|
Effectiveness of Structural Sediment Perimeter Barriers: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research
Yufan Zhang1, Rabin Bhattarai1,*, Dennis C. Flanagan2, Charles V. Privette3
Published in Journal of the ASABE 67(4): 965-981 (doi: 10.13031/ja.15630). 2024 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
1 Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
2 National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, USDA ARS, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
3 Department of Agricultural Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
* Correspondence: rbhatta2@illinois.edu
Submitted for review on 15 April 2023 as manuscript number NRES 15630; approved for publication as a Review Article and as part of the Soil Erosion Research Symposium Collection by Associate Editor Dr. James Etheridge and Community Editor Dr. Kyle Mankin of the Natural Resources & Environmental Systems Community of ASABE on 1 April 2024.
Mention of company or trade names in this article is for description only and does not imply endorsement by the USDA and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The USDA and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are equal opportunity providers and employers.
Citation: Zhang, Y., Bhattarai, R., Flanagan, D. C., & Privette, C. V. (2024). Effectiveness of structural sediment perimeter barriers: Literature review and suggestions for future research. J. ASABE, 67(4), 965-981. https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.15630
Highlights
Abstract. A sediment perimeter barrier is a common practice along the perimeter of construction sites to prevent sediment from being washed over all the way to the nearby storm drains or directly into water bodies. It is important to apply barriers during construction since the grading and demolition do not allow the application of other ground surface protection, such as erosion control blankets. To better understand the mechanism, this paper conducted a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of structural sediment perimeter barriers (SPBs) in preventing sediment pollution. The study systematically analyzed the experimental design and results of previous research studies, including their strengths and limitations. The findings suggest that while SPBs have shown promise in reducing sediment pollution, their effectiveness varies depending on factors such as experimental design, installation, and sampling approach. Worse still, the criteria to evaluate the SPBs also differed across different studies. From the reviewed studies, we identified that there is a need to develop a unified test standard, especially on evaluation criteria and water sampling protocol. Additionally, there is a need for more studies to be conducted in various geographical and climatic conditions to assess the performance of SPBs. Although some models (WEPP and VFSMOD) have been proven to be effective in predicting the effectiveness of non-structural SPBs (vegetative filter strips), exploring the feasibility of these existing models in simulating structural SPBs to be subjected to sediment-laden water is recommended. Other software or methods used in the area of computational fluid dynamics, such as HYDRUS-3D, ANASYS, EDEM, and finite volume methods (FVM), could also be introduced in this field.
Stormwater runoff poses a significant threat to surface water quality in different landscapes (USEPA, 2008). In agricultural settings, stormwater pollution often occurs after soil disturbances caused by a series of farming activities such as tillage and planting (Chalise et al., 2020; Mulvihill, 2021). When the surface is bare, sediments and associated chemicals can easily be detached and transported by raindrops and runoff. However, sediment losses due to stormwater runoff can be mitigated through various best management practices (BMPs), such as no-till, contour farming, cover crops, straw mulching, and vegetative filter strips (NRCS, 2009). Among all the measures, the ones preventing soil particles from being detached by raindrops by covering the ground surface are called erosion control practices, such as cover crops and straw mulching; the ones preventing detached soil particles from being transported from the source area to downstream are defined as sediment control practices such as vegetative filter strips (VFS) and diversion terraces. Many studies have been conducted on various erosion and sediment control practices and their effectiveness within agricultural settings (Bekin et al., 2021; Puertes et al., 2020; Rittenburg et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2015a). There are also a number of review articles with respect to the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs (Blanco-Canqui and Wortmann, 2020; Kröger et al., 2012; Krutz et al., 2005; Logan, 1990, 1993; Prokopy et al., 2008; Van Eerd et al., 2023).
In contrast, there are very few systematic review articles regarding erosion and sediment control practices applied to construction landscapes, even though they are widely used in highway or roadway construction sites during soil-disturbing activities such as clearing, grading, or cut/fill work (MPCA, n.d.). Despite the limited number of related review articles (Tyner et al., 2011; Seutloali & Beckedahl, 2015), their discussion continuously emphasizes erosion control measures. However, sediment control practices are more critical in the case of frequent grading and demolition, where erosion control measures are less effective. Sediment control practices on construction sites include point-featured measures such as inlet protection and sediment traps and basins and linear-featured measures such as perimeter barriers and check dams. Point-featured measures are usually designed at the end of the catchment and treat concentrated flow, while linear-featured measures could handle either concentrated flow or sheet flow, depending on where they are installed (Caltrans, 2003). Among these practices, sediment perimeter barriers (SPBs) can be one of the last lines of defense to prevent pollution from exiting a source area. SPBs can be categorized into structural and non-structural vegetative practices. Structural SPBs mean some materials (synthetic or natural) processed and organized by human beings to slow down sediment-laden water velocity and retain sediment upstream of the materials. Silt fences, fiber rolls (wood fiber logs, compost socks, coconut coir fiber rolls, etc.), and triangular silt dikes are examples of structural SPBs.
Vegetative or natural SPBs imply VFS installed perpendicular to the flow path along the boundary of construction sites to treat sheet flow by increasing water infiltration and sedimentation within the buffer zone (Georgia SWCC, 2016). Past VFS studies have targeted highway/roadway embankment areas (Barrett et al., 1998b; Wu & Allen, 2006; Boivin et al., 2008; Li et al., 2008; Shokri et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023). For example, Barrett et al. (1998b) monitored two highway sites in Austin, Texas, and found that the VFS on the side-slope of the pavement-embankment system, which treated overland sheet flow, retained the majority of highway stormwater pollution, rather than the VFS section on the bottom of the channels, which was used to treat concentrated flow. Wu and Allen (2006) monitored VFS near a highway in Clayton, NC, under nine natural rainfall events, and the slope where the VFS was applied was 4%–6%. The monitoring results indicated that nearly 10%–40% of runoff was retained in the buffer due to infiltration. The peak flow reductions were in an extensive range of 15%–90%, depending on the rainfall intensity. They also found the VFS achieved TSS removal of 56%–94% based on concentration reduction and 68%–97% based on mass load reduction. Li et al. (2008) studied the effectiveness of vegetated roadsides in mitigating stormwater pollution on rural highway roads by monitoring the water quality before and after the vegetation buffers in Texas. They found that the performance of VFS fell rapidly when the vegetation density was below 90%, and the most suspended solids were trapped in the first 2 m of the buffer if the density was beyond 90%. Unlike VFS, structural SPBs are more diverse. For example, some are damming SPBs (silt fence, triangular silt dike), while others are filtering SPBs (fiber rolls, GeoRidge®). As more and more structural SPBs become available, it is essential to determine the selection and placement of these structural SPBs through an evidence-based approach rather than “gut feelings” or “experience” (Sutherland et al., 2004; Pullin et al., 2004). Unfortunately, there are not many scientific studies on the effectiveness of various SPBs (Chapman et al., 2014).
In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the effectiveness of structural SPBs in preventing sediment pollution. We rigorously analyzed the experimental design and results of previous studies, including their strengths and limitations, and synthesized information through a systematic review of diverse sources. This study also pointed out future research needs like a unified test standard, more peer-reviewed statistical evidence in different geographical climate conditions, and computational models.
Methodology
This study reviewed literature globally, collected from peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, project reports, design guidelines, fact sheets, and federal documentation. Peer-reviewed journal articles were a top priority while searching the literature. The search platforms included Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. A visual tool called “Connected Papers” was applied to sweep potentially correlated documents further (Connected papers, 2023). The keywords in the initial searching stage included construction sites, stormwater management, sediment perimeter barriers, sediment barriers, sediment retention barriers, and perimeter control. After the initial search, we found nearly all articles were related to silt fences, compost logs (filter socks), and wattles. Therefore, we started the second-round search by adding “silt fence,” “compost log,” “filter socks,” and “wattles” as keywords to find relevant papers for each SPB. Published papers were also screened for citations to identify earlier studies. Papers about bioretention, swale systems, and sediment basins representing point-featured sediment control BMPs were excluded because they are designed to treat concentrated flow rather than sheet flow. Vegetative Filter Strips (VFS) or vegetated buffers installed on the boundary serve as perimeter control, but they are not considered in this review because they are natural SPBs, not structural SPBs. Papers mentioning structural SPBs but nothing about original experimental research on their effectiveness were excluded since this study only focuses on the efficacy of SPBs. The selected papers were then categorized by each SPB. Finally, there were 18 papers for silt fences, 8 for compost logs, and 5 for wattles. Some papers were counted more than once since they mentioned multiple SPBs for comparison. Other than the aforementioned three main SPBs, some newly developed SPBs are also discussed in this study regarding their effectiveness. A flowchart showing the literature screening and collecting process is presented in figure 1. A flowchart that demonstrates various erosion and sediment control practices and how SPBs relate to others is also provided to help the readers understand what we focused on and what we excluded (fig. A1).
 |
| Figure 1. Literature review flowchart. |
In this study, we evaluated some popular structural SPBs, such as silt fence, compost log, triangular silt dike, and straw wattles, and provided suggestions for future research. The critical evaluation of SPBs is conducted in terms of the strengths and limitations of past studies. At first, the evaluation of the silt fence was introduced in terms of different test types (bench-scale testing, plot-scale testing, and field monitoring). Since there were more diverse fabric characteristics and test conditions for silt fence, it was further discussed and organized into three aspects of sampling location, influencing factors, and evaluation criteria. The quantitative results of silt fence studies were presented in table 1 and discussed mainly in “evaluation criteria,” and, to some extent, in “sampling location” and “influencing factors.” Then, the evaluation of compost log was discussed in terms of two test types (bench-scale and plot-scale), and the details of compost logs past studies were summarized in table 2. Wattles and other structural SPB were viewed next. Following the review of various structural SPBs experimental studies, several simulation models to evaluate the effectiveness of structural SPBs were introduced. In the end, suggestions for future studies were provided, emphasizing the need to consider a broader geographical distribution of experimental studies, improve test standards and SPB installations, and explore potentially applicable simulation models.
