28reportcard.pdf

A

Report

Card

on

Urban

Erosion

and

Sedimentation

Control

in

North

Carolina

Raymond

J.

Burby,

Edward

J.

Kaiser,

Michael

I.

Luger,

Robert

G.

Paterson,

H.

Rooney

Malcom,

and

Alicia

C.

Beard

In

1

973 North Carolina enacted

what

has

become

one

_of

the

most

stringent

erosion

and

sedimentation

control

programs

in

the

nation.

This

articlediscusses

how

a survey

of

128

construction

sitesin

North

Carolina

turned

up

evidence

that

practice

falls

short

of

state

goals

to

curb

urban

erosion

and

sedimentation.

The

authors then

discuss

policy

options

to

remedy

these

shortcomings.

Construction activity in urban areas can increase the

amount

of soil-upto500tonsforevery acrelaidbare-that washes from buildingsitesintonearbyrivers,streams

and

lakes.

When

erosion

and

sedimentation go unchecked, a

varietyofharmful

and

costly effectsresult. Aquatichabitat

isdestroyed,decreasing aesthetic values

and

fish

produc-tion. Streamsaccumulatedirt,losingtheircapacitytostore

flood waters

and

increasing the frequency

and

severityof

flooding. Reservoirssilt

up and

losetheircapacitytostore

drinking water, requiring additional expenditures for

re-placementsupplies.

Channels

become

clogged,requiring

more

frequent dredging to maintain navigation.

Storm

drainage

works no

longer functionasintended, resultingin

nuisance flooding

and

more

frequent maintenance.

The

frequency

and

severityof thoseproblems haveled

twenty-one

states toformulate

programs

tocontrolurban erosion and sedimentation.

In1973

North

Carolina enacted

what

has

become

one

of

the

most

stringent erosion

and

sedimentation control

programsinthe nation,

matched

onlybysimilarlyvigorous

state

programs

inFlorida,

Maryland

andVirginia.1

Inthis

article

we

provideevidencethat in

North

Carolinapractice

fallsshort ofstategoalstocurburbanerosion

and

sedimen-tation.

The

shortcomingsin

program

practiceare the resultof slippageateachof fourstages. First;asmall butsignificant

proportion of urban construction evades the program's

regulatorynet (thatis,gradingis

begun

withoutattention

to erosion

and

sediment control). Second, erosion

and

sediment control plans prepared for construction sites

sometimes

have serious technical deficiencies that limit theirpotential effectiveness. Third,erosionand sediment

control measures specified by those plans frequently are

notinstalled. Fourth,even

when

measuresareinstalled as specified, they frequently are not maintainedadequately.

As

a result of those problems, a third or

more

ofurban

construction sites release large

amounts

of sediment to

adjacentproperty

and

tonearby streams

and

otherwater

bodies.

The

difficultiesencounteredin

North

Carolinaare

seri-ous,butthey arenot insurmountable. In concludingthis

article,

we

suggest a

number

of optionsthatstate

and

local

policy

makers

can considerto halt,

and

even reverse, the

slippage

we

identified.

Most

of thosepolicies stress the

importance of establishing a cooperative

approach

to

enforcementthat builds

commitment

inthe private sector

to the program's goals

and

private capacity to

comply

beforesanctions

must

be invoked.

We

alsostress,however,

the importance ofeffectivesanctions thatcan

be

applied

quickly

when

provisionsofthelawareignored.

We

believe

ourresearch findings are relevant to a varietyoflocal

and

state regulatory

programs

and

have applicability

beyond

controlof urban erosion

and

sedimentationin

North

Caro-lina.

Sources of

Data

Data

for this article

come

from

a

comprehensive

evalu-ation ofthe

North

Carolina Erosion

and

Sedimentation

ControlProgram,

commissioned

bythe N.C.

Department

of the

Environment,

Health

and

Natural Resources.2

A

number

ofdifferent approachesto data acquisition

were

employed.

Raymond

J. Burby

and

Edward

J. Kaiser are professors,

Michael I. Luger is an associateprofessor,

and

Robert G. Patersonisa researchfellowinthe

Department

ofCity

and

Re-gional Planning, UniversityofNorth CarolinaatChapelHill.

H.Rooney

Malcom

is aprofessor

and

Alicia C.

Beard

is a

We

gathered information about ero-sionand sedimentationcontrolpractices

and effectiveness in ninelocales across

thestate.

The

ninelocalesinclude three

from each of the three physiographic

regions of

North

Carolina-the coastal

plain,the

piedmont and

themountains.

