Home Blog Page 19

Flocculant Usage Across the United States

By Billur Kazaz, MS, CPESC-IT; Michael A. Perez, Ph.D., CPESC; Wesley N. Donald, Ph.D., CPESC

Flocculants are an effective solution to improve the sediment capture performance of construction stormwater management practices. With the appropriate product selection, dosage and application, construction stormwater can be rapidly treated to remove fine-sized soil particles from suspension.1 This study investigates the use of flocculants for construction stormwater applications in the United States by presenting results from a state-of-the-practice survey. The survey was distributed to state departments of transportation (DOTs) to investigate current flocculant implementations on construction sites. The study highlights the perspective of state DOTs on using flocculants for construction stormwater treatment.

Use of flocculants with synthetic construction stormwater.

Use of Flocculants

Flocculants are water-soluble polymers that have been used by many different industry applications for solid-liquid separation purposes including water treatment, mining and construction stormwater management. Flocculation occurs as a result of a chemical process that binds small soil particles with a bridging mechanism and forms larger flakes that settle out of suspension.2 Construction stormwater management has shifted its focus on these chemical agents in a positive way for reducing erosion and treating sediment-laden runoff. Research studies show that these chemicals are highly effective in construction stormwater treatment with adequate application techniques and dosage recommendations.3-7 On the other hand, these chemicals have the potential to create risks for polluting water bodies and damaging aquatic life in case of an overdose and improper implementation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emphasizes the significance of proper dosage guidance and adequate application techniques in flocculant usage for minimizing pollution in downstream water bodies.8 Therefore, state agencies are cautious when integrating flocculants into their specifications for construction stormwater treatment. This research was performed to understand the current perspective of DOTs on flocculant selection, dosage and application guidance.

Survey Questions and Distribution

The survey was developed and delivered using an online survey platform with multiple-choice questions that primarily focused on identifying flocculant users and non-users among the DOT’s. Survey participants received questions based on their flocculant usage. Three questions were asked of the non-using agencies and up to ten questions were asked of flocculant users. Depending on their responses to questions, the survey would deviate into differing paths to ensure appropriate questions were asked. DOTs that integrate flocculants into their construction stormwater management specifications received detailed questions on usage purpose, approved flocculant types by their state, dosage and application guidance, and residual monitoring.

The survey was distributed to lead construction stormwater professionals of 51 DOTs, in 50 states and Washington D.C. The email invitation provided an anonymous link to the survey. The questionnaire was kept active for a month, and three distribution cycles were planned for reminders. Some of the participants preferred to complete the survey via phone interviews. A total of 37 agencies responded to the survey invitations and completed the survey questions by phone or online. Specifications and design manuals of non-participating agencies were reviewed to provide complete knowledge on the flocculant usage for construction stormwater treatment in the U.S.

Figure 1: Map of flocculant usage in the U.S.

Survey Findings

The state-of-the-practice survey data provided useful data for evaluating current flocculant usage in the U.S. Results indicated that 31 DOTs (61%) are hesitant on using flocculants on construction sites, with only 20 DOTs (39%) using flocculants. Figure 1 displays the map of flocculant usage in the U.S. based on the survey data and the specifications of non-participating agencies. Solid colors represent the survey data, while dashed pattern symbology represents information gathered from non-participating agency manuals and specifications. Orange-colored fill represents state highway agencies that do not allow flocculants and blue represents states that use flocculants for construction stormwater treatment.

The use of flocculants are most common in southeastern states and along the west coast of the U.S. Alaska, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia are the states that did not respond to the survey invitation. Based on the erosion and sediment control manuals of these states only Alaska, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, New York, Rhode Island and West Virginia allow the use of flocculants.

The reasons behind the hesitation for using flocculants on job sites were investigated by the questionnaire. Fifty percent of the state agencies surveyed consider their current stormwater management practices as sufficient for treating construction stormwater. State agencies are primarily concerned about polluting downstream water bodies due to inadequate dosage and application rates.
DOTs that responded that they allow flocculant use received additional questions in the questionnaire for gathering detailed information on their perspective. The purpose of flocculant usage on job sites was asked in the questionnaire. The results showed that 12 (92% of) “flocculant allowing” agencies use these chemical agents for sediment control on construction sites and four (31%) of these agencies use flocculants as an erosion control together with sediment control to reduce soil erosion on slopes.
Survey results also indicated that the most common flocculant types preferred by state agencies are anionic polyacrylamide (PAM) (62%), chitosan (38%) and polyaluminum chloride (PAC) (23%), respectively.

Improperly applied, flocculants can be highly toxic to the downstream aquatic environment.9 Therefore, the survey also focused on understanding the current dosage and application guidance that has been adapted by the DOTs. Figure 2 (page 16) illustrates the results for the dosage and application guidance question in the survey. The results show that most of the DOTs (55%) are relying on manufacturer guidance, and 23% of responding agencies do not have any developed guidance.

The survey results identified the demand for residual monitoring on construction sites for protecting downstream water bodies from the toxic impacts of these chemical agents. Based on the survey responses, residual monitoring is required by the state agency or regulatory in only three states: California, Florida and South Dakota.

Figure 2: Survey results for dosage and application guidance.

Conclusion

The survey findings show that proper guidance for the selection and application of flocculants is needed for state highway agencies to overcome hesitations and adopt their use. The results of this study will provide valuable knowledge for further studies on flocculants to identify the research needs by presenting the perception of the state agencies for flocculant usage. Research studies can highly benefit from the state-of-the-practice survey results to understand the potential needs of the practitioners and develop effective guidance on flocculant usage.

Results show that residual monitoring, dosage and application guidance are the factors that hold DOTs back from adapting flocculants and need further investigation. The fact that most flocculants tend to be soil dependent changes their performance based on soil characteristics, therefore, manufacturer guidance might not be reliable with changing site conditions and soil types. Based upon DOT feedback, further studies focusing on developing dosage and application guidelines by conducting lab-scale and large-scale performance testing would be beneficial for the construction stormwater industry. 

References

1) Mclaughlin, R. A., and A. Zimmerman. Best Management Practices for Chemical Treatment Systems for Construction Stormwater and Dewatering. Report No. FHWA-WFL/TD-09-001. Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, WA, 2008, p.12.

2) Dao, V. H., N. R. Cameron, and K. Saito. Synthesis, Properties, and Performance of Organic Polymers Employed in Flocculation Applications. Polymer Chemistry, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2016, pp. 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5py01572c.

3) Przepiora, A., D. Hesterberg, J. E. Parsons, J. W. Gilliam, D. K. Cassel, and W. Faircloth. Field Evaluation of Calcium Sulfate as a Chemical Flocculant for Sedimentation Basins. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1998, pp. 669–678. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1998.00472425002700030026x.

4) Harper, H. H., J. L. Herr, and E. H. Livingston. Alum Treatment of Stormwater: The First Ten Years. Journal of Water Management Modeling, 1999. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.R204-09.

