Erosion is a natural process that can be greatly
accelerated by human activities, especially those that
change or remove vegetation or that disturb the soil.
All construction activities have the potential to cause
soil erosion, a contributor to the excessive loss of
topsoil nationwide. Environmental stewardship practices
for erosion prevention reduce both the need for costly
sediment controls and the risk of environmental damage.
Federal, state, and local water quality regulations
prohibit the discharge of turbid water from construction
activities into adjacent water bodies and require DOTs
to use approved Best Management Practices (BMPs). Generally,
highway construction projects and any activities involving
earthwork require a Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control (TESC) Plan, Stormwater Management or Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWMP) and may require a Stormwater
Site Plan (SSP). A well-planned and well-maintained
construction entrance with stabilized construction
roads can prevent offsite sedimentation, keep sediments
off of roads, minimize complaints from neighbors, and
reduce future expenses and aggravation.
Temporary sediment control practices include those
practices that intercept and slow or detain the flow
of stormwater to allow sediment to settle and be trapped.
These practices can consist of installing temporary
linear sediment barriers (such as silt fences , fiber
rolls, sandbag barriers, and straw bale barriers);
providing fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, or check dams
to break up slope length or flow; or constructing a
temporary desilting basin, sediment trap, or sediment
basin. Linear sediment barriers are typically placed
below the toe of exposed and erodible slopes, downslope
of exposed soil areas, around temporary soil stockpiles
and at other appropriate locations along the site perimeter.
Permanent control measures are installed in the course
of construction and left in place to continue to provide
water quality benefits after construction is complete.
Permanent control measures generally require ongoing
maintenance.
Erosion and sedimentation can occur at any time during
the construction of the highway. The highest potential
for erosion occurs during the grubbing, grading, and
culvert/structure installation. General recommendations
for preventing erosion include:
- Consider how the site will be entered and treated.
- Avoid steep slopes, and keep slope lengths short
and gradients low to lower stormwater velocities
and erosion hazards. Place terraces, benches, or
ditches at regular intervals on longer slopes. Project
drainage design should consider water generated both
on and off of the site that can impact erosion potential.
- Minimize amount of exposed soil. Clear the
smallest practicable work zone to minimize erosion.
All possible measures should be taken to minimize
clearing and grading which exposes the site to erosion.
- Minimize time of exposure (of soil).
- Use slope roughening on the contour or tracking
with a cleated dozer to minimize erosion during grading.
- Keep water clean. Protect water quality
through the use of best management practices including silt
fences, sedimentation
basins, and other control measures to reduce erosion,
surface scouring, and discharge to water bodies.
- Keep sediment on site, by applying perimeter
control practices (BMPs) prior to construction,
to protect the disturbed area from off-site runoff
and to prevent sedimentation damage to areas below
the construction site. This principle relates to
using practices that effectively isolate the construction
site from surrounding properties, and especially
to controlling sediment once it is produced and preventing
its transport from the site. Diversions, dikes, sediment
traps, and vegetative and structural sediment control
measures are classified as either temporary or permanent,
depending on whether or not they will remain in use
after construction is complete. Generally, sedimentation
can be prevented by two methods: a) filtering runoff
as it flows through an area and b) impounding the
sediment-laden runoff for a period of time so that
the soil particles settle out. The best way to control
sediment, however, is to prevent erosion. Installation
of initial controls should be discussed at the pre-construction
conference. The contractor and the inspector should
understand the inspection and maintenance requirements
of the specified BMPs, as well as the location and
proper installation procedures.
- Preserve natural vegetative cover to the maximum
extent practicable.
- Ensure inspection and maintenance of BMPs by
the contractor weekly and/or after significant rain
events. Any failures should be analyzed to prevent
recurrence. Substantial changes to the approved plan
should be made or reviewed by the designer and approved
by the appropriate regulatory agency.
- Maintain low runoff velocities in channels by
lining with vegetation, riprap, or using checkdams
at regular intervals, in addition to minimizing
steepness and slow length.
- Trap sediment on-site. Many conventional BMPs
available, in addition to always evolving new ones.
- Use native grasses and plants in reseeding and
planting
- Use temporary vegetation to provide immediate
ground cover until permanent landscaping is in place
- Convey runoff from developed areas to a stable
outlet using storm drains, diversion structures/techniques,
stable waterways, or similar measures if stabilized
areas, adequate conveyance, and/or protected inlets
are available. Design conveyance systems to withstand
the velocities of projected peak discharges, and
make these facilities operational as soon as possible.
Use diversion structures to divert surface runoff
from exposed soils and grade stabilization structures
to control surface water.
- Have a contingency plan and the resources for
emergencies.
|
| 4.5.1
Regulatory Requirements |
|
| < back to top >
|
For stormwater, however, requirements are primarily
process-based. The stormwater permittee is in compliance
if it is implementing the control measures (best
management practices or BMPs) contained in a stormwater
management plan (for municipal-type runoff) or stormwater
pollution prevention plan (for construction site
runoff). An evaluation of the compliance status
requires a subjective judgment regarding whether
the appropriate mix of BMPs has been selected and
whether they are being correctly implemented. The
performance of the BMPs, whether they produce stormwater
with 20 mg/l TSS or 200 mg/l, is not necessarily
relevant. Because of variability in runoff pollutants
and lack of information on impacts, neither EPA
nor states have developed a set of universally applicable
(i.e. regardless of location) technology-based effluent
limits for stormwater.
In the Phase II regulation, EPA said that "[n]arrative
effluent limitations requiring implementation of
BMPs would generally be considered the most appropriate
form of effluent limitations when designed to satisfy
technology requirements, including reductions of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and
water quality-based requirements of the CWA.
Examples of narrative effluent limitations include
no floatables in stormwater discharges and no visible
sheen on waterbodies.( FR 1580, II.H.3.) EPA allowed
that "if after implementing the six minimum
control measures there is still a water quality
problem associated with discharges from the municipal
separate storm sewer system, the municipality would
need to expand or better tailor its BMPs within
the scope of the six minimum control measures for
each subsequent permit. EPA envisions that this
process would take two to three permit terms," during
which time, EPA envisioned revisiting the regulations
for the municipal stormwater program. Additional
stipulations are likely to be the result of TMDLs.
EPA said that
If additional specific measures to protect water
quality were imposed, they would likely be the
result of an assessment based on TMDLs, or the
equivalent of TMDLs, where the proper allocations
would be made to all contributing sources. EPA
believes that the municipality's additional requirements,
if any, should be guided by its equitable share
based on a variety of considerations, such as cost
effectiveness, proportionate contribution of pollutants,
and ability to reasonably assume wasteload reductions.
Narrative effluent limitations requiring implementation
of BMPs are generally the most appropriate form
of effluent limitations when designed to satisfy
technology requirements, including reductions of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and
water quality-based requirements of the Clean Water
Act. See Section II.L, Water Quality Issues, for
further discussion of this approach to permitting,
consistent with EPA's interim permitting guidance."(FR
p. 1573, II.H.3.)
Traditionally, DOTs and municipalities have maintained
that numeric water quality-based limits are not
feasible for stormwater. Due to the unique nature
of storm events and stormwater discharges, any numeric
limit that is placed in a stormwater permit must
take into consideration the episodic nature of storm
events and be truly representative of stormwater
discharges. In addition, DOTs have noted that they
have little or no means to control polluted stormwater
that "runs on" to the DOT site or conveyance.
In general EPA has maintained that numeric effluent
limits are impractical and/or inappropriate for
stormwater regulation, but the issue continues to
be discussed and reviewed by states and the courts.
Thus far, EPA has avoided specifying technology-based
limits for stormwater BMPs. Currently, stormwater
permits issued for DOT/MS4-type discharges generally
require that stormwater management plans be designed
to achieve compliance with water quality standards.
The permits also require compliance with standards
through an "iterative process" in which
exceedances of standards are supposed to trigger
implementation of improved best management practices
(BMPs). In practice, cost-effective BMPs are lacking
for many pollutants and stormwater runoff often
exceeds standards at the point of discharge. A few
regions and states and the District of Columbia
have considered the feasibility of establishing
numeric effluent limits or other quantifiable limits
for use in stormwater permits.
Preventing the Imposition
of Numeric Effluent Limits
Given that numeric effluent limits are not desirable
for stormwater, but considering the ongoing pressure
from public interest groups to impose limits in
order to reach water quality standards, a number
of practices can be employed to address the underlying
needs and interests in BMP effectiveness: [N]
- Rigorous design of individual BMPs and treatment
trains. Effluent concentration distribution
estimates for a number of BMPs are available in
the International BMP Database (www.bmpdatabase.org)
from more then 250 studies throughout the U.S.
BMPs or treatment trains of BMPs that are rigorously
designed and constructed with respect to the physical,
chemical and/or biological processes that take
place within them would provide greater confidence
that treatment design targets are reached, if
the BMPs are properly maintained. In selecting
and designing BMPs:
- Identify Whether Receiving Water Body is 303(d)
listed and if TMDLs have been set
- Identify Constituents of Concern
- BMP selection based on removal efficiency
- Require Technology-Based BMPs
- Require BMP(s) by BAT for Constituents of
Concern
- Monitor BMP Maintenance for Compliance
- Require a detailed maintenance plan and schedule that
includes:
- Actions to be taken and when,
- Designation of the party legally accountable
for the facility maintenance, and
- A whole-life cost estimate for the facility
that include maintenance.
Compliance
with the design criteria and the maintenance
plan and schedule may be considered to; constitute
achievement of the design effluent criteria.
