United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
Great Lakes
National Program Office
?;3G Sor.th Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA 905/9-80-002
January 1980
4>EPA
National Conference
on Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control
Institutions and
Technology
-------
EPA-905/9-80-002
January I960
PROCEED INGS
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON URBAN EROSION
AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL:
INSTITUTIONS & TECHNOLOGY
Held
October 10-12, 1980
at
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
WiI Iiam L. Downing
Editor
Pub Ii shed by
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Crii-- _ ,
-------
I I
The printing costs for this publication was supported by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Water Planning Division, Washington,
D.C. and the Great Lakes National Program Office, Region V, Chicago,
I I Ii nois.
-------
EDITOR'S PREFACE
William L. Downing, Ph. D.,
Professor of Biology, Hamline University;
Supervisor, Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District
Thirty- five years ago, in 1945, Hugh Bennett framed our topic:
"The. only way In which wateA pollution due. to eAOAion
Ailt can be. e.^e.ctively controlle.d it> by the. adoption
o£ AoH- and wateA-con&eAvation pxac.tic.eA."
The keynoters of this Conference, from their diverse backgrounds, previewed
the dialogue that was to illuminate the subsequent days:
"White, much progreAA hot been made, the. road anearf
GJ{ Ae.dime.nt Jij> dzpoLUe.d e.veAy yea*.
x.n tke. Nation' A Atsieam &y& tern*. ..That make* te.dime.nt the. country' *
gieatut A-ingle, vxateA pollutant by volume.."
—Norman Berg, U. S. Soil Conservation Service
"...only about thinty peA.ce.nt due. to natural eAOA^on, tke. x.ewu.n4.nq
Ae.ve.nty pvice.nt the. tiuult o&. ..human activity. . . ConA&uiction
con&uhuteA te.n peA.ce.nt oi the. total Ae.dime.nt tonnage.. . .PtUvate.
conAVuLCtton. . . , wad, A&ie.et and highway conAtnuction produce.
"
—Gerald Millet, Minnesota State Senate
"Irf we regulate, the. home.- building Indu&ttiy to control
eJWAion, but don't do anything about the. otheA pnoblemA
...we'A.e tiejally not going to do much good."
—George Kirkpatrick, National Association of Home Builders
"In jjxue Atatu, le.giA&ituneA have, adopted pxagxamA to provide.
coAt-Aharing aAAi&tance. rfoA inAtalling eAOAion and Ae.dune.nt
control meo4uAA4...In two o$ thue. Atatu, Auch coAt-Aharinq
•M auttLorize.d $0*. urban area*."
—Lyle Bauer, National Association of Conservation Districts
As each keynoter broadened the picture from his perspective, the points
of agreement, add the points of controversy, emerged clearly:
-------
iv
"Ai I look to the. legislative future oft uAban eAOAian and
&e.dime.nt control, I Aee...a AyAtem of, Atate guidetineA...
whijch can be. incorporated Junto local AegulationA."
—Millet
"Regulation can, doeA, and should play a central role in urban
eroAion and Ae.dime.nt control."
—Beal
"The. regulation oft uAban eroAion hoA been a bo at OA elective
.04 Ahoveting Anow with a piAchfioAk...54% o& OUA metAopotitan
aAea manici.paliti.eA do not have eAOAian and Aediment control
otidinanceA." ...., .
--Willet
"TheAe aAe tiegulationA which Aet AtandoAdA and theAe aAe thoAe
which Apecifiy management OA opeAating pAoceduAeA...StandaAdA
that uAe Aach language OA 'itA natuAol OA undeveloped Atate',
OA, 'maintain the integAity o& the natuAol dAainage patteAnA
Aeem paAticulaAly filufily."
—Beal
"Make the oAdi.nance& OA ^lexi.ble OA poAAlble, AO we can
build on the oAeaA that aAe bet>t to build on, and pAeAeAve
the oAeaA that aAe moAt environmentally dangeAouA."
— Kirkpatrlck
"We muAt demand that environmental pAogAamA pAoduce the gAeateAt
enviAonmental benefit poAAi.ble &OA the leaAt amount o<5 money...
I do not believe that enviAonmental movement in thiA countAy
can a^oAd to Alip i.nto a comfortable middle age."
—Krivak
"The financial burden i^ boAne by the local communtieA...many
0)5 theAe coAtA aAe unneceAAOAy, Ai.nce much o$ the damage can be
pAevented." --Berg
"Every time the coAt o<5 houAi.ng goeA up a thou&and dollaAA,
we aAe probably eliminating the opportunity &OA tuoo to thAee
mUJUon people i.n the United StateA, to be able to buy a home."
—Kirkpatrick
"The&e communi^tieA aAe Aaying that the coAt o& i,ncAeaAed ru.no^
iA to be borne by the development itAelfi, and the contAol
iA to be done at the Aite
--Beal
-------
"Should thoAe. engaged i.n conAtAu.cti.on on AimiJtaA £and-diAtuAbi.ng
activities be. entered to coAt-AhoAing, tax be.ne.6itA, on. otheA
i.nce.nti.veA tfoi i.nt>tat£i.ng Ae.quiAe.d eA.o4-c.on and
--Bauer
"I|( de.ve£opeAA oAe involved .01 -the be.gi.nni.ng, mo At o£ them
wilt LUtin, because. they one. bigi.nni.ng to undeAAtand that
they've got to listen,."
— Kirkpatrick
"Help eveAy buitdeA and developed in AmeAica adopt and
a code, that pAomotes uAban tand c.on&eA.vati.on and Ae.du.ceA
eAo&i.on and Ae.dime.nta.ti.on.. .We need to heZp change, the.
4.nAtitwtijonaJt fistamewoAk."
--Berg
"Voa have. the. tate.nt at thti Convenience to piovi.de. many o&
the. te.chni.cai an&weAA and management ne.e.dt>...the. poLLtical,
Aodjat, enviAonme.nta£, and e.ngi.ne.eAing huAdteA...We. t>tWi
know iaA too tittle.."
— Krivak
The following days at the Conference showed Joseph Krivak 's assessment
to be substantially correct: that the talent was present at the
Conference, and it continuously surfaced in the three different
Curricula that were presented on October 11, and in the Case Studies
on October 12.
The Program Chairman of the Conference, Leonard C. Johnson, with the
tireless work of Jay Feldman, and with help from the rest of the Planning
Committee, assembled a program that began with the general questions such
as those excerpted above, then provided a series of answers, and then
looked at the way the problems are being solved in some localities.
The use of concurrent sessions on October 11 made it impossible for
any one person to obtain all the information from the Conference, as
Robert Thronson points out in his Evaluation, but the availability of
these Proceedings diminishes that disadvatange, and it was felt by
those in attendance that the procedure had overreaching advantages to
the participant.
The organization of the Conference lent itself to a subject-area presen-
tation rather than chronological Proceedings, and therefore all general
Keynotes are presented first, then each Curriculum is presented as a unit
rather than divided up into time intervals, and finally the Case Studies.
The Technical Curriculum started with Richard Highfill's overview of
techniques used to control urban erosion, and then went into detail
on methods that participants had either found useful or were proposing
-------
vi
for further study: how and why to use retention basins, how the use of
wetlands can help urban erosion, methods and reasons for stream resora-
tion, ways and legal considerations involved in controlling erosion in
developing residential areas, cost-effectiveness of erosion control at
construction sites, incentives and constraints involved in innovation in
erosion control, and the use of concrete grid pavements. No transcript
of Darrel Morrison's discussion on the use of native vegetation was
available, but the abstract is re-printed here.
The Regulatory Curriculum began with Mary Garner's summary of the evo-
lution and current status of erosion and sediment control regulatory
laws in the United States, which went so rapidly at the Conference that
participants will be pleased to have the chance to read it at leisure.
The details of regulation unfolded during the day, with presentations on
regulation of erosion in a suburbanizing area, a compilation of the
development of comprehensive erosion control and stormwater management
ordinances, a consideration of the development of such ordinances from
an urban viewpoint, the effect of regulation on building procedures,
the setting of standards for soil sediment pollution abatement, how a
Conservation District can be involved in erosion and sediment control
during development, the use of self-regulation as an alternative to
legislation, and the Iowa law which affects both rural and urban ero-
sion and which can be used as a model by other States. William L.
Church's summary was provided through his cooperation, and although his
institutional analysis of local ordinance adoption is appropriate for
longer treatment, I am peased to have at least the summary here.
The Local Implementation Curriculum began with Boris Lang on expediting
the review process, not available for the Proceedings, and then expanded
into discussion of comprehensive community planning to control urban
erosion, the use of soils information in the planning process, the role
of water research institutes in erosion control, the development of local
urban erosion control ordinances, the urban provisions of a State Cost-
Share program, the costs of managing a construction site runoff pro-
gram, multijurisdictional stormwater management, Toronto's approach
to urban erosion and sediment control, and control in a mountainous
region.
The Case Studies, which filled the morning of October 12, brought to-
gether participants from many scattered places, working within their own
state laws and their own local ordinances, showing what can and cannot be
done under particular conditions and restrictions. These diverse pre-
sentations from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia
add California, can be of great value to those concerned with urban
erosion and sediment control, in their own development of techniques,
rationales, payment, and regulation.
This was the first National Conference to emphasize practical means of
controlling soil erosion and sedimentation on urban land developments
and cosjtruction sites, viewed from the points of view of the state laws,
ordinances, experts in soils, and the builders themselves. Thus it
brought together people of widely divergent backgrounds, who spent
three days with familiar and unfamiliar topics and participants, con-
verging together on a subject of importance to America.
-------
Twelve national and state groups worked together to bring about this
Conference, and encouraged their members and employees to attend:
Ufute.d State* Env4Ajonme.ntal ?note.ctLon Agency
Unite.d State* Ve.pantme.nt ofi Ag^tcotCtue
National fatociation o$ Con&eJivation Vi&txictt>
National A**odation oft Home. BuildeM
National League. oft Cttie*
Soil ConteJivation Society oft America
Unban Land In&titute.
Minnesota SoU. and Wate*. Con&eAvation Boand
Minnesota AAAocAation o£ SoU. and Mate* Con&eJivation Vi*t>u.cti>
(ai*c.om>J.n te&ocAAtion and Boand o$ SoU. and Watest.
Con&eAvation Vtsiic.ti>
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Me&iopoLttan Council o& the. St. Paul - Moweapo-ta M.ea
The Committee hopes that the communication at this Conference will
foster new cooperative efforts among those it brought together, to give
rise to a full range of effects, from appropriate legislation, to new
types of programs, to new methods that can be applied to the disturbed
land and water 1n urban areas.
-------
-------
1x
ACKNCWIEDGEMENES
Leonard C. Johnson, Chairman of the Planning Committee
Wisconsin Board of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
1815 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706
On behalf of the agencies and organizations that sponsored this
conference, and the members of the planning committee, I wish to express
sincere appreciation to all of the conference participants and especially
to those who presented papers for publication in this document.
It 1s our hope that this publication will help to disseminate widely
the useful information presented at the St. Paul Conference; and foster
widespread development and Implementation of effective local programs to
control stormwater runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation in urban areas.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge with deep gratitude the
following people, who in many ways contributed generously of their time
and knowledge in planning and presenting this conference. Not least among
their contributions was the positive and mutually supportive attitude
which pervaded the work of the planning committee.
Steven W. Pedersen, formerly a staff member of the Minnesota Soil
and Water Conservation Board, and who played a major part in initiating
the conference and worked very effectively as co-chairman of the committee
before taking a position with the Minnesota Water Planning Board on July
Jay Feldman, Assistant Director for Land Use and Development.
National Association of Home Builders
Robert E. Williams, Special Projects Director
National Association of Conservation Districts
John Peterson, Nonpoint Source Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DonaId Urban, Water Division, Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gerald R. Calhoun, President
Soil Conservation Society of America
Max Schnepf, Editor
Soil Conservation Society of America
William Parker, Chief, Resource Planning Branch
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
-------
Johnson
Warren Zltzmann, Community Planner
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Harry Major, State Conservationist
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Warren Curtis, Assistant State Conservationist
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
James Lesley, Assistant State Conservationist
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
George C. Haase, Chairman of the Urban Lands Committee & President
Wisconsin Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
William Downing, Chairman, Urban Committee
Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Marylyn Deneen, Member of the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation
Board, and Director, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts
Leonard Pikal, Chairman
Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board
Greg Larson, Program Specialist
Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board
Michael Flitter, Staff Representative
Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board
Marcel Jouseau, Environmental Planner
Metropolitan Council of the Twin City Area
Mary M. Garner, Legal Consultant
National Association of Conservation Districts
Dorothy Bryan
National League of Cities
Helene Johnson, Executive Director
Minnesota Government Training Service
Joe Kroll, Program Director, University of Minnesota
Department of conferences
Julie M. Koester, his diligent and conscientious Program Assistant
Philip K. Gel bach, for the conference logo design
-------
CONTENTS
xl
EDITOR'S PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
WELCOME
MODERATOR'S OPENING
KEYNOTES
Public Involvement in Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control Programs
Land Use Shifts and A Quality
Environment
The Role of Conservation Districts In
Urban Erosion and Sediment Control
The Role of the Builder in Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
The Role of Regulation In Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
Urban Erosion
TECHNICAL CURRICULUM
Present Urban Erosion Control
Techniques
Retention Basins for Control of
Urban Stormwater Quality
Wetlands for the Control of Urban
Stormwater
Stream Restoration: Philosophy
and Implementation
Methods for Controlling Erosion and
Sedimentation From Residential
Construction Activities
Cost Effective Analysis of Construction
Erosion Control & Implications for Plan-
ning in Southeastern Wisconsin
Use of Native Vegetation in Urban
and Suburban Landscapes
William Downing iii
Leonard Johnson ix
Marylyn Deneen xv
George Latimer xv1
William Greiner xvi'1
Joseph Krivak 1
Norman Berg 9
Lyle Bauer 27
George Kirkpatrick,Jr. 35
Frank Beal 43
Gerald Willet 51
Richard Highfill 57
Roger Akeley 69
Eugene Hickok 79
Nelson Nunnally 89
F. W. Madison,
B. B. Hagman, &
J. G. Konrad 99
David Kendziorski 107
Darrel Morrison 119
-------
xii
CONTENTS
Innovative Stormwater Management:
Where Is The Problem?
Investigation of Concrete Grid
Pavements
REGULATORY CURRICULUM
Erosion and Sediment Control Regulatory
Laws—Evolution and Current Status
Erosion Control in a Suburbanizing Area:
The Case of Middleton, Wisconsin
Development of Comprehensive Erosion
Control and Stormwater Management
Ordinances in Dane County, Wisconsin
The Development of Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinances in the
Cincinnati Area
Effects of Regulation on Building
Procedures
Erosion Control and Storm Water
Management for Urban Soil Sediment
Pollution Abatement A Workable
Ohio Standard
The Role of the Frontier Conservation
District in Effective Erosion & Sedi-
ment Control During Development
Self-Regulation, Alternative to Legis-
lation Waukesha County, Wisconsin
Non-Agricultural Erosion Control
In Iowa
Institutional Analysis of Local
Ordinances Adoption
LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION CURRICULUM
Comprehensive Community Planning
As A Promising Erosion Control
Implementation Technique
The Use of Soils Information in the
Planning Process: Problems and
Prospects
Paul Oscanyan 121
Gary Day 127
Mary Garner 137
David Donoghue,
William Feist, &
Richard Lehmann 157
F. Brandt Richardson,
David Stewart 165
George Cummings 177
James Brady 187
Robert Goettemoeller 191
Norman Holmes 199
Richard Mace 203
Lawrence Vance 209
W. L. Church 215
Gary Oberts, &
Marcel Jouseau 217
Gunnar Isberg 227
-------
CONTENTS
xili
Role of Water Research Institutes
In Stormwater and Erosion Control
Considerations for the Development of
Urban Erosion Control Ordinances
Urban Provisions of the Minnesota
Cost-Share Program
Costs for Managing A Construction
Site Runoff Control Program
Multijurisdictional Stormwater
Management: The Four Mile Run
Watershed Program
Urban Erosion & Sediment Control :
Metropolitan Toronto
Erosion and Runoff Control in
Northwestern Colorado
CASE STUDIES
Urban Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Planning In Pennsylvania
New Responsibilities in Urban Erosion
and Sediment control The Maryland
Experience
The Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Program
The New Jersey Experience in Control
of Urban Soil Erosion & Sedimentation
Georgia's Approach to Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning, Local Control, and State
Support: The Key to Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control in California
EVALUATIONS
Conservation Problems - From the
Local Perspective -
Summary and Evaluation, From A
National Perspective
APPENDIX: PARTICIPANTS
Neil Grigg, &
James Stewart
Harlen Britt
Greg Larson
Margaret Zimmerman
Hugo Bonuccelli,
John Hartigan, Jr., &
David Biggers
Ajit Sahabandu
Thomas El more, &
Gerald Dahl
Richard Laudenslager
Harold Scholl
Gerard Seeley, Jr.
Samuel Race
Ken Obenauf
Edward Craddock
Thomas Kujawa
Robert Thronson
237
247
253
259
267
279
291
301
309
319
327
335
345
353
357
363
-------
-------
XV
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Marylyn Deneen, Supervisor
Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District
St. Paul, Minnesota
Welcome to the Conference, and to the City of St. Paul. We hope
that you will have a pleasurable visit and that your educational ex-
perience will be great.
The City of St. Paul covers only about a third of the area in
Ramsey County, but the remainder of the County is rapidly urbanizing.
Although we can still identify fourteen active farms in the County, our
District has many urban problems. The Supervisors encountered great
frustration when our District was founded in 1973 as the last in
Minnesota, trying to meet the urgent needs for the soil and water in
this urbanized county, within a system that was more accustomed to
rural, farm, problems. We spoke wherever we could be heard about the
erosion and sediment control problems we encountered, and in response
to our needs and those of others all over the country who have similar
problems, the first National conference on the subject was organized.
This is that conference.
We are pleased that you are here. We want to thank especially the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Association of Conserva-
tion Districts, the Wisconsin and Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation
Boards, and the eight other agencies that are sponsoring the event. We
would also like to express our thanks to the hard-working committee that
Started many months ago, planning this Conference; Leonard Johnson,
Program Chairman, and Bill Downing, Conference Coordinator.
They have brought us up to this point in time. Mow it's up to us,
the participants, the presenters, and the moderators, to actively involve
ourselves in this Conference, to take advantage of the opportunity to
exchange ideas on urban erosion and its effect on water quality.
I'd like to share with you a few pieces of data on who you are and
where you come from. We wanted this to be a National Conference, but
it is an International Conference, because we have people representing
two of the provinces of Canada, in addition to 25 states. We represent
the territory from the State of Washington to Washington, D.C., and
from Canada to Florida.
This week celebrates St. Paul's 125th Birthday, and our industri-
ous Mayor has been traveling all around the City, taking in all kinds
of events, and blowing out candles. We feel it is great that he is
here to welcome us to the Conference.
-------
xvi
WELCOME
George Latimer, Mayor
City of St. Paul
I think that this subject, and your gathering of disciplines to
discuss it, are terribly important. It is shocking to me, as it must
be for you, that we are all about twenty-five to thirty years late in
exchanging information about erosion, and water, and water quality
control, in the urban area. It has been the focus of rural and agri-
cultural concerns for most of this century, but the effect on our
environment is most dramatic in the city.
I expect, without being a specialist in your area, but with
several years' work in development matters, that like so many other
areas of development in this country, that institutional response is
about a quarter of a century behind the problem. We may well under-
stand the nature of the subject you are studying from technical,
engineering, and ecologic and scientific points of view, but I don't
think our institutions have yet geared up to responding to what we
already know, and so we are even now, in this blessed country, and in
this distinguished urban area, and among highly-enlightened citizenry,
in a day-to-day fight with the suburbs about what happens to the run-
off water from a suburban development.
We need to create an institutional framework within which to
address the issues that are involved in this topic. Until we really
have something with teeth in it, I think we are going to continue in
the American way -- I don't mean that in the usual patriotic sense, but
rather in the permitting development to go on within each jurisdiction,
as though the consequences were limited to the here and now, rather
than the there and later. Your work is terribly important, I mean that
most seriously. I am sure that people from my staff will be auditing
your panels, and I am very grateful for that, for the products of your
thinking and your work and for inviting me to talk to you for a minute.
Welcome.
-------
xvii
MODERATOR'S OPENING
William H. Greiner
Executive Vice President
Soil Conservation Society of America
^1 appreciate the opportunity to participate in this conference
to discuss a topic that is of importance to all of us, urban erosion,
a topic that has perhaps not been given the attention it should have
received in the past. I think it was natural to focus our thoughts
and attention on erosion of farm and ranch lands, from a production
of food and fiber standpoint, but erosion from development lands in
urban areas causes other problems, related to water quality.
Many states are looking at this problem of urban erosion and its
resulting consequences. My home state of Iowa began to seriously
question what erosion from all areas was doing to water quality and
land degradation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Iowa General
Assembly tried to pass erosion control legislation in 1959, and again
in 1970, tied entirely to rural erosion. Not until 1971, when erosion
from aJJ_ sources was included in the legislative bill, was it passed.
The bill that was passed includes erosion from both rural and
urban areas, including all construction sites. It provides a penalty,
after due process, for allowing this to occur, if a complaint is ini-
tiated by a damaged party. This legislation is a story in itself,
and^I don't intend to pursue it any further today. It does, however,
indicated what one state is doing to combat the ever-increasing pro-
blem. Other states are taking similar actions, and enacting erosion
control legislation, some from rural areas, some from urban areas,
and some from both.
The Soil Conservation Society of America, with whom I am now
affiliated, recognizes that wise use and management of land is neces-
sary to meet present, near-term, and long-term future needs. We need
adequate supplies of food, forest products, minerals, water, energy,
and space for people to work and recreate, while at the same time
natural areas are preserved and land is protected from erosion.
We must also realize that continuing pressure on our land base
will occur, as population increases. Current projections forecast
a population of some 253 million in the United States, and 30 million
in Canada, by the year 2000. Accommodating this increase will require
significant increases in housing, energy, transportation, and other
activities associated with the uses of land. These uses of land will
require land-disturbing activities, and the process will expose more
land to erosion hazards from both wind and water.
-------
Greiner
xviii
This is the first National Conference ever held to emphasize
practical means of controlling soil erosion and sedimentation on urban
land, development and construction sites. This conference will bring
together many individuals with a great deal of expertise, to discuss
soil erosion and sediment problems, in urban centers, fringe areas, and
satellite growth centers. It will also focus attention on land manage-
ment techniques, social and institutional structures, and other mechan-
isms by which soil erosion and water problems may be reduced to accept-
able levels. I am very happy to have a part in the sessions.
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN URBAN
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAMS
Joseph Krivak
Deputy Director, Water Planning Division
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
In our society, life becomes more complex with each passing day.
There was a time when we looked forward to the splendid relief of rain.
Now it washes toxics into our waters -- kills fish -- reduces crop yields —
affects human life itself. The rain itself is becoming more acid.
The amazing igenuity of our scientists and modern chemistry promised
a future of limitless bounty — now we discover that bounty may contain
deadly poisons -- many of them generated in urban areas.
As the true costs of progress become known there is a growing
interest in water quality management. More and more emphasis is being
placed on control of nonpoint sources as their contribution to water
quality degradation becomes better understood.
The initial phase of the Section 208 water quality management program
is almost completed. The initial plans have confirmed that nonpoint
source problems are significant. There are many technical, institutional
and political gaps which have to be filled if we are to meet our water
quality goals.
This conference will address many of these issues. While much
progress has been made, the road ahead is long, steep and often poorly
mapped.
-------
Krivak
You, in this room, are dedicated to traveling that road. You under-
stand the complexity of the problem, the need for better information,
better financing, and more effective methods. You know the problem
can be alleviated, but you also know the size of the task.
For example, the ultimate solution to urban wastewater problems
may lie in major changes in the way our society lives, works and travels.
However, for those of us who belive environmental policy must
accommodate man and his environment, this course is neither practical
nor politically acceptable.
Congress knew when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 that the
number and diversity of discharges from nonpoint sources would be over-
whelming and that they could not be subjected to the same type of
regulatory mechanism established for communities and industries. They
knew that the runoff from agriculture, construction, surface stormwater,
and other nonpoint sources would require local management and regulation;
rather than the application of a certain type of technology at the end of a
pipe.
I don't think they quite knew the complexity, the political,
social, environmental, and engineering hurdles we would have to jump
in order to achieve our goals. We still know far too little.
-------
Krivak
The Environmental Protection Agency is taking some concrete steps
to better define the problems of nonpoint pollution and test some of the
possible solutions. There is a particularily important program underway
in the area which concerns your conference.
EPA has initiated a nationwide urban runoff program to establish an
up-to-date and accessible data base on the various urban watershed
problems and management methods.
Thirty studies will be conducted nationwide in order to cover a
wide range of varying climatic regions and problems. But, most important,
studies like these aim to establish critical links at the local level
between planning and implementation of management programs.
This conference is another valuable means of exploring the problem
and considering solutions. You are discussing structural and non-structural
controls; designs for multi-purpose use; and some of the best management
practices. You will be discussing ways to increase public awareness
of the problem and public acceptance of the treatment.
In your public involvement concerns you have the full support of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Clean Water Act recognizes local political support as a key
ingredient in the process. To further emphasize public involvement
-------
Krivak
4
and its importance in decision-makiny, we have issued regulations which
will assure that the public participation process will be allowed to
work. Further, the Section 208 program provides for a great deal of
flexibility in the kinds of decisions made at the local and State levels.
Some have criticized a policy that allows so much local discretion
and it is true that some management agreements have taken advantage of the
volunteer nature of the law and some local government entities have
not utilized 208 monies in the best possible manner.
We regard 208 as a test of the capacity of the partnership
among Federal, State and local governments. I hope it will demonstrate
to Washington that localities and States are capable of planning and
regulating environmental management problems on their own.
It is a test to see if the heavy metals and other toxics carried
by stormwater and other nonpoint means can be controlled locally. It
is a test to see if our urban rivers can be truly clean for swimming
again because of local decision-making. If it doesn't work — if all
good reasons for allowing local control on nonpoint pollution programs fail
to establish concrete results — a signal will be sent that the present
program needs substantial revisions.
As far as we are concerned, the verdict is still out as to whether
or not new Federal regulatory authority may be needed. But we want the
local programs to work. We want regions to deal with problems effectively
and in the manner the regional characteristics dictate.
-------
5
Krivak
Significant progress has been made -- depending on what is counted --
20 States or more have urban erosion and sediment control programs. There
has been enough experience to know that they work. You will hear
about some of those programs in the next few days. Pay special attention
to:
- How the programs were developed
- How they received public support
- How they garnered political support
- How they are managed
- How they are supported financially
Out of all the alternatives presented to you — there is some
combination that can best fit your local or State needs.
The public participation embodied in the 208 program can be an
effecive tool in exploring those alternatives and in selecting the
one best suited to meet your needs. Most importantly the public
involvement will be critical to enlisting the political support required
to get the program adopted. That is the most compelling reason to make
sure your public involvement process work.
I say "must" because in my judgment there is not sufficient
political support for an environmentally responsible alternative if
the 208 program fails.
-------
6
Krlvak
Although this conference was called to explore alternatives for urban
erosion and sediment control programs. I would like to explore some
larger environmental issues with you. Recently we have had a lot of
questions raised regarding the environmental policies and programs in our
Nation. There is at least one alternative -- seriously proposed by
powerful and sincere men and women in Washington and around the country —
which is being considered. That alternative is to do nothing.
Some of those people want us to declare victory against water
pollution and scale back our goals. Others who have supported these
programs in the past are asking whether we can continue to afford spending
in a time of budgetary restraint.
We supporters of environmental progress increasingly are going to
find ourselves expending precious political capital to protect even
the modest gains we have made. Environmental considerations may be
brushed aside in the name of energy — or budget process -- or jobs or
fighting inflation.
I believe the average citizen feels just as strongly today as ten
years ago that the environment is worth preserving, that our resources
of air and water are just as precious as our oil. But his message
is not being delivered often enough or effectively enough.
-------
Krlvak
In fact, organized environmental groups sometimes seem as Interested
1n attacking their allies as their enemies. Political organizations are
not being used as effectively as they could be for environmental purposes.
I do not believe the environmental movement 1n this country can
afford to slip Into a comfortable middle age. For sound environmental
policy to survive, 1t must retain the capacity to Improve and reshape
Itself as new Information 1s received. We must also demand that
environmental programs produce the greatest environmental benefit
possible for the least amount of money. We must keep our facts at hand
and our powers of persuasion sharp.
I hope you will not confuse my assessment with our resolve. We
can continue to make environmental progress 1n this country. I am
certain we must.
In summary: You have the talent at this conference to provide
many of the technical answers and management needs.
You have the experience of many people who have developed and
are conducting good programs.
You have the common sense approach that 1s needed to develop
workable programs.
I hope you leave with the resolve to get the job done at the
local and state levels.
------- OCR error (c:\conversion\JobRoot\000002JJ\tiff\200068XZ.tif): Saving image to "c:\conversion\JobRoot\000002JJ\tiff\200068XZ.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
LAND USE SHIFTS AND A QUALITY ENVIRONMENT
Norman A. Berg, Administrator
USDA Soil Conservation Service
We have come a long way in conserving soil and water resources in the
two decades since my Soil Conservation Service career brought me to the
Washington, D.C., area.
Your conference is:
. A recognition of that progress;
. An acknowledgment of the many groups who are—or should be--
involved in soil and water conservation; and
H . Evidence of your commitment to further refining the "science and
art of checking the problems of urban soil erosion and sedimentation.
SCS has a broad mission of natural resource conservation Dr
M. Rupert Cutler, USDA Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, recently stated that "we must restore and maintain all of our
natural resources...an objective requiring full use of the biological,
social, and physical sciences." Therefore, we are as concerned about the
effects of soil erosion and sedimentation around America's cities and
along transportation corridors as we are about those same problems on
farms and ranches.
Through the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977, USDA
is looking at several major concerns or "potential problem areas." One of
them relates to sediment effects on water quality and another on the need
for sound soil and water resource management in urbanizing areas.
In "urban conservation," our record is good, but we still have a
long way to go.
I would like to talk about where we have been, where we are now, and
how to get where we want to go...how to concentrate or target our efforts.
In 1960, as I shifted my SCS career to the national office, my new
home State of Maryland and its neighbor Virginia were experiencing
increasingly heavy pressure for community growth and transportation around
the Nation s Capital and around other major centers.
There was a matching increase in dissatisfaction on the part of soil
conservation districts in both States over what the growth was doing to
-------
10
Berg
the construction sites themselves and to the surrounding countryside.
Maryland and Virginia conservationists were among the first to realize
that it might not be necessary for urban newcomers to wade through ankle-
deep mud to inspect model homes.
They advocated and helped create countywide and then Statewide
programs for urban soil erosion and sediment control that were—and are-
pioneering models. Maryland's sediment control law was enacted in 1970,
and 7 years later the D.C. Department of Environmental Services adopted
an ordinance modeled after it...A Northern Virginia district leader
became a national advocate for sediment prevention...Maryland's districts
began "urban conservation tours"--they had their 13th tour this month.
Their tours and seminars became increasingly popular for people in other
Piedmont States and then for many others.
These early leaders began with showing the problems and challenges—
and now they are demonstrating the techniques that are in place and
working well.
In 1967, I co-chaired a National Conference on Soil, Water, and
Surburbia held in Washington, D.C., and co-sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and HUD.
Since then, there have been:
A National Conference on Sediment Control in Washington, D.C.,
sponsored by HUD;
A comprehensive guidebook on principles and practices that
county governments as well as conservation districts helped prepare;
A model State act for soil erosion and sediment control developed
by the Council of State Governments with the aid of conservation
districts and SCS;
. A land-use symposium in Omaha, Nebraska, sponsored by the Soil
Conservation Society of America; and
. Action in a number of States to develop erosion and sediment
control programs.
The problems are still with us.
Every day, more than 8,000 acres of agricultural land are being
converted to urban uses—such as new homes, highways, shopping centers,
schools, and industrial parks. That totals nearly 3 million acres each
year.
-------
11
Berg
As many of you know firsthand, development on such a massive scale
involves extensive disturbance of the land. Protective vegetation may be
reduced or removed, excavations made, topography altered, removed
material stockpiled—too often without protective cover—and the physical
properties of the soils changed permanently.
These alterations also may permanently affect the on-site drainage
and storm runoff patterns. The result? Construction sites that are
marred by rilled and gullied slopes, gullied waterways and channels,
washed roads and streets, undercut pavements and pipelines, clogged
storm sewers, flooded basements, and debris-laden work areas.
The extent of this type of damage is illustrated by a 10-year
study in Montgomery County, Maryland, conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey. It showed that soil erosion from construction sites ranged
from 16 to 226 tons per hectare.
Erosion is not the only source of damage. The increased runoff
erodes streambanks and channels and causes flooding below the
construction site. And the sediment pollutes streams, lakes, and
reservoirs and damages the area where it comes to rest.
As much as 2 billion tons of sediment is deposited every year in the
Nation's stream systems; half a billion tons reaches the oceans. That
makes sediment the country's greatest single water pollutant by volume.
Much of this sediment comes from areas undergoing urban development.
I co-chaired a 6-year international Great Lakes water quality study, in
part of which we looked at some urbanizing watersheds, including the
Menomonee River in Wisconsin. One major finding was that developing urban
areas released five times as much suspended sediment per acre as the
worst cropland.
Water quality management plans being developed in response to
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (P.L. 92-500) must address these problems of urban nonpoint source
water pollution before the plans can be approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
EPA's concern—and ours—is that sediment lowers the quality of
water for municipal and industrial uses and for boating, fishing, swimming,
and other recreational activities. It increases the wear on equipment,
such as turbines, pumps, and sprinkler irrigation systems. It carries
with it—or absorbed on it—pesticides, phosphates, and other chemical
pollutants.
Sediment almost always damages the area where it is deposited—
-------
12
Berg
burying lawns, filling ditches, clogging storm sewers, culverts, and
drains It can make an area unsuitable for use as a park or p ayground.
It reduces the storage capacity of reservoirs and may fill small ponds
and lakes. It can block navigation channels and fill harbors and
estuaries. It can be harmful to game and shellfish.
Damage from sedimentation nationwide has been estimated at half a
billion dollars a year. Not all of this, of course, can be attributed
to land undergoing urban development, but the amount that can is high in
proportion to the acreage.
The financial burden is borne by the local communities, either
through higher taxes or direct expenditures by homeowners. Many of these
costs are unnecessary, since much of the damage can be prevented.
Planning is the keyword. Construction sites should be chosen
carefully on the basis of soil surveys and other information. If soil
hazards are known before construction begins, special compensating
designs can be prepared in advance or alternate sites can be selected.
Nearly any site can be made suitable for most uses if enough money is
spent, but avoiding really poor sites helps keep construction and
maintenance costs at a minimum.
Erosion and sediment control measures should be planned to fit the
particular needs of each site. They should be included as a regular
part of construction planning, along with a sound maintenance and follow-up
program. Follow-up is important because erosion and sedimentation cannot
be effectively subdued without thorough, periodic checks of the
conservation practices.
The practices—adapted from agriculture, research, and land user/
conservationist teamwork--!nclude erosion control and sediment trapping
devices and runoff management systems.
The specific principles and techniques for checking erosion and
sedimentation, which I have explained more thoroughly in an attachment
to my printed remarks, are basically the same ones that SCS and
conservation districts have used in rural areas for four decades or more.
After all, soil and water problems respect no manmade boundaries, and
many of the solutions work equally well on the farm or ranch and at the
edge of town. Some look a little different-but the function and the
functioning are about the same.
Yet, while there have been relatively few new technical
breakthroughs- one of the latest is a "silt fence" made of synthetic
fabric-we have made tremendous progress in other areas, such as translating
technical ideas into specific guidelines. Beginning with the National
Association of Counties guidebook in 1970, many States have developed
-------
13
Berg
their own standards and specifications for controlling erosion,
sedimentation, and stormwater runoff.
We have made progress in many States in drawing up, enacting, and
fine-tuning legislation or cooperative programs to address urban erosion
and sedimentation. In some of these States, a developer must submit an
acceptable erosion and sediment control plan to county or State officials
before he or she gets a go-ahead to begin construction. The plan may be
prepared either by the developer's own engineering staff or by a
consultant. In many of these States, soil and water conservation
districts have review responsibilities with technical help from SCS.
In other States, builders and developers may ask for technical
assistance without any legal requirement to do so and without a strong
cooperative program in place. I hope that soil and water conservation is
becoming a standard part of the construction business.
We have made progress as well in building a body of research
information about which conservation techniques work in controlling urban
erosion and sedimentation and which don't—and why. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Science and Education Administration has a number of
scientists engaged in conservation research. One part of their effort is
to study how sediment is detached, transported, and distributed in
streams, rivers, and reservoirs.
They are developing techniques and procedures for predicting and
controlling sediment, such as petroleum-based chemicals, porous asphalt,
buffer strips, and the use of sludges and composted solid wastes.
They are also working on a mathematical model to help States
identify and control nonpoint source water pollution—including sediment
eroded from construction sites.
We have made progress in helping builders and developers install
permanent stormwater management facilities—that can control urban
erosion and sedimentation long after the bulldozers and concrete forms
have gone.
Finally, we have made progress in creating scenic, environmentally
sound highways. Back in the 1960's, SCS worked with the Bureau of Public
Roads in designing an interstate highway system that would incorporate
sound principles and techniques of erosion and sediment control. Today,
we work with a number of State highway departments, helping them to
develop conservation plans before construction.
For all the tremendous strides that America has made in checking
erosion and sedimentation, there are a few hurdles yet to be overcome.
First, more local officials need to follow sound principles of land
-------
14
Berg
use planning. The land that is best suited for urban development based
on physical characteristics probably is prime farmland. Should it be
used for urban construction? That is a question that must be examined
carefully by landowners, developers, local governments, and planning
agencies together.
If prime farmland is not used for urban development, then an
increasing proportion of construction sites will be on sloping lands, thus
creating new challenges for developers and planners in design and
construction methods.
Second, more local and State governments need to make erosion and
sediment control a stated policy. Local officials need to assume their
share of the responsibility for managing the natural resources of their
communities.
Every State is affected by erosion and sedimentation. Yet, only 20
Statesplus the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, have any
legislation to address these problems. I think this is our greatest
challenge today—to get the legislation or guidelines in place. After all,
technology is not much without a workable delivery system for it.
Third, erosion and sediment control techniques need to be cost-
effectTveT Expensive concrete structures should not be used where straw
bales can do the job just as well.
In the planning stage, the cost of each measure should be compared
with the degree of protection required for the site and the degree that
probably will be obtained. If the cost of necessary protection exceeds
the anticipated damage or potential loss—in either monetary_or
environmental terms--the basis for the plan should be reexamined and a
more cost-effective solution sought.
The developer passes the costs for checking erosion and sedimentation
on to the homeowner-1f the plan is sound, then the costs are minimal
and they probably are offset by benefits, such as lower taxes for
highway maintenance and flood prevention.
Fourth, more private citizens and communities, as well as the
industries associated with urban development, need to become aware that
erosion and sediment control is possible, is necessary, and is in their
best interest as well as their environment's. Together we need to muster
the support to turn recommendations and regulations into effective
conservation in place on the land.
Despite our years of emphasis on erosion and sediment,_not enough
people know that help is available. We need an aggressive information
-------
15
Berg
program that involves all of us and all media.
F1 fth , we need to help change the institutional framework surrounding
urban erosion and sediment control. For conservation districts—which
are legally responsible under State law for soil and water conservation-
this may mean obtaining the funds to hire people for training contractors,
developers, and inspectors. These people need to understand not only the
simple mechanics of erosion and sediment control, but also the reasons
behind the mechanics.
In many cases, the contractor or developer doesn't really know what
the practices are supposed to do, only that some regulation says they must
be used. Then the practices may not be constructed properly and will not
perform the job they are supposed to do. A recent study showed that half
of all construction sites in one State still had inadequate control measures
because of lack of inspection during construction and improper maintenance
Q tG
Institutional changes are needed through and beyond the design
professions and regulatory or voluntary-assistance agencies. They are
needed in the perception of financial institutions and the legal
profession. a
Sixth, we must help every builder and developer in America adopt and
follow a code that promotes urban land conservation and reduces erosion
and sedimentation. It would follow these basic principles:
a. Use soils that are suited for development and are not needed
for food and fiber production.
b. Leave the minimum amount of soil bare for the shortest
possible period of time.
c. Reduce the velocity and control the flow of runoff.
d. Detain runoff on the construction site in order to trap
sediment.
e. Release runoff safely to downstream areas.
nn0 *u!ld?rs ^ developers should strive for a "conservation architecture,"
one that gives full consideration to the natural landscape of an area.
The Soil Conservation Service and its local conservation district
partners offer assistance to planners, developers, builders, agency
staffs, and anyone else who must cope with urban problems of erosion,
sedimentation, water supply and disposal, improper land use, and flooding
-------
16
Berg
We can help with guidelines for controlling erosion and
sedimentation on land developed for highways, subdivisions, shopping
centers, airports, and other urban uses. The result can be cleaner
streams and reservoirs and lower road maintenance costs.
We can offer information about soils and their potential or
limitations for housing, recreation, waste disposal, road construction,
and many other uses in addition to agriculture and forestry.
We can provide standards for installing or constructing erosion and
sediment control devices, and advise on water supply potential.
recreation sites, and resource development trends Here in St. Paul, for
example, SCS provided technical assistance in restoring the streambank
through Battle Creek Park.
Urban soil erosion and sedimentation can be controlled if we all
work together. The tools are here-we have only to use them effectively
to build prosperous, attractive, and environmentally sound communities.
Your conference and the information that will result from it are
important educational happenings. May the sharing of fresh, innovative
ideas be productive and enjoyable.
-------
Berg 17
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR REDUCING URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Urban erosion and sedimentation can be effectively reduced by
careful land use planning and by using established principles and
practices.
Basic principles:
1. Choose the land that has the optimum natural drainage pattern,
topography, and soils for the intended development.
2. Set parks and other open space uses on areas that have soils
not well suited to intensified development.
3. Save trees and other existing vegetation wherever possible.
4. Keep the area of soil exposed and the duration of exposure
to a minimum.
5. Hold lot grading to a minimum.
6. Plan streets to fit the contour of the land, avoiding long
stretches of grade.
7. Provide adequate drainage to storm sewers or other runoff
disposal systems so water does not erode the land or flood property
below the construction site.
8. Use temporary vegetation or mulch to protect critical areas
exposed during development.
9. Build basins to trap sediment from surface runoff.
Attachment to remarks by Norman A. Berg, Administrator, USDA Soil
Srifem? Jont^T10?' iVS? Nat1onal Conference on Urban Erosion and
Octobe? 10 *979S Inst1tutlons & Technology. St. Paul, Minnesota,
-------
18 Berg
10. Release runoff safely to downstream areas. This may involve
installing stormwater management systems to keep the rate of runoff
the same during and after development as it was before.
11. Install permanent vegetation and structures as soon as
possible for continuous protection.
Based on these principles, a set of erosion control practices,
sediment trapping devices, and runoff management systems have come into
successful use.
Erosion control practices include keeping the soil covered with
temporary or permanent vegetation or with various mulches in
order to retard soil blowing or washing. Temporary mulching materials
may be straw, hay, wood chips, bark, shells, hulls, stone, jute mesh
or netting, synthetic fabrics, plastic netting, or asphalt-or a
combination of these. For permanent cover, gravel, stone, or concrete
blocks may be used-typically in combination with grasses, shrubs, and
trees in open areas or along borders.
Special grading methods, such as roughening a slope on the contour
or tracking with a cleated bulldozer, help trap moisture, seed,
and fertilizer. Grass springs up first in these grooves, then spreads
to adjacent areas.
Diversions intercept surface runoff from areas uphill from
construction sites, preventing water from reaching the bared soil.
Terraces and benches are similar to diversions, but their purpose is
to break up slope length. Without them, runoff would flow from top to
bottom downslope, picking up speed as it moves and accelerating erosion.
-------
19
Berg
Grade stabilization structures, such as pipe drop inlets, pipe
slope drains, and drop spillways, control the grade and prevent head
cutting in natural or artificial channels.
Grassed waterways-natural or constructed outlets of suitable
vegetation-dispose of excess surface runoff. Where vegetation is not
suitable, waterways may be lined with concrete, mortared stone, or
riprap.
Underground outlets or storm sewers, commonly made of corrugated
plastic, clay, and concrete, are used to intercept, collect, and
convey runoff water. In developed areas, where large quantities of
water need to be moved, surface drains or open channels often are used.
These practices are designed to prevent soil erosion and resulting
sedimentation. They are the first line of defense. Yet, no matter how
rigorous the effort to prevent soil movement, it is an elusive goal.
There will be some soil erosion, particularly during severe storms.
Thus, an attempt must also be made to confine sediment-laden water to
the construction site and to settleoutor filter out sediment from
runoff before it leaves the site.
Sediment trapping devices include vegetative filters and sediment
basins and traps. Vegetative filters-giving strips" of suitable
vegetation-remove sediment, organic matter, and other pollutants from
runoff. To be effective, the water must go through the vegetation, not
over it. Studies at Purdue University have shown that an 8-foot filter
strip can trap up to 80 percent of all fine sediments passing through
it from an 80-foot-wide eroding area.
Sediment basins collect and store water-borne sediment or debris.
-------
20
Berg
Contrary to what conservationists thought in the past, these basins
are more efficient if they are kept full of water. If this is
impractical for safety or health reasons, the pool should be drained
as slowly as possible. If properly planned, installed, and maintained,
sediment basins are ideal sites for wildlife habitat.
Sediment traps are smaller than sediment basins and are used in areas
of less than 5 acres. They often are built in conjunction with small
dikes to exclude runoff from adjacent undisturbed areas and to force
all the runoff from the disturbed area through the trap.
Runoff management (or stormwater management) systems control
excess runoff caused by development or changes in land use. They
usually are applied on the construction site to prevent channel erosion
downstream from the area—a condition which could cause flooding.
The flooding danger in particular has caused many government
agencies to adopt ordinances or regulations requiring developers to
provide floodwater storage for the increased runoff, based on the
estimated runoff from a particular storm or from storms of different
frequencies.
Runoff management systems usually involve some type of detention
structure or infiltration device, such as dams, excavated ponds,
infiltration trenches, perforated parking lots, parking lot or rooftop
storage, and underground tanks. Some are similar to structures built
on farmland or in small watershed projects; others look and act quite
differently than these more familiar rural sights.
-------
21
Berg
Ponds are one of the most practical and versatile means of
controlling runoff. They can be used as a sediment basin during
development and then converted to a multiple-use pond—proving
recreation for residents as well as continuing runoff management.
One drawback: Ponds require more land surface than other methods;
so they are not practical where real estate values are high, unless
residents place a high value on open water areas.
Infiltration trenches usually are filled with stone and should
be used only if the water entering them is very clean and the soils
are permeable. Parking lot runoff, for example, would not be
acceptable because of its oil content, which would gradually prevent
the soil from absorbing moisture.
A major drawback of this system is that maintenance is virtually
impossible. When one of these trenches fails, it must be completely
reconstructed.
Parking lot and rooftop storage areas may be needed to help
control runoff from pavement.
These principles and techniques are basically the same ones that
SCS and conservation districts have used in rural areas for four decades.
Some look a little different—but the function and the functioning are
about the same.
* * # #
-------
Berg
22 EXTRACTS FROM
QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION
Q: Mr. Berg, do you perceive the SCS taking on a different role in the
future, becoming less a local assistance and voluntary type of
organization, and more a regulatory one?
A: BERG: The role of SCS, a federal agency, is to work through conser-
vation districts, and state agencies, so whatever we do on this, it
would be a multi-government approach. We are primarily a technical
corps of people that can provide the professional disciplines needed.
In water quality, people are going to have to respond, or be in
violation of standards that have been adopted. In the surface mining
area, the Department of the Interior is administering the Act, but
we are being asked to join them on how to restore the soil to its
original productivity.
In the sediment area, in Maryland the local Conservation District
signs off on the type of plan to be carried out, and the County
employs inspectors to follow up and do the actual on-site determi-
nation as to whether the plan is being followed. I have been to
meetings in my local conservation district, and our District
Conservationist, engineer, the District Conservation Board, and
the County inspectors sit together; so we are in a twilight zone.
In the Great Lakes report we said that in these knotty problems we
should examine what's on the books in terms of regulatory action.
Voluntary approaches need to be encouraged to the fullest; there
is a great deal of need for education, and additional incentives to
get people to do what should be done; but we recommended that we
examine the total problem, and identify the proper role of each
level of government. I think that the responsibility for soil
erosion regulation rests heavily with state and local governments,
and we will continue to be an agency providing the best possible
technical backup that we can. We will continue to advocate certain
matters within our charter, for example about what's happening to
our prime land and concern about practices that lead to excessive
soil erosion and sedimentation, regardless of where they occur.
n- Mr. Krivak, in your speech you said 208 is coming of age, that EPA
feels it is not possible to control all sources of runoff and erosion
and that control must be on the local level . Has EPA decided that
you can't do the job from Washington D.C., and you've got to come out
to we local districts and local landowners and get some help?
A- KRIVAK: EPA in 1970 started out as almost a purely regulatory agency
because we basically had one probram, municipal construction, together
with a few enforcement activities. After the 72 Act it took two or
three years for the EPA policy on nonpoint sources to mature, to
recognize that little federal regulation in that particular area was
-------
Berg
23
Q: and A: Session
feasible, and there was hope in the nonpoint area, it lay at the
state and the local level. I think EPA has fully recognized that
in either a regulatory or a voluntary program, public support for
any Program 1s essential. It is hard to predict what may happen,
but EPA policy for the last two or three years has been one of very
strongly looking to the local and state level, in the nonpoint source
area, for program direction, for program leadership and for program
management; and philosophically I don't see that changing. That's
why it is very Important that we in the environmental area have the
kind of support that is needed at the local level to get these things
done. 3
I assume there are a lot of planners here. I would say this in the
nicest sense, that planners are expendable, they have one job to do
to get the information to the public and the local political officials,
so they can make the right kind of decisions. Planners have an impor-
tant but a limited job. If they plan in a vacuum, if they don't have
the support of the citizenry, if they don't have local political
support, whatever they do in urban runoff is not going to succeed.
I guess that s why we are putting a lot of stress on the public
involvement area.
Q: Two questions concerning changes 1n EPA's program of incentives and
disincentives to get all states and local governments to act.
A: KRIVAK: Now that 20 states have developed state regulatory programs,
I believe that soon we will reach the watershed where the majority
of the states will have recognized the problem and will have acted
We may not need a state regulatory program in some states, these
without large urbanizing areas and they may be better off if they
put their environmental legislation into areas where they do have
particular problems.
If you are asking what EPA sees down the road in the next few years
In terms of changes from a national or a federal standpoint, I don't
see any major changes even being considered in national water pollu-
tion control legislation, prior to perhaps 1983. This date has been
tied into the goals of the Act, providing a period to look back to
see what progress we made, collectively. I think Congress had that
as a benchmark date.
Q: I am from an urban Soil and Water Conservation District. When our
District first formed, we looked at cost-share programs associated
with the SCS, and found that many of them did not apply to urban
areas. So while there is technical assistance, unless I am mis-
taken in our assessment of the federal programs, there aren't the
kinds of cost-share programs available to urban areas, that are
available to rural areas. Mr. Berg, do you see anything coming
on the national level that would cost-share in the urban areas?
-------
Berg
24
Q: and A: Session
A: BERG: You are absolutely right. The Agricultural Conservation
Program of USDA, admlnisterd by ASCS, Is limited by law to farm,
ranch and forested areas. The one cost-share program that the SCS
administers applies only to designated counties in the ten states of
the Great Plains subject to wind erosion. There are some features of
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, offering cost-
sharing as an incentive, that we're going to test 1n small watersheds.
We have asked for authority to deal with cost-sharing in Resource,
Conservation and Development Projects, but it has so far not been,
passed by Congress. The Culver Amendment to the Clean Water Act is
dedicated to rural clean water problems. And except for the contri-
butions that have come from non-federal actions, either through
states, counties or other sources, activities have been primarily in
the non-urban area. One of the strategies being studied for the
future 1n the Resources Conservation Act is what you are asking for:
to find what is needed to deal with soil erosion and sedimentation
problems that affect water quality. Some helpful ideas could be
generated here-
They will be competitive dollars, because the people dealing with the
rural cost-share programs are saying now that there is more demand
than they have funds. We have a problem in deciding how much money
can be dedicated to this purpose. If it can be demonstrated that
it's 1n the public interest to cost-share in urban areas, then there
may be a case for public input of tax dollars. We are dealing with
the private sector here, and are operating with forces that are much
more difficult to deal with than if we were dealing with public land.
Our public land problems are substantial too, and that includes how
we deal with public sites dedicated to urban uses. We've made great
progress in our transportation system, but there is still a big need
there.
KRIVAK: Your question was very perceptive. During the House Committee
oversight hearings, we went to some length to describe the rural clean
water program and the rural cost-sharing programs, and the Chairman,
who came from an urban area, suggested that a cost-sharing program
on urban runoff would gain a lot more political support than our rural
program. So people are thinking about it.
Q: (Inaudible question. Answers deal in the time schedules combined
sewer overflow, federal regulation, and added personnel)
A: KRIVAK: I can give you a short answer. The schedule is Now.
However, neither the agency nor most states are prepared to write
very substantive permit conditions relating to stormwater and sepa-
ration of sewers. We don't know all the answers -treatment 1s not
an answer because of the cost. If I had to make some guess on what
will happen, it 1s that the first permits will be general ones
covering large areas, perhaps even an entire state, and the first
conditions will be related to best management practices rather than
to effluent criteria or effluent standards.
-------
Berg
25
Q: and A: Session
BERG: We already know how many people we can have 1n the SCS for
this fiscal year: 13,656, one more than last year. I can't begin
to tell you what we're going to have 1n the 81 era. We are going
through a process of assessment, examination, public participation,
and alternative strategy examination, to help determine the future.
An agency such as ours, working as we do with federal personnel
ceilings, will be a bottleneck without putting additional resources
Into this work. We have suggested the need for funding at the
national level, and that money might even be transferred to state
and local organizations to employ competent people. Already the
Districts of this country have over 5000 person-years dedicated to
soil and water conservation work, and that will be part of the
answer, but state and local governments are also facing a level 1n
the number of persons that they have assigned, so we're also look-
Ing at contracting as the best way of doing It, engaging the private
sector as far as possible. For the soil and water conservation
needs of the future, we need to explore every possible alternative
and Idea that we can get, and the group, here ought to offer some.
-------
-------
27
THE ROLE OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
IN URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Lyle Bauer
President
National Association of Conservation Districts
It is a real pleasure for me to be with you today representing the
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) and the 2950 dis-
tricts across America.
NACD's interest in urban erosion and sediment control is real, of
long standing, and is growing. To illustrate this, I want to review
the creation of districts, their purposes, their emerging challenges,
and how they fit into the urban conservation scene.
In 1935 the Soil and Water Conservation Domestic Act (Public Law
74-46) created the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) within the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to develop and execute a continuing program of soil
and water conservation. The linkage between soil erosion and water
pollution was recognized in that original legislation. The Act
declared that the "wastage of soil and moisture resources on farm,
grazing, and forest lands of the Nation, resulting from soil erosion,
is a menace to the national welfare and that it is...the policy of
Congress to provide permanently for the control and prevention of soil
erosion..." Such a policy, the Congress stated, would "...preserve
natural resources, control floods, prevent impairment of reservoirs,
and maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors..."
Responding to the Congressional challenge demanded a two-fold
effort. New scientific knowledge on the causes and cures of soil
erosion and water pollution was needed and, more importantly, this
knowledge had to be relayed in practical, usable form to every farmer,
rancher, and land user in America. This led to the search for an
institutional framework that could be effective in involving people in
the conservation cause.
The Secretary of Agriculture's Committee on Soil Conservation pro-
posed "That on or after July 1, 1937...all erosion control work on
private lands...be undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service, only
through legally constituted Soil Conservation Associations." From this
idea was born the Soil Conservation District.
-------
Bauer
28
To get the needed legislative action for the new soil and water
conservation focus, President Roosevelt sent letters to state governors
transmitting a model soil and water conservation district act. Every
state, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands passed laws creating conser-
vation districts. The formation of local districts began immediately,
and by 1945, SCS Chief Hugh Bennett could report to Congress that 1415
soil conservation districts had been organized, and that "other dis-
tricts are being organized steadily, indicating that the country will
soon be covered with (them)." Bennett's prediction has, for all prac-
tical purposes, been achieved. Nearly 3000 districts now cover over 99
percent of the Nation.
Make-up and Responsibilities
These local units of state government are governed by local citi-
zens and exist independent of, but partner to, the resource conserva-
tion programs of the federal government. Although the original purpose
was erosion and sediment control, the district movement has grown to
include new goals and authorities and provide new services to private
land users and local units of government. Through a memorandum of
understanding, signed by each district and the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, the Soil Conservation Service provides technical assistance to
the district and its cooperating land users. Thus, the national goal
of soil and water conservation is translated into local action programs
designed to fit local conditions and needs.
Through conservation districts, the knowledge of skilled techni-
cians is combined with the practical experience of land users to
develop conservation plans tailored to the land and water resources as
well as the user's skills and desires. Plans are based on locally-
developed technical standards which, in turn, rely on soil surveys,
water resource studies, and a broad range of natural resources
research. In this way, both national concern and the latest scientif-
ic technology can be brought to the attention of the land user and,
through the planning process, incorporated in his decisions on the use
and management of the land.
The conservation district, in addition to receiving applications
from and providing services to individual land users, operates a local
conservation program that includes information and education, encour-
agement of needed research, eliciting cooperation and input from
various local, state and federal agencies, and providing services on
natural resource matters to local units of government. In carrying out
this program, one of the main roles of the district is to provide a
sense of local priorities and guidelines so that many different pro-
-------
Bauer
grams can be efficiently allocated to meet the most pressing local 29
problems. Districts provide, for many local jurisdictions, what
amounts to a natural resources department of local government.
Districts have banded together, at the state and national levels,
in private non-profit associations that can convey district needs
priorities and viewpoints in a coordinated fashion. In addition to the
52 state and territorial associations, the National Association of
Conservation Districts provides similar services on the national level.
With headquarters in Washington, DC, 5 regional service offices, and a
service department located in League City, Texas, NACD speaks for
districts, provides an on-going service capability to assist them in
their work, and conducts studies on natural resource subjects of
interest and value to the improvement of district programs.
Districts and Water Pollution
Water quality has been an integral part of conservation district
programs from their inception. Hugh Bennett's philosophy, as expressed
to a Congressional Committee in 1945, was, and still is, a basic tenet
of soil and water conservation districts:
The only way in which water pollution due to erosion silt can be
effectively controlled is by the adoption of soil- and water-
conservation practices applied in accordance with the needs and
capabilities of the land.
Areas of Concentration
Today, district programs still focus on the prevention of soil
erosion and the control of water pollution. The 1979 Policy Position
of the National Association of Conservation Districts lists the follow-
ing 8 priority areas for district programs:
(1) The protection of the resource base and prevention and control
of nonpoint source pollution. This includes the prevention of soil -
erosion and the control of pollution from pesticides and herbicides,
fertilizer nutrients, animal wastes, storm-water runoff and sediment.
^ Comprehensive resource management on a watershed basis. This
includes the utilization of all techniques, structural and nonstruc-
tural, to conserve and develop soil, water, forest and wildlife
resources within watershed units for all beneficial purposes.
-------
Bauer
30
(3) Reclamation of areas previously and presently disturbed by
mining for all minerals.
(4) Improvement in the management of private, nonindustrial forest
lands.
(5) Encouragement and incorporation of environmental education in
schools.
(6) The preservation and enhancement of prime agricultural, range,
pasture. Torest and horticultural lands.This includes management of
grass or grazing lands for proper grazing.
(7) Participation in the land-use decision process by providing
resource inventories, soils information, problem identification and
technical assistance.
(8) Reclamation of areas previously and presently disturbed by
urbanizing and industrial development. This includes sedimentation,
erosion and stabilizing of roadsides.
The "Voluntary" Philosophy
With this background and philosophy, it was only natural that dis-
tricts would become a part of the nation's major assault on water
pollution as it grew out of the environmental concerns of the early
1970's. There were differences, to be sure, between the district
philosophy and the new federal effort. This approach was felt by most
district officials to be not only valuable, but essential to success in
gaining the cooperation of private land users. Much of the new federal
effort to control water pollution was based on regulatory methods, and
this gave district officials serious concern.
District officials are chary about programs that are solely regula-
tory in nature. They fear that there could be a widespread rejection
of regulation on the part of affected citizens. This would introduce
added costs, fail to meet water quality goals, and threaten many of the
gains that had been painstakingly achieved over the 40 years of the
soil conservation movement.
After much debate and discussion, districts chose to take an active
role in the new pollution control efforts. By so doing, they brought
the conservation district's voluntary approach to bear on the problem
of nonpoint pollution control. This has resulted, since 1972, in an
ever-increasing coordination between conservation district programs and
-------
Bauer
31
water pollution control programs emerging from federal legislation that
affect both urban and rural lands. In five states, legislatures have
adopted programs to provide cost-sharing assistance for installing
erosion and sediment control measures. In two of these states, such
cost sharing assistance is authorized for urban areas although this
phase has not yet been implemented.
The basic components needed in a voluntary or non-regulatory pro-
gram are efficient administration, research data, an ongoing informa-
tion and educational effort, technical assistance, and cost-sharing for
the most expensive practices. The only difference in a regulatory pro-
gram is the addition of regulatory authority in those cases where it is
locally determined to be needed.
Conservation Districts in Urban Areas
As urban erosion and sediment problems began to multiply with the
rapid growth and spread of urban, residential, business, industry, and
transportation areas, municipalities and counties turned more and more
to districts for technical expertise and assistance. Urban areas not
originally included within conservation districts are being included by
changes in state laws or by petition.
It is now estimated that of the 17,000 soil conservation district
officials serving nationwide, about 70% are farmers and ranchers and
30% are educators, business people, professionals, housewives, and
other urban and suburban people.
The interest in urban conservation has grown to the point that just
this year, 1979, we in NACD established an Urban Conservation Commit-
tee. This committee is just now developing a charter to present to our
Council. It will give special attention to soil erosion and sedimenta-
tion in urban areas along with such conservation problems as other
aspects of water quality, shoreline erosion, stormwater management,
urban forestry, open space, and conservation education.
District Involvement in Erosion and Sediment Control Legislation and
Programs ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~
It was over 10 years ago that a few individual conservation dis-
tricts became concerned about and involved in urban erosion and sedi-
ment control programs. Joining with city and county governments,
districts assisted in developing local ordinances and in implementing
their provisions. Today erosion and sediment control laws in 19
states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia
have evolved from this modest beginning.
-------
Bauer
32
Mary Garner, Legal Consultant to NACD, will present a detailed
statement on the provisions of this legislation in one of tomorow's
sessions.
Areas of Concerns
There are several area of concern I would like to discuss.
First, conservation district involvement has been largely in the
area of assessment of local problems, technical assistance, plan
review, and consultation with county and city governments carrying on
the regulatory functions. This seems to be a logical arrangement,
although there are exceptions where local districts actually carry on
some of the enforcement provisions such as inspections, handling of
complaints, issuing stop work orders, etc. Each local district and
others concerned must answer the question, "What should be the role of
the local conservation district in a regulatory program?"
Second, farmers and ranchers can not recover the costs of applying
conservation measures on their land in their marketing systems. Since
these practices result in off-site benefits, it has been commonly felt
that the federal or state governments should provide cost-sharing
assistance.
At the same time, it has been generally felt that builders and con-
struction firms could recover the costs of required erosion and sedi-
ment control measures in their contract or home sale prices and, there-
fore, public cost-share funding was not necessary. With the price of
housing going up as rapidly as it is, coupled with the increasing con-
tribution of land preparation to that housing cost, this may no longer
be true. Should those engaged in construction or similar land disturb-
ing activities be entitled to cost-sharing, tax benefits, or other
incentives for installing required erosion and sediment control
measures?
Third, conservation districts obtain technical assistance from the
US Department of Agriculture, primarily from the Soil Conservation
Service. Some states and counties provide funds to districts to enable
them to employ clerical assistance and conservation technicians. In
spite of that effort, technical assistance is still a problem in most
conservation districts, and is felt by many district officials to be
the limiting factor in achieving conservation on farms and ranches. As
the demands for conservation technical services from state and urban
governments grow, how can districts obtain the added funds and person-
nel to respond to this need without reducing badly needed assistance to
farmers and ranchers?
-------
Bauer 33
And finally, erosion and sediment control programs require a high
degree of cooperation and coordination between conservation districts,
county and city governments, and the affected operators and landowners.
Mutual understanding, trust, and dedication to principles and
objectives are absolutely essential. How can this atmosphere best be
created and maintained among all concerned parties so that erosion and
sediment can be controlled within practical limits and to the general
satisfaction of the participants and the public?
Conclusion
These and many other questions will be examined in this seminar.
NACD is pleased to be one of the sponsoring organizations. Through
these kinds of sessions, and more importantly, through subsequent
deliberations at each local level, practical and sound programs can be
forged whenever needed. NACD and conservation districts across America
look forward to working toward that goal.
###
-------
-------
35
THE ROLE OF THE BUILDER IN URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
George Kirkpatrick, Jr.
President
Kirkpatrick Builder, Inc.
Gainesville, Florida
I am filling in for Vondal Gravlee, the President of the National
Association of Home Builders, who is absent because his Board of Direc-
tors meeting was re-scheduled due to Hurricane Frederick. The National
Association of Home Builders is an association of about 120,000
corporate members. At our national convention last year in Las Vegas
we registered about 64,000 delegates, with about 23 acres of exhibits
under roof. We have almost 800 local associations throughout the
different states, and many of you have probably worked with home builders
association representatives in the past. We are making efforts to be in
on the early planning, in the beginning of regulations as they impact
our industry.
The home building industry is the second largest industry in the
United States; only agriculture is larger. Its importance to our
economy was shown in the 1974-1975 recession. One of the things that
caused it to be so severe was the collapse of the home building industry,
which drove unemployment up tremendously. In 1979, the estimated produc-
tion of housing in the United States is 1,643,000 units. If part of those
are multi-family units, and the average lot is 10,000 square feet, that
means that in 1979 we will develop about 337,000 acres. I want you to
think about that number for a minute. The little lady out front asked me
if I needed any audio-visual aids, and I told her, no, I would handle my
own, so I'd like to. handle that now. (unscrews a light bulb)
Today in the United States we have somewhere around 1,044,000,000
acres in active crop production. If you divide that by 337,000 you get
2769. That means it would take us two thousand seven hundred and sixty-
nine years at the rate that we are developing land today for residential
use, to cover as much land as is under crop production today. That's
longer than we have been keeping records. My main point is that I want
to make sure that we bring Into focus the size of the home building
industry and the amount of land that we use and develop, as it relates
to the overall erosion and sediment problem. We are tremendously con-
cerned about the overall problem, but I think that if we regulate the
home building industry to control erosion, but don't do anything about
the other problems—mining, forestry, farming, and so on, then we've
really not going to do much good in soil erosion and sediment control.
About the only effect you're going to have is turning off that light
over there compared to all the rest of the lights in this room.
The builder's goal is to try to do something to stem the tremendously
increasing cost. Our mission is a mission of service. Almost all of us
live in a house, and unless we're going to go back to living in caves and
tents, somebody is going to have to provide the housing for this country.
-------
36 Kirkpatrick
We need to work together, to end this polarization that we've had
between our industry and local government, state government, regional
government, and the regulatory agencies. It's been a real bloodletting
over the past 5 or 6, 8 or 10 years, depending on the area of the
country you're from. Some areas of the country you still don't have
much regulation on the home building industry, but those are areas
where it is not of great impact.
It is the homebuilding industry that ultimately will have to
implement and comply with any kind of regulations that are developed in
soil erosion and sediment control. I'm asking you when you go back home
to your various agencies, or when you go back home to your universities
and you write another paper or whatever your function is here to day,
that you take that point into consideration. And that you also take
into consideration the fact that we do have an important mission in
this country, and that is to provide the housing. Every time the cost
of housing goes up a thousand dollars, we are probably eliminating the
opportunity for two to three million people in the United States, to be
able to buy a home. The people it impacts the most are probably the
poor; the minority groups, and the young. Most of us either are young,
or have some young folks at home. They're not going to be able to have
that one dream that's true of America all over the country, and has
always been true, to own their own home, if things continue to go the
way they are going today.
Government regulation is not the only thing that has increased the
cost of housing, but it has added to it. And in the past, in a lot of
instances, it was unnecessary regulation, or regulation carried to an
extreme, or over-reaction that produced something we couldn't deal with.
We need to get through that stage of our development as a country, and get
on with the business of cooperating with each other in trying to do some-
thing to preserve our natural resources and provide housing.
The median sales price of a house today is about $64,000. About 25%
of that unit cost is in the land. That cost has escalated from about 12%,
15 years ago. In addition to the actual construction costs are the
different kinds of regulations. Delays are unbelievably expensive. When
you're paying 14^% on your construction loan today, and you go through a
2, 3, 4, 6 month delay, a 2-year delay in some project, it becomes so
expensive that it can't take place.
In some areas of the country these controls are used to control
growth. The Clear Water Act, the 208 water management plan, and the
concepts surrounding the clean water legislation, were not designed to be
a no-growth ordinance. We have ended the debate on no-growth. No-growth
is something that we just can't have in the United States of America, or
we can't survive. For example, if you have a municipal garbage service,
and your truck breaks down, you're going to be upset if nobody collects
the garbage. If that truck cost your community $22,000, and you go out
-------
37
Kirk pa trick
T£ nnn13"! tJe*JrU?k*,t°Sy' 1t'S 9°1ng to cost you so^where around
565,000. Just the inflationary cost of government is almost out of
control. It's a very difficult thing for local government or regional
bvVFPr!nH ?h implemer* the kinds of regulations' that are being mandated
and »?i n? «uHHr a9e™ies because we don't have any way to finance those,
f,n JJh ? i builders organizations are finding themselves standing
thl?™, wn 9°verrenK officials saying, "Well, if'you want us to do §
this you will have to show us how to finance it."
an^ ! .fnt to a?k y°u> in consideration of regulations regarding erosion
and sediment control, to remember the word "flexibility". Particularly
when you get into situations dealing with land, as opposed to an overall
zoning matter; flexibility is tremendously important. God didn't make
all the and just alike. We have a problem in Florida with flat land
that won t drain; you have problem up here along the banks of the river-
an^L9 pr°bl*m 1n Derwer with the mountains and that sort of terrain,
and for these differences the ordinances need to be flexible.
Even in your own communities you will find different types of land
Even within one of my own projects I find different kinds of land. You'
need to think about using your abilities, as people interested in this
particular function, to make the ordinances as flexible as possible so
we can build on the areas that are best to build on, and to preserve the
areas that are most environmentally dangerous.
In Gainesville, as in other parts of the country, our local govern-
ments and our builders' organizations and developers have begun to work
together to see what we can do to make things more cost-effective. That's
the other word I want you to think about. Who is ultimately going to pay
to protect our soil and our natural resources? It's all you folks in the
TTh J: m^'1bU^ Primarily it's Old Joe Sixpack, the consumer that
catches the bill for everything. As Mr. Bauer indicated, there's no way
the farmer can afford to recoup out of his market, the vast amount of
dollars that it takes to take care of erosion in his business. It's
getting to the same point in the homebuilding business. If we're qoinq
I want to talk to you just a minute about the components of land
development. When my daddy first started building subdivisions in 1927,
he built the typical old grid type subdivision, because that's all they
knew back in those days. It didn't make any difference if there was a
great stand ofvirgin pine trees or magnolias right in the middle, if
the site plan called for the road to go through there, that's where
rpmP,iUaf?«e r°ad;K lt WaS 9°verned °y Inflexible zoning, subdivision
regulations, setbacks and road design.
aoPnr^c^/Jh1'"? J b\9 dcbate between EPA and HUD r19ht ™w, two massive
agencies of the federal government. HUD tells me on one telephone exten-
-------
38
Kirkpatrick
slon that I have to have 28-foot wide back-to-back curb and gutter,
concrete and asphalt, straight-line paving, in my subdivision if I'm
going to get it approved for FHA or VA financing. The EPA is telling
me that I've got to try to do everything I can to comply with the spirit
and mandate of the 208 water management plan, and that means that if you
don't need a 28-foot back-to-back street through your subdivision, if
you don't need to collect all the water into one great big pipe, and
shoot it out where 1t goes forever and tears up anything at the end of
the pipe, then we need to look at some innovative techniques, like open
swales and more green areas. And particularly in site-plan development,
we need to consider cluster houses. I know for a lot of folks, cluster
housing may mean raising the density, but we're going to find as they
are finding already in California, that when we run out of land, as they
have in some of the European countries, then we will start realizing
that we have to take a reassessment of our land planning and our density.
So we need to get as much flexibility into the plans as possible.
I'm asking you to allow the development team to do some sort of
innovation. I'm asking the people who are responsible for implementing
sedimentation and erosion ordinances around the country in local govern-
ments, to try to do as much innovation as possible, and to make some
cost analysis.
I want to tell you that we've got to change some of our philosophies.
The last little area that I developed in Gainesville, Florida, was almost
downtown. It's what they call in the industry a bypassed site. It had
been there for 25 years, a platted subdivision of one-acre lots, very
prestigious, owned by an old family in the community. It was a beautiful
piece of land, with a creek running all the way around it, and a lot of
virgin magnolias. There's not much elevation change in Florida, but in
my particular project you can stand out on the deck or one of my patio
homes, townhomes, and 75 feet below you is one of the most beautiful
little creeks you ever saw in your life.
I went to our local government and I asked them if we could develop
that site, and they said, "Well, if you want to build large houses on
large lots you can develop it".
We didn't have a cluster ordinance, so we spent a year and a half
and we got one in Gainesville. This was the first project. This was (
the first time we'd ever gotten government to go down and say, OK, heres
the problem, let's try to find a way to solve it," instead of trying to
figure out two or three ways to keep from getting the job done. It nas
the reputation of being one of the finest projects in Florida, and is
completely sold out.
But we had to spend a lot of money to protect that site. I don't
think we had a trash can full of sand wash into the creek, while we were
-------
39
Kirkpatrick
developing that project. We took great pains to develop it. Now In the
preliminary plans, they called for sedimentation ponds at the bottom of
the hill, right next to the creek. In order to get my plan approved,
that s what I was required to do. Well, I took a big gamble, and said,
OK, but I want to come back to you and talk to you later on about 1t "
Most of you know that when you put a bulldozer on a slope bank, there
just Is not any way to protect the vegetation and the things that nature
has put there to take care of soil erosion tn the original state of the
land. And they wanted us to go down there and put these sediment basins
in the bottom.
We developed the project in stages. When you're talking to deve-
lopers, if they have a sensitive area, they need to consider developlnq
In stages, to expose as little of it as possible at one time. If
developers are involved in the beginning, most of them will listen,
because they are beginning to understand that they've got to listen.
I want to summarize for you.
The number one point that I made was, it's not going to do a lot of
good just to regulate somebody that's responsible for less than a tenth
of one percent of the soil erosion problem that we have In this country.
Actually, 50% of the construction erosion is by public construction
and we don't have any way of controlling that in the NAHB.
We want to have a flexible approach.
We want you to try to include some performance standards in your
ordinances. Remember that word, "performance" standards. Instead of
going out there and saying, "Boys, this is the way you've got to do 1t "
you need to set out what the goals are that you're trying to accomplish,
and let his development team come down with you and you all try to flqure
out two or three real good ways to solve the problems, as opposed to
giving them an actual thing that they have to do.
We want to take a hard objective look at economics, and who 1s
going to pay the bills. Don't forget Old Joe Sixpack. He's the guy that
winds up paying the bills for almost all of this, and he's paying just
?,*?iUJ* MI? CJ" P**,:1^ now> between h1* mortgage payments and his
hi hery m"Ch m°r6 1f the Pr1ce °f food 9°es up any
I want you to resist the pressure -- and you'll get lot of it 1n
some of your areas, - to use erosion and sediment control ordinances to
be a growth control tool. That's not what you're here for. You're here
to try to protect our natural resources. Growth control is not the
ultimate objective. Protecting erosion of our soil 1s the ultimate goal.
ImuVu" ge? the Pressure groups coming In and talking to you, saying
t« nXX* W6uve 9?t t,his new way we can st°P growth," think about that new
$65,000 garbage truck you all may have to buy in your community, or think
-------
40
Kirkpatrick
about your own budget in your department, and how you are going to get
those increases you need next year.
I want you to try to reduce the processing time, not only in this
set of ordinances, but I want you to reduce them in any other ordinance^
that you can think of, because we have come to the point in time when we
need to get together and start working toward being able to provide things
that people can afford. Unnecessary delays are a tremendous burden on the
consumer ultimately.
I want to let you know that NAHB is really involved in what we are
talking about here today. At the Clean Water Task Force, that was orga-
nized back in April, I talked with the Assistant Administrator for Water
and Wastewater Management. He was one of the most receptive people I've
ever met in Government, and I was really overwhelmed. He wrote a letter
to all of his regional administrators, back in August 1979, and I just
want to read you one sentence: "We would like to see the involvement of
the NAHB in EPA activities, develop into a useful partnership aimed
toward melding protection of the environment with home building." That's
our goal now. Our methodology is, we're going to set up regional watchdog
liaison committees with the EPA in the ten regions of the United States.
I've already set up two of the regions, Region 4 which is Atlanta, and
Region 1 which is Boston.
We will hire a permanent consultant in each region, and he is going
to work on a daily and weekly basis as liaison with the EPA, having
primarily to do with the Clean Water Act, but ultimately, whenever the
NAHB addresses environmental issues from now on, we're going to address
them nationally instead of this piecemeal effort that we have done before
which has been such a miserable failure. The apparatus is going to be our
regional committees.
We've had a lot of participation already in these different regions,
and it's been a very warm experience. The two Regional Administrators
I've met with, tremendously welcomed our participation. The Federal
Government has mandated that government agencies need to get out into the
private sector and get some participation. I think they finally realized
that a great deal of the voluntary participation they were getting was
different little public interest groups, and none of them represented
private business or free enterprise or the people who are trying to make
the money to pay the taxes. We're going to try to help fulfill that role.
We'll fulfill it for any local, state or regional governmental agency
that needs some participation from the private sector. All you've got
to do is get in touch with me or my staff, and we'll make sure somebody
participates from our industry.
We have a challenge and an opportunity ahead of us. This is a time
when we need to get participation from all different points of view. The
danger is that if we aren't careful, we may be cutting off the people who
-------
41
Kirkpatrick
can most afford to pay the bill for the major problems that we have in
erosion. If we cut down our tax base any more, or if we stop growth
altogether, and we can't raise the funds, then there isn't going to be
any money to be sent down through these programs to help take care of
erosion and control sediment.
EXTRACT FROM QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION
Q: Regarding your development in Gainesville. If you had not been made
aware of the situation in regards to erosion and sediment control,
would you in fact have initiated a program to protect that site to
the degree that you did, had you not been acquainted with it through
some regulatory agency? Secondly, you mentioned that it was necessary
that the private sector get involved in the formulation of performance
standards or regulations. Why haven't they done it before? I happen
to agree with you, but I'm wondering why they haven't done it before.
They always come up after the regulations have been adopted, and
haven t taken any part in the adoption proceedings whatsoever. It
seems a very good idea that they get involved in the beginning. How
would you suggest that we get that local involvement from those local
building associations? We can't go from my county to Washington D.C.
and ask the National Association to come out and help us solve an
erosion control ordinance. How do we get them motivated?
A: KIRKPATRICK: We're all growing up in our attempt to develop land. I
Think you'll find that the present-day developer understands that to
destroy the enviornment is to destroy a good proportion of the real
sales value of the project. At the price that we're having to charge
for houses, 48 or 50 dollars a square foot, what we're selling is
perceived value. People don't want to live in grid-type subdivisions
where they clear-cut everything and start all over. I think our
industry is beginning to grow up and understand that that's not
the way to do things.
As far as getting people involved, I think you can go to the National
Association of Home Builders. If you're wIlllngTo place a telephone
call to our association in Washington, or to our individual state
associations, and speak with the executive director, I know that you
will get a response. We've got to quit protecting our own little
turf, and end the polarization, and start working together on these
things. I know that I can find somebody to sit down with you, reqard-
less of what community you're in, and participate from the very
beginning. The purpose of this conference is to try to develop
some local soil erosion and sediment control ordinances, to trade
ideas, so this is the beginning of a lot of the soil and sediment
control ordinances for a lot of localities. This is where we begin,
right here. I'm here participating. I'm not any heavyweight
-------
42
Kirkpatrick
technician, but I'm here as representative of a large association
that wants to help out. I know that if you would like to have
participation with our industry, I'll make arrangements if you
can't find anybody else who can. Remember there are 700 local
associations, there's a state association in every state, and if
you can't get one of those, I've got some folks in Washington who
will do it.