In each region,

we

selected

one

county

where

the state administered the

pro-gram and one

city

and

one

county

where

local

governments

administered the

program

(see

map

below). After first

completingapilotstudyin

Orange

County

todevelopafieldprotocol,

we

collected dataineach oftheninelocales through

structured interviews with supervisors,

plan reviewers,

and

inspectors,through

inspection of records

and

other

docu-ments, throughtechnicalreview of

con-trol plans developed for construction

projectsunderthe regulations,and

from

field inspectionsofthose projects.

The

control plan reviews

and

field

inspections focused

on

a

random

sample

of128

construc-tion projects,selectedfromtheactiveprojectsof the

agen-cies intheninelocales. This

approach

provideda

represen-tative

sample

ofresidential projects

and

non-residential

projects (mostly retail

commercial and

office

develop-ments) in the privatesector. (SeeTable 1 for the

number

ofsitesby type of land usein each oftheninelocales.)

We

collected information

on

each project through technical

Table 1.

Number

ofConstructionSites in

Sample

for

Each

ofNine Locales

Residential Non-Residential Locale Stale Local Stale Local Total

Coastal Plain

Wayne/Lenoir Counties (WashingtonOffice) 11 4 15

New

Hanover County(locallyadministered) 5 10 15

Greenville(locallyadministered) 6 9 15

Piedmont

Catawba County(Mooresville Office) 5 9 14

DurhamCounty(locallyadministered) 6 9 15

Charlotte(locallyadministered) 3 11 14

Mountains

Henderson County(Asheville Office) 11 4 15

BuncombeCounty(locallyadministered) 4 10 14

Boone(locallyadministered) 5 6 11

Totals

StateTotals 27 17 44

LocalTotals

Residential

29 55 84

56

Non-residential 72

GrandTotalofConstructionSites 128

evaluation ofits erosion

and

sedimentation control plan,

on-siteobservations of erosion

and

sedimentation control

measuresas installed

and

maintained,

and

observations of

off-sitesedimentpollution.

We

gatheredadditional

infor-mation

aboutthe projects

from

amail surveyof theprojects'

owners and

developers.

We

received103responses, provid-ingdata

on

thedevelopers of

80

percent ofthe128projects.

To

provide a broader perspective

on

the program,

we

surveyed by mail the

Boone (WataugaCo.) Local

CatawbaCo.

State

Greenville

(PittCo.) Local

BuncombeCo.

Local

Counties

Comprising

the

9

Locales

and

128

Projects

Included

in

the

Sample.

Wayne/Lenoir Co.

State

NewHanover Co.

Local

administrators of all

sevenstate regional of-fices

and

27 of the 37

cities

and

countieswith

localprograms.

We

also

conducted

a telephone

surveyofthe

represen-tativesof variousgroups

interested in the

pro-gram.

The

survey of

interest

group

repre-sentativescovered 33

or-ganizations, including

oversightgroups suchas the

N.C

General

Assem-bly

and

N.C.

Sedimen-tationControl

Commis-sion, professional

groups,tradegroups,and environmental groups.

These

structured

inter-views

probed

people's

strengths

and

weaknesses ofthe

program and

their recom-mendationsfor

improvement.

Finally,

we

conductedamail surveytodetermine

North

Carolinacitizens'willingness to

pay for the program.

We

obtained responses

from

319 households surveyed in three metropolitan

areas-Bun-combe

County, representing the mountains;

Durham

County,

representing the piedmont;

and

New

Hanover

County,

representing the coast

and

coastalplain.

In combination, thedata collected for this evaluation

providethe

most comprehensive

set ofinformation ever

assembled about the

performance

of urban erosion

and

sedimentationcontrolin anystate.

These

data providea

sound

basis infact

and

inopinion with

which

toevaluate the

program and

tosuggestimprovements.

Slippage

at

Stage

One:

Coverage

of

the Eligible

Population

SlippageatStage

One

addresses casesin

which

builders

do

notsubmit erosion

and

sedimentationcontrolplans or

obtain approval of those plans before proceeding with

clearing, grading,

and

construction of projects over

one

acreinsize.

About

25 percent oftheconstruction projects regulatedbythestate

and

about 10 percent of those

regu-latedbylocal

programs

which

were

inviolationofthelaw

were

initiallydetectedthroughsurveillance

and

follow-ups

to citizens'complaints.

They

didnot

come

totheattention

ofagenciesthrough

normal

channels. Sinceneitherstate

agencies norlocal

governments

devoted

much

time-less

than10percentofavailablepersonnel-togeneral

surveil-lancetodetect land disturbingactivitiestaking place

with-out

approved

erosion

and

sedimentationcontrolplans,the

data suggest to us that slippage here could be serious,

particularlyinareasof

North

Carolina

where

the

program

isadministered bythestate.

