The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Construction General Permit requires a 50 ft (15 m) undisturbed vegetated buffer to be maintained when construction activities are adjacent to a water body. However, maintaining a buffer is not always feasible, especially in highway construction activities; therefore, a contractor may use alternatives that capture sediment at an efficiency equivalent to an undisturbed buffer. However, little research has been conducted on the sediment removal efficacy of an undisturbed vegetated buffer. Several factors influence the sediment capture efficiency of a natural vegetated buffer, including climate, soils, topography, and vegetation characteristics. This research aimed to explore the sediment removal capabilities of various vegetated buffers with factors common to Nebraska roadway construction projects using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation 2 Model. A multiple linear regression model was developed to analyze relationships between 7,776 model iterations. Statistical analysis indicated that decreasing the slope of the buffer and the clay and silt content in the soil increased the sediment removal efficiency of the buffer; this finding matched the conclusions of past research on vegetated filter strips and vegetated buffers. Sediment removal ranged between 77% and 99%, with an average efficiency of 94%—comparable to the efficacy of manufactured sediment barrier practices commonly used on construction sites.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges. United States General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., 1999.
3.
DuceyP.Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General NPDES Permit Number NER210000 for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Sites to Waters of the State of Nebraska. Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, Lincoln, NE, 2021.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022 Construction General Permit (CGP) (as Modified) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities (as Modified). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2022.
5.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated With Construction Activity Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System. MPCA, Minneapolis, MN, 2018.
6.
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. General Permit to Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities that are also Subject to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, NC, 2019.
7.
BarrettM. E.MalinaJ. F.CharbeneauR. J.An Evaluation of Geotextiles for Temporary Sediment Control. Water Environment Research, Vol. 70, No. 3, 1998, pp. 283–290.
8.
WhitmanJ. B.ZechW. C.DonaldW. N.LaMondiaJ. J.Full-Scale Performance Evaluations of Various Wire-Backed Nonwoven Silt Fence Installation Configurations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. 2672: 68–78.
9.
WhitmanJ. B.ZechW. C.DonaldW. N.Full-Scale Performance Evaluations of Innovative and Manufactured Sediment Barrier Practices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 284–297.
10.
PerezM. A.ZechW. C.DonaldW. N.FangX.Design Methodology for the Selection of Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Based on Regional Hydrological Conditions. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2016, p. 05016001.
11.
Muñoz-CarpenaR.ParsonsJ. E.GilliamJ. W.Modeling Hydrology and Sediment Transport in Vegetative Filter Strips. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 214, No. 1–4, 1999, pp. 111–129.
12.
RameshR.KalinL.HantushM.ChaudharyA.A Secondary Assessment of Sediment Trapping Effectiveness by Vegetated Buffers. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 159, 2021, p. 106094.
13.
LiuX.ZhangX.ZhangM.Major Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Vegetated Buffers on Sediment Trapping: A Review and Analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1667–1674.
14.
LinY. F.LinC. Y.ChouW. C.LinW. T.TsaiJ. S.WuC. F.Modeling of Riparian Vegetated Buffer Strip Width and Placement: A Case Study in Shei Pa National Park, Taiwan. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 4–5, 2004, pp. 327–339.
15.
GharabaghiB.RudraR. P.GoelP. K.Effectiveness of Vegetative Filter Strips in Removal of Sediments From Overland Flow. Water Quality Research Journal Canada, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2006, pp. 275–282.
16.
WhiteM. J.ArnoldJ. G.Development of a Simplistic Vegetative Filter Strip Model for Sediment and Nutrient Removal at the Field Scale. Hydrological Processes, Vol. 23, No. 11, 2009, pp. 1602–1616.
17.
StoreyB. J.LiM.-H.McfallsJ. A.YiY.-J.Stormwater Treatment With Vegetated Buffers. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 2009.
18.
BarrettM.LantinA.Austrheim-SmithS.BarrettM.Storm Water Pollutant Removal in Roadside Vegetated Buffer Strips. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research, Vol. 1890, 2004, pp. 129–140.
19.
YuanY.BingnerR. L.LockeM. A.A Review of Effectiveness of Vegetative Buffers on Sediment Trapping in Agricultural Areas. Ecohydrology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2009, pp. 321–336.
20.
CerdaA.SchnabelS.CeballosA.Gomez-AmeliaD.Soil Hydrological Response Under Simulated Rainfall in the Dehesa Land System (Extremadura, SW Spain) Under Drought Conditions. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1998, pp. 195–209.
21.
BarrettM. E.WalshP. M.MalinaJ. F.CharbeneauR. J.Performance of Vegetated Buffers for Treating Highway Runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 11, 1998, pp. 1121–1128.
22.
RenardK. G.FosterG. R.WeesiesG. A.McCoolD. K.YoderD. C.Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Handbook Number 703. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C., 2001.
23.
KazazB.SchusslerJ. C.DickeyL. C.PerezM. A.Soil Loss Risk Analysis for Construction Activities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2022. 2676: 503–513.
FosterG. R.ToyT. E.RenardK. G.Comparison of the USLE, RUSLE1.06c, and RUSLE2 for Application to Highly Disturbed Lands. Proc., First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, Benson, AZ, 2003.
26.
XiaoH.LiuG.LiuP.ZhengF.ZhangJ.HuF.Sediment Transport Capacity of Concentrated Flows on Steep Loessial Slope With Erodible Beds. Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2017, p. 2350.
27.
WeissP. T.EricksonA. J.GulliverJ. S.HozalskiR. M.Stormwater Treatment: Assessment and Maintenance. St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, Minneapolis, MN, 2010.
WhitmanJ. B.Performance Evaluations of Sediment Barrier Practices and Unmanned Aircraft System Mapping Technologies. PhD dissertation. Auburn University, Auburn, 2018.
31.
SchusslerJ. C.PerezM. A.DonaldW. N.WhitmanJ. B.ZechW. C.FangX.FaganB.Decade of Research in Review at the Auburn University Stormwater Research Facility. In Transportation Research Record, SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2022, pp. 590–604.
32.
BuggR. A.DonaldW. N.ZechW. C.PerezM. A.Improvements in Standardized Testing for Evaluating Sediment Barrier Performance: Design of a Full-Scale Testing Apparatus. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol. 143, No. 8, 2017, p. 04017029.
33.
DunnC. D.StephensonM. B.StubbendieckJ.Common Grasses of Nebraska Rangeland Prairie Pasture (Including Grass-Like Plants). The Nature Conservancy, Wood River, NE, 2016.
