URBAN BMP COST AND EFFECTIVENESS
SUMMARY DATA
FOR 6217(g) GUIDANCE
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
DURING CONSTRUCTION
January 29, 1993
WOODWARD-CLYDE
-------
URBAN BMP COST AND EFFECTIVENESS
SUMMARY DATA
FOR 6217(g) GUIDANCE
/
/. _/-
US EPA Region Library
SNAFC 9T25
4 61 Forsyth Street SW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
DURING CONSTRUCTION
January 29, 1993
WOODWARD-CLYDE
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report were Ms. Lynn Mayo, Mr. Dale Lehman, Mr. Lawrence dinger,
Mr. Brian Donovan and Dr. Peter Mangarella of Woodward-Clyde.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Robert Goo, Mr. Rod Frederick and Mr. Edward
Drabkowski, of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Mr. Rober Iosco of
the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District; and Mr. Thomas Schueler of
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for their guidance and comments during the
development of this document.
The project was funded by the EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\toc
ii
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 2-1
2.1.1 Erosion Control Practices 2-3
2.1.2 Sediment Control Practices 2-6
2.2 EFFECTIVENESS 2-8
2.2.1 Erosion Control Practices 2-9
2.2.2 Sediment Control Practices 2-13
2.3 COST 2-14
2.3.1 Erosion Control Practices 2-15
2.3.2 Sediment Control Practices 2-18
3.0 EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY TABLES 3-1
4.0 PREFERRED MANAGMENT PRACTICES OPTIONS 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A STATE REGULATIONS
APPENDIX B EFFICIENCY DATA
APPENDIX C COST DATA
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\toc Woodward-Clyde
January 29, 1993
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND
COST SUMMARY 3-3
TABLE 3-2. ESC ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE 3-9
TABLE 4-1. ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN DEVELOPING AN
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 4-2
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 TSS CONCENTRATIONS FROM MARYLAND
CONSTRUCTION SITES 2-2
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\toc Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
iv
-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In November 1990, the U.S Congress passed the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization and
Amendments (CZARA). As part of this reauthorization, Congress created a new, distinct
program to address nonpoint source (NPS) pollution of coastal waters (Section 6217). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) jointly drafted Proposed Program Guidance for Section 6217 of
CZARA. EPA was given the lead responsibility for developing the Management Measures
Guidance required under Section 6217(g).
EPA established five Federal/State Work Groups to assist in preparation of the 6217(g)
Guidance. Woodward-Clyde has supported the Urban Work Group through the collection and
analysis of information on Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to control urban NPS
pollution. The results of these efforts include four books that present cost and effectiveness
information on BMPs for:
Erosion and Sediment Control;
Post Construction Runoff;
Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems; and
Roads, Highways and Bridges.
This report is a summary of the cost and pollutant removal effectiveness information that was
gleaned from published literature regarding erosion and sediment controls during construction.
The report also contains recommended management practices and systems of management
practices for the control of NPS pollution from construction activities.
This document contains information collected from 30 documents. The documents were obtained
through literature sources, and telephone contacts with all states and territories with approved
Coastal Zone Management Plans. Cost and effectiveness data from the various management
practices presented in the documents were reviewed and analyzed to develop summary
information for the various BMPs. Data were omitted from consideration where substandard
field technique was used in the collection of the data or if results were influenced by atypical
climatological or site characteristics (e.g. unusually heavy rainfall or prolonged drought). Also,
this analysis only considered BMPs that have been implemented in the field. Experimental
practices only applied in a research setting were not considered.
This report contains descriptions of the management practices considered, summary cost and
effectiveness information, and recommended practices for use in erosion and sediment control.
The Appendix contains the data that were analyzed to develop the summary cost and
effectiveness information.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chapl Woodward-Clyde
January 29, 1993
1-1
-------
INDEX
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
PRACTICE
DESCRIPTION
PRACTICE
EFFECTIVENESS
PRACTICE
COST
EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
Avoid Disturbing Vegetation on Steep Slopes,
Highly Erodible Soils, or Other Critical Areas
Page 2-3
Page 2-10
Page 2-16
Check Dams
Page 2-5
Page 2-11
Page 2-18
Cover or Stabilize Topsoil Stockpiles
Page 2-4
Page 2-10
Page 2-17
Intercept Runoff Above Disturbed Slopes and
Convey it to a Permanent Channel or Storm
Drain
Page 2-4
Page 2-11
Page 2-17
Mulching
Page 2-6
Page 2-12
Page 2-18
On Long or Steep Disturbed or Man-Made
Slopes, Construct Benches, Terraces, or
Ditches at Regular Intervals to Intercept
Runoff
Page 2-5
Page 2-11
Page 2-18
Only Clear Areas Essential for Construction
Page 2-3
Page 2-9
Page 2-16
Protect Natural Vegetation with Fencing, Tree
Armoring, Retaining Walls or Tree Wells
Page 2-4
Page 2-10
Page 2-17
Provide Linings for Channels
Page 2-5
Page 2-11
Page 2-18
Provide Wind Erosion Controls
Page 2-4
Page 2-10
Page 2-17
Retaining Walls
Page 2-5
Route Construction Traffic to Avoid Existing
or Newly Planted Vegetation
Page 2-3
Page 2-10
Page 2-17
* Schedule Projects such that Clearing and
Grading is Done During Time of Minimum
Erosion Potential
Page 2-3
Page 2-9
Page 2-16
Seed
Page 2-6
Page 2-12
* Seed and Mulch
Page 2-6
Page 2-12
Page 2-18
Sodding
Page 2-6
Page 2-12
Page 2-18
Stage Construction
Page 2-3
Page 2-9
Page 2-16
Where Practical, Stockpile Topsoil and
Reapply to Revegetated Site
Page 2-4
Page 2-10
Page 2-17
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap 1
1-2
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
PRACTICE
DESCRIPTION
PRACTICE
EFFECTIVENESS
PRACTICE
COST
SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES
Construction Entrances
Page 2-8
Page 2-15
Page 2-20
Filter Fabric Fence
Page 2-7
Page 2-14
Page 2-19
Inlet Protection
Page 2-8
Page 2-14
Page 2-20
* Sediment Basins
Page 2-6
Page 2-13
Page 2-19
* Sediment Traps
Page 2-7
Page 2-14
Page 2-19
Straw Bale Barrier
Page 2-7
Page 2-14
Page 2-20
Vegetative Filter Strips
Page 2-8
Page 2-15
Page 2-20
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap 1
1-3
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
2.0
EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
This section presents descriptions of the types of Erosion and Sediment Control management
practices considered, where and when the application of these practices are appropriate, and
the cost and effectiveness of these systems. Although CZARA only regulates construction
sites less than 5 acres (NPDES permits apply to sites greater than 5 acres), this document
addresses erosion and sediment controls during construction that could be implemented for
any size construction site.
Over 30 documents were reviewed to develop summary effectiveness and cost data for
erosion and sediment controls. It should be noted that the documents obtained and reviewed
do not include all of the published literature regarding erosion and sediment control
management practices. However, many of the documents obtained were summaries of many
other investigations and the most widely used erosion and sediment control documents were
reviewed. The influence of soil type, drainage area, slope and many other site specific
factors on effectiveness of erosion and sediment controls are discussed. The effectiveness
does not vary greatly regionally and therefore few conclusions can be drawn regarding
regional influence on performance.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
The main concern at construction sites is reducing the amount of sediment that leaves the
site. Erosion controls are used to reduce the amount of sediment that is detached from the
soil and enters the runoff. Sediment controls are used to remove sediment that is in the
runoff. As Figure 2-1 illustrates, to effectively reduce the amount of sediment leaving a
construction site, erosion controls must be used to prevent the sediment from entering the
runoff and sediment controls must be used to remove the sediment which does enter the
runoff.
The following is a description of structural and nonstructural erosion and sediment control
management practices.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-1
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
FIGURE 2-1. TSS CONCENTRATIONS FROM MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION SITES
(Schueler et al, 1990)
* Estimated
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-2
-------
2.1.1
Erosion Control Practices
Schedule Projects Such that Clearing and Grading Are Done During Time of Minimum
Erosion Potential - Often a project can be scheduled during the time of year that the erosion
potential of the site is relatively low. In many parts of the country there is a certain period
of the year when erosion potential is relatively low and construction scheduling could be very
effective, for example in the Pacific region if construction can be completed during the 6
month dry season (May 1 - Oct 31), temporary erosion and sediment controls (ESC) may
not be needed. Additionally, some parts of the country have a time of year where erosion
potential is very high such as during the spring thaw in northern areas. During this time of
year, snowfall generates a constant runoff flow that can carry sediment from bare soil. The
soft wet ground is easily turned into mud by construction vehicles that is more easily washed
off site. Therefore, in the north, grading should be avoided during the spring thaw.
(Goldman et al, 1986)
Stage Construction - Instead of massive clearing of a construction site, clearing should be
carefully planned and staged so that only the area being worked on is exposed at any time.
As soon as the grading and construction in an area are complete, the area should be
stabilized.
Only Clear Areas Essential For Construction - Areas of a construction site are often
unnecessarily cleared. Only those areas essential for completing construction activities should
be cleared and other areas should remain undisturbed. Additionally, the proposed limits of
land disturbance should be physically marked off to ensure they clear only the required land
area.
Avoid Disturbing Vegetation On Steep Slopes. Highly Erodible Soils. Or Other Critical
Areas - Material stockpiles, borrow areas, access roads and other land disturbing activities
can often be located away from critical areas such as steep slopes, highly erodible soils, and
areas that drain directly into sensitive water bodies.
Route Construction Traffic To Avoid Existing Or Newly Planted Vegetation - Where
possible, construction traffic should travel over areas that must be disturbed for other
construction activity. This will reduce the area that is cleared and susceptible to erosion.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-3
-------
Protect'Natural Vegetation With Fencing. Tree Armoring. Retaining Walls. Or Tree Wells-
Tree armoring protects tree trunks from being damaged by construction equipment. Fencing
can also protect tree trunks. The fencing should be placed at the tree's drip line so that
construction equipment is kept out of the tree's drip line. The tree drip line is the minimum
area around a tree where the tree's root system should not be disturbed by cut, fill, or soil
compaction as the result of heavy equipment. When fill or cut must be done near a tree, a
retaining wall or tree well should be used to minimize the cutting of the tree's roots or the
quantity of fill placed over the tree's roots.
Where Practical Stockpile Topsoil And Reapply To Revegetate Site - Due to the high organic
content of topsoil it cannot be used as fill material or under pavement, and therefore after
a site is cleared the topsoil is typically removed. Topsoil is essential to establish new
vegetation. Consequently, it should be stockpiled and then reapplied to the site for
revegetation. Although topsoil salvaged from the existing site can often be used, it must
meet certain standards and sometimes topsoil may need to be brought onto the site if the
existing topsoil is not adequate for establishing new vegetation.
Cover Or Stabilize Topsoil Stockpiles - Unprotected stockpiles are very prone to erosion and
therefore must be protected. Small stockpiles can be covered with a tarp to prevent erosion.
Large stockpiles should be stabilized by seeding and/or mulching.
Provide Wind Erosion Controls - These practices control the movement of dust from
disturbed soil surfaces and include many different practices. Wind barriers block the air
currents and are effective in controlling soil blowing. Many different materials can be used
as wind barriers including solid board fence, snow fences and bales of hay. Tillage is also
useful in that it scars the soil surface to temporarily prevent or reduce the amount of blowing
dust. Sprinkling moistens the soil surface with water and must be repeated as needed to be
effective. (Delaware DNR, 1989)
Intercept Runoff Above Disturbed Slopes And Convey It To A Permanent Channel Or Storm
Drain - Either earth dikes, perimeter dike/swale or diversions can be used to intercept and
convey the runoff. An earth dike is a temporary berm or ridge of compacted soil that
channels water to a desired location. A perimeter dike/swale or diversion is a swale with
a supporting ridge on the lower side that is constructed from the soil excavated from the
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-4
-------
adjoining swale (Delaware DNR, 1989). These practices should be used to intercept flow
uphill of denuded areas or newly seeded areas to keep the disturbed areas from being eroded
from the uphill runoff. The structures should be stabilized within 14 days of installation.
