Sediment Control Measures
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Role of Geosynthetics in Erosion and Sediment Control: an Overview
Geotextiles and Geomembranes I I (1992) 535-550 The Role of Geosynthetics in Erosion and Sediment Control: An Overview M. S. Theisen Erosion Control Materials, Synthetic Industries, Construction Products Division, 4019 Industry Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416, USA ABSTRACT The use ofgeosynthetic erosion and sediment materials continues to expand at a rapid pace. From their early beginnings in the late 1950s, geosynthetic materials today are the backbone of the erosion and sediment control industry. Geosynthetic components are an integral part of erosion and sediment materials ranging from temporary products such as hydraulic mulch geofibers, plastic erosion control meshes and nettings, erosion control blankets and silt fences to high performance turf reinforcement mats, geocellular confinement systems, erosion control geotextiles andfabric formed revetments. This paper provides a brief overview of these materials and concepts. INTRODUCTION Hopefully we are entering a new environmental era where concern for the protection of our planet's natural resources will reach global proportions. Continued technological advances have led to improved monitoring of Earth's vital signs. As such, prior theoretical modeling of environmental concerns such as the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, rising sea levels, deforestation, drought, accelerated erosion, sediment loading of waterways, species extinction and the eventual downfall of mankind appear chillingly realistic. 535 536 M. S. Theisen Slogans such as 'Think globally, act locally', 'Love your mother' and 'Someone always lives downstream' are spearheading the efforts of numerous preservation groups. With the continued demise of oppressive governments, optimism for world peace and an unprecedented feeling of global unity, a spirit of environmental cooperation is beginning to prevail. -
Deposition Patterns and Rates of Mining-Contaminated Sediment Within a Sedimentation Basin System, S.E
BearWorks Institutional Repository MSU Graduate Theses Spring 2017 Deposition Patterns and Rates of Mining- Contaminated Sediment within a Sedimentation Basin System, S.E. Missouri Joshua Carl Voss Missouri State University - Springfield, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, and the Hydrology Commons Recommended Citation Voss, Joshua Carl, "Deposition Patterns and Rates of Mining-Contaminated Sediment within a Sedimentation Basin System, S.E. Missouri" (2017). MSU Graduate Theses. 3074. http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3074 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The orkw contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEPOSITION PATTERNS AND RATES OF MINING-CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT WITHIN A SEDIMENTATION BASIN SYSTEM, BIG RIVER, S.E. MISSOURI A Masters Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University ATE In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science, Geospatial Sciences in Geography, Geology, and Planning By Josh C. Voss May 2017 Copyright 2017 by Joshua Carl Voss ii DEPOSITION PATTERNS AND RATES OF MINING-CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT WITHIN A SEDIMENTATION BASIN SYSTEM, BIG RIVER, S.E. MISSOURI Geography, Geology, and Planning Missouri State University, May 2017 Master of Science Josh C. Voss ABSTRACT Flooding events exert a dominant control over the deposition and formation of floodplains. The rate at which floodplains form depends on flood magnitude, frequency, and duration, and associated sediment transport capacity and supply. -
State-Of-The-Practice: Evaluation of Sediment Basin Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures
Research Report No. 1 Project Number: 930-791 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE: EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT BASIN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES Prepared by: Wesley C. Zech Xing Fang Christopher Logan August 2012 DISCLAIMERS The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of Auburn University or the Alabama Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES Wesley C. Zech, Ph.D. Xing Fang, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE Research Supervisors ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Material contained herein was obtained in connection with a research project “Assessing Performance Characteristics of Sediment Basins Constructed in Franklin County,” ALDOT Project 930-791, conducted by the Auburn University Highway Research Center. Funding for the project was provided by the Alabama Department of Transportation. The funding, cooperation, and assistance of many individuals from each of these organizations are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank all the responding State Highway Agencies (SHAs) for their participation and valuable feedback. The project advisor committee includes Mr. Buddy Cox, P.E., (Chair); Mr. Larry Lockett, P.E., (former chair); Mr. James Brown, P.E.; Mr. Barry Fagan, P.E.; Mr. Skip Powe, P.E.; Ms. Kaye Chancellor Davis, P.E.; Ms. Michelle Owens (RAC Liaison), and Ms. Kristy Harris (FHWA Liaison). iii ABSTRACT The following document is the summary of results from a survey that was conducted to evaluate the state-of-the-practice for sediment basin design, construction, maintenance, and inspection procedures by State Highway Agencies (SHAs) across the nation. -