-------
43
THE ROLE OF REGULATION IN URBAN EROSION
AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Frank Beal,, Director
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources
A decade ago, I learned a little memory trick to remind me of the
powers of government. It turns out that the letters of the word ACID
stand for the four things that government can do for or to its citizens
f AT^ta?d!/°r advice' and we a11 know governments have
of that. The letter C stands for control, wherein governments
use their police power authority to compel certain actions or to pro-
hibit action. The letter I stands for incentives, such as the federal
income tax incentives that encourage home ownership, or the proposed
price guarantees for the purchase of synthetic fuels. Finally, the
letter D stands for direct action. Examples here include the highway
the patient cared for by the authorities l a
There was a time, no doubt, when most public problems could be ad-
dressed by using one of these four public policy devices: advice, regu-
lation, economic incentives or disincentives and direct action For the
most part, those simpler days are gone, and the interesting public prob-
lems are generally addressed through a rather complex set of governmental
actions. I would remind you, therefore, that although my remarks this
afternoon are limited to the role of regulation in urban erosion and sedi-
T^l r!n I* We.ml!St .n0t l°Se Slght Of the other P°wers of government
tnat can and must be turned toward this exceedingly complicated issue.
pay a cenra role in urban erosion and sediment control. I say this in
full knowledge and awareness of the cries for deregulation in all sectors
of our public life, and in recognition of the growing pressures to slow
Let me simply say at the outset that regulation can, does, and should
play a central role in urban erosion and sediment control. I say this in
the cries for deregulation
down the environmental movement.
* JIJhapEen to think that many of tne Pressures for deregulation are well
founded. Many of the federal regulatory systems, for example, were set up
to deal with circumstances and problems which no longer exist, but bureau-
cratic momentum^as relentlessly carried them forward. Bureaucratic zeal
miShiS Pri '! Ty caS6S'. " 1 to see the very
conf^PH 2?aISn^ 6 °"uPatI°nal Healt" ™d Safety Administration get
confused with OSHA's efforts to regulate the size and shape of toilet
seats .
1S n0t always to blame' We must PTace a lot of re-
r C°ngreSS uand its 1nab11ity to be clear about nation-
n *hFurthermo^!^he ^gulated industries themselves must
share part of the responsibility. In far too many cases they oppose de-
regulation, knowing that any move in that direction might well allow more
competitors into their protected share of the market
-------
44
Beal
You are all, I am sure, painfully aware of the growing number and
intensity of attacks on environmental regulation. I cannot think of an
agency of the federal government as abused as the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. This has not always been the case, and I think the reasons
for the shift in attitude merit some examination, since it relates to the
question of the role of regulation in urban sediment control.
By way of background, I must remind you that there is a whole gener-
ation out there who believe that a concern for the environment began with
Earth Day. It didn't. Such a short-sighted view ignores the contribu-
tions of a man like Teddy Roosevelt who, in the early 1900s, did so much
to protect this nation's wilderness resources. It ignores a man like
Hugh Bennett who shaped the soil and water conservation movement of the
1930s. The truth, of course, is that this nation has always had an under-
lying concern for the protection of its environment, even if that concern
was overshadowed frequently by the resource exploitation that accompanied
western expansion.
What happened after Earth Day was that the environmental and conser-
vation movement was essentially co-opted by the federal and fifty state
environmental protection agencies. In response to the pressing problems
of the day and the demand for quick action, these agencies became the
glamour agencies of government, charging off to prosecute everything in
sight.
I will be the first to admit that the work of these agencies was of
immense importance to this nation. One need only recall a Pittsburgh
that was almost uninhabitable and a river in Cleveland that was burning
to see how far we have come. We have paid a price for this progress, in-
cluding the price of a citizenry who believes environmental management
means pollution control, and who believes that the way to solve an envi-
ronmental problem is to go out and find the bad guy and regulate him.
That works sometimes, but not always.
Another price that we paid is that the glamour of the EPA overshad-
owed some of the fine ongoing work of the Departments of Agriculture; In-
terior; and Health, Education and Welfare, to name only three.
The decade of the 1980s promises to be one in which the public learns,
or relearns, that there is more to ecology than prosecuting polluters, and
that the stewardship of the nation's resources belongs to more than one
agency of government and employs more tools than simple regulation. The
environmental protection agencies of this country have hit the easy targets.
They are now facing the more complex problems, such as urban erosion, and
they are looking for help from other agencies of government.
I do not want to stray too far from my assigned topic, but I thought it
was important to set the stage for the more detailed discussions you will
be having for the next two days. I know you will be spending a lot of time
examining specific regulatory systems designed to control urban erosion and
sediment control, but I would like to make a couple of general points that
-------
Beal 45
I hope will carry over into your later discussions.
a.u £eadl'n? ab°ut er°sion ™d runoff, what strikes me is not our
about [t ?!TT0!; ?b°Ut itS-CaUSe and remedies> but how ""le we do
about it. The SOT 1 Conservation Service has been promoting contour plow-
ing, crop rotation, and minimum tillage for years, but it is still news
2 ^s Th °I ;jKf?!ta *m«** !n 9ettl'"9 some proportion of their famers
aae svstPmf in % hH-U-S- Llkewlse> we know that protecting natural drain-
age systems in subdivisions can substantially decrease runoff problems and
save tremendous amounts of money that would need to be spent on stormwater
' er
1s
problems in controlling erosion and runoff are not sci-
technical or legal; instead, they come from the professions of
ura, -c devel°^ent - wh(rther ^ is urban construction or agricul-
tural use - is a craft, not a science. Except in rare situations the
devflo.PerS and contractors represent an accumulation of
Pvnppnr c .
nalTnr f™m ^ ? the met^ds may be 1earned from the Professional jour-
nals or from the classroom, but most come from on-the-job training They
are learned in apprenticeships, by observing successful developers and by
discovering for oneself what pays off. The same is often true for farmers.
Realizing that these professions are crafts tells us that change will
sloi^rEJp^h eV°luttonaT but 1-t does ^t tell us why it has'bee n so
slow. Why have they been so slow to recognize the pearls of research we
7 We
stuoi her findh ' rmersuonor
stupid, rather, I find them wiley and crafty. Clearly the problem is not
an information gap. It is a gap between the long-term public interest in
protecting our resources, and the short-term pay off ofbulldln d^loj-
an2 la°rmino sn?hat°LS; °;Messon lea^ned ^ the evolution of Development
fplt hv the 5 many of the consequences of erosion and runoff are not
««-
P
these factors into consideration. I believe that one effective method of
accomplishing this is through land-use regulations. However, since our
goal is to change the character of the land-development crafts, they cannot
be our typical ten-commandment regulations (thou shalt not bui d subdivi-
the n,?LPrf ag:icultural Jand)- ^stead, they must be designed so that
the natural evolutionary and experimental processes of these crafts work
-------
46
Beal
This may sound complicated, but in actuality it is quite simple. A
review of some recent ordinace provisions provide excellent models of how
these regulations should be designed.1
One of the first agencies to promote regulations for urban runoff was
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. With its broad
powers in the issuance of sewer permits for new construction, the board
moved to include consideration of runoff into the issuance of sewer per-
mits. As adopted by the board, the Sewer Permit Ordinance stated that:
"Effective January 1, 1973, no permits shall be issued for sewer con-
struction in unsewered or separate sewered areas when construction of the
facilities to be served by the proposed sewer would result in runoff in
excess of that from its natural or undeveloped state..." The objectives
of these regulations are to maintain the integrity of the natural drain-
age patterns of the area in order to prevent flooding and drastic alter-
ation in stream channels. As they note, "The channel configuration cut by
nature is generally unable to handle the runoff from high-intensity rain-
falls and results in floodplain storage or spreading of the runoff over
the land." To stabilize the runoff from such areas after the development,
the sanitary district requires that the release rate be limited to the
carrying capacity of the natural channels.
The regulation mandates minimum performance standards for both the
rate and the volume of runoff, which local governments have to implement.
For the rate of runoff the ordinance states: "The release rate of storm
water from all developments requiring detention shall not exceed the storm
water runoff rate from the area in its natural state." For considerations
of volume, the district requires detention storage which operates in con-
junction with the standards for the rate of runoff: "The live detention
storage to be provided will be calculated on the basis of the 100-year
frequency rainfall as published by the U.S. Weather Bureau for this area.
The detention volume required will be that necessary to handle the runoff
of a 100-year rainfall, for any and all durations, from the fully devel-
oped drainage area tributary to the reservoir, less that volume discharged
during the same duration at the approved release rate." Even under the
worst meteorological conditions, the land area is to function as it would
under natural, predevelopment conditions.
The results of this metropolitan-wide regulation was the adoption by
local agencies of runoff controls based on these minimum guidelines. While
the district sets the minimums, the local communities are free to stiffen
the required level of performance.
1-The following discussion is based on work done by Charles Thurow,
William Toner and Duncan Erley. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands
(ASPO)' Chicago, 1976. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude
to Charles Thurow for allowing me to use material originally developed by
him in a 1978 speech entitled, "Regulating the Flow of Water to the Sea.
-------
Beal
47
arfnntlS accor^.nce wl^h the District requirements, Naperville, Illinois
"?nPp?t?n,?Idihan^ t0 C°ntro1 run0ff> The purP°se of the ordinance is
to eliminate the storage or transportation of excess storm water in or
through ^abitabe structures." The ordinance covers all commercia anS
*S n J i? velopments and a11 residential developments of more than two
ana one-nait acres.
The performance standard for runoff is directly tied to the capacity
of the watershed drainage system: "The controlled release rate of storm
water runoff from all developments. . .shall not exceed the existing 'safe-
storm drainage capacity of the natural downstream outlet channel or storm
H?rprtSy%-m> /S r?^Se rate Sha11 be an avera9e Va1ue computed as a
direct ratio of the tributary watershed area. This value shall not ex-
ceed an average runoff rate of 0.15 inches per hour which is compatible
with the safe' capacity of the West Branch of the Du Page River and the
Des Plaines River. The rate of which storm water runoff is delivered to
a designated storm water storage area shall be unrestricted," Standards
were also established for the control of the volume of runoff: "Required
volume for storm water detention shall be calculated on the basis of the
runoff from a 100-year frequency rainfall of any duration as published by
a recognized agency. This volume of storage shall be provided for the
fully developed watershed that is tributary to the area designated for
detention purposes. The storm water release rate shall be considered
when calculating the storm water storage capacity and the control struc-
ture designed to maintain a relatively uniform flow rate regardless of
the depth of storm water in the storage area."
r * Sl1?r!!y dtfferent aPP^ach has been taken by DeKalb County,
Georgia. Within a general environmental ordinance, they set up specific
regulations concerning storm water retention and drainage. Instead of
specifying the kind of development or the size of development covered by
the ordinance, they set a standard of what they considered the critical
breaking point for regulation: "A combination of storage and controlled
ron^rl?Inn T J^ ™off shalj be ^quired for all development and
construction which will increase the peak rate of runoff from the site
by more than one cubic foot per second for a 10-year frequency storm."
The ordinance then goes on to set the performance standard for the rate
of runoff: The peak release rate of storm water from all developments
off?™ t'hpT ^ required shall. ..not exceed the peak storm wa?e7run-
off from the area in its natural undeveloped state for all intensities
up to and including the 100-year frequency and all durations of rainfall;
or... not to be greater than that calculated for a storm of two-year fre-
quency with a runoff coefficient of 0.20, 0.25, and 0.35 for land with an
average slope of up to two per cent, two to seven per cent, and over
seven per cent, respectively."
-------
Through this mechanism they have set a minimum requirement for all
development and added more stringent requirements for developments on
slopes. Finally, the ordinance sets the performance standard for the
control of the volume of runoff. "The live retention storage to be pro-
vided shall be calculated on the basis of the 100-year frequency rainfall
as published by the National Weather Service for the affected area. The
retention volume required shall be that necessary to handle the runoff of
a 100-year rainfall for any and all durations from the proposed develop-
ment, less that volume discharged during the same duration at the approved
release rate as specified above."
Regulations such as these often do not meet with the approval of soil
scientists or engineers. Standards that use such language as "its natural
or undeveloped state," or "maintain the integrity of the natural drainage
patterns" seem particularly fluffy. What is the definition of "natural
state?" What the hell do you mean by "integrity?" The standards that use
numerical figures equally raise questions: How did they come up with those
figures? What is magical about 60% impervious surface?
These questions miss the point on two accounts. First, regulation is
yet another craft. Public administrators work in a world that constantly
requires them to interpret such items as "significant impact" or "undue
harm." For such problems as erosion and runoff, it is particularly impos-
sible to write specifications that are going to work with every parcel of
land. Instead, local staff must be able to look at a piece of property
and recognize what the serious problems will be, to judge the proposed
methods of controlling erosion and runoff and finally, to interact or ne-
gotiate so that both the person using the land and the general society
benefits. This craft is also developed through experience. Itjs only
through successive reviews of site plans and subsequently watching their
effect on the problems of erosion and runoff that a community will develop
the ability to significantly tackle these problems.
Second, it is necessary to remember that land-use regulations are the
embodiment of social policy. And in terms of governmental policies, these
statements are more precise than most. These communities are saying that
the cost of increased runoff is to be born by the development itself and
the control of runoff is to be done at the site itself.
Of course other communities have made other policies. For example,
Chicago itself has decided that it is best for society generally to handle
some of the problem with their current deep-tunnel project (at the cost of
7 billion dollars). DeKalb County, in practice, has developed a hybrid of
these two policies. With their runoff ordinance, the county still plans to
construct storm water retention facilities itself, as a service to land-
owners. If the developer does not wish to build his own facilities, he _
can use those constructed by the community, but he is assessed on the basis
of the runoff he contributes to the drainage system. Arvada, and Boulder,
Colorado have used similar assessment provisions. These communities are
saying that if retention facilities must be built, it is best that they be
constructed and maintained by the government. But still we want to give
-------
Beal
incentives to the developer to minimize runoff.
The importance of these regulations goes back to my earlier point
standards ^^ ^ constructl'on.as a c™ft. By setting these public
wiic ucvclUlJcr I o TicG "CO T T Q LI K^ (? OUT how "f O y*O ^ nf^ KI ^ r\n
his own. He is not required to put in a specific size storm drainage sys-
ShnH US6/f eEt-°n P0nds' He is al1owed to experiment with different
methods and techniques; and the system encourages the trade to find the
Kfrff?8?7 Jt1ve metnod.of controlling runoff. In Naperville, where
the development community initially opposed the adoption of the regula-
hl°ulinn %** nd t^t developers were able to reduce development costs
by using different techniques than the previously required storm sewers.
In practice, the standards must be judged in terms of their clarity
Pnfnrrp^nnt^h1* wno.must comply and to the public officials who must
enforce - not their scientific merit. The concept of "natural condition"
may be more accessible than runoff coefficients or mathematical models
for computing the amount of water leaving a site.
There is a great risk that you will get caught up in arguments that
we do not know enough or that we need more research before we can impose
r??o H TS' Say, that 1s nonsense- We d° know enough, and there has
already been enough experience to tell us that local regulations work.
There are regulations which set standards and there are those which
specify management or operating practices. I personally prefer the stan-
dard setting approach since it plays to the strength of the craft systems
It encourages experimentation and innovation. By setting out particular
practices that must be followed, there is a risk that they will became
institutionalized, and the developer's ability to be creative will be lost.
Whatever approach is used, the agency regulating urban runoff and
erosion will have to be close to the site" We will have to rely on our
^RITTVSo!?U!ll!:h?!^ad™istrative ability to handle such
.
and runo nnM by State governments. Often, the erosion
and runoff problems are not any more critical to the local government than
tha? npt^h^i1"^1^31 landowner- I* "lay be the town down tKe ?iver
that gets the flood water, or the harbor many miles away that gets the
• more1]mP°rta'?t» state mandates provide political clout that is
Tn^i1VTally la^k1"9 With local J'u^diction. From my discussion
?£ V J^M81*!* 1S,n0t that they are unaware of the^ Problems or
Us no? i2aJa?hiS H' but.tha* the^ have no base from which to work
It is not that they need great guidance from the state, it is simply they
need the state to be backing them up. y
The problems of urban runoff and erosion are yet to be solved It is
siates t^JF tPh°CeSS Wil1 be SlOW' lt Wil1 be a Process of gettng the
states to make the necessary commitments, convincing local governments to
pass the regulations, and then developing the administrativf skiVls to
implement them. It will not be easy, but it will be worth the effort.
-------
-------
51
URBAN EROSION
Gerald Millet
Minnesota State Senator
Chairman,
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
Although we Mlnnesotans, living in the land of more than 15,000
lakes and 25,000 miles of streams and rivers, generally take our water
resources for granted, the fact remains that our ground and surface
waters are far from limitless.
Therefore, we would do well to apprise ourselves of, and respond
to, the potential threat to those resources. The most publicized threat
has been, of course, pollution.
In southeastern Minnesota, for example, we have seen a growing
concern over the impact of such polluting occurrences as waste spills
and fractured limestone on groundwater—The primary drinking water
source for two-thirds of our state residents.
We have also seen concern over the pollution of Lake Superior-
witness the Reserve Mining suit. And, recently, more than $200,000 was
spent to rid Twin Cities' area waters of contaminating Algae-which
thrive on the cleaning compound phosphates which find their way into
the metro area waste water system.
These, of course, are all unique and readily recognizable threats
to our water resources, As such, they have become the focal point of
considerable public attention. The most common water resource pollutant
—sediment, resulting from erosion, however, seems less dramatic and has
received little public attention. As a result, our ability to deal with
sediment—as a water pollutant—has failed to keep pace with the impact
of natural and man-caused erosion on our surface water.
Nationally, sediment is the highest volume water pollutant known
to man, with some five billion tons of damaging sediment reaching U S
surface waters annually.
Surprisingly, only about 30 percent of that sediment is due to
natural erosion, with the remaining 70 percent the result of such human
activity as forestry, mining and residential and commercial and indus-
trial construction.
Construction is rather unique in its damaging contribution to pol-
luting sediments. While construction contributes ten percent of the
total sediment tonnage, it affects only seven hundredths of one percent
of total land^resources. That provides a solid indication that construc-
tion erosion is heavily concentrated and, therefore, potentially more
damaging than equal doees of other types of sediment.
-------
Millet
52
Construction sediment also carries a variety of potentially-
damaging pollutants. Pesticides, gas, oil, asphalt, metals, roofing
materials, acids, concrete curing compounds, garbage, lime and various
fertilizers all represent materials included in construction-related
sediment which pose a serious threat to our surface waters.
And, since this is a conference on urban erosion control, I should
also point out that the heaviest concentration of construction sediment
finds its way into waters passing through urban areas—where, naturally,
one finds the heaviest construction activity.
In the Twin Cities alone, a recent survey showed some 140,000 tons
of soil lost due to construction activity in a single year, with 55,000
tons of surface water sediment produced as a result of that activity.
And, private construction is not the only culprit in sediment
production. Road, street, and highway construction produces similar
problems and highway design can result in increased erosion.
That erosion, which usually takes places on a backslope or in a
ditch, contributes to the loss of 100,000 tons of soil annually; soil
which finds its way into our surface water—and which may carry a
variety of roadside wastes and pollutants.
Another form of erosion, common to urban areas, and which contri-
butes greatly to water pollution, is streambank or channel erosion.
Streambank and channel erosion in the metro area alone, contributes
close to 600,000 tons of sediment to Minnesota waterways each year.
There are a variety of factors behind that erosion including natural
causes such as the deepening or widening of the channel due to water
passage; an increase in peak runoffs; poorly-controlled storm discharges:
urban development on streambanks; and the use of those banks for recre-
ational purposes.
Obviously, soil erosion poses a threat to our waterways, and the
additional and uniquely "urban" chemicals and waste included in storm-
water runoff or erosion resulting from urban development along the
streambanks amplify that threat.
These, then, are the main sources of surface water pollution which
fall under the title of "Urban Erosion". Coincidentally, they are also
among the most common and most neglected sources of overall water
pollution.
And, just how have we been handling the problem of urban erosion—
of an increasing volume of sediment in our vital waters? Not very well.
As a matter of fact, the regulation of urban erosion has been extremely
fragmented and, at times, about as effective as shoveling snow with a
pitchfork.
-------
Willet
Erosion control at construction sites, for example, is exercised
by a variety of federal, state and local departments, agencies and
governmental units.
Most often, that control falls under the authority of a local
governmental unit and is carried out through municipal or county
ordinances.
The guidelines followed, the standards set and the efficiency of
enforcement, of course, vary from local unit to local unit—and there
is little continuity in our approach to the erosion problem through
local control. That does create some problems, when you consider that
unchecked erosion at one point in the waterstream can adversely impact
water quality further down that waterway.
The problems inherent in our current uncoordinated system of
erosion control become further amplified when one considers that the
authority of local governmental units sometimes overlaps that of
watershed districts—and that local units of government may also exert
considerable influence over streambank erosion through shoreland
management programs.
Another potential source of control on major projects is exercised
by the Environmental Quality Board, which may require an environmental
impact statement on projects of more than local significance.
Erosion control authority related to highway construction is also
fragmented, with projects using federal or state aids subject to fed-
erally-approved Minnesota Department of Transportation Erosion Control
Guidelines.
Projects where counties, municipalities or townships use their
own funds, however, are subject only to local standards.
And, to further complicate matters, certain projects—most often
bridges—termed "In the Bed of Waters" fall under the auspices of the
Department of Natural Resources Erosion Control Guidelines.
In short, we have created a maze of erosion control procedures
which often leave the communities and agencies involved somewhat
confused as to who has the ultimate authority over individual projects.
In addition, by establishing no solid state guidelines, we have
also left the extent, enforcement and quality of erosion control efforts
solely up to the involved units—most often local governmental bodies.
This voluntary program of local control has not proven as effec-
tive as we might have hoped. A recent survey, for example, showed
that 54 percent of our metropolitan area municipalities do not have
-------
Willet
54
erosion and sediment control ordinances on the books, and a similar
number do not have a comprehensive stormwater control plan.
In addition, the fact that counties, municipalities, the E.Q.B.,
DNR, MM DOT and local watershed districts share authority for erosion
and sediment control has, at times, caused some confusion—confusion
that has resulted in a delay in the development of much-needed local
or state regulation.
Local authorities have also found it difficult, at times, to
enforce ordinances which could delay development activity which has
the support of the general population—despite its potential impact
on nearby surface waters. We must remember that, in most cases, that
development also has the potential to expand the local tax base.
This situation seems to call for a change in our approach to
erosion control—a change which would move us toward more centralized
administration of the erosion control programs.
Legislation has been introduced which would accomplish that goal--
calling for the development of a set of state guidelines, by the Soil
and Water Conservation Board, which would be used by local Soil and
Water Districts to formulate specific local erosion and sediment
control regulations.
That system has the advantage of ensuring consistent standards for
erosion control on a statewide basis (through the Board Guidelines),
while still allowing local Soil and Water Conservation Districts con-
siderable flexibility in developing specific rules and regulations.
I should point out that the proposed new system would not create
any additional bureaucracy, as our soil and water conservation districts
are already operating as resource management agencies in other areas.
And, I might add that several states have already adopted this manda-
tory erosion and sediment control system—with local conservation
districts as the principal administrators with a great deal of success.
There is, of course, a great deal of support for solely local
control. And, while I do support minimal state intervention in local
activity, the fact remains that one area's erosion control efforts^can
have a significant impact on neighboring communities. That fact, in
itself, seems to mandate a coordinated effort, with specific quality
guidelines.
As the legislation aimed toward improved and coordinated erosion
control develops, I also intend to work to ensure that any plan in-
cludes significant local and public input into the actual rules and
-------
Wlllet 55
regulations. I feel it is imperative that each local government
involved be guaranteed a strong voice in the development of any
regulations which would affect that community.
I should also add that any new regulations which would require
landowners to install erosion and sediment control structures—retro-
actively upgrading their erosion control efforts — should be accompanied
Fy a system of federal or state financial aids to meet those costs.
Those aids could be provided in a variety of ways ranging from low
interest loams—to grants—to tax credits, but they do seem a necessary
part of any new activity which requires "retrofitting" in relation to
erosion and sediment control.
I did note that the bill already introduced stipulates that no
landowner shall be required to install new wind, water or gully erosion
control structures "unless state, federal or local public cost-sharing
funds have been specifically approved for such land and actually made
available to the land occupiers in an amount equal to at least 75 per-
cent of the cost of any permanent conservation practice."
That clause would apply to both public and private lands on which
improved erosion control was being retroactively enforced. Although
that protection may not answer all the problems faced in applying any
new regulations, it does provide an important protection for landowners
and local units of government—and would allow additional time to
develop other aid systems, if necessary.
The bill now under consideration also calls for the establishment
of meaningful limits on soil erosion levels, as well as provide for a
workable inspection and enforcement system.
Here again, however, I would be cautious about the approval of
those portions of the proposed new system without ensuring adequate
input from the local landowners and governmental units involved.
In short, we must ensure adequate public hearings on the concept
of a more centralized erosion and sediment control system.
Those hearings would also allow us to overcome some of the
opposition to the proposal, most of which is based on a feared loss
of local control and initiative.
While that fear is genuine and must be addressed, we should point
out that any legislation approved will include provisions for local
input; and that the Soil and Water Conservation Board Guidelines are
intended to be flexible enough to allow the tailoring of local regu-
lations to meet local needs—while maintaining a consistent statewide
erosion control standard.
-------
56
wniet
Public hearings on the proposal also would provide us with a vital
opportunity to impress the severity of the problem on the general public.
While the potential threat of nuclear wastes, the expansion of the
sanitary landfill system and visible air pollution are easily impressed
upon the general public, the threat posed by urban erosion is somewhat
less visible and has not caught the public's attention.
Therefore, as I look to the legislative future of urban erosion and
sediment control, I see an increased effort first to educate the public
as to the need to address this problem and, second, to develop a system
of state guidelines for erosion and sediment control which can be
incorporated into local regulations.
Vital to any such effort, of course, will be ensuring adequate local
input into the specific rules and regulations—since local citizens and
public officials have the greatest knowledge of local difficulties and
needs.
At this point in time, the development of general guidelines by the
Soil and Water Conservation Board, coupled with more specific regulatory
action by Soil and Water Conservation Districts seems the most viable
approach to the problem.
It is also an approach I feel will be supported by landowners and
local governments across-the-state, if we take the time to present it
properly, listen to public concerns and needs and act in a manner
responsive to those local concerns.
I truly feel that our overall need for improved erosion and
sediment control is compatible with the needs of local landowners and
communities, and that we can work together to reduce the threat urban
erosion poses to our waterways.
-------
57
PRESENT URBAN EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Richard E. Highfill, P.E.
Agricultural Engineer, Engineering Division
Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Abstract: Research has shown substantial increases in stormwater runoff,
erosion, and sediment yield from untreated construction sites when compared
to previous conditions. These increases can be reduced to tolerable levels by
planning and carrying out an effective erosion control program. Developed areas
include a large proportion of impervious surfaces such as parking lots and rooftops,
which produce more runoff at higher rates unless a runoff management system
is planned and installed concurrently with the development.
Planning techniques, sequencing, and erosion control practices can reduce
erosion substantially. Sediment basins can be used to reduce sediment yield down-
stream. Runoff management systems can be used to keep the rate of runoff the
same as it was before development. The paper describes planning techniques,
conservation practices for erosion control, sediment trapping practices, and runoff
management systems including their use and effectiveness (Highfill and Kimberlin
1977).
INTRODUCTION
Erosion in urban areas amounts to 130 to 170 million tons of sediment each
year. Although this seems minor compared to cropland erosion, urban erosion
creates numerous other problems...leads to flooding and sedimentation...damage
to structures...impairment of water quality.
It is easier to solve the problem by building a solution into construction
designs rather than waiting for the damaging effects caused by construction that
doesn't consider erosion potential and excess runoff. Erosion control in urban
areas applies to (1) areas under construction; that is, erosion directly caused by
construction activities; (2) planning how to build in solutions that will be presented
by a development... (3) installing erosion and runoff controls in developed areas
where such controls had not been provided during construction.
PLANNING
There are several guidelines that should be considered in developing plans
for erosion and sediment control and runoff management (Boysen 1977). Thev
are: 3
1. Study and analyze flood hazard maps, soil survey reports, geology
reports, and other appropriate resource information and plan to overcome limitations
of the site.
2. Plan the location of structures and roads to provide for gentle slopes,
retaining the existing vegetation, as little earthmoving as possible, and leaving
the topography and soils in a condition that presents a minimal erosion hazard.
-------
58
Highfill
3. Schedule construction activities so that the smallest area of land is
exposed at any one time, the most hazardous area is exposed when extreme rainfall
is least likely to occur, and revegetation can take place at the most advantageous
time of year (Wischmeier and Smith 1978).
4. Plan to use temporary measures to reduce erosion. Preventing erosion
has many advantages over preparing means to trap sediment.
5. Plan for effective control of foot and vehicular traffic during and
after development.
6. Install permanent structures and final vegetative measures as soon
as practical during the development.
7. Plan the use of sediment basins to remove sediment from runoff water.
Provide maintenance instructions.
8. Plan for effective water disposal including runoff management systems,
subsurface drainage, and permanent water bodies for recreation and wildlife.
9. Plan for visual resource enhancement.
Technical assistance for planning is available from local soil and water
conservation districts. Many states in cooperation with the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) have developed excellent guides for controlling erosion and
sedimentation in areas planned for urban development. One of the popular ones
is "Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing
Areas," prepared by SCS in 1975 for the Maryland, Water Resources Administration
(US EPA 1973, SCS 1975a).
SCS can provide technical materials and, in some cases, assist in training
sessions (SCS 1977). Conservation districts, consulting engineers groups, state
agencies, and SCS have organized and held many training sessions for those
involved in planning and installing practices and enforcing sediment control
regulations.
EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
Planning the proper location of access roads is an important part of any
erosion control system. Roads should be planned along with other conservation
practices to provide a good route for travel and for moving equipment and supplies
and to allow access for construction, operation, and maintenance of structures
and conservation practices. Culverts should be planned and installed early to
provide good drainage without polluting runoff water.
Vegetation is the first line of defense against erosion (SCS 1970, SCS 1979).
Temporary vegetation can be used where protection is needed during delays in
construction activities or until conditions are right for permanent vegetation.
Locally adapted species and establishment procedures should be used. Permanent
vegetation should be established as soon as final grading is complete. Species
-------
H1ghf1ll
should be selected to fit soil conditions, climate, land use, mowing anticipated,
and nutrient maintenance. Soil amendments should be included and provisions
made for additional nutrients to insure a successful stand. Mulches can be used
where necessary to secure a stand of vegetation and to provide stability until
the vegetation is established.
Mulches can be used for temporary erosion control, and in some places mulches
of gravel, stone, and cement blocks may be appropriate for permanent protection.
Straw, hay, wood chips, bark, shells, hulls, stone, jute mesh, synthetic fabrics
and materials, plastic netting, and asphalt products can be used as mulching materials
(Chepil 1963, Dept. of Water Res. 197Z).
Land grading is an important factor to consider in planning for erosion control
during and after development activities. Water disposal, traffic, structures, and
stability of cut and fill slopes must be considered in making the grading plan.
Topsoil should be stockpiled for later use on graded surfaces. Provisions must
be made to conduct surface runoff to the water disposal system without causing
erosion damage. Cut and fill slopes must be stabilized to prevent slides and erosion.
Maintenance and safety requirements must be considered in setting the grades
and slopes. Berms (terraces) can be placed on steep slopes to increase slope stability,
intercept surface runoff, and break up long slopes. Diversions can be placed at
the top of cut slopes to convey runoff from other areas to stable outlets so that
it does not run down cut slopes. A diversion is a channel with a supporting ridge
on the lower side.
To reduce the erosion hazard of concentrated runoff water, a spreader can
be installed. A spreader is an outlet constructed across a slope to discharge concen-
trated runoff onto a stable vegetated area where the water spreads out and is
less erosive.
Grassed waterways are natural or constructed outlets to dispose of excess
surface runoff. A subsurface drain or stone center can be constructed in a waterway
to handle long-term low flows to insure effective grass cover.
Lined waterways can be used where vegetation would not be a satisfactory
solution. Linings are usually made of concrete, mortared stone, or riprap.
An underground outlet (storm sewer) is a conduit installed beneath the ground
surface to collect surface runoff and convey it to a suitable outlet. Inlets should
be designed with appropriate trash and animal guards so that any trash entering
will go through the conduit without plugging and so that design capacity will be
maintained. Inlets must also be vandal and child proof. Outlets must be stable
for all anticipated flow conditions.
Grade stabilization structures are used to control the grade or prevent head
cutting in natural or artificial channels. Pipe drop inlets, hooded inlets, pipe slope
drains, paved chutes or flumes, drop spillways, box inlet drop spillways, drop box
to culverts, and toe walls are common types of grade stabilization structures.
-------
60
Hfghfill
Subsurface drains (tile) intercept, collect, and convey drainage water. They
are used to improve the soil environment for plant growth by regulating the water
table and ground water flow; intercept and prevent water movement into a wet
area; relieve artesian pressures; facilitate leaching of saline and alkali soils;
remove water from around buildings, roads, airports, play areas, and other develop-
ments; and regulate water to control health hazards caused by liver flukes, flies,
or mosquitoes. Corrugated plastic, clay, and concrete are commonly used for
subsurface drains but perforated asbestos and metal pipe are also suitable. Surface
drains or open channels can be used in developed areas where the disposal of large
quantities of water is required.
Heavy-use areas can be protected by establishing appropriate vegetation,
by surfacing with suitable materials, or installing needed structures. Common
protection devices are grasses suitable for heavy traffic; gravel, asphalt, or concrete
walkways; gravel protection pads under and around playground equipment, and
hard surfacing for occasional parking areas.
SEDIMENT TRAPPING PRACTICES
Sediment transported in water can be removed if the velocity of the water
is reduced sufficiently to allow the particles to settle out (ASCE 1975). The largest
particles are easiest to get out, but the removal of very fine clays may require
months of very still water or chemical treatment. This discussion considers only
the use of vegetative filters or sediment basins to remove sediment particles.
In some cases straw bale dikes are used to trap sediment. If installed properly
they can help, but most installations I have seen in the field were not installed
properly so that very little sediment was trapped. A filter strip is an area of
vegetation for removing sediment, organic matter, and other pollutants from
surface runoff. For the filter strip to be effective, the flow must be first spread
into a thin, wide sheet so that the water goes slowly through the vegetated area
instead of running through it rapidly as a concentrated flow. Tests at Purdue
have shown that an 8-foot filter strip can trap as much as 80 percent of the fine
sediments «0.002 mm). The same tests indicate that an 8-foot filter strip is
adequate to remove most of the fine sediments when the contributing area is
no more than 80 feet wide.
Sediment basins are constructed to collect and store waterborne sediment
or debris. The basins are designed to store the anticipated volume of sediment
while maintaining the required trap efficiency (Holeman 1977). In some cases
sediment basins can be cleaned out to restore their effectiveness.
The basin must be shaped so that the inflow is hydraulically far enough from
the outlet to allow time for the sediment to settle out. Baffles can be added
for this purpose if necessary. Sediment basins are more efficient if they are
maintained full of water. If this is not practical for safety and health reasons,
the pool should be drained at a very slow rate.
-------
Highfill 61
Studies in Maryland have shown the average trapping efficiency of properly
designed sediment basins to be more than 90 percent (Davis 1978) for the normal
range of expected storms during a development period. Sediment basins can be
expected to trap about 85 percent of the incoming sediment if the water storage
is approximately 10 percent of the annual runoff from the drainage.
Sediment traps are small sediment basins used to trap sediment from small
disturbed areas (usually less than 5 acres) (Boysen 1978). These may be formed
by constructing small earth dams or digging a pit. They are usually built in con-
junction with small dikes to exclude runoff from undisturbed areas and force all
the runoff from the disturbed area through the trap. Some traps have earth outlets,
some pipe, and some rock; some are excavated below the invert of stormwater
inlets.
RUNOFF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Covering the soil with impervious surfaces such as roofs and paved parking
lots increases both the rate and volume of runoff (SCS 1975b). This increase can
cause channel erosion in the natural drainageways downstream from the developed
area. For this reason, many state and local government agencies have regulations
requiring developers to provide floodwater storage to control part of or all of
the projected increase. The required reduction in runoff is usually based on a
particular storm or from storms of a given frequency.
Runoff management systems (sometimes called stormwater management
systems) control excess runoff caused by urban development or by changes in
land use (SCS 1977). This is usually done by some type of detention structure
or infiltration device. The SCS standard calls for no increase in runoff rate due
to the 2- or 100-year frequency, 24-hour storms unless downstream increases
are compatible with an overall flood plain management plan.
Components of runoff management systems include such practices as dams,
excavated ponds, infiltration trenches, perforated parking lots, parking lot storage,
rooftop storage, and underground tanks. These components are described in detail
in the SCS standard for runoff management systems (see attachment 1).
In many cases, ponds developed for the runoff management system can be
used for recreation or for fish and wildlife habitat. It may be possible, after
construction is complete, to convert a sediment basin to a multiple-use pond for
stormwater storage and recreation. This can be done more easily if the original
design of the basin is based on these final uses. Ponds also add diversity to the
landscape and thus improve the visual resources of the area.
One study has shown that the impairment of downstream water quality begins
when 10 percent of a watershed is covered by impervious surfaces and becomes
severe when the impervious area reaches 30 percent (Klein 1979). Runoff manage-
ment systems can reduce the decline in stream quality as development takes place.
-------
62 Highfill
GENERAL
Several other aspects of urban erosion and sedimentation control are essential:
1. Sediment control must be a policy of government agencies and the
necessary ordinances must be enacted and enforced.
2. The public must be made aware of the problem to gain their support.
3. The best ordinances and practices are of little benefit unless the
practices are effectively maintained. In a study in Maryland, erosion and sediment
control practices were functioning properly on less than 50 percent of the area
studied (Fox 1975). My personal observations at numerous construction sites have
supported this finding. I believe we must do more to educate contractors, foremen,
and construction workers on the purpose of these practices. Some contractors
on heavy construction sites have been very successful in achieving effective erosion
control by educating their employees, and we should be able to do a better job
of erosion control on urban sites.
-------
63
High fill
REFERENCES
1. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1975. Sedimentation engineering.
Vito A. Vanoni, ed. ASCE MR No. 54, 745 p.
2. Boysen, Stephen M. 1977. Erosion and sediment control in urbanizing areas.
ASAE Proceedings of National Symposium, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
by Water, p. 125-136.
3. Boysen, Stephen M. 1978. Development and application of sediment basins
in Maryland. ASAE Paper No. 78-2562, 43 p.
4. Chepil, W. S., et al. 1963. Mulches for wind and water erosion control.
Sci. and Educ. Admin.-Agric. Res. ARS Paper No. 41-84, 23 p.
5. Davis, William J. 1978. Sediment basin trap efficiency study in Montgomery
County, Maryland. ASAE Paper No. 78-2564, 29 p.
6. Department of Water Resources, State of Maryland, B. C. Becker and T. R.
Mills. 1972. Guidelines for erosion and sediment control planning and
implementation. Prep, for Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-R2-72-015,
U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C., 228 p.
7. Fox, Helen. 1975. Field evaluation of erosion control: Evaluation of erosion
and sedimentation control program in Patuxent River Basin, Maryland.
ASAE Paper No. 75-2586, 16 p.
8. Highfill, Richard E., and Leon W. Kimberlin. 1977. Current soil erosion
and sediment control technology for rural and urban lands. ASAE Proceedings
of National Symposium, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation by Water, p. 14-22.
9. Holeman, J. N. 1977. Procedure for computing sheet and rill erosion on
project areas. Soil Conserv. Serv. Tech. Release No. 51, Washington, D. C., 18 p.
10. Klein, Richard D. 1979. Urbanization and stream quality impairment.
American Water Resources Association, Water Resources Bulletin 15:4,
August 1979. p. 948-963.
11. Neibling, W. H., and E. E. Alberts. 1979. Composition and yield of soil
particles transported through sod strips. ASAE Paper No. 79-2065, 12 p.
12. Soil Conservation Service. 1979 (rev. ed.) Engineering field manual for
conservation practices. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D. C., 1,081 p.
13. Soil Conservation Service. 1970. Controlling erosion on construction sites.
Agric. Inf. Bull. 347, U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C., 32 p.
14. Soil Conservation Service. 1975a. Standards and specifications for soil
erosion and sediment control in developing areas. Prep, for Maryland Water
Resources Administration, Annapolis, Maryland, 279 p.
-------
64
High fill
15. Soil Conservation Service. 1975b. Urban hydrology for small watersheds.
Soil Conserv. Serv. Tech. Rel. 55, Washington, D. C., 91 p.
16. Soil Conservation Service. 1977. National handbook of conservation practices.
Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.
17. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Processes, procedures and methods
to control pollution resulting from all construction activity. EPA 430/9-73-007,
U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C., 234 p.
18. Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses:
A guide to conservation planning. Sci. and Educ. Admin.-Agric. Res. Agric.
Handb. 537, U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C., 58 p.
-------
High fill
ATTACHMENT 1
(SCS 1977)
65
Runoff Management System 570-1
Runoff Management System (No. and
acre)
Definition
A system for controlling excess runoff caused by
construction operations at development sites,
changes in land use, or other land disturbances.
Scope
This standard applies to the planning, design, in-
stallation, operation, and maintenance of runoff
management systems, including adequate outlet
facilities and components required for adequate
management of storm runoff, as determined by site
conditions.
Purpose
Mainly to regulate the rate and amount of runoff
and sediment from development sites during and
after construction operations to minimize such
undesirable effects as flooding, erosion, and sedi-
mentation.
Conditions where practice applies
This practice applies if there is a need to control
runoff, erosion, and sedimentation to compensate
for increased peak discharges and erosion result-
ing from construction operations at development
sites or from other changes in land use. The dis-
charges may be caused by such factors as in-
creased runoff, reduced time of concentration, or
reduced natural storage.
Design criteria
Overall. A runoff management system must be
compatible with the flood plain management pro-
gram of the local jurisdiction and with local regula-
tions for controlling sediment, erosion, and runoff.
The system, a single component or a combination
of components, must properly regulate storm dis-
charges from a site to a safe, adequate outlet.
Consideration shall be given to the duration of flow
as well as to the peak discharge. Adequate ero-
sion-control measures and other water-quality
practices must be provided. The components must
be planned and designed to insure minimal impact
on visual quality and human enjoyment of the land-
scape. Structures and materials must harmonize
with surrounding areas.
The peak discharges from the 2-year and 100-
year, 24-hour storms shall be analyzed. No increase
in peak from these storms shall be allowed unless
downstream increases are compatible with the
overall flood plain management system.
Components. Components include but are not lim-
ited to dams, excavated ponds, infiltration trenches,
parking lot storage, rooftop storage, and under-
ground tanks.
Each component shall be designed according to
sound engineering principles to insure that the sys-
tem achieves its intended purposes. Design criteria
for individual components shall be based on the
following:
1. Dams shall meet the requirements specified in
40 - part 520, subpart C of the National Engineering
Manual.
2. Excavated ponds shall meet the requirements
specified for ponds (378).
3. The design of infiltration trenches shall be
based on such factors as soil permeability, soil
depth, seepage, quality of water to be temporarily
stored, foundations for adjacent buildings and
structures, drainage conditions, and vegetation.
Other considerations are:
a. Only relatively clean water shall enter the
trench to insure that oils, grease, and sediments do
not seal trench walls and bottoms and thus reduce
the effectiveness of the practice. At parking lots
and at other areas having a similar contamination
potential, filter strips; sediment traps; grease traps
or filter traps, or both, shall be installed to remove
objectionable materials from the water before it
reaches the infiltration device. A strip of close-
growing grasses at least 25 ft wide must be properly
placed and maintained to insure the effective-
ness of the trench. Water must move through the
grass as sheet flov.. If local site conditions warrant,
a wider filter strip can be used.
b. Trenches shall be located above the season-
ally high water table.
SCS, October 1978
-------
66
Highfill
570-2 Runoff Management System
c. The size of the trench shall depend on the
volume of storage required and the void ratio of
the stones in the excavation. The volume of water
infiltrating the walls and bottom of the trench dur-
ing a storm shall be assumed to be zero in calcu-
lating the required volume. The permeability rate of
the soil is used in determining the dewatering time,
which shall not exceed 5 days.
d. The soils used for installing an infiltration
trench must be well drained. If permeability of the
surrounding soils is less than about 0.6 in./h, suita-
bility of the site for an infiltration trench may not
be practicable.
e. An infiltration trench must not adversely
affect nearby foundations for buildings, roads, and
parking lots and must not impair the growth of sig-
nificant woody vegetation.
f. Stone used in the excavation must be poorly
graded and about 1 to 2 in. in size.
g. In areas where spring runoff from snowmelt
is likely to occur before the trench thaws, provi-
sions shall be made for removing the excess water.
h. Provisions shall be made to insure that salts
or other soluble pollutants entering the trench do
not contaminate local water supplies.
i. The trench bottom and the stone surface
must be level to insure adequate storage capacity
and uniform infiltration.
4. Parking lot storage areas can be used to help
control runoff from impervious paving. Most park-
ing lot storage areas include small ponding areas
that have an increased curb height and an outlet
control structure. The following factors shall be
considered in designing these areas:
a. This practice generally is used to control
runoff from areas less than 3 acres in size.
b. The parking lot design and installation
grades must insure positive flow to the storage
area. The storage area must be nearly level, but the
slope must be steep enough to facilitate drainage.
c. Trash guards must be provided to prevent
clogging of the outlet control device.
d. Generally, ponding on the parking lot must
not exceed 6 in. in areas where cars and light
trucks are to be parked or 10 in. where heavy
trucks are to be parked.
e. Emergency overflow outlets must be
provided.
f. Such auxiliary practices as porous pavement
and vegetative strips may be used in or adjacent to
parking lots to permit infiltration.
5. For rooftop storage, the following requirements
are applicable:
a. The roof shall be structurally capable of
holding detained storm water and of withstanding
the effects of high winds and snow. Requirements
for structural stability are outside the scope of this
standard and shall be determined by the building
designer.
b. An adequate number of roof drains shall be
provided.
c. Emergency overflow measures shall be
provided to prevent overloading if roof drains be-
come plugged.
d. Detention rings shall be placed around all
roof drains in areas to be used for storage. The
required number of holes or the size of openings
in the rings shall be computed on the basis of the
area of roof drainage per detention ring and the
runoff criteria.
e. Maximum time of storage on the roof shall
not exceed 24 hours.
6. The design of underground tanks shall be based
on the following criteria:
a. The tank must be structurally capable of
handling the anticipated loadings and be suited to
the soils. Requirements for structural stability are
outside the scope of this standard and must be
based on sound engineering principles.
b. The outlet from the tank shall not be less
than 5 in. in diameter. Provisions shall be made to
prevent debris from entering the tank. Debris col-
lectors shall be placed so that the need for mainte-
nance can be readily detected and cleaning opera-
tions easily performed.
c. The bottom of the tank shall be on a slight
grade to insure complete drainage of the tank.
d. Access must be provided to the tank to
permit removal of sediment and other debris.
e. The maximum time of storage shall not ex-
ceed 5 days.
Sequence of installation. Components shall be
designed and installed in a sequence that permits
each to function as intended without causing a
hazard. Single components shall not be installed
until plans for the entire runoff management sys-
tem are completed.
Safety. Appropriate safety features and devices
shall be installed to protect humans and animals
from such accidents as falling or drowning. Tempo-
rary fencing can be used until barrier plantings are
established. Such protective measures as guard-
rails and fences shall be used on spillways and
impoundments as needed.
Visual resources. Landscape architectural prac-
tices must insure that all measures are visually
compatible with the surrounding landscape.
SCS, October 1978
-------
67
High fill
Runoff Management System 570-3
Protection. A protective cover of grasses shall be nents, including outlets. It shall be prepared before
established on exposed surfaces and other dis- the system is installed and shall specify who is
turbed areas. Other protective measures, such as responsible for maintenance. Adequate rights-o(-
mulches, also can be used. Seedbed preparation, way must be provided for maintenance access.
seeding, fertilizing, and mulching shall comply with
recommendations in technical guides for the area.
Operation and maintenance. A plan of operation Plans and specifications
and maintenance shall be prepared for use by the
owner or others responsible for the system to in- Plans and specifications for runoff management
sure that each component functions properly. This systems shall be in keeping with this standard and
plan shall provide requirements for inspection, shall describe the requirements for applying the
operation, and maintenance of individual compo- practice to achieve its intended purpose.
SCS, October 1978
-------
-------
69
RETENTION BASINS FOR CONTROL OF
URBAN STORMWATER QUALITY
Roger P. Akeley, AICP
Planning Coordinator, Environmental Programs Area
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Detroit, Michigan
Background and Purpose
The initial emphasis of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments focused on point sources of pollution; most notably muni-
cipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. As the 201 faci-
lities planning program has progressed, significant reductions have been
made in the pollutant loadings originating from point sources.
An increasing awareness has been developing regarding the signifi-
cant pollutant contribution from nonpoint sources. In the heavily
developed Southeast Michigan region, urban stormwater runoff, which
washes litter, dirt, oil, salt and other pollutants into the region's
waters, is a major contributor to water quality degradation. A variety
of pollution control techniques, including source controls and on-site
storage, can be implemented to mitigate the negative effects of this
significant source of nonpoint pollution. A number of methods for the
control of urban stormwater pollution have been explored by SEMCOG,
including treatment facilities, on-site detention (with gradual release
to receiving waters), combinations of treatment and storage, and source
control programs. Source control programs include such nonstructural
mechanisms as street sweeping, street washing, and leaf and litter pick-
up programs. While all methods investigated have merit, the costs of
most alternatives are high. However, the provision of on-site detention
for water quality improvement in new developments appears to be cost-
effective.
SEMCOG has received a grant from the EPA through its Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to test and evaluate one of several "best
management practices," which appears promising in reducing urban storm-
water-associated water quality degradation in developing areas. EPA is
funding approximately 30 NURP projects nationally.
The Southeast Michigan project is evaluating the effectiveness of
stormwater retention basins for control of runoff water quality from
subdivisions and commercial/light industrial development in Oakland
County, Michigan. The hypothesis being tested is that stormwater pol-
lution control in newly developed areas can be achieved with relatively
inexpensive modifications to retention system design now used in control
of stormwater quantity. If this hypothesis proves to be correct, re-
tention systems could be regarded as an integral part of the developmental
process, rather than as a last resort to be used only when there is
insufficient pipe or channel capacity to receive increased stormwater
quantity.
-------
70
Akeley
Retention systems are used in Michigan as the result of two state
laws. The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act (MA 347) requires
developers to obtain a sedimentation control permit from local enforce-
ment agencies before beginning construction. A cutaway view of a sedi-
ment basin is depicted in Figure 1. Sediment basins are typically
proposed for projects requiring substantial earth moving activity. These
basins may be removed once the site has been fully stabilized. However,
many of them are retained as permanent stormwater retention basins.
Figure I
Typical Detention Basin Outlet Designs
for Suspended Solids Removal
Siandpip*
(Top el«v*tion determined
by maximum stored value)
'=iir^m/7=/7/
The Subdivision Control Act (MA 288), as amended, requires local
review of subdivision plats to insure adequate storm runoff control. On-
site storage is required when the natural or constructed stormwater
conveyance system is judged to be inadequate to handle increased flows.
Whenever lakes and streams prove to have adequate capacity to re-
ceive additional stormwater runoff, usually determined by calculating a
10-year storm capacity, stormwater outlets can discharge directly into
receiving waters. Thus, there is no opportunity for the settling of
suspended solids and associated pollutants.
Even when retention is currently required, basin design usually
fails to maximize the potential for settling of pollutants. Often the
inlet and outlets are in close proximity, so that basin discharge from
small rainfall events occurs rather directly. Outlets, while sized
smaller than inlets, are typically of the same elevation, again result-
-------
71
Akeley
ing in immediate discharge of small events. Many basins have no under-
drains to promote infiltration. Also sediment control filters are
removed for ease of maintenance, once Act 347 requirements have been met.
In sum, retention basins appear to be both underutilized and under-
designed in Michigan for purposes of comprehensive stormwater quality
management. For newly developing areas, retention basins may be the
most cost-effective way of ameliorating the negative impact of urban
stormwater pollution. This cost-effectiveness must first be established
if stormwater retention is to be utilized in a comprehensive preventive
stormwater management system. The project conceived to establish this
relationship is presented below.
Study Design
A two year sampling program has been initiated to test the effec-
tiveness of retention basins. At least three residential and three
commercial/light industrial catchments will be sampled during this time.
Runoff in each basin will originate only from a single land use category.
Sites are from three to fifty acres in size.
Figure 2 shows a residential retention system that has a wide, shallow
basin where the sediment filter has been retained beyond the subdivision
development period. The individual is standing on a berm next to the
overflow channel. This retention area is used for recreation during dry
periods.
Figure 2
Sediment Control Filter in an Oakland County
Retention Area (Residential)
-------
72
Akeley
Figure 3 exemplifies a retention basin designed to handle 10-year
storm frequency requirements in a minimum amount of space. It is tucked
away in the corner of a fast food parking lot. Commercial and industrial
sites are required to retain water on-site in areas where pipe and
channel capacity are insufficient.
Figure 3
Retention Basin to Accommodate
Drainage from a Fast Food Parking Lot
Sites have been chosen in close proximity within Oakland County to
help control for variability in rainfall. Land use categories are
repeated in triplicate to help verify results and to permit control of
modifications that will be made to basins during the project period.
A minimum of twelve rainfall and snowmelt events is being sampled
for each site over the two year period. Automated samples and flow
recording devices will be installed at the inlet and outlet of each
retention basin in the Spring of 1980.
In order to monitor the performance of the retention basins in
pollutant removal, a number of features will be assessed. These include:
(1) snowmelt runoff quality, (2) rain runoff quality, (3) quality and
quantity of discharge, (4) precipitation intensities and accumulations
at 10-15 minute intervals, (5) particle size distribution of solids in
influent and effluent of the basins, and (6) the quality of the residual
materials removed in the basin. The program will use flow proportional
-------
73
Akeley
composite sampling (intervals of equal discharge) to reduce analytical
laboratory costs.
Rain events of various characteristics will be selected. Since most
(80 percent) of storm events in an average year have total accumulations
of 0.45 inch or less, particular attention will be given to monitoring
the performance of the sites under these high intensity, short duration
conditions.
The loadings of pollutants to and from the devices at each site
will be calculated. The efficiency of each of the controls for any
storm event will be evaluated as:
total influent loadpj - effluent loadpi
total influent loadpi
Where the total influent load for any pollutant (pi) is the load
from one or more stormsewers tributary to the device, and the effluent
load is that which enters the receiving water from the device.
The efficiencies of each device will also be evaluated with respect
to precipitation patterns recorded at the sites. Hydrographs will be
analyzed along with observations of conditions by field personnel.
In keeping with the project hypothesis that only inexpensive
design modifications are necessary to convert existing stormwater re-
tention systems into effective stormwater quality control devices, modi-
fications similar to those presented in Table 1 will be considered for
basins which currently don't have them.
Table 1
Possible Modifications to Existing
Stormwater Retention Systems for
Improvement in Stormwater Quality
• add gravel or cement for stabilization
• install baffle by inlet to reduce turbulence
• install barrier to compartmentalize basins
• increase infiltration capacity of basin banks or floor
• retain and maintain the sediment control filter after construction
• raise height of outlet pipe
• lengthen low flow conveyance distance between inlet and outlet pipes
• harvest and dispose of vegetation
With the exception of stabilization and vegetation harvesting, these
modifications all work to increase the potential for settling of pollu-
tants. The settling of suspended solids will be associated to some
extent by a settling of nutrient and toxic materials. Ultimately, re-
moval by settling requires an ongoing maintenance program, wherein
accumulated material must be transported to an approved site. The costs
-------
74
Akeley
and management requirements of such a maintenance program are being
evaluated in the SEMCOG project.
SEMCOG's assessment is considering several factors related to the
feasibility of utilizing stormwater quality retention basins:
1. Basin cleanout and disposal requirements
2. Safety and liability
3. Mosquito control
4. Responsibility for maintenance
5. Weed harvesting requirements
6. Filter maintenance
7. Vandalism
8. Legal aid cost
Thus, a detailed management performance analysis is accompanying the
basin performance study. Both will provide substance to a guidebook for
use by review officials and developers in planning for stormwater quality
control in developing areas.
Indications of Effectiveness in Pollution Control
Early sampling results from another stormwater project (NURP) in
Southeast Michigan are encouraging with respect to the effectiveness of
a preventive retention approach to management of urban stormwater quality.
The Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner has been studying several urban
drains in Ann Arbor to determine the characteristics of urban runoff,
both before and after it enters retention basins. This project differs
from the Oakland County project in several respects:
• It involves wet basins rather than dry basins (ones designed
to dewater after a storm event);
. It considers a mixture of urban and rural land uses in the
test basins;
• It encompasses very large drainage areas, and;
. It concentrates on the effectiveness of an existing urban system,
rather than exploring the impact of design modifications to small
decentralized systems.
The work is, however, a useful indicator of the potential for re-
tention systems to control pollution originating from urban watersheds.
Early results in Washtenaw County help to document the extent of urban
stormwater pollution in Southeast Michigan. Table 2 compares loadings
from a major snowmelt event to equivalent loadings that would originate
from Ann Arbor's wastewater treatment plant. While this table does not
speak to the assimilative capacity of the Huron River, it does show a
signification loading rate for suspended solids and biochemical oxgen
demand when compared to the normal operations of the treatment plant.
-------
75
Akeley
Table 2
Loadings of Selected Pollutants
During Snowmelt Event, February 23, 1979
Ann Arbor, Michigan
TSS
TKN
Nitrate
T-P
BODt;
Total Loading
for 5 Drains
114,400
2,000
1,181
242
15,500
Ann Arbor
Treatment Plant
Discharge Ibs/day*
1,670
830
1,670
230
1,000
Equivalent Days of
Treatment Plant Discharge
Equal to 24 Hours
Runoff Event**
68
2.4
.7
1.1
15.5
Note: Drain loadings are based on flow proportional composite samples and
represent approximately 24 hours of discharge for this event (i.e.
flow from melt occurred for approximately 24 hours before returning
to base flow conditions).
* Assumes treatment plant flow of 20 HGD and effluent meeting tertiary
plant standards.
** Number of days of treatment plant flow which would discharge the equi-
valent load measured during the 24 hour discharge from the storm drains.
Source: ENCOTEC, Inc. through Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office
Table 3 indicates that, during this sane event, a large percentage
of suspended solids and nutrients were retained in Geddes Pond. The
snowmelt removal rate of solids and phosphorus is especially interesting
when compared to the removal percentages during a large summer storm.
Solids associated with the snowmelt appear to be much coarser, perhaps caused
by the grit that accumulates from winter road care activity. The
coarser materials are more susceptible to settling.
Table 3
Capacity of Retention System to Remove Solids and Nutrients
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Percent Removal
Drainage Situation
Geddes Pond
Total
Suspended
Solids
89
Total
Phosphorus
63
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
15
February 22-26, 1979
(snowmelt)
Pittsfield Retention Area
June 30 to July 6, 1979
(Total rainfall 2.9 inches) 44 25 22
Source: ENCOTEC, Inc. through Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office.
Table 3 also demonstrates the relationship between phosphorus and
suspended solids. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen acts independently, influenced
largely by variation in basin characteristics. The data do indicate, how-
ever, that nitrogen levels are reduced through retention.
Heavy metals are also susceptible to treatment through retention.
Removal percentages for the metals in Table 4 range from 6 to 89 percent.
-------
76
Akeley
Table 4
Capacity of Retention Systems to Remove Metals
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Percent Removal
Drainage Situation
Geddes Pond
February 22-26, 1979
Plttsfield Retention Area
June 30 to July 6, 1979
Zinc
49
12
Ch romi urn
6
32
Cadmium
89
33
Copper
58
33
Nickel
61
36
Source: ENCOTEC, Inc. through Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office
Passive stormwater treatment systems deal with the insoluble portion
of pollutants. The Washtenaw County work presents statistics on the
insoluble fraction of four pollutants. The table shows considerable
variability for each pollutant. However, even nitrogen is at times char-
acterized by a large insoluble fraction.
Table 5
Insoluble Fraction of Selected Pollutants
Washtenaw County, Michigan
Snow Melt Survey, February, 1979 (Drain Outlets)
% Insoluble of Pollutant Load
Allen Drain
Ann Arbor Plttsfield
Traver Drain
Swift Run Drain
North Campus Drain
TKN
23
20
40
13
29
T-P
75
84
68
76
90
T - 1 ron
99
99
99
97
98
T-Lead
93
98
96
97
Summer Storm - Ann Arbor-Pittsfield Retention Basin
I Insoluble*
TKN T-P T-Iron T-Lead
North Arm
South Arm
Retention
Inlet
Inlet
Basin
Outlet
58
35
38
' 80
81
64
>97
78
94
>97
>95
>95
* These values are flow weighted summary of samples for the
entire event/runoff period.
Source: ENCOTEC, Inc. through Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office
Particle sizes are also an important factor in the effectiveness of
retention systems. Table 6 shows that particles sizes will vary due to
basin characteristics and to storm characteristics. The design implica-
tions of this variance must still be determined.
-------
Akeley
Table 6
Particle Size Distribution For Selected Samples
June 30 - July 6 Retention Basin Survey
Washtenaw County, Michigan
Micron Size Dlstr. I By Weight
South Arm Inlet
North Arm Inlet
Outlet
>60
10-60
<10
• >60
10-60
<10
>60
10-60
<10
Sample 1
28
54
18
13
67
20
10
20
70
Sample 2
21
32
47
21
50
29
26
34
40
Sample 3
_.„
29
71
29
43
28
14
29
57
Note: Samples correspond to initial phase of the event (#1), major portion
of hydrograph, I.E. runoff (#2), and the tail of the event.
Sizing determined by pipet withdrawal technique, resulting in velocity
settling data, size ranges determined by Stokes Law assuming a Spec.
gravity of 2.65.
Source: ENCOTEC, Inc. through Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office.
Summary
SEMCOG estimates that it would cost $100,000,000, or $200 per house-
hold, to implement a mandatory stormwater quality retention system in
Southeast Michigan through 2000. Ongoing maintenance requirements re-
present an additional expense. Before such expenditures are required,
they must be substantiated.
SEMCOG currently encourages careful design of retention basins,
regardless of available drainage capacity, based on evidence presented in
the literature and on the current work being performed by the Washtenaw
County Drain Commissioner's Office.
In two years, SEMCOG expects to have reliable data to determine the
cost-effectiveness of a decentralized stormwater quality control system
that is built into the developmental process. The NURP grant will enable
SEMCOG to make repeated water quality tests of retention basin performance,
in sufficient detail to learn of the impact of design modifications.
Currently, maintenance requirements on retention systems for dry
basins are minimal, since the basins are used primarily for temporary
water storage. However, maintenance requirements may prove to be the
primary determinant in the feasibility of initiating a comprehensive
retention control program for water quality.
Final effectiveness of retention systems must be measured in terms
of water quality goals for the region's lakes and streams. Toward meeting
the fishable and swimmable water quality goals of PL 92-500, SEMCOG has
-------
78
Akeley
identified several urban stormwater problem areas. SEMCOG will calculate
the cumulative influence of retention system use, based on population
projections, compared to the status quo. Total costs divided by total
pounds of pollutants removed will provide a unit cost for using retention
basins for water quality control in newly developed areas.
-------
79
WETLANDS FOR THE CONTROL OF URBAN STORMWATER
Eugene A. Hickok
E. A. Hickok and Associates
Wayzata, Minnesota
INTRODUCTION
This paper will consist of two major areas of interest. The
first area is a review of a research project performed to
evaluate and assess urban runoff treatment methods using non-
structural wetland treatment techniques. The results of this
research have been published by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as "Urban Runoff Treatment Methods -
Volume I, Non-Structural Wetland Treatment."
The second area will be to show examples of the application
of the technology gained from the research. Three projects
that have been designed and constructed will be addressed.
BACKGROUND
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, organized in 1967, had
as one of its primary objectives, the preservation of the water
quality and water resources of the district.
The district is a natural watershed basin encompassing the area
that drains into the Lake Minnetonka-Minnehaha Creek system.
The largest and most prominent feature is Lake Minnetonka, whose
19 square miles of water make it the 10th largest lake in the
state of Minnesota. From the lake's eastern edge at Grays Bay,
Minnehaha Creek emerges to flow 22 miles in an easterly direction
to the Mississippi River. Overall, the district encompasses 184
square miles on the western edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan
area. Its major dimensions are 20 miles east-west by 15 miles
north-south. There are 35 seperate units of government and
dozens of other public and private bodies within the watershed
district, with which the managers of the district maintain close
working relationships.
Urban growth has generated water quality problems in many of the
lakes and has caused the district to look for methods to improve
the water quality of these lakes. A program of diverting effluent
from the seven treatment plants that discharged to Lake Minnetonka
was encouraged by the district as one means of improving water
quality. Once the sewage was diverted stormwater runoff was
identified as the major pollutant source to the lake.
Several communities within the district felt that wetlands play
an important role in the lake ecosystem and these communities
encouraged the development of hard data with which to evaluate
wetlands scientifically. It has become apparent that wetlands
could be a practical method to control stormwater runoff from a
hffi6^ 0f.^loPme"ts a** drainage areas. Indeed, wetlands have
been identified as having a certain capacity for the renovation of
-------
80 Hickok
polluted waters.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District applied for a U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency grant to study the effectiveness
of various methods of treating stormwater. The EPA offered a
grant to the district and authorized it to proceed with the
wetland studies. The district's consulting engineers and hydrol-
ogists, E. A. Hickok and Associates of Wayzata, Minnesota were
retained to provide the necessary professional expertise for
the project.
The site chosen for the study was a 7-acre wetland with a 70-acre
watershed (shown on Figure 1). This 10 to 1 ratio of land
surface to water surface is typical of many lakes and marshes in
the region.
Appropriate instrumentation was installed in the wetland during
the summer of 1974 and data collection continued through November
1975. The basic objectives of the project were to seek definitive
answers to the following questions:
1. What role do wetlands play in the watershed's
hydrologic cycle?
2. What is the character of runoff entering the
wetlands?
3. What impact does runoff have on the wetlands?
4. What impact do the wetlands have on the quality
of discharge water?
The general plan of study was to monitor all of the flows into
and out of the wetland so as to develop a hydrologic balance.
The quality of all the influent and effluent streams of the
wetland was monitored and nutrient balances were developed.
In addition, the internal transformations and biolgical activity
in the wetlands were monitored during the project, and an
environmental inventory of wildlife and vegetation was taken
before and after the project.
THE PROJECT
The hydrologic cycle of any site is a complex series of inter-
actions of water with plants, soil, and the atomosphere. The
hydrologic cycle of the wetland study site is shown on Figure 2.
The sources of water to the wetland are direct precipitation,
surface runoff, and groundwater inflow. All of these influent
sources were monitored as well as the surface outflow from
the wetland and evapotranspiration.
The direct watershed of the wetland was subdivided into five
drainage groups, based upon similar land use characteristics.
A total of 13 subwatersheds comprised the five groups. Drainage
-------
Hickok
81
WATERSHED
BOUNDA
WAYZATA
WETLAND
LAKE
MINNETONKA
Figure 1. Location Map - Wayzata Wetland
-------
oo
ro
evapotranspiration
evaporation
US. 12 „—overland f»ow
water table
o •>
:r
o
o
artesian aquifer
Figure 2 Hydrologic Cycle
-------
Hickok
83
group I included areas that were typically undeveloped or had
single family homes on large lots. Drainage group II consisted
of single family homes on small lots. Drainage group III
included areas occupied by small businesses located along a major
traffice corridor. Drainage group IV included a major shopping
center and runoff from major traffic corridors. Drainage group
V included the wetland itself.
A wetland can be defined as land where the water table is at,
near, or above the land surface long enough each year to
promote the formation of hydric soils and to support the growth
of hydrophytes, assuming other environmental conditions are
favorable. From this definition it can be seen that ground-
water is the most important physical factor in a wetland.
The wetlands instrumentation included five parshall flumes with
automatic water samplers for monitoring surface runoff and out-
flow, thirteen groundwater observation wells and a complete
weather station.
RESULTS
The water balance of the wetland for this study is shown in
Table 1, below.
TABLE 1
WAYZATA WETLAND WATER BALANCE
GAINS (ac-ft)
Direct Precipitation
Surface Runoff
Goundwater Inflow
54.9
LOSSES (ac-ft)
Evapotranspiration
Surface Outflow
58.6
NET (ac-ft)
DECREASE IN WETLAND STORAGE 3.7
The water balance shows that during the study period, the
wetland storage was decreased by 3.7 ac-ft of water.
-------
84
Hickok
Phosphorus is the principle nutrient that degrades surface
water in the Twin Cities Area. The phosphorus loading by
drainage groups is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
PHOSPHORUS GENERATION BY LAND USE
Drainage
Group
Phosphorus
Concentration
(mq/1)
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
Phosphorus
Load
(Ib/ac/yr)
Single Family
Large Lots
II
Single Family
Small Lots
2.2
2.4
0.37
0.73
0.30
0.42
0.6
0.9
III
Strip Development
Traffic Corridors 2.0
0.22
0.22
0.6
IV
Shopping Center
1.9
0.09
0.25
2.1
The phosphorus concentrations for three seasons are shown in the
first three columns and the annual phosphorus loadings are shown
in the fourth column. It should be noted that the drainage
group with the lowest concentration has the highest annual loading
because of the greater total volume or runoff.
Table 3 shows the gains and losses for the wetland of phosphorus.
A total of 134.7 Ib/yr of phosphorus entered the wetland, of which
104.1 Ib/yr was retained within the wetland. Therefore, 77 percent
of the phosphorus that entered the wetland was retained.
TABLE 3
WAYZATA WETLAND PHOSPHORUS BALANCE
GAINS (Ib/yr)
Precipitation
Runoff
Groundwater
LOSSES (Ib/yr)
Outflow
NET (Ib/yr)
RETAINED IN WETLAND
30.6
104.1
-------
DISCUSSION
85
Hlckok
Four mechanisms are at work in the wetland system. These are
physical entrapment, microbial utilization, plant uptake, and
adsorption. Physical entrapment is an apparent reality in
that 94 percent of the total suspended solids discharged to the
wetland were retained. Following entrapment, nutrients are
held in fibrous organic soil until the microbial utilization
mechanism becomes operative.
Data developed by this project may be used to determine the
pollutant loading generated by certain land use types and to
determine the approximate wetland area required in a non-
structural mode to renovate the stormwater runoff.
Table 4 shows the ratio by land use categories of developed
area to the required treatment area. The table is based on
the loading of phosphorus found during the project; however,
other constraints could be applied and the results would be
modified appropriately. Such constraints include allowable
effluent concentration of a given parameter, the physical,
microbiological, and chemical characteristics of the treatment
area, and the hydrologic setting of the system.
TABLE 4
TYPICAL LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL
RUNOFF TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Ratio of Developed Area to
Drainage Group Wetland Treatment Area
I - Single Family,
Large Lots 5:1
II - Single Family,
Small Lots 3:1
III - Strip Development
Traffic Corridor 5:1
IV - Shopping Center 1:1
(1) Using allowable loading rate of 2.9 Ib/ac/yr of phosphorus.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Wetlands are a complex hydological, chemical, and bio-
logical system with each factor having impacts on the
others.
-------
86
Hickok
2. The mechanism for the renovation of stormwater by wetlands
appears to be a combination of physical entrapment, micro-
bial transformation, and biological utilization.
3. The tributary phosphorus loading ranged from 0.6 Ibs/ac/yr
to 2.1 Ibs/ac/yr from the undeveloped and single family
drainage group to the shopping center drainage group,
respectively.
4. The Wayzata wetland retained 77 percent of all total
phosphorus and 94 percent of the total suspended solids
entering the site during the study period.
5. The water level management technique, where effective,
did appreciably increase the surface microbial activity.
6. Microbial activity decreased dramatically when wetland
soils were submerged and became anerobic.
7. The biological assessments detected no adverse environmental
impacts on the wildlife or vegetation within the wetland
as a result of this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A general policy of wetland preservation for phosphorus
removal with non-structural treatment methods should be
adopted.
2. The drainage from selected wetlands should be managed
and be aerated before discharge to receiving waters.
3. Careful consideration must be given to the distribution
of stormwater to wetlands.
APPLICATION OF WETLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS TO CONTROL URBAN
RUNOFF
Three projects will be discussed in the following paragraphs,
describing the application of the techniques developed in the
previously discussed research.
During the initial planning phases of a new major regional
shopping center, the environmental factors became a prime
consideration. It was decided that facilities must be
incorporated within the design of the development to reduce
and control the impact of stormwater runoff. A report defining
-------
Hlckok 87
the hydrologic conditions of the site before and after the
development was prepared and the required removal rates were
determined so as not to impact the receiving waters. The
drainage basin includes 112 acres of land, 88 acres of marsh,
and 40 acres of open water. The shopping center occupies 85
acres of this land. The net effect of the development on the
site was to increase the total stormwater runoff from 150
acre-feet per year to 368 acre-feet per year. It was estimated
that over 70,000 pounds of suspended soils and 9,000 pounds
of oil must be removed annually to maintain the present quality
of the lake water.
Two stormwater holding ponds were designed and included in the
original grading plan. These facilities were used during
construction to store and settle stormwater runoff before
discharge to the adjacent marsh and lake. The settled water
was discharged through rock filter beds to remove suspended
solids and silt. The granular material on the parking area
was left a few inches above grade near the catch basins to
prevent rapid runoff and erosion before the areas were paved.
The design objectives used to select a system and facilities
included: (1) minimize the impact of the shopping center on
the natural environment; (2) contribute only minimal increase to
offsite discharge rate; (3) incorporate a water body with
aesthetic appeal; (4) stabilize stream flows; (5) reduce flooding
possibilities; (6) minimize erosion and siltation problems; and
(7) utilize on-site drainage and storage capacity.
A baffled inlet control structure was utilized that captured the
fioating debris and grit before discharge to the holding pond.
Belt type oil removal units were used at the outlet structures
to remove any oil that had accumulated in the holding pond.
One of the treatment areas was an intermittent pond with some
peripheral wetland areas. Although the water elevation has been
increased somewhat and fluctuates more widely than in the
natural conditions, the site is aesthetically pleasant and the
water quality meets the conditions of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.
The second project utilizing technology gained in the research
was the construction of a biologically activated soil filtration
unit to filter phosphorus from the hypolimnetic bottom water
of Wirth Lake in Minneapolis. A 3,600 square foot filtration
unit with organic soil filter media was constructed. A filtra-
tion rate of 650 gallons per minute is being used to filter
phosphorus and suspended solids from the hypolimnetic water. The
unit was sized to be capable of filtering approximately one volume
of the lake on an annual basis. The filtration unit has been
planted with natural vegetation to enhance the aesthetic value
of the unit as well as improve the nutrient renovative capacity
of the organic soils. This system was installed during the
summer of 1977.
-------
Hickok
The third project concerned a 225-acre watershed located at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, which drained uncontrolled to
a lake within the airport property. A facility was designed
and constructed that included a 50,000 gallon oil retention
basin and a 6-acre wetland treatment area. A filter dike
permitting an unattended drawdown of the treated stormwater
was constructed on the outlet of the wetland. This facility
has been in operation since the fall of 1977.
-------
89
STREAM RESTORATION: PHILOSOPHY AMD IMPLEMENTATION
Nelson R. Nunnally, Ph. D.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences
Charlotte, North Carolina
Introduction
Urbanization causes change in fluvial systems. Construction activi-
ties increase sediment discharge, change infiltration rates, and im-
prove drainage efficiencies by constructing storm sewers and simplify-
ing the drainage network. The main result of all these changes is a
quicker response system with higher peak discharges, greater runoff
columes, and increased frequencies of high discharges.
Leopold, Hammer, Monisawa and others have examined the effects of
these altered discharge regimes on stream morphology. Initially, the
increased sediment discharge produces bank deposition that increases the
stream depth, but the long-term impact of increased discharges is great-
er bank erosion and streambed deposition which leads in an increase in
width-depth ratios.
Streams in Charlotte, North Carolina had reached the point where
bank erosion and streambed deposition had caused logjams and localized
flooding problems of a magnitude sufficient to arouse concern among citi-
zens and public officials.
Though there was pressure to channelize the streams, outright
channelization was rejected as a solution because of the known impacts
on fluvial systems and upon fish and animal habitats and cost. In addi-
tion, streams which have been straightened are notoriously unstable and
have severe bank erosion problems.
In recent years there has emerged a philosophy for working with,
rather than against, nature. The decision to improve streams in
Mecklenburg County offered an opportunity to test some ideas for incor-
porating natural fluvial processes into channel design, and the term
stream restoration was chosen to differentiate the process from usual
channelization programs.
Stream restoration can be defined as a process for designing, con-
structing, and maintaining channels which restores the equilibrium con-
ditions found in undisturbed natural channels while improving channel
efficiency. The central theme in restoration is to try to preserve
natural stream morphology wherever possible, and where change is essen-
tial, to try to design channels with morphological characteristics simi-
lar to those of natural channels. Thus channel straightening and changes
in gradient should be avoided, and there should be minimal disturbance
-------
90
Nunnally
of the channel bed and banks, except where necessary to reduce erosion
problems.
Implementation of the restoration concept involves three distinct
phases—design, construction, and maintenance—each of which is import-
ant to the success of a program. This paper presents some alternatives
to traditional procedures for designing alluvial channels.
Channel Design
None of the three traditional approaches to the design of stable
channels is satisfactory for use in urban areas because of the wide,
shallow channels that result from their application (Table 1). Alternate
design procedures derived from fluvial relationships under equilibrium
conditions were developed to size streams that drain urban watersheds.
Table 1
Comparison of Briar Creek Channel Dimensions
as Calculated by Alternative Methods
Depth (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft^)
Existing channel
Critical velocity
Regime
Tractive force
Recommended procedure
.2
,6
,1
,4
.2
11
419
41.5
818
10.4
81.2
252.5
206.1
327.6
110.0
.0018
.0018
.0018
.0018
.0018
'2.0
= 505
It is important to note that there is a substantial difference be-
tween equilibrium, as used here, and stability, as defined in the engi-
neering literature. Equilibrium is defined as a dynamic balance among
the components of a fluvial system that can be expressed mathematically
as a set of relations among the statistical means of the components. If
an existing equilibrium is disturbed and that disturbance, over time, re-
sults in a new equilibrium, then the old relationships would no longer
apply and a new set would be required to describe the new equilibrium.
A channel in equilibrium can undergo changes in channel location so long
as the relationships among water and sediment discharge and channel mor-
phology remain unchanged. A stable channel, on the other hand, is a
special case of equilibrium in which channel location remains constant.
Lane (1955) defined a stable channel as "an unlined earth channel that
transports water and sediment without objectionable scour of banks and
bed, and within which sediment does not accumulate to any significant
degree." Under relatively constant environmental conditions any allu-
vial channel will evolve toward an equilibrium condition, but few, if
any, natural channels which carry unsteady, non-uniform flow can be des-
cribed as truly stable.
-------
91
Nunnally
One of the major tenants of restoration is to design channels which
are in equilibrium with existing or expected environmental conditions,
and this means producing a channel adjusted to the discharge that it is
expected to convey. Wolman and Miller (1960) have presented convincing
arguments that the dominant channel forming flow is the bankfull event
which has a recurrence interval of from 1.5 to two years based on the
annual series. For this reason the two-year return interval discharge
was selected as the design discharge for the restoration work on
Charlotte streams.
Research has shown that bankfull discharge is closely related to
drainage area. Because drainage area is easily calculated from maps or
photos these relationships can provide a useful basis for design, even
though there is considerable variability among basins. It would be un-
realistic to expect all channels so designed to be in equilibrium be-
cause of variability in land use, soil types, and other factors. Never-
theless, most channels should be near the regression line unless they
carry unexpectedly large discharges from watersheds which have undergone
sufficient land use changes to invalidate the expected relationships be-
tween bankfull discharge and channel size. The problem of design is
more complicated where such land use conversions and other disturbances
have triggered changes which upset equilibrium in the system. Under
these conditions it is useless to measure existing relationships among
fluvial components with the intention of using them as a basis of design
because they are in a state of flux.
Two things can be concluded from the studies of urbanization. First
there is clearly a lag between land use changes and channel enlargement.
