USVI Public Records

Document text

N O T I C E THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM MICROFICHE. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE ----- i ATTACHMOT A SEDIMENT I CONTROL LAWS (NASA -C:H- lbit 132) SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT N81-21431 CUNTUUL LAWS.. A 'REVIEW OF STATE LAWS AND THEI. l NATURAL EESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS (National C:onfereace of State Legislatures) Uncl,as 110 p HC A06/MF A01 CSCL 05A , G3/43 20384 A REVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS AND THEIR NATURAL RESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS 6?^e Prepared By Susan B. Klein Natural Resource Information c ystemsProject National Conference of State 'Legislature SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAWS A REVIEW OF STATE LAWS AND THEIR NATURAL RESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS Prepared By: Susan B. Klein Research Analyst The National Conference of State Legislatulres wishes to express its appreciation to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for its support and cooperation in producing this document. i a Acknowledgements The National Conference of State Lry`islatures wishes to express apprecia- tion to those who provided materials used in this document. Their support and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Natural Resource Information Systems Project Staff Paul A. Tessar: Director Loyola M. Caron: Staff Associate SusR^-^i B. Klein: Research Analyst 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number SECTION1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION II: SUMMARf OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND THEIR PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SECTION III: COMPARISON OF STATE TRENDS TOWARDS REGULATING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIE . .. . . . . 11 COMPARISON OF STATE NATURAL RESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 SECTION IV: MEETING NATURAL RESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS . . . . . 19 SECTION V: STATE PROFILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Deleware 25 * Co District of lumbia 27 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 33 Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6; New'Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 NewJersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 New fork* 69 North Carolina 71 Ohio . . . . . . . 73 Pennsylvania . . . 79 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Virginia 1 91 Virgin Islands 95 SECTION VI: SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLE CONCERNS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 SECTION VII: APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Appendix A - Legislative Review of Administrative Regulations . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 103 Appendix B - State Landsat Applications and Natural Resource Information Systems . . . . . . . 109 BI BL I OGRAPH V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 SECTION I INTRODUCTION Removing sediment and other non-point pollution from the nation's waterways is an important part of the water quality improvement effort taking place under Publ'ic Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the .;lean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217). Section 208 (Water Quality Management) of the Clean Water Act requires development and implementation of areawide water quality management plans containing management and regulatory programs to control point and non-point: source pollution. The planning process is generally referred to as "208 Planning". Conservation districts, which are subdivisions of state governments and cover virtually all of the privately owned land in the nation, have been involved in programs designed to reduce soil erosion and related non-point pollution since their inception: in the 1930's. Until recent years, such programs were volun- tary, but with the emergence of new demands for clean water and a rapid shift in land use from agricultural to nonagricultural uses which have accelerated the processes of soil erosion and sedimentation, many states have enacted leg- islation maKing sediment control mandatory. The purpose of this report is to summarize state legislation providing for erosion and sediment control and de- fine the data requirements of these programs. lwenty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have enacted erosion and sediment control legislation during the past decade. These laws provide for the implementation or the strengthening of statewide erosion and seuiment control plans for rural and/or urban lands. This report quotes and reviews that legislation and the state programs developed to implement these laws and extracts the natural resource data requirements of each program. The legislation includes amendments to conservation district, laws, water quality laws, and erosion and sediment control laws. Also included is a summary of legislation which provides for legislative review of administrative rec ,ala- tions (Appendix A) and a summary of Landsat applications and/or informfltion systems that have been involved in implementing or gathering data for a speci- fic soil erosion and sediment control program (Appendix B). A summary of principal concerns affecting erosion and sediment control laws is also pro- viued for in Section VI of this report. Fifteen of the 22 erosion and sediment control programs are regulatory. All the laws contain some provision for enforcing conservation requirements, most of which involve three general types of regulatory mechanisms: (1) an ap- proved erosion and sediment control plan required for land-disturbing activi- ties; (2) an approved plan for issuing a permit for an activity involving land-disturbing activities; (3) requirement for compliance with established permissable soil loss limits. Some of the laws are broad, whereas others deal with specific areas of concern. Regulations established in each state are generally required to: (1) be based upon relevant physical and developmental information concerning the watersheds and drainage basins of the state; (2) include appropriate surveys ',) identify areas with critical erosion and sedi- ment problems; and, (3) contain conservation standards for various types of soils and land uses which must include criteria, techniques, and methods for erosion and sediment control. -3- A. .1 ... SECTION II IDENTIFICATION OF STATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAWS AND THEIR PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGISLATION Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Act Del. Ann. Code Chapter 40, Title 7, July 12, 1978 District of Columbia Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1977 D.C. Law 223, September 23, 1977 Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 Ga. Code Ann. Secs. 5-230la-5--2313a Hawaii Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Hawaii Rev. Stats. Ch. 180-C Illinois Soil and Water Conservation District Act S.H.A„ Ch. 5, Sec. 106-138.10 Iowa Soil Conservation Districts Law I.C.A. Sec 467A.1-467A.53 Maine Water Pollution Abatement Licensing Program Me. H.P. 1185-L.D. 1458, Approved June 8, 1979 Maryland Sediment Control Act Ann. Code Md., Nat. Res., Sec 8-1101--8-1108 July 1, 1970 Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Mich. Stats. Ann Secs. 13.1820(1)-13.1820(17) Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Minn. Stats. 40.01-40.15 Montana The Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975* R.C.M. Sec. 26-1510--26-1523 Nevada Act Providing for the Control of Water Pollution from Diffuse Sources * Nev. Rev. Stats. Sec. 445.131 et seq.; Nev. A.B. 572 May 26, 1979 New Hampshire Dredging Law * N.H. RSA 149:8-A New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act N.J. Stats. Ann. Sec. 4:24-17.5--4:24-55 New fork Soil and Water Conservation Law McKinneys Cons. Laws or' N.f., Book 52-B North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 Gen. Stats. N.C. Secs. 113A-50- 113A-66 -6- Ohio Agricultural Pollution Abatement and Urban Sediment Pollution Abatement Ohio HB 513, Approved Oct. 13, 1978 Page's Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Secs. 1515.01.30, .32, .33, .99 , 307.79 , .791; 6111.04 , .44; 305.31, . 32 , . 35 , .42 Pennsylvania The Clean Streams Laws of Pennsylvania 35 Pa. Stats. Secs. 691.1 et. seq. South Carolina County Sediment Control Programs Code of Laws of S.C. Secs. 48-13-10---48-13-60 South Dakota Act to Regulate Land-disturbing Activities Within the State, Resulting in Soil Erosion and Sediment Damage S.D.C.L. Secs. 38-SA---38-8A-21 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Act Code of Va. Tit. 21, h.l, Secs. 21-89.1---21.89.15 Virgin Islands Environmental Protection, Shore and Erosion Control V.I. Code Tit. 12, Secs. 531-538 *Law includes authority for erosion and sediment control among other authorities. -7- SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (A reference to the particular law will beessential for complete explanation of provisions) s • : i1 • 19 #A w 41011 i : aT r PAnV1SIGH TYPE OF STATE LAW, x x z _-+ ' 1 N CTLnne nc rnuTnni ^. =LD required land Aistutbance 3 z x 2l x 26 1 11 Fst2blighmitnt of sail l oss limits x Porrnits gn basis of in a ggroved plan x x x x X x X x i t a 7 x x at:cmttarry rnucecn 1Vatural resaurce3 11 117 x 1 1 : Land x z x x x x I x I X r x 25 x 1 x: x -Sad z x x x x 1 X x x x x: x x —Water z x z z x x: z z x x: u x x x x z x it x Iz Streams an treambank 3 x x : X: cvcuwnnua C®nu i Auu no 6GnM PPIaAI TIPS Aoriculture and horticulture 43 x x 1 1 144 37 1 19 33 X x 4 1 S x Minine x 1 II x x x x Homes or small sues _ z x x x X 6 x I x z Hi hwa or -railways x x Minor land disturbances x x x x x 1 X i RI X X 4 24 Cost sharing assistance unavailable x x x STATE CONTROL AGENCY Soil and Water Ci2rservation I x I z x l 1 I I x x x atut i 0e 4 : x :: : ► Ix x x Other 30 15 18 321 1381 20 9 40 42 121 29 13 9 reUgnsibilities: — State Oeveloo noliciesand prostims x I x I x x X I x x x Develop criteria t nd r guidelines x x' x 16 x x x x x x x X x x x x x x Adoot rule anct regulations x 1 1 X X z: x x x X x x: x A argve local orograms or fans z: x z x 11 x x x x 1 1 1 z P.rlorm enforcement functions x x x z x I x z a: x : Assist !ocal mencie with: Ordinances regulations, and proqrarns 1 x x x x X X 1 I X x Enforcement III 1 1 1 i Cost sharin x : x x x 22 x Approve state and !ederai aaenct 01ans I Ad o t ,ro ram if iocal 3 • en !ails to do so z x I x x I I x X I NOTE. an " s" roicates :Mat 'he iesPective iaw contains the 0rovision isled, numbers refer 10 'ootnotes. -3- 1. Authorities contained in laws and ravine Iant 2 1 Acceptable plan rewired at sits of activity 1. session control Practices my not be ;rived an land used fa such PurKSN only t. Execpted free prNt nesiresenb ly /. Eace►t es to radial, auwatin. or lt11,4 d, Except /n Calvert County ], within city lielts e. Oeperteeht of Fish and Gar 0, Odprtmt of Eavireowtai Anourc s 10. fty include penits, inspection. complaints, violation Procedures. enrol, other legal actions iL 'r, ountcialitis not within a district 12. Speciai provision for •argancy act tan 13. Oirltion of Soil and water District$ 14, Air one other resources 15. Division of Invironantal Protection of the Department of natural Aesewrca td. Establish by law 17. And other resources 14, Deartaent of heclth 1►, person GROIN In aricultwe -he haw* soreeertts with conservation districts are not subject to tits ►tam, lend roe Flood, or O*Mts, but an subject to sootesett 20. Oep►teent of Aricultum 21. Secretary of Agriculture am cAteslaer of ImNrar.ntal Protection 32, WAY esslst with rants 27. Unification 24. Eeatromy rapin 15. Agricultural land as described in the 1t 2d, emuind when district dattAines that an agricultural lan"Isturbing activity is vlalatlht adopted standards 2]. ►omit issuing authorities ant radio ire ccxp llance with district atatiards 26. opsrteen of Public Pmts 22. hC Sedisentation control Camission 30. Oc Oepartent of tfivironvental Services 31. DC Agencies mmppg^ ed in land disturbing acttv^ties 32, state onomeant of Ayriculture 33, Certain Specified exception 26, Anoures Oes irtmot of Mature t and Envirof" to) control 31, politics) suodtviHons not orw.ludPo free adopting are at',"", ""no 3e, tlsste dlsehar/e license nVatnd for discharge of any Pellutant M per agricultural activities bovinl an approved erosion and sedtesnt control plan or conservation plan so. pare of Environeentai protection 29. Initial design of project must P"I" a ourn to Prevent Pollution 40. State Envirarnal embisslm al. Scsv, onartaerit of conservation and Natural ►sources my Relapse atherity as to lea ANPwater spiny pe11ee1on a2. control emossion u. Attwnsy Gomal ruled Ent protective store water ansunf my be teposed by districts under the law As. Lesion control practices as defines in statute my not be reuirad an agricultural land As, forestry SUMMAPY OF PRINCIPAL PRQVISIONS OF STATE LAWS PROVIDING FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL io Q s t7 to S ? iii 3'. T. ^ I ^,.' ^ = i M = ^ i A i ^ f9 _ = sA ew '^ S ^ ? : I e ^ ^ n ^ 'r ^ ^ '^ ^ t[ r ^ i S = • ^ • r w ^ ^ ^ ^ Pf = 6i r Y • Y s • _ W PROVISIONS s LOCAL CONTROL PROGRAM i Participating local aaencles: x x 31 x x XT-1 x x x x x X x E X1 11 x x f Conservation districts ountles x x x x X x X X x 41 x X x Cites x x x X x x x alt x x x x x x owns or townships x ;I KI X x X x CONSERVATi O N OIS4CT RESPONSIBILITIES Review and approve erosion and sediment control plans x x x X x x z X x x x x x 261 :_ x Es"Wish -.04 loss 5mir^ , X X1 x Assist county or other local agency develop ord; , s nances or regulations f x I x x x x X x Adopt standards. criteria, guidelines 31 x x x x x X : x Adopt rules and regulations I x I I I X x Perform enforcement functio ns 10 x x x: I I X1 x 12 x : x Ado pt an er os ion and sedimentcontrol program x x X I x I il —x COUNTY. CITY. TOWN. OR TOWNSHIP RESPONSIB IUTIES Adopt programs x 33 k X1 1 141 X x x x x Review and approve plans x 11 x I IX X x x x Adopt ordinances x X x x y x x X X X x x Issue permits on basis of a pproved plan x x r i I I I X IJ x X 23 x x Perform enforcement functions 10 x x x x x X x x x x X x x x Issue rules and regulations x x i i I I X I x I Tr— z FOOTNOTES r :v a ^h13! N .^ K t^+^ Note: This is a revised Summary of which the original was provided by the National Assa:.iation of Conservation Districts, "Nonpoint Ncte" No. 26, November 5, 1919 —3— SECTION III MATRIX 1: COMPARISON OF STATE TRENDS TOWARDS REGULATING LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES MATRIX 2: COMPARISON OF STATE NATURAL RESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS d regu 1 fit ing Ian a permit and/or Lo conduct the the contents of developed by the and soil and w on and sediment and sediment c meet the need of areas requiring d^-disturbing erosion and activity is the erosion state lead Ater cogscr•- control pro- ontrol plan controlling data collec- This section compares trends between states towar acLivities. The first matrix portrays whether sediment control plan is required before a permit granted. State standards have been set regulating and sediment control plan. These standards are agency and adopted by the counties, municipalities votion districts. Roth the state and local erosi grain and to some extent the individual's erosion must be based on general natural resource daa to erosion on the most fragile soils. The primary Lion within the state programs are: • Permit issuance • Compliance with state standards • Establishing soil loss limit:, • Conservation plan development The second section shows general natural resource data requiremen from the state regulations. An explanation of what each category lows this Matrix. The numerical code used in the following matrix is: - Permit Required - regulatory - Permit Not Required - voluntary - Exempt from. Rules and Regulations ts extracted entails fol- -12- .^ . t. ,.r... ..^ M M r•-4 rl '-•^ M N r1 M II N r♦ N M N N N i N N i N N ii M M r♦ t-'1 M r-1 rr1 ,--r Cv r1 M M .-o M ON N LLJ r^ U F- N F- d U ¢ I za ca u I ^ Z QJ C.'3 Z Z i Q ^, W Ln G tY 3 ^+ O 7- Z C]C 11J H W i a i H i N J LL- C) z N V 1a,1 d ra N r-4 i r-/ -4 r-I r-4 1-f r-4 r-+ ", IM r4 I r♦ M M i i M Ch M M N M M M r, N CV N C\! r-} I V-4 N r4 N M I ^I N N M I (Y) r-r rti r♦ r1 M M N V-4 1 N s CT C 1 N 1 X G1 C O m -as ffo a L.- L O N CA •r (a •r- Y L R3 C1 N CL1 r= N N C M O +•) c O Ln t C •r 4J LL b O cm \ `r C ix U b 4J (1) •r• i-) to \ im U L 07 ^ N •r 7 co C r U t7b C > 4- L (n +J Cif S L RJ M •r L •r 4J 4) •r U F^ •r •r ,k .0+^ O W U iJ U O 4- •r C L r U/ L N •r U O i-) V(a o c41 0 V) c L L to (o .0 c o o L to = L U 4-)= M O L. (0 •r -r O +J L. O O t L C1 L r- L = Q t/9 W 3 W o- ^ C3 x N N C9 d C. U N W <a. U O -13- X X X a< X X X X x X X C? X X X ;.-t X X X X tJ') U X X X X X X X X N X x x X x X x x S X X X X X X X X X O X X X x X X X V) W Z x X X X X W Z X 9G X X X X X X X W S X X X X X d: Z h ? x x X X X Z N O V ►X-^ X X x X X CC C:) X x x x x x u.: cr- ►-+ x x X x X o ,^ x x x x X X X x x Z ui X X X X X x X X W d F-- x X X X x x X X x X JH x x X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 X X X X x X X X W x X X X X X X N •C C C ° •tn rn a^i t0 s- C > ¢ to (a o co n O O t LO. Z7 Q141 4•^ T^ O +-. 0. U d) r- 4 -) r 4) 4) C ' Ln tn t0 A d .G Rf r A O to cc L t0 i C1 L. u IO 01 L r 0. to (a Vf i-) r 0) +-) to cr) O r = •r- +) O i 7 4J v► 41 C i to CL > V 4) r O r to +, +i N r a O C C Cft r m O +j N •r r6 O +-► r0 O t0 3 (0 4J i L p b 41 O O 4) O •r- L O U (0 4) t S. O i t0 O U U J ? N f- C7 F- CD U U W 3 2: N f- w G 3 Li -14- MAJOR DATA CATEGORIES A. Cropland Conversion Pasture offers one of the greatest opportunities to increase forage production and decrease erosion. The erosion rate on cropland is substantially higher than on pastureland,, Loss of pasture to cropland is, therefore, a serious threat to contro"fling erosion in rural areas. Monitoring the conversion is necessary to inform management agencies of the extent of the problem which could also identify critical areas in need of immediate attention. B. Land Use In many states, rapid shifts in land use from agricultural and rural to non- agricultural and urbanizing uses have accelerated the process of soil erosion and sediment deposition, resulting in polluted waters. Land use maps and information are necessary to determine the extent of the urbanization problem, prime farmland that should remain the same and the capacity and productivity of the land being threatened by development. Land use maps could also help determine the impact urban activities would have on adjacent land uses and water bodies. C. Vegetation Existing vegetation helps stabilize soil movements and should be identified and used in development activities to prevent erosion. Vegetation information is necessary in order to effect revegetation to minimize erosion and stabilize disturbed areas. Temporary vegetative cover (temporary fast growing seed- lings) is effective for areas subject to erosion for up to twc"eve months or until the establishment of permanent vegetative cover (trees, shrubs, vines, sod, grasses, and legumes.) Permanent vegetative cover is applicable on highly eroded areas where vegetation is difficult to establish by normal seed- ing or planning methods. D. Soils Information about soils and their limitations is necessary to indicate pro- perties important to soil stabilization. The necessary information incudes: 1. type 2. depth 3. slope 4. permeability 5. erodibility factor 6. limitation for urban uses 7. sediment yield 8. soil productivity and use 9. average annual soil losses for cropland, pasture and forest Poor soils that are identified from the soils data should be converted to pas- tureland to retard erosion. Soil-related information is also necessary when determining permanent vegetative cover used in controlling critical erosion problems. ',4Y 'M. -15 E. Topography/Geology Topographic data is necessary to provide slope information to identify natural barriers to erosion. This information can be displayed through topography/ contour maps and can be used in development plans which are required to con- form to topography to create the lowest erosion potential. Water bodies and location of roads can also be displayed on topographic maps. Geologic information is necessary. It can be used to impose spec ial condi- tions to prevent damage caused by 4.eo , ion . F. Total Acreage Disturbed Determining the extent of erosion and sediment damage is necessary before con- trol measures can be imposed. For extensively damaged areas, obtaining this information is more practicable through the application of remote sensing techniques. G. Critical Areas and Areas With Potential for Degradation Identifying this information is necessary to determine which areas are in immediate need of erosion control practices. Remote sensing tccnniques could best accomplish this task or support preliminary findings. H. Coastal Ecology To properly manage coastal resources and control beach erosion, several states with coastal boundaries have mandated their erosion control program to provide for erosion control measures in coastal tone areas. For this reason, infor- mation on the ecology, land use and erosion potential of these areas is necessary. I. Water Protecting state waters from sediment deposition is the main purpose of ero- sion control. Water bodies and navigable waters must be, identified before strategies to control erosion and prevent pollution of state waters are under- taken. State waters already extensively damaged by sedimentation also need to be identified to dirert immediate erosion control practices to damaged areas. J. Measuring Shorelines and Transportation Routes As frequent locations of land-disturbing activities (i.e. from forestry opera- tions, development and waste disposal activities) streambanks, lakeshores, roadside sites, dams, reservoirs, rivers and harbors need to be monitored for extent of erosion and sedimentation damage and measured to determine the area within the state's jurisdiction subject to resource management. K. Drainage Basins/Watersheds The boundaries of a watershed and drainage basin need to be defined. These boundaries are used as the basis for data collection, storage analysis and retrieval. -16- i L. Forests k Much damage to forest strearas is caused by soil erosion and sedimentation ti during logging operations. Several states have incorporated provisions for regulating forest product harvesting operations to minimize disturbance to forest soil/cover and accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation. For this reason, forest product harvesting and reforestation operations need to be mon- itored to determine their impact on stream erosion. Conversion of forest land to other uses and forest road construction are also activities of special interest to resource managers. -17- SECTION IV MEETING NATURAL RESOURCE DATA REQUIREMENTS ^+s °^,^x ' ^;; SAN': 19- i The need to acquire and use large amounts of natural resource data has led to the development of natural resource information systems in many states. These information systems bring together and organize data resources providing timely, cost-effective and objective information for decisionmaking in policy formulation and for developing and managing programs. Critical questions can be addressed with an information system by providing a formal process for collecting, storing, processing and delivering data to those who need it. Government agencies involved in planning, developing, managing and conserving soil resources can use a natural resource information system to fulfill their statutory or administrative responsibilities in a cost-effective manner. As illustrated in Matrix 2 in section III, (State Natural Resource Data Require- ments), state erosion and sediment control programs require a substantial amount of natural resource data to be acquired, analyzed and interpreted be- fore and during program implementation. Most of the states implementing an erosion and sediment control program use soils data and other natural resource data acquired from conventional U.S. Soil Conservation Service Maps, low alti- tude aerial photographs and costly ground sampling techniques to meet data requirements. Eleven states (Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia) are using remotely sensed data and/or an information system to meet natural resource data requirements. With an information system, soils, topographic and geologic data acquired from field surveys and maps can be stored together with remotely sensed data (aerial photos and Landsat data tapes). The re- motely sensed data, when displayed as maps and map overlays and combined w;th field inventory and map data, can be useful in the assessment of water quality and soil erosion problems and can determine the severity of the problem in a particular drainage basin. The ability to access information based on geographic location is clearly advantageous because virtually all natural resource data are collected on a site specific basis. Retrieval of data is greatly simplified when an indi- vidual oas the option of specifying the geographic boundaries for which data are required, thereby automatically retrieving only that information which is relevant to the area under consideration. A person studying sedimentation and stream erosion problems for a particular river could define the boundaries of a river's watershed and then request all pertinent information for that area (rainfall, soil types, land cover, etc.). Further, the data can then be dis- played as maps, visually illustrating the location of various phenomena in relation to each other. As mentioned, Landsat is an effective tool for inventorying and analyzing natural resources and is being used for this purpose by many state agencies. It is an effective means of helping to meet natural resource data requirements of state erosion and sediment control legislation. Landsat provides informa- tion efficiently on current land cover, surface water location and vegeta- tion. Cost effectiveness and ability to monitor resources for change (global coverage is provided every eighteen days) are some of the advantages of Land- sat over aerial photography and other data sources. The appropriate use of Landsat derived information with other data sources can best be achieved with the framework of a statewide comprehensive natural resource information system. "Appendix B" summarizes state applications of Landsat and/or natural resource information systems used in meeting natural resource data require- ments of various conservation programs concerned with controlling non-point source pollution. i I -21- Landsat Applications Landsat, provides the best means available to provide necessary updates of land cuver data. More specifically, natural vegetation, coastal ecology, beach erosion, watershed boundaries and other surface features can be monitored. Landsat is useful for detecting changes in earth-surface features or activ- ities. The repetitive coverage is ideal for monitoring urban expansion, deforestation, and a host of other items of interest in land resource planning and managment. Changes can be detected either through manual interpretation or by means of special computer techniques. Frequent applications of Landsat could include: Land Use/Land Cover Mapping Change Detection Detecting Water Pollution Sources Locating and Mapping Surface Water Bodies Detecting Coastal Land Use Change Measuring Shorelines Tracing Beach Erosion Crop Inventories Forest Harvest Monitoring Vegetation Mapping Monitoring Strip Mining and Strip Mine Rf^clamation Studying Man's Impact on Land The above applications are also useful in helping to detect non-point pollu- tion sources (those generated over large areas such as feed lots, agricultural fields and harvested forests). SECTION V STATE PROFILES -23- DELAWARE TITLE: Erosion and Sediment Control Act Del. Ann. Code Chapter 40, Title 7 Adopted July 12, 1973 LEAD AGENCY: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control STATE CONTACT: Lee Emmons, Program Manager Division of Soil and Water Conservation Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Tatnall Building Dover, Delaware 19901 302/736-4411 DEL AWARE'S EROSION AND SEDIMENT CON TROL PROGRAft' Introduction Enacted in 1978, the Erosion and Sediment Control Act was a direct result of the development of a federally approved Coastal Mana gement Program for the State of Delaware. Through the development of a more coordinated and compre- hensive system for managing coastal resources, the Erosion and Sediment Control Act was passed. Directed primarily at large-scale construction pro- jects, the Erosion and Sediment Control Act marks a milestone in the state's efforts to protect its valuable water resources. While the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control is the lead agency., local units of government have primary responsibility for imple- menting the erosion and sediment control program. The program requires an ap- proved and certified erosion and sediment control plan for land-disturbing activities. Unfortunately, the $50,000 appropriated to carry out the purpose of the chapter was not funded. Hence, no programs have been implemented yet. Major Program Feature s 1. