EPA440/9-77-001
  January 1977
Preventive
Approaches to
Stormwater
Management
-. - -	           -  I Ml NIMIZ E9 buRPACE RUNOFF
COLLECTS RUNOFF FR0M PAVED STREETS  iSU?pE g,EL^W
                                 STRUCT U8AL /V\EAb4S

                                     WATERWAYS
 WITH OUTFLOW TO

 PRAlM

-------
    q? *nl    TP    1S 1SS!!ed under Sect1on 3M(e)(2)  of Public  Law
    208 ?hH?Uflr ^r6133!^0 SUpP°rt implementation  of sections 208
    208 (b)(2)(A),(B),  and (C) of the Act.   Section  304Ce)(2) provides:

                The Administrator,  after consultation with appropriate
             Federal  and  State agencies  and  other interested persons
             shall  issue  to appropriate  Federal agencies, the States,
             water pollution control  agencies, and agencies designated
             under section 208 of this Act,  within one year after the
             effective  date of this subsection (and from time to time
             thereafter)  information  including (1) guidelines for
             identifying  and evaluating  the  nature and extent of non-
             F,nHnt thU$Ce? °f  PoUutants, and (2) processes,  procedures,
             and methods  to control pollution resulting from  -
               "(A) agricultural and silvicultural  activities,  including
              r""°ff from fields and crop and forest lands;
                (B) mining activities, including runoff and  siltation
              from new, currently operating, and abandoned surface and
              underground mines;
              *u(Ci al11.c9nstruct1°n activity,  including runoff from
              the facilities  resulting from  such construction;
                (D) the disposal of pollutants  in wells or in sub-
              surface excavations;
               "(E) salt water intrusion resulting from reductions of
              fresh water flow from any cause,  including  extraction of
              ground water, Irrigation,  obstruction, and  diversion; and
                II-;  changes in the  movement, flow or circulation of
              any navigable waters  or ground waters, including changes
              caused  by the construction of  dams, levees, channels
              causeways,  or flow diversion facilities.

       Sections 208(b)(2)(A),  (B), and  (C)  provide:

              "(b)(l)  Not later  than one year after the date of any
           designation of any organization  under subsection  (a) of
           this section  such  organization shall have in operating a
           continuing  areawide waste treatment management planning
           process consistent with section 201  of this Act.   Plans
           prepared in accordance with this  process  shall contain
           alternatives for waste treatment  management, and  be  appli-
           cable to all wastes generated within the  area involved.
           The initial  plan prepared in accordance with such process
           snail be certified by the Governor and submitted  to  the
           Administrator not  later than two  years after the  planning
           process is in operation.
              "(2)  Any plan  prepared under  such process  shall  include,
           but^not be limited  to-
              "(A) the  identification of treatment works  necessary to
             meet the anticipated municipal  and  industrial waste  treatment
             needs of the area over a twenty-year period,  annually updated
             (including an analysis of alternative waste treatment
             systems),  including any requirements for the acquisition
             of land for  treatment purposes;  the necessary waste water
             collection and urban storm water runoff systems; and
             a program to provide the necessary financial  arrangements
              L i  development of such treatment works;
               (B) the establishment of construction priorities for
            such treatment works and time schedules  for the  initiation
            and completion of all treatment  works;
               '  ii/h? estab11snment of a regulatory program to-
                   (i)  implement the waste treatment management
               requirements of section 201 (c),
                  "(ii) regulate the location, modification, and
               construction of any facilities within such area
              which may result in  any discharge in  such  area, and
                   (m)  assure that any industrial  or  commercial
              wastes discharged into any treatment works  in such
              area meet  applicable pretreatment requirements;  ..."
 If^f-H™0?™011^  M? °,f  Sen?ral  1ssued to support implementation
 of section  208  of  Public Law  92-500 concerning the control of water
 pollution from  urban  runoff and other associated nonpoint sources of
 pollution.  Other  reports include:  "Areawide Assessment Procedures
 naLUal^VOlUT  V"d "' EPA 60«/9-76-014, July 1976 and "Proceedings -
 Hn! PB260889?er Management Semi"ars", WPD 03-76-04, January 1976,
This document was prepared for use by local agency administrators,
and others who may be involved in programs to abate pollution from
urban runoff   Jh concept of source control (BMP) has been discussed
}n » R PaSMS th1S rep°rt I1st5many techniques that would be included
in a Best Management Practice.  The problems associated with imple-
menting these practices, legal, financial, and institutional are
also discussed.

The objective of this study was to provide a basic understanding to

              1"3     °" "^ BMP 1S ^ th°S6 tecnn1a.ues which  would

-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON,; D.C. 20460
MAR 3  B77
SUBJECT:  "Preventive Approaches, Jo Stormwater Management"

       f l  I£$?%^'  Ar^OTrector
FROM:  Vv Edmund Notzon, Acfnng u^rector
        X Uatav Plannina Division    i
 TO:
       \Water Planning  Division
        v                 x \
        \11 Regional. WaterHlivision Directors
         All Regional. 208 Coordinators
                                 Technical  Guidance Memorandum:  TECH  30
 Purpose
                       ^
 urban stormwater pollution.
Guidance

The enclosed
                                     ...
                     describes .Wment techniques that should t»  ^
  arrangements with a case study.

  Enclosure

-------

-------
EPA 440/9-77-001
                   PREVENTIVE APPROACHES TO
                                    i
                   STORMWATER ]VtANAGEMENT
                       Contract No.j 68-01-1945
                             January j!977
                             Project Officer
                            Dennis N. Athayde
                         Water Planning Division
                   Office of Water Planning & Standards
                        Washington,! D. C.,  20460

-------

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The efforts described in this report were performed for the Nonpoint
Source Branch of the Water Planning Division of EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-1945.   The work was performed under the direction of
Mr. John Willson of Abt Associates Inc.  Abt personnel contributing
to this project were:                 !
            Dr. Malcolm Fitzpatrick

            Dr. Michael Koplan

            Mr. Edward I.  Selig

            Dr. Richard Howe

            Mr. Nicholas White
       Chapters 1, 2

       Chapter 3

       Chapter 4

       Chapter 5

       Chapter 5
and Mr.  Andrew Waldo of EPA who was responsible for Chapter 6.

A project Review Panel was established to review and advise during
conduct of the program. Panel members are listed below:
            Dennis Athayde


            Robert Bastian


            Francis  J. Condon


            Albert Herndon


            Earl Jones,  Jr.


            David Reynolds
USEPA
Washington, D. C. 20460

 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
 Washington, D. C.

 USEPA
 Washington, D. C.

 USEPA
 Atlanta, Georgia

 Federal Housing Administration
 Washington, D. C.

 Triangle J Council of Government
 Raleigh,  N. C.
 The project officer wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of
 Mr. Andrew Ellicott, Mr. George Fleming, Dr. Joseph Yance,  and
 Mr." William P.  Somers for their fin^l reviews.

-------
Environmental Proecton Agency

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                Page
1.0   INTRODUCTION                   |
1.1   Urban Runoff as a Source of Wat4r Pollution
1.2   Best Management Practices for Urban Runoff
      Sources of Water Pollution     j
1.3   Objectives and Organization of jtne Manual

2.0   HYDROLOGY AND URBANIZATION     j
2.1   Natural Determinants of Runoff i
2.2   The Runoff Impacts of Urbanization
2.3   Runoff impacts and Water  Qualify Problems
2.4   Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands

3.0   TECHNICAL APPROACHES           !
3.1   Measures to  Reduce  Runoff Pollution Due to Surface and
       Subsurface  Pollutants         I

       3.1.1  Street Litter          j
       3.1.2  Highway Deicing        i
       3.1.3  Fertilizers and Pesticides
       3.1.4  Land Disposal of Wastesj
       3.1.5  Infiltration/Inflow    .
 3.2   Measures to Reduce Runoff and jEncrea.se
       Infiltration                  !
                                     i
       3.2.1  Delay of Runoff On-Site|
       3.2.2  Increased Infiltration pn-Site
 3.3   Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures

       3.3.1  Vegetative Measures    ,
       332  Diversion Measures and 'Slope Drains
       3".3]3  Mechanical  Slope  Stabilization  Techniques
       3.3.4   Stream Bank Stabilization Measures
       3.3.5   Design and  Stabilization of Surface
               Drainageways           j   .    .
        3.3.6   Other Erosion and Sedimentation Control
               Measures              |

  4.0   REGULATORY APPROACHES        j
  4.1   The Legal Framework and the Scope of
        Legal Authority              ,
1
2


3

5

8

8

16

21

25

33


37

39
43
46
47
49

51
52
60
68

 74
 80
 84
 87

 93

 97

105

107

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                     (Cont'd)
   4.2
         Specific  Regulatory Approaches  and  Techniques
         4.2.1  Acquisitions of Land for Open Space
               and Other Non- Intensive  Uses
         4.2.2  TMe Phased  Capital Investment and
               Development  Guidance
                             ce
        4.2.4  Environmental Impact Assessments
        I'l'l  ^Vlr°mental Perfor™e Standards
        4.2.6  Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
        4.2.7  Controls Over Land Disposal of Wastes
        4.2.8  control of inplace or Accumulated Sources
  4.3    Legal Issues
        4.3.1  Securing Compliance Through Monitoring,

                                           °f
 5.0
 5.1
 5.2
 5.3
 6.0    INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
 6.1
6.2
6.3
 4.3.3  Eliminating Windfalls and Wipeouts

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Financing the Planning Process

Financing the Management Process

                              Approaches:   Five
   112

   112

   115

   117
   120
  123
  128
  132
  134
  135


  135
  139
  142

  150

 154
 155

 156

 170
      A Brief History:  Leon County, Florida
      SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
176
188

192

-------
1.0
        INTRODUCTION
        This manual is designed to help lobal planners, administrators,
and elected officials meet their responsibilities regarding management of
urban stormwat^ runoff under the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act  (PL 92-500).  The UJS. Environmental Protection
Agency believes that stormwater runoff is | a problem of increasing seventy
which must be dealt with in -urban and developing areas alike.   *he  approach
suggested in this manual is  to minimize the adverse water quality impacts
of runoff through a  system of source consols.  Source controls .tress the
reduction and prevention of  funoff  pollution  before  it ever  reaches a
 collection  system or receiving waters.   S?urce  control is the  central
 tenet of the various management methods recommended in the  manual-so-called
 Best Management Practices  or BMPs.   These: BMPs are intended to help Section
 208 areawide and other water quality planners adequately address the
 stormwater management problems prevalent Jin their particular locality.
         The manual is intended to  serve as a companion volume  to a separate
 EPA study of techniques for data collection, analysis  and  evaluation of
 alternative approaches to urban stor»at*r management.   That  volume  presents
 a simplified approach to an initial evasion of the overall  s to rmwate,
 situation  in a specific urban area, and  of the costs  and impacts of a
 variety of alternative  solutions.  In  contrast, this manual  is  designed to
  introduce  the  nature of the stormwater problem to concerned off.ca.als
  and suggest preventive  approaches, including a discussion  of the legal,
 :£JL. aid institutional issues whic^ must be addressed .if these prevents
  approaches are to be implemented.        |                                   »
          Because the stor-ater pollution proW.rn.has only recently received
  systematic attention and,  further, because source control technology
  are still  under investigation, much w=4 «— «- * >•_*»-  am
  ho»ev.r, promises to be a  workable. effective, and relative!* inexpensive
   means  of pollution  abatement, according to  available evidence.
   specifically  delegates responsibility  f6r refinement- and implementation
   of Best Management Practices  to design.Ud  areawide  agencies  and  the states.
   .he Preventive approaches  suggested  in ^is manual are  intended to help  s  ate
   and local officials begin this task.   l|t remains to them  to adapt and tarlor
   ^approaches to suit their o™ specific regents  for local implementation.
                                         i

-------
                  the past
                   separate storn
   pollution i. the result of preoipitatlon
                on „ toan area pl(;ks
                   ana


                                                  ! galvanlc corroslon
   part10mates, ana chMlioals allied for f.rtiliz.tlo», control of ice
   rodents, insects, and weeds.

   of „  ^ r1™"6 CMSS °f ^ poiiuti°n may be t~*
   of nan, and ,flve sources My be readily identifled.          ue
   effect of Cavity,  du5t ana other p»ticulate .atter falls on «J urban
  ™«t or is rash,a from tte alr  ^ ralnfall.
  ull e       "^  £"m " irea>  ^ ^^  ^^ ™°-tS "«- »^ln the
  urban envlrol»ent.   second,  the residual ^uct, of auto^ilea, trucks,
                     metals'
          fro, «... carelessness litters the streets and is a Mjor souroe



 ™ of sediment.   filthf and finaXl,,  nie^l industr.a!. co^erlx IT
 do^st^c ho=K-ups to  stom severs contrite a nu*er of specific Pollutants,
 e.g., used motor oil.                                                  uctu^,
         Polluted runoff contains substantial amounts of organic material
 -organic solids, and coliform bacteria,   other pollutant, include nutrients
 pestzcxdes, and heavy metals.   Clearly, these pollutants degrade the
 receding water quality,   ^is  degradation often results in decreased '
 dissolved oxygen level and high turbidity.  Coliform bacteria indicates
 the presence of pathogenic bacteria which are pollutants.   Moreover, nutrients
 « the form of  nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to increased eutrophication
 rates,  although runoff contains pesticides and heavy metals , their impact
 on aquatic environment is yet largely unknown,  though recent  evidence sug-
 gests that the presence of heavy metals decrease., the diversity of  aquatic
-DlOtcl •

-------
     The direct effects of runoff u]?on water quality  are manifold.
         or poorly  regulated  runoff  acelerates  the erosion of land
"D*l_3.ritS   T?lllS i^iWJ.AVAJ-1--1-*-'" —	    —      i
standards, regardless of the degree of treatment afforded dry weather

WaSte WTday!°glven the realities of industrialization, urbanization, and
population increase, it is  evident that |environmentalcontrol  is a cr^cal
factor.   Wise  use and  control  of water  esources  is necessary    X ^e
water resources are to be  protected,  the  problem of the urban
must be dealf,with. As  a  small part of|that larger problem,
 runoff represents a significant source 
-------
           The preventive concept best applies to.developing urban areas, for
   these are areas where man's encroachment is more subject to control and
   draxnage is essentially natural.  These areas offer the greatest flexibility
   of approach in preventing pollution.   What is required is to manage th*
   expected development in such a way as to maintain a runoff regime as  close
   to natural levels  as possible.   It is in these new areas  where proper
   management practices can help prevent long-term problems,  and hence,  the -•
   reason  for this- manual's concentration upon managing the  runoff problems
   associated with the  urbanizing process.
          Many of the  BMP's are based on the concept of flow attenuation.
  Plow attenuation, in a hydrologic sense, means to increase the time of
  concentration and decrease the magnitude of the peak runoff.  Less erosion
  results because reduced runoff velocity reduces the erosive force.     ;  .
  Also, with this approach, large volumes of water are not allowed to rapidly
  accumulate at constrictions but flow at reduced rates over a longer period  of
  time, thus diminishing the possibilities  of localized flooding
  *he improvement in  water quality results  from reduced pollutant loadings
  being conveyed  to the receiving  stream.
          Best Management Practices are  an  integrated approach  incorporating
  both  source and  collection system controls.  Source management deals
  with pollutants  where they accumulate,  before they are washed into the
  receiving waters.  Collection system management begins .with the ground surface
  and ends with the sewer outfall.  As a planner looks to  his own particular
 area to implement a program for stormwater management, a number of different
 management practices or techniques may suggest themselves.   The object of
 Best Management Practices is to choose from among the combinations of
 technical alternatives designed to address the specific  problems of the
 local area those which for legal,  financial,  or institutional reasons could
 most reasonably  be implemented.   Those  combinations would be  the Best
 Management Practices for that  area.
        According to EPA policy, Section .208 of  the Federal Water Pollution
 Control Act  Amendments of  1972 is intended to be the planning mechanism for the
 development of Best Management Practices to control urban stormwater runoff
pollutxon.  By definition, stormwater runoff discharges may ±e either point

-------
« -              , .or combinations of the t».  (40 « 124.
U303 - 11307,)  in the regulation promulgated by the Environmental
Agency, separate storm sewers located In an urban area and primarily operated
for tne Purpose of collecting and conveying stouter runoff come under, the
Hational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as point sources.  It ,s
provided, however, that the EPA Administrator or the appropriate
segional Administrator may designate as i  significant contributor of pollu-
tion any discharge  of pollutants  into navigable waters  fro. a stor^ater.
 runoff conveyance,  even  though it is not; located  in an  urban area,  ,n  th.s
 event, such a conveyance would come «nae|r the regulation.   At thls  stage,
 the proposed regulations authorize discharges from separate •*«•-»
 subject to:   (1) any future regulations which EPA might issue, and (2)  the
 right of the permitting authority to require individual storm sewered
 dischargers to apply for  conventional KPDES permits.
         Objectives and organisation bf the Manual
 1.3
              .anual  is  intended  to helpjlocal  officials  answer  the  following
  general questions:
What
          (1)   HOW does the process of urian Development alter the natural
               hydrologic cycle and cause, stormwater runoff pollution.
                          ic physical control measures are available under a
                          appProLh to stormwater management, and how are
               they implemented?         '•


                    lega?  issues,  if any  does their use raxse?
           (4)  What  financing needs do preventive approaches entail, and how
               best  can  these be met?    !

           "
                between and among levels  of government best be achieved.
   ^though these questions are raised in| the manual, detailed answers in terms
   of technigue efficiencies, cost requirements , and effectiveness evaluates
   are beyond the scope of this volume,  kf one word describes the nature of
   the stormwater runoff problem, that wo|rd is "variability."  Each co-.un.ty
                                         : 5

-------
         loo,  to the problems indlgenous to ±ta p>rtlottur ^^     ^
   Best  ^agement Practices which apply.   For ^ ^^  ^
   suggest important relationships and introduced, range of issues
   be considered for stouter Managemsnt, but ±t oannot pra     ^

                     o deal "ith the speciflc water quali
                     to the particular sto»,ter  „„„>„  situation.
                 of «,. BMP concept ^ ^ ^ ^ ^     ^ &
                                                     been
                      i.
                                   so ttat tb. reader
                 or
                  2 provides
                                                                  refer to just
brief overview' of the hydropic cycle, the
                                          vew o  te hydropic cycle,  the
  aeter^ant, of an area.a runoff characteristics ,  the ,ater ,uality activities
  lid,           *«*«•'**- P«-»ted by certain envirome;»t,lly  sensitive

  «.-«•  ^f^^ PrSSentS' " "°'5Ular faShi0n' a"»^-- of a series of
      l   !     °al °°ntr01 "eaSU1:eS "hi* CM te ^^ * P^at. developers
      local goTOnts to prevent runoff pollution,  as appropriate, i,le!
      ^on .echanis^s  are described and successful local e^l.s provided
          Chapter 4 discusses  the available rectory approaches for preventive
 stouter ^ana^ent, their relationship to the !egal  structure of Lai
 government ^ers, ana lega! issues surroun^ their use.   igain,
 examples of their application ,re supplied.

                            *  "                   «— -1 issues, Una con-
                                                      	—•*• -*-»-•» \*t?o f • ditto. C
D  M     .    ^ C°VerS  fUnd±ng  needS'  av^lable funding sources,  arid the
problems xnvolved in putting needs and  sources  together.
         ChafiterjL focuses on the critical institutional problem
implementation  of preventive  approaches  t-h^  *
                               Jtr£rJ~^^«.t*JLi.CJo •  TUlrtTL OT* CJja/^nvT vt«v -*- **-
.                              *        /  *-*i&u ui secujTing the
intergovernmental coordination.                                     ;

        * seperate bibliography-is. provided at  the  bade  of this voiume.

-------
        The various chapters do not necessarily have tb^be read in order.
Each is meant to stand alone, although ah effort has:been made to interrelate
them at a number of key points.  The initial chapter on Hydrology and
Urbanization  (Chapter 2) is intended primarily for nontechnical readers and
thus may be skipped entirely by those persons who already -have an adequate
understanding of the relationship.betweeh urban development and water qualxty.
                                 REFERENCES
                 l of the Water
                                          Control
Vol.
                                                                      , No
           June  1975, pp.  1352-1369.    j
       EPA Contract No. , with Hydroscienqe , Inc. ..Walnut Creek,
           California (in progress).    j              •

-------
2.0     HYDROLOGY
                    AND URBANIZATION

  the
  the
                       of urban hytology
            discussions  of prsventive  approaches to
            oribes
                                                                           with


                                of
              °rban aeveiopnent
               in rmo« cha»cteristios ,« then
                                                               , then
                                                           to
         to the neea to protect certain environmentally sensitive laCjs
 intensive aevelop»ent because of potentially serious .at« quality (an
 natural system)  impacts of runoff.
 2'1     Natural Determinants of Runoff
         The Hydrologic Cycle

         The hydrologic cycle refers to the.cycle which takes water from the
 ocean or land surfaces by evaporation, transports it by winds across large
 dxstances during which condensation occurs,  and deposits the water on the
 earth's surfaces in the form of precipitation (rain, snow, etc.).   Once
•there,  ^ water gravitates downward ^^  ^ ^^   ^
 discharged xnto  the ocean  or being returned  to the atmosphere by evaporation
and translation.   The hydrologic cycle is  shown schematically in ,igur,
2.1.  Especially important  to remember is that the individual processes
wxthxn thxs cycle do not occur sequentially,  but concurrently, being sup-
plied wxth energy from the sun and gravitational forces
           PRECIPITATION
                              CONDENSATION
                                               TRANSPIRATION  EVAPORATION
                               SURFACE FLOW
                               SUBSURFACE FLOW
                                    8

-------
        For ease of presentation,  the impacts of both natural and man-made
forces on this cycle can be discussed at the level of the individual watery
shed.  A watershed is an area bounded by higher elevations, draining ulti-
mately to a single low point at which one 
-------
             Figure 2.2

    Example of Watershed, Shewing
Natural Contours and Initial Development
                          |      WATERSHED
                          "^ BOUNDARY
                10

-------

-------
    INCHES
    OF
    EFFECTIVE
    RAINFALL


          Op
    Q (ft3/sec)
              DURATION
INTENSITY
Figure 2.4    Example of Hydrograph Showing
             Surface and Subsurface Stream
             Flow for a Given Rainfall
                               tp (seconds)
  INCHES
  OF
  EFFECTIVE
  RAINFALL


        Qpj



         Op

  Q
             .DURATION
                      Figure 2.5    Example of Hydrograph Showing
                                   Increased Peak Flow from a Rain-
                                   fall of Increased Intensity
INCHES
OF
EFFECTIVE
RAINFALL

      QPD

       Op
               DURATION
                     Figure 2.6    Example of Hydrograph Showing
                                  Increased Flow from a Rainfall
                                  of Same  Quantity (as Figure 2.5)
                                  but of Longer Duration ;
                                              12

-------
             watershed has its own unique! hydrograph relating total and
runoff to time for a given rainfall.  Thi's is reflected in its unit hydro-
graph, that hydrograph resulting from onej inch of direct runoff from a storm
oT^ecified duration.
                      1  Construction of a unit hydrograph for a particular
watershed permits one to develop probable! hydrographs for many different
types of storms and their resulting runoffs.   However, any change  in the
natural factors which affect runoff willchange the hydrograph for  that water-
 shed.
        Variables Associated with the Natural  Environment
         The amount and rate at which wat^r gravitates from the point it hits
 the earth to another point is determined; not only by the duration and inten-
 sity of the rainfall but also by the characteristics of the surface across
 which it has to flow.  These factors can! be grouped into those affecting in-
 filtration and those affecting velocity.!  Together these factors determine the
 rate of flow (velocity) and the percentage of rainfall which infiltrates into
 the ground, and thereby does not become Jan immediate part of the runoff.
         Infiltration will depend upon the porosity of the surface and the
 length of time the water is able to stanjd on that surface and seep into the
 soil.  infiltration  is facilitated by trie presence of bogs, swampland,
 marshes, and surface depressions which have poor drainage.  The rate at which
 water permeates into the soil  is' determined by the  soil  type  itself, unless
 soil density changes.  For example,  "packing down"  of the  soil. or  the  paving
 of the  surface decreases  infiltration,  j Subsurface  flow,  in terms  of the
 hydrograph,  is significant due to the extended time it  takes  for  this  quantity
 of water to flow  out of the watershed.  | A decrease  in subsurface  flow  will
 result in a larger quantity of runoff  if a shorter  period of  time.
          Velocity  is the distance the flow tra.vels in a certain time period.
  It is  usually measured in feet per secohd (fpe).  Velocity is reflected in
  the hydrograph in both the vertical and| horizontal axes.  The vertical axis
  is the quantity of water  (Q) , measured |in cubic feet per second (cf s)  , that
  traverses a given point in the watershed at a certain time.  The quantity of
  flow  (Q) by the point of measurement is' equal to the result of the cross-
  sectional area (A)  through which that flow occurs times the rate of flow or
  velocity  (V) :  Q =  AV.  The horizontal jaxis of the hydrograph is time  (t) .
  As such,  it measures  the  time it takes j for water to gravitate through
                                         1 13

-------
   the watershed.   Therefore, any changes in the factors that affect the time it
   takes to pass through the watershed affect both the quantity of flow and the
   velocity.
          •The  factors  which affect velocity for a given flow can be grouped
   under the  following  headings:

           •  the extent of  the surface over which the flow has  to occur
           •  the slope down  which  the  flow occurs
           •  the roughness  of*the surface over  which the  flow occurs.
  The effect of the extent  of  the  surface area  on  runoff  flow will vary with
  the type of flow.  In shallow "overland"  flow the  runoff occurs in a  very thin
  flow over a large surface, whether it be pavement  or forestland.  m  shallow
  overland flow the ratio of the cross-sectional area of runoff to the  surface
  which it "wets" during the runoff is very small.3  The containment of flow, as
  by "channel"  flow or "storm sewer" flow, effectively reduces the surface area
  wetted by the flow to those surfaces which contain that flow.   The largest ratio
  of cross-section  of flow to surface  affected by that flow occurs when a nearly
  full pipe is  reached.  The larger the ratio, the higher the velocity  of flow.4

             Figure  2.7:  Ratio of Cross-Sectional Are
                            Wetted,  by Type of Flow
           Overland Flow:
           lowest ratio
Channel Flow:
high ratio
Sewer; Flow:
higher, ratio
 The effect of slope on runoff flow is such that, for any type of flow, the
 velocity of the runoff increases with an increase in slope.  For flow con-
 fined to channel flow or sewer flow,  the velocity varies directly as 'the
 square root of the  slope.                                             ;
         The effect  of the  roughness of the surface on runoff is inversely pro-
portional to the measure of the  extent of the  roughness;  a  decrease in the rough-
ness will increase  the velocity.  For  shallow  overland  flow,  the interrelation-
ship between slope  and surface roughness  (as represented  by forms  of vegeta-
tion) and the resulting effect on velocity is  shown  in  Figure 2.8,  a graphical
                                       14

-------
Figure  2.8:   Average Velocities  for Estimating
          "    Travel  Time if or Shallot ©vearlafid  Flow
                       1   I     2

                     VEUCITV W FEET PER SECfli®
                                                    10
                                                              20
                           I
                           '15

-------
  .'representation.  For example,  for a given 2% of slope, the runoff velocity
   (fps) increases from .3  (for forest with heavy ground litter and meadow) to
   .66  (for fallow or minimum tillage cultivation) to 2.75  (for paved area).
          For contained flows, such as channels and sewers, a coefficient of
  roughness has been derived for various surfaces.6  This means that th.
  confinement of a stream to a smooth metal pipe (having a coefficient of
  0.010),  from a previously very weedy and sluggish natural channel (having a
  coefficient of 0.112) may have effectively increased the velocity by
  ten times in the case of this example.
        .  A summary  of the factors which  affect the  runoff characteristics of
  a watershed is  shown in  the  following figure,  Figure 2.9.  Channeli2ation,
  which is usually thought of  as  a man-made process  associated with
  urbanization, is also a  natural factor  Effecting infiltration and,
  surface  runoff.  Channelization often occurs in large streams during flood
  stages,  as a result of the velocity and quantity of flood waters; it can
 readily be seen in relatively flat terrain where the ox-bow bends of former
 rivers have been left behind.  During flooding the torrent of the flow cuts
 across these bows,  thereby straightening out the streams and  permitting a
 larger volume of water to flow over a shorter distance.   After the  flood
 recedes,  usually a  new meander or bow is formed due to the natural  forces
 2.2
The Runoff Impacts of Urbanization
The urbanization process often results in physical alteration of
 the environment.   Many of these changes  result in immediate benefits,
 including increased  densities  and the  use of  the  property under a
 wide range of environmental  conditions,  including intense and prolonged
 precipitation.  However,  such  development brings  about changes in those
 factors which determine an area's  runoff characteristics and thereby
 affects the hydrologic cycle.   Inappropriate or unregulated development can
 also lead to secondary effects on other parts of the environment.   For
example, a decrease in infiltration because of extensive surface paving
can result in lowering of the water table, thereby killing trees which carry


-------
           Figure 2.9:  Factors Which Affect Runoff Characteristics
Physical Factors
Soil Porosity
Drainage
 Infiltration
 Channelization
 Slope




 Surface Roughness


 Velocity
Impact of Factor on RUnoff Characteristics

Infiltration is affected py actions which change the imperviousness
of the soil; such actions include soil composition and surface pave-
ment, thereby reducing infiltration

Infiltration is assisted by drainage which retains runoff, thereby
providing additional time for the water to infiltrate. Bogs, swamps
and other surface areas| provide temporary retention areas, thereby
providing increased infiltration times and a reduction in the peak
flows of small runoffs.j

Both velocity and quantity of runoff determine amount of water
which can be infiltrated; a reduction in either of these factors
increases the potential'amount of water which will infiltrate into the
ground               ]

The velocity of water being drained from the area is a function of
the distance over which it has to travel, the surface bed, and the size
 of the channel:  by creating a channel which shortens the distance
 and reduces the surface roughness, one facilitates an increased
 velocity. The quantity of runoff is increased by an increase in the
 effective cross-sectional-area of the channel.
                      i
                      I
 The velocity of the runoff is directly related to the slope of the
 watercourse, as demonstrated in the Manning equation (velocity is
 a function of the square root of the slope).  Any increase in the
 slope will therefore increase the velocity of the runoff from the area.

 The velocity of waterjrunning off an area is inversely proportional
 to the coefficient of roughness associated with the surface

 The quantity of water which can run off from an area is a function
 of the velocity of the!runoff (and therefore of all those factors
 which affect velocity) and the cross-sectional area through which
 the runoff can occur.;                  •
                                                17

-------
   out the transpiration;of vapor  to  the atmosphere.  The destruction:
   of these trees permits the sun  to  heat the pavement, thereby increasing
   the ambient heat and making the local environment a "heat island." !
   Preventive approaches seek to minimize changes in the natural hydrograph of
   an area and reduce or eliminate such secondary environmental effects.
           The usual result of the urbanization of an area, whether it be a
   large-scale development  in a short period of time or an equally large devel-
   opment  over several years, is a change.in all the factors which affect runoff;

          »  a decrease in soil porosity through compaction          \
          •  an elimination of surface areas which retain precipitation
          •  an increase in impermeable surfaces                     '
          •  a construction of channels and storm sewers to carry off
             the excess surface water
          •  an increase in site slopes due to terracing
          •  a decrease in vegetation (trees,  grasses,  shrubs,  etc.)r
             thereby  decreasing transpiration  and interception
          •  an increase in the smoothness  of  surfaces.
  Often one change can  have an  effect on several  of the  factors which affect
  infiltration  and the  characteristics of the  runoff.  For  example, the
  paving of a  surface reduces permeability  of  the surface,  reduces vegetation,
  and reduces infiltration, thereby increasing the quantity of runoff and the
  velocity of that runoff,  while reducing the  amount of water which'will in-
  filtrate into the ground  for downstream flow augmentation.
        The impact of  the  urbanization process in terms of the hydrograph ia
 shown in  Figure  2.10, which for ease of understanding is divided into three
 parts.  However, in the natural process, these impacts occur together, for  -
 they are  interrelated.  It can be seen that the immediate quantity of the
 runoff  is greater and that it occurs earlier,  with the increase in runoff
 velocity,  it takes less time for  the water to concentrate and, .therefore, a
 greater amount of runoff occurs earlier.  This increased concentration of
 runoff is augmented by that quantity which is no longer able to permeate
into the soil.
                                     IS

-------
                                                     i

Figure 2. 10: Impact of Urbanization as Reflected!in Changes of Hydrograph
                                INCREASED PEAK FLOW
                                         ORIGINAL
                                         'HYDROGRAPH
                                                     Figure 2.10a. Impact: Increased Peak Flow
                       DECREASE? TIME BEFORE PEAKING
1 Figure 2.10b. Impact: Decreased Time Before Peaking
                                                       Figure 2.10c Impact: Increased Peak Runoff
  INCHES OF
  RAINFALL
  QUANTITY
  OF
  FLOW

-------
           The  impact of the urbanization process  on  runoff may be  seen using
   the typical  home as an example.  Prior to  the purchase of the houselot for
   the home, assume the  land use was a hay field  (or  a part of the  forest, or
   an orchard).  As such, it has a vegetative cover with a root system that
  provides a comparatively  high rate of infiltration to the soil beneath   To
  construct this home, a series of events has to occur which can be expected
  to change not only the immediate site of the house, but also the area surround-
  ing the site.  The preparation of the site can include the removal of large
  trees, if any, which will interfere with the new home or equipment brought in
  to prepare the site; terracing of the site if the slope is sufficient to limit
  usefulness of household activities;  and provision of a road or driveway as well
  as other utilities to the site.   Therefore, preparation of the site1 entails
  surface and subsurface disruption of the vegetation and of the soil,  resulting
  *n the removal,  exposure  and compaction of  the soil material.   Such\ site pre-
  paration decreases  the permeability  of  the  soil.                    ;'
          The construction  of the home on the  site provides a roof  which is  im-
  permeable.  The rainfall  runoff from this roof is carried away in gutters  and
  drains which,  in effect,  is channelization of runoff.  The driveway '
-------
hydrologic cycle from the elimination of 4e septic systems, which return
water-however polluted—to the ground, arid the export of wastewater via sewer
pipes to a downstream treatment plan can lie significant.  Such action reduces
groundwater flow and therefore the natural low-flow augmentation.  If the
development entails both a sewer system and a water supply system which im-
ports water from outside the watershed, tlken the above impact is transferred
to the watershed from which the water  is feeing withdrawn.
        These examples  illustrate that the impact of- the urbanization process
on infiltration is not  limited to the  immediate site, but extends to all
those areas which help  provide services tb that site.  A solution often pro-
posed to  ameliorate  the effects of  the urbanization process  is to decrease
the densities at which  the population  lives.  This is done by encouraging
the population to "spread" out, thereby decreasing the concentration of those
factors which affect the environment.  However, in many cases this results in
a decrease of the immediate concentration! of the  impacts but an  increase  in
the overall  impact and  a significant deterioration to the  environment, in  addi-
tional  areas.   The solutions  which this manual  addresses are those which  recog-
nize  that there can  be  urban  areas of varying densities,  and that  the impact
which the urbanization  process has on runbff  from these areas will  depend on
wise  use of preventive  measures which havje to be  planned before, and initiated
 during, the development of the area.     i
 2.3     Runoff Impacts  and Water Quality problems
         The preceding sections have illustrated how urban development can
 lead to reduced infiltration, due to  increased amounts of impervious surfaces,
 and increased runoff both in terms increased volume and higher velocity.  These
 changes in an area's natural hydrologic Balance can in turn lead to serious
 impacts on water quality.  The two major,water quality problems affected
 are
         e   erosion  and  sedimentation     ;
         «   surface  and  subsurface pollution
   These problems are briefly discussed injthe paragraphs  which follow.
                                         211

-------
          Erosion and Sedimentation
          The construction phase of urban development can result in significant
  alteration of the landscape,  the extent of the changes usually depending upon
  the size of the development.   A construction cost commonly incurred  is  large-
  scale removal of vegetative cover in order that construction  can  proceed
  smoothly and efficiently.   The impact,  in terms of the hydrograph, is in-  ,
  creased runoff from the area  resulting  both from increased quantity  and velo-
  city of flow.   Both of  these  factors lead to significant removal  of  soil
  through the erosion process.   The actual  amount worked away from  the site
  will also depend upon the extent  of  surface area exposed to the runoff  and
  the  characteristics of  the  soil.
          In the  United States  it has  been  estimated that man-made  activities
  remove  nearly four  billion  tons annually  from the land.  Three billion tons
  of this  sediment  are deposited in  flood plains,  river channels, lakes and
  reservoirs,  and the remainder is  carried  to the  oceans.8  The sediment
 washed  from areas undergoing development involving new construction is  from
  five to  five hundred times as great  as that from undeveloped rural areas.
 The consequences of erosion are loss of productive topsoil and the
 deposition of the soil,  including its organic constituents in streams,
 marshes, lakes, and the  various water bodies.  The resulting impact on
 these water bodies is a  smothering of streambed organisms  and plants,
 destruction of their storage capacity for water supply and flood control,
 and an increase in the rate  of eutrophication of lakes, swamps and other
 water bodies.
         Sedimentation not only interferes  with the functioning of:  the natural
 ecosystem,  but also  with the uses  which  mankind usually expects  tb make  of
 these water bodies.   Sedimentation of streams and rivers with  a  heavy organic
 load  decreases their aeration  capacity and the ability of the  water to assi-
 milate future waste  loads imposed  by. discharges  from wastewater  treatment
 facilities.   Furthermore, deposition  of the  sediment in reservoirs reduces
 the capacity of  the  reservoir  for  its  intended use, whether  it be water supply,
power generation,  or flood storage.-  In due  time these dams will retain only
silt and  the  original problem  (water  supply, power, and flood control) will
                                    22

-------
still have to be solved.  Sedimentation also interferes with the use of water
bodies for recreational purposes.  The destruction of'bottom or bed life and
the inflow of organic matter can result in a decrease of oxygen, thereby
killing fish.  Furthermore, the transport; of sediment in streams and lakes
reduces the aesthetic appeal of these watjers, whether it be due to the dirty
water-or the resulting muck on the bottom.
        Studies of river channels have shiown that the natural forces inherent
in periodic flows naturally construct and maintain a channel with the capa-
city to carry a volume  smaller than the average flood; this means that on the
average such rivers will overflow their blanks every 1.5 to 2 years.  However,
with runoffs of increasing volumes and velocity, the resulting  impact in the
short-term is flooding  but in the long term is an increase in the channel's
cross-sectional area through erosion of its banks.  This, in turn, means
additional deposits of  sedimentation downstream.
                                         i        •.--..•
        Surface and Subsurface Pollution|
        The  constituents of pollutants wlUch are deposited on the  surface of
urban  environments vary widely,  ranging from common organic material to
highly toxic metals.  Some pollutants are; intentionally placed  on the surface,
only to be carried away by the runoff, e.|g.  road salt, insecticides, herbi-
cides.  Others are the  unintentional residue of man's activities, such as
lead from automobile exhausts and oil dripping from trucks and  cars.  Such
pollutants appear to vary according to the  land use and intensity of land
 use.
         For a given frequency of rainfall,  increasing urbanization leads to
 greater removal of these surface pollutants due to the increased quantity and
 velocity of the resulting runoff.  This Becomes important when one realizes
 that the most significant pollution occurs when there is just sufficient runoff
 to carry the pollutants from their place!of deposition to the receiving
 waters; this runoff provides the least dilution in the streams.  For the same
 frequency of rainfall occurrences, this means that the urbanization process
 will result more often in .greater scouring or washing of the pollutants into
                                         !-•     ,    .;'-<"   . «  ' •- ° " '   ' '-
 the streams.                            '
                                       23
                                         i

-------
          Leaching  refers to the removal of soluble materials  by percolating
  water.  If these  soluble materials are pollutants, this  removal is .harmful.
  Subsurface leachage occurs as an intended action in the  draining of a septic
  tank.  However, if a leaching field is blocked or otherwise  fails,  proper
  leaching does not occur and subsurface water containing pollutants  often
  works its ;way to the surface.   There it can be picked up by  runoff  and carried
  to nearby bodies of water,  resulting in degradation of water  quality.            :
          Leaching often occurs  at landfills,  as rainfall percolates  down through
  the  site where wastes have been  disposed.   If water percolating  through this
  waste picks up soluble materials,  or,harmful viruses and bacteria,  and later
  becomes  part of that groundwater .which augments streamflow, these'pollutants
  may  also be carried into the stream. Proper  landfill location and operation
 will  serve to minimize leaching problems.
          This  completes the brief description of how  urban development can
 lead  to  runoff-related water quality problems.   The  conceptual framework
 which it has  presented (see Figure 2.11 below)  will be used to organize the     !
 discussion of technical solutions provided in Chapter 3.   More generally,
 it should help the nontechnical reader to understand the  basis for the sub-
 sequent discussions of  implementation approaches and strategy development.
 Figure 2.11: Conceptual Framework for Preventive Approaches to Urban Stormwater
                                      Runoff
Urban
Development
Decreased Infiltration
and Increased Runoff
                                                    Erosion and
                                                    Sedimentation
                                                   Surface and
                                                   Subsurface
                                                   Pollution
Water
Quality
Problems
                                        24

-------
2.4
                               I
Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands
        This section takes up the planning context for protecting certain
environmentally sensitive lands, those jhich play an important role either
in protecting or, if improperly developed-,'in degrading ground and surface
water quality. , The basic planning considerations are the same, regardless
of whether the regulatory approach used! is to acquire the lands  (or develop-
ment rights) themsleves or to restrict  Development to specified non-intensive
uses.                                   |
        The five land types discussed are:
        •  Streams and creekbeds        i
        •  Aquifers, and th.eir  recharge areas
        *  Wetlands                     j
        •  Woodlands                    j
        •   Steep slopes                 j
 Many of the natural processes  associated  with these  land types make signi-
 ficant contributions  to  water  quality,  j The direct costs to the public of
 failing to protect them  can be high, arjd  are associated with the need to
 provide storm sewers,  higher levels ofjwater and wastewater treatment, and
                             9          !
 new sources of water  supply.           !
                                        i
 2.4.1  Valuable Natural Processes     !
                                        i
         Streams and Creekbeds.  Streams- and creeks play two important roles
 within the hydrologic cycle.  First, they provide major drainage systems
 carrying runoff and sediment from higher elevations to low-lying land and
 water bodies.  Second, they contribute| water to aquifers during the wet
 season and recieve groundwater through; springs or seepage during the dry
 periods.   Development in these areas,  by removing vegetation and introducing
 impervious surfaces,  increases erosionj and sedimentation which in turn
 increases stream turbidity and reduces: available oxygen in the water.   The
 increased runoff introduces urban pollptants in the form of petroleum pro-
 ducts, fertilizers, road salts, etc.   Removal of shading vegetation can
 increase thermal pollution of  the strejams.  Development also  can adversely
 affect overall hydrologic balance within the watershed.  Streambed siltation
                                       25.
                                       i
                                -'V

-------
  obstructs natural flows from surface to groundwater; stream flow becomes
  irregular, with lower base flows 'and higher peak.flows, raising'the level
  of flooding.                                            •
          Aquifers.  Groundwater is carried by aquifers,  formations composed .
  of consolidated (limestone, basalt) and unconsolidated (sand,  gravels)  rock.
  This underground water supply is fed by seepage from streams and lakes
  as well as by precipitation^which percolates directly to the acquifer.   Not
  only is groundwater an important source of water for human consumption, but it
  also helps regulate surface"flow by absorbing water during wet periods  and
  releasing it during dry periods,   It also  acts as a natural filter since
  percolation of water through  the  soil and  other formations can remove cer-
  tain impurities.                                            .          .        r
          Inappropriate or unregulated development on or near aquiferk can
  unfavorably, affect this water resource in a number of important ways.  By
  covering  recharge areas with relatively impervious  surfaces and effectively
  sealing them to percolation, development decreases recharge of  the ground-
 water supply  and increases funoff.   Development  that pumps.water in Excess
 of aquifer recharge rates will cause the groundwater reservoir to fall,,
 not only reducing the available supply but causing land surfaces to sink.
 Where fresh groundwater is located near saline groundwater, overpumping can
 also decrease the natural flow from fresh to saline, resulting in saline
 pollution of the freshwater reservoir.  Again, land use activities can allow
 harmful substances to enter the aquifer, e.g.  location of septic tonics-, or
 cesspools at or below the water table; subterranean disposal of wastes;
 agricultural activities involving concentrations of fertilizers or animal
 wastes; poorly constructed  chemical or petroleum storage  tanks;  etc.'
        Wetlands.  The term wetlands encompasses a variety  of ecological
 areas that are generally  classified by their  vegetation, water  type  (fresh,
 saline), and predominant water depth.   They include  fresh or,saline  meadows,
marshes, swamps, bogs, bays, and open water,  These areas perform, a number of
vitally important natural functions.  They  affect water quality by filtering
out silt and other pollutants,  slowing down runoff,  and changing in-
organic nutrients into acceptable nutrient material.  Wetlands also serve
to stabilize water quantity by absorbing excess flows during flood periods
and retaining it during droughtsf Wetlands'are particularly important for
                                      26

-------
the maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat; they provide  critical breeding,
nesting, and feeding grounds for birds, jfish and' other aquatic animals, and
contribute to the food chains of upland [plants and animals.  Finally, in
addition to supporting general ecosystem| health, wetlands also have import-
ant value as recreation, education, and iaesthetic resources.
        Development or alteration of wetlands can create serious water
quality and related environmental problems.  Upland development can lead to
nutrient and sediment inflows that  exceejd the natural capacity of the wet-
lands to act as a "filter";  it can no linger efficiently transform nutrients
into harmless  inorganic matter and  remove suspended sedment.  The nutrients
stimulate eutrophication and the  increased  turbidity resulting from the  sedi-
ment reinforces this depletion of available oxygen in the  stream, degrading
water quality  and creating fishkills.  Wetlands may function as recharge
areas for groundwater,  groundwater discharge areas, or  catch basins  for
overland flow. Development  that  increases  upland runoff or affects  ground-
water levels can upset  the intricate cycling of water between wetlands,
groundwater,  and  surface water, impeding the wetlands ability to  counteract
           • •'-..-•••            •      i •
 floods  and  droughts.                    j
         Woodlands.   Woodlands help protect soil resources by moderating the
 impact of storms and wind,  thus  reducing erosion and sedimentation.  Also
 important for water quality, forest vegetation slows runoff, allowing pollu-
 tants to be filtered out before water reaches groundwater reservoirs.  Clearly,
 woodlands represent valuable resources jto  the  community for a host of other
 reasons.  Aside from the  economic  value of the  timber, they present oppor-
 tunities for  recreation activity and aesthetic  enjoyment.  They provide a
 diverse environment for a variety  of plants and animals and thus constitute
 a significant resource for  wildlife conservation.  Woodlands also moderate
 the local climate, since  the forest microclimate (shade,  transpiration)
  stabilizes  air  temperature, and  serve ]x> buffer urban  noise.
         Unregulated development  of woodland areas can  lead to increased rates
 of runoff and erosion, resulting in increased  problems of flooding  and  silta-
  tion.   increased pollutants reach groundwater  reservoirs because of reduced
 natural capacity  for removal.  The forest  ecosystem is particularly sensi-
  tive to chemical pollutants,  such as the deicing salts used on highways.
  Destruction of woodlands  may also remove attractive recreation sites:
                                        |27

-------
           Steep Slopes.   Hillsides are geological features which,  in combina-
   tion with vegetation,  soils,  and precipitation, affect the natural balance
   of the  hydrologic  system.   Hillsides move naturally as the result Iof  gradual
   weathering and erosion.  However,  development  that removes vegetation
   sharply increases  soil and  slope instability by increasing  the amount' of
  water in the soil.  Construction that alters the natural formation' of rocks,
   sons, and other components^of a slope will make it more susceptible to slides
  and slumps.  Development that, removes vegetation or otherwise alters natural
  drainage patterns will increase runoff and erosion,  steep slopes and soils
  that are relatively less permeable (e.g., "days) are particularly sensitive
  to this  problem.  Radical changes in hillsides  due to erosion will" in turn
  have impact on surface water quality, groundwater quality and quantity,  and
  stream flow.   Use of improper construction techniques can leave the land-
  scape permently scarred.  The  aesthetic  damage  is compounded where'site
  planning and design ignore  the  natural contours of the terrain and
  obliterate  the  hillside itself,   slopes  have positive  value to people  as
  f-hey provide distinctive  relief to  the landscape and interesting  settings
  for  human activities.
  2.4.2  Needed Planning Coordination

        Clearly,  the various natural functions performed by these types of
  environmentally  sensitive areas extend beyond merely maintaining or pro-
  tecting water quality.  Protecting  sensitive lands for water quality purposes
 would appear to further a number of related community goals:
        w   protection of adequate groundwater supplies
        »   reduction of flood damage
        «»   conservation of urban open space                         !
        «  preservation of unique wildlife habitat
        »  enhancement of recreational  opportunity
 Restricting  private  development  of such lands may also  have  negative
 consequences for other,  equally  valid,  community goals  such  as
        •  adequate supply  of  local housing
        •  new business activity  and  jobs
        •  lower property tax rates
       •  higher property values
because of foregone economic development opportunities.