The studies indicate a lag time of between 7 and 15 years, during which
period the channel area may actually decrease due to sedimentation.
Second, as the watershed becomes developed and construction ceases the
sediment supply is dramatically decreased, but the frequency of bankfull
flows is significantly increased, causing rapid bank erosion and channel
enlargement.
Two basic issues need to be resolved. How much enlargement even-
tually occurs as a result of land use changes, and how long does it take
a stream to re-establish equilibrium? Hammer (1972) addressed the first
problem using a sample of small stream basins from the Pennsylvania pied-
mont. He found that the impact varied considerably for different land
uses as can be seen in Table 2. When Hammer fit a regression line re-
lating channel cross-sectional areas and drainage area for rural
Pennsylvania streams his results were the same as the line which Dunne
and Leopold calculated for the eastern United States. Hammer found that
channels in urban and urbanizing areas had consistently larger cross-
sectional areas. The ratios of actual cross-sectional area to expected
cross-sectional area, which he called the enlargement ratio, were as
high as 3.8, but most urban basins lay between 1 and 2.
Hammer was able to explain basin enlargement with a multiple
-------
92
Nunnally
regression equation that incorporated land use variables, an interaction
variable, and two watershed parameters. His results, shown in Table 2
can be used, along with his equation to estimate the appropriate channel
cross-section for a given projected mix of land uses in an urbanizing
basin or for the existing mix of land uses in a fully developed basin.
The major problem in using this approach is the effort required to
measure land use, calculate the interaction variable, and determine the
soil drainage index.
An alternative procedure which avoids these problems would be to
use the enlargement ratios in Table 2 as multipliers for the correspond-
ing percentages of the basin presently occupied or anticipated for each
of the uses. This approach would produce a slightly over-designed
channel because the negative effects of the soil drainage index and the
watershed shape index are not included. It is this latter approach that
is used as one of the design alternatives for sizing the channels for the
Mecklenburg Restoration Project.
There are less accurate, but quicker, ways to use Hammer's findings
to size channels. We took Hammer's data for urbanized basins and re-
gressed channel cross sectional ar-:a against drainage area (Figure l).
The slope indicated that the effect of urbanization on channel enlarge-
ment decreases with basin size. One would expect this since the high
discharges of localized storms would be "dampened out" on progressively
higher order streams. The major problem in using this relationship as a
basis for design is that it represents "average conditions." In the long
run one would expect half the channels to be undersized. The effect
could be especially serious in watersheds of one square mile or less
where a major portion of the land eventually could be developed as resi-
dential or other uses that dramatically increase impervious area.
The channel enlargement effects found by Hammer are consistent with
the increase in bankfull discharge frequency reported by Leopold (Hammer,
1971). Thus, it is possible to use the new discharge regimes that
accompany urbanization as a basis for channel design. In Charlotte, the
U.S. Geological Survey has mapped the expected extent of flood plains
using projected land use development. The Step-Backwater program em-
ployed in this mapping project uses a simulated annual discharge series
that allows any given return interval discharge to be estimated. Since
the relationship between discharge and channel area has been well estab-
lished, the expected discharge, based on anticipated basin development,
can be used to size the channel.
Once a basin has been fully urbanized, and a sufficient period of
time has elapsed to establish a new equilibrium, then there should be no
need to enlarge a channel further. At the present time, however, there^
is little agreement as to the period of time necessary to recover equili-
brium. Estimates range from a "half-life" of 17 years for headward ero-
sion (which means that half the eventual adjustment occurs during that
period) (Graf, 1977) to estimates of a few years required to restore
-------
Nunnally
Results of Hammer's Channel Enlargement Study
Table 2
93
Independent
Variable
Regression
Coefficient
Enlargement Ratio
for Land Uses
Land in cultivation
Wooded land
Land in golf courses
Houses more than 4 years old
fronting sewered streets
Sewered streets more than
4 years old
Impervious areas more than
4 years old
Nonimpervious developed land
plus impervious area less
than 4 years old; unsewered
streets and houses
Interaction variable: average
slope of flow path to
watershed mouth
Watershed shape index
Soil drainage index
Constant term
0.3896
-0.1518
1.6416
0.8291
3.2499
3.7855
0.1870
0.2966
-0.1990
-0.1072
0.9025
1.29
0.75
2.54
2.19
5.95
6.79
1.08
Multiple R2 = 0.9813.
Hammer 1972
Figure 1
Relationship Between Cross-Sectional Area and Drainage Area
Channel Cross-sectional area (square fee
M 01 O C
0 0 0 C
•P
^
•
•
A = 51.2 D/4
*' N
• -^f-'
• ^<< .•• .•
• ^'^ . : % o><
^. ... . Jr^
• .^x^
• oX^
S^\° Xl = 24.5£>.66
— i — i — i — r—
:''-?
:JX^
0
-
w .712 51
• urban basins
o rural basins
D
Drainage area (square miles)
-------
94 Nunnally
equilibrium in small headwater streams after implementing a stormwater
detention program.!
Recommended Procedure for Sizing Channels
Because of the uncertainty about the length of time required for the
recovery of equilibrium, the suggested procedure for sizing channels in
urban areas is to use the larger of (a) the existing channel area, or (b)
the largest estimate of required area based on the following:
1) Use the equation relating cross-sectional area to discharge from
Figure 1 .
>
(Substitute Q2 Q for Q] 5 as a safety factor)
2) Use the relationship for urban basins in Figure 2 to calculate
the expected channel size, given the drainage area.
A=51.2DA'44 (2)
3) Use Hammer's multiple regression results and expected land use
patterns to calculate the enlargement ratio (R = .75 (percent
wooded) + 2.54 (percent golfcourses) + 2.19 (percent houses^
4 years) + 5.95 (percent sewered streets >• 4 years) (3)
+ 6.79 (percent other impervious area) + .9 (percent open)).
Multiply the expected cross-sectional area based on drainage
area by R to get anticipated equilibrium size (4)
(A = R 24.5 (DA)-66)
In many developed urban areas that have experienced limited recent
land use changes stream cross-sectional area will have already achieved
equilibrium size, but in developing areas or undeveloped areas that are
expected to undergo development the formulas used in 1, 2, or 3 above
will yield larger values. In some developed basins existing stream
areas may be less than calculated areas where underdesigned bridges or
culverts restrict flow.
Channel Shape and Alignment
Once the cross-sectional area has been determined it is necessary to
select the appropriate channel geometry. Traditional techniques commonly
used to shape channels are unacceptable in urban areas because the
George Stem and William Weldon, personal communication. Both men
were employed by SCS in the suburban Washington D.C. area when stormwater
detention programs were implemented.
-------
95
Nunnally
resulting channels are far too wide and shallow (Table 1). A trapezoidal
channel shaped by the Bureau of Reclamation procedure is recommended for
urban areas because it produces a compact channel which is compatible
with urban environments and urban land uses. The formulas for the Bureau
of Reclamation procedure are the following:
d= .5 A (5)
b = (4 -z)d
(6)
Where Z is the bank slope expressed as a ratio of horizontal to ver-
tical distance cross-sectional area in curved reaches can be enlarged by
increasing channel width. In addition, inside banks are sloped to a 3-1
horizontal to vertical ratio, if possible, to more closely approximate
natural meander cross-sections. Enlarging the cross-section accomplishes
two objectives. It reduces scour in the bend, and it helps to keep the
bankfull discharge within the channel. The latter is of minimal impor-
tance for Charlotte streams because of flood plain zoning. Rather, we
have chosen to protect the banks with riprap where scour is expected (see
the section on riprap design). The associated roughness of riprap has
the additional advantage of creating secondary currents that have a tend-
ency to stabilize the bend (Shen and Komura, 1968). One of the problems
with increasing channel width is that there is no generally-agreed way of
determining how much increase is necessary. Bagnold (1960) has suggested
that a ratio of the radius of meander curvature to channel width (R/W)
between two and three minimizes shear. Other studies limit the ratio to
six or more (Lane, 1955). If there is reason to believe that the stream
is in equilibrium the existing cross-sectional area of the meander can be
used.
One of the fundamental precepts of restoration is that channels
should not be straightened or relocated unless it is essential The
detrimental effects of channel straightening have been publicized in
recent years, and as a result, many design procedures have been changed
and many design manuals rewritten to discourage channel relocation and
channel realignment. The following quote is indicative of this new aware-
ness.
Straight reaches should be avoided. ...The
straightening of a truly meandering channel over long
reaches should never be attempted. ...there are also
many examples where the straightening of meandering
channels in erodable materials has resulted in severe
headcutting in the channel and tributaries, excessive
widening as the stream attempts to reassert its
meanders, and the dumping of eroding sediments upon
downstream interests. (Vanoni, 1975, p. 526)
-------
96
Nunnally
Bank Stabilization
Bank stabilization design begins with the shaping of the channel.
It is imperative that bank slopes not exceed the angle of repose if the
channel is in non-cohesive sediments. Proper shaping of banks helps
reduce scour somewhat; but more importantly, it reduces undercutting of
the toe slope and thereby reduces bank collapse. On Charlotte streams
we have used 2:1 slopes in straight reaches and outside meander banks
and 3:1 slopes on inside meander banks.
Despite the protection provided by proper shaping it is still
necessary to take additional actions to stabilize the bank. These
actions include leaving as many trees as possible and disturbing stable
banks as little as possible, judicious use of riprap, and stabilizing
disturbed banks by seeding. Guidelines employed in sizing and placing
riprap can be found in University of North Carolina Water Resources
Research Institute Technical Report 144, Use of Fluvial Processes to
Minimize Adverse Effects of_ Channelizatjon.
Preservation of Trees
Charlotte streams are headwater streams with drainage basins that
range in size from less than one square mile to more than forty. Be-
cause of their relatively small size we have been able to use equipment
such as hydraulic hoes, small bulldozers and tractors to do most of the
work on these streams. This equipment is highly maneuverable so it is
not necessary to clear one or both stream banks of trees as is the case
when draglines are used. This has enabled us to leave trees outside the
channel in place, except for occasional instances where removal of
selected trees is necessary for equipment access.
Structural Protection
Although proper shaping of banks and establishment of vegetative
cover provide sufficient stabilization of most banks in straight reaches,
it is essential that outside meander bends and other bank sections ex-
posed to rapid erosion be protected by structural methods. A variety of
such methods exist, ranging from woven vegetative mats to attractive, but
expensive, concrete and grass combinations. However, all but riprap were
rejected for use on Charlotte streams because of aesthetic or cost
reasons.
Riprap provides sufficient protection at low cost. In addition, if
designed and placed properly, riprap is aesthetically acceptable
The main disadvantage to riprap use on urban streams has
been found to be that of maintenance. Children persist on heaving or
rolling the stones into the creeks and have virtually de-
nuded bank reaches in several sections located near high density resi-
dential areas. This problem can be minimized by soiling and seeding the
riprapped areas to promote rapid establishment of vegetative cover on the
-------
97
Nunnally
riprap base.
The major design decisions in using riprap are 1) determining the
proper size; and 2) deciding where and how much protection is needed.
Sizing the Riprap
Most procedures for calculating appropriate riprap size are overly
conservative. We found that over-sized riprap produced several problems
in Charlotte streams. First of all, large riprap is more expensive and
more difficult to handle than smaller sizes. In the initial work on
Briar Creek we used a mixture of riprap sizes with the largest stones
sized according to procedures recommended by the Mecklenburg County
Engineer (Mecklenburg County, 1975). In these sections Briar Creek is a
small headwater stream with a two year design discharge of about 500 cfs,
a cross-sectional area of approximately 90 sq. ft., and a bottom width of
approximately 10 feet. Simply dumping riprap upon the banks was not
satisfactory because the large stones, up to two feet in diameter, devel-
oped too much momentum and rolled into the creek. Some of these stones
were too large to be hand placed back on the bank and required the use of
the hydraulic hoe which was more time consuming and expensive than hand
placement. Even the stones which did not roll down the bank during
placement were frequently unstable on the slopes, and many were later
rolled into the creek by children or rolled in as a result of undermining
by erosion. It was virtually impossible to develop adequate vegetative
cover to hide those large stones, and the result was somewhat unsightly.
Along subsequent reaches the riprap was sized according to Maynard's
formula (Maynard, 1978) which resulted in smaller sizes. The smaller
riprap proved to be easier to work with, more stable, and easily covered
by vegetation. As mentioned previously, the main disadvantage of the
smaller stone was that in residential areas children almost denuded the
bank in a few places by heaving the stones into the channel.
Placement of Riprap
Perhaps the simplest solution to the question of what portions of a
bank to riprap is to wait until a storm occurs then examine the bank for
scour locations. Though a few sources advocate such an approach it must
be weighed against the costs of sediment damage and, in some cases,
repair work. We have adopted a policy of placing riprap where scour is
expected, then supplying supplemental riprap if the need later becomes
apparent.
Vegetative Stabilization
Once channel work has been completed it is important to stabilize
any exposed bank and flood plain areas quickly. Soil Conservation
Service guidelines have been followed very closely in planning, planting
and maintaining seeded areas (SCS Technical Guide 342-IV, 1978). Plant
-------
Nunnally
selection should be made on the basis of site conditions and time of year.
We have had good results with weeping lovegrass, sericea Lespedeza,
fescue, and rye grass, depending on season and edaphic conditions.
SUMMARY
Restoration is by no means a cure-all for flooding or eroding urban
streams. Though the general goal of restoration is to restore stream
systems to a condition of equilibrium by preserving their natural morpho-
logical characteristics, there are two specific objectives: 1) improving
flow efficiency by removing obstructions, both natural and unnatural, and
2) stabilizing stream banks to stop erosion by shaping, riprapping and
seeding.
Streams with erodable banks cannot be completely stable; some ero-
sion will occur, especially during major storm events. Neither are
restored streams the most efficient channels that can be designed. They
are, nevertheless, a reasonable compromise between the unacceptable
extremes of rapidly eroding, inefficient channels that result from total
neglect, and the expensive and efficient, but undesirable, results of
channelization.
REFERENCES
Bangold, R.A., 1960, "Some Aspects of the Shape of River Meanders,"
U.S. Geol. Survey. Prof. Paper 282E, pp. E125-E144.
Graf, W.L., 1977, "The Rate Law in Fluvial Geomorphology," Am. Jour. Sci.
v. 277, pp. 178-191.
Hammer, T., 1971, The Effect of Urbanization on Stream Channel Enlargement,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 330 p.
Hammer, T., 1972, "Stream Channel Enlargement Due to Urbanization," Water
Resources Research, v. 8, pp. 1530-1540.
Lane, E.W., 1955, "Design of Stable Channels," Transactions ASCE. v. 120,
pp. 1234-1260.
Maynard, S.T., 1978, "Practical Riprap Design," Misc. Paper H-78_-7.
Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss., 66 p.
SCS Technical Guide 342-1, 1978.
SCS Technical Release No. 2!5.
Shen, H.W., and S. Komura, 1968. "Meandering Tendencies in Straight
Alluvial Channels," journal of^ the Hydraulics DivJiipji. ASCE. v. 94,
pp. 997-1016.
Simons, D.B., and F. Senturk, 1977, Sediment Transport Technology. Fort
Collins, Colo.: Water Resources Publications, 807 p.
Vanoni, J.A., (ed.), 1975, Sedimentation Engineering. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers, 745 p.
Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1960, "Magnitude and Frequency of Forces
in Geomorphic Processes," Jour. Geol.. v. 68, pp. 54-74.
-------
99
METHODS FOR CONTROLLING EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
B. B. Hagman and J. G. Konrad
Residential Construction-Special Studies Section
Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
F. W. Madison, Environmental Specialist
Chief, Special Studies Section-Bureau of Water Quality
WI Department of Natural Resources
Project Director, Washington Co. Project, UW-Madison
Introduction
Stormwater runoff from residential subdivisions that are undergoing
development can generate and transport large amounts of sediment and
associate pollutants (nutrients, metals) to surface waters. Subdivi-
sions constructed without preventative measures to reduce soil disturbance
have been shown to contribute significantly to water quality nonpoint
source problems (Washington County Project Final Report, in preparation).
An investigation to examine uncontrolled subdivision development has
been conducted in Germantown's Old Farm Annex located in Washington
County, Wisconsin. The purpose of this study has been to examine the
residential development process in order to make recommendations for
minimizing and reducing sediment loss.
Two principal.methods for controlling residential construction
activities were studied with an emphasis on reducing or retaining sediment
on^site. The Annex plat had been developed; thus, with streets and
utilities in place, individual housing construction was emphasized. On-
site control measures and development practices that could be implemented
without significant financial burden were examined. Methods for keeping
the soil in place during the construction of dwellings rather than off-
site remedies were stressed. Stormwater detention basins were not
considered practical because the plat was already developed. The Village
of Germantown was developing a land division control ordinance that
required soil and water conservation planning. This regulatory mechanism
was examined and recommendations made to include provisions for controlling
individual home construction.
The subdivision development process, from site selection to home
construction, is described in order to highlight issues of environmental
concern. Housing construction is emphasized because this phase of
development has not been critically evaluated as contributing to the
sediment control problem. Existing publications describing construction
erosion control measures emphasize plat development and off-site controls
instead of on-site remedies. Control practices to minimize sediment
loss during home building are discussed.
-------
Ha groan-Konrad-Mad1son
Mechanisms for regulating subdivision construction activities at
the local level are also examined. Strengths and weaknesses of Washington
County's and Germantown's subdivision ordinances are presented. Recom-
mendations for improving cooperation and understanding between private
development and environmental concerns are offered.
Several issues became apparent during this study. First, there is
a need for information directed at developers, builders, and subcontractors
describing how their working practices can cause serious environmental
degradation, particularly to surface waters. In addition, practical and
economical practices that minimize sediment loss on site are needed.
Mechanisms are needed to provide incentives for subcontractors to examine
the effect their actions have on sediment loss and transport. Lastly,
cooperation between developers, builders and local government is necessary
in order to better provide for the recommendation and implementation of
sediment control practices.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
One of the best methods for minimizing erosion and sedimentation
may be proper environmental planning prior to development. A high
degree of quality may be achieved without increasing development cost;
this is accomplished through proper selection of sites suitable for
development and sensitive plat planning and development. The development
process can be segmented in three phases: site selection and plat
planning, plat development of streets and services and lot-by-lot house
construction. These stages are described below and sediment control
measures are suggested.
Site Selection
When investigating potential development sites, physical and natural
conditions should be critically evaluated. Areas with unsuitable soil
types, lowlands, steep slopes and high water tables (to name a few
limitations) would be expensive to develop, requiring extensive filling
or grading, difficult to minimize erosion, and troublesome to maintain.
Preparation of the plat plan should take into account such factors as
natural drainage patterns, existing vegetation and the amount of land
disturbance necessary to develop the plat. An effort should be made by
developers to minimize the degree to which the landscape will be altered
particularly with respect to drainage. When necessary, erosion and
sedimentation controls should be incorporated into the plat plan.
Plat Development
Plat development can be viewed as the construction of streets and
services. Numerous publications have been written offering suggestions
for reducing sediment loss during this stage. One common development
practice has been to strip topsoil and vegetation from the entire plat
-------
Hagman-Konrad-Madison
then proceed with construction. Often the topsoil is stockpiled for
several years while streets and services are being built. A more environ-
mentally sound practice would be to only disturb the area where construction
is currently concentrated or to protect large areas of exposed soil. If
topsoil must be removed, temporary measures to protect the exposed soil
should be taken. Seeding, mulching or other protective covers would
achieve adequate control.
Other innovative measures can be implemented to minimize stormwater
runoff; porous pavement and protective buffers or berms increase storm-
water infiltration. It is critical that all control measures be incor-
porated into the plat plan, thus insuring enforcement and implementation.
Housing Construction
Construction of residential dwellings within a subdivision can
cause large amounts of sediment to be transported through storm sewers
to surface water. The problem is magnified by the simultaneous con-
struction of several dwellings. Table 1 illustrates monitored sediment
yield during uncontrolled housing construction (Washington County Project).
Three subdivisions being rapidly developed were monitored during 1977.
No treatments for erosion and sediment controls had been used. The
amount of sediment, measured as suspended solids, leaving the subdivision
through its storm sewer, has been estimated in kilograms per hectare per
year. Differences in site conditions may account for variations in
annual yield. No comparable values are currently available for treated
residential construction activity.
TABLE 1
ANNUAL SUSPENDED SOLID YIELD (kg/ha)
FROM UNTREATED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN 1977
Station Yield
G2 27,215 kg/ha
G3 17,365 kg/ha
G5 13,148 kg/ha
Building practices common during construction, that were examined
in the Old Farm Annex, might be mitigated without interferring with
construction. The following list, by no means complete, attempts to
highlight damaging activities and conditions:
Exposed and unprotected soil throughout the subdivision (highly
erodible)
Excavated soil, in large mounds, placed near and often in the
streets (rapid erosion and delivery of sediment to storm sewers)
-------
102
Hagman-Konrad-Madlson
- Unlimited access to lots by vehicles and heavy equipment (tracking
soil adhered to tires into streets; gullies formed by tire tracks
that channelizes flow)
Pumped water from flooded basements (dewatering) onto exposed areas
(generates and transports sediment to storm sewers)
Drained rooftop runoff onto unprotected areas (forms gullies,
erodes and transports sediment to storm sewer system)
Many of these activities occur during work performed by subcon-
tractors who are onsite for a very short time. Cooperation and communi-
cation between builders and subcontractors are essential if mitigating
measures are to be effective.
ON-SITE CONTROLS
The following list of practices are divided into two categories,
those that do not require additional funds to implement but are suggestions
for timing activities to reduce impact. Other practices do have a
minimal cost but are usually incurred at some point during construction.
It is recommended that many of these measures be implemented early in
the building process so that their benefit will be incurred throughout
the housing construction period (which takes from four to six months).
No Cost Practices
1. Locate excavated basement soil a reasonable distance behind the
curb, such as in the backyard or sideyard area. This will increase
the distance eroded soil must travel to reach the storm sewer
system.
2. Use only one route (perferably the future driveway) to approach the
house with trucks and heavy equipment. This will reduce the impact
vehicle traffic has on soil erosion.
3. Backfill basement walls as soon as possible and rough grade the
lot. This will eliminate large soil mounds which are highly erodable
and prepares the lot for temporary cover which will further reduce
erosion potential.
4. Remove excess soil from the sites as soon as possible after back-
filling. This will eliminate any sediment loss from surplus fill.
5. If a lot has a soil bank higher than the curb, a trench or berm
should be installed moving the bank several feet behind the curb.
This will reduce the occurrence of gully and rill erosion while
providing some storage and settling area for storm water.
-------
103
Hagman-Konrad-MacHson
Other Practices
1. Cover an area behind the curb approximately 20-30 feet, if it is
not feasible to stabilize the entire lot, with a protective material
such as filter fabric or mulch and netting. This covering may be
installed before backfilling, provided excavated soil is placed in
the backyard area and the lot has been rough graded. Lateral lines
may be installed by removing the protective covering and then
replacing the cover after filling. This measure will reduce raindrop
intensity while protecting the soil.
2. Apply gravel to the driveway area and restrict truck traffic to
this one route. Driveway paving can be installed directly over the
gravel. This measure will eliminate soil from adhering to tires
and stops soil from washing into the street.
3. Install roof downspout extenders that aid in dispersing rainwater
in a diffuse manner. This will reduce the runoff intensity from
rooftops which can cause severe erosion.
4. If needed, cover side and/or backyards with mulch and netting or
asphalt soil stabilizers after the house is backfilled. This will
reduce erosion from these areas.
5. Stabilize lot by seeding and mulching or sodding as soon as is
practical. This will minimize erosion as well as make the area
more visually pleasant.
6. Provide for periodical street cleaning to remove sediment.
LEGAL CONTROLS CASE STUDY
Many states, counties and incorporated areas have enacted some type
of ordinance that attempts to control subdivision developments. In
Washington County, developers are required to submit preliminary plat
plans to the County Soil and Water Conservation District for proposed
developments within unincorporated areas. This subdivision ordinance is
fairly modest requiring a land suitability test where lands with greater
than 12 percent slope are presumed unsuitable for development unless
developers can provide adequate erosion and sediment controls. The
ordinance also requires stormwater management facilities be designed to
handle the maximum flow potential from a 10-year 24-hour storm. If
development requires substantial land disturbing activity, practices to
minimize erosion and sedimentation are required. Several towns within
the county have adopted the county ordinance.
Washington County's subdivison ordinance does not address the lot
construction phase of development. It also does not apply to unplated
housing construction (less than five lots). There are limited provisions
-------
Hagman-Konrad-Madison
for enforcement and penalties. Authorities are not defined stating who
is responsible for monitoring compliance with this ordinance and insuring
implementation of required erosion and sediment control measures.
The Village of Germantown has drafted a land division ordinance
requiring plat review by the Village Engineer and County Soil and Water
Conservation District. Maps of the natural and physical conditions
within the proposed development are required in order to determine
suitability. Soil and water conservation practices are also required
where land disturbing activities are proposed. Developers are required
to minimize the amount of area exposed and must stabilize by revegetating
as soon as practical. In an attempt to control lot construction, the
village is developing an ordinance that requires builders to post a cash
bond when applying for a building permit. The bond will be used to pay
for services, if any, incurred by the Village because of construction
activity; any remaining money will be returned to the builder upon
issuance of an occupancy permit.
Germantown's land division ordinance provides for inspection and
enforcement by the Village Engineer during plat development. The Building
Inspector inspects and enforces provisions of the building ordinance
during lot construction. Fees have been set forth to pay for the plat
review, site inspection and enforcement. This building ordinance is
unique in that housing construction is controlled through building
permits. The State of New Jersey uses this system to provide for
statewide control of housing construction.
In order to provide for the control of erosive construction practices,
subdivision and building ordinances should be strengthened to include:
tracking provisions requiring vehicle traffic to clean sediment in
the street as a result of their tire tracking;
handling requirements for excavated soil so that soil is placed
behind a set back line or tied to an egress line, from the house
front to the curb line;
placing limits on the amount of time soil can be exposed and require
temporary protection;
providing for the periodic cleaning of sediment from streets and
gutters during construction;
limiting alterations in natural drainage patterns or provide for
retention of stormwater resulting from channelized drainage ways;
and
requiring that rooftop runoff be diffused onto vegetative areas and
provide for the proper handling of pumped water (from dewatering or
sump pump activity).
By including these provisions into ordinances that control land
disturbing activities, environmental and aesthetic qualities will be
greatly improved.
-------
105
Hagman-Konrad-Madison
Recommendations for Controlling Sediment Loss
Land development for residential uses can cause sediment to be
transported into waterways. Preventative measures are available which
help to reduce sediment loss. Onsite controls tied to legal mechanisms
could effectively reduce the impact urban land development may have on
environmental quality. In order to provide the needed understanding and
communication between local governments and private developers and
builders there should be:
1. An education program, coordinated with state and local extension
activities and soil and water conservation districts in order to
explain the need for erosion and sediment control during develop-
ment.
2. An information program directed at the building and supporting
industries that emphasizes control measures as they relate to the
work performed and their effect on environmental quality. Many
state and local agencies, and labor or trade unions should cooperate
in designing and implementing an informational program.
3. The development of design standards and specifications for sediment
control, in laymans language to be implemented during plat develop-
ment and housing construction. Agencies such as the Soil Conser-
vation Service, State Departments of Natural Resources and Univer-
sities should cooperate in the development of brochures and non-
technical guides.
4. A program involving local officials, developers, builders and
subcontractors in order to set reasonable regulations if needed.
-------
-------
107
COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING IN SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
David B. Kendziorskl, Senior Water Quality Planner
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Waukesha, Wisconsin
INTRODUCTION
The Southeastern Wisconsin Planning Region, as shown on Map 1 is
comprised of seven counties in which about 40 percent of the State of Wis-
consin's population live on about 5 percent of the state's land area. By
the year 2000, urban development within the Region is expected to increase
by 22 percent over the 1970 level. Water resources affect, and are af-
fected by, the physical development of southeastern Wisconsin. The large
resident population, the highly industrialized economy, the areawide dif-
fusion of urban development, the demand for a variety of recreational
opportunities, and the need for the preservation of valuable natural re-
sources combine to make the proper management of water resources partic-
ularly important.
Properly managed, water
resources constitute a valu-
able asset to the residents
of southeastern Wisconsin.
Misused and mismanaged, how-
ever, these resources will
become the focus of serious
and costly developmental and
environmental problems and
place severe constraints on
the sound social, economic,
and physical development of
this urbanizing Region. Water
pollution is one manifestation
of the misuse of land and water
resources; and the public has
become increasingly aware of,
and concerned over, such pollu-
tion, which has seriously inter-
ferred with desired water uses.
One of the primary pollution
sources in urban areas to which
this concern is directed, is
construction activity.
Construction activity can
contribute a variety of pollu-
tants to surface waters - in-
cluding sediment, phosphorus,
Mapl
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGION
-------
1 r\o
Kendziorski
nitrogen, oxygen-demanding substances, toxic or hazardous substances,
grease, and oil. Sediment is the most visible pollutant generated from
construction activities. This eroded sediment may clog culverts and road
ditches, cause localized flooding as the surface drainage patterns are
disrupted, create an aesthetic nuisance, interfere with navigation, and
cover valuable benthic habitats. Sediment particles also act as a trans-
port mechanism for nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, heavy metals, and
organic substances. This paper will focus on one of these pollutants
which is often attached to sediment particles, namely phosphorus. Phos-
phorus is an important pollutant in many of southeastern Wisconsin's sur-
face waters and construction activity contributes a large percentage of
the total phosphorus load within the Region. Phosphorus stimulates ex-
cessive growths of algae and aquatic weeds, which interfere with the
recreational use of the water. As these plant masses die and decompose,
dissolved oxygen depletions may result which threaten the survival of
fish and aquatic life. Under certain conditions, one pound of phosphorus
may produce 1,000 pounds or more of aquatic plant material. Upon the de-
composition of this amount of plant material generated from one pound of
phosphorus, about 100 pounds of dissolved oxygen may be consumed.
Water pollution control and soil conservation experts at local,
state, and federal levels of government have, for years, recommended the
application of construction erosion control practices. These recommenda-
tions were based on the concept that, since construction site erosion is
a relatively severe, although localized and short-term problem, its con-
trol constitutes "proper" land management. However, this limited approach
to erosion and sediment control has not been totally effective. As a re-
sult of the recent interest in nonpoint source pollution and the water
quality planning efforts of the designated '208' agencies, many state and
local agencies have considered regulations to require the control of con-
struction site erosion. From a water pollution perspective, these regu-
latory frameworks are based upon the premise that lakes and streams are,
in fact, degraded by construction generated pollutants and that control
of construction erosion is a cost-effective approach to water pollution
abatement.
The purpose of this paper is to present a cost-effectiveness compar-
ison of construction erosion control to other methods of water pollution
abatement, to discuss the importance of construction erosion and its con-
trol within the context of an areawide water quality management plan, and
to explain the recommendations of such a plan recently developed for
southeastern Wisconsin.
METHODOLOGY
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission recently com-
pleted an areawide water quality management or '208' plan for the Region.
The plan addressed all point sources of water pollution, which include
sewage treatment plant outfalls, sanitary and combined sewer flow relief
devices, and industrial wastewater discharges, and all nonpoint sources,
-------
Kendzlorskl
109
which include urban and rural land runoff, construction site erosion
livestock operations, groundwater inflow, and atmospheric contributions'
The existing water quality conditions of the Region's lakes and streams
were analyzed, all sources of pollution were identified and quantified
and a plan was designed to achieve, where practical, "fishable and swim-
mable waters.
The unit costs and the estimated pollution abatement effectiveness--
in terms of phosphorus reductions—of nonpoint source controls developed
in the plan are set forth in Table 1. All costs are in 1976 dollars.
Table 1
UNIT COSTS AND POLLUTION ABATi'KiNT ilTECTIVENESS
OF NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Nonpoint Source Control Measure
Construction Erosion Control
Livestock Waste Control
Urban Land Management-
Minimum
Additional
Rural Land Management-
Minimum
Additional
High Level
Unit Cost3
$2,600/acre construction
$16/animal/year
$10/acre/year
$125/acre/year
$2/acre/year
$5/acre/year
$2t/acre/year
Assumed Level cf
Phosphorus Reduction
Achieved^
90%
90%
25%
50%
25%
50%
75%
aAll costs are in 1976 dollars.
bBased on phosphorus reduction estimates set forth in SEWRPC Technical Report
No- 18> State of the Art of Water Pollution Control in Southeastern Wisconsin.
The construction erosion control cost of $2,600 per acre probably repre-
sents a conservatively high estimate of the costs that may be expected l
The cost estimates weyre based on a typical construction site sediment and
erosion control plan which included a diversion dike, a sediment reten-
tion basin, straw bales, surface mulch, and seeding. The remaining costs
and pollution abatement effectiveness estimates shown on Table 1 are based
on SEWRPC Technical Report No. 18, State of the Art of Water Pollution
Control in Southeastern Wisconsin, which was prepared at the onset of the
208 planning program. These estimates are difficult to make, and repre-
sent regional soil and hydrologic conditions and costs.
In order to quantify sources of pollutants, the Regional Planning
Commission developed pollutant loading rates from nonpoint sources based
primarily on values reported in the scientific literature. Subsequent to
the development of the areawide plan, the International Joint Commission's
(UC) Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study, which was conducted to
quantify pollutant loads from land use activities, resulted in published
annual phosphorus loading rate estimates. These UC phosphorus loading
rates were used in the cost-effective analysis presented in this paper.
For the purposes of this paper, the term "cost-effectiveness" refers
to the cost required to control one pound of phosphorus. Accordingly,
the most cost-effective practice would control the most phosphorus for
-------
110
Kendzlorski
the least cost. The technique used in the cost-effective analysis is to
divide the estimated control cost by the amount of phosphorus expected to
be controlled. This was conducted for both nonpoint and point source
controls. It is important to note that this is a "systems level" analy-
sis, based on generalized cost estimates and phosphorus loading rates.
The relative cost-effectiveness of construction erosion control and any
other pollution control measure is highly site specific, and would also
vary for other pollutants, such as sediment.
FIGURE I
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL AND
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
POLLUTION ABATEMENT COSTS
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
DISCUSSION
The total cost of all
recommended water pollution
abatement activities in south-
eastern Wisconsin for the peri-
od of 1975 to the year 2000 is
an estimated $2.4 billion, in-
cluding capital and operation
and maintenance costs in 1976
dollars. Of the total average
annual capital and operation
and maintenance cost of $95
million, as shown in Figure 1,
nonpoint source controls account
for $17 million, or 17 percent,
with point source controls re-
quiring the remaining $79 mil-
lion, or 83 percent. Construc-
tion erosion control — as shown
in Figure 2--has an estimated
average annual cost of $7.4
million, or 45 percent of the
nonpoint source control cost
and 8 percent of the total pol-
lution abatement cost. Since
typically, based on 1975 land
use data, only about 2 percent
of the area of the Region is
expected to be undergoing con-
struction activity in an average year, a relatively large portion of the
total nonpoint source control cost is required to control pollutant runoff
from a relatively small portion of the land area.
By applying a unit load of seven pounds of phosphorus per acre of
land under construction per year, it is estimated that construction activ-
ities contributed about 15 percent of the total phosphorus load—equiva-
lent to about 28 percent of the estimated nonpoint source phosphorus
load—to the inland lakes and streams in southeastern Wisconsin, as of
1975. As shown in Figure 3, other important phosphorus sources to inland
lakes and streams included point sources, which accounted for 48 percent
of the total load, and agricultural nonpoint sources, which contributed
POINT SOURCES
$ 78.7 MILLION
83 %
TOTAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT: $95.3 MILLION
-------
Kendz1orsk1
111
28 percent. Map 2 presents the
inland watersheds of the Region,
shown in white; the direct trib-
utary area to Lake Michigan,
shown in grey; and the proposed
sanitary sewer service area
served by sewage treatment
plants which discharge directly
to Lake Michigan, shown in
cross-hatch. The phosphorus
contributions to inland lakes
and streams just discussed ex-
clude the nonpoint source loads
from the direct drainage area
to Lake Michigan and the sewage
treatment plant loads discharged
directly to Lake Michigan. If
the entire Region is considered--
including direct pollutant dis-
charge to Lake Michigan, point
sources contribute a higher
proportion of the total phos-
phorus load—about 75 percent,
as compared to the 48 percent
point source contribution of
phosphorus to inland lakes and
streams. The pollution abate-
ment costs previously discussed
represent total regional costs--
including the abatement of di-
rect discharges to Lake Michigan.
Based on phosphorus load-
ing, pollution abatement effec-
tiveness, and unit cost esti-
mates, construction erosion
control is among the most cost-
effective means of reducing
nonpoint source phosphorus loads
to surface waters. Figure 4
sets forth the cost-effective-
ness, expressed as the cost per
pound of phosphorus controlled,
of each of the nonpoint source
control categories developed
under the Commission's areawide
planning program. The cost
effectiveness of construction
erosion control, at about $31
per pound of phosphorus control-
led, may be compared to livestock
FIGURE 2
ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE NONPOINT
SOURCE CONTROL COSTS
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
URBAN LAND
MANAGEMENT
RURAL LAND
MANAGEMENT
CONSTRUCTION '::
rjxEROSION CONTROL;:
:x':x':$ 7.4 MILLION:::::::
KXXZZ 45 % •&+:<:+
LIVESTOCK
'WASTE CONTROL^
$ 2.3 MILLION
14%
TOTAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION- $16.6 MILLION
FIGURE 3
SOURCES OF PHOSPHORUS TO
INLAND LAKES AND STREAMS
IN SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN ' 1975
URBAN LAND/£•'; CONSTRUCTION '•
RUNOFF " '
3%
POINT SOURCES
48%
-------
112
Kendziorskl
Mao 2
POLLUTANT LOADING ANALYSIS AREAS FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
PTT ^3^73T71^T""
INLAND LAKES AND STREAMS.
INCLUDING BARNES CREEK.
PIKE CREEK. AND SUCKER CREEK
BUT EXCLUDING LAKE MICHIGAN
AND THE AREA DIRECTLY
TRIBUTARY TO LAKE MICHIGAN
DIRECT TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE
AREA AND DIRECT POINT SOURCE
LOADS TO LAKE MICHIGAN.
EXCLUDING BARNES CREEK.
PIKE CREEK, AND SUCKER CREEK
RECOMMENDED SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE AREA TRIBUTARY TO
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
LOCATED ON LAKE MICHIGAN-I99O
• SUBCONTINENTAL DIVIDE
. WATERSHED DIVIDE
• PERENNIAL STREAM
AND MAJOR LAKE
Source: SEWRPC.
-------
Kendziorski
113
COST EFFECTI
waste control, at $22 per pound
of phosphorus controlled, and to
minimum rural land management
practices, at $26 per pound of
phosphorus controlled. While
somewhat less cost-effective
than these basic agricultural
management practices, erosion
control is two to three times
more cost-effective than addi-
tional, more intensive agricul-
tural phosphorus runoff con-
trols, at $59 to $98 per pound
of phosphorus controlled; about
five times more cost-effective
than minimum urban land manage-
ment practices, at $149 per
pound; and nearly 20 times more cost-effective than intensive urban
point source control practices, such as increased street sweeping
$562 per pound.
4 940
• i
a I "o
ST EFFECTIVE ME
•OUND OF PHOSPHC
8
» ; 90
i r
lLo
fc 30
§
O
.*.*. .'.*
26
888§
ssss
59
96
149
s«a
;
' •
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS
non-
, at
Construction erosion control is relatively cost-effective for three
reasons. First, since the land area eroding is usually small, the extent
of the application of practices can also be small, thereby reducing costs.
Second, the primary pollutants generated by construction activities--
namely sediment and phosphorus which itself is usually attached to sedi-
ment particles—are easier to control than soluble phosphorus or other
dissolved pollutants. Third, phosphorus loads from construction activi-
ties on a per acre basis are relatively high compared to loads from other
nonpoint sources. Therefore, by stabilizing the land surface and elimin-
ating excessive loadings, a large percentage reduction in the pollutant
load can be achieved.
While construction erosion control is a relatively cost-effective
method of reducing nonpoint source phosphorus loads to surface waters,
sewage treatment techniques are generally more cost-effective at reducing
phosphorus contributions than many nonpoint source controls. Table 2
sets forth the cost-effectiveness of septic systems and several treatment
levels for both small and large treatment plants. Septic systems and
smaller treatment plants, which serve populations of up to 2,500 persons,
have a cost-effectiveness estimated at about $13 to $30 per pound of phos-
phorus controlled, which approximate the most cost-effective nonpoint
source controls, including construction erosion control. Larger treatment
plants, which serve populations of up to 50,000 persons, are significantly
more cost-effective than any of the identified nonpoint source control
categories, ranging from about $7 to $15 per pound. A summary of the
cost-effectiveness of the various pollution abatement activities is set
forth in Figure 5. Many nonpoint source controls are less cost-effective
than point source controls. However, it is worthy of note that the most
cost-effective nonpoint source abatement measures, such as some agricul-
tural controls and construction erosion control, are nearly as cost-
-------
114
Kendzlorski
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PROPERLY OPERATED
SEWAGE TREATMENT MEASURES FOR PHOSPHORUS REDUCTIONS
Sewage Treatment
Measure
Properly Functioning
Septic Systems
Sewage Treatment
- Plant
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Service
Population
..
2,500
50,000
Sewage Treatment
Level
--
Secondary
" Conventional-P
Removal
High Level-P
Removal
Land Application
Secondary
Conventional-P
Removal
High Level-P
Removal
Land Application
Percent of Influent
Phosphorus Removed
By Treatment
95
30
90
99
100
30
90
99
100
Cost -Effect iveness
( S Per Pound of
Phosphorus Removed)
13.5
29.7
12.9
20.0
16.8
15.1
7.M
8.9
8.9
effective as the engineered sewage treatment techniques which have been
the focal point of much of the pollution abatement efforts within the
United States throughout this century.
FIGURE 5
SUMMARY COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION
ABATEMENT MEASURES
It would be misleading to
suggest that this cost-
effectiveness analysis for phos-
phorus is representative of the
cost-effectiveness of pollution
abatement measures for all water
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness
is highly dependent on the un-
controlled pollutant loads from
various sources, and on the
level of reduction of a pollu-
tant achieved by the implemen-
tation of a control practice.
For example, construction ero-
sion control is not a cost-
effective means of reducing
fecal coliform loads to streams,
whereas livestock waste control
is extemely cost-effective in
this regard. Similarly, con-
struction erosion control is
generally not a cost-effective
way of reducing nitrogen or bio-
chemical oxygen demand loads to
surface waters, since it is est-
imated that construction activities contribute only about 5 percent of the
total load of these pollutants. However, because construction erosion
contributes about one-third of the total load of sediment to surface
waters in southeastern Wisconsin, and because a large reduction in
57O -
D
hi
§ 54O -
H
O
s >
en a: 150 -
(0 O
UJ 0)
> 0
1- £
O °-
u fe 120 -
fc Q
M 8
0 K 90 -
«> lil
a i
1 8
§ g 60-
° u
g
it
Ui 30
I—
°
O L
562
1
^ ^
^
22
NON POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
-
:
-
30
r ~>
13.5 13 | !- ,
:::::::::::;:x:| ::;::^:;::::::: fi-x-x-:-:-:-]
SEPTIC SMALL LARGE
SYSTEMS SEWAGE SEWAGE
TREATMENT TREATMENT
PLANTS PLANTS
(SERVING (SERVING
2,500 50POO
PERSONS) PERSONS)
-------
115
Kendzlorski
sediment loads is achievable, erosion control can also be expected to be
a relatively cost-effective means of reducing sediment loads.
If local public officials erroneously believe that construction
erosion control is not practical, cost-effective, or worth the increased
efforts required, and therefore, construction erosion control is not
implemented in southeastern Wisconsin, significant effects on water qual-
ity are likely to occur. Shown in black on Map 3 are those lakes and
streams which, if construction erosion control were not implemented, would
not satisfy "fishable-swimmable" standards, and which could otherwise do
so under year 2000 conditions if the remainder of the '208' plan were im-
plemented. These designations are based on phosphorus loading estimates
from various pollution sources and on the results of water quality simu-
lation modeling studies which were conducted to determine the effects of
alternative levels of pollution control. These surface waters amount to
about 108 stream miles, or 9 percent of the total stream miles, and 34 of
the 100 major lakes in the Region. This map shows the significance of
potential construction erosion pollution in southeastern Wisconsin.
These lakes and streams, which are not expected to be "fishable-swimmable"
unless effective construction erosion control is implemented, include
some of the most important fishery resource and recreational use waters
in the Region and in the entire State of Wisconsin. It should be noted
that these construction erosion effects are conservative in that they
assume that the Regional Planning Commission's land use plan will be
implemented. Based on current trends, more urban development may occur
than as planned by the Commission, and the water quality effects are
likely to be even more widespread and severe than indicated on this map.
The construction affected lakes and streams shown on this map also do not
include those lakes and streams, located in primarily urban areas and shown
as dashed lines on the map, which may not meet "fishable and swimmable"
standards under the final recommended '208' plan, but which could get
progressively worse if construction erosion control were not implemented.
IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
The control of construction erosion has significant implications for
water quality management in southeastern Wisconsin. To facilitate the
control of construction site erosion, the Regional Planning Commission has
recommended that formal construction erosion control regulatory programs
be implemented by the appropriate local agencies. These agencies include
all seven of the counties in the Region and all of the incorporated
municipalities. It was recommended that the counties, and all cities and
villages review and revise, if necessary, their subdivision regulations,
zoning ordinances, and building codes to ensure minimization of erosion
during construction periods. Although model provisions relating to
erosion control and designed to be incorporated into regulations, ordi-
nances, and codes were suggested, the strictness of the regulations, the
specific control techniques required, and the methods of compliance
evaluation and enforcement were left to be determined by the local desig-
nated management agencies through a second level planning effort. The
county soil and water conservation districts were recommended to provide
-------
116
Kendziorski
MAP 3
WATER QUALITY CONSEQUENCES OF
FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION
EROSION CONTROL IN SOUTHEASTERN
WISCONSIN ^
LEGEND
LAKES AND STREAMS NOT EXPECTED TO
MEET "FISHABLE AND SWIMMABLE"
STANDARDS UNDER THE FINAL
RECOMMENDED 2O8" WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN ; 351 MILES OF
STREAMS, 5 LAKES
ADDITIONAL LAKES AND STREAMS NOT
EXPECTED TO MEET FISHABLE AND
SWIMMABLE" STANDARDS IF CONSTRUCTION
EROSION CONTROL IS NOT IMPLEMENTED,
108 MILES OF STREAMS, 34 LAKES.
ILLINOIS
-------
KendzlorsM 117
technical assistance to the counties and municipalities. The University
of Wisconsin-Extension Service — as well as the counties, municipalities
and special purpose units of government such as inland lake rehabilitation
districts—were recommended to provide educational and informational pro-
grams to promote public understanding and acceptance of the regulations.
The following conclusions concerning construction erosion control
support the Regional Planning Commission's recommendation for regulatory
control of construction site erosion.
1. Construction erosion is a significant source of water pollution,
especially of phosphorus and sediment.
2. Although construction erosion control costs constitute a high
proportion of the total cost of nonpoint source control, con-
struction erosion control is a relatively cost-effective means
of water pollution abatement.
3. Failure to control construction erosion will result in severe
and widespread water quality degradation.
4. Construction erosion is a very visible and obvious pollution
source. For this reason its control is more apt to be under-
stood and accepted by the public, as evidenced by the develop-
ment of some construction erosion control regulations by local
units of government in the Region even prior to local adoption
of the '208' plan.
5. The technology of construction erosion control, with regard to
problem assessment, the availability of control techniques, and
the reliability and effectiveness of these techniques, is better
developed than most nonpoint source controls.
CONCLUSION
An article in Professional Builder magazine4 stated that, as of 1978,
excessive government regulation had added $1,500 to $2,500 to the price of
a new home. Builders are, of course, subjected to a wide array of regu-
lations. The information presented in this paper is intended to document
that construction erosion control, where required to protect water qual-
ity, should not constitute excessive regulation, and that it is a logical
and cost-effective measure for the protection of water resources. Con-
struction generated pollutants have been quantified, cost-effective control
techniques are available, and publicly acceptable institutional frameworks
exist. Constructon erosion control is an important part of providing
clean lakes and streams in southeastern Wisconsin.
Some studies have indicated that, with extensive pre-planning, construc-
tion erosion control can be achieved for from $220 to $400 per residen-
tial lot, or about $880 to $1,600 per acre in 1976 dollars. See C. A
-------
118 Kendzlorski
White, Best Management Practices for the Control of Erosion and Sedimen-
tation Due to Urbanization of the Lake Tahoe Region of California, Pre-
sented at the International Symposium on Urban Storm Runoff, Lexington,
Kentucky, July 23-26, 1979.
2
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comparative Costs of Erosion and
Sediment Control, Construction Activities, EPA-430/9-73-016, 1973.
3
International Joint Commission, International Reference Group on Great
Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities. Summary Pilot Watershed Report,
Menomonee River Basin, Wisconsin, May, 1978.
4
"Builder Skepticism on Fed Inflation War," Professional Builder,
Vol. 43, No. 6, June, 1978, p. 34.
-------
ABSTRACT 119
USE OF NATIVE VEGETATION IN
URBAN AND SUBURBAN LANDSCAPES
Darrel G. Morrison
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
The concept of using native vegetation in groupings resembling
natural communities provides an alternative to the "standard" land-
scape development which typically features individual trees and shrubs
in a mowed lawn.
A diverse natural cover provides economic and aesthetic benefits,
in addition to specific erosion-control and runoff-reduction functions.
One study has shown, for example, runoff rate of zero from a 2.5"
rainfall on a stand of native prairie vegetation, compared with 29
on bluegrass sod and 50 on bare ground.
The relatively large leaf surface per unit area in areas covered
with prairie vegetation (e.g., a leaf surface area of 3 to 20 times
the soil area) leads to greater water interception than in mowed lawns.
Additionally, the deep and fibrous root systems that are characteristic
of prairie grasses and forbs increase the permeability and infiltration
rates. This combination of greater interception and infiltration of
rainfall are responsible for the runoff reduction and the related
erosion controlling capability of native plantings.
Case studies ranging from a suburban residential property to a
15-acre corporate headquarters and a 100-acre industrial site provide
examples of native vegetation re-establishment techniques and some
of the benefits that can result.
-------
-------
121
INNOVATIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?
Paul C. Oscanyan, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
Rockville, Maryland
In today's construction industry, the need to protect the environ-
ment and the need to hold back spiral ing costs have combined to create a
strong demand for new or "innovative" approaches to both old and new
problems.
Substantial progress has been made in many fields—solar energy,
new materials for construction, and energy efficiency are but a few.
Conspicuous by its absence from this list, however, is the relatively
new field of stormwater management. It is not the purpose of this paper
to introduce any brand-new techniques; rather, it will attempt to
address the problem of why so young a field shows so little real inno-
vation, and to suggest some means whereby innovation may be encouraged.
Innovative stormwater management may be defined as the creation
and introduction of new techniques for the control of storm runoff, for
the purpose of downstream environmental protection, retention of a
usuable resource, or the protection of human life and property. For
creation and introduction of new techniques to take place, there must
be incentives to creative work; to ensure that only safe and effective
techniques are introduced, certain constraints must be maintained.
Incentives
Among the strongest incentives to creative activity in any field
are financial reward and professional recognition. The general effec-
tiveness of the first of these is attested by the success of the patent
system, which grants certain rights to the inventor of a new or useful
combination of matter; the second, by the number of publications each
month in a wide variety of technical and professional journals. Unfor-
tunately, these incentives are largely absent in the case of stormwater
management, for a number of reasons.
The construction industry, unlike most others, is unique in that it
uses mass-produced materials but assembles them in fixed locations--
and each assembly takes place at a different location. Each construction
site differs from all other sites; no two are identical, though all
sites have some features in common. For this reason, no two stormwater
management structures will be completely identical even if they are
built from the same materials. Since this is the case, the basic premise
of the patent system, that of technological portability, is to all
intents and purposes absent, and thus the primary system for ensuring
financial rewards for innovation is inoperative. Without the prospect
-------
122
Oscanyan
of financial reward, it becomes difficult for any profit-making organiza-
tion (such as a building or consulting engineering firm) to justify the
heavy expense of a research project, no matter how promising it might be
in terms of technological improvement.
The construction industry also differs from others in that it is
sharply divided into segments which not only perform very different
functions, but which are often in an adversary relationship. These
segments are the public, which creates the market for construction; the
builders, who arrange for the financing, design and sale of projects to
satisfy that market; the engineers and architects who design those
projects; the contractor who does the actual construction; and the public
agencies which must ensure that both design and construction protect the
public health and safety. In addition, there are a variety of organiza-
tions such as universities and research laboratories from which there
are occasional infusions of new techniques.
Of all of the above segments of this industry, only the last, the
"academic," segment, feels any real pressure to gain professional recog-
nition through the discovery and publication of new techniques. This is
not to say that this segment is the only source of new technology;
although consulting engineers do from time to time publish technical
papers, even a brief review of any professional journal will show that
the majority of the papers derive from academic sources.
Constraints
Each segment of this industry is subject to a variety of constraints,
all of which tend to reduce the rate at which new technologies are
introduced. Most of these constraints have been deliberately introduced
in order to protect the public safety and health, but all contribute to
the adversary relationship referred to earlier.
The public, which ultimately finances the entire construction
industry, is faced with rising costs for everthing it purchases—food,
clothing, housing, and so on. Even, perhaps especially, in an age of
high inflation rates, there are limits to how much the public can
spend on construction. This, in turn, limits the ability of the builder
to recoup his own costs, and thus provides him with a strong disincentive
to spend the extra money which is required to develop and implement a
new technique, even though such a technique might reduce long-term costs.
In addition to the time and cost constraints imposed by the
builder's funding and construction schedule, the consulting engineer is
bound both by law and his Code of Ethics to provide designs which will
protect the public health and safety, and which will conform to generally
accepted standards. The engineer who deviates from these rules does so
at his peril. Should his design fail either structurally or function-
ally, he may be liable under both civil and criminal law, regardless of
-------
123
Oscanyan
whether or not his design was approved by a public agency with review
authority.
The contractor is limited both by his finances and his contract
with the builder. He must build only what the engineer's design calls
for, and may only suggest changes. Unless these changes are approved
by the builder, the engineer and the public agency having jurisdiction,
he assumes not only the cost of any changes he makes, but liability
similar to that described for the engineer.
Public agencies are charged by law with the protection of the
public health and safety. For this reason, if an engineer submits a
request for approval of a design which deviates from standard practice,
the agency will rightly require careful documentation that the proposed
deviation will, in fact, adequately protect the public. Again, should
the agency approve an insufficiently documented innovative design, it
lays itself open to liabilities.
Conflicts
Stormwater management, innovative or not, is still more of an art
than a science. Designs are based on probabilities and estimates—the
probability of a storm of a certain magnitude, estimates of how much of
the rainfall will become runoff, estimates of roughness coefficients,
and so on—many of which are based on experience and empirical formulas.
Such design methods do not lend themselves to ready analysis, or synthe-
sis with mathematically valid modelling; they do have the advantage of
being relatively rapid in application, and do not require sophisticated
data or techniques. Academically derived techniqes, on the other hand,
tend to be highly sophisticated in their mathematical approach, to
require large data bases, and to be both slow and expensive in applica-
ti on.
This contrast in approaches to a common problem has brought about
a schism between the consulting engineer and the research scientist,
precisely the opposite of what has happened in most other industries,
where laboratory discoveries move rapidly into place on the production
1 i ne.
Other conflicts arise when the engineer wishes to attempt an
innovative design. First, there is the problem of obtaining the builder's
approval; unless the engineer can give the builder fairly good assurance
that there will be no increase in cost, such approval will rarely be
forthcoming. Secondly, there is the hurdle of agency approval to over-
come; even if the cost savings to the builder are potentially great, the
time required for agency approval may exceed the time that the builder
can afford.
-------
124
Oscanyan
Moving Forward
From the foregoing, it might seem that there is no way to increase
what might be termed the "rate of innovation." This is far from being
the case. The present mechanisms of the design and review process were
not originally inteded to encourage the development of new technologies;
nonetheless, innovation does take place, however slowly. It is, there-
fore, highly probable that these mechanisms can be improved or adjusted
to allow more rapid change.
The present mechanisms operate on a principle which electronic
engineers refer to as "negative feedback"; in other words, the more
radical a proposed change is, the greater is the resistance to that
change. Due to the considerations of public health and safety, this is
in fact an absolute necessity; nonetheless, if the rate of change is not
to be slowed down too much, some "positive feedback" is required. The
problem is therefore one of finding some means of safely introducing
this condition into the present mechanisms.
This can be accomplished in a number of ways, all similar yet
independent of each other.
There must be more communication between contractors and engineers.
Too often, the necessary separation between design and construction
prevents each one from learning the other's problems and benefiting
from his experience.
There must be open lines of communication from builders, contractors,
and engineers to the research scientists. Unless the scientist knows
what problems actually need to be solved, he is reduced to finding his
own problems—and those problems may not be nearly as pressing as others.
Furthermore, unless he receives data from the field, he is denied the
benefit of the experience gained by those involved in practical applica-
tions.
There must be an acceptance on the part of the engineer that he is
central to the problem. It is the engineer who must take a theory and
translate it into a design; it is the engineer who must be prepared to
explain to the public and the public agency why a certain procedure
should or should not be followed. He must, therefore, keep in close
touch with both agencies and the researchers.
The researcher must remain aware that the objective of his research
is not merely to advance theoretical knowledge, but to communicate his
knowledge to as wide an audience as possible, in a form useful to that
audience. In the same vein, it is incumbent on him to draw on whatever
pragmatic knowledge is available, from whatever source, and thus to be
aware of the problems of the builder, the engineer and the agency.
-------
Oscanyan
The agency, too, must be sensitive to the problems of the builder,
the engineer and the contractor; a lapse in communications too often
results in excessive regulation and inadequate enforcement.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper, liberal use has been made of impersonal
terms: the public, the builder, the engineer, the agency, the
researcher.
Innovation can be encouraged by groups such as these, but the
actual development and implementation of new techniques will always
come about through the actions of individual people working in concert.
125
-------
-------
127
INVESTIGATION OF CONCRETE GRID PAVEMENTS
Gary E. Day, Assistant Professor of Architecture
College of Architecture and Urban Studies
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Summary
The following research involves laboratory simulation and testing of
typically installed concrete grid pavements. Five pavements exhibiting
different physical characteristics were subjected to rainfall in order to
collect runoff data. Coefficients of runoff and lag times are derived
based on the following variables: (1) subgrade soil, (2) slope, (3) rain-
fall intensity, and (4) rainfall duration. The tentative runoff coeffi-
cients can provide the basis for design and implementation of the pave-
ments as an alternative on-site technology within an overall, stormwater
management scheme. Future directions for investigations not directly
related to hydrological characteristics are also included.
Background
Current directions in stormwater management emphasize the maintenance
of pre-development runoff levels through on-site controls. Where tradi-
tional practices have utilized curbs and gutters to quickly convey storm-
water to storm sewers, new approaches use roadside drainage swales to slow
the velocity of drainage and allow for infiltration. New techniques
emphasize the use of natural drainage systems with their low-velocity flow
characteristics,.and take advantage of opportunities for infiltration and
groundwater recharge. Conventionally, parking lots have been designed to
drain quickly. New goals also encourage the absorption or detention of
stormwater in parking lots and on-street parking. Stormwater can be
detained and allowed to either infiltrate into the soil or be slowly
released after the storm event.
Concrete grid pavements have potential as a management practice for
maintaining pre-development runoff levels by allowing for infiltration and
groundwater recharge. These pavements can decrease the quantity of peak
flow and increase lag time. Furthermore, this would minimize stream bank
erosion and sedimentation due to increased runoff loads during and after
storm events, thereby improving water quality. Concrete grid pavements
have been used extensively in Europe and are presently available from
manufacturers throughout the United States. On a properly compacted sub-
grade and properly designed and installed subbase, these pavements can
support extremely heavy vehicular loads. Unfortunately, very little
information is available concerning their hydrological characteristics
either from the manufacturers or in the form of research data. We believe
this is a key factor which inhibits the use of these pavements as an alter-
native technology for the reduction of stormwater runoff.
Equipment
Pavements were tested under a controlled setting at the Environmental
Systems Laboratories of the College of Architecture. The testing appara-
tus contained three major elements; the rain simulator, the testing bins
and the water collection system.
-------
128
Day
Rain Simulator. The rain supply was provided by a rain simulator
built and designed by the University's Laboratory Support Services. The
rain simulator consisted of a single rotating irrigation nozzle selected
because it produced a drop size and distribution similar to that of
natural rainfall. The nozzle was rotated by a 1/15 horsepower motor
geared at 2 rpm. The nozzle was situated approximately 14 feet above
the pavement surface. Water pressure was governed by a pressure regulator
and was displayed on a pressure gauge.
Testing Bins. The pavements were installed in three bins. Each bin
was 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 3 feet deep. Their floors were con-
structed with 3/4 inch plywood glued to 2" by 10" joists, 6" on center.
These platforms rested on two level steel I beams. The sides of the bins
were constructed with 3/4 inch plywood glued to 2" by 4" studs, 9" on
center. One side wall of each bin was removable to facilitate material
extraction. The bins were waterproofed with 6 mil polyethelene film.
Corrugated sheet metal was placed at the bottom of each bin to provide
protection for the underlying waterproof plastic film. An inch and a half
of cleaned gravel was spread over the corrugated sheet metal to facilitate
subsurface drainage. Eleven to fourteen inches of soil were compacted
manually with tampers in lifts of three inches. Soil compaction was tested
with a hand-held penetrometer to document the level of compaction reached
and assure uniformity. A minimum compressive strength of 3.5 tons per
square foot was attained. Six inches of cleaned gravel were installed over
each "subgrade." Aggregate size of this gravel ranged from 1" to 1/5".
The depth of this "subbase" is typical for the pavements tested. Two
inches of sand were added on top of the gravel. This sand was compacted
and leveled to provide an adequate bearing surface for the pavers. The
pavers were then installed. Voids were filled with top soil and sod.
Turfgrass selection was made in consultation with Dr. Richard E. Schmidt
of the University's Turfgrass Research Center. Mixtures of Kentucky Blue
Grass sod were selected because of its durability under traffic and
drought. See Figure 1 for illustrations of the test bins.
Water Collection System. The collection system gathered water which
flowed off the surface of the payers and percolated through the soil. The
water flowed into covered channels and through hoses to calibrated tanks.
From these tanks periodic measurements could be taken. Each test bin had
two tanks: one to collect surface runoff and one for subsurface drainage.
Figure 2 illustrates the water collection system for the bins. Pavement
slopes were adjusted by lifting the bins at one end with hoists. The
pavements were tested at three slope settings: 2%, 4%, and 7%. These
slopes represent the range found in typical parking lots.
Soils. Soils used in this investigation were obtained from University
land close to the laboratory. The following soils were chosen for "sub-
grade": Bin #1, B horizon of Greensdale Silt Loam; Bin #2, B horizon of
Groseclose, and Bin #3, C horizon of Frederick Silt Loam. For the purpose
of this discussion we have named the Greensdale a "loose" soil, the Grose-
close a "moderate" soil, and the Frederick Loam a "tight" soil. These
three soils offered the greatest range of permeability values indigenous
to this area and within close proximity to the laboratory. See Figure 3
for a comparison of hydraulic conductivity and permeability classes of
each soil derived from soil tests.
Bulk Density. Soil bulk density is the ratio of mass to the bulk or
volume of a soil sample. The maximum bulk densities were determined by
using the Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus.
-------
Day
129
Sod
Pavement 4'
2 X 10 Joist
Topsoil 3-4"
Sand 2"
Sub-base
Gravel 6"
Sub-base
Subsoil U-14"
Gravel 11/2'
Corrigated Steel
Floor
Steel I-Beam
Figure 1 - Typical Test Bin Cross-section
Figure 2 - Three Test Bins
-------
130
Day
Very Rapid
Rapid
Moderately
Rapid
5.
3 -
Moderate
2 -
Moderately
Slow
Slow
Very Slow
1 -
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Figure 3 - Comparison of Hydraulic Conductivities (in./hr.)
of Soils to Permeability Classes
-------
Day
131
Pavement manufacturers generally specify a compacted subgrade from
85 percent to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Moisture content
must be in a range of plus 4 percent or minus 2 percent of the optimum
moisture content. Soils used in test bins were compacted to within the
following percentages of their maximum dry bulk densities and within the
following range of optimum moisture: Test Bin #1, Greensdale Silt,
83.2% maximum density at -2% optimum moisture; Test Bin #2, Groseclose,
78.8% maximum density at optimum moisture; and Test Bin #3, Frederick Silt
Loam, 82% maximum density at +1.5% optimum moisture.
Classification of Pavers. The five different paver types classified
into two categories, lattice and castellated, as shown in Figure 4.
Table 1 specifies the dimensions and weight of each pavement.
Table 1
Paver
GRASSTONE
Bolardi Prods.
TURF BLOCK
Paver Systems,
Wausau Tile
GRASSCRETE
Bomanite Corp.
% Open Area
at Bottom
34
40
Inc.
30
Weight
(Ibs)
59
63
Poured
in
Thickness
inches
3.625
3.125
4 § 6
Length/Width
inches
23/17.25
23.5/15/.5
24/24
Place
MONOSLAB
Grass Pavers, Ldt.
CHECKER BLOCK
Hastings Co.
15
25
82
84
4.5
3.75
23.5/15.5
24/24
Procedure
Testing Procedure. There were three tests performed with each paver
type under observation through one testing cycle (described in the next
section). Monoslab, a castellated type paver comprised test one. Turf-
block, a lattice type paver, comprised test two. Both of these pavers
were tested in all three bins with the three subsoil types.
Our third test consisted of placing one of the three remaining paving
systems--Grasstone, Checker Block, and Grasscrete--in each of the bins.
Grasstone was in bin #1 (loose soil), Grasscrete in bin #2 (moderate soil)
and Checker Block in bin #3 (tight soil). Limited funds did not allow us
to test each of these pavers on all three subsoil types. In spite of these
constraints, we used the three remaining pavers to check the difference in
the performance of the pavers used in test one and test two.
Testing Cycles. A testing cycle for each paver consisted of a two-
hour rain followed by a two-hour drain period for three consecutive days.
The rain simulator was activated for two hours and the surface runoff
recorded. Subsurface drainage was monitored for another two hours after
the rainfall period. The bins were then allowed to drain for 20 hours
between each day of tests. During the first evening the slope was set at
7%. Prior to starting the second and third evenings of tests, the slope
was lowered to 4% and 2% respectively.
-------
132
Day
"Checker Block"
Hastings Co.
"CASTELLATED1 TYPE PAVERS
"Monoslab"
Grass Pavers, Ltd.
" Turfblock"
Paver Systems, Inc
"Grasstone"
Boiardi Prods.
"LATTICE" TYPE PAVERS
•Grasscrete" (Poured in Place)
by Bomanite Corp.
Figure 4
-------
Day 133
The day before the three test cycles the bins were saturated with
rain at identical durations and slopes. Surface runoff and subsurface
drainage were monitored to be sure that each bin was 100% saturated. The
bins were allowed to drain 20 hours before commencing the next day's tests,
This was done to insure that each subsoil had an equivalent moisture con-
tent before gathering runoff test data. Surface runoff in gallons was
recorded at 5 minute intervals during the rain periods. Subsurface
drainage was recorded every 15 minutes during both the two-hour rain and
two-hour drain periods.
Results
Results from Tests 1, 2, and 3 are displayed in Figure 5. The per-
formance curves at each slope setting are referenced against the 100%
runoff curve for each bin. These curves show the total volume (gallons)
of surface runoff plotted against time (duration of rainfall). Notice
that the difference in lag time for each bin varies.
Coefficients of runoff were developed from the performance curves
which are displayed in Table 2. Coefficients were developed for storm
durations of 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes.
Conclusions
1. Before commencing the tests we hypothesized that under the same rain-
fall, soil, and slope conditions, the paver with the highest percent
of open area at the bottom should have the least amount of surface
runoff. Turfblock, however, the paver with the highest percent of
open area on the bottom, does not have the lowest runoff coefficients
(note Table 2). In fact, Monoslab, with the lowest percent of bottom
open area (15%), yielded lower coefficients when tested under similar
conditions to Turfblock. Therefore, our hypothesis is challenged by
this data. The ability of the paver to absorb and detain rainwater
tends to be a function of its surface geometry, not the percent of
bottom open area.
2. An increase in slope (up to 7%) increases the coefficient of runoff
regardless of paver type, subsoil type, or rainfall intensity. The
greater the slope, the greater the runoff. Is there a "critical slope"
at which the runoff coefficients approach that of asphalt or solid
concrete paving? Is that critical slope different for each paver
type? Is it different for each subsoil type on which the paver is
placed? A potential area of investigation is in studying the relation-
ship of the orientation (in plan) of a paver to a given slope. The
five pavers tested were placed longitudinally in the bins. Would
there be a difference in runoff if these pavers were placed askew at a
45° angle to the slope? Would there be more or less of a difference
in percentage of runoff between the two categories of pavers? The
difference, if one exists, may lead to more sensitive and effective
application.
3. Subsoil type, as expressed by hydraulic conductivity, has an effect on
the coefficient of runoff. Lower hydraulic conductivity of the sub-
soil yields a higher coefficient of runoff, especially on steeper
slopes. This is consistent unless the rainfall intensity approximates
the hydraulic conductivity of the subsoil. When this occurs little
or no surface runoff is produced. Note Grasstone in Test 3, Table 2
The hydraulic conductivity of the subsoil approaches the rainfall in-
tensity on this bin; hence, no runoff.
-------
1OO% Runoff
BIN»l
Loose Soil
I - 2.54 In/hr
K-0.83 In/hr
BIN»2
Moderata Soil
1-3.51 In/hr
K-0.es In/hr
BIN*3
Tight Soil
1 = 2.77 In/hr
K « 0.30 In/hr
1OO% Runoff
4O 6O BO
Minutes
1OO 120
Test 1: Runoff from MONOSLAB (Castellated type)
I m Rainfall Intensity
K - Hydraulic Conductivity of Subsoil
Test 3: Runoff from TURFBLOCK Oattice
BIN *1
GRASSTONE
(Lattice Type)
Loose Soil
! = 2.34 In./hr.
K =0.83 in./hr.
BIN #2
GRASSCRETE
(Lattice Type)
Moderate Soil
I = 4.15 In./hr.
K = O.65 In./hr.
BIN #3
CHECKER BLOCK
(Castellated type)
Tight Soil
I = 2.97 In./hr.
K = 0.3O in./hr.
4O
35
30
25
0 2O
3 15
1O
5
O
6O BO
Minutes
1OO% Runoff
-7%
• 4%
— 2%
20 4O
60 80
Minutes
100 120
Test 3: Runoff from Pavers
(Note Lattice and Castellated Types)
Figure 5 - Test Results
-------
Day
135
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR
CONCRETE GRID PAVEMENTS
PAVING SYSTEM
(Percent of Open Bottom
Area)
TEST 1
OJ
r-
U)
UJ
r-
JTEST '1 &i
TEST 3 TEST 3 ^
1 -n
MONOSLAB
Grass Pavers, Ltd.
(1554)
TURFBLOCK
Paver Systems, Inc.
Wausau Tile
(40%)
Mins.
of
Rain-
fall
30
~6O
9O
120
30
60
90.
120
Hydraulic Conductivity In./hr.
Rainfall Intensity In./hr.
Gallons/Minute
PAVING SYSTEM
•ercent of Open Bottom
Area)
CHECKER BLOCK
Hastings Co .
(25%)
GRASSCRETE
Bomantte Corp.
(30%)
GRASSTONE
Boiardl Prods.
(34%) __
Hydraulic Conductlvitv
Rainfall Intensity In./h
Mins.
of
Rain-
fall
30
60
_90
120
30
"60
90
120
_ao _
60
go
120
— ••" I—
Ih./hr.
•"^^•fc* -.
r.
Gallons/Minute
BIN #1
Loose Soil
Slope at:
2%
0
0
.05
.07
0
_.qi
...-06
.09
4%
O
.05
.OB
.09
O
.03
.09
.17
7%
0
.05
.09
.io~
O
.09
• 16.
.20
0.83
2.54
0.47
BIN#1
Loose Soil
Slope at:
2%
~
0
0
0
.01
0
2
4%
....
0
O
0
.01
.83
.34
7%
. ..
--. .
0
O
O
0
0.48
BIN #2
Moderate Soil
Slope at:
2%
0
.04
.06
.07
0
.21
.37
.43
4%
.09
.06
.07
.09
.01
.28
.,37
.48
0.65
7%
.09
.09
. 10
.1l"
.05
.32
.-.42
.51
3.51
0.80
BIN #2
Moderate Soil
Slope at:
2%
.02
".13
...•-23 .
.29
C
t
4%
0
.15
•2.5"
.31
.65
7%
.02
.18
.28
.35
1.15
0.88
BIN #3
Tight Soil
Slope at:
2°/
O
.09
.15
.17
0
.23
..•37
.48
4%
.09
.09
.15
. 19
O
.26
.43
.54
0.30
7*/
.09
. 12
.20
.23
. 10
.36
.45
.56
2 77
0 55
BIN #3
Tight Soil
Slope at:
2%
0
.03
.10
. —
-
4%
0
.07
.16
7%
.09
. 12
.22
0.30
2.97
0.60
Table 2
-------
136
Day
Future Directions
Beyond Hydrological Research. In addition to the ability to reduce
runoff, the pavements should have the following potential environmental
benefits: (a) nonpoint pollution reduction, (b) glare reduction,
(c) sound absorption, and (d) microclimatic temperature reduction. These
aspects are favorable by-products of the pavement's function of runoff
reduction. It is possible to also consider redesigning the configura-
tion of the pavements to achieve better ergonomic aspects. Improvements
could produce a surface compatible with walking, bicycling and use by
handicapped adults or children. Figure 6 indicates that the runoff
coefficients derived in this investigation are sufficiently lower than
standard asphalt and concrete pavements. In view of this observation,
these pavements could actually be less expensive to install than
conventional pavements when a corresponding reduction of storm sewer
pipe sizes and lengths are taken into account.
Ot
o
0}
o
o
10
Coefficient °
of a
Runoff o
d -
ro
Ol
o
-
'Laboratory Tests
"Source:
for Ci
Standard Handbook
vil Engineers. Fredericks
Merrill .
Castellated Paver*
(Table 1)
2%
4%
7%
Lattice Paver*
(Table 1)
2%
4%
7%
I
ffl
2
w
I
5
o
Z,
Lawn with Clay Soil" Asphalt" Concrete*
Figure 6 - Comparison of Concrete Grid Pavements
to Other Urban Surfaces
References
Blake, G. R., "Bulk Density," Methods of Soil Analysis, the American
Society of Agronomy, and The American Society for Testing Materials.
Philadelphia, 1964.
Klute, A., "Laboratory Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated
Soil," Methods of Soil Analysis, The American Society of Agronomy and
The American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, 1964.
-------
137
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATORY LAWS --
EVOLUTION AND CURRENT STATUS
Mary M. Garner
Legal Consultant
National Association of Conservation Districts
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
From our nation's earliest days we have had the problem of
exhausting our land resources by over use and improper use. The prob-
1 em became more severe year by year, but it was not until the early
19.30 s, when mounting soil erosion, floods, and sky-blackening dust
storms swept across the nation, that the public was aroused to an
awareness of the seriousness of the problem. This brought about enact-
ment by Congress of the Soil Conservation Act of 1935 I/ which estab-
lished an erosion and sediment control policy for the Nation.
Soil Conservation Act of 1935
The 1935 Act provided for the creation of the Soil Conservation
Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and carry out
a continuing program of soil and water conservation. Through this
agency the Federal government began an intensive program of technical
and financial assistance to promote erosion and sediment control.
However, it was soon recognized that to achieve the extended applica-
tion of this program that was needed to reverse the steady and increas-
ing loss of soils by wind and water, it was necessary to reach and
obtain the involvement of private citizens since they owned some three-
fourths of all the land in the contiguous 48 states. To achieve this
end, the Secretary of Agriculture adopted the policy that all erosion
work on private lands would, after July 1, 1937, be undertaken by the
Soil Conservation Service only through legally constituted soil conser-
vation associations. A provision for the establishment of such
associations was included in the Standard State Soil Conservation
Districts Law furnished by the President in 1936 to all state governors
as a guide to enactment of appropriate legislation that would enable
states to participate in the soil and water conservation program.
State Conservation Districts Law
Every state, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands passed such
legislation based on the Standard Act, and formulation of districts
began immediately and continued steadily until now nearly 3,000
districts cover over over 99 per cent of the Nation. Under these state
laws, conservation districts are established as local units of govern-
-------
138
Garner
merit, with a governing body composed of elected or appointed local
citizens, who are responsible for conservation work within the dis-
trict's boundaries. Although the state laws vary in some respects,
their purposes are the same: to identify land, water, and related
resource problems, to develop programs to solve them, and to enlist and
coordinate help from all available public and private sources that can
contribute to accomplishing district goals.
Neither the Federal law nor most state conservation districts laws
restricted the program to rural lands. However, in the beginning, con-
servation districts worked mainly with farmers and ranchers and dis-
trict boundaries usually did not include urban areas. Although farmers
and ranchers are still the principal cooperators since they control
most of the land, in more recent times, especially in rapidly expanding
areas, districts have extended their boundaries, as well as their pro-
grams and services, to other lands and landowners. Many states have
followed the lead of Louisiana, which amended its districts law in
1966^7 to include all lands in the state within districts. Others
have included urban areas by following the procedures in the law for
addition of territory. Counties, towns, suburbs and businesses now
cooperate with districts just as rural landowners do.
When districts began operations, their major task was control of
soil erosion caused by runoff water and by wind. However, over the
years the work of districts has expanded to cover the entire broad
spectrum of conservation and natural resource development. Today's
district programs include not only the critical work needed to conserve
prime food and fiber producing agricultural lands, but also the
application of conservation technology and the experience and expertise
of districts to problems of urban expansion, waste disposal, highway
and utility planning and maintenance, building construction, recrea-
tional facilities, and beautification.
DISTRICTS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Historical Recognition of Need
The Standard act distributed to the states in 1936 contemplated
the need for regulatory controls in its provisions for land use regula-
tions. Most state district enabling laws of the 1930's and 1940's
included such provisions. However, districts have from their beginning
conducted their programs on a voluntary basis, using education, techni-
cal assistance, and cost sharing rather than mandatory controls.
Although the regulatory authority was seldom used, and some states
dropped the provisions from their laws, more than half the states still
retain the authority.^/
-------
Garner 139
Renewed Interest in Regulation
In recent years several states have shown an interest in using the
land use regulatory authority in their districts laws to respond to the
increasing public concern for the environment and, more specifically,
to meet the demands for non-point source pollution control. New
Jersey's Camden County Soil Conservation District relied on such
authority in issuing erosion and sediment control regulations on
February 24, 1974. The regulations were a forerunner of the erosion
and sediment control law adopted by New Jersey in 1975. Since that law
applies statewide, further action by individual districts was unneces-
sary. The Lewis and Clark Conservation District in Montana, by refer-
endum in June, 1977, adopted a soil erosion and sediment control
ordinance under the authority of the Montana Conservation Districts
Law.
In Wisconsin, after attempts to adopt regulations were unsuccess-
ful because of failure to obtain the required two-thirds majority in a
referendum, the law was amended in 1971 to permit adoption of regula-
tions by a simple majority and to broaden the law's application to soil
and water conservation districts wishing to adopt land use regulations
for sediment control. Such an ordinance for the Vernon County Soil and
Water Conservation District was approved by referendum in the November,
1976, general election and adopted by the Vernon County Board of
Supervisors on June 21, 1977. Apparently the cumbersome procedures and
length of time involved in following this course has discouraged other
districts from similar action.
District Cooperation with Regulatory Agencies
Many districts, while not exercising regulatory authority
directly, have for years provided counties and other local governments
with technical assistance in the development of erosion and sediment
control requirements for land subdivision, zoning, building, and other
ordinances relating to land-disturbing activities. For example, since
1965, ordinances have been enacted in the counties of Montgomery
(1967), Howard (1970), and Washington (1977) in Maryland; Otsego County
in Virginia (1966, 1970); and Buffalo County in Wisconsin (1965). Most
of these ordinances provide that a permit for any earth-moving activity
may be issued only when there is a plan approved by the local conserva-
tion district for the control of erosion and sedimentation.
