Stormwater management alternatives

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

mc~andgement
Alternatives
J. Toby Tourbier
Richard Westmacott,
Editors

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE WATER RESOURCES CE NTER
* C l He Ai
h C~~I ~IE~U
StofmwateEI
\/naemn
00^ ~ tfnt\e
.. ~ ~ ~ !-

*'
* Axnxemn

Stormwoxter
manOgement
Alternatives

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
NEWARK,. DELAWARE
19711
WATER RESOURCES CENTER
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
42 EAST DELAWARE AVENUE
PHONE: 302-738-2191

June 16, 1980

Dallas Miner
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, DC 20235

Dear r:

Enclosed is your complementary copy of "Stormwater
Management Alternatives," the Proceedings from the National
Conference held on October 3-5, 1979. We hope the quality
of printing will make up for the long delay in production.
Extra copies of this publication can be purchaced for $15.00
from the Water Resources Center.

Thank you again for your participation in this Confer-
ence.

Sincerely yours,

J. To To rbier
Projet Dtector

JT/sjp

Enclosure

150-75

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

Stormwater
management
ARlternatives

,0q~ ~J. Toby Tourbier and
~4) ~Richard Westmacott, Editors
~~~.~~~JAS~~~ T; r
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4SAi -V' -'

Water Resources Center
University of Delaware
-I-+~~ ~Newark, Delaware 19711

The work upon which this publication is based was supported in part by funds
from the following agencies:
The Office of Water Research and
Technology of the U.S. The United States Environmental
Department of the Interior, as Protection Agency
authorized under the Water
7~,~~~~ ~ Research and Development Act Grant Number T003705-01
of 1978
9~ { >\Grant Number 14-34-0001-8707

Property of CSC Library
OQ

a:--~~~ ~~ ~April 1980
_,0

Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Water Research and Technology or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute their
endorsement or recommendation for use by the United
States Government.

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ix

Acknowledgments xiii

I. A RATIONALE FOR INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT

1. Remarks at the National Conference on Stormwater 2
Management Alternatives, Wilmington, Delaware,
October 4, 1979 -- Senator Edmund S. Muskie

2. Convivial Stormwater Management Alternatives -- 9
J. Toby Tourbier, Richard Westmacott and Charles Goedken

3. Appropriate Stormwater Management -- Ian L. McHarg 23

4. Legal Tools for the Implementation of Greenway and 31
Blue-Green Technology -- Ann Louise Strong

5. The Blue-Green Concept - Some Personal Comments -- 37
Richard Westmacott

II. PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SYSTEMS

6. Investigation of Concrete Grid Pavements -- Gary E. Day 45

7. Porous Paving -- L. Fielding Howe, Jr. 65

8. Cooperation for Recreation and Streambank Retention - 69
The Tioga County Experience -- Patrick Smyth and
Jeffrey E. Barnes

9. Best Management Practices in the 1978 Needs Survey -- 73
James E. Scholl and Ronald L. Wycoff

10. Role of Aquatic Biological Monitoring in Determining 95
Best Management Practice Effectiveness -- Alfred Duda

11. Strategically Locating On-Site Detention Devices Using 109
the Penn State Runoff Model -- David F. Lakatos

12. Planning for Riparian Environmental Quality Options in 121
a Small Watershed in New Jersey -- Alan M. Robinson
and Carol R. Collier

Page

III. CASE EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS

13. Natural Drainage in the Woodlands -- Narendra Juneja 143
and James Veltman

14. Implementation of Stormwater Management in a Canadian 159
Municipality: The Markham Experience with Site Tailored
Criteria -- Paul E. Wisner, Dipen Mukherjee and
Dalo Keliar

15. Public Values and a River - The Brandywine Story -- 174
William Sellers

16. Drainage Reconsidered: The Evolving Role of Public 185
Agencies in Drainage - New Castle County, Delaware --
Darryl R. Goehring, William M. Romeika and Vern C. Svatos

17. Areawide and Local Frameworks for Urban Nonpoint Pollution 211
Management in North Virginia -- John P. Hartigan,
Bruce Douglas, David J. Biggers, Theodore J. Wessel and
David Stroh

18. Stream Valley and Flood Plain Management in Montgomery 247
County, Maryland -- Nazir Baig and Wesley H. Blood

19. Achieving Local Support for Surface Runoff Management in 255
the San Francisco Bay Area -- Steven J. Goldman,
Peter Y. Chiu and Mary H. Dunten

IV. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION

20. Address Before the National Conference on Stormwater 275
Management Alternatives, Wilmington, Delaware --
Jack J. Schramm

21. Let's Settle the Stormwater Management Issues--Neil S. Grigg 281

22. The Greenway Concept Within the Heritage Conservation and 287
Recreation Service -- Glenn Eugster and Elizabeth Titus

23. Special Districts for the Management of Environmental 309
Quality -- Francis Tannian

24. The Uncounted Costs of Uncontrolled Water -- Marshall Haws 317

25. Public Participation in Anne Arundel County's Watershed 325
Management Program -- Ginger Klingelhoefer,
Charles E. Abrahamson, Jr. and Franklin W. Ellis

Appendix - List of Conferees 336

mrat

An address by Senator Edmund S. Muskie brought together conferees and
interested citizens in the Gold Ballroom of the Hotel du Pont.

VIII

INTRODUCTION

The conference on Stormwater Management Alternatives had its origin
in a contract with the Office of Water Research and Technology of the
U.S. Department of the Interior, under which the editors (1) investigated
water resources protection technology and produced a handbook of measures
to protect water resources in land development. This handbook is recom-
mended reading of Section 208 "Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning," and its specifications sheets for the construction
of physical improvements have been copied in many reports, most notably
by agencies concerned with implementing "Best Management Practices"
under the Clean Water Act. Other reasons for the popularity of the
handbook are its comprehendability by potential users, and its design
guidelines and outline specifications for the construction of physical
improvements that can be functional and enhance a site.

Stormwater management remains to be a national problem. Flood
losses are increasing in spite of ever-rising expenditures for flood
control. Non-point sources of stormwater pollution from urban areas
are the major source of water pollution in many areas. Most urban
streams today are neglected and often a sensual blight, even though
more money has been spent (since 1972) to clean up the nation's waters
than to construct the nation's highway network. Opportunities for
multi-use planning are often ignored. Blue-green technology can incor-
porate flood control, stormwater pollution abatement, recreation, and
comprehensive city planning and development. Stormwater management
technology can be convivial (implying conviviere - with life) resulting
in a product that can be lasting, functional and beautiful. This
concept inspired an educational color poster that was produced by the
editors (see page 19 ) and announced the conference through a special
feature article in a professional journal (2). In addition, 2500 copies
of a first announcement and call for papers were mailed announcing
"Blue-Green Technology - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES - Turn a
Liability into an Asset." The announcement invited authors to offer
papers on the following topics:

1. NON-STRUCTURAL CONTROLS - to prevent stormwater problems at
their source. An example is the prevention of runoff increases
and inducement of ground water recharge through land use
allocations, and the prevention of stormwater pollution
through surface sanitation and chemical use control, erosion
control and open space protection in ecologically critical
areas.

2. STRUCTURAL CONTROLS - to delay runoff, reduce flood damage,
trap sediment, protect stream channels and banks.

3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - a rationale for evaluating
methods in regard to (a) their cost effectiveness in avoiding
or minimizing water problems, and (b) their sensitivity to
social and cultural values.

4. DESIGN FOR MULTIPURPOSE USES - can take the form of "Blue-
Green" development or "Greenways" that offer recreation
opportunities, establish open space buffers, increase property
values, protect cultural resources and enhance aesthetic values.

5. FUNDABILITY AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS - are the lifeline for
public projects. Flooding and stormwater pollution is the
responsibility of different federal agencies. New and compre-
hensive stormwater management laws are now being passed by many
states.

6. PUBLIC INFORMATION/PARTICIPATION AND LOCAL SUPPORT - is essential
for the implementation of projects. Public information and
constituency building is an important prerequisite for a
meaningful public participation in decision making.

The Federal Clean Water Act represents a national commitment to
making the nation's surface water resources fit for fishing and swimming
by 1983. A strong supporter of this was former Governor of Delaware and
former U.S. Senator J. Caleb Boggs, who served as the chairman of the
planning committee for the Stormwater Management Alternatives Conference.
It was upon his invitation that Senator Edmund S. Muskie agreed to be
the keynote speaker of the three-day event on October 3, 4 and 5, 1979.
The conference was held at the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington, Delaware
close to the banks of the Brandywine River. The Brandywine and the
Christina River Basins (3) have a long history of water resources concern
in planning. The Brandywine has long been considered a potential model
river (4). The conference included a field trip in a Wilmington and
Western Railroad vintage train along the banks of the river, with a stop
at the Brandywine River Museum to view land management practices and an
exhibit of the Brandywine School of Painting. The conference was
attended by over 300 people who shared an interest in stormwater manage-
ment practices that are desirable alternatives to the conventional.
Through blue-green technology stormwater becomes a resource that can be
managed to enhance a community and make it a more livable place -- today
and in the future.

J. TbTourbier
Technical Program Director

References

(1) ~J. Tourbier and R. Westmacott, 1974, "Water Resources Protection
Measures in Land Development - A Handbook," University of Delaware
Water Resources Center.
(2) J. Tourbier and R. Westmacott, May 1979, "Convivial Technology -
The Water Cycle Reconsidered," Landscape Architecture.

(3) J. Tourbier, 1973, "Water Resources as a Basis for Comprehensive
Planning and Development of the Christina River Basin,"
University of Delaware Water Resources Center.

(4) Deliberations to the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (P.L. 92-500).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Most papers in this report were presented at the Stormwater
Management Alternatives Conference, which was supported by seed money
from the Office of Water Research and Technology of the U.S. Department
of the Interior and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III.

CONFERENCE STAFF

Dr. Robert D. Varrin Conference Chairman

J. Toby Tourbier Technical Program Director and Co-Editor

Richard Westmacott Co-Editor

Dana Anderson Conference Administration

Charles Goedken Conference Administration

Judy Malinowski Support Staff

Suzanrfe Parker Support Staff

Dr. Sydney Steele Staff Consultant

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Hon. J. Caleb Boggs, Former Governor of Delaware and Former U.S. Senator;
Dr. Robert D. Varrin and Dr. Sydney Steele, University of Delaware;
Prof. Ian McHarg and Prof. Ann Louise Strong, University of Pennsylvania;
Mr. Frank Spink, Urban Land Institute; Mr. Dallas Miner, Office of
Coastal Zone Management; Mr. Joseph Krivak and Mr. Thomas Pierce,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Charles Meyers, U.S. Department
of the Interior.

CONFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Committee Chairman: J. Caleb Boggs, Former Governor of Delaware and
Former U.S. Senator. Committee Members: Richard M. Bauer, Director,
New Castle County Planning Department; Josef A. Burger, Chairman,
New Castle Conservation District; Bernard L. Dworsky, Administrator,
Water Resources Agency for New Castle County; Marshall Haws, Staff,

xiii

Chester County Conservation District; Jack Lakatosh, District
Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service; Robert W. Lang,
Administrative Director, Greater Wilmington Development Council;
Peter A. Larson, Executive Vice-President, Greater Wilmington Development
Council; Albert W. Madora, Director, New Castle County Department of
Public Works; Edward O'Donnell, Chief Planner, New Castle County Planning
Department; Austin P. Olney, Delaware Commissioner, Delaware River Basin
Commission; Warren O'Sullivan, Assistant County Engineer, New Castle
County Department of Public Works; William Sellers, Director of Environ-
mental Management, Brandywine Conservancy; Robert Struble, Jr., Director,
Brandywine Valley Association; James Tung, Director, Wilmington Metro-
politan Area Planning Coordinating Council; Norman Wilder, Executive
Director, Delaware Nature Education Society.

Special acknowledgment is given to the moderators of the sessions:
Mr. Peter A. Larson of the Greater Wilmington Development Council,
Mr. Boyd C. Steed, School of Environmental Design, University of Georgia
and Mr. Warren O'Sullivan, New Castle County Department of Public Works.
A reception and exhibit in Willingtown Square was made possible by
cooperation from The Historical Society of Delaware, and by contributions
from Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., Leon N. Weiner and Associates,
Inc., and E. Earle Downing, Inc., all of Wilmington, Delaware.

Our grateful thanks also to Ms. Dana Anderson and Charles Goedken
for invaluable staff work before, during and after the conference.

Guidance and support from many distinguished and knowledgeable
persons in the District of Columbia and the States of Pennsylvania and
Delaware greatly facilitated management of the Conference. The Conference
also enjoyed a gratifying response from leading speakers and authors in
the Stormwater Management field, as evidenced by this publication.

Again, thanks to all.

J. Caleb Boggs
April 1980 Chairman, Conference
Wilmington, Delaware Advi sory Committee

Xiv

I. A RATIONALE FOR INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

- g�

Senator Edmund S. Muskie addressing the National Conference on
Stormwater Management Alternatives

REMARKS AT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES,
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, OCTOBER 4,1979

SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Democrat (Maine)

When I speak to a conference like this, I often wish you were
giving the speeches and I were the audience.

As a wise man once told me, "When you're talking, you ain't
learning much." And there is a great deal all of us who help make
policy in Washington need to learn about stormwater runoff and other
non-point pollution problems.

Non-point pollution is without question our most intractable
environmental challenge.

There was a time when we looked forward to the splendid relief of
rain. Now, especially in the northeast, we are learning that rain can
also bring acids that kill-our fish and stunt our trees and crops.

There was a time-when the amazing ingenuity of modern chemists
held the promise of a future of limitless bounty. Now some of us have
discovered that our homes are dangerously close to, or on top of,
buried chemical poisons.

There was a time when we thought pesticides would produce only
superior crop yields and not "superbugs."

As the costs and risks of pollution became known, we undertook an
accounting. We set a course aimed at cleaning up our past errors and
preventing new pollution mistakes. We have made some progress in that
effort.

But the chief accomplishment of a decade of environmental cleanup
has been to expose the staggering depth and complexity of the problems
which remain. One is non-point sources of water pollution. A second
is the discharge of chemical poisons and other hazardous wastes. A
third is the global nature of air pollution and the threat from carbon
dioxide generated by fossil fuel use.

We have abundant evidence that the road ahead is longer, steeper
and more poorly mapped than the road behind.

We, in this room, are dedicated to traveling that road. We under-
stand the complexity of the problem, the need for better research,
better financing, and more effective methods. We think the problem can
be alleviated, but we don't know the size of the task.

MUSKIE

For example, the ultimate solution to urban wastewater problems
certainly lies in a fundamental change in the way our society lives,
works and travels.

Studies done in Washington, D.C., have shown that some of the major
sources of pollution in stormwater are litter, construction debris and
automobile-related chemicals and solids.

The ultimate solution to a pollution problem is to remove the
source, as we all know. In the case of Washington, that would mean
removing the people, the progress and the private automobile; or
changing social values developed and nurtured in a half-century of
material progress.

The first course is neither politically, practically nor morally
possible for those of us who believe environmental policy must accomodate
man and his environment. The second will take time -- a great deal of
time.

Congress knew when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 that the
number and diversity of discharges from non-point sources would be
overwhelming and that they could not be subjected to the same type of
regulatory mechanism established for communities and industries.

We knew that the runoff from agriculture, construction, surface
stormwater, underground mines and other non-point sources would require
local management and regulation -- rather than the application of a
certain type of technology at the end of a pipe.

I don't think we quite knew the complexity -- the political, social,
environmental, and engineering hurdles we would have to jump in order to
achieve our goals. We still know far too little about the problem.

The Environmental Protection Agency is taking some concrete steps
to better define the problems of non-point pollution and test some of
the possible solutions.

-- In conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA
plans to carry out a program of water quality management in seven
different areas around the country in order to provide better informa-
tion about the non-point problems.

-- EPA has initiated the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program and is
working with the U.S. Geological Survey to establish an up-to-date and
accessible data base on the various urban watershed problems and
management methods.

Thirty studies will be conducted nationwide in order to cover a
wide range of varying climatic regions.

But, most important, studies like these aim to establish critical
links at the local level between planning and implementation of
management programs.

MUSKIE

This conference is another valuable means of exploring the problem
and considering solutions. You are discussing structural and non-
structural controls; the so-called "Blue and Green Development" designs
for multi-purpose use; and some of the best management practices.

And you are discussing ways to increase public awareness of the
problem and public acceptance of the treatment.

The Clean Water Act recognizes local political support as a key
ingredient in the process.

The Section 208 Program has experimented with voluntary controls
and has allowed states to develop their own regulations to suit their
regional needs.

Some have criticized a policy that allows so much local discretion.
And it is true that some management agreements have taken advantage of
the volunteer nature of the law and some local government entities have
not utilized 208 monies in the best possible manner.

But I regard 208 as a test of the capacity of the partnership
among federal, state and local governments. I hope it will demonstrate
to Washington whether or not localities and states are capable of
planning and regulating environmental management problems on their own.

It is a test to see if the pesticides carried by stormwater and
other non-point means in the San Joaquin Valley in California can be
controlled locally.

It is a test to see if the Potomac River can be truly clean for
swimming again because of local decision-making.

If it doesn't work -- if all the good reasons for allowing local
control on non-point pollution programs fail to establish concrete
results -- a signal will be sent that the present program needs
substantial revision.

As far as I am concerned, the verdict is still out as to whether
or not new regulatory authority is needed. But I want the local
programs to work.

I want regions to deal with problems effectively -- and in the
manner that regional characteristics dictate.

The public participation embodied in the 208 Program can be an
effective too].

And in my judgment, it must be made to work.

I say "must" because in my judgment there is not sufficient
political support for an environmentally responsible alternative if
the 208 Program fails.

This conference was called to explore alternatives. There is at
least one alternative -- seriously proposed by powerful and sincere men

MUSKIE

and women in Washington and around the country -- which you are not
considering. That alternative is to do nothing. Some of those people
want us to declare victory against air and water pollution and scale
back our goals. Others who have supported federal programs in the past
are asking whether we can continue to afford massive spending in a time
budgetary restraint.

And by all accounts, staggering amounts of money will be needed
to do the cleanup job completely.

Yet even the existing water pollution construction grant program
is under attack.

In the last year we have seen a reduced Presidential budget request.
We have seen a proposal by the House Appropriations Committee's investi-
gation staff for zero funds for the 1980 fiscal year, We have seen an
attempt in the Senate Budget Committee to cut one billion dollars from
the program -- a cut that was restored only after a major struggle.

We supporters of environmental progress increasingly are going to
find ourselves expending precious political capital to protect even the
modest gains we have made. Programs to solve the tougher problems may
be beyond our reach.

Those of you who think this is an overly pessimistic assessment
need look no farther than the Senate's votes this week on the energy
mobilization board.

The Senate Energy Committee wrote a bill which in my judgment
brushed aside not only environmental considerations, but due process,
state's rights and political accountability.

An alternative which Senator Ribicoff of Connecticut and I offered
was defeated by 20 votes. An amendment aimed at moderating the most
foolish and dangerous portions of the committee bill passed only after
a considerable struggle.

The Senate Energy Committee wrote a bill which would leave workers
at an experimental energy plant defenseless against unforeseen poisons
created there; a bill which would leave the people nearby vulnerable to
poisonous discharges; a bill which would leave the environment near and
far open to unimaginable degradation. And the government would be
allowed -- by law -- to stand by and let it all happen.

Our energy problems are serious, and our need for a remedy is
apparent. The motivation of senators may have been fear or haste or a
determination to do anything, even the wrong thing, in the name of
energy independence. But regardless of the motive, the message was
clear: This country's political leaders can be persuaded to cast aside
environmental law in the name of energy, or budgetary prudence, or jobs
or fighting inflation.

I do not find the same attitude among the people I talk with. The
average citizen feels just as strongly today as ten years ago that the

MUSKIE

environment is worth preserving, that our resources of air and water are
just as precious as our oil. But his message is not being delivered
often enough or effectively enough.

Organized environmental groups seem as interested in attacking
their allies as their enemies. Political organizations are not being
used as effectively as they could be for environmental purposes or
any other.

And the forces allied on the other side are well-organized, well-
heeled and well-prepared.

Unless we are prepared to rejustify the programs now on the books,
and make iron-clad arguments in behalf of new initiatives, we will not
win. It is that simple.

I do not believe the environmental movement in this country can
afford to slip into a comfortable middle age. For sound environmental
policy to survive, it must retain the capacity to improve and reshape
itself as new information is received. We must also demand that
environmental programs produce the greatest environmental benefit
possible for the least amount of money. It must keep its facts at
hand and its powers of persuasion sharp. Most importantly, it must
make no assumptions that rights affirmed and programs won are safe
from attack. Those who have participated in the monumental struggles
over clean air law ought to know better. Those who care about our
water resources should examine that debate and be warned.

I hope you will not confuse my assessment with my resolve. I do
think we can continue to make environmental progress in this country.
I am certain we must. The very air we seek to conserve is just as
crucial an ingredient to combustion as the oil we pump from the ground
or squeeze from a lump of coal.

But you, who are professionals and know the risks of failure,
deserve a frank analysis. I would like to leave you with a message of
hope. In my profession, the only real hope lies with the people.
Since many of you deal with concerned citizens every day, take my
message tonight back to them. Tell them they must supply the hope for
environmentally responsible government policies. Tell them they can
do it. And tell them they must.

CONVIVIAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

J. TOBY TOURBIER, RICHARD WESTMACOTT AND CHARLES GOEDKEN
Water Resources Center, University of Delaware, Newark, DE

Stormwater and flood management and their interrelationship to
water quality are problems of national priority. The costs of urban
flooding and drainage works on a nationwide scale have been estimated
to exceed $5 billion per year (1) (2). There is an opportunity for
substantially reducing the cost of stormwater management by examining
and, where appropriate, modifying conventional practices. So-called
"Blue-Green" stormwater technology, turns a liability into an asset by
integrating control measures in open space systems. This concept rec-
ognizes the potential of streams, rivers and other natural drainage
ways as multi-use urban open space/water systems; and it realizes the
potential asset of stormwater by transferring some of the costs of
stormwater management to other beneficiaries. We must seek solutions
which are lasting, functional and beautiful, a technology for storm-
water management which is convivial, with life and of life.

In the past we have tended to treat storm runoff under the "common
enemy" rule of the drainage law. In the private sector, property
owners often took whatever steps were necessary to keep water off their
land, even if this was to the detriment of a neighbor. There have been
variations of this rule, the "Civil Law" and "Reasonable Use" Doctrine.
Yet what we see implemented is usually far from being comprehensive or
ecologically sound. In the public sector, most local communities have
tended to concentrate on improvements for minor storms. Predictably
the elected official, with a limited time in office, often feels that
it is neither wise to spend money on runoff pollution abatement, the
benefits of which are rarely immediately apparent; nor on the control
of floods with a low frequency of occurence, which are unlikely to
occur during his term in office to demonstrate his wisdom and foresight.
As a result emphasis has been placed on the design of conduits for
minor storms. Public officials have also tended to favor highly
visible improvements which benefit a clearly definable constituency.
Unfortunately watershed boundaries are rarely contiguous with those of
administrative constituencies and so improvements are rarely carried
out comprehensively for whole watersheds. The problem is made worse by
a lack of federal funding or legislation for comprehensive urban water-
shed management planning. Implementation depends on the initiative of
local municipalities. Nevertheless there have been imaginative
approaches, most notably in Maryland and Northern Virginia (3).
Federal emphasis on water quality improvement makes the blue-green
concept a more attractive approach to handling urban stormwater.
Since 1972 there has been an expenditure of more than $18 billion in
this country to make streams and lakes fishable and swimmable by 1983.
As a result we may see a rise in waterside land values and a reorien-
tation of cities which have, for so many years, been turning their
backs on their waterfronts. Preserving the function of drainageways in
their natural state has been found to be generally the most

TOUJRBIER et at.

cost-effective approach (4). These stream valleys often have great
natural beauty and the concern which many environmental groups show
for these areas reflect the important ecological role which they may
play. Water courses and their valleys can be designed for multi-use
and managed greenways: they can incorporate appropriate stormwater
management installations, recreation facilities and open space uses,
pedestrian and cycle trails, and areas devoted to nature conservation.
The benefits of such systems would best be demonstrated by prototype
installations making use of land use controls, incentives, easements and
covenants. Municipalities may wish to investigate the establishment of
special purpose stormwater management districts with revenue raising
powers, and may put to work knowledge about economic, legal, social and
intergovernmental aspects of implementation acquired during the prepa-
ration of "208" plans.

We find that our concern to curb escalating public expenditure and
our concern for the environment makes it timely to seek low cost, inno-
vative ways to protect and improve the hydrologic function of natural
drainage systems and to explore how these systems can be developed to
improve our urban environments, through projects which are accepted and
enthusiastically carried out at the local level (5). We must consider
more than precipitation, drainage area characteristics, future land-use,
risks incurred and the construction costs for stormwater conveyance
systems. We must be aware of alternative stormwater management
practices and their relative advantages and disadvantages. Practicality
of implementation, cost-effectiveness, institutional and legal aspects
and the political realities of implementation must all be carefully
weighed. We must also be aware that we are often planning in highly
unpredictable urbanizing situations where our plans should eventually
result in a workable and comprehensive system. To implement such
systems requires a program sensitive to the mandate of different units
of government, their interrelationships, their funding and implementa-
tion potentials. Multi-use planning with emphasis on aesthetics and
visual enhancement should not be the concern solely of public agencies
but should involve private interest groups and organizations and devel-
opers. "Stormwater efficient" landscaping can save money and property
values have been found to increase adjacent to greenways. There are
four basic stormwater problems in urbanizing areas that can be solved
through design solutions which can result in the enhancement of a site:

1. Increases in runoff and decreases in infiltration, which
aggravate the problems both of flooding and low flows and cause a highly
unstable hydrologic regimen, were lesser problems thirty years ago when
roadside ditches provided temporary storage and increased infiltration.
We can now achieve a similar effect by omitting curbs along suburban
roads (Figure 1) and by installing gravel-filled infiltration ditches
with optional perforated drainage pipe. Road surfaces can be con-
structed of porous asphalt which permits infiltration through its
surface into a crushed stone base which also provides temporary storage
capacity for stormwater. Regular road sweeping will prevent clogging
of porous pavements which will be dry soon after a rain storm. Various
forms of modular pavers can be set on sand or a crushed stone base to
form pedestrian walkways and parking lots.

TOURBIER et al.

FIGURE I INFILTRATION DEVICES IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT

2. Flooding and streambank erosion are problems which are directly
related to runoff increase caused by urbanization resulting in higher
flood peaks and a broadening of the stream channel. Streams which have
serious bank erosion problems are often straightened, deepened, lined
with concrete or culverted. Such channelization of course not only
drastically reduces the biological function of a stream (notably its
ability to recover from pollution) but also reduces the aesthetic
quality of the stream and its floodplain. Less drastic, but often more
effective "biotechnical" measures can take the form of jetties of rock-
filled "gabion' baskets with live willow cuttings or wire mesh rolls of
reed rhizomes and soil which are staked against eroding banks. Both
measures result in permanent stabilization with natural riparian vege-
tation. Urban stream channels which have been neglected, modified or
generally abused can be restored to a functionally attractive environ-
ment through a stream restoration program. Such a program must recog-
nize the natural tendency for a stream to meander and seek only to
direct this tendency. It should recognize the variable gradient of a
natural stream channel with alternating pools and rapids and seek to
enhance the aesthetic and ecological qualities of this diversity (6).

1 1

TOURBIER et al.

FIGURE 2 - BANK STABILIZATION USING
ROCK FILLED GABIONS AND
WILLOW CUTTINGS CAN
IMPROVE WILDLIFE HABITAT

3. Erosion and sedimentation are caused by farming, forestry,
mining - any land use which causes the removal of vegetation and dis-
turbance of soil. Erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction
activities during urbanization are most serious. They result in deteri-
oration of stream health and siltation of rivers and reservoirs. Soil
conservation practices can minimize soil loss from erosion and measures
can be taken to reduce sediment in stormwater. Most traditional agri-
cultural practices are based on sound soil conservation and frequently
landscapes of lasting quality have resulted which are widely appreciated
and highly valued. Stewardship of soil and water resources in urban-
izing environments also results in higher quality urban environments.

oil

FIGURE 3 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL THROUGH AGRICULTURAL
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES RESULT
IN BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE

4. Runoff pollution from urban areas was found to be the cause of
much of the increased turbidity, oxygen loss and eutrophication of the
Potomac in the Washington, DC area (7). This problem can be greatly
reduced through "housekeeping" devices such as litter control, reduced
use of pesticides and fertilizers near streams and bodies of water by
maintaining "buffers" of vegetation along streams to filter runoff and
to trap sediment before stormwater enters the stream. Natural wetlands
and artifical marsh-pond systems can be used to improve the quality of
runoff.

Management practices can be grouped into structural and non-
structural measures. The latter include surface sanitation, controls on
the use of chemicals, erosion and sediment control, and the use of

TOURBIER et al.

natural drainage systems. Structural measures can be subdivided into
"at-source" controls (including roof-top detention, porous pavement,
Dutch drains, seepage areas, etc.) "up-stream" measures (mostly reten-
tion and detention after preliminary concentration) and "main-stem"
structural measures. Until recently "at-source" and "up-stream"
measures received little attention but recent studies have shown that
they can be highly cost effective. A selection of these measures,
outline specifications and costs, are described in "Water Resources
Protection Measures in Land Development - A Handbook" (8) which is
presently being updated by the University of Delaware Water Resources
Center. Properly designed, such measures can enhance a site visually
and will earn rapid acceptance by the public. Most water resources
experts agree that not enough well-designed examples of such measures
have been constructed to earn this acceptance and appreciation of the
benefits. In most areas, environmentally "sensitive" lands tend to be
found adjacent to watercourses. Simple overlay mapping will often
demonstrate this dramatically as in the example of the Neshaminy Creek
in Pennsylvania shown in Figures 5-7, where steep slopes, poorly drained
soils and woodlands all are closely related to the drainage system (9).
Figure 8 shows these factors combined as "areas of ecological concern."
These areas form a system of "greenways" (10) which are ideally suited
as special districts to demonstrate innovative and appropriate water
resources conservation measures.

FIGURE 4 - GRASS WATERWAYS AND A MARSH/POND SYSTEM
CAN BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE DUALITY
OF RUNOFF

TOURBIER et al.

FIGURE 5 - STEEP SLOPES FIGURE 6 - POORLY DRAINED
SOILS

cASTLE VALLEY a VALLEV
FIGURE 7 - WOODLANDS FIGURE 8 - CRITICAL AREA
OF ECOLOGICAL
CONCERN
Source: A Natural Features Approach to Stream Valley Planning (10)

Greenways are based on areas of coherent natural constraints in
development which also offer the opportunity to "structure" urban devel-
opment with a stream valley system which is functional, beautiful, and
comprehensive. They provide for flood damage control, and protect water
quality for the potential recreational use of "Scenic rivers" in an
urban setting (Figure 9). Land-use controls for such areas should be
selected according to development pressure, site characteristics and the
vulnerability of the area.

For instance zoning as an open space control may not be challenged
in areas with very little development pressures. But in an urbanizing
area, zoning will come under heavy pressure and other techiiques, for
instance the acquisition of easements and restrictive covenants, may be
necessary to prevent undesirable land uses (11).

Greenways can be designated as special prupose management districts
with taxing powers and a special review and approval procedure for
development proposals. Enabling legislation for stormwater management

TOURBIER et a].

FIGURE 9 -GREENWAY STRUCTURES A DEVELOPING AREA [Source (11)]

p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

V~2

TOURBIER et al.

FIGURE 10 - LAND-USE CONTROLS TO PROTECT A GREENWAY [Source (11)]

RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS IN OR ADJACENT TO URBAN AREAS

These areas if not already developed, are suitable for
public open space. All undeveloped parcels not in public
ownership are included under the powers of Act 247.
Open space easement donated to the municipality.

RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS IN OR ADJACENT TO DEVELOPMENT AREAS RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS IN RURAL AREAS
These areas will be under pressure for development. Reg- These areas are not under intense development pressure
ulation will be insufficient to secure them. The parcels are and regulation will usually secure them They are zoned
I~ j ~included on the official map for purchase within 5 years, for open space/conservation. If failure of zoning appears
under the powers of Act 247. L...........i Iimminent, steps to purchase an easement or full title
Open space easement donated in return for a higher should be token
density allowance for cluster development on remainder of
site. Open space easement donated to municipality or County
Conservancy.
F:..-:.-.. . Open space easements -.nated to municipality or County
F- .. - .- - Conservancy. Land purchased under powers of Act 442. White area
Parcels purchased under the powers of Act 442. White resold.
!;.::;: 0 areas resold for development.
17

TOURBIER et al.

is contained in state scenic river laws or other state laws such as the
1976 State of Maryland "Flood Control Water Management Act" or the
Pennsylvania "Stormwater Management Act" of 1978. An alternative to
such regulatory arrangements is voluntary compliance and public infor-
mation through the initiation of prototype projects, where concepts and
solutions can be demonstrated by example. Much blue-green technology
is characterized by small scale, low cost, simple solutions which can
often be constructed with volunteer labor and local materials. A
greenway demonstration project can only succeed if the values of clean
water, scenic stream valleys and stable environments are commonly held.
A community should start by discovering for itself its common beliefs
and values, before deciding policy and setting goals. In the past we
have seen too many well-conceived plans and theoretical studies and not
enough implementation. Implementation requires a concurrence of
interest of resource user groups and public officials and a substantial
agreement on a course of action (12). This requires public involvement
in the planning process. The steps required are: (1) a convergence of
interests, (2) legitimacy of sponsorship and (3) the establishment of
an effectuation framework, leading to (4) the implementation of objec-
tives (13). Blue-green technology will lead to substantial cost-saving
in the construction of drainage works for both the developer and the
tax-payer and lead to significant increases in property values.
Figure 11 shows how such care for water resources can result in physical
improvements that strike a balance between conservation and development.

FIGURE 11 -CONVIVIAL TECHNOLOGY TO PROTECT WATER (following page).

1/1 Porous Pavement, 1/2 Modular Pavers, 1/3 Perforated Brick,
1/4 Dutch Drain, 1/5 Downspout Disconnection, 1/6 Porous Parking Lot,
2/1 Contour Plowing, 2/2 Willow Pegging, 2/3 Hay Mulch, 2/4 Bio-
Technical Streambank Stabilization, 3/1 Aerobic Digester, 3/2 Spray
Irrigation of Wastes, 3/3 Land Application of Wastes in Greenbelts,
3/4 Marsh/Pond System, 3/5 Water Recycling in Spacecraft (14).

1 8

TOURBIER et al.

'A'
A- '

'pe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 9

TOURBIER et al.

NOTES

(1) Neil S. Grigg, "Let's Settle the Stormwater Management Issue"
estimates the national cost of stormwater management to be
$5-$10 billion annually including capital and maintenance
expenditures. See Chapter IV of this publication.

(2) D. Earl Jones, Jr., "Where is Urban Hydrology Practiced Today?"
Journal of the Hydrologics Division. Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, (Feb. 1971). Jones estimates the
direct economic costs of urban flooding as approximately
$1.6 billion per year. In addition American cities spend at
least $0.5 billion each year for necessary drainage construction.
Storm drains built in conjunction with new streets and highways
require $1.4 billion per year. Federal flood control construction
adds to this sum which easily amounts to a total of $4 billion per
year for direct losses and expenditures.

(3) Nazir Baig and Wesley H. Blood, "Stream Valley and Flood Plain
Management in Montgomery County, Maryland," and John P. Hartigan,
Bruce Douglas and others, "Areawide and Local Frameworks for Urban
Nonpoint Management in Northern Virginia." See Chapter III of
this publication.

(4) Hitman Associates, "Approaches to Stormwater Management,"
Columbia, Maryland, 1973.

(5) D. Earl Jones, Jr., "Urban Hydrology - A Redirection. Civil
Engineering - ASCE, August 1967.

(6) E. A. Keller and E. K. Hoffman, "Urban Streams: Sensual Blight
or Amenity," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, September -
October 1977: 237-340.
(7) C. Weis O'Mara, "The Problem of Urban Runoff." Environmental
Comment, December 1978: 4-5.
(8) J. Tourbier and R. Westmacott, "Water Resources Protection
Measures in Land Development - A Handbook." University of Delaware
Water Resources Center, Newark, Delaware, 1974.

(9) J. Tourbier, "A Natural Features Approach to Stream Valley Planning -
Neshaminy Creek, Bucks County, PA," Bucks County Planning Commission,
Doylestown, Pennsylvania, September 1978.

(10) U.S. EPA Office of Land Use Coordination, "The Public Benefits of
Cleaned Water: Engineering Greenway Opportunities." Washington, DC,
August 1977.

TOURBIER et al.

(11) Joachim Tourbier and Richard Westmacott, "The Urban Fringe -
Techniques for Guiding the Development of Bucks County." Bucks
County Planning Commission, Doylestown, Pennsylvania, March 1970.

(12) The Institute for Participatory Planning, "Citizen Participation."
University of Wyoming, 1979.

(13) Wade H. Andrews, "Sociological and Social Psychological Factors
Related to Metropolitan Water Resources Development," Water and
Metropolitan Man - Conference on Urban Water Resources Research.
Proctor Academy, 1968.

(14) A 23" x 35" full color poster with two columns of text describing
examples of water management keyed to the illustration is being
marketed by the Bucks County Conservancy (a non-profit agency)
33 W. Court Street, Doylestown, PA 19901, Tel. (215) 345-7020.

APPROPRIATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

IAN L. McHARG

Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, Unii'ersit~v of'Pennsyvhania. Philadeliphia. PA

Good afternoon. I've discovered two things: a new title for my
lecture, and two minutes ago I found out that instead of speaking for
an hour, I'm speaking for twenty minutes. So, I think you are very,
very lucky. You have a speaker who is going to reduce his speech by
two-thirds and speak on an entirely different subject from that
announced. I suppose I should begin properly by congratulating the
University of Delaware Water Resources Center for their initiative in
creating this splendid conference. And, of course, I must congratulate
my colleague, Toby Tourbier, who wears two hats: one at the University
of Delaware and the other at the University of Pennsylvania. For him
this is his second successful conference. His first incandescent
success was the International Conference on the Biological Alternative
to Water Treatment, which was published, and I'm sure this will be too.

Once upon a time, of course, the group of people who would attend
a discussion on Stormwater Management would be very, very different
from the people in this room. Had it been ten years ago, I suspect the
overwhelming dominant profession would have been civil engineers, and
all the people who are addressing the problem of stormwater management
would have really operated within some simple principles, universally
accepted. The first and most important thing was to get water into the
pipe as fast as possible. The second would be, thou shalt solve thy
problem at thy neighbor's and community's expense. Then the third
would be that the meandering stream is to be abhorred and replaced as
soon as possible by a straight stream. Moreover, a straight stream is
to be abhorred and should be replaced as soon as possible by a chan-
nelized stream. And, best of all, streams should be culverted. These
were, I think, the simple results which motivated stormwater management
until very, very recently. There is the other rule that is applied to
water which says, thou shalt defecate in thy neighbor's drinking water,
and if thou does not do it, thy municipality shall do it for thee.
Given these simple rules, it is perfectly easy to solve all the
problems of wastewater, and of course, we did so.

It has taken a profound reversal of these historic views embodied
in the National Environmental Policy Act, The Clean Streams Act, and of
Course, the massive expenditures of 208 money, to review these prin-
ciples and reject them for heresies, or better, idiocies. What has -
happened, is that wastewater management must be considered as an
aspect of ecological planning. I am delighted to find that in the
preamble to the National Environmental Policy Act is language that is
taken directly from Design with Nature. I am also astonished to see
that in the 208 instructions, there is language from this same source.

McHARG

I have never represented myself as knowing anything whatsoever about
stormwater management. Nonetheless, because of the imprimatur which
these two documents have given me, I propose to operate on the assump-
tion that stormwater management is a subset of ecological planning,
a subject with which I am familiar. So in the twenty minutes allotted
to me, that is nineteen, I will now discuss ecological planning
because I do believe that is the appropriate context within which all
of the splendid technical papers you are going to hear should be
considered.

I think that there is a splendid ecological theory which I can
represent in a most simple paraphase. This simple paraphase is brief.
It consists of a statement to the affect that all systems -- biological
and social -- alternate between two states. One state can be called
syntropic-fitness-health, and its antithesis is called entropic-
misfitness-morbidity. Entropy is central to the second law of thermo-
dynamics which states that all energy is destined to degradation.
Syntropy if not the opposite, but there is a proposition that says
under certain conditions certain energetic transactions, while
increasing entropy, may in fact also result in matter and energy being
at a higher level of order than that which was antecedent. For
instance, there was a time, it is believed, when the world consisted
entirely of hydrogen. There was a cosmic event called the explosion
of a super nova, at the end of which there was a great deal more
entropy in the system than before the event. However, there were
other consequences -there was not only hydrogen, but helium, lithium,
beryllium and boron and all of the elements of the periodic table.
All the elements were created, so one could say that physical evolution
is syntropic or creative. The second proposition is based on Darwin
and Henderson and it simply says there is a condition called fitness.
Darwin defined fitness by saying the surviving organism is fit for the
environment. Henderson says that is quite true, but the fitness which
is exhibited by environments, the fitness for organisms, is at least
as important as the capability of the organism fitting to the environ-
ment. And, of course, there is then a misfit: the inability of any
system -- physical, biological or social -- to find the most fit of
all environments and adapt that environment and itself. The third
proposition is linked to the former. It simply says that it is a
condition of health. The World Health Organization defines a healthy
man or woman as somebody who seeks and solves problems. There is no
reference to pathology at all. There is a standby definition of health
which says health is revealed by the ability to recover from insult or
assault.

So here we have two single states which have three facets. One
is called syntropic-fitness-health; the other is called entropic-
misfitness-morbidity. There is a thermodynamic imperative in the
quest to achieve syntropic-fitness-health because of the definition
of fitness. A fit environment for any system -- physical, biological
or social -- is defined by the degree to which the environment, as
found, performs the largest part of the work required by the consumer.
The environment as found -- physical, biological or social -- provides
the largest amount of work required by the consumer. The consumer,
whoever it is -- your cells, tissues, you as an organism, or you as an

McHARG

engineer, planner or landscape architect engaged in stormwater treat-
ment -- in every case you must seek an environment that is suitable
for the intended activity measured by degree that the largest part of
work that has to be done is in fact being done by the system as you
find it. The consumer has to do the least amount of work; that is to
say, employ the least amount of energy -- import the least amount of
energy -- in order to modify the environment in order for it to perform
for the consumer. This is a thermodynamic imperative which
Mr. Schlesinger never understood and which is not widely understood in
the Department of Energy. But nonetheless, every little plant and
every single microorganism and every single animal in the whole history
of evolution has had to respond to this thermodynamic imperative of
fitness. So that's the theory. There is something called syntropic-
fitness-health and there is another state called entropic-misfitness-
morbidity.

The mechanism used to solve fitting is adaptation. There are
three types of adaptation, first physiological through mutation and
natural selection, second behavior and third, culture. We can't do
very much about the first one. The only thing you can do about it is
to choose your spouse with some sort of genetic concern, which is
unlikely. The second instrumentality for adaptation is called innate
behavior. Unless you believe in Valium and mind-changing pills, we
have to assume that this is not amenable, really, to conscious manip-
ulation either. Which leaves us with a third instrument of adaptation-
cultural adaptation, which, of course, is most plastic of all.

Now, what are the instrumentalities of cultural adaptation?
Of course they are language, religion, law, government and so on.
But I will say to you: if you address Darwin and Henderson's proposi-
tion about fitness and survival (the surviving organism is fit for the
environment), then of all of the instrumentalities available for suc-
cessful adaptation, I will say the most direct one to satisfy this
quest is called planning. If Darwin is right, a surviving organism is
fit for the environment; and if Henderson is right, the actual world
consists of an infinite choice of environments. There is a necessity
for any system, biological or social, to find the fittest environment
and adapt that environment to itself. If fitness is defined by the
degree to which the environment as found performs the largest part of
the work required by the consumer, we have an extraordinary model.
We see that the instrumentality by which we can accomplish this success
is called planning, which we then have to define.

I would define planning as the formulation of alternative futures,
and then the recognition that these alternative futures require actions
and courses of action. Then, the necessity of transmuting every single
one of these contemplated actions or courses of action, (and you can
immediately address stormwater management within this) into costs and
benefits. At which point one realizes that this poses a very serious
problem, because what is valued by any person is likely to be different
from that of any other person. We will have variable values with
respect to different people, different ages. As a matter of fact, you
may even find that the same person will have different values at dif-
ferent times. That is, the values I espoused when I was 25 are very

McHARG

different from the values I now espouse at the age of 58. For instance,
at 25 my idea of a great time was a very, very small room, a lot of
alcohol, a whole lot of single women (I was then single), and a great
deal of noisy jazz. This was my idea of an absolutely marvelous time.
Now at 58 my idea is a small room with a fire with one woman (already
selected), a certain amount of wine rather than hard liquor and rather
softer jazz (Milt Jackson instead of Armstrong). There has been a
profound change in values.

So, the important thing to recognize for all planners is, of
course, that all values cannot be attributed; values can only be
elicited. You have got to ask people what their values are. When they
tell you so, such values, once elicited, are data to be employed in
planning. The resolution of this Darwinian proposition is already
revealed; that is, the requirement to find the most fit of all environ-
ments and adapt that environment and yourself. What constitutes
fitness in not only a thermodynamic imperative but also includes formed
and social values. So one has then got to find out who the consumer is
and what the needs and desires of the consumer are. An individual,
a family, an institution, a community, a regional sewage treatment
district, whatever it is, you have got to elicit from them what their
needs and desires are. From these you can formulate their alternative
futures. These must then be reconstituted into actions or courses of
action, next into cost and benefits. And the most fit solution will be
the least-work-maximum-success solution where the needs and desires can
be best satisfied by the environment as found; where the modifications
to that environment are less than for any other consumer.

I think it is a very powerful formulation -- this ecological
model. It's a pity it's not more widely understood and more widely
used because it seems to be absolutely the context within which all of
us must operate. Because what you do is efficacious to the degree to
which you understand you're engaged in adaptation and a quest for
fitness, this really requires you to find natural systems which have
some capability of satisfying the problems which we seek to solve.
And moreover, you have to operate from the presumption that the natural
system is in fact a criterion of excellence. If we assume now that we
are engaged in an ecological planning problem, we have to recognize
that the understanding of this biophysical and cultural system is a
precondition for a successful operation. Because I went to Harvard
and never encountered any natural science whatsoever, I've had to
spend 25 years at the University of Pennsylvania learning natural
science very laboriously to compensate for the inadequate, but expen-
sive, education that Harvard gave me. I go there each year for a very,
very small honorarum in order to say that, while I have three degrees
from Harvard, and they have conferred instant respectability on me as
others, but they are, of course, no substitute for an education.

In the remaining five minutes I will describe the ecological
context within which all stormwater management must operate. That is,
you have to understand the operation of this biophysical and cultural
system -- not only descriptively, but as quantitively as possible.
Moreover, you must have as much predictive capability as science can
offer.

McHARG

So let me tell you how students at the University of Pennsylvania
and colleagues of mine operate to create, for any problem, a biophys-
ical/cultural model with as much description, as much quantitative
capability, as much predictive capability as possible in order that we
may solve problems. We start with the oldest evidence first, which is
bedrock geology. We hire a bedrock geologist to cap the geological
phenomenon, because only by an understanding of geological history can
phenomena be explained. In the process of reviewing geological history
one understands, not only the phenomena, but the dynamism of the
processes. One hires a meteorologist to do exactly the same thing.
Then one hires a ground water hydrologist, who then, of course, has to
use the data from meteorology and bedrock geology to explain ground
water hydrology. You hire a physical geographer or a geomorphologist,
to reinterpret bedrock and surficial geology in terms of geomorphology
or physiography. At which point, you hire a hydrologist to invoke
meteorology, gravity, bedrock geology, and surficial geology to explain
surface water hydrology. At which point, you hire a soil scientist to
tell you why soils are what they are, where they are -- which you could
do very well by invoking all the information from meteorology, bedrock
geology, surficial geology, ground water hydrology, and surface water
hydrology. At which point, you hire a plant ecologist to explain why
plants are what they are, doing what they are doing, going where
they're going -- which he can do, of course, because he defines envi-
ronments with reference to meteorology, bedrock geology, surficial
geology, ground water hydrology, physiography, surface water hydrology
and soils. At which point, you hire a wildlife ecologist who employs
all the preceding data which he can redefine in terms of habitats. At
which point, you have a layer cake biophysical model in which you've
used chronology -- the oldest evidence first, the most recent evidence
last -- to explain reality and also to get some understanding about
the dynamism of the system. Then you want to understand this as a
biophysical/cultural model because we're much more interested in man
and his follies than we are with plants and animals.

So then you have a different group of people dominated by ethnog-
raphers and anthropologists. They go through an exercise in which they
take the primeval environment as found and they operate within an
anthropological model which can be summarized as follows: The anthro-
pological model says a natural system is a natural system (that's the
kind of assertion that you can safely make). It also says a natural
system is simultaneously a social value system because it contains
resources. Then you note resources are really in the eyes of the
beholder. They are a function of the perception of the onlooker or
the inhabitant. But if the inhabitant perceives something to be a
resource, and there is a technology of capital and labor and so on
available to use it, then the resources will locate the means of
production. Then the next thing you observe is, in America histori -
cally, the means of production has in fact selected particular practi-
tioners who are skillful at it -- whether it was lumbering or shell
fishing or farming or coal mining. The selected people are skilled in
the operation which they acquired from environments where similar
resources existed,.mainly in Europe. It is important to recognize
that in early American history these people had not only an occupa-
tional identity, but they had an ethnic one and frequently a religious

Mc HA RG

one as well. Where you have people who have an ethnic identity, an
occupational identity, a religious identity, and a spatial identity
associated with a single means of production, it is likely that they
will have characteristic settlement patterns, they will have charac-
teristic institutions. By this method one comes to an extraordinary
revelation, which was certainly never revealed to me through all of the
social science that I studied at Harvard. Nobody there believed that
man was systematic and certainly nobody believed that nature was
systematic, or cared. Absolutely nobody gave any thought to the con-
ception that man and nature were systematic. I assure you, that if
you perceive through this biophysical-cultural-evolutionary analysis,
you will find indeed that people are where they are, doing what they
are doing for very good and sufficient reasons. There is a causality
about people and their occupations and their values perfectly as com-
prehensible as the presence of plants or animals or rocks or soil.

Within this larger view which I hope you will use as the context
for your further deliberations, there are some sort of particular ones.
That is, if you do this sort of ecological survey, if you in fact
understand the system as an interacting biophysical system, if you
understand that there are particular people there doing what they are
doing for good and sufficient reasons, then you will see that there is
likely to be generic problems. This should not surprise anyone devoted
to the ecological view. I think one of the most extraordinary acci-
dents and unhappinesses of the evolution of civil engineering in the
United States was that it developed in the crystalline Piedmont. This
is not unexpected because it occurred in New York, in Boston and in
Philadelphia; the largest part of whic~h urbaniza tion did occur in the
crystalline Piedmont where the rule was very, very simple. It was
assumed that the best and the most important thing to do was to get the
water off the ground as fast as possible; drain it off and get it into
pipes or into surface water systems. And of course, this holds true in
the crystalline Piedmont. By and large, it's not a bad proposition; it
may be simple, but it's not idiotic. But of course, if you applied it
to the larger part of the United States where the great sedimentary
basins like the midwest or the great coastal plain which goes from
Cape Cod all the way down to Florida and Texas, it is of course a pure
idiocy.

I think there will be, in subsequent presentations, some discus"
sion of exercises in which I was, myself, involved with my colleagues,
Narendra Juneja and Jim Veltman: the New Town of Woodlands, the
ecological study and plan and ordinances for Medford, a study for
Lake Austin, and of course, the study for Sanibel, Florida -- all of
which involved ecological studies, the development of ecological
ordinances, and in the ultimate case of Sanibel, the production of an
ecologically based plan.

From these studies, and other, it became clear that there are
generic solutions which are characteristic of physiographic regions.
For the coastal plain it was clear that there were two very important
purposes: one did not wish to increase discharge to surface water and
one did not wish to diminish recharge to aquifers. It was possible
then to allocate to both of these a maximum discharge value for every

McHARG

land use type, every slope category, for every soil type, for every
vegetative cover and every land use. It was appropriate and possible,
then, to write ordinances which allocated maximum discharge for every
land use in every single area in Medford. And it was also possible to
allocate a minimum recharge, which was a burden and a requirement for
every land use and every land owner. This was transmuted into
ordinances. I suspect that this really is an intelligent way of the
future. That is, if we have ecological planning and if these under-
standings prevail, then ultimately they will be transmuted into
ordinances.

Beyond that, there is one other conception which developed from
these studies, which presumably Narendra Juneja will discuss when he
talks about Woodlands -- that is the conception of clearance-coverage
ratios. I think this really was an invention and a really gratifying
one. We were confronted with the necessity of developing 20,000 acres
of land, oak-pine woodlands 30 miles from Houston, land which tradi-
tionally had been very, very difficult to develop. In conventional
engineering, the solution was to drawdown the water table -- which is
a perfectly good idea if you're a short-term subdivider and you want to
get in, build, get your money, and get out and don't mind killing the
forest. But it isn't a very good strategy if you're going to stay
around long enough to build a new town and the forest is the most
valuable market commodity. So in this circumstance we had to devise
a method by which it would be possible to maintain the forest which
George Mitchell was selling and yet solve the very, very difficult
problems of drainage, including 13 inches of rainfall in 24 hours. This
was done by natural drainage. It is very gratifying to find all these
techniques of natural drainage of swales, detention basins and sediment
basins, and of artificial recharge worked wonderfully and successfully.

Best of all, the conception that I think is original and deserves
some sort of discussion here, is the conception of clearance-coverage
ratios. In this particular case, there is a fragipan on the surface in
many cases. With the single exception of very permeable bog soils, all
the rest of the soils had a fragipan from the surface to a depth of
24 inches. So, the amount of water storage was very small; the perme-
ability was very small, except for these extraordinary bog soils. It
was possible in this particular case, to develop a coverage ratio to
say that where the fragipan is on the surface you can put as much
asphalt, you can put as many roofs as you like, because there is no way
in which you can increase the coefficient of runoff. It's 100 percent
right now and any human cannot make it any more than 100 percent, so you
can have total clearance and coverage. You can cover it totally with no
social detriment whatsoever. At the other end of the scale are the bog
soils, which are sumps and to which all surface water was deflected.
These, in fact, were recharging the aquifer. In these areas, we said
absolutely no clearance and zero coverage -- absolutely none, the soils
supported the richest forest -- water and willow oaks. So within the
gradient of a distance of the fragipan from the surface and the water
storage capability, it was possible then to allocate a gradient of
densities. Now that's a long span from creativity-fitness-health to
fragipan on or near the surface to within 24 inches. But it seems to
me, the ecological point of view, I think, has, because of its

McHARG

theoretical basis, the capability of dealing with problems in terms of
first principles and producing adaptive mechanisms and strategies which
are appropriate and which of course are convivial.

So with my last minute, I can now tell a little story about the
conversion of someone else to the ecological planning method. The same
George Mitchell, president of Mitchell Energy, One She]] Plaza, Houston,
the founder and creator of Woodlands, New Town, Texas, was a man who was
very, very suspicious of ecological planning. So there are two things
that happened to change his mind: 1) the requirement of getting
$50 million for Title 7 was very, very important. At that time HUD was
environmentally sensitive and indeed, there was a man called Tony DeVito
(whom I think I helped to make somewhat environmentally sensitive) who
was at HUD and was going to review this application. So the ecological
study was unbelievably elegant. It really was very, very complete
indeed, and so George Mitchell got his $50 million. This aroused his
ecological interest. And then came the next point, 2) where we were
unable to drawdown the water table, destroy the forest, utilize con-
ventional engineering. Narendra Juneja, Leslie Sauer, a number of other
people and myself invented natural drainage. And I remember very well
the day in One Shell Plaza when we confronted George Mitchell with the
fact he couldn't have conventional engineering, but he had to have
something which God invented a long time ago and which we had redis-
covered, called natural drainage. He was very suspicious about this and
he said, "What are the implications of this?" And I said, "Mr. Mitchell,
the implications are very simple, you can't and should not, need not,
have a storm drainage system." He said, "Mr. McHarg, really what are
the ultimate implications of this?" And I said, "George, at the outset
it will save you $18 million." His conversion was immediate and
complete.

LEGAL TOOLS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
GREENWAY AND BLUE-GREEN TECHNOLOGY

ANN LOUISE STRONG

Department of Ciy and Regional Planning, Univ'ersitv of Pennsilliania, Philadelphia, PA

Ian has provided you with the inspiration and I am supposed to
provide you with the implementation. I have a problem that Ian didn't
have; there isn't really much stormwater management case law to talk
about. Therefore, I will talk about legal principles and analogize
from other laws and cases to stormwater management problems. I will
also offer you my own opinions, which are shaped by a fair amount of
experience in environmental law. First I'm going to describe how I
look at the problem of stormwater management and give you a few examples
of legal issues with which I'm personally familiar. Then I'm going to
present some proposals for dealing with the types of issues which arise,
discuss the problems that these proposals present, and finallly offer a
few conclusions.

Stormwater management law is not a well defined area; such laws as
there are vary considerably throughout the nation. Perhaps no aspect
of stormwater management leaves as many unanswered questions as the
legal aspect. There are a fair number of state enabling acts which
pertain to stormwater management and there are many local ordinances,
but there is little judicial precedent concerning either the state acts
or the local ordinances. Therefore, I am going to turn to precedents in
analogous areas.

There is a very famous Wisconsin Supreme Court case called Just
vs. Marinette County. The state of Wisconsin has a mandatory shore
line regulatory act which says that every county in Wisconsin must
develop regulations for land within 300 feet of all streams and 1,000
feet of all lakes, and that if any county fails to adopt such regula-
tions the state then must adopt regulations for those areas. The
Marinette County case involved some property owners whose land was
within 300 feet of a stream. These land owners wished to build some
cottages. The County ordinance prevented them from doing so. The
Supreme Court, in upholding the ordinance, which did not offer compen-
sation to the land owners for the prohibition on development, said that
man has a right to use the land only as it is in its natural state.
In other words, we have no economic right to build an office tower, to
build an apartment building, or to build anything. The Court said that
we have a public trust obligation to the generations which will come
after us to protect the natural resources of the land. Now, while that
is an opinion with which I profoundly agree, I cannot tell you that
many other states have followed it. The case has been cited a number
of times, and many states have upheld regulation of wetlands or flood-
plains. The other state decisions, however, are not based on a public

3 1

STRONG

trust obligation but on reasonableness of the regulations under the
police power.

Characteristic Stormwater Management Issues:

How do these decisions relate to stormwater management? Several
kinds of land are affected by stormwater: rural land, land that is
under development, and land that has been developed already. The
components of the stormwater with which we're concerned are the water
itself, the soil which it carries away, and the pollutants. Management
problems include development of plans, implementation of these plans,
maintenance of whatever stormwater systems we develop, and payment for
the systems. The major legal areas to consider are, first, whether or
not the stormwater management system adopted yields a public benefit
sufficient to warrant imposing restrictions on private land owners;
second, whether this system has in fact been authorized by any
legislation; third, whether there is authorization to tax to pay for
the system; and fourth, whether there is private landowner liability if
the system malfunctions. My three illustrations --one each for rural
land, land under development, and developed land --of stormwater
management law issues are rather homely examples, chosen because they
are familiar to me. First, I will describe a fact situation and then
the legal problems that the fact situation presents.

My husband and I bought some land in the Brandywine Valley a year
ago, little thinking that we would face a rural stormwater management
problem. Our land includes a ten-acre moderately steep hill on which
hay has been grown for many years. At some time in the past someone
had installed a french drain to direct the run-off from the hill away
from the house. Someone also had built a berm along the road and had
installed a concrete drainage pipe to carry away the stormwater so that
it would not go across the road into the neighbor's cellar. The
property also has a farm pond with a large stone retaining wall which
we have been told is just about to collapse. Last winter's deep snow
and this spring's heavy rainfall led to substantial, continuing runoff.
Our tenants complained that the water shoots into their basement,
because the french drain no longer works. They alleged that we are
liable for the ruin of various pieces of furniture and carpets that
they stored in the basement. The runoff poured across the road and
flooded the neighbor's basement, damaging their furnace, because the
drainage pipe had been crushed and filled over time. The neighbors
alleged that we are responsible for their water damage, bacause someone
had previously installed a structural improvement to carry the water
away from their house. Since this improvement no longer functions they
alleged that we have an obligation to replace it. There are a number of
legal questions which arise in addition to those of liability for
damages. Could an ordinance specify that we should manage the land so
that the hill has no more than the "natural" amount of runoff from my
hill? How would we determine what is "natural"? Today the hill
happens to have hay on it. At some point in the past I presume that it
was wooded. At some time it may have been cropped. As you all know,
the runoff characteristics vary depending on what the vegetative cover
is. What could we be required to do to limit runoff to whatever might
be defined as "natural"? For instance, as part of a 208 plan, could we

STRONG

be required to contour plow or to plant specific crops? Could we be
required to plant trees, because the hill is quite steep and the soil
is not good? Or, can the ordinance only set performance standards that
leave to us the manner of controlling the total volume of runoff? What
is reasonable? What size storm must we plan for? Can the ordinance
require that the runoff from a 100 year storm be accomodated and not
reach either house? Of what relevance is the cost to us of achieving
whatever the runoff goals may be? Then there are the legal issues con-
nected with the farm pond. May we have to dedicate a stream easement
for flood protection if the pond collapses and no longer provides this
protection? What if the neighbor's child drowns in the pond? Is the
pond an attractive nuisance imposing liability?

Now let's look at some of the legal issues which face someone
developing land. There is a property about a mile from my house,
familiarly known as the duck pond. It is a beautiful estate, with
lovely sloping lawns, a stream, a series of ponds, and many waterfowl,
which is now being developed. The developer has agreed to dedicate the
stream and the ponds to the municipality. In the meantime, he has
stripped topsoil from the site and piled it up, while he grades and
digs for roads, sewers, and houses. He has put bales of hay next to
the stream, spread hay over the open ground, and planted quick growing
grass in compliance with the township ordinances. He has just been
told that the municipality may adopt a two year moratorium on all
development in his area because of general runoff problems. He has his
mortgage commitments and all his financing. He has put in the sewers
and the storm drains. Can the municipality impose a two year morato-
rium on further construction? What is a fair performance standard for
runoff from a site like this? The estate had grass lawns and it has
been a long time since the area was in any farm or forest use. Should
the ordinance measure changes in runoff from the lawn as a base, or
should it establish a base given some general characteristics for the
locality? Can the developer be required to install runoff controls
based on needs of either the municipality or the watershed? What if he
says that he can meet the runoff standards more cheaply by means that
don't comply with the specifications of the ordinance? From a municipal
or watershed perspective is it sensible to require each developer to
carry out the stormwater management plan on each building site? Is
there a limit to the costs which the municipality may impose? Once the
houses are sold who is going to maintain the runoff control system?

The third set of issues relate to already developed land. Within
a mile of my house a municipal storm drain empties above a developed
lot. The local newspaper recently reported that the lot owners had
just removed six truckloads of debris from their land and that they now
had a six foot deep ravine behind their house, both as a result of the
outpouring of the municipality's stormwater. The paper quoted the wife,
protesting to the municipality's supervisors: "'We have built dams but
it's getting to be too much for me and my husband to do the shoveling
out." The chairman of the board of supervisors wasn't very sympathetic.
He said, "Well madam, there are lots of other people here having
similar problems and we don't have much money to spread around. We'll
come out and look at your property." What is the municipality's obli-
gation when a stormwater management system has been built and doesn't
function adequately? How much burden can be placed on property owners?

STRONG

Legal Proposals:

Having characterized problems typical of rural, developing, and
developed areas, what do I propose? My goal for local governments is
that they should design to contain the 100 year flood within small
basins -- say approximately 10 square miles -- and that they should
design to contain a two year flood within subdivisions, placing the
latter obligation on subdividers. Some definition of the difference
between "natural" runoff and expected runoff after the development is
needed. My inclination would be to use average rural runoff for a small
watershed. In the Brandywine, for instance, there is a mosaic of woods,
cornfields, and pastures on a moderately hilly terrain. I would calcu-
late runoff for the various vegetative and topographic conditions,
establish an average, and call that natural. This would be the base
for comparison to what one would anticipate during and after development.

I think we should rely heavily on our existing governmental struc-
tures for regulating runoff. Farmers especially are going to be resist-
ant to requirements to carry out specific land use plans. We will do
better by using conservation groups, such as the Brandywine Valley
Association, to teach and encourage people to use their land wisely.
This alone will not be enough. Many local governments in this area
have zoned the 100 year flood plain for non-development. This restricts
about three percent of a watershed. In addition, some buffer adjacent
to streams is needed. A 300 foot buffer seems to be as reasonable a
distance as any. In this watershed that buffer constitutes 23 percent
of the land. I don't believe it is legally feasible or reasonable to
attempt to zone that much land for use compatible with runoff control.
Therefore, I think there has to be a public expenditure to acquire
easements. In the buffer areas, one should plant vegetation which will
maximize infiltration and capture sediment, thus also preventing or
minimizing channel erosion. We need to regulate use of pesticides and
use of fertilizers so that we don't have excess runoff of both of them.

For developing areas, I would prefer to see the state mandate
either county or municipal stormwater management plans, and require
that these plans be for watersheds rather than for government boundary
units. If there isn't a state mandate, enactment by local governments
will be very spotty. Therefore, we have a better chance of getting
broad scale action if we work for good state enabling legislation.
This also should include a back up, as in the Wisconsin shoreland law,
so that if a local government refuses to act, the state not only can
but is required to act. As for rural areas, I think the plans should
require that the 100 year flood be accomodated within the basin and the
two year flood within a subdivision. The runoff and erosion should not
be allowed to exceed the average I defined as natural for the area.
Also for rural areas, I favor relying on zoning for the flood plain.
For structural measures, ponds, and retention basins I favor use of
performance standards so that the developer has the option of deter-
mining what means can best be used on a particular site. I believe
that the developer should pay for the system to control site runoff.
Once it is built, the local government should be given an easement for
site access and should maintain the system. It is very impractical,
once a subdivision has been built and the houses sold, to expect the
home owners to maintain the system. The use of a drainage district

STRONG

utility easement is a practical method in which the district sells
revenue bonds, assesses the owners who are benefited by the system and
imposes a monthly service charge for maintenance. I think there is
some problem in having an existing government do the stormwater manage-
ment planning and then entrusting a utility district with responsibility
for finance and maintenance of the systems built. It would probably be
preferable, both for planning and implementation, to have the same body
do both but local governments may not have the power to sell revenue
bonds. If not, this may lead to use of something like a utility
district.

Another financial problem may arise with installation of a large
scale storm water management system. If an area is undergoing develop-
ment, but a good bit of land is not going to be developed for some time,
the cost of the system could be a very heavy burden on those people who
don't want to develop. It is not clear under what circumstances they
may or may not be forced to pay for part of the system.

I have stressed working to get good state enabling legislation,
followed by local planning and implementation. However, adoption of a
good law is futile unless it is enforced. This is a very serious
problem in many places at both the state and local levels. One way to
get adequate municipal budgets for enforcement is to emphasize how much
failure to manage stormwater costs. Ian's illustrations show that you
can sell something by demonstrating to the legislature or to property
owners that planning with nature is cheaper than waiting for floods and
then building channels, culverts, and dams. We have made quite a bit
of progress recently in some states with enabling legislation and in
many municipalities with local programs. But, we have a very long way
to go. We need to follow up on some of the innovative programs, find
out how they have been accepted, and show that they have in fact been
better and cheaper than other alternatives. ~The courts will be sup-
portive if shown that the programs are fair and reasonable.

THE BLUE-GREEN CONCEPT - SOME PERSONAL COMMENTS

RICHARD WESTMACOTT

Water Resources Center, University of Delaware, Newark, Df

The Blue-Green Concept is a deceptively simple one. Why there are
so few examples of this idea which have been consciously carried out is
somewhat of a mystery. For those which do exist, whether they have
simply evolved, or whether they result from conscious design have been
extraordinarily successful.

Earl Jones first coined the term 'Blue-Green Development' in the
1960's. He described the principles of the concept in an article in the
ASCE Journal in August 1967 entitled "Urban Hydrology - A Redirection."
Because of illness Earl Jones was unable to attend the conference today,
nor was he able to prepare a paper. I am not going to try to cover in
detail the opportunities and implications of the Blue-Green Concept.
Rather I shall run quickly over my interpretation of its principles,
throwing in a few comments of my own, and then ask for your observations
and experiences.

When the term 'Blue-Green' was first used at FHA, it referred to
the planned integration of water areas in open space systems, multi-
functional impoundments for both the detention of runoff and for
aesthetic benefits. From its conception, storage and detention of
urban stormwater were important features of Blue-Green development.
The concept recognizes the multifunctional role of natural drainage
systems, and it is probably in large part due to failure to recognize
the many roles which a stream or river in its natural setting can play,
and the extraordinary influence which it can have on the quality of
the urban environment around it, that so few cases of this concept have
been implemented. It is also in part due to the failure to recognize
that our cities "have two separate and distinct storm water drainage

Figure 1 , . I

WESTMACOTT

systems, a 'minor' system and a 'major' system." The lack of
attention and conscious design that the natural or 'major system' has
received in the last 3/4 century has been largely due to our preoccu-
pation with the design of the minor system, that complex of carefully
engineered closed and open conduits.

The design standards for these minor systems have steadily
increased with the arrogant misconception that it is economically fea-
sible to construct a system which will never overflow. Earl Jones
pointed out in 1967 that 30 years ago cities were using design fre-
quencies of 2-5 years. "A few were using a 5-10 year figure in inten-
sively developed downtown commercial areas . ... Today (1967) most
cities have increased their basic design frequency to from 5 to 10
years, and some use a basic design frequency of 25 years or more ...."
Earl Jones continued "The adoption of the higher minimum design
standard for the minor system usually is indicative of a failure to
recognize the existence of the major system, or of the economics or
risks involved."

Lack of attention to the major drainage system and increases in
urban runoff also, of course, resulted in serious degradation of innu-
merable streams as they eroded their banks, scoured their beds and
washed away development on floodplains ever increasing in extent.
Urban streams became unstable, polluted and unpredictable and people
turned away from them. Earl Jones suggests that "Man's relationship
to the major system is a measure of his wisdom." Furthermore he
points out in the Journal of the Hydraulics Division of ASCE in
February 1971 that savings of at least 15% in routine primary storm
drain construction can be realized by recognizing the function of the

I'; (s W . A:$'!8 s

-:.

m5 ~N.~Wa ~t i~Ro fF~d e wA Figure 2
major drainage system. Awareness that in spite of billions spent on
flood control, that flooding is a natural and inevitable phenomenon,
together with recognition of the vital role which the major drainage
systems of our cities play in this respect, has been slow to dawn.
Slow too has been the application to urban areas of SCS principles of
retaining runoff, but today retention of runoff and other upstream
measures to reduce peak flows and erosion in developing areas are
everyday development practice in many areas. Blue-Green embodies all

WESTMACOTT

these concepts but also places emphasis on the value of the aesthetic
qualities of the waters edge and its potential for improving the
quality of urban neighborhoods.

_ - - .. d . ', v f~ . 7_-..

The attraction of water, quick or slow, noisy or silent is
extraordinary but it is in the setting of streams and rivers that much
of their attraction lies, whether it be steep wooded valleys, riparian
meadows, or expanses of estuarine wetland. These are as important to
the aesthetic qualities of the river as its floodplain is to its
hydrologic function. Evidence of the premium that homeowners are
prepared to pay for property with stream or lake frontaqe can be
found in several studies. But riparian open space has one character-
istic which is vitally important to the Blue-Green Concept. This is
its continuity. Continuity is crucial if open space is to provide a
framework for non-vehicular circulation, and we should realize this
opportunity which is intrinsic to river systems. However, private
tenure of riparian land may interupt this continuity. Earl Jones
emphasizes strongly that, in cases which he had studied where open-
space is publicly owned, the benefits in terms of increased property

:-3 0P; ' Figure 4
J Figure 5

i~a';t ev

AI WX A ., X
A IM 1 4BWE EPEN PTENTIAL 1l5 FA9L.,I .f9

WESTMACOTT

values and environmental improvement are felt over a much wider area
than in cases where the riparian land has remained in private
ownership. The continuity and natural fall of stream valleys make
them ideal locations for trunk sewers, provided that installation can
be carried out without excessive damage to the riparian habitat. Some
of the cost of open space acquisition can be attributed to sewer
easements and access easements. Access for cleanout of impoundments,
for streambank stabilization and other maintenance necessary for the
full realization of the Blue-Green concept is made possible by public
tenure.

, / / , , ! !_

.oa oEV-c E::AFAST. WALK WITH Tv %LIVEN SOL atcr
Figure 6 tlERv -CVE'. -e T- L OF WAT9L ........

There is a great opportunity for urban hydrologists and open
space planners to cooperate to establish open space systems, which,
for any one of the above functions could hardly be justified. But as
multifunctional Blue-Green systems, cost effectiveness dramatically
improves. But as Earl Jones emphasized in 1967 "Unless arbitrary
requirements are eliminated from urban drainage practice, the advan-
tages and flexibility which open space planning makes feasible will be
diminished or unrealized." Hopefully also there will be an end to the
use of such dogmatic terms as "zero runoff" which lead to misunder-
standing of the detention/storage concept for urban stormwater.

: 6 i'

,~ -- ._~~t ,,
j X " r/~ j

T 15 IS u >EAT J4UE EZr\EN T / / Figure 7

WESTIMACOIT

When I spoke to Earl Jones recently, he told me that, looking
back, he is increasingly aware that each case is unique, and that we
must strive to understand the problems and opportunities of every
situation to achieve an environment of lasting quality. He feels that
the Blue-Green concept is valid at any scale from the design of a
parking lot to a regional open space system and is valid for both
urban and suburban areas. Finally a word of apology to Earl Jones for
the cynicism of some of the cartoons, which I have shown this afternoon.
They make fun, not of the Blue-Green Concept but of the failures of
our past development practices which make Blue-Green so relevant today.
Also I am sure that you will join me in wishing Earl Jones a speedy
and complete recovery.

It. PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SYSTEMS

INVESTIGATION OF CONCRETE GRID PAVEMENTS

GARY E. DAY
Division of Architecture and Environmental Design, Virginia Polhtechnic Institute and State
Universitv, Blacksburg, VA

Summary

The following research involves laboratory simulation and testing
of typically installed concrete grid pavements. Five pavements
exhibiting different physical characteristics were subjected to rain-
fall in order to collect runoff data. Coefficients of runoff and lag
times are derived based on the following variables: (1) subgrade soil,
(2) slope, (3) rainfall intensity, and (4) rainfall duration. The
tentative runoff coefficients can provide the basis for design and
implementation of the pavements as an alternative on-site technology
within an overall stormwater management scheme. Future directions
for investigations not directly related to hydrological characteristics
are also included.

Background

Current directions in stormwater management emphasize the
maintenance of pre-development runoff levels through on-site controls.
Where traditional practices have utilized curbs and gutters to quickly
convey stormwater to storm sewers, new approaches use roadside drain-
age swales to slow the velocity of drainage and allow for infiltration.
New techniques emphasize the use of natural drainage systems with
their low-velocity flow characteristics, and take advantage of
opportunities for infiltration and groundwater recharge. Convention-
ally, parking lots have been designed to drain quickly. New goals also
encourage the absorption or detention of stormwater in parking lots and
on-street parking. Stormwater can be detained and allowed to either
infiltrate into the soil or be slowly released after the storm event.

Concrete grid pavements have potential as a management practice
for maintaining pre-development runoff levels by allowing for infiltra-
tion and groundwater recharge. These pavements can decrease the
quantity of peak flow and increase lag time. Furthermore, this would
minimize stream bank erosion and sedimentation due to increased runoff
loads during and after storm events, thereby improving water quality.
Concrete grid pavements have been used extensively in Europe and are
presently available from manufacturers throughout the United States.
On a properly compacted subgrade and properly designed and installed
subbase, these pavements can support extremely heavy vehicular loads.
Unfortunately, very little information is available concerning their
hydrological characteristics either from the manufacturers or in the
form of research data. Consequently, the cost effectiveness of the
pavers cannot be estimated until their performance characteristics are
delineated. We believe this is a key factor which inhibits the use of
these pavements as an alternative technology for the reduction of
stormwater runoff.

DAY

Equipment

Pavements were tested under a controlled setting at the
Environmental Systems Laboratories of the College of Architecture and
Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia. The testing apparatus contained three major
elements: the rain simulator, the testing bins and the water collection
system.

Rain Simulator. The rain supply was provided by a rain simulator
built and designed by the University's Laboratory Support Services.
The rain simulator consisted of a single rotating irrigation nozzle
selected because it produced a drop size and distribution similar to
that of natural rainfall. The nozzle was rotated by a 1/15 horsepower
motor geared at 2 rpm. The nozzle was situated approximately 14 feet
above the pavement surface. Water pressure was governed by a pressure
regulator and was displayed on a pressure gauge.

Testing Bins. The pavements were installed in three bins. Each
bin was 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 3 feet deep. Their floors were
constructed with 3/4 inch plywood glued to 2"1 by 10" joists, 6" on
center. These platforms rested on two level steel I beams. The sides
of the bins were constructed with 3/4 inch plywood glued to 2"' by 4"'
studs, 9" on center. One side wall of each bin was removable to
facilitate material extraction. The bins were waterproofed with 6 nil
polyethelene film. Corrugated sheet metal was placed at the bottom of
each bin to provide protection for the underlying waterproof plastic
film. An inch and a half of cleaned gravel was spread over the
corrugated sheet metal to facilitate subsurface drainage. Eleven to
fourteen inches of soil were compacted manually with tampers in lifts
of three inches. Soil compaction was tested with a hand-held penetro-
meter to document the level of compaction reached and assure uniformity.
A minimum compressive strength of 3.5 tons per square foot was attained,
Six inches of cleaned gravel were installed over each "1subgrade."
Aggregate size of this gravel ranged from I" to 1/5". The depth of
this "subbase" is typical for the pavements tested. Two inches of sand
were added on top of the gravel. This sand was compacted and leveled
to provide an adequate bearing surface for the pavers. The pavers
were then installed. Voids were filled with top soil and sod.
Turfgrass selection was made in consultation with Dr. Richard E. Schmidt
of the University's Turfgrass Research Center. Mixtures of Kentucky
Blue Grass sod were selected because of its durability under traffic
and drought. See Figures I and 2 for illustrations of the test bins.

Water Collection System. The collection system gathered water
which flowed off the surface of the pavers and percolated through the
soil. The water flowed into covered channels and through hoses to
calibrated tanks. From these tanks periodic measurements could be
taken. Each test bin had two tanks: one to collect surface runoff
and one for subsurface drainage. Figure 2 illustrates the water
collection system for the bins. Pavement slopes were adjusted by lift-
ing the bins at one end with hoists. The pavements were tested at
three slope settings: 2%, 4%, and 7%. These slopes represent the
range found in typical parking lots.

DAY

Sod P~averrent 4"

SUbh-t'ase

-M--- Sravel 6"

______ Crovl 1 1/2"

2 X 10 J'orist F rd So

Plastic Sheet

Figure I
Typical Test Bin
Cross Section

Figure 2

The Test Bins

DAY

Soils. Soils used in this investigation were obtained from
University land close to the laboratory. The following soils were
chosen for "subgrade": Bin #1, B horizon of Greensdale Silt Loam;
Bin #2, B horizon of Groseclose; and Bin #3, C horizon of Frederick
Silt Loam. For the purpose of this discussion we have named the
Greensdale a "loose" soil, the Groseclose a "moderate" soil, and the
Frederick Loam a "tight" soil. These three soils offered the greatest
range of permeability values indigenous to this area and within close
proximity to the laboratory. See Figure 3 for a comparison of hydraulic
conductivity and permeability classes of each soil derived from soil
tests.

Bulk Density. Soil bulk density is the ratio of mass to the bulk
or volume of a soil sample. The maximum bulk densities were determined
by using the Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus. Pavement manufac-
turers generally specify a compacted subgrade from 85 percent to 95
percent of the maximum dry density. Moisture content must be in a
range of plus 4 percent or minus 2 percent of the optimum moisture
content. Soils used in test bins were compacted to within the following
percentages of their maximum dry bulk densities and within the following
range of optimum moisture: Test Bin #1, Greensdale Silt, 83.2% maximum
density at -2% optimum moisture; Test Bin #2, Groseclose, 78.8% maximum
density at optimum moisture; and Test Bin #3, Frederick Silt Loam, 82%
maximum density at +1.5% optimum moisture.

Classification of Pavers. The five different paver types were
classified in two categories, lattice and castellated, as shown in
Figures 4 and S. Table 1 specifies the dimensions and weight of
each pavement.

Table 1

% Open Area Weight Thickness Length/Width
Paver at Bottom (lbs) inches inches

GRASSTONE 34 59 3.625 23/17.25
Bojardi Prods.

TURFBLOCK 40 63 3.125 23.5/15.5
Paver Systems, Inc.
Wausau Tile

GRASSCRETE 30 Poured 4 & 6 24/24
Bomanite Corp. in
Place

MONOSLAB 15 82 4.5 23.5/15.5
Grass Pavers, Ltd.

CHECKER BLOCK 25 84 3.75 24/24
Hastings Co.

DAY

Very Rapid

10_

Av
Rapid 6

Mode rately 4
Rapid

E
a)
3 o

-a) O U)
c L
� oo

I O -
2- o a L
o CD
Moderate L L
o C:
I ON I
7 0

o N
1- I C
Eu-
Moderately

Comparison of Soil Hydraulic Conditions (in/hr)
to Permeability Classes

DAY

"Grasscrete" (Poured in Place)
by Bomanite Corp.

EJ E] E3

" Turfblock"
Paver Systems, Inc.
Wausau Tile

"Grasstone"
Boiardi Prods.

Figure 4
Lattice Grid Pavers

DAY

"Monoslab"
Grass Pavers, Ltd.

"Checker Block"
Hastings Co.

Figure 5
Castellated Grid Pavers

DAY

Procedure

Testing Procedure. There were three tests performed with each
paver type under observation through one testing cycle (.described in
the next section). Monoslab, a castellated type paver comprised test
one. Turfblock, a lattice type paver, comprised test two. Both of
these pavers were tested in all three bins with the three subsoil types.

Our third test consisted of placing one of the three remaining
paving systems--Grasstone, Check Block, and Grasscrete--in each of the
bins. Grasstone was in bin #1 (loose soil), Grasscrete in bin #2
(moderate soil) and Checker Block in bin #3 (tight soil). Limited funds
did not allow us to test each of these pavers on all three subsoil
types. In spite of these constraints, we used the three remaining
pavers to check the difference in the performance of the pavers used in
test one and test two.

Testing Cycles. A testing cycle for each paver consisted of a two-
hour rain followed by a two-hour drain period for three consecutive
days. The rain simulator was activated for two hours and the surface
runoff recorded. Subsurface drainage was monitored for another two
hours after the rainfall period. The bins were then allowed to drain
for 20 hours between each day of tests. During the first day the
slope was set at 7%. Prior to starting the second and third days
of tests, the slope was lowered to 4% and 2% respectively. Figure 6
charts the testing cycle for each pavement.

The day before the three test cycles the bins were saturated with
rain at identical durations and slopes. Surface runoff and subsurface
drainage were monitored to be sure that each bin was 100% saturated.
The bins were allowed to drain 20 hours before commencing the next day's
tests. This was done to insure that each subsoil had a baseline
moisture content before gathering runoff test data. Surface runoff in
gallons was recorded at 5 minute intervals during the rain periods.
Subsurface drainage was recorded every 15 minutes during both the two-
hour rain and two-hour drain periods.

Results

Results from Tests 1, 2, and 3 are displayed in Figures 7, 8 and
9. The performance curves at each slope setting are referenced against
the 100% runoff curve for each bin. These curves show the total volume
(gallons) of surface runoff plotted against time (duration of rainfall).
Notice that the difference in lag time for each bin varies.

Coefficients of runoff were developed from the performance curves
which are displayed in Table 2. Coefficients were developed for storm
durations of 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes.

Conclusions

1. Before commencing the tests we hypothesized that under the same
rainfall, soil, and slope conditions, the paver with the highest
percent of open area at the bottom should have the least amount of

DAY

Here a concrete grid paver is being placed
into a rain simulation bin to be tested.

DAY

DAY I Set Slope at 2% --- I Hour Rain
||I|||III|| 1111 I Hour Drain
Change Slope to _--l-----:. I Hour Rain
7% IIIIIIIIIIII III 1 Hcr Drain
Change Slope to ----- Hour Rain
4% 1--:::: IHour Drain
� llTTTIIiiTTiIZ

DAY 2
20 Hour Drain
(unmonitored)

Change Slope to -- -- 2 Hour Rain
7% -

Il 1f11;11' 2 Hour Drain

DAY 3
20 Hour Drain
(unmonitored)

Change Slope to ----:- 2 Hour Rain
4%
i 2 Hour Drain

DAY 4

20 Hour Drain
(unmonitored)

Change Slope to -::::--- 2 Ho Rai
:::::::::::: 2 Hour Rain
2%

2 Hour Drain

Figure 6: Testing Cycles for Each Pavement

DAY

30
100% Runoff
SIN #1 25
Loose Soil 20
I =2.54 in/hr
K 0. 83 in/hr C 15

05 7 0

20 40 so so 100 120
Minutes

45 100% Runoff

SIN#2 40
Moderate Soil 35
U)
I=3.51 in/hr o30
K =0.65 in/hr 25

15
10.
5
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Minutes

40
35
30 100% Runoff
BIN O3 25..
Tight Soil 20..
o 0.
I=2.77 in/hr -
K =0.30 in/hr 1315..
10.. -2
5..

20 40 60 80 100 120
Minutes

Test 1: Runoff from MCNOSLAB (Castellated type)
I =Rainfall Intensity
K = Hydraulic Conductivity Of SutsoJl

Figure 7
Test 1

DAY

30--
100% Runoff
25
BIN -1
Loose Soil 20
I = 2.54 in./hr. 150 7%
K =0.83 in./hr.
O
*: 2 %
5

20 40 60 80 100 120
Minutes

50** 7%
/: 4%
45 100%

BIN #2 40 / Runoff
Moderate Soil 35
I= 3.51 in./hr. 30
K =0.65 in./hr. o

(9 20 //

15 ..
i5
i0
0 ,: . -

20 40 60 80 100 120
Minutes

2%
40 7%
35 . / 100% /f . 4%
so / Runoff /

25
IN #3 20
Tight Soil (
15 � .-
I =2.77 in./hr. ',
K =0.30 in./hr. 10
5. /

0/ -
20 40 60 80 100 120
Minutes

Test 2: Runoff from TURFBLOCK (lattice type)
I = Rainfall Intensity
K = Hydraulic Conductivity of Subsoil

Figure 8
Test 2

DAY

30 .100% Runoff
25 .
BIN #1
GRASSTONE 20
(Lattice Type) C 15
Loose Soil 10 /
I = 2.34 in./hr. Q 5
K =0.83 in./hr. 0 2%, 4%
20 40 6o 80 100 120
Minutes

50-.
45 / 100% Runoff

3540 / 7%
BIN #2 / 42%
CGRASSCRETE 30
(Lattice Type) c 25

Moderate Soil '- 20 /.
I = 4.15 in./hr. C 15 .
K = 0.65 in./hr. 10
5/

20 40 80 16o 10
Minutes

40,-
35..
/ 100% Runoff
30 /
BIN #3 25,
CHECKER BLOCK /
0o 20. 7%
(Castellated type) ,
015�'
Tight Soil 10
I = 2.97 in./hr.
K =0.30 in./hr. 5 / ...

20 40 60 80 100 120
Minutes

Test 3: Runoff from Pavers
(Note Lattice and Castellated Types)
I = Rainfall Intensity
K = Hydraulic Conductivity of Subsoil

Figure 9
Test 3

DAY

RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR
CONCRETE GRID PAVEMENTS

Mins. BIN #1 BIN #2 BIN #3
PAVING SYSTEM of Loose Soil Moderate Soil Tight Soil
(Percent of Open Bottom Rain- Slope at: Slope at: Slope at:
Area) fall 2% 4% 7% 2% 4% 17% 2% 4% 1 7%
30 0 0 0 0 .09 .09 0 .09 .09
MONOSLAB
Grass Pavers L td 60 0 .05 .05 .04 .06 .09 .09 .09 .12

w 90 .05 .08 .09 .06 .07 .10 .15 .15 20
1- (15%) 120 .07 .09 .10 .07 .09 .11 .17 .19 .23

C TURFLOCK --30 0 0 0 0 .01 .05 0 0 .10
TUrFBLOCK
U Paver Systems, Inc. 60 .01 .03 .09 .21 .28 .32 .23 .26 .36
Wausau Tile 90 .06 .09 .16 .37 .37 .42 .37 .43 .45
(40%) 120 .09 .17 .20 .43 .48 .51 .48 .54 .56

Hydraulic Conductivity In./hr. 0.83 0.65 0.30

1 Rainfall Intensity In./hr. 2.54 3.51 2.77

F Gallons/Minute 0.47 0.80 0.55
PAVING SYSTEM Mins. BIN #1 BIN #2 BIN #3
of Loose Soil Moderate Soil Tight Soil
Rain-
(Percent of Open Bottom Slope at: Slope at: Slope at:
2% 4% 7% 2% 4% 7% 2% 4% 7%
30 . 0 0 .09
CHECKER BLOCK -
Hastings Co. 60 03 .07 .12
90 .10 .16 ,22
(25%) 120 .16 .21 .27

GRASSCRETE 30 _ .02 0 .02
Boranite Corp. 60 .13 .15 .18

90 ....23. 25 .28 .
I- (30%) 120 .29 .31 .35
U) E 30 0 0 0
GRASSTONE 6 0..
Boiardi Prods. 60 0 0 0
90 0 0 0

(34%) 120 .01 .01 0

e Hydraulic Conductivity In./hr. 0.83 0.65 0.30

I) Rainfall Intensity In./hr. 2.34 4.15 2.97

Gallons/Minute 0.48 0.88 0.60

Table 2

DAY

surface runoff. Turfblock, however, the paver with the highest
percent of open area on the bottom, does not have the lowest runoff
coefficients (note Table 2). In fact, Monoslab, with the lowest
percent of bottom open area (15%), yielded lower coefficients when
tested under similar conditions to Turfblock. Therefore, our
hypothesis is challenged by this data. The ability of the paver
to absorb and detain rainwater tends to be a function of its
surface goemetry, not the percent of bottom open area.

2. An increase in slope (up to 7%) increases the coefficient of runoff
regardless of paver type, subsoil type, or rainfall intensity. The
greater the slope, the greater the runoff. Is there a "critical
slope" at which the runoff coefficients approach that of asphalt
or solid concrete paving? Is that critical slope different for
each paver type? Is it different for each subsoil type on which
the paver is placed? A potential area of investigation is in
studying the relationship of the orientation (in plan) of a paver
to a given slope. The five pavers tested were placed longitudinally
in the bins. Would there be a difference in runoff if these pavers
were placed askew at a 45 angle to the slope? Would there be more
or less of a difference in percentage of runoff between the two
categories of pavers? The difference, if one exists, may lead to
more sensitive and effective application.

3. Subsoil type, as expressed by hydraulic conductivity, has an
effect on the coefficient of runoff. Lower hydraulic conductivity
of the subsoil yields a higher coefficient of runoff, especially
on steeper slopes. This is consistent unless the rainfall intensity
approximates the hydraulic conductivity of the subsoil. When this
occurs, little or no surface runoff is produced. Note Grasstone
in Test 3, Table 2. The hydraulic conductivity of the subsoil
approaches the rainfall intensity on this bin; hence, no runoff.

Future Directions

Beyond Hydrological Research. In addition to the ability to
reduce runoff, the pavements should have the following potential
environmental benefits: (a) nonpoint pollution reduction, (b) glare
reduction, (c) sound absorption, and (d) microclimatic temperature
reduction. These aspects are favorable by-products of the pavement's
function of runoff reduction. It is possible to also consider redesign-
ing the configuration of the pavements to achieve better ergonomic
aspects. Improvements could produce a surface compatible with walking,
bicycling and use by handicapped adults or children. Figure 10 indicates
that the runoff coefficients derived in this investigation are
sufficiently lower than standard asphalt and concrete pavements. In
view of this observation, these pavements could actually be less
expensive to install than conventional pavements when a corresponding
reduction of storm sewer pipe sizes and lengths are taken into account.
In addition, the rising cost of petroleum -based asphalt is diminish-
ing the price differences between conventional pavement and concrete
grid pavements.

DAY

Porous grid pavers with grass cover and vegetated rooftop
detention form a attractive and well-maintained design
solution in Stuttgart, West Germany.

Coefficient
of t
Runoff
*L-alnorator-y Tests **Sour~ce: Standard Handbook
P I ~~~~~~~~~for Civil Engineers, Fredericks
01 Merrill.

z z

"4A4 7 j %4 - 7%6

Castelllated Pa~eff- Lattice ~ilaver* L-~'wn with (Alay Soil*4 Asp~halt' corv~rer~~`

Figure 10
Comparison of Runoff Coefficients of Concrete
Grid Pav ements to Oher Ur ban Surfaces
a III ~ ~
(') a a~~~~~~~~~~~~

DAY

We would like to thank the following concrete grid pavement
manufacturers for their contribution of funds and pavers to this
research effort.

Monoslab
Grass Pavers Ltd.
3807 Crooks Road
Royal Oak, MI 48073

Turfblock Turfblock
Paver Systems, Inc. Wausau Tile
1800 4th Avenue, North P. 0. Box 1520
P.O. Box 1221 Wausau, WI 54401
Lake Worth, FL 33460

Grasscrete
Bomanite Corporation
81 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Checker Block
Hastings Pavement Co., Inc.
410 Lakeville Road
Lake Success, NY 11040

Grasstone
Boiardi Products Corp.
211 East 43rd Street
New York, NY 10017

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blake, G. R., "Bulk Density," Methods of Soil Analysis, the American
Society of Agronomy and The American Society for Testing Materials.
Philadelphia, 1964.

Day, Gary, Site and Community Design Guidelines for Stormwater Manage-
ment, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Va., February 1978.

Klute, A., "Laboratory Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of
Saturated Soil," Methods of Soil Analysis, The American Society of
Agronomy and The American Society for Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, 1964.

Leopold, Luna B., Hydrology for Urban Land Planning -- A Guideline-
book on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use, Geological Survey
Circular 554, Washington, D. C., 1968.

Leopold, Luna B., "The Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use" in
Detwyler, Thomas R., Man's Impact on Environment, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, 1971.

DAY

Nelson, Samuel B., "Water Engineering," Standard Handbook for Civil
Engineers, Fredrick S. Merritt, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.

"New Porous Paving Material Could Ease Runoff Problems," Water News,
Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, Va., May
1978, p. 9.

Obrist, Alfred, "Ponding Against the Storm," Landscape Architecture,
October, 1974, p. 388-390.

Perry, Douglas, "A Rain Fall Simulator for Laboratory Studies,"
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Va., 1976.

Poertner, Herbert G., "Drainage Plans with Environmental Benefits,"
Landscape Architecture, October, 1974, pp. 391-393.

Poertner, Herbert G., Practices in Dentention of Urban Stormwater
Runoff, American Public Works, June 1974.

Preventive Approaches to Stormwater Management. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA 440/9-77-001), January 1977.

Seelye, E. E., Design, Volume One, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1970.

Sowers, George B., and Sowers, George F., Introductory Soil Mechanics
and Foundations, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970.

"Stormwater Management Looks to Natural Drainage," American City and
County; Morgan-Grampian Publishing Co., October 1976.

"The Rise of Porous Paving," Landscape Architecture, October 1974,
pp. 385-387.

Tourbier, J. and Westmacott, R., Water Resources Protection Measures in
Land Development -- A Handbook. Delaware Water Resources Center,
Newark, Delaware (NTIS PB-236-049), April 1974, p. 50-51.

"Towards Zero Runoff," Landscape Architecture, October, 1974, p. 381.

The Virginia State Water Control Board. Virginia Urban Best Management
Practices for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution, Virginia
State Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia, November, 1978.

POROUS PAVING

L. FIELDING HOWE, JR.

Landscape Architect, Merion Station, PA

The effects of urbanization and changes in our way of
life over the last 50 years have resulted in huge increases
in the area of paved surfaces, especially of parking lots.
These increases have resulted in flooding problems and
decreased the ground water. Grave strains placed upon our
water supply and sewerage systems are indicative of the
increasing demands being made on the environment.

Traditional drainage practice has been to remove runoff
from sites as rapidly as possible. However, we have come to
realize that stormwater is a valuable part of the total
water resource and can often be reused, for instance in the
replenishment of ground water. Some measures for stormwater
management are not well received by developers or property
owners. Holding ponds reduce the developable site area,
drainage and access easements restrict the use of one site
and the homeowner may be saddled with a maintenance respon-
sibility for stormwater systems with liability in case of
default.

It was in response to these problems that the Franklin
institute of Philadelphia, working under a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency, developed porous paving.
The concept of porous pavement is to allow rain water to
penetrate through a porous asphalt surface into a crushed
stone base course reservoir which temporarily stores the
water. The stored water is then absorbed by the soil and
returned to the water table. This is expressed by the
simple hydrologic relationship: INFLOW - OUTFLOW = STORAGE.

The total design thickness must be chosen in light of
each of the following factors: soil support, frost penetra-
tion, traffic load, (as in conventional paving) and the
reservoir capacity to meet the requirements for stormwater
manaqement. The criteria for estimating the reservoir for
capacity are: soil permeability, maximum storm intensity
and frequency, allowable runoff, and slope.

Soil maps of the site are helpful to determine soil
classification and soil hydrologic characteristics including
infiltration rate. It is of primary importance to the
design of the pavement that the permeability of each soil
layer is tested by drilling and coring to a depth of 15-20
feet in a grid pattern. Percolation tests are also con-
ducted in the same area to determine absorption rates
expressed in inches per hour. The weighted average of the

HOWE

result of each test pit is used for design and should be
1/4 inch per hour or more. Design storm frequency selected
should be viewed as a weighted engineering judgment being
consistent with the ultimate land use, allowable risk and
within the capacity of local systems to receive the rate of
runoff. There should never be surface runoff from a well-
designed porous pavement unless the design storm is
exceeded.

The reservoir formed by the base course of the porous
pavement can be used as a detention basin for the pavement
area or for part or all of the rest of the site. For this
purpose, it is necessary to know the runoff BEFORE con-
struction and compare this with the runoff AFTER construc-
tion. Knowing the increase in runoff to be expected from
construction, the thickness of the base course required can
be calculated from the "Volume of Storage" table in the
Porous Pavement Design Manual of The Franklin Institute
Press.

If the site is to be sloped and the soil percolates
water slowly, additional features can be designed to keep
the base reservoir from flooding without changing the basic
characteristic of retaining water on site. One of these
drainage augmentations could be a French well to conduct
water through a poor stratum of soil to better soil condi-
tions. If a ditch is nearby, the base course can be
extended downhill all the way out to "daylight" to facili-
tate drainage. A drain field can be used sized on the
BEFORE construction runoff, discharging into local storm-
water systems. The base course reservoir is made up with
2 inch diameter crushed stone lightly packed with a void
volume in the order of 40%. On slopes over 1 1/2%, the base
should be thicker at the lower end to hold water draining
from the higher levels. In other words, to optimize the
base course reservoir capacity the subsoil should be con-
tinuously exposed to water during rainfall.

During the construction phase for porous paving,
special care must be taken to prevent sediment from getting
into the reservoir base course.

Cold temperatures do not damage porous pavement as long
as the soil under it is non-heaving and drains below the
frost penetration line for paving which is 10 to 15 inches
in Philadelphia. This is a general requirement for conven-
tional paving and a necessity for porous paving.

Porous pavement is a good heat insulator, not a
conductor. With a surface temperature of 32 degrees F, it
could easily take 24 hours to freeze throughout. No harm is
anticipated with ice heave since the connecting void space
among the rocks is in the order of 40% which allows room for
freeze-thaw without undue stress on the high porosity

HOWE

surface materials. As soon as the sun hits the black porous
asphalt surface, even with ice on it, it melts the ice
touching it and water will drain through the pores, elimi-
nating the refreezing that forms ice.

Soil under porous pavement can clean the water draining
through since aerobic bacteria can attack organics causing
their disintegration. The degree of purification depends on
the soil and its supply of air and water, temperature,
length of percolation path, and the nature of the pollutant.

Porous asphalt paving is not perfect and during the six
years period of use we have had the following problems:
superficial dirt will not plug the pavement but dirt and
leaves cannot be allowed to accumulate on the surface to be
ground in by traffic or it will close the surface pores;
very heavy traffic, especially during construction, can
break down the surface and close the pores; in areas of con-
centrated traffic at parking lot toll gates, the power
steering of wheels in a stationary position will rupture the
porous surface resulting in complete reduction of surface
porosity.

In computing cost of construction, you have to keep in
ming that it is saving the cost of a whole drainage system.
All I can say is, try it, you may like it.

~~4 :J11~~~~ 2' POROUS SURFACE COURSE

2"1OFI CRUSHED STONE

