STREAMSIDE MRNABEMENT ZONE
statutes and Ordlnaaces
Criteria and Institutional Arrangements
Serving Water Quality Objectives on
State and Private Forest Lands.

-------
Improvement of streamside management for the enhancement of water
quality will be required in many areas as water quality programs
are developed under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). The "Streamside Manage-
ment Zone-Statutes and Ordinances," is a cooperative Forest Service-
Environmental Protection Agency effort which identifies major State
and local laws applying to streamside zone management on State and
private forest lands.
The effectiveness of State and local regulatory controls on water
quality management is evaluated. Examples of existing laws, ordinances
and regulations highlighted in this report can provide guidance to
State and areawlde water quality management agencies.
We suggest that where applicable, this report be used to develop
silviculture nonpoint source pollution controls relating to stream-
side management in planning and implementing State and local water
quality management programs.
M^h"Iff, tiiIrec^or^"

Water Planning Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Philip (EL Archibald, Director
Area PI alining and Development
Area PI Mining and Development
Unit
Forest Service

-------
THIS STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE STUDY
was conducted through an
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
between the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE
and the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH 1978

-------
CONTENTS
CHAPTER	Page No.
I. SUMMARY		3
II. CONCLUSIONS 		5
III. RECOMMENDATIONS 		7
IV. INTRODUCTION	10
V. PROCEDURES	13
VI. RESULTS OF STUDY	15
A.	TRENDS	15
B.	ANALYSIS RESULTS	15
C.	STREAMS IDE ZONE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE REVIEW	27
REFERENCES	28
VII. EXAMPLES	30
-2-

-------
I. SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into an agreement
with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to complete a survey of streamside
management zone laws, ordinances, and regulations in the 50 states, in
some counties, and in some local jurisdictions.
This survey was completed by the USFS State and Private Forestry, with
cooperation from all levels of the organization.
The survey and analysis were compiled and documented using information
collected from all 50 states. Two hundred and nine individual cases
were inventoried. Indirectly, many of these laws addressed the stream-
side management zone situation. However, no laws were found dealing
only with streamside zone management relative to water quality.
State laws comprised 118, or 56.4% of the cases, county laws 48 cases,
or 23.0%, city ordinances 31 cases, or 14.8%, planning districts 5
cases, or 2.4%. For two cases, no information was collected as to
the type of institution which legislated the act.
Thirty-one percent of the sampled laws have been enacted since 1970.
Seventy percent of the laws surveyed addressed streamside zones in
the legislation.
Specific pollutants were not addressed in half the laws surveyed.
State Forestry organizations administered four percent of the laws
surveyed.
Forty-five percent of the laws surveyed contained monitoring as a
part of the law.
A literature search was completed, and limited information was found
specific to streamside zone management.
-3-

-------
A severely eroding streambank where vegetation is trees
and grass - photo by USFS in Rocky Mountain area of USA.
A dynamically stable streambank system that contains a varied com-
munity of plant life - photo by USFS in Rocky Mountain area of USA.
-A-

-------
II. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were reached from the nationwide survey
of information, statutes, and ordinances applying to streamside
management zones on state and private forest lands.
A.	There were no laws that addressed only streamside zones specifi-
cally for the purpose of water quality.
B.	Streamside management laws, ordinances, and regulations are
often administered by state agencies other than the State
Water Quality Agency.
C.	In relation to the total entities sampled that have legislative
authority, there are not very many laws, ordinances, and regula-
tions that specifically address water quality.
D.	It appears that water quality concerns are tacked onto legislation
dealing with other primary purposes because it may be the politi-
cally astute thing to do.
E.	General publics have not been made aware of the social, environ-
mental, and economic consequences of water quality problems.
-5-

-------
A road constructed in unstable landforms adjacent to
a body of water with resultant mass wasting into the
water - photo by USFS in Rocky Mountain area of USA.
The stability of the streambank was breached with the
poor stream crossing making sediment available for
the stream - photo by USFS in Northwest area of USA.
-6-

-------
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are promulgated to improve streamside management zone
legislation for protection or enhancement of the water and land
resources in the nation. Hopefully, these recommendations can be
used by entities to stimulate new legislation and to gain additional
knowledge. Also, there may be opportunities to improve existing
legislation.
The recommendations are:
A.	Additional knowledge is needed to formulate more effective
legislation.
1.	Pollution production coefficients should be obtained
related to:
a.	Specific land uses in a given range of physical
environments.
b.	Intensity of specific uses.
c.	Management practices within a specific use.
d.	Multiple use relationships.
e.	Physical environmental features functioning both
independently and as an interactive part of a
total hydrological response unit.*
2.	The evaluation of the social, economic, and environ-
mental effects of pollutants should be done collec-
tively, rather than individually.
B.	Legislation could be made more effective by including the
following features:
1.	Include a variable streamside zone responsive to physical
and vegetative conditions in relation to specific land
uses or a combination of land uses.
2.	Include specific authority and responsibility for
administration and enforcement.
3.	Be definitive as to type of pollutants and allowable
levels of pollutants.
*Hydrological response unit - Unit of land that responds more or
less uniformly to a given climate.

-------
4.	Land use restrictions should be defined in relation
to different conditions within a hydrological response
unit.
5.	Monitoring should be specified, with explicit guide-
lines as to methods, frequency, and responsibilities.
6.	Legislation should provide for the preparation of a
management plan.
7.	Provide for flexibility and a mechanism for up-dating.
8.	Include bonding, penalties, taxing, or other mechanisms
to restore hydrologic conditions.
C.	Provide adequate funding and personnel to administer the
legislation.
1.	Minimum funding and personnel should be specified in
the law.
2.	Funding mechanism should be identified.
D.	Legislation should be coordinated with upstream and down-
stream laws and regulations to provide continuity within a
hydrologic system, such as within a river basin or municipal
watershed.
E.	Determinations should be made as to the relative effective-
ness of voluntary actions, information programs, and other
alternatives to enforcement.
F.	More information relating to sample clauses and criteria
are found in Chapter VII.
-8-

-------
Severe streambank erosion into the field where vegetation is a shal-
low-rooted monoculture - photo by SCS in Southeastern area of USA.
A dynamically stable streambank system supporting a diverse com-
munity of vegetation - photo by SCS in Southeastern area of USA.

