l i s z
newRecRur = l i n e A z t r i k V T a b . .~.ddP..ezsrd
1 i n e k t z r i b T i T s b .Set'iaLile?<urr.ker ; l a L i r ! e I - J F l d , ze-dRecP<cn,
. ,l r - e i d )
L -
l i r e A t z r i b T k ; T a bS
. e t r * ' ~ . 1 ~ i e 5 z r i/13L.'aj
? ~ z j c r I j ? d , new3ecNu~.,
z z t r 2;
,
+-
. -.,-
J !
)
,
n !
)
l i r . e . L - r t r i b V T a b . S e r V a l c e 3 ,z r ~, l~a q; 4~i r . c r I S ? 1 S 1 ne:hikecN..n,
= - +-y- :m
- L .
-
ze: , ;
. ,
:\
-;neAt:rib*ITab. S ~ r ~ J a 1 i ~ e S jz r[1aii?4?13,
i?~ "e1~;RecNun,
a t z r i c . 3 e t : 0 - a t t r j - b . Get (1:)
erc
e-.,e
' a d d a r e c o r d to = h e -.1 n e FTab ,
r..s.A.3ecNcr, = d l a L i n e i T a j . .J.35?,s->r<
c> - i n e F T a b . S e z i J a l ; ~ e1i3eS!-iace?1dI ~ ~ e w X e c l J ~c~l ni n
- g. L , e)
- , , ,
I L i n e I C F l " , , re:.;3,ec?jilr,, l i n e -:c
. >
--qU:r.e'T3b. 3stVa1;e1LL~~.hmer
3:;' --LA -
: "0F';ak. Sez';a;.;eZcmkez / l~~eS~ar:!;c~eFlB new3ecX3;rr.,
,
szr=?;sde
.- , - , -
c-gL:rAe'Ta~. Se:i'a;:;eXilmi=er ; -:.".e~?.dNcBe?1, rLewRecKuc, e c c N c c e
-
c---:r,eF"k.
. >
3 e t ' J a 1 1 : e N ~ ~ ~ , 51e ir r . t 3 L ~ f t . 2 ~ r e a ? ~r .?~~~~~ ~ ? . e c X .l :e'f~~.
t -nr,. 2 3- . 3 :
5lgLineTYS.b. S e t V a l u e K u ~ r ~ k (e1r i n e I i i 3 ' ? , t t J . r e 3 1 d 1 ne;,$RecN~n, r::---'-; 4.....>A-4
-,:- \.LA > ' 2 ; zr.erA
- - & - L
-
' -y-zd 12 :he na2cr;rn:ncr ?airs
- .
' 2rea accrlbycs reczrds 3re srzr=d 6 p2;rs ye: 3 3 ~ i : e -129
-' -
F -
( ( (~~.;+~t=rib -" ' ,\ mcd 24) = 2: =hsn
cgmrn>-:tr:"2,~s = ,..LYL~.:CZ:~ * 1 , ,I L -
I - - I
e 1sP
,
,, , ,,r-;;r->ttr;k * 2) - +" ' - - - ~ T -s----+;J 't L
,
/ '- . - A d . - -
e?.s
--- ?;.--
sLl--d-lSt
, ,
= ::
'
_-,,
~. tne pcly~zr,~t~r:,--;=es . anl, .,,.r:~e l..L... -- -- --..-
,
- = - .r-z c = . -
-- - - +
1 3 7 ---1- - A - u
- , -
,,_
F- r
€22; ;~.dex :?.
. , .
- . .curd?ttrFb?e--
,
La
2t~ri).-Re,z = i n ~ i l e . ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ t
l:ze:\Jcn = lice'lurr T 1
' parse tk.2 l:?:<age recards
for each i?.3ex2 ir. 2 . . 1 l
r.e.7 zr = sYr:).-xec .:"::;die ( ,:r.,dS:<Z 6 %, E ;
r;;Fr.zr = at:ribR?c. :.]iddis ( [ { : r . d e ~ ? * 6: - C- , 2c ,
--- ,s (7.2: cr . T s > l . ~ n . b e rand
3
) :~,::;r. Isti,;r.>ez;' ~ k . 5 7 .
xajcr = na$,~r. Tr:r-,. ;sl<.,:~,b?r..jez~cr::.aE "c-5." : . .G.sStr;c;
T , i T A z r = 7-7n.C. -rL?,.-lAst*
-
LA.
,
d- < L . A ~ t k- - ~ ~
. - ' b L ? F . ~ "'ze,<&.
~ <" , ,-=.sscrL:
> r ~1 , ~ ~
5-S?
-
11-
.,-c
-3K -
5x7
;nc
er.5
I c,,-7a _
lisr_ s r- -:nt2
+Lr.p
, .
liy.;s t h r fils
f3r e a c k artrib iz 3trrliList
ne:,i?e:W~:r. = a r e a A t ; - l b V T z B . . ~ . ~ d d L ~ . s c ~ r r r ;
1
a c c :.pe c e - z r c : ~ t z z+:e c:irA: T a b
' ' '
z n e B s i r = 2 ~ i r . .>:a:<%t : x l ~ , z d ,, I m o d ,
-..t.r~Xe~!l.drr
-. = dl;Po:nrF?a.~ ..l.,j,cKecrr5
-..,-.F,~. - - ;Fz_ - b eS e t l ' s L 1 i e ? c i r t S ? . a p ~ ? l ; j * , nejrRscNurn, t r . e F s l r . t :
-IqFoln=F"b. S e t T,:alue?Ju~,-cr
- m ; - c : r r z I d ~ i d , newp,e,zNl~y., kl:>;c6-- '-..-
..,..! -
-- - -. -.
'
u1L3
., . ,
---.
L - -
_.>,
,.. ,c-
- : 7 p c i n c ~ ~ z b . Set;l-..ca>,ji---
,- L L ---
,,-.. - S u ~ $ ~ ~ z r i b C l ne:.~Re~zP;un,
P- d,
-,..r:-+,;
..-.,.'.-L- A b:
? r. c
1 ,, -,- ~ a = e ~ 5 . e s:ati;s Car