Recognition of Need for Stronger Control Programs
In the late 1960's and 1970's, a number of states, aware of the
growing seriousness of erosion and sedimentation problems, enacted new
erosion and sediment control legislation. Maryland amended its Water
-------
140
Garner
Resources Law in 1970*/ to require approval by the appropriate soil
conservation district of erosion and sediment control plans prior to
the issuance of building permits and to require counties to enact
ordinances for implementing this provision of the law. In 1971 Iowa
became the first state to require its soil conservation districts to
establish permissible soil loss limits.V That same year South
Carolina^/ and the Virgin Islands^/ passed laws authorizing local
governments to require, by ordinance, sediment control measures
approved by conservation districts.
New impetus to the growing concern among states for the problem of
erosion, sedimentation, and related pollution arose out of the
requirements of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972 which requires a program for the control of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution as part of state and areawide water quality
management plans. This law has caused districts to reevaluate the
adequacy of a purely voluntary program and to consider their role in a
regulatory program.
MODEL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACT
Development of Model Act
The increased recognition of the need to strengthen erosion and
sediment control programs brought about development of the Model State
Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. The model act was prepared
by a task force established to respond to a very real need which became
apparent at the Workshop on Soil Erosion that met in conjunction with
NACD's Special Committee on District Outlook in March, 1972, under the
auspices of the National Symposium on State Environmental Legislation
in Washington, D.C. The task force was composed of representatives
from the Council of State Governments, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the US Department of Agricutlure, and the National Association
of Conservation Districts. The Council of State Governments included
the model act in its 1973 Suggested State Legislation.^/
The principal provisions of the model law, which is in the form of
an amendment to existing conservation districts laws, include:
establishment of a comprehensive state erosion and sediment control
program and adoption of statewide guidelines, including conservation
standards for the control of erosion and sediment resulting from
land-disturbing activities; establishment of district programs and
conservation standards consistent with state programs and guidelines;
prohibition of land-disturbing activities, with the exemption of
certain minor land disturbing activities, unless conducted in
accordance with approved soil erosion and sediment control plans; use
of existing regulatory mechanisms, such as building, grading, and other
-------
Garner 141
permits applicable to land-disturbing activities, to implement erosion
and sediment control plan requirements; inspection, monitoring, and
reporting requirements; and penalties, injunctions, and other enforce-
ment provisions.
Response to the Model Act
The response by the states to the Model Act reflected the keen
interest that had developed in erosion and sediment problems. From
late 1972 through early 1975, NACD held 40 state sediment control
conferences to increase awareness of erosion and sediment control
problems, report on existing and proposed mandatory programs in this
field, explain the provisions of the model act, and encourage needed
legislative and administrative action to deal with the problem. The
Anrf? iQ°7nK9?at/ ^J60* uContro1 Institutes Program," published in
April, 1975*7, found that the conferences had enhanced recognition of
the sediment problem - the nation's most prevalent pollutant by volume
-- and gained wider acceptance of the need for accelerated action to
combat the problem by local, state, and federal agencies and private
organizations. According to the report, the conferences had also
influenced the enactment of several new state laws establishing regula-
tory programs, the drafting of 15 new laws for introduction in state
legislatures, and the modification of several pending legislative
proposa I s •
Model Act Modifications - Alternative Provisions
The seminars revealed areas in which there was considerable varia-
tion in the requirements of the several states and, therefore, a need
for provisions in addition to, or other than, those set out in the
moaei act. To meet this need, new provisions were drafted by NACD as
S" alternat1ves- ^e most sinificant f
provisions are: - Slgnificant of these alternative
(1) Definitions of "Soil Erosion", "Sediment", "Sediment related
pollutants", and "Enduring practices".
(2) More specific provision for application of the law to water
quality and, among other things, the reduction of drainage
from stormwater runoff and retardation of nonpoint pollution
from sediment and related pollutants.
(3) More specific provisions for the application of the erosion
and sediment control provisions to agricultural and silvi-
cuitural lands.
(4) Clarification of the provisions requiring that erosion and
sediment control plans approved by a conservation district
-------
142
Garner
mus> be submitted with an application for a grading, build-
ing, or other permit for a land disturbing activity.
(5) Provision that local governmental units, such as counties and
muncipalities may issue ordinances requiring local programs
consistent with the erosion and sediment control act.
(6) Authorization for the State agency to make grants of funds,
including, but not limited to, cost-sharing assistance for
enduring practices.
(7) Provision for a procedure for complaints by persons claiming
damage from land-disturbing activities.
NEW LEGISLATION
Twenty states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands
have now adopted legislation to strengthen to some extent their erosion
and sediment control programs. These include Delaware, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Virginia. A list of
citations to these laws and a summary of their principal provisions are
attached as Appendix A. The citations will apply to any further
references herein to such laws.
Some recent erosion and sediment control laws, such as those in
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Michigan, New Jersey, and Virginia,
have adopted, with varying modifications, many of the provisions of the
model act. In other states, erosion and sediment control provisons
have been included in broader legislation, such as Montana's Natural
Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975, and Pennsylvania's Clean
Streams Law, under which erosion and sediment control regulations were
promulgated. In Maine, the provisions are found in the requirements of
the Water Pollution Abatement Licensing Program. Nevada s recent law
providing for control of water pollution from diffuse sources is
included in its Water Pollution Control Law. Although districts are
not specifically named in the law, it is contemplated that district
expertise will be used in carrying it out.
Although the primary purpose of these laws is directed toward the
same ends -- the prevention and control of erosion and sediment damages
and the improvement of water quality -- their methods and approaches to
the achievement of these ends vary.
-------
Garner 143
Methods of Prevention and Control
Conservation Plans. An approved erosion and sediment control plan
is required for land-disturbing activities in Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York
North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and the Virgin Islands.
Pennsylvania requires that an acceptable plan be available at the site
of the activity, and South Dakota requires an approved plan where the
district determines that an agricultural land-disturbing activity is
violating adopted standards. Nevada requires that the initial design
of a project must provide measures to prevent pollution. The New
Hampshire law relating to dredging requires that anyone proposing to
engage in dredging or related activities which increases runoff
erosion and sediment must, prior to undertaking such activities, submit
detailed plans to the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission.
Soil Loss Limits. The Iowa law requires all conservation dis-
tricts to establish soil loss limits and submit them to the State Soil
Conservation Committee for approval. A soil loss limit is defined as
the maximum amount of soil loss due to erosion by water or wind (in
tons per acre per year) that the commissioners of each district shall
determine, after hearing, as acceptable to meet the objectives of the
I aw.
Ohio requires the adoption of rules to provide for the phased
achievement over a period of years of the applicable soil-loss
tolerance factors or permissable soil-loss values established by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The South Dakota law requires conservation standards, which it
defines as soil loss tolerance limits.
. Conservation Standards. The adoption of conservation standards
criteria, and guidelines by the state conservation agency, the conser-
vation district, or both agencies, is required in Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
uakota, and Virginia. Minimum requirements are set out in the Georgia
I uW*
Requirements for Permits. An approved or certified conservation
plan is required by the laws or regulations of Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and the Virgin Islands prior to
«r?i»iM«aenCeT0fcP!l?nint? f°r construction °r other land-disturbing
activities. In South Dakota, agencies with authority to issue permits
must require compliance with district conservation standards.
-------
144
Garner
Enforcement Provisions. Enforcement provisions vary in the state
laws. Provisions for penalties, injunctions, or other legal actions to
be brought by districts or by the county or other governmental unit
exist in the laws of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia,
Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and the Virgin
Islands.
The Iowa law requires that upon receipt of a substantial com-
plaint, the district commissioners shall issue an administrative order
to the landowner stating the extent to which erosion exceeds estab-
lished limits. This administrative order is enforceable by court
order. The law applies to both rural and urban lands, and complaints
have been received with respect to urban lands. However, it appears to
be considerably more difficult to apply the soil loss equation to urban
lands than to rural lands.
In Ohio, enforcement procedures are provided with respect to
animal waste, but violations may not be prosecuted where public funds
are not available for 75% of the cost of required practices.
In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Resources has the
responsibility for inspection and enforcement, and this agency may
delegate enforcement to local jurisdictions.
The Illinois law provides for complaints to be filed with conser-
vation districts on erosion and sediment control violations. Districts
are then obliged to hold hearings with respect to such violtions and
publish reports thereon. This reflects an intent to retain the volun-
tary character of the program, with enforcement depending primarily on
cooperation and a landowner's desire to avoid publicity for viola-
tions.
Cost Sharing. In Iowa, 50 percent cost sharing is available for
voluntary installation of conservation practices. Landowners can
receive 75 percent of the cost of installing a practice when ordered by
the soil conservation district to abate a nuisance as determined by the
district pursuant to a complaint alleging violation of established soil
loss limits. No new conservation practice can be required unless cost
sharing funds are available. An amendment to the law in 1979 provided
that a landowner cannot be required to spend more than $10.00 per acre
per year times the number of acres owned in any one year to establish
mandatory soil and water conservtion practices.1^/ Experience in
Iowa has demonstrated that the availability of cost sharing assistance
has markedly increased the voluntary installation of conservation
measures. The Iowa legislature has appropriated $5 000,000 for cost
share assistance in each of the years of the 1979-81 biennium.
However, requests for such assistance have far exceeded the funds
available.1^/
-------
145
Garner
In Delaware, if there is not available to an owner or operator of
agricultural or forest lands at least 50 percent cost sharing
assistance or adequate technical assistance for carrying out an
approved conservation plan, such owner or operator is not in violation
of the act.
The Illinois law requires that the programs of both the state
agency and district shall provide for the sharing of part of the costs
of enduring erosion and sediment control devices, structures, and
practices, which are defined as any device, structure or practice
designed for the control and prevention of soil erosion and air and
water pollution for a period in excess of one year.
In Ohio, the Chief of the Division of Soil and Water Districts
must identify practices eligible for cost sharing, the conditions for
eligibility, construction standards and specifications, maintenance
requirements, and the limits of cost sharing for practices. The
practices must be limited to enduring improvements to real property
used in conjunction with farming or silviculture! operations. Enduring
practices require capital expenditures that are likely to exceed the
economic return to the owner or operator and which abate soil erosion
or degradation of water by animal waste or soil sediment.
The Minnesota conservation districts law authorizes the State Soil
and Water Conservation Board to develop a statewide program to reduce
or prevent sedimentation, flooding, and agricultural related pollution
and to allocate funds to districts for the purpose of cost sharing
contracts for erosion control measures and water quality improvements.
It will be noted that neither Illinois nor Minnesota restrict cost
sharing to agricultural or silvacultural activities. Minnesota's
regulations governing cost sharing for control of erosion and sediment
specifically provide for cost sharing in urban, as well as rural,
areas. /
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VOLUNTARY AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
These laws indicate a realization that regulatory authority has a
part to play in dealing with the problem of erosion and sedimentation.
They also recognize that the conservation districts' long-time
voluntary program continues to play a major role in a succesful attack
on the problem, and that the essential elements of an effective
voluntary program - research, education, technical assistance, and
cost sharing -- must also exist in any program that includes manadatory
enforcement authority. J
-------
146
Garner
The development of the soil and water conservation program on a
voluntary basis was a natural evolution since a voluntary program
suited the landowners and operators in rural areas where erosion and
sediment control activities were concentrated for many years. On the
other hand, in urban areas there has long existed regulatory mechanisms
such as permits, inspections, licenses, and minimum standards in
connection with the building, construction, community service, and
safety and welfare functions. As the need developed for stronger
controls to meet the increasing erosion and sediment problem, it has
seemed only logical to use in combination those features of these two
systems which could contribute to a resolution of the problem.
Illustrative of this combination of the two systems for promoting
proper conservation of resources, is the requirement for the furnishing
of an erosion and sediment control plan approved by a conservation
district before a permit may be obtained for an undertaking involving
land-disturbing activities. This establishes a close working
relationship between the local governmental agency s regulatory
authority and the technical assistance program of the conservation
district. It will be noted in Appendix A that some ten states require
an approved plan for the issuance of a permit; also, that eleven states
provide for enforcement assistance by local governments, such as
counties, cities, and towns, in carrying out local erosion and sediment
control programs.
Further recognition of the important role of county and municipal
governments in erosion and sediment control is evident in the provi-
sions in the laws of Illinois, which encourages, and in Georgia,
Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia, which
authorize or require, the adoption of erosion and sediment control
ordinances. In some states these ordinances are in addition to, and
coordinated with, the programs required to be established by
conservation districts. In others, the local governmental entity has
primary responsibility through its ordinances for the erosion and
sediment control program. Also, as indicated earlier, many counties
and municipalities began some years ago to issue under their general
powers ordinances for erosion and sediment control.
LEGISLATIVE TRENDS
In addition to the evident trend in state and local legislation to
provide stronger measures for erosion and sediment control, is a trend
to provide in such legislation for use of the resources of established
regulatory systems of local governments in cooperation with the
expertise and experience of conservation districts.
-------
147
Garner
Another important trend is a growing realization of the importance
of providing cost sharing, or other economic incentives, for
installation and maintenance of conservation measures. Although cost
sharing for conservation purposes has been heretofore focused primarily
on rural and agricltural areas, some state laws, as has been noted,
permit cost sharing in urban areas. No doubt there will be increasing
interest in, and promotion of, some type of assistance, such as cost
sharing or tax.credits, to offset the increased costs of erosion and
sediment control measures in connection with building and
construction.
Although the general public may not yet be fully aware of the
seriousness of the erosion and sediment control problem for both urban
and rural America, progress is being made in that direction. Increased
public awareness and concern will provide the greatest impetus toward
the enactment of adequate legislation to make available funding, as
well as other resources and authorities, necessary to ensure the
eventual resolution, or at least containment, of the national erosion
and sediment control problem in rural and urban areas.
FOOTNOTES
1. 16 U.S.C. 590 a-f
2. LA Rev. Stats. Sec. 3.1218 (1973)
3. Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, • South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
4. Ann. Code MD Nat. Res. Sec. 8-1104 (1974, 1978 Supp.)
5. I.C.A. Sec. 467A.1 (1971, 1979 Pkt. Pt.)
6. Code of SC Sec. 48-13-10-48-13-60 (1976)
7. VI Code T. 12, Sees. 531-538 (1978 Cum. Supp.)
8. The Council of State Governments, Iron Works Pike, Lexington
Kentucky 40505
9. Report on State Sediment Control Institutes Program
EPA-44/9-75-001
10. Iowa H.F. 22, (1979)
11. Information from Iowa Department of Conservation
12. 6 MCAR Sec. 7.004
-------
-------
Appendix A
149
Garner
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS
PROVIDING FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1979
Prepared By
MARY M. GARNER
Legal Consultant
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Twenty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have enacted
erosion and sediment control legislation during the past decade. This includes
legislation such as amendments to conservation districts laws, water quality laws,
and erosion and sediment control laws. Some of these laws are broad in scope!
whereas, others deal with specific areas of concern.
All of the laws contain some provision for enforcement of conservation
requirements, most of which involve three general types of regulatory mecha-
nisms: (1) Approved erosion and sediment control plan required for land dis-
turbing activities; (2) Approved plan required for issuance of a permit for an
activity involving land disturbing activities; (3) Requirement for compliance with
established permissable soil loss limits.
A significant characteristic of most of these laws is the provision for coopera-
tion and coordination between the various state agencies concerned with soil and
water conservation and water quality, and between the state agencies and local
units of government.
This summary is intended as a general indication of the principal provisions
of these laws. For more complete information, reference should be made to the
particular laws, citations to which are included on the last page.
Prepared by the National Association of Conservation Districts
under Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. T 900 704-02
-------
150
Garner
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
(A reference to the particular law will be essential for complete explanation of provisions)
PROVISIONS
TYPE OF STATE LAW
Erosion and sediment control
Conservation districts
Water quality and stream control
Model Act 6 Alt.
Provisions
o
a^
a>
District of Columbia
|
5*
z
|
I
«•
X
i
X
£
3
X
z
5T
X
X
I
1
X
z
1
X
i
X
1
X
New Hampshire
X
f
|
X
z
£
X
North Carolina J
X
i
X
X
I
jj.
1
t?
i?
I
X
S?
^
X
3
01
X
X
<
3
|
i
X
METHODS OF CONTROL
Approved erosion and sediment control plan
required for land disturbance
Establishment of soil loss limits
Permits on basis of an approved plan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
X
X
X
X
39
X
X
23
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
26
X
27
X
X
X
X
RESOURCES COVERED
Natural resources
Land
Soil
Water
Streams and streambanks
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EXEMPTIONS FROM LAW OR FROM PENALTIES
Agriculture and horticulture
Mining
Homes or small sites
Highways or railways
Minor land disturbances
Cost sharing assistance unavailable
X
X
33
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
7
X
37
X
X
6
19
X
33
X
X
X
X
X
4
4
X
X
X
24
5
X
X
X
X
X
STATE CONTROL AGENCY
Participating agencies:
Soil and Water Conservation
Natural Resources
Other
State responsibilities:
Develoo oolicies and programs
Develoo criteria standards, guidelines
Adopt rules and regulations
ADD rove local programs or plans
Perform enforcement functions
Assist local agencies with:
Ordinances, regulations, and programs
Enforcement
Cost sharing
Approve state and federal agency plans
Adopt program if local agency fails to do so
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
34
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
16
X
X
X
18
X
X
32
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
X
X
X
40
X
X
X
42
X
X
21
X
X
X
X
22
X
X
X
29
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOTE: An "x" indicates that the respective law contains the provision listed; numbers refer to footnotes.
-------
Garner
151
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PROVISIONS
LOCAL CONTROL PROGRAM
Participating local agencies:
Conservation districts
Counties
Cities
Towns or townships
li
£
X
X
X
X
Delaware
X
X
X
District of Columbia
31
*
X
X
X
1
X
X
1
X
I
X
i
X
1
5T
3
o.
X
X
X
X
z
3;
X
X
X
X
Minnesota
X
z
3
Q)
X
X
X
at
I
41
41
New Hampshire
X
if
I
X
X
X
z
a-
X
o
S
3*
a»
X
X
X
o
5"
X
X
Pennsylvania
X
X
I
S?
i
X
a
00
X
X
£
ST
X
X
3
5T
o»
X
CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES
Review and approve erosion and sediment control
plans
Establish soil loss limits
Assist county or other local agency develop ordi-
nances or regulations
Adopt standards, criteria, guidelines
Adopt rules and regulations
Perform enforcement functions 10
Adopt an erosion and sediment control program
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?fi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
COUNTY. CITY. TOWN, OR TOWNSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES
Adopt programs
Review and approve plans
Adopt ordinances
issue permits on basis of approved plan
Perform enforcement functions 10
Issue rules and regulations
X
X
X
X
X
X
3b
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
?3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
FOOTNOTES
1. Authorities contained in laws and
regulations
2. Acceptable plan required at site of activity
3. Erosion control practices may not be
required on land used for such purposes
only
4. Exempted from permit requirements only
5. Except as to grading, excavating, or filling
6. Except in Calvert County
7. Within city limits
8. Department of Fish and Game
9. Department of Environmental Resources
10. May include permits, inspection, complaints,
violation procedures, fines, other legal
actions
11. In municipalities not within a district
12. Special provisions for emergency actions
13. Division of Soil and Water Districts
14. Air and other resources
15. Division of Environmental Protection of the
Department of Natural Resources
16. Established by law
17. And other resources
18. Department of Health
19. Persons engaged in agriculture who have
agreements with conservation districts are
not subject to site plans, land use plans, or
permits, but are subject to enforcement
procedures
20. Department of Agriculture
21. Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner
of Environmental Protection
22. May assist with grants
23. Certification
24. Emergency repairs
25. Agricultural land as described in the law
26. Required where district determines that an
agricultural land-disturbing activity is
violating adopted standards
27. Permit issuing authorities must require
compliance with district standards
28. Department of Public Works
29. NC Sedimentation Control Commission
30. DC Department of Environmental Services
31. DC Agencies engaged in land disturbing
activities
32. State Department of Agriculture
33. Certain specified exceptions
34. Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
35. Political subdivisions not precluded from
adopting more stringent programs
36. Waste discharge license required for
discharge of any pollutant
For agricultural activities having an
approved erosion and sediment control plan
or conservation plan
Board of Environmental Protection
39. Initial design of project must provide
measures to prevent pollution
40. State Environmental Commission
State Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources may delegate authority
as to diffuse sources (non-point)
NH Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission.
37
38
41
42
-------
152
Garner
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGISLATION
October 1, 1979
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Del. S.B. No. 359, June 30, 1977
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1977
D.C. Law 223, September 23, 1977
Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975
Ga. Code Ann. Sees. 5-2301 a— 5-231 3a (1975 Rev., 1979 Cum. Pocket Part)
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Hawaii Rev. Stats. Ch. 180-C (1976 Replacement)
Soil and Water Conservation Act.
III. S.H.A. Ch. 5, Sec. 106-138.10
Soil Conservation Districts Law
I.C.A. Sec. 467A.1— 467A.53 (1971, 1979 Cum. Pocket Part)
Water Pollution Abatement Licensing Program*
Me. H.P. 1185-LD. 1458, Approved June 8, 1979
Sediment Control Act
Ann. Code Md., Nat. Res., Sec. 8-1101—8-1108 (1974, 1978 Cum. Supp.)
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act
Mich. Stats. Ann. Sees. 13.1820(1)— 13.1820(17)
Soil and Water Conservation
Minn. Stats. 40.005-40.15
The Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975*
R.C.M. Sec. 26-1510—26-1523 (1947, 1975 Cum. Pocket Supp.)
Act Providing for the Control of Water Pollution From Diffuse Sources*
Nev. Rev. Stats. Sec. 445.131 et seq.; Nev. A.B. 572, May 26, 1979
Dredging Law*
N.H. RSA 149:8-A
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act
N.J. Stats. Ann. Sec. 4:24-17.5-^1:24-55
Soil and Water Conservation Law
McKinneys Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 52-B
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973.
Gen. Stats. N.C. Sees. 113A-50— 113A-66 (1975, 1979 Supp.)
Agricultural Pollution Abatement and Urban Sediment Pollution Abatement
Ohio HB 513, Approved Oct. 13, 1978
Page's Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sees. 1 51 5.01 .30, .32, .33, .99; 307.79, .791 ; 61 1 1 .04,
The Clean Streams Laws of Pennsylvania*
35 Pa. Stats. Sees. 691.1 et. seq. (1977)
County Sediment Control Programs
Code of Laws of S.C. Sees. 48-13-10-^8-13-60 (1976)
Act to Regulate Land-disturbing Activities Within the State, Resulting in Soil Erosion
S.D.C.L. Sees. 38-8A-1— 38-8A-21 (1977)
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Code of Va. Tit. 21, Ch. 1, Sees. 21-89.1—21.89.15 (1978 Cum. Supp.)
Environmental Protection, Shore and Erosion Control
V.I. Code Tit. 12, Sees. 531-538 (1978 Cum. Supp.)
44; 305.31 , .32, .35, .42
and Sediment Damage
*Law includes authority for erosion and sediment control among other authorities.
-------
Garner Appendix
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS
PROVIDING FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1979
Prepared By
MARY M. GARNER
Legal Consultant
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Twenty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have enacted
erosion and sediment control legislation during the past decade. This includes
legislation such as amendments to conservation districts laws, water quality laws,
and erosion and sediment control laws. Some of these laws are broad in scope,
whereas, others deal with specific areas of concern.
All of the laws contain some provision for enforcement of conservation
requirements, most of which involve three general types of regulatory mecha-
nisms: (1) Approved erosion and sediment control plan required for land dis-
turbing activities; (2) Approved plan required for issuance of a permit for an
activity involving land disturbing activities; (3) Requirement for compliance with
established permissable soil loss limits.
A significant characteristic of most of these laws is the provision for coopera-
tion and coordination between the various state agencies concerned with soil and
water conservation and water quality, and between the state agencies and local
units of government.
This summary is intended as a general indication of the principal provisions
of these laws. For more complete information, reference should be made to the
particular laws, citations to which are included on the last page.
Prepared by the National Association of Conservation Districts
under Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. T 900 704-02
-------
154 Garner
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
(A reference to the particular law will be essential for complete explanation of provisions)
PROVISIONS
TYPF OF STATE LAW
Frnsinn and ^pdimp.nt rnntrol
P.nncprvatinn riktrints
Water quality and stream control
Model Act &
Provisions
S
X
Delaware
X
District ol Co
1
5"
X
|
5*
X
Z
i
X
a
o_
M
X
1
X
3E
a*
e>
X
at
oT
a
X
Z
3-
1
X
Minnesota
X
Montana
X
z
I
D>
X
I
£
1
5
X
z
a
X
I
a-
X
z
i
s?
X
o
§•
X
X
Pennsylvania
1
g1
I
X
Crt
O
X
a
s
X
X
£
a"
aT
X
MFTHODS OF CONTROL
Annrnvpri prosion and s fid i rnent control olan
rpmiirpri fnr land disturbance
Fstahlishment of soil loss limits
Permits on basis of an aooroved elan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3fi
X
X
X
X
39
X
X
?3
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
26
X
21
X
X
X
X
RESOURCES COVERED
Natural resources
Land
Soil
Water
Streams and streambanks
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
2!>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EXEMPTIONS FROM LAW OR FROM PENALTIES
Agriculture and horticulture
Mining
Homes or small sites
Highways or railways
Minor land disturbances
Cost sharing assistance unavailable
X
X
33
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
I
X
37
X
X
6
19
X
33
X
X
X
X
X
4
4
X
X
X
24
b
X
X
X
X
X
STATE CONTROL AGENCY
Participating agencies:
Soil and Water Conservation
Natural Resources
Other
State responsibilities:
Develop policies and progra m s
Develop criteria standards, guidelines
Adopt rules and regulations
Approve local programs or plans
Perform enforcement functions
Assist local agencies with:
Ordinances, regulations, and programs
Enforcement
Cost sharing
Approve state and federal agency plans
Adoot program if local agency fails to do so
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
34
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
1fi
X
X
X
18
X
X
3?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
X
X
X
40
X
X
X
42
X
X
21
X
X
X
X
22
X
X
X
29
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOTE: An "x" indicates that the respective law contains the provision listed; numbers refer to footnotes.
-------
Garner
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGISLATION
Octoberl, 1979
155
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Del. S.B. No. 359, June 30, 1977
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1977
D.C. Law 223, September 23, 1977
Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975
Ga. Code Ann. Sees. 5-2301a— 5-2313a (1975 Rev., 1979 Cum. Pocket Part)
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Hawaii Rev. Stats. Ch. 180-C (1976 Replacement)
Soil and Water Conservation Act.
III. S.H.A. Ch. 5, Sec. 106-138.10
Soil Conservation Districts Law
I.C.A. Sec. 467A.1— 467A.53 (1971, 1979 Cum. Pocket Part)
Water Pollution Abatement Licensing Program*
Me. H.P. 1185-L.D. 1458, Approved June 8, 1979
Sediment Control Act
Ann. Code Md., Nat. Res., Sec. 8-1101—8-1108 (1974, 1978 Cum. Supp.)
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act
Mich. Stats. Ann. Sees. 13.1820(1)— 13.1820(17)
Soil and Water Conservation
Minn. Stats. 40.005-40.15
The Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975*
R.C.M. Sec. 26-1510—26-1523 (1947, 1975 Cum. Pocket Supp.)
Act Providing for the Control of Water Pollution From Diffuse Sources*
Nev. Rev. Stats. Sec. 445.131 et seq.; Nev. A.B. 572, May 26, 1979
Dredging Law*
N.H. RSA 149:8-A
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act
N.J. Stats. Ann. Sec. 4:24-1 7. 5-^:24-55
Soil and Water Conservation Law
McKinneys Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 52-B
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1 973.
Gen. Stats. N.C. Sees. 113A-50— 113A-66 (1975, 1979 Supp.)
Agricultural Pollution Abatement and Urban Sediment Pollution Abatement
Ohio HB 513, Approved Oct. 13, 1978
Page's Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sees. 1 51 5.01 .30, .32, .33, .99; 307.79, .791 ; 61 1 1 .04, .44; 305.31 , .32, .35, .42
The Clean Streams Laws of Pennsylvania*
35 Pa. Stats. Sees. 691.1 et. seq. (1977)
County Sediment Control Programs
Code of Laws of S.C. Sees. 48-13-10—48-13-60 (1976)
Act to Regulate Land-disturbing Activities Within the State, Resulting in Soil Erosion and Sediment Damaqe
S.D.C.L. Sees. 38-8A-1— 38-8A-21 (1977)
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Code of Va. Tit. 21, Ch. 1, Sees. 21-89.1—21.89.15 (1978 Cum. Supp.)
Environmental Protection, Shore and Erosion Control
V.I. Code Tit. 12, Sees. 531-538 (1978 Cum. Supp.)
"Law includes authority for erosion and sediment control among other authorities.
-------
156
Garner
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PROVISIONS
LOCAL CONTROL PROGRAM
Participating local agencies:
Conservation districts
Counties
Cities
Towns or townships
3o
B
a»
>
X
X
X
X
Delaware
X
X
X
District of Columbia
31
1
sr
X
X
X
fi^
X
X
3
§•
X
fi)
X
If
i
X
ft)
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
z
a
i
X
Montana
X
X
X
1
41
41
New Hampshire
i
X
X
X
I
1
X
I
s?
1
X
X
X
X
o
I
X
X
X
1
5*
X
X
X
?
s
fit
X
X
2
s
X
X
X
£
I
X
X
X
<
a
£
fi»
M
X
CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES
Review and approve erosion and sediment control
plans
Establish soil loss limits
Assist county or other local agency develop ordi-
nances or regulations
Adopt standards, criteria, guidelines
Adopt rules and regulations
Perform enforcement functions 1 0
Adopt an erosion and sediment control program
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
COUNTY, CITY, TOWN, OR TOWNSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES
Adopt programs
Review and approve plans
Adopt ordinances
Issue permits on basis of approved plan
Perform enforcement functions 1 0
Issue rules and regulations
X
X
X
X
X
X
35
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FOOTNOTES
1. Authorities contained in laws and
regulations
2. Acceptable plan required at site of activity
3. Erosion control practices may not be
required on land used for such purposes
only
4. Exempted from permit requirements only
5. Except as to grading, excavating, or filling
6. Except in Calvert County
7. Within city limits
8. Department of Fish and Game
9. Department of Environmental Resources
10. May include permits, inspection, complaints,
violation procedures, fines, other legal
actions
11. In municipalities not within a district
12. Special provisions for emergency actions
13. Division of Soil and Water Districts
14. Air and other resources
15. Division of Environmental Protection of the
Department of Natural Resources
16. Established by law
17. And other resources
18. Department of Health
19. Persons engaged in agriculture who have
agreements with conservation districts are
not subject to site plans, land use plans, or
permits, but are subject to enforcement
procedures
20. Department of Agriculture
21. Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner
of Environmental Protection
22. May assist with grants
23. Certification
24. Emergency repairs
25. Agricultural land as described in the law
26. Required where district determines that an
agricultural land-disturbing activity is
violating adopted standards
27. Permit issuing authorities must require
compliance with district standards
28. Department of Public Works
29. NC Sedimentation Control Commission
30. DC Department of Environmental Sen/ices
31. DC Agencies engaged in land disturbing
activities
32. State Department of Agriculture
33. Certain specified exceptions
34. Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
35. Political subdivisions not precluded from
adopting more stringent programs
36. Waste discharge license required for
discharge of any pollutant
37. For agricultural activities having an
approved erosion and sediment control pla
or conservation plan
38. Board of Environmental Protection
39. Initial design of project must provide
measures to prevent pollution
40. State Environmental Commission
41. State Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources may delegate authoril
as to diffuse sources (non-point)
42. NH Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission.
-------
157
EROSION CONTROL IN A SUBURBANIZING AREA:
THE CASE OF MIDDLETON, WISCONSIN
David Donoghue, P.E., City Engineer
William Feist, Alderman
Richard Lehmann, Plan Commissioner
Representing the City of Middleton Plan Commission
I. CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDDLETON
The City of Middleton is a 4th class suburban municipality occupying
5.59 square miles of land located on the west end of Lake Mendota in South-
central Wisconsin. The City of Madison, population 171,113, abuts Middleton
on the east and south.
YAHARA
RIVER
MIDDLETON
PHEASANT
BRANCH
CREEK
ENDOTA
MONONA
L. WAUBESA
L. KEGONSA
The estimated population of Middleton, as of January 1, 1979, was 11,956
people. The City has experienced rapid growth over the last 20 years. The
1960 Census Population was 4,410; the 1970 Census Population was 8,286. The
growth in Middleton from 1970 to January 1, 1978, represents an increase of
37.2 percent, compared to a county-wide growth during the same period of
9.9 percent. Land use in the City of Middleton is made up of 58.47 percent
(2,091.66 acres) residential; 8.32 percent (297.57 acres) business and com-
mercial; 10.50 percent (375.8 acres) industrial; 15 percent (536.7 acres)
agricultural; and 7.71 percent (275.82 acres) conservancy.
-------
•ICQ
Donoghue-Feist-Lehmann
II. IMPORTANCE OF EROSION TO MIDDLETON
The City of Middleton has over one mile of frontage on Lake Mendota.
The Pheasant Branch Creek passes west to east through the approximate center
of the City. This creek drains a watershed of approximately 12,517 acres
through a channel which has unstable banks, steep channel gradients, large
peak flood flows and large amounts of sediment transport with subsequent
deposition in downstream marsh areas and Lake Mendota deltas. Over 75,000
cubic yards of deposited material was dredged out of the lake in 1970-71
at the mouth of the Pheasant Branch Creek. This material was a direct result
of erosion throughout the watershed. The City of Middleton has spent over
$400,000 since 1967 in Creek and lakeshore improvements, primarily erosion
protection and dredging.
Heavy agricultural erosion - sedimentation is a problem coupled with
urban construction erosion problems due to rapid growth. Since all this
sediment can enter Lake Mendota, the decline in lake quality is evident
immediately. The City has attempted to protect important lands by acquisi-
tion, open space designation; as well as through zoning and by the develop-
ment and enforcement of erosion control ordinances, including agricultural
lands (requirement for establishing Soil and Water Conservation Plans).
Attempts to form a watershed district with Federal assistance have been
unsuccessful.
III. EXPERIENCE UNDER THE EARLIER ORDINANCE PROVISIONS LEADING
TO DRAFTING OF THE NEW ORDINANCE
A. Experience in Problems and Enforcement. On November 3, 1970, the
City adopted an ordinance creating a section of the Building Code which
required Land Grading Permits. No person was allowed to excavate, grade,
regrade or fill any building site or other parcel of land in any multi-
family residential, commercial or industrial district without first obtain-
ing a permit from the Building Inspector. This ordinance also applied to
any building site or other parcel of land exceeding 25,000 square feet in
area, or any portion of a parcel exceeding 25,000 square feet in a Single
Family or Single Family Attached Zoning District. Problems experienced
under this ordinance related to the excessive amount of erosion from single
family home construction sites, tracking of mud and dirt on the streets^and
erosion problems resulting from storm water runoff in the built up portions
of the City. The ordinance lacked adequate performance criteria under which
a determination of noncompliance could be made, and as a part of a building
code, was difficult to enforce when land disturbing activities were conducted
without the construction of a building.
B. The City realized its land grading permit ordinance adopted in 1970
was inadequate for controlling erosion and for establishing water detention/
retention requirements. Model ordinances were obtained in 1976 from other
governmental agencies, primarily in Illinois. With the assistance of the Dane
County Regional Planning Commission staff, a draft ordinance was prepared.
After several drafts, a final draft was completed in early 1979^and submitted
to the Common Council for public hearing and adoption. The ordinance was
adopted June 5, 1979.
-------
159
Donoghue-Pelst-Lehmann
IV. THE NEW MIDDLETON, WISCONSIN, ORDINANCE
The ordinance is a "free standing" code under the legal authority of
Section 62.11 (5) of the Wisconsin Statutes. This Statute codifies the
principle of "municipal home rule." Under the Statute, the City Council
shall have power to act for the government and good order of the City
for its commercial benefit, and for the health, safety, and welfare of'the
public, and may carry out its powers by license, regulation, suppression,
borrowing of money, tax levy, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, confisca-
tion, and other necessary or convenient means." The ordinance has ties to
the City s zoning ordinance and to municipal subdivision regulation and is
referenced in both of those ordinances.
The ordinance addresses itself to land disturbing activities or uses
(including tilling, removal of ground cover, grading, excavating and filling)
occurring in the course of development or alterations in developed property.
Agricultural land uses are exempt, as are home gardens.
The code applies within the City and within a belt of land located within
1^ miles of the City (the municipal extraterritorial area).
Three Categories of Application
One part of the ordinance applies to projects with erosion and sedi-
mentation potential. This part defines a category of land disturbing
activities which require prior approval before they can begin and close
supervision thereafter. These are:
1. Earth-moving disturbances involving either 5,000 square feet or more
of area or 500 cubic yards or more of fill or excavation; or
2. Work on any public road; or
3. Work on any water course; or
4. Governmental or utility trenching involving more than 300 linear
feet; or
5. All land subdivisions.
^.These "erosion prone" land disturbing activities require a permit, based
on City review of a plan (described later). The standard which applies to
these activities is the following:
"... erosion and sedimentation during and after the land
disturbance will not exceed that which would have been eroded
if the land had been left in its undisturbed state and/or are
controlled in accordance with specifications established in
Minimizing Erosion in Urbanizing Areas as developed by the Dane
County Soil and Water Conservation District in cooperation with
the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service."
-------
160 Donoghue-Feist-Lehmann
There is another category of land disturbing activity which,
additionally, requires special controls on runoff. These are:
1. Residential developments of 5 acres or more; or
2. Non-residential developments of 3 acres or more; or
3. Residential development of any site when 50 percent of the
site will consist of impervious surfaces; or
4. Any other project where:
"In the opinion of the City Engineer, the runoff from the
land disturbing activity will create a hazard by exceeding
the safe capacity of the receiving water body in the area;
or will cause undue channel erosion or an undue increase in
water pollution by increased scour and transport of particles;
or will otherwise endanger the downstream property owners or
their property. Safe capacity is defined as the rate of flow
that can be handled without flooding."
These "runoff control" projects require a plan and a City permit.
Applications are tested against this standard:
"Land disturbing activities subject to onsite detention and
runoff control regulation under this ordinance shall not
exceed the more stringent of the two following standards:
"(a) The peak rate of runoff after the proposed activities
shall not be greater than the peak rate which would have
resulted from the same storm event occuring over the site
of the proposed activity with the land in its natural
undeveloped state, or
"(b) The peak runoff rate shall be limited to a rate prorated
on the basis of the safe capacity of the existing or pro-
posed stormwater drainage facilities.
"Further, land disturbing activities subject to onsite detention
and runoff control regulation by this ordinance shall provide
for detention of the increased stormwater runoff which would
result from the proposed land disturbing activity. Storage
shall be sufficient to store this increased runoff for a
hundred year rainfall of any duration. Stormwater detention
may be provided by the landowner/land user onsite or adjacent
to the site or may be provided by the City of Middleton."
Finally, there is an "all other" category. In respect to projects
not covered by the preceding language, the code provides:
-------
Donoghue-Felst-Lehmann 161
"Any landowner, land occupier or land user who permits excessive
erosion to adjacent land, public streets or bodies of water from
land not otherwise subject to this ordinance shall be deemed in
violation of this ordinance and subject to the penalties provided
in section 28.17. Erosion is held to be excessive if, in the
opinion of the City Engineer, an unsafe condition results in
the streets, if undue sedimentation of lakes and streams occurs
or if the public health, safety or general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Middleton is harmed."
The Nature of the Standards
The standards are expressed in performance terms. Any structural
measures which will accomplish the standards are eligible for consideration.
The City is, however, to apply these principles to review of plans and pro-
jects:
"1. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed
at any given time during development.
"2. Such minimum area exposure shall be kept to as short
a duration of time as is practicable.
"3. If at all practicable, temporary vegetation, mulching
or other cover shall be used to protect areas exposed
during development.
"4. Provision shall be made to effectively accommodate the
increased runoff caused by changed soil and surface
conditions during and after development according to
the standards contained in this ordinance.
"5. Permanent, final plant covering or structures shall be
installed as soon as possible.
"6. The plan of development shall relate to the topography
and soils of the site so that the lowest potential for
erosion is created.
"7. Natural plant covering shall be retained and protected
and shall be deemed a dominating factor in developing the
site."
In addition "The City Engineer shall not approve any plan nor
issue a permit for any land disturbing activities under this ordinance
unless he is satisfied that there will be adequate provisions to pre-
vent the tracking or dropping of dirt or other materials from the site,
onto any public or private street."
-------
162
Donoghue-Fetst-Lehmann
Regulatory Procedure
The erosion prone and runoff control projects require the landowner
to apply for a special permit. The application shall include a plan for _
control of erosion, sedimentation and runoff. The plan has to show existing
site conditions (including topo), a proposed work plan, and the proposed
resulting topo and site conditions. Soil types (upper 6 inches) and cover
have to be indicated. Calculations have to be made of surface runoffs and
discharge upon 10 and 100 year frequency storms. Design assumptions have
to be Articulated, as do costs of the facilities included in the plan.
The plan is reviewed by the City Engineer. The ordinance provides
an option for small parcel owners to request and pay for the preparation^
of the plan for the City Engineer "if time permits him to do so. Appli
cants may appeal and review decisions of the City Engineer to the City
Water Resources Management Commission.
Enforcement
An approved plan becomes binding upon the property owner and all
work must comply with the plan and permit. The applicant is responsible
for all costs. The cost assumption responsibility extends offsite.
The permittee "... must bear his proportionate share of the
total cost of offsite improvements to drainageways based upon the
existing developed drainage area or planned development of the drainage
area, as determined by the City Engineer ..." In the event the appli-
cant fails to do the work indicated on the approved plan, the City Engi
neer is authorized ". . .to perform any work or operations necessary to
bring the condition of the lands into conformity with the approved control
plan or plan as modified by the City Engineer and ... the total of the
costs and expenses of such work and operations (are placed) upon the tax
roll as a special tax against the property."
The approved plan has a timetable. In any event, permits under the
ordinance expire after six months unless specially extended.
Inspections must be called for at the start and end of earthmoving work.
The applicant consents to municipal inspection access as a condition ot the
permit.
Violations subject the responsible parties to the possibility of for-
feiture (not less than $20 nor more than $200 per day) or injunction or
to direct remedial work by the City with costs assessed to the property.
The property owner is responsible for repairing any damage to lands or
drainageways caused by runoff or sedimentation from activities not part
of the approved plan.
Variances and appeals are assigned to the City's Water Resources
Management Commission.
-------
Donoghue-Fei st-Lehmann
V. IMPLEMENTING THE NEW MIDDLETON ORDINANCE
With the adoption of the City's current Erosion Control Ordinance,
staff has begun an educational period prior to strict enforcement of the
ordinance. As single family home builders and other contractors, including
utility contractors, apply for street opening permits or building permits,
they are given a copy of the new Erosion Control Ordinance and advised of
the new requirements under which they will be expected to conduct their
construction operations. Contractors are also given a copy of a paper
entitled "Methods for Controlling Erosion and Sedimentation from Resi-
dential Construction Activities," by B. B. Hagman and J. G. Konrad, Bureau
of Water Quality, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which provides
a listing of no cost practices that can be implemented to control erosion
during construction of single family homes. They are encouraged to utilize
these practices in any new construction they undertake. To date, all con-
tractors have indicated a willingness to comply with the new ordinance and
have initiated some of the recommended practices, including removal of the
excavated material upon backfilling of the basement walls, at which time
they are now rough grading the lots. The only negative comment received
from contractors to date relates to the costs that would be added to home
construction in locations where the topography creates unusual circumstances
One contractor has indicated that he would anticipate an additional $3,000
in costs to implement the erosion control practices necessary to keep the
sediment on site. In the majority of instances, staff estimates additional
costs to the contractor to range between $500 - $1,000 per lot in order to
employ the practices required by the new ordinances to prevent erosion.
Full copies of the City of Middleton Ordinance on Erosion Control and
Storm Water Runoff can be obtained from the City Engineer, 7426 Hubbard
Avenue, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562.
-------
-------
165
DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE EROSION CONTROL AND
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES IN DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
F. Brandt Richardson
Senior Hydrologist
Minnesota Water Planning Board
St. Paul , Minnesota
David E. Stewart
Consulting Attorney
Madison, Wisconsin
The control of erosion from construction sites and the
nrnnnc H°VVrba2 st?rmwater are essential components of a
proposed strategy for improvements in the water quality and
recreational use of the Madison (Wisconsin) chain-of-1 akes
IDane County Regional Planning Commission, 1979). In con-
junction with area-wide water quality management planning
for Dane County, efforts were made to assess the relative
significance of non-point sources of pollution and to deter-
mine the adequacy of current land management techniques
,nHCl!!STS !:e9ard1n9 the inadequacies of existing efforts
and the^development of a comprehensive model ordinance for
regulation of construction site erosion and stormwater
management may have applicability to other communities con-
templating non-point source pollution control.
anH nnnaST^eSu(Mendota' Monona> Wlngra, MaubeSa,
and Kegonsa) exhibit the effects of cultural eutrophication
(Sonzogni and Lee, 1974, 1975) as a result of nutrient loads
from various agricultural and urban sources. In addition
caDacitvUnfethCTt locall'zed>Pai™ent Of the recreational
capacity of the lakes, necessitating dredging in several
ipvp?n™S\ T5e sedimentation has also enabled extensive
development of aquatic macrophytes, requiring use of both
chemical and mechanical controls.
tho nT° r*duce. nutrient and sediment loads to these lakes,
I Ka"euC5Unty Re9ional Planning Commission (DCRPC)
InclSdld mawUJter qu^ty ^nagement planning process which
Ind imnn^n */ quality monitoring to assess the magnitude
and importance of various sources of pollutants, (2) review
of existing management techniques including public works
practices and erosion controls, and (3) an analysis of
institutions and legal authorities for development of a non-
point source pollution reduction program. These activities
have evidenced the need for infiltration and on-site detention
of stormwater to reduce the transport of various urban
contaminants. The following discussion is limited to
-------
166 Richardson-Stewart
consideration of potential sediment yield from construction
sites and delivery by urban stormwater.
Significance of Construction-Related Sediment
There is substantial documentation regarding the
potential sediment yield from construction sites (Wolman
and Schick, 1967) which suggests a range of yield from
1.5 to 220 tons/acre/year, with many observed values near
the jpper end of this range. (In contrast, results of
research in the Madison area indicate that stable, fully-
developed urban catchments yield sediment at a rate
approximating 1 ton/acre/year).
Additional local evidence for the significance of sedi-
ment yield from construction sites was provided by water
quality monitoring undertaken by the DCRPC. The largest urban
sediment yield was monitored in a catchment with substantial
construction activity. Comparison of storm-event data in
stable and urbanizing catchments indicated substantially
larger sediment yields from the urbanizing catchment. Personal
inspection of catchments with construction activity after
storm events verified substantial soil losses from construc-
tion sites.
In response to these observations, an assessment of
existing erosion control efforts was made. A review of
regulatory efforts by all units of government in the county
revealed limited attempts to require the application of
erosion controls in seven of the sixty-one units of govern-
ment, the most significant of which are discussed further
in "Rationale for Development.of a Model Ordinance".
Construction Site Erosion Control Practices Inventory
In addition to interviewing local officials and employees
concerning construction erosion control ordinances, staff
from the Dane County Regional Planning Commission surveyed
construction sites in September 1976 to assess the adequacy
and extent of application of erosion control practices.
Survey Methods
Construction sites were located in all five cities,
eight of twenty villages, and five of thirty-five towns
in Dane County. In the City of Madison, the survey covered
all construction areas within the four basins selected for
water quality monitoring. Building inspectors in all cities
were contacted to indicate areas of significant construction
activity, and the remaining sites were identified by village
and county officials.
-------
Richardson-Stewart 167
«f h,,??2?truct1°? act1vuy in 1976, as indicated by number
of building permits issued, reached its highest level in
4-5 years and was representative of the level of activity
in the last decade.
Basic information was collected for each site visited,
including name of the project and general contractor, loca-
tion, type and stage of construction, number of lots and
estimated acreage of project, average and maximum slope,
and nature of the drainage system. Presence of absence of
erosion control practices was noted, and those practices
observed were judged for adequacy. The presence of sheet and
rill erosion, sedimentation and tracking was recorded.
»nrf l^nler? tabujatej. according to project size, location
Commission! 1979)!:rUCtl0n ^^ COUnty Reg1°nal Plann1"9
Characteristics of Observed Sites
h.mH S"jxty-e1?h1; construction projects, covering seven
hundred and eighty-four acres, were included in the survey
Nearly one-half of the sites observed were small (less than
two acres), but the.twenty large projects (ten acres or
larger) comprised eighty-nine percent of the acreage surveyed
F y
as
communities or in isolated tracts in the unincorporated area
The fifty-nine projects within cities and villages comori^ri
about one-half the land surveyed; the other nne projects
were located in unincorporated areas of the count?
Application of Erosion Control Practices
Over one-half of all projects observed were devoid of
P !•«
; r ,ed
any technique to reduce erosion. Most practices provided
only minimal protection from erosion. Two practices --
3^ - -"
nearlv a?i ^T^K3^ «ed1"9-'""lch1 ng -accounted for
nearly all of the observed practices, and observed mulrhinn
rates were often inadequate. Only five of the fifty-one 9
?haI!%?r°JeCtS em?loyed an^ other erosion control techniques;
Irll* It* T? &ll large Pr°J'ects located in unincorporated
?nr? / ubJect to the county subdivision ordinance, which
includes provisions for an optional erosion control plan.
-------
168 Richardson-Stewart
Observed Erosion, Sedimentation and Tracking
Each construction project was examined for observable
erosion and/or "tracking" - the transport of sediment off
the site on tires of construction vehicles. Of the 51 active
projects, 32 (62.7%) exhibited sheet-rill erosion and/or
the deposition of eroded sediment. If the 12 freshly
excavated sites are disregarded, 32 of the 39 active sites
(82.1%), with exposure to rainfall, showed erosion and/or
sedimentation. Because of the extremely dry months preceding
the observations, these results may underestimate the extent
and severity of erosion which would normally occur.
One-third of the active construction sites displayed
some degree of tracking. Most gravel entrances were
installed as bases for future paved entrances, and entrances
and exists were made elsewhere on many sites. Gravel entrances,
as installed and used, were often not intended or functioning
as devices to reduce tracking.
Significance of Observations
The inventory of erosion control practices documented
the deficiency of existing attempts to control sediment
yield from construction sites in all governmental jurisdic-
tions surveyed. The results suggest four specific problems:
(1 ) Inattention to erosion control practices is
extensive. crossing all stages of construction,
units of government, and sizes of projects.
(2) Small projects of less than ten acres exhibited
a total absence of erosion control practices. The
significance of smal1-acreage projects (usually
small developments of single-family homes) can be
underestimated as a source of localized problems.
The relatively higher delivery ratios in storm-
sewered areas, where most of such development
occurs, magnifies the significance of these
sources.
(3) Many observed erosion control practices were
inadequately applied. Inspection of these
practices by the staff soil scientist, and the
observed erosion and sedimentation, suggested
insufficiency of those practices applied and
lack of compliance with standard criteria for
application.
-------
Richardson-Stewart 169
(4) Those governmental units which have enacted erosion
control ordinances are not effectively controlling
erosion. Only those subdivision ordinances
involving the submission of erosion control plans
achieved even moderate success, due to the greater
facility of placing controls on large projects and
to increased attention from elected officials.
Reasons for the failure of existing regulatory attempts
cannot be directly determined or evidenced. However, some
inferences can be made which reveal common difficulties in
administering regulatory efforts. These inferences are
further developed in "Rationale for Development of a Model
Orai nance .
A principal concern is the lack of specific criteria
for selecting erosion control practices. Local administrators
are required to use considerable discretion in the selection
of adequate and equitable erosion control measures A
specific methodology, such as the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(Meyer and Ports, 1976), in conjunction with a standardized
acceptable soil loss rate set by the local unit of government,
would relieve the burden of justification from administrators
and would ensure long-term consistency.
Problems with proof of violation are inherent in ordinances
with generalized provisions which prohibit erosion or sedimen-
tation. Enforcement of these restrictions has usually been
in response to nuisance complaints, and demonstration of
violation is complicated after the actual storm event or
where several sources are involved.
A final impediment is the lack of inspection and enforce-
ment^of erosion control plans after issuance of a required
permi t.
Rationale for Development of a Model Ordinance
< The inventory of construction erosion control practices
in Dane County, Wisconsin demonstrated the need for some
method of reducing the sedimentation resulting from this
mo 1V1^- TS6 Se?rch of,the ordinances- of all units of govern
ment within Dane County (cities, villages, towns and the
county itself) revealed that the control/detention provisions,
if any, were interspersed throughout the adooting unit of
government's ordinances. '
f S?Tnin^lly' U was found that both the City of Madison
(pop. 170,000) and Dane County (pop. 240,000) imposed
erosion and sedimentation control requirements upon land
-------
170 Richardson-Stewart
division/subdivision activities occurring within their
respective jurisdictions. Dane County required the use of
certain control techniques and reserved the right to require
the submission of a control plan as part of the subdivision
process. Similarly, Madison's ordinance required the
submission of a plan to control erosion and surface water
drainage for every subdivision plat.
But neither unit of government imposed any effective
controls over erosion occurring at individual building sites.
Madison had an ordinance which sought or prohibit any activity
at a construction site which allowed erosion to adjacent
lands, public streets, bodies of water and also prohibited
tracking of dirt or other materials off of the site. However,
this ordinance required no submission of plans to control
such erosion. To enforce the ordinance, the city was required
to prove that a particular individual's construction site
activity caused sedimentation off the site.
The cities of Monona (pop. 10,000) and Middleton
(pop. 10,000) both sought to regulate erosion resulting from
excavation grading, regrading or filling on certain land by
requiring the person undertaking the activity to first
obtain a grading permit. Monona imposed this requirement
upon any parcel of land zoned commercial, industrial or multi-
family residential. Similarly, Middleton required a permit
for such activities on all land zoned commercial and industrial
but also imposed the requirement upon all residential and
limited business parcels exceeding 25,000 ft. Both ordinances
were administratively tied to the building permit process;
however, the clear wording of each required the applicant to
seek a grading permit even for land disturbing activities
which did not involve construction of a building.
Similar standards for the issuance of grading permits
were set out in both city ordinances. The ordinances required
each city engineer to review the erosion control features
proposed and the timing proposed for installation. If the
reviewing city engineer found the control features to be
adequate "to prevent the runoff of earth and silt onto
adjacent parcels of land, streets, highways and water ways
upon completion of the project," then the respective building
inspector (Monona or Middleton) issued the permit. A fair
reading of this standard shows that it simply requires that
land disturbing activity be stabilized after the activity
is completed. It does not contain any criteria to assist the
city engineer in determining what constitutes adequate
stabilization. Even more importantly, it does not set out
any restraints limiting erosion/sedimentation during the
land disturbing activity.
------- OCR error (c:\conversion\JobRoot\000002JJ\tiff\2000692I.tif): Unspecified error
-------
172
Richardson-Stewart
Admi ni strati on
The keystone of the administration of this ordinance is
the land distrubing activity permit (permit). The model
provides that no one may undertake any land disturbing
activity regulated under this ordinance (see following dis-
cussion of Activities Regulated) without receiving a permit
prior to commencing the proposed activity. However, there
are several optional exceptions to this permit requirement
provided in the model for use in relieving the single family
residence from the full impact of the ordinance. These
exceptions are provided for use in the event that political
realities require special treatment of single family residences
The authors believe that there is no basis for exceptions
because there are adequate low cost technical control practices
available to control erosion-sedimentation from single family
residential construction. To relieve the single family home
from the permit requirement makes any regulation difficult.
The permit provides the administrator with effective notice
regarding proposed land disturbing activity and without a
permit it would be difficult to impose any controls over
single family residences.
The model provides that every applicant for a permit
must develop a plan to control erosion/sedimentation and/or
runoff which would result from the proposed activity. The
administrator of the ordinance is required to evaluate the
control plans to determine whether they adequately meet the
standards (discussed subsequently) imposed by this model for
erosion-sedimentation and runoff control. As alternatives,
the model provides two exceptions to the control plan require-
ments. The adopting governmental unit may choose to have the
administrator or other government agency prepare the control
plan for single family resident applicants or others.
Additionally, or as a separate alternative, the governmental
unit may waive the preparation of a control plan if the
applicant agrees to implement all itemized control techniques.
These alternatives were suggested specifically for single
family residences.
The model requires the administrator to review all
applications and control plans within 30 days. If he approves
the application, the administrator is required to issue the
permit. Further, the model imposes conditions upon the permit.
The permittee is required to maintain all the improvements
provided in the plan and to give notice prior to commencement
of the land disturbing activities. Additionally, the
permittee is required to grant the administrator access to
the site for the purpose of inspecting the activity.
-------
Richardson-Stewart
Activities Regulated
Land disturbing activity is broadly defined by the
ordinance to include any change to land which may result in
soil erosion, sedimentation and/or increased runoff, but
specifically exempts home gardens, private road maintenance
and agricultural uses. The model ordinance seeks to
regulate proposed land disturbing activities of a certain
magnitude or type. The governmental unit must determine
certain threshold values when adopting this ordinance and
03516 t0 '" Slngl6 family residential
The model suggested threshold values and proposed that
the following land disturbing activities are subject to the
erosion and sediment control provisions of the ordinance, if:
(1) An area of 5,000 ft. or greater will be excavated,
filled, graded or have ground cover removed;
(2) 500 cubic yards will be excavated or a fill or
cut of three feet is proposed;
(3) Work on any public road, street, or highway
is undertaken;
(4) Utility trenching will involve more than 750
linear feet; or
(5) The proposed division of land is also regulated
by the governmental unit subdivision ordinances
(i.e., a subdivision plat is required).
The 5,000 ft. minimum was included in the ordinance in
fJJmtfnil* 52- ^gulate single family construction while still
exempting additions, extensions and modifications to homes.
land dimt1ab-y' the.m
-------
174 Richardson-Stewart
(4) The proposed activity will cause excessive runoff.
Additionally, the model seeks to control situations
not otherwise subject to the ordinance where sedimentation of
adjacent land, public streets and water occurs.
Standards Used To Evaluate Control Plans
The governmental unit adopting the model ordinance must
designate the authority (i.e., city engineer, public works
department, etc.) responsible for administering the ordinance.
It is this administrative authority which receives all permit
applications and supporting control plans from anyone who
proposes to undertake a land distrubing activity regulated by
the ordinance. The model ordinance requires evaluation
plans for compliance with the erosion/sedimentation and on-
site di?tention/runoff control requirements. No permit may
be issued unless the control plan will meet the applicable
standards.
Most of the proposed standards are of the performance
type and simply specify the degree of control which a proposed
plan must obtain. The adopting unit of government must select
the standards which it wishes to use.
The model proposes the following alternative standards
for evaluating erosion and sedimentation control plans. The
erosion during and after the land disturbing activity:
(1) Will not exceed a predicted average annual soil
loss of 15 tons per acre the first year, and five
tons per acre for any subsequent year that the
disturbance continues and will be designed to not
exceed one ton per acre after the disturbance is
completedj
(2) Will not exceed that which would have been eroded
if the land had been left in its undisturbed state;
or
(3) Will be controlled in accordnace with specification
established in Minimizing Erosion In Urbanizing Areas
as developed by Dane County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Service in cooperation with the U.S. Department
of Agricultural, S.C.S.
The model proposes that any land disturbing activity
which is subject to on-site detention and runoff control
regulation shall not exceed the more stringent of the two
following standards:
-------
Richardson-Stewart 175
(1) The peak rate of runoff after the proposed
activities should not be greater than the peak
rate which would have resulted from the same
storm event occurring over the site of the
proposed activity with the land in its natural
undeveloped state, or
(2) The peak runoff rate shall be limited to a rate
prorated on the basis of the safe capacity of the
existing or proposed stormwater drainage facilities.
Most of the alternatives proposed by this model are
performance standards and do not require the use of any
particular type of structural or nonstructural measures to
meet them. The authors believe the use of performance stand-
ards to be far superior to the designation of lists of
technical devices to control erosion and runoff. By simply
specifying the goal to be obtained both the designer and the
reviewed have a criteria to prepare and evaluate the plan.
Thus, the applicant for a permit may employ any techniques
which are believed to be necessary to achieve the applicable
standard. Of course, the techniques must follow accepted
design criteria and engineering standards. Additionally,
the model ordinance does provide general principles to
assist the administrator in evaluating proposed control plans.
(Copies of the model ordinance can be obtained from the
Dane County Regional Planning Commission, Room 114, City-
County Building, Madison, Wisconsin 53709).
Literature Cited
Dane County Regional Planning Commission, 1979. Dane
County water quality plan. Madison, Wisconsin (in progress).
Meyer, L. D. and M.A. Ports. 1976. Prediction and
control of urban erosion and sedimentation. Proceedings of
National Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and
y> Colle9e of
Sonzogni, W. , and G.F. Lee. 1974. Nutrient sources for
Lake Mendota - 1972. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 62:133-164.
f .r — , - n— ^ - ;— , _ • 1975. Phosphorous sources
for the lower Madison Lakes. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts
Lett. 63: 162-175.
Wolman, M.G., and A. P. Schick. 1967. Effects of con-
struction on fluvial sediment, urban and suburban areas of
Maryland. Water Resources Research 3(2): 451-62.
-------
-------
177
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EROSION
AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
ORDINANCES IN THE
CINCINNATI AREA
George A. Cummings
District Conservationist
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
Cincinnati, Ohio
When you think of Cincinnati, what do you think of? The Ohio
River, Fountain Square, Riverfront Stadium, Kings Island, Greater
Cincinnati Airport, or landslides ? During the period 1927-1930
a landslide on the west side of Cincinnati destroyed some 40 houses.
in 1973 the greater Cincinnati area was plagued with landslides that
closed roads, damaged buildings and destroyed houses. In 1974
when a landslide occurred during construction of an interstate high-
way the cost of correcting the problem was estimated to be more
than $8 million. Today the estimated cost is $16 million.
In 1973, city officials, developers and service and professional
organizations began holding meetings to plan a strategy for preventing
landslides. A local citizen's group in Cincinnati, the Citizen Task
Force on Environmental Quality, recommended to the city council's
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, that a cut-and-fill ordinance
be proposed for Cincinnati.
Hamilton County, with Cincinnati as the county seat, has a
total area of approximately 265,000 acres. Approximately 50,000
acres are still in agriculture, the rest is developed, is planned for
development, or is being held till the price is right. According to
a report of the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission 30
percent of the county - about 80,000 acres have slopes of 15 per
cent or greater.
Earlier development of Cincinnati and the suburbs was largely
located in the valleys and on the ridgetops . With advances in
-------
178
Cummings
construction and earthmoving technology developers began using
sites in hillside areas. On many of Cincinnati hillsides , high-rise
buildings were constructed just below the ridge line or cluster
apartment units run along the ridge and step down the slopes.
In the unincorporated areas of the county, developers have
built large single family home subdivisions and clustered multi-
family apartments . Most were built with very little attention to
topography, geomorphology and slope. Instead, through extensive
earthmoving, the sites were transformed to receive road and devel-
opment patterns designed specifically for land with no topographic
limitation. Often slope failure occurred because of poor cut and
fill practices and disturbance of the hillside form.
Some of the problems caused by these hillside developments
are erosion and sedimentation, stream pollution and flooding, loss
of scenic areas for public use, loss of form and configuration of
the hillside as a landscape element in urban design. The most
critical problem however, is the landslides that result from disturb-
ance of the natural slope. Depending upon the physical characteristic
of the site, landslides in Cincinnati have carried downhill everything
from part of a yard or a porch, to large sections of roads and group
dwelling units .
What is a landslide? A landslide is a rapid mass movement
of soil and rock moving downhill under the influence of gravity.
Landslides are characterized by actual failures in the soil or rock
structure with the part broken off carried downslope .
The Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District
(SWCD), along with the Soil Conservation Service(SCS) played an
important part in preparing the city's cut-and-fill ordinance. First
the district suggested to the mayor, that he petition the Ohio Soil and
Water Conservation Commission to annex the City of Cincinnati into
the district. This was done and the district and the City of Cincinnati
signed a memorandum of understanding.
While Cincinnati was preparing its cut-and-fill ordinance, two
fast-growing suburban communities were hard at work developing
sedimentation and erosion control ordinances. The cities of Forest
Park and Blue Ash were using a model ordinance developed by
-------
179
Cummings
Don Urban, SCS Resource Conservationist, detailed at the time to
work with the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Govern-
ments; the Soil Conservation Service; and the Hamilton County SWCD.
This model ordinance used guidelines contained in ordinances in
effect in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Both cities signed memorandums of understanding with the
district and their ordinances referred to the "Water Management and
Sediment Control For Urbanizing Areas Handbook" prepared by SCS
in Ohio, as a source of sediment control practices with standards
and specifications. The most important part of the ordinances was
that they established an approval procedure in which the conservation
district reviews the proposed water management and sediment control
plan and make comments on the plan to the city engineer before any
construction is started. Plans have been processed quicker where
a meeting between the developer, the city engineer, and the district
occurred during the preliminary planning stages. Also, a copy of
the water management handbook is given to the developer or his
engineer to use as a guide for designing erosion control measures.
In June 1974, Blue Ash became the first city in the greater
Cincinnati area to pass an erosion control ordinance and in August,
Forest Park became the second. Cincinnati passed its cut-and-fill
ordinance in November to help save the hillsides.
In Ohio, cities have the power of home rule and can pass laws
without the approval of the state. In 1974, Ohio counties had no
authority,basically, to pass erosion control ordinances. That
changed in January 1979 with the approval of an urban pollution
abatement program to be administered by the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Soil & Water Districts.
Before the state program was approved, however, Hamilton
County was able to take some steps toward dealing with landslides
and sediment problems. The first step occurred in July 1975 when
the county commissioners, the City of Cincinnati, and the conserv-
ation district asked the Soil Conservation Service to conduct a soil
survey of the county. The survey is scheduled for completion by
December 1979. With the new soil survey, critical slide prone soils
can be identified. This information can then be given to developers,
-------
180
Cummings
consultants, and planning officials to plan for proper development in
Hamilton County.
With the new ordinances, cities have to train their employees
on selecting the proper erosion control practices and determining
where they should be installed. The district, along with SCS is
helping with training.
Enforcement of the ordinances has been one of the big problems.
City inspectors have often assumed that what is on the plan will be
installed. Many problems have occurred because a planned erosion
control practice was not installed.
Some of the exemptions and requirements of the Cincinnati
cut-and-fill ordinance are as follows:
A. No permit needed with excavation less than 5 feet in vertical
depth or less than 100 cubic yards per 5000 square feet of
site area.
B. No permit needed if fill is less than 5 feet in vertical depth or
less than 100 cubic yards per 5000 square feet of site.
C. No excavating or filling shall cause any slope to become un-
stable, impose loads which may affect the safety of structures,
or slopes; interfere with adequate drainage for the site area
and drainage area of land adjacent to the site; obstruct,
damage or in other ways adversely affect lawfully existing
sewerage or drainage, public or private; cause a stagnant
pond of water to form or cause erosion or sedimentation.
D. Show plans for all retaining walls, cribbing, vegetative pro-
visions, erosion and sediment control measures, together
with location of temporary and or permanent fencing or other
protective devices to be constructed in connection with, or
as a part of the proposed work.
E. Show a timing schedule and sequence indicating the anticipated
starting and completion dates of the development sequence, -
stripping and/or clearing, rough grading and construction,
final grading, and vegetative establishment and maintenance.
-------
181
Cumnvings
F . A bond may be required.
G. A checklist for erosion and sedimentation control plan is
given to each developer or engineer.
The suburban cities exemptions and requirements for erosion
control ordinances are as follows:
A. No plan shall be required when an excavation or fill is less
than 4 feet in vertical depth at its deepest point; does not
result in a total quantity of more than 100 cubic yards of
material on any lot, parcel, or subdivision; has no final slopes
steeper than 1 foot vertical and 3 feet horizontal.
B. The location of all trees with a trunk diameter greater than
5 inches must be identified.
C. Detailed plans are required for all planned drainage provisions,
retaining walls, and erosion and sediment control measures;
a map is to be prepared that shows the drainage area of land
adjacent to the site and estimated runoff in cubic feet per
second, before and after construction. Estimated runoff is
computed in accordance with current city storm drainage
criteria.
D. The estimated cost of grading and/or filling and the cost of the
required erosion control practices.
E. A performance bond is required in the amount of the estimated
cost of the water management and sediment control measures.
Since 1974, four other municipalities have passed erosion
control ordinances. They all require the developer to use the
technical services of the conservation district and SCS. With the
passage of the law establishing Ohio's Urban Pollution Abatement
Program, both the counties and the townships can now require
erosion control ordinances.
Since the landslides in 1973, Cincinnati and its suburbs have
made a giant step toward controlling landslides, erosion, and
sediment problems.
-------
182
Cumnrings
CHECKLIST FOR EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
FOR
CITY OF CINCINNATI
A. 1. Apply for permit at Room 320-A, City Hall (phone
352-3431)
2. If applicant is not the owner of the property upon which
the excavation, fill or grading is to be done, submit a
letter, from the owner to the applicant, granting
permission for the work.
3. Submit two(2) copies of a plan which shall:
a. Include the owner's name and address, and the
names and addresses of abutting owners;
b. Include a plot plan, drawn to scale, and vicinity
plan showing the location of the proposed work;
c. Include a contour map of the affected area showing
the existing and proposed contours at 5-foot
intervals;
d. Show the location of the top and toe of each pro-
posed excavation, fill or grade;
e. Show the proposed amount of excavation, fill or
grading in cubic yards;
f. Show the location of any existing and proposed
streets;
g. Show the location of any existing and proposed
buildings or structures on the subject property
and within fifteen(15) feet of subject property;
h. Show the location of the proposed disposal site
for any contemplated excess materials;
i. Show the location of any borrow sites;
j. Show the location of any existing watercourses,
drainage, and sewer systems serving the property;
k. Show existing and proposed drainage structures,
walls, cribbing and surface protection, and any
necessary temporary earth restraining installations;
1. Show a plan for temporary and permanent drainage
of the property, including any new or altered
sewer systems;
m. Describe the proposed method for the protection
of the soils from erosion;
-------
183
Cumnrings
n. Show additional information as may reasonably
be required by the Director.
Unless waived, plans and specifications shall be pre-
pared by a registered professional engineer and shall,
in addition to (3) above;
a. Include a report showing the results of surface
and sub-surface exploration, conditions of the
land, and procedures for performing the operation;
b. Show plans of all drainage provisions which shall
be of such design to adequately handle the surface
runoff, together with a map showing the drainage
area of all land tributary to the site, and estimated
cubic foot per second runoff of the area served by
any drain computed in accordance with current
acceptable standards;
c. Include a description of the borrow material, and
the method to be used for and the degree of its
proposed compaction;
d. Show proposed preparation of existing ground
surface to receive fill;
e. Show proposed terraces and paved ditches where
necessary to control surface drainage and debris;
f. Show proposed sub-surface drainage if necessary
for stability;
g. Show plans of all retaining walls, cribbing, vege-
tative provisions, erosion and sediment control
measures, together with location of temporary
and/or permanent fencing and other protective
devices to be constructed in connection with, or
as a part of the proposed work;
h. Show a timing schedule and sequence indicating
the anticipated starting and completion dates of
the development sequence - stripping and/or
clearing, rough grading and construction, final
grading and vegetative establishment, and mainten-
ance, and the time of exposure of each area prior
to the completion of effective erosion and sediment
control measures .
These requirements may be waived or modified if
the information submitted under(3) above is deter-
mined to be sufficient to adequately evaluate the
application.
-------
184
Cummings
5. The requirements of (3) and (4) above may also be
waived or modified if the applicant presents a certi-
ficate in writing of a registered professional engineer
stating to the satisfaction of the Director, that the
proposed excavation, fill or grading will not:
a. Interfere with adequate drainage for the site area
and the drainage area of land tributary to the
site.
b. Obstruct, damage, or adversely affect existing
sewerage or drainage, public or private;
c. Cause a stagnant pond of water to form;
d. Create slope stability problems on subject and
adjacent property; or
e. That the proposed excavation or fill is in an
isolated, self-contained area and that there is no
apparent danger to adjacent public or private
property.
B. Any sewer work shall be in accordance with Chapter 719,
Sewers, of the Cincinnati Municipal Code, and the current
rules and regulations of the Metropolitan Sewer District of
Greater Cincinnati. Plans must be prepared by a registered
professional engineer.
C. One (1) copy of the plan will be returned to the applicant show-
ing changes or additions to be made.
D. Submit nine (9) copies of the final plan and specifications, with
revisions made.
E. Permit fee shall be based on the quantity of earth or other
material moved, ten dollars ($10.00) for the first one hundred
(100) cubic yards(or fraction thereof), plus ten dollar s ($10 . 00)
for each one thousand(l ,000) cubic yards (or fraction thereof)
in excess of one hundred(lOO) cubic yards.
F. A separate permit is required for each site involved.
G. Applicant will be notified when permit is ready.
-------
185
Cummings
CHECKLIST FOR EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. PLAN
FOR
FOREST PARK
A. Map with topographic feature of the project area.
1. Vicinity sketch and boundary line survey.
2. Location of any buildings , structures, utilities, sewers,
storm and water drains on the site and property within
100 feet of the project site.
3. Contours of the existing site at 2 foot intervals.
4. Acreage of the project.
5. Scale of map and north arrow.
6. Name and addresses of owner, of developer, of tech-
nician who made the plan, and engineer responsible for
engineering detail.
7. Location by section, township, range, county and state.
8. Name of the project area.
9. Locate all trees with a trunk diameter of greater than
(5) five inches, measured at a point (5) feet from the
ground.
B. Map with proposed alterations to the area.
1. Changes to land surface and vegetative cover.
2. Areas of cut and fill.
3. Detailed plans of storm water and erosion control
facilities .
4. Contours of finish areas at an interval that will ade-
quately describe the FINAL topography.
5. Structures, roads, paved areas, buildings.
6. Utility easements and drainage easements.
C. Watershed area and runoff from project area.
1 . Drainage area in acres for each storm water and
erosion control structure.
2. Calculation of C.F.S. (Cubic Feet Per Second Runoff)
prior to development and C.F.S. after development.
3. Watershed above project area. (If applicable).
4. Certification of the quantity of excavation and fill
involved.
-------
186
Cummings
D. Starting and completion dates of project area.
1. Date of cover removal.
2. Date of temporary cover.
3. Date of permanent storm water and erosion control
structures constructed.
4. Date of final completion of project.
E. Temporary and Permanent control measures and facilities
1 . Types of permanent and temporary measures .
2. Seeding recommendations
3. Topsoil stockpile.
4. Calculations of permanent and temporary measures
F. Maintenance of Facilities
1. Who will maintain structure during development.
2. How long will structure be maintained.
G. Number of Plans
1. Three copies of the plan.
-------
187
EFFECTS OF REGULATION ON
BUILDING PROCEDURES
James F. Brady, President
Majestic Construction Co.
Builders are not automatically "agin" regulations for
the sensible control of land for building purposes. In many
cases innovative builders and developers have sensibly and
imaginatively developed problem or unusual sites into award
winning projects. Today builders and developers recognize
the need to provide cost effective controls for erosion and
sediment containment. For this reason the National Associ-
ation of Home 3 uilders in conjunction with the Urban Land
Institute and the American Society of Civil Engineers has
prepared a series of informational manuals and visuals deal-
ing with performance standards for various infrastructural
elements in residential developement. These studies dis-
cuss the objectives, principles and design considerations
to be applied to the developement process. Hopefully,
these will be used by developers, planners, engineers and
municipal officials.
The slide presentation titled "Erosion and Sediment
Control" was shown. For brevity the prepared tape was o-
mitted. See Precis - Schedule A.
This preparation of this visual and tape is a recogni-
tion by the building community of the need to participate
in the formulation of cost effective land developement con-
trols. Its very basic approach makes it ideal for use with
all levels of public and quasi-public groups, particularly
when in the process of considering legislative action on
controls.
The effects of excessive regulation on building proce-
dures are reflected in today's dramatically spiralling costs.
The typical reaction to this fact is that higher costs just
means lower builder profits. This is not the problem. The
problem is that the true impact of excessive costs is to
substantially reduce the total housing market. It is in
large part the "entry" housing market - those buying their
first home - that is most adversely affected by costly en-
vironmental restrictions. Most entry housing is created in
large scale developements, the major consumers of residen-*
tial acreage. These are the tracts which usually require
the most tensitive and sophisticated developement techniques.
At the same time they are the tracts most likely to be de-
layed as the developement plan becomes mired in a series of
submissions to control groups at local, county and state
-------
188 Brady
levels. Sensible controls, yes, but not the proliferation
of regulations and restrictions from planning groups at
cross purposes.
Between 1970 and 1976 the price of new homes increased
9070; land and land developement costs comprised a dispropor-
tionate share of this increase. In the 1950's about 11% of
the cost of a new home was in the lot. In early 1977? 25/«
was represented by lot cost. Today in most areas it is 30/0.
The bulk of this increase is reflective of continually in-
creasing standards and excessive regulations. Bonding be-
comes increasingly onerous. Bonds are almost impossible to.
obtain, very expensive and it is difficult to obtain re-
leases. With the increasing use of retention ponds in
smaller and smaller developements the question of mainten-
ance becomes a large problem for all concerned, the resi-
dents, the builder and the community - who foots the cost?
The biggest factor in land developement, particularly in
matters affected by environmental controls, is the time re-
quired for submissions and approvals. The ninety day sub-
division approval is dead. Instead eighteen months to two
years is the norm. Ground owned or under option continues
to accumulate costs during the processing period. Techni-
cal staffs are needed to procure data, produce reports and
prepare plans for all levels of the submission process. As
"208" and "201", coupled with local and state plans come on
stream more delays and preparation costs are inevitable. A
recent study by HUD stated clearly that excessive controls
and processing were a big part of housing costs. NAH3 re-
cently commissioned a model subdivision study: some of the
findings showed differences in street costs nationwide
ranging from 3311 to ^1435 per lot, sanitary sewers from
S358 to #1497, erosion control from $4 to S411, and devel-
opement fees from $4 to $2302 per lot. Granted geography,
climate and soil account for a portion of the difference:
but the conclusion must be drawn that locally mandated reg-
ulations create excessive costs and can be a big factor in
the market place.
I would suggest that the biggest obstacle to effective
erosion and sediment control lies in local zoning ordinances
In our area the half-acre lot is king, regardless of topo-
graphy or soil conditions. It is almost impossible to OD-
tain approval for any other kind of developement. As the
easy sites are used, the developer must turn to the more
difficult sites that have been passed over. In our area
this generally means hillsides, and hillsides mean bigger
soil control problems. How much more effective^our mutual
job of minimizing erosion and sedimentation would be if we
-------
Brady 189
could cluster and zero lot line our housing.
There are some areas that have done this and most ef-
fectively. But in those areas where planned unit develope-
ment is not prevalent it seems to me the most effective con-
trols could be achieved by your working with the planning
commissions and city councils and county commissioners to
promote flexible land use patterns. Provide them with your
data and studies; not just to put on new controls but to de-
velope land use systems that would provide for the best pos-
sible use of the land and to minimize controls.
Even in the areas where PUD ordinances are on the books
public hearings are often necessary for plan approval. Hav-
ing stood before many a planning commission outnumbered 50
to 1 it would be most helpful (and refreshing) to have some-
one not on the developer's payroll testify that a cluster
of homes would be the best way to preserve the trees and
streams.
The developer and the soil and water conservationist
should not have to have an adversary relationship. V/e
should share a common goal by working together to protect
the land while providing housing for all our people.
-------
190
Brady
Schedule A - Precis of Tape
Shown first are the conditions of the Thirties through
the post war boom. In the Sixties the need for controls
became apparent. While controls are needed erosion has al-
ways been part of the natural process. Farming produces
4 Billion tons of sediment annually. T.'hile construction
produces far less its impact on smaller areas is more in-
tensive. Total rainfall, soil porosity, geography and cli-
mate are all factors in erosion. Job control, timing and
site preparation and utilization are all part of a sensible
developement program.
-------
191
EROSION CONTROL AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
FOR URBAN SOIL SEDIMENT POLLUTION ABATEMENT
A WORKABLE OHIO STANDARD
Robert L. Goettemoeller
Deputy Chief, Pollution Abatement
Division of Soil and Water Districts
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Fountain Square, Columbus, Ohio 43224
Soil erosion on urban development construction sites and uncontrolled
accelerated storm water runoff from developed urban areas are the roots of
urban soil sediment pollution. Damage from accelerated urban erosion and
resulting sediment pollution is immediate as well as far reaching and very
expensive to repair. Eroded development sites must be regraded and some-
times resoiled to establish a desirable stand of vegetative cover. Sediment
must be removed from culverts and storm sewers at an unnecessary cost passed
on to the eventual land or home buyer.