-------
IV. INTRODUCTION
The Streamslde Management Zone (SMZ) Study on state and private
forested lands was initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and undertaken by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to provide
information and trends in state and local laws and ordinances apply-
ing to streamslde zone management.
This publication must not be construed by the reader to be complete
in terms of all existing statutes nationwide. Rather, the study
included a reasonable sampling of those statutes affecting st reams 1 de-
zones within the time constraints of the EPA-USFS agreement. Howevet
it is obvious that the studv data have provided information on strear.-
sicit management zone laws and ordinances that have not been compiled
and analyzed before.
The primary purpose was to survey the various state and local laws,
ordinances, and regulations and evaluate their effectiveness in pro-
tecting and/or enhancing water quality. The results of the study
would lead to providing guidelines to state and local 208 agencies
for streamside management and to various interest groups.
The study was executed by the USFS Area Planning and Development,
Washington Office, with field offices throughout the U.S. providing
the inventory data input and interpretation. A Washington Office
team, made up of people throughout the U.S., was appointed to analyze
the data and prepare a report.
The study was designed to be of sufficient scope to determine how
existing statutes regulate streamslde use related to improvement of
water quality. State laws were examined from all fifty states. In
addition, a minimum of three counties per state, three cities per
state, and several major planning entities within the states were
to be surveyed.
This information includes the purpose of the law or regulation, the
criteria set by the law or regulation to define the streamslde zone
if there is one, and the management uses expressly allowed or dis-
allowed in the streamside zone. The information also includes effects
of vegetation management on the streamside zone in relationship to
the natural setting. The data were analyzed both nationwide and on
a regional basis.
A streamside management zone literature search was accomplished by
the Moscow, Idaho Forestry Sciences Laboratory of the Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station (USFS) for this survey.
This literature search was done on Forestry Abstracts from 1972 to
present and on the Bibliography of Agriculture Abstracts from 1970
to present. The keywords used in the search were water and water
-10-

-------
quality, buffer strip(s), streamside zone(s), impact(s), and management
practice (s). No information was found in this search relative to
streamside zone management.
A literature review from small libraries of material at Bozeman and
Missoula, Montana and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania found only five
publications on streamside zone management.
-11-

-------
Bank erosion occurring where field vegetation abuts
stream - photo by SCS in Southeastern area of USA.
-12-

-------
V. PROCEDURES
A study plan was drafted, reviewed by a group of USFS and EPA people
in Washington, D. C., and approved as the procedural document to
conduct the SM7. Study. The various phases of the study were:
1.	Organize the study and set objectives.
2.	Inventory states, counties, cities, and planning districts.
3.	Analyze inventory data.
4.	Evaluation.
5.	Report.
Phase One of the SMZ Study was accomplished at the Washington Office
(Headquarters) level, with participation as necessary from field
personnel. A plan of work, including a detailed work outline, was
developed.
Study objectives, scope, and inventory procedures, including data,
were agreed upon. Staffing, time schedules, cost estimates, and
work assignments were made; and commitments to do the work were
agreed upon.
The inventory of all 50 states, along with some entities of local
(county, city, other) government, was completed by USFS State and
Private field staff people throughout the organization. Each law or
ordinance inventoried was documented!./ on a data collection form, a
data analysis form, and a vegetative analysis form. Phase Three of
the study was completed at the field level and analyzed. Phases
Four and Five of the SMZ Study were accomplished by the Washington
Office team.
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). The following questions were addressed, based on
the sample cases:
1.	How many laws, ordinances, or regulations have vegetation
management specifically addressed in the legislation?
2.	What is the relationship between management of vegetation
and the effectiveness of laws and ordinances?
— See laws and ordinances in appendix.
-13-

-------
3.	What is the apparent influence of vegetation management
on water quality?
4.	How many laws, ordinances, or regulations have streamside
zones specifically addressed in the legislation?
5.	Are pollutants specifically addressed in the laws, ordi-
nances, or regulations?
6.	What pollutants were specifically addressed in the legisla-
tion?
7.	How many laws, ordinances, or regulations specifically
addressed timber harvesting?
8.	What agencies administer the laws, ordinances, or regulations?
9.	Is there a relationship in the sample between enforcement
and whether or not laws, ordinances, or regulations are
adhered to?
10.	Does width of streamside management zones have any effect
on whether or not laws, ordinances, or regulations are
adhered to?
11.	Is monitoring for effectiveness part of the laws, ordinances,
or regulations sampled?
12.	What types of streams, by percent, were defined by the laws,
ordinances, or regulations?
A table also was constructed, describing the characteristics of all
laws and ordinances in the survey by categories of state, county,
municipal, planning district, and others.
-14-

-------
VI. RESULTS OF STUDY
A.	Trends
The following trends in state and local laws and ordinances that
affect water quality were identified:
1.	Institutional approaches to water quality laws (direct
or indirect) differ drastically by geographic areas of
the United States. These differences are much more
evident when comparing the West with the rest of the
country.
2.	Pollutant levels from non-point sources have not been
adequately quantified in such a way as to become stand-
ards for inclusion in legislation.
3.	In defining streamside zones, there are trade-offs be-
tween ease of administration and water quality enhance-
ment. Most zones defined do not vary with slope, soil
types, vegetation, type of land use, or other parameters
having a direct effect on water quality. However, some
of the western timber harvesting ordinances did provide
for on-the-ground adjustment of the width of streamside
zones.
4.	Primary purpose water quality laws, ordinances, or
regulations by and large have not been initiated by
legislative authorities.
There were no streamside management zone laws, ordinances, or
regulations which dealt directly and primarily with water quality.
Most legislation, which has some direct or inferred water quality
purpose, appears to be a result of adding on clauses to other
primary purpose laws, ordinances, or regulations.
B.	Analysis Results
1. Procedures
Information on the data collection form (included in the
appendix) was coded according to positive or negative
responses in relation to each data item. This coding re-
quired that a judgment be made according to the information
presented, and resulted in one uniform set of information
in relation to each law or ordinance inventoried. Each law
or ordinance inventoried is referred to in the analysis as
a "case." Altogether nationwide, there were 209 cases
collected for analysis.
-15-

