Community Action Guidebook for
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
                  Mel D. Powell
                 William C. Winter
                William P. Bodwitch
    NACORF • National Association of Counties Research Foundation
        1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

association of
research foundation
water pollution
The research to, this publication
was performed In accordance with
Grant Number 15030 DTL. with the
41. S. Department of Interior, Federal
Waler Pollution Contra/Administration.
Erosion and sediment, once thought of as rural problems, are causing
extensive damage to the soil and water resources of developing communi-
ties. Sediment caused by careless development and construction has
become one of the Nation’s most serious sources of water pollution.
The National Association of Counties Research Foundation (NACORF).
under contract with the U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, has developed this guidebook to assist
local officials in their efforts to control growing sedimentation problems.
Specifically this guidebook will help local officials to organize pla i finance,
staff, and implement comprehensive sedimentation control programs. in
addition, it serves the all-important function of helping local officials and
administrators understand what is basically a technical problem and con-
versely, it will help soil and water experts and technicians understand the
administrative aspects of sedimentation control. This mutual understanding
will be necessary if effective control is to be achieved.
Environmental problems have become critical, and cooperation between
all levels of government will be required in a massive effort to restore and
maintain environmental quality. The skills, knowledge and enthusiasm of
local officials wiU be a key factor in this effort. We hope this guidebook
will assist local officials in making wise management decisions. consistent
with the growing concern for environmental quality.
Bernard F. Hiflenbrand
Executive Director
The Community Action Guidebook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
has been developed by the National Association of Counties Research
Foundation under a grant from the U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal
Water POllution Control Administration, The purpose of the guidebook is to
promote the concept of soil and water management in general, and to
develop an understanding of sedimentation control principles in particular.
The concepts and principles presented are based on a year of research,
including visits to federal and state agencies and fourteen visits to local
sedimentation control programs across the United States. The material, in
essence, describes a model approach which, with appropriate modifica-
tions, may be used by many local governments to control their sedimenta-
tion problems.
Successful sedimentation control, in the final analysis, will be dependent
upon cooperation between local governments, and between various levels
of government. We urge the readers of this guidebook to make a commit-
ment to sound principles of soil and water management and to provide the
initiative, energy, and cooperation needed for effective sedimentation control.
David 0, Dominick
- — - ---- -

              Community  Action  Guidebook

     for  Soil  Erosion  and  Sediment   Control
                             Mel D. Powell, Ph.D., Project Director
                             William C. Winter, Research Associate
                            William P. Bodwitch, Research Assistant


A Survey of the Problem   	2

Organizing an Erosion and Sediment Control Program   . .	7

Areawide Approaches   	13

Legal Authority   	18

Planning for Sedimentation Control	26

Public Acceptance and Support   	32

Finance  	36

Personnel   	47

Implementation and Control   	52

Action Guide for Erosion and Sediment Control   	59

Appendix   	62


In addition to the funding and management of the project by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,  the
research and preparation of this guidebook was assisted by the contribution of ideas and concepts of members of  the
Sediment Conference Steering Committee. NACORF is grateful to Carl Johnson, Director of the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin, who served as Chairman of the Committee; and to Darwin Wright, John Churchill, FWPCA, and
Paul Howard, A/S Public Land Management, of the U.S. Department of the Interior; Norman Berg, Edward Keil, Hubert
Kelly, Soil Conservation Service, Clarence Britt, Agriculture Research Service, William Whyte, Office of Information, of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture; David Unger, National Association of Conservation Districts; and George White, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Darwin Wright, FWPCA, served as project officer.

PHOTO CREDITS - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service                       March, 1970

chapter one
The growth of American suburbia has received its
impetus from a combination of forces, including American
wealth, the automobile and the initiative, energy and
technical expertise of American industry. More and more, it
is being recognized that these forces have propelled
suburban development forward without sufficient
consideration being given to the impact that such growth is
having on man’s relationship with his natural environment.
In the nation’s developing suburban areas, and urban
areas, extensive alteration of the landscape and intensive
use of the land have resulted in serious imbalances between
soil and water. As a result, erosion and sediment, once
thought of as exclusively rural problems, have become
serious problems in urban and suburban America.
Despite the fact that suburban erosion and sediment
cause extensive pollution of water bodies, cost millions
annually in damages to homes, roads and recreational areas,
and in some areas even threaten domestic water supplies,
very few localities in the nation have organized and
implemented erosion and sediment control measures. The
purpose of this chapter is to describe the nature of
man-made erosion and sediment problems in urban and
suburban areas, and to discuss why it is important for local
communities to organize erosion and sediment control
Sedimentation involves the processes by which mineral
or organic matter is detached, transported or deposited by
moving water, wind or gravity. The detachment process is
erosion, and the detached particles being transported or
deposited are considered sediment.
The amount of sediment yielded on a national scale is
astonishingly high. It is estimated that the total amount of
sediment moving into the nation’s rivers, lakes, estuaries,
reservoirs, streams and other water bodies reaches four
billion cubic yards each year. 1 Sediment yields from large
watersheds in many parts of the country range from three
to ten tons per acre per year. In addition, the nation’s
roadsides produce over 56 million tons of sediment
annually. 2 The President’s Task Force on the Quality of the
Environment reported that stream channel erosion moves
sediment into streams at the rate of about 500 million tons
a year. 3 In the nation’s reservoirs, annual deposits of
sediment are estimated to exceed 850,000 acre-feet. This
is approximately equivalent to the combined land area of
Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., one foot deep.
Erosion and sediment are expensive problems. It is
estimated that each year over one-half billion cubic yards of
sediment are dredged from waterways. 5 The U.S.
Department of Agriculture reports the total cost of such
sediment damage and dredging to be approximately 500
million dollars. In addition, it costs approximately 16
million dollars each year just to remove sediment from
irrigation ditches. These figures do not take into account
the damages to soil (S800 million annually in agricultural
areas), and to homes, roads, businesses, bridges, yards, and
recreational areas. 6
Sources of Sediment
Soil erosion, the displacement of soil by the force of
moving water, wind, or gravity, accounts for the greatest
bulk of suspended materials in the nation’s waters. In
addition to the fact that most sediment is derived from
eroded soil, such erosion is a serious and costly problem in
itself. Soil erosion has been referred to as a silent thief
which robs topsoil from farms, leaves gaping scars in
landscapes, undermines houses, roads and bridges, and
contributes to flooding. Soil erosion and sediment are twin
problems, linked by the pull of gravity. It is not possible to
separate the problem of sediment damage from the problem
of soil erosion. Damage is inflicted at the scene where soil is
eroded, where it is washed downstream, and where
sediment remains suspended or conies to rest.
Efforts to control sediment pollution must be concerned
not only with treatment of water which is already affected
by sediment, but also with controlling the massive amounts
of soil being washed into waterways each day. The control
of soil erosion is a key element in upgrading the quality of
the nation’s water resources.
Efforts to control soil erosion should focus on three
broad categories of land disturbance. First, it should be
recognized that a significant proportion of soil erosion is of
the “natural” or geological type. Natural erosion occurs as
the result of interaction among various environmental
elements. Land untouched by man is susceptible to erosion
caused by wind, precipitation, and moving water.
Man’s agricultural, forestry and mining activities produce
another type of erosion. In the United States, an estimated
three billion tons of soil are washed from cultivated and
overgrazed ranges each year. 7 Sediment yields from
agricultural lands in watersheds along the lower Mississippi,
for example, average about ten tons per acre per year. In
the Southeast, sediment yields average about seven tons per
acre per year. It is suggested by some sources that about
one ton per acre per year is an acceptable sediment yield
rate from croplands. 8 Therefore, even though considerable
success has been achieved in controlling agricultural erosion
Survey of the Problem

through scientific farming methods such as contour
farming, strip cropping and terracing. the amount of soil
eroding from agricultural lands continues to be extensive.
A third cause of soil erosion is associated with suburban
development. At the present time, more than 4,000 acres of
agricultural land are being converted to other uses daily.
such as houses, roads and highways, schools, businesses,
industries, and other improvements. 9 Development on such
a massive scale requires extensive disturbance of land
involving the movement of niillions of tons of topsoil and
vegetation. As a consequence of such development, natural
watershed drainage patterns are often disrupted without
providing appropriate compensation.
Evidence being made available by current research
suggests that sediment yields in areas undergoing suburban
development can be as much as five to 500 times greater
than in rural areas. 1 ° A report published in 1963 by the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
estimated that sediment from urban developments in the
Potomac Basin ran as high as 50 times that yielded from
agricultural lands. In some urbanizing areas along the
Potomac, the sediment yield was as much as 39 tons and
more per acre per year. The 14,870 square miles of land
draining into the Potomac river basin, for example,
contribute two and one-half million tons of sediment to the
Potomac estuary each year.
r .. [ - : ‘
Erosion in suburbani:ing communities may be 500 timnes greater
than in rural areas.
Sedimentation in Suburbia
viewed the fiuure of their lake wit/ I
alarm. Technical studies revealed that
each square mile of suburban con-
struction upstream contributed an
average of 25,000 tons of sediment to
the lake. The deterioration of the lake
was a threat to its recreational value,
as ivell as to the property values.
Located adjacent to the growing
R’ashington, D. C metropolitan area,
Fairfax (i)untv, Virginia has expe-
rienced extensive suburbanization
during the last ten years. During this
time, Fairfax County has changed
from a rural to a predominately
suburban area.
The suburbanization process in
Fairfax County has been characterized
by massive movement of topsoil, and
the replacement of natural vegetation
by streets, highways, buildings, and
many other changes. As a result. many
areas within the county have beeiz
inflicted with serious sedimentation
mounted an effort to place legal
responsibility for sediment damage on
the parties causing soil to erode. This
effort, involving teamwork among
several local groups, culminated in the
adoption of official erosion and
sediment control measures by the
county government in 1966.
The Fairfax County sediment
Concerned citizens and groups in
the community organized to combat
the sedimentation problem. Initial
problems. One such area is the Lake
Barcroft Community where local cii i-
zens and groups have waged an uphill
struggle for several years to protect
their 135-acre lake from massive
sediment loads. The lake, which
constitutes an aesthetic and recrea-
tional community asset, was found
severn! years ago to be filling in with
soil washed from unprotected con
efforts to stop sediment at its
source—upstream construction sites—
were stymied, however, because no
legal provisions existed by which
sediment producing activities could be
regulated. To save the lake, local
citizens and groups were forced to
dredge large loads of sediment. The
Lake Barcroft Community Associa-
tion, in cooperation with other active
groups, has raised and spent over
5300,000 to remove sediment from
the lake and to construct improved
drainage. Qirrently, about 15,000
cubic yards of sediment are dredged
from Lake Barcroft even’ three years.
Not content to dredge sediment on
trol program is considered by many to
be one of the most effective of such
local programs in the nation. It is
grounded in county law, and is staffed
and operated by existing local
agencies. including the Northern
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
District, and the County Department
of Public Works, the County Planning
Commission, and the Department of
Count Development.
The experience of Fairfax County
clearly illustrates how su burbanization
can produce costly sedimentation
problems, and how these problems can
struction sites upstream.
Sediment studies conducted on
lake Barcroft explain why citizens
a permanent basis, local leaders
be brought under controL The Quapter
on Legal Authority includes a descrip-
tion of how the Fairfax County
sedimentation control program is

Even after development, erosion and sediment continue
to plague suburbia. In areas of intense suburban growth, it
is common for flat surfaces such as roads, roofs, parking
lots, and lawns to replace natural vegetation by close to 100
per cent. As a result, more water runs much faster off the
entire suburban area frequently causing downstream
flooding and erosion.
In addition, a type of sediment, sometimes referred to as
“sanitation debris,” is prevalent in all urban and urbanizing
areas. Sanitation debris, or “street litter,” consists of dirt
and dust, leaves, twigs, grass clippings, tin cans, tree
branches, material eroded from buildings and sidewalks,
fallout of air pollution particles, household refuse and other
streetwash. Such litter becoines sediment pollution when it
is carried into waterbodies by storm runoff, thawing, or by
street washing operations.
The fact that street litter constitutes a major source of
water pollution is not widely known. A recent study
reports that the average amount of street litter in those
areas examined varied from 0.5 to eight pounds per 100
feet of curbing per day. 12
The huge sediment yields in suburbia clearly illustrate
that suburban development does not take place in a void.
but instead occurs within watersheds where soil and water
interact with intensive force. One inch of rain, for example,
falling on a one square mile surface has a total weight of
about 70,000 tons. 13 This means that a watershed which
receives 20 inches of rain a year will receive an impact of
about 1.4 million tons of water weight per square mile per
year. When soil is exposed to this force, the resulting
damage can be expensive and irreversible.
Effects of Sediment
Sediment has many harmful effects on water which serve
both to impair water quality and to reduce the quantity of
available water supplies.
By interfering with the penetration of sunlight, some
types of sediment particles reduce the capacity of water
organisms to absorb waste materials. As a result, the ability
of water to purify itself is impaired. The oxygen content of
water is also reduced by sediment particles, which
endangers the survival of aquatic life such as fish and plants.
In several areas of the country, excessive silt has covered
the spawning beds of fish, causing a decline in water-based
Sediment also threatens public health and safety by
carrying radioactive substances, nitrates, pesticides, and
other toxic materials into public water supplies. In
addition, harmful bacteria often cling to, or are absorbed
by, sediment particles which pose health dangers to water
users. Excessive sedimentation produces stagnant streams,
lakes and ponds which may endanger community health. In
the Southeast, for example, many years of effort to control
mosquito breeding have been lost because sediment has
filled drainage channels. Public safety is frequently
endangered due to the many floods occuring each year
because sediment has choked flood prevention reservoirs,
leaving little space for storm waters.
Excessive sediment also interferes with water treatment
operations. In the many urban areas having combined storm
and sanitary sewer systems, increased runoff from
rainstorms often overburdens treatment facilities, and,
consequently, untreated sewage is carried past treatment
plants into rivers. In many such areas, increased runoff
caused by suburban growth has made storm water and
sewer systems completely inadequate. This probleni is far
more extensive than is generally realized. The Soil
Conservation Society of America reports that “suspended
solids reaching the nation’s streams by way of surface
runoff are estimated to be at least 700 times the volume of
sewage discharges.” 4 In terms of volume, sediment ranks
above sewage, industrial wastes, and chemical pollution
Seuiment also damages recreational waters, thereby
decreasing facilities at a time when the demand for outdoor
recreation is expected to triple within 30 years. Sediment
inflicts millions of dollars of danrnge on homeowners in the
form of cleanup and repair costs and in decreased property
values. During storms, sediment in rushing streams alters
normal drainage flow which in turn damages trees and other
plant life. After storms, sediment can be observed covering
streets, filling drainage channels and clogging sewer lines.
The cost of water treatment increases when sediment
interferes with water supplies. The annual cost of removing
excess turbidity from public water supplies is estimated to
be 14 million dollars. 15 Suspended sediment can also cause
damage to power producing equipment which in turn
causes higher electricity costs.
One of the more serious effects of sediment is that it
causes a considerable amount of water to be displaced in
the nation’s water supply reservoirs. The cost of storage
space lost to sediment is high — about 50 million dollars
annually. 16 More importantly, about 850,000 acre feet of
storage space is lost at a time when the need for potable
water supplies is expected to double within 30 years.
The causes of urban soil erosion differ considerably from
the causes of agricultural erosion. In agricultrual areas, soil
erosion occurs during the activities involved in food and
fiber production and by other agricultural activities. In
urban areas, the causes of erosion and sediment are much
more complex. involving the activities of numerous
organizations and different levels of government.
Homebuilding, for example, is one of the primary causes of
urban sediment, and homebuilding operations involve a
complex series of logistical, administrative, and legal
considerations. The construction of highways and other
public facilities have equally complex operational
considerations which make urban sediment far more
difficult to control than agricultural erosion.
Technical Means Are Available
Many of the technical means by which suburban
sediment and erosion can be controlled are available. While
soil erosion cannot be completely controlled, there are
documented cases where the application of technical

measures has decreased erosion and thereby reduced
sediment by a significant amount. Current research and
experimentation suggest that many of the same techniques
used successfully to control erosion in agricultural areas are
similarly effective in urban areas. The Chapter on
Implementation and Control discusses some of these
techniques. What is most urgently needed at this time is the
development and adoption of the organization procedures
which can muster and apply the technical knowledge that is
Erosion and Sediment Are L.ocal Problems
Erosion and sediment inflict heavy damages upon local
governments, businesses and citizens. The financial costs to
local communities caused by these problems have been
staggering in many areas. These costs are born by the local
communities either through higher taxes or direct
expenditures to repair damage to private property. Many of
these costs are unnecessary in that through proper planning
and organization, much of the damage can be orevented.
Increasingly, it is being recognized that local officials
must assume their share of the responsibility for managing
the natural resources of their community. The federal and
state governments can and do offer guidelines and
assistance to local areas. However, the bulk of the
responsibility for proper management of the environment
must come from local leaders, concerned citizens.
professional conservationists, businesses, industries, and
most importantly. local officials. The role of local officials
is important in this connection because they are primarily
responsible for making the policy decisions with regard to
how local resources are allocated and used. As the demand
on local resources, such as land, increases, the demand for
wise decisions with regard to their use will also increase.
This chapter explains, in general terms, the nature and
extent of the erosion and sediment problems facing this
nation’s growing urban and suburban areas. There are
several important points which deserve to be emphasized.
An important characteristic of the sedimentation process
is that, although the problem is widespread in the United
States, not all areas are affected in the same way or to the
same extent. Many areas undergoing suburban development
have experienced erosion or sediment problems’ only to a
limited degree, while in other areas they are very serious
and costly. Types of problems also vary. Some areas, such
as portions of the West Coast. may be primarily concerned
with mud slides, whereas other localities may have no
erosion problem, but instead receive heavy sediment loads
from localities upstream. Still other areas experience
problems with sediment pollution from mining activities.
In addition, it is important that the soil erosion and
sediment problem in this country should be viewed as
constituting a substantial portion of the overall
deterioration of our environment. Although it is not
universally recognized as such, sediment is a pollutant.
Many authorities clearly indicate that sediment has several
of the same effects on water as do the more widely
recognized pollutants. In connection with this, it is
important to note that sediment pollution is a much more
extensive problem than is generally recognized. Moreover,
as the nation’s population climbs to a predicted 300 million
by the year 2000, sediment pollution caused by
development, redevelopment, and construction activities
will increase on a massive scale, unless effective control
programs are implemented.
1 —‘-- —
Streambank erosion mused by careless development quickly becomes pollution.

1. Environmental Currents, “Sediment is the Nation’s Main Water Pollution Burden.” Environmental Sci. and Technol., 2, 993 (1968),
Cited m• ‘ Bottom Deposits,” Journal Federal Water Pollution Control Federation, Annual Literature Review, 41 (June, 1969),
2. D.A. Williams, “A No-Man’s Land in Erosion Control,” Soil Conservation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, XXXII (April, 1967),
3. Ibid.
4. Position Statement by Sub-Committee to Develop Position Statement, Cornelius A. VanDoren, Chairman. Soil Conservation Society
of America, (No Date), p. 1.
5. “Sediment: It’s Filling Harbors, Lakes and Roadside Ditches,” Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 324, December, 1967, 3.
6. American Water Resources Association. Proceedings of the Second Annual American Water Resources conference (University of
Chicago, November, 1966), p. 82 .
7. W.E. Bullard, “Effects of Land Use on Water Resources,” Journal Water Pollution control Federation, (April. 1966), 646.
8. American Water Resources Association. Proceedings of the Second Annual American Water Resources conference (University of
Chicago, November, 1966) p. 80.
9. Address by Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Carl L. Klein before the National Conference on Sediment Control, Washington, D.C.,
September, 1969.
10. Position Statement by Sub-Committee to Develop Position Statement, Cornelius A. Van Doren, Chairman. Soil Conservation
Society of America, (No Date), p. 1.
11. A Program for Sediment Control in the Washington Metropolitan Region. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin,
Technical Bulletin 1963-1 (Washington, D.C., 1963), p. 18.
12. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff, Final
Report on The Causes and Remedies of Water Pollution from Surface Drainage of Urban Areas-Research Project No. 120, by the
American Public Works Association. Water Pollution Control Research Series WP-20-11 (January, 1969), p. 2.
13. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, “Urban Sediment Can be Controlled,” Proceedings of Winter Meeting (College
Park, Maryland, February, 1966) p.19.
14. Position Statement by Sub-Committee to Develop Position Statement, Cornelius A. VanDoren, Chairman. Soil Conservation Society
of America, (No Date) p. 1.
IS. American Water Resources Association. Proceedings of the Second Annual American Water Resources Conference (University of
Chicago, November, 1966), p. 82.
16. Ibid.

chapter two
Organizing an Erosion and Sediment Control Program
Despite the fact that erosion and sediment cause
extensive pollution of water bodies, cost millions annually
in damages to homes, roads and recreational areas, and in
some areas even threaten domestic water supplies, very few
localities in the nation have organized and implemented
erosion and sediment control measures. Organizing an
erosion and sediment control program in suburban and
urban areas is a difficult task. There are several reasons for
this, the primary one being that controlling soil erosion
requires that certain limitations be placed on various kinds
of land use. This procedure involves issues that are political
and administrative as well as scientific and technical.
Some areas experiencing heavy sediment yields have,
nevertheless, succeeded in bringing the problem under
control to a substantial extent. This suggests that the
problem of controlling erosion and sediment is not lack of
technical capability, but instead is a matter of human
initiative, and of determining how technical knowledge can
be organized, financed, administered, and implemented.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some of the
organizational problems associated with controlling erosion
and sediment and to describe some of the methods by
which control efforts can be organized at the local level.
The purpose of organizing for erosion and sediment
control is to provide a consistent, comprehensive, and
effective method of controlling erosion and sediment while,
at the same time, causing as little disruption as possible to
normal suburban and urban development and
redevelopment. The organized approach stands in contrast
to control efforts which do not coordinate all activities.
groups, individuals, and agencies which have a bearing on
the erosion and sediment problem.
Sedimentation control programs may be organized in
many different ways. Regardless of the organizational form
used, control programs should consider two basic factors.
The first condition to be considered is the nature and
extent of erosion and sediment problems. This means that
research must be conducted to determine where and how
much soil is being eroded, what the effects of sediment are.
and what control measures can be taken,
Another basic factor which niust be considered when
organizing a sedimentation control program is what legal
guidelines — federal, state and local are relevant. Local
governments need to determine what authority exists
before organizing, and if local authority to organize is
lacking, it will be necessary to obtain it through state
enabling legislation. For more information on legal
guidelines, see the Chapter on Legal Authority.
Establishing control over suburban and urban
sedimentation may be difficult because a control program
affects many different groups within a metropolitan or
suburban setting. Efforts to control erosion and sediment
may affect land use, land-use planning, construction
activities, drainage control policies, and the zoning process.
Developers, conservation agencies. citizens groups. water
management organizations, local and state governments,
and in cases where inter-state waters are affected, the
federal government will all have an interest in, or may be
affected by, a sedimentation control program.
By organizing a task force, composed of representatives
of these groups. it is possible to develop a control program
which will encourage the involvement of niany community
interests. This approach. referred to as the task force
approach. has been used successfully by several counties.
and it offers several advantages.
First, by involving as many groups as possible. the
chances are lessened that the program will separate those
who cause sedimentation problems from those who are
attempting to correct them. In most cases, these positions
are not clear, and, in many cases, they are interchangeable;
that is. those who create sediment, such as homebuilders,
may also be attempting to control sediment, and those who
are responsible for controlling sediment, such as local
governments, are also causing it. Thus, a value of the task
force approach is that it helps to promote a unified and
realistic recognition of the nature of the erosion and
sediment problem.
Another reason for obtaining involvement of diverse
groups in the control program is that the manpower
resources available to the program can be increased by
utilizing personnel from various participating groups. To be
effective, a sediment control program requires
professionally trained personnel, such as soil scientists,
agronomists, hydrology experts, and engineers. The task
force approach makes available personnel trained in various
disciplines when they are needed. For example. soil
scientists and other technically trained personnel are often
available on a cooperative basis from local conservation
districts; and hydrology experts are available from state
departments of water resources; departments of public
works are normally staffed with professional engineers, as
are the hornebuilding organizations: and planning agencies
can contribute professional planners from their staffs.
Citizens groups are also sources of manpower and can carry
out important responsibilities in connection with public
education programs.