In the event of failure by the responsible party
to perform the required maintenance and/or to
perform it to the required level of quality,
the whole-life cost schedule could be used to
determine the consideration that the defaulting
responsible party would pay to the new responsible
party that takes over the maintenance.
- Employ practical and quantifiable enforcement
mechanisms, such a checklist of items to be
inspected.
- Address and minimize impervious surface in
a drainage area, as the latter "have
been shown to be quite effective in reducing adverse
hydromodifications in the receiving waters."
- Set "upset" values or Action Levels above
the normal observed variability, to allow "bad
actor" catchments to receive additional attention.
While not directly address the issue of establishing
numeric effluent criteria and achieving desired
effluent quality, this would help address one of
the desired ends of ensuring that "bad actor" watersheds
received needed attention.
Strategies for Addressing Runoff Volume and
Peak Flows
Runoff volume and peak flows have been recognized
as two of the most important stormwater factors
needing control. Urbanization dramatically changes
the hydrologic regime of urban waterways; the number
of runoff events per year on developed land increases
by a factor of 2 times the number of runoff events
that occur in the undeveloped state, and the runoff
volume increases by a factor of ten. The peak flows
also increase dramatically, but the peak flow frequency
curve can be adjusted back to its predevelopment
character by the proper application of runoff controls.
While these controls restore the peak flow frequency
to its natural regime, the duration of flows at
the low end (but still channel "working")
of the flow frequency curve is greatly increased,
which raises potential for channel scour in stream
channels with erosive soils.
Since many of the stormwater pollutants are strongly
associated with particulates, stormwater particulate
control is also often a component of stormwater
control programs. Therefore, an effective stormwater
control strategy that could be encouraged is a combination
of several practices, listed below in the order
of increasing events: [N]
- On-site stormwater reuse, evapotranspiration
and infiltration for the smallest storms and up
to specific targeted events, depending on site
limitations (soil characteristics and groundwater
contamination potential) usually by conservation
design emphasizing infiltration, disconnecting
paved areas, etc.
- Treatment of excess runoff that cannot be infiltrated,
again, up to a specific targeted runoff volume
(usually by sedimentation or filtration).
- For pollutants of concern, it should be demonstrated
that the BMP(s) need to include the physical, biological,
and/or chemical treatment processes that address
the typical pollutants of concern and/or specific
pollutants in the case of 303(d) listed water bodies
or those with established TMDLs.
- Control of energy discharges for the channel
forming events (such as through storage-release,
focusing on flow-duration analyses and peak flow
frequency analyses). To be most effective, this
should to be completed under a watershed management
plan and not site-by-site.
- Provide safe drainage for damaging events (conventional
drainage, plus secondary drainage systems)
- In watersheds that are already experiencing
damaging flow impacts to streams, it could be in
many circumstances much more cost-effective (and
effective period) to develop through a watershed
plan a natural stream stabilization approach that
could address both the existing development and
the remaining smaller infill or otherwise smaller
new development. In these cases, requiring the
remaining new development to implement flow-duration
control would not solve the issue in a measurable
way and resources would be better spent restoring
the functions of the creek with instream enhancements.
Programmatic Approaches
to Standards Attainment
MS4/DOT discharges are required to control pollutants
to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). In addition,
stormwater runoff is required to not cause an exceedance
of water quality standards. BMPs can offer a programmatic
approach to standards attainment.
Ohio DOT and Ohio EPA
For example, the Ohio DOT and Ohio EPA met to
review and improve existing processes a number of
times, culminating in OEPA satisfaction with stream
protection measures implemented through ODOT's culvert
design process and a decision that water quantity
treatment requirements are satisfied when ODOT culvert
design procedure is followed. OEPA agreed that vegetation
treats water quality very effectively. Adjustments
were made to determine ditch widths to satisfy OEPA
concerns about water quality.
Oregon CETAS
Oregon's State Bridge Delivery Program includes
more than 300 bridges to be repaired or replaced
by 2011. As a result, ODOT decided to address regulatory
requirements, as much as feasible, on a programmatic
basis. That is, ODOT began working with its regulatory
agency partners and consultants to address permitting
needs for the bridge program as a whole. The goals
were:
- To reduce bridge design and environmental permitting
times
- To reduce cost and schedule impacts from re-design
- To maintain ODOT's strong commitment to environmental
stewardship
The
key elements in this programmatic approach include
programmatic permits and approvals, environmental
performance standards, and a comprehensive program
for mitigating environmental impacts. As a first
step, ODOT took a programmatic approach to bridge
assessment and permitting. Environmental assessments
were done up front, for every bridge in the bridge
program, using common data collection methods and
a common reporting format. Permitting requirements
were established for the entire bridge program.
If the design and construction proposed for a particular
bridge meets the programmatic requirements, the
permits or approvals addressed by those requirements
are assured. The approach coordinated the requirements
of multiple agencies and put standards in place
to ensure comprehensive environmental protection.
While each bridge must still be reviewed individually,
the programmatic permits are already in place and
the requirements to obtain those permits have already
been defined. As a result, permitting for individual
bridges are cheaper and faster, and design efforts
more efficient, than with the traditional approach.
The core of ODOT's programmatic approach is a
set of environmental performance standards that
define the requirements that project activities
must meet. They are goal-oriented; i.e., they define
the acceptable level of effect that a project activity
may have on the environment, rather than specifying
exactly how the activity must be performed. For
example, the Habitat Avoidance performance standard
limits stream bank protection activities to those
not expected to have long-term adverse effects on
aquatic habitats, and lists several protection techniques.
Bridge design and construction personnel have the
flexibility to choose the most cost-effective method
to preserve habitat at a particular site.
Collectively, performance standards address all
phases of the program: administration, bridge design,
bridge construction, and post-construction mitigation.
If a project meets all applicable performance standards,
it will be in compliance with the programmatic requirements
and will receive the required permits. Although
some permits and approvals (e.g., noise variances,
land use exceptions) must be addressed site by site,
most can be addressed programmatically, resulting
in significant time and cost savings and a smoother
permitting process. Because performance standards
describe desired outcomes, not specific construction
techniques, they enable design teams to focus on
creative solutions that accommodate the unique conditions
at each bridge site.
Streamlined permitting efforts for the Oregon's
Statewide Bridge Replacement Program have included
a wide range of programmatic approaches to achieve
environmental compliance.The use of Environmental
Baseline Reports (EBRs) is being instituted for
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
projects. The EBR is an comprehensive environmental
scoping mechanism intended to identify resources
and constraints prior to the design process. Up
through June 2006, progress toward instituting use
of the EBR process has included: [N]
- An ODOT policy paper was prepared to outline
recommendations on how and where to best use baseline
reports in ODOT project development.
- Revisions have been made to ODOT Project Delivery
Leadership Team (PDLT) Notice – 02 specifically
requiring use of the EBR process, as appropriate,
during early project development. The revised Notice
also addresses staff roles and responsibilities
for EBRs. The revision will become official once
approved by the ODOT Project Development Leadership
Team, which is expected to be imminent.
- Criteria for determining EBR applicability have
been drafted and are going through internal ODOT
review.
- Specific guidance (content, format, methods,
etc.) for the EBR process is being developed for
STIP project development. This guidance is based
on experience from the OTIA III Bridge Program
EBR process, and is being modified to the context
of STIP project development.
- Full implementation of the EBR process at the
front end of STIP project development will require
establishment of a new, earlier funding mechanism.
Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan – Considerations & Components
At a minimum any SW3P developed for a construction
activity should include the following information:
- A description of the nature of the construction
activity and the intended sequence of major soil
disturbing activities.
- A site map indicating:
- Drainage patterns
- Areas not to be disturbed
- Locations of major controls measures
- Locations of areas that will be stabilized
- Surface waters (including wetlands)
- Locations where storm water is discharged to
a surface water
- Limits of construction and disturbed areas
- Erosion control BMPs
- Sediment control BMPs
- Other controls, such as for waste disposal,
hazardous and sanitary wastes and offsite vehicle
tracking of sediments
- A description of the procedures to ensure the
timely maintenance and inspection of erosion and
sediment control measures and other protective
measures identified in the SW3P
The major considerations in the development of
an effective and economical SW3P are:
- Project sequencing and phasing
- Grade management
- Drainage features
- Limiting disturbed areas
- Stabilization practices
- Storm water management
- Basic principles of the erosion and sedimentation
process
|
| 4.5.2
Manuals for Stormwater and Erosion & Sedimentation
Control |
|
| < back to top >
|
Almost 30 percent of state DOTs have developed
manuals for construction (AR, CA, FL, GA, IH, IA, IN,
LA, MI, MO, MT, NM, OH, WA). [N]
Almost every state DOT has a guide to development of
such plans and design of stormwater BMPs, though such
BMPs are often combined and categorized in very different
ways. The practices presented in this section are a
compendium of highlights from these manuals, focusing
on environmental stewardship practice and how to get
to available resources on selection and implementation
for best environmental effect. Following is list of
highway runoff and construction BMP manuals available
on-line:
The Stormwater Manager's Resource Center also maintains List
of Acceptable Practices, Construction
Specifications, and Checklists
for Construction Inspection.
The Transportation Association of Canada, Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Committee will be issuing
a "National Guide to Erosion and Sediment Control
on Roadway Projects" in April 2005. The guide
contains a synthesis of Canadian and international
practice and numerous Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for project planning, site management, erosion control
and sediment control. This national guide will discuss
erosion and sediment control methods for road system
planning, construction and maintenance in both urban
and rural settings, and is intended to assist roadway
authorities, consultants, contractors and regulators.