A pipe slope drain, also known as a pipe drop structure, is a temporary pipe placed from the
top of a slope to the bottom of the slope to convey concentrated surface stormwater down
the slope without causing erosion (Delaware DNR, 1989). Pipe slope drains should only be
used for small runoff volumes of concentrated flow.
On Long Or Steep Disturbed Or Man-Made Slopes. Construct Benches. Terraces. Or Ditches
At Regular Intervals To Intercept Runoff - Benches, terraces, or ditches break up a slope by
providing areas of low slope in the reverse direction. This keeps water from proceeding
down the slope at increasing volume and velocity. Instead the flow is directed to a suitable
outlet (e.g. sediment basin or trap). The frequency of benches, terraces, or ditches will
depend on the runoff volume, erodibility of the soils, steepness and length of the slope and
rock outcrops. This practice should be used if there is a potential for erosion along the
slope.
Retaining Walls - Retaining walls can often be used to decrease the steepness of a slope.
By reducing the steepness of a slope, the runoff velocity is decreased and, therefore, the
erosion potential is decreased.
Provide Linings For Channels - Construction activities usually increase the velocity and
volume of runoff that causes erosion in newly constructed or existing channels. If the runoff
during or after construction will cause erosion in a channel, it should be lined. The first
choice of lining should be grass or sod since this reduces runoff velocities and provides
water quality benefits through filtration and infiltration. If the velocity of the channel would
erode the grass or sod then rip-rap, concrete, gabions, or jute netting can be used.
Check Dams - These are small temporary gravel dams constructed across a swale or channel.
They are used to reduce the velocity of concentrated flow and, therefore, reduce, the erosion
in a swale or channel. Check dams should be used when a swale or channel will be used
for a short time and therefore it is not feasible or practical to provide a lining to the channel
(Delaware DNR, 1989).
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-5
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Seed - Seeding establishes a vegetative cover on disturbed areas. Seeding is very effective
in controlling soil erosion once a thick vegetative cover is established. However, seeding
does not always produce as thick and therefore erosion resistant vegetation as seed and mulch
or netting. In certain areas, the erosion resistant capacity of seeding can be enhanced by
adding fertilizer or by using a drought-resistant seed like wildflower. Since seeding does not
provide any protection during the time of vegetative establishment, it should be used only
on favorable soils, and very flat areas. Seeding should not be used in sensitive areas.
Newly established vegetation does not have as extensive a root system as existing vegetation
and therefore is more prone to erosion, especially on steep slopes.
Seed and Mulch - Seeding establishes a vegetative cover on disturbed areas. Seeding is very
effective in controlling soil erosion once the vegetative cover is established. The mulching
protects the disturbed area prior to the vegetation being established.
Mulching - Mulching involves applying plant fiber residues or other suitable materials on the
disturbed soil surfaces. Blankets or nettings are often used. Mulching includes tacked
straw, wood chips, jute netting, Excelsior blanket, as well as many other types. Mulching
alone should only be used for temporary protection of the soil surface, or when permanent
seeding is not feasible. The useful life of mulch varies with the material used and the
amount of precipitation. The useful life is approximately 2 to 6 months.
Sodding - Sodding permanently stabilizes an area. Sodding provides immediate stabilization
of an area and should be used in critical areas, or where establishment of permanent
vegetation by seeding and mulching would be difficult. Sodding is also a preferred option
when there is a high erosion potential during the period of vegetative establishment from
seeding. However, because of the high cost of sodding, it is typically only used in critical
areas where establishment of permanent vegetation by seeding and mulching would be
difficult, or where there is a high erosion potential during the period of vegetative
establishment from seeding.
2.1.2 Sediment Control Practices
Sediment Basins - Sediment basins, also known as silt basins, are engineered impoundment
structures that allow sediment to settle out of the stormwater runoff. Sediment basins are
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-6
-------
installed prior to full scale grading and remain in place until the drainage area is fully
stabilized. They are generally located at the low point of sites, away from construction
traffic, where they will be able to trap sediment ladened runoff.
Sediment basins are typically used for drainage areas between 5 and 100 acres. They can
be classified as either temporary or permanent structures depending on the length of service
of the structure. If they are designed to function less than 36 months they are classified as
"temporary," otherwise they are considered as permanent structures. Temporary sediment
basins can also be converted into permanent stormwater management ponds. When sediment
basins are designed as permanent structures, they must meet all standards for ponds, such
as SCS Standards and Specifications No. 378.
Sediment Traps - Sediment traps are small impoundments that allow sediment to settle out
of the runoff water. Sediment traps are typically installed in a drainageway or other point
of discharge from a disturbed area. Temporary diversions can be used to direct runoff to
the sediment trap. Sediment traps should not be used for drainage areas greater than 5 acres
and they have a useful life of approximately 18 to 24 months.
Filter Fabric Fence - Filter fabric fence is available from many manufacturers and in several
mesh sizes. Filter fabric fence traps sediment particles and decreases velocities on denuded
slopes as stormwater runoff flows through the fabric.
Filter fabric fences should only be used where there is sheet flow (i.e. no concentrated flow),
and the maximum drainage area to the fence should be 0.5 acre or less per 100 feet of fence.
Filter fabric fences have a useful life of approximately 6 to 12 months.
Straw Bale Barrier - A straw bale barrier is a row of anchored straw bales that detain and
filter stormwater runoff. Straw bales are less effective than filter fabric, which can usually
be used in place of straw bales.
As with filter fabric fences, straw bale barriers should only be used where there is sheet
flow. The maximum drainage area to the barrier should be 0.25 acre or less per 100 feet of
barrier. The useful life of straw bales is approximately 3 months.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-7
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Inlet Protection - Inlet protection consists of a barrier placed around a storm drain drop inlet.
It traps sediment before it enters the storm sewer system. Filter fabric, straw bales, gravel,
or sand bags are often used for inlet protection.
Construction Entrances - Construction entrances are pads of gravel over filter cloth or steel
bar grates. These are located where traffic leaves a construction site. As the vehicles drive
over the gravel or steel bars, mud and sediment are collected from the vehicle's wheels.
Vegetative Filter Strips (VFS) - VFS are low-gradient vegetated areas that convey overland
sheet flow. Runoff must be evenly distributed across the filter strip. If the water
concentrates and forms a channel, the filter strip will not perform properly. Level spreading
devices are often used to distribute the runoff evenly across the strip.
Vegetative filter strips should have relatively low slopes, adequate length, and be planted
with erosion resistant plant species. The main factors that influence the removal efficiency
are the vegetation type, soil infiltration rate, and flow depth and travel time. These factors
are dependent on the contributing drainage area, slope of strip, and strip length.
Maintenance requirements for VFS include sediment removal and inspections to ensure that
dense, vigorous, vegetation is established and the flow does not concentrate.
2.2 EFFECTIVENESS
The main pollutant leaving construction sites is sediment. Therefore, the effectiveness of
siltation and erosion control devices has been measured by the reduction of total suspended
solids (TSS) over an uncontrolled construction site. It should be noted that these practices
are ineffective at controlling soluble pollutants. All of the reported effectiveness data
assumes that the controls are properly designed, constructed and maintained. Where
sufficient data were available, quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of a practice was
included. Table 3-1 (see Section 3) contains quantitative effectiveness information for these
practices. The data that were analyzed to draw the effectiveness conclusions are presented
in Appendix B. See Section 3 for a discussion regarding the variability of the effectiveness
data.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-8
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
2.2.1
Erosion Control Practices
Erosion control practices are those practices designed to prevent erosion from occurring and
minimizing the amount of sediment that is introduced into runoff. These practices include
minimizing disturbed areas, diverting offsite surface runoff from disturbed areas, scheduling
of construction activities, and stabilization of areas when construction is completed or
suspended for a period of time. These types of practices have been found to be more
effective at reducing offsite TSS loads than sediment controls alone. Schueler (1990)
reported that erosion control can be 85 % effective at reducing TSS loads from construction
sites where sediment controls are only 60-80% effective.
The effectiveness of erosion control practices calvary based on land slope, area rainfall
frequency and intensity, and soil texture. In general, a system of erosion control practices
(e.g. scheduling construction for low rainfall seasons, minimizing disturbed area during
construction, and stabilization as soon as construction is completed) leads to the most
effective control of TSS.
Schedule Project So Clearing and Grading are Done During Time of Minimum Erosion
Potential - Erosion rates depend on rainfall intensity (the R factor in the Universal Soil Loss
Equation) (Beasley, 1972), therefore reducing the time that soil is exposed to intense rainfall
will reduce the erosion rate. In many parts of the country, there is a certain period of the
year when erosion potential is relatively low and construction scheduling could be very
effective for example: in the Pacific region, if construction can be completed during the 6
month dry season (May 1 - Oct 31), temporary ESC may not be needed; in the Central,
Atlantic, and Gulf Coast areas, significant rainfall occurs in very month and scheduling may
not be as effective; and in the northern areas of the country, construction should be avoided
during the spring thaw period.
Stage Construction - This practice reduces the time that an area is left unstabilized.
Reducing the time that an area is disturbed, and subjected to erosion, reduces the amount of
erosion from the site.
Only Clear Areas Essential for Construction - Very little erosion occurs on soil with
undisturbed natural vegetation and therefore keeping existing natural vegetation is the most
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-9
-------
effective form of erosion control. Additionally, the percent reduction in the total land area
disturbed will be directly proportional to the reduction in erosion that can be expected from
this practice.
Avoid Disturbing Vegetation on Steep Slopes. Highly Erodible Soils, or Other Critical
Areas - Erosion rates on steep slopes are high and steep slopes are difficult to stabilize,
therefore it is particularly important to keep from disturbing these areas whenever possible.
In addition, retention of existing natural vegetation is the most effective form of erosion
control and should be used in critical areas.
Route Construction Traffic to Avoid Existing or Newly Planted Vegetation - Avoiding
existing vegetation minimizes the area disturbed and avoiding newly planted vegetation
assists in the stabilization of a disturbed area.
Protect Natural Vegetation - Fencing and other items can be used to protect existing
vegetation. Tree protections are useful erosion and sediment controls because trees shield
soil from the impact of falling rain and the root systems hold soil particles in place.
Stockpile Topsoil and Reapply to Revegetate the Site - Topsoil provides a suitable material
and therefore assists in vegetation establishment.
Cover or Stabilize Topsoil Stockpiles - If tarps are used to completely cover stockpiles, then
erosion and sediment losses are reduced by 100%. However, tarps are only practical for
small stockpiles. For large piles, vegetative or other stabilization practices should be
employed. The effectiveness for these types of practices was previously presented in this
section.
Provide Wind Erosion Controls - The amount of wind erosion that occurs from a site is a
function of the soil erodibility related to cloddiness, soil roughness, wind velocity, soil
moisture, length in prevailing wind direction, and equivalent quantity of vegetative cover
(Beasley, 1972). Wind barriers reduce the length in the prevailing wind direction, tillage
scars increase soil roughness, wetting increases soil moisture, and mulching and other
surface covers increase equivalent quantity of vegetative cover, all of which reduce the
amount of wind erosion from the site.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-10
-------
Intercept Runoff Above Disturbed Slopes and Convey It To A Permanent Channel or Storm
Drain - Soil without established vegetation is very susceptible to erosion; and clean water
from uphill disturbed areas can cause erosion on denuded areas or newly seeded slopes.
Therefore, diverting runoff by using swales, dikes or pipe slope drains will reduce erosion
and sediment transport.