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control was required to oevelo'p and coordinate a comprehensive state erosion and sediment control program. Implementation required the Department to develop and adopt., no later than six months from the effective date of the Act, regulations for erosion and sedi- ment control. 'The regulations provide for escrow accounts or performance bonds to insujrr that any person engaged in land-disturbing activities be held financially responsible. -25- ',.rL.••.•^'i,TYi t.Y4^ibt14 ` SAi. 2. Each district in the state was requires, within one year after the adop- tion of the state regulations, to develop and adopt a soil erosion and se g -ment control program consistent with the state program and regulations for Erosion and sediment control. Before adopting a new or revised district pro- gram, a public hearing must be conducted. 3. After adopting a new or revised district program, the district is required to submit the program to the Department for review and approval. if 3 dis- trict fails to submit a program consistent with the state program within a specified period, the Department must develop and adopt its own program to be carried out by the district. A. The Department must adopt and implement the necessary rules and regula- tions to carry out the policies of this Act before districts can adopt and implement local programs. Agriculture or forestry practices, or other activities on lands of less than 20 acres, are exempt during the interim program. a. Minor land-disturbing activities and agriculture or forestry practices on lands in parcels of one acre or less, on lands with an average slope of less than 6 percent or determined by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control not to contribute to the erosion or sedi- mentation problem, are exempt from the provisions of this Act. In addition, landowners occupying or operating private agricult4ure or forestry land are not considered to be engaged in land-disturbing activities if they are implementing an approved farm conservation plain, if they do not have available at least 50 percent cost-shari 9 assistance, or if they are unable to pay the private share required for participation in cost-sharing as>istance are not considered to be engaged in land-disturbing activities. 6. No person may engage] in any land-disturbing activity until (s)he has sub- mitted a plan for erosion and sediment control subject to review and approval by the district. An approved plan is required for the issuance of gracing, building or other permits involving land-disturbing activities. 7. No erosion and sediment control plan will be approved unless it meets con- servation standards consistent with the general Coastal Management Program's coastal water policies and statewide comprehensive erosion and sediment con- trol program developed by the Department. a. The General Assembly will annually appropriate to the Department a sum not to exceed $50,000 to carry out the purpose of the chapter. 9. Any violation is subject to 1 civil penalty of not more than $2,500 for each day the violation occurs. However, the extent of erosion control prac- tices which Delaware farmers can reasonably afford is limited. Thus, the man- datory provisions apply only to those 'armlands causing the most serious prob- 1ems. -26- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TITLE: Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1977 D.C. Law 2-23, September 28, 1977 24 D.C. Register No. 4, page 792 LEAD AGENCY: Department of Environmental Services D.C. Agencies engaged in land-disturbing activities STATE CONTACT: William Garlow, Chief Hydraulics Control Branch Department of Environmental Services 5000 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20032 202/767-7614 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM legislative Policy It is the policy of the Council of the District of Columbia in regulating land- disturbing activities mainly to prevent hug h accelerated soil erosion and sea- imentation and sediment deposit in the p ,),*comae River and its tributaries, in- cluding the sewer system of the District of Columbia. Major Program Features 1. The Department of Environmental Services was required to establish minimum standards and specifications for the effective control of soil erosion, sedi- ment deposition, and non-agricultural runoff in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia adopted the U.S. Department of Agriculture's standards and specifications, effective November 20, 1975. The Department of Environmental Services was 4 nformed that the adoption of these standards and specifications fulfilled the aforementioned requirement. These standards are intended to protect adjoining properties from damage caused by eroding soil. Surveys have been started in the most critical areas. A soil erosion control ha;ldbook including erosion control measures that are unique to the District of Columbia has been published. 2. To engage in a land-disturbing activity on any property within the District of Columbia a person must obtain a building permit from the Department of Economic, Development. Permit approval is contingent upon sub- mitting an erosion and sediment control plan which has been reviewed and ap- proved by the Department; the plan must show how erosion will be controlled both while the larva-disturbing activity is underway and after it is com- pleted. All DC agencies engaged in land-disturbing activities were required to develop erosion and sediment control standards and specifications consistent with those approved by the Department by March 28, 1978. Once approved, the agency involved in land-disturbing activities is required to conform to the agency's standards and specifications. The Department's Hydraulic Control Branch (Flooding and Erosion Control Section) is authorized to enforce the agency's program to ascertain compliance with the Health Regulations of the District of Columbia and the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act. -27- _4. 3. A violation of this Act is deemed a misdemeanor subject to a fine not to excec,d $300 or 10 days of imprisonment or both, for each violation or failure to comply. A. The following are guidelines for erosion and sediment control planning in the District of Columbia adopted by the Department of Environmental Services on July 28, 1978. • Study the development area and evaluate the soil limitations and other conditions such as topography, natural drainage, geology and accessibility. • Select a development plan that is compatible with the site conditions. • Identify existing features that can be used in the development to prevent erosion, such as vegetation, wildlife habitat, water areas and topsoil. • Prepare a development plan which will minimize existing site limita- tions and provide for erosion and sediment control measures. • Limit grading to areas of workable sizes so as to limit the duration of exposure of disturbed and unprotected areas. All appropriate con- servation practices should be applied on the first disturbed section of land before the next section is opened up. • Strip and stockpile topsoil for later use on areas to be stabilized by permanent vegetation. Protect the stockpiled material with mulch or temporary vegetation. • Control runoff either by diverting or conveying it safely through the areas with structural measures. • Install sediment basins and other appropriate erosion and sediment control structures prior to or during the first phase of land gracing. • Seed and/or sod the retention ponds for stovinwater runoff, and mulch the sediment basirrs, diversions, waterways, and related structures immediately after they are built. • Employ sediment traps to protect inlets or storm sewers below silt- producing areas. P -28- GEORGIA TITLE:. Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 Ga. Code Ann. Secs. 5-230la--5-2321 JAD AGENCY: Local governments that adopt ordinances STATE AGENCY: Lewis Tinley, Environmental Specialist Environmental Protection Division Land Protection Branch Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 404/656-2833 Mr. Ken Obenauf, Staff Engineer Georgia. Soil and Water Conservation Committee PO Box 8024 Athens, GA 30603 404/542-3065 or 542-3071 GEORGIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction Enacted in 1975 and amended in 1980, the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act is directed primarily toward controlling major sediment producers (i.e. large construction such as shopping centers, subdivisions and industrial sites). The amendatory action stren gthened the law which requires establishing a per- mitting program to control land-disturbing activities. The law contains two unique charact istics. First, local units of government are given two options. They may adopt comprehensive programs for erosion and sediment control, or allow permitting and enforcement responsibilities to be handled by the State Environmental Protection Division. The second requires a soil and water conservation district to review all plans for erosion and sedi- ment control. The law states that erasion and sediment control plans for each nonexempt activity be prepared and submitted with an application for a permit to the local unit nf government. The plans are then forwarded to the ap- propriate district for determining the adequacy of the plans. After a thor- ough analysis, the plans are returned to the issuing authority with the dis- trict's approval or disapproval. The districts have accepted this responsibility, and are reviewing plar,^^ much faster than the time period allowed by law. A primary reason for the district review requirement concerns cases where local units of government allow the Environmental Protection Division to handle the permit program. The district review insures review by people familiar with the local situation and prob- lems. Ninety-two out of 159 counties have now adopted erosion and sediment -29- control ordinances which have been officially accepted by the Division. An additional 10 counties have adopted ordinances needing minor modifications. The Division has also accepted 150 city ordinances. In the final analysis, Georgia's urban erosion and sediment control program, when viewed statewide, is lessening soil erosion and preventing sediment dam- ages from construction activities. Present trends indicate an increasing rate of improvement as the program gains momentum. Major Program Features 1. The ru es and regulations, ordinances or resolutions adopted in order to comply with the Act to govern land-disturbing activities, require sound con- servation and engineering practices to prevent and minimize erosion and re- sulting sedimentation, and which are consistent with the following require- ments: (a) Stripping vegetation, regrading and other development activities must be conducted with care to minimize erosion. (^) Cut-fill operations must be ,zept to a minimum. (c) Development plans must conform to topography to create the lowest practical erosion potential. (d) Whenever feasible, natural vegetation must be retained, protected and supplemented. (e) The disturbed area and the duration of exposure to erosive elements must be kept to a minirrum.. (f) Disturbed soil must be stabilized as quickly as possible. (g) Temporary vegetation or mulching must be employed to protect exposed critical areas during development. (h) Permanent vegetation and structural erosion control measures must be installed as soon as practicable. (i) To the extent necessary, sediment in run-off water must be trapped by the use of debris basins, sediment basins, silt traps, or similar measures until the disturbed area is stabilized. (j) Adequate provisions must be provided to minimize dama ge from surface water to the cut face of excavations or the sloping surfaces of fills. (k) Cuts and fills may not endanger adjoining property. (1) Fills may not encroach upon natural water courses or constructed channels in a manner adversely affecting other property owners. (m) Grading equipment must cross flowing streams by using bridges or cul- verts except when they are not provided. These crossings should be kept to a minimum. -30- 2. The governing authority of each county and each municipality was required to adopt a comprehensive ordinance establishing the procedures governing land- disturbing activities within their respective boundaries. Such ordinances were required to be consistent with the standards provided by this Act. 3. Two years after the effective date of this chapter, the Board of Natural Resources must adopt procedure- governing land-disturbing activities tLat are conducted in counties and municipalities without an ordinance. These pro- cedures must conform to the provisions of this Act. 4. No land-disturbing activities can be conducted without a permit. No per- mit can be issued unless an erosion and sediment control plan has been ap- proved according to the provisions of this Act by the appropriate district or governing authority. 5. Exemptions: Surface mining, granite quarrying, minor )and-disturbing activities, single family residence construction, agricultural practices, for- estry land mianagement practices, projects carried out under the technical supervision of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, any project involving five acres or less and is more than 200 feet away from the bank of any state waters which drain a land area of at least 100 square miles, and construction or maintenance by: (a) Department of Transportation; (b) Georgia Highway Authority; (c) Georgia Tollway Authority; (d) Airport or public utilities under Public Service Commission; (e) Road construction and ne:intenance by counties and municipalities; and (f) Water and sewage authorities as established by the General Assembly. 6. If a county or municipality has enacted and enforced ordinances which meet or exceed the standards, requirements and provisions of this Act, that county or municipality will be certified as an issuing authority for purposes of this Act. 7. Violations are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 per day. (As amended through S.B. 137, the previous state enforcement provision was a fine, administered through the Water Quality Control Act, not to exceed $25,000.) In a recent statewide assessment of the erosion and sediment con- trol program, an interesting observation was made. It seems the success of a program is based more on the effectiveness of the inspection program than on the severity of the penalty. While violations are subject to a maximum fine of $1,000, many units of government have exceptional inspection programs. Thus, enforcement was hardly needed and maintenance problems were rare. 8. The State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, the administrative and policymaking body of Georgia's soil and water conservation districts, initi- ated a comprehensive technical assistance program for Georgia citizens. This program is set up as follows: • An Information Program which better informs Georgia's citizens of the implications and responsibilities of the law. Included are a series of presentations, television appearances and numerous newspaper articles. 9 A Model Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance to assist the local city and county governments. ` • Seminars for engineers involved in land-disturbing activities, i' -31- • "A Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Gecx-gia" which contains complete and easy-to-use information on designing control plans. It is a readable index that can be used by non-engineers but is issued to en- gineers and developers, issuing authorities, plan reviewers and the sur- face mining industry. • Other publications to assist those involved with Erosion and Sediment Control: "Georgia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law" "On Site Erosion Control" which bridges the gap between plan preparation and physical installation -32- HAWAII TITLE: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1974 Hawaii Rev. Stats. Ch. 180-C LEAD AGENCY: County Governments and Soil and Water Conservation Districts STATE CONTACT: Jacqueline Parnell, Environmental Planner State of Hawaii Department of Health Environmental Health Division PO Box 3378 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 808/548-4362 HAWAII'S SOI L EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction Preserving Hawaii's beaches and coastal ecology was the motivating factor for passing the Soil Erosion and Sedimentaton Act. The Bill was enacted in 1974 in response to the Legislature's realizA ion that sediment from urban and highway construction and unprotected agricultural land was causing damage to fish and wildlife, recreation, and navigation throughout the state. The Act is intended to assure that county ordinances provide consistent conservation standards and coverage of activities and that all state agencies comply with county ordinances. The Act does not specify that local regulatory programs be consistent with state standards outlined in Public Health Regulations, Chapter 37-B. Chapter 37-B states that the stringency of conservation technology be based on a severity rating number , which represents the potential erosion and sediment problem that is caused by the particular land-disturbing activity. It also encourages each county to develop its own severity rating number system. The 15 Hawaiian soil and water conservation districts are designated as manage- ment agencies for implementation of the erosion and sediment control component of the 208 plan for agricultural lands. These districts have agreed that comprehensive conser- vation programs will include a combination of approved conservation practices that can also serve as best management practices for the agricultural nonpoint source element of the state's water quality management plan. Agriculturalists also agree that water pollution is as important a problem as soil erosion. This explains the consistency between the purposes of the statewide erosion control program and the special sediment control programs for critical areas identified by the 208 program. Major Program Features 1. The county governments, in cooperation with the soil and water conserva- tion districts and other appropriate state and federal agencies, were required to enact ordinances for the purpose of controlling soil erosion and sediment. -33- 2. The ordinance for erosion and sediment control was required to include a provision whereby standards shall be considered met if it can be shown that the land is being managed in accordance with soil conservation practices ac- ceptable to the applicable district directors, and that a comprehensive con- servaton pro<jram is being actively pursued. 3. The counties were required to enact ordinances within one year from June 15, 1974. (all four counties have adopted ordinances.) 4. The Department of Health was required to adopt conservation standards within 90 days after passage of this Act. (Conservation standards became ef- fective January 28, 1975.) 5. If any county or counties fail to enact soil erosion and sediment control ordinances within one year from the date of this bill, the Department of Health was required to promulgate rules and regulations within 180 days, to be effective within those counties failing to enact such ordinances. 6. The Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law authorized the districts to: (a) provide for and encourage surveys, investigations, and research re- lating to soil and water conservation and to publish and disseminate such information; (b) provide for and encourage demonstrations relative to the control and prevention of erosion and the conservation of soil and water resources, and carry out preventive and control measures on publicly owned lands within the district with the consent of the agency having jurisdiction. On all other lands the district must gain the consent of the land occupier; (c) cooperate, or enter into agreement with, and to furnish financial or other aid to any agency or land occupier within the district, for carrying on soil and water conservation control methods and operations, subject to such conditions as the directors consider necessary; (d) construct, improve, and maintain any structures necessary for carry- ing out the purposes of this Act; and (f) develop plans for the conservation of soil and water resources and the control and prevention of erosion within the district, and to publish or bring them to the attention of district land occupiers. (a -34- ILLINOIS TITLE: Soil and Water Conservation District Act I11. S.N.A. Ch. 5, Sec. 106-138.10 LEAD AGENCY: Department of Agriculture STATE CONTACT: James F. Frank, Superintendent Division of Natural Resources Illinois Department of Agriculture Emerson Building/Illinois State Fairgrounds Springfiled, IL 62706 217/782-6297 ILLINOIS SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction Enacted in 1977, the Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Act is directed at both rural and urban sedimentation and erosion problems. The Act states that the prime reason for accelerated erosion and sedimentation problems resulting in pollution of the state's waters is due to rapid shifts in land use from agricultural to non-agricultural uses. Basically, the Act provides for the development of a statewide, comprehensive and coordinated erosion and sediment control program for both urban and rural lands. The intent of the erosion and sediment control program is to apply conservation practices to Illinois land to reduce soil losses from erosion to acceptable levels. This program must be based on conservation guidelines developed by the State Department of Agriculture for the purpose of implementing and administering the erosion and sediment control program. The Department has completed this phase of the pro- gram within the time period specified and, beginning in April 1980, local soil conservation districts began the process of adopting a soil erosion and sedi- ment control program consistent with the state's guidelines. It is antici- pated that once the districts adopt an approved soil erosion and sediment con- trol program they will assume prime responsibility for implementing the pro- gram. The program is designed to work cooperatively with those involved in land- disturbing activities, to eliminate the erosion and sedimentation problem, taking into account economic and time factors needed to eliminate problems in critical areas. Once a general understanding is reached by all involved of the soil erosion process, the problems it causes, and the funding needed, Illinois' soil erosion and sedimentation control program may be quite useful and effective. Major Program Features 1. The State Soil and Water Conservation District's Advisory Board, con- sisting of seven members, was created to consult and advise with the qualified persons -35- A. necessary to assist in implementation of the erosion and sediment cortro "I pro- visions of this Act. 2. The Department has powers and duties to: (a) assist district dir,,f^tors in carrying out any of their powers and programs; (b) coordinate the programs of the several districts through advice and consultation; (c) consider, review and express its opinion concerning any rules, regu- lations, ordinances or other action of the board of directors; and (d) develop and coordinate a comprehensive state erosion and sediment control program, including guidelines to be used by districts in imple- menting this program. 