- ~~~~~~CONTROL COMPACTION OF
TiT T~~7~~TF - SUBGRADE TO PREVENT
REDUCTION IN SOIL POROSITY

SECTION OF POROUS ASPHALT PAVING

Reprinted from "Porous Pavement" by Edmund Thelen and
L. Fielding Howe, The Franklin Institute Press, Boxx 2266,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

COOPERATION FOR RECREATION AND STREAMBANK
RETENTION - THE TIOGA COUNTY EXPERIENCE

PATRICK SMYTH AND JEFFREY E. BARNES

Tioga County Planning Board, Oswego, NY

The streambank erosion rate contributes over 70 tons of sediment
per bank mile in New York State. Results of grassroot sampling in 1978
suggest that streambank erosion/sedimentation is a number one priority
in New York's Southern Tier counties. Tioga County, New York has taken
the initiative in instituting an improvement program on several segments
of a major stream system - the East and West Branches of Owego Creek.
As early as 1968, the Directors of the Tioga County Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) placed a priority on an action-oriented
program designed to obtain results in streambank retention, improve
trout stream habitat and to gain better access to fishing as a recreation
form. This action-oriented program recognized that the vagaries of a
natural stream could wreak havoc on various land resources and could
cause many dollars worth of damage not only to man's economic environment
but also to his natural environment. Though not spectacular in scope,
the following documents one county's work in addressing this problem.

Early in 1970, a local sportsman's association called the District's
attention to an erosion problem on the West Branch of the Owego Creek.
This tributary of the Susquehanna River is one of several trout streams
in Tioga County and forms a natural border in its northern reaches with
Tompkins County. This association was concerned about the creek rela-
tive to trout fishing and since the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) stocks the stream on a regular basis,
their concern was well-warranted. Every spring the creek breaks out of
its regular channel, forming side channels, spreading across farm land,
cutting away rear yards of residential lots and generally becoming what
a trout stream ought not to be -- a shallow, warm and slow moving body
of water. This stream is made to order for a project for streambank
retention.

There are several programs existent in New York State that makes
this project work. The most important is Section 11-0501 of the
Environmental Conservation Law which allows the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation to enter into cooperative agreements with private
landowners. The DEC can furnish the landowner with technical service,
trees and shrubs from State nurseries and technical assistance in the
form of labor and materials to carry out conservation practices on
private land. The landowner in return has to keep the land open to the
public for hunting, fishing and other related recreational activity.

SMYTH & BARNES

The DEC is also pursuing the purchase of easements for fishing rights
of way. This section of the law, better known as the Fish and
Wildlife Management Act, is very important to our project stream since
it runs through predominantly private land.

Since the title of this expose is cooperation, it behooves one to
move in that direction. Without going into a long dissertation on
streambank retention techniques, Figure I should suffice to at least
allude to the kinds of ways one can construct bank retention devices.
To construct such devices, one needs entry to private property, the
materials with which to do the job, the technical expertise on where
and how to construct and the money to pay for the required labor.
The coordination of this task is not impossible if there is a dedication
to results. In Tioga County, dedication was the long suit.

The project was initiated in 1970 under the Resource Conservation
and Development Program (RC&D), administration for which falls to the
Soil Conservation Service. Together with the SWCD, the project was
launched. As was mentioned above, the importance of NYSDEC's involve-
ment cannot be minimized. This gave access to private property, and
the materials and technical expertise. Technical expertise came from
State biologists designing the correct environments for a trout fishery.
Materials like logs, spikes, wire mesh, plantings, and stone came from
DEC sources as well as some local town resources. Utilizing DEC
experts, the County Soil a'nd Water Conservation District coordinated
with the Soil Conservation Service to oversee and manage the project.
Once the design and location of retention devices were finalized, it
remained to find labor~with a minimum of monetary resource. In the
present case, Tioga County's SWCD did not have to use any of its own
funds. The first source of labor came through the federally funded
Neighborhood Youth Corp., which in Tioga County is known as the Tioga
Opportunity Program (TOP). The labor supply was augmented by utilizing
inmates of Camp Austin MacCormick, a New York State Youth Rehabilitation
Center (part of the NYS Corrections System) located in nearby Tompkins
County. Since the project area was only a short drive from this
facility, it made it convenient for this facilities administrators to
tie into this project. Inmates normally are utilized in projects on
state lands and cannot work on private lands unless the state has some
sort of easement or agreement for public use.

After the flooding associated with Hurricane Agnes in 1972, the
county received funds from the Federal Public Employment Program (PEP)
to hire people for emergency work on streams throughout the county.
In addition to clearing streams of debris, crews were employed to work
on structures in the project area into the fall of 1972. PEP provided
the funds for crew supervision through 1973. Even with using federal
funding sources, labor was not wanting. Local Boy Scout troops
volunteered to work, thus providing another benefit -- education in
stream engineering and economics as well as environmental education.

A-work crew must have materials and equipment with which to work.
Most of the Materials were provided by the NYSDEC. Standard materials
include northern white cedar logs or creosote treated red pine, assorted
spikes, 1-inch and 2-inch wire mesh screening, galvanized fence staples

SMYTH & BARNES

Willow plantings hold bank at bend, 7/Channel-blocker prevents relocation of stream
and give shade to trout. if nto old channel way. Flood current passes
over without reopening channel to permanent
flow.

Twin log crib deflectors direct summer flow to
center of channel making it deeper and colder.

Log cribbing, filled with stone prevents further
erosion along critical areas of bank. Plank bot-
Cantilever log support, installed torn of crib gives shade and cover to trout.
back into bank where crib spans ~
over long pool.

Series of gabion deflectors redirect flow
to center of channel, and causing it to
deepen, while bank is protected.

Log and stone center drop dam (pool
Fig. I digger) creates deep pool and directs

7'1

SMYTH & BARNES

and 3/4-inch by 8 foot reinforcing rods. Assorted other heavy equip-
ment like bulldozers and backhoes were also provided by the Department.
Occasionally, Town Highway trucks hauled fill materials.

The majority of structures built and that will be built provide a
function of maintaining a narrow streambed which also reduces flooding
and bank erosion. Because the channel is deeper, trout habitat is
improved. Creation of pools and shaded areas decrease the water
temperature. The NYSDEC provides willow and dogwood seedlings from
its nurseries for use in stream retention areas. These have been used
judiciously throughout the project area. The various crews working in
the project area have had good fortune in installing their devices.
Flood levels ranging between two and four feet above these structures
have rendered no appreciable damage and all are functioning well today
with routine maintenance.

Since 1975 work has moved to the East Branch of Owego Creek and
some crews have developed or are developing ancillary functions like
parking areas and trail access for fishermen on the West Branch. From
1975 through 1979, the Youth Conservation Corp. has supplied an average
of 28 crew people during an 8-week summer session. The Comprehensive
Employment Training Act (CETA) has also contributed a goodly share,
averaging about 12 individuals per year for the same period.

The on-going stream improvement project has annually utilized the
joint planning efforts of the DEC fishery biologists and local soil
and water conservation technicians to make the upper East and West
Branches of Owego Creek a more viable stream in terms of trout hold-
over and carrying capacity. Also, former sources of erosion and
sedimentation have been stifled. Flooding and flood damage has also
been reduced. This seemingly minor project, carried on here in Tioga
County, New York, when coupled with other efforts that might duplicate
its effort, will eventually impact the people of the Chesapeake. What
little is done in the broad headwater region of the Susquehanna can
only have benefits to all locally and in the place where our water
reaches the Atlantic.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

IN THE 1978 NEEDS SURVEY

JAMES E. SCHOLL AND RONALD L. WYCOFF

CH2M Hill, Gainesville,,FL

ABSTRACT

The U.S. EPA is mandated to submit to Congress a biennial Needs
survey report, which estimates the cost of constructing publicly-owned
treatment facilities to ensure fishable and swimmable waters in the
United States by 1983. The 1978 EPA Needs Survey report estimates
the cost for controlling combined sewer overflow (CSO) at $25.7
billion and the cost for controlling pollution from urban stormwater
runoff (SWR) at $61.7 billion, both in January 1978 dollars. These
cost estimates are based in part on a site-specific receiving water
impact analysis of 10 combined sewer sites and 5 separate storm-
sewered sites across the nation. Two relatively independent phases
were conducted to develop information related to receiving water
impacts from CSO and SWR and information related to cost-effective
combinations of control alternatives for these sources of pollution.
Phase I utilized continuous hydrologic simulation of the total urban
environment to estimate the required stormwater pollution removal to
obtain beneficial receiving water uses, and Phase II entailed production
theory and marginal cost analysis to identify a cost-effective combi-
nation of streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing in series with
storage/treatment to obtain any desired level of stormwater pollution
removal from combined or separately sewered watersheds. Phase II
results can be readily adapted to site-specific cultural and social
values when a decision must be made whether to spend public monies
for increasing beneficial receiving water uses.

The results of the economic analyses indicate that it is generally
more cost-effective to employ a mix of control alternatives rather
than a single technology. Furthermore, best management practices
(i.e., streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing) are generally most
useful when overall pollutant removal requirements are low, whereas
storage/treatment systems are most useful when overall removal
requirements are high.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972,
marked a significant shift in our nation's approach to administering
water pollution abatement programs. Prior to 1972, effluent from
point sources of pollution was regulated indirectly by monitoring
receiving water standards. The new approach mandates that specific
minimum treatment technologies be applied at all point sources of
pollution to obtain certain effluent characteristics. If receiving
water goals can not be met when these effluent limitations are in
effect, additional point and/or nonpoint source controls may be
required. When the decision is made to spend public monies for
additional pollution controls, the cost effectiveness of controlling
both point and nonpoint sources of pollution should be determined.
Therefore, water quality problems are becoming more complex to solve
and require new planning approaches which consider the dynamic nature
of nonpoint source pollution and best management practices which
control them.

This paper discusses the approach used in the 1978 EPA Needs
Survey (Wycoff, Scholl, and Kissoon, 1979) to estimate the capital
cost of controlling combined sewer overflow (CSO) and urban stormwater
runoff (SWR) in the United States. The following sections present a
background of the Needs Survey, the control technologies considered,
the methodology for determining least-costly combinations of control
technologies, and the results as related to the application of best
management practices to nonpoint source pollution control.

BACKGROUND OF THE NEEDS SURVEY

The U.S. EPA is mandated to submit to Congress a biennial Needs
Survey report, which estimates the cost of constructing publicly
owned treatment facilities to ensure fishable and swimmable waters in
the United States by 1983. The first comprehensive Needs Survey in
1973, which focused on the needs to achieve the 1977 requirements of
PL 92-500, determined the needs for five categories: I--Secondary
Treatment, II--More Stringent Treatment, III--Infiltration/Inflow
Correction, IVa--New Interceptor Sewers, IVb--New Collector Sewers,
and V--Combined Sewer Overflow Correction. The 1973 estimate of CSO
needs in 1978 dollars was $17.9 billion. Needs for urban stormwater
control and major sewer rehabilitation were not included in this
Needs Survey.

The 1974 Needs Survey divided Category III into IIIa--Infil-
tration/Inflow Correction and IIIb--Major Sewer System Rehabilitation
and added Category VI--Treatment and/or Control of Urban Stormwater
Runoff. The 1974 estimate of Categories V and VI needs in 1978
dollars was $43.8 billion and $331.2 billion, respectively. EPA
provided specific guidance to the states and municipalities in 1974
for Categories I and IV; however, the limited guidance provided for
Categories V and VI resulted in widely varying methods and assumptions.
These variations in methods, assumptions, and results identified a
need for a uniform technique to be applied nationwide.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

Under authority of Section 315 of PL 92-500, the National Commission
on Water Quality CNCWQ) developed an independent survey to estimate
the costs of achieving the requirements of PL 92-500 for publicly
owned treatment works. The NCWQ survey resulted in a range of cost
estimates for control of pollution from combined sewer overflow and
urban stormwater runoff, depending on the level of control achieved.
This range in 1978 dollars was $5.9 billion to $96.4 billion for
Category V and $64.8 billion to $491.8 billion for Category VI. The
NCWQ investigation applied a uniform set of assumptions, criteria,
and methods nationwide and therefore did correct some of the deficiencies
of the 1974 Needs Survey.

In 1976, the EPA elected to conduct the entire Needs Survey
under contract to several consultants. Like the NCWQ study, the 1976
Needs Survey for Categories V and VI also employed a uniform set of
assumptions, criteria, and methods to develop the nationwide estimates.
However, unlike previous surveys, the 1976 needs estimates for
Categories V and VI were developed for three different receiving
water quality objectives: (1) aesthetics, (2) fish and wildlife, and
C3) recreation. The recreation objective is the only one of the
three considered which will fully meet the requirements and goals of
PL 92-500. Therefore, the recreation objective cost estimates are
the only needs reported to Congress. The 1976 recreation objective
estimate for Categories V and VI needs in 1978 dollars was $21.2 billion
and $62.8 billion, respectively.

The 1978 Needs Survey was conducted in a manner similar to the
1976 survey, with the objective of updating and improving the estimates.
The major improvements to Category V and VI estimates in the 1978
survey were: (1) development of probabilistic wet-weather receiving
water quality criteria, (2) development and application of a continuous
stochastic urban runoff and receiving water response simulation model
to estimate pollutant removal benefits at selected study sites, and
(3) application of production theory and marginal cost analysis to
determine the least costly mix of structural and nonstructural pollution
abatement controls. The 1978 recreation objective estimate of
Categories V and VI needs was $25.7 billion and $61.7 billion,
respectively. Table I compares 1978 survey results to previous estimates.
(A summary of results for the 1978 Needs Survey is presented in the May
1979 Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation).

TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED

Best management practices (BMP's) to control the accumulation of
pollutants on an urban watershed should not be considered as independent
pollution control alternatives but should be considered part of a
total pollution control plan. They are likely to play an increasingly
important role in maintaining and protecting the quality of our
nation's water resources.

Alternative technologies for the control of CSO and urban stormwater
runoff can be categorized into three types; (1) source controls,
(2) collection system controls, and (3) treatment facilities. Source

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

Table 1
Comparison of Nationwide Capital Cost
Estimates for the Control of Pollution from
Combined Sewer Overflow and Urban Stormwater Runoff

A. Combined Sewer Overflow (Category V)

Capital Cost in Billions
of January 1978 Dollars

1973 Needs Survey 17.9

1974 Needs Survey 43.8

NCWQ Report 5.9 - 96.4

Fish and
Aesthetics Wildlife Recreation
Objective Objective Objective

1976 Needs Survey 6.5 14.0 21.2

1978 Needs Survey 2.0 10.9 25.7

B. Urban Stormwater Runoff (Category VI)

Capital Cost in Billions
of January 1978 Dollars

1973 Needs Survey

1974 Needs Survey 331.2

NCWQ Report 64.8 - 491.8

Fish and
Aesthetics Wildlife Recreation
Objective Objective Objective

a
1976 Needs Survey 23.7 58.7 62.8

a
1978 Needs Survey 1.4 29.2 61.7

aBoth the 1976 and 1978 Category VI needs estimates consider urban
runoff controls for census-defined Urbanized Areas only.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

controls considered were streetsweeping, combined sewer flushing, and
catch basin cleaning. Catch basin cleaning was eliminated since a
national survey (Lager, et al., 1977) indicated it is not a feasible
pollution control alternative due to high cost and low removals.
Collection system controls considered were flow reduction, sewer
separation, and inline storage. Since capital costs of these control
systems are site specific, they could not be evaluated on a national
basis in this project. Based on available process removal and cost
data, the following physical/chemical treatment processes were evaluated
in series with of fline storage, microscreening, flocculation-sediment-
ation, high-rate filtration, and dissolved air flotation. A list of
control technologies considered in the 1978 Needs Survey is presented
in Table 2.

To control pollutants at their source, BMP's must be applied
where pollutants accumulate. For combined sewers, dry-weather
deposition of sewage solids in the collection system is the major
source of BOD5, TN, P04, and coliform bacteria. Therefore, sewer
flushing, which operates in the collection system, can be expected to
be more effective than street cleaning, which operates on the land
surface. On the other hand, lead is a pollutant which is associated
with automobile use where pollutant accumulation is predominately on
the street surface. Therefore, if the removal of lead is a concern
in a combined sewer watershed, street cleaning can be expected to be
more effective than sewer flushing to achieve the desired objective.

Streetsweeping has received a great deal of attention during the
last few years as a potential water quality control management practice.
It has the major advantage of being applicable to highly developed,
established urban areas. It also controls pollutants at the source
and will improve the general urban aesthetics as well as water quality.

Combined sewer flushing consists of introducing a controlled
volume of water over a short duration at key points in the collection
system to resuspend deposited sewage solids and transmit these solids
to the dry-weather treatment facility before a storm event flushes
them into a receiving water. This can be done using external water
from a tanker truck with gravity or pressure feed or using internal
wastewater flow detained manually or automatically. Combined sewer
flushing is most effective when applied to flat collection systems.
Procedures are available to estimate the quantity and distribution of
dry-weather deposition in sewers and for locating the optimum sewer
flushing sites (Pisano and Queiroz, 1977). A recent feasibility
study of combined sewer flushing indicates that manual flushing using
an external pressurized source of water is most effective (Pisano,
1978).

The purpose for analyzing alternative control technologies in
the 1978 Needs Survey was to establish relationships which could be
used on a nationwide basis to estimate the optimal mix of source
controls and treatment facilities for any desired water quality
objective. The remainder of this paper describes the approach used
in the 1978 Needs Survey to establish the required pollutant removal,

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

Table 2
Technologies for the Control of Pollution from
Combined Sewer Overflow and Urban Stormwater Runoff

Source Controls

1. Streetsweepinga
2. Combined sewer flushinga
3. Catch basin cleaning

Collection System Controls

1. Existing system management
2. Flow reduction techniques
3. Sewer separationa
4. Inline storage

Treatment Facilities
a
1. Offline storage
2. Sedimentation
3. Dissolved air flotationa
a
4. Screens and microscreens
5. High-rate filtrationa
6. Swirl and helical concentrators
7. Chemical additives
8. Coagulation and flocculationa
9. Biological treatment
10. High-gradient magnetic separation
11. Carbon adsoration
12. Disinfection
13. Sludge disposala

a
A technology with sufficient cost and performance data to be considered
in the 1978 Needs Survey.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

the optimal mix of control technologies, and the results as they
relate to BMP's.

1978 NEEDS SURVEY APPROACH

The approach taken in the 1978 Needs Survey for Categories V and
VI, utilized specific site studies to determine the interactions of
an urban area, its pollutant production characteristics, and receiving
water quality. These site studies were conducted in order to develop
information related to receiving water impacts of CSO and urban
stormwater runoff and information related to the economic optimization
of facilities to control pollution from these sources. Therefore,
the site studies consisted of two relatively independent phases.
Phase I utilized continuous hydrologic simulation to evaluate receiving
water impacts of all major pollution sources in selected urban areas
and Phase II utilized production theory and marginal cost analysis to
identify optimum control techniques. This information was then
analyzed to develop transferable principles and relationships which
were used in the estimation of national needs. Receiving water
impacts were analyzed at 15 study sites and optimum control technologies
were identified at 4 study sites.

Phase I--Receiving Water Impacts

The three main objectives of the receiving water impact site
studies were to (1) determine if a particular urban area/receiving
water system is presently exhibiting a water quality problem, (2)
determine how much of the problem, if any, is due to CSO and stormwater
runoff, and (3) determine the level of pollutant removal required to
achieve selected water quality goals.

The water quality response of a receiving stream depends not
only on the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff but also on the
quantity and quality of upstream flow and point sources of pollution.
These largely independent sources of pollutants and flow are made up
of random or stochastic components. Thus, receiving water quality is
the total effect of several random processes. Interactions among
these processes can not be represented adequately when addressed from
the standpoint of a single isolated rainfall/runoff event with discharge
to assumed or selected receiving water flow conditions. All events
should be considered as they occur in nature. In order to accomplish
this objective, continuous hydrologic/water quality simulation is
required.

The Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System (CSPSS)
was developed specifically for use in the receiving water impact
portion of the site studies. A user's manual for CSPSS documents the
model's theoretical basis and data requirements (Wycoff and Mara,
1979). CSPSS, a computer-based probabilistic simulation model of an
urban area receiving water system, will generate long-term synthetic
records of (1) rainfall, (2) runoff, (3) runoff quality, (4) upstream
receiving streamf low, (5) excess sewer system infiltration, (6) dry-
weather (point source) waste discharges, and (7) receiving water quality

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

response. The simulation will account for storage and treatment of
urban runoff as well as watershed BMP's. Model components utilize
Monte Carlo and Markovian techniques to produce random observations
of variables where possible. The model will simulate, on a long-term
basis, the operation of alternative storage/treatment or watershed
management schemes and will provide stochastic information on overall
reduction of pollutant loadings. All runoff events are then analyzed
by the receiving water response portion of the model to determine
stochastic relationships between frequency and magnitude of water
quality violations and the size of storage and treatment facilities
or the intensity of BMP's. Once such information is known, appropriate
pollutant removal requirements can be selected based on the receiving
water quality desired.

Phase 11--Economic Optimization

The two main objectives of economic analysis were to (1) determine
relationships between the desired pollutant removal and the percentage
of that removal obtained from each watershed type (i.e., combined or
separate) and (2) determine relationships between the desired pollutant
removal and the optimum level of effort applied by BMP's.

A procedure was developed by Heaney and Nix (1977) at the University
of Florida to determine the economically optimum combination of
control alternatives which can obtain any desired pollution removal
established in Phase I. This optimization procedure is a graphical
application of marginal cost analysis and production theory to the
urban water quality problem.

Stormwater pollution controls may operate in parallel, series,
or a combination of both. A parallel operation occurs when the
action of one option does not impact the source of pollution controlled
by a second option. Streetsweeping and sewer flushing on a combined
sewer watershed are examples of parallel source control options. A
serial operation is one in which the effluent from one option becomes
the influent to the next. Storage of urban stormwater followed by a
treatment option is an example of a serial operation.

The essential data required to perform an optimization of stormwater
control alternatives are cost functions and production functions. A
production function is a relationship between the level of effort
expended and the pollutant removal or output obtained. The level of
effort in a streetsweeping program may be measured in terms of the
fraction of total streets swept daily. The level of effort in a
storage/treatment system may be measured as the percent capture, of
the annual pollutant load. in this case, the output of these production
functions is expressed as the quantity of pollutants removed from the
watershed. In addition to the production function, which relates the
level of effort to pollution removal, the relationship between effort
and cost must be known.

A schematic diagram of the economic optimization procedure
applied to combined sewer watersheds is shown on Figure 1. As indicated,

Streetsweeping (SW)

PF TC MC

-0n~ g to 2 Go 2 ~~~~Nonstructural (NS) Storage and Treatment (ST)

effort Ib/yr Ib/yr CMC CTC FTC FTC Treatment
(five different
levels considered)
Sewer Flushing (SF) t Q -' -f f

PF TC MCIb/yr Ib/yr fraction fraction Storage
removed removed

LEGEND: FTC TC
PF Production Function / Parallel
TC Total Cost Curve . / / jjCombination
MC Marginal Cost Curve - of Two Options
CMC Composite Marginal ;-0
Cost Curve fraction lb/yr
CTC Composite Total removed Serial
Cost Curve Combination
FTC Fractional Total Combined Sewered Basin (CSO) o Combption
Cost Curve

FIGURE 1. Schematic for the economic optimization of control alternatives for combined sewer watersheds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

streetsweeping and sewer flushing are combined by a parallel operation
to derive a nonstructural fraction total cost curve (FTC) . The
nonstructural FTC is then combined by a serial operation with a
storage/treatment FTC to derive the total cost curve for the entire
combined sewer watershed. Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the
optimization procedure applied to control urban stormwater runoff
from a separately sewered watershed. In this area, streetsweeping
and storage/treatment act in series to derive a total cost curve for
the entire watershed. The schematic on Figure 3 illustrates the
parallel operation used to derive a total cost curve for an urban
area served by both combined and separate sewer systems.

When two options are combined through a serial operation, a
family of curves, termed isoquants, must be defined. The isoquants
are two input/one output production functions which define combinations
of the two inputs which result in an equal value of output. If lines
of equal annual cost, termed isocost lines, are constructed and
superimposed on the isoquants, then the point of minimum cost for
each level of control can be identified. The curve which connects
these minimum cost points is termed the expansion path, which defines
the minimum cost possible for any desired level of pollution control.

A definition sketch of a two input/one output production process
(i.e., serial operation) is presented on Figure 4. This sketch
illustrates the isoquants,.isocost lines, and the expansion path.
The two inputs may be any two functions that operate in series.
Examples include storage volume and treatment rate of a stormwater
storage/treatment system or a previously optimized storage/treatment
system and a streetaweeping program.

This economic optimization procedure was applied to four of the
15 study sites to determine the optimal combination of control alter-
natives which could achieve any desired level of BOD5 or suspended
solids (SS) removal from three basic watershed categories. These
watershed categories are (1) watersheds served by combined sewers
only, (2) watersheds served by separate sewers only, and (3) watersheds
served by both combined and separate sewers. The four study sites
selected to represent these watershed categories were (1) Castro
Valley, California (separate only), (2) Bucyrus, Ohio (combined
only), (3) Des Moines, Iowa (both combined and separate), and
(4) Milwaukee, Wisconsin (both combined and separate). Character-
istics of the economic study sites are given in Table 3.

RESULTS

The first problem to be addressed if an urban watershed is
served by both combined and separate sewers is to determine how much
of the desired pollutant removal should be obtained from the combined
watershed and how much should be obtained from the separate watershed.
Regression analysis of the BODS and SS removal data developed from
the economic optimization of control alternatives in Des Moines,
Iowa, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, yields the following two equations:

Streetsweeping (SW) Storage and Treatment (ST)

PF TC FTC FTC Treatment
t S X kt -$~(fiTve different
levels considered)

effort lIb/yr fraction fraction Storage
removed removed

Isoquants

Expansion
F ~< (pLeast Cost)
0 ~~~~ Path

SW $/yr

LEGEND: ~~~~FTC TC7
LEGEND: j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Serial

PF Production Function Combination
TC Total Cost Curve >of Two Options
FTC Fractional Total
Cost Curve
fraction Ib/yr
removed
Separate Sewered Basin (SWRO)

FIGURE 2. Schematic for the economic optimization of control alternatives for urban stormwater (separate sewer).

Combined Sewered Basin (CSO)

TC MC

TC from W. --
last curve
on Figure 1 Total Basin (T)
Ib/yr Ib/yr TCMC TCTC TFTC

Separate Sewered Basin (SWR)

TC MC Ib/yr Ib/yr fraction
removed

TCfrom - /
last curve
on Figure 2
Ib/yr Ib/yr

LEGEND: Parallel
- Combination
TC Total Cost Curve of Two Options
MC Marginal Cost Curve
TCMC Total Composite Marginal Cost Curve
TCTC Total Composite Total Cost Curve
TFTC Total Fractional Total Cost Curve

FIGURE 3. Schematic for the economic optimization of control alternatives for urban areas served by both combined
and separate sewer systems.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

90% 4 Level of Control:
kk\ \Percent Pollutant Captured

75%

Ua \

C \ \ \ / XIsoquant (output)

50% Expansion Path

c \\

oint of

Input 1 (eg. Treatment Rate, in/hr)

FIGURE 4. Definition sketch of two input/one output production process.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

Table 3
Characteristics of the Economic Optimization Study Sites

Total Watershed
Population Discharge
Study Area Density (lb/acre-year)
Watershed (acres) (persons/acre) BOD5 SS

Castro
Valley
(separate) 3,850 8.00 75.6 1,238.1

Bucyrus
(combined) 2,559 6.00 91.3 1,442.0

Milwaukee
(combined) 5,800 27.3 319.0 851.7

Milwaukee
(separate) 27,400 3.6 21.9 359.1

Des Moines
(combined) 4,018 8.33 174.2 754.1

Des Moines
(separate) 45,000 7.82 104.9 881.1

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

REMSWR = 0.926 * TOTREM- 2.696 * LDRAT
+ 111.92 * ARAT (1)

REMCSO = 0.502 * TOTREM + 2.864 * LDRAT
- 50.48 * ARAT (2)

where

REMSWR = Pollutant removal obtained from SWR portion of basin, in
percent of total SWR load.

REMCSO = Pollutant removal obtained from combined sewered portion of
basin, in percent of total CSO load.

TOTREM = Total areawide pollutant removal required, in percent of
total areawide load.

LDRAT = Load ratio defined as the unit pollutant yield from the
combined portion of the watershed, in pounds per acre per
year, divided by the unit pollutant yield from the separate
portion of the watershed, in pounds per acre per year.

ARAT = Area ratio, defined as the combined sewer service area
divided by the total area.

Equations 1 and 2 have correlation coefficients of 0.973 and
0.839, respectively, and were derived for total removal requirements
in the range of 10% to 90%. The load ratio was in the range of 0.854
to 14.56 and the area ratio was in the range of 0.082 to 0.175.

Regression analysis to determine relationships between pollutant
removals and the level of effort used for BMP's was not possible due
to discontinuities in the data. Therefore, these data were analyzed
graphically, as shown on Figures 5, 6, and 7.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the optimum levels of effort (x
SW'
fraction of streets swept daily) determined for streetsweeping on
separate and combined sewered watersheds, respectively. The data
represent BOD5 and SS removals from the previously identified study
sites. Also shown on these figures, as a solid line, is the relation-
ship used in the Needs Survey to select an appropriate streetsweeping
level of effort given the desired pollutant removal. The discontinuity
in the data occurs in the range of 30% to 40% pollutant removals and
represents the point where storage/treatment systems become cost
effective. Once storage/treatment facilities enter into the mix, the
relative use of streetsweeping declines. However, as Figures 5 and 6
indicate, some streetsweeping is used throughout the entire range of
removals. It is also apparent that streetsweeping is a more effective
control and therefore used more intensively on separate sewered areas
than on combined sewer areas.

Figure 7 illustrates the optimum level of effort (Xsf, fraction
of sewers flushed daily) determined for sewer flushing on combined
sewer watersheds. These data exhibit the same discontinuity and

LEGEND go

* BOD5 Castro Valley 0
0.4- -
* SS Castro Valley

A BODs Des Moines

A SS Des Moines

0.3- O BODs Milwaukee
O o SS Milwaukee

X~ 7 | ] � � O� - Estimating Line

Lu
' " A/ O
00 o
-J

0.1-

0.0 :. ,
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pollutant Removal %

FIGURE 5. Relationship between desired pollutant removal and optimum streetsweeping level of effort for areas served by separate
sewers.

LEGEND

* BODs Bucyrus
0.4-
� SS Bucyrus

A BODs Des Moines

z SS Des Moines

0.3- 0 BODs Milwaukee

0 SS Milwaukee

- Estimating Line

00 0.2-

0.1-

0.0 , I , ,

Pollutant Removal %

O
FIGURE 6. Relationship between desired pollutant removal and optimum streetsweeping level of effort for areas served by combined
sewers.

LEGEND

* BODs Bucyrus
0.20- -n
* SS Bucyrus m

� BODs Des Moines

z SS Des Moines

0.15- O BODs Milwaukee

u. 0C SS Milwaukee
xI
x - Estimating Line

Lu
~o ~ o ~ ~0.10 -

-iD ~ I

0 v i I i r * ' U

20 20 40 60 80 1 00

Pollutant Removal %

FIGURE 7. Relationship between desired pollutant removal and optimum sewer flushing level of effort for areas served by combined
sewers.

SCHOLL &WYCOFF

overall behavior as the streetsweeping data. Maximum level of effort
occurs at approximately 40% overall removal and some sewer flushing
is used for nearly all desired pollutant removals.

The estimating lines shown on Figures 5, 6, and 7 were used in
the 1978 Needs Survey to estimate the optimum level of effort for
sewer flushing and streetsweeping once the pollutant removal required
to meet the desired water objectives had been determined. Once the
optimum level of effort for sewer flushing and streetsweeping were
known, these levels of effort were converted to the fraction of
pollutants removed by application of the appropriate production
functions. If the estimated removal from BMP's was insufficient to
obtain the pollutant removal required to meet the desired water
quality objectives, then the remaining removal was obtained by a
storage/treatment system. The removal required by storage/treatment
was calculated by the following equation.

SR-TR -MPR * 100 (3)
SR-100 -MPR

where

STR =Pollutant removal required from storage/treatment system,
in percent of total load.

TR = Total pollutant removal desired, in percent.

MPR = Total pollutant removal obtained from management practices,
in percent.

The inclusion of this economic optimization procedure in the
1978 Needs Survey indicated that it is generally more cost effective
to employ a mix of control alternatives rather than a single technology.
Furthermore, BMP's (i.e., streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing)
were generally most useful when the overall pollutant removal requi re-
ments were low, whereas storage/treatment systems were most useful
when the overall removal requirements were high.

A major attribute of including this economic optimization procedure
when evaluating stormwater control alternatives is that a least-cost
(i.e., optimum) mix of BMP's and storage/treatment is estimated for
any desired level of pollutant removal. Therefore, the economic
results can be readily adapted to site-specific cultural and social
values when a decision is made to spend public monies for increasing
beneficial receiving water uses.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The recent shift in our nation's approach for administering
water pollution abatement programs mandates specific minimum treatment
technologies at all point sources to obtain certain effluent charac-
teristics. if receiving water goals cannot be met when these effluent
limitations are in effect, additional point and/or nonpoint source
controls may be required. Therefore, new planning approaches are

9 1

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

required which consider the dynamic nature of nonpoint source pollution
and best management practices to control them.

A two-phase approach to water quality planning was developed to
conduct the 1978 EPA Needs Survey for estimating the cost of controlling
combined sewer overflow (Category V) and urban stormwater runoff
(Category VI) in the United States. Phase I of this approach utilized
continuous hydrologic simulation of the total urban environment to
estimate the required stormwater pollution removal to obtain beneficial
receiving water uses. Phase II applied production theory and marginal
cost analysis to identify a cost-effective combination of streetsweeping
and combined sewer flushing in series with storage/treatment to
obtain any desired level of stormwater pollution removal from combined
or separately sewered watersheds.

Best management practices to control the accumulation of pollutants
on an urban watershed can not be considered as independent pollution
control alternatives but should be part of an areawide pollution
control plan. These BMP's are-likely to play an increasingly important
role in maintaining and protecting the quality of our nation's water
resources.

The economic optimization of stormwater control alternatives in
the 1978 Needs Survey indicated that it 'is generally more cost effective
to employ a mix of control alternatives rather than a single technology.
Furthermore, BMP's (i.e., streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing)
were generally most useful when the overall pollutant removal require-
ments were low, whereas storage/treatment systems were most useful
when the overall removal requirements were high.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded by the Facilities Requirements Division of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a part of the 1978 Needs
Survey, Contract No. 68-013993. Philip H. Graham, P.E., was the
Project Officer.

Franklin W. (Skip) Ellis and Roger C. Sutherland of CH2M HILL
were instrumental in the development of the site studies for economic
optimization of pollution control alternatives.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Heaney, J. P. and S. J. Nix. 1977. "Stormwater Management
Model: Level I--Comparative Evaluation of Storage/Treatment and
Other Management Practices." EPA-600/2-77-083.

2. Lager, J. A., W. G. Smith, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1977.
"Catchbasin Technology Overview and Assessment." EPA-600/2-77-051.

3. WPCF, Monitor 1979. "1978 Needs Survey: Closing in on Clean
Water." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 51,
No. 5, pp. 875-879.

SCHOLL & WYCOFF

4. Pisano, W. C. and C. S. Querroz. 1977. "Procedures for Estimating
Dry Weather Pollution Deposition in Sewerage Systems."
EPA-600/2-77-120.

5. Pisano, W. C. 1978. "Useful Technological Information on Sewer
Flushing." Paper presented at a seminar on combined sewer
overflow assessment and control procedures. Windsor Locks,
Connecticut.

6. Wycoff, R. L., J. E. Scholl, and S. Kissoon. 1979. "1978 Needs
Survey--Cost Methodology for Control of Combined Sewer Overflow
and Stormwater Discharges." EPA-430/9-79-003.

7. Wycoff, R. L. and M. J. Mara. 1979. "1978 Needs Survey--Continuous
Stormwater Pollution Simulation System, User's Manual."
EPA-430/9-79-004.

ROLE OF AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

IN DETERMINING

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EFFECTIVENESS

ALFRED DUDA

Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC

Introduction

The foremost challenge facing the water resources engineer of the
1980's will be the design of urban stormwater management alternatives
for protecting water quality. While these "Best Management Practices"
(BMP's) will surely reduce-the concentration of some pollutants, uncer-
tainty still remains concerning the source of the most serious water
quality problems in urban waters.

Degradation of water quality occurs when the physical and chemical
properties of a watercourse are not of adequate quality to support the
designated use of that water. Recent federal legislation was passed
with the specific purpose of restoring and maintaining sufficiently
high water quality to support the protection and propagation of aquatic
life. Consequently, evaluations of water quality must not only consichr
measurements of water chemistry but also the suitability of the water
for protecting aquatic life.

Many urban runoff studies have produced computer forecasts of water
quality improvement following the implementation of "BMP's." Often
times, the interested public is confused by sophisticated modeling, and
elected officials are unsure whether a 20% reduction in BOD 5is worth
the political risk that accompanies an increase in the city tax rate.
More direct and easily comprehensible methods are needed to determine
whether abatement measures are really required and whether they really
work.

The purpose of this paper is to review the sources of pollution
and the types of water quality problems that occur in urban waters.
Emphasis will be placed on the functioning of aquatic biological com-
munities in streams and rivers and how the maintenance of biological
integrity is central to the proper assimilation of man's wastes. In
this paper, biological monitoring is advocated as an essential tool
for evaluating whether stormwater management alternatives or other pol-
lution abatement measures really improve water quality in urban waters.

DUJDA

Sources of Urban Pollutants

Water quality problems are difficult to analyze in urban areas
because of the complexity of pollution sources. Most sources of urban
pollutants are associated either with urban washoff or with discharges
of wastes. Urban washoff in itself is very complex. The contribution
of atmospheric fallout and was Vut of air pollutants with precipitation
has been documented in Houston and in northern Virginia.2 Air pollu-
tion, road surface and vehicular pollutants, and solids generated from
construction projects accumulate on impervious surfaces and may be
washed into streams.3 Street litter and garbage, animal and bird
wastes, or lawn and garden chemicals also contribute to the problem.
However, no study has demonstrated that these pollutants associated
with urban washoff cause critical biological problems in urban streams
in the absence of waste discharges.

Less than fifteen years ago, municipal, industrial, and commercial
wastes were routinely discharged to storm sewers and urban streams with-
out treatment. While great strides have been made in controlling major
point source discharges, manpower resources and political backing have
been inadequate to find and control many smaller discharges. In some
cases, these pipes are connected to water conveyances buried deep with-
in older sections of cities. In separately sewered areas, this could
prove to be a significant source of urban pollutants. Evidence pre-
sented by D~uda et al.4 has implicated these small point sources and
other unrecorded waste discharges as probable causes of biological
degradation in several North Carolina urban streams. Other common
sources include point source discharges that do not meet their effluent
limits, the illicit dumping of wastes at nights, on weekends, or during
high flow as suggested by Whipple et al.,5 or the discharging of wastes
such as toxics that as yet do not have specified permit limits.

Combined sewer overflows have been identified as very serious
causes of water pollution.6 In one Michigan study, much greater loads
of pollutants were associated with combined sewer overflows than with
stormwater from separately-sewered areas.7 Even separately-sewered
urban areas can have water quality problems from sanitary sewers. In
Baltimore, Olivieri et al.,8 found that the old (65 year old) separately
sewered system had numerous cross connections and bleeders joined to
storm sewers that introduced raw sewage to urban streams during all
flow regimes. Leaking or broken sanitary sewers, commonly found paral-
leling urban streams, may also be a major source of pollutants. Sewer
System Evaluation Surveys such as the one described by Roberts9 are
finding that up to two-thirds of manholes leak and that illicit connect-
ions, storm sewer cross connections, faulty connections, and deterio-
rated joints and pipe may cause excessive infiltration and exfiltration.
Accumulated sludge, sediment, and overloaded sewer lines may permit
constant leakage of sewage through these cross-connections.

In all likelihood, the pollution problem in urban waters is caused
by a combination of these sources, each with very different strategies
for abatement. Should limited regulatory resources be used to address
waste discharges or urban washoff? And what criteria will be used to
determine when a water quality problem is severe enough to warrant the

DUDA

Tha almost-familiar sight of streambank erosion,
illicit discharge pipes, and litter adding
to a polluted urban stream in Raleigh, North Carolina.

DUDA

implementation of expensive controls? The answer to both of these
questions involves the monitoring of aquatic life in streams and rivers.

Importance of Aquatic Life

The primary function of aquatic life in streams and rivers is to
process energy. Aquatic biological systems process organic matter from
the watershed surface and transfer energy through all the various types
of biological communities as part of the ecological food chain. While
leaves, twigs, and bark are important natural sources of energy, sewage
and other wastes discharged by man are also broken down or eaten by suc-
cessive types of aquatic life and are converted into fish for man or
wildlife to eat.

All aquatic systems can cope with some level of pollutants without
suffering significant biological damage. If this assimilative capacity
to receive and process wastes is exceeded, adverse shifts in biological
functioning will result - for example too much organic matter causing
depressed Dissolved Oxygen levels that results not only in fish kills
but also the death of other organisms in the food chain. It is very
important to protect balanced, functioning biological communities in
streams and rivers because these properly functioning communities can
process or assimilate more of man's wastes than can degraded or polluted
communities.10 Consequently, the key to understanding water quality
involves the knowledge of whether a normal biological community or a
degraded, improperly functioning one is present.

Monitoring Water Quality

Biological monitoring directly measures the actual response of life
to water quality, rather than predicting a biological response from
measurements of water chemistry and the application of criteria or
standards. The purpose of biological monitoring is to indicate whether
a problem exists. Then it is a matter of using selected physical and
chemical measurements or bioassay techniques to determine the likely
causative factors.

For traditional measurements of water chemistry, grab or random
sampling is not sufficient in many cases. Expensive automated samplers
are necessary for taking samples during storm events. This instrumen-
tation often breaks down, leaving incomplete records; and the equipment
is expensive, making the installation of many stations cost prohibitive.