                                      28

-------
   ..-•  Thus, 208,planners interested in jprotecting sensitive areas from
development for water quality purposes vjill be forced to consider the
implications of their approach for a whole range of related planning
considerations..  208 planners will havejto coordinate their planning efforts
with a number of other regional and local agencies, chief  among  these being
the area responsible for master planning and  economic development.  Existing
plans and  zoning ordinances may call fo| more intensive.. uses than will be
consistent with meeting water quality  standards.  Also, 208 planners will
have to coordinate  their efforts  with  other agencies developing  functional
plans for  water  supply, flood protectioy, coastal zone  management,  open
'space,  and outdoor  recreation.  The objective will be to  identify inconsistencies
 and reconcile conflicts that may  exist jonong  these various single-purpose
 separately conceived plans.  An existing water and  sewer  plan  may  call for
 running a sewer  through  an area propose^,  for water  quality reasons,
 as a passive recreation  area.   Equally possible, existing transportation
 plans may not provide  for automobile access to the same proposed recreation
 area.   Regional solid waste planners at! the same time may be considering
 location of a sanitary landfill within [this same area.
 2.4.3  Planning Support Activities     !
        What these various connections between 208 and other community
 planning  activities point to is the neeld to take into account the close
 relationship that exists between water jquality concerns and land use
 decision-making.                   .    j         -
         There has been a growing recognition in the planning literature of
 the need  to condition land use allocations on land suitability, that is,  the
 capability of the  land to accommodate ^he proposed use while maintaining
 the continued functioning of vital ecojogical processes'.10  This has beeft part
 of a larger movement toward grounding comprehensive planning  in a  firm
 base of natural resources data on an  area's  major environmental features.
 Numerous  methodologies now exist for  identifying, interpreting, and mapping
 data on environmentally sensitive area^ so that planners can  make  preliminary
 determinations  of  their suitability toja wide range of potential urban  uses.
 These  methodologies vary  greatly in tejcms  of data  inputs, level of detail,
                                       2?

-------
  extent of machine processing, etc., but they share a common planning objec-
  tive.  Kach seeks to guide or otherwise restrict development on sensitive
  lands so as to assure continued performance of valued natural functions
  contributing to maintenance of environmental quality.            1
          Some methodologies limit themselves to analysis of a single factor,
  such as soil conditions.    other approaches,  though still earth science-
  oriented,  take into account a number of geologic conditions such:as slope
  stability,  flooding,  erosion and sedimentation,  bearing material]problems,
  etc.    Still other  planning approaches  combine  earth science with related
  natural resource  and  even  visual-perceptual data in determining suitability
  of land for development.   Some of these  rely on  map overlays  and point
  rating  systems for  integrating multiple  environmental variables,14others
 make use of  computer graphics  and related predictive models.15 No systematic
 comparison has yet been done of the tradeoffs that  exist among these various
 approaches in terms of the needed resources, i.e., time, money, technology,
 and specialized expertise.   However, all of them do make maximum use of data
 available from published sources.  The major data sources typically  called
 upon are the U.S.  Geological Survey, The Soil Conservation Source of the
 U.S.  Department of Agriculture, the  Army Corps of Engineers, State divisions
 of mines and geology,  and regional water districts.               .
        The environmental concerns of such land suitability studies are
 clearly wider than just protecting water quality, and they typically will
 not be  generated as  part of a 208 planning exercise.  However,  when  these
 studies  are  available  locally,  they  provide an invaluable  resource to the
 208 planner  in identifying  and  mapping the water  quality-related  sensitive
 lands discussed above.   Together with findings on the potential extent and
magnitude of  the non-point  source pollution problem  in the area, and projected
future land use patterns given expected economic  and population growth,  they
supply the needed planning base for implementing a program of sensitive
areas protection and regulation.
                                     30

-------
                              REFERENCES
1.
2.
Linsley, Ray K., and Franzini, Joseph B., Water-Resources Engineering
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.             .    .

The following terms are commonly used to note various periods of time:

a)  "travel time" is the time for the flow to'traverse from one
    point to another and can be estimated by dividing the average
    velocity by the distance traveled.
    b)
    c)
 6.
 7.
                                    j
    "time of concentration" is the Sum of the travel times from the
    farthest point in the watershed:to the point of measurement.
    in terms of the hydrograph, it is the time from the end of excessive
    rainfall to the point of inflection on the falling limb of the
    hydrograph.                     I .  .
                                    I    • .
    "lag time" is the time from the'center of the mass of excessive
    rainfall to the peak runoff.  Firom a range of storms and watersheds
    it has been shown that the lag time is equal to six-tenths of the
    time of concentration, for average natural conditions and for
    approximately uniform distribution of runoff over the watershed.
    A limited number of studies indicates that this relationship holds for
    urbanized watersheds also.      |

 In  hydrologic terms the ratio is.knbwn as the "hydraulic radius" and
 is  the ratio between the cross sectional area divided by the wetted
 perimeter.                          j

 Channel and storm sewer flow velocities can  be estimated by the use of
 Manning's  equation, in which velocity is a function of  the cross-
 sectional  area divided by  the wetted perimeter,  all raised to the  two-
 thirds power:
                       V = f
tcross-sectional area I
                          wetted perimeterJ
     See following footnote for Manning jequation
 5.   The complete Manning equation is:
                                            •  R2//3 • S1//2, where V is the
 velocity of flow, R~is~the hydraulic radius,  S is the slope, and n is
 the coefficient based on the roughness of the surface over which the
 flow occurs.                       '
 Linsley, Ray K., and Franzini, Joseph B., Water-Resources Engineering,
 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 19^4.
                                    i
 Bhutani, Joginder; Holberger, Richird; Spewak, Peter; Jacobsen, Willise,
 and Truett, J. Bruce, Impact of Hydrologic Modifications on Water Quality,
 U S  Environmental Protection Agency, Report EPA-600/2-75-007, April 1975.
                                        i
                                      31

-------
    8.
   9.
  10.
 11.
 12.
 13.
14.
15.

                    1972

                                                            and Environment.
                                                                      Belinont





                         et al" A_ConEarative_Study_ofJResource Anaiysic.

                                                                         •


                                      32

-------
3.0
•TECHNICAL APPROACHES
        this chapter discusses a numbeij of technical approaches which  .
may be employed to reduce water pollution due to urban stormwater runoff.
Since all of these approaches are applied before the runoff reaches the
storm sewer system, they may be termed ; "preventive approaches."  -These
individual techniques form the basis for a system ,of Best Management
Practices.  The concept of Best Management Practices seeks to control  the
twin results of urbanization:  increased runoff and increased pollution.  The
technical approaches described here ar4 grouped into three categories,
according to the specific runoff problem addressed:
         '   '                    •       i
        •  Measures to reduce runoff pollution due to surface and
           subsurface pollutants;
        «  Measures to reduce runoff and increase infiltration;  and
        •  Erosion and sedimentation cpntrol measures.
        In order to place the purpose  pf these management practices into
perspective,  it is useful to reiteratej some notions  about the  nature of
the problem and its  constituents.   Table  3-1 compares  total  quantities of
raw municipal waste  and  urban runoff,  Deluding  base flow,  in pounds per
acre of drainage basin size per year.   These figures are taken from a
study done at Durham, North Carolina ahd  are meant only to  serve as an
 example of the problem.   Urban runoff |contains much greater loads of
 suspended solids  and heavy metals thari raw municipal waste.
        Table  3-2  gives  the total  annual yield of pollutants,from municipal
and urban runoff sources in pounds per! acre during 1972 based  on actual
removal rates  for  the Durham Third Fork Sewage Treatment Plant.   On a yearly
basis,  the  average ultimate BOD reduction  is 46  percent, COD—48 percent,
                                       i                  .  .       •     •
and suspended solids—4  percent.       :
         It  is important  to  note here that  even if  Durham provided 100%
removal of  organic and suspended  solidjs from raw municipal waste on an annual
basis,  the  total reduction  of pollutanjts  discharged  would only be 52% of
the COD,  59% of the  ultimate BOD,  and  J5%  of the  total suspended solids.
Although urban runoff varies widely in! its severity, it can be a significant
 source of water pollution in some areajs and,, where this is  true, some means
must be devised to control  it,  over arid above the control of municipal point
 sources.   The means  of  control  presented  here are Best Management Practices.
                                       j
                                       I
                                       i
                                    331.

-------
                                     Table 3-1
                      o
                    BASIS
       Pollutant
   COD
   BOD Ultimate
   Suspended Solids
   Kjeldahl Nitrogen as
   "N"
  Nitrate "N"
  Total Phosphorus as
   "P"
  Chromium
  Copper
  Lead
  Nickel
   inc
  MDNICIPAL WASTE AND URBAN RUNOFF
POUNDS PER ACRE PER YEAR POLLUTANT
                                                                   AN
Saw Urban Runoff
Municipal
	 Waste 	
Ibs/ac
"~* • •• •
~ -
1,027
685
335

7.2
11
.10
.20
<.8
<.16
1.5
**"-• •.
+
I Base Flow
_ ..%* J Ibs/ac | %*"
53%
59
5


73
6
11
21
12
43
T 	
938
470
6,690
6.1

4.7
1.6
1.6
2.9
1.2
2.0
48%
41
95


27
94
89
79
88
57
                                       Total
                                       Annual
                                       Yield	
                                     (Ibs/acre)
                                      -•    • •—,,
                                       1,965
                                       1,155
                                       7,025
  *%  of total  annual yield
                                   Table 3-2
                   ,        YIELD °F POLLUTANTS FROM MUNICIPAL AND
                URBAN RUNOFF WASTES IN POUNDS/ACRE DURING 1972
Parameter
COD
Ultimate BOD
Suspended Solids
Municipal Waste
(Ibs/ae)
Raw
1,027
685
335
• Percent
Removal
91*
91
85
(Ibs/ac)
Effluent
-' •
92
61
50
(Ibs/ac)
Urban
Runoff
938
470
6,690
1
(Ibs/ac)
Total
Release
• 	 - . I,...
1,030
531
6,740
Overall
; Removal
Efficiency
— • 	
— " -- -
48%
46%
• 4%
*Assumed
                                      34

-------
        The object of Best Management Practices is to prevent and reduce
urban runoff pollution.  As such, it is a system of source control.  -The
first group of Best Management Practices are those measures intended to
reduce runoff pollution due to surface anjl subsurface pollutants, attempting
to hold and check that material which reaches the impervious surfaces of the
urban environment.  Such controls are typically chemical application restric-
tions, litter control, and other public w|>rks activities such as street sweeping
and catch basin cleaning.  The second grotq?, measures to reduce runoff and
increase' infiltration, seeks to correct tjhe problem engendered by urbanization
through  such techniques as porous pavement and dutch drains.  The third set,
erosion  and sedimentation control measures, have been largely developed through
the work of the Soil  Conservation Services.
           These preventive approaches  generally  can be  applied at  one  of  two
points in  the  development process.   A number  of  the  solutions refer to
construction practices, which  should be  ^plied  by the  developer when  earth
disturbing activities occur.   Some  erosicjn and sedimentation control measures,
as well  as measures to reduce  runoff and|increase infiltration,  may be
considered as  requirements of  development after construction is  completed.
 implementation of these two types  of measures (construction practices, post-
 construction requirements)  is  typically fhe responsibility .of the developer,
 while municipalities will generally be.- responsible for off-site controls on sur-
 face and subsurface pollutants.  Of courLe, in the-case of construction of publ.c
 facilities, the municipality or other public agency itself may act as the
 developer and thus face the same obligations as the private developer.
           It should be realized that the! urban environment is merely the
 collector of what we  put into it;  the impervious  surfaces provide-the
 means of  transport . for this material  and1  rainfall acts to  flush those
 surfaces.  Again,  the concept of Best Management  Practices  seeks  to prevent
 and reduce this  pollution from  reaching the  receiving  water.  In  so doing,
 the goal  is to protect the beneficial uses  intended for  those waters.  No
 one technique alone described here can  correct the  changes brought about by
 urbanization.  Combinations of these maAagement practices which are designed
  to  control recognized sources are required.   If such is  done,  a system of
  Best Management Practices can be broughj: about to control urban runoff
  pollution effectively and yet relative^ inexpensively.
                                        35!

-------
           Implementation of all  these  technical  approaches  can generally be
 achieved through use  of some combination of zoning  ordinances, subdivision
 regulations, building codes,  health  codes,  erosion  and sediment control
 ordinances, and  other specialized regulations.   Public officials, however,
 should look to voluntary  compliance  through public  awareness programs before
 seeking  to enforce stormwater runoff programs through regulatory instruments.
 Regulatory aspects of urban stormwater management are discussed in greater
 detail in Chapter 4.  The costs of installing and maintaining the
 construction and post-construction control measures are borne by the
 developer and passed on to the eventual occupants of the development.  Surface
 and subsurface pollutants controls are typically paid for out of public funds.
Financing needs, methods, and sources for a number of control measures are
discussed separately in Chapter 5.
                                      36

-------
3.1
         MEASURES TO REDUCE RUNOFF POLLUTION DUE TO SURFACE AND  SUBSURFACE
         POLLUTANTS

-------

-------
3.1
sources:
                                        I
          Measures  to Reduce  Runoff Pollution Due  to  Surface  and
          Subsurface  Pollutants
          Pollution of stormwater runoff! comes largely from four major
                                        i
                                        i
          •  dust fall                  j
          •  contact  with municipal  and industrial wastes in
             combined sewers;           i
          •  litter,  debris,  and chemicals (including pesticides  and fertilizers
             washed off vegetation)  on parking lots,  streets  and  alleys? and
                                        1  .' '  2
          e  silt resulting from soil erpsion.
A number of measures  designed to reduce jrunoff pollution due  to surface and
subsurface pollutants are discussed in this section.   Five subsections are
presented, dealing with the following problems:  street litter, highway
deicing, fertilizers and pesticides, land disposal of wastes, and infiltration/
inflow.
          The first subsection discusses the problem of runoff pollution due
to street litter, considering such measures as street cleaning and catch
basin cleaning.  The second subsection considers the application and storage
of deicing salts, and presents alternatives to the use of salt on highways.
The application and storage of fertilizers and pesticides are examined in
the third subsection, also considering the possibility of licensing persons
handling  and applying such chemicals.  "Che fourth  subsection discusses the
design, location,  and operation  of septic tank systems and sanitary landfills.
The final subsection considers the problem of infiltration/inflow into sewer
systems and  examines such remedies as '.the inspection and removal of illegal
drain  connections.                      !
           The measures  presented in  this section  vary in a number of  important
ways  from those  to be presented  later,  jIn most cases these  measures  involve
operational  solutions (nonstructural solutions) not  involving  the
construction of  a facility.   The measures presented  in this  section are
generally applied after development has! been completed,  and  are  designed to
reduce the impact of various pollutants! remaining after structural methods
have  been installed.                   j
           Implementation of these measu'res is often  the  responsibility of
 the locality rather than the developer since,, in many cases, the pollutants
have been deposited on public streets Jfter having been carried  off from the
                                        37

-------
 development..  *hey also involve control of off-site pollutants,  that i,
 pollutants  generated elsewhere.  Several other measures  are  clearly
 the responsibility of the  locality, because they deal with residuals
 from public activities  such as  highway  deicing, fertilizer and pesticide
 use  on public lands,  and operation of sanitary landfills,  ^e infiltration/
 inflow problem occurs at the interface between development and the public
 sewer system, while the design and operation of septic tank systems is
usually the responsibility of the developer.
                                    38

-------
3.1.1   Street Litter

-------

-------
3.1.1   Street Litter                      j
        This subsection addresses the problem of urban storrnwater contamina-
tion by street litter.  A variety of materials may reach the street surface,
including:  animal wastes, garbage, grit, oil, road salt, cinders, residual
particulates resulting from auto tire and lj>rake use, and other materials.
    measures presented in this subsection ire designed to remove these
materials before they reach the sewer system or other redeiving waters
 (lake, creek, stream, etc.).  Two major solution approaches are presented:
 street cleaning and catch basin cleaning.  , A number of other nonstructural
 measures will also be discussed which may  Deduce the effort required for
 these two approaches.                      i
        Although the accumulation of a certain amount of  street surface
 contaminants is inevitable, much of the  lijtter that reaches the street
 surface may be eliminated, or at least effectively controlled, at its
 source.   A direct  approach to reducing the! runoff  pollution potential can
 best be  accomplished through  active public education  and through  effective
 and enforceable  regulations and ordinances; relating to  street cleanliness.
 The local government can do  its part by  providing an  adequate number of
 litter containers, which should be kept  presentable and emptied frequently.
 Strict cleanliness practices  should be followed by city waste collection
 forces and other city departments which generate litter.  Well-publicized
 cleanup campaigns can also provide motivation for the public to clean up
 the premises and dispose of accumulated trash.
         Ordinances may be established describing improper littering
 practices  and prescribing penalties for violation.  In addition to general
 anti-litter ordinances, specific regulations may be directed to the following
 typical sources of litter in the urban  environment:  garbage and  refuse
 collection, open  trucks, public litter  receptacles, refuse dumping,
 building  construction  and demolition, street construction, sidewalk
  sweeping,  vacant  lots,  parking lots and garages,  drive-in restaurants,
  trailer courts  and campgrounds, sports  stadiums,  auditoriums and exhibition
  halls,  theatres,  food handling establishments ,  pet control,  distribution
  of handbills, posting of notices  and political  posters,  street vending,
  garden refuse,  scavengers, weed control, jdead animals , produce markets,
  and direct discharges into storm sewers.
                                         39
                                           i

-------
          The effectiveness of local ordinances will depend on enforcement,
  which will depend in turn on effective interdepartmental cooperation.   For
  example, the police department can enforce ordinances pertaining to
  littering from moving vehicles, illegal dumping of refuse,  the storage of
  construction materials on sidewalks and streets, etc.  -The  fire department
  can enforce regulations pertaining to storage of refuse which might create
  a fire hazard.   The health department can regulate the handling and
  storage of refuse by food-handling establishments.  Enforcement by  these
  agencies should include both inspections  and summonses.3
      .    Street  Cleaning;   Improved street cleaning practices,  including
  increased frequency of street cleaning and increased  removal  efficiency of
  street cleaning methods, may  serve  to  reduce runoff pollutant loadings
  and to reduce first flush  effects  in sewers.  Motorized  street sweepers
  are designed to loosen  dirt and debris  from street  surfaces, transport it
  onto a moving conveyor, and deposit it  temporarily in a  storage hopper.,
  The major types of street  sweepers  include  the broom-type sweeper, the
 vacuum-type sweeper, and a third type of sweeper which uses a regenerative
 air system to "blast" dirt and debris from the road surface into a hopper.4
         Mechanical street sweeping is ineffective for fine solids/ which
 account for only 5.9% of total solids, but 25% of oxygen demand.  The
 following removal efficiencies have been estimated:  total solids, 25%;
 BOD, 45%; COD,  30%; nitrates, 45%;  phosphates, 20%; heavy metals,  50%;  and
 total pesticides, 45%.  Sweeping efficiency, however,  varies with the
 area, rainfall,  frequency of passes, frequency of cleaning,  and the  skill
 of the  operator.
         The accumulation of street  surface contaminants may  be minimized
 by increasing the frequency of street  sweeping operations.   Commercial
 areas are generally swept more often than  other  land use  areas.  The
 effectiveness may  also be improved  by sweeping an  area  more  than once.
 Repeated passes over the same  area  can  effectively reduce the amount of
 pollutants remaining.  Since there  are  only  a finite number of available
 vehicles, however, an increased utilization  of street sweeping may require
 additional resources  to be  outlayed  by  the responsible agency.6
        Street sweeper costs vary widely, depending upon the individual
model.  The following capital costs  are representative of that range:
 3-wHeel.,  $21,000-25,000; 4-wheel, $32,000-35,000; and vacuum, $35,000-40,000.
                                     40

-------
A rough estimate of capital costs required for a given street sweeping
program would be on the order of $10 to $15/curb mile cleaned per year,
for the sweepers alone (ENR 2000). Operation  and maintenance costs will
vary more widely due to local conditions such as labor markets and the
condition of the streets swept.  Vacuum sweepers, in particular, may have
multiple uses. -Porous, paving,.for example, requires sweeping by vacuum to
prevent clogging of the pores  which  allow  water to  seep  through.  Moreover,
a wandering hose attachment .to the vacuum permits cleaning of catch basins
                    7                 i
to a certain degree..        ,          J     .          .
     .A major problem in most of the,larger cities is parked or abandoned
cars.  Parked cars make it impossible| for  street cleaning equipment to clean
all of the street.  Part of this problem may  be solved by parking regulations
which prohibit parking during  specifijj hours.   Some cities overcome this
problem by sweeping during rush hoursj when parking  regulations and tow-away
zones are enforced.   In residential  afeas, these parking restrictions may
apply only once or twice a week, while in  commercial areas they may apply
every day.   The problem of abandoned 'cars  is  much more difficult to
control, particularly in very  large  c|ities..   Abandoned cars not only
interfere with street cleaning operations, but  are,a source of  litter.
Abandoned cars should be removed from the  streets as soon  as possible,
either by.city forces or by  a  private contractor hired by  the city.  .The
sale or auction.of, operative vehicle^ (and possibly the  sale of parts)
 from a city-owned and operated junk yard could  help defray the  cost
          ,8                         j
of removal.           .         .. .      ,     .         	,
         Street cleaning will only be ieffective when no-parking regulations
 can,be enforced.  When this is not feasible, other approaches must be
 considered, such as catch basin cleaning.
         'Catch Basin Cleaning;  Catch:basins became standard before paved
 streets came into common use and were installed partly to prevent sewers
 becoming clogged with gravel, partly|as an odor seal.  When regularly
 cleaned, catch basins are found to be... effective 'in removing-fine solids.
 However, few are cleaned regularly enough  (in many cities, once yearly at
 most; in some cities, once every four years) and may-become a serious
                 .  '    .   9           i        •         '
 source of organic sludge.            |            •_.;••

-------
        Catch basins can be cleaned regularly in areas which are not ser-
viced by street sweeping equipment, depending on the remaining capacity
of the catch basins.  The cost of various methods of catch basin cleaning
are on the order of $3 to §4 per catch basin.10  Catch basins remove ap-
proximtely 56% of total solids and about 40% of BOD.
                                  42

-------
3.1.2   Highway Deicing

-------

-------
3.1.2   Highway Deicing                 j
        Deicing salts and their additiv4s may cause serious water pollution
problems and deterioration of roadside vegetation.  If salt is used to deice
highways, the problem can be reduced through careful application and storage,
but not entirely eliminated.  Deicing salts are used in nearly every state
in the snow belt.  Heavier applications|are often used on steep slopes;
therefore, the problem may be worse in Ailly areas.  Aquifer recharge
areas are particularly susceptible to gtoundwater pollution from deicing
salts, due to the rapid movement of chloride ions in the soil.  These
measures generally apply to public agencies, except where private develop-
ments include large paved areas.        ,
        The use of deicing salts results ::from the demand for bare pavements
during periods of snow.  This policy is! based on safety considerations.  For
example, stopping distances are 478" onjicy pavement, 183' on sanded pave-
ment, and 66' on saltad'pavement  (bare,jbut wet).  However, use of deicing
salt also causes serious corrosion to automobiles and highway structures, may
damage the pavement  (especially uncuredj concrete), and may cause
deterioration of roadside soils.  Additives  to  deicing salts may  also  be
pollution hazards  (e.g., cyanide  from the breakdown of an anticaking agent).
         Measures to be  considered include:  greater use of sand in place of
salt in  less  critical icing areas; greater use  of mechanical  snow removal
techniques;  careful metering  of salt wh'ere used;  careful storage  of salt;
 and the  minimization of damage to vegetation due to jmnoff of deicing
 salt by  the  use of salt tolerant  speciejs for plantings.
         At present there are  no economical alternatives  for sodium chloride
 and calffiium chloride mixes  for deicingjhighways.  The use  of abrasives alone
 is not sufficiently effective for public acceptance,  and costly programs
 would be required to empty sediment traps, clean curbs,  etc.  Salt use,
 however, may be reduced without sacrificing safety:   no salt application on
 straight, flat sections; better training of operators on salt-spreading
 equipment; and improved records of salf use.13  In addition, new types of
 salt spreaders and snowplows may be considered, as well as improved cab
 monitoring devices that will control salt application more accurately.
         A number of other possibilities were examined in an EPA-sponsored
 study:  external in-slab thermal melting, stationary/mobile melters,
 substitute deicing compounds, aompressed air types of snowplows,  adhesion-
12
                                       43
                                       i

-------
  reducing pavement materials, solar energy-storing pavement substances,
  electromagnetic ideshatterers, improved drainage (enhancing runoff,
  accident reduction, and snow melt control/treatment)', salt retrieval/treat-
  ment, and improved tire/vehicle design.14
          An alternative to salt is the use; of abrasives such as sand and
  cinders.  However, abrasives do not" fit"into the "bare pavement" policy
  which now prevails, and they can become stormwater pollutants.   Although
  abrasives generally contribute.only small amounts of dissolved,, solids to
  runoff,  they can contribute significant portipns'of  the suspended solids.
  Large quantities of sand and cinders  can  clog, storm  and combined sewers.
  Most cities  remove  a large portion of the  abrasives  during street cleaning,'
  but the  added cost  of collecting large amounts of sand.and cinders must be  "
  included in  the cost of their use.  In addition^  abrasives are more!       .7
  expensive  (by weight)  than sodium chloride,  with salts,, however,  many of .""'
  the costs  (such as those.for.corrosion damage^degradation.of water^
  supplies, and damage  to roadside vegetation) are.indirect  and .often
  ignored.  Hence, in some instances, a more complete economic comparison
 might favor abrasives over salt.15
         Salt storage sites should be chosen not only for their accessibility,
 but also because they are well drained, not on an aquifer recharge area,
 and not subject to overland runoff from upslope areas.  Storage areas should
 be covered for protection.   During loading, the area  of the storage heap
 uncovered at any one time should be minimized and,  following loading,  the
 loading pad should be thoroughly swept. Cleaning of  spreading equipment
 should be carried out on the loading pad where  brine  will discharge into  a
 holding vault.  Better designed  salt-handling equipment for loading
 spreaders to  eliminate scatter and waste should be developed.
        Roadside planting may be  affected by  the salt  concentration in
 the  soil  or by spray:   salt-tolerant species  of trees  and grass should be
 used for  all new plantings.   Tree plantings should avoid  areas where:salts
 tend to accumulate (hollows, etc.).  Existing sensitive species should be
protected by diverting contaminated runoff away  from their  root systems.
 Shese recommendations apply principally to plantings within 30- of the
pavement.
        A major consideration for highway maintenance  is the fact that use
of abrasives in deicing mixtures mixtures will necessitate clean-up •
                                       44

-------
operations following thaw, especially jsediment traps (about $3 each).  Also,
buildup of salt concentrations in highway soils will be reduced if mowings
are harvested (suggested for recharge Ureas), and "dead ponds" will require
annual clean-out if they arenfound to jbe feasible.'
        Some courts have stated clearJly that once an authority has started
to maintain a road in a certain condition, it must continue to do so or
run the risk of liability suits.  ThejMinnesota legislature has approved
restrictions on the use of deicing chemicals in order to:  (a) minimize
the harmful or corrosive  effects-of  salt or  other chemicals upon vehicles,
roadways, and vegetation;  (b) reduce the pollution of waters; and  (c) reduce
the driving hazards resulting from chemicals on windshields.  Road
authorities, including cities, villages, and boroughs, responsible for the
maintenance of the highways, are  limited to using deicing  salts or other
chemicals only upon hills,. and only  if, in the opinion of  the road
authorities, removal of snow by plowing or sanding or by natural elements
                                     .-!          17   -
cannot be accomplished within a reasonable time.

-------

-------
3.1.3   Fertilizers and Pesticides

-------
 3.1.3   Fertilizers  and Pesticides
         A number of  measures may be employed to prevent pollution of runoff
 due  to chemical  use  on  municipal land  (parks, recreation areas, golf
 courses,  urban open  spaces, etc.) as well as on agricultural land in
 urbanizing areas.  The  indiscriminate use of chemicals for the control of
 unwanted pest infestations and the improvement of soil and plant nutrient
 conditions should be reduced.  The limited use of these chemicals should
 be consistent with their intended purpose, and careful attention should be
 paid  to their storage and distribution.
        A professional  licensing system for handlers and users of pesticides
 and fertilizers may be practical.  Such licenses would be awarded only to
 those who demonstrated competence in the handling of such materials, and
 could be revoked for failure to comply with applicable regulations designed
 to prevent the introduction of such materials into ground or surface waters.
Alternatives to the use of fertilizers and pesticides should also be
examined.
                                   46

-------
3.1.4   Land Disposal of Wastes

-------

-------
 3.1.4  Land Disposal of Wastes         | •
        •This subsection discusses the design, location, and operation of
septic tank systems and sanitary landfills to minimize the problem of
polluted runoff due to land disposal of jwastes.  These facilities should be
designed to take into account population density, type of development, and
the natural characteristics of the site.j  Surface runoff can introduce
septic tank seepage into receiving waters when a combination of high usage and
heavy rainfall are present.  Overconcentration of septic tanks within a
given area can overtax the assimilative jability of the subsoil strata.  Septic
tanks serve their purpose best when population densities are low.
        The soil condition surrounding 4 septic tank plays a vital role in
its operation.  If this strata contains]clay-related soils, then a semi-
                                        I-
permeable condition exists which will allow very little, if any, absorption.
Capillary action may then cause seepagejto rise to the surface, where it
can be picked up by surface water runoff.  Clay^related soils also contribute
to lateral movement, rather than downward movement, of septic tank seepage.
This seepage will tend to seek its own level and will move along the path of
least resistance until other soil types affect it.  At this point it can
                                                         18
be either further absorbed or move closer to the surface.
        Septic tank systems should be used only in low density developments
and only where soils are well-drained,  jPeriodic maintenance is required
to provide reliable operation.  Septic i:anks should be pumped out at
approximately 2-year intervals to remove solids that have built up.  It is
important riot to overload the system to, ensure a long  life span for the
field disposal system.  Water from roofj drains or foundation drains should
                     19
not enter the system.
        Many states have adopted detailed regulations  to govern the
operation of sanitary  landfills, in  ordjsr to prevent pollution of ground
or surface water  from leachate or overflow  at  the disposal  site..'., Regula-
tions of the State  of  Hawaii prohibit  the establishment or  operation  of
any solid waste disposal  facility withojut a permit  from the State Director
of Health.   Permit applications must be accompanied by detailed plans and
 specifications  for the facility  and by Ian operations plan report.   Per-
mittees are required by these  regulations to compact  and  cover all  solid
waste accumulated after each day's  operation with earth or other  approved
 material so as  to safeguard the environmental quality of  the  surrounding
                                   47

-------
 area,  They are also required to have monitoring equipment in place to
 detect any pollution or contamination that might result from operation of the
 facility;  to maintain a minimum vertical separation of five feet
 between the deposited waste and the anticipated high groundwater  table;  to
 have adequate provisions for minimizing the flow of off-site drainage  over
 the landfill; and to deposit solid wastes in such a manner as "toiprevent
 waste materials,  leachate,  or eroded soil particles from entering :the
 waters of  the State without receiving the best  practicable treatment or
 control."20
        Regulations  of this type might also  establish  limits  on the widths
 of  the working space,  require all  lifts  to be graded so as  to facilitate
 drainage,  and require  the operator to meet periodic self-monitoring,
 recording,  and reporting requirements.  Lagooning of sewage, sludge, or
 seepage could be prohibited, as well as acceptance of infectious or other-
wise hazardous wastes.  Sanitary codes may specify the requirements for
design, location, and operation of septic tank systems.           \
                                48

-------
3.1.5   Infiltration/Inflow

-------

-------
3.1.5   Infiltration/inflow            !
        Serious problems result from excessive infiltration into sewers from
groundwater sources, as well as from high inflow rates from sources other
than those which the sewers were intended to serve.  Infiltration is the
volume of groundwater entering sewers and building sewer connections from
the soil through defective joints, broken, cracked or eroded pipe, improper
connections, and manhole walls.  Inflo* is that volume of water discharged
into sewer lines from such sources as roof leaders, cellar and yard drains,
foundation drains,  commercial and industrial "clean water" discharges,
drains  from springs and swampy areas, Depressed manhole covers and cross
connections.                           i
         Inflow sources generally represent a. deliberate connection of  a
drain  line to  a sewerage  system.  Thesfe connections may be authorized  and
permitted, or  they  may be illicit connections  made for the convenience of
property owners without consideration pf  their effects on public  sewer
systems. The  intrusion of these waterjs takes  up  flow capacity  in the
sewers, and, especially in the  relatively small capacity sanitary sewers,
they may cause flooding of street  and jroad areas, thus  constituting a  health
hazard.  In this  case the sanitary seyers actually function  as  combined
 sewers, and the resulting flooding becjomes a form of combined sewer
          21                           !
 overflow.                             j
         The measures presented in thisj subsection concentrate on the
 reduction of inflow to the sewer system.   Correction of inflow conditions
 is dependent on regulatory action on t|he part of city officials, rather
 than public construction practices.  If elimination of existing inflows
 is deemed necessary because of advers^ effects of these flows on sewer
 systems, pumping stations, treatment plants,  or  combined sewer regulator-
 oveUflow installations,  new or more restrictive  sewer-use regulations may
 have  to be invoked.                   j
          The effects of inflows into sewers can be greatly reduced by  a
 number of methods.  Many authorities advocate the discharge of roof water
 into  street gutter areas or onto on-l6t  areas in the hope that it will
 percolate into the soil.   Discharging] roof or areaway drainage onto the
 land  or into  street  gutters reduces  the  immediate impact on the  sewer system
 by allowing reduction of the volume  and  attenuation of the flow.   The use
 of pervious drainage swales and surface  storage  basins within  urban areas  al-
  lows  the stormwater  to percolate  intoj the ground (see Section  3.2.2).
                                      4J9

-------
          The removal of connections of roof drains to sanitary or combined
  sewers is a method commonly used to reduce the hydraulic loading on
  sewers and sewage treatment plants.  A successful program of removal  of roof
  drain connections can provide an effective and economical means  of reducing
  local flooding and pollution problems if satisfactory means  are  employed on-
  site to handling resulting roof drainage.23  Direct  connection of roof
  drains to  sewers allows  large volumes of rainwater to reach  the  sewer
  system in  a short period of time,   if roof downspouts were permitted to
  discharge  on ground surfaces instead  of  intp  sewers,  there would>be opportunity
  for  infiltration,  detention in small  puddles, and  subsequent evaporation of
  the  stormwater,  and that portion of the  drainage which reached sewer inlets
  would be reduced.   These various measures can reduce  sewer flows appreciably.24
         Inspection and removal  of illegal drain connections costs approxi-
  mately  $3 per building inspected and  about  $4 per downspout removed.
  Considerable savings at the  sewage treatment plant may be realized due to re-  :
  duced inflow.    The removal of downspouts from a sanitary sewer system will
 provide favorable results in the form of reduced complaints,  reduced
 operational costs, and improved operation of the treatment works,  while
 similar results may not be as apparent on a combined  system,  nevertheless
 such a campaign can be most effective26  Sanitary ordinances  may  prohibit
 the connection of roof drains to sanitary sewers,  but, if they are not
 enforced, the inflow problem may remain.
         Excessive infiltration is a  serious problem in the design,  construc-
 tion, operation,  and maintenance of  sewer systems.  Neither combined sewers
 nor separate sanitary  sewers are designed to accept large  quantities of
 such  infiltration flows.   The problem  of  infiltration  involves two basic
 areas of concern:   (1) prevention in new  sewers by  adequate design,
 construction, inspection, and testing  practices; and  (2) the elimination or
 cure  of  existing  infiltration in old sewers by proper  survey,  investigation,
 and corrective measures.  Control of infiltration in new sewer systems
 involves engineering decisions and specifications of the methods and
materials of sewer construction, pipe, joints,  and laying procedures and
techniques.   Correction of existing sewer infiltration can be  accomplished by
three basic approaches:  replacing the defective component, sealing the
existing openings, and building within the existing component.27
                                   50

-------
3.2
MEASURES TO REDUCE RUNOFF 'AND INCREASE  INFILTRATION

-------

-------
3.2
Measures to Reduce Runoff and Increase Infiltration
        The urbanization process involves! an increase in the total area
covered by impermeable surfaces, leading |to two related problems:  increased
runoff and decreased infiltration.  The technical approaches presented in
this section are divided into two subsections:  delay of runoff on-site and
increased infiltration on-site.  The majcjr objective of these measures is the
maintenance of runoff volumes and peaks jrom areas undergoing urban develop-
ment at or near those from areas under "riatural"  (rough grassland) condi-
tions.  Additionally, measures to'increase infiltration may also serve to
maintain sufficient infiltration to shallow ground water to ensure no
retardation in the dry weather flow of streams and to maintain recharge
of major aquifers at a level equivalent fo those  under natural conditions.
        Reduction of runoff, volumes' and jbeaks will lead to reduced frequency
of flooding and lower flood peaks, alongjwith reduced risk of erosion and
sedimentation.  Increasing; infiltration £o maintain  dry weather  flow in
streams will  reduce the  impact of various pollutants on the stream quality,
since  sufficient dilution  flow would  be  available.   Finally, maintenance
of aquifer recharge will ensure  an  adequate water supply.
         The technical approaches to be presented are generally permanent
measures which must be  installed by the  Developer and must  remain in
place  after::the  development is  completed!.   A number  of  the  measures,
however, may be  applied as modifications to existing developments,  in order
 to reduce  water  pollution problems.      |
                                    51

-------

-------
3.2.1   Delay of Runoff On-Site

-------
  3.2.1   Delay of Runoff On-Site

          Delay of runoff,.,or ion-site detention, may be accomplished by a
  number of approaches:                                         ., i
          •  storage in permanent ponds having provision for variable depth,
          •  temporary ponding on paved areas,  and
          •  temporary ponding  on roofs of buildings
  On-site detention of stormwater runoff can be an effective, economical method
  or urban stormwater management.   Besides controlling local  flooding and
  water pollution,  on-site  detention may also provide  aesthetic benefits,
  recreational opportunities, reduced erosion and  sedimentation hazard,
  and augmentation  of local water  supplies (in  some cases).  On-site  detention
  of runoff appears most desirable in flood-prone  or erosion-prone areas,
  and the economics seem favorable  for both new developments and .existing
  urbanized areas.  On-site detention will prevent overflow of combined sewers,
 may permit smaller storm sewers to be used, and may reduce flow rates in
  sewers to levels at which treatment would be  feasible.28  However, a number
 of problems must be considered before implementation of such measures is
 practical.
         •The legal basis to require property owners and land developers to
 provide and operate stormwater detention facilities  must be examined.  Some
 of the types of legislation used by local jurisdictions to control storm-
 water runoff from new land developments and urban renewal projects include:
 subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances,  building  codes,  plumbing and
 sewer  ordinances,  water pollution control ordinances,  flood  control
 ordinances,  and drainage fee assessment ordinances  (some  of which- provide
 for reducing the assessment if stormwater detention facilities are
 installed).  Water pollution laws in Maryland  recognize silt as a water
 pollutant, and  detention ponding  is  used to  control sedimentation  from
 erosion of land developments, particularly during the construction period.
 State  flood control laws, such as  in Virginia, .have been interpreted broadly
 to  allow for the inclusion of the  requirement  for detention ponds to
 control flooding.  Most local building codes do not require detention storage,
although some public agencies  (e.g.,  the Denver Urban Renewal Agency) do
require that rooftop storage be incorporated into the design of buildings.29
Jurisdictions that mention rooftop storage in building codes specify various
                                   52