n- .--Tr
w - Jr_!zh:
& - --- lize;2Ln / t s - - - - ' - c c
= * 13'3
~ r z - ~ = e ia-.-. S e t S t z t n s ,cr;~r?ss'
-
. -- 2
,
3
, , , L d , --,p
'-?-P
La. ln\ o t : the:
i:.?ile. "ass
----
. ,- -=-.a..dt l i e . Close
- - + - - . >
zlqPsi:.tF?ab. ?llJs7-
- - .
s~;-~z"~-ab.?lcst - 7
nl';fslyFYab.?:;st-,
;-?
.J
- 1 o-.T
.a-,S
b ~ - a - -
- , - .s+.s~+;@!.!sg
: ''EL; s s t z ::n-.-ers-=: :<as a-crte;j*. . . " '
zcz1Jrr.ril
0
*..-
- ?.
eT!i
,
. --
: i ~ . F i l s .Ccuzr
s > 1) then
as:, . - - -,
= false :?,.A!
2 -se
I d_-,-e
_. ~5.2 i l s e r he s p t i s n f;r a~dizg shapefile :c a . I: \.
> ^. ^ -. . - ,
.
-'--..
.- = "--q^
. b ! ~ ~ d , xYss?Ic
. V . ;".z-d5 ,LC- data ts p r c l e c t " , z?.e2" r r , ~ e
---
-.;~*
7
-:
.-
,,,_
;-.-TT,-:3. . \
then
1 ->- - -2s; cf the - ~ i e ~ , . i sz ~ 5 . 3~~CS~JT.~I-.:
= 3 .
-.. - - - - - - = 2.:. C e t Z r 3 j e c ~G
. ez3czs
, >
-e$"'
LA.=. ,
-,.y ,
A
. au
2 2 - P
-
- c1 c: i n ti-.e?ocs
.
=
.. -
- ?
2 : c c . I s P;ie:*;) j ,her.
-
-;oTj:~:.,is
-.A .A2Add
( a C o 2. A s S t r i r . q ;
e:.i
3 .r. 3
s p t : ~ n f o r c r e a : ~ r ~ za ne;.v ;r~e:v
-i-3
- - -.:s;.js
I -I_
LA,*-
-,.,=, .;dd("<:,le:v 'i:er,i>", - 7 ,
- . - -
1
.- - - - ? -.-,a12331 a c h o i c e 2: :ir.:c.? -:ie:.i :c a = $ t h s C ? ~ ~ ~ ~ T Lz:- - C -
.- -
-
- -e;v. = rr.c Y- 2 o x . Lis%s.<tr:?z : c n e - l i e s v \ i s ,
", " c_ -= - + - the _ 'iie.tj
__ r o add tP.2 s k a c e -r ,i -- e tc", r h e 2 T ;
' ~ , a : < : ss l i y e t:.ey c i ~ c st :l:k za~.ceL
_l _i + - ^c-,-:'s.',J = !d:l;
,-A. the?.
Z2L',JZ? ?
.
:
L
Program: TWOGRID2TABLE.AVE
Travis r . 52 yes
2r.i: Jri*.-ers:: y Civil Znq. C s c z .
Z t c r k e r 2,212
:+'~"-,s,
-.-..--. Lr -r 4570; ,?
- Lf 533-9135
I - '
d
..
I-_,L~::
-,.yl?-C.-
_ s e s L ~ z r scale
~ e 7r;ciz
> , .
sf "--
..II sa-e e:i:er.r
.
rl :tke zser
A e r ~ n e d srr.cis p o i r . t s
- , - ,
:? r-3at3 a 33ase r;-: - c'f -:al.Jcs
- . .
I-"T . - h a s31-,e -s:a;:sns cr PEL.-. 7
:
;
s
.
T ,-->Tr.
~ Y - L - .
-- -- -
-5 rh? user 5,s
ass^^^,+& - 5 2 ~ :<r?-ze azcess = c -
-I <:_ _il - = - s -
_ . A-
- G --
- , .
i
:s ~~~y~~
I ,-_
.,crre : , :s;.;.:~r!ogridLtakle
!
'~,z:,:e s , ~ r -all aczi-:e t"smes are qrld + - c v n c . -L.-.LLu-
ZUL
+ + :rL tk.e'z:'Z?~.es
-G-..
: .=
- - , _ . I s:Sth?me: .?Jzr] :+.?r~
. i
~ . s g " o x .-- r r < r . t Z e r ; ; a ~ . e + " 1s 2s: a r i d Therre c a n r - o r ;IS? it. " , " " :
H-Se
? r-
:heSri-s. ":
-.A-
=?&
-..d
_.+ -,n;rids . ':-.in:

- > 2 : ::.e~!
-
l L
A -, -..-
-sczcs.r r r o r " . Y ~ I J zeed r>j,s aj=;-;e , z r l c. tkL;~es -$-?:
,
"',
2 _ rce
. s l . 2
. - " , "T--
scs=l--L_v. ,
,
, m3r.y SY?.e~.es"
-,.. --
c
-
i
'
. 1
=.n
-LA-
' ='
-, cell size azci geE rs;-is ard ci.;mr.s
i.2
Slj,:;.Ss~~LA~al;;sisCel~siZe ( + ( I - R I ? "---"'.'-
Z . I ', x ?5 PJ!.~:<'~ F
- n L 1,
-
~3;s = t?eGrids. C-5: 'c, :, . gr:Cri 3.~~e=)J.~-3o~~;&-.~~;;s. Ge= i 1 ,
r;.,qs = t,r?eGr:fis. Get I ? ,. C ~ r S r i dGe:liurr,Rc:$s~~.z~C3Is.
. C-e: : C '
v
..;..,
^ _ _ _ _saxple
.. zo:r.~s
s,.---L.,+c-'s e_.=-?rts - 1 =
7
&
- , L<L=-,-'
, -
- ...,LA -FT
,
>, e12?.ezts t?er.
- ~ L ~ I .Z
. --
= :ulscszs.I c z ~ c ,"?n=sr =h- ar,-uA*.-of T ,,-
. .-A
~-,
,
~>~-c:?crs
-.. U
..- -
sann:+: " , "Ccrreiarizr,", "592" ! ..>sM-nber
. --
.
. _l~,olsc:s
c -
- ' e l z ~ e c t s )tce?.
m3,~32;<.Error :"S;r-;-. ~'izts 3 3 r . r::. CC? zi'3s:rPr L.?ar 7,;tal n,-7.,ZeY C t
cells", "Tee: man;:, S a r z l e s F?irAtsf"
P 3 0
I -- _- s a r tnz S E E ~ ; D
~ ar
3-,-. -Jle;l-S:a=-:;
- .
-- ..-
Program: GRID2PTS.AVE
Program: PLYLINEZPTS NONELEV.AVE