Canadian transportation agencies will use it for the
planning and design, implementation and review of Erosion
and Sediment Control plans and in meeting environmental
objectives in an appropriate, economic and effective
fashion. It will also guide users in assessing ESC
plans in terms of defining risk and level of effort,
selecting appropriate methodologies for analysis and
design, selecting appropriate ESC measures, evaluating
Best Management Practices for application, and meeting
legislative and regulatory requirements. The Guide is
divided into two parts: Theory and Application.
Sections included under Theory are: physical
processes, legislation, and risk assessment. Sections
included under Application are: plan development,
site assessment, BMP selection and design, and implementation.
The document will be presented in a format that is
user-friendly and easily updated.
In addition to extensive design guidance available
in both manual and on-line formats, a number of BMP
evaluation systems are emerging. MDSHA has developed
an evaluation system for all stormwater facilities
and criteria for improvements. In the late 1990s WSDOT
and FDOT also developed systems for categorizing outfalls
and, in the case of WSDOT, assessing which projects
provide the best return on investment in terms of environmental
effectiveness and pollution reduction. WSDOT's system
included a condition indexing methodology and support
program that enables users to quickly evaluate and
compare projects and generate benefit-cost ratios for
projects. [N]
|
| 4.5.3
Procedural Management Practices for Water Quality |
|
| < back to top >
|
Procedural BMPs affect how and when a project
is built and can greatly affect the potential for erosion.
Sequencing and scheduling are some of the most important
aspects of erosion control planning. Construction sequencing
should minimize the duration and extent of soil disturbance.
Whenever possible, major soil disturbing activities
should be done in phases to minimize exposed areas.
Likewise, major grading operations should be limited
to the dry season. An effective schedule prevents the
site from becoming overexposed to erosion risks. The
construction schedule should tie the installation of
erosion control BMPs to the order of land disturbing
activities. The types of activities that should be
included in the schedule are:
- Installation of perimeter control and detention
BMPs prior to soil-disturbing activities.
- Phasing and timing of clearing, grubbing, and grading.
- Interim BMP strategies.
- Installation of permanent BMPs and a description
of how temporary BMPs have been coordinated with the
development of permanent measures.
- Erosion control inspection and maintenance schedule.
Some DOTs are reducing violations and the amount
of sediment that moves off of construction sites into
adjacent streams by employing additional erosion control
staff and inspectors. MDSHA has made an agency-wide
commitment to achieve 100 percent compliance with erosion
and sedimentation control measures on all construction
sites. The Missouri DOT (MoDOT) hired a retiree with
erosion control expertise in a 1,000-hour position.
This person inspects construction sites for placement
and maintenance of adequate erosion control measures
and makes recommendations for improvements. Photographs
of the inspected projects are posted on the MoDOT intranet
site to illustrate how erosion control measures should
and should not be installed and how they work during
a rain event. The number of Notices of Violations for
erosion control have been reduced significantly since
this program was put in place in 2003. [N]
|
| 4.5.4
Dewatering and Managing the Watercourse |
|
| < back to top >
|
Watercourses are defined as the bed and shore
of every river, stream, lake, creek, pond, spring,
lagoon or other natural body of water, and the water
therein, within the jurisdiction of the state (i.e.
federal or state protection). Typically such measures
must be applied whether the watercourse contains water
or not. In-stream work is often allowed to occur only
in specified periods, where there are species of concern.
Protection measures for fish passage are included in
Chapter 3, Design section 3.5.
Dewatering
Dewatering methods are temporary measures for filtering
sediment-laden water, managing the discharge of pollutants
or to keep water away from a worksite. Dewatering operations
are used to manage removal of water from excavations,
cofferdams, diversions, barges, and areas of ponding
(accumulated precipitation). Sediment is the most common
pollutant associated with dewatering operations. Whether
the contractor manages dewatering operations by re-using
the water on site, discharging it to an adjacent facility
or land, or discharging it by NPDES permit to a storm
drain or receiving water, the water will often require
treatment to remove sediment. Dewatering usually involves
pumping water from the location of accumulation to
the treatment area on the construction site. Following
treatment, the water is discharged or reused on site,
in accordance with the authorizing permit.
Suggested stewardship practices for dewatering are
summarized in the remainder of this section. [N]
If the water is free of pollutants other than sediment,
consider the following management options prior to
deciding to discharge to a storm drain or water of
the U.S. :
- Reuse the water on site for dust control, compaction
during earthwork activities, or irrigation.
- Retain the water on site in a grassy or porous
area and allow water to infiltrate/evaporate.
- Discharge to a neighboring property (by agreement)
that may have irrigation needs or sufficient land
for infiltration.
- Discharge (by permit) to a sanitary sewer.
If the water contains pollutants other than sediment,
contact the Stormwater Coordinator or environmental
support staff for guidance. Water from areas of known
or suspected soil contamination, or that has unusual
visual features or odor, may contain pollutants other
than sediment. If other pollutants are suspected, water
quality testing may be required. Depending on the quality
of the water, possible management options include:
- Discharge to a sanitary sewer (by permit with or
without treatment).
- Transportation off site for disposal at a commercial
recycling or disposal facility.
Sediment treatment requirements depend on the final
disposition of the water. For dewatering discharges
to a storm drain or water body authorized under a permit,
in general, if water is not visibly clear, it should
be treated using best management practices prior to
discharge. A variety of treatment practices are available
for use individually or in combination. Some common
primary treatment methods include:
- Desilting
basins and sediment
traps are traditional sediment removal methods.
The site must accommodate a basin of adequate size
to provide the time necessary for particles to settle
out.
- Weir tanks are steel tanks with interior weirs
(or baffles) that allow sediment to settle prior to
discharge from the tank. The tanks remove debris,
some oils, and particles 0.05 mm in size and larger.
Dewatering
tanks are open rectangular steel tanks. The water
drains through a filter fabric to a discharge header
to remove particles as small as 0.025 mm, depending
on the filter material used.
When water is pumped into a gravity
bag filter the sediment forms a soil blanket/filter
that removes additional sediment as the water passes
through the sides and bottom of the bag. A secondary
filter of rock or straw bales is often constructed
beneath the bag. Due to the need to form the soil
blanket, it is difficult to guarantee particle size
removal.
- The following treatment methods remove finer-grained
materials and may be useful as secondary treatment
methods when needed to meet water quality goals.
A sand media filter is a portable unit that removes
particles larger than 0.01 mm. Water flows through
the unit and sediment is captured by the sand particles.
This method is cost-effective due to a filter backwashing
feature.
A pressurized bag filter is a unit composed of individual
filter bags that are most effective when larger particles
have been removed by prior treatment with a weir tank,
sand filter, etc. It can remove particle sizes as small
as 0.002 mm.
A cartridge filter provides the highest degree of
sediment removal. It is capable of removing sediments
larger than 0.002 mm, but is most effective when used
for polishing after larger particles have been removed
by other treatment methods.
- In addition to sediment, these methods can also
reduce some other potential water quality pollutants
such as oil and grease and nutrients. However, none
remove the colloidal particles natural to some soils
that increase water turbidity. Pre-discharge testing
for possible pollutants may be required, based on
the source of the water, land use history of the construction
site, and potential impacts to the quality of the
receiving water.
For discharge to a sanitary sewer or to an adjacent
facility/land, sediment treatment requirements are
specified in the permit or agreement with the sanitary
sewer agency or landowner.
For infiltration or reusing water on-site, water
may require treatment to meet the specific reuse option.
On-line sources for dewatering practices and associated
BMPs:
- Dewatering
Basins, MD
- Dewatering,
WA , p. 2.50
- Dewatering,
Caltrans
- Dewatering,
FL, p. 113
- Stilling
Basin for Pumped Effluent, NCDOT, p. 86
- Special
Stilling Basin (Silt Bag), NCDOT, p. 88
Measures to Minimize Impacts to Aquatic Habitat
and Species during Dewatering of Project Site
When construction work must occur within a year-round
flowing channel, the work site must be dewatered. Dewatering
can result in the temporary loss of aquatic habitat,
and the stranding, displacement, or crushing of fish
and amphibian species. Increased turbidity may occur
from disturbance of the channel bed. Following these
general guidelines will minimize impacts.
Prior to dewatering, determine the best means
to bypass flow through the work area to minimize
disturbance to the channel and avoid direct mortality
of fish and other aquatic vertebrates.
Minimize the length of the dewatered stream channel
and durationof dewatering.
Maintain stream flow to channel below construction
site.
Capture and relocate fish and amphibian species
prior to dewatering to avoid direct mortality and
minimize take. This is especially important if
listed species are present within the project site.
Coordinate project site dewatering with a fisheries
biologist qualified to perform fish and amphibian
relocation activities.
Periodically measure air and water temperatures. Cease
activities when water temperatures exceed temperatures
allowed by resource agencies.
Exclude fish from re-entering work area by
blocking the stream channel above and below the work
area with fine-meshed net or screens. Mesh should be
no greater than 1/8 inch. It is vital to completely
secure bottom edge of net or screen to channel bed
to prevent fish from re-entering work area. Exclusion
screening should be placed in areas of low water velocity
to minimize impingement of fish. Screens should be
checked periodically and cleaned of debris to permit
free flow of water.