With this trained manpower available, the task force can
coordinate and carry out much of the initial research
needed to develop a control program; such as research on
the physical and legal factors discussed above. Another
reason for encouraging involvement is to reduce resistance.
When several groups work together to solve erosion and
sediment problems, the resulting control program is likely
to be more effective. This is so because when a group
participates in the planning and organization of a program,
they are less likely to object to the implementation of the
Establishing control over erosion and sediment involves
making decisions with regard to how local resources are to
be planned, allocated and used. Specifically, a sediment
control program will frequently affect land use policy, the
quality of water resources, and will require the use of local
funds to support the control effort.
A sedimentation control program therefore represents a
form of soil and water resource management which must be
regarded as an important responsibility of local government
officials. The primary responsibility of local officials is to
develop the organizational and procedural forms for gaining
control over erosion and sediment, and to assume a
leadership role in the control program. The following
information describes some of the important aspects of
organizing a control program on a task force basis.
Development of a comprehensively organized program
should include the following five aspects:
(1) formal recognition by local elected officials
of the need for erosion and sediment
(2) formulation of administrative and legal
(3) assignment of specific responsibilities to
local agencies;
(4) provisions for on-site inspection of
sedimentation control efforts, including
provisions for maintenance of control
(5) program evaluation.
Each of these aspects is discussed in more detail below.
A Formal Recognition
Formal recognition of the need for erosion and sediment
control by local elected officials serves several purposes.
each of which is important to effective control. First.
formal recognition represents an official statement that
erosion and sediment problems do exist. In order for local
agencies to effectively control erosion and sediment, they
will need the support of local officials who have the
responsibility for making policy decisions related to
land-use activities. Second, a formal recognition by local
officials serves the purpose of establishing the position of
the “public interest” in favor of erosion and sediment
control. This, in effect, forms the justification for specific
legislation designed to control erosion and sediment. A
third purpose served by a formal recognition of control is
related to timing. Once erosion occurs, and sedinient is
That it is the policy of Montgomery County,
Maryland, to provide for control of soil erosion
particularly in the urbanizing areas of the county
by the adoption and implementation of a
Sediment Control Program for developments on
the public and private lands of the county.
WHEREAS. The people of the county have recognized
the problems of soil erosion by creating the Montgomery
Soil Conservation District, now operating a voluntary
conservation program in the open areas of the county, and
WHEREAS. The shifting of land use in Montgomery
County from agriculture to urban and suburban
development has substantially increased silt and sediment
problems on the lands and in the streams and lakes in the
county and in the Potomac River, and
WHEREAS. Sediment from developments has been
declared a pollutant within the meaning of Art. 96A Ann.
Code of Maryland 1957 Ch. 73. Laws of Md. 1964 entitled,
“Water Resources”. (a legal opinion by the office of the
Attorney General of Maryland) and
WHEREAS. Property owners suffering unreasonable
damage from sediment deposition or flooding of property
at downstream sites as a result of disturbance of watershed
areas upstream often must seek protection by the courts
against such damages.
2. That the various departments and branches of the
county government are directed to develop
policies and procedures and to implement this
program and the Builders Advisory Committee is
requested to work with the county agencies and
the builders to assist in this work.
3. That the landowirers and developers of
Montgomery County are urged to cooperate in
this program and to abide by its procedures and

yielded, prevention is impossible, and costly repairs usually
result. A formal recognition of control serves to notify the
general public that, henceforth, efforts will be made to
control erosion and sediment.
A formal recognition of the need for control is not in
itself normally legally binding. It closely resembles an
official policy statement which establishes a non-legal
position that local officials vote to assume. Such a position.
however, can serve as a basis for subsequently establishing
specific legal responsibilities.
Formulation of Administrative and Legal Controls
It is not usually possible to develop a sedimentation con-
trol program within a short period of time. Hastily
developed provisions may be ineffective if they are either
too demanding or not demanding enough. One
characteristic of successful control programs now in opera-
tion is that the legal provisions and administrative
procedures which constitute the backbone of control
programs have not been abruptly imposed hut instead have
been developed to their present form over a long period of
Compliance with sediment control legislation will be
difficult to enforce unless the community is aware of and
understands the need for regulation. A period of time will
be needed for the members of the community to become
acquainted with the control program and how it affects
them. This time period can also be used to make
Organizing a Program
(‘on tiguous wit/i the District of
Co lu in b ia, Mon tgo men’ Cou,itv,
Mary land is experiencing a large
measure of tile expanding suburban
development of tile Washington
Metropolitan al-ca. Development has
produced the problem o.f excessive
erosion ( f soil with losses ranging up
to 2,300 toils per square mile per year
in sonic watersheds; while smaller
areas lose soil at many times this rate.
This is due to the rolling topography.
the intensity of rainfall, the erodibilttv
of the soils, and the extent and
duration of exposure of bare soils
during development.
control fur the resulting sediment
began receiving serious county
attention wit/i initiation of the Rock
Creek Watershed Project in June,
1964. The project was designed to
create tivo multipurpose lakes through
tile construction of two dams. Prior to
construction of the second dam.
Maryland Soil (‘onseri ation Sen-ice
officials became acquainted wit/i
serious damage caused by sediment to
Lakes Barcroft and Acc-otink in
Fairfax Co un tv, Virginia. Tile
similarity of these lakes to tile planned
multipurpose lakes of tue Rock Oeek
Watershed Project was noted. In an
effort to prevent similar damage in the
Rock Oeek Watershed Project, the
Soil Conservation Sen’ice requested
tue Montgomery county Council to
state its zoning and erosion control
enforcement intentions in tile
watershed above both dams as a
condition to federal funding of the
second dam. Subsequent/i’, the
(‘ounty Council appointed a sediment
control task force consisting of the
following agencies:
1. Suburban Man/and
Ho me Bit ilders
.4 5 5 0 c i a t i o n
representing land
developers and the
building industry;
2. Ma ri land - National
Capital Park and
Pla nii ing (‘onimission,
the bi-county agency
responsible for the
preparation of Master
Plans and the
administration of
zoning and subdivision
3. Montgomery Soil
Cons ervation District,
the agency charged %s’ith
the responsibility •for
the promotion of wise
land use and adequate
land treatment for
erosion control;
4. Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission, a
bi-countv agency
responsible for
providing sewer and
water facilities.
In tue Spring of 1965, the task
force presented a voluntary sediment
control program to the County
Council. On June 29, 1965, the
sediment control program developed
by the task force became counn’
policy by ado ption of Mon tgomerv
Co uji ty Cot t ii cii R es olut ion
No.5-1954. ountv department heads
were charged with responsibility for
developing in-house policies and
procedures designed to implement this
pro grain. The (‘ouncil solicited the
voluntary cooperation of the building
Experience wit/i the voluntary
program indicated the need for
improving compliance with its
principles during private construction
activities. Thus. two years after
sediment control became a stated
county policy it also became
mandatory through adoption by the
County council of amendment (i) to
sectionl04-24 of the “Subdivision
Regulations for the
Ma rv land- Washington Regional
District within Montgomery county.
The amendment designates the
Montgomery Soil Comiservation
District as i/ic technical authority in
the program and tile count)’
department of public works as the
agency responsible for ensuring that
developers install sediment control
measures approved by the district.
Formal review of the first full year
of operation of the mandatory
program by the task force resulted in
further education efforts and a general
tigh telling up of enfurcement efforts.
T/i is was folIo wed by additional
training for inspection personnel of
the county department of public
works, with a view toward promoting
a better understanding of the technical
principles of erosion and sediment
control, and an improvement in

adjustments in the program to meet unanticipated
problems. Accordingly, it may prove helpful to launch the
program on a voluntary basis in order that various parties
can make appropriate adjustments. Legal provisions and
administrative procedures can then be made more firm at a
later date when initial difficulties have been worked out. A
balanced and flexible approach at this stage of the
program’s development may be important to overall
For many types of urban and suburban erosion, controls
may be implemented by placing appropriate stipulations
within subdivision regulations. These stipulations set in
motion a series of administrative and operational activities
designed to control sediment yields by limiting erosion
from subdivision construction sites. Some local
governments have curtailed erosion and sediment from
housing developments by stipulating within their
subdivision regulations that homebuilders must include
within their preliminary subdivision plans adequate
conservation provisions. The preliminary plans are reviewed
by appropriate local agencies for approval and
recommendation. In this way, protection against erosion
and sediment is built into the subdivision planning process
and protection can be provided before construction begins.
It may be necessary to make use of grading regulations in
cases where grading of land will contribute to the erosion
and sediment problem. The bulk of urban and suburban
sediment is derived from land that is graded, then left
exposed for weeks, months, or even years before
construction begins. Timing of the phasesof construction is
an extremely important factor in preventing erosion. A
basic principle of prevention is to leave a minimum amount
of land exposed for the shortest time practical.
Grading regulations may also be used to regulate such
practices as construction during rainy seasons; the depth to
which grading operations may cut the soil; the use of
borrow pits; filling and sloping operations; and may require
that grading be carried out with respect for topographical
features and natural vegetative cover. Normally. the
administration of grading regulations is a function of the
department of public works.
In addition to subdivision and grading regulations. other
administrative and legal methods that local governments
can use to help control sedimentation include drainage
regulations, land-use planning, and certain types of zoning.
Drainage regulations can be used to ensure that adequate
storm drainage systems are provided in all new subdivisions.
It is important that these drainage systems be capable of
accommodating the changed hydrology of the watershed as
development progresses.
Planning and zoning are closely related to sedimentation
control efforts. Most importantly, land-use planning and
zoning need to be premised on soil and water capabilities.
Because the relationship between sedimentation control
efforts and planning and zoning is complex, it is discussed
in more detail in the Chapter on Planning For Erosion and
Sediment Control.
Assignment of Responsibilities
Once appropriate regulations are adopted, they will need
to be implemented by assigning administrative
responsibilities to local agencies. The administrative
assignments may differ front place to place in accordance
with physical, historical, legal, political, organizational.
financial, and demographic variations.
Under the task force approach. responsibility for
administering controls is shared b several local agencies. A
frequently used approach is to require that the local
planning commission review the subdivision plans to
evaluate the probable effectiveness of erosion control
measures proposed by the builder. Frequently, copies of
the subdivision plans are made available to the department
of public works where they are reviewed for erosion control
(as well as for other items) by professional engineers. In
some control progrants, subdivision plans are also
forwarded to local conservation districts where soils experts
and other professionals review proposed control measures
and make recommendations for improvement when
necessary. Other local agencies, such as sewer and water
agencies, are sometimes also included in the review process.
This process is illustrated in Figure 1.
There are sources of erosion and sediment other than
those which are caused by private developers. Construction
and use of public facilities, such as sewers and public
buildings and especially highways are major causes of
suburban and urban soil erosion. To be effective, a control
program will need to control these as well as others.
Highway erosion is widespread in the United States, and
various technical means have been developed to help
control this costly problem. In many instances, highway
departments can receive technical assistance from local
conservation agencies. This is sometimes arranged by
intergovernmental agreements between appropriate local
agencies. Intergovernmental agreements can also be used in
efforts to control erosion from construction of public
facilities, such as schools and other public buildings, and
sewers. In addition, intergovernmental agreements can be
employed to coordinate municipal and county erosion
control efforts. This aspect of a control program is
discussed in the Chapter on Legal Authority.
Here, soil erosion caused by water is a result of the construction of a
new sc/zoo! on sloping land, with no provision for erosion of for
sediment controL
G 10

Figure 1
In order to achieve comprehensive erosion and sediment
control, sediment from public as well as private causes will
need to be curtailed. It is important that public agencies set
an example by controlling sediment caused by their own
construction activities. The financing of private and public
control is discussed in the chapter on Finances.
On-Site Inspection and Maintenance
Providing a capability to conduct on-site inspections of
development and construction activities is an important
function of local government. The inspection function
provides assurance that on-site activities are proceeding in
compliance with approved plans. and applicable rules and
With regard to erosion and sediment control, inspection
ensures that erosion and sediment control measures,
specified in approved project plans, are properly provided.
and that unanticipated se imentation problems are
compensated for. The inspection function for erosion and
sediment control may be made part of the normal
inspection procedures of the local government, utilizing
existing agencies and personnel. Crucial, however, to
effective on-site inspection is proper personnel training in
various aspects of sedimentation control.
Maintenance of control measures should also be provided
for in the program. When developing an organizational
structure for sedimentation control, maintenance re-
sponsibilities should be made a part of the general
maintenance operations of the local government, utilizing
existing agencies and personnel. Again it should be noted
that training of personnel will be essential. For more in-
formation on personnel training, and on various
maintenance operations, see the Chapter on Personnel and
the Chapter on Implementation and Control, respectively.
Program Evaluation
Another important component of a control program is
perodic evaluation of its overall effectiveness. An objective
assessment of the program’s effectiveness can lead to a
determination of what modifications may be needed to
improve erosion and sediment control.
How Subdivision Plans May Be Reviewed for
Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning Commission
Reviews plans for erosion and
sediment control
Sewer and Water Agency
Reviews plans for drainage control
illustrative only, as structures may vary throughout the United States)
The chart illustrates how, in the task force approach, various local agencies share erosion and sediment responsibilities with regard
to subdivision developments. Note that responsibilities may be assigned in whole, or in part, in accordance with the specific
capabilities possessed by each agency. This process should not be permitted to cause unnecessary delay in review schedules. (Chart is

The evaluation process should address at least
following items:
(1) Estimation of how much erosion and
sediment have been reduced as a result of
the program, and an analysis of how far the
program has gone toward reaching its
(2) What are the strong and weak parts of the
(3) What are the operational needs of the
program during the next evaluation period.
(4) What organizational or administrative
improvements are needed.
It may be desirable for local government officials to
encourage the participation of various groups in carrying
out the evaluation process. An “evaluation committee”
could be formed which could be assigned responsibility for
conducting periodic evaluations. The evaluation committee
should have members skilled in both the technical and
administrative aspects of sedimentation control. The
committee might include local elected officials, the
sedimentation task force members, representatives from
conservation groups such as the Isaac Walton League,
citizens’ organizations, and other interested groups.
Too often, the evaluation phase of program, is regarded
as being unimportant. In programs dealing with
environmental control, however, it is essential that the
political, administrative and technical factors which
contribute to success (or failure) be identified. In erosion
and sediment control programs, the evaluation results
should lead to periodic updating and improvement of the
program. allowing it to adjust to meet the changing needs
of the soil and water conditions in the watershed.
the Adequate financing for the control program is important.
Sufficient funding should be provided for control of
sedimentation from private and public sources, and funds
should be allocated for all phases of the program, including
ad ministration, planning, operations, inspection and
evaluation. Financial and technical assistance is available
from several sources, at the local, state and federal levels..
For more information on finance see the Chapter on
Suburban and urban sedimentation is a relatively new
problem in the United States. Additional technical research
is needed in several areas, such as in the field of sediment
measuring techniques, developing ‘accurate cost-benefit
analyses, assessing the total impact of suburbanization on
watershed hydrology, and in other important technical
areas. Generally, however, technical knowledge has
advanced beyond organizational knowledge. What is
required now is a general understanding of how
organizational forms can be developed and implemented to
effectively deploy control measures. This chapter has
attempted to describe some considerations involved in
organizing a control program and has discussed some
specific organizational structures that may be suitable, with
modifications, to a variety of local situations.
The task force approach to organization outlined above
represents only one pattern that may be employed in
efforts to control sediment. The experiences of several
communities using the task force approach, indicate that it
is an attractive organizational format which helps to
promote the community involvement and cooperation that
is necessary for effective sedimentation control.
The ditch running along side this road was not large enough to rri’ the spring .flow of water.
G 12

Are awide Approaches
chapter three
Erosion and sedinient are twin problems which are
areawide in scope. In most cases, soil erosion affects a
specific geographical plot and can therefore be considered a
local problem. Sediment, however, is mobile and often
inflicts damage during transport and at sites far from its
original source. l’his chapter discusses several areawide
aspects of erosion and sediment, and describes some
existing areawide organizational patterns that may be
involved in sedimentation control.
Due to the variety of this nation’s physical. political,
legal and demographic characteristics, no absolute
definition of areawide is possible. For the purpose of this
report, however. areawide may be defined as a physical
area, the boundaries of which are determined by natural
water drainage patterns. This definition implies no specific
geographic size except that which is determined by the
water drainage area. Thus, an areawide unit may or may not
cross political boundaries. An areawide approach might
include parts of several states, a metropolitan area, several
counties, or one county.
The watershed is the basic building block of the areawide
approach. This is true for several reasons, the most
important being that the characteristics of a given
watershed determine the direction and speed of water
drainage flow. The watershed, therefore, is the basic
geographical unit which determines the nature and extent
of erosion and sediment problems. Soil types. topography,
and the disruptive activities of man are also important
Advantages of the Areawide Approach
One of the major advantages of the areawide approach is
that it promotes control over an area equal to the scope of
the problem as it exists. Using the areawide approach. a
control program can be tailored to the physical (drainage
area) dimensions of the problem rather than to political
Depending upon the scope of the problem. programs of a
strictly local nature may not be capable of establishing
control over all aspects of erosion and sediment. For
example. local communities may spend large sums of
money to dredge sediment carried to them from upstream
sources, but unless upstream erosion is controlled, sediment
damage may occur on a permanent basis. Removing
sediment should not be interpreted as controlling sediment
The basic advantage of the areawide approach is that, in
many cases, it results in more effective control over the
total erosion and sediment problem. The areawide approach
offers several additional advantages, briefly described as
Economic efficiency. Although little research had been
done on the economics of erosion and sediment, it is
feasible to expect that areawide control programs may
result in significant savings. Overlapping operations may be
avoided, and, in some cases, the areawide approach provides
an opportunity for cost-sharing. In addition, federal
assistance is often geared to areawide programs.
Uniform operational procedures The areawide approach
can make it possible to apply uniform operational controls
to on-site sediment-producing activities within a large area.
This should enhance overall sedimentation control
effectiveness by ensuring that the benefits derived from the
use of proper operations in one area will not be offset by
inadequately protected activities in another area. In
addition, consistency in the application of operational
control mechanisms will make it easier to judge the
effectiveness of specific control measures.
Administrative efficiency. Under the areawide approach,
uniform administrative procedures can be developed which
will help to avoid overlapping administrative functions.
Responsibilities for carrying out various aspects of the
control program. such as planning. inspection and
maintenance, and others, can be systematically assigned.
This approach will simplify the task of developing a central
source of information (research and development results,
reports. etc.) on the sedimentation problems in the area.
which is likely to promote a better understanding of the
erosion and sediment control program, and on the
adjustments needed to achieve more effective control.
Planning. Planning for control on an areawide basis is
preferred over fragmented planning. Fragmented planning
cannot accommodate the interrelated nature of watersheds
and, is likely to omit problems of erosion and sediment
having their source outside the planning area. Areawide
planning is more comprehensive and therefore, is likely to
lead to more effective control.
Disadvantages of the Areawide Approach
Accountability. The question of fiscal and political
accountability is usually considered when areawide agencies
are assigned functions which affect local communities.
Experience has shown, however, that this problem is
surmountable, and accountability can be maintained as long
as a spirit of multi-jurisdictional cooperation exists.
G 13

Developing Areawide Information
Legal authority. Most areawide organizations lack the
legal authority to implement programs. This is a serious
obstacle when local communities do not make an effort to
support acceptable areawide programs. It should be noted
that any agency whether areawide or local, will need proper
legal authority to participate in a control program. The
Chapter on Legal Authority discusses this in more detail.
Areawide erosion and sediment control programs do not
normally exist as autonomous operational or administrative
units. Instead, erosion and sediment control programs are
usually made operational by assigning specific control
responsibilities to one or more areawide agencies already
having similar duties. Examples of such areawide agencies
might include councils of governments, flood control
districts, regional or county planning commissions,
conservation districts, sewer and water agencies and river
basin agencies. Erosion and sediment control
responsibilities, in whole, or in part, may be assigned to
these agencies in accordance with their relationship to
erosion and sediment problems, and in accordance with
their manpower capabilities and jurisdictional authority.
The following is a brief description of some areawide
organizations and a discussion of how they may share
erosion and sediment control responsibilities.
Special Districts
Special districts are organized entities possessing a
structural form, an official name, perpetual succession, the
right to sue and be sued, to enter into contracts, and obtain
and dispose of property. Their officers are publicly elected
or appointed by public officials. Moreover, they normally
have considerable fiscal and administrative independence
from general purpose governments.
The legal authority of special districts to build, acquire.
and operate works of improvement for controlling surface
runoff and sedimentation may be provided for in some
state constitutions containing provisions enabling their
creation. Such provisions normally are not self executing
and further legislation is necessary before a district is
While special districts can be a useful tool for providing
services, they usually have drawbacks. Two major
drawbacks are:
(I) A lack of mandatory coordination with
other governmental programs and activities.
(2) A tendency to perpetuate themselves after
they have provided a service that is not
handled by an existing gQvernment.
A type of special district which avoids these drawbacks is
the dependent district. In California, flood control districts
are illustrative. These districts have provided leadership in
coordinating the activities of local agencies with the federal
government in connection with the flood control program
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture; and in coordinating district activities with
state, county, city, and private agencies in so far as storm
drain bond issues and flood control programs are
Generally, flood control districts are concerned with
overall water management in relation to flood water
control, water supply, water distribution (water pipelines,
In 1950, Santa aara County was an
agriculturally oriented community of
291 ,00a Today it is an urban complex
of over one million. Local planners
estimate that the population will
increase another one million by 1990.
The county is located within Santa
aara Valley which is bordered on the
west by the Santa O’uz Mountains and
on the east by the Black Mountains.
The increasing population has pushed
and continues to push residential
development up from the valle,v floor
into the hilly and mountainous areas.
Development, however, has fostered
several environmental problems
including hillside erosion.
A major step toward controlling this
problem, and thereby protecting
watersheds and natural water courses.
was the preparation and publication of
interpretations of soils are based on
criteria developed through the
cooperation of the county’s soil
con s e ri’a tio ii district with
representatives of private engineering,
planning, and landscape architectural
a “Hillside Development Guide “—a
manual on soil and water conservation
problems associated wit/i building on
hilly terrain of the county. Detailed
guidelines are given on the needs of
domestic and fire-control water
supplies, building foundation stability,
sewage disposal, and erosion hazards as
related to soil resources.
The guide brought together
information and recommendations
from various governmental agencies
including Santa Clara C’ountv
Departments of Planning, Health, and
Riblic Works; I’ountv Fire Marshal:
Cooperative Extension Service: Soil
Conservation Service; California
Division of Forestry: and planning
departments of the cities of San Jose,
Saratoga, and Palo Alto.
As a result of this joint effort,
consultants now view the soil
conservation district as an associate
and cooperator rather than a potential
competitor in planning, engineering,
and landscaping phases of jill/side
In 1967, the ‘alifornia State Senate
Fact Finding Committee on Local
Government, included the guide in its
an nual report—a report distributed
statewide to cit and county planning
officials as an example of coo perative
planning and development.
Nonagricultural and engineering
G 14

etc.) and water usage. In fulfilling these responsibilities,
flood control districts may perform one or more of the
following activities: water drainage planning; drainage
policy coordination; financing drainage systems: and the
construction, operation and maintenance of drainage
facilities. In addition, flood control districts may conduct
research related to present and future water supplies and
Sanitation districts and drainage districts are also
concerned with sediment. Sewage pollution is interrelated
with sediment pollution because sediment interferes with
sewage flow by filling sewer drainage channels. In
metropolitan centers having combined sewer systems, storm
water runoff frequently overburdens sewage treatment
facilities, causing untreated wastes to be discharged into
Sanitation agencies may have responsibilities over a wide
range of functional areas, including operation and
maintenance of water drainage systems, sewage treatment
and disposal, and drainage system planning. Sanitation
agencies may be funded by either government support,
taxing authority, or by user charges.
In the many areas of the country where sanitary districts
are distinct from water drainage systems, drainage district
agencies have the responsibility for drainage management
and control. These districts may also play an important role
in the sediment control program. Another type of special
district, the irrigation district, is concerned with erosion
and sediment and may also contribute significantly to
sedimentation control programs.
One type of special district that is particularly concerned
with sedimentation control is the conservation district
(variously know as soil conservation, soil and water
conservation, natural resources, and natural resources
conservation districts). Over 3,000 of these districts have
been created under the provisions of state law. and they
include most of the land in the nation. Most conservation
districts have boundaries coterminous with those of
counties, and many are organically related to county
governments, either by law or cooperative agreement.
Conservation district powers vary trom state, to state.
Among other duties, the may be charged specifically with
the following responsibilities: controlling and preventing
soil erosion; conserving and developing water resources;
assisting in the control of floods: preventing impairment of
dams, reservoirs, and navigation channels: and in general,
helping to protect. conserve, and develop natural resources.
Traditionally, conservation districts have been concerned
primarily with serving agricultural areas in preventing
deterioration of croplands improving timber, wildlife, and
water resources in rural areas. Over the years, however,
conservation districts have expanded their programs to
offer assistance in solving suburban soil and water problems
as well. New state legislation in many states specifically
provides for such assistance and gives representation to
urban areas on district governing boards.
Many of the operational techniques for controlling
agricultural erosion have been successfully applied to
suburban and urban soil erosion problems. Memorandums
of agreement between conservation districts and other
federal, state and local agencies permit the district to offer
a wide range of technical and other services to the area
within its boundaries. Districts can also coordinate their
activities with programs in neighboring areas to achieve
comprehensive treatment of various resource problems.
Areawide Planning Agencies
The recent growth in the number of planning bodies,
both local and areawide, is a testament to the value of
planning and its increased acceptance by cOmmunities
throughout the nation. Areawide planning agencies can play
an important part in sedimentation control by conducting
technical research, and by promoting areawide coordination
of sediment control efforts.
Councils of governments (voluntary agencies composed
of local governments) are becoming more involved as agents
of coordination for sedimentation control in metropolitan
areas. The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, for example, has organized a Regional
Sediment Control Advisory Committee which is active in
researching the sediment control activities and needs in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The St. Louis Area
Council of Governments has received assistance from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to
conduct a series of soil surveys to determine what kind of
erosion and sediment control measures might be most
useful in that area.
Areawide planning agencies may also be assigned
responsibility for carrying out public education programs,
and may also help to coordinate intergovernmental
activities related to areawide erosion and sediment
problems. For example, councils of governments might
serve as a forum for the task force approach described in
the Chapter on Organization. In addition. areawide
planning agencies often maintain technical personnel
qualified to conduct erosion and sediment research.
Flood water lifted pavement intact from roadbed and dropped
it on the berm.
G 15

Most sedimentation problems are areawide (i.e., involving
entire watersheds) in scope. Because their jurisdiction is
normally areawide and because they possess a “middle
range” of administrative capabilities, county government
may prove to be the level of government best suited to
provide the leadership needed in sedimentation control
Elected county officials can take the initiative in
establishing sedimentation control by calling for a task
force of representatives from appropriate county agencies,
other concerned public agencies operating within the
county, private industry, conservation groups, and
landowners, to develop recommendations for an areawide
sedimentation control program; by making sedimentation
control a stated county policy: and by soliciting the
voluntary cooperation of the building industry. County
department heads can help to implement sedimentation
control by developing administrative policies and
procedures designed to accommodate recommendations of
the task force. Briefly stated, local officials can best aid the
development of an effective control program by becoming
personally involved, and by giving guidance and support to
other groups and agencies engaged in sedimentation
Developing Areawide Drainage Control
Monroe County consists of a 660
square ,nile area in northcentral New
York, bordering on Lake Ontario.
Much of the land in Monroe County
remains in agricultural use, but
suburban development is spreading at
a rapid rate from Rochester, the area
major city.
Monroe County lies in the Great
Lakes Plains, where the topograpkv
consists of rolling terrain interspersed
with hills and some steep slopes. Soils
in the area are generally erodible, and
under the stresses of suburban growth,
thousands of tons of soil have been
washed into local streams.
Both erosion and sediment have
presented problems in the Rochester
metropolitan area. Erosion has been
extensive, and, in some areas,
pensive homes are threatened by
erosion of supportive soils. A local
conservationist estimated that erosion
problems in one community will cost
from Y - 2 million dollars to correct.
Sediment, too, has caused serious
damage. Sediment from subdivision
construction has deposited in many of
the local streams, and each year the
Corps of Engineers dredges an
estimated 235,000 cubic yards of
sediment from the Genessee River
which flows through the county,
emptying into Lake Ontario.
Ero dible soils, intensive
development, high sediment yields,
and the fact that significant portions
of the county are susceptible to
flooding hazards, have made it
necessary for the area to carefully plan
its future drainage systems. Due to the
decentralized nature of local
government in New York State,
however, areawide planning has beeti
Like other New York State
thwz ties, Monroe county is divided
into s everal independent tOWns.
Areawide planning is difficult because
each o.f the Ou,ztv ‘s nineteen towns
conducts its own planning and :oning
program. Despite this decentralization,
ho we ver, area wide erosion and
sediment control is being ath’anced by
several important coordinated
activities between the county and the
An example of this areawide
activity is the current effort to develop
a regional storm drainage system that
would institute uniform drainage
requirements in subdivisions in all
towns within the county. This
ordinance, entitled the Monroe
County Storm Drainage Control Law,
would help to blend town drainage
formats %vith an area wide program of
drainage control. One section of the
proposed law requires subdivision
developers to include plans for
controlling flood hazards, which are
defined as “the threat of flood damage
to lands, structures and their contents
by virtue of over-flow water,
inundation, soil erosion and deposition
of silt, urban development occupation
of known or potential flood plains.”
This law also contains review
procedures which permits the Counti’
Department of Public Works to review
subdivison plans to ensure that proper
drainage is planned for and
Recognizing the need to closely
coordinate the provisions of this law
with other activities. Section III of the
law, in part, states:
It is intended that these
purposes be carried our in
accordance t’ith applicable
common Law Rules of
Drainage and such rules,
regulations and technical
criteria as will be prescribed.
It is also intended that these
purposes be integrated with
all federal, state, county and
local public works,
conservation measures,
pollution con twi measures,
watershed managemen
measures and proposed
urban developments not
incOnSiStent Wit/i i/ ic
primary purposes of this
Flooding and erosion hare been and
Continue to be serious problems in the
Monroe (‘ouliry area. Both these
problems, however, are being
approached on a realistic basis. The
proposed drainage law represents an
economical and practical method of
achieving areawide drainage control. In
addition, most of the towns in the
county are achieving more effective
erosion control b guiding their
respective planmi ing and zoning
programs accord imig to a soils study
completed several years ago.
G 16