-------
Table No. 1 displays the number and percent of cases by
institution and EPA Region of the country. Figure 1 shows
the EPA Regions of the country.
Coding was done under the close supervision of the team
leader to insure uniform interpretation of the data col-
lected. If information was not available, either because
it had not been collected or could not be interpreted, it
was designated as "no information" and coded accordingly.
After the data were coded, they were processed in the SPSS.
This program (SPSS) was used to obtain frequency counts of
all data items, and provided limited statistical analysis
of possible relationships between data items.
2.	Reliability
Most questions on the data collection form were open-ended;
and respondents were not required to choose a response to
each question. This resulted in discretionary reporting of
data items and some items often being ignored. Also, nega-
tive replies, either as to where laws or ordinances existed
or to individual questions, often were not recorded. Thus,
personal bias and subjective reporting were inherent in the
information from the beginning.
When data were coded into the SPSS System, each portion of
each question had to be coded as a positive response, nega-
tive response, or "no information." As many questions were
positive in relation to many aspects of the question, repli-
cations were common. For example, laws and ordinances were
coded as to whether or not they related to five purposes.
Some fulfilled many purposes, and a positive response to more
than one aspect of the same question was recorded. This
replication adversely affected the statistical reliability
in relating one question to another because those with most
replications would carry more weight than those with few
replications. For these reasons, reliability is very weak,
and findings should be viewed only as indicators of the
characteristics of laws and ordinances sampled.
3.	Results
The characteristics of the laws and ordinances sampled are
described in Table No. 2. There were 209 cases analyzed, with
over half collected in the western U.S.A. State laws comprised
118, or 56.4% of the cases, county laws 48 cases or 23.0%,
city ordinances 31 cases or 14.8%, planning districts 5 cases
or 2.4%. For two cases, no information was collected as to
the type of institution which legislated the act.
-16-

-------
TABLE NO. 1	NUMBER AND PERCENT OF CASES: INSTITUTION BY EPA REGION
INSTITUTION
REGION
STATE
COUNTY
CITY
PLANNING
DISTRICT
OTHER
NO
INFORMATION
I
1,
3.3%
°/
'0.0%
4/
1.9%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'0.0%
II
5/
2.4%
°/
'0.0%
l,
0.5%
°l
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
III
8/
3.8%
3/
1.4%
3/
1.4%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
IV
1,
3.3%
«/
1.9%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
0.5%
V
20/
9.6%
8/
'3.8%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'0.0%
VI
7/
3.3%
0.5%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o«
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
VII
6/
2.9%
!/
0.5%
4/
1.9%
°/
'o.o%
3/
1.4%
°/
'0.0%
VIII
18
8.6%
9/
'4.3%
8/
'3.8%
2/
'1.0%
v
0.5%
!/
0.5%
IX
24/
11.5%
13/
'6.3%
5/
2.4%
3/
1.4%
V
0.5%
°/
'0.0%
X
16
'7.7%
9/
'4.3%
6/
'2.9%
N
O
o
o
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
TOTAL
118 /
'56.4%
48
'23.0%
31/
14.8%
5/
'2.4%
5/
'2.4%
2/
'l.0%
Total 209 Cases 100%

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONAL OFFICES
ALASKA
PUERTO RICO
HP?
HAWAII
Figure 1.—EPA Regions.

-------
TABLE NO. 2	DESCRIPTION OF LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS SAMPLED OCT - NOV 1977
GENERAL TYPE OF LAW*
INSTITUTION
SAMPLE
CASES
FOREST
PRACTICE
WILD &
SCENIC
RIVERS
FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT
FISH
&
GAME
COASTAL
ZONE
MGMT.
STREAM
CHANNEL
PROTECTION
WATER
QUALITY
OTHER
DATE
OF
ENACTMENT
AFTER 1970
STATE
118.
'56.4%
8/
'3.8%
1
00
o
16
'7.7%
3/
' 1.4%
6/
2.9%
3/
' 1.4%
39
18. 7%
26
'12.4%
64/
'30.6%
COUNTY
48/
'23.0%
4/
1.9%
°/
'0.0%
17/
'8.1%
!/
0.5%
°/
'0.0%
1,
'3.3%
15/
'7.2%
19/
'9.1%
27 /
13.0%
CITY
31/
14.8%
' 0.5%
°/
'0.0%
15/
' 7.2%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
0.5%
"/
'5.2%
00
2
o
I
17/
'8.2%
PLANNING
DISTRICT
5/
'2.4%
v
0.5%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
7 0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'o.o%
3/
'1.4%
3/
'1.4%
5/
'2.4%
OTHER
5/
2.4%
o
o
a
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
v
0.5%
°/
'0.0%
°/
' 0.0%
o
d
¦—.
o
0.5%
!/
0.5%
NO
INFORMATION
2/
'1.0%


TOTAL
209,
'100.0%
14/
' 6.7%
00
•
O
48/
'23.0%
5/
'2.4%
6/
'2.9%
u/
5.2%
68,
'32.5%
59/
'28.2%

* 12 CASES DUPLICATED
LEGEND: 118 .	= Number cases with positive response.
56.4% = Percentage of cases with positive response based on 209 total.

-------
TABLE NO. 2	DESCRIPTION OF LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS SAMPLED OCT - NOV 1977 (CONTINUED)
PURPOSES*	ADMINISTRATION*
INSTITUTION
WATER
QUALITY
FLOOD
PREVENTION
OPEN
SPACES &
ESTHETICS
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
OTHER
STATE
FORESTRY
AGENCY
STATE
WATER
QUALITY
AGENCY
OTHER
STATE
AGENCY
COUNTY
OTHER
STATE
53/
'25.3%
20,
9.5%
1?/
'8.1%
18
'8.6%
5°/
'23.9%
9/
4.3%
!6/
'7.7%
67/
'32.0%
2/
' 1.0%
H/
'5.3%
COUNTY
16
'7.7%
18
8.6%
9/
'4.3%
8/
'3.8%
21/
'10.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'o.o%
25/
12.0%
23
'11.0%
CITY
lh!
6.7%
16/
'7.7%
9/
'4.3%
'1.9%
10/
'4.8%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
3/
' 1.4%
26
'12.4%
PLANNING
DISTRICT
*/
' 1.9%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
4/
1.9%
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o
°/
'o.o%
°/
'o.o%
^2.4%
OTHER
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
v
0.5%
v
0.5%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
2/
0.9%
NO
INFORMATION
.
24 CASES
TOTAL
67
'41.6%
5A/
'25.8%
35/
16.7%
31/
14.8%
86/
'41.1%
1 5/
' 4.3%
!6
'7.7%
67
'32.0%
30
14.4%
67
'32.0%
* 84 CASES DUPLICATED
* 3 CASES DUPLICATED