Prior to capturing fish, determine the most appropriate
release location(s). Consider the following
when selecting release site(s): similar water temperature
as capture location, ample habitat for captured fish,
and low likelihood of fish re-entering work site or
becoming impinged on exclusion net or screen.
Determine the most efficient means for capturing
fish. Complex stream habitat generally requires
the use of electrofishing equipment, whereas in outlet
pools, fish may be concentrated by pumping-down pool
and then seining or dipnetting fish. If fish are abundant,
periodically cease capture, and release fish at predetermined
locations.
Minimize handling of aquatic species; however,
when handling is necessary, always wet hands or nets
prior to touching fish.
Temporarily hold fish in cool, shaded, aerated
water in a container with a lid. Provide aeration
with a battery-powered external bubbler. Protect fish
from jostling and noise and do not remove fish from
this container until time of release. Place a thermometer
in holding containers and, if necessary, periodically
conduct partial water changes to maintain a stable
water temperature. If water temperature reaches or
exceeds those allowed by resource agencies fish should
be released and rescue operations ceased. Avoid overcrowding
in containers. Have at least two containers and segregate
young-of-year (YOY) fish from larger age-classes to
avoid predation. Place larger amphibians, in container
with larger fish.
Visually identify species and estimate year-classes
of fish at time of release. Count and record the
number of fish captured. Avoid anesthetizing or measuring
fish. If mortality during relocation exceeds 5 percent,
stop efforts and immediately contact the appropriate
agencies.
Submit reports of fish relocation activities to
resource agencies in a timely fashion.
If feasible, plan on performing initial fish relocation
efforts several days prior to the start of construction. This
provides the fisheries biologist an opportunity to
return to the work area and perform additional electrofishing
passes immediately prior to construction. In many
instances, additional fish will be captured that eluded
the previous day's efforts.
Periodically pump seepage from the work area. Place
pumps in flat areas, well away from the stream channel.
Secure pumps by tying off to a tree or stake in place
to prevent movement by vibration. Refuel in area well
away from stream channel and place fuel absorbent mats
under pump while refueling. Pump intakes should be
covered with 1/8" mesh to prevent entrainment
of fish or amphibians that failed to be removed. Check
intake periodically for impingement of fish or amphibians.
Discharge wastewater from construction area to
an upland location where it will not drain sediment-laden
water back to stream channel.
Flow Diversion
The normal flow of a stream should be diverted and
the work area isolated to allow a project to proceed.
The watercourse should be managed to minimize adverse
impacts to the jurisdictional waters. All projects
should be planned to minimize the time that the watercourse
will be diverted. Several methods of diverting a watercourse
are provided in this section. There may be certain
seasonal components to consider when attempting flow
diversion of a stream, such as spawning times of individual
fish species. [N]
Avoid having equipment in streams, wetland, or
other environmentally sensitive area. When necessary
in-stream, limit the type and number of equipment
to those necessary to accomplish the work at that
moment.
Design temporary diversion channels to accommodate
expected watercourse flow from storm events (generally
1 in 5 year event, though the 1 in 2 year event may
be used for noncritical situations). Leave the existing
channels untouched until the temporary diversions
are constructed.
Construct temporary diversion channels in the
dry, starting from the downstream end.
Open diversion channels from the downstream end
first.
Use clean, washed material to close existing channels
and divert water to temporary diversion channels.
Use gradient controls to ensure that diversion
channel slopes correspond to the existing channel gradients.
Protect unstable bends from erosion.
Armor discharge point with clean rock to prevent
erosion.
In areas with fish passage concerns, avoid using
pumped diversions, where a channel must be completely
blocked to allow work ‘in the dry.'
Size and screen intakes to prevent debris blockage
and fish mortality.
Environmental stewardship practices for flow diversion
BMPs are contained within the following state fact
sheets available on-line:
- Fabric-Based
Channel Diversion, MD
- Fabric
Lined Diversion Channel, NCDOT, p. 71
- Aqua
Barrier, WA p. 21
- Pump-Around
Practice, MD
- Diversion
Pipe, MD
- Piped
Diversion, NCDOT, p. 69
- Sandbag/Stone
Diversion, MD
- Sand
Bags, NCDOT, p. 79
- Stone
with Impervious Fabric, NCDOT, p. 77
- Sandbag,
WA, p. 109
Cofferdams
Use cofferdams (earth fill, sheet pile or other proprietary
designs) to separate instream work site from flowing
water. Design cofferdams to accommodate the expected
flows of the watercourse. Build rock platforms for
equipment needed in-stream for longer periods.
Use clean, washed material for construction and face
berms with clean granular material.
Limit cofferdams to one side of the watercourse at
any one time and ensure that they block no more than
one-third of the channel
Restore the original channel bottom grade after removing
cofferdams
Treat all water pumped from behind the cofferdams
to remove sediment before discharge.
Turbidity Curtains
In some instances, the depth of water downstream
from a proposed work area may be too deep for an in-stream,
silt fence-sediment trap to be effective, such as the
outlet of a ponded area. At these times, turbidity
curtains prove to work effectively in retaining suspended
sediment. The barrier consists of a wire-mesh supported
silt fence attached to a floating boom. The boom remains
afloat, on top of the water, while the filtration mechanism,
anchored to the streambed, retains suspended sediments
in the work area.
Even though work is being conducted during months
that typically promote low water conditions, seasonal
increases in water flow can result from precipitation
events. This BMP is used as a precautionary measure
should a rise in water and/or flows occur. If water
in the work areas were to increase, an in-stream sediment-trapping
device would prevent increases in turbidity and sedimentation.
This BMP can, and at times should be, used in conjunction
with other BMPs depending upon proposed work. Sandbags
and/or check dams can be used as a first line of defense
with turbidity curtain downstream as a second defense.
[N]
Online implemented guidance and best practice resources
for turbidity barriers may be found at:
Other Slope Stabilization
and Drainage Techniques
NCHRP project 24-19 lists the following areas in
slope stabilization to be discussed in the upcoming
publication due in late 2004:
- Diversion Dikes
- Slope Drains
- Live Pole Drains
- Chimney Drains
- Trench Drains
- Drop Inlets
- Fascines with Subsurface Drains
- Flattening
- Stone-Fill Trenches
Managing Excavated Material
or Spoil
Excavated material or spoil should either be: [N]
- Contained within the work area.
- Stockpiled near the work area and contained by
an appropriate Erosion and Sedimentation Control BMP.
- Removed from the site and disposed of properly.
- Spoil material shall notbe placed in wetlands,
protected riparian buffers, or other jurisdictional
areas.
- Used for reestablishing groundcover.
|
|
| < back to top >
|
| Reducing Slope Length
for Erosion Control
Slope length and inclination are two factors that
directly affect the tendency of a slope to erode and
introduce sediment into stormwater runoff. Although
contractors cannot deviate from embankment and slope
inclinations specified in construction plans, there
are stormwater friendly methods available for shortening
the effective length of a slope.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mitigating
slope length make use of fiber rolls or gravel bag
berms to build erosion control benches at specified
intervals down the slope face. This strategy is effective
at low surface velocity flows (< one cubic foot/second)
for intercepting and filtering sediment from runoff.
The decrease in velocity also reduces the concentration
of sheet flows that create rills and gullies on slope
faces. These measures should be used in combination
with others to remove sediment and minimize sedimentation.
Fiber Rolls
A fiber roll consists of straw, flax, or other similar
materials wood excelsior, rice or wheat straw, or coconut
fibers that are is rolled and or bound into a tight
tubular roll and placed on the toe and face of slopes
at regular intervals to intercept runoff, reduce its
flow velocity, release the runoff as sheet flow, and
provide some removal of sediment from the runoff. Fiber
rolls are biodegradable materials and prefabricated
fiber rolls constructed of rice straw, wheat straw,
flax or similar material can be purchased in diameters
ranging from 200 mm to 300 mm. Fiber rolls can also
be made in the field using erosion control blanket
material rolled and bound with jute twine every 1.2
m along the length and at each end. Fiber roles are
best suited for longer term protection of non-active
disturbed soil areas and completed areas to help stabilize
the slope while vegetation establishes. Fiber rolls
may also be used for inlet protection and as check
dams under certain situations.
For slope lengths of 30 m or more with inclinations
between 1:20 and 1:2, install fiber rolls or an equivalent
at intervals no greater than 15 m.
For slope lengths of 15 m or more with inclinations
of 1:2 or steeper, install fiber rolls or an equivalent
at intervals no greater than 7.5 m.
Best practices with regard to fiber roll installation
and use are available online: [N]
[N]
Gravel Bags
An alternative to fiber rolls are berms constructed
of gravel bags. Bags made from synthetic woven material
or burlap are filled with ½ to 1-inch clean
aggregate. The gravel bags are aligned end-to-end,
tightly abutted, along a level contour to form a berm
that creates the erosion control bench. A gravel bag
berm consists of a single row of gravel bags that are
installed end to end to form a barrier across a slope
to intercept runoff, reduce its flow velocity, release
the runoff as sheet flow and provide some sediment
removal. Gravel bags can be used where flows are moderately
concentrated, such as ditches, swales, and storm drain
inlets. [N]
Installation guidance and stewardship practices for
use of gravel bags and gravel bag berms are available
online:
Triangular Filter Dike
Triangular sediment filter dikes can be used to intercept
and detain water-borne sediment from unprotected areas
of limited extent, where there is no concentration
of water in a channel or other drainage way above the
barrier and the contributing drainage area is less
than one acre. If the uphill slope above the dike exceeds
10%, the length of the slope above the dike should
be less than 50 feet. If concentrated flow occurs after
installation, corrective action should be taken such
as placing rock berm in the areas of concentrated flow.