Soil erosion can xil1ute water downstream.
Through a combination of state and federal efforts, river
basin authorities or commissions have been organized in
many of the nation’s river basin areas. River basin
authorities are created by state legislatures, or, in cases
where more than one state is involved, by federal-state and
inter-state agreement.
River basin authorities may be authorized to accept
grants and loans from the federal government, issue revenue
bonds, charge fees for their services, and acquire land.
However, these general powers granted to basin authorities
vary considerably throughout the country.
The river basin approach is distinct from the areawide
approach in that it represents a larger geographic scope.
River basin authorities operate on a regional rather than on
an areawide or local scale, and, generally, have the capacity
to conduct basin-wide research and analysis, which is
helpful in identifying erosion and sediment problems which
affect entire river basins. In addition, river basin authorities
may assist in developing a unified approach
This chapter has attempted to explain how soil erosion
and sediment control programs can be developed on an
areawide basis. Several kinds of areawide organizations are
described and their relationship to erosion and sediment
control is discussed.
The areawide approach to overall soil and water
management promises effective control in most cases
because technical measures and research can be uniformly
applied where needed, which, in turn, may result in
economic efficiency as well. On the other hand, the
areawide approach is characterized by a lack of experience
with the political, legal, and administrative forms which are
necessary in order that available technical knowledge can be
effectively applied to sedimentation problems.
Because they often constitute the jurisdictional level
most consistent with watershed drainage systems, county
governments represent a logical administrative level which
can develop and coordinate comprehensive sedimentation
control programs.
up -1
G 17

ch ter four
Any program designed to serve the public needs to be
rooted in law. Without a legal foundation, program
effectiveness is merely a word and program accomplishment
is only an illusion. This is true whether one is considering
health, education, welfare or a state highway program. It is
also true of sedimentation control programs. This chapter
attempts to explain the legal authority needed for areawide
sedimentation control.
Legal authority for controlling soil erosion and sediment
is made available to local government by state legislatures.
i.e.. state enabling legislation. in the form of either a
specific grant of power or a delegated state-wide general
power. The type and extent of enabling legislation needed
for sedimentation control can be evaluated by weighing
certain basic considerations, namely: what are the
comniunitv’s existing general powers: what authority is
needed to organize for areawide sedimentation control:
what type of financial arrangement for the program would
be equitable in terms of allocation of costs: and what legal
and administrative controls are available for needed
enforcement of the program.
The appropriate organizational structure for sediment
control depends on the nature of the local sediment
problem. the existing structure and capabilities of local
government, and the activities of other levels of
government. Since these factors vary among states, there is
no one model organization which may be adapted by all
areas. However, in determining an effective organizational
structure the following criteria should be considered:
(1) Authority to plan effectively all the
physically related parts of a drainage or
subdrainage area;
(2) Acceptance of responsibility for providing
needed structural and vegetative
sedimentation control measures throughout
the drainage area being served;
(3) Authority to finance the application and
maintenance of sedimentation control
measures economically;
(4) Authority to adopt legal and administrative
regulations to control development and
construction activities;
(5) Responsiveness to public control through
the democratic process.
participate in a local program. These may include special
purpose organizations such as conservation districts, water
conservancy districts, drainage districts, and flood control
districts. None of these, however, is designed to provide the
comprehensive, areawide services which are necessary for a
program fulfilling the above criteria, An areawide
sedinientation control program requires. in addition to
these existing agencies, the cooperation of units of local
general purpose governments.
Essential to organizing coordinated areawide programs is
the legal authority to enter into intergovernmental
agreements. Intergovernmental agreements can be entered
into with procedural changes that do not involve
modifications in the structure or basic functional
responsibilities of the cooperating agencies.
Intergovernmental agreements are possible through
informal understandings: through formal joint action
pursuant to the general authority of the cooperating
jurisdictions or to specific statutory and charter provisions:
or by binding legal arangements based on formal
agreements or contracts.
Intergovernmental agreements may be viewed as being
applicable to two types of intergovernmental relationships:
(1) interlocal or horizontal relationships among
units of local government:
(2) the vertical interaction among various levels
of government.
With authority tO enter into intergovernmental
agreements for both horizontal and vertical
intergovernmental cooperation. local government can take
the initiative in creating sedimentation control programs..
Many counties presently implementing sedimentation
control programs have employed a task force approach,
utilizing several existing agencies, including those
mentioned above, rather than placing all responsibility in a
new and specially created department or agency. Such
coordinated efforts may be achieved through
memorandums of understanding that serve to gain
cooperation among county agencies (e.g., departments of
public works and planning) and other concerned local,
state, and federal government agencies operating within the
Authority should also be available to enter into informal
and formal agreements with incorporated areas of the
county. Authority to contract or sign memorandums
designating the county as the responsible agency for review
and approval of conservation plans and on-site inspections
in municipalities is a power which may be essential to
Legal Authority
Several entities have evolved at the local level which may
G 18

coordinated county-wide sedimentation control.
Where watersheds incorporate more than one county,
total watershed control can be achieved with a
multi-county approach. With authorization to enter into
agreements with other counties (as well as with other
concerned public agencies), counties strengthen their
position for securing available state and federal assistance,
much of which is geared for local programs of an areawide
nature. An example of a multi-county watershed project is
the Sugar Creek Watershed project involving Mecklenburg
County. North Carolina and Lancaster and York Counties,
South Carolina. These counties and their respective soil and
water conservation districts have submitted, as the local
sponsoring organizations, an application to the Department
of Agriculture for assistance under the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 566).
Upon approval for assistance, the local sponsoring
organizations must prepare a watershed work plan, setting
forth the responsibilities of each organization for carrying
out the project, which must be agreed to by all the local
sponsoring organizations and the Secretary of Agriculture
(through the Soil Conservation Service) or the Congress.
(For further information on FL. 566 assistance and other
assistance programs. see the Chapter on Finance.)
The costs to local government for financing
sedimentation control become significant when a control
program is premised on control or treatment of an entire
watershed drainage area(s). Although the costs for applying
sedimentation control measures at development and
construction sites is normally assumed by the developer as a
part of the total project cost, comprehensive watershed or
areawide programs may also require off-site structural
improvements and open space acquisitions and their
maintenance. Financing off-site sediment control measures
is a local government responsibility. Unreasonable legal
limitations can severely constrain local government’s ability
to meet its financial responsibilities. However, many of
these limitations can be overcome by the legislative process.
In some states, for example, the incurrence of debt
through bonding arrangements requires a referendum vote
of all electors or property holding electors. The Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations opposes
referendums of this kind, advocating, instead, the vesting of
legal authorization in local units of government to issue
bonds subject only to a referendum initiated by a petition
of voters, If a petition signed by a sufficient number of
voters forces a vote, the Commission recommends that a
simple majority be required to pass the bond issue.
General Obligation Bonds
These bonds are secured by the full faith and credit of
the community and a pledge of its taxing power rather than
by a special fund and therefore carry a relatively low risk
expense. They are also exempted from federal income taxes
between the
Bucks County Soil and Water Conservation District
and the
Bucks County Planning Commission
will be made within thirty days after the plans are received by
the District.
2. Engage in an educational and informational program to
acquaint municipalities and developers with soil and Water
management measures that may be applicable to their activities
and familiarize these people with the program of the District.
3. Upon receiving a request from the developer, will provide
technical assistance in the design and layout of soil and water
management measures.
Within the limits of their authority and resources;
The Bucks County Soil and Water Conservation District, hereafter
referred to as the District, has been established and organized
pursuant to the Pennsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District
Act of 1945 as amended. Under this Act the Commonwealth has
established Districts for the purpose of conserving its soil resources
including the prevention and control of soil erosion,
The Bucks County Planning Commission, hereafter referred to as
the Commission, has been established by the Bucks County
Commissioners and is now acting under the power of Act 247,
effective since January 1, 1969.
the Commission will:
Statement of Purpose
1. Make written request to the District for .assistance on those
development plans that the Commission believes require soil
and water management measures.
2. Provide for staff review and careful consideration of District
recommendations for soil and water management, prior to
approval of development plans. Where ever feasible, the
District recommendations will be included as a part of the
In view of the need for erosion and sediment control in the
urbanizing areas of the County and the feasibility of erosion control
measures, and in view of the compatible objectives and mutual
interest of the District and the Commission, these two parties wish
to establish a basis for cooperation and assistance and therefore
hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding.
3. Assist Municipal Planning Authorities in developing subdivision
regulations insofar as soil and water management measures may
appear to be a desirable part of these regulations.
Within the limits of their authority and resources; the District will:
It is mutually agreed that:
1. Review development plans submitted to it by the Commission
and make recommendations for soil and water management
measures to the Commission and to the developer and;or
municipalities that may be involved. Such recommendations
In the event the District is unable to furnish recommendations
within the 30 day period the Commission will proceed without the
recommendations of the District. The Commission will notify the
local municipality that the District recommendations will be forth
coming at a later date.
This memorandum shall be effective when signed by both parties.
It may be terminated or modified at anytime by agreement by both
parties, and may be terminated by either party by giving sixty (60)
days notice in writing to the other oartv.
G 19

on the interest provided their investors. Because of these
reasons, general obligation bonds generally carry low
interest rates. However, given its need for a general election,
the disadvantage of this type of bonding is its
unattractiveness for proposed projects not having apparent
community-wide benefits. Thus a proposed sediment basin
in one watershed may not be supported by the voters
residing in another.
Special Assessment Bonds
These bonds are appropriate for financing improvements,
e.g., storm drain facilities and debris basins that benefit
specific property. They are payable from assessments levied
on the properties benefited, and become a lien on such
properties. They provide the benefiting property holder
with the option of making payments on his assessment over
a period of time or paying it all at once.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds are issued to finance revenue producing
projects and are payable from the revenues received from
these projects. One feature of these bonds is that they are
not normally subject to state constitutional or statutory
debt limits. They are usually acceptable to the general
public since only the users pay costs thus avoiding increases
in the general tax rate. Their disadvantage compared to
general obligation bonds, is a higher interest rate. However,
in some states local governments have been able to offset
this disadvantage by pledging to secure payments with the
issuance of general obligation bonds should receipts froni
users’ charges fall short. Revenue bonds may prove
appropriate for water supply dams and reservoirs, with
assessments based on water consumption rates.
Flexibility in Refunding and Refmancing
A community may wish to recall a bond issue before its
maturity date to liquidate its debt or to take advantage of
lower interest rates. This situation may develop where taxes
or other revenue sources of the community have produced
greater funds than anticipated, where market conditions
affecting interest rates change favorably, or where the
community’s credit improves. While authorization to sell
callable bonds is desirable, it should be noted that such
bonds sometimes have higher legal ceilings on interest rates.
Miscellaneous Authority
Other considerations to be weighed in assessing desirable
legal authority include:
(1) Authority to obtain property hi’ gift,
purchase, or eminent domain. In connection
with eminent domain, it should be noted
that many needed projects have incurred
long and costly delays waiting conclusion of
purchase price negotiations. This potential
problem can be avoided in those states
granting local governments the power of
“prior right of entry” as ancillary to
eminent domain. Prior right of entry
authorizes entry upon the property prior to
final acquisition and permits immediate
construction activity. The power of eminent
domain should be used as a last resort.
Frequent use may cause adverse public
opinion. It is advisable to plan ahead for
needed open space and construction sites
and to acquire the necessary land through
the Federal Advance-Land Acquisition
Program. or by purchase, or leasing.
(2) 4uthorirv to acquire facilities owned by
private individuals and finns. Many
development projects require temporary
sedimentation control structures during
construction which may also serve as
permanent installations. It would be
desirable for local communities to have the
authority to acquire these within a
reasonable time after a development project
is completed in order to ensure their
maintenance. A formal procedure may be
needed to facilitate equitable purchase
(3) Authority to accept grants.
Water quality maintenance, through the construction of
sewage systems and waste-treatment works, has
traditionally been a responsibility of local government. The
federal government became significantly involved when, in
1956, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, which defined the role in enforcing abatement
of pollution of interstate waters. The Act was amended in
1961 to further strengthen its enforcement procedures and
extend federal jurisdiction to abate both interstate and
intrastate pollution of interstate or navigable waters. The
Water Quality Act of 1965 left intact these enforcement
procedures while adding a new major enforcement
provision. Under this provision all states were required to
enact water quality standards for their interstate waters by
June 30, 1967 (subject to review and approval of the
Secretary of the Interior), or by default have the standards
established by the federal government. The state standards
must “enhance the quality” of waters, and be accompanied
by a plan for their implementation and enforcement.
All the states have complied with the June 30, 1967
deadline (however, as of January. 1970, 23 approved states’
standards included unresolved exceptions). Moreover, by
fiscal 1970, 40 states also adopted comparable standards
for their intrastate waters and others have stated an
intention to do so.
Federal and state water quality standards declare that
turbidity is a pollutant where it interferes with the

beneficial uses of water. Since a major contributor to
turbidity is sediment, it is expected that all the states will
declare sediment a pollutant where it interferes with the
beneficial uses of any state waters. Maryland and Wisconsin
have, in fact, already done so.
In addition, Executive Order 11258. issued in 1966,
through authority of the Water Quality Act requires all
federal departments to review federal and federally aided
operations as to any significant potential for abatement of
water pollution by sediment. The respective departments
may prescribe remedial measures as necessary. The Order
should be of particular significance in terms of sediment
reduction in connection with urban and surburban highway
State Control
State water pollution control legislation developed
traditionally out of the authority of state health
departments to preserve public health. Inconjunctionwith
this, there was a piecemeal lodging of concurrent water
pollution control authority in several other departments of
state governments such as those dealing with agriculture,
fish and wildlife, and mines and minerals which also had an
interest in water pollution control aside from public health
considerations. The modern approach to the problem is
reflected in recent state statutes whose objective is to
preserve and improve water quality for all legitimate uses
and do this through a board that represents all affected
interests in the state. Accompanying this has been a shifting
emphasis from the mere abatement of existing pollution to
the policy of preventing pollution in its incipiency.
In the early statutes, the administrative approach was
largely negative in character. That is. when a particular
action was found to cause pollution, the administrative
agency was authorized to take steps to abate such
pollution. A Suggested State Water Pollution Control Act
prepared by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (FWPCA), follows the more recent statutes
by authorizing a board which represents all affected
interests in the state to develop a comprehensive program
to deal with the problem in all waters of the state. Under
this approach, the board, having determined permissive
limits of waste discharges into the waters of the state, uses
its enforcement procedure to abate existing pollution and
restore the quality of polluted waters, while through a
system of permits it prevents any increase in waste
discharges which would impair desired water uses.
The Act is designed to give the board discretion in
administration of the program and makes its jurisdiction
complete over all waters of the state. It avoids such
exemptive practices as excluding particular industries or
geographic areas, and legislative classification of particular
streams for specified water uses.
Water quality standards. Under the provisions of the
Water Quality Act, federally approved state standards
(which may be expressed in terms of treatment
requirements; or in terms of volume, strength or kinds of
waste discharges) may be applied either to interstate waters
or to the source of pollutant discharge. While states have
jurisdiction to develop standards in both these areas (the
pollution source and interstate waters), the federal
government has authority to review and approve standards
with regard only to interstate waters. However, control over
the quality of interstate waters allows the FWPCA to
directly effect the quality of pollutant discharges. when
such discharges cause the quality of interstate waters to be
below federally approved standards.
The Suggested State Water Pollution Onitrol Act gives
state agencies permissive authority to fix standards of water
quality such as to protect the public health and welfare and
the present and prospective future use of state waters for all
legitimate purposes. Standard setting on a case-by-case basis
is thus made possible. Standards once promulgated have a
definite legal effect and their violation is made unlawful.
Their adoption must be preceded by a public hearing
conducted by the state board, for which due notice must be
Except in four states (Florida. Minnesota, Montana, and
Washington). existing state standards relating to turbidity.
silt, and sediment are nonquantitative and narrative in
form. 1 They are generally based upon a criterion that
prohibits deposits that would interfere with the assigned
use of the water. For example. Colorado standards state
that Colorado water shall be:
Free from substances attributable to municipal
or industrial wastes, or other controllable sources
that will either settle to form unsightly,
putrescent. or odorous bottom deposits or will
interfere with the classified use of the water.
Should Colorado waters receive sediment deposits
interferring with the designated use of those waters, the
state, presumably, is authorized to enforce abatement of
such deposits. Since the sediment sources in most cases are
extremely difficult to trace, abatement appears to be most
feasible through the use of areawide preventative programs
involving comprehensive planning and enforcement rather
than through a piecemeal, after-the-fact, approach.
In setting a course of action for local officials, it should
be noted that much can be contributed in the area of
research. Research determining the natural or reasonable
level of turbidity and sedinient for all local waterways is
especially needed for the purpose of establishing criteria
that determine acceptable limits of sediment transport from
future development projects. Such information, combined
with appropriate inspections of waterways adjacent to
development projects, could provide more objectivity for
determining legal liability, and thereby, serve as the basis
for meaningful state water quality standards.
A permit system, such as that contained in the Suggested
State Water Pollution control Act, might require local
development activities to be preceded by an examination of
development and construction plans, specifications, and
other data, before any wastes stemming from such activities
are discharged in any waters of the state. This would allow
the state control agency to prohibit sedimentation
altogether or to grant conditional approval on the basis of
natural sediment and turbidity levels and the existing levels
1 1

before construction.
Enforcement. A variety of enforcement methods is
provided by the suggested Act. One method makes it
unlawful to cause any pollution of the waters of the state
or to violate any order issued by the water pollution
control agency, including an order establishing a
classification of waters or standards of water quality.
Pollution of waters of the state is declared to be a public
nuisance and is, therefore, subject to abatement in
accordance with the state’s practice of abatement of
Violation of provisions of the Act of any order or
determination by the control agency, or failure to perform
any duty imposed by the Act, is declared to be a
misdemeanor. In addition, the state attorney general has
the duty to bring an action for an injunction against any
An Example of State Legislative Action — Maryland Excerpts from House Bill No. 509
Section 105
The General Assenzh’ of the
State of Maryland hereby determines
and finds that the lands and waters
comprising the watersheds of the State
are great natural assets and resources:
that as a result of erosion and
sediment deposition on lands and
waters ivithin the watersheds of tile
State, said waters are being polluted
and despoiled to such a degree that
fish, marine life, and recreational use
of the waters are being adversely
affected and curtailed.
Section 106
a.) Before land is cleared, graded,
transported, or otherwise disturbed for
purposes including, but not limited to
the construction of buildings, the
mining of minerals, the development
of golf courses, and the construction
of roads and streets by any person,
partnership, corporation, municipal
corporation or State agencies within
the State of Maryland, the proposed
earth change shall first be submitted to
and approved by the appropriate soil
conservation district. Land clearing,
soil movement and construction shall
be ca,ried our iii accordance with the
written recommendations of the said
soil conservation district regarding the
control of erosion and siltation.
c.) The Department of Natural
Resources shall assist the soil
conservation districts in the
preparation of a unified sediment
control program and in the
implementation of said program
pursuant to this subtitle. Furthermore
nothing in this subtitle shall affect the
responsibilities of the Department of
Water Resources under Article 96A of
the Annotated Code of Maryland
(1964 Replacement Volume and 1969
d.) Notwithstanding the
provisions of this Section, the
Department of Natural Resources.
shall review and approve all land
clearing, soil movement and
constructioli actil’itv undertaken by
any agency of State government.
Section 107
The pro visions of this subheading
s/ia!! not apply to agricultural land
,na nagement practices, tile
construction of agricultural structures
or to the construction of single fam i/v
residences and:or their accessory
buildings on lots of two acres or more.
Regardless of planning, zoning or
subdivision controls, no permits s/ia/I
be issued by any county for grading or
for the construction of any building,
other than those exempted above,
unless such grading or construction is
in accordance with plans approved as
provided in this subheading.
Section 108
a.) Each of the counties shall
have the power and authority to issue
grading and building penn its. No
county shall issue a grading or building
permit under the pro visions of Section
106 until tile developer submits a plan
of development approved by the
appropriate soil conservation district,
and after certification by the
developer that any land clearing,
construction or development will be
done pursuant to said plan. O iteria,
fOr referral of an applicant for a
grading or building permit to the
appropriate soil conservation district,
ivhich hare been developed by a
county shall be acceptable to the
responsible county agency or agencies,
the soil conservation district and the
Department of Natural Resources. The
County agency responsible for on-site
inspection and enforcement of the
provisions of this subheading shall
make a final inspection and forward its
report to the appropriate soil
consen’at ion district. Notice of
violation of the provisions of this
subtitle s/ia/i be filed with the
Department of Natural Resources, as
well as wit/i die appropriate county
b.) Each county s/ia/I develop
grading atid building ordinances, or
portions therof . which are necessary to
carry out the provisions of this
subtitle. The Department of Natural
Resources and appropriate soil
conseri’at iou district s/ia/i assist f/ic
several counties in the development of
such ordinances or necessary portions
t/ierof The provisions of this
subsection s/ia/I be carried out prior to
Marc/i 1, 197]. Prior to Marc/i I,
1971, established ordinances and
procedures s/ia!! be used by the
counties to carry Out the provisions of
this subtitle.
Section 109
Ant’ violation of this subheading
shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and
tile person, partnership, or corporation
who is found gui/tv of such violation
s/ia!! be subject to a fine nor exceeding
five thousand (S5,000.00) or one
year ‘s imprisonment for each and
even.’ violation. Ani’ agencl’ whose
approval is required under this
subheading or any person in interest
may seek an injunction against any
person, partnership, or corporation,
whether public or private, violating or
threatening viola non of ant’ provisions
of this subheading.
Section 110
The Department of Natural
Resources is empowered to
promulgate regulations for the unified
administration and enforcement of
this subtitle.
G 22

person violating any provision of the Act or any order of the
Administrative action is the principal method of making
the program effective. The agency is empowered to issue
orders against alleged pollutors after adequate opportunity
for hearing. Such orders, if not appealed to the court.
become final and are enforceable in much the same way as
the judgement of the court. The same administrative
hearing procedure is employed in the case of revocation,
denials, or modifications of permits.
State water pollution control agencies. The authority for
control activity among our states is vested in three general
(1) State health agencies—20 states:
(2) A specific agency created by statute and
placed organizationally within the state
health agency—lO states:
(3) Independent agencies, established outside
the state health department—20 states.
(A list of addresses for these agencies can be found in
the appendix.)
Definition of pollution. The most important definition in
the suggested Act is that of pollution. It is designed to
protect all legitimate uses of water in the state. To this end.
pollution as defined includes both discharges of wastes
actually or potentially harmful to such uses, and also the
altering of the properties of the water in such a way as to
be harmful, including changes in turbidity.
This definition must be read with subsequent sections of
the Act authorizing the setting of water quality standards.
Discharges which are consistent with such standards are not
considered pollution for purposes of the Act.
The suggested Act, therefore, gives immediate legal effect
to the agency’s action on classifying waters and setting
standards, without requiring the agency to hold its
enforcement powers in abeyance until such action can be
Local Control
As state standards relating to sediment pollution are
established, local governments will have an idea of what is
required of them in order to upgrade or maintain the
quality of interstate waters in their respective states. In
effect, all local jurisdictions will be placed in the position of
adopting local standards equal to their respective state
standards, or have them imposed by state authority.
Therefore, in order to be prepared to meet the expected
development of more rigorous state standards, and thereby
avoid the possibility of forfeiting the right to control
land-use activities within their boundaries, local
governments should begin to develop sound land-use
regulations to prevent sediment from entering their
Control over public improvements. Accelerated erosion
and sediment can result as much from public development
and construction projects as it can from private ones. Local
officials should not expect cooperation forthcoming from
the private sector (developers, contractors, and landowners)
to control erosion and sediment when control is lacking
over government activities. Moreover, local government can
be held liable for sediment damages (steming from public
properties) suffered by private landowners. In a summary
of the judicial interpretations of this legal aspect, the
Committee on Condemnation and Condemnation
Procedure of the American Bar Association has stated:
If the constitution of the State in which the
(damaged) property was located provided for the
payment of compensation only if property had
been taken for a public purpose, the courts
awarded compensation to the owner if the
damages were substantial enough to amount to a
taking. In the States where an owner had to be
compensated if his property had either been
taken or damaged for a public use, the courts
only had to find that there had been some
damaging in order to award him compensation.
County officials can begin providing the needed
leadership to effect sedimentation control in their
communities by working to make erosion and sediment
control a stated policy of all public agencies operating
within their jurisdictions. For example, park and road
agencies should incorporate erosion control techniques in
the design and maintenance, as well as applying them
during the construction period, of their projects. (In the
long run, these efforts will result in lower maintenance
When a local government contracting agency enters into
an agreement with a private contractor for construction of
public improvements, provisions for sedimentation control
should be included in the contract. These provisions should
recognize the importance of adhering to the sedimentation
control principles outlined in the Chapter on
Implementation and Control. The contract agreement
should be entered into only after the appropriate county
agency or agencies have reviewed and approved the type.
extent, and time of application of needed erosion and
sediment control measures specified in the contractor’s
proposed project plan.
Control over private development and construction. In
broad terms, local controls over private development and
construction activities include:
(1) Control over sewer use:
(2) Control of water pollutants:
(3) Control over land uses hazardous to the
general health and welfare:
(4) Control over construction practices harmful
to the general health and welfare.
These controls can be designed both to regulate activities
which adversely affect water and related land resources, and
to provide orderly community development. Local controls
are normally implemented through one of the following
types of ordinances, codes, regulations or administrative
G 23

Sedimentation Control Ordinance
In the Spring, 1965, a sediment control task force, formerly appointed by the Montgomery County Council, completed
development of a proposed sedimentation control program for the county. The Council subsequently made the program
stated county policy and solicited the voluntary cooperation of the building industry. Two years later (6/27/67), the council
made sedimentation control mandatory through adoption of an amendment to the county’s subdivision regulations, Chapter
104, as codified in the Montgomery County Code. This amendment, which represents the county’s sedimentation control
ordinance, follows:
Amend Sec. 1 04-24 Preliminary Snbdivision Plan —Approval Procedure by adding new subsection (i) as follows:
(i) Sediment Control. The approval of all preliminan’ plans and extensions of previous/v approved plans shall include
provisions for erosion and sediment control, in accordance wit/i the Montgomery Coz ntj’ Sediment Program,
adopted by the County Council June 29, 1965.
(1) The Board, in its consideration of each preliminary plan or extension of previously approved plan shall
condition its approval upon the execution by the subdivider of erosion and sediment control measures to be
specified by the Board after receiving recommendations from the Montgomery Soil onsen’ation District.
(2) One copy of each approved preliminary plan or extension of previously approved p/au s/ia/i be referred to the
Montgomery Soil Conservation District for review and recommendation as to adequate erosion and sediment
control measures to prevent damage to other properties.
(3) The installation and maintenance of the specified erosion and sediment control measures s/ia/i be accomplished
in accordance wit/i standards and specifications on file with tile Montgonierv Soil Conservation District.
(4) Permits for clearing and grading prior to the recordation of plats shall be obtained from the Department of
Public Works subject to the granting of temporary easements and oilier conditions deemed necessary by the
Department in order to inspect and enforce the performance of the specified erosion and sediment control
measures provided for in sub-section (1) above.
(5) In the event the subdivider proceeds to clear and grade prior to recording of plats without satisfying the
conditions specified under Sec. 4, the Board may revoke the approval of t/ze preliminary plan or extension oJ
previously approved plan.
Amend Article 1, Section 23-2 General Requirements (of subdivision plans) by the addition of a new paragraph to be known
as 23-2 (1) to read as follows:
(1) Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.
Adequate control of erosion and sedimentation of both a rem porarv and permanent nature shall be provided during
all phases of clearing, grading and construction as approved by the Director.
Amend Section 23-8, Preliminary Plats — Preparation by the addition of a new paragraph to be known as 23-8(g) to read as
follows: (Preliminary plats shall include a)
(g) Statement that Erosion and Sediment control methods shall be provided prior to any clearing, grading or
Amend Article 2 of Qiapter 23 &v the addition of a new paragraph to Section 23-12. Final Plats — Approval to be known as
23-12(c) to read as follows: (Plats shall be approved only if,)
(c) Plans and specifications for the control of erosion and sedimentation, if such controls are deemed necessary, have
been submitted and approved by the Director of Public Works or his agent. This approval shall be concurrent wLth
the approval of the aforesaid plans and specifications, and become a part thereof
rulings: storm sewage facilities and surface water
drainage (e.g., The Los Angeles County
(1) A zoning ordinance which recognizes such subdivision ordinance, requires subdividers
physical limitations as soil permeability, soil to provide drainage improvements according
stability, topography, natural drainage, as to documented drainage standards to reduce
well as existing and future man-made flooding and economic loss due to storm
factors, such as reservoirs, debris basins, water within and outside of the
major highways, etc; subdivision);
(2) A subdivision control law designed to (3) A grading ordinance that includes
protect the public health and welfare by procedures for minimizing erosion and
preventing the installation of inadequate sediment;
G 24