The suite of water quality parameters to be analyzed is often
limited by the cost of laboratory determinations as well as the limited
number of samples that can be taken by automated units. Consequently,
some pollutants which may cause injury to aquatic life are never
monitored. Many toxic substances are not routinely monitored because
the laboratory cannot measure them, the analyses are too hard to do,
or they are too expensive. Physical or chemical measurements provide
little help in determining synergistic or antagonistic effects between
pollutants. This is an important consideration because no pollutant
acts by itself. In addition, slug doses of toxic substances are very
likely to occur in urban areas - especially at night or on we(ekends.

DUDA

Small streams often show a great variety of aquatic life,
such as these spawning flounder, that were killed by a discharge
of toxic wastes in a coastal stream in North Carolina.

DUDA

Whether accidentally or intentionally dumped several times a year, they
can totally decimate aquatic life.

Biological Monitoring

Many researchersll,l2,13 have concluded that the monitoring of
benthic macroinvertebrates provides the most accurate and reproducible
information on the status of water quality. These benthic macroin-
vertebrates are bottom dwelling animals (up to one inch in length) that
live in all lakes, streams, and rivers. They are probably the most
important link in the food chain because they prey on all lower forms
of life, they help process organic matter (including sewage), and they
provide the principal source of food for most fish. They are useful
biological monitors because they are found in all aquatic habitats,
they are less mobile than many other groups of aquatic organisms, such
as fish, and they are large enough to be easily collected. While slugs
of pollutants are often missed with chemical surveys, the macroinverte-
brates, which have life cycles of more than a year, serve as natural
integrators of water quality.

Benthic macroinvertebrates have been used for more than fifty years
by biologists to assess the impact of water pollutants. However, it
appears that the biologists did not present their information in a
simple form that was useful to engineers and planners. In addition,
there is a certain level of mistrust held by those who do not understand
their techniques or do not want to relinquish their judgemental or
decision-making authority. The complex nature of water quality problems
in urban areas demands the use of biological monitoring.

Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Extensive reviews have been published that outline methods for
sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in water quality studies.1112
The approach used in North Carolina is to sample streams quarterly for
an entire year. Samples are collected by the "kick" technique. A net
is positioned upright on the streambed, while an upstream area of one
square meter is physically disturbed for thirty seconds. At each
station a minimum of two replicate samples are collected. Samples are
preserved in ethanol and returned to the laboratory, where the
organisms are sorted and specimens are keyed to the lowest possible
taxonomic level.

Many data analysis techniques have been outlined in the biological
literature to provide quantitative interpretations of the benthic
macroinvertebrate data. These techniques include diversity indices,14
a biotic index,13 analysis of variance,15 and multivariate statistical
methods.16 These techniques provide powerful tools for scientists,
but they often leave planners, elected officials, and the general
public in a confused state.

Simple presentations of the biological damage in urban streams are
more likely to be accepted by the public and elected officials. In
North Carolina, simple comparisons of macroinvertebrate communities are
made between upstream rural or control reaches and downstream urban

100

DUDA

reaches. When the number of different types of macroinvertebrates is
reduced by more than 50 percent, it is very likely that a severe water
quality problem exists.

Examples of Aquatic Biological Results

Benthic macroinvertebrates have been monitored in seven urban
streams across North Carolina over the past several years. Results
from two of the streams will be presented here to illustrate the
biological damage that we have found in urban streams. Nasty Branch
and Sweeten Creek flow through Asheville, a city of 60,000 people in
western North Carolina. The entire area is separately sewered, and
interceptors parallel virtually every stream in the city. Nasty Branch
drains the central business district and older residential areas while
Sweeten Creek drains a lower density commercial/industrial section of
Asheville. A control station was established on Sweeten Creek
upstream of Asheville and an urban sampling station was placed one
stream mile into the city. No point source discharges were known to
exist in the watersheds.

Table 1 presents a summary of the biological results. It illus-
trates the average number of different types of benthic macroinverte-
brates found in a quarterly sample as well as the distribution of these
small animals among six different categories of macroinvertebrates. The
sampling demonstrated that very severe biological problems exist in the
urban streams compared to an upstream rural control reach. In Sweeten
Creek, the average number of different animals found in each sample was
reduced 70 percent in the urban reach compared to the upstream control.
In Nasty Branch, the reduction averaged 80 percent. About 35 different
types of macroinvertebrates were normally found in the rural reach,
while about 10 were found in the urban reach of Sweeten Creek and only
7 in Nasty Branch.

In terms of different types of macroinvertebrates found per sample,
the control reach had a good mix of sensitive types of macroinverte-
brates (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies) that indicate good
quality water. In contrast, the two urban streams are dominated by
worms similar to those found below raw sewage discharges. This high
percentage of worms indicates very poor water quality with excess
organic wastes and periods of low dissolved oxygen. The macroinverte-
brate groups that cannot live in polluted water (mayflies and caddis-
flies) were not just reduced in numbers, they were eliminated in the
urban reaches.

Exceedingly septic conditions existed in Nasty Branch. Large num-
bers of the worms Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus udekamianus, normally
found in the most polluted water below sewage discharges, dominated the
benthic community. Sweeten Creek was not much better with the worms
L. hoffmeisteri L. udekamianus, I. templetoni and the midge flies
Chironomus and Cricotopus dominating the community. These sewage worms,
bloodworms, and sewage flies have special types of blood or special
breathing tubes that allow them to thrive in the organically polluted,
low D.O. water. Fish sampling conducted by the Tennessee Valley
Authority17 found that fish life was almost nonexistent in these urban
streams. While good mixes of fish were found in rural streams, only

101

DUDA

Table 1. Summary of Biological Monitoring Results in Two Urban Streams *

LEVEL I: SUMMARY

Sweeten Cr. 1 Sweeten Cr. 2 Nasty Br.
(upstream control) (in city) (in city)

Mean # of
Macroinvertebrates/m2 197 564 301

Mean # of Different
Types/m2 35.3 10.3 7.0

LEVEL 2: DISTRIBUTION OF MACROINVERTEBRATES/M2 SAMPLE

Class of Average Number of Average Percent
Animals Different Types Total

S.Cr.-l S.Cr.-2 N.Br. S.Cr.-l S.Cr.-2 N.Br.
(rural) (rural)

Mayflies 5.5 0 0.5 17% 0 0

Stoneflies 5.5 0.5 0 36% 0 0

Caddisflies 6.3 0.5 0 27% 0 0

Midges 9.8 5.5 3.0 13% 10% 1%

Worms 1.0 3.0 3.0 1% 89% 99%

Others 7.2 0.8 0.5 2% 1% 0

35.3 10.3 7.0 100% 100% 100%

*Based on quarterly benthic macroinvertebrate samples from square
meter riffle areas

102

DUDA

i
? :::iN v % f

When a good mix of aquatic life, such as these stoneflies,
is present, water quality is being adequately protected.

103
:070 t~~~~~~uit00000000;AX 'shot0000000 0000070000 \ D / \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'`

103

DUDA

one individual of one small, hardy type of fish was found in the urban
section of Sweeten Creek. Other efforts have found no fish in Nasty
Branch.

It was originally assumed that urban washoff was the key source of
pollution since no legally permitted point source discharges were known
to exist. However, detailed inspections of the watersheds implicate
waste discharges as a potentially important source. Nasty Branch flows
for several hundred yards under an old commercial section of Asheville
and under the city motor pool. Slugs of waste and oil have been
observed in the stream as it emerges from under the city. In addition,
the old sewer line paralleling Nasty Branch is known to discharge raw
sewage profusely. Limited water quality monitoring conducted by con-
sultants for the area found that fecal coliform density averaged
655,000/100 ml during lowflow and 379,300/100 ml during stormflow in
Nasty Branch.18

On the banks of Sweeten Creek, broken and leaking sanitary sewers
and small pipes that do not convey stormwater have been observed. Dis-
charges of water from the washing of trucks have been documented. Num-
erous gas stations and oil dispensing facilities line the stream. Prop-
erty owners near the stream have commented about slugs of waste and oil
slicks in the stream. Whipple and Hunterl9 have recently presented
evidence that implicates such waste sources as significant contributors
of petroleum hydrocarbons to urban waters in the Northeast.

The biological monitoring conducted in two Asheville urban streams
found communities indicative of grossly degraded water quality. Stream
surveys that were conducted in the watersheds found numerous unrecorded
sources of waste discharge that may be the primary cause of the water
quality problem. If this is so, should tax dollars be spent on urban
stormwater "BMP's" in this built-up urban area?

Implementation of Best Management Practices

Much funding has been expended in the last decade in studying the
urban runoff problem. Unfortunately, many of these studies have
resulted in incomplete analyses of the cause of the water quality prob-
lem as well as its significance. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency realized that significant gaps exist concerning the nature of
pollution sources, instream, behavior of pollutants, and the cost effec-
tiveness of control measures. Consequently, it established the Nation-
wide Urban Runoff Program which will support 30 intensive demonstration
projects across the country to investigate the cause and implement the
solution for urban runoff problems.

As part of this nationwide program, a project has been funded in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The goal of this project, as determined
by the local officials, will be to evaluate whether "BMP's" for dealing
with urban washoff will significantly improve water quality. Street
sweeping and flushing efficiency, pollutant accumulation rates, catch-
basin cleaning, the contribution of air pollution, and cost effective-
ness will be investigated. Baseline measurements of water chemistry
and sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates has been conducted for more

104

DUDA

than a year in the area. If water quality is really improved by these
"BMP's", there should be a corresponding restoration of biological
integrity to the streams. Biological monitoring will be continued in
these streams to determine whether streetsweeping, flushing, and catch
basin cleaning can restore aquatic communities. No effort will be made
to identify sanitary sewer leaks, cross connections, or small point
source discharges because the local officials have indicated that they
don't want us to investigate those sources. It may be that these
unrecorded discharges are a significant contributor to the water quality
problem.

In order to determine how willing other local officials and members
of the private sector are to assist the State in abating urban sources
of water pollution, educational programs are planned for two Asheville
urban watersheds and one Raleigh urban watershed. These special
projects are planned for urban areas that have been found to have
biological cormmunities indicative of grossly degraded water quality.
They will be designed to assess whether the abatement of small, un-
recorded waste discharges-not urban washoff-will improve stream biology.
Sewer System Evaluation Surveys in Asheville and Raleigh have identified
cross connections and leaks in the separately-sewered areas. Municipal
facilities funding (201 Grants) or voluntary action by municipalities
will be relied on to rehabilitate the sewer systems paralleling the
streams. All streams will be walked and steps will be initiated to
eliminate illicit discharges. Gasoline stations will be encouraged to
install and effectively maintain oil and grease separators. Two of the
streams are lined by municipal garages, motor pools, and garbage truck
washing operations. It is hoped that the educational program will
result in the elimination of these pollution sources.

Discussion

Sir Francis Bacon, father of the scientific method, made many
astute observations of human nature in his lifetime. One of his
observations made in 1620 may be quite applicable to the study of urban
water quality problems:

The human understanding, when it has once
adopted an opinion, draws all things else
to support and agree with it. And though
there be greater weight to be found on the
other side, yet this it neglects and rejects
in order that its former conclusions may
remain inviolate.

Many investigators have reported that large loads of pollutants are
transported from urban areas during stormflow. The assumption is often
made that these pollutants were washed off impervious surfaces, and if
management practices such as streetsweeping were used, water quality
would be greatly improved. Many of these urban areas were quite large
and inventories of pollution sources were not conducted. Consequently,
much of the pollutant load might have come from the benthic resuspension
and scour of unrecorded waste discharges that settled out or were
biologically processed during low flow conditions. Among the readily
accessible literature, only Whipple et al.,5 Whipple and Hunter,19 and

105

DUDA

Duda et al.4 have implicated the dumping of wastes, the discharge of
petroleum hydrocarbons from service stations, and small unrecorded
point source discharges as significant contributors to the urban run-
off problem.

In summary, biological monitoring has a very important role to play
in urban water quality studies. Aquatic communities serve as natural
integrators of water quality - even at night and on weekends - while
chemical surveys provide information only at the moment of sampling.
It is also apparent that potential sources of waste discharge must be
inventoried in any watershed that is being studied. Stormwater-con-
trols may be justified in areas with combined sewer overflows and in
newly developing areas; but if state legislative appropriations for
pollution control remain meager and if political considerations on the
local level continue to stifle pollution control, the presence of
these waste discharges would make the use of stormwater "BMP's" a
waste of tax dollars.

It is unfortunate that biological monitoring in North Carolina has
found that fish kills do not occur in urban streams because fish can
no longer survive in them. Water quality has been degraded that much!
It is also very unfortunate that only a very few projects supported by
EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program are planning to utilize
biological monitoring. Without the use of this direct monitoring tool,
publically funded urban runoff investigations may result in recom-
mendations for more research rather than for action to restore and pro-
tect the biological integrity of our nation's waters.

Acknowledgements

The work presented herein was financed through an EPA Statewide
Wastewater Treatment Management Planning Grant (P004198010). Col-
lection and identification of benthic macroinvertebrates was made by
D.R. Lenat and D.L. Penrose of the Division of Environmental Manage-
ment.

References

1. W. C. Characklis, P. B. Bedient, F. G. Gaudet, and F. L. Roe,
"A Study of Stormwater Runoff Quality," Prog. Wat. Tech.,
Vol. 10, pp. 673-699, 1978.

2. C. W. Randall, D. R. Helsel, T. J. Grizzard, and R. C. Hoehn,
"The Impact of Atmospheric Contaminants on Stormwater
Quality in an Urban Area," Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 10,
p.p. 417-431, 1978.

3. J. D. Sartor and G. B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report R2-72-081, 1972.

106

DUDA

4. A. M. Duda, D. R. Lenat, and D. L. Penrose, "Water Quality
Degradation In Urban Streams of the Southeast," Proceedings,
International Symposium on Urban Storm Runoff, Lexington,
Kentucky, pp. 151-159, 1979.

5. W. Whipple, Jr., J. V. Hunter, and S. L. Yu, "Effects of Storm
Frequency on Pollution from Urban Runoff," Wat. Poll. Control
Fed. Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 2243-2248, 1977.

6. R. Pitt and R. Field, "Water Quality Effects from Urban Runoff,"
J. Am. Water Works Assn., Vol. 69, pp. 432-436, 1977.

7. R. J. Burm, D. F. Krawczyk, and G. L. Harlow, "Chemical and
Physical Comparison of Combined and Separate Sewer Discharges,"
Wat. Poll. Control Fed. Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 112-126, 1968.

8. V. P. Olivieri et al.,"Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater,"
USEPA-600/2-77-087, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.

9. G. C. Roberts, "Expediting Sewer Studies," Water and Sewage
Works, pp. 52-55, 1979.

10. J. Cairns, "Waterway Recovery," Water Spectrum, Vol. 10, pp. 26-
32, 1978.

11. A. R. Gaufin, "Use of Aquatic Invertebrates in the Assessment of
Water Quality," Biological Methods for the Assessment of
Water Quality, ASTMSTP 528, American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 96-116, 1973.

12. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Field and
Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters
and Effluents," Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973.

13. W. L. Hilsenhoff, "The Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality
of Streams," Tech. Bull. 100, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, 1977.

14. J. L. Wilhm, "Comparison of Some Diversity Indices Applied to
Populations of Benthic Macroinvertebrates," Wat. Poll. Control
Fed. Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1673-1681, 1967.

15. D. R. Lenat, "Effects of Power-Plant Operation on the Littoral
Benthics of Belews Lake, N. C.," Proceedings, Symposium on
Energy and Evironmental Stress in Aquatic Systems, U. S. Dept.
of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., pp. 580-596, 1978.

16. R. L. Kaesler, J. Cairns, Jr., and J. S. Crossman, "The Use of
Cluster Analysis in the Assessment of Spills of Hazardous
Materials," Am. Mid Nat., Vol. 92, pp. 94-114, 1974.

17. Tennessee Valley Authority, "A Qualitative Survey of Fish and
Macroinvertebrates of the French Broad River and Tributaries-
1977," Norris, Tennessee, 1978.

107

DUDA

18. Land of Sky Regional Council of Governments, "208 Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan," Asheville, N. C., 1978.

19. W. Whipple, Jr., and J. V. Hunter, "Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
Urban Runoff," Water Res. Bull., Vol. 15, pp. 1096-1105, 1979.

108

STRATEGICALLY LOCATING ON-SITE DETENTION
DEVICES USING THE PENN STATE RUNOFF MODEL

DAVID F. LAKATOS
Walter B. Satterthwaite Associates, Inc., West Chester, PA

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive planning for the control of stormwater runoff is be-
coming an increasingly significant part of overall development objectives
for existing as well as developing urban communities. Successful manage-
ment of stormwater runoff, and actually the overall urban water resources
system, depends on the ability of urban planners and managers to predict
accurately the effects that increased urban development will have on
stormwater runoff. In addition to this, urban water resources managers
must be able to:

e Select the most "cost-effective" and optimum storm runoff control
system for a particular study area, and one that may not rely on
the use of an expensive storm sewer (pipe) system.

e Accurately define the response of the selected drainage system
for particular storm events.

New and innovative approaches to stormwater management are becoming more
widely accepted in the engineering profession at the present time. These
new approaches consider the use of many non-traditional methods of storm
runoff control, such as on-site detention, as fundamental parts of com-
munity stormwater management plans.

This paper presents a brief discussion of current concepts, objec-
tives, and methods for "cost-effective" stormwater management. In addi-
tion to this, it presents a description of a unique tool that can be
used, and was in fact developed, to evaluate the current state-of-the-art
techniques for watershed stormwater management. Among the most intriguing
problems in stormwater management as it is being envisioned at this time
is the choice of strategic locations for on-site detention devices (e.g.,
retention ponds) with the goal of reducing the peak discharge at a flood-
prone point in the drainage basin as space-efficiently and cost-effec-
tively as possible. One very effective way of accomplishing this is with
the use of a computer simulation model. Several stormwater runoff simula-
tion models are presently available, ranging from the very simple Corps
of Engineers STORM (1) to the highly complex EPA SWMM model (2).

It is difficult, however, to find a model which combines a timing
analysis of sub-basin flood flow (peak) contributions with sufficient
program simplicity to allow small agencies or firms to engage in runoff
modeling without a substantial programmer training effort. In response
to this problem and in response to the needs of current stormwater manage-
ment philosophies, the Penn State Runoff Model (3) has been developed,
with the following objectives:

109

LAKATOS

(1) To produce an urban runoff simulation model that will provide
acceptable hydraulic accuracy while remaining at a level of
sophistication compatible with minimum practice and data-
collection time, and therefore minimum cost.

(2) To keep the model as simple and concise as possible, and thus
convenient for use for small to medium-size communities, or
for individual developments.

(3) To provide a stormwater management tool for the analysis of
the timing of subarea flow contributions to peak rates at
various points in a watershed. This tool is known as the
Peak Flow Presentation Table, and will be described in a
later section of this paper.

STATE-OF-THE-ART IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Some very important changes are taking place in the field of storm-
water management. Stormwater management specialists at the present time
are making a serious commitment towards the development and use of more
"cost-effective" methods of stormwater management. A prime example of a
cost-effective technique, and one that is being used more frequently for
practical storm runoff control, is on-site detention.

This new commitment to cost-effective and environmentally-sensitive
stormwater management has resulted from recent research and evaluation of
traditional approaches that have been used for storm runoff control.
These traditional approaches to storm runoff control have typically in-
volved seeking maximum convenience at a particular development site by
rapid elimination of excess stormwater from the area. A device that has
been used most frequently for eliminating excess stormwater runoff is
storm sewers (i.e., pipes). Storm sewers are an excellent means of con-
trolling storm runoff when they are properly used. This has not been the
case in past practice, and storm sewers have been used to merely relieve
a given area by concentrating and speeding up storm runoff. This has led.
to countless instances of downstream flooding and resulting environmental
damage that could have been avoided by proper planning.

Much research and development work has been undertaken which has
resulted in many publications being available which deal with revised and
updated philosophies and concepts for stormwater management (4, 5, 6, 7).
A very important set of stormwater management concepts, which reflects
the most current thinking by specialists, has been presented in a publica-
tion dealing with residential stormwater management (8). These concepts
are becoming widely accepted by practicing engineers and are influencing,
as well as providing the basis for, stormwater management regulations in
many communities. A summary of these concepts is presented below:

The water falling on a given site should, in an ideal design
solution, be absorbed or retained on-site to the extent that
after development the quantity and rate of water leaving the
site would not be significantly different than if the site had
remained undeveloped.

110

LAKATOS

Optimum design of stormwater collection, storage and treatment
facilities should strike a balance among capital costs, opera-
tion and maintenance costs, public convenience, risk of sig-
nificant water-related damage, environmental protection and
enhancement, and other community objectives. The optimum
balance among these factors is dynamic, changing over time
with changing physical conditions and value perceptions.

A major new emphasis needs to be placed on the identification
and application of "natural" engineering techniques to pre-
serve and enhance the natural features of a site and to max-
imize economic-environmental benefit. "Natural" engineering
techniques are those which capitalize on and are consistent
with natural resources and processes. Engineering design can
be used to improve the effectiveness of natural systems,
rather than negate, replace, or ignore them.

The use of on-site detention storage and "blue-green" devel-
opment should be pursued, along with the increased use of
storage to balance out handling or treatment of peak flows,
the use of land treatment systems for handling and disposal
of stormwater, and perhaps most important a recognition that
temporary ponding at various points in the system, including
on the individual lot, is a potential design solution rather
than a problem in many situations.

There is a balance of responsibilities and obligations for
collection, storage, and treatment of stormwater to be
shared by individual property owners and the community as
a whole.

Stormwater is a component of the total water resources of
an area which should not be casually discarded but rather
should be used to replenish that resource. Stormwater
problems signal either misuse of a resource or unwise land
occupancy.

Every site or situation presents a unique array of physi-
cal resources, occupancy requirements, land use conditions,
and environmental values. Variations of such factors with-
in a community generally will require variations in design
standards for optimal achievement of runoff management
objectives.

a Reevaluation of the approach to basin-wide runoff manage-
ment is a universal need.

The stormwater management concepts presented above identify two aspects
of storm runoff control as being critical for cost-effective stormwater
management; logical use of on-site detention, and comprehensive planning
for stormwater management on a watershed basis.

Responsible solutions for individual developments in the absence of
basin-wide plans will be more difficult to achieve particularly where
current practices are based on traditional drainage concepts. For example,

111

LAKATOS

if current practices allow upstream development to use traditional drain-
age approaches that increase runoff, a development relying on new concepts
might be unable to accommodate the amount of excess runoff thereby gen-
erated without additional significant costs.

The use of properly-constructed and maintained on-site detention
devices are beneficial in themselves, but more importantly however, they
can allow development to proceed on indvidual projects, even in the absence
of a basin-wide plan. This is because the strategy for retention and
attenuation of post-development peak as well as total runoff so as not to
exceed pre-development values would normally be compatible with any future
watershed stormwater management plan. Unfortunately this can probably
only be achieved at an initially higher cost for the project. Therefore,
development of basin-wide plans should be pursued where at all possible.

The Penn State Runoff Model can be used to address the two major
aspects of cost-effective storm runoff control that were just discussed.
The model is intended to identify optimum locations for on-site detention
devices, and can perform this function on any number of subbasins which
form an overall drainage basin. The major components of the Penn State
Runoff Model are presented below.

THE PENN STATE RUNOFF MODEL - A BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A visible flood flow is merely the result of the combination of
smaller flows from various subareas within a watershed. Subarea flow com-
binations are a function of the travel times of runoff from these subareas,
particularly to junction points. The relative timing of peak flows from
different subareas determines the magnitude of aggregate flow downstream,
which in turn is directly related to the extent of flooding that is exper-
ienced.

The Penn State Runoff Model is basically an urban runoff timing
analysis model. A "watershed timing analysis," as it is used here, refers
to a computer study of the combinations of subarea runoff flows and of
their relationship to total watershed runoff for a particular storm event.
This model, developed in 1976 at the Pennsylvania State University (9),
was a response to the lack of an existing runoff simulation model that
could be used for the analysis of the timing of-subarea flow combinations.
The Penn State Runoff Model can be used to analyze the effectiveness of
stormwater detention structures as a function of their location within a
watershed drainage system.

The model was designed to be as concise as possible. Simpler methods
of analyzing infiltration, of generating runoff hydrographs, and of rout-
ing flow through a drainage system were programmed into the model to re-
duce computer execution time and cut overall operational costs. The
capability of analyzing subwatershed flow combinations through easily-
interpreted illustrations was also an important objective in the develop-
ment of this model.

GENERAL METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The Penn State Runoff Model simulates rainfall-runoff events on the
basis of the following information:

112

LAKATOS

(1) Rainfall inputs:

a rainfall hyetographs, which can very both tem-
porally and spatially

(2) Watershed representation:

* physical characteristics of the watershed
* conveyance-system characteristics
* retention/detention basin storage character-
istics

Based on this input, the model predicts the outcome of the storm,
in the form of runoff hydrographs, which represent:

(1) Overland flow to a drainage point.

(2) Pipe flow leaving a drainage point.

(3) Surcharge flow at a drainage point.

The available documentation for the model describes the calculation
techniques in detail (3); the general outline of these techniques pre-
sented here provides an understanding of the basic processes being per-
formed.

Rainfall Analysis. To allow for the spatial as well as the temporal
variation of a rainfall-event, the data from several recording and non-
recording rain gauges can be applied to any subwatershed, and can be
used to account for a system of rain gauges or for moving storm systems
in a watershed. Weighting factors can be applied to rain-gauge data to
provide a more accurate representation of the rainfall characteristics of
particular subwatersheds.

Watershed Characterizations. The physical system, for model pur-
poses, consists of the water conveyance and storage systems and the phys-
ical characteristics of the watershed itself (e.g., proportions of per-
vious and impervious surface areas). To facilitate calculation of actual
runoff, the watershed can be divided into any desired number of subwater-
sheds on subareas. These subareas are numbered in downstream sequence as
shown in Figure 1.

Only the main sewer (or open drainage elements) is considered, and
wherever a tributary joins a main drainage stein the subarea numbering
system jumps to the upper extreme of the tributary. The numbering sys-
tem then proceeds in a downstream order to the next junction, where the
process is repeated.

Up to three incoming drainage elements are allowed to combine at any
one junction, but only one outgoing element is accepted. Sewer overflow
is assumed to proceed parallel with the designated drainage element to
the next subarea outlet, with a travel time equal to a specified multiple
of the sewer travel time.

113

LAKATOS

Subarea 6
Subarea breaX

Subarea 10

DRIVE SYSTEMS SCHEMATIC
SYSTEM kinematic wave routing method, which makes runoff e a 5

accumulated water depth on a subarea. The technique estimates average
calculation Watime step by a simple iterative methetermine Boundaepthes
Aof runoff Subarea Bound a runes
STREET ....Storm Drainage System
SYSTEM Railroad

FIGURE 1 TYPICAL STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SCHEMATIC

Overland Flow Calculations. Overland flow is computed by the approx-
ima te kinematic wav e routing method, which makes runoff a function of
accumulated water depth on a subarea. The technique estimates average
depth by balancing the water budget, accounting for rainfall, inflow and
outflow as well as infiltration and initial losses. The continuity equa-
tion and Manning flow equation are then solved simultaneously at each
calculation time step by a simple iterative method to determine depths
of runoff for an area. This depth of r unoff is then converted to a run-
off rate in cfs, which is the soil water stohydrograph generation used by
the model.

Infiltration Calculations. Infiltration losses are estimated by a
manipulation of the Soils Conservation Service (10) runoff equation into
the form

AF : S2 AP,
(P - IA + S)2

in which:

9 AF andAP are infiltration and precipitation increments
in inches or millimeter per unit time interval.

4 S is the soil water storage capacity in the same units
as F and P, as determined by theSoils Conservation Ser-
vice (SCS) method.

114

LAKATOS

* P is cumulative precipitation since the beginning of the
storm, and

* IA is the initial abstraction, assumed to be equal to 0.1 S,
in contrast to the SCS assumption that IA = 0.2 S.

This approach for infiltration calculation was prefered over the
traditionally used Horton (11) equation, principally because the Horton
equation depends on infiltration or permeability parameters which cannot
be quantified without specific field tests, whereas the SCS parameters
are obtained from data which are mapped with some degree of consistency.
Various possible alternatives of the SCS-based infiltration estimating
routine are described by Aron et.al.(12).

Drainaqe System Flow Calculations. The model routes the runoff hydro-
graphs through the storm drainage system in a very simple, straightforward
manner. The time that it takes for water to move from one drainage point
to another through the storm drainage system is considered to be divided
into a number of discrete steps. The specific number of steps for a
given drainage system element is a function of the travel time in the
element (e.g., a pipe or swale) and the time increment being used in the
calculations. For each time increment, flow moves through the pipe by
one step, continuing until it leaves the pipe and combines with either
overland flow at a downstream subarea or pipe flow from a tributary. This
process is repeated until all flow leaves the watershed.

ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE RUNOFF DETENTION DEVICES

The Penn State Runoff Model is a unique tool for strategically
locating small-scale, on-site detention devices in a watershed so as to
achieve cost-effective stormwater runoff control. A major emphasis by
stormwater management specialists is now being focused towards on-site
detention devices as the most effective means of stormwater runoff con-
trol for urbanizing areas (13). Small-scale on-site detention devices
are the most efficient means of controlling runoff from frequently-
occurring storm events. These events, on the order of 25-year recurrence
interval and less, typically are not considered when "flood protection"
programs are proposed and yet damage from these types of events can often
times be very significant. The types of on-site detection devices being
referred to here are:

I temporary ponding on ground surfaces
* temporary ponding on paved areas
* temponary ponding on roofs of buildings
0 storage in permanent ponds having provision for
variable depth
4 treatment of ground surfaces to absorb and/or
detain water
a routing of runoff to infiltration pits to both
recharge groundwater supplies and reduce total
flows to drainage systems
0 collection of stormwater for supplementary water
supplies.

115

LAKATOS

The primary means of analyzing these types of techniques with the
model is through the use of a "reservoir" analysis routine that has been
built into the program. Any of the on-site detention devices that have
been mentioned above can be represented as a "reservoir,"i.e., their func-
tion is to detain and/or retain runoff in a certain area of given volume
and they release flow from that area at a given rate. Sound engineering
judgment must be used in representing a particular on-site detention
device by the characteristics of a reservoir.

Two reservoir types can be considered in the model. The first
(Type 1) is used to accommodate the overland flow contribution from the
subwatershed on which it is located, plus the surcharge, or overflow,
from upstream areas (a typical on-site detention device). The combined
hydrograph from these two sources is then attentuated by the reservoir
routine and returned to the inlet point at the lower end of the sub-
watershed, where it combines with the pipe flow from upstream areas to
become total subwatershed outflow.

The second type reservoir (Type 2) is located at the subwatershed
outlet and can allow the entire outflow to be diverted and attentuated,
whether this outflow consists of pipe or surcharge flow. The type of
reservoir, naturally, is much more effective than the previous type for
diverting a large flood volume. However, unless this reservoir is of a
substantial size, it may easily fill up with the first flush, as illus-
trated in Figure 2, and overflow by the time the flood peak arrives.

\ i~~ Original hydrograph

I \\_ /Outflow from small
retention basin

/
I \ x/Ideally operated
,\x retention basin

E I / X\. N~-Large retention
w / ~~~~~~~~~basin

L.,<

/~/////im /e

FIGURE 2 RESERVOIR EFFECTS ON FLOOD HYDROGRAPH

116

LAKATOS

To remedy this situation a variable (JBYP) can be introduced for
each watershed in which a Type 2 reservoir is being analyzed, represent-
ing the percentage of outflow pipe capacity which will bypass the reser-
voir. Specifying LJBYP = 60, for example, allows the outflow to proceed
down the storm sewer until it reaches 60% of the sewer capacity, at which
time the excess will begin to spill over into the reservoir. It was
found that this bypass option is highly effective in cutting the reser-
voir size needed for a particular desired reduction in flood peak. How-
ever, this early flush bypass may be a counter-productive policy if
treatment of the highly polluted and sediment-laden flush is part of the
storm sewer operation policy.

The reservoir routine can be performed for a maximum of ten reser-
voirs in a given run. The input data required for the reservoir routine
are corresponding storage (acre-feet) and outflow (cubic feet per second)
values.

ANALYSIS OF SUBAREA PEAK FLOW TIMING

An important feature in the model is the Peak Flow Presentation
Table. Its function is mainly to display the individual runoff contribu-
tions from upstream subareas to a chosen flood-prone location, including
the timing of such peak flow contributions. The flow rates presented in
a Peak Flow Presentation Table reflect the travel time in the drainage
system from an individual subwatershed to the particular point of interest
downstream. This point of interest can be a point of observed storm-
water flooding, or it can be any point in the drainage system where the
analysis of the effects of stormwater runoff is desired. Presentation
and review of this table enables the model user to see which subwater-
sheds are contributing the most critical flows to a downstream point,
and to spot particularly harmful combinations of subwatershed flow rates.
Thus it points the planner to those locations chiefly responsible for
the flood problem, and allows the strategic placement of retention basins.

Figure 3 contains a sample Peak Flow Presentation Table taken from
model output for the anaysis of a ten-subwatershed system, along with a
description of the major components of the Table.

MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT

The major operations performed by the Penn State Runoff Model are
the generation of hydrographs and the routing of these hydrographs
through the storm drainage system. Therefore, the general input data
requirements are those which define the rainfall event, the area from
which runoff will take place, and the storm drainage system that will
transport the flow through the watershed. The specific input data
required for the computer program includes subbasin areas (acres),
approximate land slopes and overland flow widths, percentages of imper-
vious area, roughness coefficients, and SCS curve numbers for the per-
vious areas, as well as pipe conveyance capacities and travel times
between points in the storm drainage system. Aside from these physical
data, rainfall increments per chosen time interval must be entered for
at least one and at most twelve rain gages.

117

A� e. PEAK FLOI PRtSENTATION TIALE :�eI , 3

~~2 6 ** SUBWATIERSHEO CONITR1UIITOS TO PEAK FLOWS Al INLET NO. Il ..

SUBWA7ERSHEO PCFOS ARRIVINC IT SPEACEIEC IlrE FJ 4
fi7i (3Jt i1 24 \ 30 36 S2 C 94 60 0[ 6 72 78 8A 90 91
7 19.2 n.o o0.1 1.7T .9 21.1 19.2 I8.0 I6.1 15.q IS3. 11.9 9.6 B.0
/ 2 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 2.9 12.2 .80 7.9 6.7 6.2 5.8 A.) 2.9 Z.2
1 3 1.2 O.G 6 I.1 1.1 3.9 11.5 QT.T 13.8 37. 32.8 30.6 29.1 23.5 19.O IS.
* 15.6 00. D.u 0.1 L.3 1.7 .5 5 6 5. 3.6 1.1 2.9 1. 1 .e8 e.s
5 12.6 0.L G.C 2.1 4i. 18.9 1 1.O 9.3 T.1 b.9 S.9 S.3 2.1 1.4 1.0
6 13.5 0.1 O.q 1.2 2.9 11 .5 7.9 6.9 5.7 5.3 5.0 3.4 2.5 1.9 1,
3 12.1 0.1 0.5 1.8 I .2 19.5 15. 1.5 11.5 U.S. 10.3 I7.8 b.o .8 O.0
A8 33.6 0n.u .4 3. 4.3 17.3 17*. 16.6 18.9 19.0 13.5 10.8 8.1 3.I 5.8
9 1.3 0.2 O.b 2.1 IC. 131 15 IS. 16. 1.6.6 35.1 1.7 5 11.5 10.
10 C.O 0.6 2.9 Is.2 1s8. 21.4 22.2 23.3 24.q 22.3 20.2 I8.5 11.1 15.8 39.6
103AL
OUTFLOr n.9 5.9 27. 133.6 F3T3 2'- 1361.8 147.2 134.8 125.5 10o.8 87.0 73.1 62

5
*-A.*CESCRIPTION OFr PEAK FLO PEA FLO ESENATIN TABLL E �

tHE ABOVE IABLL L1SIS THE FLORATES FRoI EACH INDIVIDUAL SUBATLERSHEO AS IT CO8BINE5 WITH THE FLOW
RATES FROr OTHER SUBAATERSHIOS TO FORK THE TOTAL FLO aBTE AT THE POINT OF INIERET . THE FLORATES
FOR INOIVIODAL SoJeATERSHLOS ARE TRANSLATEo IN TllE BY T1H ArOUNT OF 1I. THA8I THE FILE TAKES TO
R 184E0L FRO ITHE DOAINASE INLE1 OF THE SUBVAIERSHEO TO THE POINT OF INTEREST FOR 1HE PLEA FLOW PRESENTATION
TABLE. THE SPECIFIFD TIME INTERYVAS REFER TO THE POINI OF INTEREST. AND THE FLO80ES IN THE TES IN HE RO
ARKEO � IOTAL- REFrP TO THE PIPE FLOW RATES ACTUALLY OBSERVFO AT THE POINT OF INTEREST.

\ SURCARE OR OVERFLO~ HL-AS OCCURRED AT INLETS NO.

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF "PEAK FLOW PRESENTATION" TABLE:

1. Subwatershed Identification Numbers.
2. Travel Time for a Particular Subarea - amount of time that it takes for flow to travel from the particular
subarea to the point of interest.
3. Point of Interest - point in the storm drainage system for which the analysis and table are being presented.
4. Time Steps in Minutes - time periods for the hydrograph at point of interest.
5. Calculated Total Flows for the Point of Interest - Includes overland flow (Total Outflow) for the subarea at
the point of interest, plus upstream flow contributions.
6. Calculated flow for the particular subarea (ID), for the time when this flow reaches the point of interest.
7. Indication of those subareas where surcharging has occurred.

FIGURE 3 PEAK FLOW PRESENTATION TABLE

LAKATOS

The program output consists of all flow rates as well as cumulative
rainfall and storages which are printed for all subareas requested.
Hydrograph plots can also be requested.

PROGRAM SIZE AND REQUIREMENTS

The Penn State Runoff Model contains about 760 Fortran IV statements,
and requires roughly 200 K bytes of computer memory. No off-line or
scratch files are required. The model requires considerably less com-
puter time than the HEC-1/HEC-2 package, the EPA Stormwater Management
Model, and in fact most other widely-used stormwater runoff simulation
programs.

APPLICATIONS AND CASE STUDY USE

The Penn State Runoff Model is beginning to be applied and used by
consulting engineering firms for various practical stormwater management
and planning studies. Original verification of the computational rou-
tines in the model was performed using the data for the Winohocking
Watershed in Philadelphia, and the Boneyard Creek Watershed in Illinois
(9). A complete description of the development of the model, including
its application and verification is given in a Pennsylvania State
University research publication (9). A detailed description of a case
study application has been prepared for several national stormwater
management conferences (14, 15). Other locations where the model has
been applied include York,Pennsylvania, Bergen County, New Jersey, and
Tucson, Arizona.

SUMMARY

The Penn State Runoff Model is an effective tool for analyzing cost-
effective stormwater management systems for developed and developing
areas. The model was developed in response to a need for such a tool for
use in evaluating the state-of-the-art techniques for stormwater runoff
control. A thorough verification of the program was performed as part
of its development, and it has been used for several practical storm-
water management applications. This paper presents an overall descrip-
tion of the capabilities of the Penn State Runoff Model, and highlights
its applicability for state-of-the-art stormwater management.

REFERENCES

(1) Hydrologic Engineering Center, "Storage, Treatment Overflow Runoff
Model - 'Storm'," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California, July,
1976.

(2) Environmental Protection Agency, "Stormwater Management Model" (Four
Volume Set), Water Pollution Control, 11024, DOC07-10 (with updates, 1977),
Washington, D.C.

(3) Aron, G. and David F. Lakatos, "Penn State Urban Runoff Model -
User's Manual," Research Publication No. 96, Institute for Research on
Land and Water Resources, the Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania, December 1976.

119

LAKATOS

(4) Environmental Protection Agency, "Urban Stormwater Management and
Technology, Update and Users Guide," Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/8-77-014, Septem-
ber 1977.

(5) Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Quality Management Planning
for Urban Runoff," EPA-440/9-75-004, December 1974.

(6) Environmental Protection Agency, "Urban Runoff Control Planning,"
Office of Air, Land and Water Use, EPA-600/9-78-035, October 1978.

(7) Proceedings, "International Symposium on Urban Storm Runoff," Univer-
sity of Kentucky, College of Engineering, Lexington, Kentucky, 1975 to
1978.

(8) Urban Land Institute, ASCE, National Association of Home Builders,
"Residential Stormwater Management," 1975.

(9) Aron, G., D.A. Long, A.C. Miller, D.F. Lakatos, and M.J. O'Brien,
"Quantitative Implications of Urban Storm Runoff Abatement Measures,"
Research Publication No. 97, Institute for Research on Land and Water
Resources, The Pennsylvania State University.

(10) Soil Conservation Service, "National Engineering Handbook, Section
4, Hydrology," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1972.

(11) Horton, R.E., "An Approach Toward a Physical Interpretation of
Infiltration Capacity," Proceedings Soil Science Society of America, Vol.
5, pp. 399-417, 1940.

(12) Aron G., A.C. Miller, and D.F. Lakatos, "An Infiltration Formula
Based on SCS Curve Number," A.S.C.E., Journal of the Irrigation and
Drainage Division, Vol. 104, No. IR1, February, 1978.

(13) American Public Works Association, "Practices in Detention of
Urban Stormwater Runoff," Special Report No. 43, 1974.

(14) Lakatos, D.F., "Analysis of Urban Storm Drainage Systems Using the
Penn State Runoff Model - A Case Study," Satterthwaite Associates, Inc.,
Publication for an Urban Hydrology short course at the Pennsylvania State
University, 1979.

(15) Lakatos, D.F., and Wiswall, K.C., "Storm Sewer System Analysis
Using the Penn State Runoff Model: A Case Study," presented at the
American Society of Civil Engineers Annual Convention, Chicago, Illinois,
October 1978.

120

PLANNING FOR RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OPTIONS IN A SMALL WATERSHED IN NEW JERSEY

ALAN M. ROBINSON AND CAROL R. COLLIER

Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA

Abstract. Hydrologic, environmental and fiscal analyses of proposed
Master Plan Development in the Pond Run watershed in Hamilton
Township, Mercer County, New Jersey were conducted to develop
measures to mitigate the plan's potential impacts. Two major
measures--stream corridor protection and strict stormwater
management--were selected to minimize additional flood hazards and
maximize environmental quality. Strategies for implementing these
recommendations were prepared and presented to Township officials.

I. INTRODUCTION

Background

Pond Run, a major tributary to the Assunpink Creek, drains
approximately 9 square miles of gently sloping terrain in Hamilton
Township, Mercer County, New Jersey (Figure 1). The stream system
is composed of two major components--Pond Run and the North Branch
of Pond Run--and several small tributaries. Existing land
development in the northern and western portion of the watershed.
adjacent to the City of Trenton is primarily high and medium density
residential. Land use in the middle and upper sections of the
watershed consist of agricultural land, open space, and low and
mediun density residential (Figure 2).

Flooding is a major problem in the Pond Run watershed. Floods
in August 1971 and July 1975 resulted in extensive inundation.
Damage was primarily due to the extensive amount of residential
development located on the flood plain. In addition, recent
upstream residential and commercial development has resulted in an
increase in flood magnitudes and frequency.

The Pond Run watershed is projected to undergo significant
development in the near future. The Township plans to extend a
wastewater interceptor sewer up the watershed, which will allow
development to occur in accordance with the recently completed
Master Plan. Development pressure is intense in this section of New
Jersey, and once wastewater systems are provided, it is expected
that major proposals for residential and commercial developments

121

ROBINSON & COLLIER

will proceed quickly. Up until this time, the soil limitations for
adequate septic field system operation have prohibited extensive
development in the middle and upper portions of the watershed.

The Master Plan indicates that population within the watershed
will increase by over 67% at ultimate development levels. The only
public open space shown in the Master Plan is a 254-acre park
surrounding Hamilton Lake on the mainstem of Pond Run (Figure 3).
Unless carefully planned, the anticipated increase in development
has the potential to exacerbate flooding conditions, degrade water
quality and radically change the character of the watershed.

Study Objectives

The overall objective of this study was to develop a strategy
which Hamilton Township could follow to both accommodate anticipated
growth and mitigate development-related problems. The study
documented the impacts which could be expected from development as
proposed in the Master Plan. Impacts included stormwater runoff and
flooding, environmental considerations and the costs for community
services and facilities. Measures were recommended for reducing
unacceptable impacts and a plan was proposed to implement
recommended mitigative measures.

II. METHODOLOGY

Hydrology Analysis

The Soil Conservation Service's TR-20 computer model was used
to determine the rainfall-runoff volume and resulting peak flow
rates for the Pond Run watershed. This method employs the use of a

Figure 1
Pond Run watershed

FROM STORMWATER AI\ISI X/v>\12

200000 0 0000 40001,

122

ROBINSON & COLLIER

Figure 2
Existing Land Use

- Med. Density Residential
High Density Residential
OsrinCoercial 0 2400 4800
\ Industrial - Agricultural FEET
~ Public & Public ublic * Vacant
, Parks & Open Space � Streets

Figure 3
Master Plan Development

Lowt Density Residential
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential - Public Facility o 240 4ao
- Commercial Conservation
Industrial x Streets

123
W~~~~~~~~~~~~ _--S
_ _ _ _ _ _ __~~~~~~~~~rr

....... _--____.,-____ +_ ux______ ____4______
@ ... ___ __ ,______ ^__ \\M___________JJ _____
t . -s________ _ \\ __ x________zim----______>
;a::: t_:: \ :_::: _____ X w .:S ______________ Y~~~~~~~~~

............................................ _ .____ ,,, ____

123 1 1(1 �

ROBINSON & COLLIER

computer program which, when provided certain watershed data, acts
as a hydrologic model of the watershed. The model can be used to
evaluate various flow conditions, present and future flow rates, and
alternative flood reduction schemes.

Field-measured stream channel and culvert information and data
describing watershed characteristics, including topography, soil
types, stream slopes, and land use, were used to construct the Pond
Run Hydrologic computer model. The IMGRID computer model, a grid
cell computer mapping program, was used to assist in the development
of some of the data used directly in the TR-20 model. These data
were used to define and quantify those watershed characteristics
that affect the quantity and distribution of runoff, and
subsequently, the peak flow rate.

Information published by the National Weather Service on
flooding from the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour duration storms for
Mercer County, New Jersey, were used for watershed flood and
stormwater management analysis. Evaluations of the 10-year and
100-year storms, which have a ten percent and one percent chance,
respectively, of occurring in any given year, were made in order to
analyze a broad range of flood events. Existing and potential
future watershed land use and stream channel characteristics were
used for flood evaluation. Future land use characteristics were
obtained from the Hamilton Township Master Plan.

It was necessary to modify three of the standard procedures
recommended by the Soil Conservation Service for the TR-20 model in
order to properly represent the watershed's rainfall and runoff
characteristics. The decision to make the modifications was made
with the concurrence of the SCS's New Jersey State Engineering
Office in Somerset, New Jersey. The changes involved three model
components--the dimension hydrograph, the reach routing equation,
and the rainfall distribution.

The Pond Run watershed was sub-divided into 20 smaller
sub-basins for the purposes of the analysis. Sub-dividing the
watershed permitted a more detailed analysis, which allowed the
analyst to locate areas that contribute significantly to peak runoff
and to more carefully evaluate potential stormwater and flood
controls.

Environmental Assessment

A grid cell computer mapping program was used to inventory and
assess the environmental features of the watershed. A two-acre grid
cell was used. Existing natural resource maps were modified by
field survey information, digitized and added to the computerized
data base. Changes in land use and impacts to the natural
environment were determined by overlaying the maps of the individual
environmental parameters with the map of the Master Plan development
level. The use of computerized graphics facilitated quantitative

124

ROBINSON & COLLIER

assessment of land use changes and overlaying or compositing of
environmental factors to establish land suitability for development.

Analysis of water quality conditions was based on secondary
data sources. Loadings of suspended solids to the stream and the
eutrophication potential of Hamilton Lake were also assessed.
Changes in suspended solids loadings from existing to Master Plan
development levels were calculated using the acres in developed
area, agricultural land, forest and open space with the appropriate
runoff loading rates of total suspended solids developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1977) in the Areawide Assessment
Procedures Manual Vol. 1, (208 NPS Manual). The Hamilton Lake
eutrophication level was established using the Vollenweider critical
phosphate potential for a lake of that size and comparing it to the
phosphate concentrations anticipated at the Master Plan level of
development.

Fiscal/Industrial Analysis

A computer model was used to evaluate the costs of services and
revenue return for the Pond Run watershed. The evaluation was
conducted using existing population levels, anticipated levels at
Master Plan development and levels modified by land use mitigative
measures. A review of existing Township ordinances was made to
determine the implementation feasibility of the recommended
mitigative measures.

111. STUDY RESULTS

General

This section sets forth a summary of existing conditions and a
discussion of impacts caused by development proposed in the
Township's Master Plan. To present worst case conditions, it was
assumed that no mitigative measures would be used.

Summary of Existing Conditions

The Pond Run watershed has a population of approximately
35,000; 42% of the watershed is in residential use and streets, and
15% is in commercial, industrial, public and quasi-public holdings.
The remaining 43% is in open space. Figure 2 shows the existing
land use pattern. The most developed areas are found in the lower
third of the watershed and along the North Branch of Pond Run. The
majority of the existing open space is found along the main branch
of Pond Run.

Flooding is a major problem in the Pond Run watershed. Major
floods of August 1971 and July 1975 resulted in excessive inundation
and damage. The great number of homes and other buildings located
in the flood plain has been the principal reason why flood damage

125

ROBINSON & COLLIER

has been so extensive. Another reason is increased stormwater
runoff due to urbanization.

In response to the flooding problem, the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), working together with the Mercer County Board of
Freeholders and Township officials, designed and constructed a flood
retarding dam in the watershed (Hamilton Lake) and has partially
completed a channelization project. The dam and channel projects
were designed to protect the lower reaches of Pond Run from flooding
during all storms more frequent than the flood with one percent
chance of occurring in any given year (the 100-year flood). These
improvements, while reducing the flood problem in a large portion of
the watershed, do not eliminate the potential for flooding in the
densely developed lower reaches, nor do they provide protection for
those homes located on the flood plain of the North Branch or areas
upstream from Hamilton Lake. (See Figure 4).

Water quality in Pond Run is moderately good. Major problems
are sedimentation and nutrient levels. The changing land uses and
development adjacent to the creek appear to have the greatest
negative impact. Suburban development, road construction, and
commercial expansion have resulted in heavy erosion and runoff,
causing a heavy load of sediment. In addition, many minor
encroachments and dump sites occur along the stream in residential
and commercial areas. The upper reaches of Pond Run appear to be in
relatively good condition, supporting an abundance of small game and
plant life. The middle section of the stream is characterized by
high sediment loading, a heavy growth of aquatic vegetation, and
stagnant sediment loading, a heavy growth of aquatic vegetation, and
stagnant water. The lower section of Pond Run is channelized and
contains several industrial discharges. Thermal pollution, heavy
urban runoff, garbage dumping, channelization, and point source
discharges have degraded this lower section. Using a simplified
model for phosphorus loadings, Hamilton Lake was shown to have a
high potential for eutrophication.

Although there are few "environmentally sensitive areas" in the
Pond Run Watershed, the environmental character of the area will
change significantly with future development. Currently, 43% of the
watershed is in open space, 19% is in forest cover, and 14% is
cultivated. Significant portions of the watershed are located over
the outcrop area of the Magothy-Raritan Aquifer, a regional water
supply source. Because of soil characteristics, 16% of the
watershed is considered a prime recharge area for this aquifer.

Summary of Significant Impacts due to Master Plan Development

Impacts of land use changes proposed in the Hamilton Township
Master Plan were analyzed for fiscal, stormwater, and environmental
elements of the watershed. To present worst conditions, it was
assumed that existing trends and construction practices would
continue and no mitigative measures would be used. Table 1
summarizes the anticipated impacts.

126

ROBINSON & COLLIER

TABLE 1
Impact Summary Matrix

Element Evaluated Importance Impact (at Master Plan Level of Development,

Land Use/Population � As population grows, so does number of households Density presently 6 persons/acre, changes to 10
and land development activty
Density is measured for entire watershed.
Actual density will be higher in residential areas
Land Use: Open Space � Contributes to aesthetic quality of watershed � Loss of 2,202 acres (86%)
. Adds wildlife habitat diversity . Major, long-term, peonanent
. Recreational resource
Land Use: Agricultural Land � Provides local produce � Loss of 06 acres (100%)
. Adds wildlife habitat diversity � Major, long-term, permanent
. Preserves open space
Fiscal � Aple fiscal resources must be available to provide * SA.6-million surplus revenue when fully developed
the necessary services to citizens
Floodinq � Hazardous to life and health � Major flooding problems will occur from Assunpink Creek
Causes great loss of property to Kuser Road, in the vicinity of Barbara and Lorraine
Drives, an d along the North Branch downstream of
KIockner Boul evard
Vegetation � Maintain plant and animal diversity � Forests Loss of 1,022 acres (92%)
* Aesthetically pleasing Shrub: Loss of 92 acres (98%)
* Slow runoff and erosion Fields: Lss of 820 acres (87%)
. Major. long-term, pernanent
Water Quality � Public health factor � Sedimentation in Pond Run will alter stream morphology
. Maintain aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and biotic community
. Aesthetic value - Base flow of Pond Run will be reduced
Runoff frn developaent will increase eutrophicati on
potential of Hamilton Lake and nutrient levels of all
streaw segments
Sedimentation will reduce storage capacity of Hamilton
Lake

Population/Land Use: Significant changes in population density
and land use will greatly affect the character of the Pond Run
watershed. It is anticipated that 28% of the watershed will be in
commercial/ industrial use, 53% in residential use, 6% in
vacant/agricultural/conservation areas, and 13% in public
facilities/streets/other (Figure 3). Under the Master Plan level of
development, the population will increase 68 percent. The only
public open space within the watershed will be the 254-acre
conservation area.

Flooding: Conversion of 40% of the open space in the watershed
to residential, commercial and industrial land will greatly increase
flood potential. Covering large areas of land with impervious
surfaces will significantly increase the rate and volume of runoff.
In addition, if existing drainage practices are continued, small
open channel tributaries will be replaced by storm sewers and main
channels will be enlarged and smoothed. Channelization of the
central portion of Pond Run will increase the magnitude of flooding
in downstream areas by eliminating the natural mitigative effect
provided by the broad flood plain which acts to store and slow
floodwaters. To determine the potential impact of unmitigated
development on watershed flood potential, a series of scenarios were
developed and tested. The three scenarios tested, all of which
assumed development levels consistent with the Master Plan, were:

Scenario 1 - Storm sewers installed in all developed areas. No
additional watershed channelization. No stormwater management.

127

ROBINSON & COLLIER

Scenario 2 - Storm sewers installed and minor tributaries
channelized to contain the 100-year flood. No stormwater management.

Scenario 3 - Conditions similar to Scenario 2 plus all of Pond Run
downstream from Hamilton Lake and the entire North Branch,
channelized. No stormwater management.

All three Master Plan land use/drainage system modification
scenarios result in significant increases in peak flood flow rates.
For example, in the vicinity of Barbara Drive, Scenarios 1, 2 and 3
would result in increasing the 100-year flood flow rates by 73, 100
and 400%, respectively. In all three cases, the 10-year flood would
be greater than the present 100-year flood flow rate. Even if
surface runoff did not increase, channel modification would increase
the peak flow by 100 percent. The peak flood flow rates for 3
watershed locations are summarized in Table 2. The loss of flood
plain storage area and the improved channel efficiencies created by
sewering and channelization in the middle and upper portions of the
watershed account for the extremely high peak flows in Scenario 3.
The especially broad flood plain along Pond Run acts in a way
similar to a flood control dam in reducing downstream peak flow
rates. Filling and building in this flood plain would eliminate
this storage area.

TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF PEAK FLOOD FLOW RATES FOR FOUR WATERSHED LOCATIONS

100-Year Flood Discharqes (cfs)
Existing
Location Land Use* Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

POND RUN
Barbara Drive 650 1,125 1,180 2,820
Greenwood Avenue 1,660 2,325 2,500 5,040
NORTH BRANCH
Klockner Boulevard 795 840 1,065 2,030

* Assumes SCS channel improvements completed.

Storm sewering, channelization and flood plain fill are
techniques commonly used in Hamilton Township to reduce local flood
heights and widths or to raise new development above flood levels.
These techniques generally accomplish these goals at the sites where
they are constructed. However, as demonstrated by the future
scenario analysis, these techniques significantly aggravate the
flooding problem in the downstream portions of the watershed.

128

ROBINSON & COLLIER

Water Quality: If development proceeds to Master Plan level
without mitigative measures, Pond Run water quality will be
degraded. Suspended solids loads to the stream will be increased,
especially during construction periods. Not only will this decrease
the storage capacity of Hamilton Lake but it will have a deleterious
effect on the aquatic community. Benthic organism habitat will be
altered and fish eggs may be smothered by the increasing bed load.
Light, necessary to sustain the algae community, will be reduced by
the increased turbidity levels. A simplified suspended solids
analysis showed that a 43% increase over existing loading factors
could be anticipated at the Master Plan level of development.

Increased development, especially near the stream corridor, will
increase the eutrophication potential of Hamilton Lake and the
nutrient levels of all stream segmients. Increased runoff to the lake
will have a negative effect on the aquatic community and decrease the
aesthetic and recreational value of the park. Street contaminants
such as lead, hydrocarbons, asbestos fibers and road salts will
increase. The addition of industrial land use along the main stem of
Pond Run may degrade water quality due to stormwater runoff and point
source discharge. Elimination of trees and overhanging vegetation
along the stream bank will reduce shade and change the aquatic
biological community.

Vegetation: Forests and fields in the Pond Run watershed add to
the aesthetics of Hamilton Township. They also provide wildlife
habitat and mitigate the effects of erosion. At the Master Plan
level of development, a loss of 1,222 acres of forest and 820 acres
of field is anticipated. Although some trees will be saved by
developers, only 90 acres of forest in Hamilton Lake Park will be
available to the public. All pathways presently used for wildlife
circulation will be interrupted. Due to the flatness of the area,
elimination of major vegetation stands will greatly alter the
watershed's visual appearance.

IV. RECOMMENDED MITIGATIVE MEASURES

Description of Mitigative Measures
Overview: The development proposed by the Master Plan will
provide extra tax revenue, establish more jobs in the region, and
provide needed housing. However, it has demonstrated that adverse
impacts will also occur. The purpose of this section is to present
and evaluate measures which can reduce adverse impacts to acceptable
levels.

The most serious adverse impacts which were identified were:

1. Loss of open space, natural vegetation and wildlife habitats

2. Significantly increased flood problems

129

ROBINSON & COLLIER

3. Degradation of stream and impoundment water quality

4. Change in character of the watershed and potential aesthetic
problems

Several mitigative measures were developed and evaluated.
Emphasis was placed on two measures which mitigate flooding problems
and environmental impacts at the same time: stream corridors and
stormwater management measures.

Stream Corridor: As the term is used in this report, stream
corridors refer to the area delineated by the 100-year flood plain
plus soils with depth to seasonal high water table of less than 1
foot and which are contiguous to the 100-year flood plain. It has
been proposed that the land be maintained in its natural state within
100 feet of either side of the stream channel. Allowable uses in
this area would be for passive recreation, bicycle and jogging
pathways and wastewater interceptor sewer right-of-way. The
interceptor sewer should be kept at least 75 feet from the stream to
prevent aesthetic problems, excessive erosion, and pollution due to
sewer backups, leaks, etc. It is possible that, when laying the
wastewater interceptor, a bicycle or walking path could be
constructed over the right-of-way. The area between the 100-foot
buffer zone and the 100-year flood plain limit could be used for
agricultural purposes and recreation. Figure 5 presents a schematic
of the proposed stream corridor concept.

Development as proposed in theMaster Plan could occur on the
contiguous high water table soils. However, the development would be
subject to meeting various performance standards. These performance
controls would primarily apply to septic tank conditions. If public
sewers are provided, any development level would be allowable. If
septic tanks are to be relied on, then the standard percolation tests
would have to be passed during relatively wet periods, such as
December through May. Development should not be permitted on soils
which did not pass this more restrictive septic tank criterion unless
public sewers are provided.

The flood plain portion of the stream corridor serves to retard
flooding by storing stormwater and slowing its velocity of flow.
Stormwater storage is accommodated by the unusually broad flood plain
area containing numerous land depressions and pockets. Velocity of
flow is reduced by the brush, trees and other vegetation located
there. Bends in stream channels and irregular topography also impede
stormwater velocity and thereby reduce downstream flooding. Flood
plains, therefore, serve a purpose similar to a flood control dam.

The natural flood mitigation offered by flood plains makes them
poor places to build houses, impervious parking lots and other
structures. Additionally, development usually requires

130

ROBINSON & COLLIER

channelization* and filling which reduces the storage capacity of the
flood plain and results in increased downstream flooding. Impervious
areas, such as sidewalks, roads, parking lots and roofs, eliminate
flood plain areas which previously absorbed or slowed stormwater
flow. Removal of vegetation also adds to increased flood velocity
because the "friction" of the flood plain is reduced.

Flood plain vegetation serves to filter water-borne pollutants
and sediment from upland areas so that preservation of stream
corridor vegetation will result in reduced pollutant loads to the
stream. By allowing potentially contaminated rainwater to flow over
vegetated areas, percolate into the groundwater, and reach the stream
slowly, water quality benefits accrue.

Protecting areas of seasonally high water table also has water
quality benefits. In these areas, pollutants from septic tank fields
can be transmitted to groundwater and eventually reach the surface
water. Increased development on these contiguous high water table
soils will not have adverse impacts if sewers are provided to
eliminate potential groundwater contamination.

The proposed stream corridor provides wildlife with a source of
habitat and food. It also provides the opportunity for recreational
activities, such as bike paths, jogging and other open space
activities. Another benefit is the improvement in aesthetic
conditions. With essentially an almost total loss of woodlands and
open space, proposed by the Master Plan, it is important to provide
additional areas which can maintain the aesthetic resources of the
area.

Stormwater Management: Scenario 1 (Table 2) demonstrated the
impact of insufficient stormwater management in the Pond Run
watershed. Even if the stream corridors are preserved, flood flow
rates will increase by as much as 70% in the downstream portion of
the watershed. The channel constructed to protect the densely
developed lower watershed will be unable to handle the increased
flows and extensive additional flooding will result as development
occurs upstream.

To address these problems and reduce the drastic flooding
conditions which would result if no mitigative measures are used,
many stormwater management measures are needed.

* Channelization, while not affecting the volume of runoff, does
increase the peak rate of runoff. Channelization will usually
prevent flooding of the area adjacent to the channelized stream.
However, it eliminates the natural flood plain and its associated
flood-retarding benefits; flooding problems are merely passed on to
downstream residents.

131

ROBINSON & COLLIER

The stormwater management measures include:

Changes to the land development ordinances (stormwater
management component)

Revised computational techniques for calculating stormwater
runoff

Provision for retention basins capable of managing up to the
100-year storm

� Encouragement of clustering of homes

� Evaluation of potential large-scale off-site detention ponds

Use of site-specific mitigative measures, such as rooftop
storage, and minimizing impervious surfaces

Impacts of Mitigative Measures

Stream Corridors: Providing for a stream corridor (and
preventing further channelization) results in over a 50% reduction in
flood flows at the Master Plan development level. However, even with
this improved condition, the flooding is significantly worse than
under existing conditions. If the stormwater management measures
explained later are implemented along with the stream corridor, then
flooding conditions can be maintained at existing levels. Table 3
shows flooding conditions at two locations within the watershed for
existing, Master Plan, and Master Plan with stream corridor
conditions.

Table 3
IMPACT OF STREAM CORRIDOR ON FLOODING
Master Plan
Existing Master Plan Master Plan w/Stream Corridor
D eveloment (asa Mitiqative Measure) w/Strean Corridor and Stormwater Manaiement
Location Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Elevation Peak Flow Elevation
Barbara Drive 650 53 2,280 57 1,130 55 650 53
Greenwood Avenue 1,160 49 5,040 53 2,330 51 1,660 49

Notes:
1. Peak flow in cubic feet per second (cfs)
2. Elevation in feet. Elevation based on completion of SCS channelization project.
3. The Master Plan without the corridor assumes no implementation of the stormwater management measures.
Channelization to allow development up to the stream bank for Pond Run downstream from Hamilton Lake, the
North Branch, and all tributaries is assumed. The Master Plan with the corridor assumes no channelization.
If both stormwater management measures and the stream corridor concept are implemented, no increase in
existing flooding is expected, even at ultimate development.

Implementing the stream corridor concept will eliminate future
development in the flood plain. According to the Master Plan, an
additional 419 acres of flood plain could be developed. At present,
there are almost 4,000 acres of undeveloped land available (68% of

132

ROBINSON & COLLIER

the watershed), thus prohibiting development in the flood plain will
take only about 10% of the developable acreage. Table 4 presents the
amount of woodland, open space and developable lands under various
development levels. The stream corridor increases woodlands by 250%
over that available with complete Master Plan development.

Areas where development would proceed with special performance
controls (i.e., contiguous high water table areas) amount to 808
acres. These areas could be developed if sewers were provided or if
septic tanks met more rigorous performance criteria.

TABLE 4
IMPACT OF STREAM CORRIDOR ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

Acreage Master Plan
Feature Existing Master Plan w/Stream Corridor

Woodlands 1,112 90 316
Open Space (non-farm) 2,368 400 756
Developable Land 3,195 3,195 2,776

Stormwater Manaqement: To demonstrate the effectiveness of
stormwater management measures, the project's stormwater computer
model was used to simulate various mitigative alternatives, assuming
full development proposed by the Master Plan. Table 3 shows the
impact on flooding at Greenwood Avenue and Barbara Drive. if
storrnwater management is linked with stream corridor protection,
existing flooding conditions will not be worsened, even at complete
development conditions.

In addition to the obvious flood damage reduction benefits
reflected in Table 4, stormwater management measures will reduce the
amount of pollutants and eroded sediment entering the stream.

Implementation of Mitigative Measures

General: The program recommended to Hamilton Township to
mitigate the potential impacts on the Pond Run watershed of the
Master Plan development is based on the following premises:

� Damage-producing floods will continue to occur periodically
despite the construction of Hamilton Lake Dam and the SCS channel
project. This existing problem will increase significantly as a
result of projected Master Plan development.

� Any watershed modifications that result in increases to the
frequency and depth of floods are unacceptable.

133

ROBINSON & COLLIER

� Modification of natural stream channels and flood plains to more
urbanized land uses will significantly reduce several indices of
local environmental quality, including recreation opportunities,
water quality, wildlife habitat, and visual amenities.

These premises have been incorporated into a program designed to
reduce flooding, minimize environmental impacts, and be fiscally
sound. The implementation program has been structured into two
critical mitigative measures--Stream Corridor Protection and
Stormwater Management.

Stream Corridor Implementation: Prior to establishing and
carrying out the stream corridor protection program, several
preparatory steps must be taken. Five prerequisites for the
implementation of a successful plan have been identified and are
described below.

� Ordinanace Modifications

The provision of the Hamilton Township Land Development Ordinance
that that all open channels be designed for the 100-year storm
frequency should be revised. This would require a developer with
a stream channel on his property to straighten, substantially
widen, and remove the vegetation from the channel to increase its
capacity to transmit flood water without overtopping. This would
eliminate flooding adjacent to the modified channel, but analysis
has demonstrated that additional stream channelization upstream
from Barbara Drive will increase the peak flow downstream from
Kuser Road--the 100-year flood will no longer be contained within
the flood control channel and extensive portions of presently
protected areas will be inundated. Therefore, it is recommended
that this clause be changed to required that stream channels not
be modified unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the
modification will not increase peak flow rates in downstream
sections of the watershed.

� Undelineated Flood Hazard Areas

None of the maps currently available or in preparation delineate
the potential extent of flooding on the head water and tributary
sub-watersheds. Recommendations for stream corridor protection
extend to these areas; to accomplish this goal, flood plain areas
should be determined for the entire watershed. A program to
obtain flood plain mapping of these areas will include the
preparation of detailed planiometric maps, a hydraulic analysis
of each stream, flood plain delineation, and water surface
profile preparation. The hydrologic data required for these
analyses have already been developed.

� Master Plan Revisions

The Master Plan's designation of documented flood prone areas
will need to be revised. In the Pond Run watershed, there are

134

ROBINSON & COLLIER

approximately 420 acres of undeveloped and agricultural flood prone
land zoned for residential, commercial, business, and governmental
facilities. FollIowing the completion of the flIood hazard
delineation, this land, which functions as a natural flood reduction
area, should be rezoned as conservation areas* and new Master Plan
zoning maps should be prepared.

� Corridor Protection Methods

Completion of the prerequisites outlined above will establish the
foundation for the Township to protect the stream corridors. Two
alternative methods are described in the following paragraphs:
acquisition of the land or establishment of performance
standards. Either method, or a combination of both, is suitable.

� Acquisition of Vacant Flood Plain Parcels

Purchase of privately owned flood prone land is the direct
approach for stream corridor protection. This program may begin
immediately after the designation of all flood prone land as
conservation areas or may be initiated on a lot-by-lot basis as
developers submit their sub-division or site plans.

Of the 420 undeveloped acres located in the 100-year flood plain
(excluding existing conservation areas), approximately 75% of the
land is privately owned; the remaining 25% is already either
owned by the Township or is owned by non-profit institutions. A
land acquisition program will require approximately $3 million
for the purchase of parcels and portions of parcels in the flood
plain.

An investigation was made of the potential impact on the
watershed tax base of not developing the flood plain land to the
uses indicated by the Master Plan. This analysis indicated that
at full development, the net budget surplus produced by the Pond
Run portion of the Township will be $6.6 million. Assuming that
no new development takes place in the 420-acre flood prone area,
tax revenues for the watershed will still produce a $5.6-million
surplus.

Funding for the flood plain acquisition can be made available
from the Township's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), New Jersey
Green Acres, or HUD Community Development Block Grants or a
combination of these sources. Because it may be assumed that

*The Township ordinance allows low density single-family
residential construction in conservation areas (lots of at
least 5 acres in area), as well as farming and recreational
activities.

135

ROBINSON & COLLIER

flIood plain land will have some recreational uses, its
acquisition may be. capitalized, which means it would be exempt
from the state "Cap Law." In addition, funds currently set aside
for drainage improvements could be re-allocated for flood plain
acquisition.

The Green Acres Program, administered by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, is designed to assist
municipalities in acquiring and/or developing land for open space
and recreation purposes. Grants up to 50% of land -and
development costs are available for parks, recreation areas and
conservation open space.

Hamilton Township is already a participant in the Community
Development Block Grants/Discretionary Grants program sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development.
This program provides grants for a wide range of activities,
including acquisition, rehabilitation and construction of certain
public works and improvements. The program is eligible for joint
funding with related federal and state assistance programs.

Performance Standards

The second strategy which may be used to implement the stream
corridor program is performance standards. As used in this
description of stream corridor protection strategies,
"performance standards" refers to land development standards that
are either stricter than those required by, the Township Land
Development Ordinance, or are at variance with the existing
zoning map. The performance standards apply to all parcels of
land which are partially or wholly in the flood plain and those
lands contiguous with the flood plain having seasonally high
water tables. The portion of a parcel within the 100-year flood
plain should not be substantially altered from its natural state;
allowable uses include those specified for conservation areas.
The remaining portion may be developed provided "appropriate
performance standards" are applied.

Many vacant parcels are split between flood plain and non-flood
plain areas. When this occurs, the approach should be to
transfer either density or intensity of use to the area outside
the flood plain. Development under these circumstances should be
deemed a "special cluster," with land in the flood plain used for
common open space and for fulfilling yard requirements. Such
transfer must be approved by the governing body of Hamilton
Township after it has been found that such transfer will not
adversely affect adjacent neighborhoods.

