Second Draft TAC ESC Guideline 2sep04 LDW Version

Transportation Association of Canada
National Guide to
Erosion and
Sediment Control on
Roadway Projects
Second Draft - September 2004

DISCLAIMER
The material presented in this text was carefully researched and presented. However, no
warranty expressed or implied is made on the accuracy of the contents or their extraction
from reference to publications; nor shall the fact of distribution constitute responsibility by
TAC or any researchers or contributors for omissions, errors or possible misrepresentations
that may result from use or interpretation of the material contained herein.
Copyright 2004 by
Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~ Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 0-00000-000-0
National Guide to Erosion and Sediment Control on Roadway Projects
Acknowledgments
Subtitle
Following text – keep in one column
Second Draft – September 2004 iii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................III
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... IV
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ VIII
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... VIII
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1

1.1 THE NEED FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ..............................................1
1.2 HISTORY, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDE.....................................................1
1.3 SEQUENCE OF THE GUIDE ..........................................................................................2
PART I - THEORY
CHAPTER 2 - LEGISLATION.............................................................................5
2.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Federal Legislation and Regulations .................................................................................5
2.1.2 Provincial and Territorial Legislation and Regulations.......................................................5
2.1.3 Municipal By-Laws.............................................................................................................6
2.2 CANADA FISHERIES ACT .............................................................................................6
2.2.1 Section 36(3) - Deposit of a Deleterious Substance..........................................................6
2.2.2 Section 35 - Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat (HADD) ..........6
2.2.3 Section 38 - Inspectors and Analysts ................................................................................7
2.2.4 Penalties Under the Fisheries Act .....................................................................................7
2.2.5 The Due Diligence Defence...............................................................................................7
CHAPTER 3 - PHYSICAL PROCESSES ...........................................................9

3.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................9
3.2 THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES OF EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION.........................9

3.2.1 Water Erosion....................................................................................................................9
3.2.2 Other Types of Erosion....................................................................................................10
3.2.3 Sediment Transport and Sedimentation ..........................................................................10
iv Second Draft – September 2004

3.3 WATER MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES ........................................................................11
3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING EROSION...............................................................................11

3.4.1 Site Erosion Potential ......................................................................................................11
3.4.2 Activity Erosion Potential .................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 4 - RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................17

4.1 THE NEED FOR RISK ASSESSMENT .........................................................................17
4.2 EVALUATION OF EROSION POTENTIAL ...................................................................17
4.3 APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF EFFORT FOR ESC ........................................................20
PART II – APPLICATION
CHAPTER 5 - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................25
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................25
5.2 SCOPE OF ESC PLANNING ........................................................................................26
5.3 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ESC PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................26
5.4 COMPONENTS OF AN ESCP ......................................................................................27

5.4.1 Process for ESCP Development .....................................................................................27
5.4.2 Structure of the ESCP .....................................................................................................27
5.5 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC ESCP’S..............................................................................30
5.6 ESCP DESIGN CRITERIA.............................................................................................30
CHAPTER 6 - SITE ASSESSMENT .................................................................31

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................31
6.2 INFORMATION NEEDS ................................................................................................31

6.2.1 Project Design Drawings .................................................................................................31
6.2.2 Soils Information..............................................................................................................31
6.2.3 Aerial Photographs ..........................................................................................................33
6.2.4 Climate and Hydrology Information .................................................................................33
6.2.5 Vegetation Information ....................................................................................................33
6.2.6 Fisheries Information .......................................................................................................34
Second Draft – September 2004 v

6.2.7 Other Biological Information ............................................................................................34

6.2.8 Site Inspection .................................................................................................................34
6.2.9 Regulatory Standards......................................................................................................34
6.3 EVALUATION OF EROSION POTENTIAL ...................................................................34
6.3.1 General............................................................................................................................34
6.3.2 Empirical Method for Sediment Pond Capacity ...............................................................35
6.3.3 Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) .............................................................35
6.3.4 Process Based Models....................................................................................................35
6.4 REGIONAL EROSION POTENTIAL ISSUES IN CANADA ..........................................35
6.5 PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT...................................................................................38
CHAPTER 7 - BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN..............................................41

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................41
7.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.............................................................................41

7.2.1 Project Planning and Design BMP’s................................................................................41
7.2.2 Procedural BMP’s............................................................................................................42
7.2.3 Water Management BMP’s..............................................................................................42
7.2.4 Erosion Control BMP’s ....................................................................................................42
7.2.5 Sediment Control BMP’s .................................................................................................47
7.3 DESIGN METHOD.........................................................................................................49
7.3.1 Appropriate Levels of Effort .............................................................................................49
7.3.2 BMP Layout and Design..................................................................................................49
CHAPTER 8 - IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................55

8.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................55
8.1.1 ESCP Implementation Method ........................................................................................55
8.1.2 Responsibilities and Communications.............................................................................55
8.2 INSTALLATION.............................................................................................................55
8.2.1 Construction of ESC Measures .......................................................................................55
8.2.2 Storm Anticipation ...........................................................................................................55
8.2.3 Worker Safety..................................................................................................................56
8.3 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ...........................................................................56
8.3.1 Construction Period .........................................................................................................56
8.3.2 Shutdown Period .............................................................................................................57
8.3.3 Post-Construction Period and Existing Infrastructure......................................................57
8.4 ESC FAILURES.............................................................................................................57
8.4.1 Contingency Plan ............................................................................................................57
vi Second Draft – September 2004

8.4.2 Emergency Response .....................................................................................................58

8.4.3 Incident Reporting ...........................................................................................................58
8.5 DECOMMISSIONING ....................................................................................................58
8.6 DOCUMENTATION .......................................................................................................59
CHAPTER 9 - GLOSSARY...............................................................................61
CHAPTER 10 - REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................65

10.1 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................65
10.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................67

10.2.1 Canada ............................................................................................................................67
10.2.2 British Columbia ..............................................................................................................67
10.2.3 Alberta .............................................................................................................................67
10.2.4 Saskatchewan .................................................................................................................67
10.2.5 Manitoba..........................................................................................................................68
10.2.6 Ontario.............................................................................................................................68
10.2.7 Québec ............................................................................................................................68
10.2.8 New Brunswick ................................................................................................................68
10.2.9 Nova Scotia .....................................................................................................................69
10.2.10 Prince Edward Island ..................................................................................................69
10.2.11 Newfoundland and Labrador .......................................................................................69
10.2.12 Northwest Territories and Nunavut..............................................................................69
10.2.13 Yukon Territory............................................................................................................70
10.2.14 United States and International ...................................................................................70
Second Draft – September 2004 vii

List of Tables
Table 3-1 Summary Description Of RUSLE Variables .......................................................................12
Table 4-1 Hierarchy Of Soil Erodibility................................................................................................19
Table 4-2 Erosion Potential Associated With Slope Length, Slope Gradient, And Soil Erodibility
Rating ....................................................................................................................19
Table 4-3 Required Levels Of Erosion And Sediment Control .........................................................20
Table 7-1 Procedural BMP’s For ESC On Roadway Construction Sites..........................................43
Table 7-2 Surface Water Management BMP’s For ESC On Roadway Construction Sites .............44
Table 7-3 Erosion Control BMP’s For ESC On Roadway Construction Sites .................................45
Table 7-4 Sediment Control BMP’s For ESC On Roadway Construction Sites...............................48
List of Figures
Figure 4-1 Linkage Diagram Relating Construction Activities To Risk Of Erosion And
Sedimentation ......................................................................................................18
Figure 5-1 ESCP Development Process (Adapted From City of Calgary 2001) .............................28
Figure 6-1 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS; Modified by PFRA)......................................32
Figure 6-2: Physiographic Regions Of Canada.................................................................................36
Figure 6-3 Permafrost Zones In Canada (Prowse and Ommanney 1990) ........................................39
Figure 7-1 Breaking The Linkages Between Construction Activities And Erosion And
Sedimentation ......................................................................................................51
viii Second Draft – September 2004

List of Appendices
Appendix A - Procedures for use of RUSLE
Appendix B - Summary of Provincial Legislation Related to Erosion

and Sediment Control
Appendix C - QA Checklist For Escp Development
Appendix D - Factsheets: Best Management Practices for Erosion

and Sediment Control
Appendix E - Hydrological and Hydraulic Design Methods
Appendix F - Inspection Checklist for Erosion and Sediment Control

During Construction
Second Draft – September 2004 ix

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE NEED FOR EROSION and implement an effective erosion and sediment
control plan (ESCP). It first provides a basis for
AND SEDIMENT CONTROL decision-making through a discussion of erosion and
sedimentation theory, applicable legislation and
Rainfall and snowmelt runoff can cause erosion of appropriate levels of effort. It presents a basis for
exposed soil and transport of the resulting sediment. practical application of ESC methods, including a
Mobilized sediment travels downstream until it is review of the components and structure of an ESCP
deposited in areas with slower-flowing water. Rates and detailed discussions of site assessment, plan
of erosion depend on local soil, vegetation and design and plan implementation.
climate characteristics. However, roadway
construction activities can increase the rate of The Guide is intended for use by organizations and
erosion by a factor of over 100 by removing professional staff that are responsible for rural and
vegetation, exposing soil, increasing rates of runoff urban roadway planning and design, preparation,
and concentrations of flow. review and implementation of ESCP’s, the long-term
performance of ESC measures and the management
Left uncontrolled, erosion and sediment transport at and maintenance of roadway systems. It is also
roadway construction sites can cause the loss of intended for use by consultants, contractors and
topsoil and the discharge of sediment-laden water. regulators in the transportation sector. The Guide is
The release of sediment to natural waterbodies can intended to assist in assessing project risks, defining
cause damage to water quality, fish and fish habitat, appropriate levels of effort and specifying proper
flood control, navigation and recreation. For this ESC measures to cost-effectively protect the
reason, erosion and sedimentation is a focus of environment for the life of the project while meeting
environmental legislation at all levels of government. legislative and regulatory requirements.
The design and implementation of appropriate and The Guide is applicable to roadway construction in
effective Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) urban and rural settings across Canada and can be
measures is essential to conserving topsoil, used for projects of all sizes. It focuses on
preventing impacts to downstream aquatic resources prevention of erosion and control of sediment
and ensuring compliance with environmental resulting from construction activities within the
legislation in Canada. project right-of-way. The Guide is applicable to
works and activities associated with roadway
construction, including temporary roads and
1.2 HISTORY, PURPOSE AND stockpile, storage, disposal and borrow areas.
SCOPE OF THE GUIDE
Where possible, the Guide highlights regional
differences in soil, vegetation and climate conditions
This is the first edition of the Guide. It was and environmental receptors that must be
conceived in 2003 by the Transportation Association considered when developing an ESCP.
of Canada (TAC) in recognition of the increasing
importance of ESC as an objective for road and
bridge construction and maintenance across It is the intention of the Guide to focus on erosion by
Canada. The Guide was developed under the water, though many of the methods and procedures
auspices of the TAC Environment Council’s discussed within are also applicable to erosion by
Environmental Issues Management Standing wind. Wind erosion is only lightly addressed in the
Committee. Guide and readers are directed elsewhere for more
detailed discussions on the topic.
The purpose of the National Guide to Erosion and
Sediment Control on Roadway Projects (the Guide) Similarly, the Guide is not intended to be a reference
is to provide ESC practitioners with tools to design for instream works or prevention or mitigation of non-
Second Draft – September 2004 1

sediment related effects on fish or fish habitat. The

Guide is not intended to provide guidance on the
management of road salt, hydrocarbon spills or
releases of other deleterious substances.
1.3 SEQUENCE OF THE GUIDE
The body of the Guide is divided into two sections.

Part I, entitled Theory, is intended to provide a sound
theoretical basis for ESC decision-making. Part II,
entitled Application, is intended to provide practical
methods for developing and implementing an
effective ESCP.
Part I of the guide is divided into three chapters.

Chapter 2 reviews Canadian legislation that is
applicable to ESC on roadway projects. Chapter 3
presents the theory of erosion and sedimentation,
including principles of water management and
measures that can be taken to prevent erosion and
retain sediment. Chapter 4 discusses the
appropriate level of effort that should be applied to
ESC planning and implementation.
Part II of the guide is divided into four chapters.

Chapter 5 presents an overview of ESCP
development, including the components and
structure of the plan. Detailed methods for designing
and implementing the ESCP are presented in
subsequent chapters. Project site assessment,
including information needs, erosion potential
evaluation and project risk assessment, is addressed
in Chapter 6. ESCP design, including selection,
layout and design of Best Management Practices
(BMP’s), is discussed in Chapter 7. Implementation
of the ESCP, including installation, inspection and
maintenance, dealing with failures, decommissioning
and documentation, are covered in Chapter 8. All of
the chapters in Part II include a discussion of the
responsibilities of persons involved in ESCP
development and implementation.
A glossary is provided in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10

contains references and a bibliography.
2 Second Draft – September 2004

Part I - Theory
Part I of the Guideline is intended to provide practitioners in the field of erosion and
sediment control with a solid background on:
• Relevant Canadian legislation and regulations;

• the physics of erosion and sedimentation, including principles of water
management; and
• assessment of related risks and appropriate levels of effort to mitigate
these risks.
This discussion is intended to provide practitioners with a sound basis for decision-
making when applying these concepts to projects, as discussed in Part II of the Guideline.

This page left blank intentionally.

CHAPTER 2 - LEGISLATION
2.1 GENERAL suspend work and require actions to prevent or
mitigate harm due to potential or actual sediment
deposition.
Many Canadian federal, provincial and territorial Acts
and regulations and municipal by-laws include
provisions intended to prevent damage to the aquatic The provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection
environment and degradation of water quality. Act (NWPA) are intended to ensure the public right of
Sediment is recognized by some legislation as a passage on Canadian waterways. The NWPA
substance with the potential to cause such harm if generally does not have direct bearing on ESCP’s,
deposited into a natural waterbody. Penalties for but it could apply if instream works, such as
convictions under applicable legislation can be cofferdams or river bank protection, are required for
substantial. ESC.
This review of applicable legislation focuses on The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
federal and provincial Acts and regulations that are (CEAA) applies to ESC planning only in that a project
directly related to ESC. It also provides a more in- must be reviewed under CEAA before an NWPA
depth discussion of the Canada Fisheries Act, which Approval or Fisheries Act Authorization can be
applies across the country and generally contains the issued, or if federal funding is provided to the project.
most stringent requirements for compliance and the An ESCP may be reviewed as part of the project
most significant penalties for contravention. evaluation.
This review is not intended to be a comprehensive Other federal legislation and regulations, including
listing of all legislation related to working in or around the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds
water. It is the responsibility of ESC practitioners Convention Act, the Canadian Environmental
and people working in and around waterbodies to Protection Act, and others, may apply to roadway
ensure that their work is performed in compliance construction projects in Canada. However, because
with all applicable statutes, regulations and by-laws. these are more likely to apply to disturbance due to
the project in general than erosion and sedimentation
specifically, they are not addressed in the Guide.
2.1.1 Federal Legislation and
Regulations 2.1.2 Provincial and Territorial
Legislation and Regulations
The Fisheries Act was established to manage and
protect Canada’s fisheries resources, and applies to
all fishing zones, territorial seas, and inland waters of All provinces and territories have legislation that
Canada. The Act is binding on the provinces and regulates roadway construction and maintenance
territories and supersedes provincial and territorial activities related to ESC. A list of relevant provincial
legislation where the two are in conflict. and territorial legislation is provided in Appendix B.
Consequently, compliance with provincial or This is limited to legislation related to construction
territorial legislation or municipal by-laws may not site water management and sediment release. It is
ensure compliance with the Act. not intended to be a comprehensive list of all
environmental legislation that may be applicable to
roadway construction projects, and does not include
Key provisions of the Act include prohibitions on legislation and regulations related to issues such as
deposition of deleterious substances and harmful health and safety, historical resources, pesticide use,
alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat etc.
(HADD). It includes requirements for reporting of
sediment deposition and prevention or mitigation of
adverse effects due to sediment deposition. The Act
also provides inspectors with the authority to

2.1.3 Municipal By-Laws • any substance when added to water that renders
the water deleterious to fish and fish habitat; or
Roadway construction projects may also be subject • any water containing sufficient amounts of a
to municipal by-laws that address ESC, including substance or treated, processed or changed by
provisions intended to conserve topsoil and prevent heat or other means that when added to any
damage to the aquatic environment and degradation other water will render the water deleterious to
to water quality. ESC practitioners are responsible fish and fish habitat.
for identifying local regulations and ensuring that all
construction activities comply with all regulations,
Environment Canada is the lead on enforcement of
including those directly and indirectly related to the
Section 36(3), but ultimate responsibility lies with the
environment.
Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).
The authorized deposit of a deleterious substance
can only occur through Regulation or through an
2.2 CANADA FISHERIES ACT Order-in-Council. There are no provisions to
Authorize the deposit of deleterious substances in
Compliance with the pollution prevention the same manner in which habitat alterations can be
provisions of the Fisheries Act can only be Authorized under Section 35(2) of the Act.
achieved by preventing the deposition of
sediment into natural waterbodies.
Regulations have been established for certain
classes of industrial activities (e.g., Pulp and Paper,
The intent of ESC is to prevent exposed soil from Metal Mining, Petroleum Refinery, Meat and Poultry,
being eroded and to prevent eroded soil from being etc.), but there are no regulations for sediment.
transported off site. If these goals can be achieved, According to the Fisheries Act, any deposit of
then the pollution prevention and habitat protection sediment is a potential violation of Section 36(3).
provisions of the Fisheries Act can also be met. Therefore, it is important to take all reasonable
measures to prevent a deposit of deleterious
substances by designing and implementing an
Violations of the Fisheries Act may occur when ESCP.
sediment is mobilized due to roadway construction
activities and is transported and deposited in the
aquatic environment. Persons responsible for 2.2.2 Section 35 - Harmful Alteration,
violations could be charged under the Fisheries Act Disruption or Destruction of Fish
and subject to substantial penalties.
Habitat (HADD)
The following discussion focuses on sections of the
Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act establishes a
Fisheries Act that are relevant to ESC. Other
general prohibition on HADD. This can occur where
sections of the Fisheries Act may apply to other
habitat is harmfully altered, disrupted or destroyed by
activities associated with construction in or around
deposited sediment. Prosecutions under Section
water. Practitioners are encouraged to familiarize
35(1) have been pursued when it could be
themselves with Fisheries Act and related
demonstrated that sediment deposition resulted in a
regulations and guidelines to understand their
HADD.
obligations under the Act. The Act may be viewed at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html.
Section 35(2) establishes that HADD can occur with
no violation of Section 35(1), if it is Authorized by the
2.2.1 Section 36(3) - Deposit of a Minister of DFO or the Minister’s representative. It is
Deleterious Substance important to recognize that Section 35(2) only
authorizes the HADD, not the project.
Section 36(3) prohibits the deposit of deleterious
substances into surface waters and is thus most The Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO
applicable to ESC. A deleterious substance is 1986) outlines DFO’s policies, objectives, goals and
defined as: strategies and establishes a framework for

administering the habitat protection provisions of the 2.2.4 Penalties Under the Fisheries Act
Fisheries Act.
Persons convicted under Section 35(1) or 36(3) of

The overall objective of the DFO Policy is a net gain the Act can be subject to both fines and
of productive capacity, to be achieved through imprisonment. Penalties for summary convictions
conservation, restoration and development. The include fines of up to $300,000 for first and
guiding principle of No Net Loss of fish habitat subsequent offences, as well as imprisonment of up
requires that compensation in the form of additional to 6 months. Penalties for indictable convictions
habitat is provided where HADD is Authorized, thus include fines of up to $1,000,000 for first and
meeting the objective of habitat conservation. DFO subsequent offences, as well as imprisonment of up
directives for implementing Section 35(2) of the Act to 3 years. For both types of convictions, each day
include the following steps: of a continuing offence is viewed as a separate
offence.
1. No Authorization is required if HADD can be
avoided through mitigation; Persons convicted under Section 38(4), 38(5) or
2. HADD can be Authorized when mitigation is 38(6) of the Act can also be subject to both fines and
impractical or not possible; imprisonment. Penalties for summary convictions
include fines of up to $200,000 for first and
3. HADD shall not be Authorized when habitat subsequent offences, as well as imprisonment of up
losses are not acceptable; to 6 months.
4. HADD shall not be Authorized unless No Net
Loss is achieved; and 2.2.5 The Due Diligence Defence
5. HADD shall not be Authorized when
compensation is not possible.
Due diligence is a means of defending against
prosecutions initiated under environmental statutes
2.2.3 Section 38 - Inspectors and such as the Fisheries Act. Traditionally, criminal
matters were either considered mens rea offences
Analysts (offences where both the intent and the physical act
have to be proven) or absolute liability offences
Section 38(6) of the Fisheries Act provides (where only proof of the physical act was required).
designated inspectors with the authority to issue a In 1978, a Supreme Court of Canada decision
directions concerning deposition of deleterious introduced a third category of offence: strict liability,
substances. Inspectors from DFO and Environment for environmental offences. Strict liability offences do
Canada may order immediate action to prevent not require the prosecution to prove intent. However,
damage or counteract, mitigate or remedy adverse the accused may defend themselves by presenting
effects when deposition of a deleterious substance is evidence that they took all reasonable care to avoid
occurring, when there is an imminent danger that it or prevent an offence.
may occur, when damage or danger to fish or fish
habitat may result, or when immediate action is The accused must only prove that, on the balance of
necessary. Failure to follow the inspector’s probabilities, care was taken. However, the standard
directions is an offence under the Fisheries Act. of care that must be met is high. The standard of
care must be more than that expected from an
Section 38(4) of the Act establishes a requirement to ordinary citizen and at least that of a professional
report deposit of deleterious substances, or serious with expertise in the area. The onus is on the
or imminent danger of discharge of deleterious accused to present evidence of due diligence. The
substances. Section 38(5) of the Act establishes a Court, in hearing a due diligence defence, will
requirement to take measures to prevent deposit or normally consider evidence concerning:
mitigate adverse effects.
• Foreseeability of the incident;
• What was done and what could have been done;

• Industry standards;
• The expertise or training and degree of direction
or supervision; and
• The extent to which the accused could control
the elements of the offence.
Due diligence is normally decided by the Courts

based on evidence provided by the accused and the
prosecution. As such, due diligence should be
viewed only as a defence strategy, and not as a
guaranteed acquittal. Once charges are laid and the
case proceeds to court, the likelihood of a successful
defence is always in doubt. Therefore, the best “due
diligence” for environmental offences is evidence that
advice and mitigation measures recommended by
DFO or provincial regulatory agencies were
considered and implemented, and that the project
complied with conditions specified in any Section
35(2) Authorizations, Letters of Advice or other
communications from DFO. The development and
implementation of an effective ESCP is a critical step
in demonstrating that all reasonable steps were
taken to prevent a violation of the Fisheries Act.

CHAPTER 3 - PHYSICAL PROCESSES

3.1 GENERAL Water erosion can be classified into five general
categories. Depending upon site conditions and
rainfall intensity, any or all of these types of erosion
Erosion is the process of by which the land surface is could be represented at a construction site. Caltrans
worn away by the actions of water, wind, ice or other (2003) provides the following descriptions of the
geological agents. The resulting detached soil different categories of erosion:
particles are then transported to be deposited or
remain in suspension (DFO 2004). Erosion occurs in
the natural environment; however, human Splash Erosion: Occurs when raindrops strike bare
modifications to ground cover can significantly soil, causing solid aggregates to break apart. The
increase erosion rates (Caltrans 2003). detached particles may then be transported by wind
or rain.
Construction activities can adversely affect the

aquatic environment as a result of sediment laden Sheet Erosion: Occurs when water flows uniformly
water being released to natural receiving waters. The across a surface and aggregates become detached
principal cause is removal the protective ground from the surface of the soil by hydraulic shear
cover (i.e., vegetation), leaving the underlying soil stresses. Sheet erosion is often the means by which
exposed to wind and rain (Clarifica 2003). soil particles detached by splash erosion are initially
Uncontrolled runoff from construction sites can result transported.
in highly elevated total suspended solids (TSS)
concentrations exceeding 4,000 mg/L, relative to Rill Erosion: Shallow surface flow will become
TSS concentrations of runoff from an undisturbed quickly concentrated in irregularities of the soil
site of approximately 25 mg/L (Clarifica 2003). surface. Change from sheet flow to concentrated
flows is accompanied by increases in water velocity,
This chapter presents a review of the physical turbulence and shear stress. This can break up soil
process of erosion and factors that can influence aggregates and transport soil particles. Rill erosion
erosion and sedimentation rates. occurs when water concentrates in well defined
channels that are usually a few centimeters deep.
3.2 THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES Gully Erosion: The potential erosion rate increases
OF EROSION AND as the concentrated flows form rills that combine into
larger flows with increased turbulent shear stress.
SEDIMENTATION Gullies form when rills combine to form deeper
deeper and wider channels in the soil surfaces.
3.2.1 Water Erosion
Channel erosion: Sediment transport in natural and
The physical processes of soil erosion and man-made channels involves deposition and
sedimentation involve three events (Saskatchewan remobilization of sediment. Channel erosion occurs
Highways and Transportation 2003): when the equilibrium between deposition and re-
mobilization is disrupted. It tends to occur where
storm drains, culverts or ditches discharge rapidly
• Particle detachment into an unprotected channel as well as in
unprotected drainage ditches.
• Sediment transport, and
• Sediment deposition. These types of water erosion are illustrated on
Figure 3-1. Factors affecting water erosion are
Water erosion is the process by which soil particles discussed in Section 3.3.
are detached and transported by the action of water.

