One method of soil stabilization is the use of mats. Several of these mats are made of a range of fibers deigned to disappear over time.  The fact that they are green is a blessing to the environment for when we wish to transform the landscape it could be very challenging to release that dirt if the mats were still 100% intact, yet several mats are planned to do that.

Erosion mats can be completed of coconut, strands of wood, straw, artificial fibers, concrete plus lots of other resources. They are prepared to suit the objective of the mission. If you are using them on abrupt slopes wherever there will be a long period previous to the plant life taking root, you will need a mat that will stay fresh much longer than if you are in an section that is prone to fast development. Certain cases may just require a short stabilization therefore the material might be a simple straw product rather than an elaborate blend of dissolving fibers.

The mats may be ordered in rolls of a number of lengths. Mats are just un-rolled into position and then you will need to fasten them down so that they will not float or blow away while the vegetation is taking root. It will be a time intense procedure but when your crew is skilled, you may progress through it rather quick.

Mats are defiantly beneficial above no erosion control at all, but there are several additional options available if you don’t wish to bring into play all the gear and do all the staking. There is a watery alternative that’s in reality simpler and works better when considering water preservation.

The liquid type is an uncomplicated eco-friendly sealant that’s mixed together with water and sprayed on the spot of trouble. This sealant creates a thin un-noticeable skin on the surface that keeps the wind and water from hauling off the dirt. This crust will additionally help keep moisture in the soil so that the plant life will have more moisture to extract from without the need for additional watering. Regularly seeds are added to the sealant thus the erosion control product and the long term erosion control plants are positioned at the identical time.

These liquid soil stabilizers have been used for many years in the soils business in addition to industries where erosion, stabilization and constraint of dust are issues. So previous to starting your erosion control plan you should consider your alternatives with regards to erosion control products and be sure to scrutinize both mats and fluid choices.

According to a recent DEQ public notice, the new category is being proposed to encourage the use of bioengineering to stabilize the shorelines of inland lakes.

"These practices — also known as ‘soft’ or ‘green’ engineering — are intended to prevent or control soil erosion and to restore native shorelines while protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and other nature features associated with the lake," the notice states.
Bioengineering involves the use of a combination of native plants and natural or biodegradable materials to engineer shoreline protection that mimics, to the best extent possible, or enhances the natural shoreline.

"The DEQ has the ability to propose minor project categories that are permit categories that qualify for an expedited or accelerated review process," said John Skubinna, an environmental quality analyst with the DEQ. "The Land and Water Management Division of the DEQ is the agency that reviews and issues permit for construction around the shoreline of a lake. They recently proposed a new minor project category for bioengineering construction. That proposed category went out on public notice for comment in June. That period ended in August and, based on those comments, a decision will be made on whether to create that new category and put it in use later this fall."

Skubinna said under the proposed minor project category, a project that uses native plant material or biodegradable structures may be able to qualify for that minor project category.

"The intent is that those projects are the types of projects that would re-establish a more natural looking shoreline as opposed to seawalls or lawns right up to the shoreline," he said. "The change that they are proposing is to simply add another option for expedited review."

That means those riparians who want to use biodegradable materials and native plants to stabilize their shorelines can have their permit applications reviewed faster than applications for other permits.

According to Skubinna, bioengineered shorelines can be more beneficial in some situations, but it really depends on the property.
"The DEQ isn’t recommending one method over another — they are just allowing for the opportunity for those interested in bioengineering to use that through the expedited process. This might encourage people to use these methods because it’s an expedited process, but whether or not that type of construction is recommended really depends on the circumstances at each property."
"The specific practices included in this general permit are not recommended as the sole means of correcting existing erosion problems where wind and wave energy are excessive, or where eroded banks exceed 3 feet in height," The DEQ public notice states.