On Long or Steep Disturbed or Man-Made Slopes. Construct Benches. Terraces, or Ditches
at Regular Intervals to Intercept Runoff - If slope steepness is doubled, while other factors
are held constant, the soil loss potential increased 2-1/2 times. If both slope and length are
doubled, the soil loss potential increased 4 times. (Goldman, 1986) Therefore, to prevent
erosive velocities, the slope should be broken-up into small reaches. Additionally, the use
of terraces (either graded or tile outlet) can also lead to the following reductions in erosion
losses (from Beasley, 1972):
Install Check Dams or Provide Linings for Channels Subjected to Erosive Velocities -
Construction often increases the volume and velocity of runoff, which causes erosion in
newly constructed or existing channels. Therefore, if the channel has an erosive velocity,
it can be lined to reduce channel erosion. Another option is to install check dams to reduce
the channel velocity. Schwab et al., 1966 presented the following limiting velocity (the
channel velocity above which significant erosion occurs) for natural channels:
Land Slope
Reduction in Erosion
1-12%
12-18%
18-24%
70%
60%
55%
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-11
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Channel Bed
For Clear Water
Water Transporting
Collodial Silts
Material
Limiting Velocity,
feet/sec
Limiting Velocity,
feet/sec
Fine sand colloidal
1.50
2.50
Sandy loam noncolloidal
1.75
2.50
Silt loam noncolloidal
2.00
3.00
Alluvial silts noncolloidal
2.00
3.50
Ordinary firm loam
2.50
3.50
Volcanic ash
2.50
3.50
Stiff clay very colloidal
3.75
5.00
Alluvial silts colloidal
3.75
5.00
Shales and hardpans
6.00
6.00
Fine gravel
2.50
5.00
Graded loam to cobbles when
noncolloidal
3.75
5.00
Graded silts to cobbles when
colloidal
4.00
5.50
Coarse gravel noncolloidal
4.00
6.00
Cobbles and shingles
5.00
5.50
Seed - Seeding is very effective in reducing erosion once the vegetation has been established.
However, newly established vegetation does not have as extensive a root system as existing
vegetation and therefore is more prone to erosion, especially on steep slopes.
Seed and Mulch - Seeding and mulching is very effective in reducing erosion once the
vegetation has been established. The mulch also provides some protection from erosion prior
to plant emergence.
Mulching - The effectiveness of mulching is dependant on the type of mulching material,
percent slope, and maintenance effort. Mulching is only effective as a temporary control
measure.
80040000\h\wpVreport\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-12
-------
Sodding - Sodding is very effective for siltation and erosion control. However, because of
the high cost of sodding it is typically only used in critical areas, where establishment of
permanent vegetation by seeding and mulching would be difficult, or where there is a high
erosion potential during the period of vegetative establishment from seeding.
2.2.2 Sediment Control Practices
Sediment control practices by themselves are generally less effective than erosion controls.
However, when used in conjunction with erosion control measures, the effectiveness of the
entire system can be as high as 95% effective with offsite TSS loads nearing natural erosion
levels (Schueler, 1990). The effectiveness of various sediment control devices is influenced
the most by the grain size of the eroded material. The practices are much more effective for
sand size particles than for fine silt or clay. The continued effectiveness of these structural
controls also relies on adequate maintenance (e.g. cleaning out sediment on a routine basis
from a sediment trap). It should be noted that when used in conjunction with erosion
controls, the size of some sediment control structures (e.g. sediment basin) can be reduced
and the structures often need less maintenance.
Sediment Basins - The effectiveness of sediment basins is dependent but not limited to the
following factors: (i) geometry of the basins; such as the length to width ratio (the
recommended length to width ratio is often 2-1); (ii) volume of the basins (basins are
designed to have either a combined settling/storage volume or specific separated settling and
storage zones, basins with 2-zone volume are recommended); and, (iii) amount of time the
runoff is detained. The effectiveness of sediment basins for the removal of different size
particles depends on the particles settling velocity and basins length and depth.
The effectiveness of a sediment basin decreases over time as the storage area fills with
sediments. At the minimum, sediment should be removed from the basin when 60% of the
volume for ponds with combined settling/storage zone or when 100% of the storage volume
for ponds with separated settling and storage zones are filled with sediment.
Sediment Traps - The effectiveness of sediment traps is proportional to the storage volume
and the amount of time the runoff is detained. Silt traps are usually designed for a minimum
storage volume of 1800 cubic feet per drainage acre (Minnesota PCA, 1989; Firehock, 1991;
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-13
-------
City of Austin, 1988; New York SWCS, 1988; Maryland DE, 1983). The effectiveness of
a sediment trap decreases over time as the storage area fills with sediment. Therefore,
sediment should be removed when it fills half of the capacity of the trap. Also, if the outlet
becomes clogged, it should be cleaned and restored to its original flow capacity.
Filter Fabric Fence - The ability of filter fabric fence to filter suspended solids has been
shown to vary based on the size (e.g. sand, clay, silt) of the eroded sediment and the
apparent opening size of the fabric. Additionally, filter fabric is only effective for treating
unconcentrated or sheet flow.
Straw Bale Barrier - Straw bale barriers are considered less effective than filter fabric fence
and are often recommended for use only when no other practice is feasible. Silt fences are
usually preferable to straw bales because they have a lower failure rate, are more effective,
and have a longer useful life (Baumann, 1990 and Tahoe RPA, 1988).
Inlet Protection - No data were found regarding the effectiveness of inlet protection at
controlling erosion and sediment pollution from construction sites. However, inlet protection
devices often use filter fabric or straw bales; sand bags; or gravel placed around the inlet,
which is similar to silt traps. Therefore, the effectiveness of inlet protection was estimated
as somewhat less effective than sediment traps, filter fabric fences and straw bale barriers.
Construction Entrance - Construction entrances reduce the amount of mud and sediment
leaving the site on the construction vehicle's wheels.
Vegetative Filter Strips rVFS1 - Properly designed and functioning VFS effectively remove
sediments by the filtering action of the grass and deposition. Forested filter strips appear to
be more effective than grassed strips, but a longer length is required for optional removal
rates (Schueler, 1987).
2.3 COST
The cost of erosion and sediment controls varies greatly and is dependent upon many factors
such as availability and proximity of materials, time of year and labor rates. The summary
costs presented in this document were developed from a review of relevant literature. These
costs are presented to give planners an idea of the relative cost of one practice to another and
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-14
-------
are not recommended for use in estimating or bidding construction contracts. Local
suppliers and contractors should be contacted for this purpose. Cost data were generally
influenced more by proximity to major urban centers than by region. Consequently, regional
variation of cost could not be supported by the data obtained. It may be more effective to
consider the cost ranges presented as "national" averages and to adjust the cost on a regional
basis using published regional cost variation indexes (e.g., the regional cost index published
by the Engineering News Record).
Quantitative cost data are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in Section 3 of this report. Table
3-1 summarizes the capital and annual maintenance cost of the practices. Table 3-2
summarizes the total annual cost, including annualization of the capital cost. The annualized
cost was developed using an interest rate of 5% and a maximum construction time of 2
years. The cost data used to develop these summary costs are presented in the Appendix.
The following is a description (both quantitative and qualitative) of the costs that can be
expected in implementing various erosion and sediment control management practices.
2.3.1 Erosion Control Practices
Erosion control practices are generally more effective than sediment control practices and
they also tend to be less costly. In fact, the cost of some of the practices such as the
avoidance of disturbing vegetation on steep slopes or staging construction are minimal. The
cost of erosion controls after construction can vary based on the availability of materials and
the time of year when construction is completed.
Schedule Projects So Clearing and Grading are Done During Time of Minimum Erosion
Potential - There are no construction costs associated with this practice, however, time delay
may result in cost to developer due to development loans, bonds, and market requirements.
Additionally, fewer structural controls and decreased maintenance may be needed if
construction is completed during drier times of year.
Stage Construction - The cost of implementing this practice should be minimal. Possible
costs include having to mobilize certain crews more than once. Additionally, less structural
controls and maintenance may be required if this practice is implemented.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-15
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Only Clear Areas Essential for Construction - The cost for implementing this practice should
be minimal to none. Also, less structural controls and maintenance will be required if less
area is disturbed, and final site seeding and stabilization costs will be reduced.
Avoid Disturbing Vegetation on Steep Slopes or Other Critical Areas - The cost of this
practice should be minimal. The only cost that should be incurred would be additional travel
time and length for construction vehicles.
Route Construction Traffic to Avoid Existing or Newly Planted Vegetation - The cost of
implementing this practice could include costs for additional access road construction and
travel time. Construction road stabilization ranges in cost from $7-$20 per foot with an
average cost of $13/foot (see Appendix C for cost data). It should be noted that
implementing this practice should reduce final seeding and site stabilization costs.
Protect Natural Vegetation - The cost of this practice is low and it preserves site aesthetics
that may boost or enhance sales for newly constructed developments.
Stockpile Topsoil and Reapply to Reveeetate the Site - The cost should be minimal if
stockpile area is available and final site seeding costs may be reduced.
Cover or Stabilize Topsoil Stockpiles - Tarp costs vary with size and material. Local
vendors should be contacted to obtain actual costs. The cost of using tarps becomes
prohibitive when the size of the stockpile increases. For larger stockpiles, the most
economic approach is to stabilize the pile with vegetation or mulch.
Provide Wind Erosion Controls - Depending on the amount of control necessary, the cost
of wind erosion control practices can vary greatly. The most inexpensive control would be
to scar the soil surface to increase roughness. Costs of various mulching materials (e.g,
straw) are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in Section 3. The cost of windbreaks would
include the costs of the plants, etc. and the labor for installation.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-16
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Intercept Runoff from Disturbed Slopes and Convey It to a Permanent Channel or Storm
Drain - The costs for this practice would include construction costs for the intercepting
structure (e.g., diversion, dike, swale, or pipe slope drain). The following are estimated
costs/linear foot for various runoff intercepting devices (see Appendix C for detailed cost
data):
Device Avg. Cost/Linear Foot Cost Range Per Linear Foot
Dike $4 $3 - $5
Diversion $6 $2 - $12
Swale $5 $1 - $10
Pipe Slope Drain $11 $7 - $15
On Long or Steep Disturbed or Man-Made Slopes. Construct Benches. Terraces, or Ditches
at Regular Intervals to Intercept Runoff - Terraces and ditches can usually be constructed for
about $5/linear foot. This varies based on the amount of earthwork required to complete the
device. Bench construction costs include the cost of earthwork and steep slope stabilization.
Install Check Dams or Provide Linings for Channels Subjected to Erosive Velocities - A
check dam can usually be constructed for about $500 with the cost ranging from $400 to
$600 each (see Appendix C for detailed cost information). The costs for lining channels
varies with the type of lining selected. The following are costs for various types of lining:
grass swale: $3-$7/yd2
sod swale: $8-$12/yd2
non-grouted rip rap: $35-$50/yd2
grouted rip rap: $45-$60 yd2
concrete: $25-$30/yd2
Seed And Mulch - The cost of seeding alone is approximately one-fourth of the cost of
seeding and mulching. However, mulching should typically be done with seeding to protect
the area during the period of vegetation establishment.
Mulching - The cost of mulching is comparable to the cost of seeding and mulching.
Mulching alone should only be used for temporary protection of the soil surface, or when
permanent seeding is not feasible.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-17
-------
Sodding - The cost of sodding is six-times greater than the cost of seeding and mulching.
However, sodding is typically done on smaller areas where establishment of permanent
vegetation would be difficult or where there is a high erosion potential during the period of
vegetative establishment from seeding.
2.3.2 Sediment Control Practices
Sediment control practices tend to cost more than erosion control practices. However, the
size of the sediment control structure and maintenance cost can be reduced if it is used in
conjunction with erosion control practices. Factors that have the greatest influence on the
size and consequently the cost of a structure are drainage area, local rainfall and soil type.
These factors influence the amount of runoff and eroded material that must be detained in
the structure.
Sediment Basins - The cost of sediment basins is directly related to the volume of the basin.
Due to economy of scale, the cost per unit storage decreases as the size of the pond
increases. The annual maintenance cost of sediment basins is higher than sediment traps due
to maintenance required for the outlet structure.
Sediment Traps - The cost per cubic foot of storage of a sediment trap will vary depending
upon how much excavation is needed to obtain the required volume. To report the cost of
sediment traps per drainage acre, the trap volume was assumed to be 1800 cubic foot of
storage per acre, which is equivalent to 0.5 inches of runoff per acre.
Filter Fabric Fence - In order to report the cost of filter fabric fence per drainage acre, it
was assumed that the fence served the maximum allowable area (0.5 acre per 100 feet of
fence).
The annual maintenance cost of the filter fabric fence is based on removing accumulated
sediment plus replacing the silt fence every 6 months.
Straw Bale Barriers - The cost of straw bale barriers per drainage acre was developed by
assuming that the straw bale barrier served the maximum allowable area (0.25 acre per 100
feet of fence). Note, while the cost per linear foot of straw bale barrier is comparable to
filter fabric fence, the cost per drainage acre is more than twice that of filter fabric fence.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2 Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
2-18
-------
The annual maintenance cost of straw bale barriers is based on the removal of accumulated
sediment and the replacement of the straw bales every 3 months.