Figure 3-1 Types of Water Erosion (Alberta Transportation 2003)
3.2.2 Other Types of Erosion load. Bed load transport applies to sediment that
moves by sliding, rolling, or skipping on or very near
the bed surface. Suspended load comprises
The remainder of the Guide focuses on processes particles held in a water/air column by the upward
and mitigation related to water erosion. However, momentum in the flow. When very fine particles with
the reader should be aware that erosion may also a small settling velocity are suspended in water they
occur due to the forces of wind, ice and gravity. can be held in colloidal suspension, and may never
settle out.
The tractive force of wind friction on the soil surface
can detach soil particles and transport them through
the atmosphere. Wind that is laden with soil particles Sedimentation is the process of deposition of soil
will increase its abrasive action, thus increasing its particles that were previously held in suspension
erosion potential. (Alberta Transportation 2003). Sedimentation occurs
at locations where velocities are reduced and
Ice erosion can be caused by the impact of flowing particles are no longer held in suspension.
ice on soil. This generally occurs in watercourses Deposition of sediment suspended in water can
and is most dramatically observed in larger rivers occur at the toe of slopes, in natural channels, lakes
during ice breakup. Freeze-thaw processes can also and wetlands or in man-made sediment containment
contribute to erosion as pore water freezes, expands systems. Initially, large particles settle out first, with
and encourages soil detachment when thawed. smaller particles transported further. Clay particles
and fine organic silts are generally the finest size
fraction and can be transported considerable
3.2.3 Sediment Transport and distances before they settle out of suspension.
Sedimentation
Sediment containment systems can be used to
Once suspended in water or air, sediment can travel detain and trap some of the suspended load and bed
far from where it originated. The two main modes of load within a column of water. They are designed for
sediment transport are bed load and suspended specific site conditions and are usually designed to

settle out sediment up to a specific grain size. In areas to ensure that sediment is retained on
general, sediment containment systems effectively site and not released to receiving streams.
filter out medium silt or larger particles. Finer sizes
require a longer time to settle out and it is less
practical to design for this purpose. Appendix E 3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING
discusses sediment containment design for water in EROSION
more detail.
Soil erosion can be affected by a number of factors,

3.3 WATER MANAGEMENT many of which can be controlled to some extent
PRINCIPLES during construction. It is useful to consider both the
overall site erosion potential, related to its physical,
chemical and biological factors, and the short-term
High-level principles of water management that erosion potential, related primarily to activities that
should be applied to roadway construction projects may occur during construction.
for ESC are provided below. Application of these
principles will reduce the amount of water that must
be managed on-site, will reduce the erosion potential 3.4.1 Site Erosion Potential
of the site and its drainage network, and will reduce
the level of sediment control that must be applied to To understand the factors affecting erosion and the
the construction site. measures to control erosion, it is useful to examine
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).
• Mixing clean water with sediment-laden This equation was developed to predict average
water produces a larger quantity of annual soil loss due to sheet and rill erosion in
sediment-laden water to manage: agricultural areas, but has been applied in the past to
construction sites. The equation is empirical and is
• Keep clean water clean by diverting off- not a mathematical, or process-based,
site water around the construction site; representation of the erosion phenomenon.
• Keep clean water clean by conveying
water from undisturbed areas within the The RUSLE equation is useful as a tool to illustrate
construction site off-site without mixing it the factors influencing erosion and their relative
with water from disturbed areas. contributions. It can also be used to roughly predict
the average annual soil loss prior to, during and after
• The erosive potential of flowing water
construction, and to roughly predict the quantity of
increases with depth and velocity. Site
soil that could be removed from a disturbed area. It is
drainage should be designed to:
particularly helpful for understanding how various
• Keep overland flow areas (and therefore Best Management Practice (BMP) treatments can
rates) small, by providing adequate affect the factors that influence erosion. The RUSLE
drainage density, to reduce gullying equation is (Renard et al. 1996):
potential;
• Keep channel slopes low to reduce flow A = R × K × LS × C × P
velocities;
• Keep channel flow volumes low to The variables that are included in the RUSLE
reduce flow depths; equation can be grouped into four general
categories: climate, soil characteristics, topography
• Small flows are easier to manage than large
and cover (Alberta Transportation 2003, WES 2000).
flows. Collecting and discharging water from
Each of these is discussed in the following sections,
small areas requires smaller channels with
and a summary description of the RUSLE variables
less erosion potential and requires smaller
is provided in Table 3-1.
sediment control measures; and
• Appropriate sediment control measures
should be applied to drainage from disturbed

Climate represented by a management practices factor called

the C-factor.
Climate, particularly rainfall frequency, duration,
intensity and type, directly affects rates of erosion (R- While it is not possible to directly affect climate, this
factor). Climate also affects growth rates and density factor can be influenced by timing of activities. If
of plants, and therefore has an indirect influence on work is to be undertaken in an area with a high R-
the development of vegetation cover, which is factor, then work could be scheduled to coincide with
drier periods to reduce the R-factor.
Table 3-1 Summary Description of RUSLE Variables
Factor and Description Category Effect Control

A = Average annual soil loss Result
Climates with more frequent or intense runoff Can be controlled by avoiding seasons with
R = Rainfall-runoff erosivity Climate
events will have greater soil loss. heavy rainfall or snowmelt.
Relatively difficult to control, however
Soil erodibility is affected by particle size,
proper planning can help to avoid problem
K = Soil erodibility Soil Factor texture, chemistry, water content, organic
areas and appropriate mitigation will be
content and permeability
dependent on soil characteristics.
Longer slope lengths increase erosion Site drainage density can be planned to
potential because they collect larger introduce drainage swales or watercourses
L = Slope length
Topography quantities of water and offer more potential at regular intervals to reduce slope lengths.
Factor for flow concentration. Landscaping can be planned to minimize
Steeper slopes increase erosion potential steep slopes. This may affect earthworks
S = Slope steepness quantities.
because they allow water to flow faster.
C = Cover management Large values of C and P factors represent Cover management and erosion control
Cover relatively erosive conditions, including no practice factors are the easiest and most
Management cover (C = 1) and no erosion control practice cost-effective factors that can be
P = Erosion control practice applied (P = 1). manipulated to control erosion.
Soil Characteristics material) offers some resistance to erosion because

of the interconnected component materials. Such
organic materials in surface soils, or applied as a
Soil characteristics affect soil erodibility, which is mulch surface cover, reduces run-off and erosion
characterized by the K-factor. Particle size and
potential. Organic mulch cover can also reduce
texture, organic matter, water content and splash erosion by reducing the velocity of water
permeability all influence soil erodibility. droplets before they contact the soil (WES 2000).
Soil texture refers to the sizes and proportions of the Permeability is the ability of soil to allow air and
materials making up the soil. Silt, sand and clay are water movements. Soil texture, structure, and
three of the major types of soil particles. In general,
organic matter contribute to soil permeability. Soils
soils with high silt content tend to be most subject to the least erosion from either rainfall or
susceptible to erosion. Soils with a high sand content surface runoff are those with high permeability
tend to have a high infiltration rate and a low erosion
(e.g., soils with high gravel or gravel/sand content).
potential. Clay tends to be resistant to erosion due to Dry, organic rich soils can also absorb a significant
its cohesion. However, heavy rain or fast flowing amount of water (Alberta Transportation 2003) and
water can erode clay, particularly dispersive clays.
are therefore resistant to erosion.
Once in suspension the small particles can be
transported long distances before settling out.
Soil chemistry can also influence erodibility. For
example, dispersive clays go into colloidal
Soils with high organic content have a high water
suspension when exposed to water, rapidly lose
holding capacity and relatively high soil permeability. cohesion and are thus highly susceptible to erosion.
Fibrous organic matter (partially decomposed plant This is in sharp contrast to non-dispersive clays,

which are relatively resistant to erosion, and Slope shape can also affect erosion potential.
reinforces the need for an ESCP designer to have a Stable, natural slopes typically display a slight
solid understanding of soil characteristics. concavity, with steeper gradients at the upper end
and shallower slopes at the lower end. Slopes that
are planar or have a slight concavity have a lower
Soil erodibility is dependent on site-specific soil erosion potential that those with an upwards
types. Therefore, when planning ESC it is important convexity. Slopes with an upwards convexity are
to determine the erosion susceptibility of the soils at
steeper at the lower end of the slope, where flows
the construction site. While BMP’s can directly are larger and potentially more concentrated. This
reduce the K-factor, total sediment transport can be increases flow velocity and erosion potential at that
reduced by minimizing the amount of exposed soil at
location.
any time and by implementing soil cover
management practices.
There are other topographic features that should also
be taken into consideration when planning for ESC.
Topography Southern exposures tend to be hotter and drier, while
northern slopes tend to be cooler and moister. This
Topographic features can have a significant impact can influence the re-establishment of vegetation
on the erosion potential of a site. Slope length, during post construction stabilization.
represented by the L-factor, and slope steepness,
represented by the S-factor, influence runoff flow
Cover Management
volumes and velocity. For example, long, steep
slopes have a higher erosion potential than short
slopes, because long, continuous slopes have larger Cover management, as represented by the C-factor,
drainage areas that allow runoff to build up flow is one of the most effective means of controlling
volumes and flow rates. erosion. Covering exposed soil can shield soil from
rainfall impacts, reduce runoff velocity, disperse
surface flows, improve soil permeability, and
Many of the ESC BMP’s focus on reducing slope physically bind soil particles (e.g., vegetation root
length and steepness. Flow rates are reduced by
structure). Cover management can take the form of
reducing slope lengths. Flow velocities are reduced vegetative cover, mulches, wood chips, geotextile
by reducing steepness and by reducing flow rates fabrics, erosion control fabric (e.g., jute or coconut
(slope length). Decreasing slope steepness to less
fibre blankets) or rock.
than 5% can create deposition areas. BMP’s such as
recontouring slopes can reduce the topographic
influence on the potential erosion from a construction Many ESC BMPs focus on cover management
site. practices. Bare exposed soil that has no cover
would have a C-factor value of 1. Temporary seeding
with ryegrass can reduce the C-factor to 0.1 (90%
A common misconception is that breaking up a reduction). Covering exposed soil with hay mulch
slope, by installing benches, silt fences or check can reduce the C-factor to 0.02 to 0.25, depending
dams, will break the flow momentum and thereby upon application rate.
reduce erosion. This is incorrect, since the terminal
velocity of overland flow develops over a very short
distance. Interception to break momentum would Related to cover management is the mechanical
require very short intervals of interception, making treatment, represented by the P-factor. These
this technique impractical. Benches, silt fences and generally include temporary imprints and compaction
check dams installed on slopes can cause of exposed soil. For example, developing imprints by
accelerated erosion by concentrating flows at points an imprinting machine would reduce erosion by
where water is released (Sawatsky and Tuttle 1996; approximately 80% compared to compacted and
Sawatsky et al. 1997). Silt fences are appropriate smoothed soil. Imprints by a sheepsfoot roller can
when offset from the toe of a slope and check dams reduce erosion rates by 55% (Caltrans 2000).
for ditches, because both applications provide
adequate area for ponds to form and encourage
sediment to deposit.

3.4.2 Activity Erosion Potential
The RUSLE equation provides an excellent tool to

illustrate the relative contributions of various factors
to soil loss from large areas over extended periods of
time. However, significant erosion and
sedimentation may also occur due to short-term
construction activities or catastrophic events that
occur during construction, including:
• Soil handling: soil is particularly vulnerable to

erosion during normal construction activities,
including excavation, transport, storage and fill.
During these periods, soil is generally
uncompacted, may be segregated and is easily
mobilized;
• Water transfers: when water is pumped from
an impoundment or is released from a ponded
area, peak flows may result in mass erosion or
gully formation in the outfall area and
downstream channel, if proper water
management and erosion protection is not
provided;
• Slope failures: slope failures due to high pore
pressures, often combined with freeze-thaw
cycles, can mobilize soil and water. Newly
excavated slopes are particularly vulnerable to
this sort of erosion;
• Instream work: excavation and material
placement in flowing water can introduce large
quantities of soil into the watercourse. Effective
mitigation can be provided by isolating the work
area using a silt curtain or other measures. The
Guide does not specifically address instream
work;
• Temporary roads: temporary roads can be a
significant source of sediment, resulting from
dust and runoff during rain and snowmelt.
Along with constructing an erosion-resistant

landscape, ESC efforts should also be focused on
the potential for erosion during these construction-
period events.


CHAPTER 4 - RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 THE NEED FOR RISK activities. Damage to neighboring property or
receiving waterbodies, caused by soil leaving the
ASSESSMENT site, can be costly to repair. In extreme cases, this
can also affect project completion schedules.
Risk can be defined as a quantitative or qualitative
expression of possible loss that considers both the Finally, there are legal consequences related to the
probability that a hazard will cause harm and the release of sediment to the aquatic environment.
consequences of that event (LLNL 2001). The Sediment is considered to be a deleterious
probability of erosion and sedimentation above substance under the Fisheries Act, which does not
natural levels, due to roadway construction activities, allow for sediment discharge at any concentration.
is affected by the factors discussed in Section 2.3, Therefore, any sediment release could potentially
and can be reduced by using the approaches result in charges laid under the Fisheries Act.
discussed in Section 2.4. ESC failures can result in Substantial penalties may be attached to convictions
three types of potential consequences: for the release of sediment into fisheries waters
(refer to Chapter 2). In addition, stop-work orders
• Ecological consequences related to the may be issued by regulatory officials. These can
introduction of sediment to the aquatic require all work to cease until ESC measures are
environment; properly implemented, and can affect project time
lines.
• Project consequences, related to the need
to respond to and repair erosion damage
All of these potential consequences must be
and the implications for project schedule and
considered in determining the best approach to
finances; and
developing ESC plans. Risk assessment is a key
• Legal consequences associated with the element in assessing the degree to which ESC
deposition of sediment in receiving measures need to be integrated into a development
waterbodies. plan.
Land management practices during construction can The following sections provide guidance on how to
significantly increase the risk of erosion. Removal of evaluate the probability of erosion and sedimentation
vegetation, soil compaction, and slope changes can and the consequences of an ESC failure. This allows
all increase the rate of erosion. The lack of effective a judgment to be made as to whether simple BMP’s
ESC measures can result in significant erosion and will suffice or more intensive BMP’s are required.
sediment transport.
Integrating risk assessment with ESC planning also
Sedimentation can adversely affect the aquatic demonstrates due diligence in addressing ESC
environment, including fish and fish habitat. These issues. If a risk assessment is not included in the
effects can range from behavioural effects (e.g., ESC plan development and an uncontrolled release
avoidance behaviour, decreased foraging success) of sediment into a watercourse occurs, it will be
to outright mortality, depending upon the difficult to make a case that due diligence was
concentration and duration of exposure (Newcombe exercised.
and Jensen 1996). Depositing fine sediment in
spawning areas can smother eggs and make
streambed materials unusable for spawning. 4.2 EVALUATION OF EROSION
POTENTIAL
Erosion at construction sites can affect project costs
and timelines. For example, repair of damage due to Roadway construction activities can increase erosion
large soil movement or gully formation may require rates and cause sediment control problems. Many
resources to be diverted from other construction activities that are undertaken during roadway

construction can directly affect erosion and sediment though by scheduling construction during dry periods
transport. Often, activities are linked or can influence or by diverting water around the site, the erosion and
more than one of the factors that can affect erosion sedimentation potential can be reduced. Erosion
rates. Linkages between construction activities and control practices (the P-factor) are related to
erosion and sedimentation effects are shown on mitigation measures that can be specified to break
Figure 4-1. The figure shows that erosion and the links between construction activities and
sedimentation risks at roadway construction sites are increased erosion and sedimentation potential.
primarily related to changes in soil cover, soil type, These are discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
slope length and steepness. In the context of the
RUSLE, these are described by the C-factor (soil
It is important to understand how each type of
cover), K-factor (soil erodibility), the L-factor (slope
length) and the S-factor (slope steepness). The roadway construction activity affects the site erosion
rainfall-runoff erosivity (the R-factor) is related to potential, and the methods for addressing erosion or
climate and is unaffected by construction activities, sediment control, when preparing an ESC plan.
Roadway Construction Activities
Surface Water Management (RUSLE R-Factor)

Construction should be scheduled during dry periods where possible.
Off-Site: The risk of erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by diverting clean water from upstream sources around the construction site.
On-Site: The risk of erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by carrying clean water from undisturbed areas of the construction site across the site in pipes or lined
channels. Runoff from exposed areas should be collected and conveyed by erosion-resistant channels to appropriately-sized sediment control measures.
Use of Industrial Clearing Topsoil Spoil or Material

Grading
Equipment and Grubbing Removal Stockpiling
Changes to Stream Bank Removal of Riparian Exposure Changes to Topography

Changes to Soil Type
Composition or Stability Vegetation of Soils or Drainage Pattern
Cover Changes Soil Changes Slope Changes

(RUSLE C-Factor) (RUSLE K-Factor) (RUSLE LS-Factor)
Change in Surface Change in Runoff Change in Channel

Erosion Resistance Coefficient or Slope Gradient
Mechanisms for Increased Erosion and Sedimentation
Increased Rate and

Volume of Runoff
Increased Potential for

Erosion
Erosion and Sedimentation Effects

Sediment Deposition
and Fisheries Act Section
35(1) or 36(3) Violation
Figure 4-1 Linkage Diagram Relating Construction Activities to Risk of Erosion and Sedimentation
A methodical approach to assessing the potential for evaluations. These can be used to assess the
erosion and sedimentation due to roadway erosion potential. Information is required to assess
construction activities involves a series of screening the following factors:

• Soil texture and related characteristics affecting The topography of the construction site, including
erodibility including grain size, permeability and lengths and gradients of slopes (RUSLE LS-Factor)
chemistry (RUSLE K-Factor); must then be assessed. Both pre- and post-
development slopes should be examined to assess
• Topography, including slope length and changes due to construction. Table 4-2 provides a
gradient (RUSLE L- and S-Factors), drainage matrix for assessing erosion risk based on the soil
areas, existing drainage patterns, flowing water loss class (Table 4-1), slope gradient, and slope
and slope stabilities; length.
• Climate characteristics, including weather
forecasts for small construction or maintenance Table 4-2 Erosion Potential Associated with
projects with activities planned for the immediate Slope Length, Slope Gradient, and Soil
future (RUSLE R-Factor); Erodibility Rating
• Cover characteristics, including vegetation,
paving and rock armor (RUSLE C- and P- Slope Soil Slope Length
Factors); Gradient Erodibility
(Table 4-1) < 70 m > 70 m
• Shallow groundwater conditions, to allow
Low Low Low
appropriate mitigation measures to be identified;
and 0-10% Medium Low Moderate
High Moderate High
• Receiving environment sensitivity, to allow
potential problem areas and identification of Low Low Moderate
appropriate mitigation measures. 10-20% Medium Moderate High
High High High
The screening begins with an assessment of the soil Low Moderate Moderate
that is to be disturbed or exposed during construction >20% Medium High High
(RUSLE K-Factor). Table 4-1 classifies erodibility by High High High
soil type.
Source: Modification of procedures described by Lloyd and
Van Delft (2001); City of Calgary 2001.
Table 4-1 Hierarchy of Soil Erodibility
Soil Climate characteristics should also be considered
Erodibility
Soil Type Erodibility and could reduce the erosion potential. For
Classification
Rating example, for a project that can be completed under
Silt High arid or frozen conditions, the erosion potential may
Most
Silty Loam High be reduced. This sort of judgment must be based on
site- and project-specific conditions and must be
Loam High
supported by a defensible rationale.
Silty Sand High
Sandy Loam Medium
Silty Clay Loam Medium Cover characteristics (RUSLE C- and P-Factors) and
the application of water management principles
Sandy Clay Loam Medium
should not be considered as reducing the erosion
Silty Clay Medium risk for the purposes of an erosion potential
Sandy Clay Low assessment. The “base case” for assessment
Clay Low should consider a disturbed cover and no application
Heavy Clay Low
of water management principles. The application of
cover management, erosion control practices and
Loamy Sand Low water management should be treated as mitigation
Sand Low measures to be developed as part of an ESCP.
Poorly Graded Gravel Low
Least
Well-Graded Gravel Low
The qualitative erosion potential assessment used
Source: Adapted from Alberta Transportation (2003). here is suitable for identifying project risks and
appropriate level of effort to be applied to ESC

measures. Consideration must also be given to qualitative erosion potential evaluation must be
activity-related erosion potential, as discussed in combined with the potential consequences of erosion
Section 3.4.2, for which appropriate mitigation should and sedimentation.
be specified. For quantitative assessments, use of
methods presented in Section 6.3 is recommended.
Table 4-3 presents a framework for selecting the
appropriate level of effort for ESC measures.
4.3 APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF Required and recommended levels of ESC are
specified based on the erosion potential defined in
EFFORT FOR ESC Table 4.2 and on the consequences of erosion and
sedimentation due to roadway construction activities.
To identify the appropriate level of effort for
mitigating the risks of erosion, the results of the
Table 4-3 Required Levels of Erosion and Sediment Control
Level of Erosion and Sediment Control

Erosion Consequences Staged More Monitor
Potential of Erosion and ESC Plan Divert construction Intensive Water
(Table 4-2) Sedimentation and Runoff and Sediment Quality
Procedural Structural Around Progressive Control (TSS and
BMP’s BMP’s Site Rehabilitation BMP’s Turbidity)
Low Advisedb - - - - -
Low
High Required Required - - - -
a
Low Required - - - - -
Moderate b b b
High Required Required Advised Advised Advised Advisedb
Low a
Required Required Required Required Required Advisedb
High c
High Required Required Required Required Required Required
Source: Modification of procedures described by Lloyd and Van Delft (2001); City of Calgary (2001).
Notes: (a) If economically justified, it may be acceptable to limit ESC measures for low-consequence projects to procedural
BMP’s only. Refer to discussion in subsequent text.
(b) This level of ESC should be implemented where practical. For example, a small, short-duration may not require
staged construction and progressive rehabilitation. Recommended actions may be necessary to demonstrate due
diligence in the event of the release of sediment due to an extreme runoff event.
(c) Water quality monitoring will not prevent erosion or sedimentation, but provides a quantitative measurement of the
effectiveness of ESC measures. Monitoring may be required by regulatory agencies, particularly for instream
construction.
In Table 4-3, the assessment of consequences to • no project costs or schedules that would be
downstream or off-site resources should consider the significantly affected by erosion or
three types of potential consequences discussed in sedimentation; and
Section 4.1: ecological, project and legal. For a
project to have low consequences of erosion and • no risk of legal consequences due to
sedimentation, there should be: regulatory violations, including sediment
deposition (Fisheries Act 36(3) violation),
HADD (Fisheries Act 35(1) violation), or
• no ecologically sensitive areas that could be violations of provincial or municipal
disturbed by discharges of water and regulations.
sediment from the construction site. These
could include waterbodies as well as
riparian and terrestrial areas; If the level of any of these three types of
consequences is significant, then the consequence
should be rated as high.

Some areas of Canada may be so far from fish- erosion potential by 10%, and seeding of exposed
bearing streams that there are no ecological or legal soils can reduce the erosion potential by up to 90%.
consequences associated with erosion. In these
cases, even if there is a moderate or high erosion
potential, it may be acceptable to follow good A review of the construction site and construction
housekeeping practices without applying any erosion plans and schedule by a practitioner who is
control or sediment control BMP’s. In cases such as experienced in ESC issues can significantly reduce
these, the cost of applying structural BMP’s may be risks. A review will permit the early development of
greater than the potential cost of repairs due to an ESC plan and the integration of the ESC plan with
erosion. These cases should be considered on a the construction plan. In this way, erosion is planned
site- and project-specific basis and must be for, rather than reacted to. In addition, the ESC
supported by a defensible rationale. prescriptions can be integrated and implemented
alongside construction activities to reduce the risk of
erosion.
For example, if the work is to be done in an area of
silty soil, which is highly erodible, then more ESC will
need to be planned for and implemented than on a
site with a well-graded gravel surface. Similarly, if
the receiving environment of a potential sediment
release is a fish-bearing waterbody, then more ESC
would be required than if the receiving environment
is a roadside ditch.
The physical nature of mobilized sediment should be

considered when assessing the need for, and sizing
of, more intensive sediment control BMP’s, such as
sediment traps and ponds. Such measures may be
relatively ineffective at removal of fine sediments,
including clays and fine silts, meaning erosion control
efforts should be intensified. Coarse sands rapidly
settle out of suspension and are easily dealt with by
sediment control BMP’s. Sediment physics and
control are discussed elsewhere in the Guide.
The greatest risks related to erosion and

sedimentation come from poor planning or failing to
properly implement an ESC plan. ESC control does
not always need to be sophisticated. As noted in
Table 4-3, projects with low erosion potential and low
consequences of erosion and sedimentation may
require only that procedural BMP’s be followed, with
no formal ESCP required. Projects with greater
erosion potential and greater consequences of
erosion and sedimentation require progressively
greater ESC efforts.
Simple measures, implemented at appropriate times,

can significantly reduce erosion and related
problems. Many of the factors that contribute to
erosion can be addressed through planning and with
the equipment commonly found at a construction
site. For example, when constructing a section of
road through an area of silt and gravel, simply
tracking the soil up exposed slopes can reduce the


Part II – Application
Part II of the Guideline is intended to provide practitioners in the field of erosion and
sediment control with guidance on the:
• structure and key elements of an erosion and sediment control

plan;
• methods for assessing a site for erosion potential and
environmental sensitivity;
• selection and design of best management practices for erosion and
sediment control; and
• implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan to ensure
its success.
This information is intended to provide practitioners with a sound method for developing
and implementing an erosion and sediment control plan. This method should be applied
using the concepts discussed in Part I of the guideline as a basis for decision-making.


CHAPTER 5 - EROSION AND

SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
5.1 INTRODUCTION ESCP by appropriate planning will also reduce
potential fines and litigation costs (as discussed in
Chapter 2). Many projects have failed or incurred
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) high costs and resulted in significant environmental
provides an effective tool for reducing potential impacts because managers did not avert the crisis by
environmental effects (IECA 1998) by: planning but instead reacted to the crisis after it
occurred.
• identifying ESC objectives before construction;
Simply developing an ESCP does not guarantee
• encouraging planning to manage water, control effective ESC. A survey conducted by Brown and
erosion and control sediment by identifying Caraco (1997) found that 10% of ESCP’s existed
potential impacts and mitigation measures; only on paper and were not implemented at all.
• providing a mechanism for clear communication Project designers may develop construction and site
to workers; plans in isolation from the ESCP designer and non-
integrated plans may contribute to failures. ESC
• defining a performance expectation; and plans may be developed by junior personnel who
• assuring owners and regulators that due lack the experience or training necessary to develop
diligence has been exercised. an effective plan. ESC measures may be installed in
inappropriate locations, may not be installed properly
or may be maintained improperly. ESC measures
The purpose of an ESCP, in order of priority, is to: may not receive adequate attention and financial
support relative to the rest of a roadway construction
project. Effective ESCP’s require awareness and
1. Minimize erosion potential by effective planning,
diligence by everyone involved in the process.
procedures and water management;
2. Apply erosion control measures to prevent
mobilization of sediment; and Before preparing an ESCP, the designer should have
a clear understanding of applicable laws and
3. Apply sediment control measures to prevent off- regulations (Chapter 2), water management, erosion
site sediment release in the event of sediment and sedimentation (Chapter 3), and the appropriate
mobilization. level of effort to be applied (Chapter 4).
It should identify the location, design, and schedule This chapter discusses the essential components of
for appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP’s), an ESCP. Several key components are discussed in
and assign responsibilities for its implementation. detail in subsequent chapters. Information regarding
The ESCP should be considered a “living document” soil type, drainage characteristics, flooding potential
that may need to be changed or adapted during the and environmental sensitivities can help identify both
life of the project to be effective. beneficial features and potential problem areas on a
site. Data collection and site assessment are
discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 addresses
Effective ESC starts with planning. A proper plan can
selection and design of appropriate BMP’s. These
reduce costs of dealing with erosion and sediment
are critical to developing an effective and economic
transport/deposition that may include removing
ESCP. Plan implementation, including installation,
deposited soil, repairing erosion damage, regrading
inspection and decommissioning of ESC measures,
slopes and replacing topsoil. Developing a suitable

management of failures and documentation of ESC the ESCP designer. The project designer can
activities, is discussed in Chapter 8. provide the ESCP designer with available
background data and project design information
including project footprint, activities, construction
5.2 SCOPE OF ESC PLANNING phasing and scheduling. A project designer can
assist in ESC by minimizing clearing, phasing
construction to limit soil exposure, leaving buffer
An ESCP must satisfy the information needs of both
strips adjacent to sensitive areas, reducing the
regulators and contractors. The plan should clearly
steepness and length of final slopes and by
identify how to manage water, control erosion and
using existing drainage pathways for site
control sedimentation, including where to install
drainage. Much of the data required for an ESC
appropriate BMP’s, how to install the BMP’s and
site assessment may already have been
when to install, maintain and remove BMP’s.
collected during the project design. The project
Effective water management and ESC planning
designer may be a valuable source of
should be done in cooperation with the project
information regarding local sensitivities, including
designer, contractor and regulatory agencies.
soil, vegetation and biological receptors, and
limitations or restrictions on BMP’s.
5.3 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ESC • ESCP Designer. The ESCP designer must
PLANNING AND develop a plan that meets the requirements of
the regulator, works with the plans of the project
IMPLEMENTATION designer, and meets the needs of the contractor.
The ESCP designer should visit the site before,
Everyone involved in a roadway construction project during and after construction to plan and
has a role in ESC. The key roles involved in ESC evaluate the installation and effectiveness of the
planning include: BMPs. The ESCP designer should visit the
project site to conduct a thorough inspection, as
part of the site assessment, and is responsible
• Owner: ESC is ultimately the responsibility of for communicating the results of the risk
the property owner. The owner may delegate assessment to other members of the ESC team.
responsibility for ESC planning to an ESCP The primary responsibility for BMP selection,
designer and ESC implementation to a layout and design lies with the ESCP designer.
contractor. However, the presence of a contract The ESCP designer should consider advice on
does not remove responsibility for compliance BMP selection, layout and design from the
with the Fisheries Act from the owner. During project designer, regulators, contractors and site
the data collection and site assessment phases inspectors. The ESCP should be flexible and
of ESC planning, the owner can provide advice may need to be changed to effectively control
to the ESCP designer, based on prior erosion and sediment on the construction site. It
experience, and may also be able to provide is only through evaluation by field monitoring of
information from previous projects that could the effectiveness of their plan that designers can
reduce data collection requirements. It is the improve their plans. This feedback and revision
owner’s responsibility to adequately budget for is primarily accomplished by communications
effective ESCP’s. The owner or their between the ESCP designer, contractor and
representative should discuss cost and level of inspector.
risk with the ESCP designer to establish an
appropriate level of effort for ESC development. • Regulator. It is the responsibility of the
If ESC measures fail, the owner must be notified regulator to enforce the environmental laws, and
and should be involved in discussions with under the Fisheries Act, designated DFO and
regulators in the event of a regulatory violation. Environment Canada personnel have the power
Decommissioning of ESC measures is subject to to suspend work and order remedial measures
the mutual agreement of the contractor and the (refer to Chapter 2). Regulators have the
owner. responsibility to enforce laws and regulations in
a manner that is realistic, achievable and
• Project Designer. It is important that the project consistent. Regulatory agencies must clearly
designer recognize the importance of ESC and communicate submission requirements to the
that site plans are developed in cooperation with designers and should encourage innovation and

new ideas. Regulators should recognize that designers, such as a Certified Professional in
perfect ESC is not achievable and that some fine Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC) (see
sediment may be released to receiving waters. www.cpesc.org for more information). Individuals
They should regulate the application of ESCP’s without these qualifications may have the
to ensure BMP’s are used to minimize sediment competency necessary to perform their work, but it is
discharge to receiving waters. Regulatory the owner’s responsibility to ensure that a project’s
agencies can also provide valuable information ESC practitioners have the experience and expertise
and advice to assist in compliance, including necessary to perform their work. This action can be
identification of local sensitivities, including soil, viewed positively as demonstrating due diligence in
vegetation and biological receptors, and controlling erosion and sedimentation by selecting
observations regarding effectiveness of various qualified delegates.
locally-applied BMP’s.
• Contractor. Contractors control the 5.4 COMPONENTS OF AN ESCP
effectiveness of ESCP’s. It is the role of the
contractor to be familiar with the ESCP and to
take it seriously. It is the contractor’s 5.4.1 Process for ESCP Development
responsibility to install BMPs correctly and once
installed, inspect and maintain them as
necessary. Contractors must communicate to The process for developing an ESCP involves a
designers when ESC measures are not number of steps that are described in detail in this
functioning as designed and cooperate when and subsequent chapters. An outline of the ESCP
changes or modifications are recommended. development process is provided in Figure 5-1. A
The contractor must also cooperate with the site detailed checklist corresponding to this flowchart is
inspectors and communicate to them included in Appendix C.
modifications to the original plan. Contractors
can provide valuable advice during all phases of
5.4.2 Structure of the ESCP
ESC planning, from the site assessment through
design and implementation. Decommissioning
of temporary ESC measures is subject to the From a regulator’s perspective, an ESCP must
mutual agreement of the contractor and owner. contain enough information so that a reviewer can
see that the problems of erosion and sedimentation
• Site Inspector. It is the responsibility of the site
will be adequately addressed for the project. From a
inspector to understand the ESCP and
contractor’s perspective, an ESCP must be a clear
construction methods. It is their role to
and detailed document which is easy to understand
recognize the effective application of BMPs and
and considers the work progression schedule. The
communicate any concerns to the contractor.
plan needs to include detailed installation
During the project site assessment and ESCP
specifications, inspection and maintenance and
design phases, the site inspector, if available,
removal requirements, as well as measures to deal
can provide valuable feedback to the ESCP
with an emergency situation.
designer as to the performance of various
BMP’s.
The ESCP should clearly summarize project and site
conditions. It should describe the measures required
Currently in Canadian jurisdictions, there are few
to control sediment and assign responsibilities for
requirements for ESC practitioners to hold
implementing and revising the plan and resolving any
professional or academic qualifications, but some
conflicts which might arise. This and other
owners have instituted or are considering such
information should be presented as follows (Walker
requirements. The Nova Scotia Department of
and Fifield, 1997; IECA, 1998):
Transportation and Public Works (NSTPW) requires
contractors to have on-site personnel who have
successfully completed an ESC course sponsored by
NSTPW. Other organizations have considered
requirements for professional certification for ESCP