5) A. K. Bhardwaj, and R. A. McLaughlin. Simple Polyacrylamide Dosing Systems for Turbidity Reduction in Stilling Basins. Transactions of the ASABE, Vol. 51, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25324.

6) Rounce, D., B. Eck, D. Lawler, and M. Barrett. Reducing Turbidity of Construction Site Runoff via Coagulation with Polyacrylamide and Chitosan. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2309, No. December 2012, pp. 171–177.

7) Kang, J., and R. A. McLaughlin. Simple Systems for Treating Pumped, Turbid Water with Flocculants and a Geotextile Dewatering Bag. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 182, 2016, pp. 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.071.

8) The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Construction General Permit (CGP). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., 2017.

9) The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Stormwater Best Management Practice Polymer Flocculation. October 2013.

About the Experts

Billur Kazaz, MS, CPESC-IT, is a graduate research assistant pursuing a Ph.D. in civil engineering at Auburn University. Her research focuses on UAS-based aerial stormwater inspections and the use of flocculants in construction stormwater treatment. She earned her master’s degree at Iowa State University under the supervision of Dr. Michael A. Perez.

Michael A. Perez, Ph.D., CPESC, is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Auburn University. His specialization includes construction and post-construction stormwater practices, methods and technologies.

Wesley N. Donald, Ph.D., CPESC, is a research associate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Auburn University. He specializes in construction stormwater management applications and conducts research on construction stormwater practices.

Improving Soil Balance and Function in Stormwater Management

By Ted Hartsig, CPSS; Steven Polk, PE

Collection and treatment of stormwater is an exercise of managing imbalanced resources. Urban stormwater runoff focuses increased volumes of water into limited areas where it is expected to be collected and treated. The typical design response to the increased amount of water is to try and balance this system by installing engineered soils and biological systems that nature may or may not be part of a balanced a landscape. As a result, there may be unintended drainage or stormwater treatment problems that require more energy and capital to maintain over time.

Soil is the resource that most directly affects the stormwater management imbalance. Soil is often considered to be a relatively innate mechanical system meant to accept, move and manage large amounts of stormwater and releasing it slowly, removing pollutants along the way. Soil, however, must be recognized for what it is: A living, breathing, dynamic system that can treat stormwater via infiltration into the ground. But it is also a balance of physical structure, dynamic biology and chemistry. This balance is necessary for stormwater management structures and the landscapes surrounding them. Getting this balance correct is what makes stormwater management successful.

Early infiltration design guidance in most regions of the United States required sand to be used as the predominant soil type for stormwater infiltration. The reason was based primarily on “book values” that logically show sand, especially coarse sand, as having high infiltration rates. However, design guidance for stormwater best management practices (BMPs) is changing as more regional policies allow for higher silt and clay (“fines”) content in biofiltration soil mixes (BSM).1 While some regions minimize the allowance for fines in BSM materials based on the potential that fine particles will migrate and clog infiltration filters, other regions are realizing that silts and clays actually help stabilize BSM materials and help maintain consistent infiltration and percolation in stormwater BMPs for longer periods of time.2 Much of this is because of increased biological activity in bioretention stormwater management systems.3

Bioretention cell construction destabilizes and imbalances the natural environment.

Why Stormwater BMPs Fail

When soil is disturbed, whether by tilling the soil for agriculture, grading the soil for construction or even in blending soils for specialized BSM, the soil structure that holds sand, silt and clay particles together is often broken.4 The resulting separation of silt and clay causes these fine particles to move easily and migrate between sand particles to form clay pans. Similarly, these same fine particles are easily dislodged and eroded from nearby soils that are captured in stormwater BMPs. The result is clogging of the BSM caused by the formation of sediment layers or clay pans. Because clay tends to have more cohesive properties that bind small particles together, silt is often more easily transported to form the blocking layers. Discussion with Steven Polk, PE, with Stormwater STL LLC in St. Louis, Missouri a company that inspects and maintains hundreds of stormwater BMPs quarterly, revealed that poor soil mixtures and clogging near the surface are the main causes of bioretention basin failure. Subsequent repair of these systems can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Often, the repair is not permanent and will need to be repaired again in the future.

In contrast to sand-based BSM, soil with strong aggregated peds that are often a congregation of sand, silt and clay bound together by organic “glues,” chemical bonding, and physical adhesion are effective for stormwater management. Well-aggregated soils provide effective macroporosity through which water readily flows while also retaining micropores that hold water for plant growth and chemical exchange sites, thereby effectively removing pollutants from the water. These types of soils are maintained through active plant growth and the activities of soil microflora (bacteria and fungi) and fauna (earthworms, nematodes, insects, and more). In fact, it is the dynamic actions of plant root growth, microbial transformations and turbidation of soil by worms and other small animals that contribute to healthy soil and the development of macropores that facilitate infiltration and percolation of water. This healthy soil retains an effective stormwater management performance for several years after BMP construction.3,5,6
Maximizing the “Bio” in Bioretention

As described above, an essential factor for successful BSM in stormwater BMPs is healthy soil biology. This is not limited to plants, but also the microbial communities of the soil itself. Sand-based BSM provides the primary function of moving water into the soil but it relies on the addition of compost and possibly other performance enhancing devices to filter pollutants from incoming stormwater.7 However, studies conducted in the states of Washington and California have shown that the inclusion of too much compost in BSM often results in the release of phosphorus, nitrogen and copper into the stormwater effluent passing through the BSM.8 The growth and development of natural microorganisms, particularly fungi, will produce natural organic matter, and their activity will serve to reduce the concentrations of both organic and metal contaminants in stormwater runoff.9

Plants and soil microorganisms depend on each other for coexistence. Healthy vegetation releases polysaccharides into the soil that stimulate microbial growth and activity. Abundant microbes, in turn, provide plants with the nutrients they need to grow and be healthy. Soil bacteria and fungi also release compounds that build soil structure and promote water movement into and through the soil while also retaining important nutrients. Plants and microbes will break down organic contaminants while often assimilating and immobilizing inorganic metals, binding them long-term to soil organic matter. To make all this work, clays and silts help create the environment where soil microbes can flourish.

A balanced stormwater BMP: 12 years old and still functioning as planned.

Chemistry of a Healthy BSM

The chemical nature of the healthy BSM and a successful stormwater BMP is sometimes the most difficult to understand and manage. Healthy BSM will have slightly acidic to near-neutral pH and low salt content. The BSM should be relatively low in macronutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) because most nutrients needed for sustaining plants in the stormwater BMP are often inherent in the soil or in stormwater influent. An important part of the soil chemistry and success of the BMP is the ability of the soil to absorb nutrients as well as contaminants. This is often reflected in a measure of the soil’s cation exchange capacity (CEC). Fine-textured soils have higher CEC than do coarse, sandier soils. To make up for the low CEC of sandy soils, compost, peat or, recently, coconut coir fiber, is added to improve the CEC of sand-based BSM. These organic materials will decompose with time and must be replenished as part of the BMP maintenance program.