-------
TABLE NO. 2	DESCRIPTION OF LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS SAMPLED OCT - NOV 1977 (CONTINUED)
USES ALLOWED*	CRITERIA
INSTITUTION
COMPARISON
OF
OBSERVATION
VS MEASURE.
IN
MONITORING
<50
TIMBER
HARVEST GRAZING RECREATION HUNTING
DISTANCE
i FROM
STREAM SLOPE WATERSHED OTHER
STATE
80.2
70, 58, 60, 58.
33.5% 27.8% 28.7% '27.8%
37 3/ 5/ 12/
17.7% 1.4% 2.4% '5.7%
COUNTY
92.5
32, 29, 29, 28,
15.3% 13.9% 13.9% 13.4%
j 25/ 1/ 3 6
12.0% 0.5% 1.4% '2.9%
CITY
100.0
18, 19, 24. 18.
8.6% 9.1% 11.5% 8.6%
14 1 1 5
'6.7% 0.5% 0.5% '2.4%
PLANNING
DISTRICT
100.0
*/ 2/ 2/ 2/
1.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%
2, 0, 0. 2^
0.9% '0.0% '0.0% 0.9%
OTHER
0 0 1 x/ V
[ 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
0/ 0; 0 1^
70.0% '0.0% '0.0% 0.5%
NO
INFORMATION

82 CASES
1 29 CASES
TOTAL

125, 109, 116, 107,
59.8% 52.2% 55.5% '51.2%
1 78 5 9 26
| 37.3% '2.4% '4.3% 'l2.4%
* 248 CASES DUPLICATED

-------
TABLE NO. 2 DESCRIPTION OF LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS SAMPLED OCT - NOV 1977 (CONTINUED)
VARIABLE WIDTH	CONSTANT WIDTH










UPSLOPE


25 - 100





PRACTICE

FIRST
YEAR




INSTITUTION
(LU)
SLOPE
FLOODPLAIN
FLOOD
OTHER
<100M
100M TO KM
>KM
STATE
!/
0.5%
6/
2.9%
6/
' 2.9%
10
4.8%
28
13.4%
9z
4.3%
5/
2.4%
°/
70.0%
COUNTY
2 /
0.9%
4 /
1.9%
4/
7 1.9%
10/
'4.8%
U/
6.2%
9/
£.3%
l,
0.5%
°/
70.0%
CITY
v
0.5%
0.9%
5/
7 2.4%
1,
3.3%
10/
'4.8%
8/
3.8%
°/
7 0.0%
°/
/0.0%
PLANNING
v
0.5%
v
0.5%
v
0.5%
°/
'0.0%
3/
71.4%
°/
7o.o%
°/
7 0.0%
°/
'o.oz
DISTRICT
OTHER
°/
'0.0%
°/
70.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
'0.0%
°/
7 0.0%
°/
7 0.0%
°/
7 0.0%
°/
70.0%
NO
INFORMATION
91 CASES
177 CASES
TOTAL
5I
'2.4%
13/
'6.2%
16,
7.7%
27 /
12.9%
54/
'25.8%
26,
'12.4%
6/
'2.9%
°f
' 0.0%

-------
Table No. 2 is divided into eight sections. These are:
General Type of Law, Purpose of Law, Administration of the
Law, Monitoring of the Law, Uses Allowed in the Zone, Cri-
teria of the Zone, Variable Width of the Zone, and Constant
Width of the Zone. Each section is subdivided into columns
showing the general breakdown of the section heading, and
the rows show the institution which initiated the law. Data
used in each section were obtained from the same population.
Therefore, if a case is multi-purpose, it will appear in
several sections.
Significant aspects of laws and ordinances indicate 30.6%
of them have been enacted since 1970. Most laws are water
quality acts.
Some relationships between data items were analyzed to answer
specific questions related to the purpose of the survey.
Question 1. How many laws, ordinances, or regulations have
vegetation management specifically addressed as part of the
legislation?
Answer: Of the total cases, 97 (46.4%) addressed vegetation
management, 48 (23.0%) did not, and 64 (30.6%) had no infor-
mation.
Question 2. What is the relationship between management of
vegetation and the effectiveness of laws and ordinances?
Answer: In 57% of the cases where vegetation was reported
as managed, objectives also were reported as achieved. In
29% of the cases, vegetation also was reported as managed,
but objectives were reported as not achieved. Statistically,
36 chances out of 100, vegetation management is related to
achievement of objectives in this sample.
Question 3. What is the apparent influence of vegetation
management on water quality?
Answer: Of the 97 cases where vegetation management is
specifically addressed (Question 1), 39% have a high in-
fluence on water quality, 33% a moderate influence, 21% a
low influence, and 7% no influence. The terms, "High,"
"Moderate," and "Low" indicate a judgment of those admin-
istering the acts and ordinances on the apparent influence
of vegetation management on water quality.
Question 4. How many laws, ordinances, or regulations have
streamslde zones specifically addressed in the legislation?
Answer: 142 of the 209 cases sampled, or 70%.
-23-