(4) A Flood plain ordinance that limits the
extent and intensity of development;
(5) A building code with special reference to
soil stability and drainage;
(6) Regulations on sewerage.
An effective approach for implementing community
plans, designed with environmental conservation in mind, is
to make adequate provisions for accommodating such plans
in zoning ordinances. An example of this type of zoning
control is a zoning provision calling for hillside cluster
development. Cluster developments have the benefit of
restricting the area of construction while building according
to the existing topography. This reduces the net sediment
yields normally experienced in conventional row-type
development projects by allowing for adjacent vegetational
downslope areas that catch sediment before it empties into
relatively large channels that are difficult to control.
In addition to zoning, other legal means appropriate for
controlling private development activities include
subdivision, drainage, and grading ordinances. In broad
terms, ordinances can require subdividers and builders to
submit preliminary and tentative maps of proposed
subdivisions including their physical features: have maps
reviewed and approved by county officials: make street and
drainage improvements: specify grading and erosion control
standards provide easements: provide flood control
facilities: require topographic. soils and geologic
information: and require a statement or diagram showing
land proposed to be devoted to residential, industrial.
public or other uses, and the minimum lot sizes thereof.
Such ordinances also may require posting of performance
bonds and cash escrows. This would reduce the risk of cases
where the lack of public funds prevent local governments
from providing immediate remedial measures to correct the
incomplete or inadequate application of needed
sedimentation control measures by developers or their
A good example of local legislation designed to control
erosion and sediment may be found in the Fairfax County.
Virginia. Erosion control Ordinance of 1967. Its language is
brief and written directly into the County Code by adding
scope to existing regulations rather than being written as a
separate, self-contained document. Developers were
previously required to conform to the provisions of the
code and thus must merely assume certain specific
additional responsibilities.
This is how the ordinance works in Fairfax County:
(1) The department of county development will
not approve plans or issue a construction
per mit unless a builder’s plans meet
ordinance requirements:
(2) Developers are required to submit a soil
conservation plan which the county reviews
and approves. A bond, and in some cases a
cash escrow, is required to guarantee that
the approved soil conservation plan will be
carried out by the developers;
(3) On-site inspection by department of county
development per sonnel evaluates
compliance of developers with the approved
(4) If a developer fails to comply, his escrow is
used by the county to take needed
emergency conservation measures.
Meanwhile, the developer would be required
to increase his cash escrow.
A testimony to this system is the fact that the escrow
provision has not yet been invoked. The system provides a
reasonable procedure, and responsible developers have
found that the conservation protection called for can be
provided at relatively little cost. (S5O per building lot is the
current estimated cost by the Suburban Maryland Home
Builders Association.)
The legal basis for local control of sedimentation is state
enabling law. Without this authority, local governments
cannot regulate development activities to control surface
water runoff and soil erosion. To ensure that local
governments have the necessary powers, state legislation
should allow political subdivisions to manage soil erosion
and sediment in coordination with other conservation and
water management programs.
Under the Water Quality Act of 1965, all the states were
given option of preparing waler quality standards for their
interstate waters or possibly have the federal government
do it for them. All 50 states elected to draft their own
water quality standards.
As a result of federal and state standards, local
governments have an idea of what is required of them in
order to upgrade or maintain the quality of interstate
waters in their respective states. Since sedimentation is a
major source of water pollution, local jurisdictions are
placed in the position of adopting local standards to control
their erosion and sediment problems, or possibly forfeit the
right to control land-use activities withirt their boundaries.
This chapter has attempted to emphasize those legal
considerations that are essential if local communities are to
take the initiative in establishing and enforcing local
standards of erosion and sediment control.
1. U.S. Department of Interior. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, “Suspended Solids,” compilation of state pollution standards, in
‘Water Quality Standards Summary.” June. 1969.
2. 1966 Report of committee on Condemnation and Gondemnation Procedure, David R. Levin, Chairman. Section of Local Government Law of
the American Bar Association, 1966. P. p. 84.
G 25

ch ter five
Growing communities need to plan for orderly
development. Such planning usually falls into the three
general categories of land-use planning. transportation
planning, and public facilities and utilities planning. These
plans would include such activities as subdivision
development, open space preservation, construction of
highways, streets, parking lots, mining operations, and the
construction of sewerage systems, public buildings, water
.supply systems, and other public facilities.
In many communities, the plans for development and
construction activities have not contained provisions for
controlling erosion and sediment. A major purpose of
sedimentation control planning is to develop control
provisions which can be introduced into plans for
construction and development activities in order that
sedimentation problems from these sources can be
controlled. Such provisions should provide sediment at ion
control during development and construction as well as
when facilities are completed and in use. In cases where
normal operations such as mining activities, cause
sedimentation problems. control is desirable during and
possibly after the mining process. The purpose of this
chapter is to describe the basic information needed for
developing sedimentation control provisions, and to explain
how these provisions can be incorporated into various levels
of planning.
Soil erosion and sediment control planning consists of
several basic steps, outlined as follows:
1. Determining the level at which sedimentation
planning will take place.
2. Conducting watershed research.
3. Developing erosion and sediment control
provisions (or a control strategy).
4. Implementing control strategy by
incorporating control provisions into the
plans for all activities which produce erosion
and sediment, including activities which are
likely to cause sedimentation in the future.
5. Following through on control provisions at
the project level.
6. Conducting evaluations of the success of the
control program and providing for revision
and updating, as required.
Like other kinds of planning activities, erosion and
sediment control planning may take place at several levels
and may be conducted by a number of different agencies.
This chapter is primarily concerned with four levels of
sedimentation control planning, all of which, in practice.
are interrelated. These levels of planning may be referred to
as areawide planning, community or local planning. project
planning and regional planning. These planning levels are
described below.
Areawide Planning
Areawide sedimentation planning is premised on
geographic factors, such as watershed characteristics.
instead of on strictly political boundaries. Thus, depending
upon physical characteristics. areawide planning may
include mutual planning efforts on the part of one or more
counties (if watershed characteristics are interrelated within
the area encompassed by the county or counties) or a joint
planning effort by a county (or counties) and one or more
Areawide sedimentation control planning may be
conducted by a number of different agencies which have
areawide planning capabilities. These might include councils
of governments, flood control districts, county and
multi-county planning bodies, conservation districts.
sanitation agencies, watershed agencies. drainage districts
and others. The erosion and sediment control planning
function should be conducted by the agency or agencies
best suited to the task. In practice. planning responsibilities
are usually shared by several of these agencies. A method of
coordinating these efforts is essential.
Local or Community Planning
Local planning refers to planning activity conducted for
a specific municipality, county, or other jurisdiction, or for
parts of such entities. Local planning is usually smaller in
scope than is areawide palnning. and may not address the
entire geographic scale of the physical problem. Local
sedimentation control planning may be necessary in cases
where areawide control planning is unavailable, an in
instances where areawide planning does exist, local planning
may be utilized as an unput into the areawide control
Community level sedimentation control planning may be
carried out by local agencies such as municipal planning
commissions. In addition, most areawide agencies offer
planning services to local communities when legal
arrangements permit. Thus, planning for local control
programs may be conducted by county planning
commissions when the county’s jurisdiction parallels the
Planning for Sedimentation Control
G 26

areawide problem, or by multi-county planning
organizations such as councils of governments, or by
conservation districts, and others.
Chapter Three has emphasized that areawide approaches.
including areawide planning approaches, offer more
effective control over erosion and sediment than do
fragmented or isolated efforts. Local or community
planning efforts should therefore be coordinated as closely
as possible with areawide planning. Both areawide and
community sedimentation control planning are concerned
with the same substance. i.e.. watershed research and the
development of a sedimentation control strategy. The
difference between the two is a matter of scope, not
Close articulation between local and areawide planning is
crucial during the period when plans are to be
implemented. While the areawide planning function can be
carried out by a number of areawide agencies, the
implementation of such plans requires that they become an
integral part of many other community plans.
Regional Planning
Regional erosion and sediment control planning refers to
planning activities conducted over a large area, such as river
basins, or sub-state districts. Planning at this level is being
conducted in some areas by river basin authorities or
commissions. River basin research helps to tie together the
trends and needs of watersheds within river basins, and can
yield knowledge about how river basins are affected by
erosion and sediment.
Project Plans
The basic objective of sedimentation control planning is
to eliminate or curtail erosion of soil and thereby reduce
sediment yields. To achieve this objective, each individual
activity or project which produces erosion and sediment
will need to implement specific erosion control measures.
Project planning represents a method b which areawide
and community planning may be implemented. For
example. if community or areawide sedimentation control
planning reveals that a proposed housing development site
has soils that are particularly susceptible to erosion, the
project plans for that development should call for
appropriate erosion prevention measures, such as sediment
basins, proper grading and seeding, construction of berms,
and other possible technical measures. The technical apsects
of project planning are described in more detail in the
Chapter on Implementation and Control.
In most cases, erosion and sediment control planning will
constitute only a part of overall resource planning and
management. All resource conservation efforts, however,
require that a solid base of data be accumulated before
management strateev is developed. For areas experiencing
suburban and urban development, or for those which will
experience it in the future, erosion and sediment control
planning should provide at least the following watershed
Hydrologic. Soils, and Geologic Information
Hydrologic information includes such items as rainfall
and runoff data: temperature changes (thaws—freezing ):
capacitY of streams and rivers; condition and capacity of
existing storm drainage systems: and sediment transport
and deposition.
Soils information would include data such as soil types:
soil erodibility. types of vegetative coverage: and stability
of existing or proposed slopes.
Geologic information would indicate the existence of
geological hazards which may be defined as any condition
in earth whether naturally occurring or artificially created,
which is dangerous or potentially dangerous to life or
property due to movement, failure, or shifting of earth.
Developmental Information
The value of hydrologic, soils, and geologic information
is that it can reveal where and to what extent erosion and
sediment problems exist. To be most effective in preventing
sedimentation, this information should be compared with
various kinds of developmental information. In this way, it
is possible to foresee what impact anticipated development
will have on the soil and water relationships within
watersheds, and various conservation measures can then be
planned for in advance of development.
Developmental information relevant to erosion and
sediment control would include the following:
(1) Population data—present population,
anticipated growth and movement;
employment and commuting patterns
.— I .
-. T ,. - _ .‘._-_---—. - . - ,.•-•- -,• s.
Soil surrey uIf r?natio ,i on 11w sea oizal high-water table would hare
tol I dere k pers that 1/us lo atiun was u zde ira b/c Jor home-building.
G 27

(changes and trends); population density,
educational needs; and other data.
(2) Public facilities and utilities—anticipated
construction and improvement of sewer and
drainage systems; schools, parks, fire and
police stations, libraries, hospitals, water
supply facilities, and others.
(3) Land-use data—including residential (present
housing patterns and needs; anticipated
construction—its size, location and type, and
its probable effect on watershed hydrology);
industrial growth and change; commercial
development; and other recreational and
institutional developments.
(4) Transportation data—includes information
on present and future transportation trends,
such as automobile usage; road and highway
construction; airport facilities; mass transit
facilities; railroad and pedestrian facilities.
The lists cited above make reference to -information of
two types. The first, geologic, soils and hydrologic
information, refers to the basic physical environment of
man; while the second, developmental information, refers
to the activities of man. The purpose of relating the two is
to determine what inmpact suburban and/or urban
development is likely to have on the environment, and
conversely, the limitations that the environment is likely to
place on development.
Soil surveys illustrate the importance of physical
resource facts. For many years, conservationists and ot’her
experts have stressed the importance of soil studies to
proper land-use planning. Most people are unaware of the
fact that soils are characterized by a variety of strengths
and weaknesses which affect their suitability for various
uses. Briefly stated, different soils behave in different ways.
Using Soil Studies in Land-Use Planning
environmental problems, such as water
supply and flooding, and water
Because of the vast amount of
building underway, it was not
szirprizing that a major pro blein of soil
erosion and sediment developed. Soil
characteristics vary sharply within the
region and many local groups became
concerned that the building boom
would cause irreparable damage to
land, and that development on
unsuitable soils would result in serious
sedimentation, flooding, and septic
tank problems during and after the
construction phase.
The Southeastern Wisconsin Region
consists of seven counties covering
2,689 square miles. The region is
located west of Lake Michigan, and
north of the Illinois — Wisconsin
Border. The seven counties —
Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee,
Racine, Walworth, Washington and
Waukesha — comprise about 5 percent
of the state ‘s land area, yet as one of
the fastest growing areas in the nation,
it contains over 40 percent of the
state’s total population.
The population of the region, which
is estimated currently at 1.6 million
people, is growing at the rate of
33,000 persons per year and is
expected to reach 2. 7 million by the
year 1990. A most significant
demographic trend has been the swift
and intensive growth of suburban
communities. Between 1950 — 1963,
land devoted to urban use increased by
almost 150 percent. If current trends
continue, over 15 square miles of land
will be converted from rural to urban
uses each year. and by 1990, over 400
square miles of land will have
undergone this conversion.
The Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission, the
local conservation districts, planning
agencies, local governments and other
local groups have recognized that this
type of development pattern had very
important effects on the region’s
soils are susceptible to swelling,
shrinkage, frost action, erosion, and
topographical data.
The real significance of this data is
that it has been put to use. Although
the regional soil survey was originally
intended for use in regional planning,
it became obvious that the survey
would be useful to local communities
within the region. Accordingly, to help
assure full use of the survey, the
SEWRPC negotiated a memorandum
of understanding with the U £ Soil
Conservation Service, and local
agencies to help familiarize local
communities with the soil survey and
its uses. The survey has been well
received, and as a result, much of the
region’s land-use planning is now
conducted on the basis of soils
Local officials who are familiar with
the project maintain that the soil
survey, which costs about $0.30 per
acre, was a very sound capital
investment. For example, the
executive director of The Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission estimated that the soil
survey will save approximately $300
million in the cost of residential land
development in the region during the
next 25 years. In addition, the soil
survey, because it is used in planning,
is helping to preserve soil and water
Accordingly, in 1963 the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Co inmission (SEWRPC), in
cooperation with the Soil
Conservation Service of the US
Department of Agriculture, initiated a
two-year study designed to provide
detailed soil surveys for the entire
region. The study completed a project
started but interrupted years before,
and provides soils data on all of the
region ‘s acreage. The survey was
completed in 1966, and the results are
published in SE WRPC Planning Report
No. 8, The Soils of Southeastern
Wisconsin. The completed survey
provides such information as depth of
water tables, the location and
capabilities of various soil types, where

Some types of soils slip and slide easily while others are
relatively stable. Some types absorb water and septic tank
seepage while others do not have this capacity. Some types
of soil do not erode easily, while other types will erode
under slight force.
The failure to recognize the importance of soil types
during urbanization has been extremely costly. The tonnage
of soil washed away from construction sites has been
enormous, and the cases where septic tanks have failed
because of unsuitable soils are too numerous to count. In
all, many millions of dollars worth of damage is caused
annually because land-use planning at the local level has not
been related to soil capabilities.
New methods of incorporating soils data into maps are
being used by a growing number of planning agencies
throughout the country. Such soil maps can indicate which
soils are suitable for various types of uses, such as
recreation areas, highways. homebuilding, open spaces,
septic tanks, etc.
Soil studies are of little use unless they are made part of
the overall planning function; knowledge of local soils
should precede plans for disturbing the soil or building on
it. Accordingly, all agencies involved in water and land-use
planning should possess the capability of conducting
comprehensive soil studies, or if they do not, they should
obtain this capability through agreements with agencies
having the trained manpower. or through professional
The purpose of conducting research and collecting
watershed data is to formulate a strategy, based on facts,
for controlling erosion and sediment. (It is important to
remember that watershed research is useful to for
comprehensive conservation planning and it is not used
exclusively for erosion and sediment control.) Once
hydrologic, soils, and geologic data is available, it needs to
be analyzed in connection with the patterns of suburban
and urban development taking place.
When these two types of information are brought
together for analysis. some general outlines for developing
sedimentation control measures should become apparent.
For example. when soil types within a rapidly growing area
are found to highly erodible, the land-use plans for that
area should take into account the potential danger of
erosion and provide for appropriate precautionary measures
for any activities permitted in that area.
The planning function is normally separate from the
actual implementing of plans. Whereas planning may be
carried out by a number of different groups and agencies,
the authority to implement plans is normally vested in
elected officials.
Erosion and sediment control provisions in construction
and development plans may be implemented in a number of
different ways. depending upon local variations in legal
authority. Local plans may be implemented through the use
of legal mechanisms such as subdivision, drainage, grading
and zoning regulations.
Provisions in subdivisions, grading and drainage
regulations for sedimentation control essentially involve a
regulatory procedure which makes issuance of construction
and grading permits contingent on local government review
and approval of developers’ project plans. In this way, each
development and construction project, whether it is a
highway, a subdivision development, or a public facility or
utility, is required to introduce appropriate sedimentation
control measures in its planning stages. The criteria for
approval include control measures called for in areawide or
community plans applicable to the project under review.
These control measures can be developed from such basic
principles as:
(1) fitting development plans to climatic factors,
topography, soils and vegetative cover;
(2) reducing the area and the duration of
exposed soils;
(3) retaining and protecting natural vegetation
wherever feasible;
(4) covering disturbed soils with mulch or
(5) mechnically retarding runoff and erosion,
and trapping sediment in runoff water and;
(6) providing effective accommodation for
increased runoff caused by changed soil and
surface conditions during and after
Zoning is another legal vehicle which can be used to
implement erosion and sediment control. Zoning may be
used to restrict the uses of land to those activities for which
the geology, hydrology and soils of the area are considered
suitable. Flood plain zoning, for example, is often used to
limit development in flood risk areas to projects which can
Sedimentation problems are caused by public, as well as prii’ate
G 29

absorb high levels of water water runoff.
Planning for erosion and sediment control is not
implemented by the publication of a planning document.
lnst ad, implementation is effected when control provisions
are incorporated (by policy statement, ordinances, rules
and regulations) into the many on-going planning processes
within a jurisdiction. In graphic form this concept is
illustrated in fignre 2.
The long-term success of the control program depends
upon its ability to adjust to changing circumstances and
needs, if the physical characteristics or erosion and
sediment conditions are altered, as they will be under
changing land-use patterns, the control program will need
to compensate for the changing needs of the watershed
Continual evaluation of the control program is needed in
order that is effectiveness can be determined. In this way,
the program can be modified to meet new demands, or to
adjust to unmet needs. It is desirable, therefore, that an
evaluation function be provided for within the program’s
requirements, and that the evaluation function be made
part of the planning — action process. This concept is
illustrated in figure 3.
Emphasis throughout this chapter has been placed on the
value of planning on the basis of watershed characteristics.
In addition, emphasis has been placed on planning for
sedimentation control in growing suburban and urban areas.
It is recognized, however, that in many cases a water
drainage area may consist of rural as well as suburban and
urban locations. Planning should not neglect sediment
problems having their source in rural sections of the
drainage area because eroded agricultural soil may carry
potent pollutants, such as insecticides, into water bodies
needed for urban and suburban uses. Erosion from sections
of the drainage area which have been subjected to mining
operations may also consitute serious toxic threats to
domestic water supplies. Therefore, the importance of
comprehensive drainage area planning and control is again
Figure 2
Areawide or Community Plans with Sedimentation Control Provisions
Land Use
surface mining
Public Facilities and Utilities
underground facilities
Implemented by zoning
ordinances, subdivision, grading.
and drainage rules and
regulations, and/Or codes
and ordinances
Implemented by administrative
policy statements and regulations
and intergovernmental
Implemented by administrative
policy statements and regulations
and intergovernmental
Project Plans
Sedimentation Control Specifications

Figure 3
This chapter has attempted to describe tile primary
features of planning for soil erosion and sediment control.
A major purpose of sedimentation control planning is to
provide basic information about erosion and sediment; to
identify the nature and extent of erosion and sediment, to
determine their sources and causes; to assess the costs and
damages inflicted by erosion and sediment; and to
determine how and to what extent these problems can be
By analysing and interpreting basic watershed data, the
planning function can help to develop a realistic control
strategy which can be applied in the form of a general
sedimentation control program. Implementation of the
control program is not a function of planning, but is instead
a legal and administrative function which is carried out
through local ordinances, regulations, and administrative
Sedimentation control can be planned at various levels
and by different agencies but is most likely be effective
when it is geared to natural drainage systems as they ace
affected by suburban and urban deyelopment. Erosion and
sediment planning is concerned with, and should be
directed to, all activities, public or private, which produce
sedimentation or which are affected by erosion and
sediment. Thus, erosion and sediment control planning
should be made an integral part of a community’s planning
In many cases numerous local agencies will possess the
capability to make valuable contributions to the planning
activity. It is important to make maximum use of these
capabilities and to ensure that all planning activities are
coordinated with one another.
Formulation of Control
Task Force
of Provisions
of Data
Revised and
Watershed Research
of Program s
G 31

ch ter six
Establishing control over sedimentation problems will
frequently involve spending public funds and placing
restrictions on public and private activities. Comprehensive
control may require, for example, that private developers
avoid sediment producing activities, or that flood control
operations be funded by public bonding.
Programs of this type require that the public have a
general understanding of why funding and controls are
necessary and that the public be willing to accept and
support such measures. The purpose of this chapter is to
describe some basic features of public support for
sedimentation control, and to outline some of the
techniques that may be used to develop and carry out a
public support program.
The question may be raised as to whether or not the
public can realistically be asked to organize in support of
erosion and sediment control. Not all segments of the
public are affected equally by these problems. In areas
where erosion and sediment, in themselves, constitute a
direct and major threat to the community, public
mobilization directed specifically at these problems may be
desirable. As pointed out in other chapters of this
handbook, erosion and sediment control programs are
ususally viewed as being a part of more comprehensive
conservation programs. such as total watershed
management efforts. For the purpose of this report then.
public acceptance and support programs may be viewed as
being applicable. in whole or in part. to total watershed
management and resource conservation efforts of which
sedimentation control is a part.
Whether for political. social, or economic ends,
Americans are prone to organize into groups. While many
people do not join formal organizations. most Americans
belong to one kind of group or another, and many belong
to several groups. Thus, when discussing public support. it
is well to keep in mind that the term “public” may refer to
people in general. or it may refer to people in organized
groups. For the purposes of this chapter, the term “public”
shall include both categories.
In view of the fact that public policy in this country is
often determined by how effectively various groups and
citizens articulate their demands, it should come as no
surprise that support for, and opposition to, erosion and
sediment control decisions will stem from a variety of
different groups. It might be expected, therefore, that
homeowners experiencing erosion, sediment, or flood
damage will support remedial measures. The task is to
develop the support of that part of the public which is not
aware that erosion and sediment are inflicting damage on it
as well, in the form of indirect costs and environmental
deterioration. Efforts to build and maintain public support,
therefore, should be concerned with two principal targets.
On one hand, these efforts should seek to take advantage of
the support offered by various groups. and, in addition to
this, should be directed at developing support of the general
Public support is built upon an understanding of the
nature of the problem facing the community. Generally.
the public cannot be expected to support a program. the
purposes and urgency of which have not been explained.
Building public support is a process, not a single campaign.
As such, efforts to build support must start at the bottom
and develop a basic community awareness of the problem.
Public Information Program
One of the most effective ways to develop community
support for erosion and sediment control is to institute a
public information program. The community is more likely
to accept such a control program, even if necessary
inconveniences and expenditures are required. if it is fully
informed as to why such action is needed. The process of
developing a comprehensive public information program
should include the following steps.
(1) Define the problem. Before the public can be
expected to support a control program. it
will need to understand what the problem is.
It is desirable that soil and water problems
within local watersheds be clearly identified.
This responsibility may be carried out by
professionals in the field of soil and water
management who are normally available
from local agencies such as conservation
districts, departments of local governments
and other organizations. Whenever possible,
technical information should be converted
into general language.
(2) Obtain agreement on the part of the
decision-makers and civic leaders that
identified problems need to be solved. Local
officials, citizens groups, business and
industrial representatives must be oriented
Public Acceptance and Support

towards and committed to soil and water
(3) Identify the various groups which will likely
support or oppose the control effort. The
program can then be geared toward potential
swing groups, towards converting opposing
groups, and towards reinforcing those groups
already supporting the program.
(4) Identify the most effective methods by
which various groups and the general public
can be “reached” and develop an overall
strategy with regard to information
distribution. This also may include making
provisions for coordinating the entire
information program.
In most communities there are public as well as private
agencies. groups. and organizations which are experienced
in conducting effective information programs. Departments
of local governments have’ waged many successful public
information programs. as have agencies within state
governments. Local, state and federal conservation
organizations have conducted such programs for many
years. These organizations include state water resources
agencies. conservation district, the Agricultural Extension
Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and others. Sources
of private assistance should not be overlooked.
Carrying Out the Information Program
In connection with sedimentation problems, the general
purpose of a public information program is to transmit
information and knowledge to the public. Presumably, after
receiving this information, the public will be more aware of
the problem and more concerned about correcting it. It is
important, therefore, that the strategy for informing the
public be carefully planned and executed. In order to build
a balanced program, capable of consistent performance, it
will be necessary to recognize some person or organization
as the coordinator or leader.
Whether an information campaign is carried forward by
local groups, an agency of local or state government, or by
special consultants, the objectives are to build community
awareness, acceptance, and support. Some methods by
which the program may be carried out are discussed below.
News Media. Newspapers, radio, television and other
news media are among the best avenues for conveying
information to the public and molding public opinion.
The are interested in news and will not transmit
propaganda or publicity. The key to having the help of
newspapers, radio and TV is to provide the editors and
broadcasters with news, and with information on
newsworthy.developments. Use of the news media should be
carried out systematically, rather than on an unplanned,
piecemeal basis.
The Citizens Committee. Citizens committees can play a
major role in public education programs. These committees
can be very effective agents of community action when
they are well organized and well staffed and when they
focus on specific tasks. In most cases. conservation and
water quality are community issues that are especially well
handled by citizens committees, and their support in such
programs can be of immeasurable help.
Citizens groups should keep three basic considerations in
mind. First, the key to success is the power to persuade.
Effective persuasion requires that the group be well
equipped with a solid arsenal of information Second, the
group should be as broadly based as possible, possessing as
much representative power as the depth and range of its
constituency permits. Third. the citizen committee or
group should be objective in its approach and avoid
In addition to citizens committees created for specific
purposes, a variety of other local citizens groups are
normally ready and willing to cooperate in efforts to
promote community resource management. Garden clubs
and federated women clubs have been used frequently in
such efforts, and with good results. Chambers of comrñerce
are frequently enlisted to give promotional support. In
addition, the League of Women Voters in most
communities is a particularly energetic and effective group.
These groups, through their various subcommittees, can
help with the information program.
Speakers Bureaus. Speakers bureaus have become major
educational tools. Through “pools” of speakers, a program
can make its activities known to civic clubs, schools, garden
clubs, and many other community organizations seeking
Through the bureau approach, speakers can be drawn
from a variety of backgrounds and professions, including
public officials, educators, doctors. lawyers and technical
experts in a number of fields. In some cases, it may be wise
to send “teams” of speakers so that the problem in
question can be covered from various angles such as
political, engineering, legal, financial, etc.
Some members of the public hai’e more serious erosion problems
1/ian others.
G 33