Slippage

at

Stage

Two:

Preparation of

Technically

Adequate

Erosion

and

Sedimentation Control Plans

The

erosion

and

sedimentation control

program

does

not prescribe

most

of the specific measures developers

must employ

toprevent erosion

and

retainsedimentwithin the

bounds

oftheir projects. Instead, it relies

on

perfor-mance

standards thatdevelopers

must

meet

by preparing and

implementing

uniqueplansforevery constructionsite.

Stage

two

slippage can occur if those plans,

which

are

approved

bystate

and

localregulators,havetechnical defi-ciencies.

Even

ifperfectly implemented, they

would

not preventsediment

from

leaving the constructionsite.

Interviewswith plan reviewstaffindicated that serious deficienciesinthe quality of plans

when

firstsubmitted by

developers

and

theirengineeringconsultants are the rule ratherthanthe exception.

Even

after staffreview

and

the

correction of plan deficiencies,

we

found that

approved

planscouldstillhavea varietyofshortcomings.

The

most

frequent

problems

noted

on

control plans

were

those

al-lowing drainageareas thatexceededthe capacityofcontrol

devices, leading to hydraulically overloadeddevices,

and

over-reliance

on

siltfences.Furthermore,

we

inspected the

performance

ofthe plans in the field

and

found that 27 percent ofthe

sample

projects

had

lostsediment because

plans failed tospecifythe

placement

ofsedimentcontrol

deviceseverywherethey

were

needed.

To

further evaluate the overall

adequacy

of control

plans,

we

developed systematic ratings ofeach ofthe 128

controlplans.

The

rating scaleforthe plansranged

from

to 100,witha ratingof100representing aplan

which

ade-quatelyhandledallofthesediment generated

on

site.

The

meaning

ofthe ratingsisasfollows:

Rating Description 100-90 Excellent

90-80

Good

80-70 Satisfactory

70-0 Unsatisfactory

The

ratings

were

calculated by startingwith a perfect scoreof100

and

subtracting pointsforeach time anaspect

of sediment control

was

not adequately handled.

Bonus

points

were

given to plans

which

included exceptional

notesto thecontractorconcerningspecificgrading

prob-lems.

The

followinglist indicatesthe areasofinadequacy

and

theircorrespondingadditions

and

deductions.

Area

of

Inadequacy

Points RelatingtoNotes:

Vagueness:"Siltfenceplaced

where

necessary" ....-20

No

statedorder of construction -10

Lack

ofclarityof notes -15

Incomplete or missingdetails -15 Relatingtoplandrawings:

Perimeterpointnottreated -10

Constructionexitnot

shown

-10

Water

escapessitewithout

encounteringany

measure

-20

Basinsortrapsaretoosmall -15

Bonus

points:

Notes concerning grading

+5

Note

to

minimize

time ofexposure

+5

Note

to

minimize

disturbed area

+5

We

foundthatthequalityof

approved

control plans

was

on

averagesatisfactory-theaveragescoreforall128 proj-ects

was

75-but

the quality ofplans variedsignificantly

among

theninelocales

we

studied.

The

scoresrangedfrom

alow of 57toahigh of89.

On

average,the qualityofplans

submittedtoandapproved bystateregionalagenciesscored

adequatetoolsforenforcement These

problems

particularly plague state

administration oftheprogram. Five of seven state regional offices

had

only

enough

staffto inspect construc-tion sites

once

a

month

or less

fre-quentlytoensurethatrequired

meas-ures

were

installed

and

maintained,

and

to

work

cooperativelywith

de-velopers to correct

problems

(see

Figure 1). Incontrast, only 19 per-cent ofthe local

programs

we

con-tactedinspectedconstruction

once

a

month

or less frequently,

and

44 percent inspected sites

more

often

than monthly. Reflecting those

dif-ferences,

we

founda

somewhat

higher

proportion ofsitesregulatedbylocal

programs

thanstateregionaloffices,

40

percentversus

30

percent,tobein

complete compliance

with

approved

plans.

Badpractice:Thisretainingwallandassociatedsillfencesfailed,allowing waterandsoiltoseep through. _Neither

State nor local

DrOPrams

quality ofplans

approved

by local agenciesnotto differ- P ursued

enforcement

vigorously during the year of

pro-ences in the proficiency of their respective staffs-state g

ram

operation

we

studied,possiblybecause ofapending

staff, infact,tended to

be

more

highlytrained-buttothe court case thatquestioned thelegalityoffines

imposed

for

fact that local agencies,

on

average, spenttwice as

much

time per plan

on

plan review as did the state's regional

offices.