I ivn--
d_,ccS ;1 Liz+ 35 -;?:.IS .-
ar.2. a~_?.,: tk.2 ,;;er tc c k x s e > ; _ ~ s --~.- =-Ai - --,--
, a = d tne nevi ~i-~er.e
ta.. .
. 5 :', ; .,~:5
A z '>
,', '
fcr 2 3 ~, ~ 7 . - . 2 L .I'D-'
a- :-a-,-.CetFrzl~,-- 4-'-4ClZ5
.;
A _
, m - - , - - .-.. > ,
', \ A . -2 $ !-='-. , YheF!
;t-#.:e:<s ..-.d=; : ;
-~.-
en?.
3
a . .,-
TI
\.*
-, a- - , >e:.;s . -ZAd-I( "\:I~.,.J
_
- *
;JLe:%j>."
',
Program: PLYLINE2PTS.AVE
! - -'":~e:i
.,.iL~res:.. , ,
r.usz 5 s t h e aczl-.-ed ~ c ~ r . e n za , c c l y l i ~ e:?ere ::.x:
' b e tne ao-ive thexe. Fse the f-ilcr;:cg 3s ar, i;pdats szris::
1
fr.,sf3-;lr_ = -r :le?jame. ;/a<e: "3rJ:.IEW . : ~ ~ a "shape", I~ e ~ ~ ~h . .pL ,
" - - n u
--
. =
-L . C .z - - , C e F, - . 7 ' - . s n c " , "C;tpct Char;? ?:le"
t V v
, --
,
A
*. f?-c.JzF,it
= .,-I,
,.; :hen e::i: end
\
fr,:,tcct. SezZxtznsior. "s5p1',

: fn0x:p,jt,
pci?tFT?b = ?Tab. ;~la)r.e?;ei~ ?CI);T )
. (11,
r t S r ~ r r= I s r B ~ i n t sGet
FcZ:?" - ls:Fyl?:s.
- Get ( ;ls:?cinc j .7,3i:r.: - 1 ,,
::?:~y.::l:rL = ls:?c:r.ps. CdlJy:
. -
- ,
-' -- 7
-
?.=n-cl
APPENDIX C
Soil Type Abbreviations

Geological Soil Type Abbreviations
rZdB Alexandria silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes

.4dC Alexandria silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
AdC2 Alexandrla silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes. moderately eroded
AdD Alexandria silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes
AdD2 Alexandria silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes. eroded
AdE Alexandria silt loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes
AdE2 Alexandria silt loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes. moderately eroded
AdF Alexandria silt loam. 25 to 50 percent slopes
AeD3 Alexandria silty clay loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes. severely eroded
Ag Algiers silt loam
BeB Belmore loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
BeC Belmore loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
BeD Belmore loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes
Bn4 Bennington silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
BnB Bennington silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
BnB2 Bennington silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes. moderately eroded
BPB ~ennington>itchvillesilt loams. 2 to 6 percent slopes
BrB Berks channary silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Br C Berks charmer@, silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
BrD Berks Channery silt loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes
B SF Berks to Rock outcrop complex, steep
BsG Berks to rock outcrop complex. 30 to 60 percent
BtA Bogart gravelly loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
BtB Bogart gravelly loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
BvX Bogart silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
BvB Bogart silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
CaB Canfield silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
CaC Canfield silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
CaC2 Canfield silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded
CdB Cardington silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
CdB2 Cardington silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
CdC Cardington silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
CdC2 Cardington silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
CeC3 Cardington silty clay loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded
Cf Carlisle muck
CgB Chili loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
CgB2 Cardington silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes. moderately eroded
cgc Chili loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
CgC2 Cardington silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slores. moderatelyeroded
CgC3 Cardington silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. se1,erely eroded
ChC Chili to tvooster complex. 6 to 12 percent slopes
ChD Chili to wooster complex. 12 to 18 percent slopes
ChE Chili to wooster complex. 18 to 25 percent slopes
Ck Carlisie muck
CkD Chili conotton gravelly loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes
CkE Chili conotton gravelly loan~s,18 to 18 percent slopes
CnB Chili loam. 2 to 6" slopes
CnC Chili loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
COD Chili and Conotton soils. 12 to 1 Q percent slopes
CoD3 Chili and Conotton soils. 12 to 18" slopes, severely eroded
CoE Chili and Conotton soils, 18 to 25 percent slopes
CoF Chili and Conotton soils, 25 to 40 percent slopes
Cr Condit silt loam
CtC Conotton qravelly loam. 2 to 12 percent slopes
CtD Conotton variant, gravelly loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes
CVB Coshocton loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
cvc Coshocton loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Cz Cut and fill land
DmB Digby loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes
E1B2 Ellsworth silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
E1C2 Ellsworth silt loam. 2 to 12 percent slopes, eroded
E1E2 Ellsworth silt loam. 12 to 25 percent slopes. eroded
FcA2 Fitchville silt loam. 1 to 4 percent slopes
FcB Fitchville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
FdA Fitchville to Bennington loams. 0 to 2 percent slopes
FgA Fitchville silt loam. gravelly subsoil Variant. 0 to 2 percent slope
FgB Fitchville silt loam. gravelly subsoil Variant. 2 to 6 percent slope
Fr Frenchtown silt loam
Gf.A Glenford silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
GfB Glenford silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
GfC Glenford silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
GP Gravel pits
GrB Gresham silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
HaB Haney loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
HfB Hanover silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
HfC Hanover silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
HFC2 Hanover silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. moderately eroded
HfC3 Hanover silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. severely eroded
HfD Hanover silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes
HFD? Hanover silt loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes. moderately eroded
H fE Hanover silt loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes
t I0 I-Iolly silt loan1
JlvA Jimtown silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
JwB Jimtown silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Kb Killbuck silt loam
La Landes fine sandy loa~n
L fB Latha~nsilt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
L fC Latham silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
Lk Lintvood muck
Ln Lint\ood muck
Lo Lobdell silt loan1
LrB Lordstotvn silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Lr C Lordstotbn silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
LrD 1,ordstomn silt loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes
LrE Lordstown and Loudonville silt loams. 18 to 25 percent slopes
LtB Lordstotvn silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Ltc Lordstown silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
L tD Lordstown silt loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes
LtE Lordstotvn silt loam. 18 to 25 percent slopes
LtF Lordstown silt loam. 25 to 40 percent slopes
LvB Loudonville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
LvC Loudonville silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
LvD loudonville silt loam. 111 to 18 percent slopes
LtrE Loudonville silt loam. 18 to 25 percent slopes
Ly Luray silty clay loam
LzB Lq kens silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
MaA hIahoning silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
MaB Mahoning silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
bIaB2 Mahoning silt loam. 3 to 6 percent slopes. eroded
bfeB hlentor silt loam. 3 to 6 percent slopes
hleC hIentor silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
Or Orrville loam. moderately shallot\ Variant
0s O r r ~llle 1,ariant silt loam
OtB Oshtemo sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
OtC Oshtemo sand? loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Pa Peuamo silt loam
Pc Petvamo silt? clay loam
Pg Pits. gratrel
Pnl Peuamo silty clay loam
Re:l Rat enna silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
ReB Rat enna silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Rll'A R a ~ e n n asilt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
RnB Ra\ enna silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
RrC Rigley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
RsB Rittnlan silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
RsB2 Rittnmn silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes. eroded
RsC Rittman silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
RsC2 Rittman silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes. eroded
RsD Rittman silt loam. 12 to 1 8 percent slopes
RsD2 Rittulan silt loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes. eroded
RtC 3 Rittman silty clay loam. 6 to 13 percent slopes. severely eroded
RID; Rittman silty cia! loam. 12 to 18 percent slopes, se\erel> eroded
Sac Schaffenaker loam) sand. 2 to 12 percent slopes
SaD Schaffenaker loam) sand. 12 to 18 percent slopes
SaE Schaffenaker loam! sand. 18 to 30 percent slopes
ScE Schaffenaker loam! sand. 10 to 40 percent slopes
Se Sebring silt loam
sg Sebring silt loam
Sh Shoals silt loam
Sk Shoals loam. coarse subsoil Variant
Sn Sloan silty cia! loam
So Sloan siltj clay loam
Td A Tiro silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Tm,A Tiro silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
TmB Tiro silt loanl. 3 to 6 percent slopes
TvB Titusville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
TvC Titusville silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
Ud Udorthents
Cr Urban land
LVC Wallkill silt loam
W aX Wads\vorth silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
LVaB Wadsworth silt loam. 3 to 6 percent slopes
LVb Wallkill silt loam
WhA Wheeling silt loam. 0 to 2 percent slopes
WhB Wheeling silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
LVhC Wheeling silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
LVm D Wheeling and >lentor s ~ l loams,
t 12 to 18 percent slopes
WsB Wooster silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes
WsB2 Li'ooster silt loam. 2 to 6 percent slopes. moderately eroded
LJ'sC Wooster silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes
WsC2 U'ooster silt loam. 6 to 12 percent slopes. moderatel! eroded
WsD LiToostersilt loam. 12 to 1S percent slopes
lisD3 Wooster silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes. eroded
WsD3 h'ooster s ~ l loam.
t 12 to I8 percent slopes. severly eroded
WsE Wooster silt loam, 18 to 3 5 percent slopes
LVsE3 Wooster silt loam. 18 to 25 percent slopes, severly eroded
U'sF Wooster silt loam. 25 to 40 percent slopes
WtB Wooster to Chili soils. 3 to 6 percent slopes
LJ'tC Wooster to Chili soils. 6 to 12 percent slopes
B.P. Borrow pit
Made land Dam
QL'. Quarr)
W Li-ater
USCS Soil Type Abbreviations
XIL Inorganic; LL < 50. PI < 4