Balanced Soil and Successful BMPs

The “right” soil for stormwater BMPs will vary by location, as every site is different. Every stormwater BMP has different functional and environmental needs requiring the appropriate soil to support effective stormwater management. The typical engineered, sand-based soil recommended or required by many stormwater management programs is essentially a “one-size-fits-all” approach that often fails.
Every stormwater BMP has different functional and environmental needs requiring the appropriate soil that is necessary to support effective stormwater management. The use of more natural soils, especially if soils don’t have to be blended, screened or pulverized works very well. If there is a “happy medium” for stormwater bioretention, soils with sandy loam to loam texture—typically about 45% to 70% sand, 10% to 25% clay, and 15% to 35% silt—work very well. The sandy loam to loam texture has sufficient clay and silt to provide soil chemical and biological stability, yet enough sand to allow adequate drainage.
Designing BSM that has physical, biological and chemical balance is appropriate for the local environment and the proper function of each stormwater management system. This will require many designers to rethink the design of stormwater BMPs to include more natural, native soils, accept finer-textured soils and consider plants and soil biology more. 

A balanced stormwater BMP: 12 years old and still functioning as planned.

References

1) Hodgins B., Seipp B. 2018. Bioretention System Design Specifications & “Performance Enhancing Devices.” Center for Watershed Protection. Washington, D.C.

2) Shanstrom N. 2016. How Sandy Does Bioretention Soil Need to Be? Deeproot Blog Entry. April 16, 2016.

3) Ayers E. 2009. Pedogenesis in Rain Gardens: The Role of Earthworms and Other Organisms in Long Term Soil Development. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland.

4) USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Soil Glue. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051280.pdf.

5) Skorobogatov A. (2014). Hydrological Functionality of Plants and Its Application to Stormwater Management (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

6) Mehring A., Levin L. 2015. Potential Roles of Soil Fauna in Improving the Efficiency of Rain Gardens Used as Natural Stormwater Treatment Systems. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:1445-1454.

7) Hodgins B., Seipp B. 2018.

8) Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2020. Bioretention Media Blends to Improve Stormwater Treatment: Final Phase of Study to Develop New Specifications. Final Report. King County, Washington Department of Natural Resources and Parks. January 2020.

9) McIntyre J., Davis J., Kappenberger T. 2020. Plant and Fungi Amendments to Bioretention for Pollutant Reduction over Time. Final Report to Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Action Monitoring. September 25, 2020.

Special thanks to Lillian Stroeker (Olsson) for assistance with research of stormwater BMP soils

About the Experts

Ted Hartsig, CPSS, is a senior soil scientist with Olsson, Inc. in Overland Park, Kansas. His 37 years of experience have been focused on soil design and restoration for environmental and stormwater management in urban and rural locations throughout the U.S.
Steven Polk, PE, is a professional engineer and owner of Stormwater STL, a firm specializing in stormwater BMP management and compliance, offering inspection, maintenance, native plant stewardship, testing, construction and consulting expertise for stormwater quality systems in St. Louis and throughout the Midwest U.S.

Best of Both Worlds

White jigsaw puzzle pieces on a blue background. Problem solving concepts. Texture photo with copy space for text

Solving a Major Problem & Doing Good

By Judith M. Guido

I’m perplexed by all the talk around the “labor” shortage. It pains me to hear the word “laborer” used, as images of indentured servitude and slavery come to mind. Nobody wants to grow up to be a laborer, so please stop using the word, remember we’re talking about people here. Words matter, they either “wound or wow” so be careful choosing them.

If you’re having difficulty finding good people to work for you, sit down and figure out why. If you’re a great company, why aren’t people flocking to work for you, and why aren’t your employees and stakeholders your greatest recruiters? Remember, prospective employees are “buyers.” They’re either buying your story about your greatness, dismissing it or don’t even have you on their radar screen.
What I hear and see in the market are at odds with one another. I consistently hear, “We can’t find anyone good to work for us,” or “Nobody wants to work.” What I observe is that there is a large—50.8% of the U.S. population—untapped group of talented people who want to work and are looking to share their talents with like-minded people. As great as our industry is, it has fallen short in attracting and leveraging the most powerful economic group on the planet: women. Yes, women. The Economist, a respected and widely read business magazine, published my favorite business headline of all time on April 15, 2006: “Forget China, India and the Internet: Economic growth is driven by women.” That headline holds true today, 15 years later.

In the U.S. 58% of bachelor’s degrees, 60% of master’s degrees and 52% of doctorate degrees are earned by women. In addition to having the power of doubling the industry’s talent, women-led companies financially outperform those led by men, have greater productivity and higher customer retention rates. Employee turnover rates are also lower—possibly because women rank significantly higher as mentors than men.

If you want to attract great talent let it be known that you are company that is committed to being a place where women can flourish, use their voices, be recognized for their contributions and be empowered. Promoting the support and resources you have to help them grow and succeed is critical. Acknowledging women’s unyielding determination and resilience in a predominantly male-dominated industry is important. Women have gained power and momentum by continually proving themselves to be intelligent and effective strategists, operationally savvy and collaborative field managers, effective and compassionate leaders, as well as market-leading business owners.

Women want to have their voices heard and sit at the table in the room where it happens and make it happen. If you’re a company that is an agent for positive change and want to find the future in the present, let women know there’s an open seat waiting for them and a path for growing as a “leadher.” And when women show up…everybody wins! 

Judith M. Guido is the chairwoman and founder of Guido & Associates, a business management consulting firm in the erosion control and green industry. Guido can be reached at 818.800.0135 or judy@guidoassoc.com.

Shoreline Armoring Effects on Fish and Real Estate

by Rich McLaughlin, Ph.D.

The erosion of lake and ocean shorelines is of great concern to both landowners and natural resource managers. The historical approach to controlling such erosion has been to armor the shoreline with riprap, walls and similar devices designed to absorb wave energy and prevent further erosion. How effective they are relative to other approaches is the subject of considerable debate, but their effects beyond controlling erosion are the subject of several recent studies.

How do the aquatic organisms respond in a freshwater lake when the shoreline is armored with either riprap or walls? This was the central question for Chhor et al. when they surveyed a lake in Canada.1 To do the assessment, 20 sites were selected with either natural rocky shoreline, riprap or a wall, for a total of 60 sites. The armoring appeared to be the result of erosion that individual cottage owners wanted to halt, but the conditions prior to that were unknown.

Example of cottage shoreline hardened with concrete walls.