Slippage

at

Stage Three:

Installation

of

Measures

Specified

by

Approved

Plans

Even good

control planswillfailtoprevent erosion

and

sediment pollution ifthe

measures

they specify are never

installed.

The

fieldinspections

we

conductedat 128

con-struction sitesrevealed that on-site

compliance

with

con-trol plans

was

poor; 30 percent of

measures

specified in

plans

were

neverinstalledatthe constructionsites. It

was

theexceptionratherthanthe rule to findallofthe control

measuresspecified

on approved

plans actuallyinstalled.

Contractors have

an

economic

incentive not to install

required

measures

iftheirviolationsofthelawarelikelyto

goundetected

and

unpunished.

We

estimatedthe costsof

implementing

each ofthe 128control plans

we

reviewed.

On

average,full

compliance

withthe plans

would

havecost

S2,700peracreoralmost $18,000for theaverage of6.64

acresofdisturbed areaperproject.

Because

ofincomplete

installationof requiredcontrol

measures

theaveragecosts actuallyincurred

were

S1500 peracreor $9,960perproject.

Thus, developers or their grading contractors saved an average of

$1200

peracre,almost

$8000

fora typical

proj-ect, by not

complying

fullywith the specifications ofthe

control plans. Slippage ofthat

magnitude

occurred

be-causeof lackof adequate stafftoinspectsites

and

lackof

Inspection

Frequency

State and LocalPrograms

Percent of Offices/Programs 100

80

60

40

20

>Weekly Weekly >Monthly Monthly <Monthly Frequency of Inspection

State Offices KWNWNLocalPrograms

noncompliance

withprovisionsofthelaw.3

During

thelast

year ofrecord, state

and

local sediment control officers

conducted over 57,000 inspections ofconstruction sites,

but they issuedonly1,655formalnoticesofviolation.

Only

182finesweresubsequentlyimposed,astrikinglylow

number

given thedegree of

noncompliance

we

foundinthefield.

State administrators also lack a full

complement

of

enforcementtools,since unlikelocalprograms,thestateis

notauthorized to issue stop

work

orders. Since "timeis

money"

todevelopers,stop

work

orders are a formidable

incentivetocomply; therefore,the state's inabilitytouse

thisdeviceisaserious constraint

on

regulatoryefficiency. Injunctions,the alternative available tothestate,are

cumber-some

legally

and

takeconsiderable

time-a

month

or

more

-to

employ

(and time is critical in preventing sediment damage).

As

a result, injunctions

were

rarelysoughtby

either state or local programs. Additionally, the state

cannotrequire developers topost

performance

bonds

or

lettersofcredit;thus,ifadeveloperceasesoperation,funds

may

notbeavailableto

complete

permanent

stabilization

ofthesitetoprevent erosion

and

sedimentationpollution.

Slippage

at

Stage

Four:

Maintenance

of

Measures

Installed

Shortfalls ininspection

and

enforcementalso

contrib-uted toslippage inmaintenance. Thisacritical problem,

since failuretorepair

damaged

oroverloadedcontrol devices

can allowsedimenttoescape

from

constructionsites.

For

bothstate

and

localjurisdictions,

we

foundthat51 percent

of controlmeasureswerenot adequately maintained.

Fewer

than

one

in fiveofthe 128constructionsites

we

inspected

hadall ofits sediment control measures in full

working

order. Typical

maintenance

shortfalls included

problems

suchas failing to

muck

outtraps

when

they

became

more

thanhalffull,failuretoreplacesiltfencingor stormdrain

inletprotection devices thathad been

knocked down, and

failure to repair gravel filters that

had been

damaged

by

constructionactivities orstorm events.

Those and

other

maintenancedeficienciesareillustratedbyFigure2,

which

shows

thepercentage of each ofthe ten

most

widely used

erosion

and

sediment control measures that

were

not

maintained adequately at the 128 construction sites

we

inspected.

The Bottom

Line:

Attainment

of

Program

Goals

As

a result of the technical deficiencies in plans

and

failures to install

and

adequately maintain erosion

and

sediment control measures specified in plans, the

North

Carolina erosion

and

sedimentationcontrol

program

isnot

iully achieving the goals set forth in the Sedimentation

PollutionControl Act.

Here

we

draw

upon

field

inspec-tionsof constructionprojects,agencyadministrators'

evalu-Maintenance

Compliance

for

Ten

Most

Widely

Used

Measures

Measures in Orderof Use

Inletprotection

Sedimenttrap

Silt fence Drainage ditch

Velocity dissipator

Construction exit

Sediment basin

Filterberm Berm Check dam

20 40 60 80 100 PercentMaintained

Figure2.

ations,

and

interest

group

evaluations tosupportthat as-sertion.