Site Data Collection

• Obtain project design drawings Refer to Chapter 6
• Collect site physical and environmental information
• Prepare ESC site map
Site Assessment
• Inspect site areas and determine erosion sensitivities
• Identify environmental receptor sensitivities Refer to Chapter 6
• Characterize site meteorology and hydrology
• Review all legislative and regulatory requirements
BMP Selection and Design

• Define Area of Concern (AOC)
• Divert upstream water around the site Refer to Chapter 7
• Prepare a surface water management plan
• Prepare and erosion control plan
• Prepare a sediment management plan
ESCP Design
• Prepare ESCP documentation

• Include schedule coordinated with construction sequence Refer to Chapter 5
• Include monitoring, maintenance and re-design plan
• Include contingency plan
• Include shut-down plan
ESCP Review
• Owners or regulators may require the ESCP to be Refer to Chapter 5
reviewed
ESCP Implementation
• Install BMP's
• Monitor and maintain BMP's and maintain record Refer to Chapter 8
• Revise ESCP as required
• Report incidents to owners and regulators
ESCP Decommissioning
• Remove temporary BMP's Refer to Chapter 8
• Commence long-term monitoring and maintenance
program
Figure 5-1 ESCP Development Process (Adapted from City of Calgary 2001)

• Statement of Objectives: The ESCP should receive increased runoff, areas with highly
contain a brief statement of its objectives. This erodible soils or limited vegetation cover, or
should be site-specific and include reference to predisturbed areas. Similarly, areas with
the boundaries of the project, applicable laws sensitive environmental receptors should be
and regulatory agencies, and local identified. These critical areas could include
environmental sensitivities. waterbodies in or adjacent to the project area.
Identification of critical or sensitive areas will
• Project Description: The project description provide input to the risk assessment and
should provide a general description of the appropriate level of effort. This is discussed
proposed development with a focus on the further in Chapter 6.
nature and timing of the land disturbing activity.A
summary of the work progression schedule • Responsibilities and Accountability:
should be included along with a site plan Responsible personnel must be designated for
showing each phase of the development (1) day-to-day implementation of the ESCP
indicating the limits of clearing and grading and including installation and removal of ESC
the location of cut/fill slopes and stockpiles. measures; (2) inspection and maintenance of
ESC measures during construction; and
• Pre-development Site Conditions: The site (3) inspection and maintenance of permanent
conditions prior to development should be ESC measures after construction is complete. A
documented, including: record of the names, positions and contact
• the location of the proposed development numbers of those responsible for plan
including site size, adjacent properties and preparation, review and implementation must be
landmarks; included in the ESCP.
• existing land uses including general • BMP Selection and Design: An ESCP should
topography, vegetation, and soil types; provide a description of the methods that will be
used to control erosion and sediment throughout
• existing site drainage patterns including the life of the project in coordination with the
waterbodies that may be affected by the construction schedule and consideration of the
disturbance; neighboring areas such as risks (Chapter 4). The ESCP should include site
residential and commercial areas, parks, plans for each phase of construction (as
reserves and roads that may be affected by necessary) detailing the appropriate location and
the disturbance; and configuration of the ESC measures that should
• an assessment of anticipated site conditions be implemented. All temporary and permanent
during the work. Seasonal variations in erosion and sediment controls should be
climate and vegetation and the effects this identified along with their proper installation
may have on the project should be identified. requirements, inspection schedules,
maintenance requirements and
The documentation describing pre-development decommissioning procedures.
conditions should be kept with other relevant
project information in a file maintained by the The ESCP should describe how the site will be
owner or the owner’s delegate. A site plan of stabilized after each phase of construction is
existing conditions should be included in the competed, if a storm event is anticipated and
ESCP showing adjacent properties (waterbodies, during operational shut-downs. Soil stabilization
residential and commercial areas, parks, should be the first priority of ESC planning. BMP
reserves and roads); contours; vegetation selection and design are discussed in detail in
characteristics; soil types; drainage divides and Chapter 7.
flow direction; and critical areas within or near
the development. This is discussed further in • Monitoring and Maintenance: Responsibilities
Chapter 6. for monitoring and maintenance of the temporary
ESC measures during and after construction and
• Critical Areas of Concern: From the existing for permanent control measures after the
site condition assessment, critical areas within completion of construction must be assigned.
the proposed development that have potential for Maintenance and repair of ESC measures
serious erosion problems should be identified. should be undertaken according to a schedule
These critical areas may include steep or long and at other times as identified during
slopes, ravines or natural watercourses that may

inspections. Implementation of the ESCP, Equation for Application in Canada (RUSLE-FAC) to

including monitoring and maintenance, is assess soil loss on large or complex sites.
discussed further in Chapter 8.
• Contingency Plan: The ESCP should contain 5.6 ESCP DESIGN CRITERIA
an outline of preventative maintenance
measures to be undertaken if an extreme or long
duration rain event is anticipated. It should The prime criterion for design of ESC measures is to
identify the steps to be taken in the event of the minimize erosion and sediment release to natural
failure of erosion and sediment controls. receiving waters by application of appropriate BMP’s,
Contingency planning and failure management as outlined in this document. Regulators must
are discussed further in Chapter 8. accept that application of this criterion will result in
some erosion and imperfect sediment control.
• Detailed Site Drawings: The ESCP should Owners must accept that ESCP’s that are not
contain a series of site plans illustrating and designed and implemented with a high standard of
describing mitigation measures to be undertaken care, including appropriate selection and application
during all phases of the project. of BMP’s, risks excessive discharge of sediment to
receiving waters and may result in prosecution under
federal and provincial regulations.
5.5 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC
ESCP’S
In some jurisdictions, owners or regulators have

specific requirements for ESCP’s that may not be
included in this document. Often, an owner will
require more detailed ESCP’s than the minimum
expected by the regulators to demonstrate due
diligence. Practitioners should make themselves
familiar with the requirements of their client and of
the regulators in the area. For example:
• Alberta Transportation requires contractors to

prepare an Environmental Construction
Operation (ECO) Plan to ensure that they satisfy
the environmental requirements specific to a
project;
• Prince Edward Island’s and Nova Scotia’s
Departments of Transportation and Public Works
have developed Environmental Protection Plans
(EPP’s) outlining the required protection
measures for activities conducted on provincial
rights-of-way;
• Nova Scotia requires completion of a Work
Progression Schedule and detailed Culvert
Mitigation Measures (CMP’s) which include
detailed plans for erosion, sediment and water
control at water crossings.
• In New Brunswick, there is a move towards site-
specific EPP’s that include provisions for ESC.
Other jurisdictions or owners may require specific

analysis, such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss

CHAPTER 6 - SITE ASSESSMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION in project design drawings includes: project size and
location; natural and post-construction topography;
watercourse locations; road and ditch alignments;
A project site assessment is intended to provide and material storage areas. The drawings and
information needed to assess the erosion potential of related documents should also provide construction
a roadway construction site and to identify beneficial sequencing information and design details for
features or potential problem areas on the site. The temporary works. This information can be compared
project site includes construction areas and to other site data to identify erosion potential and
peripheral areas including temporary roads, quarries, encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas on
grubbing and material disposal areas, office, storage the construction site.
and staging areas.
For urban roadway construction projects, special
Identifying the erosion potential of a site and the attention must be given to existing stormwater
sensitivity of its receiving waters is fundamental in collection systems. These may be detailed on the
determining the level of risk and appropriate level of project design drawings, or it may be necessary to
effort for ESC. An effective ESCP will minimize the review as-built drawings of adjacent developments.
site disturbance and protect sensitive areas.
6.2.2 Soils Information

This chapter discusses information needs and
potential data sources for ESC planning and design.
Contact with regulatory agencies in the early stages Soils information is used to determine the erosion
of the development of a project is essential to potential of the site. Generally, soil with a high silt
establishing their submission requirements. and fine sand content is the most erodible. Soils
Regulators may also be able to provide site-specific data are also used in the RUSLE equation (Appendix
data and advice for use in developing the ESCP. A) to estimate the soil erodibility factor, which is a
measure of a soil’s inherent susceptibility to erosion.
A general guide to erodibility by soil type is provided
6.2 INFORMATION NEEDS in Table 4-1, based on the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) as presented in Figure 6-1.
This section presents a discussion of the relevance
and required detailed sources of data related to ESC Geotechnical reports used for design of the
planning and design. Sources of data include design construction project can provide information on soil
drawings, soils information, aerial photos, waterbody descriptions, thicknesses, moisture contents, and
information, vegetative cover and fisheries water table levels. Data from discrete locations can
classifications. A site inspection by the ESCP be interpreted to estimate soil characteristics.
designer is essential to ground-truthing data and Construction drawings for grading projects commonly
providing a basis for the subsequent ESC design. include the following soils information that can be
The data collection and site inspection should also useful for defining soil characteristics and erosion
be used to identify critical areas of concern on the susceptibility:
project site and downstream. Familiarity with
regulatory requirements is also important when • Plasticity Index (PI);
preparing an ESCP.
• USCS soil classification;
• Moisture content (%);
6.2.1 Project Design Drawings
• Estimated optimum moisture content; and
Construction drawings contain essential information • Estimated maximum dry density based on
that must be considered and included in the testing (kg/m3).
preparation of an ESCP. Information typically found

Group Log
Major Divisions Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria
Symbols Symbols
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand Cu = D60 / D10 is greater than 4;

CLEAN GRAVELS
(Little or no fines)
GW 2
mixtures, little or no fines Cc = (D30) / (D10 x D60) is between 1 and 3
is larger than No. 5000 sieve size)
(More than half of coarse fraction
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand

GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
Depending on percent of fines (fraction smaller than No. 80 sieve size), coarse-grained
mixtures, little or no fines
GRAVELS
(More than half of material is larger than No. 80 sieve size)
5% to 12% ---------------------------- Borderline cases requiring dual symbols**

d
GRAVELS WITH FINES
Atterberg Limits below “A”

(Appreciable amount
GM* Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Above “A” Line with P.I.
Line or P.I. is less than 4
u between 4 and 7 are
of fines)
borderline cases requiring

COARSE GRADED SOILS
Atterberg Limits above “A” use of dual symbols**

GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Determine amount of sand and gravel from grain size curve

Line with P.I. greater than 7
Less than 5% ------------------------ GW, GP, SW, SP

More than 12% ---------------------- GM, GC, SM, SC
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little Cu = D60 / D10 is greater than 6;
(Little or no fines)
SW
CLEAN SANDS
2
or no fines Cc = (D30) / (D10 x D60) is between 1 and 3
is smaller than No. 5000 sieve size)
(More than half of coarse fraction
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little

SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
or no fines
soils are classified as follows:

SANDS
d Atterberg Limits below “A”

SANDS WITH FINES
Limits plotting in hatched

(Appreciable amount
SM* Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

Line or P.I. is less than 4 zone with P.I. between 4
u
of fines)
and 7 are borderline cases
Atterberg Limits above “A” requiring use of dual

SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures symbols**
Line with P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic clays of low plasticity, gravelly

(Above “A” Line on Plasticity Chart;
Note: for soils passing No. 400 sieve

WL < 30% CL
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
negligible organic content)
PLASTICITY CHART
30% < Inorganic clays of medium plasticity,
CLAYS
60
WL CI
< 50%
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays
(More than half of material is smaller than No. 80 sieve size)
50
CH
WL > 50% CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
"A" Line
40
PLASTICITY INDEX (P.I.)
"C" Line
"B" Line
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock

FINE GRAINED SOILS
30
flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey
negligible organic
WL < 50% ML
(Below “A” Line;
silts with slight plasiticity CI OH & MH

content)
SILTS
20
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
CL
WL > 50% MH diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts 10
CL - ML ML & OL
ML
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low 0
ORGANIC SILTS
WL < 50% OL
(Below “A” Line)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
plasiticity
AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT (WL)
Organic clays of medium to high

WL > 50% OH
plasticity, organic silts
HIGHLY Peat and other highly organic soils Strong colour or odor and fibrous textures
Pt
ORGANIC SOILS
Notes: * Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg Limits; suffix d is used when Liquid Limit is 28 or
less and the plasticity index is 6 or less; the suffix u is used when the liquid limit is greater than 28.
** Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combination of group symbols. For example: GW-GC, well-graded gravel-
sand mixture with clay binder
Figure 6-1 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS; modified by PFRA)

6.2.3 Aerial Photographs watercourses includes channel geometry, slope,

stability, substrate, flow and sediment transport
characteristics, bank and bedforms and riparian
Aerial photographs can provide an excellent vegetation. Floodplain areas should also be
overview of surficial features and landforms on the identified. Detailed data for lakes and wetlands
project site. They can provide useful information on include bathymetry, bedforms, substrates and
drainage patterns, slope instabilities and historical aquatic and riparian vegetation.
features. The effects of the project on drainage
patterns, slopes and unstable landforms, and vice
versa, can be determined by overlaying project Hydrological analyses use rainfall, snowmelt and
features on the aerial photos. The type and extent of streamflow data to calculate runoff quantities and
vegetation cover can also be derived from aerial watercourse design discharges. Methods for
photos. The preferred scale for airphotos to identify calculating design discharges are addressed in
fine scale features is 1:5,000, though smaller scales Appendix E. Information required for hydrological
(i.e., 1:10,000 and greater) may be used if recent, analyses includes climate data, watershed drainage
larger scale airphotos are not available. areas (these can be measured as delineated on
contour maps), topography and ground cover
characteristics, and hydrometric data from local and
Aerial photos can usually be obtained from the regional watersheds.
National Air Photo Library, provincial or territorial
environmental agencies, local municipalities or
academic and public libraries. 6.2.5 Vegetation Information
6.2.4 Climate and Hydrology Information on existing vegetative cover can provide
Information useful models for post-construction revegetation
efforts. The climate or geology at a site may limit its
potential for vegetation establishment. Vegetation
Climate and hydrology information are available information may also be useful in determining
through Environment Canada, Agriculture Canada, sensitive areas or locations of potential vegetated
provincial or territorial environment agencies or local buffer zones.
municipalities.
Vegetative cover maps can provide information
Climate data are essential inputs to ESC designs. about the type and extent of vegetation, drainage
Information such as rainfall and snowfall seasonal patterns and soil types. Unless developed for the
normals and extremes and typical dates of snowmelt specific site, vegetative cover maps will likely not
and frost can be used to identify ESC activity provide the level of detail required for ESC
schedules. Precipitation data can also be used to measures. Large scale vegetative cover maps can
estimate runoff quantities. be obtained through Environment Canada,
Agriculture Canada, or provincial or territorial
environment agencies.
Site topography and existing on-site and off-site
drainage should be examined to provide input into
the water management component of the ESCP. The ESCP should be site-specific and incorporate
This will help the ESCP designer to make use of observations at the project site. The best way to
existing watercourses, to integrate new temporary or document and assess site-specific vegetation
permanent diversions into the landscape and to conditions is during the site inspection. Regulators
specify requirements for diversion geometries and generally require that post-construction revegetation
vegetation or armour. meets or exceeds original conditions, so it is
important to document the state of the vegetation
cover prior to construction. Photography during the
Information regarding on-site and off-site sources of
site inspection is the most effective way of
runoff and information regarding receiving
documenting site vegetation conditions.
waterbodies are required to design mitigation
measures to prevent sediment deposition. Detailed
physical data are essential for watercourse crossing
projects and ESCP designs. Data required for

6.2.6 Fisheries Information The site should be photographed during the

inspection to document its original condition,
including development, vegetation, drainage and
Fisheries classifications should be determined for all erosion characteristics. DFO specifically requests
watercourses potentially affected by the construction. photographs of watercourse crossings with project
Fisheries information can provide direction on proposal submissions.
restrictive timing windows for construction in
particular watercourses. It can also provide
guidance on the sensitivity of the watercourse and its Persons inspecting the site should be aware, and
riparian zone to disturbance. This is essential make observations on, what effect seasonal variation
determining the potential effects of the project and might have on streamflow, runoff and vegetation
the appropriate level of effort for ESC. DFO and conditions. This includes observations of high water
provincial or territorial environment agencies should marks and dry ponds or watercourses. These
be consulted to determine fisheries data observations are particularly important if the
requirements, and they may be able to provide some inspection is not performed during the same season
regional or site-specific information. However, as that for which construction is planned.
supplemental data, including detailed surveys of fish
community, fish habitat and seasonal usage, may be
required and these should be collected by a qualified
6.2.9 Regulatory Standards
professional.
All applicable statutes, as well as the expectations of
regulatory personnel, must be taken into
6.2.7 Other Biological Information consideration when preparing the ESCP. Early
contact with regulatory agencies is recommended to
Additional biological information may be required to establish their requirements and to take full
meet requirements associated with other statutes advantage of data that they may be able to provide.
and regulations. This could include data related to Further information on legislation and regulatory
migratory waterfowl, terrestrial wildlife, species at risk requirements for ESC is provided in Chapter 2.
and rare plants. These data requirements are not
addressed in detail here, because they are generally
related to overall project disturbance, rather than 6.3 EVALUATION OF EROSION
specifically to ESC. However, if these data are POTENTIAL
required, it may be efficient to collect them in
conjunction with data required for ESC planning.
6.3.1 General
6.2.8 Site Inspection
The erosion potential of a site is an estimate of the
amount of soil loss due to erosion and sediment
The site inspection is an essential step in ESCP transport. A site-specific erosion potential evaluation
design. Observations of on-site conditions can can be used to assess the appropriate level of effort
provide the greatest level of detail for identifying and to be applied to ESC. If the soils, site conditions and
assessing the magnitude of potential ESC concerns. construction planning are structured such that the
Field observations help the designer verify other potential for erosion on a site is low, there is a low
sources of information and identify sensitive areas, risk of off-site sediment discharge. Erosion
potential problem areas, or beneficial features on- prevention measures are far less expensive than
site. Sensitive areas could include areas with corrective measures to remove sediment from water.
sensitive soils, vegetation (including rare plants), fish Erosion potential can be reduced by minimizing
and wildlife and the inspection should consider the vegetation removal, covering stripped soils as soon
project footprint, potential site access and stockpile as possible, and reducing runoff flow velocity by
locations, and areas where water may be diverted or reducing the steepness and lengths of slopes,
discharged from the site. In urban areas, the site dispersing the runoff and setting up obstacles to
inspection should also identify sensitivities with water flow.
adjacent neighborhoods and developments and with
existing storm drainage infrastructure that will receive
flow from the construction site.

There are three main approaches to estimating provided in Appendix A. Using the RUSLE factors,
erosion potential: the soil erosion potential of a site should be
estimated for each distinct area and period of
anticipated construction activity.
1. An empirical approach used to size a
sediment pond based on the area of
disturbed soil; RUSLE 2, an updated, more user-friendly version of
the model, has recently been released and could
also be used for estimating soil loss during
2. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
construction.
(RUSLE), an empirical equation to estimate
soil loss based on soil type, climate,
topography, land use and vegetation. 6.3.4 Process Based Models
3. Process-based models (such as WEPP), Recent efforts in erosion science have resulted in
used to estimate soil loss based on climate, computer models that estimate soil loss based on
soil physics, hydrology, hydraulics, plant theories of climate, soil physics, hydrology,
science, and erosion mechanics theory. hydraulics, plant science and erosion mechanics.
The United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Each approach is discussed separately below. has recently developed the Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP) as a method to assess the erosion
potential of a site (Flanagan et al., 1995). WEPP is a
6.3.2 Empirical Method for Sediment computer model that estimates soil loss by taking
Pond Capacity into consideration a variety of physical factors and
processes such as weather, soil condition (type,
moisture content, temperature and disturbance), flow
This method is based on an empirical relationship hydraulics, infiltration and plant growth. The WEPP
between storage capacity in a sediment basin and model can calculate the spatial and temporal
the area of disturbed soil on site and does not distributions of soil loss and sediment deposition.
consider site specific factors or erosion control
measures. It should only be used to size sediment
ponds for small sites (less than 10 ha recommended) Like most process-based models, WEPP requires
and should be applied with caution. Sediment ponds site-specific calibration in order to obtain meaningful
are the last line of defence against off-site results. Sufficient calibration data is not available yet
sedimentation, and do not eliminate the need for for most regions in Canada, and as such, the WEPP
proper site planning, management and erosion model is not practical for most Canadian projects yet.
control measures. Sediment storage provisions in New generations of technology, like WEPP, may
settling basins for small sites are generally designed soon become useful erosion prediction tools for
for volumes ranging up to 250 m3/ha of disturbed ESCP designers and regulators.
(exposed soil) area. Climate variability and soil types
in different areas of Canada may require sediment
ponds to be sized with larger capacities than 6.4 REGIONAL EROSION
provided above. Sediment pond sizing is discussed POTENTIAL ISSUES IN
further in Appendix G. CANADA
6.3.3 Revised Universal Soil Loss The many diverse regions of Canada may differ in
Equation (RUSLE) their sensitivities to erosion and sedimentation,
though some issues apply across the country. It is
important to be familiar with, and to address, site-
The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
specific issues when developing an ESCP. This
can be used to roughly estimate soil loss using
section is not intended to provide an exhaustive list
information on soil type, climate, topography, land
of all regional issues, but attempts to highlight the
use practice and vegetative cover. The RUSLE
differences and challenges in ESC in and around
formulation was discussed in Chapter 3 and a more
Canada.
detailed discussion of its theory and application is

Canada is home to a number of flora and fauna ESC measures, early revegetation of exposed
species that are considered at risk or endangered. surfaces and pro-active maintenance programs could
Many species are protected by regulation. Federal help in reducing impacts in these areas.
and provincial regulatory agencies should be
consulted for more information on the implications for
any roadway construction project. Consultation with To identify specific regional issues related to ESC,
local communities or First Nations may also be the physiographic regions of Canada should be
considered. These are the Cordillera, Interior Plains,
required as part of a project, and ESC planning may
be integrated as part of that consultation process. Canadian Shield, Hudson Bay Lowlands, Great
Lakes – St. Lawrence Lowlands, Appalachian
Uplands and Arctic. A map of the physiographic
Areas with dense networks of roads and regions in Canada is presented in Figure 6-2.
watercourses, particularly in the southern portion of Specific ESC issues are discussed separately for
Canada, may be particularly sensitive to erosion and each physiographic region as well as for northern
sedimentation issues. Emphasizing proper design of environments in general .
Figure 6-2: Physiographic Regions of Canada
Cordillera: The topography of the Cordillera Region by high gradient slopes, large annual rainfall and
is dominated by mountains, plateaus and steep high runoff resulting from rain-on-snow events.
valleys. Erosion potential in the Cordillera is affected Debris flows along the west coast are common and

should be an important design consideration. Many be to minimize the extent and duration of exposed
rivers in this western region are habitat for highly- soil and to stabilize temporary stockpiles.
valued fish species including salmon.
The Shield is home to several highly-valued
The diverse topography in the Cordillera Region recreational and protected areas including the Great
creates a variety of site-specific challenges for ESC. Lakes to the south.
ESCP designers should be prepared for
rainfall/runoff events, minimize the extent and
Hudson Bay Lowlands: The Hudson Bay Lowlands
duration of exposed soil, consider stabilizing
temporary stockpiles (i.e. seeding or mulching) and are composed mostly of muskeg or peatlands, and
be attentive to site sensitivities. are dotted with ponds, lakes and streams. This area
is the third largest wetland in the world. Long-term
increases in sediment load can in-fill wetlands
Interior Plains: The Interior Plains Region has an completely; short-term increases can increase
arid climate, little elevation relief and relatively fine- turbidity, decrease production and affect the nutrient
grained soils that are highly susceptible to erosion. cycling. Subsidence associated with permafrost
Agriculture on the prairies has created tilled and thawing is expected to increase the problems for
disturbed soils that are highly susceptible to erosion. construction and maintenance in this area.
Vegetation establishment can be difficult because of
the arid climate and nutrient-poor soils.
Similar to the Shield region, emergency response
planning is a particularly important part of ESC in this
Wind erosion is a particularly important issue in the region. A key consideration in ESC planning should
southern portions of the Interior Plains. Areas with be to minimize the extent and duration of exposed
dry, warm climates and with sparse vegetation cover soil and stabilize temporary stockpiles.
are vulnerable to wind erosion. Measures that can
be used to reduce wind erosion are to reduce the
wind velocity at the soil surface, using windbreaks or Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Lowlands: This
vegetation cover, and to increase the size of soil region is the most southerly in Canada and is one of
the warmest and most densely populated areas of
aggregates, by using cover crops (particularly
grasses and legumes), applying water on unpaved Canada. The fertile soils and humid temperatures
road surfaces, using soil-binding products on make this land excellent for agriculture. The Great
Lakes – St. Lawrence Lowlands region is low in
temporary spoil piles and by emergency tillage
(which creates clods on the soil surface). Larger size elevation and drains towards the Atlantic.
aggregates require a stronger wind to move the soil.
Some of the greatest challenges in this area are due
to its intense summer rains and winter storms.
Beaver dams are a common feature on smaller
watercourses in this region, and they provide critical Emergency response planning is a particularly
late summer flows and overwintering habitat to important part of ESC. ESC planners should attempt
sustain fish. Beaver dam removal should be to minimize the extent and duration of exposed soil
approached with caution. Dams provide natural and stabilize temporary stockpiles
ESC, and the rapid release of water from a breached
dam can cause catastrophic erosion. Proposed Appalachian Uplands: The Appalachian Mountains
beaver dam removal should be reviewed by DFO. and Atlantic Coastal Plain extend throughout Atlantic
Canada. Much of the region has low, rugged hills
and plateaus and a deeply indented coastline.
Canadian Shield: The Canadian Shield is the
largest physiographic regions in Canada and is a
region of exposed rocks and glacial features. The Many streams in this region are home to valuable
Shield is known for its rolling, undulating terrain and commercial fish species (including salmon and trout)
its numerous lakes. Some of the biggest challenges that are migratory and require clean water and
in ESC in Central Canada are the intense summer substrate. Many rivers are navigable and some
rains and winter storms. As such, emergency enter Canada from the United States. Estuarine
response planning is a particularly important part of environments can be affected by sedimentation.
ESC. A key consideration in ESC planning should

