Report upon the Cypress Creek drainage district, Desha and Chicot Counties, Arkansas

Historic, archived document

Do not.assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

i ) a iis
i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE aM ines |
BULLETIN No. 198 sara |e
Contribution from the Office of Experiment Stations ‘ ‘ g ye
A. C. TRUE, Director fe"
REPORT UPON THE CYPRESS CREEK
DRAINAGE DISTRICT, DESHA AND
CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS
By
S. H. McCRORY, O. G. BAXTER, D. L. YARNELL, L. A. JONES
and W. J. SCHLICK, Drainage Engineers
CONTENTS
Introduction Drainage Plans Considered
General Description The Recommended Plan
Present Drainage Conditions . . . .. Maintenance
The Survey A Comprehensive Drainage System
The Drainage Problem Needed
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1915 i

BULLETIN OF THE

USDEPARIENT OFAGRKULIURE © :

No. 198

Contribution from the Office of Experiment Stations, A. C. True, Director.
April 21, 1915.

(PROFESSIONAL PAPER.)

DESHA AND CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS.

_ By S. H. McCrory, O. G. Baxter, D. L. Yarnett, L. A. Jones, and W. J. Scuricx,
Drainage Engineers.

CONTENTS.
a Page Page
SPR TRMMCLIONS ere apes oo Satis eel = Loe sl Hil 240 a XG aah IR Re ta LA Mp aN Sr 7
aGeneral description...-.........:..-....-.-.- 2 | Drainage plans considered..............----- 10
| Present drainage conditions.............-..-.- 4 |, Thewrecommended plane i.e. 33225-5224. ces. 13
le SIN Ga SR ES Chie Maintenances: tee in 22a o eee Meroe ae 19
miedrainare proplem). 2.2252. 25524..1 2 fe." 6 | A comprehensive drainage system needed. .. 20
INTRODUCTION.

The levees that line the lower Mississippi River ordinarily protect the
adjacent alluvial lands from overflow, but this protection is usually
only the first step in reclaiming those lands from excessive wetness.
The occasional-tributaries require that openings be left through the
levees or that the streams be diverted long distances from their
natural courses. Levees are built along such large tributaries as the
Arkansas River, but the junctions of the smaller streams with the
- Mississippi often permit backwater from the main river to overflow
large areas at times of extreme floods.

The southward slope of the general land surface is exceedingly flat,
the greatest slope being away from the river to the foot of the hills.
The low area is cut with many winding bayous, large and small, each
with banks elevated above the adjacent surface approximately in
proportion to the depth of the channel. These high banks, so
| characteristic of alluvial lands, pond the water upon the area and

Nore.—This bulletin will be of interest to landowners, engineers, and others interested in the reclamation
_ ef swamp and overflowed lands along the Mississippi River below the mouth of the Missouri River.

82085°—Bull. 198—15——1
) :

a

2 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

prevent drainage. The conditions in the Cypress Creek drainage dis-
trict of Desha and Chicot Counties, Arkansas, are typical.

It has long been apparent that an interior drainage system is needed
to supplement the sixty-odd miles of levee built to protect this district
from the floods of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers. In 1906,
John T. Stewart, drainage engineer of the Office of Experiment
Stations of the United States Department of Agriculture, made a’
survey for the relief of the wet land in the neighborhood of Arkansas
City, that project being known as Desha County Drainage District
No.1. The improvements constructed in that district were, however, |
of only local benefit. The first active step in the direction of a com-
prehensive drainage system for the county was taken in 1907, when |
engineers of the Mississippi River Commission made a survey which |
-had among its objects the location of a feasible line for the diversion ©
of Cypress er eek. The report on that survey stated that the project |
was entirely feasible, but recommended that further surveys be made |
before construction was undertaken, in order that other routes might it
be compared with the one laid out. |

No further action was taken until early in 1911, when further |
assistance was requested from Drainage Investigations, Office of |
Experiment Stations, United States Department of Agriculture.
An agreement was ultimately reached whereby Drainage Investiga-
tions undertook to make the survey, one-half the cost to be paid by ©
the Cypress Creek drainage district, which had in the meantime been |
created by the Arkansas Legislature. The survey was begun in
September, 1911, and completed in March of the following year.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION.
LOCATION AND AREA.

The Cypress Creek drainage district borders the Mississippi River
in southeastern Arkansas (see fig. 1), including about 65 per cent of the
total area of Desha County and extending 2 miles into Chicot County,
which is in the southeast corner of the State. Memphis is about 110
miles northeast and Little Rock about 85 miles northwest of the
center of Desha County. Arkansas City, the county. seat, and Mc-
Gehee are the most important towns in the district; Pine Bluff, on
the Arkansas River about midway between Desha County and Little
Rock, and Helena, 60 miles north on the Mississippi River, are cities
of local prominence.

As defined by the legislative act, the district is vanes triangular
in shape, with an apex to the south. Its greatest width east and west
is about 23 miles, near the north end, and its extreme length north
and south is approximately 36 miles. The total area is 466 square
miles.

1 Thirty-eighth General Assembly of Arkansas, Acts 110 and 445.

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS. 3
TOPOGRAPHY.

The land may be classified as Mississippi bottom land, nearly the
- whole district being below the higher flood stages of the river or of
the bayous when their waters are held back by the river floods. The
highest land lies in the northwest corner, the extreme elevation being
in the neighborhood of 170 feet above sea level. In the southern
part of the district elevations as low as 128 are found. In the north-
ern part the fall to the south is quite well defined, as is also the fall
to the east in the western part. The land bordering the Mississippi
River, however, slopes away from that stream. Below Cypress

—. a
. Seat ES

i a Ya Yaa | - oO
iret a Oe Os ae peal FEELENA f
! |

aes i oy ea
J ha5 PINE BLUFF PML. Set"
eee gr ce an: Nt 7

MISSISSIPPI

Fig. 1.—Map of Arkansas, showing location of Cypress Creek drainage district.

Creek, in the central part of the district, the slope of the land to the
south is much less. Stretches of land are found here with a prac-
tically uniform elevation for several miles, broken only by the ele-
vated banks of intervening bayous that act as barriers to the flow
of drainage water southward. These conditions result in vast
accumulations of water that in even ordinarily wet seasons cover
these flats, making the country impassable for long periods.

The general trend of the streams for a considerable distance after
they enter the district from the west is to the southeast. As they

“4 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

encounter the belt of elevated land bordering the river, however, .
they are diverted directly south, their waters eventually reaching —
Bayou Macon. An exception to this condition is Cypress Creek. |
As may be seen by figure 1, this stream maintains an outlet directly
into the river at about the center of the eastern boundary of the
district. It is owing to this fact that a continuous levee can not be ~
constructed along the front of the district under present conditions
to exclude the damaging river floods.

AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS.

The cultivated areas are mostly confined to the high lands along
the bayous, and at present comprise probably not more than 10 per
cent of the district; all of these will be benefited by the proposed
ditches, which will afford outlets for underdrainage. The top soil
generally is the ordinary Mississippi alluvium, modified more or less
by decayed vegetation. Cotton forms the main crop, though some
rice is grown in the north part of the district along the Arkansas
River. While by far the larger part of the district is wooded, the
area has been fairly well cut over and the larger timber removed.
Some logging is still done, but the cutting of railroad ties and stave _ |
bolts forms a considerable part of the timber industry. Fairly good © |
roads are maintained along the high-banked bayous, but travel over
the roads of the low lands of the interior is rendered uncertain by
overflow. Land values depend largely upon accessibility and degree
of drainage.

PRESENT DRAINAGE CONDITIONS.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOODS.

Primarily, the reclamation of the area covered by the Cypress Creek
drainage district is dependent upon the exclusion of the flood water
of the bordering rivers. Before the levees were constructed along the
Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers, the larger part of the area now
included within the boundaries of the district had been subject to
intermittent overflow from these streams. The period during which
some measure of protection has been had from levees extends back
a great many years. During all this time the levees have from time
to time been increased in cross section, as higher flood stages demanded
and as funds permitted, until now, so far as they have been con-
structed at all, the levees are expected to afford protection against
any fiood that may be looked for in the light of past experience.
The flood of 1912, during which the river rose at Arkansas City to
a stage of 2.5 feet higher than any previous record, required the
temporary raising of the levee, but did not cause any crevasses along
the Desha County front. Apparently the only serious defect in the
levee system is the gap at the mouth of Cypress Creek. By reference
to figure 2 it will be seen that in the southwest corner of T. 10S., R.

3 SN EH

_ Arkansas River levee and the northern end of the Mississippi River
levee. Itis, of course, impracticable to close this opening without first
_ diverting Cypress Creek. The existence of this gap partially nullifies
_ the benefits from these levees so far as this district and a considerable
area to the south are concerned. Figure 2 (in pocket at end of bul-
letin) shows the area in Desha County that was submerged by the
Mississippi River flood of 1912, due to the inflow of water through
thisopening. This amounts to about 202,000 acres, or approximately
two-thirds of the total area of the district. No crevasses occurred in
the levees bounding the district during this flood, and but for the
- existence of the levee gap there probably would have been no damage
from the river itself.
DRAINAGE OUTLETS.

The small degree of interior drainage now existing is secured through
the numerous bayous and creeks which meander through the district
(see figs. 3 and 4, in pocket at end of bulletin). The drainage from
that portion north of Amos Bayou is discharged into the Mississippi
River through Cypress Creek, being collected by a number of tortuous
and ill-defined tributaries distributed generally over the area. The

_ drainage tributary to Amos Bayou, as well as that from the entire
area of the district south of this bayou, is discharged into Macon Lake,
whose northern end is located about 3 miles south of the Desha-Chicot
County line. : 7

The bayous are of the usual type encountered in the Delta section,

being tortuous, frequently ill defined, and of irregular width. They
often widen out into lakelike bodies of practicaily dead water and
again contract into narrow channels. They are usually encumbered
with drift and débris of all sorts, and particularly in their wider
portions often contain growths of standing timber and various forms
of water-loving vegetation. As these bayous approach the Mississippi
River they usually undergo a marked contraction in cross section.
This peculiarity is probably due to the backing up of river water
in these bayous before the levees were constructed, the resulting
obstruction to the current causing the deposition of suspended matter
brought down from above. The land immediately adjoming the
bayous is usually higher than that a short distance back from the
streams. ‘This condition, characteristic of Mississippi Delta bayous,
as of the river itself, is especially marked along Amos and Macon
Bayous, whose banks are frequently as much as 6 to 10 feet above
the general elevation of the surrounding area.