Bioengineering, according to the proposal, will be suitable for habitat enhancement, prevention of erosion problems, or to stabilize eroding banks at locations where the longest unobstructed distance across the lake from the proposed project site is less than 1 mile; the proposed project site is not adjacent to a heavily used boating access point or marina; the proposed project site is not located on an unprotected point, headland or island where erosive forces are high; and at other locations dependent upon site specific conditions.
The new general permit category wouldn’t be applicable to the Great Lakes shorelines, streams or rivers, as they do not meet the criteria. In addition, it wouldn’t be applicable to inland lakes where shorelines are stable, and where natural wetland habitat would be degraded by installation of the structures.

The issuance of one of the new permits would be authorized by the DEQ’s Land and Water Management Division for activities that are similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will only have minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment, according to the DEQ proposal.

The Land and Water Management Division can also impose addition site specific conditions as needed if the conditions are designed to remove an impairment to the lake, to mitigate the impact of a project, or to otherwise restore or rehabilitate a lake. The division can also establish a reasonable time when the proposed bioengineering project is to be completed or terminated.

In order to receive one of the proposed permits, a person must submit a permit application on a form provided by the DEQ and include the required information. The Land and Water Management Division will then review the application and determine whether the conditions and limitations of the general permit are met. The DEQ can then issue, deny or impose conditions on project activities authorized under one of the permits. The permit applicant will then receive written authorization or other response to the application.
Under the expedited process, if it’s determined that an application doesn’t meet all of the general permit criteria, the project may be subjected to public review.

According to the DEQ proposal, a property owner may request authorization under a general permit to install and maintain the following bioengineering practices on an inland lake as necessary to prevent or control erosion, provided that the proposed activity meets the specified limitations and conditions:

• Placement of biological erosion control structures, including but not limited to fiber rolls, fiber mats, live stakes, brush mattresses, brush bundles, and plantings of native vegetation;

• Limited placement of natural stone or rock rip rap, covering no more than 25 percent of the shoreline and allowing for the free growth of plants, may be used if necessary to stabilize biological materials. Stone used for this purpose shall range from 4 to 8 inches in diameter, and shall not be placed below the water’s edge;

• Temporary placement of fiber rolls or similar materials to serve as wave breaks or barriers placed not more than 5 feet from the existing shoreline, to facilitate establishment of biological control structures or plantings. Temporary wave breaks must be constructed of and anchored with materials that are 100 percent biodegradable; and

• Maintenance of previously authorized bioengineering structures.

There are also several limitations and conditions that must be met.

The DEQ proposal states authorization for these projects is limited to 300 linear feet of shoreline per project. The bioengineered shoreline protection structures authorized can’t be utilized where the top of the bank is more than 3 feet above the ordinary high water mark of the lake.

In addition, vegetation, including plantings and other potentially viable materials like live stakes, brush bundles, or other gathered woody material, can only be comprised of plant species that are considered native according to the Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Categories and Examples of Computer Applications for the State of Michigan. Engineered materials, like jute and coconut fabric, must be comprised of inert plant fiber that may be non-native.

Excavation and backfill must be authorized under the permit only to the extent necessary to stabilize slopes and to place bioengineering structures. Alteration of the natural contours of the lake shoreline or expansion of beach areas will not be authorized. Excavation or fill below the water’s edge will be authorized only to support the re-establishment of native vegetation, to install temporary wave breaks, or to restore and stabilize a severely eroded bank, the DEQ proposal states.

All material used must be firmly staked and secured using biodegradable materials to prevent movement due to wind, waves, high water or ice. To prevent erosion and any potential siltation to surface water or wetlands, all raw areas resulting from the authorized construction are required to be stabilized with native plant materials or other technology.

Other limitations include that a permit wouldn’t be authorized to destroy or alter areas of existing native wetland or aquatic vegetation; it wouldn’t be authorized for activities that may have an adverse impact on state- or federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their habitats; and the permit wouldn’t be applicable in a state- or federally-designated wilderness or environmental area, or in an identified historic or archeological area.

