United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water 

Washington, DC 20460 

(4503T)

EPA 841-B-07-002

July 2007
National Management Measures 

to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification 

Nonpoint Source Control Branch 

 Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

July 2007 
Disclaimer 

This document provides technical guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes, and the 

public for managing hydromodification and reducing associated nonpoint source 

pollution of surface and ground water. At times, this document refers to statutory and 

regulatory provisions, which contain legally binding requirements. This document does 

not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does 

not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, territories, authorized tribes, or 

the public and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA, 

state, territory, and authorized tribe decision makers retain the discretion to adopt 

approaches to manage hydromodification and reduce associated NPS pollution of surface 

and ground water on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where 

appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 i July 2007 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1 

What is Hydromodification?............................................................................................... 1-1 

Why is NPS Guidance on Hydromodification Important? ................................................. 1-2 

Purpose and Scope of the Guidance.................................................................................... 1-4 

Document Organization...................................................................................................... 1-4 

Activities to Control NPS Pollution.................................................................................... 1-5 

Historical Perspective ................................................................................................ 1-5 

Federal Programs and Funding .................................................................................. 1-5 

Introduction to Management Measures .............................................................................. 1-7 

Channelization and Channel Modification (Chapter 3).............................................1-8 

Dams (Chapter 4)....................................................................................................... 1-9 

Streambank and Shoreline Erosion (Chapter 5)......................................................... 1-9 

Chapter 2: Background ................................................................................................................2-1 

Key Geomorphic Functions of Streams.............................................................................. 2-1 

Discharge, Slope, and Sinuosity ................................................................................ 2-1 

Erosion, Transport, and Deposition of Sediment....................................................... 2-2 

Dynamic Equilibrium................................................................................................. 2-2 

Longitudinal View of Channels.................................................................................2-4 

Disruption of Dynamic Equilibrium .......................................................................... 2-6 

General Impacts of Channelization and Channel Modifications ........................................ 2-6 

Physical Impacts ........................................................................................................2-6 

Chemical Impacts....................................................................................................... 2-7 

Biological and Habitat Impacts..................................................................................2-8 

Impacts Associated with Specific Hydromodification Actions........................................ 2-10 

Channel Straightening and Deepening.....................................................................2-10 

Channel Lining......................................................................................................... 2-10 

Channel Narrowing.................................................................................................. 2-11 

Channel Widening ................................................................................................... 2-11 

Culverts and Bridges................................................................................................ 2-11 

Urbanization............................................................................................................. 2-12 

Agricultural Drainage .............................................................................................. 2-13 

Shorelines..........................................................................................................................2-14 

Shoreline Processes..................................................................................................2-14 

Deposition and Erosion............................................................................................2-15 

Common Natural and Anthropogenic Causes of Coastal Land Loss ...................... 2-16 

Impacts Associated with Dams......................................................................................... 2-16 

Water Quality in the Impoundment/Reservoir......................................................... 2-18 

Water Quality Downstream of a Dam ..................................................................... 2-21 

Suspended Sediment and Reduced Discharge ......................................................... 2-21 

Biological and Habitat Impacts................................................................................2-22 

Impacts Associated with Dam Removal........................................................................... 2-23 

Physical Changes: Upstream Impacts...................................................................... 2-24 

Physical Changes: Downstream Impacts................................................................. 2-24 
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 ii July 2007 

Biological Changes: Upstream Impacts................................................................... 2-25 

Biological Changes: Downstream Impacts.............................................................. 2-26 

Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification.................................................................3-1 

Management Measure 1: Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Channelized or 

Modified Surface Waters .................................................................................................... 3-2 

Management Practices for Management Measure 1.................................................. 3-3 

Planning and Evaluation ...................................................................................3-3 

Operation and Maintenance Programs.............................................................. 3-4 

Grade Control Structures ............................................................................ 3-4 

Levees, Setback Levees, and Floodwalls....................................................3-5 

Noneroding Roadways................................................................................ 3-5 

Streambank Protection and Instream Sediment Load Controls .................. 3-6 

Vegetative Cover ........................................................................................ 3-7 

Summary of Physical and Chemical Practices............................................ 3-8 

Management Measure 2: Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration.............................. 3-10 

Management Practices for Management Measure 2................................................ 3-10 

Planning and Evaluation .................................................................................3-11 

Biological Methods/Models......................................................................3-11 

Temperature Restoration Practices ...........................................................3-12 

Geomorphic Assessment Techniques ....................................................... 3-13 

Expert Judgment and Checklists............................................................... 3-16 

Operation and Maintenance Activities............................................................3-16 

Chapter 4: Dams ..........................................................................................................................4-1 

Management Measure 3: Erosion and Sediment Control for the Construction of New 

Dams and Maintenance of Existing Dams.......................................................................... 4-4 

Management Practices for Management Measure 3.................................................. 4-5 

Erosion Control Practices ................................................................................. 4-5 

Runoff Control.................................................................................................. 4-7 

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans .....................................................4-8 

Management Measure 4: Chemical and Pollutant Control at Dams................................. 4-10 

Management Practices for Management Measure 4................................................ 4-11 

Management Measure 5: Protection of Surface Water Quality and Instream and 

Riparian Habitat................................................................................................................ 4-12 

Management Practices for Management Measure 5................................................ 4-14 

Practices for Improving Water Quality........................................................... 4-14 

Watershed Protection Practices................................................................. 4-15 

Reservoir Aeration Practices..................................................................... 4-16 

Practices to Improve Oxygen Levels in Tailwaters ..................................4-16 

Practices to Restore or Maintain Aquatic and Riparian Habitat..................... 4-17 

Practices to Maintain Fish Passage................................................................. 4-18 

Removal of Dams ..................................................................................... 4-19 

Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion ............................................................................ 5-1 

Management Measure 6: Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines......................................... 5-3 

Management Practices for Management Measure 6.................................................. 5-5 
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 iii July 2007 

Vegetative Practices..........................................................................................5-5 

Structural Approaches....................................................................................... 5-7 

Integrated Systems............................................................................................ 5-8 

Planning and Regulatory Approaches...............................................................5-9 

Chapter 6: Guiding Principles...................................................................................................... 6-1 

Using a Watershed Approach ............................................................................................. 6-3 

Smart Growth......................................................................................................................6-6 

Low Impact Development................................................................................................... 6-7 

Project Design Considerations............................................................................................6-8 

General Design Factors..............................................................................................6-8 

Assessment................................................................................................................. 6-9 

Engineering Considerations..................................................................................... 6-10 

Incorporating Monitoring and Maintenance of Structures................................................ 6-11 

Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures..................................................7-1 

Advanced Hydroelectric Turbines ......................................................................................7-7 

Bank Shaping and Planting................................................................................................. 7-9 

Beach Nourishment........................................................................................................... 7-10 

Behavioral Barriers ........................................................................................................... 7-12 

Branch Packing .................................................................................................................7-14 

Breakwaters.......................................................................................................................7-15 

Brush Layering..................................................................................................................7-17 

Brush Mattressing ............................................................................................................. 7-19 

Bulkheads and Seawalls....................................................................................................7-21 

Check Dams......................................................................................................................7-22 

Coconut Fiber Roll............................................................................................................ 7-23 

Collection Systems............................................................................................................ 7-25 

Construct Runoff Intercepts.............................................................................................. 7-26 

Constructed Spawning Beds ............................................................................................. 7-27 

Construction Management................................................................................................ 7-28 

Dormant Post Plantings..................................................................................................... 7-29 

Encourage Drainage Protection ........................................................................................7-30 

Equipment Runoff Control ............................................................................................... 7-31 

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans .....................................................................7-32 

Erosion Control Blankets.................................................................................................. 7-35 

Establish and Protect Stream Buffers ............................................................................... 7-37 

Fish Ladders......................................................................................................................7-38 

Fish Lifts ...........................................................................................................................7-40 

Flow Augmentation .......................................................................................................... 7-41 

Fuel and Maintenance Staging Areas ...............................................................................7-43 

Gated Conduits..................................................................................................................7-44 

Groins................................................................................................................................7-45 

Identify and Address NPS Contributions.......................................................................... 7-46 

Soil Erosion Control ................................................................................................ 7-46 

Mine Reclamation.................................................................................................... 7-46 

Animal Waste Control ............................................................................................. 7-47 
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 iv July 2007 

Correcting Failing Septic Systems........................................................................... 7-47 

Land Use Planning...................................................................................................7-47 

Identify and Preserve Critical Areas.................................................................................7-48 

Conservation Easements .......................................................................................... 7-48 

Leases....................................................................................................................... 7-49 

Deed Restrictions.....................................................................................................7-49 

Covenants................................................................................................................. 7-49 

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) ................................................................ 7-49 

Joint Planting ....................................................................................................................7-50 

Labyrinth Weir..................................................................................................................7-51 

Levees, Setback Levees, and Floodwalls..........................................................................7-52 

Live Cribwalls...................................................................................................................7-54 

Live Fascines ....................................................................................................................7-56 

Live Staking......................................................................................................................7-58 

Locate Potential Land Disturbing Activities Away from Critical Areas.......................... 7-60 

Marsh Creation and Restoration ....................................................................................... 7-61 

Modifying Operational Procedures...................................................................................7-62 

Mulching...........................................................................................................................7-63 

Noneroding Roadways...................................................................................................... 7-64 

General Road Construction Considerations.............................................................7-64 

Road Shape and Composition.................................................................................. 7-65 

Slope Stabilization ................................................................................................... 7-65 

Wetland Road Considerations.................................................................................. 7-66 

Pesticide and Fertilizer Management................................................................................ 7-67 

Phase Construction............................................................................................................ 7-69 

Physical Barriers ...............................................................................................................7-70 

Pollutant Runoff Control................................................................................................... 7-72

Preserve Onsite Vegetation............................................................................................... 7-73 

Reregulation Weir............................................................................................................. 7-74 

Reservoir Aeration............................................................................................................ 7-75 

Retaining Walls.................................................................................................................7-77 

Return Walls .....................................................................................................................7-78 

Revegetate.........................................................................................................................7-79 

Revetment .........................................................................................................................7-80 

Riparian Improvements..................................................................................................... 7-82 

Riprap................................................................................................................................7-83 

Root Wad Revetments ...................................................................................................... 7-84 

Rosgen’s Stream Classification Method........................................................................... 7-86 

Scheduling Projects...........................................................................................................7-88 

Sediment Basins/Rock Dams............................................................................................ 7-89 

Sediment Fences ............................................................................................................... 7-91 

Sediment Traps .................................................................................................................7-92 

Seeding..............................................................................................................................7-93 

Selective Withdrawal........................................................................................................7-94 

Setbacks ............................................................................................................................7-95 

Shoreline Sensitivity Assessment ..................................................................................... 7-97 
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 v July 2007 

Environmental Sensitivity Mapping ........................................................................ 7-97 

USGS Coastal Classification (Coastal & Marine Geology Program) ..................... 7-98 

USGS National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise................ 7-98 

Site Fingerprinting ............................................................................................................ 7-99 

Sodding ...........................................................................................................................7-100 

Soil Protection.................................................................................................................7-101 

Spill and Water Budgets ................................................................................................. 7-102 

Spill Prevention and Control Program............................................................................ 7-103 

Spillway Modifications................................................................................................... 7-104 

Surface Roughening........................................................................................................ 7-105 

Toe Protection.................................................................................................................7-106 

Training—ESC ............................................................................................................... 7-107 

Transference of Fish Runs .............................................................................................. 7-108 

Tree Armoring, Fencing, and Retaining Walls or Tree Wells........................................ 7-109 

Tree Revetments ............................................................................................................. 7-110 

Turbine Operation........................................................................................................... 7-112 

Turbine Venting.............................................................................................................. 7-113 

Vegetated Buffers ........................................................................................................... 7-114 

Vegetated Filter Strips .................................................................................................... 7-115 

Vegetated Gabions.......................................................................................................... 7-116 

Vegetated Geogrids......................................................................................................... 7-118 

Vegetated Reinforced Soil Slope (VRSS) ...................................................................... 7-120 

Water Conveyances ........................................................................................................7-121 

Wildflower Cover ........................................................................................................... 7-122 

Wind Erosion Controls ................................................................................................... 7-123 

Wing Deflectors.............................................................................................................. 7-124 

Chapter 8: Modeling Information ................................................................................................ 8-1 

Available Models and Assessment Approaches ................................................................. 8-2 

Examples of Channel Modification Activities and Associated Models/Practices............ 8-15 

Modeling for Impoundments ................................................................................... 8-15 

Modeling for Estuary Tidal Flow Restrictions ........................................................ 8-15 

Modeling for Estuary Flow Regime Alterations...................................................... 8-16 

Temperature Restoration Practices ..........................................................................8-16 

Selecting Appropriate Models .......................................................................................... 8-17 

Chapter 9: Dam Removal Requirements, Process, and Techniques............................................ 9-1 

Requirements for Removing Dams..................................................................................... 9-1 

Dam Removal Process ........................................................................................................ 9-2 

Sediment Removal Techniques........................................................................................... 9-3 

References Cited .......................................................................................................... References-1 

Additional Resources.....................................................................................................Resources-1 

Appendix A: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contacts................................................. A-1 
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 vi July 2007 

Figures 

Figure 2.1 Cross-section of a Stream Channel............................................................................. 2-1 

Figure 2.2 Factors Affecting Channel Degradation and Aggradation ......................................... 2-3 

Figure 2.3 Example of Aggradation............................................................................................. 2-4 

Figure 2.4 Three Longitudinal Profile Zones .............................................................................. 2-5 

Figure 2.5 Overview of a Pool, Riffle, and Run .......................................................................... 2-5 

Figure 5.1 Shoreline Erosion: Before and After Photos .............................................................. 5-1 

Figure 7.1 Dune Nourishment.................................................................................................... 7-10 

Figure 7.2 Dry Beach Nourishment........................................................................................... 7-10

Figure 7.3 Profile Nourishment ................................................................................................. 7-11 

Figure 7.4 Nearshore Bar Nourishment..................................................................................... 7-11 

Figure 7.5 Branch Packing......................................................................................................... 7-14 

Figure 7.6 Breakwaters – View of Presque Isle, Pennsylvania ................................................. 7-15 

Figure 7.7 Single and Multiple Breakwaters ............................................................................. 7-16 

Figure 7.8 Brush Layering: Plan View ...................................................................................... 7-17 

Figure 7.9 Brush Layering: Fill Method.................................................................................... 7-18 

Figure 7.10 Brush Mattress........................................................................................................ 7-20 

Figure 7.11 Typical Bulkhead Types......................................................................................... 7-21

Figure 7.12 Coconut Fiber Roll ................................................................................................. 7-23 

Figure 7.13 Coconut Fiber Roll ................................................................................................. 7-24 

Figure 7.14 Live Posts ............................................................................................................... 7-29 

Figure 7.15 Erosion Control Blanket......................................................................................... 7-35 

Figure 7.16 Fish Ladder at Feather River Hatchery, Oroville Dam, CA................................... 7-38 

Figure 7.17 Possible Planform Shapes for Groins..................................................................... 7-45 

Figure 7.18 Transition from Groin Field to Natural Shoreline.................................................. 7-45 

Figure 7.19 Joint Planting.......................................................................................................... 7-50 

Figure 7.20 Live Cribwall.......................................................................................................... 7-55 

Figure 7.21 Live Fascine............................................................................................................ 7-57 

Figure 7.22 Live Staking............................................................................................................ 7-59 

Figure 7.23 Types of Road Surface Shapes............................................................................... 7-65 

Figure 7.24 Revetment Alternatives .......................................................................................... 7-81 

Figure 7.25 Riprap Diagram ...................................................................................................... 7-83 
Table of Contents 

EPA 841-B-07-002 vii July 2007 

Figure 7.26 Root Wad, Log, and Boulder Revetment with Footer: Plan View......................... 7-84 

Figure 7.27 Rootwad, Log, and Boulder Revetment with Footer: Section................................ 7-85 

Figure 7.28 Tree Revetment .................................................................................................... 7-110 

Figure 7.29 Tree Revetment: Section View............................................................................. 7-111 

Figure 7.30 Vegetated Gabion ................................................................................................. 7-116 

Figure 7.31 Vegetated Geogrid................................................................................................ 7-119 

Figure 7.32 VRSS Structure After Construction ..................................................................... 7-120 

Figure 7.33 Established VRSS Structure................................................................................. 7-120 

Tables 

Table 1.1 Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Related to Human Activities for 

Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries ............................................................................................ 1-3 

Table 2.1 Common Causes of Coastal Land Loss ..................................................................... 2-16 

Table 4.1 Types of Dams............................................................................................................. 4-2 

Table 4.2 Examples of Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Requirements for Select States ..... 4-8 

Table 7.1 Practices for Hydromodification Management Measures ........................................... 7-2 

Table 8.1 Models Applicable to Hydromodification Activities................................................... 8-2 

Table 8.2 Assessment Models and Approaches......................................................................... 8-10 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-1 July 2007 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

The Nation’s aquatic resources are among its most valuable assets. Although environmental 

protection programs in the United States have improved water quality during the past 35 years, 

many challenges remain. Significant strides have been made in reducing the impacts of discrete 

pollutant sources, but some aquatic ecosystems remain impaired, due in part to complex 

pollution problems caused by nonpoint source (NPS) pollution.1 Of special concern are the 

problems in our streams, lakes, estuaries, aquifers, and other water bodies caused by runoff that 

is inadequately controlled or treated. These problems include changes in flow, increased 

sedimentation, higher water temperature, lower dissolved oxygen, degradation of aquatic habitat 

structure, loss of fish and other aquatic populations, and decreased water quality due to increased 

levels of nutrients, metals, hydrocarbons, bacteria, and other constituents. 

What is Hydromodification? 

USEPA (1993) defines hydromodification as the “alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of 

coastal and non-coastal waters, which in turn could cause degradation of water resources.” 

Examples of hydromodification in streams include dredging, straightening, and, in some cases, 

complete stream relocation. Other examples include construction in or along streams, 

construction and operation of dams and impoundments, channelization in streams, dredging, and 

land reclamation activities. Hydromodification can also include activities in streams that are 

being done to maintain the stream’s integrity such as removing snags.2 Some indirect forms of 

hydromodification, such as erosion along streambanks or shorelines, are caused by the 

introduction or maintenance of structures in or adjacent to a waterbody and other activities, 

including many upland activities, that change the natural physical properties of the waterbody. 

EPA has grouped hydromodification activities into three categories: (1) channelization and 

channel modification, (2) dams, and (3) streambank and shoreline erosion. The following 

definitions are offered to clarify the hydromodification activities associated with these three 

categories: 

Channelization and channel modification include activities such as straightening, 

widening, deepening, and clearing channels of debris and sediment. Categories of 

channelization and channel modification projects include flood control and 

drainage, navigation, sediment control, infrastructure protection, mining, channel 

and bank instability, habitat improvement/enhancement, recreation, and flow 

control for water supply (Watson et al., 1999). Channelization activities can play 

a critical role in NPS pollution by increasing the timing and delivery of pollutants, 

including sediment, that enter the water. Channelization can also be a cause of 

higher flows during storm events, which potentially increases the risk of flooding. 

 

1

 For more information on NPS pollution, go to EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps. 2

 A tree or branch embedded in a lake or stream bed and constituting a hazard to navigation; a standing dead tree. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-2 July 2007 

Dams3 are artificial barriers on waterbodies that impound or divert water and are 

built for a variety of purposes, including flood control, power generation, 

irrigation, navigation, and to create ponds, lakes, and reservoirs for uses such as 

livestock watering, municipal water supply, fish farming, and recreation. While 

these types of dams are constructed to provide benefits to society, they can 

contribute to NPS pollution. For example dams can alter flows, which ultimately 

can cause impacts to water quality (changes to temperature or dissolved gases) 

and biological/habitat (disruption of spawning or altering of plant and benthic 

communities) above and below the dam. 

Streambank and shoreline erosion are the wearing away of material in the area 

landward of the bank along non-tidal streams and rivers. Streambank erosion 

occurs when the force of flowing water in a river or stream exceeds the ability of 

soil and vegetation to hold the banks in place. Eroded material is carried 

downstream and redeposited in the channel bottom or in point bars located along 

bends in the waterway. Shoreline erosion occurs in large open waterbodies, such 

as the Great Lakes or coastal bays and estuaries, when waves and currents sort 

coarser sands and gravels from eroded bank materials and move them in both 

directions along the shore away from the area undergoing erosion. While the 

underlying forces causing the erosion may be different for streambank and 

shoreline erosion, the results (erosion and its impacts) are usually similar. It is 

also important to note that streambank and shoreline erosion are natural processes 

and that natural background levels of erosion also exist. However, human 

activities along or adjacent to streambanks or shorelines may increase erosion and 

other nonpoint sources of pollution. 

Why is NPS Guidance on Hydromodification Important? 

Hydromodification is one of the leading sources of impairment in our nation’s waters. According 

to the National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress (USEPA, 2002a), there are 

almost 3.7 million miles of rivers and streams4

 in the United States. Approximately 280,000 

miles of assessed rivers and streams in the United States are impaired for one or more designated 

uses, which include aquatic life support, fish consumption, primary and contact recreation, 

drinking water supply, and agriculture. Many of the pollutants causing impairment are delivered 

to surface and ground waters from diffuse sources, such as agricultural runoff, urban runoff, 

hydrologic modification, and atmospheric deposition of contaminants. The leading causes of 

 

3

 Dams are defined according to Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 222.6(h) (2003) as all artificial 

barriers together with appurtenant works which impound or divert water and which (1) are 25-feet or more in height 

or (2) have an impounding capacity of 50 acre-feet or more. Barriers that are six-feet or less in height, regardless of 

storage capacity or barriers that have a storage capacity at maximum water storage elevation of fifteen acre-feet or 

less regardless of height are not included. Federal regulations define dams for the purpose of ensuring public safety. 

For example, 33 CFR 222.6 states objectives, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for implementation 

of a National Program for Inspection of Non-Federal Dams. Most states use this or a very similar definition, which 

creates a category of dams that requires some form of inspection to ensure that they are structurally sound. Dams 

smaller than those defined above, such as those used to create farm ponds, are authorized under the NRCS program. 

4

 Approximately 700,000 miles (19%) of the total 3.7 million miles of rivers and streams in the United States were 

assessed for the National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress (USEPA, 2002a). 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

beneficial use impairment (partially or not supporting one or more uses) are nutrients, sediment, 

pathogens (bacteria), metals, pesticides, oxygen-depleting materials, and habitat alterations 

(USEPA, 2002a). 

The National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress (USEPA, 2002a) identified 

hydrologic modifications (i.e., hydromodification) as a leading source of water quality 

impairment in assessed surface waters. Of the 11 pollution source categories listed in the report, 

hydromodification was ranked as the second leading source of impairment in assessed rivers, 

second in assessed lakes, and sixth in assessed estuaries (Table 1.1). Three major types of 

hydromodification activities⎯channelization and channel modification, dams, and streambank 

and shoreline erosion⎯change a waterbody’s physical structure as well as its natural functions. 

Many hydromodification activities are necessary because of human activities. For example, 

hardening of streambanks to correct headcutting and streambank erosion is often necessary 

because of changes in landuse that increase impervious surfaces. While hydromodification 

activities are intended to provide some form of benefit (e.g., levees for reducing flooding, 

electricity from hydroelectric dams, or bulkheads to reduce shoreline erosion and protect 

valuable property), there may be unintended consequences resulting from the activity. To 

illustrate, levees may provide local flood reduction by keeping storm flows from spreading onto 

flood plains. However, these same levees may alter riparian wetland habitat that once relied on 

seasonal flooding. 

Table 1.1 Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Related to Human Activities for 

Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries (USEPA, 2002a) 

Rivers and Streams Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs Estuaries 

Agriculture (48%)b Agriculture (41%) Municipal Point Sources (37%) 

Hydrologic Modification (20%)c Hydrologic Modification (18%) Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 

(32%) 

Habitat Modification (14%)d Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 

(18%) Industrial Discharges (26%) 

Urban Runoff /Storm Sewers 

(13%) Nonpoint Sources (14%) Atmospheric Deposition (23%) 

Forestry (10%) Atmospheric Deposition (13%) Agriculture (18%) 

Municipal Point Sources (10%) Municipal Point Sources (12%) Hydrologic Modification (14%) 

Sourcesa 

Resource Extraction (10%) Land Disposal (10%) Resource Extraction (12%) 

a

 Excluding unknown, natural, and “other” sources. 

b Values in parentheses represent the approximate percentage of surveyed river miles, lake acres, or estuary square 

miles that are classified as impaired due to the associated sources. c

 Hydrologic modifications include flow regulation and modification, dredging, and construction of dams. These 

activities may alter a lake’s habitat in such a way that it becomes less suitable for aquatic life (USEPA, 2002a). 

d

 Habitat modifications result from human activities, such as flow regulation, logging, and land-clearing 

practices. Habitat modifications—changes such as the removal of riparian (stream bank) vegetation—can make a 

river or stream less suitable for the organisms inhabiting it (USEPA, 2002a). 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-3 July 2007 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Purpose and Scope of the Guidance 

National summaries, such as those shown in Table 1.1, are useful in providing an overview of 

the magnitude of problems associated with hydromodification. Solutions, however, are usually 

applied at the local level. For example, in Maryland, the Shore Erosion Task Force, after 

investigating shore erosion in the state, published recommendations to be implemented under a 

Comprehensive Shore Erosion Control Plan. To initiate statewide planning, the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources established partnerships with two coastal counties that were 

significantly affected by shoreline erosion. These state-local partnerships enable the state to 

better identify and correct shoreline erosion problems throughout Maryland (MDNR, 2001). 

State and local elected officials and agencies, landowners, developers, environmental and 

conservation groups, and others play a crucial role in working together for protecting, 

maintaining, and restoring water resources that are impacted by hydromodification activities. 

These local efforts, in aggregate, form the basis for changing the status of hydromodification as a 

national problem. 

This guidance document provides background information about NPS pollution and offers a 

variety of solutions for reducing NPS pollution resulting from hydromodification activities. The 

background information provided in Chapter 2 includes a discussion of sources of NPS pollution 

associated with hydromodification and how the generated pollutants enter the Nation’s waters. 

Chapter 3 (Channelization and Channel Modification), Chapter 4 (Dams), and Chapter 5 

(Streambank and Shoreline Erosion) present technical information about how certain types of 

NPS pollution can be reduced or eliminated. 

Since hydromodification is not associated with localized impacts and solutions, Chapter 6 

provides a discussion on the broad concept of assessing and addressing water quality problems 

on a watershed level. Chapter 7 provides detailed information for practices that can be used to 

implement the management measures presented in this guidance. Chapter 8 provides a discussion 

of available models and assessment approaches that could be used to determine the effects of 

hydromodification activities. Chapter 9 summarizes additional dam removal information, 

including permitting requirements, process, and techniques for dam removal. The primary goal 

of this guidance document is to provide technical assistance to states, territories, tribes, local 

governments, and the public for managing hydromodification and reducing associated NPS 

pollution. 

Document Organization 

This document is divided into the following chapters: 

• Chapter 1: Introduction 

• Chapter 2: Background 

• Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification 

• Chapter 4: Dams 

• Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-4 July 2007 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-5 July 2007 

• Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

• Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

• Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

• Chapter 9: Dam Removal Requirements, Process, and Techniques 

• References Cited 

• Additional Resources 

• Appendix A: Federal, State, Nonprofit, and Private Financial and Technical Assistance 

Programs 

• Appendix B: U.S. Environmental Agency Contacts 

Activities to Control NPS Pollution 

Historical Perspective 

During the first 15 years of the national program to abate and control water pollution (1972–

1987), EPA and the states focused most of their water pollution control activities on traditional 

point sources, which are stationary locations or fixed facilities from which pollutants are 

discharged; any single identifiable source of pollution (e.g., a pipe, ditch). EPA and the states 

have regulated these point sources through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program established by section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).5 The 

NPDES program functions as the primary regulatory tool for assuring that state water quality 

standards are met. NPDES permits, issued by an authorized state or EPA, contain discharge 

limits designed to meet water quality standards and national technology-based effluent 

regulations. 

In 1987, in view of the progress achieved in controlling point sources and the growing national 

awareness of the increasingly dominant influence of NPS pollution on water quality, Congress 

amended the CWA to focus greater national efforts on nonpoint sources. 

Federal Programs and Funding 

The CWA establishes several reporting, funding, and regulatory programs that address pollutants 

carried in runoff that is not subject to confinement or treatment. These programs relate to 

watershed management and nonpoint source control. Readers are encouraged to use the 

information contained in this guidance to develop nonpoint source management programs/plans 

that comprehensively address the following EPA programs: 

• Section 319 Grant Program. Under section 319 of the CWA, EPA awards funds to states 

and eligible tribes to implement NPS management programs. These funds can be used for 

projects that address nonpoint source related sources of pollution, including 

hydromodification.6

 

• Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) 

program is an innovative method of financing environmental projects. Under the 

 

5

 For more information on the NPDES program, refer to EPA’s NPDES website at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes. 6

 More information about the section 319 program is provided at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-6 July 2007 

program, EPA provides grants or “seed money” to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico to 

capitalize state loan funds. The states, in turn, make loans to communities, individuals, 

and others for high-priority water quality activities. As money is paid back into the 

revolving fund, new loans are made to other recipients. When funded with a loan from 

this program, a project typically costs much less than it would if funded through the bond 

market. Many states offer low or no interest rate loans to small and disadvantaged 

communities. In recent years, state programs have begun to devote an increasing volume 

of loans to nonpoint source, estuary management, and other water-quality projects. 

Eligible NPS projects include almost any activity that a state has identified in its nonpoint 

source management plan. Such activities include projects to control runoff from 

agricultural land; conservation tillage and other projects to address soil erosion; 

development of streambank buffer zones; and wetlands protection and restoration.7

 

• Total Maximum Daily Loads. Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to 

compile a list of impaired waters that fail to meet any of their applicable water quality 

standards. This list, called a 303(d) list, is submitted to Congress every 2 years, and states 

are required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant causing 

impairment for waterbodies on the list.8

 

• Water Quality Certification. Section 401 of the CWA requires that any applicant for a 

federal license or permit to conduct any activity that “may result in any discharge” into 

navigable waters must obtain a certification from the state or tribe in which the discharge 

originates that the discharge will comply with various provisions of the CWA, including 

sections 301 and 303. The federal license or permit may not be issued unless the state or 

tribe has granted or waived certification. The certification shall include conditions, e.g., 

“effluent limitations or other limitations” necessary to assure that the permit will comply 

with the state’s or tribe’s water quality standards or other appropriate requirements of 

state or tribal law. Such conditions must be included in the federal license or permit.

• National Estuary Program. Under the National Estuary Program, states work together to 

evaluate water quality problems and their sources, collect and compile water quality data, 

and integrate management efforts to improve conditions in estuaries. To date, 28 estuaries 

have been accepted into the program. Estuary programs can be an excellent source of 

water quality data and can provide information on management practices.9

 

• Safe Drinking Water Act. Many areas, especially urban fringe areas, need to maintain or 

improve the quality of surface and ground waters that are used as drinking water sources. 