Evaluation of SPBs
As the last defense line, SPBs prevent eroded soil particles from entering nearby water bodies like streams, lakes, or rivers. There are various commonly used SPBs in the industry; however, the effectiveness of most SPBs is unclear. From the literature review, only three SPBs had adequate studies to demonstrate their performance, either at bench-scale, plot-scale, or field-scale.
Silt Fence
Silt fence is the current industry standard as a SPB, which is widely used in the United States (fig. 2). Twenty studies have evaluated the effectiveness of silt fences (fabric) over the past several decades in eighteen papers, considering two papers are associated with more than one test approach (table 1). Sixteen of the studies were conducted in the southeast region (Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, and Florida), while two were in Washington State, one was in Iowa, and one was in Illinois (fig. 4).
Test Type
Bench-Scale Testing
We found five bench-scale studies on silt fences (Wyant, 1981; Barrett et al., 1998a; Risse et al., 2008; Zech et al., 2008; Whitman et al., 2019b). ASTM D5141 (VTM-51), developed by Wyant (1981), is a commonly used approach in bench-scale testing. This approach tests the SPBs installed in an 8% slope flume being subjected to 50 L of pre-mixed sediment-laden water with a constant inflow sediment concentration (3 g L-1). The evaluation criteria in this approach include the flow-through rate, total suspended solids (TSS) in effluent, or turbidity in effluent (Wyant, 1981; Risse et al., 2008). The test standard (ASTM D5141) was first approved in 1991, with revisions in 2011 and 2018.
Wyant (1981) tested 15 fabrics using VTM-51, the previous version of ASTM D5141. He found that the filtering efficiency was based on the suspended solids values measured by the particle size distribution in the effluent. Barrett et al. (1998a) tested the performance of four different silt fences with an outdoor flume in Austin, Texas. Three tested fabrics were woven, while one was non-woven. Risse et al. (2008) evaluated the effectiveness of two types of silt fence, which were traditional Type C and Silt-Saver Belted Strand Retention Fence (BSRF), based on ASTM D5141. They found that BSRF removed more sediment than traditional type C silt fences, regardless of soil type and inflow sediment concentration. Whitman et al. (2019b) developed an improved flume test apparatus based on ASTM D5141 to simulate a more realistic stormwater runoff pattern compared to other short-time (approximately 10 s) bench-scale testing. The runoff quantity and sediment concentrations were calculated as 2,242 L and 50 g L-1 based on peak 30 minutes of a 2-yr, 24-hr design storm from a drainage area of 0.008 ha in Alabama and a total sediment load of 102.3 kg, which were much greater than the values in ASTM D5141 (50 L and 3 g L-1). The SPBs were tested at a 1% slope instead of 8% as recommended by ASTM D5141. Compared with only a sediment-laden water release duration of 10 seconds in ASTM D5141, this improved test apparatus allowed a testing duration of 30 minutes and a dewatering period of nearly 90 minutes. Considering that bench-scale tests could not even create an impoundment in many cases, this improved flume provides a good idea to replace the current bench-scale testing standard, ASTM D5141.
| Table 1. Studies on the effectiveness of silt fences.[a] | |||||||||||||
| Author | Loc | Test Type | Slope | Runoff Source | Q (L) | q (L s-1) | Soil Texture | c (g L-1) | Test Duration | TSS (%) | NTU (%) | SRE (%) | Criteria |
| Wyant, 1981 | VA | Bench-scale (VTM-51) | 8% | Pre- mixed | 50 | - | sandy, silty, clayey[b] | 3 | Less than 1 min | 84-100 | - | - | FTR (r), TSS |
| Horner et al., 1990 | WA | Field monitoring | - | Natural rainfall | - | - | - | - | = | 85.7 | 2.9 | - | TSS, NTU |
| Barrett et al., 1998a | TX | Field monitoring | - | Natural rainfall | - | - | - | - | - | -61-+54 | -32-+49 | - | TSS, NTU |
| Barrett et al., 1998a | TX | Bench- scale | 0.33% | Pre- mixed | 190 | 0.08 | silty clay | 3 | few mins test, 48hs dewater | 68-90 | - | - | TSS |
| Robichaud & Brown, 2002 | WA | Field monitoring | 20% | Natural rainfall | - | - | silt loam | - | - | - | - | 92-93 | SRE |
| Stevens et al., 2007 | OK | Plot-scale | 33% | Rainfall simulator | - | - | silty clay, sandy loam, loam | - | 1 hr | - | - | 51.1-98.9 | SRE |
| Risse et al., 2008 | GA | Bench-scale (ASTM D5141) | 8%, 58% | Pre- mixed | 50 | - | sand, silt loam, clay loam | 2.89, 5.78 | Less than 1 min | 84-99 | 25-90 | - | FTR (r), TSS, NTU |
| Risse et al., 2008 | GA | Field monitoring | 50% | Artificial rainfall | - | - | clay loam | - | 30-45 mins | - | - | Integrity | |
| Zech et al., 2008 | AL | Bench- scale | long. 2% | Rainfall simulator | - | 0.13 | sand | - | 30 mins test | 90 | - | - | TSS |
| Zech et al., 2009 | AL | Field monitoring | 33%, (long. 5%) | Natural rainfall | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Integrity |
| Gogo-Abite & Chopra, 2013 | FL | Plot-scale | 25%, 10% | Rainfall simulator | - | - | sandy[b] | - | 30 mins test | 14-74 | 0-78 | - | FTR (r), TSS, NTU |
| Burns & Troxel, 2015 | SC | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 2271 | - | sandy clay | 45 | 30 mins test | 98.4, 97.6 | 92.3, 92.8 | - | TSS, TDS, NTU (r & d) |
| Bugg et al., 2017a | AL | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 11k | 6.2 | loam | 44.6 | 30 mins test | - | - | 67-91 | Integrity, NTU, SRE |
| Whitman et al., 2018 | AL | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% | Pre- mixed | 11k | 6.2 | sand | 44.6 | 30 mins test | - | - | 53-98 | Integrity, NTU, SRE |
| Whitman et al., 2019a | AL | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 11k | 6.2 | loam | 44.6 | 30 mins test | - | - | 63-93 | FTR (r), SRE, ID |
| Whitman et al., 2019b | AL | Upgraded bench-scale (improved ASTM D5141) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 2242 | 1.1 | sandy loam | 50 | 30 mins test, 90 mins dewater | - | r:-13-+63; d:-41-+49 | 83-98 | FTR (r & d), NTU (r & d), SRE |
| Whitman et al., 2020 | AL | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 11k | 6.2 | sand | - | 30 mins test | - | - | 90-100 | NTU, SRE, ID, FTR |
| Bugg et al., 2020 | AL | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 11k | 6.2 | loam | 44.6 | 30 mins testing | - | - | 67-91 | Integrity, NTU, SRE |
| Schussler et al., 2020 | IA | Field monitoring | - | Natural rainfall | - | - | lean clay with sand | - | - | - | - | - | Integrity |
| Zhang et al., 2022 | IL | Plot-scale (ASTM D7351) | 33% (trans. 1%) | Pre- mixed | 950 | - | silty clay loam | 40 | 30 mins test | - | - | 51 | Integrity, TSC, SRE |
[a] Loc = location, Q = inflow volume, q = inflow rate, c = inflow sediment concentration, TSS = total suspended solids reduction, NTU = turbidity reduction, SRE = sediment retention efficiency, ID = impoundment depth, FTR = flow-thru rate, r = test running period, d = dewatering period, TSC = total sediment concentration reduction, long = longitudinal slope, trans = slope on transition area, and TDS = Total dissolved solids. [b] No soil texture mentioned corresponding to USDA classification. | |||||||||||||
During the flume test, the silt fence is strongly secured to the flume to avoid failure during testing. As a result, only the geotextile material is evaluated. In the flume test, influent grab samples were taken from the mixing tank, not the impoundment, which could result in an overestimation of the effectiveness of fabrics considering sediments possibly subside before reaching the tested device. Barrett et al. (1998a) noticed this phenomenon by conducting a test with no silt fence in the flume. They found a TSS reduction of 34% due only to the testing apparatus itself. However, they did not exclude this effect from their results when they concluded the TSS reduction efficiency.