-------
standards of construction, including Jh* maximum water depth on roof,
roof slope, size of roof drainage leaders, and the number of leaders for a
given roof area.  At least one national organization, the Building
Officials and Code Administrators, International, has developed standards
for detention storage of rainfall on roofs.
        Additional legal considerations or complications may include the
following:  legal responsibility for ^naintenance of detention storage
facilities, whether rooftop, parking jlot, surface pond, or other facility;
legal responsibility for damages resulting from operation or physical
failure of stormwater detention facilities; legal responsibility for
damages.caused by excessive flows of jstormwater when  released from facilities
located on public or private lands; liegal responsibility for providing  safety
facilities to minimize  the hazards oi  on-site  detention facilities,
especially-as an attraction to children;  and the legal right to use  or
consumption  of  the  stored stormwater<  thereby  disturbing normal flows of
water into areas downstream from detention facilities.
         Potential political problemsjinclude that  of modifying existing
 laws, building codes,  zoning  ordinances,  subdivision regulations,  etc.,
 to include requirements for on-site Detention  of stormwater runoff that
 are practical and effective  for solving water  pollution and drainage problems,
 and are also acceptable to politicians and officials of the various public
 agencies involved.   Related administrative problems may involve enforcement
 of the 'laws and regulations as established.31  Enforcement of local laws
 pertaining to land development 'usually includes inspection, approval of
 construction, and provision for fines or other penalties.  For example,
 under the subdivision  regulations of  a community, the initial plat may not
 be approved unless stormwater detention  fabilities are provided for in the
 plans submitted.  Under the community's  sewer' permit ordinances, connections
 to the sewers might not be permitted;  until  adequate  detention of runoff is
 provided.   If either law is violated, penalties can  usually be assessed.
 •Ehis, of course, is an effective mea|ns. of obtaining  compliance.
          Another factor which  must be  considered is the problem of securing
 public  acceptance  of on-site  detention as the best,  or most-practical,
 method  of handling runoff in  their community. A  public education program
 might be beneficial to explain the alternatives and the reasons  for
  choosing on-site detention.33  Belated acceptance problems may also be
                                     |
                                     i
                                     53

-------
  associated with, the design and construction of storage facilities,  •'
  including:  the accurate determination of runoff rates (existing iand
  future), the availability of space for construction of facilities, the
  capacity of downstream facilities to handle outflows, the need to build
  facilities to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the local
  environment, and the reluctance of builders,  architects,  and building
  owners to store water puposefully on roofs of buildings.34
          Financial problems  may arise concerning allocation of the costs
  of the facility and obtaining financial aid for defraying both the
  initial and on-going costs.   Land developers  are often required to bear
  the entire cost of construction of detention  facilities in the same  fashion
  that they  must  pay for sewer  construction,  in existing land developments,
  the costs  are not  usually borne directly by the property  owners  in the
  area served by  the facility.35
         OSie biggest problem of implementing effective  stormwater detention
 programs is in  obtaining cooperation from neighboring  local  jurisdictions.
 Since major floods  in a community are often the result of excess runoff-
 flows from nearby upstream communities, flood-prone areas must depend upon
 upstream communities to implement proarams of flood control which may
 provide little  direct benefit to these neighboring communities.36  A  ntunbe*
 of the above problems may apply in the implementation of erosion and
 sedimentation control measures, as discussed in the next section.
         Use of detention storage may reduce the size of the storm sewers '
 required.   Regular maintenance must be provided on rooftops to clear  any
 clogging materials.  In totally developed areas,  rooftop storage may  be
 the only feasible solution;  land for open-space detention  ponds and basins
 may not be  available and the use of deep tunnels  or underground tanks may
 be  impractical,  either because of  initial cost,  cost of operation, .geological
 conditions, or the  rules and regulations of the public  agencies  involved.37
 It  seems that the economics of on-site stormwater detention may be  quite
 appealing,  if the  detention facility can serve multiple-purpose uses, such
 as  recreation, the  economic potentials become even more attractive because
a portion of the cost of the facility is allocated to other uses.
        Surface Basins and Ponds.  Usually detention basins and ponds
constructed on ground surfaces are relatively large, having the appearance
of a small pond or lake.  The design of such facilities will vary
                                   54

-------
'depending,.upon, the land costs, space Availability, physical and aesthetic
characteristics of the area, topography, clinjatefc ;andapther.local factors.
Whether or not the detention facility, is to serve multipurpose uses,.
such as, recreation, is,a factor that ijiay also dictate,size, shape, depth,
and landscaping treatment.  For example, a detention, pond designed to
serve as,a recreational pond for bpating and .fishing would require different
design criteria than a pond which  is j» serve Iphe single. function of
stormwater.detention.  Generally speaking, the  availability of large open
areas will permit  a: design having  gentle side.slopes and extensive land-
scaping,  while sites.'where land is limited might dictate deep ponding  areas,
pumped  discharge,  and  steep  side slopps that require fencing  and other
security measures  to.minimize  safety hazards  to children.
         The  major  design characteristics are  thevolume of .storage needed
and the maximum permitted release  ratje.  Storage volume needed is given by the
maximum difference, at any time, between cumulative total  inflow volume and
cumulative outflow volume measured fijom the beginning,of inflow.  The maximum
permitted release^rate can be calculated by determining the maximum dis-.
 charge capacities of downstream sewer,, systems or receiving streams,  and
 taking into account,administrative restrictions.that may be imposed by local
                                     j       38
 authorities to regulate the discharge .rate.       .
         A detention basin is the mosfeffective, technique for reducing the
 peak flow at a point immediately downstream of  the  impoundment, and
 should be used where frequent floodihg of the area  immediately downstream
 is intolerable.   Detention ponds  can!be used to delay runoff on sites
 where seepage at  the source is infeakble;  A detention pond requires some
 sort of,collection system to  feed it[  Developers may.find that the cost
 of the  collection system  makes the. provision of .."at source"  detention more
 economical.   However, where "at source" methods,are expensive or    ,
 infeasible,:detention ponds may be used.  They are  especially suited  to
 cluster development where ponds can j>e incorporated into open-space systems.
          A detention pond can  be designed to,-catch  a .large  proportion  of
 suspended ;solids  of more than 10  microns in .diameter.   A pond with  a.
 large  freeboard  for detention.may halve some  recreational  and aesthetic ,
 benefits if the  runoff is not carrying too much sediment.   However, a
 detention pond for maximum runoff cdntrol  will'have very little recreational
  or aesthetic value.   Detention ponds  that empty out entirely can have an..
  unsightly nature that can be a detriment in urban developments.  Detention

-------
 ponds hold runoff and release it at a slower rate,  which  normally results
 in a flattening.of the hydrograph.   As a result,  detention basins and ponds
 *ay allow a significant reduction in the size of  required storm sewers.
        An example of a jurisdiction which has incorporated detention, devices
 into its  regulatory framework is  New Castle  County, Delaware..  Section 440
 of the New Castle  County Ground-Water Drainage Code states that "in order to
 minimize  downstream flow increases,  developers may be required to provide
 on-site stormwater  storage capacity  in the form of delayed runoff designs.
 Such improvements shall be required when downstream improvements are phy-
 sically or economically impractical, or when increased runoff is dispropor-
tionate to the rest of the area.39                                  '
        Young et al.  report the following estimated capital costs for
 detention tanks of various sizes, along with the removal efficiencies of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids:40
                           Cost and Performance
                           of Detention Tanks
Detention Tank
Volume
Gal Ions/acre
2500
7500
15000
25000
Source: Young, G.K. , et
Nonpoint Source Pollution

Capital Cost
$/acre
§ $1400
4300
8600
14400
al. Model to Design
Suspended
BOD Solids .
% Removal % Removal
. .18%
79
•30.
39
37%
58
65
67
Stormwater Detention Tanks for
Abatement. April 1975. (Unpublished)
                                     56

-------
        Parking Lot Storage.  Temporary sjtorage of stormwater on parking
lots is another means employed to reduce Runoff rates and sewer loadings.
The use of paved plazas in and around commercial buildings and office
buildings to detain stormwater, is similar, to the use of parking lots.
However, there are differences, betwen thejse two approaches with regard to
tributary drainage areas, grading requirements,, and the maximum depth of  .
water that can be ponded before causing inconvenience to the public.
        Unlike ponding  on rooftops  ther4  is no  limit,  from a  structural
standpoint,  to the depth of water that cefn be  stored.   Another advantage  is
that the  surface does not need  to be dead-level  as is  true in  the case  of roof-
top storage. Because of the  ease of  inspection  and access,, the maintenance
and operation of parking lot  storage  facilities  is a low cost item and  easy
to perform with mechanical  street cleaning equipment.   The likelihood of ex-
 tensive use of  porous pavement in some geographic areas, as discussed later in
 Section 3.2.2,  may mean that detained wa^er can seep into the ground instead
 of being discharged into the sewer syste^n.  This can be an important corollary
 advantage in watershort areas.            .
         Problems with the use of parking  lots for stormwater detention may be
 reduced to  acceptable inconveniences by jpcpper planning and design.  Detention
 of  stormwater on parking lots would not jbe favored by parking  lot users
 because of  the inconvenience that ponding imposes and  its interference wxth
 vehicle access and movements.  Steep  slopes may be  required to provide
 sufficient  storage  in  a small  area, resulting in water depths that  might
 cause problems for  people  when walking |to their vehicles.  The
 steepness of the  lot might be  displeasing to  some people, and such a lot
 might cause difficulty in  walking for elderly and handicapped persons.  The
  steep slopes could also cause problems {,f vehicle entry or exit because of
  reduced traction at times  when ice forms on the paved areas.
           There are two general forms of! stormwater detention on parking lot
  surfaces.  One form involves the storage of runoff in depressions constructed
  at drain locations.  The stored water is drained into the sewer  system  slowly,
  using restrictions  such as orifice plates  in  the drain.  Proper design
  would restrict ponding to areas which Jill cause the  least inconvenience to
  users of the lot.   For example, the pacing  lot of a  shopping center would
  have the ponding areas located in the  {east-used portions of the lot, allowing
                                    57

-------
   customers to walk,to their vehicles in areas of no ponding except when the
   entire lot is fiiled with vehicles.  Drainage of ponded water should be   '
   fairly rapid, as compared to rooftop storage, to prevent, customer    •    - '  ;
   inconvenience.  In most cases,  the water would pond to a depth not>o    >•
   exceed 12" and the ponding area would most likely be drained'within  30
   minutes or less after the rainfall.     .
           Another type  of stormwater detention on parking lots  consists of
   using  the  paved areas of the  lot to  channel  the runoff to grassed a,eas    '
   or gravel-filled seepage pits,   ^  flow  then infiltrates into the ground
   Soil -conditions  and the  effects  of siltation  in reducing infiltration     '
  must be considered.
          Rooftop Storage. : Horizontal -rooftops are used in some areas  for
  stormwater detention.   Rooftops  can provide storage which will not ,
  inconvenience pedestrians or motorists.  Since such a facility is no1-
  usually visible from the ground, a  rooftop detention facility is not  unsightly
  and is  not a safety hazard for children.   However, potential  problems of '
  leakage,  such as possible structural overloading,  maintenance•for removal of
  debris  and  ice,  and the possibility, that heavy rainfalls will  overflow the
  top of  the  roof if.drains, become blocked,  must be  considered.  Serious
  damage  to the building and its contents could-result  if the facility were
  improperly  designed or maintained.42  Retarding  runoff on flat roofs will •
  result in greatly increased loads, in turn resulting in increased cost
 of construction,  m some  cases the savings from reduced storm drainage
 costs may make up this  difference.  Unfortunately, where retardation is
 most needed (large acreage single-story buildings) clear spans are also
 needed,  so^ small increased load on -the roof can result in  large cost
 increases.
         A flat roof  may be used as a retarding pond by delaying the flow  of
 runoff to the downpipe.  One approach  employs  a perforated strainer with
 limited  capacity on  the downpipe  inlet.  Provision  must  be made for an
 emergency overflow before  water spills over the top of the roof parapet
Runoff must  also overflow  before the .maximum permissible load on the roof
xs reached.  Another approach uses gravel detention barriers across a
flat roof.                                                 .      ,
                                  58

-------
        On sloping, roofs it is possible to construct runoff checks--which
effectively increase the time of concentration.  However, as; soon as the
"findams" are full, the rate of runoff will be constant, provided that the
storm continues at the same intensity.  TJiis technique may be useful to
reduce ^runoff peaks of very short, very .ijitense storms which may put an
excess load on a storm drainage system.  However, installation of these
barriers, may increase leaks and the retention of larger amounts of snow
                               A A         I
may result in excessive loads.
                              44
                                     limizi
        Potential problems may be minimized by proper design, especially
if storage; is designed into the original plans and not provided later as an
afterthought.  Maintenance is a bit more Difficult and will require
periodic attention, especially/in the autumn during and ..-..after the leaf-
falling season.  However, all horizontaljroofs in urban areas need>such main-
tenance and the added effort to maintainja roof designed to detain rain
water should, not be,unreasonable.  In many cases the roofs will be sufficiently
high or .the buildings will be located iniareas where maintenance would
not be a problem because  debris would not/accumulate enough  to cause a
blockage.of  the roofscuppers, gutters/ or rain leaders.
      ,. ,osie  possibility of. overflows is present with any roof structure,
although it  is more likely when  stormwatfer is  stored on the  roof.  One  •  "
alternative  usually required by  building! codes •• is  the  use  of overflow drains
and scuppers,in,the parapet  wall.  Proper maintenance  and periodic inspection
                                         I       . '     45   .    ....    ,..-..  • • •
will reduce  the  possibility  and  hazards  pf overflows.
                                     59

-------

-------
3.2.2   Increased Infiltration On-Site  j

-------
   3-2-2   Increased Infiltration on site                       ;  '
          This subsection deals with a number of measures designed to
  increase infiltration on site.  The purpose of these techniques is
  threefold:

          (1) To maintain runoff volumes and peaks from areas undergoing
  urban development at or near natural conditions.
          (2) To maintain sufficient infiltration to shallow ground water
  in order to insure no retardation in the dry weather flow of streams.
          (3) To maintain recharge  of major aquifers at a level equivalent
  to those under natural conditions.
          It should be stressed that  increased infiltration  of severely
  polluted stormwater  runoff may cause ground  water  contamination.   Therefore,
  the measures described here apply more to  those  areas still  undergoing urban
  development rather than those  areas where  dense  urban development already
  exists.  The former  group of areas represents a  type of land use still in
  the process of formation and it is here that stormwater .runoff pollution can
 be successfully contained through careful planning.  At this stage, the
 volume and rate of runoff are increasing due to the encroachment of
 urbanization; yet the runoff itself is not so severely polluted.  For this
 reason, the runoff may be used to  recharge ground water in water short areas
 through the methods intended to increase infiltration which are  described  in
 this subsection.   Where dense  urban development is  evident, as in the latter
 group of land uses,  increased  infiltration may cause ground water contamina-
 tion.   Here, where the flexibility of approach is limited,  more  corrective
 measures may be  called upon, such  as  street sweeping and catch basin
 cleaning described in the previous  section.
         Several  approaches are described:   Dutch  drains,  porous  paving—.,.
 asphalt, precast concrete lattice  blocks  and  bricks,  seepage  basin  or
 recharge basin  (single use), recharge basin (multiuse),  seepage  pits  or
 dry wells,  and other  methods.   As mentioned above,  these approaches involve
 permanent measures, that is, measures which must be  installed by ; the
 developer during the  development process and which must remain in place
 after the development has been  completed.  However, a number of the measures
might also be applied after development has been completed.
                                 60

-------
        Dutch Drains.  Dutch drains are gravel-filled ditches with  an
optional drainage pipe in the base.   The purpose of  Dutch drains  is to
reduce the volume of storm  runoff  and to reduce flood peaks by  increasing
ground infiltration.  Dutch drains intercept  sheet runoff prior to  concentra-
tion as compared to infiltration ditches.   This measure may be  applied  on
any type of  site where .the  permeability of the soil  is sufficient or where
seasonably high  water tables are not  anticipated.  These'drains may either
accommodate  the  maximum  flow for a 24-hour flood and thus avoid the need
                                       I                 ,            .
for a storm-drain system, or they  may be designed  to take less  runoff,  in
which case they  will only act as retarding devices as :;far as  reduction  of
flood peaks  is concerned.              |              . .   ;  ; r
         Dutch, drains enjoy the  following advantages:  they, reduce the total volume
.of runoff  and can reduce peaking effects  of local  floods;  enhance ground-
water  supply;  improve  quality of vegetLtion on site, by increasing available
water,in the ground;  and result in a reduction in the size of storm drains
 required downslope of. the facility.  ^owever, unless "at., source" seepage
 facilities are either designed for lar|ge storms or incorporate some method
 of controlled runoff release,  they may, not effectively reduce  flood peaks when
 one storm follows another  so closely  that all facilities are full.  ,The
 drains,, if possible, should be  designed to overflow before their;capacity is
 reached during  intensive storms.  Dut^h drains are  subject to  clogging.
 in addition, Dutch drains  do not  eliminate the need for a storm  drainage.
 .system downslope to take the overflow! from exceptional
-------
  during intensive storms.   Similarly,  if the  surface of Dutch drains  has a
  longitudinal fall allowing runoff  during excessively heavy rain, peaks will
  be lower.   Dutch drains on well-drained soils may reduce the size of ne.eded
  storm drainage  facilities,  resulting  in a cost savings.46
         Porous  Paving—Asphalt.  Porous pavement consists of a base course of
  crushed gravel  with a surface course  of porous asphalt concrete.47  While still
  an experimental measure with limited  application, porous pavement must be
  considered  in this manual;  Porous pavement, is being studied as a means to:
  absorb1 rainfall where it falls, preventing runoff and combined sewer
  overflows and eliminating the need for  treatment plants to handle stormwater;
 hold back stormwater surges; allow the water to percolate into the ground at
 its own rate, and/or store it for use;  conserve water and land; avoid puddles
 in flat areas and provide adequate drainage without crowns and sloping;
 prevent accidents due to standing water; minimize damage  to the environment;
 present a satisfying appearance; and provide a possible means  of disposing of
 solid wastes by reuse of these materials for construction purposes.:
         Use of porous pavement will be practical  only  if  it can meet  the
 following  criteria:   it must be  able  to carry loads without damage, :be able
 to survive freeze-thaw cycles  and other weathering, be easy to  repair and hard
 to damage;  and be capable of absorbing all or most of the rainfall with pro-
 vision for cleaning the pavement, should the  pores become clogged.  Porous
 pavement is  competitive in  cost  with normal pavement when the cost of drainage
 facilities to service normal pavement  is included.  However, for parking lots
 and playgrounds, the cost of porous pavement  is more than the cost of alterna-
 tive pavement.   Depending on the situation, though, porous pavement may create
 additional benefits:  no standing water,  reduced load in combined sewers, and
 restoration  of water supply.  Porous pavement is thus an atractive alternative
 in areas where the natural soil  is free-draining.  In all cases, the subbase
 design must  take into account the moisture conditions that must be accommodated.
        A roadway or parking lot could provide considerable water storage
 without  interfering with normal  usage  and additional storage could be obtained
 cheaply by adding more base material.  This water can then be allowed to drain
 naturally into the soil, depending on  the soil permeability; or, if collected,
 it can be used elsewhere or routed into  the sewer system.   In any case, careful
 consideration must be given to the bearing capacity of the subbase to assure
proper roadway support. -Finally, groundwater movement  may be restored to

                                  62

-------
                                        !            48
  natural conditions,  helping to replenish supplies.     Of course,  other
  local factors must also be considered:|  geographic and temperature,  surface
  and subsurface soil conditions, and the possibility of groundwater
                48                     • !
  .contamination.                        I
        Porous pavement reduces the total volume of runoff from paved areas
and can reduce the peaking effect of lockl floods and enhance the groundwater
supply,  savings may be realized by redubing the need for storm sewers and curbs;
pedestrians may also benefit since there! would be no puddles.  However, it has
not been clearly established that the filtering effect of the subbase results
in a significant improvment in the quality of runoff if polluted.  Under certain
circumstances the surface may become clogged, and its permeability would be
reduced.  Inadequate maintenance, rain o|n a frozen surface, and certain condi-
tions  during snowmelt may all result in jrunoff.  Higher construction  costs
would  be involved where  curbs are necessary, and maintence costs may  be high.
The  sizing of  storm sewer systems is determined by ordinance  in most  munici-
palities.  Porous paving is  a relative!^  new development,  and few  jurisdictions
permit its use.  Where  it can be used, however,  regulations may not permit any
reduction in  the size of storm drains,  r
        Precast  Lattice Blocks  and Bricks.  There  are  a variety of precast
paving slabs  which provide  a hard  surface and  yet  are  porous to varying, degrees.
This measure  can be applied only where ihe soil is sufficently porous to allow
 rapid drainage.  Perforated slabs  on a honeycomb base  may be used to cover
 Dutch drains between areas of impermeable paving (making a lattice of
 permeable paving throughout a parking aicea) .  Brick strips incorporating tree
 pits may be usted in a similar fashion.
         The objective of this measure is to infiltrate precipitation "at source"
 prior to concentration.  These materials have a number of important  advantages,
  such  as that grass, can  substantially ccjver the site; they are flexible and
  and can withstand  a  certain amount of njovement; and when used as  strips between
  asphalt, sections  can be lifted to plarjt trees or place  street signs, or  even
  maintain utility  lines  underground.  However, most  of  these  materials are not
  as  useful as  porous  asphalt paving, because they  are  expensive and difficult
  to lay, are  not as permeable as asphalt, and  in most  cases  do not give  as
  good a walking surface.  Therefore,  they tend to  be used in situations
  where porous asphalt pavement is not suitable,  such as very formal "hard"
                                      631

-------
   areas, unstable areas subject to subsidence or heave, and areas where a
   grass-covered surface is desired.                                                ;
           Lattice concrete blocks may be used for parking areas where an "informal"
   grass surface is required but which must be sufficiently hard-wearing to with-
   stand regular use.  They may also be used for lining grass swales to provide
   erosion and sedimentation protection, and for grass ramps.  Modular pavers ..'
   are perforated bricks or bricks with lugs to control spacing,  and may be.used
   in areas where more  wear is ecpected than for lattice blocks.   Interstices and
   perforations should  generally be kept free of vegetation.   This paving type is
   used in more formal  areas than lattice blocks for paving around trees,  for
   dividing strips between  impermeable  paved surfaces,  etc.   This  type  is  generally
   not a comfortable  walking surface.
          Precast concrete perforated paver may be laid over, precast concrete
  lattice block, for use in formal areas, especially where warping of large
  impermeable surfaces  would be unsightly.  This type may also be used as a strip
  cover for French drains between areas of impermeable surface.  Concrete blocks
  may be lifted and the web and sand filter cleaned out if the .percolation
  rate falls.  Other porous paving types include a metal honeycomb covered by
  a butyl rubber mat, and bricks with two perforations  through which metal rods.
  are passed  and the  bricks, separated by  spacers.51
         Seepage Basin  or Recharge Basins (single use).  The purpose of a
 seepage basin is to allow a large percentage of the annual rainfall to recharge  a
 valuable aquifer.  Runoff is collected in various storm drainage systems           ,
 prior to being discharged  into the basin.   This measure is used principally
 on aquifer recharge  areas   but may also be used on any site where the water
 table is always over 48" below the ground surface.   Recharge basins are            ;
 extensively used in  urban  areas of Long Island to recharge ground water.
 Provided the soil is reasonably porous,  a recharge basin can recharge  large
 quantities of water  in a short time without the use of much land.
         Because basins are deeper  than seepage areas they operate  under a
 greater head and,  therefore,  are capable of recharging a greater volume of
water per  unit area  in a given time.   Seepage  basins,  then/require less  land
area than  seepage  areas.   The  seepage  basin is  generally regarded  as a
single-use facility, managed intensively for recharge.   The basin must be
fenced and regularly maintained  and is often very ugly.  Seepage basins
need constant maintenance to ensure 'that porosity is not reduced.  Where this' does

                                    64                                        •

-------
      , it may be necessary to bore seepage holes or pits in the base.-  Unless
fenced, seepage basins may be a safety hazard where more than 30" deep.
        The sizing of the basin depends  on the objectives to be  served.   If it
 is to recharge as much water as possiblej, it should be sized to take the maximum
24-hour rainfall from all Pav6d areas.  Almost certainly though, this is not
economical; instead, it will likely be dejsirable to recharge most of the annual
precipitation  (except for the very large jstorms), which may be accomplished with
a much smaller basin.
          Recharge basins are mandatory on Long Island, where geologic conditions
are favorable for aquifer recharge and where municipal supplies depend heavily
                                  52 •     l
on a  sustained groundwater yield,        j
          Recharge Basins  (multiuse).  Wherever soils are relatively permeable
and groundwater is not  too close  to  the basin  floor, recharge basins may be
an effective means for  aquifer  recharge.!  They are often used primarily for
 disposal of storm drainage, with recharge
as a secondary benefit.  This measure
 may be used effectively only where the aquifer outcrops at the surface (i.e.  at
 aquifer recharge areas)  or in areas wherfe the aquifer is so shallow that
 the basin extends to the aquifer (or in ?ome cases,  where strata overlying
• the aquifer are very permeable and allow percolation of water to the aquifer).
         When a recharge basin has benefits in disposing of stormwater as
 well as 'recharging the aquifer, it may bfe an economically attractive method
 of conserving groundwater resources.  .Ofjten a recharge basin can be con-
 structed as a borrow pit as part of a ma[jor construction project, e.g. a
 highway.  This measure does not take advantage of the filtering effect of
 the soil, as in the case with recharge b^ irrigation; therefore, there is
 a risk of pollution where recharge water! is of variable quality, such as
 with runoff.  Basins are extremely susceptible to clogging unless recharge
 water is fairly free of sediment and the basin is maintained frequently. 5S
          Seepage Pits or Dry Wells.   Seepage pits collect runoff and store  it
 until it percolates into  the soil,  but,  unlike Dutch drains,  they do
 not conduct water along their length when filled.   Seepage pits may be  used
 on all sites where the permeability of the soil is  sufficient and where seasonably
 high  water tables are  not anticipated, jSeepage pits may be designed to
 accommodate a maximum design frequency ?4-hour storm, or they may be designed
 at least to allow infiltration of runoff at predevelopment levels.  In this
 case  a supplementary system of storm drains will be necessary to accommodate
                                         i
 overflows.                             ;

-------
          If properly designed,  seepage pits may reduce  local  flooding, enhance
  groundwater  supply,  and in  some cases they may eliminate the need 'for storm
  drains or  reduce the size of the required storm drains.  A seepage pit will,
  provided the soil permeability is sufficient, accomplish the aim of increasing  ''.
  infiltration.  However,  unless very large/ it may not result in a reduction
  of flood peaks.  Seepage pits  are more liable than Dutch drains to clogging by
  sediment,  as runoff,has  more chance to collect solids before reaching the: pit.
  Unless the seepage pit is designed to take the total amount of anticipated run-
  off for a design storm,  some provision must be made for overflow.' .In order     ;
  to have the maximum benefit in reducing flood peaks the pit should,  in'fact,
 overflow during intense storms before its capacity is reached.   The  maximum-
 size of a pit should be sufficient to maintain infiltration at  predevelopment
 levels,   such pits are usually filled with gravel or rubble,  and sometimes
 may be cased.                     ,    .-..-.  ^.   ....           :   ;  ,      ,  .   >
         The Board of Supervisors of the Montgomery County  (Maryland):Soil
  Conservation District, who are involved in carrying but the county's sediment
  control program, adopted a policy in April 1971 to "encourage and assist in
 Planning for the retention on and in the soil of the greatest possible percentage
 of annual precipitation including the use of ...  infiltration devices (pervious
 surfaces DU parking areas, dry wells, leaching pits, etc.)." 54
 Other Methods
         Seepage beds dispose of runoff by infiltration into the soil via a
 system of drains set in ditches of gravel.  These systems  only  reduce volume  and '
 speed of runoff and requires an overflow system.   By increasing the  time of con-
 centration they may also reduce flood1 peaks  slightly.   This system ,may be used
 on all sites  except those with periodically  high  water  tables or where soil
 drainage  is poor.   This system may be used where  the percolation rate does  not
 allow the use of seepage pits.
        Seepage beds provide distribution  of water over  a larger area than may
 be achieved with a  seepage pit, resulting  in less hazard of clogging.  They may
 be placed under areas of paving if the bearing capacity  of the pavement
 is not affected.  Seepage beds  allow groundwater recharge and are safer than
 infiltration basins.  However,  no filtering takes place by the topsoil although
 there will be some improvement  of water quality as infiltration takes place.
Should beds or ditches eventually become clogged with sediments, replacement of
the entire system is necessary; therefore, maintenance of sediment traps must be
frequent and,  consequently, is very expensive.55
                                     66                            '              :

-------
        Multi-purpose seepage areas may be employed to allow a percentage
of annual precipitation to seep into the: ground, to store excessive runoff,
and.to provide for multi-purpose use of puch a facility through careful
design for recreational use, parking, or! open space.  This measure may
be applied in all areas except those wit^i periodically high water tables
or where soil drainage is poor.  Such facilities are useful in areas where
open space is not needed for use at all [times and when the alternative
use is not necessary during a storm and jfor a period after.  There will be
a problem, for instance, in using overflbw parking areas when there is a
possibility of cars being left on the lojt during a storm.
        The recharge facility is designed for multi-use.  Where a grass sur-r
face is used, there may be a significant improvement in the quality of
recharged water due to the filtering effect.  Because of the requirement
for multi-use, though, the facility must: have a higher rate of recharge and
be shallower than single-use basins.  l4 is often difficult to maintain
porosity of multi-use areas, except when those are paved surfaces  (porous
         56                             !
asphalt).                                -       - -
                                     67 i

-------

-------
3.3
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES

-------
  3-3     Erosion and Sedimentation Control  Measures
          Five major principles  of erosion and  sedimentation  control may
  be identified:
          •   Keep disturbed  area small;
          •   Stabilize  and protect disturbed areas as soon as possible;
          •   Keep stormwater runoff velocities  low;
          •   Protect  disturbed areas from  stormwater runoff; and
          •   Retain sediment within the site area, and by doing so,
             control  other pollutants, such as heavy metals.                  ;
 The development should be made to fit the site with a minimum of clearing
 and grading.  Existing cover should be retained and protected whenever
 possible.  Critical areas, such as highly erodible soils,  steep slopes,
 stream banks, and drainageways, should be identified and protected.   When
 earth change and removal of vegetation are necessary,  keep the area  and      i
 duration of exposure to a minimum.  The development should be phased so  that
 only areas which are actively being developed are exposed.   All other areas
 should have a good crover of vegetation or mulch.
         Disturbed areas may be stabilized by  mechanical  (or structural)
 methods and vegetative methods, or by combinations of  these  approaches.
 The removal of existing vegetative cover  and  the  resulting  increase  in
 impermeable surface area during development will  increase both ,the volume
 and velocity of runoff.  These  increases  must  be  considered when providing
 for erosion control.(measures to  increase infiltration and reduce runoff
 have been presented in Section  3.2).  Slope changes should be  designed to
 keep slope  length and  gradient  to a minimum.   Short slopes, low gradients, and
 the preservation of  vegetative  cover  can  keep  runoff velocities low,  minimiz-
 ing erosion hazards.
        Measures can be utilized  to prevent water from entering and
 running over disturbed areas.   Sediment can be retained by either filtering
 runoff as it flows,  or by detaining sediment-laden runoff for a period of
 time so that the soil particles settle out.   The best way to control  sedi-
ment, though, is to prevent erosion.  Erosion control measures serve  to:
        •  Divert runoff from exposed soils  and other vulnerable areas;
        •  Safely convey runoff, either in surface or enclosed drainage
           systems by:
                                  68

-------
                                       !
           — controlling runoff velocity
           — insuring that all surface jchannels and outlet points
              are adequately drained;   !
        •  Stabilize exposed surface areas;  arid
        •  Control the volume arid velocity of runoff discharge
           from the development area.   <
These measures can be either vegetativejor .mechanical.   Vegetative measures
include the planting of grasses and other vegetation to stabilize inadequately
protected soil surfaces.  Mechanical measures include control techniques which
involve the building of structures (forjexample, check dams, sediment basins,
diversions) or the operation of equipment to achieve compaction or surface
roughening.  Vegetative and mechanical Measures may be either temporary or
permanent.                             I
        Sedimentation control serve's toi:
        •  Detain runoff for a period oJE time, to allow soil particles
           which are in suspension to settle put;
        •  Filter runoff as it flows; ahd
        •  Intercept runoff containing jsediment before it  leaves  the
           development site.           !
Sedimentation control measures,  like erjosion control measures, may be
                                       !
either vegetative or mechanical,       j
        Vegetative  and mechanical erosion and sedimentation control
measures may be classified either as temporary  or permanent,  depending on
whether or not they will remain  in use jafter development.   Annual grasses,
mulches, and netting,  for  example, are .temporary control measures, although
they may remain  in  place after development  has  been completed.   The planting
of perennial grasses,  sod, shrubs, and \trees are permanent vegetative
control measures.   Temporary measures  generally serve  for  one year or
less.  Permanent vegetative stabilization will  be required on all developments
        Where  the development  is a  long-term proejct,  permanent  measures
                                       i
installed in the first phase of development Mil serve the entire term of
development.  On large projects, wherejsignificant  increases  in  runoff
volume and velocity are inevitable,  permanent structural measures for
 controlling the release of runoffs  to  off-site arid  downstream areas will
                                     69 :

-------
 be necessary;  Where even limited amounts of erosion and/or sedimentation
 would do significant damage, measures to trap sediment and control runoff
 will be necessary.  Temporary measures are used in the construction process.
 In some cases, tenporarytimeasures may be planned into a development in such
 a way that they become permanent as the completion of the various phases of
 the development occurs.  For example, sediment basins can be converted to
 permanent ponds which become valuable site amenities.  Figure 3.1 illustrates
 a number of temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures, while
 Figure 3.2 indicates that a number of temporary measures may become part of
 the permanent development.
         The following subsections cover six types of erosion and sedimenta-
 tion control measures:
         •   Vegetative measures;         ,  .        -
         •   Diversion measures  and slope drains;                 .•':'•']
         •   Mechanical slope  stabilization techniques;
         •   Stream bank  stabilization  techniques;
         •   Design and stabilization of  surface drainagewaysy and
         •   Other erosion and sedimentation control measures.  ' '
Figure 3.3  summarizes these  various control measures and indicates their
applicability to seven typical problem areas associated with erosion and
sedimentation. 7
        The control of erosion and sedimentation is,"by and large, the
product of long years of research done by the Soil Conservation Service..
Before a comprehensive program is embarked upon, it is suggested that the
local official contact the SCS agent in his area.
                                 70

-------
      icte wp *1wm wta» rwwff
      M XiiteMi
    tnfi, twtpjWf
rwioff
              Figure 3.1;  Temporary Control  Measures
                            Used Purina Construction
 Source:  Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., op,  cit., p. 18,
                                       71  !

-------
                                                                •p
                                                                 a
                                                                 a)
                                                                 0)
                                                                PH
                                                                I

                                                                 a)
                                                                ffl

                                                                 a
                                                                 nj
                                                                u

                                                                 w

                                                                 8
                                                                CN
                                                                  •

                                                                01


                                                                 CD




                                                                 I

                                                                •H
 ft
-P
•H
 U
 81
                                                                        0)


                                                                        0)
                                                                        !
                                                                        3
+j

 (U

 u
 0)
ffl
                                                                        a)
                                                                        u
                                                                        o
                                                                        w
72

-------
              Figure 3.3    Control Measurjes and Problem Areas

VEGETATIVE
MEASURES
DIVERSION
MEASURES AND
SLOPE DRAINS
MECHANICAL
SLOPE
STABILIZATION
STREAM BANK
STABILIZATION
SURFACE
DRAINAGEWAYS
OTHER
MEASURES



• 	

» INDICATES APPLICABILITY OF A
SPECIFIC CONTROL MEASURE TO
ONE OR MORE OF THE SEVEN
PROBLEM AREAS.
Control Measure
Mulches
Sodding
nterceptor berm 	 .
Diversion ditch
Bio-technical protect on of stream banks
Filter inlet 	 	

i
• i
• i
e
• i
_»j 	


Streams and
waterways
O
—

* * Surface
drainageways

q

Enclosed
drainage

e

(A
Ji ™
1 1
"i
r^
e ,

• • • • * Borrow and
stockpile areas
"• 1


* * * Adjacent
properties
9

Source:  Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., pp. cit.. Figure 2
                                         |



                                       •I




                                         |        ;
                                         |



                                       73

-------

-------
3.'3.1   Vegetative Measures

-------
  3.3.1    Vegetative Measures
           Potential erosion is minimized by providing a protective
  vegetative cover,  since this vegetation shields  the  soil  from  the  impact
  of falling rain, slows  the velocity of the runoff, maintains the soil's
  capacity to absorb water,  and holds soil particles in place.   By limiting
  and staging the removal of existing vegetation,  and  by decreasing  the
  area and duration  of exposure, soil erosion and  sedimentation  can  be
  significantly reduced.   Special consideration should be given  to the
  maintenance of  existing vegetative  cover on areas of high erosion potential,
  such as  erodible soils,  steep slopes, drainageways,  and stream banks.58
           This subsection describes  a number of temporary and permanent
  vegetative measures to reduce erosion and  sedimentation, both  during the
  construction phase and after development has been completed.  The
  following vegetative measures are considered:   minimization of stripped
  areas, grubbing omitted, conservation of topsoil, temporary seeding and/or
 mulching, seeding,  mulching, seeding with mulch and/or matting, hydroseeding,
 sodding, and bio-technical protection of very  steep slopes,,   From a
 water quality aspect, reducing the contribution of sediment to  runoff
 leads to a reduction in suspended solids concentration and other materials
 which adhere.
          Minimization of Stripped Areas.  The  developer may reduce  the  area
 stripped of vegetation at any one time  by careful time-phasing  of the
 development.  The economies of scale in earthmoving costs  and the
 mobilization costs  of large earthmoving machines,  however, often dictate
 that all earthmoving is  done at one  time.  When large areas  must be left
 bare for up to 12 months and final grading  cannot be  carried out,
 stripped areas should be mulched and/or  seeded.59
          Grubbing Omitted.   Grubbing is  the process of  removing  roots,
 stumps,  and low-growing  vegetation.   If  this process  is omitted, besides
 yielding a cost  saving,  new sprouts  are provided,  the existing root mat
 system is  retained, wind  fall is reduced  at the forest edge, and
 equipment  entrance is  discouraged.
         Conservation  of  Topsoil.  On all sites except those -in wetlands
 and along  creeks and streams, topsoil should be stripped to a depth  of 9"
 from  all areas which are  to be disturbed and which are not to be covered
by buildings or pavements.  Topsoil must be stockpiled and respread

                                 74

-------
to ensure a rapid vegetation growth following restoration.  Unless
carefully located, though, storage banks of topsoil may obstruct site
operations and result in double handling  These mounds may sometimes be
used as baffles to reduce noise, dust, fete., reaching neighboring properties,
thus minimizing complaints.  If they are to be in position for more than
six months, seed with a temporary seed piix.  A shallow trench around these
mounds made with a bulldozer blade will*prevent soil eroded from mounds
from washing onto adjacent property or |Lnto- drainage channels.  Topsoil
may also be stockpiled above borrow areias to act as a diversion.
         The conservation of topsoil is! in  the developer's interest as it-
results in more rapid and health grass jgrowth, which not  only prevents
erosion, but also improves the  appearanjce of the development.   In some
European countries the conservation of Itopsoil is mandatory.  Where
such measures  are mandatory in  this country, however, they are  often
                                       I         .    61
ineffective due to failure to inspect installation.
         Temporary Mulching and Seeding  of  Stripped Areas.  All areas which
will  remain open  for more than  six months on  steeply  sloping  or highly
erodible sites should be mulched  and/o*  seeded.   On other sites, only
those areas  larger than  one  acre  must be mulched and/or seeded.  (Note:
 the protective vegetative cover should;be  replaced immediately, however,  in
 certain critical  areas.   Any disturbedjarea along a creek or stream should
be sodded, while disturbed areas  in wetlands  should be reinstated with
 local plant material.)   This is a relatively inexpensive form of erosion
 control offering rapid protection to open areas, but should be used only
 when final grading and seeding is not possible.  Vegetation will not only
 prevent erosion,  but will also trap sediment in runoff from other parts of
 the site.   As temporary cover crop is feown on subsoil in most cases,
 growth is often poor unless heavy applications of fertilizer and lime are^
 made while seeding.  Once seeded, area^ cannot be used for heavy traffic.
          Seeding.  Standard seeding techniques provide an inexpensive and
 very effective measure  for preventing erosion and sedimentation.  Seed is
 drilled or broadcast either mechanically or by hand.  A  cultipacker or
 similar tool  is used after seeding to jmake toe seedbed firm  and to provide
 seed covering.   The proper timing of seeding, mulching,  and watering is
 important for areas seeded in  this man'ner. As soon  as slopes  are brought  up
 to final  grade,  permanent vegetative stabilization measures  should be
                                       I
                                    75

-------
  initiated.  The selection of the appropriate plant materials for permanent
  stabilization should be based on a consideration of the" following factors:
  soil and climate conditions; duration, quantity, and velocity of "runoff;
  time required to establish cover; maintenance requirements; and site use.
  Grass is the least expensive and most effective material  for permanent
  protection of eroding soils.  Grass can be successfully established if
  certain basic requirements are met: ;  proper seeding mixture is  selected
  for the site;  seeding dates are observed;  area to  be seeded is  covered
  with topsoil;  proper seedbed preparation and planting methods are
  used;  adequate fertilizer is provided;  and protection from  wind  and water
  erosion is provided during establishment.63
          Mulches.   Mulch  is used  after permanent seeding as well as
  before  seeding to protect exposed areas  for short periods.  Mulches
  protect the soil from the impact  of falling rain, slow the velocity of
  runoff,  and increase the  capacity of. the soil to absorb water.  Mulches
  hold seeds in place, preserve soil moisture, and insulate germinating
  seeds from heat and cold.  Many types of mulch are available:  straw,
 woodchips, wood fiber mulch, chemical mulch or soil stabilizer,
 excelsior mats, and other materials are used.  Most mulches  can be anchored.
 Asphalt emulsions, can be used,  as well as netting made of  jute,  fiberglass,
 or plastic.   Another alternative is to disc the mulch just enough to
 anchor it into the earth.64                                             •
          Mulched areas should be checked periodically, especially following
 severe storms,  when damaged areas  of mulch  or tie-down material  should  be
     •     o5     '                                     '             i
 repaired.    in some counties chemical  stabilizers  are considered a  mulch,
 specified in  the  county erosion control  handbook.66   Seeded  area protection
 by  netting or matting is often  considered as a substitute for mulching.
 An  example is the erosion-siltation  control  handbook  produced by Fairfax
 County,  Virginia, which  is legally supported by county code amendments.67
          Seeding with mulch  and/or matting.    Mulch and/or matting facilitates
 the establishment of vegetative cover and is  effective for drainageways
with low velocity.  As mentioned above, mulches protect the soil from the
impact of falling rain, slow runoff velocity, increase the capacity of the
soil to absorb water, hold seeds in place, preserve soil  moisture, and
insulate germinating seeds from .temperature  extremes.  Areas  may be
                                 76

-------
stabilized with seed alone, mulch alone,jor both seed and mulch, depending
upon site conditions and projected use of the area.
         Hvdroseeding.  In hydroseeding,|a mixture of seed, fertilizer,
and water is sprayed on the slope.  A mulch and a mulch tacking agent •
                                        I                      08
may also be applied.  T^his method is effective on large areas..   Areas
inaccessible to agricultural machinery m^y be easily seeded, but specialized
equipment is required.  If hydroseeded, accelerated germination during dry
 ^  e                                   I         .       •  69
conditions may require irrigation later po sustain growth.
         Sodding.  Sod strips are laid  on the slope arid in this way instant
cover is provided.  Sod should be placed; on a prepared bed and pegged on
steep slopes.  Watering is important.   OJtiis method of stabilization is
effective and is  often used on steep slopes, where seed may be difficult
to  establish.  Sod is easy to place and ^iay be  repaired .if damaged.    Sod
can be  placed at  any  time of the year provided  that  soil  moisture  is
adequate and the  ground is not frozen.  JGood quality sod  free from weed
species may be difficult  to obtain.  If jlaid in unfavorable season, by
midsummer  irrigation may  be required.   tfhis also applies^ very droughty
sandy soils.   Sod is heavy and handling Icosts  are high.
         Bio-technical Protection of Very Steep Slopes.   Alternative
measures may be  applied  to -very  steep  scopes,  cut and fill banks,  and
 unstable soil  conditions that cannot bejstabilized through seeded vegetation.
 Vegetation reduces sheet erosion on slopes and impedes sediment at the toe
 of slope.   Where soils are unstable and liable to slip due to wet
 condition, utilization of soil moisture
by vegetation can reduce the
 problem.  Shrubs and^trees shelter slopes against the'impact of rainstorms
 and the humus formed by decaying leaves| further helps to impede runoff.
 Mechanical measures help to stabilize sjail long enough to allow vegetation
 to become established.  Sod walls or regaining banks may be used to
 stabilize terraces.  Sod is piled, tiltjlng slightly, toward the slope and
 should be backfilled with soil and compacted as soon as they are built up.
 Timber  frame stabilization involves construction of timber frames oh'slopes,
 filled with topsoil, and covered with straw; covering'the straw with netting;
 and planting ground  cover plants througjh  the straw  into the topsoil.  Woven
 willow  whips may be  used to  form live ijarriers  for  immediate erosion
 control.  Berm planting and  brush  layers  may also be  employed.   These
 techniques  are considerably  more expensive than conventional slope
                                      77

-------
  stabilization  techniques.  Adopted  standards  for erosion and sediment
  control by the state of Maryland include a listing of plants for
  critical area  stabilization and ground covers, vines, shrubs, and trees.
  Standards also give reference to applicable resource areas, site
  conditions required, light preference, height, spread, spacing, time to
  form cover, size limitations, etc.72

           The following table lists effectiveness of various types of
  ground cover on erosion loss at construction sites.73
  Kinds  of Ground Cover
Soil Loss Reduction Related to
        Bare Surfaces
   (Percent ..Effectiveness)
 *Seedlings

        Permanent  grasses
        Ryegrass  (perennial)
        Ryegrass  (annual)
        Small grain
        Millet s sudangrass
        Field bromegrass
        Grass sod
 Hay  (2 tons/acre)
 Small grain straw (2 tons/acre)
 Corn residues (4  tons/acre)
 Wood chips (6 tons/acre)

 **Wood cellulose  fiber  (1.75 tons/acre)
 **Fiberglass (1000 Ibs/acre)
 **Asphalt emulsion (125 gal/acre)
              99%
              95
              90
              95
              95
              97
              99

              98
              98
              98
              94

              90
              95
              98
 *Based on full established stand

**Experimental - not fully established

 Source;  County of Fairfax, Virginia.  Erosion-Siltation Control Handbook.
         •August 1972.