This act requires states to develop Source Water Assessment Reports and implement 

Source Water Protection Programs. Low- or no-interest loans are available under the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program.10

 

7

 Additional information about CWSRF is available at http://www.epa.gov/OWM/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm. 8

 More information on the TMDL program and 303(d) lists is provided at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl. 9

 More information on the National Estuary Program is provided at http://www.epa.gov/nep. 10 More information about the Safe Drinking Water Act and Source Water Protection Programs can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/index.html and http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-7 July 2007 

• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). WHIP11 is a voluntary program authorized 

by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill)12 that enables 

landowners to apply for technical and financial assistance to improve wildlife habitat. 

The program is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 

which works with private landowners and operators, conservation districts, and federal, 

state, and tribal agencies to improve terrestrial and aquatic habitats. NRCS and 

participants work together to create a wildlife habitat development plan that includes a 

cost-share agreement. Continued assistance after habitat development includes 

monitoring, review of management guidelines, and technical advice. WHIP funds may 

also be used for dam removal. Additional information is available from an NRCS WHIP 

fact sheet.13

Two excellent resources for learning more about the CWA and the many programs established 

under it are The Clean Water Act: An Owner’s Manual (Killam, 2005) and The Clean Water Act 

Desk Reference (WEF, 1997). 

Introduction to Management Measures 

Management measures may be implemented as part of state, tribal, or local programs to control 

nonpoint source pollution for a variety of purposes, including protection of water resources, 

aquatic wildlife habitat, and land downstream from increased pollution and flood risks. They can 

be used to guide in the development of a runoff management program. Management measures 

establish performance expectations and, in many cases, specify actions that can be taken to 

prevent or minimize nonpoint source pollution from hydromodification activities. Management 

measures might control the delivery of NPS pollutants to receiving water resources by: 

• Minimizing pollutants available (source reduction) 

• Retarding the transport and/or delivery of pollutants, either by reducing water 

transported, and thus the amount of the pollutant transported, or through deposition of the 

pollutant 

• Remediating or intercepting the pollutant before or after it is delivered to the water 

resource through chemical or biological transformation 

Management measures are generally designed to control a particular type of pollutant from 

specific activities and land uses. The intent of the six management measures in this guidance 

document is to provide information for addressing and considering the NPS pollution potential 

associated with hydromodification activities. Implementation of management measures can 

minimize and control hydromodification NPS pollution through erosion and sediment control, 

chemical and pollutant control, management of instream and riparian habitat restoration, and 

protection of surface water quality. 

 

11 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip 12 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002 13 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/pdf/WHIPFct.pdf
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Activities associated with these management measures may be regulated by federal, state, or 

local law (e.g., section 404 of the Clean Water Act). These measures do not supersede such 

requirements. Sometimes regulatory authorities may appear to conflict, as is sometimes the case 

of the CWA and water use and distribution. CWA sections 101(g) and 510 specifically allow for 

resolution of the conflict by placing water use and its distribution under the authority of the 

states, thus protecting any state agreements on “water rights.” Users of this NPS guidance should 

recognize that the applicability of the guidance provided in this document will remain subject to 

state statutes, interstate compacts, and international treaties. As such, this guidance does not 

recommend or require any management measures or practices that hinder a state’s ability to 

exercise existing water rights, which provide water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

needs. For further information regarding specific state policies on water rights and regulations of 

water use, contact the appropriate state water agency. Contact information is generally provided 

on state government Web sites. 

This document also lists and describes management practices for each management measure. 

Management practices are specific actions taken to achieve, or aid in the achievement of, a 

management measure. A more familiar term might be best management practice (BMP). The 

word “best” has been dropped for the purposes of this guidance (as it was in the Coastal 

Management Measures Guidance (USEPA, 1993)) because the adjective is too subjective. The 

“best” practice in one area or situation might be entirely inappropriate in another area or 

situation. The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of 

the types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA 

recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of 

appropriate practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of 

practices. The practices presented for each management measure are not all-inclusive. States or 

local agencies and communities might wish to apply other technically and environmentally 

sound practices to achieve the goals of the management measures.

Channelization and Channel Modification (Chapter 3) 

Channelization can cause a variety of instream flow changes and may result in the faster delivery 

of pollutants to downstream areas. Channel modification might result in a combination of 

harmful effects (higher flows or increased risk of downstream flooding) and beneficial effects 

(local flood control or enhanced flushing in a stream channel). The management measures for 

channelization and channel modification are intended to protect waterbodies by ensuring proper 

planning before a proposed project is implemented. Planning and evaluation can help to identify 

and prevent local and downstream problems before a project is started. An added benefit of 

planning and evaluation is to correct or prevent detrimental changes to the instream and riparian 

habitat associated with the project. Implementation of the management measures can also ensure 

that operation and maintenance programs for existing projects improve physical and chemical 

characteristics of surface waters and restore or maintain instream and riparian habitat when 

possible. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-8 July 2007 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Management Measure 1: Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface Water: 

Ensure that the planning process for new hydromodification projects addresses changes 

to physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters that may occur as a result of the 

proposed work. For existing projects, ensure that operation and maintenance programs 

use any opportunities available to improve the physical and chemical characteristics of 

surface waters. 

Management Measure 2: Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration: Correct or 

prevent detrimental changes to instream and riparian habitat from the impacts of 

channelization and channel modification projects, both proposed and existing.

Dams (Chapter 4) 

Because of their instream locations, any construction activities associated with dams have the 

potential to introduce sediment and other pollutants into adjacent waterbodies. Construction 

activities, chemical spills during dams operation or maintenance, and changes in the quantity and 

quality of water held and released by a dam may alter the nature of the waterbody. The 

management measures for dams are intended to be applied to the construction of new dams, as 

well as any construction activities associated with the maintenance of existing dams. They can 

also be applied to dam operations that result in the loss of desirable surface water quality, and 

instream and riparian habitat. 

Management Measure 3: Erosion and Sediment Control: Prevent sediment from 

entering surface waters during the construction or maintenance of dams. 

Management Measure 4: Chemical and Pollutant Control: Prevent downstream 

contamination from pollutants associated with dam construction and operation and 

maintenance activities. 

Management Measure 5: Protection of Surface Water Quality and Instream and 

Riparian Habitat: Protect the quality of surface waters and aquatic habitat in reservoirs 

and in the downstream portions of rivers and streams that are influenced by the quality of 

water contained in the releases (tailwaters) from reservoir impoundments. 

Streambank and Shoreline Erosion (Chapter 5) 

NPS pollution might result from the rapid increase in erosion of streambanks caused by 

increased flow rates associated with urbanization in a watershed. Not only is the land adjacent to 

these eroding streambanks unnaturally carried away, but these eroded soils are carried 

downstream and deposited in often undesirable locations. Shorelines erode more severely as the 

result of poorly planned and implemented shoreline protection projects located nearby. Habitats 

can be buried and wetlands can be filled. As runoff upstream increases, more erosion results on 

downstream streambanks. The streambank and shoreline erosion management measure promotes 

the necessary actions required to correct streambank and shoreline erosion where it must be 

controlled. Because erosion is a natural process, this management measure is not intended to be 

applied to all erosion occurring on streambanks and shorelines. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-9 July 2007 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA 841-B-07-002 1-10 July 2007 

Management Measure 6: Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines: Protect streambanks 

and shorelines from erosion and promote institutional measures that establish minimum 

setback requirements or measures that allow a buffer zone to reduce concentrated flows 

and promote infiltration of surface water runoff in areas adjacent to the shoreline. 

Channelization and channel modification and dams represent forms of hydromodification that 

are direct results of human activities—someone performs a construction activity directly in or 

along a stream, river, or shoreline. For example, a town constructs concrete lined channels along 

a stream passing through the city limits to reduce stream meandering and prevent flooding. 

Another example is the construction (many years ago) of a dam in a stream for hydropower at a 

grist mill. Streambank and shoreline erosion are forms of hydromodification that result from 

direct and indirect human activities. For example, a streambank is eroding at a much faster rate 

because of recent development activities on shore that result in increased runoff, which is 

causing increased bank erosion. Another example is a concrete seawall that is protecting property 

at one location, but causing increased erosion on adjacent properties. 

This distinction between forms of hydromodification and impacts from hydromodification is 

important when contrasting the relationship between Chapter 3 (Channelization and Channel 

Modification) and Chapter 5 (Streambank and Shoreline Erosion). Many of the operation and 

maintenance solutions presented in Chapter 3 are also practices that can be used to stabilize 

streambanks and shorelines as presented in Chapter 5. For example, a stream channel that has 

been hardened with vertical concrete walls to prevent local flooding and limit the stream to its 

existing channel (to protect property built along the stream channel), may benefit from operation 

and maintenance practices that use opportunities to replace the concrete walls with an 

appropriate vegetative or combined vegetative and non-vegetative structures along the 

streambank when possible. These same practices may be applicable to stabilize downstream 

streambanks that are eroding and creating a nonpoint source pollution problem because of the 

upstream development and hardened streambanks. 
Chapter 2: Background 

Chapter 2: Background 

There are differing views on defining the stability of a stream channel and other waterbodies. 

From a navigation perspective, a stream channel is considered stable if shipping channels are 

maintained to enable safe movement of vessels. Landowners with property adjacent to a stream 

or shoreline might consider the waterbody to be stable if it does not flood and erosion is minimal. 

Ecologists might find some erosion of streambanks and meandering channels to be a part of 

natural evolution (i.e., changes that are not induced by humans) and consider long-term changes 

like these to be quite acceptable (Watson et al., 1999). In any case, new and existing 

channelization projects, construction and maintenance of dams, and streambank and shoreline 

erosion problems should be evaluated with these differing perspectives in mind and a balance of 

these perspectives should be taken into account when constructing or maintaining a project. 

Often, multiple priorities can be maintained with good up-front planning and communication 

among the different stakeholders involved. 

Key Geomorphic Functions of Streams 

Discharge, Slope, and Sinuosity 

Figure 2.1 is a cross-section of a typical stream channel. The thalweg is the deepest part of the 

channel. The sloped bank is known as the scarp. The term discharge is used to describe the 

volume of water moving down the channel per unit time (usually described in the United States 

as cubic foot per second (cfs)). Discharge is the product of the area through which the water is 

flowing (in square feet) and the average velocity of the water (in feet per second). If discharge in 

a channel increases or decreases, there must be a corresponding change in streamflow velocity 

and/or flow area. 

Figure 2.1 Cross-section of a Stream Channel (FISRWG, 1998) 

Channel slope is an especially key concept when dealing with hydromodification projects. It is 

the difference in elevation between two points in the stream divided by the stream length 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-1 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

between the two points. Stream sinuosity greatly affects stream slope. Sinuosity is the stream 

length between two points on a stream divided by the valley length between the two points. A 

meandering stream moving through a valley has a lower slope than a straight stream.

Erosion, Transport, and Deposition of Sediment 

All streams accomplish three basic geomorphic tasks: 

• Erosion—the detachment of soil particles along the stream bed and banks 

• Sediment transport—the movement of eroded soil particles in streamflow 

• Sediment deposition—the settling of eroded soil particles in the water or on land as water 

recedes 

These processes largely determine the size and shape of the channel, both laterally and 

longitudinally. The ability to accomplish these geomorphic tasks is related to stream power, the 

product of slope and discharge. Slope directly affects flow velocity. Consequently, a shallow, 

meandering stream with low slope generates less stream power, and has lower erosion and 

sediment-transport capacity, than a deep, straight stream. 

In addition to sinuosity, roughness along the boundaries of a stream area is also important in 

determining streamflow velocity and stream power. The rougher the channel bottom and banks, 

the more they are able to slow down the flow of water. The level of roughness is determined by 

many conditions including: 

• Type and spacing of bank vegetation 

• Size and distribution of sediment particles 

• Bedforms 

• Bank irregularities 

• Other miscellaneous obstructions 

Tractive stress, also known as shear stress, describes the lift and drag forces that work to create 

erosion along the stream bed and banks. In general, the larger the sediment particle, the more 

stream power is needed to dislodge it and transport it downstream. When stream power decreases 

in the channel, larger sediment particles are deposited back to the stream bed. 

Dynamic Equilibrium 

One of the primary functions of a stream is to move particles out of the watershed. Erosion, 

sediment transport, and deposition occur all the time at both large and small scales within a 

channel. A channel is considered stable when the average tractive stress maintains a stable 

streambed and streambanks. That is, sediment particles that erode and are transported 

downstream from one area are replaced by particles of the same size and shape that have 

originated in areas upstream. Lane (1955) qualitatively described this relationship as: 

Qs * D ∝ Qw * S 

Where: Qs = Sediment discharge, D = Sediment particle size, Qw = Streamflow, 

S = Stream slope 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-2 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

When all four variables are in balance, the channel is stable, or in dynamic equilibrium. 

Lane’s channel variable relationships can be visualized as a pan balance with sliding weights 

(Figure 2.2). Sediment discharge is placed on one pan and streamflow on the other. The hook 

holding the sediment load pan can slide back and forth based on changes in sediment size. 

Likewise, the hook holding the streamflow can slide according to changes in slope. 

If a disturbance or stream modification occurs that causes a variable to change, one or more of 

the other variables must change in order to maintain the balance. During an imbalanced phase, 

the scale indicator will point to either degradation or aggradation. This indicates that the channel 

will try to adjust and regain equilibrium by either increasing sediment discharge by scouring the 

bottom or eroding its banks (degradation) or decreasing sediment discharge by depositing 

sediment on the bottom (aggradation), depending on the circumstance. 

For example, if stream slope is decreased and streamflow remains the same (i.e., streamflow pan 

slides toward the center), the balance will tip and aggradation will occur (Figure 2.3). 

Alternatively, if streamflow increases and slope remains the same (i.e., more weight on the 

streamflow pan), degradation will occur. No matter the scenario, this basic relationship between 

the variables will hold true and aggradation or degradation will cease only when the system 

reaches equilibrium. This can occur naturally over time, or through management practices 

designed to deal with the “balancing” issue. 

Figure 2.2 Factors Affecting Channel Degradation and Aggradation (FISRWG, 1998) 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-3 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

Figure 2.3 Example of Aggradation (Adapted from FISRWG, 1998) 

Longitudinal View of Channels 

The geomorphic processes that define the size and shape of channels can be observed in large 

and small scale longitudinal views. The overall longitudinal view of many streams can be 

divided into three general zones (Schumm, 1977): 

• Headwater zone—characterized by steep slopes with sediment erosion as the most 

dominant geomorphic process. 

• Transfer zone—characterized by more sinuous channel patterns and wider floodplains 

with sediment transfer as the most dominant geomorphic process. 

• Deposition zone—characterized by lower slope and higher channel sinuosity than the 

other zone and is the primary deposition area for watershed sediment. 

Key characteristics of each zone are summarized in Figure 2.4. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-4 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

Figure 2.4 Three Longitudinal Profile Zones (FISRWG, 1998) 

At a smaller scale, natural-forming channels are usually characterized by a series of riffles, 

pools, and runs. These structures are primarily associated with the thalweg, which meanders 

within the channel (Figure 2.5). 

Riffles are shallow, turbulent, 

and swiftly flowing stretches of 

water that flow over partially or 

totally submerged rocks. 

Deeper areas at stream bends 

are the pools and can be 

classified as large-shallow, 

large-deep, small-shallow, and 

small-deep. Runs are the 

sections of a stream with little 

or no surface turbulence that 

connect pools and riffles. 

The distribution in streamflow 

velocity and stream power 

throughout the riffle/pool/run 

sequence impact the 

geomorphic tasks. The stream 

bottom of a riffle is at a higher 

Figure 2.5 Overview of a Pool, Riffle, and Run (USEPA, 1997b) 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-5 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

elevation than the stream areas surrounding it. Consequently, the water flowing in a run from 

riffle to pool has the highest velocity near the center of the channel just under the surface (i.e., 

away from the roughness associated with channel boundaries). On reaching a bend, angular 

momentum forces the highest velocity flow to the outside of the bend and, given enough tractive 

stress, causes erosion to the bank (cutbanks). Meanwhile on the inside of the bend deposition 

often occurs because of decreasing flow velocity. Importantly, these and other characteristics of 

the riffle/pool/run sequence create unique habitats which allow different species to live, 

reproduce, and feed. 

Disruption of Dynamic Equilibrium 

Changes caused by (or exacerbated by) hydromodification projects and other human activities 

can lead to a disruption of the dynamic equilibrium of the stream channel. If, for example, a 

modification occurs that causes a change in sediment discharge, channel slope, or streamflow, 

one or more of the other variables will be imbalanced and the channel will usually try to adjust 

and regain equilibrium by either increasing sediment discharge by scouring the bottom or 

eroding its banks (degradation) or decreasing sediment discharge by depositing sediment on the 

bottom (aggradation) (Biedenharn et al., 1997; Watson et al., 1999). In some cases, alterations to 

a stream channel can result in local or system-wide channel instability (FISRWG, 1998). 

General Impacts of Channelization and Channel Modifications 

Channelization and channel modifications are undertaken for many purposes including flood 

control, navigation, drainage improvement, and reduction of channel migration potential. 

Modifications also occur in association with the installation of culverts and bridges, urbanization 

of the watershed, and agricultural drainage. These changes may result in several physical and 

chemical impacts. 

Physical Impacts 

The most significant physical impact of channelization and channel modifications is the 

movement or deposition of sediment. Sediment erodes from stream banks and beds, is washed 

downstream in faster moving water, deposited in areas of slower flows, and transported into new 

areas of streams or other receiving waters. Critical habitat can be changed when channelization 

or channel modification projects alter the dynamic equilibrium of a stream and change sediment 

transport or deposition characteristics. Re-establishing equilibrium may take some time to occur 

and have long-lasting effects to habitat and water quality conditions. 

Channel modification and channelization can lead to increased erosion in some areas of the 

stream, which produces sediment. Sediment can be dislodged and transported directly from the 

waterbody’s shoreline, bank, or bottom. Sediment being transported by a stream is referred to as 

the sediment load, which is further classified as the bed load (those particles moving on or near 

the bed, or bottom of the channel) and the suspended load (those particles moving in the water 

column). Hydromodification typically results in more uniform channel cross-sections, steeper 

stream gradients, and reduced average pool depths. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-6 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

An increase in the sediment load could lead to increased turbidity, which then may cause an 

increase in stream temperature because the darker sediment particles absorb heat (USEPA, 

1997b). Changes in water temperature can influence several abiotic chemical processes, such as 

dissolved oxygen concentrations, sorption of chemicals onto particles, and volatilization rates. 

Water temperature influences reaeration rates of oxygen from the atmosphere. Dissolved oxygen 

concentrations in water are inversely related to temperature; solubility of oxygen decreases with 

increasing water temperature. In addition, sorption of chemicals to particulate matter and 

volatilization rates are influenced by changes in water temperature. Sorption often decreases with 

increasing temperature and volatilization increases with increasing temperature (University of 

Texas, 1998). 

An increased sediment load that contains significant organic matter can increase the sediment 

oxygen demand (SOD). The SOD is the total of all biological and chemical processes in 

sediment that consume oxygen (USEPA, 2003a). These processes occur at or just below the 

sediment-water interface. Most of the SOD at the surface of the sediment is due to the biological 

decomposition of organic material and the bacterially facilitated nitrification of ammonia, while 

the SOD several centimeters into the sediment is often dominated by the chemical oxidation of 

species such as iron, manganese, and sulfide (Walker and Snodgrass, 1986 from USGS, 1997; 

Wang, 1980). Increases in SOD can lead to lower levels of dissolved oxygen, which can be 

harmful to aquatic life. 

A channel that is deepened or widened can result in slower and/or shallower flow. Reduced 

stream velocities can result in more sediment deposits to a stream segment. When more sediment 

is deposited in an area of a stream, critical habitats can be buried, channels may become 

unstable, and flooding increases. In tidal areas, channel modification activities, such as 

deepening a channel to allow for larger ships to access a shoreline, may require frequent 

maintenance to remove accumulating sediment because of changes in flow patterns. 

Chemical Impacts 

A variety of chemicals can be introduced into surface waters when channelization and channel 

modification activities alter flow and sediment transport characteristics. Nutrients, metals, toxic 

organic compounds, pesticides, and organic materials can enter the water in eroding soils along 

banks and move throughout a stream as flow characteristics change. Changing temperatures and 

dissolved oxygen levels may lead to alterations in the bioavailability of metals and toxic 

organics. Complex chemical conditions can significantly change when stream flow and 

sedimentation characteristics change, resulting in new and/or potentially harmful forms of 

chemicals affecting instream or benthic organisms. 

It is important to remember that many of the physical and chemical changes are interrelated. For 

a more detailed discussion of the impacts associated with chemical and physical changes to 

surface waters, see Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (NRC, 1992). The following discussion 

provides examples of impacts that may be present as a result of different kinds of channelization. 

For a more detailed discussion of types of channelization projects and potential impacts, see 

Watson et al. (1999). 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-7 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

Biological and Habitat Impacts 

Pools, riffles, and runs create a mixture of flows and depths and provide a variety of habitats to 

support fish and invertebrate life (USEPA, 1997b). The shallow, turbulent, and swiftly flowing 

stretches of riffle water are well oxygenated and have a “patchy distribution of organisms,” 

which means that different types of organisms are naturally found in different parts of the riffle. 

Pools can also be large or small and shallow or deep and support a wide variety of aquatic 

species. Sediments can deposit in pools, which can lead to the formation of islands, shoals, or 

point bars. 

Changes in habitat and biological communities following hydromodification of a channel can be 

highly site-specific and complex. The physical and chemical alterations resulting from 

channelization impact various habitats and biological communities, including instream algae, 

fish, macroinvertebrate populations, and bank or floodplain vegetation. Mathias and Moyle 

(1992) compared unchannelized and channelized sections of the same stream and found a much 

higher diversity of many organisms, including aquatic invertebrates, fish, and riparian 

vegetation, in the unchannelized sections of the stream. Adams and Maughan (1986) compared 

the benthic community in a small headwater stream, prior to and after channelization. They 

found that the pathways of organic input shifted from materials associated with leaf fall and 

runoff to materials associated with periphyton production. Accompanying this change was a shift 

of the assemblage from shredder domination to grazer domination and a decrease in diversity. 

Biological and habitat impacts caused by channelization can result from increased stream 

velocity, decreases in pool and riffle habitat complex, decrease in canopy cover, increase in the 

solar radiation reaching the channel, channel incision, and increases in sediment. 

Channelization of a stream may increase velocity due to increased channel slope and decreased 

friction with the bank and bed material. Changes in the velocity may cause an impact to 

organisms within the channel. For example, fish may have to expend more energy to stay in 

swifter currents and their source of food may be swept downstream. Studies have demonstrated 

that fisheries associated with channelized streams can be far less productive that those of nonchannelized streams (Jackson, 1989). Increased rates of erosion as a result of increased velocities 

downstream of a channelization feature can also create unstable streambanks, which could lead 

to increased streambank erosion, higher risks of flooding, and ultimately negative impacts to 

aquatic organisms. 

Channelization can result in a more uniform stream channel that is void of the pool and riffle 

habitat complex or obstructions, such as woody debris inputs. As repeatedly observed, this can 

result in changes to the biological community. Negishi et al. (2002) observed a decrease in the 

total density of macroinvertebrates in the middle of a channelized stream and a decrease in taxon 

richness in the middle and edge of a channelized stream. An overall reduction in habitat 

heterogeneity is likely responsible for the reduction in species diversity and the increased 

abundance of those species favored by the altered flows that is typically observed (Allan, 1995). 

On medium-sized, unregulated rivers, Benke (2001) found that habitat-specific invertebrate 

biomass was highest on snags, followed by the main channel and then the floodplain. It was 

concluded that invertebrate productivity from these habitats has likely been significantly 

diminished as a result of snag removal, channelization, and floodplain drainage (Benke, 2001). 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-8 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

The survival of the Gulf Coast walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) relies on the availability of 

appropriate spawning habitat, such as large woody debris, that locally reduce current velocity. 

Channelization and the removal of structures have been identified as activities of concern that 

could threaten the survival of the species (VanderKooy and Peterson, 1998). In one experiment, 

an assessment of water quality using environmental indices, such as macroinvertebrate 

communities, found that channelization and deforestation resulted in a completely different and 

less varied biocommunity (Bis et al., 2000). A lower persistence of the macroinvertebrate 

assemblage in the channelized stream was attributed to the lower availability of flow such as 

backwaters and inundated habitats (Negishi et al., 2002). In a study by Kubecka and 

Vostradovsky (1995), low fish populations were attributed to channelization of the riverbed. 

The channelization of a river can also result in a decrease in canopy cover and an increase in the 

solar radiation reaching the channel. Bis et al. (2000) found that an increase in incident radiation 

on a river resulted in increased algal productivity and a significant decrease in scrapers, a 

macroinvertebrate that feeds on periphyton or algae growing on plant surfaces. Increased water 

temperatures can also lead to a shift in the algal community to predominately planktonic algal 

communities, which disrupts the aquatic food chain (Galli, 1991). The combination of increased 

water temperatures and loss of riparian vegetation falling into the stream (which provides both 

food and cover) may be responsible for the decrease in macroinvertebrates. Increased solar 

radiation on a channelized stream can act to decrease productivity by reaching the level of 

photoinhibition; a decrease in productivity due to excessive amounts of solar radiation. The 

temperature of the water can also be increased to the extent that it adversely impacts organisms. 

Elevated temperatures disrupt aquatic organisms that have narrow temperature limits, such as 

trout, salmon, and many aquatic insects. 

Incision of a channel, a common impact of channelization, disconnects the channel from the 

floodplain by lowering the riverbed relative to the floodplain and decreasing the occurrence of 

overbank flow. Channel incision or downcutting has rarely been found to directly affect the 

biotic ecosystem, but indirect changes in habitat conditions are significant. Channel incision 

decreases habitat heterogeneity and, as a result, biodiversity (Tachet, 1997). An analysis of forest 

overstory, understory, and herbaceous strata along a channelized and unchannelized stream 

showed that there was a difference in terms of size-class structure and woody debris quantity 

(Franklin et al., 2001). Loss of woody vegetation along riparian zones on a channel that is 

incised because of upstream channelization was attributed to a decrease in over bank flooding 

and a lowering of the water table as the stream became incised (Steiger et al., 1998). A 

comparison of a regulated and an unregulated river in Colorado’s Green River Basin found a 

difference in riparian vegetation composition. The regulated river supported banks with wetland 

species that survive in anaerobic soils and terraces with desert species adapted to xeric soil 

conditions. The unregulated river supported riparian vegetation that changed along a more 

gradual environmental continuum from a river channel to a high floodplain (Merritt and Cooper, 

2000). 

Sediment affects the use of water in many ways. When the rate of erosion changes, transport and 

deposition of sediment also changes. Excessive quantities of sediment can bury benthic 

organisms and the habitat of fish and waterfowl. Suspended solids in the water reduce the 

amount of sunlight available to aquatic plants, cover fish spawning areas and food supplies, fill 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-9 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

rearing pools, reduce beneficial habitat structure in stream channels, smother coral reefs, clog the 

filtering capacity of filter feeders, and clog and harm the gills of fish. Those fish species that rely 

on visual means to get food may be restricted by increased turbidity. Sedimentation effects 

combine to reduce fish, shellfish, coral, and plant populations and decrease the overall 

productivity of lakes, streams, estuaries, and coastal waters. 

Impacts Associated with Specific Hydromodification Actions 

Channel Straightening and Deepening 

Channels are straightened for a multitude of reasons, such as directing water away from a 

particular structure or area and reducing local flooding. Channelization that involves 

straightening of the stream channel increases the slope of the channel, which results in higher 

discharge velocities. Impacts associated with increased water velocities include more streambank 

and streambed erosion, higher sediment loads, changes in pools, riffle, and run structure, and 

increased transport of nutrients and other pollutants (FISRWG, 1998; Simons and Senturk, 

1992). 

Channelization can also result in alterations to the base level of the stream, including channel 

downcutting or incision of a section of the stream, which raise the height of the floodplain 

relative to the riverbed and decrease the frequency of overbank flow. When streams reach flood 

stage and flow into the floodplain, velocities decrease. The reduction in overbank flow reduces 

sediment deposition and the sediment storage potential of the floodplain (Wyzga, 2001). A 

change in the downstream base level of a stream can create an unstable stream system 

(Biedenharn et al., 1997). 

Headcutting is the deepening of a waterway caused by channelization or localized stream-bed 

mining. Headcutting severely impacts the physical integrity of a stream, as streambanks become 

unstable and are more prone to eroding and sloughing. Bank failures may result, removing 

streamside vegetation and introducing significant amounts of sediment into the waterway. As 

sediments build on the stream bottom, natural substrate is covered and stream depth decreases. 

Water quality often diminishes as temperatures rise due to less shading by riparian vegetation 

and increased water surface area with decreased depth. The rapid alteration to stream habitat 

caused by headcutting is usually detrimental to aquatic wildlife. Various organizations, such as 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the 

Missouri Department of Conservation, are involved in projects to reduce headcutting (CSU, n.d.; 

MDC, 2007; USGS, 2000). 

Channel Lining 

The sides of channels can be lined with materials such as metal sheeting, concrete, wood, or 

stone to prevent erosion of a particular section of stream channel or stream bank. The artificially 

lined areas can reduce the friction between the channel and flowing water, leading to an increase 

in velocity. The increased velocity and thus the increased erosive potential of the flowing water 

are not able to erode the artificially lined channel area and can result in augmented erosion 

downstream as well as increased downstream flooding (Brookes, 1998). Lining the channel also 

removes aquatic habitat and important substrates that are essential to aquatic life. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-10 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

Channel Narrowing 

Narrowing of a stream channel often occurs when flood control measures such as levees and 

floodwalls are implemented. By narrowing a stream channel, the water is forced to flow through 

a more confined area and thus travels at an increased velocity (FISRWG, 1998). The increased 

velocity in turn increases the stream’s erosive potential and ability to transport sediment. This 

can lead to increased erosion of the streambank and shoreline in downstream locations. 

When a channel is made narrower, the water depth increases and the surface area exposed to the 

solar radiation and ambient temperature decreases, especially in the warmer months. This can 

cause a decrease in the water temperature. Increased depth may also reduce the surface area of 

the water in contact with the atmosphere and affect the transfer of oxygen into the water. 

In a naturally flowing stream, floods are responsible for such processes as redistributing 

sediment from the river bottom to form sandbars and point bar deposits. Stream channel 

modifications to reduce flood damage, such as levees and floodwalls, often narrow the stream 

width, increasing the velocity of the water and thus its erosive potential. This can lead to 

increased erosion of the streambank and shoreline in downstream locations (FISRWG, 1998). 

Channel Widening 

Channel widening is often performed to increase a channel’s ability to transport a larger volume 

of water. The design is often based on volumes of water that occur during flood events. The 

design of a channel modification project to increase the channel’s ability to transport a large 

volume of water will determine the characteristic of the water flow. The widening of a channel 

can result in a channel with a capacity to transport water that far exceeds the typical daily 

discharge. This results in a typical flow that is shallow and wide. As a result of increased contact 

with the streambed and streambank, there is increased friction and a decreased water velocity. 