To help educated riparians on new bioengineering options, Scott Brown, executive director of Michigan Lake and Stream Associations (MLSA), said the MLSA, the DEQ and Michigan State University Extension have teamed up to launch an educational campaign called the Michigan Natural Shoreline Partnership. It involves offering classes to ensure landscapers and others interested in making a business in bioengineering are properly trained in bioengineering for inland lake shoreline stabilization.

"We have been a proactive advocate for both preserving natural shorelines, and restoring shorelines that have been altered," Brown said. "In terms of the inland lake fishery, in terms of erosion, in terms of lake ecosystem health — it’s the best thing a riparian property owner can do. The bioengineering method also provides a nice buffer against nutrients between riparian property and the inland lake."

The DEQ-led partnership’s mission is to develop more lakeshore-friendly alternatives to seawalls for riparian property owners, according to Brown.

"We have quite a few organizations involved in this," he said. "The first goal is to train and certify people to do this type of restoration. Right now the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, another partner in the project, isn’t very comfortable working so close to the shoreline. They are comfortable working in conventional landscaping situations but not at the water’s edge. Our first goal is to develop a training and certification program for landscapers so that they can become more comfortable and offer more services at the lakeshore for riparians."

According to Brown, the course material is being developed and the first course will be held within the next year.
"Once these people get certified they will have a lot better idea of bioengineering techniques and know the materials and types of plants that can be used successfully to restore inland lake shorelines," he said. "The partnership is relatively new but our second goal is to make riparians aware that there are now a lot more effective, attractive and affordable ways to deal with shorelines than just building a seawall."

Brown said seawalls can be very abrasive and disruptive to an inland lake ecosystem.

"A seawall totally disrupts the natural geometry and physical make-up of a shoreline," he said. "What happens is all the little macroinvertebrates and insects that require natural shoreline habitat, that in turn support inland lake fisheries, can’t be sustained after seawalls are installed. We’ve seen a sever decline in inland lake fisheries as the installation of seawalls has gone on over the decades.

"The energy of the waves hitting the seawalls is deflected across the lake and shoreline — that much energy being deflected can really cause destruction," he said. "Seawalls destroy that natural transition from land to water. There is no woody debris for the insects to live in. The natural shoreline stabilization techniques would restore these natural characteristics that support inland lake ecosystems and fisheries."

http://www.oaklandlakefront.com/Articles-i-2009-10-01-71239.113117_DEQ_mulls_new_shore_stabilization_approach.html

The commissioners began planning the workshop last August.

“We do this kind of work every day,” Rock Springs Mayor Tim Kaumo said. “If we all come together, we can come up with a product that will meet the needs of our community.”

Opinions on how this might be accomplished vary. County Engineer John Radosevich envisions a crushed base surface, with a magnesium chloride treatment for dust control two or three times a year, depending on volume of use. Kaumo thinks milled up asphalt would work better.

This is the type of project SCI thrives on, by utilizing the soils that are native to the area we would be able to transform what is considered an unusable road into a very usable and manageable road for a fraction of the cost they are looking at spending. By the time this is published here we will have contacted the public workers regarding their options. dust Control is just another part of the benefit to using Top-Seal

Similarly, whether the 50-foot-wide easement the Wyoming Department of Transportation owns can accommodate a functional two-lane roadway raises more questions than answers. Beyond the customary 12-foot-wide lanes, Radosevich wants to see 16 feet on either side of the roadway for drainage ditches, which exceeds WYDOT’s easement by 6 feet. Additionally, given projected traffic volumes and the fact that, as Radosevich noted, “property develops once you have a road,”  he questioned the future utility of a road without shoulders or a turn-around lane.

But he doesn’t question the need.

Radosevich recalls the moment, at around 5 p.m. one year ago, when, returning to Rock Springs, and cresting one of the hills along the old road with about 30 cars behind him, he came headlight to headlight with a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction — also trailed by 30 cars.

“We couldn’t back down,” Radosevich recalled. “And the road wasn’t wide enough to pass. Two or three people trying to go around other cars had already slid off.”