CL Inorganic: LL < 50. PI > 7
CL-h/IL Inorganic; LL < 50.4 5 PI < 7
PT Peat. muck, and other highly organic soils
CH Inorganic; LL 2 50. PI > A-line
shll Sandy; More than 12% passing +200 sieve; PI < A-line or PI < 4
SC Sandy; More than 13% passing $200 sieve: PI > A-line: PI > 7
sIY Sandy; Less than 5% passing $200 sieve: C,, 2 6 and 1 5 C, 5 3
SP Sandy: Less than 5% passing E 0 0 sieve: not meeting SW
Gh1 Gravelly; More than 12% passing $200 sieve: PI < A-line or Pi < 4
GC Gravelly: More than 12?/0passing 15200 sieve; PI > A-line: PI > 7
SX-SbI Sandy: Percent passing X200 sieve, 5-12: meets SW and SbI
SP-SbI Sandy; Percent passing Y200 s i e ~ ~5-12;
e , meets SP and Sh1
SC-Sbl Sandy; Percent passing $300 sieve. 5-12: meets SP and SAM
*If t ~ v oor more soil types are presented the soil is a makeup of both with the first soil
t>.pe being the predominant soil. the second in the list the second. and so on.
AASHTO Soil Type Abbreviations
Granular: Y 10 sieve 5 5 0 % , #40 sieve 13096, #200 sieve < 159'0: PI56
Granular: #4O sieve i 50%. #200 sieve 1 3 5 % ; PI 5 6
Granular; #200 sieve i 35%
Granular: #200 sieve 5 35%; LL > 40: PI I 10
Granular; #40 sieve > 5 1%, #200 sieve 5 10%
Silty: #200 sieve > 35%: LL 1 4 0 ; PI 5 10
Silty: if200 sieve > 35%; LL > 40; PI i 10
Clayey: #200 sieve > 35%: LL 1 4 0 : PI > 10
Clayey; #200 sieve > 35%; LL > 40: PI > 10