The existing outlets are not sufficient to care for the run-off tribu-
tary to them. A moderate winter rain, even when the Mississippi
is at normal stage, causes the flooding of large areas. The high
banks of the bayous prevent a quick return of this water to the chan-
nels, and thus the lowlands remain covered with water for long

-

6 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

periods after the streams themselves have returned to a normal
stage. A similar condition occurs when the land is flooded by back-

water coming through the levee gap from the river. The land being
lower than the banks of the streams, a large area is left covered with -
water, which disappears very slowly.

THE SURVEY.

Base level lines were run along the railroads and cross-level lines
were run on all east and west section lines. All bayous and water
courses were meandered and channel sections were taken where —
needed; in many cases levels were carried with the meanders. A
base level line was carried through Lincoln County on the main line
of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway, and some
cross-level lines were run in this county as aids in the determination
of the topography of the watershed. A reconnaissance of Lincoln
County was also made. The levels were tied to precise level bench
marks at Arkansas City, Trippe Junction, Walnut Lake, and Varner.

Bench marks? were set approximately one-half mile apart on the
level lines. Usually these were root bench marks, the trunk of the
tree being blazed and the number of the bench mark inscribed.
These were set as near as practicable to section and quarter section
corners.

Soil borings were taken on the main ditch lines, and these borings,
showing the character of soil encountered, are indicated on the
profiles (fig. 6, in pocket at end of bulletin).

Gauging stations were established at various points over the district, :
and daily records kept of the gauge readings. The highest water- .
surface elevations observed are shown in figure 2. Current meter
measurements were begun in March, 1912, during the heavy rains,
but it was impossible to continue them, owing to the backwater from
the Mississippi River, which flowed through the gap in the levee.
The boundary of the flooded area (fig. 2), due to inflow through this
gap, was obtained by personal observations and was checked by
the gauge heights as furnished by the gauge readers.

THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM.

The water from which the district must be protected comes from
two sources; first, direct precipitation upon the watershed in which
the district lies, and second, overflow from the Mississippi River,

1 The descriptions and elevations of these bench marks were obtained from U. S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper No. 46 (1906). That publication states that the elevations of these bench marks are
referred to mean Gulf datum, but since the conclusion of the survey it has been found that these elevations
had heen corrected by a small constant. The results obtained from ties made to the Misssissippi River
Commission bench marks show that 7.35 feet should be subtracted from Memphis datum elevations in
order to reduce them to the datum used in this survey.

2 A list of the bench marks set, with their elevations, locations, and descriptions, is on file with Drainage
Investigations, United States Department of Agriculture.

iy
|
te
ls

;

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS, 7

whose backwater enters the district through the gap in the levees
at the mouth of Cypress Creek, damaging not only the district itself,
puta large area in Chicot County, noes and northern Louisiana,

r since such water, once behind the Mississippi River levee, must a
south to the Red River. The drainage problem, then, is not only
to provide the necessary outlets and laterals to care bar the run-off
_ from the 658 square miles tributary to the district, but to so design
~ and locate these cutlets that the drainage water now entering the
- Mississippi River through the levee gap will be diverted, thus making

_ it possible to close this gap. With the construction of these outlets

- and the closing of the levee gap the reclamation of the district will
_ be assured.

RUN-OFF.

No phase of the preliminary study of a drainage project has a more
vital bearing upon the success of the undertaking than the determi-
nation of the rate of run-off for which provision must be made. Obvi-
ously, precipitation is the most important element to be considered
in the study of run-off, although certain other factors have more or
less effect upon the rate of run-off. These are the size, shape, and
topography of the watershed; the character of soil and vegetation;
the rate of evaporation; the climate and seasons; and the water stor-
age capacity of the soil, stream channels, and other natural reservoirs.

RUN-OFF INVESTIGATIONS MADE.

RAINFALL.

Southeast Arkansas is characterized by high humidity and heavy
rainfall. The rainfall records of the United States Weather Bureau
for Arkansas City and Pine Bluff have been carefully examined, the
former station being the only one in the Cypress Creek drainage dis-
trict. The records for Pine Bluff, however, may be taken as indi-
cating rainfall conditions on the upper portion of the Cypress Creek
watershed.

The average annual rainfall for Arkansas City, including the year
1912, is 45.23 inches, and for Pine Bluff, 49.63 inches. The records
for Arkansas City for the years 1897 to 1911, inclusive (not including |
the years 1907 and 1908, for which records are incomplete), show the
oreatest annual rainfall to have been 70 inches, in 1911, and the mini-
mum to have been 26.83 inches, in 1901. At Pine Bluff the maxi-
mum annual rainfall for the same period was 82.89 inches, in 1905,
and the minimum 37.21 inches, in 1901. The greatest monthly rain-
fall recorded at Arkansas City was 15.42 inches in December, 1911,
and at Pine Biuff, 15.71 inches in May, 1905.

_ Some of the heaviest storm periods at Arkansas City during the 16
years preceding 1913 were as follows: December 7-16, 1911, 9.7 inches;

8 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

August 13-16, 1911, 7.9 inches; February 9-15, 1908, 9.7 inches; and
July 27-August 2, 1902, 9.2 inches. The nents 48-hour rainfalls
were: August 13-14, 1911, 7.1 inches; February 13-14, 1908, 6.8

inches; and July 30-31, 1902, 7.8 inches. - The greatest 24-hour rain-.

fall recorded at Arkansas City occurred on April 4, 1911, when 5.6
inches fell. Other heavy 24-hour storms were 5.5 inches on July 17,
1906; 5.5 inches on August 13, 1911; and 5.1 inches on December
27,1904. From January, 1897, to December, 1912, there are recorded
13 days when 3 inches or more fell in 24 hours, and 63 days when 2
inches or more fell in a like period. The most intense rainfall on
record at Arkansas City occurred on July 17, 1906, when 4.8 inches
fell in 2 hours.

Among the heaviest storm periods at Pine Bluff were: November
16-21, 1906, 10.3 inches; May 4-6, 1905, 9.4 mches; and January 1-3,
1897, 9 inches. The heaviest 48-hour rainfalls were: November
16-17, 1906, 6.6 inches; May 4-5, 1905, 8.8 inches; and July 31-
August 1, 1902, 6.9 ches. The heaviest 24-hour rainfalls on record
at Pine Bluff are: 5.65 inches on January 21, 1906; 6.8 inches on May
4, 1905, and 5.58 inches on January 3, 1897. Other unusually heavy
Sane storms recorded are 4.7 Hy die on November 19, 1907, and
4.7 inches on July 31, 1902. During the 16 years from 1897 to 1912
there were 32 days when 3 inches or more fell in 24 hours, and 84 days
when a rainfall of 2 inches or more was recorded.

STREAM GAUGING AND OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

During the spring of 1911 run-off investigations were made on
Boggy Bayou, the outlet for Desha County district No. 1. The area
of this district is 165 square miles above the point where the discharge
measurements were made. On April 4, 1911, occurred the heaviest
24-hour precipitation on record. This caused a measured discharge
of 1,815 second-feet, or a run-off of 11 second-feet per square mile
from the district. In March and April, 1912, very high stages
occurred in Boggy Bayou. During the latter part of March and April,
the Mississippi River rose very rapidly, and probably about March
27-29 the water began to flow from Cypress Creek and Wells Bayou
to Boggy Bayou through Johnson Brake, Newman Slough, and Amos
Bayou. The water begins to take this course when the Mississippi
River backwater reaches an elevation of approximately 149 in
Cypress Creek. It is probable that under present conditions the
maximum discharge from Boggy Bayou due to precipitation alone
seldom, if ever, one that of April 4, 1911.

eu measurements were made on Cypress Creek at the Mem-
phis, Helena & Louisiana Railroad bridge south of Watson in March,
1912, until the backwater from the Mississippi River became too
high. These measurements show that just before the river water

-

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS. 9

a began to back up the creek on March 28 the discharge was 2,730

second-feet from a drainage area of 390 square miles, or 7 second-

_ feet per square mile. Considering the heavy rains that followed, it

is safe to say that a much greater discharge would have been obtained

_ if a measurement could have been taken on April 4.

A current-meter measurement was made of Black Pond Slough
at the railroad bridge west of Halley on the evening of April 4, 1911.
This measurement gave a discharge of 449 second-feet from a drain-
age area of 23.5 square miles, or the rate of run-off was 19.1 cubic
feet per second per square mile.

In planning the improvements of the Bogue Phalia, in Bolivar
County, Miss., the 24-hour run-off was one-half inch from a drainage

area of 350 square miles. The results so far observed seem to justify

the use of this coefficient. The conditions in the Bolivar County
district are very stmilar to those in the Cypress Creek district.

Other run-off data for the Mississippi Valley have been examined,
including those obtained in Coahoma County, Miss., by C. W. Okey,
and much that have been compiled by the Talabani drainage
district, Mississippi.

DETERMINATION OF RUN-OFF COEFFICIENTS.

Experience has shown that draining and clearing timbered land
results in an increased rate of run-off, and so far as the district in
question is concerned, there is ample reason to believe that such
will be the case. The water that under present conditions can reach
the main outlets only by circuitous routes will, after the drainage

_ system is installed, have direct access to the drainage outlets through

the numerous submains and laterals penetrating the interior. Such
storage capacity as now exists will be greatly reduced. The sub-
stitution of deep, well-aligned ditches for the existing tortuous,
débris-filed natural channels will facilitate the movement of the
water from the entire drained area; in other words, will cause a
quicker and more intense run-off than obtains under present con-
ditions. In view of the effects that draining the land will have, it

~ would be unsafe to base the selection of the run-off coefficients

entirely upon the results of any gaugings made under present condi-

_ tions, although these are useful in serving as checks upon such con-

clusions as may be reached.