Luckily 10 or 12 cars on one side of the hill were able to pull off the road onto an old sheepherder’s camp, loosening the flow of traffic enough to enable everyone to get home. But in the dead of winter an old sheepherder’s camp isn’t much fun, not to mention much of a refuge.

“Safety is going to drive the path forward,” Kaumo agreed. He and John Eddins, WYDOT Engineer for District 3, spent 3 hours on the old road during the most recent I-80 closure, monitoring traffic and “trying to make calls that made sense.”

One was to WYDOT, to issue a road closure for the route on which, by that time, dozens of motorists were stranded, including the now notorious U-Haul trailer. He and Eddins were in a 4-wheel drive truck and, Kaumo added, “it was iffy with that.”

“Whenever there’s a closure, I get out there if I can,” Eddins said.  Charged with maintaining I-80 between Rock Springs and Green River, he also noted that WYDOT is “not in a position to take over another route” and cautioned, “Everybody needs to be realistic about this.”
But WYDOT can assist with about $4 million in funding through the Industrial Roads Program, he said, and could also turn the easement over to the county, which would then assume responsibility for maintaining it.   

The Green River to Rock Springs Route Feasibility Study, completed by the Boulder group Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. late last year, proposed three different connector routes between the two cities, with price tags ranging from $26 million to $65 million, depending on location and materials used. Citing cost, projected use, and the few times per year the stretch of highway between the two cities is actually closed — roughly four — the group also called the need for an alternate roadway “questionable,” prompting Kaumo to describe  the study as “an action plan that called for no action.”

He said the one issue with some validity is that enabling people to travel a road creates some liability, which the county could alleviate with warning signs. Radosevich agreed that liability could be a problem, referring to what the feasibility study identifies as horizontal and vertical “design standards” — that is, the sharpness of curves and peaks — to which the old road does not conform.

He emphasized the need for speed limits to compensate for the nonconformities, and also noted the necessity for supports over the utility corridor that grew up along the old highway, to disperse the weight from increased volumes of traffic.  He also predicted that controlling access to the road would remain difficult, warning signs notwithstanding:

“When the interstate’s closed, you’re going to get truck drivers who’re willing to take the gamble.”

But neither he nor Kaumo see the old road’s renovation as, necessarily, a multimillion dollar project. Although in his opinion “less design means more maintenance”, Radosevich estimated that any needed right of ways could be acquired, ground soil testing and dirt work completed, gravel purchased and laid, and missing guard rails replaced for about $600,000 a mile, or $3-$5 million. Kaumo added that most of the work could be done in-house.

“A project like this doesn’t need to be bid out,” he said. “We may need to purchase road base and the like, but we can use our own employees and our own equipment to build it.”

Kaumo thinks a road that’s “safe and passable” could be completed by fall of next year.
“All we want to do is what makes sense,” he said. “This won’t be the finest road. But it will definitely get you home.”

Denver, Colo. - The International Erosion Control Association’s membership voted to re-elect Sandy Mathews and Brock Peters, CISEC to the 2010 Board of Directors. Joining Mathews and Peters to the 2010 Board of Directors is new board member Charles Riling, Jr.

Riling will begin his term in February alongside fellow Board members Mike Chase, CPESC, CPSWQ, CESSWI, Julie Etra, CPESC, Ron Faucher, CPESC, Philip Handley, REM, CPESC, Lee Johnson, CPESC, Sandy Mathews, Rick Morse, CPESC, CPSS, CEnvP, Brock Peters, CISEC, and Tom Williams, CPESC.

Sandy Mathews, is a Senior Scientist leading the Oakland, CA office of Larry Walker Associates.  Sandy joined IECA in 1996 and was recruited and elected to the Western Chapter Board in 2000. Mathews served two terms as Western Chapter Secretary and one as President prior to joining International Erosion Control Association’s Board of Directors in 2008.

Brock Peters, CISEC, is a professional erosion control contractor and consultant in Firth, NE, with over 30 years of progressive accomplishments in the construction industry. He currently serves on the Board of International Erosion Control Association’s Great Rivers Chapter. He also is serving his fourth term on the Board of Directors for the Homebuilders Association of Lincoln (Nebraska) and the Nebraska State Homebuilders Association. He also serves on the Environmental Issues Committee with the National Association of Homebuilders.