The

primarygoalofthe SedimentationPollution

Con-trol

Act

isto

keep

sedimentpollution withinthe

bounda-ries of construction projects. This

bottom

line goal

was

attainedcompletelyat

39

percent ofthe constructionsites

we

inspected.

The

factthat lessthanhalfofthe construc-tion sites

complied

with the program's key

performance

standard-retention of sediment

on

the site-reflects the

inherent infeasibility

and

inefficiency of preventing all

sediment

from

reaching water bodies. Part of the

sedi-mentation

problem

obviously cannot or, for

economic

reasons, should not be prevented

from

occurring.

For

example,

some

particles are too fine to

be

captured in

entrapment

devices. Inrecognitionofthatfact,

we

distin-guished

between

minor

lossesofsediment(lessthanthirty

cubicfeet)

and major

losses (lossesofthirtycubicfeetor more, orlossesofany

magnitude

directlyintostreams

and

otherwaterbodies).

We

found

seriouslossesofsediment

at33 percent ofthe constructionsites

we

inspected.

Ap-proximatelyone-thirdofsites regulatedby both state

re-gionaloffices

and

local

programs

experienced

major

losses

ofsediment.

However,

ahigher percentage of state-regu-latedconstructionsitesthan constructionsitesregulatedby

local

programs

(41percentversus22percent)experienced

each ofthe stagesofthe control process

we

examined.

As

afinal

way

of gaugingthe

performance

oftheerosion

and

sedimentation control program,

we

asked

program

administrators

and

the

group

representatives

we

consulted

toratethe

program

interms ofits

accomplishment

of

two

keygoals: protection ofwater quality

and

prevention of sediment

damage

to property adjacent to construction

sites.

The

followingpercentagesrated

program

perform-anceasexcellentor good:

Table2. Percent Rating

Performance

as

Excellentor

Good

Protection of Preventionof

WaterQuality SedimentDamage

Staleadministrators

29%

(n

=

7)

Local administrators

63%

(n=27)

Legislators

0%

(n=5)

Sedimentation ControlCommission

50%

(n

=

₈₎

Professionalgroups

38%

(n= 13)

Trade groups

27%

(n = 11/10)

Environmental groups

11%

(n = 18)

43%

74%

0%

63%

46%

30%

11%

Those

figures,

we

believe, reflectratherwidespread

rec-ognitionofthe slippage incontrol

which

we

foundinthe

field

and

document

in thisarticle. Until that slippage is

corrected,

we

do

not believe the

program

will be able to

achieve consistently high

performance

ratings

from

either

program

administrators or groups interested in

and

af-fectedbyitsoperation.

Policy

Options

for

Improving

Program

Performance

There

are a

number

ofwaysto

improve

the

performance

of the

North

Carolina Erosion

and

Sedimentation Control

Program.

Those

that

we

thinkhave

some

merit

and

deserve

further analysis arepresented hereforeach ofthe stagesof

the

program

where

slippage

was

detected.

Readers

should be

aware

that these are presented as ideas for further discussion

and

analysis;

we

have not analyzed

them

interms

of eithertheircost-effectivenessorfeasibility. Thus,

we

put

them

forwardtostimulate discussion

and

additional policy

analysis

and

notasasetofpolicy

recommendations.

StageOne: FailureofEligible

Land

Disturbersto

Submit

and

ObtainApproval ofControlPlans

PriortoClearing, Grading,

and

Construction

A

1981 evaluation ofthe

North

Carolina Erosion

and

Sedimentation Control

program

sponsored by the

Uni-versityof

North

Carolina

Water

Resources Research

Insti-tuteestimatedthatfullyhalfofallland disturbingactivities

occurring at that time

were

not being captured by the

program.

By

1990,

we

estimatethatstage

one

failurehad

fallentoabout 10to20 percent oftheeligiblepopulation, a significant

improvement

over the

decade

ofthe 1980s.

Improved

program

coverage

may

reflectgreaterpublic

and

industryawarenessaswellas theeffectof1988 legislative

amendments

that prohibitissuanceofbuildingpermitsto

projects that are eligible for erosion

and

sedimentation

control

program

coverage buthave not obtained approval

oftheirerosion

and

sedimentcontrolplans.

While

progresshas

been made,

inour opinion, coverage ofthe eligible population isstill too low.

The

following

policyoptions addressthatproblem:

1. Increasepromotionalactivitiesto attainpublic

aware-nessoftheprogram. Consider establishment ofa

1-800-Sediment

Control Hotline

and

theuseofstreamwatch

programs

to

supplement

agencysurveillance.