Many coastal communities are supported by lucrative except for the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Lowlands
shellfish industries. and Appalachian Uplands. Regions of Canada
where permafrost is found are shown on Figure 6-3.
Construction activities can remove insulating soil and
The climate in areas of Eastern Canada can cause
vegetation, expose dark soils to reduce the ground
large extremes between spring high water and surface albedo, and cause water to flow against
summer low water levels, as well as many freeze- frozen ground. These can produce an unfrozen and
thaw events each winter. Southern areas may not
saturated soil that is susceptible to slope failure and
freeze during some winters. ESCP designers should erosion. Proper northern construction techniques
integrate emergency response planning into the and reclamation efforts are required to prevent
ESCP and contractors should practice good
significant thawing of permafrost soils.
housekeeping and be prepared for intense rain
events, including hurricanes.
In addition to deep organic deposits, northerners
must also contend with very thin topsoil overlaying
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tills, silts and volcanic ash deposits. Vegetation
have an abundance of highly erodible soils and establishment can be challenging due to a very short
sulphide rock encounters. Prince Edward Island has
growing season, the arid climate and nutrient poor
rich, red soil (due to high iron-oxide content) with a soils in portions of the north.
high silt and clay content that is highly erodible. In
areas with fine-grained soil types (i.e. silts and
clays), erosion prevention measures are generally Many northern streams support populations of
more effective than sediment capturing methods. salmon, trout and Arctic Char bearing and may be
sensitive to sediment deposition.
Arctic Canada: The Arctic physiographic region lies
north of the treeline. The short growing season and 6.5 PROJECT RISK
harsh climate result in short, slow-growing
vegetation. A large portion of the surface in this ASSESSMENT
region is bare rock and is covered in snow for the
majority of the year. The largest runoff event is The final step in the project site assessment is to
associated with spring melt. assess the risk of erosion due to roadway
construction activities. This should be done
Major erosion issues related to construction in the according to the process presented in Chapter 4.
Arctic are permafrost degradation due to excavation, The project risk assessment will be used in Chapter
ditch construction and changes in the albedo of the 7 to assist in specifying appropriate levels of effort for
road surface. The harsh climate may also inhibit ESC.
revegetation efforts.
Northern Canada: Permafrost degradation is a

concern in many northern jurisdictions, including
portions of all of Canada’s physiographic regions

Figure 6-3 Permafrost Zones in Canada (Prowse and Ommanney 1990)


CHAPTER 7 - BMP SELECTION AND

DESIGN
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.2 BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
After assessing the project site and identifying risks
of erosion and sediment discharge due to project Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for ESC are
construction, mitigation measures in the form of Best measures taken to prevent erosion and, if erosion
Management Practices (BMP’s) must be selected occurs, to prevent or reduce the release of sediment
and designed. This includes: and debris to receiving waterbodies. BMP’s must be
selected carefully to ensure that they will achieve
• Planning the project to avoid sensitive areas their intended purpose. There are five types of
where practical; BMP’s by which potential ESC-related effects of
roadway projects can be mitigated.
• Adopting procedural practices to reduce
erosion potential;
1. Project Planning and Design BMP’s;
• Preparing a surface water management plan
to limit the exposure of disturbed areas to 2. Procedural BMP’s;
flowing water;
3. Water Management BMP’s;
• Preparing an erosion control plan to prevent
4. Erosion Control BMP’s; and
erosion at the source; and
5. Sediment Control BMP’s.
• Preparing a sediment control plan to keep
sediment on site.
Erosion control and sediment control BMP’s are
often called structural BMP’s because they are
Preventing erosion should be the primary goal of
tangible (e.g., a pond, a fabric, or a root and leaf
an ESCP and its component BMP’s. It is far
system) rather than a planning, design or procedural
easier to control erosion at the source than it is
practice.
to deal with sediment after it has been mobilized.
The following sections discuss the various types of

This chapter presents a summary of selected BMP’s
BMP’s within each classification and include tables
for project planning and design, construction
discussing the applicability of each BMP. The list
procedures, surface water management, erosion
provided here is not intended to be comprehensive
control and sediment control. It then discusses the
and individual agencies may have BMP’s not
method for selecting and arranging these BMP’s to
included in this document.
effectively control erosion and off-site sediment
discharge.
7.2.1 Project Planning and Design
The primary responsibility for BMP selection, layout BMP’s
and design lies with the ESCP designer. However,
all members of the ESC team, including the owner,
During the route selection process, it is important to
project designer, contractor and site inspector,
consider both the potential for erosion and the
should be involved in this task. Regulators may be
potential effects of erosion along a roadway. Routes
consulted during planning and design and will be
can be planned to avoid areas with a higher risk of
responsible for reviewing the finished product. The
erosion, including those with steep slopes, erodible
ESCP designer should draw on the knowledge and
soils, and large numbers of waterbody crossings.
experience of others, as discussed in Chapter 5.
Avoiding these areas may also have economic

benefits for design, construction and operation of the • Keep clean water clean, by diverting clean
roadway. water around the site and by conveying
clean water from undisturbed areas within
the site to natural receiving streams;
Regulatory agencies should be consulted to provide
input regarding sensitive waterbodies and fish • Minimize watercourse disturbance by using
habitat. Avoiding these areas can result in significant existing watercourses for drainage where
cost savings associated with mitigation (i.e., possible and by integrating on-site drainage
construction of single-span bridges instead of multi- into the project design;
span structures) and compensation for harmful
alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish • Design new drainage channels to
habitat. accommodate design discharges and use
natural channel design for watercourse
diversions; and
7.2.2 Procedural BMP’s • Anticipate and manage groundwater where
applicable.
Procedural BMP’s, often called good housekeeping
or minimum measures, are non-structural methods or
Commonly-used water management BMP’s are
procedures that can reduce erosion and sediment
listed in Table 7-2, where the applicability of each
transport at a construction site. These include site
BMP to each roadway construction site area is
management and scheduling practices that may use
noted.
structural erosion or sediment control BMP’s to
achieve their goals. Procedural BMP’s require
coordination between the ESCP designer and the 7.2.4 Erosion Control BMP’s
construction project manager to achieve the
specified goals.
Erosion control BMP’s are intended for application to
Procedural BMP’s also consider sediment that may exposed soil where the risk assessment indicates the
not originate from water erosion on an exposed soil need to reduce the potential for erosion due to wind,
or constructed surface, including: rain splash or flowing water. Preventing erosion at
the source reduces the amount of sediment that
• Wind-blown dust from unpaved roadways needs to be managed by downstream sediment
and material stockpiles; control measures. Erosion can be controlled by
protecting surfaces from runoff or rain splash
• Soil or debris deposited by truck tires; and (exposed surface protection) or by reducing the
quantity or velocity of flow (runoff control).
• Material spilled from truck boxes.
Cover is the single most effective erosion control

Scheduling practices are intended to minimize the
practice, and thus the first goal of any ESCP should
risk of erosion by reducing periods where soils are
be to protect exposed soil from erosion by wind, rain
exposed, reducing potential exposure to erosive
splash and overland flow. This reduces the RUSLE
runoff and minimizing potential downstream effects.
cover management factor and proportionally reduces
the average soil loss.
Commonly-used procedural BMP’s are listed in
Table 7-1, where the applicability of each BMP to
Erosion control BMP’s are also used as structural
each roadway construction site area is noted.
components of water management practices that
control runoff, by diverting water around exposed
7.2.3 Water Management BMP’s areas or by managing it on site to reduce erosion
potential.
Water management BMP’s are non-structural

methods or procedures that include on-site and off- It is important to select appropriate erosion control
site measures. These are intended to control water methods for application to specific areas. Guidance
and reduce erosion potential by following these on BMP applicability is provided in Table 7-3, which
general principles: lists commonly-used erosion control BMP’s.

Table 7-1 Procedural BMP’s for ESC on Roadway Construction Sites
Applicability
Adjacent Properties
Drainage Channels
Pipes and Culverts
Large Flat Surface
Borrow / Stockpile
Name Comments
Watercourses
Slopes
It is essential to properly design and implement a site-specific ESCP to reduce erosion

Design and
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 and ensure that sediment is not released from the construction site. This includes
Implement ESCP
monitoring, maintenance and decommissioning, as discussed in Chapter 8.
By minimizing the total disturbed soil area and the disturbed soil area at any time, the
Minimize Exposed erosion potential is reduced and the quantity of sediment control measures is reduced.
9 9 9 9 9 9
Soils Stripping of new areas should be delayed as long as possible and restoration of
constructed areas should be done as soon as possible.
During clearing and grubbing, the minimized limits of construction activity should be
Perimeter Control 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
clearly marked.
The site should be accessible from a limited number of points. Frequently-used access
Site Management
Site Access
9 9 9 roads should be paved or graveled to minimize the tracking of material off site. Vehicle
Management
washing on stabilized worksite entrances will minimize off-site sediment tracking.
Stockpiles should not be located near watercourses, adjacent developed areas or
Stockpile environmentally sensitive areas. Stockpiles should be protected against erosion by
9
Management water and wind immediately after they are established. This can be done by seeding,
hydroseeding or applying a synthetic cover.
Wind-blown dust from disturbed soil and roadway surfaces can be minimized by:
• Seeding or mulching areas that will not be traveled on;
• Constructing wind breaks or screens;
Dust Management 9 9 9
• Enforcing reduced vehicle speeds on unpaved roads; and
• Using water or chemicals for dust control. Note that care must be taken to prevent
mud tracking if this is done.
Areas that are sensitive to disturbance and areas that must not be disturbed should be
Sensitive Area
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 clearly signed to convey that message. Areas that represent a safety hazard, such as
Signage
deep ponds, should be signed as such and barricaded if necessary.
Erosion potential is reduced by working during relatively dry conditions. This includes
Maximize
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 consideration of the season of construction and may require a larger number of
Favorable Weather
resources to complete the project in a shorter time.
It is not acceptable to release sediment to receiving waterbodies at any time. However,
Operate During
9 9by scheduling work in or near fish-bearing waterbodies during open fisheries windows,
Fisheries Windows
the risk of harmful alteration, destruction or disruption (HADD) of fish habitat is reduced.
Optimize The sequence of construction should be specified with consideration of site
Scheduling
Construction 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 management and scheduling BMP’s. The construction sequence should be compatible
Sequence with plans for progressive reclamation, instream works, stockpile operation, etc.
Erosion potential can be minimized by installing ESC BMP’s as soon as possible. Soil
should never be exposed before developing an ESCP and ESC measures should be
Install BMP’s Early 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
installed as early as is practical. Early installation may require site access or traffic
control considerations.
Erosion potential can be minimized by restoring or reclaiming constructed areas as soon
as possible by topsoiling and seeding. Temporary works (i.e. detention ponds,
Restore Early 9 9 9 9 9
sediment controls) should be removed as soon as practical when they are no longer
needed.

Table 7-2 Surface Water Management BMP’s for ESC on Roadway Construction Sites
Applicability
Adjacent Properties
Drainage Channels
Pipes and Culverts
Large Flat Surface
Borrow / Stockpile
Name Comments
Watercourses
Slopes
Clean water drainage from upstream areas should be diverted around the construction
Divert Clean Water
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 site wherever practical, to reduce the quantity of water that must be managed on site.
Around the Site
This can be done using ditches, berms, pipes or culverts as appropriate.
Clean water drainage from undisturbed areas within the construction site should be
Keep Clean Water on the
9 9 9 9 9 9 collected and allowed to discharge to receiving streams without being mixed with runoff
Site Clean
from disturbed areas.
Existing watercourses tend to be well-vegetated and have natural rates of erosion.
Discharges from the construction site containing natural levels or sediment should be
Use Existing Drainage 9 9 9 conveyed to existing, undisturbed watercourses. Care should be taken to ensure that
peak flows in the existing watercourse should not be increased significantly (i.e., more
than 30% increase in the 10-year flood event).
If it is necessary to construct new ditches, pipes or culverts for on-site surface water
Integrate New Drainage
9 9 9 management, integrating these with the project design will prevent future disturbance
into the Project Design
due to removal of temporary measures.
Smaller drainage areas generally require less complex erosion control BMP
arrangements and smaller drainage channels, so they are preferred if local topography
Keep Drainage Areas
9 9 9 9 9 9 permits. By discharging from a number of small discharge points rather than a few large
Small
ones, the size of sediment control measures is reduced and the magnitude of effects
from a potential failure is reduced.
Drainage channels should be designed with appropriate depths, slopes, cross-sections
Design Drainage
9 9 and linings (armored or vegetated). Natural channel design is recommended for
Channels Appropriately
watercourse diversions.
Slopes, excavations and areas around retaining walls may be sensitive to piping failure
or erosion due to high pore water pressures. These can be managed by temporary
Manage Shallow dewatering or by incorporating permanent drains to reduce pore water pressures.
9 9
Groundwater Aggregate or rock covers (refer to erosion control BMP’s) can also be installed to
protect the ground surface. Dewatering wells, if properly screened, may produce clean
water and be suitable for direct discharge to receiving streams.

Table 7-3 Erosion Control BMP’s for ESC on Roadway Construction Sites
Applicability
Adjacent Properties
Drainage Channels
Pipes and Culverts
Large Flat Surface
Borrow / Stockpile
Name Comments BMP
Watercourses
Permanent
Temporary
Slopes
Topsoil absorbs energy from rain splash and provides water storage
and an essential medium to support vegetation. It must be applied with
Topsoiling 9 9 9 9 9 seed or sod and soil moisture must be managed. Topsoil should not be 9 1
applied to slopes steeper than a target maximum of 3H:1V with an
absolute maximum of 2.5H:1V to 2H:1V, depending on the region.
Applying seed during restoration allows control over vegetation that will
develop. Seeded areas are susceptible to erosion until leaf and root
Seeding 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2
masses are developed, so monitoring is required. Contouring and
reseeding will be required if erosion occurs.
Mulching is effective at protecting exposed areas from rain splash
erosion for short periods. It preserves soil moisture and protects
Mulching 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3
germinating seeds to promote revegetation. Mulching on steep slopes
Vegetated
may not be effective.

Seeding with mulch is an effective way of achieving higher germination
rates and reducing erosion potential before substantial revegetation.
Hydro-Seeding or
9 9 9 9 9 Tackifier applied during hydro-seeding or hydro-mulching can provide 9 9 4
Hydro-Mulching
immediate protection during germination and revegetation and is more
effective on steep slopes.
Sod placement provides immediate cover protection, buffer strip and
Sodding 9 9 9 9 9 9 vegetated channel lining. It is more expensive and labor intensive than 9 5
various methods of seeding.
Exposed Surface Protection
Trees and shrubs provide a deeper root structure than grasses, provide
Tree and Shrub
9 9 9 9 9 9 shade and wind protection, and in riparian areas may provide fish 9 6
Planting
habitat compensation. Plantings may be relatively expensive.
Riparian Zone Watercourse erosion potential is significantly reduced by preserving
9 9 7
Preservation natural vegetation, to reduce runoff velocity and enhance infiltration.
Riprap and gabions provide a flexible channel lining for protection
against flowing water and can be used to construct drop structures and
Riprap / Gabions 9 9 9 9 9 8/9
energy dissipation structures. Rock structure construction is relatively
expensive and labor-intensive.
Gravel and rock blankets can stabilize soil surfaces including areas with
Aggregate or Rock seepage piping erosion. Rock revetments are increasingly used to
9 9 9 9 9 10
Cover restore slumping areas in high precipitation regions. Aggregate and
rock covers should be designed by a qualified engineer.
Gravel pads located at site entrances can reduce the amount of
Stabilized Worksite sediment carried off construction sites by vehicles, by collecting
9 9 11
Non-Vegetated
Entrances sediment from vehicle washing. They should include a water supply to
wash off excess soil from vehicles prior to leaving the site
Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECP) provide a high degree of
uniform and long-lasting erosion protection. Care should be taken to
ensure that the product is suitable for the intended application and that it
Rolled Erosion
9 9 9 is applied in accord with the manufacturer’s specifications. Permeable 9 9 12
Control Products
RECP’s are used in conjunction with vegetation. Impermeable RECP’s
may be used for protection of stockpiles and if used as such, it may be
necessary to protect areas where runoff is concentrated.
Cellular Cellular confinement systems are lightweight and use locally available
Confinement 9 9 9 9 soils or grout for fill. They may be used on slopes as steep as 1H:1V. 9 13
System They are relatively expensive and labor-intensive to install.
Chemical treatments can be applied to increase soil cohesion. It may
Chemical
9 9 9 be applied in conjunction with hydro-treatments. Chemical treatments 9 14
Stabilization
may be expensive and must be designed for site-specific conditions.

Applicability
Adjacent Properties
Drainage Channels
Pipes and Culverts
Large Flat Surface
Borrow / Stockpile
Name Comments BMP
Watercourses
Permanent
Temporary
Slopes
Slopes or flat surfaces may be textured using tracked equipment or a

sheepsfoot packer. A rough slope retains more water, sediment and
seed. This method is most suitable for application to clayey soils.
Slope Texturing /
9 9 9 9 Where possible, slopes can be graded and shaped to divert flows away 9 9 15
Grading
from sensitive areas. Flatter slopes have less erosion potential. Where
steep slopes are unavoidable, interceptor ditches can be effective in
reducing effective slope lengths.
Slope drains convey surface water downslope through a pipe rather
Slope Drains 9 9 than over erodible soils. Pipes must be sized appropriately, anchored to 9 9 16
the slope and provided with inlet and outlet erosion protection.
Subsurface drains can be used to lower the groundwater table, minimize
Groundwater
9 piping erosion and enhance slope stability. They should be designed by 9 17
Control
a qualified professional.
Synthetic permeable barriers reduce runoff velocities and are partially
effective in retaining sediments. They can be moved and reused and
Runoff Control
Synthetic
9 are typically used as grade breaks on steep grades, in conjunction with 9 18
Permeable Barriers
drop structures. Synthetic barriers are easily damaged by construction
or off-road traffic and become brittle in cold temperatures.
Fibre rolls and wattles slow runoff and trap silt and can be effective on
Fibre Rolls and steep slopes. They function well in freeze-thaw conditions and are
9 9 19
Wattles biodegradable. They are labor-intensive to install and are applicable to
short slope lengths at a maximum slope of 1H:1V.
Check dams can be constructed of rock, aggregate-filled sandbags or
logs to reduce flow velocities in drainage channels. Regular inspection
Check Dams 9 9 9 20
and maintenance of such structures is essential to their effective
operation.
Diversion ditches, often combined with berms above steep slopes, can
Diversion Ditch / be used to collect runoff at the top of a slope and convey it around
9 9 9 9 9 9 21
Berm exposed areas. Berms on steep slopes should never be built without
drainage ditches.
Rock riprap, gabions or sandbags can be installed at areas such as
culvert outlets or drop structures to reduce flow velocities and protect
Energy Dissipator 9 9 9 9 22
against erosion. Dissipators with high flow rates should be designed by
a qualified professional.
More detailed discussions of applicability are including chemistry and groundwater

provided in the BMP factsheets located in Appendix conditions;
D. General factors to consider when selecting
erosion control BMP’s include: • Topography: Selection and design of
methods often depends on local slopes.
• Flow quantity and velocity: Some measures Watercourse diversion alternatives are
are best applied to sheet flow on slopes, highly dependent on local terrain;
while others are only applicable to
concentrated flows in channels; • Climate: Selection of revegetation methods,
and of BMP’s that are related to
• Soil characteristics: Some measures are revegetation, are highly dependent on local
best applied to sandy soils, while others are climate. This is an important factor in seed
better suited to cohesive soils. The success mix selection, native vegetation
of vegetation may also depend on soil type, considerations, and timing requirements for
hand- or hydro-seeding. Frost and

permafrost issues must also be considered A common misconception about silt fences and filter
when selecting BMP’s, because soils that berms is that they serve to filter sediment-laden
are thawed when exposed during flows. The primary function of these measures is to
construction are often susceptible to pond water and to encourage settling of sediment in
erosion; the ponded area. Any filtering action either involves
a very small flow rate or filter media that is too
• Season: Areas that are seeded late in the coarse to remove fine particles.
season may not revegetate adequately to
provide protection against erosion during
subsequent rain or snowmelt. Erosion It is important to select an appropriate sediment
control BMP’s for areas that are not control method for application to a specific area.
adequately restored before winter must be Some guidance on BMP applicability is provided in
selected to provide adequate protection Table 7-4, which lists commonly-used BMP’s for
during the subsequent snowmelt and spring sediment control. More detailed discussions of
rainfall seasons; applicability are provided in the BMP factsheets
located in Appendix D. Factors to consider include:
• Permanence: Some BMP’s, such as
vegetated covers or channel linings, are
intended as permanent measures, while • Flow quantity and velocity: Most sediment
others, such as slope drains or some control BMP’s are suitable only for
aggregate covers, may be temporary; application to sheet flow on slopes. Large,
concentrated flows may require construction
• Accessibility: Some BMP’s require access
of large settling ponds;
for specialized equipment; and
• Soil characteristics: Measures that rely on
• Cost: BMP alternatives should be evaluated
seepage through native soils require
to ensure that the ESCP provides cost-
relatively coarse material and will not work
effective erosion control.
with cohesive soils. The success of
vegetation may also depend on soil type,
7.2.5 Sediment Control BMP’s including chemistry and groundwater
conditions;
Sediment control BMP’s are intended for application • Topography: Many sediment control BMP’s
to flowing water where the risk assessment indicates are only applicable to sheet flows and
the need to retain mobilized sediment. Water with should not be used in channels with
excessive sediment should not leave a roadway concentrated flows. The transition from
construction site. It is advisable to install sediment sheet flow to concentrated flow is highly
control measures within the construction site, close dependent on topography. This influences
to the sediment source. This reduces the quantity of the BMP applicability;
water that must be managed and reduces the • Climate: Selection of vegetation-related
consequences of a failure. Sediment control can be sediment control BMP’s, such as sod or
accomplished by filtering or settling sediment-laden vegetated buffer strips, are highly
runoff water. dependent on local climate. The size of
sediment control BMP’s depends on the
Filtering is the removal of soil particles from runoff anticipated quantity of runoff from rainfall or
water by passing water through a natural or synthetic snowmelt. Permafrost must also be
porous media. Particle sizes larger than pore sizes considered when selecting BMP’s, such as
will be removed from the flow. Filtering is often sediment ponds, that may cause thawing
impractical since it imposes a very low discharge rate and erosion of frozen soils;
on the flow. Settling is the removal of sediment by • Season: Sediment control BMP’s that are
reducing the flow velocity below that required to hold intended to protect against spring snowmelt
sediment in suspension. Settling measures are often must be selected appropriately, even if they
referred to as impoundment measures. are installed in warmer seasons;

Table 7-4 Sediment Control BMP’s for ESC on Roadway Construction Sites
Applicability
Adjacent Properties
Drainage Channels
Pipes and Culverts
Large Flat Surface
Borrow / Stockpile
Name Comments BMP
Watercourses
Permanent
Temporary
Slopes
Vegetated buffer strips slow runoff velocities on slopes and encourage

Infiltration-Trapping
infiltration to trap sediment and reduce runoff volumes. Sod filters slow
Vegetated Buffer
9 9 9 9 9 runoff velocities on slopes and encourage infiltration to trap sediment and 9 5
Strip or Sod Strip
reduce runoff volumes. They provide immediate protection to vegetated
watercourses and entrances of drain inlets.
Natural vegetation can slow runoff through surface vegetation and trap it by
Riparian Zone infiltration or by settling as the flow velocity reduces within the vegetation.
9 9 7
Preservation Freshly planted riparian vegetation is not as effective as that in well-
established areas.
Synthetic permeable barriers reduce runoff velocities and are partially
effective in retaining sediments. They can be moved and reused and are
Synthetic
9 9 typically used as grade breaks on steep grades, in conjunction with drop 9 18
Permeable Barriers
structures. Synthetic barriers are easily damaged by construction or off-
road traffic and become brittle in cold temperatures.
Fibre rolls and wattles slow runoff and trap silt and can be effective on
Fibre Rolls or steep slopes. They function well in freeze-thaw conditions and are
9 9 19
Wattles biodegradable. They are labor-intensive to install and are applicable to
short slope lengths at a maximum slope of 1H:1V.
Silt fences trap fine sediment from runoff by ponding to settle out coarser
sediments. They are applicable to sheet flow sediment control only and
require space to allow ponds to form upstream. Failure of the fence may
Silt Fence 9 9 9 9 9 23
create flow concentrations and cause erosion. Silt fences have a service
life of approximately one year, must have sediment removed frequently.
They are susceptible to damage during sediment removal.
Timber and granular material salvaged during clearing and grubbing can
be wrapped with geotextile to construct an effective berm. Brush or rock
Brush or
9 9 9 filters tend to be more expensive than silt fence, do not divert runoff and 9 24
Rock Berm
are expensive to remove. They should not be used in channels or ditches
Settling
with high flows.

For construction near pre-existing or newly installed storm sewers,
geotextile material can be installed on catchbasins and manholes to reduce
Drain Inlet
9 9 the passage of sediment and debris into the municipal sewer system. 9 25
Sediment Barrier
They have limited entrapment capacity, reduce the flow capacity of the inlet
and require regular clean-out and inspection.
Continuous berms are constructed of earth-filled geotextile and are
installed on contour to intercept and create ponding for sheet or overland
Continuous Berm 9 9 9 26
flow. They require a continuous berm machine for construction and sandy
gravel is preferred as fill material.
Earth dyke barriers are constructed of compacted soil and are installed on
Earth Dyke Barrier 9 9 9 9 27
contour to intercept and create ponding of sheet or overland flow.
Check dams may be constructed of rock, aggregate-filled sand bags, logs
or straw bales. These reduce upstream flow velocities to control channel
Check Dams 9 erosion and encourage settlement of coarse sediments. Check dam 9 9 20
installation is labor-intensive and they are susceptible to failure if they are
undermined or outflanked.
Sediment basins and traps reduce flow velocities and encourage sediment
Sediment Basin or deposition. Sediment basins and traps can occupy large areas of land,
9 9 28
Trap require maintenance to remove sediment and must be designed by
qualified personnel.