3. The Department must adopt and revise guidelines for erosion and sediment control, but must hold public hearings before making final decisions. In developing its guidelines for implementing and administering the compre- hensive state erosion and sediment control program, the Department established conservation standards for various types of soils and land uses whicn included criteria, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and sediment re- sulting from land-disturbing activities. Present goals are listed below. These goals are extracted from the State Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for agricultural lands as adopted April 18, 1980). "T value" in this section means the average anneal tons per acre soil loss a given soil can experience and still maintain its productivity over an extended period of time. Both physical and economic factors are considered. 1983 - 19£8 - reduce soil loss standards to 4T (8-20 tons/acre/year) 1988 - 1994 - reduce soil loss standards to 2T (5-10 tons/acre/year) reduce soil loss standards to T (0-5 tons/acre/year) on slopes of less than 5 percent provided this can be accomplished through conservation tillage. 1994 - 2000 - reduce soil losses on all land subject to this program at or below 1.5 T value 2000 - on reduce soil losses on all land subject to this program at or below T value. Table 1 provides the estimated sheet and rill erosion rates and cropland ero- sion rates in Illinois. Districts have the opportunity to adopt more stringent standards which will prevail for all agricultural land within the district. 4. The state erosion and sediment control program, when adopted, must be con- sistent and compatible with policies, procedures and guidelines established by the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Water Resources, under its Coastal Zone Management Program for construction along Lake Michigan. -36 5. Each district in the state is required, by April 1982, to develop and adopt a soil erosion and sediment control program and standards that are tech- nically feasible, economically reasonable and consistent with the state pro- gram and guidelines developed by the Department of Agriculture. To assist in developing its programs and standards, each district will name an advisory convnittee of not less than eight members who are representative of a wide var- iety of interests. The district must submit its program and standards to the Department for re- view and approval. If a district fails to adopt a program and standards and submit them to the Department by the time specified, the Department will develop an appropriate program and standards to be carried out by the district. To carry out its program, a district is required to establish conservation standards for various types of soils and land uses. The program must include criteria, guidelinei, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing activities and must be consistent with the state's program and guidelines. 6. Any person engaged in land-disturbing activities must be encouraged to comply with the district's standards for erosion and sediment control. Land- disturbing activities relating to surface minin g are exempt. upon request, the district or the Department must supply to any one engaged in a land- disturbing activity, adequate information and technical assistance to enable that person to comply with the district's or Department's standards. 7. District programs or, if .appropriate, Department programs, are required to provide for cost-sharing assistance of enduring erosion and sediment control devices, structures and practices and must specify the cost-sharing ratios, not to exceed 75 percent, which must apply. According to state agency re- ports, funding is being used more efficiently. In changing over the method of erosion control practices from terracing to conservation tillage, construction costs have been reduced dramatically. For example, in Illinois, it will cost $750 million to meet soil loss tolerances with heavy reliance on conservation tillage, whereas heavy reliance on terrace practices would cost the state $1.6 billion. The state's goal is to familiarize landowners with cost-sharing as- sistance for erosion and sediment control so it may adequately respond to funding needs. 8. In the interest of controlling excessive erosion on non-agricultural land and construction sites and maintaining water quality, the following principles are required to be met: (a) only the smallest practical area of land should be exposed at any one time during development; (b) exposure of land during development must be kept to a minimum; Vic) natural features inhibiting erosion, such as trees, groves, water- ways, and other s>milar resources, must be preserved; (d) the development must be fitted to the topography and soils; (e) temporary vegetation and/or mulching must be used to protect critical areas; -37- p^. (f) permanent final vegetation and structures must be installed as soon as possible; (g) provisions must be made to effectively accommodate the increased run- off caused by changed soil and surface conditions during and after devel- opment; and (h) sediment must be reasonably retained o pt the site. 9. A person found in violation of the state's soil erosion and sediment con- trol program has one year from the day the Notice of Violation is served to design a schedule for compliance. A formal hearing for noncompliance will be h o ld if the schedule is not complied with. -38- TABLE 1 ILLINOIS EROSION INVENTORY ESTIMATE") RURAL TOTAL 32 ,634,000 1 1 87,931,000 Tons Per Acre I Treatment Treatment Needed— Not Needed Acres 6.72 15,205,000 8,614,000 5.23 2,092,000 976,000 391 2,235,000 791,000 17 14 (584,000) (16,000) 63 (1,651,000) (775,000) 483,000 994,000 20,015,000 11.375,000 PRIME FARMLAND Acres 19,075,000 1,139,000 602,000 565,000 21, 381,000 LAND USE EROSION RATES I CONSERVATION NEEDS Tons Yearly ^ ~ Acres Cropland 23,819,000 160,056,000 rasture land 3,068,000 16,058,000 Forest land 3,026,000 11,817,000 Grazed (600,000) (10,281,000) Not Grazed (2,426,000) (1,536,000) Other( 21 2,721,000 - i (1) l (2) Data takeii from 'the 1977 National Erosion Inventory completed by the U S.D A , Soil Conservation Service The studies, to date, provide state level accuracy for sheet and rill erosion. Conservation needs column does not include acreage (1,244,000 acres) in water areas, active mines, quarries, farmsteads, etc. This data is not now available. CROPLAND EROSION RATES BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS1111 Land Capability Slope Range Treatment Needed Class (Percent) Acres (Acres) _ Erosion Rates (2) _ 1 0-2 4,579.000 1,962.000 3.55 11 a 2-5 6,067.000 5,027.000 8.38 III a 5-15 2,138.000 1,869,000 15.79 IV a 15-20 778,000 717.000 18.62 VI a 20-30 415,000 379,000 34,93 (1) This table inch:: , s only those lane} Capability Glasses where water erosion is the primary hazard, (2) Average erosion rate in tons per acre per year for both treated and untreated cropland. ' Revised 6/79 1S" r -39- P IOWA TITLE: Soil Conservation Districts Law I.C.A. Sec. 467A.53, amended by H.F. 2561 (1980) LEAD AGENCY: Department of Soil Conservation Local Soil Conservation Districts STATE CONTACT: Lawrence G. Vance, Director Iowa Department of Soil Conservation Wallace State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 515/281-5851 IOWA'S EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction Agriculture is the foundation of Iowa's economy, and Iowa's citizens and leg- islature are very concerned about the integrity of the state's soil re- sources. Through a series of public hearings it was declared that the present average rate of topsoil loss from Iowa cropland is unacceptable. As a result of this determination, the Iowa Legislature enacted a comprehensive soil ero- sion control law in 1971. The law requires soil conservation districts to es- tablish maximum soil loss limits for all 'lands within the district, and re- quires landowners who exceed such limits--and who are causing damage to adja- cent lands--to implement practices to control the soil erosion. In the case of agricultural land, public cost-share funds must be provided if the owner is mandated to install control measures. In 1980, the legislature amended the soil erosion and sediment control statute through the passage of H.F. 2561. This legislation, commonly referred to as the "Iowa Soil 2000", is in effect a statement of policy. The stated intent is to reduce erosion to a nondepleting level by the end of this century. Changes that strengthened the regulatory a3pects of its agricultural pro- visions and that addressed urban erosion were enacted. New efforts will be directed to the agricultural sector with results measured at five year inter- vals. Districts are now required to review and approve erosion control plans before the appropriate city or county agency can issue a construction permit. General Statement of Policy Since Iowa's agricultural foundation is currently being undermined by critical excessive erosion of topsoil, it was determined that the prompt control of that soil erosion was in the best interest of the people of the state. More- over, control of nonpoint source pollution of the state's rivers and lakes can be largely achieved by proper soil conservation techniques. A state policy was adopted to accomplish these goals. It included a conservation education program for all age levels, incentives for good soil management, technical as- sistance to agricultural landowners and operators, and a commitment to control soil erosion by the year 2000. -41-t^.. Program Description A high degree of cooperation exists between the Department of Soil Conservation, the Department of Envi ronmental Quality, Iowa State University, the Iowa Extension Service, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and the con- servation districts to establish and carry out the program. Maximum soil loss limit regulations were adopted by each district and approved by the State Soil Conservation Committee. The Soil Conservation Districts Law requires inspec- tions to be made when a complaint is fi ied with the district. If excessive erosion is occurring, an administrative order is issued to require the land- owner to take corrective action. The "Iowa Soil 2000" legislative: policy to control soil erosion by the year 2000 provioes additional steps that should be taken, beginning in 1980 to achieve this goal. The are: • Five-Year Object ives - Accelerate the availability of county soil survey maps and information. Each farm unit in Iowa should be pro- vided a "conservation folder" by 1985 containing information on the topography, soil composition, natural or artificial drainage char- acteristics and other pertinent factors concerning a farm unit, which are necessary for the preparation of a sound and equitable conser- vation agreement for that farm unit. By 198b, erosion of the most fragile soils should be controlled, which under present use and management will be depleted in 20 years. Excessive soil erosion on all farmland should be reduced by 40 per- cent. Also by 1985, nonpoint pollution should be controlled on at least 12 high-priority watersheds. This would be based on the Iowa agricul- tural nonpoint source pollution plan. • Ten-Year Objectives - Require each landowner or operator to keep his her conservation folder current with soil loss rates provided by the local district. By 1990, erosion should be controlled on soil which under present agricultural use and management will be depleted in 40 years. Reduce excess erosion on all agricultural lands an ad- ditional 40 percent. Control nonpoint pollution on an additional 24 high priority watersheds. • Fifteen-Year Objectives ^ - By 1995, excessive erosion must be con- trolled on al a ^ gricultural land to a nondepleting level. Control nonpoint pollution on at least an additional 50 high priority water- sheds . • Twenty-Year Obj ectives . - By the year 2000, Iowa should be maintaining a nondepleting level of soil loss on agricultural land and control- ling sediment production on all Iowa land. Cost-effective practices should continue to be developed so that erosion is held at a non- depleting level. Control nonpoint pollution on all watersheds. Although the law is highly regulatory, major efforts are being made to moti- vate landowners to voluntarily apply soil conservation measures. The volun- tary program is being strengthened with the expectation that farmers will get the job done on a voluntary basis with as little regulation as possible. -42- p his legislation, which in part was based on the state's 208 nonpoint source plan, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's Resource Conservation Act plan and a special hearing, gets down to the farm level and puts a deadline on soil conservation. Because preservation of the soil's fertility is a vital concern to society in general, the use of public money to help achieve this objective is ,justified. The current rate of finding will not be adequate to implement the program on the 20-year schedule. It will be necessary to appropriate ad- ditional state and federal funds to effectively reduce soil erosion and re- sultanf, sedimentation. Table 2 illustrates the goals and accomplishments of soil conservation efforts in Iowa. Major Program Features 1. The law provided for the formation of soil conservation districts and es- tablished the Department of Soil Conservation to perform the functions re- quired by Iowa law. 2. The soil Consc..rvation Committee approves administrative rules proposed by the Department before the rules are promulgated. 3. The Department has been authorized to: (a) offer assistance to the commissioners of districts in carrying out. any of their powers and programs; (b) render financial aid and assistance to districts for the purpose of carrying out the policy of this Act; (c) review, amend and give final approval to the conservancy district plan; and (d) establish and maintain an interagency coordinating committee for the purpose of preparing and disseminating recommendations for coordinating efforts to deal with water and soil management problems. 4. Districts and conunissioners have the following powers and duties to: (a) conduct surveys, investigations and research relating to the character of soil erosion and sediment, floodwater and sediment damageF, and the con- trol measures needed; (b) conduct demonstration projects of the methods by which soil resources may be conserved and soil washing may be prevented; (c) carry out preventive and control measures within the district; and (d) furnish financial or other aid to arty agency or owner or occupier of land within the district, in carrying on erosion-control, watershed pro- tection and flood prevention operations. Cost-sharing is authorized but not yet funded for' up to 60 percent of the cost of a project including five or more contiguous farms having five hundred acres or more and con- stituting 75 percent of the agricultural land lying within a watershed. (e) provide state cost-sharing funds totalling $6.5 million annually to appropriate: -43- (1) "Iowa Till" program - $500,000 has been allotted to implement any system that leaves crop residue covering 50 percent or more of the ground surface. The State of Iowa is funding this program to reduce erosion until permanent controls car p be applied. At the same time, 60 percent of the erosion problem on agricultural land will be con- trolled. (2) Wind Erosion Control Incentives - This program utilizes $500,000 annually from the road use Lax funds to acquire property rights in land for the purpose of planting and maintaining wind breaks as out- lined in the Iowa Till program. (3) Conpensation for Crop Losses due to Soil Conservation Practice Installation. (4) Fifty percent cost-share assistance for permanent practices. (5) Seventy-five percent cost-share assistance for permanent prac- tices installed on land above lakes that are on the state's priority_ list. (6) Seventy-five percent cost-share assistance for permanent prac- tices installed due_ to an administrative order. (f) conform to the duly promulgated rules of the conservancy districts; (g) require landowners who receive state soil conservation aid to maintain permanent practices for 20 years; (h) encourage soil conservation education in local schools and expand pub- lic information and education efforts; and (i) make incentive payments to encourage summer construction of perma,,,:nt soil and water conservation practices providing up to 60 percent of the cost. 5. Owners of real property are required to establish and maintain soil and water conservation practices or erosion control practices. 6. Conunissioners were required to adopt regulations which established soil loss limits and provide for their implementation. 1. Commissioners are authorized to inspect farmland for excess soil erosion and to take court action requiring measures to stop erosion. Any person who tails to comply with a court order within the time specified will be in con- tempt of court. 8. No landowner is required to establish conservation practices unless 75 percent cast-share funds have been approved, or a lesser amount set by the committee. 9. The commissioners are required to implement the following: a. furnish each farm unit with a conservation folder by January 1, 1985; -44- 0. is 1 b. complete a farm unit conservation plan by January 1, 1985 or five years after the folder is developed; and c. must offer i soil conservation agreement with the owner within one year after completion of the conservation plan. 10. State cost-share funds will not be made available for use if no conser- vation agreement is in effect by January 1, 1986 or one year after the plan is completed. Farm units which have received an administrative or court order to comply with applicable soil loss limits are exempt from this restriction. 11. An approved erosion control plan is required before a permit is issued to projects engaged in land-disturbing activities. This applies only to those cities and counties with appropriate building codes and zoning ordinances. Agricultural, horticultural and forestry practices, single family residences, mining operations, public road construction, and activities disturbing less tnan 10,000 square feet are exempt. 12. Effective January 1, 1981, each tract of land which has not been plowed or used for growing new crops within the past 15 years is classified as agri- cultural land under conservation cover. Such lands plowed or used for growing row crops thereafter will be limited to 50 percent of the cost-share amount otherwise appropriated for conservation practices. -45- N^;. a0 QID ^h ill O WJ fl7 N Pic00 Qv LAN O 0O • PM ^^yy c W IA^l1 m O C N M co O tf) 00 00 LCf ONO, M Q 0) ^D 00 ^ 00 N m ^ N a) M To M 00^- cr d' Ln N tC LnQ M U) OO^ T to, Ll7 a) +- M c) r O CD N c Gp C A) C N CD tD T N th t?^ r N to d nO rT RN to T M Q IT T 00 00 (M I!) a s C r P tV T -q r= r Ln' cD L16 M P P -I LC) P CC Q *a Q -- P P M ct N N V) M „^^„ cmT d N L On O r CO C") M p O tD M T r M M N M C-^ M T r N N r Rr -TT M M tD O Ov Pm Nd` MO -- CJ LOz G 6^ r MO -= er o ^r 0 00 LO qe r- Le c ': C- -: -= c r -- Lri vi Q O C O to M R^r N P 'IT N N CD TT c Ln P P O_ P Ln P Ln z z<< <<<< Q Q Q z Q Z Z LL LL <<< Ln tD O CO r' N CV T 'T Ln -- O N N O — r M M et T 00 Ln O M tD O M M -- M M O r tD P M O -- r f"'• -- tT O r tP •- Ln P 0 n tD M O O N d d O P O -- M M qT t`- Ln 00 -- n P Z 00 O to M N C r C M tt O C) 00 M P- M M N N N r N P .: r -- c1j tD LA tD 1-: P P Ln ^ 1- Ln d d Ln d Ln Ln o Ln O o Ln In o Ln in Ln Ln in d O N r• -- — N P -- N P LL) 'V N M -- N C) M M N m lqt C N E 0d m O ^ c d Q Q ar arCa Q Q W LA N N Q N N d N L[^ M- O C ^ t0 L^ 00 O O ^p O f^ 00 P ^7 ^7 tD 00 to N et cf N co 0 M cV O) O O •= •= Qs ta; N .- N M N N P ;Q 3e3Pgggg eg g r O V N M Q Q M v Q ^ N pO 00 N N ^ tOD TV rM- O 00 lf) Ln ^ qw Ln P Ln ^T 00 rI C M N 1 C ^ ^ C Q a I-- a c Q ^-' 4 c c °''n 'o ^ ^ c O O -M ) , C y c j LL C c a c c c C c '^ ' ^: H t1 e ` i m m 0 u U U ^ U a Li U. f- C 4-; N ^^ N O 0 ? ^ ` N f0 N " LV CT Q y am• ^ ^ o a^ aS _ N a ^n U 'S a cUy' ^ ^ O^ a^ c O ^ ^ c) v ^ a) ° Ov LL` C7 Q CL cnn cn W to • V^1y W I U w a C v v -46- MAINE TITLE: Water Pollution Abatement Licensing Program ME. H.P. 1185-L.D. 1458, Approved June, 1973 LEAH AGENCY: Department of Environmental Protection in cooperation with local soil and water conservation districts STATE CONTACT: Al Prysunka, Director Division of Water Quality Evaluation and Planning Department of Environmental Protection State House Augusta, Maine 04333 207/289-2591 THE WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT LICENSING PROGRAM In 1973, Maine enacted the Law for the Protection and Improvement of Waters which includes a licensing program for the abatement of pollution. The pro- gram is pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, and forbids the discharge, directly or indirectly, of pollutants, including sedi- ment, into state waters unless a license has first been obtained from the Board of Environmental Protection. Because the topsoil is very shallow, Maine's soil erosion problem is more critical than most states. Critical erosion areas are experiencing a total soil loss of up to 80 tons/acre/year with the most severe problems located on acreage planted in potatoes. At present, procedures for developing an erosion and sediment control plan or conservation plan are in draft form which will provide a framework for obtaining a variance to the water pollution abatement license provision. The plans include the necessary procedures to prevent water pollution from sediment, provided adequate financial assistance is available to implement the plan. Several voluntary procedures have been suggested to help alleviate the erosion problem and lead to more quality control of farm operations. Farmers are en- couraged to: (a) plant potatoes in fields having lower slope; (b) install irrigation practices; and (c) cut down and rotate acreage planted in potatoes. Over a time period, farmers who adopt voluntary conservation practices should expect higher yields, an improvement in soil quality and an increase in yearly income clue to a rise in potato prices. Because the program is relatively new, farmers lack a general understanding of the plan. The high cost of installing conservation control systems is also a problem; incentives need to be developed to encourage farmers to comply. -47- Major Program Features After conducting a public hearing, the Board of Environmental Quality was authorized to adopt, amend and repeal reasonable rules and regulations for erosion and sediment control necessary for the proper administration, enforce- ment, implementation and interpretation of any provision of the Water Pollution Abatement Law. The Board is required to make recommendations to each subsequent Legislature with respect to the classification of the waters and coastal flats based upon reasonable standards of quality and use. The Board must also recommend to the Legislature methods of control, abatement and prevention of pollution of the state waters. In addition, the Board is authorized to establish and conduct a continuous planning process in coopera- tion with appropriate federal, state, regional and municipal officers and agencies, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Draft regulations for the development of an erosion and sediment control plan have been prepared. According to these draft regulations, erosion and sedi- ment control plans may be submitted to the applicable conservation district by either the 'landowner or operator. The landowner is responsible for carrying out plan requirements which must reflect at all times the current agricultural activity for which the land is being used. The erosion and sediment control plan must describe: (1) measures to reduce soil losses on tilled agricultural land to three tons per acre per year; (2) proper animal waste management techniques to prevent surface and ground water contamination; (3) proper application of pesticides in accordance with the rules of the Pesticide Control Board; and (4) proper use of fertilizers. A variance will be granted by the Board of Environmental Quality to those per- sons who meet the following conditions: (a) the appropriate district has recommended the erosion and sediment control plan; (b) the Board certifies that the plan meets the objectives of the state's water quality statutes; and (c)the Department determines that the agricultural activities comply with the applicable portion of the plan, or the appropriate district has certified that funds are not available to implement the applicable portion of the plan. If agricultural activities are in non-compliance with the erosion and sediment control plan, any discharge of chemicals, rock, sand, dirt or other agri- cultural wastes will be in violation of the provisions of the Water Pollution Abatement Law and subject to the appropriate penalty. Any person wi-io violates any provision of this Law will be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each day of violation. Any person who willfully violates any pro- vision of the Law will be subject to a fine not to exceed $25,000 for each day the violation occurs. -48- MARYLAND TITLE: Sediment Control Act Ann. Code Md., Nat. Res., Sec. 8.1101 - 8.1108 LEAD AGENCY: Department of Natural Resources Counties and Municipalities STATE CONTACT: Roy E. Renner, Sedimentation Specialist Maryland Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Administration Pawes State Office Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401 301/269-2265 MARYLAND'S SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction The Maryland Law enabling the creation of soil conservation districts was passed in 193/. Maryland's commitment to solving erosion and sediment con- trol problems in urban areas formally began in 1961 when the Attcrney General declared sediment to be a pollutant. The five major sources of sediment pol- lution in Maryland were found to be: agriculture, silviculture, construction activities, surface mining and hydraulic modifications. More comprehensive sediment control legislation applying to construction ac- tivities was adopted in 1970. The Statewide Sediment Control Art, the first such law in the nation, became effective July 1, 1970. It authorized the Department of Natural Resources to adopt criteria and procedures for counties and local districts for the implementation of soil and shore erosion control programs. Revised standards and specifications for soil erosion and sediment control became effective in July 1975. The philosophy of the 1970 legislation is that "after-the-fact" approaches to controlling sediment are far too costly and damaging to both land and water resources. A preventative approach was chosen: Carefully designed sediment control plans were required to correlate with grading plans, assuring that erosion is controlled before serious prob- lems occur. It was found that even with good erosion control during development, followed by good vegetative stabilization, streams in the drainage area continued to run muddy during storms. Increased runoff resulting from urban development caused increased erosion and scouring of the once stable stream banks. The need for on-sight stormwater retention/ detention elements in sediment control programs was recognized, and on April 6, 1971 the Attorney General ruled that "protective stormwater measures may be imposed by the districts under the 1970 sediment control law." At present, the state is urging the districts and the counties to consider adopting s-corm-water retention as an element of local sediment control programs. The state is encouraging techniques to increase -49- which will be the key to eliminating or at least reducing, erosion of the streambed and banks. )verseeing the state is cleared, graded, the proposed earth approval. In addi- adopt a grading and Department. All 23 The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for c sediment control program which requires that before land transported, or otherwise disturbed for any purposes, change must first be submitted to the local district for tion, each county and municipality is required by law to sediment control ordinance subject to the approval of the counties had adopted ordinances by the end of 1972. A great deal of liaison, cooperation and consultation among federal and state agencies, districts, counties, cities and the private sector has been carried out to bring the total program to its present stage of implementation. A recently completed survey conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, partially funded by the Water Resource Administration, showed that the sediment control program resulted in improvements in grading practices and control measures. This has resulted in a 60 to 80 percent reduction in the sediment yield from construction sites between 1966 and 1974. Major Program Features 1. A county or municipality may issue grading and building permits as re, quired by law. No grading or building permits may be issued until the devel- oper submits a grading and sediment control plan approved by the local dis- trict and certified to be followed. 