Zech et al. (2008) designed a bench-scale experiment to simulate the erosion processes on slopes near highway construction activities. The study evaluated the performance of the linear silt fence and silt fence tieback system, which was created by turning the downslope of the linear silt fence back into the fill slope and extending the end of the fence up the slope to an elevation higher than the top of the fence. To obtain the outflow hydrograph and sedimentograph, three sampling locations were used to monitor the overland flow before and after the tested device, and infiltration.
| Table 2. Studies on effectiveness of compost logs.[a] | ||||||||
| Author | Location | Test Type | Slope | Runoff Generation | Pollutants | Flocculation (w/o) | Test Duration | Evaluation Criteria |
| Keener et al., 2007 | OH | Bench- scale | 18%, 36% | Pre-mixed, recirculation | sediment | o | 30 mins | FTR, ponding depth, TSS |
| Faucette et al., 2008 | MD | Bench- scale | 10% | Rainfall simulator | sediment, total P, soluble P | w | 30 mins | pollutant concentration and mass load, turbidity, FTR, and single event P factor |
| Taleban et al., 2009 | Canada | Plot- scale | - | Pre-mixed | sediment | o | 30 mins clear water, 30 mins sediment-laden water | TSS, turbidity |
| Faucette et al., 2009a | MD | Bench- scale | 10% | Rainfall simulator | sediment, N, bacteria, metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons | w | 30 mins | pollutant concentration, turbidity |
| Faucette et al., 2009b | GA | Bench- scale | 10% | Rainfall simulator | sediment | w | 3 hrs | total runoff volume, peak runoff rate, TSS, turbidity, single event P factor, and cost |
| Faucette et al., 2013 | MD | Bench- scale | 10% | Pre-mixed | nutrients, bacteria, and motor oil | w | several mins | soluble pollutants concentration |
| Burns and Troxel, 2015 | SC | Plot- scale | 33% (1%) | Pre-mixed | sediment | o | 30 mins | TSS, TDS, NTU (r & d) |
| Zhang et al., 2022 | IL | Plot- scale | 33% (1%) | Pre-mixed | sediment | o | 30 mins | TSC, SRE, ID |
[a] TSS = total suspended solids reduction, NTU = turbidity reduction, SRE = sediment retention efficiency, ID = impoundment depth, FTR = flow-thru rate, r = test running period, d = dewatering period, TSC = total sediment concentration reduction, and TDS = Total dissolved solids. | ||||||||
Plot-Scale Testing
Nine studies (Stevens et al., 2007; Gogo-Abite & Chopra, 2013; Burns & Troxel, 2015; Bugg et al., 2017a; Whitman et al., 2018, 2019a, 2020; Bugg et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) were based on plot-scale testing. Developed in 2007, the current plot-scale test standard ASTM D7351 underwent two revisions in 2013 and 2019. The purpose of this approach is to assess the performance of SPBs by considering structural integrity, sediment retention, and water quality. The testing process involves introducing sediment-laden water (default testing: 2140 kg of water and 140 kg of dry soil) via a 3H:1V slope, followed by a 1% slope area where SPBs are installed. The entire testing procedure encompasses a testing period lasting 30 minutes, followed by a dewatering period that varies based on the impoundment.
 |
| Figure 2. Silt fence demonstration. |
Bugg et al. (2017a) explored the effectiveness of three silt fences based on ASTM D7351. The results showed that the sliced installation approach can cause undercutting issues, although it is less labor-intensive. Due to the inefficiency of the current silt fence installation approach, Whitman et al. (2018) explored eight alternative installation configurations for ALDOT standard wire-backed non-woven silt fence and expected to find the optimum configuration based on structural performance, sediment retention, and water quality. They found the design with a lower fence height, heavier support posts, shorter post spacing, and offset trenching performed the best overall. They also explored how strongly each modification alleviated structural failure by developing a multiple linear regression model. Whitman et al. (2019a) evaluated several innovative and manufactured SPBs at the Auburn University-Erosion and Sediment Control Testing Facility (AU-ESCTF). The three categories of SPBs evaluated in this study were: (a) manufactured silt fence systems; (b) sediment retention barriers (SRBs); and (c) manufactured SPBs. They observed that undercutting was the major failure mode in many cases. Undercutting or undermining means the sediment-laden water breaks through soil particles at the interface between the ground and the SPB, and the water quickly goes through that spot without being treated by the SPB materials. The failure occurred mostly near the post due to insufficient soil compaction. Bugg et al. (2020) evaluated five different SPBs based on ASTM D5371 at AU-ESCTF and found that the Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Commission (AL-SWCC) Trenched Silt Fence was the only efficient one to retain the sediment upstream because all of the others encountered structural failures. The detailed installation method for AL-SWCC Trenched Silt Fence can be found in a handbook (AL-SWCC, 2014). Zhang et al. (2022) evaluated silt fence as a baseline to compare with multiple SPBs based on ASTM D7351. They found fabric clogging and undercutting issues that occurred frequently during the experiments, which adversely affected performance.
Unlike these studies that applied pre-mixed sediment-laden water, Stevens et al. (2007) took advantage of rainfall simulation and studied the sediment trapping efficiency of silt fences under different soil types and lateral slopes along the fence. However, the effluent flow rate and sediment concentration were not given, and there was no elaboration on the approach to compute trapping efficiency in this document. Gogo-Abite & Chopra (2013) set up a rainfall simulator and a tilting testbed to evaluate more scenarios. The testbed was loaded with sandy soil, which was intended to be eroded and generate sediment-laden runoff. The contribution area (2.4 m by 9.1 m) in this study was smaller compared to the minimum area where SPBs are required (0.4 ha). This study took the effect of installation into account, as the other plot-scale tests did. However, the slopes were much higher than the other plot-scale tests (1%) due to the lack of a flat transition area. This adjustable test bed was conducive to study the potential of SPB applications on various slope ranges, especially steeper slope gradients, which commonly occur at highway construction sites. However, it may be better to improve the pollutant loading system from simulated rainfall to a pre-mixed slurry because the latter approach allows easier management of runoff and sediment loadings; thus, it is easier to compare and interpret results.
Field Monitoring
Other than designing a storm event and conducting an experiment either at the bench-scale or plot-scale, another way to evaluate SPBs is field monitoring. We found six field monitoring studies. Barrett et al. (1998a) monitored silt fence effectiveness on six highway construction sites in Austin, Texas, under natural rainfall events. The woven fabric was applied at four sites, and the non-woven fabric was used at the other two sites. They found the effectiveness of silt fences varied substantially, as shown in table 1. Robichaud & Brown (2002) introduced a new approach for installing silt fences on a hillslope. To minimize the undercutting issue caused by trenching and staking, the stakes were installed 1.2–1.8 m downstream from the trench. To prevent back-filled loose soil from being subjected to the runoff directly, the base flap of the fabric was slid into the trench from the upstream side, folded back to the downstream side, and attached to the stakes. Even though the main purpose of the Robichaud & Brown (2002) paper was not to explore the effectiveness of the silt fence, but to measure the soil erosion rate on a hillslope by using the silt fence to trap the most sediment, it still presented some numerical results on sediment trapping efficiency under field monitoring. This paper provided information about the silt fence's maximum holding capacities according to the silt fence’s height, width, and ground surface slope. Risse et al. (2008) conducted field monitoring for the Silt-Saver Belted Strand Retention Fence (BSRF). They measured the fabric deflection rather than the flow-through rate and water quality to focus on whether the silt fence could withstand overtopping. They found that the BSRF system did not fail even if the sediment-laden water was loaded up to the point of overtopping. Zech et al. (2009) designed a silt fence tieback system and compared it with the traditional linear silt fence at a highway construction site. The evaluation showed that tieback systems encountered less failure (undercutting, overtopping, tearing, etc.) than the linear silt fence. This study applied ground-level profiles to illustrate the erosion and sedimentation along the longitudinal gradient of the slope. Schussler et al. (2020) explored three different silt fence installation methods with two post spacings (2.4 m and 1.5 m) in Iowa. They concluded that offset trenching, wire reinforcement, and decreasing spacing would help to maintain the structural integrity.
The results, especially the numerical results from the aforementioned studies, are discussed later in terms of various sampling locations, influencing factors (soil type, flow-thru rate, slope, etc.), and evaluation criteria (water quality, sediment retention efficiency, structural integrity, and impoundment depth).
Sampling Location
The upstream water quality data is closely related to the sampling location due to the heterogeneity of the SPB impoundment. The currently found sampling locations upstream in the literature include the top of the impoundment (UT), the bottom of the impoundment (UB), the outlet of the runoff delivery system (OT), or random sample collection in the impoundment (fig. 3). As for the downstream, water samples were collected either immediately after the SPB (D1) or after a collection pan (D2). Some researchers explored the effect of sedimentation on water quality by comparing turbidity between UT and UB and the effect of filtering by comparing turbidity between UT and D1. For example, Bugg et al. (2017a, 2020) and Whitman et al. (2018, 2019a) found that the impoundment facilitated the sedimentation process and improved the water quality; however, the fabric filtering mechanism had little impact on turbidity reduction. By separating the entire test into two periods (running and dewatering), Whitman et al. (2019b) found that sedimentation was the main process that improved water quality, but only in the testing period, and filtration by the fabric played a more significant role in reducing turbidity during the dewatering period. However, Zhang et al. (2022) found that silt fence could reduce TSS by half, even though turbidity reduction was negligible, by comparing TSS and turbidity in OT and D2. They used silty clay loam soil to make the slurry, which had about 95% silt- or clay-sized particles, which could be a reason why there is no improvement in turbidity. Some researchers did not mention the sampling location or randomly collected samples upstream. For example, Barrett et al. (1998a) collected influent samples from the impoundment created by the silt fence, and effluent samples were collected immediately downstream of the silt fence. The results indicated a significant variation in TSS reduction efficiency (-61% to +54%) and turbidity reduction efficiency (-32% to +49%). Negative efficiencies indicated the downstream water quality was worse than the upstream. The inefficiency could be attributed to various failures (fabric tearing, overtopping, undercutting, flowing around the fence, etc.), but it could also be a result of the sampling location. This sampling approach only evaluated the fabric filtering efficiency and excluded the sedimentation efficiency, which was potentially much greater.
 |
| Figure 3. Sampling locations in an SPB test. |
Influencing Factors
The soil type used to make the sediment-laden slurry was related to the efficiency of the silt fence in terms of the apparent opening size (AOS) of the fabric. Researchers have tried to use different soil textures to make slurries and explore the potential relationship between soil particle size distribution and fabric efficiency. For example, Wyant (1981) used three types of soil (sandy soil, silty soil, and clay soil) to generate sediment-laden water. He found that the clay-sized particles could pass through the fabrics. Barrett et al. (1998a) found that about 92% of the TSS were silt- and clay-sized particles in the effluent. These finer particles were neither deposited due to sedimentation nor blocked by the silt fence because of the larger apparent opening size of the fabric. Risse et al. (2008) evaluated three different soil types for slurries (sand, silt loam, and clay loam). They found that the silt loam soil slurry had the greatest TSS in the effluent, and the clay loam soil slurry produced the most turbidity in the effluent.