Inlet Protection - Many different materials can be used for inlet protection, such as gravel,
sand bags and silt fence. The cost per inlet protection is generally in the range of $50-$ 150
for construction depending on the material used.
Construction Entrance - The costs of constructing construction entrances can vary from $400
to $4,000 with an average cost of about $1,300 (see Appendix C for detailed cost data). A
wash rack can also be constructed at the entrance for about $500-$ 1,000.
Vegetative Filter Strip - The cost of VFS is dependent on the type of vegetation. If the
natural vegetation is maintained, the cost is minimal.
Generally, an area that will serve as a VFS should not be cleared and graded, since it is
more effective if the natural vegetation is maintained. A VFS should only be seeded or
sodded if the area is disturbed for the associated development, otherwise it should remain
undisturbed. Therefore, the cost of VFS is assumed only to include the cost for sod or seed
and any cost for clearing and grading is a cost associated with site development and not
installation of the practice.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap2
2-19
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
3.0
EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY TABLES
This section presents quantitative effectiveness and cost summary tables (Tables 3-1 and 3-2) for
various erosion and sediment control management practices. These summary tables are based
on the detailed effectiveness and cost data presented in the Appendix B and C, respectively. It
should be noted that only practices that had enough quantitative data on which to base
conclusions are presented in the tables.
Table 3-1 presents both cost and effectiveness information. The effectiveness information
includes the average, the range observed in the reviewed literature, the probable range expected
from a properly designed and maintained practice, and the references considered in developing
the data.
During the literature search for this project, it was apparent that there have been a limited
number of monitoring studies completed regarding the effectiveness of these management
practices. The results of the studies that were available are summarized in Table 3-1. However,
performance monitoring studies are difficult to compare due to the differences in the studies.
The following variables are involved in BMP performance monitoring (Schueler, 1992):
Number of storms monitored
Type and size of storm monitored
BMP design variations
Monitoring technique used
Pollutant removal calculation technique used
Seasons monitored
Characteristics of contributing watershed
It is also difficult to quantify the pollutant removal capabilities of a BMP because the
performance varies from storm to storm. The pollutant removal capabilities of a BMP will also
vary during the BMP's lifetime (Schueler, 1992).
80040000H:\wp\report\esc\chap3
3-1
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
The cost information is presented in Table 3-1 in terms of capital (including construction) cost
and annual maintenance cost. Table 3-2 presents annualized cost information so that
comparisons can be made from one practice to another. These costs are presented to give
planners an idea of the relative cost of one practice to another and are not recommended for use
in estimating or bidding construction contracts.
80040000H:\wp\report\esc\chap3
3-2
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
PRACTICE
DESIGN
CONSTRAINTS
OR PURPOSE
PERCENT REMOVAL
OFTSS
USEFUL
LIFE
(years)
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE
COST (as %
construction
cost)
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES:
Seed
Establish vegetation
on disturbed area.
After vegetation established-
Ave: 90%
Observed Range: 50% - 100%
References: SCS, 1985 cited in EPA, 1991;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989; Oberts,
1984 cited in City of Austin, 1988; Delaware
Department of Natural Resources, 1989
T
Ave: $400 per acre
Range: $200 - $1000 per
acre
References: Wisconsin DOT
cited in SWRPC, 1991;
SWRPC, 1991; Goldman,
1986; Virginia, 1980
Ave: 20%
Range: 15% - 25%
References:
Wisconsin DOT cited
in SWRPC, 1991;
SWRPC, 1991
$300 per acre
Seed & Mulch
Establish vegetation
on disturbed area.
After vegetation established-
Ave: 90%
Observed Range: 50% - 100%
References: SCS, 1985 cited in EPA, 1991;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989; Oberts,
1984 cited in City of Austin, 1988; Delaware
Department of Natural Resources, 1989
2*
Ave: $ 1,500 per acre
Range: $800 - $3,500 per
acre
References: Goldman, 1986;
Washington DOT, 1990; NC
State, 1990; Schueler, 1987;
Virginia, 1980; SWRPC,
1991
Ave: na (1)
Range: na
References: None
$1,100 per acre
-------
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
(cont'd)
PRACTICE
DESIGN
PERCENT REMOVAL
USEFUL
CONSTRUCTION
ANNUAL
TOTAL
CONSTRAINTS
OF TSS
LIFE
COST
MAINTENANCE
ANNUAL
OR PURPOSE
(years)
COST (as %
construction
cost)
COST
Mulch
Temporary
Observed Range:
Straw
Straw Mulch:
Ave: na (1)
Straw Mulch:
stabilization of
Mulch:
Ave: SI,700 per acre
Range: na
$7,500 per acre
disturbed area.
sand:
0.25
Range: $500 - $5,000 per
References: None
20% s1ot>e 50% slooe
acre
woodfiber @ 1500 Ib/ac
50-60%
0-20%
References: Wisconsin DOT
woodfiber @ 3000 Ib/ac
50-85%
50-70%
cited in SWRPC, 1991;
straw @ 3000 lb/ac
90-100%
95%
Washington DOT, 1990;
Virginia, 1980
Woodfiber
Silt-loam:
Woodfiber
Mulch:
20% slooe
50% slooe
Mulch:
Woodfiber Mulch:
$3,500 per acre
woodfiberฎ 1500 lb/ac
20-60%
40-60%
0.33
Ave: $1,000 per acre
woodfiber @ 3000 lb/ac
60-90%
60-70%
Range: $100 - $2,300 per
straw @ 3000 Ib/ac
80-95%
70-90%
acre
References: Washington
Silt-clav-loam:
10-30%
slooe
30-50%
slope
Jute
Netting:
0.33
DOT, 1990; Virginia, 1980
Jute Netting:
Ave: $3,700 per acre
Jute Netting:
$12,500 per acre
woodfiber @ 1500 Ib/ac
5%
-
Range: $3,500-$4,100 per
woodfiber @ 3000 lb/ac
40%
-
acre
jute netting
30-60%
30%
References: Washington
Straw and Jute:
straw @ 3000 Ib/ac
40-70%
20-40%
DOT, 1990; Virginia, 1980
$18,000 per acre
woodchips @ 10,000 lb/ac
60-80%
50-60%
Straw and
mulch blanket
60-80%
50-60%
Jute: 0.33
Straw & Jute:
Excelsior blanket
60-80%
50-60%
Ave: $5,400 per acre
Multiple treatment
90%
90%
Range: $4,000-$9,100 per
(straw & jute)
acre
References: Washington
References: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
DOT,
1989; Kay, 1983 cited in Goldman, 1986
1990; Virginia, 1980
-------
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
(cont'd)
PRACTICE
DESIGN
CONSTRAINTS
OR PURPOSE
PERCENT REMOVAL
OFTSS
USEFUL
LIFE
(years)
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE
COST (as %
construction
cost)
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
Sod
Immediate erosion
protection where
there is high erosion
potential during
vegetative
establishment.
Ave: 99%
Observed Range: 98% - 9996
References: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
1989; Pennsylvania, 1983 cited in EPA, 1991
2*
Ave: $0.2 per sq. ft.
[$11,300 per acre]
Range: $0.1 - $1.1
References: SWRPC, 1991;
Schueler, 1987; Virginia,
1980
Ave: 5%
Range: 5%
References: SWRPC,
1991
$0.2 per sq. ft.
$7,500 per acre
Terraces
Breaks up long or
steep slopes
Observed Range:
Land Slooe Reduction in Erosion
2"
Ave: $5 per lin. ft.
Range: $1 - $12
References: SWRPC, 1991;
Goldman, 1986; Virginia,
1991
Ave: 20%
Range: 20%
References: SWRPC,
1991
$4 per lin. ft.
1-12% 70%
12-18% 60%
18-24% 55%
Additionally, if the slope steepness is halved, while
other factors are held constant, the soil loss potential
decreases 2-1/2 times. If both the slope and length or
halved, the soil loss potential is decreased 4 times.
References: Goldman, 1986; Beasley, 1972
All Erosion
Controls
Reduce amount of
sediment entering
runoff
Ave: 85%
Observed Range: 85%
References: Schueler, 1990
-
Varies but typically low
Varies but typically
low
Varies but
typically low
-------
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
(cont'd)
>S
o
g,
8
i
On
c
s?
N>
00
NO
VO o.
U> (I.
PRACTICE
DESIGN
CONSTRAINTS
OR PURPOSE
PERCENT REMOVAL
OF TSS
USEFUL
LIFE
(years)
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE
COST (as %
construction
cost)
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
SEDIMENT CO
NTROL PRACTICES:
Sediment Basin
Minimum drainage
area = 5 acres,
maximum drainage
area =100 acres
Ave: 70%
Observed Range: 55% - 100%
References: Schueler, 1990; Engle, BW and
Jarrett, AR, 1990; Baumann, 1990
2*
Less than 50,000 cu. ft.
storage
Ave: $0.6 per cu. ft. storage
[$1,100 per drainage acre
(2)]
Range: S0.2 - J 1.3 per cu.
ft.
Greater than 50,000 cu. ft.
storage
Ave: $0.3 per cu. ft. storage
[S550 per drainage acre (2)]
Range: S0.1 - S0.4 per cu.
ft.
References: SWRPC, 1991
Ave: 25%
Range: 25%
References: Denver
COG cited in
SWRPC, 1991;
SWRPC, 1991
Less than 50,000
cu. ft storage
$0.4 per cu. ft.
storage
$700 per drainage
acre (2)
Greater than
ฃ0,000 cu. ft.
1
storage
$0.2 per cu. ft.
storage
$900 per drainage
acre (2)
Sediment Trap
Maximum drainage
area = 5 acre
Ave: 60%
Observed Range: (-7%) - 100%
References: Schueler, et al., 1990; Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, 1989; Baumann, 1990
1.5
Ave: $0.6 per cu. ft storage
[SI, 100 per drainage acre
(2)]
Range: $0.2 - $2.0 per cu.
ft.
References: Denver COG
cited in SWRPC, 1991;
SWRPC, 1991; Goldman,
1986
Ave: 20%
Range: 20%
References: Denver
COG cited in
SWRPC, 1991;
SWRPC, 1991
$0.7 per cu. ft.
storage
$1,300 per
drainage acre (2)
Filter Fabric
Fence
Maximum drainage
area = 0.5 acres per
100 feet of fence.
Not to be used in
concentrated flow
areas.
Ave: 70%
Observed Range: 0% - 100%
sand: 80% - 99%
silt-loam: 50% - 80%
silt-clay-loam: 0% - 20%
References: Munson, 1991; Fisher, ct al., 1984;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989
0.5
Ave: $3 per lin. ft.
($700 per drainage acre (3)]
Range: $1 - $8 per lin. ft.
References: Wisconsin DOT
cited in SWRPC, 1991;
SWRPC, 1991; Goldman.
1986; Virginia, 1991;
NC State, 1990
Ave: 100%
Range: 100%
References: SWRPC,
1991
$7 per lin. ft.
$850 per drainage
acre (3)
-------
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
(cont'd)
PRACTICE
DESIGN
CONSTRAINTS
OR PURPOSE
PERCENT REMOVAL
OF TSS
USEFUL
LIFE
(years)
CONSTRUCTION
COST
ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE
COST (as %
construction
cost)
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
Straw Bale
Barrier
Maximum drainage
area = 0.25 acres
per 100 feet of
barrier. Not to be
used in concentrated
flow areas.
Ave: 70%
Observed Range: 70%
References: Virginia, 1980 cited in EPA, 1991
0.25
Ave: $4 per lin. ft.
[$1,600 per drainage acre
(4)]
Range: $2 - 16 per lin. ft.
References: Goldman, 1986;
Virginia, 1991
Ave: 10096
Range: 100%
References: SWRPC,
1991
$17 per lin. ft.
$6,800 per
drainage acre (4)
Inlet Protection
Protect storm drain
inlet.