2. Counties and municipalities have the authority and responsibility for de- veloping the local sediment control program and the procedures and ordinances to implement and enforce it. Municipalities were required to adopt ordinances by July 1, 1972 while counties had to adopt ordinances by March 1, 1972. 3. Agricultural land management practices, construction of agricultural structures, and construction of single family residences on lots of two or more acres are exempt from the provisions of the law. (Many have questioned the exemption of agricultrual practices, which may result in the development of a more regulatory approach to agricultural activities.) 4. The Department cf Natural Resources has leadership in assisting local governments, including districts, in carrying out their responsibilities,, It is required to review and approve all land clearing, soil movement and con- struction by any state or federal agency. 5. A violation is a misdemeanor subject to a $5,000 fine or one year in prison. 6. The Water Resources Administration supervises the statewide program for sediment pollution control. The Agency assists local governments to maintain and update satisfactory sediment control programs and proposes regulations to be implemented by state agencies for constructon works of improvement. The Department is required to: (a) review and approve county and municipal grading and sediment control ordinances which must be consistent with the guidelines and regulations adopted by the Department; -50- (b) review and approve sediment control plans in conjunction with the districts; (c) review operating sediment control programs; (d) provide inspection and enforcement authority in conjunction with local government authorities; (e) adopt criteria and procedures to be used by counties and local dis- tricts to implement soil and shore erosion control programs; (f) review and evaluate all sediment control programs every three years; and (g) take action needed to enforce the adoption and implementation of a county, municipality or the Washington, D.C. Sanitary Commission's grading and sediment control ordinance. Inspection and enforcement is the responsibility of the county or municipal authority designated by the grading and sediment control ordinance. Appro- priate enforcement action will be taken if the sediment control plans and grading permits are not complied with. 7. A beach erosion control district was established to maintain the Atlantic Coast beaches of the state and the integrity and continuity of the dunal system. 8. Principals of Reducing Erosion and Sedimentation from Developing Areas (a) Plan the development to fit the particular topography, soils, water- ways and natural vegetation at a site. (b) Expose the smallest practical area of land for the shortest period of time. (c) Apply "soil erosion" control practices as a first line of defense against on-site damage. (d) Apply "soil erosion" control practices as a perimeter protection to prevent off-site damage. (e) Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up operation. -51- Al MICHIGAN TITLE: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Mich. Stats. Ann. Secs. 13.1820(1) - 13.1820(17) LEAD AGENCY: Counties and Municipalities which have adopted ordinances STATE CONTACT: Steve Szyszkowski, Geologist Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Unit Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources Box 30028 Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48909 517/373-8000 MICHIGAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction The Michigan Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972 became effective January 1, 1973. As amended in 1979, the Act focuses on controlling urban and rural erosion and sedimentation to protect the quality of the state's waters. Primary degradation of the waters of the state results from nonregulated con- struction practices. For this reason, a regulatory program was enacted re- quiring all persons engaged in land-disturbing activities to first acquire a pe , mit approved by the appropriate enforcement agency. The rules and regula- t'ons for agricultural practices did not take effect until January 1, 1979, wnile rules and regulations for urban practices have been in effect since 1974. Counties and municipalities which have adopted ordinances by July 1, 1975 have prime responsibility for administering and enforcing Michigan's erosion and sediment control program. Municipalities have the authority to administer a more restrictive program. All ordinances must be based on the unified state- wide soil erosion and sediment control program developed by the Department of Agriculture which includes water quality standards developed by the Water Resource Commission. Major Program Features 1. The Unified Statewide Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. The Department of Agriculture, with the assistance of the soil conservation dis- tricts had to prepare and submit to the Water Resource Commission for approval a unified statewide soil erosion and sediment control program. The program identified land uses which were to be governed by the Act and include recom- mendations, guidelines, and specifications for the control of soil erosion to prevent sedimentation of the waters of the state. The program also sets forth the means by which aaricultural practices were to comply with the guidelines and specifications set forth. -53- 1 i i The Commission was required to make available to the Department: (a) information on the effects of sediments on water quality and the dam- ages of water resources that might be attributed thereto; (b) the location of those state waters which are degraded or have poten- tial for being degraded by sedimentation; and (c) water quality standards which are required to be included in the: pro- gram to protect the designated uses of the waters of the state. 2. The Water Resources Commission, with the assistance of the Department of Natural Resources was required to prepare the rules for a '.nified soil erosion and sediment control program by October 1, 1973. The rules provide for the review and approval of site plans, land use plans or permits relating to ero- sion and sedimentation control. The Commission must make notice of proposed rules for review and comment before promulgation. 3. The county is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the rules throughout the county except within a city, village or charter township that has adopted an ordinance consistent with the county's. 4. Persons engaged in agricultural practices may enter into agreement with the appropriate district to pursue such practices in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Commission. 5. A violation of the policies of this Act is a misdemeanor. 5. Logging and mining practices and the plowing or tilling of land for the purpose of crop production or the harvesting of crops are exempt from the policies of the Act. Additional Agency Functions A city, village or charter township may provide by ordinance for soil erosion and sedimentation control on public and private land uses within its boundar- ies. The ordinance may be more restrictive and must have been approved by the Commission by July 1, 1975 in order to have taken effect.. -54- MINNESOTA TITLE: Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law Minn. Stats. 40.01 - 40.15 LEAD AGENCY: Soil and Water Conservation Board STATE CONTACT: Vernon Reinert, Executive Director Soil and Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources Box 19 Centennial Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 612/296-3767 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM Introduction Improper land use practices have caused serious wind and water erosion on the state's lands, runoff of polluting materials, increased costs to maintain agricultural productivity, increased energy costs and increased flood damage. Land occupiers have the responsit,iiity to implement the practices whit' cor- rect those conditions and to conserve the soil and water resources of the state. It is the policy of the State of Minnesota to encourage those who occupy land to conserve the soil and water resources through the implementation of prac- tices that effectively reduce or prevent erosion, sedimentation, siltation and agriculturally-related pollution. Minnesota currently operates a non-regulatory erosion and sediment control program. The 1977 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law does not require soil and water conservation districts to adopt rules and regulations to con- trol erosion and sedimentation. The program encourages land occupiers to im- plement best management practices to control sediment and erosion by pro- viding, through the districts, cost-sharing assistance up to 75 percent of the total cost for upland erosion control and agricultural waste measures. In ad- dition, erosion and sediment control activities on streambCA , lakeshore and roadside sites may be undertaken at a rate of up to 50 percent of the total cost. Up to 10 percent of the total annual appropriation may be used for technical assistance grants to districts and 5 percent for administrative costs of districts. The Soil and Water Conservation Board has the prime responsibility for imple- menting the erosion and sediment control program. The Act authorizes the Board, in cooperation with local districts, to administer the cost-share pro- gram with land occupiers. To receive assistance, landonmers are required to install and maintain for 10 years erosion and sediment control practices which will also protect water quality in Minnesota. Legislation proposed in the 1979-1980 legislative session may be reintroduced during the 1981 legislative -55- session in the hopes of establishing a regulatory program similar to Iowa's soil conservation program. If adopted, local districts will be authorized as the major regulatory authority for Minnesota's soil and water conservation program. Districts will be required to develop soil loss limits and addition- al funding for critical problem areas will be proposed. It has been suggested by the Executive Director of the Soil and Water Conservation Board that a reg- ulatory program would be more successful in treating critical soil erosion, sedimentation and water quality areas. Major Program Features 1. The Soil and Water Conservation Board is required to prepare, in coopera- tion with local districts and appropriate agencies, a program plan for the ac- complishment of its duties. The program plan is used in decisions to allocate funds to the districts. z. Upon receipt of grant monies, districts are responsible for making all lo- cal decisions concerning the program. Districts, after approving a project, are responsible for issuing payment. 3. The State Cost-Share Program. The State Board may allocate funds to dis- tricts to be used to share the cost of implementing erosion control and water quality improvement practices. In 1980, $1,835,200 was appropriated to dis- tricts for , solving sediment and erosion control problems. Local districts were required to update their soil conservation program before receiving state cost-share funds. N district board may contract on a cost-share basis to furnish financial aid to a land occupier or state agency for the implementation of permanent systems for erosion control and water quality improvement. Landowners will be held liable for those funds appropriated to practices not maintained or willfully removed. 4. The Soil and Water Conservation Board has the following main powers and duties to: (a) offer appropriate assistance to local districts in implementing any of their powers and programs; (b) keep districts informed of the activities and experiences of all other districts; (c) coordinate the programs and activities of the districts with appro- priate agencies by advice and consultation; (d) approve or disapprove the plans or programs of districts relating to the use of state funds administered by the State Board; (e) develop and implement a comprehensive public information program con- cerning the districts' activities and programs, the problems and pre- ventive practices of erosion, sedimentation, agriculturally-related pol- lution and flood prevention; (f) assist in the implementation of a statewide program to inventory and classify soil types throughout the state as determined by the Minnesota Cooperative Soil Survey. It is anticipated that the soil surveys for the entire state will be completed gr underway by 1990; -56- (g) conduct research concerning the nature and extent of erosion, sedi- mentation, flooding and agriculturally-related pollution, the amounts and sources of sediment and pollutants delivered to the waters of the state; (h) develop programs to reduce or prevent soil erosion, sedimentation, flooding and agriculturally-related pollution; (i) develop a priority system within the state to identify critical areas; and (j) ensure compliance with statewide orograms established by the State Boara. 5. Soil and water conservation districts have been granted the power to: (a) conduct surveys, investigations and research to identify problems and preventive practices; (b) conduct erosion and sediment control demonstration projects; (c) implement necessary practices for any purpose specified in this Chapter; (d) enter into agreement with land occupiers or , appropriate agencies to furnish financial or other aia; (e) construct and maintain structures necessary for the performance of operations authorized under this Chapter; and ( f ) develop and revise a comprehensive plan specifying the practices to implement the state policy. -57— is MONTANA TITLE: The Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975 R.C.M. Sec. 26.1510--26.1523 LEAF AGENCY: Soil Conservation Districts STATE CONTACT: Ole M. Ueland, Administrator Conservation Districts Division Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 32 South Ewing Helena, Montana 59601 406/449-5640 MONTANA'S EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction The Montana Soil Conservation Districts Law was enacted in 1939. The Act pro- vides for a policy of preserving the natural or existing shape, form and course of streams, and in so doing to keep erosion and sedimentation to a min- imum. It provides for the creation of soil conservation districts, spells out the powers of districts and supervisors, includes a provision for the adoption of 'iand use regulations, and describes cooperation between districts and state agencies. Cities and towns were originally excluded from districts but about half of them have now voted to be includes;. In 1975, the Montana Legislature passed the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (S.B. 310). This law requires districts to review and ap- prove all non-governmental proposed projects affecting perennial streams. Any project engaged in by any person withoit prior approval is declared a public nuisance and subject to proceedings for immediate abatement. When a district receives notice of a proposed project, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is notified. If the DFG or di>trict requests it, a review "team" consisting of representatives of the district, DFG, and the private landowner examines the site of the proposal. In 1975, the state received a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain information needed to build a successful program of erosion, sediment and related non-point source pollution control. Included in the re- view of erosion and sediment activities in Montana for this study i c^ an exami- nation of the regular district program, activities under S.B. 310, and the EPA-sponsored statewide sediment control study in relation to manpower re- quirements and education and training needs. Major Program Features 1. A person planning to engage in a project is required to present written notice before beginning any portion of the project. -59- "A 2. By July 1, 1975, the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation, after consulting with the association of conservation districts, was required to adopt rules setting minimum standards and guidelines for the purposes of the Act. 3. By January 1, 1976, the districts were required to adopt by resolution, after holding a public hearing, rules setting standards and guidelines for projects and exclusions within their districts, which are required to be con- sistent with the Board's standards. All 59 districts have adopted standards in thi s manner. 4. Any person initiating a project without written consent is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500, for each day the violation occurs. In addition, that person committing the viola- tion must restore the damaged stream to as near its previous condition as pos- sible. Any person who violates the time provisions of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor and i; subject to a $5 fine per day. 5. Activities correctin q the interference of the delivery of water under a valid water right or use permit and the removal of debris from a stream chan- nel are exempt from the provisions of this Act provided such activities do not alter the existing stream channel or constitute a proposed project. 6. If a project requir=es modification or alterations from the original pro- ject plan, a percentaaa of the cost of those modifications or alterations will be assigned to the project participant. Renewable Resource Development Grant The Montana Department of Fish, W i ldlife and Parks (DFWP) applied to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation for a grant from the Renewable Resources Development Clearance Fund for the purpose of funding a streambank preservation program. The purpose of this program is to preserve stream habitats by financially assisting landowners in the design, planning, construction or alteration of streambank projects. The 1979 Montana Legislature, through HB 824, appropriated $100,000 for the streambank preservation program for the biennium ending June 30, 1981. House Bill 824 appropriated the money to the Department frosi^ the Renewable Resource Development Clearance Fund account and required the execution of an agreement between the Department and the DFWP, governing the administration and disbursement of funds. Eligibility is limited to land occupiers as defined in the Soil Conservation Act. Projects with greatest benefit to public fisheries, water quality, soil conservation, public access and human life are given priority. Financial as- sistance may be provided for costs of design, planning and construction of projects that are hydrologically sound, are in the best long-term interest of the people of Montana,, will protect other associated resources and also solve the problems of the project. The state's share is limited to $5,000 per individual project sponsor. -60- t' NEVADA TITLE: Act Providing for the Control of Water Pollution From Diffuse Sources Nev. Rev. Stats. Sec. 445.131 et seq.; Nev. A.B.572, May 26, 1979 LEAD AGENCY: Counties and Municipalities STATE CONTACT: Wendell McCurry, Water Quality Officer Environmental Protection Division Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 201 S. Fall Street Capitol Complex Room 221 Carson City, NV 89710 702/885-4670 NEVADA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM: CONTROL OF DIFFUSE OUR . E- LLU ANT Introduction Nevada's program for pollution control of diffuse sources is part of the State Water Pollution Control Program. The law enables Nevada to encourage and promote waste collection and pollution control methods for all significant sources of water pollution includin g point and diffuse sources to maintain the quality of the waters of the state. It was enacted in 1973. In 1979, legislation was adopted giving the State Environmental Commission authority to enact dif- fuse source regulations as part of the Water Pollution Control Program. "Diffuse source" means any source of water pollution, including sediment from the erosion of soils, which is diffused to the extent that it is not readily discernable and cannot be confined to a discrete conveyance. The term is in- tended to be equivalant to the term "nonpoint source" as used in the federal statutes and regulations. l_or,al interest from the farming and ranching com- munity during the State 11 208 Planning" process, and legislative concern over compliance with the water quality standards of the Water Pollution Control Program helped trigger diffuse source legislation. This legislation author- ized the counties and municipalities to prescribe controls for diffuse sources provided they have the staff and funds to do so. Initially, controls on dif- fuse sources will be implemented as a voluntary program. If unsuccessful, a mandatory program will be considered. Major Program Features 1. The Environmental Commission has the exclusive power to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act including standards of -61- water quality and amounts of waste which may be discharged into water. Before adopting any regulation, the Commission is required to hold a public hearing. 2. The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources was designated as the state water pollution control agency. It has the authority to develop compre- hensive plans and programs for preventing, reducing or eliminating pollution. 3. The Commission was required to establish water quality standards by July 1, 1973. The water quality standards had to be based on water quality criter- ia which numerically or descriptively defined the conditions necessary to maintain the designated beneficial use(s) of the water. The water quality standards must reflect water quality criteria which define the conditions necessary to support, protect and allow the propagation of fish, shellfish and other wildlife and to provide for recreation in and on the water if these ob- jectives are reasonably att?,inable. 4. The Environmental Commission may prescribe controls for diffuse sources for: (a) any diffuse source existing on July 1, 1979, if the Departments deter- mines that the source is significantly causing or adding to water pollu- tion in violation of a water quality standard; (b) any diffuse source created after July 1,, 1979, if controls are neces- sary to prevent the degradation of any water of high quality in the waters of the state. 5. The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources will delegate admini- stration of the Department's controls of diffuse sources to any county of, city provided that the Department finds the county or city has the necessary money and staff to administer the program effectively. 6. Provisions concerning diffuse sources are exempt from the regulatory pro- visions of the Act, and are not subject to the penalties imposed upon persons who violate provisions concerning point sources of pollution. -62- NEW HAMPSHIRE TITLE: Dredging Law NH RSA 149:8-A LEAD AC72NCV: Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission Municipalities with adopted ordinances STATE CONTACT: Fred Alkind, Sanitary Engineer Water Supply and Pollution Control Commisson PO Box 95 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603/271-3503 NEW HAMPSHIRE DREDGING LAW The New Hampshire law enablirg the control of pollution of the state's waters was enacted in 1947. The Water Pollution and Disposal of Wastes Act (Chapter 149) authorized the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission to administer and enforce an abatement program for all sources of pollution within the state. In 1972, the Dredging Law was added to Chapter 149 providing for the control of (1) land-disturbing activities in or on the border of the surface waters of the state and (2) projects significantly altering the characteristics of the terrain. The Law requires those persons engaged in such activities to submit detailed plans concerning the proposal to the Commission. The Commission is required to review these plans before a permit to conduct a land-disturbing activity is issued. Initial determination to develop more detailed regulations based on the 1972 Dredging Law came out of the state's 208 impetus on water quality control. The Commisson was expected to take further action on proposed regulations in July 1980. 