The efficiency of the silt fence is closely related to the tensile strength, permittivity, and AOS of the fabric. The tensile strength affects the structural integrity of the fabric. The permittivity of a silt fence is an important property that is related to its ability to filter sediment from runoff water. In the case of silt fences, permittivity is related to the porosity of the fabric and its ability to allow water to pass through while retaining sediment particles. A lower permittivity value generally indicates a less porous fabric that restricts water flow, which helps with creating an impoundment and improving the trapping efficiency. However, it also increases the risk of failure of the fabric by tearing, undercutting, or overtopping due to increased hydrostatic pressure caused by a higher impoundment volume. The AOS will influence the allowable range of soil particles passing through the fabric, which changes the TSS and turbidity in the effluent. Researchers have examined the physical properties of the fabrics. For example, Wyant (1981) recommended that at least 75% of the suspended solids should be removed, and the fabric should have a flow-through rate of at least 40.7 L m-2 min-1. He also concluded that a minimum tensile strength requirement is needed to maintain the function if there is no reinforcing wire. Barrett et al. (1998a) concluded that silt fence effectiveness could not be predicted based on the current hydraulic properties of the fabric because they found that the permittivity observed in the flume tests was about two orders of magnitude less than the values reported by the manufacturers. The authors attributed this distinction to the clogging issue. This discrepancy calls for a revision of the silt fence fabric permittivity measurement approach. The current method to measure the permittivity is placing the fabric in a horizontal orientation and allowing purified water to pass through, which fails to simulate how sediment-laden water passes through the material in the field. In the flume test, they also found a correlation between TSS reduction efficiency and impoundment detention time but did not develop a regression equation for this relationship. They noticed that the aforementioned clogging issues with the woven fabric could be resolved, considering the trapped sediment inside the opening could be washed off by successive rainfall events. However, this self-cleaning phenomenon did not occur with non-woven fabric. Whitman et al. (2019b) found that effluent flow rates observed in the testing period for non-woven fabrics were 43% less than those for the woven fabrics, which resulted in longer retention times.
A wide range of slope gradients upstream of silt fences have been investigated. In the ASTM D5141 flume test, the slope was 8%. The 58% slope used in the study conducted by Risse et al. (2008) was designed to simulate extreme rainfall events where the inflow rate was very high. Barrett et al. (1998a) used a 0.33% slope gradient in the flume and found that the efficiency determined was much greater than field monitoring. In plot-scale testing or field monitoring, an incoming 33% slope gradient followed by a 1% transition flat area is very common based on ASTM D7351 (Zech et al., 2009; Bugg et al., 2017a; Whitman et al., 2018, 2019a; Bugg et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). Other researchers have applied different slope conditions. For example, Robichaud & Brown (2002) applied a silt fence on a fallow plot with a 20% slope. The results indicated that the sediment trapping efficiency was 93% the first year when measured on a storm-by-storm basis and 92% the second year when measured on a seasonal basis. Gogo-Abite and Chopra (2013) studied the effectiveness of two silt fences using a tilting test bed with two different slopes (10%, 25%) under simulated rainfall with three different rainfall intensities (25, 76, 127 mm h-1). The steeper slopes were selected to simulate a higher runoff velocity and volume, which could cause overtopping issues. The results indicated that the TSS reduction efficiency and turbidity reduction efficiency ranged from 14%–60% and 11%–56%, respectively, when the slope was 25%. The flatter slope (10%) produced greater efficiencies (16%–74% TSS reduction and 0%–78% turbidity reduction); however, they were both below the reduction targets required by regulatory agencies. Therefore, they recommended that a silt fence should only be installed on a slope with gradients of 10% or less. If a steep slope is unavoidable, a relatively flat transition area should be constructed immediately before the silt fence to attenuate the flow energy and facilitate sediment deposition. Gogo-Abite and Chopra (2013) also proposed that the performance of the silt fence should be based on the effluent sediment concentration rather than the percentage reduction.
Sediment-laden water quantity and sediment concentration are the other two influencing factors. Barrett et al. (1998a) increased sediment-laden water quantity from 50 L (ASTM D5141) to 190 L to assess fabric response to greater rainfall and runoff, which may reflect actual field conditions better. However, the sediment concentration was maintained at 3 g L-1. Risse et al. (2008) explored three inflow sediment concentrations (0, 2.89, and 5.78 g L-1) at the bench scale and found that the inflow rate significantly decreased (more than 10 times) as the sediment concentrations doubled, especially when sandy soil was used for slurry.
Evaluation Criteria
Multiple evaluation criteria have been used in past studies, including flow-through rate (FRT) during the test period (Wyant, 1981; Risse et al., 2008; Gogo-Abite and Chopra, 2013; Whitman et al., 2019a,b) or the dewatering period (Whitman et al., 2019b), TSS reduction (Wyant, 1981; Barrett et al., 1998a; Risse et al., 2008; Zech et al., 2008; Gogo-Abite and Chopra, 2013; Zhang et al., 2022), turbidity reduction (Barrett et al., 1998a; Risse et al., 2008; Gogo-Abite and Chopra, 2013; Bugg et al., 2017a; Whitman et al., 2018, 2019b; Bugg et al., 2020), sediment retention efficiency (Robichaud and Brown, 2002; Bugg et al., 2017a; Whitman et al., 2018, 2019a,b; Bugg et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022), structural integrity (Zech et al., 2009; Bugg et al., 2017a; Whitman et al., 2018; Bugg et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022), and impoundment depth (Whitman et al., 2019a).
Water Quality (TSS, Turbidity)
Wyant (1981), Barrett et al. (1998a), and Risse et al. (2008) found the TSS reduction efficiency ranged from 84%–100%, 68%–90%, and 84%–99%, respectively, in flume tests. Unlike these three tests, which followed test standard ASTM D5141, Zech et al. (2008) evaluated the silt fence tieback system (that we have already mentioned in the test type section). The results indicated that a well-designed silt fence tieback system could remove up to 90% of TSS. However, these flume test results did not reflect actual field situations in terms of frequent structural damage and extensive impoundment upstream. For example, Gogo-Abite and Chopra (2013) found lesser efficiencies (14%–74% for TSS, 0%–78% for turbidity) in plot-scale tests. Barrett et al. (1998a) even noticed negative values (-61% to +54% for TSS, -32% to +49% for turbidity) due to structural failure in the field monitoring. Whitman et al. (2019b) found that the turbidity reduction efficiencies were different during the run period (-13% to +63%) and the dewatering period (-41% to +49%). Horner et al. (1990) found that silt fence was effective in trapping suspended sediments (85.7% TSS reduction efficiency) with almost no help in turbidity reduction (2.9%), which is fortified by findings from Bhattarai et al. (2021).
Sediment Retention Efficiency (SRE)
Some researchers have tried to determine how much sediment has been trapped upstream on a mass basis by weighing the sediment or scanning the soil surface elevations. For example, Robichaud and Brown (2002) found silt fences could trap 92%–93% of the eroded sediment. Bugg et al. (2017a) determined that the sliced silt fence retained much less sediment (66.9% sediment retention efficiency) than the other two trenched silt fences (82.7% and 90.5%) due to the undercutting issue. Whitman et al. (2018, 2019a) and Bugg et al. (2020) found SRE ranged from 53%–98%, 63%–93%, and 67%–91%, respectively. Their results were very similar because they used the same testing site and testing protocol. Thus, a widely used test protocol is very helpful in making comparisons among SPBs. However, Zhang et al. (2022) found their SRE values were only 51% due to frequent undercutting issues.
Structural Integrity and Impoundment Depth
Bugg et al. (2020) indicated that the system itself could heal minor undercutting; however, there was no way to bounce back when multiple undercutting occurred. Whitman et al. (2019a) found sediment retention efficiency increased as the impoundment depth increased. However, if the impoundment depth reached a threshold, it did not facilitate sedimentation as before; instead, it could increase the risk of structural failure. They found 0.3–0.45 m was the optimal impoundment depth to help retain the sediment consistently.
Compost Log
Compost log is another commonly used SPB. It usually consists of outer mesh socks or nets and inner compost materials. Even though research on the impact of compost amendment on soil hydraulic functioning and stormwater pollution mitigation on construction sites has been extensively conducted (Kranz et al., 2022; Rivers et al., 2021; Kranz et al., 2020; Mohammadshirazi et al., 2016), there are a few studies on compost logs as SPBs and their ability to restrict the sediment discharge off-site. Eight studies were found to be relevant in this literature review. Most studies used a slope gradient of 10% (Faucette et al., 2008, 2009a,b, 2013). However, Keener et al. (2007) and Zhang et al. (2022) utilized slope gradients of 18%/36% and 33% (1% transition area), respectively. Most test durations were 30 mins (Keener et al., 2007; Faucette et al., 2008, 2009a; Zhang et al., 2022). Taleban et al. (2009) utilized a 1-hour run with clear water in the first half and sediment-laden water in the second half of their experiments. Faucette et al. (2009b) ran a 3-hour test, as well as several shorter tests lasting several minutes (Faucette et al., 2013).
Test Type
Bench-Scale Testing
We found five bench-scale studies, with three using a rainfall simulator to generate runoff (Faucette et al., 2008, 2009a,b), and the other two using pre-mixed sediment slurries as inflow (Keener et al., 2007; Faucette et al., 2013).
Because of the limited height of compost logs, overtopping is a key issue to be considered. Therefore, some researchers measured ponding depth and flow-through rate in their studies as the main evaluation criteria. For example, Keener et al. (2007) explored the flow-through capacity of silt fences and compost logs by conducting clear and sediment-laden water tests in a flume. They did 120 tests with clear water, including five SPBs, four flow rates, two slopes, and three replications for each. The results indicated that the flow-through rate had a power function relationship with ponding depth. All SPBs subjected to clear water runoff followed a power function, no matter the slopes or flow rates. However, this relationship was found to be more complicated when the SPBs were subjected to sediment-laden water. Twenty-nine tests (three SPBs, three flow rates, one slope, three replications + two SPBs, one slope, one flow rate, and one test) were conducted under sediment-laden water runoff. They found that the ponding depth changed with time and flow rate. In addition, silt fences and compost logs followed different patterns. They developed a tool to design an SPB (diameter, height) to avoid overtopping issues based on the relationship between ponding depth and flow rate. However, they excluded the effect of slope on flow-through capacity, as they only tested one slope for sediment-laden water. They did not develop equations relating ponding depth to flow-through rate for sediment-laden water as they did for the clear water tests. They pointed out that the packing density and particle size distribution of the compost could affect the flow-through rate.