Applicability
Adjacent Properties
Drainage Channels
Pipes and Culverts
Large Flat Surface
Borrow / Stockpile
Name Comments BMP
Watercourses
Permanent
Temporary
Slopes
For construction near pre-existing or newly installed storm sewers,

catchbasins and manholes should be protected to prevent the discharge of
sediment into the municipal sewer system. This can be accomplished by:
• Temporarily sealing inlets during construction;
Settling (continued)
• Installing sediment traps at inlets during construction; or

• The storm sewer system can be managed during construction by
Storm Sewer providing:
9 9 9 29
Protection o A deep sump manhole at the downstream end of the site to retain
large debris;
o Additional sump manholes or catchbasins within the system;
o Weirs built into manhole outlet pipes to impound water and encourage
deposition; and
o Weirs can be removed and sumps can be cleaned out and filled with
concrete at the end of the project.
Pumped silt control systems are generally only used in emergency overflow
Filtration
conditions. Sediment laden water can be pumped into the filter bag where
Pumped Silt
9 sediment larger than the aperture size is trapped. This measure may be 9 30
Control Systems
expensive, requires a pump and power source, and is effective only for
relatively short times and small volumes of sediment.
• Permanence: Some BMP’s, such as purpose to all site personnel will reduce the potential
riparian zones or gravel check dams, are for off-site discharge of sediment.
intended as permanent measures, while
others, such as silt fences and sediment
Appropriate levels of effort, classified according to
ponds, may be temporary;
the risk of erosion and the risk of effects on
• Accessibility: Some BMP’s require access downstream or off-site resources, were discussed in
for specialized equipment; and Chapter 4. Required actions should be specified
based on the risk classifications presented in Table
• Cost: BMP alternatives should be evaluated 4-3. The site-specific risks should be discussed with
to ensure that the ESCP provides cost- the project owner and regulatory agencies should be
effective erosion control. consulted if there is any doubt as to the effectiveness
of the proposed approach. Ongoing discussion with
regulators is recommended in areas where there
7.3 DESIGN METHOD would be a high risk to downstream or off-site
resources in the event of an ESCP failure. These
7.3.1 Appropriate Levels of Effort actions will demonstrate due diligence in the
approach to ESC.
All roadway construction projects, no matter how

small, should incorporate a number of minimum 7.3.2 BMP Layout and Design
measures for ESC. These generally constitute
planning and procedural BMP’s, and were discussed The ESCP must be viewed as a system, comprising
in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 and listed in Table 7-1. planning, management, design and construction of
Implementing these BMP’s and communicating their structural BMP’s. The success of an ESCP depends

on the selection of appropriate BMP’s, that must be • Water management BMP’s can be used to
selected based on a solid understanding of: reduce the exposure of disturbed soils
• Erosion of soils exposed by use of industrial
• the principles of water management; equipment, clearing and grubbing, topsoil
removal or stockpiling can be mitigated using
• the principles of erosion and sedimentation;
exposed surface protection erosion control
• the risks associated with site characteristics; BMP’s;
and • Some exposed surface protection BMP’s can
• the mitigation provided by each properly also be used to reduce runoff coefficients by
implemented BMP. storing water and encouraging infiltration;
• Changes to channel or slope gradients due
An ESCP that is properly designed and implemented to grading can be mitigated using runoff
will minimize sediment discharge to receiving waters. control erosion control BMP’s;
ESCP can also reduce costs associated with
• Where mitigation measures are not 100%
erosion, including removing deposited soil, regrading
effective in reducing runoff coefficients or
slopes and replacing topsoil.
mitigating the effects of changes to
topography or drainage pattern, rates and
BMP Selection and Layout volumes of runoff may increase. This can be
mitigated by applying runoff erosion control
BMP’s. It may still be necessary to apply
When developing an ESCP for a roadway project, it additional surface protection erosion control
is often necessary to go beyond the minimum BMP’s if the residual increases in rate or
measures provided by planning and procedural volume of flow are large enough to erode
BMP’s. exposed soils;
• If it is not possible to break all of the linkages
The first step an ESCP designer should take is to to increased erosion potential, it will be
apply water management BMP’s to the project, as necessary to apply sediment control BMP’s.
discussed in Section 7.2.3 and listed in Table 7-2.
Reducing the exposure of disturbed soils to
flowing water is the best way to reduce the In general, it is best to apply BMP’s as early in the
erosion potential of the soil. linkage diagram as possible. That is, it is best to
control erosion and sediment at the source, rather
than deal with it at the project boundary. Specific
The second step an ESCP designer should take is to BMP’s within each general category should be
apply erosion control BMP’s to the project, as selected based on site-specific factors. The
discussed in Section 7.2.4 and listed in Table 7-3. following sequence should be followed when
Controlling erosion at the source reduces is selecting and arranging structural BMP’s:
preferred to dealing with it after it has been
mobilized.
1. Define the Area of Concern (AOC) of the
project. This area includes the project
The third step an ESCP designer should take is to construction site, as well as adjacent areas
apply sediment control BMP’s to the project, as that are sensitive to project activities. The
discussed in Section 7.2.5 and listed in Table 7-4. AOC should highlight critical areas that are
Sediment control BMP’s should be applied to not to be disturbed, including existing
trap sediment close to the source, and to prevent vegetation that is to be preserved. Existing
sediment from leaving the site. watercourses, including riparian areas,
should be preserved where possible to
Appropriately selected BMP’s will break the linkages convey clean upstream water and to receive
between construction activities and erosion and treated water from the construction site;
sedimentation as shown on Figure 7-1, which is a
modification of Figure 4-1. Figure 7-1 shows that:

Roadway Construction Activities
Surface Water Management (RUSLE R-Factor)

Construction should be scheduled during dry periods where possible.
Off-Site: The risk of erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by diverting clean water from upstream sources around the construction site.
On-Site: The risk of erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by carrying clean water from undisturbed areas of the construction site across the site in pipes or lined
channels. Runoff from exposed areas should be collected and conveyed by erosion-resistant channels to appropriately-sized sediment control measures.
Use of Industrial Clearing Topsoil Spoil or Material

Grading
Equipment and Grubbing Removal Stockpiling
Changes to Stream Bank Removal of Riparian Exposure Changes to Topography

Changes to Soil Type
Composition or Stability Vegetation of Soils or Drainage Pattern
Cover Changes Soil Changes Slope Changes

(RUSLE C-Factor) (RUSLE K-Factor) (RUSLE LS-Factor)
Change in Surface Change in Runoff Change in Channel

Erosion Resistance Coefficient or Slope Gradient
Erosion Control BMP's Erosion Control BMP's Erosion Control BMP's

Mechanisms for Increased Erosion and Sedimentation (Exposed Surface Protection) (Exposed Surface Protection) (Runoff Control)
X X X X
Erosion Control BMP's Increased Rate and
(Runoff Control) Volume of Runoff

Erosion
Sediment Control BMP's

Erosion and Sedimentation Effects (Filtration and Settling)
X
Sediment Deposition and
Fisheries Act 36(3) Violation
Figure 7-1 Breaking the Linkages Between Construction Activities and Erosion and Sedimentation
2. Divert upstream water around the crossings may only have one or two areas
construction site. Where possible, berms, with defined outlets to receiving waterbodies,
ditches and/or piped diversions should be and long road alignments may have dozens
used to convey water from upstream sources of individual drainage areas. Smaller
around the construction site. This will drainage areas require less complex BMP
reduce the erosion potential from exposed arrangements and smaller downstream
surfaces. If the project includes watercourse sediment controls, so they are preferred if
crossings, it may be necessary to local topography permits. Constructed
temporarily divert water through the earthworks may change drainage area
construction site while bridges or culverts are boundaries over the course of the project
built; and this should be recognized as part of a
phased ESCP. In a phased plan, new
3. Define drainage areas within the
designs may be applied to the same area as
construction site. These are defined by the
construction progresses;
pre-construction topography of the
construction site. Small sites or bridge

4. Define drainage patterns within each of off-site discharge and is generally

drainage area. Large, flat surfaces, areas more cost-effective.
where sheet flow is anticipated (generally
slopes), and areas where concentrated flow
is anticipated (generally at the toes of 7. Determine drainage channel
slopes) should be identified; characteristics and specify BMP’s.
Drainage channel slopes must be measured,
5. Determine drainage channel alignments. design discharges derived, and cross-
By working upstream from the lowest point in sections specified. Drainage channels
each drainage area, drainage channels include all swales and ditches that will
alignments can be identified. These should convey concentrated flows around and
correspond to the concentrated flow areas through the disturbed area. Appropriate
defined in the previous step; BMP’s should then be selected, including:
6. Determine channel tributary areas and
specify BMP’s. Tributary areas are those • Runoff control erosion control BMP’s:
that contribute flow to drainage channels, Drainage channel erosion can be
including large, flat surfaces and slopes minimized by various runoff control
where sheet flow is anticipated. Appropriate methods. These include conveying flow
BMP’s should be selected for these areas, in pipes, including slope drains
including: (temporary) or storm sewers
(permanent), by slowing flows with check
dams or by reducing flow energy with
• Runoff control erosion control BMP’s:
dissipators;
Runoff on slopes should be controlled by
ensuring that, where possible, upstream • Vegetated erosion control BMP’s:
flows from undisturbed areas are Where drainage channels have the
diverted around exposed soils. Flow capacity to support vegetation, they
velocities and flow concentrations can be should be seeded or sodded as soon as
controlled by slope grading, slope the channel is constructed;
texturing and flow retarding;
• Non-vegetated erosion control BMP’s:
• Vegetated erosion control BMP’s: Steep channels and those that carry
Erosion control at the source is best large or year-round flows may require
accomplished by covering exposed soils, non-vegetated erosion controls. These
and the application of vegetated erosion may include rock or synthetic treatments.
control BMP’s should be considered first, Some channels may require non-
because they are permanent, natural vegetated treatments on the channel bed
and often the most economic. However, and lower banks, but will support
many of these BMP’s are not suitable for vegetation on the upper banks;
steep slopes or concentrated flows, and
depending on the time of year, many • Sediment control BMP’s: For sediment
vegetated BMP’s will not have time to control in channels, settling BMP’s are
develop adequate root and leaf mass to most appropriate. Check dams provide
provide adequate control; some settling capacity at low flows by
reducing flow velocities and providing
• Non-vegetated erosion control BMP’s: time for coarse sediments to settle. For
Areas with steeper slopes, larger flows higher flows, sediment traps, basins or
or more concentrated flows may require ponds are required. Drainage areas
the use of harder measures, including producing high flows may require very
rock, synthetic or chemical treatments. large ponds to provide adequate
residence time to settle out fine sediment
• Sediment control BMP’s: The last lines
fractions. This is another reason for
of defence are sediment control BMP’s
dividing the construction site into a
that can be applied to retain sediment on
number of smaller drainage areas, if
slopes and prevent discharge into site
possible.
drainage channels. Dealing with
sediment at the source reduces the risk

Some sediment control BMP’s are only accommodate design discharges. General
suited to channels with low rates of flow. guidelines for BMP sizes and specifications are
These include brush and rock berms and located in the BMP factsheets provided in Appendix
fibre rolls that also cause ponding and D. When selecting some BMP’s, manufacturer’s
settling of sediment. In urban settings, specifications should be consulted so that the
sediment traps should be installed at all product may perform adequately and so that
manhole and catchbasin inlets that will installation procedures are clearly stated.
receive site runoff.
Pumped silt control systems (filtration For most BMP’s, design is not necessarily dependent
on a design storm. However, for ditches, pipes and
BMP’s) should only be considered as a
contingency measure for emergency sedimentation ponds, hydrological design criteria
discharge from channels or ponds. must be specified. The criteria specified in Table 7-5
are recommended for design of water management,
erosion control and sediment control BMP’s.
BMP Design
Derivation of corresponding site-specific flow rates is
discussed in Appendix E.
It is essential to identify performance specifications
for all BMP’s and ensure that they are sized to
Table 7-5 Recommended Hydrological Design Criteria for Roadway Drainage and ESC Measures
Return Period
a
Road Classification Minor System Major Systemb
Freeway Urban Arterial 10-year 100-year
Rural Arterial Collector 2- to 5-year 100-year
Local 2 year 100-year
Depressed Roadways 10- to 25-year n/a
ESC Measures Temporary Permanent
Water Management Measures 2- to 5-year 10-year
Provide active pond volume adequate to store runoff from the greater of:
Sediment Control Measures • The 2-year, 24 hour rainfall event; and
• 25 mm of runoff
Source: Alberta Transportation 2003

(a) Includes ditches, road gutters, drain inlets and storm sewers.
(b) Includes the drainage route followed when the capacity of the minor system is exceeded; may include the
roadway surface.
Schedule Depending on the complexity of the project, a series

of ESCP drawings, based on project design
drawings, may be required. For multi-year projects,
It is essential that BMP selection, design and layout seasonal shut-down activities must be incorporated
consider the project schedule. BMP’s should be
into the ESCP. This is discussed further in Chapter
installed as early as is practical. Perimeter controls 8.
can generally be installed at the start of construction.
However, items such as progressive reclamation or
the installation of structural erosion and sediment
controls on constructed earth or drainage works
requires that a schedule for installation be defined.


CHAPTER 8 - IMPLEMENTATION
8.1 INTRODUCTION • During monitoring, the inspector must inform
the contractor of inspection results and
maintenance and repair requirements, and
8.1.1 ESCP Implementation Method these must be communicated to the ESCP
designer;
After developing an ESCP, it must be properly • If ESC measures fail, the owner, ESCP
implemented. This chapter describes the steps designer and regulatory agencies must be
required to achieve effective implementation of an notified and consulted regarding repairs;
ESCP, including:
• Decommissioning of ESC measures is
subject to the mutual agreement of the
• Construction of ESC measures; contractor and the owner; and
• Monitoring and maintenance of ESC • All ESC activities must be properly
measures; documented for reference by all members of
the ESC team and to demonstrate due
• Management of ESC failures; diligence to regulatory agencies.
• Decommissioning of ESC measures; and
• Documentation of the ESC process. 8.2 INSTALLATION
8.1.2 Responsibilities and 8.2.1 Construction of ESC Measures

Communications
It is essential that all ESC measures are installed in
Key roles in the implementation of an ESCP are accord with specifications. Improper installations,
played by the project owner, ESCP designer, such as rock check dams without low points in the
contractor and inspector. The owner may delegate centre, improperly embedded silt fence or silt fences
responsibility for ESC design and implementation to located on slopes, will fail under design conditions
a designate, generally a consultant or contractor, and and be responsible for mobilization and transport of
a contractor is often retained to construct the project. sediment.
These relationships do not remove responsibility
from the owner, but mean that all parties are
The ESCP should be reviewed during installation of
responsible for ESC. Monitoring duties are assigned
ESC measures and any aspects of the design that
to the owner or the owner’s designate, and may also
appear deficient should be identified, discussed with
be exercised by regulatory agencies.
the ESCP designer, and revised if necessary. This
process should be recorded as a written addendum
Throughout implementation of the ESCP, it is to the ESCP and any changes should be recorded in
essential that communications between all parties be a revision to the ESCP.
maintained. The following key issues must be
addressed:
8.2.2 Storm Anticipation
• During installation, the ESCP designer must
properly communicate the intention and Weather forecasts should be consulted during site
details of the plan to the contractor, and the preparation to determine the likelihood of storm
contractor must provide feedback on events with high erosion potential. If there is not
measures that appear ineffective when enough time to install ESC measures before rainfall
constructed; on exposed surfaces, stripping should be delayed
until it can be done under dry conditions.

If extreme rainfall events are forecast (i.e., greater inspect the project site on a daily basis. Areas of
than 20 mm of rain; Scott and Waller 2003), it is also concern include:
advisable to inspect ESC measures, as described in
Section 8.3, and undertake preventative
maintenance in advance of the storm. • All areas of exposed soil;
• Groundwater conditions (seepage and
ESC measures should also be inspected, and saturation);
repaired if necessary, prior to snowmelt. Sufficient • Material storage areas;
measures to accommodate snowmelt should be
installed before winter shutdown, because frozen • Site access points and roadways; and
ground and snow and ice accumulations make this • All ESC measures.
difficult immediately prior to snowmelt.
Monitoring is the responsibility of the owner of the

8.2.3 Worker Safety project or the owner’s designate, and may include a
contractor or consultant. Monitoring should be
Roadway construction projects include many performed by an inspector with training and
potentially hazardous conditions, including work experience in ESC issues. The inspector should be
around excavations, slopes and heavy equipment. familiar with the project site and have full access to
Sediment basins and ponds may also present a all areas of it. Inspections can be standardized by
drowning hazard if they are sufficiently deep. using a standard form for recording inspection
Accumulated sediment and steep sideslopes may observations and maintenance requirements. A
make it difficult to climb out of a pond if a worker falls sample of such a form is provided in Appendix H. It
in. Any ESC measure that presents such a hazard may be necessary to modify this form for application
should be clearly marked and barriers should be to specific projects or jurisdictions.
placed around its perimeter to prevent accidental
entry. Maintenance and repair of the ESC measures are
the responsibility of the owner of the project or the
owner’s designate. Maintenance activities should be
8.3 MONITORING AND undertaken according to a schedule defined in the
MAINTENANCE ESCP and also performed at other times as identified
during inspections. The scheduled maintenance
intervals will vary with the type of BMP. Most
Effective monitoring, including frequent inspections maintenance activities are related to the removal of
during the construction period and periodic sediment. For example, sediment traps and ponds
inspections of constructed projects, is critical to require sediment removal when they are one-third to
demonstrating due diligence and for managing the one-half full, catchbasin inlet protection devices
consequences of projects. Through early require removal of accumulated sediment and debris,
identification and correction of erosion problems, and silt fences may require periodic replacement.
long term costs and consequences can be
minimized.
Damaged ESC measures should be repaired as
soon as possible after any problems are identified. If
8.3.1 Construction Period ESC measures are observed to be inadequate for
the task they are intended to accomplish, the ESCP
must be modified. Changes should be discussed
A rigorous monitoring program is essential to
with the ESCP designer and any changes should be
ensuring the effectiveness of the ESCP and
recorded in the ESCP documentation. Changes due
compliance with regulatory requirements.
to inadequate performance should also be brought to
Inspections should start during installation of ESC
the attention of regulatory agencies.
measures, and continue through project completion.
At a minimum, an active project site should be
inspected every seven days, as well as immediately
following heavy rainfall or snowmelt events. During
extended rain or snowmelt periods, it is advisable to

8.3.2 Shutdown Period Emergency Shutdowns
Work Stoppages Emergency shutdowns are associated with ESC-

related failures or other extreme situations that
require immediate suspension of construction
Roadway construction sites may be shut down for operations. Procedures for short-term emergency
extended periods due to weather-related delays, shutdowns are addressed in Section 8.4.2.
seasonal work stoppages, contractual disagreements
or direction by regulatory agencies. In the event of a
work stoppage, monitoring and maintenance of ESC 8.3.3 Post-Construction Period and
measures must be continued. Other measures that Existing Infrastructure
should be taken include:
Effective long-term monitoring of construction

• Spreading of stockpiled topsoil projects is essential to minimizing erosion and
sedimentation on roadway projects. At the
• Seeding of exposed surfaces
completion of a contract, including any specified
• Cover of highly erodible areas maintenance period, responsibility for monitoring and
maintenance of ESC measures generally reverts to
• Clean-out of all sediment ponds, basins and the owner of the project. Most roadway authorities
traps have programs of regular, scheduled inspection of
• Installation of perimeter control measures their systems. These often identify erosion problems
where applicable at areas such as unvegetated bridge headslopes,
culvert outlets and steep roadway cuts and fills.
• Installation of runoff control measures where
applicable
Once identified, the cause of the erosion should be
identified and a remediation program should be
Overwintering developed. This will involve development of an
ESCP to stabilize the area and prevent further
Many roadway construction projects are shut down mobilization and release of sediment. In cases
during the winter. During periods where soils are where extreme erosion has occurred, earthworks
frozen solid and there is no runoff, there can be no may be required to reconstruct design slopes and
erosion. However, the erosion potential of a drainage. For situations involving any risk of
roadway construction site may be highest during sediment transport to receiving waterbodies, DFO
spring snowmelt. During this time, thawed surface should be advised and consulted on development of
soils may become saturated due to sub-surface frost the project and ESCP.
that limits infiltration and increases runoff
coefficients. Surface soils may also be weakened by
the separation of soil particles during winter ice lens 8.4 ESC FAILURES
formation.
8.4.1 Contingency Plan
If a project is not completed before winter shutdown,
it is essential to prepare the site for snowmelt before The ESCP, as discussed in Chapter 5, should
the onset of winter conditions. This includes include a contingency plan to address preparation
installation of all appropriate BMP’s. In advance of and procedures for response to ESC related
spring snowmelt, it may also be necessary to problems, including failures of ESC measures. The
perform maintenance on drainage infrastructure, plan should include the following key information:
including culverts and pond outlets, to ensure that no
ice blockages are present. These can be removed
using a backhoe or steam treatment. • Quantity and location of stored ESC
materials. It is important to have sufficient
materials available on-site to deal with
emergencies;

• Location of construction equipment on site person responsible for the project should be
and available on short notice, including prepared to discuss all aspects of the ESCP and to
owner and operator details; demonstrate that all reasonable ESC measures were
implemented before and after the failure.
• List of trained construction personnel on the
project site;
Failures of ESC measures that do not result in
• A plan for preventing the off-site discharge of release of sediment from the project site should also
sediment-laden water. This could be be documented. These reports should be discussed
accomplished by building or enlarging with the ESCP designer to identify the cause of the
sediment ponds or diverting sediment-laden failure and to help prevent future occurrences.
overflows to temporary storage areas;
• A plan for emergency shutdown of
construction activity, including sequence of 8.5 DECOMMISSIONING
activities.
It is important to ensure that temporary ESC
measures are removed when appropriate. The
8.4.2 Emergency Response
presence of deteriorated items such as straw bales,
lumber or silt fence in the landscape is aesthetically
ESC-related failures are most likely to occur during displeasing and prevents restoration to a fully-
extreme storm or snowmelt events, when site vegetated state. BMP’s such as catchbasin inlet
conditions are unfavorable and when there is no time protection devices prevent efficient operation of the
to develop a plan. Therefore, emergency responses inlets under clean-water conditions. Permanent ESC
should follow a contingency plan as described in the measures, such as rock bank protection, gabion
previous section and as presented in the ESCP. In ditch linings or riparian vegetation, should remain in
the event of an ESC-related failure, the following place indefinitely.
steps should be taken:
Temporary ESC measures should be removed only
• Ensure the safety of all persons, including after site inspections indicate that the measure is no
workers and anyone off site that could be longer required. During decommissioning, it may be
affected; necessary to restore drainage patterns that were
diverted around the project site during construction.
• Implement measures to control water and ESC measures should only be removed when:
prevent the off-site discharge of sediment-
laden water;
• Disturbed areas have been successfully
• Report any off-site releases of sediment, as revegetated;
discussed in the following section;
• No eroded areas are observed;
• Repair any damaged ESC measures in order
of importance; and • Sediment transport rates equivalent to pre-
construction conditions are observed;
• If necessary, shut down the project until ESC
repairs are completed and favorable • Monitoring indicates stable conditions for a
conditions return. specified period. Roadway authorities may
specify a time period (usually one to two
years) during which satisfactory performance
8.4.3 Incident Reporting must be observed before removal;
• Roadway authority maintenance personnel
In the event of the release of sediment from a project are in agreement on the removal of the ESC
into a receiving waterbody, including storm drainage measures; and
systems, specific requirements exist for reporting to
regulatory agencies. These include government at • Compliance with regulatory requirements is
the federal, provincial and territorial, and municipal assured.
levels, as discussed in Chapter 2. Contact details
and procedures vary between jurisdictions. The

Sediment control measures should only be removed

after monitoring and site inspection indicates that all
permanent upstream ESC measures are well-
established and effective at controlling erosion at
natural levels.
8.6 DOCUMENTATION
To establish due diligence in the event of the release

of sediment-laden water due to extreme events, it is
essential to demonstrate that all reasonable actions
were taken to prevent such an occurrence. This
includes proper development of an ESCP, as
described in Chapter 7, and proper implementation,
as described in this chapter. All ESCP-related
activities should be recorded, in order to demonstrate
that this process was followed. Copies of the
documents should be kept on site for reference by
construction personnel, inspectors, consultants and
the owner. Documents that should be maintained on
file include:
• The original ESCP;

• Any addenda or revisions to the ESCP;
• Project construction drawings, including as-
built drawings at project completion;
• Pre-construction site assessment
information;
• Interim site plan reviews, showing type,
quantity and location of ESC measures;
• Regular ESC inspection and maintenance
reports;
• Reports on ESCP effectiveness, failures,
and mitigation actions;
• ESC repair records;
• ESC-related incident reports; and
• ESC decommissioning report.
Photographs should be taken and filed during all

stages of the project, including the pre-construction
assessment, during project activities and at
decommissioning. Descriptive and properly
referenced (date, time, location and description)
photographs are essential to providing a
comprehensive record of site conditions.


CHAPTER 9 - GLOSSARY
Accelerated Erosion: Erosion caused primarily by Ditch: A long narrow excavation dug in the earth for
disturbance by man. drainage.
AOC: Area of Concern. Dormancy: The condition of a plant or seed in which
life functions are virtually at a standstill.
Best Management Practice (BMP): A practice or
combination of practices that are determined to be Downcutting: Channel erosion characterized by
the most technologically and economically feasible erosion of the channel bottom, causing the channel
means of preventing or managing potential impacts. to deepen and become entrenched. Also referred to
incising.
Berm: A constructed barrier of compacted earth, rock
or gravel. Dyke: An earthen dam that is used to isolate a
construction area so that it may be dewatered and
Cascade: A succession of steep, small falls.
protected against flowing water.
Channel: A feature that conveys surface water and is
Earth-disturbing Activity: Any grading, excavating,
open to the air. Channels may be constructed or
filling or other alteration of the earth’s surface where
natural.
natural or man-made ground cover is destroyed.
Check Dam: Small dam constructed in a gully or
Ephemeral Watercourse: A watercourse that flows
other small watercourse to decrease the streamflow
during snowmelt and rainfall runoff periods only.
velocity, minimize channel scour, and promote
There is generally no channel development and the
deposition of sediment.
watercourse bottom is usually vegetated.
Cofferdam: A barrier constructed in water to isolate
Erosion/Sedimentation Control: Any temporary or
and assist in dewatering of the working area.
permanent measures taken to reduce erosion,
Contour Line: An imaginary line on the surface of the control siltation and sedimentation, and ensure that
earth connecting points of the same elevation. sediment-laden water does not leave the site.
Contour lines provide a representation of the land
ESCP: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
slopes and topography.
Exfiltration: The downward movement of runoff
Culvert: A conduit used to convey water through an
through the bottom of an infiltration trench, into the
embankment.
ground.
Debris: Any material including floating woody
Fascine: A long bundle of sticks or wood bound
material or suspended sediment that is transported
together and used for such purposes as filling
by flowing water.
ditches and making revetments for river banks.
Denuded Area: A portion of land surface on which
Fertilizer Analysis: The percentage of fertilizer,
the vegetation or other soil stabilization features
expressed in terms of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and
have been removed, destroyed, or covered, and
potash. For example, a fertilizer with a 6-12-6
which may erode.
contains 6% nitrogen (N), 12% available phosphoric
Design Storm: A rainfall event of specified size and acid (P2O5), and 6% water-soluble potash (K2O).
return frequency (i.e. a storm that has a return period
Fill: The height of material required to raise the
of 2 years), which is used to calculate the runoff
desired road profile above the natural ground line.
volume and peak flow rate.
Filter Berm: A temporary dam constructed with
DFO: Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
gravel or crushed rock that is used to pond water and
Discharge: The volumetric rate of flow in a trap sediment from runoff flows.
watercourse.
Fish Habitat: Those parts of the environment upon
Dispersive Soil: A clay soil that behaves as a single which fish depend, directly or indirectly, in order to
grain soil and is highly erodible when subjected to carry out their life processes. Fish habitats include
water forces. spawning grounds and nursery, rearing,
overwintering, food supply and migration areas.

