Morses Mill Watershed

Location E:
Cedick Run
Stockton University

Arianna Efstatos
Watershed Hydrology
December 7, 2015

Catchment Description and Map

The area of the entire Morses Mill watershed is 5455.12 acres and is on a
coastal plane. Stockton Campus, which occupies only a portion of this area, is
2008.88 acres. The land is divided into urban (1234.38 acres), agriculture (582.3
acres), barren land (40.2 acres), water (82.6 acres), wetlands (865.82 acres), and
forest (2685.82 acres) sections. The climate of the Morses Mill watershed is moist
continental.
Location E is composed of a wet lowland area, which transitions quickly to drier
upland forest. The first rain collector was positioned along the stream in the
wetland area, and second and third rain collectors were placed in the upland forest.
The area of the entire catchment is 1223.64 acres, and the land use includes urban
(324.72 acres), agriculture (71.15 acres), barren land (6.4 acres), water (82.6
acres), wetlands (865.82 acres), and forest (2685.82 acres) sections.
Water from Lake Fred drains into Morses Mill and into Mill Pond, where it empties
and follows along Nacote Creek into the Mullica River, then Great Bay, and
eventually the Atlantic Ocean.

Figure 1

Water Budget Description and Calculations

In its simplest form, the water budget is just a measure of streamflow as a result
of given inputs and outputs in a watershed. Potential inputs include open
precipitation or throughfall, groundwater seepage in, and streamflow in. Outputs
include streamflow out, evaporation, transpiration, and seepage out. Water in a
watershed can be stored in streams, lakes, wetlands, ice packs, groundwater, soil,
or vegetation.
Our catchment, Location E, was composed of wetland and drier uphill forest.
Storage capacity included a thick litter layer, moss and other vegetation, soil, and
the Cedick Run stream. Inputs over most of the area included throughfall and
stemflow, although there were some areas of open canopy for direct rainfall (we
placed a rain collector in one of these locations). There was also streamflow and
groundwater in, however we had no system to accurately measure the input from
groundwater. Streamflow out and evapotranspiration generated the outputs of the
watershed. Evapotranspiration was likely high due to the thick vegetation.
We quantified precipitation with three rain collectors placed at different locations
within the watershed. One was placed in the wetland area a short distance from the
stream under thick canopy cover. It collected 0.35 inches of precipitation. Rain
collector 2 was placed in the upland forest under 40 50% canopy cover. It received
about 0.25 inches of rain. The third was placed in a clearer location with very little
canopy interception, and collected 0.35 inches of precipitation. The average
precipitation, using arithmetic mean, of the three collectors was 0.317 inches, or
0.03 feet. This can be used to calculate total precipitation using the area of the
watershed.

The volume of precipitation was about 1,599,053 ft 3. However, we do not know for
sure how much of this precipitation was intercepted and lost to evaporation, or how
much was able to infiltrate the soil. If we ignore groundwater, we can estimate this
discharge by multiplying the velocity of the stream (which we got from the velocity
meter) by the area of the watershed.

The discharge, according to these approximations would be 0.643 ft/s 3. We

calculated the amount of water held in the soil by obtaining soil samples, drying
them, and measuring the weight difference. The results are shown in the chart
below.

Soil
Sample
Empty
Wet
Dry

Rain
Collector 1
Sample
48.013
57.485
41.795

Rain
Collector 1
Sample 2
52.128
63.604
40.804

Rain
Collector 3
Sample 1
69.163
71.315
40.923

Rain
Collector 3
Sample 2
66.089
68.017
42.29

Table

Storm Hydrograph and Interpretation

Stormflow is a component of streamflow that results directly from precipitation
or snowmelt events. The flow regime of the stream can affect stormflow response.
These include perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. The stream order
can also have an effect. Other factors include drainage density, duration of
precipitation event, amount of time since the last precipitation, vegetation, soil, and
human alterations.

LEVEL (MM)
Figure 2
Figure 2 shows a hydrograph for Cedick Run. There was at least a month of dry
period before the first significant rainfall event on September 29. After the initial
storm did occur, the level in the stream increased dramatically by about 130 mm.
Level started to return to its original depth until a second, smaller precipitation even
occurred, bringing it back up to about 410 mm. The level slowly started to decrease
after the precipitation ended. We can assume the measurement of streamflow
before the storm, which was about 270 mm, represented baseflow due to the
prolonged lack of precipitation.
The storm response began at 13:00 on the 29th, and the peak flow, which was
420mm, occurred at 21:30 on October 2. Therefore, the rise time was 56 hours.
The level did not return to its previous value but leveled off at about 324 mm by the
12th at 10:30. The fall time from peak flow to the end of the response was 231
hours, and the total storm duration was 287 hours.
Cedick Run flows through thick vegetation with a dense canopy cover. The
interception from trees and shrubs surrounding the stream could have impeded
storm response. There would have also been less runoff due to a low vegetative
management factor in nearly unaltered land. The first storm response was
substantial and rapid. The low level shot quickly to peak flow almost immediately.
Time was a significant factor, because it had evidently been a long time since any
previous precipitation. Even after a few days, when the second storm hit, the level
had not returned to its original measure. It increased again after the second storm,
but not as quickly as it had the first time. This corresponds with the duration and
intensity of the second storm, which was less that the first event.
Below is a plot of Cedick Run and Lake Freds responses to the storm events. It
serves as a visual comparison of stormflow between the two bodies of water.
Despite Cedick Runs quick response in the previous graph, Lake Freds response
was even more apparent. This makes sense, because Cedick Run Flows into Lake
Fred, so while Cedick Run experiences a spike in flow, Fred accumulates the same

amount in addition to the water flowing from the stream. There is also significantly
less canopy cover over the lake, reducing interception.