'she citizens of New Hampshire are very concerned about the issues dealing with the quality of the state's waters. The public is also aware of the effects soil erosion and sediment have upon water qua"lity. Unfortunately, the cost of control methods and a limited tax 'base (New Hampshire has no state sales or income tax) has somewhat limited the scope of the entire Water Pollution Control Program. 43- . z NEW JERSEY TITLE: Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act N.J. Stats. Ann. Sec. 4:24-17.5---4:24-55 State Soil Conservation Committee LEAD AGENCY: State Soil Conservation Committee Soil Conservation Districts Municipalities STATE CONTACT: Sam Race, Coordinator Soil and Water Conservation Services Division of Rural Resources New Jersey Department of Agriculture PO Box 1888 Trenton, NJ 08625 609/292-5541 NEW JERSEY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction .ew Jersey's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act is supplemental to Chapter 24, the New Jersey Soil Conservation Law of 1937, which provides for the con- servation of the soil and soil resources of New Jersey and for the control and prevention of soil erosion. The original 1937 law laid out the groundwork for controlling soil erosion. It established the State Soil Conservation Committee and the Soil Conservation Districts to carry out the functions of the law, of which the primary one is the development of comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil resources and for the control and prevention of soil erosion. The program is intended to reduce the danger from stormwater runoff, retard nonpoint pollution from sediment and conserve and protect the resources of the state. Under the new law, the State Soil Conservation Committee is required to issue standards and rules for controlling soil erosion and sedimentation. Before any municipality can issue a construction permit for a 'rand-disturbing activ- ity, the local soil conservation district must approve a soil erosion and sed- iment control plan submitted by the developer. The plan must conform to the state standards. The New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act is aimed primarily at preventing urban soil erosion and sedimentation. New land-disturbing activ- ities that require approval of a soil erosion and sediment control plan in- clude: (1) demolition of one or more structures; (2) construction of a parking lot; (3) construction of a public facility; (4) operation of any mining or quarrying activity; and (5) clearing or grading of any land for other than agricultural or horticultural purposes. The bill requires any per- son engaged in a land-disturbing activity that does not call for a state or local government permit to submit and receive approval of a soil erosion and sediment control plan from the local soil conservation district. Projects undertaken by the Department of Transportation do not recuire such approval, but must comply with standards set jointly by the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the State Soil Conservation Committee. They must also be endorsed by the soil conservation district. Major Program Features 1. The State Soil Conservation Committee has the power to formulate, promul- gate, amend and repeal standards for the control of soil erosion and sedi- mentation. 2. Approval by the state, county, municipality or instrumentality, of an ap- plication for development for any project, is contingent upon certification by the local district of a plan for soil erosion and sediment control. Those municipalities adopting ordinances which conform to state standards and have obtained approval from the State Soil Conservation Committee, are exempt from district jurisdi,tion. Of 567 municipalities, 85 have chosen to adopt soil erosion and sediment control ordinances. 3. Regulations apply to land-disturbing activities of 5,000 square feet of surface area or more, with the exception of all minor disturbances conducted on single family residences that are not part of a subdivision. 4. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act or fails to com- ply with the provisions of a certified plan is liable to a penalty of not less than $25 nor more than $3,000. Rules and Regulations 1. The Committee has the authority to offer assistance to the district super- visor in carrying out any of its powers and programs. 2. The districts may: (a) conduct surveys, investigations, "Md research relating to the char- acter of soil erosion and the preventive and control measures needed; (b) conduct projects in order to demonstrate methods of soil erosion con- trol; (c) carry out preventive and control measures within the district; (d) furnish financial or other aid to any agency or landowner within the district to carry out erosion control and preventive operations within the district; (e) develop comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil resources and for the control and prevention of soil erosion within the district; and (f) formulate regulations governing the use of lands within the district in the interest of conserving soil and soil resources and preventing and controlling soil erosion. Districts are required to conduct public meetings and hearings on tentative regulations and objections by owners of 25 percent or more of land within the district. -66— ILn. m 3. Regulations to be adopted by the districts can include: (a) provisions requiring the construction of terraces, terrace outlets., check dams, dikes, ponds, ditches, and other necessary structures; (b) provisions requiring observance of particular methods of cultivation including contour cultivating, contour furrowing, lister furrowing, sow- ing, planting, strip cropping, seeding, and planting of lands to water- conserving and erosion-preventing plants, trees and grasses, forestation and reforestation; (c) specifications of cropping programs and tillage practices to be ob- served; (d) provisions limiting the cultivation of highly erosive areas or of areas on which erosion may not be adequately controlled if cultivation is carried on; and (e) provisions for such other means, measures, operations and programs as may assist conservation of soil resources and prevent or control soil ero- sion in the district. -67- NEW YORK TITLE: Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law McKinneys Cons. Laws of NY, Book 52-B LEAD AGENCY: State Soil and Water Conservation Committee STATE CONTACT: Bill Croney, Executive Secretary State Soil and Water Conservation Committee Cornell University, 142 Emerson Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 607/256-4420 NEW YORK'S SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM Introduction New York's Soil and Water Conservation Law is directed primarily at rural erosion and sediment control and the conservation of the soil and water, re- sources of the state. Most soil and water conservation districts maintain that water quality control is a high priority, with streambank erosion a main concern. While agriculture is the single largest industry in New York State (NYS), ag- ricultural activities (mostly dairy and hay production) are not considered a significant contributor to nonpoint source pollution. The need for control of urban land-disturbing activities has decreased because NYS is no longer under- going extensive urban expansion. Rural areas are now increasingly aware of the need for preserving agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products. The soil and water conservation districts law requires the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee to develop a policy on soil and water conserva- tion to be administered and enforced by the districts. The districts are re- quired to provide a soil and water conservation plan to landowners within the district by January 1, 1985, and to other owners or occupiers of land by January 1, 1987. Comprehensive plans developed by the district for the con- servation of soil and water resources must meet Committee approval. Major Program•Features 1, The State Soil and Water Conservation Committee was established to carry out the functions of the law. 2. The districts are authorized to: (a) conduct surveys, investigations and research relating to the char- acter of soil erosion and floodwater and sediment damages, and the pre- ventive and control measures needed; -69- PAGE j NiEMIlONBLLY @^BYIf► (b) carry out preventive and control measures within the districts; (c) cooperate to furnish financial or other aid to any agency or occupier of lands within the district, in carrying out erosion control, flood pre- vention and sediment damage prevention operations and land use adjustments; (d) develop comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil and water resources and for the control and prevention of soil erosion, the pre- vention of floodwater and sediment damages and for agriculture water man- agement within the district. Every owner or occupier of a gricultural land is required to apply to the appropriate district for a soil and water con- servation plan for the land under his/her ownership or control. Soil Capability and Productivity Land Classification System The 1971 NYS Agricultural Districts Law provided for an Agricultural Value Assessment (AVA). Since its onset in 1971, the implementation of the AVA has greatly improved. In April of 1980, the NYS Legislature adopted a land classification system based on soil resources and soil characteristics related to agricultural pro- ductivity. The program involves developing a procedure for placing a relative value on agriculture land based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey and soil capability and productivity of the agricultural land in NYS. The process of developing an AVA consists of using the land classification system, grouping soils and applying dollar values to each category within the system. The soil and water conservation districts were recommended to have the lead in developing the farm-by-far,i soil information necessary for this system. This information is a component of the farm conservation plan admin- istered by the districts through the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law. It is anticipated that soils on all agricultural land in NYS will be mapped by 1985. In addition to basing the AVA on the National Cooperative Soil Survey, it was recommended that: ( 1 ) mineral soil classification be based on productivity index and cap- ability class; (2) organic soil will be based on depth, drainage and flood protection; and (3) the state be divided into climate regions based on number of frost- free days. -70- NORTH CAROLINA TITLE: Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 Gen. Stats. NC Secs. 113A-50--113A-66 LEAD AGENCY: North Carolina Sediment Control Commission Local governments STATE CONTACTS: Stephan G. Conrad, Director Division of Land Resources Department of Natural Resources and Community Development PC, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 919/733-3833 NORTH CAROLINA'S EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction Sediment is a major pollutant in Norm Carolina. In 1973, the state enacted the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act directed toward preventing the pollu'. tion of state waters through the control of major sediment producers, pri- marily construction sites and road maintenance. The Erosion and Sediment Control Program is administered and enforced by the North Carolina Sediment Control Commission. The Commission (or local govern- ment, with the Commission's guidance and approval), is authorized to develop, promulgate and administer a comprehensive erosion and sediment control program which is required to include mandatory standards for land-disturbing activi- ties. Each local government program requires the submission of an approved erosion control plan for all privately funded land-disturbing activities sub- ject to review by both the local government and the appropriate soil and water conservation district. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over govern- ment-funded construction projects with regard to enforcement of erosion and sediment control. An important factor in the success of North Carolina's mandatory Erosion and Sediment Control Program is the high degree of cooperation between the state and the contractors and home builders involved in land-disturbing activities. This cooperative environment has enabled the agencies involved in sediment pollution control to administer their program through educational efforts; where voluntary compliance is not obtained, the law is enforced b, the state through civil penalties and injunctive relief. Major Program Features K 1. To implement the comprehensive state erosion and sediment control program, the Sediment Control Commission was required to develop and adopt on or before -71- F July 1, 1974, rules and regulations for the control of erosion and sedimenta- tion resulting from land-disturbing activities. Before adopting or revising any ruler, and regulations, public hearings were required on the proposed actions. 2. In implementing the erosion and sedimentation control program, the Commission is authorized to: (a) assist and encourage local governments in developing erosion and sed- iment control programs, develop a model local erosion control ordinance and approve or disapprove local plans; (b) assist and encourage other st,.'. acencies to develop erosion and sed- iment control programs; (c) develop recommended methods for p..ontro' of sedimentation. 3. To assist the Commission in developing the erosion and sediment control program, the Commission is authorized to appoint an advisory committee consistilig of tech- nical experts in t'ie fields of water resources, soil science, engineering and landscape architecture. 4. Mandatory Standards for Land-Oisturbin A ^ ctivity: (a) No land-disturbing activity durin g periods of construction or improvement to land will be permitted in proximity to a lake or natural watercourse, unless a buffer zone is provided along the margin of the watercourse to confine visible siltation within 25 percent of the buffer zone nearer the land-disturbing activity. Land-disturbing activities in connection with the construction of facilities on, over, or under a lake or natural watercourse are exempt. (b) The angle for grading slopes and fills cannot be greater than the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. Slopes left exposed must, within 30 work- ing days of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or provided with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion.. (c) Whenever land-disturbing activity is undertaken on a tract comprising more than one acre, if more than one contiguous acre is uncovered, a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be planted or otherwise provided within 30 working days on that portion of the tract upon which further active construction is not being undertaken. 5. Local Erosion Control Programs: Local governments which have received the Sediment on ro ommission s approval for an erosion and sediment control program are authorized to adopt ordinances, rules and regulations necessary to establish and enforce such control programs and to create or designate agen- cies or subdivisions of the local government to administer and enforce the programs. 6. Any person who violates any provision of this law is guilty of a mis- demeanor punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or by a fine not to exceed b5,000,.or by both, at the discretion of the court. -72- OHIO TITLE: Soil and Water Conservation District Law Agricultural Pollution Abatement and Urban Sediment Pollution Abatement Ohio HB 513, Approved Oct. 13, 1978 LEAD AGENCY: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Soil and Water District`,s STATE CONTACT: Floyd Heft, Chief Division of Soil and 'dater Districts Ohio Department of Natural Resources Fountain Square Columbus, Ohio 43224 614/466-5283 OHIO EROSION AND SEDIMENT (POLLUTION ABATEMENT) PROGRAM Introduction In 1941, the Ohio Legislature passed HB 646 which provided for the creation of the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Committee and local soil and water conservation districts to carry out a voluntary program of soil and water con- servation on agricultural lands. The Soil and Water Conservation Committee was changed to the Soil and Water Conservation Commission in 1969 by SB 160 and placed in the Ohio Department of Natural Resorrces. In 1971, SB 305 was passed, amended by SB 397 in 1972, SB 513 in 1978, and HB 655 in 1980, providing for the development of a program for the abatement of agricultural and urban sedimentary pollution. This program is administered by the Division of Soil and Water Districts with the concurrence of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Under the 1971 program, districts became responsible for assisting landowners and operators to meet established soil and water conservation standards. While enforcement procedures were lacking for agricultural lands, local ordi- nances adopted by some counties or municipalities required erosion and sedi- ment control for development or other land-disturbing activities before issuing rezoning classifications or building permits. Local jurisdictions with such ordinances look to conservation districts and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for technical standards and plan review. In 1978, HB 513 was enacted authorizing the Division of Soil and Water Districts and local districts to establish and administer rules and procedures for agricultural pollution and urban sediment pollution abatement. Rules and -73- procedures for state enforcement authority were established for animal waste pollution abatement only, although rules were adopted establishing state standards and program procedures for urban sediment pollution abatement. The law authorized the Chief of the Division to enter into cooperative agreements with districts to obtair, compliance with rules and orders of the Chief. The Chief has the power to enter all lands to inspect and investigate conditions and to request the County Prosecuting Attorney to bring action for non- compliance with the rules of the Division relating to animal waste pollution. This shifted the responsibility for enforcement from the OEPA to the Department. The shift was appropriate q nd the standardF, now being used are a required level of conservation or management standards, rather than air and water quality standards. The legislation covers agricultural pollution including soil sediment and at- tached substances and animal waste. It also provides that the program be carried out by the Division in cooreration with local conservation districts. The program provides for the adoption of Soil Loss Tolerance Factors utilizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Universal Soil Loss Equation to determine if an adequate level of conservation practices and/'or management is applied to meet the standard. A level of management, rather than water quality, is also used to determine if an animal waste pollution problem exists. The program also provides for state financial cost-sharing for installation of needed practices to meet agricultural soil loss limits and for animal waste control. "The 1978 law awakened the public to the detrimental effects of soil erosion and sedimentation. All 88 soil and water conservations districts had entered agreements for pollution abatement with the State Division before the 1980 amendatory legislation waG enacted. The enactment of HB 655 is a continued dedication toward a soil conservation ethic and the abatement of agricultural and urban sediment pollution through voluntary conservation standards. Major Program Features 1. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission is authorized to: (a) assist in keeping the supervisors of local districts informed of their powers and duties, program opportunities, and the activities and ex- periences of all other districts; (b) recommend to the Director of the Department of Natural Resources pri- orities for planning and construction of small watershed projects, and to make recommendations to the Department Director concerning coordination of programs as proposed and implemented with the districts; and (c) recommend to the Department Director, Governor, and the General Assembly, programs and legislation with respect to the operations of districts which will encourage proper soil, water, and other natural re- source management and promote the economic and social development of the state. 2. As of May 2, 1980, each county has a district parallel to the geographic area of the county, with each district constituting a political subdivision of the state. 3. The Supervisors of a district are authorized to: -14- "AA (a) conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to the char- acter of so;' erosion, floodwater and sediment damages, and to provide for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water needed within the district; (b) develop plans for the conservation of soil resources and for the con- trol of soil erosion and works of improvement for flood prevention, and to provide for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water within the district; (c) implement, construct, repair, maintain, and operate preventive methods and other works of improvement for natural resource conservation, development and flood prevention, and to provide for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water within the district; and (d) enter into agreement or contracts with the Department of Natural Resources to determine, inspect, and fund agricultural pollution and urban sediment pollution abatement measures so that landowners, operators, man- agers and developers can meet adopted state standards for a q uality envi- ronment. The Director of the Department of Natural Resources is required to make recommendations to reduce the adverse environmental effects of each pro- ject that a district plans to undertake and is required to disapprove any such projects which will adversely affect the environment without equal or greater benefit to the public. The district may call on the Soil and Water Conservation Commission for their recommendations. 4. The Division, subject to the approval of the Department of Natural Resources Director, is authorized to: (a) provide administrative leadership to local districts in planning, budgeting, staffing, and administrating district programs; and assist in the training of district supervisors and personnel in their duties, re- sponsibilities, and authorities; (b) administer the pollution abatement program pertaining to state responsibilities, and provide staff assistance to the Commission in exer- cising its statuatory responsibilities; (c) assist in expediting state responsibilities for watershed development and other natural resource conservation works of improvement; (d) coordinate the development and implementation of cooperative programs and working agreements; and (e) subject to the approval of the Commission adopt, amend, or rescind rules. These rules are required to: (1) establish standards to achieve a level of management and con- servation practices in farming or silvicultural operations. These standards will abate wind or water erosion of the soil or the degra- dation of the waters of the state by soil sediment. Rules must also establish criteria determining the acceptability of these management and conservation practices. The rules adopted under this division -75- 1 I ".T' must also provide for the achievement over a period of years of the applicable soil loss tolerance factors or permissible soil loss values established by the United States Department of Agriculture. No phase of the pollution abatement program that is more stringent than the initial one will apply until the chief of the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Districts publishes a study of the economicimpact of implementing the next phase. Not earlier than one month after this, a public hearing must be conducted in each of the six soil and water conservation districts on the pro- posed implementation, amendment, or postponement of the next phase of the pollution abatement program. (2) establish standards to achieve a level of management and conser- vation practices which will abate wind or water erosion of the soil or the degradation of the state waters by soil sediment. The stan- dard.t must be designed to implement applicable areawide waste treat- ment management plans prepared under section 2U ,)f the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act". These standards and criteria will not apply in any municipality or county that adopts ordinances or rules pertaining to sediment control, nor tc lands being used in a strip mine operation or surface mine operation; (3) recommend criteria and procedures for approving urban sediment pollution abatement plans and issuing permits before grading, exca- vating, filling, or other whole or partial disturbance of five or more contiguous acres of land owned by one person or operated as one development unit, and require implementation of the plan; (4) establish standards to manage concentrated animal feeding opera- tions on farms, which will reduce the degradation of the state wa+prs by animal waste; and establish criteria for determining the acce,'^'A- bility of those management practices; and (5) establish procedures for administration of rules for agricultural pollution abatement and urban sediment pollution abatement and for enforcement of rules for animal waste management. (f) name an agricultural pollution abatement technical advisory board and an urban sediment pollution abatement technical advisory board while developing rules for adoption; (g) cost-share with landowners on practices for e Ming water pollution from animal wastes and soil sediment, specify the enduring agricultural pollution abatement practices eligible for cost-sharing, and establish the cost-share limits; and (h) provide technical assistance in connection with new or relocated pro- jects involving highways, underground cables, pipelines, railroads, and other improvements affecting the water management of lands. 