Damage to water quality from urban sediment pollution is generally con-
sidered significant but difficult to fix an accurate cost to. Downstream
damage to aquatic life, water treatment costs, and so on are difficult to
identify in terms of the increase caused by accelerated erosion.
The most dramatic and costly damage occurs off the development site
in the way of accelerated stream channel and flood plain erosion and sed-
iment deposition in storm drainage facilities, rivers, lakes, and shipping
harbors. Past philosophy sought maximum convenience at an individual site
by the most rapid possible elimination of excess surface water after a rain.
The cumulative effects of such approaches have been a major cause of accel-
erated downstream channel erosion and increased frequency and level of
flooding. In some cases, the effects have necessitated development of
massive engineering works to prevent channel erosion and flood damages at
public expense or at the expense of innocent downstream property owners.
The cost of removing and disposal of sediment from streams, lakes, and
harbors is skyrocketing. Costs have reached eight to ten dollars a cubic
yard in some cases due primarily to transportation costs for disposal of
dredged material.
Water quality standards provide very little guidance where those re-
sponsible for the pollution do not have control of one or more of the major
elements which cause the problem. The unpredictable, uncontrollable aspects
of precipitation - form, timing, intensity, duration - are the significant
factors in soil erosion/sediment pollution which the landowner, planner,
developer, or contractor cannot control. In spite of the action of the
contractor, for example, significant erosion and offsite deposition may
occur due to an intense, untimely rainfall event.
-------
192 Goettemoeller
The challenge and perhaps the obligation is to develop and apply a
reasonable and workable standard, one which allows the developer to know
what is expected, what he must do before the first spade of earth is turned.
The developer must be able to use the standard to plan and apply the needed
control practice.
In Ohio, standards to address urban sediment pollution are expressed
in terms of a level of conservation or management to be applied in con-
junction with earth grading, filling, excavating, or other earth disturbance
on development areas rather than a level of water quality expected. The
owner, or developer, applies the appropriate level of conservation, sediment
control, and water management practices in conjunction with earth disturbance
on development sites and any soil material eroded from a site with the prac-
tices in place, is considered acceptable with respect to the standards.
Ohio's standards deal separately with development site erosion and with off-
site stream channel and flood plain erosion resulting from accelerated storm
water runoff from developed areas.
Maintaining the productivity of the land is not vitally important on
urban develop land as compared to agricultural land. Two options, therefore,
are allowed in the case of development site erosion. Erosion can be con-
trolled on the site or it can be allowed to occur if the sediment is filtered
from or settled out of the runoff water before it leaves the development site.
The standards, then, relate to the level of conservation practices required,
or the size of settling area required.
Ohio's standard for sheet and rill erosion control on urban development
areas states: the person responsible shall:
A. Construct and maintain sediment basins sized in accordance with
the United States Soil Conservation Service handbook, "Water
Management and Sediment Control for Urbanizing Areas".
B. Apply and maintain a level of management and conservation prac-
tices such that the predicted average annual soil loss, accumu-
lative monthly in accordance with the procedure (Universal Soil
Loss Equation) in the handbook, "Water Management and Sediment
Control for Urbanizing Areas" is less than fifteen tons per acre
the first year commencing from the time of initial earth disturb-
ance, ten tons per acre the second year, and five tons per acre
for any other year of the development process.
C. Use other methods to control sediment pollution, including, but
not limited to, a combination of paragraphs (A) and (B), provided
those methods are acceptable to the approving agency.
The developer or erosion control plan consultant should be able to use
the "Handbook" to plan an acceptable level of practices for either alternative
(A) or (B). In (B), he chooses from a menu of alternative practices using the
Universal Soil Loss Equation to select the proper level of practices. Such
practices include: limiting time of exposure, temporary seeding and/or mulch
cover, permanent revegetation, diversions, limiting the amount of exposed area,
and others.
-------
Goettemoell er 193
Some judgment is required on the part of the developers as well as
the approving agency when using (C). This is true especially when a com-
bination of practices and a sediment basin is used to control sediment
pollution on the same area. For example, the "Handbook" might indicate
limiting exposure time to two months to keep the predicted average annual
soil loss within the fifteen ton tolerable level. The developer knows that
exposure time will be six months and therefore plans a sediment basin in
combination with a six month exposure time. The approving agency will need
to agree to the combination by common sense type judgment. If, on the other
hand, part of the exposed area is protected with conservation practices, and
pollution from another slope within the same development area is controlled
by use of a sediment basin, then the approving agency just checks the prac-
tices chosen with the respective criteria in the "Handbook".
The required judgment aspect could possibly be reduced when a combi-
nation of (A) and (B) are used, if it would be possible to calculate the
effectiveness of a sediment basin in terms of the percentage of sediment
removed. Jhis would allow the use of the "Universal Soil Loss Equation"
to determine the predicted soil loss and a percentage reduction factor
related to a certain size sediment basin to determine how much the pre-
dicted soil loss could be reduced. The final predicted loss, after set-
tling, would then be compared with the soil loss tolerance (fifteen tons)
to determine acceptability. Until a method can be developed for determining
the effectiveness of sediment basins and adopted for use in Ohio, the judg-
ment aspect will need to be used.
A permissable velocity standard is used in Ohio for dealing with con-
centrated water erosion. It simply requires that flow channels be designed
and constructed so that erosion does not occur under flow conditions for
the design storm. This takes into consideration the soil type, the kind
of channel lining (bare channel, vegetative cover, rip-rap, etc.), channel
gradient, runoff area, and so on.
An alternative again allows erosion to occur if a sediment basin, de-
signed in accordance with the "Handbook", is used. A third alternative
allows a combination of the two practices.
We also have a standard in Ohio which deals with the sloughing, land-
sliding, and dumping of earth material. It essentially prohibits the dump-
ing or placing of earth material into public waters (waters in rivers,
streams, lakes, or leaving the development area) or into such proximity
that it may readily slough, slide, or erode into public waters. An exception
is made where dumping or placing is authorized by the approving agency for
such purposes as constructing bridges, culverts, erosion control structures,
and other in-stream or channel bank improvement works.
The landsliding part of this standard requires the responsible person to
employ qualified engineering assistance to explore the stability problems and
make recommendations to correct, eliminate, or adequately address the problems
before grading, excavating, filling, or imposing a load upon any soil or slope
-------
194 Goettemoel 1er
known to be prone to slipping or landsliding. Construction is permitted to
commence only after the approving agency has reviewed and approved the explor-
atory work and recommendations and only in accordance with the approved rec-
ommendations. Landsliding is a serious problem in ten or fifteen counties in
Ohio, and the soils prone to landsliding are quite well known in those counties,
The downstream channel and flood plain erosion problems and accelerated
flooding problems have become nearly catastrophic during the past thirty
years as suburban development and its associated commercial development have
flourished. Water, formerly stored temporarily in roadside ditches and swales,
along with rooftop, sidewalk, driveway, and parking lot water, is now rapidly
discharged to the streams and rivers through a supposedly efficient system or
street curbs, gutters and massive storm sewers. The most serious downstream
damage caused by this accelerated discharge of storm water, generally occurs
in the smaller streams. This is related to the percentage of the particular
watershed which is developed and the intensity of the development, and the
percentage of impervious surface. A fifty acre shopping center parking lot
complex, for example, with immediate storm water discharge, could seriously
damage a small stream channel having only a couple hundred acre watershed.
The same development complex would do an insignificant amount of damage to
a large river having thousands of acres within its watershed.
Accelerated storm runoff related problems sort of sneak up on the medium
sized streams because their watersheds are developed gradually over a period
of years. These streams gradually, and sometimes almost unnoticeably, resize
themselves to accommodate the new runoff pattern. Likewise, increased down-
stream flooding, both in size and frequency, may occur so gradually that the
streamside farmer may think it just rains harder and more often. Sooner or
later he finds that he can no longer justify growing a crop due to the fre-
quency of flooding.
Correction of the unfortunate results of past urbanization often requires
enormous structural works at space age costs. Where such projects are not
feasible or public monies are unavailable, property values decline and some-
times lead to abandonment. These problems are a real concern to community
leaders unless they are located high and dry at the upper end of a watershed
with no legal or moral conviction to consider the damage to downstream
property owners.
Several recent court cases set somewhat of a new precedent in Ohio in
relation to downstream property damage caused by accelerated storm water
runoff. The most significant case found a village liable and legally Respon-
sible for downstream damage over an eleven year period, due to the fact that
it issued an industrial construction permit without proper guidance and
requirements for storm water management.
An extensive effort was set forth in Ohio several years ago to develop
standards and criteria to address the problem of accelerated storm water
runoff Committees included representatives from county and municipal
government, the development industry, state and federal natural resource
-------
Goettemoeller 195
management agencies, the professional and consulting engineering organizations,
the scientific and research communities, and other interested groups. The
standards and criteria are now starting to receive widespread attention and
many communities are adopting it as their own controlling criteria.
Accelerated channel erosion and increased flooding and flood plain
erosion result from changes in storm water runoff such as an increase in
peak, volume, duration, or frequency of runoff, or a decrease in sediment
concentration of the runoff waters entering channels. Increased channel
erosion from cleaner water coming from a completely developed community
results from the greater ability of the cleaner water to carry sediment out
of the channel - from the channel banks and stream bed.
Accelerated channel erosion as well as increased flooding damage, could
be controlled if the predevelopment hydrograph could be maintained. It is
usually not practical, however, to retain the predevelopment rate of infil-
tration when a large part of the watershed is covered with impervious sur-
faces. The concept of reducing peak flows below those of predevelopment
storms was developed as an alternative to maintaining the predevelopment
hydrograph. The logic of this concept is to compensate for the increased
erosiveness of:
(1) increased volume of runoff due to less infiltration,
(2) more frequent occurrences of the same flow. For example,
a subdivision may have the peak flow of a predevelopment five-
year storm occur once a year after development is complete,
(3) less sediment in the runoff water because the watershed is paved
with non erosive surfaces or good grass cover.
The two step standard requires that:
A. The peak rates of runoff from an area after development
shall be no greater than the peak rates of runoff from
the same area before development for all twenty-four-
hour storms from one- to one-hundred-year frequency.
Designing for the one-, two-, five-, ten-, twenty-five-,
fifty-, and one-hundred-year storms is considered
adequate to meet the requirement.
B. If the volume of runoff from an area after development
will be greater than the volume of runoff from the same
area before development, it shall be compensated by re-
ducing the peak rate of runoff from the critical storm
and all more frequent storms occurring on the development
area to the peak rate of runoff from a one-year frequency,
twenty-four-hour storm occurring on the same area under
predevelopment conditions. Storms of less frequent
occurrence (longer return periods) than the critical
storm up to the one-hundred-year storm, shall have peak
runoff rates no greater than the peak runoff rates from
equivalent size storms under predevelopment conditions.
-------
196 Goettemoeller
The critical storm for a specific development area is determined as
(a) Determine the total volume of runoff from a one-year
frequency, twenty-four-hour storm, occurring on the
development area before and after development.
(b) From the volumes determined in (a), determine the
percent of increase in volume of runoff due to devel-
opment and using this percentage, select the twenty-
four-hour critical storm from this table:
If the percentage of increas
in volume or runoff is:
Equal to or
greater than
0
10
20
50
100
250
500
and
less than
10
20
50
100
250
500
e The twenty-four-hour
"critical storm"
for discharge limitation
will be:
1 year
2 year
5 year
10 year
25 year
50 year
100 year
This standard basically requires peak flow to be reduced in proportion to
increased runoff volume. If runoff volume is not increased, peak flows are
only required to match predevelopment peak runoff rates for equivalent size
storms. This criteria is designed to require more control when the change
in the runoff pattern caused by development is more drastic. The quantity
and cost of preventative control features will need to be in proportion_to
the level of increase in runoff caused by the change in land use - a fair
and equitable criterion.
Concern is frequently expressed in regard to the extremes of the accel-
erated storm water control standard - the one- and the one-hundred-year
frequency storms. Justification for using the one-year storm is based M
the erosivity of stream flow and on what is known as the "routing problem .
Small or frequent storms are very erosive simply because they occur so
often. Damage doesn't have time to heal before the next storm comes.
Bankfull channel flow is essentially the most erodible state of stream
flow on the channel itself. Any increase spills out over the flood plain
with very little increase in the velocity of channel flow. Any flow less
than bankfull generally has a corresponding decrease in velocity, and
therefore, less erosion damage to the channel. Where there is a significant
increase in runoff volume, it is very important to have the runoff occur at
something less than bankfull flow, especially in watersheds approaching
complete development. Longer duration of bankfull flow than that which
occurred under predevelopment conditions, can have disastrous effects on
the stream channel and resulting sediment pollution. Since channels generally
size themselves for about a one and one-half to a two-year frequency storm
runoff event, the one-year storm was chosen as the control storm to prevent
significant channel erosion.
-------
Goettemoeller 197
The "routing problem" is the problem of channel flow downstream from
numerous smaller watersheds. As runoff from the smaller watersheds is
altered, the effect on channel flow somewhere downstream where all of the
watersheds come together, can be favorable or adverse. Ideally, the entire
large watershed should be hydraulically planned and the level of control of
each sub-watershed should be based on the accummulative effects downstream.
Since experience has proven the near impossibility, politically, of realizing
that degree Of organizational control, the one-year outlet rate is further
justified in order to minimize adverse effects on the "routing problem" when
compensation is necessary to control increased flow volumes.
Many people suppose that runoff peaks and volumes do not increase from
the large or infrequent storm because the ground is saturated by these storms
and most of the rainfall will run off whether the land is used for forest land
cropland, or urban purposes. Urbanization can, in fact, cause an increase in
both the peak and volume of runoff. Most of the increase may be in the early
part of such a storm and perhaps the twenty-five or fifty-year storm control
may adequately address the situation. There are many variables which affect
the stormwater runoff pattern - soil type, slope, kind of cover, percent
impervious cover, kind of disturbance and compaction. The one-hundred year
storm needs to be examined in a development situation to determine its specific
effect. Emergency flow areas and emergency outlets from structural works need
to account for such storms anyway if we don't want basements full of water and
structures failing. The additional control necessary for the one-hundred-year
frequency storm is not a highly significant factor in storm water management
for accelerated runoff control.
In addition to controlling channel erosion, this standard should make
long range planning for stormwater management easier. Storm sewers and
stream channels can be designed in accordance with existing runoff conditions
knowing that upstream runoff rates cannot be increased. This standard would
also prevent an increase in flood levels and frequencies below future devel-
opments and, in many cases, reduce development costs because of reduced storm
sewer size, particularly where multiple use detention facilities can be utilized
in designated open space.
A uniform method for determining runoff would be helpful in designing to
meet this standard. Not all of the commonly used methods are appropriate
We are currently recommending the U.S. Soil Conservation Service procedures
in Technical Release No. 55 which consider watershed area, watershed shape,
change in land use, soil type, hydrologic condition, impervious area,
modification of hydraulic channels, increased intensity of rainfall near
the middle of a storm, initial abstraction (surface storage, interception.
and infiltration prior to runoff), and decreased infiltration as a storm
progresses. Any acceptable method for determining runoff will have to be
able to develop a hydrograph for farm land, forest land, and developed land.
Some of the methods for controlling increases in stormwater runoff
peaks and volumes are:
(1) Retarding flow velocities by increasing friction; for
example, grassed road ditches rather than paved street
-------
198 Goettemoeller
qutters, where practical, discharging roof water to
vegetated areas, or grass and rock lined drainage
channels.
(2) Grading and use of grade control structures to provide
a level of control in flow paths and stream gradients.
(3) Induced infiltration of increased stormwater runoff into
the soil where practical; for example, construct!ng_special
infiltration areas where soils are suitable, retaining
topsoil for all areas to be vegetated, or providing good _
infiltration areas with proper emergency overflow facilities.
(4) Provisions for detention and retention; for example,
permanent ponds and lakes with stormwater basins pro-
vided with proper drainage, multiple use areas for
stormwater detention and recreation, wildlife, or
transportation, or subsurface storage areas.
Maintenance of storm water management facilities, especially those
facilities for controlling accelerated runoff are a real concern to the
communities where such facilities exist or are proposed. The concern centers,
not so much around what must be done and who will do it, but on who will pay
for it. Access is needed and it must be protected by easement if the govern-
mental entities are to maintain the facilities. Emergency flow areas must be
protected and maintained for their intended purpose. When accelerated runoff
control features are intended solely to prevent problems caused by increased
runoff from new development, the owners of that new development property should
be responsible for maintenance costs. The collection procedure for as needed
maintenance assessments is established in Ohio's drainage laws. It has worked
quite well for maintaining drainage streams in rural areas and it can probably
work in urbanizing areas where the maintenance cost is to be borne by new
development property owners. The most ideal situation is perhaps to_build
facilities which can basically be both maintained and utilized (within
limitations of the intent and purpose) by the property owners with the_
authority and financial means for the governmental entity to do the main-
tenance if the property owner does not or cannot do it.
Ohio's urban sediment pollution abatement program recommends counties and
municipalities to adopt control programs which require sediment control and
stormwater management plans to be submitted for approval on all development
areas larger than five acres. Smaller development or earth disturbance areas
should be required to meet the standards but no prior plan approval would be
necessary. Non compliance would be determined by spot checking and citizen
surveillance on the smaller development areas.
A reasonable level of soil conservation and water management will provide
a reasonable level of sediment pollution control. It will not stop sediment
pollution; but then who expects to stop sediment pollution? George Bagley, a
Louisiana farmer and former president of the National Association ot
Conservation Districts, once said at an Ohio Soil and Water Conservation
District Association annual meeting, "Thank heavens for erosion or there
wouldn't be any Louisiana!". Erosion has always occurred and it always wi I.
Ohio's standards are intended to control the man induced, accelerated portion
of erosion and sediment pollution.
-------
199
THE ROLE OF THE FRONTIER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN EFFECTIVE
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DURING DEVELOPMENT
Norman Holmes
Frontier Conservation District
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Frontier Conservation District was first organized 1n the middle
n~«Jn Sl 15S PrllBar"y to helP the ranching and farming community
prevent and reduce erosion on grazing and farming lands. In the later
nineteen sixties 1t was recognized by the supervisors and the district
conservationist that developing community was not doing their share
In conserving our soil and water resources.
The District then prepared a booklet outlining the resources of
Laramle County, Wyoming. Frontier District covers about one-half of
Laramle County and has the largest population of any conservation
district In Wyoming, Including the Capital City of Cheyenne. Our
Board of Supervisors consists of a school teacher, land appraiser, and
three ranchers.
A note here on the philosophy and political realities of this area
is in order. Wyoming people were and still are very conservative.
Wyoming Is basically an agricultural state and does not generally like
some bureaucrat promulgating rules which do not make sense and are
Impossible to live with. We generally do not like "big brother"
looking over our shoulder.
This booklet previously mentioned was prepared and copies were
made available to everyone. This was a first attempt to get a worklna
relationship with developers. At that time there was a city planning
commission and a county planning commission. In the early seventies
the planning commissions were combined Into a joint Cheyenne-Laramle
County Regional Planning Commission. There was a one person planning
staff at that time.
Our district, through our district conservationist, started
assisting the planning office about areas of soil and water erosion
This was 1n an unofficial status. At that time, one of the district's
supervisors was appointed to the planning commission. He was then able
to influence the outcome of the planning commission's recommendations
by his vote and had Influence on his peer commissioners.
ft6" areas were to be devel°Ped he suggested to the developers
JC* Fror*1?LD1str1ct ^r technical help on erosion and
before platting. The help was free and so the word spread
that technical help was free and the technical recommendations were
practical and In most cases the cost of doing the work to reduce
erosion and sedimentation was minimal.
-------
200 Holmes
In 1975 a new supervisor was elected to the board that was also a
member of the planning commission. With two members of the planning
commission concerned with using our resources wisely, including doing
everything practical to reduce erosion and sedimentation, the developers
found it was much easier to do things right than to fight with the
planning commission.
In 1976 the Wyoming Legislature passed several environmental acts
including a State Land Use Plan. This act was essentially an attempt
to get the local governments to do something about the helter-skelter
development that was happening state wide. Laramie County then actually
started to do some planning rather than approve any development that
was put forth.
Frontier District forseeing the approach of rapid development had
asked for and got money from the Laramie County Commissioners to inten-
sify soil surveys in areas near Cheyenne. Because of this and Frontier
District having much more knowledge of the county proper than any other
county agency, they were asked for their input into the county land use
plan.
Frontier District furnished the soil data, the terrain data, and
the land use data for the county land use plan.
In the meantime, a new state subdivision act was passed and in it
the conservation's districts were to report on soil and surface water
suitability for new developments. The county also wrote new subdivision
regulations and Frontier District became one of the agencies that
reviewed preliminary plats. They are to review plats for soil and
surface water suitabilities and hazards.
Our reviews are made by our technicians and approved by the board
of supervisors. Our comments are sent to the planning office where they
are assembled with the comments of the other reviewing agencies and pre-
sented to the planning commission and the board of commissioners. A
negative review by the district does not mean that the development will
be stopped, but generally it is easier for the developer to comply to
rather than fight with the planning commission.
Our District Conservationist has bent over backwards to assist
developers and the word has got around. He assisted in preliminary
design on what will become the largest development in this region.
This design included mapping all known or all possible water, soil, or
slope hazards, and his recommendation on what to do with these areas. He
has done this on numerous others and this is at no cost to the developers
Frontier District has many ranchette type developments in it. Many
of these tracts contain not only a home, well, and septic system, but
also an over-abundance of horses. Many of these acreages were becoming
devoid of vegetation and soil was being lost through wind erosion, so
-------
Holmes 201
Frontier District printed a small pamphlet entitled, "Horse Sense and
Grass Facts". This pamphlet has been dispersed through the community and
most people are now doing a better job of maintaining an adequate grass
cover on their lots. We feel this approach has done more good than a new
county ordinance because the ordinance would have been nearly Impossible
to pass from a political standpoint and impossible to enforce from an
enforcement approach. This pamphlet was so well received that we have
had requests for it nationwide.
The joint city-county planning office has no expertise "in house"
for slope evaluation, erosion control, or soil engineering, so we are
now inspecting each site in conjunction with planning office personnel.
You might say that we are not only assisting them, but also training
them in the types of problems to look for in site evaluations.
The city engineer now recommends to developers that have not
contacted the Frontier Conservation District and that could have
serious erosion and sedimentation problems to contact us.
Several years ago we put together a set of slides showing the
problems of erosion and sedimentation during development that has been
shown throughout the community to civic groups and political leaders.
This has helped us to get community pressure on developers and agencies
that are responsible for quality development. Our district will show
this to any group and we have probably shown it to seventy-five
percent of the people involved in the decision-making process
affecting development.
Annually, we hold a luncheon for our sixteen state legislative
representatives about a month before legislature convenes. We explain
to them what we have done in the past year and present our work program
for the future year. This enables us to visit with them on a one- to-
one basis and to get to know them personally. Since we are partially
funded by the state as are all of the conservation districts in Wyoming,
it helps the legislators to know how the taxpayer's money is being spent.
It also gives them a place to go for specific information concerning
conservation. It also gives us some powerful political allies. We also
run a conservation education program each fall for teachers which carries
two hours of college credit.
We also visit at least once annually in a formal meeting with
the Board of County Commissioners who have the final say in matters
concerning erosion and sedimentation during land development. We try to
show where we have helped to reduce these problems and point out where
more could be done. We also have a good informal relationship with them,
especially now that one of our supervisors is married to a commissioner.
-------
202 Holmes
This is how Frontier District has approached the problems of
erosion and sedimentation during development. We feel that considering
the political climate; the problems involved and types of development,
from urbanization to ranchettes, that we have done an excellent job.
We have not solved all of the problems, but we are getting there.
Laramie County and Cheyenne have come from ignoring sedimentation and
erosion, unless there was an immediate cost to the developer, to now
trying to design developments so that no immediate or future erosion or
sedimentation will result. Developers are now aware that the least total
cost is trying to design out all immediate and future problems in this
area resulting in less total cost to them and the taxpayer.
This is how we handle it and I hope some of our ideas will be
beneficial to you.
-------
203
SELF-REGULATION, ALTERNATIVE TO LEGISLATION
WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Richard L, Mace
Assistant Planning Director
Waukesha County Park & Planning Commission
There are probably any number of reasons why the urban - suburban run-
Oif problem has gained in its recognition over the past years in Waukesha
County, which is a rapidly expanding County immediately west and adjacent
to Milwaukee County in southeastern Wisconsin. The pressures for land
development have been severe since the early 1950's. Waukesha County is
the fastest growing county in the State of Wisconsin and has been for a
number of years, and is likely to remain so in the future due to its close
proximxty to Milwaukee and the large industrial/commercial base existing in
the region and the good transportation network for shipping in and out of
the region via the railroads, highways and the Great Lakes. As a result
of this surge in development in surrounding areas around Milwaukee County
a very good network of roads and freeways has developed as a result of this
new development which has encouraged suburban residential uses in the
fringe areas such as Waukesha County. In addition, the County has a very
attractive natural setting with a wide variety of landform features including
the well known Kettle Moraine region with its kettles and rivers and hills
and woods, and most important, its lakes. The urban - suburban run-off
problem has always been present but has not gained in recognition until
only recently as there became an increased citizen and governmental aware-
ness of the environmental problem created by increased surface water runoff
from these new developments. While these areas were being developed there
were severe economic pressures to maximize the land use and density of
development without regard for the implications of storm water runoff. It
was originally important to plan, design and implement a system of servicing
these newly developed areas with roads, highways and storm drainage systems
designed to provide a minimum standard for servicing the area with little
or no attention being paid to the effect those systems had on both upstream
and downstream watershed areas. Very little consideration was given to
future stormwater flows within those developed areas. Planners and zoning
officials were concerned only with the development of subdivisions and
other commercial industrial developments and gave little recognition or
attention to the environmental impacts of the development upon the watershed.
It seemed that the philosophy was to encourage growth, and design the develop-
ment so as to remove storm water as quickly as possible with no effort to
retain or control the rate of stormwater flows. As the developments
encroached further and further into the agricultural community, more and
more farmers and land owners adjacent to these developing areas became
concerned and brought to the attention of our office and the Waukesha County
Soil & Water Conservation District the need for greater exercise of control
over the development of these subdivisions, especially as it related to the
control of stormwater runoff.
Because of this increased awareness and our concern for preserving and
protecting the environment in which we live, the District Conservationist
and I felt that it would be a good idea to conduct a tour of Waukesha
County especially for the Waukesha County Soil & Water Conservation District
-------
204 Mace
Supervisors to be held July 21, 1976. Because of the success of that
tour, a second tour for County Board Members and Municipal Officials to
acquaint them with the problems and examples of poor development within
our County was arranged rather than conduct a tour and show them all the
nice parks and other good things about the County. This had never been
done and we were somewhat skeptical and concerned with the reception it
would receive especially when we pointed out problem areas and examples
of poor development. On August 31, 1976, the second tour was conducted
with the help of the County Extension Agent, the local Soil and Water
Conservation District Conservationist and myself. The purpose of the tour
was primarily to show those in attendance the problems we were having with
new subdivisions and their impact on adjacent lands and the effect those
subdivisions had specifically with regard to soil erosion and sedimentation
both within the subdivision and in the areas immediately surrounding it.
The tour was extremely successful and received much attention from the
local newspapers including both the Milwaukee Journal and Sentinel. It
has been talked about on any number of occasions since that time.
We are presently in the process of planning another tour to be con-
ducted on October 22nd of this year to acquaint the same officials with
the problems we are having with solid waste and to make them aware of
the severe crisis we are facing with the closure by 1982 of all of the
County landfills, except one. Because of the experience gained from
the subdivision tour, we felt that another tour was in order to increase
County officials awareness of the problem and hopefully encourage them to
react positively with the necessary legislation to bring an end to the
crisis.
Getting back to the surface water runoff problem, the Soil and Water
Conservation District, in March, 1977, adopted a number of guidelines and
objectives which they have been working towards in the past two years.
One of those objectives was to promote and encourage the development of
drainage and/or resource plans prepared by developers for new developments
and to encourage adoption of County wide ordinances regarding drainage
plans with enforcement to be the responsibility of the County Park and
Planning Commission, and review and recommendations by the Soil and Water
Conservation District. Enforcement responsibility was placed in the hands
of the Park and Planning Commission due to the fact that the State Statutes
provide for plat review authority by that agency rather than the Soil and
Water Conservation District. However, a second objective was that the
Soil and Water Conservation District in cooperation with the Park and
Planning Commission, would develop a set of guidelines for developers to
use in preparing a conservation plan for subdivisions. A third objective
was to promote, encourage and provide technical assistance to local County
and State Highway Departments to utilize Waukesha County Conservation
Standards in the development and maintenance of roadside ditches. ihere
were other guidelines established in that 1977 meeting more numerous than
necessary to mention in this presentation.
Since the formulation of those objectives, the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District and the Park and Planning Commission have been working very
closely together to implement those objectives. With reference to the
-------
Mace
205
subdivision developments, it is required by the Statute that a preliminary
plat indicating the overall design of roads and lots feLio be submitted to
the County as well as other agencies for review and approval with varying
degrees of authority. Since the formulation of the objectives, the Park
and Planning Commission has been requiring the preparation of drainage and
erosion control plans to be prepared by the developers and submitted to the
Park and Planning Commission and subsequently to the Soil and Water Conser-
vation District Supervisors for their review and comment. It should be
noted that the Soil and Water Conservation District has adopted the Soil
Conservation Service Technical Guide as the Waukesha County Soil and Water
Conservation District's standards and specifications. All subdivision
plats in the County, except those where storm sewers are provided are
reviewed on the basis of the Technical Guide. Consulting Engineers and
Surveyors have been informed of the requirements by letter from our office
and for the most part have been utilizing these standards when they design
their drainage and erosion control plans. It should be noted that an
ordinance has not been adopted specifically to effectuate the requirements
tor drainage and erosion control plans. The Commission has determined
that in the absence of specific enabling legislation being established in
the Statutes for their review of subdivisions, it is in the public's interest
in the review of subdivision developments to provide for the control of
erosion and sedimentation. Because of the lack of a specific ordinance
implementing these requirements, there are still a few engineers and sur-
veyors who are not cooperating but on the average most surveyors and
engineers recognize the need to provide for erosion and sediment control
especially since all of the publicity has come out with regard to the 208
water quality planning effort and the concern for the protection of our
natural resources. It should also be noted that a set of guidelines has
been developed and distributed to all engineers and surveyors working in
the County.
The Soil and Water Conservation District receives the plan they
review it, keeping in mind all the alternatives, and do not hold hard and
fast to one alternative method for accomplishing erosion and sediment
control. The District Conservationist makes at least one on site inspec-
tion of the subdivision prior to presenting his recommendation to the
District Supervisors and subsequently provides a written recommendation to
the supervisors who will in turn either adopt or reject his recommendations
and accordingly the plan. If the plan is rejected, the Commission will
ask that the consultant revise the plan in order to bring it up to standards
which will be acceptable with the Soil and Water Conservation District.
It should be noted, however, that the longer we work with this process, the
more complete and conforming the plans have become with respect to our
County standards, and in large part usually receive good recommendations
after the first submittal of the plats. Over the past couple of years the
plans being submitted have improved tremendously, especially since the
preparation of the guidelines indicating specifically what the plans should
provide.
A factor which I think has contributed to the success of this program
is that the consultants working in the County have a very good working
relationship with the staff of the Park and Planning Commission as a result
of the great amount of development which has occurred in the County and the
tenure of the staff and I feel that this has contributed a great deal to
-------
206 Mace
the success of our program. The program is not without its problems,
however. Because of the lack of an ordinance specifically setting forth
the rules and regulations, the possibility of a legal challenge does exist
with respect to enforcement of these guidelines, although to date no such
threat has presented itself. I feel that the primary reason for^this lack
of a challenge is that the subdividers are anxious to cooperate in an
effort to make available as quickly as possible their lots for sale in
order to recuperate their expenses and for that reason are willing to
cooperate to the greatest extent possible and are not able to afford a
legal challenge because of the length of time and the costs of such a
challenge. I also believe that after seeing what a good conservation plan
and its proper execution will accomplish, many developers have begun to
realize that proper erosion and sediment control techniques will enhance
the quality and desirability of their product and in the long run will
reduce costs. Such cost reductions occur because the subdivider is not
required to return to make repairs to inadequately installed or improperly
designed facilities. They have learned that doing the job right the first
time has built in economies benefiting themselves, the consumer, and the
public in general.
Another problem that we are having is the lack of follow up by the
consultants. It is absolutely imperative that the consultants follow up
with the contractors to ensure that the plans which have been submitted and
reviewed are being followed by the contractors. The reason for this
problem, I believe, is that there is no remuneration for the follow up by
the consultant because the subdivider is trying to get the job accomplished
for as little cost as possible, and because of the costs of the follow up,
the consultants are not carrying out that function unless it is specifically
set forth in their contract with the subdivider.
A third problem that we have more recently become aware of is that the
contractor who is doing the erosion and sediment control work is not
receiving the same set of plans and specifications which have been submitted
and reviewed by our office and the Soil and Water Conservation District.
In response to that problem, some of the surveyors have developed bid
schedules which specifically include the sediment and erosion control plans
and are submitting those bid schedules and specifications to us along with
the drainage plans. I also feel that some of the contractors working in
this area have not realized the importance of erosion and sediment control
in that they had never had to be aware of and provide for such facilities
in the past. Because of the change, they are somewhat reluctant to
install these facilities or do not know the techniques for their construc-
tion and accordingly are neglecting them. We feel that with an educational
effort in this area this problem should be minimized in the years to come.
In many cases, some of the work which has to be accomplished by contractors
is work that can only be done properly by hand and because of the bidding
schedules and the fact that they are not familiar with the need for the
hand labor, the facilities are not being constructed properly. Accord-
ingly, this lack of execution contributes to increased erosion and sedimenta-
tion problems which have to be rectified at a later date with increased
cost to the subdivider.
-------
Mace 207
As mentioned above, I feel that an increased educational effort in
this direction is necessary and that this problem can be overcome More
recently we have realized that our lack of review in areas where storm
sewer systems are provided has resulted in some downstream problems which
need our attention. This is probably an oversight on our part which has
occurred due to the newness of this entire process. However, we have
now recognized this problem and have begun to work on correcting it
We are now aware of the fact that the construction of storm sewers does
not necessarily negate the need for surface water facilities, in an
urbanizing region such as ours where we have a mixture of storm sewers
and rural type surface water drainage systems. Where storm sewers exit
onto the surface of the ground and not into established stream beds,
severe erosion and downstream sedimentation will occur with the increase of
flows emanating from storm sewer systems, and it is imperative that we
formulate guidelines to adequately protect receiving lands from the
adverse effects these storm water systems have on downstream areas.
In summary, we feel that in the absence of an Ordinance specifically
providing for the implementation of erosion sediment control plans,
our program has been remarkably successful. We feel that a number of
things of varying magnitude have contributed to that success:
First, our agency and the Soil and Water Conservation District are
located in the same building which provides for good communication and
the development of a very good working relationship and the utilization of
each others resources.
Secondly, the Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors and the
Park and Planning Commission are all interested in solving this problem of
erosion and sediment control and a cooperative spirit between the two
departments exists.
Third, we feel that the tour which pointed out a number of problems
relative to the subdividing process was extremely successful, especially in
acquainting Municipal Officials and the various committees of the County
Board, with these problem of development. In addition, the publicity which
we received from this tour was very helpful.
Fourth, through our many discussions with subdividers and surveyors on
a daily basis, the tenure of the staff has created a good working relation-
ship with the developers and consultants in the County. We feel that
these kinds of relationships have contributed to the success of the program
through the mutual give and take which occurs during our deliberations with
the developers and consultants. This is an educational process and by
pointing out the problems and benefits to be gained by providing good
erosion and sediment control practices, they have come to realize that
their land is more valuable when properly developed. They also realize
that if they cooperate in the development of these facilities, that their
subdivision plats will be approved and the sale of lots can commence much
earlier than if they had not been in that cooperative spirit.
-------
208 Mace
I should also point out that an effort is presently being undertaken
to revise the existing Subdivision Control Ordinance in Waukesha County and
include a provision for erosion and sediment control to be implemented on a
county wide basis. We have provided assistance in the preparation of
Ordinances for various communities in our County relative to erosion and
sediment control, which have been adopted and implemented and are now
being adopted by adjacent communities. We feel that as the idea catches
on, other communities will begin to revise their ordinances to provide for
such erosion facilities and incorporate them into the subdividing process.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for listening to
my story and hope that you have benefited in some way. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have about the program or any other aspects
of land development and hope that I can provide you with an answer.
Thank you, again.
-------
209
NON-AGRICULTURAL EROSION CONTROL IN IOWA
Lawrence G. Vance
Director, Iowa Department of Soil Conservation
Des Moines, Iowa
On July 1 1971, a legislative bill entitled "An Act Related to
Conservation of Soil and Water Resources of the State" became law in
ipwa It established an erosion control program that preceded
PL 92-500 by a full year and became the first erosion control law
in the nation.
The bill granted soil conservation districts the authority and
responsibility to establish soil loss limit regulations. I emohasize
that it granted the responsibility to local soil conservation districts
to establish soil loss limits and to enforce them. In Iowa, this means
subdivisions of state government whose boundaries are the same as county
boundaries, with the exception of one county which has been organized
into two soil conservation districts.
Soil loss limits are required for agricultural land and for con-
struction sites. To insure that uniform and reasonable regulations
were established, a technical committee at the state level developed a
guideline document that set forth annual maximum permissible soil loss
rates for the 1,500 soil types classified in Iowa. These rates range
from two to five tons per acre per year and are coincident with the
replenishment rate of individual soil types. For construction sites,
a uniform five tons per acre per year maximum permissible rate was
suggested. These uniform regulations were adopted in all 100 soil
conservation districts without serious objections. The current regu-
lations provide that an owner or occupant of land damaged by another
landowner's sediment may file a complaint with the soil conservation
district commissioners. This has stopped many people from filing a
complaint. They just can't bring themselves to coming down on their
next-door neighbor.
The legislation provided that additional or revised rules and
regulations could be developed and adopted. Experience and even public
attitude may well dictate, for example, that the soil conservation
district commissioners should be empowered to mandate compliance with
the soil loss limit regulations even though a landowner has not filed
a complaint. After eight years, it appears that we are nearing the time
when commissioners will seek the power to act without a written
complaint.
Having given you an overview of the total package, I now want to
explain more specifically the soil loss limit, as it was adopted in all
100 soil conservation districts.
-------
210
Vance
Agricultural and Horticultural Lands. Maximum rates of soil
erosion for these lands are the average annual soil loss expressed in
tons per acre per year varying from two to five tons.
Non-Agricultural Lands. Such as public parks, urban lands, indus-
trial parks, airports, public and private recreation lands, roads,
streets, highways, railroads, mined lands, and other lands include an
average annual soil loss of five tons per acre per year.
Construction Sites. Including housing developments, shopping
centers, industrial park developments, commercial building sites,
highways, drainage channels, floodways, water impoundment structures,
and other similar projects. The maximum rate of soil erosion permitted
on such lands is five tons per acre per year leaving the site.
The Iowa law provides that individual landowners, government
agencies, or others having interest in property being damaged by
sediment from soil erosion on lands other than their own may file a
complaint against owners of land on which such erosion is alleged to
be occurring. These parties may include but not be limited to one or
more of the following: farm owners, city landowners, conservancy
districts, Iowa Conservation Commission, county conservation boards,
county boards of supervisors, Iowa Department of Transportation, U.S.
Corps of Army Engineers, cities and towns, or other special purpose
districts.
The commissioners of any soil conservation district shall inspect,
or cause to be inspected, any land within the district upon receipt of
a written and signed complaint, stating that soil erosion is occurring
thereon in excess of the limits established by the district's soil loss
regulations. If the commissioners find that excessive soil erosion is
occurring on the land inspected, they shall issue an administrative order
to the landowner or landowners of record, and to the occupant of the
land, describing said land and stating as nearly as possible the extent
to which soil erosion thereon exceeds the limits established by the
district's regulations. The order shall be delivered either by personal
service or by restricted certified mail to each of the persons to whom
it is directed.
In the case of erosion occurring on the site of any construction
project or similar undertaking involving the removal of all or a major
portion of the vegetation or other natural or man-made cover which
exposes bare soil directly to water or wind, the order shall state a
time not more than five days after service or mailing of the notice of
the order when work necessary to establish or maintain erosion control
practices must be commenced, and a time not more than 30 days after
service or mailing of the notice of the order when the work is to be
satisfactorily completed.
-------
211
Vance
It was felt that in non-agricultural erosion, nearly immediate
compliance was necessary since massive soil losses can happen in short
time periods; and the resulting sediment damage can have a greater
economic impact.
State cost-share funds are not provided for non-agricultural
erosion control practices since the developer can recover the cost as
part of the construction cost. Developers are advised of techniques
which can be used to reduce erosion. However, they are not given design
assistance since they can employ their own engineer.
In all other cases, such as farmland, the order shall state a time
not more than six months after service or mailing of the notice of the
order by which work needed to establish or maintain the necessary soil
and water conservation practices or erosion control measures must be
commenced, and a time not more than one year after the service or mail-
ing of the notice of the order when the work is to be satisfactorily
completed. The law stipulates, however, that cost-share assistance must
be available and committed to the landowner as a basis for requiring
mandatory application of permanent soil and water conservation practices
on agricultural and horticultural lands.
In acting upon complaints, soil conservation districts must inspect
the lands covered by the complaint to determine (1) that damages are in
fact occurring as charged in the complaint, and (2) that erosion is
occurring on lands above the point of damage at rates that exceed the
regulations of the district. In determining rates of erosion, the
"Universal Soil Loss Equation" for water erosion and the formula for
wind erosion are used by technicians of the soil conservation district.
If the work is not initiated as required or the landowner advises
the district that he does not intend to do the work, the soil conserva-
tion district may petition the district court for a court order
directing the owner or owners to proceed with work as required by the
administrative order. The court order may then be served with the
expectation that the work will be completed. Failure to comply with
the court order can result in placing the property owner in contempt
of court and he can be penalized accordingly.
The punishment for contempt of court in Iowa, as it relates to this
law and when the district court has jurisdiction, is a fine not exceeding
$500.00, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months,
or both such fine and imprisonment. The contempt charge could even be
more severe, in that if the contempt consists of an omission to perform
an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he may be
imprisoned until he performs it. In that case, the act to be performed
must be specified in the warrant of the commitment.
-------
212
Vance
In complaint cases involving agricultural or horticultural land,
after cost-share funds have been committed, the district issues a
supplemental administrative order advising the owner or owners to pro-
ceed with the necessary work, beginning not more than six months
following the notice and to be completed one year from date of order.
It should be pointed out that before actions mandated in an adminis-
trative order can be enforced, the law requires that 75 percent cost-
share funds must be provided for any erosion or soil conservation
measures on agricultural and horticultural lands.
When the REAP funds were impounded in December of 1972, many
people said this would negate the Iowa sediment control law because
of the need for cost-sharing funds to make the law workable. For-
tunately, in Iowa we have a governor and a legislature that are strong
supporters of the soil conservation program; and as a result, since
1973, $29,450,000 has been made available to the Department of Soil
Conservation for soil conservation cost-sharing purposes.
I should also point out that the Iowa law has been tested in the
courts for its constitutionality. Before the test, attorneys, law
professors, and others,who are knowledgeable in constitutional law
and the manner in which soil conservation district commissioners are
elected, assured soil conservation districts that the law was
constitutional. Much of this opinion is based on the fact that any
qualified elector in the state of Iowa may serve as a soil conservation
district commissioner whether living in a city, town or on a farm; and
any qualified elector may vote in a commissioners election. During
1975, the Iowa General Assembly enacted legislation that placed the
election of commissioners on a non-partisan ballot in the November
general election.
The constitutionality of the law was tested in the courts in 1975.
In this case, an agricultural soil loss limit was violated and two
landowners were ordered to install terraces or permanent vegetative
seedings at a 25 percent cost to them of $13,500. The district court
held that the order placed an unreasonable burden on the defendants,
and concluded that the defendants were deprived of rights granted_in
the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United
States and comparable provisions of the State of Iowa. The court held
that the law was not constitutional. An appeal was filed with the Iowa
Supreme Court. The question of soil loss limits was without dispute.
The question of constitutionality was reviewed as to whether the
restrictions and conditions imposed by the Iowa Code amounted to taking
of property under eminent domain or simply a regulation under the
police power of the state. The latter entitles the property owner
to no compensation; the former requires that he be paid for the appro-
priation of his property for public use. The court held it important
to consider the nature of the public interest involved and the impact
of the restrictions placed on the defendants' use of their land, it
-------
213
Vance
stated that the state has a vital interest in protecting its soil as
the greatest of its natural resources, and it has a right to do so
While recognizing that the Code imposes an extra financial burden on
the defendant, it is one the state has a right to exact. The impor-
tance of soil conservation is best illustrated by the state's willing-
ness to pay three-fourths of the cost. The Supreme Court held that a
law does not become unconstitutional because it works a hardship.
Since the defendants retained the use and enjoyment of their property,
limited only by the necessity to prevent erosion beyond allowable
standards, the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the judgment of the
district court and on May 30, 1979, upheld the constitutionality of
the law. The lower court was directed to proceed with settling the
complaint.
I might also add that in 1979 the Iowa legislature passed an amend-
ment to limit the landowner required investment to $10.00 per acre times
the acres owned for any one year, in an attempt to alleviate the finan-
cial hardship question in the future.
Perhaps a short review of what has taken place, as far as com-
plaints since Iowa instituted soil loss limit regulations, would be of
interest.
The number of complaints that have been filed with soil conserva-
tion districts has not been excessive. Since initiation of the law in
1972, approximately 550 complaints have been filed. All but 63 were
settled voluntarily. Fourteen complaints were in non-agricultural
areas—three against highway site erosion and 11 against development
sites. Eight of the non-agricultural complaints required administrative
orders before they were resolved.
Complaints on non-agricultural erosion have been filed against the
Iowa Department of Transportation for permitting sediment to move from
road ditches on to private land, against developers permitting sediment
to leave the site and fill road ditches and storm sewers and damage
property, and against a coal mine operator for permitting sediment to
wash on to adjacent farmland. It is interesting to note that the first
complaint filed under Iowa's law was against officials of a Little
League Baseball diamond in Des Moines. The problem in this instance
was that considerable earth work had been done and officials failed to
take adequate precautions to retain sediment on the site. As a result,
sediment washed on to adjoining lawns and property owners filed a
complaint.
In closing, there are some significant points which I would like
to emphasize. One is that prior to the time of the enactment of the
Iowa erosion control law, many people said that if the law passed,
approximately 50 percent of the soil conservation district commissioners
in Iowa would resign because they would not want any part in processing
complaints filed against people they knew and especially against their
-------
214
Vance
friends. This concern did not materialize. Instead, commissioners have
accepted the responsibility of administering this law and are doing it
in a very fair and equitable manner. They are to be complimented in
this regard.
After an official opinion on soil conservation district commis-
sioner tort liability was requested in 1979, we found that for the past
40 years Iowa's commissioners have been without provisions to indemnify
themselves. That is, they have not had the ability to pay a judgment
in behalf of a commissioner, if they were sued and a judgment rendered.
This personal liability caused nervous commissioners; however, we are
buying liability insurance now and hope to correct the law in the next
session of the legislature.
The law is working, but additional regulations will be required
if major abatement of erosion is to occur in the state of Iowa. The
inhibiting factor is that a complaint must be filed by owners of pro-
perty that is being damaged before abatement results. If we are going
to correct our sediment problems in the state of Iowa, regulations must
be strengthened or a law much stronger will have to be enacted.
We have not found that the two to five ton soil loss is too
restrictive. When you realize that if we continue to exceed these
erosion rates, the soil resource would eventually be destroyed. The
soil loss equation is proving to be adequate for applying Iowa's law.
Although some difficulty has been experience in application of the
Universal Soil Loss Equation to predict erosion in urban areas, no_
complaint regarding its use has been received since actual deposition
of sediment off site has been reduced satisfactorily. Inmost cases,
our soil loss law serves as a deterrent to obvious violations.
Temporary soil erosion control measures are required as part of
building codes in Iowa's larger cities. Many smaller towns and villages
do not have such provisions in their codes or ordinances.
We feel that the provisions for non-agricultural erosion control in
Iowa's law are satisfactory. We hasten to remind you, however, that
Iowa is not experiencing the urban building pressures as many other
states are due to our less densely populated state. Iowa's landowners
have a good soil conservation ethic, which in most cases rubs off on
developers and contractors.
-------
215
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF LOCAL ORDINANCES ADOPTION
W. L. Church
Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Summary of Remarks
In Wisconsin, under Chapter 92 of the Statutes and other laws,
There are three great impediments to attempts by local government to
deal with the problems of soil and water conservation and pollution.
These Include substantive narrowness, geographical constraints and
procedural obstacles.
Substantive Narrowness
There is a proliferation of state statutes in Wisconsin authorizing
efforts to cope with water pollution. Chapter 92 empowers local govern-
ments to deal with soil and water conservation, but it is unfortunately
unclear to what degree this may permit local governments to address
water pollution problems. The internal ambiguities of Chapter 92 are
made worse because there are so many other substantive aspects of the
same over-all pollution problems that are dealt with in other statutes,
such as sanitation, health, solid waste, zoning, shoreland zoning,
building, subdivision, and farmland preservation statutes. The exist-
ence of so many entities to deal with the problem makes it much more
difficult to state with precision the limits on the authority of any of
them and effectively precludes any from dealing confidently with the
whole problem. The bureaucracies created at the state level, and the
competition and preoccupation with narrow missions thus engendered is
often repeated, with variations, down at the county and local level as
well, with different local committees, commissions, boards and agencies
dealing separately with the various state agencies. The result is a
fragmented, confused and ultimately severely limited attempt to deal
with water pollution as a whole.
Geographic Constraints
The problem of overlapping and competing substantive missions is
compounded locally because there is no one entity with full authority to
act throughout a really useful local geographic area. Municipalities
have significant reserve authority to act within their boundaries, but
they are small and too many to be able to do much for a systematic
solution to water pollution problems. Counties may be large enough, but
they lack authority to do much 1n incorporated areas. River basin
authorities and other districts measured by natural rather than
political boundaries are not fully effective precisely because they lack
a recognized political legitimacy and base. In order for a comprehensive
approach to water pollution to be undertaken, voluntary cooperation 1s
thus required not only of many sometimes jealously competitive agencies,
state and local, but also of many separate municipalities, towns, counties,
-------
216
Church
regional authorities and state agencies. This adds up to too much
required cooperation if effective results are realistically to be
expected. Experience in the past certainly suggests that the institu-
tions of government thus created will, to some degree, operate to
impede rather than to facilitate prompt and decisive action.
Procedural Obstacles
In addition to the problems imposed by the organization of govern-
mental institutions, the Wisconsin Statues, especially Chapter 92, often
raise procedural obstacles to progress. Chapter 92 currently, for
example, requires a referendum among voters who may be affected by a
regulatory ordinance, before such ordinance can be enacted. In practice,
this requirement has meant that the regulatory provisions of the chapter
cannot be utilized even where a local political establishment is willing
to try this. The net result is that much really effective local response'
to such problems as water pollution is precluded.
Conclusion
Even under the best of conditions, the problems of nonpoint source
water pollution and of soil and water conservation, are not going to be
easy to deal with. Substantial controversy and delay can be expected
before any concensus is reached and expenditures are made and regulations
are imposed in an effort to deal with these problems. So the least, a
state's statutes should attempt to create local and state institutions of
government that will most likely conduce to natural but effective action.
The current Wisconsin statutes, especially Chapter 92, do not adequately
marshal 1 state or local governmental agencies to cope with the problems
on their merits. Accordingly, it appears proper to consider amending
Chapter 92 and other state statutes to try to make local government more
effective in dealing with non-point source pollution and soil and water
conservation. If local government is unable so to deal with these
problems, they will be addressed instead by more remote agencies at the
state and national level. This would be most unfortunate, both because
of the loss of local control over local problems that would be implicit
and because the problems themselves would be less likely to be
efficiently, rationally resolved.
-------
217
COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING
AS A
PROMISING EROSION CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUE
Gary Oberts, Senior Environmental Planner
Marcel Jouseau, Natural Resources Program Manager
Metropolitan Council
St. Paul. Minnesota
Introduction
Many erosion control techniques exist to assist communi-
ties in their efforts to abate soil loss. Without commit-
ment to a comprehensive land planning and implementation
program, experience has shown that poor construction and
land development practices continue to be major causes of
erosion in urban areas. Isolated or site-by-site reviews
of small developing areas without a framework often result
in inconsistent reviews and uncoordinated drainage
management.
Like many major urban centers, the seven-county Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area has experienced extensive suburban
growth and urban redevelopment in the last 20 years. Since
196? the Metropolitan Council has been responsible for
preparing regional plans and coordinating regional
development. It became apparent that a regional management
scheme was needed as a framework for decisions on land
management and investment. A regional framework was
adopted in 1973- Similarly, in dealing with day-to-day
planning matters of the 189 area communities, those who
plan comprehensively for erosion control and for management
of stormwater runoff are far more effective in solving
erosion problems and controling future development options.
Unfortunately, few of the 189 communities have adopted a
comprehensive erosion/stormwater planning approach,
although many authorities are available for use by
communities.
Contents of the more successful comprehensive erosion/
stormwater plans will be addressed in this paper and empha-
sis will be placed on the need for strong implementation
programs. This paper will discuss the natural resource
protection element of a comprehensive plan. Other elements
such as housing, parks, transportation, etc. are essential
to comprehensive planning, but do not relate to the subject
matter discussed here. Technical and administrative
information about natural resource protection is available
to the governmental units and the developers alike.
-------
218
Oberts-Jouseau
Survey Results
Two surveys were conducted within the Metropolitan Area
to determine the methods, if any, used to control erosion
and stormwater runoff. Surprisingly the results showed
that most communities do not have erosion controls and rela-
tively few look beyond the immediate future in stormwater
management.
An erosion control ordinance survey was conducted by
the Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation
Districts for the Council. A total of 186 local units of
government were surveyed with respect to erosion controls
applied to land development and the adequacy of the meas-
ures. Study results showed that: 100 of the communities
have no erosion control and are outside of an organized
watershed district that would provide some form of
regulatory control; 65 rely solely on the watershed
district regulations; and only 21 have adopted their own
regulations. All communities, of course, are located
within the boundaries of a soil and water conservation
district and can voluntarily seek the district's advice on
erosion control and ordinance preparation. The percent of
adequate treatment for all communities varied from 20 to 90
percent with the average of about 50 percent.
Another survey of 76 communities either experiencing
rapid growth or having a history of stormwater-related
problems showed that only nine of these communities
now have a good stormwater management plan, but several
others are preparing such a plan. Again, authorities and
techniques exist for communities to develop adequate
stormwater plans. Most communities address development
projects site-by-site as they are proposed. Variability in
local stormwater reviews is so great that few adjacent
communities have similar methods and criteria. This often
leads to intercommunity disputes.
All the governmental units surveyed have adequate
authorities to deal with erosion and stormwater management
through community-wide planning and the implementation of
controls, but few have exercised these authorities.
Institutions and Their Authorities
In Minnesota, many governmental agencies have enabling
authority allowing them to either develop plans for soil
conservation and prevention of erosion and sedimentation or
to adopt controls to prevent and remedy erosion and sedi-
mentation problems.
-------
219
Oberts-Jouseau
o State Agencies. Several state agencies can address
erosion concerns: Department of Natural Resources when
work is in public waters; Pollution Control Agency if an
NPDES permit is required; and the Environmental Quality
Board during the review of environmetal disclosure
documents (EIS, EAW, etc.), if one is required.
However, the opportunities and authority available at
the local level are far greater. Local governments
involved are the watershed districts and the soil and water
conservation districts (two special-purpose governmental
units), and the counties and cities. At the regional
level, the Metropolitan Council has an interest and some
authority .
o Watershed Districts. These districts are created
under Minnesota statutes (M.S.) chapter 112 for the purpose
of managing the waters in a watershed. They have the
authority to develop a managment plan as well as to issue
land alteration permits (M.S.112.36}. There are 10 water-
shed districts covering approximately one-third of the
Metropolitan Area. All of these districts review develop-
ment projects for erosion and stormwater management. A
survey of erosion controls in the Metropolitan Area shows
great variations in the effectiveness of these districts.
o Soil and Water Conservation Districts. These are
created under M.S.40. Section 40.70 (9) states that they
may develop a comprehensive plan spelling-out erosion
problems and water quality problem areas. While M.S. 40.02
does not limit concerns to reducing agricultural erosion
and sedimentation problems, the past agricultural
experience weighs heavily on urban districts which are
reluctant to engage in urban erosion control programs.
None of these districts has adopted a comprehensive plan.
In addition, they do not have regulatory authority and see
their role as strictly advisory.
o Counties - The Metropolitan counties, with the
exception of Hennepin and Ramsey, have enabling authority
to develop comprehensive plans (M.S.394.09) and adopt
zoning and other land development controls for unincor-
porated areas (M.S.394.25). The language in the law
specifically includes erosion and sedimentation controls.
However, there are great variations among counties in their
involvement in planning and zoning.
-------
Oberts-Jouseau
o Communities - In Minnesota, communities may carry on
comprehensive planning activities (M.S.462.353-subd.1.).
In the Metropolitan Area, the communities must now prepare
a comprehensive plan (1976 session law, ch. 127). The
content of a these plans is spelled out in M.S. 473.859
subd. 2 (" Land Use Plan") and M.S. 473-204. This last
section specifically addresses erosion and suitability of
soil for development. Communities may also regulate the
use of land (M.S.462.357) and adopt soil conservation
measures and provide for the control of drain'age, erosion
and siltation (M.S.462.358,subd.2).
o Metropolitan Council: The Metropolitan Council has
no regulatory authority. However, it has responsibility
for the preparation of regional plans and for coordinating
planning. In addition it serves as a regional clearing-
house for projects receiving federal financial assistance;
reviews municipal comprehensive plans; and reviews envi-
ronmental impact disclosure documents. Thus, the Council
has substantial means by which to impress upon municipali-
ties the need to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation.
A powerful tool now available to the Council is the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 (Laws 1976, chapter
127). For-the first time, local units of government
throughout the Metropolitan Area are required to prepare
comprehensive plans which must be submitted to the Council
for review. Two elements, among many others, are to be
contained in the plans; an environmental element (M.S.473.
859.subd.2) and an implementation program (M.S.473.859.
subd.4). These elements could be important tools in curb-
ing urban erosion in the Metropolitan Area.
Some of the matters to be included in the environ-
mental element are soil erosion and the suitability of
soils for development and drainage (M.S.473-204). The
environmental ordinances are to be submitted to the Council
for review and comments before their local adoption
(M.S.473.206) •
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act gives the Council
and local units of government a real opportunity to inte-
grate preventive measures for erosion control and storm-
water management into the land planning process. However,
the success of the Land Planning Act in the environmental
area is dependent upon the right mixture of cooperation and
coercion because a soil erosion element is not now
mandatory in the comprehensive plans.
-------
221
Oberts-Jouseau
Why a Comprehensive Planning Approach?
Why then adopt a comprehensive planning approach when
there are those who would argue that site-by-site review is
quite sufficient to control erosion and manage stormwater?
The site-by-site review is valid only within an overall
framework. Lack of an overall plan usually results in
shortsightedness and problems. Often the lack of
relationship between municipally instituted land uses
(through planning and zoning) and the land suitability puts
an unfair burden on developers who then must justify their
use of the site in the face of environmental constraints.
As a result, either the developer is successful in
convincing the city to eliminate environmental requirements
on the basis of impossible constraints or residents get the
city to reduce the intensity of use or require environ-
mental impact documents at the cost of the developer and
housing prices increase. In any case, someone is losing.
Similarly, eagerness to attract development can undo the
best erosion control program.
An example of this is a development in the western part
of the Twin Cities Area. A landowner has owned 19 acres on
a densely wooded, steep-sloped hill for about 15 years.
The land, zoned residential, is located in an affluent area
and has good access to highways leading to both
Minneapolis and St. Paul. The landowner at one time had
development in mind, but recently offered to sell the land
to the city as open space. Neither the city nor the county
was interested in purchasing the land. Adding further
pressure to develop this land was a city tax assessment in
1978 of $13,000. The inevitable result was that the land
was sold in 22 lots, many of which were literally located
in notches on slopes over 20 percent. The land development
plan was reviewed by the watershed district, but all it
could do was make the best of a bad situation because it
had no land use authority to limit development. The
watershed district did, however, insist on several on-site
erosion control provisions, a measure well within the dis-
trict's authority. Most erosion control measures were no
more than minimally successful because of the steep slopes.
This example is a classic case of how external forces
come to play in generating urban erosion. The watershed
district could not limit the development; the soil and
water conservation district similarly could not prevent the
action; and the Metropolitan Council could not act on a
local matter that did not require federal financial
assistance.The fact is that a community wanting development
-------
222
Oberts-Jouseau
will almost always be able to generate that development in
spite of land resource limitations. In the previous
example, the community had only to tax the land at a
nonresidential tax rate in exchange for sanctions against
development to prevent the "carving up" of a lovely, steep-
sloped, fully wooded hill.
Communitites or citizens interested in affecting commu-
nity policy should promote comprehensive planning as a
method of protecting and preserving areas for land and
water conservation purposes. An assessment of development
alternatives made in light of resource limitations is the
key element of a comprehensive land use plan. Integration
of all comprehensive erosion/stormwater plans on a
watershed basis identifies the overall ability of a
community to develop and delineates its responsibilities to
downstream communities. Once land is developed in an
improper manner, corrective measures become extremely
capital-intensive and damage to property is likely.
How to Approach Comprehensive Planning
Once a community has recognized the need for a compre-
hensive planning approach for its natural resources, it
faces the job of preparing a plan that includes all aspects
of community development. This paper addresses only part
of the natural resource element of a complete comprehensive
plan. The primary focus of any erosion/stormwater plan is
definition of land capability and densities of development
that that land can support. Herein also lies the key to
good erosion control and stormwater management. It must be
emphasized that even fully developed communities have to
keep urban erosion control in mind because these
communities will undergo redevelopment or undertake public
works projects such as road and sewer line construction.
The following itemized elements are the minimum that should
be included by a community concerned with prevention of
urban erosion.
Statement of Intent. Prior to any discussion of^
development a community should state its goal relative to
development and the means to achieve this goal. A clear
statement of the terms under which development proposals
will be reviewed will result in time savings for the
community and provide directions for those wishing to
develop land in the community. Consistency in maintaining
the community philosophy is extremely important from both a
planning and a legal standpoint.
-------
223
Oberts-Jouseau
Identification of Resources. Protection of resources
starts with their identification and the identification of
the limitations they present. The resources that should be
identified include erosive soils, steep slopes, wetlands,
groundwater and surface water, unique woodlands and vege-
tation, and any other area feature that merits protection
or would not support development. Limitations on develop-
ment types and densities should be noted so that those
looking for development sites will immediately know what
land is available for use.
^Areas to be preserved from development have to be iden-
tified and the means for protecting these areas (tax
relief, purchase, etc.) formulated so that they continue to
function as soil or water conservation areas. Developed
communities should identify areas where planned redevelop-
ment will occur.
Land Use. Once the land resources and limitations are
defined, a community must identify the types and location
of allowed uses in conformance with any inherent limita-
tions. Land use plans should be accompanied by an outline
of growth patterns in a staged or incremental manner to
ultimate development.
Natural Resource Subelements. There are three natural
resource areas that serve as the focal point for a
comprehensive plan designed to mitigate urban erosion.
First is an erosion and sedimentation control subelement
which defines areas where development should not occcur, as
well as explains the regulatory program that a community
can implement for erosion control in other areas. This
section will reference the development limitations and will
begin to formulate an implementation program that will
culminate in ordinances and standards for development.
Subjects to be contained in this subelement are an
assessment of the magnitude of the problem; identification
of causes of erosion; identification of successful
management techniques; feasible control options; and
recommendations for implementation strategies.
Stormwater runoff management is the second natural
resource subelement that should be addressed. This part
will require technical expertise in the area of hydrology
because of the drainage network design and storage
alternatives to be formulated. The land use and protected
area elements in preceding sections should interact
intimately with the stormwater subelement if development
patterns are to be determined by allowable runoff volumes
and by areas where development is suitable. Possible
-------
224
Oberts-Jouseau
subjects contained in this subelement are: definitions of
drainage patterns; determination of runoff volumes, rates
and paths; evaluation of drainage channels and swales;
quantification of needed and available storage; identifica-
tion of areas regulated by state or watershed agencies; and
identification of runoff management techniques.
Water quality, the third subelement, will primarily
address diffuse stormwater pollution. The first task
should be to undertake a preliminary evaluation of the
extent and magnitude of diffuse sources of stormwater
pollution. Elementary concentration equations are readily
available to combine with land use to determine
approximate pollution loading. Next, an assessment of_
available treatment options, and the likelihood of their
success in the community lays the groundwork for
a water pollution abatement plan.
The natural resource subelements are being evaluated
as implementation techniques under the Metropolitan
Council's Section 208 water quality study. Nationwide
emphasis is shifting from large-scale, capital-intensive
structures to local source control for abatement of
pollution and urban erosion. As point sources of pollution
are brought under control, increasing emphasis will be
placed in the control of diffuse sources associated with
stormwater runoff. Communities should seriously consider
including the three subelements outlined here as the
prerequisite for comprehensive plans.
Regulations From Outside Agencies. A community today
has to interface its activities with regulations of
federal, state and regional institutions and with its
neighboring communities. In the area of urban erosion
control, a community reviewing a proposal will have to keep
in mind all of the regulatory programs. A comprehensive
plan should itemize regulations so that users of the plan
are cognizant of regulatory programs.
Implementation. By far the most important^element of
any community's comprehensive plan is the section that
outlines the means to be used to assure that the plan is
successfully carried out. The best development plan is
worthless if a community does not use it to guide its
reviews and to form a framework for community growth. A
good implementation scheme should contain ordinances and
performance standards that developers would have to follow
in any land-disturbing activity. Ordinance options vary
from one all-inclusive ordinance to several separate
ordinances covering erosion control, stormwater runoff,
-------
225
Oberts-Jouseau
subdividing, road construction, zoning, wetland alteration,
and so on. Performance standards should clearly describe
the specific technical measures that must be followed to
achieve a particular task. Performance standards will
often include a financial bond that must be posted to
assure that the standards are followed. An effective
implementation program must have follow-up inspections to
assure that the specifics of the ordinance and standards
are being properly followed. Personnel should be assigned
to inspect and maintain visibility among the various-
projects, even if they are assigned only on a part-time
basis.
Communities have numerous implementation and assistance
options available, as outlined in a prevous section.
Zoning and ordinance authorities are of course the most
direct way to deal with erosion/stormwater control.
Additionally, an unincorporated community can insist on
county project review, which usually includes further
review by the soil and water conservation district; such
district review is also a project approval option for
incorporated municipalities. Any community within a
watershed district can defer review of projects to the
district, incorporate district comments into project
reivew, or adopt regulations to supplement those of the
district. State regulations controlling erosion/stormwater
currently exist, if alteration occurs to wetlands,
floodplains, shorelands, or public water; if water quality
is degraded beyond certain limits; or if sufficient
environmental degradation is threatened to justify an
environmental disclosure document. Unfortunately, many
projects bypass state review, often for reasons less than
legitimate. All institutions with regulatory or review
authority also have the authority to prepare comprehensive
erosive/stormwater control plans. A community should
undertake such a plan as an integral part of its overall
comprehensive plan and should also place pressure upon the
other institutions to do similarly.
Financing. The greatest difficulty most communitites
face is financing expenditures that accompany comprehensive
plan implementation. Revenues will be needed to prepare
engineering plans, acquire storage areas, design and
install erosion control devices, cost-share management
structures or a myriad of other undertakings. A capital
improvement program (CIP) should be established to look at
expenditures for projects and acquisitions for at least
five years into the future. Under a well-structured CIP,
projects and acquisitions can be outlined, assigned
priority for funding, and implemented in accordance with
-------
Oberts-Jouseau
the community plan. The CIP will also identify the source
of the needed revenue and thereby give the community an
idea of its capabilities to finance a community plan, thus
compelling a community to look realistically at the future
Summary
A community that tries to manage a single natural
resource such as soil, without consideration of other-
natural resources and community growth plans, will likely
have an ineffective program. The Metropolitan Council has
seen that those communities that examine their resources
and plan their long-term growth are the ones that develop
logical and effective programs to control soil erosion.
To be effective, communities should inventory their
resources, quantify their problems, and integrate this
knowledge into a plan and implementation program.
Agencies such as soil and water conservation districts
or watershed districts can assist a community, but a
community that wants to develop at any cost can undo all of
the conservation activities of any agency. It is the
community that must be dedicated to soil conservation and
natural resource preservation if environmental damage is to
be avoided. Future water quality management programs in
Minnesota and throughout the country will be addressing
urban erosion in a more thorough manner than has ever been
undertaken. The community with a good approach to
comprehensive erosion/stormwater planning will be best
prepared to comply with future abatement programs.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the key to an ^
effective soil erosion program is a vigorous implementation
approach that includes follow-up inspections. Numerous
examples exist of well-intentioned erosion management
programs which failed because they did not follow the
specifications.
Comprehensive community planning is a promising erosion
control implementation technique. A community that looks
to its future with concern cannot help but develop a
logical natural resources approach that includes control of
urban soil erosion.
-------
227
THE USE OF SOILS INFORMATION IN THE
PLANNING PROCESS: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
Gunnar C. Isberg, President
Isberg, Riesenberg, Chelseth and Associates, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Planning and Development Services
I. Introduction
The environmental movement, which gained considerable strength in
the late 1960's and early 1970's has made us a society much more aware of
the damage to our natural resources from past developments and the fact
that our natural resources are finite. However, even though this movement
has gained many proponents from different walks of life, much current
development throughout the United States, whether it consists of residen-
tial, commercial or industrial developments, continues to take place with
little or no consideration of the effect of the developments on the nat-
ural resources and vice versa. This in turn has lead to a number of pro-
lems for the individual homeowner and landowner as well as the local
communities where the development projects are located. Some of these
problems include wet or flooded basements, backed-up sewers from inopera-
tive private sewer systems, cracked or shifting foundations, soil erosion
problems, especially in areas of steep slopes resulting in pollution of
waterways, damage to buildings and highways, etc.. The practical results
of these many and diverse problems is greatly increased costs to the home-
owner or landowner in attempting to deal with these problems. In some
cases, there may be no practical solution to the problems such as for
rural housing developments with private sewer systems located in areas of
high water table. In other cases, the cost of providing a solution is
passed on to the local communities (and the taxpayers) as angry homeowners
demand that the local communities bail them out.
Nor is this something that merely happened in the past; the fact of
the matter is that it is a recurring problem in many areas of the United
States. One of the major reasons for this is that the market place or
land economics continues to exert a strong influence on where and how
developments take place. While the "smart" land speculators and develop-
ers are starting to pay more attention to the limitations posed by some
of the natural resources, including certain soils, to the developments on
a particular site, others only become aware of the problem after purchas-
ing a parcel of land and then attempt to pass off the problem to future
landowners, including homeowners, in order not to sacrifice potential
profits.
11• Ways In Which Soils Information Can Be Used In the Planning Process
In view of the continuing problems being faced by many homeowners
and local government units from developments being located on poor soils,
-------
228 Isberg
what can be done to avoid or minimize these problems? One obvious way is
to incorporate soils and natural resource information in the total plan-
ning process. The following are some of the ways in which this can be
accomplished.
A. As a Basis for Comprehensive Plans
In developing comprehensive plans, including land use plans,
for a local community or region, much background information is
gathered and analyzed to serve as a basis for the plan; including
population, employment and growth trends. One of the very valuable
sources of background information is soils and other natural resource
information. The Soil Conservation Service (S.C.S.) has been in-
volved in preparing soils maps and soils interpretation sheets on a
county-wide basis in most portions of the United States since the
early 1900's. These soils maps and soil interpretation sheets are
prepared from soil surveys conducted by the S.C.S. personnel and on a
federal-county cost-sharing basis. A District Conservationist is
usually assigned to each Soil and Water Conservation District
(usually coterminous with a county) to assist the local officials and
landowners in using this information.
In terms of land use planning, soils interpretation maps can
be developed from the original soils for agricultural production,
limitations for buildings with basements, limitations for private
sewer systems (septic tank and drainfields) etc.. These maps can
then be used as one source of information in developing comprehensive
plans and land use plans for a community or region. For example,
areas which contain poor soils for development purposes (high water
table, high shrink-swell characteristics, etc.), could be designated
for parks and open space or storm water drainage areas, etc., or
development can be severely limited in areas of high agricultural
production. In this manner, this information can avoid or minimize
the problems caused by urban developments on poor soils.
B. As a Basis for Development Ordinances
Another way that soils and natural resource information can be
incorporated into the planning process is the use of this information
as a basis for the ordinances used to implement the comprehensive
plans such as zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. For
example, soils maps and soils interpretation sheets can be used as a
basis for establishing zoning districts, especially in those commun-
ities that lack a comprehensive plan. In addition, the soils infor-
mation can be used in establishing performance standards in the zon-
ing ordinance or the subdivision regulations dealing with soil eros-
ion and sediment control, wetland preservation, septic tank provis-
ions, etc..
-------
Isberg 229
In addition to the zoning ordinance and subdivision regula-
tions, soils information can also be used as a major basis for sep-
erate ordinances in a local community including Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance, Wetland Preservation Ordinance, and
Private Sewer System Ordinances. Several communities have developed
seperate ordinances dealing with these subjects rather than to incor-
porate these standards in the zoning ordinances. Usually, the pro-
visions are more lengthy and comprehensive when developed as seper-
ate ordinances. Again, the use of soils information as a basis for
development ordinances can help to avoid or minimize many of the
development problems discussed previously, especially in communities
that lack a comprehensive plan.
C- As a Basis For Subdivision Layout or Design
Another way in which soils information can be used in the
planning process is in subdivision design and layout. In many cases,
a particular parcel of property will contain areas which present
severe limitations for urban development as well as areas which pre-
sent little or no limitations.
Soils maps and soil interpretation sheets prepared by the
S.C.S. (supplemented by additional soil borings) can be used to
cluster the housing units or buildings in areas that present few
limitations for urban development and locating the common open space
parks and trails, etc., in areas which present limitations for devel-
opment purposes. Similarly, the topography and vegetation on a site
should be considered in subdivision layout. However, this may mean
that the developer would be willing to accept fewer lots on the site
(and potentially less profit), unless the community has incorporated
a density transfer system in its ordinances, which it may have to do
to encourage the use of soils information in the subdivision design
process.
D. As a Basis for Reviewing Subdivision Proposals or Redevelop-
ment Proposals
Yet a fourth major way that soils information can be used in
the planning process is to review subdivision proposals or redevel-
opment proposals by a governmental agency. One way in which this
can^be done is for the local staff to work with the district conser-
vationist or other soil scientist in reviewing the development or
redevelopment proposals and then negotiating with the developer to
change the design or layout to minimize problems with buildings
being located on poor soils. Another way of getting the technical
soils information input in the review process is to appoint a dist-
rict conservationist to the Planning Commission, which several
counties in Minnesota have, in fact, done.
-------
230
Isberg
In summary, the soils maps and soils interpretation sheets,
in some cases supplemented by additional soil borings where detailed
soils analysis is needed, can serve as very valuable information in
several stages of the planning process to avoid or minimize the
problems with urban developments located in areas of poor soils.
III. Reasons That Soils Information Has Not Been Effectively Incorporated
' !n The Planning and Development Process
In light of the potential usefulness of soils information in the
planning and development process, it would appear that planners, engineers
and other professionals involved in planning as well as local communities,
would make a great deal of use of this information. Yet, to the utter
frustration of soil scientists and district conservationists, soils infor-
mation has by and large not been incorporated in the planning and develop-
ment process in many areas of the United States. Even where soils maps
and information has been included in planning reports, it has often been
used as "filler" (fulfill some state or federal requirements to obtain a
grant) rather than as a means to influence the final comprehensive plans
or subdivision layouts. There are a number of reasons for this, some of
which are valid and others which are not. The following are some of the
reasons that planning professionals and local communities have been re-
luctant to incorporate this information in the planning and development
process.
A. Lack of Knowledge by Planning and Development Professionals
One of the major reasons that soils information has not been
more effectively used in many planning programs is simply due to a
lack of knowledge on the parts.of planning and development profes-
sionals that this information is available or how to use it in the
planning process. Part of this problem is due to the fact that many
curriculums for planners and engineers lack courses on soil proper-
ties and how this information can be used in the planning process.
In addition, S.C.S. personnel or Soil and Water Conservation Dist-
ricts have not always adopted effective local programs to sell the
use of soils information in the planning process to planning profes-
sionals or local elected officials.
B. Lack of Interest of Professionals Involved in the Planning
and Development Process
Another major reason that soils information has not been in-
corporated in the planning and development process is due to a.lack
of interest by many planning professionals or local officials in the
potential use of this information. There are also several reasons
for this attitude. In some cases, it is due to a lack of sensitive-
ness of the need to protect our natural resources. In other cases,
the landowner or developer may be opposed to the use of this informa-
-------
231
Isberg
tion in the planning and development process since it can adversely
loS? r™,n-t-er Pr°f? marTn- In °ther Cases' the landowners and
local communities may have adopted a strong pro-growth attitude and
would be opposed to anything that might inhibit or limit development
even if problems are likely to occur at a later time.
C. Limitations of Existing Soils Data
Another major reason that the use of soils information in the
planning and development process has not been more widespread in
many regions is due to the fact that the soils data is either out-
dated, in too generalized a form or is lacking entirely. For
example, some of the soil surveys in Minnesota were conducted in the
early 1900's using a soils classification system exclusively oriented
towards agriculture or rural development issues. This type of infor-
mation is obviously of very limited usefulness for urban planning
programs oriented towards urban growth problems and issues. In
addition, the older soils maps were often in a very generalized form
making them virtually useless for the type of planning activities
requiring detailed data such as subdivision design and layout.
In some cases, the soils data may be lacking entirely such as
for the older urbanized cities which were not included in the orig-
inal surveys. The practical result of this is that soils informa-
tion is not considered in evaluating redevelopment projects in the
cities. In some cases, this has lead to some unfortunate results
in that redevelopment projects, involving substantial public and
private investments, have located in areas of poor soils or season-
ally high water table with all its attendant problems. For example,
this author is aware of at least one major federally sponsored hous-
ing project (Section 8 housing project sponsored by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development) which was located in a former
river-bed which had been filled to make room for urban development.
The predictable results is that the walls started cracking from a
shifting foundation and the housing project had to be abandoned
after only 12 years because the walls were ready to cave in and the
apartment units had to be torn down. Needless to say, this resulted
in a substantial waste of public funds. Thus, steps need to be taken
to prepare soil surveys of select areas of the larger cities which
are subject to redevelopment projects.
Iv- Criteria For Incorporating Soils Information in the Planning and
Development Process ~~^
In view of the potential value of incorporating soils information in
the planning process, it is important that proper steps be taken to fur-
ther encourage this practice in the future. One of the ways of doing this
is to improve the lines of communication between the soil scientist and
the professionals and decision-makers involved in the planning and
-------
232 Isberg
development process. In addition to improving the communication process,
it is important that the soils information and data be produced in such
a format as to be easily incorporated into the planning process. The
following are some of the basic criteria for ensuring that the soils data
can be used in the planning process.
A. Soils Information Must Be Up-to-Date and Readily Available
One of the basic criteria for ensuring that planners and other
professionals involved in planning and development will consider the
use of soils information in developing comprehensive plans and ordin-
ances is that the information is up-to-date and readily available.
As was indicated previously, one of the reasons that soils informa-
tion has not been used in some areas is that the soils data is old
and the soils classification system is of very limited value in
properly addressing urban development problems. Thus, it is impera-
tive that the proper steps be taken to update the old surveys as soon
as possible. In order to deal with this problem in Minnesota, a 15
year plan was adopted in 1973 for completing a soil survey of the
whole state which includes the updating of the old surveys. Under
this accelerated soil survey program, the soil survey for the whole
state is expected to be completed by 1989. The surveys will be done
for each Soil and Water Conservation District which in most cases is
coterminous with the counties. This program will ensure that the
soils data for the whole state will be usable for both urban and
rural planning programs and that this information will be uniformly
available on a state-wide basis in the near future.