Public Hearings. Public hearings and discussion groups
are also effective mechanisms of information dissemination.
Actually, hearings and discussions should be viewed as a
learning experience, in that they serve to provide an
education process. Hearings and discussions can also serve
as sounding boards for public opinion, so that information
and education flows in both directions.
Public hearings discussions and speeches can be enhanced
through the use of movies, pictures, slides, and other
audio-visual techniques. Many local agencies, such as
conservation districts and public works departments, have
collections of appropriate pictures and slides that are
available for various events. Before-and-after pictures of
various problems are especially convincing.
Printed Material. An ample supply of well-documented,
attractive printed material can, if properly distributed,
become a central feature of the public information
program. Illustrated maps, charts, and fact sheets are widely
respected as being an effective method of reaching the
public. Citizens groups are frequently helpful in preparing
and distributing these materials, and in arranging public.
Field Trips. Field trips are excellent ways of conveying
information on resource conservation to interested groups.
Examples of the problem(s) and the procedures used for
the solution can be seen. A more thorough understanding
often is obtained this way rather than through other efforts
at public education. Local civic groups, businessmen.
students, and many others may benefit from field trips.
Citizen Involvement as a Mechanism of Support. It seems
to be human nature that people are less willing to criticize
those programs which they have helped to develop. Many
communities have found that when citizens are involved in
a project (any kind of project) they are more likely to
support it. Involvement can be a key source of support.
The question arises as to when is it best for citizens to
Environment in the Schools
with a special concern
for environment.
7. In trodi cing the new
superintendent to the
C’o,i serva non council
program and keeping
him informed of its
8. Supporting a key
biology teacher, making
possible a year of study
related to developing
environ me ii t al
education curriculum.
Fox Chapel Bureau is a small
suburban community located near
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In this small
conlmunitv of a little over seven
square miles, citizens have taken an
active interest in the conservation of
local resources and natural beauty.
In 1949, a L ’onsen’ation Council,
consisting of a union of garden clubs
was formed to help promote
community interest in maintaining a
clean environment. This groups is now
known as the Conservation Council of
the Fox Chapel Area.
In the 1960 ‘s, threats to the
environment, such as erosion,
insecticides, and stream pollution
began to accelerate. Recognizing these
threats as long-range em’iron,nental
problems, the Conservation Council
began pro in o ting a program of
environmental and ecological
education in tile Fox Chapel Area
District Schools. The basic purpose of
the program is to educate an entire
generation of citizens to understand
their relationship to their
enl’ironrnent, and to sentitize them to
the need for a clean, habitable place to
administrative staffs,
and school boards of
public and private
schools in the district,
throng/i letters, articles.
lectures and films.
2. Cain paigning for
retention of land
adjacent to schools
(which had been put up
for sale) by attending
school board meetings,
arranging interpretive
nature walks with
school administrators
and board members,
and by bringing in
eminent consen’ation
authorities as
3. Sponsoring scholarships
to audubon camps for
key teachers and upper
classinen in high school.
4. Conducting panel
discussions and lectures
to parent—school
organizations and
garden clubs.
5. Conducting a workshop
with invited consultants
and a film on school site
development for
outdoor education.
6. Supporting the
appointment of a new
school superintendent
A succession of approaches for
institutionalizing en i’iron mental
education were made, including the
following steps:
In 1969, the school board of the
Fox Chapel Area School District voted
to approve tile additon of a
kindergarten through twelfth grade
curricu l i i in in environmental and
ecological education u’ith the chief
ii igh school biology teacher being
appointed coordinator of this
High school upper classmen now use
local parks and nature preserves ftr
their studies. They also assist in
guidance of the youngest children in
oz tdoor exploration and
interpretation. This park—school
pro gram will be used in the summer
recreation experience of neighborhood
children. The Conservation Council of
the Fox (‘hapel Area hopes the
program will serve as a pilot project
which will be adopted by other school
1. Disseminating
information to
G 34

become involved. The answer, based on the experiences of
some communities, is at the very beginning of the program,
in the planning phase. The planning phase is the point at
which the best citizen understanding of the purpose and
scope of the program can be developed. Many crucial
decisions have to made in the planning phase which will
help determine the future of the program. Early citizen
involvement, in the form of advisory committees, public
hearings, and through the public information program. can
help reduce resistance at a later time.
Local leaders need to get other key leaders involved at
the very beginning. Public officials, for example. who must
make key policy decisions concerning the program’s
implementation. should become intimatley involved, for
much depends upon their understanding and support of the
Schools and the Environment
Americans need to know about, and learn to appreciate.
the mutually dependent relationship they share with the
natural resources that sustain them. They need to consider
the impact they are having on their environment. Schools
represent the most effective instrument of long-range
conservation education. About one-fourth of the nation’s
population—over 50 million people—are high school or
elementary school students.
In school science courses. such as geography, biology.
geology, health, and others, there is a need to teach the
physical characteristics of watershed drainage, resource
conservation and how the various natural elements,
including man, depend upon each other for survival. In this
connection, the watershed provides a living laboratory for
science students of all ages.
Economics and math classes can study resource
conservation from a different point of view. Such
approaches might include studies of cost-benefit concepts
and other conservation management techniques.
In a long range sense, the social studies curriculum may
be charged with the most profound responsibilities. Social
studies courses must share a major responsibility for
transmitting. from one generation to the next, the cultural
codes, mores, social values, and attitudes by which the
nation lives and the objectives towards which it strives.
Thus, social studies courses should teach that resource
management must be placed high in the nation’s system of
priorities. Social studies classes could, for example, concern
themselves with the values held by institutions that
determine how natural resources are used. History classes
could study how the use of natural resources has influenced
the economic. cultural. and aesthetic development of
communities. states. and the nation.
Seven out of ten of today’s students live in urban or
suburban areas. The schools that educate these students
must start developing a conservation-oriented urban citizen.
Such a wide-range program must start with the proper
education of teachers. The colleges and universities need to
develop principles of conservaton education that can be
taught to future teachers. This means that conservation
must be made a part of college, high school, and elementary
school instruction programs.
This chapter has attempted to explain why public
support for sedimentation control is important and has
provided a general outline of some of the procedures and
methods that may be used to develop public support. In
many cases, it may be unrealistic to mount a full-scale
public information program designed exclusively for
erosion and sediment control. Instead, such a program
should be geared toward building public awareness of, and
concern for, comprehensive watershed management.
Many groups are likely to be involved in building public
support for resource conservation and management
programs. It is desirable therefore, that various efforts to
develop and carry out public information programs be
coordinated. Preferably, a leader should be chosen to
discharge the coordinating function.
Environmental quality is a grave problem which is
receiving more and more national attention, and as the
nation advances into the 1970’s it may be reasonable to
expect that programs seeking to iniprove environmental
quality will receive considerable public support. Local
officials, therefore, will not only need to help build public
support for environmental programs, but they will also
need to ensure that public support is effectively used.
Lsi,lg sound conserration principles during development can
promote environ mental quality.
G 35

cn iter seven
This chapter is designed to present the financial basis for
public erosion and sediment control programs. For
purposes of this report, however, discussion of finances is
not meant to relate exclusively to erosion and sediment
control operations. As pointed out in other chapters of this
guidebook, erosion and sediment control programs are
usually considered as being a part of more comprehensive
conservation efforts, such as total watershed management
programs. This is true because most operations for erosion
and sediment control also serve other objectives of areawide
water purification. Therefore, this chapter may be viewed
as being applicable, in whole or in part, to total watershed
conservation efforts.
This chapter is divided into four parts: the basic factors
of a financial program, sources of revenue, purchasing
techniques, and financial and technical assistance. The first
three parts are presented in outline form to expedite review
of basic information.
A community’s ability to secure ready funds from
banking firms or bond houses to fund public improvement
projects related to sedimentation control depends on at
leas-t three basic factors: adequate legal authority, credit
quality, and proper comprehensive financial planning.
Legal Authority Needed
Comprehensive Financial Planning
(1) Program goals and objectives
(2) Projected projects costs (i.e. cost analysis)
(a) Planning costs
(b) Principal and interest payments
(c) Capital improvements costs (i.e.
capital improvement budgeting)
(d) Operation and maintenance costs
Sediment control progranis can be financed through
traditional local government funding methods, and through
private sources. The former include appropriations from the
general fund, special assessments. bonding. and federal and
state assistance. The latter is derived from private
developers or their contractors. Federal and state assistance
is discussed later in this chapter in the section titled
Financial and Technical Assistance.
General Tax Fund
(1) Property taxes
(2) Local income taxes
Special District Assessments
(1) To enter into contracts and
intergovernmental agreements
(2) To incur indebtedness
(3) To levy taxes
(4) To refund for lower interest rates
(5) To issue liens against property for
delinquent taxes
(6) To increase or eliminate debt limitations
(7) To accept grants-in-aid
(8) To pass supplemental appropriations
Credit Quality
(1) The economic base of the local jurisdiction
(2) The nature of the institutional and legal
means available for protecting bond
(3) The general administrative and management
performance of local public officials
(1) Usually based on front footage or area
served rather than property value
(2) May be levied against all properties in the
district including property normally
exempted from tax
(3) Jurisdictional forms
(a) drainage basin
(b) Subdivision development
(c) County
(d) Intergovernmental service district
(1) General obligation bonds
(a) Usually carry low interest rates
(b) Generally must be approved by
public referendum
G 36

(c) Secured by ad valorem taxes levied
upon the entire community
(d) Appropriate for financing
construction (e.g.. reservoirs,
storm drains, and water channel
improvements) and the acquisition
of land
(2) Special assessment bonds
(a) Payable from special assessments
on the property benefited by the
bond funded project
(c) Appropriate for funding facilities
for special service areas which are
under the control of county
(3) Revenue bonds
(a) Are used for “self-liquidating”
projects where a direct service is
provided on a use or service charge
(b) Do not compete with other
projects for the tax revenue
(c) Generally do not come under debt
(d) Are not secured by the faith.
credit and taxing power of the
local government
(e) Generally have relatively high
interest rate
(f) Might have protective covenants in
the bond issue which will be too
rigid and inflexible in the future
Contributions from Developers
It should be recognized that most erosion and sediment
control measures can be funded by developers and
contractors as a part of their normal construction activities.
Sediment control programs in several Maryland and Virginia
counties, for example, require developers to provide all
necessary temporary and permanent control measures. The
measures required include vegetation and minor structural
improvement s.. (However, the cost of major
improvements—dams, open channel linings, reservoirs.
etc.—is normally funded through local, state, federal, or
intergovernmental multipurpose projects.) For information
on legal mechanisms used to implement these programs see
the Chapter on Legal Authority.
Equipment needed for sediment control operations very
often is available as part of the conventional equipment
found in most community inventories. However, when an
additional piece of equipment is needed, such as a
hydroseeder or mulcher. several alternative purchasing
techniques may be considered.
(1) Based on accumulation of funds in advance
of purchases or make purchases within the
limits of funds on hand.
(2) Major advantage: absence of long term
interest rate charges and uncertainties
attending subsidies, grants-in-aid, or bond
(3) Major disadvantage: it may be better to
borrow now and pay later, because of
Intergovernmental Agreements
(1) May be used to supplement equipment, as
necessary, anywhere within an areawide
(2) Can be entered into with special purpose
organizations, especially conservation
districts which often have sedinient control
equipment available on loan
(1) Can be employed between local
governments or between a local government
and a private firm
(2) Require no capital investment
(3) Allow flexibility for meeting changing
conditions in terms of the amount or type
of equipment needed
(4) Disadvantages include: leasing costs are
normally much higher than any borrowing
rate: and rental payments do not produce
any equity in equipment
Aid to local government programs takes the form of
advisory, technical, and informational assistance; as well as
grants, loans, advances, and guarantees.
Federal Assistance
Federal technical assistance is largely investigative and
advisory in nature supplemented by published articles,
reports, and surveys. This form of assistance is available to
local governments through their state officials or through
regional and local federal offices.
Federal financial assistance to local government is
primarily in the form of grants-in-aid and shared revenue.
According to the Vice President s Handbook for Local
Officials, it has been estimated for 1968 that $17.2 billion,
or 98.7 percent of total expenditures for aid took the form
of grants. Shared revenue is estimated at $223 million, or
1 .3 percent. Apart from these types of federal aid other
expenditures affecting local government finances include
contractual payments or grants to public educational
institutions for research, and the training of manpower in
specialized areas.
G 37

Matching provisions, requirements causing states or
localities to share in program costs, are a part of most grant
programs. Cost sharing requirements generally take one of
two forms: they may be variable matching which takes into
account differing financial abilities between states or
localities, or they may be fixed-ratio matching which
requires all recipients to pay the same percentage of
program costs.
Federal Assistance and Research Programs
Federal assistance and research for soil erosion and
sediment control projects are not easily ascertainable. This
is true for a variety of reasons, including: a lack of
programs directly related to sediment control; a multitude
of programs that appear to be indirectly concerned with
sediment control: current emphasis on more easily
identifiable sources of pollution; vague language regarding
the applicability to urbanizing areas of programs
traditionally active in rural sectors: and the lack of
comprehensive and informative descriptions of existing
Accordingly, the programs outlined below may not
include all federal assistance available or they may be
incomplete in terms of eligibility standards. Local officials,
therefore, should contact the nearest field representative
for those programs for which they may be eligible in order
to receive comprehensive consultation on all possible
eligibility and cost-sharing requirements.
Programs are listed according to administering executive
departments, and to department subdivisions which may be
contacted for information in addition to that provided
below. Addresses for department subdivisions follow the
last of a subdivisions’ listed programs. Addresses for the
departments’ area or regional offices are provided in the
appendix. Program titles are followed by parentheses
containing citations of that program’s authorizing
1. Department of Agriculture
(1) National Cooperative Soil Survey Program (16
U.S.C. 590a-590f)
This program. carried on in cooperation with state
agricultural experiment stations and other agencies.
provides soils information essential for developing
sedimentation control planning provisions. The different
kinds of soil are studied, mapped, and interpreted. These
soil surveys are then published. Modern soil surveys
provide information about the properties of soil to a
depth of about 6 feet. They show wetness, overflow
hazard, depth to rock (within 6 feet). hardpans. other
layers,—erodibility. and the hazard of soil slippage on
slopes. Through soil survey maps and interpretations, the
suitability or limitations of soils for certain uses can be
Examples of printed information available:
List of Published Soil Surreys
Know the Soil You Build On. AIB 320
Know Your Soil. AIB 267
(2) Watershed Development and Flood Prevention
(Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act;
16 U.S.C. 1004, 1005 [ SuppVI)
This program provides technical and financial assistance
to states and their political subdivisions in planning.
designing, and installing watershed improvement works;
in sharing costs of flood prevention, irrigation, drainage.
and sedimentation control; fish and wildlife
developments, and public recreation: and in extending
long-term credit to help local interests with their share of
the costs. Flood prevention measures are eligible for
federal funds covering full Cost of construction and
engineering. Costs for non-agricultural water management
measures such as municipal or industrial water supplies
are assumed entirely by local interests.
Any state, county, municipal, or other nonprofit
organization with authority to carry out, maintain, and
operate water supply improvements may sponsor a
watershed project.
The watershed project area must be smaller than 250,000
acres and must not include any single structure with a
total capacity of more than 25.000 acre-feet. Project
benefits must be in excess of costs.
Examples of printed information available:
What (lie Soil Conservation Service Does, SCS-Cl-3
Local— State—Federal Waters/ted Projects, SCS-Cl-4
Watershed Loans, PA-406
Multiple—Purpose Isliters/zed Projects. PA-S 75
(3) Soil and Water Conservation Program (16 U.S.C.
This program offers technical assistance required by
landowners to solve land and water problems. The Soil
Conservation Service, principally through conservation
districts, gives on-site help in developing, applying and
maintaining sound soil and water conservation plans. and
helps groups of individuals and organizations with
programs for entire watersheds.
The trained conservationists include: soil scientists:
agricultural, irrigation. hydraulic, drainage, and
cartographic engineers: economists: and specialists in
woodland, agronomy. biology, range management. plant
materials, geology and sedimentation. SCS technicians
assist in the application of the more difficult practices
called for in the conservation plan. such as layout for
contouring, the designing and supervising of construction
of drainage and water-disposal systems. irrigation
systems, terrace systems, diversions and svatersvavs,
Technical assistance, designed to help solve planning
problems involving soil, water and related resources, is
available to individual and group landowners. In certain
programs (Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.
Resource Conservation and Development, and the Great
Plains Conservation Program). financial assistance is also
available for specified work.
Examples of printed information available:
Soil Conservation Service. PA-8 1 8
What the Soil Conservation Service Does, SCS-Cl-3
Soil Conservation at Home AIB 321
G 38

Our American Land, AIB 321
Sediment, AIB 325
Published Soil Surveys
For more information regarding the above programs,
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C., 20250
Local Soil Conservation Service Office
Local Soil Conservation District
(4) Soil and Water Conservation Research
(16U.S.C. 590a—590f)
The Agricultural Research Service conducts research on soil
and water conservation including erosion and pollution
control, sedimentation and hydrology. This program
provides technical information for federal, state and local
agencies and private engineers working on sediment control
This program provides grants of up to 50 percent of the
cost of public facilities including water and sewer systems,
and flood control projects. Severely depressed areas that
cannot match federal funds may receive supplementary
grants to bring federal contribution up to 80 percent of the
project cost.
Examples of printed information available:
Predicting Rainfall—Erosion Losses from Cropland
East of the Rocks’ Mountains, Agriculture
Handbook 282
Sumniarv of Reservoir Sediment De sition Surreys
made in the United States through 1965. USDA
Misc. Pub. 1143
For more information contact:
Soil and \Vater Conservation Research Division
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Beltsville. Maryland 20705
H. Department of Commerce
Economic Development — Grants and Loans for Public
Works and Development Facilities (Ptiblic Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965; 42 U.S.C. 3121)
This program provides giants of up to 50 percent of the
cost of public facilities including water and sewer
systems, and flood control projects. Severely depressed
areas that cannot match federal funds ma\ receive
supplementary grants to bring federal contribution up to
80 percent of the project cost.
Loans are also available for public works and
development facility projects. These loans may pay the
full cost of a project and may run for as long as 40 years.
the interest being determined by government borrowing
costs.Aconimunity that is unable to raise its share of the
eligible project cost may receive a grant for 50 percent or
more of the project’s cost and a federal loan for the
remainder of the cost.
States and local subdivisions thereof. Indian tribes, and
private or public non-profit organizations or associations
representing a redevelopmept area or an economic
development center are eligible.
Examples of printed information available:
EDA Handbook
Bui!diqg Communities with Jobs, EDA
Grants and Loans for Public Works and Development
Facilities, EDA
Areas Eligible for Financial Assistance
Guides for Overall Economic Development Programs
Economic Development Dfrectory of Approved Projects
For more information, contact:
Economic Development Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington. D.C. 20230
Economic Development Administration Area Offices
(See appendix for addresses)
III. Department of Defense
(1) Flood Plain Management Services Program (33
U.S.C. 707a)
This program includes preparation of flood plain
information reports and special reports on flood hazards,
and technical services and guidance toward reduction of
flood damage potentials. Services include interpretation
of basic data and assistance in planning for land-use
regulations, for possible flood modification structures.
and for application of flood concepts. Non-federal
interests are encouraged to provide mapping, aerial
photography, stream flow records, and related assistance.
Examples of printed information available:
Flood Plain Management and Flood Plain Management
Guidelines for Reducing Flood Damages
(2) Limited Water Resources Development Projects
(33 USC 426 g, 701a, 577. 603a.701r)
This program provides the Chief Engineers with general
authority to undertake flood control, navigation, and
beach erosion control projects of limited scope. Federal
assistance includes studies of the problem involved, and
construction of restorative and protective works.
Cooperation requirements for non-federal interests are
the same as for the above program and in addition, the
following as appropriate:
(a) Small Flood Control Projects—all project costs
in excess of the federal limit of $1 million;
(b) Small Navigation Projects—all project costs in
excess of the federal limit of $500,000;
Ic) Small Beach Erosion Control Projects—all
project costs in excess of the fcdcral limit of
$500,000: and
(d) Snagging and Clearing i rojects for Flood
Control—all project costs in excess of the
federal limit of $100,000: and
(e) otection of Essential Highways, Highway
Bridge Approaches, and Public Works—all
project costs in excess of the federal limit of
For more information regarding theses programs, contact
the nearest U.S. Army Division or District Engineer or:
Director of Civil Works
Office of the Chief Engineer
Department of the Army
Washington. D.C. 20315
G 39

IV. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(1) Advance Acquisition of Land (Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965, sed. 704, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 3104)
This program provides grants for the advance acquisition
of land that communities will need for future
construction of public works and facilities. Grants are
made in amounts not to exceed the reasonable interest
cost of financing the acquisition of land for a period of
up to five years in advance of its use for approved public
purposes. In unusual circumstances HUD may allow a
period of more than five years. The approved use of the
land must be consistent with the comprehensively
planned development of the area.
Cities, towns, counties, States, Indian tribes, or a public
agency or instrumentality of one or more municipalities
established to finance capital improvements are eligible.,
Application is made to the HUD Regional Office serving
the area in which the land is located.
(2) Public Water and Sewer Facilities (Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1965. sec.702. as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 3101)
This program provides grants covering up to 50 percent
of land and construction costs for new water and sewer
facilities basic efficient and orderly areawide community
growth and development. The facilities must be
consistent with a program for a coordinated areawide
water and sewer facilities system which is part of the
comprehensively planned development of the area. A
grant may be up to 90 percent, under certain conditions,
for communities with population under 10,000. Cities,
towns, counties, Indian tribes, or public agencies or
instrumentalities of one or more states, or one or more
municipalities established to finance specific capital
improvement projects are eligible.
(3) Open Space Land Program (Housing Act of 1961,as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1500—1500e)
This program provides grants to help communities
acquire and develop land to help provide needed park,
Financing Major Control Measures
into the cTh’, and discharge them
downstream into the Rio Grande.
Other major tasks of the Authority
were to.•
Albuquerque c age-old erosion and
sediment problems are the direct result
of wind and infrequent but intense
summer rains. The latter swell the
arroyos which lead from the east and
west mesas to the city located below
in the Rio Grande River Valley.
To control the waters running off
the mesas and ponding in the river
valley, local citizens sought assistance
from the U S. Corps of Engineers
which (along with the U S. Bureau of
Reclamation) has responsibility for
controlling floods in the Rio Grande
River. As the Corjis of Engineers could
not undertake corrective measures
without there being a local sponsoring
agency, public pressure resulted in
legislative action by the state
legislature (March, 1962) creating the
Albuquerque Metropolitan Arrovo
Flood Control Authority.
The first objective of the Authority
was to adopt a plan for controlling
arroyo floods. After public hearings
and the investigation of many
schemes, the so-called “Twin-Ditch”
plan was adopted as the official plan
of the Authority. Briefly, the plan
called for two open concrete lined
channels known as the “North “ and
the “South” channels, parallel and on
the east side of the Rio Grande, to
intercept the arroyos before thev flow
1. Acquire all ,,eeded right
of ways.
2. Remove or relocate all
existing utilities.
3. Design and construct all
needed roads and bridges.
4. Make a cash contribution
to the US. Government
of the construction of
the North Oiannel equal
to 3.4% of the total cost
of this Channel.
5. Make a cash contribution
to the U S. Government
for the Construction
of the South (‘hannel
equal to 3.4% of the total
cost of this Channel.
obligation bonds in the amount of
59,500,000, and a date was selected
for an election to approve the bond
issue. After approval by the voters, the
Authority, assured of funds, adopted a
resoulution pledging cooperation tvith
the Federal Government in flood
control work. The resolution received
an endorsement of acceptance by the
District Engineer of the Albuquerque
US. Army Engineer District, thus
clearing the way to receive financial
assistance through the US. Corps of
Also, following approval by the
voters of the bond issue, a test suit was
filed in order to prove the
constitutionality of the legislative act
which created the Authority. This
latter step was deemed necessary as a
prerequisite to advertising and selling
the bond issue, A favorable decision
was rendered in both the District
Court of Bernalillo county and. on
appeal, in the State Supreme court.
The last hurdle was thereby cleared.
allowing the passage and adoption of a
/965 Bonds Public Sale Resolution by
the Board of Directors on November
4, 1964. The bonds were subsequently
sold to the lowest bidding financial
institution which called for an over-all
interest rate of 3.1% per annum over
the 13--i’ear life of the bond issue.
To secure the large sums of money
needed to fulfill these obligations, the
enabling act establishing the Authority
pave it the bonding power with a
statutory limit of 5)2,500,000 on the
amount of debt that could be
outstanding at any one time. A bond
resolution was passed IJulv 20, 1963)
calling for the issuance of general

recreation, conservation, scenic, and historic areas.
Acquisition and development of open space land must be
in accord with local and areawide comprehensive
planning. A grant to acquire developed land in a built-up
urban area may be made only if there is no suitable
undeveloped land in the same area.
A grant may be awarded up to 50 percent of the cost of
acquiring the needed land. Further grants for developing
land acquired under the program may be made up to 50
percent of improvement costs.
Eligible acquisition costs include those for acquiring land
and certain structures, demolition of inappropriate
structures, and real estate services. Eligible improvement
costs include basic facilities (e.g.. landscaping) but not
major construction. State and local public bodies with
authority to acquire and preserve open space land and to
contract for federal funds are eligible,
(4) New Communities (HUD Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.
3901 et seq.)
Bonds, debentures. notes, or other obligations issued by
private developers to finance the cost of aequiring and
developing land for new communities may be guaranteed
by HUD. Within a limit of 550 million for any one
community. and based on HUD’s estimate of value and
cost, the guaranteed amount may be up to whichever is
less: 80 percent of the value of the property when land
development is completed; or the sum of 75 percent of
the value of the land before development is completed:
and 90 percent of the actual cost of the land
development (not including buildings).
Supplemental grants of up to 20 percent of facility cost
are authorized for new community water and sewer or
open-space facilities assisted with other federal grants.
The total federal grant amount may not exceed 80
percent of facility cost.
Approved private developers may receive guarantees.
States and localities providing a new community
development with federally assisted water and sewer and
open space facilities may receive supplemental grants.
(5) Public Works Planning Advances (Housing Act of
1954, sec. 702, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 462)
A program to help communities plan for essential public
works and community facilities, interest-free advances
are made to cover the cost of feasibility studies and of
preparing engineering and architectural plans for needed
public works. This planning aid may be used for all types
of public works except public housing. Examples of
public works that can qualify are water and sewer
systems, public buildings, health facilities, recreational
projects, and bridges. The planning advance is repayable
to HUD when construction of the planned public work
begins. The eligible applicant may be any non-federal
public agency that is legally authorized to plan, finance.
and construct the proposed project. Such agencies
include states, counties, other political subdivisions,
special districts, regional and metropolitan public
agencies, and Indian tribes.
(6) Public Facility Loans Program (Housing
amendments of 1955,42 U.S.C. 1491-1497)
This program provides long-term loans (up to 40 years)
covering up to 100 percent cost of a variety of public
works projects including the construction of water and
sewage facilities, recreation facilities Street
improvements, public buildings (except schools), and
other public works. Loan aid is available only for those
parts of a project not covered by aid provided under
other federal agency programs.
Those eligible for funding include local units of
government or State instrumentalities (cities, towns,
villages, townships, counties, public corporations or
boards, sanitary or water districts, or Indian tribes)
having the legal authority to build public works and issue
bonds to pay for them. The applicant community must
have a population of under 50,000. In designated
redevelopment areas population may be up to 150,000,
while areas near research and development installations of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are
not subject to a population limit. A non-profit private
corporation serving a community under 10,000
population also is eligible for assistance but for water and
sewer facilities only.
(7) Planned Areawide Development (Demonstration
Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of
1966, 42 U.S.C. 333 1—3339)
A program of supplementary grants to encourage states
and localities to cooperate in the development and
implementation of effective areawide comprehensive
planning and programing in multijurisdictional areas.
Grants of up to 20 percent of project costs are authorized
to supplement federal grants made under any of 10 other
federal grant programs for the following types of
projects: basic water and sewer facilities, libraries,
hospitals and medical facilities, sewage treatment works,
highways, airport development, urban mass transportation
facilities and equipment. acquisition and development of
land for open space, urban beautification and
improvement, historic preservation, acquisition and
development of lands and waters for recreational
purposes, and public works and facilities in
redevelopment areas. The total federal contribution may
not exceed 80 percent of project costs.
The applicant may be any state or local public body
(a) has, within the current one-year period,
received a grant under one of the specified
federal programs for a project located in a
“qualified multijurisdictional area,” and
(b) demonstrates that it is assisting in carrying out
areawide comprehensive planning and
A “qualified jurisdictional area” is an area which is
determined by HUD to evidence superiorperformance in
developing and implementing an effective areawide
comprehensive planning system.
(8) Comprehensive Planning Assistance (Housing Act
of 1954, Sec. 701, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 461)
Grants of up to two-thirds (three-fourths, in some
instances) of the cost of a planning project are made to
supplement state and local funds for comprehensive
planning for areas having common or related
development problems. Eligible activities include the
preparation of development plans, policies, and strategies;
G 41

implementation measures; and the coordination of
related plans and activities being carried on at various
levels of government. Activities include land development
patterns, physical facility ‘needs, such as housing,
transportation planning recreation and community
facilities, the development of human resources, and the
development and protection of natural resources.
Applicants may be State agencies designated by the
Governor; metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, and regional
planning agencies, including councils of governments;’
counties, cities, local development districts; Indian tribal
bodies; and interstate regional commissions.
For more information regarding the above HUD programs,
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Metropolitan Development
HUD Regional Office
(See appendix for addresses)
(9) Code Enforcement Grants (Housing Act of 1949,
Sec. 117, as added by Sec. 311/al 42 US.C
1468) Housing and Urban Development Act of
1965 Sec. 311(a), 42 U.S.C. 1468)
A program to aid development of concentrated code
enforcement programs and to provide adequate
supporting facilities and and services for the purpose of
helping communities restore the stability of
neighborhoods and prevent blight.
Grants of up to two-thirds of program Cost for
municipalities over 50,000 population and up to
three-fourths of program cost for municipalities 50,000
or under in population are made for planning, reviewing,
and administering concentrated code enforcement
programs in selected local areas. Eligible project expenses
include planning, administration, and public
improvements, such as necessary streets, sidewalks, curbs.
street lighting, tree planting, and similar improvements.
Direct federal three percent rehabilitation loans and
rehabilitation grants are available to eligible owners and
tenants of property in the area.
Eligible applicants may be cities, municipalities, and
counties having legal authority to enforce housing.
building, and related codes. The community must have a
current certified Workable Program for Community
Improvement, must have adopted and be enforcing a
comprehensive system of codes that meet minimum
standards, must agree to maintain normal levels of
expenditures for code enforcement exclusive of an
expenditures required for the project area, must provide
relocation assistance to all those displaced by project
activities, and must provide at local expense all public
facilities that are necessary to accomplish the purpose of
the program.
For more information, contact:
Assistant Regional Administrator for Renewal Assistance
HUD regional office (See Appendix for address)
V. Department of the Interior
(1) Geologic, Mineral, Water Resource, and
Topographic Surveys, Investigations, and Research
Program (43 U.S.C. 31,41, 50)
Many of the Geological Survey’s programs in topographic
mapping, geologic mapping, geologic and mineral
resources surveys and mapping, and water resources
investigations are planned, conducted, and financed in
cooperation with state and local governments.
Plans for cooperative programs are initiated jointly and
are designed to contribute to national piogram objectives
and responsibilities and at the same time to serve state or
local needs.
A clause in the annual appropriation for the Survey
requires that cooperating state and local governments
must contribute at least one-half the cost of cooperative
topographic mapping or water resources investigations.
Examples of printed information available:
Maps, atlases, bulletins, water supply papers, and
other documents; also a series of nontechnical
leaflets addressed lay readers.
For more information, contact:
Director, Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D,C. 20242
(2) Water Pollution Control— Training Grants and
Research Fellowships Program Federal Water
Pollution Control .4ct as amended, 33U.S.C. 466,
et. seq.)
The purpose of this program is to increase substantially
the number and quality of trained professionals,
sub-professionals, and others engaged in water pollution
control activities.
This is done through training grants and research
fellowships. Training grants provide partial support to
assist public and other institutions to establish, expand,
or improve training opportunities for individuals planning
courses in practice, administration, research, or teaching
in the field of water pollution control. Research
fellowships provide support to highly qualified
individuals pursuing advanced degrees in disciplines
directly related to and leading to careers in water
pollution control.
Public and private universities, colleges or institutions.
junior colleges, technical institutes, and educational
organizations are eligible. Local officials should
encourage their educational organizations to apply if they
have not already done so.
Research fellowships are available to eligible individuals.
Those interested should apply through the following
address or any listed local office.
For more information, contact:
Training Grants Branch
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