5. Violations and Penalties: Persons who fail to comply with an order re- quiring the compliance with rules and regulations of the animal waste pollu- tion abatement program are guilty of a minor misdemeanor. -76- 6 6. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Authorit y : The OEPA's permit to con- y. struct and permit to operate only apply to agricultural pollution if more than 1000 animal units are involved in an animal waste management situation or if an animal waste treatment works has a controlled direct discharge or any dis- charge prohibited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. -77- PENNSYLVANIA TITLE: The Clean Streams Law of Pennsylvania 35 Pa. Stats. Secs. 691.1 et seq. (1977) LEAD AGENCY: Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation STATE CONTACT: Afton Schadel, Chief Division of Soil Resources and Erosion Control Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation Department of Environmental Resources PO Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 717/787-5267 PENNSYL!kNIA'S SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction The Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted PL 2724 in 1937 which provided for the creation of soil conservation districts. Only a few districts were organ- ized under this law. In 1945, the General Assembly enacted the Soil Conservation Law which created the State Soil Conservation Cummission and re- vised procedAires for the creation of soil conservation districts and their governing beards. The state law has been amended a number of times to reflect changing conditions. There are now 66 districts in Pennnsylvania covering all counties except Philadelphia. The districts' programs have been primarily agriculturally oriented towards soil conservation on farmlands. Technical assistance was provided by the US Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and efforts were entirely on a voluntary basis. Erosion and sediment control in non-agri- cultural areas was minimal before 1972. The State Conservation Commission and conservation districts were transferred to the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) from the Department of Agriculture in 1971. This change resulted in districts becoming more 01 rectly involved with environmental programs of water quality management, sv , !`d waste disposal, forest management, surface mining, state parks, etc. Y'E°,is k,irrange- ment enabled districts and cooperating agencies to attend to erosion ,fj7)J sedi- ment control activities and to conservation methods on all lands. Several developments revealed the need for an expanded program for erosion and sediment control. These included erosion and sediment problems created by in- dustrial development and urbanization; a growing citizen and political inter- est in total watershed management problems; and the general recognition that sediment is the largest single pollutant when measured by volume of the state's water resources. . __ On September 21, 1972, following a study by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and public hearings, rules and regulations for erosion and sedimentation control were adopted by the EQB pursuant to the existing Clean Streams Law. The objective of the Clean Streams Law is not only to prevent further pollu- tion of state waters, but also to reclaim and restore to a clean, unpolluted condition every stream in Penosylvania that is °.:. sently polluted. Un ger the regulations for erosion and sediment control, ail ;arthmoving activities, re- gardless of size, must have an erosion and sedimentation control plan. In ad- dition, earthmoving activities greater than 25 acres must also have an erosion and sediment control permit. The Department of Environmental Resources developed an operating procedure that would utilize conservation districts' expertise in the program. The staffs of the Bureau of Water Quality Management, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, and the Bureau of Liti g ation ar,J Enforcement jointly developed the procedure. On projects requiring DER permits, an application for an erosion and sediment- ation control permit is submitted to the conservation district along with an erosion and sediment control plan. The conservation district has 45 days to act on the application. Following technical review, the conservation district board, at an official meeting, takes action to recommend to DER that a permit should either be issued or denied. This recommendation is forwarded to DER's regional office where the permitting process takes place. Through a policy established by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Resources, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation provides technical support on erosion control matters to other bureaus within DER. Inspection and enforcement activities are handled by the Office of the Deputy for Protection and Regulation and Deputy for Enforcement. Included in the operating procedures is a provision that DER may a!,sign portions of the en- forcement program to local jurisdictions. The resources management portion of the program has been assigned to the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation and the 66 conservation districts. The Bureau's Division of Soil Resources and Erosion Control implements DER's pro- gram through information, training, administrative and liaison activities. Districts provide information, planning assistance, plan review and land use monitoring assistance to the Department of Environmental Resources. Twentysix districts have contracted for authority in the inspection portion of the pro- gram. Pennsylvania's program applies to all lands within its borders. An excellent education program exists in all parts of the state for developers, engineers, municipal officials, farmers and others to explain erosion and sediment con- trol. Since the beginning of the regulatory erosion and sediment control pro- gram, numbers of permit applications for earthmoving activities have decreased annually reflecting districts' activities in promoting conservation, con- tractors changing their site plans, as well as a slowdown in construction starts. Major Program Features 1. Powers and Duties: In adopting rules and regulations, establishing policy and priorities and in issuing orders or permits, the Environmental Quality Board and Department of Environmental Resources are required to consider: -80- N,. (a) water quality management and pollution control in the watershed as a whole; (b) the present and possible future uses of particular waters; (c) the feasibility of combined or joint treatment facilities; (d) the state of scientific and technological knowledge; and (e) the immediate and long-range economic impact on the Commonwealth and its citizens. The EQB is authorized to: (a) formulate, adopt, promulgate and repeal rules and regulations to im- plement the provisions of this act; and (b) establish policies for effective water quality control and water quality management, and develop and implement comprehensive public water supply, waste management and other water quality plans. The DER is authorized to: (a) review an<3 take appropriate action on all permit applications; and (b) issue orders to implement the provisions of this Act. The Bureau of Water Quality Management (BWQM) and the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) of the Department of Environmental Resources jointly ad- ministers the DER's erosion and sediment control program. The BSWC is author- ized to approve the administration of the erosion and sediment control program by a unit of local government. (The BSQM and Bureau of litigation must also approve this action.) 2. Under the policies and procedures adopted January 1, 1977, pursuant to the rules and regulations adopted by the EQB on September 21, 1972 9 the BSWC is authorized to work with Conservation Districts to inform landowners of the need for an erosion and sediment control plan when earthmoving activities are undertaken. Conservation districts have agreed to monitor land use and attempt to secure voluntary compliance by landholders to the DER's rules and regulations on erosion and sediment control. 3. On September 21, 1972, the EQB adopted regulations for the control of erosion and sedimentation. The DER developed a program to implement these regulations and thereby prevent pollution of the waters of the Commonwealth. The Department of Environmental Resources recommends special factors to be considered in developing a plan. The erosion and sediment control plan is re- quired to be designed to prevent accelerated erosion and sedi me,; tItion, and must consider all factors which contribute to erosion and sedimentation in- cluding, but not limited to, the following: (a) the topographic features of the project area; (b) the types, depth, slope and areal extent of the soils; (c) the proposed alteration to the area; (d) the amount of runoff from the project area and the upland watershed area; (e) the staging of earthmoving activities; (f) temporary control measures and facilities for use during earthmoving; -81- (g) permanent control measures and facilities for long-term protection; and (h) a maintenance program for the control facilities including disposal of materials removed from the control facilities or project area; 4. Permit Required: The regulations require any person or municipality en- gaged in an ear moving activity to obtain a DER permit before any earth is disturbed. Activities exempt from obtaining a DER permit are those (1) in- volving plowing or tilling for agricultural purposes; (2) for which a plan has been developed by the Soil Conservation Service; (3) requiring a permit under the Water Obstruction Act, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and/or the Clean Streams Law or; (4) which affect less than 25 acres. S. Responsibilities of Landowners and Land Occupiers: Whenever the Sanitary Water Board finds that pollution or a aanger of pollution is resulting from a condition which exists on land in the Commonwealth, the Board can order the landowner or occupier to correct the condition in a manner satisfactory to the Board. 6. Responsibilities of Agricultural Landowners and Users in Erosion and Sedimentation Control: conservation pan must be prepare a -n-d imp eme ntea or all agricu ura activities which might disturb the land surface. Golf courses, sod production, mushroom production, home gardens and federal, state, municipal and private parks are not considered agricultural activities. The conservation plan for agricultural activities must be implemented by July 1, 1977. Erosion and sedimentation control plans may vary according to the po- tential Erosion and sedimentation hazard. The conservation plan must consist of a soil map, a conservation plan map and a narrative describing the nature of the control practices. The Agricultural Conservation Plan as a minimum contains an erosion and sedimentation control plan for proposed and present earth disturbing activities. 7. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control for Forestr. steep terrain in the Appalachian Mountains, much caused by soil erosion and sedimentation during water that is harmful to fish and other aquatic consumption and recreational uses can often be tr ging operations. V Practices: Because of the damage to forest streams is logging operations. Muddy life, unsuitable for human aced to poorly managed log- Forest product harvesting operations involve activities which disturb forest soil cover and can lead to accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation. The Bureau of Forestry of the DER has conducted studies determining that well planned and conducted forest product removal operations will cause between 7 and 10 percent of the area harvested to be affected by direct soil distur- bance. These disturbed areas are potential accelerated soil erosion and sedi- mentation hazards. It was, therefore, required that all persons engaged in forest product harvesting operations submit an erosion and sediment control plan by October 21, 1972, and obtain a permit for such activities by July 1, 1973. 8. Violations and Penalties: It is unlawful for any person or municipality to discharge into state wa ers, or permit to be discharged from property owned or occupied by that person or municipality, any substance resulting in pollu- tion. The Clean Streams Law declares this type of discharge a nuisance. Any -82- wee person or municipality who violates any provision of this Act is guilty of a summary offense and subject to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1000 for each separate offense. Any person or municipality who willfully violates any provision of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree and is subject to a fine of not less than $2500 nor more than $25,000 for each separate offense, or to impri- sonment for a period of not 'more than one year, or both. Any person or municipality who, after conviction of a misdemeanor for any vio- lation within two years as provided above, willfully violates any provision of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree and subject to a fine of not less than $2500 nor more than $50,000 for each separate offense, or to imprisonment for a period of not more than two years, or both. -83- SOUTH CAROLINA TITLE: County Sediment Control Program Code of Laws of S.C. Secs. 48-13-10 -- 48-13-60 0976) LEAD AGENCY: Counties that have .`opted local ordinance in cooperation with appropriate soil ^, nd water conservation districts STATE CONTACT: Mark Corley, Chief Conservation Planning and Resource Development Land Resource Conservation Commission 2221 Devine Street, Suite 222 Col.,Mbia, SC 29205 803/758-2823 COUNTY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAMS Introduction In South Carolina, the law enabling the creation of conservation districts was passed in 1937. It provided for the incorporation of South Carolina's 46 counties into soil and water conservation districts for the purpose of con- servirig soil and water resources and the prevention of soil erosion and re- sultant sediment. damages. An Act to authorize ',ounty Sediment Control programs became effective in 1971. As amended through 1976, the program does not require counties to adopt erosion and sediment control ordinances. In those counties choosing to estab- lish an erosion and sediment control plan, no construction activities can be undertaken until a permit has been obtained pursuant to an approved erosion and siltation control plan. Commercial mining operations, agricultural land management and cultural practices, on-farm building construction and single family residences t^hich are not part of a subdivision do not require a county grading permit. Only one county in South Carolina (Lexington County) has established an active sediment and erosion control program with required permits and sediment reduc- tion plans before soil is disturbed for construction. The Lexington County Sediment and Erosicn Control Program has worked well. At least two other counties have passed ordinances but have failed to establish active programs. Several other counties have attempted to pass ordinances but have met too much opposition from the building sector for approval. A regulatory program is being proposed providing that Act No. 194 (County Sediment Control Program) be amended or superseded by legislation for the development of a statewide sediment and erosion control program for construc- tion activities, with exemptions as provided in the legislation. Such legis- lation would provide for any local government or combination of local govern- ments to administer and enforce an erosion and sediment control program. It would be the responsibility of the state to enforce a sediment and erosion control program in those counties that do not do so voluntarily. — 85— i( V / 77mI44 .y.++'1'l'. ^n}.-'T.p +.y'i Nia^or Program Features 1. Each county sediment control plan must include a certification by a regis- tered professional engineer or soil conservationist that the plan is designed to contain silt on the property concerned to the maximum extent feasible. 2. No grading permit shall be issued until the applicant has submitted a plan to control erosion and siltation and the plan has been approved by the local soil and water conservation district board. 3. The designated county agency charged with administration and enfowcement of a sediment control program may adopt procedures and regulations consistent with the Act to carry out the provisions thereof. 4. Any person who violates the provisions of a grading plan submitted to ob- tain a grading permit is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or six months imprisonment, or both. County Sediment Control Program Guidelines In keeping with the policy of the Land Resource Conservation Commission to as- sist conservation districts in South Carolina, a guide for developing county sediment control programs was prepared in July 1972. The suggested procedure for estahlishing a county sediment control program is as follows: 1. The adopted resolution calling for the establishment and enforcement of a County Sediment Control Program should: (a) assign responsibility for developing the Sediment Control Regulation and the necessary administrative procedures; (b) assign responsibilities for administering and enforcing the Regulation; and (c) specify the expected source(s) of funding to administer the Program. 2. f= ormulate a County Sediment Control Regulation. 3. Establish procedure for administering the county grading permit system. 4. Establish procedures for coordination of responsible county agency(ies) and conservatiun district. 5. Adopt minimum standards and specifications for conservation measures needed to prevent erosion and control sediment in the county. h. Conduct an informational program tr create an understanding of the program and obtain compliance. Erosion and Sediment Control Regulat ion The purpose of this regulation is to protect lands and waters within the county, to the extent practical.'-'e; from the results of soil Erosion and sedi- -86- mentation through controls of some of the disturbances and changes of the surface of the earth. The regulation calls for an approved erosion and sediment control plan before issuing a county grading permit. Soil erosion and sediment control plans should contain the following consider- ations, as applicable: (a) the smallest practical area of land is exposed by clearing and grading at any one time during development; (b) when feasible, natural vegetation is retained and protected from dam- age. 'topsoil is saved where practical, for replacing on graded areas; (c) temporary plant cover, mulching and/or structures to control runoff are used to protect areas subject to erosion during the period of develop- ment or land use change; (d) provisions are made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by the changed soil and surface conditions. Diversion ditches, grassed or surfaced waterways and outlets, enlarged and protected drainage channels, and effective use of street gutters and storm sewers are ef- fective means; (e) sediment basins (debris basins) are installed, where practical, to remove the major part of sediment from runoff waters leaving the disturbed area; and (f) the permanent vegetation cover and the long-term erosion protection structures are established as soon as practical in the development process. -87- Al SOUTH DAKOTA TITLE: Act to Regulate Land-Disturbing Activities Within the State, Resulting in Soil Erosion and Sediment Damage S.D.C.L. Secs. 38-8A-1 -- 38-8A-21 (1977) LEAD AGENCY: Conservation Distriv^ts STATE CONTACT: Keith Horner, Director Division of Conservation Department of Agriculture Room 332, Anderson Building Pierre, SD 57501 605/773-3258 SOUTH DAKOTA SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM Introduction On July 1, 1976, Soutn Dakota enacted legislation to control land-disturbing activities. The Act to Regulate Land-Disturbing Activities Within the State, Resulting in Soil Erosion and Sediment Damage, authorized the State Conservation Commission to develop comprehensive state erosion and sediment control guidelines before July 1, 1977. The guidelines developed by the Commission were to consist of recommended soil loss limits and suggested con- servation standards. Conservation districts in cooperation with counties, municipalities and other affected units of local government were required to develop proposed district conservation standards by July 1, 1978. The proposed standards are subject to review by the Commission. Once approved, the district has three months to adopt conservation standards consistent with the control of erosion and sedi- ment resulting from land-disturbing activities. Sixty-five out of sixty-nine districts have adopted conservation standards in compliance with the Commission's guidelines. Major Program Features After formal adoption of district conservation standards, each permit issuing authority is required to include provisions in its permit procedure to ensure that any proposed action relating to a permit is in compliance with the dis- trict conservation standards. Agricultural and minor land-disturbing activities are not required to be re- ported to the district unless they are in violation of adopted conservation standards. If there is a violation, the land disturber will be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan. The land disturber has six months to submit a control plait to the district for approval; once approved s(he) has six months to implement the plan. ( (^ -89- b ^U ^t 1 VIRGINIA TITLE: Erosion and Sediment Control Act Code of Va. Tit. 21, Ch. 1, Secs. 21-89.1 -- 21.89.15 LEAD AGENCY: Local municipalities STATE CONTACT: Gerard Seeley, Jr., Chief Engineer Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission 830 E. Main Street, Suite 800 Richmond, VA 23219 804/786-2064 VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT C ONTROL PROGRAM Introduction The Virginia General Assembly adopted the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act in 1938 to carry out erosion and sediment control programs on a joint federal, state and local basis, primarily through to creation of local soil and water conservation districts. The law addressed erosion control on agricultural lands through voluntary programs of local districts. Fairfax County adopted an erosion and sediment control ordinance that took ef- fect in January 1967. It was the first urban erosion and sediment control program in Virginia. It required developers to submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the county for approval before land clearing or grading could begin. In July 1971, the State Water Control Board adopted a policy for waste treat- ment and water quality management in the Occoquan Watershed. The policy re- quired local political subdivisions to adopt a siltation control ordinance containing adequate enforcement provisions to control siltation on development, projects within the Occoquan Watershed. During 1971, the Erosion and Sediment Control Task force of the Governor's Council on the Environment reported on erosion and sedimentation problems in Virginia. The report included recommendations on several features to be in- corporated in a legislative proposal to combat the problem. In August 1971, the Attorney General gave an opinion stating that sediment and silt are pol- lutants under the state water control law and therefore must be considered in determining water quality in Virginia. The efforts of Virginia's Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Erosion and Sediment Control Task Force resulted in the 1972 enactment of a bill for erosion and sediment Control on land-disturbing projects involving other than agricultural or silvicultural activities. The purpose of the law was to establish and implement a statewide, coordinated program to control a, t_^'^^` Ill• rk _91- ...— •^., . erosion and sediment and to conserve and protect the lard, water, air and other natural resources of Virginia. The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission was made responsible for administering the law. Guidelines, standards and criteria were adopted by the Commission and becallie effective July 1, 1974. k,ocal erosion acid sediment control programs con- sistent with the state program were developed 18 months later and 172 programs are being carried out by (1) four soil and water conservation districts; (2) 168 counties, cities, and incorporated towns; or (3) a joint venture between a district and municipality. These local programs must be approved by the Commission. Major Program Features 1. State Erosion and Sediment Control Program. Standards, guidelines and criteri aweredeveloped by the Soil an Water-T—onservation Commission for the effective control of soil erosion, sediment deposition and non-agricultural runoff. The Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed standards before their adoption or revision. 