Figure 3

Channel Morphology

Figure 4

Channel
Morphology
Location (ft)

4 (Left Bank)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 (Right Bank)
Instrument
Height

Depth (ft)
4.5
4.4
4.88
5
5
5
4.92
4.36
4.52
4

Depth Instrument
0.5
0.4
0.88
1
1
1
0.92
0.36
0.52

Table

A velocity meter was used to calculate the depths and velocities at 0.5ftincrement sections in a downstream segment of the stream. We divided the fourfoot bankfull width into eight sections and measured the depth at each location.
The thalweg was about 2 feet in (or at the midpoint), and it was 1 foot deep. The
slope and depth were used to calculate wetted perimeter and cross-sectional area
by means of the Pythagorean theorem.
The average velocity of all sections was 0.289ft2/s. The cross-sectional area was
2.225 ft2, and the wetted perimeter was 4.92 feet. The slope of the channel was
0.002, or 0.2%.
Morses Mill is a shallow, single stream with a low slope. It was slightly
entrenched with a moderate width to depth ratio of 4. Using these characteristics,
the stream fit the description of an E5 stream, according to the Rosgen
classification. However, an E5 stream requires that sinuosity is moderate to high.
The sinuosity of Morses Mill is extremely low, which supports a D5 classification.
However, this describes the stream as being comprised of multiple channels. My
best estimate is that the channel is in fact an E5 stream, but was previously a D5
whose morphology changed over time. That would likely explain why it shares
characteristics of both classifications.

Base Flow Measurement

Baseflow is the flow of water that naturally occurs in a stream and is
independent of precipitation events. It exists year round in perennial streams and is
contributed to by groundwater and long term, subsurface draining. Baseflow is a
huge factor in determining perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. The
morphology of the stream plays a role as well in the amount of flow a stream holds
naturally. For example, a shallow riffle stream will have a smaller cross-sectional
area and greater flow or pressure. Conversely, a deeper pool will have less flow or
pressure due to a larger cross-sectional area.
We calculated the baseflow velocity of our stream to be 0.289ft/s using the
velocity meter. We took our measurements of the channel before the first large
precipitation event, so stormflow is excluded from the measurement. Therefore, the
low level of 270 mm was likely a factor of the baseflow. However, after
incorporating the data into Mannings Equation, the calculated velocity was 1.308
ft/s.
2

Mannings Equation is described as

1.49
V=
Rn 3S 1/ 2 , where
n

n is the roughness coefficient (0.03)

Rn is the hydraulic radius, calculated by Area/wetted perimeter
(2.224ft2/4.29ft)
S is the slope (0.002)

So, the average velocity is computed by

1.49 2.225 ft
V=

0.03
4,29 ft

2 2
3

) 0.002

1
2

. We input

the formula into Excel, and the resulting velocity was 1.308 ft/s.
The large difference between the calculated velocities demonstrates how
unreliable Mannings Equation can be in estimating velocity. It relies almost
completely on the morphology of the stream without incorporating other outside
factors, such as precipitation. There is also discrepancy in the calculation of the
roughness coefficient, which will greatly alter the results. Velocity is an important
factor in calculating discharge (Q=VA), so it is important to be as accurate as
possible. All calculations in a watershed have a cascading effect. The computation
of one element will be used to compute another, and so on. The discharge
calculated using Mannings velocity was 2.63ft 3/s. The discharge calculated from
the velocity meters calculation was 0.643 ft3/s, a huge contrast.
We calculated the Froud number using the velocity from the velocity meter.
The value was 0.051, which is less than 1, so our stream section flows at a steady,
laminar, subcritical flow.
Management Recommendations
The catchment is in relatively good condition. The stream responded quickly
to the first rainfall, and the thick vegetative cover reduced any chance of flooding or
erosion of sediment. The watershed is healthy and the small stream maintained its
steady, subcritical flow. Even the upland forest had a hardy vegetative cover and
litter layer, and a thick organic layer of soil retains water well after the several dry
months before we began the measurements.
The relationship of these factors (soil, vegetation, and streamflow) in the
water budget can be preserved in several ways. The best way to do this is to keep
human impact to a minimum. The institution is growing, and many people wish to
expand buildings, classrooms, and parking lots. This expansion of water-resistant
material over natural land will prevent infiltration of water into the soil, increase
runoff and erosion, and increase the likelihood of flooding. Groundwater will be less
easily replenished, and the structural soundness of the watershed could be
compromised. This can also affect the input of water into the watershed via
groundwater. The best way to protect this area is to exercise good management
practices that will not compromise the contributing features of the watershed and
also to limit human development onto the area that will disrupt its natural cycle.