         Minimizing erosion on site  and limiting the  amount of sediment being
 carried by runoff may benefit  the developer by eliminating the need for
 regrading due to erosion and reducing the probability of damage claims by
 downstream landowners.  Once established, vegetative  cover will also
 greatly improve the aesthetic  appearance of the development.  Vegetative
 erosion and sedimentation control measures may be classified as either
                                   78

-------
temporary or permanent depending on whether or not they will remain in    i
use after development.  Annual grasses!, mulches, and netting, for example,
are temporary control measures although they may remain in place after
development has been completed.  The planting of perennial grasses, sod,
shrubs, and trees are permanent vegetative control measures.  Temporary
measures generally serve for one year.jor less. Permanent vegetative
stabilization will be required on all ;developments.
                                 79

-------

-------
                                       I  , .

                                       i
3.3.2   Diversion Measures and Slope Drains

-------
   3.3.2
Diversion Measures and Slope Drains
            Erosion and sedimentation resulting from runoff over slopes  exposed
   durxng development may be reduced by using diversions  to intercept  runoff
   and divert it from the slope face.   Such diversions may  consist of  a  berm,
   a ditch,  or a combination of a berm and  ditch,  and may be bare channels, '
   vegetatively stabilized channels, or channels lined with a hard surface
   material.   The following  factors should be  considered  in design of diversion
   measures:   the amount  of  runoff to be diverted, the velocity of runoff in
   the diversion,  and the erodibility of the soils on the slope to be protected
   and in the  diversion itself.
           Diversions concentrate the volume of surface runoff and,  as a
  result, also increase its erosive force,   it is important to plan  in advance
  for the disposal of runoff collected in diversions. Runoff must be
  released onto a stabilized area to reduce its erosive potential,   m some
  cases this can be simply achieved by gradually reducing the  gradient of
  the diversion channel.   Diversions  may also be used at  intervals along th,=>
  slope face to reduce slope length  and may be used  to collect  runoff  from
  a construction site  and divert it to  a sediment  retention trap or pond.75
          Where the runoff  cannot be satisfactorily  disposed of by conveying
  it laterally it can be  drained over the face of  the slope itself, employing
  a slope drain,  either on the  surface  of the  slope or below the surface.  At
  the slope drain outlet  energy dissipators are frequently required in order-
  to  reduce erosion problems by slowing the velocity of the runoff.76
          *his subsection presents a number of temporary and permanent
 measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation, including the following:
 diversion berm, interceptor berm,  diversion ditch,  berm  and ditch,  and  slope
 drains.  Temporary measures must remain in place until the slope has  been
 permanently stabilized,  but several of these measures may  be  incorporated
 in the permanent drainage system.
          Diversion Berm. Diversion berms,  or diversion  dikes, are small
 ridges  of soil constructed  at  the top  of cut  or fill slopes to divert
 overland  flow from small areas away from newly constructed, unstabilized, or
 unprotected slopes,  shey are  normally used as temporary or interim
measures, but may sometimes be appropriate as permanent installations.77
Diversion berms  collect  and direct runoff to prepared drainageways  and may
be placed as part of normal construction operations.78

                                  80

-------
                                         I
         Erosion reducing structures, such as diversion berms,  interceptor
berms, and sodded ditches, are normally employed at a rate of 165 feet
per acre, reducing potential erosion by about 50%.  High rate usage.^of
these measures (over 165 feet per acre) may reduce erosion by 60%.
As the costs of diversion berms may range from $1 to $5 per linear foot,
the cost per acre will vary from $165 to |$825 per acre for diversion berms,
                                       80 I
at a rate of 165 linear feet per acre.   j
         Interceptor Berm.  An interceptojr berm, or interceptor dike, is a
temporary ridge of compacted soil constructed across a graded right-of-way,
reducing erosion by intercepting runoff 4nd diverting it to temporary
outlets where it can be disposed of with!minimum erosion.  Interceptor
berms are usually used across graded  rights-of-way that are not subject to
vehicular traffic.  Design details and costs of interceptor berms are
                                         1 •   i     &^-
approximately the same as  those of diversion berms.
         Diversion Ditch.  A diversion ditch collects and  diverts runoff  to
reduce  erosion potential  and may be  incorporated  into the  permanent
drainage system.82  The design of  temporary  drainage channels  is  basically
similar to  the design of  permanent channels  and must consider  such aspects
as capacity,  cross  section,  and  design velocity.   As mentioned above,
 diversion ditches  may be  bare channels,  jregetatively stabilized channels,
 or channels lined  with a hard surface material.83  The  cost of sodded
                                              84
 diversion ditches  is  approximately $825/|acre.
          Berm and Ditch.   A temporary diversion may be formed by
 constructing-a channel and a ridge, usually across sloping land, to convey
 runoff laterally at a reduced velocity to a safe discharge point.    Such
 a diversion measure may also be used at 'intervals across the slope face
                                ,  86     !
 to reduce effective slope length.       j
         Diversions and slope drains may ;be employed to divert runoff away
 from critical areas during construction^ in order to minimize the erosion
 that would result from runoff crossing highly susceptible areas.  A system
 of temporary channels prevents siltatio| in partially completed  storm drain
 age systems.  An efficient temporary drainage system minimizes the delays
 caused by  severe storms during the  construction period and minimizes the
 amount  of  regrading, etc,,  necessitated;by erosion during the construction
                                   81

-------
 period.  Some of the above techniques are temporary in nature and the
 removal of these measures will entail some costs, as well as additional
 disturbance and possible minor damage to permanent facilities. ;  Diversions
 may also increase seepage which may cause soil instability.
         Temporary diversions and slope drains are especially needed in  road
 construction projects.   Standard specifications of the  Delaware  Department
 of  Highways and Transportation (January 1,  1974)  specify  that "slope drains
 may be  constructed of pipe,  fiber mats,  rubble,  Portland  cement  concrete,
 bituminous  concrete, plastic  sheets,  or other material  acceptable to the
 engineer that will adequately control erosion."   The Washington  County,
Maryland, Erosion and Sediment Ordinance  (1971) requires provisions  for
temporary measures and a timing  schedule.  The adopted  standards and speci-
fications for soil erosion and sediment control in urbanizing areas  of the
State of Maryland include detailed specifications for diversion,dikes and
interceptor dikes.
        Figure 3.4 illustrates a number of diversion measures.
                                82

-------
                                                                                                                   tn
                                                                                                                   a)
                                                                                                                   I

                                                                                                                   s
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   -H
                                                                                                                   -H

                                                                                                                    P
                                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                                          CM
D
                                                                                                                           fl)
                                                                                                                          t>
fi
o
,CQ


D
Rj
JS
 o
 (D
m
                                                                                                                            (1)
                                                                                                                            U
                                                                                                                            M

                                                                                                                            B
                                               83

-------

-------
3.3.3   Mechanical Slope Stabilization Techniques

-------
  3.3.3    Mechanical  Slope  Stabilization Techniques
           Mechanical  slope  stabilization techniques involve building structures
  (benches  or terraces,  retaining wall) or operating equipment to achieve
  compaction or surface  roughening.  Selective grading and shaping may be
  considered to minimize erosion.  Seepage control may be required on cut
  slopes.   Such measures will reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from
  runoff flow over slopes.
           Selective Grading and Shaping.  One way to stabilize slopes is to
  reduce their gradient.  The selection of the appropriate grade for cut and
  fill slopes should be based on a number of factors:  the stability of the
  soil; its drainage characteristics, and its.credibility.  The type of
 vegetative cover and the type of maintenance will determine the degree of
                 88
 slope allowable.
          Roughened Surface (Cultivation).  During the construction period,
 areas may be bare for periods too short to make use of temporary mulches
 or cover crops.   In these cases,  careful cultivation can greatly reduce
 the volume of sediment generated on these areas.89  If slope  surfaces  are
 left rough,  this can help to reduce velocity  and increase infiltration
 rates.  Rough slopes  also hold water,  seed, and mulch  better  than smooth
  T      90
 slopes.                                                  .
         Careful attention to cultivation technique will  pay  the  develope..:
 since it is one  of the  cheapest and simplest methods of erosion control.
 This technique may be readily incorporated into  a  development and is
 generally  used by field supervisors on an as-needed basis.  No great
 additional construction costs  are incurred, since  the measure' makes use
 of  existing equipment and personnel, nor are there maintenance costs involved
                        Ql
 in  this interim  measure.,     .
        Compaction.   On fill  slopes compaction may be a major factor in
 erosion control.  In  addition  to other compaction  controls required by the
nature of  the project,  the minimum criterion recommended for successful
 erosion control  on fill slopes is to compact the uppermost one foot of fill
to at least 85%  of the  maximum unit weight (based on the modified AASHO
compaction test).  This is usually accomplished by runnirfg heavy equipment
                                                     92
over the fill.  Formal testing might not be required.
hold the soil in place, making exposed areas less vulnerable to erosion
Compaction helps
               93
                                 84

-------
        Benches or Terraces.  Benches orj terraces may be employed to reduce
the? slope length in critical areas.  This measure may accomplish two objectives:
to modify the form of a steep slope to njinimize the erosion potential of runoff
originating on the slope; and to control, runoff .from elsewhere so that it can
pass down the slope in a protected chanrjel or be diverted so that it bypasses
steep slopes.  Benches check the flow of runoff and collect sediment.  Runoff
may be diverted along the bench to increase the distance,of overland flow.
Benches also provide access for maintenance and hydroseeding.  Serrated slopes
lower the velocity of runoff, increase ihe distance of overland flow and reduce
the hydraulic gradient, along with holding moisture and  minimizing  sediment.
        Benches  and  serrated  slopes  may!significantly  increase cut  and fill
costs and  cause  sloughing where excessive water infiltrates  unstable  soils.
Slope length and the need for benches  or terraces  is a particular concern  in
highway construction.   Standard specifications of the Delaware Department of
Highways and Transportation handle the problem this way:  "The engineer will
limit the  area of excavation, borrow,  ajid  enbankment operations  in progress
commensurate with the contractor's capability and  progress in keeping the
finish  grading,  mulching, seeding, and |>ther; such permanent pollution control
measures  current in accordance  with the| accepted schedule.  Should seasonal
 limitations make such coordination unrealistic, temporary erosion control
 measures shall be taken immediately to jthe extent feasible and justified."94
         Retaining Wall.  Retaining walls should be used to reduce extreme
 slope gradients.  For example,  if the final grade of a slope is too steep to
 permit the establishment and maintenance of vegetation,  retaining walls can
 be used to reduce the slope's gradientj. Retaining walls can also be,used
 to allow for the retention of existing imature vegetation.  The cost of
 building retaining walls is often justified because of the maintenance
 costs that are saved on, areas that would be,difficult or impossible to
 stabilize otherwise. 95
         Seepage Control.  .On cut slopes ground water seepage can cause
 erosion problems.  Seepage causes piping and soil slippage.  Water seepage,
 coming out of the face of the slope should be intercepted by a  properly
 designed drainage system.  A  diversion permits percolation of surface
 runoff, contributing to underground seepage.  Such seepage may be  reduced
                                    85

-------
by providing a sand trench under a diversion at the top of a slope and
a sand layer under the surface of the slope, along with a perforated tile
or interceptor drain at the toe of the slope. 96
        Again, reducing erosion on slopes will benefit the developer by
eliminating the need for re-grading.  Reducing the slope length may also
facilitate the establishment and maintenance of vegetative cover.
                                    86

-------
3.3.4   Stream Bank Stabilization Measures

-------

-------
3.3.4    Stream Bank Stabilization Measures
         Stream bank erosion is a natural phenomenon but can become a
problem when it is accelerated due to increased runoff, and where it can
no longer be tolerated due to urban riparian uses.  The erosive and trans-
                                         i
porting power of a stream increases with :increasing velocity, turbulence,
depth of flow, and gradient, while the ability of a stream to erode its
banks varies inversely with the amount of sediment it already is carrying,
including both bedload and suspended material.  The following events may
result in problems of stream bank instability:  realignment of the channel,
an increase in runoff volume, sedimentation of the streambed, and constriction
                                         i
of the channel,                          j
         Often as part of urban development stream channels are realigned
and, almost invariably, shortened.  Thisiautomatically results in a steeper
stream gradient which increases the flowjvelocity and erosive capacity.
The stream will compensate for this increase in energy by trying to meander ,
cutting laterally, or eroding its bed,   j
         Urban development of a drainageibasin will greatly increase the
volume of water which a stream must handle.  Not only will the extent of
the floodplain be larger, but the stream'will overflow its bankful stage
more often.  It is at or near the bankful stage that most damage is done
to stream banks.  Thus the increase in runoff will worsen stream bank
erosion, although the duration of flow at bankful stage may be shorter due
                                         i .     -
to more rapid runoff from urbanized areas.
         Stream channels may become partially clogged with sediment which
often originates from upstream development activities.  This reduces the
capacity of the channel and the stream tries to compensate for the loss by
eroding laterally.  A bridge, culvert, landfill,  fallen tree, etc., may
cause local channel constriction leading! to erosion.  In the case of a bridge
where the stream may be constricted laterally by  abutments, the velocity may
be increased resulting in scouring of the streambed beneath the bridge
 (which could cause failure of the abutments).  Lining of the channel bed
under the bridges is common practice, but this may increase velocity and
constrict the  channel vertically.  This inay result in a plunge pool where
                                         i
the lining ends and scouring above the constriction,  If scouring of the
streambed is limited,  scouring of the bahks often occurs where revetments  end.
                                         I
                                    87

-------
 A culvert effectively constricts a channel, both vertically and laterally,
 and so protection from scouring at both ends, is vital,
          The more stable a stream, generally the greater its potential for
 fishing, wildlife, and, recreation.  However, stabilization of small sections
 of stream channel can result in serious erosion problems upstream arid down-
 stream.  Stream bank stabilization is generally:expensive and should be
 limited to critical areas.  Ideally, the stream should be allowed as much
 freedom as possible to modify its channel and achieve new stability but
 should be watched so that prompt action may be taken where and where it is
 appropriate.       '                     •••.,-..•
          The center line of a stream is> frequently a. property boundary.
 Therefore, a shifting channel may lead to legal disputes.   The need for.
 channel protection often arises from development activity upstream.   A
 riparian owner adversely aff ected •: should seek legal advice on whether or  not
 he can claim compensation for damages.   The action of lining of realigning
 a  stream channel may cause more severe instability of the stream channel  for
 downstream and sometimes upstream riparian owners,   The possibility of
 causing damage to neighboring riparian owners should,  therefore,  be  care-
 fully  considered before  undertaking stream improvements.97
          The  maintenance of existing vegetation on•stream  banks is  a
 fundamental principle of erosion and sedimentation control.   Stream bank
 vegetation serves to stabilize the soil,  slow runoff and dissipate  its
 erosive energy,  and to filter sediment from runoff.98   Appropriate vegetative
 stabilization measures were discussed in  Section  3.3.1.  This  subsection
 describes a number of structural measures  to prevent erosion of
 stream banks:   falls,  deflectors and jetties,  revetments, biotechnical
 methods,  check dams,  and weirs.
          Falls.   A fall  is  usually installed to dissipate excessive energy
 in a stream or channel where  the steepness of  the gradient is causing high
 velocity  flow.- This  often  results from straightening a stream's course.
 Falls  in perennial  streams  should be designed by a qualified engineer;
 they may be constructed of  dumped rock, gabions, or concrete.  In all
 cases the structure must be protected adequately, as the tendency will be
 for a plunge pool to develop at this point which could undermine the
structure.  The'dam need not be impermeable.  Where loose rock is used it
                                  88

-------
                                          I      ?',
must be of sufficient size to withstand stjreamflow and, consequently,. it
is usually grouted or used in gabions to fprm a massive structure.  Falls
may reduce the need for channel lining and create areas of still water
                                         .1   ,  ',   99
which often increase the stream's recreational value.
       ..  Deflectors and Jetties.  Where vegetation will not provide
sufficient protection banks may be protected with revetments and deflectors,
as well as other mechanical measures.  Deflectors and jetties are used to
deflect streamflow away from an eroding bank or to prevent meandering of a
stream, thus encouraging the stream to increase its channel capacity by
scouring its bed rather than by lateral cutting.
         Deflectors and jetties cause areas of comparatively still
water where sediment loads are precipitated, increasing the stream's
recreational value.  "The buildup of sediment against the bank allows it to be
stabilized without planting.  However, deflectors will considerably
restrict the channel capacity and should be used only where the stream's
natural tendency to compensate  for this by scouring either the bed or the
                                       10(D
opposite bank.will not cause a problem.   j
         Revetments.  Revetments, which cover the stream banks, are
commonly used where sharp bends or constructions  in the stream channel
 (such  as culverts, bridges, or  grade  control  structures) occur.
         Choice of a revetment  type will depend on a survey of streamflow
characteristics,  soil type, etc., but oftjm the USGS can provide  data for
discharge  and velocity characteristics for streams of  similar size  for
more accurate revetment  and lining designl
          Biotechnical Methods.   A combination of vegetative  and mechanical
 means may be employed to provide protection of critical sections  of stream bank.
 These approaches should be used in streams  with high flow velocity where the
 flow/soil conditions exceed the stabilizing effect of purely vegetative channel
 protection.  Mechanical materials provide! for interim and immediate stablization
 until vegetation takes  over.   Once established,  vegetation can  outlast
 mechanical structures  requiring little maintenance while regenerating
 itself; their use also entails aesthetic benefits and increased wildlife
 propagation.  These measures  do involve sjlightly higher initial cost than
 purely vegetative measures,  and may also. Require professional assistance.
 While the methods described are effective!,  a complete knowledge of soils,
 hydrology, and other physical data is required to design measures that will
 adequately solve the problem and stand upj to the test of time.
                                   89    :
                                          I _.

-------
           Reed berms  consist  of a  combination  of  reeds  and riprap, and may
 be  employed  to break wave action  and  reduce erosion of banks by currents.
 Willow jetties can be constructed at  the water level to stabilize a   	
 cutback by deflecting the current and encouraging deposition of sediment.
 Willow gabions may be used when a hard-edged  effect is desired to deflect
 the eroding  flow of water.  Piling revetment with wire facings is
 especially suited for the stabilization of cutbanks with deep water.  In the
 lower riparian zone  (open floodway) bank stabilization should be concentrated
 on critical  areas only,  willow branch matt revetment may also be employed
 to stabilize stream banks.                  .  ,  .  .
          A recommendation to change the New Castle County (Delaware)   ;
 Drainage Code includes the following set of recommendations  regarding
 stream bank stabilization:  "Where the flow/soil conditions  exceed the
 stabilizing ability of vegetation, then as a second option a combination of
 vegetative and mechanical means of stabilization (biotechnical methods of
 stream bank stabilization) will be explored,, and as a  third  and least
 desirable option,  a straight  mechanical method will.be  explored."102   Costs
 vary according to  the local availability of labor.   However,  there  are
 practically no maintenance costs for the vegetation once  it'is  established
 as it holds the banks naturally, as compared to  concrete  improvements  that
 constantly need repairs.103       ;
          Checkdams.   Check dams are small  structures constructed in
 gullies or other small watercourse and may  be  made of concrete masonry,
 rock,  rock and earth, straw bales, sandbags, wire fence, or other materials.
 Erosion is reduced or prevented by reducing runoff velocities, promoting
 deposition of sediment, and stabilization of channel grades.104  Check
 dams may be used to prevent gully  erosion  (usually during the construction
period) either in temporary channels or in permanent channels which are
unvegetated and, -therefore, temporarily unable to handle design flows.
In some cases, if carefully located and designed, these checks can remain
as permanent installations with very minor regrading, etc.  They may be
left either as spillways, in which case accumulated sediment  would be
graded and seeded,  or as checkdams to precipitate further., sediment coming
                                 90

-------
     off that site, in which case a clean-out irould be required.  Because of
     their temporary nature, many of these measures are visually poor  and it  is
     essential to remove them before dwelling units are let  or  sold.   Removal
     of these measures may constitute a  significant cost  and temporary
                                              i             n   105
     checkdams are  suitable for  a limited drainage area only.
              Wejr.  A  weir is a, .small dam setj  in a stream to raise the  water
     level of divert its flow.   A weir may be employed to control sedimentation
     in large streams.  Weirs cause minimal  tuirbidity,     reduce channel grade
     and dissipate  the  energy of the flowing w,ater.
              Bank  stabilization was defined ajs follows in the  Baltimore City
     Erosion and Sediment  Control Manual, Ordipance  1013:  '"The control  of
     bank erosion in main  stream channels can jbe accomplished in various ways.
     Methods commonly used include  sod,  concrete, riprap, rock  cribs,  groins,
      jetties,  fencing,  piling,  gabions,  etc.  "The purpose of bank  control
     measures  is to install a barrier  that wil|l withstand the erosive forces,
      exerted by flowing water or create  a bank roughness  that will reduce  the
      erosive power  by  dissipating the  energy of the  water as it moves along the
      bank line."107 The New Castle County   (Delaware) Surface and Ground-Water
      Drainage  Code  (Ordinance No.  69-71) requires on-site stabilization-of water-
      courses affected by runoff increases andjalso requires of each person or
      corporation making surface changes to  "pay his proportionate share of the
      total cost of off-site improvements to the common natural watercourse
      except those required to existing state roads,  based on a fully developed
                    ,,1°8                      !
      drainage area."                         ,
               Figure 3.5 illustrates several stream bank stabilization measures.
                                          91
_

-------
Figure 3.5:  Control Measures Are Often Used in Combinat
                            92

-------
3.3.5
Design and Stabilization of Surface Drainageways

-------

-------
                                        I
3.3.5    Design and Stabilization of Surface Drainageways
         Surface runoff and runoff intercepted by erosion control
measures such as diversions must be collected by drainageways and let
out in stabilized areas, storm sewers, ojr sediment basins.  The design of
these drainageways insures that runoff ijs transported without risk of
erosion or flooding.  Unless: surface drainageways are adequately designed,
constructed, and maintained, fhey can bejcome a major source of sediment
pollution.                              i
         Development should be planned tjo maintain and utilize the
naturally stabilized drainageways that qxist on a site.   Increases in
runoff volume and velocity because of changes in soil and surface conditions
during and after construction must be anticipated.  Where the capacity of
the natural  site drainage channels is exceeded, additional capacity,
stabilizing  vegetation,  and/or structural measures may be needed.
         Allowable  design velocities vary with soil conditions,  the
character of the channel lining  (eitherjbare, vegetative, or structural),
and  anticipated runoff volume.   Formulas and  techniques  for  determining
the  runoff  flows,  channel  cross  sections,  slopes,  stabilizing covers,
and  design  velocity may be obtained froik Soil Conservation Service  offices.
          This  subsection presents a number of measures  involved in  the  design
 and  stabilization of surface drainageways:  bare channels, grassed
waterways,  lined channels,  grade control structures,  sediment traps, and
 sediment basins.   Some of these measures may  be temporary only, while
 others may become part of the permanent1, drainage system.
          Sediment Trap.  The first essejtnial step in preventing sediment
 from entering streams and waterways is to control erosion on construction
 sites.  A second necessary step in sediment control is to trap sediment
 that is transported by runoff before it! reaches streams and waterways
 or leaves the construction site.  To trap sediment, the runoff must be
 detained for a sufficient period of tiirie to allow the suspended soil
 particles to settle out.  The amount of; sediment which is deposited will
 depend on the speed at which runoff fldws through the sediment trap, the
 length of time that runoff is detained/ and the size and weight of the
                                     .   illO '
 soil particles which  are in suspension.;
                                    93

-------
           Sandbags, straw bale barriers, and excavated sediment traps,
  placed at regular intervals within a drainage channel, are temporary
  sediment control measures which are easy and economical to construct.
  Sandbag barrier sediment traps are constructed of bags filled with
  sand or crushed rock and stacked in an interlocking manner which is
  designed to trap sediment and reduce the flow velocity,   straw bale barrier
  sediment traps are constructed of bales of hay or straw stacked or staked
  in place.   Tying the bales to stakes with wire provides  additional stability.
           Sandbag and straw bale barriers may also be used at  storm drain
  inlets and along property  lines,  preventing sediment from entering;a
  partially  completed  storm  sewer system,  and reducing sediment deposition
  on neighboring properties.
          Sediment Basin,   streams may also  be protected  from  increased
  sediment loads by trapping runoff in sediment basins before it is released
  into stream channels.  In  addition to trapping sediment, these basins are
  designed to release runoff  at non-erosive rates.  Such sediment basins may
  be  constructed by excavating a pit or by construction of an impoundment.
  Sediment basins often consist of an earthen dam, mechanical spillway
  (including a perforated riser pipe) and an emergency spillway.  The
  construction of sediment basins should be completed before clearing and
 grading begin.  They are generally located at or near the low  point of the
 sites.   Points of discharge from sediment basins must be  stabilized.
 Permanent sediment basins may become  part of the final development  in the
 form of ponds  or small lakes,  which can  be quite attractive after the
 development is completed.112
         Construction of  a  sediment basin will benefit  the  developer by
 avoiding a number of problems:   downstream riparian properties will  not be
 damaged by sediment deposits originating  from the  development; sediment
 deposits downstream will not reduce the capacity of the stream channel;
 sediments will not cause the clogging of downstream impoundments and other
 facilities; and sediments will not reduce the light reaching the
 streambed, which might in turn reduce available oxygen.  it should be
noted, however, that only particles larger than 10 microns will be settled
out by gravity.  The efficiency of the basin in settling smaller particles
is much less than that for larger particles,  such as sand  on silt.  There-
fore, much of the clay particles will  probably not settle  in the basin.
                                    94
111

-------
         Bare Channels.  The least expensive form of drainageway, bare
channels, should be used with caution and| only in areas where the channel
gradient is low.  Bare channels should not be used in soils which have
moderate to high erosion potential.      i
         Grassed Waterways.  Runoff can b;e handled by grass channels for
velocities up to 8 fps., if correctly graced and stabilized.  A grassed water-
way is a much more stable form of drainageway than a bare channel and
should be used where a bare channel woul4 be eroded.  The grass tends to
slow the runoff and filter out sediment, i On steep slopes the use of
grass channels will be constrained by the difficulty of keeping within the
limits of hydraulic gradient prescribed;\in the case of highly erodible
soils a  lower design velocity must be usjd.  Natural channels may often be
improved by  regrading  and  grassing.      j
         Grassed waterways are  less  expensive  than  those  lined with concrete
or stabilized by  "bio-technical"  methods'and  are  much more visually acceptable
than  those lined with  concrete.   The vegUated waterway also encourages
 infiltration,  further  reducing the runofjf problem.   Careful design  and
maintenance of  grassed waterways  is required if gully  erosion is to be
 avoided.  The capacity of the drainagewa^ must allow for  construction of
 additional impermeable areas in the area| served by the channel.
          Lined Channels.  Structural linings are necessary in drainageways
 where vegetation cannot be established because flow is of long duration
 in the channel, runoff velocities are h^gh, erodible soils exist, or slopes
 are very steep.  The most'commonly used ichannel linings are concrete,
 asphalt paving, or riprap.  Information ion how to design and construct
 lined channels may be obtained from thejSoil Conservation Service.  In
 general, vegetative stabilization and'tlfe use of permeable channel linings,
 such as non-grouted riprap, are  preferred  to the use of  impermeable linings
 like concrete.115  Concrete lined channels are visually  unattractive and do
 not permit  infiltration of runoff.      !
           Grade Control  Structures.   Grajle  control  structures may be  employed
 to reduce the  velocity of runoff in drainageways.   These measures  may be
 either  temporary  or permanent, and include drop  spillways,  pipe drops,  and
 pipe spillways.   A drop spillway slows  jthe.velocity of;the runoff, reducing
  its  erosive power.  A pipe drop  removes! sediment and  turbidity, and may
  be designed to handle large volumes of |flow,   A pipe  spillway removes

                                      95 i.

-------
 sediment and turbidity, and may be incorporated as part of the permanent
 drainage system.      Grade control structures counteract gully erosion in
 waterways by reducing the gradient of the channel.   They should be  used when
 physical conditions are too severe for the satisfactory establishment  of
 vegetation cover,  being clearly preferable over an  impermeable lining.   To
 prevent undercutting at the toe,  all  structures should  extend  several  feet
 or more below the  existing ground surface,  ihe selected design capacity
 should  be for a storm of a greater frequency  than the one used for the
 drainage channel because  of the damage  that could be done to the'structure
 if it were to  overtop.117   Grade  control structures concentrate the volume
 of water  flow  and increase  its velocity at the  structure, and, therefore,
banks around grade control  structures often require additional stabilization
measures.
                               96

-------
3.3.6   Other Erosion and Sedimentation Cpntrol Measures

-------

-------
3.3.6    Other Erosion and SedimentationI Control Measures^
         This subsection describes a number of erosion and sedimentation
control measures which may be employed ti protect enclosed drainage systems,
large flat surface areas, and adjacent properties.  The following measures
are considered:  filter inlet, aggregate cover, curb and gutter, windbreak,
                                        I
filter berm, and traffic.               I  .
         Filter Inlet.  The capacity of the storm sewer system itself can
be severely impaired by sediment deposit within the system.  Sediment should
be prevented from entering the enclosed |storm sewer by the use of small,
temporary sediment traps and  filters at jsystem inlets.  Filters made of
crushed  rock,  sod, or straw bales can be placed at inlets where sediment
traps  cannot be constructed.  It  is essential to  regularly check and clean
out  these sediment traps and  filters to Unsure that they function properly.
A sod  filter  is inexpensive and easy to I construct and provides  immediate
protection.   A straw bale  filter  can be | located  as necessary to collect^
sediment and  may  be used in conjunction!with  a  snow fence  for the  site.
          Aggregate Cover.  Areas  being prepared for paving should  be
protected by the use  of aggregate coverj  Aggregate cover  stabilizes  the
 soil surface while allowing  the movement of construction equipment on the
 right-of-way.  The  aggregate cover may also be used as part of  the permanent
                                        1 121
 base in the construction of  paved areas,.
          Curb and Gutter.  Concentrated; runoff leaving paved areas is highly
 erosive.  After construction is complete, the paved roadway itself can
 serve as a drainageway with curbs and gutters conducting runoff to enclosed
 drainage system inlets.  Where it is not economically feasible to install
 curbs and gutters, paved surfaces shoul|d be designed so that runoff will
 travel  the shortest possible distance across the paved areas.  This will
 prevent large accumulations of runoff from leaving paved areas at high
                            112         i
 velocities in any one area.            ;
          Windbreak.  A windbreak, such las a snow fence, may be employed
  to  minimize wind erosion on  large flat jsurface areas.  Neighboring properties
                      , 123              I
  may also be protected.                . j ......
          Filter Berm.   A filter  berm  is a temporary ridge of gravel or
  crushed rock constructed  across  a graded right-of-way  to  retain runoff
  while at the same time  allowing  construction traffic  to proceed along the
                                    97

-------
  right-of-way.  They are used primarily across graded rights-of-way that
  are subject to vehicular traffic, tut are also applicable for use in
  drainage ditches prior to roadway paving and establishment of permanent
  ground cover.     Filter berms intercept and divert runoff to stabilized
  areas or Prepared drainageways, and serve to slow runoff and collect
  sediment.
           Traffic Control on Construction  p^0    Being in constant US(3/
  construction roads may be a particular source of  pollution,  .where feasible
  alternative  routes should be made  for  construction traffic:  one  for use
  in dry conditions, the other for use in wet  conditions  employing  a number
  of control measures,   where possible,  the construction  road should be
  routed along the same  line as permanent roads so that the permanent roadbed
 may be used for construction traffic.  Efficient construction road
 stabilization not only reduces on-site erosion,  but'can significantly speed
 on-sxte work, avoid instances of immobilized machinery and delivery vehicles
 and generally improve working conditions under adverse weather.  Mud  on vehicle
 tores is  significantly reduced, avoiding a hazard  by depositing mud on  the
 public roadway by dump trucks,  delivery vehicles,  etc.   inlets  and oth.r
 partially completed storm drainage  structures are  protected during con-
 struction.  However,  measures on temporary roads must be cheap  not only  to
 install but also  to demolish  if they interfere with the  eventual surface
 treatment of  the  area.  therefore,  in addition to  such measures as aggregate
 cover, filter inlets, filter berms, etc., it may be desirable to dmploy
alternative routes for  construction traffic.  Each route can be rested
alternatively and critical areas stabilized,  in some cases it may be
desirable to have a good weather route and a wet weather route.126
                                 98

-------
                         REFERENCES
                  Tnf,,rli, Progress Report on tbp Analysis of Best
1.  Colston, Newton V., Jr.  Characterization and Treatment of Urban
    Land Runoff.  EPA 670/2-74-096, December 1974, p. 89.

2   Poertner, Herbert G.  Practices in I Detention of Urban Stormwater
    Runoff.  Prepared for the Office of Water Resources Research,  U.S.
    Beilrtment of the Interior.  OWRR Project No. C-3380, OWRR Contract No.
    14-31-0001-3722,  1974, p.  2.      j

3   Amy, Gary, et al.  Water Quality Management  Planning for Urban  Runoff.
    Prepared for the U.S. Environmenta[L Protection Agency.  Report No.
    EPA 440/9-75-004,   1974, pp. IV-2  - IV-5.

4.  Ibid.,  p.  IV-6.

5.  Waldo,  Andrew.  An xn^erxm ±-j.^.i..=oo ^^~	-....	7nv.-*4-\ •
    Management Practices.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  (Draft)
    November 1975.  .   -                j

6.  Amy  et al., op_. cit.,  pp.  IV-6 -  IV-7.

 7.  Waldo,  op. cit.                    j

 8.  Amy  et al., op cit.,  p. IV-5.      j

 9.   Tourbier,  Joachim, and WestmacottJ Richard.'  Water Resources  Protection
     Measures in Land Development - A Handbook.  Prepared for the  U.S.
     Department of the interior, Offic^ of Water Resources Research.
     April                            ':

10   American Public Works Association'  M^^  Pollution Aspects of Urban
              Prepared  for the  Federal;Wa^ir Pollution Control Admxnxstratxon.
     Contract

11.

12.

13.


14



15.



 16.

 17.
Contract No. WP-20-15, 1969.

Waldo, op cit.                   •
             „                    i
Tourbier and Westmacott, op. cit.|, p.  149.

Mammel, F.A.  '"We Are Using Salt-Smarter."   American City.   LXXXVII(l):

54-56, 1972.                     ]

Field, R., et  al. Water Pollution and Associated  Effects from Street
Salting.  EPA-R2-73-257.   Edison jWater Quality Research Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.  May 1973.

      , John A.,  and William G. Smith.  Urban Stormwater Management and
              An  Assessment.  Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
                -     	— ."""     	  —«-»«. tf\ *-t A r\ A r\   "I Q*7>1  T-\  IxQ
^nooov:   n  s.
Protection Agency.  Report No. EPA-670/2-74-040, 1974, p. 139  .
                                 !
Tourbier and We'stmacott, op. cit\, pp. X49-150

Ibid., p. 150.                   I
                               99

-------
  18.








  19.


  20.


  21.


  22.



  23.


  24.


  25.


  26.



  27.


  28.


  29.




 30.


 31.


 32.


 33.


 34.


 35.


 36.


 37.


 38.


39.


40.
                Department of Community Development and Henningson,
Durham, Richardson, and Hart, Inc.  Stormwater Management Plan for

                   Rosa.C°™ties-  Prepared for the West Florida ~
                          .-
           Planning  Council, Pensacola, Florida.  May  1974.


   Tourbier and Westmacott,  op_.  cit. , pp.  153-154.


  Hawaii Environmental Laws and Regulations, Volume II, Chapter 46.


  Lager and Smith, op. cit., p. 152.


  Ibid. , pp.  152-153.


  Poertner, op. cit. , p.  6.                                 •'-..


  Ibid . , p. 132.


  Waldo,  op.  cit.


  Poertner, op. cit.,  p.  140.     ;                              :


  Lager and Smith,  op.  cit., p.  153.


  Poertner, pp.  cit . , pp.  4-6.
 p                    Authoritv- ' Redevelopment Plan:  Skyline Urban
 Project, Denver, Colorado.  February 1969.  ~~~	   —	—^i_


 Poertner, pp_. cit., pp. 11-16.  ;


 Ibid., p. 28.                   ;


 Ibid., p. 12.


 Ibid., p. 29.


 Ibid., p. 5.                     ;


 Ibid.,  p. 5.                     \


 Ibid.,  pp.  5-6.                  :


 Ibid.,  p.  26.


 Ibid.,  p. 46.                    ;



 Tourbier  and Westmacott, op. cit., pp. 66-69.



Young,  G.K., et al.  Model to Design Stormwater Detenf-^n Tanks for

Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement.  April 1975.	~	~
                                 100

-------
41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.



48.

49.

 50.

 51.

 52.

 53.

 54.

 55.

 56.

 57.



  58.

  59.

  60.

  61.

  62.

  63.
Pdertner, op. cit.,  pp. 41-43.

Ibid., p. 35.

Tourbier and Westmacott, op. cit., p. 44.

Ibid., pp. 44-45.                   i .        .   , :

Poertner, op. cat., p. 35.          i
          — ——                  i

Tourbier and Westmacott, op.  cit.,  pp. 46-47.

Heaney,  James P., at  al. nrfaan Stormwater  Management
Making!  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  ^oDect No
"(11023 GSC), Program  Element  No.  1BBB034.   May  1975, p. 141.
 Poertner, op. cit.,  pp.  151-153.     |

 Heaney et al.,  op.  cit., p.  141.    j

 Tourbier and Westmacott, op. cit.,  jpp. 48-49.                    ,

 Ibid., pp. 50-51.                  |
                                    i
 Ibid., pp. 54-55.                  ]

 Ibid., pp. 56-57.                  '

 Ibid., pp. 58-59.

 Ibid., pp. 62-63.                  j

 Ibid., pp. 64-65.                  |

 Beckett Jackson Raeder, Inc.  Michigan Soil  Erosion and  Sedi^ntation
 Control Guidebook.   Prepared  for the Michigan  Department of Natural
 Resources, Bureau  of Water  Management, February 1975.

  Ibid.,   p..10.                     |

  Tourbier and Westmacott, op.  cit. ,| p. 81
                                    i
  Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,  op. git., p. 99.
  Tourbier and Westmacott, op. cit. ,1 pp. 81 82.
                                    i  -
  Ibid., pp. 83-84.                 j

  Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., pp.. cit., pp. 25-26.
                                       101

-------
  64.




  65.

  66.

  67.

  68.

  69.

  70.

 71.

 72.

 73.



 74.

 75.

 76.

 77.

 78.

79.

80.
                 r
        Control, Construction
                                               Costs of E
                                                    f,r thr -_
        —  —  —	__	          *  ^ -"-^.fcu-ci-i j_i_u. tne u.b. E
        Protection Agency.  July 1973, pp. 53-57, EPA-430/9-73-016

        Ibid.,  p.  102.                  •

        Ibid.,  p.  104.

        Ibid./  p.  106.


       Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,  op_.  cit.,  p.  25,

       Tourbier and Westmacott, pp.  cit., p. 103.

       Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,  op.: cit.,  p.  25.

       Tourbier & Westmacott, pp_. cit., p. 99.

       Ibid., pp.  107-108.             '


                                     Erosion-Siltation C
 Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., op. cit., p. 17.

 Ibid.,  pp.  20-21.                 .

 Ibid.,  p. 22.                        .


 Engineering-Science-,'Inc., op_. cit., p. _30.

 Beckett Jackson Raeder  Inc.,  op.  cit.

Engineering-Science,  Inc., pp. cit., p. loo.

Dow Chemical Company.  An Economic Analysis  of
Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing	
                                                              and  Sediment
 81.

 82.

 83.

 84.

 85.

86.
                                                      ..                  .,r





     Engineering-Science, Inc., op. cit., pp. 41-42.

     Beckett Jackson 'Raeder Inc., op_. '.cit.

     Ibid. ,  p.  20.


     Dow Chemical Company,  op  cit.

     Tourbier and Westmacott,  o£.  cit./ p. 89.

    Beckett  Jackson Raeder Inc. ,  c£. cit. ......        /         .'...-.•.
                                  102

-------
87.  Tourbier and:Westmacott, op.  cit.,  PP.  89-90.
    --,'•;-.      . -,'    --        '  ..      I ...        "•-•       _..-"•
88.  Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,  op_.  c±£.,  p.  23.

89.  Tourbier and Westmacott, op.  cit.,  p.  85.

90.  Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,  op_.  ci£., p.  24.

91  Tourbier  and Westmacott,  op_.  cit.,  )?p. 85-86.


«.
     Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  EPA-R2-72-015.

     August 1972, p. 27.               . |              .-.'.•>   •-.

 93.

 94

 95

 96.

 97.

 98.

 99.

100.

 101.

 102.

 103.

 104.

 105.

 106.

 107.


 108.

  109.

  110.
Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., op_.

Tourbier and Westmacott,  op_. cit.,jpp.  95-96.

Beckett Jackson Raeder  Inc., ££.  c^t.,  p. 23.
                       ...-'      •  "   !  •                  -    -.-'-.-•
Ibid., p.  27.                      j
Tourbier  and Westmacott,  pp_.  cit.,| PP. 123-124.

Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,  op. c£t., p. 28.

 Tourbier and Westmacott, op.  cit. ,j pp. 123-124.
                                   j-     ...••-...             -  -  „ _
 Ibid., pp. 129-130.               i

 Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., op_.  cit., p.  29.

 Tourbier  and Westmacott, op. cit.*  p.  128.

 Ibid. , P.  128.; ,  .                 ;       .      ''..,........•-.•..

 Engineering-Science, Inc., op_. cit.. , p.  23.

 Tourbier and Westmacott, op_.  cit.,  p. 91 •

 Beckett  Jackson  Raeder Inc.,  op. cit.

 Department of Public Works,  City bf Baltimore.  Baltimore  City Erosion
 and Sediment Control Manual, May ;1971.

  Tourbier and Westmacott, op_. cit.i, p. 132.
                                   !   -.---'
  Beckett Jackson Raeder  Inc., op_. jcit.,  p.  34*

  Hittman  Associates, Inc.  	_^_
  on Construction Sites,  19?3, p.  2.
of Sed^ent Generated
                                      103:

-------
  Ill*



  112.




  113.




  114.




 115.




 116.




 117.




 118.




 119.




 120.




 121.




 122.




 123.




 124.




 125.




126.
  Ibid., pp.  7-8.




  Beckett Jackson  Raeder Inc.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  32-33,



  Ibid., p. 35.




  Tourbier and Westmacott,, op_.  cit., p. 109.




 Beckett Jackson  Raeder  Inc.,  bp_.  cit., p. 35.



 Ibid., p.  35.  ,




 Tourbier and Westmacott, pjp. cit., pp. 115-116.




 Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., op_. pit., p. 30.



 Ibid., p.  37.




 Ibid.




 Ibid., p. 40.




 Ibid., p. 40.