SEDIMENT BASIN (No.) Code 350
SEDIMENT BASIN (No.) Code 350 Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard I. Definition filter strips, etc., to reduce the amount of sediment flowing into the basins. A basin constructed to collect and store debris or sediment. The basin shall be located to intercept sediment before it enters streams, lakes, and wetlands. For II. Purpose maximum effectiveness, the basin must be located close to the sediment source. To preserve the capacity of reservoirs, lakes, wetlands, ditches, canals, diversions, waterways, and The capacity of the sediment basin shall equal streams; to prevent undesirable deposition on bottom the volume of sediment expected to be trapped at lands and developed areas; to trap sediment the site during the planned life of the basin or the originating from construction sites; and to reduce or improvements it is designed to protect. abate pollution by providing basins for deposition and storage of silt, sand, gravel, stone, agricultural Sediment basins meeting these design criteria are wastes, and other detritus. assumed to have an 80% trapping efficiency. III. Conditions Where Practice Applies volume = calculated erosion * planned life * SDR * trap efficiency * 23.5 ft3/ton This practice applies where physical conditions or land ownership preclude treatment of a sediment Where: source or where a sediment basin offers the most 3 practical solution to reduce sediment delivery to Volume = cubic feet (ft ) downstream areas. Calculated erosion = sheet and rill, gullies, etc. (Tons / year) Sediment basins having the primary purpose of controlling suspended solids loading and attached SDR= sediment delivery ratio pollutants from runoff with a permanent pool of Trap Efficiency Assumed to be 80% watershall meet the criteria set forth in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Standard If it is determined that periodic removal of 1001, Wet Detention Basin. -
Audubon Bend Gravel Road Repair Gavins Point Dam, SD
SPECIFICATIONS & DRAWINGS (Purchase Order - For Construction Contract) Solicitation Number W9128F21Q0018 ____________________________________________________________ Audubon Bend Gravel Road Repair Gavins Point Dam, SD March 2021 US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing. AUDUBON BEND GRAVEL ROAD REPAIR GAVINS POINT DAM, SD PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS 00 10 00-3 PRICING SCHEDULE STATEMENT OF WORK 00 73 00 SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS (SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS)FOR PURCHASE ORDERS DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01 22 00 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES 01 41 26.02 24 (NEBRASKA) NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES 01 57 20.00 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 01 57 23 TEMPORARY STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DRAWINGS -- End of Project Table of Contents -- Page 1 This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing. Audubon Bend Gravel Road Repairs, Gavins Point Dam, NE GP82 SECTION 00 10 00 PRICING SCHEDULE CLIN DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT BASE ITEMS 0001 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 JOB XXX $_______________ Blade entire length of road surface prior to placing gravel to smooth out 0002 1 JOB XXX $_______________ scour holes, rebuild crown. Includes areas over culverts. – 4,750 FEET Reset existing 24’’ CMP with flared 0003 ends to properly drain to North East – 1 JOB XXX $_______________ 1 EACH. Install new USACE provided 48’’ 0004 culvert with flared end (includes trees’ 1 JOB XXX $_______________ removal as necessary) – 1 EACH. Reconstruct approximately 270’ of 0005 eroded road at the existing culvert 720 CY $_______________ $_______________ (includes sodding and seeding). -
The Evolution of Geosynthetics in Erosion and Sediment Control