-------
Question 5. Are pollutants specifically addressed in the
laws, ordinances, or regulations?
Answer: Total cases where pollutants were addressed are
21.2%. In 50.5% of the cases, specific pollutants were not
addressed and, in 28.3% of the cases, there was no informa-
tion.
Question 6. What pollutants were specifically addressed in
the legislation?
Answer: The following tabulation indicates the major pollu-
tants identified in the laws, ordinances, and regulations
were organic and sediment.
Positive Negative	No
Response Response Information Total


	 percent


Organic
28.7
43.5
27.8
100
Temperature
13.9
57.9
28.2
100
Sediment
45.9
25.8
28.3
100
Visual
16.7
55.0
28.3
100
Chemical
16.7
54.5
28.8
100
Other
5.3
66.0
28.7
100
Question 7. How many laws, ordinances, or regulations specif-
ically addressed timber harvesting?
Answer: Timber harvesting is specifically allowed in 125
cases, 59.8%; it is prohibited in 14 cases, 6.7%. No infor-
mation on this question was available in 70 cases, 33.5%.
Question 8. What agencies administer the laws, ordinances,
or regulations?
Answer:
State Forestry
Water Quality
Other State
County
Other
Positive
Response
4.3
7.7
32.0
14.4
32.0
Negative
Response
No
Information
	 percent 	
84.2
80.8
56.5
74.1
56.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
Total
100
100
100
100
100
(There are 3 cases where laws, ordinances, or regulations were
administered by more than one agency.)
-24-

-------
Question 9. Is there a relationship in the sample between
enforcement and whether or not laws, ordinances, or regula-
tions are adhered to?
Answer: Statistically, it was found there was no relation
between enforcement and whether or not ordinances or regu-
lations were adhered to. Relationships were entirely random,
with up to 98% of the cases lacking information on this
question.
Question 10. Does width of streamside management zones have
any effect on whether or not laws, ordinances, or regulations
are adhered to?
Answer: No.
Question 11. Is monitoring for effectiveness part of the
laws, ordinances, or regulations sampled?
Answer: In 45.5% of the cases, monitoring was part of the
law, ordinance, or regulation. In 26.8%, monitoring was
not included; and in 27.8%, no information was available
on this question.
Question 12. What types of streams, by percent, were defined
by the laws, ordinances, or regulations?
Answer: Of the total cases, streams are defined by name in
14 (6.7%), by size or volume in 7 (3.3%), as perennial in
88 (42.1%), as Intermittent in 68 (32.5%), and by other in
45 (21.5%). The percentages may not add up to 100% because
streams may have been defined by more than one element. The
following tabulation shows these percentages by EPA Region.
-25-

-------
Number and Percentage of Cases Streams Defined
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
By Name
0
7
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7
0.5%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
1.0%
1.4%
By Size
or Volume
1
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.4%
As
Perennial
7
2.4%
18
1.0%
2.4%
0.5%
8.6%
0.5%
1.0%
3.8%
28
13.4%
18
As
Intermittent
5,
2.4%
2.
'1.0%
4,
1.9%
14
0.5%
6.7%
26
11
8.6%
0.5%
0.5%
1.4%
12.4%
5.3%
By
Other
7
0.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.0%
>/
3.8%
7
'0.5%
1.4%
7
'4.3 %
'/
'3.3%
3.3%
(There were 29 cases with no information.)
-26-

-------
C. Streamside Zone Management Literature Review
A streamside management zone literature search was accomplished
by the Moscow, Idaho Forestry Sciences Laboratory of the Inter-
mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USFS.
The literature searched was Forestry Abstracts from 1972 to present
and the Bibliography of Agriculture Abstracts from 1970 to present.
The keywords used in the search were water and water quality,
buffer strip(s), streamside zone(s)', impact(s), and management
practice(s). No information was found in this search on stream-
side zone management.
A literature review from small libraries of material at Bozeman
and Missoula, Montana and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania found only
five publications on streamside zone management.
This research indicates that temperature and debris can be
changed drastically by streamside zone management. (1), (2)
Dykstra and Froehlich indicate that types of management can
affect longevity of buffer strips. (4)
Streeby indicates that the desirability of applying buffer
strips to streamsides is dependent on three classes of factors:
physical-biotic, outside cultural factors, and management
objectives. (5)
Campbell indicates in his research that streamside vegetation
may require selective clearcutting rather than complete removal
of riparian plants to maintain a biological balance, and thus
prevent thermal pollution, channel erosion, and destruction of
aquatic and wildlife habitats. (3)
The authors' efforts in this literature review indicate a trend
revealing very limited published results of research applicable
to streamside zones. The search was limited and dealt with most
likely sources, due to time and economic constraints.
-27-

-------
REFERENCES
Brown, George W.
1970. Water temperatures in small streams as Influenced by
environmental factors and logging. Oregon State Univ.,
"Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment," p. 175-181.
Burwell, Dave
1970. Prevention of debris accumulation in streams by uphill
felling. Oregon State Univ., "Forest Land Uses and Stream
Environment," p. 118-120.
Campbell, C. J.
1970. Ecological implications of riparian vegetation manage-
ment. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 25(2): 45-52.
Dykstra, Dennis P., and Henry A. Froehlich
1976. Stream protection: What does it cost? Pacific Logging
Congr. Handbook, Vol. XXXVI.
Streeby, Larry
1970. Buffer strips—some considerations in the decision to
leave. Oregon State Univ., "Forests Land Uses and Stream
Environment," p. 194-198.
-28-

-------
Severe bank erosion occurring along field section
where vegetation is a shallow-rooted monoculture
- photo by SCS in Southeastern area of USA.
A dynamically stable streambank with tree vegeta-
tion - photo by SCS in Southeastern area of USA.
-29-

-------
VII. EXAMPI.ES OF CLAUSEJl FROM EXISTING LAWS,
ORDINANCES, AND REGULATIONS
State and local laws, ordinances, and regulations collected in the
survey were evaluated for their apparent effectiveness in protecting or
enhancing water quality. Specific clauses were selected to illustrate
examples of streamside zone management from a water quality standpoint
at the State and local level. These clauses may be useful to legisla-
tors and local administrators in developing new or amending legislation
and ordinances.
The following are general criteria that should apply to all laws and
ordinances.
1.	Responsive to physical environment to which they are to be
applied—for example, a snowfall environment vs. a rainfall
environment.
2.	Must be practical.
3.	Economically compatible to the resource.
4.	Should set standards.
5.	Must be implementable.
6.	Should not exclude urban or developed areas.
7.	Type of stream should be defined.
8.	Should provide for periodic review of streamside zone
effectiveness.
9.	Uses allowed or disallowed should be specified.
The following are specific criteria that should apply to all laws and
ordinances with examples of clauses from existing legislation.
A. Streamside Zone Width
1. Criteria
a.	Streamside width should vary with slope and/or variations
in vegetative cover.
b.	The width should be defined in the law, ordinance, or
regulation.
c.	Provide for on-the-ground adjustment.
-30-