 Ibid.




 Engineering-Science/.Inc., op. cit., p.  33.



Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., o£, cit., p. 40.




Tourbier and Westmacott, o£. cit., pp. 87-88.
                                   104

-------
4.0"    REGULATORY APPROACHES               I            '    .......   ...-,.•
        The technical approaches discussed in Chapter 3 above can be imple-
mented through the" regulatory, fiscal, and proprietary powers of state and local
government.  Despite the now dominant' role j>f the federal government in
regulating point sources, the control of nphpoint sources—especially
stormwater runoff and leachate from septic  j:anks and landfills-remains
almost entirely a state and  local responsibility.   This distinction is  clearly
recognized in Section 208 of the Federal Wajter  Pollution  Control Act Amend-
ments of  1972, under which areawide strategies, including regulatory programs ,
are to be developed for controlling all sources of  water  pollution. Section
208 contemplates, moreover,  a planning  approach that proceeds from the bottom
up, with  important initiatives  to  be  taken jby local governments,  both- -separately
and in  cooperation with one  another.   This (approach recognizes that preventive
strategies for managing nonpoint sources  a^e inseparable from land use controls,
which have traditionally  been exercised for the most part by local governments.
         The aim of the present chapter is jxs indicate ways in which' state and
 local governments can exercise their power^ for the purpose of regulating
 nonpoint sources, especially stormwater runoff. - Eight specif ic regulatory
 approaches are discussed:

               techniques, not all purely "regulatory.'   (4.2.1)
                      s                             r
                whatever wasteflows it generates.   (4.2.2)
                of protecting water quality,   (4.2.3)


                 incident to development.   (:4-.2.4)
                                         10..5,
                                            I

-------
            (5)  Requiring that development proceed along lines and in ways that
                preserve natural processes associated with the hydrological
                cycle.  (4.2.5)
            (6)  Conditioning development permission upon compliance with
                technical standards for controlling runoff, erosion,  and
                sedimentation.  (4.2.6)
           (7)  Controls over land disposal of wastes for the purpose of
                protecting water quality,  including controls over solid waste
                disposal and use of septic tanks.   (4.2.7)
           (8)  Regulatory and administrative controls over inplace or
                accumulated sources.   (4.2.8)

          Since a great deal has already been written in this field,  the
  reader will be referred  at various  points to selected portions  of the literature,
  Our  concern here cannot  be to exhaust the subject,  but only to  survey, with
  the  aid of examples  of actual practices  from around the country,  the range  of
  regulatory approaches  that are open to state and  local governments.   Before
  adopting any of  them,  it  is  strongly recommended  that  the  decision-maker refer
  to the relevant  bibliography and consult  legal counsel on  the particular laws
 of his state  as  construed by its courts.  The variations in legal authorities
 among the fifty  states are numerous; the reader is therefore cautioned not to
 assume that a solution adopted by one locality can be readily transferred to
 any other.   On the other hand, the range of possible regulatory approaches is
 fmite, and one or more of those described below may be found suitable, with
 appropriate modifications, to the needs of many localities.
         Several other caveats should be stated at the outset concerning the
 use of the  materials  that follow.

         Regulatory power  is rarely exercised for  the exclusive purpose of
 protecting  water quality  from nonpoint sources of  pollution.  Additional pur-
 poses are almost always present,  in  the pursuit of multi-faceted environmental,
 economic, and social  objectives.   TOiis is true even  with respect to  regulations
 that  are  specifically addressed to thei control of  runoff,  erosion, and
 sedimentation.  In addition to-preserving water quality, such regulations
may aim to avoid  flood  damage, preserve land  and ecosystems, protect  esthetic
and other amenities, recharge groundwater supplies, and channel development
along suitable lines.    In choosing among strategies for  nonpoint source

                                     106

-------
                                          I
control, then, the decision-maker will inevitably find himself taking into
account a host of considerations that include but go well beyond water quality.
He may try to work from a singular point of view, but piecemeal regulation
without overall planning can perpetuate oj aggravate conflict among different
social objectives.  It is therefore recommended that nonpoint source controls
be integrated to the maximum possible extent with comprehensive planning for
land use and development in all affected Areas.   (Refer to Chapter 2.)
        For convenience, each of the regulatory approaches is presented
under a separate heading.  It should be emphasized, however, that these
approaches are not mutually exclusive; eajdi has its own distinguishing features,
but they also overlap  one  another.  In fact,  the  best  results are likely to be
achieved by some  combination of two or mope approaches.   For example, the
districting of  sensitive areas  (such  as wptlancls  or hillsides)  on which develop-
ment  is to be restricted could be combinek,with a capital improvement program
that  positively channels development  intoj more suitable  areas.   Ordinances
prescribing  control of erosion  and sedimentation can  operate in buffer  zones
 surrounding  conservation  districts,  and purchases of  conservation easement or
 systems of transferable development rights can alleviate inequities caused by
 restrictions on development.   Natural performance standards with respect to
 particular types or gradients of soils cjn facilitate preparation of environ-
 mental impact statements whenever these jre prescribed as conditions for
 securing approval for development.  Such|examples could be multiplied indefi-
 nitely; the decision-maker must considerjwhat combination of control strategies
 best suits the needs of his locality.    , .
         Preceeding the discussion of the!specific regulatory approaches will
 be a brief description of the sources ofjstate and municipal regulatory
 authority over nonpoint sources  such as  jstormwater runoff.  A  final  section
 will raise several  issues related to implementation of these approaches.
                                         ' j '•'."'-'
  4. i     The  Legal  Framework and  the  Scopis of Legal Authority
         The  powers reserved to  the statejs 'under  the  Tenth Amendment to the
  United States  Constitution  include the  p|owers to tax and spend for the public
  welfare  and for the maintenance of  government itself; to acquire,  manage,  and
  dispose  of  property for  public purposes;, and to regulate private activity in
  the.interest of 'the public health safety^ and general welfare.   These sovereign
  powers of the states, particularly the regulatory ones, are generally known
                                       107

-------
  as "police powers."  They are the ultimate source of authority for all
  the regulatory approaches discussed in this chapter.   Their exercise is
  limited by a number of constitutional restraints,  of which the most
  important for our purposes are that the governmental power be  exercised in the
  public interest;  that the means of government  intervention be  reasonably
  necessary for the accomplishment of a public purpose;  that standards of
  procedural due process be observed in the  regulation  of private activity;
  that a state refrain  from discriminating unreasonably against  any  class  of
  persons  in the application of  its  laws;  and that private property  not be
  taken  for public  use without just  compensation.  Within these  constitutional
  limitations  ,  the states may avail  themselves of a broad range of  strategies
  for  environmental protection.

         Any or all of the approachesjmentioned previously could be undertaken
 entirely at the state level, through enactments of the state legislature and
 administration of regulatory, fiscal^or proprietary functions by agencies of
 the executive branch to which the legislature,has delegated the necessary
 authority.  However, the states have delegated a large measure of their
 police powers to local governments, either through "home rule"  provisions
 of state law, or,  more commonly, through enabling statutes,  state constitutions,
 municipal charters adopted in accordance with constitutional or statutory
 provisions, and enabling legislation '.are the fundamental sources of local
 government authority.   It must be borne in mind that local  governments have
 no inherent authority of their  own, but only such  powers  as are granted to
 them by the constitution and statutes of the state  in which they are located.
 Thus, there may be a threshhold question as to  whether a  local  government has
 the authority to legislate in a particular  manner to  deal with  a particular
 problem.   For example,  it may lie within the general police  power of a
 municipality to regulate the disposal; of waste, but not to impose a tax  upon
 waste products  released to  the  environment, even though the  legislative
 goal  might be the  same  in  either case.   In  such an event, the municipality
 would have  to obtain specific legislative authority to  impose a tax.
        Home rule  provisions, which  are designed to carve out a legislative
 jurisdiction in which local governments can operate free of state interference,
typically authorize municipalities  "to exercise all powers of local self-
government and to  adopt and enforce within their limits such local police,
sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general

                                     108

-------
laws."2  Such a clause may, for example,jauthorize a municipality to require
of a subdivider that he dedicate land fojr public purposes, even in the
absence of any statutory authority to exfct such a condition.  On the other .
hand, municipalities in home rule jurisdictions may not in fact have
greater powers to control pollution thanj in states where home rule is not
recognized.  This is true for two reasons.  First, state law may "preempt
the field" in matters transcending local! concern.  State regulation, in
other words, may be so pervasive or so comprehensive with respect to a
particular activity that no room is left for local governments to adopt
regulations of their own pertaining to t|he same  subject matter.  It is a
question of legislative intent, commonly: interpreted by the  courts, as to
whether state intervention is preemptive; or whether state and  local enact-
ments can work concurrently in  the samejfield.   Where preemption does not
exist, local regulations are commonly sustained  if they require  controls
as strict  as or  stricter than state  lawJ   If conflict is  otherwise  found to
exist between  state and  local enactment^,  the  former will, always prevail.
These determinations are quite  independent of  the question whether  home rule
has been granted municipalities in matters of  local  concern.
         Secondly, state enactments delegating  police power  to local
 governments may be so broad in scope asjto approach constitutional home  rule
 by legislative means.  For example,  municipalities may be authorized by
 statute to "take all action necessary oj: convenient for the government of
 their local affairs," or to "enact all ordinances, regulations, and by-laws
 for the well-ordering, managing, and directing of the prudential affairs and
 police of their respective towns."3  TlJus, state legislatures may delegate broad
 powers to municipalities to provide for! the safety, health, welfare, and
 convenience of their respective communities.  So even in jurisdictions
 without constitutional home rule, municipalities may have extensive
 powers to regulate pollutant-generating, activity.
         The upshot  of this brief discussion of  a very complicated topic is
 that local governments may have greater powers  than they realize, but
 should obtain the advice  of legal counsel on  the extent' to  which the absence
  of home rule,  restricted  statutory authorization,  state  preemption,  or judicial
  precedent may limit local power,  beforfe attempting to  extend the reach of
  their environmental controls.          ]
          In most states, enabling legislation authorizes local government to
  adopt zoning ordinances,  subdivision regulations,, and building and health
  codes.  These traditional regulatory vehicles can be used to a greater
   extent than is generally appreciated for purposes of controlling nonpoint
                                    109

-------
   sources  of pollution.   Specific  authority  to regulate waste disposal, land-
   tisturbing activities,  and stormwater runoff may also be delegated by
   enabling laws.  The first step of the 208  planner is to determine what can
   be done  with the laws already on the books.
           Zoning enabling acts commonly provide, in part, that local
   governments may regulate                          -      ..

          the percentage of a lot that may be occupied, the size of
          yards  courts, and other open spaces,  the density of population,
          and the_location and use of buildings,  structures,  and land for
          trade,  industry, residence or other purposes....  Such regula-
          an"?1^       ^ made ...  to secure safety ...  to promote health
          and the general welfare  ...  to prevent the overcrowding of  land,
          to  avoid undue concentration of  population,  [and] to facilitate
          adequate provision of ...  sewerage  and  other  public  requirements.
          Such  regulations shall be made with reasonable  consideration  .
          to  the  character of the district and its peculiar suitability
          for particular uses,  and with  a  view to conserving the  value  of
         buildings and  encouraging the most  appropriate use of land
         throughout  such  municipality.4
 Pursuant  to provisions such as these, a  municipality may require minimum lot
 sizes in  areas where the capacity of soils  to- absorb septic tank waste is
 limited; may designate districts in which land uses are restricted because
 of natural features of the land that would  affect drainage and seepage;
 and may require that the pace and pattern of development be governed by the
 time-phased extension of sewerage and other municipal services in
 accordance with a capital development program.
         In steel Hill Development. Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton.5 a federal
 court recently upheld a six-acre minimum  lot size  ordinance as  a
 legitimate stop-gap  measure, designed in  part to prevent water pollution and
 other forms  of environmental degradation, until  such time  as  the town  could
 plan  some longer range  approach for coping with  the intense development
 pressures  it was facing.
        Under  zoning enabling  acts or amendments to them, municipalities may
 also be authorized to permit cluster zoning  and planned unit development,
 which afford flexibility  to a developer in designing his site so long as he
meets overall density restrictions and provides certain services or
 amenitites.  In this manner, development may occur in "clusters or more
 environmentally tolerant parts of a site while sensitive areas are retained
as open space.  »  In Bucks County,  Pennsylvania,  it has been  proposed to

                                   110

-------
stipulate through a zoning ordinance-nojb only density requirements but also
permissible ratios of open spaces to impervious surfaces.   To; avoid erosion
and consequent water pollution as a resjilt of further development, the city
of Palo Alto, California, recently adopjfced an open space zone in which.one-
                                       i    -  '             '           9
family dwellings were the most .intensivje-use that would be permitted.   The
zoning ordinance of Harristown, Illinois, contemplates the establishment of
conservation zones, whose purpose is:  j     .             .   .
                  ••            •         I
        to prevent the construction upon or alterations of  ...
        natural environments which have! natural conditions of soil,
        slope, susceptibility to floodiing or erosion, geological
        conditions, vegetation,'or interaction between the afore-
        said which makes such lands unsuitable for urban development.
        Further, this zone is establish'ed to protect areas of the
        environment, that, if altered, toould cause health or population
        problems, and environmental degradation.
            • '  '        '   "      "  "   \  '  '  '•'  '        •   •  11'   - '
In the celebrated case of Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo   the Court
of Appeals  of New York held  that population growth could be controlled
through restrictions on  the  sequencingjand  timing of development,  even though
the  relevant zoning law  did  not expressly authorize such control.
        The foregoing examples  illustrate the potential  reach of  the-.zoning
authority in preserving  open spaces  for  retention and  infiltration of rain
water, and for guarding  against prematiire or unsuitably  located development
that could cause nonpoint pollution.   It will be necessary  to  assure in  all
cases, however,  that  land use restrictions  do not go  so  far :as  to
constitute a compensable taking of private  property.
        Under planning  enabling acts,  'localities are  commonly authorized to
adopt subdivision regulations,  to whiclji a developer must conform before
he can obtain approval of  his plat.   Ih some jurisdictions, courts have held
 that local governments  may impose conditions requiring a subdivider to
            •                   •_.:•• I. ..-••'."• .•••''•'•••••'•'' j_3 "
 dedicate land for public open space betore he can obtain approval.    Platting
 may be prohibited or severely restricted on critical water-related lands,
 such as floodplains,  wetlands, shorelands,  andsteep slopes,  where intensive
 development could be expected to jeopardize water quality.   Subdivision
 approval is also a fitting juncture atjwhich to require submission of
 environmental impact statements detailing aspects of the site plan  (including
 erosion and sedimentation controls)  thjat are designed to minimize adverse
 effects on the environment, and other jeviderice that the subdivider has arrayed
 the  components of his plan in harmony jwith the natural features of the site.
                                      ill"                -.  .'

-------
         Building and sanitary codes typically authorize local governments to
  "enact and enforce ordinances regulating the construction ...  maintenance,
  sanitation ... inspection ... and control of ... buildings,  dwellings,  and
  structures of all types and descriptions, whether used for human habitation
  or otherwise 	"   Accordingly, construction codes may require use of
  stormwater detention facilities or of permeable materials to increase
  infiltration, and sanitary codes may regulate the location and construction
  of septic tanks and landfills,  in part by reference to the permeability of
  the soil  and the level of the water table.   Moreover,  both types  of  code
  can and should impose  ongoing responsibilities  on owners  or operators of
  control facilties  to maintain them in good  repair.   For example,  the code
  may make  it  the duty of landowners  to prevent accumulations of sediment
  behind detention devices  (as  a precaution against sediment runoff) and to
  have their septic  tanks periodically  cleaned  out  by  licensed scavengers.
  A good code will also provide for periodic  inspection by officials to monitor
  compliance.                         ;
        Imaginative exercise of the foregoing traditional sources of
  authority can go far toward controlling nonpoint sources of pollution at
 the local level.  We turn next to taking a closer look at the principal
 varieties  of control strategies  that are in use today in one  or another
 part of the country.
  4*2    Specific Regulatory Approaches and Techniques
  4-2-1  Acquisitions of  Land for  Open Space and Other Non-Intensive Uses
        As  noted in earlier chapters, particular  parcels of land may play a
 critically important role  in  the hydrological cycle by  virtue of  their
 capacity to retain or absorb  stormwater,  or  because incompatible develop-
 ments upon them might cause an especially serious  problem  of runoff, erosion,
 and  sedimentation.   The  best  and  most  direct way of securing the protective
 functions  of  such lands  is  to  acquire  them for public purposes, including
 conservation or  recreation, for which  extensive  grading, stripping, and
paving will not  be  required.
       Grants  to defray the cost  of purchasing recreational properties
may be available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by
the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,  under  16
USC § 4601, and  from parallel state programs.  Even so, public land acquisi-
tion  is likely to be an expensive proposition for a community.   There'is
                                 112 ,

-------
not enough federal and state money to go around for this purpose and the
community will ordinarily have to pay forj some part of the purchase cost.
       Conservation easements or restrictions, which can be acquired either
by gift or purchase, are a less costly technique for avoiding environmentally
degrading developments.  A New Jersey lavi, for example, authorizes certain
governmental bodies to acquire "interests or rights consisting, in whole or
in part, of restrictions on the use of llnd by others."    A Pennsylvania
law enables counties to covenant with landowners for the preservation of
land in farm, forest, water supply, or other open  space uses.    By  such a^
covenant", the land owner commits himself j to maintaining his land as  open
space  for 10 years and the county promises in turn to  assess the property at
a value no greater than it is worth with]the encumbrance of the restrictive
covenant.  This  device gives the owner  sj>me relief from property and estate
taxes  as well as a charitable deduction from his income tax.   It also
enables him  to retain  title  and to  continue living on the  land without
intrusions from  the  public or to use  thej land  in any manner he wishes so
long as he preserves it  consistently  witfi the  terms of the restriction.
In effect, the owner sells  (or  donates)  |and a local government agency or
charitable corporation buys  only  certain development rights in the
property,  at what^may be a considerable pavings in costs compared to the price
 that would have to be paid for purchasing the entire title.  Federal and
 state assistance, moreover,  may be available for such partial acquisitions.
                                         |             -J.O      -       -
        The Massachusetts Conservation Restriction Law   is an example
 worth discussing in some detail.   It defines conservation restrictions as
 rights appropriate to keeping "land or viater areas predominantly in their
 natural, scenic or open condition or in!agricultural, farming or forest use."
 Activities that could jeopardize water quality may be expressly forbidden
 or limited by such  restrictions, including:  "(a)  construction or placing of
 buildings ... or other structures on orjabove the ground,  (b)  dumping  or
  placing of  soil or  other substance or material as landfill, or dumping or
  placing of  trash, waste or  unsightly orjoffensive materials,  (c)  removal
  or destruction  of  trees, shrubs or othe|c vegetation,  (d)  excavation,
  dredging, or removal  of  loam, peat,  gravel,  soil, rock,  or other  mineral
  substance  ...  (3)  surface use  except fojr agricultural, farming,  forest or
  outdoor  recreational purposes  or  purposes permitting the land or water
  area to  remain predominantly in its natural condition, (f)  activities
                                     113 1

-------
   detrimental to drainage,  flood control,  water conservation,  erosion  control
   or soil conservation...."   The.restrictions  can be  tailored  to  fit the
   particular situation.  Generally,  they provide that all rights  not
   expressly  conveyed are reserved to the grantor,  thus allowing a range of
   consistent uses.  Occasionally, an easement  allowing the grantee to enter
   on  the premises and inspect for violations is  conveyed along with the
   restriction.
         The acquiring party must be either a governmental or a charitable
  body whose purposes include conservation.  Acquisitions may be by eminent
  domain,  gift, or contractual agreement,  and must be  approved by the
  appropriate state and local agencies.   When a restriction has been recorded
  so as to provide public notice that the land  is encumbered,  it becomes    *
  enforceable over time from one landowner to another, by means of an
  injunction  or proceeding in equity  if: necessary.19  The landowner may be
  released from the restriction upon  payment of . such consideration as the
  holder may  determine, but only after, a public hearing on 'the  matter following
  upon advance public notice.   "The /requirement that a public hearing be held
  before any  action  is taken will safeguard  against the use of variance
  practices that have proved so  dangerous and arbitrary in the administration
  f^^ .i_i	.          ..20
 of the zoning power."
        Valuing conservation restrictions for tax. purposes may pose some
 problems,   but these can be surmounted.  It is also advisable to provide
 for roll-back taxes, conveyance fees, or penalty provisions in the event
 that a restriction is discontinued or violated/in order to discourage 'abuse
 of this device by land speculators.  As for whether the cost of a conserva-
 tion restriction in terms of lost property tax revenues will be more than
 offset by the benefit of open-space preservation to the community,  that is
 a question that can only be  answered by reference  to the community's overall
 land-use policies.   In this  connection,  it should  be pointed out that develop-
 ment of certain lands  may saddle  a community with  higher costs  for  new
 services  than it will  receive in  new tax revenues,  and  that  preservation of
 open spaces may well have  the effect of  increasing  the  assessable values '
 of surrounding tracts.
       Perhaps the principal advantage of the conservation restriction is
 that it is a non-adversarial technique for preserving open spaces, without
the necessity of having to purchase them outright or to regulate them to
the point where takings might be deemed to have occurred.
                                   114

-------
      422  Time Phased Capital Investment and Development Guidance
      . • •    	     •       •        j-        •    •
             By guiding the location, sequence,! and timing of new municipal
      facilities, including sewerage and drainage, a community can discourage
      premature development that might cause ncppoint pollution in the absence
      of such facilities and can channel development positively into areas where,
      because of favorable topographical conditions, it is least likely to
      generate polluted runoff or leachate.  Development guidance through the time-
      phased provision of municipal services cjm therefore serve indirectly to
      prevent sources of nonpoint pollution from arising, while promoting a wide
      range of environmental and economic objectives.
             A controlled growth plan of this  sort in the town of Ramapo, New
      York was upheld in the celebrated case oj: Golden v. Planning Board of
      Ramapo.22  The Town of Ramapo had amendeja its zoning ordinance to require
      special development permits, which wouldjbe granted in  each case only if
      the land to be developed was located  in  Jan  area served  by  a minimum  level
      of certain community  facilities.  These  Ifacilities, including sewerage and
      drainage,  were to be  installed  in accordance with  a master plan, an
      official map, and an 18-year  capital  improvement program to which the  town
      had committed itself. Development permits  could be  granted only on  the
      basis  of  a "point system"  that reflected! the  proximity  of  the site  to  such
      improvements, but a developer could  acquire additional  points and
      thereby accelerate his eligibility by providing the necessary improvements
      himself.   Lands  whose development potential was deferred under  this  scheme
      could be afforded reductions  in property! taxes.  The  announced purposes of the
      program as a whole were to afford relief to the citizenry  from  the rising
      burden of the total tax load and to eliminate unplanned and uncoordinated
       growth which outstripped the capacity of availability of supporting
       community services such as drainage, ro
-------
  Enabling Act to  avoid  "undue  concentration of population" and to "facilitate
  adequate provision of  public  services" included time-phased controls as
  "a necessary concomitant to the municipality's .recognized authority to
  determine the lines upon which local development shall proceed...."
         To the objection that the ordinance was exclusionary, the court
  pointed out  that the town was committed to expanding its facilities in an
  orderly manner and to ensuring "continuous development comensurate  with the
  town's obligation to provide such facilities.  They seek, not to freeze
  population at present levels,  but to maximize growth by the  efficient use
  of land...."  Finally,, the court held that the ordinance did not amount to
  a public taking,  since  deferrals of development rights  under the ordinance
  were  only temporary  and property owners could elect to  accelerate the  rate
  of development by installing at  their own  expense the necessary  public
  services  to  bring their parcels within the required number of development
  points.  Moreover, even during the  period  of deferred development rights,
  landowners were not deprived of all reasonable uses  of  their property; they
  could, for example, construct single  family residences without reference
  to the restrictive provisions of -the ordinance.  "In  sum, where it is
  clear that the existing physical and financial resources of the community
  are inadequate to furnish the essential services and facilities which a
  substantial increase/in population requires,  there is a rational basis for
  'phased growth' and hence,  the challenged ordinance is not violative of the
 Federal and State Constitutions."
        A somewhat similar  approach was upheld by a federal court  in  Construc-
 tion Industry Association  of Sonoma County  v.  City of Petaluma.23  Petaluma
 had adopted a 500 per year  limit  on the number of new dwelling units that
 could  be  constructed  in  the city,  pursuant  to  an  announced policy of
 preserving its small-town character  and surrounding  open space, of keeping
 new development within the bounds  of available municipal services, and of
 providing a permanent  green belt around the city.  The court held that
 the "public welfare" purpose of zoning was  sufficiently  broad to  include
 these objectives.  The Petaluma plan was therefore deemed  "a reasonable and
 legitimate exercise of the police power."   in so holding, the court observed
 that the plan  did not freeze local population at present or near-present
 levels and did  not have the undesirable effect of walling .out any
particular income class or racial minority group.  In fact, the plan
                                   116

-------
contemplated that between 8 and .12 per cent of each year's housing quota
would be allocated fco low or moderate Income housing.
                                         i
       These cases teach that a municipality, through careful exercise of
                                         i
its powers to plan for land use and to program for investment, may
regulate the pace and pattern of its own Development in accordance with
environmental objectives.  These may include avoidance of water pollution
from nonpoint sources, at least until such time as municipal facilities
are available to collect and treat waterbprne wastes.  However, the Ramapo
                                         i
and Petaluma approaches cannot be employe^ unless the municipality is
prepared to establish land-use policies and programs ranging far beyond
control of water quality.  Moreover, unless the approach is carefully
conceived, it will run a high risk of being invalidated on constitutional
     „  24                               I-   '
grounds.                                 !
                                         i
4.2.3   Restrictions on Development Affecting Critical Natural Resources
        This approach begins with the recognition that development should
be substantially restricted on certain types of land that play an important
part in protecting or — if improperly developed — in degrading the quality
of ground and surface waters.  Included ijn this category are shorelands
surrounding streams and lakes, aquifers and their recharge zones, wetlands,
woodlands, and hillsides.  Soils that are{ wet because of high water tables
or that are particularly vulnerable to erbsion might also be included.
        A municipality may wish to designate special districts containing
such sensitive natural features as overlays to general zoning districts,
and to subject land use in the overlay districts to supplemental restrictions,
These  will be designed, in part, to minimize interference with the natural
capacity of the  land to retain, absorb, and purify wet weather flows  (storm-
water)  or dry weather flows  (principally -leachate from septic tanks and
landfills).  For example, septic,tanks might be prohibited in wet or
permeable soil districts; minimum percentages of vegetative  cover might
have  to be preserved on hillsides in order to prevent erosion; and filling
of wetlands might be prohibited or  sharply restricted in order to protect
their functions  of purifying the  effluents they absorb and of  recharging
 surface waters  in times  of  low flow.   FO3J- each  special district,  a list of
 permitted uses,  prohibited acts,  and procedures  for  securing approval  of
 special or  conditional  uses  may be  set forth,  all geared to  protecting
 critical  natural resources against  incompatible development.
                                  117    i

-------
        .Regulations  applicable to land-use in special districts may .be of
 several kinds.  The zoning ordinance of Harristown, Illinois, provides for
 conservation zones  in which uses are sharply restricted:
        "The Conservation Zone is established to prevent the construc-
        tion upon or alteration of rural or natural environments which
        have natural conditions of soil, slope, susceptibility to flood-
        ing or erosion, geological condition, vegetation or an inter-
        reaction between the aforesaid, which makes such lands unsuitable
        for urban development.  Further, this Zone is established to
        protect areas of the environment, that, if altered, would cause
        health, or pollution problems and environmental deterioration.
        The Conservation Zone will also ensure adequate areas for future
        conservation and recreation .pursuits."25
        With respect to permitted uses, land-use regulations for special
 districts (or for any other property)  may specify site requirements,
 construction techniques,  and protective maintenance measures (e.g.,
 porous surface cover,  no  septic tanks  close to water tables, periodic
                                   2.fi
 removal of accumulated sediments).     Alternatively,  the regulations may
 prescribe natural  performance standards,  such as  rates  of runoff or  soil
 loss through erosion that are no greater than would have occurred if the
 land had  been permitted to remain in an undeveloped state.27' This approach
 could leave  the developer free  to make  whatever use of  his land  and  to  install
 upon it whatever nonpoint source controls he may wish,  so  long as the land
 in its developed state achieves  the; required  standards  for performance.
        Wisconsin  law treats  shorelands as a special management unit
 in order  to minimize pollution from;runoff and  septic tanks  associated
                             OO      i
 with shoreland developments.     The law authorizes counties
 to enact separate zoning ordinances, including protective  regulations, for
 all incorporated lands within 1,000  feet of a lake and  300 feet of a
                 29
 navigable stream.    These ordinances must meet minimum standards for
 shoreland protection promulgated by  the State Department of Natural Resources.
Accordingly, the Department adopted  a set of regulations and a Model
Shoreland Protection Ordinance for the further guidance of the counties.
The Ordinance, which has in fact been widely adopted, specifically
regulates the location and construction of septic tanks and soil absorption
fields; specifies minimum set backs for various facilities; limits tree-
cutting to a 35-foot strip paralleling the shoreline and clear-cutting to
30 per cent of a strip; requires preservation of shrubbery "as far as
                                 118

-------
           ,» arvd, where removed, its replacement with other vegetation
that will be "equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion and
preserving natural beauty;" and prohibits filling, grading,, lagooning,
or dredging that would result in substantial detriment to navigable waters
by reason of erosion, sedimentation, or impairment of aquatic life.
       Two restrictive classes of shorelani. zoning districts are established
under the Ordinance.  The conservancy distkct is designed primarily to
protect shorelands designated as swamps orjmarshes, which are described as
"seldom suitable  for building."  Conservation and recreational uses are
practically the only ones permitted in such a district, except that certain
uses  (dams, farming, piers, and docks) may•be allowed upon obtaining a
special exception permit.  In residential/recreational districts, single-
family dwellings  are also permitted, and, t>y means of special exception
permits, commercial and  tourist  facilitiesj.
       The Ordinance also prohibits the subdividing of. shoreland which the
county planning agency deems unsuitable for that purpose  "for reason  of
flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rojck formations with severe limita-
tions for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography,
inadequate water  supply  or sewage  disposal  capabilities,  or any other
feature  likely to be harmful to  the health1, safety  or welfare  of  future
residents of the  proposed  subdivision,or  qf the community." For  subdivisions
not served by public  sewers, the ordinance  correlates  minimum  lot areas
with soil, ground water, and slope characteristics.
        The Wisconsin, program is  a clear example of  how the natural resource
 functions of critical land and water area^  can be protected by special
 zoning for  particular uses and by site  pl^n requirements designed to
 minimize water pollution and other forms of environmental degradation.
        It is possible to regulate development in critical areas without
 specifying in detail the standards to be met -or the control techniques to
 be adopted.   For example,  the Flood Plainjand Wetlands Protection Ordinance
 prepared for townships within the County of Oakland, Michigan, provides  •
 that conditional use permits to deposit material in or remove it from
 designated watercourse or wetland areas mky be issued by the Township Board
 upon "such conditions on the manner and ektent of the proposed operation,
 use  or activity  as are  necessary to ensurp that the intent of this
 ordinance is  carried out."3°  That  intend  is quite generally,stated  as,  in
 part, "to provide for,the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and
                                          i
                                    119    i
                                          I

-------
  use of township water courses.and.wetlands in order to minimize disturbance
  to them and to prevent damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation,"
  as well as "to provide for the protection of the township's potable fresh-
  water supplies from the dangers of ... pollution ....»  However,  in the
  absence of express regulatory standards,  case-by-case review of land-altering
  proposals requires evaluative expertise.   If this is  not available  to  the
  reviewing agency,  it may have difficulty  reaching rational  decisions and
  avoiding abuses of discretion.31
  4*2*4  Environmental Impact Assessments
         It is possible to exercise  control over site design  through environ-
 mental  impact  evaluation, even in  the  absence of  comprehensive land use
 policies, plans, or programs.  By amendment to a-local zoning ordinance or
 subdivision regulation,  developers can be required to submit environmental .
 impact statements on proposed developments  (beyond a certain size), as
 a condition for getting them approved by the local planning or zoning
 board.  Even is such a requirement is procedural only, limited to disclosure
 of impacts, the exercise of assessing them and of comparing the impacts of
 alternative plans often has the effect of sensitizing  developers to  en-
 vironmental values and of inducing them to propose measures  for minimizing
 environmental harm.  Further,  an EIS ordinance may provide that develop-
 ment of certain kinds will not be permitted unless the proponent can show
 that it will not harm natural resources,  including water quality.  At the
 least, EIS provisions can permit case-by-case review of development  proposals
 and furnish a point of leverage for public reviewing officials  to  suggest
 corrections in the  site plan or remedial action to be  taken  by  the developer.
       A subdivision regulation of  the  town  of Lincoln,  Massachusetts
 requires an applicant for subdivisiok plat approval  to  submit an environ-
 mental impact statement "the purpose: of which is to  enable the officials of
 the Town to determine what methods  are  used by the applicant to promote
 the environmental health  of  the community and to minimize adverse effects
 on the natural  resources  of  the Town."33  in preparing  these statements,
 applicants  are  referred by the ordinance to a set of Environmental Quality
Maps adopted by the Town and to the j^oil Survey Map and Manual prepared for
it by the Soil  Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In reviewing the statement, the Town Board will consider, among other
things, "the degree to which water is recycled back into the ground [and]
                                  120
32

-------
the maintenance  and improvement of the fOJOW and, quality of surface waters."
Specifically,  the EIS must  describe in detail  the physical environment
surrounding the  development,  and.must describe and  evaluate the methods to
be used both during construction and  on 4.permanent basis  to control  erosion
and sedimentation.   Further topics to be Described  in detail include  any
areas subject to flooding or ponding, proposed surface drainage  systems,
proposed land grading and permanent vegetative cover and methods to be
used to protect existing vegetation,  relationship of development to topo-
 graphy, any proposed alterations of shorelines or wetlands, estimated
 increase of peak- runoff caused by alteref surface conditions, methods to
 be used to return water to the soil,  subsurface soil and water conditions,
 sewage disposal methods, and impact of sjach methods on quality of subsurface
. water.  "Where  appropriate, the Board may require soil surveys to establish
 the  suitability of  the land for the proposed  storm  and sanitary drainage
 installations."  -These regulations clearly impose on the  developer the
 burden or  preparing detailed plans for preventing pollution from  nonpoint
                                         i
 sources.                                :
         A subdivision ordinance of the To|wnship of  Medford, New Jersey requires
 preliminary plats  to be  accompanied  by assessments  of probable  impacts on
 municipal  services, including  water, stcirm sewers,  and sewage disposal,  and
 on local lands, waters,  and ecosystems.f  Specifically,  the environmental
  impact statement must explain  the impact of the  proposed  subdivision on
  local geology,  aquifers, hydrology,  wat^r tables,  runoff, soils and  soxl
  loss, soil nutrient retention, vegetation, and other aspects of the  local
  ecosystem.  By reference to an Ecologickl Planning Study done for the  town,
  including a series of natural resource maps, the developer, is to ascertain
  which of  the regulations identified in pie study as desirable for protec-
  tion of natural resources are applicable  the development he proposes.  He
  must  include those regulations in the Eks and describe the actions he will
  take  or avoid  in  order  to minimize  advelrse effects on the local  environment.
  The regulations35 are designed to enable  land and  water  resources to continue
   functioning, by,and large,  as they  wouid  have done in the absence of
   development.  Their purpose is to mining the  loss  of valuable  resources
   such as.aquifers, soils,  and  vegetatiori,  even as development compatible
   with those resources  is allowed to  proceed.   But "[w]here there is  a question
   as to the suitability of ...  lots for their intended use due to factors such
   as rock formations, flood conditions,  rainage or other adverse environmental

-------
   impact factor,, the planning Board may after aaecpats investigation withhoia
   approval of such lots."                                     '         ;
          Such requirements go well .beyond mere disclosure,  and they suggest
   that environmental impact assessments can be a potent tool for protecting
   watsr quality when combined with natural resource inventories.   The  stronger
   the data base provided by a community as guidance for developers,  the easier
   it wxll  be  for them to assess  and to minimize  adverse environmental  impacts
   through  prudent site planning.
         Act  250 of the  State of Vermont provides that  no person may sell any
   interest « a  subdivision,  nor commence  construction  on a subdivision or
   development involving more  than 10 acres of land, without a permit from the
   State Environmental Board or appropriate District Commission.36(The district
   commissioners are also agents of the state, appointed by the Governor )
  Before granting such a permit,  the board or commission must find  that the
  subdivision or development will not .result in "undue water or air pollution »
  and in making this  determination,  it is  to consider "the nature of soils and
  subsoils  and their  ability to adequately  support waste disposal;  fand] the
  slope of  the land and its  effect on effluents......  A permit will be
  granted lf the  applicant can demonstrate  that his  development "will meot
  any applicable  health and water resources department regulation reduction
  of  the quality  of ... ground or surface waters flowing through or upon
  lands" that  include steep slopes, shallow soils, watersheds, public wafer
 supplies, or aquifer recharge areas.!  Applicants must demonstrate  that they
 will meet state regulations regarding the disposal of waste; that  develop-
 :nent on or adjacent to stream banks "will, whenever feasible,  maintain the
 natural condition of the stream;"  and that development along shorelines
 "wxll, insofar as possible  and reasonable  in light  of its purpose
 retain the shoreline and the waters in their natural  condition ...  and .
 stabilize  the bank from  erosion, as necessary, with vegetative cover."  The
 Board or commission must also find  that the proposed development "will not
 cause  unreasonable soil  erosion or  reduction in the capacity of the land to
hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result."   Bote
that these provisions  (which  illustrate the possibility^ administering
BIS  requirements at the state level,'largely through district environ-
mental commissions, are rather.general and flexible in thei, application.

                                122

-------
                                              I
       Whether or not a proposed development wijll result in "undue" pollution or
       "unreasonable" erosion is a judgment le^t largely to the discretion of the
       administering agency.  While such statuary standards have- the advantage of
       allowing the agency to take account of the variant circumstances that dif-
       ferent cases present, a statute like Vermont's arguably delegates too
       broad a discretionary power , thereby plkcing too great a burden on admxn-
       istrators  to make principled- even-handed decisions from one case to the
       next  The risk of arbitarlness should be mitigated,, however, by the status
       tory references to the  specific regulatory standards that must be met in
       Vermont before a development- permit will be  issued.
              By themselves,  environmental impact .statements  are  no .substitute
        for comprehensive land use policies,  ^ey assure neither  coordination  of
        environmental and development programs |nor harmonization of the environmental
        effects of multiple or cumulative actions over time.  "Kather it is  hoped
        that through ad hoc pro ject-by-projectj review the worst environmental
        problems  in a  single action can be minted."37  Ideally, the disc.pl.ne ^
        of  the EIS process should be combined With natural resource inventor.es,
        in  the case of the Medf ord Township ordinance,  as well as with overall
        development policies and land-use  standards.  A combination of such
                  s and controls  can be an  effective means  of  assuring  that s.te
                  incorporates  measures for presenting pollution from nonpo.nt  sources .