The decrease in velocity causes sediment to settle out of the water column and accumulate within 

the stream channel. This accumulation of sediment can decrease the capacity of the stream 

channel. The decreased depth and increased surface area of the water exposed to solar radiation 

and ambient air temperatures can lead to an increase in water temperature. A change in water 

temperature can influence dissolved oxygen concentrations as dissolved oxygen solubility 

decreases with increasing water temperature. 

Where tidal flow restrictors cause impoundments, there may be a loss of streamside vegetation, 

disruption of riparian habitat, changes in the historic plant and animal communities, and decline 

in sediment quality. Restricted flows can impede the movement of fish or other aquatic life. Flow 

alteration can reduce the level of tidal flushing and the exchange rate for surface waters within 

coastal embayments, with resulting impacts on the quality of surface waters and on the rates and 

paths of sediment transport and deposition. 

Culverts and Bridges 

The presence of culverts and bridges along a channel can have an impact on the physical and 

chemical qualities of the water. A culvert can be in the form of an arch over a channel or a pipe 

that encircles a channel, and it functions to direct flow below a roadway or other land use. A 

culvert or the supports of a bridge can confine the width of a channel forcing the water to flow in 

a smaller area and thus at a higher velocity. Impacts associated with a higher flow velocity 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-11 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

include increased erosion. An arch culvert maintains the natural integrity of the stream bottom. 

In addition, as compared with the natural substrate that can be found using an arch culvert 

without concrete inverts (floors), a pipe culvert may create less friction with the water flow and 

result in an increased flow velocity. The chemical and physical changes associated with 

increased erosion and sediment transport capacity would then result. 

The culvert acts as a fixed point with a fixed elevation within the stream channel and as the 

stream attempts to adjust over time, the culvert remains stationary. Placement of this type of 

structure disturbs the natural equilibrium of a channel. A culvert sometimes may have beneficial 

attributes when it acts as a grade control structure, and as such, may serve to prevent upstream 

migrating incision (headcutting) from moving further up the channel. Depending on the 

watershed processes, the culvert may act to preserve the natural equilibrium of a channel. 

Urbanization 

As humans develop watersheds, the proportions of pervious and impervious land within the 

watershed change (most often increasing impervious areas and decreasing pervious areas). 

Development also results in reductions in vegetative cover in exchange for increases in houses, 

buildings, roads, and other non-vegetative cover. The result is a change in the fate of water from 

rainfall events. Generally, as imperviousness increases and vegetative cover is lost: 

• Runoff increases 

• Soil percolation decreases 

• Evaporation decreases 

• Transpiration decreases 

Increased volumes of runoff resulting from some types of watershed development can result in 

hydraulic changes in downstream areas including bank scouring, channel modifications, and 

flow alterations (Anderson, 1992; Schueler, 1987). The resulting changes to the distribution, 

amount, and timing of flows caused by flow alterations can affect a wide variety of living 

resources. As urbanization occurs, changes to the natural hydrology of an area are inevitable. 

During urbanization, pervious spaces, including vegetated and open forested areas, are converted 

to land uses that usually have increased areas of impervious surface, resulting in increased runoff 

volumes and pollutant loadings. Hydrologic and hydraulic changes occur in response to site 

clearing, grading, and change in landscape. Water that previously infiltrated the ground and was 

slowly released runs off quickly into stream networks. Development, with corresponding 

increases in imperviousness, can lead to: 

• Increased magnitude and frequency of bankfull and subbankfull floods 

• Dimensions of the stream channel that are no longer in equilibrium with its hydrologic 

regime 

• Enlargement of channels 

• Highly modified stream channels (from human activity) 

• Upstream channel erosion that contributes greater sediment load to the stream 

• Reduced dry weather flow to the stream 

• Decreased wetland perimeter of the stream 

• Degraded in-stream habitat structure 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-12 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-13 July 2007 

• Reduced large woody debris 

• Increased stream crossings and potential fish barriers 

• Fragmented riparian forests that are narrower and less diverse 

• Decline in water quality 

• Increased summer stream temperatures 

• Reduced aquatic diversity 

The hydraulic changes associated with urbanization have often been addressed with 

channelization and channel modification as a solution. Evaluating impacts from urbanization on 

a watershed scale and planning solutions on the same watershed scale can often prevent the 

transference of upstream problems to downstream locations. There are a variety of management 

activities that can reduce the impacts associated with urban development. When these urban 

impacts are reduced, additional hydromodification impacts, such as channelization and channel 

modification or streambank and shoreline erosion effects, may be reduced. Changes in urban 

development practices that result in reduced sediment in runoff can enhance reservoir quality and 

lessen the need for management activities to reduce nonpoint source impacts associated with the 

operation of dams.1

 

Agricultural Drainage 

Some activities, including channelization and channel modification, that take place within a 

watershed, can lead to unintended adverse effects on watershed hydrology. Even when the 

intended effect of the watershed activity is to reduce pollution or erosion for an area within a 

watershed, the impact of the project to the entire watershed’s hydrology should be evaluated. 

Since hydrology is important to the detachment, transport, and delivery of pollutants, better 

understanding of these effects can lead to reduction of nonpoint source pollution problems 

(USEPA, 2003b). 

 

One example of an activity that has been shown to provide localized nonpoint source benefits, 

but can negatively affect the hydrology of a watershed, is an agricultural drainage system. The 

main purpose of agricultural drainage is to provide a root environment suitable for plant growth, 

but it can also be used as a means of reducing erosion and improving water quality. Despite the 

localized positive effects of drainage, when drainage water is poor in quality or contains elevated 

levels of pollutants, adverse impacts may occur downstream within a watershed. Concentrations 

of salts, nutrients, and other crop-related chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides can damage 

downstream aquatic ecosystems. Many agricultural drainage systems include drain tiles placed 

strategically throughout a field to create a network of gravity fed drains. The drain tiles empty 

into a collection pipe that drains to a waterbody nearby. With the drain system in place and 

operating, water will leave the affected area quicker and at one or more focused points. Water 

from the drainage system may erode the banks of unlined surface drains, contribute to flashier 

runoff events in the receiving water or downstream, and increase the load of sediment in 

drainage water (USEPA, 2003b). 

 

1 For additional information on hydrologic problems associated with urbanization and management practices that 

address urbanization issues, refer to National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Urban Areas (USEPA, 2005d): http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html. 
Chapter 2: Background 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-14 July 2007 

Because of these adverse effects, drainage planners should analyze effluents from these systems 

for nutrients and pesticides to determine possible downstream impacts. Care should also be taken 

with drainage water so that it does not negatively alter the hydrology of a watershed (FAO, 

1997). The degree to which management activities, such as agricultural drainage systems, affect 

watersheds beyond their intended purpose should be evaluated. In some cases, a thorough 

assessment and thoughtful discussion with key stakeholders is enough to evaluate the potential 

impacts of a project on hydrology. However, in many instances, some form of modeling is 

probably needed to integrate various small and large impacts of watershed activities. For more 

information on agricultural drainage and management practices related to agricultural drainage, 

refer to National Management Measures for the Control of Nonpoint Pollution from Agriculture

(USEPA, 2003b).2

Shorelines 

A shoreline is defined as the areas between low tide and the highest land affected by storm 

waves. The shape and position of shorelines are constantly being modified by the processes of 

erosion and deposition by waves and currents (Tarbuck and Lutgens, 2005). NOAA’s Coastal 

Services Center defines shoreline as “the line of contact between the land and a body of water. 

On Coast and Geodetic Survey nautical charts and surveys the shoreline approximates the mean 

high water line” (NOAA, 2006). 

The shoreline can be divided into three major areas: 

1) Coast—the land inland from the base of the sea cliff (produced by the undercutting of 

bedrock at sea level by wave erosion). 

2) Beach (shore)—the area between low tide level and dunes, sea cliff, or permanent 

vegetation. This can be separated into backshore and foreshore. 

3) Offshore—the area continuously underwater, which can include a wave build platform. 

Shoreline Processes 

As mentioned above, the shape and position of shorelines are constantly modified by erosion and 

deposition by waves and currents. Waves are agents of erosion, transportation, and deposition of 

sediments. Waves can be formed by the following processes (Tulane University, n.d.; University 

of Alabama, 2006): 

• Wind-generated waves—formed by shear stress between water and air when the wind 

speed is higher than about 3 km/hr. Factors that determine the size of waves are wind 

velocity, wind duration, and fetch (distance the wind blows over a continuous water 

surface). 

• Displacement of water—can be caused by activities such as landslides. 

• Displacement of seafloor—can be caused by faulting and volcanic eruptions. 

 

2

 Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/index.html. 
Chapter 2: Background 

Wave refraction occurs where wave fronts approach the shore at an angle, but are bent to become 

more parallel to the shoreline by frictional drag on the bottom. The part of the wave in shallow 

water slows down because of bottom friction, while the part in the deep water keeps moving at 

regular speed. Wave refraction causes headland erosion and deposition in bays (Tulane 

University, n.d.; University of Alabama, 2006). 

Nearshore currents occur in the area from the shoreline to beyond the surf zone and consist of 

(Tulane University, n.d.; University of Alabama, 2006): 

• Longshore currents move parallel to shore in the same general direction as the 

approaching waves. They are produced by the movement of oblique waves in the surf 

zone, and can transport large amounts of sediment by longshore drift. 

• Rip currents are strong, narrow currents of surface water that flow seaward through the 

surf into deeper water. The currents develop in areas with lower wave heights (deeper 

water depths).

Deposition and Erosion 

Wave erosion and rivers that open into the ocean or lakes can deposit sediment, transported by 

longshore currents, developing the following depositional features (Tulane University, n.d.; 

University of Alabama, 2006): 

1) Beaches—Any strip of sediment that extends from the low-water line inland to a cliff or 

zone of permanent vegetation, which is built of material eroded by waves from the 

headlands, and material brought down by rivers that carry the products of weathering and 

erosion from the land masses. Beaches are protected from the full force of water waves 

but are continually modified by wave and current erosion. 

2) Spits—A narrow ridge or embankment of sediment forming a finger-like projection from 

the shore into the open ocean. Spits typically develop when the sediment being carried by 

long-shore drift is deposited where water becomes deeper, such as the mouth of a bay. 

3) Baymouth bars—Sand bars that form as a result of longshore drift and completely cross a 

bay, sealing it off from the open ocean. 

4) Tombolo—A ridge of sand that connects two islands or an island with the mainland, 

formed as the result of wave refraction around an island. 

5) Tidal inlet—A break in a spit or baymouth bar, caused by storm erosion, through which 

tidal currents rush. 

6) Barrier islands—Low offshore ridges of sediments that parallel the coast and are 

separated from the mainland by lagoons. 

Wave erosion can also wear away land features, causing the following types of features to form 

(Tulane University, n.d.; University of Alabama, 2006): 

1) Sea cliffs—formed by storm wave erosion which undercuts higher land, making it 

susceptible to mass wasting. Sea cliffs can erode very slowly or rapidly, depending on the 

rock type and wave energy. 

2) Wave-cut terrace or platform—produced by the retreat of a sea cliff which slopes gently 

in a seaward direction. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-15 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

3) Headlands—occur due to the seaward projections of shore eroded by wave refraction.

Common Natural and Anthropogenic Causes of Coastal Land Loss 

Primary causes of coastal land loss, including both natural and anthropogenic causes, are 

summarized in Table 2.1 below (USGS, 2004). 

 

Table 2.1 Common Causes of Coastal Land Loss 

Agent Examples 

Natural Causes 

Erosion Waves and currents, storms, landslides 

Sediment reduction Climate change, stream avulsion, source depletion 

Submergence Land subsidence, sea-level rise 

Wetland deterioration Herbivory, freezes, fires, saltwater intrusion 

Anthropogenic Causes 

Transportation Boat wakes, altered water circulation 

Coastal construction Sediment deprivation (bluff retention), coastal structures (jetties, groins, 

seawalls) 

River modification Control and diversion (dams, levees) 

Fluid extraction Water, oil, gas, sulfur 

Climate alteration Global warming and ocean expansion, increased frequency and intensity of 

storms 

Excavation Dredging (canals, pipelines, drainage), mineral extraction (sand, shell, heavy 

mines) 

Wetland destruction Pollutant discharge, traffic, failed reclamation, burning 

Shorelines can also experience increased rates of erosion as a result of hydromodification 

activities. Alterations to the sediment sources for beaches can result in erosion. The sediment 

supplied to beaches or shorelines can come from a variety of sources including rivers, cliff and 

rocky foreshores, the seafloor, or windblown dune materials. Beaches and shorelines at the 

mouth of a river are often replenished by fluvial sediment. When changes within the river system 

decrease the sediment load carried to the mouth of the river, the result may be decreased 

sediment supplies to the shoreline or beach. While the design of each hydromodification system 

determines the impacts that will ensue, streambank and shoreline erosion is a common 

consequence. 

Impacts Associated with Dams 

The physical presence and operation of dams can result in changes in water quality and quantity. 

Some of the water quality impacts include changes in erosion, sedimentation, temperature, 

dissolved gases, and water chemistry. Examples of biological and habitat impacts, which may 

result from a combination of physical and chemical changes, include loss of habitat for existing 

or desirable fish, amphibian, and invertebrate species; changes from cold water to warm water 

species (or inversely, changes from warm water to cold water species); blockage of fish passage; 

or loss of spawning or necessary habitat. 

The impacts associated with dams occur above (upstream) and below (downstream) the dam. 

Upstream impacts occur primarily in the impoundment/reservoir created by the presence and 

operation of the dam. The area and depth of the impoundment will determine the extent and 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-16 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

complexity of the upstream and downstream impacts. For example, small, low-head dams with 

little impounded areas will exhibit different impacts than large storage dams. Sedimentation and 

fish passage issues at the smaller, low-head dam contrast with sedimentation, temperature, fish 

passage, flow regulation, and water quality issues that may be associated with the larger storage 

dam. The existence of the dam and associated impoundment results in much different water 

quality interactions than those associated with the preexisting naturally flowing streams or rivers. 

Above dams, activities within the watershed can have significant impacts on water quality within 

impoundments and in releases from dams to downstream areas. Watershed activities, such as 

agricultural land use, unpaved rural roads, forestry harvesting, or urbanization can lead to 

changes in runoff water quantity and quality. Agricultural and forestry practices that lead to 

sediment-laden runoff may result in increased sediment accumulation within an impoundment. 

Chemicals (e.g., pesticides and nutrients) that are applied on agricultural crops can be carried 

with sediment in runoff. Increases in urbanization that result in more impervious areas within a 

watershed often result in dramatic changes in the quantity and timing of runoff flows. These 

external sources are integrated by the dam and may result in short- and long-term water quality 

changes within an impoundment and dam releases. 

Water quality in reservoirs and releases from dams are closely linked and scrutinized to uses of 

the water. Often, there are multiple potential users who may have differing quality needs and 

perceptions. Management of dams includes balancing dam operations, watershed activities, 

reservoirs, and downstream water and uses. Dortch (1997) provides an excellent assessment on 

water quality considerations in Reservoir Management. Dortch (1997) notes the following about 

water quality: 

• Temperature regulates biotic growth rates and life stages and defines fishery habitat 

(warm, cool, and cold water). 

• Oxygen sustains aquatic life. 

• Turbidity affects light transmission and clarity. 

• Nutrient enrichment is linked to primary productivity (algal growth) and can cause 

oxygen depletion, poor taste, and odor problems. 

• Organic chemicals and metals may be toxic and accumulate when bound to sediment that 

settles in the reservoir. 

• Total dissolved solids may be problematic for water supplies and other users. 

• Total suspended solids are a transport mechanism for nutrients and contaminants. Solids 

may settle in reservoirs and displace water storage volume. 

• pH regulates many chemical reactions. 

• Dissolved iron, manganese, and sulfide can accumulate in reservoir hypolimnions that 

are depleted of oxygen and can cause water quality problems in the reservoir and release 

water. 

• Pathogens include bacteria, viruses, and protozoa that can cause public health problems. 

Water uses include water supply, flood control, hydropower, navigation, fish and wildlife 

conservation, and recreation (Dortch, 1997). All of the uses have varying water quality 

requirements, ranging from almost none for flood control to high quality needs for water supply, 

fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-17 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

Dams act as a barrier to the flow of water, as well as to materials being transported by the water. 

This can impact water quality both in the impoundment/reservoir created by the dam and 

downstream of the dam. Alteration to the chemical and physical qualities of water held behind a 

dam is often a function of the retention time of a reservoir or the amount of time the water is 

retained and not able to flow downstream. Water held in a small basin behind a run-of-river dam 

may undergo minimal alteration. In contrast, water stored for months or even years behind a 

large storage dam can undergo drastic changes that impact the downstream environment when 

released (McCully, 2001). A storage dam that impounds a large reservoir of water for an 

extended time period will cause more extensive impacts to the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the water than a smaller dam with little storage capacity. 

Several physical changes are possible when dams are introduced into a stream or river, including 

changes in: 

• Instream water velocities 

• Timing and duration of flows 

• Flow rates 

• Sediment transport capacities 

• Turbidity 

• Temperature 

• Dissolved gasses 

Similarly, changes to water chemistry are possible as a result of damming rivers and streams, 

including changes to: 

• Nutrients 

• Alkalinity and pH 

• Metals and other toxic pollutants 

• Organic matter 

The nature and severity of impacts will depend on the location in the river or stream, in relation 

to the upstream or downstream side of the dam, the storage time of the impounded water, and the 

operational practices at the dam. Many of the above impacts are also interrelated. For example, 

changes in temperature may result in changes in dissolved oxygen levels or changes to pH may 

result in changes to nutrient dynamics and the solubility of metals. 

Water Quality in the Impoundment/Reservoir 

As water approaches a dam from upstream, the stream velocity slows down considerably, 

creating a lake-like environment. The water builds up behind the dam and forms a basin (i.e., 

impoundment, reservoir) that is deeper than the previous stream flow. The height of the dam and 

its operational characteristics will determine how much water is stored and the length of storage. 

The extent of impacted stream area above the dam is influenced by the size of the dam installed, 

how much water is released, and how often water is released. For example, a small run-of-the 

river dam constructed to divert water for a millrace will have minimal storage capacity and may 

only store water for several hours or less. In this case, instream water velocities may decrease, 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-18 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

but with minimal upstream and downstream effects. Thus, the length of upstream channel that is 

impacted should be relatively small. 

In contrast, a large flood control dam and reservoir may have many months of storage and 

severely alter instream velocities for long distances upstream. Topography surrounding the 

original stream channel and storage volume will be important parameters determining the length 

of stream channel affected by the large dam. The volume and frequency of discharges from the 

dam will also determine how much of the upstream channel is impacted with lower instream 

velocities as a result of the dam. 

Dams act as a physical barrier to the movement of suspended sediments and nutrients 

downstream (McCully, 2001). When the stream flow behind a dam slows, the sediment carrying 

capacity of the water decreases and the suspended sediment settles onto the reservoir bottom. 

Any organic compounds, nutrients, and metals that are absorbed to the sediment also settle and 

can accumulate on the reservoir bottom. 

Turbidity associated with sediment varies, depending on particle sizes of the sediment and the 

length of time water is held. Longer holding times in the reservoir could result in periodic 

episodes of high turbidity from upstream storm events that carry sediment rich stormwater, 

especially if the sediment is predominantly very fine clay particles. Turbidity may also increase 

as a result of planktonic algal growth in a reservoir. 

The increased depth of the water in reservoirs reduces the volume of water exposed to solar 

radiation and ambient temperatures. Once the flow is controlled by the operation of the dam and 

the reservoir is mixed primarily by winds, temperature variations can become established within 

the reservoir. This can cause thermal stratification where, compared to the bottom, surface layers 

become warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter. In deeper reservoirs, the deepest layers 

may become nearly constant in temperature throughout the year. Changes in temperature can 

impact water quality and biological processes in the reservoir, including changes in predominant 

fish species. Since the density of water is a function of water temperature, thermal stratification 

creates density gradients within the impoundment. As density gradients become established, 

exchanges of gases and chemicals between gradients decrease. In a stratified impoundment well 

aerated surface waters often do not mix with hypolimnetic water and result in poorly oxygenated 

strata below the surface waters. 

Nutrient transport is affected by dams, which can trap the nutrients in the 

impoundment/reservoir. When nutrients accumulate, the reservoir might become nutrient 

enriched (i.e., eutrophic). In warmer seasons, concentrated nutrients in waters exposed to light 

can promote growth of algae and other aquatic plants, which consume nutrients and release 

oxygen (during photosynthesis) and carbon dioxide (during respiration). When algae and other 

aquatic plants complete their growth cycles, they die and sink to the bottom of an impoundment. 

Microbial decomposition of the highly organic dead plant materials may release nutrients back 

into the water column. Microbial decomposition of the dead plant and algal cells in aerobic 

conditions consumes oxygen, which can rapidly deplete bottom waters of dissolved oxygen. 

Under anaerobic conditions, microbial decomposition can produce potentially toxic 

concentrations of gases, such as hydrogen sulfide. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-19 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

The operational characteristics of a dam will influence nutrient levels in water releases. For 

example, water released from the surface of an impoundment may contain seasonally varying 

forms and levels of nutrients. During periods of algal growth, releases may contain lower levels 

of dissolved nutrients and higher levels of organic materials (algae) containing nutrients. When 

algal growth is not occurring, releases may contain higher levels of dissolved nutrients. 

Anaerobic (oxygen-depleted) environments, which are typical of deeper waters in reservoirs, can 

result in several changes to the water chemistry. For example, as by-products of organic matter 

decomposition in an anaerobic environment, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide concentrations can 

become elevated (Freeman, 1977; Pozo et al., 1997). Highly acidic (or highly alkaline) waters 

tend to convert insoluble metal sulfides to soluble forms, which can increase the concentration of 

toxic metals in reservoir waters (FISRWG, 1998). 

Changes in one water quality parameter in a reservoir/impoundment can impact other water 

quality parameters, causing a cycling of events to occur. For example, increased sedimentation 

(from internal or external sources) can lead to more organic matter remaining in the reservoir, 

resulting in more biochemical oxygen demand, potentially lower dissolved oxygen, and other 

changes to water chemistry, such as pH and metal solubility. Periodic growth and then die-off of 

aquatic plants and algae creates additional variable cycling of organic matter in the reservoir. 

The following references may provide additional detail on the complex water quality changes 

that can occur in impoundments and reservoirs: 

• Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. North 

American Lake Management Society and Terrene Institute, in cooperation with the 

Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Madison, WI. 

• Thornton, K.W., B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne. 1990. Reservoir Limnology: Ecological 

Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. N.d. The WES Handbook on Water Quality Enhancement 

Techniques for Reservoirs and Tailwaters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and 

Development Center Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-20 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

Water Quality Downstream of a Dam 

The physical and chemical changes that occur to the water quality in an impoundment/reservoir 

have a large impact on the water released downstream of a dam. As previously stated, the 

presence of a dam can alter water velocities above and below the dam. In smaller dams with little 

storage capacity, velocities may slow locally and recover to an undisturbed state shortly 

downstream from the dam. When dams store large volumes of water in a reservoir, the operation 

of the dam will have a major impact on the downstream velocities and flows. Unless the dam is 

operated to consistently release water at flows 

near pre-dam levels, downstream areas will have 

flows and velocities that are directly related to 

the volume of water released in a given time 

period. The downstream flow characteristics will 

become a function of the operation of the dam, 

including the timing and duration of releases, the 

depth of reservoir intakes, and other physical 

characteristics of the release. 

On the Columbia River, research found that 

prior to construction of dams, average water 

temperatures fluctuated more diurnally with 

cooler nighttime temperatures as compared 

with the existing average water temperatures. 

With the dams in place, cooler weather tends 

to cool the free flowing river but have little 

effect on the average temperature of the 

impounded river (USEPA, 2003c). 

When dams trap sediment upstream, water released from the dam may be starved of sediment 

and have an increase in erosive capacity. Along with trapping sediment, nutrients may also be 

trapped above the dam. When the nutrients are trapped and unavailable, sensitive downstream 

habitats and populations may be affected. 

Whether the water is released from the surface or bottom of the reservoir can have a large impact 

on the characteristics of the water. The impacts of water outflows below a dam are an outcome of 

the seasonal temperature fluctuations and the outflow positioning. Seasonal temperature profiles 

in reservoirs are highly variable and dependent upon a complex set of factors including tributary 

inflow, basin morphometry, drawdown and discharge characteristics, and the degree of 

stratification (Wetzel, 2001). Compared to natural temperatures, in summer elevated 

temperatures in surface water releases can increase downstream river temperatures, whereas 

bottom water releases can be expected to decrease water temperatures. The opposite effect is 

generally observed in the winter due to changes in the water temperature gradient (USACE, 1999 

in Fidler and Oliver, 2001). 

Suspended Sediment and Reduced Discharge 

Whether the release water originates from the surface or the bottom of the reservoir, the 

suspended sediment has typically settled out of the water column and thus the water released 

from behind the dam is usually relatively free from sediment (Simons and Senturk, 1992). This 

sediment-free water can easily pick up and carry a sediment load and have an increase in erosive 

capacity. Because of the rock lined channels of bank stabilization and navigation projects that 

usually occur below these reservoirs, the only place that the clear waters can find the sediments 

they need is in the streambed or navigation channel. This leads to channel deepening or bed 

degradation, which in turn lowers water tables and drains floodplain channels and backwaters 

(Rasmussen, 1999). Streambed and streambanks will continue to erode until an equilibrium 

suspended sediment load is established. Without sediment from upstream sources, downstream 

streambanks, streambeds, sandbars, and beaches can erode away more quickly (FISRWG, 1998). 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-21 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

A reduction in the discharge and sediment load generally results in degradation of the channel 

close to the dam and sedimentation downstream due to the increased supply from the erosion 

near the dam. Degradation may eventually migrate downstream, but is typically most dramatic 

the first few years following construction of the dam (Biedenharn et al., 1997). In addition, the 

physical impact of the discharge will depend, in part, on the channel substrate. A fine silt and 

sand channel bottom may experience more extensive erosion than a bed rock or cobble substrate. 

Lower flow conditions below a dam within a tidally influenced basin can lead to changes in 

water chemistry. The impact of lower freshwater flow into estuaries was extensively studied in 

San Francisco Bay. Nichols et al. (1986) provide a detailed history of changes to freshwater 

inflows to San Francisco Bay. They also provide a summary of the impacts, which include the 

ecological and water quality effects. A study comparing an unregulated river and a dam 

regulated river found a significant difference in the water quality chemistry, including an 

analysis of levels of sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus, electrical conductivity, and pH in 

the middle and lower reaches of the rivers. These differences were attributed to increased tidal 

influence as a result of lower outflow volumes of fresh water from the dam (Colonnello, 2001). 

In addition, a decreased discharge from the dam and increased tidal influence can prolong the 

flushing time or the time it takes water to move through a system. This causes the nutrients and 

pollutants within the water to remain concentrated in areas below the dam near an estuary. 

Biological and Habitat Impacts 

The presence of a dam may cause physical and chemical changes to the water quality. These, in 

turn, can have an impact on the entire biological community including fish, macroinvertebrates, 

algae, and streamside vegetation. Impacts to the biological community differ upstream and 

downstream of a dam. Dams may disrupt spawning, increase mortalities from predation, change 

instream and riparian habitat, and alter plant and benthic communities. Resulting fish populations 

after dam construction may thrive and become well established, but could be very different than 

populations prior to installing the dam. For example, upstream of the dam, a fish population may 

change from a cold-water salmonid fishery to one that is dominated by cool- or warm-water 

species. A once thriving native trout population may become a largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) dominated system. Similarly, downstream 

conditions may also change. In southern states, streams that once supported catfish and other 

tolerant warm-water species may now be able to support a trout fishery because of cold-water 

releases from bottom waters behind a dam. Although the trout fishery may be viewed as positive 

by some, the displaced native warmwater species may not be perceived as beneficial. 

Dams prevent the movement of organisms throughout the river system (Morita and Yamamoto, 

2002). Researchers found that fragmenting habitat by damming a river caused the disappearance 

of a fish species in several upstream locations and further disappearances were predicted (Morita 

and Yamamoto, 2002). Recently, some individual cases involving movement of invasive, nonnative aquatic species note the presence of dams as a positive factor. In these cases, dams have 

blocked the movement of potentially harmful invasive species. 

Flood control and hydropower projects influence a river’s hydrograph. For example, in some 

regions normal river hydrographs featured a rise in water level elevation corresponding to spring 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-22 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

rains. Other geographic areas had stream hydrographs corresponding to snowmelt in the 

mountains, or fall rainfall. Native species evolved under these scenarios and used such water 

level rises to trigger spawning movements onto floodplains and in the case of birds, for nesting 

on islands. Additionally, the stream water level fluctuations were important in providing feeding 

and resting areas for spring and fall waterfowl migrations. Under managed scenarios for 

commercial navigation, river water level elevations are raised in the spring and held stable 

throughout the navigation season, virtually eliminating the triggering mechanisms native species 

used to reproduce and complete their life cycles. Because of this, many native riverine species 

often fail to spawn or nest, and are becoming increasingly threatened (Rasmussen, 1999). 

Additionally, stabilization of periodic flooding has also lead to the loss of ephemeral wetlands 

and may lead to the accumulation of sediments in nearshore areas, thus negatively affecting fish 

spawning areas (NRC, 1992). 

Dams may lead to increased predation of fish in several ways. A dam may cause populations of 

fish to concentrate on the upstream and downstream sides, which might lead to the likelihood of 

increased predation. Changes in the habitat adjacent to a dam can make conditions more suitable 

to predation. Dams may cause the migration process to be delayed, which also leads to increased 

predation (Larinier, 2000). 

The physical and chemical changes to water released from a dam, including reduced streamflow 

variability and decreased sediment loads, may also impact benthic communities. Increased water 

clarity and reduced streamflow variability just below a dam may result in a greater abundance of 

periphyton or other plants as compared with other locations in the river (Stanford and Ward, 

1996). A slowed stream flow velocity with decreased turbulence can also encourage the growth 

of phytoplankton blooms (Décamps et al., 1988). In contrast, the operation of some hydroelectric 

dams with large, sudden releases of water may scour the bottom of the downstream channel to 

the extent that there is a nearly complete removal of the plant communities (Allan, 1995). 

Impacts Associated with Dam 

Removal The effects of river damming were evaluated in a study 

comparing a regulated river to an unregulated river in the 

Green River Basin in Colorado. Prior to installation of the 

dam in Green River in 1962, Green River and the Yampa 

River were similar in riparian vegetation and fluvial 

processes. Comparison of the now regulated Green 

River and the free-flowing Yampa River found distinctive 

vegetation differences between the parks that surround 

the rivers. The channel form of Green River has 

undergone three stages of morphologic change that have 

transformed the historically deep river into a shallow 

braided channel. The Yampa River has remained 

relatively unchanged. The land surrounding the Green 

River now consists of marshes with anaerobic soil that 

supports wetland species and terraces with desert 

species adapted to xeric soil conditions. The meandering 

Yampa River has maintained its original surroundings. Its 

frequently flooded bars and high floodplains provide a 

wide range of habitats for succession of riparian 

vegetation (Merritt and Cooper, 2000). 

Removing a dam affects the flow of 

water, movement of sediment and 

chemical constituents, and the overall 

channel morphology (Academy of 

Natural Sciences, 2002) on the 

waterway where the dam was located. 