In deciding upon the run-off coefficients to be used for the Cypress
Creek drainage district the following method was pursued: A trial
coefficient was selected for a small area, one for a medium area, and
one for a large area, and an algebraic expression was then sought
whose curve would approximately fit these platted coefficients.
The run-offs for intermediate areas were then calculated and plotted
and the curve thus obtained was compared with all the data derived

82085°—Bull. 198—15——2

16 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

from the gaugings. The formula was changed and the investiga-
tions continued until a satisfactory curve was obtained.

After an examination of the results of the gaugings heretofore
described, taking into consideration the probable effect that the
reclamation of the district will have on the rate of run-off, and after
a study of some of the larger drainage districts in the immediate
vicinity of the Cypress Creek drainage district, the following tenta-
tive assumptions were made as to run-off:

Frorn 5 square miles, 1 inch in 24 hours (26.88 second-feet per square
mile); from 25 square miles, ? inch in 24 hours (20.20 second-feet per
square mile); from 400 square miles, } inch in 24 hours (13.44 second-
feet per square mile).

It was found that Fanning’s formula could be converted into an
expression whose curve fulfilled these assumptions. The conversion
of this formula is as follows: :

Fanning’s formula is: Q@=200 M:

Where Q=run-off from whole area, in second-feet,

and //=area of watershed, in square miles.
Substituting K for 200, and RM for Q (where R= the run-off in
_second-feet per square mile), we have:

KMt_ K
uM” 7M

RM= KM or R= (1)

whence K=R $/M

Substituting the three assumed values of 2 and M, we have:
Kor h— 26:38) ke 35
Hori —20:2) K—345
For R=13.44, K=36.4

Replacing the constant, K, by 35 in formula (1), we have:

Be
Sait)

This expression, which has been used for calculating run-off in this
project, is represented by the curve in figure 5. It was found to
agree fairly closely with what gaugings have been made, giving in
most cases values somewhat greater than the gaugings showed.
As has been pointed out, however, overflow and backwater affected
some of the gaugings and tended to give discharges less than the
actual ones. Allowance has also been made for increased run-off
to be expected after drainage.

DRAINAGE PLANS CONSIDERED.

Before the final plan, as hereafter stated, was decided upon, other
possible methods were carefully worked out and compared.

a!

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS.

al 09 Jad Jeguad 1407 ul pyo-uny

g 3 8 Q 8 s 2 2
Bee oe er CE aca ie
eee ERLE ECE ETT Tle
J LL

Q= run-off, in second-feet, from whole area.
R= run-off, in second-feet, persquare mile.

M= area of watershed, in square miles.

20

\0

——— |

SINOY py Ul PaAOWas SBYIUI UI YAdag

0
Drainage Area in Square Miles ,

Fiqa. 6.—Curve showing run-off to be provided for by proposed drainage ditches.

11

12 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION PLAN.

The plan of the Mississippi River Commission, made in 1907, pro- |
vides merely for the diversion of Cypress Creek in order that the gap
in the levee may be closed, and makes no provision for the further
drainage of Desha County. The suggested course of the diversion
is through Boggy Bayou, Boggy Lake, Clay Bayou, ‘and Clay Bayou
Wash into Macon Lake in Chicot County. The plan provides for |
2,300 second-feet of flow at Boggy Cut-off and 3,150 second-feet |
above Macon Lake, requiring a channel of 60 to 80 feet in bottom
width, with side slopes 14 horizontal to 1 vertical, flowing 11 to 114
feet deep. |

The area drained by Cypress Creek is approximately 413 square |
miles, and that by Clay Bayou about 582 square miles. Using the
drainage coefficients determined from figure 5, the capacity of the |
diversion channel should be 5,300 second-feet at Boggy Cut-off and |
7,050 second-feet at Macon Lake. In order to obtain a proper |
fall in the ditch and to give drainage to the upper district, it would be |
necessary to hold the high-water surface in this diversion channel
3 to 4 feet below ground level. Since 15 to 16 feet is about the
deepest economical excavation, the depth of flow should be about -
12 feet. The required channel would then be 140 to 185 feet, 15 to
16 feet deep, with 1 to 1 side slopes. There are two reasons for reject-
‘ing this plan in favor of the ditch plan recommended: First, the cross
section of the necessary channel is too great for the most economical
construction; second, it will not serve effectively as the main drainage
outlet for the district, principally because of the high banks along
the larger tributaries. It has no advantage over the plan herein

recommended.
FLOODWAY PLAN.

A system involving a combination of ditches and floodway was
worked out in detail. This plan provides for carrying the drainage
from Wells Bayou, Cypress Creek, and Oak Log Bayou through a
floodway from Amos Bayou, in sec. 30, T. 10 S., R. 2 W., to Bayou
Macon near McArthur. From here the channel of Bayou Macon was
to be cleared as in the recommended plan. The drainage from a small
area at the head of the Coon Bayou watershed would, under this plan,
be diverted into the head of Bayou Macon. The remainder of the
Coon Bayou drainage was to be carried under the floodway to the
_ ditches in the eastern part of the district.

The floodway would be a canal 90 to 200 feet in bottom width,
excavated 5.5 to 23.7 feet deep, with levees on each side 4.5 to 13 feet
high, except at the banks of Amos Bayou and Bayou Macon, where
no levees would be required. The total earthwork for this floodway
was computed to be 2,186,000 cubic yards, which is estimated would

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS. _ 13

cost 15 cents per yard owing to the unusual depth of cut and to the
~ added work of placing the spoil in good levees. The total cost of the
| floodway and the auxiliary ditch system necessary was estimated
| approximately equal to the cost of the ditch plan presented in the
following pages.

_ The floodway plan is not recommended because the unusual difh-
culties of construction have rendered the estimate of cost less certain
_ than that for the ditch plan, because the attitude of the landowners
in general is opposed to a channel between levees, but principally
| because of the greater danger if maintenance work is neglected.
Very few drainage ditches are regularly inspected and kept in even
_ fair condition, usually being entirely neglected until serious overflows
‘occur. An ordinary ditch is injured little when its capacity is
_ overtaxed, and aids in removing the water quickly both during and
-after the overflow period. [Hf this floodway were constructed,
however, and by reason of improper maintenance or unprecedented
| flood flow it should be overtaxed, not only would great expense be
| necessary to repair the damage to the levees, but the embankments
" remaining in position would tend to prevent the water from returning
_ into the channel.
| DITCH PLAN.
This plan includes the clearing of Bayou Macon and Boggy Bayou,
: but otherwise generally disregards the natural watercourses for main
i drainage channels. It is presented as being the plan that will give
f the best drainage results with the minimum difficulties of construction
_ and cost of maintenance, and is discussed in detail below.

' THE RECOMMENDED PLAN.

DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

Cypress Creek drainage district, according to the boundaries defined
in act 110 of the Thirty-eighth General Assembly of Arkansas, contains
_ 298,450 acres, or 466 square miles. The total drainage area tributary
_ to the district is 658 square miles, of which 188 square miles are in
Lincoln and Jefferson Counties (see fig. 4) and 13 square miles in
_ Drew County. The drainage district should include only such land
as would be benefited by the improvements. On this basis the fol-
_ lowing described boundaries are proposed, as a result of the survey:
The district should include all of Desha County lying south and west
_ of the Arkansas and Mississippi River levees, as now constructed and
_ surveyed, except that part lying west of the following described line:
| Beginning 2,000 feet north of the southwest corner of sec. 7, T. 9 S.,
it. 4 W., and running east to the left bank of Choctaw Bayou; thence
following the left bank of Choctaw Bayou to Walnut Lake; thence
following the left bank of Walnut Lake to the north and south

ae Soo

a

——

14 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

quarter line of the NW. } sec. 9, T. 10S., R. 4 W.; thence in a general |
southerly direction, following the west watershed boundary of the
district as shown on the map (fig. 3). The district should also
include the following land in Chicot County: All that portion of
T. 13 8., R. 1 W., lying west of the Mississippi River levee; all that
portion of secs. 6 and 7, T. 1458., R. 1 W., lying west of the Mississippi
‘River levee; all of secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 12, and those portions of |
secs. 5, 8, and 9, T. 148., R. 2 W., lyimg east of the west watershed
boundary of the district. That part of Drew County, containing |
8,474 acres, lying east of the district watershed boundary should
also be included in the drainage district. With these boundaries,
the district would contain 294,784 acres, or 460:6 square miles.

THE DITCH SYSTEM.

In planning this system’ it was of course necessary to keep the |
sizes of all outlets within the limits of practical construction. For |
this reason certain diversions were necessary (see fig. 3).

Wells Bayou, now emptying into Cypress Creek, is diverted in
sec. 9, T. 108., R. 4 W., by ditch No. 13, flowing into Bayou Macon
in sec. 3, T.1258., R.3 W. It is not feasible to divert the water from
Wells Bayou into Bayou Bartholomew on account of the high stages
that occur in the latter stream, which probably would be considerably
increased if Wells Bayou were discharged into it. There is an
impression among the local residents that at times Bayou Bartholo-
mew discharges considerable water into Wells Bayou through Cross
Bayou in T.95S., R. 6 W. An examination made at this point on
April 3, 1912, on-which date occurred the highest stage ever recorded
in Bayou Bartholomew, showed only a very small amount of water
entering Wells Bayou from this source.

The diversion of Cypress Creek is accomplished as follows: First,
all that portion above the south line of sec. 13, -T. 9'S., R. 4 W., is
diverted at this pomt by ditch No. 19, flowing directly to Bayou
Macon in sec. 18, T. 11 S., R. 3 W. The latter stream is to be im-
proved from this pomt to Macon Lake. Second, ditch No. 43 crosses
Cypress Creek in sec. 1, T.10S., R. 3 W., which will take the drainage
from Oak Log Bayou, now tributary to Cypress Creek, directly south
to Macon Lake. Third, by a combination of channel improvement
and ditch No. 81 the drainage tributary to the lower end of Cypress
Creek is carried to Macon Lake through Boggy Bayou, Boggy Lake,
Clay Bayou, and Clay Bayou Wash.