2. Increase

program

funding ofsurveillanceactivities,

in-cluding ground-level surveillance

and

aerial surveillance.

3.

Enhance

intergovernmental cooperationinsurveillance

bytraininginspectors associatedwith other

programs

so that theycandetect

and

report violationsofthelaw.

4. Incorporatethe

emerging

technology of geographic

in-formation systems(GIS)inthe detectionandsurveillance

functions.

Stage Two: TechnicalInadequacy of Approved

Erosion

and

SedimentControlPlans

A

varietyoffactorscontributetothe qualityofthe ero-sion

and

sediment control plans

we

inspected.

For

ex-ample,

when

agencies areoverloaded withplanssubmitted

for review,

some

control plans are

approved

by default

when

the 30-day time limit for completion of agency

re-views is exceeded.

Overburdened

agency personnel find

that theyhave inadequate timetocheckallhydraulic

calcu-lations,particularly

when

the originalplan submittedis es-pecially rudimentary. Inaccurate topographic

maps

are

another source of problems. Ideally,planreviewersshould

visit

proposed

construction sites to check topographic accuracy

and

tohold preplan conceptual conferences with plandesigners;however,

program

staff inonlyafew ofthe

locales

we

visited

had

time for that. In addition,

many

agencyadministrators

and

planreviewers strongly believe

inthe

need

to

improve

the qualityofthecontrol plans

on

initialsubmission,

which

will require incentivesfor

devel-opersto invest inbetterplans.

The

problem

of control plan

adequacy

also raises a

fundamentally important question concerning the

pro-gram's performance-standard rather than

specification-standardorientation.

Performance

standardsaremarkedly

more

difficult toadminister thanspecification standards.

effec-Goodpractice:

A

slopedrain,anchoredin rip-rap,channels run-offlowhereitwon'terodethe slope.

tivenessofvariouserosion

and

sedimentcontrol

measures

becomes

more

certain,it

may

befeasible toswitch to

more

easily administered specification standards.

That would

ensurethatcontrolplans incorporateadequatemeasures based

on

availabletechnicalinformation

and

practical

ex-perience,

and

it

would

make

controlplandesign,

perform-ance,

and

costs

more

predictable and,

we

think, the

pro-gram

more

effective. Inthe

meantime,

we

believeeachof

the following policy options will

contribute to

improvement

in the

qualityof plans

preparedand

submit-ted forapproval.

1. Establishanerosionand sediment

control design certification

pro-gram

thatallcontrolplan

design-ersare requiredtocomplete.

2. Establish erosion

and

sediment

control plansubmissionstandards

to set a baseline that all plans

mustmeetbefore they areaccepted

for review.

Those

criteria could

include use of base

maps

with

adequate topographicdetail,

de-lineation of

proposed

clearing

limits, inclusion of the expected grading

and

construction

sched-ule, details

on

temporary stabil-ization measures, the

proposed

erosion

and

sediment control

measures withassociated hydrau-liccalculationsforrunoff directed

toward devices, precautions for

critical areas, sequencing of

in-stallation

and removal

ofcontrol

measures,

maintenance

schedul-ing,

and

procedures for final

sta-bilization.

3. Establish erosion

and

sediment

control plan re-submittalfees to

create an

economic

disincentive

for submission of low quality controlplans.

4. Increasestaffingsothat

more

time

canbe givento plans duringthe

review

and

approvalprocess. That

also

would

allow

more

preplan submissionconferences. Possible

waystoincreasereview personnel

include: (1)increasefunding for

permanent

plan reviewpositions

at the state

and

local levels; ₍₂₎

cross-train inspection personnel

and

planreviewers,so personnel

canbeshiftedaccordingtoplansubmission

and

moni-toring/enforcement

demands;

and

(3) allocate

inter-agency or departmental personneltoplan reviewtasks

during

peak

control plan reviewperiods in latespring

and

summer.

5.

Change

the orientation ofplan preparation

from

per-formance

standards tospecification standardsto help

ensure greater consistency

and

reliability in control

Badpractice:

A

rip-rapchannel,designedtofilterout sediment,isineffectivebecauseatrap failed,allowing water

plandesign. Thiswilltakeadvantageofavailable knowl-edge about

what

willwork,ratherthanwaitingtoseeif questionabledesignswillfailinthe field.