This approach works well if the portion inside the flood plain is
a small percentage of the parcel. When this is the case, the
change in density or intensity on the developable portion will
not have adverse affects on adjacent land uses. In instances
where the split is half and half, or 95% flood plain and 5%

136

ROBINSON & COLLIER

non-flood plain, it is recommended that the Township acquire the
entire parcel.

The performance standards to be applied to the contiguous high
water table soils outside the flood plain include: erosion and
sediment controls as described in Section 522 of the "Land
Development Ordinance of the Township of Hamilton"; and more
rigorous septic tank testing procedures to guarantee proper
performance under all conditions. Testing should take place
between December and April when water table levels are highest.

Stormwater Management Implementation: At the present time, the
Township utilizes the stormwater detention requirements recommended
by Mercer County. Because of the severe flood problem in the Pond
Run watershed, it was strongly recommended that the Township adopt
its own comprehensive approach to stormwater management. The
components of this program were incorporated into the
recommendations which follow.

� Design Storm for Detention Basins

The storm frequency recommended by Mercer County for designing
stormwater detention facilities is the 15-year flood.* This
requirement may be satisfactory for watersheds which do not have
extensive existing flood plain development. Because Pond Run and
the North Branch of Pond Run contain extensive developed areas
subject to floods, it is recommended that all stormwater
management controls be designed so that the peak flow rates (from
a 100-year flood) after development be less than or equal to
pre-development peak flow rates.

- Area Stormwater Detention Basins

An alternative to requiring each developer to install detention
facilities is the construction of three to five large-scale
detention basins. The advantages of this approach include
better Township control over stormwater runoff, reduced
maintenance requirements and creation of opportunities to reduce
existing flooding problems. The watershed stormwater model
developed for the current study can be utilized to evaluate the
potential retention sites.

Should large-scale detention facilities prove feasible, the
Township could build basins and be reimbursed by upstream
developers. An advantage to the developers is that they would
not have to set aside a portion of their property for on-site
detention facilities. Programs of this type have been
implemented elsewhere. A preliminary review of the watershed has

*A flood of magnitude with a 6.7 percent chance of being equaled
or exceeded in any given year.

137

ROBINSON & COLLIER

indicated that only a few potentially suitable sites for
large-scale detention facilities remain available. It was
recommended that an analysis of this alternative should be made
so that appropriate detention pond areas can be reserved.

Stormwater Manaqement Manual

A stormwater management handbook should be prepared for use by
developers. The manual should contain stormwater management
regulations, calculation methodologies and application
procedures. The calculation methodology will reflect the
modifications to TR-20 and TR-55 (Urban Hydrology for Small
watersheds, Technical Release 55 (USDA SCS)) developed during
this study.

V. APPLICABILITY TO AREAS OUTSIDE HAMILTON TOWNSHIP

The two principal recommendations designed to mitigate the
impacts of potential urban development in the Pond Run Watershed---
protection of stream corridors and stonriwater management--can be
applied to the majority of watersheds in urban and urbanizing
areas. The dimensions of the stream corridors and degree of
stormwater management proposed for Pond Run are partially a function
of the broad flood plain and gently sloping terrain and the existing
flood plain development pattern. Although flood plain
characteristics and open space opportunities vary considerably,
preserving a naturally vegetated stream buffer, prohibiting upstream
channelization, prohibiting fill in the flood plain, and applying
stormwater management will greatly assist in achieving the goal of
sound urban watershed management.

138

ROBI1NSON & COLLIER

Figure 4
100-Year Flood Hazard Area

.~~~~~~~~~~~~ .......... ...

... ...... . .~FEE

.~~Fgr ..........
.~~ ~Sra .orrd.rScheati

Allowable. ..... Al..bl ........ra 10'Cntgs~
...S . ..... ... . ..... N.tr . . sil..tf
Any use Agricul- Passive Aegetation n.....h..a...
meeting~ ~~~~~ . . . . . . . . . . . ...bl
.........c .....a ..t......i.........
........ . .... . ..........
.............(ie era- Wasente
rent ... ......teceto
..res ..............
owe.. ......a..........

LEGEND~~~~~~~~3

Ill. CASE EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS

NATURAL DRAINAGE IN THE WOODLANDS
NARENDRA JUNEJA AND JAMES VELTMAN
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Philadelphia, PA and APPLE Design Group, Houston, TX

Background The professional team utilized the serv-
ices of a number of specialist consultants
A little over ten years ago, Mr. George during the various stages of planning and
Mitchell expanded his oil and gas corpor- design.
ate interests to include land development.
The newly-formed Mitchell Energy and De- The attraction of the Woodlands site
velopment Corporation undertook small for development derives from two compli-
recreational and development projects mentary locational attributes. Firstly, it is
around the metropolitan Houston region. located athwart the major interstate high-
Mr. Mitchell, through the inspiration of his way leading northwards from Houston and
own personal leisure activities at his "Wood- the airport. Secondly, it is a gatepost into
land Ranch" in Montgomery County, Tex- the only extensive natural forest in the re-
as, decided that a more satisfactory subur- gion. (Fig. 1) The desire of exploiting this
ban living environment was indeed possible rich and diverse resource as a woodlands
than the one afforded by most of the pre- setting for human occupancy must ensure
vailing developments in the region. Assem- that the necessary artifacts, viz houses,
bly of significant acreage initiated planning roads and utilities, are so located and de-
and design for a 20,000 acre tract, which signed that enough of the Woodlands en-
ultimately has resulted in the Woodlands, a dure in good health. Even the most cursory
HUD Title VII new community, located 35 examination reveals the necessity for de-
miles north of Houston. veloping some innovative strategies, if this
objective is to be realized. The natural for-
It was realized that the magnitude of est types have evolved within the ecological
the undertaking required augmentation of context of a humid, subtropical climatic
the "in-house" staff capabilities of Messrs. regimen operating over relatively recently
James McAlister, David Hendricks and emerged geologic formations of the Gulf
Robert Hartsfield. A professional planning
team was assembled to work with the staff
of the Mitchell Energy and Development
Corporation to realize Mr. Mitchell's insis-
tent objective that the proposed develop-
ment plan be comprehensive, innovative
and bring to the real estate market a better
product that would respect the land and its
natural amenities, while ensuring that it is
fully marketable in the Houston region.

William L. Periera and Associates:
Master Planning
Wallace McHarg Roberts and Todd:
Ecological Planning
Robert Gladstone and Associates:
Market Research
Richard P. Brown and Associates:
Engineering and Master Planning As-
sistance Fig. 1 Regional Context

143

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

Woodlands-prior to development

The Woodlands Fig. 3 Regional Aquifers

Coastal Plain. The interaction of these two produce a sparse surface network of streams
major elements has produced an extremely which are characterized by low base flow
flat topography and fine textured, highly and very high peak flows. Surface storage
leached, palendults soils. (Fig. 2) Poor of water in reservoirs is at the cost of pre-
drainage and extensive surface flooding is emption of land area and also subject to
the regional characteristic which at once wasteful high evaporative losses. On the
supports the natural woodlands and, simul- other hand, the same operative natural pro-
taneously, represents anathema to human cesses have produced a bountiful availabil-
occupants who, as a rule, prefer to live with ity of sub-surface water. The unconsolidated
dry feet. A strategy was required to permit sand, gravel, silt and clay geologic forma-
adequate dryness to accommodate the needs tions, saturated with water, extend uniform-
of projected human population in the ly throughout the region. Their downward
Woodlands in close juxtaposition with the dip towards the Gulf Coast enables perpet-
saturated conditions required for survival ual recharge over the outcrop areas in the
of the desirable woodlands. northwest and potential withdrawals of
substantive amounts under artesian condi-
The necessity for development of such tions in the southeast. (Fig. 3) This resource
an adaptive strategy is further reinforced value can be sustained as long as the two
by the recognition of the vulnerability of ends are maintained in balance. Not only
another major natural resource-water. The regulation of withdrawals is required, but it
prevailing climatic and geologic regimens is important to ensure adequate recharge

WtSaM HUllOMAA it =~.

Fig. 2 Regional Pedology Typical surface flooding

144

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

complished through development of water
budgets for the existing undeveloped con-
,t.:.:;.': ........ dition and for the projected total future
population. (Fig. 5) The latter provided for
.....'� 4/� ~~ ,.,.>.. withdrawal of 15 mgd from the aquifers
from evenly dispersed wells. This amount is
well within the estimated 20 mgd flow
through the principal artesian aquifer be-
neath the site. To ensure that the eventual
Fig. 4Typical Urbanization Effects water lost from the system is held to a min-
imum, a commitment was made to return
most of the withdrawn amount (10 mgd re-
vcCO � O . ... . maining after estimated consumption losses
R[ ......c~ Eof 5 mgd) back into the ground through
E o" Rsurface application of treated effluent. Ad-
. l ~.l ditionally, it was decided to utilize no
'.; _; ftE ^storm sewer system. All surface runoff was
. . . to be handled through retention at the
ground surface. This will permit its recharge
into the ground or allow graduated flow
Fig. 5 Water Budgets through existing drainage channels. (Fig. 6)

within the outcrop areas. Orthodox devel- The operation of such "natural" drain-
opment practices prevent recharge function age system required a careful examination
to occur through extensive paving, compac- of the natural runoff conditions on the site.
tion and the attendant drainage "improve- Then prospective development could be re-
ments" whereby the water. is moved rapid- lated to it to ensure ideally a minimum
ly over the surface and through conduits. change from the natural condition, or to
(Fig. 4) In addition to resource depletion, identify the magnitude of compensatory
this dewatering of subsurface formations action required to restore the natural bal-
also increases the hazard of surface subsi- ance. Among the three major contributors
dence. Previous unregulated practices in the in runoff production, the incident precipi-
region have indeed produced subsidence in tation is a fixed entity which remains un-
Houston. changed. The existing condition is uniform-
ly forested and thus the ideal state for min-
First General Plan imizing runoff. Except for some exceptional
quality stands which require protection for
The Woodlands planning started with their intrinsic ecological value, the remain-
a detailed ecological inventory1 and a par- der of forest provides no guide for prospec-
allel market study which identified both tive development as all development will re-
the numbers and types of development to suit in pronounced runoff increase, modi-
be accommodated on the site. First major fied only slightly by its own characteristic
matching of resource and demand was ac- cover combinations in the developed state.
The last contributor in runoff production
is the permeable nature of the ground sur-
face itself. This is the most variable factor,
I|/ I / / ,/ /' both in the natural state due to soils varia-
bility and in the developed state due to the
-/ / | / | , ,' / / / -variable amount of impervious surfaces as-
/ / 1 a ' - / / / ~ sociated with different development types.
Ce4 w L .~C In the Woodlands site, soils range from rela-
.P..RME....... � W W ~ tively impervious (Sorter with Soils Index
of .2) to highly porous (Boy, Leefield and
,,CHN,,,E Fuqua with Soil Index of 20). Prospective
Fig. 6 Proposed Recharge of Runoff residential development types range from

145

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

GMA Ne. T-m Rh

=,,4,, t5 ::N kOS � E ''

t<4, 2 S S

N STORM WATER R AUNOFF TIME INCREASES

Fig. 8 Development for Effective Recharge

Village
Fig. 7 Surface Recharge Potential
Darkest tones represent highly permeable soils, absence
of tone is representative of impervious soils, while middle
gray tones represent intermediate recharge value. Major
floodplains are in heavy outline.

Town
Fig. 9 Conceptual Development Plans

Fig. 10 Synthesis: Development Opportunities Fig. 11 General Plan

146

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

from 22.5% impervious surface (single Phase I Plan
family detached) to 55% (attached town-
houses); while commercial areas may ap- The detailed planning of Phase I began with
proximate 100% coverage. detailed data inventory at a scale commen-
surate with its 1900 acres extent. The pre-
Interpretation of soils data revealed vious investigation for the overall 20,000
that the most permeable soils generally oc- acres had already signalled that the south-
cur at lowerelevationsalongthefloodplains, east portion of the site was relatively lim-
the most impervious soils occupy the flat ited in terms of runoff management oppor-
uplands, and intermediate recharge soils oc- tunities. The enormity of the problem be-
cur on sloping areas in between. Overlaying came manifest when detailed topography
this distribution with drainage area bound- and soils data became available. Substantial
aries enabled identification of a generalized parts of Phase I site area are occupied by
development pattern which located higher impermeable soils and have very low sur'
intensity development on higher elevations. face gradients. (Fig. 12) The commitment
(Fig.7) As this is coincident with imperme- to a "natural" drainage system faced a
able soils which produce higher runoff in very difficult challenge.
the natural state, lesser amount of excess
runoff will result through their develop- The adaptive solution emerged through
ment. Less intensive development on the detailed site investigation when it was ob-
intermediate slopes and reservation of high served that although the overall gradients
recharge soils next to floodplains as com- were low, at the micro level slight eleva-
munity open space would permit most of tional changes were discernible. Further
the excess runoff generated to be recharged observations revealed that these micro
within individual drainage basins. (Fig. 8) topographic variations are coincident with
Aggregation of excess runoff throughout soil type interfaces. Often, the more per-
the site will be avoided and distributed re- meable soil types (Boy) displayed a higher
charge along the floodplains will help mod- relief and gradient compared to adjacent
erate stream flows. The distribution of de- excessively flat impermeable soils (Splen-
velopment densities also conforms with the dora). The next observation logically rein-
social objective of the overall town to corm- forced the universal adaptive principle that
prise of discrete "village" clusters. (Fig. 9)

Interpretation and synthesis of all
other natural, (Fig. 10) social and econom-
ic factors led to the development of the
First General Plan. (Fig. 11) The Plan2 re- -__
ceived approval of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
which granted it a guaranteed loan under
its Title VII program.3 Review of market
factors led to demarcation of the southeast
corner of the site as the most opportune
location for the first stage development.
Market factors also led to the necessity of
modifying the land uses allocated to this
part of the site in the General Plan. Essen-
tially, higher magnitude of residential de-
velopment complemented by commercial
recreation facilities was required to be ac-
commodated. Fig. 12 Impermeable & Poor Surface Drainage

147

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

the most stressful environment (frequent ye. 1-
flooding contrasting with low moisture
availability during dry episodes) represented
by the flat impervious soils was occupied
by vegetation of low diversity, while the '!,".. o
more equable environment of Boy soils "'::;J�
supported the densest and most diverse .
vegetation type. The adaptive solution '
evolved to suggest utilization of these soil .
interfaces as primary recharge zones
through their preservation as open space
elements to which most of the surface
drainage from adjacent impermeable sur-
faces is directed. (Fig. 13) A variety of de-
sign strategies were developed to make this
possible. (Fig. 14) The general implication C Check Damson Permeable Soils
of extensive development over impermeable .
.......~ Impermeable Soils:
soils and its absence from the permeable Thu~ica& Soils interface Recharge
soils is consonant with the objective of
woodlands protection as the poorer less Lateral Recharge Impoundments
Fig. 13 Detail: Recharge Strategy

, r R)'~r' ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pROpOSED ON EPEEAPSEI SOILS Ro0n ElSES l o
General Principle On Permeable Soils

Lateral Recharge: Section Lateral Recharge: Plan

Soil Interface Recharge: Diagram Possible Development Pattern
Fig. 14 Adaptive Design Strategies

148

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

Canopy " - COIOO

r \ SE J > = g j v OUVEGET OTION
= ____ E IMPEROEAZILE SOILS

; ____,r 1 Fig. 17 Phase I Synthesis

- - Z - z " ; .'' '" '

Understory
Source: Dr. Robert HaasMichael McCaskell,Texas A&MU
Fig. 15 Vegetation Mapping

......'�.......i

Fig. 16 Vegetation Protection Fig. 18 Phase I Plan

diverse vegetation types are subjected to a tection. Minimum stand sizes and configur-
higher pressure for removal. ations could be inferred to ensure their sur-
vival as viable woodlands. (Fig. 16)
Once the concept had emerged, it was
very carefully related to detailed site appli- The overall plan development for
cation. Rigorous vegetation surveys (Fig.1 5) Phase 14 started with special delineation of
enabled refined delineation of site types for floodplains alo n g major drainage channels,
various development intensities; typ he high recharge soils and vegetation stands of
same time permitted identification of high- the highest quality, (Fig. 17), all of which
ly valued species as well as stands for pro- are precluded from development. Next,

149

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~OOOIIO~AU*0HIO0OEIIXOIOXIIIU

DIagrammatic Profile Cleared to 90% 0 .III0 CO KGT WL
A Soils ':

70% o~~l uii~1i 3o

O1111 OC00 D0 C c
Diagrammatic Profile Cleared to 751% 0.1111K 0000C0050 00
B Soils ,,,,.,.,pI

0% , 30g

oiagrammati Paofie Cleared to 50%Aak �s
C Soils

UCERED VGETATON -MAXIMUM PERMITTED CLEARANCE FOR A SO011�

oHAROWOOD --MAXIMUM PERMITTED CLEARANCE FOR 8 0OI1�
Diagrammatic Profile Cleared to 100% * FNE ---MAXIMXM PERMITTED CLEARANCE FOR C SOILS'
D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~Sol 111 ERBACEOUS
% Area H~~~I LOWLAND HARDWOOD V VRY LARGE TREES
H HARDWOOD P1MEDIU SIZE TREES
that can be H. UPLAND HARDWOOD WIHOCSOA IE OPEN. WIT. FEW TREES
H"I LOWLAN PARDWOO DENSELY SPACED TREES
soil made I mper- L OWpN HARDWOOD WITH OCCA SIONLPN
Group Soil Types Capacity meable Hpl U LA.ND HARDWOO00D WIT. OCCASIONAL PINE
A Lakeland, Eustis High 90% P. PINE-HARDWOOD RROO
B Boy, Albany Medium 75% h P PIE WIIusuT. OCCASIONAL HARDH.O
C Fuquay, Lucy, Leefield,
Bruno, W~icksburg Low 50%
0 Angie, Crowley, Segno, 1 00% (effec-
Sorter, Splendora, None tively imper-
Susquehanna, Waller meable under
present condi
tions)