Surveys of fish, aquatic plants and woody debris were conducted by a diver, and aquatic macroinvertebrates were surveyed with a kick net. The overall and individual habitat metrics scored much lower where there was armoring, with noticeably less woody debris and aquatic plants.
The authors suggested that this was likely due to a combination of disturbance during the armoring process and active management by the cottage owners. However, neither fish nor macroinvertebrates appeared to be adversely affected. In fact, of the six fish species found in large enough numbers to assess, only largemouth bass preferred the natural shoreline. This may have been due to the absence of woody debris and plants for the largemouth bass to use to ambush their prey. However, pumpkinseed, bluegill, yellow perch, rock bass and one of two groups of minnow preferred the armored habitat over natural. The authors suggested that there may be shifts occurring in the aquatic environment and community structure that may not be evident yet.

A school of smallmouth bass prowl a rocky shoreline.

In a very different analysis, the effect of seawalls on property values on the coast of southern California was determined.2 In order to do this, Brucal and Lynham selected data previously collected on properties near the shore in San Diego and Santa Cruz counties. The presence of seawalls or beach nourishment was noted, although there were few beach nourishment projects so this was not included. The property values were collected from county records and other data came from a survey of homeowners. The authors noted numerous negative effects of seawalls on beaches, such as steepening the beach gradient and interrupting the flow of sand to adjacent beaches, reducing their width or eliminating them altogether. In Santa Cruz, there was a strong negative effect of seawalls on the value of property but not in San Diego. Differences in the physical attributes of the shoreline were suggested as the reason, with much higher cliffs in San Diego that made the beaches less accessible anyway. Using their models, the authors estimated tax losses of up to $54 million annually if the number of seawalls was doubled in Santa Cruz County. 

References

1. Chhor, A. D., D. M. Glassman, J. P. Smol, J. C. Vermaire, and S. J. Cooke. 2020. Ecological consequences of shoreline armoring on littoral fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in an Eastern Ontario lake. Aquatic Sciences (2020) 82:73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-020-00740-0.

2. Brucal, A., and J. Lynham. 2021. Coastal armoring and sinking property values: the case of seawalls in California. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies (2021) 23:55–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00278-3.

Initial Site BMP Planning, Installation and Stabilization

By Don Elly, CPESC, CISEC

The first and most critical best management practices (BMP) for any compliance professional working with a project team to achieve successful project completion with stormwater excellence begins in the design phase. Engaging early with the design professional and contractor in a collaborative effort to produce a well thought out erosion and sediment control (ESC) sequence and perimeter BMP plan, will minimize the amount of disturbed area during construction and retain the maximum area of existing perimeter vegetation. This is the first critical step toward a successful and fully compliant project.
If, however, the design plan has already been approved when the compliance professional comes onboard, there are a number of factors to keep in mind as BMPs are planned:

Well-coordinated schedules enable compliance.

(1) The importance of non-structural BMPs

As all professionals know, BMPs are both structural and non-structural. The planning and execution of every project, whether it be a heavy highway project, a residential or commercial property improvement project, or any other project that includes land disturbance starts with a set of construction plans. These plans include the ESC plan and sequence, which may have been approved
by the appropriate federal, state, and/or local authorities.

These plans are the building blocks of a larger system that will guide project execution to best protect the surrounding environment and any directly impacted areas of the property both during and after construction has been completed. The approved plan set and redline BMP modifications necessary to the compliant completion of work, combined with a project schedule that is carefully developed in granular detail, is the single most important non-structural BMP of the project. The singular goal of project planning must be to fully integrate these two critical non-structural BMP components to formulate a successful completion plan far in advance of the start of earth disturbance on site.

An effective project schedule and plan minimizes or prevents any repeat disturbance of particular project areas and allows for rapid stabilization and completion of small areas of disturbance to minimize sediment load reaching perimeter BMPs and basins and traps. Often discussed, but unfortunately not utilized well enough in project planning, is the distinction between erosion control and sediment control. The goal must always be to minimize sediment load to perimeter BMPs with effective erosion control. Although BMP installation and maintenance cost is often argued among compliance and operations personnel, the facts are clear: Practicing effective erosion control early in the project is a cost effective means of guaranteeing compliance.

In one example, a well-seasoned, high-ranking construction project executive on a $2 billion highway project that closely tracked ESC-related costs, noticed that when the project’s approach to ESC switched from emphasizing sediment to erosion control there was an obvious and immediate cost savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars—a savings that may break the million dollar mark this year. When compliance professionals convince project executives to track ESC related costs, the same results will be seen. Although converting to a new focus can be difficult, the cost tracking of ESC-related costs is considered an effective BMP when implemented early in the project. In fact, compliance professionals may notice that other than early installation of BMPs and prompt stabilization of small project areas, the most effective early BMPs are non-structural.

Basins (top photo) and existing vegetation are both important BMPs.

(2) The importance of reviewing cut and fill requirements

Operations and compliance executives have seen the folly of not fully and effectively integrating the detailed project plan with the approved ESC plan and sequence. Compliance professionals have watched in dismay as a regulatory inspector asks why the project is out of sequence, and the seasoned superintendent explains that “I can’t build that basin and swale without that fill…” or “I can’t build that fill without that cut…” Dirt does not fall out of the sky (unless something unthinkable is happening) and so it is critically important to not only plan the “when” of project operations, but also the “how” and “where from and to.” Cut and fill requirements may require a second look and redline rework of the sequence. If there are logical reasons to adjust the sequence, educate and collaborate with your regulatory representative on sequence resolution early to avoid enforcement and costly delays later.

(3) The importance of maintaining existing vegetation

A long-time superintendent colleague’s work always projects a fantastic compliance upon first impression, and his projects always operate in a well-organized, well-planned way that stands out from the crowd. His projects exhibit one consistent feature—they always maintain a significant buffer strip of non-disturbance all along the project perimeter. As part of his project planning, he almost always finds a way to maintain a healthy strip of existing vegetation all around his projects. This approach pays huge dividends in compliance. Not only does it help prevent sediment loss off the site and provide a buffer for any extraordinary storm event sediment movement, but on a large site, he is significantly deducting disturbed acreage from design a few square feet at a time. This practice of maintaining existing vegetation and lessening the project’s design disturbance area is a truly effective BMP. While the design of some projects does not allow this flexibility, when it is possible, it can have a huge positive impact on compliance.

(4) Look at the project in smaller “chunks”

Changing behavior—especially the conversion of a successful (in traditional operations cost metrics) old school superintendent, who has always “opened up the whole site”—does not come easy. Baby steps may be necessary as the compliance professional convinces the superintendent to try a new approach on a small project first. This provides the opportunity for the superintendent to see that it is possible to disturb and immediately button up a project in smaller areas than they are used to, while remaining “on time and on budget.” While working on the more experienced superintendents is important, work harder with the newer ones. They will be more apt to listen and be more open to change. They are the low hanging fruit for your “compliance missionary” experience. Again, this approach to project planning emphasizes early stabilization and minimizes the disturbed project area exposed to the elements and potential compliance disaster.