Charles Riling, is the Special Projects/Environmental Monitor for the West Virginia Division of Highways.  Charlie joined International Erosion Control Association and the Mid-Atlantic Chapter (MAC) in 1997.  He has been on the MAC Board of Directors since 1998 and held several offices, including President from 2006-2008.  Riling is the current chair of IECA’s Chapter Advisory Committee.

The IECA Board of Directors is made up of nine members, each serving a three year term.  Board positions will be decided at the Board meeting to be held at Environmental Connection 2010, International Erosion Control Association’s annual conference and expo, February 16-20, 2010, in Dallas, TX., USA.

ECA would like to thank outgoing Board of Directors member Mark Hunter, PE for his years of dedication and service to the association. As a member of the Board of Directors, Hunter has served on the Awards Committee, the Technology Section 2 (Stream Restoration) Committee and as the Co-Chair of the Save Our International Land (SOIL) Fund. Hunter has most recently held the position of Treasurer on the Board of Directors.

About International Erosion Control Association

The International Erosion Control Association (IECA) is the world’s oldest and largest association devoted entirely to helping members solve the problems caused by erosion and its byproduct – sediment. Founded in 1972, International Erosion Control Association is a non-profit organization that serves as the premier global resource for the prevention and control of erosion. For more information about state-of-the-art educational events and materials, please visit our website at www.ieca.org.

Now i can see the residents point of view as well as Mr. White’s. It takes time to complete projects like this and staging is part of the game. You don’t redo you dust control every day. The people have a right to clean air and the builder has the obligation to keep it that way. Bu some times we each have to think of the others situation. I guess if he has started with a dust control product like Top-Seal from the very start he would have been in better shape. I can promise you it would have been less than 10k per day.

The state’s Department of Ecology issued a violations notice and order to developer Calvin White for not taking care of dust control problems at two East Wenatchee subdivisions he has been in the process of developing since 2006.

The notice of violations and order, dated Sept. 23, indicates White could face a $10,000 civil penalty each day for each violation if he does not take corrective action.

White has 30 days to appeal the corrective order the DOE issued along with the violations notice; but in the past two weeks, he has been busy at Aspen Hills and Calalina Crest subdivisions north of East Wenatchee. He put in a road, leveled a mountainous pile of dirt and hydroseeded the two properties with an erosion-control seed mix.

Susan Billings, DOE’s section manager for the Central Regional Air Quality Section out of Yakima, said the department has received steady complaints from neighbors of the two subdivision sites.

The notice said neighbors provided detailed reports about ongoing impacts to their health and welfare, damage to their property and inability to enjoy their residences indoors or outside.

Dave Hulligan, whose duplex was situated next to a nearly 60-foot-high pile of soil on White’s land until White leveled it Thursday, said, “It’s almost like living in a sandstorm.”

He said if his garage door is open for even a few minutes, the fine particulate fills up his tool cases.

“My mom, who is staying with me, has asthma, and at times it is impossible for her to breathe,” Hulligan said.

Another neighbor, Rita Sortino, said her swimming pool was unusable for a couple months because of all the blowing dust. She said she had to purchase special equipment to clean the pool.

“And when I turn on my clothes dryer, you can just hear the sand in there,” she said, adding one of her dogs “had allergy fits” from being exposed to all the dust.

Bob Corkrum, another neighbor who made three trips to Yakima to deliver photos and dust samples to DOE, said the dust is so bad at times that no one can sit outside and enjoy their decks or have people over for barbecues. He said he’s had to go to the doctor several times because of problems with his lungs and he hasn’t been able to hire anyone to paint his house because of the constant layer of dust coating his house.

Corkrum said White occasionally watered the land to keep the dust at bay.