         4.2.5 Environmental  Performance Standards
                "The goal of .environmentally oriented land-use regulation . ... is
         to maintain or preserve natural processes as land undergoes change  for
         man's use."38 When such regulations are expressed in terms of the  way
         Xand actually fuactions - ,for exampl,, to retain or release runoff,
         to lose  topsoil through erosion - they posit what could be called
         natural  or environmental performance standards.
                 ,,TO develop- this  system of  relation
                 £air s-^^
                 benefits that are ignored through the ^V^Jo^rosion,  and
                 Specifically, these are P^fJJ?0^1^,^^^ to maintaining
                 ground water infiltratxon which are closel y               droughts,
                 public water supplies , P-vengng ^a^e^nd maintaining
                                          S/jSls^emselves .   The community
                                             123
_

-------
               *i   t      a Specific (Preferably numerical)  level  at which
             d ™ Ti TCeSS Sh°Uld °Perate'  and a-ar  development of the
          land must be done in such a way  that the natural process  continues
                   '* ^ 1SVel*  ^ C°ntraSt t0 a Deification app o"h,
                     f re?"lat?-0n d°es not «***« designated construction
                     or site planning, but allows  the  developer to  choose
                                                      processes contSto
         This approach is capable of zeroing in, precisely and directly, upon
  natural phenomena whose disruption, distortion,, or overloading causes
  nonpoint source pollution (as well as other forms of environmental
  degradation) .   The efficiency of the approach provides considerable freedom
  to the developer to use his land as he wishes and to employ whatever control
  measures he may choose, so long as his' site plan and his construction and
  maintenance procedures meet the prescribed performance standards.   Such
  standards are  usually couched in terms of how the land would perform if
  left in a natural state, but it is possible to allow some leeway with  respect
  to performance characteristics in order to accommodate a degree of  develop-
  ment.   m general, however,  development will  not meet the prescribed
  standards unless  it  is  undertaken  in a manner compatible with the natural
  environment, and  this means  that development proposals must reflect a
  sound data base and a sophisticated understanding of such disciplines as
  soil mechanics, geology, and hydrology as applied to the proposed site.
 Application of these and other related disciplines is necessary in order
 to measure and to minimize disturbances of natural functions.
        The key to this approach is the initial step of constructing an
 adequate data base through a multi-faceted study of the geology,  topology,
 hydrology, and ecosystem continuity of the community's natural  resources
 The essential data can be displayed in a series of maps and  charts  to which
 planners,  developers,  and regulators will refer.  From those data,
 performance standards  can be  derived to guide  the  submission  and review of
 development proposals, perhaps  through  procedures requiring environmental
 impact statements.
       This approach need not be confined to particular districts of
 critical planning  conern, but can be applied across the board to all parts
of the community, including strategically important areas that may border
upon water resources or upon sensitive water-related lands.  The necessary
factual and technical bases for employment of performance standards  may be
                                124

-------
                                         I
too expensive for some communities to acquire, but considerable assistance
in laying the necessary groundwork can b«* obtained from the U.S. Geological
Survey and from the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of      ^
Agriculture, as well as from the expanding body of literature on the subject.
       Pure performance standards, expressed entirely in terms of natural^
functions, are relatively rare.  An ordinance of DeKalb County, Georgia,
provides that "[A] combination of storage and controlled release of
stormwater runoff shall be  required for  Jill development and construction
which will increase the peak rate of.runoff from the site by more than
one  cubic foot  per second for a  ten yearj frequency storm."  The ordinance
then sets.performance,standards.for the  rate of runoff by.means of the
following formula:            •
                                         i
       The .peak release rate of  stormwatpr from all developments where
       retention is required shall:      i
                                         i
        (1)   not exceed  the  peak .stormwater runoff  from  the  area in its;,
             natural undeveloped. state fo|r all intensities up  to and
             including the one hundred year frequency  and all  durations  of
             rainfall; or                 ;
        (2)   not be  greater  than  that calculated  for a storm of two-year
             frequency with  a runoff coefficient  of .20,  .25,  and  .35 for
             land with an average slope elf up to  2%,  2-7%,  and over  7%
             respectively.               ]
 The ordinance also sets a performance standard for controlling the  volume
 of runoff:
        "The live retention storage to be provided shall be calculated on
        the basis of the hundred year frequency rainfall as published by the
        National-Weather Service for theiaffected area.  The retention
        volume required shall be that necessary to handle the runoff of a
        hundred year rainfall for any and all durations from the proposed
        development, less that volume discharged during the same duration
        at the  approved release rate as  specified above."42
 The ordinance  does not tell the developer what kind of retention facilities
 to  use; in  this  respect, it is  entirely performance-oriented.
        More succinctly, the policy of Medford Township, New Jersey is that
  "£n].o alternation will be  permitted of  the amount of surface runoff
 presently occurring, both  under normal  precipitation as well as under
  intense storm  conditions,  as identified! ln the Runoff Management Chart	
  [e]xcess runoff is to  be recharged  locally into the ground through  fehe use of
  recharge ponds or injection wells."43 -The Runoff Management Chart  correlates
  vegetative  cover type, soil type  (in terms of both runoff  and infiltrative
  potential), and relevant land use categories (e.g.,  1-acre residential,
                                   125

-------
  1/4-acre residential, intense urban), with excess runoff in inches produced
  during the most intense hour of a 10-year recurrent 24-hour storm, and with
  percentage of site area required for withholding that excess in order to
  allow its infiltration locally within 3 hours.  The three-hour limit
  is deemed practicable in terms of the space required for rainwater
  retention in suburban development.   A separate hydrological map shows
  current and permitted runoff for each area of the municipality as well
  as outcrops of important aquifers,  which are protected by a prohibition
  against any increase in the.very low runoff rates prescribed for them.
  With these technical aids,  a developer can determine how to organize  his
  site plan and what control  mechanisms to adopt, without having to study
  the runoff problem from scratch.
        The Medford Ordinance  also provides  that "soil  loss  [shall be] re-
  stricted  to three  tons per  acre per year at all times  including  all stages
  of development."   The three-ton limit was evidently  recommended by USDA as
  capable of being met through feasible interceptive devices  (e.g.,  dams or
  terraces) at or near the site.  On this point, the ordinance refers the
  developer to a Potential Soil Loss Map which shows the potential loss in
  terms of tons per acre per year according to three different categories of
  soil types, moisture conditions, and steepness and length of slopes.   A
  chart accompanying the map shows how calculated losses  may be modified
 according to the type of vegetative cover.  For example, if the site
 remains covered with grass,  actual soil loss will  be only 1.3% of the
Potential  loss  if the land is  bare.
        Alternatively, a developer might employ the so-called Universal Soil
Loss Equation,  which correlates factors for rainfall, length and degree  of
slope, erodability  of soil,  cropping and management techniques,  and
conservation practices.  By  calculating each factor and multiplying, this
equation estimates  the sheet erosion  that will  occur  under different
                  AA
uses of the land.
       Another regulation of Medford Township provides  that  "[application of
nutrients in the form of fertilizer, drainage from septic tanks and effluent
leaking from sewers  [shall be]'restricted  to types and  amounts which can
be absorbed by local vegetation and soils to ensure no^increase in  concen-
tration of  nutrients beyond  present levels at the top of local seasonal
high water table levels. "    For meeting  this requirement, the developer is
                               126

-------
46
referred to water-table and soil-permejbility maps, as well as to maps of
hydrological soil groups and cover typjs organized according to both
their infiltrative capacity and their runoff potential.
       Quantitative performance standards of the sort specified in the DeKalb
and Medford ordinances, however, may b^ difficult to monitor and enforce.
Their principal utility probably lies (it the initial stage where a permitting
agency reviews development proposals, i At that  stage, the agency can apply
technical  expertise - which  this approach  assumes it will have at its
disposal — to.determine whether:the developer's proposed site plan,
construction  techniques and procedures! for  ongoing operation.and maintenance
will  result in meeting the prescribed.standards.  Once  an approved
development is in place, unless sophisticated monitoring and inspection
techniques are available and employed,! compliance with  the standards may
have to  be inferred from compliance with the plans,  techniques, and
 procedures on which the development permit was  originally  conditioned.
       Where pure performance standards  cannot  readily be  specified,  it  is
 still possible to prescribe standardsjfor human activity that are closely
 related to the natural characteristicj of the site.   In general,  the
 purpose" of such standards  is to minimize interference with natural functions,
 while allowing development to occur up to some point that is identified,
 expressly or by implication, as the natural carrying capacity of the site.
 For example, the Medford Township ordinance provides that where the
 seasonal high water table is 0-1 feet^ no permanent habitation will be
 permitted; where 1-5 feet, septic tank drainage fields  are prohibited and
 sewers  must have leak-proof  joints,  jcypes and amounts  of fertilizer
 application  are also restricted in arjsas of high water  tables.  For three
 different classes of vegetative or fojcest  type, maximum permitted clearings
 are  established  as percentages of thej site area of development, and a	
 minimum width of undisturbed vegetation is also required.  For example,  if
 the cover is a mature, deciduous lowland or floodplain forest, as shown on
 the Vegetation Management Map, and if| the  site area of development is 11-25
 acres,  then  the  regulation permits 55;%  of  the  area  to  be  cleared.  A
  2-crown width must be maintained of  ijhe dominant mature species  present on
  site.   The  Ecological Planning Study ialso includes  a set  of criteria for
 matching suitable land uses to natural  profile types and  a set of maps
  showing what areas are accordingly diemed suitable for forest and    ^
  agricultural production,  recreation,land development of various kinds.
                                      I
                                   127' •

-------
          A mixed approach is illustrated by regulations of Mine Hill,
   New Jersey with respect to soils overlay.  The purpose of these regulations
          "is to prevent inappropriate development from taking place     in
          5£? ^^ C*aracterized bv certai* soil types,  siope ^ ^
          levels wzthout proper corrective action if possible.   Inappropriate
          development in these areas increases soil erosion and sedimentation
          thereby intensifying flooding by clogging drainage structures
          Sedimentation reduces reservoir life and destroys recreational use
          or  water bodies."48
  There follows a listing of soil types keyed to a soil survey map and
  showing opposite each type the problems and development limitations  to
  which it gives rise.  Some soil types are listed as "unbuildable," because
  of flood plain or excessive gradient,  others are described as having
  "severe development problems" because of poor drainage, high water table,
  erodability,  or other natural characteristics.   Structures and improvements
  of all kinds  are prohibited on lands designated as unbuildable,  and
  areas identified as having severe development problems  are to be avoided
  "unless  corrective  action  is  indicated such  as  soil erosion and  sedimentation
  control measures, storm water drainage systems, riprap and retaining  walls,
  fills, excavations,  and other appropriate  improvements."   Clustering of
  development units on larger tracts is  encouraged so as to  avoid development
  on soils that are indicated as unsuitable  for this purpose.
        The  foregoing examples indicate .the possibility of deriving standards
 for development from definitions of environmental functions or processes.
 In this manner, a community can evolve a set of land-use controls that  will
 reconcile developmental with environmental objectives  and that is likely to
 withstand challenge on constitutional grounds.49  it should not be supposed,
 however,  that development standards can automatically  be inferred or
 deduced from environmental  data;  an exercise  of  judgment,  informed by a
 community's  land-use policy,  will always be involved.
 ^*2*6  Erosion and Sedimentation  Controls
        Techniques of direct regulation are  being applied by a  growing
number of communities  "to sensitize, development to *he erosion/sedimentation
potential of the site."     Ordinances requiring erosion and sedimentation
controls as  a necessary condition for development approval may be enacted
under a separate enabling authority or by amendment to the community's
basic zoning or subdivision ordinance.  Where a community feels confident
that a particular set of controls should be adopted for all developments
                                128

-------
                olass . or for all earthmovJLng activities that can be
identified as having a high  erosion potential, it will make sense to
specify the necessary controls  in the ordinance itself.  Or they may appear
in rules and regulations  adopted by the appropriate state agency.  Such
regulations can be quite  precise, despite [the generality of their
application.  For; example,  regulations of |the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources require that:
area
       "Diversion terraces shall be constructed up-grade of
       to convey runoff  around the ... area.  For tempo ra *Y
       t-h^ channel shall have the capacity! to convey 1.6 cubic feet per
       s^ondTefacre of land tributary tb it.  For Permanent * .version,
       the channel shall have the capacity; to convey 2:" c^ic ^et fo r
       each acre of project  area tributary to it and shall be provided
       w?S a 24-inch freeboard.  The basin shall be cleaned when the

       s~ rsss                                       ?Lr
       rlow of 2.0 cubic feet per  second for each acre of project area
       tributary to the basin. "51         !
       More corrcnonly, state or local regulations do not  specify uniform
 controls  for all development, but provide | instead  a set  of  principles  for
 evaluating development  and concomitant controls on a  case-by-case basis,
 according to variable site characteristic^ such as type  of  soils, degree
 and length of  slope,  size and duration of | exposed surf aces .  Such principles
 may state, for example, that the smallest; practicable area of land  shall be
 exposed at any one time during development; that natural features  shall be
 preserved whenever possible; that temporary vegetation or mulching shall be
 used to protect critical areas exposed during development and permanent
 final vegetation installed  as soon  as practical in the development process;
 and that development in general shall be jfitted to topography and soils in
 such a way as to create the least erosion potential.    Accordingly,
 development proposed for steeper slopes ojr on  soils of  relatively high
 erodibility will be  subject to stricter. Standards  than  equivalent develop-
 ment  in  flat  terrain or on more resist^ soil.   In  this manner, flexibility
 in the  administration  of the ordinance can be assured,  taking account of  a
 wide  variety  of possible interactions between site characteristics  and  types
                                         i
 of development.                         |
         The ordinance may also refer the Developer to a manual on  erosion  and
  sedimentation control, in which are set ^orth -detailed guidelines  or standard
  for various  types of controls that  could be incorporated into site plans,
  construction practices and ongoing  maintnance procedures.  The manual can
                                   129

-------
   be  amended from time to time in light of experience and as new techniques
   are developed for controlling runoff and erosion, without having to go
   through the formal process of amending the ordinance itself every time a
   change is made in the technical guidelines.  This approach has the dual
   advantage of furnishing detailed technical assistance to the developer
   while encouraging technical innovation.   Assistance in preparing the manual
   can be obtained from the Soil Conservation Service of the United states
   Department of Agriculture and from a number of states  (including Maryland
   and Pennsylvania) which have  already developed detailed manuals  for  tfce use
   of their local governments.
         Typically, the ordinance provides that  no land area may be disturbed
   untxl  a plan for soil erosion and sedimentation control has been submitted
   to and approved by the relevant agency.  This  could be the planning depart-
  ment,  the county soil district, the municipal building inspector, city
  engineer, planning commission, or even the town council, depending on
  "relevant state enabling legislation, the effectiveness and efficient
  and the capabilities of the evaluative body."54
         Since the effectiveness of this type of regulation depends heavily
  upon the judgment of the reviewing body,  "it is apparent that additional
  evaluative  resources  are required,  such as  a competent planning staff with
  some training in  the  soil sciences  and soil  conservation practices      "55
  Soil  conservation districts, where  they exist,  can  assist in performing the
  necessary evaluations.  Under some arrangements, "each application for
  development is required to have an erosion and  sedimentation control plan in
  line  with the standards established by the district.  The district then
 evaluates the control plan and, in some cases, serves as the enforcement
 agent."
        A good example of an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance is
 the one adopted by Washington County, Maryland.   It provides that  "the
 surface of land in this  County  shall:not be 'disturbed or  changed for any
 non-agricultural purpose whatever  ...  except  in  accordance with a  plan
 for  control of erosion and sedimentation approved by the  Soil  Conservation
 District and a grading permit approved by the Building Permit  Department    :
 of Washington County."     (m addition to agricultural practices and
 structures, the ordinance exempts from its provisions "the construction of
 Single-family residences or their accessory buildings on lots of two acres
or more).  with each application for a grading permit, the plan,
specifications, and a time schedule must be submitted, accompanied  by the
                                130  i

-------
            oertification that all land clearing, construction and
development will be done pursuant to thatjplan.  It must be prepared or
approved and signed by a professional engineer, land surveyor, or
architect.  The plan and specifications mist show topography and soil types,
vegetative practices, a grading plan, proposed improvements, and provisions
for erosion control both during construction and afterwards together with a
schedule and sequence of operations.  Alljgrading plans and specifications
must  include provisions "in substantial accordance with" the Design Manual
for Erosion and Sediment Control  for Washington  County.
        If  the  application  conforms  to the; foregoing  requirements,  the  Soil
Conservation District must-approve  the sa^ie and  forward one copy of its
written approval to the County Engineer,  jone  copy  to the Planning  .and  Zoning
Commission, and two copies to the Buildirjg  Permit  Department  of Washington
County, which  then issues  the grading permit  to  the applicant.
        The ordinance further provides ttuft  the developer  and  all  subsequent
 owners of the  property "shall maintain all  permanent anti-erosion devices,
 retaining walls, structures, plantings ai^d other protective devices."   To
 assure compliance with the ordinance andjthe  permits issued under it,  the
 County Engineer is to inspect the work done under approved plans  and       ^
 permits and to issue certificates of satisfactory completion to permittees.
        The approach adopted by DeKalb Cojinty, Georgia, is to specify at some
 length in the County Code standards to bf observed with respect to erosion
 and  sedimentation control, while leaving! most of the details to the
 architect or engineer who prepares the cjmtrol plans for submission along
 with a development application.  For example, the ordinance provides  that
 " [sedimentation facilities  (debris basics, sedimentation traps)  and  other
 control measures such as  hay bales, berm|s, interceptor ditches, and terraces
 shall be  installed in conjunction  with ^e initial  grading operations and
 be maintained throughout  the development and construction process to  remove
 sediment from runoff waters  draining land  under development."  Land which
 has  been cleared for  development must be| protected "by appropriate
 vegetation and land covering techniques  jsuch as seeding,  sodding, [and]
  ground cover  installation ...."  No grading,  cutting,  or filling is  allowed
  on any site under development if it wilj result in bringing  unprotected
  land surfaces into contact with surface|water,  "unless erosion control .and
  sedimentation control devices can be installed between the grading area
                         59               |
  and water surface	"                 j
                                   131

-------
          An ordinance can combine specifications for control measures with
   some degree of orientation toward natural performance standards. .For
   example, it could be required that the erosion and sedimentation control
   plan result in runoff and erosion no greater than would occur if the land
   had remained in its natural state.   To that end,  the ordinance could direct
   that the developer use,  to the maximum'feasible extent,  natural control
   features such as existing swamps  and swales;  that he  employ  cluster
   development where practicable in  order to  reduce  the  total area of
   impervious  surface and to  preserve open spaces  and topographical features
   that are  critical to surface  water management;  that he avoid concentrations
   of flow,  take  steps to dissipate runoff velocities, and reestablish
   vegetative cover  as soon as possible after land disturbance; and that he
   adhere strictly to any applicable requirements for designated critical areas
  While specifying certain design standards,  the ordinance could at the same
  time allow innovative control devices; to be employed if their performance
  capacities, as shown by engineering analysis,  would meet the objectives
  of the regulation.
         Erosion and sedimentation controls need not and should not be  confined
  to districts of critical planning  concern.   Such controls  may be needed
  throughout a community  in orde,r to prevent  the migration of sediments from
  one location to another.  Thus,  controls of this sort  can  usefully supple-
  ment other types of land-use regulation.
  4'2'7  Controls Over Land Disposal of Wastes
        A growing number of states have adopted detailed regulations on the
 siting, operation and maintenance of municipal landfills.   Such regulations
 are designed in large measure to avoid pollution of ground or surface  waters
 from leachate or overflow at landfill sites.
        Regulations of the  State of  Hawaii51  prohibit establishment or
 operation of  any solid waste disposal  facility  without  a permit  from the
 State Director of Health.  A permit application must be accompanied by
 detailed plans for the facility and by  a plan of  operations.  Permittees
 are required by  these regulations to compact and  cover  all  solid  waste
 accumulated after each day's operation with earth or other  approved material
 so as to safeguard  the environmental quality of the surrounding area; to have
monitoring equipment in place to detect any pollution that might result from
the facility;  to maintain a minimum vertical separation of five feet
                                    132

-------
             deported waste and high groundwaW table; to provide for
     minimizing the flow of offsite drainage oyer the landfill; and to deposit
     solid wastes in such a manner as "to prevent waste materials, leachate :
     or eroded soil particles from entering tfaja waters of the State without
     receiving the best practicable treatment ^r control."
             Landfill  regulations might  also prohibit acceptance of infectious
      or other hazardous wastes;  prohibit lagocjning of sewage,  sludge  or seepage;
      establish limits on the width of the wooing  face;  and require operators^
      to meet periodic self-monitoring,  recording,  and reporting requirements.
      Numerous further points of control could [be cited from regulations of one
      or another state.  Their coverage and defail can be as extensive or as
      selective as a state may deem practicable for its own purposes.
             Direct regulation of solid waste disposal is a traditional form of
      government control that is fairly easy tf> comprehend.  The difficulties
      it has encountered are rather of « practical nature.  In  some states, "grand-
      father clauses"  exempt pre-existing dumpf and  landfills from new state
      regulatory requirements.   This  loophole ban only be filled by regulation
      at  the local  level, which  is often inadequate.,  Moreover,  regardless of the
      division of responsibility between state's and localities, substandard
      operation of  landfills  is  commonplace in many parts of the country and
       compliance with strict regulatory standards  has been  difficult  to secure.
       Many landfills  have been located next to water bodies, on wetlands, or
       over aquifers,  which inevitably become  polluted as ever  increasing volumes
       of solid waste are brought to those sitis  for disposal.   Closing down a
       landfill operation is a feasible remedy!only if alternative disposal sites
       or methods are available/and often they are not because of land scarcity,
       obstacles to regional!zation, or impracticability of recycling.  Regulation,
       then, needs to be accompanied by more fbrceful regional planning and a
       set of incentives for employing different approaches to  the problem of
       solid waste pollution.  Until  then, however,  state and local governments
       could be doing  a better job of monitoring compliance with and  enforcing
        feasible operating  standards for municipal  landfills.
              Regulation of septic  tanks is ariother largely local  responsibility
        that many  communities  have not adequately met. An effective regulatory
        scheme would prevent pollution of ground  or surface  waters  from failing
        septic tanks through a permit system t^at controls  their location, density,
                                              I
                                         133
_

-------
   construction,  and maintenance,   state health codes  routinely address  these
   subjects,  but  may be deficient  in ,a number of respects.  For example,
   rapid percolation may be  required in order to avoid nuisance condition or
   health hazards from surface  contaminants,  but if percolation of wastes is
   too rapid  they may pollute ground waters.   Scavengers  (those  whose business
   it XS to clean out septic tanks)  ought to  be licensed  and  required to report
   their sludge disposal sites  and methods  to the licensing body, but
   effective  regulation of scavenging  practices  is not found  in many states
   Local boards of health are supposed to regulate septic tanks  through local
   health ordinances  that implement, at a minimum, the standards set forth in
   the state  code, but pressures for development combined with reluctance
   to pay for new or  expanded sewer systems often result in permitting
  septic tanks on unsuitable soils or in excessive densities.  Enforcement of
  standards for septic tank maintenance is also practically nonexistent  dn
  many areas.  The problem lies not in learning what can  be done, as  a
  regulatory  matter, to prevent pollution from septic  systems,  but in
  mustering the political  will and administrative-resources.that are necessary
  to bring  them under control.
  4-2-8   Control  of  inplace  or  Accumulated  Sources
         For  residues such as street litter,  fertilizers and pesticides,
 highway salts,  and  oil spills onto paved  surfaces, the most effective
 controls may be upon introduction of  these substances into the environment
 rather than upon their migration after they have become waterborne.63   Where
 threshhold prevention is not practicable, it will still be true, by and
 large,  that the earlier the point in time at which controls  are applied,
 the more effective they are likely to be.
        A municipality might adopt an  ordinance banning outright the  applica-
 tion of certain  fertilizers, pesticides,  or  road salts,  or requiring that  their
 use be  conditioned  upon restrictions  to be set forth  in  a use  permit.  Runoff
 of these substances might largely be  avoided by restricting  the timing,
 quantity and methods of application,  or by onsite collection and treatment
 prior to discharge.   Gas stations and parking lots can also be  required to
 trap runoff  in onsite collection basins and  to  treat  the collected flow for
 removal of oil, lead, and other offensive substances before discharge to
 storm sewers or to receiving waters.  At a minimum, such controls might  be
prescribed for automobile-attracting facilities located near public water
supplies.

                                  134   '

-------
                                               I
             Consider also the advantages of professional licensing systems for
      handlers and users of pesticides and othjr toxic materials as well as for
      carters of sludges from septic tanks andjother waste treatment processes.
      A license would be awarded only to a person who demonstrated competence in
      the handling of such materials, and it could be revoked for failure to
      comply with applicable regulations designed to prevent their introduction'
                                               i   f   • , .  ." "    •     - '    '   -     '• '
      into ground or surface waters            ,
              It may well be, however, that controls of the foregoing varieties
      will be effective only if adopted at thejstate level.  In the alternative,
      it may be necessary for a group of municipalities to agree upon the adoption
      of parallel or  identical ordinances in order  to make measurable progress  in
      controlling these pollutants.  The  same  pan be said  of all nonpoint sources
      whose  effects are cumulative rather thanj discrete, or diffuse  rather  than
       confined to particular  areas.            j
               Where road  salts  are applied  by jstate or local highway .departments,
       a shift in operating policy may be callejd for,  rather than any fresh
       enabling or regulatory legislation.  Sand may function as well as salt on icy
       roads in wintertime, and sand is easier jto pick up or to trap in
       sedimentation basins after the winter has passed.
               Anti-litter ordinances and coordination of street-cleaning programs
       with parking restrictions can be instituted at the municipal level.  In
       many jurisdictions, the prinicpal obstacle"to cleaner streets, with
       resulting improvements in the quality oj: water resources, is not absence
       of regulatory  authority but lack of wilJL to  fund and enforce the necessary
       restrictions.              .            j      '   ,
        4.3     Legal  Issues                    j                 ,
                This final  section  addresses  two  sets of legal  issues surrounding
        the implementation of a number of the  above regulatory approaches:   securing
        compliance on the  part of private developers,  and protecting  their  various
        constitutional rights in the process,  j
                 ^curing Compliance Through Moriitoring, Maintenance,  and Enforcement
        4.3.1"
                of Controls
                The principal weakness of many | regulatory schemes is that they fail
        to include adequate provisions for securing compliance on the part of those
        to whom they are addressed.  This problem arises especially where compliance
        is not just a one-shot matter, but consists of continuing activity or
                                           135
_

-------
 forbearance over time.  Regulations can address the problem by requiring, for

 example, that those who undertake land uses or land-disturbing activities
 likely to affect water quality must maintain control facilities in good

 working order, install monitoring devices, record operating data, and submit

 periodic reports to the regulatory agency.  Any number of self-monitoring

 requirements can be included in a set of administrative regulations,  and

 the agency can reserve the right to inspect premises for compliance,  even
 in the absence of a permit system.


       However, regulations of general applicability combined with permits to
be^issued on a case-by-case basis are a superior type of control strategy.
This is so for several reasons:

       •  A permit system has the initial advantage of prohibiting certain
          types of land use or land-disturbing activity except upon
          compliance with prescribed conditions.   The proponent of the
          activity has the burden of applying for a permit ^and of
          indicating in his application and accompanying plans how he  will
          meet  pollution-control requirements.

       •   The process  of applying for and receiving a permit makes  the
          applicant  fully aware of what is  required of him; he  cannot
          thereafter plead  ignorance  of the law.

       •   The issuing  authority can write special or particular conditions
          into a permit,  tailor-made  to  the applicant's  situation.
          Regulations  alone, by contrast, tend "to be of  general applicability
          and therefore cannot  cover all cases or contingencies.without
          growing cumbersome.

      •   Issuance of a permit  can be made  conditional upon the posting of a
         performance bond by the applicant.  Such a bond, executed by a
         surety, can be used (for example)  to guarantee the faithful execu-
         tion of a site plan, undertaking of runoff and erosion control
         measures, or compliance with other conditions specified in the
         permit.  The bond may be deposited with the fiscal officer of the
         issuing government.  If a default occurs in the performance of any
         term or condition of the permit or bond,  and if compliance is not
         achieved within the time specified in a notice of default, the
         issuing government may proceed without delay to use  the cash
         deposited for completion of the required work.   By its terms,, the
         bond obligates both the permittee  and his surety for  payment  of
         all necessary costs incurred by the government  to correct non-
         compliance.   Moreover, if the  cost of the  work  exceeds  the amount
         of  the bond,  the permittee remains obliged to pay the  excess.

     •  For significant  violations,  a permit can be revoked or the permit-
         ting authority may fail to renew it upon expiration.  These
        possibilities  can  serve as powerful  inducements  to compliance.
                                 136

-------
       Whether by permit or by regulation aj.one, the responsibility to
maintain control facilities in good repair heeds to be clearly spelled out.
ordinarily, the land user has that responsibility, but it may be provided that
the municipality will construct and maintain certain facilities (e.g., a
retention pond) for which the costs will be; passed on to the participating
land users in the form of special benefit assessment.
       The regulatory system should provide- for official inspection of
control  facilities upon  their completion arid prior to giving them  final
approval.  Unannounced inspections should 41*0  be made  from time to txme
thereafter,  in  order to  monitor  continuing \ compliance and  to check the
veracity of  self-monitoring reports  submitted by  permittees.   In particular,
 employees of the appropriate government agency  should be expressly authorized
 to enter upon and inspect subject properties  at all reasonable times.  Ideally,
 they should further be empowered to make emergency repairs to any mal-
 functioning facility and to charge the ownfr for the costs if proper
 maintenance is his responsibility.                                   _
        The Maryland Department of Water Resources has published a Sedxment^
 Control inspectors Handbook, which could b^ adopted in all jurisdictions.
 The handbook tells the  inspector how to prjepare himself for the intellxgent
 performance of his task.   He should be thoroughly familiar wit* the  details
 of the  governing ordinance, ;with the approved  sediment control plans , and
 With  methods of construction and  capabilities  of control  equipment.  Establ.sh-
 ment  of local  training  programs for inspectors is  recommended by  the handbook.
  It includes a sample  field inspection  form and final inspection  report.
  Compliance  should not,  however , await  inspections..   "Whenever possible,
  prior to grading,  schedule a meeting with, the field superintendent to
  review the sediment control plan, explainj what should be.done, and the
  timing involved.  Such a preliminary meeting will go a long way towards
  establishing necessary understanding  and -averting needless confusion.
  handbook also contains useful guidelines on what to look  for dur.ng an
  inspection and whom to contact when violations  are discovered.   Informal
  e—ication and cooperation between injectors and  permittees
   toward securing compliance without the need for formal enforcement
  most cases.                                               ,
          The regulations should spell out enforcement procedures
   followed in the event of noncompliance .

                                     137

For example, the erosion control

-------
   ordinance of Leon County, Florida65 provides that if the County Environmental
   Administrator finds a violation of an approved site plan with respect to
   clearing and development, a failure to construct or maintain the required
   control measures, or a failure to obtain initial approval of development,
   he xs authorized to issue written notice to the violator of the nature and
   locatxon of the alleged noncompliance and to specify what remedial  steps are
   necessary,   if these are not promptly taken by  the  violator,  the Administrator
   may then issue a stop-work order "to  cease and  desist all or  any portion of
   the work upon  all or any geographical protion of  the project  which  is
   contributing to  on-site  generaged  siltation or  sedimentation  or  runoff
   except such  remedial work as is  deemed necessary  to  bring the project back
   «to compliance." Violation of  a  stop-work order may lead to revocation of
   the permit,  thereby  rendering the  land user liable to civil or criminal
  penalty.  Any person violating the ordinance or a stop-work order
  -sued thereunder "shall be punished according to law.  Each day such vio-
  latxon continues shall constitute a separate offense. Any person may
  seek an injunction against any violation of the  provisions of this ordinance,
  and recover such damages as he may suffer, including but not limited to
  the cost of removal  of any debris or sedimentation caused by such violation "
  *hxs provision  incorporates by reference  the criminal statutes applicable
  to  the violation  of any county ordinance,  and also makes  clear that  injured
  Part.es may seek  damages  in a tort action.   The ordinance  of Washington
  County, Maryland ^provide, more explicitly  that violators "shall upon
  conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor,  punishable by fine of no greats
  than  $500 and each day of violation shall be considered a separate offense,"
   ^     Cxvxl penalties are also possible,  in lieu of  or in addition to
 crxmnal ones.  The authority of a municipal government to establish
 Penalties for  particulr types of violations should  be checked out.  If the
 penalty limits prescribed  or allowed under state  law  are  low or if no
 Penalties  can  be assessed  ^ violationSf  & ^  ^ ^ ^^
 be dxffxcult to  achieve,   in such  a  case,  amendments to state law
 providing  for  significant penalties  as well as  for  injunctive relief  through
 the courts, can help to show that the state and its political subdivisions
mean business.
                                  138

-------
     4.3.2  Constitutional Questions
    " 4.3.2.1  Takings^                          j
            As already noted,  private property jnay not be taken for public use
     without just compensation.  The question Whether a taking has occurred
     may arise in any case where uses of private property are restricted for
     environmental objectives.  The law on this! subject is in a state of flux and
     it varies considerably from state to state.  It is therefore necessary to
     refer to the judicial precedents of the federal courts and or your state courts
     before deciding where.the line may be dra^n between valid restrictions
     imposed  in. the exercise  of the police pow^r and restrictions that may^be in-
     validated  as takings, with respect to a .particular piece of property.
            A trend can perhaps be observed in!recent case law to the effect that
     a landowner is not entitled to convert his property to its most profitable
     use by changing its  natural characteristics, if the results of such  a.change
     would be harmful  to  the public welfare.68, increasingly,  the right of the
     public to  have natural resources preserved in undegraded  condition is being
     recognized.  The  courts  are beginning  to perceive  that there are natural
     and unnatural uses of particular lands,  that land and water  resources  are
     closely  interrelated, and that -the  public: has  an important'stake in  preventing
     interference with these  relations.   Thus,| it is said that »[a]n owner of
      land has no absolute and unlimited right |to  change the  essential natural
      character of his land so as  to use it foil a purpose f or ;which it was  ^
      unsuited in its natural state and which djnjures the tights x>f others,"
      While the securing of benefits not previously enjoyed by the public is
      still thought to be a taking, it can perljaps be distinguished from avoidance
      of damage to public interests in the environment - a legitimate objective of
      the police power.   If a regulation can b4 characterized in terms of damage
      avoidance, it stands a  fair chance of being upheld although it deprives
      property  owners  of  profits or even reduces substantially the market values
      of their  lands.  There  are limits, however, even  to this emerging doctnne;
      a  taking  may still  be deemed  to have occurred where the  restriction
      -practically or  substantially  renders tbk land useless  [to the owner]  for
      all reasonable purposes,"7Q  especially  ^the  land had some commercial value
      to begin with  apart from the possibility! of converting it artificially to
      some  new and "unnatural" use.            j

                                        139    !    -.'    '
_

-------
          The lessons to be learned from these cases are that the risk of
   invalidation by the courts can be minimized if your regulatory scheme (a)
   is demonstrably based on avoidance of injury to the public at large from
   irresponsible uses of private property;  and (b)  consistently  with that
   objective,  still leaves  the  owner free to put his  land to  one or more
   reasonable  uses.   It will  also help if the  regulation can  be  justified in
   terms of public  health and safety (e.g., protection  against flood damage,
   punty of water  supplies)  and not merely of aesthetics or  other less
   tangible aspects of public welfare.71  Moreover, as indicated in the
   Ramapo and Petaluma cases, *se restrictions  are more likely to be upheld
   if they are of only temporary duration.72  In general, performance or
  specification standards,  precisely geared to environmental objectives, will
  have the best chance of surviving constitutional challenge  because they do
  not rule out most land uses (even though  they may well increase the
  costs of development).
  4,3.2.2 Substantive  Due  Process

        A regulation may be  declared  unconstitutional  if its provisions are
  arbitrary or unreasonable, bearing no substantial relation  to the public
  health, safety, or general welfare.  In other words, regulations must be
  based on legitimate governmental purposes and be reasonably calculated
  to accomplish them.  For example,  large-lot zoning may be acceptable  if
 its purpose truly is to avoid excessive concentrations of septic tanks
 on soils of limited absorptive capacity, but not if its underlying  purpose
 is to halt growth in a town or to exclude lower-income groups.73 Such
 measures should therefore  be based on objective data which will tend  to
 justify  both the ends and  the means.  Assuring the constitutional validity
 of land-use  restrictions and requirements  is  a major reason  for local
 governments  to incorporate natural resource inventories or ecological
 planning  studies  into  their  decision-making processes.74
 4.3.2.3  Equal Protection

       States and  their political subdivisions  are constitutionally pro-
hibited from  denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
Since environmental regulations  frequently restrict some persons to a
greater degree than others, they may run a risk of being invalidated
because of unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidiously discriminatory

                                 140

-------
classification for regulatory purposes
                                         "The basic principles of the
equal protection doctrine are well established:  any state or municipal
legislative classification must be a rational one, bearing a reasonable
relationship to a proper legislative purpose."    Thus, for example,
properties designated as critical wate|r- related lands  (riverbanks , wetlands ,
aquifers, steep slopes) could be made jsubject to special use restrictions
without running afoul of this constitutional standard, so long as the
restrictions are essential to sound environmental management in the
public interest.  Here, then, is another constitutional reason for gearing
land-use controls to natural resource j inventories or ecological planning
studies.  It should be  added that a mijnicipality need  not regulate all
instances at once in which a problem of a  particular type is shown to
'exist.  Regulation  has  to begin somewh'ere,  and there is no constitutional
infirmity in a piece-meal approach th^t is free of ulterior discriminatory
                                      !               '                '
motives .                              j
 4.3.2.4 Procedural Due Process       |
                                      i
       As already noted,  local governments ordinarily  derive their powers
 to act from enabling  statutes of  their  state legislatures.  Such  delegated
 powers must be exercised  not only for  approved purposes but in accordance
 with prescribed statutory procedures. |  These may  require,  for  example,  that
 a local agency give advance public notice and opportunity  for  public hearing
 on proposed legislative or regulatory! action; that" it adhere  to prescribed
 voting procedures;  that it afford opportunity for adjudic'atory hearing on
 proposed issuance or denial of permits; and that it base certain types of
 decision on a judicially reviewable record.  Even where state law does not
' require such procedures,  it is a good idea to adopt them for the sake of
 clarity, fairness and openness in decp.sion~making .
        If an agency is to administer |a permit system or to pass upon
 proposed development plans, its regulations should clearly indicate who
 must apply for approval, what information must be included on the applica-
 tion form, within what time- frames it must be submitted and will be acted
 upon, and according to what criteria permission will be granted or denied.
 It  is a fundamental tenet of due procjess  that agencies structure the
 exercise of their  own discretion in Accordance with impartial rules.
                                  141

-------
          A definite trend can be observed, in judicial case law, toward re-
  quiring local governments to honor elementary concepts of due process in '
  local decision-making,  state Administrative Procedures Acts are ordinarily
  applicable only to agencies of state government, but the courts have shown
  an increasing willingness to scrutinize local decisions as well by reference
  to APA-type standards.           :
  4'3'3  Eliminating Windfalls and Wipeouts
         Government decisions often have the effect of conferring gratuitous
  benefits on some people and losses on others.  For example, restrictions on
  development of water-related lands may substantially reduce their market
  value,  without going so far as  to constitute a compensable taking.
  Conversely,  the clean-up of a waterway or the location of a new highway
  can greatly  increase  the values of adjacent  properties.   Thus,  public
  benefits are secured  at private expense,  and private benefits at public
  expense.  The perception of such  inequities  in  the distribution of  costs
  and benefits  can  forestall  or derail government decisions  for want of
 political support.  Predictably, this type of problem will become more
 acute as local governments increasingly restrict land-use for water quality
 and other environmental purposes.
        To remedy windfalls and wipeouts resulting from government decisions,
 a number of schemes have been proposed, some of which may be feasible for
 local governments to adopt,   in general, they are premised on the idea that
 government can recapture a part of the economic benefit it confers on some
 property owners and use the  proceeds to compensate others to whom it
 occasions losses.   For example,  developers who are favored by zoning
 decisions  could be required  to contribute  to  a special  fund for  that purpose.
 Alternatively, the government could establish and administer a market in
 transferable  development rights  (TDRs),  which works on  the principle
 that owners of developable land  must purchase such rights,  as a  prerequisite
 for  development, from  those whose  land is  to  be  preserved as open space.
 "At optimum efficiency,  this  device, like  zoning, requires  little
 expenditure of public  funds for  implementation other than  administrative
 costs, and is  thus less  costly than  the conservation restriction method
The municipality is in effect the middleman.  It merely allocates development
rights equitably among parcels of land." 76
                                  142

-------
                                         I
       it is not enough to think only of jregulating sources of pollution.
Governments must also consider how to remedy the unintended but inequitable

consequences of regulatory control.  The Isame holds true of public
investment decisions and other component^ of programs to promote .environmental

quality.                ,  ,          -.•'.]_  ...                 •
                                                         . r,
                                  143

-------
   1.
                                  REFERENCES

     They are discussed  in  Section 4.3.2  below,  and  are mentioned  at a

                °lntS  **             <                of           ^
 2.  Ohio Constitution, ART. XVIII, Sec. 3,

 3.  such a statute in Rhode Island was cited in the case of Wood v
     Peckham, 80 R.I. 479, 98A. 2d 669 (1953).               ^!22^  "

 4'  zf'i f^f!*!^ of Commerce, Standard State Zoning i^n^
 5.   469 F.  2d 956 (1st Circ. 1972)

 6.   The court observed,  hoever, that a desire to avoid further growth
     would not be a legitimate basis for-restrictive zoning.   othe°
     indicate,  moreover,  that large-lot zoning may be invalidated if i^
     ?ri!n!l°™!!! fr.°m I^king any Practi<^l use of their land or" if
                                                  deemed undesirable on

7.
                     -            - Reichert'  IlLa^ Use Guidance System
    529557    7^lronmental Quality," 15 Natural Resources Journal
8.  Ibid.

9.
 10.   Ibid.,  p.  346

 11.   30 N.Y.  2d 359,  334 N.Y.S.  2d 138 (1972).

 12.   See the discussion below, Section 4.3.2.1

 13.   See Daniel R. Mandelker, Managing Our Urban Environment—ra.
      and Problems  878-904 (Bobbs-Merrill:  1966) .	"	~~~^

 14.   See the discussion below, Section 4.2.4

 15.  Ky. Rev. Stat. § 83.330  (1962)

16.  N.J. Stat. Ann.  15:8A-30(d)   (Supp. 1973)
                                                                 o ,  Text
                                                                  f    Xt
                                  144

-------
17.
18.
19.
Bucks County Planning Commission, "Elan for Implementation df
Provisions of Act 515 of 1965"  (Doylestown:  Bucks County Planning
Commission, February 3, 1971).      j

M.G.L. Ann. Ch. 184, § § 31-33  (Supp. 1974).  The description in
the text of the Massachusetts law is taken  from Russell R. Sicard,
"Pursuing Open Space Preservation:  'the Massachusetts Conservation
Restriction," IV Knvironmental  Affairs 481-514  (Summer 1975).  Mr.
Sicard's article discusses various  legal ramifications of the device
in some detail.                     |
                                    i                •  •    •     •
One important effect of this  statute is to  supercede ancient common
law limitations on  the extent to which the  alienability and use of
land  can be restricted over time.   j
 20.  Sicard,  Ibid., p.  492               j
                                         i
 21.  See  Sicard,  Ibid., p.  497           •

 22.  30 N.Y.  2d 359,  334  N.Tf.S,  2d  138  CJL972).
                                         I
                                         I  .     " -     •..-•'
 23.  522  F.  2d 897 (9th Cir.  1975)       j         .

 24  An extensive literature  has developed upon the Ramapo and Petaluma
     cases.   See e.g.,' Robert W. Burchell and David. Listokin, Future Land
     Use  59-140 (The Center for Urban Pojlicy Research at Rutgers - The
     State University of  New Jersey, 197,5); David Falk and Herbert M.
     Franklin, "Local Growth Management (Policy:  A Legal Primer," (The
     Potomac Institute, Washington, D.C.I, 1975); II Management and Control
      of Growth (The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1975).

 25.   Harristown, Illinois, Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.1, 1972.  It should
      be emphasized, however,  that if a land owner in a conservation zone
      is deprived thereby o£ all practical use of his property, the zone
      may be deemed invalid as taking ofithat property forpublic purposes
      without compensation.  See the discussion below,' Section 4.3.2.1.

 26.  See the discussion below. Section 4.2.7, 4.2.8.

 27   See the discussion of natural performance standards below, Section
   "425   A natural resource inventory and a reliable environmental
      data base are virtual prerequisites for the effective use of this
      technique, whatever the nature of the  special district  may be and
      whatever  the form-.in'which concomitant land-use regulations may
      be  specified.                      j

 28.  Wis. Stat.  59.971,  144.26 (1966-67j> .

 29   The description of  the  Wisconsin program in the text,  including quo-
      tations from applicable laws  or regulations,  is taken from Fred
      Bosselman and David Callies,  The Quiet- Revolution in Land^Use Control
      235-55 (U.S. Council on Environmental Quality,  December 15,  1971).
      The principles of this  program could be adapted to incorporated urban
      or  suburban municipalities, with appropriate adjustments in coverage
      and detail.                       •
                                       145

-------
  30,  Reproduced in Performance .Controls for Sensitive Lands
 33.

 34.

 35.

 36.

 37.
39.

40.


41.


42.
                                                                A Practical
  31*  See the discussion below. Section 4.2.4.
43.
            no              f fSSmentS at the local level may,  but generally
            not, have to include considerations of alternative sites
       comparative cost/benefit analyses, and other planning elements found
       in EISs prepared under the National Environmental Policy  Act (NEPA)
       or comparable state laws.  The options and resources available to

       Sem n^T  Pf ^°rdinarilY Wil1 n0t bS «*«*i«t' to warrant making
       them prepare full-scale NEPA-type statements,

       Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Lincoln, § § 3.2.3.1'- 3 ^.3. 3

       Township of Medford, Ordinance 1974-11,  §2

       They are discussed  in detail below.  Section 4.2.5

       10 V.S.A. Chap. 151, §  §  6001-6091.

      Robert H. Twiss, "Commentary —Nine Approaches to Environmental
      Planning" in Future Land Use. Op. cit . , 20, supra, p. 239.
      SE" Isr'v SSe footnote 30 above-  This excellent study, prepared
      for EPA by the American Society of Planning Officials, should be
      read from cover to cover by all 208 planners.  It provides a number
      of examples used in the text of the present report! as well as a
      useful framework for evaluating alternative types of regulatory
      control.                                                       •*

      Ibid., p.  445.      .-

      See,  e.g.,  the bibliographical references  listed in Ibid,  at 472-
      73 and at  the conclusions of the various chapters of Se~same report.
                                  in
                                           °n pp- 459-6°
        se                                   DeKalb ordinance as the basis
        setting rate and volume standards is questionable.  Retention
     of so large a storm may require substantial over-capacity in the
     control facilities and could conflict with sound principles of
     flood management.   Experts in this field should be consulted before
     deciding upon the  formulae to be employed.

     Narendra Juneja,  "Performance Requirements for the Maintenance of
     Social Values Represented by the Natural Environment of Medford
     andnSsfa N'n"  ;P'  ^  ^^ ** Ecol^ical ^search in  Planning
     and Design,  Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional  Plan-
     ning,  University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia.
                                   146

-------
       44.
       45.
        46.
        47.
    The Universal Soil Loss Equation is discussed in some detail in
    Performance Controls for Sensitive ILands,  pp 462-468.
                                      I
    Ibid., at 27.                     i

    Our observations in this paragraph!are admittedly speculative;
    limitations on time and resources prevented us from ascertaining
    how these ordinances are actually forking in practice.  DeKalb
    and Medford should be directly consulted by any community contem-
    plating similar approaches.-       j  •
                                      I '
    For further discussion of the performance standards approach as   _
    advanced by Ian McHarg, see Rice okell, "Carrying.Capacity Analysis,
    Useful but Limited,"  Tit Management and Control of Growth 22-28.
    "McHarg and his associates have determined what specific tracts
    of land have  to offer, what their llimitations are, and where de-
    velopment might best fit in."  Ibid.,  24.i
        48.
        51.
         52.
                                            :int!e
    The Mine Hill ordinance  is; •reprinted  in Performance  Controls  for
    Sensitive Lands, pp.  417-419.     !
        49.  See the discussion below, Section |4.3.2.

        50.  Performance Controls for Sensitive^ Lands, p. 60.
     Title 25,  §102.23 of the Rules and Regulations of the Pennsylvania
     Department of Environmental Resources.

     E.g., the'ordinances of Camden, JJJ., described in Performance Con-
     trols for Sensitive Lands, pp 62-63.

53   For a selective list of publications on standards for erosion and
     sediment control, .see Performance! Controls for Sensitive Lands,
     pp. 67-69.                     ;   i '. '         •- -  -

54.  Ibid., pp. 60-61.                 j                ,   .'

55.  Ibid., p. 63.                     !  •

•56.  Ibid., p. 65.        '            J      " '     ;
57   This ordinance is summarized  in The Maryland Sediment Control Pro-
   *  aram-Assemblv of Reference Items' 75-80  (U.S.  Dep't  of Agriculture,
     Soil Conservation Service:  Colle|ge Park, Md.  1971).