-------
d.	Should establish a nirimum width.
e.	The ed.t'e of the strt'iir t'lom which the st. roatnsicie zone
width is measured should be defined.
Ex am pi os
a.	"(h) RIPARIAN CORRIDOR: Those areas which fall into
any of the following four categories:
1. An arfca extending SO feet (measured horizon-
tally) to each side of a perennial stream. Dis-
tance shall be measured from the mean rainy season
(banktuJl) t'Jovline:
?. An area extending '>0 feet (measured horizon-
tally) to each side of an intermittent stream.
Distance shall be measured from the mean rainy
season (bankfull) flowline;
1. An area extending 30 feet from the high water
mark of a mars!) or natural body of standing water ;
or
4. An area designated as riparian woodland on land
cover maps prepared by the Office of Watershed
Management. The boundary shall he defined as the
outer limit of the occurrence of riparian vegeta-
tion and may extend farther than the above-specified
distances. This boundary may be. determined bv the
Planning Director after consul tatior. with the Water-
shed Manager."
b.	"Section 10,702. STREAMSIDE BUFFER STRIP. Construction
of truck roads, tractor trails and landings shall only
be permitted when it is clearly shown that there is a
protective strip between the proposed construction and
the stream having sufficient filter capacity to effec-
tively remove waterborne sediment to prevent any serious
risk that construction and use of said facilities will
cause significant degradation of water quality. Where
it is determined that the filter capacity of the protec-
tive strip is insufficient, additional erosion control
may include, but is not limited to, any or all of the
following:
1.	Increased width of the protective strip;
2.	Decreased interval between waterbreaks;
3.	Treatment of the travelled surface to protect
soil from erosion;
-31-

-------
4.	Treatment of fill slopes to protect soil from
erosion which may include installation of down
drains;
5.	Installation of slope obstructions between the
toe of the fill and the stream;
6.	Seeding or planting of disturbed areas where
bare soil is exposed to protect the soil from
erosion.
If, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, an
adequate protective strip cannot be provided, then the
truck road, tractor trail, and/or landing shall not be
approved."
"Section 10208. "Watercourse." "Watercourse" shall mean
one of the natural or artificial channels which convey
surface water delineated on that certain map, with
accompanying listing approved and adopted by the Board
of Supervisors and on file in the Office of Fngineer
identified as	. There shall be included
in the watercourse an area extending laterally outward
fifty (50) feet beyond the top of the banks on either
side of such channel, except that the watercourse of
the 	 from the southern boundary of the County
to 	 shall include an area extending
laterally outward one hundred (100) feet beyond the top
of the banks on either side of its channel. A water-
course shall not include any property situated within
the boundaries of any incorporated city. Top of the
bank shall mean the upper elevation of land which con-
fines waters flowing in a watercourse to their channel
in their normal course of winter flow."
"Section 6.00. Protection of Streams and Meadows.
1.	No trees will be cut and no yarding equipment shall
be allowed within one hundred (100) feet slope dis-
tanre from the edge of a stream channel or a perennial
or intermittent stream, except where the timber har-
vesting permit allows selected cutting for the purpose
of sanitation.
2.	No yarding equipment shall be allowed in a meadow.
3.	No tree shall be felled into a perennial or inter-
mittent stream, or into a meadow or lake.
4.	Trees shall be felled in such direction as to avoid
destruction of streamside vegetation.
-32-

-------
5- Logging debris shall be kept out of all live and
intermittent streams. Any debris so deposited
shall be removed immediately.
6.	The traversing of perennial or intermittent streams
by skid trails shall be avoided wherever possible.
Unavoidable stream crossings may not be undertaken
unless individually and specifically approved in
the timber harvesting permit. Such approval shall
be based on the adequacy of the bridging technique
proposed at each such crossing and on the adequacy
of the measures to be taken to prevent sedimenta-
tion of the stream. In no event shall log culverts,
or any like method requiring the placing of rock
and earthen material into the stream or streambed,
be considered adequate bridging techniques. This
does not preclude the installation of properly
installed metal culverts.
7.	Whenever a timber operation involves stream cross-
ings, the applicant shall post a bond in an amount
determined by the permit-issuing authority to be
sufficient to insure against any damages resulting
from the stream crossing for a period of five years
from the time of the construction of the crossing.
8.	The provisions of this Section shall supercede the
provisions of Section 7.70 of the Grading Ordinance,
and no separate permit shall be required under the
Grading Ordinance for work authorized by the timber
harvesting permit within a stream environment zone
of one hundred (100) year flood plain."
B. Streamside Zone Vegetation Management
1. Criteria
a.	Include provisions for vegetation management.
b.	Ecologically compatible species should be used in
revegetation operations.
c.	Specify maximum period of time for vegetative re-
establishment.
d.	Specify amount and kind of vegetation removed from the
streamside zone during vegetative manipulation.
e.	Specify vegetative removal procedures from the zone.
f.	Specify maximum area of soil exposure and disturbance
and erosion control measures In those areas.
-33-

-------
g.	Provide that a management plan be prepared for any
management activity within the zone.
h.	Spell out responsibilities of landowner and operator
in the management plan.
2. Examples
a. "'ARTICLE 6. STREAM AND LAKE PROTECTION. 956. Stream
and Lake Protection. The purpose of this Article is
to insure the protection of beneficial uses that are
derived from the physical form, water quality, and
biological capacity of streams and lakes.
It is the further purpose of this Article to minimize
erosion of stream and lake banks and beds during the
conduct of timber operations.
In order to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the
beneficial uses of streams and lakes, each timber opera-
tor shall do the following:
(a)	Below the stream and lake transition line the
streams will be kept free of slash, debris, side cast
and other material from logging operations. Accidental
deposits shall be removed as soon as practicable. All
operations will conform to agreement made pursuant to
Fish and Game Code, where such agreements are required.
Trees cut within fifty (50) feet of the stream and lake
transition line as measured along the surface of the
ground shall be felled as nearly as possible at right
angles away from the stream or lake, or in such other
manner as to minimize erosion and maintain water quality.
(b)	The timber operator shall prevent the discharge
of soil, silt, bark, slash, or other organic and earthen
material from any logging, construction or associated
activity into any stream or lake in quantities deleter-
ious to fish, wildlife or other beneficial uses of water.
(c)	When logging skid trails must cross a live
stream a prepared crossing shall be used, except as
provided by agreement pursuant to the Fish and Game
Code.
(d)	The timber operator shall not use beds of
streams as landings, roads, or skid trails, except at
prepared crossings or as provided by agreement pursuant
to the Fish and Game Code.
-34-