(3) Water Pollution Control—Research
Development and Demonstration Program
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended, 33 U.S.C.. 466, et seq.)
The purpose of this program is to develop new and
improved methods for the prevention and control of
water pollution. Contracts and grants are made for this
purpose in the following specific areas:
(a) storm and combined sewers,
(b) advanced waste treatment and joint treatment
systems for municipal and industrial wastes,
(c) methods for prevention of pollution by industry,
including, but not limited to, treatment of industrial
(d) practicable means of treating water-borne wastes to
remove the maximum possible amounts of physical.
chemical and biological pollutants to restore water
quality for repeated reuse.
(e) improved methods to identify and measure the
effects of pollutants on water uses, including those
pollutants created by new technological
(f) methods to evaluate the effects on water quality
and uses of augmented streamfiows to control water
pollution not susceptible to other means of
In both categories (a) and (b). no grant may exceed 75
percent of the project cost, and projects must have the
approval of the state water pollution control agency.
Under category (c), grants may not be in excess of $1
million or 70 percent of the project cost. There are no
matching requirements for contracts.
Under these grants, the technical feasibility and
applicability of the method used must be technjc4lly
evaluated as an integral part of the project.
Contracts may be awarded to public or private agencies
and institutions and to individuals. Grants for general
research and development, and projects in areas (a), (b),
(c), and (fl above, may be made to public or private
agencies, institutions and to individuals. Grants in areas
(d) and (e) above may be awarded to States,
municipalities or intermunicipal or interstate agencies
concerned with water pollution control.
Examples of printed information available:
Waler Pollution .4spects of Urban Runoff
FWPCA publication WP-20-l5
.4 Program to Combat Storm Water Pollution,
FWPCA Publicatiod \VP-l 8
(‘lean Water Fact Sheet
FWPCA Publication
Federal Grants for Clean Water,
FWPCA Publication
For more information, contact:
Office of Research and Development
Project Coordination
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(4) Real Property for Public Parks. Public
Recreational Areas, and Public Purposes Program
(43 U.S.C. 869 [ 1940] 43 U.S.C. 869 to 869-3
[ Supp. VD
State and local grants in the public land states that agree
to dedicate new parks for use by all Americans will be
able to purchase recreation areas from the National Land
Regions for $2.50 and acre or lease them for $.25 an acre
per year.
Examples of printed information available:
community Recreation and the Public Domain
May 1963, U.S.D.l.
Federal .4ssistance in Outdoor Recreation
Publication No. l.N.A.C.
(5) Real Property for Residential, Commercial,
Agricultural, Industrial or Public Uses or
Development Program, (Public Sale Act of 1964,
43 U.S.C. 1421)
This program provides for transfer of title federal lands
that are required for orderly community growth ahd
development, or are chiefly valuable for public uses.
Federally owned public domain land may be available for
use, lease or purchases to qualified governmental agencies
at the appraised fair market value.
Examples of printed information available:
Fact Sheet on Historical Preservation
Fact Sheet on Land and Water Conservation
Federal Assistance in Outdoor Recreation
For more information regarding programs (4) and (5),
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(6) Outdoor Recreation Financial Assistance Program
(Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of] 965;
16 U.S.C. 460 L—to 460L—l l 23 U.S.C. note)
Financial assistance is available to states and their
political subdivisions for planning, acquiring, and
developing all types of outdoor recreation areas and
facilities. Grants are made on a 50-50 matching basis for
approved projects. Basic program objectives are:
(a) Development of projects in areas where
concentration of people live.
(b ’ Projects must be available for use by the general
(C) Development of basic rather than elaborate facilities
is favored.
(d) Projects furnishing a broad range of outdoor
recreation uses and experiences are preferred.
Approved projects. include multipurpose metropolitan
parks, snow ski areas, urban playgrounds, golf courses,
swimming pools, hiking and bicycling paths, nature
interpretation areas, fishing piers, marinas, and boat
launching ramps.
States and, through them, local levels of government may
apply for a grant-rn-aid for an approved outdoor
recreation project. All project proposals must be
submitted to the Bureau through the state liasion officer.
G 43

To be eligible, the stale must develop and maintain a
current comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.
Projects must be in accord with and meet the
high-priority needs identified in the state plan. The state
liaison officer has the initial responsibility of determining
which projects to support and the order in which to
request funds.
For more information, contact:
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
(See appendix for addresses)
State Liaison Officer
(7) Small Reclamation Project Loans for Water
Resources Projects (43 U.S.C. 422)
This program provides lands and grants for construction
of rehabilitation of water resource development projects
which must be primarily for irrigation and be located in
the 17 western-most contiguous states or Hawaii. The
projects may also cover other purposes including flood
control, abating water pollution, fish and wildlife
enhancement, and recreational development. Loans are
fully reimbursable and grants can be made only for
approved flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation
Non-federal organizations in the 17 western-most
contiguous states or Hawaii which are qualified or which
can qualify to contract with the United States
Government under federal reclamation laws are eligible.
A descriptive brochure may be requested from the
Bureau of Reclamation.
For more information, contact:
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
The federal government generally provides 50 percent of
the cost and the local public authority provides the
remaining 50 percent.
State, county, municipal, and other public agencies are
eligible if their airport requirements are shown in the
National Airport Plan.
Apply to:
FAA Area Offices or FAA Regional Offices
(See appendix for addresses)
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C. 20590
VII. Appalachian Regional Commission
VI. Department of Transportation
Airport Development Program (Federal-Airport
Act, 1946, as amended)
This program provides fmancial aid, conveyance of
federal land, and other assistance to public agencies in the
planning, acquisition, and development of public airports
and heliports.
Property interests in federal lands as well as federal
grants, are are available for projects that are essential to
the operation and safety of airports.
Grants can be made for land acquisition; site preparation;
drainage work, either on or off the airport site;
construction, alteration, and repair of runways; taxiways,
aprons, and roads within airport boundaries; erosion
control; seeding and sodding: and certain other on-site
and off-site work.
Appalachian Regional Development Program
(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965,
40 App U.S.C. 1.405)
This economic development program established
activities which will contribute to the growth of the
Appalachian region. These programs include application
of land treatment and erosion control measures
operation of a comprehensive water resources survey, and
construction and equipping of public facilities.
States, political subdivisions, local development agencies
and districts, non-profit corporations and private citizens
in Appalachia are eligible.
Apply to:
Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue
Washington. D.c. 20235
S e d I mentatfopi ob!ems sometimes require nw/or capital
G 44

Many oi the foregoing programs provide support for soil
erosion and sediment control as one of a multitude of
purposes. in some of the programs, abatement of
sedimentation is a supplemental or secondary provision to
other stated objectives. Therefore, with most assistance and
research programs sedimentation control will need to be
approached as one of a package of community objectives
requiring comprehensive planning and coordinated
implementation. (See the Chapter on Planning for further
information on the relationship between planning and
assistance programs.)
Commensurate with the growing awareness of the
potential hazards of sedimentation to environmental
quality is the increasing availability and magnitude of state
aid. One major source of state assistance is that provided by
the state soil and water conservation committees,
commissions, boards, and councils that administer the laws
under which conservation districts are created.
In 1970. for example, the funds appropriated through
these agencies in support of conservation district programs
reached $31 million. Over half of these funds are used to
carry out responsibilities in connection with watershed
programs. Others are used for direct assistance for
conservation districts, soil survey reports a n d
interpretations, and river basin planning.
In Kentucky, the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, an agency of the State Department of
Natural Resources, has a stated policy objective of assisting
Kentucky’s Soil and Water Conservation Districts and
Watershed Conservancy Districts with financial.
prornot ional, educational, and administrative assistance in
developing and operating a complete conservation program
throughout the state. In terms of financial aid, the Division
assists local districts with loans for the purchase of
specialized earthmoving equipment. The fund for the loans
was created by the state’s legislature in 1948 with an
appropriation of $400,000 which was increased to
$600,000 in 1960, and to $850,000 in 1968. The Division
also administers a $125,000 fund each year for district aid
to Kentucky’s 121 soil conservation districts.
In Wisconsin, where sediment has been declared a
pollutant. $72.000 has been made available annually to the
State’s 72 conservation districts. This is matched by
$313,000 from county funding through conservation
districts. Most of these funds are spent on erosion control,
including, for example, the purchase of hydro-seeders for
roadside use.
Local officials should contact their respective state water
pollution control agency, and state soil and water
conservation agency for information concerning assistance.
(See appendix for addresses)
Local special purpose organizations, especially
conservation districts, should not be overlooked as one of
the best sources of technical assistance for sediment
control. in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service,
conservation districts prepare soil surveys which determine
use capabilities and treatment needs of local soils; help
make plans for land use according to survey results; issue
erosion control guide standards: and aid in the planning and
application of control techniques. This service is available
to landowners and developers and their engineers as part of
the consultative technical assistance offered by districts.
One method for securing conservation district services,
particularly in connection with preparation of technical
guides, is the use of a county technical action panel.
Composed of appropriate county and conservation district
personnel, panels can serve as centers for issuing practical
erosion and sediment control guidelines for use by
developers, contractors, school hoards, and all relevant
government agencies operating at the local level.
In addition to conservation districts, other special
purpose organizations that local officials should contact for
information concerning technical assistance include flood
control districts, water conservancy districts, drainage
districts, and sanitation districts.
Numerous local and national private organizations
provide support for local sedimentation control efforts.
They provide assistance through support for local bond
issues, and by providing information through publications,
newsletters, and films. The Consulting Engineers Council of
America, and the American Society of Civil Engineers, issue
guidelines on how to select a consultant and can provide a
list of member consultants in local areas. The National
Association of County Engineers can provide information
regarding existing sedimentation control techniques, and
can serve as a clearing house for translating and transmitting
knowledge of improved techniques as they are developed.
The League of Women Voters and the General
Federation of Women’s Clubs have been very active in
support of land and water conservation efforts through
educational and data collection programs. The former
organization, for instance, developed a slide show and
supplied speakers for civic groups on urban erosion and
sedimentation in support of a Fairfax County, Virginia soil
conservation program.
The Investment Bankers Association of America and the
Bond Buyer provide literature on the preparation and sale
of local bond issues.
The local Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Home Builders provide industry’s point of
view on the sediment problem. The National Association of
Home Builders also issues reports on methods for
identifying soil erosion problems in connection with land
acquisitions and on the basic techniques for sediment
Conservation groups can also be approached for help in
increasing community awareness of the environmental and
monetary costs of sedimentation and in gaining citizen
support for necessary bond issues. Local officials should
enlist the support and ideas of groups such as the American
Fisheries Society, the Conservation Society of America,the
G 45

Sport Fishing Institute,the Izaak Walton League, and the
National Resources Council.
One of the best sources for new ideas on the
abatement of sedimentation is the annual meeting of the
National Watershed Conference. Comprised of more than
27 of the nation’s leading industrial, urban, agricultural.
and conservation organizations, the Conference provides a
forum for the discussion of ways and means of expediting,
broadening and improving local watershed programs. For
additional information on Conference activities and
participation write or call:
National Watershed Conference
1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Erosion and sediment control, as an integral part of
overall water management programs, is a necessary public
service which must be adequately financed. There are two
basic financial decisions:
(1) how to fmance capital requirements; and
(2) how to meet operating costs.
If the local government decides to provide major
sediment control measures (i.e., major structural devices
and open space lands), then it faces the problem of
financing capital requirements. If a more limited and
segmented approach is used, local government is still
responsible for providing needed remedial measures and
Since the program must be financed within the
constraints of state laws and local charters, these should be
thoroughly examined during the planning process. I.ocal
governments can pay for the program through the following
methods: federal and state assistance, taxes, bond issues.
and developer contributions. The local capital improvement
budget should schedule the financing of all major sediment
control facilities, equipments, and land acquisitions.
With use of appropriate purchasing techniques, a
sediment control program can be operated on an areawide
basis and thereby, allow for economies of operation to
benefit each jurisdiction involved.
A significant feature of financial and technical
assistance for sediment control is that there is an absence of
programs specifically designed to aid local sediment control
operations. Instead, assistance is normally available through
programs which include sediment control as only one of
several eligible activities.
It should be noted that not all the benefits from
sedimentation control programs are measurable in dollars.
Many are intangible, such as improved aesthetic and
recreational quality, which are not easily quantifiable yet
very essential to continued public health and welfare.
Obtaining Financial and Technical
Assistance for Soil Surveys
It is becoming increasingly
important that growing counties use
soils data as a guide in land-use
planning. However, few county
governments possess the technical and
financial capabilities to conduct soil
studies. St. Louis County, Missouri has
found that cooperation and
coordination can help obtain
assistance in conducting such studies.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Area,
with a population of 2,310,000 is the
ninth largest metropolitan area in the
nation. It includes portions of two
states, seven counties, the Uty of St.
Louis, and 163 smaller municipalities.
As a ma/or component of the
metropolitan area, rapidly growing St.
Louis County has an estimated 1969
population of 968,000.
The building boom in St. Louis
County has been swift and intensive,
with about 3,500 new homes being
built every year. The construction of
shopping centers, schools, and other
public facilities has accompanied home
building. The building boom has taken
place within the county’s man’
watersheds where, unfortunately, the
ils have proven to be highly erodible.
The county has recently
participated in an areawide effort to
obtain soil studies for the county, as
well as for the entire metropolitan
area. The East-West Gateway
Coordinating Council (the St. Louis
area council of governments) has acted
as the coordinating agency to obtain
federal fluids to conduct soil studies
for the area, including St. Louis
County. The purpose of the project is
to provide jurisdictions in the area
with information on soil slippage
characteristics, soil erodibility,
shrinkage, perineabilitj’, etc.
The East-West Gateway
Coordinating Council received
financial assistance for the project
from a number of sources, including
the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) 701
comprehensive planning program.
In addition, the Council is the
coordinating agency for the many
organizations that have expressed
interest in or offered assistance to the
program. These organizations include
public works agencies, the University
of Missouri, the U S. Geological
iri’ey, planning commissions, the Soil
Conservation Service, and finds were
also con tn bu ted by the Missouri and
illinois State Geological Survey.
The St. Louis area ‘s experience with
soil sun’evs is important because it
de in on s mates that, w/ieii pro perlv
coordinated, local, state and federal
resources can be employed to meet
local and area wide needs.
G 46

cb ter eight
Elsewhere in the guidebook, reference is made to
implementing sedimentation control programs through the
use of a task force of local agencies, instead of creating a
separate and autononious control agency. When staffing for
programs using the task force approach, the nature of most
personnel management concerns will depend on the current
personnel practices of existing agencies. However, three
basic elements may be evaluated despite local practices.
These are: personnel skills appropriate for carrying out the
program, training aspects, and methods of recruitment.
The following analysis of personnel skills appropriate for
carrying out a control program will be made both in terms
of professional disciplines and in terms of prograni
Professionals and non-professionals
Analysis of the number and types of personnel needed
for local control programs reveals no obvious pattern that
can be used as a model staff. Rather, personnel needs will
depend upon factors that may vary significantly between
local jurisdictions. These factors include: the current
training and experience of existing personnel; the training
available for existing personnel; the geological, hydrological
and topological nature of the problem; the program’s
eligibility for technical assistance; the extent of laws, codes,
and regulations to be administered; and the extent of
cooperation between public agencies and developers.
Although a complete staff model is not feasible, several
types of personnel that appear to be basic for effective
sedimentation control may be noted. These include soil
scientists, planners, soil conservationists, soil engineers,
on-site inspectors and hydrologists. Soil scientists can
classify and map soils which permits predictions on items
such as: erodibility by wind and water: adequacy of
different locations for sewage disposal: droughtiness and
the need for supplemental irrigation: slippage hazard:
presence of salts, alkalinity, or acidity that would inhibit
plant growth: potential flood hazards under natural
conditions; and suitability for alternate land-uses.
Planners with knowledge of control principles are
essential for developing land-use plans and project plans.
(For a discussion of planning, refer to the Chapter on
Soil conservationists can provide erosion and sediment
control guidelines for builders, developers, and private
citizens and help to implement these guidelines through
consultation on specific control measures and practices.
Soil conservationists may be defined as generalists in soil
and water conservation with knowledge of agronomy and
forestry, and of the engineering techniques in designing
erosion and sediment control structures.
Hydrologists can study and compile data on the
interrelationships between surface water runoff and
receiving water courses (streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, etc.),
sediment transport and deposition, erosion of shorelines,
turbidity, and flood hazards.
A soil engineer is a civil engineer experienced in soil
mechanics. His experience may be employed to investigate
and report on the stability of existing or proposed slopes;
exercise control over the installation and compaction of
fills: recommend soil bearing values; and provide design
criteria and calculations for special earth structures such as
buttress fills. The soil engineer is specifically identified in
many grading ordinances in California where the State
Health and Safety Code requires each city and county to
enact an ordinance requiring a preliminary soil report.
prepared by a soil engineer registered by the state.
Inspection personnel include soil engineers, civil
engineers with training in hydrology, soil conservationists,
and non-professional personnel trained in sedimentation
control measures and techniques. Local governments in
California supplement the staffs of their local inspection
agencies by requiring developers and contractors to employ
a soil engineer, registered with the state, with the duty of
providing permanent on-site supervision and inspection, and
reporting on the progress of construction and grading
activities in terms of compliance with previously approved
Functional Needs
Analyzing personnel skills from a functional approach
(See the list below) indicates the number of roles that can
be assumed by the sanie personnel. For example, planners.
engineers, and conservationists all may be involved in
comprehensive planning, community project planning, and
in the administration of ordinances, codes, and regulations.
It also demonstrates the adaptability of sedimentation
control functions to on-going operations in as much as
these functions are normally carried out by most general
purpose governments in providing community services.
Therefore, most control functions can be carried out by
existing personnel with adequate training in control
principles and techniques. This should particularly be true
in connection with the nonprofessional functions of
support services and maintenance.
G 47

The following list illustrates the scope of manpower skills Inspection soil engineers, civil engineers with
both in terms of program functions and in terms of training in hydrology, conservationists,
professional background, that may be employed to carry and non-professionals
out sedimentation control operations. It should be noted Maintenance non-professionals
that programs staffing needs will not require the personnel
listed more than on a part-time basis.
Function Professional Title Review and Evaluation includes those involved in per-
forming the above functions
Comprehensive Planning planner
soil scientist
water pollution control engineer it must be emphasized, however, that given the pressure
of urban development and the greater visibility of other
Project Planning planner
environmental problems, sedimentation control may receive
soil engineer
engineering geologist insufficient consideration by relevant personnel unless they
conservationist receive proper orientatioh and training. Both in-house as
agronomist well as outside formal training may be needed.
landscape (environmental)
water pollution control engineer In-house training
Administration of Ordinances, civil engineer (with hydrological
Codes, and Regulations knowledge) In-house training can be effected through official policy
(includes inspection) planner
announcements requiring group instruction supplemented
soil engineer
engineering geologist by literature and outside consultation. Literature can be
conservationist obtained from local conservation districts, from the
National Association of Home Builders, the Soil
Legal Services county or municipal attorney Conservation Service, the Bureau of Public Roads of the
Support Services non-professionals including clerical Federal Highway Administration, and the U.S. Department
workers, lab assistants and of Transportation. Consulting service, free of charge. is
engineering aides available from state Soil Conservation Service agencies
An in-house training program (two to three hours a week) could be organized as follows:
May be
Date Subject Presented by
first week I. Orientation state conservationist (SCS)
state water pollution control engineer
a. Statement of the problem geologist
b. Basic principles of sedimentation state hydrologist
cond week II. Seeds and Seeding state agronomist (SCSI
conservation district conservationist
a. Temporary
b. Permanent
third week Ill. Establishment of Vegetation on field specialist SCS)
Critical Areas
a. Cut and Fill Slopes
b. Waterways
c. Vegetative Stabilization
fourth week IV. Erosion Control Structures soils engineer
state conservationist (SCS)
a. Waterways and Diversions
b. Sediment Basins
c. Grade Stabilization
G 48

through local conservation districts and from state natural
resources departments.
Among the personnel that should attend this program
are: directors of participating local agencies: planners:
engineers: special district representatives; maintenance
personnel; directors of inspection personnel: inspection
personnel: private developers; private contractors, and their
construction superintendents: grading and labor foremen:
grading equipment operators: and private engineers and
Where training requires formal instruction and laboratory
experience b ey ond in-house capabilities (hydrology,
engineering, chemistry. etc.), arrangements should be made
with state and federal water pollution control agencies for
possible assistance.
A recent NACORF survey indicated that 45 states
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia being the
exceptions) were conducting training and seminar programs
for local government water pollution control administrative
and planning personnel. Since sediment is potentially a
pollutant under every state water pollution control act,
local officials should contact their respective state water
pollution control agency for further information (see
appendix for addresses of state water pollution control
At the federal level, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (FWPCA) supplements state training
programs by offering courses in water pollution control at
five locations in the United States: The Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center in Cincinnati, Ohio; the Robert
S. Kerr Water Research Center in Ada, Oklahoma; the
Southeast Water Laboratory in Athens, Georgia; the Pacific
Northwest Laboratory In Corvallis, Oregon; and the
Orientation and Training
implementation of tile
(4) control through
vegetative means
(5) engineering criteria used
in control
(6) local sedimentation
con trot problems
(7) implementation of the
control program
(8) how the Montgomery
Co uii tv , Ma rvland
control program
(9) reaction o.f Mon tgomerv
county Builders and
developers to the
control program
(10) a summart’
Baltimore county, being located
ivitlun the netropolitan area of the
city of Baltimore, is experiencing rapid
sub urba ii growth. Sediment from
Con struction and development
activities, has pollu ted county
waterways, silted and damaged
adjacent properties and clogged storm
and sewer systems. To minimize these
effects, the county initiated a
sedimentation control program in
1968. applicable to all public and
private development activities.
A basic element of the Baltimore
ounti’ program was a seminar and a
series of training sessions on
sedimentation control prior to
implementation of tile program. The
seminar introduced the general aspects
of tile program to representatives of all
public agencies and private
organizations who would be affected
by it. The seminar included speakers
from private industr and John
Hopkins Universiti’ as well as from
count age?lcies and tile Soil
conservation Service. Topics of
discussion included.
A unique feature of the seminar and
sessions was the wide range of
representatives from private and public
organizations solicited to attend.
These included: developers and their
engineers, construction
superintendents, foremen, and heavi’
equipment operators; consulting
engineers: county maintenance and
inspection personnel; county planners;
county engineers; and representatives
from the Maryland Highway Builders
Association, the Man’land Home
Builders Association and the Soil
Conservation District.
The wide public and private interest
participation produced several
significant results:
(I) it prepared the
community for
sediment control before
it was implemented;
(2) it served to involve and
en co it rage the
cooperation of private
in du sr,-y in providing
sedimentation control;
The training sessions. which
followed tile seminar, were designed to
introduce concerned county and
private operating personnel to the
program ‘s administrative and technical
aspects. The sessions were held on four
consecutive Fridays for two hours
each Friday. The subjects presented at
tile sessions were as follows:
(1) general background on
tile program
(2) the purpose of the
(3) the transition of
s edim entation control
practices from rural to
urban areas
(1) first week - seeds and
(2)second week -
es tablishment of
vegation on critical
(3) thrid week - erosion
control structures
(4)fourth week -
(3) it provided an exchange
of ideas which proved
to be significant in
connection with a more
workable program.
G 49

Hudson - Delaware Basin Office in Edison, New Jersey.
According to the FWPCA Bulletin of Courses, July, 1969
to December 1976:
The objective of the training program is to provide
specialized training in the causes, prevention, and control of
water pollution. Training not generally available elsewhere
is featured in specialized subjects, in the field and in the
laboratory. It is expected that this training will lead to
rapid application of new research findings, increase skills of
technical and professional personnel, and train new
employees recruited from other professional or technical
areas in the special skifis required in water pollution
control. Scientists, engineers, and recognized authorities
from other FWPCA programs, other government agencies,
universities, and industry, supplement the training staff by
serving as guest lectures and special consultants.
Most training is conducted in the form of highly
technical, short-term, courses of one or two week’s
duration. The scope and level of these courses is designed to
meet specific practical features of . . . water quality
management and water pollution control.
No tutition or registration fee is charged. However,
students must arrange their own transportation and housing
while attending courses. For the Bulletin of Courses and an
application from, write:
Director, National Training Cente:
Federal Water Water Pollution
Control Administration
U.S. Department of the Interior
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
FWPCA also provides grants and fellowships in order to
substantially increase the number of trained professional
and sub-professionals engaged in pollution control. Training
grants are available to educational institutions for
developing, improving, or expanding training opportunities
for individuals taking courses in operations. research,
administration, or teaching in the field of water pollution
Institutions eligible for training grants are public and
private universities, colleges, junior colleges. technical
institutes and educational organizations. In areas where
training opportunities are lacking. county officials should
assume responsibility for obtaining grants for their local
educational institutions.
Fellowships are provided for qualified individuals
pursuing advanced degrees in’disciplines directly related to
and leading to careers in water pollution control.
Applications should be made to any listed local office or:
Training Grants Branch
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington. D.C. 20240
Recruitment can be approached in terms of fulfilling
staff needs in three separate areas: permanent professional
staff, professional needs for short-term projects, and overall
non-professional needs. Basic professional needs for
permanent program operations include planners, soil
scientists, soil engineers, hydrologists, and conservationists
with a background in agronomy. Most counties and
municipalities can fill these positions with existing
personnel by tailoring sedimentation control programs to
the on-going operations of public agencies within their
jurisdictions. With adequate training, local planning and
engineering departments can provide the staffing needed for
program planning functions and for technical review and
approval of land use plans. Conservationists, agronomists,
soil engineers, and soil scientists are normally available
through intergovernmental working agreements with local
conservation districts while agreements with local flood
control or sanitation districts can provide hydrological
Where professional staff needs cannot be filled by
existing personnel, recruitment can be conducted through
several outside sources, including university placement
bureaus, professional journals, professional associations,
and federal agencies. While many schools provide option
courses in watershed management. the University of
Arizona (Tucson) and Colorado State University. offer a
comprehensive “water specialist” curriculum as a major
field of study. Graduates are equipped with knowledge of
soils, hydrology, plant physiology and taxometry, and
mathematics. Local officials can write for further
information to:
Department of National Resources
Colorado State University
Fort Collins. Colorado
Watershed Management Department
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Local officials may also locate candidates by contacting
both state and regional offices of federal agencies. Offices
where inquiries may be made include the state offices of
the Bureau of Land Management. Department of Interior
(western states and Alaska only), the Soil Conservation
Service, Department of Agriculture, and the regional offices
of the Forest Service. Department of Agriculture.
Besides permanent staffing needs, temporary personnel
needs may arise in connection with short term program
projects. Staffing needs of this nature can most
conveniently be filled by applying to state and federal
agencies that have interests in the project. At the state level
application can be made to the Soil Conservation Service
through local conservation districts and to respective
departments of natural resources. Federal agencies offering
professional assistance include:
G 50