Faucette et al. (2008) demonstrated that the hydraulic flow-through rate could be a pivotal parameter in predicting pollutant removal efficiency rather than the particle size distribution. However, the test protocol in the study (Faucette et al., 2008) did not follow the test standard ASTM D5141, which makes comparisons with other study results more complicated. Zhang et al. (2022) found that a 30 cm diameter compost log was high enough to avoid overtopping issues; however, a 20 cm diameter compost log was more likely to be overtopped.
Plot-Scale Testing
Three studies have been conducted at the plot-scale (Taleban et al., 2009; Burns and Troxel, 2015; Zhang et al., 2022), and they all used a pre-mixed slurry. Taleban et al. (2009) explored the effects of sock size, number of socks, compost type, and flow rate on pollutant removal in plot-scale experiments. However, there were a few caveats in their experimental design. For example, the other field conditions could have been kept the same when trying to see the effects of sock size. When they changed to 46 cm socks, they only placed five socks at the bottom of the groove, rather than what they did for the 20 cm socks, where they placed 15 socks, and five socks were in a group with a certain interval. Fewer numbers could be attributed to more runoff and sediment retention by a larger sock size (46 cm). Moreover, they changed the flow rates for the 46 cm socks’ tests but not for the 20 cm socks’ tests. This study also performed clear water tests to determine if any pollutants from the sock itself were being washed away by the runoff. This attempt was valuable and could be a promising research perspective. They found that compost type and flow rate (0.5 to 2 L s-1) did not affect sediment removal efficiency. However, sock size and the number of socks significantly influenced the efficiency. They also concluded that the compost filter socks outperformed silt fences in the removal of silt and clay particles, considering they had a better silt/clay removal efficiency (38%–70%) than silt fences (20%).
Burns and Troxel (2015) followed ASTM D7351 to test compost logs as they did for silt fence. They concluded that there was 92.9% TSS reduction efficiency and 64.9% turbidity reduction efficiency. They also observed overtopping even for 45 cm logs due to a higher inflow runoff volume (2271 L). Zhang et al. (2022) compared 30 cm compost logs with silt fences in a plot-scale test study. Wooden stakes were applied to demobilize the logs. They found that the compost log was unlikely to fail, and it trapped more than 80% of the sediment mass and performed better than a silt fence with less than 60% efficiency. They also observed that the compost log could trap sediment inside the material in addition to sedimentation upstream.
Wattles
Wattles are also referred to as fiber rolls or bales, which mitigate stormwater pollution mainly by intercepting the flow but with no obvious impoundment created. Before silt fence became a primary SPB, hay and straw bales were widely used (Landphair et al., 1997). We did not investigate hay/straw bales in detail in this study, considering they have been extensively replaced by silt fences and other control measures, according to a survey involving 49 states in 1993 (Mitchell, 1993). A review conducted by Landphair et al. (1997) could be a good source to learn more about relevant research from about 30 years ago. Faucette et al. (2009b) found straw bales were somewhat effective if they could be secured very well on the ground surface. However, their efficiency was not as good as a compost log. Burns and Troxel (2015) conducted plot-scale tests and found straw bales and mulch berms were able to remove 91.2% and 95% TSS, respectively, and 61.9% and 73.8% turbidity, respectively. Bugg et al. (2020) evaluated ALDOT Standard Wattle Perimeter Control based on ASTM D7351. This wattle was made of straw and secured to the ground by crossing stakes. The results showed that the turbidity downstream was even greater than upstream due to the frequent undercutting issues. Whitman et al. (2021) evaluated the hydraulic performance of wattles with six fill materials (excelsior wood fiber, wheat straw, coconut coir, recycled synthetic fiber, chipped wood, and miscanthus fiber) and four outer mash nets (natural netting, synthetic netting, synthetic socking, and polyester socking). They found that excelsior wood fiber was the least effective fill material for establishing flow velocities favorable for soil particle settlement, while miscanthus fiber created the most favorable conditions. Bhattarai et al. (2021) evaluated several fiber rolls and concluded that SPB weight is a crucial factor in maintaining good ground contact and improving performance. Stakes with a 45-degree angle towards the flow were a better installation approach compared with stakes with a 90-degree angle. They also concluded that a sleeve joint should be recommended instead of overlapping and butt end joints for the fiber rolls.
Other Structural SPBs
Other than silt fences, compost logs, and wattles, there are several other SPBs, such as triangular silt dikes, GeoRidge®, and ERTEC ProWattleTM. Triangular silt dikes and ERTEC ProWattleTM act as a dam and create a reservoir upstream to facilitate sedimentation. GeoRidge® is usually used by placing it on an erosion control blanket, to slow the water velocity down without creating impoundment upstream (Bhattarai et al., 2021). There are limited studies that have investigated how well these SPBs perform at the plot-scale or bench-scale.
Bhattarai et al. (2021) evaluated 11 different SPBs, including all aforementioned SPBs, based on ASTM D7351. The effectiveness of SPBs in their study was determined by TSS reduction efficiency and sediment retention efficiency. They used a three-dimensional laser scanner to obtain the topography upstream of SPBs before and after the test. The retained sediment amount was obtained based on pre-scan and post-scan volumes. They found that SPBs that could create impoundment performed better than those without impoundment. Zhang et al. (2022) evaluated ERTEC ProWattleTM compared to silt fence based on ASTM D7351. They found ERTEC ProWattleTM outperformed other similar SPBs with about 60% TSS reduction and nearly 97% sediment retention upstream. With the support behind the SPB, the 25 cm high ERTEC ProWattleTM was high enough to avoid overtopping issues.
Simulation Models
There are limited simulation models to evaluate commonly used structural SPBs on construction sites. Risse et al. (2008) applied the STARDYNE finite element program (STARDYNE Advanced Analysis Software, Yorba Linda, California) to simulate fabric deflection. This model can only inspect deflection, not effectiveness. The results indicated that both types of silt fence had no structural failure, even though the tensile strength of the fabric was lower than required.
The USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model (Flanagan and Nearing, 1995; Flanagan et al., 2001, 2007, 2012) is a process-based, continuous simulation, distributed parameter soil erosion prediction model developed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. WEPP can be applied to hillslope profiles to estimate sheet (interrill) and rill erosion and to small watersheds composed of multiple hillslopes, channels, and impoundments to determine detachment, sediment deposition, and sediment delivery. The model can be utilized to simulate various sediment control practices, including vegetative filter strips (VFS), rock-fill check dams, silt fences, and straw bales. VFS is simulated as a different overland flow element, usually at the bottom of a hillslope with dense vegetation (grass and sod) that increases hydraulic roughness and induces deposition. Flanagan and Nearing (2000) provided information on WEPP model science related to sediment deposition and particle sorting on hillslopes and also provided results of model validation using sod strips in rainfall simulation experiments. Rock-fill check dams, silt fences, and straw bales are simulated as impoundments in WEPP watershed simulations (Lindley et al., 1998a,b; Flanagan and Livingston, 1995). Abercrombie (2022) utilized WEPP simulations to determine the support practice factors (P-factors) for RUSLE model applications. The study simulated five common soil types (clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, silt loam, and loam) for four climate regions (Knoxville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Memphis) in Tennessee to generate P-factors for silt fences and straw-filled sediment tubes. In WEPP, watershed-scale simulations were conducted using these impoundments below contributing hillslopes. The study reported that soil type had the greatest influence on sediment control device efficiency, and the silty clay loam (P = 0.34 for silt fences) had the highest efficiency, while the silt loam soil had the least level of sediment loss reduction (P = 0.55 for straw-filled sediment tubes).
The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2) is a computer-based technology that involves a computer program, mathematical equations, and a large database created cooperatively by the USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Biosystems Engineering and Environmental Science Department at the University of Tennessee. It is used to estimate soil loss and sediment yield on a hillslope during a period considering the site’s climatology, soil type, topography, land cover, and management practices caused by sheet and rill erosion (USDA-ARS, 2013). RUSLE2 has a construction mode where users can choose when to install and remove the various temporary structural SPBs, such as silt fences, compost logs, fiber rolls, etc. However, the application of RUSLE2 on construction sites is currently scarce due to a lack of user guides and example scenarios. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (n.d.) provided presentation slides to demonstrate an example of how to use RUSLE2 to evaluate SPBs’ performance on construction sites. Cuebas and Silva-Araya (2023) also explored the applicability of RUSLE2 on construction sites by simulating the installation of silt fences with the model, but no quantitative results were provided.