Study of Watershed Erosion and Reservoir Sediment Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study of Watershed Erosion and Reservoir Sediment Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY OF WATERSHED EROSION AND

RESERVOIR SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

The Faculty of the

Fritz J. and Delores H. Russ

College of Engineering and Technology

of the Requirement for the Degree

Travis Duane Bayes

.-STUDY OF U'.ATERSHED EROSION .4ND RESERVOIR SEDIhIENT .AN,ALYSIS"

for the Department of Civil Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technolog)

Professor of Civil Engineering

V'nrren I(.Wraq. Dean

Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ

College of Engineering and Tcchnolog>

eternal thanks to Dr. Tiao J. Chang ~ ~ provided

partiall), by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District is acknowledged. Mr.

Scott M c K e e ~ e rserve as an external reviewer for this thesis is appreciated. I ~ ~ o ualso

"A.lllthe ri~qersTtln into the sea.

1t.t the seer is not filll;

To the place porn which the ritter.c come,

There the?*return ~rgain.

Ecclesiastes 1 :7. NKJV

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... i ~ .

Chapter I . Introduction ............. . . . .........................................................................

Chapter I1 . Selected Literature Review ......................................................................11

Chapter 111 . Theory & Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................44

Chapter IV . Application and Results ........................................................................ 68

Chapter V Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................

Appendix .A .Sediment Deposit Sample Particle Diameter Distribution Analysis ..135

Table 1.1 Facts of physical fcatures of Charles Mill Lahe

Figure IV.5.2 Erosion potential and makeup of karious Unified Soil

Long term merage soil loss (Musgrave Equation)

Long term average soil loss (Rational Rlethod)

Soil erosion potential percelltile markers

Amount of soil wl~osesoil diameter range = 0.1 mm - 2 mm

Riil erosion to interrill erosion ratio

Crop management factor (USLE. RIJSLE)

Total solids concentration upstream

Total sc~lidsconcentration downstream

Inherent soil erodibility (blusgra~eEquation)

Rainfall factor (R~ltionalMethod)

Soil particle diameter

Soil diameter pcrcent liner

E Total storm energ:

E(S,,lrt) iLlembr;~nebending energq for regularized spline

Ell Amount of evaporation

E\t~(S\urt) Xlembrane bending energq for tension spline

Sburt) Membrane bending energ?, for tension

e'(u) Kriging locall> spatial variable

G Acceleration due to gravitj

G, Specific gravit) of soil

'id Dry specific \%eightof soil

Specific weight of water

;\/laximum 30-minute storm intensit)

Soil erodibility factor (USLE. RUSLEj

Soil erodibility (Rational hletliod)

Slope length factor (USLE. RLTSLE)

Horizontal slope length (iClusgra\ e Equation)

Slope length (Rational Method)

Slope length exponent

Soil size factor

Amount of organic matter within soil as percent

Total mass of sediment