The impacts of removing a dam differ 

for the upstream and downstream 

sections of a waterway. 

Changes in the biological community 

following the removal of a dam are 

difficult to generalize, as they are 

highly site specific and can vary in 

recovery time from a few months to 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-23 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

more than a decade. With the removal of a dam, there are changes in the vegetative community 

surrounding the stream channel and changes in the biological community within the stream itself. 

Physical Changes: Upstream Impacts 

The removal of a dam allows the water formerly held behind the dam to flow and will likely 

cause the extent of the impoundment area or reservoir area to decrease. As a dam is removed and 

the water recedes, sediment is scoured from the bottom and a stream channel returns sometimes 

to its pre-dam pathway and sometimes to a newly carved channel. As a channel is formed, areas 

that were formerly beneath the impoundment area become exposed. This can leave large areas of 

unvegetated and unstable land exposed, which makes these areas likely to undergo erosion and 

gully development, increasing the sediment load to the stream. 

In time, vegetation will stabilize the newly formed stream banks, reducing erosion and allowing 

sediment transport levels to return to natural levels. The nutrient and metal constituents 

associated with the sediment will also return to natural levels. As the newly established channellike flow develops and the stagnant and deep conditions are removed, the natural temperature 

and oxygen levels will be reestablished. 

Physical Changes: Downstream Impacts 

Once the physical barrier of the dam is removed, a river can flow unrestricted. As the channel is 

reformed, the water discharge volume and the stream channel can reach equilibrium. As a result, 

a more natural stream flow rate is maintained. 

With the removal of a dam, the fate of the trapped sediments is of concern because flooding and 

downstream pollution problems can result. On a short-term time scale, the redistribution of the 

fine silt and sand sediments that accumulated behind the dam wall may cause an increase in 

turbidity and water quality problems. In addition, the impact can be greater if the sediments 

contain toxic pollutants, such as metals or bioaccumulative compounds such as mercury or 

PCBs. On a short-term time scale, the redistribution of the fine silt and sand sediments increases 

the turbidity and can damage spawning grounds, water quality, habitat, and food quality 

(American Rivers, 2002a). Suspended sediment loads can have a negative impact on a biological 

community and reach lethal levels during dam removal if preventive measures are not 

implemented (Doyle et al., 2000). 

After a dam is removed and the sediment that has been trapped behind the dam is redistributed, 

natural sediment transport levels return. As a result, the constituents typically sorbed to sediment, 

including nutrients and metals, are no longer found localized in excess. Normal sediment 

transport levels typically result in a river bottom with a higher percentage of rocky substrate. 

Gravel and cobblestones located below the sediment may be exposed or may be transported from 

upstream locations as the flow rate of the river increases. This unrestricted flow and transport of 

sediment and gravel may also play a key role in restoring sediments to downstream locations and 

coastal beaches (USDOI, 1995). The removal of a dam and the return of natural flow rates 

should also help to restore a river’s natural water temperature range and oxygen levels. 

Short-term chemical changes to the water quality, including the possibility of supersaturation of 

nitrogen gas directly following the removal of a dam, can cause aquatic animals to experience 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-24 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

adverse conditions. This can include gas bubble disease, in which nitrogen bubbles form in the 

blood and tissues and block capillaries by embolism (Colt, 1984; Soderberg, 1995). Adverse 

effects can be seen when the dissolved nitrogen level reaches 102% and at 105% widespread fish 

mortalities are possible (Dryden Aqua, 2002). Supersaturation was an issue in the 1992 removal 

of Little Goose Dam on the Snake River (American Rivers, 2002a). If a reservoir is drawn down 

slowly, the severity of the impact of supersaturation on aquatic organisms can be lessened 

(American Rivers, 2002a). 

Biological Changes: Upstream Impacts 

Following the removal of a dam, a return to the normal temperature range, flow rates, and 

oxygen levels supports the return of native aquatic vegetation species. Still water impoundments 

support aquatic vegetation that is free floating or that does not need to be strongly rooted, while 

free-flowing systems support plants that are rooted strongly enough to resist being uprooted by 

the water current (WRM, 2000). 

As the water recedes and the formerly impounded area becomes exposed, vegetation can begin to 

colonize the area. Sometimes, the exposed area may be colonized by invasive plant species, 

which are able to remain for several years and prevent other vegetation from becoming 

established. 

The removal of a dam and the subsequent drawdown of water from the impoundment area can 

affect the wetlands formerly bordering the impoundment area. As the dam is removed, the water 

table typically begins to drop. The elevation of the wetlands and the extent of the water table 

drawdown determine whether the wetland areas dry up and what changes will occur in the 

wetland species composition. Wetlands that develop alongside the newly carved channel are 

likely to be different than the wetlands formerly bordering the impoundment area in terms of 

plant and animal species composition. 

The biological changes associated with the removal of a dam can be described in phases, as the 

waterbody makes the transition from reservoir to river. This includes a pattern of relatively rapid 

recovery for invertebrates or short-lived taxa, followed by a second phase of slower recovery for 

fish or longer-lived taxa if the dam removal is not an especially large or disruptive event. 

Overall, the initial impacts, such as colonization by invasive species, typically determine the 

ecological recovery that follows (Doyle et al., 2000). 

Dam removal can allow for improved fish passage and unrestricted fish movement that provides 

access to spawning habitat upstream. For coastal rivers, the removal of a dam may enable tidal 

waters to reach upper portions of the stream that were formerly cut off by the dam, creating a 

spawning environment preferred by certain fish species. Access to upstream sections is 

particularly beneficial for some anadromous fish that live most of their lives in saltwater and 

swim upstream toward freshwater to spawn (Massachusetts River Restore Program, 2002). 

A dam can also act as a barrier between upstream and downstream fish populations. If a 

downstream community of fish is an invasive fish species the dam serves as a physical barrier to 

separate the invasives from the upstream community (American Rivers, 2002a). Thus, the 

removal of the dam can negatively impact the ecosystem if it allows for the movement of a 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-25 July 2007 
Chapter 2: Background 

EPA 841-B-07-002 2-26 July 2007 

population of an invasive species that was previously prevented from traveling to a section of the 

stream because of the presence of a dam. 

Biological Changes: Downstream Impacts 

Downstream of the former dam, wetlands are likely to reappear along side the stream channel 

where they occurred prior to the construction of the dam (WRM, 2000). Revegetation of river 

beds and banks typically occurs within one growing season, following removal of a dam 

(Massachusetts River Restore Program, 2002). 

Recolonization of the stream banks by vegetation affects the biological community within the 

stream by providing shade, reducing water temperatures, and supplying a source of woody debris 

and organic matter to the stream. 

As streamside vegetation begins to recover and suitable habitat is restored, fish begin to return. 

Changes in flow as a result of dam removal lead to the development of side channels and ponds 

that provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Increased flow rates also allow for the transport of 

larger debris, including gravel and logs, which create spawning beds and pool and riffle habitat 

(River Recovery, 2001). In addition, the rocky substrate environment, which is typically exposed 

as a result of dam removal, provides habitat for aquatic insects and spawning fish. In the long 

term, the return to natural stream temperatures, oxygen levels, and flow rates all contribute to the 

reestablishment of a healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystem. 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification 

Channelization and channel modification describe river and stream channel engineering 

undertaken for flood control, navigation, drainage improvement, and reduction of channel 

migration potential. Activities that fall into this category include straightening, widening, 

deepening, or relocating existing stream channels and clearing or snagging operations. These 

forms of hydromodification typically result in more uniform channel cross-sections, steeper 

stream gradients, and reduced average pool depths. Channelization and channel modification 

also refer to the excavation of borrow pits, canals, underwater mining, or other practices that 

change the depth, width, or location of waterways, or embayments within waterways. 

Channelization and channel modification activities can play a critical role in nonpoint source 

pollution by increasing the downstream delivery of pollutants and sediment that enter the water. 

Some channelization and channel modification activities can also cause higher flows, which 

increase the risk of downstream flooding. 

Channelization and channel modification can: 

• Disturb stream equilibrium 

• Disrupt riffle and pool habitats 

• Create changes in stream velocities 

• Eliminate the function of floods to control channel-forming properties 

• Alter the base level of a stream (streambed elevation) 

• Increase erosion and sediment load 

Many of these impacts are related. For example, straightening a stream channel can increase 

stream velocities and destroy downstream pool and riffle habitats. As a result of less structure in 

the stream to retard velocities, downstream velocities may continue to increase and lead to more 

frequent and severe erosion. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-1 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Management Measure 1: Physical and Chemical Characteristics of 

Channelized or Modified Surface Waters 

Management Measure 1

1) Evaluate the potential effects of proposed channelization and channel 

modification on the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters. 

2) Plan and design channelization and channel modification to reduce undesirable 

impacts.

3) Develop an operation and maintenance program for existing modified channels 

that includes identification and implementation of opportunities to improve 

physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters in those channels.

This management measure applies to proposed channelization or channel modification projects 

and is intended to occur concurrently with the implementation of Management Measure 2 

(Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration). The intent of the management measure is for 

project planners to consider potential changes in surface water characteristics when evaluating 

proposed channelization or channel modification projects. Also, for existing modified channels, 

the planning process can include consideration of opportunities to improve the surface water 

characteristics necessary to support desired fish and wildlife. 

The purpose of the management measure is to ensure that the planning process for new 

hydromodification projects addresses changes to physical and chemical characteristics of surface 

waters that may occur as a result of proposed work. For existing projects, this management 

measure can be used to ensure the operation and maintenance program uses any opportunities 

available to improve the physical and chemical characteristics of the surface waters. 

Changes created by channelization and channel modification activities are problematic if they 

unexpectedly alter environmental parameters to levels outside normal or desired ranges. The 

physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters that may be influenced by channelization 

and channel modification include sedimentation, turbidity, salinity, temperature, nutrients, 

dissolved oxygen, oxygen demand, and contaminants. Changes in natural sediment supplies, 

reduced freshwater availability, and accelerated delivery of pollutants are examples of the types 

of changes that can be associated with channelization and channel modification. 

Published case studies of existing channelization and channel modification projects describe 

alterations to physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters (Burch et al., 1984; 

Petersen, 1990; Reiser et al., 1985; Roy and Messier, 1989; Sandheinrich and Atchison, 1986; 

Sherwood et al., 1990; Shields et al., 1995). Frequently, the post-project conditions are 

intolerable to desirable fish and wildlife. The literature also describes instream benefits for fish 

and wildlife that can result from careful planning of channelization and channel modification 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-2 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

projects (Bowie, 1981; Los Angeles River Watershed, 1973; Sandheinrich and Atchison, 1986; 

Shields et al., 1990; Swanson et al., 1987; USACE, 1989). 

Management Practices for Management Measure 1 

Implementation of this management measure should begin during the planning process for new 

projects. For existing projects, implementation of this management measure can be included as 

part of a regular operation and maintenance program. The approach is two-pronged and should 

include: 

1. Planning and evaluation, with numerical models for some situations, of the types of 

nonpoint source (NPS) pollution related to instream changes and watershed development. 

2. Operation and maintenance programs that apply a combination of nonstructural and 

structural practices to address some types of NPS problems stemming from instream 

changes or watershed development. 

Planning and Evaluation 

In planning-level evaluations of proposed 

hydromodification projects, it is critical to 

understand that the surface water quality and 

ecological impact of the proposed project will be 

driven primarily by the alteration of physical 

transport processes. In addition, it is critical to 

realize that the most important environmental 

consequences of many hydromodification projects 

will occur over a long-term time scale of years to decades. 

Use models/methodologies as one 

means to evaluate the effects of 

proposed channelization and channel 

modification projects on the physical and 

chemical characteristics of surface 

waters. Evaluate these effects as part of 

watershed plans, land use plans, and 

new development plans. 

The key element in the selection and application of models for the evaluation of the 

environmental consequences of hydromodification projects is the use of appropriate models to 

adequately characterize circulation and physical transport processes. Appropriate surface water 

quality and ecosystem models (e.g., salinity, sediment, cultural eutrophication, oxygen, bacteria, 

fisheries, etc.) are then selected for linkage with the transport model to evaluate the 

environmental impact of the proposed hydromodification project. There are several sophisticated 

two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) time-variable hydrodynamic models available 

for environmental assessments of hydromodification projects. Two-dimensional depth or 

laterally averaged hydrodynamic models can be routinely applied to assist with environmental 

assessments of beneficial and adverse effects on surface water quality by knowledgeable teams 

of physical scientists and engineers (Hamilton, 1990). Three-dimensional hydrodynamic models 

are also beginning to be more widely applied for large-scale environmental assessments of 

aquatic ecosystems (e.g., EPA/USACE-WES Chesapeake Bay 3D hydrodynamic and surface 

water quality model). 

Refer to Chapter 8 for a list of some models available for studying the effects of channelization 

and channel modification activities (Table 8.1). Chapter 8 also provides examples of 

channelization and channel modification activities and associated models that can be used in the 

planning process.

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-3 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Operation and Maintenance Programs 

Several management practices can be implemented to avoid or mitigate the physical and 

chemical impacts generated by hydromodification projects. Many of these practices have been 

engineered and used for several decades, not only to mitigate human-induced impacts but also to 

rehabilitate hydrologic systems degraded by natural processes. 

In cases where existing channelization or channel modification projects can be changed to 

enhance instream or streamside characteristics, several practices can be included as a part of 

regular operation and maintenance programs. New channelization and channel modification 

projects that are predicted to cause unavoidable physical or chemical changes in surface waters 

can also use one or more practices to mitigate the undesirable changes. Some of the types of 

practices include: 

• Grade control structures 

• Levees, setback levees, and floodwalls 

• Noneroding roadways 

• Streambank protection and instream sediment load controls 

• Vegetative cover 

Grade Control Structures

There are two basic types of grade control structures. The first type can be referred to as a bed 

control structure because it is designed to provide a hard point in the streambed that is capable of 

resisting the erosive forces of the degradational zone. The second type can be referred to as a 

hydraulic control structure because it is designed to function by reducing the energy slope along 

the degradational zone to the point where the stream is no longer capable of scouring the bed. 

The distinction between the operating processes of these two types is important whenever grade 

control structures are considered (Biedenharn and Hubbard, 2001). 

Design considerations for siting of grade control structures include determining the type, 

location, and spacing of structures along the stream, along with the elevation and dimensions of 

structures. Siting grade control structures can be considered a simple optimization of hydraulics 

and economics. However, these factors alone are usually not sufficient to define optimum siting 

conditions. Hydraulic considerations must be integrated with a host of other factors that can vary 

from site to site to determine the final structure plan. Some of the more important factors to be 

considered when siting grade control structures are discussed more specifically in the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Design Consideration for Siting Grade Control Structures (Biedenharn and 

Hubbard, 2001). 

When carefully applied, grade control structures can be highly versatile in establishing human 

and environmental benefits in stabilized channels. To be successful, application of grade control 

structures should be guided by analysis of the stream system both upstream and downstream 

from the area to be reclaimed (CASQA, 2003). 

In some cases, grade control structures can be designed to allow fish passage. However, some 

grade control structures can obstruct fish passage. In many instances, fish passage is a primary 

consideration and may lead engineers to select several small fish passable structures in lieu of 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-4 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

one or more high drops that would restrict fish passage. In some cases, particularly when drop 

heights are small, fish are able to migrate upstream past a structure during high flows. In 

situations where structures are impassable, and where the migration of fish is an important 

concern, openings, fish ladders, or other passageways must be incorporated into the structure’s 

design (Biedenharn and Hubbard, 2001). Fish passage practices are described in Chapter 7. 

A type of grade control structure is a check dam. Refer to Chapter 7 for more information about 

this practice. 

Levees, Setback Levees, and Floodwalls

Levees are embankments or shaped mounds constructed for flood control or hurricane protection 

(USACE, 1981). Setback levees and floodwalls are longitudinal structures used to reduce 

flooding and minimize sedimentation problems associated with fluvial systems. These practices 

can be used to reduce the impacts of channelization and channel modification. A more detailed 

discussion of levees, setback levees, and floodwalls is available in Chapter 7. 

Noneroding Roadways

Disturbances along the streambank that result from activities associated with operation and 

maintenance of channelization projects can lead to additional nonpoint source pollution impacts 

to the stream. An example of human-induced activities is erosion associated with roadways. 

Rural road construction, streamside vehicle operation, and stream crossings usually result in 

significant soil disturbance and create a high potential for increased erosion processes and 

sediment transport to adjacent streams and surface waters. Erosion during and after construction 

of roadways can contribute large amounts of sediment and silt to runoff waters, which can 

deteriorate water quality and lead to fish kills and other ecological problems (USEPA, 1995b). 

Road construction involves activities such as clearing of existing native vegetation along the 

road right-of-way; excavating and filling the roadbed to the desired grade; installation of culverts 

and other drainage systems; and installation, compaction, and surfacing of the roadbed. 

Although most erosion from roadways occurs during the first few years after construction, 

significant impacts may result from maintenance operations using heavy equipment, especially 

when the road is located adjacent to a waterbody. In addition, improper construction and lack of 

maintenance may increase erosion processes and the risk for road failure. To minimize erosion 

and prevent sedimentation impacts on nearby waterbodies during construction and operation 

periods, streamside roadway management needs to combine proper design for site-specific 

conditions with appropriate maintenance practices. A discussion of how roadways can impact 

fish habitat and passage is available from EPA’s National Management Measures to Control 

Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry (USEPA, 2005a). 

More information about suggested practices to consider during design, construction, operation 

and maintenance, and general maintenance of noneroding roadways, is available from EPA’s 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry (USEPA, 

2005a). This EPA guidance document also provides some suggested permanent control BMPs 

that may be used to prevent erosion from roadways. Additional information about noneroding 

roadways is available in Chapter 7 and the Resources section of this document. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-5 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Streambank Protection and Instream Sediment Load Controls

Streambank erosion is a natural process that occurs in fluvial systems. Streambank erosion can 

also be induced or exaggerated as a result of human activities. There are several factors within a 

watershed that can contribute to human induced streambank erosion. Accelerated streambank 

erosion related to human activity can typically be attributed to three major causes including 

channel modifications, reservoir construction, and land use changes (Henderson, 1986). When 

possible, streambank erosion problems should be addressed in the context of the entire 

watershed, using a systems approach that considers and accommodates natural stream processes. 

Approaches to addressing streambank erosion problems associated with channelization and 

channel modification activities can involve efforts to identify and address all significant 

contributing factors in addition to treating the immediate symptom, bank erosion. 

In general, the design of streambank protection may involve the use of several techniques and 

materials. Nonstructural or programmatic management practices for the prevention of 

streambank failures include: 

• Protection of existing vegetation along streambanks 

• Careful use or regulation of irrigation near streambanks, such as rerouting of overbank 

drainage 

• Minimization of loads on top of streambanks (such as prevention of building within a 

defined distance from the streambed) 

Several structural practices are used to protect or rehabilitate eroded banks. These practices are 

usually implemented in combination to provide stability of the stream system, and they can be 

grouped into direct and indirect methods. Direct methods place protecting material in contact 

with the bank to shield it from erosion. Indirect methods function by deflecting channel flows 

away from the bank or by reducing the flow velocities to nonerosive levels (Henderson, 1986; 

Henderson and Shields, 1984). Indirect bank protection requires less bank grading and tree and 

snag removal. However, some structural methods like stone toe protection, as discussed below, 

can be placed with minimal disturbance to existing slope, habitat, and vegetation. 

Feasibility of the practices at a site depends on the engineering design of the structure, 

availability of the protecting material, extent of the bank erosion, and specific site conditions 

such as the flow velocity, channel depth, inundation characteristics, and geotechnical 

characteristics of the bank. The use of vegetation alone or in combination with other structural 

practices, when appropriate, could further reduce the engineering and maintenance efforts. 

Vegetation can be considered with respect to site-specific characteristics. When vegetation is 

combined with low cost building materials or engineered structures, numerous techniques can be 

created for streambank erosion control. It is important to consider the assets and limitations when 

planning to use planted vegetation for streambank protection. Advantages of vegetation include 

the following (Allen and Leech, 1997): 

• Reinforces soil (increases bank stability). 

• Increases resistance to flow and reduces flow velocities (from exposed stalks), causing 

the flow to dissipate energy against the plant (rather than the soil). 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-6 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

• Intercepts water. 

• Enhances water infiltration. 

• Depletes soil water by uptake and transpiration. 

• Acts as a buffer against the abrasive effect of transported materials. 

• Induces sediment deposition (from close-growing vegetation). 

• Reduces costs, in some cases, when compared to most structural methods. 

• Improves conditions for fisheries and wildlife. 

• Improves water quality. 

• Protects cultural/archeological resources. 

Limits of vegetation include failure to grow; being subject to undermining; being uprooted by 

wind, water, and the freezing and thawing of ice; ingestion by wildlife or livestock; and 

maintenance requirements. Chapter 3 of Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control

discusses plant acquisition, handling, and timing of planting (Allen and Leech, 1997). 

Streambanks can be protected or restored either by increasing resistance of the bank to erosion or 

by decreasing the energy of the water at the point of contact with the bank, for example by 

deflecting or interrupting flows (Henderson, 1986). Instream sediment can be controlled by using 

several structural, vegetative, or bioengineered practices, depending on the management 

objective and the source of sediment. Streambank protection and channel stabilization practices, 

including various types of revetments, grade control structures, and flow restrictors, have been 

effective in controlling sediment production caused by streambank erosion. Designs should 

match the protection capability of the treatment to the erosion potential of each stream zone. For 

example, riprap may be needed at the toe of a slope to protect it from undercutting combined 

with tree revetments to deflect flows and provide protection for live stakings that will develop 

permanent support. The growing body of research indicates management techniques that emulate 

nature and work with natural stream processes are more successful and economical. 

Significant amounts of instream sediment deposition can be prevented by controlling bank 

erosion processes and streambed degradation. Channel stabilization structures can also be 

designed to trap sediment and decrease the sediment delivery to desired areas by altering the 

transport capacity of the stream and creating sediment storage areas. In regulated streams, 

alteration of the natural streamflow, particularly the damping of peak flows caused by surface 

water regulation and diversion projects, can increase streambed sediment deposits by impairing 

the stream’s transport capacity and its natural flushing power. Sediment deposits and reduced 

flow alter the channel morphology and stability, the flow area, the channel alignment and 

sinuosity, and the riffle and pool sequence. Such alterations have direct impacts on the aquatic 

habitat and the fish populations in the altered streams (Reiser et al., 1985). 

Vegetative Cover

Streambank protection using vegetation is a commonly used practice, particularly in areas of low 

water velocities. Vegetative cover, also used in combination with structural practices, is often 

relatively easy to establish and maintain, and is visually attractive (USACE, 1983). Emergent 

vegetation provides two levels of protection. First, the root system helps hold soil together and 

increases overall bank stability by forming a binding network. Second, the exposed stalks, stems, 

branches, and foliage provide resistance to streamflow, causing the flow to lose part of its energy 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-7 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-8 July 2007 

by deforming the plants rather than by removing the soil particles. Above the waterline, 

vegetation protects against rainfall impact on the banks and reduces the velocity of the overland 

flow during storm events. 

Vegetative controls are not suitable for all sites, especially those sites with severe erosion due to 

high flow rates or channel velocities. Refer to the Washington State Department of 

Transportation’s (WSDOT’s) Hydraulics Manual, Chapter 41

 for information on calculating 

flow rates or channel velocities. Stabilization measures should only be implemented after a 

careful evaluation of the stream and the surrounding area. A knowledgeable fluvial 

geomorphologist may be helpful with this evaluation. In addition, plant species should be 

selected with care; native plant species should be used whenever possible. Appropriate species 

can be determined by consulting horticulturalists and botanists for plant selection assistanc

USDA-Forest Service guide, A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore 

Stabilization

e. The 

rofessional assistance. 

2 provides a list of plants for soil bioengineering associated systems. The 

International Erosion Control Association (IECA)3

 publishes a products and services directory 

listing sources of plant material and p

In addition to bank stabilization, vegetation can also offer pollutant filtering capacity. Pollutants 

and sediment transported by overland flow may be partly removed as a result of a combination of 

processes including reduction in flow pattern and transport capacity, settling and deposition of 

particulates, and eventual nutrient uptake by plants. 

Summary of Physical and Chemical Practices

All of the following practices can be used to address the effects of channelization and channel 

modification activities on the physical and chemical characteristics of a waterbody: 

• Bank shaping and planting 

• Branch packing 

• Brush layering 

• Brush mattressing 

• Bulkheads and seawalls 

• Check dams 

• Coconut fiber roll 

• Dormant post plantings 

• Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans 

• Joint plantings 

• Levees, setback levees, and floodwalls 

• Live cribwalls 

• Live fascines 

• Live staking 

• Noneroding roadways 

• Return walls 

 

1 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/hydraulics/Manual/Rev3Publications/Chapter%204.pdf 2 http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide 3 http://ieca.org
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

• Revetments 

• Riprap 

• Root wad revetments 

• Rosgen’s Stream Classification Method 

• Setbacks 

• Toe protection 

• Tree revetments 

• Vegetated buffers 

• Vegetated gabions 

• Vegetated geogrids 

• Vegetated reinforced soil slope (VRSS) 

• Wing deflectors 

Additional information about each of the above practices is available in Chapter 7. The 

Additional Resources section provides a number of sources for obtaining information about the 

effectiveness, limitations, and cost estimates for these practices. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-9 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Management Measure 2: Instream and Riparian Habitat 

Restoration

Management Measure 2 

1) Evaluate the potential effects of proposed channelization and channel 

modification on instream and riparian habitat. 

2) Plan and design channelization and channel modification to reduce undesirable 

impacts. 

3) Develop an operation and maintenance program for existing modified channels 

that includes identification and implementation of opportunities to restore 

instream and riparian habitat in those channels.

Implementation of this management measure is intended to occur concurrently with the 

implementation of the Management Measure for Physical and Chemical Characteristics of 

Channelized or Modified Surface Waters (see previous management measure discussion). This 

management measure pertains to surface waters where channelization and channel modification 

have altered or have the potential to alter instream and riparian habitat, such that historically 

present plants, fish, or wildlife are adversely affected. This management measure is intended to 

apply to any proposed channelization or channel modification project to determine changes in 

instream and riparian habitat and to existing modified channels to evaluate possible 

improvements to instream and riparian habitat. The purpose of this management measure is to 

correct or prevent detrimental changes to instream and riparian habitat from the impacts of 

channelization and channel modification projects. 

Management Practices for Management Measure 2 

Implementation of this management measure should begin during the planning process for new 

projects. For existing projects, implementation of this management measure can be included as 

part of a regular operation and maintenance program. Ensuring the involvement and participation 

of all partners is a place to start on any restoration project. Determining the extent of the 

restoration activity can help identify potential partners and other interested stakeholders. Each 

stakeholder may bring a certain expertise, historical information and data, and possibly funding 

to a project. Development of a stream corridor restoration plan can help organize the group, set 

goals for implementation of management practices, secure funding or other types of support, and 

facilitate the sharing of ideas and accomplishments within the group and to others in the 

community. The approach is two-pronged and should include: 

1. Planning and evaluation, with numerical models for some situations, of the types of NPS 

pollution related to instream and riparian habitat changes and watershed development. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-10 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

2. Operation and maintenance activities that restore habitat through the application of a 

combination of nonstructural and structural practices to address some types of NPS 

problems stemming from instream and riparian habitat changes or watershed 

development. 

Planning and Evaluation 

Several tools can be used to evaluate the instream and riparian health of a stream system. These 

approaches include: 

• Biological methods/models 

• Temperature restoration practices 

• Geomorphic assessment techniques 

• Expert judgment and checklists 

Biological Methods/Models

To assess the biological impacts of channelization, it is 

necessary to evaluate both physical and biological 

attributes of the stream system. Assessment studies 

should be performed before and after channel 

modification, with samples being collected upstream 

from, within, and downstream from the modified reach to 

allow characterization of baseline conditions. It also may 

be desirable to identify and sample a reference site within 

the same ecoregion as part of the rapid bioassessment procedures discussed below. 

Use models/methodologies to 

evaluate the effects of proposed 

channelization and channel 

modification projects on instream 

and riparian habitat and to determine 

the effects after such projects are 

implemented. 

There are a number of different methods that can be used to assess the biological impacts of 

channelization. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) were developed as inexpensive screening 

tools for determining whether a stream is supporting a designated aquatic life use (Barbour et al., 

1999; Plafkin et al., 1989). One component of these protocols is an instream habitat assessment 

procedure that measures physical characteristics of the stream reach (Barbour and Stribling, 

1991). An assessment of instream habitat quality based on 12 instream habitat parameters is 

performed in comparison to conditions at a “reference” site, which represents the “best 

attainable” instream habitat in nearby streams similar to the one being studied. The RBP habitat 

assessment procedure has been used in a number of locations across the United States. A small 

field crew of one or two persons typically can perform the procedure in approximately 20 

minutes per sampling site. 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour et al., 1999; Plafkin et al., 1989) were designed to be 

scientifically valid and cost-effective and to offer rapid return of results and assessments. 

Protocol III (RBP III) focuses on quantitative sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates in 

riffle/run habitats or on other submerged, fixed structures (e.g., boulders, logs, bridge abutments, 

etc.) where such riffles may not be available. The data collected are used to calculate various 

metrics pertaining to benthic community structure, community balance, and functional feeding 

groups. The metrics are assigned scores and compared to biological conditions as described by 

either an ecoregional reference database or reference sites chosen to represent the “best 

attainable” biological community in similarly sized streams. In conjunction with the instream 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-11 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-12 July 2007 

habitat quality assessment, an overall assessment of the biological and instream habitat quality at 

the site is derived. RBP III can be used to determine spatial and temporal differences in the 

modified stream reach. Application of RBP III requires a crew of two persons; field collections 

and lab processing require 4 to 7 hours per station and data analysis about 3 to 5 hours, totaling 7 

to 12 hours per station. The RBP III has been extensively applied across the United States. More 

information about biological assessments is available from EPA’s Biological Assessment Web 

site.4

Karr et al. (1986) describes an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI), which includes 12 metrics in 

three major categories of fish assemblage attributes: species composition, trophic composition, 

and fish abundance and condition. Data are collected at each site and compared to those collected 

at regional reference sites with relatively unimpacted biological conditions. A numerical rating is 

assigned to each metric based on its degree of agreement with expectations of biological 

condition provided by the reference sites. The sum of the metric ratings yields an overall score 

for the site. Application of the IBI requires a crew of two persons; field collections require 2 to 

15 hours per station and data analysis about 1 to 2 hours, totaling 3 to 17 hours per station. The 

IBI, which was originally developed for Midwestern streams, can be readily adapted for use in 

other regions. It has been used in several states across the country to assess a wide range of 

impacts in streams and rivers. 

Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEPs) can be used to document the quality and quantity of 

available habitat, including aquatic habitat, for selected wildlife species. HEPs provide 

information for two general types of instream and riparian habitat comparisons: 

• The relative value of different areas at the same point in time 

• The relative value of the same area at future points in time 

By combining the two types of comparisons, the impact of proposed or anticipated land and 

water use changes on instream and riparian habitat can be quantified (Ashley and Berger, 1997). 