This measure is effective on paved areas where installation
of silt fence is not possible or where vehicle access
must be maintained. The advantage of these controls
is the ease with which they can be moved to allow vehicle
traffic and then reinstalled to maintain sediment.
[N]
Strawbale Barriers
Bale barriers may be the most common mitigation measures
illustrated in Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans
(SWPPPs) and found on construction sites. [N]
Hay or straw bale dikes, also known as straw bale barriers
are used to intercept and detain small amounts of sediment-laden
runoff from relatively small, unprotected areas. They
bales are often used when it is not feasible to install
other, more effective measures or when the construction
phase is expected to last less than three months. They
work well in conjunction with silt fence.
Although hay bales have been the traditional choice
for erosion protection, especially in drainage channels,
careful consideration should be taken during the selection
process. Runoff waters may not readily seep through
the bales. Bales are not an effective method for filtering
sediment. Water can pond behind the bale structures
and flow around, between, and under the structures
causing channel degradation and sediment transportation.
Furthermore, bales are often not inspected or maintained
and are one of the more costly methods for controlling
sediment in runoff waters. [N]
When roadway median drains are on a grade and bale
barriers placed around the inlets, the barriers divert
runoff waters to downstream locations and diversion
around inlets cause downstream flooding and downstream
deposition of sediment and bale structures to experience
massive failure. [N]
Only use hay bales as temporary check structures
when the following conditions can be maintained:
- Channel receives low volume flows.
- Flow line slopes are less than 2%.
- Installed in a trench, staked, and backfilled.
- Enough bales are used on the channel side slopes
to force runoff over the bales, rather than around
the structure.
- Bales are inspected and maintained frequently.
Consider other techniques. Properly sized rock check
structures provide an excellent alternative as do some
of the new methods (e.g. synthetic barriers) being
introduced every year. Silt fence material must not
be used unless it is properly supported. If vegetation
is to be established, avoid bale check structures.
Instead, properly install rolled erosion control products.
Instead of placing bales around an inlet, install
a properly designed upstream sediment containment system.
Since medians are long and narrow, they provide ideal
conditions for efficient sediment traps. When properly
installed and maintained, sediment traps will reduce
sediment in runoff waters and allow inlets to function
in a manner for which they are designed—as drainage
systems.
If sufficient space does not exist for a containment
system, then install a riprap check structure to serve
as a sediment trap. Take care to ensure the rock used
has sufficient diameter and mass to avoid failure from
large flow events.
Avoid use of straw bales on areas where rock or other
hard surfaces prevent the full and uniform anchoring
of the barrier. [N]
Almost all state DOTs have installation guidance
for strawbale barriers; the following DOTs have made
such guidance and practice recommendations available
online:
Geotextiles, Mats/Plastic
Covers and Erosion Control Blankets
Erosion Control Blankets are biodegradable materials
that can be used to protect disturbed slope and channel
areas from wind and water erosion. The blanket materials
are natural materials such as straw, wood excelsior,
coconut, or are geotextile synthetic woven materials
such as polypropylene. In addition to preventing erosion,
erosion control blankets also increase water infiltration
into the soil, protect seed mixes from being eroded
during heavy rainfall or wind, and increase the retention
of soil moisture to promote seed germination.
Testing at the San Diego State University Soil Erosion
Research Laboratory (SDSU/SERL) as part of a Caltrans
District 7 Erosion Control Pilot Study (ECPS) and the
Soil Stabilization for Temporary Slopes study (SSTS)
found that all of the blankets or RECPs tested reduced
erosion and off-site sediment delivery by 90-100 percent.
[N]
These results are comparable to tests conducted at
the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) and other
laboratories. Before specifying an erosion control
blanket for a highway site, consider effectiveness,
implementation costs, durability, longevity, whether
the netting may pose any wildlife hazards, and long-term
costs or maintenance considerations, e.g. will nets
or staples be a factor if the area will be routinely
mowed?
Function is dependent on proper installation and
maintenance, including p roper soil surface preparation:
- All rocks, clods, debris, and vegetation should
be removed to ensure full contact between the blanket
and the soil surface.
- Check the special provisions or follow the manufacturer's
recommendations for seed application requirements
when used with blanket installation.
- The blanket should be anchored to the soil using
metal wire staples as specified in the special provisions
or recommended by the manufacturer.
- The staples should be driven through the blanket
and into the soil, flush with the soil surface.
Inspection and maintenance of Erosion Control Blankets
should include the following:
- Inspect the site during installation.
- Inspect the installation before, during and after
significant rain events.
- Repair or replace all damaged materials.
- Recompact all soil washout areas.
Inlet Protection Information:
|
| 4.5.6
Infiltration - Sediment Basins and Traps |
|
| < back to top >
|
Conventional sediment control BMPs are capable
of removing a certain size soil particle, but in most
cases it is not enough to bring the runoff in compliance
with state water quality standards. Detention time
and volume is critical in sediment control. Sand and
gravel takes only seconds to trap, but silt and clay
can take hours to weeks to settle.
Research has indicated that infiltration can be
a viable alternative in the disposal of runoff at low
metals concentrations, with appropriate siting criteria,
which should include the following: [N]
- Identify the presence of background metals in
the soil.
- Identify the organic content of the soil, which
is likely to a better indicator of potential metal
retention, and as such, should be included as a siting
condition along with the cation exchange capacity
(CAC) and silt and clay content.
- Consider extending the minimum depth to groundwater
from the existing value of three feet to ten feet
(three meters) or more, particularly in those areas
in which background metals are present. Here, geochemical
controls are thought to produce effluents beneath
the infiltration basins which may lead to detectable
quantities (particularly copper and zinc) within underlying
groundwater, wherein creating a situation that may
violate the anti-degradation laws for groundwater
resources.
Sediment Basins
A sediment basin is a basin or barrier constructed
within a waterway or at another suitable location to
intercept sediment-laden stormwater runoff and to trap
and retain the sediment. The purpose of the sediment
trap is to intercept sediment-laden stormwater runoff
and reduce the amount of sediment leaving the disturbed
area. A sediment basin applies where physical site
conditions or land ownership restrictions preclude
the installation of barrier-type erosion control measures
to adequately control runoff, erosion and sedimentation.
[N]
Stormwater runoff from drainage areas with more than
5 acres disturbed area should pass through a sediment
basin or other suitable sediment trapping facility.
Sediment basins are more cost effective when most of
the area draining to the basin is disturbed area, since
their size must be based on total contributing area.
Appropriately sized and stabilized conveyance channels
will normally be required to funnel runoff to the basins.
[N]
It is also used for disturbed areas of more than 10
acres within the same drainage basin in order to comply
with NPDES requirements. It may be used below construction
operations which expose critical areas to soil erosion.
Following are BMPs from various states that describe
basins, construction and impacts: [N]
Sediment Trap
A sediment trap is a small temporary basin formed
by excavation and/or an embankment to intercept sediment-laden
stormwater runoff and to trap and retain the sediment-laden
runoff. The purpose of the sediment trap is to intercept
and retain runoff and allow the suspended sediment
to settle out. A sediment trap is usually installed
at points of discharge from disturbed areas. Constructing
traps within ditches can be easy and effective and
may require nothing more than a berm to create the
volume and an outlet structure. Following are Sediment
Trap BMPs from various states: [N]
Missouri DOT has developed a type of sediment trap,
called a Type C Berm, that also allows for the movement
of construction equipment through the area. The berm
is placed long the stream bank and up slope of the
stream at the slope limits to keep soil at bridge construction
sites from entering the stream. Once the bridge is
built, the rock in the ditch remains in place for permanent
erosion control and the rock placed along the stream
can then be spread and used as bridge protection.
Check Dams
A check dam is a small device constructed of rock,
gravel bags, sandbags, fiber rolls, or other proprietary
product placed across a natural or man-made channel
or drainage ditch. [N]
Check dams reduce scour and channel erosion by reducing
flow velocity and encouraging sediment settlement.
Following are various Check Dam BMPs:
- EPA
Check Dams Fact Sheet
- Check
Dams, TX, pp. (5-23 – 5-30)
- Check
Dams, Caltrans
- Log & Rock
Check Dams, MD
- Check
Dams, FL, p. 105
- Check
Dams, MT p. 84
- Temporary
Rock Silt Check Dam, NCDOT p. 58
- Check
Dams, New Brunswick, p 4-7
Sandbag Barrier
Sandbag barriers or "berms are devices the
purpose of which is to detain sediment carried in runoff
from disturbed areas. This objective is accomplished
by intercepting runoff and causing it to pool behind
the sandbag berm. Sediment carried in the runoff is
deposited on the upstream side of the sandbag berm
due to the reduced flow velocity. Excess runoff volumes
are allowed to flow over the top of the sandbag berm.
[N]
Sandbags can be used as a temporary interceptor to
slow water velocity. Sandbags placed across access
or interior construction roads provide for a means
to divert or slow erosive water flows on a construction
site. [N]
Sandbags work well as diversion structures, temporary
cofferdams, sediment control devices and temporary
flow dissipaters during any number of routine roadway
maintenance activities. When appropriately designed
and used as a cofferdam, these sandbags are stable
enough for water to pond behind them. The ponded water
behind the dam structure can then be pumped to a sediment
retention basin or filter bag to allow work to be performed
in-the-dry. When used in conjunction with other BMPs,
sandbags can be useful in ensuring that sediment does
not enter surface waters or wetlands, helping to retain
sediment in a sediment retention basin, and/or diverting
and/or dissipating runoff water during roadside ditch
maintenance. [N]
Rock Berm
The purpose of a rock berm, or rock filter dam,
is to serve as a check dam in areas of concentrated
flow, to intercept sediment-laden runoff, detain the
sediment and release the water in sheet flow (see Figures
5.6, 5.7 and 5.8). The rock berm should be used when
the contributing drainage area is less than 5 acres.