Forb: An herb other than grass. Hydraulic Gradient: The slope of the water level
profile along the channel, which is indicative of the
Freeboard: The vertical distance between the design
energy of the flow system.
water surface elevation and the maximum possible
elevation before overtopping. Hydrologic: Pertaining to the study of the
occurrence, circulation, distribution and properties of
French Drain: A horizontal drain, backfilled with
the waters of the earth and its atmosphere.
clean, granular material and used to intercept
seepage. Impoundment: A natural or man-made containment
for surface water.
Frequency of Storm: The anticipated period in years
that will elapse, based on average probability of Infiltration: Downward movement of water through
storms in the design region, before a storm of a the soil surface and into the ground.
given intensity and/or total volume will recur.
Inlet: The entrance through which surface runoff
Gabion: A rectangular wire mesh cage filled with rock enters the upstream end of a culvert, an erosion
that may be used to prevent erosion, or as a control structure or underground sewer system.
retaining wall.
Interception and Diversion Channels: Erosion
Geomorphologic: Pertaining to the characteristics, control methods that consist of a shallow channel
origin and development of landforms. (usually a vegetated waterway) or a shallow channel
combined with an earth embankment on the downhill
Geotextile: A woven or nonwoven, water permeable
side of a slope. Used to divert runoff around
material generally made of synthetic products such
disturbed areas.
as polypropylene used in erosion and sediment
control applications to trap sediment or prevent Intergranular Flow: Flow between particles of
clogging of aggregates by fine soil particles. coarse-grained, non-cohesive soils (e.g., sand or
gravel).
Gradient: The slope of a watercourse or slope
defined as the vertical drop per unit of horizontal Intermittent Watercourse: Watercourses that go dry
distance traveled. during prolonged rainless periods.
Grading: Earth disturbing activities including Inter-rill erosion: The uniform detachment and
excavation, cutting, filling, stockpiling, or any transportation of soil particles by water flowing in a
combination thereof. sheet. Also known as Sheet Erosion.
Grassed Waterway: A natural or constructed Invert: The floor or bottom plates of a culvert or
waterway, usually broad and shallow, covered with sewer.
erosion resistant grasses, used to conduct surface
Lake: A naturally-occurring permanent body of water
water from an area at a reduced flow rate.
greater than 2 m in depth and greater than 1 ha in
Grubbing: Removing stumps, roots or brush. size.
Guideline: A recommended or acceptable course of Low Flow (Base Flow): The stream flow sustained
action that is not a regulation. between runoff events. Its primary source is
groundwater.
Gully: A channel caused by the concentrated flow of
surface and stormwater runoff over unprotected Minimum Tillage: A form of tillage that uses a
erodible land. minimum number of operations to produce an
adequate seed bed.
Gulley Erosion: Water erosion that cuts a channel
too large to be removed by normal tillage. Mitigation Measure: An action taken during planning,
design, construction, or operations of a project to
HADD: Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction
avoid or prevent impacts such as erosion, release of
of fish habitat.
sediment or HADD.
Headcutting: Water erosion occurring at the upslope
Mulching: The addition of material (usually organic)
end of a gully, marked by a sharp descent from the
to disturbed land surfaces to curtail erosion or retain
beginning of the gully to its floor.
soil moisture.
Humus: The semi-stable fraction of soil organic
Muskeg: Peatlands, swamps and bogs supporting
matter remaining after the original plant and animal
very limited tree growth due to excessive moisture.
residues have decomposed.

Outlet: Point of water disposal from a stream, river, Runoff: Water originating from rainfall or snowmelt
lake, tidewater, or artificial drain. that cannot infiltrate into the soil and so flows along
the ground surface.
Paving: Lining of ditches with materials such as
asphalt, granular materials, rocks, concrete and Runoff Interception Channel: A water erosion control
synthetics to prevent erosion. method that consists of a ditch constructed across a
slope to divert surface water.
Perforated Metal Pipe: Pipe with slots or open joints,
surrounded by a filter material or blanket, used to Saturated Soil: Soil in which water has filled all of
intercept seepage. the intergranular spaces in a soil profile.
Performance Expectation: The minimum acceptable Scarify: The process of loosening or stirring soil to
standard of performance for ESC measures, defined shallow depths without turning it over.
by measurable standards.
Scour: The removal of substrate from a watercourse
Permanent Stream: A stream that flows continuously by flowing water.
throughout the year.
Sediment: Fragmented material that originates from
Permeability: The capacity for transmitting runoff weathering and erosion of rocks or unconsolidated
through a material or into the soil. It is measured by deposits, and is transported by, suspend in, or
the rate at which a fluid of standard viscosity can deposited by water.
move through the material in a given interval of time,
Sediment Carrying Capacity: The maximum amount
under a given hydraulic gradient.
of material that may be held in suspension by a
Piping: Seepage or subsurface flow often causing stream.
removal of soil, eroding larger and larger pathways
Sedimentation: The process of subsidence and
or “pipes”.
deposition of suspended matter carried in water by
Reclamation: The process of returning a disturbed gravity. This is usually the result of the reduction of
area to a condition approximating its original water velocity below the point at which it can
condition. transport the material in a suspended form.
Sometimes referred to as siltation.
Revegetation: Re-establishment of vegetation in a
disturbed area. Sedimentation Pond: Any pond used as a sediment
basin or sediment trap.
Right-of-way: A strip of land intended for occupation
by a road, power line, railway or other linear Settling Pond: See sedimentation pond.
development.
Sheet Erosion: The relatively uniform removal of soil
Rill: A small intermittent watercourse with steep from an area without the development of
sides, usually only a few inches deep. Rills are often conspicuous water channels. See inter-rill erosion.
caused by an increase in surface water flow when
Sheet Flow: Diffuse runoff flowing overland in a thin
soil is cleared of vegetation.
layer not concentrated and not in a defined channel.
Riparian Zone: The land adjacent to the normal
Siltation: The process by which a river, lake or other
high-water mark in a stream, river or lake. Riparian
body becomes clogged with sediment. Silt can clog
areas typically contain a rich and diverse vegetation
gravel beds and affect aquatic fish habitat.
mosaic reflecting the influence of available surface
water. Slope: The ratio between the change in elevation for
a given change in horizontal distance (i.e., rise/run).
Riprap: Rock or stone placed over a bedding of
See also gradient.
geotextile or sand, used to armour slopes against
flowing water or wave action. Soil Stabilization: Vegetative or structural soil cover
controlling erosion that includes permanent and
Riser: A vertical pipe extending from the bottom of a
temporary seed, mulch, sod, pavement, etc.
BMP pond that is used to control the discharge rate.
Source Control BMP: A BMP that is intended to
Rollback: Stripping returned to disturbed areas for
prevent pollutants from entering stormwater.
reclamation purposes.
Examples include erosion control practices and
maintenance of facilities.

Stream: A system including permanent or seasonally

flowing water, a defined channel, floodplain, and
riparian ecosystem. Streams have no defined size
range, but are generally considered smaller than
rivers.
Stormwater Treatment: The removal of pollutants
from urban runoff and improvements in water quality,
accomplished largely by deposition and utilizing the
benefits of natural processes.
Stripping: Removal of topsoil and fine debris above
a mineral soil.
Subgrade: Soil prepared and compacted to support
a road.
Substrate: The bottom of a waterbody on which
organisms live (e.g., streambed materials).
Suspended Solids: Sediment that is transported via
suspension through the buoyancy and drag forces of
flowing water and that stays in suspension for an
appreciable period of time (mainly clay and silt).
Also known as suspended sediment.
Topography: General term to include characteristics
of the ground surface such as plains, hills,
mountains, degree of relief, steepness of slopes and
other physiographic features.
Topsoil: The unconsolidated mineral and organic
material in the immediate surface of the earth that
serves as a natural medium for the growth of land
plants.
Treatment BMP: A BMP that is intended to remove
pollutants from stormwater. Examples include
sediment traps and pond, and oil/grit separators.
Vegetation: All organic plant life growing on the
surface of the earth.
Waterbody: Natural or artificial surface waters
including rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands.
Watercourse: Any channel carrying water, either
continuously or intermittently.
Water erosion: The process by which solid particles
are detached and transported by water.
Watershed: An area of land that collects and
discharges water to a single point.

CHAPTER 10 - REFERENCES AND

BIBLIOGRAPHY
10.1 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers and Water Pollution Control Federation, Design and Construction of Sanitary
Storm Sewers, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice no. 37 and WPCF Manual of Practice
no. 9, 1969.
Alberta Transportation. 2003. Design Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control for Highways. Prepared by
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. for Alberta Transportation, May 2003.
http://www.trans.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype372/production/gtd001ergl.htm
Barfield, B.J., Warner, R.C., and Haan, C.T. 1981. Applied Hydrology and Sedimentology for Disturbed Areas.
Oklahoma Technical Press.
Brown, W.E., and D.S. Caraco. 1997. Muddy Water In, Muddy Water Out? A Critique of Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):393–403.
Bruce, James P. Atlas of Rainfall Intensity - Duration Frequency Data for Canada. Toronto: Meteorological Branch,
Department of Transport, 1968. 1 leaf, 31 pages: illustrations, maps; 44 x 56 centimetres.
Caltrans. 2000. District 7 Erosion Control Pilot Study. State of California Department of Transportation Document
No. CTSW-RT-00-012.
Caltrans. 2003. Guidance for Temporary Soil Stabilization. State of California Department of Transportation.
Calgary. 2001. Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control. Prepared by the City of Calgary, Wastewater and
Drainage, Urban Development, February 2001. http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/wwd
Chow, V.T. 1962. Hydrologic Determination of Waterway Areas for the Design of Drainage Structures in Small
Drainage Basins, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 462. Urbana: University of Illinois,
Engineering Experiment Station.
Clarifica Inc. 2003. Preliminary assessment for the improved design criteria for construction sediment control
ponds. Prepared for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Fisheries and Oceans Canada by
Clarifica Inc.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 1986. Policy for the management of fish habitat. Fisheries and
Oceans, Ottawa, Canada.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2004. Review Comments by the DFO National Habitat Engineering
Team on the Document “National Guide to Erosion and Sediment Control on Roadway Projects, First
Draft, May 2004.” Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, July 2004.
Fifield, J.S. 2001. Designing for Effective Sediment and Erosion Control on Construction Sites. Forester Press.

Flanagan, D.C., Ascough II, J.C., Nicks, A.D., Nearing, M.A., and Laflen, J.M. 1995. Overview of the WEPP
Erosion Prediction Model. United States Department of Agriculture - Water Erosion Prediction Project,
National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory Report #10
Haan, C.T., Barfield, B.J., and Hayes, J.C. 1994. Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small Catchments.
Academic Press.
Hogg, W.D. Rainfall Frequency Atlas for Canada / Atlas de la fréquence des pluies au Canada. Ottawa:
Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service, 1985. 17, 72 pages: maps (some colour); 28
centimetres.
IECA 1998. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices for Construction Activities at Water Crossings. Course notes
from the International Association for Erosion and Sediment Control.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). 2001. Environment, Safety and Health Manual, Document 5.1 –
Glossary of ES&H Terms. April 1, 2001.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2003. Erosion control handbook for local roads. Prepared by
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Manual Number 2003-08.
Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for
quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16: 693-
727.
Ontario Centre for Soil Resource Evaluation. 1993. Field Manual for Describing Soils in Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), 1984. Drainage Manual. Chapter B: Design Flood Estimates for Small
Watersheds.
Portland Cement Association, Handbook of Concrete Culvert Hydraulics, 1964, p.45.
Prowse, T.D. and C.S.L. Ommanney 1991. Northern Hydrology: Canadian Perspectives. NHRI Science Report
No. 1, National Hydrology Research Institute, Inland Waters Directorate, Conservation and Protection,
Environment Canada, 308 p.
Raudkivi, A.J. 1993. Sedimentation: Exclusion and removal of sediment from diverted water. Hydraulic
Structures Design Manual #6. International Association for Hydraulic Research.
Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Wessies, D.K. McCool, D.C. Yoder, Coordinators. 1996. Predicting soil erosion by
water: A guide to conservation planning with the revises universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). US
Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 703.
Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation. 2003. Erosion and sediment control: Best management practices
field reference manual.
Sawatsky, L.F. and S. Tuttle. 1996. Occurrence and Growth of Gullies on Mine Disturbed Land. Presented at the
21st Annual Meeting, Canadian Land Reclamation Association, Calgary, Alberta, September 18-20, 1996.
Sawatsky, L.F., G. McKenna, M.-J. Keys and D. Long. 1997. Solutions for Minimizing Long-Term Liability of
Reclaimed Mine Sites. Presented at the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Annual
Conference, Vancouver, April 27 to May 1, 1997.
Scott and Waller, 2003 draft. Demonstration Project - Erosion and Sediment Control on the Stillwater-Ellershouse
Section of the Highway 101 Twinning Project. CWRS Internal Report 03-02, September 2003.

State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2000. District 7 erosion control pilot study. Caltrans
Document No. CTSW-RT-00-012.
State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2003. Guidance for temporary soil stabilization.
Walker, D.G. and J.S. Fifield. 1997. Design and Implementation of Sediment and Erosion Control Plans.
Workshop sponsored by the Environmental Services Association of Alberta, Calgary, October 2, 1997.
Wall, G.J., D.R Coote, E.A. Pringle and I.J. Shelton, eds. 1997. RUSLE-FAC Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation for Application in Canada: A Handbook for Estimating Soil Loss from Water Erosion in Canada.
Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ECORC Contribution Number 02-92.
Water Environment Service (WES). 2000. Erosion and sediment control planning and design manual. Water
Environment Service, Clackamas County, Oregon. http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/wes/designmanual.htm
Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses - A Guide to Conservation Planning.
Agricultural Handbook No. 537. United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education
Administration.
10.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
10.2.1 Canada
National Research Council Canada. 1989 Hydrology of Floods in Canada: A Guide to Planning and Design.
Eds. Watt, W.E., Lathem, K.W., Neill, C.R., Richards, T.L., and Rousselle, J.
TAC 1999. Transportation Construction and Maintenance and the Protection of Fish Habitat. Transportation
Association of Canada Synthesis of Practice No. 5, prepared for TAC by Golder Associates Ltd.
10.2.2 British Columbia
British Columbia 1996. Guidelines for Assessing the Design, Size and Operation of Sedimentation Ponds Used in
Mining. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, File 43450-02/SED, November 22, 1996.
10.2.3 Alberta
Alberta Transportation 1999. Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for Watercourse Crossings in
Alberta. Prepared for Alberta Transportation by Golder Associates Ltd.
http://www.trans.gov.ab.ca/Content/doctype123/production/fishhabitatmanual.htm
10.2.4 Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan 2003. Erosion and Sediment Control: Best Management Practices Field Reference Manual.
Prepared by Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation, July 2003.
Saskatchewan 2004. Best Management Practices Handbook for Work in, or Adjacent to, Waterbodies and
Watercourses. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority by Golder Associates Ltd., March
2004.

10.2.5 Manitoba
Manitoba 1995. Manual of Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Highway Construction. Prepared by the
Manitoba Department of Highways and Transportation, Materials and Research Branch, February 1995.
Agriculture Canada 1989. Water Erosion Risk. Agriculture Canada publication 5259/B
Agriculture Canada 1989. Wind Erosion Risk. Agriculture Canada publication 5257/B
10.2.6 Ontario
Ontario 1992. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Study Technical Report. Prepared by the Ontario Ministry
of the Environment and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, November 1992.
Ontario undated. Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications. These include several standard specifications
related to erosion and sediment control and are available through Ronen House, a division of Ronen
Publishing Inc., Toronto.
Ottawa 1998. Application of Erosion & Sediment Controls on RMOC Construction Projects. Prepared by the
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, August 1998.
10.2.7 Québec
Québec 1998. Les Projets d’Infrastructures Routières et l’Érosion des Sols. Prepared for the Ministère des
Transports du Québec by the Service de l’Environnement, Direction Circulation et Aménagements, April
2002.
Québec 2002. Stabilisation, Protection et Restauration de Berges à l’Aide d’Armatures Végétales. Prepared for
the Ministère des Transports du Québec by Argus Inc. and INRS - Eau, Terre, Environment, April 2002.
Québec 2003. Traitement des Eaux de Ruissellement des Autoroutes par marais Épurateurs Construits.
Prepared for the Ministère des Transports du Québec by Argus Inc. and the Universite Laval, July 2003.
RAPPEL 2002. The Battle Against Erosion on Construction Sites and Soils Stripped of Vegetation: Guide to
Sound Environmental Practices.
10.2.8 New Brunswick
New Brunswick 1998a. Environmental Field Guide. Prepared for the New Brunswick Department of
Transportation by Washburn & Gillis Associates Ltd., Fredericton, August 1998.
New Brunswick 1998b. Environmental Protection Plan. New Brunswick Department of Transportation, Third
Edition, May 1998.
New Brunswick 2003. Standard Specifications. New Brunswick Department of Transportation, January 2003.
New Brunswick undated. Watercourse Alterations Technical Guidelines. New Brunswick Department of
Environment and Local Government.

10.2.9 Nova Scotia
Dalhousie 2004. Course Material for the Presentation of the “Erosion and Sediment Control for Highway
Construction and Building Sites,” 26 May 2004. Dalhousie University Centre for Water Resource Studies,
Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works, Nova Scotia Department of Environment
and Labour, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and The Terrain Group Inc.
Nova Scotia 1991. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction Sites. Nova Scotia Department of
the Environment.
Nova Scotia 1996. A Guide to the Environment Act and Regulations. Prepared by the Nova Scotia Department of
the Environment, March, 1996.
Nova Scotia 1997. Nova Scotia Watercourse Alteration Specifications. Nova Scotia Department of the
Environment.
Nova Scotia 1999. Pit and Quarry Guidelines. Nova Scotia Department of the Environment, revised May 1999.
Nova Scotia 2003. Integrated Roadside Vegetation Manual (with companion Roadside Vegetation Field Manual).
Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works.
Nova Scotia 2004. Generic Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for Construction of 100 Series Highways. Nova
Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works, July 2004.
Scott, R.S. and D.H. Waller 2003. Demonstration Project – Erosion and Sediment Control on the Stillwater
Ellershouse Section of the Highway 101 Twinning Project (Draft). CWRS Internal Report 03-02, Centre for
Water Resource Studies, Faculty of Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, September 2003.
10.2.10 Prince Edward Island
PEI 2000. Environmental Protection Plan. Prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. for the Prince Edward
Island Department of Transportation and Public Works, March 2000.
10.2.11 Newfoundland and Labrador
Newfoundland and Labrador 1992. Guidelines for Environmental Approvals. Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Environment & Labour, St. John’s.
http://www.gov.nf.ca/env/Env/waterres/Investigations/Env_Approvals.asp
Newfoundland and Labrador 2003. Guidelines for Clearing Land on Mineral Soils for Cultivation and Pasture.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Land Resource Stewardship
Division, Corner Brook.
10.2.12 Northwest Territories and Nunavut
Northwest Territories 1995. Recommendations for Reducing Risks to Fisheries at Stream and River Crossing
Sites along the Mackenzie Valley Winter Road, NWT. Prepared by Spencer Environmental Management
Services Ltd. for the Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Transportation, March, 1995.
Northwest Territories 1999. Environmental Practices Related to Fish and Fish Habitat for Highway Construction
and Maintenance: Training Manual. Prepared by Dillon Consulting Ltd. for the Government of the
Northwest Territories Department of Transportation, March, 1999.

DFO 2003. Working Near Water: Considerations for Fish and Fish Habitat. Reference and Workshop Manual –
Northwest Territories. Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada by Dillon Consulting Ltd. and Kestrel
Biological Consulting, April 2003.
10.2.13 Yukon Territory
INAC 1999. Handbook of Reclamation Techniques in the Yukon. Prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada by Laberge Environmental Services, Whitehorse.
10.2.14 United States and International
ASTM 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control Technology Standards. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
California 1999. Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, 3rd Edition. Prepared by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, July 1999.
Carpenter, T. 1999. Silt Fence That Works. Carpenter Erosion Control. http://www.tommy-
sfm.com/howdoesit/howdoesit.htm
Environmentally Wright 2001. Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Field Guide. Portland, Oregon, August
2001.
Fifield, J.S. 2002. Field Manual on Sediment and Erosion Control Best Management Practices for Contractors and
Inspectors – 2nd Edition. Forester Press, Santa Barbara.
Gray, D.H. and A.T. Leiser 1982. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Krieger Publishing
Company, Malabar, Florida, 271 p.
IAHR 1993. Sedimentation: Exclusion and Removal of Sediment from Diverted Water. International Association
for Hydraulic Research Hydraulic Structures Design Manual No. 6, prepared by Arved J. Raudkivi, 164 p.
IAHS 1996. Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and Regional Perspectives. International Association of
Hydrological Sciences Publication No. 236.
Julien 1995. Erosion and Sedimentation. Cambridge University Press, 277 p.
Minnesota 2003. The Inspector’s Erosion and Sediment Control Pocketbook Guide. Prepared for the Minnesota
Department of Transportation by the University of Minnesota.
Portland 1994. Erosion Control Manual. Prepared by the City of Portland, Oregon.
http://www.bds.ci.portland.or.us/inspect/sitedev/Erosion%20Control%20Manual.pdf.
USDA 1998. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Technology and Development Program, December 1998.
USDA 2002. Management and Techniques for Riparian Restorations: Roads Field Guide, Volumes 1&2. United
States Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-102 vols. 1&2, September 2002.


APPENDIX A
PROCEDURES FOR USE OF RUSLE
Second Draft – September 2004


APPENDIX A - PROCEDURES FOR

USE OF RUSLE
5.1 GENERAL generation of process based models (like WEPP)
which are currently in development.
One popular and generally accepted method for

assessing site erosion potential is the Revised RUSLE equates annual soil loss to a product of
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) adapted for factors characterizing rainfall, soil erodibility, slope
Application in Canada (RUSLE-FAC) (Wall et al, length and steepness, vegetation, management and
1997). This procedure will be referred to as RUSLE support practice, as follows:
for the remainder of this appendix. The RUSLE
brings in a mixture of empirical and process-based A = R · K · LS · C · P
erosion technology to provide a better measure of
the effect of land management on erosion rates.
Where: A = Annual soil loss (t · ha-1 · a-1)
R = Rainfall factor (MJ · mm · ha-1 · h-1 · a-1)
The RUSLE equation is useful as a tool to illustrate K = Soil erodibility factor (t · h · MJ-1 · mm-1)
the factors influencing erosion and their relative LS = L and S are the slope length and
contributions. This equation was developed to steepness factors, respectively
predict average annual soil loss due to sheet and rill (dimensionless)
erosion in agricultural areas, but has been applied in C = Vegetation and management factor
the past to construction sites. It can also be used to (dimensionless)
roughly predict the average annual soil loss prior to, P = Support practice factor (dimensionless)
during and after construction, and to roughly predict
the quantity of soil that could be removed from a
disturbed area. It is particularly helpful for Supporting information to assist in the selection of
understanding how various BMP treatments can these factors is presented in the following sections.
affect the factors that influence erosion. Factors required to carry out the empirical
calculations are region/site specific and must be
available for the particular area under consideration.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was
originally developed by Wischmeier and Smith (1965
and 1978) to estimate soil loss from agricultural This appendix is intended to provide an overview of
lands caused by sheet flow and rill erosion. It was the RUSLE procedure. Further detailed discussions
intended to predict the long-term average annual soil of and guides to the use of RUSLE and RUSLE2
erosion, based on land management practices, (Windows-based software) are available on publicly
climate, soil type, vegetation and topography. The accessible web sites, including:
equation was developed empirically, using tests
carried out on standardized agricultural test plots. • Software and documentation for RUSLE version
1.06c: http://www.sedlab.olemiss.edu/rusle1new
The widespread acceptance of the method in the /current106.html;
agricultural sector led to its adaptation for use on • Guidelines for application to construction sites:
construction sites. However, soil conditions in the http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/hbmanual/r
two cases may be substantially different. Soil usle.htm; and
erodibility at a roadway construction site is generally
lower than that in an agricultural setting. The RUSLE • Guide to RUSLE 2: http://bioengr.ag.utk.edu
has been developed as an interim revision of the /rusle2/.
original Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), and is
intended to bridge the gap between what is now
outdated technology (i.e. the USLE) and the new
Second Draft – September 2004 A-1

5.2 RAINFALL FACTOR, R the entire year (Rt) or for a portion or season of the
year (Rs).
5.2.1 General
5.2.2 Estimation of R
The rainfall factor, R, is a measure of the total annual
erosive rainfall for a specific location. High energy The general procedure for estimating the R factor for
summer rainfall events are generally have the a project location follows.
highest erosion potential in most parts of Canada.
However, erosion due to these events is often limited
by the infiltration capacity of the soil. In spring, the In Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces:
soil is often saturated or frozen below the surface.
This limits its infiltration capacity and increases the • Locate the point of interest on Figure A1 or
site erosion potential. Figure A2;
• Interpolate between contours to estimate the
The rainfall factor, R, is equal to the average annual value of Rt; and
sum of the products of the two variables most critical • Seasonal values (Rs) can be calculated by
to a storm's erosivity (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978): adding the monthly percentages of annual
precipitation for the area of interest (from
• Volume of rainfall and runoff (E); and Table A1 or A2) and multiplying the sum by
• Prolonged-peak rates of detachment and the estimated annual value Rt.
runoff (I)
In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba:
The quantity EI is the total kinetic energy of a storm
multiplied by the maximum 30-minute intensity. • Locate the point of interest on Figure A3 and
Figure A4;
R can be estimated from records of measured • Interpolate between contours to determine

rainstorm EI values, from empirical equations, or the value of R and adjustment for winter
from hourly precipitation records. These have been conditions;
used to produce the following reference materials for • Add the two values to estimate the value of
Canadian conditions: Rt; and
• Isoerodent maps which indicate annual R • Seasonal values Rs for spring to fall are
values for an area and can be used to presented on Figure A5.
calculate average annual soil losses;
• Monthly distribution of R which indicates the In British Columbia:
proportion of annual erosive rainfall that falls
during each month; and • Locate the point of interest on Figure A6;
• Mean annual rainfall on frozen soil maps, • Interpolate between contours to estimate the
which may indicate areas where rain falling value of Rt; and
on frozen soil could pose an erosion risk. • Seasonal values (Rs) can be calculated by
adding the monthly percentages of annual
It is typical in roadway construction to re-establish precipitation for the area of interest (from
grass vegetation as soon as possible after grading is Table A1 or A3) and multiplying the sum by
complete. This can substantially reduce the sediment the estimated annual value Rt.
yield from that anticipated for an entire year of
exposure. In these cases, it is more appropriate to Values of annual Rt and monthly distributions of
assign a monthly distribution of the soil loss over a Erosivity Index, calculated for specific climate
time period where the soils are anticipated to be stations across Canada, are presented in Table A1.
exposed. Therefore, an R value can be estimated for A map showing the mean annual rainfall on frozen
soil is provided in Figure A7.
A-2 Second Draft – September 2004

Figure A1 – Isoerodent Map Showing R1 Values for Ontario and Quebec
Figure A2 Isoerodent Map Showing R1 Values for the Maritime Region

Figure A3 – Isoerodent Map Showing R Values for the Prairie Region
Figure A4 – Adjustment for Winter Conditions: Rs for the Prairie Region

Figure A5 – Isoerodent Map Showing R1 Values for the Prairie Region
Figure A6 – Isoerodent Map Showing R1 Values for British Columbia