Additional information about the assessment methods discussed above, as well as other methods 

for assessing biological impacts is available in Table 8.2 of Chapter 8. 

Temperature Restoration Practices

Channelization and channel modification activities can greatly impact stream temperature. All 

other factors remaining unchanged, when a channel is narrowed, the water depth increases and 

the surface area exposed to solar radiation and ambient temperature decreases. This can decrease 

water temperature. When a channel is widened, the opposite occurs; shallower depths and 

increased temperatures occur. Temperature may also be increased from increased turbidity 

because the sediment particles absorb heat. It is important to model how temperature will change 

in a stream, as a result of channelization and channel modification activities, to determine what 

other changes and impacts might occur in the stream. 

 

4 http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/bioassess.html
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Stream temperature has been widely studied, and heat transfer is one of the better-understood 

processes in natural watershed systems. Most available approaches use energy balance 

formulations based on the physical processes of heat transfer to describe and predict changes in 

stream temperature. 

More information about temperature restoration models and practices is provided in Chapter 8 

(Modeling). 

Geomorphic Assessment Techniques

Fluvial geomorphology is the study of stream form and function. Geomorphic assessment 

focuses on qualitative and quantitative observations of stream form. It provides a “moment-intime” characterization of the existing morphology of the stream. In addition, geomorphic 

assessment includes a stability component. Stability assessments place the stream in the context 

of past, present, and anticipated adjustment processes. Geomorphic assessments can be useful in 

predicting changes that could be created by channelization and channel modification activities. 

Stream classification is a technique that is used to show the relationship between streams and 

their watersheds. There are several techniques for stream classification, all of which have 

advantages and limitations. Advantages of geomorphic assessment include (adapted from 

FISRWG, 1998): 

• Promotes communication. 

• Enables extrapolation of data collected on a few streams to a number of channels over a 

broader geographical area. 

• Helps the restoration practitioner consider the landscape context and determine expected 

ranges of parameters. 

• Enables practitioners to interpret the channel-forming or dominant processes active at the 

site. 

• Uses reference reaches as the desired outcome of restoration. 

• Provides an important cross-check to verify if the selected design values are within a 

reasonable range. 

Limitations of geomorphic assessment include (adapted from FISRWG, 1998): 

• Determination of bankfull or channel-forming flow depth may be difficult or inaccurate. 

• The dynamic condition or the stream is not indicated in stream classification systems. 

• River response to a perturbation or restoration action is normally not determined by 

classifying it alone. 

• Biological health is not directly determined. 

• Classifying a stream should not be used alone to determine the type, location, and 

purpose of restoration activities. 

Schumm (1960) identified straight, meandering, and braided channels and related both channel 

pattern and stability to modes of sediment transport. Schumm recognized that stable straight and 

meandering channels have mostly suspended sediment loads and cohesive bank materials, as 

opposed to unstable braided streams characterized by mostly bedload sediment transport and 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-13 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

wide sandy channels with noncohesive bank materials. Meandering mixed-load channels are 

found at an intermediate condition (FISRWG, 1998). 

Montgomery and Buffington (1993) proposed a classification system similar to Schumm for 

alluvial, colluvial, and bedrock streams in the Pacific Northwest. This system addresses channel 

response to sediment inputs throughout the drainage network. Six classes of alluvial channels 

were identified—cascade, step-pool, plane-bed, riffle-pool, regime, and braided. The stream 

types are differentiated based on channel response to sediment inputs. For example, steeper 

channels maintain their morphology while transporting sediment. Streams with lower gradients 

make more morphological adjustments with increased sediment loads (FISRWG, 1998). 

A conceptual model of channel evolution in response to channelization (CEM-channel evolution 

model) was developed by Simon and Hupp (1986, 1987), Hupp and Simon (1986, 1991), and 

Simon (1989a, 1989b). The model identifies six geomorphic stages of channel response and was 

developed and extensively applied to predict empirical stream channel changes following largescale channelization projects in western Tennessee. Data required for model application include 

bed elevation and gradient, channel top-width, and channel length before, during, and after 

modification. Gauging station data can be used to evaluate changes through time of the stagedischarge relationship and bed-level trends. Riparian vegetation is dated to provide ages of 

various geomorphic surfaces and thereby to deduce the temporal stability of a reach. 

A component of Simon and Hupp’s (1986, 1987) channel response model is the identification of 

specific groups of woody plants associated with each of the six geomorphic channel response 

stages. Their findings for western Tennessee streams suggest that the site preference or 

avoidance patterns of selected tree species allow their use as indicators of specific bank 

conditions. This method might require calibration for specific regions of the United States to 

account for differences in riparian zone plant communities, but it would allow simple vegetative 

reconnaissance of an area to be used for a preliminary estimate of stream recovery stage (Simon 

and Hupp, 1987). 

Restoring or maintaining streams to a stable form through natural channel design requires 

detailed information about surface water hydrology and the interactions between rainfall and 

overland flow or runoff. The Rosgen classification system, developed by David L. Rosgen, and 

presented in Applied River Morphology, is currently the most comprehensive and widely used 

quantitative assessment method for geomorphology. It represents a compilation of much of the 

early work in applied fluvial geomorphology and relies largely on the identification of bankfull 

field indicators. The bankfull discharge is the flow event that fills a stable alluvial channel up to 

the elevation of the active floodplain (Rosgen, 1996). Dunne and Leopold (1978) first developed 

hydraulic geometry relationships for the bankfull stage, also called regional curves. Most river 

engineers and hydrologists work under the assumption that the bankfull discharge is equivalent 

to the channel forming or dominant discharge in geomorphic classification and in analog and 

empirical design methods. The bankfull discharge is the only discharge that can be easily 

identified in the field using physical indicators; therefore it is one of the most commonly used in 

natural channel design. Additional information about Rosgen is available in Chapter 7. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-14 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

Moment-in-time stream classifications provide insights into the existing form of the stream and 

can help to define design parameters and understand potential modifications in reference to 

existing conditions. Stream classification offers a way to categorize streams based on channel 

morphology. The older classification systems were largely qualitative descriptions of stream 

features and landforms and were difficult to apply universally. In 1994, Rosgen published A 

Classification of Natural Rivers. Because of its relative simplicity and usefulness in stream 

restoration, the Rosgen classification system has become popular among hydrologists, engineers, 

geomorphologists, and biologists working to restore the biological function and stability of 

degraded streams. The classification consists of 41 major stream types for which stream channel 

stability and stream bank erosion potential can be assessed. From the assessment, structures for 

in-stream and stream bank restoration or modification can be selected. When planning stream 

restoration projects, it is important for the planning team to use a multidisciplinary approach that 

includes consideration of hydraulics, hydrology, water quality, geomorphological processes, and 

biological interactions to develop and implement a successful restoration. Chapter 7 provides 

additional detailed information on stream classification practices. 

In site selection, geomorphic assessments can determine if a site is unstable and in need of some 

form of restoration activity. During design, geomorphic assessments can be used in combination 

with hydrologic, hydraulic, and/or sediment transport analyses to define design elements such as 

channel slope and hydraulic geometry. 

Sediment transport analysis in rivers and streams is used to approximate the amount of sediment 

being moved by flow event scenarios and to determine where it will be deposited. Modeling the 

sediment transport capacity of a channel and its predicted sediment deposition patterns are 

important for assessing existing and proposed channel design projects to estimate potential 

project impacts. Sediment transport analysis is also useful for determining restoration 

opportunities in existing channelization and channel modification projects. Sediment transport 

analysis is often coupled with stable channel analyses methods to refine channel geometries to 

estimate optimal scour and deposition characteristics (Schulte et al., 2000). A good source of 

technical information on sediment transport analysis can be found in River Engineering for 

Highway Encroachments (FHWA, 2001). 

Sediment transport analysis has been used in many projects, including: 

• Channel design projects (Schulte et al., 2000) 

• Stream restoration design (Copeland et al., 2001; Shields et al., 2003) 

• Flood control projects (USACE, 1994) 

• Highway projects that include stream crossings (FHWA, 2001) 

In the design of new channelization projects and analysis of existing projects, channels are 

typically evaluated using channel stability methods and then the analysis is refined using 

sediment transport models. Sediment transport analysis is used to refine geometry so that scour 

and deposition are minimized. It is also used to determine the optimum grade control structure 

elevation and placement and to find the excavation depths in depositional zones to minimize 

operational costs for maintaining the channel geometry (Schulte et al., 2000). 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-15 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

The methods and techniques used to accomplish a geomorphic assessment should be projectspecific and conducted by personnel trained in applied fluvial geomorphology. Geomorphic 

assessment of streams has evolved rapidly over the past 10–15 years. Initial methodologies 

tended to be tailored for localized applications and required extensive data collection and 

validation. Rosgen’s methodology provides a more universal approach to stream classification 

that represents trade-offs between data collection needs and ease of application for many 

different stream types. The challenge to this type of modeling and assessment has always been to 

balance the complexity and need for extensive data collection with ease of use and reliability of 

the results. The key is that the geomorphic assessment must provide a fundamental 

understanding of the linkage between river form and process. The assessment should provide 

insight into where the stream has been, is now, and in what direction it is moving. It should also 

place the project reach in the context of broader system wide adjustment processes. Geomorphic 

assessment can be used to select sites for restoration and develop designs. 

Expert Judgment and Checklists

Approaches using expert judgment and checklists developed based on experience acquired in 

previous projects and case studies may be very helpful in integrating environmental goals into 

project development. The USACE used this concept of incorporating environmental goals into 

project design (Shields and Schaefer, 1990) in the development of a computer-based system for 

the environmental design of waterways (ENDOW). The ENDOW system is composed of three 

modules: a streambank protection module, a flood control channel module, and a streamside 

levee module. The three modules require the definition of the pertinent environmental goals to be 

considered in the identification of design features. Depending on the environmental goals 

selected for each module, ENDOW will display a list of comments or cautions about anticipated 

impacts and other precautions to be taken into account in the design. 

Another example of using expert judgment is the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) technique. 

PFC was developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to rapidly assess whether a 

stream riparian area is functioning properly in terms of hydrology, landform/soils, channel 

characteristics, and vegetation. The assessment is performed by an interdisciplinary team and 

involves completing a checklist evaluating 17 factors concerning hydrology, vegetation, and 

erosional/depositional characteristics. The PFC field technique is not quantitative, but with 

adequate training, results are reproducible to a high degree (FISRWG, 1998). 

Operation and Maintenance Activities 

Implementation practices for instream and riparian habitat restoration in planned or existing 

modified channels are consistent with those management practices for physical and chemical 

characteristics of channelized or modified surface waters. To prevent future impacts to instream 

or riparian habitat or to solve current problems caused by channelization or channel modification 

projects, include one or more of the following practices to mitigate the undesirable changes: 

• Bank shaping and planting 

• Branch packing 

• Brush layering 

• Brush mattressing 

• Bulkheads and seawalls 

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-16 July 2007 
Chapter 3: Channelization and Channel Modification

EPA 841-B-07-002 3-17 July 2007 

• Check dams 

• Coconut fiber roll 

• Dormant post plantings 

• Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans 

• Establish and protect stream buffers 

• Joint plantings 

• Levees, setback levees, and floodwalls 

• Live cribwalls 

• Live fascines 

• Live staking 

• Marsh creation and restoration 

• Noneroding roadways 

• Return walls 

• Revetments 

• Riparian improvements 

• Riprap 

• Root wad revetments 

• Rosgen’s Stream Classification Method 

• Setbacks 

• Toe protection 

• Tree revetments 

• Vegetated buffers 

• Vegetated gabions 

• Vegetated geogrids 

• Vegetated reinforced soil slope (VRSS) 

• Wing deflectors 

Additional information about each of the above practices is available in Chapter 7. The 

Additional Resources section provides a number of sources for obtaining information about the 

effectiveness, limitations, and cost estimates for these practices. 

Operation and maintenance programs should weigh the benefits of including practices such as 

those for mitigating any current or future impairments to instream or riparian habitat. Additional 

information about these practices can be found in Chapter 7. Also, Fischenich and Allen (2000) 

provide a comprehensive summary of practices that can be evaluated for use in operation and 

maintenance programs. 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-1 July 2007 

Chapter 4: Dams 

Dams are a common form of hydromodification. The National Research Council estimated that 

there were more than 2.5 million dams in the United States in 1992 (NRC, 1992). These dams 

range in size from berms across small streams that create farm ponds to large concrete structures 

across major rivers for hydropower and flood control. The USACE estimates (of these 2.5 

million dams in the United States) about 79,000 are large enough to be included in the National 

Inventory of Dams (USACE, n.d.b.).1 

Dams generally were built to store and provide water for mechanical power generation (e.g., 

waterwheels to mill grain), industrial cooling, hydroelectric power generation, agricultural 

irrigation, municipal water supplies for human consumption, and impoundment-based recreation 

(e.g., boating and sport fishing). Dams are also used for flood control and to maintain channel 

depths for barge transportation. 

Dams can be associated with a number of effects, including changes to hydrology, water quality, 

habitat, and river morphology. Lakes and reservoirs integrate many processes that take place in 

their contributing watersheds, including processes that contribute energy (heat), sediment, 

nutrients, and toxic substances. Human activities, such as agricultural and urban land use, 

contribute to contaminant and sediment loads to reservoirs. The presence and operation of dams 

can determine the fate of these pollutants in a reservoir or impoundment and potentially 

downstream as water is released from the dam. For example, the presence of a dam may lead to 

sediment accumulation in a reservoir. However, there are management practices that can mitigate 

this integrative effect of a reservoir. One example is selective withdrawals, which are an 

operational technique that can be used by some dam operators to provide water quality and 

temperatures necessary to sustain downstream fish populations. 

When dams are built, depending on size and design, they may alter the river system structure, 

causing it to change from a river (flowing) to lake (static) and back to a river (flowing) system. 

 

1

 With the National Dam Inspection Act (P.L. 92-367) of 1972, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to inventory U.S. dams. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L 99-662) 

authorized USACE to maintain and periodically publish an updated National Inventory of Dams (NID). 
Chapter 4: Dams 

Dams with large storage capacities will, by design, retain water longer than those with little 

storage. This can change system flow patterns, which can affect water quality and habitat 

upstream and downstream of the dam. Most effects from dams are observed downstream. Table 

4.1 provides a description of several common types of dams. 

Table 4.1 Types of Dams (FEMA, 2003) 

Type of Dam Description 

Ambursen dam A buttress dam in which the upstream part is a relatively thin, flat slab usually 

made of reinforced concrete 

Arch dam A concrete, masonry, or timber dam with the alignment curved upstream so as 

to transmit the major part of the water load to the abutments 

Buttress dam A dam consisting of a watertight part supported at intervals on the downstream 

side by a series of buttresses 

Crib dam A gravity dam built up of boxes, crossed timbers, or gabions, filled with earth or 

rock 

Diversion dam A dam built to divert water from a waterway or stream into a different 

watercourse 

Double curvature 

arch dam 

An arch dam that is curved both vertically and horizontally 

Earth dam An embankment dam in which more than 50% of the total volume is formed of 

compacted earth layers that are generally smaller than 3-inch size 

Embankment dam Any dam constructed of excavated natural materials, such as both earthfill and 

rockfill dams, or of industrial waste materials, such as a tailings dam 

Gravity dam A dam constructed of concrete and/or masonry, which relies on its weight and 

internal strength for stability 

Hollow gravity dam A dam constructed of concrete and/or masonry on the outside but having a 

hollow interior and relying on its weight for stability 

Hydraulic fill dam An earth dam constructed of materials, often dredged, which are conveyed and 

placed by suspension in flowing water 

Industrial waste 

dam 

An embankment dam, usually built in stages, to create storage for the disposal 

of waste products from an industrial process 

Masonry dam Any dam constructed mainly of stone, brick, or concrete blocks pointed with 

mortar 

Mine tailings dam 

(or tailings dam) 

An industrial waste dam in which the waste materials come from mining 

operations or mineral processing 

Multiple arch dam A buttress dam comprised of a series of arches for the upstream face 

Overflow dam A dam designed to be overtopped 

Regulating dam 

(or afterbay dam) 

A dam impounding a reservoir from which water is released to regulate the flow 

downstream 

Rock-fill dam 

An embankment dam in which more than 50% of the total volume is comprised 

of compacted or dumped cobbles, boulders, rock fragments, or quarried rock 

generally larger than 3-inch size 

Roller compacted 

concrete dam 

A concrete gravity dam constructed by the use of a dry mix concrete transported 

by conventional construction equipment and compacted by rolling, usually with 

vibratory rollers 

Rubble dam A stone masonry dam in which the stones are unshaped or uncoursed 

Saddle dam (or 

dike) 

A subsidiary dam of any type constructed across a saddle or low point on the 

perimeter of a reservoir 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-2 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-3 July 2007 

Siting, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal of dams can lead to nonpoint source 

(NPS) effects. For example, siting of dams can result in inundation of wetlands, riparian areas, 

and fastland in areas upstream of the dam. During construction or maintenance, erosion and soil 

loss occurs. Proper siting and design help prevent erosion prone areas from being developed. For 

dams actively controlled by human operators, dam operation and the amount of water released 

can affect downstream areas when flood waters necessary to deliver sediment are restricted, or 

when controlled releases from dams change the timing, quantity, or quality of downstream flow. 

While removal of dams can lead to physical and biological impacts, such as temporary increased 

turbidity from redistribution of sediment previously stored behind the dam or displacement of 

warm-water species that prefer lake-like conditions, dam removal has many biological and 

habitat benefits, such as allowing for easier fish movement and a return of natural stream 

temperatures and dissolved oxygen. Sometimes, however, dams limit passage of undesirable 

invasive species. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits and limitations resulting 

from the presence of a dam should be completed when evaluating operation and maintenance 

procedures, as well as options for removal. A more detailed discussion of water quality, 

biological, habitat, physical, and chemical changes from dam removal is provided in Chapter 2. 

One opportunity to evaluate and address the NPS impacts of some larger dams that are used for 

hydropower occurs during the licensing/relicensing process. The Federal Power Act (FPA) 

requires all nonfederal hydropower projects located on navigable waters to be licensed. The FPA 

(16 U.S.C. 791-828c) was originally enacted as the Federal Water Power Act in 1920 and was 

made part of the FPA in 1935. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the 

independent regulatory agency within the Department of Energy that has exclusive authority, 

under the FPA, to license such projects. The hydropower dam relicensing process offers an 

opportunity to assess the balance between natural resources and the generation of electricity and 

to address some areas that are determined to be problematic. Stakeholders, including dam owners 

and operators, local governments, environmental groups, and the public, often have different 

interests to be balanced. Through the FPA and the relicensing process, these varied interests can 

be evaluated and a balanced outcome can be derived. In conjunction with FPA licensing 

requirements, states and authorized tribes certify that discharges (including those that originate 

from dams) meet water quality standards under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

The FPA also requires relicensing to be conducted in light of recent laws and regulations that are 

in effect at the time of renewal. As regulations related to hydropower dams change, it is possible 

that many dams that were previously licensed and are up for relicensing may no longer be in 

compliance with current regulatory standards. For example, many dams were built prior to the 

CWA, which includes regulatory requirements for protecting and maintaining designated uses 

(such as protecting desired aquatic life or maintaining bacterial water quality that is protective of 

human health for all recreational activities). Other regulatory requirements that may be evaluated 

during relicensing include protections for wetlands, aquatic habitat, and endangered species.2

 

 

2

 Additional information about FERC and hydropower licensing/relicensing is available at http://www.ferc.gov. 
Chapter 4: Dams 

Management Measure 3: Erosion and Sediment Control for the 

Construction of New Dams and Maintenance of Existing Dams 

Management Measure 3 

1) Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable, retain sediment onsite during and 

after construction. 

2) Prior to land disturbance, prepare and implement an approved erosion and 

sediment control plan or similar administrative document that contains erosion 

and sediment control provisions.

The purpose of this management measure is to prevent sediment from entering surface waters 

during the construction or maintenance of dams. This management measure emphasizes the 

importance of minimizing sediment loss to surface waters during both dam construction and 

maintenance. It is essential that proper erosion and sediment control practices be used to protect 

surface water quality because of the high potential for sediment loss directly to surface waters. 

Sediment and erosion control practices can be borrowed from other applications, such as urban 

development and construction activities. 

Two broad performance goals constitute this management measure: minimizing erosion and 

maximizing the retention of sediment onsite. These performance goals allow for site-specific 

flexibility in specifying practices appropriate for local conditions. Regular inspections of a dam 

are valuable opportunities for dam owners to identify erosion problems and implement sediment 

controls to protect the integrity of the dam. Since the number of new dam construction projects is 

relatively small compared to the number of existing dams, operation and maintenance activities 

offer significantly more opportunities to prevent NPS problems associated with erosion and 

sediment control. 

Dam owners are encouraged to establish a program of regular safety inspection of the dam’s 

infrastructure and dam maintenance. Safety inspection of a dam is a program of regular visual 

inspection using simple equipment and techniques. These inspections are often an economical 

means of ensuring the long-term safety and survival of a dam structure. By regularly monitoring 

the condition and performance of the dam and its surroundings, adequate warning of potentially 

unsafe conditions will enable timely maintenance. Being able to recognize the signs of potential 

problems and failure, as well as what to do and whom to contact, is vital. Partial or total failure 

of a dam may cause extensive damage to downstream areas, including loss of life, property 

damage, and impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, stream channels, and other ecologically 

important lands, for which the owner may be held liable. There are also potentially expensive 

repair costs and lost income that may result from failures or poorly maintained dam structures. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-4 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-5 July 2007 

The primary areas of dam structural failure are: 

• Loss of clay soils used in berms and other earthen structures 

• Seepage and leakage at the base or along pipes 

• Erosion, including wave action, stock damage and spillways 

• Cracking and movement of structural components 

• Defects in associated structures 

• Vegetation, including catchment protection and weed control 

Operation and maintenance should be applied to small, as well as large dams. Many owners of 

small dams, like those on farm ponds, should regularly inspect their dams for maintenance needs. 

Local NRCS staff can provide technical assistance to small dam owners for operation and 

maintenance activities.3 

Regular operation and maintenance efforts can lead to some dams being in need of repairs and/or 

upgrades. Designs for repairs and upgrades can involve replacing reinforced concrete risers and 

impact basins, replacing rusted out corrugated metal pipe principal spillways, raising the top of 

the dams, widening the auxiliary spillways, and removing sediment from the flood pools. 

Examples of project costs for these types of maintenance activities reported in Ohio have ranged 

from $175,000 on a small dam to $775,000 on the largest dam (Brate, 2004). 

At the state and local levels, this measure can be incorporated into existing erosion and sediment 

control (ESC) programs. This measure can also be effectively implemented as part of safety 

inspection requirements. Erosion and sediment control is also intended to be part of a 

comprehensive land use or watershed management program. 

Management Practices for Management Measure 3 

The management measure can be implemented by applying one or more management practices 

appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices described below can be applied 

successfully to implement the management measure for erosion and sediment control for 

construction of new dams and maintenance of existing dams. 

Erosion Control Practices 

Successful control of erosion and sedimentation from construction and maintenance activities 

can involve a system of management practices that targets each stage of the erosion process. The 

most efficient approach involves minimizing the potential sources of sediment from the onset. 

This means limiting the extent and duration of land disturbance to the minimum needed, and 

protecting surfaces once they are exposed. The second stage of the management practice system 

involves controlling the amount of runoff and its ability to carry sediment by diverting incoming 

flows and impeding internally generated flows. The third stage involves retaining sediment that 

is picked up on the project site through the use of sediment-capturing devices. On most sites 

 

3

 Contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app) to access NRCS in your 

community. 
Chapter 4: Dams 

successful erosion and sedimentation control requires a combination of structural and vegetative 

practices. All of these stages are better performed using advanced planning and good scheduling. 

The timing of land disturbing activities and installation of erosion control measures must be 

coordinated to minimize water quality impacts. For large scale activities, the management 

practice system is typically installed in reverse order, starting with sediment capturing devices, 

followed by key runoff control measures and runoff conveyances, and then land clearing 

activities. Often, construction or maintenance activities that generate significant off-site sediment 

have failed to sequence activities in the proper order. 

Erosion controls reduce the amount of sediment lost during dam construction and prevent 

sediment from entering surface waters. Erosion control is based on (1) minimizing the area and 

time of land disturbance and (2) quickly stabilizing disturbed soils to prevent erosion. 

The effectiveness of erosion control practices can vary based on land slope, the size of the 

disturbed area, rainfall frequency and intensity, wind conditions, soil type, use of heavy 

machinery, length of time soils are exposed and unprotected, and other factors. In general, a 

system of erosion and sediment control practices can more effectively reduce offsite sediment 

transport than a single practice. Numerous nonstructural measures such as protecting natural or 

newly planted vegetation, minimizing the disturbance of vegetation on steep slopes and other 

highly erodible areas, maximizing the distance eroded material must travel before reaching the 

drainage system, and locating roads away from sensitive areas may be used to reduce erosion. 

The following practices have proven to be useful in controlling erosion and can be incorporated 

into ESC plans and used during dam construction as appropriate. These practices can be used 

during and after construction and throughout ongoing maintenance activities. 

• Bank shaping and planting 

• Branch packing 

• Brush layering 

• Brush mattressing 

• Bulkheads and seawalls 

• Check dams 

• Coconut fiber roll 

• Construct runoff intercepts 

• Construction management 

• Dormant post plantings 

• Erosion and sediment control (ESC) plans 

• Erosion control blankets 

• Joint planting 

• Live cribwalls 

• Live fascines 

• Live staking 

• Locate potential land disturbing activities away from critical areas 

• Mulching 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-6 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

• Noneroding roadways 

• Phase construction 

• Preserve onsite vegetation 

• Retaining walls 

• Revegetate 

• Revetment 

• Riparian improvements 

• Riprap 

• Rootwad revetments 

• Scheduling projects 

• Sediment fences 

• Seeding 

• Site fingerprinting 

• Sodding 

• Soil protection 

• Surface roughening 

• Training—erosion and sediment control 

• Tree armoring, fencing, and retaining walls or tree walls 

• Tree revetments 

• Vegetated buffers 

• Vegetated filter strips 

• Vegetated gabions 

• Vegetated geogrids 

• Vegetated reinforced soil slope (VRSS) 

• Wildflower cover 

• Wind erosions controls 

A more detailed discussion of each of the above practices is provided in Chapter 7. 

Runoff Control 

To prevent the entry of sediment used during construction into surface waters, these 

precautionary steps should be followed: 

• Identify areas with steep slopes, unstable soils, inadequate vegetation density, insufficient 

drainage, or other conditions that give rise to a high erosion potential. 

• Identify measures to reduce runoff from such areas if disturbance of these areas cannot be 

avoided (Hynson et al., 1985). 

Runoff diversions are structures that channel upslope runoff away from erosion source areas, 

divert sediment-laden runoff to appropriate traps or stable outlets, or capture runoff before it 

leaves the site, diverting it to locations where it can be used or released without erosion or flood 

damage. Diversions can be either temporary or permanent in nature. 

Runoff control measures, mechanical sediment control measures, grassed filter strips, mulching, 

and/or sediment basins could be used to control runoff from the construction site. Scheduling 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-7 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

construction during drier seasons, exposing areas for only the time needed for completion of 

specific activities, and avoiding stream fording also help to reduce the amount of runoff created 

during construction. 

The largest surface water pollution problem during construction is suspended sediment resulting 

from aggregate processing, excavation, and concrete work. Preventing the entry of these 

materials above and/or below a dam is always the preferable alternative because runoff due to 

these types of construction activities can add more sediment to a reservoir, harm aquatic life 

above and below the dam, or affect habitat in streams below a dam. Filtration and gravitational 

settling during detention are the main processes used to remove sediment from construction site 

runoff. Methods used to control runoff and associated sedimentation from construction sites 

include: 

• Check dams 

• Constructing runoff intercepts 

• Locate potential land disturbing activities away from critical areas 

• Preserve onsite vegetation 

• Retaining walls 

• Sediment basins/rock dams 

• Sediment fences 

• Sediment traps 

• Vegetated buffers 

• Vegetated filter strips 

A more detailed discussion of each of the above practices is provided in Chapter 7. 

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans 

ESC plans can be used to control erosion and sediment and incorporate such control in planning. 

Some states call for specific requirements to be included in state ESC plans. Table 4.2 provides 

examples of several state ESC plan requirements. Additional detail about ESC plans, including 

general objectives, and management techniques for ensure proper administration of plans, is 

available in Chapter 7. 

Table 4.2 Examples of Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Requirements for Select States 

Location General Requirements for ESC Plan 

Delaware ESC plans required for sites over 5,000 ft2. Temporary or permanent stabilization 

must occur within 14 days of disturbance. 

Florida ESC plans required on all sites that need a runoff management permit. 

Georgia ESC plan required for all land-disturbing activities. 

Indiana ESC plan required for sites over 5 acres. 

Maine ESC plans required for sites adjacent to a wetland or waterbody. Stabilization must 

occur at completion or if no construction activity is to occur for 7 days. If temporary 

stabilization is used, permanent stabilization must be implemented within 30 days. 

Maryland ESC plans required for sites over 5,000 ft2 or 100 yd3. 

Michigan ESC plans required for sites over 1 acre or within 500 ft of a waterbody. Permanent 

stabilization must occur within 15 days of final grading. Temporary stabilization is 

required within 30 days if construction ceases. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-8 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-9 July 2007 

Location General Requirements for ESC Plan 

Minnesota ESC plans required for land development over 1 acre. 

New Jersey ESC plans required for sites over 5,000 ft2. 

North Carolina ESC plans required for sites over 1 acre. Controls must retain sediment on-site. 

Stabilization must occur within 30 days of completion of any phase of development. 

Ohio ESC plans required for sites over 5 acres. Permanent stabilization must occur within 

7 days of final grading or when there is no construction activity for 45 days. 

Oklahoma ESC plans required for sites over 5 acres. 

Pennsylvania ESC plans required for all sites, but the state reviews only plans for sites over 25 

acres. Permanent stabilization must occur as soon as possible after final grading. 

Temporary stabilization is required within 70 days if construction ceases for more 

than 30 days. Permanent stabilization is required if the site will be inactive for more 

than 1 year. 

South Carolina ESC plans required for all sites unless specifically exempted. Perimeter controls must 

be installed. Temporary or permanent stabilization is required for topsoil stockpiles 

and all other areas within 7 days of disturbance. 

Virginia For areas within the jurisdiction of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, no more 

land is to be disturbed than necessary for the project. Indigenous vegetation must be 

preserved to the greatest extent possible. 

Washington ESC provisions are incorporated into the state runoff management plan. 

Wisconsin ESC plans required for all sites over 4,000 ft3. Temporary or permanent stabilization 

is required within 7 days. 

(Adapted from Environmental Law Institute, 1998; USEPA, 1993) 
Chapter 4: Dams 

Management Measure 4: Chemical and Pollutant Control at Dams 

Management Measure 4 

1) Limit application, generation, and migration of toxic substances. 

2) Ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials. 

3) Apply nutrients at rates necessary to establish and maintain vegetation without 

causing significant nutrient runoff to surface waters.