Fig. 19 Permitted Coverage Fig. 20 Permitted Clearance

Desired Densities
1 2,75 4 6 10 Is 40
Net Attainable Densities

I LHLEPESOOLUO1 Soil Drainage Groups iA,BC)
AO, IOHUuC, A il IUBIXC I AI bi <lIc C AAIICI JA8UIDIICJAECJIA18id
'IPX ~~~REMAINING UNCLEARED (NET PARCEL,
POPU~pIHHX P~HI~HREQUIHED UNCLEAREDA
A\~~~~-6 HOOOHPPH FOR SOIL DRAINAGE

~~~'0% >\.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z$'~~~~~~ ~- N C-1-LUPUUO A

S~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S I SH IPH 1-OPTHI AXXERLTXO A

1OTF.1- T11 11 H

IOU LUCREI DEVELOPMENT TYPES AND NET DENSITIES

Fig. 21 Development Types' Clearance/Coverage Requirement and Accommodation

150

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

major infrastructural elements, i.e., roads
and golf fairways, are located to direct
drainage towards high recharge areas. (Fig.
18) Finally,designguidelinesaredeveloped 2 'A
to ensure that the intensity of development
is in response to the localized recharge po- 3
tential (Fig. 19) through limiting the S3T
amount of site coverage (impervious area) 4 LI: a
andto the localized vegetation through limit- 33
ing the amount of site clearance. (Fig. 20) '
The coverage/clearance combinations are
related to the marketable development _lAC
types to determine their spatial allocation.
(Fig. 21) For detailed site design, a hand- KC
book of design guidelines5 is made avail-
able which permits the individual developer 3
/designer to replicate the process at the ',1*
scale of his own development area. (Fig. 22) ,L
a3 DsosCs A 5,EGs-.s S. T-,3 T

Fig. 22 Design Guidelines Key

km t{ X

Recharge Potential Valuable Vegetation

Permitted Clearance Site Plan
Fig. 23 Design Guides Application

151

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

Realization tract was planned with 6 single family de-
tached houses, planned and laid out along a
The methodology and use of design twenty-foot wide private drive. This plan,
guidelines is demonstrated through its ap- developed by one of the authors while he
plication to a 48-acre development parcel was Director of Environmental Planning at
within Phase I. The parcel is bisected by a the Woodlands Development Corporation,
minor collector and surrounded on three involved several key elements. The first
sides by the golf course. The program calls major factor was tree preservation, there-
for accommodation of 113 units. Selected fore all foundations were designed as pier
illustrations of the stepped procedure are and beam foundations-a unique innova-
included here. (Fig. 23) Photographs are tion, in contrast to the typical building
of already built similar situations elsewhere methods in the region.
within Phase I.
The second factor was controlled
A more dramatically successful in- clearing and freedom to change building
stance of design application and its realiza- locations on actual site based upon local
tion is illustrated and was an experiment on tree locations with site clearance to be kept
the part of the developer. A six-acre tract to a minimum (2 feet outside of foundation
of land was divided into 6-one (1) acre pri- lines). The third factor was drainage, which
vate drive "cul-de-sacs." The first one acre was intentionally no site drainage, because

Collector Street

Residential Street

Cul-de-Sac

152

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

of soil conditions (Boy soils) except drain-
ing of the driveway. The fourth factor was
total restriction of site grading. The exist-
ing condition was retained for minimum
tree root disturbance and lastly, no lawn
areas were to be allowed. All landscaping
would utilize native woodland species.

Site layout and construction sched-
uling were carefully developed on the site
itself. The architect for the residences,
Charles Tapley, was assisted in the siting
of the dwelling units and now, five years
later, the finished reality belies the fact
that it is a very intensive development of
six single family detached units per acre,
that drain sufficiently and have preserved
the character of the original Southern
Piney forest.

Pier-beam foundations and limited clearance

Individual variations for recharge Swale crossing Finished reality

153 Juneja/Veltman

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

Evaluation

All stages of the Woodlands planning
and design development have been based L
upon excellent data and subjected to rig-
orous analysis. The technical aspects of
storm water management were dealt with
by Messrs. D.E. Winslow and W.H. Espey,
Jr. A monitoring project was funded by the
Municipal Environmental Research Labora- Fig. 24
tory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and conducted by the Department of Envi-
ronmental Science and Engineering, Rice
University, Houston Texas, to focus on
methods maximizing the use of water re-
sources in a planned urban environment, S IMPERVIOS PAING
while minimizing their degradation. Sum-
mary reporting of these is presented here. E SPAVNG
400 ,EVOUSAVING
Winslow and Espey developed a
model6 to identify Storm Runoff Hydro- UNDEVELOPED CONDITIO
graph as part of the General Plan evaluation.
The model employed formulae developed
by them based upon empirical observations 2 -,
of five watersheds in the Houston region.
The method consists of developing unit
hydrograph for a given drainage basin in. ..
the form of a runoff hydrograph resulting e
from one inch of rainfall excess (i.e., 0 NIEW
0 150 300 450 600 1 750 9001
runoff) falling at uniform rate over the TIME MINUTES
entire drainage area for a specified duration Adapted from Winslow and Espey.6
of 30 minutes. By developing such unit
hydrographs for each 30 minute increment
of the total runoff from a given storm SOINDEX 0.2
rainfall event and summirig them up a total
runoff hydrograph for the particular storm 600
can be obtained. For the Woodlands, an SILINDEX A
assumed 1 square mile of circular drainage SOILINDEX2.0
area, with slope and length of main channel 5-0
equal to the diameter of the circle and
under existing 'natural conditions of heavy 4 0 iINDEX1.0
vegetation yielded a peak discharge of 315 SOIL INDEX 20.0
cfs for a 25-year, 6-hour storm (6 inches in
6 hours, with 3 inches falling within the 300 : - i
first 30 minutes). It was further assumed ....
that the drainage area is underlain by
Splendora Soils with soil index (maximum
permeability in inches/hour) of 2.0, the soil
moisture index (i.e., antecedent precipita- w ,
tion index) is fairly moist and the drainage
area is undeveloped. Superimposing a
uniform development layout pattern (Fig. 0 150 o_3ol l...00 4. 75 0
24) of varying intensities (impervious TIME MINUTES
percentage from 22.6 to 34.7) produces Adapted from Winslow and Espey.6
increased peak discharges (from the base Fig. 26

154

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

discharge of 315 cfs) of 60 to 100%. The
60% increase resulting from single family 2
detached development (4 du/acre) is
illustrated here. (Fig. 25) Related increases 3 ..
in water quality parameters are 40-70% for -3-_ 13
suspended solids, 35-65% for nitrates, .4 / [ , /x" 'A
20-40% for COD and 65-120% for fecal 3 6 ! 8 14 12
streptococcus. - ,, 0

Holding all other parameters except -57a / I 41
the soil type constant, the hydrograph 8 /
variations for the previously illustrated 7
single family development type show r.- -- [
remarkable variations. The illustrated I L -
hydrographs (Fig. 26) are related to the 113)
following soil conditions within the drain-
age area: -
Soil Increased Peak C3C O. ,R0oo0o_
Index Soil Tvpe Discharge I I
Imper- Water-
20.0 Boy, Leefield, Fuqua Base Total Permea- meable shed as
11.0 50% Splendora, 50% Boy 7% Wa- Area ble Soils Soils % of
2.0 Splendora, Waller 33% ter- (.9 ac. (in .9 ac. %to (in .9 ac. % to Phase I
1.1 50% Splendora, 50% Sorter 43% shed units) units) Total units) Total Area
0.2 Sorter 76% 1 18.07 12.00 66.5 6.07 33.5 1
3 10.67 7.35 68.9 3.32 33.1 1
4 33.78 31.78 94.1 2.00 5.9 2
The modelled water quality parameters 5 226.83 134.33 59.3 92.50 40.7 13
6 53.75 41.20 76.6 12.55 23.4 3
show parallel increases. The advantage of 7 70.9 4 56.64 79.8 14.30 20.2 4
locating various development types on ap- 8 534.31 326.55 71.1 207.76 28.9 30
9 327.22 202.40 61.8 124.82 38.2 19
propriatesoiltypesareamply demonstrated. 10 73.13 51.25 70.0 21.88 30.0 4
11 95.83 56.00 58.4 39.83 41.6 5
12 153.05 83.00 54.2 70.05 45.8 9
Finally, anothervariation was attempt- 13 77.77 50.00 64.2 27.77 35.8 4
14 91.21 55.00 60.0 36.21 40.0 5
ed to test the efficacy of selecting porous Total 1766.56 1107.50 63% 659.06 37% 100%
paving for streets and drives in lieu of im- 13A 32.04 16.50 51.4 15.54 48.6
pervious paving. Peak discharge reduction Fig. 27 Phase I Subdrainage Areas
of 26% and water quality improvements of
10-30% resulted. (Fig. 25)

During Phase I planning, the model
was refined7 to take into account the TPICAL.URAN
planned concept of sub-drainage areas with-
in larger units. The previous procedure was
modified to develop hydrographs for each
sub-drainage area. For each sub-area, spe- THE NATUR
cific soils occurrence determined the soil - m
indices employed. (Fig. 27) The accumula-
tion of sub-area hydrographs accounted for :
lag time while routing down the main chan- o i
'NDEVELOPEDCONDITION
nel. In summary, the following improve-
ments were noted in the percentage in-
creases from the base natural conditions: : ;:
Single Unit Accumulated I
Parameter Drainage Area Sub-Drainage AreasI I
Peak discharge 60-100 40-75 i
Suspended solids 40-70 30-55 o ',;
Nitrates 35-65 20-50 . R,
COD 20-40 15-35 o
Fecal Strepto- Adapted from Winslow and Espey.7
coccus 65-120 50-100 Fig. 28 "Natural" vs. Typical Drainage

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

It is obvious that further subdivisions lands one study site was selected to the
within the tested sub-drainage areas and al- north of Phase I area, while the other was
locations of development over more approp- located at the discharge point from the
riate soil complexes would produce im- Phase I area, parts of which were under
proved results. construction during the course of the
study. Two additional study sites were lo-
A summary run of the model for all of cated at each lower end of the two man-
Phase I revealed that a 55% increase in peak made lakes within Phase I Commercial,
discharge could be anticipated. This con- Leisure and Recreation Center. For com-
trasts with experienced 180% increases re- parison two other urbanized sites within
suiting from the current "normal" devel- Houston were studied during the same per-
opment practices in Houston. (Fig. 28) iod. A parallel study monitored the per-
formance of an experimental porous pave-
The monitoring research project8 by ment (parking lot) within the Woodlands.
Rice University team undertook a massive
sampling and monitoring program for a per- A selected representation (Fig. 29) of
iod extending from January 1975 to April "the pattern of nutrient response for the
1976. Rainfall, streamflow and over twenty urban developing and forested watersheds
five water quality parameters were moni- is distinctive, with the urban response pro-
tored on a regular basis. Within the Wood- ducing loads up to an order of magnitude
larger."9

-. 8rAnother salient finding of the study
!, indicates that significant portion of runoff
.9 � t J fpollutant loads of phosphates, nitrogen and
(D. / : Ad ,{f COD are directly attributable to the quality
., ye ' /~ / Az of rainwater. The capability of undisturbed

N o diminished when these are disturbed by de-
N. / Xy , 9 ,, / d '~ C velopment. Also, a linear relationship exists
xq. , -l E between total pollutant loads and total
J55a~e�� Z . P . . stormwater runoff. It can be inferred, that
, i, . j 2 N. i 2 3 the withholding of runoff by the Woodlands
" - "natural" drainage and minimization of
{. |, *'/ I� s/ /"disturbed" areas are extremely valuable
/' / " /f in improving stormwater quality. The study
X -" es / ! findings also confirm the beneficial value of
, Ot.. / porous pavings in performing this task.

l"" 0'o// o The ultimate test of any innovation
� - t X N.. *N= -�j . must finally be made by the people them-
g/ bo$$�; g LOPE _ selves. The developer, Woodlands Develop-
1 2 3 1 2 3 ment Corporation (and HUD), foresaw a
projected savings of $14,478,900 when it
Horizontal INCHES OF RUNOFF
Vertical POUNDS/ACRE

ooo..ooooe. Undeveloped Woodlands

;+ .- . + Phase I Woodlands

.. Houston Developed Residential

Houston Mixed Development
Adapted from Charaklis, at al.8
Fig. 29 Load-Runoff Relationships High-rise commercial under construction

156

JUNEJA & VELTMAN

undertook to adopt a "natural" drainage
system instead of a conventional storm
sewer system, the cost of which was esti-
mated to be $18,679,300. It has not been
possible to ascertain what portion of the
anticipated $4,200,400 to be spent for all
of the Woodlands for the innovative
drainage system have been spent. But, the
system has withstood the onslaught of
many a storm, including a record of 9" in 5 Recharge/holding pond in golf course
hours as recently as April 18, 1979, when
no house within the Woodlands flooded
while all adjacent subdivisions were awash.

In addition to the cost and safety
factors, the proposal was viewed with
forebodings about the unacceptability of
the resultant landscape which offered di-
verse woodlands instead of customary man-
icured lawns and few decorous trees. The
booming success and popularity of the Porous private drive
Woodlands in the Houston region are ample
testimony that those fears were indeed un-
true. The following statements are offered
as attestations:

Charles Kelley, local real estate broker, "It
is becoming more apparent that the
storm sewer systems are creating in- -
herent problems and there is a growing
awareness of the adequacy of the na-
tural drainage system because of its Swale at end of private drive
performance during extreme storm
conditions."
1. Wallace McHarg Roberts and Todd; Woodlands New
"We do have typ- Community: An Ecological Inventory.
Dav id Franklin, buil der, "Wea ; Woodlands New
ical developer problems, but having Community: An Ecological Plan.
built and lived here for four years, the 3. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Pro-
ject Agreement Between the United States of America
efforts are visible even in the lower- and the Woodlands Development Corporation; August
priced layouts." 1972.
4. Wallace McHarg Roberts and Todd; Woodlands New
Community: Phase One: Land Planning and Design
John Standish, resident, "It was well worth Principles.
157 Junejae; Woodlands New
it. We moved to the Woodlands espe- Community: Guidelines for Site Planning.
cially because of the planning effort 6. Winslow, D.E. and Espey, W.J., Jr.; Storm Runoff
Analysis of Residential Settings for the Woodlands;
involved. Can't say much for the build- TRACOR Project 077-022-01, Document No. T72-
ers, but the land plan and overall drain- AL-9585-U; September 1972.
7. ; Storm Water Qual-
age and tree preservation makes any ity Analysis: Phase I: The Woodlands; Espey, Huston
builder's house in the Woodlands & Associates, Document No. 7302-R1, EH&A Job No.
0011; May 1973.
worth it." 8. Charaklis, William G.; Gaudet. Frank J.; Roe, Frank L.
and Bedient, Philip B.; Maximum Utilization of Water
Resources in a Planned Community. Executive Sum-
Don Gebert, resident,"We've never had mary; Grant No. 802433 to the Department of Envi-
problems with our area. We love it, ronmental Science and Engineering, Rice University,
Houston. Texas; Municipal Environmental Research
especially the greenbelt behind our Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. U.S.
house. Must be it was planned well. Environmental Protection Agency; {undated) Work
completed December 31. 1976.
Think it's great." 9. Ibid.

157 Juneja/Veltman

IMPLEMENTATION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN A

CANADIAN MUNICIPALITY: THE MARKHAM

EXPERIENCE WITH SITE TAILORED CRITERIA

PAUL E. WISNER1, DIPEN MUKHERJEE2 AND DALO KELIAR2

1Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
2Town of Markham, Ontario, CANADA

I. INTRODUCTION

Runoff-control from new developments by means of Storm Water Man-
agement (SWM) measures has become increasingly accepted in North
America. Its role is to minimize the effects of hydrologic changes such
as downstream flooding, erosion, impairment of water quality. Whenever
possible, it is attempted to derive benefits for recreation, irrigation,
etc. (Tourbier and Westmacott, 1974). Many regulations assume that it
is possible to achieve these objectives by means of simple rules based
on "zero runoff increase" above pre-development levels, applied for de-
sign storms with one or several recurrence intervals. Since the "pre-
development runoff" is difficult to define, and without adequate
measurements may vary considerably with the modelling techniques (Wisner,
Kassem, Cheung, 1979), some jurisdictions have preferred to recommend a
fixed post-development discharge rate. Examples of such criteria which
seem to vary from one jurisdiction to the other without obvious reasons,
are given in Table 1 (Lager and Smith, 1974).

Replacement of the real objectives by simplified "surrogate" ob-
jectives is very frequently encountered in the regulatory process of
various water resources activities. Typical examples are the floodline
delineation for the "one in hundred year flow", the drainage design for
say "5 year storms" or the requirement of water quality management to
achieve say 5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen. Implementation of simplified cri-
teria of course facilitates the regulatory process and leads to relative-
ly routine design.

A case by case analysiZ based on specific conditions of each site
is, on the other hand, advocated by those who would like to optimize the
selected alternative in terms of tangible and intangible benefits. This
approach is at present possible in Ontario and in most Canadian pro-
vinces, where there are no stringent runoff control regulations similar
to those described in Table 1. An extensive research program on Storm
Water Management was conducted between 1973-1978 under provision of the
Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality. As a result, a

159

WISNER et al.

a general document on policies for urban drainage management was draf-
ted by a committee including representatives from various Ontario
agencies. The draft document which is presently circulated for review
presents p~itncipC&. and genekaZ u~quiJtemenit,5 for master drainage plans,
pollution control strategies, evaluation of hydrologic changes, imple-
mentation of dual drainage system, erosion control, etc., but does not
indicate specific rules~similar to those described in Table 1.

Under those conditions, Storm Water Management and Runoff Control
Measures are implemented according to the experience and needs of Muni-
cipalities and Conservation Authorities.* Some municipalities have con-
sequently adopted the "zero runoff increase principle" while others
favor a more flexible approach.

Bazed on .the. ecpexitence wi&th eve~a2 pilo-t putjec.tz, -the. Town oJ
Mcadzham ha,6 developed tuno66 con~t~wo c,,utex& bas~ed on site-pe~ci~c
ana~yiZ6L. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach which may
be of interest for comparison with the experience in the application of
simpler regulatory measures, will be discussed by means of examples in
the next sections. The first writer was responsible for the philosophy
of the criteria and developed some of the technical solutions carried on
in several pilot projects. The Town Engineers had the difficult task of
the implementation of the criteria and storm water management facili-
ties. The actual design was the result of a cooperative effort of many
professionals from various consulting firms and reviewing agencies.
Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARKHAM SWK CRITERIA

The Town of Markham, located at the North East of Metropolitan
Toronto, is an example of a fast developing community with various po-
tential problems caused by runoff increase. Storm water from some of
the new developments is discharged southwards to Scarborough where some
areas have experienced severe flooding and others are drained by very
large channels designed for the 1/25 year storm. Other new develop-
ments, in the northern part of Exhibition Creek, for example, discharge
in existing channels with culverts built many years ago with a lower
level of protection than presently required by the Metropolitan Toronto
Regional Conservation Authority. Other developments will discharge in
scenic streams and ponds such as Togood Pond and Bruce Creek.

The Municipal Council and the Town Engineers realized at the early
stage of development that traditional drainage projects submitted by
some developers will result in environmental problems and high costs
including payments for increases in capacity of storm sewers in the
neighbouring municipality.

Recent experience of other municipalities in Metro Toronto which
have undergone intensive development several years earlier, showed that
for a traditional drainage even with an increase of design frequency it
is not possible to avoid flooding. Two situations which occurred not

In Ontario the Conservation Authorities are organized on a watershed
basis between other responsibilities are also in charge with flood
plain management.

160

WISNER et al.

too far from the Markham boundaries were of particular interest. The
first was the flooding of a group of condominiums caused partly by a
discharge from the major system. The second was the flooding and
damage to basements in an expensive residential area caused by storm
sewer surcharge during a very severe storm. (The foundation drains in
the area as in most Metro Toronto are in general connected to the sewers
which results in case of surcharge in back up flooding and uplifts
effects.) These situations generated interest in improved major drain-
age design and inlet controls.

After a review of the state of the art, lectures and a study tour
of Council Members, Staff and Developers in Montgomery County, it was
decided to implement Storm Water Management on all new developments.
It was considered, however, that this should be done in a flexible, site
tailored way rather than by stringent regulations.

The preliminary Markham Criteria for Storm Water Management (1978)
follow a systems approach. The general objectives of the Storm Water
Management projects are to economically achieve safety against flooding
and health hazards, minimization of environmental impacts and to de-
rive recreational or aesthetic benefits. In order to achieve these
goals criteria developed with the assistance of the first writer re-
quire that all SWM studies be conducted in two phases.

The phase I study has to define prior to any design the specific
problems of the drainage system and especially the restrictions related
to (i) erosion control, (ii) flood control, (iii) inadequate outlet
capacity, and (iv) impairment in receiving water bodies. The first
phase study has to examine several drainage alternatives, including a
traditional one and various levels of runoff control. It has to
"asess each atternative on the basis of economics, environmental and
ecological impacts, compatibility with generLat development plan and
evolve preliminary cost estimates foL comparison."

As a result of the Markham criteria, some SWM studies considered
not only "zero runoff increase" but other types of control as well. It
was found that in some situations post-development flow should be smal-
ler than the pre-development flow. This concept of "over control" may
be considered if there is no outlet capacity or if there is already
downstream flooding under existing conditions. In other projects, post-
development flows are reduced as compared to traditional drainage, but
were maintained larger than the pre-development flow. The flow in-
crease for this "partial control" can be dictated by economic considera-
tions and local impacts. It is also possible, as in the case study
described in the following paragraph, to have "partial control" for say
the 5 year storm and "over control" for the 1/25 year storm. It is
suggested to adopt the name of "selective control" for this approach
which is different from the "generalized" zero-runoff increase con-
sidered by some regulations (Figure 1).

After approval of the "Phase I-SWM study" by the municipality and
the various regulatory agencies, developers have to submit a "Phase II-
SWM study" which has "to present the design and operation details of a
well conceived Storm Water Management scheme that defines the drainage
patre~n for the watershed."

161

WISNER et al.

Both the first and second stage will consider protection against
basement flooding for flows with return periods from 2 years (design
condition for pipes) to 25 and if technically feasible for 100 years
(design condition for the major system). In particular, if foundation
titec are connected to stotm ewersZ, sutchaAge conditions fo intense
stomsn have to be checked against basement elevation.

According to the Markham criteria, hydrologic modelling should be
carried on based on a hierarchical approach, and is in general more
sophisticated than required by the regulations reviewed by Debo (1974)
or Poertner (1974). It is also required that calculation of storage
and development of hydrographs "should be carried on by an experienced
hydrologist". This accounts for the present state of the art on urban
hydrology and the concept that the experience of the modeler is more
important than the features of the model.

The Rational Method is accepted for preliminary pipe design. For
predevelopment flows and major system analysis, consultants may select
a hydrograph model such as HYMO, ILLUDAS or SWMM but have to justify it
according to their experience and the nature of the specific problem.
All the data and basic parameters such as soils infiltration rates, and
slopes should be given in an appendix of the SWM study.

Modelling in stage I is done with design storms which should cover
a frequency range from 1/2 year to 1/100 year. For preliminary studies
it is possible to use the Chicago storm profile while the 24 hours
storm or S.C.S. is used for rural conditions.

In stage II, "when the watershed exceeds say 40 ha, the minor
system should be checked by detailed computation for ensuAing propea
operation contAot, maximizing the use of in-system storage and the
undergtound storage. Such simulation would eventually permit conttoz
of any surcharge that would exist in the pipe system due to outf4ow
consttaints. ComputeA mode.z such as SWM with the WRE TRANSPORT model
can be used fot such modeLing. It is fuAtheA understood that the
siting of the building wil be such as not to allow surchatge from the
sewet to affect the basement."

Another important provision for phase II regards the meteorological
input. "ActuLat operation of the designed system has to be anatyzed and
it wowed be beneficial to bsimulate one ot two criticat histoAia storm
events, in terms o6 outflow rates and outflow voZumes ptior to
finalizing the drainage scheme. This would be in addition to simufa-
ting the system Jot the design events".

The criteria do also indicate the need 6or a landscaping puj ect
for all surface storage units.

The application of the criteria including the analysis of the major
drainage system and the acceptability of "selective control" are illus-
trated by an example of an alternative adopted in several projects.

III. PARK STORAGE FOR THE MAJOR SYSTEM

Routing of overland flows on streets for major storms is a

162

WISNER et al.

physical reality which was not considered until recently. The "dual
drainage" concept apparently described for the first time in the Denver
Drainage Manual (Wright, McLaughlin, 1969) requires appropriate street
grading, analysis of street flow elevations and consideration of street
outflows. In several recent Markham projects the access to storm sewers
flows exceeding the capacity of pipes within acceptable surcharge is
limited by constrictions in the catchbasins or "inlet controls".* Ex-
cess street flows are controlled using storage in depressed areas in
the parks. Street grading is designed to direct the overland flow to
low points located at the walkways to parks. Since "inlet controls" are
usually designed for 5 year storms, overflow in the parks occurs rarely
and maintenance problems are reduced as compared to the "dry ponds"
used, for example, in Maryland. Pacuks and parkettes have to be strate-
gically located at the early stages of planning; one of them being elta-
tivety close to the outlet.

Outflows from parks are controlled to 0.150 m /s or less, and con-
sequently during any major storm the outflow is practically equal to the
pipe flow. In some projects, such as North East Markham, the 5 year
pipe flow, significantly larger than the pre-development 5 year flow
and somewhat less than the 25 year post-development flow was considered
acceptable after an analysis of downstream conditions. In other situa-
tions such as West Riseborough, the post-development flow was reduced
by means of underground storage by means of an oversized "superpipe".
The operation of this "dual storage" system is described in Figures 2
and 3.

The depression in the park area must meet the storage requirements
for overland flow from a 100 year storm. Parks are landscaped
accordingly. Eventual sport facilities may be located at an inter-
mediate level and their flooding frequency reduced correspondingly.
Parks were also used in some projects to store overflows from the pipe
system if the surcharge level exceeds the prescribed elevation (Wisner
and Kassem, 1979).

In West Riseborough, the outflow from the pipe system resulted
from a trade-off with the downstream municipality, the Borough of Scar-
borough. Markham was allowed some increase of the 1/2 and 1/5 years
flows above the pre-development level which led to a reduction of the
cost of the superpipe. In exchange, 1/25 year flows are reduced to
less than pre-development level (over-control) which alleviates Scar-
borough flooding problems, which are mainly caused by the lack of capa-
city of the major system.

Analysis of several projects indicates that park storage require-
ments for the 1/100 year overland flows, assuming a mean depth of 3 ft,
can be met with approximately 3% of the area of a development. Since
the area dedicated for parks represents approximately 5%, it was found
that over-control of large flows is possible without other additional
land dedication and expenditures but landscaping and pipe connections.

A study for the sizing of inlet controls was carried on by Dr. R. Town-
send and the first author in the hydraulic laboratory of the Universi-
ty of Ottawa. (Townsend, Wisner and Moss, 1979).

163

WISNER et al.

IV. ON SITE VS. WATERSHED PLANNING OF SWM FACILITIES

Location of park storage or superpipes within each development is
difficult especially if some properties are relatively small. It was
also recognized that in order to derive the maximum hydrologic and en-
vironmental benefits, it is preferable to concentrate and strategically
locate a few storage units rather then implement many "diffuse" facili-
ties. The best approach, therefore, would be Storm Water Management on
a watershed basis. This, however, may result in significant efforts for
data collection and modelling. Alternatives would have to consider the
interests of a large number of landowners and eventually to meet the
approvals of several jurisdictions occupying different parts of the
watershed. Most of the developments were already under way at the time
when SWM was implemented and studies had to be carried on with time and
budget constraints.

Although this was not included in the drainage criteria, the En-
gineering Department has encouraged several studies on a community basis
for larger areas, representing a significant portion of the watershed.
This is a compromise alternative in which the hydrology and environ-
mental problems of the entire watershed are considered, but only in a
cursory way. Storm Water Management is, however, studied in detail for
a much larger area than a single development. An example is the study
for developments on the Exhibition Creek in the Rouge River Watershed
(MacLaren, 1977). Detailed Storm Water Management options were studied
for properties involving several owners. The study examined water qua-
lity, flooding and erosion in the downstream areas and compared several
alternatives including:.

1. traditional drainage without storage and with channelization
of a creek,
2. zero runoff increase with diffuse storage (control on each
property),

3. concentrated storage using two offsite ponds with recreational
benefits,
4. combination of alternatives 2 and 3,
5. same as 4 including channelization of a creek in development.

The last alternative recommended the construction of two Storm
Water Management ponds upstream the area under immediate development.
One of these ponds, lake A, would be built on a small creek simulta-
neously with the development. The second, lake B, would reclaim a
gravel pit and will also be required when development will be expanded
in the upper watershed. The two wet ponds will be located in a park
setting and will be a refuge for wild fowl.

The alternative represented again a trade-off solution in which the
developers would accept to support off-site storage. In exchange the
diversion and channelization of the small creek in the development made
possible an increased acreage available for development. Floodplain
management regulations in Ontario oppose any channelization for water-
sheds larger than 1/2 square mile. The area considered was slightly
larger than this limit. The study considered, however, that the

164

WISNER et al.

creation of ponds would represent an environmental amenity which may
compensate for this modification, and this viewpoint was accepted by the
Metropolitan Toronto Regional Conservation Authority.

Specialized assessments by hydrologists, biologists, hydrogeolo-
gists were incorporated in a matrix comparison of the various alterna-
tives, which also included maintenance, effects on land development,
etc. The selective control principle was again applied. Zero runoff
increase in the development was considered only for floods with a return
frequency of more than 25 years. Some increase of the I in 5 years and
I in 10 years floods was found to be permissible accounting for the
downstream conditions.

Another example of attempting to derive recreational benefits from
a Storm Water Management project, is a development around the Togood
Reservoir created by an old mill. A preliminary study of water quality
changes by means of the STORM model indicated that non-controlled dis-
charges may impair the water quality in the impoundment. Diversion by
means of an interceptor of some overflows and sediment traps were con-
sidered. Development in a band around the lake will be controlled and
the scenic valley downstream of the pond will be protected. The cost of
rehabilitation of the dam and its surelevation in order to extend the
water surface area will be partly absorbed by the development. Partial
control for more frequent floods instead of zero runoff increase is
considered acceptable and has to be justified on a case by case basis
(MacLaren, 1978).

V. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SITE TAILORED CRITERIA

These examples and several other projects represent a limited ex-
perience of only 3 years. The advantages and disadvantages of the
Criteria will be discussed from the viewpoints of the various parties
involved.

The analysis of multi-objective studies, involving several alter-
natives, non-tangible considerations, sophisticated models represented
for the municipal staff a significant additional effort as compared to
traditional drainage schemes. It is also probable that simple regula-
tions for zero runoff increase such as applied in Maryland would have
also been easier to implement. The multi-objective interdisciplinary
approach was facilitated by the fact that the Municipality had a rela-
tively small staff which made frequent communications between engineer-
ing, planning and recreation department much easier than in large or-
ganizations. The interest in Storm Water Management was promoted by the
fact that on the West Riseborough project the implementation of SWM
measures permitted an early start of construction and also significant
savings including payments to other municipalities for accommodating
flows were possible. On other projects, staff and council were in-
terested in creating increased recreational amenities.

The application of sophisticated modelling does not seem to create
particular problems. Checking by the Municipality included only model
assumptions inputs and results which have to be presented clearly in
each report. Detailed reviews of computations were done by the Minis-
try of Environment or ad hoe consultants. The Municipality keeps itself

165

WISNER et at.

up-to-date with modelling developments by participating in the IMPSWM
project, a cooperative research program organized by the University of
Ottawa. Most of its consultants are in the same program which will
eventually result in some level of standardization in modelling.

Probably the most difficult aspect for the Town Engineers was the
selection of alternatives based on trade-off s with multiple objectives
and development of acceptable cost-sharing procedures for off-site
storage. To a large extent, this was possible by involving the elected
officials in the decision making. Council members, however, became in-
terested in the challenge of participating in the analysis of Storm
Water Management alternatives and developed a very good understanding of
basic SWM principles. The field trip to Maryland for the inspection of
various facilities and lectures had an important role in educating the
municipality and bridging the initial communication gaps between various
disciplines as well as between laymen and specialists. A firm support
to the Markham engineers in their endeavours to implement SWM was
received from the various agencies including the Conservation Authority,
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Ministry of
Environment.

Developers reacted in terms of the effects on the cost of SWMM
measures for their particular projects. There is generally no rule, un-
fortunately, concerning whether the implementation of SWM will or will
not be less costly than a traditional design. In the first example des-
cribed in section III, it was obvious that the use of park storage led
to a more economic alternative than the building of large downstream
culverts. In the second one, the traditional project would have been
more economic if downstream potential damages are not considered. It is
felt that site specific criteria based on a watershed analysis of con-
straints such as water quality effects and downstream flooding or some
trade-of fs between environmental components are more difficult to accept
than a generalized regulation. The implementation of site tailored cri-
teria requires training for consultants. The IM4PSWM program will there-
fore organize courses on matiltiobjective design of runoff control facili-
ties.

It seems, however, that more research is required on the
economics of runoff control facilities, cost-sharing and matrix methods
as tools in decision making.

Another important concern from the developers viewpoint was the in-
creased duration of SWM studies as compared to traditional pipe sizing.
This, of course, related to the experience of consultants. Larger con-
sulting firms with hydrologists on their staff produced reports in a
reasonably short time. Some of the smaller ones, previously involved
with traditional design hired specialized staff.

The. Town e~xpex-ience 4hom -tha.t implZementati~on oJ modetling has notC
i-AvJeaosed signi~icatn~ty the dwwation o4 the analysis and approval pro-
cess. Some delays result from the need to examine and negotiate a
wider range of alternatives than in conventional projects.

166

WISNER et al.

FINAL REMARKS

The Markham experience suggests that the implementation of site
tailored criteria and alternative selection on the basis of trade-offs
between various objectives is feasible and may lead to advantageous and
innovative runoff control alternatives. These alternatives comprise
traditional drainage, "generalized zero runoff increase" and also "par-
tial control", "over-control" and "selective control". Zero runoff in-
crease is considered as a means to achieve environmental and flood con-
trol goals but it is recognized that at the present state of the art,
there is no justification for a very rigid application and some flexi-
bility is possible. This approach required sometimes lengthier reviews
and discussions but it was found that various regulatory agencies and
most developers were in agreement with the proposed alternatives.
Support, involvement and undestanding of the isues from the politi-
cat decision makers is a key factort, in the site tatlored criteria.
Hydrologic analysis by up-to-date methods is also considered essential
for the analysis of the simultaneous operation of the major and con-
venience system. The present process can be improved and a recent
drainage manual board on the same philosophy and recently adopted in
Oakville, another municipality in Southern Ontario, (Brodie and Wisner,
1979) will eventually be adopted to facilitate the application of the
site tailored runoff control criteria.

More research and an analysis of various experiences is, however,
required before drawing a conclusion regarding the choice between the
case by case analysis and the standard simplified regulatory approach.
The role of modelling in the development of national runoff criteria
and the standardization of models for SWM projects are studied in the
IMPSWM project of the University of Ottawa.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Projects described in sections 3 and 4 were conducted by James F.
MacLaren Limited and Fred Schaeffer and Associates. Several engineers
from both firms contributed to the specific hydrologic analyses and de-
tailed projects. Mr. A.R. Steedman, Mr. Jankovic, and Mr. B. Reid
deserve special credit for their contributions. Landscaping of all
Storm Water Management facilities described in the paper was done by
Mr. D. Farb and Mr. L. Thompson, Toronto. Suggestions from Mr. W. War-
wick and Mr. T. McMullen from the Borough of Scarborough and comments
from Mr. C. Mather and J. Maletich (MTRCA), R. Chin (MOE), M. Lewis
(MNR) and many others led to the development and improvements of the
described concepts and are gratefully acknowledged.

P. E. Wisner is the coordinator of the IMPSWM (implementation
of storm water management) project, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario. D. Mukherjee
and D. Keliar are in the Engineering Department of the town of
Markham, Ontario. Joachim Tourbier was a consultant on the
Markham project.

167

WISNER etal.

REFERENCES

Brodie, A. and Wisner, P., Report on drainage policies and criteria for
the Town of Oakville (unpublished report,
Oakville, 1979).

Lager, J.A., Smith, G.W. and altera, "Urban Stormwater Management and
Technology: Update and User's Guide",
EPA-600/8-77-014, September 1977.

MacLaren, J.F., Limited, "Master Drainage Planning in North East Mark-
ham" (unpublished report, Willowdale, Ont.,
Toronto, 1977).

MacLaren, J.F., Limited, "Stream Valley Management for Bruce Creek in
Markham" (unpublished report, Willowdale,
Ont., 1978).

Poertner, H.G., "Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff",
American Public Works Association, Special
Report No. 43, 1974.

Tourbier, J. and Westmacott, R., "Water Resources Protection Measures in
Land Development - A Handbook", Water
Resources Center, University of Delaware,
1974.

Townsend, R., Wisner, P. and Moss, D., "Preliminary Results of Inlet
Control Hydraulic Laboratory Tests", unpub-
lished report, University of Ottawa, 1979.

Wisner, P. and Kassem, A., "Application of the SWM Model for the Plan-
ning and Design of Dual Storage", Pro-
ceedings, SWM Users Meeting, Montreal, May,
1979.

Wisner, P., Kassem, A. and Cheung, P., "Pros and Cons of Standarization
of SWM Modeling", Proceedings, SWM Users
Meeting, Montreal, May, 1979.

Wright, McLaughlin Engineers, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual",
Denver, Colorado, 1978.

168

WISNER et al.

TABLE I

EXAMPLES OF RUNOFF CONTROL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS
(after Lager and Smith, 1974)

Location Description

Denver Urban Renewal Authority Release rates for plazas limited to
I in/hour during the 10-year storm.

Nepperville, Illinois Maximum release rate 0.15 in/hour.

Joliet, Illinois Release rate to exceed runoff from a
2-year storm with a runoff coeffi-
cient 0.3.

Albuquerque Metropolitan Rate of runoff not to exceed natural
Arroyo Flood Control Authority rate of runoff.

Metropolitan Sanitary District Release rate determined by the
of Greater Chicago rational method with a runoff co-
efficient of 0.15.

169

WISNER et al.

Post-development peak flows
(without control)
---- Post- development peak flows
(with control)
3 - -Pre- developm ent
0
-J pek flows

_lSz
2 4 6 8 10 20 40 so so 80100oo
RETURN FREQUENCY (YEARS)
(a) OVERCONTROL

o o

-J

- 0
0

_ __-

2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80100
RETURN FREQUENCY (YEARS)
(b)

Figure I I for Runoff ControI I I I I

170
2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80100
RETURN FREQUENCY (YEARS)
(c) GENERALIZED CONTROL

Figure 1 Policies for Runoff Control

170

WISNER et al.

Und~~~~~~~~__Oergrond fo

o--Pipe system

Restricted
outf low

Figure 2 Typical Subdivision with Dual Storage Syste'rp

171

/ ~ _ PARK DETENTION
SITE
/ R\>ET NOT USED
FLOW

SUPERPIPE (FULL)
Release from -A
AREA 44 ac. (18 ha.) detention at

/ / ~//
low rate ~ ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-e _ _ _ m_ _ W _' / , /

/RESTRICTED
(a) at 1/2 year flow RELEASE

~ / H o ~~PARK DETENTION Overflow to
/"/! f:lET SITE USED detention during
FLOW l / _ft yYea r storm

Release from \ -
detention of
AREA 44 ac. (18ha.) detention ate'

// RESTRICTED
(b) at 1/25 year flow RELEASE

Figure 3a Operation of Dual Storage

WISNER et al.

m5y 1

(a) OPERATION AT 1:2 YEAR STORM

(b) OPERATION AT 1:25 YEAR STORM
WITH INLET CONTROL

-i .. vL- f, . -.-
LV eEL l ____ DET NT'I

TENTION RELEASE

(c} OPERATION AT 1:25 YEAR STORM
WITH INLET CONTROLS AND OVERFLOWS

Figure 3b Operation of Convenience System Storage
for Different Storm Frequencies

173

Agricultural management practices are responsible for the beauty
of the Brandywine Valley which has attracted
noted painters like Andrew Wyeth.

174

PUBLIC VALUES AND A RIVER - THE BRANDYWINE STORY

WILLIAM SELLERS

The Brandy wine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, PA

For 150 years, Wilmington and its smaller Pennsylvania
neighbor to the north, West Chester, have been way stations
for a succession of important American artists who have
explored the natural, social, and psychological environment
of the unique valley of Brandywine Creek. The Brandywine
River Museum in Chadds Ford is dedicated to the preserva-
tion of both the art of this area and the natural and
cultural environment which has been its inspiration.

Beginning in the early 19th century with landscape
painters, a succession of great American artists in the
realist tradition have made this area their temporary or
permanient home: Bass Otis and Felix 0. Darley were very
early. Howard Pyle, the great American illustrator,
through his schools in Wilmington and Chadds Ford, had a
profound effect on the development of many great American
illustrators of the late 19th and 20th centuries: Maxfield
Parrish, Frank Schoonover, Jessie Wilcox Smith, Harvey Dunn,
and N. C. Wyeth to name just a few. N. C. Wyeth, who
settled in Chadds Ford, was the father, father-in-law and
grandfather of several of today's best known artists of
the Brandywine, Andrew, his son James, and Andrew's
brothers-in-law, John McCoy and Peter Hurd. The Pyle
School of Illustrators, the West Chester artists, George
Cope and Horace Pippin, and today's artists have reflected
two elements of their environment: (1) their love f or the
landscape, its constituent elements~ and its people and (2)
a private, individualistic, probing of personal emotions
and truth in their subject matter. This last is but one
example of the impact of the Society of Friends on the
total environment of this area.

The pervasiveness of an artistic tradition for over
150 years is but one example of the continuity of certain
values and cultural traditions in the Brandywine Valley.
Until the 1960's, the Brandywine was, in the main, a
pastoral agricultural community, strongly dominated by old
Quaker families whose individualism, thrift, respect for
consensus decision-making and commitment to education and
diligent research had established a special imprint on
public and private institutions in the area. Although
principally an agricultural valley, industrial nodes and
small cities in the upper Brandywine along Route 30 and
the county seat of West Chester developed as population

175

SELLERS

!ii~'

Flush flows of the Brandywine River
caused by a spring thaw.

176

SELLERS

centers between 1830 and 1940. In the mid-1940's, it
had become obvious to many Valley residents that industrial
and domestic sewage was severely polluting the Brandywine.
in 1945, one of the first private watershed associations
in the country was formed to work with the cities and
industries to clean up the Brandywine. This organization,
the Brandywine Valley Association, continues to this day
as an institution providing public education and public
forums for discussion of many specific problems in the
Brand ywine.

The Brandywine Conservancy was founded in 1967 when
it became apparent that land development was posing a new
threat to the Brandywine Valley. Stormwater runoff was
increasing flood events and adding pollutants to the
stream. Historic sites were threatened with demolition
by proposed highway projects and by development generally,
as were many of the most important natural areas. The
archaic zoning and subdivision laws of the sparsely popula-
ted and underfunded local governments provided little pro-
tection to the cherished cultural symbols of the Valley.

When Chadds Ford, the home of Andrew Wyeth and the
center of artistic endeavors in the Brandywine for eighty
years, was threatened by all of these problems, the
residents of the lower Brandywine coalesced in the forma-
tion of an organization to deal with the new land use and
water resource issues facing the Valley. They recognized
that development in some form was inevitable, but they did
not want the Brandywine Creek and the Valley to be de-
spoiled in the same manner as most stream valleys of the
northeast which had undergone rapid urban development.
The Tni-County (New Castle, Delaware and Chester and
Delaware Counties in Pennsylvania) Conservancy of the
Brandywine, now the Brandywine Conservancy, was formed to
meet these challenges.

Community action by aroused residents and volunteer
staff won many battles in the late 60's and early 70's.
Power line projects were modified, three devasting highway
proposals were eliminated, plans for a new international
airport abandoned, and the industrial development of the
Chadds Ford floodplain was preempted by acquisition. One
of these acquisitions was an historic grain mill which
has been restored as the Brandywine River Museum, a show-
case for the Brandywine tradition of art and other his-
torical artifacts of the area, and a center of the
cultural community.

By the early 1970's, the Conservancy's members
realized that a full-time professional staff and the

177

SELLERS

Canoeing, hiking, nature study and other outdoor
recreation activities center around the Brandywine River.

178

SELLERS

assistance of the major research institutions of the area
would be needed to develop long range programs which would
insure the highest level of environmental quality for the
Valley. Dr. Ann Louise Strong and other environmental
lawyers from the University of Pennsylvania were hired to
develop a handbook of land use and water resource protec-
tion ordinances for Pennsylvania local governments.
Originally developed to assist one township, the Environ-
mental M~anagement Handbook has been the building block
for a major subscription program providing local govern-
ments with ordinances and planning assistance which in-
corporate the latest legal and environmental research.
Over 50 local and county governments, and state, federal,
and private agencies now subscribe to the service. The
program has grown through the promotion efforts of staff,
Conservancy members who live throughout the region, and
those who have used the Handbook.

Recognizing the importance of private land use
decision-making, a Wilmington land use lawyer and member
of the Conservancy agreed to assist in the development of
a conservation easement program which would allow private
landowners to voluntarily restrict the development and
modification of those areas of their property which heavily
impact water resources: the flood plains, steep slopes,
ground water recharge areas, wetlands, et.al. The conser-
vation easement used in conjunction with a facade easement
also has been an important tool in insuring the long-term
integrity of historic sites. Over the past ten years,
conservation easements over 4,000 acres have been donated
to the Conservancy by landowners in the area. With~ a full-
time professional staff, we expect to add several thousand
more every year. The costs of staff are shared by the
donor landowners and the Conservancy. Once again, the pro-
gram is promoted by a combination of staff, members, and
former donors.

Before leaving the land use area, I believe that
several things are worth mentioning. First of all, our
organization firmly believes that one cannot preserve
water quality and flows without controlling the use of
land. We do not believe that open space is just an amenity,
it is a necessity. Nowhere in the United States have we
ever been able to have truly high environmental quality
and dense urban development. No river or stream can absorb
all of the pollutants from point and non-point sources.
None can absorb unrestrained stormwater runoff without
flooding, and few surface water supplies are dependable
in quality or quantity when their headwaters undergo
typical urban development. It is clear to us that exten-
sive open land buffers are essential to absorb and treat
pollutants, to control flooding, and to renew precious
ground water supplies.

179

SELLERS

Trout fishing in the Brandywine River is
aided by a state stocking program.

180

SELLERS

Secondly, the promotion of this concept and, indeed,
the formulation of many of the technical approaches have
been much easier for us because of the pioneering work of
Professor Ian McHarg and his staff at the University of
Pennsylvania. The publication and distribution of McHarg's
Design with Nature has had a major impact on this region.

The third major program area of the Conservancy has
been water resources management. A three year, half
million dollar study of the Brandywine (1972-74) provided
us with exceptional understanding of the hydrologic cycle
of the stream and provided the data necessary for the for-
mation and calibration of predictive water quality and
stormwater management models. With this information we
have become convinced of the need for land application of
sewage, the need to control stormwater where it falls and
to encourage its recharge to the ground water table, and
the need to increase our efforts to provide land buffer
areas. Conventional sewage treatment plants have not
worked and non-point sources are major contributors to
water quality degradation. For the past two years, the
Conservancy staff has served as environmental consultants
to one major sewage facilities planning study of the head-
waters area of the Brandywine and several smaller planning
projects. If the plans proceed as anticipated, land
application of treated wastewater will become a dominant
treatment mode and a major force in the preservation of
open space and agricultural land.

For the past five years, local governments in south-
eastern Pennsylvania have become increasingly concerned
about erosion and sedimentation control and the more far-
reaching problems of stormwater management. In 1973,
Dr. Anne Louise Strong provided us with one of the first
model erosion and sedimentation control ordinances develop-
ed specifically for Pennsylvania. For the past two years,
Conservancy staff has been revising this model to embrace
broader concerns of ground water recharge, stormwater
quality, and protection of critical slopes. During the
course of the work, the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources contracted with the Conservancy to review
the state-of-the-art of the stormwater management regula-
tions and practices of local governments in Pennsylvania.
This study will be completed shortly. Pennsylvania DER
will publish the entire report, but we will be publishing
an abbreviated version of the report along with our new
stormwater management ordinance in the very near future.

From our recent study and numerous discussions with
local officials in southeastern Pennsylvania, certain
themes have been recurrent. First, most officials and
professionals believe that runoff in excess of natural
conditions should be controlled on the site. Secondly,

181

SELLERS

The Brandywine River Museum is a converted mill
that now houses a permanent exhibit of the Brandywine School
of Painting and the office of the Brandywine Conservancy.

182

SELLERS

all of the costs of f acilIities , review of plans, review of
construction and such should be paid by the developer, not
the community. Third, more attention needs to be given in
planning and zoning to the stormwater problem potential of
various soils and geological structures, e.g., concentra-
tion of stormwater in limestone areas can cause sinkholes
and other problems. Fourth, good stormwater management
practices can reduce expenditures of property owners,
developers, and the community. Finally, well-planned
stormwater facilities can provide other benefits to a
community in the form of fire control ponds, recreational
sites, and wildlife habitats.

In many sections of the country, people would say
that the ideas which I have expressed are anti-development.
The fact is that in most of the Brandywine Valley, people
are neither a priori for nor against development. We are
strong believers in individual responsibility and respect
for one's neighbors. An individual who chooses to develop
his land should be responsible f or all of the costs which
attend his choice and he should not expect his neighbors
to pay for his decisions through inconveniences, damages,
or increased taxes for public improvements.

Certainly, some of what I have said has been generali-
zation. We, like you, have had failures as well as
successes. I truly believe, however, that if any section
of this country is going to successfully develop a compre-
hensive approach to land development which recognizes the
importance of natural beauty and the inherent limitations
of our natural, social, and economic environments, it is
the Brandywine country - southeastern Pennsylvania and
northern Delaware.

183

DRAINAGE RECONSIDERED: THE EVOLVING ROLE OF

PUBLIC AGENCIES IN DRAINAGE -

NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

DARRYL R. GOEHRING, WILLIAM M. ROMEIKA AND VERN C. SVATOS

Water Resources Agency for New Castle County, Newark, DE

1. INTRODUCTION

Drainage programs are about to enter a new phase. Growing fiscal
constraints on communities, concern for water quality, EPA's refusal
to fund any more sewer projects with excess capacity, all of these
reasons have contributed to a renewed interest in urban runoff in New
Castle County. Drainage programs have been reevaluated, and both
stormwater management* and sediment and erosion control programs are
being developed. The days of storm sewers carrying water to the
nearest stream are coming to an end.

Changes made by the EPA may be the result of an awareness that
conventional drainage practices change the hydrologic cycle of urban
watersheds, increase drainage costs and damages, and create significant
engineering, social, and economic problems. In urbanizing areas, the
growth in impervious surfaces coupled with effective (but conventional)
drainage systems increase both the velocity and magnitude of runoff
from a given rainfall. Public policies which try to eliminate excess
surface water as quickly as possible after a rainfall have only con-
tributed to overdesigned storm sewers and treatment plants, new
drainage problems downstream, and increased drainage costs as basins
reach full development.

Water quality problems also resulted from these practices,
principally from combined sewer overflows, surface runoff laden with
urban wastes, and overflows of infiltrated municipal sewage. Other
water quality and supply problems occurred as runoff increased and
was discharged from the basin: groundwater levels declined, base
flow was reduced, and water shortages became more prevalent. It

*Drainage commonly refers to the act, process or mode of removing
water from a site. Stormwater management has been defined as the
application of planning, engineering and construction principles to
control the quantity and quality of rain-induced flows.

185

GOEHRING et al.

became more difficult for the stream to assimilate wastes and to
provide for other beneficial uses, principally domestic and industrial
needs. What is being done about these problems?

1.1 CHANGING PHILOSOPHY

One innovation in stormwater management (i.e. zero runoff;
Everhart,1973) is the "natural drainage concept" which emphasizes
on the detention or storage of rainfall where it falls. These new
practices are expected to reduce drainage and flood protection costs,
improve water quality, and augment groundwater supplies. Reducing
the liabilities and increasing the assets of urban runoff are the new
goals.

There is also an awareness that the institutions of water resource
management are not prepared for this new philosophy. Several
difficulties are apparent. "Conjunctive planning" needs to be rede-
fined so that water quality management is linked with water quantity
planning (supply, drainage, stormwater management, recreation, etc.).
The responsibility for collection, storage, and treatment of storm-
water now shared by individual property owners and the community as
a whole may have to be reevaluated. Lastly, the statutory and case
law which support the philosophy and objectives of drainage programs
may require a reassessment.

1.2 PURPOSE OF PAPER

New Castle County, Delaware's experience shows how a local
government developed a drainage program including the philosophical,
technical and legislative underpinnings of the program. As the County
responded to environmental needs, it was able to maintain the
flexibility to cope with individual land use decisions and, in a
continuous manner, evaluate its performace and set new directions.
The experience illustrates the need for local governments to balance
the creation of hospitable environments in which innovative storm-
water management techniques can thrive with the assurance of safety
for all its citizens.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASIC DRAINAGE CODE

New Castle County's Drainage Code was developed in two major
phases. A policy statement was first prepared followed by a set of
procedures, standards and criteria for implementing them. Efforts
were made at the outset to develop a Code that was comprehensive.
Subsequently, every objective that was added over the years was
followed by new implementation measures. Some objectives, added more
recently, raise serious technical questions which are still unanswered.
How can the quality of urban runoff be improved? What guidelines and
methods should be recommended to recharge groundwater? What standards
for runoff volume should be used for design purposes? In addition to
these objectives, there is great interest in methods to reduce costs
and in alternatives for financing.

186

GOEHRING et al.

2.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The first publicly-owned stormwater management system in New
Castle County was built in 1890 when the City of Wilmington began an
extensive street construction program including a storm sewer system
to drain the newly constructed city roads. With the advent of indoor
plumbing, provisions were made to dispose of domestic sewage in this
system. The standard practice of the time dictated that these combined
sewers discharge into nearby streams. When separate sanitary sewers
were built in the early twentieth century, extensive sanitary sewer
construction began in northern regions of the County. The only storm-
water management program in the area was implemented by the State
Highway Department. The standards which were established, however,
were for the design of storm sewers, catch basins, and drainage
ditches only as they relate to highways. Storm drainage problems
were controlled only on a limited basis through the review and
approval of new subdivision plans.

For some time, the County successfully avoided serious drainage
problems. While the population doubled from 1955-65, development was
so well scattered that any increases in runoff were sufficiently
reduced off-site. Further masking these effects was a series of dry
years lasting from 1954-66. In fact, 1965 was the driest year on
record (24.90 inches fell - 57% of normal).

In 1967, the deficiencies in the drainage program became
evident. Storms in the winter and spring and, in particular, storms
on August 3 (4.0 inches) and August 10 (3.5 inches) which were
responsible for 127 major flooding incidents, were major factors in
raising the public consciousness. An agricultural drainage network
was suddenly found incapable of accommodating flows from an urban
area. There were specific instances of undersized bridges, culverts,
and pipes (less than one-fourth the necessary capacity in some cases),
debris blockages, floodplain encroachments, insufficient allowances
for overflow, flat grades, deterioration of swales, and little
maintenance of existing channels.

2.2 REORGANIZATION ACT

For a number of years the inadequacy of an official means to cope
with stormwater had been a public concern. In 1958, the State
Legislature proposed the formation of a County Drainage Board. Seven
years later, legislation was passed creating New Castle County's
present form of government ( 9 Del. C., 1965). Under this legislation
the County was given authority to establish any program or procedure
it deemed necessary to take care of storm drainage problems. The
Department of Development and Licensing was empowered to establish
"lines and grades" and to administer and enforce "drainage facilities
and regulations." The Department of Public Works was required to
maintain and operate drainage systems.

In 1967, the Subdivision Code was amended to require the County
to "insure adequate provisions for . . . drainage." Two ordinances
were subsequentlypassed: one dealing with streams, drainage ditches,

187

GOEHRING et al.

and their floodplains, the other with lines, grades, and drainage in
developments (Ord. 67-14, Ord. 67-52). With no practical experience
with budget preparation for drainage matters, the Department of Public
Works was appropriated $30,000 for the Operating Budget and $150,000
for the Capital Budget.

2.3 PHASE ONE

By October of that year, less than two months after the big
storms, the development of a drainage program had accelerated. A
study was funded to establish the magnitude of the storm drainage-
problems, to prepare engineering plans for each drainage basin, to
develop cost estimates for alleviating the flooding conditions, and
to establish a more extensive storm drainage construction program
for the County. The program had to comprehensively deal with
drainage, sediment and erosion control, floodplains, stormwater
management, and all related rules and regulations.

Afterwards, one recommendation of this study led to the creation
of a committee of engineers, developers, Soil Conservation Service
representatives, citizens and policy-makers to prepare a statement
of objectives, recommendations for legislation, and necessary
technical guidelines. The Program was divided into two phases. In
Phase 1, a Policy Statement was to be prepared. Phase II would then
follow with the development of procedures, standards, and criteria
for enforcing the Code. Existing laws in surrounding communities
were used as models. Table 1 lists -the objectives of the program,
and Table 2, the subjects of the policies developed in Phase I.

Table 1
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER DRAINAGE CODE

Phase I: Objectives

1. To protect persons and property from serious harm and significant
damage caused by storms of up to 100-year intensity.

2. To insure that each residential, commercial , industrial or public
development, home and yard is constructed with adequate drainage.

3. To provide that public facilities and watercourses are designed to
require minimal maintenance.

Subsequent to the adoption of Phase I on April 29, 1969, the
Operating and Capital Budgets expanded by a factor of fifteen (1967-
70). Guided by the engineering study, which inventoried potential
projects, New Castle County proceeded to build many of the $11.6
million worth of projects in the inventory.

188

GOEHRING et at.

Table 2
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER DRAINAGE CODE -NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

PHASE I: OUTLINE INDEX OF POLICIES

1. OBJECTIVE

2. POLICY ON WATERCOURSE MAINTENANCE
2.1 Responsibility
2.2 Prohibitions
2.3 Erosion
2.4 Design for Maintenance

3. POLICY ON FLOODPLAIN
3.1 Definition
3.2 Preservation
3.3 Restrictions

4. POLICY ON DEVELOPMENTS - WATERCOURSES
4.1 Definition
4.2 Scope
4.3 Surface Water Collection & Disposition
4.4 Stabilization
4.5 Delayed Run-off
4.6 Storms Exceeding Criteria

5. POLICY ON FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES
5.1 Tidal Gates

6. POLICY ON GROUNDWATER

7. POLICY ON GRADING FOR DRAINAGE (LINES & GRADES)
7.1 Yards and Other Surfaces
7.2 Overland Flow
7.3 Floor Elevations
7.4 Slopes

2.4 PHASE TWO

Adoption of the Phase I policy statement (Ordinance #69-17)
initiated Phase II, and the Drainage Design Committee was reconvened.
At the same time, immediate implementation of Phase I proceeded but
without a set of uniform criteria. Having only a legislative mandate
to regulate drainage, New Castle County implemented the Code through
reviews of techniques proposed by developers. The County was involved
in a learning process with each section of the Code until such time as
p ~~~appropriate standards could be developed.

One of the first topics was dictated by Public Law 90-448, the
federal flood insurance program. For New Castle County to qualify for
the program, it had to adopt "permanent land use and control measures
...which are consistent with the comprehensive criteria" described
in the federal law. In response, the New Drainage Code was amended
(Ordinance #71-142, Table 3) as well as the Subdivision Code.

189

Tab le 3

CHANGES IN DRAINAGE CODE EFFECTED BY VARIOUS ORDINANCES
(Post Phase I Changes)

Effective
Article Section Type of Change Ordinance

III. Floodplains 6-9. Restriction 1. Shifts approval of construc- 71-142
tion to County Council and
stipulates criteria for
approval
2. Establishes penalties 72-21
3. Defines methods to delineate 72-30

GOEHRING et al.

In the three and one-half years following Phase I, the Committee
developed criteria for watercourse maintenance, developments in
relation to -waterecnurses, groundwater, and grading for drainage which
County Council adopted on March 13, 1972 (Ord. 73-32). Among the more
significant features were (1) a surface and groundwater agreement that
bound developers and the County to specific performances before any
building permits could be issued, (2) requirements for the design,
sizing, acquisition, and dedication of on and off-site easements, (3)
methods for determining the peak rate of runoff, and (4) provisions
for approval of lines and grades (Table 4).

2.4 POST PHASE TWO

During the public debate on 73-32, several amendments to Phase I
and additions to Phase II were suggested. These amendments and
additions were left to be developed and considered at another time
in order not to delay the adoption of Phase II.

New objectives, however, were soon added to the Code (Ord. 74-17),
and County Council passed a resolution appointing an ad hoe committee
of representatives similar to the earlier Drainage Committee to develop
erosion control procedures (Resolution 74-70).

Table 5
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE CODE

Post Phase II: Objectives

4. To preserve water quality of the streams and natural watercourses
in New Castle County.

5. To minimize sedimentation and erosion.

6. To promote delayed run-off by requiring the use of on-site
retention where necessary.

7. To promote the utilization of groundwater recharge techniques
where feasible.

As the Sediment and Erosion Control Committee proceeded with its
assigned task, the term "stormwater management" frequently crept into
the discussions. The Committee recognized that sediment and erosion
control is only part of the overall stormwater management picture and
that a policy paper should be prepared to identify the components of
stormwater management, to recommend procedures, and to establish
criteria for the design of detention basins. On June 28, 1977, New
Castle County Council adopted by resolution two standards for
enforcing the Code: standards for "Stormwater Management" and a
"Specifications Guide for Sediment and Erosion Control" (Resolution
77-144). Additonal ordinances have also been passed, as the Code has,
been refined (Table 6).

191

Table 4
CHANGES IN DRAINAGE CODE EFFECTED BY ORDINANCE 73-~72
(Phase 11 of Drainage Code)~~~~~~~~~~~
(Phase II of Drainage Code) C)~~~~~~~~~~

Section Sub-Section Type of Change

II. WATERCOURSES 6-3. Responsibility Requires surface and groundwater agreement
MAINTENANCE Establishes enforcement procedure

6-4. Prohibitions Establishes penalties

6-6. Design for Main- Establishes procedures for sizing, design,
tenance and maintenance of easements

IV. DEVELOPMENTS- 6-10. Definition Defines bridge and culvert
WATERCOURSES
6-11. Sizing Established method to determine peak rate
tQ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~of runoff

6-14. Delayed Run-Off Requires private construction of detention
basins with public technical assistance

VI. GROUNDWATER 6-17. Wet Areas Defines wet areas
Requires methods to drain

VII. GRADING FOR 6-18. Yards and Other Requires lines and grades approval and
DRAINAGE Surfaces provides specific requirements

Table 6
CHANGES IN DRAINAGE CODE EFFECTED BY VARIOUS ORDINANCES
(Post Phase II Changes)
Effective
Article Section Type of Change Ordinance

I. IN GENERAL 6-1. Objective of Adds objectives 74-71
Chapter
6-2. Liability of Adds statement and sets 69-17
County standards for compliance 77-116
III. FLOODPLAINS 6-7. Definitions Defines "development" and 77-91
"substantial improvement"
6-9. Restrictions Establishes construction re- 74-206
quirements for exceptions, 77-91
criteria for variance to above
requirements; and provides
additional criteria for flood-
plain delineation
IV. DEVELOPMENTS- 6-13. Stabiliza- Adds preferred alternatives 74-71
WATERCOURSES tion
6-15. Watercourse Establishes qualification 74-71
Improvements criteria, approval procedure,
by New Castle and design considerations
County
VII. GRADING FOR 6-18. Yards and Requires sediment and erosion 74-71
DRAINAGE Other Sur- control plan, applies lines and
faces grades requirement to building
permits issued before 1969 and
establishes penalties for viola-
tion
6-20. Floor Eleva- Revises flood elevation criteria 74-206
tions

GOEHRING et al.

Dissatisfaction with the Code remained, however. The objectives
addressing water quality preservation and the promotion of groundwater
recharge were not fully implemented. In addition, members of the
original Committee realized that although the Code managed runoff very
well, it did not allow the County to control its quality or put it to
other uses. Furthermore, the Code specified that the cost of off-site
facilities would be divided among upstream users, yet there were no
basin plans to indicate off-site needs and no cost-sharing formulas
to guide the process. Most of the cost was thus borne by the general
public.

3. NEED FOR CONJUNCTIVE PLANNING

Drainage cannot be viewed as a single program, nor can agencies
involved with drainage see each respective geographical segment of a
drainage system as their only responsibility. Because upstream and
downstream flooding are related, a regional view of the problem is
essential. Management agencies must coordinate objectives and
technical methods if solutions are to last. In the same way, the
broader impacts of a drainage program upon water quality and supply
must be viewed in the same comprehensive context. New Castle County
realized these needs and initiated steps to meet them.

3.1 WATER QUALITY

New Castle County was one of the first recipients of an area-
wide water quality planning grant under Section 208 of P.L. 92-500.
Work under this grant was conducted by the Office of Water and Sewer
Management (an office of New Castle County's Department of Public
Works) which held responsibilities for both water supply and water
quality planning. A major study was conducted that showed stormwater
runof f to be a principal non-point source of water pollution. The
data, principally of sediment losses, indicated that agriculture,
construction activities, and urban runoff, in that order, were the
maj or sources.

Because sediment was a pollutant whose origin was easy to
document, control was relatively easy to justify. Construction
sources were addressed by the Sediment and Erosion Control Sub-
Committee of the Drainage Committee which produced the Guidelines.
Agricultural sources were addressed by the New Castle Conservation
District and the 208 Program with funding from the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. A program to
apply conservation planning to watersheds is presently in progress.

Urban runoff control, however, is less easy to justify because
legalities and treatment methods have required precise measurement.
The pollutants contained in urban runoff are extremely difficult to
measure and combine with pollutants from different sources. Further-
more, none of the existing data collection efforts in the County had
attempted to measure it or rank its severity against either
agricultural or construction site runoff. As a consequence there was
no program in place to implement objective four of the Code which
addresses protecting water quality from runoff.

194

GOEHRING et al.

3.2 WATER SUPPLY

As the water quality work proceeded, the 208 Program also
documented a shortfall between peak demand and safe yield for a number
of water distribution systems in the County. In recommending solutions
from among the alternatives, it found that the "soft technologies"
which husband the resource (water conservation and groundwater re-
charge) were among the most cost-effective means to augment the
County's water supplies.

Water supply was also a concern of the State because it had to
allocate ground and surface withdrawals. Domestic and industrial
needs, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and water quality competed
keenly for the resources.

At the same time, the Department of Planning was attempting to
develop a land use policy to protect major aquifers. Competing
against permanent protection of these areas was the demand for
development. Because of the size of the aquifers, land acquisition
was out of the question, and consideration of prohibitions
threatened to raise the "taking issue." It seemed to be in the best
interests of the County to find a means to regulate development in
these areas through a comprehensive water management policy. What
that would be is still under discussion.

3.3 FISCAL MAN~AGEMENT

Both the County Council and Department of Public Works have
grown concerned with the cost of drainage facilities and who should
pay for them. A study conducted at the University of Delaware in
1974 argued that drainage facility costs to the County would rise as
an area reached full development and that certain costs such as
operation and maintenance would continue indefinitely even after the
basin was fully "improved" (Minnehan, 1974).

According to the study, drainage needs are created by developers
in upstream areas who change the basic land use and install on-site
drainage facilities to rid the site of surplus water. After some
time passes and more development occurs, the County might need to
construct new drainage works to correct or remedy a drainage problem
in the same local area, upstream. Subsequently, the County acquires
a responsibility for repairs and/or improvements to this structure as
well as maintenance costs. Projects, repairs and improvements, and
maintenance are three main cost areas in the County budget. Down-
stream, the same set of maintenance costs can also accrue.*

*The effect of the present Code has been to reduce cost increases
largely through imposing higher and more consistent standards on
developers, such as detention facilities. Still, the question of who
should pay to maintain these facilities or to construct downstream
facilities, repairs, or corrections has not been answered in a
satisfactory manner.

195

GOEHRING et al.

The public also pays for other drainage costs. In addition to the
County's share are projects, studies, and services incurred by the
Soil Conservation Service, generally in upstream areas, and by the
Corps of Engineers in downstream areas. Wilmington and Newark also
incur costs, and the Departmentof Transportation's Division of
'Highways has a substantial drainage budget as well.

Conversely, the consequences of policies that encourage drainage
are also subject to increasing costs. Long-range water supply plans
indicate that with present supply and demand patterns, New Castle
County cannot expect to meet its needs without major storage
facilities. A more efficient use of existing supplies could fore-
stall these needs for the indefinite future. Better stormwater
management could well be one those efficient uses.

It has increasingly been shown that policies which expedite
runoff from the land are not in the best interests of sound
fiscal or water management. Such Dolicies have been based on the
premise that water is a common enemy. To view water differently,
that is, as an asset, means different technical guidelines must be
developed and the legal bases for runoff disposal must be examined
to see if new legislation is needed. The conflict arises in the use
of streams for transporting water and wastes. Downstream property
owners seek to use the area along the stream for residential and
commercial purposes while upstream groups seek to use it as a
drainage system to carry off storm runoff. Point and non-point
sources dischargers compete for the limited assimilative capacity that
is available, and water consumers want undiminished quantities of
the highest quality.

Meeting the various demands for using drainage systems and
the waters they carry does not lend itself to a neat benefit-based
allocation. A common-sense approach has now been outlined in local
work programs that maximizes the volume of water to serve these
purposes by minimizing wasted water due to high volumes of runoff.
Storage in soil and aquifers of all types will be investigated in a
systems approach that uses the hydrologic cycle as the model to
manage the runoff-recharge response of the County's watersheds.
Administration of a drainage code according to the premises of this
model would keep rainfall close to where it falls. Such an
approach requires a major reevaluation of the objectives of the
Drainage Code, its technical criteria, standards, and procedures.
Some of the preliminary ideas of that reevaluation are discussed in
the following section.

196

GOEHRING et al.

4. NEW DIRECTIONS

If the objectives of water quality protection and encouragement
of recharge are met, greater attention must be given to the volume of
runoff from developed areas and how it is managed. Design criteria
set for volume can (1) discourage practices that expedite flow to the
nearest stream and (2) encourage land treatment methods to retain
and filter urban runoff for groundwater recharge.

4.1 PREDEVELOPMENT BASELINE

Traditionally, the concern in sizing drainage facilities has been
to control surplus runoff originating from impervious surfaces. This
problem has generally been solved by reducing the runoff peak to the
rate expected from the land in its predeveloped state under design
storm conditions. Existing land use is generally considered to be
the predevelopment baseline, and agriculture, particularly row crops,
is the existing land use in a majority of cases.* Agriculture has
already increased runoff and decreased recharge over natural, e.g.
forested, conditions (Dils, 1953). Using agriculture as the baseline
instead of forest reduces drainage requirements to an accounting of
the change in characteristics produced by impervious surfaces and a
managing of the peak created by that change. Recharge on the site's
pervious surfaces may increase as lawns with good infiltration
replace crops. For densities up to 4 or more dwelling units per acre,
total recharge in urbanized areas may in some cases be slightly
greater than in agricultural areas.

4.1.1 PROCEDURES. To show the enormous effect of using an
agricultural baseline for design purposes, runoff and recharge were
compared for several land uses using a procedure outlined by the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (Mockus, 1964). In it, direct runoff
can be determined from accumulated rainfall if the soil characteristics
and cover complex are known. This approach was used on an hourly
basis for the rainfall from a 10-year, 24-hour storm (5.2 inches of
precipitation) whose temporal distribution (hyetograph) was
determined from the Corps of Engineers design distribution pattern
(Turner, Collie and Braden, 1976).

A computer model was developed which would employ the SCS
procedure using soil and land use data from the New Castle County
Automated Environmental Resource Information system (AERI), a
geobased system of 500 foot (5.7 acre) grid cells. The model
considered only the predominant land use of each cell to determine
accumulated point runoff and infiltration on an hourly basis.

4.1.2 TEST SITE. Belltown Run Basin, located in south central
New Castle County, Delaware, was the focus of this pilot study

*Cash grain farming with little management, corn and soybeans
predominating, is the most extensive agricultural activity in New
Castle County.

197

GOEHRING et al.

(Figure 1). This basin is virtually undeveloped, and of its 4,800
acres, agriculture is the dominant land use.

BECKS POND
WILMINGTON
J

ii /ii ,, BELLTOWN,,,/
g4 . .1v'RUN BASIN :

, 'L_> (J 0 Scale in miles I NEW CASTLE COUNTY

BELLTOWN RUN BASIN
Figure 1
Infiltration comparisons were made between three hypothetical
land uses in this basin: (1) total forest, (2) composite forests and
agriculture, and (3) total agriculture. These data indicate that, as
expected, when landscape changes from forest to agriculture, runoff
increases (Figure 2).
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION AND INFILTRATION:
Belltown Run Basin (SCS Procedure)
Based on 10-year frequency, 24-hour storm with 5.2" of precipitation.

5 RECIPITATIO
PRECIPITATION S- PRECIPITATION

' 4
, I
0 FOREST
z
Z 3 3
z EXISTING
O FOREST AND LAND USE
AGRICULTURE
<2 2
I-' '
AGRI- LAND
z CULTURE USE PLAN

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
HOURS HOURS
Figure 2 Figure 3

198

GOEHRING et al.

Comparing the data and the infiltration curves of Figure 2 with
the same information for existing land use and the fully developed
land use plan (Figure 3) shows that urban runoff and recharge relation-
ships in Belltown Run are more closely akin to the agricultural
rather than the forested relationships. Existing land use produces
less runoff than the full agricultural basin because a substantial
amount of the basin is still forested. A fully developed land use
plan, however, reduces forest and eliminates all agricultural lands.
Runoff and infiltration from this land use pattern is approximately
equal to the totally agricultural land use pattern (Table 7).

Table 7
RUNOFF AND INFILTRATION RATES FOR VARYING LAND USES, SCS METHODOLOGY

Runoff Infiltration
Land Use In % In %

Forest 36.1 63.9
Part forest, agriculture 57.9 42.1
Agriculture 64.3 35.7
Existing 54.6 45.4
Plan 63.7 36.3

The results suggest that the use of forest as a baseline to
regulate the volume of runoff would reduce direct runoff from a fully
developed basin by one-third and would thereby store substantial
amounts of water in the soil. Additionally, the use of such a base-
line would add substantial costs to the traditional approach of
controlling peak flow and providing storage.

It is recognized that use of a forest baseline would raise the
costs of drainage and stormwater management to the developer which, in
turn, would be passed on to the consumer in the form of increased
housing costs. Concern for the homeowner is legitimate, but it need
not preempt the adoption of environmentally desirable regulations. The
issue is the location of the responsibility for restoration of
infiltration rates to their former levels and how to place this
responsibility.

New drainage baselines have the effect of creating new markets
for farmland that has been well-managed because of savings in drainage
costs. And, vice versa, declining markets may result for land that
has been poorly managed. This problem should be addressed wherever
farm management planning is practiced *since runoff must be retained
in order to reduce soil and agricultural chemical losses. Farm
management planning is an important adjunct to any contemporary
drainage program. What means exist to provide the necessary storage
for water that must be retained?

*Farmers in two basins in New Castle County now participate on a
voluntary basis in a conservation program jointly conducted by the New
Castle Conservation District and the Water Resources Agency.

199

GOEHRING et al.

4.2 STORAGE CAPACITY

The SCS procedure presupposes a specific amount of storage
capacity in soil not covered by impervious surfaces and varies this
for each of three antecedent moisture conditions. It does not take
into account the total storage capacity remaining in the soil covered
by impervious surfaces and in the geologic materials that lie beneath
the soil layer. To analyze the effect of additional storage on runoff
and infiltration, the SCS procedure was expanded to account for the
soil moisture storage capacity of the unsaturated water table
aquifer without constraints on soil infiltration rates (i.e. if
groundwater recharge were practiced to its fullest capacity). For the
Belltown Run example, the unsaturated aquifer thickness was developed
with the assumption that the soil-aquifer interface occurs at a
uniform depth of 48 inches. This thickness was then related to a
specific yield based on the particle size of the material (Johmson,
1967). Determined runoff relationships are again graphically
summarized (Figures 4 and 5).
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION AND INFILTRATION:
Belitown Run Basin (SOS Procedure with Water Table Aquifer Storage)
Based on 10-year frequency, 24-hour storm with 5.2" of precipitation.

PRECI PITATION PRECIPITATION

I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I
w4 II OREST4
a FOESTAND EXISTING _ _
FORST LAND
AGRICULTURELNUS
3 3
LAND
A ~'AGRI- ! USE
ii I~~~ PLAN
2CULTURE 2
'42 2

Z I

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
HOURS HOURS

Figure 4 Figure 5

200

GOEHRING et al.

Comparison were again made among the three hypothetical land
uses and between existing land uses and the developed land use plan.
These data indicate that runoff from the basin would decrease for all
land uses if a means existed to recharge the water table through
inhibiting soil layers (Table 8), and infiltration would be substan-
tially higher.

Table 8 ____
RUNOFF AND INFILTRATION RATES FOR VARYING LAND USES ASSUMING EXPANDED
MOISTURE STORAGE CAPACITY
Runoff Infiltration
Land Use In % In %

Forest 23.8 76.2
Part forest, agriculture 34.3 65.7
Agriculture 38.1 61.9
Existing 32.8 67.2
P lan 37.4 62.6

The results also suggest-that the amount of storage in the
geologic materials may be sufficient to attenuate the rate of runoff
of a fully developed land use plan to the level of a forested basin
under natural conditions (62.6 vs. 63.9 percent of precipitation).
Reductions in drainage costs might be achievable As well (Lindley,
1974). Other benefits lie. in augmenting groundwater supplies, base-
f lows, and assimilative capacities and in providing opportunities for
treatment of urban r unoff. Infiltration systems have, for example,
been found particularly effective in reducing BOD, suspended solids,
total coliform, and nutrients as compared to a variety of source
controls, collection systems, and storage and treatment (Turner,
Collie and Braden, 1976).

There are problems associated with not managing the volume of
runoff as well as with managing it. Unless runoff volumes are to be
maintained at predevelopment levels, problems will still occur in the
stream. The problem that occurs is one of high flows and erosive
velocities due to overlapping flood peaks from tributaries.. On-site
detention can keep the flood crests in the smallest tributaries at
predevelopment levels but, because of added volume, the flood crests
are maintained for a much longer duration. The longer tributary flood
crests begin to overlap in the main channel and create higher and
longer flood flows than in the undeveloped or only partially regulated
basin.

Recharge practiced on a more widespread basis undoubtedly will
raise the water table and could affect basements, septic system
drainfields, the location of the frost zones and the construction
of buildings and roads if practiced indiscriminantly. Similarly,
surface storage has an undesirable effect. The value given to these
costs and inconveniences must be weighed against the value of water
management benefits. There is no substitute for reasonable
application of infiltration techniques and supplemental offsite
facilities.

201

GOEHRING et at.

In the New Castle County Drainage Code, recharge is considered
a viable option for managing surplus water, and technical exhibits
to demonstrate feasibility are specified. Recharge, 'however, is not
widely practiced. There is no requirement for recharge even in major
recharge areas. No guidelines have been prepared, and there is no
incentive, economic or otherwise, to use such techniques. Correcting
these situations will depend upon more widespread interest in the
water supply and quality benefits that may be achieved. What means
exist to encourage use of this storage capacity?

4.3 CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUSNESS

A local government's drainage code has to be flexible enough to
be administered through piece-meal decisions without losing sight
of its objectives. Recharge concepts are not new.' A number of model
projects have illustrated entire systems of techniques. What would be
significant, however, is a drainage code which recognizes that the
purpose of drainage facilities is to manage the byproduct of changes
in the impervious character of the land. Whether by direct regulation
or creation of a public utility, the cost of drainage should fall most
upon the individual or activity that increases drainage responsibili-
ties most.

Stormwater financing raises many questions. How are the
administrative and construction costs of a stormwater management
program to be funded? What costs are to be included or excluded?
How will the costs of specific improvements be allocated between
developer, principal beneficiaries, and the general public?

The key issue is the last. Use of property taxes , general
obligation bonds, special assessments, or federal funding presumes a
definition of equity and efficiency that may not match with the
objectives of stormwater management as illustrated here. What costs
are or are not included is merely an accounting procedure with its
own rationales. If the objective of stormwater management is to
restore the hydrologic response of a watershed to its natural con-
dition, the financing issue revolves around the use of fiscal means,
specifically cost allocation, to accomplish that objective.

Restoring the hydrologic response typical of a natural landscape
requires a drainage code that regulates recharge and a financing
procedure that encourages recharge. The approach must assess each
individual according to the "benefits" received. Some guiding
principles are (King County, 1977):

(1) Any user charge system should be tied to use of the system.
(2) All users should pay.
(3) All charges should be for current use.
(4) Land in its natural state should not be charged.
(5) The system of charges should provide incentives for sound
development which does not aggravate surface water problems.
(6) The system of charges should be relatively inexpensive to
implement.

202

GOEHRING et al.

What we suggest in this paper is that equity and efficiency work
together, provided that we re-define "benefit." Benefit means to
change the imperviousness of the watershed by a choice of land use
which places a demand on the stream to carry away storm runoff and
pollutants. Some jurisdictions finance on the basis of amount of
impervious surface, but this would seem equitable only in areas where
the natural perviousness of the watershed was relatively uniform. For
a watershed that is not, this method could result in some inequities.
Figure 6 shows how change in runoff volume is a function of the
hydrologic characteristics of a soil as well as the percent of
imperviousness of a given land use.
EFFECTS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON TOTAL
RUNOFF FOR SCS HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS
Based on 10-year frequency, 24-hour storm with 5.2" of precipitation.

C _ D >0
Z D

0 2 --H 40 I O

1 At 20-
20 Z _

20 30 40 50 60
% IMPERVIOUS

Figure 6
A financing method based on both impervious surface and
hydrologic soil characteristics could meet the test of equity, since
the problem of non-uniform soils is taken into account. This method
is economically efficient in that it promotes the utilization of
groundwater recharge techniques by making it economically advantageous
to avoid drastic changes in the hydrologic cycle. It thereby protects
primary aquifer recharge areas and assures greater quantities of
recharge/infiltration for base flow and assimilative capacity aug-
mentation. The essential element of this fiscal policy is a belief
that the Lord did not create all lands equally and that it is in the
interests of good fiscal and environmental management to treat changes
in the hydrologic cycle accordingly.

The administration of this practice is shown in Figures 7, 8, and
9. Figure 7 shows the SCS procedure applied to calculating infiltra-
tion under a forest cover. The map indicates the quantitative
distribution of potential infiltration and thereby indicates where the
change in imperviousness would have the greatest effect on runoff.
This Figure could be a guide to determining drainage and recharge
requirements.

203

EFFECT OF LAND COVER AND SOILS ON INFILTRATION:
Belltown Run Basin (SCS Procedure)
Based on 10-year frequency, 24-hour storm with 5.2" of precipitation

FOREST LAND USE PLAN

26% Forest
9% Agriculture
5% Parks
100% Deciduous 43% Residential
' ~'~ ~ ~ ~ forest 16% Other Urban

Percent of Precipitation
[--] >80% ~ 21-40%
=61-80% ~ <20%
3 41-60% Water

Figure 7 Figure 8

GOEHRING et al.

EFFECT OF LAND COVER AND SOILS ON INFILTRATION:
Belltown Run Basin (SCS Procedure with water table aquifer storage)
Based on 10-year frequency, 24-hour storm of 5.2" pf of precipitation

LAND USE PLAN

26.orest
9% Agriculture
5% Parks
43% Residential
16% Other Urban

Percent of Precipitation
=-- >80% 21-40%
61-80% [M <20%
i7741-60% I Water

Figure 9

205

GOEHRING et al.

Figure 8 shows the SCS procedure applied to the developed land
use plan. Overall, runoff is much higher and is approximately
equivalent to the runoff of a totally agricultural basin. This map
reflects the distribution of infiltration as a result of a change in
land use and traditional drainage practices. Depending on the land
use, a given soil may yield different volumes of runoff, and vice
versa.

Under the assumption that the hydrologic impact of a change in
imperviousness must be controlled to the forest level, methods to
utilize the storage capacity in the Pleistocene sediments might be
investigated. Figure 9 illustrates the effect that storage capacity
has on infiltration, assuming techniques were utilized to access this
capacity. Infiltration in the sediments is sufficient to restore
total basin infiltration to the forested level. The pattern of
infiltration differs because it is the sum of the effects of land use,
soil, and storage capacity.

Land use choices obviously limit the opportunities for recharge.
However, the requirement for volume control should remain the same for
ail lands, that is, to maintain volume and peak runoff at the forested
level. In administering the requirement, it should be expected that
conventional drainage techniques must supplement recharge techniques
where opportunities are limited. All on-site facilities would be
the responsibility of the individual changing the hydrologic character
of the land. Off-site facilities, where needed, would be financed
in proportion to their use by individuals who need supplemental
drainage. In this way, the cost of off-site drainage facilities is
greatest on lands with good recharge properties. Change in
impervious surface can be determined at the project evaluation stage,
whereupon a fee could be assigned based upon drainage plans for the
watershed (according to common practice).

5. SUMMARY

A chronology of events was outlined earlier which showed New
Castle County's comprehensiveness in dealing with drainage problems.
The first attempts at a drainage program focussed on expediting flow
from A watershed. An attempt is now underway 'to reverse some of that
earlier thinking. Water supply and quality considerations have gained
in priority as part of the contemporary drainage program.

Ideas were also outlined for addressing the water supply and
quality concerns, and a fiscal policy was discussed as an important
adjunct to a regulatory process built around new technical baselines,
procedures, and criteria. An optimal situation was presented to
convey the ideas if not their technical details.

Most importantly, a strong case was made for setting environmental
criteria (forest runoff and infiltration relationships) as the
baselines for managing the hydrologic response of a watershed.
Volume control is the primary consideration. Use of other baselines,
such as cropland, sets too low of a standard for volume control.
SCS procedures are discussed they relate to initial assumptions in

206

GOEHRING et al.

drainage facility design. Lacking data for recharge potential, such
procedures can underestimate the volume of runoff that can be managed.
Such underestimation biases drainage controls in favor of structural
rather than non-structural controls simply due to the volume of water
that must be managed offsite. Finally, the argument has been made
that the change in runoff by impervious surface construction should
be the basis of the regulatory and fiscal, elements of a drainage
codei~

Each community must determine what goals and objectives it seeks
for drainage management, that is, whether multiple water use shall
be part of the implmentation procedure. In recognition of pollution
and sedimentation from farmland, several states have passed or are
considering legislation to set mandatory controls on soil erosion
which specify performance and other details. The idea of setting
mandatory limits for soil or runoff from the land is not new. All
that is new is the use of environmental baselines for standards.

As a minimum, each community must look at opportunities in future
land development for rectifying past inattention to water supply
and quality considerations. The entire issue of control of urban
runoff quality is much larger, involving established neighborhoods,
combined sewers, and other complexities too involved to deal with
here. A contemporary drainage code, however, would use the hydrologic
regime as the key to the management system and as an orgainzing
concept for development of drainage basins. We can do more to
prevent repetition of past mistakes by such procedures, and thereby
attain the most cost-effective program overall.

Legalities may be the most significant institutional barrier to
overcome (Poertner, 1975). Each of the three drainage laws in the
U.S. permits a landowner to enhance the drainage of his property so
long as he does not act unreasonably or negligently. The prepon-
derence of modern legal cases treat surface water interference on
the theory of private nuisance which causes injury to a person in
the enjoyment of his estate. The degree to which an individual can
drain his property is limited by a balancing of relative benefit and
harm (i.e. reasonable use is permitted). Following this line of
reasoning, it is often suggested, somewhat perversely, that downstream
property owners reimburse upstream owners for detention facilities.
This is based on the premise that any reduction in runoff required
of the upper owner confers a benefit (reduced flooding) on the
downstream owner which he or she should pay for. The "treasonable
usW rule is the reason the water law property concept is robbed of
much of its effectiveness as a tool for pollution control, flood
control, and recharge. An ordinance authorizing storm sewers, for
example, endorses this rule and could arguably be construed as
taking the disposal of surplus water and pollution of streams by
stormwater discharges out of the nuisance category.

Recharge has been recognized by engineers primarily as a
technique to control runoff to the level of "reasonable use." To
achieve a higher standard of volume control would not be necessary
under existing drainage laws. In arid climates the possibility of

207

GOEHRING et al.

of altering what might be perceived as the "natural" runoff raises
one kind of question about the rights which pertain to runoff water.
And to design and construct for recharge raises still other questions
about liabilities. In view of these questions and present drainage
law, it is not surprising that most individuals view drainage rather