(5) Install perimeter and critical basin and trap/swale BMPs first

Installation of perimeter BMPs first is obvious, and not too difficult to coach, as nearly every approved design plan calls for installation of perimeter BMPs, critical basins/traps, and swale and drainage construction to those structures first in the sequence. Compliance professionals should do their planning homework early and in detail and work collaboratively with regulatory personnel long before the project preconstruction meeting to resolve potential issues with the plan sequence versus cut/fill and other “real world” construction considerations.

Upfront planning (above) leads to effective BMPs such as swales.

(6) The importance of effective communication and collaboration

Last, and certainly not least, is the importance of a high quality of consistent communication and collaboration between operations, design, compliance, and regulatory representatives of the project.
Communication is a critical non-structural BMP, and it may be the single most important BMP on the project. Every one of these representatives and teams are stakeholders in the project, with separate sets of metrics for success, and quality communication and collaboration early and often is critical for success. Remember that communication is listening and speaking, whether in person, on the phone, over email, or via text.

A popular saying that is attributed to Greek philosopher, Epictetus is: We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak. Listening well to what each stakeholder on the project is saying will greatly improve the effectiveness of the compliance professional’s communication. What does each individual or team want to accomplish? What are their metrics? What is important to them? These are critical questions to answer on any project, construction or otherwise, for the most effective and successful collaboration. 

About the Expert

Don Elly, CPESC, CISEC, has over 30 years of operations and environmental compliance leadership in multiple construction industry sectors. He is currently the vice president, environmental for Allan Myers, the Mid-Atlantic region’s largest heavy highway contractor and aggregate/asphalt supplier and serves on the boards of the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy and ACE Mentor Greater Philadelphia.

Boyhood Love of Nature Evolves into Longtime Career

February 24, 2020 - Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: International Erosion Control Association annual meeting, featuring Executive Director Samantha Roe. Photo by Ian Wagreich / © Ian Wagreich Photography

Industry Leader Focuses on Learning and Sharing Knowledge

By Sheryl S. Jackson

As a boy, Earl Norton walked in the furrows as his father and grandfather plowed their farm. “I loved how good the earth smelled, and I didn’t like what happened when it rained and the soil was washed away.”

Little did he know that his childhood experiences would lead him into a career that focused on preservation of soils and protection of waterways.

Norton began his career as a student trainee soil conservationist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1957. After college and two years of service in the U.S. Navy, he began his professional career with the NRCS, where he worked until the end of 1994. He shifted in 1995 to working as a stormwater consultant, trainer, and active participant in IECA.

When asked about the accomplishments of which he is most proud, Norton says, “Helping to develop the state-wide Alabama Erosion and Sediment Control Partnership program is my most rewarding activity related to the construction stormwater industry.” The initial partnership started in 2001 with the support of the Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, the Alabama Association of Conservation Districts, the Alabama Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, he explains.

“The partnership has grown over the years to include 11 partners that provide products and activities that offer technology for the erosion and sediment control industry,” says Norton. “I had the opportunity to coordinate the partnership from 2001–2020 and continue to work in a support role. Partnership accomplishments have made this activity more rewarding than words can describe.”
In 1996, Norton attended the annual IECA Conference, which led to his involvement with IECA—attending every conference since 1996. “The courses and the conference offerings have provided excellent opportunities to learn technology needed in my work area,” he says. “During this part of my career, I had the opportunity to serve on the CPESC Council and become even better acquainted with folks that I had met at the IECA conferences.”

Throughout the years, Norton has not just acquired knowledge but also actively shared knowledge. “Earl has helped more active and former CPESCs to prepare for their exam than any other person in Alabama,” says Barry Fagan, PE, CPESC, vice president of environment and infrastructure at Volkert Inc. “He has participated in agronomic, urban, and construction-related stormwater research at Auburn University and through his influence on professionals like me, has positively impacted the stormwater programs of several public agencies and the work of engineering firms and construction companies across the state.”

While Norton has also provided valuable feedback during the development and promotion of several erosion and sediment control products that are widely in use today, one of his most significant contributions may be the encouragement of others in the industry, says Fagan, who has known Norton for 20 years. “Earl has driven me to do more good things and to be a better leader than I would have been without knowing him,” he explains. Early in their history, Norton introduced Fagan to Perry Oakes, telling him “this is one of the guys that will take our place someday,” he says. “I was both encouraged and challenged by the statement, which helped me to see that he was in it for the cause, not for himself, and that there was an expectation of leadership that I needed to try to live up to.”

February 24, 2020 – Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: International Erosion Control Association annual meeting, featuring Executive Director Samantha Roe. Photo by Ian Wagreich / © Ian Wagreich Photography

Fagan is not the only person Norton has supported. “Earl has been a constant encourager, sending me and others notes of thanks and compliments, along with advice on how we could make this better or leverage the message to help others,” says Fagan. Correspondence from Norton—to him as well as others—often includes words and phrases such as “great job, fantastic, thank you, benefits to all,” and more positive encouragements, sometimes delivered in all caps, he says. “Earl has been a teacher, a mentor, a guide, and an inspiration to me in several areas of life.”

Perry Oakes has known Norton since the early 1980s, working with him at the NRCS and the Alabama Erosion and Sediment Control Partnership. Oakes took over as the partnership program coordinator when Norton stepped down at the beginning of 2021. “Since I have taken over as the program coordinator, I have quickly learned that he made a complicated job look easy,” says Oakes. “It is great to have him support me in my new role.”

When asked to describe Norton’s first impression on people, Oakes says, “He has what I would call a true ‘conservation ethic,’ which means that whether he is at work or at his treasure forest, Earl is always concerned about erosion and keeping the ground covered.” He adds, “He always has a smile, loves meeting you, and wants to learn more about you.”

The greatest change Norton has noticed throughout the years relates to construction stormwater. “When I started working in the construction stormwater world in 1995, many construction sites in Alabama were wrapped with silt fence, and installation of vegetation and other cover practices were often deferred until late in the project, with little or no actions taken to minimize turbidity,” he says. “Now, we see sites reflecting use of a systems approach with a variety of BMPs that significantly reduces erosion and sediment delivery throughout the project and often does a credible job of addressing turbidity. There is still much room for improvement but we are on a positive track,” he says.

“As the industry matures and changes, I see more attention to the use of a systems approach in selecting BMPs, more attention to using the right practices, at the right time, with proper installation and maintenance,” says Norton. He also sees continued improvement in products for erosion and sediment control. “Also, in the future we will see more attention to research findings to provide a stronger science-based approach to site management.”

Norton’s career has been a journey of learning that began in an elementary school with three teachers—each of whom taught two grades in one classroom. “I got to hear grades 1 through 6 taught twice,” he points out. “Excellent teachers from grade 1 on through high school and then Auburn University provided a solid foundation for my work with NRCS and as a stormwater consultant.”

While Norton enjoys fishing, hunting, yard work, and gardening, he says that he gets most of his mental therapy as a forest farmer in a rural area about 30 miles from his home. “I have an opportunity to practice land management with trees, grass and legumes, wildlife, and other critters that benefit from a piece of God’s earth under my care,” he says. “To be very candid, at age 83½, I have been blessed beyond my expectations with a career that I would not trade for any other even if I had an opportunity to make a change.” 