This management measure is intended to be applied to the construction of new dams, as well as 

to construction activities associated with the maintenance of dams. This management measure 

addresses fuel and chemical spills associated with dam construction and operation and 

maintenance activities, as well as concrete washout and related construction activities. The 

purpose of this management measure is to prevent downstream contamination from pollutants 

associated with dam construction and maintenance activities. 

Although suspended sediment is the major pollutant generated at a construction site, other 

pollutants that may be present around dams (especially during construction and operation and 

maintenance activities) include: 

• Petroleum products⎯fuels and lubricants, specifically gasoline, diesel oil, kerosene, 

lubricating oils, grease, and asphalt 

• Pesticides⎯insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides 

• Fertilizers 

• Construction chemicals⎯acids, soil additives, and concrete-curing compounds 

• Wastewater⎯aggregate wash water, herbicide wash water, concrete-curing water, 

core-drilling wastewater, or clean-up water from concrete mixers 

• Solid wastes⎯paper, wood, metal, rubber, plastic, and roofing materials 

• Garbage 

• Sanitary wastes 

• Cement 

• Lime 

This management measure is important because most erosion and sediment control practices are 

ineffective at retaining soluble NPS pollutants on a construction site. Many of the NPS 

pollutants, other than suspended sediment, generated at a construction site are carried offsite in 

solution or attached to clay particles in runoff. Some metals (e.g., manganese, iron, and nickel) 

attach to larger sediment particles and usually can be retained onsite. Other metals (e.g., copper, 

cobalt, and chromium) attach to fine clay particles and have greater potential to be carried 

offsite. Insoluble pollutants (e.g., oils, petrochemicals, and asphalt) form a surface film on runoff 

water and can be easily washed away (USEPA, 1973; USEPA, 2002b; USEPA, 2005d). 

Factors that influence the pollution potential of construction chemicals include: 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-10 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

• The nature of the construction and maintenance activity 

• The physical characteristics of the construction site 

• The characteristics of the receiving water 

Dam construction sites are particularly sensitive areas and have the potential to severely impact 

surface waters with runoff containing construction chemical pollutants. Because dams are 

located on rivers or streams, pollutants generated at these construction sites have a much shorter 

distance to travel before entering surface waters. Therefore, chemicals and other NPS pollutants 

generated at a dam construction site should be controlled. 

Management Practices for Management Measure 4 

The management measure generally will be implemented by applying one or more management 

practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices described below can be 

applied successfully to implement the control of chemicals and pollutants at dams. This includes 

dam construction as well as routine maintenance. Practices for controlling chemicals and 

pollutants include the following: 

• Equipment runoff control 

• Fuel and maintenance staging areas 

• Locate potential land disturbing activities away from critical areas 

• Pesticide and fertilizer management 

• Pollutant runoff control 

• Spill prevention and control program 

A more detailed discussion of each of the above practices is provided in Chapter 7. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-11 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

Management Measure 5: Protection of Surface Water Quality and 

Instream and Riparian Habitat 

Management Measure 5 

Develop and implement a program to manage the operation of dams that includes an 

assessment of: 

1) Surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat and potential for 

improvement. 

2) Significant nonpoint source pollution problems that result from excessive surface 

water withdrawals.

This management measure is intended to be applied to dam operation, maintenance, and removal 

activities that result in the loss of desirable surface water quality, and of desirable instream and 

riparian habitat. 

The purpose of the management measure is to protect the quality of surface waters and aquatic 

habitat (including riparian habitat) in the portion of rivers and streams that are impacted by dams. 

Operation, maintenance, and dam removal activities can be assessed to determine opportunities 

for potential improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat. These activities, as well as 

actions within the watershed, that contribute NPS pollutants to an impoundment should be 

collectively and periodically evaluated to help identify opportunities for cost-effective change. 

The recommended overall programmatic approach is to evaluate a set of practices that can be 

applied individually or in combination to protect and improve surface water quality and aquatic 

habitat in reservoirs, as well as in areas downstream of dams. Then, a program can be 

implemented using the most cost-effective operation, maintenance, and removal activities to 

protect and improve surface water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. 

The individual application of any particular technique, such as aeration, change in operational 

procedure, restoration of an aquatic or riparian habitat, or implementation of a watershed 

protection best management practice (BMP), will, by itself, probably not improve water quality 

to an acceptable level within the reservoir impoundment or in tailwaters flowing through 

downstream areas. The individual practices discussed in this portion of the guidance may have to 

be implemented in some combination in order to improve water quality in the impoundment or in 

tailwaters to acceptable levels.

Selection of the management measure for the protection of surface water and instream and 

riparian habitat was based on: 

• The availability and demonstrated effectiveness of practices to improve water quality in 

impoundments and in tailwaters of dams. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-12 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-13 July 2007 

• The level of improvement in water quality of impoundments and tailwaters that can be 

measured from implementation of engineering practices, operational procedures, 

watershed protection approaches, or aquatic or riparian habitat improvements. 

Successful implementation of the management measure should generally involve the following 

categories of practices undertaken individually or in combination to improve water quality and 

aquatic and riparian habitat in reservoir impoundments and in tailwaters: 

• Artificial destratification and hypolimnetic aeration of reservoirs with deep withdrawal 

points that do not have multilevel outlets to improve dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the 

impoundment and to decrease levels of other types of NPS pollutants, such as 

manganese, iron, hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and phosphorus in reservoir 

releases. 

• Aeration of reservoir releases, through turbine venting, injection of air into turbine 

releases, installation of reregulation weirs, use of selective withdrawal structures, or 

modification of other turbine start-up or pulsing procedures. 

• Providing both minimum flows to enhance the establishment of desirable instream habitat 

and scouring flows as necessary to maintain instream habitat. 

• Establishing adequate fish passage or alternative spawning ground and instream habitat 

for fish species. 

• Improving watershed protection by installing and maintaining BMPs in the drainage area 

above the dam to remove phosphorus, suspended sediment, and organic matter and 

otherwise improve the quality of surface waters flowing into the impoundment. 

• Removing dams, which are unsafe, unwanted, or obsolete, after careful consideration of 

alternatives. 

Since the presence and operation of a dam have the potential to cause impacts, periodic 

assessments of reservoir water quality, watershed activities, and operational practices may 

provide valuable information for evaluating management strategies. The types and severity of the 

impacts can serve as an indicator of the frequency and magnitude of the assessments. There are a 

variety of assessment tools that are available to assist decision-makers in the evaluation of 

impacts associated with dams. Watershed-related impacts and management activities can be 

evaluated with a variety of models. EPA supports several models that may be useful for 

watershed assessments, such as BASINS.4

 

 

4

 More information about EPA-supported watershed assessment tools can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/wqm. 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-14 July 2007 

Management practices to protect 

surface water quality and instream and 

riparian habitat are discussed in the 

following subsections: 

• Improving Water Quality 

o Watershed Protection 

o Aeration of Reservoir Water 

o Aeration of Reservoir 

Releases 

• Improving Aquatic Habitat 

• Maintaining Fish Passage 

• Dam Removal

Reservoir water quality can also be assessed with various models. Table 8-1 in this document 

provides a list of models that may be used to assess reservoir water quality. Also presented in 

Table 8-1 are models that could be used to evaluate downstream impacts of dams.5

 

Management Practices for Management Measure 5 

The management measure generally can be implemented by applying one or more management 

practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. Management practices that can be used 

to achieve the management measure include practices to improve water quality, restore or 

maintain aquatic and riparian habitat, and maintain fish passage, as well as possible removal of 

dams. The subsection on dam removal includes planning and evaluation considerations, 

descriptions of the removal process, permitting requests, sediment removal techniques, 

descriptions of changes associated with dam removal, and a discussion of potential biological 

impacts. 

Practices for Improving Water Quality 

Management practices for improving water quality associated with the operation and 

maintenance of dams can be categorized as: 

• Watershed Protection Practices—activities to reduce NPS pollution that take place within 

the watershed surrounding a dam. Reduced NPS pollutant inputs, such as sediment or 

nutrients, can have a significant, positive effect on water quality within a reservoir and 

often in reservoir releases, as well. 

• Practices for Aeration of Reservoir Water—aeration activities within the reservoir. The 

primary goal for aerating a large portion of reservoir water is to increase oxygen levels 

throughout the reservoir. Other water quality factors may also improve, including levels 

of dissolved metals and nutrients, destratification of the water column, and improved 

oxygen levels in releases. 

• Practices for Aeration of Reservoir Releases —

a variety of aeration techniques for improving 

water quality, specifically dissolved oxygen 

levels, are presented. 

Improving water quality in impoundments and 

tailwaters often requires consideration of the 

interaction of several different factors. For example, 

achievement of desired DO levels at specific projects 

may require evaluation of several different 

technologies and management activities. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers created a computer-modeling 

program, AERATE, that performs calculations to 

 

5

 The USACE Environmental Laboratory develops and supports several models, such as QUAL2E, Bathtub, and 

CE-QUAL-RI that can be found at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=none. 
Chapter 4: Dams 

evaluate several direct (e.g., active aeration technologies) and indirect (e.g., activities such as 

watershed management to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous runoff, which result in improved 

DO) reservoir aeration techniques. The program considers the following aeration techniques: 

improving water quality in the reservoir, modifying the withdrawal outlet location (and thereby 

changing which water is withdrawn and released from the reservoir), treating the release water to 

eliminate the poor quality as the flow passes through the outlet structure, and treating the release 

water in the tail water area (Wilhelms and Yates, 1995). 

Watershed Protection Practices Additional information about 

watershed protection, specifically 

developing and implementing 

watershed plans, is available from 

EPA’s draft Handbook for Developing 

Watershed Plans to Restore and 

Protect Our Waters. The handbook is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/nps. 

Many NPS pollution problems in reservoirs and dam 

tailwaters frequently result from sources in the 

contributing watershed (e.g., sediment, nutrients, metals, 

and toxics). Management of pollution sources from a 

watershed has been found to be a cost-effective solution 

for improving reservoir and dam tailwater water quality 

(TVA, 1988). Watershed protection practices can be 

effective in producing long-term water quality benefits 

and lack the high operation and maintenance costs associated with structural controls. 

Watershed protection is a technique that provides long-term water quality benefits, and many 

states and local communities have adopted this practice. Numerous state and local governments 

have already legislated and implemented detailed watershed planning programs that are 

consistent with this management measure. For example, Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, and 

Florida have passed legislation that requires county and municipal governments to adopt 

comprehensive plans, including requirements to direct future development away from sensitive 

areas. Many municipalities and regions have adopted land use and growth controls, including the 

towns of Amherst and Norwood and the Cape Cod region of Massachusetts; Narragansett, Rhode 

Island; King County, Washington; and many others. 

Watershed protection management practices fall under the following four categories: 

• Encourage drainage protection—includes descriptions and applications of zoning 

techniques that can be used to limit development density or redirect density to less 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

• Establish and protect stream buffers—describes important steps for protecting or 

establishing riparian buffer zones to enhance water quality and pollutant removal. 

• Identify and address NPS contributions—involves identifying potential upstream sources 

of nonpoint source pollution, as well as providing solutions to minimize those impacts. 

• Identify and preserve critical areas—entails identifying properties that if preserved or 

enhanced could maintain or improve water quality and reduce the impacts of urban 

runoff, as well as, preserving environmentally significant areas (includes land acquisition, 

easements, and development restrictions of various types). 

Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information about each of the above practices. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-15 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

Reservoir Aeration Practices

Systems that have been developed and tested for reservoir aeration rely on atmospheric air, 

compressed air, or liquid oxygen to increase DO concentrations in reservoir waters. Mixing of 

reservoir water to destratify warmer, oxygen rich, epilimnion and cooler, oxygen poor, 

hypolimnion waters can be used. However, this practice has not been used at large hydropower 

reservoirs because of the associated cost in deep, large volume reservoirs. Refer to Chapter 7 for 

additional information about reservoir aeration practices. 

Practices to Improve Oxygen Levels in Tailwaters

Aeration of water as it passes through the dam or through the portion of the waterway 

immediately downstream from the dam is another approach to improving DO in water releases 

from dams. The systems in this category rely on agitation and turbulence to mix the reservoir 

releases with atmospheric air. One approach involves the increased use of spillways, which 

release surface water to prevent it from overtopping the dam. An alternative approach is to install 

barriers called weirs in the downstream areas. Weirs are designed to allow water to overtop 

them, which can increase DO through surface agitation and increased surface area contact. Some 

of these downstream systems create supersaturation of dissolved gases and may require 

additional modifications to prevent supersaturation, which may be harmful to aquatic organisms. 

The quality of reservoir releases can be improved through adjustments in the operational 

procedures at dams. These include scheduling of releases or of the duration of shutoff periods, 

instituting procedures for the maintenance of minimum flows, making seasonal adjustments in 

the pool levels or in the timing and variation of the rate of drawdown, selecting the turbine unit 

that most increases DO (often increasing the DO levels by 1 mg/L), and operating more units 

simultaneously (often increasing DO levels by about 2 mg/L). The magnitude and duration of 

reservoir releases also should be evaluated to determine impacts to the salinity regime in coastal 

waters, which could be substantially altered from historical patterns. 

Two factors should be considered when evaluating the suitability of hydraulic structures such as 

spillways and weirs for their application in raising the DO concentration in waterways: 

• Most of the measurements of DO increases associated with hydraulic structures have 

been collected at low-head facilities. The effectiveness of these devices may be limited as 

the level of discharge increases (Wilhelms, 1988). 

• The hydraulic functioning of these types of structures should be carefully considered 

since undesirable flow conditions may occur in some instances (Wilhelms, 1988). 

Practices that improve oxygen levels in tailwaters include: 

• Gated conduits 

• Labyrinth weirs 

• Modifying operational procedures 

• Reregulation weirs 

• Selective withdrawal 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-16 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

• Spillway modifications 

• Turbine operation 

• Turbine venting 

• Water conveyances 

Additional information about each of these practices is available in Chapter 7. 

Practices to Restore or Maintain Aquatic and Riparian Habitat 

Several options are available for the restoration or maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat in 

the area of a reservoir impoundment or in portions of the waterway downstream from a dam. 

One set of practices is designed to augment existing flows that result from normal operation of 

the dam. These include operation of the facility to produce flushing flows, minimum flows, or 

turbine pulsing. Another approach to producing minimum flows is to install small turbines that 

operate continuously. Installation of reregulation weirs in the waterway downstream from the 

dam can also achieve minimum flows. Finally, riparian improvements are discussed for their 

importance and effectiveness in restoring or maintaining aquatic and riparian habitat in portions 

of the waterway affected by the location and operation of a dam. 

A 2004 report from the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC, 2004) illustrates 

the importance of maintaining instream flows and critical wildlife habitat in streams where dams 

are present and notes that areas along Nebraska’s Platte River are properly designated as “critical 

habitats” for the river’s endangered whooping crane and threatened piping plover. A series of 

dams and reservoirs have been constructed in the river basin for flood control and to provide 

water for farm irrigation, power generation, recreation, and municipal use. The alterations to the 

river and surrounding land caused by this extensive water-control system, however, resulted in 

habitat changes that were at odds with the protection of the listed species. 

Conflicts over the protection of federally listed species and water management in the Platte River 

Basin have existed for more than 25 years. In recent years, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior issued a series of biological opinions indicating that new water 

depletions would have to be balanced by mitigation measures, and a lawsuit forced the 

designation of “critical habitat” for the piping plover. These and other controversies prompted 

the Department of the Interior and the Governance Committee of the Platte River Endangered 

Species Partnership to request that the National Research Council examine whether the current 

designations of “critical habitat” for the whooping crane and piping plover are supported by 

existing science. The National Research Council was also asked to assess whether current habitat 

conditions are affecting the survival of listed species or limiting their chances of recovery, and to 

examine the scientific basis for the department’s instream-flow recommendations, habitatsuitability guidelines, and other decisions. The report concludes that in most instances habitat 

conditions are indeed affecting the likelihood of species survival and recovery. 

Additional information about the following practices to restore or maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitat are available in Chapter 7: 

• Constructed spawning beds 

• Flow augmentation 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-17 July 2007 
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-18 July 2007 

• Riparian improvements 

• Spillway modifications 

Practices to Maintain Fish Passage 

Migrating fish populations may be unable to travel up or downstream because of the presence of 

a dam or suffer losses when passing through the turbines of hydroelectric dams at facilities that 

have not been equipped with special design features to accommodate fish passage. The effect of 

dams and hydraulic structures on migrating fish has been studied since the early 1950s in an 

effort to develop systems or identify operating conditions that would minimize mortality rates. 

Selecting a device or management strategy for optimal fish passage in a stream or river with a 

dam requires careful analysis of a variety of factors, such as species, type and operational 

strategy of the dam, and the physical characteristics of the river system. 

Larinier (2000) reports that devices such as fish ladders and bypass channels can help fish travel 

past dams, but may result in increased mortality due to the hardship and stress involved with 

passing through these structures. In addition, the fish passage structures have to be placed in a 

suitable entrance location, have a flow that is attractive to the species of concern, be continually 

maintained, and possess the hydraulic conditions necessary for the target species (Larinier, 

2000). With all of these requirements, the success of a fish ladder or similar device is often 

uncertain. Passage through the hydraulic turbines of a hydropower dam can cause increased 

stress as a result of changes in velocity or pressure and the possibility of electric shocks from the 

turbines and can lead to increased mortality (Larinier, 2000). 

The safe passage of fish either upstream or downstream through a dam requires a balance 

between operation of the facility for its intended uses and implementation of practices that will 

ensure safe passage of fish. The United States Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment 

(OTA) report on fish passage technologies at hydropower facilities provides an excellent 

overview of fish passage technologies and discusses some of the economic considerations 

associated with the safe passage of fish (OTA, 1995). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its partners have created a database that makes 

information about barriers to fish passage in the United States available to policy makers and the 

public. The database, known as the Fish Passage Decision Support System (FPDSS),6

 is part of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Passage Program.7

 

Available fish-protection systems for hydropower facilities fall into one of four categories based 

on their mode of action (Stone and Webster, 1986): behavioral barriers, physical barriers, 

collection systems, and diversion systems. These are discussed in separate sections below, along 

with additional practices that have been successfully used to maintain fish passage: spill and 

water budgets, fish ladders, fish lifts, advanced hydroelectric turbines, transference of fish runs, 

and constructed spawning beds. 

 

6 https://ecos.fws.gov/fpdss/index.do

7 http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwma/fishpassage
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-19 July 2007 

Upstream fish passage systems have been constructed at approximately 10 percent of the FERC 

licensed hydropower plants. Upstream fish passage systems such as fish ladders and lifts are 

considered adequately developed for anadromous species such as salmon, American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima), alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). Fish 

passage systems for riverine fish have not been specifically designed, although some of these 

species will use fish passage systems designed for anadromous species (OTA, 1995). 

Practices include: 

• Advanced hydroelectric turbines 

• Behavioral barriers 

• Collection systems 

• Fish ladders 

• Fish lifts 

• Physical barriers 

• Spill and water budgets 

• Transference of fish runs 

Additional information about the above practices is available in Chapter 7. 

Removal of Dams

The removal of dams has become an accepted 

practice for dam owners to deal with unsafe, 

unwanted, or obsolete dams. Dam removal may be 

necessary as dams deteriorate, sediments 

accumulate behind dams in reservoirs, human 

needs shift, and economics dictate (NRC, 1992). 

Dams serve a variety of important social and 

environmental purposes (e.g., water supply, flood 

control, power generation, wildlife habitat, and 

recreation). As a result, dam removal is often infrequent. 

Migratory fish passage throughout United States rivers and streams is obstructed by over 2 

million dams and many other barriers such as blocked, collapsed, and perched culverts. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is expanding its community-based 

approach to restoring fish habitat through the recently developed Open Rivers Initiative (ORI).8

Administered by NOAA Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conservation, ORI is designed to 

help communities correct fish passage problems by focusing financial and technical resources on 

the removal of obsolete dams and other blockages. ORI strives to restore vital habitat for 

migrating fish like salmon, striped bass, sturgeon, and shad, as well as improve community 

safety and stimulate economic revitalization of riverfront communities. Through its more broadly 

focused Community-based Restoration Program (CRP), NOAA Fisheries Service has opened 

over 700 miles of stream habitat with financial and technical assistance provided to fish passage 

 

8 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/ORI

Dam Removal Resource

American Rivers is a nonprofit 

organization focusing on the health of U.S. 

river systems, fish, and wildlife. American 

Rivers’ website hosts a variety of 

information related to hydromodification, 

including past and recent estimates of dam 

removals in the United States.

http://www.americanrivers.org
Chapter 4: Dams 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-20 July 2007 

projects. Examples of successfully completed CRP projects that fit the Open Rivers Initiative 

model include: 

• Culvert removal in the John Smith Creek (Mendocino County, CA) 

• Mt. Scott Creek dam removal (Happy Valley, OR) 

• Wyomissing Creek dam removal (Reading, PA) 

• Town Brook dam removal and fish ladder (Plymouth, MA) 

• Sennebec dam removal (Union, ME) 

There are many things to consider when removing a dam, one of which is the function(s) of the 

dam and the status of that function (active vs. inactive). As discussed above, dams are used for 

various purposes, including water supply, hydroelectric power, recreation, and flood control 

benefits. When proposals are made to remove a dam with one or more of these active functions, 

the way in which these functions and benefits will be replaced or mitigated must be addressed 

(FOR, 1999). An example of this process can be seen with the Jackson Street Dam, located on 

Bear Creek in Medford, Oregon. The dam diverted water from the creek into the irrigation canals 

of Rogue River Valley Irrigation District (RRVID). Since the dam created a partial barrier to 

migratory fish, a loss of stream habitat, and an algae-filled impoundment near the city park, a 

consensus was reached that removing the dam was the most cost-efficient means of eliminating 

the problem. However, since the dam was currently providing irrigation diversion, another costefficient diversion had to be devised for RRVID. The decision was made to replace the old dam 

with a less damaging diversion structure. The new structure is approximately one-fourth the 

height of the Jackson Street Dam (about 3 feet) and is located 1,200 feet upstream. The new 

structure is also removed at the end of the irrigation season, which coincides with the time of the 

year when most upstream migration occurs. When the new structure is in place during the 

irrigation season, it allows fish to migrate (by well-designed fish ladders and screens), and it was 

designed so that little water will back up behind it. It is also equipped with fish screens to keep 

fish out of the irrigation canal (FOE et al., 1999). 

It is also important to consider the cost of 

removing a dam, and who will pay for the 

removal. Removal costs can vary from tens 

of thousands of dollars to hundreds of 

millions of dollars, depending on the size 

and location of the dam. Who pays for dam 

removal can be a complex issue. Removal 

in the past has often been financed by the 

dam owner; local, state, and federal 

government; and in some cases agreements 

where multiple stakeholders cover the costs (American Rivers, n.d.a.). A guide to selected 

funding sources (Paying for Dam Removal: A Guide to Selected Funding Sources)9 is available 

from American Rivers. 

 

9 http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/pdr-color.pdf?docID=727

Dam owners are responsible to keep the dam safe. 

When a dam begins to fail or breach, a decision 

must be made as to whether to keep or repair the 

structure. When a dam generates no revenue, the 

long-term costs of liability insurance, dam and 

impoundment maintenance, and operation weigh 

heavily on the side of dam removal. On average, 

dam removal costs 3–5 times less than repair. 

Source: Delaware Riverkeeper, n.d. 
Chapter 4: Dams 

In the case of the Jackson Street Dam, the most cost-effective alternative to solving the problems 

associated with the dam was to remove it. However, since it was currently functioning, an 

alternative means to provide that function was needed. In some instances, it is not more 

beneficial to remove the dam if it is functioning. For example, USACE expressed concern over 

the costs of air pollution created by fuel-burning power plants needed to replace the lost power 

from dams in the debate over the removal of the Snake River dams (Lee, 1999). There was much 

controversy over whether it was more cost-efficient to remove the dams, especially due to the 

functions the dams provided. USACE found that replacing the dams would be costly, both 

monetarily and ecologically. The estimated costs to replace the lower Snake hydropower were 

between $180 million to $380 million a year for 100 years (Lee, 1999). In addition, the cost of 

the resulting increase in pollution due to natural gas or coal replacement plants was very high, 

yet an actual amount was not determined. 

Evaluations made by the USACE found that the costs associated with removing the Snake River 

dams greatly exceeded the costs of maintaining, improving, and keeping them (Associated Press, 

2002). Therefore, the dams along the Snake River remain and have been repaired. USACE plans 

to pursue technical and operational changes at the Snake River dams to improve fish survival, in 

addition to barging or trucking juvenile salmon around the dams (Associated Press and the 

Herald Staff, 2002). 

The entire decision-making process is a delicate balance that involves many stakeholders. One 

important step in this process is to decide if the ecological benefits of removing the dam 

outweigh the benefits of maintaining the dam. 

Repercussions of Unsafe Dams 

(American Rivers, 1999) 

Unsafe dams may result in: 

1. Loss of life from surging flows if a 

dam fails 

2. Destruction of property 

3. Harm to the downstream river 

environment (e.g., erosion) 

4. Release of toxic sediments (e.g., 

dioxins, PCBs) 

5. Risk to users of the river (i.e., 

users may not be able to avoid life 

threatening hazards if in close 

approximation to a failing dam) 

6. Jeopardizing delivery of critical 

services to communities (e.g., 

power generation, flood control) 

When deciding whether to remove a dam, interested 

parties should collect as much information as 

possible about the potential removal project. 

American Rivers has published a fact sheet (Data 

Collection: Researching Dams and Rivers Prior to 

Removal),10 which contains a variety of sources to 

help begin researching the particular dam that might 

be removed and the river on which it is located 

(American Rivers, n.d.b.). 

American Rivers and Trout Unlimited have 

published a guide to help decide whether to remove a 

dam or not, Exploring Dam Removal: A DecisionMaking Guide (American Rivers 

and Trout Unlimited, 2002).11

The decision-making process related to dam removal is often complex with inputs from 

stakeholders with opposing desired outcomes. Additional resources related to dam removal are 

available in the Resources chapter. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 4-21 July 2007 

 

10 http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/Reseaching_a_Dam_Data_Collection.pdf?docID=981 11 http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/Exploring_Dam_Removal-A_DecisionMaking_Guide.pdf?docID=3641
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-1 July 2007 

Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

Figure 5.1 Shoreline Erosion: Before and After Photos (SEAS, 2007) 

Streambanks and shorelines naturally erode. Water flowing along (parallel to) streambanks 

dislodges sediment and other materials that constitute the streambank. Similarly, water flowing 

perpendicular to shorelines, due to waves or tides, transports sediment and other materials away 

from the shoreline. Anthropogenic influences change the natural erosion processes, often 

increasing erosion locally and sedimentation downstream, along adjacent shorelines, or offshore. 

Many human activities change the hydraulic characteristics of stream flows or transfer energy to 

adjacent shorelines and contribute to increased streambank and shoreline erosion, for example: 

• Urbanization that leads to changes in imperviousness creates changes in the hydraulics of 

water during wet weather events. Increased imperviousness can result in flashier runoff 

events that are shorter in duration with greater flow rates and more erosive force. 

• Agricultural practices, such as drainage ditches, can change the characteristics of 

subsurface water flows into receiving streams. These changes result in less subsurface 

water storage and often increase stream flows during and after storms. 

• Livestock grazing may reduce vegetative cover, which can result in more erosion on 

uplands and increased sediment and other pollutant loads in streams. Livestock that are 

allowed direct access to streams can significantly increase streambank erosion and 

destroy important riparian habitat. 

• Roads built in rural areas, such as forest and recreational roads, alter the natural 

landscape and can destroy riparian habitat. If not properly installed and maintained, these 

types of roads erode and supply increased sediment and pollutants to adjacent streams. 

Additionally, roads may increase imperviousness, which leads to flashier runoff events. 

Stream crossings associated with rural roads can block fish passage, trap debris during 

storms, and lead to increased streambank erosion in nearby areas. 

• Marinas can alter local wave and tidal flow patterns, resulting in transference of wave 

and tidal energy to adjacent shorelines. 

• Channelization or channel straightening sometimes results in an increase in the slope of 

a channel, which causes an increase in stream flow velocities. Channel modifications to 

reduce flood damage, such as levees and floodwalls, often narrow the stream width, 

increasing the velocity of the water and thus its erosive potential. In addition, newly 
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

constructed banks are generally more prone to erosion than “seasoned” banks and are 

more likely to require bank stabilization. 

• Dams alter the flow of water, sediment, organic matter, and nutrients, resulting in both 

direct physical and indirect biological effects. The impact of a dam on a stream corridor 

can vary, depending on the purposes of the dam and its size in relation to stream flow. 

Varying discharges released from a hydropower dam can be a significant factor 

increasing streambank erosion. When dams are a barrier to the flow of sediment and 

organic materials, the decreased suspended sediment load in release waters may lead to 

scouring of downstream streambeds and streambanks. 

In summary, these anthropogenic factors can affect the state of equilibrium in streams or along 

shorelines. The typical chain of events that follows the disturbance to a stream corridor or 

shoreline can be described as changes in: 

• Hydrology 

• Stream hydraulics 

• Morphology 

• Factors such as sediment transport and storage 

• Alterations to the biological community 

• Impervious cover 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-2 July 2007 
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

Management Measure 6: Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines

Management Measure 6 

1) Where streambank or shoreline erosion is a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution 

problem, streambanks and shorelines should be stabilized. Vegetative methods are 

strongly preferred unless structural methods are more effective, considering the 

severity of stream flow discharge, wave and wind erosion, and offshore 

bathymetry, and the potential adverse impact on other streambanks, shorelines, 

and offshore areas. 

2) Protect streambank and shoreline features with the potential to reduce NPS 

pollution. 

3) Protect streambanks and shorelines from erosion due to uses of either the 

shorelands or adjacent surface waters.

Typically, several streambank and shoreline stabilization techniques may be used to effectively 

control erosion wherever it is a source of nonpoint pollution. Often a combination of techniques 

may be necessary to effectively control conditions that are causing the increased erosion. 

Techniques involving marsh creation and vegetative bank stabilization (“soil bioengineering”) 

will usually be effective at sites with limited exposure to strong currents or wind-generated 

waves. In cases with increased erosional forces, an integrated approach that employs the use of 

structural systems in combination with soil bioengineering techniques can be utilized. The use of 

harder, more structural approaches, including beach nourishment and coastal or riparian 

structures, may need to be considered in areas facing severe water velocities or wave energy. In 

addition to controlling the sources of sediment contributed to surface waters, which are causing 

nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, these techniques can halt the destruction of wetlands and 

riparian areas located along the shoreline. Once affected streambanks and shorelines are 

protected, they can serve as a filter for surface water runoff from upland areas, or as a temporary 

sink for nutrients, contaminants, or sediment already present as NPS pollution in surface waters. 