than recharge or restoration as the basic problem in land development.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to acknowledge the generous assistance of
Henry Folsom, President of New Castle County Council, Warren O'Sullivan,
Assistant County Engineer, and the WRA staff.

7. REFERENCES

9 Delaware Code 1965. Section 1, Part II, Chapter II, Subchapter
IX.

Dils, R. E. 1953. Influence of forest cutting and mountain
farming on some vegetation, surface soil, and surface
runoff characteristics. Station Paper 24, Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service.

Everhart, R. E. 1973. New town planned around environmental
aspects. Civil Engineering., Vol. 43.

Johnson, A. I. 1967. Specific yield-compilation of specific yields
for various materials. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 1662-D.

King County, Washington. 1977. Juanita Creek Basin Plan. King
County and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.

Leopold, L. B. 1968. Hydrology for urban land planning--a guide-
book on the hydrologic effects of urban land use.
Circular 554, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Lindley, R. W., Jr. 1974. Municipal Storm Water Management programs,
National Symposium on urban rainfall and runoff and
sedimentation control, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Mockus, V. 1964. Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall.
Soil Conservation Service National Engineering Handbook,
Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 10.

Poertner, H. C. 1975. Urban stormwater management problems and
solutions. EPA Urban Stormwater Management Seminar,
Atlanta, Georgia.

Turner, Collie and Braden, Inc. 1976. A report and perspective
on stormwater management. Office of Water and Sewer
Management, New Castle County, Delaware.

208

GOEHRING et al.

Urban Land Institute 1975. Residential stormwater management
objectives, principles, and design considerations.
Urban Land Institute; American Society of Civil
Engineers; and National Association of Home Builders.
Washington, D,C,

209

AREAWIDE AND LOCAL FRAMEWORKS FOR URBAN

NONPOINT POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA

JOHN P. HARTIGAN1, BRUCE DOUGLAS2, DAVID J. BIGGERS1, THEODORE J.
WESSEL2 AND DAVID STROH2

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Falls Church, VA
2 Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax County, Falls Church, VA

Introduction

Background
The 580 sq mi Occoquan River Basin is a major tributary of the
Potomac Estuary located on the southern periphery of the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Figure 1 shows a generalized
map of the urbanizing basin, which traverses four counties and two
cities and is situated astride the Piedmont Upland and Piedmont
Lowland geologic provinces. Mean annual rainfall in the basin
totals approximately 40 inches.

Table 1 compares the existing land use pattern in the basin
with Year 2005 projections. As may be seen, local land use
projections indicate that urban development will increase from 10%
to 24% of the basin's total land area by the Year 2005.

The 9.8 billion gallon Occoquan Reservoir, which is located at
the mouth of the basin, is one of thefew major water supply
impoundments in the Eastern United States that is located
downstream from an urbanizing region. It was constructed in 1957
to meet the growing water supply needs of the Virginia suburbs of
the nation's capital. The Reservoir presently serves more than
640,000 customers in two counties and two cities in the Northern
Virginia region.

In the late 1960's, classical symptoms of "cultural

211

/SLOUDOUN CO.J '..-
North

LOCATION MAP PI

LOUDOUIN Co.

L RESGERVI SAPLN STT

QUIER AL~IGUEX1 GNEAIEMPOFCCQNRVRBSN

HARTIGAN et al.

TABLE 1
OCCOQUAN BASIN LAND USE PATTERNS

EXISTING YEAR 2005
LAND USE (% of Total) (% of Total)

Single Family Residential 7% 16%
Multifamily Residential 1% 2%
Industrial 1% 2%
Commercial 1% 2%
Institutional 1% 2%
Forest 48% 41%
Idle Land 7% 6%
Pasture 24% 20%
Cropland 10% 9%
TOTAL: 100% 100%

eutrophication" were observed in the water supply impoundment,
characterized by periodic blooms of nuisance algae, oxygenless
conditions in the lower layer of the reservoir, fish kills, and
filter clogging at the Fairfax County Water Authority's water
treatment plant. Following a one-yearstudy (1) of water quality
problems in the watershed, the Virginia State Water Control Board
(SWCB) in 1971 promulgated a policy (2) for regional wastewater
management which has proven to be one of the nation's most
ambitious, far-reaching water quality management programs. The
SWCB's "Occoquan Policy" required that the jurisdictions in the
basin replace eleven secondary sewage treatment plants with a
regional advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plant which would
provide 97% removal of nitrogen, 99.5% removal of phosphorus, and
99.5% removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and would be
situated immediately upstream from the Occoquan Reservoir. The $82
million Occoquan AWT plant began treatment operations in July, 1978
at an initial capacity of 8 MGD. The 1971 Occoquan Policy included
provisions for eventually expanding the plant to 39 MGD after it
has been demonstrated that the AWT is consistently achieving
sufficient point source control.

The Occoquan Policy was founded on the assumption (1) that
secondary wastewater treatment plants and agricultural runoff
represented the major sources of pollutants that were degrading the
quality of Occoquan Reservoir waters. Consequently, at the time of
policy promulgation, it was assumed that construction of the
regional AWT plant would not only eliminate wastewater sources of
the contaminants but that it would also reduce nonpoint pollution
loadings by accelerating the conversion of agricultural lands to
suburban development (1). However, subsequent studies by the
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (OWML) and the Northern

213

HARTIGAN et al.

Major objective of NVPDC's Occoquan River Basin Nonpoint
Pollution Management Program is to minimize the impacts of impending
urbanization on the long and winding Occoquan Reservoir,
the principal water supply for the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.

214

HARTIGAN et al.

Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) have indicated that
while higher levels of wastewater treatment represent an essential
ingredient of a basinwide water quality management program, the
regional AWT plant should not be regarded as a panacea. These
studies have shown that nonpoint pollution loadings of critical
pollutants such as plant nutrients, organic materials, and heavy
metals, are much higher than originally assumed and therefore, that
nonpoint sources presently represent a significant contributor of
pollutant loadings to the basin's receiving waters. In fact, these
studies have shown that future urban development which is supported
by the basin's AWT plant can be expected to increase, rather than
decrease, nonpoint pollution loadings. In other words, it has
become apparent that a basinwide nonpoint pollution management
program is required to reinforce the benefits of the basin's
wastewater management plan.

Scope of Paper
This paper describes areawide and local programs that have
been established to manage nonpoint pollution in the Occoquan River
Basin. The first section summarizes the 208 planning studies that
laid the groundwork for nonpoint pollution management programs in
the basin. The second section outlines the framework of the
areawide management program which was established by the basin's
local governments and water resources management agencies and is
administered by Northern Virginia's regional planning agency. The
third section presents a case study of a local management program
developed by Fairfax County pursuant to the areawide management
program and local water quality management objectives.

Areawide Planning Program for Occoquan River Basin

The 208 planning program for the metropolitan Washington
region is coordinated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (COG). Since the Occoquan River Basin constitutes a
multijurisdictional planning area with water quality problems which
are quite different from those confronting other tributaries of the
Potomac River and Estuary, COG authorized NVPDC, a submetropolitan
planning agency, to coordinate the development of an areawide plan
for the basin. The distribution of land area among the six
jurisdictions located within the Occoquan Basin is as follows:
Prince William County--40.1%; Fairfax County--17.8%; Fauquier
County--35.5%; Loudoun County--4.9%; City of Manassas--1.4%; and
City of Manassas Park--0.3%.

The NVPDC 208 planning program, which began in August 1976,
was supervised by an advisory committee called the "Occoquan Study
Group" composed of elected officials and senior staff
representatives of the six jurisdictions located within the
Occoquan Basin, a staff representative of the City of Alexandria
which is one of the major users of the Occoquan Reservoir water
supply, a representative of NVPDC, a representative of SWCB,
representatives of the basin's local water and sewer authorities,
and representatives of local and State agricultural and forestry
management agencies. Since SWCB's 1971 Occoquan Policy had

215

HARTIGAN et al.

effectively eliminated point sources of pollution in the Occoquan
Basin, NVPDC's 208 planning studies focused on the water quality
problems which would not be addressed by the basin's regional AWT
plant.

Characterization of Nonpoint Pollution Problems
NVPDC's 208 planning assessments of nonpoint pollution
problems relied upon three related studies: an OWML monitoring
study of nonpoint pollution loadings from 8 major sub-basins with
mixed land use patterns; a follow-up field study of nonpoint
pollution loadings from small watersheds with homogeneous land use
patterns, which was conducted by NVPDC and Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (VPI&SU); and computer-based
modeling studies of the Occoquan River Basin which relied upon
nonpoint pollution loading data produced by the OWML and
NVPDC/VPI&SU field studies.

OWML was created by the SWCB in 1972 to establish surface
water quality records that can be used to gauge the efficiency of
the regional AWT plant. It has developed a continuous water
quality record over a six-year period which adequately describes
the trophic state of the Occoquan Reservoir and which has defined
baseline water quality in the major tributaries. In addition, the
use of automatic sampling equipment at the OWML stream monitoring
stations shown in Figure 1 has permitted the development of an
extended record of wet-weather loadings of plant nutrients and
sediment produced in the basin. The monitoring stations are
located on perennial streams draining sub-basins that range from 4
to 343 sq mi in size. Stations B, C, and H drain urbanized land
areas, while station D drains an undeveloped section of the
urbanizing Bull Run sub-basin. Stations A, E, F, and G drain
rural-agricultural lands. Seasonal and annual loadings measured at
Stations A and B from 1975 to 1977 permitted comparisons of point
and nonpoint pollution inputs to the Occoquan Reservoir for pre-AWT
plant conditions and of nonpoint pollution loadings from urbanizing
(Station B) and rural-agricultural (Station A) study areas.

In June 1976, NVPDC and the Civil Engineering Department of
VPI&SU initiated a more intensive field study of relationships
between land use and nonpoint pollution (3). This study was a
logical extension of the OWML monitoring effort which had
documented the significance of nonpoint pollution loadings in the
Occoquan Basin and had suggested certain cause-effect relationships
that required further testing. The NVPDC-VPI&SU study was intended
to identify the specific sources of the runoff pollution loads
recorded at the OWML stations and to identify some of the physical
characteristics that determine the response of each source to
rainfall. The twelve-month field study was funded by the COG 208
planning program to develop nonpoint pollution loading data that
could be applied throughout the Metropolitan Washington region.
Runoff from 21 small watersheds (26-acre average) draining
homogeneous land use patterns was monitored for the following
nonpoint pollutants: plant nutrients, BOD, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), heavy metals (e.g., lead, zinc), sediment, and fecal

216

HARTIGAN et al.

coliforms. The distribution of monitoring sites among urban and
rural-agricultural land use classifications was as follows: 5
single family residential watersheds, 4 townhouse-garden apartment
watersheds, 3 high-rise residential watersheds, 3 shopping center
watersheds, 1 central business district watershed, 1 construction
site, 3 agricultural watersheds, and 1 forested watershed.
Thirteen of the watersheds were located in the Occoquan Basin at
installations upstream from existing OWML monitoring stations. To
project the impacts of dense urban development that is currently
being proposed for the Occoquan Basin, eight additional watersheds
were located in the more intensively developed Four Mile Run
Watershed which is situated approximately 13 mi east of the
Occoquan Basin.

NVPDC used the data produced by the OWML and NVPDC/VPI&SU
field studies to formulate and calibrate the Occoquan Basin
Computer Model (4,5,6), a sophisticated planning tool for isolating
receiving water quality problems caused by nonpoint pollution
loadings and for assessing the benefits of alternative management
strategies. The Occoquan Basin Computer Model consists of a
hydrologic/pollutant washoff submodel (7) and an instream process
submodel (8). that utilizes the "land use-nonpoint pollution"
relationships produced by the NVPDC/VPI&SU field study and vast
amounts of data on the basin's soils characteristics, ground cover,
drainageways, and hydrometeorologic conditions. The model consists
of 15 sub-basins (39 sq mi average) that are linked by 12 idealized
stream channels and 3 reservoirs. To assure that the model
adequately describes the water resources processes in the Occoquan
River Basin, certain model parameters were calibrated or "fine
tuned" by comparing simulated and measured streamflow and water
quality for selected periods. Comparisons of simulated and
measured hydrologic data were based on a five-year calibration
period (1971-1975) and a three-year verification period (1967-1970)
at three streamgages in the basin, while water quality calibration
was based on a three-year period of record (1974-1976) available at
five stream monitoring stations and one Occoquan Reservoir station
operated by OWML. The calibration and verification results were
satisfactory, with discrepancies between simulated and measured
values approximating the expected errors in the measurement of
hydrometeorologic data and in laboratory analyses. Therefore, it
was concluded that the calibrated model provides an adequate
representation of hydrologic and water quality processes in the
Occoquan Basin.

Summarized below are the nonpoint pollution problems in the
Occoquan River Basin that have been identified by OWML monitoring
studies, the NVPDC/VPI&SU field study, and applications of NVPDC's
Occoquan Basin Computer Model.

Plant Nutrients. OWML's mass balance for seasonal and annual
plant nutrient loads released into the headwaters of the Occoquan
Reservoir during 1975-1977 highlighted the wide disparity between
nonpoint pollution loadings and point source contributions (for
pre-AWT wastewater flows and concentrations) with the former

217

HARTIGAN et al.

Wet weather monitoring program operated by the Occoquan Watershed
Monitoring Laboratory has helped quantify nonpoint pollution
loads released into the Occoquan Reservoir by tributary streams.

218

HARTIGAN et al.

contributing loadings that were often more than ten times greater
than the latter (9,10,11). The disparity between nonpoint and
point source contributions can be attributed, in large part, to the
fact that urban point source discharges were relatively low (i.e.,
5.1-6.7 MGD) during this period and were contributed by only 5%-10%
of the basin land area while the nonpoint pollution loadings could
potentially have been produced by the entire drainage area upstream
from the Occoquan Reservoir. The mass balance also indicated that
on a "per acre" basis, nonpoint pollution loadings from the
urbanizing sub-basin (Station B) were as much as two times greater
than the loadings from the rural-agricultural sub-basin (Station
A). Results of the NVPDC/VPI&SU field study confirmed that annual
unit area loadings from urban land use categories are considerably
higher than loadings from forestland, pastureland, and cropland
relying upon minimum tillage practices. Cropland relying upon
conventional tillage practices produced the highest unit area loads
of all land use categories. The NVPDC/VPI&SU field study also
indicated that urban land uses with the highest levels of
impervious ground cover exhibited the highest annual unit area
loading rates, and that a significant percentage of plant nutrient
loadings from all urban land uses was consistently in a dissolved
form (i.e., unattached to sediment) with the mean dissolved loading
in urban runoff ranging from 58% - 73% of the total load for
nitrogen and from 31% - 55% of the total load for phosphorus.

A "half-empty bowl" effect within the Occoquan Reservoir
during the spring, summer, and fall months, which can be attributed
to drawdown of the water supply reservoir, allows nonpoint
pollution loads produced by most rainstorms to be detained in the
Reservoir following the storm event rather than released over
Occoquan Dam. Receiving water studies with the Occoquan Basin
Computer Model have indicated that in a year of average wetness, at
least 50% - 60% of the plant nutrient loadings in runoff may be
detained in the Reservoir long enough to have an adverse effect on
water quality when quiescent conditions return. NVPDC's modeling
studies of the nonpoint pollution impacts of existing and future
(Year 2005) land use patterns have focused on loadings of
phosphorus, which is considered to be the most critical plant
nutrient in terms of Reservoir eutrophication. The modeling
studies (12) have indicated that increasing urban development from
10% to approximately 24% of the total basin area, in the absence of
any point source loadings or any nonpoint pollution controls, can
be expected to: (a) increase annual phosphorus loadings from 86
tons/yr to 100 tons/yr for a year of average wetness; (b) increase
mean chlorophyll a concentrations during warm weather months by 20%
and maintain algal productivity at levels which are indicative of a
eutrophic lake; (c) increase average annual accumulations of
settled biomass (i.e., an indicator of lake eutrophication) by
approximately 20%; and (d) cause oxygenless conditions in the lower
layer of the Reservoir to persist for an additional seven days. In
other words, future urban development in the absence of nonpoint
pollution controls can be expected to increase, rather than
decrease, the rate of Occoquan Reservoir eutrophication to levels
which warrant concern, even after point source discharges of plant

219

HARTIGAN et at.

nutrients have been eliminated. In light of the impacts of
Reservoir eutrophication on water treatment costs (e.g., taste and
odor control, filter clogging), on the production of
trihalomethanes during water treatment, on the sustenance and
propagation of diverse aquatic life, and on water-based recreation
opportunities, it was concluded that the management of plant
nutrient loadings contributed by nonpoint sources promises
significant benefits.

Oxygen-Demanding Materials. Field studies (3) of nonpoint
pollution loadings in the Occoquan Basin have also demonstrated
that stormwater runoff is capable of producing significant loadings
of oxygen-demanding materials which can adversely affect aquatic
life in the basin's streams and impoundments. Using the "land
use-nonpoint pollution" relationships produced by the NVPDC/VPI&SU
field study, NVPDC model projections of ultimate BOD and unoxidized
nitrogen loadings delivered to the Occoquan Reservoir by nonpoint
sources total approximately 3,744 tons/yr and 676 tons/yr,
respectively, for existing land use patterns and a year of average
wetness. By comparison, 1977 pre-AWT discharges from Bull Run's
point sources (approx. 6.7 MGD) totalled approximately 96 tons/yr
for BOD and 110 tons/yr for unoxidized nitrogen. Based on the
NVPDC/VPI&SU field study, which indicates that on a "per acre"
basis urban land use categories contribute higher BOD loadings than
rural-agricultural land uses NVPDC modeling studies project that
the Year 2005 development pattern in the Occoquan Basin will
produce annual BOD loadings which are 15% greater than 1979 levels.

Heavy Metals. The NVPDC modeling study has also highlighted
the impacts of heavy metals loadings produced by nonpoint
pollution. Based on land use loading potentials defined during the
NVPDC/VPI&SU field study (3), which demonstrated that nonpoint
pollution loadings of heavy metals such as lead and zinc are
positively related to the amount of pavement in an urban land use,
the Occoquan Basin Computer Model was used to compare heavy metals
impacts of existing (10% of basin in urban development) and future
(24% of basin in urban development) land use patterns. Modeling
studies of lead washoff and transport indicate that, in the absence
of nonpoint pollution controls, average annual loadings on the
basin's surface waters would increase from approximately 11 tons/yr
to 27 tons/yr by the Year 2005. Since the NVPDC/VPI&SU field study
demonstrated that 85% - 95% of the lead loadings in urban runoff is
associated with sediment, it is anticipated that the majority of
the increased lead loadings would accumulate in the bottom
sediments of the basin's reservoirs and streams, where it could
pose a considerable hazard to aquatic life in the basin's surface
waters. Moreover, if lead loadings from urban development are not
controlled, it is conceivable that nonpoint pollution loadings from
the Year 2005 land use pattern could produce occasional violations
of Virginia's raw water supply standard (0.05 mg/l) within the
Occoquan Reservoir.

Fecal Coliforms. While the standard deviations associated
with fecal coliform readings during the NVPDC/VPI&SU field study

220

HARTIGAN et al.

reflect the high variability in nonpoint pollution observations,
the mean and maximum concentrations reported for urban land uses
are high enough to suggest that runoff from future urban
development patterns could produce fecal contamination levels which
may restrict water-based recreation opportunities in the Occoquan
Basin's receiving waters. Mean concentrations observed in runoff
from urban land uses ranged from 12,000-16,000 MPN/100 ML for
single family land uses to 137,000 MPN/100 ML for multifamily land
uses, which exhibited a mean concentration that was slightly higher
than the mean concentration of shopping center runoff (101,000
MPN/100 ML).

Sedimentation. The significance of sediment loadings
delivered to the Occoquan Reservoir during wet-weather periods was
documented during the OWML study (9,10). From July 1975 - June
1977, annual sediment loadings delivered to the headwaters of the
Occoquan Reservoir (528 sq mi drainage area) averaged 75,500
tons/yr, despite the implementation of intensive erosion and
sediment control practices at all construction sites and the fact
that cropping practices occupy less than 10% of the total area
within the Occoquan River Basin. In view of these significant
loading rates, the potential reduction in Occoquan Reservoir
storage capacity due to sedimentation provides further
justification for nonpoint pollution management activities.

Trihalomethanes. OWML studies of the Occoquan Reservoir have
produced data which suggests that the formation of trihalomethanes
(THM's), a suspected carcinogen, during water treatment may be
related to the level of reservoir eutrophication and the associated
algal precursors which can be converted to THM's following
chlorination (13). This relationship implies that a reduction in
the rate of Occoquan Reservoir eutrophication through the
implementation of nonpoint pollution management practices may
produce reductions in THM concentrations in treated water.

More recently, a Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA) report
(14) on THM concentrations in treated water produced from the
Occoquan Reservoir supply has highlighted the potential impacts of
nonpoint pollution loadings. The FCWA report indicates that
relatively minor treatment process modifications (e.g., changes in
the point of chlorination) had succeeded in reducing THM
concentrations measured during the winter and spring of 1979 to
levels which met the drinking water standard (100 parts per
billion) proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). However THM concentrations measured in portions of the
treated water distribution system during June and July 1979 were
considerably higher than those observed during the months
characterized by cooler temperatures and "substantially in excess
of the proposed EPA standard." Since these THM levels have been
noted during a period when point source inputs are extremely low
due to AWT operations, it is conceivable that the relatively high
levels of THM precursors which were apparently present in the
Occoquan Reservoir during the 1979 algal growing season may be
related to organic materials that are contributed by and/or
produced from (i.e., due to algal productivity) nonpoint pollution

221

HARTIGAN et al.

loadings. In light of the high costs ($28 million capital cost and
$650,000 - $800,000 annual O&M cost) that would be associated with
the addition of granular activated carbon columns to FCWA's 65 MGD
treatment plant in order to meet the proposed EPA standard, the
implementation of nonpoint pollution management practices would
appear to be an attractive option for THM management.

Comparisons of Point and Nonpoint Sources. It should be noted
that any references to the impacts of point source pollution
loadings during the pre-AWT period are intended primarily as a
point of reference for gauging the significance of nonpoint
pollution impacts rather than as evidence that one source of
pollution is more significant than the other. While recent studies
have shown that nonpoint pollution loadings, particularly those
originating in urban areas, are much higher than originally
anticipated, OWML has also shown that the basin's wastewater
loadings can effect substantial water quality problems during
extreme low flow periods (15). Studies of the Occoquan Reservoir
during the drought of 1977, prior to the start-up of the regional
AWT plant, showed that wastewater inflows from the basin's
secondary treatment plants represented as much as 39% of the total
monthly inflows to the Occoquan Reservoir during the latter stages
of the drought and for several days in late September and early
October represented as much as 90% of the daily inflows. As a
result of the relatively high contributions of sewage treatment
plant discharges, the Bull Run headwaters of the Occoquan Reservoir
exhibited the most serious water quality degradation that had been
observed since the start of the OWML monitoring program. Reservoir
monitoring data collected by OWML since the AWT plant began
operating in July 1978 indicates that the tertiary treatment
facility will prevent the recurrence of water quality problems
during subsequent low flow periods. Consequently, advanced levels
of wastewater treatment represent a critical element in the
Occoquan Basin water quality management program even if the
seasonal and annual pollutant loadings from secondary treatment
plants were relatively low in comparison with nonpoint pollution
loadings.

Assessments of Urban Nonpoint Pollution Control Strategies
Characterization of Urban BMP's. Based on the
characterizations presented above, the NVPDC 208 planning study
concluded that uncontrolled nonpoint pollution loadings constitute
a serious threat to the Occoquan Basin's surface waters and
impoundments. The latter stages of the NVPDC study focused on
assessing the cost-effectiveness of alternative nonpoint pollution
management strategies. The NVPDC study relied upon the "worst
case" assumption that nonpoint pollution controls would only be
applied to urban development projected to occur between 1979 and
2005 for the following reasons: (a) it was felt that with the
exception of street-sweeping programs in the basin's cities,
retrofitting existing urban development with nonpoint pollution
management facilities did not represent a very cost-effective
management option; (b) comparisons of existing nonpoint pollution
loadings and "controlled" loadings from future urban development

222

HARTIGAN et al.

were expected to be very helpful to those jurisdictions which were
considering the use of land use controls to manage water quality in
the Occoquan Basin; and (c) since rural-agricultural nonpoint
pollution management programs will rely upon voluntary adoption of
nonpoint pollution controls, it was felt that they could be ignored
in the initial modeling studies to permit a detailed analysis of
the benefits of urban controls.

Urban "best management practices" (BMP's) for controlling
nonpoint pollution may be subdivided into four categories: (a)
source controls: land use controls and maintenance programs (e.g.,
street sweeping) that minimize the accumulation and exposure of
pollutants on the land surface and in the atmosphere during dry
weather periods; (b) volume controls: BMP's that channel a
specified volume of runoff and associated pollutant loadings into
the soil profile where pollutant removal can occur through
physical, chemical, and biological processes; (c) detention basin
controls: BMP's that store stormwater and rely upon solids
settling processes to remove sediment and sediment-related
pollutant loadings; (d) stormwater treatment controls: BMP's that
rely upon the addition of chemicals to stormwater storage basins to
remove suspended and dissolved loadings which would not otherwise
settle out in standard stormwater detention basins. The literature
provides relatively little information on the efficiencies of BMP's
and data that is available is not always transferable due to
differences in air quality, hydrometeorologic conditions, and
public works practices that characterize the study area. Since
very detailed information on "land use-nonpoint pollution"
relationships had previously been developed (3) for the Occoquan
Basin, NVPDC decided that it would be appropriate to use available
computer models to estimate the efficiency of structural BMP's
under selected operating rules. It is felt that the BMP efficiency
projections produced by these modeling studies can serve as
reasonable planning estimates until local field data on BMP
operations becomes available.

Since one of the objectives of the control measure study was
to determine whether or not BMP's could realistically be
substituted for restrictions on future urban development in the
basin, land use controls were not evaluated with the Occoquan Basin
Computer Model. Street-sweeping controls were also omitted from
the modeling study since this BMP was felt to be unsuitable for
large-scale applications in the basin's four counties where roadway
maintenance is the responsibility of the State rather than the
local governments. Although neither source control BMP is felt to
be adequate for areawide application in the basin, both land use
planning techniques and street-sweeping controls represent viable
alternatives for supplementing the water quality benefits of
areawide management programs that rely upon other urban BMP's.

To simplify the BMP evaluations and to assure that the BMP
comparisons were uniform from one jurisdiction to the next, it was
assumed that all structural BMP's would be of the "onsite" variety
serving 40-acre watersheds with a homogeneous land use pattern. A

223

HARTIGAN et al.

40-acre drainage area was utilized since this watershed size was
relatively close to the average drainage area tributary to a series
of onsite controls included in a recent study (16) of suburban
stormwater management practices in the metropolitan Washington
area. Each BMP strategy was simulated with NVPDC's
STORAGE-TREATMENT submodel (17) which is operated in series with
the NPS submodel (7) to approximate the major unit processes that
remove pollutants from runoff waters passing through the BMP. For
modeling studies of volume controls (e.g., Dutch drains, seepage
pits) which have been utilized for several years in Occoquan Basin
jurisdictions for "flooding/streambank erosion" management, it was
assumed that pollutant removal rates achieved in the underlying
soil profile due to filtration, adsorption, biological decay, and
cation-exchange were equivalent to those defined for "land treatment"
facilities (i.e., rapid infiltration technique) used for wastewater
disposal (18). For modeling studies of detention basin BMP's,
which are also used in the Occoquan Basin for runoff quantity
management, the STORAGE-TREATMENT submodel was programmed to apply
user-specified sediment "trap efficiencies" to runoff inflows in
order to approximate solids settling processes. Modeling studies
of stormwater treatment BMP's relied upon the STORAGE-TREATMENT
submodel to simulate pollutant removal at rates reported for
physical-chemical treatment plants.

No modifications to existing stormwater management design
criteria are required to produce a multipurpose volume control
which achieves both runoff quantity and water quality management
benefits.

The detention basin BMP's were assumed to be characterized by
relatively high detention times (e.g., 30-40 hrs for drawdown) for
runoff from minor-to-moderate storm events, which are of greatest
concern from a water quality management standpoint. Traditionally,
detention ponds have been designed to operate as single-purpose
facilities that achieve "peak shaving" benefits during
flood-producing storms, but provide relatively low detention times
during the majority of storms.* In order to assure that detention
basins operate as multipurpose BMP's, traditional design criteria
must be modified to achieve relatively low release rates and high
detention times for minor-to-moderate storms and acceptable peak
release rates for flood-producing storms. Design criteria that
involve the use of either perforated riser pipes or subsurface
drains to maintain low release rates for a nonpoint pollution
management section of the detention basin and the use of storage
above the nonpoint pollution management pool to control runoff from
flood-producing storms have been recommended by NVPDC for use in the
Occoquan River Basin. Sketches of multipurpose detention basin

* Local criteria for flooding/streambank erosion control generally
produce detention basin release rates and storage capacities that can
maintain post-development peak flow from a major storm event (e.g.,
storm with a 10-yr or 2-yr recurrence interval) at pre-development
levels.

224

HARTIGAN et al.

BNP's that rely upon a perforated riser and subsurface drains to
maintain an acceptable detention time for the nonpoint pollution
management pool are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Of the
two outlet structures, the subsurface drain offers greater
potential removal efficiencies since, in addition to achieving
pollutant removal through solids settling processes within the
detention basin, this approach should permit additional removal of
dissolved pollutants and colloidal particles in the overlying soil
through such natural processes as filtration, adsorption, and
biological decay.

Since the nonpoint pollution management component of the
multipurpose detention pond will use up capacity that, in the case
of a single-purpose runoff quantity management facility, would
otherwise be available to store runoff volumes produced later in
the design storm, a multipurpose facility requires a greater
storage capacity than would a single-purpose facility. Although it
is difficult to generalize about the storage increases required to
satisfy runoff quantity management criteria since storage
requirements are influenced by the physical characteristics of each
catchment, NVPDC studies indicate that a 10%-25% increase in
storage will generally be required.

It was assumed that onsite stormwater treatment BNP's would
consist of a detention basin with a flow-regulated chemical feed
device. Such a facility would rely upon physical-chemical
treatment processes to achieve high removal rates for suspended
(i.e., colloidal particles) and dissolved pollutants which would
not be removed in typical detention basin BMP's.

Cost estimates for each BMP strategy were based on unit cost
data derived from literature values that were felt to reflect local
conditions. since volume and detention basin controls are
currently used for runoff quantity management in Occoquan Basin
jurisdictions, the cost-effectiveness analyses considered only
those costs associated with modifying stormwater management
facilities to achieve high levels of nonpoint pollution control.
In the case of volume controls, no modifications to single-purpose
designs (e.g., flooding/ streambank erosion controls) are required
to achieve nonpoint pollution management benefits; consequently,
there are no incremental costs associated with the transition from
a single-purpose to a multipurpose volume control. In the case of
detention basin controls, incremental costs associated with the
transition from a single-purpose to a multipurpose facility cover
the additional storage requirements associated with the provision
of a nonpoint pollution management pool and increased maintenance
requirements associated with the higher detention times and
sedimentation rates. Incremental costs associated with stormwater
treatment measures cover flow regulators, the chemical feed system,
power, and residuals disposal requirements which are not common to
single-purpose detention basins.

Computations of BMP strategy costs accounted for the timing of
urban development during the 27-year planning period (1979-2005).

225

TOP OF FLOODING/EROSION CONTROL STORAGE,~'_- . F

ri LI~~NONPERFORATED
ri [I ~~~CMP RillS

_________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ....~ -....L
C~~~~~~~p~~- RISR1

FOR DRAWDOWNI I
OF~~~~~~~~~~~~I NS MGT.

PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW

TOP OF FLOODING/EROSION CONTROL STORAGEP TO FFODN/RSO OTOTRAGE'k7

PROFILE VIEW PROFILE VIEW

FIGURE 2. MULTIPURPOSE DETENTION BASIN FIGURE 3. MULTIPURPOSE DETENTION BASIN
BMP WITH PERFORATED RISER FOR BMP WITH SUBSURFACE DRAINS FOR
NONPOINT POLLUTION MANAGEMENT NONPOINT POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

HARTIGAN et al.

The rate of urban development was represented as a gradient series
that increased at a uniform rate between 1979 and 1985, between
1986 and 1995, and between 1996 and 2005, and the rate of BMP
implementation was based upon a linear approximation of basin
growth rates within each time increment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Urban BMP Strategies. To derive a
benchmark for assessments of urban BMP strategies, the Occoquan
Basin Computer Model was used to compare the water quality impacts
of existing and future land use patterns, assuming a year of
average wetness and AWT discharges in accordance with the 1971
Occoquan Policy. The modeling study indicated that an uncontrolled
Year 2005 land use pattern can be expected to produce a 16.1%
increase in total phosphorus loadings delivered to the Occoquan
Reservoir, a 5.3% increase in unoxidized nitrogen loadings, a 9.1%
increase in total nitrogen loadings, a 15.0% increase in BOD
loadings, and a 187.0% increase in lead loadings.

As previously indicated, separate model executions were
carried out to characterize the benefits of each nonpoint pollution
control strategy. Since the model runs assumed that these BMP's
would only be applied to future urban development, BMP benefits are
best viewed in terms of reductions in increased pollutant loadings
associated with additional urbanization.

The modeling studies indicate that all three BMP strategies
should be capable of reducing nonpoint pollution loadings from
future urban development to levels that either approach or are
lower than existing conditions. Stormwater treatment BMP's promise
to achieve the greatest nonpoint pollution loading reductions for
all pollutants, producing Year 2005 nonpoint pollution loadings
which are generally lower than those associated with existing
conditions. Annual nonpoint pollution loading reductions
associated with stormwater treatment BMP's are 1.1-1.3 times
greater than loading reductions associated with volume controls,
with the greatest difference associated with total phosphorus and
the smallest difference associated with BOD, and 1.3-1.9 times
greater than loading reductions associated with detention basin
BMP's. However, the "annual costs per lb removed" associated with
the stormwater treatment strategy are quite high, as much as
12.3-18.9 times greater than the unit costs associated with
detention basin BMP's. The disparity between unit costs for
stormwater treatment and volume control BMP's is even greater since
the latter controls require no additional expenditures over and
above the costs required to achieve runoff quantity management
objectives.

Cost-effectiveness comparisons were also developed for
simulated receiving water quality indicators such as mean total
phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations in the Occoquan
Reservoir during the algal growing season. Alternative BMP's may
be compared according to the "incremental cost per mg/l reduction"
in ambient concentration of a particular constituent. The results
of Occoquan Reservoir water quality comparisons are similar to the

227

HARTIGAN et al.

results of the pollutant loading comparisons. Since there are no
incremental costs associated with the volume control BMP strategy
which was projected to produce mean concentrations of phosphorus
and chlorophyll a in the Occoquan Reservoir that approach existing
conditions, it was concluded that this BMP is more cost-effective
than either detention basin BMP's or stormwater treatment BMP's.
"Costs per mg/l reduction" associated with the stormwater treatment
BMP strategy, which is projected to produce Occoquan Reservoir
water quality levels that are slightly better than existing
conditions, are 13.4 times greater than the detention basin BMP
strategy's unitcost in the case of mean epilimnetic total
phosphorus during the algal growing season and 7.6 times greater in
the case of mean chlorophyll a. Comparisons based on reductions in
annual total phosphorus accumulations within the Occoquan Reservoir
yield similar results: unit costs associated with stormwater
treatment are 14.5 times greater than those associated with online
detention, although reductions in total phosphorus accumulations
are only 1.7 times greater. Since volume control BMP's and
detention basin BMP's promise notable loading reductions and
improvements in receiving water quality at unit costs which are
considerably lower than those associated with stormwater treatment
BMP's, it was concluded that these stormwater management practices
represent the most cost-effective approach to managing nonpoint
pollution from future urban development.

Summary. The conclusions which were drawn from the BMP
modeling studies described herein are as follows: (a) traditional
stormwater management techniques such as volume controls and
detention basin controls (with modified design criteria) should be
capable of maintaining Year 2005 nonpoint pollution loadings and
ambient water quality at levels equivalent to or in the vicinity of
existing conditions, in effect achieving nonpoint pollution
management benefits that are reasonably close to those associated
with land use controls which would minimize future development in
the Occoquan Basin; (b) the adoption of traditional urban
stormwater controls for nonpoint pollution management programs will
involve only a 10%-20% increase in the total cost of a detention
basin facility and no change in the total cost of a volume control
facility; (c) although stormwater treatment BMP's promise to
achieve the greatest reductions in nonpoint pollution loadings, the
water quality benefits associated with this control measure do not
appear to be great enough to offset its extremely high costs; (d)
in light of (a), (b), and (c), traditional urban stormwater
management BMP's appear to represent a much more cost-effective
approach than urban stormwater treatment and a viable alternative
to land use controls for the Occoquan Basin; and (e) in conjunction
with the application of multipurpose stormwater management BMP's to
future urban development, adoption of the following management
practices can be expected to produce nonpoint pollution loadings
and receiving water quality impacts which are even lower than
existing conditions: land use planning and site planning
procedures that account for nonpoint pollution impacts; voluntary
implementation of BMP's (19) in rural-agricultural sections of the
basin; and measures (e.g., street-sweeping programs in the basin's

228

HARTIGAN et al.

cities) that address nonpoint pollution loadings from existing
urban development. As indicated below, the Occoquan Basin
jurisdictions have established an areawide nonpoint pollution
management program which includes all these ingredients.

Although the Occoquan Reservoir was the focus of the 208
planning study of urban BMP strategies, similar comparisons of BMP
cost-effectiveness would be expected for other streams and
reservoirs in the Occoquan River Basin. In other words, an urban
nonpoint pollution management program for the Occoquan Basin will
not only achieve regional benefits expressed in terms of the
Occoquan Reservoir, but it will also achieve local benefits
expressed in terms of water quality improvements in local streams
and reservoirs.

Areawide Nonpoint Pollution Management Program

Introduction

Based on the conclusions of NVPDC's 208 planning study, the
208 plan (20) for the Occoquan River Basin provides for the
establishment of an areawide nonpoint pollution management program
to supplement the benefits of the Basin's wastewater management
program. In striving to control water quality problems which are
not addressed by wastewater treatment plants, the basinwide
nonpoint pollution management program, has as its goal: (a) the
implementation of the most cost-effective nonpoint pollution
mitigation techniques during the early stages of urbanization, so
as to minimize the risk of irreversible water quality degradation
and/or the need for costly remedial control measures at some later
date; and (b) the management of nonpoint pollution loadings from
agricultural lands within the basin. The management program is
strictly advisory in nature, and as such, it is primarily a vehicle
for fostering interjurisdictional cooperation, for providing
continuing technical assistance to local staffs, and for monitoring
local progress in the area of nonpoint pollution management.

The areawide management program was established in November
1978. It is administered by a policy board which is advised by a
special technical committee. Technical and administrative staff
support for the management program is provided by NVPDC. The FY
1980 operating budget for nonpoint pollution management program
activities is approximately $60,000.

Features of Areawide Program

Policy Board. The areawide nonpoint pollution management
program is administered by the Occoquan Policy Board, whose
membership includes representatives of the basin's six political
subdivisions, the City of Alexandria, the Fairfax County Water
Authority, and NVPDC. Either a member of its governing board or
the chief administrative officer represents each jurisdiction and
agency. NVPDC serves as secretariat of the Policy Board and its
representative serves as non-voting chairman.

229

HARTIGAN et al.

According to the provisions of the 208 plan, the Policy Board
meets regularly to review local nonpoint pollution management
activities, to monitor associated water quality changes with the
Occoquan Basin Computer Model, to comment on the adequacy of local
nonpoint pollution management efforts, to prepare quarterly reports
summarizing local progress in the area of nonpoint pollution
management, to review water quality data collected by monitoring
agencies to determine if changes in basinwide water quality targets
are warranted, and to adopt an annual operating budget for the
areawide nonpoint pollution management program. The quarterly
reports on local progress are forwarded to the governing boards of
participating jurisdictions and agencies, the State Water Control
Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review. It
should be emphasized that all determinations by and recommendations
of the Policy Board are strictly advisory and are not binding on
any political subdivision participating in the areawide management
program.

Technical Review Committee. The technical investigations that
permit the Policy Board to formulate assessments of local progress
in the area of nonpoint pollution management are conducted by an
advisory committee known as the Technical Review Committee. It is
composed of representatives of the planning and public works
departments in each jurisdiction, representatives of local
water/sewer authorities and rural-agricultural management agencies,
a representative of the NVPDC staff, and one citizen representative
from each participating jurisdiction. NVPDC serves as secretariat
of the Technical Review Committee and its representative serves as
non-voting chairman.

The Technical Review Committee meets prior to each Policy
Board meeting to review nonpoint pollution projections developed
with the Occoquan Basin Computer Model, to determine whether
projected impacts are consistent with the basinwide water quality
target, and to prepare draft quarterly reports for review and
adoption by the Policy Board.

Basinwide Water Quality Target. The basinwide water quality
target which has been established to gauge local progress in the
area of nonpoint pollution management is minimal deterioration in
surface water quality. The potential benefits of local nonpoint
pollution management programs that minimize further deterioration
of water quality in the Occoquan Reservoir and other critical
surface waters are substantial, including:

(a) Increases in the useful life of the Occoquan Reservoir:
The need to maintain the highest affordable levels of
water quality in the Occoquan Reservoir has taken on a new
dimension now that the Reservoir is being considered by
the Corps of Engineers for inclusion in a
metropolitan-wide raw water interconnection scheme
involving either the Potomac River or Shenandoah River.

(b) Reductions in water treatment costs: Nonpoint pollution

230

HARTIGAN et al.

management programs that minimize further deterioration in
water quality within the basin's impoundments can achieve
reductions in algicide applications to reservoir surface
waters, in chemical and power costs for taste and odor
control during water treatment, and potentially, in
capital and O&M expenditures for new treatment facilities
to meet EPA's THM standard.

(c) Sustenance and propagation of diverse aquatic life:
Nonpoint pollution management efforts that achieve
reductions in the rate of eutrophication can prevent
shifts to the less desirable fish species that can survive
in highly eutrophic waters.

(d) Enhancement of water-based recreation opportunities: The
1979 "Virginia Outdoor Plan" prepared by the Commission of
Outdoor Recreation indicates that Northern Virginia is
particularly deficient in water-based recreation
facilities to serve existing and future populations.
Water quality benefits achieved by the nonpoint pollution
management program should facilitate the expansion of
water-based recreation opportunities within the Occoquan
River Basin.

Local progress toward the water quality target will be
measured on a quarterly basis with the Occoquan Basin Computer
Model which has the capability to estimate jurisdictional
contributions within multijurisdictional sub-basins. At some later
date, after the participating jurisdictions have gained some
experience with the areawide management program and additional
modeling studies and field studies have been completed, it is
anticipated that the establishment of local nonpoint pollution
loading limits which ensure minimal water quality deterioration
will receive serious consideration. The computer model would then
be used to periodically compare current nonpoint pollution loads
with local loading targets and to project changes in receiving
water quality which can be expected to result from differences
between current and target loads.

Occoquan Basin Computer Model. The core of the areawide
nonpoint pollution management program is the Occoquan Basin
Computer Model. The major benefit of a computer-based watershed
model is that, once calibrated, its assessments of long-term
receiving water impacts of proposed land use patterns and water
quality management schemes can produce significant cost-savings by
minimizing the need for approaches involving investments in
conservative facility designs and lengthy monitoring periods to
identify the most appropriate factor of safety. During NVPDC's 208
planning study, the computer model was used to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of generalized urban BMP strategies. During the
areawide management program, it is being used to monitor the
cumulative, multijurisdictional impacts of local nonpoint pollution
management programs that include applications of urban and
agricultural BMP's. The model will be updated on a quarterly basis
to reflect urban development, urban BMP's, and agricultural BMP's

231

HARTIGAN et al.

implemented in the basin. Data on urban land use changes and BMP's
will be tabulated by local staffs and submitted to NVPDC on a
quarterly basis for incorporation into the computer model. Data on
agricultural BMP's, which are being implemented on a voluntary
basis with technical assistance from local soil and water
conservation districts, local offices of the VPI&SU Extension
Service, the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, and the USDA Soil Conservation Service, will be
periodically assembled by the respective management agencies and
submitted to NVPDC.

Projections developed with the computer model will be used to
document the achievements of local nonpoint pollution management
programs for State and Federal regulatory agencies. Applications
of the computer model are based on a design condition called an
"average" year, which in many respects is equivalent to the "design
storm" concept currently used for local stormwater management
programs. It was felt that a year of average wetness represented a
more realistic design condition than either a relatively "wet" or
"dry" year. It is anticipated that the selection of a relatively
wet year as the design condition might produce excessive levels of
nonpoint pollution control, since nonpoint pollution management
recommendations would be based on hydrometeorologic conditions
which occur rather infrequently; in other words, BMP's based on wet
year design conditions would probably provide unnecessarily high
pollutant removal during years that are not characterized by high
rainfall and streamflow volumes. By the same token, the selection
of a relatively dry year as the design condition might produce
nonpoint pollution management approaches that are incapable of
minimizing further water quality deterioration during other
hydrometeorologic conditions (e.g., average years and wet years)
which can be expected to recur much more frequently than dry years.
Thus, it was felt that the average year design condition would
produce management recommendations which would be more
cost-effective, in the long run, than those based on either wet or
dry year conditions.

A recommended procedure for interfacing model applications
with monitoring studies carried out by the Occoquan Watershed
Monitoring Laboratory, the basin's water quality surveillance
agency, has been derived for the areawide nonpoint pollution
management program. Impacts of land use changes and BMP's are
initially screened with the computer model to project cumulative
impacts for the design condition, i.e., the average year. On at
least an annual basis, water quality trends identified by these
modeling studies will be compared with any trends identified
during field studies in the basin. The results of the evaluations
of water quality trends will be used to document local progress in
the area of nonpoint pollution management and to determine whether
or not revisions to the Program's water quality target and BMP
strategies should be recommended.

The principal benefit of the computer modeling approach is
that long-term basinwide impacts can be formulated for design

232

HARTIGAN et al.

conditions that facilitate the comparison of impacts from one year
to the next. The projections developed by the model for the
average year are assumed to be equivalent to the average impacts
that would be defined by a 28-year field study (i.e., length of
rainfall record which was used to identify the average year) of
unaltered watershed conditions. Because field studies of receiving
water quality have no control over the hydrometeorologic conditions
that produce the monitored receiving water response, the evaluation
of water quality management strategies must often await the
accumulation of data over several years that cover an appropriate
range of hydrometeorologic conditions. For example, field data
collected during a series of relatively wet years may significantly
underestimate the long-term water quality benefits of nonpoint
pollution management efforts while data collected during a series
of relatively dry years may produce substantial overestimates of
the effectiveness of management efforts and of the long-term
significance of uncontrolled nonpoint pollution loadings. The
operation of a computer modeling program in tandem with basinwide
field studies should expand the applications of short-term
monitoring data and provide the necessary verification of model
projections.

Advantages of the Selected Management Framework

one of the major advantages of the selected approach to
areawide nonpoint pollution management is that it permits the
participating local governments, rather than State regulatory
agencies, to maintain maximum control over local nonpoint pollution
management activities. At the time the approach was selected, it
was felt that the initiation of a cooperative, advisory management
program, which would be developed and controlled by local govern-
ments, would be preferable to postponing the implementation of
local control programs until a management framework was dictated by
State regulatory agencies. Through the use of planning tools such
as the Occoquan Basin Computer Model, the participating local
governments hope to be able to document sufficient local progress
in the area of nonpoint pollution management to eliminate the need
for State intervention at a later date.

The advisory approach selected for the Occoquan Basin nonpoint
pollution management program also affords participating local
governments with an extremely flexible tool for implementing an
areawide program. As an advisory program, the selected management
framework permits the basin's six jurisdictions to preserve local
autonomy while jointly undertaking a nonpoint pollution management
effort. Since the participating political subdivisions can easily
maintain control over the manner in which the advisory management
program evolves, it is viewed as a particularly appropriate
nonpoint pollution management framework for an area where local
governments are somewhat apprehensive about new regional programs.
The ability to use staff from the existing regional planning agency
(NVPDC) enhances the framework's attractiveness because it not only
eliminates the need to create a separate agency to direct the
day-to-day activities of the areawide management program but it

233

HARTIGAN et al.

also allows the participating jurisdictions and agencies to achieve
significant economies-of-scale by pooling their resources to
provide the annual budget for the program. In short, because it
enables the multiple jurisdictions in the basin to effect a more
gradual transition from local to regional environmental management
approaches, the selected management framework would appear to offer
fewer risks than more traditional institutions for areawide
stormwater management such as a watershed improvement district or a
soil and water conservation district.

Accomplishments to Date

In the ten months that have passed since the areawide nonpoint
pollution management program was begun, activities have focused on
the development of nonpoint pollution planning tools for local
staff applications. The NVPDC staff has formulated an Urban BMP
Guidebook which outlines estimated BMP efficiencies and
cost-effectiveness relationships for alternative design criteria.
In addition, NVPDC has assisted local staff with the review of
urban development proposals, the formulation of urban BMP
recommendations, the evaluation of alternative local frameworks for
nonpoint pollution management, and the identification of the most
appropriate agricultural BMP's for the Occoquan River Basin.

Some jurisdictions have already made considerable progress in
implementing nonpoint pollution controls. As indicated below, the
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has recently agreed to
incorporate urban BMP requirements into the County Public
Facilities Manual so that BMP's can be required for all new
development that occurs in the Occoquan Basin, rather than limited
to urban development proposals which qualify for rezoning review.
Fauquier County has relied upon its subdivision regulations to
require comprehensive BMP plans for several major single family
developments; in addition, the County is constructing seven major
flood control/water supply impoundments, which are funded by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's PL-566 program, that are projected
to achieve substantial nonpoint pollution management benefits as
well. The City of Manassas relies upon a vacuuum street-sweeping
program which covers existing as well as new development. By late
Fall 1979, it is anticipated that all participating jurisdictions
will have selected an approach for institutionalizing urban
nonpoint pollution management programs.

Local Management Framework: Fairfax County Case Study

Background

Fairfax County is a rectangular-shaped, 400 sq mi jurisdiction
which lies southwest of Washington, D.C. Due to its proximity to
the Nation's Capital, Fairfax County has been subjected to enormous
growth pressures in recent years. A rural county of 40,000 in
1940, Fairfax is presently home for 600,000 suburbanites and still
growing rapidly. The homebuilding industry has converted
undeveloped land to low and medium density subdivisions to meet the

234

HARTIGAN et al.

Gravel packed infiltration trenches at a Fairfax County
shopping center achieve removal of suspended and dissolved pollutant
loadings through natural processes in the underlying soil profile.

235

HARTIGAN et at.

housing needs of these new residents.

Recently, urban development in the southwestern portion of the
County has begun to alter the forested landscape of the 100 sq mi
that is tributary to the Occoquan Reservoir. In 1957, the Occoquan
Reservoir was constructed at the mouth of the Occoquan River Basin
to provide a drinking water supply for much of Northern Virginia,
including the majority of Fairfax County. In October 1967,
ownership of the Reservoir was transferred to the Fairfax County
Water Authority and the impoundment presently serves as the
County's major water supply. At the time that the Reservoir was
constructed, it was unlikely that anyone could have predicted that
the growth of metropolitan Washington would generate significant
urban development in the Occoquan River Basin, or that urbanization
of the Basin could result in severe water quality problems.
Nevertheless, these are precisely the issues that Fairfax County
has to face as it attempts to develop reasonable measures to
mitigate the nonpoint pollution problems associated with urban land
uses in the Occoquan Basin.

Planning Protection for the Occoquan Reservoir

In the late 1960's, Fairfax County became aware that the
Occoquan Reservoir had serious water quality problems. During this
period advanced stages of eutrophication were observed. Since that
time the County government through its professional staff has tried
to develop strategies to protect the Occoquan Reservoir. Devising
protection strategies has been difficult because the agencies with
an interest in the Reservoir have disagreed on the causes of its
eutrophic condition. During the last decade, professional opinion
first implicated point sources as the principal contributor to
Reservoir water quality problems. To reduce the point source
contribution, Federal and local governments spent $82 million to
build an AWT plant for the basin. More recent monitoring studies
have suggested that nonpoint sources contribute the bulk of the
pollutant loadings. These competing philosophies have complicated
staff efforts to develop a pollution control strategy for Fairfax
County.

Fairfax County has consistently made protection of the
Occoquan Reservoir a high priority and has based many planning
policies and development ordinances on the latest available water
pollution control information. This has resulted in an
evolutionary approach to water quality protection. As better data
relating to the sources of and solutions to water quality problems
in the Occoquan Basin have become available, the County has been
able to refine its water quality protection strategy.

A full account of the evolution of County policies concerning
the Occoquan Reservoir and River Basin is beyond the scope of this
paper. it is sufficient to report that until NVPDC's 208 planning
studies of the Occoquan Basin, staff had an inadequate information
base to predict the water quality impacts of several crucial land
use decisions. Staff recognized that existing land use policies

236

HARTIGAN et al.

and environmental regulations were inadequate to protect the
Occoquan Reservoir.

The field studies and modeling analyses coordinated by NVDPC
during the 208 planning program were the breakthrough County staff
had hoped for. After years of speculation concerning the sources
and impacts of nonpoint pollution, staff was finally provided with
data on "land use-nonpoint pollution" relationships, BMP
efficiencies, and Occoquan Basin water quality projections. As
this data became more specific, recommendations were formulated.
By December 1978, staff was able to apply this information to the
environmental analysis of zoning cases.

In June 1979 staff made a presentation to the Board of
Supervisors recommending that the County establish a policy
requiring structural BMP's for all new development. The Board of
Supervisors authorized staff to prepare appropriate revisions to
the County's development regulations. Such a program may well be
adopted and in place by January 1980. This event would be a
milestone in the County's water quality protection efforts. Staff
has been able to make such innovative recommendations with
confidence because of the nonpoint pollution management planning
tools produced by NVPDC's 208 planning studies.

The Evolution of a BMP Implementation Strategy

After searching for effective water quality protection
measures for years, in the space of six months staff had progressed
from making tentative BMP recommendations in selected rezoning
applications to recommending a countywide program of BMP
implementation.

The rapid development of Board of Supervisors support for BMP
implementation was due to experiences in individual rezonings, the
water quality concerns of individual Board members, the response of
the development industry, and other factors. When staff first
began to utilize the results of the 208 planning studies, no BMP
implementation strategy existed. In retrospect, it is apparent
that the course of events influenced the nature and timing of the
implementation effort as much as any staff timetable.

The account of this six-month period is of course shaped by
unique circumstances in Fairfax County. Nevertheless such an
account has relevance to other urbanizing jurisdictions considering
the implementation of urban BMP requirements. While the
circumstances leading to implementation will vary, the lessons
learned in Fairfax County indicate many of the problems a
jurisdiction can be expecte4 to encounter.

The Trifam Rezoning: A Case History. By the Fall of 1978,
staff felt sufficiently comfortable with the nonpoint pollution
management data developed by NVPDC to use it as an aid in
individual zoning cases. The first rezoning affected, the Trifam
case, was complicated by its impact on the Occoquan Basin's AWT

237

HARTIGAN et al.

plant which is operated by the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority
(UOSA).

Trifam Systems, Inc. sought to rezone 45 acres from the R-1 (1
du/ac) category to the R-8 (8 du/ac) category. The application met
all of the County's normal requirements. The development plan
"proffered" most of the conditions that County staff sought.*
However, the property is located directly upstream from the AWT
plant's "polishing pond," which is intended to serve as a final
polishing process for treated effluent prior to release to the
basin's receiving waters. Treated effluent that is discharged into
the polishing pond is of high quality and generally considered to
be suitable for use as an industrial water supply.

Shortly before the public hearing on the rezoning application,
the UOSA Board wrote to the Planning Commission voicing its
opposition to the rezoning application. A report prepared by
UOSA's engineering consultant contended that nonpoint pollution
loadings from this 45-acre site would degrade the water quality in
the polishing pond, especially following major storms. The
consultant estimated the amount and concentration of phosphorus
washing off the Trifam site before and after development. Staff
concurred with these findings regarding phosphorus runoff
generation. However, the consultant's analysis was incomplete. No
consideration was given to the impact of potential mitigation
measures. Nor was the relative magnitude of this source of
phosphorus compared to the entire nutrient budget of the polishing
pond. The consultant did not present any analysis supporting its
contention that the phosphorus generated on the Trifam site would
lower the water quality of the pond.

By relying on the "land use-nonpoint pollution" generation
relationships and BMP efficiency estimates provided by NVPDC, the
County staff was able to estimate the pollutant washoff for the
Trifam site and project the effectiveness of different combinations
of BMP's at managing the nonpoint pollution loadings. Staff's
analysis estimated average annual phosphorus washoff from the
undeveloped site to be 9 lbs/yr. for a year of average rainfall.
An R-ldevelopment was estimated to produce 24 lbs. of phosphorus
washoff per year. The projection for R-8 development was 46
lbs/yr. BMP assessments indicated that typical detention controls
and volume controls should be capable of reducing washoff from the
Trifam proposal (R-8) by 50%, to 23 lbs/yr. This is approximately
the same phosphorus generation rate projected for a one unit per
acre development (R-l) on this site. This is significant because
* The proffer system is a mechanism used to obtain specific commit-
ments from rezoning applicants. Applicants proffer or agree to
conditions that exceed zoning ordinance requirements before the case
goes to public hearing. These proffers then become binding
conditions. They cannot be required--the applicant must volunteer
them. Once accepted and approved, the proffers are enforceable
parts of the zoning ordinance for the affected parcels.

238

HARTIGAN et al.

the site was already zoned R-1 as is most of the County's portion
of the Occoquan Watershed. In other words, the Trifam developer
was entitled to develop the 45-acre site at a density of one unit
per acre simply by meeting the requirement of the subdivision
ordinance. Since the County's subdivision requirements do not
include BMP's, development at existing zoning with corresponding
phosphorus generation levels is, in a sense, the developer's right.
For this reason, staff viewed the R-1 level of phosphorus nonpoint
pollution loadings (24 lbs/yr.) as a reasonable performance
standard for more intense development on this site (21).

After careful consideration of the environmental
characteristics of the site, a specific system of BMP's was
recommended to the applicant by County staff. This recommendation
consisted of a multipurpose detention pond designed in accordance
with aforementioned criteria to facilitate sedimentation and a
system of infiltration trenches on an area of permeable soils. BMP
efficiency estimates were formulated for phosphorus, which is
suspected to be the limiting nutrient for algal productivity in the
AWT's polishing pond, and the proposed control measure scheme was
shown to be capable of maintaining R-8 nonpoint pollution loadings
at the R-1 performance standard. The BMP assessments demonstrated
staff's position that the imposition of BMP's was an appropriate
compromise between the position of Trifam Systems, Inc. and the
Board of Directors of UOSA. Because staff's hypothetical BMP
strategy indicated that the R-1 performance standard was
economically achievable at the applicant's proposed density, the
County's Office of Comprehensive Planning proposed this phosphorus
performance standard as grounds for a recommendation of rezoning
approval.

The County then contracted with NVPDC to evaluate the
polishing pond impacts of R-8 development which satisfied the R-1
performance standard for nonpoint pollution loadings of phosphorus.
A detailed computer model of the 180 million gallon AWT polishing
pond and its 570-acre watershed was formulated to assess the
impacts of nonpoint pollution loadings from an R-1 land use
pattern. To asssure a "worst case" analysis, it was assumed that
all undeveloped land (352 acres) in the watershed, including the
45-acre Trifam tract, was developed at the R-1 density.
Applications of this submodel revealed that an 18 MGD AWT effluent
would produce 95% of the total annual volume of water passing
through the polishing pond during a year of average wetness, and
therefore, the AWT would be expected to dominate ambient water
quality conditions in the following manner (22): (a) for "zero
discharge" conditions, the AWT plant's effluent should achieve
significant dilution of nonpoint pollution loadings from the
equivalent of R-1 development (i.e., R-8 development with BMP's) in
the watershed; or (b) for discharge at effluent levels specified in
the NPDES discharge permit (e.g., total phosphorus concentration of
0.1 mg/l as P), the AWT plant would, by far, be the dominant source
of pollutant loadings and therefore would tend to overshadow
nonpoint pollution contributions from the equivalent of R-1
development.

239

HARTIGAN et al.

Following the nonpoint pollution studies by the County staff
and NVPDC, the Board of Supervisors in March 1979 made the decision
that endorsed this use of BMP's. Although stiff resistance to this
rezoning remained, the Board was presented with a well developed
staff analysis that documented the adequacy of BMP's as an
environmental protection measure for this application. With its
motion to rezone, Fairfax County tacitly endorsed the use of BMP's
to mitigate urban nonpoint pollution.

Success in this case gave staff the confidence and precedent
to seek "BMP proffers" from all rezoning applications in the
Occoquan River Basin. The Board of Supervisors which had
previously been concerned about the implications of growth in the
Occoquan River Basin, found in BMP's an expedient solution to
address the water quality implications of urban development.

Use of the Proffer Process for BMP Implementation. An
immediate impact of the Trifam rezoning was the application of the
proffer system to BMP implementation. Both the Board of
Supervisors and staff assumed that BMP proffers could be obtained
in future rezonings in the Occoquan River Basin, though the Board did
not produce a formal policy statement at that time.

There were several rezoning applications in the basin in the
spring of 1979. Staff requested a nonpoint pollution performance
standard, based on annual phosphorus loadings in the first of these
cases. The logic used to develop this recommendation was similar
to the Trifam case. Utilizing the technical reports (3,17)
produced by NVPDC for the Occoquan Basin 208 planning study, staff
produced desktop estimates of annual phosphorus washoff for each
rezoning. BMP efficiency estimates were used to determine a
reasonable performance standard. Although this analysis seemed
reasonable to staff, the developers resisted any performance standard.
They argued that proffering to a performance standard amounted to
"buying a pig in a poke." Staff was convinced that the cost asso-
ciated with the addition of BMP's to existing stormwater management
requirements were minor, for example, less than $100/dwelling unit
on the average to convert single-purpose detention basins to multipur-
pose facilities (12). Unfortunately, staff was not able to convince
the representatives of the building industry that this was an accurate
estimate of incremental costs.
Industry spokesmen raised many objections to BMP implementation.
Many of these objections demonstrated a lack of familiarity with BMP's.
The developers were unwilling to submit to a new requirement when
the cost and effort required were not well documented. Some of the
objections raised were that:

o BMP efficiency data has never been verified in the field.

o Low density residential developments may not need BMP's.

o Virginia's State Water Control Board, authors of the State
of Virginia's BMP Handbook (19), had recommended a
"voluntary" program for statewide BMP implementation.

240

HARTIGAN et al.

o Water quality benefits were not great enough to justify
the cost of BMP's.

o Reliance on proffered rezonings meant that only those
applicants whose property required a zoning action were
subject to BMP's.

Staff saw little merit to these objections except for the argument
against seeking BMP's through the proffer process. Two weaknesses
were identified: 1) coverage would be spotty and inadequate since
proffers could be applied only to developments that had not yet
been rezoned--about 10% of the Occoquan River Basin; and 2) it was
unfair to apply BMP requirements only to development which required
rezoning.

After several of these rezonings, the proffer process proved
itself to be an inappropriate means of BMP implementation.
Considerable staff time was invested in developing a BMP strategy
for each application and in negotiations with each applicant.
Eventually one applicant refused to proffer any stormwater
management controls that were not already specifically required by
County ordinances.

BMP's and the Public Facilities Manual: A Regulatory Approach.
After difficulties with the use of the proffer process had been
identified and analyzed, staff decided that amending the County's
Public Facilities Manual (23) to create a regulatory program for
nonpoint pollution management was the most cost-effective water
quality control strategy available to the County. Existing
requirements for stormwater detention basins could be modified to
require multipurpose facilities sized according to criteria
suggested by the Occoquan Basin 208 planning study. Such
structural controls, when coupled with site planning techniques
that minimize nonpoint loadings, would be more effective and
equitable than BMP proffers.

In arguing against BMP proffers, members of the development
community had suggested that the County Public Facilities Manual
was the proper place to establish requirements for BMP's instead of
the proffer process in rezonings. Staff agreed with this
suggestion. Equity and maximum effectiveness are best obtained by
uniform ordinance requirements. However, it should be noted that
the BMP proffer period served to introduce BMP concepts to both the
public and private sectors and therefore, it is probably best
viewed as a useful first step in the evolution of a local nonpoint
pollution management framework.

The County Public Facilities Manual already contains extensive
stormwater management requirements. The existing standards require
post-development runoff peaks to be maintained at predevelopment
levels for two-and ten-year design storms (23). Of the two primary
structural means of stormwater management permitted by the Public
Facilities Manual, one is already a BMP--infiltration trenches--and
the other, detention basins, can be converted to a BMP with minor

241

HARTIGAN et al.

modifications. These two structural measures are expected to be
the core of a Countywide BMP strategy.

As indicated in the earlier discussion of multipurpose BMP's,
the revisions to traditional stormwater management criteria that
would be required to make flooding/erosion control devices also
function as BMP's are minor, and the initiation of a major new
program is unnecessary. Instead, a few revisions to the existing
stormwater management regulations are all that is required.

As previously noted, during the six months following the
Trifam rezoning, staff opinion was moving away from dependence on
BMP proffers in rezonings. At the same time NVPDC, through the
Occoquan Basin nonpoint pollution management program, was producing
the specific data necessary to establish the design modifications
for stormwater detention structures. NVPDC recommended that local
jurisdictions implement BMP's through modifications to existing
stormwater management requirements.

On June 25, 1979, the Office of Comprehensive Planning made a
presentation on the Status of BMP's to the Board of Supervisors.
The Office recommended that Fairfax County proceed to implement
BMP's countywide. Staff analysis indicated that BMP's, based on a
revision of the stormwater management requirements of the Public
Facilities Manual, were the most cost-effective means of protecting
the surface waters of the Occoquan Basin, and meeting local and
regional 208 planning goals for protecting other local streams and
the Potomac River and Estuary.

The staff presentation to the Board of Supervisors focused on
the urgency of BMP implementation, and the cost-effectiveness of
the structural stormwater management approach. Staff believes that
urban sources of nonpoint pollution present the greatest danger to
Occoquan Basin water quality. As previously indicated, NVPDC's
model projections suggest that in the absence of BMP's, continued
urbanization will increase the severity of eutrophication in the
Occoquan Reservoir. The stormwater management modifications that
staff recommended should meet the local implementation goals for
the Occoquan Basin Nonpoint Pollution Management Program, thereby
protecting the Reservoir from further water quality degradation.

County staff considered the costs for collection and treatment
of stormwater to be prohibitive. The price of inaction is also
potentially very high. For instance, if Occoquan Reservoir water
quality continues to decline, the water utility may be required to
provide granular activated carbon treatment units at an estimated
capital cost of $28 million. $82 million has already been spent
constructing the UOSA AWT plant to control point sources of
pollution in the Occoquan Basin. NVPDC's 208 planning study
indicates that requiring BMP's on the 20,500 acres of new
development projected to occur in the Fairfax County portion of the
Occoquan watershed by the Year 2005 will result in a $1.9 million
cost (1978 dollars) over and above the current Public Facilities
Manual requirements. Expressed on a unit area basis, the

242

HARTIGAN et al.

incremental cost of BMP implementation averages only $91 per acre
for the County's portion of the Occoquan River Basin (12).

A majority of the Board of Supervisors appeared to be
persuaded by this presentation. The Board directed County staff to
prepare recommendations for modifications to the Public Facilities
Manual and return by January 1, 1980 for Board action. The Board
could implement stor/mwater management BMP's at that time.

Prospects for the Future

Staff expects that BMP's will be required countywide in 1980.
The program, if enacted, will require stormwater
retention/detention structures to be either volume control or
detention control BMP's. NVPDC will provide County staff with
desktop screening procedures to estimate nonpoint pollution impacts
of small projects. Computer model studies can be used to evaluate
major land use decisions as was done for the Trifam rezoning.
NVPDC, in its role as interjurisdictional program coordinator, will
continually assess the impact of new development and BMP
implementation on the Occoquan Reservoir and other surface waters
in the basin.

it would be inaccurate to assume that Fairfax County is on the
verge of the millenium in stormwater management. Many problems
have not been resolved. For instance, what are the maintenance
requirements for BMP's? Are there safety and liability problems
associated with stormwater management ponds? Would larger, offsite
control structures financed on a "pro rata" basis be desirable?
Should BMP's be applied in areas of existing development? These
questions suggest water quality considerations will be assessed,
reevaluated and altered for many years.

Although many concerns remain, the problems of nonpoint
pollution are being handled constructively due, in large measure,
to the 208 planning studies conducted by NVPDC, and that agency's
eagerness to assist Fairfax County and the basin's other local
jurisdictions in developing BMP implementation programs.

References

1. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., "1969 Occoquan Reservoir Study," pre-
pared for Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Va.,
1970.

2. Virginia State Water Control Board, "A Policy for Waste
Treatment and Water Quality Management in the Occoquan
Watershed," Richmond, Va., 1971.

3. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission and Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Occoquan/Four Mile
Run Nonpoint Source Correlation Study," Final Report prepared
for Metropolitan Washington Water Resources Planning Board,
Wash., D.C., July 1978.

243

HARTIGAN et al.

4. Hydrocomp, Inc., "The Occoquan Basin Computer Model:
Calibration, Verification, and User's Manual," prepared for
NVPDC, Falls Church, VA, May 1978.

5. Hartigan, J.P., et al, "Calibration of Urban Nonpoint Pollution
Loading Models," Proceedings of ASCE Hydraulics Division Spe-
cialty Conference on Verification of Mathematical and Physical
Models in Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, New York, N.Y., August,
1978, pp. 363-372.

6. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Occoquan Basin
Computer Model: Summary of Calibration Results," Falls Church,
VA, January, 1979.

7. Donigian, A.S. and Crawford, N.H., "Modeling Nonpoint Pollution
from the Land Surface," EPA-600/3-76-083, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July, 1976.

8. Hydrocomp, Inc., "Hydrocomp Simulation Programming: Water
Quality Simulation Operations Manual," Palo Alto, Cal., 1977.

9. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, "Summary Edition of
the Occoquan Quarterly: 1973-1976," Vol. IV, No. 4, Spring
1976.

10. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, "Summary Edition of
the Occoquan Quarterly: 1976-1977," Vol. V, No. 4, Spring
1977.

11. Randall, C.W., Grizzard, T.J., and Hoehn, R.C., "Effects of Up-
stream Control on a Water Supply Reservoir," Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 50, No. 12, pp. 2687-2702.

12. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Assessments of
Water Quality Management Strategies with the Occoquan Basin
Computer Model," Prepared for Occoquan Technical Review
Committee, January, 1979.

13. Hoehn, R.C., et al., "Chlorination and Water Treatment for
Minimizing Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water," presented at the
Oct. 31-Nov. 4, 1977 Conference on Water Chlorination:
Environmental Impact and Health Effects, held at Gatlinburg,
Tennessee.

14. Fairfax County Water Authority, "Halogenated Organics Control
Program: Progress Report No. 4," July 20, 1979.

15. Randall, C.W. and Grizzard, T.J., "Sources of Misunderstandings
Concerning the Pollution Problems of the Occoquan Reservoir,"
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas Park, Va.
Dec., 1978.

16. USDA Soil Conservation Service, "Stormwater Management Cost
Study," Montgomery County, Md., July 1977.

244

HARTIGAN et al.

17. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Estimated
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Typical Urban Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for Controlling Nonpoint
Pollution," Interim Report prepared for Metropolitan Washington
Water Resources Planning Board, Feb., 1979.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Process Design
Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,"
EPA-625/1-77-008, USEPA, Washington, D.C., October 1977.

19. Virginia State Water Control Board, "Best Management Practices
Handbook: Agriculture," Nov., 1978.

20. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, "Metropolitan
Washington Water Quality Management Plan," Washington, D.C.
March, 1978, p. VII-92.

21. Office of Comprehensive Planning, "Staff Report on Application
Number 78-S-009 (Revised February 1979)," Fairfax County, Va.,
Feb., 1979.

22. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Projected
Impacts of Upstream Development on the UOSA AWT Plant's Final
Effluent Reservoir," prepared for Fairfax County Office of
Comprehensive Planning, Feb., 1979.

23. Department of Environmental Management, Public Facilities Manual,
Fairfax County, Va., 1979.

245

STREAM VALLEY AND FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT IN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

NAZIR BAIG AND WESLEY H. BLOOD

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring, MD and CH12M Hill, Inc., Reston, VA

Introduction

Stream valleys contain some of the most beautiful and interesting
terrain in Montgomery County. They provide an invaluable habitat for
many species of wildlife and contain a wide variety of flora. Certain
streams contained within the stream valleys are capable of sustaining
a reproducing population of brown trout. Much of the county's early
history of settlement is recorded along the stream valleys. Histori-
cal sites, including mills and early residences, exist in the valleys
and provide a link with the past.

The county is fortunate to have leaders both past and present who
recognize the importance and significance of the stream valleys and
have taken the initiative to protect them for the benefit of the citi-
zens of and visitors to Montgomery County. The Maryland-National
Capital Park arnd Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), a bi-county planning
agency for Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, has played a lead
role in stream valley management with the institution of its stream
valley park acquisition program.

There are various other county, state, and federal agencies in-
volved in stream and stream valley management in Montgomery County and
their contributions are recognized. However, the thrust of this paper
is to describe the stream valley acquisition program of the M-NCPPC,
how it evolved, and its present status and effectiveness.

Stream Valley Acquisition Program

Preservation and conservation of stream valleys in Montgomery
County was established as an objective and became county policy with
the establishment of the M-NCPPC back in 1927. Involved in all as-
pects of planning, the M-NCPPC has placed a strong priority on
preservation and conservation. Stemming from this philosophy, the
stream valley acquisition program evolved.

247

BAIG & BLOOD

Goals and Objectives

Briefly stated, the goals and objectives of the program are to
protect the integrity of the streams, preserve the natural and his-
toric features found in stream valleys and flood plains, and minimize
damage to personal property resulting from flood waters. In order to
achieve these goals and objectives, the M-NCPPC set out to acquire,
through either purchase or dedication, the streamside land of all
major streams in Montgomery County.

Capper-Crampton Act

The stream valley acquisition program was given its initial
impetus with the passage by the United States Congress of the Capper-
Crampton Act in 1930. This Act provided up to $6,750,000 in grants to
park authorities in Virginia and Maryland for the purchase and estab-
lishment of stream valley parks. The sponsors of this imaginative and
farsighted legislation were Congressmen Louis Crampton of Maryland and
R. Walton Moore of Virginia.

For some 30 years, until the 1960s, this Act provided more than
one-third of all funding for the acquisition and development of stream
valley parks within the Washington, D.C. area. Carried out in cooper-
ation with various federal agencies, funding from the Act has resulted
in the preservation of over 3,000 acres of parkland and open space
along the major streams in Montgomery County.

The acquisition of stream valley parkland began in the southern
county areas where urban development was proceeding at a rapid pace.
Capper-Crampton funds were used to purchase land adjacent to Sligo
Creek, Rock Creek, Little Falls, and Cabin John Creek. These creeks
and others are shown in Figure 1 with stream valley park areas deline-
ated. In certain areas adjacent to the older and densely populated
areas, these stream valley parks often provided many of the recrea-
tional features that are now part of the local parks such as play-
grounds, ballfields, tennis courts, stables, golf courses and other
facilities. In addition, they provide scenic relief for the suburban
areas.

Status of Program Today

With the passage of time since the inception of the program and
as new insight and awareness of the fragile nature of our environment
has developed, the program has taken on an even more meaningful impor-
tance, namely that of protection and conservation of our valuable
natural resources.

As stated previously, a large proportion of the land purchased by
the M-NCPPC during the first 30 years was with funds provided by the
Capper-Crampton Act. Since then, however, the program has maintained
its momentum with the acquisition of lands in many other stream val-
leys. These include Watts Branch, Muddy Branch, Little Seneca Creek,
Great Seneca Creek, and Hawlings River (see Figure 1). As of the
present, some 10,500 acres of stream valley and flood plain lands have
been acquired through the program. Ultimately, about 17,500 total

248

ACQUIRED AND PROPOSED LEGEND
PARKILAND WITHIN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ACQUIRED PROPOSED
M - NCPPC ParklandI~ '
FIGURE 1 L
State, Federal, WSSC Parkland ~ j~j

xo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

THE MARYLAND - NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSIO

BAIG & BLOOD

acres will be acquired and brought into the public domain (1).

Funds used to purchase and develop stream valley parks have been
derived from various sources. Besides the Capper-Crampton funds,
during the 1960s and early 1970s funds were obtained under the Federal
Open Space Act. The M-NCPPC was the first agency to receive a grant
for the purchase of stream valleys under this Act. The Patuxent River
Watershed Act provided funds for purchase of lands in the Hawlings
River watershed. More recently, Program Open Space, funded by the
State of Maryland, has provided limited funds to assist in the stream
valley acquisition program. However, the current policy is to usd
these funds primarily for local park acquisition. The major source of
funds for the purchase of stream valleys and park development is
through Montgomery County bonds.

Park Taking Lines

In order to identify and delineate those areas to be included in
the acquisition program, park taking lines are established by the
M-NCPPC and approved by the Montgomery County Council. These lines
are not established arbitrarily; a detailed and systematic analysis is
conducted by the M-NCPPC in order to establish the appropriate taking
lines. The major factors considered are:

1. The 100-year flood plain. The 100-year flood plain is the
land that would be inundated by a major flood that has a one
percent chance of occurring in any given year. The M-NCPPC
uses the 100-year flood plain associated with the ultimate
planned land use in the watersheds as the minimum for inclu-
sion within the park taking lines.

2. Vegetative cover. To preserve woodlands or other excep-
tional types of vegetation located adjacent to the stream,
these areas are consideed for inclusion within the park as
they add to the natural beauty of the park and provide
opportunities for nature study.

3. Steep slopes. Slopes over 15 percent located adjacent to
the flood plain are generally included within the park
taking lines because they are an important part of the
stream valley, generally wooded, critical for erosion con-
trol, and provide excellent opportunities for variety in
hiking.

4. Ridge line. Park acquisition to include the ridge line is
considered to take maximum advantage of scenic views both
into and out of stream valleys.

5. Historic sites. An evaluation of historic sites within
close proximity to the stream valley is made to determine if
the park taking lines should be extended to include them for
preservation.

6. Unique natural features. As with historic sites, unique
natural features (i.e., areas termed "environmentally

250

BAIG & BLOOD

sensitive") are evaluated to determine if they are important
enough to be included within the park.

7. Property boundaries and improvements. To make acquisition
less difficult, park taking lines are drawn to coincide with
property lines where feasible. Because of the cost of im-
provements and the difficulties of relocation, park taking
lines are drawn to exclude houses and other improvements
where the property is not essential to the park.

8. Linkages for path systems. Park taking lines within stream
valleys may be extended to form linkages within or between
all types of parks and subdivisions so that a more inte-
grated hiker and/or biker path system may be achieved.

9. Proposed reservoirs. The inclusion of land needed for pro-
posed reservoirs (to include land to be inundated plus land
needed for recreation and buffering) is considered when park
taking lines are drawn.

10. Local park needs. Where a need for a local park is deter-
mined within a stream valley, the park taking lines may be
extended to include these areas as a portion of the stream
valley park system. This would also be true of special
recreational facilities such as archery or shooting ranges,
riding stables, educational nature facilities, or any other
recreational use that is well suited to stream valleys.

11. Land costs and budget limitations. The cost of land and
the amount of monies that can be made available for stream
valley acquisition is an important determinant of the
amount of land that can be acquired outside of the flood
plain and the extent of the stream valley park system.

These factors represent the most desirable delineation of park
taking lines. Practical budget constraints are the final determinant,
however, and a compromise must sometimes be reached to stay within
budget limitations.

Information on the factors used to establish the park taking
lines is derived from many sources, the most important being from
comprehensive watershed studies. Recognizing that certain changes
resulting from urbanization within Montgomery County would be detri-
mental to the streams, the County Council appointed a stormwater
management task force. The task force recommended that countywide
stormwater management should be considered and adopted as part of the
General Plan and that a stormwater management plan should be developed
for each watershed within the County. Since that time, the M-NCPPC,
under the direction of the Montgomery County Planning Board, has been
engaged in developing Master Plans for each major watershed within the
County.

In 1974, the M-NCPPC retained the firm of CH2M HILL to conduct
technical watershed studies. Studies and plans have been completed
for the Seneca Creek, Muddy Branch and Rock Creek watersheds, which

251

BAIG & BLOOD

comprise some 200 square miles. A state-of-the-art hydrologic simu-
lation model has been utilized to analyze the quantity and quality of
stormwater runoff for the existing and planned ultimate land use
conditions. As part of the studies, water surface profiles are com-
puted using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Surface Profile
Program, HEC-2. Based upon the profile computations, the 100-year
flood plains are determined and delineated on topographic maps. In
addition to the flood plain maps, the studies identify historical
sites, environmentally sensitive areas, and other features within the
stream valleys that should be considered for preservation. The
M-NCPPC presently has studies underway in six other watersheds.

Effectiveness of the Acquisition Program

One of the obvious benefits of the stream valley acquisition
program is that, in maintaining the stream valleys and floodplains in
parks and open space, development (building) in flood prone areas is
held to a minimum. Hence, when severe flooding occurs, property
damage is relatively small. This was evidenced by flooding caused by
two major storms within the past decade, Hurricanes Agnes and Eloise.
Heavy property damage was suffered in adjacent and similarly populated
areas of Pennsylvania and Virginia. In Montgomery County, losses were
relatively small. This was due primarily to sparse development in the
flood prone areas and is a tribute to the stream valley acquisition
program.

By limiting or preventing intensive development adjacent to
stream channels, stream degradation has been greatly reduced. Vegeta-
tion that shades the stream and maintains water temperatures suitable
for sustaining fish species has remained untouched. This same stream
valley vegetation, in the less accessible park areas, provides the
habitat for many indigenous wildlife species (2). The stream valley
parks are proving to be an effective deterrent to encroachment into
environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, the goals set for the program
to aid in maintaining the environmental integrity of the streams in
Montgomery County are being realized.

As effective as the acquisition program is, it cannot by itself
maintain and preserve the environmental integrity of the streams.
Sources of pollution and sediment originating from outside the stream
valley parks must be controlled. The Montgomery County Department of
Environmental Planning (DEP), in conjunction with the Montgomery
County Soil Conservation District (MCSCD), has instituted effective
programs for the control of erosion and sedimentation. The primary
target of their programs is the control of erosion and sedimentation
resulting from construction activities. Control of pollution must be
effected through strict control of point source discharges and insti-
tution of Best Management Practices to mitigate the nonpoint sources
of pollution.

Conclusions

The program of stream valley acquisition initiated by the M-NCPPC
and given impetus with the passage of the Capper-Crampton Act of 1930
has not only been effective in meeting its original goals, but has

252

BAIG & BLOOD

become an integral part of the total watershed management planning in
Montgomery County. The system of stream valley parks and dedicated
open space not only provides recreation and nature study opportuni-
ties, but also provides much needed scenic relief in the urban areas.
Furthermore, the program supplements the goals of many of the ongoing
Federal programs such as the Water Quality Control Act (PL 92-500),
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL 566) and the
Flood Disaster Protection Act.

The benefits derived by our generation and generations to come from
the Stream Valley Park program stand as a tribute to the past and
present leadership in Montgomery County that has instituted and sus-
tained the program.

References

1. The Montgomery County Planning Board; Park, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan; M-NCPPC, Silver Spring, Maryland; 1978.
2. Shosteck, R.; Habitat Survey and Inventory of Fauna and Flora
in the Cabin John Creek, Rock Run and Little Falls Branch Water-
sheds; M-NCPPC, Silver Spring, Maryland; 1978.

253

ACHIEVING LOCAL SUPPORT FOR SURFACE RUNOFF
MANAGEMENT IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

STEVEN J. GOLDMAN, PETER Y. CHIU AND MARY H. DUNTEN
Association of Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, CA

INRODUCTION

As a part of the initial areawide water quality ("208") planning effort,
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) developed a planning
process for the preparation of a regional surface runoff management
plan. The plan was adopted by the local governments in June, 1978, and
was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with conditions
in February, 1979.

Since the plan's adoption, more than 90 management agreements have been
secured by A~BAG (including agreements from 73 of 84 cities and eight out
of nine counties) to implement control measures in the regional plan.
(1) ABAG's unique approach to local participation was largely
responsible for the receptivity of local agencies and has since been
emulated by other "208" agencies.

This paper begins with an historical perspective on water quality
planning in California and the Bay Area. Then a brief outline is given
of the organization of ABAG's overall "208" program, which involved
extensive participation by elected officials, local agencies, special
interest groups and citizens. The largest sub-section of this "208"
program--development of county surface runoff management plans--is
described next. Preparation of these plans by local agencies under the
guidance of ABAG represented a new approach in developing water quality
planning capabilities at the local level. Since the local agencies were
actively involved in the data collection, problem identification and
control measure development, an implementable plan was thus assured.

Following this detailed discussion of the surface runoff program, an
overview of the public participation program is presented. The
extensive regional and local public participation programs conducted by
ABAG and the local agencies are described. These programs included