The diversion of the greater part of Cypress Creek into Bayou
Macon, as noted above, will so raise the level of this stream in the
vicinity of the present mouth of Little Bayou Macon that other pro-
vision will have to be made for the latter outlet. The drainage tribu-
tary to Little Bayou Macon is therefore carried south by ditch No. 18

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS. 15

into Lost Chain Creek and thence into Bayou Macon in sec. 32,
et. 135., KR. 2 W.

Although natural channels have been utilized aikiSeceh possible,
it was frequently found advisable to locate the ditches entirely inde-
‘| pendent of existing streams, on account of the high banks, poor
_ alionment, and cost of clearing of the latter.

_ Laterais are provided in sufficient number and of such depth as to
_ afford good drainage to the areas lying back from the mains when the

| i necessary field ditches are constructed.

DETAILS OF DITCHES.

_ All of the proposed ‘vork is shown in figure 3. Profiles of ditches
| Nos. 13, 18, 19, 48, 66, 67, 76, and 81 are shown in figure 6 (in pocket
_ atend of bulletin). Tables of hydraulic and construction data for each
ditch are on file with Drainage Investigations, United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture.

Kutter’s formula has been used in all cases in computing the capaci-
ties of the ditches. A roughness coefficient of 0.025 has been used
for all artificial channels and of 0.035 for existing channels that are to
be cleared. In ditch No. 19, from station 949 to station 976, where
the channel of Coon Bayou is to be cleared and grubbed, a coefficient
of 0.030 was used. Where practicable, the proposed high-water
_ lines-in the channels are placed 1 to 2 feet below the surface of the
eround. The grades are made as uniform as practicable, and at —
_ points where the grade is decreased, thereby necessitating larger ditch

sections, the depth of flow is increased rather than the bottom width,
_ in order to avoid great changes in velocity.

The minimum ditch planned has a bottom width of 14 feet, side
slopes 4 to 1, and depth of flow 6 feet. This is the smallest that can
be constructed economically by a floating dredge in timbered lands.
The width of berm is independent of the width of the ditch, but varies
with the depth of excavation. For cuts of 10 feet or less a berm of
10 feet is planned; for cuts of 10 to 15 feet a berm of 12 feet; and
for cuts deeper than 15 feet a berm of 15 feet is proposed.

In existing channels where clearing is the only improvement
needed all timber and underbrush should be cut and all débris removed.
No stumps should project more than 18 inches above the ground. A
short section of ditch No. 19, in Coon Bayou, will need to be cleared
and erubbed in order that it may have the required capacity; in this
section all stumps should be removed or cut level with the ground in
addition to the ordinary clearing. nu

The widths required as right of way for the ditches were computed
by taking three and one-half times the top width of the ditch plus the
width of both berms. The cost of right of way was estimated at $20
per acre. No allowance was made for this cost where the ditches fol-
low present channels.

16 BULLETIN 198, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

All improvements were planned from the data collected by the
preliminary survey, as the ditches have not been located in the field.
The location survey may show that some slight changes would be
advisable, but such changes will not materially affect the amount of.
excavation. The lateral ditches in most cases follow section lnes to
avoid cutting up the land into irregular tracts, but it was necessary
to locate some of them without regard to land lines. The main
ditches are briefly discussed in following paragraphs:

Ditch No. 13.—It is proposed to construct an earth dam, at an
estimated cost of $5,000, across Walnut Lake near the center of sec.
11, T.10S., R. 4 W., and to divert the water from the Wells Bayou
watershed to Bayou Macon through ditch No. 13. The probable
high water in Walnut Lake will be 155.7, which is approximately the
same as that under existing conditions. The low-water elevation will
not be changed to any appreciable extent. A small earth dam is to
be constructed across Caney Bayou in sec. 33, T. 10 S., R. 4 W., at
an estimated cost of $300, to prevent overflow into the district from
Eastham Brake. ‘The side slopes of ditch No. 13 are planned to be
1 to 1 except from station 450 (in sec. 12, T. 11S., R. 4 W.) to station
781 (the end), where side slopes of 2 to 1 are necessary on account of
the sandy soil that will be encountered.

Itch No. 19.—A solid waste bank, to prevent overflow, is neces-
sary at the following points along ditch No. 19: On the east side where
the ditch crosses Wells Bayou in sec. 7, T. 10 S., R. 3 W.; on the west
side at both crossings of Dry Bayou in sec. 31, T. 10 S., R. 3 W.; and
on the west side at Coon Bayou in sec. 6, T.118., R.3 W. An earth
dam, estimated to cost $1,000, is planned to be constructed across
Coon Bayou in the northeast part of sec. 18, T. 11 S., -R. 3 W., to
prevent high water in ditch No. 19 from flowing to the east. “This
dam should be constructed with a small sluice gate in order that Coon
Bayou may be drained during low water. On account of the sandy
soil the side slopes are made 2 to 1 from station 765 (in sec. 19, T. 10
S.,R.3 W.) to station 895 (in sec. 6, T. 11 S., R. 3 W.), and from sta-
tion 1003 to station 1014 (in sec. 18, T. 118., R. 3 W.). The section
from station 765 to station 895, where the average depth of cut is
about 14 feet and the maximum cut is 21.5 feet (on the bank of Amos
Bayou), is estimated at 9 cents per cubic yard. All other excava-
tion on this ditch is estimated at 8 cents. From station 949 to sta-
tion 1003 (in sec. 7, T. 11 S., R. 3 W.) the ditch follows the channel of
Coon Bayou and no excavation is required. The section from station
949 to station 976 must be cleared and grubbed. This work is estimated
at $3,000 per mile. From station 976 to station 1003 the only improve-
ment needed is clearing at an estimated cost of $2,000 per mile.

The excavation work in ditch No. 19 ends in Bayou Macon on the
south line of sec. 28, T. 11 S., R. 3 W. From this pomt to Macon

a => =
5 OG

“ag

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS. Ly

Lake the channel must be cleared, at an estimated cost of $2,000 per
mile. In addition, the openings in the banks of Bayou Macon must
be closed, especially the channel of Little Bayou Macon. The esti-
mate for this work, based on meager data, 1s 35,000 cubic yards at

_ 20 cents per yard, or a total expense of $7,000.

Ditch No. 48.—The soil borings along the proposed route of ditch
No. 43 show considerable sand from a point near Wells Bayou to
Gum Pond, south of Amos Bayou. The depth of flow through this

‘section is therefore made 8 feet and the side slopes 2 to 1. The dif-

ference in elevations of the Wells Bayou basin and the Coon Bayou
basin is 10 feet in a distance of 54 miles. It was impossible to utilize
all of this fall on account of the depth of cut that would be encoun-
tered in crossing the banks of Amos Bayou and also on account of the

- erosion that would occur from high velocities in sandy soil. <A 6-foot

concrete drop is therefore planned at station 750 (in sec. 36, T. 10S.,
R. 3 W.) at an estimated cost of $5,600. An earth dam, estimated
cost $1,000, is planned in Cypress Creek to prevent the water in ditch
No. 43 from flowing to the east. At the crossing of Coon Bayou, in
the west line of sec. 19, T. 11 S., R. 2 W., a solid waste bank should
be made on the east to prevent overflow into Coon Bayou. In addi-
tion to the small amount of excavation in Cypress Creek, station 430
to station 458 Gn sec. 36, T.98., R. 3 W.), clearing of channel is esti-
mated at $1,000 per mile.

All excavation in this ditch is estimated at 8 cents per yard except
that section from station 600 (at lateral No. 34) to station 700 Gn

sec. 25, T. 10S., R. 3 W.), which is estimated at 9 cents. The maxi-

mum cut in this section is 20.1 feet, on the bank of Amos Bayou, and
the side slopes are 2 to 1.

Ditch No. &1.—The following reaches of ditch No. 81 will require
no excavation, but the existing channel must be cieared: From station
155 to station 198 (Gn sec. 33, T. 9 S., R. 2 W., and sec. 4, T. 10 S.,
R. 2 W.), and from station 447 to station 760 (in secs. 8-31, T. 105S.,
R. 1 W.) in Cypress Creek; from station 781 to station 953 (in secs.
1-14, T. 11 S., R. 2 W.) in Boggy Cut-off and Boggy Bayou; from
station 1080 to station 1151+ 75 (in sec. 26, T. 11 S., R. 2 W.) in
Isaacs Lake; and from station 1368+ 50 (in sec. 14, T. 12 S., R. 2. W.)
to station 1700 Gn sec. 12, T. 13 S., R. 2 W.) in Boggy Lake. All
clearing of channel is estimated at $1,000 per mile except in Boggy
Lake, where it will be light, and is estimated at $500 per mile. All

_ side slopes are estimated 1 to 1, and all excavation is estimated at 8

cents per cubic yard except the section through Boggy levee, which
is estimated at 20 cents. It was assumed that the waste banks were
of equal volume on each side of the existing Clay Bayou ditch. In
calculating the excavation the end areas of the proposed ditch

18 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

through this reach were decreased by an amount equal to one-half the
area of the present ditch.
ESTIMATE OF COST.

All the dredge work is estimated at 8 cents per cubic yard except a
limited amount in ditches Nos. 19 and 48, which is estimated at 9
cents owing to difficulties of deep excavation. Team work is esti- }
mated at 20 cents per cubic yard. The purchase cost of all right of |
way is estimated at $20 per acre, and the cost of clearing it is included
in the unit cost of excavation. The estimated cost for cleaning
channels is $1,000 per mile, except some light clearing on ditch No. |
81 at $500 per mile and heavy work on ditch No. 19 at $2,000 and
$3,000 per mile. No estimate of the cost of bridges has been included,
for the reason that the State law provides! that drainage districts are —
not required to pay for the construction of either railroad or highway
bridges. The accompanying table of cost contains a summary of all
the work necessary for the construction of each ditch, besides the esti-

mate of its cost.
Table of cost.

