DOCSLIB.ORG

Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MANUAL WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 2006 REVISED AUGUST 29, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................1-1 Regulatory Requirements.......................................................1-2 State Water Quality Standards ...............................................1-3 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ................................1-4 Local Ordinances ...................................................................1-4 Endangered Species Act ........................................................1-4 Permitting for In-Stream Construction and Wetland Filling .1-5 DNR Stream Activity Application.........................................1-5 Federal Permits ......................................................................1-5 401 Water Quality Certification.............................................1-6 Acknowledgements................................................................1-7 Corrections .............................................................................1-7 Future Updates .......................................................................1-7 Chapter 2 How to Prepare a Sediment Control Plan .........................2-1 Section 1 General Guidelines.................................................2-3 Section 2 Step-By-Step Procedures .......................................2-5 12 Basic Sediment Control Plan Elements ............................2-7 Section 3 Checklist for Sediment Control Plans....................2-13 Chapter 3 Standards and Specifications ..............................................3-1 Erosion Control Preserving Existing Vegetation..............................................3.01-1 Stabilized Construction Entrance...........................................3.02-1 Temporary Construction Road, Work and Parking Area Stabilization...................................................................3.03-1 Safety Fence...........................................................................3.04-1 Rock Check Dams..................................................................3.05-1 Wattles ...................................................................................3.06-1 Commercial Silt Dikes ...........................................................3.07-1 Surface Roughening...............................................................3.08-1 Topsoiling ..............................................................................3.09-1 Temporary Seeding ................................................................3.10-1 Permanent Seeding.................................................................3.11-1 Mulching including Flexible Growth Medium and Bonded Fiber Matrix..............................................................3.12-1 Rolled Erosion Control Products ...........................................3.13-1 Sodding .................................................................................3.14-1 Temporary Diversions ...........................................................3.15-1 Pipe Slope Drain ....................................................................3.16-1 Outlet Protection ....................................................................3.17-1 Right of Way Diversion .........................................................3.18-1 Level Lip Spreader.................................................................3.19-1 Surface Water Control ...........................................................3.20-1 Instream BMPs.......................................................................3.21-1 Dewatering .............................................................................3.22-1 Riprap.....................................................................................3.23-1 Geotextiles .............................................................................3.24-1 Sediment Control Vegetative Buffer Strip ..........................................................3.25-1 Reserved.................................................................................3.26-1 Silt Fence ..............................................................................3.27-1 Super Silt Fence .....................................................................3.28-1 Sediment Trap ........................................................................3.29-1 Sediment Basin ......................................................................3.30-1 Reserved.................................................................................3.31-1 Reserved.................................................................................3.32-1 Inlet Protection.......................................................................3.33-1 Reserved.................................................................................3.34-1 Access/Low Volume Road/Driveways ..................................3.35-1 Chapter 4 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR-55) ............4-1 Chapter 5 Design Examples ..................................................................5-1 Sediment Basin Design Example...........................................5-1 Stormwater Management Pond Design Example ..................5-6 Chapter 6 Sample plans.........................................................................6-1 Individual house.....................................................................6 Typical Site grading ...............................................................6 Utility line ..............................................................................6 Chapter 7 Stream Restoration Standard Guidelines and Specifications .............................................7-1 Stream Restoration Introduction ............................................7 7-2 In-Stream Structures, Riffles and Pools.................................7.01-1 Constructed Benches and Floodplains ...................................7.02-1 New Channel Construction ....................................................7.03-1 Transporting Material on the Stream Bed..............................7.04-1 Chapter 8 Steep Slope Construction Guidelines in Areas Of High Slip Potential Soils ……............................................. 8-1 Steep Slope Construction Guidelines.....................................8-2 Drain Requirements .............................................................8-3 Bleeder Drain and Outlet Detail ............................................8-4 Bleeder Drain Parallel to Pipeline..........................................8-5 Trench Plug Drain Overview..................................................8-6 Trench Plug Drain Details. .....................................................8-7 Side Hill Construction.............................................................8-8 Side Hill Construction Drain...................................................8-9 Drain Outlet Requirements.....................................................8-10 Subsurface Drain (French Drain)............................................8-11 Seep Intercept Drain (Parallel to Trench)...............................8-12 Appendix A Glossary ................................................................................A-1 Appendix B Miscellaneous (MS4s and Endangered Species)................B-1 Appendix C References .............................................................................C-1 Appendix D High Slip Potential Soils by County....................................D-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.04.1 Physical Properties of Plastic Safety Fence ...........................3.04-1 Table 3.10.1 Temporary Seed Chart ...........................................................3.10-3 Table 3.11.1 Permanent Seeding.................................................................3.11-4 