Rock berms are used in areas where the volume of runoff
is too great for a silt fence to contain. They are
less effective for sediment removal than silt fences,
particularly for fine particles, but are able to withstand
higher flows than a silt fence. As such, rock berms
are often used in areas of channel flows (ditches,
gullies, etc.). Rock berms are most effective at reducing
bed load in channels and should not be substituted
for other erosion and sediment control measures further
up the watershed.
Maintenance of Sediment
Basins and Traps
Sediment basins and traps and associated BMPs depend
on maintenance for proper functioning: [N]
[N]
[N]
- Inspection should look for:
- Sediment accumulation in front of checkdams.
- Erosion/scouring behind checkdam.
- Proper checkdam configuration.
- Erosion in contributing drainage area.
- Periodically remove debris and litter.
- Remove sediment when it reaches 50 percent of checkdam
height.
- Repair/replace checkdams if necessary.
- Stabilize eroding soils on DOT right-of-way in
the contributory drainage area by seeding and mulching
or other appropriate means.
|
| 4.5.7
Vegetative Erosion Control |
|
| < back to top >
|
Providing such detention time is not always possible.
Thus, preventing erosion in the first place makes sediment
control more effective. Vegetative erosion control
is based on the assumption that soil can be kept in
place with a vegetative cover. The reasons to keep
soil in place include:
- Protection of engineered grades
- Reduction of maintenance on buildings, structures,
and other man-made objects
- Maintenance of surface water quality
- Visual enhancement
Filter strips, also known as vegetated buffer strips,
are vegetated sections of land similar to grassy swales,
except they are essentially flat with low slopes, and
are designed only to accept runoff as overland sheet
flow. They may appear in any vegetated form from grassland
to forest, and are designed to intercept upstream flow,
lower flow velocity, and spread water out as sheet
flow. The dense vegetative cover facilitates conventional
pollutant removal through detention, filtration by
vegetation, and infiltration.
Filter strips cannot treat high velocity flows, and
do not provide enough storage or infiltration to effectively
reduce peak discharges to predevelopment levels for
design storms. This lack of quantity control favors
use in rural or low-density development; however, they
can provide water quality benefits even where the impervious
cover is as high as 50 percent. WSDOT undertook a 17-month
sampling campaign to investigate the potential for
vegetated highway shoulders to retain suspended solids,
metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The data
indicated that TPH and suspended solids were effectively
removed. Metal concentration reduction was also effective
when consideration was given to inadvertent pretreatment
afforded by the highway runoff collection system. The
study concluded the vegetated highway shoulder, located
along hundreds of miles of highway can afford a cost
effective means of contaminant retention. [N]
Another WSDOT study found that the overall best Service
Level for water quality benefits was excavating the
first three quarters and retaining vegetation in the
remainder. The ditch treated in this manner was capable
of reducing TSS by approximately 40 percent, total
phosphorus by about 50 percent, and total and dissolved
Cu and Zn each by roughly 20 to 25 percent. [N]
Analysis of survey data showed that biofiltration swales
with broad side slopes, wide bases, and total storage
volumes equivalent to 3 inches of runoff from the impervious
drainage area consistently supported good vegetation
cover and showed few signs of damage. For assisting
grass growth, straw held in place with stapled jute
mat had a clear advantage in effectiveness over the
alternatives and a slight economy advantage over the
coconut mat. [N]
The primary highway application for vegetative filter
strips is along rural roadways where runoff that would
otherwise discharge directly to a receiving water,
passes through the filter strip before entering a conveyance
system. Properly designed roadway medians and shoulders
make effective buffer strips. These devices also can
be used on other types of development where land is
available and hydraulic conditions are appropriate.
Flat slopes and low to fair permeability of natural
subsoil are required for effective performance of filter
strips. Although an inexpensive control measure, they
are most useful in contributing watershed areas where
peak runoff velocities are low, as they are unable
to treat the high flow velocities typically associated
with high impervious cover. The most important criteria
for selection and use of this BMP are soils, space,
and slope. Further guidance and stewardship practices
for installation and use of vegetated buffer strips
are available online. Also, see section 4.13, Establishing
Vegetation at Construction Sites.
|
| 4.5.8
Wind Erosion Control |
|
| < back to top >
|
Wind erosion control consists of applying water
and/or other dust palliatives as necessary to prevent
or alleviate erosion by the forces of wind. Dust control
should be applied in accordance with standard practices.
Covering of small stockpiles or areas is an alternative
to applying water or other dust palliatives. [N]
Following are stewardship guidance resources from EPA
and state DOTs:
|
| 4.5.9
Sediment Tracking Prevention |
|
| < back to top >
|
| Stabilizing Construction
Entrances/Exits
Stabilized construction roads and entrances/exits
are designed for the control of dust and erosion during
construction and maintenance projects. In wet weather
mud tracking occurs and in dry weather dust becomes
the issue.
- Stabilize construction exits and roadways with
aggregate, asphalt concrete, or concrete.
- Select the material used for stabilization based
on the anticipated road longevity, performance, and
site conditions.
Sediment tracking BMPs tend to be more effective
in combination. BMPs such as limiting exits, stabilizing
construction exits, and using existing paved areas
should be considered in all sediment tracking control
approaches. The following fact sheets from various
state DOTs and EPA include construction and implementation
guidance and stewardship practice:
Inspecting Adjacent
Roads
Inspecting and cleaning adjacent public and private
roads is an unavoidable obligation at each and every
construction site:
- Inspect roads near egress points commensurate
with their use. If an exit is used daily, then the
adjacent area should be inspected daily.
- Clean roads near egress points before every predicted
rain event and when visibly accumulated sediment has
been deposited at other times.
- Clean roads upon which dirt is hauled daily.
- Clean roads using proper equipment. Use sweepers
equipped with vacuums or a mechanical means of collection
and removal. Do not just push the sediment around
using only a mechanical broom.
- Do not use a water truck or other hydraulic means
to flush accumulated sediment on the roads into the
storm drain system.
- Limit egress points on the construction site to
greatly reduce the time and effort expended on sediment
tracking control. The fewer exits, the fewer areas
that will require inspection and eventual cleaning.
Entrance/Outlet Tire
Wash
A tire wash is an area located at stabilized construction
roadway egress points to remove sediment from tires
and undercarriages and to prevent sediment from being
transported onto public roadways.
- Construct on level ground when possible, on a pad
of coarse aggregate.
- Wash rack shall be designed for anticipated traffic
loads.
- Provide a drainage ditch that will convey the runoff
from the wash area to a sediment trapping device.
- Ditch shall be of sufficient grade, width, and
depth to carry the wash runoff.
- Remove accumulated sediment in wash rack and/or
sediment trap to maintain system performance.
- See Caltrans
Fact Sheet Entrance/Outlet Tire Wash,
Combining Recycling
and Effective Erosion and Water Quality Control
Claassen also performed a review of the published
literature on compost use and showed widespread use
of composts to control erosion and improve soil conditions,
with very few negative impacts. Protective mulch eliminates
most sediment transport. Large rates of yard waste
compost application have been shown to have low leaching
rates, making them suitable for regenerating topsoil
fertility and biological activity. Use of compost in
erosion control applications increases soil organic
content and increases microbial activity and populations,
in contrast to chemical fertilizers, which do not.
A thick compost layer can also improve access onto
soft soils and can reduce tracking of mud onto local
streets and into storm drains. Compost application
also offers nutrient benefits. Long-term improvements
resulting from compost application can be expected,
but short term results may be variable depending on
compost characteristics; considerable variability exists
between producers and with different batches from a
given producer. Evaluation of each product is needed
before application to field sites, but better methods
are needed for rapid evaluation of bioavailable nutrients
in composts for use in field situations. Claassen's
observations and state DOT and municipal recommendations
are summarized here:
- Use mulches in combination with revegetation
seeding or planting. The combination effect of
mulches plus revegetation seeding or planting gave
the greatest reduction in erosion on decomposed granite
(DG) materials in Idaho. [N]
Although erosion processes during the first year
after construction primarily involved mass wasting
and slumping, subsequent years were entirely surface
erosion processes such as rilling, raindrop impact
and splash detachment and dry creep, all of which
are effectively treated with mulch covers. [N]
- When soils are compacted during disturbance,
treatment by ripping improves hydraulic conductivity
and reduces surface runoff and erosion. [N]
This type of physical treatment may not restore the
natural hydraulic conductivity of an undisturbed
slope, however, because the pores formed may not
be continuous or may not persist through multiple
soil saturation cycles such as with winter rains.