The access to this derelopment site is washed out, clogging drainage systems in the area.
Department of Interior—Bureau of Indian Affairs
Department of Interior —United States Geological Survey
Department of lnterior—FWPCA
Department of Interior—Bureau of Reclamation
Department of Agriculture — Soil Conservation Service
Applachian Regional Commission
(For further information regardmg assistance programs
administered by these agencies see the Chapter on Finance).
The third type of personnel to be considered when
recruiting is nonprofessional or support personnel. Local
agencies. which are part of the task force of agencies
carrying out the control program. are normally able to
provide support services without need for additional
personnel. However, should additional personnel be needed.
a most appropriate and growing source for eligible
candidates is two-year college programs. Lab assistants,
engineering aids, and inspection personnel can effectively
- - .
.&:.,. (i. ;
A P :
F -rn. — 1% —
- ‘‘ . -

be recruited from these programs. Local officials should
contact local junior colleges or community colleges or two
year agriculture and technical institutes.
In most local jurisdictions, personnel exist that can be
trained for performing the tasks involved in carrying out
sedimentation control programs. The Soil Conservation
Service, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, and respective state natural resources
agencies can help in providing the needed training.
Where manpower needs require recruitment of personnel
in addition to existing staff levels, intergovernmental
working agreements with state and federal agencies
operating at the local level, as well as hiring new personnel,
may be considered. Conservation districts and water
management agencies can provide needed technical
manpower, as a form of technical assistance, for
carryingout program operations.

ch ter nine
Action can be taken at the iocal level to control
sedimentation in non-agricultural areas. In combination
with appropriate land-use planning, control measures that
have been successfully employed in rural areas can be
effectively applied to developing areas.
This chapter will attempt to outline some of the
operational aspects of local soil erosion and sediment
control programs. These operations will be discus ed in five
(1) review of development plans for appropriate
erosion control measures
(2) application of control techniques
(3) major structural measures
(4) inspection and
(5) maintenance
In order to achieve effective control over erosion and
sediment, it is imperative that provisions for such control
be incorporated in areawide, community, and project plans.
Provisions for control should be made for at least the
following development activities:
(1) Transportation facilities such as highways,
railroads, streets and trails;
(2) Subdivisions or lot development;
(3) Industrial and commericial developments;
(4) Surface mining operations (e.g.. sand, gravel,
coal, rock, and soil);
(5) Service or recreational facilities such as
shopping centers, schools, airports, and
(6) Utilities, particularly underground
(7) Water impoundments and waterway
construction or improvement.
The necessary control measures for these activities
should be specified in all development and construction
project plans if they are to be implemented effectively
during grading and construction operations. Review and
approval of control measure specifications in project plans
should be made by the local government prior to issuance
of grading and construction permits. Review should
determine whether project plans properly conform to
areawide and community plans, to sedimentation control
principles and to standards of good design and technique.
I.ocal agencies normally responsible for reviewing other
aspects of project plans can provide the review necessary
for control specifications.
For further information on areawide and community
planning, see the Chapter on Planning For Sedimentation
The review procedure should not be exclusively limited
to private development projects. Public developments, such
as transportation facilities, schools, parks. etc.. also require
Instructions for Temporary Control Specifications
Grading for subdivisions in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles county is regulated under Chapter Ten of the Los Angeles
County Building Code. Section 7013 of these regulations requires as a form of permanent protection against erosion, the
planting and irrigation of constructed earth slopes. If the earthmoving work occurs during the rain v season, (November
1-April 1) special requirements for temporary drainage and erosion control, including desilting facilities for storm it’aters
leaving the site, are imposed by sections 701 7 and 701 &
An instruction sheet developed by the county and sent to developers to facilitate implementation of temporary erosion
control dhi’ices in accordance with sections 7017 and 7018 follows;
1. Desilting facilities must be provided at all drainage outlets from the graded site. They must be detailed On the plans. If
desilting basins are required, they must comply with the minimum standards below. Submit design and specific
recommendations to cover the following:
a. Basin volume based on gradient and nature of soils.
b. Size of pipe and overflow (Overflow must be designed for 1.5 maximum Q).
c. Height of standpipe.
d. Dike requirements, minimum wall width, slope of wall, percent compaction. etc. ____________________________
Implementation and Control
G 52

1.5 MAX. Q
2. Place the following notes oil the plans:
a. hr case of emergency, call (responsible person) at (24-hour p/zone numbers).
b. The undersigned civil engineer will supervise erosion control work in accordance with the approved plans.
(Signature) _________________________
c. A stand-by crew for emergency work shall be available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall
be available on site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate rapid construction of temporary devices when
rain is imminent.
d. Devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the county Inspector.
e. All devices shown shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds
f After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from check berms and desilting basins and the basins pumped
g. Fill slopes at the tract perimeter must drain away from the top of slope at the conclusion of each working day.
h. A guard will be posted on the site whenever the depth of water in any device exceeds two feet.
3. Indicate on the plan which streets will be paved and which drainage devices will be completed by November 1.
4. Placement of deviJes to reduce erosion damage within the tract is left to the discretion of the engineer. These devices, if
any, must show on the plan because their presence will affect the required capacity of the desilting basin.
5. Plans should be submitted to the office stamped on the front sheet along with a plan check fee of $_
G 53

control measures as a part of their design and construction.
When soliciting contract bids for public projects, local
government contracting agencies should require contractors
to submit needed control specifications as a part of their
proposals. Contract agreements should be subject to review
and approval of the specifications. Once entered into, the
contract should specify that the private contractor will be
responsible for, and must assume the extra cost of
correcting erosion damage resulting from poor construction
Soil erosion can be classified as being either natural or
accelerated. Natural erosion is a geological process over
which man has little or no control. Accelerated erosion is
an increased rate of soil movement and destruction usually
resulting from man’s activities.
Sedimentation can be significantly reduced by
controlling accelerated erosion. This section reviews the
basic techniques that have been found to be generally
effective in controlling accelerated erosion. The Chapter on
Planning discusses the relationship of planning to
sedimentation control.
Causes of Erosion
Soil erosion is caused primarily by rainfall and ensuing
runoff. However, in many areas of the United States.
erosion is generated by wind action. Both of these forces
have one thing in common, namely they exert their greatest
damage from disturbed soils. Specific factors affecting the
erosion of soil may include the following:
(1) Climate—Amount, intensity, and frequency
of rainfall, together with temperature, are
the most important climatic factors affecting
(2) Soil characteristics—Degree of exposure and
permeability in large part, determine the
volume and intensity of runoff. Runoff
occurs when rainfall exceeds infiltration
(3) Length and degree of slope—The intensity of
water flow and extent of erosion are
proportionate to slope length and gradient.
The direction in which the slope faces is also
significant. Dry south-facing is ahp
significant. Dry south-facing slopes, with
sparse vegetation and needing long periods
for vegetation growth are less acceptable for
development than moist north-facing slopes
with adequate cover and reasonable growth
(4) vegetation—Reduces erosion potential
through increasing infiltration capacity,
through mechanically holding soil in place,
and through protection of surface soil from
(5) Urban and suburban development—Rate of
runoff increases progressively with more
extensive and intensive sidewalk paving, and
roof and road construction. Increased areas
of exposed surface and subsurface soils result
from construction of highways, subdivision
projects, industrial parks, etc.
Splashing raindrops displace particles of soil on
inadequately protected land. Water running over such land
and in downstream channels moves materials in proportion
to water volume and velocity. Deposition of these materials
occurs as the water slows down or spreads out.
Although wind erosion takes its heaviest toll from
disturbed, fine textured soils during prolonged periods of
drought, it is a potential threat to most types of soil at any
time. Wind borne soil can fill a road ditch or a pond just as
effectively as that carried by water; in addition, it polluted
the atmosphere.
Sedimentation Control Principles
From these causes of erosion and deposition come the
technical principles for control programs. Essentially these
principles include:
(1) fitting development plans to climatic factors,
topography, soils and vegetative cover:
(2) reducing the area and the duration of
exposed soils:
(3) retaining and protecting natural vegetation
wherever feasible;
(4) covering disturbed soils with mulch or
(5) mechanically retarding runoff and erosion,
and sediment in runoff water and;
(6) providing effective accommodation for
increased runoff caused by changed soil and
surface conditions during and after
The application of these principles to development
planning suggests an ideal situation wherein intensive
development is restricted to level ground, avoiding steep
topography and the more massive earth moving projects.
Since development takes place on rolling ground, control
measures are necessary. Where development proceeds in
hillside areas, consideration should also be given to land
slippage hazards and to construction designs that maximize
open-space preservation. Attention must also be given to
state and county road construction and maintenance
operations, as well as to county and other public building
Control Measures and Practices
Sedimentation control practices or measures, either
singularly or in combination, can be applied to both public
and private developments with effective results at moderate
cost. A brief description of some of these follows.
G 54

Non-critical area vegetation. Non-critical areas are those
of good soils on moderate slopes. The establishment and
maintenance of good vegetative cover in these areas is
relatively simple as compared to “critical areas.”
Non-critical areas can usually be stabilized by utilizing the
standard plants and establishment techniques recommended
by local agencies or landscaping services. Soil tests should
be made as a basis for adding the plant food necessary for
plant establishment and maintenance.
Critical area vegetation stabilization. Critical areas are
those in which cutting, filling, and grading soils with heavy
equipment often result in the exposure of soils and subsoils.
Certain conditions resulting from such exposure, such as
acidity, low fertility, compaction, or dryness or wetness
which are unfavorable to plant growth often prevails.
Excessively long slopes and steep grades are often
encountered or created. Water disposal structures are
normally subjected to hydraulic forces requiring both
special establishment techniques and grasses which have
high resistance to scouring. However, plants and techniques
are available to provide both temporary and permanent
protective cover on these difficult sites. These are
(1) Temporary measures—Heavy grading or
construction of cuts and fills is often carried
out in several stages interrupted by lengthy
periods during which the land lies idle and is
subject to heavy erosion. Similarly, final
grading or filling may be completed during a
season not favorable to the immediate
establishment of permanent vegetative cover.
Such sites can be temporarily stablilized by
seeding fast growing annuals such as rye,
ryegrass, sudan grass, or other locally
adopted vegetation which provide quick
protection yet can be worked into the soil
when the site is prepared for final seeding of
a permanent species.
An alternative method is the application
of mulch for immediate protection. Where
final grading is not completed. mulch can
either be removed or worked into the soil
after it has afforded protection while the
area lay idle. Areas brought to final grade
during midsummer or winter can be mulched
immediately. and they may be successfully
overseeded at the proper time with a number
of permanent grass and legume species.
Materials- that may be used as a mulch
include straw, fiberglass. wood chips or fiber.
and mechnically sprayed asphalt wood fiber
slurry, and plastics or other synthetics.
(2) Permanent Vegetation—For both sodding
and seeding. there is a fairly wide choice of
grasses, legumes. and other plants for use on
critical areas. The final choice of species
should be determined by weighing such
factors as adaptability. use, aesthetic
requirements, a degree of maintenance that
can be expected and other special
considerations. Plants should be selected that
will provide long-lived stabilization with little
subsequent management where a
“manicured” look is not required. Some
species provide excellent protection against
scour in waterways and outlets but most
require periodic mowing and fertilization.
Where a reasonably high level of management
can be expected, the choice of plants is
broader. Often, techniques of seedbed
preparation and establishment are as
important as the selection of the species.
Agronomists with a technical knowledge of the area’s
soils and plants can be helpful in suggesting the methods
and kinds of temporary and permanent treatments needed.
Local offices of the Soil Conservation Service have, in
cooperation with state highway departments, developed
new methods and hardy strains of grasses and other plants
for resisting erosion.
Diversions. A diversion consists of a channel or ditch and
ridge constructed across a sloping land surface on the
contour, or with predetermined grades to intercept and
divert surface runoff before it gains sufficient volume and
velocity to create harmful erosion. The number of
diversions and the physical extent and spacing is dependent
upon the land slope, soil and runoff. The water is collected
and conveyed laterally along the diversion at slow velocity
and discharged into a protected area or outlet channel.
Diversions should be especially considered for earth cut
and fill slopes created by highway construction or other
heavy grading. Severe erosion of earth slopes is caused from
storm water concentrations moving along the bottom edge
or down the face of unprotected embankments or other
slopes. Both temporary and permenent diversions should be
placed at the top and along the base of cut and fill slopes as
needed. Other measures can be applied directly to the face
of the slope (e.g. bench terrace; enclosed drainage systems;
and seeding, sodding and mulching) without being
undermined by concentrations of storm runoff.
Bench terraces. Bench terraces are relatively flat surfaces
constructed on sloping land or embankments to planned
dimensions and grades. Bench terraces are applied along
the contour with the length and width controlled by the
natural terrain and the required erosion limitations.
Contour benches may be installed across a slope and may
be designed for widths which will permit construction of a
row or tier of housing units.
Outlet channels. This measures consist of the
construction of designed channels for the disposal of storm
runoff from diversions, bench terraces and other structures.
The design is based on the runoff from predicted storm
events and includes the vegetative or structural measures
required to protect the channel from scouring and erosion.
Water stabilization structures. Waterway erosion control
methods include structural devices to dissipate the energy
of flowing water by holding the waterway slopes and
velocities within non-scouring limits. Drop structures, and
concrete or other lining could be utilized in an open
waterway to control water velocity.
G 55

Bank erosion structures. The control of bank erosion in
main stream channel can be accomplished in various ways.
Methods commonly used include riprap, rock cribs, groins.
jetties fencing, piling, etc. The purpose of these measures is
to install a barrier that will withstand the erosive forces
exerted by flowingwater or to create a batik roughness that
will reduce the erosive power by dissipating energy of the
water as it moves along the bank line.
Stream channel construction. It is often impractical to
attempt control of an existing meandering channel. In this
case. channel straightening. realignment, or the
construction of a new channel to designed cross-section and
grade is necessary. In doing this, however, the danger exists
of creating a new erosion cycle. The design must include
considerations regarding the stability of the bed and banks
of the proposed channel under the predicted runoff
In highway construction, surface channels, natural or
man-made, are ususally the most economical means of
collecting and disposing of runoff. Such man-made
channels, however, if not properly designed may cause
serious erosion problems. A primary design principle is to
construct channels with sloping sides and wide bottoms.
Protective linings for channels can be very expensive.
Special effort should be made to develop the necessary
erosion protection according to topographical and
hydrological features at the lowest cost. Channel design and
protective treatments are discussed in Hydraulic Design
Series No. 4, “Design of Roadside Drainage Channels,”
published by the Bureau of Public Roads and available from
the Government Printing Office. Field manuals and
publications of the Soil Conservation Service also provide
valuable channel design information.
Sediment basins The construction of an earth fill type
dam downstream from a development area serves to
regulate runoff and trap sediment. The sediment can be
removed mechanically as the storage space behind the dam
becomes filled, or sufficient space may be built into the
structure to provide storage for its useful life. The whole
structure can be removed after stability is reached in the
development area or it can be retained and maintained to
enhance the area.
Dams trapping sediment must be carefully located and
designed because failure during a major flood could have
consequences far greater than most sediment problems
created by development construction. Health and safety
hazards, methods and locations for disposing of the trapped
sediment and the future flood potential must also be
Storm Drainage Systems
Increased runoff from the impermeable surfaces of
suburban areas may place excessive stress on drainage
channels. In such cases, channels may become scoured ot
widened, causing unnecessary deterioration of the channels
and their surrounding land area with corresponding
increases in maintenance expenses.
Control over this problem is possible by installation of a
storm drainage systeni. The purpose of such a system is to
control the velocity of storm runoff thereby decreasing the
scouring damage to downstream areas. Such coiitrol is
achieved by trapping and releasing excess storm water at
preferred rates of flow.
However, if the controlled water contains sediment, the
storm drainage system may act as a conveyance vehicle for
sediment yields that will accumulate at downstream points
where water flow widens and slows. Unless such conditions
are compensated for, the storm drainage system will not
solve the sediment problem but instead, will only relocate
Major structural measures.
As a part of areawide (or drainage-wide) water
management, erosion and sediment control may call for
major capital improvements that also serve other objectives
of water management. e.g.. flood control, recreation, and
water supply and storage. Application of these nieasures
will depend on:
(I) the multiple objectives to be the achieved in
a drainage or subdrainage area and
(2) evaluation of each measure in terms of costs
versus benefits when applied toward
achievement of these objectives.
Major improvements include tlood and sediment detention
structures, debris basins, storm sewers, open channel
lingings. reservoirs, irrigation systems, and drop structures.
Recently. high velocity conveyance channels have been
used to control flood flows through developed areas. In
addition to flood control, these devices reduce the
necessary channel width and eliminate a channel erosion
problem. The procedure is to construct a lined channel,
usually concrete, designed for sufficient depth to carry
critical flows. Critical flow is defined as the state of flow at
which the specific energy is a minimum for a given
Since many major structural measures are constructed in
populated areas, safety must be considered in their design.
Generally. Iand caping and drainage design are compatible
with both erosion control and safety.
A crucial element of a sedimentation control program is
adequate on-going field inspection of construction and
development operations. Inspection provides the
mechanism for evaluating compliance of developers with
approved project plans. An examination of existing
programs indicate that sedimentation control inspection
activities can effectively be phased into existing local
government inspection agencies.
Since soil erosion and sediment can occur whenever
(development takes place) public, as well as private.
development projects should not be overlooked when
inspecting for needed erosion control measures. Inspection
G 56

for needed conservation measures during the construction
of public projects can be effectively phased into and carried
out at the same time normal inspection requirements are
performed. When the project is to be carried out by a
private contractor, the plans. specifications, and special
provisions of the contract should be explicit in showing the
location, scope. time of application, and design of the
control measures to be established. Inspection personnel
should be able to read and understand these plans.
specifications. and provisions, and to evaluate the
contractor’s compliance with them during on-site
Specific concerns of inspection personnel during on-site
inspection of both private and public development projects
should include the following guidelines.
(I) Sufficient erosion control measures should
be practiced during the initial grading for
development projects.
(2) Permanent soil protection and drainage
facilities, particularly intercepting channels
and similar controls that will divert runoff
from work areas and unprotected soil.
should be completed as early as
(3) Temporary protection may include fiber
mats, plastic, straw, dust palliatives, and
fast-growing grasses that may be required
in sonic areas to protect against erosion on
newly constructed slopes.
(4) Stockpile soils separately, according to
type to protect good top soil for use in
restoring distrubed vegetation. Protect
stockpiles with mulch. In critical areas, a
course fiber netting will hold the mulch in
place. When stockpiles must remain for an
extended period of time before final
grading can be done, establish plant cover
of small grains, grass, or legumes, or
combinations of all three.
(5) During construction, carefully inspect
partically completed drainage structures to
prevent unnecessary erosion from their
construction and to avoid damage to these
(6) Fording of streams with equipment should
be kept to a minimum and where frequent
crossings are expected, temporary bridges
or culverts should be constructed if the
sediment produced may have adverse
effects on aquatic life, navigation, storm
drainage, or the quality or quantity of
water supplies.
(7) Work roads constructed within a
development project area should include
sufficient erosion control measures during
their use, as well, as upon their restoration.
(8) Where stream channel changes are found
necessary during a development project
diversion dikes should be considered to
Drop-Inlet Structures in Washington County
The Pa pillion Creek Watershed
consists of 245,800 acres in Sarpv,
Douglas and Washington Counties in
Easteriz Nebraska. The Watershed also
includes a large part of the Omaha
,netropolitan area. Although
sub urbanization is occuring within
Omaha and within smaller
communities, the largest portion of
the watersed area remains in
agricultural use. Topography in tile area
varies from iiearly level bottomlunds
to uplands with moderate to steep
Land in Washington County, the
north ernmo St county in the
watershed, is particularly suseptible to
gully erosion. In particular, constantly
widening gullies proved o be a
dangerous and cost! highway
m eiia n cc. During storms, eroding
gullies would often cause damage to
bridges by undermining tile
abutments. Such bridges were unsaft,
required frequent repairs, and
sonic tunes collapsed altogether.
at a controlled rate. The drop-inlet
structure thereby serves as both a
bridge and as a method of controlling
gully erosion simultaneously.
Over 200 drop-inlet structures have
been installed in Washington county.
Local officials estimate that these
structures have saved the county well
over a million dollars. One such
structure was installed at a cost of
519,000 to replace a 120 foot bridge
which has collapsed. it was estimated
that it would have cost $40,000 or
more to replace the bridge, with no
assurance that it would not collapse
again in the future. None of the
drop-inlet structures have failed or
required extensive maintenance.
On a national level, drop-inlet
structures are being used increasingly,
and for many purposes. They are
useful in preventing erosion on
construction sites, help to control
water drainage in recreation areas, and
they are used to control drainage along
many modern highways.
Flooding, erosion, and sediment are
major problems in the area. Erosion
has become a particularly serious
problem in the upland areas where
slopes consisting of highly erodible
bess soils are quickly gullied by
frequent hard-hitting thunderstorms.
It is not unusual for steep gullies to
Jbrm, or for old gullies to greatly
deteriorate after on/i’ one intense
As ear/v as 1 935, leaders in
Was/i ingro ii Co u ii t initia ted a
program to replace these expensive
span-type bridges with “drop-inlet
structures” which have proven far less
expensive, are far more durable, and
also help to prevent soil erosion. The
economical drop-inlet device consists
of a simple structure which allows
bridges to be replaced by cart/i works,
similar to a dam, upon which the road
passes. A pipe system then permits
water to pass through the earth work
G 57

avoid sediment problems when such
changes are being made and stabilized.
(9) Embankment slopes created during
construction that encroach on stream
channel should be adequately protected
against erosion. Where practicable a
protective area of vegetational cover
should be left or estabished between the
embankment and adjacent stream
(10) In areas being used for borrow pits and
waste disposal, control of drainage water
should include measures to control erosion
and seepage keep sediment and from
entering streams. Diversion channels, dikes,
and sediment traps may be used for this
purpose. Good to4)soil from the borrow pit
area should be saved for use in restoring
the excavated area. Final restoration of
borrow or waste disposal areas should
include grading, establishment of
vegetative cover, or other necessary
treatments that will blend the area into the
surrounding landscape. The restored area
should be well drained unless approval is
given to convert the pit area into lakes for
fish and wildlife, recreation, stock water,
or irrigation.
(11) In areas where a severe fire hazard exists,
fire extinguishing equipment should be
maintained on the construction site for the
prevention of brush and grass fires since
burned over areas are highly vulnerable to
(12) Construction operations which violate
local fire regulations or represent a fire
hazard should be reported so that official
action can be taken to suspend such
Inspection of drainage and erosion control measures
should commence shortly after construction is completed
to correct any deficencies before they grow into major
problems. Experts in soil conservation, agronomy and
drainage should be employed to recommend appropriate
remedial measures. Deficiencies in design or construction
practices should be reported to the appropriate local
government agency so that provisions can be developed to
prevent similar deficiencies in future projects. Continued
coordination between local planning, engineering, and
maintenance departments is essential.
Training workshops should be conducted for
maintenance personnel and should include instruction in
the methods of making inspections, managing vegetational
covers and plants, and preventing and correcting erosion.
Such workshops should be held periodically to maintain the
proper orientation among personnel toward the problem
and to represent new and developing erosion and sediment
control techniques.
Maintenance records should give sufficient detail to allow
analysis of maintenance problems. Fruitful analysis can
suggest changes in the design and construction that may
reduce soil erosion and sediment, as well as reduce
maintenance costs.
The operations of a sedimentation control program begin
the incorporation of necessary conservation provisions in
development and construction plans. Ideally, planning for
erosion and sediment control should be for entire drainage
areas such as water basins or watersheds. Erosion control
specifications related to individual development projects
need to be included in overall project plans. To insure the
proper provision and scope of these specifications, project
plans should be subject to review and approval prior to
grading and construction activities.
During construction and excavating operations. on-site
inspections by county personnel is necessary to ensure
compliance with approved plans. At completion of
construction, but prior to acceptance, inspection personnel
should inspect project sites for needed remedial measures
that may be required.

Action Guide for
Erosion and Sediment Control
chapter ten
Environmental quality has deteriorated so seriously that
local governments now have only two choices: to conduct
effective environmental control programs at the local level.
or to pass local responsibility and authority for control
progranis to state and federal levels by default. Local
officials should provide leadership to their departments and
to their communities in maintaining a clean environment
and managing local resources.
Very few local governments have accepted responsibility
for developing sedimentation control programs, and
consequently, experience with erosion and sediment
control in urban areas has not been extensive. However,
citizens are beginning to demand that community
resources, including soil and water, be properly managed.
Since the county is an areawide unit of government, serving
urban, suburban, and rural citizens, county officials are in
an excellent position to respond to the public’s demand by
establishing effective areawide sedimentation control
The guidebook is based on 10 months of research,
including on-site visits to local sedimentation control
programs across the nation, to state level control
operations, and to various federal agencies. In addition, the
guidebook is based on the recommendation made by 200
experts in water quality and soil conservation at the
National Conference on Sediment Control, held in
Washington, D.C.. September, 1969.
This chapter represents a synthesis of sedimentation
control concepts, principles, and techniques, which can be
converted into general action plans by local, state and
federal levels of government.
Local elected officials can establish a sedimentation
control program by taking the following basic steps:
I. Appoint a Task Force.
Local elected officials should begin their sediment
control program by appointing a sediment control task
force to develop recommendations for the program.
In most existing l4rban programs, this task force
was made up of individuals from the planning
commissions, water and sewer agencies, home builders
associations, soil conservation districts, professional
engineers associations, contractors groups. U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, State Department of Water
Resources, and others concerned with the problem.
II. Establish Task Force Objectives. The Task Force
should fulfill the following basic objectives:
(I) Determine through physical and demographical
studies the nature and extent of the local
sedimentaiion problems.
(2) Determine existing erosion and sediment control
practices exercised by local public agencies, and
private developers contractors.
(3) Determine what state and local laws exist
regarding water pollution and land use.
(4) Decide what should be done by local
governments, areawide government, and private
industry, and how they can best cooperate iii
carrying out the program.
(5) Insure that development and construction
activities do not result in environmental
III. How to Proceed
(1) See that the program is premised on providing
control for the totality for every watershed
lying, whole or in part, within local jurisdictions.
Frequently, the county is the areawide unit
which meets this requirement. Where a single
county is not large enough to solve the areawide
sediment control problem, the multi-county
approach may be best. In some large
metropolitan areas where erosion and sediment
problems cross jurisdictional boundaries,
councils of government may offer an excellent
vehicle to stimulate local officials to think, pIan,
and act in broad terms of mutual problem areas
and to encourage jurisdictions to effect a
mutually complementary system for
sedimentation control.
Sometimes special purpose govemments
may be used because of their expertise in erosion
control. If a special purpose government must be
used, it is better to work through existing special
purpose governments (where possible) rather
than to create new ones.
Jurisdictions can cooperate through various
techniques: by jointly performing some or all
aspects of the control program; by contracting
between cities and counties; and by transferring
responsibility for a function from one level of
government to another. Through these and other
techniques, local governments can take
G 59

advantage of economies of scale to implement an
areawide control program.
(2) Determine whether necessary legal authority has
been delegated by the state. If state enabling
legislation is not adequate, officials should do as
much as possible within existing law and decide
what changes are needed. Then, they can work
through their state association of counties and
other interested groups for passage of
comprehensive sedimentation control enabling
The legal basis for local governments to
control land use is state enabling law. Without
this enabling authority, local governments
cannot acquire land, develop facilities, or spend
public funds to regulate and control erosion and
sediment. To ensure that local governments have
the necessary powers, legislation should allow
political subdivisions to manage sediment in
coordination with other environmental
protection programs.
Home rule cities and counties must closely
examine their charters to be sure they have the
authority to plan, regulate, and operate a
sedimentation control program.
State legislation should give local
government authority to:
(a) acquire land, buildings, and facilities
by purchase, lease, eminent domain,
and donation:
(b) plan and zone for the protection of
watersheds and natural drainage
(c) adopt and enforce necessary
ordinances, rules, and regulations;
(d) use various sources of revenue such as
bonds, taxes, general appropriations.
fees and service charges, and state and
federal assistance programs:
(e) make intergovernment agreements and
(f) regulate private contractors and
developers through the issuance of
permits and licenses:
(g) prohibit any type of environmental
(3) Require that soil and water conservation
considerations be incorporated incorporated in
community plans. Plans may be prepared by an
interagency committee of interested
departments, by a single department, by a
consultant, or by a combination of local
departments and consultants.
Community plans should include:
(a) data on population, land use,
transporation, and public facilities and
(b) considerations of the climate,
topotraphy, geology, and related
factors, with the technical assistance
of any needed specialists so that
development and construction
activities are not detrimental to the
community’s land and water
(c) presentation and evaluation of feasible
immediate and long-range solutions.
(4) Require that development and construction
project plans be prepared in coordination with
community plans.
Project plans should include specifications
for needed erosion and sediment control
(5) To prepare the best possible plans and achieve
implementation. elected officials should:
(a) solicit cooperation on an areawide
basis from city and county planners,
public works agencies, health officers,
engineers, soil conservation districts,
other appropriate departments, and
interested citizens:
(b) plan to inform the public about the
need for a comprehensive erosion and
sediment control program:
(c) provide leadership and initiative to
ensure acceptance and
implementation of the plan.
(6) Decide what type of organization is needed and
assign operating responsibilities.
No one organizational pattern for erosion
and sediment control can be said to be best.
Local conditions and custom will determine
which one or combination of agencies can be
assigned responsibility for administration of the
control program. The sedimentation control
agency or agencies must be responsible to elected
officials of general purpose governments.
Regardless of organization. the following
functions must be performed: policy making:
public information: budgeting: planning and
review: drafting, adoption, and enforcement of
standards: and operation of the system.
The niain criterion for determining what
place a sedimentation control program should
have in the orgainzational structure of a local
government that existing agencies should be used
to carry out the program rather than creating a
new agency.
(7) Obtain technical information on current
community plans, and the community’s
geological, topological, and soil conditions.
The program should stress the physical
limitations of every development and
construction site. Also, this should be considered
G 60