Table 3.11.2 Nurse Crops ...........................................................................3.11-6 Table 3.11.3 Permanent Seeding Requirements .........................................3.11-7 Table 3.12.1 Organic Mulch Materials and Application Rates...................3.12-5 Table 3.13.1 ECTC Standard Specification for Temporary Rolled Erosion Control Products .......................................................3.13-5 Table 3.13.2 ECTC Standard Specification for Permanent Rolled Erosion Control Products .......................................................3.13-6 Table 3.13.3 Permissible Velocities for Earth Linings ...............................3.13-7 Table 3.13.4 Permissible Velocities for Grass-lined Channels...................3.13-8 Table 3.15.1 Channel Cross Section Requirements ....................................3.15-4 Table 3.15.2 Channel Stabilization Requirements......................................3.15-4 Table 3.15.3 Permissible Velocities for Grass-lined Channels...................3.15-5 Table 3.15.4 Maximum Permissible Design Velocities..............................3.15-6 Table 3.16.1 Pipe Sizes for Pipe Slope Drain .............................................3.16-1 Table 3.17.1 Permissible Velocities for Grass-Lined Channels .................3.17-5 Table 3.17.2 Permissible Velocities for Earth Linings ...............................3.17-6 Table 3.18.1 Right-of-way Diversion Spacing ...........................................3.18-1 Table 3.21.1 Average Slope of Watershed .................................................3.21-7 Table 3.21.2 Stream Diversion Linings ......................................................3.21-9
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Structures Assisting the Migrations of Non-Salmonid Fish: USSR
    FAO Structures assisting FISHERIES TECHNICAL the migrations of PAPER non-salmonid fish: USSR 308 D.S. Pavlov Severtsov's Institute of the Evolutionary Morphology and Ecology of Animals Leninskii Prospekt 33 117071 Moscow B-71, USSR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 1989 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-42 ISBN 92-5-102857-5 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani- cal, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. 0 FAO 1989 PREPARATION OF THIS DOC UMENT The Working Party of Experts on Inland Fisheries of the Indo-Pacific Commission, at a meeting in New Delhi, India, in January 1984, recommended that information be collected on the use of fish-passes. s a result of this recommenda- tion, FAO commissioned a consultant to review stn ctures assisting migration of non-salmonid stocks in the USSR. The original manuscript has been subject to substantial editing by Drs R.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’S Resort, Arkansas
    Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’s Resort, Arkansas The 2006 meeting of the American Fisheries Society – Southern Division Trout Committee was called to order at 8:30 AM by Matt Kulp, Chair. A quorum of 10 members was present. Old Business Matt Kulp distributed the 2005 meeting minutes. Jim Habera made a motion for approval which was seconded by Doug Besler, and the minutes were approved by the membership. Frank Fiss gave a report on the SDAFS meeting held in San Antonio, Texas. A discussion about a proposed symposium on 2-story lake fisheries followed. There is not much information available yet, but the symposium will have invited papers on various issued concerning 2-story fisheries. Darrell Bowman gave the Treasurer’s report. A new account with Bank of America has been opened. Since the last Treasurer’s report, a check to AFS for the publication of the Southern Appalachian Brook Trout paper was written. Also, Jack van Deventer was reimbursed for attending the recent SDAFS meeting to discuss Microfish 3.0. Current balance is $4663 and about $1100 will be needed for the 2006 committee meetng. Mike Kruse made a motion to accept the Treasurer’s report and was seconded by Frank Fiss. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Habera discussed the electrofishing gear study to be conducted August 8-10, 2006. Anyone who would like to participate is welcome and should contact Jim. University of Tennessee researchers have reviewed other studies concerning comparisons of various types of electrofishing gear. Matt Kulp gave an update on Microfish 3.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015
    AnnualAnnual ReportReport 20152015 MassachusettsMassachusetts DivisionDivision ofof FisheriesFisheries && WildlifeWildlife 109 Annual Report 2015 Massachusetts Division of fisheries & WilDlife Wayne MacCallum (partial year) Jack Buckley (partial year) Director Susan Sacco Assistant to the Director Jack Buckley (partial year) Rob Deblinger, Ph.D. (partial year) Deputy Director Deputy Director Administration Field Operations Jim Burnham Debbie McGrath Administrative Assistant to the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Director, Administration Deputy Director, Field Operations Blank Page Inside Title Page>>> 4 Table of Contents The Board Reports .............................................................................................6 Fisheries ...........................................................................................................16 Wildlife .............................................................................................................30 Private Lands Habitat Management ................................................................47 Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program .........................................50 Information & Education ................................................................................61 Hunter Education ............................................................................................71 District Reports ................................................................................................73 Wildlife Lands ..................................................................................................88
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects
    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Field Guide for Contractors
    Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Field Guide for Contractors Maine Department of Environmental Protection ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Production 2014 Revision: Marianne Hubert, Senior Environmental Engineer, Division of Watershed Management, Bureau of Land and Water Quality, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Illustrations: Photos obtained from SJR Engineering Inc., Shaw Brothers Construction Inc., Bar Mills Ecological, Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) and Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: The following people participated in the revision of this manual: Steve Roberge, SJR Engineering, Inc., Augusta Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc., Yarmouth Susan Shaller, Bar Mills Ecological, Buxton David Roque, Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry Peter Newkirk, MaineDOT Bob Berry, Main-Land Development Consultants Daniel Shaw, Shaw Brothers Construction Peter Hanrahan, E.J. Prescott William Noble, William Laflamme, David Waddell, Kenneth Libbey, Ben Viola, Jared Woolston, and Marianne Hubert of the Maine DEP Revision (2003): The manual was revised and reorganized with illustrations (original manual, Salix, Applied Earthcare and Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc.). Original Manual (1991): The original document was funded from a US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Clean Water Act grant to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Non- Point Source Pollution Program and developed
    [Show full text]