Ave: na
Observed Range: na
References: None
1
Ave: J100 per inlet
Range: S50 - $150
References: SWRPC, 1991;
Denver COG cited in
SWRPC, 1991; Virginia,
1991; EPA cited in SWRPC,
1991
Ave: 60%
Range: 20% - 100%
References: SWRPC,
1991; Denver COG
cited in SWRPC,
1991
$150 per inlet
Construction
Entrance
Removes sediment
from vehicles
wheels.
Ave: na
Observed Range: na
References: None
2"
Ave: $2,000 each
Range: $1,000 - $4,000
References: Goldman,
1986; NC State, 1990
With washrack:
Ave: $3,000 each
Range: $1,000 - $5,000
References: Virginia,
1991
Ave: na (1)
Range: na
References: None
$1,500 each
$2,200 each
-------
00
TABLE 3-1. ESC QUANTITATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SUMMARY
(cont'd)
a
a
o
3.
a
s?
6!
TJ
U>
u>
1
00
PRACTICE
DESIGN
PERCENT REMOVAL
USEFUL
CONSTRUCTION
ANNUAL
TOTAL
CONSTRAINTS
OF TSS
LIFE
COST
MAINTENANCE
ANNUAL
OR PURPOSE
(years)
COST (as %
construction
cost)
COST
Vegetative
Must have sheet
Ave: 70%
Established from existing
Ave: na
na
Filter Strip
flow.
Observed Range: 20% - 80%
References: Hayes and Hairston, 1983 cited in
Casman, 1990; Dillaha, et al., 1989, cited in
Glick, et al., 1991; Virginia Department of
Conservation, 1987; Nonpoint Source Control
Task Force, 1983 cited in Minnesota PCA,
1989; Schueler, 1987
2*
vegetation-
Ave: $0
Range: $0
References: Schueler,
1987
Established from sod-
Ave: $11,300 per acre
Range: $4,500 - $48,000
per acre
References: Schueler,
1987; SWRPC, 1991
Range: na
References: None
Useful life estimated as length of construction project (assumed to be 2 years)
na: not available
(1) For Total Annual Cost, assume Annual Maintenance Cost = 20% of construction cost.
(2) Assumes trap volume = 1800 cf/as ( = 0.5 inches runoff per acre).
(3) Assumes drainage area of 0.5 acre per 100 feet of fence (maximum allowed).
(4) Assumes drainage area of 0.25 acre per 100 feet of barrier (maximum allowed).
If
| |
00 Cl
~ ฃ
VO
\0 CL
o
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESC ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE
Practice
Capital
Cost ($)
Useful Life
(Years)
Annual
Capital Cost ($)
Annual O&M
(% Capital)
Annual
O&M
($)
TOTAL ANNUAL
COST
Sediment Basin -
12,500 cf storage
40,750 cf storage
196,000 cf storage
0.80
0.40
0.30
2*
2*
2*
0.43
0.22
0.16
25%
25%
25%
0.20
0.10
0.08
$0.6 per cf storage
$0.3 per cf storage
$0.2 per cf storage
Sediment Trap
0.6
1,100
1.5
1.5
0.6
1,100
20%
20%
0.12
220
$0.7 per cf storage
$1,300 per drainage acre
(1)
Filter Fabric Fence
3
700
0.5
0.5
6.2
1449
20%
20%
0.6
140
$7 per cf storage
$850 per drainage acre (2)
Straw Bale Barrier
4
1,600
0.25
0.25
16.48
6,592
10%
10%
0.4
160
$17 per lin. ft.
$6,800 per drainage acre
(3)
Seed
400
2*
215
20%
80
$300 per acre
Seed & Mulch
1,500
2*
807
20%
300
$1,100 per acre
Mulch - Straw
1,700
0.25
7,004
25%
425
$7,500 per acre
Mulch - Woodfiber
1,000
0.33
3,130
25%
250
$3,500 per acre
Jute Netting
3,700
0.33
11,581
20%
740
$12,500 per acre
Jute Netting & Straw
5,400
0.33
16,902
20%
1,080
$18,000 per acre
Sod
0.23
2*
0.12
15%
0.03
$0.2 per sq. ft.
$7,500 per acre
Inlet Protection
100
1
105
20%
20
$150 per inlet
Terraces
5
2*
2.6
20%
1
$4 per lin. ft.
~Useful life estimated as length of construction project (assumed to be 2 years).
(1) Assumes trap volume = 1800 cf/ac
(2) Assumes drainage area of 0.5 acre per feet of fence (maxiumum allowed)
(3) Assumes drainage area of 0.25 acre per 100 feet of barrier (maximum allowed)
i
VO
c 5
^ I
si
- ฃ
SO *<
VO Cu
U> 0>
-------
4.0
PREFERRED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OPTIONS
The primary tool for effectively controlling erosion and sediment from construction activities is
a carefully developed comprehensive erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan. This plan should
be developed prior to initiating construction activities and should include both erosion controls
to prevent the sediment from entering the runoff and sediment controls to remove the sediment
that does enter the runoff. The items that should be considered in the development of an erosion
and sediment control plan are summarized in Table 4-1.
Erosion controls are source reduction and have the advantage of typically being more effective
and less costly than sediment controls. In addition, the use of erosion controls reduces the size
and cost of sediment controls required. However, erosion control practices alone cannot usually
provide adequate protection for a construction site and therefore, sediment controls are also
required. Based on the review and analysis of published ESC effectiveness and cost data, the
following management practices should be considered as part of an ESC plan.
a. Time Grading and Construction to Minimize Soil Exposure
1. Schedule projects such that clearing and grading are done during the dry
season, or the time of minimum erosion potential. As stated previously,
many parts of the country have a time of year when erosion potential is
relatively low and construction scheduling could be very effective for
example:
Pacific - if construction can be completed during the 6
month dry season (May 1 - Oct 31), temporary ESC may
not be needed.
Central, Atlantic, Gulf Coast - significant rainfall occurs in
every month and this practice may not be effective in these
regions.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap4
4-1
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
TABLE 4-1. ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN DEVELOPING AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
4^
I
to
o
o
0.
$
fi?
__ o.
- Q
vO
VO O.
P
~
c
N>
oo
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Time Grading and
Construction to
Minimize Soil Exposure
Schedule projects so clearing and grading are done during the dry season, or the time of minimum erosion potential. Many parts of the country have a time
of year when erosion potential is relatively low and construction scheduling could be very effective.
Stage construction so that one area can be stabilized before another is disturbed. This practice reduces the time that an area is left unstabilized.
Retain Existing
Vegetation Wherever
Feasible
Clear only those areas that are essential for completing site construction.
Avoid disturbing vegetation on steep slopes or other critical areas and locate material stockpiles, borrow areas, access roads away from critical areas.
Route construction traffic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation.
Physically mark off limits of land disturbance with tape, signs or barriers. This ensures bulldozer operator knows proposed limits of clearing.
Protect natural vegetation with fencing, tree armoring, retaining walls or tree wells.
Stabilize All Denuded
Areas Within 15
Calendar Days After
Final Grading.
Disturbed Areas That
Are Inactive and Win
Be Exposed to Rain for
30 Days or More,
Should also be
Temporarily Stabilized
During favorable seeding dates and in areas where vegetation can be established, the following should be implemented:
- In very flat, non-sensitive area with favorable soils, seeding and fertilizing.
- For less erosive soil, on moderately steep slopes with moderately erosive soils in relatively sensitive areas, use seeding and mulching.
- For highly erosive soil, very steep slopes, or sensitive areas with highly erosive soils, use seeding with multiple mulching treatments or sodding.
If stabilization is required during time of year that vegetation cannot be established, the following practices shall be implemented:
- On moderate slopes or not highly erodible soil mulching should be employed.
- On steep slopes or highly erodible soils, multiple mulching treatments should be used.
If in high elevation or desert site where grasses can't survive due to harsh environmental a minimum plant native shrubs.
Before stabilizing an area, make sure necessary controls (e.g., diversion of runoff) are in place,
o Where practical stockpile topsoil and reapply to revegetate site.
Cover or stabilize topsoil stockpiles.
For high potential for wind blown sediment transport, prior to stabilization protect with dust controls such as: wind barriers, mulching, tillage, or
sprinkling.
Divert Runoff Away
from Denuded Areas or
Newly Seeded Slopes.
Above disturbed areas, construct dike or swale or install pipe slope drain to intercept runoff and convey it to a permanent channel or storm drain.
Minimize Length and
Steepness of Slopes.
On long or steep disturbed or man-made slopes, construct benches, terraces, or ditches at regular intervals to intercept runoff.
Prepare Drainageways
and Outlets to Handle
Concentrated or
Increased Runoff.
Provide lining for any existing or newly constructed channel onsite or offsite so the 2-year storm channel velocity does not cause erosion.
On temporary swales that have erosive velocity but due to their short service life a vegetative lining cannot be established; or if the swale needs protection
during establishment of a grass lining, check dams should be installed.
Trap Sediment Onsite
(Sediment Controls)
In areas where greater than 5 acres drain to a point, sediment basins should be installed.
In areas where less than 5 acres of concentrated flow leaves the site, silt traps should be installed.
In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is less than 0.5 ac/100 ft. of flow, filter fabric fence should be installed.
In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is greater than 0.5 ac/100 ft. of flow, perimeter dikes should be installed and flow should be
diverted to a sediment trap or sediment basin.
Install inlet protection around all storm drain inlets.
Install construction entrance (gravel pad to collect mud and sediment from wheels) and route all traffic leaving the site to the construction entrance.
Install all sediment controls prior to grading.
Inspect and Maintain
Control Measures.
Remove sediment from sediment traps and filter fence when silted to half capacity.
Inspect and repair, as needed, all controls after each storm event.
Note: These are recommendations only and are not Intended to be all inclusive.
Note: Above Table is adapted from Goldman, 1986.
-------
North - avoid construction during the spring thaw period.
2. Stage construction so that one area can be stabilized before another is
disturbed. This practice reduces the time that an area is left unstabilized.
b. Retain Existing Vegetation Wherever Feasible
1. Clear only those areas that are essential for completing site construction.
2. Avoid disturbing vegetation on steep slopes or other critical areas.
Additionally, material stockpiles, borrow areas, access roads should be
located away from critical areas.
3. Route construction traffic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation.
4. Physically mark off limits of land disturbance with tape, signs or barriers.
This ensures bulldozer operator knows proposed limits of clearing.
5. Protect natural vegetation with fencing, tree armoring, retaining walls or
tree wells.
c. Stabilize All Denuded Areas Within 15 Calendar Days After Final Grading.
Disturbed Areas That Are Inactive and Will Be Exposed to Rain for 30 Days
or More. Should also be Temporarily Stabilized.
1. During favorable seeding dates and in areas where vegetation can be
established, the following should be implemented:
a) In very flat, non-sensitive area with favorable soils, seeding and
fertilizing can be employed.
b) If not highly erosive soil, on moderately steep slopes with
moderately erosive soils in relatively sensitive areas, seeding and
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap4
4-3
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
mulching can be employed.
c) If highly erosive soil, on very steep slopes, areas slow to establish
vegetation, or sensitive areas with highly erosive soils, seeding
with multiple mulching treatments or sodding should be employed.
2. If stabilization is required during time of year that vegetation cannot be
established, the following practices should be implemented:
a) On moderate slopes or not highly erodible soil mulching should be
employed.
b) On steep slopes or highly erodible soils, multiple mulching
treatments should be used.
3. If in high elevation or desert site where grasses can't survive due to harsh
environment at a minimum plant native shrubs.
4. Before stabilizing an area, make sure necessary controls (e.g., diversion
of runoff) are in place.
5. Where practical stockpile topsoil and reapply to revegetate site.
6. Cover or stabilize topsoil stockpiles.
7. Where there is a potential for wind blown sediment transport, prior to
stabilization protect with dust controls such as: wind barriers, mulching,
tillage, or sprinkling.
d. Divert Runoff Awav from Denuded Areas or Newly Seeded Slopes.
1. Above disturbed areas, construct dike or swale or install pipe slope drain
to intercept runoff and convey it to a permanent channel or storm drain.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap4
4-4
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
e. Minimize Length and Steepness of Slopes.
1. On long or steep disturbed or man-made slopes, construct benches,
terraces, or ditches at regular intervals to intercept runoff. Route
intercepted runoff to a protected outlet.
f. Prepare Drainagewavs and Outlets to Handle Concentrated or Increased
Runoff.