Suggestions for Future Research
Need for Research in Different Geographical Climate Conditions
Based on the literature search, it was noted that more than 80% of studies were conducted in the southeast region of the US (fig. 4). Different regions have different climate conditions and soil textures, which could affect the decision to choose a suitable SPB. For example, the rainfall frequency and intensity could exceed an SPB’s water-holding capacity, and excess runoff could cause structural failure. Soil particle size distribution in sediment-laden water varies in different regions and is closely related to SPB efficiency. Although runoff pattern and particle size distribution can be simulated and replicated anywhere as long as the same design rainfall events and soil textures are used, researchers usually prefer to use their local climate condition and soil type because they usually work closely with a local agency, such as the Department of Transportation, and local scenarios are their mutual interests.
 |
| Figure 4. Geographical distribution of studies. |
Temperature and wind are hard to control in field experiments, which is another motivation to expand the research to diverse geographical climate conditions. The SPBs must stay on-site sometimes over the winter to prevent sediment from exiting construction areas. The freeze-thaw cycle will affect the properties of soil layers where SPBs are installed and can affect the performance of the SPBs. To be specific, when water in the soil freezes, it expands, causing the soil particles to separate and creating small cracks and spaces within the soil. This can lead to increased porosity and soil permeability, allowing water and air to move more easily through it. However, when the soil thaws, the water within it contracts, and the cracks and spaces close, leading to the soil becoming more compact and denser (Xie et al., 2015b). This cycle of freezing and thawing can cause soil to become more susceptible to erosion, which could increase the potential for undercutting. Additionally, thawing soil above a frozen soil layer may result in more erodible conditions that can produce greater sediment losses reaching an SPB during a rainfall- or snowmelt-driven runoff event (Rempel, 2023; Zhang et al., 2021). Wind is another factor reminding us to have more tests in different regions. SPBs with a necessary relative height, such as a silt fence, may be much less effective if a strong wind is prevalent (CASQA, 2020; Sah Polymers Limited, 2023). Therefore, more research in cold regions and windy areas is encouraged.
Need for Improvement of Test Standard
Bench-scale test standard ASTM D5141 cannot simulate realistic flow situations on site in terms of its limited runoff volume and test duration. The upgraded flume test developed by Whitman et al. (2019b) should be considered a replacement for ASTM D5141, as it follows the plot-scale test standard ASTM D7351 but is more manageable. Therefore, it can be conducted in a closed environment, which makes duplication easier. However, this upgraded flume test does not consider the installation method, which is a critical aspect of the SPBs application. Gogo-Abite and Chopra (2013) considered the installation when they used a testbed; however, they did not use pre-mixed sediment-laden water. Rainfall simulator-induced sediment laden water makes it difficult to manage the inflow water quantity and sediment concentration. Therefore, pre-mixed sediment-laden water is preferred. Bench-scale tests can only be used to determine the physical properties of SPBs, and not their effectiveness. Once the relationship between SPB properties and effectiveness is known, the bench-scale test will become more valuable.
The plot-scale test standard ASTM D7351 is satisfactory for evaluating the performance of SPBs in the field. However, there are several things (sampling protocol, evaluation criteria, test duration, and water filling system) that need to be clarified and improved, which will be discussed in subsequent sections.
Finalizing Sampling Protocol
When obtaining water samples downstream, some researchers collected samples immediately after the SPBs (Barrett et al., 1998a), some others collected right after the collection pan (Zhang et al., 2022), and some did both (Bugg et al., 2017a). Natural sediment deposition could happen on the collection pan with the decrease in water flow velocity. Therefore, the TSS and turbidity values may be correlated with the sampling location. This distinction in sampling locations between different studies makes TSS or turbidity reduction efficiency incomparable. The same thing happens at the upstream sampling location. The outlet of the runoff delivery system (OT), the top of the impoundment immediately before the SPB (UT), and the bottom of the impoundment immediately before the SPB (UB) could all be potential sampling locations (fig. 3). Because the flow downstream is usually very shallow and different sections of the SPBs can perform differently during the test, it is hard to find an accurate way to collect samples immediately after the SPBs. Therefore, we recommend having a short (30 cm along the flow path direction) transition (collection) pan to converge the downstream flow for easy access and collect downstream samples at the outlet of the transition (collection) pan (point D2). It is essential that the transition pan be short and tilted; otherwise, sediment will deposit over there, which can cause an overestimation of TSS or turbidity reduction efficiency. As for the upstream, we recommend sampling at the top of the impoundment to evaluate the filtering effect by comparing points UT and D2, and sampling at the bottom of the impoundment (UB) to investigate the sedimentation effect by comparing points UT and UB. However, Zhang et al. (2022) provided some insights into sedimentation variation upstream by conducting upstream surface elevation surveys. Therefore, it is necessary to finalize the sampling distance to the SPB upstream. We recommend collecting upstream samples immediately before the SPB (points UT and UB) because we also want to explore the filtering effect by comparing them with point D2. In terms of the variation along the SPB, multiple locations should be considered, as illustrated in figure 5, and an average water quality value should be used for comparison. If there is no impoundment upstream, we recommend collecting samples right after the distribution pipe (OT) and keeping the pipe as close as possible to the transition area as long as the sheet flow can be developed. We also recommend collecting multiple samples at the pipe and using average TSS or turbidity values to avoid bias.
 |
| Figure 5. Plan view of sampling locations. |
Finalizing Evaluation Criteria
In past studies, sediment reduction efficiency has been defined based on either TSS, TSC, or turbidity reduction (table 1). Even though it is easier and faster to obtain turbidity results in the field than TSS and TSC, which must be determined in the laboratory and takes 48 hrs or so, the uncertainty in turbidity measurement makes it unreliable. Therefore, we suggest that TSS or TSC be used to define sediment reduction efficiency in the future. In addition, some researchers (Bugg et al., 2017a; Whitman et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022) introduced sediment retention efficiency by considering how much sediment was trapped upstream compared to how much was added to the testing system. It is easy to confuse TSS reduction efficiency and sediment retention efficiency. For example, Burns and Troxel (2015) miscalled sediment retention efficiency as TSS reduction efficiency, which highlights the motivation to finalize the evaluation criteria. Sediment retention efficiency is encouraged to be incorporated into ASTM D7351 because this evaluation criteria is event-based, unlike water quality data, which vary over the test period. It becomes easier and more intuitive to compare sediment retention efficiency. Besides, some studies took the flow-through rate into account (Wyant, 1981; Risse et al., 2008; Gogo-Abite and Chopra, 2013; Whitman et al., 2019a,b), while others did not. Overall, there should be a consensus among the scientific community on which evaluation criteria should be relied upon.
For the water quality data, two laboratory analytical methods (suspended-sediment concentration (SSC) and total suspended solids (TSS)) are predominantly used to quantify concentrations of suspended solid-phase material in the surface waters of the United States. The fundamental difference between the SSC and TSS analytical methods stems from the preparation of the sample for subsequent filtering, drying, and weighing. The SSC analytical method measures all sediment and the mass of the entire water-sediment mixture, while the TSS analysis normally entails the withdrawal of an aliquot of the original sample for subsequent analysis (Gray et al., 2020). However, other researchers not only collected suspended solids but also bedload solids, especially when samples were collected directly from the outlet of a runoff delivery system or the outlet of an entire test plot. For example, Zhang et al. (2022) sampled all sediment entering and exiting their test plot and called it total sediment concentration (TSC). We encourage future researchers to pay more attention to this and choose a suitable water quality index. For silt fences, compost logs, and similar damming SPBs, TSS makes sense since there are typically only silts and clays observed downstream. It may not be applicable to some new SPBs that intercept the runoff, but with no obvious impoundment upstream, sediment transport could still occur downstream. We recommend applying TSC to represent how much total sediment enters and leaves a test plot, regardless of SPB type.
Partitioning Test Duration
Based on the upgraded flume test, Whitman et al. (2019b) realized that the filtering effect and sedimentation effect are both important. However, they help to improve water quality in different time periods. They found that sedimentation was the dominant effect during the running period, and filtering was dominant during the dewatering period. Therefore, it is essential to add the idea of partitioning the test duration into running and dewatering periods to ASTM D7351, considering these two potentially different mechanisms.
Automatic Sediment-Laden Water Filling System
One thing we need to notice is that the current test standard (ASTM D7351) is labor-intensive, especially in the preparation of sediment-laden water. Bugg et al. (2017b) introduced a filling system including a water tank, a sediment hopper, and a sediment mixing trough. Even though the water was turbulent, there was still a big chance of sediment settlement in the mixing trough during the test run. To solve this issue, Bhattarai et al. (2021) designed an agitator to circulate the sediment-laden water. However, this system has a shortcoming: the inflow rate is hard to control since the water level decreases as time goes by. An automatic filling system, as Abu-Zreig et al. (2003) did for the vegetated buffer study, is strongly recommended for application in SPB effectiveness testing in terms of homogeneity and constant inflow rate.
Need for Improvement of Installation
As for the lightweight fiber rolls, the installation approach needs to be improved to provide better ground contact. Lightweight SPBs have an advantage because they are easy to maneuver, which could save labor costs. However, lightweight SPBs can easily float away in high flow, and thus, staking is necessary. Spacing is one of the considerations of staking. Bugg et al. (2017a) and Schussler et al. (2020) suggested stake spacing of 1.2 m and 1.5 m, respectively, to avoid stake deflection causing overtopping. However, Whitman et al. (2020) concluded that stake spacing should be varied according to the post material, weight, and configuration. Therefore, effective staking procedures need further study. Trenching allows for SPB placement into the ground and immobilization. However, trenching is a process of soil disturbance, which makes the soil particles more easily washed away by stormwater. An erosion control blanket could be a solution to that. In addition, as a linear-featured practice, joints are necessary for SPBs, especially for fiber rolls, because they have multiple joint options: sleeve, butt ends, and overlap (Bhattarai et al., 2021). Similarly, silt fence installation also involves considerable soil disturbances, which could facilitate soil erosion. New and better ways to install silt fences are needed. A way to avoid undercutting is strongly encouraged to be developed and tested. Besides, improvements in how the fabric is attached to the stakes are needed to reduce the frequency of the silt fence ripping away from the stakes (Cooke et al., 2015).