-------
(e)	At all road crossings of live streams, install
suitable structures of sufficient size to allow for the
full surface flow of the stream throughout the entire
period of timber operations. All structures shall be
placed to allow unrestricted fish passage. Exceptions
may be provided through agreements pursuant tc the
Fish and Game Code.
(f)	All temporary stream crossing structures not
designed for the normal maximum flow of the stream shall
be removed prior to the normal maximum flow of the stream.
All temporary structures shall be removed upon completion
of logging.
956.1. Protection of Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat.
To minimize erosion and protect water quality and fish
and wildlife habitat within the stream and lake protec-
tion zone, adjacent to perennial streams and lakes,
riparian vegetation, residual timber and other soil-
protecting and shade-producing vegetation will be
protected from unnecessary damage.
Felled trees shall be end-lined to the edge of the stream
and lake protection zone and tractors or skidding equip-
ment will not be operated within the zone except on
existing roads or where less damage will result from
the use of such equipment.
Within the stream and lake protection zone enough trees or
shrubs of any species shall be left so that 50 percent or
more of the shade-producing canopy before timber operations
shall remain after timber operations are completed. When
explained and justified the Timber Harvesting Plan may
provide for a lesser percentage of remaining shade-producing
canopy where it is necessary to achieve stocking standards
or if It can reasonably be expected there will not be sub-
stantial adverse effects on soil erosion, wildlife, aquatic
life, or unreasonable effects on the beneficial uses of
water because of one or more of the following conditions.
a.	The remaining canopy or streamside shrubs will still
provide adequate protection;
b.	A stream is oriented with a northerly or easterly
facing slope such that the aspect substantially
reduces the amount of solar radiation;
c.	The depth and narrowness of the canyon at stream level
is such that removal of additional percentage of canopy
does not adversely affect the water or substantially
Increase erosion;
-35-

-------
d.	The combination of inherent temperature, depth, rate
of flow and volume of water is such as to prevent
significant heating or temperatures higher than
normally required for the survival of trout or
anadromous fish;
e.	The length of stream affected by canopy decrease
is less than 200 feet.
Only sanitation salvage cutting may be done in future
harvests within the stream and lake protection zone
until such time that the canopy has become sufficiently
reestablished to prevent substantial adverse effects on
soil erosion, wildlife, aquatic life, or the beneficial
use of water.
In the event the State Forester disagrees with the
judgment exercised by the Registered Professional
Forester under this section following an on-the-ground
inspection, if requested by either party, and rejects
the plan, the person who submitted the plan may appeal
to the Board of Forestry as provided in regulations
adopted by the Board."
"4.30 Information Report. All applicants for timber
harvesting permits shall file a report with the permit-
issuing authority that states the following plans:
a.	Fire fighting and prevention;
b.	Slash disposal;
c.	Erosion and siltation control;
d.	Revegetation and reforestation."
"(d) Conditions. The granting of an exception may be
conditioned by the requirement of certain measures to
ensure compliance with the purpose of this Chapter.
Required measures may include, but are not limited to:
1.	Maintenance of a protective strip of vegetation
between the activity and a stream, marsh, or body
of standing water. The strip should have sufficient
filter capacity to prevent significant degradation
of water quality, and sufficient width to provide
value for wildlife habitat, as determined by the
Zoning Administrator.
2.	Installation and maintenance of waterbreaks.
-36-

-------
3.	Surface treatment to prevent erosion or slope
instabilities.
4.	Installation and maintenance of drainage facilities.
5.	Seeding or planting of bare soil.
6.	Installation and maintenance of a structure between
toe of the fill and the high water mark.
7.	Installation and maintenance of sediment catch
basins."
"916.4. Soil Treatment - Stream and Lake Protection Zone.
Areas within 150 feet of a stream or lake, as measured
along the surface of the ground, with high or extreme
Erosion Hazard Ratings, where mineral soil is exposed
by timber operations exceeding 800 continuous square
feet in size, shall be seeded, planted, or otherwise
treated for reduction of soil erosion prior to November
15th of the year of disturbance."
"(B) Any land occupier planning to engage in timber
harvesting who does not have a district approved erosion
and sediment control section in his timber harvesting
plan shall either (1) enter into a district cooperative
agreement for a conservation plan as explained in Sec-
tion 8(A), or (2) submit notification to the district
office of his proposed timber harvesting plans on
	 Conservation District Timber Harvest
Form available at the district office at least ten
working days prior to initiating any timber harvesting
activities. Such notification shall include, as a
minimum, the following Information:
1.	Name, address, and telephone number of landowner(s)
and logging operator(s);
2.	Legal description of proposed timber harvesting
activities;
3.	Description of proposed operation;
4.	Plat map of the area showing all water bodies,
roads, and erosion control structures;
5.	Signatures of the landowner(s) and operator(s) agree-
ing to conduct all timber harvesting activities,
which include the construction and location of all
roads, in accordance with the adopted erosion and
sediment control guidelines for timber harvest."