1. Provide lining for any existing or newly constructed channel onsite or
offsite so the 2-year storm channel velocity does not cause erosion. If the
velocity allows, use a vegetative lining. Otherwise use rock, asphalt,
plastic lining or gabions.
2. On temporary swales that have erosive velocity but due to their short
service life a vegetative lining cannot be established; or if the swale needs
protection during establishment of a grass lining, check dams should be
installed.
g. Trap Sediment Onsite
1. In areas where greater than 5 acres drain to a point, sediment basins
should be installed.
2. In areas where less than 5 acres of concentrated flow leaves the site, silt
traps should be installed.
3. In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is less than
0.5 ac/100 ft. of flow, filter fabric fence should be installed.
4. In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is greater
than 0.5 ac/100 ft. of flow, perimeter dikes should be installed and flow
should be diverted to a sediment trap or sediment basin.
5. Install inlet protection around all storm drain inlets.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap4
4-5
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
6. Install construction entrance (gravel pad to collect mud and sediment from
wheels) and route all traffic leaving the site to the construction entrance.
7. Install all sediment controls prior to grading,
h. Inspect and Maintain Control Measures.
1. Remove sediment from sediment traps and filter fence when silted to half
capacity.
2. Inspect and repair, as needed, all controls after each storm event.
NOTE: Above Management Practices adapted from Goldman, 1986.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\chap4
4-6
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
5.0
REFERENCES
Baumann, J. 1990. Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Beasley, R. 1972. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control. The Iowa State University Press.
British Columbia Research Corporation. 1991. Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment: A
Comprehensive Review. Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Casman, E. 1990. Selected BMP Efficiencies Wrenched from Empirical Studies. Interstate
Commission on Potomac River Basin.
City of Austin. 1988. Environmental Criteria Manual. Section 1.1 through 1.6.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. Delaware DNR.
Engle, B.W. and Jarrett, A.R. 1990. "Improved Sediment Retention Efficiencies of
Sedimentation Basins" ASAE. Paper No. 90-2629.
EPA. 1991. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.
Firehock, K. 1991. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Isaac Walton League.
Fisher, L.S., and Jarrett, A.R. 1984. "Sediment Retention Efficiency of Synthetic Filter
Fabrics." Transactions of the ASAE. ASAE. Volume 27, No. 2. pp 429-436.
Glick, R., M. Wolfe, and T. Thurow. 1991. Urban Runoff Quality As Affected By Native
Vegetation. Presented at the 1991 International Summer Meeting sponsored by ASAE.
(Albuquerque, New Mexico). ASAE Paper No. 91-2067.
80040000\h\report\esc\chap5
5-1
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Goldman, S.J., Jackson, K., and Borstztynksy, T.A. 1986. Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Lemly, D.A. 1982. "Erosion Control at Construction Sites on Red Clay Soils." Environmental
Management. Volume 6. Number 4. p. 343.
Maryland Department of the Environment. 1983. Maryland Standards and Specifications for
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. MDE, SCS, SSCC.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1989. Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.
Munson, T. "A Flume Study Examining Silt Fences." Proceedings of the 5th Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Las Vegas. Nevada. March 18, 1991.
New York Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1988. New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control. Empire State Chapter, SWCS.
North Carolina DOT. 1991. NCDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Manual - New Standards.
North Carolina State. 1990. Evaluation of the North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program. NC Sedimentation Control Commission, pp. V6-V13.
Pennsylvania DER. 1990. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual.
Schueler, T. H. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and
Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Schueler, T.R. and Lugbill, J. 1990. Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures at
Maryland Construction Sites. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Schueler, T.R. December 9, 1992. " Performance and Longevity of Urban BMP Systems."
Talk given in ASCE Continuing Education Seminar, "How To Implement Stormwater
Best Management Practices."
80040000\h\report\esc\chap5
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
Schwab, G. and R. Frevert, T. Edminster, K. Barnes. 1966. Soil and Water Conservation
Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Control Measures. Technical Report Number 31. June, 1991.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1988. Water Quality Management for the Lake Tahoe Region.
Handbook of Best Management Practices. Volume II.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, DSWC. 1987. Chesapeake Bay
Research/Demonstration Project Summaries July 1. 1984 - June 30. 1985. VA DCHR.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
1980, 1990 - Draft. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Washington State DOT. 1990. "Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control."
Washington State DOT Highway Water Quality Manual. Chapter 3.
80040000\h\report\esc\chap5
5-3
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE REGULATIONS
-------
STATE EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL (ESC) REGULATIONS1
State/Region
Regulation/Guideline*
ESC Plan Requirements
Minimum Site Area
ESC Objective
Days to Revegetate/
Stabilize
Alabama
No state law
Alaska
No state law
American Samoa
No state law
California
No state law
Connecticut
No state law
Delaware
Sediment and Stormwater
Regulations
Plans required statewide
0.11 acre
(5,000 sf)
Controls to be
installed to comply
with ESC Handbook
Perm or temp stabilization shall be
completed within 14 calendar days after
disturbance.
Florida
Stormwater Discharge
Regulations of 1982
Plans required statewide
Any area where
permits are required
ESC shall be used as
necessary to retain
sediment on-site
Guam
No state law
Hawaii
Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control, 1976
Plans not required by state law
Louisiana
No state law
Maine - adjacent water
' body
Natural Resources Protection
Act revised 1991
Plans required adjacent to wetland
or water body
Ensure soil is
stabilized to prevent
erosion of shoreline
and siltation of water.
The ESC must prevent
wash of materials into
the water.
o Immediate temp stabilize at completion or
if not worked for more than 7 calendar
days.
o Permanent revegetation immediately upon
completion, or if temp stabilization was
used, within 30 days from time area last
worked.
Maryland
Sediment Control Act, 1978
Plans required statewide
0.11 acres
(5,000 sO
O Seed if activity ceases for more than 14
calendar days.
o Permanently stabilize within 7 calendar
days after completion.
IThis information is based on telephone contacts completed in 1991. The State regulations should be consulted for current requirements.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\escstate. tbl
A-l
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
STATE EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL (ESC) REGULATIONS1 Page 2
State/Region
Regulation/Guideline
ESC Plan Requirement
Minimum Site
Area
ESC Objective
Days to Revegetate/
Stabilize
Massachusetts
No state law
1
Michigan
Soil Erosion & Sedimentation
Control Act of 1972
Plans required statewide
1 acre or disturb
within 500 ft of
water body
O Perm, stabilize within 15 calendar
days after final grading.
O Temp, stabilize within 30 calendar
days if activity ceases.
Minnesota**
Soil and Water Conservation
Plans not required by state law
Mississippi
No state law
New Hampshire
Dredging law
New Jersey
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Act
Plans required
o.ll acres
(5,000 sf)
New York
Soil & Water Conservation Law
Plans not required by state law
North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act of 1973
Plans required statewide
1 acre
Shall install ESC
sufficient to retain the
sediment generated by the
land-disturbing.
Stabilize within 30 working days of
completion of any phase of grading.
Northern Mariana
Island
No state law
Ohio**
Non-point Source Regulations of
1989
Plans required statewide
5 acres
Perm or temp stabilize within 7 days
after final grade or if will remain
dormant for greater than 45 days.
IThis information is based on telephone contacts completed in 1991. The State regulations should be consulted for current requirements.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\escstate.tbl
A-2
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
STATE EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL (ESC) REGULATIONS1 Page 3
State/Region
Regulation/Guideline
ESC Plan Requirement
Minimum Site Area
ESC Objective
Days to Revegetate/
Stabilize
Oregon
No state law
Pennsylvania
Erosion Control, Title 25,
Chapter 102
Plans required statewide
All disturbances require
plans, state only reviews
plans for develop, greater
than 25 acre
Control accelerated erosion and
resulting sedimentation of waters
thereby preventing the pollution
of waters from sediment.
O Stabilization as soon as possible after
final grade (no specific time limit
given).
o Temp stabilize when activity ceases
for more than 20 days.
Puerto Rico
No state law
Rhode Island
Soil Erosion & Sediment
Control Act of 1990
South Carolina -
Coastal Zone
South Carolina Coastal
Council Stormwater
Management Guidelines
Plans required in low and
medium density residential
areas within 1/2 mile of
water body, and all high
density residential and
commercial
Reseed if construction stops for more
than 60 days, prior to completion.
Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection,
Shore and Erosion Control
Plans required
Virginia -
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay Act of 1988
Plans required in Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Areas
0.06 acres
(2,500 sf)
o Perm or temp stabilize within 7 days
after final grade.
o Temp stabilize within 7 days if not
at final grade but will remain dormant
for longer than 30 days.
0 Perm stabilize if dormant more than
1 year.
Washington
No state law
Wisconsin
* Includes only Erosion and Sedimentation Control Laws, does not include water quality laws.
** Awaiting Coastal Zone Approval.
IThis information is based on telephone contacts completed in 1991. The State regulations should be consulted for current requirements.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\escstate.tbl
A-3
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
APPENDIX B
EFFICIENCY DATA
-------
SDLTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA
December 12, 1991
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/Applicability/Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SEDIMENT TRAP
NA
NA
(-21) to 99% removal efficiency for
storms large enough to produce outflow
from structure, overall (-7) to 100%
removal efficiency. Difference in
removal efficiency is highly dependent on
inflow conditions.
Field monitoring results
from 2 traps designed
based on Maryland's
criteria-monitored 6
months, 9 storms
Maryland
OSchueler, et al,
1990
NA
NA
For 2/3 storms in Northeast, less than
50% effective.
NA
Northeast
Sattherwaithe cited
in EPA, 1991
Max 5 ac
Required volume - 1800 cf/ac
ฎ Good effectiveness for course
sediment,
Moderately effective for medium-
sized sediment,
Low effectiveness for fine silt and
clay particles.
Higher volume and detention time-
higher efficiency.
2 years
NA
Minnesota
Minnesota
Pollution Control'
Agency, 1989
Max 5 ac
Required surface area = 263 sf/ac,
minimum depth = 2 ft
(1 ac = 526 cf)
Because of cost and space limitations on
construction sites, it is usually not
feasible to construct a structure with
100% trapping efficiency. Thus,
sediment retention structures are typically
designed with a removal efficiency of 50
to 15%.
NA
NA
Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency,
1988
Max 5 ac
Required surface area = 625 sf/ac,
minimum depth = 2 ft
(1 ac = 1250 cf)
70-80% effective
18 months or
less
NA
Wisconsin
Baumann, 1990
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-l
Woodward-Clyde
Januaiy 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 2)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/Applicability /Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SEDIMENT TRAP
(continued)
Max 5 ac
Required volume = 2000 cf/ac
NA
NA
NA
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania DER,
1990
Max 3 ac
Required volume = 1800 cf/ac
NA
18 months
NA
Virginia
Firehock, 1991
Max 5 ac
Locate at point of discharge
Required volume = 3600 cf/ac
NA
NA
NA
Delaware
Delaware Dept. of
Natural Resources,
1989
Max 5 ac
Locate at point of discharge
Required volume = 1800 cf/ac
NA
NA
NA
Austin,
Texas
City of Austin,
1988
Max 5 ac
Locate at point of discharge
Required volume = 1800
cf/ac
NA
NA
NA
New York
New York Soil and
Water Conservation
Society, 1988
Max 15 ac
Required volume = 1800 cf/ac
NA
NA
NA
Maryland
Maryland Dept. of
the Environment,
1983
SILT FENCE
NA
NA
80-95% filtering efficiency
NA
In-situ study of 3 different
fabrics on 2 mine sites
with different soil types.
Utah
Munson, 1991
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbI
B-2
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 3)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/ Applicability/Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SILT FENCE (cont
inued)
NA
NA
Sand: 80-99% removal
Coarse silt: 50-80% removal
Silt-clay: 0-20% removal
NA
Lab setting. Suspended
solids having 3 distinct
soil gradations were tested
with 6 synthetic filter
fences
Pennsylvania
Fisher, et al., 1984
Max 2 ac
Water reaching silt fence must
be sheet flow.
Maximum uncontrolled slope
length above silt fence 150
feet.
For most soils, fence with Apparent
Opening Size of 70 will trap more than
90% of sediment.