Need for Simulation Models
A user-friendly tool is required to predict the performance of the silt fence and other SPBs during various storm events. Stevens et al. (2007) developed a mathematical model based on hydrology, hydraulics, and sedimentation processes to estimate sediment trapping efficiency. Some fluid-solid interaction (FSI) applications, such as HYDRUS-3D, ANASYS, and EDEM, should be expanded to this research field. The basic idea of the FSI application is that a structural component is subjected to hydrodynamic forces exerted by a fluid and ultimately deforms (Peksen, 2018). The finite volume method (FVM) can also be used to predict the efficiency of SPBs in terms of simulating the ponding and sedimentation process (Guan et al., 2018; Ahilan et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022). Expanded SPB databases for existing models such as WEPP would allow for easier application of silt fences or compost logs in simulations to determine their predicted effectiveness at a wide range of locations in the U.S. with varying climate, soil types, topography, and contributing area management. Models used to simulate the effectiveness of VFS, such as VFSMOD, could also be considered to apply to structural SPBs with more filtering mechanisms than damming mechanisms, such as fiber rolls, in terms of the similarity between VFS and fiber rolls in trapping sediment.
Appendix
 |
| Figure A1. Flow chart showing several erosion and sediment control practices. |
References
Abercrombie, K. W. (2022). Quantifying support practice factor values for sediment retention devices using WEPP. MS thesis. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.
Abu-Zreig, M., Rudra, R. P., Whiteley, H. R., Lalonde, M. N., & Kaushik, N. K. (2003). Phosphorus removal in vegetated filter strips. J. Environ. Qual., 32(2), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2003.6130
Ahilan, S., Guan, M., Wright, N., Sleigh, A., Allen, D., Arthur, S.,... Krivtsov, V. (2019). Modelling the long-term suspended sedimentological effects on stormwater pond performance in an urban catchment. J. Hydrol., 571, 805-818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.002
Alabama Soil & Water Conservation Committee (AL-SWCC). (2014). Alabama handbook for erosion control, sediment control and stormwater management on construction sites and urban areas. Vol. 1. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee.
ASTM D5141. (2018). Standard Test Method for Determining Filtering Efficiency and Flow Rate of the Filtration Component of a Sediment Retention Device. ASTM D5141. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D7351. (2019). Standard Test Method for Determination of Sediment Retention Device Effectiveness in Sheet Flow Applications. ASTM D7351. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Barrett, M. E., Malina Jr., J. F., & Charbeneau, R. J. (1998a). An evaluation of geotextiles for temporary sediment control. Water Environ. Res., 70(3), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143098X124902
Barrett, M. E., Walsh, P. M., Malina, J. F., & Charbeneau, R. J. (1998b). Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff. J. Environ. Eng., 124(11), 1121-1128. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1998)124:11(1121)
Bekin, N., Prois, Y., Laronne, J. B., & Egozi, R. (2021). The fuzzy effect of soil conservation practices on runoff and sediment yield from agricultural lands at the catchment scale. CATENA, 207, 105710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105710
Bhattarai, R., Zhang, Y., & Wood, J. (2021). Tech Report FHWA-ICT-21-009. Evaluation of various perimeter barrier products. Illinois Center for Transportation. https://doi.org/10.36501/0197-9191/21-009
Blanco-Canqui, H., & Wortmann, C. S. (2020). Does occasional tillage undo the ecosystem services gained with no-till? A review. Soil Tillage Res., 198, 104534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104534
Boivin, P., Saadé, M., Pfeiffer, H. R., Hammecker, C., & Degoumois, Y. (2008). Depuration of highway runoff water into grass-covered embankments. Environmental Technology, 29(6), 709-720.
Bugg, A., Donald, W., & Zech, W. (2020). Performance evaluation of five sediment barriers using a full-scale testing apparatus. Proc. Int. Conf. Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design for Society (SEEDS) 2019 (pp. 463-475). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44381-8_35
Bugg, R. A., Donald, W., Zech, W. C., & Perez, M. A. (2017a). Performance evaluations of three silt fence practices using a full-scale testing apparatus. Water, 9(7), 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070502
Bugg, R. A., Donald, W. N., Zech, W. C., & Perez, M. A. (2017b). Improvements in standardized testing for evaluating sediment barrier performance: Design of a full-scale testing apparatus. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 143(8), 04017029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001194
Burns, S. E., & Troxel, C. F. (2015). Final report: Life cycle cost assessment and performance evaluation of sediment control technologies - Georgia DOT research project 10-24, Final report. Georgia Institute of Technology.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2003). Construction site best management practice (BMP) field manual and troubleshooting guide. CTSW-RT-02-007. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/bmp_field_manual_master_5x8_revision5.pdf
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). (2020). Construction BMP online handbook. Retrieved from https://www.countyofnapa.org/3029/Silt-Fence
Chalise, D., Kumar, L., Sharma, R., & Kristiansen, P. (2020). Assessing the impacts of tillage and mulch on soil erosion and corn yield. Agronomy, 10(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010063
Chapman, J. M., Proulx, C. L., Veilleux, M. A., Levert, C., Bliss, S., André, M.-È.,... Cooke, S. J. (2014). Clear as mud: A meta-analysis on the effects of sedimentation on freshwater fish and the effectiveness of sediment-control measures. Water Res., 56, 190-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.02.047
Connected papers. (2023). Explore academic papers in a visual graph. Retrieved from https://www.connectedpapers.com/
Cooke, S. J., Chapman, J. M., & Vermaire, J. C. (2015). On the apparent failure of silt fences to protect freshwater ecosystems from sedimentation: A call for improvements in science, technology, training and compliance monitoring. J. Environ. Manag., 164, 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.033
Cuebas, A. R., & Silva-Araya, W. (2023). RUSLE2 for construction sites in Puerto Rico. Proc. Soil Erosion Research under a Changing Climate Conf. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.
Faucette, B., Cardoso, F., Mulbry, W., & Millner, P. (2013). Performance of compost filtration practice for green infrastructure stormwater applications. Water Environ. Res., 85(9), 806-814. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143013X13736496908915
Faucette, L. B., Cardoso-Gendreau, F. A., Codling, E., Sadeghi, A. M., Pachepsky, Y. A., & Shelton, D. R. (2009a). Storm water pollutant removal performance of compost filter socks. J. Environ. Qual., 38(3), 1233-1239. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0306
Faucette, L. B., Governo, J., Tyler, R., Gigley, G., Jordan, C. F., & Lockaby, B. G. (2009b). Performance of compost filter socks and conventional sediment control barriers used for perimeter control on construction sites. J. Soil Water Conserv., 64(1), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.64.1.81
Faucette, L. B., Sefton, K. A., Sadeghi, A. M., & Rowland, R. A. (2008). Sediment and phosphorus removal from simulated storm runoff with compost filter socks and silt fence. J. Soil Water Conserv., 63(4), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.4.257
Flanagan, D. C., & Livingston, S. J. (1995). WEPP User Summary, USDA - Water Erosion Prediction Project. NSERL Report No. 11. West Lafayette, IN: National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS. Retrieved from https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50201000/WEPP/usersum.pdf
Flanagan, D. C., & Nearing, M. A. (1995). USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Documentation. NSERL Report No. 10. West Lafayette, IN: National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS.
Flanagan, D. C., & Nearing, M. A. (2000). Sediment particle sorting on hillslope profiles in the WEPP model. Trans. ASAE, 43(3), 573-583. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.2737
Flanagan, D. C., Ascough, J. C., Nearing, M. A., & Laflen, J. M. (2001). The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model. In R. S. Harmon, & W. W. Doe (Eds.), Landscape erosion and evolution modeling (pp. 145-199). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0575-4_7
Flanagan, D. C., Frankenberger, J. R., & Ascough II, J. C. (2012). WEPP: Model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. ASABE, 55(4), 1463-1477. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42254
Flanagan, D. C., Gilley, J. E., & Franti, T. G. (2007). Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP): Development history, model capabilities, and future enhancements. Trans. ASABE, 50(5), 1603-1612. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23968
Georgia Soil & Water Conservation Commission. (2016). Field manual for erosion & sediment control in Georgia. https://gaswcc.georgia.gov/sites/gaswcc.georgia.gov/files/related_files/site_page/GSWCC-2016-Manual-As-Approved-by-Overview-Council.pdf
Gogo-Abite, I., & Chopra, M. (2013). Performance evaluation of two silt fence geotextiles using a tilting test-bed with simulated rainfall. Geotext. Geomembr., 39, 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.07.001
Gray, J. R., Glysson, G. D., Tursios, L. M., & Schwarz, G. E. (2000). Comparability of suspended-sediment concentration and total suspended solids data. US Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://water.usgs.gov/osw/pubs/WRIR00-4191.pdf
Guan, M., Ahilan, S., Yu, D., Peng, Y., & Wright, N. (2018). Numerical modelling of hydro-morphological processes dominated by fine suspended sediment in a stormwater pond. J. Hydrol., 556, 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.11.006
Horner, R. R., Guedry, J., & Kortenhof, M. H. (1990). Final report: Improving the cost effectiveness of highway construction site erosion and pollution control. Washington State Transportation Center. Retrieved from https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/200.1.pdf
Hu, P., Zhao, Z., Ji, A., Li, W., He, Z., Liu, Q.,... Cao, Z. (2022). A GPU-accelerated and LTS-based finite volume shallow water model. Water, 14(6), 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060922
Keener, H. M., Faucette, B., & Klingman, M. H. (2007). Flow-through rates and evaluation of solids separation of compost filter socks versus silt fence in sediment control applications. J. Environ. Qual., 36(3), 742-752. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0359
Kranz, C. N., McLaughlin, R. A., & Heitman, J. L. (2022). Characterizing compost rate effects on stormwater runoff and vegetation establishment. Water, 14(5), 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050696
Kranz, C. N., McLaughlin, R. A., Johnson, A., Miller, G., & Heitman, J. L. (2020). The effects of compost incorporation on soil physical properties in urban soils – A concise review. J. Environ. Manag., 261, 110209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110209
Kröger, R., Perez, M., Walker, S., & Sharpley, A. (2012). Review of best management practice reduction efficiencies in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. J. Soil Water Conserv., 67(6), 556-563. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.67.6.556
Krutz, L. J., Senseman, S. A., Zablotowicz, R. M., & Matocha, M. A. (2005). Reducing herbicide runoff from agricultural fields with vegetative filter strips: A review. Weed Sci., 53(3), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-03-079R2
Landphair, H. C., McFalls, J. A., Peterson, B. E., & M.-H., L. (1997). Technical report: Alternatives to silt fence for temporary sediment control at highway construction sites: Guidance for TxDOT. Texas Transportation Institute. Retrieved from https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/1737-S.pdf
Li, M.-H., Barrett, M. E., Rammohan, P., Olivera, F., & Landphair, H. C. (2008). Documenting stormwater quality on Texas highways and adjacent vegetated roadsides. J. Environ. Eng., 134(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:1(48)
Lindley, M. R., Barfield, B. J., Ascough II, J. C., Wilson, B. N., & Stevens, E. W. (1998a). The surface impoundment element for WEPP. Trans. ASAE, 41(3), 555-564. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.17223
Lindley, M. R., Barfield, B. J., Ascough II, J. C., Wilson, B. N., & Stevens, E. W. (1998b). Hydraulic simulation techniques incorporated in the surface impoundment element of WEPP. Appl. Eng. Agric., 14(3), 249-256. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.19386
Logan, T. J. (1990). Agricultural best management practices and groundwater protection. J. Soil Water Conserv., 45(2), 201-206.