Stabilization practices involving vegetation or engineering structures should be properly 

designed and installed. These techniques should be applied only when there will be no adverse 

effects to aquatic or riparian habitat, or to the stability of adjacent shorelines. In addition to 

activities that are applied directly to an eroding streambank or shoreline, there may be 

opportunities to promote institutional measures that establish minimum setback requirements or 

a buffer zone to reduce concentrated flows and promote infiltration of surface water runoff in 

areas adjacent to the shoreline. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-3 July 2007 
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

Stream-friendly Project Tips 

Before Construction 

Involve your neighbors to increase project success 

Get the necessary permits 

Flag and avoid disturbing wetlands 

Preserve existing native trees and shrubs 

Cut trees and shrubs rather than ripping them out of the ground (many may resprout) 

Make a plan to replant disturbed areas and use native plants 

Install sediment-control practices (e.g., coffer dams) 

During Construction 

Stockpile fertile topsoil for later use for plants 

Use hand equipment rather than heavy equipment 

If using heavy equipment, use wide-tracks or rubberized tires 

Work from the streambank, preferably on the higher, non-wetland side 

Avoid instream work except as authorized by your local fishery and wildlife authority 

Stay 100 feet away from water when refueling or adding oil 

Avoid using wood treated with creosote or copper compounds 

After Construction 

Keep out people and livestock during plant establishment 

Check project after high flows 

Water plants during droughts 

Control grass until trees and shrubs overtop grass, usually two to three years 

 

Source: SWCD. No date. Protecting Streambanks from Erosion: Tips for Small Acreages in Oregon. 

Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Small Acreage Steering Committee, 

Oregon Association of Conservation Districts. http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/news/factsheets/fs4.pdf. 

Accessed June 2003. 

Initially project planners can consider whether a complete removal or reversal of the causative 

effects is possible. For example, when evaluating restoration sites affected by upstream armoring 

and urbanization, rather than adding armoring to the downstream site that is eroding, the 

planning team may consider whether changes to operations up stream can be made. Next, 

activities to improve existing erosion damage may be examined. The alteration of operation 

approaches in combination with management and restoration efforts can reduce future impacts. 

Similarly, removal of channelization structures may allow for a 

greater recovery of the integrity of a stream corridor. If 

feasible, the objective of a restoration design should be to 

eliminate or moderate disruptive influences to allow for 

equilibrium (NRC, 1992). If this is not possible, restoration 

may have limited effectiveness in the long term or may require 

a closer look at an entire watershed to determine alternate 

restoration activities. See Chapter 6 for additional information 

on watershed planning and restoration information. 

A glossary of stream 

restoration terms is available 

from U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ Ecosystem 

Management and Restoration 

Research Program at

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/

elpubs/pdf/sr01.pdf.

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-4 July 2007 
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

This management measure was selected for the following reasons: 

• Many anthropogenic activities can destabilize streambanks and shorelines, resulting in 

erosion that contributes significant amounts of NPS pollution in surface waters. 

• The loss of coastal land and streambanks due to shoreline and streambank erosion results 

in reduction of riparian areas and wetlands that have NPS pollution abatement potential. 

• A variety of activities related to use of shorelands or adjacent surface waters can result in 

erosion of land along coastal bays or estuaries and loss of land along rivers and streams. 

Preservation and protection of shorelines and streambanks can be accomplished through many 

approaches, but preference in this guidance is for vegetative practices, such as soil 

bioengineering and marsh creation, where their use is appropriate. 

Management Practices for Management Measure 6 

The management measure generally will be implemented by applying one or more management 

practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. A variety of vegetative and structural 

practices are presented and are examples of activities that can be used as a single practice or in 

combination with other practices to achieve the desired project goals. An example of a source of 

information is the USACE publication Stream Management (Fischenich and Allen, 2000), which 

provides a good summary of vegetative and structural practices as well as a comprehensive 

review of processes related to stream and streambank erosion. The document also presents a 

thorough overview of planning activities for approaching streambank erosion issues. 

The types of practices that can be used to accomplish the elements of Management Measure 6, 

including the following groups of practices: 

• Vegetative practices 

• Structural practices 

• Integrated systems 

• Planning and regulatory approaches 

Vegetative Practices 

Vegetative practices have a long history of use in Europe for streambank and shoreline 

protection and for slope stabilization. Prior to the 1980s, they have been practiced in the United 

States only to a limited extent, primarily because other engineering options, such as the use of 

riprap, have been more commonly accepted practices (Allen and Klimas, 1986). The use of 

vegetative streambank and shoreline stabilization practices have become more common in the 

United States over the past several decades as their implementation has shown to be physically 

and ecologically successful. Economically, less costly alternatives of stabilization, such as 

vegetative practices, are being pursued as alternatives to engineering structures for controlling 

erosion of streambanks and shorelines. 

Vegetative practices, sometimes referred to as soil bioengineering, refer to the installation of 

plant materials as a main structural component in controlling problems of land instability where 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-5 July 2007 
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

erosion and sedimentation are occurring (USDA-NRCS, 1992). Vegetative practices can be 

defined as, “the use of live and dead plant materials, in combination with natural and synthetic 

support materials, for slope stabilization, erosion reduction, and vegetative establishment” 

(FISRWG, 1998). 

Basic principles of soil bioengineering include the following (USDA-NRCS, 1992): 

• Fit the soil bioengineering system to the site 

o Topography and exposure (e.g., note the degree of slope, presence of moisture) 

o Geology and soils (e.g., determine soil depth and type) 

o Hydrology (e.g., calculate peak flows in the project area) 

• Retain existing vegetation whenever possible 

• Limit removal of vegetation 

• Stockpile and protect topsoil 

• Protect areas exposed during construction 

• Divert, drain, or store excess water 

Additionally, vegetative approaches have the advantage of providing food, cover, and instream 

and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife and result in a more aesthetically appealing environment 

than traditional engineering approaches (Allen and Klimas, 1986). Many planners of vegetative 

practices try to utilize native plants and materials that can be obtained from local stands of 

species. These plants are already well adapted to the climate and soil conditions of the area and 

thus have an increased chance of becoming established and surviving. The use of locally 

available plants also cuts the costs of a restoration project (Gray and Sotir, 1996). Vegetative 

systems that use locally available plants have the added advantage of blending in with natural 

vegetation over time. 

Additional benefits of using bioengineering methods include (USEPA, 2003c): 

• Designed to be low maintenance or maintenance-free in the long run 

• Enhance habitat not only by providing food and cover sources, but by serving as a 

temperature control for aquatic and terrestrial animals 

• If successful, can stabilize slopes effectively in a short period of time (e.g., one growing 

season) 

• Self-repairing after establishment 

• Filter overland runoff, increase infiltration, and attenuate flood peaks 

The limitations of vegetative practices include the need for skilled laborers and the difficulty of 

locating plant materials, particularly during the dormant season, which is the optimal time for 

installation. To properly establish a soil bioengineering planting, orientation, on-site training, and 

careful supervision of the labor crews are required. Another limitation, which is avoidable, is that 

projects that promote the growth of thick vegetation may increase roughness values or increase 

friction and raise floodwater elevations. This should be taken into consideration during the 

planning stages of a project and prevented. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-6 July 2007 
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-7 July 2007 

Additional information about soil bioengineering principles is available from the Engineering 

Field Handbook, Chapter 18 (USDA-NRCS, 1992).1

 Local agencies, such as the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Cooperative Extension Service, can be useful 

sources of information on appropriate native plant species to consider in bioengineering projects. 

The USDA Forest Service has published A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and 

Lakeshore Stabilization,

2

 which provides information on how to successfully plan and 

implement a soil bioengineering project, including the application of soil bioengineering 

techniques. The guide also provides specific tips for using soil bioengineering techniques 

ccessfully. 

pecific vegetative practices include (USDA-NRCS, 1992): 

plantings 

d restoration 

• Vegetated buffers 

al 

ormation about the 

effectiveness, limitations, and cost estimates for these practices. 

ave 

ill usually require structures or beach nourishment to dampen wave or stream flow 

nergy. 

d 

f 

 

su

S

• Branch packing

• Brush layering 

• Brush mattressing 

• Coconut fiber roll 

• Dormant post 

• Live fascines 

• Live staking 

• Marsh creation an

• Tree revetments 

Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information about the above practices. The Addition

Resources section provides a number of sources for obtaining inf

Structural Approaches 

Soil bioengineering alone is not suitable in all instances. When considering an approach to 

streambank or shoreline stabilization, it is important to take several factors into account. For 

example, it is inappropriate to stabilize slopes with vegetative systems in areas that would not 

support plant growth, such as those areas with soils that are toxic to plants, areas of high water 

velocity, or where there is significant wave action (Gray and Sotir, 1996). Shores subject to w

erosion w

e

Properly designed and constructed shoreline and streambank erosion control structures are use

in areas where higher water velocity or wave energy make vegetative stabilization and marsh 

creation ineffective. In addition to careful consideration of the engineering design, the proper 

planning for a shoreline or streambank protection project will include a thorough evaluation o

1

 The soil bioengineering chapter of the handbook is available at http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/EFHCh18.pdf. 2

 Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide.
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-8 July 2007 

the physical processes causing the erosion. To complete the analysis of physical factors, the 

e shoreline reach 

uced sediment supply, the volumes 

e 

e of the gross and net sediment transport rates 

• Estimate factors such as ground-water seepage or surface water runoff that contribute to 

ness 

r 

inding a satisfactory balance between these three factors (effectiveness, 

itability, and secondary impacts) is often the key to a successful streambank or shoreline 

ds and seawalls 

ack levees, and floodwalls 

alls 

• Toe protection 

ctices. The Additional 

Resources section provides a number of sources for obtaining information about the 

ns, and cost estimates for these practices. 

ems 

following steps are suggested (Hobbs et al., 1981): 

• Determine the limits of th

• Determine the rates and patterns of erosion and accretion and the active processes of 

erosion within the reach 

• Determine, within the reach of the sites of erosion-ind

of that sediment supply available for redistribution within the reach, as well as th

volumes of that sediment supply lost from the reach 

• Determine the direction of sediment transport and, if possible, estimation of the 

magnitud

erosion 

Some of the most widely accepted alternative engineering practices for streambank or shoreline

erosion control are described below. These practices will have varying levels of effective

depending on the strength of waves, tides, streamflow, or currents at the project site. They will 

also have varying degrees of suitability at different sites and may have varying types of 

secondary impacts. One important impact that must always be considered is secondary effects, 

such as the transfer of wave or streamflow energy, which can cause erosion elsewhere, eithe

offshore or alongshore. F

su

erosion control project. 

Examples of structural approaches include: 

• Beach nourishment 

• Breakwaters 

• Bulkhea

• Check dams 

• Groins 

• Levees, setb

• Return w

• Revetment 

• Riprap 

• Wing deflectors 

Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information about the above pra

effectiveness, limitatio

Integrated Systems 

The use of structural systems alone may raise concern because these systems lack vegetation, 

which can be effective at stabilizing soils in most conditions. Additionally, vegetated syst
Chapter 5: Streambank and Shoreline Erosion 

EPA 841-B-07-002 5-9 July 2007 

can help to restore damaged habitat along shorelines and streambanks. Integrated systems, which 

combine structural systems and vegetation, can be very effective in many settings where 

vegetation adds support and habitat to structural systems. An example of an integrated system is 

the use of stones for toe protection (structural) and soil bioengineering techniques (vegetative) 

for the upper banks of a waterway. Integrated slope protection designs that employ the traditio

structural methods and the soil bioengineering techniques have proven to be more cost effecti

than either me

nal 

ve 

thod independently. Where construction methods are labor-intensive and labor 

osts are reasonable, the combination of methods may be especially cost effective (Gray and 

d planting 

nts 

• Vegetated geogrids 

 practices. The Additional 

Resources section provides a number of sources for obtaining information about the 

s for these practices. 

e 

r 

s of 

re examples (with complete descriptions located in 

hapter 7) of planning and regulatory protection activities that could be used to protect 

ent and protection of stream buffers 

thod 

• Setbacks 

• Shoreline sensitivity assessment 

c

Sotir, 1996). 

Integrated systems include: 

• Bank shaping an

• Joint planting 

• Live cribwalls 

• Riparian improveme

• Root wad revetments

• Vegetated gabions 

• Vegetated reinforced soil slope (VRSS) 

Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information regarding the above

effectiveness, limitations, and cost estimate

Planning and Regulatory Approaches 

In addition to the vegetative, structural, and integrated practices discussed above, another group 

of practices that can be used to protect streambanks and shorelines includes planning and 

regulatory approaches. The variety of planning activities include practices in waters adjacent to 

eroding streambanks and shorelines (e.g., evaluating the erosion potential) and on land areas 

adjacent to eroding streambanks and shorelines (e.g., watershed planning processes). There ar

also a variety of local policy and regulatory activities that can be used to protect sensitive or 

eroding streambanks and shorelines ranging from setback requirements and vegetated buffe

minimum widths to requirements for erosion and sediment control plans for various type

construction activities. The following a

C

vulnerable streambanks or shorelines: 

• Erosion and sediment control plans 

• Establishm

• Rosgen’s stream classification me
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

Many of the management measures and practices recommended by EPA to reduce the nonpoint 

source (NPS) pollutant impacts associated with hydromodification activities stress the need to 

incorporate planning as a tool. States, local governments, or community groups should begin the 

planning process early when trying to determine how to address a particular NPS issue 

associated with a new or existing hydromodification project. The planning process should bring 

key stakeholders together so that a variety of options can be explored to adequately define the 

problem and potential solutions. Once the issues are identified according to the various 

perspectives, project goals can be established to solve one or more environmental problems. 

One important part of the planning process is the identification of the goals of the different 

stakeholders. Once these goals, which are sometimes different for the different groups of 

stakeholders, are identified and defined, the planning team can strive to achieve a balance among 

the needs of the various stakeholders. Often restoration compromises can be made to meet 

differing goals of the stakeholders to achieve a balance of the needs of the different groups. For 

example, changes in hydroelectric dam operation may be possible to produce minimum base 

flows downstream from the dam to support a variety of aquatic habitats, while still providing 

energy in a profitable manner. In addition, solutions that only allow for complete removal of the 

dam and restoration to preexisting stream conditions may not be possible because of other 

changes in the watershed (e.g., urbanization, other hydromodification projects, or the need for 

affordable and environmentally friendly electricity). A compromise solution that enables the dam 

to continue to operate while minimizing environmental impacts and to enhance critical 

downstream habitats that support a desirable fish population may be the best solution. 

Part of the planning process and achievement of balance when evaluating techniques for 

restoring areas impacted by NPS pollution associated with hydromodification activities can be 

termed “creating opportunities.” For example, an opportunity may be found by working with 

stakeholders such as local homeowners who are concerned about the unsightly algae present in a 

community reservoir. Reducing runoff containing an abundant supply of nitrogen and 

phosphorous pollutants from lawns surrounding the reservoir may lead to reductions in the algal 

bloom. Changes in land use that result in increasing the permeability of land adjacent to a 

channelized stream can reduce the overall volume and velocity of water in the stream. As 

flooding conditions are reduced, “hard” structures like bulkheads can be replaced with softer, 

vegetative solutions along the stream channel. The combination of reduced scouring flows 

associated with the greater stream velocities and vegetated channel banks can lead to improved 

instream ecological conditions. There are many other possible opportunities waiting to be found 

and implemented when projects are evaluated at the watershed level. 

Project planning and analysis are essential parts of success when trying to reduce the impact of 

NPS pollution from new or existing hydromodification activities. One example of a planning 

process is explained in the EPA document Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream 

Quality (USEPA, 1995a). This document outlines the key steps in the ecological restoration 

decision framework as: 

• Identification of impaired or threatened watersheds 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-1 July 2007 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-2 July 2007 

• Inventory of the watershed 

• Identification of the restoration goals 

• Selection of candidate restoration techniques 

• Implementation of selected restoration techniques 

• Monitoring 

Other EPA guidance documents offer similar approaches to the restoration planning process, 

including Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting 

Ecosystems and Communities (USEPA, 1997a). Both guidance documents offer a variety of case 

studies to provide readers with examples of the frameworks as they are applied to real-world 

situations. EPA’s Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our 

Waters (USEPA, 2005c) also provides useful planning information related to watershed plans. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is also a source of information for 

planning. NRCS provides assistance through their Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Program, whose purpose is to assist federal, state, local agencies, local government sponsors, 

tribal governments, and program participants to protect and restore watersheds from damage 

caused by erosion, floodwater, and sediment; to conserve and develop water and land resources; 

and to solve natural resource and related economic problems on a watershed basis. The program 

provides technical and financial assistance to local people or project sponsors, builds 

partnerships, and requires local and state funding contribution.1

NRCS uses locally-led conservation programs, which are an extension of the agency’s traditional 

assistance to individual farmers and ranchers, for planning and installing conservation practices 

for soil erosion control, water management, and other purposes. Through this effort, local people, 

generally with the leadership of conservation districts along with NRCS technical assistance, will 

assess their natural resource conditions and needs, set goals, identify ways to solve resource 

problems, utilize a broad array of programs to implement solutions, and measure their success. 

When planning any new development activities or restoration of already developed or impacted 

activities, it is important to account for the guiding principles: 

• Using a watershed approach 

• Smart growth principles 

• Project design principles 

• Monitoring and maintenance of structures 

Each of these principles is discussed in more detail below. 

 

1

 Additional information about this program, as well as contact information is available at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed. 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

Using a Watershed Approach 

EPA recommends the use of a watershed approach as the key framework for dealing with 

problems caused by runoff and other sources that impair surface waters (USEPA, 1998). The 

watershed protection approach is a comprehensive planning process that considers all natural 

resources in the watershed, as well as social, cultural, and economic factors. Using a watershed 

approach, multiple stakeholders integrate regional and locally-led activities with local, state, 

tribal, and federal environmental management programs. EPA works with federal agencies, 

states, tribes, local communities, and non-governmental sectors to make a watershed approach 

the key coordinating framework of planning, restoration, and protection efforts to achieve “clean 

and safe” water and healthy aquatic habitat. 

The watershed approach framework can be applied to address impacts caused by 

hydromodification activities throughout a watershed. Additionally, the watershed approach can 

help to identify and address problems within a watershed that increase NPS pollution associated 

with hydromodification activities. 

Major elements of successful watershed approaches include: 

• Focusing on hydrologically-defined areas⎯watersheds and aquifers have hydrologic 

features that converge to a common point of flow; watersheds range in size from very 

large (e.g., the Mississippi River Basin) to a drainage basin for a small creek. 

• Using an integrated set of tools and programs (regulatory and voluntary, 

federal/state/tribal/local and non-governmental sectors) to address the myriad problems 

facing the Nation’s water resources, including NPS and point source pollution, habitat 

degradation, invasive species, and air deposition of pollutants (e.g., mercury and 

nutrients). 

• Involving all parties that have a stake or interest in developing collaborative solutions to a 

watershed’s water resource problems. 

• Using an iterative planning or adaptive management process of assessment and setting 

environmental, water quality, and habitat goals (e.g., water quality standards). 

• Planning, implementation, and monitoring to ensure that plans and implementation 

actions are revised to reflect new data. 

• Breaking down barriers between plan development and implementation to enhance 

prospects for success. 

A key attribute of the watershed approach is that it can be applied with equal success to largeand small-scale watersheds. Federal agencies, states, interstate commissions, and tribes usually 

apply the approach on larger scales, such as in watersheds greater than 100 square miles in size. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-3 July 2007 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

However, local agencies and urban communities can apply the approach to watersheds as small 

as several acres in size. 

Although specifics may vary from large scale to small scale, the basic goals of the watershed 

approach remain the same—protecting, maintaining, and restoring water resources, based on the 

geomorphology, ecology, and other natural characteristics of the waterbody. Local runoff 

management program officials must be especially conscious of watershed scale when planning 

and implementing specific management practices. For example, programmatic practices, such as 

stream protection ordinances and public education campaigns, are usually applied community 

wide. Consequently, the results benefit many small watersheds. In contrast, structural practices, 

such as vegetative approaches, usually provide direct benefits to a single stream. Regional 

structural management practices such as headland breakwater systems for larger watersheds can 

be used, but they do not protect smaller contributing streams. Given limited resources, program 

officials must often analyze cost and benefits and choose between large- and small-scale 

practices. Often, a combination of nonstructural and structural practices implemented across the 

watershed and at regional and local levels is the most cost effective approach. 

An example of the watershed approach being used for hydromodification activities is the South 

Myrtle Creek Ditch Project. South Myrtle Creek, which flows into the South Umpqua River in 

Oregon, was historically populated with cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). However, since the early 20th century, diversion structures, used 

primarily to provide water for irrigating agricultural crops, have blocked the passage of fish 

through creek waters (USEPA, 2002c). One example of the diversion structures was a diversion 

dam with a concrete apron, which was installed in a portion of South Myrtle Creek to raise the 

water level in an impoundment to provide irrigation water for adjacent and downstream 

landowners. During the summer, water levels in the creek would elevate 14 feet above natural 

levels and were diverted into a 2.5 mile irrigation ditch. Ultimately, hydromodification of this 

stream caused flow modifications and high stream temperatures, which degraded water quality 

for the native trout and salmon populations. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-4 July 2007 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

9 Elements of Watershed Planning 

EPA has identified a minimum of nine elements that are critical for achieving improvements in water 

quality. EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for section 319-funded watershed plans 

and strongly recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans that are intended to 

remediate water quality impairments. Additional information is available from FY 2004 Guidelines for 

the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and Territories at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html. The nine elements are listed below: 

a. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need 

to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed 

plan. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level along 

with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X linear miles of eroded 

streambank needing remediation). 

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures. 

c. A description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to 

achieve load reductions and a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed 

to implement this plan. 

d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the 

sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan. 

e. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of the project and 

encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the 

nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented. 

f. Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in this plan that is 

reasonably expeditious. 

g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint source 

management measures or other control actions are being implemented. 

h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over 

time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards. 

i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, 

measured against the criteria established under item h immediately above. 

In 1998 one of the landowners initiated a project to restore flow and improve water quality in 

South Myrtle Creek. The project used the guiding principles of the watershed approach to restore 

the health of the creek. 

• Partnership. The project was a collaborative effort of landowners, who donated services 

and supplies. The project received funding and support from government agencies, such 

as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oregon Water Resources Department, the 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the Bureau of Land Management, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and the Douglas County Watermaster. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-5 July 2007 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-6 July 2007 

• Geographic focus. Resource management activities were directed specifically to the 

creek and the drainage ditch, where flow restoration and improved water quality were 

desired. 

• Sound management techniques based on strong science and data. An assessment of 

South Myrtle Creek identified water quality problems from flow modification and high 

stream temperatures as the priority problems in the creek. The diversion dam and 

concrete apron were found to be causing the problems. Landowners, the Water Resources 

Department, and the Watershed Enhancement Board developed a plan, the goal of which 

was to restore flow and improve water quality in the creek. The plan was implemented by 

removing the diversion dam and concrete apron. The irrigation system was switched to a 

sprinkler type system, which is more efficient than the original ditch irrigation. In 

addition, the denuded riparian area was revegetated to help lower stream temperatures 

and new seedlings were protected with fencing to keep away livestock. 

With the cooperation of the landowners, the county and state governments, and other interested 

parties, the South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project was a success. Water temperatures have improved 

and flows have increased by 2.5 cubic feet per second during the summer. Restoration of the 

streambed to its historical level has allowed passage of salmon and trout to the 10 miles of 

stream above the dam (USEPA, 2002c).2

 

Smart Growth 

Smart growth practices cover a range of development and conservation strategies that are 

environmentally sensitive, economically viable, community-oriented, and sustainable. 

Environmental impacts of development can be reduced with techniques that include compact 

development, reduced impervious surfaces and improved water detention, safeguarding of 

environmentally sensitive areas, mixing of land uses (e.g., homes, offices, and shops), transit 

accessibility, and better pedestrian and bicycle amenities. 

Through smart growth approaches that enhance neighborhoods and involve local residents in 

development decisions, these communities are creating vibrant places to live, work, and play. 

The high quality of life in these communities makes them economically competitive, creates 

business opportunities, and improves the local tax base. Smart growth practices have also been 

shown to help protect water quality by reducing the amount of paved surfaces and allowing 

natural lands to filter rainwater and runoff before it reaches downstream areas. 

Based on the experience of communities around the nation that have used smart growth 

approaches to create and maintain great neighborhoods, the Smart Growth Network3

 developed a 

set of ten basic principles: 

 

2

 Additional information about the project is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/OR.htm. 3

 Smart Growth Network (SGN) is a partnership of government, business, and civic organizations that support smart 

growth. The SGN Web site, Smart Growth Online (http://www.smartgrowth.org/Default.asp?res=1024), features an 

extensive array of smart growth-related news, events, information, research, presentations, and publications. 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-7 July 2007 

1. Mix land uses 

2. Take advantage of compact building design 

3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices 

4. Create walkable neighborhoods 

5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 

6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas 

7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 

8. Provide a variety of transportation choices 

9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective 

10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions 

EPA offers help to communities through the EPA smart growth program to improve 

development practices and get the type of development they want. They work with local, state, 

and national experts to discover and encourage successful, environmentally sensitive 

development strategies. EPA is engaged in conducting research, publishing reports and other 

publications,4

 showcasing outstanding communities, working with communities through grants5

and technical assistance (Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Program),6

 and bringing 

together diverse interests to encourage better growth and development.7

Low Impact Development 

Low Impact Development (LID) is an innovative stormwater management approach. The goal of 

LID is to mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, 

filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source (Low Impact Development Center, 

Inc., n.d.). 

LID is based on the paradigm that stormwater management should not be viewed as stormwater 

disposal and that numerous opportunities exist within the developed landscape to control 

stormwater runoff close to the source. These principles include (NRDC, n.d.): 

• Integrate stormwater management early in site planning activities 

• Use natural hydrologic functions as the integrating framework 

• Focus on prevention rather than mitigation 

• Emphasize simple, low-tech, and low cost methods 

• Manage as close to the source as possible 

• Distribute small-scale practices throughout the landscape 

• Rely on natural features and processes 

• Create a multifunctional landscape 

 

4 http://www.epa.gov/piedpage/publications.htm

5 http://www.epa.gov/piedpage/grants/index.htm

6 http://www.epa.gov/piedpage/sgia.htm

7

 Links to technical assistance, tools, partnerships and grants and other funding are at “Making Smart Growth 

Happen” at http://www.epa.gov/piedpage/sg_implementation.htm. 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-8 July 2007 

The use of LID practices offers both economic and environmental benefits. LID measures result 

in less disturbance of the development area and conservation of natural features, and they can be 

less cost intensive than traditional stormwater control mechanisms. Cost savings for control 

mechanisms are not only for construction, but also for long-term maintenance and life cycle cost 

considerations (USEPA, 2000). 

Ten common LID practices are the following (NRDC, n.d.): 

• Impervious surface reduction and disconnection 

• Permeable pavers 

• Pollution prevention and good housekeeping 

• Rain barrels and cisterns 

• Rain gardens and bioretention 

• Roof leader disconnection 

• Rooftop gardens 

• Sidewalk storage 

• Soil amendments 

• Tree preservation 

• Vegetated swales, buffers, and strips 

Project Design Considerations 

General Design Factors 

When designing any type of restoration project, it is important to consider the watershed as a 

whole as well as the specific site where restoration will occur. A watershed survey, or visual 

assessment, evaluates an entire watershed and can be used to help identify and verify pollutants, 

sources, and causes of impairments that lead to changes in streambank erosion. Additional 

monitoring of chemical, physical, and biological conditions may be necessary to determine if 

water quality is actually being affected by observed pollutants and sources. Watershed surveys 

can provide an accurate picture of what is occurring in the watershed. EPA’s Volunteer Stream 

Monitoring: A Methods Manual8

 provides a watershed survey visual assessment form that may 

be used. In addition to EPA’s method, a variety of visual assessment protocols have been 

developed by states and agencies. Designers of watershed restoration plans should look for 

assessment protocols that are already being used in their state or local area (USEPA, 2005c). 

Another general resource for planning and implementing restoration projects associated with 

hydromodification activities is EPA’s National Management Measures to Protect and Restore 

Wetlands (USEPA, 2005b). 

Photographs may also be a powerful tool that can be incorporated into watershed surveys. Photos 

serve as a visual reference for the site and provide before and after pictures that may be used to 

analyze restoration or remediation activities. In addition to taking individual photographs, aerial 

photographs may also provide important before and after information and can be obtained from 

 

8 http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms32.html
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-9 July 2007 

USGS (Earth Science Information Center), USDA (Consolidated Farm Service Agencies, Aerial 

Photography Field Office), and other agencies (USEPA, 2005c). Refer to EPA’s draft Handbook 

for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (USEPA, 2005c) for more 

information about watershed assessments. 

Assessment 

Tools to analyze channels on a site-by-site basis may include geomorphic assessments such as 

the methodology developed by Rosgen. Geomorphic assessments help to determine river and 

stream characteristics such as channel dimensions, reach slope, and channel enlargement and 

stability. This information about stream physical characteristics might help the restoration team 

to understand current stream conditions and may be evaluated over time to describe degradation 

or improvements in the stream. Geomorphic assessment may also be useful for predicting future 

stream conditions, which can help in selecting suitable restoration or protection approaches 

(USEPA, 2005c). 

The Rosgen geomorphic assessment approach groups streams into different geomorphic classes, 

based on a set of criteria that include entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel 

slope, and channel materials. Assessment methodologies, such as Rosgen’s Stream Classification 

System, can help identify streams at different levels of impairment, determine the types of 

hydrologic and physical factors affecting stream morphologic conditions, and choose appropriate 

management measures to implement if needed.9

 Another common geomorphic assessment 

method is the Modified Wolman Pebble Count (Harrelson et al., 1994), which characterizes the 

texture (particle size) in the stream or riverbeds of flowing surface waters. It can be used alone or 

with Rosgen-type assessments. The composition of the streambed can provide information about 

the characteristics of the stream, including effects of flooding, sedimentation, and other physical 

impacts on a stream (USEPA, 2005c). Other assessment methods may be available from state 

agencies or environmental organizations. 

The physical conditions of a site can provide important information about factors affecting 

overall stream integrity, such as agricultural activities and urban development. Runoff from 

cropland and feedlots can carry sediment into streams, clog existing habitat, and change 

geomorphological characteristics. An understanding of stream physical conditions can facilitate 

identification of sources and pollutants and allow for designing and implementing more effective 

restoration and protection strategies. Physical characterization should also extend beyond the 

streambanks or shore and include a look at conditions in riparian areas (USEPA, 2005c). 

Before choosing a practice to restore an area impacted by hydromodification activities, it is also 

important to determine what biological endpoints are desired and to consider other 

environmental or water quality goals. Biological endpoints may include metrics such as the 

number of fish surviving, number of offspring produced, impairment of reproductive capability, 

or morbidity. Biological endpoints can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment 

schemes and can serve as a design parameter during restoration planning. Water quality goals, 

such as increasing low dissolved oxygen levels, reducing nitrogen or phosphorous pollutant 

 

9

 More information about the Rosgen Stream Classification System is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/stream_class/index.htm. 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

levels, or decreasing turbidity, are also important to consider when planning restoration. For 

example, if turbidity is a major problem in the waterbody, planners will want to choose a method 

of restoration that prevents erosion, is efficient at trapping sediment before it enters the 

waterbody, or one that will help sediment to settle in desired locations of the stream or river. 

Looking at endpoints and goals before designing the method of restoration can help planners and 

stakeholders achieve the desired results. 