6 months
NA
Minnesota
Minnesota
Pollution Control
Agency, 1989
Max 1-2 ac
Not to be used where there is
concentrated flow.
Maximum slope length behind
fence 100 ft.
Maximum slope 50%.
More effective than straw bale.
6-12 months
NA
Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency,
1988
Max 1/4 acre per
100 ft of fence
Sheet flow
Maximum slope 50%
Maximum slope length behind
fence 100 ft
NA
NA
NA
Wisconsin
Baumann, 1990
Max 1/4 acre per
100 ft of fence
Use only with overland or sheet flow.
NA
NA
NA
Virginia
Firehock, 1991
Max 0.5 ac per
100 ft of fence
Only sheet flow, no concentrated flow.
NA
NA
NA
New York
New York Soil and
Water Conservation
Society, 1988
Max 0.5 ac per
100 ft of fence
Only sheet flow, no concentrated flow.
NA
NA
NA
Maryland
Maryland Dept. of
the Environment,
1983
Max 2 ac
No concentrated flow
NA
NA
NA
Austin,
Texas
City of Austin,
1988
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-3
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 4)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/Applicability/Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
STRAW BALE SE1
3IMENT BARRIER
NA
NA
When installed properly and rotten or
broken bales are replaced, 67% removal.
NA
NA
Virginia
VA, 1980 cited in
EPA, 1991
Max 2 ac
Not recommended where con-
centrated flow exists.
Generally used in locations where
silt fence can also be used.
Moderately effective for medium and
coarse grained sediment particles.
Not effective for fine silt or clay
particles.
Silt fence usually preferable since it
has a lower failure rate, is more
effective and has a longer life.
NA
NA
Minnesota
Minnesota
Pollution Control
Agency, 1989
Max 1/2-1 ac
Should not be used where con-
centrated flow exists.
Length of slope above barrier
should be less than 200 ft.
Sandbags more effective on paved
surfaces.
Filter fences more effective on soil
surfaces.
3-6 months
NA
Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency,
1988
Max 1/4 ac per
100 ft
Max slope 50%
NA
3 months
NA
New York
New York Soil and
Water Conservation
Society, 1988
NA
Use only when no other practice
feasible.
NA
3 months
NA
Maryland
Maryland Dept. of
the Environment,
1983
Max 1/4 ac per
100 ft
sheet flow
maximum slope 50%
maximum slope length 100 ft
Less effective than filter fabric. May be
the most practical BMP where removal
of a filter fence is not possible.
3 months
NA
Wisconsin
Baumann, 1990
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-4
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 5)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/Applicability/Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
STRAW BALE SE1
3IMENT BARRIER (continued)
NA
Use only when no other practice
feasible.
NA
3 months
NA
Delaware
Delaware Dept. of
Natural Resources,
1989
Max 2 ac, max
1/4 ac per 100 ft
Max slope 50%
NA
3 months
NA
Virginia
Firehock, 1991
NA
No concentrated flow
NA
3 months
NA
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania DER,
1990
Max 0.5 ac
Use only when no other practice
feasible.
NA
2 months
NA
Austin,
Texas
City of Austin,
1988
SEEDING
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
Temporary seeding may be the single
most important factor in reducing
construction related erosion.
NA
NA
NA
New York, 1988
cited in EPA, 1991
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
Temporary seeding up to 95% effective.
NA
NA
California
SCS, 1985 cited in
EPA, 1991
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
Only effective once established. After
established, can reduce erosion by 99%.
NA
Calculated from SCS
Technical Release #55
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control
Agency, 1989
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
90-95% reduction in erosion once full
vegetative cover established.
NA
NA
NA
Oberts, 1984 cited
in City of Austin,
1988
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
50-100% effective, depending on soil
type-
NA
Calculated from SCS
Technical Release #55
Delaware
Delaware Dept. of
Natural Resources,
1989
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum .tbl
B-5
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SALTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 6)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/ Applicability /Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SODDING
No maximum or
minimum area
Good means of establishing vegetation
instantly in erosion-prone areas such as
swales, steep slopes and areas adjacent
to paved surfaces.
Can reduce erosion rates by 99%.
NA
Calculated from SCS
Technical Release #55
Minnesota
Minnesota
Pollution Control
Agency, 1989
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
Up to 98% effective.
NA
NA
Pennsylvania
PA, 1983 cited in
EPA, 1991
MULCHING
No maximum or
minimum area
Normally used for temporary erosion
protection for newly seeded areas and
to provide favorable growth conditions
around trees and shrubs.
Proper application of mulch can reduce
sheet erosion by 94%.
NA
Calculated from SCS
Technical Release H55
Minnesota
Minnesota
Pollution Control
Agency, 1989
No maximum or
minimum area
The following shows the loadings from bare soil and the percent reduction of
sediment due to the treatments with simulated rain at 6 in/hr.
Soil: uncemented fine sand falter 4 Soil: verv eravellv coarse sand (after 6
hours) hours)
20% slooe 50% slope 20% slope 50% slope
bare soil 100 ton/ac bare soil 10 ton/ac 30 ton/ac
F1500 50% F1500 50% 0%
F3000 85% F3000 50% 50%
straw 98% straw 100% 95%
NA
Test boxes with simulated
rainfall at 6 in/hr
NA
Kay, 1983 cited in
Goldman, 1986
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-6
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 7)
Drainage Area
Comments on
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
Use/ Applicability /Design
MULCHING (contii
ntied)
Soil: eravellv sandy loam Carter 2
Soil: loam fafter 2 hours')
hours)
20% slope 50% slooe
20% slooe
50% slooe
bare soil 5 ton/ac 30 ton/ac
bare soil
25-60 ton/
40-100 ton/
F1500 60% 20%
ac
ac
F3000 60 % 70%
F1500
20-60%
40-60%
straw 90% 95%
F3000
60-90%
60-70%
straw
80-95%
70-90%
Soil: clav loam (after 6 hours!
Soil: sandv clav loam (after
6 hours)
20% slope 50% slooe
Effectiveness
20% slor>e
50% slor>e
bare soil 120 ton/ac
less effective
excelsior
jute
F1500 5%
straw
straw @
F3000 40%
3,000 lb/ac
straw 70%
jute
straw @
8,000 lb/ac
best
straw @
3,000 lb/ac
and jute
F1500: woodfiber applied hydraulically @
1,500 lb/ac
F3000: woodfiber applied hydraulically @
3,000 lb/ac
straw: barley straw @ 3,000 lb/ac tacked with asphalt emulsion ฎ 200 gal/ac
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-7
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 8)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/ Applicability /Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SEEDING AND Ml
JLCHING
No maximum or
minimum area
NA
70-90% effective for suspended solids
NA
NA
NA
Oberts, 1984 cited
in British Columbia
Research Corp.,
1991
No maximum or
minimum area
See Attachment A
NA
North Carolina experi-
mental plots of red clay
soils - a soil predisposed
to erosion, making
stabilization and seeding
subsequent to disturbance
very difficult.
April - June, 1981
14 storms (1 - lOyr, 1-5
yr, 2 - 2 yr, 4 - 1 yr, 6 -
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 9)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/ Applicability /Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SEDIMENT BASI>
fS
Max 100 ac
- Combined storage/settling volume
1S00 cf/ac of drainage area
- Storage area should be cleaned out
when it is 60% full
- Length to width ratio 2-1
NA
- Temporary
sediment
basins must
be removed
within 36
months after
construction
of basins
- Basins that
function
beyond 36
months or
basins that
exceed the
requirements
for temp,
basins shall
conform to
SCS
standards
and specs.
No. 378 for
ponds
NA
New York, 1988
Max 100 ac
- Combined storage/settling volume -
1800- cf/ac of disturbed area
NA
- Design life
= 3yr.
NA
North Carolina,
1991
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-9
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 10)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/ Applicability /Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SEDIMENT BASIN
S (continued)
Max 100 ac
Required volume = 1800 cf/ac of
drainage area
Removal efficiencies of the basins vary
from 33% to 80% for storm large
enough to produce outflow and 55 % to
100% for all storms within study period.
The difference in removal efficiencies is
highly dependent on the soil types and
size of disturbed areas.
NA
- Field monitoring results
from 4 basins during a
period of 6 months and
total of 9 storms.
- 4 sediment basins for
drainage area = 20 to
35 ac with disturbed
areas = 8 to 35 ac.
- Design for these basins
are based on
Maryland's criteria.
Schueler, 1990
NA
NA
- The removal efficiencies are dependent
on the configurations of principal
spillway riser.
- The range of removal efficiencies is
betwen 57 to 87%
NA
- Lab setting
- 4 principal spillway
riser configurations
used in controlling
dewatering of sediment
basins
NA
Engle, BW and <
Jarrett, AR, 1990
Max 150 ac
- Surface area of basin is sized to
handle 0.015 mm particles
- Sediment shall be cleaned out when
the sediment storage volume is full.
70 to 80%
Temp, basins
= max. 18
months
Permanent
basins require
additional
features
NA
Wisconsin
Baumann, 1990
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-10
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 11)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/Applicability/Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
SEDIMENT BASIN
S (continued)
Max 100 ac
- Combined storage/settling volume =
1800 cf/ac of total drainage area.
- Clean out sediments when volume is
60% filled.
NA
Temporary
basins = max.
36 months.
Permanent
basins that
function
beyond 36
months or
basins that
exceed the
requirements
for temp,
basins shall
conform to
SCS standards
and specs. No.
378 for ponds.
NA
Maryland DE,
1983
For Area > 5 ac
- Required settling volume = 5000
cf/ac of drainage area
- Required storage volume = 2000
cf/ac of disturbed area
- Clean out sediments when storage
area is full
NA
NA
NA
Pennsylvania DER,
1990
For Area > 5 ac
- Surface area of basins is sized to
handle 0.02 mm particles
- Storage volume is sized to
handle/retain settlements expected to
be captured between maintenance
clean outs
- Storage volume shall be cleaned
when it's filled w/sediments
Due to cost and space limitation, basins
are designed with removal capacity of 50
to 75%
NA
NA
TahoeRPA, 1988
SEDIMENT BASINS (continued)
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-ll
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DATA (Page 12)
Drainage Area
Comments on
Use/ Applicability/Design
TSS Removal Effectiveness
Useful Life
Study Type
Location
Reference
Max = 100 ac
- Combine storage/settling volume =
3600 cf/ac of drainage area
- Sediments shall be removed when
volume is 50% filled.
NA
Temporary
basins = 36
months
Permanent
basins that
function
beyond 36
months or
basins that
exceed the
requirements of
temp, basins
shall conform
to SCS
standards and
specs. No. 378
for ponds.
NA
Delaware
Delaware DNR,
1989
NA = Not Available
80040000H\wp\report\esc\escsum.tbl
B-12
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
ATTACHMENT A
EFFECT OF STABILIZATION TREATMENTS ON QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF
SEDIMENTA
Treatment and Sediment Component
Percent Slope
10
20
30
40
50
Asphalt - Tacked straw (approx. 3,000 lb/ac)
Total
42
39
36
29
23
<0.04 mm
98.5
91
90
89
82
>0.04 mm
1.5
9
10
11
18
Jute netting
Total
55
43
32
31
30
<0.04 mm
98
90
90
87
81
>0.04 mm
2
10
10
13
19
Mulch blanket
Total
76
70
61
55
52
<0.04 mm
96.2
89
87
84
76
>0.04 mm
3.8
11
13
16
24
Wood chips (approx. 10,000 lb/ac)
Total
78
74
63
58
51
<0.04 mm
98
90
89
86
77
>0.04 mm
2
10
11
14
23
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\append-A.tbl
B-13
Woodward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
ATTACHMENT A
EFFECT OF STABILIZATION TREATMENTS ON QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF
SEDIMENTA
Treatment and Sediment Component
Percent Slope
10
20
30
40
50
Excelsior blanket
Total
78
73
62
58
52
<0.04 mm
98
89
86
81
76
>0.04 mm
2
11
14
19
25
Chemical binder and asphalt - tacked straw
overlain with staple - tacked jute netting
Total
88
89
89
90
89
<0.04 mm
96.7
87.9
85.3
80
70
>0.04 mm
3.3
12.1
14.7
20
30
AValues for total represent the percent reduction, dry weight, of mean total sediment concentration
(mg/1) during peak discharge as compared to the untreated plots. Values for other components represent
the percent decrease of the proportion of total sediments in these size fractions.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\append-A.tbl
B-14
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES AND EFFECTIVENESS
Treatment
Comments
Effectiveness
Before Plant
Establishment*
Effectiveness
After Plant
Establishment*
1. Seed and fertilizer broadcast on
the surface; seed not covered with
soil; no mulch
Inexpensive and fast. Effective only on
rough seedbeds with minimal slope and
erodibility where seed will be covered
naturally with soil.