advisory committee meetings, briefing sessions, public presentations,
roundtable discussions, workshops, extensive mailing of plan progress
reports and highlights, and a series of formal public hearings. Through
these various means, the public was kept informed on the key issues and
encouraged to participate in the planning process.

The final section of the paper describes the continuing local
involvement in water quality planning. The successes of the initial
program are summarized and the 1979-80 work plan is briefly described.
The paper concludes with a recommendation for the future of the program.

255

GOLDMAN et al.

HISTORY OF WATER QUALITY PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA

Water quality planning in California and the San Francisco Bay Area has
not traditionally involved active participation of local governments.
It has, instead, tended to follow a "top-down" approach. A
single-purpose agency would be designated to prepare a plan. This
agency would develop the plan unilaterally, usually with the help of
consultants. The plan would usually require local agencies to implement
it. Since these agencies had not participated in the plan development,
they were naturally distrustful and were not motivated to cooperate in
putting the plan into effect.

The San Francisco Bay-Delta or Kaiser Study is a good example of such
aborted planning. (2) In 1965 the California Legislature authorized a
study of the effects of waste discharges on San Francisco Bay and the
San Joaquin Delta and the development of a comprehensive plan to control
water pollution. The study considered a number of alternatives for
controlling point source pollution. The alternative selected involved
eliminating discharges to the Bay and conveying most of the wastewater
to the Pacific Ocean. The creation of a regional planning and operating
agency was recommended to implement the program. The State Legislature
failed to pass a bill forming such an agency. Without a suitable
operating agency having regional authority, implementation of the plan
became impossible. Local agencies had been excluded from the planning
process and this $2 million study was put on the shelf. (3)

A second major Bay Area water quality planning effort was begun in the
early 1970's. Known as the San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control
Plan or Basin Plan, the study was conducted to comply with the
provisions of the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. (4) As was the
case with the previous Bay-Delta Plan, the Basin Plan emphasized point
sources of water pollution.

The Basin Plan was prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) using a consortium of engineering consulting firms. Aware of
the fate of the Bay-Delta Plan, the basin planners decided on a
different approach. Rather than develop a plan that would have to be
implemented by a new "super" agency, it was decided that the new plan
must be acceptable to and implementable by existing agencies whenever
possible.

The basin planners were aided by the results of twelve subregional
planning studies that were conducted between 1970 and 1973, after
publication of the Bay-Delta study. Many local sewerage agencies,
although critical of the large-scale consolidation proposed in that
study, had agreed that some degree of consolidation was economically
advantageous. These agencies then signed joint-powers agreements to
study the feasibility of bi-county or multi-city consolidation. The
result of these studies formed the basis of the Basin Plan. (5)

256

GOLDMAN et al.

BAY AREA `208" PLANNING

The task of preparing the Basin Plan was an easier one than the task of
preparing a "208" plan three years later. The basin planners' job was
to prepare a plan which set water quality objectives and waste discharge
requirements for San Francisco Bay and the waters of the bay basin. The
job of determining how to achieve these objectives was not part of the
Basin Plan. The RWQC is an enforcement agency; it has the authority to
assure compliance with water quality standards and objectives. The "how
to" part of the process was left to the waste dischargers.

The mandate of the "208" program was quite different. Section 208 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 called for
comprehensive areawide planning for water quality management. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency made it quite clear from the outset of
the program that it wanted implementable plans.

The Association of Bay Area Governments became the designated "208"
planning agency in the San Francisco Bay Area early in 1976. ABAG i s a
voluntary association of cities and counties. Its nine-county area
encompasses about 7,000 square miles and 5,000,000 inhabitants - roughly
the size and population of the state of Massachusetts. In 1976, ABAG's
membership consisted of 7 of 9 counties and 87 of 93 cities.

The `208" plan for the Bay Area was part of a much broader plan called
the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). It included not only a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP), but also an Air Quality Maintenance
Plan, a Solid Waste Plan and a Water Conservation, Supply and Reuse
Plan.

The staff at ABAG decided that to assure success of the EMP, a high
degree of local involvement would be the cornerstone of its program.
This local involvement was to consist of:

o local elected officials

o local agency staff

o special interest groups, and

o private citizens

The first major decision made was to set up the Environmental Management
Task Force (EMTF). The EMTF was a 45-member steering committee
established to oversee the preparation of the "208" plan. The EMTF was
composed of public officials (county supervisors, mayors, city
councilmembers) and representatives of regional agencies, industry,
labor and special interest groups (such as the Sierra Club, League of
Women Voters, and minority organizations).

257

GOLDMAN et al.

In addition, ten technical advisory committees and four policy
sub-committees of EMTF were established to advise staff and the Task
Force and to review analyses and proposals before they appeared in draft
plan form. These committees typically were composed of 30-50 members,
including representatives of industry, labor, environmental and other
special interest groups, elected officials and staff from local,
regional, state and federal agencies. (The activities of EMTF and the
comittees are discussed further under the section heading The Public
Participation Program.)

THE SURFACE RUNOFF PROGRAM

Of the four plans making up the EMP, the one with the highest degree of
local involvement was the Water Quality Management Plan. The WQMP was
divided into two parts -- a point source portion and a nonpoint source
portion. Point sources had been dealt with extensively in the Basin
Plan and the subregional plans. The mandate of Section 208 planning was
somewhat broader than what was called for under California's Water
Quality Control Act, but most of the major point sour.e controls had
already been planned. A few remaining issues needed to be addressed,
such as the 20-year project list, vessel wastes and oil spills, but the
bulk of the work had already been done.

The situation regarding surface runoff was quite different. No surface
runoff planinng had ever been done in the region and little had been
done to control the problem. In fact, when the program started, very
few people (including elected officials and local agency staff) even
knew what surface runoff was.

Aware of EPA's strong desire for implementability and of the failures of
past water quality planning efforts, ABAG decided to involve local
governments in plan development. The involvement was to be much more
than tokenism. Local agencies were to be given the responsibility for
preparing their own plans. It was felt that only by giving local
government this responsibility would the plan be implemented. The
funding would be passed through ABAG directly to local agencies. ABAG
would coordinate the effort to ensure consistency and comprehensiveness.

County Participation

The next question was: which local agencies should prepare the plans?
Trying to manage 93 cities would be too unwieldly. Counties seemed the
logical choice. There are 9 counties in the region -- a manageable
number. Also, counties have closer ties to their cities than ABAG, and
thus would be an effective liaison.

258

GOLDMAN et al.

The county administrators in each of the region's counties were
contacted. The counties were asked to select a lead agency to prepare a
surface runoff plan under contract to ABAG.

Of the nine counties, eight were eventually put under contract. San
Francisco County choose not to participate because it felt that it
already had a surface runoff plan -- a $1.2 billion program to treat
both its stormwater runoff and sewage in a combined system. The price
tag on the system is now $1.9 billion and there is now some controversy
over whether the residents of San Francisco are willing to pay for their
portion of it.

The eight counties that chose to participate had various reasons for
doing so. Only two were initially enthusiastic about participating;
these counties seemed genuinely pleased that they now had a chance to
study some problems that they never had funding to study before "208."
The majority of the counties seemed to have joined the program in
reluctant acceptance of the fact that surface runoff plans would be
prepared whether they had a part in them or not. These counties
apparently felt that if they did not prepare the plans, the State or EPA
would do it for them. This alternative was less desirable than active
paticipation. One county could not decide whether to take part in the
program or not. Later it decided to poll its cities to get their
reaction. When many of the cities expressed an interest, the county
finally decided to participate. This county signed a contract about six
months into the two-year program.

Managing County Surface Runoff Planning

The task of preparing a coordinated set of eight surface runoff plans
was not easy. The director of the program, a former consultant, later
described the process as "trying to set up a consulting firm with eight
branch offices at the same time."

The agency selected by the county administrator to prepare the county
plan was typically the flood control district or water agency. In some
counties it was the planning department or a joint effort of both
planning and public works. (6) Most of these agencies had not dealt
with water quality before. Thus, water quality training was required.

Before the technical aspects of the program could begin, an
organizational structure had to be devised. The counties were adding a
new program onto an existing administrative structure that was not set
up to handle it. Some counties chose to assign "208" responsibilities
to existing staff along with their regular work load. Other counties
hired a "208" coordinator to develop the surface runoff plan. Some
counties hired consultants to assist them. At the end of the program,
those counties which had hired a new person and assigned surface runoff
as that person's main responsibility produced the best plans. The task
of preparing a surface runoff plan was too complex and too difficult to
be squeezed into the workload of a current staff member.

259

GOLDMAN et al.

To facil itate coordination of the work, ABAG staff requested the
counties to furnish ABAG with an organization chart showing how "208"
fit into the overall organization. The purpose of this chart was to
identify key personnel, responsibilities and lines of authority. ABAG
was thus able to communicate more effectively with key local staff
members. The chart also forced the counties to formalize their internal
organization and establish and clarify responsibilities of their
personnel. (7)

The Regional Surface Runoff Committee

The county surface runoff program was coordinated by two ABAG staff
members. As a management too], a two-part committee was formed early in
the program -- a working group and an advisory group. The working group
was composed of one or two key staff members from each county and
representatives from EPA, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the State Water Resources Control Board. The county members were those
responsible for preparing the plans. This group was convened on
approximately a monthly basis to:

o discuss work progress

o compare data and interim products among counties

o make future task assignments and

o present current regulatory and legislative information from
the regional, state and federal agencies.
As mentioned earlier, the county participants were not all initially
positive about the products they were being asked to produce. Many
difficult questions were raised at these working group meetings and
there were some heated debates. The most serious concern was that
surface runoff pollution problems (particularly the impact of polluted
runoff on San Francisco Bay) were not sufficiently documented to justify
taking corrective action. After Proposition 13 passed in California,
local governments became even more concerned about spending local funds
to solve problems that were not well documented.

A major side benefit of these working group meetings was their
effectiveness in prodding members who were lagging behind in their
progress to catch up. This was accomplished through peer pressure.
Counties which were progressing well would present their status reports
first. Then the others would be called upon. The effect was greater
than any punitive measure would have been. Another d isc ipl inary
technique was to prepare progress reports with a section set aside for
each county. If a county had not submitted its material , that part of
the report would be blank. When these reports later began to be
presented to the EMTF, composed of elected officials from each county,
the county staff had even greater incentive to produce.

260

GOLDMAN et al.

The advisory portion of the committee was a non-voting body which was
advisory to the ABAG staff. Invitations to participate were sent to
over 100 organizations and individuals, including:

o industries with major water pollutant discharges

o labor groups

o environmental groups

o governmental agencies (such as the State Department of Fish
and Game and the Bay Conservation and Development Commnission)

o university professors

o community and civic organizations, such as the League of
Women Voters. (8)

Each organization was asked to select a representative to participate.
About 50 persons agreed to serve. Prior to each meeting, ABAG produced
agenda packets containing interim products and items for discussion.
However, as time went on and it came time for substantive comments,
advisory committee participation dwindled. One notable exception was
the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts. This group
maintained active involvement throughout the program and was later put
under contract to perform part of the work. In the 1979-80 Work Program
currently underway, the Council has been given a major role.

In contrast to the advisory group, interest in the working group
meetings remained high and attendance consistently ran close to 100%.
Meetings were characterized by lively debates between the counties and
the regional, state and federal agencies. The regulatory agencies were
made well aware of the concerns of local government. ABAG tended to
serve the role of middle-man or mediator at these meetings.

County Committees

Similar to the regional surface runoff committees were the county
technical advisory committees (TACs). Each county was asked to set up a
local committee composed of representatives of cities and other county
agencies. The purpose of these committees was to present local surface
runoff planning issues to agencies within the county, particularly those
agencies which could likely be designated as implementing agencies in
the county plans.

County surface runoff staffs held periodic TAC meetings with their
respective committees. Some went further and held additional public
meetings. These public meetings typically served to introduce citizens
to surface runoff pollution issues, to present possible solutions and to
solicit audience comments. One county developed an animated slide show
to aid their public presentations. Other counties took pictures of
typical problem areas and organized slide presentations around them.

261

GOLDMAN et al.

The combination of regional and local advisory committee meetings and
public presentations was effective in giving affected agencies an early
indication of their expected roles in implementing the plans.

Technical Support

Once counties had hired or assigned personnel to the program, training
could begin. A wide variety of techniques were employed by ABAG to
communicate technical information. These techniques included:

o technical memoranda

o workshops and conferences

o meetings with individual counties

o handbooks, papers, research publications, regulations and
other documents

oprogress reports, maps, data compilations, letters and
memoranda

o telephone contacts

Each of these techniques was used extensively throughout the program.
No single one of them was sufficient in itself, but in combination they
worked very effectively. The technique of distributing to all counties
noteworthy products or ideas from a participating county also proved
very successful.

The first decision made regarding information transferral was to produce
a series of technical memoranda. These memoranda were prepared
according to a standard format and printed in large quantities for wide
distribution. They were designed to provide the counties with specific
information to support each phase of the work.

The first technical memorandum was devoted to the subject of setting up
a water quality sampling program. Information was given on:

o parameters to monitor

o monitoring equipment

o sampling technique

o finding a lab to analyze samples

o costs for lab analysis

o references for additional information. (9)

262

GOLDMAN et al.

Later technical memoranda covered:

o developing base maps

o selecting demonstration watersheds for water quality modeling

o water quality criteria and standards for analyzing monitoring
and modeling results

o ranking water quality problems

o preparing a surface runoff plan

o developing a work program for continuing planning.

Workshops

The technical memoranda were just a small part of the training program.
Probably the most effective training tools were the workshops. A series
of eight workshops was held during the initial two-year program. These
workshops were intensive one-day training sessions on three topics:

o water quality monitoring

o water quality modeling

o surface runoff control measures. (10)

At the monitoring workshops, sampling equipment and techniques were
demonstrated by experienced U.S. Geological Survey personnel and others.
A field trip was taken to a monitoring site to demonstrate sampling
techniques on an actual stream. Handouts were distributed at the
workshops covering all material presented. These were provided in a
loose-leaf binder so that additional materials could be easily added as
they were produced. Loose-leaf binders were also provided for the
modeling and control measure workshops.

A decision was made at the beginning of the program to perform a
regional evaluation of surface pollution, using computer models. Each
county was responsible for developing the data to apply the models to
its jurisdictions. ABAG would provide the training in model set-up and
operation, but county personnel would run the models. (11)

This hands-on approach to the modeling analysis was proposed to give the
counties an on-going tool for water quality planning. It was felt that
if county staff members were taught how to run the models, they would be
more likely to use them for analysis of future projects. This
hypothesis was proven when some of the counties acquired computer
terminals of their own and ran the models after completion of the
initial plans.

263

GOLDMAN et al.

The task of training the various county staffs, most of whom had no
prior computer experience, was a great one. The first modeling workshop
presented an overview of modeling and described the information
necessary for model set-up. A simple questionnaire was distributed to
the counties, requesting the information necessary for model input.
ABAG staff members and consultants then met with each county
individually to assist them in filling out the questionnaires,
delineating watershed boundaries and preparing all other necessary data
inputs .

This was a slow, painstaking process requiring many hours of one-to-one
assistance. Furnishing seemingly simple "how-to-do-it" cookbooks for
setting up and operating models does not work by itself. Many patient
hours of follow-up were required on a county-by-county basis.

After the counties had started their data preparation, a second modeling
workshop was held to demonstrate various modeling techniques. Model
applications from past water quality studies were presented, along with
examples of how to test control measures using models.

A third workshop demonstrated the use of remote terminals connected to
ABAG's computer system. Data developed by two counties and stored on
ABAG's computer was accessed and run for observers. Then county
personnel were given step-by-step instructions on how to store and
access their data and run t-he models from their own terminals.

Following this model user's workshop, some counties began to run the
models on their own. Others contacted ABAG to set up appointments to
run the models using the terminals in ABAG offices. Within a few
months, seven of the eight counties successfully ran the models using
three sets of land use projections and up to 25 years of rainfall data.
(12)

When the data from the year's monitoring program was compiled and
analyzed, a third monitoring workshop was held. The purpose of this
workshop was to compare results from across the region and set runoff
coefficients for use in the final set of models runs. Though the data
was collected during California's most severe drought year, the results
were comparable to national averages.

A final set of model runs was made in each county using the latest
projection data and runoff quality coefficients based on the local
sampling data. This last set of runs was made in a relatively short
period of time, attesting to the success of the training program. Some
counties performed well beyond ABAG's expectations. One county
calibrated its model using runoff data and 25 years of rainfall records.
This county felt very confident that its annual average pollutant loads
were accurately predicted.

264

GOLDMAN et al.

Plan Development

The most difficult part of the planning process was the drafting of the
actual plans. Since county staff members were writing their own plans,
they wanted to be very careful that the plans were politically and
economically acceptable. They wanted to be sure that what they proposed
would be acceptable to their respective county boards of supervisors.

ABAG, on the other hand, wanted to be sure that the county plans would
meet EPA's requirements. EPA's primary concern was that the plans be
implementable. ABAG also wanted to ensure that the plans were
regionally consistent. While the counties continually emphasized their
individuality and their desire to tailor plan recommendations to the
unique qualities of their jurisdictions, ABAG strove to set minimum
standards for plan development.

One requirement which ABAG imposed was that all counties had to consider
the same list of surface runoff control measures. A comprehensive list
of these control measures was included in each county's contract.
Throughout the two years of the program, information on the use and
cost-effectivenes of these measures was provided. The information was
disseminated in the form of handbooks, reports, technical papers and
workshops. (13) (There were two workshops on control measures.) The
counties were not required to include all these measures in their plans.
They were, however, required to provide reasons for not including
particular measures.

In addition, a standardized plan format was prepared. This format
specified that for each action in the county plan, the following
information was to be provided:

o implementing agency

o implementation schedule

o financing mechanism

o legal authority and enforcement. (14)

Implementation Agreements

In September, 1977, more than half way through the two-year program, EPA
added the additional requirement that commitments from designated
implementing agencies had to be obtained. (15) Thus, all implementing
agencies in the county surface runoff plans had to agree to implement
their portion of the plan. Counties could therefore not unilaterally
assign responsibilities to local agencies without at least discussing it
with them first.

265

GOLDMAN et al.

Because the requirement to obtain implementation agreements was not in
their contracts, the counties were initially reluctant to take on this
added burden. ABAG then agreed to take major responsibility but
requested county assistance. These terms were acceptable to the
counties.

The draft county surface runoff plans were due by September,
1977--barely 15 months into the 24-month program. This early submittal
was required in order to accommodate the lengthy review process. Nearly
all the counties produced their draft plans on schedule. With one
exception, all the counties produced plans in the format requested by
ABAG. Of the 40 surface runoff control measures which ABAG required the
counties to consider, 28 appeared in the county plans in some form.

All eight county plans contained recommendations to:

o improve street sweeping

o control erosion

o establish a public education program.

Six plans contained recommendations to:

o establish a water quality monitoring program

o clean catch basins and storm drains

o control dumping and littering. (16)

When the draft plans were completed by county staffs, they were
"approved for transmittal to ABAG" by each county's board of
superv isors . The pl ans were then subj ected to an ard uous rev iew and
approval process Ilasting nine months. The reviewing agencies included
ABAG (and its EMTF), RWQCB, the State Water Resources Control Board and
EPA. In June, 1978, the county surface runoff plans were incorporated
by reference into the Bay Area Environmental Management Plan. This plan
was then approved by the cities and counties of the Bay Area at ABAG's
General Assembly. The Bay Area's "208" plan (the EMP) was certified by
the State Water Resources Control Board in September, 1978, and approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency in February, 1979.

One of ABAG's first major activities following General Assembly adoption
was to seek and secure commitments from management agencies listed in
the "208" plan to implement portions which they had been assigned. ABAG
drafted a model "Resolution of Intent" which was used by local
governments in the Bay Area to express their intent to implement the
plan. This procedure was quite successful; the effort generated
management agency agreements from eight of the nine counties in the
water quality planning boundary and 73 of the 84 cities, including all
cities over 50,000 in population.

266

GOLDMAN et al.

THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM

The Environmental Management Plan--which encompassed the surface runoff
program--received the most extensive public involvement any Bay region
decision had ever achieved, both in numbers of persons and the range of
interests represented. Officials of virtually every city and county
took part in the decision-making process. In addition to the activities
of local governments, about 15,000 citizens had a voice in at least one
portion of the public participation program, and hundreds of thousands
learned about the plan through the news media.

The ABAG Executive Board and staff made the coiwnitment from the start
that citizen participation would be the core of its planning program.
There were a number of highly controversial issues to be addressed, and
the wisest manner of handling them was to involve all affected parties
from the beginning, so that public education would prepare the citizenry
for the critical decisions, avoiding disruptive storms of protest over
the costs and implications of proposed environmental control measures.

The Environmental Management Task Force was the pivot around which most
of the public participation program revolved. This 45-member body met
about twice a month, and each meeting attracted an average of 100
visitors. EMTF members had a high degree of commitment to their
responsibilities, reflected in an attendance record of about 85-90%.
They took considerable personal time to keep their constituencies well
informed, through presentations and newsletters. Four policy
committees, including a Public Participation Committee, also met
regularly to pursue specific areas of concern.

Members of the task force and ABAG staff held special briefing sessions
with local officials, labor leaders and conservation groups.
Presentations were made to city councils, boards of supervisors,
planning commissions, mayors' conferences, city managers' associations,
and other key government officials. A special advisory commuittee of
county administrators and city managers worked with the ABAG staff,
particularly on the institutional and financial aspects of the plan.
Special "EMP Bulletin" reports were prepared for all locally elected
officials in the Bay Area.

All nine of the counties and 61 member cities reviewed the plan at
regular or special meetings and hearings, and prepared recormmended
changes. Mayors' conferences and city managers' associations prepared
recormmendations for plan changes and positions.

The county lead agencies conducted their own review programs for the
individual county surface runoff plans. They circulated the plan to
organizations and individuals and held numerous meetings and hearings.
The boards of supervisors from all eight participating counties met
individually to recommend a surface runoff program to ABAG.

267

GOLDMAN et al.

Liaison teams composed of EMTF members from each county contacted
citizens and officials in their counties and held sets of roundtable
discussions in each area. They identified local concerns and reported
them back to the full task force. Resulting actions of the task force
were then reported back to all participants.

A speakers bureau provided programs for groups such as labor councils,
economic development associations, school classes, service clubs,
conservationists, homeowners and manufacturers. Several hundred
meetings were held by local groups to review the plan and prepare
responses. In the end, 116 organizations proposed amendments to the
plan. A number of labor, business, and conservation groups assigned
members or staff to work full-time on plan review, preparation of
responses and lobbying.

Heavy media coverage of the plan review and adoption alerted tens of
thousands of citizens who had previously been uninvolved. Many joined
the review and approval of the plan through workshops, informal
discussions and formal public hearings which the task force held
throughout the region during the months before final adoption. During
the review process, citizens were urged to talk with or write to their
city and county elected officials.

At least 20 of the region's major newspapers, the seven major television
stations, and most of the radio stations covered progress of the plan.
Over a dozen radio and television stations aired half-hour interview
programs; others ran one- to five-minute specials during newscasts.

Key support materials were prepared by the ABAG staff:

o An extensive mailing list for contacts with groups and
individuals in the region was expanded to more than 7,000
names. Most of these contacts received the monthly agency
bulletin, Bay View.

o Popularized summaries of the program included a mail-back
opinion and information questionnaire.

o Progress reports received wide distribution, including
reprints by two private industry groups.

o The full 600-page draft plan, an 80-page summary, a 16-page
tabloid summary, and a 110-page listing of all proposed
policies, actions, costs and impacts were printed separately
for broad dissemination.

o Copies of a four-page tabloid,"Plan Highlights," were printed
in English, Spanish and Chinese. Three revised editions were
printed to reflect changes made by the task force and the
ABAG Executive Board. (Many county lead agencies prepared
summaries of the plan for use by governments and groups in
their areas. Special interest groups also prepared and
widely distributed their own reports and newsletters
analyzing the plan.)

268

GOLDMAN et al.

o A 13-minute slide-tape show describing the EMP was loaned to
county lead agencies and citizen groups. Two films were
prepared by persons at Stanford University and the University
of California at Berkeley, with limited assistance from ABAG.
These audio-visual materials were designed for and used on TV
as well as with discussion groups.

o Twelve depository libraries were established--at least one in
every county. The libraries continue to carry copies of all
technical and popularized materials, which are routinely
updated by ABAG staff members.

As a result of this extensive public involvement program, the cities and
counties of the San Francisco Bay Area voted overwhelming approval
(71-5) of the massive plan. The plan now has strong public support,
bolstered by state legislation that prevents state agencies from
changing the ABAG plan without local review and approval.

The surface runoff program was a key beneficiary of the public
participation program. As a result of ABAG's philosopy that involvement
of the public and member governments was essential from the outset, the
final plan was one that would satisfy most individual concerns. The
response of member cities and counties in signing surface runoff
contracts was proof that the ABAG approach was a sound one.

No major challenge was raised at the end of the program to claim that
groups or sectors of the public had been neglected or barred from the
process. Instead, representatives of most, if not all , public and
special interest groups on the EMTF attended a news conference a month
before the General Assembly to express their support for the plan and
their willingness to continue to participate.

Further confirmation of local support was received when a House of
Representatives subcommitee held hearings on the Environmental
Management Plan soon after its adoption. The testimony of elected
officials and citizen groups alike strongly endorsed the ABAG process
and the final approved plan.

CONTINUING LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN WATER QUALITY PLANNING

Local involvement in the surface runoff program did not end with the
completion of the county plans in June, 1978. Throughout the plan
development, ABAG staff had encouraged the counties to develop six-year
surface runoff plans. As the plans neared completion, ABAG requested
the counties to prepare detailed work plans for the first one to two
years of plan implementation. A technical memorandum was prepared which
outlined a six-year work program and provided detailed examples for the
first year tasks. (17)

269

GOLDMAN et al.

When EPA announced that funds were appropriated to continue the "208"
program into 1979, ABAG asked the counties to submit their proposals.
Again, ABAG provided the format and a description of what was needed.
Of the eight counties that participated in the initial program, six
submitted work plans to continue their work. In addition, a work
program was submitted by the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation
Districts. These work plans ranged from a modest $60,000 proposal to an
ambitious $200,000 effort. Unlike the initial program, which was 100%
federally funded, the current program required a 25% local contribution.

ABAG presented the county workplans, together with its own proposal, to
the RWQCB. After a relatively short negotiation process, ABAG and the
RWQCB presented a joint workplan for 1979-80 to the State and EPA for
approval. The total budget for county planning was about $250,000. In
April , 1979, EPA awarded a grant to ABAG which funded all but one task
in the joint work plan. (18)

By their participation in the development of the 1979-80 workplan, the
counties expressed their commitment to continue the planning process.
The six participating counties not only agreed to seek implementation of
the 1979-80 plan recommendations, but had committed local funds to the
process. One county hired a full-time "208" coordinator to continue the
work before anyone knew there would be federal "208" funding for the Bay
Area beyond 1978.

The county workplans for 1979-80 focus on the problem of erosion and
sedimentation. These workplans include tasks to:

o evaluate and improve city and county ordinances and project
review procedures to more effectively control construction
erosion

o develop and implement best management practices in rural
areas

o review and improve surface runoff control measures, such as
street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. (19)

CONCLUSION

The spirit of cooperation shown by the counties over the past three
years demonstrates that local support for surface runoff management in
the Bay Area has been achieved. Early in the program local governments
had expressed considerable concern that higher levels of government
would impose their solutions on local governments. This early distrust
has gradually given way to a cooperative attitude. Local agencies
better understand surface runoff problems now and they are taking more
of a leadership role in developing solutions. ABAG is no longer viewed
by some as an arm of the State and EPA, but more as a resource and an
assistant to local government. The "them vs. us" attitude of the past
has all but disappeared.

270

GOLDMAN et al.

Surface runoff problems are widespread, highly complex and difficult to
control. These problems cannot be controlled without the support of
local government. The progress made in the past three years has been
great when one considers that surface runoff has been virtually ignored
in the 200 years of this nation's history.

While it is no doubt true that a more rigorous technical product could
have been produced if highly trained specialists had prepared a surface
runoff plan for the Bay Area, the chances for implementing such a plan
would have been small. The past history of water quality planning in
this area has proven that. The county surface runoff plans have a very
good chance to succeed as long as there is continuing support for "208"
planning on the national level. It may wellI require 20-30 years to
solve these nonpoint source pollution point problems. However, when one
considers that point source problems have taken at least that long to
control , the time frame is not so unreasonable.

Local support for surface runoff management in the Bay Area has been
achieved by giving local governments the ability to make their own
choices. They were given funding and technical assistance to allow them
to understand the problems. They were also given the opportunity to
find solutions that would be locally acceptable. These solutions cannot
be implemented overnight. Congress and EPA must realize this fact and
should continue to support the gains made during the last three years.

REFERENCES

1. Association of Bay Area Governments, "San Francisco Bay Area
Environmental Management Plan 1979 Update," August,1979.

2. Kaiser Engineers, "San Francisco Bay Delta Waters Quality Control
Program Final Report to the State of California," June,1969.

3. Association of Bay Area Governments, "San Francisco Bay Area
Environmental Management Plan - Volume I,` June, 1978.

4. California State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, "Water Quality
Control Plan Report - San Francisco Bay Basin (2)," April, 1975.

5. Association of Bay Area Governments, "San Francisco Bay Area
Environmental Management Plan - Volume I,` June, 1978.

6. S. Goldman, Y. Litwin and F. Wolin, "Surface Runoff Management Plan
Issue Paper No. I - Organizational Structure of the Surface Runoff
Management Program," November 30, 1976.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

271

GOLDMAN et al.

9.- D. Hemovich, Y. Litwin, "Surface Runoff Management Plan Technical
Memorandum No. I - Preliminary Outline of Storm Water Sampling
Program," July 30, 1976.

10. Association of Bay Area Governments, "San Francisco Bay Area
Environmental Management Plan - Appendix 0 Surface Runoff
Technical Materials," June, 1978.

11. S. Goldman, Y. Litwin, "Surface Runoff Management Plan Progress
Report No. 2 - Summary of Surface Runoff Modeling Program,"
February 28, 1977.

12. Association of Bay Area Governments, "San Francisco Bay Area
Environmental Management Plan - Appendix C Draft County Surface
Runoff Plans," March, 1978.

13. Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Association of Bay Area Governments,
"Candidate Measures for the Control of Urban Runoff," June, 1977,
and Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts, "Handbook
of Best Management Practices for the Nine Bay Area Counties,"
October, 1977.

14. S. Goldman, Y. Litwin, J. Eilers, N. Weisner, "Surface Runoff
Management Plan Technical Memorandum No. 8 - Guidance for
Preparation of the Document Describing County Surface Runoff Plan,"
July 27, 1977.

15. Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 172, September 6, 1977.

16. Association of Bay Area Governments, "San Francisco Bay Area
Environmental Management Plan - Appendix C Draft County Surface
Runoff Plans," March, 1978.

17. S. Goldman, Y. Litwin, "Surface Runoff Management Plan Technical
Memorandum No. 10 - Interim Work Program for Initial Plan
Implementation and Guidance for Update of County Plans," November
30, 1977.

18. Association of Bay Area Governments, "Joint Workplan for the
1979-80 San Francisco Bay Areawide Water Quality Management
Program," March, 1979.

19. Ibid.

272

IV. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION

ADDRESS BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

JACK J. SCHRAMM

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, PA

I hope to give you a little insight into how the EPA views
Stormwater Management problems and possible solutions to them.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 gave
our country, for the first time, effective legislation for controlling
water pollution. The provisions of the act give a good indication of
the viewpoint many held at the time as to the solutions to our water
pollution problems. Those provisions are overwhelmingly oriented
towards point-source control.

The keystones of the Clean Water Act were, and continue to be, the
Grants Program for Construction of Municipal Sewage Treatment Facilities
under Section 201, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Program under Section 402.

Non-point sources were also considered of concern, but certainly
not of equal importance. Control of these sources was left to the
voluntary use of best management practices to be developed under Section
208 Water Quality Management Plans.

And yet, while the Construction Grants Program and the NPDES Permit
Program have gone a long way in controlling wastewater discharges from
municipal and industrial sources, it has become quite apparent that
without effective non-point source control also, we will not be able to
achieve fishable and swimmable waters at any time, let alone the 1983
deadline set by Congress.

Research done in part under Section 208 has shown clearly just how
important non-point source pollution control is, and stormwater runoff,
particularly in urbanized areas, has been found to be one of the most
widespread and difficult of the non-point sources.

Consider the following statistics:

* Fifty-two percent of the nation's 246 river basins are affected by
urban runoff. In the Northeast, this figure is 70 percent.
* At least 37 states have reported that they will be unable to meet
1983 goals in at least part of their water because of runoff.

* Although toxic metal loadings are difficult to estimate on a
national scale, studies of individual cities have shown concentrations
of certain toxic metals in urban stormwater runoff to be many times
greater than the concentrations found in municipal sewage.

275

SCHRAMM

* By 1981, loadings of biochemical oxygen demand from untreated
urban runoff will equal those from treated municipal effluent and com-
bined sewer overflows. In fact, BOD concentrations from some non-point
sources are estimated to be as much as five times higher than from
treated point sources or natural background.
a Sediment loads from man-made non-point sources are estimated to
be 360 times higher than those from point sources, and three times
higher than natural background.

*Total nitrogen from non-point sources is estimated to be four
times higher than point-sources and three times higher than natural
background.

9 Total phosphorus from non-point sources is slightly higher than
from point sources and twice as high as natural background.

* Loadings of fecal coliform from non-point sources will be at
least 50 times higher than from point sources, once secondary treatment
with disinfection is achieved for all municipal sources.

But beyond these numbers, there is the actual harm to the quality
of life caused by urban runoff. The list of examples is long, but allow
me to highlight a few:

In the Baltimore, Maryland area, many streams have been severely
degraded as a result of urbanization. These waters are unsuitable for
human or animal contact and recreation purposes..

Few streams in the Washington, D.C. area consistently meet bacteria]
standards due to urban runoff, and most are considered unfit for water
contact recreation. Sedimentation from man-made activities is reducing
the storage capacity of the Occoquan Reservoir, one of the major water
storage facilities for northern Virginia. High levels of suspended
solids due to runoff periodically require more costly drinking water
treatment to be used.

But, recognizing a problem and dealing with it are two different
things. There are still large gaps in our knowledge about some treatment
techniques, especially the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives.

The latest "Needs Survey" conducted by EPA and the states indi-
cated that structural solutions to urban runoff would cost almost
$62 billion. Frankly, given the needs for other types of water pollu-
tion control, it is doubtful that Congress would ever appropriate money
for a control program of this size. However, the use of many best
management practices is much less costly. For example, we estimate
that the expenditure of some $6.6 billion for BMP's could significantly
reduce the effects of urban runoff.

But there are still additional questions that need to be answered.
We must find better information on how specific sources impact actual
stream quality, and we must know more about how well specific control
measures work. We must also know if techniques used in one geographic
area are transferable to other areas with similar water quality problems.

276

SCHRAMM

Until these questions are answered, I believe that Congress is
right in being reluctant to provide funding for implementation of most
best management practices. But the EPA is doing several things to
improve our knowledge. The most important of these is, I believe, the
Nationwide Runoff Program, also known by the acronym NURP.

NURP is directed toward a review of what is known about urban
runoff, its causes and its controls. The strategy is to test urban best
management practices under controlled conditions in prototype projects.
Projects have been selected in areas representing a range of climatic,
hydrological, and physiographical conditions. In-depth water quality
monitoring, both before and after controls, will improve our under-
standing of the cause and effect relationships between pollution controls
and water quality. These projects, I believe, will be developing data
that is not available at this time.

Once non-point source control techniques are tested in the field,
we will be better able to transfer to similar communities those tech-
nologies which proved the most cost-effective and appropriate. This
should save a considerable amount of time and expense in testing for
solutions. In order to give you a better idea of what a NURP project
involves, let me explain two projects going on here in Region III.
These projects are located in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C.,
and are designed to solve some of the water quality problems of these
areas that I outlined earlier. While they are only two out of the
30 projects nationwide, they should prove to be typical of situations
found in many large older eastern cities.

In Baltimore, the NURP project is being conducted by the Regional
Planning Council, which was responsible for preparing the 208 plan for
the area. The project focuses on a portion of the Jones Falls watershed
which is located both in the city of Baltimore and some outlying areas
of Baltimore County.

The study will emphasize the need for intergovernment cooperation
between jurisdictions which share a common body of water. A number of
best management practices currently being used in the area will be
analyzed to determine their transferability to the nearby Gwynn Falls
Basin.

In the District of Columbia, the Washington Metropolitan Council of
Governments is responsible for the NURP study. Again, COG was the
designated 208 agency for the area.

This study will develop a cost-effectiveness analysis of various
best management practices and will calculate actual dollar costs of
removing specific amounts of pollution. Such information will allow us
to determine with more accuracy the tradeoffs between controlling
varying amounts of point and non-point source pollution.

Two watersheds in the area that are critically impacted by runoff
will be selected for intensive study.

277

SCHRAMM

In addition to NURP, other programs will focus on additional non-
point programs that impact our urban areas. Specifically, I would like
to outline the Rural Clean Water Act Program, which is often referred
to by the letters RCWP.

RCWP concentrates on agricultural non-point sources. It differs
from NURP in that it provides funds for actual implementation of best
management practices. Individual farms in critical water quality areas
in specific basins will be selected for study. If the current funding
request of $50 million is appropriated by Congress, some 25 to 35
basins will receive grants.

So far, I have concentrated on the technical problems facing
implementation of non-point source pollution controls, However, there
are political problems just as perplexing. State and local decision
makers find many barriers in their path, including confusing regulatory
requirements, lack of priorities, and a shortage of funds.

In these areas, EPA is also doing something to help.

For example, for activities under Sections 208, 303(E) and 106, we
have consolidated their requirements into a single water quality manage-
ment program. In case you are unfamiliar with any of these sections,
they all concern water quality management studies, planning and imple-
mentation carried out primarily by the states, The regulations
implementing this change represent a significant simplification of the
process.

Another improvement in management is the state/EPA agreement.
This is an annual agreement negotiated directly between each regional
administrator and state officials, usually the Governor.

Each agreement identifies problems, sets priorities, and plans
activities for water quality, solid waste, drinking water, and other
programs which the state and region agree to include. It recognizes
that a pollution problem may have many dimensions and focuses the appro-
priate resources and programs upon those problem dimensions.

While the implementation of non-point controls faces political and
technical barriers, one of the largest issues appears to be financing.
This is not surprising considering the limited federal funding poten-
tially available, the increasing competition for scarce resources among
state and local priorities, and the reduction of state and local funding
sources. In this environment, the most practical approach for achievi ng
implementation is to ensure that fiscal impact analyses are part of
every non-point control proposal. It is also important that state and
local decision-makers be provided all the information necessary to make
a sound choice among alternatives.

In order to help in this, the EPA has initiated a financial manage-
ment training and technical assistance project for state and local water
quality managers. This project will help them to utilize sound fiscal
policies, financial planning, and management approaches in implementing
water pollution control programs.

278

SCHRAMM

I hope that this brief review of EPA's non-point source control
activities has proven informative and helpful. But underlining these
remarks is a point which I think deserves emphasis. The solutions to
non-point source pollution are such that voluntary compliance is
probably the only way to go given the powers of the respective levels of
government. And whenever we must rely on voluntary compliance, we must
also rely on public acceptance and support of the proposed solutions.

I know there is a great deal of expertise here in this room, and I
don't doubt for a minute that collectively we could propose alternatives
that would be best for the vast majority of our country. But we must
never forget that the average citizen, more than ever before, has a
healthy scepticism of what the "experts" have to say, Therefore, we
must always include the public in our deliberations, and get them to
understand that we understand their problems.

A good example of this was seen in a southern Congressman who
always went by the name of Private John Allen of Tupelo, Mississippi.
He always carried the title "Private" because of the way he was first
elected in 1884. His principal opponent that year was a General Tucker,
late of the Army of the Confederacy, the same army in which Allen had
served as a private. In one debate, the General contrasted his high
rank with that of Allen's.

"Yes, sir," said Allen, "I admit I was only a private. In fact,
I was a sentry who stood guard over the general while he slept. So all
you fellows who were generals, and had privates standing guard over you,
vote for General Tucker, but all of you boys who were privates, and
stood guard over the generals, vote for 'Private' John Allen."

They did, and he served for the next sixteen years.

If we want to see our ideas still around after sixteen years, we
must do what Allen did and appeal to the average citizen.

We must educate them about the problems and various solutions, We
must make them understand that stormwater can be made into a resource
that can actually enhance their health, safety, and recreational
activities.

EPA has shown its commitment to this concept by the public partic-
ipation requirements included in all of our water quality programs, and
I' hope you can join us in these efforts.

I believe that sessions such as this conference are a major step
in this direction, so that regulatory authorities and water quality
professionals can develop an even closer cooperation in our nation's
campaign for clean water.

279

LET'S SETTLE THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUE

NEIL S. GRIGG

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC

Beginning in the mid-1960's, the United States realized that urban
runoff, both from separate and combined sewers, constitutes a serious
pollution source. Since that time, millions have been spent on research
and demonstration projects and a number of installations designed to
halt combined sewer overflow (CSO) have been built. Meanwhile, local
governments have continued to manage development and billions of dollars
of stormwater management facilities in the form of gutters, pipes,
ponds, ditches and canals have been built. We see evolving a field
called "stormwater management" which is seized upon by many (including
the writer) for more research and studies. Congress delays decisions
about non-point runoff control because we really do not know how to
control the urban sources. It seems that more progress should have
been made. One of the problems has been the traditional separation
between the "talkers" and the "doers".

This paper will describe who the "talkers and doers" are and show
how our national programs could be more effective. It will describe a
recent policy-related stormwater conference which compared local, state
and federal programs in the southeast. The conclusions of this con-
ference have a lot to say to policy-makers at all three levels of
government.

Definition of Stormwater Management

The term "stormwater management" means different things to dif-
ferent people. To the writer, the following definition applies:

"Stormwater management is the set of actions taken to con-
trol water in its hydrological cycle with the objectives
of providing: surface drainage, flood control, erosion
and sedimentation control and reducing pollutants in runoff."

Note that it includes four separate objectives. It applies to
rural and urban areas, but is most relevant in urban situations. It
requires the application of planning, engineering analysis and design,
and other management techniques. It does not apply solely to urban
runoff pollution control nor to drainage. It is a multi-objective
activity.

281

GRIGG

Stormwater management has been applied and practiced for a long
time. Of course, in the United States the original sewers were for
storm drainage and it was the connecting of house and industrial sewers
to them that created the combined sewer problem. Roadbuilding has
always required careful attention to drainage and many of the best
guides for drainage practice came from the roadbuilding profession.
The Soil Conservation Service has been practicing stormwater management
in conjunction with their conservation objectives for many years.
Every public works director and city engineer practices stormwater
management as a matter of necessity. Thus, there are a number of
"doers" already in the stormwater management business.

The writer has mostly worked with the "talkers". They are the
researchers, the federal and state government personnel and the pro-
fessors who have pursued research and discussion concerning CSO and
runoff problems. There was money available to study the "urban runoff"
problem and a great deal of research has been done. Most of this was
low-budget research with national totals running less than, say,
$10 million per year since 1970. The writer estimates "stormwater
management" to be an economic activity on the order of $5 to $10 billion
annually, including capital and maintenance expenditures. The
$10 million research figure thus represents about 0.1 percent of total
stormwater management expenditures. These figures are very approximate,
but the result should be basically correct.

Much of the research has been published in the journals and re-
ported at conferences, but little diffusion into practice has occurred,
except for the practice of detention storage, which has mostly been
used to reduce quantities of runoff and not for pollution control.
In spite of this lack of diffusion of research results, management is
probably very high, mostly due to the low cost. The "talkers" have
contributed a great deal -- but they have not solved the stormwater
management question.

The Problem

In addition to the low total research expenditures, the writer
believes that too much of the work addressed to solving the stormwater
management problem has gone into the development of advanced tools and
techniques with long-term possibilities for developing pollution
control programs, but which are a long way from the practical arena of
the city engineer. Some of these which I have personally worked on are
models, automatic control techniques, and structural stormwater
treatment facilities. Most of these will probably not be in daily use
in small-to-medium sized US cities until into the 21st Century. Some
are, of course, useful now. They still do not, however, solve the
stormwater management question.

Thus, we have a great gap facing us. On the one hand, to clean up
all urban non-point runoff pollution with structural measures could
cost tens of billions of dollars, and on the other hand, the tools and
techniques we have developed so far have not led to cost-effective and
practical solutions.

282

GRIGG

I believe that, when it is all said and done on urban runoff
quality, that we will implement programs aimed at integrating better
housekeeping into normal municipal practice. There will be changes
anyway in the form and style of A~merican living, some brought on by the
energy shortage, others brought by the communications revolution.
Automobiles will be with us for a long time, however, and the existing
stock of US housing will have to last well into the next century.
Stormwater management programs will be shaped by the old and the new.
There will be few dramatic surprises. However, we already know much of
what we will ever know about the extent of this problem. We oug.ht to
be working more deliberately on solutions that can be implemented and
that will be accepted.

Some of the better "on-the-shelf" measures we already have are
street sweeping, control of litter and dump sites, control over air
pollutants, deliberate and wise use of detention storage and, in
general, more attention to stormwater management programs at the local
level.

In developing countries where there is rapid urbanization, storm-
water management and the cleansing of urban and other receiving waters
will be a much greater problem. Bad sanitation, lack of housekeeping
and overpopulation, all of which affect urban stormwater management,
are all problems endemic to these countries. In the US and Europe,
the present and future form of our cities is pretty well known,
however, and we can afford to begin solutions much more optimistically.

The Southeast Conference on Urban Stormwater Manaqement

In April 1979, the Conference on Stormwater Management was held as
one of several sponsored by the state water resources research insti-
tutes on water problems of special concern to the southeastern states.
Almost all of the participants were "doers", although a few researchers
and professors slipped in. The results were very interesting and not
at all surprising.

The eight states represented had a great deal in cormmon. As usual,
most state government programs were in response to Federal programs.
That meant that most of the states were working on urban runoff quality
~as part of the "208" process, but had few, if any, programs in urban
drainage or flood control. Most of the states have some programs in
flood insurance started in response to the initiatives of the HUD
regional efforts (the Flood Insurance Program has now moved from HUD
to FEMA). Again, the Federal Government has little in the way of
erosion and sedimentation programs for urban areas and this is
reflected by the states, although several states have begun some regu-
latory efforts to control erosion from land-disturbing activities.

Local governments, being very close to the people, have many day-
to-day pressures related to stormwater management. These include
drainage and flood control, some erosion problems, and some pressure
for cleaner urban streams. With some exceptions, the local governments
do not feel much in touch with the efforts of the state and federal
governments to clean up urban runoff pollution through the `208"

283

GRIGG

programs. This is because they are busy putting out other fires at
home. Yet it is the local governments that will eventually have to
solve the stormwater management question.

Both EPA and the USGS are busy trying to develop programs of study
and data collection that will help to pinpoint the s ources of urban
runoff pollution. The writer believes, however, that through common
sense and plain eyesight we know where most of the problems are already.
The literature reflects this and it is not too difficult to find
descriptions of non-point pollution sources in urban areas. Thus,
remedial action need not wait for the results of the EPA and LISGS
efforts.

The impressions that the writer received from the Conference were
as given below. These are subject to change as the conference
proceedings are still under preparation.

1. Most of the attention on how to solve the urban non-
point pollution problem is at the Federal level. This
attention has been since the middle 1960's and we do
not seem to be any closer now to an overall solution
then we were then, although we do have a formidable
arsenal of tools and techniques produced from research
projects.

2. With some exceptions, local government has not partici-
pated much i'n the debate about urban non-point pollution.
There is however a great interest in general stormwater
management.

3. No one seems to think that any magic solution to the
urban non-point pollution problem is at hand and the
country cannot afford the tens of billions of dollars
that would be necessary for structural solutions. We
must begin to implement responsibly the cost-effective
tools we already have.

4. There is a great deal of expertise available at the
local level to respond to common sense solutions,
especially those with demonstrable benefits for local
areas. This expertise is not now being called on by
the federal or state governments to work on stormwater
management. Most of the innovations taking place are
by "doers" at the local levels.

5. There is a natural hierarchy of activities for the
three levels of government in stormwater management:
a) Federal Government issues legislation, makes grants
and does research; b) state government transfers
technology and works with Federal Government to develop
regulations and programs of assistance to local govern-
ment; c) local government implements programs.

284

GRIGG

Some Elements of the Solution

The writer does not have the ultimate solitions. The following
are some ideas, however, which might be considered by Federal action
agencies and by the local governments.

1. Stormwater management must be viewed as a multi-
objective activity with four objectives.

2. We already know most of what we can ever expect to know
about the problem. The Federal Government should decide
to mount an attack using incentives and other means and
begin to shape attitudes and practices that are respon-
sible, helpful and which will be accepted at the local
level. We still need further research, but we cannot
afford to wait for it.

3. The Federal Government needs to make a commitment to work
in all four areas of stormwater management over a long
period of time and to mount a program of financial in-
centives and leadership that will motivate the private
sector, local government, state government, the profes-
sional associations and universities in a coordinated
attack on this problem.

4. The professional associations need to be more widely recog-
nized as leadership organizations for stormwater management
and to mount programs in cooperation with the Federal
Government that will raise the professionalism of their
membership and help to improve stormwater management. The
lead organization, in the opinion of the writer, should be
the American Public Works Association. This is because
of the grass roots public works nature of its membership
and the practical level on which they work. There are
roles for the other associations as well. Noteworthy
is the Urban Water Resources Research Program of the
American Society of Civil Engineers which has been a
leader in advanced research.

Some of the shorter term goals that should be encouraged are as
follows:

1. Every municipality should have a comprehensive stormwater
management plan that recognizes drainage, flood control,
erosion and runoff quality.

2. City engineers and planners should be much better
trained in the tools and techniques of stormwater
management.

3. The professional associations and the water research
institutes should get together and sponsor some
practical conferences on real solutions to stormwater
management that can be implemented.

285

GRIGG

4. A Federal agency, the professional societies or
associations of state or local governments should
develop better model legislation for state and local
government for total stormwater management. Single
purpose legislation, such as for flood plain manage-
ment, should be used with extreme caution.

5. Cities should be encouraged to follow-up their planning
process with data collection and monitoring. They
should find out where their runoff quality problems
are and how bad they are.

6. New technology should be diffused throughout the
professions that are concerned with stormwater. The
technology should be effective and make sense economi-
cally so that it will, in fact, be adopted.

Thus, there are roles for both the "talkers" and the "doers" in
stormwater management. The time to begin is now and the way to proceed
is in partnership. The Federal Government should lead the way.
Effective leadership will find solutions without the expenditure of
tens of billions of dollars on pollution control alone.

In closing, I would like to state that the role of the "talkers"
is absolutely crucial in stormwater management. Although I conclude
that all our research has not solved the problem, the nation can be
proud of the results of its investments in research and demonstration.
Some very excellent programs have been mounted through the EPA, LISGS,
the Corps, DOT and OWRT. Without this research we would not even know
what the problem was. Although we should not wait for the results of
research to begin implementing solutions, continued research is likely
to save billions of dollars and lead to much cleaner water at a
reasonable cost.

286

THE GREENWAY CONCEPT WITHIN THE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE

GLENN EUGSTER AND ELIZABETH TITUS
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Northeast Region, U.S. Department of the Interior
Philadelphia, PA
I. Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, often referred to as HCRS, through the Nationwide
Rivers Inventory, has established a comprehensive river information
system which can serve as a framework and a focal point for greenway
conservation activities. The Inventory, being conducted under the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542), does several things:

- It provides recognition and the option for varying degrees of
protection to significant river resource areas to avoid adverse
environmental impacts and to upgrade the public's awareness of
these valuable resources.

- It serves as a focal point for the more effective coordination
and use of existing Federal activities and programs related to
greenway conservation.

- It establishes a data base of objective and descriptive river
resource information for planning and decision making.

- It identifies through the use of a "grass-roots" communication
network, opportunities for greenway conservation implementation
including information about local and State issues and conser-
vation supporters.

- It identifies and emphasizes greenway conservation implementa-
tion options at all levels of the government and the private
sector including funding programs, legislative tools and tech-
niques, and less-than-fee-acquisition strategies.

HCRS's national greenway conservation effort is based on the
philosophy that river conservation is a shared responsibility between
all levels of the government and the private sector.

The basis for the Federal government's involvement in greenway
conservation is mandated by a variety of laws and policies. However,
to understand the activities of HCRS and the Nationwide Rivers Inven-
tory, it is essential to understand the policies in the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.

II. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

In 1968, after 6 years of discussion and debate, Congress enacted
P.L. 90-542. The "Act" established a policy that certain selected
rivers of the nation with outstanding values:

287

EUGSTER & TITUS

First -Shall be preserved in a free-flowing condition.

Second -Shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of
present and future generations.

The purpose of the "Act" is to institute a national system of
rivers. The intent of P.L. 90-542 was to establish a river conserva-
tion policy complementary to the existing national policy of dam build-
ing. P.L. 90-542 is fairly specific regarding the characteristics that
a river must possess to be eligible for the National Rivers System.
The law states that a river must:

- Be free-flowing.

- Be free of significant water-related types of development (i.e.,
channelization, dikes, levees, etc.)

- Have watersheds or shorelines which are relatively undeveloped.

- Have an outstandingly remarkable value (i.e., scenic, recrea-
tional, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other).

A variety of agencies, at all levels of the government, are in-
volved in the planning and implementation of National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.

- The National Park Service conducts Congressionally mandated
Wild and Scenic River Studies.

- The National Forest Service studies potential National rivers
which flow through U.S. Department of Agriculture lands.

- State, local and regional government agencies may also have a
direct responsibility in planning and implementing Wild and Scenic
Rivers.

The Act recognizes that different options for conserving "green-
ways" are appropriate for different types of rivers and communities.
No one approach to conservation is suitable for all areas. Specifical-
ly the "Act" provides for:

- National designation of selected rivers. This may occur as the
result of a State initiated action See. 2(a)(ii) or at the direction
of Congress Sec. 2(a)(i).

- Designation for potential addition to the national wild and
scenic rivers system Sec. 5(a).

- Identification of additional wild, scenic and recreational river
areas to be evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as
potential alternative uses of land and water areas. Sec. 5(d).

- Assistance to States for establishing State and local wild,
scenic and recreational river areas.

288

EUGSTER & TITUS

- Provision of technical assistance to States, political subdivis-
ions, and private organizations to establish wild, scenic and recrea-
tional river areas.

Although the "Act" was established primarily to set a policy for
"certain selected" nationally significant rivers the Inventory, man-
dated by this legislation establishes a means to conserve additional
greenway areas of State and local importance.

The major purposes of the Nationwide Rivers Inventory are:

- To identify and evaluate all of the significant rivers of the
nation.

- To determine the suitability of rivers for further study and/or
potential inclusion in the National Rivers System.

- To identify for the President and Congress the parameters of a
basic National Rivers System.

- To stimulate actions, at all levels of government and within the
private sector, which will assure the conservation of and public access
to these rivers.

The potential scope of the National Rivers System could include
river corridors both publicly and privately owned and of national,
State and local significance. These corridors should be representative
of the full range of different rivers and landscape types. Such a
river system could include wild and natural rivers; rivers of historic
and cultural significance; rivers suitable for specific types of recrea-
tional use; and urban rivers.

Obviously such diverse river areas require different approaches
to achieve greenway conservation goals.

In addition, the people who own and use these rivers have varying
ideas of how they are to be used. Specific issues often arise in the
competition for these resources dividing persons into conservation pro-
ponents and opponents. Implementation strategies, for these various
situations, must be both comprehensive and flexible.

In response to these key concerns, HCRS has developed a compre-
hensive river information system to identify and evaluate:

- Water and land resources

- Social resources

- Local support and issues

- Implementation techniques

This information system, which relies on multi-government level
coordination, and "grass roots" creates a framework for decision mak-
ing information which can be expanded, improved and used for a variety

289

EUGSTER & TITUS

of purposes.

III. River Information System

The "Act" is specific about the qualities which must be present
in order for a river to be considered for the National System. Section
l(b) of the "Act" states that these certain selected rivers of the
nation - with their immediate environments possess outstandingly re-
markable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved....

To fully recognize these "immediate environments" of the river and
river corridor,it was determined that a system be developed to record
and evaluate the "outstanding" features or characteristics of a river.
This system identifies the significant features of a river.

The purpose of this portion of the Nationwide Rivers Inventory is
to identify, describe and evaluate those significant physical, natural
nd social characteristics of a river or river segment and its corridor,
and to give an indication of the types and amounts of features that may
be found within a particular river area.

Two issues are extremely important to note concerning this process.
First of all, this study is a broad thirteen state survey and should
not be confused with a site specific river study. Secondly, with limi-
ted resources to perform this evaluation, it has been essential to de-
velop a process that identifies rivers (and their immediate environ-
ments) of high quality quickly so that more time could be spent evalua-
ting river areas of greater significance.

This attempt to assess as many rivers as possible, in such a brief
period of time, has required the effective use of vast amounts of in-
formation about rivers and the landscape that exists within the north-
east region and to rely heavily on those persons who are most familiar
with these resources.

The study used five major techniques to gather information about
rivers and river areas:

Existing research - an exhaustive literature search and review was
conducted to identify and use all of the existing sources of informa-
tion about rivers and river areas. This information ranged in form and
in detail, including natural areas studies, river studies, resource in-
ventories, the National Historic Register, the Endangered Species List,
canoe guides, and coastal zone management reports.

Expert testimony - river experts were identified within the public
and private sector, sought out and asked for comments and information
about specific study rivers. These experts were also urged to check
the rivers under evaluation to insure that no significant segments had
failed to be identified.

Nominations - persons, regardless of affiliation or expertise were
encouraged and requested to submit nominations for rivers to be consid-
ered for evaluation. Numerous suggestions, with a variety of

290

EUGSTER & TITUS

accompanying materials, were sent to the study team for consideration
and analysis.

Workshops - a series of information gathering "work sessions" were
conducted to solicit additional site specific data about river areas.
Sessions were conducted for both the private and public sectors and
were officially scheduled and also held at request.

New research - through a variety of resource evaluation techniques,
including aerial reconnaissance, geologic interpretations, statistical
analysis and a literature search, new research information about rivers
was developed and used in these evaluations. These techniques, although
used throughout the study, were initially used in a broad generalized
fashion. Rivers and adjacent land areas were "highlighted" if there was
evidence of state, multi-state or national significance and further ex-
amined in detail.

IV!. River Evaluation

The guidelines for assessing natural, physical and social river
resources in the Northeast Regional Office were developed with a sensi-
tivity toward data base variances and the need for objectivity in re-
source evaluations. Variations in information required that the evalua-
tions be flexible enough to accommodate a high level of information
where it is available, but also be applicable enough to perform a very
basic inventory and analysis where the minimum amount of data exists.
In order to make the evaluation meaningful, a minimum "bottom line"
analysis was performed on all the rivers.

Because data appears in all shapes, forms and sizes, the guidelines
had to be explicit enough for a number of different team members with
varying expertise to be able to uniformly and objectively record and
evaluate information in a consistent manner to insure comparability.
The amount and types of information obtained from each of these tech-
niques obviously varies. Information available for one locality may
not be available throughout the entire study region. Certain data about
a river was site specific in detail while other information, although
broad in a sense, gave a general indication about the character of a
particular river or the landscape through which the river flows.

Information for the inventory and evaluation was gathered at a
variety of geographical scales in order to ascertain the relationship
of a river to the landscape, 2 state, the region and to the nation.
The various levels at which information was gathered at are as follows:

National
HCRS planning region
Physiographic province
Physiographic section
State
River segment watershed and viewshed
River corridor
River mile

For the more detailed information about the river corridor - which

291

EUGSTER & TITUS

for the purposes of this study is defined as an area one-quarter mile
from the edge of each river bank - information has been gathered, re-
corded and subsequently evaluated on a mile-by-mile basis. Although an
unnatural delineation of the river, this division of the corridor al-
lows for a fairly specific location of information and for quantifica-
tion and comparability.

A. River Characteristics

The river and adjacent land related characteristics which were
inventoried and evaluated in the River Evaluation are as follows:

Physical Characteristics

Uninterrupted segment length

Hydroloqic Characteristics

Precipitation and snowmelt
Watershed area
River gradient
Water flow
Water quality

G~eological - Ecological Characteristics

Area land surface form
Watershed landform - landscape series
Prominent natural features (characteristic)
Biotic and abiotic corridor features
Wetlands and surface water
Channel shape
Topographic diversity
Vegetative cover
Islands
Diversity of plant communities
Potential for significant plant and animal habitats
Rare and endangered species

Wildlands Characteristics

Watershed land use character
Degree of land use development in corridor
Scenic Characteristics

Views
Types of visual-spatial enclosure
Landscape quality-character of corridor
Types of landscape series

Cultural Characteristics

Unique cultural settlements
Historical values

292

EUGSTER & TITUS

National Register sites
State Register sites
Significant period structures-areas
Types of cultural development-landscapes

Recreational Characteristics

Proximity to population centers
Kinds of access
Existing recreational use
Opportunities for fishing
Opportunities for floating
Opportunities for water contact sports
Opportunities for hunting
Pattern of flow from impoundments
Availability of public transportation
Percent of river frontage publicly owned
Number of river crossings
State scenic river designation

Socio-economic Characteristics

Threat of development
Educational opportunity
Degree of citizen support
Degree of political support

A detailed description of the river evaluation methodology in its
entirety, including the criteria used, the data sources and the means
of application is being prepared.

B. Field Reconnaissance

Helicopter flights were used to examine river corridors once
all of the in-house resource evaluation work was completed. The pur-
pose of these low altitude reconnaissance flights was to:

1. Document the conditions of the river and its adjacent
land areas including any outstandingly remarkable feature.

2. Insure and update the accuracy and quality of research
information used by the study team.

3. Conduct new research in those sections of the region
where little previous work has been done.

4. Assist state wild and scenic river programs whenever
practical.

Different types of helicopters were used to fly each of the more
than 200 river segments that were examined in detail. Color video-
tape equipment, consisting of a portable hand-held color television
camera and a portable video-cassette recorder, was used to record 75%O
of the rivers examined.

293

EUGSTER & TITUS

A 35mm camera, used for the remaining 25% of the rivers examined
was also used to supplement the video-tapes. To insure continuity and
comparability throughout the helicopter flights, team members partici-
pated in every river examination within specific sections. State wild
and scenic river program staff were invited to participate in the aeri-
al reconnaissance whenever possible since they have an excellent know-
ledge of the rivers within their states.

The potential uses of the video-tapes and photographs of the.
rivers examined are numerous. Aside from the obvious use of these
photographic records for the purposes of the study, opportunities ex-
ist to use these materials in the following ways:

- Tapes and slides can be made available, at cost, to each
State's river program, to conservation groups, to private companies
and individuals.

- Tapes and slides can be used by the National Park Service,
which is now responsible for all Congressionally mandated river studies,
to evaluate proposed legislative actions.

- Congressional subcommittees and staffs could examine tapes
and slides of rivers for proposed legislative actions.

- Academic institutions could use these materials to conduct
certain types of research.

- Other federal and state agencies, such as the EPA, COE, etc.,
could use those materials in their program activities.

V. Types of Information

A. River Resource Characteristics

The amount, comprehensiveness and flexibility of the informa-
tion about river areas in the northeast region provides numerous oppor-
tunities for analysis. For each river evaluated in the final phase of
the inventory, there were between 35 to 50 characteristics examined.
These categories represent between 175 to 260 different items of infor-
mation. Information exists on a mile-by-mile basis and is also in sum-
mary form for every river segment studied. Information about a river
is, in some instances, displayed as a value assessment about a parti-
cular characteristic, for example:

Diversity of Abiotic Corridor Features

High diversity
Moderate diversity
Low diversity

Other information is, in some instances, displayed as descriptive
quantitative data about a particular characteristic, for example:

294

EUGSTER & TITUS

Types of Natural Features (Number of Miles)

Miles with significant wetlands, ponds, or
other water features

Miles with diversity of channel shape

Miles with a variety of vegetative cover

Miles with a significant island

All of the evaluations were uniformly applied following defini-
tive procedures in the guidelines. This uniformity and the quantita-
tive and qualitative nature of the resource information allows for any
river or rivers to be described individually or compared to each other.

The study has assigned one value system to the descriptive infor-
mation for the goals of this effort. However, because all of the in-
ventory information has been recorded in a descriptive form, any value
system - can be assigned to the data and rivers can be ranked, compared
or contrasted.

a. Unique River Features

Because most of the information is in quantitative form, this
method can be used to assess the uniqueness of rivers, river areas or
specific river features. This concept, although not unique to the per-
son, is based upon a report done by Luna B. Leopold entitled, "Quanti-
tative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors Amonq Rivers." Adapted
from that work, an assumption has been made that the riverscape which
is unique - that is different from others or uncommon - has a higher
level of significance to society than that which is common. The unique
values which have been identified can range from the outstandingly re-
markable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural, or other similar values that the "Act" identifies, to other
more subtle values such as the number of remaining undeveloped river
miles in the agriculturally predominant Piedmont section of the region.

b. Representative River Features

Research was conducted within each physiographic section, to de-
velop criteria to assist in the determination of -tbe "representative-
ness" of the landscape that the river being studied passes through.
These criteria permitted the study team to understand what the repre-
sentative characteristics of a particular place were so that objective
assessments could be made.

The information gathered as 2 result of this evaluation offers
the opportunity to identify those rivers which better exemplify this
"representativeness" than others. The physiographic section criteria
focused on a representative drainage, landform and topographic features
as well as unique features.

B. River Organizations and Interests

295

EUGSTER & TITUS

In the process of collecting research information about rivers,
circulating lists of rivers for review and coordinating with state
river programs, a multitude of river related organizations and indivi-
duals were identified. A "Directory" of these interests, which range
from canoe clubs, conservation groups, city managers, university pro-
fessors, private citizens and power companies, is being developed to
improve communications between HCRS and other organizations and indivi-
duals. This type of information is also valuable to conduct more de-
tailed research on a river or a particular issue in an area.

C. Viewpoints an the Impacts of National River Desiqination

During the course of the Inventory, numerous meetings, work-
shops and telephone conversations were conducted. Each of these com-
munications were important to the study for two reasons. First of all,
various agencies, organizations and individuals provided us with infor-
mation about rivers in the region which improved our final work pro-
duct. Secondly, these formal and informal conversations made us aware
of a number of outstanding information deficiencies. The most fre-
quently asked question which we were unable to answer - and probably
one of the most important issues related to river conservation - was,
"What is the impact of National Wild and Scenic River Designation?"
To address this question, which has not been systematically researched,
the study team prepared a staff working paper. Based on interviews
and surveys of knowledgeable individuals living and working in or~ near
one of three existing national wild and scenic rivers, the Allagash
River, the Lower St. 'Croix River, and the Chattoga River, the study ex-
amined the perspectives of those who are familiar with rivers already
in the National Wild and Scenic River System.

D. Visual River Survey Information

Color video-tapes and 35mm slides were taken of each of the
approximately 200 river segments which were examined in detail. These
materials, easily and relatively inexpensively reproduced, provide a
detailed visual record of each river corridor. These photographic
records can be used to conduct detailed evaluation of each river cor-
ridor, to "market" the conservation merits of a particular area and to
document research findings.

VI. Uses of the Information

A. Information for Decisions

A great deal of emphasis was placed upon the river evaluation
portion of this study because it identifies characteristics which are
significant, and it provides information which is appropriate to make
decisions about river resources.

Descriptions of river corridors were separated from evaluations
of river corridor to provide decision-makers with a greater flexibility
in the use of this information. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act values have
been imposed upon the river information for the specific purposes of
this particular study. However, recognizing that values rapidly

296

EUGSTER & TITUS

change, both in planning and in government, the study team felt that
this effort would be far more useful if the data was not completely
locked into any one set of values.

Statistical descriptions of river resources provide for increased
objectivity in comparative evaluations. Descriptive information also
allows a decision-maker to determine their own values rather than have
someone else's superimposed upon them.

Further flexibility and usefulness is built into this information
system through the use of the mile-by-mile recording format and storage
of the information on a computer system. Since all of the date has
been gathered on a mile-by-mile basis, specific resource information
can be easily located, quantified, summarized and compared. River in-
formation about a specific, smaller segment can be "broken out" from a
larger segment. New information, either site specific or broad in
scale, can easily be added to the inventory at any time. Consequently,
new categories of information, perhaps related to a new program empha-
sis, can be added to build upon the inventory.

B. Future Uses

The large amount of data gathered during the study made com-
puterization necessary and economical.

Developed by the Service' s Office of Systems Management, the
computer system gives HCRS and other users the ability to summarize,
compare and correlate river data and to use this data for other purpos-
es and related programs.

C. Resources for Implementation Strateqies

Descriptive mile-by-mile resource information also provides
data which is useful for developing conservation implementation strate-
gies. Information about the amount of wetland areas, historic sites,
endangered species, etc., can provide a planner with a quick indica-
tion of the types of legislative and regulatory techniques which can
or cannot be used to conserve an area.

D. Examples of the Usefulness of the Information

The information which has been gathered and the methodology
for evaluating rivers has proved useful in numerous instances. The
following requests were responded to using the Nationwide Inventory:

- March 1978 - House Subcommittee staff request for a
list of top quality rivers in the northeast.

- May 1978 - Senator Biden's request for guidance on the
potential of the White Clay Creek in Delaware for national designa-
tion.

- July 1978 - Representative Harrinciton's request for an
assessment of the Merrimack River in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

297

EUGSTER & TITUS

- August 1978 - Secretary Andrus' request that we work
with the American Power Company to develop a mitigation package for a
nuclear power plant proposal on the James River.

- August 1978 - Virqinia Electric Power Company's request
to work with VEPCO to avoid possible confrontations on potential power
sites.

- September 1978 - French and Pickerinq Creek Watershed
Association's request for an assessment of the potential of the creek
for national designation.

- September 1978 - Governor DuPont of Delaware's request
for an assessment of the potential of the Choptank and Leipsic Rivers.

- October 1978 - Senator Muskie's request for guidance in
working with the Sheepscot River Watershed Association in assessing
the potential for national designation.

- October 1978 - State of Maine - three requests came in
to help the state evaluate scenic rivers (one from the Land Use Com-
mission another as part of the State's Critical Areas Program, and a
third from the Bureau of Parks and Recreation).

- October 1978 - State of Maryland's request for evalua-
tiop and tapes of the Monacacy River and Pocomoke Rivers.

- December 1978 - State of New Hampshire - request for
tapes of rivers to assist in the development of a rivers program.

_ January 1979 - State of Delaware's request for an as-
sessment of the potential of the Nanticoke, Delaware, White Clay and
Brandywine Rivers.

- February 1979 - State of New Jersey's request for video
tapes of Cedar Creek, the Mullica River "system", Delaware and Great
Egg Harbor Rivers.

- March 1979 - Tuq Hill Commission's request for video
tapes and information on Fish Creek in New York.

- March 1979 - State of Virqinia's request for video tapes
on selected rivers.

VII. Major Findinqs

Recently the initial phase of the Inventory in the northeast
United States was completed. One hundred and seventy-one rivers and
river segments, totaling over 5,300 miles, within 23 different physio-
graphic sections, and 13 States in the northeast United States were
identified, as potential National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Over 40% of
the rivers identified are located in three physiographic sections.
The majority of undeveloped, free-flowing rivers are located at the
northern and southern extremities of the northeast planning region away
from the major urban areas.

298

EUGSTER & TITUS

Representative samples of undeveloped, free-flowing rivers in cer-
tain physiographic sections such as the Northern section of the Blue
Ridge Province and the Northern section of the St. Lawrence Valley Pro-
vince have virtually been eliminated. Opportunities for natural river
conservation in a number of other sections such as the Mohawk Section
of the Appalachian Plateau Province and the Southern Section of the
Blue Ridge Province have nearly been foreclosed.

Politically, as the data in Figure I indicates, the majority of
remaining free-flowing, undeveloped rivers are located within 3 States.
Over 57% of all rivers identified are located in Virginia, West Virgin-
ia, and Maine.

FiguireI
iive Identified b

-mileage totals do =
ot reflect inter-5. Z a
nstateor inter- n- 0 1�C a
national boundary 1 2
rivers. I ,~ e c a a

STATE .
Maine 173 662 214 1049"
New Hamosht~ re160 160*
25 37 32 113 8 215
Massachusetts 11 33 4 48
Rhode Island 0
Connecticta 21 32 63
New York 18 60 149 10 181 79 S0O
k-e Jersey 169 ZS16 28 2226
Pennsylvania 4 J 23 40 250 317"
Delaware SE 5
Maryland 257 43 82 5 387'
Virginia 420 534 31 31165 77 10 31 1263'
West Virginia I 220
520 ~~~~~135 432 787

"195 moles of rivers form state boundaries.
I112 miles of rivers form international boundaries.

The figures within each of these areas represent some of the last op-
portunities for the conservation of natural rivers in the northeast.
The disproportionate geographic distribution of rivers which were
identified can be directly attributed to the physical characteristics
of each section and the resultant pattern of land development that has
taken place.

Generally, in the more rugged, steep and mountainous areas such
as Blue Ridge, Allegheny Mountain and Green Mountain sections, develop-
ment due to the topography has been forced to locate within the flat
and often narrow river corridors. Consequently, few natural or unde-
veloped rivers remain in these sections. Rivers which have been iden-
tified in these areas, such as the West River in Vermont, the Batten
Kill in New York, or the West Branch of the Susquehanna River in
Pennsylvania usually are recognized for their physical characteristics
-- such as historic, scenic, geologic or recreation values.

299

EUGSTER & TITUS

In contrast, in those physiographic sections such as the Embayed
Coastal Plain, the Piedmont Upland and the New England Upland develop-
ment has generally located away from river corridors due to wetland
characteristics and because of the abundance of dry, flat, upland
areas which are more suitable for construction. Consequently, numerous
natural and undeveloped rivers remain in these sections. Rivers iden-
tified within these areas, such as the St. John and the Moose Rivers in
Maine, the Mullica River "system" in New Jersey, the Leipsic River in
Delaware and the Dragon Swamp in Virginia usually are recognized for
their natural characteristics -- such as wilderness, botanic or wild-
life values.

Despite the disproportionate geographic distribution of undevelop-
ed, free-flowing rivers in the northeast, over 9% of the river miles
identified are located in a relatively close proximity -- within 50
miles -- to high concentrations of urban populations -- cities over
50,000 or more. These rivers such as the Potomac, Lamington-Black,
Delaware and Chickahominy, because of their geographic location are a
unique opportunity for "close to home" river conservation and recrea-
tion.

The diversity of characteristics of the rivers identified vary
tremendously. Segments such as the St. John River in Maine are virtu-
ally wild and extremely remote rivers while others such as the Housa-
tonic River in Connecticut possess a large amount of culturally signi-
ficant development and are more accessible. Certain river segments
such as the 125 miles of Virginia's Nottoway River are extremely long
sections while others, such as New York's 6-mile segment of the
Peconic River, are extremely short.

Some rivers, such as the 4-mile segment of the Delaware River,
which forms the State boundary between Delaware and New Jersey, are
huge, wide, relatively slow moving, tidal rivers, while others such as
the 8-mile segment of Virginia's St. Mary's River are small, narrow,
seasonally fast moving headwater rivers.

Rivers within certain physiographic areas, such as the Sheepscot
River in Maine's Seaboard Lowland section, possess a unique diversity
of significant characteristics such as those of historic, hydrologic,
fish, scenic and recreation value. One of the most diverse rivers,
identified within the entire region, is the 24-mile segment of the
Potomac River whose banks lie within the States of Maryland and Vir-
ginia. The largest river within the northeast, the Potomac is noted
for its hydrologic, geologic, wildlife, botanic, historic and recrea-
tional significance.

Certain other river segments, such as 41-mile segment of the
Passadumkeag River in Maine have been noted for a singly predominant
outstanding feature -- such as significant amounts of wetlands and
water features.

Several river "systems" -- a group of small or medium sized
rivers hydrologically connected -- were also recognized. The most note-
worthy of these rivers is the unique Mullica River "system" in New
Jersey. This system, which contains over 104 miles within its 5 river

300

EUGSTER & TITUS

segments, flows within the nationally significant Pine Barrens area.

In a number of instances, due to rugged and mountainous physio-
graphic characteristics, certain river segments, such as the Connecti-
cut River in Vermont and New Hampshire and the Androscoggin River in
New Hampshire, possess parallel roads adjacent to or within the river
corridor. Although these roads detract from the wild or natural char-
acter of the segment, they often offer easy access -- both physical and
visual -- to the river.

Certain States such as New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, due to
the variety of physiographic sections within their political boundaries,
possess a unique diversity of different types of rivers. Over 70% of
all river "types" necessary for a balanced and representative system in
the northeast region are present within these 3 States.

Over 85,% of all the rivers identified are medium to small size
rivers. Undeveloped, free-flowing, large or high order rivers -- those
rivers with the greatest size and most constant flow characteristics --
are extremely rare. In fact, approximately 825 miles of large rivers
such as the Potomac, the Penobscot, the Delaware and the St. Croix re-
main in an undeveloped and free-flowing condition. More specifically,
this study indicates that, as a river increases in size,the number and
diversity of competing interests for its use increases. Not surpris-
ingly, all of the large, high order rivers identified by this study are
presently also being examined by a variety of public and private inter-
ests for non-conservation uses.

Certain rivers identified flow through a number of different phy-
siographic sections and thus offer a unique opportunity to recognize
and conserve several representative river "types" along the same water-
way. Although rivers such as the James and Nottoway in Virginia; the
Sheepscot and Machias in Maine, and the Westfield in Massachusetts il-
lustrate the physical characteristics of 2 physiographic sections, none
can compare with the inherent diversity of the Potomac River. Compris-
ing over 180 miles, within 8 segments, the Potomac River, the largest
free-flowing, undeveloped river in the northeast, flows within 5 physio-
graphic sections and the States of Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.

Three rivers in the State of Maine, within the Seaboard Lowland
and the New England Upland sections, totaling close to 120 miles form
a portion of the international boundary between the U.S. and Canada.
The Missisquoi River, within the State of Vermont and the Green Moun-
tain Section, is a 25-mile segment which begins in the U.S. and flows
into Canada. Neither Maine nor Vermont have a rivers program to recog-
nize or protect these rivers.

Approximately 366 miles of rivers, representing 8 physiographic
sections in the northeast region, are interstate. An additional 195
miles form state boundaries. The majority of these rivers, which in-
clude the Potomac River in Maryland and Virginia, the Delaware River in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Conneaut Creek in Ohio and Pennsylvania
are within States with wild and scenic river programs although, with
one exception, none of these rivers are recognized or protected at the
present.

301

EUGSTER & TITUS

Nationally the northeast has fewer rivers in the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System than any other area in the continental United
States. Three river segments,representative of 4 physiographic sect-
ions within the northeast region, are in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. The Delaware River, 64 miles in length from Hancock,
New York to below Cherry Island, New York, flows within the Catskill
and Southern New York Sections of the Appalachian Plateau Province and
the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

The Delaware River, 37 miles in length -- from the southern boun-