Logan, T. J. (1993). Agricultural best management practices for water pollution control: Current issues. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 46(1), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(93)90026-L
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). (2023). Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Erosion prevention practices - temporary seeding and stabilization. Retrieved from https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Erosion_prevention_practices_-_temporary_seeding_and_stabilization
Mitchell, G. F. (1993). Assessment of Erosion/Sediment Control in Highway Construction Projects. Ohio University Center for Geotechnical and Environmental Research. Report No.FHWA/OH-93/011, April 19, 1993
Mohammadshirazi, F., Brown, V. K., Heitman, J. L., & McLaughlin, R. A. (2016). Effects of tillage and compost amendment on infiltration in compacted soils. J. Soil Water Conserv., 71(6), 443-449. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.6.443
Mulvihill, K. (2021). Soil erosion 101. Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/stories/soil-erosion-101#what-is
NRCS. (2009). Controlling soil erosion. Retrieved from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/Controlling%20Soil%20Erosion-%20Small%20Scale%20Solutions%20for%20%20your%20Farm.pdf
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.). Calculating BMP sediment removal effectiveness using RUSLE2 for natural buffer zone encroachment. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/Documents/wqp1200cRUSLE2pres.pdf
Peksen, M. (2018). Chapter 5 - Multiphysics modelling of interactions in systems. In M. Peksen (Ed.), Multiphysics modelling - Materials, components, and systems (pp. 139-159). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811824-5.00005-5
Prokopy, L..., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. J. Soil Water Conserv., 63(5), 300-311. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.5.300
Puertes, C., Bautista, I., Lidón, A., & Francés, F. (2021). Best management practices scenario analysis to reduce agricultural nitrogen loads and sediment yield to the semiarid Mar Menor coastal lagoon (Spain). Agric. Syst., 188, 103029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103029
Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., & Charman, K. (2004). Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol. Conserv., 119(2), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007
Rempel, A. W. (2023). Freezing and thawing cycles. In M. J. Goss, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Encyclopedia of soils in the environment (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 400-409). Oxford: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822974-3.00096-3
Risse, L. M., Thompson, S. A., Governo, J., & Harris, K. (2008). Testing of new silt fence materials: A case study of a belted strand retention fence. J. Soil Water Conserv., 63(5), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.5.265
Rittenburg, R. A., Squires, A. L., Boll, J., Brooks, E. S., Easton, Z. M., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2015). Agricultural BMP effectiveness and dominant hydrological flow paths: Concepts and a review. JAWRA, 51(2), 305-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12293
Rivers, E. N., Heitman, J. L., McLaughlin, R. A., & Howard, A. M. (2021). Reducing roadside runoff: Tillage and compost improve stormwater mitigation in urban soils. J. Environ. Manag., 280, 111732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111732
Robichaud, P. R., & Brown, R. E. (2002). Silt fences: An economical technique for measuring hillslope soil erosion. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-94. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/rmrs-gtr-94
Sah Polymers Limited. (2023). PP Woven Silt Fence Manufacturer. Retrieved from https://sahpolymers.com/pp-woven-silt-fence
Schussler, J., Perez, M.A., Cetin, B., & Whitman, B. (2020). Final Report: Field Monitoring of Erosion and Sediment Control Practices and Development of Additional Iowa DOT Design Manual Guidance. https://publications.iowa.gov/32758/2/18-SPR1 001_Final%20Report%20Erosion_and_Sediment_control_field_monitoring_and_practice_dev_w_cvr.pdf
Seutloali, K. E., & Beckedahl, H. R. (2015). A review of road-related soil erosion: An assessment of causes, evaluation techniques and available control measures. Earth Sci. Res. J., 19(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.15446/esrj.v19n1.43841
Sharma, D., Sharma, V., Buttar, T. S., Sharma, A., & Arya, V. M. (2023). Edge-of-field monitoring to assess the effectiveness of conservation practices in the reduction of carbon losses from the foothills of the Himalayas. CATENA, 225, 107030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107030
Shokri, M., Kibler, K.M., Hagglund, C., Corrado, A., Wang, D., Beazley, M., Wanielista, M. (2021). Hydraulic and nutrient removal performance of vegetated filter strips with engineered infiltration media for treatment of roadway runoff. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol 300, 113747
Stevens, E., Yeri, S., Barfield, B., Gasem, K., & Hayes, J. (2007). Modeling the effectiveness of the FAEST silt fence technology. In World environmental and water resources congress 2007: Restoring our natural habitat (pp. 1-10). https://doi.org/10.1061/40927(243)46
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., & Knight, T. M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19(6), 305-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018
Taleban, V., Finney, K., Gharabaghi, B., McBean, E., Rudra, R., & Van Seters, T. (2009). Effectiveness of compost biofilters in removal of sediments from construction site runoff. Water Qual. Res. J., 44(1), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2009.008
Tyner, J. S., Yoder, D. C., Chomicki, B. J., & Tyagi, A. (2011). A review of construction site best management practices for erosion control. Trans. ASABE, 54(2), 441-450. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.36447
USDA-ARS. (2013). Science documentation - Revised universal soil loss equation version 2 (RUSLE2). Retrieved from https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60600505/RUSLE/RUSLE2_Science_Doc.pdf
USEPA. (2008). EPA’s Report on the Environment (ROE) EPA/600/R-07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484). 2008 Final Report. Washington, DC: US EPA.
Van Eerd, L. L., Chahal, I., Peng, Y., & Awrey, J. C. (2023). Influence of cover crops at the four spheres: A review of ecosystem services, potential barriers, and future directions for North America. Sci. Total Environ., 858, 159990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159990
Whitman, J. B., Donald, W. N., & Zech, W. C. (2019b). Small-Scale performance evaluations of geotextiles used in silt fence applications. FHWA/ALDOT Project Number 930-869, Final Report No. 2. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.eng.auburn.edu/files/centers/hrc/930-869-small-scale-silt.pdf
Whitman, J. B., Perez, M. A., Zech, W. C., & Donald, W. N. (2020). Practical silt fence design enhancements for effective dewatering and stability. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 147(1), 04020039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001521
Whitman, J. B., Schussler, J. C., Perez, M. A., & Liu, L. (2021). Hydraulic performance evaluation of wattles used for erosion and sediment control. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 147(7), 04021028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001586
Whitman, J. B., Zech, W. C., & Donald, W. N. (2019a). Full-scale performance evaluations of innovative and manufactured sediment barrier practices. Transp. Res. Rec., 2673(8), 284-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119827905
Whitman, J. B., Zech, W. C., Donald, W. N., & LaMondia, J. J. (2018). Full-scale performance evaluations of various wire-backed nonwoven silt fence installation configurations. Transp. Res. Rec., 2672(39), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118758029
Wu, J. S., & Allen, C. J. (2006). Evaluation and Implementation of BMPs for NCDOT’s Highway and Industrial Facilities. Research Project No. 2003-19. FHWA/NC/2006-02. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/17175
Wyant, D. C. (1981). Evaluation of filter fabrics for use in silt fences. No. VHTRC 80-R49. Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council. Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/19015
Xie, H., Chen, L., & Shen, Z. (2015a). Assessment of agricultural best management practices using models: Current issues and future perspectives. Water, 7(3), 1088-1108. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7031088
Xie, S.-B., Qu, J.-J., Lai, Y.-M., Zhou, Z.-W., & Xu, X.-T. (2015b). Effects of freeze-thaw cycles on soil mechanical and physical properties in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. J. Mt. Sci., 12(4), 999-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-014-3384-7
Zech, W. C., Halverson, J. L., & Clement, T. P. (2008). Intermediate-scale experiments to evaluate silt fence designs to control sediment discharge from highway construction sites. J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(6), 497-504. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:6(497)
Zech, W. C., McDonald, J. S., & Clement, T. P. (2009). Field evaluation of silt fence tieback systems at a highway construction site. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 14(3), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2009)14:3(105)
Zhang, L., Ren, F., Li, H., Cheng, D., & Sun, B. (2021). The influence mechanism of freeze-thaw on soil erosion: A review. Water, 13(8), 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081010
Zhang, Y., Bhattarai, R., & Muñoz-Carpena, R. (2023). Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips for sediment control from steep construction landscapes. Catena. Vol. 226 107057
Zhang, Y., Wood, J., Bhattarai, R., & Faucette, B. (2022). Field evaluation of sediment perimeter barrier products under sheet flow conditions. J. Soil Water Conserv., 77(6), 579-588.