B. The Soils Data Must Be Capable Of Being Incorporated In The
Planning Process
One of the major issues which has been extensively debated
among planners and soil scientists is whether or not the current
soils data is in such a format as to be useful to the planner in the
planning and development process. There is no doubt that strong
attempts have been made to produce the soils data in such a format_
as to be useful to planners, engineers and other involved in planning
and development as well as to meet the requirements of rural and agri-
cultural areas and that this has changed the soil classification sys-
tem over time. However, there are some professionals who feel that
soils data in its present format is of limited use in the planning
and development process.
A soil survey for an area usually includes a series of maps upon
which the soil types are superimposed. In addition, the survey
report includes a description of the physical characteristics of the
soils including grade and wetness, etc.. In addition, the soil sur-
vey reports include soil interpretation sheets which indicate the
limitations and suitability of the particular soil type for various
land uses, including urban land uses, open space, agricultural pro-
ductivity, etc..
-------
Isberg 233
It is clear that the soils maps in the initial soil survey
reports are of limited value in their existing format in the plan-
ning process. What is really needed to make the information useful
in the planning process is to take the process one step further and
to produce soils interpretation maps which indicate the suitability
of the soils for agricultural production, the limitations of the
soils for private sewer systems (wetness, permeability, steepness,
etc.), or for dwelling units with basements (height of water table,
etc.). It is in this format that the soils information can be used
to determine land use plans or to influence subdivision design or
layout. However, many planning professionals lack the knowledge of
how to produce these soils interpretation maps. Even when the maps
have been produced with the assistance of the soil scientist, there
are issues related to the classification system used in these maps
(severe, moderate, or no limitations).
In addition, many planning professionals feel that there is a
need to develop more exacting standards in order for the soils
information to really be useful in the planning process. For
example, many planning professionals would like to see standards for
minimum lot sizes for private sewer systems depending on soil types.
On the other hand, the soil scientist will maintain that it is diffi-
cult, if po.ssible at all, to develop simplistic standards from soils
data.
It is clear from this brief analysis, that soils data can be
useful in the planning process if the planner is willing to work
with the data to produce additional interpretation maps and provid-
ing that the planner has a basic understanding of soils and soil
properties. Unfortunately, many planners or engineers lack a basic
understanding of soils and soil properties. It is also clear that
oftentimes the planning professional is looking for simplistic stan-
dards which may not be available or may be difficult to produce.
This suggests that there is a need for additional research involving
soil scientists, planners, engineers, etc., to work on developing
more exacting standards which can be used by professionals and
decision-makers involved in the planning and development process.
C. The Soils Information Must Be Available At A Reasonable Cost.
As was indicated previously, soils information can and has been
used in various different ways in the total planning process ranging
from subdivision review to serving as a basis for a comprehensive
plan. In addition, the information as used in the planning and
development process range from rather simple hand-colored soils
interpretation maps to very complex computer mapping systems.
The basic soil information reports produced for the individual
Soil and Water Conservation Districts on a federal-local cost-sharing
basis is usually available free of charge or on a loan basis to local
-------
234 Isberg
communities. However, in order for this data to be used in the
planning and development process, it often must be further analyzed
and the basic information converted into a different format. For
example, the soils maps as found in the soil reports produced for
the Soil and Water Conservation District are in most cases not use-
ful in their existing format. In most cases, new maps at different
scales must be prepared and the basic soil groups converted to soil
interpretation maps in order to make the information understood by
lay planning commissions and local elected officials. This is
especially a dilemma for planning and engineering consultants who
firmly believe in the use of soils information as a basis for plan-
ning but are forced to compete with other consultants who are not
using the soils information in their work. Many local communities,
especially those where planning has a low priority, may not be will-
ing to pay the extra costs necessary in converting the basic soils
data and maps into a format where it can be used in the planning and
development process. Thus, it is important that methods be developed
to produce the information at a relatively low cost if it is to be
used on a larger scale than isolated, individual communities as has
been the pattern in the past.
E. The Soils Information and Standards Must Be Legally Defensible
Another element which must be considered in using soils informa-
tion and standards in the planning process are the legal implica-
tions In this respect, the standards must, to the extent possible,
be legally defensible. This is likely to continue to be an increas-
ingly important issue as developers and landowners in increasing
numbers are turning to the courts to challenge ordinances and other
governmental standards which place restrictions on the use of land
and water.
There are at least two aspects dealing with the legal issues
which may have an effect on the use of soils information in the
planning process. One has to do with whether or not the standards
are reasonable and therefore are likely to be upheld in the courts.
Unless the planning and engineering professional has some assurance
that the information or standards is valid and reasonable, he or she
is unlikely to want to recommend that standards be used by local
governmental units in the planning process. Another legal aspect
deals with the willingness of the soil scientist to appear in the
court as an expert witness if the soil standards or information is
challenged. Obviously, the planner or other professional involved
in planning and development would not qualify as an expert witness
as it relates to soils. Thus, the soil scientist or district conser-
vationist must be prepared to be used as an expert witness if the
soil standards are challenged, which they are sure to be in the
future.
-------
Isberg 235
V. Conclusion
It is clear that soils information can be extremely useful in both
the planning and development process in order to minimize costly develop-
ment problems for both homeowners as well as local governmental units
The soils information can be used in a variety of ways in the total plan-
ning and development process ranging from simple subdivision review to
serving as a basis for rather complex comprehensive plans for a community
or region. J
In spite of the potential value in using soils information in the
planning and development process, it is not being used to any great extent
in many regions of the United States. The following are some recommenda-
tions for encouraging the use of soils information in the planning process.
For one, the communication channels must be opened between the soil
scientists and district conservationists and the various professions and
local officials involved in the planning and development process including
planners, engineers, architects, local elected officials and developers
This improved communication could take many forms including written
materials such as books and articles, and seminars and conferences. Since
the decision-makers and local staff are constantly changing, this needs to
become a continuous activity.
Second, there is a real need to develop additional and more exacting
soils standards which can be incorporated in the planning process and also
to produce the soils data in such a format as to be capable of being easily
incorporated into the planning process. This will require a truly inter-
disciplinary approach of people with practical experience in such fields
as soil science, planning, engineering, law, etc..
Finally, there may be a need to develop incentive programs at the
federal or state levels to encourage the use of soils in the planning and
development process. This could take the form of outright grants or speci-
fic requirements to obtain other grants in the area of housing, parks and
open space, transportation, community development block grants and other
major federal and state grant programs.
-------
-------
ROLE OF WATER RESEARCH INSTITUTES
IN STORMWATER AND EROISON CONTROL
Neil S. Grigg
Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
James M. Stewart
Acting Director, Water Resources Research Institute
of The University of North Carolina
Each state has a Water Resources Research Institute which is par-
tially supported by the Office of Water Research and Technology, U.S.
Department of Interior. These institutes were initiated by the Water
Resources Research Act of 1964 and have continued to evolve since that
time. The North Carolina Institute is a particularly active one and has
taken an especially strong role in stormwater and erosion control The
role of institutes in research, training, technology transfer and informa-
tion dissemination can be very significant. The purpose of this paper is
to describe the activities of the North Carolina Institute and to suggest
that it could serve as a model for other state institutes with particular
interest in the subject of stormwater and erosion control.
The basic missions of the water research institutes are water re-
sources research, technology transfer and information dissemination
When considering the groups with strong roles in stormwater and erosion
control it is easy to see that institutes are in a unique position to
serve well in the special fields of training and information dissemi-
nation. The list of groups of concern in this conference illustrates
this point: planners, consulting engineers, land developers, builders,
conservation organizations and local government. The terms training
technology transfer and information dissemination are closely related
and when taken together constitute a group of activities all of which
might be called "technology transfer." The North Carolina Institute is
well known for its strong program in technology transfer not only in
stormwater but in other water and land related programs as well.
Stormwater and erosion control are fruitful areas for research and
technology transfer. The North Carolina Institute considers that "storm-
water management" is a field which consists of four basic activities-
urban drainage, flood control in urban areas, control of erosion, and con-
trol of the quality of urban runoff. All of these areas are important and
ot concern to different groups at different times. For example, urban
drainage is of great concern to local government particularly when drain-
age problems persist and generate citizen complaints. Flood control in
-------
238 Grigg-Stewart
urban areas is a major problem especially when disasters occur and lives
are lost. Erosion control is very important from an environmental stand-
point and because of the problem of siltation in streams and receiving
waters. The nation's Water Quality Program has recognized the impor-
tance of the quality of urban runoff in achieving and maintaining clean
streams.
The activities of the North Carolina Water Resources Research
Institute in stormwater management have a long history. For example,
the institute convened the first state workshop with the major agencies
involved in land disturbing activities to address the sediment control
problems and the need for regulatory action. This effort and early in-
stitute research was instrumental in gaining passage of the Sediment
Pollution Control Act of the State of North Carolina. One of the fea-
tures of that act is that the director of the institute serves as an ex-
officio member of the Sediment Control Commission which directs the
program. The institute director is thereby able to participate in rule
making and decisions relating to the development and improvement of the
State Sediment Control Program.
The Sediment Control Program has been evolving since its initia-
tion and relies on a technical committee comprised of consulting engi-
neers, professors, government people, land developers and other profes-
sionals with experience and interest in erosion control. The WRRI has
participated actively in this technical committee by the participation
of staff and principal investigators from research projects.
There have been a number of research projects supported by the
institute of direct interest to workers in stormwater management. These
include projects in the quality of urban runoff, projects in urban drain-
age, projects in the institutional arrangement for stormwater management,
projects relating to the quality of agricultural and rural non-point
runoff and cooperative projects with local government designed to find
solutions to persistent and common stormwater management problems.
The institute has conducted several workshops related to stormwater
management. In January 1978, a workshop was held to define problems
which should be addressed by state government relating to stormwater.
This resulted in a written set of proceedings.'
In April 1979, the North Carolina Institute, in cooperation with
the water institutes and water agencies in the Southeast, sponsored the
Southeast Conference on Urban Stormwater Management. The session explored
the strengths and deficiencies of state and local programs related to
urban stormwater management and identified and described necessary cor-
rective steps in the areas of state and local legislation and regulations,
administration, finance, and technology. Proceedings of this conference,
Stewart, James M., "Proceedings - North Carolina Workshop on Manage-
ment of Stormwater, Sedimentation and Flood Control in Urban Areas; Water
Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh,
N.C., 1978.
-------
Grigg-Stewart 239
available in December, includes specific recommendations for follow-up
action programs in all these areas. The appendix gives the program for
the workshop to demonstrate the diversity and quality of the presentations
which were made. There have been other specialty workshops relating to
stormwater management as well. In March 1979, the Institute sponsored
for example, a one day workshop featuring a national expert on the sub-
ject of preparing urban runoff control plans. This workshop was well
received and well attended.
In line with this technology transfer mission the institute has
organized a working group of city engineers and others interested in
stormwater management. This group is always invited to workshops and
receives a regular newsletter concerned with stormwater management pub-
lished on a periodic basis. The institute does not have the staff to
service a working group on a regular basis but seeks to involve them as
much as possible in regular on-going institute projects. The newsletter
prepared for distribution to the working group and to others interested
in stormwater management is called the "North Carolina Stormwater Manager."
The most recent copy is appended as an appendix to this paper.
The institute cooperates with other units working in stormwater
management as well. For example, the State of North Carolina is re-
ceiving one of the EPA projects which are designed to collect data to
determine the magnitude of the non-point runoff problem in urban areas.
A pilot project in the Winston-Sal em, North Carolina, area will be
initiated in the near future. The institute has been in close touch
with the planners of the project and hopes to be in a position to help
disseminate the findings as widely as possible.
In conclusion, Water Research Institutes can be of great
benefit in each of the states to work with stormwater management con-
stituencies. The program of the North Carolina Institute is full and
complete and has generated considerable interest among local groups con-
cerned with stormwater management. The North Carolina Institute will
be glad to advise other institutes or similar groups on the development
of its programs and on how others might adapt and learn from our experi-
ence.
-------
September/October 1979
Gfigg-Stewart
No. 4
GREENSBORO STREAMBANK STABILIZATION: RC&D PROJECT MOVES INTO SECOND PHASE
The City of Greensboro, with the help
of the Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment program (RC&D), is stabilizing some
5,140 linear feet of critically eroding
streambanks in its parks with adapted vege-
tation and mechanical measures.
The two-phase stabilization program,
begun in 1977, is being carried out by
the "division-of-work" method, according
to Jim Canterberry, State Resource
Conservationist. That is, RC&D funds
are providing the materials required,
and the City of Greensboro is responsible
for installation (providing supervision,
labor and equipment). The Soil Conserva-
tion Service, using RC&D funds, is pro-
viding technical assistance through the
Gui1 ford Soil and Water Conservation
District.
Phase One of the project included
installation of 940 linear feet of riprap
channel and 550 feet of channel bank
shaping and vegetation on Hillsdale
Park. Phase Two, scheduled for this
fall, includes 800 feet of riprap
channel and 600 linear feet of bank shap-
ing and vegetation of Lake Daniel Park;
350 linear feet of riprap channel in
Greentree Park, and 900 linear feet
of riprap channel and 1,000 linear
feet of bank shaping and seeding in
Latham Park.
Estimated total cost for the pro-
ject is $152,650, with $75,650 of that
amount from RC&D funds. Greensboro is
located in Gui1 ford County, one of
seven counties served by the North
Central Piedmont RC&D Area. To re-
ceive this type of RC&D help, a city
must be in one of the 35 counties that
makeup North Carolina's six RC&D areas.
RC&D: HOW IT WORKS
By Frank Jeter
What is Resource Conservation and
Development? And can it supply technical
and/or financial assistance for stormwater
management problems in North Carolina?
RC&D, as it is usually abbreviated,
is a regional program supported by a num-
ber of federal, state and local interests
to improve natural resource conservation,
environmental quality, economic develop-
ment and the quality of life. While the
(continued on page 2)
INSIDE
Stream Restoration Report Published . . 2
'Agricultural BMP Studied 3
:Durham Design Aid 3
iAPWA Workshop Series 3
iColumbus Stormwater Program 4
IAPWA Research Begins 4
iResearch on Drainage 5
Muskie To Speak 5
Wafer Resources Research Institute, 124 Riddick Building
N. C. State University Raleigh. N. C. 27650 Telephone 737-2815
-------
Grigg-Stewart
RC&D: HOW IT WORKS (continued from page 1)
241
program has "grass roots" leadership from
unpaid volunteers, the Soil Conservation
Service of the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture is the lead agency in assisting RC&D
areas, normally with one or more paid em-
ployees assigned to the RC&D area.
North Carolina has six active Resource
Conservation and Development Areas that
cover different sections of the state--
but not every county in the state. The
first test of eligibility to participate
in RC&D programs is to be in one of the
35 North Carolina counties comprising an
RC&D area. (Other applications have been
filed, involving multi-county areas in
several regions of North Carolina, but
have not yet been approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture.)
Let's say that you are in one of the
six RC&D areas and you are seeking help
with a problem in stormwater management.
(Or any other natural resource problem.)
The first step is to identify the
problem. This will probably involve a
conference with the Soil Conservation
Service District Conservationist. You
may contact him by calling a local office
of the Soil Conservation Service. After
receiving suggestions from the District
Conservationist, the next step will be
the committee which is actually the
governing board of the RC&D area. This
group is generally known as the "Steering
Committee," although other names are used.
If this group decides that the prob-
lem deserves attention, it may be desig-
nated as a "project measure" of the RC&D
area. Project measures have a wide range,
from recreation lakes to economic develop-
ment, and may include flood protection,
prevention of erosion, water quality,
environmental aspects, even promotion of
tourism.
A project measure, once adopted, may
be eligibile for several types of assis-
tance, including advice and guidance,
technical assistance (including engineer-
ing assistance), financial aid, and even
suggestions on alternatives available if
direct RC&D economic support cannot be
provided.
There are no "hard and fast" rules on
what may be selected as a project measure.
The RC&D steering committee is a major
determining force in identifying the prob-
lem or need and in mustering the volunteer
leaders of the RC&D area behind this need.
North Carolina's six RC&D areas and
the counties they serve are: the Western
Six—Cherokee, Graham, Swain, Clay, Macon
and Jackson; the Mountain Valley --Madison,
Buncombe, Henderson and Transylvania; the
New River Valley--Alleghany, Ashe, Watuaga
and a portion of Virginia; the North
Central Piedmont--Rockingham, Caswell,
Guilford, Alamance, Orange, Chatham and
Randolph; the Mid-East--Hertford, Bertie,
Martin, Beaufort and Pitt; and the
Albemarle--Gates, Chowan, Perquimans,
Pasquotank, Camden, Currituck, Dare,
Tyrrell, Washington and Hyde.
Frank Jeter is Information Officer with
the USDA Soil Conservation Service
REPORT PUBLISHED ON
STREAM RESTORATION
A research report is now available
on stream restoration as a means for re-
storing flow efficiency in streams that
have become debris-choked and eroded due
to the direct or indirect actions of
humans. "Use of Fluvial Processes to
Minimize Adverse Effects of Stream Channel-
ization," WRRI Report No. 144, is by
Nelson R. Nunnally, Department of Geography
and Earth Sciences, UNC-Charlotte, and
Edward Keller, Department of Environmental
Studies, University of California, Santa
Barbara. Copies are available from the
Institute free for residents of North
Carolina, and at $8 per copy out of state.
-------
242
Grigg-Stewart
AGRICULTURAL BMP STUDIED
DURHAM DEVELOPS DESIGN AID
A research and demonstration project
is underway in the Chowan River basin for
implementing agricultural best management
practices (BMP) for nutrient control.
In North Carolina an important compo-
nent of nonpoint source inputs comes from
runoff from agricultural land. Nutrients,
for instance, like the nitrogen and phos-
phorous used on farms, can be transported
to surface waters and in excess quantities
can cause nuisance algal growths or "blooms
such a? those that have plagued the Chowan
River in recent years.
The research team headed by Dr. Frank
Humenik of NCSU's Department of Biological
and Agricultural Engineering will contrast
nutrient yields before and after BMP's are
implemented. Area farmers are being asked
to cooperate and participate in the project,
a measure which will help determine the
effectiveness of the voluntary-educational-
incentive approach for 208 implementation.
Other project objectives are to
foster the necessary cooperative inter-
agency expertise for 208 program imple-
mentation, both at the state and local
levels, and to assess alternative 208
educational/informational approaches
for reaching the desired clientele. The
project will also evaluate the potential
of survey methodology for adequately
assessing producer practices and attitudes
associated with 208 goals and implemen-
tation programs.
The thrust of management suggestions
will be to emphasize simple, well-proven
practices.
Recently the City of Durham adopted
some design constraints for subdivision
streets receiving strip pavement with no
curb and gutter.
Engineers, concerned about erosion of
street side ditches, selected 5.5 feet per
second as the maximum permissible velocity
in a street side ditch, based on criteria
established by the Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Commission.
Also of concern was the amount of
flow in the ditches, so a requirement was
adopted that the maximum flow in a street
side ditch would be 25 CFS based on the
10-year design flow. But where ditch flow
exceeded 25 CFS, the engineer would have to
devise a way to reduce the flow, such as
piping the ditch or directing flow away
from the street.
Therefore, as an aid for design as
well as review, the City developed a set
of tables for the two different side slope
configurations expected most commonly for
street side ditches, the depth of which is
controlled by the distance from the edge of
the shoulder to the center of the ditch
and which is fixed at 6' by NCDOT's typical
section for subdivision streets. For each
ditch configuration, the table gives the
velocity of flow in the ditch as a function
of the slope and amount of flow in the ditch
For information on the tables,
interested persons may contact Kenneth E.
Wright, PE, City Engineer, Department of
Transportation and Utilities, City of
Durham, Durham, North Carolina 27701
APWA SERIES FEATURES URBAN DRAINAGE WORKSHOP
As part of its Workshop Series, the
AWPA Education Foundation recently held a
workshop on urban drainage.
Urban Drainage, offered as part of
the Series' "Special Topics" category, was
held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on July 26-27
and in Norfolk, Virginia, on July 31 thru
August 1. The workshop was designed for
public officials involved in the planning
or design of urban drainage facilities or
in code enforcements as well as consul-
tants.
Among the topics covered were: new
methods of stormwater management, storm-
water runoff models, local drainage manage-
ment practices, improved manual methods
of drainage system design and alternative
solutions for prevention of basement
-------
Grigg-Stewart
flooding and pollution from combined sewer
overflows.
243
The APWA Series is made up of nine
workshops on major public works operations
plus a tenth reserved for special topics.
Emphasis in each of the workshops is on
administration and management.
COLUMBUS IN THIRD PHASE OF
STORMWATER PROGRAM
The City of Columbus, Georgia, began
its Storm Water Management Program back
in 1975.
Now the five-phase endeavor, under-
taken to lessen the damaging effects of
poor drainage, soil erosion and sedimenta-
tion and flooding, is in its third phase
and has been termed one of the most ad-
vanced and comprehensive programs in the
nation.
Phase I of the Program, a Soils
Inventory and Analysis, resulted in the
publication of the Interim Soils Survey.
The Survey is used by engineers, archi-
tects, developers and planners in ap-
praising soils in Columbus.
Phase II was the collection of
hydrologic data, the adoption of a sedi-
ment and erosion control ordinance and
the publication of the Storm Water
Management Handbook. The Handbook, a
technical document to assist local
agencies and engineers, provides guidance
in such areas as estimation of storm-
water runoff, design of culverts and
storm sewers, flood proofing and allocat-
ing costs for drainage facilities.
Phase III, now underway, is the
development of an Urban Flood Simulation
Model. The Model will result in uniform
procedures for all drainage design and
will evaluate the consequences of flood-
ing and the effects of preventive mea-
sures.
Phase IV has three parts. One, now
in progress, is the Drainage Problem
Categorization Study, which will result
in a plan and map showing critical drain-
age problem areas and in recommendations
as to categories and priorities for re-
solving Columbus' drainage problems.
Also part of Phase IV are the Study
of Drainage Staff and Budget Requirements
and a Pilot Basin Study, which will re-
sult in a drainage plan and cost estimate
for the Pilot Basin. Pilot Basin Study
results should demonstrate to citizens
and the professional community the
capabilities of the Program.
Phase V is the final and ongoing
phase, the implementation of flooding
and drainage measures and facilities.
The Program involves cooperation by
a number of government agencies, city
officials, developers, engineers and the
public.
For more information on the Columbus
Storm Water Management Program, contact:
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
P.O. Box 1340
Columbus, Georgia 31902
Telephone: (404) 324-7711, Ext. 546
APWA STARTS STORMWATER RESEARCH
A jointly funded stormwater project
sponsored by the APWA Research Foundation
was started July 15.
The 12 month, $75,000 project is a
study of the planning, engineering and
maintenance of urban stormwater control
facilities. John A. Lambie, General
Manager and Chief Engineer of the Ventura
County (California) Sanitation District
who is chairman of the Foundation's Board
of Trustees, reports that there is wide-
spread interest in the project, reflected
by the number of participating agencies.
These include Tacoma, WA; Rockville, MD;
Kansas City, MO; Charlotte, NC; Albuquerque,
NM; Akron, OH; and the states of Virginia,
Louisiana, and Illinois to mention a few.
Herbert G. Poertner, formerly General
Manager of the Research Foundation, is
Principal Investigator for the project.
-------
244
RESEARCH ON DRAINAGE
Grigg-Stewart
As land use changes from rural to
urban, the cost of providing adequate
drainage systems and reasonable levels
of water quality rises. The greater pro-
portion of land with high permeability
in the rural setting results in lower
runoff and higher water quality because
the soil acts as a living filter improv-
ing water quality before it reaches the
underground tile drains. In the rural
areas, most tile drains flow into open
drainage ditches that are very inexpen-
sive to build because they have no con-
crete lining.
When urban development occurs, the
least costly drainage system involves
combining some of the open channel
drainage systems with enclosed storm
water pipes from the new subdivisions.
This is still the least expensive sys-
tem even when the open channels must
be lined with concrete to maintain
bank stability and to accommodate the
increasing rate of flow in the channel
due to the development of an urban
rather than rural hydrograph. The
water quality changes as urban develop-
ment occurs because different types
and concentrations of pollutants occur
in the runoff from watersheds with large
areas of low or zero permeability land
surface. With the loss of soil as a
living filter, further deterioration of
water quality may occur.
The urban drainage system can be
developed with or without detention
storage capacity in the system. Complete
pipeline systems with no open channels
that have detention storage are more
costly than pipeline systems without
detention storage. The reduced cost of
pipe because lower sizes are possible is
exceeded by the additional cost of deten-
tion storage. This relationship holds
whether the detention storage is one
large facility or several smaller
facilities distributed throughout the
watershed. Detention storage is still
more costly than pipelines alone even
when the storage is a low grass area in
a recreational park rather than a con-
crete lined facility.
Research indicates that the number
of detention storage facilities is a
positive function of cost in most cases.
Therefore, a single facility is generally
less costly than multiple detention faci-
lities in the watershed. With very large
volumes of detention storage, the number
of facilities has strong interaction
with the location of the facility so the
economically least expensive system is
a joint function of size, number, and
location. (From "Systematic Development
of Methodologies in Planning Urban Water
Resources for Medium Size Communities",
by W. L. Miller. Technical Report #111,
November 1978, Water Resources Research
Center, Purdue University.)
MUSKIE TO SPEAK AT DELAWARE CONFERENCE
Stormwater management programs
should be readily understandable and
accepted by the public at large. And a
better understanding of management alter-
natives could help lower drainage problem
costs (now an estimated annual $4 billion
nationally).
With these ideas in mind, the
University of Delaware Water Resources
Center and OWRT offer Stormwater Manage-
ment Alternatives: Turn a Liability,
into an Asset, A National Conference.
Senator Edmund S. Muskie will be the
keynote speaker at the conference,
October 3-5 in Wilmington, Delaware.
An objective is to formulate and
review alternative methods for handling
stormwater runoff that consider cultural,
social and environmental factors as well
as engineering design and cost effective-
ness. The conference is for site planners
engineers, landscape architects, 208 plan-
ning agencies, state government planning
agencies and commissions, river and port
authorities, water and public works
departments, conservation commissions,
voluntary associations and individuals.
(continued)
-------
Griqg-Stewart
non-structural controls, |
245
Topics are:
structural controls, best management
practices, design for multipurpose use,
fundability and institutional arrangements
and public information/participation and
local support.
Registration deadline is September 26.
For more information, write: Conference
Administration, University of Delaware,
Water Resources Center, 42 E. Delaware
Avenue, Newark, DE 19711.
THE NORTH CAROLINA STORMWATER
MANAGER is published bi-monthly by
the Water Resources Research Institute,
124 Riddick Building, N. C. State
University, Raleigh, NC 27650
Acting Director: James M. Stewart
Editor: Barbara Partington
Water Resources Research Institute
of the University of North Carolina
124 Riddick Building
North Carol'ina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
PRINTED MATTER
NONPROFIT ORG.
U. S. POSTAGE
PAID
RALEIGH, N. C.
PERMIT NO. 549
-------
-------
247
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCES
Harlen K. Britt
Sedimentation Control Engineer
Division of Land Resources-North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
As we here today, fully realize, the problem of erosion and sediment
control has received a great deal of national and state attention across
the country. However, it is my belief that the problem can only be
solved when local units of government take the initiative and begin the
necessary steps to solve their particular problems.
Today, I would like to present to you several considerations for
the development of urban erosion control programs based upon our
experience in North Carolina.
North Carolina has had a statewide erosion control ordinance since
1973. This program has jurisdiction over all land disturbing activities
except agricultural and forestry activities and those activities governed
by the North Carolina Mining laws. The State's general statute provides
for local units of government to adopt and administer their own erosion
control ordinance. These local ordinances must meet minimum state
requirements and may include more stringent standards, based upon
local needs.
I would like to point out that in North Carolina we have experienced
a great deal of pressure to require uniform ordinances across the State.
I believe that from a contractor viewpoint that this is highly desirable
but at the same time the geological and climatic differences and differ-
ent environmental concerns of communities dictate that complete unifor-
mity is not practicable. What we in North Carolina have developed is
a performance oriented program that requires the same performance
standards be met, however, we do not prescribe the method by which those
standards are met. We believe by allowing flexibility in design that
the technical minds involved will develop a better "mouse-trap". We also
must admit some of our best ideas have come from the quote "non-technical"
side of the construction industry, people like dozer operators and foranen.
We believe that it will take time to develop a workable program at
any level and the construction industry's ideas that have been formed
over the past 200 years are not going to be changed over night. In
order to develop a successful program it goes without saying that you
will need the support of the local construction industry and involved
citizens.
A strong educational program as to the extent and seriousness of
soil erosion must be carried out. This effort should be broad enough to
reach the public at large and should include a diligent effort to reach
those people who will be affected directly. The problems and possible
alternate solutions must be discussed with developers, engineers, con-
tractors, architects, realtors, conservation groups, local, state, and
-------
248
Britt
federal governmental agencies. The first discussion and decision to be
made is whether a local unit of government really needs a soil erosion
control ordinance. Is it really a need of that community and is the
community willing to pay the cost necessary to carry out an enforceable
effective program? If they are not, then I will be the first one to
recommend that they drop the entire issue and not simply jump on the
"band wagon". The very tough issue of whether the benefits are worth
the cost must be settled and in most cases the decision will not be one
easily reached. If however, the decision is made to proceed, then I can
assure you that the more you involve the construction industry in the
development of the program, the more success you are going to have. The
soil erosion control program in your community is going to succeed only
when the construction industry understands the need, the needed results,
and can transmit an attitude of it shall be done down to the man on the
dozer or motor grader. All the enforcement mechanisms utilized and all
the great plans designed are not going to get the job done if the con-
struction industry does not see to it that it is done. An improperly
installed measure that fails in the first storm it faces may do irre-
pairable damage and all the enforcement in the world could not have
made the construction workers understand.
Another area of education that we believe will help make your
program a success is that of public awareness that an ordinance is in
effect. In North Carolina, we developed a short 25 second public service
announcement for television. This short spot informed people that sedi-
ment is our largest pollutant by volume and that plans were required
prior to starting grading. It also stated where help was available if a
project was starting or if a person was being damaged. In addition to
this we recommend a continuing educational program directed towards
civic and professional groups should be vigorously pursued.
I would also suggest that some method of phasing the program in
be utilized so as not to be accused of coming down to hard to quickly.
Assuming that a program is developed, lets take a look at some
technical standards. In North Carolina we have a performance oriented
program with four technical standards. The first standard requires
that a buffer zone be maintained between the land disturbing activity and
any lake or natural watercourse so as to retain viable siltation within
the first twenty-five percent of the buffer zone closest to the activity.
The second standard requires that all graded slopes must be
provided with a ground cover sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion
within 30 working days following completion of any phase of grading.
This does not prescribe what method shall be used only that the
accelerated erosion be restrained.
The third standard requires that all areas of one or more acres be
so developed so as to prevent offsite damage from the silt generated by
that activity during construction and that following completion of con-
-------
Britt
the twenty-five year storm.
Now that we have the technical standards the real strength of any
local program will be the area of administration. How do you administer
a local program with the least amount of cost? There are several ways
to do this. First if an existing staff has the engineering capabilities
tp review and approve plans, then the possibility exists to include this
plan review in the present work load. If staffing is not available then
hiring of additional staff may be warranted. There is another source
which many of the local programs in North Carolina are using and that
is the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Many of our districts
serve as the technical review board for local programs. The possibility
also exists in contracting the work out to a qualified private firm for
plan review.
Now that we have covered the possible way to handle the plan
reviews, let's look at the actual inspection. Because erosion control
on construction sites in a very dynamic process and because sedimentation
damage may be a continuous problem, the frequency of inspection should be
high. Staffing should be adequate to inspect a project a minimum of
twice of week. Now, this may sound like a great deal of inspections but
if damage occurs, it is not something that can be corrected very easily
or inexpensively. I would recommend that all of the existing inspectors
be crossed trained to recognize erosion control problems and when they
visit a site for example a building inspection, they also perform an
erosion control inspection. I am aware that there are many people who
are in building, electrical, plumbing, and grading inspection work who
feel they don't have the education or experience to handle another
function, however, in today's government economic situation we need to
cultivate the attitude that we will conserve and better utilize our
existing personnel. An inspector who finds a problem could relay the
information to the proper person who would then handle the situation
promptly and effectively. I would also highly recommend a system of one
stop permit shopping. This would allow all of the permits to be issued
through one office and close cross checking of permits. It also reduces
the number of offices and red tape that a developer must go through in
getting the various permits needed for a project.
Let's assume that we have these plans being prepared and approved
and the inspection procedure all worked out. Let me warn you that in my
opinion you will not ever have a successful local program without a swift,
manageable and just enforcement procedure. You are going to have viola-
tors, and in order to get continued good response and protection from
the 95 percent good contractors, you must be willing and ready to deal
with the 5 percent that will be continuous violators.
In North Carolina we have four types of enforcement action that can
be pursued. They are civil penalty, criminal penalty, injunctive relief
through the courts, and stop work orders issued by local governments. The
civil penalty is assessed on a daily basis up to $100.00 per day, each
-------
250
Britt
day constituting a separate violation but may be assessed only after an
official notice of violation has been served by certified or registered
mail or personally delivered, This notice is required to include the
specific laws that are being violated, the measures needed to comply,
and a time period for compliance. This will give you the legal backing
for proper notice and due process if assessment of penalties is necessary.
Criminal penalties are reserved for those persons who willfully and
knowingly violate the ordinance. Injunctive relief and the stop work
order are the most penalizing of all the enforcement procedures. When-
ever you stop a project and tie up material and equipment, I can assure
you that you will get attention. I suggest that injunctive relief and
stop work orders be reserved for those cases where immediate damage is
occurring and experience with the individual in the past indicates a
strong possibility that voluntary action will not be achieved in a hort
period of time. Injunctive relief is obtained through the courts and a
stop work order can be set up administratively through your local staff.
I do recommend that the power of issuing stop work orders be at the staff
level but above the inspection level in order to provide for greater
objectivity.
Any and all enforcement actions should allow for civil action to be
taken through the courts for relief when a citizen is damaged by an
erosion problem. I also would highly recommend that a provision be
included in any local ordinances that would allow the person filing the
claim to be reimbursed for legal fees as to be determined by the courts
having jurisdiction. In most cases where damage has occurred and a person
is entitled to compensation suits are not filed because of the fear that
legal fees would drastically reduce any settlement to a point it is not
worth the effort.
Another enforcement tool that can be very effective is to inter-
relate the permits for erosion control with other permits issued on a
project. For example, if a building permit and occupancy permit are
tied to an erosion control permit then if one permit is being violated
the other permits can be withheld until everything is brought into
compliance. Another provision that should be considered is one which
would attach a lein against the property in cases where violations occur
so that transfers of ownership would give the new buyer notice that a
project is under enforcement proceedings.
Let's now look at possible ways of financing a program. The least
expensive way of operating a program of course is to utilize existing
staff and equipment, but in raising funds to operate a program you may
wish to consider the following. One, a flat rate may be charged for each
erosion control permit. Another way to finance would be to charge an
acreage fee which may be variable depending upon size. For example,
$200.00 for the first 2 acres and $50.00 for each additional acre. Many
of our local programs operate this way. In several cases local programs
-------
251
Brltt
are requiring the posting of performance bonds for a project set any-
where from $1,000 to $1,500 per acre which would be forfieted in cases
where a violation is not corrected. Civil penalty collections can also
be directed exclusively to your program and a great deal of effort has
been expressed in developing a system of cost sharing with state and or
federal government.
An interesting system has been developed in Wake County is one that
charges an acreage fee of $135.00 per acre up to a maximum of 10 acres
for a nine month permit. If stabilization is not completed in nine months
another permit is required. The nine month permit period was derived by
taking the past 3 years and obtaining the mean average length of time
for projects and by dividing the number of projects by the weighted
average size into the total operating budget. This type of permit
encourages early stabilization of projects in the very beginning and
penalizes those who let projects remain open for long periods of time
and increasing the chance of offsite damage.
To summarize, first a community must evaluate the real cost and
benefits of an erosion control program including any and all spin-offs.
Make a long and very deliberate effort to bring all interested parties
into the development process from the beginning. Once the program is
developed an educational effort should be directed to all affected
parties and to the general public. The ordinance itself should fit
into other existing programs, be fairly and justly enforced with
standards that allow for flexibility in achieving the desired results.
It should utilize every available existing source of manpower and
expertise and have enforcement mechanism which can be swiftly and fairly
exercised by the staff.
It is our belief that the goal of any successful program should be
one that will provide for the maximum amount of protection for our water-
ways and natural resources and still allow for the progress of a community
to continue. This goal can be reached when reasonable people work to-
gether to achieve it.
-------
-------
253
URBAN PROVISIONS OF THE MINNESOTA COST-SHARE PROGRAM
Greg Larson, Program Specialist
Soil and Water Conservation Board
St. Paul, Minnesota
When the 1977 Minnesota Legislature provided the Soil
and Water Conservation Board with three million dollars to
develop and implement a comprehensive soil and water con-
servation cost-share program a long standing tradition was
broken. Soil conservation incentive programs have histor-
ically been geared to agriculture and farmers. Urban,
non-agricultural land, and property owned by non-agricultural
producers have been generally not eligible for cost-share
assistance.
This was particularly noticeable in Minnesota because
since 1973, when the last Soil and Water Conservation District
was organized, all of the state has been located within Soil
and Water Conservation Districts. This includes a consid-
erable amount of land heretofore ineligible for cost-share
assistance. To clarify, it should be noted that U.S.D.A.
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) projects, Public
Law 566 Small Watershed Projects and a demonstration program
funded by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources
(LCMR) have had roles, to some degree, in controlling soil
erosion and sedimentation problems in non-agricultural areas.
Urban land is defined by the State Planning Agency as
a 40 acre parcel containing 5 or more residential structures
or at least one institutional or commercial development.
Non-agricultural land is generally defined as wildlife land,
roads, forest, pasture, open space and mined land. Estimates
from 1975 place the Minnesota urban acreage at 1,260,000
acres or 2.3 percent, non-agricultural at 27,283,000 acres
or 55.9 percent for a total of over 28,500,000 acres or
approximately 58 percent of the state acreage. Located on
this acreage are many severe erosion, sedimentation and
related water quality problems. Although it emphasizes
agricultural land, the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation
Board's Cost-Share Program addresses these problems wherever
they occur within the state.
Within broad guidelines established by the State Board,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts are responsible for
locally administering every facet of the program. This
includes accepting applications; issuing approvals and
cancellations; assisting the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
-------
254
Larson
in the technical aspects of the program; establishing
local policies, cost-share rates and dollar limits; and
issuing payment. Districts desiring to participate
submit an application to the State Board. The State
Board reviews the application and provides a grant to
the District based upon technical resource data, State
Board priorities and the historical ability of the District
to administer such a program. Presently, the subjective
aspects of the allocation are not significant as there
is insufficient historical data on program administration.
Technical data is utilized from non-point "208"
studies, Resource Conservation Act (RCA) appraisal data,
advice of technical agencies such as SCS and. where
applicable, the Conservation Needs Inventory (CNI).
Because all urban and much of the non-agricultural areas
were excluded from the CNI, the other data sources were
used more extensively.
The cost-share legislation made it incumbent of the
State Board and Districts to establish priorities and
identify critical areas for treating soil erosion,
sedimentation and related water quality problems. More-
over, it required that the priorities and critical areas
be outlined in the program and long-range plans of the
State Board and Districts, respectively. State Board
and District priorities and critical areas do not
necessarily have to coincide. To illustrate this, the
State Board ranks groups of Districts on the basis of
severity and the need for control measures. Presently,
the smallest priority area is the size of seven Districts.
However, an individual District's critical area map may
depict areas of hundreds of acres. Likewise, priorities,
because of planning scale, may also differ. In addition,
time frame, local perspectives and the effects of land
owner attitudes on District programs may cause differences
in priorities between the State Board and Districts. Only
if such a difference reflects a local program direction
contrary to legislative mandates would a District's
allocation be decreased or withheld.
This brief digression to discuss the planning process
is important because, if for no other reason, planning
provides a means for learning about the resource and the
tremendous costs involved in treating it. From RCA
appraisal data it is noted that urban treatment costs range
from $50-$1,000 an acre with a $600 average being used for
-------
255
Larson
this program. On this basis, $33.8 million is needed in
urban areas to reduce existing soil losses to tolerable
levels.
Published figures are not available for non-agricultural
land treatment costs but considering its vast acreage an
estimate of $30 million is probably not unrealistic.
The jurisdiction of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts over all the land in the state certainly ranks
as one of the most significant features of the urban and
non-agricultural provisions of this program. Others include
construing land occupier as a broadly defined participant,
the wording of the purpose and applicability of eligible
control measures, and the emphasis on water quality
-.^r
Land occupier is defined in the program rules as "any
person, firm or corporation, including the governments of
this state and any subdivision, agency or instrumentality,
corporate or otherwise, including, during the life of a
practice, successors of a land occupier who received a
cost-share payment. This definition also includes the
federal government". Legalese notwithstanding, this defini-
tion includes conceivably anyone who lives in the state.
There are eight approved permanent, enduring, non-
production oriented practices for controlling soil erosion,
sedimentation and related water quality problems: erosion
control structures, stripcropping, terraces, diversions,
stormwater control systems, field windbreaks, animal waste
control systems and critical area stabilization. All of
the above except stormwater control systems have, in name.
been well known to conservationists.
The stormwater control system practice is essentially
a grass waterway but is broadly defined for non-agricultural
use "as a system of components such as, but not limited to,
waterways, diversions, sediment control structures, stabili-
zation structures, culverts, channels and floodways to
convey storm runoff tc a constructed or natural outlet in
a non-erosive manner". Furthermore, the applicability
applies to "all lands" just as it does in the erosion
control structures, diversions and critical area stabili-
zation practices.
Technical responsibility of the program is assumed by
SCS with District technical staff assisting them with every
-------
256
Larson
aspect. The State Board provides technical grants to
Districts to augment the work force. It should be noted
that the availability of technical assistance to meet the
increased workload is a key factor limiting acceleration
of soil and water conservation programs in both the urban
and agricultural setting.
Because soil and water conservation programs have
traditionally been geared to maintaining agricultural
productivity, the inclusion of a water quality improvement
goal is necessary to expand programs into non-agricultural
areas. This, however, was not the State Board's only
reason for including water quality. Nationwide non-point
pollution efforts and the potential for increased federal
funding were viewed as other causes.
The question of developers receiving cost-share
assistance for erosion and sediment control is often
asked. The Cost-Share Program Rules do not prohibit a
District Board from cost-sharing with them, provided of
course, that all other conditions are met. There are those
who argue that developers should be compelled to control
soil erosion and sediment via the regulatory approach. One
cannot disagree with the apparent success of this concept
in several states. However, it is safe to say that urbani-
zing pressures far greater than those of Minnesota caused
the move to regulate. It may be some time before Minnesotans
feel it necessary to take that action.
In the meantime, a portion of the Cost-Share Program
funds could be used to establish demonstration projects for
the purpose of depicting the effectiveness of control
methods in developing areas. Although the costs of erosion
control are generally an insignificant portion of a devel-
opers total site development costs, such an Incentive may
be instrumental in establishing demonstration practices in
visible, complex and expensive to control areas. It also
may be argued that such an educational approach may ease
the transition to possible future regulatory programs.
Nine Districts have encumbered approximately $75,000
for non-agricultural and urban projects. Most of those
approved have been municipalities and units of governments,
others include corporations and private landowners. While
$75,000 only represents about 3 percent of the total cost-
share grants, it does represent a statewide distribution of
projects and a new direction in soil and water conservation
efforts. One must keep in mind that Minnesota is still
overwhelmingly an agricultural state. Several references
-------
257
Larson
suggest that the urban acreage for the 7 county metro
area ranges from about 10 percent in Scott County to
about 70 percent in Ramsey County. Outstate figures
are significantly below 10 percent with the majority
at less than 5 percent.
Agricultural dominance and the existence of long
standing soil conservation programs in rural areas make
it difficult for urban and non-agricultural oriented
Districts to adopt the same program implementation methods.
The fact that cost-share programs are better known in the
agricultural sector account for a large amount of walk in
requests. While certainly not the best way to solicit
priority clientele, it nevertheless provides local program
support. Conversely, urban and non-agricultural Districts
must sell their programs.
Earlier, references were made to the enduring nature
of the approved practices and the type of urban or non-
agricultural applicant presently being approved. The State
Board requires in the cost-share rules that practices be
maintained for a minimum of ten years or forfeiture of
cost-shares may occur. Maintenance must be provided at
the land occupiers expense unless failure or damage was
due to circumstances beyond his control. In such cases,
the repair or replacement may be cost-shared. The entire
maintenance provision becomes clouded as urban land occupiers
find it increasingly difficult to commit themselves to a
ten year period knowing they may be under pressure within
that time to abandon the project for development purposes.
If abandonment occurs within the life span, the applicant
may be compelled to return cost-shares. However, there are
no legally binding provisions, short of deed restriction,
to guarantee either maintenance or return of cost-shares
if the land ownership changes. This may be one of the
reasons why District Boards in areas of rapid development
have chosen to give priority to municipalities and units
of government.
Considerable administrative information about this
program has been omitted. It was not intended to follow
such items as a cost-share request through the step-by-step
process, but rather to provide an overview of the back-
ground and philosphy of the Minnesota Soil and Water
Conservation Board Cost-Share Program. The urban provisions
as outlined are significant and may be the first of their
kind in cost-share incentive programs. Such an effort may
be viewed as an experiment, but hopefully it is one that
proves to be successful. Present indications are promising.
-------
-------
259
COSTS FOR MANAGING A CONSTRUCTION
SITE RUNOFF CONTROL PROGRAM
Margaret |_t Zimmerman, Planner
CH2M Hill, Inc.
Boise, Idaho
This paper examines the management costs for implementing a construc-
tion site runoff pollution control program. The literature on construc-
tion site runoff controls has virtually no costs for the administrative
or management functions. Generally, a cost of $1,000 to $1,200 per acre
is given for implementing soil erosion and sediment controls. However,
this figure primarily refers to the actual structural control or grading
practice with no breakdown for the review or enforcement of the controls.
Because of this lack of cost data, a survey was made of programs
currently operating in the country. The survey was made as part of a
project for the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Planning Agency,
which was investigating the feasibility for an urban construction site
runoff control program. This paper discusses (1) the problems associated
with compiling comparable data, (2) the results of the survey, and (3)
the unit costs derived from the survey results.
SURVEY DESCRIPTION AND LIMITATIONS
The survey consisted of informal phone interviews conducted by the
author of this paper during November of 1978. The survey considered
only those urban construction site runoff control programs that involved
the submittal of sediment control plans by individual developers, review
of the plans by the program management agency, and some sort of enforce-
ment procedure, such as onsite inspections.
The primary objective of the survey was to identify the cost of the
management program to the implementing agency. However, questions were
also asked about the implementation procedures, number and type of
employees, workload, and funding sources. A list of the questions
usually covered during the conversation is given at the end of this
paper.
As that list indicates, an attempt was made to break down the costs
under administrative, enforcement, monitoring, and miscellaneous aspects
of the management program. Administrative costs cover all clerical and
other support services personnel as well as the reviewers of the submitted
plans and the program management staff. The enforcement aspect includes
personnel salaries and expenses for making inspections of the construction
sites and for handling violators, such as making court appearances. Any
expenses associated with measuring the effectiveness of the program in
-------
Zimmerman
controlling pollution are taken to be monitoring costs. Examples of
miscellaneous costs are overhead, training or education programs, and
compliance incentives.
The intent of the questions was to get actual dollar amounts.
However, more often than not, ranges or rough estimates had to be given
based on individual salaries and approximations of the time devoted to
the various program aspects. The inability to get any more definitive
data was due to the nature of the programs. Most of the programs operating
on a local level have been in effect for less than 5 years and are
incorporated into other activities of the responsible agency, such as
the issuance of building permits and the routine building inspections.
As a result, the costs and other details pertaining exclusively to
sediment control are often not known or documented. However, from the
information and estimates provided by the officials, several unit values
could be developed with varying degrees of reliability. The survey
results and the derived unit values are briefly discussed in the next
two sections of this paper.
SURVEY RESULTS
State, county, and city officials involved with sediment and erosion
control programs were interviewed from the states of Georgia, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Illinois,
and Indiana. Adequate data for interpretation were obtained from 18 pro-
grams representing all but the last four of the above states.
For these 18 programs, the total number of plan reviewers plus site
inspectors associated with an individual program ranged from 1 to 13.
All but two of the programs shared their clerical staff with other
departments. Also, most of the reviewers and inspectors spent only part
of their time on the runoff control program. The control plans submitted
for review each year numbered from as little as 10 to as many as 1,^00.
Less than half of the 18 management agencies were able to estimate a
total program budget. The annual budgets ranged from $10,000 to $264,000.
The following miscellaneous observations could also be derived from
the interview data:
o Inspections per construction project ranged from 2 to 10.
o About 90 percent of the program violations could be handled
out of court by working with the developer.
o Only three of the management agencies had the personnel and
financial resources to offer an education or training program
in construction site runoff controls.
-------
261
Zimmerman
Finally, some general information was gained regarding funding
sources. Various combinations of the following funding sources were
cited as potential financial alternatives:
o Federal and/or state grants or manpower assistance
o Plan review or inspection fees
o Violation fines
o Surety or performance bonds or escrow accounts to cover costs
to correct violations
o General funds
Based on the phone survey, there appear to be two major funding
arrangements used today. One arrangement used particularly by the
smaller agencies is to just incorporate the program and management
activities into the operations of an existing program, such as under the
building inspection or public works departments. The second major
arrangement is to use plan review or permit fees as a supplement to the
general funds. Generally, the fees cover one-third to two-thirds of the
total costs. The general rule of thumb is to not make a surplus, but to
operate at or just under a level of self-sufficiency so as not to incur
objections by developers and others required to implement the technical
controls. The fees can be on a per plan or per acre basis with either a
fixed or sliding scale.
The establishment of violation fines or the requirement of surety
bonds functions solely as a safety valve for the management agency.
These amounts are set at what it would cost the agency to correct any
problems due to the negligence of the responsible party. They also
function as an enforcement measure to avoid raising legal charges and
incurring lengthy and expensive court proceedings.
Finally, several federal assistance programs may be used. Two
avenues that are fairly frequently explored are the use of a CETA employee
or the use of a SCS employee for plan review and/or inspection. There
appears to be mixed feelings about involving the SCS. The larger and
more sophisticated programs feel that going through SCS causes delays
and inefficiency. On the other hand, some of the smaller operations
welcome the help and even rely on the SCS employees to lighten the local
agency's workload.
-------
262
Zimmerman
UNIT COSTS
The most reliable unit cost value that could be derived from the
survey data was an estimated cost per acre for management of a sediment
control program. Generally, the interviewed public official could
estimate the number of plans submitted for review each year. Also, an
acreage number of 5 acres per plan or construction project could be
estimated. These values in conjunction with the estimated program
budgets yielded a unit cost of $85 to $150 per acre.
This range in cost per acre can be used to estimate the cost for a
proposed control program if the acres to be developed can be projected.
For example, a theoretical County ABC may be interested in implementing
a control program and projects that 250 acres will be developed each
year for a particular planning period. The annual acres can simply be
multiplied by several different costs per acre within the above range to
obtain an estimated total management cost, as shown on Table 1.
TABLE 1
TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE COST FOR MANAGING A
CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROL PROGRAM
County ABC
Average Acres
Developed Per Year 250
Total Annual Cost--
At $85/acre $21,250
At $120/acre $30,000
At $150/acre $37,500
Although not as reliable as the costs per acre value, figures for
the time required for the different management activities and the cost
per hour for each function could also be estimated from the survey data.
An average of 1 to 2 hours per submitted plan appeared to be spent in
plan reviewing, permit issuance, and miscellaneous administrative duties.
The time spent in inspection and enforcement activities averaged 10 to
20 hours per'construction project or submitted plan. The costs for
office work versus field work were developed by one of the public agencies
surveyed. That agency estimated that the office work came to about $25
per hour and the field work amounted to about $30 per hour, including
all expenses, overhead items and other costs. These various unit values
can be used to delineate management costs for a control program by area
of responsibility, as shown on Table 2. Such a breakdown is especially
significant when planning a program that may split the responsibilities
among several agencies.
-------
263
Zimmerman
TABLE 2
TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE COST BY MANAGEMENT FUNCTION
County ABC
Number of Plans Submitted
Per Year") 50
Hours Per Year--
On Plan Review and Misc.
Admin.(2) 75 nr_
On Inspection and Enforce-
ment^ 1,000 hr.
Costs Per Year--
On Plan Review and Misc.
Admin.(4) $ Ij875
On Inspection and Enforce-
ment^) $30,000
TOTAL COST $31i875
TTJAt an average of 5 acres per plan.
(2) At an average of 1.5 hours per plan.
(3) At an average of 20 hours per plan.
(4) At $25 per hour including all expenses.
(5) At $30 per hour including all expenses.
-------
264 Zimmerman
Table 2, in addition to presenting costs by management function, is
also useful for two other purposes: (1) comparison with the costs
calculated earlier on the basis of costs per acre and (2) estimation of
required staff. A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 indicates that a reasonable
estimate for management costs would be $30,000 to $35,000 for County
ABC. The management staffing requirements for the projected number of
control plans can also be estimated from Table 2. The workload and the
resulting staff needs calculate to 1,075 hours and 0.52 man-years,
respectively.
Thus, for County ABC, a staff of about one person working half time
on the control program and an annual cost of $30,000 to $35,000 would be
entailed to manage a sediment control program for the projected level of
construction activity. Apparently the best arrangement in this case
would be to share personnel with another program or department.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
The unit costs presented in this paper are admittedly based on a
relatively small sample of programs and on some rather rough estimates.
However, they have been presented here for three reasons. First, they
may serve to emphasize the paucity of cost information in this area of
pollution control but at the same time provide at least some guidelines
for planning new programs. Second, nearly every individual interviewed
indicated an interest in the survey results. It is hoped that the
publication of this paper will respond to the interest of not only those
public officials, but also to any others presently managing or investiga-
ting the feasibility of implementing a control program. Finally, the
indicated interest may encourage agencies managing existing programs to
document their workloads and costs by function or aspect as much as
possible. The availability of detailed cost data from on-going programs
is essential to develop cost-effective control strategies for nonpoint
urban pollution sources.
-------
265
Zimmerman
SURVEY QUESTIONS
I. Administrative and/or Review Costs
o How is sediment or erosion control plan implemented?
o Who reviews and approves individual control plans?
o How many plans are submitted or reviewed in a given time
period?
o How much does review and permitting process cost?
o What is cost of permit? How is cost determined?
o What other administrative costs besides plan review are involved?
o How are administrative costs financed?
o What is cost and financing source for technical assistance?
II. Enforcement Costs
o How is control plan enforced?
o Do you make regular periodic inspections of site?
o How long does it take to inspect site?
o Is an initial inspection made? How many inspections are made?
o Who makes the inspection? What are their qualifications or
training?
o How are violators identified and handled?
o What are costs for inspection and handling violators?
o How are inspection costs financed?
o How are actions to handle violators financed?
III. Monitoring Costs
o Do you have a monitoring program?
-------
Zimmerman
o What is your monitoring program? Scale and frequency?
o What is cost of monitoring and how is it financed?
IV. General
o If program is voluntary, how effective has it been?
o Are there many violators?
o Do you have any incentives to encourage compliance with control
plans?
o Do you conduct any education program to make it more effective?
o What is size of district or area?
o What is average acreage of new construction per year?
o What is size of management or administrative staff? What is
staff makeup?
o What are your expenses or operating budgets per year?
o What overhead items are involved directly with the control
plan?
-------
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: 267
THE FOUR MILE RUN WATERSHED PROGRAM
Hugo A. Bonuccelli
Chief, Enviornmental Systems Engineering Section, NVPDC,
7309 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church, VA 22042
John P. Hartlgan, Jr.
Director, Regional Resources Division, NVPDC
David J. Biggers
Water Resources Engineer, NVPDC
Introduction
The basinwide streamflow impacts of urbanization in developing
watersheds which enclose multiple jurisdictions are seldom evaluated.
In general, each political subdivision within the multijurisdictional
basin administers its own stormwater management programs, which are
often restricted to the urban runoff which originates within the
jurisdiction's boundaries, even though local drainage programs may
negate or be jeopardized by stormwater management activities in
neighboring political subdivisions.
Local jurisdictions typically possess neither the analytic tools
to quantify such impacts nor the institutional mechanisms to address
them. This paper presents a case study of a stormwater management
program which has successfully addressed these difficulties by
incorporating computer simulation techniques into a regional
decision-making process based on the "joint exercise of powers"
institution.
Background
As shown in Figure 1, the Four Mile Run Watershed encloses
portions of two counties and two cities that are located in the
Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. As a result of intensive suburban
development which occurred within the 19.5 sq mi watershed following
World War II, much of the basin's natural drainage system was replaced
by an elaborate storm sewer network. Approximately 37% of the land
surface within the watershed is currently blanketed with impervious
cover.
Residential and commercial areas located near the mouth of Four
Mile Run sustained property damages totalling more than $40 million as
a result of seven floods between 1963 and 1975. The periodic flash
floods in this area were attributed to the cumulative impacts of
sewered urban development in the basin's four jurisdictions.
The Four Mile Run stormwater management problem was typical of the
one encountered by many multijurisdictional watersheds today: each of
the four political subdivisions administered its own land use planning
and urban drainage programs with little regard for potential downstream
peak streamflow impacts. Stormwater drainage systems were designed to
transport storm flows downstream as quickly and efficiently as
possible. Local public works and planning staff were equipped with
neither the analytic tools nor the institutional mechanisms needed to
-------
FOUR MILE RUN WATERSHED
WASHINGTON
O.C.
r:TT:T:J WATERSHED 4REA
r.t... USAGE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
JURISDICTION BOUNDARY
N3
ON
00
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES
fcj>;i!;| STORAGE EFFECTIVE
fcv^j STORAGE LESS EFFECTIVE
r~~~] STORAGE LEAST EFFECTIVE
CO
O
3
C.
O
O
n>
i
re
B)
-J
o<
3
CO
n>
-j
V)
FIGURE 1. GENERALIZED
WATERSHED MAP
FIGURE 2. MAP OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES
-------
Bonuccel1i-Hartigan-Biggers
assess and reduce the downstream impacts which resulted from upstream
land use changes.
In March 1974, Congress authorized a $50 million U.S. Army Corps
Jf Engineers' (USACE) flood control project that is designed to provide
protection from the 100-year streamflow event. The location of the
flood control project is shown in Figure 1. In order to qualify for
the USACE channelization and bridge replacement project, the Four Mile
Run jurisdictions-Fairfax County, Arlington County and the cities of
Alexandria and Falls Church—have been required by Congress to develop
and implement a basinwide stormwater management program This
prerequisite is intended to assure that runoff from future urban
development in the watershed does not produce streamflows which could
impair the effectiveness of the federal flood control improvements. In
the Four Mile Run project, Congress recognized an excellent opportunity
to evaluate local structural and non-structural control measures that
can prolong the life of federal structural controls. It is the first
case in the history of USACE flood control projects in which a
basinwide stormwater management stipulation has been attached to the
commitment of federal funding.
c 11 J" tne, sPirit of intergovernmental cooperation, Fairfax County and
Falls Church agreed in April, 1974 to participate in the development of
a multijurisdictional stormwater management program so that Arlington
County and Alexandria could qualify for the federal flood control
project. The four jurisdictions requested that the Northern Virginia
Planning District Commission (NVPDC), the regional planning agency for
suburban Virginia, coordinate program development. A nine-menber
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of planners and public
KMwDnr9!neer* from the four Jurisdictions in the watershed was formed
by NVPDC to guide program development.
A two-year study was required to produce a basinwide stormwater
management program that satisfied the Congressional requirement.
Initial stages of the NVPDC study focused on the technical, rather than
institutional requirements of a multijurisdictional stormwater
management program. Following the completion of the necessary
technical analyses and the development of required impact assessment
tools, an institutional mechanism for implementing the stormwater
management program was identified.
Selection of Impact Assessment Tools
The proximity of the hour Mile Run Watershed to downtown
Washington, D.C. makes its land area very susceptible to pressures for
high density development. Such new development and redevelopment could
not only reduce USACE project benefits considerably, but it could also
destroy the Four Mile Run flood control structures. Consequently,
preliminary stages of the NVPDC effort were devoted to identifying a
planning tool for predicting and controlling increased flood peaks that
could accompany new development in the watershed
rpninl»? ?U;;rnatl'vf we/e considered by the TAC: (1) formulation of a
regional land use plan for the ultimate development of the watershed
-------
?70
Bonuccelll-Hartigan-Biggers
and local flood control programs to contain the projected increase in
streamflows; or (2) development of a computer-based mathematical model
of watershed hydrology that could be used by the four jurisdictions to
quantify and minimize the flooding impacts of their future land use
decisions.
The ultimate development plan approach was rejected by the TAC
because of serious political and technical shortcomings. The political
problems stemmed from the jurisdictions' fear that a basinwide land use
plan would destroy local autonomy. Technical objections to the
alternative focused on its excessively long planning period, the high
degree of uncertainty associated with utlimate development decisions,
and its general inflexibility.
The mathematical modeling approach was found to be much more
acceptable. The TAC selected the continuous simulation model STORM (8)
and the single-event model WREM (9) as the watershed planning tools for
the Four Mile Run program. Water Resources Engineers, Inc. of
Springfield, Virginia was retained by NVPDC to calibrate and apply the
models.
Development of Four Mile Run Watershed Models
STORM, a relatively simple tool utilizing a modified version of
the rational formula to translate rainfall into runoff, was used to
screen the watershed's 52-year rainfall record for critical rainstorms.
The STORM analysis indicated that no historical rainfall event produced
main stem flows with a recurrence interval in excess of 40 years. It
was therefore necessary to synthesize a 100-year design rainfall event
for use in the Watershed Management Program. The method of Keifer and
Chu (3) was used to develop a watershed design storm. This is a very
intense, 4-hour thunderstorm slightly skewed toward the receding limb,
assumed to occur instantaneously over the basin. This storm was used
in conjunction with model WREM to define the design streamflow event
for the Management Program.
Since the Four Mile Run versions of WREM have been described
elsewhere (2,4,5), only a brief summary is provided here. WREM is a
second-geneFat"ioh version of the USEPA Stormwater Management Model.
The model consists of three major programs which are executed
sequentially: (a) Land Use Management (LUM) Program, which converts
land use into impervious ground cover; (b) RUNOFF, which converts
rainfall into surface runoff and utilizes kinematic wave routing to
develop overland flow and flow in minor conduits; and (c) TRANSPORT,
which routes flows through major conduits by means of a numerical
method solution to the equations of motion and continuity.
An advantage of model WREM is its sophisticated hydraulic routing
capabilities, which enable it to represent open and closed conduits of
varying cross-section as well as elements such as orifices and weirs.
A number of runoff control measures can be simulated, including wet and
dry ponds, parking lot and rooftop ponding, seepage pits, and porous
pavement. , . ..
Following calibration, model WREM was designated as the principal
-------
Bonuccel 1 i -Harti gan-Bi ggers 271
impact assessment tool for the Four Mile Run Watershed stormwater
management program. Proposed land use changes and drainage improvement
projects can be assessed with the model and the design storm to
determine whether or not the associated runoff changes impair the
effectiveness of the USAGE flood control channel. The April 30 1975
land use pattern was chosen as the initial "baseline" for the
assessment of future development impacts.
Development of an Institutional Framework
After the impact assessment tools had been calibrated and
procedures for model application had been developed, alternative
stormwater management institutions that could be established with
existing State enabling legislation were evaluated by the TAG
Emphasis was placed on institutions that not only were suited'to
multijunsdictional watersheds but also promised to provide an
effective framework for the application of the basinwide impact
assessment tool. The following institutions were considered by the
IAC: (a) drainage district; (b) water and sewer authority; (c)
sanitary authority; (d) soil and water conservation district; (e)
watershed improvement district; (f) special service district; and (q)
joint exercise of powers.
The first three of these were judged by the TAG to be too limited
in scope for the mul tijurisdictional runoff management program The
powers associated with the soil and water conservation district and the
wate!;shedJmProvement district were found to be very appropriate for
the Four Mile Run runoff management program; however, these
institutions were considered to be politically infeasible because they
Snp^r tf?e Je]egat1on of land "se planning related powers to an
independently elected board of directors. While a special service
district could have fulfilled the technical requirements of the
management program, it was also deemed politically infeasible, since
Virginia aw prohibits the creation of such an entity in one portion of
a regional planning district unless such action is preceded by the
dissolution of the planning district commission.
Although it had not been previously utilized for water resources
planning and management programs in the State of Virginia, the ioint
exercise of powers institution (Section 15.1-21 of the Code of
f°r the Four M11e Ru"~P™^ because
Trr,mh - ecau
it was found to be both technically and politically acceptable. This
institution permits two or more jurisdictions to jointly exercise any
power privilege, or authority which they are capable of exercisina
individually The TAG viewed the joint exerciseof powers fnsi ution
as an extremely flexible tool for implementing the basinwide stormwater
management program. Unlike many of the other institutions that weTe
5hf K • * oint exercise of P°wers Permits the four jurisdictions in
nnl.'V;? preserve 1oca1 autonomy while jointly exercising specified
powers This ws viewed as particularly appropriate since local
elected officials were somewhat apprehensive about new regional
programs. The ability to use staff from the existing regional planning
-------
272 Bonuccel1i-Harti gan-Bi ggers
agency (NVPDC) further enhanced the institution's attractiveness.
Features of Joint Exercise of Powers Program
On March 31, 1577, the four jurisdictions in the watershed
executed a joint exercise of powers Memorandum of Agreement that
established the Four Mile Run Watershed Stormwater Management Program.
As defined in the Memorandum of Agreement, participation in the program
requires: (a) the provision of local runoff controls for all future
"drainage modification projects" (i.e., projects that involve a change
in the watershed land use or drainage system), hereinafter referred to
as DMP's, to minimize downstream flooding impacts; (b) financial
participation in a basinwide impact assessment program that relies upon
the model WREM; (c) periodic review of all drainage modification
projects with the impact assessment tool WREM to project cumulative
impacts of local land use changes and drainage improvements; and (d)
implementation of structural and/or nonstructural corrective measures
to nullify any USAGE channel flooding projected by the impact
assessment tool WREM. To assure that the impact assessments assume a
multijurisdictional perspective, the Memorandum of Agreement has
established a watershed policy board and technical committee to
administer the program. Technical and administrative support for the
program is provided by NVPDC. The annual operating budget for the
Watershed Management Program activities is approximately $50,000.
The policy board, known as the Runoff Management Board, is
composed of the chief administrative officers from the watershed's four
jurisdictions and the Executive Director of NVPDC. Each chief
administrative officer has one vote. NVPDC serves as secretariat for
the Runoff Management Board and its Executive Director serves as
non-voting chairman.
The Board oversees the operations of the Watershed Management
Program. It meets at least once a year to review the annual report of
the technical committee and to adopt an operating budget for the
ensuing fiscal year. The Board may be convened at any other time at
the request of any Board member to resolve runoff management policy
issues resulting from the technical committee's deliberations.
The technical committee, known as the Technical Review Committee,
is composed of one local public works engineer from each of the
watershed's jurisdictions and a representative of the NVPDC staff.
Each local member has one vote. NVPDC serves as secretariat for the
Committee and its representative acts as non-voting chairman.
The Technical Review Committee is responsible for conducting the
technical investigations required to determine the downstream impacts
of proposed drainage modification projects. It meets at least once per
quarter to review documentation on local projects proposed for the
watershed. Individual and cumulative impacts are projected with the
model WREM and the design storm.
A jurisdiction sponsoring a DMP proposal shown to generate runoff
increases that cause excessive streamflows within the flood control _
channel is required to implement corrective measures in accordance with
-------
Bonuccel1i-Hartigan-Bi ggers 273
a schedule that must be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee If
the Committee fails to reach an agreement on the impact of any proposal
or series of proposals, or if any jurisdiction wishes to contest a
Committee decision, a special session of the Runoff Management Board is
convened to resolve the dispute.
The Committee is also responsible for the preparation of a
Quarterly Report which includes documentation on the individual and
aggregate impacts of all DMP's and corrective measures that have been
reviewed during the previous quarter, and on the schedule for provision
of any outstanding corrective measures. The reports are forwarded to
the Runoff Management Board, local boards of supervisors and city
councils, the USAGE Baltimore District Engineer and other pertinent
agencies.
Impact Assessment Procedures
~Unce per quarter, the local jurisdictions submit standardized
forms to NVPDC summarizing all drainage modification projects (DMP's)
approved during the previous quarter. Local site plan review processes
have been altered to insure that appropriate data on DMP's can be
generated for use in the Program. If a jurisdiction suspects that a
particular project may cause negative impacts, it can request a
separate assessment, funded by the developer, prior to local site plan
approval. ^
Upon receipt of the summaries, NVPDC assigns each DMP to one of
two categories for impact assessment. Projects which are less than two
acres in size are assigned to a Parameter Adjustment File. These small
projects are allowed to accumulate within one of the idealized model
subcatchments until a sufficient number are present to warrant
adjustment of the parameters describing the subcatchment in the model.
Larger projects are assessed through the use of detailed
representations known as SITE models, which are formulated as follows:
(\) The subcatchment(s) enclosing the DMP are extracted from the
watershed model. (2) A detailed SITE model of the DMP and the residual
subcatchment is developed to permit an in-depth analysis of local
conditions. (3) The extracted subcatchment(s) is replaced in the
watershed model by hydrograph(s) generated by the detailed SITE model,
and the watershed model is executed with the design storm to define
projected impacts in the flood control channel. (4) If negative
impacts are noted, the SITE model is used to evaluate effectiveness of
onsite control measures, and downstream impacts are checked by
repeating step 3 with modified SITE model hydrographs.
Program Accomplishments
99? iUuri1nSLJ, first 30 months of the Watershed Management Program,
223 local DMP's were reviewed. In all, 144 local DMP's have been
incorporated into the watershed model. Six SITE models have been
developed. The DMP's incorporated into the watershed model represent
tne addition of 54.7 acres of impervious cover and 37 runoff control
measures providing a total of 5.6 acre-feet of detention storage
-------
274
Bonuccel1i-Harti gan-Bi ggers
In addition to the required quarterly review activities of the
Program, a number of other impact assessments have been undertaken. At
the request of the Management Program's member jurisdictions,
preliminary model assessment studies have been conducted with funding
from private developers to determine the probable effectiveness of
control measures at nine DMP's. In four cases, the downstream benefits
of detention storage were documented. In four other cases, control
measures were deemed unnecessary. As a result of the remaining study,
two of the jurisdictions are currently designing a detention pond which
will straddle a mutual boundary. A tenth study documented the benefits
of downsizing a planned culvert, resulting in significant cost
reductions for a member jurisdiction.
In addition to these studies, a pair of major SITE model studies
for outside agencies have been completed. The first, funded by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, involved the
assessment of a 4.5 mile segment of Interstate Highway 66 which
traverses the northern section of the watershed. The 1-66 project
involves the addition of approximately 100 acres of impervious surfaces
and stream channel improvements to the watershed. Initial watershed
model assessments indicated that the original 1-66 stormwater
management scheme, which included one detention pond with approximately
9 acre-ft of storage capacity and which focused primarily on control of
runoff impacts in the vicinity of the highway, would result in adverse
downstream impacts. Following a series of watershed model evaluations
of alternative runoff control levels, it was determined that a major
diversion structure and two detention ponds with a total storage
capacity of approximately 38 acre-ft were required to adequately
address projected downstream impacts. If the Four Mile Run Stormwater
Management Program were not in existence, these supplemental controls
would not have been considered since the original highway drainage
scheme addressed the localized, rather than the basinwide impacts of
1-6.6.
The second study, funded by the U.S. Department of the^Navy,
involved the assessment of a major stormwater detention facility at the
Henderson Hall U.S. Marine Corps station in the eastern portion of the
basin. The facility, which is to be constructed with excess excavation
material from redevelopment construction at the site, will provide
approximately 17 acre-feet of detention storage, in addition to
resulting in a net savings to the Federal government of approximately
$280,000, due to reduced offsite disposal costs. Model WREM
assessments indicated that sizeable downstream peak
streamflow-reductions would be obtained if the project were approved.
The documentation of the basinwide impacts and benefits associated with
this DMP would not have been possible had the Management Program not
been in operation. .
Both of these studies were further noteworthy in that neither tne
Highway Department nor the U.S. Navy were signatories of the Memorandum
of Agreement under which the Program is implemented, and thus not
legally bound to accept the results of the model assessments.
-------
Bonuccelli-Hartigan-Biggers 275
Another special study was undertaken because applications of the
watershed model during the course of Management Program operations had
revealed wide variations in peak flow impacts resulting from drainage
modifications at various points in the basin. This watershed
sensitivity study was intended to investigate such locational
differences in streamflow response. A hypothetical 20-acre DMP and a
typical control measure were simulated at twenty locations throughout
the watershed and the resulting flows in the flood control channel
compared.
The results of this analysis indicated that, for the Management
Program design storm, the middle and upper middle portions of the
watershed are most sensitive to the addition of impervious cover The
effectiveness of stormwater detention measures was likewise projected
to be greatest for these locations. Additions of impervious cover to
areas in the headwaters of the basin and near its mouth were projected
to result in little or no adverse peak flow impacts in the flood
control channel, while the provision of detention storage at these
locations tended to be ineffective or counter-productive.
As a result of this analysis, the watershed was divided into
stormwater management zones based on the probable effectiveness of
detention storage. These zones are shown in Figure 2. Although larger
projects will still require detailed analysis, these zones can be
u iuZ , y 1ocal staffs during the plan review process to determine
whether detention storage should be required at smaller sites.
The results of the model assessments to date indicate that, as a
thnc f£ th S^Xi*^5™^*31*6" by the Watersned Management program
thus far, the 22,500-27,000 cfs capacity of the flood control channel
is not exceeded in any idealized reach, and that projected peak
streamflows in the flood control channel have actually decreased since
the Program was begun.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Watershed Management Program
. . [he use or a hydro!ogle simulation model as an ongoing planning
tool in the Four Mile Run Watershed Management Program has yielded many
significant benefits. One of the most important of these is that the
four jurisdictions are now able to view the entire basin as an
integrated system. It is no longer necessary to pursue a "piecemeal"
approach to drainage improvements in the watershed. By addressing the
complex hydraulic interactions which result from changes in the
magnitude or timing of flows at any point in the watershed, it has
enabled the local jurisdictions to identify and address the basinwide
impacts of development projects, resulting in less controversy than
previously encountered, and fostering greater interjurisdictional
cooperation. Further, by demonstrating the inappropriateness of
uniform detention ordinances in the basin, it has prevented the
expenditure of funds on needless or harmful control measures, ensuring
a more optimum expenditure of stormwater management resources.
The major disadvantages of the use of simulation modeling for such
a program center around model complexity and data management. Since
-------
276
Bonuccelli-Hartigan-Biggers
local public works staff had generally not recieved the specialized
training necessary to utilize a model such as WREM, extra precautions
had to be taken to insure that the modeling process was adequately
understood and to prevent inappropriate interpretation of modeling
results. Since large volumes of data are necessary to develop, apply,
and routinely update such a model, extra care had to be taken to insure
the completeness, accuracy, and manageability of the data base.
However, neither of these problems have resulted in serious obstacles
to program implementation.
Utilization of the "joint exercise of powers" institution as the
framework for the Management Program has also yielded significant
benefits. One of the major advantages of this institution is its
flexibility. Whereas other institutions such as authorities and
special districts may require the delegation of specific powers to an
independent governing board, the joint exercise of powers institution
allows the participating local governments to tailor the powers of the
new program and the composition of the management board to suit their
mutual needs. Thus the participating jurisdictions can design a
program which has clearly defined responsibilities and powers for
regional management, but which does not threaten local autonomy in the
public works and land use planning decision-making processes. This
allows maximum utilization of existing staff and maximum local control
of program development.
The major disadvantage of program implementation under the joint
exercise of powers institution is a lack of independent regulatory
authority. However, the Four Mile Run Watershed Management Program has
demonstrated that such independent authority is not needed if voluntary
cooperation based on mutual acceptance of a common impact assessment
technique can be obtained.
Summary
^regional stormwater management program implemented under the
joint exercise of powers institution and utilizing a hydrologic
simulation model has been described. This program fulfills a federal
requirement for a basinwide land use management program while
preserving local authonomy. It assures that the cumulative effects of
development in four political jurisdictions are identified and
addressed before downstream impacts become economically irreversible.
-------
277
Bonuccelli-Hartigan-Biggers
References
1. Curtis, D.C. and McCuen, R.H., "Design Efficiency of Stormwater
Detention Basins," Journal of the Water Resources Planning and
Management Division. ASCE, Vol. 103, No. WR1, May, 1977, pp.125-140.
2. Hartigan, J.P. and Bonuccelli, H.A., "Management of Urban Runoff in
a Multi-Jurisdictional Watershed," Proceedings of the 1977 Interna-
tional Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment
Control, Report UKY BU14, College of Engineering, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., Dec., 1977, pp. 27-41.
3. Kiefer, C.J. and Chu, H.H., "Synthetic Storm Pattern for Drainage
Design," Journal of Hydraulics Division. ASCE, Vol. 83, No. HY4,
August, 1957, pp. 1-25.
4. Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Four Mile Run Watershed Runoff
Control Program," prepared for Northern Virginia Planning District
Commission, Falls Church, VA., Dec., 1976.
5. Bonuccelli, H.A. and Hartigan, J.P., "Assessing Land Use Changes
With an Urban Runoff Model," Verification of Mathematical and
Physical Models in Hydraulic Engineering: Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Hydraulics Division Specialty Conference. ASCE, New York
N.Y., 1978, pp. 827-835.
6. Lumb, A.M., Wallace, J.R. and James, L.D., "Analysis of Urban Land
Treatment Measures for Flood Peak Reduction," Report No. ERC-0574.
Environmental Resources Center, Ga. Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Ga., June, 1974.
7. Shubinski, R.P. and Fitch, W.M., "Urbanization and Flooding - An
Example," Proceedings of EPA Conference on Environmental Modeling
and Simulation. EPA 600/9-76-016. U.S. Envirnnmpntal Pmtortinn
Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1976, pp. 69-73.
8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, "Urban
Storm Water Runoff: STORM", Generalized Computer Program 723-S8-
L3520. Davis, California, August, 1975.
9. Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "San Francisco Stormwater Model:
User's Manual and Program Documentation," Dept. of Public Works,
City and County of San Francisco, California, 1972.
-------
-------
279
URBAN EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL: METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Ajit Sahabandu, P.Eng.
Project Engineer-Development
Water Resource Division
Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
I INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this article is to outline the existing erosion
control program together with the proposed sediment control program for
the river valleys of Metropolitan Toronto, in the Province of Ontario,
Canada. In doing so the primary focus will be on:
(a) a brief discussion of man made problems, which have resulted in an
acceleration of the natural erosion process; and
(b) the existing or proposed protective and preventative components of
the program.
I I BACKGROUND
(A) General
The river valleys are undoubtedly one of the most beautiful
parts of Metropolitan Toronto; but with a rapidly expanding
populace there exists a heavy demand for development of the valley
system. The significance of this general process is magnified by
the increasing pressures for the use of land within and abutting
erosion susceptible areas. Two of the basic reasons for this
appear to be:
(a) that Metro Toronto's boundaries are defined and hence
creates pressure for in-filling of the valleys, they being
one of the few areas remaining undeveloped; and
(b) that the aesthetics and value of the valley system makes it
prime land for development.
Land abutting a valley is much sought after and, therefore,
it is inevitable that awareness of the problems of erosion would
increase because of the potential economic loss to owners and the
concerned public. Consequently, it is also somewhat inevitable
-------
280
Sahabandu
that many attempt to increase the area of usable land by attempting
to develop close to the valley side slopes or by introducing fill
or poorly designed structures on the slope.
The rapid rate of urbanization within Metro Toronto brought
about a proportionate increase in the magnitude and frequency of
problems caused by erosion. The physical problems were compounded
by the administrative problems arising from the many agencies
involved in the municipal process; some having no jurisdiction
and others with overlapping jurisdictions to control such
situations. There was clearly no central agency responsible for
the administration of these problems. In addition, prior to 1974
the Province of Ontario did not have a comprehensive policy or
program to deal with river erosion or slope instability within the
va I leys.
With the obvious need for overall co-ordination, in September
1974, the Provincial Government of Ontario designated the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as the
central agency which should have the responsibility and
jurisdiction to control, monitor, plan and implement an erosion
control program. The program is funded on a 55$:45$ basis between
the Province of Ontario and the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto.