- Compost and mulch applications can preserve
the open soil structure generated by ripping treatments. Wind
tunnel tests indicated that soil surface roughness
had little effect on reducing wind erosion or sandy
soils (80 percent of particles within 150 to 300
mm), but that application of 5.6 ton/ha (5000 lb/ac)
rates of garden and household waste compost (94 percent
less than 5 cm length) increased the threshold wind
speed for starting of wind transport from 6 m/s to
12-14 m/s. Composts were slurried onto the soil in
a hydroseed-like mix using 1 part compost to 4 parts
water with continuous agitation and then dried before
testing. [N]
- Compost compares favorably to shredded wood
with tackifier and synthetic or organic blankets
for erosion control. Texas Transportation Institute's
Hydraulics and Erosion Control Field Laboratory Performed
a study on compost application, testing three materials
on 1:3 slopes with both clay and sand loam textured
soils; these materials included co-compost (mixed
yard trimming and municipal sewage sludge), shredded
wood with polyacrylamide tackifier (6.75 kg/ha),
and shredded wood with a hydrophilic colloid tackifier
(56 kg/ha). The compost performed better and were
cheaper than the synthetic or organic blankets tested
by the facility. [N]
- Of various compost methods tested by Portland
Metro in nonpoint source pollution reduction "medium" mixed
yard debris compost blanket yielded the lowest total
suspended solids, surpassing sediment fence,
compost barrier, "leaf litter" compost,
hydromulch treatment, and coarse screened compost.
[N]
[N]
The project used both "coarse" compost
materials (containing chunks of wood and branches
up to 152 mm [6 in] in length) and "medium" compost
materials, the fraction remaining following screening
of the coarse compost through a 16-mm (5/8-in) trammel.
Results from subsequent Portland Metro demonstration
documented that compost filter berms (83% reduction)
can be twice as effective as sediment fences (39%
reduction) in reducing total solids (TS) in runoff.
[N]
Results from subsequent Portland Metro demonstration
projects suggest the following environmental stewardship
practices using compost application:
- Compost can be used to prevent vehicle and foot
trafficking of soil. A thick compost layer can
provide a surface covering for foot or vehicle traffic
onto soils that are otherwise too muddy and wet to
support traffic. A compost layer at the exit of a
site will reduce mud tracking onto local streets
and into storm drains. A 76-mm (3-in) layer of compost
was found to be effective.
- Compost screened to 38 mm (1½ in) or
less is recommended for erosion control on steeper
slopes. Slopes of up to 35 degrees were effectively
treated. The compost layer should be extended over
the top of the slope for 0.6 to 1 m (2 to 3 ft)
at a 300-to 450-mm (12- to 18-in) depth to diffuse
ponded water entering the top of the slope.
- Compost that has been screened to 19 mm (3/4
in( or less is recommended for slopes that
are to be landscaped. A moisture content of
less than 25 percent makes application most efficient
and enables the compost layer to readily adsorb
larger amounts of rainfall soil more readily than
immature compost.
- Compost may be applied by hydroseeder. This
technique replaces the low-nutrient cellulose or wood
fiber amendment with a higher nutrient material. Compost
screened to 3/8 inch has worked well in hydroseeders
and did not plug the pump or nozzles. Erosion control
was excellent with whole compost surface amendments.
Hydroseeded compost should be applied with straw in
order to provide structural strength. A typical application
sequence would be:
- Apply seed, 2000 kg compost/ha, 400-500 kg fiber/ha.
(A 20-25 percent fiber mixture is needed to create
a pumpable slurry.
- Apply 4 Mg/ha wheat or barley straw (3.5 Mg/ha
rice straw) evenly.
- Apply 3000 kg/ha straw, 600 kg/ha fiber, slow
release fertilizer (if needed), and 200 – 300
kg tackifier.
- Higher application rates of compost may be more
economically amended by dry application methods.
Two draft specifications on the use of compost for
erosion and sedimentation control have been reviewed
and approved by industry representatives and Technical
Section 1a of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials.
See AASHTO
Standard Spec for Compost for Erosion/Sediment Control
- Filter Berms, AASHTO
Standard Spec for Compost for Erosion/Sediment Control
- Compost Blankets, which specifies compost
blanket parameters and application rates. Compost Use
is also covered in section 10.13, Recycling in Roadside
Maintenance Operations for a review of the water quality
benefits of using compost.
|
| 4.5.10
Erosion Control Structure Removal |
|
| < back to top >
|
- When deemed by the Engineer to be no long required,
Erosion Control Structures should be removed by use
of an excavator, or other acceptable method approved
by the Engineer, so that all erosion control materials
and any retained sediment are excavated with minimal
disturbance of the underlying ditches or slopes.
- Removed materials and sediment should be disposed
of at a location approved by the Engineer, at least
100 feet from a watercourse and such that it cannot
wash into a watercourse.
- Upon removal of the erosion control structure materials
and retained sediment, the affected ditches and slopes
should be shaped to match into adjacent final ditch
and slope grades and immediately seeded as approved
by the Engineer.
|
|
| < back to top >
|
California is one of the leading states in developing
new technologies. Following is a link that consolidates
and standardizes information on new
technologies that are part of the Departments BMP
identification, evaluation and approval process. It
includes fact sheets for identified technologies. [N]
WSDOT's New
Products Committee evaluates products submitted
by vendors for use on WSDOT projects. Products meeting
material and installation specifications are automatically
added to the Qualified Products List. When no specification
exists for immediate approval, the product is thoroughly
evaluated by the appropriate material expert(s) on
the New Products Committee.
|
| 4.5.12
Performance Monitoring Systems and Specifications
for Contractors |
|
| < back to top >
|
| WSDOT Water Quality
Sampling Protocol for Construction Projects
WSDOT's Instructional
Letter 4049, Water Quality Sampling and Reporting
for Construction Projects, established monitoring
protocols to document whether WSDOT's most difficult
projects meet water quality standards, during the
most sensitive parts of construction and under the
most challenging weather conditions. WSDOT plans to
incorporate the content of this Instructional Letter
into the WSDOT Construction Manual during
its next revision. All construction sites are evaluated
and categorized based on their inherent risk of erosion.
Risk factors include size; timing and duration of
work; soils; slopes; groundwater levels; and the need
for in-water work. Runoff water from twenty percent
of the projects that meet the risk criteria is tested
during storm events and during critical periods of
in-water work. Monitoring results are used to both
evaluate specific project performance and validate
results of the TESC Assessment Database. The results
from the TESC Assessment Database and the water quality
monitoring are published and widely distributed in
WSDOT's Measures, Markers and Mileposts,
a quarterly document that tracks various agency performance
and accountability measures. WSDOT's statewide performance
with the 13 erosion control minimum requirements is
available on-line.
MDSHA System for 100
Percent Compliance in Construction Erosion & Sedimentation
Control
MDSHA believes the agency maintains one of the better
DOT enforcement systems in the country. To assess compliance,
MDSHA implemented a six-layer system that includes
independent quality assurance ratings for each project.
Certified Quality Assurance inspectors inspect projects
biweekly and rate the sediment controls on a letter
grade scale. Projects can be shut down based on these
inspections. Ratings for all projects are summarized
quarterly and annually to comply with the MDSHA Business
Plan. In the past the agency has pursued ratings of
B or better on 95 percent of construction projects
annually. As part of a primary agency commitment though,
the Chief Administrator is seeking to improve performance
to achievement of 100 percent compliance in construction.
NCDOT Delegated Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Performance Tracking
NCDOT has its own sediment and erosion control program
as delegated by the N.C. Sedimentation Control Committee
and the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. The Delegation Agreement has a self-monitoring
component that requires NCDOT to inspect its projects
for compliance with sediment pollution laws. Area Roadside
Environmental Engineers (AREE) inspect all TIP and
maintenance construction projects and whenever the
AREE sees a significant erosion problem on a Department
project that could result in issuance of a Notice of
Violation (NOV) from DENR, the AREE will issue a Immediate
Corrective Action (ICA) report to project personnel.
This notifies project personnel that corrective procedures
should be performed to resolve identified problems
immediately. ICAs and NOVs are tracked and measured
electronically and NCDOT has significantly raised environmental
stewardship statewide through the program.
Automated Instream
Monitoring at NCDOT
NCDOT is among those DOTs that have installed automated
in-stream monitoring equipment to verify that the DOT
is not contributing to a rise in turbidity, where water
quality standards are such that no additional discharges
worsening the TSS problem in local streams are allowable.
Caltrans Construction
Inspection Program
The California Department of Transportation (DOT)
construction inspection program employs multiple layers
of oversight to ensure compliance from its staff and
contractors. The California Department of Transportation
(DOT) stormwater program has developed a multi-level
construction inspection program that requires inspections
to be conducted by the contractor, the Resident Engineer
(RE), and consultant inspectors. These multiple levels
of construction inspectors ensure compliance with erosion
and sediment controls requirements and provides additional
assurance that inspections are being conducted and
BMP have been installed and are effective. Each inspection
type is discussed below:
Contractor inspections
Caltrans requires contractors, through contract provisions,
to conduct regular site inspections which are generally
weekly during the rainy season and biweekly outside
the rainy season. Contractors are also required to
inspect the construction site before, after and during
rain events. An inspection checklist (a copy of which
is contained in the SWPPP/WPCP Preparation Manual)
is required to be completed for each inspection and
submitted to the RE within 24 hours.
Resident engineer inspections
The RE is required to conduct inspections at the
same frequency as the contractor. Results of the inspections
are forwarded to the contractor for correction. The
RE may designate a SWPPP inspector to conduct the inspections
for the RE, but this person should be trained on SWPPPs
and have inspection experience.
Consultant compliance inspections
DOT contracts with a team of stormwater consultant
compliance inspectors that review DOT construction
projects statewide for compliance with NPDES permits.