Stages Three

and

Four: FailuretoInstall

and

MaintainErosion

and

SedimentControlMeasures AccordingtotheApprovedControlPlan

We

believeincreased attention tothree setsoffactors

may

improve performance

of the

program

by reducing

slippageatstagesthree

and

four: (1)

measures

tostimulate

voluntarycompliance;(2)

measures

to

enhance

theability

ofagency personneltousepersuasioneffectively;

and

(3)

measuresto

make

sanctions against persistent violatorsof

thelaw

more

effective.

To

enhancevoluntarycompliance:

1. Establish greateruniformity in erosion

and

sediment

controlstandards withinregionsoracross thestate to

reducevariation inexpectations

from

one

jurisdiction

toanother.

When

standardsdiffer

from

one

jurisdiction

tothenext,developerscan

become

confused

and

unsure about whatisconsideredadequate

performance,particularlyin terms

ofmaintenance. Greater

uniform-ity

would

easethat difficulty

and

was

favored by

most

developers

and

inspectors

we

contacted.

2. Increase technical assistance to

increase developers'

and

grading

contractors'understanding

and

ap-preciationofthe rationalefor

and

legitimacyof

program

goals

and

procedures.

We

foundthat

when

developers perceived the

pro-gram's goals as legitimate, they

were

more

likely to

comply

with

program

requirements.

To

enhance agencypersuasive

capacity:

1. Increasefundingfor stateregional

offices,so thatadequate

person-nelcanbehiredtopursuea

coop-erativeenforcementstrategy.

The

cooperative

approach

to

enforce-ment

relies

on

theestablishment ofclose

working

rela-tionshipsbetween the regulatorandtheregulated,which over time results in

mutual

trust

and

confidence. It

relies

on

the

background

threatofsanctions,butfocuses

on

persuasion

and

bargaining in

which

enforcement

officers

and

theregulatedwilleach

make

small

adjust-ments

to reflectthe other'sinterests

and

pointsofview.

We

foundthat acooperative

approach

toenforcement

produced

much

betterresultsthan

one

thatreliedsolely

on

the threatofsanctionstoobtaincompliance.

The

state has

had

particulardifficultyestablishing a

co-operative

environment

for

enforcement

due

to a

heavy

work

load per inspector

and

the large geo-graphicareas for

which

inspectors are responsible.

For

thecooperative

approach

to

work

well forthe

state,inspectors

must

visitthesitesof landdisturbing

activities

more

frequently

and spend

more

time

on

eachsite.

2. Providestatefinancialassistanceto localprograms,

so that

more

personnel can

be

assigned to

surveil-lance

and

tocooperative enforcement.

Not

all

locali-tieshave adequatestaffingtopursueatruly

coopera-tiveapproach; moreover, financialassistancecould providetheimpetusfora greaterpercentage oflocal

governments

toestablishtheir

own

programs,

which

would

remove

some

ofthe

burden from

the

under-staffedstateregionaloffices.

3.

Make

preconstruction conferences a precondition

for finalapproval of

an

erosion

and

sedimentcontrol

plan.

Goodpractice:

A

well-designedsedimentpondincludesavertical riserandtrashguard.

4. Increasestate effortsto train state

and

local

inspec-tors in cooperative

enforcement

strategies. That

training should

emphasize

the importance of

one-on-one

discussions with developers

and

grading

contractors,informal verbalwarnings prior to

for-mal

written noticesofviolation, the importance of

beingvisibleduringinspections,

and

conducting

on-sitediscussionsduringvisitsto

monitor

construction

To

enhance agencydeterrencecapacity:

1. Authorize state sediment control officers to use stop

work

orders

where

verbal

and

written notices of

non-compliance have

been

ignored.

The

effectivenessofa

cooperative

approach

toenforcementiscontingent

on

having enforcement sanctions that are quick, certain,

andpotentiallycostly topersistent violators

who

do

not

takeremedialaction followingsuchnotices.

2. Authorize the state to require

performance bonds

or

lettersofcredit forallland disturbancescovered bythe

program.

The

stop

work

order is effective

on

active projects;however,itisof

no

use

on

projects

where

the developerhasfiledforbankruptcy or

where

landisleft idleforan extendedperiod of time. Financial perform-ance guarantees cover suchcontingencies.

3. Provide enablinglegislation tohavecertificatesof occu-pancy withheld

on

allconstruction projectsuntilagency personnel verify that all necessary final stabilization

steps have

been

taken. This check-off requirement

ensuresthatfinalcomplianceisobtainedbefore devel-opers

become

disassociatedwithprojects.

4. Increase legal assistance

from

state attorneys for

en-forcement ofcases. Inspectors

may

holdback

from

vig-orousenforcementiftheyperceivethat legalsupportis

orwillbeinadequate. Sincevirtuallyallof the available

sanctions

now

available to state regional agencies

re-quire legal intervention, that perception can createa

serioushindrancetoenforcement.