in all land-use decisions. Basic principles would
include the development of large areas in small.
workable increments, the holding of exposure
time to a minimum and adapting site plans to the
natural topography.
Timely installation or structures, storm
drains, streets, and gutters is necessary plus
applicable conservation measures, such as the use
of mulch (as a temporary cover), temporary
seedings, early installations of permanent
vegetation, and the use of temporary structures,
terraces, waterways, and debris basins.
(8) Prepare a financial plan and capital budget so
that both immediate operating expenditures and
long-range capital financing needs are provided
Although much of the cost for providing
sedirnenation control will be assumed by private
industry (i.e., developers and builders), local
government will still be responsible for providing
control related to public improvements and for
their maintenance, e.g., parks, reservoirs, open
channel linings. etc.
Since the system must be financed within
the constraints of state laws and local charters
these should be thoroughly examined during the
planning process. Local governments can finance
the system when necessary following methods:
taxes, bond issues, loans, and/or service charges.
The local capital improvement budget should
schedule the financing of all necessary control
facilities and equipment.
If the sedimentation control program is
operated on an areawide basis, economies of
operation will often benefit each jurisdiction.
(9) Find out what federal, state, and private
technical and financial assistance is available and
take advantage of it.
Technical assistance from federal state, and
private sources is available to local governments
to develop measures related to sediment control.
On the federal level, the primary sources of
financial and technical assistance are the
Department of Agriculture the Department of
the Interior and Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Imaginative use of
assistance from other federal agencies may
provide help for local sedimentation control.
Many states provide technical assistance fur
soil and water conservation through conservation
districts and other special purpose governments
such as flood control districts. While financial
assistance is currently limited, recent
appropriation trends indicate a growing response
to environmental needs.
The home building industry, universities.
professional societies and private organizations
also can provide information and assistance.
(10) Direct the program’s agencies to respond quickly
to all citizen complaints and conduct a
continuing educational program to inform the
public about the need for land use control in
relation to water pollution control.
(11) Use as many public information tools as possible
to reach citizens.
Among these tools are meetings at which
slides and films are shown; creation of events
such as ‘‘go-see” trips; speakers bureaus:
brochures and flyers; radio, T.V., newspapers,
and newsletter coverage and announcements;
exhibits; and communications media
(12) Employ a qualified committee of representatives
from public agencies, citizens groups, and
industry to periodically review, evaluate, and
report on the effectiveness of the program.
(13) Survey recruitment needs. Where they exist,
solicit personnel from other levels of
go vern ment, professional organizations, and
universities. Also, technical manpower may, in
many cases, be involved in the program as a form
of technical assistance from other local, state and
federal government agencies.
(14) In-house training will be needed for program
personnel, especially for planners. and regulatory
and maintenance personnel. It should be noted
that during the development of these ordinances
and the program, local soil conservation districts
are available to work with local public agencies,
consultants, and engineers in the design and
installation of erosion control practices.
IV. Make the Sedimentation Control Program Developed
by the Task Force State Local Government Policy.
Charge local government department heads with
responsibility for developing policies and procedures
designed to implement the program. and solicit the
voluntary cooperation of the building industry.
Sedimentation control programs to date that
appear to work best are those that initially evolve
from sonie type of voluntary action. Urban
sedimentation control is a new field and all concerned
need an opportunity to test their ideas. Where
developers, planners and conservationists have an
opportunity to cooperate voluntarily on erosion
control projects. a solid foundation for future
regulatory program is provided for.
V. Make Sediment Control Mandatory Through Adoption
of an Ordinance or Land-Use Regulations.
The responsibility for developing the ordinance or
land-use regulation can best be assumed by the Task
Force. Also Task Force members know the existing
regulations and they have developed the basic
guidelines for the voluntary program.
The ordinance or land-use regulation, when
developed, would set the local standards. They should
be conceptual in scope; flexible in methods; positive in
direction; prohibitive of any type of land or water
G 61

pollution; and above all, they must be clearly
understandable. They should be designed to control the
occasional irresponsible developer.
The ordinance or regulation should designate the
local agencies to be responsible for enforcing the
standards, e.g., plan, review and inspection.
I. Provide comprehensive state enabling legislation to
permit counties to manage soil and water resources.
Also, counties should be permitted and encouraged to
contract with internal municipalities and other
counties to develop areawide sedimentation control
Develop clear state guidelines with regard to
sedimentation standards. Water quality standards,
based on federal guidelines (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1956, the Water Quality Act of 1965,
and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966) have
been adopted by all 50 states. States should ensure
that criteria for sedimentation control be included in
these standards.
Ill. Provide financial and technical assistance to local
sedimentation control programs. Such assistance can
be delivered through state agencies, should help local
programs conduct watershed research, conduct soils
studies, and provide major capital improvements, etc.
IV. Develop and execute an information distribution
program. Local governments and their agencies,
planning commissions, toil conservation district
personnel, etc., need to be informed on state laws and
their interpretation, what state assistance is available,
state policy guidelines, state planning programs and
other state activities.
V. Offer traning to local government and private industry
in sedimentation control techniques and principles.
VI. Develop and enforce a state sedimentation control
program to help control erosion and sediment on all
state projects and activities including highway
construction and maintenance, and state building
I. Help to promote national recognition of urban erosion
and sediment as constituting a major threat to
environmental quality.
II. Continue to contribute to technical and non-technical
research programs related to all aspects of urban
erosion and sediment problems.
Ill. Continue and improve upon financial and technical
assistance programs for state and local governments.
IV. Develop and enforce a federal sedimentation policy to
help control erosion and sediment on all federal
projects, and federally sponsored projects, including
federal buildings, federal highways. and on all federal
lands and waters. Sedimentation control policy should
be enforcible on all appropriate federal contracts.
whether carried out by public or private agencies.
Economic Development
North Eastern Area
EDA Area Office, 157 High Street
Portland, Maine 04101
(Connecticut. Maine. Massachusetts.
New Hampshire, New York. Rhode
Island. Vermont
Mid Atlantic Area
EDA Area Office, 19 North Main
Street. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 18701
(Delaware. Maryland. New Jersey.
Pennsylvania. Puerto Rio)
Mid Eastern Area
EDA Area Office. 517 Ninth Street
Huntington. W. Va. 25701
(Kentucky. North Carolina, Ohio.
Virginia, West Virginia)
South Eastern Area
EDA Area Office. 904 Bob Wallace
Avenue. Huntsville. Ala. 35801
(Alabama. Florida. Georgia,
Mississippi. South Carolina. Tennessee)
North Central Area
EDA Area Office. 200 West Superior
Street. Duluth. Minn 55802
(Illinois. Indiana, Iowa, Michigan.
Minnesota. Missouri. Nebraska,
North Dakota. South Dakota. Wisconsin)
South Western Area
EDA Area Office. 702 Colorado
Street. Austin, Tex. 78701
(Arizona. Arkansas, Colorado.
Kansas. Louisiana, New Mexico.
Nevada, Oklahoma. Texas. Utah,
Western Area
EDA Area Office, 415 First Avenue
North. Seattle, Wash. 98109
(Alaska. American Samoa, Calif.
Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
26 Federal Plaza. New York. N.Y.
10007 (Connecticut. Maine,
New Hampshire, New York Rhode Island
Region II
Widener Building, 1339 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 (Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maryland, New
Jersey. Pennsylvania Virginia. West Virginia)
Region Ill
Peachtree-Seventh Building, Atlanta.
Ga. 30323 (Alabama. Florida. Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee)
Region IV
360 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago.
III. 60601 (Illinois. Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin)
Region V
Federal Office Building. 819 Taylor
Street, Fort Worth, Tex. 76102
(Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana.
Missouri. New Mexico, Oklahoma. Texasj
Region VI
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Post
Office Box 36003, San Francisco.
Calif. 94102 (Alaska. Arizona,
California, Hawaii. Idaho,
Montana. Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, Wyoming, Guam)
Region VII
Post Office Box 3869 GPO, San
Juan, P.R. 00936 (Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands)
128 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
810 New Walton Building
Atlanta, Ga. 30303

State Committee, Commissions Boards and Councils
Lake Central
3853 Research Park Driv&
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104
Denver Federal Center
Building 14
Denver Cob. 80225
Pacific Northwest
U.S. Courthouse,
Seattle, Wash.. 98104
Pacific Southwest
450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Alaska Region
832 Sixth Avenue,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Western Region
Post Office Box 92007
World Way Postal Center
Los Angeles, Calif. 90009
Pacific Region
Post Office Box 4009
Honolulu, Hawaii 96812
Southern Region
Post Office Box 20636
Atlanta, Ga. 30320
Central Region
601 12th Street
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Eastern Region
JFK International Airport
N.Y. 11430
Southwest Region
Post Office Box 1689
Fort Worth, Tex. 76101
Alabama Soil and Water Conservation
Co mmittee State Office Bldg.,
Montgomery 36104
Division of Agriculture Alaska
Department of Natural Resources P.O.
Box 824, Palmer 99645
A rizon a State Division of Soil
Conservation 400 Arizona State Office
Bldg., Phoenix 85007
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation
Commission State Capitol, Little Rock
California State Soil Conservation
Commission 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento
Colorado State Soil Conservation Board
1845 Sherman St., Denver 80203
Connecticut State Soil Cnservation
Advisory Committee State Office
Building Hartford 06115
Delaware Soil and Water Conservation
Commission P.O. Box 567, Georgetown
Florida State Soil and Water Conservation
Board P.O. Drawer E, Gainesville 32601
Georgia State Soil & Water Conservation
Committee 320 Ag. Extension Bldg.
Athens 30601
Hawaii Board of Land & Natural
Resources Box 621, Honolulu 96809
Idaho State Soil Conservation Commission
Statehouse, Boise 83707
Illinois Division of Soil and Water
Conservation Fairgrounds, Springfield
Indiana State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee AES Bldg. Purdue Univ., West
Lafayettee 47907
Iowa State Soil Conservation Committee
Grimes State Office Bldg. Des Moines
Kansas State Soil Conservation Committee
State Office Bldg., Topeka 66612
Kentucky Soil & Water Conservation
Commission 729 Bluegrass Ave.,
Frankfort 40601
Louisiana State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee P.O. Drawer CS.
LSU, Baton Rouge 70803
Maine State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee State House, Augusta 04330
Massachusetts State Committee for
Conservation of Soil, Water and Related
Resources 100 Cambridge St., State
Office Building. Boston 02202
Michigan State Soil Conservation
Committee National Res. Bldg. MSA, E.
Lansing 49823
Minnesota State Soil and Water
Conservation Commission 311 N. Hall St.
Paul Campus. U. of Minn. St Paul 55101
Minnesota State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee Carhage 39051
Missouri State Soil and Water District
Commission 705 Hitt.. U of Mo..
Columbia 65201
Montana State Soil Conservation
Committee Montana Tech, Buttee 59701
Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation
Commission Box 94725 State House Sta.,
Lincoln 68509
Nevad a State Soil Conservation
Committee Nye Bldg. 201 5. Fall St.,
Carson City 89701
New Hampshire State Soil Conservation
Committee Univ. of N.H., Durham 03824
New Jersey State Soil Conservation
Committee P.O. Box 1888, Trenton
New Mexico State and Water Conservation
Committee Capitol Bldg., Santa Fe 87501
New York State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee Emerson Hall,
Cornell Univ. Ithaca 14850
North Carolina State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee Williams Hall,
NC State U., Raleigh 27607
North Dakota State Soil Conservation
Committee State Capitol, Bismarck 58501
Ohio Soil & Water Conservation
Committee 1827 Neil Ave., Columbus
Oklahoma State Soil Conservation Board
114 State Capitol, Oklahoma City 73105
Oregon State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee Ag. Bldg. Salem 93701
Pennsylvania State Soil and Water
Conservation Commission 2301 N.
Cameron St., Harrisburg 17120
Soil Conservation Committee of Puerto
Rico Box AR, Rio Piedras 00928
Rhode Island State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee RD 2, 8 Main
Rd, Middleton 02842
State of South Carolina Soil and Water
Conservation Committee 1411 Barwell
St., Columbia 29201
South Dakota State Conservation
Commission State Capitol, Pierre 57501
Tennessee State Soil Conservation District
Committee P.O. Box 1071, Knoxville
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
Board 1018 First National Bldg., Temple
Utah State Soil Conservation Committee
State Captiol Bldg., Salt Lake City 84114
Vermont State Natural Resources
Conservation Council Dept. of Ag. Bldg.,
Montpelier 05602
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
Council P.O. Box 2148, Richmond 23216
Washington State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee General Administration
Olympia 98501
State of Wisconsin Soil Conservation
Board Soils Bldg., U.W., Madison 53706
Wyoming State Soil & Water Conservation
Committee Capitol Bldg., Cheyenne
Virgin -Islands Soil Conservation Council
P.O. Box 2148, Richmond 23216
Interstate Commissions
Bi.State Development Agency
Suite 619 Paul Brown Bldg.
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Interstate Sanitstiori Commission
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
New Jersey
New York
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
414 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Illinois Ohio
Indiana Pennsylvania
Kentucky Virginia
New York West Virginia
Delaware River Basin Commission
25 Scotch Road, P.O. Box 360
Trenton, New Jersey 08603
New Jersey
New York
Klamath River Compact Commission
P. 0. Box 388
Sacramento, California 95802
Tennessee River Basin Water
Pollution Control Commission
Central Services Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin
Transportation Building
815.17th Street, NW.
Washington. ID. C. 20006
District of Columbia
West Virginia
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
73 Trernont Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Connecticut New York
Maine Rhode Island
Massachusetts Vermont
New Hampshire

State Water Pollution Control Agencies
Water Improvement Commission
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Alaska Dept. of Health & Welfare
Alaska Office Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Environmental Health Service
Department of Health
Hayden Plaza West
4019 North 33rd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Arkansas Pollution Control Comm.
1100 Harrington Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
State Water Resources Control Board
1416-9th St
Sacramento, California 95814
Department of Public Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
State Water Resources Commission
Room 223, State Office Building
650 Main Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
Delaware Air and Water Resources
Loockerman Street and Legislative
Dover, Delaware 19901
District of Columbia Departnient of
Public Health
300 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20001
Air & Water Pollution Control Comm.
306 W Jefferson
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
State Water Quality Control Board
47 Trinity Avenue, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Public Health and Social Services
Government of Guam
P.O. Box 2816
Agana, Guam 96910
Environmental Health Division
Hawaii Dept. of Health
P. 0. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
Engineering & Sanitation Div.
State Department of Health
P.O. Box 640
Boise. Idaho 83701
State Sanitary Water Board
State Office Building
400 South Scrin Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Stream Pollution Control Board
1330 West Michipn Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46207
Water Pollution Division
State Department of Health
State Office Building
Lucas State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Environmental Health Services
State Department of Health
Topeka Avenue at Tenth
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Kentucky Water Pollution Control
275 East Main Street
Frankfort Kentucky 40601
Louisiana Stream Control Commission
P. 0. Drawer FC, University Station
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Water and Air Environmental Improve.
ment Commission
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
Environmental Health Services
State Department of Health
2305 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
State Dept. of Water Resources
State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Water Resources Commission
Station A, Steven T.Mason Bldg.
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware St., S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Mississippi Air and Water
Pollution Control Commission
P. 0. Box 827
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Missouri Water Pollution Board
P.O. Box 154
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Montana Water Pollution Council
State Department of Health
Laboratory Building
Helena, Montana 59601
Environmental Health Services
State Department of Health
Box 94757, State House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Bureau of Environmental Health
Dept. of Health, Welfare & Rehabilitation
Nye Building
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Water Supply and Pollution Control
61 South Spring Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Div. of Air and Clean Water
State Department of Health
P.O. Box 1540
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
New Mexico Water Quality Control Comm.
Department of Health & SOCIal
P.O. Box 2348
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Division of Pure Waters
State Department of Health
84 Holland Avenue
Albany, New York 12208
State Dept. of Water and Air
P. 0. Box 9392
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Environmental Health & Engineering
State Department of Health
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Water Pollution Control Board
State Department of Health
P. 0. Box 118
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Environmental Health Service
State Department of Health
3400 North Eastern
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73111
Oregon State Sanitary Authority
P. 0. Box 231
Portland, Oregon 97207
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
State Department of Health
P. 0. Box 90
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Puerto Rico Dept. of Health
Ponce de Leon Avenue
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
Div. of Water Pollution Control
Rhode Island Dept. of Health
335 State Office Building
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
S. C. Water Pollution Control Authority
J. Marion Sims Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Division of Sanitary Engineering
State Department of Health
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Tenn. Stream Pollution Control Board
Cordell Hull Building
Sixth Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca Street
Austin, Texas 78701
State Water Pollution Control
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
Vermont Department of Water
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
State Water Control Board
P. 0. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Virgin Islands Dept. of Health
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
Washington Water Pollution Control
P. 0. Box 829
Olympia, Washington 98501
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier St., East
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
Division of Sanitary Engineering
State Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

The draft of this guidebook was reviewed by soil and water specialists at the
National Conference on Sediment Control, Washington, D.C., September, 1969.
The guidebook reflects the ideas, concepts and recommendations made by the
Conference participants listed below.
Richard J. Alexander,
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
George Allen, Area Extension Agent,
College Park, Md.
Bruce N. Ambrose.
Planner, Pittsburgh. Pa.
Charles R. Anderson,
Md. Slate Roads Commission
Glenn Anderson.
Soil Conservation Service
Robert M. Anderson,
State Soil Conservation Committee,
Alfred R. Angel no, Gilroy, Calif.
Marshall Augustine.
Dept. of Waler Resources, Md.
George R. Bag ey. NACD.
St. Joseph, La.
James N. Ballinger,
State Board of Agriculture, OkIa.
Philip Barske,
Wildlife Management Institute,
John A. Barnes.
Bucks Co. Planning Comm., Pa.
R. C. Barnes,
Soil Conservation Service
B. K. Barton,
Wabash Valley Association
Lyle Bauer,
Kans. ASsr,. of Soil Cons. Districts,
Dean Beardsley.
Mahoning SWCD, Ganfield, Ohio
W. B. Bennett, Jr.,
Greenville, SWCD, S.C.
Richard Beck, Co. Extension Agent.
Fredericksburg, Va.
Herbert 0. Belnap,
Dept. of Pub. Improvements,
Baltimore, Md.
Louis Blymph,
Agricultural Research Service
W. C. Boggs,
Co. Commissioner. Dawson, Ala.
Frank W, Bohman, Morgan, Ulah
Charles Boothby,
Slate Soil and Waler Cons. Comm.,
Donald R. Bowman,
Co. Supervisor. Fairfax. Va.
Otto Brammer, Bd. of Commissioners,
Lewiston, Idaho
Justin Brande, Middleburg Vermont
Michael Brauer,
Colorado Springs, Cob.
Donald Brenner,
Dept. of Public Works.
Orangeburg, N.Y.
John V. Brink,
Wash. D.C. Dept. Public Health
John Broda,
NaIl. Cap. Park & Planning Comm.,
Silver Spring. Md.
Bob Brown,
Cleveland Metro Area COG, Ohio
F. R. Brown, DepI. of Public Works,
Contra Costa Co., Calif.
Randal Burson, District Supervisor,
Schodcratt, Michigan
C. E. Busby,
Waler Resources Mgt. Comm.,
Walnut Creek, Calif.
John L. Putachky,
Office of Planning and Zoning,
Annapolis, Md.
Joseph Canby, Langhorne, Pa.
S. Mason Carbaugh,
Va. Soil and Water Cons. Comm.
John Csrreker,
Agricultural Research Service,
Athens. Ga.
Curtis 0. Champman,
Public Facilities Dept.,
Norristown, Pa.
Jack Churchill, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration
Stanley Christensen,
Oregon Asan. of SWCDs, McMinville
Enrique Soler Cboquell,
Puerto Rico Planning Bd., San Juan
Steve Collins, Baltimore Co.
Dept. of Public Works, Md,
Quincy C. Cornelius. Hooper, Cob,
Robert Crane,
AssI. Co. Engr., Tallahassee, Fla.
Jim Crooks, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration
Roy Cuneo, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
George Dando, Memphis, Tenn,
William Davey,
Soil Conservation Service
James Davis, U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development
Stan Dea, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration
Raymond De Grafft, Civil Engr.
Md. Dept. of Public Improvements
Carl Dorney, Soil Conservation Serv.
Thomas C. Duley,
Upper Marlboro, Md.
Frank M. Ebert.
Montgomery Co. SWCD. Pa.
Frank Elliott, Commissioner,
Salem, Ore.
Marvin C. Emerson,
ElsIe Soil Cons. Bd., OkIa.
Hal Enderlin,
Soil Conservation Service
Byrl J. Engel, Dept of Public Works,
St. Louis Co.. Mo.
Frank K. Evans,
Bd. 01 Co. Road Commissioners
of Inghsm Co., Mich.
Paul Felton, WRA,
Delaware River Basin, Pa.
Stuart D. Finley,
Stuart Finley. Inc.. Falls Church, Va.
Kenneth V. Fiske, N.E. Ill.
Natural Resource Center, Ill.
Charles M, Frost,
Sam Houston Resource Cons. &
Dev. Area, Houston, Tex.
Rober Gaukel.
Co. Engr., Kearney, Nub.
William B Gillespie.
County Engr.. Seattle. Wash.
Ed Glassgow, Black Hills
Conservancy Subdistrict, S.D.
Leonard J Goodsell, Great Lakes
Comm., Ann Arbor, Mich.
Fred V. Grau, Grasslyn Inc.,
College Park. Md.
Melville W. Gray, Kansas Slate
Dept. of Health, Kans.
William F. Greenawalt,
Bucks County Planning Comm., Pa.
Frederick C. Gross.
Waialua Sugar Co., Inc., Hawaii
Harold Guy. U.S. Geological Survey
Dr. Daniel Hale, Southern Soil
Conservation Dist., Princeton, W.Va.
Joe Hamilton, Ala. Assn. SWCD
Ivan Hanson, Del.
Thomas G. Harris. Jr.,
Office of Planning arid Zoning,
Ellicolt City, Md.
Arnold Hawkins, Md. State Soil
Cons. Committee, Md.
Edward I. Heath, Alleghany Co.
Planning and Zoning Comm., Md.
Floyd Heft, Ohio Soil and
Waler Conservation Commission
Charles F. Hess.
Pa. Soil & Waler Cons. Comm.
L. H, Hicks, State Soil and
Water Commission, N.C.
Russell G. Hill,
Assn. of State S.C.P., Mich.
Eugene Hollister. Walworth Co.
Bd. of Supervisors, Wis.
William Horvath,
Wisc. State Soil Cons. Bd.
Conrad Hougen. Everson, Wash.
Herbert A. Howleft, Delaware River
Basin Commission. N.J.
C. E. Hubbard, NC. Dept. of
Water and Air Resources
Harold Huber.
Pa. Dept. of Highways, Harrisburg
Mr. lsgrig, Soil Scientist,
Stafford Co.. Va.
Harotd F. Johnson.
Kans. Assn. of SWCD
Jacob Kautgman,
Co. Commissioner, Selen, ND.
Edward Keil,
Soil Conservation Service
Eugene Kellam,
Albany Co. SWCD, N.Y.
John H. Kennaugh, Mich. Grand River
Watershed Council
Leslie W. King. Leesburg, Va.
Maynard A. King.
Public Facilities Dept.,
Norristown, Pa.
Ervin J. J. Koos, Iowa Assn. of
SCD Commissioners
Richard Langmire, OkIa.
Mrs. Robert Lechner. So. Branch
Watershed Assn., Clinton, N.J.
Dr. John Lenty, COG, Wash., D.C.
Carl Lindstrom,
Soil Conservation Service
Leroy Little,
Allegheny Co. Planning Dir., Pa.
W. K. MacCready, Co. Commissioner,
Richland, Wash.
Frank Mack, Corps of Engineers
L. L. Males, Security State Bank,
Cheyenne, OlcIa.
A. K. McCalIa, Tenn. Assn. of SWCD
Earl McClennan, NACD,
Plummer, Idaho
Marion McCoy, Office of Planning
and Zoning, Annapolis, Md.
John J. McCue. Dir. P.W..
Dade Co., Fla.
A. Turner McDonald, Atlanta, Ga.
Thomas McGourin,
Soil Conservation Service
Dennis Meazher, McComb Co.
Planning Comm., Mich.
Robert W. Mickle,
Central Iowa Regional PIg. Comm.
Fred P. Miller. Dept. of Agronomy,
Univ. of Md., College Park
Ruth Miller,
Zoning Administrator. Leesburg, Va.
Andrew Mork, Mandan, ND.
Robert Morris,
Stale Soil and Water Cons. Bd., Fla.
Dr. Alan I. Mytelka. Interstate
Sanitation Commission, N.Y.
Gilman 0. Neal, Columbus, Ind.
Wilbur B. Nolen,
Ala. Soil & Wafer Cons. Comm.
Robert Norton, Dept. Water Res.,
Annapolis, Md.
Burton Ode, Brandon, S.D.
Arnold H. Onstad,
District Conservationist,
Spring Grove, Minn.
John W. Ferris, Soil and Waler
Cons. Committee, Columbia, S.C.
George A. Price.
Md. House of Delegates
John R. Ouay, Woodstock, Ill.
Samuel Race,
State Soil Cons. Committee, N.J.
E. A. Ramey, Dept. of Public Works.
Fairfax, Vs.
L. L. Ray, Greensboro, NC.
R. G. Renard.
Agricultural Research Service
Neil Richardson,
Cuyahoga County SWCD. Ohio
Brian Richter, Sacramento. Calif.
John Roehl, Soil Conservation Service
John B. Robert,
Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo
Flood Control Authority, N.M.
J. Eloyd Rush, Annapolis, Md.
Harold F. Ryan,
District Conservationist,
Waukesha, Wis.
Hal L. Schroeder,
Salt Velley Watershed District. Nub.
Paul C. Shafer.
Portage Co. Engineer, Ohio
Ray Shaw, Greensboro. NC.
Frank J. Sheen.
Allegheny Co. SWCD, Pa.
Minott Silliman,
Soil Conservation Service
H. A. Smith, N.C. Stale Soil and
Waler Cons. Comm.
Jack K. Smith,
Mo. Water Pollution Bd.
Henry Sletina, Federal Water
Pollution Confrol Administration
Dwight Spuller, Branch. Mich.
0. E. Strickhouser, Design Review,
Dept. of Co. Dev , Fairfax, Va.
Raymond Thacker, Federal Water
Pollution Control Adminislration
William Thornton,
Pierce Co. Engr., Wash.
Phillip J. Tierney, Asst. Co. Attorney,
Rockville, Md.
Pat Tobin, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration
Hommer G. Towns. Forrest City, Ark.
S. W. Turner. Dept. of Highways,
Richmond, Va.
Thomas S. Vanasek,
Walnut Creek, Calif.
C. A. Van Doren,
Agricultural Research Service
Richard Vappi, Moullonboro, N.H.
Nicholas I. Vukovich, Steelton, Pa.
Steve Wallher, Calif. Districts,
Reno, Nev.
Ed Whyles, Co. Highway Engr.,
Flint, Mich.
Robert J. Williams, Wabash Valley
Interstate Comm., Ind.
Joseph Willson,
Va. Soil and Water Cons. Comm.
Mrs. Russell Wiltbann,
College Park, Md.
Jim Wold, Dept. of Public Works,
Hopkins, Minn,
M. Gordon Wolman,
Prof. of Geography,
Johns Hopkins Univ.. Ball., Md.
Bern Wright. Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration
Eber L. Wright, Pierpont, Ohio
Hugh 0. Yantis, Jr.,
Texas Waler Quality Bd.
John W. York, Exeter, N.H.