Fast Facts: Earl Norton

Years in erosion control: 60+

Academic degrees: B.S. in agricultural science and M.S. in agronomy and soils from Auburn University

Professional certifications: CPESC, Certified Professional Agronomist, Certified Crop Advisor, Certified Prescribed Burn Manager
2020 awards and recognitions: Outstanding Professional (IECA), Lifetime Achievement Award – CPESC Fellow (EnviroCert International)

Other recognitions: Soil and Water Conservation Society – Fellow (2005); Alabama Wildlife Federation’s Governor’s Conservation Award – Water Conservationist of the Year (2005), Soil Conservationist of the Year (2014)

Controlling Weeds in Native Seedings: The Keys to Success

By Jon Healy, CPESC

Establishing native grasses, shrubs, and forbs can be challenging. Soil conditions, erosion, and weather can contribute to the challenges, although native plants are designed to succeed even when facing many of these environmental factors. Weed pressure is often the biggest threat to a successful, long-lasting native planting.

Weed pressure can have a negative impact on a native seeding primarily due to germination speed and strong spreading traits. This can occur either through rhizome/stolon growth or through well-designed seed delivery systems. In comparison, most native plants grow and spread more slowly making them susceptible to competition from weeds.

There are several options for controlling weed growth in native plantings and there are many factors to consider when determining the right control for a project. There are many variables in site and environmental conditions that may require different, site-specific strategies, but the basic concepts include burning, mowing, herbicide application, and spot control. Another essential method—starting with a clean slate —should be used in conjunction with one or more of the other options.

Burning

Burning a native seeding can be one of the most effective means of controlling weeds in some climates and environments. Native plants are well-adapted to burning, while many weeds are not. In fact, native plants tend to grow back faster and stronger after burning. A controlled burn will eliminate shallow-rooted introduced grasses, broadleaf weeds, and juvenile woody plants. At the same time, seeds of these undesirable species that exist on or near the surface of the soil will be eliminated, which reduces weed pressure in future years. Burning in dry/windy conditions or rough terrain can be difficult to control and extremely dangerous. A burn should be coordinated with local government offices, forest service, and fire departments to ensure appropriate permits are obtained and support is available if the fire gets out of control.

In some environments, burning can be effective weed control for native seedings.

Mowing

Mowing a native grass planting can be an effective means of controlling weeds. Mowing minimizes weed pressure in a few ways. Most native plants incur little stress from being mowed while the growth of many weeds will be stunted, giving the intended species an opportunity to thrive. Another benefit is many of the common weeds are annual species that rely on dropping seed to propagate. Mowing prevents seed from forming. No seed means no plants next year. Additionally, mowed material creates a natural mulch that can help retain moisture, block sunlight from juvenile weeds and minimize erosion. Terrain or accessibility may make mowing impossible, but mowing can be the ideal combination of affordability, safety, and effectiveness.

Mowing minimizes weed pressure without stressing the native plantings.

Herbicide Application

Using herbicide to control weeds in native plantings can be very effective. There are many options intended for use on native plantings that fall into three broad categories: selective pre-emergent, selective post-emergent, and non-selective.
Pre-emergent herbicides target plants that have not yet emerged from the soil. Plants are easiest to eliminate when they are young so a pre-emergent used at the right time of year —usually early spring—can be very effective. Pre-emergents can be used on new seedings or existing stands, but typically require that the product reaches the soil to be effective, so applying a pre-emergent to a well-established stand can be difficult.

Post-emergent selective herbicides are only effective on actively growing weeds. Most products work through foliar absorption. Timing of post-emergent applications is essential since many weeds become difficult to control at full maturity. Generally, selective post-emergent applications are most effective in late spring to early summer, but can be used with good success throughout the growing season.

There are several products on the market with both pre- and post-emergent value that can help eliminate growing weeds and prevent new weeds from growing for up to several months.

Non-selective herbicides are the “nuclear” option of herbicides. These products such as glyphosate (e.g. Roundup®) are intended to kill everything they touch. Non-selective products are best used for spot spraying or pre-seeding weed control.

Severity of weed pressure, primary type of weed present, stage of weed growth, and species present in the intended vegetation all need to be considered when selecting herbicide. Product selection and application planning are crucial to achieving the results you want. If you are not certain, consult an expert.

Spot Control

When weeds are sparse, on small sites, or in areas where weeds are concentrated, spot spraying or hand pulling can be an effective method of controlling weeds. This is potentially the most labor-intensive method, but can also have the highest rate of success. Many wildflowers cannot tolerate any type of herbicide application. If burning or mowing are not feasible, spot control may be the only option. In locations where weeds are sparse, re-seeding is typically not required after eliminating the weeds. However, large, concentrated areas of weed growth will need to be re-seeded after weed elimination. If re-seeding is not done, these open areas will invite new weed growth.

Eliminate Weeds Before Seeding

The most effective and important method for controlling weeds in native plantings is to start with a clean slate. Eliminating weeds before seeding will give the planting its best chance for success. Project schedules, seasonal limitations, and site conditions can limit the ability to control weeds before seeding. Ideally, a site should receive at least two applications of non-selective herbicide to eliminate as many weeds as possible. Tilling or ripping the soil between applications can expose weed seeds that might not otherwise start growing for a couple years. Another challenge of this prolonged pre-seeding period is exposing the site to weather and erosion, which can result in costly repairs. One of the most cost-effective ways to battle this is to use cover crops.

Using inexpensive small grains or other annual plants to cover bare ground between final grading and seeding during this weed control period can cost as little as a few dollars per acre for seed and can provide several benefits without the need for thousands of dollars in erosion control products. These cover crops can prevent or minimize erosion, provide natural mulch and add organic matter to the soil. Seeding as little as 20 lbs. of small grain per acre (22kg/ha) can help keep the site intact between herbicide applications. Typically, this would be an herbicide application followed by a cover crop seeding, wait two to four weeks, till or rip the soil, wait another two weeks, apply herbicide and do the final seeding.

Blending a nurse crop of the same small grain or annual plants with a permanent seed mixture can provide some of the same benefits as a pre-seeding cover crop. In most cases, native seedings are planned to result in 30 to 80 seeds per square foot (325-860 seeds per square meter). Eighty native plants per square foot sounds like a lot, but the reality is that not all seeds will germinate simultaneously and some will not germinate at all. A typical native seeding will have bare ground between plants for at least the first two seasons. Bare ground has the potential for growing weeds or allowing erosion. Adding a nurse crop can achieve quick growth to fill in this bare space between permanent plants. For sites that may be sensitive to potential regrowth of annual nurse crops, there are options such as sterile triticale that are not capable of regrowth.