Presented at GRI-25, Geosynthetics Research Institute, Long Beach, CA, 2013 THE EVOLUTION OF GEOSYNTHETICS IN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL C. Joel Sprague TRI/Environmental, Inc., Greenville, SC ABSTRACT Much of the development of geosynthetics technology in environmental applications has been in response to government regulations. This is certainly true for geosynthetics used in erosion and sediment control. Geosynthetics continue to replace traditional materials such as soil and stone in performing important engineering functions in erosion and sediment control applications while simultaneously introducing greater versatility and cost-effectiveness. Geosynthetics are widely used as a “carrier” for degradable materials to the enhancement of vegetative establishment; as nondegradable materials to extend the erosion control limits of vegetation or soil; as primary slope or channel linings; as components in silt fences and turbidity curtains; and as a component in an ever growing array of sediment retention devices. Along with the introduction of geosynthetics into this wide range of applications has come the need for industry-wide initiatives to promote their correct use and new test methods to characterize them. All of which, are a “work in progress”. THE NEED FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS Much of the development of geosynthetics technology related to erosion and sediment control applications has been in response to government regulations. A progression of regulatory actions has brought a national focus on erosion and sediment control, including: Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1985) - eliminating discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters. The Clean Water Act (1987) - requiring National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for large construction sites. -
Sediment Basin
Water Resources Division Sediment Basin Definition Sediment basins are temporary ponds with appropriate control structures, used on construction sites to capture eroded or disturbed soil that are washed off during or after rainstorms or other runoff events. Sediment basins are designed to protect the water quality of nearby streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and to protect neighboring properties from damage. Some sediment basins are converted to permanent storm water controls following the completion of construction activity. Purpose and Description The primary purpose of sediment basins is to prevent sediment from entering streams, rivers, lakes, or wetlands. They do this by collecting and detaining runoff, allowing suspended solids to settle out prior to the runoff leaving a site. Sediment basins are also sometimes called settling basins, sumps, debris basins, or dewatering basins. Pollutant Controlled: Suspended solids Treatment Mechanism: Settling Removal Efficiency Sediment basins remove only 70 to 80 percent of medium- and coarse-sized sediment particles, so use them in conjunction with other erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Sediment basins are not effective at controlling fine soil particles such as silt or clay. Companion and Alternative BMPs Construction Barrier Mulching Polyacrylamide Riprap-Stabilized Outlet Seeding Sodding www.michigan.gov/deq MDEQ NPS BMP Manual SB-1 Rev20190208 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Sediment basins are a cost-effective measure for treating sediment-laden runoff from drainage areas ranging from five (5) to 100 acres in size, with soil particle sizes of predominantly sand, or medium to large silt. Sediment basins are relatively easy to construct. Disadvantages The construction and proper functioning of sediment basins require adequate space and topography. -
Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt. -
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Checklist
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan Checklist Page 1 of 4 What is an Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan? Erosion and sediment control is much more than silt fence and hay bales. Prior to developing an Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan (EPSCP), it is important to have minimized the areas of disturbed soils and the duration of exposure. It is also imperative to control water at up- slope site perimeters, control water on-site, control sediment on-site, and control sediment at the downslope site perimeters. An EPSCP is the final element in the erosion and sediment control planning process and a necessary component of an Act 250 permit application. The EPSCP ensures that sediment transport is addressed in one of the most crucial stages of the project: the planning stage. A good erosion prevention and sediment control plan first minimizes the extent of disturbance by focusing on erosion control (minimizing disturbed areas, seeding, mulching, matting) by controlling the amount of soil that can run off and by stabilizing exposed soil. Sediment control measures (i.e. stabilized construction entrances) then focus on any sediment that has escaped your erosion control measures. Erosion prevention measures are far more effective than sediment control measures (such as silt fence) and should be the primary focus of any EPSCP. An EPSCP has five primary components: 1. Location map (USGS and other) 2. Existing conditions site plan 3. Grading plan and construction timetable 4. Erosion prevention and sediment control site plan and timetable 5. Narrative briefly describing the four plans The location map shows the proximity of the site to any surface water bodies, roads, etc. -
Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Program Management Plan FFY 2016-2020