Figure A7 – Mean Annual Rainfall on Frozen Soil
Table A1 – Erosivity Index and Monthly Distribution for Sites in the Prairie Region and Eastern Canada
Rt Monthly Percentage of Erosivity Index (R)
-1 -1
Site (MJ·mm·ha ·h ) J F M A M J J A S O N D
Beaverlodge, BC 378 0 0 4 9 3 20 23 34 7 0 0 0
Lethbridge, AB 346 0 0 1 4 11 22 37 16 10 0 0 0
Peace River, AB 226 0 0 4 10 5 17 41 17 7 1 0 0
Vauxhall, AB 270 0 0 2 13 9 24 24 16 11 0 0 0
Broadview, SK 342 0 0 2 7 8 12 24 31 15 2 0 0
Estevan, SK 680 0 0 1 2 8 22 41 18 9 1 0 0
Outlook, SK 261 0 0 1 4 8 39 32 12 5 0 0 0
Saskatoon, SK 348 0 0 2 6 13 38 33 5 3 0 0 0
Swift Current, SK 268 0 0 1 3 7 43 25 16 5 0 0 0
Wynyard, SK 572 0 0 1 2 13 18 39 22 4 1 0 0
Yorkton, SK 663 0 0 1 2 7 23 26 28 10 2 0 0
Hudson Bay, SK 510 0 0 2 5 5 22 37 18 10 1 0 0
Glenlea, MB 1029 0 0 2 5 11 23 31 20 6 3 0 0
Gimli, MB 848 0 0 1 4 6 25 24 27 11 3 0 0
Winnipeg, MB 1093 0 0 1 3 12 18 21 32 12 2 0 0
White River, ON 1075 0 0 0 2 8 16 17 26 23 5 3 0
Windsor, ON 1615 2 3 5 9 6 15 20 18 9 5 4 4
London, ON 1330 3 3 3 9 7 14 18 15 11 7 6 4
Montreal, QC 920 0 0 0 6 5 17 19 22 15 9 7 0
Moncton, NB 1225 3 4 4 4 8 10 14 15 10 12 11 5
Halifax, NS 1790 * * * 2 11 16 19 24 19 8 1 0
Kentville, NS 1975 4 6 7 6 3 12 12 15 10 10 7 8
Nappan, NS 1900 3 3 3 9 7 14 18 15 11 7 6 4
Truro, NS 2000 4 8 5 5 5 7 6 13 11 11 15 10
Charlottetown, PE 1520 4 4 4 9 7 13 17 14 11 7 5 5
St. John’s, NF 1700 4 8 5 5 5 7 6 13 11 11 17 8

Table A2 – Monthly Distribution of Rainfall and Runoff Erosivity Index (%) for Selected Areas in Ontario
and Quebec
Monthly Percentage of Annual Precipitation
Region J F M A M J J A S O N D
Southwestern Ontario 4 4 4 9 7 13 17 14 11 7 5 5
Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec 0 0 5 10 8 15 19 16 13 8 4 2
Southern Quebec 0 0 5 10 9 14 16 12 10 6 5 4
Eastern Quebec 0 0 8 11 10 14 18 16 9 8 6 0
Table A3 – Monthly Distribution of Precipitation Normals Expressed as the Percentage of Annual

Precipitation in British Columbia
Monthly Percentage of Annual Precipitation
Region J F M A M J J A S O N D
Vancouver Region 15 10 9 6 4 4 3 4 6 10 14 15
Summerland Region 12 7 6 6 8 10 7 9 7 7 9 12
Prince George Region 10 6 6 4 7 10 9 10 10 10 9 10
Dawson Region 7 6 6 4 9 14 15 12 8 6 7 7
5.3 SOIL ERODIBILITY FACTOR, classification; and

c = the profile permeability class
K
The input parameters for calculation of K are
5.3.1 Estimation of K generally based on standard soil profile descriptions
and laboratory analyses. These parameters include:
The soil erodibility factor, K, is a quantitative
measure of a soil's susceptibility to erosion. In • Percent silt plus very fine sand (soil particle
general, soils with a high content of silt and very fine sizes between 0.05 and 0.10 mm);
sand particles and low fibrous organic matter content
will be most erodible. A preliminary assessment of • Percent sand greater than 0.10 mm;
soil erodibility was been presented in Figure 4.2. The • Organic matter content;
methods described here for estimating K values were
developed based on agricultural practice. Therefore, • Soil structure; and
a soil erodibility adjustment factor (ØK) is proposed to • Permeability.
adapt the estimated K values to roadway
construction sites and is discussed in Section A.3.2.
Organic matter content can usually be assumed to
be zero in embankments or deep cuts.
A K value can be estimated for a specific soil, using
the following equation (Wischmeier and Smith 1978):
The soil erodibility nomograph in Figure A8 provides
1.14 4 a graphical solution for determining a soil's K value,
100K = 2.1·M ·10 ·12a·3.25·(2b)·2.5·(3c) and can be used if the percent sand and organic
matter fractions in a particular soil are known.
Where: M = (% silt + % very fine sand) · (100 - %
clay);
a = percent organic matter;
b = the soil structure code used in soil

Figure A8 - Soil Erodibility Nomograph (Foster et al. 1981)
For high plasticity clayey soil and coarse to medium 5.3.2 Soil Erodibility Adjustment Factor
grained granular soils, the soil erodibility potential is (ØK)
low. Therefore, gradation analysis including
hydrometer testing of these soils is generally not
required to assess erodibility. For low-plasticity and The soil erodibility factor (K) was developed for a
non-plastic soils, and soil with significant amounts of agricultural applications. The level of consolidation
silt and fine sand, the soil erodibility can be high to and/or compaction of soils in a roadway construction
medium. Therefore gradation analysis including setting is usually much greater, because:
hydrometer testing is generally required.
• Cut slopes in roadway construction generally
Where the soil fractions are unknown, K values may consist of consolidated material; and
be estimated based on textural class and organic
matter content, as shown in Table A4. • Fill slopes in roadway construction have
generally undergone significant compaction
effort and moisture conditioning.

Table A4 – Soil Erodibility Values (K) for Common Surface Texturesa

b
Organic Matter Content
Textural Class <2% > 2% Average
Clay 0.032 0.028 0.029
Clay Loam 0.044 0.037 0.040
Coarse Sandy Loam - 0.009 0.009
Fine Sand 0.012 0.008 0.011
Fine Sandy Loam 0.029 0.022 0.024
Heavy Clay 0.025 0.020 0.022
Loam 0.045 0.038 0.040
Loamy Fine Sand 0.020 0.012 0.015
Loamy Sand 0.007 0.005 0.005
Loamy Very Fine Sand 0.058 0.033 0.051
Sand 0.001 0.003 0.001
Sandy Clay Loam - 0.026 0.026
Sandy Loam 0.018 0.016 0.017
Silt Loam 0.054 0.049 0.050
Silty Clay 0.036 0.034 0.034
Silty Clay Loam 0.046 0.040 0.042
Very Fine Sand 0.061 0.049 0.057
Very Fine Sandy Loam 0.054 0.044 0.046
(a) Based on 1600 samples collected in Southern Ontario
(b) If the organic matter content of a soil is unknown, the value in the “average” column should be used
Most roadway fills are constructed with mineral soils 5.4 TOPOGRAPHIC FACTOR, LS
with minimal organic content, whereas agricultural
soils are conditioned to produce loose conditions that
promote plant growth. However, even after 5.4.1 Estimation of LS
compaction to improve soil structure in a roadway
construction setting, silty and low-plasticity fine-
grained soils are still considered highly erodible. The topographic factor, LS, is a composite factor that
accounts for the effects of slope length (L) and slope
steepness (S) factors on the site erosion potential.
Based on these differences, the soil encountered in a For consolidated soil conditions with no to little cover,
roadway should have a lower erodibility rating than values of LS can be determined using Table A5. For
soil in an agricultural setting. Therefore, a more disturbed soil conditions, values of LS can be
modification factor (ØK) should be applied to lower determined using Table A6.
the K factor estimated in Section A.3.1. Based on
engineering judgment, a range of 0.5 to 1.0 (with a
suggested value of 0.8), is considered appropriate The upper end of a slope is defined as the top of the
for ØK. However, ØK is specified at the discretion of slope, or the divide down a ridge in the field. The
the practitioner based on site conditions, experience lower end of a slope is defined by the location where
and engineering judgment. The suggested a broad area of deposition or a natural or constructed
modification factor of 0.8 is based on judgment for waterway is encountered.
this document and represents a roadway-
construction specific factor to be used in the RUSLE.

Table A5 – Values for Topographic Factor LS for Low Ratio Rill:Inter-Rill Erosiona
Slope Slope Length (m)
(%) 2 5 10 15 25 50 75 100 150 200 250 300
0.2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
0.5 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17
2 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.35
3 0.23 0.27 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.57
4 0.27 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.47 0.55 0.60 0.64 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81
5 0.31 0.39 0.47 0.52 0.59 0.70 0.77 0.83 0.92 0.99 1.05 1.10
6 0.35 0.45 0.54 0.61 0.70 0.84 0.94 1.02 1.14 1.24 1.32 1.39
8 0.41 0.55 0.69 0.78 0.92 1.15 1.31 1.43 1.63 1.79 1.92 2.03
10 0.48 0.66 0.84 0.96 1.15 1.47 1.69 1.87 2.15 2.38 2.57 2.74
12 0.61 0.86 1.11 1.29 1.57 2.03 2.37 2.64 3.07 3.42 3.72 3.99
14 0.70 1.01 1.33 1.56 1.91 2.52 2.96 3.31 3.89 4.36 4.77 5.12
16 0.79 1.16 1.54 1.82 2.25 3.00 3.55 4.00 4.74 5.33 5.85 6.31
20 0.96 1.44 1.96 2.34 2.94 4.00 4.79 5.44 6.51 7.39 8.16 8.85
25 1.15 1.77 2.45 2.96 3.77 5.22 6.31 7.23 8.74 10.01 11.12 12.11
30 1.33 2.08 2.92 3.56 4.57 6.42 7.84 9.03 11.01 12.68 14.15 15.47
40 1.64 2.64 3.78 4.67 6.08 8.72 10.76 12.50 15.43 17.91 20.12 22.11
50 1.91 3.13 4.55 5.66 7.45 10.83 13.47 15.73 19.57 22.85 25.77 28.43
60 2.15 3.56 5.22 6.54 8.67 12.71 15.91 18.65 23.34 27.36 30.95 34.23
(a) Applicable to consolidated soil conditions with cover and rangeland, and to thawing soils where both inter-rill and rill erosion are significant.
Table A6 – Values for Topographic Factor LS for High Ratio Rill:Inter-Rill Erosiona
Slope Slope Length (m)
(%) 2 5 10 15 25 50 75 100 150 200 250 300
0.2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.5 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12
1 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27
2 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.40 0.44 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.69
3 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.63 0.72 0.87 1.00 1.11 1.22
4 0.13 0.21 0.30 0.49 0.49 0.70 0.87 1.02 1.26 1.47 1.65 1.82
5 0.14 0.24 0.36 0.61 0.61 0.91 1.14 1.35 1.70 2.00 2.28 2.53
6 0.16 0.27 0.42 0.72 0.72 1.10 1.41 1.67 2.14 2.54 2.91 3.25
8 0.19 0.34 0.53 0.96 0.96 1.50 1.96 2.36 3.07 3.70 4.28 4.82
10 0.21 0.40 0.64 1.19 1.19 1.92 2.53 3.08 4.06 4.94 5.75 6.52
12 0.27 0.52 0.85 1.63 1.63 2.66 3.54 4.33 5.77 7.07 8.28 9.42
14 0.32 0.62 1.02 1.98 1.98 3.28 4.40 5.42 7.27 8.95 10.52 12.01
16 0.36 0.71 1.19 2.34 2.34 3.90 5.26 6.51 8.79 10.87 12.81 14.66
20 0.45 0.90 1.52 3.05 3.05 5.17 7.03 8.75 11.92 14.84 17.58 20.20
25 0.54 1.11 1.91 3.90 3.90 6.70 9.19 11.50 15.78 19.75 23.51 27.10
30 0.64 1.32 2.29 4.73 4.73 8.20 11.32 14.22 19.62 24.65 29.43 34.02
40 0.81 1.70 2.99 6.29 6.29 11.04 15.35 19.38 26.94 34.03 40.79 47.30
50 0.96 2.04 3.62 7.70 7.70 13.62 19.02 24.11 33.67 42.67 51.29 59.60
60 1.09 2.35 4.17 8.94 8.94 15.92 22.30 28.33 39.70 50.43 60.72 70.66
(a) Applicable to highly disturbed soil conditions and freshly prepared construction sites with little or no cover; not applicable to thawing soils.

The method for estimating the LS value is different S = 10.8sin(s) x 0.03 (s<9%, sl=5 m)
for uniform slopes and irregular slopes and irregular
S = 16.8sin(s) x 0.50 (s=9%, sl=5 m)
slopes. Uniform slope LS values may be calculated
0.8
using the following equation: S = 3.0(sin(s)) · 0.56 (sl<5 m)
LS = (sl/22.13)m · S Where: sl = the slope length of the site (m);

s = the angle of the slope (degrees); and
m = a coefficient related to the ratio of rill to
The slope factor "S" is specified as (McCool et al.
inter-rill erosion presented in Table A7
1989):
Table A7 – Slope Length Exponents (m)

Slope Slope Length Exponent, m
a b c
(%) Low Moderate High
0.2 0.02 0.04 0.07
0.5 0.04 0.08 0.16
1 0.08 0.15 0.26
2 0.14 0.24 0.39
3 0.18 0.31 0.47
4 0.22 0.36 0.53
5 0.25 0.40 0.57
6 0.28 0.43 0.60
8 0.32 0.48 0.65
10 0.35 0.52 0.68
12 0.37 0.55 0.71
14 0.40 0.57 0.72
16 0.41 0.59 0.74
20 0.44 0.61 0.76
25 0.47 0.64 0.78
30 0.49 0.66 0.79
40 0.52 0.68 0.81
50 0.54 0.70 0.82
60 0.55 0.71 0.83
(a) Conditions where rill erosion is slight with respect to inter-rill erosion; generally C factors would be less than 0.15.
(b) Conditions where rill and inter-rill erosion would be about equal on a 22.1 m long slope in seedbed condition on a 9% slope.
(c) Conditions where rill erosion is great with respect to inter-rill erosion; generally C factors would be greater than 7.0.
For irregular slopes, RUSLE provides a method for The irregular slope should be divided into a two to
analysis by segments. This recognizes and adjusts five segments that describe varying conditions down
for differences in the type of slope. For example: slope (i.e. soil type, practices, etc). The LS value for
each segment is then calculated independently.
Each segment’s LS is modified by a Soil Loss Factor,
• A convex slope will have a greater effective as described in Table A7, and the sum of the
LS factor (i.e. a higher erosion estimate) modified segment LS’s is calculated. The sum is
than a uniform slope with the same average divided by the number of effective slope segments to
gradient; conversely estimate an LS value for the irregular slope. Note
• A concave slope will generally have a lower that if the upper segment is relatively flat, its LS
effective erosion rate than a uniform slope of value should be included in the sum of the modified
the same average gradient. segment LS’s, but it should not be included in the
number of effective slope segments.

Table A7 – Soil Loss Factors for Irregular Slopes

Sequence Soil Loss Factor (SLF)
No. of of value of m
Segments Segment 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
2 1 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.87 0.84 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.54
2 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.24 1.27 1.29 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.41 1.43 1.45 1.46
3 1 0.98 0.94 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.37
2 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.02
3 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.30 1.33 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.46 1.49 1.52 1.55 1.58 1.61
4 1 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.66 0.62 0.57 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.80 1.78
3 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.23 1.24 1.24
4 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.21 1.25 1.29 1.33 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.50 1.55 1.58 1.62 1.65 1.68
5 1 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.79 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.57 0.53 0.48 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.23
2 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.64
3 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.02
4 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.37 1.38
5 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.53 1.58 1.62 1.65 1.69 1.73
5.4.2 Topographic Adjustment Factor based on judgment for this document and represents
(ØLS) a roadway-construction specific factor to be used in
the RUSLE.
The topographic factor, LS, was developed for typical

agricultural slopes with loosened surficial soils for 5.5 VEGETATION AND
most soil types of moderate to low erodibility. For MANAGEMENT FACTOR, C
roadway construction applications, surficial soils are
much denser and slopes are generally much steeper
than for agricultural settings. The vegetation and management factor, C, is applied
to correct for the relative effectiveness of soil
management systems applied to the roadway
RUSLE typically returns relatively high estimates of construction project. Vegetation, crop cover and/or
LS value for roadway construction slopes, resulting artificial protection cover (such as mulch, gravel or
in corresponding high estimates of site erosion rolled erosion control products) can be very effective
potential. Although it is apparent that steeper slopes in preventing or reducing soil loss. For example, a C
are more prone to erosion as a result of increased value of 1.0 is representative of bare soil, but for a
runoff velocities, the RUSLE classifications for site surface protected by mulch, a value of 0.1 to 0.2 is
erosion potential are calibrated based on much lower common. Some typical C values for common
slope gradients and therefore require modification for surface treatments are provided in Table A8.
use at roadway construction sites.
Based on the noted differences, a lower slope factor

rating should apply to a roadway construction setting
compared to an agricultural setting. It is
recommended that a Topographic Adjustment Factor
(ØLS) should be applied to reduce the LS factor
determined as part of the RUSLE approach to
estimating soil loss. A ØLS of 0.8 is suggested to
address the inherent differences between roadway
construction and agricultural settings. However, ØK is
specified at the discretion of the practitioner based
on site conditions, experience and engineering
judgment. The suggested modification factor of 0.8 is

Table A8 – C-Factor Values for Common Surface Treatments

Treatment Application Rate (t/ha) Land Slope (%) C-Factor Length Limit (m)
None - all 1.00 -
2.2 1.5 0.20 60
2.2 6 to 10 0.20 30
3.4 1.5 0.12 90
3.4 6 to 10 0.12 45
4.5 1.5 0.06 120
Straw or hay mulch, tied down by
4.5 6 to 10 0.06 60
anchoring and tacking equipment
4.5 11 to 15 0.07 45
4.5 16 to 20 0.11 30
4.5 21 to 25 0.14 23
4.5 26 to 33 0.17 15
4.5 34 to 50 0.20 11
300 <16 0.05 60
300 16 to 20 0.05 45
300 21 to 33 0.05 30
Crushed rock, 6 to 40 mm 300 34 to 50 0.05 23
540 <21 0.02 90
540 21 to 33 0.02 60
540 34 to 50 0.02 45
16 <16 0.08 23
16 16 to 20 0.08 15
27 <16 0.05 45
27 16 to 20 0.05 30
Wood chips 27 21 to 33 0.05 23
56 <16 0.02 60
56 16 to 20 0.02 45
56 21 to 33 0.02 30
56 34 to 50 0.02 23
Sod grass 0.01
a
Temporary vegetation / cover crop 0.45
b
Hydraulic mulch at 4.5 t/ha 0.10
c
Soil sealant 0.10 to 0.60
c
Rolled erosion control products (RECP) 0.10 to 0.30
5.6 SUPPORT PRACTICE With the use of appropriate construction practice,

values of P can be reduced. For example, the
FACTOR, P practice of track roughening of bare slope (up/down
slope) can reduce the P value from 1.0 to 0.9.
The Support Practice Factor, P, is a measure of the Estimation of P may well be the least accurate and
effects of practices designed to modify the most subject to error of the RUSLE factors, because
contouring flow pattern, grade, or direction of surface of limited data compared to other factors in the
runoff. Support practices can reduce the amount of RUSLE formulation. Some typical roadway
erosion by causing eroded sediments to be construction site P values are provided in Table A9.
deposited far upslope, close to their source. In the
absence of any support practice, a value of 1.0 is
used.

Table A9 Common P-Factor Values for Construction Sites

Treatment P-Factor
Bare soil (packed and smooth) 1.00
Bare soil (freshly disked or rough, irregular) 0.90
a
Sediment containment systems (sediment trap or basin) 0.10 to 0.90
Bale or sandbag barriers 0.90
Rock barriers at sump location (25-50 mm diameter) 0.80
Silt fence barriers 0.60
Slope (%) Maximum Length (m)
1 to 2 120 0.60
3 to 5 90 0.50
Contour furrowed surface
6 to 8 60 0.50
Must be maintained throughout construction activities. Maximum 9 to 12 40 0.60
length refers to length in downslope direction.
13 to 16 25 0.70
17 to 20 20 0.80
>20 15 0.80
Slope (%)
1 to 2 0.12
Terracing 3 to 8 0.10
9 to 12 0.12
Must contain 2-year runoff volumes without overflowing. 13 to 16 0.14
17 to 20 0.16
>20 0.18
Grass buffer strips to filter sediment-laden sheet flows Basin Slope (%)
0 to 10 0.60
Must be at least 15 m wide and have a ground-cover value of >65% 11 to 24 0.80

APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL
LEGISLATION RELATED TO EROSION
AND SEDIMENT CONTROL


APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF
PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION RELATED
TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL
A list of relevant provincial and territorial legislation is provided in Table B1. This is limited to legislation related to
construction site water management and sediment release. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all
environmental legislation that may be applicable to roadway construction projects, and does not include legislation
and regulations related to issues such as health and safety, historical resources, pesticide use, etc.
A more comprehensive review of Canadian environmental legislation is available at the time of publishing at:
http://www.canadianenvironmental.com/legislation/.
Table B1 - Provincial and Territorial Legislation Related to Erosion and Sediment Control
Jurisdiction Act and Applicability
British Columbia Water Act: Requires a person who makes a change in and about a stream to exercise reasonable care to avoid
damaging land, works, trees or other property. Licenses are required for work in or around streams and for
discharges from construction sites, and license applications are reviewed by British Columbia Water, Land and Air
Protection and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. License applications may require an ESCP to meet water quality
provisions. Administered by Land and Water British Columbia.
Forest and Range Management Act: Identifies performance criteria for sustainable forest management, including
works around fish bearing streams. Depending on the nature of the development, the Act is administered by the
Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, or the Ministry of Sustainable Management.
Fish Protection Act: The Streamside Protection Regulation of the Act governs riparian protection measures, which
may be included in ESCP’s. Administered by Land and Water British Columbia.
Environmental Assessment Act: Governs review of major projects that could have significant environmental effects.
Administered by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA): Governs the release of substances, including sediment,
that may cause an adverse effect on the environment. Includes a duty to take remedial measures and to report
releases. Administered by Alberta Environment.
Wastewater and Storm Drainage Regulation: Part of EPEA that governs releases into wastewater and stormwater
drainage systems. Administered by Alberta Environment.
Water Act: Governs activities that may affect waterbody flow rate, quantity and location or the aquatic environment,
including siltation and erosion. Administered by Alberta Environment.
Saskatchewan The Environmental Management and Protection Act (EMPA): Guides environmental protection and practices in
Saskatchewan. Two sections are applicable to erosion and sediment control: Section 35 – Approval to discharge
any substance in the surface water or along the banks or shore of surface water for the purpose of poisoning, killing,
or controlling weeds, algae or other organisms; and, Section 36 – Approval for any alterations to waterbodies
including: alteration to the bed, bank and boundary or any waterbody; and, removal, addition or alteration of material
(i.e., sediment and/or vegetation). It is important to note that these sections do not apply if a waterbody is completely
contained on private land and does not flow directly or indirectly (other than by percolation) into any other surface
water location on other land. An Aquatic Habitat Protection Permit (AHPP) is required from Saskatchewan
Environment (SE).
The Reservoir Development Area Regulations: Included under the EMPA. These regulations ensure any
development occurring within designated Reservoir Development Areas (i.e., Avonlea Creek, Blackstrap, Bradwell,
Brightwater, Dellwood, Lake Diefenbaker, and Zelma) are conducted in a way to prevent damage from flooding,
erosion or landslides. Approval must be obtained in the form of a Development Permit, which is administered by the
Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (SWA).
The Water Regulations: Included under the EMPA, 2002 and outlines some exceptions to the EMPA related to the
removal of beaver dams and vegetation.
Second Draft – September 2004 B-1


Environmental Assessment Act: Outlines whether a project requires a Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA). In
general, an EA would be required for new projects and not for the regular maintenance of existing structures. SE is
responsible for reviewing all projects to determine if an EA is required. The decision is generally communicated in a
letter.
Saskatchewan Watershed Authority Act: Outlines SWA’s mandate to manage, control and protect water resources,
watersheds and related lands by regulating water development and water use. Works where water is diverted or
impounded from, or within, its natural channel or bed (e.g., farm dugouts, municipal or industrial water supply
systems, or other water diversion schemes) and drainage works (i.e., removal or lessening of water, including
channelization, diversion, construction of dykes, ditches and pumping works) are subject to this Act. Section 50
requires that written approval be obtained from SWA prior to commencing construction, extension, alteration or
operation of any works.
Surface Water Quality Objectives: Used to identify trends and potential problems with surface water sources. The
specific objective for total suspended solids (TSS) is included under the General Surface Water Quality Objectives.
This states that TSS should not increase more than 10 mg/L over existing background values for waters TSS levels of
less than 100 mg/L. In waters with TSS levels greater than 100 mg/L, the TSS concentration should no increase by
more than 10 percent over existing values.
Manitoba The Environment Act: Guides environmental protection and practices. Any development that may result in the
release of a pollutant (i.e., anything that is foreign or in excess of the natural concentrations within the environment) is
subject to the Act. The Classes of Development Regulation defines transportation projects as either Class 2 or Class
3. Water developments may include transportation related projects, such as bridges, if fish habitat or fish mobility are
affected, and may also be Class 2 or Class 3 Developments. All projects requiring environmental assessment and
licencing under the Environment Act must undergo the assessment process specified in the Act and be licensed
before work commences. Manitoba Conservation, Environmental Approvals Branch, determines if environmental
assessment and licensing is required for a project, and administers the process.
The Water Resources Administration Act: Manitoba Water Stewardship, Water Branch is responsible for
administering permits related to this Act. All matters related to the construction of water control works, which are
subject to the administration and control of the executive government of Manitoba, are included under this Act. The
minister, through the branch and subject as hereinafter provided, manages and administers all matters subject to the
administration and control of the executive government of the province and related to the construction or operation of
water control works, and, in particular, those matters dealt with under the following Acts or regulations:
• The Dyking Authority Act.