Length. Right of way. | Clearing channel. Excavation.
Ditch No. | | ote

Feet Miles Acres Cost Miles Cost Cubic Cost

e 4) De ve ° Dbl. ° J Je yards. Dbl.
A ies ier ape 8 28, 535 5. 40 65 SU 300) |e ee eee | tee eee eee 191, 500 $15, 320 $16, 620
Di 3 Se ee 14,110 2.67 30 GOO eS Seale ee ere: 72, 100 5, 768 6, 368
Ree eae 17, 795 3.37 41 S20 eee eee 134, 600 10, 768 11, 588
Aue SAP ee 11, 780 22, 25 SOON 5 ae a ee ee 55, 500 4,440 4,940
Deena: oe ae 19, 950 Seri 45 GOO) Pee aie ele Sens 94, 100 7,528 8, 428
Goenle sepa | 22°450| 4.25 50 L000) |e oedas u [eine ee 109, 600 8, 768 9, 768
y Meee ah is 18,790] 3.56 45 SOO" sane ik |. 2 eae 99, 100 7,928 8, 828
Soa ae se 14, 570 2. 76 35 OO! EY sais esl es ee 78, 009 6, 240 6,940
Qe ene ee 11, 790 2823 25 OOS Betas es) ese eee 59, 600 4,768 5, 268
LOSS areas 9, 700 1. 84 25 500 us caetenel ee eee 43, 900 3,512 4,012
1 Seen ee 10,800} 2.05 25 500 Se a es 46, 700 3, 736 4, 236
eres 6, 770 1. 28 15 SOO/ Ate ake tet eee ee 35, 500 2, 840 3, 140
1G i sptea ea nes 78,100 | 14.7 470 9400 cS acces eee 2, 082, 560 166,600 | 2181,300
A Se hace 9, 000 ibByAl PHI Vice era? 70) Bg a | ee Ae , 960 3, 432 3, 852
1s Gee 16, 200 3.07 SH7/ TAOS bere te eee tere 82, 900 6, 632 1,312
GS Ae alien 16,200 |. 3.07 37 FAON| Sos: oe ote eee 102, 400 8, 192 8, 932
Weis Sea: 17, 500 SEB 40 S003 | SS es2 7: 2|/5e See eee 81, 000 6, 480 7, 280
Le 6 eee 89,600 | 16.97 300 GOO0U Poaceae ee 783, 300 62, 664 68, 664
OR eS 401, 509 76. 04 747 14,940 | 3 49.75 | $100,010 | 43,461, 206 283,621 | 5 406,571
22, 700 4.30 52 1 0408S eel es 131, 000 10, 480 11, 520
8, 300 1. 57 19 B80i eee is aeeee a ane 43, 100 3, 448 3, 828
16, 900 3.20 39 (ES Ye aes eae a [Dacre th hemes Po 92, 800 7,424 8, 204
204,40| 4.62 56 PR190 gr Yael ee 140, 100 11, 208 12,328
8, 600 163. 18 110m) as eugene oth a | 35, 800 2, 864 3, 224
8,100 1.53 17 BAOS hae cess | here 32, 600 2,608 2,948
9, 500 DBO: creates. 54 | Pere ees 1. 80 Ts 800! [ecbe eas Seno Se es 61,950
5, 300 1.00 11 220 Wiese 2a | See 22, 000 1, 760 1,980
5, 300 1.00 11 220 alee eel eee 22, 600 1, 808 2,028
19, 500 3.70 45 000A) 23 Sae2e|PEeeeee 99, 760 7,976 8, 876
11,500 2.18 27 DAO i Pee Se eh eee ares 60, 500 4,840 5,380
11,300 2.14 26 DOF ce ores oe | ee eer 51, 400 4,112 4,632
29, 100 5.51 67 ISS (On amen | Ee 147, 500 11, 809 13,140
11,400] 2.16 26 BOD | cate eee ol Bey aearens 49, 400 3,952 4,472
23, 900 4.53 55 1G 1910) | yer tem CS es 131, 000 10, 480 11, 580
19,900 BE TE 46 DOO ees ee ones ere gees 106, 000 8, 480 9, 400
1 Acts of Arkansas, 1909, Act 279, sec. 28. / Sa

2 Includes earth dam in Walnut Lake, sec. 11, T. 10 S., R. 4 W., $5,000, and earth dam in Caney Bayou,
sec. 33, T.108:, R. 4 W., $300.

3 Courprises 49.24 miles heavy clearing, at $2,000 per mile, and 0.51 mile clearing and grubbing, at $3,000
per mile.

4 Includes 672,500 cubic yards deep excavation, at 9 cents per cubic yard.

5 Includes earth dam in Coon Bayou, sec. 18, T. 11 S., R. 3 W., $1,000, and closing openings in banks of
Bayou Macon, $7,000.

6 Includes earth dam in Oak Log Bayou, sec. 30, T.9S., R. 2 W., $150.

<a ate eels Me tne

a

CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ARKANSAS, | 19

Table of cost—Continued.

Length. Right of way. | Clearing channel. Excavation.
Ditch No. pace
: - Cubic cost.
Feet. Miles. | Acres. Cost. Miles. Cost. yards Cost.

C2 oi Aaa 24, 900 4,72 57 COs OYA he ope ee a Ka, | Ra 140,300 |: $11,224 $12,364
Cpt fe 24,900} 4.72 57 ThA; |e aes 8 Se es 128, 400 10, 272 11, 412
BS dereere S - 20, 900 3.96 48 QGONIE Sane Rae ee wee 105, 100 8, 408 9,368
Rue wee ele: 21, 000 3.98 48 GOO) etete cease eee nytt yea 107, 300 8, 584 9, 544
Ae ape sists 18, 500 3. 50 42 SAO tale noel ean Bees ti 94, 700 7,576 8, 416
i ae 14,400] 2.73 33 HC) | eee ool preregne 76, 800 6, 144 6, 804
1 Ee ee 13, 300 2. 52 \ 30 GOO ea Bee ey 70, 400 5, 632 6, 232
Bae es 194,800 | 36.89 1, 506 30, 000 0,53 $530 | 1 7,272, 200 586,485 | 2 625,615
Viele Se Berra Da meme tise) AMO SE ek TS 104, 600 8, 368 8, 368
Bienen SS 13, 200 7 SAO PE te es AN al a eae 69, 100 5, 528 5, 528
lit 2 ee a 5,300 1.00 12 PADS Papert Re eile NEY ES Aa es 28, 300 2, 264 2, 504
Apes tec 6, 600 1. 25 15 SOO eras Seem linet rwaves 37, 9C0 3, 032 3,332
Los ae ee 5,300 1.00 12 PANO) REE aR Wea ada 38, 360 2, 264 2, 504
AOE ats soc 6, 600 1.25 15 FXO OY] Geen Ha 35, 200 2, 816 3,116
leorce sotrc.« 10, 600 2. 01 23 AGH ine care crate ayy ie Way 56, 600 4,528 4,988
GE ke scsae: 15,300] 2.90 34 G80: | 3. eee: eee 82, 500 6, 6C0 7, 280
7 ae ap ea 7,900} 1.50 19 BRO ace aie | ok ees ane 42, 200 3,376 3, 756
I ae ee ee 6, 600 1s) 15 SOUP eens ee |e are eee 34, 709 2,776 3,076
Bas Skee Rh |= 12,900 2. 44 29 SOM [ayer chnul Ayer gees Oe 66, 900 5, 352 5, 932
Do mes 2 Shes 8, 100 1. 53 19 est 0) | Sec PS Sap 44, 400 3, 552 3, 932
ilk ee ee 5, 800 1.10 13 DCO Resee Sal Sia as a 31, 600 2, 528 2, 788
pe. ae oe 8, 200 UGS “18 SOON Belo Rae laches eee 42, 800 3, 424 3, 784
1X eae ee 5, 300 1.00 12 DAD aie ae aac re tier CNET oa 28, 800 2,304 2, 544
SOLAS eee ee 7, 2C0 1.36 16 SLO) ieee Pewee hs ices 36, 900 2,952 3), 4074
es a 4, 400 [OE Pug es aoa NAR PP OD A re 23, $00 1,912 1,912
Gin pats o>. 14,700) 2.7 33 (BGLOE see a es pele id 72, 400 5, 792 6, 452
ee 17,800 | 3.37 21 42 1.38 1,380 64, 200 5, 136 6, 936
ice et tes 4, 700 . 89 11 IP Ui easel an Ree a 25, 169 2,008 - 2,228
2 ee 7,800 | 1.48 18 BGO uae ste eee eee 41, 700 3,336 3, 696
Sees 2 8,900! 1.68 16 SOO El ise amet Hoe 38, 800 3, 104 3, 424
GOyatos = 2 44, 900 8. 50 80 aA GOOE Saye ei aaa, Seah 205, 600 16, 448 18, 048
nee eae 54,100 | 10.25 69 1380) 5 S70 5, 710 207, 200 16,576 23, 666
Pit DOR e ae 19,600 | 3.71 44 SSO le PO Nae at Mia 94, 100 7, 528 8, 408
CS lie See, ae 10, 200 1.93 23 AGO) Wess ere eo cme se Se 49, 900 3, 992 4, 452
MOSS see. oo 14, 500 PaiThs) 30 GOO Sees se ke ues 78, 900 6,312 6,912
(lees 3, 920 . 74 9 SON ees cio ae 21, 800 1,744 1,924
Ee aa 16, 006 3. 03 35 DOG | See ee Ratna vies 88, 600 7, 088 7, 788
i falaegt ae araeae 18, 000 3.41 40 Fol (0) Rectes ha yao) hatin hepa 97, 600 7, 808 8, 608
(ik ee! ae 35,400} 6.70 75 PoE eee sl eee 187, 900 15, 032 16, 532
if, eS 45,500 | 8.62 90 DROOL otae. Be eee ie 278, 800 22, 304 24, 104
MGs ee. ote ss 74,500} 14.11 84 1, 680 6.91 6,910 237, 000 18,960 27, 550
irk eke eae eae 20, 900 3. 96 48 CON eLO) ahs cree gat ay Ka 124, 300 9,944 10, 904
i) ae 17,300 3. 28 40 SOO PR ae RUSSO eae ot 113, 700 9,096 9, 896
Teoh oc ae - 25, 000 4.74 55 UP HUT O iy ee eae erat Ih pA aa 180, 100 14, 408 15, 508
3 TEE 2 Sea ete 25, 500 4.83 63 DIAG) OY) ta ues ALE eae a 143, 700 11, 496 12, 756
Cd eee rae 212,270 | 40.20 735.| 14,700 |317.67| 14,530 | 43,137,500 217,376 | 246,614

Total. .|/2,226,730 | 421.72 | 6,279 125,580 | 83.75 130,870 | 22,600, 700 1, 825, 874 | 2,102,374

See EIEIO AESCEMOV OS Mees fs mis tn oe cea a bot calee sce ees cs cen ele evade sleje cele s tele se $2, 102, 374
RE ATE RIESELICT COND © o0.0 | ofc Sc sic c= oct aoe bonded - oceans Sec dowescdeecdaecetncese 105, 119

eo PSL ae eid ye ple a ea ET a a 2, 207, 493

Number of acres benefited, 294,784.
Average cost per acre, $7.49.