Citizens'

Willingness

to

Pay

for

the

Program

As

theprecedinglistssuggest,there are

number

ofways

theslippage

we

found inthe

North

Carolina erosion

and

sedimentationcontrol

program

can bereversed sothatitis

moreeffectiveinhaltingsedimentpollution.

Mostof

those

policyoptionswillrequire additionalstateappropriations

tothisprogram.

Our

survey of

North

Carolina households

indicatedthatpeopleinthestatevaluethe

program

highly

andarewilling topayfar

more

thanstale

and

local govern-mentscurrently

spend

on

itsoperation.

Inrecentyears,thestate of

North

Carolinahas

appropri-atedapproximately $2million peryearfortheurban ero-sion

and

sedimentationcontrolprogram,

and

we

estimate

that altogether the thirty-seven local

governments

with

programs spend

between

$1.5

and

$3 millon peryear. In contrast, our survey data indicate that the residents of metropolitancountiesin

North

Carolinaare willingtopay approximately $44 million for the erosion and sediment

controlprogram. Thus,the

program

produces

what

econo-miststerma

consumer

surplusofabout$40million

annu-ally.

Some

ofthat surplus,

we

think,couldwell

be

devoted

toimproving

program

performance. In thisarticle,we've

documented

the degree to

which

the

program

has fallen

shortofits goal to control

urban

erosion

and

sedimenta-tion,

and

we've suggested a

number

ofpolicy optionsfor

further analysis

and

actionbystate policymakers.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorsgratefullyacknowledgethesupportof theNorthCarolina

Sedimentation ControlCommissionandtheLandQuality Section, Divi-sionofLand Resources, North Carolina DepartmentofEnvironment, HealthandNaturalResources,which providedfinancialsupportforthe

workreported in this article.

We

would also like toacknowledgethe assistanceofJoseCabralandMaureenHeraty, studentsinthe

Depart-mentof Cityand RegionalPlanning,whohelpedwithfieldworkanddata

analysis.

Endnotes

1. Themost ambitiousstateprograms have beenputinplaceineight states:Delaware,Florida,Georgia,Maryland, Michigan,

New

Hamp-shire,NorthCarolina,andVirginia.Thosestateshavea

comprehen-sive, statewideprogram thateither requireslocal governments to

adoptregulations tostatestandards,ortheirequivalent,orallows

themtodosoinlieuofstateadministration ofstatestandards. One

additionalstate,

New

Jersey,also requireslocalgovernmenttoadopt programs,but withoutasupplementarytactofdirect state-level ad-ministration. Thoseninestates thatapprovelocal programs have

authoritytoemploysanctions,suchaspowertorescind thelocal

pro-gramorwithholdstate aid, toobtaincomplianceoflocalgovernments, andtheyactivelymonitorlocalgovernment performance,including

makingon-sitevisitsandrequiring written reports. Florida,Maryland, NorthCarolina,andVirginiamatchastringent regulatoryapproach

with asignificantcommitmentofstateresources toerosionaand

sedi-mentationcontrol,an averageof twenty-sevenpersonsperstate. In

theremaining stateswithstrongprograms (and eachof the twelve

stateswithweaker programs)statesseem much lesscommitted to

erosionand sedimentationcontrol,sincestatepersonnel resources

averagelessthan threepersonsperstate.

2.

A

reportonthefullfindings,Evaluation ofNorthCarolina

Sedimenta-tion ControlProgram, VolumesOneandTwo, isavailablefromthe

LandQuality Section, Division ofLandResources,NorthCarolina

Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, ArchdaleBuilding,512 NorthSalisburyStreet,Raleigh,

NC

27611-7687.

3. Inthat case,Harris-Hallappealeda$4,200fineassessedfor violation

oftheSedimentationPollutionControlAct.

A

superior court vacated thepenalty as "arisingfromalegislativegrantofjudicialpower, pro-hibitedby Article IV, Section 3 of theNorthCarolina Constitution."

That 1988judgment wasreversedbytheN.C.SupremeCourtin1989, but while theSupremeCourt's decisionwaspending, the casecast a

cloudoverthelegalityof theprogram'senforcement proceduresthat,

accordingtostateprogramadministrators,mayhaveled field

inspec-tors toshyawayfrom enforcementactions. (In reAppealfromthecivil

penalty assessed forviolationsof SedimentationPollutionControlAct,

92 N.C. App.1,373S.E.2d 572,disc. rev.allowed,323 N.C.625,374

S.E.2d873(1988), rev'dandremanded,324 N.C.373,379S.E.2d 30