-------
C. Responsibility J:or Administration and Enforcement
1.	Criteria
a.	Responsibility for administration and enforcement should
be specified in the law or ordinance.
b.	Responsibility for administration and enforcement should
be vested in one agency.
c.	Provide for adequate funding and personnel for administra-
tion and enforcement.
d.	Provision should be made regarding liability tor main-
tenance of the zone and abatement of disturbance within
the zone.
2.	Examples
a. "(C) Where the supervisors determine that accelerated
erosion or sediment damage has occurred or is occurring,
they will proceed to seek a voluntary solution to the
problem using the following sequence:
1.	The supervisors shall, within five working days of
the investigation, provide written notification to
the land occupier that an apparent violation of this
ordinance exists with a copy to the complainant.
2.	The supervisors or their designated representative
shall, at the earliest possible date, discuss alterna-
tive solutions with the land occupier, offer technical
assistance in bringing about an acceptable solution,
and provide information regarding financial assistance.
3.	The supervisors or their designated representative
shall specify, in writing, a reasonable length of
time to complete the corrective measures.
4.	The supervisors or their designated representative
shall inform the land occupier that he may use other
than district assistance to bring about a satisfac-
tory solution.
(D) If the land occupier disagrees with the results of
the supervisors' investigation, he shall be given an
opportunity to meet with the supervisors at their next
regular monthly meeting to review their decision.
-38-

-------
(E)	If the supervisors find no reason to reverse their
prior decision, they shall, within five working days of
the meeting, notify the land occupier in violation by
certified mail that he has 20 days to adequately demon-
strate to the satisfaction of the supervisors his inten-
tion to proceed voluntarily towards correction of the
violation, after which time, if there remains no indica-
tion of definite action to initiate corrective measures,
the supervisors may file a petition with the district
court in accordance with Section 76-110, R.C.M. 1947 of
the 	 Conservation District Law.
(F)	The supervisors shall notify the complainant in
writing of their final decision and their prescribed
procedure to correct the violation."
11 (b) Abatement by County or District. If the nuisance
is not abated by the owner in accordance with said notice,
the Engineer shall so report to the Board and, if so
directed by the Board, the Engineer shall abate the
nuisance. Such abatement may be accomplished either by
County or District work forces or others under contract
with the County or District. The owner of the parcel
involved shall be liable to the County or District for
all costs Incurred In such abatement including, but not
limited to, reasonable attorney's fee."
"Section 10.00 Inspections and Authority to Stop Work
10.10 Inspections
All activities for which a permit is required, or
which are regulated by the standards contained in
this Ordinance, shall be subject to inspection by
the permit-issuing authority.
10.20	Authority to Stop Work
Whenever any timber harvesting or other activity
regulated by this Ordinance is being done contrary
to the provisions of this Ordinance or the provi-
sions of the permit Issued, the permit-issuing
authority or the Agency by its executive officer
or his designee may Issue a written notice to the
responsible party to stop work on such timber
harvesting or other activity. The notice shall
state the nature of the violation.
10.21	A notice to stop work as provided in Section
10.20 shall stay in effect until revoked by the
issuing authority, provided, however, that the party
-39-

-------
to whom the notice was Issued may obtain review
of the action by the governing body of the Agency.
Such review shall be initiated by a request filed
by such party and shall be heard at the next regular
meeting of the governing body of the Agency scheduled
to be held more than seven (7) days after the filing
of such request. Upon such review the governing body
shall determine whether or not such timber harvesting
or other activity is in violation and shall confirm,
modify, or disaffirm the notice. It shall be unlaw-
ful for any person to violate any notice to stop work
issued pursuant to this section and no work shall be
done on the timber harvesting or other activity in
question until the violation has been corrected and
approval has been obtained from the permit-issuing
authority."
D. Description of Pollutants, Allowable Levels and Monitoring
1.	Criteria
a.	Kinds (types) of pollutants should be specifically
addressed in the legislation and ordinances.
b.	Maximum allowable levels of pollutants and duration of
occurrence should be specified for various streamflow
levels.
c.	Monitoring of on-the-ground compliance and water pollutant
levels, including schedules, should be provided for.
2.	Examples
a. "4562.7. Waterway Protection. The purpose of this section
is to insure the protection of beneficial uses that are
derived from the physical form, water quality, and bio-
logical capability of streams. To these ends, in addition
to the rules provided for in Section 4562.5, the board
shall adopt rules for control of timber operations which
will result or threaten to result in unreasonable effects
on the beneficial uses of the. waters of the state. Such
rules shall Include rules for:
(a)	The disposal of petroleum products, sanitary
wastes, refuse and cleaning agents in proper dumps or
waste treatment facilities to prevent them from entering
streams.
(b)	Construction of logging road and tractor trail
stream crossings to assure substantially unimpaired flow
of water and to assure free passage of fish both upstream
and downstream.
-40-

-------
(c)	Minimizing damage to unmerchantable streamside
vegetation, particularly hardwood trees.
(d)	Minimizing damage to streambeds or banks resulting
from skidding or hauling logs through, across, or into
streams, by operating tractors or other heavy equipment
in or near streambeds, or by construction of log landings
or logging roads in or near the channels of streams.
(e)	Control of slash, debris, fill, and side cast
earth, resulting from timber operations, which may be
carried into streams."
b.	"(A) Land occupiers, supervisors, or state and county
officials responsible for the maintenance of water quality
in the district, may file a complaint against any person
alleging that accelerated erosion or sediment damage has
occurred or is occurring.
(b) The complaint shall: (1) include the name and address
of the complainant; (2) be in writing, signed, notarized,
and delivered to the district office; (3) include the date
and location of the alleged violation; (4) describe the
source, nature, and extent of the accelerated erosion or
sediment damage alleged to have occurred or is occurring;
and (5) become public record on file at the district
office."
c.	"Section 10218. Inspection. The Engineer may cause
inspections of the work to be made periodically during
the course thereof, and shall make a final inspection
following completion of the work. The permittee shall
assist the Engineer in making such inspections."
d.	"(g) Inspection and Compliance. The Planning Director
may conduct inspections to ensure compliance with this
Chapter.
1. Inspection. The following inspections may be per-
formed by the Planning Director:
a.	A pre-slte inspection to determine the suit-
ability of the proposed activity and to develop
necessary conditions for an exception.
b.	A final inspection to determine compliance with
conditions, plans, and specifications.
These Inspections may take place concurrent to inspec-
tions required by any permits necessary for the activi-
ties in question.
-41-

-------
Notification. The permittee shall notify the Planning
Director 24 hours prior to start of the authorized
work and also 24 hours prior to the time he or she
desires a required inspection.
Right of Entry. The application for exception consti-
tutes a grant of permission for the County to enter
the permit area for the purpose of administering this
Chapter from the date of the application to the termin-
ation of any erosion control maintenance period. If
necessary, the Planning Director shall be supplied with
a key or lock combination or permitted to install a
County lock."
DATE DUE
H1GHSMITH 46-220
U S GOVERNMENT POINTING OFFICF W78 WvOSfi 90
-42-

-------