WISCONSIN’S Wisconsin’s NONPOINT SOURCE approach to addressing water quality impacts from PROGRAM nonpoint source MANAGEMENT PLAN pollution. FFY 2016-2020 Approved by EPA on September 18, 2015 Wisconsin’s Nonpoint Source Program Management Plan – FFY 2016-2020 Table of Contents Acronyms & Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 1 The State of Nonpoint Source Pollution Control in Wisconsin ..................................................... 4 Chapter 2 Monitoring and Assessment ....................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 3 Watershed Planning for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control ...................................................... 30 Chapter 4 Statewide Implementation Program for Protection & Improvement of NPS Impacted Waters .. 57 Chapter 5 Tracking, Evaluation & Reporting............................................................................................... 84 Chapter 6 Future Directions - Through FFY 2020 .................................................................................... 106 2 Wisconsin’s Nonpoint Source Program Management Plan – FFY 2016-2020 Acronyms & Abbreviations Agencies, Departments and Organizations EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FSA Farm Service Agency (part of USDA) FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service LCD County Land Conservation Department LWCD County Land and Water Conservation Department -
Reclamation of Tailings Ponds
Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2012 Volume 1, Issue 1, COMPARISON OF HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM TWO DIFFERENTLY RECLAIMED TAILINGS PONDS; GRAVES MOUNTAIN, LINCOLNTON, GA1 Gwendelyn Geidel2 Abstract: This study compares and evaluates the hydrologic characteristics between two kyanite ore process tailings ponds that were reclaimed with different reclamation strategies; one reclaimed with an impermeable membrane and the other with an open, surface reconfiguration (OSR) methodology. During the extraction and processing of kyanite ore from the Graves Mountain mine, Lincoln County, Georgia, fine grained tailings were produced. The tailings were transported by slurry pipeline to various tailings ponds which were created by the construction of dams using on-site materials. The first study site, referred to as the Pyrite Pond (PP), was constructed and filled during the 1960’s and early 1970’s. In early 1992, the PP was capped with an impermeable membrane, covered with a thin soil veneer and vegetated and in 1998 the upslope reclamation was completed. The second tailings pond, referred to as the East Tailings Pond (ETP), was constructed and filled in the 1970’s and early 1980’s and was reclaimed in 1995-96 by surface reconfiguration and the addition of soil amendments. Piezometers and wells were installed into the two tailings ponds and also in close proximity to the tailings ponds. While the initial study was aimed at comparing the two reclamation strategies, it became apparent that the ground water was a dominant factor. Results of the evaluation of the potentiometric surface data for varying depths within each tailings pond indicate that while both tailings ponds exhibit delayed response to precipitation events suggesting infiltration effects, the delay in the ETP deep wells and PP wells could not be adequately described by a surface infiltration model. -
5.00 Storm Water Pond Systems
This guidance is not a regulatory document and should be considered only informational and supplementary to the MPCA permits (such as the construction storm water general permit or MS4 permit) and local regulations. CHAPTER 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5.00 STORMWATER-DETENTION PONDS............................................................................5.00-1 5.01 Pond Design Criteria: SYSTEM DESIGN.........................................................5.01-1 5.02 Pond Design Criteria: POND LAYOUT AND SIZE.........................................5.02-1 5.03 Pond Design Criteria: MAIN TREATMENT CONCEPTS...............................5.03-1 5.04 Pond Design Criteria: DEAD STORAGE VOLUME .......................................5.04-1 5.05 Pond Design Criteria: EXTENDED DETENTION ...........................................5.05-1 5.06 Pond Design Criteria: POND OUTLET STRUCTURES ..................................5.06-1 5.07 Pond Design Criteria: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..........................5.07-1 5.08 Pond Design Criteria: SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................5.08-1 5.10 STORMWATER POND SYSTEMS..........................................................................5.10-1 5.11 Pond Systems: ON-SITE VERSUS REGIONAL PONDS ................................5.11-1 5.12 Pond Systems: ON-LINE VERSUS OFF-LINE PONDS ..................................5.12-1 5.13 Pond Systems: OTHER POND SYSTEMS.......................................................5.13-1 5.20 Ponds: EXTENDED-DETENTION PONDS..............................................................5.20-1