1 Includes 470,900 cubic yards of deep excavation, at 9 cents per cubic yard.
a ee concrete drop, sec. 31, T.108., R. 2 W., $5,600, and earth dam in Cypress Creek, sec. 31, T.95S.,
2. ., $1,000.
3 Includes 6.28 miles light clearing, at $500 per mile.
4 Includes 53,200 cubie yards team work, at 20 cents per cubic yard.

MAINTENANCE.

Ali drainage channels eventually require attention if they are to
maintain their maximum efficiency. The ditches should all be exam-
ined at least once every year, preferably just before the rainy season,
and all stumps, logs, brush, and other débris which obstruct the
channel and retard the flow of water should be removed. No fences,
fish traps, or piling should be permitted in the channels. The actual

Ai

alt

20 BULLETIN 198, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

work necessary tc keep the ditches in shape will not be very. great i if 3
it be attended to each year, but if the ditches are not properly main- |
tained they will deteriorate rapidly and in a few years will require |.
extensive and costly repairs. The officials of the drainage district |
should provide for regular inspection of all the channels and othe
construction and arrange to do promptly any maintenance work tha

may be needed.

A COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM NEEDED.

Borare Desha County can be developed to any considerable exiaee W
efficient drainage must be obtained. The diversion of Cypress Crock 4
and the closure of the gap in the levee will be the first vital step toward 4
that end, but that will not be sufficient. While it would be possible 4}
to do that much by making only one diversion channel along the 4.
route considered in the plan of the Mississippi River Commission, 4)
the work could not be done economically, it would be of practi- 4;
cally no value to the major portion of the district except in such 4
extraordinary floods as those of 1912 and 1913, and it would cost 4.
much more than the recommended plan in proportion to the bene- 4}
fits resulting. The construction of ditches Nos. 13, 18, 19, 48, and @}
81, as described in this report, would not only permit the levee gap 4
to be closed and provide adequate outlet channels for the whole =
district, but also would permit the immediate improvement of a |
considerable area along those watercourses. The cost of those five @|
ditches is summarized below: = |

40.20 246, 614

184.89 | 1,526.764
Contingent expenses,
5 Der Cent ic coo sees see 76, 338

Total = 52242 eee eee 1,603, 102

Cost of ditches.
| |
Ditch No. | Length. Cost.
Miles,
13S 2 ae oe ee 14.79 $181, 300
Dee ate a ea 16. 97 68, 664
19... pe 76. 04 406, 571

While the submains and laterals can be constructed at any time
after the main ditches, the cost will be less if the whole project is @
carried out at once ae if a part is deferred. The construction of |
these smaller ditches will add only 38 per cent to the cost of the five @
main ditches just enumerated, and in view of the low total cost,”
estimated at $7.49 per acre, it is recommended that the construc- | |
tion be continued from the bee: to the completion of the entire?
system for which the plans i been. made. 2.

O

fe es ey ST a rR a

Roe War

R.2 W.

R.5 W.

y ° 7
| n
a

|
‘Sg:

meee 3
_— ,
. ,
Soe Y :
Se S N ah = 7H :
= = $s KN ‘
~ H ,
Sie \ . S .
\ ra . \ ‘
= SN - RN
SS . : : A 2 S : es
y SRY 4 .
\ > = hy ‘ . ag
. \ : : ANY
. S > : y , \
a r - P '
9, << x =: = = § J . < .
. \ . 2

SSS
SX

hides
U.S.DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE BUL.I98 —— OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS

=

~h* N
N .
LS
ae
~
~
Sh é

7

© ‘SN S S 4 :. eras . Le < . 2 S q “ S ~ SN
Ser SS SS Ss AMScsvk WS Ki SN

NASERTAN \ S b fs
Se ‘ 3 :
< : . P. f . . :
x : by BY >
S ‘ : Swab
SN N \ : > y

— rs S { : 3 =
R 4 ; : SS Nis : SS SRS AS

SQN

Lee 7
ws

Lape wa
Z]

. XY

SON
SAS SS
hs = 2 ce

Ss)

]

LOWER BOUNDARY OF DISTRICT

Oo S
io rik

£ Py SS
‘ sh 6 ee ,;
. SKGAN \S 4
ee} . NES 5 ;
SN \ WSS POs
4A 5
SS i iE ai
NEN Y-i3 a
NS | r ae rr =
NAA WN N
IWSASA sp

oa
Yip,

Z

Vey

Sit,

“Ci Up,

ih
CY,

4

oe

S
PP

eg Os
~. oa
=. -?

N

am 25nake wise
Fm er)
LNG

oO

— Gi
Dg suayId 6%
ee g ae

SEL SOP > 2 Stel Ree ‘SZ : eid : ‘S bl'd

..DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS

_ AREA OVERFLOWED IN 1912
CYPRESS CREEK ‘DRAINAGE DISTRICT

LEGEND

ARK.

?

} DESHA AND CHICOT COS.

yyy,
YA

Yyyy
Wi

CT
GY,

Elevation and Date of Flood Water.

Flooded Area shown thus...

Overflow due to opening in levee at mouth of Cypress Creek

MEE
pase A 7,

Elevations arereferred to Desha Coun

ty SUIVeY Datum

His Datum

Prepared to accompany a report
on the Drainage of the Cypress Creek District

| emp ,
roximate area Hooded = 202,300 Acres.

which is 755 ft. below Me

App

SCALE OF MILES

G.F.POHLERS, del.

0°G Ueipinay Uidg Yig

8

a

i]
V

Wy)
ae Oyfti1|
7 oH,

| Ze
Grazing

7 Arkansas City

iF

/ &

77
+0H) y”
on Py PS gam
1 LAW
‘uw if -)
>
Z
Vopr
San sUCAWAS , 7 rot
itz

W.

5 es

27
110 g

PONG

Ld) 7
Gays (B.e5/
mtn tN RRS
S99 Sw Pec) y
Ls ~ BANA Lt
val one Wz
} /

VEN

iO:

GH)

Hho

*2124W9
Lh 597

=)
N

29

2

RE BUL.198 —— OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS

Fig

o

wa Aly

’
_
‘

=A 1) NS Err
"FE TosWwe * 77s;

| Q

VaaQuynnt
We

Ss 54 |
ons

646) ‘
ING
eo

| 21H i
5,
sty (
1) WOES)
# wa N° jd
FOU 96)

“WIA

So Z

(ead
en Sota
ep wung

TP ULL 4
129!)

ee Poy,

, Gah
As... 9 <7 i ae ¢
J gesMoaws sng, OB
ES STA QAO fi
eaIAN SUING

(OEM) ; ro

+d

JETRO) SFP) TF

« hdWa

lorie 7 7

2
S

963

7) 50 oe

z6z/¢

<99n9

Sich has

Gui

wv

U.S.DEPT. OF AGRICULTU

DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS

MAP OF
Kk DRAINAGE DISTRICT

CYPRESS CREE

(006

ARKANSAS

Prepared to accompany a Report on the Drainage of the Cypress Creek Drainage District