dary of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area to Port Jervis,
New York -- flows within the Hudson Valley Section of the Ridge and
Valley Province and the State of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The Allagash River, 92 miles in length from Twin Brook Rapids to
the Telos Dam, flows within the New England Upland Section of the New
England Province. The Allagash, managed by the State of Maine, was
the first northeast river to be placed in the National System.

The Delaware River segments are both unique high order or large
rivers while the Allagash, a tributary of the St. John River, is a med-
ium size or middle order river.

As a result of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a number
of States in the northeast established their own river programs. Ex-
isting State river systems have had varying amounts of success desig-
nating rivers.

Approximately 1,840 miles of rivers have been designated by the
State river programs of Maryland, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and
West Virginia in the northeast region.

Of the rivers identified in the System Study, approximately 5% or
300 miles are designated components of State river systems.

With the exception of Maryland's program, the variety of State
rivers designated, within the 5 States that have designated rivers,
have been minimal. In total, only 7 of the 23 physiographic sections
of the northeast are represented by State rivers. Almost all of the
State designated rivers are medium or small size rivers -- the Potomac
and Patauxent Rivers in Maryland and the Hudson River in New York being
the only exceptions.

State river programs with several exceptions generally either do
not exist -- as is the case in the States of New Hampshire, Vermont,
Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware -- or are often poorly
budgeted, staffed and lack a vigorous implementation element -- as is
the current situation in Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Mary-
land.

The implications of this situation at the state level is compound-
ed when one realizes that over half of the States within the northeast
regional area do not have wild and scenic river programs. River seg-
ments identified within these areas represent 28% of all the river
miles recognized or nearly 1,500 miles. Over 70% of all the physio-

302

EUGSTER & TITUS

graphic sections within the northeast -- with representative rivers in
each -- are within these States.

Of the six States which do have wild and scenic river programs,
one -- New Jersey -- has yet to officially designate any rivers, al-
though it is in the process.

In Maryland, the 9 designated rivers which comprise approximately
442 miles, flow within the Embayed, Piedmont Upland, Piedmont Lowland,
Northern, and Allegheny Mountain sections.

New York's designated rivers fall into two distinct categories --
those within the Adirondack Park and those outside that area. Within
the significantly state-owned Adirondack Park, nearly 1,200 miles of
rivers have been designated. Outside of the Park, in the remainder of
the State, approximately 16 miles of rivers have been designated. Vir-
tually all of the nearly 68 designated rivers in the Park flow within
the Adirondack Province, while the 16 designated miles on 2 rivers out-
side of the area are within the Embayed section.

Pennsylvania's only designated river, approximately 93 miles in
length, is the diverse, semi-urban Schuylkill River which flows within
the Piedmont Upland section.

West Virginia's 5 designated rivers, totaling 205 miles all flow
in close proximity to each other within the Kanawha Section and each
offers a variety of whitewater characteristics.

Virginia's approximately 100 miles of 6 designated rivers all flow
within the Piedmont Upland Section of the state and generally tend to
be a combination of relatively short segments and comparatively small
sized rivers.

The oldest state designated river in the northeast is the Allagash
River in Maine and is 92 miles in length. Maine, which does not have a
rivers program, designated the Allagash prior to applying for, and re-
ceiving federal designation as a state administered national river. No
other river besides the Allagash in the northeast has received both
State and Federal river designation.

Unfortunately, more free-flowing rivers in the northeast are threa-
tened than are protected. Each of the 171 free-flowing, relatively un-
developed river segments in the northeast region, which were examined in
detail, is threatened by some form of adverse land use development.
More specifically, nearly 2,000 miles of the rivers identified are pre-
sently planned for some form of non-conservation land and water use
which would have a significant negative impact on river values. Exist-
ing and proposed developments that are impacting and could change the
free-flowing, undeveloped and outstanding character of these rivers and
river segments range from such massive land uses as nuclear power and hy-
dro-electric plants, flood control dams, and reservoirs to minor land us-
es such as sand borrow pits, second home developments, logging, channel-
ization and private recreation development.

The most common "threats" to undeveloped and free-flowing rivers in

303

EUGSTER & TITUS

the northeast region are water supply projects and flood control dams
which immediately threaten the condition of approximately 640 miles --
or 11% -- of all the rivers identified. Not surprisingly, the majority
of the known projects or activities that presently threaten the rivers
identified, occur within the Embayed, Piedmont Upland and New England
Upland physiographic sections -- those sections with the most undevel-
oped, free-flowing river mileage -- of the northeast.

The characteristics of the river corridors within each physio-
graphic section will dictate the types of less-than-fee acquisition
strategies which will be appropriate to use to conserve a river. Cer-
tain physiographic sections and river corridors are more amenable to
certain types of strategies than others and no one conservation ap-
proach is suitable regionwide.

Rivers and river corridors within most of the rugged, steep and
mountainous physiographic areas, such as the Adirondack Province,
White Mountain and Green Mountain sections, due to the topography and
the land development within the narrow river corridors, are amenable
to specific conservation strategies such as special historic and aes-
thetic districts, national and state historic landmark status, scenic
view-shed ordinances, building setbacks, and scenic highway designa-
tions.

In those sections dominated by wetlands, high water tables and
floodplains, such as the Embayed, Piedmont Upland and New England Up-
land physiographic sections, conservation strategies such as wetland
regulations, floodplain zoning, rare and endangered plant and animal
designation, shoreland zoning, and critical areas protection are ap-
propriate.

VIII.Implementation Options for Greenway Conservation

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Nationwide Rivers
Inventory and other river conservation strategies have already been
used in various ways to achieve greenway conservation. The following
examples that are briefly highlighted are some general and conceptual
examples of approaches which can be used to conserve an area. More
specific and detailed stormwater management alternatives which cover
a full range of planning, design, implementation, management and con-
struction approaches can be used in concert with these strategies to
initiate and implement greenway programs. Each approach can be used
to sell the concept of blue-green technology as well as minimizing any
environmental impacts to stream valleys.

Case Study Examples of Greenway Conservation

1. Using the provisions of Section 2(a)(1) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act in 1979 Congress, as part of the National Parks and
Recreation Bill, designated the Middle Delaware River in N.J. and PA.,
a National Wild and Scenic River. Located approximately two hours
from New York and Philadelphia, the Middle Delaware is one of 22 in
the National System.

2. The Department of Interior's National Park Service, in coop-

304

EUGSTER & TITUS

eration with the State of Connecticut and regional and local governm-
ments has proposed that the Housatonic River, 60 miles from New York
City, be designated a National River to be managed by State and local
governments in that area. At this moment, local governments and pri-
vate citizens are preparing a plan using funds from the National Park
Service to determine how this river will be used and managed in the fu-
ture.

3. In 1970 and 1976, the Secretary of the Interior exercised the
provisions of the Act and identified 78 rivers flowing within 24 Sta-
tes as 5(d) rivers. This recognition has helped to insure Federal pro-
gram coordination and to minimize adverse environmental impact to these
nationally significant rivers. Recently in the President's 1979 Mess-
age on the Environment, Federal agencies were further directed to avoid
any adverse environmental impacts to all of the rivers identified by
HCRS's Rivers Inventory. In the northeast region alone this means that
171 rivers and river segments, comprising over 5,308 miles have been
afforded a minimum amount of protection. By early 1980 at least another
5 to 10,000 river miles in the northeast will be added to that list.

4. The river information gathered during the Inventory has also
been used to indirectly help achieve greenway conservation. Whether it
is for better or for worse, the numbers game is essential in all as-
pects of environmental protection. Without the facts, the statistics,
the "conservation argument" is vulnerable.

5. Proposed legislation for a National Heritage Program was sent
to Congress in September from the Department of the Interior. If en-
acted, the legislation would establish a National Register of Natural
Areas, and it would expand the existing National Register of Historic
Places. The new register would include natural sites ranging from
land forms, rivers and estuaries, to plant and animal communities.
Listed heritage areas would receive various means of protection. For
example, Federal agencies would be required to assess the impact of
contemplated actions, and avoid adverse impacts. Developers of energy
facilities or other major projects would also be alerted to avoid dam-
age to registered sites.

This legislation would also make limited funds available to
participating States and establish a Heritage Conservation Council to
advise the President and Congress on matters related to environmental
conservation.

6. There has been widespread and growing interest in urban water-
fronts, as areas which can both enhance commercial redevelopment and
provide accessible recreation in an urban landscape. In response to
this, HCRS has launched an Urban Waterfront Program, for the purpose
of bringing together such diverse groups as the EPA, OCZM, urban
planners, and recreation planners, to exchange their insights and ex-
perience, with the hope that parks and clean water in an urban envir-
onment will help generate housing, greenways, jobs, revenue and other
future benefits.

7. In 368 certain selected urban areas nationwide funds are
available, through HCRS, from the National Parks and Recreation Act

305

EUGSTER & TITUS

of 1978. More commonly known as the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Program, P.L. 95-625 was established to assist communities to preserve
and upgrade existing park and recreational facilities. Funding for
this five year program nationally has been authorized by Congress at a
level of $180 million annually for the first four years and 125 million
for the last year. Grant monies are available for:

1) the rehabilitation of existing outdoor and indoor recreation
areas and facilities

2) Innovative projects to demonstrate the use of personnel,
facilities, equipment, supplies and services

3) and for Recovery action park and recreation system develop-
ment.

Activities that may be undertaken include resource and need assessments,
citizen involvement, coordination and program development.

8. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, also administered by
HCRS, is the major source of assistance to increase outdoor recreation
and open space opportunities. Funds are available through State gov-
ernments to their political subdivisions for the acquisition and de-
velopment of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Project
grants must be matched by not less than an equal amount of non-Federal
funds. This year over 369 million dollars were authorized nationwide
under this Fund.

9. Before a State can receive Land and Water Conservation Fund
money, it must have a current plan which describes ways which the
State will help satisfy recreation and open space needs at all levels
of government. This plan is called the Statewide Comprehensive Out-
door Recreation Plan referred to as the (SCORP). Each State is en-
couraged to hold meetings throughout the State so that the public can
help develop and review their State's recreation policy. This plan
and the process is important because it will reflect the Governor's
policy on recreation and open space and will establish priorities for
distribution of recreation and open space conservation funds.

10. In Boston, Massachusetts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has recognized the wetland areas adjacent to the Charles River as in-
valuable natural storage areas for storm waters. Approximately 8,500
acres of wetlands are planned for acquisition or restrictive easement
protection under the Corps' Natural VJalley Storage Area program that
is now underway. Acquisition of these wetlands was authorized by
Congress in the 1974 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 93-251),
which requires all flood control studies to consider non-structural
projects.

11. The Passaic River is a diverse greenway which extends from
the heavily urbanized areas of Passaic, N.J. to the rolling farmed and
forested hills of Morris County. The Passaic River Coalition, an ac-
tive citizens group in northern N.J., is currently petitioning the EPA
to have this area designated as Sole or Principal Source Acquifier
Area under the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523). Section 1424(e)

306

EUGSTER & TITUS

of this legislation, if authorized, would insure the review of all Fed-
erally financially assisted projects to avoid contamination of the ac-
quifer.

12. A county zoning ordinance was the mechanism used by residents
near Deer Creek, in Harford-County, Maryland, to restrict streambank
development and to create a permanent watchdog committee that reviews
proposed changes in land or water use within the stream valley. This
ordinance was developed as an outgrowth of a management plan prepared
for Deer Creek through the Maryland State Scenic River Act.

13. New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation,
in recognition of the need for "grass-roots" greenway conservation in-
volvement and support, has developed a Manual of Guidelines for Con-
ducting River Studies. Prepared in cooperation with HCRS, the manual
was developed for use by local governments and citizens and describes
greenway conservation alternatives using N.Y.'s Wild, Scenic and Rec-
reation Rivers law and various existing local government regulations
and programs.

14. In 1973, the State of Georgia passed a Metropolitan River
Protection Act for the purpose of ensuring adequate supplies of clean
drinking water to the large metropolitan areas of the State. This is
being accomplished through a Commission, created for the Atlanta metro-
politan area, and which has responsibility for writing comprehensive
land and water use plans in consultation with local subdivisions in
the Atlanta metro area. The Commission also has authority to use po-
lice power to discourage harmful construction or any activities not in
compliance with the plan, and to evaluate and direct land and water
planning carried out by local subdivisions.

15. Established by State law in 1978, the North River Commission
in Massachusetts, represents the governing bodies of 6 towns along
the river. The Commission has the responsibility of preparing a river
management plan, of issuing and reviewing permits, and enforcing the
provisions of the Commission. This approach to greenway conservation
is especially impressive considerincj that the river corridor, which is
virtually undeveloped, is only 25 miles from Center City Boston.

16. The New York Planning Commission has successfully achieved
greenway conservation using special zoning regulations. Through the
use of local police powers and by creating conservation incentives
for private developers, the City has established Special Natural Area
Districts to protect, among others, aquatic features such as creeks,
brooks, streams, lakes, tidal wetlands, swamps, marsh, bogs and mea-
dows. The City's regulations emphasize the protection, maintenance
and public use of these areas.

17. The Winooski Valley Park District in Vermont provides another
model worthy of serious consideration for local greenway conservation.
This district, organized under Vermont State law by a group of munici-
pal governments along a river valley, provides for a union Winooski
Valley Park District to plan and administer public parks and "the pre-
servation of natural areas." The District has the power to acquire
land, either in fee ownership or any lesser interest, together with the

307

EUGSTER & TITUS

right to manage and regulate the use of any land in which it holds any
type of interest, by controlling access and by prohibiting certain uses
of land.

18. In Connecticut, eight Towns along the Housatonic River each
adopted a uniform ordinance in which they agreed to maintain uniform
standards for land and water use locally under the coordinating sur-
veillance of a permanent Housatonic River Advisory Commission. The
ordinance provide protection for the varied natural resources and
scenic qualities of the river corridor by ensuring floodplain protec-
tion, restricting land use in the valley, and encouraging the estab-
lishment of easements and land trusts.

19. The Saco River corridor includes nearly 300 miles of river-
front in Maine which has been protected from haphazard development by
the actions of a group of local citizens. Their plan led to forma-
tion of a River Corridor Commission, a regulatory agency made up of
citizens who issue permits for construction and development in ac-
cordance with General Performance Standards which they designed. The
Standards include restrictions on land clearing and waterway con-
struction; they prohibit sewage disposal in the 100 year floodplain;
and they require building setbacks which are based on river frontage,
broad frontage, and lot size.

20. The Bronx River -Restoration Committee in New York recently
completed a master plan, funded by grants from New York State, the Na-
tional Endowment for. the Arts and private foundations. The plan, now
being implemented has-four specific objectives. The first is revita-
lization of the Bronx River and its banks, including water quality
improvement. A second objective is the development of potential so-
cial, cultural, educational, and recreation aspects of the river.
The third objective is the employment of local youths and adults in
the creation of open spaces and programs along the river. Finally,
opportunities for small business development will be opened. The
master plan stresses community development in its program and the use
of Federal funding programs from the Small Business Administration,
the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Labor.

IX. Summary

In conclusion, stream valleys are extremely diverse, sensitive
and complex places. Although river and stream conservation is often
perceived as recreationally oriented, greenways can achieve numerous
other objectives. Stormwater management is one important example.
Prior to initiating any actions in river corridors, planners should
fully understand the various natural, physical, and social processes
which take place there. Planners should also consider that different
uses of the river and its corridor require different approaches to
management and conservation. Equal emphasis can be given toward un-
derstanding the land and water resources, the people who live within
and use the area, the issues relevant to the corridor and its future
use and the institutions and techniques which can be used to achieve
the conservation of these valuable areas.

308

SPECIAL DISTRICTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

FRANCIS TANNIAN

College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE

Introduction

The field of environmental analysis and policy covers an extremely
wide range. At one limit lies the bio-physical nature and behavior of
the world we live in. The character of land, of slopes, of soils, of
water, of bio-aquatic life must be understood. Presumably this under-
standing will give us clues as to how best to use the natural resource
system that surrounds us and from which we gain most life supports.
Over at this limit we find physical scientists and engineers at work.

At a second limit are the manmade laws, institutions, regulations
and standards that we put into place to guide the technology we use to
gain access to the resource base. This technology takes the shape that
our institutions and laws allow it to have, no more, no less. What we
allow as permissible technology depends on our goals. But not on our
goals alone. What actually happens in the interface between earth
moving equipment and streams, between chemical fertilizers and fish
life, for examples, depends on how our institutions and laws affect our
behaviors. What counts is not what institutions and laws are "supposed"
to do, but what people actually do. Over at this second pole, or limit,
we find social scientists working.

What mattered for people in American cities is not what the War on
Poverty, minimum wage laws or urban renewal laws were supposed to do
but what they actually did do.

What matters for people and firms in the Delaware Valley is not
what the Delaware River Basin Compact is supposed to do but what it
actually does do.

When our laws or institutions allow increases in the tyranny of
non-convivial technology -- and when our laws and institutions fail to
bring about resource uses that are less costly and more beneficial than
we are capable of, then we must rebuild either the laws the institutions
. ..either that or we become poorer.

One great challenge of course is to be able to recognize how
costly and how beneficial an institution like the market that facil-
itates resource uses and investment in technology is; to recognize how
costly and how beneficial specific regulations are, how costly and how
beneficial programs like 208 are. What we know is, of course, that
markets partly fail, that regulations partly fail and that programs like
208 partly fail. What causes these policy failures?

309

TANNIAN

Each of these institutional elements fail or fall short, in great
part, because of the behaviors of people,

It is the response of people in markets to shaky property rights
in the air or in water that explains much urban congestion and
pollution.

Behaviors of people, both the regulators and the regulatees, lead
regulations to be ineffective or less effective. It is the response of
people, in the private sector, in governments and in agencies like 208
that leave this or other environmental programs short of their
objectives.

There is no technological fix for the environments, nor will there
be a fix through the market, through regulation or through institutions
unless human behavior is brought into policy making.

The behavior of man, or explicit recognition of man's behavior, is
the essential ingredient for effective environmental policy. Nature
alone makes little pollution. Technology without man can do nothing.
Because small area Special Districts could focus attention (both tech-
nical and social) closer to man and closer to the environment, Special
Districts promise to be institutions that could deliver better
environmental outcomes.

Small area scale would be important since, if responsibility of
the District were localized, direct sensitivity to the behaviors of
farmers, of builders and of factories in the area could be developed.
Whatever policy mix the Special District followed (prices, regula-
tions or direct provision of some services), results could be more
easily evaluated since the people served by the District can be
directly known and can make themselves known at low costs.

The scope of resource management for an environmental Special
District would, at least, cover aspects of water and land, since many
of the most troublesome issues, such as soil erosion and storm drainage,
are joint water-land issues. Moreover, some of the promising benefits
such as expanding recreational (hiking, biking and fishing) programs
would usually involve water and land.

Wihat are some possibly useful ways to look at Special Districts?
One is from the field called Public Choice. To form Special Districts
for Environmental Management the present structure of governmental units
must be changed in some particular sub-area. The coming of the Special
District means that the spatial boundaries of existing governmental
units must be shifted. The functions some governments may already seem
to perform, and revenue gathering powers to support the Special District,
may have to be shared.

James Buchanan and other political economists have developed a
theory called fiscal clubs in order to understand the implications local
government boundaries may have on public good provision and use. This
theory of fiscal clubs may be relevant to Special Districts for environ-
mental management because an immediate practical issue facing this kind

310

TANNIAN

of institutional innovation is political feasibility. A second issue
is expected operational performance. How can we estimate relationships
between institutional structure and human behaviors toward the environ-
ment? This is the question we are interested in and for which the
theory of fiscal clubs gives insight.

Why Set Up Special Districts?

Local government clubs frequently come into conflicts of interest
with one another, do not offset negative externalities in the private
sector or simply fail to produce all the potential positive external-
ities they might. Trade or exchange between fixed governmental clubs
is difficult. To rearrange club boundaries or responsibilities
frequently requires that the interests (streams of expected costs and
benefits) of many corporate and household persons be taken into account.
The costs of negotiating an acceptable set of boundaries for a new
club like a proposed Special District and of defining the new respon-
sibilities and linkages to the existing government clubs are potentially
quite high. The incentives to the officials who must engage in these
complex transactions are probably weak. Nevertheless the environmental
management benefits to the client citizens might, in many cases, exceed
the costs of organizing and managing the Special District. Unfortu-
nately, high net benefits to many citizens do not in any way assure
the public officials in charge of the present club arrangements that
they, personally, may not lose. Indeed to reduce bureaucratic scope
and size can be shown to reduce the welfare of public officials.
Bureau size, in itself, is (like profits in a firm) something public
officials strive to expand since bureau size is related to official
prestige and income.

The challenge facing those who believe that environmental manage-
ment can be more efficiently carried out by Special Districts is to
develop reliable ways (theory, methods and measures) to determine that
Special District Clubs can provide environmental services more effec-
tively . . . and secondly, devise legal procedures that will reduce the
political resistance costs of forming Special Districts.

Theoretically five distinct effects of forming a Special District
can be anticipated and must be considered.

a) The size of populations being served public goods outputs (in
this case, environmental services only) will be modified; not
only in the new "Special District," but in the older pre-existing
government arrangement.

b) Negative externalities that had existed can be reduced and positive
externalities which had not been realized by the previous structure
may be increased but the policies of the Special District, not just
the existence of the district will play an important role.

c) Coalitions of preferences by corporate or household citizens in
the Special District and in the older governmental units for
environmental services may change once the District forms;
presumably the costs to people of articulating these preferences
in both areas can be lowered.

311

TANNIAN

d) The potential for technological innovations may be raised. First
because a better fit between citizen goals and technical options
can or must now be made, Second because, as governments tend to
compete and to serve different citizen groups, entry of small scale
technology may be enhanced.

e) The unit costs (average and marginal) of delivering environmental
services may be changed.

One argument for the Special District is that environmental
services become the specialized objective of the newly formed govern-
ment. Specialization or focus only on environmental services, may lead
to lower cost ways of delivering intended environmental benefits. In
general, this has tended to happen in most areas (public or private)
where specialization was possible. Of course specialization has costs
as well, and these must be balanced against intended or actual benefits.

Special Districts are Institutional innovations. Potentially,
SD's allow people to arrange themselves for improved joint consumption
or production of certain services.

This re-arrangement is necessary because a) markets privately
organized fail to provide the services well or at all, and/or
b) governments as organized fail to provide the kinds and qualities
of services that people want and that are feasible.

The legal nature of a Special District amounts to a multi-person
contract to provide certain services. As with all governments the
police power of the state is needed to enforce or secure the rights of
the Special District once it is formed and operating.

Members of the Special District club are the people in its service
area and, in the least, they are free to leave or enter, invest or
disinvest in privately held property within the club boundaries.

In an open society non-members (people from other areas) are also
free to visit or to invest in the area. A question to be faced by
environmental management districts is how the supposed superior envi-
ronmental services are to be allocated among residents of the District
and "outsiders" who may visit to enjoy the improved services (use the
"1nature" trails). Congestion, or rates of use that exceed environmental
capacity, will lower service performance benefits and perhaps inflict
increased maintenance costs on the Special District. It can be
expected that rationing devices ranging from club membership cards to
user prices may be necessary if either marginal costs of providing
some environmental services are positive or if crowding sets in.

The troublesome characteristics of so-called public goods cannot be
expected to go away once a Special District is formed. Technically, econ-
omists identify these troublesome characteristics with the indivisibility
and non-excludable nature of public goods. The former feature, indivisi-
bility, means more than one person can feasibly consume these services at
the same time and usually does. All lands in a district may drain into
the stream in a rainstorm. Nonexcludability means some drainage services
cannot be economically organized so that non-purchasers are excluded from
benefiting.
312

TANNIAN

Members of the Special District club will have to tend to the
development of allocation rules that steer or channel both benefits
and costs to themselves and to their visitors so that efficient use of
the environment results, Whatever steering devices are used, and one
of many would be fees, distributional consequences will result. Some
people may get more or better services than others.

Theoretically, the utility citizen club members can expect from
environmental services is a function both of the amounts of services
produced, E., and the number of members, Cm, or non-club members, Nm,
sharing the service outputs.

U = U (EO, Cm, Nm)

There is a literature in economics where the issues of the util-
ities people derive from public goods are joined with the character-
istics of rationing devices. This literature explores the implications
for users and for rates of use; moreover topics, important to the
Special District and its continued existence, such as revenue and cost
streams, are also considered. Suffice to say here that the size of
the membership plays an important role in both the net benefits any
individual member-resident of the Special District can expect and the
overall fiscal viability of the District.

Special Districts for Environmental Services delivery probably
can provide exciting and convivial mixes of products that are now over-
looked. The benefits of these services may well run far ahead of the
costs ...at least on the drawing board. To get beyond the drawing
board it will be necessary to face up to the preferences of club
members for environmental services produced and to who uses and who
pays for the services. As the number of people in any Special District
rises, the likelihood that preference agreement can be reached on the
proper mix of environmental services to produce falls. This fact
argues for relatively small special districts and also tends to explain
why large area environmental programs have weak support except among
supply side technocrats. But as the size of a Special District shrinks,
the potentials to internalize environmental externalities, one of the
key supply side arguments favoring Special Districts, becomes weaker and
weaker.

Like every other policy move in the natural resource management
area, Special Districts are not going to be a costless, nor an every-
where useful panacea. Farmers, firms, estates and householders located
within a potential Special District can reliably be expected to have
differing preferences for bundles of environmental services. Special
Districts would seem to have the greatest likelihood for success when
service preferences among District residents are nearly homogeneous.
Voting rules by citizen members for both the Special District managers
and for investments or programs will be an important feature of the
"club" by which supply and demand differences and changes over time
get worked out.

This treatment of the political economy of Special Districts is
not complete but hopefully the outlines of how the theory of fiscal

313

TANNIAN

clubs can help identify important policy issues for Special Districts
have been sketched.

Why Markets Fail and Collective Signals Are Needed

Microeconomic theory established some general principles and
conditions under which people can, use scarce resources and achieve
satisfactory results. In this important body of theory, with wide
applications to resource management, the nature of production functions,
of cost functions and, most importantly the role of exchange between
persons (or firms) as users or providers of services are highly
developed.

Guidelines for managing the environment of a local area also can
emerge from micro theory analysis. One guideline for policy or man-
agement is that it can be reliably shown that, under certain conditions,
resource usage or exchanges by persons will not lead to socially
efficient outcomes. This breakdown of private exchanges by which many
resource uses and investments are organized is called, simply enough,
"market failure." Pollution of various forms, as well as congestion,
are day to day words used to describe market failures. Producers of
goods or services who use land, water and other resources have little
reason to economize or manage resources efficiently whenever resources
are held in common as are rivers or the atmosphere. Farmers, chemical
factories, government agencies and ordinary households,. in both capi-.
talist or communist systems, tend to pollute whenever property resource
assignments are weak- or unclear. The average farmer, for example,
has strong incentives-to grow this year's crops in a way that does not
damage the value and productivity of his land for the following year.
Farmers typically do not intentionally pollute their land which would
lower their own wealth, raise the direct costs of farming, or both.
But farmers, factories, real estate developers, or any of us for that
matter, reliably cause or permit common pool resources, like air and
water, which none of us own directly, to become degraded. When
degrading uses of resources reach a volume or occur in a way that
outruns nature's recuperative powers, pollution sets in.

In a sense, the economics of market failure suggests that indi-
vidual incentives for effective resource management will not be
adequate when common property resources are used intensively or insen-
sitively. The important policy inference is that, since acting in our
own interests yields bad results, we need to take some collective
action. What we need to do is simple enough to describe: we need to
send ourselves signals that will lead us to revalue and then change
some of our actions. The signals which collective action devises
should lead us to stop imposing damages on others on the one hand, and
guide us into convivial or benefit-reinforcing behaviors. Not just
any signals will do. The signals we want should also be those that are
inexpensive to design and to manage. Special Districts could devise
such signals.

Conclusion

Special Districts for environmental management have the potential
to be the kind of institutions that will be able to balance human

314

TANNIAN

behavi'ors and preferences, technology and the sometimes fragile, some-
times highly interrelated nature of the environment.

Responsibility and authority to manage resources in a way that
fits with people, technology and the environment must be clearly
assigned to the Special District. This will require decisive legal
and political action.

The services, regulations and programs of the Special District
will require human and financial resources. But if the Special
District creates benefits that outrun costs, District residents can
gain. Service charges will have a great deal to do with both who
gets the benefits or whether the District will have the ability pay
for necessary management and infrastructure.

The promise and the puzzles of Special Districts seem real enough.
Over the next couple of years we, here in Delaware, will probably
experience more of each as we explore a Special District for stormwater
management along the White Clay Creek.

315

THE UNCOUNTED COSTS OF UNCONTROLLED WATER

MARSHALL HAWS

Chester County Conservation District, West Chester, PA

Can we assume that the final objective of all ordinances, laws,
rules and regulations is to provide justice for individuals?

Damages and restitution are awarded to a person when his physical
body is damaged -- when he is unable to use any part of it. Since
property is the extension of a person's life and actions, it makes sense
to provide justice to a person whenever his property is damaged and he
is prevented from using it (e.g., automobile damage). It also seems
reasonable that a property owner should be paid damages or restitution
for problems caused by increased flow of water from an upstream property
as a result of the actions of the owner of the upstream property or his
agents.

Ordinances and Laws

In most cases the property owner wants present and future damages
stopped. The property owner wants solutions to his problem of increased
runoff. Ordinances and laws talk in terms of permits, plans, penalties
to be paid to the state, jail terms, and strike force. Nothing is ever
said about making the property "whole" again, or making restitution to
the owner of the property that was damaged.

Rules and regulations, ordinances, laws -- in short, government --
have not been able to provide the solutions because:

1. The "book" doesn't cover the situation.
2. There is a lack of knowledgeable manpower
to follow up on complaints.
3. Government solutions are rigid, following
a predetermined course of action and
making no attempt to find solutions.
4. Government is too far away to be familiar
with the situation (except for the
possibility of local government).

Our present system of justice (the courts system) is less than
effective for several reasons. It can sometimes take from three to
seven years to get a case into court because of scheduling conflicts,
continuances and other delays. Because of the time lag, witnesses may
be unavailable when the case does go to court. Lawyers' and court fees

317

HAWS

can add up until the property owner is unable to afford the cost of
justice. Court decisions are based on precedents or lack of same, not
on justice. Judges and juries may not be familiar with the factors
involved with uncontrolled water. The adversary situation makes it
difficult to bring out facts and understanding. Judges seem to base
their decisions on what the potential of the decision may be rather
than providing justice to the owner of the damaged property.

Arbitration

Arbitration could be used as a system to provide justice for the
owner of the damaged property. There are several advantages to using
this method to provide solutions. Arbitration could work much faster
and less expensively than other forms of justice. By bringing the
complaint and the alleged creator of the problem together before the
problem became unmanageable, arbitration would reduce or eliminate the
adversary position between property owners. Most developers would much
prefer to create good relations with their neighbors than to be involved
in litigation.

The implementation of an arbitration program should take place at
the lowest level of government; i.e., township, municipality or county.
The following outline suggests the items that such a program would
contain. Hopefully, older and more perceptive heads would add anything
that I may have missed.

DO0C U ME NT

Township

A landowner or a resident thereon, in Township,
County, will not be permitted to damage his
neighbor's property by:

1) Permitting silt and sediment from earthmoving operations
to cross over or collect upon neighboring property(ies).

2) Permitting increased water runoff caused by changes in
the use of his land or land topography to exceed that
runoff which existed under original, natural conditions':
A) That causes erosion or gulleying on neighboring
land (soil)
B) That creates deposition of silt on neighboring
property( ies)
C) That creates pockets of water or wet conditions
on neighboring property
0) That causes a lowering of the water table in
the area

318

HAWS

3) Collecting (concentrating) water and releasing it at a
rate exceeding that rate which existed at that point
previous to the collection and concentration procedure.

Any landowner, resident, rentor, and/or leasor of property which
either by accident or design, creates any or all of the above damages
to neighboring property(ies) will put to right (correct such damage)
within (24)(48)(72) hours.

In addition the landowner, rentor, resident and/or lessor of such
property causing damage will make restitution to the damaged property
owner(s) resident, rentor and/or lessor:

1) either by mutually agreed upon compensation or

2) compensation as determined by an arbitration hearing
board comprised of three (or more) members.
Such an arbitration hearing board will be determined as follows:

1) A list of possible arbitrators will be presented to the
disputants for their deletion of any individual not
satisfactory to either of them as a member of such an
arbitration hearing board.
A) This arbitrator list will be comprised of one
supervisor (and/or planning commission member)
from each township in the county, serving on
the list either by appointment from his township
or volunteering from his township.
B) The arbitrator list to be compiled by the county
association of township supervisors.

2) A representative from the county association of township
supervisors will select at least three members (on a
rotating basis) for the arbitration hearing board from
the list that has been indicated as satisfactory to both
disputants.

A decision of this arbitration hearing board could be appealed to
a recognized arbitration organization. The decision reached by that
organization would be legal and binding. Either disputant dissatisfied
with the arbitration decision could take the case to civil court.

Penalties' for permitting the above damage, caused by the activities
but not corrected and/or restitution made to the damaged property
owner(s) will be assessed as follows:

1) $_______ for each occurrence.

2) $______ per day for continuing conditions which
caused the original damage.

319

HAWS

If the township supervisors (or their designees') of ______
Township find that the damage results from an act of God 4 in either the
form of sediment of increased runoff from land for which a complete
erosion/sediment and storm water management plan' has been developed
and the plan has been fully implemented and maintained, the landowner,
resident, rentor and/or lessor shall be excluded from the penalties of
this act.

NOTES:

'It may be necessary to define "original, natural conditions." One
suggestion is that it be those conditions that existed before
development, i.e., original, natural vegetative cover. The Chester
County Conservation District used the definition "good meadow, good
woods" as shown in the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service engi-
neering manual.

2Penalties might be distributed:
(3/4, 7/8, 31/32, etc.) to property owner
(1/4, 1/8, 1/32, etc.) to township
These would compensate the property owner for damage and compensate
the township for any expenses involved over a period of time.
Expenses of arbitrators would be assessed by arbitrators to either
or both disputants.
3Desi'gnee(s) may be (1) chosen by the township supervisors, (2) a
selected arbitrator, or (3) the arbitration hearing board.
41t May be necessary to define the type of storm that would be con-
sidered "an act of God," (Chester County uses a 100 year storm,
defined as 7.2 inches of rain in 24 hours. Perhaps this definition
should be based on shorter duration, higher intensity storms.)

51t may be necessary to define under what conditions a "complete
conservation plan" should be considered "adequate."

Procedures for Arbitration

When township supervisors or municipal officials are approving
subdivision plans, they will include a clause in the approval that
contains the necessary provisions for immediate arbitration of a com-
plaint received from the owner of damaged property. The clause will
contain the following stipulations:

1) The developer agrees to answer any and all written complaints
from township residents alleging that the actions of the developer
and/or his agents on his property are damaging their property, and agrees
to follow arbitration procedures if requested.

2) The developer agrees to answer such complaints within five days
from the time that the township receives the written complaint from the

320

HAWS

complainant and notifies the developer by telephone with written con-
firmation; with a copy to the complainant and to the file.

3) At the end of five days, if the complainant is not satisfied
that the damage to his property has been adequately taken care of or if
the developer feels that the alleged damage is not his responsibility,
the township will forward an arbitrators list to both parties. This
list is to be returned in three days.

4) The disputants would cross off the names of any person that
they would not accept on a panel hearing this dispute.

5) A list not returned from either party would indicate that all
arbitrators would be acceptable to that party.

6) The township would either:
A) Forward the accepted lists to the county association of
township supervisors for the association to select three
arbitrators (on a rotating basis) or
B) The township would select three arbitrators.

7) The township would notify the arbitrators and work up an
acceptable time and place for a hearing.
8) Either party might be permitted one postponement.

9) Either or both-parties could present their own case to the
hearing board. This could be done by description, pictures, witnesses
and/or visiting the property.

10) A decision from the arbitration hearing board might include
recommendations for correcting the problem, cleaning up any damages,
and establishing restitution for damages, in time and amount.

11) Any actions mandated by the hearing board must be carried out
in a specified length of time. This would be written into the decision.

12) The costs of the arbitration proceedings could be prorated
between the two disputants. The township may feel that it has supplied
sufficient service by taking care of the notification and book-work
procedures. Or the township might stand a portion of the costs, the
same as it now pays for a police force and the court system.

13) The arbitration system of justice would permit the township to
fulfill its function of protecting the private property of its resi-
dents, providing the function with efficiency and relative low cost.

14) It would eliminate the necessity of municipal officials making
laws and then enforcing those same laws. It would take the supervisors
out of the middle of sticky decisions. It would save all parties con-
cerned considerable time and harassment.

321

HAWS

For further information on arbitration:
Fucetola, Schetlick, DeBlock & Stein, Limited
Private Mediators and Arbitors
23 River Road
North Arlington, NJ 07032

American Arbitration Association
140 West 51st Street
New York, NY 10020

HOW - - Home Owners Warranty
from your nearest Home Builders Association

Carl E. Person
National Private Court
132 Nassau Street
New York, NY 10038

Conclusions

Each property owner is in the best position to recognize and
evaluate when his property is being damaged by increased stormwater
runoff, erosion or sediment.

We have policemen to apprehend individuals who commit criminal
damage to our property. Where is the policeman that we call when
increased runoff and resulting mud and sediment is damaging our
property?

Present methods of stopping this damage to private property are:
A) Appealing to government to stop the damage, e.g., supervisors,
Department of Environmental Concerns, health department, etc.
This takes time and is not very effective -- too little,
too late.
B) Eventually bringing civil suit. This takes a long time, and
the judge bases his decision on law, not justice. Legal costs
in most cases are prohibitive.

Arbitration procedure could bring the owner of damaged property
and the alleged creator of the problem together in a few days.

If the disputants were unable to reach an agreement, facts would
be presented to a fact-finding panel. Mediation during the process
could permit other possible solutions to the problem.

The decision of an arbitration board would be based on justice,
not rules and regulations.

The process of arbitration would be educational for the arbitrators
on the panel. With municipal officials as arbitrators, the facts
presented could be applied when reviewing sub-division plans for
similar problems in their home communities.

322

HAWS

Bibliography

, No Land is an Island - Individual Rights and Government
Control of Land Use, Institute for Contemporary Studies,
San Francisco, CA.

, The Politics of Planning, Institute for Contemporary
Studies, San Francisco, CA.

Bastiat, Frederick, The Law, Foundation for Economic Education,
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY, 1977.

Buker, Raymond, "Cliches of Zoning," Private Property Press,
Leaf River, IL.

Burt, William, Local Problems, Local Solutions, N.L.P., Washington, DC.

Burt, William, "The Technician's Role in Advancing Liberty,"
The Freeman, June, 1977.

Callaway, Howard, "Unknown Costs of Pollution," The Freeman, November,
1969.

Cooley, Oscar W., "Pollution and Property," The Freeman, June, 1972.

Jacobs, Jane, The Economy of Cities, Vintage Press, New York, 1970.

MacCallum, Spencer H., The Art of Community, Institute for Humane
Studies, Menlo Park, CA 1970.

Rand, Ayn, "Man's Rights," Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, New American
Library, New York.

Rand, Ayn, "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness,
New American Library, New York.

Shenoy, Sudha, "Market Holds Key to Conservation," World Money Analyst,
June, 1978.

323

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY'S
WATER SHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GINGER KLINGELHOEFER1, CHARLES E. ABRAHAMSON, JR.1
AND FRANKLIN W. ELLIS2
1 Office of Plannlng and Zoning, Anne Arundel County, Annapolis, MD
CH2M Hill, Inc., Reston, VA

Anne Arundel County, Maryland has recently started a Watershed
Management Program that has incorporated citizen involvement in all
stages of the program. Citizens have participated in the identifica-
tion of the study area, the development of the work program and the
*selection of consultants. For the first watershed considered, Severn
Run, citizens have been involved throughout the study including review
of all draft documents. This approach to comprehensive public involve-
ment from the start of a study and particularly a major County wide
watershed management program, is unique within the Baltimore-Washington
region.

Background

Anne Arundel County, Maryland, is a rapidly growing county with a
1978 population of 373,560. It is located along the fringes of the
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland metropolitan areas (Figure 1).
Contributing to the County's attractiveness for development is its
431 mile coastline along Chesapeake Bay and the importance of the
state capital in Annapolis. There are nine major watersheds that
drain the County eastward to the Chesapeake Bay.

In 1972 Anne Arundel County, recognizing the need for effective
management of urban storm runoff, established by County Council resolu-
tion a Stormwater Management Task Force whose responsibility was to
design a framework for systematic analysis of watersheds within the
County. This analysis included identification of problems, possible
solutions and priorities and the development of standards, specifica-
tions and procedures to be implemented. Further consideration included
guidance of development and implementation of comprehensive stormwater
management master plans, land use analysis and recommendations for
legislation necessary to implement a stormwater management program.

This Stormwater Management Task Force was composed of representa-
tives from County and State agencies, citizens involved in environmen-
tal groups and private interest groups. During this time a Technical
Advisory Committee (composed of engineers, developers, County and State
representatives and civic associations) was formed to aid the task
force in defining appropriate criteria for on-site stormwater manage-
ment. The combined efforts of these two committees culminated in the
passage of the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance in 1977.

After the passage of the Stormwater Management Ordinance, Anne
Arundel County took a second step toward developing a watershed manage-
ment program by allocating money to conduct a comprehensive watershed
study. The County, recognizing the importance of citizen involvement
in the earliest stages of planning, rejuvenated the Stormwater Manage-

325

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

FIGURE 1: General Location Map

CARROLL COUNTY g BALTIMORE COUNTY

BALTIMORE

HOWARD COUNTY

SEVERN RUN WATERSHED

( a 5 SEVERN RUN
MONTGOMERY )'.a.
COUNTY

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

ANNAPOiIJS
WASHINGTON DC.

ale / MARYLAND
VIRGINIA

PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

POTOMAC RIVER

326

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

ment Task Force in the form of two committees, a Citizen's Advisory
Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee. Both included members
from the previous Stormwater Management Task Force. The committees
were responsible for selecting a watershed to be studied, developing
a scope of services for the study, and were involved in selection of
the consulting firm to conduct the study.

Severn Run Watershed Management Study

The Severn Run Watershed is located in the northwestern portion of
Anne Arundel County, Maryland (Figure 1). The watershed is approxi-
mately 4 miles south of Baltimore-Washington International Airport, 14
miles northwest of Annapolis, and 23 miles northeast of Washington,
D.C. Severn Run is the primary source of fresh water inflow to the
Severn River, a tidal estuary of the Chesapeake Say. Severn Run water-
shed has an area of approximately 24.2 square miles or 15,500 acres.

The Severn Run Watershed Management Study was initiated to identify
stormwater problems and opportunities for enhancement of the Severn Run
Basin. This study was to act as a prototype study and identify water-
shed management concerns on a county wide basis.

As a result of a series of meetings in late 1976 and early 1977,
it was decided that Severn Run would be the first watershed for a
comprehensive study. In February of 1977 the "Request for Proposal"
was initiated with various County departments being requested for input.
This group effort was desired so that a broad spectrum of concerns
would be incorporated into the proposed work plan.

In March 1977, a preliminary draft of a request for proposal in-
cluding a possible scope of services, developed by County agencies,
was sent to members of the Stormwater Management Task Force for their
comments and recommendations. In April 1977, a meeting was held during
which Task Force members presented their recommendations on the drafts.

The revised "Request for Proposal" was forwarded to the purchasing
agent for recommendation of possible consultants. Six proposals from
consultants were received by the Office of Planning and Zoning for a
technical evaluation. The Office of Planning and Zoning, Department
of Public Works, Soil Conservation Service and Stormwater Management
Task Force all reviewed and evaluated the proposals. In June 1977,
a written evaluation of each proposal was submitted without recommen-
dation to the Consultant Selection Committee. As a result of the
evaluations the County Consultant Selection Committee, composed of
the purchasing agent and various department heads, chose the con-
sulting firm of CH2MHill.

In October 1977, the Stormwater Management Task Force met to re-
view the proposed scope of services and contract details. Recommen-
dations resulting from this meeting were discussed with the consultant
and a revised contract was signed in January 1978.

Thus, although the final decision for the choice of the Consultant
was made by a committee of County department heads, citizens were in-

327

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

volved in the consultant selection process from the development of the
"Request for Proposal" through the evaluation of the proposals received
and into the preparation of the study.

The first meeting with CH2MHill was held in April 1978 to discuss
the initial data requirements for work to begin and the format of the
study. After the work began, mee tings were held every six weeks with
the County staff, State agency representatives, CH2MHill and the Citi-
zen Advisory Committee. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss
the status of the project and to present new material for review and
comment. Besides being vehicles for dissemination of material and in-
formation, the meetings frequently evolved into mini planning sessions
wherein ideas were presented and discussed concerning specific aspects
of the study. These discussions resulted in the incorporation into
the study of many citizen generated ideas. The most important was a
shift in the emphasis of the study from flooding to stream bank
erosion.

As a part of public participation, on July 24, 1978, a field trip
within the Severn Run watershed was taken by members of the Citizen
Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. The trip was
conducted for the purpose of acquainting the committees with the prob-
lems identified by the consultants during their field surveys. The
need for land use planning was also stressed. Land surface erosion
and stream bank erosion were identified along with properly and im-
properly applied control methods.

A public meeting-.was held on the evening of January 10, 1979, to
present an update on the work progress of the study. This meeting
was attended by invited citizens, staff members and members of the
Stormwater Management Task Force. Background information, slides,
and examples of graphics and hydrologic analysis were presented.

The main purposes of this meeting for the consultant were to (1)
present identified problems and background information within the
watershed, (2) discuss preliminary management techniques and (3) to
obtain feedback from the citizens relative to their concerns and
observations concerning the watershed.

A three phase review of the final report began in March 1979 with
the completion of draft chapters of the more general background infor-
mation. Copies of these were sent to members of the Citizen Advisory
Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee for detailed comments.
The second phase included chapters presenting detailed information and
results of analysis. The final phase of review included the summary
chapters, recommendations and implementation methods. Each group of
materials was sent to both committees for review and discussed at a
series of meetings.

Certain major changes to the format of the study resulted from
this review process. Additional biological data were added to the in-
ventory and an extensive glossary was included. The need for a summary
report evolved from the meetings held, and review of this document
followed the same review process as it was completed.

328

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

The extensive review resulted in a number of revisions in the
written text, some of which clarified and corrected portions and others
which added new information. Several chapters were combined and new
charts and graphs were added. The review process has led to a more
readable report and one that is more understandable to the average
citizen.

An important revision that evolved from the review was the inclu-
sion of a case study. This study presented an investigation of the
effects of proposed commercial development within a section of a sub-
basin. These developments were simulated to illustrate the principles
of watershed management and the roles of government agencies.

Since the Severn Run Watershed Management Study is the first of
a series of watershed studies it was felt that this study should pro-
vide more background information than would be contained in future
studies. Watershed planning is a new concept to the County and in
order to facilitate understanding among citizens and County officials,
sections such as the case study were included which describe the
theories and mechanics of computer hydrology simulation models,
methodologies to develop input requirements and various management
alternatives available to the County. Recommendations were generally
proceeded by a discussion of the pro and con debate which led to their
selection.

The Summary Report presents much of the information contained in
the main report in a condensed version. The numbers of the tables
and figures included remain the same as in the detailed report to
aid in locating the detailed descriptions in the main report. Also,
major subjects are followed by the chapter numbers that discuss the
topic.

Most of the more general background information is eliminated
from the Summary Report and the concentration is on the findings and
recommendations relative to Severn Run itself and the future of water-
shed planning in Anne Arundel County.

A number of recommendations relative to structural changes,
amendments to County ordinances and regulations, and changes to
operating and inspection procedures of various County agencies are
contained in the reports. The recognition of an inadequate water
quality data base indicated the need for a water sampling and guaging
program for Severn Run.

Field visits to the area evidenced a general disregard for the
stream and its environment throughout the watershed. A greater public
awareness program and a stream-clean-up campaign were recommended.
The 208 Program and citizen's organizations such as the Boy and Girl
Scouts and Save Our Streams could be instrumental in such an effort.

The final and most important recommendation of the study was for
the County to develop an active, full-time multi-agency and represen-
tative citizens watershed management program. This program would re-
quire close interagency and citizen group cooperation to incorporate

329

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

watershed management and protection into the daily decision making
process.

Having laid the foundation for watershed management, Anne Arundel
County must gain strong support from the public for its program. With
the base of citizen support already established, by including them
throughout the study program, the County expects to gain widespread
support as the general public and the decision makers are informed.
Upon completion of the final report, the Severn Run Watershed Manage-
ment Study will be publicized through press releases and wide distri-
bution. To make the report readily available to all interested per-
sons both the Summary Report and the full report will be placed in all
County libraries. Copies of the Summary Report will be sent to Civic
Associations and special interest groups. Accompanying the Summary
Report will be an announcement that the Environmental Resources Sec-
tion will be available to present the study and to discuss specific
details and recommendations.

Proposed Watershed Management Program

As the Severn Run Study neared completion the Office of Planning
and Zoning saw the need to develop a methodology whereby watersheds
could be effectively prioritized for future studies. The Environmental
Resources Section of the Office of Planning and Zoning, in January 1979
assumed the lead in designing a methodology which would evaluate the
County's watersheds to determine their criticality for water quality
and flooding. In a combined effort County and State agencies, Citizen
Advisory Committee members, the Regional Planning Council 208 staff and
the consultant of the Severn Run Study designed a scope of work which
proposed the development of a Watershed Management Program for Anne
Arundel County.

Integral to such a proposed watershed management program is a
well organized citizen contingency.

A large network of citizen organizations already exists within
the County, whose functions and interests include environmental con-
cerns, community and civic associations, and special interest groups.
Many of the smaller community groups belong to large umbrella asso-
ciations grouped according to geographical areas such as watersheds.

Two such umbrella associations are the Severn River Association
and the Magothy River Association. Through representation on the
Stornwater Management Task Force, these groups were instrumental in
the Stormwater Management Ordinance and the Severn Run Study. Addi-
tionally, both of these groups have been active in studying water
quality problems within their respective rivers.

The Severn River Association conducted "Operation Clearwater" in
1975-1976, which created a sampling program to monitor the bacterio-
logical quality of the Severn River. The program was intended to
supplement the water quality testing done by County and State agencies.

In 1975-1977, the Magothy River Association co-sponsored a study

330

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

entitled "Effect of Changes in Storm Drain Outfall on Water Quality in
the Magothy River". This study evaluated the impacts of general land
use patterns in the watersheds of the major fresh water inputs to the
Magothy River.

On ~July 26, 1979, the Magothy River Association sponsored an "Ero-
sion Workshop". This workshop included presentations by the Anne
Arundel County departments of Planning and Zoning, Soil Conservation
District and Inspections and Permits (Figure 2). Additionally, rep-
resentatives of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources spoke on
the activities of its Water Resources Administration and the "Save
Our Streams" program. A field inspection trip was held the following
Saturday to various sites in the county to illustrate good and bad
erosion practices.

Many of these umbrella organizations have members representing
them on other County and State advisory committees, such as the 208
Public Advisory Committee and the Severn River Scenic Rivers Advisory
Committee. This creates an integrated network of citizens groups which
can be a great asset to watershed programs.

To assure continued public involvement on the part of citizens and
to begin implementing the recommendations of the Severn Run Study, the
Environmental Resources Section of the Office of Planning and Zoning
is proposing the establishment of a permanent Watershed Management
Task Force. Its membership would be comprised of technical represen-
tatives from the Office of Planning and Zoning, Inspections and Per-
mits, the Department of Public Works, the Health Department, Soil Con-
servation District, local and regional 208 staff and the Water Re-
sources Administration. Members would also include a permanent group
of citizens concerned with watershed management County wide. Addi-
tionally, as each watershed is studied, citizen representatives from
the watershed under consideration would join the Task Force for the
duration of the study.

If established, the Task Force's initial activities will be to:
(1) coordinate the implementation of the Severn Run Study recommenda-
tions, (2) review the proposed watershed management program for the
county and (3) finalize the priority list of watersheds to be studied
and select a watershed for the second study. The major citizen input
to the development of the watershed management program will be in the
definition of program goals, revision of the scope of work and deter-
mination of watershed priorities.

Following these initial activities the Task Force will formulate
the work program for the second study and develop the "Request for
Proposal". The Task Force will play an important role in the deter-
mination of the degree of consultant/local staff involvement in the
second study.

The Task Force's primary function once the study has begun will
be to periodically review work in progress and review and comment on
draft reports as they are completed. The Task Force will be respon-
sible for finalizing recommendations and soliciting approval of the

331

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

Figure 2. Magothy River Association--Erosion Workshop

GET TO KNOW THE FACTS:
Loss of Top Soil From Residential Construction Sites Sedimentation of Your Streams
EROSION WORKSHOP
WITH SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BYs
Anne Arundel County Departments oft
�inspection and Permits *Soil Conservation District * Planning and Zoning
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
*Water Resources Adminstration * SAVE OUR STREAMS Program
Open FREEI to the Concerned Public at the Student Center of Anne
Arundel Community College, Thursday evening, July 26th at 7:30 p.m.
followed by a Field Inspection Trip, Saturday morning July 28t1h, at 10 a.m.
leaving form the northern end of the Severna Park Shopping Mall on
Ritchie Highway at the Goodyear Service Center.

DISCUSSION PERIOD FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
SPONSORED BY:

1508 Fidelity Building Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Phone 685-7800
TOPICS TO BE COVERED:
Grading and Sediment Planning, Training Program, Control Devices,
Standards and Specifications, Legal Requirements, Plus a Slide Show,
Evaluation Forms and Reading Lists for further study from The Fish
and Wildlife Service, The Environmental Protection Agency and The
U.S. Conservation Service.

Anne Arundel Community
College Student Center
July 26th at 7:30 p.m. r MAGOTHY RIVER ASSOCIATION

YOUR MAGOTHY RIVER ASSOCIATION IS CONTINUALLY WORKING FOR YOU!

332

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

final plan.

The next task will be to coordinate the implementation of the
recommendations from the second study. Upon review of the priority
list the next watershed to be studied will be chosen.

In addition to its primary role, the Task Force will have a pro-
gram of continuing work which may be conducted by sub-committees and/
or staff. The Task Force will also assume responsibility for coor-
dinating the Watershed Management Program with ongoing County and State
planning activities.

208: A major portion of the 1980 Baltimore Regional 208
program ~eals with Stormwater Management assessment and program
formulation. 208 Staff will be assessing the existing storm-
water management program in the County for its interrelationship
with water quality and recommending changes in existing programs
for improved multiple objective benefits from stormwater manage-
ment. The formation of the proposed Watershed Management Task
Force will potentially offer an integration mechanism between
watershed management and 208 planning and assist in meeting
Federal requirements for citizen participation in water
quality planning.

Sector planning: In September 1977 the County Council
adopted a general development plan. This plan calls for the
development of a number of sector plans throughout the County.
(Sector plans are detailed analyses of small geographical
areas.) Watershed management will be an essential element
of Sector planning. Also required is the inclusion of storm-
water management into sector/watershed plans to insure that
land use plans provide the desired results. This will require
close cooperation between the Office of Planning and Zoning
and the Department of Public Works as well as other County
agencies.

Coastal Zone: Coastal Zone policies should be incorporated
into future watershed management programs. Watershed management
may also be enhanced through future Coastal Zone studies. For
example, a study of non tidal wetlands could determine the
feasibility of utilizing wetlands to retain storm water.

Sediment and Erosion Control: Future watershed studies
could concentrate more effort on studying the control of land
surface erosion. Two new erosion models, developed by Colo-
rado State University and the Department of Agriculture, con-
sider particle sizes of sediment. These models should allow
investigation of slope controls, buffer strips, mulching, run-
off reduction and other preventive controls. A watershed
study utilizing these models with soil, rainfall and climatic
conditions found with Anne Arundel County could improve evalua-
tion of sediment control alternatives and sediment control plans.

Flood Insurance: The Severn Run Watershed Study delineated

333

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

the 100 year floodplain and identified residences subject to
flooding. This study will be incorporated into a flood insurance
study now being conducted by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources.

Another continuing function of the Task Force will be to review
proposed zoning changes, subdivision plans and other development plans
within watersheds that have been studied and are currently under study.

The Task Force will serve as a focus for "Watchdog" activities
within watersheds by monitoring and identifying problem areas and
establishing a pipeline for citizen complaints.

In order for the Watershed Management Program to be effective, an
active citizens participation/information program needs to be main-
tained. This maximum citizen involvement will be maintained through
various methods such as:
* develop slide/tape presentation (traveling road show
available to organizations and schools)
I organize clean-up programs
6 develop public workshop programs
9 maintain newspaper clipping file and library
* hold field trips
* exhibits for public buildings (County office building,
libraries, etc.)
* maintain slide and photo file
a maintain good relationship with media
* develop brochure series describing various aspects of
watershed management
I set up a seminar/mini conference
I design and administer surveys
* develop and maintain a monthly newsletter
- updating work progress
- listing important meetings and hearings
- reporting on other planning activities and major
developments
- reporting on pertinent activities of other citizen
organizations
- providing a forum for idea exchanges
+ articles by citizens
+ questionnaires
+ letters to editor

Summary

Although it is too early to determine the full impact of public
participation in the County watershed program, (the Anne Arundel County
Program being, until recently, in the developmental stage) it is not

334

KLINGELHOEFER et al.

too early to make certain observations and draw several positive con-
clusions. The public response to the opportunity to participate in
the County's watershed program from its inception has been far stronger
than anticipated, both in terms of number of participants and in their
enthusiasm and sustained interest. This involvement by the public has
resulted not only in a significant number of new ideas and fresh
approaches to the various programs encountered, but has occasioned a
mutual interest and understanding by both the County and the public
of the other's difficulties and points of view. The County, as a
result of public participation, has had an unprecedented opportunity
to determine the real areas of concern of the public, with regard to
watershed management and water quality, and to determine the public's
priority with regard to their environment. At the same time, the
citizens have shown an appreciation for and understanding of the
County's difficulty in developing a program which is both effective
and attainable in terms of time, funding and government regulation.

It is believed that public participation will continue at the
present high level, and there is every indication that the citizens
of Anne Arundel County will be more than enthusiastic in carrying out
a watershed--water quality program which they have jointly developed
with the County and which they already think of as "their program"

335

LIST OF CONFEREES

Eduardo Acevedo Albert Bain
State of Maryland Gannett and Fleming
1316 Heather Road P.O. Box 1963
Baltimore, MD 21239 Harrisburg, PA 17105

K. Scott Aja Nazir Baig
J. R. McCrone, Jr., Inc. Maryland National Capital Park and
P.O. Box 1789 Planning Commission
Annapolis, MD 21404 8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Springs, MD 20907
Richard C. Albert
Delaware River Basin Commission Eleanor Barger
P.O. Box 7360 Charlestown Associates
West Trenton, NJ 08628 114 West Valley Hill Road
Malvern, PA 19355
Dana L. Anderson
Conference Administrator William Baron
Water Resources Center Trout unlimited
University of Delaware Edgebrook Way
Newark, DE 19711 Newark, DE 19702

Sharon Andrews Philip Barske
West Chester State College Landplan Partnership
300 E. Marshall Street, Apt. 318 200 Audubon Lane
West Chester, PA 19380 Fairfield, CT 06430

Dennis W. Auker Richard Bauer
Institute of State and New Castle County
Regional Affairs Planning Department
Pennsylvania State University 2701 Capitol Trail
Capitol Campus Newark, DE 19711
Middletown, PA 17057
Richard Bayard
Alan W. Avery Bayard, Brill and Handelman
Ocean County Planning Board 300 Market Tower
119 Hooper Avenue Wilmington, DE 19801
C.N. 2191
Toms River, NJ 08753 John E. Benjamin
Three Rivers Development Foundation, Inc.
Richard C. Baccino 34-36 West Market Street
New Castle County Corning, NY 14830
Department of Public Works
100 Churchmans Road
New Castle, DE 19720

337

Philip E. Bennett Ted Browning
Montgomery County Department of Plant Science
Office of Environmental Planning University of Delaware
100 Maryland Avenue, Room 507 Newark, DE 19711
Rockville, MD 20850
Becky Buckley
David J. Biloon Coalition for Natural Stream Valleys
New Castle County 9 North Kingston Road
Department of Public Works Newark, DE 19713
2701 Captiol Trail
Newark, DE 19711 Leland H. Bull, Jr.
GWSM, Inc.
Joan Blaustein 1101 Greenfield Avenue
Montgomery County Pittsburgh, PA 15237
Planning Commission
Courthouse Carey Burch
Norristown, PA 19404 Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
The Honorable J. Caleb Boggs Springfield, VA 22151
Conference Committee Chairman
Bayard, Brill and Handelman Robert C. Burdick
Box 2171 City of Rock Hill
300 Market Tower P.O. Box 11706
Wilmington, DE 19801 Rock Hill, SC 29730

E. Bollinger Louise Burke
National Capital Commission Conservation Council
48 Rideau Street of Virginia Foundation
Ottawa, Canada KIM 8K5 4549 Arrowhead Road
Richmond, VA 23235
Jeffory G. Boyer
National Savings & Loan League Dieter Busch
1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC 20005 100 Chestnut Street, Room 310
Harrisburg, VA 17101
Earl Bradley
Tide Water Administration Mike Camann
Tawes State Office Building Crozier and Associates
Annapolis, MD 21401 409 East Quadrangle
Baltimore, MD 21210
Pat Bradley
Senator Biden's Office L. Leon Campbell
9th and King Streets Provost and Vice President for
Wilmington, DE 19801 Academic Affairs
University of Delaware
Thomas Brockenbrough Newark, DE 19711
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Delaware David J. Carleo
Newark, DE 19711 O'Brien & Gere, Inc.
1304 Buckley Road
Kenneth Brooks Syracuse, NY 13221
New Castle County
Department of Parks and Recreation James P. Chao
Banning Park, 102 Middleboro Road Office of the County Engineer
Wilmington, DE 19804 Kent County Courthouse
Dover, DE 19901

338

Nash M. Childs Heidi Cooke
Kidde Consultants, Inc. Delta Group
Suite 103, Commonwealth Building 2323 Chestnut Street
University office Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19103
Newark, DE 19702
Steven H. Corwin
Michael Christopher Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Delaware Geological Survey Weston Way
University of Delaware West Chester, PA 19380
Newark, DE 19711
C. Scott Craf ton
R. Chrystian Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
Hamilton Region Conservation Commission
Authority 830 East Main Street, Suite 800
Grimsby Richmond, VA 23219
Ontario, Canada L9G 3L3
Robert A. Cranston
Donald Clark Town of Greece
Berger County Planning Board 2505 Ridge Road West
29 Linden Street Rochester, NY 14615
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Sam Crozier
William J. Cohen Crozier and Associates
William J. Cohen and Assoc., Inc. 409 East Quadrangle
177 East Delaware Avenue Baltimore, MD 21210
Newark, DE 19711
Alan M. Cruikshank
Gene Colbert Charles Soil Conservation District
League of Women Voters P.O. Box 269
2315 Jamaca Drive La Plata, MD 20646
Wilmington, DE 19810
Moody M. Culpepper
Carol Collier U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Betz, Converse, Murdock, Inc. P.O. Box 60
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Vicksburg, MS 39180

D. L. Collins Vincent D'Anna
Clemson University Senator Biden's Office
Clemson, SC 29631 9th and King Streets
Wilmington, DE 19801
Jon L. Colt
Adams County Planning Department Robert B. Dannecker
450 South 4th Avenue Maryland Water Resources Administration
Brighton, CO 80601 Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
Charles M. Compton
Planning and Development Robin Davidov
Lexington County Maryland Water Resources Administration
212 South Lake Drive Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Lexington, SC 29072 Annapolis, MD 21401

Darryl Cook William K. Davis
Virginia State Water Control Board Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc.
211 North Hamilton Street One Plymouth Meeting Mall
P.O. Box 11143 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Richmond, VA 23230

339

Gary E. Day William W. Dreyfoos
V.P.I. & S.U. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester
Cowgill Hall Council of Governments
Blacksburg, VA 24060 Old Citadel Annex
Charleston, SC 29403
Joel DeFreytas
Real Estate Engineering Assoc. Alfred M. Duda
513 Arbordale Road North Carolina Department of Natural
Wayne, PA 19087 Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Morris W. Demetrious P.O. Box 27687
City of Newark Raleigh, NC 27611
P.O. Box 390
Newark, DE 19711 James Duncan
Prince William County Planning Commission
William DePoto 9300B Peabody Street
Passaic River Coalition Manassas, VA 22110
246 Madisonville Road
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Bernard L. Dworsky
Water Resources Agency
Eckhart Dersch New Castle County
Michigan State University 2701 Capitol Trail
Department of Resource Development Newark, DE 19711
East Lansing, MI 48824
Jerry Eastridge
Roland Derrickson Anderson & Associates
Sussex County Planning and zoning 100 Ardmore Street
P.O. Box 407 Blacksburg, VA 24060
Georgetown, DE 19947
Faulkner M. Edmonds
David M. Dischner Philadelphia Water Department
Middlesex County Planning Board 240 East Ellet Street
40 Livingston Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19119
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
James B. Ellis, Jr.
Thomas Donohue City of Frederick
St. Clair County 124 North Market Street
21 Airport Road Frederick, MD 21701
Port Huron, MI 48060
Charles D. Ellison, Jr.
James Doolin D. H. Steffens Company
Water Resources Administration 317 Charles Street, P.O. Box 626
Tawes State Office Building, D-2 La Plata, MD 20646
Annapolis, MD 21401
Paul M. Emmons
Bruce Douglas Chamisa Solar Community, Inc.
Office of Comprehensive Planning P.O. Box 387
Fairfax County Lanham, MD 20801
Falls Church, VA 22042
J. Glenn Eugster
E. Earle Downing, Jr. HCRS - USDI
E. Earle Downing, Inc. Northeast Region
1317 Governor Printz Boulevard 600 Arch Street
P.O. Box 1151 Philadelphia, PA 19106
Wilmington, DE 19899

340

Walter C. Evans William H. Funk
Whitemarsh Township Chester County Water Resources Authority
4021 Joshua Road 314 F & M Building
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444 West Chester, PA 19380

Ruth Fallis Debbie Futch
Water Resources Agency APPLE Design
New Castle County 13027 Champion Drive
2701 Capitol Trail Houston, TX 77069
Newark, DE 19711
Reed Geiger
J. Farnworth Conservation Commission of Newark
Hamilton Region Conservation City Hall
Authority Newark, DE 19711
9 Battlefield Road
Stoney Creek Robert Gerhardt
Ontario, Canada L9G 3L3 City of Fairfield
5350 Pleasant Avenue
Dino J. Ferralli Fairfield, OH 45014
Schrickel, Rollins & Associ., Inc.
604 Avenue H East Charles J. Goedken
Arlington, TX 76011 Conference Administrator
Water Resources Center
Sandra Fisher University of Delaware
Linsemier and Associates, P.C. Newark, DE 19711
1120 Keystone Avenue
Lansing, MI 48910 Darryl R. Goehring
Water Resources Agency
Gretchen Fitting New Castle County
New Castle County 2701 Capitol Trail
Planning Department Newark, DE 19711
2701 Capitol Trail
Newark, DE 19711 Steve Goldman
Association of Bay Area Governments
Lorraine Fleming Hotel Claremont
Delaware Nature Education Society Berkeley, CA 94705
P.O. Box 700
Hockessin, DE 19707 Martin Gordon
New Castle County Conservation District
Ed Fox 6 People Plaza
City of Fairfield Newark, DE 19702
5350 Pleasant Avenue
Fairfield, OH 45014 Thomas U. Gordon
Cobbossee Watershed District
Ray Freeman 15 High Street
Orange County Planning Department Winthrop, ME 04364
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Robert J. Gorman
Land Design/Research, Inc.
Eric Z. Fruchtman One Mall North, Suite 400
Boles, Smyth Associates, Inc. Columbia, MD 21044
2323 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Walter J. Green
Boles, Smyth Associates, Inc.
2323 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

341

Barbara M. Greer Ron Hampel
New Jersey Department of City Engineer
Environmental Protection 5350 Pleasant Avenue
Box CN-029 Fairfield, OH 45014
Trenton, NJ 08625
Steven P. Hansen
Randell Greer City of Olathe
New Castle County P.O. Box 768
Conservation District Olathe, KS 66061
6 Peoples Plaza
Newark, DE 19702 Robert F. Harsch
Robert F. Harsch & Associates, Inc.
Doug Griffith 222 North Walnut Street
Camden County Planning Department West Chester, PA 19380
County Administration Building
600 Market Street John P. Hartigan
Camden, NJ 08102 Northern Virginia Planning District
Commission
Neil S. Grigg 7309 Arlington Boulevard
Department of Natural Resources Falls Church, VA 22042
and Community Development
P.O. Box 2768 Don Hartman
Raleigh, NC 27611 Region III EPA
6th and Walnut Streets
Grady Griggs Philadelphia, PA 19106
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture K. Harvey
9 East Loockerman Street National Capital Commission
Dover, DE 19901 48 Rideau Street
Ottawa, Canada KIM 8K5
Leah Gropen
Friends of Lynchburg Stream Valleys Mike Helfrich
5016 Wedgewood Road J. R. McCrone, Jr., Inc.
Lynchburg, VA 24503 P.O. Box 1789
Annapolis, MD 21404
Carlton K. Gutschick
Clark, Finefrock & Sackett George Hoessel
11315 Lockwood Drive Region III EPA
Silver Spring, MD 20904 6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Frank W. Hahne
T&M Associates Carl Hooper
213 Highway 35 Bestor Engineers, Inc.
Middletown Township 400 Camino Aguajito
Red Bank, NJ 07701 Monterey, CA 93921

Conrad Hamerman Albert Horner
Department of Plant Science Department of Health and
University of Delaware Environmental Conservation
Newark, DE 19711 Waste Water Bureau
2600 Bull Street
G. William Hammon, Jr. Columbia, SC 29201
City of Alcoa
Municipal Building
Hall Road
Alcoa, TN 37701

342

Wesley Horner Narendra Juneja
Wapora, Inc. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd
511 Old Lancaster Pike 1737 Chestnut Street
Berwin, PA 19312 Philadelphia, PA 19103

William Howard Brian W. Justh
The Brandywine Conservancy Glace and Glace, Inc.
Routes 1 and 100 2771 Paxton Street
Chadds Ford, PA 19317 Harrisburg, PA 17111

L. Fielding Howe, Jr. John Karanik
156 Idris Road Onodaga County Department of Drainage
Merion Station, PA 19066 and Sanitation
125 Elwood Davis Road
Steven E. Huber North Syracuse, NY 13212
Lancaster County Planning Comm.
P.O. Box 3480 N. G. Kaul
50 North Duke Street New York State Department of
Lancaster, PA 17604 Environmental Control
50 Wolf Road
Betty Hutchinson Albany, NY 12233
City of Newark Council
311 Apple Road Stephen J. King
Newark, DE 19711 CH2M Hill
1930 Isaac Newton Square
Sara Ingerman Reston, VA 22090
Philadelphia Inquirer
400 North Broad Street Deborah Kinney
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Linsemier and Associates, P.C.
1120 Keystone Avenue
Stuart Jaffee Lansing, MI 48910
Newark Planning Department
P.O. Box 390 Joseph P. Kirk
Newark, DE 19711 Appalachian Council of Governments
Drawer 6668
Lynn Jankus Greenville, SC 29607
Better Homes Company of DE Inc.
P.O. Box 2181 Ginger Klingelhoefer
Wilmington, DE 19899 Office of Planning and Zoning
Anne Arundel County
Thomas Jenkins Arundel Center
New Castle County Conservation Annapolis, MD 21401
District
6 People Plaza Jeffrey L. Knoedler
Newark, DE 19702 National Park Service
National Capital Region
Peggy B. Johnson 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Clinton River Watershed Council Washington, DC 20242
8215 Hall Road
Utica, MI 48087 Robert Knoff
Burlington County Planning Board
Walter A. Jones 5 Maple Avenue
Administrator of Natural Resources Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Somerset County Park Commission
P.O. Box 837
Somerville, NJ 08876

343

Tom Koons Nancy K. Landgraf
Department of Environmental W. Al Planning & Development Council
Resources Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport Terminal
Fulton Bank Building, Box 2063 Building, 2nd Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Northport, AL 35476

Glenn Kost Peter A. Larson
Naperville Park District Greater Wilmington Development Council
421 Martin Avenue 911 Washington Street
Naperville, IL 60540 Wilmington, DE 19899

Bruce Kraeuter Jonna Lazarus
Water Resources Agency Crozier and Associates
New Castle County 409 East Quadrangle
2701 Capitol Trail Baltimore, MD 21210
Newark, DE 19711
Stephen Lehm
Mike Krempasky Vandmark & Lynch, Inc.
Department of Environmental 4305 Miller Road
Resources P.O. Box 2047
Executive House, Room 816 Wilmington, DE 19899
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Alice Lenthe
Roy F. Weston Associates
John J. Krol Weston Way
U.S. Army Engineer District West Chester, PA 19380
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007 Emil Lesko
3219 Adams Court
Ed Kuipers Fairfax, VA 22030
Tatman & Lee Associates
2005 Concord Pike Doug Lloyd
Wilmington, DE 19803 Department of Parks and Recreation
102 Middleboro Road
Robert Kull Wilmington, DE 19804
Mercer County Planning Division
County Administration Building Harry S. Loijens
P.O. Box 8068 Rideau River Management Study
Trenton, NJ 08650 222 Queen Street, 10th Floor
Ottawa
Lawrence J. Lahr Ontario, Canada KIP 5V9
Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc.
56 North Second Street Mckund Lokhande
Chambersburg, PA 17201 Prince William County Planning Commission
9300B Peabody Street
David F. Lakatos Manassas, VA 22110
Walter B. Satterthwaite Assoc., Inc.
11 North Five Points Road Fred Luce
West Chester, PA 19380 Orange County Planning Department
106 East Margaret Lane
Jack Lakatosh Hillsborough, NC 27278
Soil Conservation Service
6 Peoples Plaza Robert B. Ludgate
Newark, DE 19702 Robert B. Ludgate & Associates
111 North Sixth Street
Reading, PA 19601

344

David M. Lynch Judy malinowski
Vandemark & Lynch, Inc. Water Resources Center
4305 Miller Road University of Delaware
P.O. Box 2047 Newark, DE 19711
Wilmington, DE 19899
V. R. Mariani
Bob MacLeod Gloucester New Communities Co.
Center for Ecological Research Beckett & Center Square Roads
University of Pennsylvania Swedesboro, NJ 08085
Philadelphia, PA 19174
Kenneth B. Marsh
Fred McCamic Division of Environmental Engineering
208 Water Quality County of Union
630 Guarantee Trust Building Department of Engineering & Planning
Atlantic City, NJ 08401 County Administration Building, 5th Floor
Elizabeth, NJ 07207
William H. McCoy
office of Water Research and Richard H. Marston
Technology Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of the Interior 1370 Hamilton Street
Washington, DC 20240 Somerset, NJ 08873

Larry McCullough Samuel R. Martin
Department of Health and Regional Planning Council
Environmental Control Baltimore 208 Program
Waste Water Bureau 2225 North Charles Street
2600 Bull Street Baltimore, MD 21218
Columbia, SC 29201
Eric Mease
Frank McGowan WILM Radio
Lawler, Matusky, Skelly Engineers 125 French Street
One Blue Hill Plaza Wilmington, DE 19808
Pearl River, NY 10965
Bill Miller
Peggy D. McNeill Department of Parks and Recreation
State Soil Conservation Commission New Castle County
39 Linwood Circle Banning Park, 102 Middleboro Road
Princeton, NJ 08540 Wilmington, DE 19804

Ian L. McHarg Dorothy Miller
Department of Landscape Architecture Delaware Coalition for Natural Stream Valleys
and Regional Planning 430 Orchard Road
Graduate School of Fine Arts Newark, DE 19711
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19174 William J. Miller III
Water Resources Center
Albert W. Madora University of Delaware
Department of Public Works Newark, DE 19711
New Castle County
2701 Capitol Trail Rob Moore
Newark, DE 19711 Region III EPA
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106

345

Thomas Tyler Moore R. Tek Nickerson
Thomas Tyler Moore Associates Eo-Logics
67 Scoth Road 112 Cat Rock Road
West Trenton, NJ 08628 Cos Cob, CT 06807

Fred Muller James E. Nolke
P.O. Box 4565 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Newark, DE 19711 1825 Virginia Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Lee Murphy
EPA Region III Alfred Obrist
6th and Walnut Streets Obrist & Appel
Philadelphia, PA 19106 619 Midtown Plaza
Syracuse, NY 13210
Steven Murphy
Monroe County Environmental Sally O'Bryne
Management Council Water Resources Center
10 North Fitzhigh Street University of Delaware
Rochester, NY 14614 Newark, DE 19711

William L. Murray George O'Carroll
Carroll Engineering Corporation Middlesex County Mosquito Commission
387 York Road 200 Parsonage Road
Warminister, PA 18974 Edison, NJ 08817

Charles A. Musser, Jr. Erin O'Hare
Wake County Regional Planning Agency of South
Department of Natural Resources Central Connecticut
P.O. Box 550 96 Grove Street
Raleigh, NC 27602 New Haven, CT 06510

Oswald Nagler Eugene Oldham
Harbison Development Corporation Glace & Glace, Inc.
P.O. Box 21368 2711 Paxton Street
Columbia, SC 29221 Harrisburg, PA 17111

Pat Natarelli John Olson
West Chester Soil and Water Board Camden County Environmental Agency
216 Central Avenue, 2nd Floor 600 Market Street
White Plains, NY 10606 Camden, NJ 08101

Joseph H. Necker, Jr. Charles G. Osterholt
Howard Research and Development Area Planning Commission
Corporation Civic Center Complex, Room 312
The Rouse Company Evansville, IN 47708
Columbia, MD 21044
Warren O'Sullivan
Tony Neville New Castle County
Gannett and Fleming Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 1963 2701 Capitol Trail
Harrisburg, PA 17105 Newark, DE 19711

346

Judy Overby Stephen A. Raign
Harris County Department of Transportation
1001 Preston Street Subdivision Section
Houston, TX 77002 P.O. Box 778
Dover, DE 19901
Tim Palmer
Lycoming County Mayor William Redd
Planning Commission City of Newark
48 West Third Street P.O. Box 390
Williamsport, PA 17701 Newark, DE 19711

Suzanne Parker J. Patrick Redden
Water Resources Center Department of Natural Resources and
University of Delaware Environmental Control
Newark, DE 19711 P.O. Box 1401
Tatnall Building
Michael A. Parts Dover, DE 19901
Water Resources Administration
Tawes State Office Building, D-3 Irwin Reisler
Annapolis, MD 21401 Linton, Mields, Reisler & Cottone, Ltd.
1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 200
Joseph T. Patermo Washington, DC 20036
Camden County Planning Department
County Administration Building Gary Reith
600 Market Street Chester County Planning Commission
Camden, NJ 08102 Court House, 5th Floor
West Chester, PA 19380
William B. Philipbar
Rollins Environmental Services William Richards
P.O. Box 2349 Philadelphia Water Department
Wilmington, DE 19899 1270 Municipal Services Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Steven L. Pollock
Ocean County Planning Board Claudette Richardson
119 Hooper Avenue U.S. Soil Conservation Service
C.N. 2191 6 Peoples Plaza
Toms River, NJ 08753 Newark, DE 19702

William Powell Tony Richardson
Hamilton Region Conservation Auth. Howard County
P.O. Box 99 Department of Parks and Recreation
Ancaster 3430 Court House Drive
Onterio, Canada L9G 3L3 Ellicott City, MD 21043

John J. Price Holly Righter
Henderson Associates Wapora, Inc.
120 Express Street 511 Old Lancaster Pike
Plainview, NY 11803 Berwin, PA 19312

L. Douglas Pritchard, Jr. William F. Ritter
Chesterfield County Department of Agricultural Engineering
Environmental Engineering University of Delaware
P.O. Box 40 Newark, DE 19711
Chesterfield, VA 23832

347

Alan M. Robinson Marian Ryan
Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc. East Malborough Township
One Plymouth Meeting Mall 102 Spottsund Lane
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Kennett Square, PA 19348

Leah Roedel Richard Ryan
Delaware Nature Education Society East Marlborough Township
P.O. Box 700 102 Spottsund Lane
Hockessin, DE 19707 Kennett Square, PA 19348

Roy Romano Katherine J. Sage
Philadelphia Water Department Cobbossee Watershed District
1270 Municipal Services Building 15 High Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Winthrop, ME 04364

William Romeika E. James Sayer
Water Resources Agency Montgomery County Government
New Castle County 100 Maryland Avenue, Room 500
2701 Capitol Trail Rockville, MD 20850
Newark, DE 19711
James E. Scholl
Gerritt Rosenthal CH2M Hill
Lane Council of Governments P.O. Box 1647
125 Eighth Avenue, East Gainesville, FL 32602
Eugene, OR 97401
Jack Schramm
Joseph Rotola U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Passaic River Coalition Region III
246 Madisonville Road 6th and Walnut Streets
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Andris Roze Steve Schroeder
Regional Municipality of York Green Meadows, Ltd.
62 Bayview Avenue 5608 Merle Hay Road
Newmarket Des Moines, IA 50323
Ontario, Canada M2J 1B2
William Sellers
Robert T. Ruulph The Brandywine Conservancy
Broward County Routes 1 and 100
Environmental Quality Control Chadds Ford, PA 19317
3861 N.W. 79th Avenue
Coral Springs, FL 33065 J. Kipp Shrack
Land Design/Research, Inc.
Hugh C. Russell One Mall North, Suite 400
Evaluation Associates Columbia, MD 21044
P.O. Box 244
Pinckney, MI 48169 M. Edward Shull
Howard County
Edward W. Ruyter Department of Recreation and Parks
Department of Transportation 3430 Couth House Drive
Subdivision Section Ellicott City, MD 21043
P.O. Box 778
Dover, DE 19901

348

David Shulman James F. Stanton
Middlesex County 208 Program Fellows, Read and Weber, Inc.
40 Livingston Avenue C.N. 2546
New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Toms River, NJ 08753

Celia Skudris Wayne E. Statler
Buckingham Township Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc.
P.O. Box 413 56 North Second Street
Buckingham, PA 18912 Chambersburg, PA 17201

David R. Smith Boyd C. Steed
Cowgill Hall School of Environmental Design
V.P.I. & S.U. University of Georgia
Blacksburg, VA 24061 Athens, GA 30605

Khervin D. Smith Sydney Steele
Department of Environmental Water Resources Center
Resources University of Delaware
P.O. Box 1467 Newark, DE 19711
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Thomas J. Steinke
Frank Smolinski Department of Conservation
County of Burlington Town Hall
Health Department Fairfield, CT 06430
Woodlane Road
Mount Holly, NJ 08060 Marion C. Stewart
Civic League for New Castle County
Patrick Smyth 407 Brentwood Drive
Tioga County Planning Board Wilmington, DE 19803
County Office Building, Room 201
Oswego, NY 13827 David J. Stout
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Soloman 1825B Virginia Street
Baltimore County Annapolis, MD 21401
Office of Planning and Zoning
401 Bosley Avenue Ann Louise Strong
Towson, MD 21204 Department of City and Regional Planning
University of Pennsylvania
Robert N. Speidel Graduate School of Fine Arts
Leon County Philadelphia, PA 19174
Department of Public Works
Division of Environmental Services Carol Swick
Leon County Courthouse, Room 213 Long Island Regional Planning Board
Tallahassee, FL 32301 H. Lee Dennison Building
Veterans Memorial Highway
Frank Spink Hauppauge, NY 11787
Urban Land Institute
1200 18th Street John Szewczuk
Washington, DC 20036 Department of Environmental Resources
Cook College
Saurabh Srivastava Rutgers University
New Castle County New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Department of Public Works
2701 Capitol Trail
Newark, DE 19711

349

William C. Tanner James H. Tung
Township of East Brunswick WILMAPCO
1 Jean Walling Civic Center Stockton Building, Suite 201
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 University Office Building
Newark, DE 19702
Francis X. Tannian
College of Urban Affairs and Nancy A. Updegraf
Public Policy Passaic River Coalition
University of Delaware 246 Madisonville Road
Newark, DE 19711 Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

Jeff Taylor Carter Van Dyke
State Water Control Board Bucks County Planning Commission
211 North Hamilton Street Court and Main Streets
P.O. Box 11143 Doylestown, PA 18901
Richmond, VA 23230
Robert D. Varrin
Harold Templin Director, Water Resources Center
Elkhart County Planning Commission University of Delaware
County Courts Building Newark, DE 19711
Elkhart, IN 46514
James Veltman
Elizabeth Titus APPLE Design Group, Inc.
U.S. Department of the Interior 13027 Champions Drive, Suite B
HCRS Houston, TX 77069
600 Arch Street
Phialdelphia, PA 19106 Hal Walker
Ellesmere Developments Ltd.
J. Toby Tourbier 2150 Sun Life Place
Water Resources Center 10123 99th Street
University of Delaware Edmonton
Newark, DE 19711 Alberta, Canada T5J 3J4

E. Arthur Trabant Christopher Warren
President Salem County Planning Board
University of Delaware 102 Market Street
Newark, DE 19711 Salem, NJ 08079

Terrence Trembly Leon N. Weiner
Larimer-Weld Regional Council Leon N. Weiner and Associates
of Governments 4 Denny Road
201 East 4th Street Wilmington, DE 19809
Londland, CO 80537
Charles R. Weir, Jr.
Michael C. Trenery C. Raymond Weir Associates, Inc.
Department of Public Works 233 Race Street
City of Wilmington Ambler, PA 19002
800 French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Susan Weisman
West Chester County Health Department
Stephen G. Treut 150 Grand Street
Department of Transportation White Plains, NY 10601
Subdivision Section
P.O. Box 778
Dover, DE 19901

350

Peter Wells Helen Winslow
Charles E. Downe Planning Consultants 2310 Baynard Boulevard
950 Water Town Street Wilmington, DE 19803
Newton, MA 02165
Paul Wisner
Richard Westmacott University of Ottawa
Water Resources Center Department of Civil Engineering
University of Delaware Ottawa
Newark, DE 19711 Ontario, Canada KlN 9B4

Wieland Wettstein Bill Wolinski
Ellesmere Developments, Ltd. City Water Quality Management Office
2150 Sun Life Place 305 Municipal Office Building
10123 99th Street Baltimore, MD 21202
Edmonton
Alberta, Canada T5J 3J4 Steve R. Woodbury
WILMAPCO
Charles M. Weymouth Stockton Building, Suite 201
New Castle County Planning Board University Office Plaza
2701 Capitol Trail Newark, DE 19702
Newark, DE 19711
Eugene W. Wright
George G. White J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
White Hills Estates, Inc. 250 South Beechwood Avenue
P.O. Box 822 Boise, ID 83709
East Lansing, MI 48823
Jerry D. Wyant
Norman Wilder Rodgers and Associates, Inc.
Delaware Nature Education Society 358 Hungerford Drive
P.O. Box 700 Rockville, MD 20850
Hockessin, DE 19707
David C. Yaeck
Alelaide I. Williams Chester County Water Resources Authority
Forsyth County 314 F&M Building
Environmental Affairs Department West Chester, PA 19380
Government Center, 2nd Floor
3rd and Main Streets Frank Yeh
Winston-Salem, NJ 27101 Gilbert Associates
525 Lancaster Avenue
Dudley L. Willis Reading, PA 19603
Edward H. Richardson Assoc., Inc.
108 Briar Lane Dick Young
Newark, DE 19711 Kane County Environmental Division
719 South Batavia Avenue
Nancy A. Willis Geneva, IL 60134
Edward H. Richardson Assoc., Inc.
108 Briar Lane
Newark, DE 19711

Frank D. Wilson
City of Edmonton
7303-94B Avenue
Edmonton
Alberta, Canada T6B lAl

351