There are several options available to control weeds in native plantings that will achieve a permanent, durable, and attractive stand of native plants. The right option for your site is going to vary depending on the species of weeds, geography, site conditions, terrain/accessibility, and many other factors. There is not a one-size-fits-all option, but a thorough assessment of the site and potential unintended consequences of various weed control options will help identify a workable solution. 

About the Expert

Jon Healy, CPESC, is the commercial product manager for Millborn Seeds, Inc., with a primary area of expertise for the Great Plains and northern Rocky Mountains. He has over 25 years of experience in the construction industry and has served as the South Dakota State Representative on the IECA Mountain States Chapter Board for the past three years.

Australasia Young Professional Scholarship Expands Access to Industry Knowledge

Global pandemics do not often present exciting opportunities, but the four recipients of IECA Australasia’s Young Professional Virtual Conference Scholarship had the opportunity to attend IECA’s 2021 Virtual Conference, which had originally been planned as an in-person event in Kansas City, Missouri, USA.

The switch to a virtual conference eliminated extra time and costs for travel and accommodations, opening up the conference to a wider audience. To encourage young professionals embarking on a career in the erosion and sediment control industry, the Australasia Chapter offered scholarships that included full conference registration, a 12-month IECA Australasia membership, and an invitation to attend one IECA Australasia Board meeting virtually or in person. The scholarship program, which was sponsored by Vital Chemical, was open to professionals under the age of 35 in Australia and New Zealand. Four recipients were selected from the 11 applications received.

The recipients’ perspectives on the conference included:

Rebecca O’Connor, environmental coordinator, AWP2, Victoria: “Despite the virtual nature of the conference, it was a great opportunity to see what other companies from around the world are doing to achieve our goals of best practice in the world of erosion and sediment control. Whilst a lot of the international round table discussions were more American-oriented, as an Australian, I found it was indirectly a great way to demonstrate how best practice in one country might not necessarily be best practice in another.”

Rebecca O’Connor

Venkata Padamata, land resource officer, Rangelands Division, Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security, NT Government: “It was worth it waking up early in the morning and attending the conference. Unfortunately, I attended only the first day of the conference due to my work priorities, but I had access to all seminars for 60 days after the conference via the website. The great thing about these presentations is that they included plenty of discussion and audience involvement. I personally learned a lot and got inspired to learn more.”

Venkata Padamata

Igmar Zambrano, environment officer, Engineering, Health and Environment Branch, Planning and Regulatory Services Department, Ipswich City Council: She lists highlights of the conference as “Sharing sediment control techniques. Sharing knowledge and experience in panel discussions and presentations. Increasing information in new techniques related to erosion and sediment control measures in road construction, development project, creek restoration, implementation, and monitoring of sediment control.”

Igmar Zambrano

Chloe Leong: “The conference was great for expanding my knowledge on a wide range of subjects and there were many amazing and knowledgeable speakers. I had the opportunity to grow my professional support network and understand amazing products that are available on the market. This experience has given me an appreciation of the work undertaken by others involved in the field and the direction the industry is heading.”

Chloe Leong

From Mining Site to Butterfly Habitat

Intentional Reclamation Efforts Improve Environment

By Hal Lunsford, MPA; Stefano Rignanese, MS; Michael C. Korb, PE

What do mine reclamation and butterfly gardens have in common? More importantly, how do they link to erosion and sediment control?

What is mine reclamation? According to the California Department of Conservation, it is “The combined process by which adverse environmental effects of surface mining are minimized and mined lands are returned to a beneficial end use.”1

What are butterfly gardens or habitats? According to the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, a butterfly garden is a “Plant environment designed as an outdoor haven and natural habitat for butterflies, specifically created to nourish and protect with a wide variety of plants native to their region.”2

The large and brilliantly-colored monarch butterfly is among the most easily recognizable of the butterfly species that call North America home but the population has declined by approximately 90% since the 1990s.3­ Habitat loss due to intensive agriculture, urban development, use of pesticides and weather pattern changes have contributed to the decline.

Former mining sites can become valuable habitats for the Monarch butterfly with milkweed plantings.

Monarchs ranged throughout North and South America up to a few years ago, but they are no longer found in South America. The monarch is also found in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Oceania.

Milkweed is the monarch’s sole food source and the rookery for laying their eggs, food source for their larvae, and later, a bench for their cocoons. Without milkweed, this beautiful species will become extinct as have over 80% of all butterfly species on our small planet.4

Scientists, construction contractors, and citizens must come together to prevent the extinction of one species—the monarch. Erosion and sediment control professionals can play a significant role in the effort, while also meeting the goals of their erosion and sediment control projects.

Pre-construction mine opening and subsidence.

Michael C. Korb, P.E., a retired manager of the state Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania who now works as senior engineer for Tetra Tech in Dallas, found that milkweed plants and monarchs not only survived, but thrived in his restoration projects that included closed and abandoned strip-mining areas. His efforts not only controlled sediment and erosion, but also improved the aesthetics of these areas to improve the overall community. Hundreds of areas that can benefit from this type of reclamation effort can be found in all states in the U.S. and in countries worldwide.

Another issue related to the demise of the monarch butterfly habitat is along the roads and major highways throughout the U.S. Most departments of transportation use herbicides to kill weeds to create an unnatural monoculture along the roadways. While the beautiful, grassed roadway shoulders and right of ways may look like a golf course, there are benefits to using the areas to provide habitats for native plants and animals including the monarch butterflies and milkweed, which is invasive to grassed areas.

Years ago, First Lady Ladybird Johnson, led an effort to incorporate areas of diverse native plantings along highways and roads. The benefits of native plants in these areas include not only increased habitats for disappearing plants and animals, but also decreased carbon emissions from fuels needed to continually mow shoulders, right of ways, and medians.

Post-construction constructed wetland with native vegetation.

Even with a resurgence of interest in butterfly gardens on homeowners’ properties, as part of reclamation projects or along highways, there are some right and wrong ways to approach the plantings.

A common mistake is the use of nonnative species of milkweed that can survive winters.4 This causes this butterfly to remain in place over the year rather than migrate as they have done since the Paleocene Epoch. Although other butterflies can overwinter as larvae, pupae, or even as adults in some species, monarchs cannot survive the cold winters of northern climates. Monarchs in the western U.S. states migrate to Mexico, and monarchs in the eastern states migrate to Florida. Environmental cues, such as availability of milkweed, can prompt migration at the right time or, in the event of nonnative milkweed, cause the butterfly to stay in a location they cannot survive.

The best practice is to use only native species of milkweed or other plants that are specific to an area or state for mine reclamation projects, highway beautification efforts, and local butterfly gardens. 

References

1. Mine Reclamation. California Department of Conservation. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/SMARA%20Mines/reclamation.

2. How to Make a Butterfly Garden. Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. https://www.wildflower.org/learn/how-to/make-a-butterfly-garden.

3. Monarch Butterfly. National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Invertebrates/Monarch-Butterfly.

4. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/invertebrates/facts/monarch-butterfly.