2. Local Erosion and Sediment Control Programs. Each local government or conservaG on district was required to adopt a program which was at least as stringent in its guidelines, standards and criteria as the state program, ex- cept that securing approval of or obtaining a permit can not be more difficult than the law provides; nor may local governments require compliance for those land-disturbing activities exempted by state law. The law exempts certain minor land disturbances, individual public utility construction and repair, separately built single-family dwellings and usual horticultural, forestry and agricultural practices. Projects of state agencies are exempted from local control; they require approval by the Commission. Plans for interjuris- dictional projects may be submitted to the Commission or to each locality in- volved at the option of the applicant. The local programs required an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the local Qovernment before land-disturbing activities could begin. The local authority can require an applicant to insure that emergency measures for ap- propriate conservation be taken at the applicant's expense. To insure this, the authority can require a letter of credit, cash escrow s performance bond or other legal arrangement before issuing the permit. The local programs provide for monitoring and inspection of land-disturbing activities. If anyone violates any part of the local ordinances, the enforce- ment authority can prosecute or seek injunctions or other appropriate legal relief to stop the damaging activity. Local programs aso included a plan for carrying out necessary training, information and education programs to insure orderly implementation. Each county and municipality that has adopted erosion and sediment control or- dinances serves as the local unit for inspection and enforcement. Under memoranda of agreement, local conservation districts review erosion and sedi- ment control plans for technical adequacy and provide technical assistance from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). With the help of SCS and the Extension Service, districts conduct local training, education and information programs. -92- . 3. Regulating Land-Disturbing Activities. No person can engage in any land- disturbing activity since the a option of the conservation standards by the districts, counties, cities or towns until an erosion or sediment control plan for the activities has been submitted to the respective authority for review and approval. 4. Penalties. A violation of this article constitutes a misdemeanor and is subjeH—fo a fine not exceeding $1,000 or 30 days imprisonment for each viola- tion, or both. -93- VIRGIN ISLANDS TITLE: Environmental Protection, Shore and Erosion Control V.I. Code Tit. 12, Secs. 531-538, March 25, 1971 LEAD AGENCY: Virgin Islands Water and Soil Conservation District STATE CONTACT: Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture PO Box 10163 San Turce, Puerto Rico 00908 809/722-2120 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION PROGRAM Introduction The Legislatu,°e of the Virgin Islands found that the lands and waters com- pris =ing the watersheds of the Virgin Islands are great natural assets and re- sources. Improper development of land results in changed watershed conditions such as: erosion ano sediment deposition on lower-lying land and in the tidal waters, increased flooding, cut and drainage filling and alteration, pollution and other harmful environmenta l changes. In order to protect the natural re- sources of the Virgin Islands, promote the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, and to protect private and public property, the Legislature determined that it was necessary to establish an environmental protection pro- gram for land development to prevent soil erosion and provide for the conser- vation of beaches, shorelines and the coastal zones. Major Program Features 1. The Environmental Protection Program. The Virgin Islands water and soil conservation is rice was required to prepare and adopt an Environmental Protection Program (EPP) in collaboration with the Virgin Islands Office of Planning, the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Agriculture, Public Works, and Health by September 25, 1971. The EPP consists of rules and regulations which prevent improper development of land and harmful environment changes. The program includes comprehensive erosion and sediment control measures applicable to both public and private developments including the construction and maintenance of streets and roads. 2. Earth Change Plans. Upon the adoption of the EPP, no person can clear, grade,"fiill orotherwise disturb land for any purpose or use unless an Earth Change Plan (ECP) has first been submitted to and approved by the district and is in compliance with the EPP. Any department, agency, board, authority or other instrumentality of the Government (state or federal) must submit its ECP to the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs. The Commissioner of Public Works has enforcement authority. rft^'N PAGELAt°^ jr -95- :X. 3. Ex_em^t_i^onns. Common household gardening, truck farming and the cultivation of lancT for purposes under approved soil and water conservation practices are exempt from the provisions of this Act. 4. Violations. Any violation of this Act is a misdemeanor subject to a fine niat exceeding 15000 or one year's imprisonment for each and every violation. 5. Compliance with the Virgin_ Islands' Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978. Any person wish ing toev a —velop in the first tier of the coastal zone must irst obtain a coastal zone permit which is in compliance with this Act. -96- SECTION VI SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLE CONCERNS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAWS SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLE CONCERNS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAWS r ror rp ry ,v N V L •^ ^ •^ O C •^ N . GJL ^V iC V1 •^ C C fC O O c NL ^L iC V 9 ^ rn V A Q cfl •^ ^•+ ,- O re9 Q N C C rp GJ O C C C1r-v+o ++ i. rp3 ^ rC3 C-L V Ccc b 3 3 3s.- ••► O Cc +•c +^a L TYPE TYPE OF PROGRAM mo •..c ar w o•- Rs` w- „ur •^ o a^z o a^z a^z oz a^a o V1 o N >>•. Regulatory XXX X X X X X X 1 x , x , x 1 x 1 x 1 x X _ Pion-regulatory X X X j x X b TYPE OF CONCERN Fundfnq for Program X I X X X X X 01 X X X X X Lack of Personnel I -X I X ix X' X' XXX X Lack of n erstan i;ng of roszon Process and Control Methods I X 1 X I X X X 1 X I IX 1X V Bill Interpretation I x I I I I X X X 1 I Compliance With Standards X 1 X I X X X X X X Enforcement cl X X X X AIT Sediment Sources Not Covered X e`d Control Practices Unaffordable X X X a. Diffuse source control is a voluntary program within a regulatory program b. Animal. waste pollution abatement program is regulatory c. Amendments have been added to alleviate this problem d. Rules and regulations for urban sediment not included e. Forestry and agriculture not covered 4FHECEDING FAGI MANK NOT i,"LMED -99- i SECTION VII APPENDICES -101- } LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS GEORGIA (Ga. Stat. 3A-104(e)(f)) A 1977 law provides for legislative review of regulations by standing committee predesignated by the speaker and senate pres- ident for each agency. If the committee objects to a regulation, it may intro- duce a resolut i on repe?,ling or modifying th(.- regulation at the next session re- quiring two thirds majority vote or the governor's signature. The legislature cannot override a veto of such a resolution. ILLINOIS (I11. Rev. Stat., Chap, 127, Sec. 1001 et seq) The bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules established under the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act reviews all proposed regulations and makes recommendations to the agency to modify or withdraw the rule. While the agency is not bound to accept the committee's recommendations, it must respond to them. IOWA (Iowa Code Ann. Sec. 17A.8) The Administrative Rules Review Committee established in 1975 is currently reviewing all promulgated rules. The regula- tory review process is advisory but places the bi;irden of proof on the agency once objections to a regulation are made. MAINE (5MRSA c. 308 §2501 et seq) A law enacted by the 1977 session provides that agencies submit all current rules to the legislature by January 15, 1978 for review by the appropriate standing committees. These committees must hold public hearings and recommend to the legislature an expiration dchedule for i all rules. A committee may recommend immediate expiration of a current rule. The legislature must then pass bills to : implement these expiration schedules. All new rules which go into effect after January 1, 1978 automatically expire I •103- r ., ^.:T Q ,., . a. effective date and may send the rules hack to the agency if the rules are not in the proper format. I NEW YORK ('NYSA,Legislative Law, Art. 5-8, Secs, 86-88) A 1978 law form+Ally created the Administrative Regulations Review Commission. The Commission, was originally created by joint resolutions in 1977.. Agencies must file their pro- posed rules with the commission at least 21 days prior to their effectiveness. The commission has the power to examine agency rules as to their statutory authority, their compliance with legislative intent, their impact on the econ- omy and government operations, their impact on affected parties. In addition, the commission may hold hearings and has been granted subpoena power. NORTH CAROLINA (0•S•120-30.19 et seq) A 1977 law created the Administrative Rules Review Committee as a permanent committee of the Legislative Research Commission (LRC). All rules adopted by agencies are filed with the director of the LRC, who refers them to the review committee. The committee has up to 60 days to review these rules and may file objections. The agency must re- spond within 60 days of receipt of the committee's report. Agencies are not bound to comply with the committee's objection, and if they don't, the rule goes back to the full LRC for review. The LRC can make recommendations for legislative action to the General Assembly if the agency fails to comply with any commission objection. The law also provides for selective revie4 of all preexisting regulations. Itwas effective on October 1, 1977 and expired June 1, 1979. OHIO (Sec, 101.35,111.15, 119:01, & 119.03 of Rev. Code) A 1977 law created the Joint Committeeon Agency Rules Review. All proposed rules must be sub- mitted to the committee 60 days prior to adoption. If during that time, the committee disapproves a rule, a concurrent resolution to that effect is intro- -104- five years after their effectiveness unless the legislature passes a bill terminating their effectiveness in less than five years. MARYLAND (Md. Ann.Code 1977, Art 40, §40A) The Standing Committee on Admini16 strative, Executive, and Legislative Review reviews regulations as they are published in the "Maryland Register". The committee has no power to suspend or veto proposed regulations, but its views are often persuasive with agencies when it raisee questions about proposed regulations. MICHIGAN (Mich. St, Ann. 24,201-24.315, Act No. 108, Public Acts of 1977) The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules has a 60-day period in which to approve or disapprove all proposed rules. Under a 1977 law passed over the governor's veto and effective on January 1, 1978, if the committee disapproves a rule or fails to approve it within 60 days, the rule cannot be adopted by the agency unless the legislature overrules the committee action within 60 days. The state supreme court has refused to consider a request by the governor for an advisory committee opinion on the constitutionality of this law. In addition, opinions of the Attorney General have questioned the constitutionality of legis- lative disapproval of rules by concurrent resolution, rather than by bill. Legislative power to review and suspend regulation during the interm is author- ized in Article IX, section 37 of the state constitution. Michigan has more th,^n 30 years experience with some type of legislative oversight of administra- tive regulations. MINNESOTA (Minn, St. 3.965) The Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules may hole public hearings to investigate complaints concerning rules and, on the basis of testimony received, suspend any rule. In practice, however, the committee reviews all proposed rules. If a rule is suspended by the committee, t such action must be sustained by the legislature at its next session. Before -105 the committee suspends any rule, it shall submit it to the appropriate standing committees for their review and recommendation. Emergency rules are effective for only 90 days, during which time they must be repromulgated under the regu- lar procedure in order to remain in effect beyond that time. MONTANA (,Sec.24401 et seq, MCA 1978) An Administrative Code Committee was es- tahlished in 1975 to review all proposed rules. Thiscommi •ttee makes recommen- dations for action by the agencies to the legislature which, by joint resold•• tion, can repeal or compel the amendment or adoption of a rule. Legislation enacted in 1977 mandates that all bills authorizing agencies to promulgate rules include a statement of legislative intent. The new law (SB 37) also shifts the burden ^, f proof to the agency in any s^jbsequent legal action challenging the rule as having been adopted in an "arbitrary and capricious disregard" of the purpose of the authorizing statute. Another 1977 law (SB 120) allows the coalmittee to poll the members of the legislature by mail during the interim to determine whe- ther a proposed rule is consistent with legislative intent. NEVADA (Chap. 233B. 101 et seq NRS) Under a 1977 law, all proposed regulations are submitted to the Nevada Legislative Commission, which must review them at its next monthly meeting. If the commission objects to a regulation, it is returned to the agency, which must resubmit either the same recgulation or an amended ver- sion to the commission. The regulation is forwarded to the speaker and the se- nate president for referral to the appropriate standing committee. The legisla- ture can enact legislation amending the statute under which the objectionable regulation was promulgated. NEW HAMPSHIRE (NH RSA Sec. 541A) In 1977, the legislature enacted a law creating a Joint Committee on Review of Agencies and Programs. The committee will have the power to sunset agencies and review their existing rules, In addition, the law provides the standing committee the power to review rules prior to their -106- duced, The legislature must adopt the resolution within 60 days to nullify the rule. Any rule promulgated during the interim may go into effect, but the com- mittee and the legislature may disapprove the rule by concurren resolution within k the first 60 days of the next regular session. The commfittee may meet during the r interim and may suspend objectionable rules by a two-thirds vote by its members. The suspension must be sustained by the legislature by concurrent resolution with- ,. in 60 days of the convening of the next regular session. SOUTH CAROLINA CAct No. 176 of 1977) The legislature in 1977 passed legislation amending and clarifying a 1976 law creating the state register and providing for legislative review and approval of agency rules. Under the new law, the Legisla- tive Council supervises the printing of the state register, in which are printed all proposed and promulgated rules. Proposed agency rules are reviewed by the appropriate standing committee in each house. These rules cannot go into effect until 90 days after receipt by the legislature. The legislature may adopt a joint resolution during that time either approving or 'disapproving the rule. The. 90- day review period continues to run as long as the legislature is in session. After "sine die" adjournment, the 90-day period ceases to run until the convening of the next regular session. F",,rgency rules can be promulgated for 90-day periods only when the legislature is not in session. SOUTH DAKOTA (SOCL 1-26.1,1.0 The Interim Rules Review Committee reviews all proposed rules and makes recommendations to agencies and to the legislature on any suggested amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act. By a 5/6 vote of the six-member committee, a proposed rule can be suspended until 30 days after Fhe next legislative session convenes. Unless the committee suspension is sustained by the legislature through passage of a bill within this 30-day per±cd, the rule may take effect. All proposed rules s-ubmitted to the committee must have attached to it a fiscal note, prepared by the agency and reviewed by the Bureau of Finance and Management, The fiscal note must include the fiscal impact on state govern- I -107- went, the assumptions made in preparing the statement and the source of statistics used. WYOMTNG(Wyo. Stat. Sec, 28-82to 2849) Under this 1977 law, all existing rules and all future proposed rules must be filed ;vi'th the Legislative Service Office (ISO), The LSO reviews the rules and reports to the Legislative Management Council. If the LSO has found a rule objectionable and the council agrees, the disapproved rule goes to the governor, who may agree to repeal the rule. If the governor dis- agrees with the council's recommendation, the council can only recommend that the full legislature act through what is called a " legislative order" (presumably a statute. Legislative action must take place before the end of the legislative session in order to nullify a rule, -108- 1,-JusAx;....,...... i T APPLICATIONS AND INFORMA LANDSAT APPLICATIONS IN GEORGIA In Georgia, as in most states, one of the most probable ongoing uses for Land- sat is for current land use/land cover information in support of nonpoint source pollution control. Georgia is a large and diverse state, in which many non-point source activities occur tnat contribute to stream pollution. One of the most significant is agriculture. Approximately 13.9 million acres (37%) of the state's 37.2 million acres are in agricultural usage, including 5 mil- lion acres classified as "prime farmland." Another significant contributor of non-point source pollution in terms of relative land cover is forestry. Georgia's commercial forest acreage exceeds about 23 million acres, of which only about 2% or less is harvested annually or is undergoing some other type of site disturbance. Other land use/land cover activities contributing to non-point source pollution in Georgia that could be monitored with the assis- tance of Landsat are: • a salt-water intrusion in coastal areas; • some hydrologic modification projects such as water quality in re- servoirs; and • some large mining activities. When the requirement for statewide and areawide planning was initiated, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources had already developed the capability to analyze Landsat digital tapes with the assistance of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and thus found Landsat to be a cost-effective and convenient data source to assist the inventories for these planning efforts. Landsat was used in the first phase of 208 planning efforts to develop land use/land cover statistics for the 198 Water Quality Management Units (WQMU) and 15 River Basins in Georgia. The computer-compatible Landsat data allows the computation of the acreage of various land cover conditions within a watershed (WQMU) that may be related to land-disturbing activities that have, a potential for non-point source pollution, From these statistics and supple- mental information, the Environmental Protection Agency developed a compara- tive ranking of the watersheds based on their potential for non-point source pollution. Best management practices could also be recommended for earth watershed. ILLINOIS LANDSAT PROJECT A state workshop on remote sensing technology and applications was held in Sringfield, Illinois on March 23, 1978. The Landsat land cover inventory for 13 southwestern counties was described and products of that effort displayed. The results of this pilot study were used in the Illinois Remote Sensi;7g Feasioility Study in November 1978. The study's primary purposes were to cat- olog current types and sources of physical resource information collected by various state and regional agencies, define existing information needs among these groups, and assess the ability of Landsat and other remote sensing in- formation to meet these needs. No additional action has been taken by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to utilize remote sensing technology to im- plement the erosion and sediment control program. 109- 6 i Illi nois' ALICE System: The ALICE System is a general purpose, computerized, image processor withprovisions for the efficient and economical diclitization, encoding, analysis and display of visual, graphic and mapped information. The ALICE System can preserve a high degree of spatial resolution from mapped soil information. After being computerized, the soil data can then be used in com- puterized analyses with an assurance of accuracy and reliability in the calcu- lations and geographic location of the soil-related regions of concern. With the current version of the ALICE software, soil information can be computer- ized with or without geographic boundaries. By combining a visual analysis of this type with a statistical analysis of the soil type area measurements cal- culated by ALICE, a very high-powered analysis can be accomplished. It is hoped that this analysis can help implement the soil loss equation regulations developed by the USDA/SCS and will approach the control of soil erosion and sedimentation at the county level in the State of Illinois. Recent efforts by the ALICE group at the Applied Mathematics Divisiun of Argonne National Laboratory in areas related to soil and environmental analy- sis has lead to a proposal to address issues relating to the calculation of soil loss at a regional scale. The proposed program, which will determine the potential average annual erosion rates of surficial soils, will attempt to re- solve specific problems by the use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). This will be accomplished by proposing the implementation and appli- cation of the USLE on the ALICE System. It is anticipated that the result of this effort will be an improved, more accurate and efficient means of deter- mining the potent.iGl average annual erosion rates of surficial soil from a computerized analysis of informatio:, recorded on USDA/SCS soil survey maps in conjunction with other soilrelated factors obtained from other sources. a The only development that will be required to successfully implement and apply the USLE on the ALICE System is the development of computer software. This software will effectively associate soil data produced by existing ALICE pro- grammed processes with data r;•ovided by user agencies. The data, required from user agencies relates to agriculture! management and practices and is re- quired as inputs to the USLE. IOWA'S LANDSA'1' DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION PROJECT { Iowa agencies conducted a project in January 1979, which investigated the utility of L,andsat data for state resource problems. The evaluation of poten- tial soil erosion was the principal subject of the project. An intensive analysis of a small watershed was used to evaluate the applicability of Land- sat data and related data handling techniques to soil erosion problems. The erosion potential of the basin was assessed using the universal soil loss equation. As a result of the demonstration project, the Iowa Geological Survey received State funding to purchase the hardware and software needed to conduct analyses of Landsat data. +. The implications for developing this capability in Iowa are significant. Current soil erosion potential could be assessed over either large or small areas as it never could before. Landsat data in conjunction with other soils data would be useful in establishing specific policies and goals for existing and new conservation p rogramms. It would also allow an accu r ate evaluation of the actual effects of these programs, often before they have been imple- mented. The Soil Conservh.kion Department expressed a high degree of interest in developing this capability in Iowa. If adequate funds are provided for the digitizing process., La ,idsat data could become an integral part of the "Iowa Soil 2000" Program. -110- THE MICHIGAN RESOURCE INVENTORY ACT The first step to initiate a consistent and comprehensive inventory of land resources to assist in making decisions which affect their future viability was taken when the Michigan Legislature overwhelmingly passed and appropriated funds to support: the Michigan Resource Inventory Act (PA 204 of 1979). The Act requires the completion of land resource and current land use/cover inventories, and the establishment of a multi-faceted 'technical assistance program and a 20-member Inventory Advisory Committee (IAC). The long-range implications of the Act could be substantial. Through the IAC's preparation of consistent land resource identification criteria and classification systems, costs will be reduced because information will be interchangaole. But more importantly, knowledge and communication between land resource management agencies will be improved because they will be dealing with the same information base. Finally, the technical assistance program envisioned by the Act will be of great help to local governments, es- pecially those without plannirg staffs or with limited financial resources. NEW JERSEY LANDSAT INFORMATION SYSTEM The New Jersey Division of State and Regional Planning has integrat:d Landsat data with computerized maps of the State's political jurisdictions and water- sheds. This statewide information system is used to provide land cover infor- mation to decision-makers in a conto,,,t to which they can easily relate. A system of interactive, English-dialogue computer programs permits planners and natural resource managers to analyze Landsat data for any of the state's 567 municipalities, 21 counties and 118 watersheds. These data are currently being used to provide land cover maps and acreage statistics for water quality planning purposes. Five counties and parts of several others, comprising 2694.45 square miles, have been mapped in eight categories: • forest • high density urban • wetland • vacant/pasture • low-density or suburban • surface water • cropland • barren/extractive/bare soil The state will be expanding its use of Landsat by obtaining interactive com- puter graphics equipment and using the categorized data as input to various modeling processes. In addition, merging the remote sensing data. with demo- graphic information, which can also be displayed by municipality, will provide a powerful graphic tool for decision-making. THE MINNESOTA LAND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM The Minnesota Water Pollution Control Agency is taking advantage of enhanced capabilities of