These inspections by the third-party contractors, also
called the Storm Water Task Force, provide an independent
evaluation of construction site compliance statewide
in all Districts. DOT ranks projects with a priority
ranking of 1-3 depending on amount of soil disturbance,
location or project in a sensitive area, and the particular
rainfall area for a project. The priority ranking help
identify the frequency of inspections by the consultant
inspectors. Resident Engineers are provided at least
a 48-hour notification prior to any scheduled consultant
inspection.
During an inspection, the consultant inspector documents
the compliance status of the project in each of the
BMP categories on the checklist and summarizes the
inspection results on the first page. Since water pollution
control requirements vary by season different checklists
are used for the rainy season and the non-rainy season
in most Rainfall Areas. The checklists include BMPs
from six categories:
- Soil stabilization
- Sediment control
- Wind erosion control
- Tracking control
- Non-storm water management
- Waste management & materials pollution control
Only those BMP categories that are applicable to
a given Rainfall Area and season are included on the
checklist for a compliance inspection. Since the SWMP
requirements vary throughout the state, designated
Rainfall Areas may have separate inspection checklists.
Consultant inspectors use an alpha-numeric rating
system to provide the most accurate assessment of the
project's overall compliance with stormwater pollution
prevention requirements, while maintaining a regulatory
compliance approach. The inspector assigns a numeric
designation of 0 to 4 for compliance at the site, with
0 indicating the site is substantially in compliance
and 4 indicating the site has critical deficiencies.
The inspector also assigns a letter designation indicating
the effectiveness of the projects overall water pollution
prevention effort.
Following a review, the on-site project team has
the opportunity to appeal the compliance rating assigned
by the compliance inspector before the rating is finalized.
For sites with major deficiencies, District management
and Headquarters personnel are immediately notified.
In 2003, of the 255 projects inspected by the consultant
inspectors, 86 percent had zero or minor deficiencies
and 14 percent had major or critical deficiencies,
a record on which Caltrans has been able to continue
to improve.
Caltrans has also developed various stormwater guides
include BMP manuals, SWPPP review guides, BMP field
manual, and enforcement guide. In addition to the Caltrans
Stormwater Web site the Division of Construction
has developed a number of guidance documents to assist
DOT staff and contractors in implementing the stormwater
program. Some of these documents include:
- A Construction Site BMP Manual
- A SWPPP/WPCP Preparation Manual
- SWPPP/WPCP Review Guidance Manual
- Construction Site Storm Water Quality Sampling
Guidance Manual
- Construction Storm Water Coordinators Guidance
Manual
- BMP Field Manual and Troubleshooting Guide
- SWPPP/WPCP Templates and Samples
- Construction Site BMP Fact Sheet
Copies of these documents are available from the Division
of Construction Stormwater Page.
Contractor Disincentive
Specs for Inadequate/Improper Installation of BMPs
Thirteen state DOTs have implemented contractor disincentive
specifications, allowing fines or withholdings in case
of inadequate installation or maintenance of erosion
and sedimentation control BMPs. [N]
One such example is that of the Colorado Department
of Transportation, which is available in Section 208
of the department's specifications: CDOT
Erosion Control Contractor Disincentive Specification
on page 28. Essentially, the specification states
that "[t]emporary erosion and pollution control
measures required due to the Contractor's negligence,
carelessness, or failure to install permanent controls
as a part of the work as scheduled or ordered by the
Engineer or for the Contractor's convenience, shall
be performed at the Contractor's expense. In the case
of repeated failures on the part of the Contractor
in controlling erosion, sedimentation, or water pollution,
the Engineer reserves the right to employ outside assistance
or to use Department forces to provide the necessary
corrective measures. Such incurred direct costs, plus
project engineering costs, will be charged to the Contractor,
and appropriate deduction will be made from the Contractor's
monthly progress estimate. Accepted work performed
to install measures for the control of erosion and
sedimentation, and water pollution, not originally
included in the Contract will be paid for as extra
work in accordance with subsection 104.03."
Utah DOT also has a $500.00 penalty each calendar
day during which the project is in non-compliance with
permits and regulations. The fine is above and beyond
that assessed by regulatory agencies. Furthermore,
no extension of contract time is allowed for any project
delay resulting directly or indirectly from a violation.
[N]
WSDOT Application
of ISO 14001 to Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) Erosion Control Program has been working on
applying the standards of an Environmental Management
System (EMS) and ISO 14001 to proactively plan, implement,
and monitor effective Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control (TESC) efforts. To do so, the Erosion Control
Program performed an inventory and analysis of existing
internal policies, procedures, and guidance documents.
This allowed the Program to provide clarity and consistency
with new regulations and erosion control technologies
throughout the entire agency. To date, WSDOT has updated
the Plans Preparation Manual, Standard
Specifications for Erosion Control (Section 8-01) ,
Standard Plans Section I - Erosion Control , Highway
Runoff Manual , Design Manual, Construction Manual,
and Roadside Manual, to integrate Program improvements
into existing WSDOT directional documents.
The second step involved establishing operational
controls to address needs identified in the environmental
aspect review process. Analysis revealed inadequate
statewide standardization with WSDOT's erosion control
plans that address a comprehensive set of thirteen
minimum requirements. Internal discussions led to improved
best management practice selection, quality of erosion
control planning, and consistency with resource agency
guidance. A variety of training resources, described
in section 2.7, Environmental Training and Certification,
have been developed.
The WDOT Erosion Control Program's third step involved
creating compliance evaluation measures to monitor
performance, analyze data, and report the Program's
effectiveness. As part of this compliance effort, WSDOT
identifies and makes compliance visits to all construction
project sites in the state that possess a reasonable
potential for erosion problems. Site assessments evaluate
the quality of plans, implementation of the contract,
and effectiveness of the best management practices.
The assessment is viewed as an educational opportunity
and the assessor works closely with project staff to
solve any problems observed in the field. Program tools
include the Daily
Data Record Form and Excel
Summary and Monitoring Report Forms.
All assessment results are stored in the TESC Assessment
Database, providing Environmental Management System
document control. The database generates reports for
use at the project, regional, and state levels. Project
reports provide answers to 150 questions. Recommendations
are clearly identified and associated with precise
standard specifications to be applied in addressing
concerns. This report is the Program's primary technical
assistance tool, providing the respective agency managers
with a summary of all projects assessed and trends
associated with the 13 minimum planning requirements.
The state report provides the State Design Engineer
and the State Construction Engineer with an overall
picture of how the various regions are performing.
In addition, the database generates two other reports
specifically for use at the Erosion Control Program
management level. First, the minimum requirements report
determines how well the required planning components
are being satisfied, in addition to other key issues
that are instrumental in improving the Program. This
is accomplished by applying database filters not used
with the project, regional, or state reports. Second,
the best management practice report reveals the frequency
of use, correct application, maintenance, and overall
effectiveness of 37 practices.
A recent agency Instructional
Letter 4049, entitled Water Quality Sampling
and Reporting for Construction Projects , established
monitoring protocols to document whether WSDOT's most
difficult projects meet water quality standards, during
the most sensitive parts of construction and under
the most challenging weather conditions. WSDOT plans
to incorporate the content of this Instructional Letter
into the WSDOT Construction Manual during its
next revision. All construction sites are evaluated
and categorized based on their inherent risk of erosion.
Risk factors include size; timing and duration of
work; soils; slopes; groundwater levels; and the need
for in-water work. Runoff water from twenty percent
of the projects that meet the risk criteria is tested
during storm events and during critical periods of
in-water work. Monitoring results are used to both
evaluate specific project performance and validate
results of the TESC Assessment Database. The results
from the TESC Assessment Database and the water quality
monitoring are published and widely distributed in
WSDOT's Measures, Markers and Mileposts, a
quarterly document that tracks various agency performance
and accountability measures. WSDOT's statewide performance
with the 13 erosion control minimum requirements is
available on-line.
WSDOT found that the most effective method of achieving
change in construction is in partnership with the agency
Construction Office and with the construction industry
and by documenting the necessary changes and required
practices in those directional documents that govern
the construction process and in individual construction
contracts. Applying ISO 14001 Environmental Management
System standards provides compliance documentation
and a feedback mechanism. The TESC Assessment Program
provides an audit component, identifying 1) how well
WSDOT is protecting water quality; 2) what specific
areas need improvement; 3) what strategies should be
used to make improvements. The complete Erosion Control
Program approach was developed with input and broad
support of multiple stakeholders and reflects agency-wide
ownership of the solution. The program has been accepted
and institutionalized into the daily activities at
all levels of those responsible for designing and building
the state's transportations system. As a result, WSDOT
expects agency-wide performance to continually improve.
[N]
NHDOT Stormwater Quality
Retrofits
NHDOT staff regularly attend meetings with the Chocorua
Lake Association and other partners to monitor past
accomplishments, plan and program new initiatives,
and to share concerns and solutions with regard to
future DOT projects. After installation of Best Management
Practices at several highway culverts showed a reduction
of phosphorus input by over 80 percent, the partners
decided a long term commitment would best serve environmental
stewardship goals. The stakeholders developed an agreement
to protect and preserve the water quality of Chocorua
Lake for the indefinite future with regard to stormwater
management, requiring Best Management Practices in
both construction and maintenance activities. The Memorandum
of Understanding was the first of its kind between
the NH Department of Transportation and a private organization.
NHDOT anticipates using this MOU as a model for future
partnerships with other similar environmental groups
as opportunities become available.
|
| < back to top >
|
| |
| Continue
to Section 4.6 » |
| |
|