The Conservation Authority (hereafter referred to as
'The Authority'), as its first task, decided to study WHAT the
extent of the existing problem was, WHERE the problems were, and
WHY the problems existed. This basically involved establishing an
inventory of sites and documenting the type and extent of the
problems. The resulting study generated the required data base to
plan for the erosion control program. It was evident at this
stage that the Authority should develop a two pronged management
program which contained a protective component to look after the
existing problems and a preventative component to minimize future
problems.
At present the Authority does not have an approved sediment
control program underway; but is now in the process of preparing
a twin plan similar to the existing erosion control program.
(B) Causes of Erosion and Sources of Sediment
The acceleration of erosion is introduced through man's
activities and consequently is essentially subject to man's control
The following activities are particularly significant causes of
erosion and hence also identifies the sources of sediment within
Metro Toronto:
-------
Sahabandu 281
cutting of trees and shrubs during preparation for urban
development
careless lot preparation and grading
creation of impervious surfaces during urbanization:
resulting in an increase in runoff and higher river
velocities
increasing the instability of valley walls by allowing
structural development (buildings and retaining structures)
to encroach upon steep slopes
encroaching upon the natural flood plain with earth fill
careless design of urban river structures with associated
effects on the river bank and/or valley wall
changing natural drainage patterns by means of storm sewers
and channels
widespread use of sand and salt in the winter months.
(C) Effects of Erosion
Due to the continuing population growth and increasing
urbanization of Metro Toronto, it is inevitable that the public
has become more aware and concerned of the damages associated with
erosion. These damages include:
danger to human habitations and loss of private property
adjacent to the valleys
loss of structures within the valley systems
loss of valuable open space in parklands and ravines
loss of mature vegetation and fertile soil
sedimentation.
(D) Effects of Sedimentation
Damages and effects of erosion and of the sediment generated
from these sources fall into three broad categories:
loss of capacity in channels, sewers and water impoundments
such as flood control reservoirs
-------
282
Sahabandu
interference with navigable waterways (e.g. the Keating
Channel) and the Toronto Harbour
the effect on the quality of water for the following desired
uses: water supply, public health aspects, recreation, fish
and wildlife, and aesthetic values.
I I I MAN MADE PROBLEMS
It is evident that it was an initial lack of foresight and
inappropriate technical planning of and for the river valley system
that resulted in the necessity for establishing a remedial work
programme.
For the purpose of this article, I wiI I confine myself to a brief
discussion of some examples of the man made problems now requiring
remedial action in Metro Toronto:
(A) Inadequate Setbacks
(a) Location of Residential, Industrial and Commercial Facilities:
Insufficient concern over adequate setbacks for dwellings and other
permanent structures prior to issuing of building permits. Also,
more concern should be shown in the location of ancillary
structures including garages, parking lots, pools, fences, etc.
(b) Location of Recreational Facilities: It is evident that
there should be more serious planning regarding the location of
bridge (river) crossings, bicycle pathways, walkways, tennis courts,
baseball diamonds, etc. being introduced in the valley system. The
ideal acceptable use of a valley would obviously be to leave it in
its natural state. In an urban community such as Metro Toronto, it
is prudent to utilize open space for other acceptable uses including
recreation. However, improperly planned recreational facilities
within the valley system are also subject to erosion processes.
(B) FiI I Problems
Landscaping and final grading plans for valley walls and
table land abutting a valley when submitted for authorization are
usually reviewed only in a surficial manner. There is relatively
little emphasis placed on the stability requirements such as:
the type of fill, internal drainage characteristics, the total
volume of fill introduced or the method of placement where the
degree of compaction is too often overlooked.
-------
Sahabandu 283
Indiscriminate fill ing of backyards and valley walls introduce
surcharge loads, destroys vegetation and may affect internal
drainage by sealing off seepage zones. Excessive loading of a bank
or the table land immediately adjacent to the bank with either a
structure (such as an above ground pool) or soil material,
together with any associated disruption of internal drainage can
give rise to not only surficial bank failures but also deep seated
rotational failures.
(C) Storm Water Management
Inadequate storm water management, both on a macro level, in
the development of subdivisions, industrial and commercial
complexes; and on a micro level (i.e. individual lots) have
contributed towards the problem of river erosion in Metro Toronto.
From a macro surface drainage standpoint, the creation of
essentially impervious surfaces during urbanization with the
introduction of streets, sidewalks, driveways and parking lots
provide for a direct increase in volumes of runoff, which in turn
result in high velocities and, therefore, increased rates of
erosion in the river. The indirect effects resulting from a
reduction in infiltration and its associated effects on ground
water characteristics and vegetation are just as important.
From a micro standpoint, poor control of water discharging
from downspouts, pipe outlets, swimming pool drainage and poor lot
grading contribute towards the overall problem by way of surface
erosion (sheet, rill and gully) and the build up of hydrostatic
pressure within the soils.
(D) Destruction of Vegetation
The loss of vegetation contributes to an increased rate of
surface erosion. Re-colonization of disturbed areas is often slow
and the pioneer species do not usually provide the same stabilizing
influence as the previously well established species. There also
appears to be little attention given to the selection of plant
material most suitable for certain slopes vis-a-vis soil type, pH,
moisture content, shade tolerance, etc.
(E) Inadequate Planning and Design of Structures
Careless design and location of retaining walls placed without
regard for drainage requirements pose slope instability concerns.
Improper location of manholes, sewer outfalls and sewer crossings;
together with poorly aligned bridge piers and abutments, deflect
-------
284 Sahabandu
or back eddy the flow of water and hence contribute to the
erosive process.
The foregoing man made problems indicate that there appears to be
an obvious lack of public awareness regarding the use of the valley
resource system. Therefore, it is imperative to make developers,
home owners, the municipalities and the general public more cognizant
of these factors.
Municipalities, being hemmed in by political boundaries, are
often concerned only about their local problems. Consequently, it is
important to look beyond the local problem to ascertain upstream and
downstream effects of a particular proposal. This is best achieved by
an agency such as the Conservation Authority; which, having
jurisdiction over the entire watercourse, is in a position to weigh^
the overall effects prior to recommending appropriate design criteria.
IV OBJECTIVES
Having established the problem and its implications, the Authority's
goal is to minimize the hazards of erosion to life and property, and at
the same time to help improve the quality of the rivers and Lake Ontario
through selective controls on sediment sources. This is accomplished
by instituting a protective and preventative program which is directed
towards achieving the following objectives:
(a) Implement a program of major and minor remedial works for the
control of erosion in the 'Primary Watercourses' of Metro Toronto.
(b) Implement a program of sediment reduction through on-stream
erosion control works and off-stream planting programs.
(c) Recognize the importance of retaining the natural valley
character in the design of remedial work.
(d) Establish regulatory controls over development occurring in areas
susceptible to erosion in order to eliminate the need for future
remedial work.
(e) Provide advice to municipalities and landowners in order to achieve
reasonable control of sediment generation; particularly on
construction sites.
(f) Co-operate with municipalities and landowners in the planning and
design of urban drainage systems which should include storm water
management and sediment reduction concerns.
-------
285
Sahabandu
(g) Update and augment the current state of the art regarding erosion
and sediment control in the Authority's jurisdiction.
V PROTECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE PROGRAM
The erosion and sediment control program is to be composed of
three major components:
(A) Erosion Protection
(B) Sediment Reduction
(C) Prevention
(A) Erosion Protection
•
The erosion protection program recognizes that rivers in an
urban area cannot always follow their natural course of evolution,
but will have to be contained in certain areas.
The protective component is for existing problems and includes
major and minor remedial work components. Major work sites are
those where a permanent structure or a sizeable parcel of land will
be threatened in the near future and hence costly engineering work
is required for its protection. Minor work sites are those where
a small amount of protective work carried out now will prevent a
serious problem from developing later: a "stitch in time saves nine"
approach. Major remedial work at specific sites is carried out on
a technical priority basis and is complemented by regular
monitoring and analysis of site conditions in order to update the
data base. Due to the dynamic nature of erosion, the site priority
list is reviewed and revised annually, in preparation for the
following years work program.
In evaluating and assigning priorities three major categories
are considered: Effect on structures, Valley Wall factors and
River action. The category entitled Effect on Structures is deemed
the most important and accordingly weighted heavier than the
physical and geological factors associated with the other two
categories. Effect on structures include parameters such as the
state of erosion, distance to structures and the number, size and
type of structure(s) affected. The valley wall category includes
the height of valley wall, slope angle, vegetative cover, ground-
water conditions and the soil type and composition as parameters;
whereas the River action category considers the river alignment
and the cutting action for parameters.
-------
286
Sahabandu
The Authority's protective program is essentially geared
towards the protection of private property (structures and land)
and the protection of defined public open space. Erosion control
work is carried out in accordance with the following operational
criteria:
(a) Watercourses or parts thereof draining an area equal to or
greater than 1300 hectares are classed as primary
watercourses. Corrective works within primary watercourses
are the responsibility of the Authority. Watercourses or
parts thereof draining an area less than 1300 hectares are
classed as secondary watercourses. Corrective works within
secondary watercourses are the responsibility of the
munici pa Iiti es.
(b) Except where defined otherwise, top of valley wall to top of
valley wall is described as the area in which the Authority
will undertake remedial works for erosion and slope
instabiIity problems.
(c) In assessing the severity of a problem, a priority or ranking
is given to each site. The priorities serve as the basis^for
the development of the annual works program. The priorities
are developed on technical criteria, including geotechnical
and physical parameters; and are formally reviewed on an annual
basis.
(d) For the purposes of remedial works, design blocks are
established and work is undertaken by design block. Design
blocks are of a size that are technically and economically
teas i bIe.
(e) Where remedial work is proposed on private land, the Authority
requires a permanent easement or title to the land and/or a
suitable financial contribution from the benefitting owner.
(f) Remedial works are analyzed on the basis of cost/benefit, with
property acquisition cost being used as a principal determining
factor.
(g) Design criteria for remedial works are dependent upon the
nature of each specific problem. Generally two types of
problems exist: The first, and less common type, involves a
bank or valley wall instability, in which slumping^or major
rotational failure are involved due to inherent soil
conditions or overloading of the bank. The more common type of
problem involves the river in coincidence with a valley wall.
Where possible, erosion control work is designed to certain
-------
Sahabandu
287
specified technical criteria:
e.g. - accommodate the 100 yr
- accommodate at
coincident case
flood for the 'Coincident Case'
least the 10 yr. flood for the non
The level to be raised in
(h)
accordance with the development of the watershed.
In order to minimize the impact of remedial works on the
valley ecosystem, an "Environmental Inventory" is undertaken
prior to the initiation of any works. The analysis and
resulting recommendations are considered as input to the
planning, design and implementation of the proposed work.
(B) Sediment Reduction
In recognizing the sources and extent of sediment that might
be generated, together with its adhesive contaminants, it is
necessary to initiate a control program which will be directed
at reducing the associated quantitative and qualitative concerns.
The Authority proposes to accomplish this task by concentrating
its efforts on keeping the sediment at or as near to the source
as possible. The sediment reduction program will include a
protection component, which wiI
"Off-Stream" controls; and a prevention component, which will help
control the development of future problems.
The program will address i
sediment in the Metro Toronto ar
activities, river bank erosion
the predominant source appears
construction activities. Hence
would be one that is directed
is to control this prime source
therefore will be discussed with
"Prevention Component".
The problem of sediment gen
to be minimized by providing "On
flow control structures and bank armouring which will
the erosive potential.
provide "On Stream" and
'self to the major sources of
•ea, viz: urban construction
nd landslides. Of these sources,
|o be sediment generated from
the most effective control program
towards the source. The suggestion
through regulatory measures, and
in the sub-section entitled
erated from river bank erosion is
Stream" protective works, such as
help reduce
"On-Stream" and "Off-Stream
valleys are to be carried out in
operational criteria:
' sediment control in the river
accordance with the following
(a) On stream sediment reductioh work shall be undertaken on
watercourses within the jurisdiction of the Authority.
al I
-------
OPS
Sahabandu
(b) In assessing the severity of a problem, a priority or ranking
shall be given to each site. The priorities shall then serve
as the basis for the development of annual work programs.
The priorities are to be based on technical criteria.
(c) In the design of sediment reduction works, the Authority
shall be cognizant of any natural surroundings and shall
endeavour to provide ancillary benefits, such as the
improvement of fish habitat, where appropriate.
(d) Vegetation establishment will be carried out on Authority
and municipal valley lands, including those lands leased to
other public agencies for management and open space
purposes, in accordance with a priority system established
on the basis of site conditions, location of land in the
watershed and the ancillary benefits of vegetation
establishment. The latter includes improvement of wildlife
habitat and perhaps, more importantly, enhancement of the
human environment.
(C) Prevention
In order to be fully effective, an erosion control and sediment
reduction program must endeavour to prevent future problems in
addition to rectifying existing ones. The protective program is
strictly a reaction to an immediate need, but does little to control
the causes. Therefore, there is an obvious need for long term
planning over large areas with consideration of the whole
watershed system.
The preventative component involves planning to prevent or
curtail future problems by establishing regulations and policies,
coupled with planning tools such as development approval
prerequisites. The history of erosion and sedimentation in the
Metro Toronto area points clearly to the need for implementing
strict development control measures. Where applicable, zoning
and land use controls must recognize the existence of hazards and
provide adequate "set backs" for new development or redevelopment.
The success of any preventative program requires the
co-operation and working endorsement of the Authority, its member
municipalities and other appropriate government agencies. These
will assist in reducing future problems, which in turn will reduce
public expenditures and improve the quality of Metro Toronto's
rivers and Lake Ontario.
-------
289
Sahabandu
Erosion, and sediment related problems are minimized through
the institution of the following operational criteria:
(a) Buildings or structures (including paved surfaces), whether
situated above or below ground level, will not be permitted
in the following erosion impact zones unless studies by a
competent professional show that the structures will be
safe during their life, which for Authority purpose is
100 yrs:
The 100 year dynamic slope line plus 10 metres; if no toe or
slope protection;
The stable slope line plus 10 metres; if toe protection only;
10 metres from top of slope; if both the toe and slope are
protected or are considered to be stable.
(b) Surface drainage from any building, structure or paved surface
shall not be permitted to be discharged over the valley wall.
Such surface drainage must be directed away from the face of
the valley wall or appropriately piped to the base of the
vaI Iey wa I I .
(c) The municipalities shall be requested, in reviewing and
approvi.ng development proposals, to ensure that any
appropriate restrictions or conditions be applied as related
to the Authority's erosion impact zone and generally, for any
proposed development adjacent to watercourses and valleys
that may aggravate or create future erosion or slope
i nstab iIi ty p rob I ems.
(d) The municipalities be requested to have master drainage plans
prepared for developing areas which will then be complied
with as the individual subdivisions are developed.
(e) In conjunction with the municipalities and other appropriate
agencies, the Authority shall endeavour to have storm water
management methods incorporated into new development.
(f) The municipalities shall be requested, in reviewing and
approving development proposals, to ensure that any
appropriate restrictions or conditions be applied as related
to on site sediment control.
(g) The Authority shall endeavour to increase public awareness of
the problems of erosion control and sediment reduction by
disseminating information and providing technical advise,
where necessary.
-------
290
Sahabandu
VI CONCLUSIONS
(a) Erosion, being a dynamic problem, provides a continuous
change of site conditions. Therefore it is important to
correct a problem at the early stages, where the age old
adage of a stitch in time or an ounce of prevention
hoid true.
(b) An appropriate level of funding is imperative in order to
stay ahead of the existing problems, which can only increase
at a greater rate with a rapidly expanding urban community.
(c) It is important to plan for prevention or control of future
problems by adopting consistent policies with requisite
legislation or by-laws at all levels of government.
(d) Ensure adequate administration and enforcement of regulations
and by-laws.
(e) The public at large should be made more aware of the valley
resource system and the proper use of this invaluable
commod i ty.
-------
291
EROSION AND RUNOFF CONTROL
IN NORTHWESTERN COLORADO
Thomas L. El more
Water Quality Management Coordinator
Gerald E. Dahl
Regional Counsel
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Frisco, Colorado
Background
The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) includes
six counties in the mountainous area of Colorado west of Denver. The
area is predominantly rural, but developing rapidly. It contains the
ski areas of Aspen, Vail and Steamboat, among others. Significant por-
tions of the region are underlain by major low sulfur coal deposits,
which are being strip mined in increasing amounts.
The combined effect of tourism and the energy industry have created
strong development pressures in the region. Land ownership patterns are
such that developable private land is often located in the valleys,
close to the streams of the region. Two-thirds of the area, typically
the mountainous portions, are managed by the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management. The combined effect of strong growth pres-
sures and the limited private land available is causing heavy develop-
ment very close to.pristine water bodies. The effects of poor construction
practices are strongly felt.
A strong sense of responsibility exists among the residents of the
region toward protecting their natural resources. The natural scenic
beauty and scarce water resources are highly valued. Long-time ranchers
have an interest in maintaining the productive capacity of their land.
Those who support the tourist industry recognize the value of maintain-
ing attractive natural conditions. Old and new residents agree that
development can occur, but that it must be done so as not to damage
existing environmental quality.
Stringent environmental controls have come to be expected by local
residents. Virtually all wastewater treatment plants use advanced waste
treatment to protect high quality trout fisheries. The construction of
Interstate 70 over Vail Pass is widely recognized as the state-of-the-
art in high altitude revegetation and erosion control. Many residential
developers voluntarily establish landscaping and revegetation within
the short construction and growing season.
Problems also exist. Urban areas are developing close to pristine
streams, and urban runoff is becoming a major problem. Roads and develop-
ments completed only a few years ago without adequate revegetation are a
continuing source of sediment. The scarcity of land is forcing development
-------
292
Elmore-Dahl
into stream environment zones, eliminating wetlands, and creating flood
hazards. A system was needed for establishing uniform minimum standards
for these development activities.
The Problem
In 1975, NWCCOG received planning agency designation under Section
208 of the Clean Water Act. The challenge for this program was to de-
velop a system of controls which would protect existing high water
quality, establish uniform controls, minimize new regulatory obstacles
for developers, and minimize new staff requirements for small local
governments.
The Solution
The key to the regulatory program developed by NWCCOG is tying
together existing regulatory programs to effectively deal with the
problem. These programs include subdivision and land use codes, flood-
plain regulations, Clean Water Act point source permits (National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits), and Clean Water
Act dredge and fill (404) permits.
The first of these programs, county subdivision and planned unit
development codes, requires three steps for county approval. These are
sketch plan, preliminary plan or plat, and final plat. At the sketch
plan stage, the developer is alerted to several requirements which may
affect his decision on the layout of the project. These are:
- Requirements for stream setback and floodplain,
- Possible need for a 404 dredge and fill permit,
- Requirements for erosion control and revetetation plans
(site dependent),
- Requirements for site coverage and impervious cover, and
- Possible need for an NPDES stormwater discharge permit.
By alerting the developer to these potential requirements early
in the process, project siting can often be arranged to eliminate oner-
ous requirements, or to make compliance less complicated (Figure 1).
For instance, by establishing an appropriate stream setback, the_need
for a 404 permit or floodproofing can be eliminated. By minimizing
impervious cover and providing adequate infiltration facilities, NPDES
permits can be avoided. By siting the development on gradual slopes
and stable soils, erosion controls can be simplified.
If the developer is unable to avoid a regulatory requirement, the
local system is designed to cause minimum delays. For instance, when
the sketch plan is submitted, evidence of application for a needed 404
or NPDES permit is required. It is not until final plat approval that
evidence of the issued permit is required. This arrangement allows
both the local plat approval and the regulatory process to run concur-
rently. Delays for the developer are thereby minimized.
-------
293
Elmore-Dahl
Figure 1
Project Site Selection, Preliminary Design
STREAM SETBACK
— PRO' i^n'
- AVOID 100-YR FLOODPLAIN — " 404 PERMIT
EROSION CONTROL
- LESS THAN 30% SLOPE - EROSION CONTROL PLAN
- STABLE SOIL OR - REVEGETATION PLAN
- LESS THAN 5 ACRES - PERFORMANCE BOND
STORMWATER CONTROL
- IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS
- DETENTION/INFILTRATION FACILITIES OR - NPDES PERMIT
- NO RUNOFF INCREASE OVER BACKGROUND ~~
Best Management Practices
The regulatory approach being used in our region takes advantage of
the developer's experience in dealing with varied sites. The local regu-
lations set performance standards, but do not require specific control
techniques.
Some guidance on control techniques is provided. A "best management
practices" handbook is provided to the developer in each county. It
provides simplified calculation techniques for determining runoff from
the design storm, the amount of detention or infiltration capacity that
is needed, and specifications for control practices (Figures 2 and 3).
This handbook, together with informal review by county staff, minimizes
the amount of specialized professional help that the developer will
need to comply with the regulations.
This approach provides flexibility to the process, since the hand-
book can be more easily amended than local regulations. It allows the
developer to be involved in the process, and to develop and recommend
better control techniques. This dialogue between local government and
the construction industry should result in the handbook continually
representing state-of-the-art controls.
Implementation
Assisting in plan implementation is now the task which faces NWCCOG.
The water quality plan sets forth policies and administrative guidelines
(Figure 4). In order to avoid having this plan set on the shelf among
many other similar plans, NWCCOG staff are assisting directly with im-
plementation. Example regulations are drafted by legal staff for each
county. Similarly, best management practices are developed by the
NWCCOG engineering staff which are specific to each county.
-------
294
Elmore-Dahl
Figure 2
Pipe Outlet Sediment Trap
(Best Management Practices Handbook)
Earth embankment
Outlet protection
Excavate, if necessary
for storage.
All slopes 2:1
or flatter
Perforated riser
Welded all around
EMBANKMENT SECTION THRU RISER
-------
Elmore-Dahl
295
Figure 3
Typical Parking Lot Infiltration Trenches
(Best Management Practices Handbook)
WHEEL STOPS OR
SECTIONAL CURB
6 WIN. GAP
3/4 GRAVEL
OR
GRATE
A.C. PARKING LOT
2% SLOPE
LINE OF MAXIMUM
FROST PENETRATION
LATERAL TRENCH
ISOMETRIC
no scale
PARKING SURFACE
PARKING SURFACE
LINE OF MAXIMUM
FROST PENETRATION
INTERIOR PARKING LOT TRENCH
SECTION
no scale
-------
296
Elmore-Dahl
Figure 4
Selected Policies and Administrative Guidelines
NWCCOG Water Quality Plan
3. ENCROACHMENT: The surface and ground waters of the region shall not be encroached
upon by land uses or other human activities which could cause deterioration of water
quality or impair the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands.
Policy Objectives
• To minimize the site disturbance on lands adja-
cent to surface waters and riparian environments.
• To minimize alteration and filling of stream
channels.
• To minimize the occurrence of stream crossings
by roads and other structures.
• To regulate mineral extraction, solid waste dis-
posal, construction of sewage treatment systems, stor-
age or processing of materials potentially injurious to
water quality and all other land use activities in loca-
tions which would be detrimental to surface and
ground waters and riparian environments.
•To establish a basis for public acquisition of cri-
tical stream encroachment zones through land ex-
changes and other available programs.
• Administrative Guidelines:
(1) Areas with existing encroachments—these areas
should be studied further to determine their impacts
on water quality. Results of those findings should
be used to review individual county regulations in
detail, to determine if revisions are needed. Such
revisions may include designating certain encroach-
ments causing water quality impacts as "non-con-
forming uses." Restrictions on such designated uses
may include: (a) regulation to discourage future ex-
pansion of those uses, and/or (b) compliance with
a pollution abatement order issued to require those
uses to conform with adopted water quality criteria.
(2) Areas with no existing encroachments-
fa) Horizontal setbacks should be established
for all stream channels, floodplains, wetlands,
reservoir shorelines and other riparian areas.
Setbacks should range from approximately 25
to 150 feet, to be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Factors to be considered in establishing
setbacks should include the following:
— soil permeability and erodibility
— slope
— cover conditions
— vertical distance above the stream channel.
(b) Maximum allowable departures of stream
suspended sediments should be enforced, based
upon the administrative criteria proposed by
the Forest Service (Rosgen et al, 1977) and
given on Table 3.4.
(c) Preferred land use and cover conditions
for floodplains and riparian areas are presented
in order of priority in Table 3.5.
(3) Modification of stream channel cross sections
—encroachment activities including construction and
earth movement shall be accomplished in a manner
so as to maintain the same stream channel energy
gradient upstream and downstream before and after
modification wherever feasible.
(4) The feasibility of acquiring critical stream en-
vironment zones, floodplains, wetlands, or reservoir
shorelines for public uses through land exchange pro-
grams, use of easements and other means should be
further investigated with federal land management
agencies and local landowners.
5. VEGETATION DISTURBANCE: The surface and ground waters of the region shall be
protected by maintaining permanent vegetative cover and by controlling disturbances to vege-
tation.
Policy Objectives
• To enhance public knowledge of the impor-
tance of maintaining vegetative cover to protect
water quality.
• To assist local governments by providing addi-
tional management tools to control vegetation dis-
turbance.
• To establish criteria for review of vegetation
clearance activity having potential water quality
impacts.
-------
El mo re-Da hi
297
• Administrative Guidelines:Table 5.5 presents
suggested administrative guidelines for the ten plan-
ning and management areas.
• The eight types of general administrative guide-
lines proposed for the ten planning and management
areas in the table are described below:
(1) Disturbance management plan: This plan should
include a complete description of existing conditions,
details of the vegetation disturbance activity (sche-
dule, area involved, equipment to be used, etc.) and
a description of all measures to be taken during and
following disturbance to control water quality im-
pacts.
(2) Timing of disturbance: Whenever possible, dis-
turbances should be planned to occur at those times
of year when water quality impacts will be minimized,
as determined by seasonal weather conditions. Dis-
turbances immediately prior to or during the winter
season require particular consideration of the de-
layed period before the site can be revegetated. How-
ever, such impacts can possibly be mitigated, e.g., by
logging during periods of snow cover to reduce
ground scarification.
(3) Area controls: Consideration should be given
to limiting the area of disturbance which occurs at
any one time, particularly in locations where water
quality impacts may be severe such as on moderate
to steep slopes having slowly permeable soils.
(4) Silvicultural system and equipment: Methods
of vegetation disturbance should be selected to
minimize water quality impacts. Clear-cutting sys-
tems, for example, should be restricted to relatively
small acreages in deep snowpack areas. Heavy log-
ging equipment, for example, should be restricted
on steep slopes where severe erosion hazards may
exist.
(5) Stabilization during disturbance: Soil erosion
controls and protection of surface waters should
occur during the time of vegetation disturbance by
using standard practices advocated by the U.S. For-
est Service, the Colorado State Forest Service, and
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
(6) Monitoring during disturbance: Regular inspec-
tions should be made of the disturbance site to in-
sure that the operation is in conformance with the
vegetation disturbance plan and that water quality
impacts are being controlled to the extent possible.
(7) Post-disturbance monitoring: Inspections of
the disturbance site after completion of the opera-
tion are necessary to insure that measures to con-
trol water quality impacts are effective and to de-
termine if remedial actions are required.
(8) Water quality impact report: It is recommended
that a water quality impact report be required as
a supplement to the disturbance management plan
for disturbance areas where water quality impacts
may be severe.
6. SOIL DISTURBANCE AND EARTH MOVEMENT: The surface and ground waters of the
region shall be protected from all land use and development activities involving soil disturbance
and earth movement which would cause significant degradation of water quality or would impair
the current or designated uses of the region's waters.
Policy Objectives
• To assist local governments in controlling soil
disturbance and earth movement in locations where
serious water quality impacts may occur.
• To protect public water supplies, fisheries and
aesthetic values in streams and lakes within the re-
gion from adverse effects of soil erosion due to
soil disturbance and earth movement.
• To regulate the adverse effects on water quality
due to mining activities requiring movements of
large quantities of materials.
• Administrative Guidelines: Table 6.4 presents
administrative guidelines for the four types of plan-
ning and management areas identified for soil dis-
turbance and earth movement. These are summarized
below.
(1) Erosion control plans: Development activities
involving soil disturbance and earth movement
should be required to provide erosion control plans,
depending upon the acreage of disturbance and the
planning and management area within which they
occur. Table 6.4 shows minimum acreages varying
according to expected sedimentation hazards. The
acreages given are judgmental and are intended to
serve only as guidelines. Techniques employed in
erosion control plans include requiring disturbed
soils to be covered with mulch, topsoil and vegeta-
-------
298
Elmore-Dahl
tion and requiring topsoil to be stripped and stock-
piled prior to any grading for replacement before
revegetation. (For an example see Pitkin County
General Regulations, Section 5.71.09, Sedimenta-
tion Control.)
(2) Performance bonds: these are proposed as a
means of insuring that erosion control plans are
implemented. As shown on Table 6.4, they are in-
dicated as "required" for planning and manage-
ment areas encompassing relatively unstable level
1 landscape units, and "optional" on moderate
to highly stable level 1 units.
(3) Cut and fill restrictions: Heights of cuts and
fills are proposed as a means of limiting soil dis-
turbance and earth movement on moderately to
steeply sloping lands. However, it is proposed that
height restrictions not be established until experi-
ence is obtained in using this form of control on
development activities.
7. IMPERVIOUS COVER: The surface and ground waters of the region shall be protected
from land use activities creating impervious cover conditions which would cause a long-term
reduction of the quality and quantity of natural ground water recharge from precipitation.
Policy Objectives
• To control the development of new impervious
cover conditions, particularly over ground water
aquifers of existing or potential regional importance,
to insure long-term yields of high quality water.
• To control the development of new impervious
cover throughout the region to enable the maximum
possible infiltration of precipitation and ground water
contribution to streamflow during low flow periods.
• To recognize and protect irrigated agriculture
as an important ground water recharge mechanism
for sustaining stream flows during critical low flow
periods.
• Administrative Guidelines: Regulation of im-
pervious cover created as a result of construction
of parking lots, buildings, roads, vegetation and soil
removal, and other development activities, is recom-
mended as described in Table 7.4. Maximum imper-
vious cover figures presented in Table 7.5 are judg-
mental and subject to revision from further studies.
They are based upon the following assumptions:
(1) that they will not cause economic hardships to
landowners, and (2) that they will help to insure
ground water recharge in areas where development
occurs. The greatest restrictions on impervious cover
are proposed for ground water units of regional im-
portance and areas of high precipitation, where
ground water recharge will have the highest contribu-
tion to ground water supplies and base flows. Converse-
ly, the fewest restrictions are proposed for ground
water units which do not have regional importance
and where precipitation is relatively low. The percen-
tage impervious cover figures given should be admin-
istered as the "maximum allowable". The administering
agencies should have the flexibility to require smaller
percentages in situations where evidence suggest that
the "maximum allowable" is too high.
8. STORM WATER: The surface and ground waters of the region shall be protected from
land use activities which would alter the drainage patterns, velocities, volumes, and physical,
chemical and biological characteristics of storm water runoff which would cause significant
degradation of water quality or would impair the current or designated uses of the region's waters.
Policy Objectives
• To ensure that the aggregate of all develop-
ment activities in the region will not cause storm
drainage and f loodwater patterns to exceed the
capacity of natural or constructed drainageways.
• To regulate future development activities so
that runoff volumes, and velocities after develop-
ment will be similar to those occurring prior to
development.
• To regulate future development activities so
that provisions will be made, as required, for the
storage, treatment and removal of pollutants to
control their transport by storm runoff into
streams, rivers and lakes.
• To ensure that mining activities provide for
the adequate control and treatment of storm wa-
ter, as required, so as not to be detrimental to
existing water rights and to comply with all appli-
cable wastewater standards.
•To encourage the use of non-structural con-
trols in managing stormwater.
-------
Elmore-Dahl
299
• Administrative Guidelines:
(1) Wherever needed, future development activities
should be regulated to maintain hydrologic charac-
teristics of the development site in its post-develop-
ment condition similar to those of its pre-develop-
ment condition. Similar hydrologic conditions
should be defined as no increase in storm runoff
volumes and velocities. Calculation of storm run-
off volumes and velocities (before and after de-
velopment) shall be performed using an accepted
hydrologic calculation procedure. (For example,
see Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Hydrologic
Calculation Procedures.)
(2) Storm water discharge (point source discharges,
i.e., storm sewers) to surface waters from future de-
velopment shall be regulated by requiring storm
discharge permits for areas draining over five acres.
Initial NPDES permits shall require periodic moni-
toring of storm runoff quality with effluent re-
quirements established on the basis of results of
further study.
(3) Further studies should be undertaken to de-
termine the feasibility of requiring water quality
impacts reports which address the quality of storm
water from future developments, e.g., of over 25
dwelling units or new impervious cover exceeding
approximately five acres.
(4) Planning and management areas proposed for
this policy should be studied further to determine
if any of the above administrative guidelines should
be modified to reflect specific characteristics of
different landscape units. If such studies are not
undertaken, the planning and management areas
should be used as a general information base for
agencies responsible for implementing this pro-
posed policy.
-------
300 Elmore-Dahl
Once regulations are adopted in each county, NWCCOG staff will
assist in future development proposal review. This approach will allow
technical assistance to be delivered directly to the developer during
early stages of implementation. This interaction will help in refining
best management practices and regulatory mechanisms. It will also allow
planning staff to directly monitor implementation in order to develop
appropriate plan revisions, and to fine-tune the entire process.
Status
NWCCOG staff assistance is being directed to our six county govern-
ments first. This effort should provide a framework for municipal im-
plementation during the coming year. The status of the county process
is summarized here:
- Acceptance of management agency 6 counties
designation for nonpoint sources
- Adoption of 208 plan as a portion of the 1 county
county master plan
- Adoption of ten 208 plan policies as a 1 county
portion of county master plan
- Regulations drafted 6 counties
- Staff regulation review complete 3 counties
- Best management practices handbook drafted 1 county
Conclusion
In summary, northwest Colorado is an area of high quality waters
and extreme development pressures. To protect these waters from sedi-
mentation and urban runoff, locally enforced control programs are being
established. These programs seek to minimize administrative burdens
for local governments. They also alert developers to the necessary con-
trols early in the process. Early attention to project siting and design
can eliminate additional requirements for the developer.
-------
301
URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
PLANNING IN PENNSYLVANIA
Richard E. Laudenslager, Soils Engineer
Department of Environmental Resources
State Conservation Commission
Pennsylvania
The legislative "backbone" of Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program is the Clean Streams Law. Originally enacted in 1937, it
was amended in 1970. It allows the promulgation of Rules and Regulations
for environmental quality. The Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
plus two departmental boards; the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and the
Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) were created by amending the Administra-
tive Code of 1929. Briefly, these three groups function similarly to the
Federal system of "checks and balances"; the EQB, legislative; the EHB,
judicial; and DER, executive.
Rules and regulations promulgated by the EQB are contained in the
Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. The chapters dealing with "Protection of
Natural Resources" run from 71 through 143. Chapter 102 addresses erosion
control. Recent changes have been made to other chapters which significantly
sharpen the focus on the issue of urban erosion and sedimentation control
(E & S) in Pennsylvania.
Basically Chapter 102, Erosion Control, requires three things for all
earth moving activities: prepare an E & S plan; have it on site of the
activity; and use and follow the plan.
Three bureaus within DER are responsible for the program administration:
the Bureau of Litigation and Enforcement (BLE), the Bureau of Water Quality
Management (BWQM) and the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC). The
BLE is self explanatory, the BWQM is a compliance oriented group with field
staff spread throughout seven regional offices. The BSWC is a resources
management group which provides assistance and technical advice to conservation
districts and to other DER bureaus. This is a brief overview of Pennsylvania's
present control program.
Currently the entire process of erosion and sedimentation control is
undergoing a reevaluation and redirection as a result of several stimuli, but
the main idea is to fine tune and refine the solid program as it began. It's an
integration process of getting it all together. Key areas include: education;
local decision makers; review process; post construction runoff, and implemen-
tcition.
Let's start with how to get your message to the public. In Pennsylvania
we believe that one of the most effective educational formats is public
meetings and workshops. For the most part we work through the county
conservation district.
-------
Laudenslager
302 y
Chapter 102 went into effect October, 1972. Many public meetings
were held on this new and different subject, and were well received. But
now, eight years later, how do we keep the educational ball rolling? Let
me ask you. If we decided to hold a workshop and asked the district to mail
out flyers stating,"An E & S Workshop to be held," and that's all we did,
how many people do you think would show up? E & S isn't most people's
priority. Let's face it! It may be ours, but it is not theirs!
How do we do it? We attract large groups by talking about other
subjects; subjects they want to know about. For example, builders want to
know about DER sewage disposal regulations; developers want to know what to
look for buying a good piece of land; earthmoving contractors want to know
about laws relating to underground utilities; engineers, etc. want latest
design techniques and criteria. Give them what they want first, then tie in
E & S.
One thing we try not to talk about is the law. We try to keep every-
thing in a helpful and friendly tone especially for the conservation district.
We have found that you can catch more flies with honey, than by chasing them
with a stick.
Two other items of importance in the Keystone State are eats and
entertainment. By eats I mean a formal dinner at the best restaurant, lunch
at a vocational-technical school, a picnic, or a dessert meeting. One district
even puts a keg of beer on tap for the contractors. By entertainment I mean
movies, multi-media, slides, and abundant audio-visual aids; plus skits, field
trips, personal testimonies, etc. Make them remember they came. Make them
want to come back. I could go on but recapping education - it's tie it in
with information they want; use positive approaches; and eats and entertainment.
Changing gears, let's discuss the review process. Looking back at
Chapter 102 the regulations require all earthmoving activities to have a plan
and some earthmoving activities need a permit (usually those over 25 acres
but not farmers.) Who reviews these plans? Either DER or the conservation
district. DER becomes involved in E & S reviews through the "Form 1" process.
Applications for all DER permits such as industrial wastes, air pollution
control, sewer extensions, etc. are reviewed at the DER Regional Office level
to insure compliance with other applicable environmental Rules and Regulations,
including E & S. No permits are issued without total regulation compliance.
So an E & S plan must be included for all projects.
Conservation districts obtain plans to review through the E & S permit
process; assistance to local municipalities; Title 25 requirements; and
assistance to landowners or their representatives. Taking a closer look,
applications for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permits are made through
the County Conservation District Office. After the plan is reviewed,
recommendations are passed on to DER who issues permits.
Many conservation districts in Pennsylvania have written or verbal
agreements with local units of government responsible for the Subdivision^and
Land Development Process. These municipalities submit plans to the district
for review and comment. We are working to improve and expand this cooperation.
The idea is local control for local situations. Assistance is available to
the conservation district from DER and the Soil Conservation Service.
-------
Laudenslager 3
Recent changes to certain Chapters of Title 25 of the Pa. Code
requires "a copy of a letter from the conservation district in the county
where the project is located indicating that the district has reviewed
the applicant's E & S control plan and considers it to be satisfactory."
This statement or similar ones have been incorporated into Rules and
Regulations for such things as Solid Waste, Strip Mining, and Water
Obstructions. Definitely this raises the emphasis of E & S control in
Pennsylvania, plus it increases the level of importance of the districts.
Implementation is seeing that the E & S plan is carried out on the
ground. Some people refer to this as enforcement; we prefer not to. Yes,
we have the legal authority; and, yes, we have to use it at times, but we
prefer not to use an enforcement approach. The intent is to have a local
person try through the use of friendly persuasion, actually professional
salesmanship, to get the E & S plan installed. Webster defines "selling"
as "to persuade or influence to a course of action." Assisting district
personnel to enhance their "selling skills" is part of the program.
Compliance is checked in two ways; complaints and limited inspections.
The key element of success has been a section of Chapter 102 which allows
DER to assign certain administration operations and enforcement functions
to districts. Presently twenty-six districts have negotiated agreements
with DER. Many of these districts rely almost exlusively on the C.E.T.A.
program for personnel and changes in Federal funding could significantly
affect this portion of our program.
When does implementation begin? Before the streets are built?
before grading? ... before the lots are laid out? We believe that'the'
implementation phase of E & S control planning starts even before the first
improvement is placed on paper. It should begin with a "natural systems
inventory." What is the major stumbling block to environmentally sound
growth? The environment has many subtle features that are difficult to
distinguish and that are not always recognized by everyone making land use
decisions.
What we in Pennsylvania are trying to do is get everyone to recognize
that natural engineering techniques attempt to maximize the economic as well
as the environmental benefits. Almost everybody should come out a winner
We re trying to get them at this point to communicate.
Usually a developer buys a tract of land and it is divided "cookie
cutter" style without regard for streams, swales, slopes or soils. The
subdivision process continues until suddenly someone stands up and states,
You need an E & S plan." It's too late. Obviously all the streets and lot
lines are set up; the curbs and gutters are laid out; the storm sewer,
sanitary sewer and water lines are designed. It really is too late! Probably
the developer has already received preliminary approval from the municipality.
The implementation phase of E & S must start when you still have
options open, especially to set aside the critical areas which are determined
by an analysis of the natural systems inventory.
-------
304 Laudenslager
Let's drop back a minute and make sure we really know what we're
saying. Do you realize that by asking builders and developers not to
build on critical areas, we in the public sector are accused of
literally "stealing" from them. Look at it from their viewpoint; if
10% of a 100 acre tract is "critical natural areas" and raw land costs
are $5000 per acre, he's just been asked to donate $50,000. To make
matters worse, those same ten acres once developed are worth more like
$180,000. No wonder the private sector is upset!
Is there a way we can do both? Let's put ourselves in the shoes
of the developer. You are driving down the road and you see a FOR SALE
sign on a property in a nice area. What's the first thing you do?
Check the soils map, right? Wrong! The first thing you look for is
zoning, as a developer. What will "they," the municipality, let me do
with this piece of land? Is it 5 acre residential or multi family?
This is usually how it starts in Pennsylvania. You find a piece of
land, you get a zoning book, you look up the zoning for your tract; and
you check the zoning requirements. This tells you the size you need to
make your lots, Your "cookies." Are you beginning to see why many
developers feel they are damned if they do and damned if they don't?
Let's look at the concept of Performance Zoning as prepared by the
Bucks County Planning Commission, a major suburban county near Philadelphia.
For those of you not familiar with Performance Zoning, there are three
elements: Density, Open Space Ratio, and Impervious Surface Ratio. Each
element directly ties into the principles of erosion and sedimentation
control. Density simply means dwelling units divided by total acres. The
distinct advantage for E & S is the ability to zone using a density
requirement rather than an area requirement which allows the developer to
preserve the critical natural areas and still get the same number of
dwelling units. Open Space Ratio needs no definition. The most important
erosion control principal is reduce the size of the area exposed which
this does beautifully. Certainly the aesthetics created add to property
values. Impervious Surface Ratio refers to the percentage of "waterproofing"
which has been planned for the site. This definitely plays an important
part in managing post construction runoff for erosion control.
Let's take a site and look at conventional zoning versus performance
zoning. Conventional zoning is the typical cookie cutter subdivision.
Statistically the density achieved is 72%, Open Space Ratio 3%, and
Impervious Surface Ratio 15%. Performance Zoning looks different. There
are many positive aspects besides the statistics but let's look: density
76% (about the same), O.S.R. 84% (drastic increase), and I.S.R. 5%
(significant reduction).
Obviously for more reasons than just E & S control, Performance Zoning
looks good; but what about that zoning book and all those requirements.
How do you convince all those local officials? A developer can prepare the
best plan in the world and still have it rejected by local officials. This
is the crux of the problem and this is where we in Pennsylvania are working.
This brings us to the next topic; working with local decision makers.
-------
Laudenslager
y 305
In Pennsylvania the major piece of land use legislation is Act
247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. It covers zoning,
subdivision and land development, PRDs, and comprehensive planning
Major governmental control exists at the municipal level not the county
level. There are approximately 2600 municipalities within our Common-
wealth. You can see we have our job cut out for us.
What methods are used to build rapport with these Local Decision
Makers? First, we rely heavily on districts. We assist them with
formats, audio-visual development, technical information, plus any other
back up that they may need. Take a look at some of the things we've
tried:
(1) County wide programs for township supervisors and borough
officials.
(2) Securing 15 minutes on their local meeting agendas at their
regularly scheduled meeting. (A local "road show"; slides
and services, etc.)
(3) A breakfast meeting for code enforcement officers and road
supervisors. Talk about ways to directly help them with
their problems.
(4) Contact key officials in key municipalities. Work with them
to solve one problem dealing with a roadway, drainage, or
localized flooding. Build up their confidence in the district,
slow and easy.
(5) Supply key speakers for a county wide or state wide meetings
of officials.
We in Pennsylvania, must recognize one fact; local officials are
being bombarded with programs and requirements from all sources. These
part-time officials are overwhelmed. We try to put ourselves in their
shoes and make it relevant to their needs.
Now once we have their attention we try to establish a working
relationship with their county conservation district to have subdivision
plans reviewed for E & s. Also we encourage the municipality to use the
conservation district to mediate erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater
complaints that arise.
The next step is to assist the local officials in incorporating E & S
criteria into their ordinances. This can be done in two ways; either they
can draw up a separate erosion and sedimentation control ordinance, or they
can modify existing ordinances. We'd suggest they incorporate ESS into
already existing structures so that it can't get lost in the shuffle. Just
because a municipality has an E & S ordinance, doesn't mean they will use
it. This happens all the time. If it is part of the S&LD ordinance,
building code, etc.; they usually do, however.
_ So, we try to start slowly with municipalities, build their confidence
in the District, show them how we can help, then get into the nitty-gritty
at their pace. By the way, one of our answers to constrictive zoning
requirements is Planned Residential Development (P.R.D.) ordinances or
amendments.
-------
one Laudenslager
Finally let's discuss post construction runoff. Obviously by
management of post construction runoff we're talking about storm water.
Everyone knows what stormwater is - right? Wrong! I like the way the
joint report on residential stormwater management (U.L.I., A.S.C.E., &
N.A-H.B.) puts it. "An area of concern as complex as that of stormwater
management defies translation into simple terms that would be easily
and completely understandable by all audiences."
The most important aspect of stormwater management is making certain
everyone is talking about the same thing. Let me explain the types of
things we see in Pennsylvania. Now we find it very difficult to separate
stormwater from erosion and sedimentation control. Uncontrolled stormwater
runoff causes erosion which results in sedimentation; it is a cause effect
relationship. Therefore to treat erosion you must treat the cause ...
stormwater. Other misunderstandings result from relation of stormwater
to water quality versus water quantity. Legally, there is a problem
sometimes between on site and offsite stormwater. I don't think you can
tie up everything into just one ball of wax. Stormwater is definitely
confusing at best, to most people.
One year and eight days ago our government brought forth on our
Commonwealth a new Act, Stormwater Management. It attempts to deal with
all the aspects discussed above, but focuses on watershed plans which are
to be prepared on a county wide basis. After these plans are prepared,
approved, and adopted; each municipality shall adopt or amend, and
implement such ordinances, regulations, etc. as necessary to regulate
development in a manner consistent with the watershed plan. We feel that
this is a giant step in the right direction, especially since the county
conservation district is named in the law to serve on the watershed plan
advisory committee.
Act 167 also requires that persons engaged in the development of land
shall implement measures that either: assure that the maximum rate of
stormwater runoff is no greater after development than before; or, manage
the quantity, velocity and direction of resulting stormwater runoff in a
manner which otherwise adequately protects health and property from possible
injury. What I believe the act is allowing, is flexibility in reshaping the
post construction hydrograph. This is important. We,-ve seen situations
where the stormwater cure was worse than the disease.
If you will, consider some aspects of stormwater management which we are
exploring. Certainly manipulating the hydrograph is very interesting and the
problems are real, but let's take a look at two other major problems of storm-
water from a "field" viewpoint. I'm speaking about DUMPING; dumping excess
soil and water in the "wrong" places. This aspect, we're learning, is at least
as big as the hydrograph problems. First I'm talking about encroachments on
floodplains of streams and natural swales, and areas of intermittent concen-
trated flow. This results from filling and grading operations, and even
building structures. In any event, it places restriction on flow out of the
watershed. It creates a "pressure point" which causes a situation similar to
hardening of the arteries. Seventy-five percent of the complaints I investigate
for DER are a result of encroaching on natural drainage systems. Remember
"it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature." Hopefully Pennsylvania's new flood-
plain management legislation will eventually help to control this!
-------
Laudenslager 307
The second "dumping" problem is legally defined as "artificial
collection and concentration of runoff." Consider if you will,
strip development of houses along a road. Behind these houses is a
long sloping hillside that has been purchased for development.
Runoff from this field is a natural condition flowed in "sheet"
fashion into the back yards of these homes with no problems. Now,
however, add streets, parking areas, buildings and driveways and
see what happens to the runoff. It is artificially collected by roof
gutters and down spouts, curbs, and concentrated into drainage systems.
If the area does not have storm sewers it usually, right or wrong, is
dumped on the next lower property. So the rest of the calls to DER
deal with artificial collection and concentration.
We've found that these problems of dumping are really the major
cause of stormwater problems and this is where local watershed plans in
the Keystone State will help.
So there you have it, Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program, and our new directions: education, review processes,
implementation, local decision makers, and stormwater. Through a
lot of team effort, we are growing to realize the goal of improved water
quality.
As you can see we're placing emphasis on cooperation rather than
confrontation, and we are working solidly with conservation districts
and local decision makers. Sometimes doing a good job with E & S is
like wetting your pants while wearing a black suit ... it gives you a
warm feeling inside but nobody notices. In Pennsylvania we think
people are beginning to notice.
-------
-------
309
NEW RESPONSIBILITIES IN URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
THE MARYLAND EXPERIENCE
Harold E. Scholl
State Resource Conservationist
USDA Soil Conservation Service
College Park, Maryland
It is a pleasure for me to extend greetings to you from your
Maryland soil conservation friends. I also appreciate this
opportunity to hear what others have experienced in this challenqinq
new program. ^ y
A few years ago while camping in Canada, I stopped at a small
country store. "Do you happen to have a mantle for a gasoline
lantern?," I asked the matronly clerk. She sternly replied, "We
don t happen to have them! We stock them en purpose!"
The 1970 Maryland Sediment Control Law didn't just happen, it
was caused by a combination of many factors including highly
erodible soils and geologic materials, intense urban growth, the
historic and endangered Potomac River, and the proximity to our
Nation's Capital!
The following events were especially important.
1961 - Maryland's Attorney General ruled that sediment is a
pollutant under state water quality laws.
1967 - The Montgomery County Council made erosion and sediment
control mandatory through an amendment to subdivision
regulations. Soil conservation districts (SCDs) were
given the technical authority to recommend control
measures which developers must agree to carry out to
receive clearing and grading permits and to have their
plat recorded.
1967-69—Prince Georges, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard
Counties used Montgomery's "task force" approach and
adopted similar programs.
1969 The Patuxent River Watershed Sediment Control Law was
enacted affecting parts of seven counties in the
560,000-acre area. It required any earth changes, except
for agricultural practices and single family residences
en more than 2 acres, to have prior approval of SCDs so
that erosion and siltation would be controlled.
-------
310
Scholl
1970 - On April 22, Earth Day, Governor Mandel signed House Bill
1151, the 1970 Sediment Control Law, which replaced the
Patuxent law and extended its principles statewide.
Under the leadership of the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and with assistance of SCDs, this new law
gave counties until March 1, 1971, to enact ordinances
requiring SCD-approved sediment control plans prior to
issuing building or grading permits.
1971 - On April 6, Maryland's Attorney General ruled that
"protective stormwater measures may be required by the
Soil Conservation Districts" under the 1970 Sediment
Control Law.
I suspect that many of you have seen a copy of Maryland's
Sediment Control Law but let's recall the key features. The major
provisions of the Sediment Control Law are:
1. Counties and municipalities are required to develop a
sediment control program and the procedures and ordinances
necessary to implement and enforce it.
2. Exempt are agricultural land management practices,
construction of agricultural structures, and construction
of single-family residences on lots of 2 or more acres.
3. DNR has leadership in assisting local governments,
including SCDs, in their responsibilities under the law.
Also, DNR must review and approve all land clearing, soil
movement, and construction projects by any state or federal
agency.
4. No grading or building permit may be issued until the
developer submits a grading and sediment control plan,
approved by the SCO, which he certifies he will follow.
5. Violation is deemed a misdemeanor and subject to a $5,000
fine or 1 year in prison.
It seems to me that the counties and municipalities accepted the
responsibilities assigned by the state law largely because of their
confidence in SCDs and the helpful attitude of DNR's Water Resources
Administration (WRA). This is illustrated by the principles adopted
to guide the state sediment control program:
-------
Scholl 311
1. The statewide program is based on legislative requirements
and guidelines established by state law.
2. WRA pursues a policy of mutual cooperation and effective
use of existing county, state, and federal units of
government.
3. Each county and municipality adopts sediment control
ordinances and serves as the primary units of government
for administration, inspection, and enforcement. The goal
is local control with the state assisting in a back-up role.
4. WRA and local governments use the SCO as a technical
advisor for erosion and sediment control.
5. The program is fully integrated with WRA's other pollution
control activities.
6. The program is oriented towards information, education,
training, research, and prevention.
I'd like to share with you some of the helpful activities that
were carried out on the basis of these principles.
In June, 1970, just prior to the July 1 effective date for the
new law, a series of five regional meetings were called by then
secretary of DNR, former Governor J. Millard Tawes. These were
planned and held in cooperation with the Water Resources
Administration, Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts,
and Soil Conservation Service.
The purpose of the meetings was to brief SCO supervisors, county
governing bodies, and SCS personnel on the law. The county
governing bodies were instructed to set up a local, broadly based
sediment control task force to develop and recommend a county
sediment control program. They were also asked to name a
representative to serve as a contact with WRA. Attendance and
participation were excellent contributing to the statewide
acceptance of local responsibilities.
On September 16, 1970, a seminar was sponsored by WRA and SCS to
orient professional engineers, landscape architects, land surveyors,
developers, and others to the new law and to "Standards and
Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing
Areas."1 These standards were developed and compiled by SCS and
Maryland SCDs through an interdisciplinary task force approach
1 USDA Soil Conservation Service, November 1969, College Park,
Maryland
-------
312
Scholl
including members of the private sector. More than 400 persons
participated in the seminar, adding to the acceptance of technical
guidelines throughout the state.
The following January, DNR sponsored a workshop with SCS
assistance. Its purpose was to orient and tra'.p public works
inspectors, building inspectors, grading inspectors, utility
inspectors, and other county employees in the technical details of
sediment control plans and measures. Again, there was excellent
response and participation.
There isn't time to enumerate the many other meetings and
conferences that helped achieve the end results. Within one year,
all counties, Baltimore City, and several municipalities developed
sediment control programs and enacted the necessary ordinances and
procedures. Public and private agencies such as the State Highway
Administration, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission, and others also developed sediment
control programs to guide their operations.
This new program in Maryland has placed great demands upon SCS
for technical assistance since SCDs have given high priority to this
work. In meeting this need SCS has maintained close relationships
with DNR.
For the next few minutes I will briefly review seven important
technical principles for control of erosion and sediment upon which
technical standards and assistance are based.
1. Expose the smallest practical area of land.
2. Expose for shortest time possible.
In Maryland, rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout
the year, however, only 25 to 40 percent of the total rainfall
produces 50 to 75 percent of the erosion. This occurs, of
course, during the active construction period when the land (if
not protected) is most vulnerable.
3. Temporarily stabilize critical areas with vegetation or mulch.
A practical application of this principle is seeding graded
areas while streets and utilities are being installed and before
building construction begins.
4. Install and maintain sediment traps. This well-known technique
can be compared to a goalie in a hockey game—it keeps the silt
that has passed all other defenses from scoring offsite!
-------
313
Scholl
5. Accommodate increased runoff.
This could mean stabilizing the channel fay vegetative or
structural means or temporarily storing increased runoff on or
off-site. In Maryland, we call this storm water management.
6. Establish permanent vegetation and structures as scon as
possible.
7. Fit the development plan to the topography and soils. The "Land
Development Manual," published by the National Association of
Home-Builders, reminds us that "the time to begin control of
siltation and sedimentation is at the beginning. This beginning
is in land acquisition."
When the land is fully taken into account as a foundation for
development, solutions can be built into the plan and design.
The transitional change in land use is like making an incision
into one part of the human body. The surgical technique requires
interdisciplinary study and cooperation in planning and execution.
If aseptic conditions and other preventive measures are not a part
of the procedure, the multiplying effects of "bacteria rainfall" can
result in the primary infection known as soil erosion. This in turn
can spread to related bodies of land or water causing the secondary
infection known as sedimentation.
Maryland's new sediment control law has altered the surgical
procedure for operating on the landscape. It is accelerating
application of the principles of erosion and sediment control.
How does SCS technical assistance figure in the SCO's sediment
control planning process? SCS provides assistance during each stage
of development.
1. Land acquisition stage. Soils information and
interpretations are provided to developers on a consultive
basis before they purchase the land or develop the plan.
Fortunately modern soil surveys are available for all of
Maryland.
2. Preliminary planning stage. The county planning
commission, the developer, or his consultant can forward
preliminary plans to the SCO for SCS review and comment.
SCS, through the SCO, may present written or oral conroents
to the developer or consultant or at the meeting of the
subdivision review committee. This committee includes
representatives from county departments of transportation,
water, sanitation, health, recreation, education, planning,
and zoning.
-------
314
Scholl
SCS comments alert those concerned to the severe soil
limitations for the planned development, to special
inherent problems such as those related to offsite drainage
through the site, and the erosion and sediment control
problems peculiar to the type of development planned.
Alternative solutions, as well as sediment control and
storm water management requirements that the developer is
expected to install, are also discussed.
3. Preconstruction stage. SCS provides technical advice,
appointment only, to the developer and his consultant (
possibly the representative of a county agency such as
public works) on basic concepts for sediment control and
storm water management in the plan to be submitted for
approval.
A final review of the plan, by appointment only, is
provided to determine compliance with the SCO's
standardsand specifications. As developers and consultants
gain experience, this can be accomplished at an earlier
meeting.
The official copy of the sediment control plan must be
certified as follows:
a. The consultant must certify that the plan was prepared
in accordance with the SCO's "Standards and
Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
in Developing Areas."
b. Developers or builders must certify that all clearing,
grading, construction and development will be done
pursuant to the plan.
c. SCS certifies the plan meets technical specifications.
d. The SCO approves the plan.
4. Construction stage. A designated county agency such as
that for public works, inspections and permits, or
environmental control is responsible for enforcement
through its inspectors.
SCS, through SCDs, provides consultive assistance and
training to inspectors charged with enforcement. This is
carried out discreetly so that neither SCS nor the SCO
erroneously appears to have an enforcement role.
-------
315
Scholl
5. Information, education, and evaluation. SCS assembles data
and pictures relating to erosion and sediment control.
Through SCDs, it participates in special studies by county
and state erosion and sediment control task forces and
evaluates the technical and procedural operations of the
program.
Maryland's experience indicates there are certain key concepts and
principles essential to a successful program. Many of these were
recognized by Mr. Edward R. Keil, former SCS State Conservationist,
and other pioneers in the Maryland program. They are:
1. Top level elected officials must understand erosion and
sediment control problems and adopt a sediment control
policy.
2. The responsible government should appoint a task force,
composed of people knowledgeable of the problems and
solutions and those likely to be affected, to study the
problem and draft the program.
3. The program must be adopted and supported by the
responsible government.
4. Legal back-up and supporting executive orders and
legislation are essential.
5. A good information and education program is key to public
and industry support.
6. Orientation and training should be held before the ™-ogram
begins and should be maintained throughout.
7. Adequate and competent personnel must be available for plan
review and enforcement.
8. Plan reviewers and field inspectors need to learn from each
other.
9. The responsible level of government must periodically
evaluate the program using the task force approach.
10. Allow for creativity and flexibility.
What is the current status of the Maryland program? The most
recent review and evaluation, released early in 1977 by the Maryland
Water Resources Administration, showed the following:
-------
316
Scholl
"Ninety-five municipal programs are acceptable and 54 are
unacceptable. Nineteen county programs are acceptable and 4 are
unacceptable. Two state agency programs are acceptable and 1 is
unacceptable. Across the state, inspection and enforcement
appears to be the weakest link in most of the sediment control
programs due to 1) a lack of manpower; 2) a lack of proper
training; and/or 3) a lack of administrative support or
consistent administrative policy at all levels."
Two actions have been taken to address the training needs. (1)
The Water Resources Administration has developed a 13-lesson
audiovisual training program to provide inspectors and others a
thorough background in the theory and practice of sediment control.
(2) Senate Bill 1204 has been enacted. It requires the applicant
for approval of an erosion and sediment control plan to certify that
responsible construction personnel have a certificate of attendance
at an approved training program. This requirement becomes effective
July 1, 1980, and training programs will begin this winter.
While manpower continues to be a problem, this review indicated
that more than 250 local, federal, and state agency people worked in
the program involving more than 100 man years of work.
As a part of the review, the responsible governments received
many recommendations for improving their programs including ways to
strengthen administrative support.
Most recommendations from the last review are being carried out
and a new review is underway.
The Maryland program continues to be innovative and evolving.
For example, stormwater management is becoming a new and important
part of the program. Begun in Montgomery County, it is now required
in more than 10 counties by SCO policy, county executive order or
ordinance, or it is accomplished by jawboning on a site-by-site
basis. With assistance of SCS, the Maryland Association of Soil
Conservation Districts has published a "Stormwater Management Pond
Design and Construction Manual." The Maryland Water Resources
Administration is looking ahead to a statewide stormwater management
program and has a design manual scheduled for release by 1981.
Hugh Bennett, founder of the Soil Conservation Service,
commenting on the mismanagement of farm lands across the nation and
the conservation program needed stated in 1939, "We are simply
retracing our steps across this land in a march of agricultural
conservation."
I believe he would now say, "We are simply retracing our steps
across this land again in a march of urban conservation."
-------
317
Scholl
While this new march is both forced and disciplined, fortunately
it retains a pioneering spirit of excitement, anticipation, and
challenge. And, it seems so very fitting for it to have started in
historic Maryland and Virginia.
We in SCS are proud to be marching with you in this national
conference here in Minnesota!
-------
-------
319
THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM
Gerard Seeley, Jr. P. E..
Chief Engineer
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Richmond, Virginia
In Virginia we have about six years of operating experience under
our State Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Rather than recall the cir-
cumstances and events which led to the passage of the Law, or dwell upon
specific provisions of the Law itself, I will focus on the current opera-
tion of our statewide program and discuss some of the major problems we
have encountered and some approaches we have taken at the state level to
improve our overall program effectiveness.
Background Information
Our 1973 state law mandated that every county, city and town in
Virginia be covered by an approved local erosion and sediment control pro-
gram. Consequently, we have 172 separate local programs most of which
were adopted and are administered by local governments. A few are admin-
istered by soil and water conservation districts where a locality failed
to adopt a program of its own.
Although there is a wide variety of local program structures and
administrative procedures, the basic concept of operation is consistent
statewide. Each local program contains three essential elements: plan
review, inspection and enforcement. Anyone wishing to undertake a regu-
lated land disturbing activity must first prepare an erosion and sediment
control plan for the project and submit it to the appropriate plan approv-
ing authority. During construction, the local government or conservation
district is responsible for conducting periodic inspections to insure
that the approved plan is properly implemented and is effective in con-
trolling erosion and sedimentation. If a violation is found, the locality
must take appropriate action to enforce the provisions of the Law.
As in most states with similar programs, our erosion and sediment
control law is aimed at urban construction. Most construction projects
which disturb greater than 10,000 square feet must have an approved
erosion and sediment control plan. Of course, there are certain types
of land disturbance which are exempt from the Law. Major exemptions in
Virginia include electric and telephone utility line construction; agri-
cultural tilling, planting and harvesting operations; forestry; surface
and deep mining; construction of single family dwellings (not in subdivi-
sions); and individual home landscaping or gardening; among others.
Projects on federal lands are also currently exempt under our law. Pro-
jects of state agencies and institutions are exempt from local control,
however, these are subject to review an approval by the Virginia Soil and
water Conservation Commission.
-------
320
Seeley
The task of coordinating all of the local programs and establishing
minimum statewide standards and criteria for controlling urban erosion
and sedimentation rests with the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission. The Commission is a small state agency with only 21 total
classified positions. The erosion and sediment control responsibilities
are carried out primarily by a technical staff of four engineers and two
conservation specialists located in Richmond. The task of coordinating
172 programs with six staff members from a central location is quite
challenging. However, with the cooperation of many local governments,
conservation districts, and the private sector, Virginia has come a long
way toward implementing an effective statewide erosion and sediment con-
trol program.
Of course, we have encountered a number of difficult problems and
we are a long way from controlling erosion and sedimentation at a satis-
factory level on a statewide basis. However, we are taking what we con-
sider to be some innovative approaches to overcome our problems. I would
like to share some of our experiences with you.
The Funding Problem
While our state law mandated that each locality be
approved local erosion and sediment control program, it
any funding for such programs at the local level. This
source of concern among local governments, particularly
with small populations and limited tax bases.
covered by an
did not provide
is a primary
in localities
In the large urban localities, such as Fairfax County, which is
adjacent to Washington, D.C., there is little problem incorporating
erosion and sediment control regulations into their already sophisticated
site plan review process. The public demand for such a program is high
in these areas and sufficient funds are usually available through local
tax revenues to support the program.
The majority of localities in Virginia, however, are more rural in
nature. Land development in these areas is on a much smaller scale.
Local governments have a difficult time justifying the expenditure of
limited local tax dollars to support a program which does not have a very
high public priority. Nonetheless, the Law does not distinguish between
localities. A land development project, even in a rural area, can cause
significant damage to public and private property and contribute to water
pollution and stream degradation. Therefore, each locality regardless to
size is expected to gear up and administer their program as best they can.
Although the legislature has provided no state funding for local
erosion and sediment control programs, they have recognized the problem
and have provided localities with a potential revenue source for this
purpose. The State Law was amended in 1978 to allow localities to charge
a maximum $150.00 fee for reviewing plans and conducting inspections.
These fees are paid by those who submit plans to disturb the land. The
-------
Seeley 321
idea here, of course, is that whoever creates the problem should pay the
cost of program administration. This is a reasonable concept in theory
but does not really apply in practice.
First of all, many localities welcome new development and hesitate
to impose these new regulations, let alone charge fees which might further
discourage it. Consequently, many jurisdictions have chosen not to charge
any fees at all. Those that do charge fees generally keep them so low
that they do not cover much of the cost of program administration.
According to a 1977 survey by the Commission, localities recover
less than 45% of their program costs through plan review and permit fees
on a statewide average. Among the less urban localities, which review
less than 100 plans per year, the average cost recovery was only about
18%. The obvious conclusion is that most local programs are funded pri-
marily through general tax revenues. This situation is likely to con-
tinue even with the amendment to the Law allowing localities to charge
fees.
The problem of funding local erosion and sediment control programs
at an adequate level will not be overcome easily. Localities will likely
continue to fund these programs at a level they feel is justified by
local priorities. Fortunately, localities which have the greatest amount
of land development generally place a higher priority on their program
because of greater public demand.
The Training Problem
Even if all local programs could be funded at an adequate level, it
is not likely that the problem of erosion and sedimentation from urban
construction would suddenly be overcome. A much more pervasive problem
is the shortage of people who are qualified in the field of soil and
water conservation and more specifically in the very new field of urban
conservation.
Consider for a moment the number and types of people who are direct-
ly affected by this relatively new program. Private engineers and archi-
tects must prepare erosion and sediment control plans to meet certain
minimum standards and criteria. Local officials must then review these
plans and judge their adequacy. Land developers and contractors must be
able to read and interpret approved plans and apply the necessary control
measures on the ground, and finally, local inspectors must be able to
determine if the plan is being implemented properly and is effectively
controlling the problem. There are literally hundreds of persons in
Virginia who are expected to apply basic soil conservation principles on
a regular basis and who have received virtually no formal training in this
field.
The main problem is that this type of training has simply not been
available. In the past, soil and water conservation has been considered
-------
322 Seeley
primarily an agricultural concern, and the only college curricula which
offer this type of training are usually agriculturally oriented. There
has been virtually no opportunity for engineers, architects or land de-
velopers to obtain soil conservation training in their respective fields.
Thus, it is not hard to understand why there is a severe shortage of
qualified people in this area.
The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission has identified
this problem as a major obstacle to achieving an effective statewide
erosion and sediment control program. Consequently, one of our primary
objectives is to establish a statewide educational program which will
make erosion and sediment control training available to those who need it.
Community College Courses
Our first strategy to accomplish this objective was the development
of two erosion and sediment control training courses. One course is
designed for engineers, architects and planners who must prepare or re-
view conservation plans; and the other course is for job superintendents
and inspectors who are responsible for application of control practices
on the ground.
In 1976, text books were developed specifically for each course and
with the cooperation of the State Community College System, these courses
were incorporated into the statewide community college curriculum. The
courses can now be offered at any of the 22 community colleges in Virginia
where sufficient local interest is expressed. The Commission has so far
been able to supply text books and other training materials at no charge
to the students. To date, we estimate that over 300 people have taken
one or the other of these training courses and have received three college
credits in the process.
Statewide Training Seminars
Recognizing that many people who need this type of training do not
have the time or inclination to attend college courses, we have begun
working on a second strategy; that of conducting periodic statewide train-
ing seminars. We made our first attempt at producing such a seminar in
March of this year.
Our first training seminar was designed for local officials. We
invited representatives of all local programs to attend a two-day train-
ing seminar on the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program. In
order to reduce travel expenses and keep attendance at a manageable level,
we decided to divide the State in half and conduct two separate seminars.
The seminar agenda included presentations and open discussion on the
State Law and local program administration as well as a number of sessions
on the technical aspects of program implementation. A total of 181 par-
ticipants attended the two-day seminars. According to the written eval-
uations we received from the participants, the seminars were highly sue-
-------
323
r* i ~ft-*j
Seeley
cessful and should be continued on a periodic basis. In the future, we
hope to expand our seminar programs to include the private engineers
architects and land developers. '
Local Program Reviews
Although our statewide educational programs have been quite success-
ful, we have found that they do not totally satisfy the informational
needs of local officials who are administering erosion and sediment con-
trol programs for the first time. Our state law is quite complicated and
local officials who do not interpret or implement it properly generally
have great difficulty operating their programs effectively.
To address this problem, the Commission has initiated a local admin-
istrative review program. Under this program, a team of two Commission
staff members will visit a locality and meet with all of the local of-
ficials involved with program administration.
Each program is reviewed in two parts. The first part consists of
an interview session during which the administrative aspects of the pro-
gram are examined and discussed. The second part consists of a field
trip to determine if conservation practices are being applied adequately
to construction sites in the area. After the meeting, the Commission
prepares a report to the locality outlining the strengths and weaknesses
of the local program and making recommendations to improve program
effectiveness. Local programs which are found to be operating below
minimum state standards are scheduled for a second review within six
months to a year.
To date, we have conducted 30 such local program reviews. Our goal
is to review each of our 172 local programs within a five-year cycle
So far, the feedback from local officials seems to indicate that these
program reviews are very successful and should be continued.
Improved Technical Publications
In addition to our statewide education and local assistance programs
we have been working to develop better technical publications which will '
be more understandable and useful to the people who must function under
the Law.
In 1977, we developed a "Directory of Erosion and Sediment Control
Products and Equipment". This publication provides a categorized list-
ing of commercially available products and equipment which may be used
on construction sites to control erosion and sedimentation. The names
and addresses of product manufacturers and suppliers are also included
so that interested persons can send for additional product information.
A c1!!-1978'/6 deve1°Ped a publication entitled "Preparing an Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan for a Construction Project - A Recommended
-------
324 seeley
Step-by-Step Procedure". The purpose of this publication is obvious from
the title. This booklet has proven so popular that the original printing
of 1,000 copies was exhausted within six months. A second printing of
1,000 copies was necessary.
This year, our major project has been the revision of our original
1974 State Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The revised handbook,
which is scheduled for publication in 1980, will contain updated standards
and specifications for erosion and sediment control practices. The new
handbook will contain more diagrams, pictures and step-by-step design
procedures then the original handbook. It will also be written in a more
"educational" style to help the user better understand the technical
standards.
An innovative concept which will be incorporated into the new hand-
book will be the establishment of "General Criteria for Controlling
Erosion and Sedimentation from Land Disturbing Activities". These
"General Criteria" will set forth standards of conservation practice
which must be met on all regulated land disturbing projects. They will
specify clearly where and when certain erosion and sediment control
practices are to be employed. With these "General Criteria", local of-
ficials, engineers, architects and land developers will be able to better
determine what is an acceptable level of erosion and sediment control on
a land disturbing project.
Communication
Another important aspect of our implementation program involves
communication. We have found that a statewide regulatory program of
this scope requires a mechanism for regular information dissemination.
To fill this need, the Commission publishes a quarterly newsletter
entitled "The E&S Bulletin". The purpose of this publication is to
establish a communication link between the Commission and persons who
are affected by the Law. It is used to keep readers informed of recent
developments in the field of urban conservation, proposed or actual changes
to the State Law, educational events and information, and other current
items of interest. Readers are encouraged to supply ideas for articles
or to comment on or question previously written articles.
The E&S Bulletin is currently distributed to about 2,000 persons.
The mailing list includes local government officials, conservation dis-
trict directors, private engineers, architects and contractors, other
state agencies and institutions, and a number of private citizens who have
expressed an interest. Anyone may be added to the Bulletin mailing list
by making a written request to the Commission.
Conclusion
On the whole, we feel that Virginia has made significant progress in the
-------
325
Seeley
field of urban erosion and sediment control. Our state law has provided
the impetus and has established a good framework for a successful state-
wide program. However, as I stated earlier, we still have a long way to
go.
At the state level, we see our role as one of providing guidance and
direction. We plan to continue our statewide educational efforts and to
provide direct technical assistance to local governments and conservation
districts to improve the effectiveness of local programs. Regardless of
what we do at the state level, however, we recognize that the real key to
success lies at the local level. Until the local officials, land developers,
and the general public become convinced that erosion and sediment control
is needed, reasonable and worthwhile, only limited success can be achieved.
In Virginia, there are increasing indications that people are beginning
to understand the benefits of urban conservation. Local programs are be-
ginning to function more effectively, conservation practices are becoming
more evident on construction sites, and more people are beginning to par-
ticipate in erosion and sediment control training programs and seminars.
We are optimistic that in time our program will gain wide public acceptance
and we hope that erosion and sediment control will ultimately become a
routine part of the land development process in Virginia.
-------
-------
327
THE NEW JERSEY EXPERIENCE IN CONTROL OF
URBAN SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Samuel R. Race, Coordinator
Soil and Water Conservation Service
New Jersey Department of Agriculture
and Executive Secretary, State Soil Conservation Committee
Trenton, New Jersey
New Jersey has the dubious distinction of being the most
densely populated State in the Nation. With over 1,000 per-
sons per square mile, the pressures of development and
urbanization are intense. While these development pressures
are experienced throughout the State's twenty-one counties,
the Development impact is further emphasized by surveys which
have shown that two-thirds of the State was still classified
as open space only a few years ago.
These development pressures were recognized in the early
seventies by soil conservation leaders as the cause of a
severe soil erosion and sedimentation problem. High priority
was placed upon the development of a program and mechanism to
control the problem. In response, the State Soil Conservation
Committee, which is a unit of the State Department of
Agriculture, established in 1972 a State Sediment Control
Task Force. Membership of this group included virtually all
groups, organizations and agencies which were affected by or
concerned with land development and erosion control.
The task force findings and recommendations led to
several important actions, including the development of uni-
form State Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control and
model ordinances for use by municipalities which had the
authority to require land use controls.
With the outstanding assistance of the U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service, the Standards were developed, adopted and
published by the State Soil Conservation Committee and
distributed through the local soil conservation districts to
all 567 municipalities in the State. Educational programs
were conducted to encourage municipal adoption of ordinances
enforcing use of the Standards to control erosion on major
developments. This educational and voluntary approach re-
sulted in positive action by approximately one-tenth of the
municipalities. Interest was keen at the onset but slowed
after a year or more of exposure.
-------
328
Race
The State task force had recognized this possibility
and recommended that a model state law be prepared which
would mandate erosion control throughout the State if the
voluntary approach did not work. A drafting committee was
established with representation from all interest groups
including the construction industry and the State League
of Municipalities.
Completed in 1974, the proposed legislation was intro:
duced in the Senate with bipartisan sponsorship. The original
draft included several options for home rule enforcement
ranging from total soil conservation district enforcement to
municipal exemption from district jurisdiction with State
approval of municipal ordinance provisions. It also in-
cluded substantial State funding to get the program started.
The findings of the Legislature as written in the pre-
amble to the bill are significant. Section 2 stated that
"The Legislature finds that sediment is a source of pollu-
tion and that soil erosion continues to be a serious
problem throughout the State, and that rapid shifts in land
use from construction of housing, industrial and commercial
developments, and other land disturbing activities have ac-
celerated the process of soil erosion and sediment deposition
resulting in pollution of the waters of the State and damage
to domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, fish and
wildlife, and other resource uses. It is, therefore, declared
to be the policy of the State to strengthen and extend the
present erosion and sediment control activities and programs
of this State for both rural and urban lands, and to establish
and implement, through the State Soil Conservation Committee
and the Soil Conservation Districts, in cooperation with the
counties, the municipalities and the Department of Environ-
mental Protection, a Statewide comprehensive and coordinated
erosion and sediment control program to reduce the danger from
storm water runoff, to retard nonpoint pollution from sedi-
ment and to conserve and protect the land, water, air and
other environmental resources of the State."
The measure was not adopted in the first legislative
session and was reintroduced by a new sponsor who pressed
for action. With the deletion of the State funding pro-
vision, it was passed by the Senate without dissenting votes
-------
329
Race
and sent to the General Assembly where minor amendments
were made and approval was given without dissenting votes.
Returned to the Senate, the bill again was approved without
dissent. Considered carefully by the Governor, the bill
was finally approved in November of 1975 with the strong
support of conservation and environmental groups. At this
point it should be noted that much behind the scenes lobby-
ing and educational efforts were exerted throughout the
entire process which also had the support of the State Home
Builders Association.
Among the basic elements of the law is the requirement
for the State Soil Conservation Committee to promulgate
technical standards for use throughout the State. Fortunate-
ly, the Standards prepared in 1972 were suitable and ready
for promulgation in the very short six week period before the
law became effective. We are now preparing to promulgate
rather extensive revisions and additions to these Standards
to reflect experience gained over the years and to encompass
the latest state of the art.
The key regulation in the law is that no municipality
may grant approval of an application for development for any
project until a plan for soil erosion and sediment control has
been certified by the soil conservation district. A project
is defined as the disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet
of land for the accommodation of construction for which the
State Uniform Construction Code would require a construction
permit. Single family homes not part of a development are
exempt. This established the municipality and the soil con-
servation district as an enforcement team with the initial
regulatory contact for the developer made at the municipal
level .
For clarification it should be pointed out that no pri-
vate development can take place in New Jersey without the
approval of the municipality. In addition the State Con-
struction Code requires issurance of a municipal construction
permit for any public construction initiated by a municipality
or county. Therefore all construction, except for a few re-
maining public agency projects, is controlled by the law.
Upon receipt of complete application for certification of
a soil erosion and sediment control plan, the conservation
-------
330
Race
district must respond within thirty days indicating that the
plan is (1) certified as meeting the State Standards as sub-
mitted; (2) certified with conditions or (3) denied with
reasons stated. If no action is taken by the district within
thirty days, the plan is automatically certified. The thirty
day period may be extended for an additional thirty days by
mutual agreement between the district and the developer.
The district is authorized to collect a fee from the
applicant to cover the costs of providing services. The
district fee schedule must be approved by the State Soil Con-
servation Committee prior to its implementation and must bear
a reasonable relationship to the costs.
Enforcement provisions include the issuance of stop-con-
struction orders by the district or the municipality if a
project is not being executed in accordance with the certified
control plan. Municipalities may not grant certificates of
occupancy unless there has been district verification of com-
pliance with permanent erosion control measures of the plan.
The district or the municipality may seek injunctive relief
through the courts to prevent violations and persons found in
violation of the law may be liable to a penalty of up to
$3,000 with each day of continuing violation constituting a
distinct and separate offense.
The mechanics of implementation may be of interest. The
builder or developer approaches the municipality for project
approval. He is referred to the soil conservation district
for certification of the required soil erosion and sediment
control plan. District personnel receive the plan and
appropriate fees. They may provide interpretive assistance
to the developer to assist in identifying appropriate control
measures. They will not assist directly in the preparation of
the plan. Where needed, cooperating resource agencies such as
the Soil Conservation Service may be asked to review and
comment on the plan. After detailed review, district pro-
fessional personnel make recommendations to the district
governing body which issues certification or denial. Conditions
of certification require applicants to notify the district
several days in advance of construction and to allow on site
inspections at district option.
Where inspection reveals variance from the certified plan,
the developer is requested to make necessary modifications.
-------
331
Race
If cooperation is not received after reasonable notice or
warning a stop order may be issued. Upon completion of
construction, a report of compliance is issued if the plan
has been satisfactorily implemented. The municipality may
then grant a certificate of occupancy.