58.  The' subjects of  maintenance,  monitoring  and enforcement  are further
     discussed below, Section 4.3.1.  ']"••'
                                              147
_

-------
        °* ^ ^ examples of erosion and sedimentation control ordinances
       see the Model Municipal Land Disturbance Ordinance, prepared b  X
       New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee and reprinSS in Per-
       formance Controls for 3°"^*--—- -r	^_  „..	 •I-<=iJ-LX"lte« in ijer-
       cUKi.Sed.nentat3.on Control Manual
       Environmental Resources, January 1, 1974; the assemSlJ X Terence
       items entitled, "The Maryland Sediment Control Program," 1971
       U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, College
       Park  MD;  and a publication of Leon County, Florida, J^rJ 1975
               "   EnV±r0nmental Criteria for Erosion and S^dmenSion
  60.   The foregoing approach is embodied in a model ordinance prepared by
       the South Branch Watershed Association of Clinton, N.J.
  61.   Hawaii Environmental  Laws and Regulations,  Volume II,  chapter 46


  "
      ^!'r  ?",  f 1S°n C' Dunnin9' "Pests< Poisons, and the Living Law
      The Control of Pesticides in California's Imperial Valley »  2
      Ecology Law Quarterly 633-693  (Fall 1972), for a detaileJ analysis

      also bfaSed T ^^ **"»" ^ general *~*>**?
      sources.                Preventive regulation of other nonpoint
                                                       Control Workshop,


                  Ordinance No..73-10, as amended by Ordinance Nos. 73-57


 66.  Cited above in footnote 57.

 67.  Ordinarily,  the courts will  not  invalidate  such a restriction in all
68.  E.g., Just v. Marinette County. 201 N.W. 2d 761  (Sup. Ct. Wis  1972)-
     Sibson v. State, 5 ELR 20300  (Sup. Ct. N.H. 1975).

69.  Just v. Marinette County, see footnote 68.

70-  IMSL-  On this point, see also Morris County Land Co  v
     Troy Hills Township 40 N.J. 539 (1963), 193 A. 2d. 232."
71.  E.g.,
     (Mass.
                                                . 284 N.E. 2d. 891'
          Julv 9
          July 9,
                                                .      ..   .
                        reader is also referred to the extensive liter-
                        Ct- -f Sd B°SSelman' Da^ Allies SJoS Sntaf
                               °n Bnvironmental Quality;   Washington,    '
                        xs an excellent starting point.
                                     148

-------
72.  See the discussion above,.Section 4.2,2, and Steel Hill Development
     Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton> 469 F. J2d 956 (1st Cir. 1972).

73.  See the discussion of the Ramapo arid Petaluma cases above.  Section
    '4.2.2.                             j                   .

74.  See the discussion above, Section 4.2.3.

75.  Ronald M. Hershkowitz, "Local Environmental Protection:  Problems
     and Limitations,"  Environmental Affairs  (Vol. II, No. 4:  Spring
     1973), pp. 783, 793.               J
                                        |
76.  Sicard, Op_. Cit., n. 14, supra, 504.  There is an extensive lit-
     erature on the subject of TDRs, e.g*, Jerome G. Rose, "A Proposal
     for the Separation and Marketability of Development Rights as a
     Technique to Preserve Open Sapce,"| 2 Real Estate Law Journal 635
      (1974).                            I
                                     149

-------
  S-|°     FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
          Carrying out preventive approaches to urban stormwater management
  requires adequate funding.  The purposes of this chapter are:  to identify
  specific funding needs and alternative sources; and to help local planners
  evaluate these financing options.
          Two types of activities require funding regardless of the particular
  preventive approach taken:
          •  Continuous Planning
          •  Implementation and Enforcement
  and thus will  be  discussed separately  in sections  5.1  and  5.2   The remainder
  of  the chapter (5.3.1-5..3.5)  concentrates on  five  examples of  typical storm-
  water pollution problems,  in  each case discussing  funding  needs,  sources,
  and options for several alternative'solutions.   The five example problems
  discussed are:

         •  Pollution of groundwater supply due to development in an
            aquifer recharge area;;  '
         •  Existing and projected development in an urban drainage area,
            leading to increased runoff containing increased contaminants;
         •  Projected development in a relatively undeveloped area causing
            increased runoff and increased contaminants in receiving waters;
         •  Development adjacent to a stream, causing stream bank erosion
            as well as introducing sediment and contaminants into the water;
         •  Development in and near wetlands.
         In order to evaluate alternative funding options,  explicit criteria
 are  called for. Four criteria commonly used to  evaluate government revenue
 measures  are:   :(1)  revenue adequacy;  (2)  social  equity;  (3)  economic efficiency?
 and  (4) administrative  simplicity.  As  with^levies  for  other public activities,
 funding approaches for  urban stormwater management  should be designed to
 meet these tests.
        Revenue Adequacy;   The basic objective of any levy  is to obtain
 sufficient revenue to meet costs of providing service.  Hence, the funding
 system should be designed  to reflect the  financial  implications of inflation,
 technological advances, system improvements, additional loads, and shifts in
preferences.  It seems reasonable to .expect that  costs of services, such  .
as stormwater management, will generally  tend to  increase over time; thus,
a funding system should be able to cope with these changes in revenue re-
quirements with a minimum of restructuring.
                                     150

-------
         Social Equity;  The question of what constitutes a fair tax or
         _	                     i
charge system is not a matter of technical economics but of personal
preference and philosophy.  Nevertheless, sbme principles have been
delineated that offer a framework for analysis.  The benefit principle and
the principle of ability to pay are the most common bases for discussions
          1                                i                           '
of equity.                                 |
         Justification for service charges [Ls generally based upon the
                                           i
"benefits received" principle which states that charges should be related
                                           i
to the benefits received from government by! an individual or firm.  People pay
for goods and services received in the private economy, the argument runs, so
why not in the public sector as well?  If aj charge system violates the
benefits principle, then public services bejcome a form of subsidy for their
users, since the services are obtained at tjhe expense of other people.
Although equity is a basic underlying idea jfor application of the benefit
principle, this form of levying charges also provides a substitute for the
market test.  If people who will benefit from expenditures are unwilling to
pay for them, presumably they are not worth1 their cost and should not be
          • O               .-'•=••         | .                   ,
undertaken.                                j          ,
         Implementation of the benefit principle is difficult because of the
problem involved in quantifying the benefitjs of service and identifying all
the beneficiaries.  Three methods for deriving benefits have been suggested.
One approach is to estimate a demand curvejfor the service and compute its
value.  Another approach  is to estimate  th4 cost of the best alternative method.
A third approach is to interpret the benefits  received principle as  a cost
occasioned method where those using the  service are charged an amount equal
to the,cost of providing  service to them,  j
          Each: of these approaches presentsiproblems in implementation.   To
                                           I
estimate  a demand  curve requires that  the service be marketed  through the
price mechanism.   To  do this presents  two problems.  First, there is usually
a single  seller of this service.   Second, public health  and other factors
make  the  purchase  of  a uniform  level  of service  compulsory.   To  estimate the
 cost  of,the best  alternative,method requires  that  a reasonable alternative
be available.   It  is  not  clear  that such an  alternative  could be chosen  and
 if it were  the  difficulties in  estimating its costs would be  formidable.
                                    151

-------
  Because of the problems surrounding methods for estimating benefits
  received directly, the cost occasioned approach has had to suffice for imple-
  menting equity in sewerage service charges.  This interpretation of the
  benefits principle assigns a charge to users equal to the cost of providing
  them with the service.             ;  .
           Economic Efficiency:   Governments  frequently use taxes  and user
  charges  as  tools  to achieve  economic objectives.   The charge procedure
  employed may  affect economic efficiency through its influence  on business
  decisions regarding location, production process,  and output level.  These
  decisions certainly carry  implications  for  the efficiency of the economic
  system.
          From a theoretical  standpoint, the goal of economic efficiency is
  served when the price of each good and service produced equals the marginal
  social cost incurred in producing and marketing it. (i.e., the social value
  foregone when the resources are diverted from alternative economic activi-
 ties) .  For this reason, service charges would be  equated at the margin to
 the social cost of collecting,  transmitting, and/or treating the stormwater
 runoff.   if the charge is not equal to  the marginal social cost,  then eco-
 nomic efficiency will be reduced.   For  example,  if the charge is  greater
 than the  marginal  social cost,  firms  requiring a large quantity of  service
 will be placed at a competitive disadvantage due to rising costs.  Unless
 they can reduce other production costs  or raise product prices, their
 profits will decline.  If they choose to increase  product prices, the distor-
 tion created by the charge is shifted forward to the consumer.   If the  firm
 elects to reduce production costs,  the  distortion  is shifted backwards  to  the
 factors of production.   For example,  a  reduction in production  costs may be
 accomplished by lower wages paid to labor.   The extent of these shifts
 depends on the elasticities involved.
          On  the  other hand, if  the  charge is lower than the marginal social
 cost, the production costs  faced by a firm will be artificially low and
profits artificially high.  In this instance,  the  burden of managing the storm-
water runoff problems generated by  the firm  is shifted to society,   in the
event that revenues  resulting from  charges levied  as d.utlined above prove
inadequate to cover  the user's share of costs, additional levies that are
independent of the marginal cost,for service may be addressed to the user.3

                                 152

-------
         Administrative Simplicity;  A funding procedure should be easy to
understand and enforce, be acceptable to users, and involve reasonable compliance
costs.  The basis for the levy should be Usily understandable by all who are
subject to it.  Payment should be able to] be verified and the charges not im-
possible to collect.  The funding system jshould be consistent with generally
accepted "rules" of fair play, and the charge for service should compare
favorably with the customer's perception bf the value of services received.
Finally, compliance costs should be low. j Prom the viewpoint of the management
agency, this means that the charge system! should be inexpensive to administer
 (i.e., IQW computation costs, no expensive inspection).  From the customer's
perspective this means convenience of payment.
         These criteria will be applied t|o the funding  alternatives discussed
in the five sample problems. . They can a3Jso usefully be applied by local
officials considering  their own funding options for meeting a much wider  range
of stormwater management problems.  However,  several additional constraints on
their use should be noted.               '•      '
         In describing financing methods jfor  various approaches,  reference  is
 frequently made to  landowners within  the jdrainage  area  or area benefited  by the
 adopted  approach.   In  many instances,  thepe  "areas" will  not  coincide with
 existing political  subdivisions.   Thus,  intergovernmental cooperation agree-
 ments,  either voluntary or mandated,  will  have to  be utilized.   As  an alter-
 native,  special purpose political  subdivisions such as  drainage  districts or
 soil conservation districts may provide 4he  institutional framework for finan-
 cing.  The needed institutional arrangements may require enabling legislation.
          In approaches which utilize the! "police" power of the government
 to control land use, there is the problejn that the constraint on use is so
 restrictive that a "taking" occurs.  If JLt is deemed a "taking" either the
 constraint may not be enforced or the lajid owner must be compensated.  The
 first possibility defeats the purpose ofj the approach  altogether, while the
 latter possibility requires expenditure |of. public funds.  Thus, the use of
 these constraints must be undertaken witjh great care.  Aside from the  legal
 problem, a sense of fairness may require compensation  to  the land owner who
 is  severely constrained to benefit or protect the public.
                                      153 :

-------
  5-1      Financing the Planning Process
           Funding a continuing planning process for urban stormwater runoff
  involves two distinct phases.  Phase 1 is the initial planning effort  that
  includes data collection,  analysis,  preparation of basic maps,  and  the
  variety of other activities that go  into developing management strategies.
  Phase 2 is the continuing  planning effort necessary to keep, management
  strategies current in terms of development patterns in the region and
  emerging management approaches.   Phase 2 is frequently the more difficult
  problem to cope with from  the standpoint of funding.   Transportation planning
  which was heavily financed by the federal  government  in  the early 1960's
  for the'initial planning phase did not receive much support as a continuing
  process.   Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management planning is in-
  tended  to be a  continuous planning process, with annual updating of the
  approved  areawide plan; but in the absence of continued federal support it
 will be necessary for localities to pick-up the added  planning costs and  this
 may prove  to be a serious sticking point.
          There are three basic approaches open to local government for
 funding a sfcasrawater management planning process;
          •  Prepare stormwater plans  as an integral part of the larger
             208 areawide water quality management plan;
          •  Prepare stormwater plans  in conjunction with  other on-going
             city or county  planning efforts; or
          •  Prepare stormwater plans  as a separate,  distinct city or
             county planning activity.
          Funds  will be needed initially for the range  of  activities involved
 in the development of urban runoff management  strategies.  These activities
 include  review  of existing  information, data collection,  delineation of
 physical methods,  analysis  of  alternative physical methods, identification
 of implementation measures  and institutional arrangements, and formulation
 and evaluation of alternative  runoff management strategies.  After the initial
planning effort has been completed, funds will.be needed for publication of
the draft plan, informal public discussions, formal public hearings requiring
legal notice and record, and revision and final preparation*of an urban
runoff management strategy.   Following adoption of a management strategy,
                                    154

-------
funds will be needed for implementation ?nd enforcement (See section 6.2)
and for the periodic review and revision of the approved plan.  This periodic
review and revision, when appropriate, ijs the essence of a continuing planning
process.                         ,• .      \'
         Sources of funds for an  initial! planning effort will usually come
either from federal and/or state  grants,; or from general funds.  For example, '
urban runoff management planning  would cjlearly be an appropriate activity
for 208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Agencies funded under PL 92-500;
another source of grant monies might  be jthe HUD 701 Program.  The  local
general fund is always a potential  sourcje  of  monies for planning,  provided
that  responsible local officials  can  be persuaded to appropriate the  funds.
Other sources of funds, such as  special Assessments and  full-cost  recovery
user  charges are theoretically available,  but as a practical matter they are
not  available to finance  initial planning.  However, the continuing planning
process might be funded in this  manner.I
 5.2
          Financing the Management Process
          Funding the implementation and j enforcement of urban stormwater run-
 off strategies is also a multifaceted problem.  Implementation activities
 may be undertaken by either the public 6r the private sector.  Enforcement
 activities are usually carried out by pjoblic entities.  Implementation
 activities include:  monitoring quantit^ and quality of runoff; administering
 a permit procedure; holding public hearings; and installing and operating faci-
 lities for retaining, .retarding, and/or! treating runoff before discharge to
 receiving waters and similar activitiesj.  Enforcement activities include:  sur-
 veillance of  construction  sites; inspections required to obtain operating permits;
 preparation and presentation of materials for  enforcement  actions,*  and
 similar  activities.                    !
          There are five basic  approaches available for  funding implementation
 and enforcement activities related to ijrban stormwater  management:
           1.   General Fund revenues    j
           2.   Permit and Licensing Fees |
           3.   User Charges           •  j
           4..  pines and Penalties      j
           5.   Grants                   j   '
                                        i
                                     155-

-------
 Rather than discuss these alternative funding approaches in the abstract,
 the rest of this chapter is devoted to consideration of their utility in
 meeting a series of specific local stormwater problems.  The choice among
 alternatives, in each instance, will be evaluated in terms of revenue
 adequacy, social equity, economic efficiency, and administrative simplicity.
 5*3      Financing Specific Preventive Approaches;  Five Examples
          The following examples have been selected to illustrate methods of
 financing various preventive approaches designed to overcome already
 identified stormwater problems.  The examples illustrate  a  variety  of financing
 methods,  and as can readily be observed,  these  financing  methods can be
 applied to a number of problems.   The methods can be used singly or  in
 combination with other methods to provide the needed  financing.
          Some  approaches require  substantial outlay of  public  (government)
 money while other approaches•avoid the necessity of expending public funds.
 For example, a permit program  shifts the  cost directly  to those who  seek
 permits.  Thus,  financing specific approaches may be viewed as (1) identifying
 sources of  funds to defray public expenditure or  (2) identifying approaches
which reduce or avoid the use of public funds and  thrust the burden of
 costs, if any, on the private sectbr.  In some instances neither the public
sector nor private sector which is subject to the regulative impact of the
selected approach may experience a reduction in value of its property,  or a
capital loss.
 5'3-l    Development in  an Aquifer Recharge Area
         Problem;  .she quantity and quality of a water  supply dependent
 upon an aquifer  is  endangered due  to increased development in the aquifer
 recharge area.                        ;
         Approaches;

         1.  Designate aquifer recharge areas as a critical environmental
         area^ 'Public acquisition of title to the recharge  area  to  maintain
         it in its natural  state.
         2,  A public system to recycle  stormwater from  developed portions
         of the recharge  area to the-still undeveloped areas.
                                    156

-------
       Needs  for Financing;              j
        1.   Approach 1.  Cost of purchasing the land comprising the recharge
        area.   .    •                      j
        2.   Approach 2.  Cost .of land "acquisition, if required, plus costs
        of constructing, maintaining, and operating the recycle system.
        Sources of Financing;            \
                                         i
        1.  Approach 1.  The publicly owrjed water supplier could issue
        revenue bonds  (long-term borrowing) to be retired from revenues
        of water users who are dependent jupon the aquifer for their water
        supply.  This could be an element; in the charge system for water
                                         j
        users.                           |
                                         i              •                  •   . • •
        2.  Approach 2.                  j   .
            a.  Issuance of revenue bond$ as set forth in approach 1.
            b.  To the extent that owners 'in the developed portion are benefited
            by the stormwater drainage  system,  such owners could be  assessed
            on a benefit basis  to provides  funds to  retire bonds  issued to
            provide capital.             j
            c.  The costs  of maintanancei and operation of the recycle system
             could be  financed by "user  charges" on  the benefited property
             owners in the  drainage  area '(i.e.,  charges based on  amount of
             runoff as computed  by lot .si'fee, soil  permeability, and existing
             improvements, such, as driveways and roofs), or more broadly
             through charges t©  all  water; users.
                                         i
         Evaluation;                     !
         These methods of financing can b;e  manipulated to provide adequate
funds since charges to users can be adjusted to assure the needed amount.
It is fair in that those benefited—users of the water and those benefited
by the storm sewer system—bear the costs;.   It is, however,  somewhat rigid
since it is capital intensive, and once tjhe costs are incurred they must
be repaid.  The methods should be within jthe legal authority of  local
governments or water districts since 'this* is not an  unusual method of raising
capital.  It does  require constant administration, but the administrative
agency is most likely  already in existence, and it  could make the collection
process part of that already established!'   While water bills would increase,
the  assurance of a water supply should  enhance  public  acceptability.
                                   157

-------
5.3.2
         Polluted
                   Existing and projected development in a drainage
causing, and threatens to cause, increased stormwater
increased levels of contaminants.
         Approaches;
                                                             area is
                                               runoff
         containing
         1.   Site planning which requires each major developer
         drainage area to provide for delaying runoff
                                                        in the
        nants.
                                               and removing contami-
        2.  Publicly owned and operated runoff retention and treatment
        facilities such as settling ponds adequate to handle
        flush" during rainstorms and the water from periodic
        parking lot cleaning.
        3.  Comprehensive maintenance program, including litter pickup
        street cleaning, catch basin cleaning, parking lot cleaning
        Needs for Financing:

        1.  Approach 1.  The primary costs to the public
        approach are planning and management  (monitoring and enforced)
        The major costs will be borne by the private sector in providing
        the facilities  to delay runoff and to remove contaminants
        2.  Approach 2.   The principal costs in this approach  are borne
        the public and  include:   (a)  land  acquisition for retention and
        settling ponds,   (b)  construction  of stormwater  collection
        (0  construction of retention  and  settling ponds
                                             to handle  the  "first
                                                       street  and
                                                              etc.
                                                  sector in this
                                                                 by
                                                            systems,
       and maintenance of the entire system
       3.  Approach 3.  The
                                      (including
                      principal costs will
     and  (d) operation
   treatment, if necessary)
       and include:   (a) acquisition and maintenance
       equipment, and   (b) labor and supplies.
       Sources of Financing;

           Approach 1.  The public monies needed for planning
           : are relatively small.   As noted previously these
       from general revenues,  assessments on benefited
borne by the public
 of street cleaning
ment are
          and manage-
        may  be paid
       license or permit fees
                                                land owners, or
                               or a
                             combination thereof.  The private
       sector, which must bear  the most  significant  share
       can recover this by increasing the price of their land and/or
                                                   of the costs.
      improvements
             on the land when the land is sold.
                                   158

-------
            2.  Approach 2a.  Long-term borrowing in the form of bond
        issues is the most likely source tb supply funds for capital expen-
        ditures such as land acquisition and costs of construction.  Typically,
        the context within which these typjes of needed capital  investments
        arises is multi-jurisdictional in [nature!  These bonds  could be
        repaid from assessments on benefited landowners—i.e.,  those within
        the drainage area sewered by the facilities.  The  assessment would
        be based on, or in proportion to, j" (1) amount of runoff from each
        parcel of land, or   (2) area of lajnd which is developed.
            Approach 2b.  The costs  of maintenance and operation of the
        system could be financed by  user dharge on owners  in area  served.
        This  user charge  should be based on volume of runoff and contaminants,
        if any, in the runoff which  need treatment.  Volume can be calculated
        on size of lot and  soil permeability.  Contaminant-based charges
        can be based on use of land—parking  lots, heavily fertilized
                                          i       ,          •
        areas, outdoor storage areas, etc.'
             3.  Approach  3.  The  costs  ofjequipment,  if  substantial, may be
         financed  by  long-term borrowing iiji the form of bond issues. More
                                          I
         likely, however,  this  cost plus operational  costs  will come from
         the  general  fund.

         Evaluation:
         In the case of the first approach which places the heaviest costs
directly on the private sector, those creating the problem— developers and
those purchasing from developers — bear the i cost.  This approach may, however,
not provide the economies of scale that may be gained with, larger,
publicly owned facilities (such economies of scale do not exist! in all cases).
It may, however, result in cooperation amoijig private developers and in more
innovative approaches to the problem since j the private sector would be attemp-
                                          i
ting to minimize costs.  Costs to the public sector are greatly minimized.
         In the second approach, in which the public sector incurs jtiie-- ini-
tial expense, the placing of the ultimate burden on those creating the problem
is fair.  From the public sector point of view this method should provide
an adequate source of revenue.  To a certain extent, the adequacy is depen-
dent upon the basis on which benefit assesjsments are calculated.  As an ex-
ample, if based on area and permitted intensity of development of each parcel,
the owner pays on the basis of the benefit,1 whether developed or not.  If based
on calculated runoff the cost of constructing the facilities based on projected
development will be incurred, but development may not  occur.
                                  159

-------
 Both should be easy to administer and there should be no,need for new legis-
 lation.  By spreading the costs among those benefited, it should be poli-
 tically feasible and socially acceptable.
          The third approach (comprehensive maintenance)  in which the public
 generally bears the cost is a fair one,  and also one which promises adequate
 revenue possibilities.   It also may serve multiple objectives,  including
 public  health,  aesthetics, reduced unemployment.   Finally  it is attractive
 because these maintenance activities are traditional functions  of muni-
 cipal government,  and can readily  be redirected to water quality goals.
 s-3-3    Polluted  Runoff  in Undeveloped  Area
         Problem:  Projected development in a relatively undeveloped area
will increase surface runoff and increase contaminants in receiving waters.
         Approaches;
                                   E
         As a first step, determine and establish acceptable quantities
of runoff.  This in turn can be used to control the composition of the
runoff indirectly,'through local ordinances incorporating performance
standards.   Other means available to control development include:
         1.   Limit  overall development and/or paved and roof surfaces in
         the area.   As part of this approach,  allocate development
         riglits  to  each  parcel  based on size  of the parcel.   These should
         be  recorded as  part of the land  records.   This could result in
         a form  of  land  use control for each parcel not based oh density,
         but based  on paved and roof surfaces.
         2.  Allow  a market in  the  development rights,  e.g.,  "trans-
         ferable development rights"  (TDK's) with public agencies over-
         seeing the transfers and maintaining records of them.
         3..  Require maintenance of open or undeveloped areas, or
        require planned unit developments.
        4.   Acquire development rights so that the public may directly
        control and prevent their use.
        5.   Encourage "open space," forest/or agricultural  preserves
        by substantially reduced real estate taxes and/or by credits
        against other state taxes for land maintained in accordance
        with preservation objectives.
                                   160

-------
                                     I
Needs for Financing;                 I
1.  Approaches 1, 2, and 3—Public Sector.
In all three of these approaches, th4 primary need for public
sector funds is in planning:and management.  Funding needs may
be considerable, since establishing  the "acceptable" runoff is
technologically complex.  The monitoring  and enforcement aspects
of management may be more expensive  j:han  usual if the governmental
entity becomes involved  in  administering  the market for TDR's.
2.  Approach 4—Public Sector:  Fundk will be needed to purchase
the TDK's.                           |
3.  Approach 5—Public Sector.  While funds are  not needed for  out-
of-pocket payments, there is a loss  jbo the public sector in the
form  of  reduced tax income. Although difficult  to measure,  this
lost  tax income  should be partially joffset by a  reduced need for
public funds  to meet water  quality standards  in  the  receiving waters.
4.   Approaches 1,  2,  and 3—Private Sector
 The private sector may experience increased development costs
 although "cluster developments" usually result in lower development
 costs per dwelling unit for roads aijid utilities.  As in the case
 of restrictions on development the private sector bears the loss of
profits -that  could have  been gained j through more -_«£l^nsive development
 5.   Approach 4—-Private Sector.  Th
-------
                If the public sector becomes  involved in administering the
            transfer  of TDK's,  a transfer  fee could be charged for such admin-
            istrative service.
            2.  Approach 4-Public Sector.  Funds to purchase TDK's could come
            from a bond issue to be  repaid from assessments on all properties
            in the drainage area.    '.
            3.  Approach 5-Public Sector.  The reduced tax income would have
            to be  offset by tax  income from other sources such as an increase
            in taxation on the developed property in the drainage area.
           4.  Approaches 1, 2, and 3--Private Sector.  As in the case  of '
           other restrictions and constraints on development,  there is  an
           economic loss of possible profits  resulting from more intensive
           development.  These can be recovered to  the extent  that  the market
           will bear  increased costs 'for the  land.
           5.  Approaches  4 and 5-Private Sector.  NO need for  private funds
           except  to  the extent that taxes on other property owners would have
           to be increased to provide  funds or offset lost  income tax revenues.
           Evaluation;

           Since the  need   for public  sector  funds is  small, revenue adequacy
 would not appear to be a problem.  The use  of planning already conducted or
 being conducted pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act would be
 economical and would enhance coordination.   The fee  .charged for facilita-.-
 ting and administering the transfer,of TDK's would offset the costs.
          By allocating TDK's to each parcel, landowners could transfer
 these so as to facilitate development but within the overall  constraint  of
 allowable runoff. This provides flexibility and the opportunity for
 economical development while maintaining  open spaces.  This also provides
 a mechanism for government to  acquire TDK's  thus lessening the  burden on
 those private  owners whose land is  restricted.  This  would avoid a possible
 "taking"  issue.   Such  an  approach may, however, require new legislation,
 and it must be coordinated with other land use control objectives-traffic
 schools, providing industrial zones, etc.  The tax incentive in the "preserve-
approach may require new legislation in order to avoid legal problems such
as a requirement that all property be taxed on a uniform basis.   To the
extent that all of these approaches are somewhat novel-not conceptual^
                                   162

-------
    itv application—there will be an increased administrative burden.  Until
the approach is implemented and experience gained in its application, it
will take more time and staff to administer as compared to more familiar
approaches .                               I
5.3.4    Development Adjacent to a Stream |
         Problem;  In an area adjacent to] a stream existing development
will cause   (1) stream bank erosion, and  j (2) sedimentation and pollution
from surface runoff into the. stream,      j
         Approaches;                      i
         1.  Designate the areas adjacent! to  the  stream as a  "critical
         environmental area," and  acquire! conservation easements  (i.e. limiting
         development  or maintaining area  iin  its natural state) 'from property
         owners  along the stream by purchase or by requiring  dedication  of
         easement as  a prerequisite to development.
          2.   Site planning by land use cdntrols which restrict development
          along the stream.   This could bej coordinated with flood plain land
                                          i .
         use regulations.                |
          3.   On-site construction activity controls which require maintenance
          of vegetative cover and construction methods that prevent erosion
          and runoff.     •                 ;              .
          4.  "User charge" or "contributor charge" based on the Universal
          Soil Loss Equation--!. e. a charge levied on property owners in
          the watershed based on their contribution to the sedimentation
          problem.  The elements of the sfil  loss equation include soil type, slope,
          ground  cover, etc.              J
          Needs  for Financing;            i
          1.   Approach 1.  Acquiring conservation easements directly means
          outlay of public funds.   Alternatively, the locality could require
          dedication  of  conservation easejments by owners  and  developers
          before allowing development  in  jthe area, resulting  in no costs to
           the public  sector.              I
           2.  Approach 2.  The principal j costs to the public sector in this
           approach are planning and management (monitoring and enforcement) .
           Costs  to the private sector ari not "6ut-of -pocket" costs but
           rather lost oppdrtuni
-------
                                                           in this
3.  Approach 3.  The primary costs to the public sector
approach are planning and management (monitoring and enforcement)
                                 (1)  planting and/or maintenance
                                   (2)  any increase in construction
   Costs to the private sector are
   of required vegetative cover,  arid
   costs necessitated by compliance;with required construction methods
   Plus  maintenance costs if any.   if the private sector  fails to
   perform its maintenance requirements,  the public
   its enforcement  function must step in  and perform
                                                 sector as part of
      Approach 4.  The costs to the public sector
                                               are for
                                                          determining
  and collecting the charge.  Costs to the private sector, are, of
  course, the "user" or "contributor" charge.
  Sources of Financing:

  1.  Approach 1.  Alternative 1.  The costs of conservation ease-
  ments should be substantially less than acquiring the fee (entire)
  title to the land adjacent to the stream.
  determined by the difference in the value
  after imposition of the  easement.   Funds could
                                          This cost is usually
                                         of the land before and
                                              come from general
  revenues or from assessments  on all  lands  within the drainage
  All such lands  tend  to  benefit  since the conservation easement
  may allow them  to make  more intensive use  of
  the vegetative  cover of the land
  surface  drainage  into the stream.  Alternative
                                                             area.
 public sector is negligible since dedication
                                           their lands in that
                               in its natural state would retard
                                             _2.-  The cost to the
 made as a
                                           of the easement is
 sector
        is
        prerequisite to development. . The cost to the private
        recovered by increasing the sale price of the developed
 lands.  A problem could arise if the landowner does 	
 sufficient land to develop after dedicating the conservation
                                                  not own
 easement
 2.
 are
  Approach 2:   The public moniesjneeded for planning
  comparatively small.   These may be paid from
           and
               management
                                                  general revenues
 or  assessments  on benefited landowners-i.e.  those within the drain-
 age area.  The  private  sector, while not bearing  any out-of-pocket
 expenses, suffers the loss  of opportunities to develop.  This may be
recouped by an increase in sale price
which is contrary to the public good--
waters in the stream.
                                                           may
                                   on the balance of the land
                                    i.e.
causes harm to the public
                             164

-------
                3.  Approach 3.  The public monies needed are only for planning and
                management  (monitoring  and enforcement).  The costs to the private
                sector  are  recovered in increased costs to purchasers of  the developed
                lands.   TO  the extent that the public sector must step in and  perform
                maintenance,  such costs can  be Assessed directly against  the bene-
                tited parcel~i.e., the parcel Jon which the maintenance  is  performed.
                4.  Approach 4.  Public monies jare  needed only for determining and
                collecting the charges.  The cljarges can be collected along with
                other property taxes which minimizes the administrative burden.
                The private sector will pass the costs along in the same manner as
                other property taxes or assessments.
                Evaluation:                    !
                To the  extent that public fundL  are  used, the public generally
       benefits by cleaner waters in the streaiu  Thus, use of  general revenues  is
       fair since the  public  generally is benefited  by the  imposition -of the  con-
       servation  easement  on  a few property owners.   To  the extent that  the private
       sector bears  the costs, these  can be passed on to purchasers  of the developed
       portions of  the land.   A definite problem arises,  however,  if the servant
        landowner—i.e., the owner whose property is  subjected to the conservation
        easement-does not own sufficient land j for  development outside the area
        subject to the easement.  In considering Approach 2, there is the same
        impact  on the private sector, as in,the|case of the dedication of the
        conservation easement.  In the case of|Approach 3, the  increased costs
        are  passed on to purchasers of the lanf  In the case of costs to be borne
        by  the  private  sector, these "financing methods" appear fair in  that those
        causing the problem bear  the cost.     i
                  There is  little  or no problemj as to adequacy of funds from the
        public  sector  if the  funds are appropriated  when  the governmental  entity
        decides to use the conservation easement approach.  In  the case  of the
        private sector, the additional costs mjay be  passed along if  the  market
        conditions  allow.   If not, then development  will be curtailed.
                  The exacting of a conservation easement and  the imposition of
         land use controls under the "police" powers  of the government always run
         the risk of being held a "taking"  as discussed previously.
                                            165
_

-------
5.3.5
         Wetland Development
         .Problem;  Wetlands, which provide breeding grounds for
                     are
life and water fowl,
and in adjacent areas.  Dredge and fill operations in the
runoff of fertilizers and pesticides from nearby developed
principal threats.
         Approaches;
                                                                aquatic
endangered by development in the wetlands themselves
                                 wetlands and
                                  areas are the
         1.  Designation of wetlands as a "critical environmental
         Alternative 1 would be to limit development in wetlands ]
         restricting dredge and fill operations,  in conjunction
         and regulations applicable to navigable  waters
         Harbors Act of 1899).   Alternative Ib would*be public  acquisition
         of conservation easements to limit development in  the  wetlands
         or keep them in their  natural state.
                                                                 area,
                                                               with laws
                                                       (e.g. Rivers  and
            Regulate use of pesticides and fertilizers
                                                       in the drainage
        area that affects the wetlands.   Such regulations  include  limiting
        types of fertilizers  and pesticides  used  and  licensing  applicators
        to  assure control of  methods of application.
        Needs for Financing;

        1.  Approach la.   The principa-1 costs to the public sector in this
        approach  are planning and management  (monitoring and enforcement).
        The costs  to the private sector are not out-of-pocket, but are the
        loss of speculative profits based on development of the wetlands.
        2.  Approach Ib.   The cost to the public sector
        acquiring conservation easements in the wetlands
        sector bears no cost  since owners are compensated for any "loss
        in value by imposition of the conservation easement.
        3.  Approach 2.  As compared with the customary planning and
       agement costs, the costs of monitoring and enforcement may be
       considerably higher.  This results from the necessity, to license
       and constantly monitor the distribution and application of ferti-
       lizers and pesticides.
                                                        is that of
                                                         area.  The private
                                                                     man-
                                  166

-------
       Sources of Financing;
      .1.  Approach la.  Federal planning grants under such laws as the
       Coastal Zone Management Act jre a possible source of planning funds.
       Other sources include the general fund and, perhaps, financing on
       an intergovernmental cooperation basis.  From the private sector's
       point of view loss of speculative profits may be offset by increased
       or enhanced value of adjacen^ lands.  The wetlands  could also be
       used in computing density retirements for non-wetlands areas.
     '•'  Thus, more intense development may take  place in the non-wetlands
       area to help offset  the  loss! of  speculative profits.
       2.  Approach Ib.  The costs !of conservation easements  should not be
       large  since the wetlands are| not ready for development without
       extensive and  expensive  dredjge and  fill operations.  Thus,  the
       difference in  the fair market value of the wetlands in its  natural
        state and the  wetlands burdened  with the conservation easement is
        small.  Such costs could come  from general  revenues of the  political
        subdivisions having jurisdiction of the wetlands.   A wetlands pro-
        tection district might be formed with'authority to accept and/or
        raise funds to acquire such conservation easements.  To the extent
        that commercial enterprisesI or even sports groups, benefit from
        the maintenance of the breeding grounds, license or permit fees
        could be  assessed to provid<2 funds.
        3.  Approach 2.  The additional costs of monitoring and enforcing
        the regulatory program  coulji be offset  by license,and permit  fees
         imposed  on distributors andj applicators of fertilizers and  pesti-
         cides.   To the extent that ^he  public  sector uses  such fertilizerss
         and pesticides—e.g. highwajy department, parks and public  recrea-
         tion, public  health, etc.--monitoring and enforcement should  be
         less  expensive since such government agencies  could "police"
         themselves.                 j                   .         .
                         '•'"•    •'["'•'"'    '
         Evaluation;                 |   •
         To the extent that development  in wetlands  is quite expensive,
the value of the wetlands in its natural state is low compared with non-
wetlands development areas and restricting its use does not place a great
                                    i
                                    k.67

-------
 burden on the private OMers.  Bnen conservation  events are acquired by
 use of public funds,  fairness  is  assured  to.,11 concemed-both to the public
 and Private sectors.   tte  source  of funds fro, general revenues is, no^ver,
 sublet to appropriations  and  runs tMs.ris* of uncertainty.  «. llc«»sing
of distributors and applicators May reguire enabling legislation or at least
promulgation of regulations by environmental or coastal Zone
agencies.
                               168

-------
   I

 CEg
                             REFERENC
              '       ''                !
These two principles of public finance! have been stated by Musgrave.
See Richard A. Musgrave, The Theory of! Public Finance  (New York:
McGraw-Hill Co., 1959).               j
                              • -    ,l'''''    "-     "
In practice, the ability to pay a levy! is usually defined in terms  _
of income.  This principal is not generally considered in an analyses
of sewerage service charges because thjese charges are rarely, if ever,
related to an individual's ability tojpay them.
                                      i
As a measure of value this test is rather crude because total revenues
are compared with total costs and no Analyses are made at the margin.
                                      I
Connection fees and minimum charges bdth meet this  criterion.   Total
costs would be  equal to either marginal cost of service plus a
connection fee  or a minimum charge computed by dividing total costs by
population served.
169!

-------
   6'°     INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

           The success of stormwater management depends upon its implementation
   Master plans can be created,  technical solutions proposed,  and legal ob-
   stacles surmounted, but eventually officials responsible for the  control  of
   stormwater runoff must address  the crucial  question:  what  institutional
   arrangements will be required to  carry out  an effective  stormwater manage-
   ment program?
          Previous  chapters have  dealt with the,elements of a  stormwater
  Program and  these  elements fall within  a suggested approach-a preventive
  one.  The preventive approach of best management practices requires the
  sxmultaneous and coordinated application of control measures.  Its simpler
  alternative, end-6f-pipe treatment is too expensive, calling for astrono-
  mxcal expenditures,  if stormwater programs  are thus constrained by the
  technical measures available,  they are equally limited by the complexity
  of the governmental system which is responsible for the  implementation of
  Programs.   Because radical political reorganization around the watershed
  will most probably not occur,  local government must look  to  informal
  mechanisms  and existing institutions.   How existing governing bodies  can
  best be  adapted to the  implementation of stormwater runoff control, is,
  then, the subject  of this chapter.

  6-1     Existing Patterns of Control for Stormwater Management
         The control of stormwater is vested in several layers of government
 and, on addition,  is related to oth.r goals.   Depending on the jurisdiction,
 the State may assume a more important role than other governmental  units
 such as counties,  municipalities, or special  purpose districts.  The  func-
 tion of stormwater control also encompasses other objectives:   erosion con-
 trol, flood  control, transportation planning,  and solid waste  management,
 for  ^stance.   Again,  the spectrum  of concommitant goals creates the necessity
 of coordination across functions  with .responsible  agencies which may, in
 turn, have local, regional, or statewide  authority.
        Stormwater pollution respects no political boundary.  As a result
the institutional coordination required for storm water control directly  '
involves many different levels of government.
                                    170

-------
State Agencies                               ]
        In each of the fifty States, at leasij one statewide agency has the
primary responsibility for water quality control within the State.  These
agencies will be deeply enmeshed in stormwater runoff problems, for as the
LuLiluiuiiLiil .1 rml-rrti-n »T""T M^^ "™"-^ Strategy Paper indicates;
"Control strategies will be developed by designated Areawide planning
agencies and by States.  For both,  section  2J>8 provides the principal auth-
ority  for  addressing nonpoint  sources."1  Foj: this reason, State water pol-
lution control authorities will continue to have  a direct hand in  the imple-
                                             i
mentation  of  stormwater management programs.I
        Within a  number of States,2 however,|. the  responsibility for water
pollution  control has  been retained by the  skate  public health agency;  such
an arrangement  is probably not conducive tojvigorous and  comprehensive
 stormwater control efforts,  if only because jthese health  agencies will  be
 occupied with many other quite different concerns.   The "mission" orien-
 tation of public health agencies may dampenjefforts to, analyze stormwater
 problems where no direct and incontrovertible threat to human life is
 present, such as the presence of pathogens, j ••;..<•.
         State involvement in stormwater control also occurs because agencies
 of nearly forty percent of the States3 may carry out flood control projects
 by building levees, dams and  so on.  The authority to prevent the construc-
 tion  of flood control works is another source of State influence.  In
 several States,  the plans of  all  flood control projects  must  be approved
 by  a  designated  State agency, thus allowing] an effective veto over the
 actions of  local agencies in  this area.     j
         Soil and erosion control, a  goal cl|bsely related to stormwater
 control,  has come under  the influence of Statewide  direction  in many^areas,
 especially through statutes which create sojil  conservation districts  .
 Most of these  soil conservation district statutes grew out of the Dust Bowl
  disasters of the 1930's.  Recently,  they helve often been amended to reflect
  current concerns over the water pollution Caused by sediment transport.
  The use of the veto power against local efforts which do not conform to
  a unified soil erosion and sedimentation  control program is  a common mech-
  anism for statewide direction.  For exampl^, Michigan provides for local
  control; yet "an ordinance which is not approved by the commission as con-
                                      171

-------

    forming to  the minimal retirements of
    no force or effect."

    of man   *" 0bJe°tiVeS °£ «<— - control  thus come under the authority
    of many  easting state agencies.  ; For ^^ beaaase transportation   J_

    duals so directly affect the loading intensity of streets J because
   last
   laws. State
                        reSponSlBle for highwiy plamiing Md
     en    f
   the need for solid waste disposal.
 trol                                                   »  Sor™,ater o
 trol.   The plethora of related agen=y involvement causes problem.  Tor
                                                                       oo»-
                   on a
       sta
       statement

      was to include * 618 acre i.pounrtnent
                        proposal to  create . 3500 acre recreation facility
 wh.ch .hauen.ed the water ^ality impacts


  r 1 *
 ertedthe state  to many overlooked detrimental effects

              vesting authority for runoff control
                                               „ was not . state agenoy
                                            of the proposal.
                                                                     al-
-«.   *us,
                                          area.
 Should not be seen necessarily as a desirable

 government plays a decisive role in this

 Cities and Counties



fare is o? TtT"
fare „ one of the most important purposes
                                                        of the impound-
                                                    at the State level

                                               and automatic choice   Local
                                                  «-
                                                             health  and wel-
be e*erclsed.   The power vested in municipal authorities
           dra
            drai   ±s not
                                         for which the police power

                                                       to oonsLct
                                                                     can
                                                      -
       that may be exercised to supply needed facilities
   rconstruct and maintain a draina.