“But it’s 11 acres,” he said. “Maybe he shouldn’t have leveled it all at once. Then it would still have some natural vegetation on it to keep the dust down.”

Corkrum said for the past three years, White has done virtually nothing with the property except “push plenty of dirt around. He’s been like a kid with a Tonka toy.”

The World caught up with White on Friday at the Aspen Hills subdivision and asked if the spate of recent activity has anything to do with the violation notices.

He said that he was mostly just finishing up the project so that he could start selling lots, but the notices may have factored in somewhat.

When asked why he didn’t address the dust problem years ago when neighbors first started complaining, he said he wouldn’t comment because of the pending issue with DOE.

Corkrum said he is very upset with the county and the DOE. “Why did it take three years for these notices to go out? We are taxpayers and they are supposed to be protecting citizens,” he said.

Douglas County does not have an air-quality authority, said Planning Director Mark Kulaas, which is why neighbors had to take their case to the state.

He said that when the county was first contacted by the neighbors about the problem, they notified DOE right away. “We also contacted Calvin (White) and advised him that he needed to get water down. I understand he also did some seeding, but because it wasn’t hydroseeded, it didn’t take,” Kulaas said.

“It’s not that we weren’t doing anything,” he said. “And it’s not that we weren’t unsympathetic; but we didn’t have the authority to do anything.”

Kulaas said the county was just as frustrated as the neighbors at the DOE’s slow pace addressing the complaints.

Billings said dust control is an area where the DOE took big budget cuts.

“But we did get involved because it’s an extreme case,” she said, adding that she worked closely with White to try and help him comply and educate him about techniques he could emply to try and keep the dust down.

Kulaas said he definitely understands budget cuts, “But when the problem appears so severe and generates as many complaints as this has, then something should be done, no matter how bad the budget constraints.”

Billings said she is encouraged by White’s recent activity at the two subdivisions, but added that the department is still deciding whether penalties should be implemented.

A recent spell of rainy weather may derail efforts to complete Freeport’s landfill project prior to the arrival of winter.

Sue Grans, spokesperson for William Charles Construction, said Wednesday the contractor remains optimistic about finishing the project this fall. However, Grans acknowledged recent weather has put the project’s completion in jeopardy.

“We feel comfortable that we are on schedule,” Grans said. “But the rain has not helped and the days are getting shorter.”

William Charles Construction is the project’s primary contractor. However, the closure effort includes the City of Freeport, engineering firm Fehr-Graham & Associates, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ben Bushman, project manager for Fehr-Graham, said Thursday he expects the majority of the landfill’s cover system to be completed this fall. However, contractors may struggle to establish the necessary “grass cover.”

“All of the earth moving will be complete this fall,” Bushman said. “Everything else is weather dependent, primarily the seeding.”

The vegetation, Bushman explained, serves more than an aesthetic purpose.

“If we cannot get adequate grass cover, we will run the risk of erosion, mainly due to the spring thaw,” he said.

Playing from Behind

The odds were stacked against William Charles Construction from the beginning.

After collecting five bids for the landfill closure project, the City of Freeport awarded the project to Loberg Excavating in June. The contractor’s $1.6 million bid was more than $300,000 lower than the initial bid from William Charles Construction.

The decision quickly drew criticism from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150.

At a June 1 City Council meeting, union representatives argued Loberg’s lack of landfill-specific experience (the contractor had never conducted the closure of a landfill) would ultimately lead to problems.

Two months later, the city was forced to find a new contractor after Loberg Excavating failed to secure a performance bond for the project. The city negotiated directly with William Charles Construction and the Freeport City Council voted unanimously to award the contract to the company. William Charles began the project within weeks.

“They were able to mobilize very quickly,” Freeport Community Development Director Shelly Griswold said. “And for the first few weeks, we had sunny weather. Unfortunately, we have had rain since then.”

The city first identified the need to close the landfill in 1995, and saved approximately $1.5 million in its landfill closure fund. The city plans to pay William Charles Construction $1.9 million for the project, which is about $300,000 more than the city was slated to pay Loberg.