Some statistics on the experiences over the past three
and one-half years may be of interest. From January 1, 1976
to June 30, 1979, 6,387 applications have been received.
Averaging 10 acres each, these projects have involved
approximately 64,000 acres of land to be developed. Sixty-
one hundred and seventy-two projects were certified as sub-
mitted or with conditions with 221 rejected as inadequate.
Over 1% million dollars have been received in fees to cover
costs. The average fee per application is about $200 or about
$20 acre. The activity among our 16 districts has ranged from
1,100 applications in the Freehold district to 25 in the Salem
district during the 3^ year period.
The development of financial support and program per-
sonnel may be of interest. At the outset most of our 16
districts had one full or near full time clerical person and
one professional administrative person. These personnel were
supported primarily by State funds administered by the State
Soil Conservation Committee. Clerical personnel were employed
on an hourly basis by the State and State matching funds were
provided to support district level employment of the administra-
tive personnel. Additional professional and technical per-
sonnel have now been employed directly by the districts bringing
field strength to about 50.
Fees received under the program now total about $450,000
per year. State support is approximately $250,000 per year
with county government contributions approximately $150,000
annually for a total district level budget of about $850,000
per year. This shows considerable public subsidization of
the program with fees supporting a little more than half of the
overall district operation. Estimates of districts time spent
on the urban erosion control program range from 10% to 90%
with an estimated average of 75% statewide.
Program support is also received from cooperating agencies.
The SCS will provide engineering review and interpretive
assistance in technical matters where needed. We rely heavily
upon the SCS to provide training for district technical
-------
332 Race
personnel and to assist with the development and updating of
technical Standards. Other resource agencies assist where
appropriate such as the State Bureau of Forestry and the
Cooperative Extension Service.
The reaction from the controlled public is as may be
expected, reluctant but, in general, compliant. Most
developers have accepted the erosion requirement and include
control plans without coercion. An excellent relationship
exists with the State Builders Association and lines of com-
munication with them remain open at all times. The Builders
Association provides an advisory member to the State Committee
and several builders serve as members of district governing
bodies. A few development companies still attempt to avoid
the regulation and several municipalities provide less than
outstanding cooperation.
Several enforcement actions are currently in process
where municipalities have chosen to give the law less than
full recognition. Where stop orders have been challenged,
court actions have resulted in support of the district. We
have found it is frequently necessary to assist the legal
profession to raise their levels of understanding of the
legislation and the associated problems.
The statistics cited earlier regarding number of projects
do not include actions by the exempt municipalities. The home
rule option was exercised by 85 municipalities which adopted
ordinances meeting the approval of the State Committee. The
ordinances were required to incorporate controls at least
equivalent to those of the districts. Although the conserva-
tion districts have a responsibility to continually monitor
the performance of the exempt municipalities no project data
has been compiled at this time. Were we to start again, we
would not propose the municipal exemption provision.
Our experiences have shown need for some changes and where
we could have done better in developing the program. De-
ficiencies in the legislation appear in the area of State level
support, including financial, technical and legal assistance
and in the scope of project coverage. Beginning with the
latter, there is no control of land disturbances such as clear-
ing and grading which may precede the construction permit
stage. Public agency construction other than county and muni-
cipal is not regulated although this has been partially
-------
333
Race
resolved through interdepartmental agreements at the State
level. An example of this is a requirement by the State
Department of Education that local school districts must
now have conservation district approval of erosion control
plansas one of the many requirements for State approval.
With regard to State level support there is need for
more precise identification of a State level appeal pro-
cess and the availability of legal assistance from the
Attorney General. There is further need for the clarifica-
tion of legal defense and indemnification of district super-
visors from tort claims. And there is need for reasonable
assurance of maintenance of a basic state technical staff to
assure reasonable statewide uniformity and that adequate
public accountability exists. In addition there is need for
state level monitoring of program effectiveness..
When our urban soil erosion and sediment control program
was^enacted, we were the thirteenth state in the Nation to take
action of this nature. Our law may be the most comprehensive
in that it exempts only single family homes and disturbances
of less than 5,000 square feet. It may also be one of the
few, or the only State law where the soil conservation dis-
trict has responsibility from start to completion including
inspection and enforcement.
This was a large step for our districts. Our more urban
district programs changed from very low budget, relatively
low accomplishment, primarily educational in nature to
very meaningful programs where the statutory objectives
are being achieved. They are now preventing and controlling
soil erosion and sedimentation, the basic purpose for their
creation.
The transition for our district supervisors from a wholly
voluntary program to a regulatory one was reasonably smooth.
It has given the district supervisors a new sense of purpose
and accomplishment. The addition of professional and
technical personnel under their direct control has provided
new meaning to their jobs. The regulatory function has not
changed the traditional philosophy of assistance, coopera-
tion, reasonableness and practicality.
The program has been recognized by the Department of En-
vironmental Protection as an in-place institutional mechanism
-------
334
Race
available to control nonpoint sources of pollution associ-
ated with construction. It is also recognized as the
first step towards a comprehensive Statewide program of
stormwater management. Our districtsand the State Soil
Conservation Committee have been designated as management
agencies for nonpoint source pollution control in State 208
pians.
As a closing comment directly related to the future of
this and other soil conservation district level administered
regulatory programs, we believe it is extremely important
to develop and maintain technically competent district
personnel. Inherent in this is the need for career advance-
ment and upward mobility opportunities for capable employees
Unless attention is given to this important factor, districts
may be continually faced with the prospect of training new
personnel. I believe this is an area where neighboring
states and regions should work closely together to mutual
advantage.
We in New Jersey appreciate the opportunity to relate to
you our experiences. We do not have a perfect program but it
is working and accomplishing our goals. While we need to
improve, we believe this program is being handled better
than most, if not all, other statewide regulatory programs in N.J,
Decisions are made at the local level and advice and assistance
are always available to the regulated public. We believe
that ours is a successful experiment in government re-
gulation and resource management and protection. We have
been able to integrate the expertise, authority and neces-
sary functions of State, regional and local government with
the continuing and essential assistance and partnership of
the federal government through the Soil Conservation Service.
-------
335
GEORGIA'S APPROACH TO URBAN
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Ken Obenauf, Staff Engineer
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Committee
THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAW
On April 24, 1975, the Honorable George Busbee, Governor of the State
of Georgia, signed into law Act 599, the Erosion and Sedimentation Act
of 1975. The Act states: "It is declared to be the policy of this
State and the intent of this Act to strengthen and extend the
present erosion and sediment control activities and programs
of this State and to provide for the establishment and imple-
mentation of a Statewide comprehensive soil erosion and sedi-
ment control program to conserve and protect land, water, air
and other resources of the State."
Basically the law requires establishing a permitting program to control
"land-disturbing" activities. "Land-disturbing" activities are defined
as;
"Any land change which may result in soil erosion
from water or wind and the movements of sediment
into state water or onto land within the state
including, but not limited to:
1. clearing
2. dredging
3. grading
4. excavating
5. transporting
6. filling "
This seems to imply that practically every type of activity would
require a permit. The law goes further, however, to list quite a few
exemptions.
Land-Disturbing Activity
Does Not Include:
1. Surface mining
2. Granite quarrying
3. Minor land-disturbing activities
4. Construction of single-family residences
for owner
5. Agricultural and forestry practices
6. Any project under the technical supervision
of the SCS
-------
336
Obenauf
7. Land change projects with movement of
less than 500 cubic yards of soil (If not
within 200 feet of a major river)
8. Land change projects with less than 5 acres
disturbed (If not within 200 feet of a major
river)
9. Projects on federal lands
10. Construction or maintenance by:
1. Department of Transportation
2. Georgia Highway Authority
3. Georgia Tollway Authority
4. Airport or public utilities under
Public Service Commission
5. Counties
6. Municipalities
11. Activities started prior to ordinance date
(If finished 12 months after ordinance
adoption date)
While the law contains many exemptions, the primary purpose is to
control major sediment - producers, that is, large construction - such
as, shopping centers, subdivisions and industrial sites.
Local Ordinances
Act 599 gives the governing authorities of Georgia's 159 counties and
531 incorporated municipalities an option to adopt comprehensive ordi-
nances governing land-disturbing activities within their boundaries.
The ordinances must contain technical principles (see table 1) as
provided in the law and procedures for issuance of permits. Those
governments can strengthen ordinances by eliminating certain exclusions
or adding to the technical principles. Municipalities and counties
which failed to have in effect a comprehensive erosion and sediment
control program on April 24, 1977, are subject to rules and regulations
developed by the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources. The Division issues permits, performs
inspections and becomes the enforcer of land-disturbing activities
until such time as the local authorities adopt an ordinance. EPD also
has responsibility for reviewing ordinances adopted by city and county
governments to determine compliance with the minimum requirements of
the law.
Table 1 - Technical Principles, Section 4, Act 599.
(a) Stripping of vegetation, regrading and other develop-
ment activities shall be conducted in such a manner so
as to minimize erosion.
(b) Cut-fill operations must be kept to a minimum.
(c) Development plans must conform to topography and soil
type so as to create the lowest practical erosion poten-
tial.
(d) Whenever feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained,
protected and supplemented.
(e) The disturbed area and the duration of exposure to
erosive elements shall be kept to a practicable minimum.
(f) Disturbed soil shall be stabilized as quickly as prac-
ticable.
-------
Obenauf 337
(g) Temporary vegetation or mulching shall be employed to
protect exposed critical areas during development.
(h) Permanent vegetation and structural erosion control
measures must be installed as soon as practicable.
(i) To the extent necessary, sediment in run-off water
must be trapped by the use of debris basins, sediment
basins, silt traps, or similar measures until the dis-
turbed area is stabilized.
(j) Adequate provisions must be provided to minimize damage
from surface water to the cut face of excavations or the
sloping surfaces of fills.
(k) Cuts and fills may not endanger adjoining property.
(1) Fills may not encroach upon natural water courses or
constructed channels in a manner adversely affecting
other property owners.
(m) Grading equipment must cross flowing streams by the
means of bridges or culverts except when such methods
are not feasible and provided, in any case, that such
crossings are kept to a minimum.
District Review
One unique characteristic of the Act is the requirement for a Soil and
Water Conservation District plan review. The law requires that erosion
and sediment control plans for each non-exempt activity be prepared and
submitted with application for a permit to the local unit of govern-
ment. The plans are then forwarded to the appropriate Soil and Water
Conservation District for determining the adequacy of the plans.
This requirement for District review was incorporated into the law by
the Georgia General Assembly. It was designed to assist units of
government which do not staff people qualified to review the plans. The
Districts individually proclaimed that high priority will be given to
the review of these erosion and sediment control plans. In most cases
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of USDA, through a memorandum-of-
agreement with the Districts, actually conducts the review of technical
plans.
After a thorough analysis of the plans, they are returned to the
issuing authority with the district's recommendations. This authority
then issues or denies permits. Should a permit be denied because of
discrepancies in the plans, such discrepancies must be made apparent to
the applicant. The law requires that a permit be issued or denied
within a period not to exceed 45 days after the plan and application
are submitted. (It should be pointed out that the District review is
generally conducted within 5 days. In most cases the review is
actually completed the same day the plans are received by the Dis-
trict.)
Another primary reason for the District review requirement concerns
cases where local units of government allow the state's Environmental
Protection Division to handle the permit program. The District review
insures a local review by local people familiar with the local situa-
tions and problems.
-------
338
Obenauf
If a permit is denied, there are appeal procedures in the Act. Any
person aggrieved by a decision or order of the permit issuing author-
ity, after exhausting his administrative remedies, has the right to
appeal to the Superior Court of the county where such land-disturbing
activity is proposed to occur.
ASSISTANCE OFFERED BY THE STATE COMMITTEE
The State Soil and Water Conservation Committee is the administrative
and policy making body of Georgia's Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
tricts. The State Committee's involvement as a result of Act 599
includes, establishing and coordinating procedures for District plan
review, advice and consent to rules and regulations adopted for use by
EPD, and inform and develop material for use by those involved in
erosion and sediment control.
Informational Program
To better inform the citizens of Georgia of the implications and respon-
sibilities of this new law, the State Committee initiated several
programs. A series of presentations were made throughout the state
explaining the law. Several television appearances were made, and
numerous newspaper articles were written and printed. Articles were
prepared and sent to professional newsletters, trade publications, and
public interest groups.
Model Ordinance
To assist the local city and county governments, a model erosion and
sediment control ordinance was written. This model ordinance was sub-
jected to numerous reviews by various professions and organizations.
Comments were incorporated from lawyers, engineers, developers and
representatives of city and county governments. Distribution of the
model ordinance was handled by the Association of County Commissioners
of Georgia, the Georgia Municipal Association - as well as Soil and
Water Conservation Districts. The State Committee offered assistance
to any city or county government interested in adopting an erosion and
sediment control program.
Seminars .
Three two-day seminars were organized for engineers involved in land-
disturbing activities. The seminars consisted of speakers experienced
in various aspects of erosion and sediment control, a workshop type
approach in developing sample plans, a presentation on assistance
offered by various organizations and useful related publications, and
presentations and displays of commercially available erosion and sedi-
ment control products. Individualized seminars are also conducted
statewide upon request by city, county and state agencies.
Manual
Perhaps the most useful form of assistance offered by the State Commit-
-------
Obenauf 339
tee was composing and publishing the Manual for Erosion and Sediment
Control in Georgia. The Manual was designed to meet three basic
requirements; (1) to be as complete as possible so the user would not
have to search from one source of information to another when designing
erosion and sediment control plans; (2) to be readable and indexed for
use by non-engineers. (Engineers generally design the plans but
non-engineers usually enforce the law and, on occasion, must handle the
plan review); and (3) to be easy to use and durable.
The Manual was developed from the start with four basic groups of
people in mind: (1) the engineer or developer who installs erosion and
sediment control practices on the development site, (2) the issuing
authority, or governing agency, required to issue land-disturbing per-
mits - either the city or county or Environmental Protection Division,
(3) the plan reviewers and (4) the surface mining industry. This last
sector did not have standards and specifications yet is required by
previous Georgia Law to practice erosion and sediment control.
Fifteen hundred copies were printed followed by an additional 200
copies. One copy was made available to each city, county and SCS
district office free of charge. Fifteen dollars per copy is charged of
private industries and firms and for additional copies provided to
cities or counties. To date, approximately 1100 copies have been
distributed. The Manual was accepted as the Best Management Practices
Document by both the Construction and Surface Mining 208 Technical Task
Forces. (A Technical Task Force approach was used in Georgia to
establish the Georgia Water Quality Management Nonpoint Source Control
Plan as required by Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act.)
Contents of Manual
Chapter 1: The Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975.
Chapter 2: Sediment and Erosion Control Processes, Principles and
Practices.
An explanation is given on the erosion process and how it is
influenced by climate, topography, soils, and vegetative covers.
Also included are the six basic design principles for erosion
and sediment control. They are:
(1) Fit the activity to the topography and soils,
(2) Minimize the disturbed area and duration of exposure to
erosion elements,
(3) Stabilize disturbed areas immediately,
(4) Retain or accommodate runoff,
(5) Retain sediment,
(6) Do not encroach upon watercourses.
These explanations are illustrated by pictures and charts.
One unique addition to this chapter is a removable 21" x 35"
chart. The "Uniform Coding System" is a chart of all the prac-
tices both structural and vegetative contained in Chapter 6.
These practices are displayed for ease of reference by the plan
designer and plan reviewer. Each practice has a two letter
code which was selected roughly based on the name of the prac-
tice. For example, "Di" is diversion and "To" is toe berm.
(See Figure 1.)
-------
340
Obenauf
CODE
PRACTICE
DETAIL
MAP
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
RIPRAP
SEDIMENT
BARRIER
(Indicate typ«)
Loose rock or similar durable material installed
on slopes lor protection from erosion caused by
water turbulence or htgh velocities
A barrter to prevent sediment from tawing the
construction site It may be sandbags, bales ol
straw or hay. brush, togs and poks. gravel, or a
sediment fence. The barriers are usually
temporary and inexpensive.
SEDIMENT BASIN
A basin created by excavation or • dam across i
waterway. The surface water runoff is
temporarily stored allowing the bulk of the
sediment to drop out. The basin is usually
temporary but may be designed as a permanent
pond or storm water retention device.
SEDIMENT TRAP
TEMPORARY
An impounding area created by excavating
•round a storm drain drop inlet The excavated
area wilt be filled and stabilised on completion
of construction activities
SPOILBANK
SPREADING
Dnposing of material excavated from a drainage
ditch or open channel by spreading the material
over ad|acent lands.
Figure 1 - Taken from "Uniform Coding System" chart.
Chapter 3: Planning and Plans.
This chapter contains examples on how to prepare plans for
obtaining land-disturbing permits.
Chapter 4: Local Programs: Principles and Processes.
Outlined in this chapter are steps local units of government
may take to establish and implement their own permitting system.
Chapter 5: Sources of Assistance and Resource Information.
Presented is a list of what assistance is available to the
local governments and developers.
Chapter 6: Standards and Specifications for Land-Disturbing and Sur-
face Mining Activities.
This chapter contains the actual engineering standards and
specifications for erosion and sediment control practices and
structures.
than one half of the Manual, is
Appendix:
The Appendix, taking up more
the actual "working" section.
Appendix A - Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds.
Appendix B - Soil Information.
Appendix C - Sediment Basin Design Information.
Appendix D - Diversion Design Information.
Appendix E - Grass Waterway Design Information.
Appendix F - Subsurface Drainage.
Appendix G - Engineering Structures.
-------
341
Obenauf
Appendix H - Survey Criteria.
Appendix I - Model Ordinance.
Appendix J - Glossary.
References.
Conversion Factors.
Other Publications
The State Committee recently developed a pamphlet, "Georgia's Erosion
and Sediment Control Law". This pamphlet basicly describes Act 599,
which land-disturbing activities require permits and which activities
are exempt from the permitting responsibilities, and who to call for
further information.
The newest publication developed by the State Committee is titled "On-
Site Erosion Control". It is designed to bridge the gap between plan
preparation and physical installation. It is a pocket sized (6" x 3V)
ready reference to be carried to the construction site. The contents
contain a synopsis of structural and vegetative practices from the
Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia. Each practice has
a separate page with a sketch, short explanation, and design and
physical limitations. (See sample page, Figure 2.) The booklet is
aimed at an audience of construction engineers, site foremen, equipment
operators and site inspectors. The printing of this publication was
financed in part through a water quality management technical assis-
tance planning grant from the Environmental Protection Agency through
provisions of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Now in the process of development is a directory of contact persons
(name, title, department and phone numbers) responsible for the city or
county erosion and sediment control program. This directory is being
developed to help prospective industries with information on local
permit requirements.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LAW
Ordinances Adopted
Ninety two counties have now adopted erosion and sediment control ordi-
nances which have been officially accepted by the Environmental Protec-
tion Division. An additional 10 counties have adopted ordinances which
are not yet accepted by EPD because of minor modifications needed. EPD
has also accepted 150 city ordinances.
Plan Review
Soil and Water Conservation Districts reviewed 768 plans during calen-
dar years 1977 and 1978. In the first half of this year, 392 plans
have already been reviewed. The State Conservationist has committed
the Soil Conservation Service to meet the District's demands for plan
reviews.
-------
-P-
K>
Sediment Basin
A POND DESIGNED TO CATCH SEDIMENT
• MAY BE PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY
• DESIGN FOR GREATEST EASE OF CLEANOUT
• TEMPORARY STRUCTURES:
* REMOVED WITHIN 18 MONTHS
* DRAINAGE AREA i 150 ACRES
* FAILURE WOULD NOT RESULT IN LOSS OF LIFE
OR INTERUPT USE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
• DESIGN CRITERIA, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
TYPE
1
2
3
MAX W/S
SIZE (AC.)
20
20
150
MAX. DAN
HEIGHT (ft.)
7
10
15
SPILLWAY DESIGN
STORM FREQUENCY
10 yr.
10 yr.
35 yr.
TYPE
1
2
3
FREEBOARD
(FT.)
0.5
0.5
1 .0
SIDE SLOPE
2: 1
2:1
2»:1
47
• TEMPORARY STRUCTURES EXCEEDING TYPE 3 OR
PERMANENT STRUCTURE DESIGNED BY CRITERIA FOR
PERMANENT STRUCTURE SUCH AS SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE TECHNICAL GUIDES
• STORAGE - 67 YD3/ACRE DRAINAGE AREA
• TOP } RISER SHOULD BE PERFORATED WITH 1" DIAMETER
HOLES SPACED 8" VERTICALLY AND IO"-I2" HORIZON-
TALLY
• PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY, EMERGENCY SPILLWAY, CUT OFF
TRENCH, AND ANTI-5EEP COLORS DESIGN REQUIRED
• TRASH RACK, ANTI-VORTEX DEVICE AND RISER BASE
(TO PREVENT FLOATATION) REQUIRED
• PROTECT AGAINST SCOUR AT DISCHARGE OF PIPE
SPILLWAY
• EXCEPT FOR TYPE I BASINS, EMERGENCY SPILLWAY MUST
NOT BE ON FILL MATERIAL.
• FENCE TO PROTECT PEOPLE
CLEAN OUT REQUIRED WHEN STORAGE CAPACITY REDUCED TO
27 YD'/ACRE OR SEDIMENT LEVEL is WITHIN i FOOT OF
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY. KEEP TRASH RACK AND ANTI-VORTEX
DEVICE CLEAR OF DEBRIS.
48
o
O-
n>
3
CU
Figure 2 - Sample Page From "On-Site Erosion Control".
-------
Obenauf 0/0
343
Problems With Program
manpower
Georgia's erosion and sediment control program is not without problems.
The Environmental Protection Division, was not given sufficient funds
or manpower to handle their permitting and enforcement program responsi-
bilities for the remaining 67 counties and 381 incorporated cities.
Personnel and funds had to be taken from other EPD branches to staff
this new program.
penalt ies
From the beginning, enforcement procedures and penalties were purposely
omitted from Act 599. It was felt that the local units of government
should themselves determine adequate penalties or incentives preventing
violations. Unfortunately EPD was also left without specific enforce-
ment procedures. Presently, EPD can only prosecute violations through
Georgia's Clean Water Act - a lengthy and often difficult process.
no enforcement
Another problem exists in cities and counties which adopted ordinances.
In a few cases, it seems ordinances were adopted mainly to remove
permitting responsibilities from the state (EPD). Unfortunately, some
are not enforcing ordinances, and, quite frankly, probably do not ever
intend to enforce it.
maintenance
Perhaps the most common statewide problem is lack of maintenance of
existing erosion and sediment control practices.
Success of Program
In a recent statewide assessment of the erosion and sediment control
program, an interesting observation was made. It seems the success of
a program is not always based on a severe penalty but rather on the
effectiveness of the inspection program. Many units of government were
observed to have exceptional programs due to inspectors who were always
on top of the situation. In these cases, enforcement was rarely needed
and as expected, maintenance problems were also rare.
penalty/incentive
As pointed out earlier, each city or county government made the
decision on what type of penalty/incentive program was needed. Perhaps
the most effective penalty is a "stop work" order. This type of
enforcement procedure seems to work regardless of the size of the
project. The most effective incentive seems to be the requirement of
performance bonds. Such bonds insure a stabilized construction site
even if the company declares bankruptcy.
exemptions
Act 599 admittedly contains a good many exemptions. As is the case
with most laws, the final passage of the Act was possible only after a
series of compromises. Such an approach has its merits. Now that the
program has a solid footing and has proven its successfulness, it can
be strengthened as needed. A program is already underway to amend the
law, thereby eliminating many of the problems discussed previously.
-------
344
Obenauf
spin-o£ £ s
Act 599 has some positive side effects. For example, the Georgia
Department of Transportation, though exempt from Act 599, has shown
visible improvements with their own erosion and sediment control pro-
gram. In one highly urbanized coastal county, the erosion and sediment
control plans must be prepared by professional engineers (county re-
quirement). Since engineers are required, they are also used to design
storm water drainage systems. The results are new developments which
do not add sediment to existing drainage but have adequate drainage
systems from the outset.
SUMMARY
Georgia's Erosion and Sedimentation Act became effective April 24,
1975. Its intent is the control of major urban sediment producers.
That is, large construction such as shopping centers, subdivisions and
industrial sites. The law contains two unique characteristics: First,
local units of government are given two options. They can adopt
comprehensive programs for erosion and sediment control - or allow
permitting and enforcement responsibilities to be handled by the
state's Environmental Protection Division. The second unique thing is
the requirement for a Soil and Water Conservation District review of
all plans for erosion and sediment control. The Districts have
accepted this responsibility and are reviewing plans much faster than
the time period allowed by the law.
The State Soil and Water Conservation Committee initiated a comprehen-
sive program to assist Georgia citizens with requirements of this
relatively new law. Such a program includes printed articles, semi-
nars, a model ordinance, pamphlets and a manual containing engineering
standards and specifications.
The Georgia program is not without problems. The problems range from
lack of manpower, funds and adequate enforcement procedures for the
state EPD to local units failure to enforce ordinances. The most
common statewide problem is failure to maintain on-site control struc-
tures. This can generally be traced to insufficient inspection pro-
grams .
Plans are now being developed to strengthen the law. Amendments will
deal with the problems of enforcement and the lack of maintenance/in-
spection programs.
The most successful permitting programs seem to be based on a strong
inspection department. Other successful means of assuming compliance
with permit requirements are "stop work" order and posting performance
bonds.
In the final analysis, Georgia's urban erosion and sediment control
program, when viewed statewide, is lessening soil erosion and prevent-
ing sediment damages from construction activities. Present trends
indicate an increasing rate of improvement as the program gains momen-
turn.
-------
345
PLANNING, LOCAL CONTROL, AND STATE SUPPORT- THE KEY
TO URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA
Edward Craddock
Land and Water Use Analyst
California Department of Conservation
Coordinator of the Soil Resources Protection Program
Since we are here basically to learn, I can share with you the
experiences of one of those 31 other states that have no effective urban
erosion and sediment control coordination at the state level In fact
when the explanation was made that various Soil Conservation'Boards '
Commissions, and Departments perform similar functions depending upon the
state I felt I should tell you: in California, lam the Soil Conserva-
tion Board or Soil Conservation Commission. I am the only person at the
state level, dealing with soil resources as a primary focus.
Do we have the key to erosion and sediment control in California?
In a way, I think we do, although it is now in the formative stages We
have a key with many grooves, that aren't working together effectively
groves that need to be refined and honed so they can fit that lock to open
a better approach to erosion and sediment control at the state level.
. r My objective today is to acquaint you with the extent of the problem
in California, to explore some of the current functions and dysfunctions
of agencies that are involved in the erosion and sediment control, and
to suggest a general element of the strategy to start dealing with this
problem.
I think the first problem that we have in California is problem
identification We have not reached a consensus at this point on how
severe the problem is, particularly when we look at it in the water
quality context. I think most California agencies and entities dealing
Wl JuS°iLerOS1on and sedin>entation were looking to the non-point aspect
11 d'd ? 1ng Process to answer some of these questions, and it
I would like to share with you an analysis of the water quality
context which came from a report developed by the John Muir Institute
for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts,
entitled. ErosiorL and Sedimentation in California Watersheds: A Study
of Institutional Control^. The general observation made in thaFTIport,
with which I concur, was that the signature of erosion on the land in
California is clearly legible, but the impact of sediment on water
quality is less so. Unlike many situations, here the cause is a bit
more observable than the effect.
However, water quality, not soil conservation or watershed manage-
ment, is the stated concern of the Section 208 program of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The fact that the goals, objectives and
-------
346
Craddock
programs of 208 are couched primarily in water quality terms, complicates
the problem assessment in California, and complicates standard-setting
and implementation of non-point pollution control as well. The standards
for determining the levels at which sediment becomes a non-point pollution
problem, are very difficult to formulate and apply. In California the
result is an extraordinary gap between goals and performance. I don't
want to leave you with the impression that our resources agency and the
departments within it have not made any strides in identifying the
problem; I only think a difficulty has arisen from relating it too
closely to water quality.
My own department has published three reports over the past decade
that I think pretty sufficiently focused the problem and the extent of
the problem. The first report was on the impact of urbanization of
California foothill lands. California may be different from other
states in that severe problems are associated with one to five-acre
individual home sites and not solely related to subdivision tracts.
These are normally what we term one- to five-acre ranchettes, that are
often developed with few controls. Horses often graze the ranchette
property down to bare soils. They are a tremendous sediment source.
Our report identified this type of subdivision as a primary problem
area in the state, and determined that the unimproved roads associated
with such subdivisions were a major cause of sedimentation.
Later in the early 70s, our Division of Mines and Geology published
an Urban Geology Master Plan for the State of California. That report
estimated that erosion and sedimentation; and a commensurate problem in
California, that of unstable soils and mass soil movement; potentially
could cost the citizens and governments of the state, billions of dol-
lars, in damages before the year 2000. You've probably seen the horror
pictures of 200 thousand dollar homes taking a ride down unstable
slopes in southern California.
Recently I was involved in an inventory to help analyze, for the
legislature, the extent of our soil-related problems in the state. This
was something that had not been done at a state-wide level. We examined
a multitude of topics ranging from erosion and sedimentation, to sludge
disposal on land, to pesticide applications affecting land, in relation
to all types of land use.
I want to emphasize that the following figures are probably very
conservative ones, because we used the Resource Conservation Districts
as our Inventory arm, and in many of our urban areas, Resource Conser-
vation Districts do not exist, or are not active. In the Urban land
section of this report, we determined that 354,000 acres, or 11% of
urban land in the state, was affected to some degree by soil erosion and
sedimentation problems. Again the report reemphasized that foothill
lands, on the western flank of the Sierra Nevada and some of our coastal
mountain ranges, were our primary problem areas, with 20 to 28% of all
-------
347
Craddock
urban lands affected to some degree by water erosion and sedimentation.
A major cause of bare land during those critical erosion periods in
California, from November through April, was considered to be the result
of development and construction activities.
So I think there's ample evidence that we have a problem in
California, a problem that should be dealt with pretty quickly. I will
give you some specific examples, but first I would like to give you
some background information to acquaint you with the California situation.
First, erosion potential in California. Most of the foothill belt
and^the coastal ranges are rated severe to very severe, or at a minimum
having moderate erosion potential. Many of our major urbanizing areas
along the coast; the San Francisco bay area, the north bay counties, a
and the Los Angeles area; are in this sensitve environment. The same
is true on foothills surrounding central valley. Many areas of severe
erosion are associated with soils developed on decomposed granites in
the foothill belt and in the Sierra Nevada.
Second, mass soil movement, which cannot really be separated from
erosion as a major sediment contributor. The coastal area would also be
classified as having moderate to very severe mass movement potential.
When you have watershed disturbances which accelerate runoff and stream-
bank erosion, you almost certainly accelerate landslides and other mass
soil movements directly into streams.
Third, the tremendous geographic and physiographic diversity found
in California. Although there is still alot of the State lacking soil
maps, we know we are approcahing 900 soil series, and 2500 soil phases,
including textural phases.
Fourth, the wide range of climate in California. We have as much
as 100 inches of rainfall in the northeast corner, and as little as two
inches in the Colorado desert. Due to these factors, it is difficult to
establish a consensus as to the severity of the problem or develop over-
all comprehensive programs out of Scramento.
I would like to share with you some of the institutional problems
found at the local and state levels in California. First I would like
to focus on the cities and counties. Some of them already recognize the
problem. A recent institutional study by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, the seven counties surrounding San Francisco Bay, reported
how many counties had established either erosion and sediment control
ordinances, had strengthened their existing grading ordinances; or had
taken some steps to control erosion and sedimentation in the Bay area.
Fifty percent of the counties and municipalities in that area had ceased
relying on uniform building code standards, toward more stringent crite-
ria or guidelines for erosion and sediment control. All but one county
has now developed a specific ordinance. However, I think this report high-
-------
348 Craddock
lighted an institutional problem that has been mentioned frequently at
this Conference: there are so many different approaches and requirements
in these ordinances, that it is likely to be confusing and frustrating to
developers. A statewide program should develop or at least encourage a
consistent and equitable approach.
From our own inventory, we concluded that many of the smaller
counties in the state have no expertise or experience in dealing with this
problem, and need some kind of state support, either technical, informa-
tional, or educational. They just do not have the staff to do the job,and
in post-Prop 13 era in California, the prospect is they may have no staff
or less staff in the future.
Our statewide study indicated that only 33% of the counties had
adopted some specific ordinance to deal with erosion and sedimentation.
If you subtract from that the large counties surrounding San Francisco Bay,
and the Los Angeles area, you find that few counties have taken steps in
relation to foothill problems. Of all counties that reported to us, only
about 40% indicated they had enough followup to feel that they could
enforce their ordinances. Fully three-quarters of the responding counties
desired state support in the form of a model erosion and sediment control
ordinance, or technical training workshops.
Foothill counties are growing at a more rapid rate than any other
area of California, at rates of ten to twelve percent per year. I will
highlight the plight of some of the foothill counties with a short
description of two cases.
One is in Tuolumne County, which is the county bordering Yosemite
National Park. Tuolumne County had a situation where a subdivision
surrounding a small lake was sedimentinq into the lake. The citizens
only recourse was to file suit through the Attorney General's office, to
get a mandated change to the county's general plan requiring a stronger
approach to controlling soil erosion and sedimentation in their county.
That is still in litigation.
In Mariposa county, there is a one- to five-acre subdivision in the
watershed from which their water supply is derived. At present their
water supply is undrinkable for four months out of the year, and they are
searching frantically for some type of support. I was the first state
employee ever to visit the County and attend a County Supervisor's
meeting to find out what the situation was. The Chairman of the Board
said, "Mr. Craddock, we're so glad to see you here, maybe you and your
technical staff can help us out." I said, "You're talking to the tech-
nical staff." Fortunately they were at the point where they basically
needed only some engineering technical support. The Chairman of the
Board commented, "I can't understand it. There are probably busloads of
engineers in your Resources Agency. They could ship some out here and
nobody would miss them at all." In a way he's correct - I'm sure there
-------
349
Craddock
are plenty of horses that can be marshalled. For example, I suggested
they contact the Department of Transportation to utilize their engineering
expertise; but that is too fragmented an approach, and the problem is net-
ting too critical.
As you are well aware, Proposition 13 has affected the funding of
many of our counties, and many of our special districts including the
Resource Conservation Districts. Some of them are completely unfunded
now, and most of them have had their funds cut in half or more due to
Proposition 13. The State has been able to provide some funds from state
budget supluses. Recently, a new law has been passed in California that
indexes the state income tax brackets to inflation, so I think we'll see
that the windfall at the state level, and extra funds, will no longer
exist in a couple of years. At the same time we have the "Spirit of 13
initiative" on the November ballot, that will put a lid on state govern-
ment spending. So I don't think a person would have to be too aggressive
to convince counties, and the state entities that exist, that it's time
to get our act together and work with what we have, instead of working
at cross-purposes and building fiefdoms in state government.
I would like to comment about Resource Conservation Districts in
California. I fully agree with comments I've heard here, that if you're
going to do an effective job done, strong and aggressive conservation
districts should be involved at the local level. In California we have
a situation where the movement has not been nearly as strong as in most
other states. At present, only 70% of the private lands of the state,
and most of the urbanized areas of the state, are not covered by dis-
tricts. Our inventory indicated that in only 20% of the cases, were
RCDs frequently relied on by counties to help in solving soil-related
problems. Now this is a gap that has to be closed, if we are going to
have our performance come close to our goals and objectives.
We have another institution operating in California; a relatively
autonomous Governor's Office of Planning and Research. This office does
not have regulatory authority, but is relied upon to insure that all
counties have general plans developed under the planning law of the
state. Some of these plans, as I indicated earlier, have come under
review and criticism, and suits have been filed through the Attorney
General's office to strengthen them. Some of these plans treat soils,
soil erosion and sedimentation very cavalierly, while others do an
excellent job. I feel that the Office of Planning and Research should
encourage more consistency into general plans, and develop better guide-
lines for the treatment of soil resources in general, including erosion
and sedimentation. Their latest thrust is to develop a foothills policy
strategy for the state. I think it is imperative for them to be in-
volved In any strategy to get urban erosion and sedimentation identified
as a major concern in California.
-------
350
Craddock
The entity in the state having the most power and authority, the
State Water Resources Control Board, has done very little to address
urban erosion and sedimentation problems. They undertook a very detailed
study of two developments around Lake Tahoe. One showed almost no accel-
eration of erosion over background levels, in a very well-designed and
planned development called North Star, at the north end of the lake (a
combination of condominiums, summer recreation, and ski area development).
At the same time they studied a poorly-designed subdivision on the west
side of the lake, where they measured erosion rates a thousand times over
background levels. At this date, ten years after development, we still
have rates a hundred times greater than background erosion levels. The
Board has really not followed up on this report in order to bring erosion
and sedimentation to the forefront as a major environmental issue.^ The
enforcement arm for water pollution control in California resides in
Regional Water Quality Control Boards. These Boards have only recently
moved into the area of urban erosion and sedimentation, by amending their
Regional Water Quality Plan.
My own department's activity in this area has been specifically
through the development, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection
Agency, of an Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, that outlines the
planning procedures, provides a model ordinance, and the general mitiga-
tion measures that may be applied. However, with a one-man program, I
basically mail the Handbook out with little followup. There's been
tremendous interest in the Handbook itself, we've distributed almost five
thousand copies, and we've received complimentary reports as far as cost-
savings obtained by using some of the methods and procedures in it. It
was used by Tuolumne county Board of Supervisors and their planning
commission in trying to write an ordinance for the county, something
that has not borne fruit yet. My department somehow has to develop an
outreach program with this Handbook. We will not expand much further
and neither will other state agencies; therefore, a coordinated effort
must be developed.
I hope I have given you the impression that things are not organized
well in California at present, but I think my department must function as
a catalyst to get other agencies and entities moving. As a direct result
of this conference, after learning about the existing and proposed insti-
tutions in other states, I feel that on my return to California, I must
encourage the development of a Task Force on Urban Erosion and Sedimen-
tation at the state level, comprised of the State Water Resources Control
Board, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, my own Department,
and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. I
think this would serve two purposes: to provide a unified focus from the
state level; and to give impetus for these institutional mechanisms to
start to work together in California. When it comes to soil surveys, we
have state and federal agencies cooperating effectively with the State
Soil Survey Committee coordinating activities very well, in an inter-
agency concept and framework. I am confident a similar approach can work
-------
351
Craddock
in California in regards to urban erosion and sediment control.
Also when I return, I'm going to emphasize that our own department,
in coorperation with these other entities, the private sector, and fed-
eral agencies, engage in a series of workshops and seminars modeled
after this conference. The purpose of these workshops would be to high-
light local concerns; to illustrate successful local programs to other
counties that are having problems; to acquaint the public with the use
of, and availability of, state support, and to provide publications or
other technical support. I think that currently erosion and sediment
control programs in California are a long way from reaching first base,
but I hope that by the time of the second National Conference, we will
be rounding first and on our way to second.
-------
-------
353
CONSERVATION PROBLEMS
- FROM THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE -
Thomas P. Kujawa
Milwaukee (Wisconsin)
County Supervisor
24th District
Before I begin sharing my thoughts and viewpoints regarding the
various problems urban counties are experiencing in the area of soil
and water conservation, I must first apologize for not being in
attendance for the entire conference.
Ironically, my reason or justification for lack of full participa-
tion in this conference serves as an added testimony to one of the many
problems facing urban counties regarding conservation, and that would
be in establishing one's priorities (we are in the midst of our budget
and I am a member of the Finance Committee).
I represent Milwaukee County, which is located in Southeastern
Wisconsin. We have a population of approximately 1 million people
settled in 19 municipalities. Milwaukee County is typically urban,
with all areas incorporated, and very much aware of their "home rule"
powers.
The average member of our County Board, I would imagine, is much
like the average member of any large, totally urban county.
We are city born and bred, with little or no concept of sound
conservation practices. Most of us have served in some capacity as
local politicians, and come from an educational background that has
prepared us for business, law or perhaps the field of education.
We have not had the benefit of practical day-to-day encounters
with the land, such as those of you with farm and agricultural
backgrounds.
Our prime concerns in government have been in establishing
sound financial practices in government, encouraging business and
industry, combating excessive costs in the area of social welfare
programs, and encouraging a firm tax base.
In the day-to-day operation of our county, we are confronted by
one crisis after another, either real or imagined. Unfortunately, in
the eyes of an urban supervisor, conservation matters rarely, if ever,
reach crisis proportion and therefore, rate a very low priority.
-------
354
There is little knowledge or concern about the cause and effect
of wetlands to erosion and flooding problems. We tend to look at
wetlands as a cause of mosquitoes and source of odors. An urban
solution, therefore, would be to fill in and commercially develop the
area.
We solve too many problems with concrete and black-top, never
realizing the surface water run-off problems that we create at lower
elevations.
Within our school systems, little or nothing is taught about sound
soil and water management practices. Too many in a city atmosphere
believe this is a matter for the rural curriculum.
As far as committee assignments and duties are concerned in urban
county government, Extension and Agricultural Committees, per se, have
little appeal, and are certainly not coveted assignments.
In urban counties with their incorporated municipalities, we
traditionally see local politicians selfishly concerned with only their
locality. They refuse to accept county planning, looking at this
planning as an invasion of their home rule authority. The local
perception is often, "Land must be developed," and the good neighbor
policy sometimes, oftentimes, in fact, becomes secondary or non-
existent.
The development of a sub-division has many times been known to
cause erosion and flooding problems for the neighboring community
depending upon its topography and locale.
The individual landowner has little or no incentive to keep
certain lands and marshes in common trust. There are few, if any,
tax breaks, and only encouragement to develop land and turn a profit.
Petty jealousies and short-sightedness continually stand in the
way of county-wide and regional planning. There is a decided lack of
state legislation that would allow for long-range conservation programs.
We have a woeful lack of the needed monetary incentives and inducements
to allow for wetlands and green areas.
Air quality and noise pollution, proper disposal of organic
wastes and proper land use are fast becoming problems of major propor-
tions in the urban county, and most are finding out they have not
adequately prepared to meet thees problems.
Sub-dividers and developers must be forced to submit realistic
plans and safeguards to avoid these serious problems. The environ-
-------
355
mental impact statement must be made a part of the local picture, as
well as the federal. Laws must be enforced and fines levied to protect
us from the unscrupulous and unknowing.
Education in the elementary and secondary schools must encourage
greater awareness in our environment.
"Good Neighbor Policies" must be formulated by adjacent commu-
nities, and communication is of paramount importance.
For those of you who represent emerging urban counties or rural
counties in transition, learn from our mistakes. Enact the legislation
you will need, allow the state to help set up sensible guidelines,
listen to the experts in the area of soil and water conservation. Look
toward tomorrow and the world of your children and grandchildren. What
we destroy today may never be replaced.
-------
-------
357
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION, FROM A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Robert Thronson
Environmental Engineer, Implementation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
My task in participating at this National conference on Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control is to provide a summary of the organization and con-
tent of the Conference and evaluate it from a National perspective concern-
ing water pollution and other environmental degradation. In order to
accomplish this, I feel that I must provide you first with some informat-
ion concerning EPA's philosophy and concerns with respect to the effective
control of construction-related nonpoint sources of pollution.
EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217)
involves encouraging State and Areawide Water Quality Management Agencies
in the development and implementation of plans for controlling, or prevent-
ing, nonpoint sources of pollution such as those resulting from construct-
ion activities. By this Act, Congress placed primary responsibility for
the management of nonpoint source pollution in the hands of the States
and local governments. This is as it should be as the States and local-
ities are better able to identify their own problems and develop effective
control mechanisms and programs than is the Federal government.
We want to see the State and local governmental organizations getting
more and more into the business of really facing up to these issues. Plans
for solving the nonpoint source as well as other pollution problems are
being developed, and they should be implemented, through a political pro-
cess in which both citizens and their elected officials — not technical
experts or appointed officials — make all the basic choices and decisions.
Construction is a broad category covering the alteration and develop-
ment of land for a different use, including the installation of structures
on th land. The types of projects within this category generally have two
common characteristics, namely; (1) they involve soil disturbance, result-
ing in modification of the physical, chemical, and biological properties
of the land; and (2) they are short lived in the sense that the "construct-
ion phase" closes when the development and building activities are completed.
There are many types of projects that fall within the construction category.
They generally can be classified into the following sub-categories:
Land Development
Transportation and Communication Networks
Water Resources Facilities
Sediment resulting from erosion of disturbed soils is one of the principal
pollutants originating from construction. It includes solid mineral
and organic materials which are transported by runoff water, wind, ice,
and the effect of gravity.
-------
358
Thronson
It is extremely difficult to assess, with any reasonable accuracy,
the magnitude and extent of pollutant discharge from construction areas.
This is due to the fact that the runoff from each site varies tremendous-
ly depending on the intensity and duration of rainfall; topography, geolo-
gy, and soil types occurring in the area; area! extent of disturbed soil;
type of construction involved; character of vegetative cover; and other
local conditions.
Most, if not all, construction activities which involve disturbance
of surface soils or underlying geologic materials result in the generation
of nonpoint source pollutants. Surface water runoff will transport these
materials from the site unless extreme care is taken to implement control
measures which contain them within the area of development. If effective
control is not provided, it is not necessary to determine j_f pollutant
runoff has occured but only to assess the magnitude and extent of the
problems resulting.
The cost of controlling, or preventing, erosion and sediment problems
resulting from construction activities is considered by EPA to be less than
the cost for correcting the environmental damages that affect downstream
areas. Also, the cost of correcting these erosion and sediment damages
usually is unjustifiably transferred to the tax payer rather than to those
benefiting from the projects or developments. As a result, EPA is strong-
ly encouraging the use of regulatory programs by State and local govern-
ment groups which emphasize pollution prevention rather than subsequent
correction of environmental damages.
The technical capability of controlling erosion and sediment deposi-
tion from construction is available. The development and availability of
effective erosion and sediment control measures, however, is not enough.
They must be applied, through a regulatory program, on construction sites
where the runoff of sediments has the potential to cause pollution. There
has been a reluctance, in many areas of the country, for State and local
governments to establish and enforce construction-related sediment control
requirements. This probably results from varied reasons. One is that each
agency feels that its area of jurisdiction stands to receive no benefits
from carrying out the program. This is true to some extent as the down-
stream area, where the sediment ends up, receives maximum benefits with
the minimum effort exerted. The first agency, however, must realize that
it benefits from controls exerted by all those further upstream. Each
agency also benefits by the reduction of sediment loads deposited lo-
cally from the activities involved.
Another reason for agency reluctance probably results from the pre-
valent feeling that sediment is a naturally-occurring material that has
been moving from topographically higher areas to lower areas for millions
of years. This also is true - however, the sediment we are interested
in controlling results from man's activities. It often exceeds the
natural sediment losses from an area by several thousand times.
-------
359
Thronson
A third reason for avoiding the development of needed controls pro-
bably results from various groups that have been conducting the activities
that create the sediment problems. They pressure governmental agencies
into believing that "this is the way things have always been done". Part-
icularly in construction activities, the philosophy often is expounded to
this effect, "Let us finish the job and then we'll provide for sediment
control". By the time construction has been completed most of the sedi-
ment has already left the site and pollution is occurring.
EPA, in its Water Quality Management program activities under Section
208 of the Clean Water Act, is stressing public participation in the
planning and implementation of control programs at the State and local
governmental level. The 208 program has been a significant catalyst for
promoting involvement by citizens and elected officials in the basic
planning and decision-making process that is so necessary to make and
sustain tough environmental decisions.
We are committed to the building of public awareness and understand-
ing of the nonpoint source pollution problems resulting from such activi-
ties as construction and the mechanisms available for prevention, or
control. Education and involvement is essential for developing an under-
standing of local problems and engendering support for effective control
programs. The 208 program has been a lead in promoting public involvement
— in encouraging citizen interest, creativity, and initiation in the
decision making process.
Builders and developers as well as their engineering consultants
also must become involved in helping to structure and implement effective
programs. They should participate by contributing to the development of
an effective control program and in the definition and evaluation of
effective processes, procedures, and methods for controlling erosion and
the runoff of sediments. Builders and developers probably are more
directly involved with the effects of control than any other group ex-
cept the downstream recipients of excess sediment loads.
Conclusion
There is a definite need to make people and organizations aware of
how nonpoint source pollution resulting from construction activities can
affect conditions around them and to provide information on methods
available for controlling it at the source areas themsleves.
Effective control requires vigorous and aggressive action by all
levels of government with the complete cooperation and support of concern-
ed members of the community. The technical capability of control is large-
ly available; however, the development and adoption of institutional
measures and the preparation of organizational procedures for applying
this technical knowlede is lacking and urgently needed. Cooperation be-
tween governmental groups concerned with control, and others which provide
-------
360
Thronson
the technical "know how", is essential to obtain a meaningful program.
State and local organizations and their officials must acknowledge their
share of the responsibility which often is diffused among several agencies.
These agencies effectiveness many times is inadequate because they react
to damage rather than undertaking action to prevent the environmental
pollution.
Technical and professional people involved with conducting construct-
ion activities should become bold enough to express themselves against what
they know to be pollution-causing practices regardless of the conflicting
views of their associates and others. They should be in the forefront in
the development of innovative new control practices. Technical people
often hide behind the "security blanket" of professionalism, by limiting
their discussion groups to other professionals only, when they would do
better by exposing themselves to public opinion and their critics. Envi-
ronmental concerns are not a passing fancy but are here to stay and many
professional people are flunking the course by following and not leading
in the pollution control efforts.
Evaluation of the Conference
First of all, I must compliment the Conference Staff on the
excellent job they have done. They provided for an exciting initi-
ation of the Conference on the first day, through Mr. Kirkpatrick's and
Mr. Seal's contrasting viewpoints. They indicated that the Homebuilders,
those conducting the construction activities, are concerned regarding
practicality, flexibility, common sense, and cost effectiveness in
regulations; and the regulatory agencies are attempting to achieve water
quality and environmental goals with minimum effects on the construction
industry - this conflict continued through the entire program and l_
think it was constructive and useful. Both sides are right to some
extent and I think that neither has complete faith in the other's
philosophy.
When one considers control programs or mechanisms, there were
several other concerns that kept raising their inquisitive heads through-
out the entire conference discussion as speakers expressed their views.
I've heard most of them before and consider them to be valid when
erosion and sediment runoff programs are involved. They are:
1. Multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities are
involved in control and confuse th^ developer.
2. Regulations may specify procedures rather than performance
standards to achieve required control results - many do not
agree this is the way to go - and I'm afraid I concur.
-------
361
Thronson
3. Engineering design criteria and concepts often are outdated
and conflict with the intent of erosion and sediment control
management practices - changes are drasticially needed.
The costs of erosion and sediment control to developers, and
subsequently to homeowners, were discussed, but no one seemed to agree
on their validity. Indicators were presented that they may be fairly
low and may even benefit the developers in not having to regrade
slopes, clean out storm drains, recover equipment, and the like. Costs
of control to the regulatory authority were not really considered,
although data are available to indicate that a local program can be
made self sufficient through plan review, inspection, and other fees
graduated to consider the complexibility of the development.
In my opinion, enough data were presented at the Conference to
expose all of the potential problems to be encountered, but few
suggestions, or mechanisms, provided for their solution. Communication,
coordination, and cooperative action between builders, regulatory
agencies, the public, and other needs were brought up from time to time
but never clearly emphasized. No regulatory program can be initiated
and conducted successfully without such action. Public knowledge
regarding construction - related problems, proposed solutions, costs to
the developer and taxpayer, and other related information is essential
to achieve builder-regulator agency cooperation and public support for
needed programs. The development, evaluation, and periodic revision
of Best Management Practices for control should accomplished through a
multi-desciplinary approach where engineers, soils experts, hydrologists,
biologists, agronomists, and the concerned public can present their
viewpoints. They should be site-specific and flexible enough to enable
innovative techniques to be developed.
Greater clarification is needed regarding how local, state, and
other organizations should interface in control programs. Mr. Church,
attorney from the University of Wisconsin, suggested that the State
act to enable local government to pass ordinances and he provided a
model as a suggestion. Control programs, to be effective, must involve
cooperative action between local government, the state and the federal
government. Eaeh must provide the other with support, exchange of
needed information, technical advise, and perhaps financial help. It
is an important issue, as any State, when considering development of
a control program, must determine how it is to be implemented at the
local level.
A weak point in the Conference involves participants. The dia-
logue and conflicting viewpoints between developers and regulatory
speakers was a highlight in the program, but wider range of partici-
pants and viewpoints should be included: consulting engineers, the
Associated General Contractors, League of Women Voters, environmental
groups, State legislators, County Board of Supervisors, and the like.
-------
362
Thronson
A criticism concerning the Conference involves the use of concur-
rent sessions. I found it difficult to attend a representative group
of the papers that would enable me to evaluate the conference as a whole
Now that the Conference is concluding, I think that attendees and
participants should carefully consider what they have learned and ask
themselves "where do we go from here." Have you attended merely to
discuss mutual problems with peer groups of planners, engineers, and
developers - with no further action in mind? If so, the Conference
is a failure, as similar activities have been conducted many times
in the past. If you are action oriented, however, and intend to work
for initiating actions in your State for flexible and effective
control then I think it will be considered a success.
We all recognize now, that construction activities carried out
in a careless, haphazard manner can create tremendous environmental
problems. Also we know that technical and institutional measures
for control are available. Many states and local organizations are
implementing them. Good regulations are really not aimed at making
the construction industry carry out unnecessary actions. They should
provide the developer with support, cooperation, guidance, other aid.
Regulations are aimed principally at the careless, ignorant, or, as
one person politely put it, "green" developer that creates most of
the problems. He is in minority, I'm sure, but he gives the entire
industry a "black eye" and the environment indigestion.
-------
Appendix: Participants
ABERCROMBIE, Billy R.
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC
Soil Conservationist
U.S.D.A.-Soil Cons. Service
AICHINGER, Clifton
550 Capitol Square Building
St. Paul, MN
Critical Areas Coordinator
State of Minnesota
AKELEY, Roger P.
1211 Bydding Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Technical Coordinator, Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments
ANDERSON, Phyllis
Box 13
Newton, NJ 07860
District Manager
Sussex City, SCO
AULT, James E.
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Hydraulics Engineer
Hennepin County
AYERS, Mark
702 P.O. Building
St. Paul, MN
Hydrolegist
U.S. Geological Survey
BAKER, Helen
Afton, MN 55001
Member
Planning Commission
BAKER, John T.
4601 Hammers!ey
Madison, WI 53711
State Resource Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
363
BAUER, Lyle
P.O. Box 158
Harper, Kansas 67058
President, National Association
of Conservation Districts
BEAL, Frank
Director, Illinois Institute for
Natural Resources, Chicago, Illinois
BEDNAR, Jeff
City Hall
Blaine, MN 55434
Engineering Design Coordinator
City of Blaine
BENTLEY, Allen C.
P.O. Box 108
Hammond, WI 54015
Ass't Construction Engineer
St. Croix County Hwy. Dept.
BERG, Norman
Administrator, Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, D.C.
BERNTSEN, Dale
3161 Maple Grove Road
Duluth, MN 55811
City Council
City of Hermantown
BIRKHOLZ, James R.
1827 N. St. Paul Road
St. Paul, MN 55109
Conservation Specialist
Ramsey Soil & Water Cons. District
BISHOP, Robert D.
1405 Luisa Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
208 Coordinator
Soil and Water Conservation Div.
BLAND, James K.
Financial Management Branch
Chicago, IL 60604
Environmental Prot. Specialist
U.S. Environmental Prot. Agency
-------
364
Participants
BODIN, Arvid T.
2215 W. Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
Land Surveyor
City of Bloomington
BOHRER, Larry D.
St. Paul, MN
T.K.D.A.
BONUCCELLI, Hugo A.
Chief, Environmental Systems
Engineering Section, North
Virginia Planning District
Commission, Fall's Church, VI
BRADY, James
Presideat, Majestic Construction
Company, Cincinnati, Ohio
BREZINSKY, William
6875 Highway #65
Minneapolis, MN 55432
Engineer
Suburban Engineering
BRITT, Harlen K.
Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Sedimentation Control Engineer
N.C. Dept. of Nat'l Resources
and Community Development
BROWN, Ralph L.
P.O. Box 108
Hammond, WI 54015
Highway Commissioner
St. Croix County Highway Dept.
BURNS, Paul
100 Sibley Street
Hastings, MN
City Planner
City of Hastings
BYSLMA, David
Chippewa County Court House
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Zoning Administrator
Wis. Assoc. of County Code Admin.
CHRISTENSEN, Brian R.
Towns Edge Shopping Center
Farmington, MN 55024
District Coordinator
Dakota Co. Soil & Water Cons. Dist,
CHRISTENSON, Charles W.
Box 85
Baldwin, WI 54002
County Conservationist
St. Croix County SWCD
CHURCH, William L.
Madison, Wisconsin
Professor of Law
University of Wisconsin
CLAPP, Ginny
Box 756
New Ulm, MN 56073
Area Hydrologist
MN Dept. of Natural Resources
COHN, Charlotte W.
444 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN
Hydrologist-Envi ronmental Review
Dept. of Natural Resources
COLBERT, Thomas A.
3795 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Director of Public Works
City of Eagan
COLEMAN, Wendy Blake
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Environmental Specialist
Illinois, EPA
-------
Participants
365
COLIN, Peter
444 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
:Street Surface Water Hydro!ogist
Dept. of Natural Resources
COX, John
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Environment Specialist
Florida Dept. Environ. Reg.
CRADDOCK. Edward
Sacramento, California
Land and Mater Use Analyst
Calif. Dept. of Conservation
CROOKS, Malcolm
P.O. Box 297
Solebury, PA 18963
N.E. Regional Representative
NACD
CUMMINGS, George A.
Cincinnati, Ohio
District Conservationist
SCS, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
CURTIS, Warren C.
St. Paul, MN
State Resource Conservation
U.S. Soil Cons. Service
DAHL, Gerald E.
Frisco, Colorado
Regional Counsel, Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments
DANIELSON, James E.
750 So. Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN
Director of Public Works
City of Mendota Heights
DAVIS, Paul E.
1935 West Count Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Chief, Planning Section
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
DAY, Gary E.
Blacksburg, Virginia
Assistant Professor of Architec.
College of Arch. & Urban Studies
Poly. Institute & State University
DE GROOT, Jon V.
316 N. Robert Street
St. Paul, MN
Assistant State Conservation
USDA Soil Conservation Service
DENEEN, Marylyn
St. Paul, MN
Supervisor, Ramsey SWCD
Member, Urban Committee & NACD
DONAGHUE, David
Middleton, Wisconsin
City Engineer/Director of
Public Works, Middleton
DOUGAN, Arnold E.
Conservation District
Two Harbors, MN 55616
Conservation Specialist
Lake County Soil and Water
DOWNING, William L.
St. Paul, MN
Professor, Hamline University
Urban Committee, Minnesota
Association of SWCD
DUESTERHAUS, Richard L.
Minneapolis, MN
Assistant Administrator, USDA
DUMOVLIN, Pierre-Paul
201 Cremazie East
Montreal, Canada
Engineer, Government-Quebec
ELIAS, James G.
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Engineering Technician
City of Maplewood
-------
366
Participants
ELMORE, Thomas L.
Frisco, Colorado
Water Quality Management
Coordinator, NW Colorado
Council of Governments
ETTESVOLD, Clarence
Morris, MN 56267
Member, MN Soil & Water BD.
FEIST, William
Mlddleton, Wisconsin
Research Chemist, Alderman,
Member Planning Commission
FELDMAN, Jay H.
15th and M St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Assistant Director, Land Use &
Dev. - Nat'l Ass'n of Home
Builders, Washington, D.C.
FELDSIEN, Lawrence F.
1925 Oakcrest Avenue
Roseville, MN 55113
BIO Technical Engineering
FERGUSON, Donald H.
Duluth, MN 55804
Supervisor, S. St. Louis SWCD
FERREN, Donald G.
6159 Upper 46th Street N.
St. Paul, MN 55109
USDA - Soil Conservation Service
FILIPPI, James D.
1003 East Cliff Road
Burnsvllle, MN 55337
President, Filippi & Associates
FINNEY, Perry M.
1935 W. County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Planner
MN Pollution Control Agency
FISCHER, Alfred N.
6040 Earl Browne Tower
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
FLITTER, Michael J.
Box 388
Grand Rapids, MN
Board Respresentative
Minnesota SWCB
FODERBERG, Leon
Wallace Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Resource Conservationist
Dept. of Soil Conservation
FOOTE, Lawrence E.
Transportation Building
St. Paul, MN
Section Manager Officer
Minnesota DOT
FORSLUND, Charlotte
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Council member
City of Mounds View
FRANZEN, Michael D.
City Hall - 9150 Central Avenue
Blaine, MN
Planning Coordinator
City of Blaine
FREUND, Adrian P.
RM 14 - City/County Building
Madison, WI 53709
Environmental Resources Plan
Dane County Regional Planning
FUHR, Alison D.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Member, MN Soil & Water
Conservation Board
-------
Participants
367
GAHM, Thomas
200 Federal Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Soil Conservation Service
GARNER, Mary M.
1015 Vermont Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Legal consultant
N.A.C.D.
GEBHARDT, Ronald P.
1675 Hicks Road - Suite E
Rogging Meadows, IL 60008
District Conservationist
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
GENDRON, Jean-Paul
201 Cremazie East
Montreal, Canada
Engineer, Environmental
Protection Services
GENZLINGER, Vern
320 Washington Avenue So.
Hopkins, MN
Sr. Professor Engineer
Hennepin Co. Public Works
GEWIRTH, Marcel la
230 S. Dearborn 5WW4
Chicago, IL
Env. Prof. Specialist
U.S. EPA
GIEFER, Janet M.
Lilydale, MN 55118
Committee Member
Lilydale Planning Committee
GOETTEMOELLER, Roger L.
Columbus, Ohio
Deputy Chief, Poll. Abatement
Division of Soil & Water Districts
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
GREINER, William H.
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road
Ankeny, IA 50021
Executive Vice President
Soil Conservation Soc. of America
GRIGG, Neil S.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Assistant Secretary for No. Caro-
lina Dept. of Natural Resources
and Community Development
GUNDRUM, Gary
711 N. Bridge Street
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Chippewa County Conservation
Chippewa County SWCD
HAGMAN, Brenda B.
Madison, Wisconsin
Environmental Specialist
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
HAIDER, Kenneth G.
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Assistant City Engineer
City of Maplewood
HALSEY, Clifton
16 Soil Science Building
St. Paul, MN 55708
Extension Conservationist
University of Minnesota
HANSON, Lowell D.
301 Soil Science
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Soils Ext. Specialist
University of Minnesota
HARNACK, Ronald D.
Space Center Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Administrative Hydro!ogist
MN DNR - Division of Waters
-------
368
Participants
HAYES, Chuck K.
1935 W. County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
Planner
MN Pollution Control Agency
HEIKEL, Brandt
Duluth, MN 55802
Soil Scientist/Envir. Planning
St Louis Co. Planning Zone
HENDRICKSON, Harold R.
2395 W. Washington Avenue
West Bend, WI
Board Representative
Wis. Board of S.W.L.D.
HICKOK, Eugene A.
Washington D.C.
Agricultural Engineer, Engineering
Division, SCS, Washington D.C.
HIGHFILL, Richard E.
Agricultural Engineer, Engineering
Division, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington D.C.
HOBAN, Tom
Wisconsin Board of Soil and
Water Conservation
HOLMES, Norman
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Supervisor
Frontier Conservation District
HOWARD, Bill
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Planning Commissioner
City of Maplewood
HURST, William D.
67 Kingsway Avenue
Manitoba, Canada, R3M062
Canadian Representative
Am. Public Works Association
IMERMAN, Sheryl K.
1815 University Avenue
Madison, WI
Soil & Water Conservation
Specialist, BSWCD
ISBERG, Gunnar C.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
President, Isberg, Riesenberg.
Chelseth & Associates, Inc.
ISENSEE, James H.
City Hall, Red Wing, MN
Assistant City Engineer
City of Red Wing
JENSEN, Marie
7 Hillside Court
Northfield, MN 55057
City Council Member
City of Northfield
JENSEN, Steven
Bldg. #1, RM 10 - 2033 S. State
Salt Lake City, UT
Assistant Director
Salt Lake County Water Quality
JIWANI, Mahedi A.
250 N. Central Avenue
Wayzata, MN
Engineer, Hennepin Soil & Water
Conservation District
JOHNSON, Daniel P.
6875 Highway #65
Minneapolis, MN 55432
Engineer, Suburban Engineering
JOHNSON, Gregg
300 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Local Assistance Planner
Metropolitan Council
JOHNSON, Jean M.
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Asst. Planner
City of Eden Prairie
-------
Participants
369
JOHNSON, J1m C.
1400 38th Street
Sioux City, IA
VIce-Presldent, Carl Johnson
Land Development
JOHNSON, John C.
7601 Kentucky Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55428
Project Engineer
Klrkham Michael and Associates,Inc,
JOHNSON, Leonard C.
1815 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
Program Chairman
W1s. Board of Soil & Water C.D.
JOHNSON, Michael L.
14600 Mlnnetonka Boulevard
Mlnnetonka, MN 55343
JOHNSON, Nell M.
5800 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Director of Public Works
City of Brooklyn Park
KEEFE, Michael
Planning Commission
ColUnsvllle, IL 62234
Environmental Planner III
S.W. ILL. Metro & Regional
KENDZIORSKI, David B.
Planning commission
Waukasha, WI 53186
Senior Water Quality Planner
Southeastern WIs. Regional
KIRKPATRICK, George Jr.
Gainesville, Florida
President, Kirkpatrlck
Builders, Inc., Gainesville
KLEMENHAGEN, Larry
Rochester, MN
Operational Supervisor
Olmstead County
KLUEGEL, Rand
Room 101- Capitol Square
St. Paul, MN 55101
Environmental Analyst
MN State Planning Agency
KNAEBLE, Peter
6875 Highway 65 N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55432
Civil Engineering
Suburban Engineering
KOEHLER, Dan
14900 61st Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Planner, Washington Co. Planning
KOUSMANN, Conrad
Conservation Department
Still water, MN 55082
Washington SWCD
KUJAWA, Thomas P.
901 N. 9th Street - Room 201
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Supervisor
Milw. Co. Board of Supervisors
KWIATKOWSKI, Chet
3161 Maple Grove Road
Duluth, MN 55811
Chairman Planning & Zoning
City of Hermantown
LAKE, James E.
1025 Vermont Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Program Specialist
Nat'l Association of Conservation
LANG, Boris S.
Crofton, Maryland
President, Crofton Properties, Inc
LARSON, Greg
1260 Dorland Road
Maplewood, MN 55119
Program Specialist, Minn. SWCB
-------
370
Participants
LAYER, Robert W.
2200 N. Seminary
Woodstock, IL 60098
Staff Engineer
Me Henry Co. Regional Planning
LATIMER, George
347 City Hall
Mayor, City of St. Paul
Mir lesota
LAUDENSLAGER, Richard E.
Wernersville, Pennsylvania
Soils Engineer, Dept. of Envir.
Resources, Bureau of Soil & Water
Conservation, State Cons. Comm.
LEE, Warren M.
300 120th Street N.E.
Redmond, HA
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
LEHMANN, Richard
Madison, Wisconsin
Associate Professor, Dept. of
Governmental Affairs,
University of Wisconsin-Extension
LEIDER, MARK J.
Court House
Sheboygan, WI 53081
County Planning Director
CTY. Planning & Resource Dept.
LENTHE, Charles
5800 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Assistant City Engineer
City of Brooklyn Park
LEWIS, Jeffrey R.
New Ulm, MN
Area Hydrologist
Minnesota DNR
LIVINGSTON, Eric
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Environmental Specialist
Fla. Dept. Environ. Reg.
LOKKESMOE, Kent
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Regional Hydrologist
MN DNR Waters
LUECHT, Dale W.
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL
Chief-MN/WIS.
USEPA - Water
WQM Section
Division
LUNDBERG, Marilyn D.
600 American Center Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Executive Secretary
Southern MN River Basin Board
LUNDQUIST, Dwight
Towns Edge Shopping Center
Farmington, MN 55024
Supervisor
Dakota County SWCD
LYBERGER, Ron D.
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Planner
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
MAC GILLIVRAY, Donald J.
1602 4th Street S.E.
Rochester, MN
Design Engineer
City of Rochester
MACE, Richard
Waukesha, Wisconsin
Assistant Planning Director
Waukesha Co. Park & Planning Com.
MADIGAN, Thomas
590 40th Avenue N.E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Assistant City Engineer,
City of Columbia Heights
-------
Participants
371
MAJOR, Harry M.
200 Federal Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
State Conservationist, USDA
Soil Conservation Service
MALAND, James R.
14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Engineering Assistant
City of Minnetonka
MARCH, Rick
RM 228 - Federal Building
Rapid City, South Dakota
Soil Conservation Service
MARTIN, James S.
Box 32414
Charlotte, NC 28232
Engineer
Celanese Fibers Marketing Co.
MAY, Peter H.
142 Emerson Hall - Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY
RCA Program Assistant
N.Y.S. Soil & Water Cons. Comm,
MC KELLIPS, Allen Lee
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Engineering Technician
City of Minnetonka
MC LOUD, Philip R.
830 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Hydraulic Engineer
VA Soil & Water Cons. Comm.
MELSTAD, James
Oept. of Health & Env. Science
Helena, MT 59601
Sanitary Engineer
State of Montana
MILLER, Doug
8003 Silas Creek Parkway
Winston-Sal em, NC 27106
NC Dept. of Resources
MOELLER, Mark K.
City Hall Fourth & Lafayette
Winona, MN 55987
Senior Planner
City of Winona
MOLDENHAUER, W. C.
Agronomy Dept. - Purdue University
Lafayette, IN
Research Leader
U.S.D.A. - SEA - AR
MOON, Louise P.
Wallace Building
Des Moines, IA 50312
Committee Member
Iowa Soil conservation
MORGAN, Larry M.
1408 Pioneer Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Project Manager
T.K.D.A. Inc.
MORRISON, Darrel G.
Madison, Wisconsin
Professor and Chairman, Dept.
of Landscape Architecture
University of Wisconsin
MULLER, Terry
5800 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Project Engineer
City of Brooklyn Park
NELSON, Jeffrey W.
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
City Administrator
City of Mounds View
-------
372
Participants
NELSON, Thomas
CIN Place of CMppewa City
Hammond, WI
Ass't Zoning Administrator
St. Croix City Zoning
NEWMARK, Joan F.
Watershed District St. Paul, MN
Manager
Ramsey-Washington Metro
NIELSEN, Jeffrey D.
Box 756 Highway 15 South
New Ulm, MN 56073
S.W.C.B. - Representative
Soil & Water Conservation BD.
NUNNALLY, Nelson R.
Charlotte, North Carolina
Professor, Dept. of Geography and
Earth Sciences, University of NC
NYLUND, David
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
New. Eng. Div. Corps of Eng.
OLSON, Alan
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Village Planner, City of Orono
OLSON, David L.
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Engineering Technician
City of Eden Prairie
OLSON, Leonard
100 Sibley Street
Hastings, MN
Public Works Director
City of Hastings
OLSON, Patricia
Box 10G - Centennial Building
Minneapolis, MN 55155
Land Use Hydro!ogist
Dept. of Natural Resources
OSCANYAN, Paul
Rockville, Maryland
Consultant
OBENAUF, Ken OTTERSON, Peter H.
Athens, Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
Staff Engineer, Erosion & Sediment Grand Rapids, MN 55744
Control Specialist, Georgia State Area Hydrologist
Soil & Water Conservation Committee State Of Minnesota
OBERTS, Gary L.
St. Paul, Minnesota
Senior Environmental Planner
Metro Council, Twin Cities Area
O'NEILL, Charles W.
P.O. Box 4128
Tumwater, WA 98501
President, W.A.C.D.
OEMICHEN, William P.
200 Federal Building
St. Paul, MN
Ass't State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
OWEN, Dave
401 Townes Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Site Designer - Landplan Inc,
PAYNE, H. E.
Ill 7th Street N.E.
Rochester, MN 55901
C.H.B. - The Kruse Company
PEDERSEN, Steven W.
600 American Center Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Alternate Commissioner GLBC
Water Planning Board
-------
Participants
373
PENDOWSKI, Jim
Div. of Water Pollution Center
Marion, IL 62959
Regional Coordinator
Illinois, E.P.A.
PERKINS, Calvin J.
2nd Floor - 253 Route 211 East
Middletown, NY 10940
Area Conservationist
Ulster Co. Savings Bank
PERSAUD, Deo
1st Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Marine & Construction Engineer
Ministry of Environment
PETERSON, Bruce A.
6875 Highway #65 N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55432
District Engineer
Suburban Engineering
PETERSON, David
2300 Silver Creek Road N.E.
Rochester, MN 55901
Board Representative
MN Soil & Water Conservation Board
PETERSON, John W.
EPA HDQ. 401 "M" Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Soil Conservationist
EPA SCS Detail
PFAHLER, David
Pierre, South Dakota
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of Water & Natural Resources
PICKRELL, Stoddard M., Jr.
P.O. Box 1269
Alachua, FL 32615
Administrative Assistant
Soil & Water Conservation
PILE, Deborah R.
1935 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
Planner
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
POCREVA, Robert
Planning Committee
Collinsville, IL 62234
Engineer
Southwestern IL. Metro & Reg.
POLLARD, Ben
20 State Capitol
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Planning Assistant
Oklahoma Conservation Comm.
POND, Dennis
Department of Natural Resources
St. Paul, MN 55155
Erosion Control Specialist
Soil & Water Conservation Board
PRESTIN, Steve
Space Center Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Shore!and Mgmt. Hydro!ogist
PYLE, Ken
538 Memory Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
RACE, Samuel R.
P.O. Box 1888
Trenton, NJ
Coordinator, N.J. Dept. of Agri .
N.J. Department of Agriculture
READ, David
1200 South Broadway Suite 140
Rochester, MN 55901
Pollution Control Specialist
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
-------
374
Participants
REED, Kenneth D.
444 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
Principal Hydrologist
Dept. of Natural Resources
REINERT, Vernon F.
Department of Natural Resources
St. Paul, MN 55155
Executive Director
Soil and Water Conservation
RICHARDSON, Brandt F.
St. Paul, Minnesota
Senior Hydrologist,
Minn. Water Planning Board
RICHARDSON, Jim
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairies, MN 55344
Engineer Technician
City of Eden Prairie
RIPPKE, Jon A.
219 North Main Street
Mankato, MN 56001
Project/Design Engineer
Bolton and Menk Inc.
ROBERTS, Don
230 S. Deerborne
Chicago, IL 60604
Water Resources Planner
U.S. E.P.A.
ROBINETTE, James A.
8830 207th Street W.
Lakeville, MN
Public Works Director
City of Lakeville
ROMAN, Les
Court House
Morristown, NJ
Director,
Morris County SCD
RODS, Amos
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Engineer
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
RUDRUD, Ronald L.
2215 W. Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
City engineer
Bd. City of Bloomington
SAHABANDU, A. G.
Downsview, Ontario, Canada
Project Engineer, The Metro
Toronto & Region Cons. Authority
SAVAGE, Eugene C.
1815 University Avenue
Madison, WI
Executive Secretary
Bed S.W.C.D.
SCHEVENIUS, John
Minneapolis, MN 55419
Staff Engineer
General Mills Inc.
SCHILLING, Joel
1935 W. County Road B2
Roseville, MN
Coord., Clean Lakes Grant Prog.
Minn. Pollution 6ontrol Agency
SCHOLL, Harold E.
16118 Jerald Road
Laurel, MD 20810
State Resource Conservationist
USDA-SCS
SCHULTE, Gerald J.
103 Fairview Drive
South Sioux City, NE 68776
Vice President
Schulte Construction Ihc.
-------
Participants
375
SCHULTZ, Marc A.
916 N. East Avenue
Madison, WI
Resource Agent
University Extension
SCILLEY, P. Maynard
Room 200 - Federal Building
St. Paul, MN
State Soil Scientist
U.S.D.A. - SCS
SEELEY, Gerard, Jr.
Richmond, Virginia
Chief Engineer, Virginia Soil &
Water Conservation Commission
SETTLES, Joel C.
250 N. Central Avenue
Wayzata, MN
Dist. Limnology
Hennepin Soil & Water Conservation
SIME, Harley A.
11819 Stoughton Avenue
Tomah, WI 54660
Surveyors
H.A. Sime and Associates
SNYDER, Ella M.
35 S. Grady Way Suite B
Benton, WA 98055
Manager
King County Soil Conservation
SOLBERG, Curt
City Hall - Box 34
Red Wing, MN 55066
City of Red Wing
SONNENBERG, David J.
City Hall
River Falls, WI 54022
City Engineer
City of River Falls
SPURRIER, H.R.
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
City Engineer
City of Shakopee
STATSER, Richard L.
2221 Devine Street -Suite 222
Columbia, SC 29205
Chief Planning & Developing
Land Resources
STEFANIAK, Philip A.
1616 Humboldt Avenue
West St. Paul, MN 55118
Director of Public Works
City of West St. Paul
STEWART, David E.
P.O. Box 4184
Madison, WI 53715
SWECKER, George R.
830 E. Main Street - Suite 800
Richmond, VA 23219
Soil & Water Conservation Spec.
VA Soil & Water Cons. Commission
SWEENEY, John R.
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Assistant City Engineer
City of Minnetonka
TAUER, Wayne
6875 Highway #65 N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55432
Land Planner
Suburban Engineering
TAYLOR, Mary Jane
Box 34
Red Wing, MN 55066
City Council President
City of Red Wing
-------
376
Participants
THOMAS, Doug
Conservation Department
Still water, MN 55082
District Resource Conservationist
Washington Co. Soil & Water
THOMPSON, Karen
2500 Shadywood Road - Box 90
Navarre, MN 55392
Information Specialist
Freshwater Society
TOMPKINS, Marian A.
Wallace Bldg. - 900 E. Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
Environmental Specialist
IA Dept. of Environ. Quality
THRONSON, Robert
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Engineer
Implementation Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
TRIGGER, Grant R.
Detroit, Michigan
Environmental Engineer, Southeast
MI Council of Governments
URBAN, Donald
384 Ventura Club Drive
Roselle, IL 60172
Planning Committee, Region V
U.S. Environ. Protection Agency
VANCE, Lawrence G.
Wallace State Office Guilding
Des Moines, IA 50319
Director
Iowa Dept. of Soil Conservation
VICTOR, Timothy J.
County-City Building
Steven Point, WI 54481
District Resource Conserv.
Portage County SWCD
WAGNER, Lloyd
Box 44 Centennial Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Environmental Studies Forester
Dept. of Natural Resources
WALKER, Susan J.
830 E. Main Street - Suite 800
Richmond, VA 23219
Soil & Water Cons. Specialist
Virginia Soil & Water Cons. Com.
WEIBERG, Erling
555 Wabasha Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Executive Secretary
MN Water Resources Board
WELLS, John R.
600 American Center
St. Paul, MN 55101
Senior Hydrologist
MN Water Planning Board
WENDLAND, Stan
1827 No. St. Paul Road
Maplewood, MN 55109
District Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
WERNICKE, Werner
Cultural Affairs P.O. Box 4340
St. Thomas, VI
Director-Div. of Coastal Mgmt.
Department of Conservatfon
WHITMAN, Elizabeth
Afton, MN 55001
Vice-Chairman
Mission of Afton
WIDUTA, Stephen
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Board Representative
Minnesota SWCB
-------
Participants 377
WIEB, Jacob
Afton, MN
Planning Commission
City of Afton
MILLET, Gerald L.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Minnesota State Senator
WILLIAMS, Robert E.
1025 Vermont Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Director of Special Projects
N.A.C.D.
YOUN6E, Michael J.
519 4th Avenue S.W.
Rochester,* MN 55901
Younge Bros. Construction Co.
ZITZMANN, Warren T.
Arlington, VA 22207
Community Planner, U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, Wash. D.C,
-------
378
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on The reverse before completing}
REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-80-002
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Proceedings National Conference on Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control: Institutions and Technology
5. REPORT DATE
January 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
National aud State Representatives
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
B-241
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Conference - October 1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. EPA
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Sponsors included National and State organizations as listed in the report.
6. ABSTRACT
The purpose of this Conference was to review the state-of-the-art on urban erosion
and sediment control. This conference brought together many individuals with a great
deal of expertise to discuss soil erosion and sediment problems, in the urban centers,
fringe areas, and sattelite growth centers. It also focused attention on land manage-
ment techniques, social and institutional structures, and other mechanisms by which
soil erosion and water problems may be reduced to acceptable levels.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Soil erosion
Urban erosion
Sediment control
Institutional
Water quality
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Public distribution- Available through
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va. 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
396
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-653-715
------- |