• The Ground Water and Water Well Act.
• The Rivers and Streams Act.
• The Water Power Act.
• The Water Rights Act.
• The Water Supply Districts Act.
The Water Rights Act: Governs the use of water for industrial, agricultural, domestic and municipal purposes. Any
diversion or installation of water control works, either temporary or permanent, is subject to this Act and a License is
required under the Water Rights Regulation. In addition, if preliminary work is required prior to the diversion, use or
control of water, then a Preliminary Work Permit is issued under the Water Rights Regulation. A License cannot be
issued until the preliminary work is completed. The Preliminary Work Permit and Water Rights License are all issued
by Manitoba Water Stewardship, Water Branch.
Manitoba Water Policies: This series of seven water policies is a proactive way to ensure that water management
practices help achieve the goal of sustainable development. Policy 1 focuses on the protection of water quality by
implementing the Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives, enhanced management of water resources,
development of water quality enhancement programs, decreasing non-point source pollution, and the implementation
of pollution control programs.
Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives: These define the maximum acceptable concentrations for various
substances in surface water. The guideline for total suspended solids (TSS) is listed under Tier II – Water Quality
Objectives, which outlines common pollutants routinely controlled through licenses under the Environment Act.
According to the objectives TSS concentrations should not:
• increase over 5 mg/L above background in waterbodies with TSS concentrations ≤25 mg/L;
• increase over 25 mg/L in waterbodies with background TSS concentrations ≤250 mg/L; and
• increase over 10% above background in waterbodies with background TSS concentrations ≤250 mg/L.
Background concentrations are defined as either historical, pre-development concentrations, upstream concentrations
existing at any given time, or concentration in an adjacent undisturbed water body with similar hydrological and
geological properties.
B-2 Second Draft – September 2004


Ontario Aggregate Resources Act: Governs the extraction of aggregate, including impact assessment and permitting.
Conservation Authorities Act: Delegates authority for regulation of alteration of channels and/or watercourses to local
conservation authorities. This Act is not binding on the Crown but is regarded.
Environmental Assessment Act: Requires that proponents of major projects outline the details of the project and
identify how construction, location and utilization will affect use of the area. Subject to the Act are municipalities,
provincial ministries and agencies, conservation authorities and any private sector activities designated by the
Minister and Cabinet. Administered by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Environmental Protection Act: Regulates the discharge of pollutants, including soil and sediment, into the natural
environment. Administered by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act: Prohibits the deposition of any substance or refuse into or onto the shore of any
lake or river. Administered by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. This Act is not binding on the Crown but is
regarded.
Oak Ridges Moraine Act: For the protection of the unique features of the area.
Provincial Planning Act: Outlines areas of provincial interest including wetlands and surface. This Act is not binding
on the Crown but is regarded.
Québec Environment Quality Act (Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement): Includes regulations governing environmental impact
assessment and review, management of contaminated snow, development and operation of pits and quarries,
protection of rivers, coasts and floodplains, and waterworks and sewer services.
Forests Act (Loi sur les forêts): Governs the construction and reconstruction of bridges, culverts and ditches in public
forests. Administered by the Québec Ministry of the Environment.
Watercourses Act (Loi sur le regime des eaux): Governs work on the bed, banks and floodplains of watercourses.
New Brunswick Clean Water Act: The Watercourse Alteration Regulation under the Act requires that a permit be obtained to install a
bridge or culvert on any watercourse or to disturb soil or cut trees within 30 metres of any watercourse. Administered
by the New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government.
Clean Environment Act: Governs the discharge or deposition of contaminants or waste into the environment.
Administered by the New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government.
Nova Scotia Ditches and Watercourses Act: provides for agreements between land owners to build, widen or deepen ditches to
remove run off from their properties. Administered by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.
Environment Act: The Activities Designation Regulations identify storm drainage and activities in or near
watercourses as activities where approvals are required under the Act, and applications may require descriptions of
pre- and post-development runoff and erosion and sediment control measures. Emergency Spill Regulations include
requirements for reporting of sediment discharges. Environmental Assessment Regulations are applicable to
common or public highways, at least 2 km long and 4 lanes in width. Administered by the Nova Scotia Ministry of
Environment and Labor.
Prince Edward Island Prince Edward Island Environmental Protection Act: Governs activities that may have adverse effects on the
environment. Contains specific reference to environmental impact assessments, requirements for permits for
watercourse alterations, requirements for preservation of riparian zones and regulations for excavation pit
development including erosion control measures. Administered by the Prince Edward Island Ministry of Energy and
Environment.
Prince Edward Island Planning Act: Governs planning at the provincial and municipal levels. Requires compliance
with the Environmental Protection Act. Administered by the Prince Edward Island Ministry of Community and Cultural
Affairs.
Newfoundland and Environmental Protection Act: Governs the release into the environment of any substance that causes or may cause
Labrador an adverse effect. Includes requirements for reporting of releases and the taking of remedial measures. Includes an
Environmental Assessment Regulation. Administered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Environment and Conservation.
Water Resources Act: Governs drainage of, and discharges to, wetlands. Administered by the Newfoundland and
Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation.
Yukon Territory Yukon Waters Act (Canada): Governs the licensing of water use, including diversion or obstruction of waters,
alteration of the flow of waters, and alteration of the bed or banks of rivers, streams, lakes or other waterbodies,
whether or not the body of water is seasonal. Administered by the Yukon Territory Water Board.
Yukon Environment Act: Governs the release of pollutants into the environment. Administered by the Yukon
Department of the Environment.
Yukon Environmental Assessment Act: Similar to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, governs
requirements for environmental assessment of projects. Will be superseded by the Yukon Environmental and
Socioeconomic Assessment Act on November 14, 2004. Administered by the Yukon Environmental Assessment
Unit.
Northwest Territories Northwest Territories Waters Act (Canada): Governs the licensing of water use, including diversion or obstruction of
waters, alteration of the flow of waters, and alteration of the bed or banks of rivers, streams, lakes or other
waterbodies, whether or not the body of water is seasonal.


Environmental Protection Act:: Includes guidelines for dust suppression. Administered by the Northwest Territories
Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.
Nunavut Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act (Canada): Governs the licensing of water use, including
diversion or obstruction of waters, alteration of the flow of waters, and alteration of the bed or banks of rivers,
streams, lakes or other waterbodies, whether or not the body of water is seasonal. Administered by the Nunavut
Water Board.
B-4 Second Draft – September 2004


APPENDIX C
QA CHECKLIST FOR ESCP
DEVELOPMENT


APPENDIX C - QA CHECKLIST FOR

ESCP DEVELOPMENT
The following checklist may be used to ensure that Erosion and Sediment Control Plans follow the method and
structure outlined in the Guideline. For small, low-risk roadway construction projects that only require the
application of procedural BMP’s, it may not be necessary to undertake detailed BMP design. Refer to Chapter 4
for guidance regarding the appropriate level of effort to be applied.
DATA COLLECTION
Identify and initiate contact with other members of the ESC team:
Owner or owner’s representative
Project designer
Applicable regulatory agencies (establish information needs)
Contractor and site inspector (if selected)
Compile relevant site information as applicable (Section 6.2):

Project drawings, design data and construction schedule
Soils information
Aerial photographs
Vegetation cover maps
Climate and hydrology data
Fisheries assessments
Regulatory requirements
Site inspection by ESCP designer:

Photographs to document existing site conditions
SITE ASSESSMENT
Assess the site-specific erosion potential (Section 6.3)
Assess the risk of erosion due to roadway construction activities (Section 4.2)
Determine appropriate level of effort, performance goals and evaluation measures (Section 4.3)
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN DESIGN (CHAPTER 7)
Develop an erosion and sediment control plan that is effective and coordinated with construction
activities
Define the areas of concern for the project
Second Draft – September 2004 C-1

Divert upstream water around the construction site (where applicable)
Evaluate the construction site drainage:

Define drainage areas within the construction site
Define drainage patterns within each drainage area
Determine drainage channel alignments
Determine channel tributary areas and drainage channel characteristics
Based on drainage characteristics, specify Best Management Practices (BMP’s)

Incorporate procedural BMP’s (7.2)
Promote good housekeeping measures to reduce the amount of erosion during
construction
Consider minimizing exposed soils, using existing drainage pathways, reducing
runoff from stockpiles, and installing signage around sensitive areas
Consider working during relatively dry conditions, installing erosion and sediment
control measures early, and revegetation exposed soils early
Incorporate appropriate erosion control BMP’s (Section 7.2)

Prevent erosion at its source
Consider factors such as flow, soil characteristics, topography, climate, season,
permanence, accessibility and cost when choosing erosion control measures
Incorporate appropriate sediment control BMP’s (7.2)

Apply sediment controls to flowing water that may contain sediment
Consider factors such as flow, soil characteristics, topography, climate, season, permanence,
accessibility and cost when choosing sediment control measures
REPORT REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 5.4)
Provide a project description

Describe erosion and sediment control objectives
Document existing site conditions
Identify critical areas of concern
Include a section on erosion and sediment control accountability and administration

Provide a list of emergency and non-emergency contacts
Describe BMP’s to be used

Include details on installation locations and alignments (Section 7.3)
Include an inspection and maintenance plan for all BMP’s (Section 8.3)
Include a contingency plan to deal with emergency situations and site shut-downs (Section 8.3)
C-2 Second Draft – September 2004

Provide a series of site plans illustrating and describing mitigation measures to be undertaken
during all phases of the project
Second Draft – September 2004 C-3

APPENDIX D
FACTSHEETS: BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL

D-2 Second Draft – September 2004

APPENDIX D - FACTSHEETS: BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
The following factsheets describe selected Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for Erosion and Sediment Control.
This does not represent an exhaustive list of available BMP’s and users are encouraged to consider other BMP’s
that are endorsed by their local roadway authorities.
Table D1 – Summary of Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMP’s
Erosion Sediment Erosion Sediment

BMP Description Control Control BMP Description Control Control
1 Topsoiling 9 16 Slope Drains 9

2 Seeding 9 17 Groundwater Control 9
3 Mulching 9 18 Synthetic Permeable Barrier 9 9
4 Hydroseeding-Hydromulching 9 19 Fibre Rolls and Wattles 9 9
5 Sodding 9 9 20 Check Dam 9 9
6 Planting Trees and Shrubs 9 21 Diversion Ditch 9
7 Riparian Zone Preservation 9 9 22 Energy Dissipators 9
8 Riprap Armouring 9 23 Silt Fence 9
9 Gabions 9 24 Brush or Rock Berm 9
10 Aggregate Cover 9 25 Drain Inlet Sediment Barrier 9
11 Stabilized Worksite Entrance 9 26 Continuous Berm 9
12 Rolled Erosion Control 9 27 Earth Dyke Barrier 9
Products (RECP)
13 Cellular Confinement System 9 28 Sediment Traps and Basins 9

14 Chemical Stabilization 9 29 Storm Sewer Protection 9
15 Slope Texturing/Grading 9 30 Pumped Silt Control Systems 9
These BMP factsheets are adapted from those presented in the Alberta Transportation Design Guidelines for
Erosion and Sediment Control for Highways (2003) and permission for their use is gratefully acknowledged.
Second Draft – September 2004 D-1

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC
DESIGN METHODS


APPENDIX E - HYDROLOGICAL AND

HYDRAULIC DESIGN METHODS
E.1 Introduction consequences of failure and the life-span of the
structure (temporary versus permanent) when
choosing design criteria. Alberta Transportation
Drainage areas to which erosion and sediment (2003) recommends a minimum of a one in ten year
control (ESC) measures must be applied during rural return period event for erosion control works of a
and urban roadway construction are typically small permanent nature and a two in five year return period
(less than 20 ha), but due to the linear nature of road event for temporary erosion control works. Major
alignments they can have long flow paths. Rural roadways required for emergency purposes are
highway catchments may generate lower runoff rates designed to withstand one in 100 year runoff events;
than similarly sized urban catchments, due to lower accordingly, permanent erosion control protection
proportions of paved and developed areas. measures should be designed to a similar standard.
However, for both cases, runoff becomes
concentrated along ditches and near outlet points
and increases erosion potential. The design of many Detailed methodologies are not presented here, but
ESC measures for urban and rural roadway the reader is directed to other sources of literature for
construction requires that runoff flow rates from small more information. All hydrologic and hydraulic
watersheds be estimated. This ensures that designs for drainage channels and sediment
channels, control structures and settling ponds are ponds should be carried out by qualified
adequately sized and designed to prevent professionals.
overtopping and washout.
E.2 Site Hydrology
The process of designing drainage channels or
sediment ponds consists of two phases: hydrologic
analysis and hydraulic design. Hydrologic analysis is This section discusses methods for estimating peak
employed first to determine the maximum flow to be runoff rates for construction sites. Reliable estimates
of these rates are required to provide stable and
carried by the system. The designer must then
design the type and size of facility that will transport cost-effective erosion protection design for open
that flow and ensure that hydraulics meet the design channels and appropriate sizing for sedimentation
ponds.
criteria. This appendix is intended to provide
background on methods for:
There are several different approaches to estimating
peak runoff flow. Commonly used techniques
• Deriving design flows;
include:
• Designing open channels; and
• Rational Method;
• Designing sedimentation ponds.
• Regional Hydrology Analysis; and
Depending on the risks and consequences of failure, • Hydrologic Models.
design criteria need to be established to guide the
designer on the appropriate level of effort on a
variety of features. For example, a drainage channel Of these methods, the Rational Method is the most
may be designed to resist erosion during a five year commonly used for small, urban areas. Regional
storm event but have the capacity to convey a ten analysis is more applicable to projects with large
year event. Depending on the location and the type drainage areas or where stream diversions are
of application, drainage structures may need to be required. The ESCP designer must use judgment in
designed to different standards. The designer determining the most appropriate method for
should consider minimum regulatory requirements, calculating peak flows. Rainfall, snow melt, and rain-
Second Draft – September 2004 E-1

on-snow events should be considered in determining Although the Rational Method is probably the most
the design flow. A general description of each popular method of runoff estimation, it is the most
method and its applicability is discussed in more commonly misapplied. Because of the method’s
detail below. numerous oversimplifications, the method should be
used cautiously and only where a more complex
model is not warranted in terms of the required
E.2.1 Rational Method accuracy and availability of data. However, for the
purposes of most ESC design, it provides a simple
For watersheds not exceeding 25 km2 in size (MTO and generally conservative method of estimating
1984), the rational method is widely used to runoff. The formula for the Rational Method is as
determine peak runoff flows. This method combines follows:
all the watershed characteristics (soil type, surface
cover, antecedent moisture, depression storage and Q = 0.00278 C i A
land slope) into a single runoff coefficient. The
Rational Method is most applicable to areas where
the effects of channel routing are small. Some of the Where: Q = peak flow (m3/s)
major assumptions of this method are: C = runoff coefficient (dimensionless)
i = precipitation intensity (mm/hr)
A = effective drainage area (ha)
• the rainfall intensity is uniform over the area
for the duration of the storm;
Care should be taken in the choice of runoff
• the storm will generate a peak discharge coefficient, C. Typical values for runoff coefficients
when rainfall lasts as long or longer than the are presented in Table E1. If there are multiple soil
time of concentration (time for runoff to travel types or land uses, the coefficient should be
from the most distant point in the watershed calculated using a weighted average of each sub-
to the outlet); and area.
• the design precipitation event has the same
frequency as the resulting runoff event.
Table E1 – Typical Runoff Coefficients for the Rational Method (from Chow 1962 unless otherwise noted)
LAND USE C LAND USE C LAND USE C

*
Business: Streets: AGRICULTURAL LAND, 0-30%
Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 Asphalt 0.70-0.95 Barren packed soil:
Neighbourhood areas 0.50-0.70 Concrete 0.80-0.95 Smooth 0.30-0.60
Brick 0.70-0.85 Rough 0.20-0.50
Residential: Cultivated rows:
Single family areas 0.30-0.50 Drives and walks 0.75-0.85 Heavy soil, no crop 0.30-0.60
Multi units, detached 0.40-0.60 Roofs 0.75-0.95 Heavy soil, with crop 0.20-0.50
Multi units, attached 0.60-0.75 Sandy soil, no crop 0.20-0.40
Suburban 0.25-0.40 Lawns: Sandy soil, with crop 0.10-0.25
Sandy soil, flat 2% 0.05-0.10
Industrial: Sandy soil, average 2-7% 0.10-0.15 Pasture:
Light areas 0.50-0.80 Sandy soil, steep 7% 0.15-0.20 Heavy soil 0.15-0.45
Heavy areas 0.60-0.90 Heavy soil, flat 2% 0.13-0.17 Sandy soil 0.05-0.25
Heavy soil, average 2-7% 0.18-0.22
Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25 Heavy soil, steep 0.25-0.35 Woodlands 0.05-0.25
**
Playgrounds 0.20-0.35 Barren slopes > 30%
Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 Smooth, impervious 0.70-0.90
Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Rough 0.50-0.70
*
From American Society of Civil Engineers 1969
**
From Portland Cement Association 1964
E-2 Second Draft – September 2004

The precipitation intensity, i, used in the calculation • Hydrologic similarity to the watershed
of the peak runoff flow can generally be obtained contributing to the site. This includes
from local authorities. If rainfall Intensity Duration watershed slope, vegetative cover, aspect,
Frequency (IDF) curves have not been prepared or soil type, drainage density, and drainage
adopted by local authorities, curves may be obtained pattern;
from Environment Canada. Precipitation intensity
information is also available in Environment • Period of record. Stations with long,
Canada’s Rainfall Frequency Atlas for Canada continuous records are preferred;
(1985). If rainfall data are not available, the designer • Regulation. Streamflow gauges on
may need to obtain and interpolate data from areas regulated rivers cannot usually be used
with similar climate. The rainfall intensity selected for directly to determine representative flood
input to the equation must correspond to the peaks;
specified frequency (return period) of the design
event, and the event duration must correspond to the • Catchment area. The watershed areas of
watershed time of concentration. Specifying arbitrary stations used in the regional analysis should
or incorrect event durations are the most frequent bracket the site drainage area.
errors made in Rational Method calculations. A
number of empirical equations are available for 2) Review the streamflow records. Synthesize
estimating watershed times of concentration. missing maximum instantaneous discharges using a
representative ratio relating maximum daily
discharge to maximum instantaneous discharge.
The Rational Method provides an estimate of the
peak runoff, but does not provide a hydrograph 3) Frequency analysis. Perform a frequency
(relationship between flow and time). In situations analysis on the series of maximum instantaneous
where peak inflows are likely to be affected by discharges for each station.
storage in various structures (such as storage or
sediment ponds), a flow routing analysis can be used 4) Develop a regional peak discharge equation. Plot
to provide more accurate flow estimates. the peak discharges for the design return period as a
function of area and determine the regional peak
E.2.2 Regional Hydrology Analysis discharge equation. Extreme caution should be used
if extrapolating the flood frequency estimates beyond
the return periods of measured data.
When hydrologic data are required for ESC design,
regional or flood frequency analyses can provide 5) Calculate the design discharge at the site. Using
useful estimates of flow conditions. Regional the area contributing to the site and the regional
analysis is generally performed on streams and peak discharge equation, determine the design flood.
rivers and is not generally used to develop estimates
of overland flow. Regional analysis is particularly
relevant to ESC design where projects involve A variation of the regional hydrology analysis is the
stream diversions or in-stream work. Runoff Depth Method developed by Alberta
Transportation. This method is based on a rigorous
review of precipitation and streamflow data from that
Regional relationships are often used to estimate province and should be considered for use on
site-specific hydrology when data for a stream are projects located in ungauged watersheds.
unavailable or of short duration. Data from regional
hydrometric stations are used to develop a
relationship between drainage area and discharge. E.2.3 Watershed Modeling
A generic procedure for a regional hydrology
analysis is outlined below. A variety of watershed models exist that range in
complexity from simple coefficient-based regressions
1) Select several streamflow gauging stations to be to more complex physically based models that
used in the analysis. The station selection is based characterize storage in basins and route the flood
on the following criteria: flows through the connecting channels. It may be
impractical to develop such a model for a highway
• Proximity to the construction site; construction project, but the designer should

consider using data from models developed for, and the channel bed and bank material comprising the
applicable to, local project areas. bed and walls of the channel and the degree of
impedance it has on the flow. Typical roughness
values are available in most open channel flow
E.3 Open Channel Design books, design guides or from product distributors.
An open channel is any watercourse that allows free Channel design involves solving Manning’s equation
surface flow. Examples of open channels are for the depth of water in the channel and ensuring
drainage ditches, canals, and pipes that do not flow that the velocities in the channel are suitable for the
full. Open channels are used for erosion and type of material on the bed and side slopes of the
sediment control to divert clean water around the site channel. For a channel to be classified as non-
and to collect and convey runoff on site. For design erodible, mean channel velocities at the design flow
of open channels for erosion and sediment control, must be less than the critical velocity for mobilization
flow is generally assumed to be uniform in nature, of the bed material.
meaning the channel has:
Any soil or material subjected to the flow of water

• a constant cross-sectional shape along the experiences a shear stress along its surface which
channel; can cause erosion. Depending on its composition,
• a constant bed slope; bare soils can have different resistances to shear
stress. Soils composed of coarse grains or covered
• a uniform roughness; and in vegetation generally have more resistance to
shear stress. Rolled erosion control products,
• a steady flow rate.
geotextiles, or rock can be used to line channels and
provide further resistance to shear stresses.
Although the assumption of uniform flow is often an
oversimplification, the resulting error is generally Channel design is often an iterative process to select
small compared to those involved in estimating flow an appropriate bottom width, side slopes, channel
rates and channel roughness. Additional channel
slope, and materials, and use of appropriate design
capacity (freeboard) is typically added to software can make this task a great deal easier.
compensate for these errors.
E.4 Sedimentation Pond Design

The Manning Equation is commonly used to relate
flow area, geometry and rate for uniform flow
conditions. The equation is: The purpose of sediment containment systems is to
detain the sediment-laden runoff from disturbed
areas long enough for the majority of the sediment to
1 2 1
settle out before entering a natural waterway.
Q= A⋅ R 3 ⋅ S 2
n Sediment controls should provide detention for
incoming runoff waters, create slow conditions
suitable to allow particles to settle and release the
Where: Q = peak flow (m3/s) water in a controlled manner.
n = channel roughness (-)
A = cross-sectional area of flow (m2) Temporary sediment control structures are
commonly used measures used for treating
R = hydraulic radius (m) = A/P sediment-laden runoff from construction sites. They
P = wetted perimeter (m) should be placed near the perimeter of construction
activity to allow them to remain functional for as long
S = channel bed slope as possible. Pond construction should be completed
prior to construction and should remain in place until
the disturbed area is stabilized. Where warranted,
Both the area and the hydraulic radius are functions
of the bottom width, side slopes and depth of flow in sedimentation ponds may be a permanent feature of
the channel. Channel roughness, n, is a function of the roadway systems. It should be emphasized that
the success of sediment control structures depends
E-4 Second Draft – September 2004

primarily on the success of erosion prevention their removal may not be practical without the use of
measures to limit the amount sediment entering the flocculants. The design capacity of a sediment
pond. containment system should be sufficient to impound
the runoff volume collected from the area of
disturbed land for a 1 in 2 year storm event of 24
Suspended particles settle at different rates hour rainfall intensity.
depending on the size, shape and electric charge of
the particle. Coarse-grained particles such as sands
typically settle much faster than clays and silts. The type of containment system should be selected
Unless all site runoff is contained without release, based on the specific site conditions including the
100% removal of suspended sediment is not erosion potential, area of exposed soil, terrain
possible. conditions, space constraints and method of
construction. Sediment containment systems are
generally classified as sediment basins, traps and
Sediment containment systems are generally barriers in descending order of their effectiveness.
designed to settle a target soil grain size. Coarse to The criteria for selecting the type of sediment
medium sized silt particles can be realistically containment are presented in Table E2.
targeted for sedimentation. Finer size particles such
as clays and fine silts require long settling times and
Table E2 – Sediment Containment System Types (from Fifield, 2001)
Containment System Site Erosion Potential Target Particle Size Affected Land Area
< 0.045 mm
Sediment Basin High to Very High > 2 ha
medium silt and finer
< 0.14 mm
Sediment Trap Moderate < 2 ha
fine sand, coarse to medium silt
< 0.14 mm Grade break and velocity
Sediment Barrier Low retarder for construction
medium to fine sand, coarse silt and intermediate areas
Sediment basins should be sized for the design flow All sediment containment systems require routine
event and the design particle size. The depth of a maintenance to remain effective. When sediment
sediment basin should be between 0.6 and 1.5m. reaches the maximum level assumed in the design
Sediment basins should be much longer than wide (usually one-third to one-half the volume), the basin,
and a practical length-to-width ratio is in the order of trap or barrier must be cleaned out. Excavated
4L:1W to 8L:1W, with a preferred value of 5L:1W. sediment should be placed in a location where it will
Baffles can be installed within basins to allow not be easily eroded again.
efficient use of land area.
The design of a sedimentation pond can be a
Sediment traps are typically designed with similar challenge as design parameters are difficult to
depths but with smaller length:width ratios, in the define. The design of sediment containment
range of 2L:1W to 3L:1W. Sediment barriers are the systems must be undertaken with a practical
least effective sediment containment systems and perspective that uses experience and judgment. The
are typically used on construction sites as ditch focus of sediment control should be placed on
check structures. Sediment barriers are typically capturing silt sized and larger particles. The
effective only at removing coarse sediment by emphasis for preventing the release of water
reducing the flow velocity in gently sloped areas. containing clay sized particles should be placed as
erosion control.

For further information on sediment pond design, the

reader is referred to Factsheet 28 in Appendix D, as
well as more detailed discussions presented by
Fifield 2001; Raudkivi 1993; Barfield, Warner and
Haan 1981; Haan, Barfield and Hayes 1994; and
British Columbia 1996.

APPENDIX F
INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL DURING
CONSTRUCTION


APPENDIX F - INSPECTION
CHECKLIST FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING
CONSTRUCTION
The checklist included in this appendix may be used during construction to document details of regular inspections
of erosion and sediment control measures. Use of this checklist or equivalent is recommended for routine (weekly)
inspections, for post-storm inspections and for inspections immediately after shutdown periods. Having an
effective monitoring and maintenance program and documenting observations and actions undertaken as part of
the program is essential to demonstrating due diligence in erosion and sediment control.
Second Draft – September 2004 F-1

F-2 Second Draft – September 2004

Erosion and Sediment Control
Project Inspection and Maintenance Form
Contract Number: Contractors on Site:

Construction Site Location:
Heavy Equipment on Site: Construction Activities:
Date: Rainfall in last week (mm): Current Weather:
Date of Last Inspection: Rainfall in last 24 h (mm): Weather Forecast:
Type of Location on Intended Observed General General Type of Date Repairs

ESC Measure Construction Function of Sediment Condition of Performance of Maintenance Maintenance Site Manager to be
(BMP) Site ESC Measure Level ESC Measure ESC Measure Required? Required Notified? Completed By
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full
Poor / Fair / Good Poor / Fair / Good Yes / No Yes / No
not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full

not applicable
Additional Notes:
Inspector’s Signature: Inspector’s Name:
Owner’s Contractor’s ESC Plan

Copies to: Designated Inspector: Site Designate: Designer:

Second Draft TAC ESC Guideline 2sep04 LDW Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Draft TAC ESC Guideline 2sep04 LDW Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Association of Canada

Second Draft - September 2004

Following text – keep in one column

Second Draft – September 2004 iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... IV

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ VIII

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... VIII

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1

1.2 HISTORY, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDE.....................................................1

1.3 SEQUENCE OF THE GUIDE ..........................................................................................2

CHAPTER 3 - PHYSICAL PROCESSES ...........................................................9

3.2 THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES OF EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION.........................9

iv Second Draft – September 2004

3.3 WATER MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES ........................................................................11

3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING EROSION...............................................................................11

CHAPTER 4 - RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................17

4.2 EVALUATION OF EROSION POTENTIAL ...................................................................17

4.3 APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF EFFORT FOR ESC ........................................................20

5.2 SCOPE OF ESC PLANNING ........................................................................................26

5.3 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ESC PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................26

5.4 COMPONENTS OF AN ESCP ......................................................................................27

5.6 ESCP DESIGN CRITERIA.............................................................................................30

CHAPTER 6 - SITE ASSESSMENT .................................................................31

6.2 INFORMATION NEEDS ................................................................................................31

Second Draft – September 2004 v

6.2.7 Other Biological Information ............................................................................................34

6.5 PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT...................................................................................38

CHAPTER 7 - BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN..............................................41

7.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.............................................................................41

CHAPTER 8 - IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................55

vi Second Draft – September 2004

8.4.2 Emergency Response .....................................................................................................58

8.6 DOCUMENTATION .......................................................................................................59

CHAPTER 10 - REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................65

10.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................67

Second Draft – September 2004 vii

Table 4-1 Hierarchy Of Soil Erodibility................................................................................................19

Table 4-3 Required Levels Of Erosion And Sediment Control .........................................................20

Table 7-1 Procedural BMP’s For ESC On Roadway Construction Sites..........................................43

Figure 6-1 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS; Modified by PFRA)......................................32

Figure 6-2: Physiographic Regions Of Canada.................................................................................36

viii Second Draft – September 2004

Appendix A - Procedures for use of RUSLE

Appendix B - Summary of Provincial Legislation Related to Erosion

Appendix C - QA Checklist For Escp Development

Appendix D - Factsheets: Best Management Practices for Erosion

Appendix E - Hydrological and Hydraulic Design Methods

Appendix F - Inspection Checklist for Erosion and Sediment Control

Second Draft – September 2004 ix

Second Draft – September 2004 1

sediment related effects on fish or fish habitat. The

1.3 SEQUENCE OF THE GUIDE

The body of the Guide is divided into two sections.

Part I of the guide is divided into three chapters.

Part II of the guide is divided into four chapters.

A glossary is provided in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10

2 Second Draft – September 2004

• Relevant Canadian legislation and regulations;

Second Draft – September 2004 3

This page left blank intentionally.

4 Second Draft – September 2004

Second Draft – September 2004 5

6 Second Draft – September 2004