About the Experts

Hal Lunsford, MPA, is a 40-year veteran environmentalist, and an active member in the U.S. Green Building Council and IECA Southeastern Chapter. He was recently elected to his second term as the only Florida member representative and serves as chairman of the erosion and sediment control track committee for IECA. He holds a bachelor’s degree in earth and atmospheric sciences and a master’s in public administration from the University of West Florida.
Stefano Rignanese, MS, is a civil engineer and has a master of science in civil engineering from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy. He joined Maccaferri in 2012 and he is currently the North America technical marketing manager. He was one of the IECA Four Under 40 Young Professional Award in both 2020 and 2021. He currently serves as co-chair of the erosion and sediment control track committee for IECA.

Michael C. “Mike” Korb, PE, graduated as a mining engineer from the University of Missouri—Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology) in January 1968. He is a Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) Legion of Honor member, a distinguished member of SME, and a two-time past chair and remains active in the SME Penn-Anthracite Section. He works part-time with Tetra Tech in Northeastern Pennsylvania and spends most of his time working with anthracite mine heritage and environmental non-profits.

Shasta College Offers Unique Learning Lab

Erosion Control Training Facility Supports Hands-On Learning

By John McCullah, CPESC

Erosion and sediment control professionals often say—tongue in cheek—that, “The art and science of best management practices (BMP) selection and implementation isn’t rocket science. It’s much more complicated!”

Actually, effective erosion and sediment control work is part tradecraft and part certified professional—someone who has been trained on the complex regulations and the myriad of stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) protocols. Many trades such as construction, earthmoving, and grading and landscaping depend on an apprentice and journeyman relationship. There are several educators in the industry that are clamoring for prerequisite courses on the BMPs alone —courses that provide the theory of BMPs, including Stokes law, continuity equation and hydrologic soil groups, coupled with hands-on instructional pedagogy.

The BMP Summit at Shasta College is a two-day annual event that combines one day in a classroom and one day of field demonstrations.

The Clean Water Act states that BMPs can be a collection of rules, methodologies, protocols, and operating procedures. SWPPP management protocols that address things like knowing when to sample, how to designate the qualifying storm event, and how to file inspection reports are important, but the as-built, physical soil erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as erosion control blankets, sediment barriers, and hydromulching are the real tools of compliance. Unfortunately, this level of understanding of the actual constructed BMPs requires experience. Without the apprentice/journeyman relationship, the training emphasis will require different pedagogy— hands-on experiential based education geared to adult learning.

The Shasta College Erosion Control Training Facility (ECTF) is gaining worldwide recognition for its unique capacity to provide hands-on training on soil erosion and sediment control BMPs. Built in 2007, the six-acre (2.4 ha) ECTF is designed with slopes, drainage channels, sediment ponds, and bioswales to serve as a learning laboratory.

Onema representative Daniel McDonald, CPESC, has an opportunity to apply hydromulch at approximately 4000kg/ha (4000#/ac). Participants also learned how to fill the tank and mix the slurry to a desired consistency and employ the application techniques necessary to achieve 100% coverage.

The school’s Watershed and Erosion Control Practicum class uses the ECTF as the “lab” for students pursuing a degree in agriculture natural resource (AGNR) programs as well as students pursuing a heavy equipment operators certificate.
The ECTF is not only a training ground for the college’s vocational education programs, but it also provides a field training site for an annual erosion and sediment control BMP Summit at Shasta College.

The BMP Summit is a two-day annual event that is usually held during spring break. One day of classroom learning and one day of field demonstrations of 12 or more of the most widely-used BMPs provides both theory and the hands-on experience. BMPs demonstrated include hydromulching, erosion control blankets (ERC), turf reinforcement mats (TRM), surface roughening, skimmer basin, fiber rolls, compost socks, straw mulching with tack, silt fence, and stabilized construction entrance.

Sediment barriers and slope interrupters are varied in type and material. Anchoring techniques are also varied depending on site conditions. The CT type 2 stake and rope lash method can firmly anchor fiber rolls to the soil eliminating the need for a trench to prevent runoff from leaking under. Students are shown how a one-fourth inch diameter rope stretched across anchor stakes staggered 2 ft. apart, will then be “torqued” down with a sledge hammer.

The ECTF has hosted more than five annual BMP Summits. The first event in 2008 was limited to California Department of Transportation maintenance workers, but attendance was expanded to include city, county, and state regulators in 2009. Expansion beyond government agencies continues. A California SWPPP management company, that is committed to employee training, has found the Shasta College experience so valuable that they have enrolled over two dozen staff to the annual trainings.

Events held in 2016 and 2018 hosted more than 12 product exhibitors that set up displays and showcased products in the field. In addition to summit attendees, Shasta College has hosted guests from around the nation and the world—the most distant attendees traveled from the Mariana Islands, Malaysia, and France.

Students learn that a silt fence type sediment barrier is intended to “pond water,” but because the embankment is made from sticks and geotextile, the drainage area should be quite small, probably less than 10,000 sq. ft. (930m2). Shasta College has two silt fence slicing machines used to demonstrate how static slicing and t-post stakes make installation quick, well keyed-in, and sustainable—as the stakes can be reused, which diverts material from landfills.

In 2016, Shasta College and the Western Chapter of IECA hosted delegates from the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (Onema) on a technology transfer mission. The delegates were tasked with developing an erosion and sediment control manual for the agency.

An added benefit of the Summit is AGNR student participation and continued learning as they help develop and set up the site for the event. They receive a scholarship to attend the event, which leads to an unanticipated benefit as participating students get to “rub shoulders” with industry professionals.

The technology transfer combined with “hands-on learning” have proven to be extremely effective. One guest from France praised the training, saying that she enjoyed being able to hear the theory and immediately see the practice applied. 

IECA’s Craig Benson and Lynn Friesner take training lead on the ECB module. Attendees get to touch and feel the various types of materials and the array of possible anchors. Pre-installation grading, anchoring, and intimate soil contact are key points. Durability, longevity, and ability to encourage vegetation establishment are considerations for ECB selection.

About the Expert

John McCullah, CPESC, watershed geologist, owns Salix Applied Earthcare LLC, a consulting firm in Redding, California. A certified professional in erosion and sediment control since 1986, he has spent three decades developing and implementing BMPs for a variety of environments and as an adjunct instructor at Shasta College. McCullah and SalixAEC, along with their partner BlinkWorks produce the erosion control training video series Dirt Time. A new generation of training videos have been available since 2016, dirttime.tv partnered up with Kevin Ernst and Haven Falls Motion Pictures.

Want to Take a Look?

Want to see Shasta College’s Erosion Control Training Facility (ECTF) in action and hear from BMP Summit participants? Go to https://youtu.be/zAz71FgysM8 and https://youtu.be/vsWqLbNytBo to learn more about the hands-on ECTF.

1...18192021Page 19 of 21

MOST POPULAR

Load more