DESHA AND CHICOT COUNTIES,

by
0.G Baxter, 0.L-Yarnell,and L.A.Jones, Drainage Engineers

row N
‘ 2
ever | Rae
NS Ez
over Cre
6181 222
4
201 —i7
918/ 262/

i
A ere]
oxy Sei
e287 926/77)
veer z7¢/
gre er

r nN
928/

“ 9eer
£0e/ eee
erey $2ze/
cele 20sy
zoe/ ir

y v
£9e/ g

J. wrwgh ; 60EN 92 SWE (bey
ahadNa ff sie 9
oa 5 ae z0e7
i | e/. "
) 7, Dale = .
erwa
x GW, \ Nt £6a/
fsa: a? a ES
\ 2rH Or ANE Ote!| zWiND (Bo2 Tre.
oe SALE 19 (ese
| A repptene | TMT a amy —
firs “ = nae
r N
——_—__—__|
xe SOL a
6567 AP t ”
o™! a eve BN Ling Ss
om, 6 PN 0614, A:
coo eH < yee iS
aN a O wi rad eM S
dwg = G
LUN? Qos: Vonsewe secre. S
CLAN, = x
4
~
+S
P SY.
Bs occgaine Asc = iS
-goeeee a
6H beep ee
ot ee a 8
; de (7.77 Uotaressas7*”
Nocang Bi e | t Br, &
e =i %
05h fs S
seem © Ps ° os
eae We, ~ S
L BAWe ec) 92SWH
Tawa Sang > pe OO “6 eel 99 oy57 : &
ezE/ a 3 < 200/ Zor £67 ieSWO 9
de | coe) OU Nate PH Soh leZeT *
2 le rgyy D LE) 3 wl | 927 Drenkone cate So
th ven © SET
BLEIs see] "7 0 | EO ree ~ 2 2 ~ Be
é cot, — ten NUT caoheatp ln VeRO OUH 89
ew ar olga Ae Se LLL. ae ee St 6 5 or i Cn
eery is) ot -_—-—. S
980, ws aS
PP coxwe 2 pzp/ cs | 8
& (6ze) WE. N ~
wen ¥ 9 HY
tans
06r) ig S
ory MND Zan
“rt! ™ oa fae
See Maar! 77; 7] & fs =|
TE \ i S Tae
vl Et peo : H
x y oA ‘Rs
OuKNE he EI 8 FE
SING \ewh § Ig rae Be
~ N 8 Veen p ae oy z
N wasn ] 2 if N
pe ay wet, y
= ee ee
\ $ Le a
Re $5 GING eli PUL: A 4s | t bs
#s eee :
“one anu OA a)
vee, Ma S
_— — —s
(S
\
St ' | Wy (827 HTL oat 22
S ; :
i) N + | es eel) | esrne
l N + ; | " (91) vend Re
I Seat | | " one — varntl ensue
N + . o (oti) Tie! 38
i + | | Nyocl 991 scerne
' ee ee eT, ee a ne oe
ee te aah ‘ a {
' Pare : ,
cabs apaeitaibdecbagheaap aang Jah
t . "as aa aa kn ne <a ea
= 1 se Gal al } a 1 Ww % CI !
Keene 0 Doe oe all Ge. Wat
Ree er tee tt Se Be Biode ge Te s
33 es OS Ue oe SS! lg 12
agri ,3 = Penieeace yt wz c a a ' o
OW SAE | § Snes ot i= an (Eh ps Tee =
pee i igs iis @ is
Sie i wees 1b > Ss s 6 2 2
508 (€554 (2 wo Ss 2 & SG
BEoeisfeeye ows § Ss
BY Seaaeesgs 2 ES Se E
SB8EsS35Et=aer7 £2 8 § 2s
peess ssssegea2 28 8:
ea2=s8FHvoererGi oO ow

Information on South Lines of Sections /3
7030 inclusive, 7./4.S. RB. 2 W. obtained from

Chico County Drainage District.

1912
Scale of Miles

©

~

Ditch Numbers____.-___/5

3

|
|

4

5
RIVER
Td Cat Lae Gogse

4

VHS3Id

Ee CGE «cE Oo

NIOONIT

fo) — s
ro) oo) |

i Ls

. | ?

Perth

3

35

'#L1=216!-€1-9-Mh

34

33

GS. Gr:

ULTURE BUL.1I98 —— OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS

DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS

LEGEND

Watershed Boundary......--------
Arkansas River Levee.......-.-..-

Elevations of Ground Surface......

Elevations of Bottoms....----.-.-

Bench Marks. ...2.-<..-----.----

: LUWE

ARKANSAS

_ Prepared to accompany a report on the
| Drainage of Cypress Creek District

1912

SCALE OF MILES

G.F. POHLERS,¢el.

100 200 300 0 100 200 300

~ ia)
$ $
x 6 Ss
: iS S 3 ed a a). ;
= =e sz EE I 33 :
= Sie * KE = za N ag =I Ss = 0%, DI HT I Sa am aa 2a
fe ae S S 8 & s ~ TA = Bas Gi S wees Bo ae om or
ow aw S $ 3S S BS £ a] s DAS 4 Em S an. ane 2) Tele) ce
face wie? 8 S y ss g ~ oA 2&2 ie x == = =N 9 —— =N NN ee
ahs (—— HF = = sae Se) ee <t|Lo ane a s Resa ee} S on Q no sls gy re) on nO on no— © oO eas BE Led ae ne
£5 am Oy east +9 oe —='s ai Galt Als Alea 3 = Sho Ss me =9 m2 R SS as ee ra mais NANA A NO. mo S 0) ao ce Soe a0 22 ne on ne
Lo C8 OO ee) (ens) oO Cos o JO re) ro) me) rs) reyKs) 92D Of ~ | Vv, 9 rs) wy) OO ete) 6,0 oo 0,0 UG ~ ria 6 F 0,0 3, 3
a3 AS BL Br ie AB ae ABP Hs Fes S&S BS 3 AS 8S cee eee Ss Gh SO ae fs FS as bees CURT AB EES alg Ae Be Be AS 3 Ze AS AS ae
: _ | FR ak. =e | ; IE io ee
160 HE a = T 1 § = S¥0.949 fo 976 Coon Ba: 4 = ipa | 160
BEEPS re a —e——— a | : | dj eo Is Ss, Cleared and a all stumps cut to ea | | |
ald arr ae i A BA | |i as iS See ee al th PN surrece on grabbed. 7 a Pa <S==== fo = SS SS ee ee eee : 1 . scene
159 22 4946 & Per Pilea | Probable high \warer suryacey\ free ise — —— NEL Pt = Eee eS SS eee Sf eee -—j—~— — ~~ — — = ee ae eee ieee be, as > ae te 1150
cee c | ar a SF ee a 6 ON BAYOU Seas a = 2 = Ss See
|e ae | =a! ! [aie 7] i CE (Si ee ore) ae [7 a a ae ae ee Sie We a ATS garg «aa. agra reat Bork [i = |
140 ig 7 7 Dicek — = p= 24 PEE at Hh onan La L—<-..a.. |. |. |) =. | : ——2re| the only Yatercvements| neede — — 40
ie Oe ae | [ a . i [| 4} —) SS ; mn me —— | a
_ ail for| ex/sting channel. ; lJ i ‘ = = aaa = 5
130 Bor Honk Wi idth 42% ae Bottom Width 707. ai Bot 74 ft Bot 757 Bottom Width 787. Bottom Width 807 Bottom Width 8274. Bop. b4f Bot 80% Bottom Width 7577 Bottom Width 8771 Sta. To be | 7674. ; Bottom Width 88% i aT Ste an) al saa \eeeh!)
Side Slopes:2 to! _ aaa Side Slopes # to) a. Zto/ _y\| _ F7of SideSlopesdtol SideSlopes:$10f Side Slopes: 2101 Zo! 4. / tol, Side Slopes: 240/ SideSlopes:F10/ 1,949 0976, cleared), 2toh cs Side Slopes: #70! ' - = | | zed
i eesiatons 100 300 400 300 600 Cie 800 500 1000 100 1200 300 14.00 i ; aa iss ; r I
Gross Section Amos Bayou Sta782 * a A 0 SaaS Oe ace RE Chom ; 1500 1600 1700 1800 71900 = 2000 2100 ea 0
150 150 Vas {
140 ial 140 Fig. 6
0 100 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 00 500
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 SE AU eno U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE BUL. 198 OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS |
== = s==z0 |
aN Ae eee Saas ~ a |
eae mn ae Q Sow ry als BD ia mh
ae ge GB $ <8ub K {DIS ae
KE EE 32 § FEES A d
2 22 2s xo 2a 83 8 38 Bin =e sor 2 |
; tess . aes irs io fo cies Aaa fee = i eaipeine ie ay? Ay!
ag 33 as ge 918 ge Bie ele Ia8 aie i >
vo de a a ae i 3 en ee: DESHA AND CHICOT COUNTIES, ARKANSAS
|
prSeE SS See
4 > 7 a Sencar Se Se a eee ieeseee as
40 + BESS ae |
Probable high water surface ee eS EE a | ee ee See ~ f | f p d [) if hy
ae aa a (ae | | rotiles of Proposed Ditches
130 ~ | 1 (Sena st. 2a area eae |
| | a (eae | | | pa |e ee poe ei
Sta. /442 to and closing are the only | 9 | 2
120 & _ =
| |
Eas) — == |
10 ~———_++- = =o ee | |
| | | | | 2 Se ee eS |
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 : 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 |
x = <
e S S aa Se,
oo va wo cc cats rine
® So j = a i (S) |
3 . ee A 2 (CUEl TAREE ge oe 29 |
A S N x Q S he 5 3 aS aS wo = = EDI T as nt ips pete ow AN Nt eeEEr
SCae $ S S$ 3 aes s s BS N S = x = = 2 % a 0 © Le ao 2em= 2 on Nw Ne TIO oe
Sia e NS ; x BS © S : BS . x . $95 3 : 9 ; iy g : S 3 ° ; x Ae 2¢ oo g oo oo a) 2 oe 39 29 930 he
zo s N > VE see 8S 8 USC 8 S35 Se SS NO No SS ae Oe S d 326 Ea 33 & g) 02? 88 2338 Bd bd Bo us gar 33
23 eS pO (OS ER s a as iS ~ <8 Ra) SSS lS) gs No = 2S SSS RR S S S SS s ES Ss s 5 < So x ENS B2 Sto 52 ge Sx an aq AN Se 52 == ole Ro 32 Se S2 s2 So
° Ss con Nn N S NN NN NIN Ss NI S oO 8 S Ss —N Ais nn S s oO S [S) S (3) S 3 On S$ AG yR\ as M5 (oye [S) et 3 O's 8 7-6 Of a O.= CO. OE Ado Of
cA N ao 39 Bo a} > BS Bo Je go Sy as s a5 8 qs me a] ae os & og ui BS ui BS ui BS ui BS a BS Sie ay ws S} 2 Fe uit ui) ® oo go 31> gf oui wij are wit wij wij wil ui i wio
ok Sw 3S Ale Ao S| HAS ASS Sm a a OS SS AMS eS Ei De De SS J 42 ole es ae bikie isle Be a ae hus he os a
Kee Oak Log Bayou S E | S 1T if | pe |
------ eee | & | -8 | dle | 5 ll |
—— Log Bayou ———— x Z iat é 1 |
150 al — g 3 + hoe ——— +— 150
/48.90 ale Propo. Sed Ditch | es ee en il is Reese Sy & = 4 i | Amos Bayou Gum Pond |
Osh ae — ; = j
140 — | y rt : = 140 |
Bottom of Channel taken as ground surtace A I q 2 q
3 Pa ie =
1an | | = 8 —
vide Slopes 2 #0 jf = 5 = -
GumeiStsnane i ; —>\ shen WERDER — AAR Bor ab TE SDA EaReWnOOIERR Bas MEZA BERR BSR G6i Bor 687 Botton With 787k BoitomWth@47#| Bortars Widih 747 5
Side Slopes Zfo/ | ES ltel_y. Sid Slopes /to/ 3K SideSlopes:ltol , /fol | 4 2tol_ 2tof 2 tol Side Slopes: 210! SideSlopes:/tol SideSlqpes | ta/| > , 120
200. ~* 300 400 500 600 700 Botts Main 64 =
Cross Section Oak Log Bayou Sta 25 je Ste Slopes:/t0l, : Fall \ %0. i tip 2 “ sh | am Clay Bayou Wash
160 + —— ; CS.C6 » Sta, dth 65 ft. ] Bottom Width 657%. 770) dh Bb TF. Bottom WHS TOF
; ——-——— _— C.S. Cypress Cr Sta. 432 150 Sees ae ag sone ‘Swagr oe ERs, Anes oe ae gee aller Oot e bey vie ae L Side Slo} ee /tol N av Side Slopes: / 7o/ > re Se fis fol | Side Slopes: /7o/ A4¢§
Lie | 40S ial 900 1000 100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 700 1800
G0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 130 i ie L Z iv
0 0 A