                                                       at any time.  This
                                           system is conferred by charter
runoff                                                      «or™,ter
thT^r-f tracea *° ^ history:°£ io°ai e°ntoi £°r '-»'-»•   *
the past, lt was thought that the overriding purpose of a stormwater
drainage system should be fast removal and efficient disposal.   The  manage
«= of these systems was seen as an engineering problem divorced LT
other urban systems  and activities.  ;In addition, sewer  design by the
                                  172

-------
national Method considered neither the timiig of the flow nor the quality
                                thought wjis. given to designs employing
                                  environmental  damage .caused b}
                                                                  of
water control as a local problem with an engineering solutxon.
        Nevertheless, the  authority to construct and maintain sewer systems
remains critical to the future of stormwate|r management.   Because urban
growth7 -tends to follow along the patterns jof  sewer construction, thxa
power-if directed through careful planning--can accomplish much toward
the retardation of runoff velocities.  Muci therefore Spends upon the wxse
use of  local police  powers.
        L,nd use  control is another  area traditional within the purvtew
 of local government,  zoning, being  an exercise of the police power which
 resides in the several states, is ,  form o^ land use control usually  dele-
 gated to local governments through enabling legislature.  This means  of
 regulation provides a cornerstone to the preventive approach, and ,s  more
 fully dealt  with in other chapters of this manual,  as it affects a related
 goal, that of transportation planning. th«j zoning retirements of the many
 local Planning boards o» do much toward ,he  reduction of pollutant loadings

                      rr.r^p-rrr; =.-
  „„.„„„«.,.„ —.....t't""
  lations made to  lessen traffic congestion! as well as through
  requirements.                          I                •  .
         Therefore,  in the pattern of institutional arrangements for  storm-
  water control, local governments play a  fundamental role.  Planning  boards
  shape the programs which seek to achieve ^any of the objectives related to
  stormwater  runoff management.  Departments of public works determine the
  success of  the technical solutions suggested in the preventive approach-
  street sweeping, sewer flushing, and catch basin cleaning to name a few.
          Counties share with cities many features and, of course, have regu-
   latory powers which are supplemental to Ihose of the State.   In many
   instances counties creat, pollution control offices which play a part xn ^
   runoff control.  The Metropolitan  Dade County Pollution Control ordnance
   which creates such an office is an example of the exertion of a county a
                                   173

-------
        in runoff management.  Although not specifically enacted for that pur-

   pose the ordinance,  for instance,  prohibits the disoh,™   f
                                               t-xic U.LOOlioLiyQ OIT ^^clSt^*^! "I irfr^
   5tOjtl'lll SSV7S3T SVS"f"(^TT1<2    "R'v^ve^ "
                                          aY &-LSO be exercised IDV courrf-i #ac» -»«
   A*»4 -3^y_   j ^   i_T_      •                                           ^v**.i* u-a-co Clo

   ,.                         n      olicy and Land Development Standards  or-
   dxnance  of Dekalb County Georgia.9


  Special Districts



          Special districts are the most diverse and least understood,.group ,
         I  rr*~iTT£i-*-v\m^^«.a.m, •__ . i   __ _ .                                         *•
        l
           :  rst as sep"ate corporate enes and which h-
         and ad^strative independence fro, general purpose local govern-
 ments.   Many perform functions related to stormwater control.   Their pre-
 valence is  illustrated by the following table.
                                 Figure 6.1
Multiple Function
Source:  Census of Government
        As Figure 6.1. indicates, the prevalence of special districts varies
                 — :
re-

                                   174

-------

 hand does  not.   Overall, the,primary reason^ for their creation are:  (1)
 fiscal self-sufficiency, (2). emphasis on technical specialization,  (3)  efficiency,
 (4)  geographic flexibility.10  Special purpose districts have only those .powers
 that are expressly granted to them or are necessary to carry out the conferred
 •powers.  Their creation will generally be invalid only where requirements in
                              .11        i                    ''.'•"''
 enabling legislation are lacking.          ]
         in their relation to stormwater management special districts have few
. powers in the area- of pollution control, buf in such areas as  drainage and
 flood control they are,by far the-most important governmentalbody.  In addition,
 soil conservation districts are a dominant [nethod for erosion  control; the crea-
 tion of-such districts  is authorized in  forty-Six states.  Such districts are
 empowered to develop comprehensive plans whjere  earth disturbance occurs.'
         Special purpose districts do not ofjfer  a general solution to the
 fundamental dilemma at hand.  An instance o|f  an acute  jurisdictional morass
 existed in one  county  which included withirj its borders one  county-wide  drain
 board,  one county-wide park board,  three separate water management districts,
 two soil  conservation  districts and most oi one irrigation .district.   To make  ;-
 matters even  worse,  that irrigation district extended into two other counties
  so that coordination, between the several districts would require contact with
  two drain boards, three park boards, four fater management districts, and four
  soil conservation districts.  This/chaos if not atypical.  One survey indicated
  that there were 143 counties across the nation which contained over 25 special,.
  districts within their'boundaries.        |
          .As an intergovernmental solution, [special districts have several fail-
  ings.  First, there is commonly a duplication of roles to be fulfilled by
  different districts.  Second, there does not often exist a mechanism for state-
  wide supervision that would ensure adequate coordination of the districts'
  plural and separate efforts to meet their .overlapping responsibilities.
  the variations possible  in  jurisdictional |boundaries make cooperation even
  more difficult.                         . ; .  ......  ,.  '•  	   !    •
  The Intergovernmental  Tangle  Facing Stromwater  Control
           in light of these existing patterns of  control,  one implication is  clear:
  the control of stormwater .programs is fragmented between levels of government
  and across functional responsibilities.  State agencies., local departments,
                                        175

-------
   and  special districts  confront  each other with different interests yet pos-
   ssess coordinate powers.  One director of a western Urban Drainage and
   Flood Control District indicated how difficult it was to embark upon a pro-
   gram of water quality monitoring, owing to the functional distinctions be-
   tween flood control and water quality control.  Even though the district
  was the appropriate institution to conduct such a survey,  the impediment
  lay an the difficulty of a single purpose agency to control a multi-faceted
  problem.   The preventive approach to stormwater management  must confront
  and successfully deal with this  reality of fragmented responsibility.
         Because the preventive approach involves  regulatory as well as phy-
  sical controls,  the tendency toward  institutional conflicts remains ever-
  present.   Where  conflict  does not openly arise, responsible agencies may
  well  work  at cross-purposes.   Public works departments may  not perform
  maintenance operations  (street sweeping,  catch basin cleaning  and the like)
  xn coordination with the programs of transportation planning bodies or
  other related agencies.
         Essentially, the institutional problems remain intergovernmental
 ones given the balkanized arrangements of functions in our system of
 government.  An areawide approach to the problem such as that envisioned
 by Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments  of
 1972 attempts to ameliorate the dilemma, but the problem persists.   other
 measures,  such as A-95 review, seek  to  avoid duplication of  efforts where
 federally  funded programs  are involved,  yet conflict  continues.
 6'2     Coward  Better Institutional Arrangements for  Stormwater M.^^
        Bertrand  de  Jouvenel  stated the  problem succinctly at the 1967
 Water  for Peace Conference, "All  our institutions  are aimed  at  regulating
 relations between men  practically none  at regulating the relations be-
 tween men and Nature."12  Although this  state of affairs has improved con-
 siderably with the passage of  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 and the strengthening of state water quality agencies,  the
dxffzculty remains in bending institutions to a purpose they are unaccus-
tomed to serve and in directing separate efforts toward common ends     '
                                   176

-------
        If the nature of our institutions Represents a problem, it is only
part of the dilemma; the nature of the preventive approach also leads to   .
complexity in the number and type of institutions involved in a control
program.  The preventive approach to stormWater pollution is, by and. large,
an indirect one.  The more direct approach| would be to capture the sewer
discharge through interceptors and then to| treat the effluent at a plant
designed for this purpose.  Although direct, this approach would be  very
costly.  More  importantly,  it addresses  iiself  to the results, not the  cau-
ses   of the pollution.  When the causes  of pollution become  the focus,
then the  control of runoff becomes  one amjng a  number of goals of a  control
program.   The sources of  runoff pollution)are also  sources  of other  prob-
 lems, and control techniques  useful for pollution abatement are  also use-
 ful for other functions.   For example, th|i debris-laden curb is  a source
 of pollution as well as a blight on the cleanliness of the city.   Clogged
 drainage ways resulting from sediment cazjried away from construction
 sites also increase the potential for flojoding problems.  Trees serve to
 hold sediment in place in addition to offering pleasing landscapes  for the
 community.  Detention facilities may be designed to ameliorate flooding
 as  well as to allow a sizeable  reductionjof pollution through the settling
 out of particulate matter.               j	    ;
         While this increased degree of  complexity  can be a  disadvantage,
  it  can also  lead to certain  important benefits:   (1)  it is  more  equitable
  to  shift the burden of control onto  thosfe areas and individuals  which
  cause the problem; and (2) it is more acceptable to the electorate  that
  tax dollars should be spent on programs ^hich contain several legitimate
  goals instead of attempting to justify expenditures upon the grounds of
  stormwater control alone.  Thus, even with the added institutional com-
  plexity, a comprehensive approach to tluj causes of stormwater pollution
  may make sense on grounds of both equity and practicality.  .
          At least  four major factors  should be considered when selecting
  among alternative approaches  to stormwater pollution control.  The allo-
  cation of responsiblities and authority|for stormwater management  among
  agencies ought to take  into account:
           .   the nature of the  particular stormwater problem;
           «  the nature of the  controls employed and the
              coordination needed to carryj them out;
                                       177

-------
                  "fintenance requirements of the program
              which ensure the effectiveness of thi consols,
              the implementation needs of a control program.                 .

   .en    faotors hi9h"9hts a aifferant aspect °* the
   arrangements necessary to carry out a  stormwater control program.  First
   the nature of the problem itself enables  the planning agency to identify'
   those governments and agencies .which hold Jurisdiction over particular
   sources or pollution.  Second, the  type of cooperation desire, from these
   response agencies depends in  large part upon what  controls appear
   proving, since many of these controls necessitate different forms of coor-
   dination.  ^rd. whatever the control program selected, its continued
                    ^ ^*— - -e physical technics employed,
        Planning or permitting system, must be coordinated with inspection
      enforcement agencies,  rinally,  an  overriding concern is to consider
  the means  reared to impZement the  program to Ma,e  it.^to^J^^,
  aceeptable not only to the agencies  which  will 4o  the  regulating, but also
  those interests being regulated-and  the public-at-large.
  me aature  of  the Partin,n..- stormwater p^.t.,-.'

  area in^ "^ °" *"" ^^^ "^^ ^^ ta ' >««— local
  «. influences the institutional arrangements appropriate for its  control.
  »at such an influence is critical to the planning agency's efforts may
 be demonstrated from three perspectives,   
-------
Chicago Metropolitan Area suffered from thfLs predicament, as a committee

report of the Metropolitan Sanitary District indicates:

        The region-wide or basin-wide, floo'ding problems,
        within the Chicago Metropolitan Ar^ea result from
        a number of causes, for example, unrestricted flow
        from upstream areas outside of thej jurisdiction
        of the Metropolitan Sanitary District...The
        solution to these basin-wide and region-wide
        flooding problems cannot be accomplished through
        the sewer permit ordinance, but must be performed
        by the responsible governmental bodies.
        It is not the intent  of the Sub-Committee  that
        numerous small puddles and ponds be constructed
        throughout  the Metropolitan Area.j Such scattered
        ponds may create nuisance  and posspiJble health
        hazard and  fail to provide flood protection if
        not  adequately maintained. Rather, the purpose
        of the recommended amendment to the Sewer  Permit
        Ordinance is  to encourage  the  development  of well
        maintained  landscaped lakes to act jointly as
        detention reservoirs and recreation facilities or
        aesthetic  focal points in new viljLage parks, either
         in incorporated or unincorporated! areas...
         The Sub-Committee believes that the Federal, State,
         County,  Metropolitan Sanitary District and other
         local agencies,  should work together to provide
         overall planning, scheduling and jfunding for the
         large drainage basin projects.13 j

 As a matter of equity, the reverse shoulcj also hold true:  that a locality

 should not ignore the problem if  it is inj the  fortunate position of being

 able to pass its problems downstream.    j
         Although the drainage characteristics  of  an area are an important

 basis for identifying and ,invblving; the Appropriate agencies of govern-
 ment in an effective control program,  thejy are still only one consideration.

 Another is the characteristic of  the runoff pollution's constituents.
 Figure 6.2 indicates how the various conjtitutents of  stormwater pollu-

 tion  (during one event) vary with respect to  distance. From a  glance,

 it can be seen that  most pollutants are iarried far and endanger  the
 receiving waters beyond  local boundaries[  For this reason,  intergovern-

 mental coordination will be required  in ijaany cases.   Figure 6.3 describes
 how stormwater  constituents vary in their persistance over time.   Heavy

 metals,  for example, are regional in scoj?e and long-lived.  In contrast,

 bacteria and viruses from a. storm may not extend beyond local waters,
                                    179

-------
                      Figure  6.2
  Stormwater Constituents  and  Their Effective Distance
                   MILES
LOCAL
                                 REGION-
                                                BASIN

                         180

-------
                                           Figure 6.13
                       Stormwater Constituents and Their Persistence.
                  4
                 BACTERIA AND VIRUS
                                                                      METALS-- PERSISTENT
                                                                      MhiAL    ORGANICS
        HOUR
                                      WEEK
                            i





4-6, 1975                   j
                                                                          :
_

-------
   nor over a week's time.  Some constitutents and their sources may tran-
   scend the abilities of any one community to implement control.  A common
   example would be the lead compounds resulting from car emissions   No
   one could reasonably expect to achieve abatement of these compounds in
   runoff through local prohibition,- the severity and extent of this problem
   has reared federal regulation,  and for reasons other than runoff control
   Other constituents,  such as the; nutrients which cause eutrophication,  may
   also require the action of superior authority,  whether by the state
   or federal government.          :
           in these cases where  the  runoff problem is clearly beyond  the  power
   of the affected  localities to control, the  appropriate course of .action
   may be to petition the state government.  An example is the Recommended
   Resolution for Regulation of storm Drainage which Affects  Separate Sewered
   and Unsewered Areas adopted by the Metropolitan District of Greater
   Chicago :
                     bS ifc resolved,.that the President
          of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
          Chicago hereby petitions the Governor of the
          State of Illinois to direct the appropriate
          department of the State. of Illinois to:
          (1)  Establish a flood control program for the
          State of Illinois based on the principle of
          retaining storm water runoff at or near  its
          source,  and
          (2)  Regulate  and control storm flow which pass
          from one county  to another within  the State of
          Illinois by establishing maximum flows at the
          county lines... 14

 It should not be concluded that runoff pollution is always beyond the scope
 of local government to influence and reduce and that local government
 lies helpless until superior authority acts.  On the  contrary,  the indi-
 vidual community will be the iinch-pin of any successful program of
 abatement when areawide cooperation comes. about.
         In addition to those natural features which affect the  specific
 runoff problem,  there  are man-induced considerations-e.g. , patterns of
 growth,  the design of  the sewer system,  the traffic patterns of an area-
 which  determine the total loadings  of  stormwater runoff in large measure
 *hese  elements of the problem, however, have always remained within the
purview of .local  land use controls.  Cities and counties through their

                                    182

-------
                                           I
police powers greatly influence pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff
 (See the discussion in Chapter 5) .
rhe Nc
3f the Controls  Employed and thel Coordination Needed
to Carry Them Out
        institutions having different authorities and functions are likely
to become part of any areawide stormwater management plan.  Once the
cooperation of - these organizations is gaine|d, the type of coordination
desired from them depends on  the nature of jthe  solutions which appear
promising.                                 i
        How does the nature of the controljprogram  affect the type of
coordination necessary?  Differing degrees of cooperation may be  called
for.   To  provide an example,  let us  assumejthat two communities adjoin and
that a transportation  network covers the  locales evenly.  Furthermore,  the
assumption might be made that the  loading ff the street runoff degrades
 the quality of the receiving water.   In thks case,  if it is determined
 that an area containing multiple  jurisdictions  would benefit from street
 sweeping, then the type of coordination-needed may be an inter-local con-
 tractual agreement which would share the capital investment in sweeping
 equipment and the maintenance costs for itjs operation.  In this example,
 the nature of the problem dictates a concerted effort from two commu-
 nities and the solution-street sweeping-jrequires the close and continued
 cooperation of the communities' public worjks departments.  The coordina-
 tion would involve scheduling of sweeper rjoutes to achieve the maximum
 pollutant reduction, for if  each department acted  independently the effec-
 tiveness of the combined program could be jdrastically reduced and the  addi-
 tional expenditures wasted.               '
          If an area experiencing rapid urbjn growth staddles  jurisdictions
 and sediment  constitutes  a major difficulty, then  the appropriate measure
 may instead be  the simultaneous adoption by ordinance of performance
  standards for developers.    To do  so couli  involve the independent  imple-
 mentation by  several  jurisdictions  of similar  ordinances  enacted with
  common objectives.  Once  these objectivesj are  agreed upon by the affected
  governments,  the operation of the program could proceed quite independently
  in each jurisdiction.  This result was achieved in several counties
  surrounding Atlanta,  Georgia.  Dekalb CouLty passed such an ordinance
                                     183

-------
    establishing performance standards for runoff from development,  and as
    a result the bordering counties  of Clayton and Cwinett have  since adopted
    similar  reflations,   These counties evidence co^on problems,   since two
    Of the si* major drainage basins in Clayton County. Georgia, originate in
    rulton and Detalb counties the passage of  similar ordinances functioned as
    a  form of cooperative agreement to control a com«,n problem.  The counties
   however,  have Jurisdiction onlr ever unincorporated areas,  mcorporated  '
   areas fall within the purview of municipal Public Worfcs departments.
   To achieve systematic control over sediment delivered to  the area's rivers
   has retired that cities rely on regulations concerning the grading of
   land   in this manner,  ordinances enacted by the  counties  and the cities
   in the Metropolitan Atlanta Area  have, by and  large, been  successful in
   controlling stromwater  pollution  from sediment.   This coordinated program
   evolved informally aore by example  than design.   a Aether path may 1
   found if  the objectives desired from coordination are clearly stated at
  the outset, before independent programs are launched.
          Runoff pollution problems are rarely staple, and even if one  type
  of pollution predominates,  such as erosion and sediment runoff,  many agen-
  cies may become involved.  ». state's highway department  may be  a contri-
  butor to runoff pouution through initial construction activities and sub-
  sequent highway runoff,  in addition to private  developers.   From  another
 perspective, no one stormwater management  technique can be  applied without
  regard  for its  unavoidable interdependence with other techniques.  For
 .nstance   a comprehensive  catch basin cleaning program cannot be designed
 Without due consideration  for the schedule of street sweeping activities,
 because the sweeper reduces the load avails for entry into the catch
 basln.  »here street sweeping is frequent, catch basin cleaning may be an
 infrequent need.  Therefore when organisational responsibly for the two
 techniques  Is split between different agencies cr departments,  coordinated
 Planning is necessary to ensure the maximum efficiency of an overall control
 progra,,.  This  coordination should  not end  with  the initial  formulation of
 Plans, but  continue on  a  frequent basis as  the program in implemented
         Once the nature of the problem and  its sources have  been assessed,
 the cooperation of those governments holding  Jurisdiction over elements
 Of  the problem must be gained.  In some cases close cooperation may be re-
ared, but this is not always so since looser and more informal mechanisms
                                       184

-------
may suffice.  Part and parcel of this cooperation must be the identification
and involvement of all those agencies whifh will be required to achieve
the goals established for the control program.  When methods of abatement
are adopted for reasons including but expending beyond water quality,
coordination may become an extremely intricate process involving many
different organizations  and  interests
                                         ram Which Ensure
                    IrementsoftheJPr
 The Maintenance Re
 the Effectiveness of the Controls
         It is not sufficient that planning activities cease with the ini-
 tiation of a preferred stormwater management program.  Adequate means to
 ensure the continuation of the controls fust be provided, otherwise the
 controls may become ineffective or even ^acerbate runoff pollution.
         The need to maintain the control's provided for stormwater runoff
 may create additional coordination problems.  For example, while the auth-
 ority to require on-site detention of ruUff may be  granted by statute
 to one entity, such as a soil conservation district, the statute may not
 vest enforcement or maintenance  in the  sjame  agency.  Similarly, the appro-
 val of development plans may rest with  i special purpose district,  whereas
  inspection of sites  for noncompliance mly remain with  a  department of  the
  county government.  Another typical  arrangement is  that  maintenance may be
  left to the property owner.  A description of Fairfax County's (Virginia)
  experience is instructive for the typesjof problems that can arise:
          County personnel feel that the iaajor problem with
          their erosion and sediment control program is the
          inspection.   Most of the inspection is done
          "after the fact" when little ca^ be done._   In
          addition, utility inspectors are used as inspec-
          tors for  erosion and sediment  Control and usually
          lack the  experience necessary  for effective
          inspection within  this  area.   Tfwice a year  the
          County Development Department  does  give an
          erosion and  sediment control refresher course
          to its  inspectors  in an effort!to correct  this
           situation and provide  interaction between  the
          Plan Review Section and the Infection Department.
   Where possible the  planning agency  shoild develop  means to ensure that the
   authority to inspect is clearly provided and that this  responsibility
   be carried out by qualified personnel.1;  The allocation of responsibility
   for stormwater runoff management shoul)* include consideration of the
                          •               i.
                                    '  185! '    .

-------
   inspection function as part of any existing or proposed runoff ordinance.
           The risk of inadequate inspection is that runoff control measure
   will not be carried out or that they will be inoperative or ineffective
   during the construction period.   A related aspect of the inspection
   problem is the involvement of the design engineer which can supplement local'
   government inspection while not  replacing it.   In some  cases,  the consulting
   engineer hired to design the system does just that,  he  designs the drainage
   system and never sees the project again.  Another engineer, usually employed
   by the developer, signs  the  as-built drawings.  Especially in the control
   of erosion and  sedimentation, when the construction phase is very important,
   some sort  of continued inspection by the design consultant might be needed.
          The necessary maintenance of the physical devices which become part
  of the runoff control program is closely allied with the inspection sys-
  tem,   m some areas of the country, maintenance bonding is required of the
  developer.  The ultimate success of any system of controls will depend on
  inspection and maintenance,  but to achieve this  success  the  planning agency
  must  solicit the interest and awareness of the developer and of the
  public-at-large.                    !
  Implementation Needs  of  the  Program

          Many well conceived plans  are currently  collecting dust on agency
  shelves,   in the planning process  the nature of  the runoff problem may be
  accurately  conceptualized, coordination plans 'developed; maintenance require-
 ments passed into law, and still the plan may not be implemented in the ab-
 sence of a concerted effort to educate those who will beat the brunt of
 regulation, as well as the public at large.  The principal obstacle to
 implementation stems from an indifferent attitude toward precious environ-
 mental resources and ignorance of the significant threats posed by runoff
 pollution.  This attitude persists and requires much effort to,change .it.
 Education may do much to  ellicit a willingness to act.
         For example, when Dekalb County  passed its  runoff control  ordinance
 the contractors and developers reportedly accepted  the restrictions as
 outlined in the ordinance  and very  few problems resulted.  One reason
 for this lack of  problems  could be  that  the Drainage Department conducted
 a series of  workshops  in which the drainage ordinance was explained and
where the contractors and  developers had the opportunity to ask questions

                                    186

-------
            •-.-••                I
concerning the application of the ordinancte.
        Another approach is to create "bluk ribbon" committees, such as
was done by the Metropolitan Sanitary District in Chicago.  This committee
was composed of representatives from the Sanitary District, consulting
firms, contractors, developers, public worjks personnel, and interested
citizens.  A wide range of disciplines and backgrounds can then contrxbute
to the development of policy and this can jadd measureably to the success
of a program.                             I
         Yet another way of attacking the problem of public participation
is to develop public service announcement!  for broadcast by local television
stations.  The Huron River Watershed Counkl  in Michigan  achieved great
success  with  this method. The StormwaterI Runoff Program  within the Water
Planning Division of EPA is  currently  developing a slide  show for use by
 areawide 208  agencies  in explaining the pjroblem of runoff pollution and
           •     .           .i
 what can be done to abate it.             |
 Summary
;   The  Preventive Approach       |
 Because the preventive approach requires  coordination at many
                                 stitutional difficulties  are
 levels, it will cause conflict.  These in
 clearly a drawback to the approach, but ^hat other alternatives are
 there?  Available evidence suggests thatistormwater runoff will eventually.
 dominate as  a major  source of water pollution.  The reason is sd^ply that
 as  point source control meets the  requirements  of P.L.  92-500, urban run-
 off will be' a remaining major problem,  jlso,Durban areas do not  remaxn
 static; they grow,  and with  this growth jnmoff  increases.
         A basic proposition  advanced hert  is  that  existing  institutions can
 be molded to fashion effective stormwatejr'management  programs.   To accom-
 plish this objective, however,  the dilemma of stormwater management must
  be viewed from a certain perspective:  controlling the sources of runoff
  pollution through their reduction and prevention.   This perspective entaxls
  a family of abatement measures which arJ both physical and regulatory.
  in order to control stormwater runoff pollution these abatement measures
  must be applied systematically.  To  succjeed at this task and to implement
  the management program requires an awareness of the institutional con-
  straints which are  present.  These can l|e overcome through a careful  con-
  sideration  of who has jurisdiction over!the  sources of the pollution  and
                                       187

-------
   what is required of these agencies and governments, both initially and
   on an on-going basis.  Finally, the institutional constraints cannot be
   overcome without the awareness and education of those regulated
   6.3
           A Brief History;   Leon County,  Florida

           In 1973 Leon County,  Florida passed three related  ordinances:
   directed to the protection of trees
                                                                         one
   sion,
        sedimentation,
                                        the  second for  the  control of
                                                                     ero-
                       and  runoff;  and  the third aimed at the development
  a landscape and open space plan.  Each of these regulations influences
  stormwater runoff and demonstrates how stormwater man       '   "
  alone as an individual objective.  Rather, stormwater
  into a spectrum of environmental goals,   in addition,  the development
  these ordinances indicates how stormwater management
                                                                          of
                                                    management cannot stand
                                                       management must  fit
                                                                       of
  support of many groups
                                                      will require the
          During the latter part of 1970,  the
                                              onset of construction for Inter-
  state 10 around the area of Lake Jackson and the construction
  Tallahassee  Mall caused isolated instances
                                                               of the
 polluted runoff  into  the  Lake.  At  this
                                            of concern over the impact of
                                         point, the homeowners surrounding
 Lake Jackson organized themselves and demanded the protection
 property and Lake Jackson
                                                               of
individual
 Commission recommended a study of the
                                  this public expression of concern the County
 Thzs analysis was undertaken by the City Sanitation Department
 Unzversity Department of Oceanography, the Tallahassee and St;
 Health, and the State of Florida Department of Transportation
 study verified the pollution problem and urged specific sediment
                                       issue by various local and state agencies.
                                                                 Florida State
                                                        and  State Departments of
 as well as county-wide runoff control
                                                                 Indeed,  the
                                                                  controls
         In
            consequence, the Department of Transportation and the developer
 set up sediment control structures on the two construction
 issue—that of county-wide runoff
                                                           sites.  The larger
                                   control—remained.   Upon recommendation
                                                     a joint meeting of the
of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, _ __
Tallahassee City Commission and the Leon County Commission
decided that the County Commission would
                                                            was held.   It was
                                          take  the responsibility  for the
adoption and implementation of the environmental ordinances
county funding was arranged.  After a citizens' task force  _ ^
the Planning Department, a series of workshops and public hearings
As a result, the Erosion, Sedimentation, and Runoff Ordinance
                                                           ,  but joint city-
                                                task force was appointed by
                                                                   were held.
                                                              was adopted.
                                     188

-------
        The
example, the
was in
at
     istrumental  in the passage
   the  workshops  held prior to
                                of
each of the  following attended
Florida State
and many other groups
        What can be
demonstrates
              that citizen
 and re;
             vironmental
 of larger en
 the public-at-large
 Council in Michigan.  Through public
               Oceanography
                                                        the Huron
                                         Moreover,
                                  •epresentatives of
                                     Game Commission;
                                        Architecture

                                        First, it
                                        local leaders
                                       runoff, as part
                                         ipport from
                                        River  Watershed
                                       servicL announcements, public meetings
  and
     ,\^^*j~ ^.*~ — — —  —•
     dissemination of educational materials
  from the electorate.  In
  an inexpensive yet
                   the  Council had a wide response
iationax 1110.1.5=-^-•	  ujiw
particular,  the public service announcement proved
e                              	j_ c~-*- 4-v.a nouncil
                    Effective method to gain citizen support
for the Council's
 activities.  Whatever the method chosen,
 panied by public awareness.
          Second,  this example shows how the
                                           stormwater management must be accom-
                                              problem
                           of runoff cuts across
                                       tsportation
                                                                             and
   the Fresh Water Fish and
                           Game Commission b'ecame
   local
   unregulated
         Lgencies concerned with planning.  Again
                                        i  • i_ J  « *-.4-
                         the detrimental effects of
              construction  extend beyond the activity
                                                 _ *r m«*
                             of the developer to
   involve state agencies such as the Depar
           Finally, the joint efforts of the
   intergovernmental  cooperation is possible
                                i i. _ «Ai-i4- VQC
                 :ti|ient of Transportation
                                             county and the city prove that
                                               Because the problem
                                                                   tr,
                                                                     ranscended
   the  city  limits it was
                          agreed to vest responsibility
                              at the  county  level,
                             of  stormwater runoff was
    but
                                    -r  an  the issue of  stormwcn-ei.  o.«*	
       joint funding was arranged.  In all, p         aesthetics,  erosion control
                     	m^ov of related  issues—aesthetics,
    presented
             as one
                     among a number of relat
    noise
         reduction, water quality
                                    rec
            ;reaticlnal benefits, and aquatic life
    protection.  The experience
                                of Leon County,
                      while not a model, proves that
    runoff control can be
                          acc<
                            jomplished.
                                     189

-------
                                       REFERENCES
1.  Water Quality Strategy Paper-  A

    the Requirements of £e Federal War

    U.S.  Environmental Protection"         °
                                                        P°llcy for


                                                  gus,
                                         -ota, Oklahoma, Rhode Islemd,
                                                             sections
         works;  Hawaii

         state agency given broad powers    st± ^ ^ 1OnS 179-1 to 179~4 (1968):

         ance to communities,  and Lt SnSacts  for ?f T'  ^^^ technic*l  ^ssist-
         Constxtution, Article II,  Sections  22 7-f?9-   °f .C°ntrO1  W°rks; Mississippi
         a levxe system; Pennsylvania StaJJtff  I   \      *  authorized to maintain
                       ageno/may
    4.
    5.
    6.
   7-
     Outdoor Kecreation,  dated
                                                74
                                                       Dlr°°t0r  °f
                    n
   8.   Dade County,  Florids, code, chapter 24.



   9-   Detelb county,  Georgia,  Code,  chapter 6&.
                                           ^el_0rdinance, February,
14.  Ibid., p. 238
                                     190

-------
15.  Ibid.,
                208.
16.  Beckey Chason,. "An Analysis ^of the Role
                                             of Planning and the Develop-
     Rpckev   ason,.        -      .        ...           -
     ment of the Leon County Environmental protection Package," an unpub-
     lished paper developed at Florida State Universxty, Tallahasee, Flonda,

     March 20, 1973.
                                         191

-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
     192

-------
1.
          \.  Wetland and Water
       ws. I, U.S. Department of

Bhuta»i, ^i— H-T^^ss^irfn-wisriuSttrrs'. ^^
       =^^^^^^^55^5=5577-^1 1975.


       Survey,  1973.
       Duxbury Press, 1972.


         X- B.

                                            S— 1968'

                                   .aw, Bruce B.r and Balsley,
                                         .    	_!___ 1 T»V1>^>3 ^""H _
^po^.Luna B,  C1±e  ---^
        Lieoxoyj.^o.j- i-**-— • —.t
        Geological Survey, 1971.
  Tinslev Ray K., and Franzini, Josephs.
         2nd ed.  New York:  McGraw-Hill,
         W B. Saunders Company,
                                                   An introductory
                                                  D.C.: U.S.
                                              Service,
         Geological Survey, 1970.
          of
                                193

-------
   2.   PLANNING



         Design,  Harvard U^ersitylorthe of
         for Water Resources.   1971.
                                              Engineers Institute
                f entl

U.S. Environmental Protection
                                       Guidelines for
SSSSSffiJiHSHSt.Si. ^iiSey,
     Environmental Protection

       March 1975.

                                 194

-------
3.
              APPROACHED
American  Public Works Association
        Runoff.  Contract No. WP-^o J-=>-
        Administration, 1969.


Amy,  Gary, et al.  Water_
         EPA-440/9-75-004.


Beckett Jackson  Raeder,  Inc'.  Mi r-hi qan Sf^^g^'pepartment^FNatural

         g^f^S-o^aSfManagL*.   ***** ™-
         £VC o\J VAj- *-* *—fc- r	                                               .     .


 CU* 1 Elll . -so=ia«s
         _.e  *-n,^ M^flfl-^ Branch,and  Seneca qreeK. »»a.—	_^   	   TQTC.
                                      racjs. mcn-v-j-x"	     -   __,-
                                      planning Board.  April  1975.
         OI  Tlllti I'lUVA'-tjf "••	
         the Montgomery County,  Maryland
                   E., and Hammer,  Thomas
           Cor!nmftnt Control Manual
  M Ch^ical c-rif. ,
      goS£oljethodsfor».i«|SS|J^g^g^                ,
      Contract No. 14-31-OUJ. uv-    j      -5
        	     ^ ,,,_.	„ r>«<-^nvr-e.R Research, J-y'^-
           Contract No. ^-ji-^^a. —..  -p    -  __
           Office of Water Resources Research, 1972.

   Engineering-Science,  Inc
           Control,  Constru
           mental Protection Agency,

                     •

    Field, R., et
                            \\  Knvi^nLn^! teflon .Osnc,, May 1975.
Heaney,
                                         19J!
                                      f

-------
      '
        Protection AGency,  1974.	        '     °40'  U'S' Environmental
                               -  Enviro^ntal ProtectTSn AGency;

"""""iSSS.S; ^^MSS^LSMaawtaa-tsj,,,,.^;


       ^^^r^^'^^^^^J-ou^es^ot^on
                                              Prepared for the U.S.
        Department of the Interio7
                        Anterior,
                                                               .

                                       of Water Resources Research,
waia°' ^^.^S^^^yaart..^,,..,,.^
       ment Practices  (Draft)'
                                   •	:	•.    --   .       ar

                                 -  Environmental  Protection Agency;
                                 Stormwater Detention
      Nonpoint Sourc¥ Pollution
                             196

-------
4.   REGULATORY APPROACHES
                             David.  Th
                                              Revolution in Land Use
                                  D.s.
        December 1971.
 Bucks County Planning Commission.   "Plan
        of Act 515 of 1965."  Doylestown
        Commission, February 1971.

 Burchell, Robert W., and Listokin,  David
        Urban Policy Research at Rutgers
                             for Implementation of Provisions
                            , penn.:   Bucks County Planning


                               Future Land Use.  Center for
                            , state University of New Jersey,  1975.
     ' •   A Legal Primer".   Washington, D-jQ.:
         529, 557,  1975.
                                     rrfri. f*r Fnvilnn     Sa^entation
  Leon County, Florida.  	
         Control.   January 1975.
         Institute , 1975
            ia Department of Environmental ^sources   goil_Erosion and
                ^
           ---.   _
          Sedimentation Control Manual.
                             January 1974.
          Real Estate Journal 635.  1974i
   „...  ^iro^l Protection ^cy
ZZ^f^^lSZZ^^^^&Fe*****^
  Drban ^ a-ti-t..'  SSOS^JS^S^^SJS^'^^ "
          Washington, D.C.:  1975.

-------
                          GENERAL
  Advisory Concussion on Intergovernmental Relations. The challenae
 Mvisory co^i ,on                ^^  ahanab




       BX-SSsS^ligSraSTTfk:'*" M^-15i5in^on;
 "^S^^S^r^~*i«-  S-SS"^
jtesponsibiiiti^;:;^:""-:.'';"^"^-8-  s!*****™*
M.>	^._ ..    r Water S"PPly «»a Sewage Dlspos.1 
-------

Haskell, B.H. et. al. . Managing the
                                                   Case  Studies  of
          ..   .   .
        Nine States.  New York:  Praeger,
        Association.

      , William  and  Smith,  Jamison.   Rational Inst^°"f J^6"
        ments for Water Resources Management.  Ames, Iowa and_
                          SOUX^-'t'O i.MCU^o.'=j^«l'v-->"1-*- -   	•
        Washington,  B.C.: "lo^a State Research Institute; Office of
  -      water Resources Research, Department of the Interior, 1973.
        NTIS PB 234-627.

international City Manager -s Association,  The_jjunicipal Yearbook.
      .  Annual.  Chicago, Illinois.
 international City Manager's Association.
         in Providing Municipal Services.  MIS Report No
         December 1959.  Chicago, Illinois:   1959.
              City
        Services.  MIS  Report N.  240
        1964.
                                      , January
                                                       Chicago,  Illinois:
 Krause
                                                ips in the Administration
          £bS:r^Soir'^iversA of Illinois, Septe«*>er 19"
                       Control of
         Law Journal  (October 1959),
  Maloney, Frank and Plager Sheldon
                                                                of
                                      v. 37 n. 1, pp.
                                       Diffused Surface Waters—Scourge
          pp. 72-113
                                                 Local  Government Adapta-
                                       .
                                       s.   W>Shington,  B.C.,   Housing and
          Home Finance Agency , September  1973.
  National  Institute of Municipal j
          Review.   Annual.   Washingtob,  D,.C

                                       Officers,. NTMLO Municipal Law
                                                          in Local Govern-
           1971,  NTIS PB 205-326.
                                      199

-------
Norton,
              and
         sssrsT^-i^^r^sr
  Pock, Max.  Independent •]


  Poertner


  The Research
 Wendell
 Wilkinson
Yeutter

                                   Intergovernmental
       Lincoln
California
BarUth •£££' «"* C««*' ^«-,.  stori^insse.  WIS PB
       Oiego
                    vol. 37,
      Sacramento,
                              200

-------
Council
                                      Sacramento, California.
on intergovernmental Relations,
       '     -       ---  -^
        San anselmo Government
Sacramento:


        of Illinois,  May 196L.
 Kenny,
         (Summer 1957),  pp.  164-169


        James P.\ et al.

         1971.  NTIS PB 211-777.


                o.


           ,         .          .
          ^sources Development m the
                                        Institute of water Resources,
          Profile.  Storrs, coimeotiout
          f J7U1. -L J.c_«  »-* »-v^-1- — — /
          University of Connecticut,  Oc
                              tober,  1967.
  Delaware^
                                                                ;r-
   District of Columbia



                                   201

-------
   Florida
                                            the Florida Expp.-r-iem^o
       «—-«•.
         s^rcss^i—i--—o^rsk^r^.
  EaSt '^ViSm/SlaS S"^™  fSjSSiSSioSSiip^f


  Georgia
            v



      The Dnivarsiy of

Georgia Municipal association.
                             1963.
                                                   Deveiopmant,
                           "IntergovarMental Cooperation  A
                                                   '
 **"' *£*
      and Water Courses Reaulafinrm^
                                      , Georgia:  Institute of
      _	—   •? "•-*-'-*'--*-^-'-i.*ij / •  *TiL.iiens •
      Government, University of Georgia, 1969.
 Illinois
 Mam"


Indiana
Stoner, Jolm E
                            202

-------
Iowa
Burrows, Tom G.
                  statutory Authoriziaticns for Intergovernmental
        ^^	  in Iowa,.
        July 1964.   Iowa City, Iowa:  'Ir
        University of Iowa, 1964, 7 pp.

Otte, Robert C.   Economics of Watershed.
               ce,  No.  3
of Public Affairs,
                                          Planning.   Ames,  Iowa:  State
         University Press,  1961.   pp. 277-292.

 -Surface Water Drainage  in Iowa", Iowa Law Journal.   V. 50, pp. 818-836.
         (Spring 1965)
 Kentucky

 Owsley, Roy H.   "The Kentucky Interlocal  Cooperation Act->  Kentucky
         Law Journal.  Vol. 51, No. 1  (Ejall 1962) , pp. 22 32.


 Maryland^
 Vaughan, W.S.,  Jr., Blanchard, H.A.  anc
                      —.   .. _ ^i____-, f^ -Cj-»-v TTrriT^/"
                                           Manor, Anne S.   State-County
                                          IMCl-l-l-^^J*- f  ******'—• •— -  __ 	 - '   —  —^~
                                          sing Environmental Quality  Control
          Interagency Procedures  for
          ^/j.1 »»a.^-	.—i	—.	.	__ ,__ i  n n-7/7   M
                        --
         Water Resources Research, July,  1^4.
                                              for  Municipalities in
          fAC*»J'i'1-*x^'*Jtv*l~*^^
          Research, University of Massac
                                         ausetts, May  1959.   32 pp.

                                           ations in Massachusetts.
          AinneirsT- /  i*ia.oociwj.*i*^»-. *-.*-•- -  	i
          University of Massachusetts, December
  Michigan^
            Research Council of Michigan,   staff Papers on- Governmental
                   Ltion for Metropolitan [southeast Michigan.   Detroit,
                      '•"•   "*     '_ _ jJ "i—   ' r\ *^ <~i.	~»    /ftff4 ^i^^rTVSS T~lr\^(i I «
           Michigan:  January 1965.   238
                                         pp.
                                               (Mieographed).
           February 1966.   31pp.  (Processed).
                                        203

-------
   Minnesota


   Haik, Raymond et al.  Aspects of Water Resources Law in Minnesota
  Proceedings of Conference on Water Resource P^M^ and Research





  Mississippi
 Jones, Arthur R   and McLeskey, Howard M.
                              of
                                                Politics in
        l^;  State College, Mississippi:  Water Resources  Research
        Institute,   Mississippi State University, 1969.       Kesear°h

 Missouri


 Davis, Lawrence O.   "The Law of Surface Water in Missouri", Missouri
        .Law Review.  Vol. 24, No.  3, pp. 282-289.          ~issoun

 The Governmental Research Institute.  Services Provided to

        fL!   St' ^t8 COUntV Gora*™**--  «•  T~I'~, Mi'-rnv, i :   April "
        1964.   11 pp.  (Mimeographed).                             «pnj.

Office of  the St. louis County Supervisor.  -Services Bailable to Municd-
        palities Through the  St. Louis Countv Gnvo-rnm^	5Z— " V   .•:
        M-? .'-in'           •         -*  ^yyc-LJ-nucjiu^   o u • JuOTlXS /
                               .
         Missouri.  32 pp.  (Mimeographed) .
 Nebraska
 Nebraska soil and water conservation.

 New Jersey
                                   .    oernza^^
        Legislation,   state Water Plan Fublication No. 402, March 1969.
                                      Control in New Je_   New
               +                        Government Research, Rutgers
            State University; Office of Water Research and Technology.'
Bureau of Government Research.   Surface Water Control in New
                         ,  Flood Control and Related
        ^.age.  *.aM,J^.  KU^,"^'^'^—;t;:
Trafford, John E.  "Intermunicipal Activities and Joint Services in
       New Jersey", New Jersey MunicipalJ*IM.  June l^Tpp  S-ll.
                                 204

-------
New Mexico^
        1968.
  .^^-•.^ nf water Resources in New Mexico..  Las
,  New Mexico:  Water Resources Research Institute,
Clearinghouse PB 192-311.
New York
    York.  Legislature.  Joint Legislative  Coatee on ^ropolitan^^
        Areas Study.   Municipal Cooperation,:  A Digest o£ Ne	
        Law.  Albany,  New York:  February 1963.  140 pp.
                            Committee on Metropolitan
              '• ,  a.      Toir>f
 New York.  Legislature   Joint


                                        Y^rkiJanuary 1960.  J-^l pp.
         Practical Programs.   Albany, New
         (Mimeographed).
                                 Government
New York State.  Office for Local
        ation.  Albany, New York:  April
                                Local Government Cooper;
                          1963.  33 pp.
         NTIS PB 232-554

  North Carolina
           Facilities Function
         Project, 1972.   NTIS PB 220-099
  ^.  H...   »o^a9e « i. -^ "*•-  « °^±i ^i^2^
         ..
          Law Review, Vol. 47,  No.  4, pp
                                        Charlotte, North Carolina:  USAC
          ,  --* B


          1972.   NTIS PB 236-814.
   Ohio                               ,

   ^VSSsM^ ^^-^^ *-r"^

   «—•  s1^                                              »•**
           No.  3,  (1957), pp. 378-404.
                    !ese^h -l^-^if^i^^^^ HU*er
                                                   —•   s „.*»«-)•
                                     2C5

-------
  801den'
  Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
                                                                 Columbus,
                                              Conservancy District-
~^^-^2^2^^i^I^^r.

         7 PP-  (Mimeographed).
          rvver^	r—;	'-^--  cincinnati,
          Governmental Research, June 1952.
 Oregon
 Buraau

Pennsylvania
                                                                    .
        I960.   136                          ^
                                                                     1957)
                                                               , Vol. 29,
                                206

-------
Virginia



        231-588.
Washington
                 «
                 "and
                                        for intergovernmental Relations
                                              	  Washington:  Bureai
       of Governmental Research and Services, University of Washington,
       May 1964.  21pp.  (Mimeographed),  j

       M n   et al   An Analysis »? *he Law Governing Six Selected
       W±inaton-Wair^riLted Special Ti^ts^^^
       S! ^ a^ociated Activities of I the State of Waahingtos,
       Putlman, Washington:   State ot Washington Water.Research Center,
       June  1970.
Ittner, Ruth;  Webster,  Donald;  Campbell,  Ernest  H.;  and others.
        ment in the Metropolitan Seattle  A^ea.   Report No.  133.
        Washington:  ~        " ~"
                                                                      rn
                      eropo                  -                    Seattle,
         Washington-  Bureau of Governmental! Research and Services,
         University of Washington, October 1956.  148 pp. (Mimeographed).
               i  T   a c-fndv of Various Procedures Utilized by Selected
 Rosneow, Beverly J.  A Study of Various e          roTtmnn to All of The
          Seattlewhington:
          PB  195-828.
                              ->- v^-^—' — — .-- - ^_ - - — — —  .
                               Districts Which are Common to All^
                              School ot Law, Washington University.
                                           I
  m.
NTIS
  Wisconsin
          Commis sion .


          Milwaukee County.
          (Mimeographed) .
                             Milwaukee,  Wisconsin:  April  1961.
                                                                  PP

                         ssr
   Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
          Southeastern Wisconsin  (Watershec
          Controls).  Technical Report No. 2,  (1966),  pp. 41 92.
                                          Commission.   Water Law in
                                           Management and Pollution
                                      207

-------

-------

-------
 o
               O  35
          H  co   >
          O  H   2
         Z   33
                  ^   -0   07
                  2   33   01
         O
              H  O   O
 O
O
                 O   O
            rn
                O   m
                O   T;
                H   >
               m

-------