statewide inf orma^ion system to analyze and classify lake quality using Landsat and other data. The Minnesota Land Management Information System (MLMIS) began in the mid 196O's. Funding was earmarked for accelerating natural resource projects through the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Commission (since renamed Gr,e Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources). -III- The Minnesota Land Management Information System was developed as a joint re- search project between the State Planning Agency and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs of the University of Minnesota. Financial support for devel- oping the project has come from a variety of sources with major contributors being the state legislature and state agencies. In July 1977, the MLMIS staff and computer terminals were moved to the State Planning Agency as the nucleus of the Land Management Information Center (LMiC). Operational furding for the professional staff is provided within the legislative appropriation to the State Planning Agency. A separate revolving account is used for billing clients who request special services from the information Center. LMIC is a division of the State Planning Agency with a service bureau theme. It is not intended to serve the State Planning Agency exclusively, or even primarily. It is available on an equal basis to all governmental agencies and private organizations operating in the state. In 1979, MLMIS received an LCMR appropriation to purchase its own minicomputer system. The Land Management Information Center has developed its own data handling software package called Environmental Planning Programming Language (EPPL). This software is designed to enter, analyze and display information using grid-cells of any size. With the new computer system, polygon form data entry is now possible. The 40-acre parcel is the predominant geographic entity in the system for which data are collected statewide; it is based on the U.S. Public Land Survey. The computer files contain information for each of the 1.4 million 40-acre parcels in the state. The files include data on cultural features of parcels (such as ownership or road access), locational characteristics (town- ship and minor civil division boundaries) and physical characteristics (forest cover, soils and geomorphic regions). In addition to the 40-acre cell data base, selected studies have used both more general cell resolution (25-square kilometer, USGS quadrangle format, and one square mile) and more detailed resolution (10-acre, 2.5-acre, 100-meter, Landsat pixel, 50-meter, and smaller). The system was enhanced to allow merging of various other grid-cell data files and to capture and convert poly- gon data. Basic MLMIS data a ►d specialized data from other sources have been combined to produce a variety of products for over 200 clients. Major types of studies include: facility siting (landfills, power plants) resource management (crop- land suitability, erosion/sedimentation, scenic amenity); master plans (com- munity planning, park and wildlife areas); environmental assessment (highway corridors and transmission l ines); and establishing mapping priorities (USES topographic mapping). Until recehtly, efforts by system staff emphasized the development of a basic data file. Although some data may still be entered for special studies, primary emphasis is shifting to coordination with other data collection and entry programs. This is greatly enhanced in Minnesota because the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources requires MLMIS compatiblity with all natural resource acceleration programs it funds. •-112- THE LAND RESOURCES INFORMATION SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA Under the program directives given to the North Carolina Land Policy Council ir. the Land Policy Act of 1974, a "system of information and data concerning the land resources of the entire state" was to be developed. A mechanism for providing systematic exchange of land use, environmental, economic and social information among all levels of government was desired. It was from this man- date that the Land Resources Information Service (LRIS) was formed. Since its commencement in the Fall of 1973, LRIS's top priorities have been to establish a structure for housing the state's land resource data and facili- tate the access to and use of that data by those involved in land resource planning and %inaqement activities. A key component was the acquisition of a sophisticated configuration of computer hardware and software. The LRIS sys- tem consists of a Data General minicomputer and various peripheral devices for the automated capture, display, manipulation, and summation of graphic, geo- graphically-referenced data. Using this hardware and a package of user orien- ted software, LRIS has the necessary components for constructing a statewide land resource data base and providing assistance to a variety of ongoing state programs. While designed to serve state and local agencies on a cost recovery basis af- ter its first year of operation, initial LRIS activities were directed to ward supporting programs within three state agencies which had provided initial funding for LR IAS, including water and land quality programs within the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. The data bases to support these projects have been entered into LRIS on an in- cremental basis. Information for detailed soils, land use, topography, roads, streams, etc., is being captured for specific geographic areas of the state where planning projects are currently active. On a more general level, state- wide information has been developed for generalized soils, topography, popula- tion, political boundaries, drainage basin boundaries, and 1970 census enumer- ation district boundaries. Once in the LRIS system, this information can be accessed singularly, or in combination with any other data sets, where scale, analysis, criteria, geographic area, and form of output are defined inter- actively by the user. Most of the LRIS data base construction activity involves manual conversion of graphic data to a computerized format. However, present demand for informa- tion far outstrips LRIS in-house capabilities to perform the data capture. Thus, LRIS is actively seeking existing sources of digital information. One such source is the Landsat satellite: imagery that could provide current land use/land cover information for large geographic areas of the state. Interest ir, the utilization of Landsat is not new in North Carolina. In fact, from the outset of the planning and development of LRIS, a basic requirement of the system configuration acquired was that it serve as a basis for the eventual handling of the Landsat data. While LRIS has not ,yet applied Landsat data to a production effort, compatibility of a classified Landsat scene with LRIS data sets has been successfully demonstrated in a test area and its use for future projects is anticipated. Typical LRIS applications to date have relied heavily on the data compositing or overlay capability of the system. Identification is made of those geo- graphic areas having the specific combination of physical characteristics of relevance to a particular study. For example, a recent project with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) involved identifying areas which, because of land -113- ^- use, soil type, and nearness to streams, had a high probability of contribu- ting to nonpoint source water pollution from various land uses. The objective of this study was to utilize LRIS data handling capabilities to: • Isolate areas with high potential for having agricultural-related water problems resulting from erosion and sedimentation; • Calculate soil loss for these areas in terms of tons/acre/year by applying the Universal Soil Loss Equation; • Identify the best management and treatment practices and c-sociated cost of application; and a Graphically and tabularly summarize the results. The results from the SCS project highlight another aspect of the first year efforts of LRIS--its success at establishing a mechanism for facilitating com- munication among the collectors and users of land resource information at all levels - federal, state and local. LRIS provides the str;:ture for bringing together the numerous data sets on the state's resources. This allows the program to provide more data at a lower cost to individual users. Through the combined efforts of the North Carolina planninj programs, the Land Resources Information Service is well on its way to fulfilling its legislative mandate-- to build a statewide data base of land resource information. OHIO CAPABILITY ANALYSIS PROGRAM The Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Water, has a program to assist local agencies in the use of natural resource information. The land capability analysis program analyzes resource data, such as soil, in terms of its ability to support various land uses, such as homesites. A computer map- ping and information storage system, the Ohio Capability Analysis Program (OCAP), was developed by the Department to'assis-f with the land capability analysis program. OCAP is not the only tool for doing a capability study, but it is of major importance in Ohio. The object of the land capability analysis program is to translate detailed resource maps available with the Department into maps that local people can easily use. Some of the most valuable aspects of the OCAP computer maps are: (1) They help decision-makers interpret soil and other resource informa- tion that is often confusing. (2) Soil related information, such as permeability or bearing strength, car be easily mapped. (3) Resource maps that are originally published at a variety of scales can be mapped at one scale with the computer. (4) Maps can be reproduced and updated easily and inexpensively. (5) The resource information can be evaluated simultaneously and analyzed to locate areas with potential or problems. (6) Irregular boundaries such as watersheds can be extracted from the re- source information. -114- The product from a land capability analysis using the OCAP system is a set of maps defining major natural resources limitations and advantages in a county. With these maps, the planner or ether user can rapidly evaluate a county's problems and potential. There are several steps to a capability analysis study using OCAP. The first step is gath%ring basic resource information and other data, including bound- ary and land use maps. The most important information is a detailed soil sur- vey, which is available for almost three-fourths of the state. A general soil map has less information, out can be used in place of the detailed survey. In addition to the soil survey, other types of resource information include: topography, geology, groundwater, land use (including some evaluation of vegetaton), political boundaries, watershed boundaries and natural areas. Once the original maps are assembled, they are transferred to a computer for- mat through a digt^izing process. The end product is a computer map which duplicates the ori g inal map. To make the computer map easier to read, a transparent overlay with road patterns and other information is used with it. Color computer maps which are easier to read are also being produced. Another important option in the OCAP system is the ability to select informa- tion from large county maps for smaller areas within them, such as townships. Boundary lines--including townships, watersheds, census tracts, and sewer dis- tricts--can be incorpor-a ted into OCAP, allowing the system to readily produce maps of resource information for areas within any of these boundaries. The boundaries can also be used with maps analyzing several resources for a par- ticular land use. Analysis of resource data can be done in several ways. Essentially, OCAP en- ables the user to evaluate all or selected types of natural resources maps at once. This is accomplished by overlaying or compositing the maps in the com- puter. The computer can handle more detail and larger areas, and can accom- plish the task faster than a manual process. The person doing the analysis specifies the information to be overlaid and how it will be evaluated by the computer. The computer does the computation and prints a map showing limita- tions or potential for particular land use. This can be done with as few as two data factors or as many as thirty. The final product of a capability study is a set of maps, some with one type of information, such as land use or degree of slope, and some with a combina- tion of several types of information. The latter may be evaluating potential for a particular land use. Each character on a map at a scale of '1" = 2000' represents an area of 1.15 acres. This degree of detail is important if the local agencies are to make effective use of the information, especially in areas where land use, soils, or slope vary greatly within a small area. In spite of the detail, computer maps should not be used in place of a site analysis, because the source information on which the computer maps are based is not accurate at the site level. LA NDSAT IN S OUTH CAROLINA With suppuo"t from the NASA Earth Resources !,.aboratory, South Carolina con- ducted a demonstration project on environmental effects of river diversion and erosion hazard assessment in 1978. -115- ^F; On August 22, 1978, interested participants gathered at the University of South Carolina for an introduction to Landsat and its future direction. The South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission, Research and Statistical Service attended the successful conference. As a result of these activities with NASA, as well as the Bureau of Mines, the state is proceeding to institutionalize its Landsat capability within the Computer Services Division of the University of South Carolina. The necessary software packages were obtained and hardi,.are was procured. RECENT AUTOMATED MAP PING TECHNIQUES IN SOUTH CAROLINA A-'itomated mapping techniques are being used in several studies in South Carolina. They include determination of prime agricultural areas, and study of wood energy potential in Greenville County, South Carolina; evaluation of the accuracy and the use of USGS Land Use and Land Cover maps; land cover classification of the Catawba-Wateree Waterbasin; and development of concep- tual and issue management models for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In conjunction with the South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, the University of South Carolina, Graphics Division maintains a very active role in the development of these computer mapping techniques. Approximately 209 of Graphics' time is devoted to developmental work, while 80% of' the time is iie- voted to production work. Current Aeplications Projects. The Energy Research Institute contracted with rap ics -in January 1980 to conduct a study of the wood energy potential in Greenville County, S.C. This project is being done in cooperation with Clemson University and will be a comprehensive study of not only the current supply of wood energy but also the demand and accessibility of this energy form. The project is due for completion in December 1980. Graphics came to an agreement with the USGS in July 1980 to digitize the de- tailed classes of landcover for the entire state of South Carolina. The esti- mated completion time for this project is second quarter of 1981. The Unitea States Fish and Wildlife Service has contracted with Graphics to develop conceptual and issue management models which will be used in analyzing various ecological issues in coastal South Carolina. Graphics will: 1) Digitize vegetative cover maps; 2) Input and calculate survey elevation data; 3) Collect river elevation verses dam discharge data; 4) Overlay flood plain data with vegetation cover data; and Vii) Generate flood plain area from river elevation and topographic data. Russell Dam Area Assessment. Graphics has proposed to do a study on the Ric5ard B. Russell Dam and Lake area for 1980-1981. The lake, as authorized by Congress to be completed in 1984, will have many environmental as well as economic consequences on the area. The two major objectives for this study are: 1. To build a data base using Landsat data incorporated with other ground (man-made or natural) features. -116- „1^4 2. To use the data base for resource use analysis of the Russell Dam area. Once the data have been gathered they will be used to: 1. Evaluate erosion potential; 2. Identify reasonable access corridors to the lake; 3. Identify wildlife and marine habitats; 4. Identify sites for public recreation facilities; and 5. Identify sites for residential development. This study will act as a guide to further development and management decisions for the Russell Dam area. REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY PLANNING IN SOUTH DAKOTA Since 1977 the South Dakota State Planning Bureau has served as a 208 data analysis subcontractor to the state's Department of Environmental Protection for itsstudy of nonpoint source pollution problems. Analyses were provided through the D•ureau's Planning Information Section which has developed capabil- ities to gather, interpret and store natural resource and other types of data in a c;ooiputerized format for assisting_ South Dakota state and local govern- mental agencies. The process used for determining the magnitude of nonpoint source pollution is illustrated in the figure below. The Bureau produced land cover maps and acreage statistics for ten designated water quality study areas, and developed erosion interpretation maps and septic suitability waps for three of the ten areas. ...................................................... -i : -. ................................ Cf . F SOL.&& Y 0 tt G'-.1 ^v r y L. 700 NON • POI87 SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT PROCESS SIAI[ ^..4awM0 M0I41) -117- The land cover maps were produced from digital Landsat tapes. The classifica- tion of the data employed software contained in the LandsatImagery Analysis Package (LIMAP), which was developed by the Planning Bureau. ! LIMAP contains programs capable of all preprocessing, classifying, and final mapping func- tions needed to accurately map land cover. The land cover classifications were based on a "modified supervised" approach, in which training fields were selected and clustered for each land cover category. Ground data used for training field selection and final verification came from crop files main- tained by county offices of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Final overall classification accuracies varied from 84% to 89% cor- rect for each study area. Part of the 208 project was to determine whether or not individual sites met soil loss tolerances established by the Soil Conservation Service. This was done as follows: (1) Detailed soil maps were digitized for those sites under consideration. (2) The Universal Soil Loss Equation (LISLE) was applied to the soils data to develop a soil loss potential map. According to this equation, soil loss is mainly dependent upon the combined effects of rainfall, soil type, slope length, slope gradient, land cover and conservation practices. (3) Flaps were produced illustrating the land cover needed to meet annual soil loss tolerances, as established by the Soil Conservation Service. These required vegetative cover maps are also called "C" value maps. (4) A computer compositing technique was used to overlay soil loss po- tential maps with the land cover maps (previously described), thus iso- lating erosion hazard areas for the particular year. (5) Finall', the required vegetative cover maps were overlaid onto the erosion hazard maps to show whether or not individual sites met the soil loss tolerances established by the Soil Conservation Service. 'the composite mapping techniques used for this application provided per- spectives not obtainable when any one variable is analyzed separately. The various maps produced by the Bureau aided in delineating areas for different management strategies to control nonpoint sources of pollution. Current Landsat 208 Activities in South Dakota The State Planning Bureau is presently completing another 208 project using 1979 data. Land cover maps were produced for six new water quality study areas. Two of these areas were mapped using new EROS Digital Image Processing System (EDIPS) Landsat data. Both medium-altitude black and 1ite and medium and high-altitude color nfrared photography were used for the other study areas. These different types of data provide an opportunity for comparing the utility of each for 208 projects. The Information Section has also produced a generalized soil erosion potential map of South Dakota. The potential for soil erosion by water was determined through the analysis of soil type, topography and precipitation character- istics for each soil association in the state. Color maps were created from a 4" by ^" color transparency produced on a film recorder. -118- Under this year's contract, the Planning Bureau has provided county-level pop- ulation projections through demographic modeling for use in planning for waste treatment facilities. Computer time has also been provided for conducting wasteload allocations with a computerized river simulation model maintained et the Bureau's computer facility. VIRGINIA RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEM In 1978, Virginia took the first steps towards developing a comprehensive, statewide resource information system. As authorized by a resolution of the General Assembly, an interim : . tuoy committee was formed, a preliminary study was completed and actual comittee consideration began that summer. Among several of the indicated needs for accurate and up-to-date information were: (a) water resource availability, quality and use in localities, river basins and the state as a whole; (b) atmospheric conditions including air quality, climatic conditions, flooding, droughts, soil conditions and other factors affecting human health, farm and forest production, commerce and recreational activities; (c) land resources including soil capability for crop and forest pro- duction, highway and building support, airport industrial siting and other development purposes; mineral and energy resources; and land use trends and future potentials. The Executive Branch needed timely, up-to-date and accurate information on Virginia's resources in order to make effective policy decisions and amend laws affecting overall needs of the Commonwealth. Through these efforts it was recommended that the General Assembly authorize development of a comprehensive Virginia Resource Information System (VARIS) with the office of Commerce and Resources. VARIS will be initiated concurrent with tie 1980-82 fiscal biennium to concentrate on developing programs, plans and procedures for initiating and controlling comprehensive services. VARIS' hardware and support materials will be expanded during the 1982-84 fiscal biennium for broad-based geographic information and environmental monitoring systems. By 1986, VARIS will be fully developed to provide up-to-date re- source information that will serve statewide, regional and local needs. It was recommended that VARIS be aimed at serving user needs including but not limited to: (a) collection, storage, networking and retrieval of infor- mation; (b) high quality appropriate processing services to serve user needs; and (c) providing assistance to agencies on information relating to regu- latory programs, monitoring and other support services related to Virginia's resources. -119- BIBLIOGRAPHf Caron, Loyola M., and Tessar, Paul A. A Legislator's Guide to Natural Resaurce Information Systems. Denver: National Conference of tate Legislatures, Garner, Mary M. Erosion and Sediment Control Programs: Six Case Studies. Washington: National Association of onservation Districts, 1976. Garner, Mary M. "Non-point Note 26: Summary of Principal Provisions of State Laws Providing for Erosion and Sediment Control as of October 1, 1979." Non-point Notes on 208 Implementation. Washington: National Association of Conservation' istricts, 19"79 Gordon, Gabrielle. User's Guide to the Ohio Capability Analysis Program. Columbus: Ohio Department of Natural resources, 1978. Harwood, Peggy. "Landsat Applications in Georgia." In Landsat Supports Data Needs for EPA "208" Planning. Washington: Council — State Pl anning Agencies and NASA, 1979. Lima, Robert J. An Outline for a Pro ram to Implement and Aeply the Universal Soil Loss Equation on the ALIC stem.Argonne: Argonne Nation7 a Laboratory, 1980. McLaughlin, Charles. Iowa 5 fear Resource Conservation Plan. Des Moines: Iowa Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Morandi, Larry. Abstracts of soil erosion and sediment control legislation, Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1980 Legislative Improvement and Modernization Committee. Restoring the Balance: Legislative Review of Administrative Regulations. ations.Denver: Nationil, Conference of s tate [eg —islatures, -'i^— Remote Sensing Project. A Legislator's Guide to Landsat. Denver: National Conference of State Legislators, c. 1978. Ripple, Bill. Land Resource Analysis for 208 Water Quality Planning in South Dakota. Pierre State Planning Bureau, 1979. Tessar, Paul A. ed., "Virginia Resource Information System." Remote Sensing Newsletter 2 (June, 1978). ------- "Illinois Landsat Project." Remote Sensing Newsletter 2 (July, 1978). "Iowa's Landsat Demonstration Project." Remote Sensing Newsletter 2 (December, 1978). R..ANT< Iv ,,► F •I ;, f; -121- "Landsat in South Carolina." Remote Sensing Newsletter 2 (January, mg;. ----- "The Minnesota Land Management Information System." Remote Sensing Newsletter 2 (October, 1978). ------- "New Jersey Landsat Information System." Remote Sens>ng Newsletter 2 (December, 1978). Tessar, Paul A., and Caron, Loyola C., eds. "The Land Resources Information Service of North Carolina." N.R.I.S. Newsletter 3 (August, 1979). Tessar, Paul A., and Caron, Loyola C., eds. "Automated Mapping Techniques in South Carolina." N.R.I.S. Newsletter 4 (Fall, 1980). ------. "The Michigan Resource Inventory Act." N.R.I.S. Newsletter 3 (February/March, 1980). ------. "Remote Sensing Applications for Water Quality Planning in South Dakota." N.R.I.S. Newsletter 3 (April/May, 1980). -122-