0
1-4
2. Seed and fertilizer drilled
Lowest-seed-mortality method, but
limited to friable areas no steeper than
3:1.
0
6-8
3. Seed, fertilizer, and 1500/Ib acre
wood fiber applied hydraulically
Advantages include holding seed and
fertilizer in place on steep and smooth
slopes where there may not be an
alternative method.
2
3-5
4. Seed, fertilizer, and 3000/lb acre
wood fiber applied hydraulically
More effective than treatment 3 in some
cases. Provides more of a true mulch
effect than treatment 3 provides.
4
4-6
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\append-A.tbl
B-15
Wood ward-Clyde
Januaiy 28, 1993
-------
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES AND EFFECTIVENESS
Treatment
Comments
Effectiveness
Before Plant
Establishment*
Effectiveness
After Plant
Establishment
5. Seed and fertilizer broadcast with
hydroseeder. Straw applied with
blower at 3000 lb/acre and
anchored with 300 lb/acre wood
fiber and 60 lb/acre organic binder
Very effective as energy absorber and
in encouraging plant establishment.
Straw forms small dams to hold some
soil. Not for cut slopes steeper than
2:1 or longer than 50 ft (15 m). Cost
increases significantly when slopes are
over 50 ft (15 m) from access or
application is uphill.
5-7
7-9
6. Seed and fertilizer broadcast with
hydroseeder. Straw broadcast at
4000 lb/acre, rolled to incorporate
and then broadcast again at 4000
lb/acre and rolled again
Very effective. Not possible on most
cut slopes. Top-of-slope access is
required for rolling equipment.
6-8
8-10
7. Jute or excelsior mats held in
place with wire staples. Seed and
fertilizer as in treatment 1
Good on small sites and critical slopes.
Very expensive. Not recommended on
rocky soils. Loses effectiveness if not
entirely in contact with soil. More
effective if applied over straw.
7-9
8-10
A1 = minimal, 10 = excellent. Ratings assume treatments are properly applied.
80040000\h\wp\report\esc\append-A.tbl
B-16
Wood ward-Clyde
January 28, 1993
-------
APPENDIX C
COST DATA
-------
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Cost Estimates
Reported Unit Costs
Measire unit Low High Ave.
Sediment Basin
cuft
0.1
0.3
0.2
Sediment Basin-12,500 cf
cuft
0.4
1.3
0.8
Sediment Basin- 40,750 cf
cuft
0.2
0.6
0.4
Sediment Basin- 196,000 cf
cuft
0.1
0.4
0.3
Sediment Trap
cuft
0.4
0.7
0.5
Sediment Trap
cuft
0.2
0.3
0.2
Sediment Trap-1 ac drainage
cuft
0.4
1.9
1.1
Sediment Trap- 6 ac drainage
cuft
0.3
0.7
0.5
Filter Fabric Fence
100 lin ft
60
800
340
Filter Fabric Fence
100 lin ft
230
450
340
Filter Fabric Fence
100 lin ft
200
600
350
Filter Fabric Fence
100 lin ft
200
500
350
Filter Fabric Fence
100 lin ft
300
Straw Bale Dike
llaft
2
5
3
Straw Bale Barrier
Haft
3
6
5
Straw Bale Barrier
Temporary Seeding
ac
387
581
484
Temporary Seeding
ac
242
968
484
Seedng
ac
330
Temporary Seeding- seed, lime, fertilizer
ac
146
292
219
Permanent Seecfing- seed, lime, fertilizer
ac
232
382
307
Mulching with straw
ac
484
4,840
1,452
Straw Mulching
ac
2,500
3,200
2,850
StrawMulch- 2 ,ton/ac w/ asphalt tack
ac
660
Wood Fiber Mulching
ac
1,300
2,300
1,800
Wood Fiber Midching
ac
115
Seeding and MLiching
ac
1,000
1,350
1175
80040000\123\RE PORT\ESCCOST1
C-1
Annual Maint
Ave. Cost (%
Cost** capital cost) Reference Notes
0.2 25% Denver COG cited In SWRPC, 1991 1
0.8 25% SWRPC, 1991 2
0.4 SWRPC, 1991 2
0.3 SWRPC, 1991 2
0.4
0.5 20% Derver COG cited In SWRPC, 1991 1
0.2 20% SWRPC, 1991 2
1.2 Goldman, 1986 1
0.5 Goldman, 1986 1
0.6
340 Wise. DOT cited In SWRPC. 1991
340 100% SWRPC, 1991 2,
366 Goldman, 1986
350 Virginia. 1991
300 NC State. 1990
339
3 Golcfenan.1986
5 Wglria, 1991
100% SWRPC, 1991
4
472 15% Wise. DOT cited In SWRPC, 1991
484 25% SWRPC, 1991 2
345 Goldman, 1986
269 Virginia. 1980
377 Virginia, 1980
389
1,452 Wise. DOT cited In SWRPC, 1991
2,850 Wash. DOT, 1990
810 Virginia, 1980
1,704
1,800 Wash. DOT, 1990
141 Virginia, 1980
971
1,230 Goldman, 1986
December 31, 1992
-------
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Cost Estimates
Measure
Seeding and Mulching
Seeding (and mulching?)
Hydroseecflng with mulch & fertilizer
Conventional seeding with mulch & fertilizer
Temporary Seeding & Mulching
Permanent Seeding & Mulching
Seed, Mulch, Fertilizer
Netting
Jile Net
Matting
Excelsior Blarket
Straw Blarket
Seeding, Mulching, Netting
Seecfng with Blanket or Net
Sodding
Sodding
Sodding
Sodding
Inlet Protection Device
Inlet Protection Device
Inlet Protection- Straw Bale
Inlet Protection - Straw Bale
Inlet Protection- Filter Fabric & Mesh Wire
Inlet Protection- Gfravel & Filter Fabric
Inlet Protection- Block & Gravel
Inlet Protection- Gravel Cirb Inlet
Inlet Protection- Block & Gravel Cirb Inlet
Inlet Protection- Stone Rap (Reusable)
Construction Entrance
Construction Entrance
80040000\123\REPORT\ESCCOST1
Reported Unit Costs
unit
Low
High
Ave.
ac
2,400
2,600
2500 *
ac
1742
ac
1750
ac
1650
ac
613
760
687*
ac
700
850
775 *
ac
968
3388
1452
ave
ac
3,600
4,100
3900 *
ac
2807
ave
ac
3,872
29,040
5,808
ac
1,500
ac
3,388
40,172
14,036
ac
6,050
13,310
9,680 *
ac
8475
ave
sf
0.16
1.12
0.26
sf
0.13
0.40
0.26
sf
0.25
sf
0.10
0.14
0.12*
ave^
ea
106
154
130
ea
108
ea
25
100
63 *
ea
129
ea
35
50
43 *
ea
35
50
43 *
ea
35
50
43*
ea
35
50
43 *
ea
35
50
43 *
ea
35
50
43 *
ave
ea
1,000
4,000
2,000
ea
1,333
Annual Malrt.
Ave. Cost (%
Cost** capital cost) Reference Notes
2,500 Wash. DOT, 1990
1,742 NC State, 1990
1,793 Schueler, 1967
1,691 Schueler, 1987
843 Virginia, 1980
951 Virginia, 1980
1452 SWRPC, 1991
= 1,525
3,900 Wash. DOT, 1990
3,444 Virginia, 1930
3,672
5,808 SWRPC, 1991 4
1,840 Virginia. 1980
******* SWRPC, 1991 5
10,130 Goldman, 1986
8,686 Schueler, 1987
9,408
0.26 5% SWRPC, 1991 6
0.26 5% SWRPC, 1991 2
0.26 Schueler, 1987
0.15 Virginia, 1980
0.23
130 100% SWRPC, 1991 2
108 20% Denver COG cited In SWRPC, 1991
63 Virginia, 1991
129 EPA cited In SWRPC, 1991
43 Virginia, 1991
43 Virginia, 1991
43 Virginia, 1991
43 Virginia, 1991
43 Virginia, 1991
43 Virginia, 1991
69
2,093 Goldman, 1986
1,333 NC State, 1990 7
December 31, 1992
-------
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Cost Estimates
Measire
Reported Unit Costs Ave.
unit Low High Ave. Cost**
Annual Ma Int.
Cost (%
capital cost) Reference
Notes
Construction Entrance- withoirt filter cloth
Construct. Entrance Wash Rack
Const RoadStablliz.- stone only
Constr Road Stab- stone & flit fabric
Diversion Swale
Swale
Temp Diversion Dke -
Earth Dike
Temp Fill Diversion
Temp RIght-of-Way Diversion- Stone
Temp RIght-of-Way Diversion- Earth
Diversion
Pipe Slope Drain
Temp Slope Drain
Slope Drain
SW Conveyance Channel- &ass Lined (Seeded!
SW Corweyance Channel- Grass Lined (Sodded)
SW Corveyance Channel- Non (touted Riprap
SW Conveyance Channel- Grouted Riprap
SW Corveyance Channel- Concrete
Brush Barrier
Brush Barrier
Outlet Protection - nongrouted riprap
Oiilet Protection- grouted riprap
Oiilet Protection- concrete
Riprap and gravel outlet
Check Dam- log
Check Dam- riprap
ea
350
700
500 *
500
vrglnia, 1991
7
ave=
1,309
rack
500
1,000
750 *
750
Virginia, 1991
linft
7
13
10 *
10
Virginia, 1991
8
llnft
13
20
17 *
17
Virginia. 1991
8
ave=
13
100 lin ft
202
1,198
600
600
20% SWRPC. 1991
2
100 lin ft
470
492
Goldman, 1986
100 lin ft
300
500
400 *
400
Virginia, 1991
100 linft
400
419
Goldman, 1986
100 lin ft
50
100
75 *
75
Virginia, 1991
100 lin ft
200
250
225 *
225
Virginia, 1991
100 linft
150
250
200 *
200
Virginia. 1991
100 lin ft
650
1200
925 *
925
Virginia, 1991
ave=
417
lin. ft
7
15
11
11
Goldman, 1986
linft
10
20
15 *
15
Virginia, 1991
llnft
15
15
NC State. 1990
ave=
14
cu yd.
3
7
5 *
5
Virginia. 1991
cu. yd.
8
12
10 *
10
Virginia, 1991
cu yd.
35
50
43 *
43
Virginia, 1991
cu. yd
45
60
53 *
53
Virginia, 1991
cu. yd.
25
30
27 *
27
Virginia, 1991
28
llnft
2
5
4
4
Virginia, 1991
linft
0
0
NC State. 1990
ave=
2
ea
194
278
234*
234
Virginia, 1991
9
ea
250
330
292 *
292
Virginia, 1991
9
ea
138
165
154 *
154
Virginia, 1991
9
ea
500
500
NC State. 1990
ave=
295
ea
400
600
500 *
500
Virginia, 1991
ea
480
480
NC State, 1990
80040000\123\REPORT\ESCCOST1 C-3 December 31, 1992
-------
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Cost Estimates
Annual Ma Int.
Reported Unit Costs Ave. Cost (%
Measure unit Low High Ave. Cost** capital cost) Reference Notes
ave= 490
Level Spreader llnft 3 15 9* 9 Virginia, 1991
* determined by averaging high and low values
** costs In 1988 dollars
Notes:
1 - assumes 1800 cf/ac of storage
2- calculated from unit costs
3-Mgh& low from 12 reported costs, ave from Means, 1989
4 - Mgh & low from 169 reported costs, ave from Means. 1989
5- trigh & low from 6 reported costs, ave from Means, 1989
6- high & low from 117 reported costs, ave from Means, 1989
7- assumes 50* x20' pad
8- assume 20' wide
9- assume 5' x10'
80040000YI 23\REPORT\ESCCOST1
C4
December 31, 1992
------- |