0 100 200 300 a

ee =
N qj = = s Ny »
Bes S 2 reese 3325 a ==s ee
N 3 PD as $s $ ALB a w NK oN r, N w RS) 3 SING = Aa S
x SI ys 32 = §& BS AS Ss 8 % ae Gees DI (MOTE rome q a B ° = eS x Gan = ccoc 28
2 S 3 > § 28 & N ee eN6 $ 2 ss oes & of 3 of Gea 3 & 2 g Smo Be wR
.s S > = jo ~~ €f o o| 9° S = ale == oS a 2 oN re) iS) Ss r<) a2 & =< OB
N % S a, KE A o S) #0 4 ©) 2 Q ) EFs_. Bee n Y On “Es ed 4 >
“5 £ =2 2 Men: Bae o. ge S$ zee ‘a(2 = eS OP a Ome Aah ae 26h a & RN SS © oR Ke és gs &s it Brera a SoS ous Qume as wo a0 oO ag = ane S- o _S S = ae
oom et oe Of Bos $5 95 Su6 SE OS. FOS: £5 es oo es rs 3] | oS 919 6 SOT. eh oy Bah At) Lia We o}o a AIS as Io 5 OS < one na G9 WU) 99 9 99 o gg rp} 5 J On 4
ae ee ee qlee aso Valle 4 98 9 Bo ae eB LOPS SORES GER ieee te #9 4 3399 Ss a See 2S |
= | aly | i i= a 50
— pean | : Te. 1 7: |
, { = $ oa = id 7 |
Os, | : Eas errs Barr pense aa IE | a |
I ns: Sr ie ae Ea aoa So eee 7 y
iver ite Fal 0792 rt | CYPRESS iV Ovp [Eee eee eee | pe HE ee Den ee | -- ~--+4- =~. | Be eke =E - as BN Te |
} oe /saacs Lake ST —-— —— ss | 4 a sl ~ ea Ss eS AL
— 2 = Bats = =e 7 4 |
Snommacscast eV ELEA SS | L370 & wer | tT _— 7 5 = 5 2 ae | |
20 ie | : ee Ae [are Sal 22) See 0.970 tt per ae a | | ROS CIN BAO 4 a I I ———— 120, y
a, 5 :
| es = —- aetna eee ee a ae
fF iCcaninc Channel B. Zz (BF Bork Width 207% na 7 = p [= = 2 laa rT |
i Battors Widtt 4 in 9 aoa 1g : aa | | SS en q Fall] 0488 F¥ Wer pile 4 a S—— |
t SHETELE ae “yd Follows Cypress Creek Sta. 447 10 760. Clearing Channel only improvement needed BEE : Ave BRACES Bay SEIS) et ae TES pegaes, Bake ee | | | } Seen. _ = : eh ee H Sa ie |
ef i Vs g orto. C ir Wii Boffo, }
300 400 500 600 700 500 900 1000 Geaveg ape wh Ke Gy & fa peeerig Rasim et eo i me Follows Boggy Lake Sta./368 to (700. Clearing Channel only Improvement Téeded Side Slopes: Liol é Side Biooes: Ttol SideSlopesitol_ | Side /opes: | to/ 1100 . |
|AOX: CSB CS , CSM C.S.10 C.$.8 C.S.6 CS. 4 C.S. 97 C.S. 93 CS. 87 CS. 86 C.S.85 ue ea 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2600 2100
130 140 140 140; 14.0 140 {40 140 140 150, | 140 140 140 e C . CS.13 5.10 CS. 6 cs.1 C.S."K |
‘ “Sy f C.S. Osh: USE ASI 3S): Ronee: 3. C.S. ah Bey sO Ke heyy
(sate c m ana oN ol one eA 130 130 130 pg a age 0 eae BO ee 80 oe aN i fies OSES 599 Ss 130 130 130 > 130 130 130 130 |
0 100 200 0 100 0 100 O 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 200 | 0 100 0 100 100 130% 130 120 Zio SF oN D4 120 120 io LF reo reo J 120 reo 120 WW oN 4
5 == z 9 100 200 100 0 0 100 200 3 200 100 0 0 100 0 100 200 0 100 200 '!° 200 100 0 1000 100 0 j00 0 1000 100 0 0. 100
a te ac oc S ; 0 100 200 300
iG : ra Ss : C |
: TOM 18 2s : : : = TCH : |
fa —— 4 == +2) = oe = 2 |
: : EE N Kw rs ae 3 = : 3 : See =eD I C 6 9 s |
8 a oe r 23 B < Se ge H a . , alegre ne S ‘, o |
3 3S : =o eee Be F 2 oo” Se 5 vo a ee g Si Gale ODES S = wv S SES
oo ~ eo 3
B s 3 x ei S aS Ge a S He Ss S S 3 s S &3 2s EE S © Re % ° 2 & 8
(S : 4 s <s ee Pe 3 z = Gs bie
é° o9 5 ao eo S$ SNR S é& 3 22 g8 en és Ez 40 ae Sama Se. & eee = 3s ~ RG aS RSG 2 §
f ; 5 ) j,> 5 TS SES oO i] 5 fe a) es) Ae co yo oO o] do £ Aare Leen > We) oo JQ 8399/5 72 |
iS a3 4 je 3B saps | a ae we s3 ae rata BB aa 8 88 8S as a oe IE < 3 48 of Asi ia is |
> = ee lt rca (nceaiichacnenl mses ee z ee ee ee ee, ese mae: | |
el eel /41,9 r Sani | |
fa oT Prager at ere ae ai Se a cll i ee |
a0 | 207 of rosoee kee a a eed pelea aa aes See
t fi ——————— eee << 97) in Pn ee mms | «ts | nn | (nay (ember oinins) (oa) Toli D (NINED So 5 ote RT ee es eS i ry,
ae re!
| BZ [ ae es i SS cc |
120 tom Width TAFE Bo 78% | BoromWidth 207i. Bottom Width 22 fr. Boston Micihe Sf ap hgh ee ae an ri -S4--— >| MACON Bottom Width /4 ft Bottom Width 16% V7 Bottom Width 25 tt
Side Slopes: to/ c_2tol Side Slopes:F tol | Side Slopes: 701 Side Slopes# Side Slopes: Side Slopes F1of Saas “Side Slopes: 3 ‘tol 118: 120 Side Slopes: #101 Side Slapes:#to/ 120 Side\Sfopes:t to/ 120
0) Stations 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 Stations 100 200 300 400 Mah a
GS, i C.S. 8 CS27, GISk6 |
130 G:Sil 130 Gis? 130 S 140 Cross Section of Lake Cheatham 150 150 C.S.10 150 C.S.9 i |
oP i vo | Be v ENCE 3 PY e ee Sp a a |
130 130 130 130
0 100 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 0
3 = 100 0 joo 0 100 0 2
a > oo)
1 = == ie q =
=) = 3= a AN 8
eee a ¢ DITCHBIas «= 8 pa ac =. 4 2s :
ee Ge ae . 22 28 EGEND FO | - Fe = a3 a8 : : |
E z ee 3 . Be oR L R SOIL BORINGS a5 Ee 25 “s ee 33 i re J Pace |
q : : FE FR 3 33 a DO BO * a os |
F 52 Ox ae a3 38 Seon % ns —# x0 mee, as 8 an! SomEs< 28 3g Bn Be &e é2 SiR anse 8 2 8 8 3 : Tae. §
a Sis re) ae So 68 Bg O38 Zz RES OG So 65 GO So 6 Kes Sie oS Sz 3.5 JS Oo. ial i Sia 8 SIS w = g oO Ww As wo g
v5 ; 38 ad Bhs JS AAS &| BLS Hs JS SS dls 2 |b AS AB os ean 7 i Bai lui he ok oF Es 33 3 2 4 a oO ol 3S | Jaa Ss
a
2. Sm | ry ty Clay an

= = a
, : —<——S— eee | 7 | oer mile _| 2a ties ie Ea
veo! Ea i a ede kK Ditch ; 7 = YY 2
ad I Fall O74.

>
9
8
3

i es EN Bayou
Bottom Width 38 Fi Bottom Width 33ft ora Width Alii Bottom Width45#. Bottom Widih 47# Bot Widh48ft. Bottom Width 5 7 ne i 9 A Bottom Width 14 fi. Bottom Width 20Ft.
Side Slopes: | to/ Side Slopes: (101 {Side Slopes: Ito! 4 SideSlapestiol, _ Side Slopes: |to| |S/opeszZbl, Side Slopes:2to! | i Side Slopes:#to/ _| Side Slopes: 3tol, | =
0 Stations 00 200 300 400 500 800 0 Stations 100 200 300 400 500 600 |
C.S. Sta C.S. Sta4 : 40 C.8.65 oes
[tale] C.$.56 C.$.53 C.S.5¢ C.S.47
. . . ( ! Q 13
a ce wa NOTE — Jo reduce elevations fo Memphis datum add 735 feet. Cant ee” 39 NY 120 wma He Ay ies ‘eee SS Si
0 100 0 100 0 100 200 9 | | me pi qEel oe “i
200 106 0 100 «(0 0 (00 300 200 100 0

= a ; W.D.N.