Engineering Considerations 

When choosing from the various alternatives of engineering practices for addressing impacts 

associated with hydromodification, such as protecting and restoring eroding streambanks and 

shorelines, the following factors should be taken into consideration: 

• Foundation conditions 

• Level of exposure to erosive forces 

• Availability of materials 

• Initial and annual costs 

• Past performance 

Foundation conditions may have a significant influence on the selection of the specific practice 

or combination of practices to be used for restoring areas impacted by hydromodification, 

including shoreline or streambank stabilization. Foundation characteristics at the site must be 

compatible with the structure that is to be installed for erosion control. A structure such as a 

bulkhead, which must penetrate through the existing substrate for stability, will generally not be 

suitable for shorelines with a rocky bottom. Where foundation conditions are poor or where little 

penetration is possible, a gravity-type structure such as a stone revetment may be preferable. 

However, all vertical protective structures (revetments, seawalls, and bulkheads) built on sites 

with soft or unconsolidated bottom materials can experience scouring as incoming waves are 

reflected off the structures. In the absence of additional toe protection in these circumstances, the 

level of scouring and erosion of bottom sediments at the base of the structure may be severe 

enough to contribute to structural failure at some point in the lifetime of the installation. 

Along streambanks, the erosive force of the current during periods of high streamflow will 

influence the selection of bank stabilization techniques and details of the design. For shorelines, 

the levels of wave exposure at the site will also generally influence the selection of shoreline 

stabilization techniques and details of the design. In areas of severe levels of exposure to erosive 

forces, such as strong wave action or currents, light structures such as vegetative techniques, 

timber cribbing, or light riprap revetment may not provide adequate protection. The effects of 

winter ice along the shoreline or streambank may also need to be considered in the selection and 

design of erosion control projects. 

The availability of materials is another key factor influencing the selection of suitable techniques 

for protecting and restoring areas affected by hydromodification activities. For a vegetative 

approach, availability of plant materials of sufficient quantity and quality is an important design 

consideration. A particular type of bulkhead, seawall, or revetment may not be economically 

feasible if materials are not readily available near the construction site. Installation methods may 

also preclude the use of specific structures in certain situations. For instance, the installation of 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-10 July 2007 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-11 July 2007 

bulkhead pilings in coastal areas near wetlands may not always be permissible due to disruptive 

impacts in locating pile-driving equipment at the project site. 

Costs should also be included in the decision making process for implementing 

hydromodification practices. The total cost of a project should be viewed as including both the 

initial costs (materials, labor, and planning) and the annual costs of operation and maintenance. 

To the extent possible, practices should be compared by their total costs. Although a particular 

practice may be cheaper initially, it could have operation and maintenance costs that make it 

more expensive in the long run. For example, in some parts of the country, the initial costs of 

timber bulkheads may be less than the cost of stone revetments. However, stone structures 

typically require less maintenance and have a longer life than timber structures. Other types of 

structures whose installation costs are similar may actually have a wide difference in overall cost 

when annual maintenance and the anticipated lifetime of the structure are considered (USACE, 

1984). Environmental benefits, such as creation of habitat, should also be factored into cost 

evaluations. 

An example of a valuable resource that provides specific cost information for practices to protect 

or reduce streambank and shoreline erosion is your local USDA Service Center, which makes 

available services provided by the NRCS.10

The engineering designers should also evaluate similar existing projects and practice designs to 

determine how well they performed compared to design specifications. An important 

consideration for determining past performance is to compare the physical, water quality, and 

biological endpoints specified in the design with the corresponding endpoints that were observed 

in the monitoring results. For example, if an operation and maintenance program for an urban 

channelization project incorporates establishment of vegetative cover along many of the low 

energy areas of an urban stream, the long-term performance of the vegetative cover can be 

evaluated with metrics such as: 

• Percent of riparian area with erosion problems 

• Number of recreationally important fish species present 

• Annual operation and maintenance costs 

• Changes in important water quality parameter values (e.g., dissolved oxygen, turbidity) 

Incorporating Monitoring and Maintenance of Structures 

Generally, the monitoring program will help to determine how well the project is performing 

with respect to the design goals and the extent of any maintenance activities needed (NRC, 

1992). The project monitoring plan should be an integral part of the overall design and will be an 

important consideration for developing long-term project costs and resource needs. Once the 

project’s goals are established, performance indicators are then matched to the goals to create the 

 

10 A list of USDA Service Centers is available at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app. A list of regional and 

state NRCS offices is available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/organization/regions.html#state. 
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-12 July 2007 

monitoring program (NRC, 1992). The monitoring program should also be appropriate to the 

scope of the project (NRC, 1992) by including considerations such as: 

• The area covered by the monitoring compared to the area of the overall project—both 

should be similar. 

• The frequency and intensity of sampling to provide reliable assessments of the 

performance indicators. 

• The cost and resources required for monitoring should reflect the overall cost and 

resources of the project. 

• The performance indicators provide information to enable effective assessments of the 

project goals and decision-making for project maintenance activities. 

Each project will have unique goals and corresponding monitoring needs. Chapter 3 of The 

National Research Council’s document Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (NRC, 1992) 

provides detailed advice on considerations for planning a monitoring program for restoration 

activities such as those associated with hydromodification activities. Some additional monitoring 

considerations can be found in the USDA Forest Service document A Soil Bioengineering Guide 

for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization (USDA-FS, 2002): 

• Keeping track of where plants were harvested⎯is there a correlation between growth rate 

of certain cuttings and the “mother” plants? 

• Is the installation functioning as designed? 

• Which areas are maturing more rapidly than others? 

• Are seeds sprouting in the newly formed beds? 

• Which plants have invaded the site through natural succession? 

• What has sprouted in the second season? 

• Which areas are experiencing difficulty and why? 

• Is the bank stabilizing or washing away and why? 

• Is something occurring that is unexpected? 

• Which techniques are succeeding? 

• Are any of the structures failing? 

USDA NRCS’ The Practical Streambank Bioengineering Guide11 (Bentrup and Hoag, 1998) 

provides an example monitoring form. The monitoring sheet is also available in Appendix C of A 

Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization (USDA-FS, 2002).12

During the first few years after installation, maintenance is necessary until vegetation becomes 

established and the bank stabilizes. Structures may shift or you may notice something that was 

left undone. Once vegetation is established, projects should become self-sustaining and require 

little or no maintenance. Be sure the site is managed to give the treatment every chance to be 

effective over a long period of time (USDA-FS, 2002). 

 

11 http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~bbledsoe/CE413/idpmcpustguid.pdf 12 http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide/guide/appendices.pdf
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles 

Common maintenance tasks include (USDA-FS, 2002; Bentrup and Hoag, 1998): 

• Remove debris and weeds that may shade and compete with cuttings 

• Secure stakes, wire, twine, etc. 

• Control weeds 

• Repair weakened or damaged structures (including 

fences) 

EPA 841-B-07-002 6-13 July 2007 

• Replant and reseed as necessary (it is not uncommon 

for a flood to occur days after installation) 

It is beneficial to inspect the project every other week for the 

first 2 months after installation, once a month for the next 6 

months, and then every other month for 2 years, at least. One 

should also inspect the project after heavy precipitation, 

flooding, snowmelt, drought, or any extraordinary occurrence. 

Assess damage from flooding, wildlife, grazing, boat wakes, trampling, drought, and high 

precipitation (USDA-FS, 2002). Additional information about monitoring is available from 

USDA NRCS’ The Practical Streambank Bioengineering Guide (Bentrup and Hoag, 1998). 

Pole Plantings 70-100% 

Live Fascines 20-50% 

Brush Layering 10-70% 

Post Plantings 50-70% 

Planting success varies from 

project to project. Bentrup and 

Hoag (1998) provide the 

following potential growth 

success rates: 

Maintenance varies with the structural type. For stone 

revetments, the replacement of stones that have been 

dislodged is necessary; timber bulkheads need to be backfilled 

if there has been a loss of upland material, and broken sheet 

pile should be replaced as necessary. Gabion baskets should 

be inspected for corrosion failure of the wire, usually caused 

either by improper handling during construction or by 

abrasion from the stones inside the baskets. Baskets should be 

replaced as necessary since waves will rapidly empty failed baskets. 

Plan and design all 

streambank, shoreline, and 

navigation structures so that 

they do not transfer erosion 

energy or otherwise cause 

visible loss of surrounding 

streambanks or shorelines.

Steel, timber, and aluminum bulkheads should be inspected for sheet pile failure due to active 

earth pressure or debris impact and for loss of backfill. For all structural types not contiguous to 

other structures, lengthening of flanking walls may be necessary every few years. Through 

periodic monitoring and required maintenance, a substantially greater percentage of coastal 

structures will perform effectively over their design life. Since streambank or shoreline 

protection projects can transfer energy from one area to another, which causes increased erosion 

in the adjacent area, the possible effects of erosion control measures on adjacent properties 

should be routinely monitored. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-1 July 2007 

Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

Many of the operation and maintenance solutions presented in Chapter 3 (Channelization and 

Channel Modification) are also practices that can be used to stabilize streambanks and shorelines 

as presented in Chapter 5 (Streambank and Shoreline Erosion). For example, a stream channel 

that has been hardened with vertical concrete walls to prevent local flooding and limit the stream 

to its existing channel (to protect property built along the stream channel), may benefit from 

operation and maintenance practices that use opportunities to replace the concrete walls with 

appropriate vegetative or combined vegetative and non-vegetative structures along the 

streambank when possible. These same practices may be applicable to stabilize downstream 

streambanks that are eroding and creating a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution problem because of 

the upstream development and hardened streambanks. 

The following practices apply to one or more management measures. The descriptions and 

illustrations presented in this chapter are intended to provide a starting point for stakeholders and 

decision-makers for selecting possible practices to address NPS pollution problems associated 

with hydromodification activities. Table 7.1 provides a cross-reference of the practices with 

possible applications for the various hydromodification management measure components (e.g., 

instream and riparian restoration corresponds to the second component of Management Measures 

1 and 2 described in detail in Chapter 3). Users of the information provided in the following table 

and descriptions evaluate the attributes of the possible practices with site-specific conditions in 

mind. 
EPA 841-B-07-002 7-2 July 2007 

Table 7.1 Practices for Hydromodification Management Measures 

Channelization Dams Streambanks 

Physical & chemical 

Instream/riparian restoration 

Erosion control 

Runoff control 

Chemical/pollutant control 

Watershed protection 

Aerate reservoir water 

Improve tailwater oxygen 

Restore/maintain habitat 

Maintain fish passage 

Vegetative 

Structural 

Integrated 

Planning & regulatory 

Practices MM1 MM2 MM3 MM4 MM5 M

Advanced Hydroelectric Turbines (7-7) 

z

Bank Shaping and Planting (7-9) 

z

z

z

z

Beach Nourishment (7-10) 

z

Behavioral Barriers (7-12) 

z

Branch Packing (7-14) 

z

z

z

z

Breakwaters (7-15) Brush Layering (7-17) 

z

z

z

z

Brush Mattressing (7-19) 

z

z

z

z

Bulkheads and Seawalls (7-21) 

z

z

z

z

Check Dams (7-22) 

z

z

z

z

z

Coconut Fiber Roll (7-23) 

z

z

z

z

Collection Systems (7-25) 

z

Construct Runoff Intercepts (7-26) 

z

z

Constructed Spawning Beds (7-27) 

z

Construction Management (7-28) 

z

Dormant Post Plantings (7-29) 

z

z

z

z
EPA 841-B-07-002 7-3 July 2007 

Channelization Dams Streambanks 

Physical & chemical 

Instream/riparian restoration 

Erosion control 

Runoff control 

Chemical/pollutant control 

Watershed protection 

Aerate reservoir water 

Improve tailwater oxygen 

Restore/maintain habitat 

Maintain fish passage 

Vegetative 

Structural 

Integrated 

Planning & regulatory 

Encourage Drainage Protection (7-30) 

z

Equipment Runoff Control (7-31) 

z

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans (7-32) 

z

z

z

z

Erosion Control Blankets (7-35) 

z

Establish and Protect Stream Buffers (7-37) 

z

z

z

Fish Ladders(7-38) 

z

Fish Lifts (7-40) 

z

Flow Augmentation (7-41) 

z

Fuel and Maintenance Staging Areas (7-43) 

z

Gated Conduits (7-44) 

z

Groins (7-45) Identify and Address NPS Contributions (7-46) 

z

Identify and Preserve Critical Areas (7-48) 

z

Joint Planting (7-50) 

z

z

z

z

Labyrinth Weir (7-51) 

z

Levees, Setback Levees, and Floodwalls (7-52) 

z

z

z
EPA 841-B-07-002 7-4 July 2007 

Channelization Dams Streambanks 

Physical & chemical 

Instream/riparian restoration 

Erosion control 

Runoff control 

Chemical/pollutant control 

Watershed protection 

Aerate reservoir water 

Improve tailwater oxygen 

Restore/maintain habitat 

Maintain fish passage 

Vegetative 

Structural 

Integrated 

Planning & regulatory 

Live Cribwalls (7-54) 

z

z

z

z

Live Fascines (7-56) 

z

z

z

z

Live Staking (7-58) 

z

z

z

z

Locate Potential Land Disturbing Activities Away from Critical Areas (7-60) 

z

z

z

Marsh Creation and Restoration (7-61) 

z

z

Modifying Operational Procedures (7-62) 

z

Mulching (7-63) 

z

Noneroding Roadways (7-64) 

z

z

z

Pesticide and Fertilizer Management (7-67)

z

Phase Construction (7-69) 

z

Physical Barriers (7-70)

z

Pollutant Runoff Control (7-72) 

z

Preserve Onsite Vegetation (7-73) 

z

z

Reregulation Weir (7-74) 

z

Reservoir Aeration (7-75) 

z

Retaining Walls (7-77) 

z

z

Return Walls (7-78) 

z

z

z

Revegetate (7-79) 

z
EPA 841-B-07-002 7-5 July 2007 

Channelization Dams Streambanks 

Physical & chemical 

Instream/riparian restoration 

Erosion control 

Runoff control 

Chemical/pollutant control 

Watershed protection 

Aerate reservoir water 

Improve tailwater oxygen 

Restore/maintain habitat 

Maintain fish passage 

Vegetative 

Structural 

Integrated 

Planning & regulatory 

Revetment (7-80) 

z

z

z

z

Riparian Improvements (7-82) 

z

z

z

z

Riprap (7-83) 

z

z

z

z

Root Wad Revetments (7-84) 

z

z

z

z

Rosgen’s Stream Classification Method (7-86) 

z

z

z

Scheduling Projects (7-88)

z

Sediment Basins/Rock Dams (7-89)

z

Sediment Fences (7-91) 

z

z

Sediment Traps (7-92) 

z

Seeding (7-93)

z

Selective Withdrawal (7-94) 

z

Setbacks (7-95)

z

z

z

Shoreline Sensitivity Assessment (7-97) Site Fingerprinting (7-99) 

z

Sodding (7-100) 

z

Soil Protection (7-101) 

z

Spill and Water Budgets (7-102) 

z

Spill Prevention and Control Program (7-103)

z

Spillway Modifications (7-104) 

z

z

Surface Roughening (7-105) 

z
EPA 841-B-07-002 7-6 July 2007 

Channelization Dams Streambanks 

Physical & chemical 

Instream/riparian restoration 

Erosion control 

Runoff control 

Chemical/pollutant control 

Watershed protection 

Aerate reservoir water 

Improve tailwater oxygen 

Restore/maintain habitat 

Maintain fish passage 

Vegetative 

Structural 

Integrated 

Planning & regulatory 

Toe Protection (7-106) 

z

z

z

Training—ESC (7-107) 

z

Transference of Fish Runs (7-108) 

z

Tree Armoring, Fencing, and Retaining Walls or Tree Wells (7-109) 

z

Tree Revetments (7-110) 

z

z

z

z

Turbine Operation (7-112) 

z

Turbine Venting (7-113) 

z

Vegetated Buffers (7-114) 

z

z

z

z

z

Vegetated Filter Strips (7-115) 

z

z

Vegetated Gabions (7-116) 

z

z

z

z

Vegetated Geogrids (7-118) 

z

z

z

z

Vegetated Reinforced Soil Slope (VRSS) (7-120) 

z

z

z

z

Water Conveyances (7-121) 

z

Wildflower Cover (7-122) 

z

Wind Erosion Controls (7-123) 

z

Wing Deflectors (7-124) 

z

z

z
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-7 July 2007 

Advanced Hydroelectric Turbines 

Hydroelectric turbines can be designed to reduce impacts 

to juvenile fish passing through the turbine as it operates. 

Most research on advanced hydroelectric turbines is being 

carried out by power producers in the Columbia River 

basin (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and public 

utility districts) who are looking to improve the survival of 

hydroelectric turbine-passed juvenile fish by modifying the 

operation and design of turbines. Development of low 

impact turbines is also being pursued on a national scale by 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (Cada, 2001). 

In the last few years, field studies have shown that 

improvements in the design of turbines have increased the 

survival of juvenile fish. Researchers continue to examine 

the causes and extent of injuries from turbine systems, as 

well as the significance of indirect mortality and the effects 

of turbine passage on adult fish. Overall, improvements in turbine design and operation, and new 

field, laboratory, and modeling techniques to assess turbine-passage survival, are contributing 

towards improving downstream fish passage at hydroelectric power plants (Cada, 2001). 

The redesign of conventional turbines for fish passage has focused on strategies to reduce 

obstructions and to narrow the gaps between moveable elements of the turbine that are thought to 

injure fish. The effects of changes in the number, size, orientation, or shape of the blades that 

make up the runner (the rotating element of a turbine which converts hydraulic energy into 

mechanical energy) are being investigated (Cada, 2001). 

The USACE has put considerable resources into improving turbine passage survival. The 

USACE Turbine Passage Survival Program (TSP) was developed to investigate means to 

improve the survival of juvenile salmon as they pass through turbines located at Columbia and 

Snake River dams. The TSP is organized along three functional elements that are integrated to 

achieve the objectives (Cada, 2001):1

• Biological studies of turbine passage at field sites 

• Hydraulic model investigations 

• Engineering studies of the biological studies, hydraulic components, and optimization of 

turbine operations 

DOE supports development of low impact turbines under the Advanced Hydropower Turbine 

System (AHTS) Program. The AHTS program explores innovative concepts for turbine design 

that will have environmental benefits and maintain efficient electrical generation. The AHTS 

program awarded contracts for conceptual designs of advanced turbines to different 

firms/companies. Early in the development of conceptual designs, it became clear that there were 

 

1

 Additional information about USACE efforts with advanced hydroelectric turbines is available at 

http://hydropower.inel.gov/turbines/pdfs/amfishsoc-fall2001.pdf.

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

 Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-8 July 2007 

significant gaps in the knowledge of fish responses to physical stresses (injury mechanisms) 

experienced during turbine passage. Consequently, the AHTS program expanded its activities to 

include studies to develop biological criteria for turbines (Cada, 2001).2

 

2

 Additional information about DOE efforts with advanced hydroelectric turbines is available at 

http://hydropower.inel.gov/turbines/pdfs/amfishsoc-fall2001.pdf. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-9 July 2007 

Bank Shaping and Planting 

Bank shaping and planting involve regrading a streambank 

to establish a stable slope angle, placing topsoil and other 

material needed for plant growth on the streambank, and 

selecting and installing appropriate plant species on the 

streambank. This design is most successful on streambanks 

where moderate erosion and channel migration are 

anticipated. Reinforcement at the toe of the bank is often 

required, particularly where flow velocities exceed the 

tolerance range for plantings and where erosion occurs 

below base flows. To determine the appropriate slope 

angle, slope stability analyses that take into account 

streambank materials, groundwater fluctuations, and bank 

loading conditions are recommended (FISRWG, 1998). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: 

Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Bank Shaping and Vegetating. Created for United 

States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science 

Institute. http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/bankshaping.pdf. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-10 July 2007 

Beach Nourishment 

The creation or nourishment of existing beaches provides 

protection to the eroding area and can also provide a 

riparian habitat function, particularly when portions of the 

finished project are planted with beach or dune grasses 

(Woodhouse, 1978). Beach nourishment (Figures 7.1 

through 7.4) requires a readily available source of suitable 

fill material that can be effectively transported to the 

erosion site for reconstruction of the beach (Hobson, 

1977). Dredging or pumping from offshore deposits is the 

method most frequently used to obtain fill material for 

beach nourishment. A second possibility is the mining of 

suitable sand from inland areas and overland hauling and 

dumping by trucks. To restore an eroded beach and 

stabilize it at the restored position, fill is placed directly 

along the eroded sector (USACE, 1984). In most cases, 

plans must be made to periodically obtain and place additional fill on the nourished beach to 

replace sand that is carried offshore into the zone of breaking waves or alongshore in littoral drift 

(Houston, 1991; Pilkey, 1992). 

One important task that should not be 

overlooked in the planning process for 

beach nourishment projects is the proper 

identification and assessment of the 

ecological and hydrodynamic effects of 

obtaining fill material from nearby 

submerged coastal areas. Removal of 

substantial amounts of bottom sediments in 

coastal areas can disrupt populations of 

fish, shellfish, and benthic organisms 

(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, 2002). Grain size analysis 

should be performed on sand from both the 

borrow area and the beach area to be 

nourished. Analysis of grain size should 

include both size and size distribution, and 

fill material should match both of these 

parameters (Stauble, 2005). Fill materials 

should also be analyzed for the presence of 

contaminants, and contaminated sediment 

should not be used (CA Department of 

Boating and Waterways and State Coastal 

Conservancy, 2002). Turbidity levels in the 

overlying waters can also be raised to 

undesirable levels (EUCC, 1999). Certain 

Figure 7.1 Dune Nourishment (CA Dept. of Boating and 

Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002) 

Figure 7.2 Dry Beach Nourishment (CA Dept. of Boating 

and Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002) 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-11 July 2007 

areas may have seasonal restrictions on 

obtaining fill from nearby submerged 

areas (TRB, 2001). Timing of 

nourishment activities is frequently a 

critical factor since the recreational 

demand for beach use frequently 

coincides with the best months for 

completing the beach nourishment. 

These may also be the worst months 

from the standpoint of impacts to 

aquatic life and the beach community 

such as turtles seeking nesting sites. 

Design criteria should include proper 

methods for stabilizing the newly 

created beach and provisions for longterm monitoring of the project to 

document the stability of the newly 

created beach and the recovery of the 

riparian habitat and wildlife in the area. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Barber, D. No date. Beach 

Nourishment Basics.

http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/geomorph/beachnourishmentinfo.html. 

3⁄4 NOAA. No date. Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Coastal Services Center. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment. 

3⁄4 Scottish National Heritage. No date. A Guide to Managing Coastal Erosion in Beach/Dune 

Systems: Beach Nourishment. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/

heritagemanagement/erosion/appendix_1.7.shtml. 

Figure 7.3 Profile Nourishment (CA Dept. of Boating and 

Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002) 

Figure 7.4 Nearshore Bar Nourishment (CA Dept. of Boating 

and Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-12 July 2007 

Behavioral Barriers 

Behavioral barriers use fish responses to external stimuli to 

keep fish away from intakes or to attract them to a bypass. 

Since fish behavior is notably variable both within and 

among species, behavioral barriers cannot be expected to 

prevent all fish from entering hydropower intakes. 

Environmental conditions such as high turbidity levels can 

obscure some behavioral barriers, such as lighting systems 

and curtains. Competing behaviors such as feeding or 

predator avoidance can also be a factor influencing the 

effectiveness of behavioral barriers at a particular time. 

Electric screens, bubble and chain curtains, light, sound, 

and water jets have been evaluated in laboratory or field 

studies and show mixed results. Despite numerous studies, 

very few permanent applications of behavioral barriers 

have been realized (EPRI, 1999). Some authors suggest 

using behavioral barriers in combination with physical barriers (Mueller et al., 1999). 

Electrical screens keep fish away from structures and guide them into bypass areas for removal. 

Fish seem to respond to the electrical stimulus best when water velocities are low. Tests of an 

electrical guidance system at the Chandler Canal diversion (Yakima River, Washington) showed 

efficiency ranging from 70 to 84 percent for velocities of less than 1 ft/sec. Efficiencies 

decreased to less than 50 percent when water velocities were higher than 2 ft/sec (Pugh et al., 

1971). Success of electrical screens may be specific to species and fish size. An electrical field 

strength suitable to deter small fish may result in injury or death to large fish, since total fish 

body voltage is directly proportional to fish body length (Stone and Webster, 1986). Electrical 

screens require constant maintenance of electrodes and associated underwater hardware to 

maintain effectiveness. Surface water quality can affect the life and performance of electrodes. 

Bubble and chain curtains are created by pumping air through a diffuser to create a continuous, 

dense curtain of bubbles, which can cause an avoidance response. Many factors affect fish 

response to the curtains, including temperature, turbidity, light, and water velocity. Bubbler 

systems should be constructed from corrosion-resistant materials and be installed with adequate 

positioning of the diffuser away from areas where siltation might clog the air ducts. Hanging 

chains provide a physical, visible obstacle that fish avoid. They are species-specific and 

lifestage-specific. Efficiency of hanging chains is affected by such variables as velocity, instream 

flow, turbidity, and illumination levels. Debris can limit their performance. In particular, buildup 

of debris can deflect chains into a nonuniform pattern and disrupt hydraulic flow patterns. 

Strobe lights repel fish by producing an avoidance response. A strobe light system at Saunders 

Generating Station in Ontario, Canada was found to be 67 to 92 percent effective at repelling or 

diverting eels (EPRI, 1999). Turbidity levels can affect strobe light efficiency. The intensity and 

duration of the flash can also affect the response of the fish; for instance, an increase in flash 

duration has been associated with less avoidance. Strobe lights have the potential for far-field 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-13 July 2007 

fish attraction, since they can appear to fish as a constant light source due to light attenuation 

over a long distance (Stone and Webster, 1986). Strobe lights at Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in 

Seattle, Washington were examined to determine how fish respond, depending on strobe light 

distance. Vertical avoidance was 90 to 100 percent when lights were 0.5 meters away, 45 percent 

when 2.5 meters away, and 19 percent when 4.5 to 6.5 meters away (EPRI, 1999). 

Mercury lights have successfully attracted fish to passage systems and repelled them from dams. 

Studies suggest their effectiveness is species-specific; alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) were 

attracted to mercury light, whereas coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) displayed no attraction to the light (Stone and Webster, 1986). In a test 

on the Susquehanna River (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York), mercury lights attracted 

gizzard shad (OTA, 1995). Although results have been mixed, low overall cost of the systems 

has led to continued research on their effectiveness (Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., 2000). 

Underwater sound, broadcast at different frequencies and amplitudes, has been effective in 

attracting fish away from dams or repelling fish from dangers around dams, although the results 

of field tests are not consistent. Fish have been attracted, repelled, or guided by the sound. A 

study prepared for DOE showed that low-frequency, high particle motion was effective at 

invoking flight and avoidance responses in salmonids (Mueller et al., 1998). These finding agree 

with Knudsen et al. (1994), who found that low frequencies are efficient for evoking awareness 

reactions and avoidance responses in juvenile Atlantic salmon. Not all fish possess the ability to 

perceive sound or localized acoustical sources (Harris and Van Bergeijk, 1962). Fish also 

frequently seem to become habituated to the sound source. 

Poppers are pneumatic sound generators that create a high-energy acoustic output to repel fish. 

Poppers have effectively repelled warm-water fish from water intakes. Laboratory and field 

studies in California indicate avoidance by several freshwater species such as alewives (Alosa 

pseudoharengus), perch, and smelt. Salmonids do not seem to be effectively repelled (Stone and 

Webster, 1986). Operation and maintenance considerations include frequent replacement of “O” 

rings, air entrainment in water inlets, and vibration of structures associated with the inlets. 

Water jet curtains create hydraulic conditions that repel fish. Effectiveness is influenced by the 

angle at which water is jetted. Although effectiveness averages 75 percent (Stone and Webster, 

1986), not enough is known to determine what variables affect performance of water jet curtains. 

Important operation and maintenance concerns would be clogging of the jet nozzles by debris or 

rust and the acceptable range of stream flow conditions, which contribute to effective results. 

Hybrid barriers or combinations of different barriers can enhance the effectiveness of individual 

behavioral barriers. Laboratory studies showed a chain net barrier combined with strobe lights to 

be up to 90 percent effective at repelling some species and sizes of fish. Tests of combining ropenet and chain-rope barriers have shown good results. Barriers with horizontal and vertical 

components in the water column are more effective than those with vertical components alone. 

Barriers with a large diameter are more effective than those with a small diameter, and thicker 

barriers are more effective than thinner barriers. Effectiveness of hanging chains was increased 

when used in combination with strobe lights. Effectiveness also increased when strobe lights 

were added to air bubble curtains and poppers (Stone and Webster, 1986). 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-14 July 2007 

Branch Packing 

Branch packing consists of alternating layers of live 

branch cuttings and compacted backfill to repair small, 

localized slumps and holes in slopes (Figure 7.5). Live 

branch cuttings may range from 0.5 to 2 inches in 

diameter. They should be long enough to touch 

undisturbed soil at the back of the trench and extend 

slightly outward from the rebuilt slope face. Wooden 

stakes should be 5 to 8 feet long, depending on the depth 

of the slump or hole being repaired. Stakes should also be 

made from poles that are 

3 to 4 inches in diameter or 2 by 4 feet lumber. Live posts 

can be substituted. As plant tops begin to grow, the branch 

packing system becomes more effective in retarding runoff 

and reducing surface erosion. Trapped sediment refills the 

localized slumps or holes, while roots spread throughout 

the backfill and surrounding earth to form a unified mass. 

Branch packing is not effective in slump areas greater than 4 feet deep or 5 feet wide (USDANRCS, 1992). Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil Bioengineering 

Guide (USDA-FS, 2002) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) 

Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 18 (USDA-NRCS, 1992). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream 

Corridor Restoration: 

Principles, Processes, and 

Practices. Federal Interagency 

Stream Restoration Working 

Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

technical/stream_restoration/

PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control 

Streambank Erosion: 

Branchpacking. Iowa State 

University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/

erosion/manuals/streambank/

branchpacking.pdf. Figure 7.5 Branch Packing (USDA-FS, 2002) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-15 July 2007 

Breakwaters 

Breakwaters are wave energy barriers designed to protect 

the land or nearshore area behind them from the direct 

assault of waves. Breakwaters have traditionally been used 

only for harbor protection and navigational purposes; in 

recent years, however, designs of shore-parallel segmented 

breakwaters have been used for shore protection purposes 

(Fulford, 1985; Hardaway and Gunn, 1989; Hardaway and 

Gunn, 1991; USACE, 1990). Segmented breakwaters can 

be used to provide protection over longer sections of 

shoreline than is generally affordable through the use of 

bulkheads or revetments. Wave energy is able to pass 

through the breakwater gaps, allowing for the maintenance 

of some level of longshore sediment transport, as well as 

mixing and flushing of the sheltered waters behind the 

structures. The cost per foot of shore for the installation of 

segmented offshore breakwaters is generally competitive 

with the costs of stone revetments and bulkheads (Hardaway et al., 1991). 

Figure 7.6 provides a view of breakwaters off the coast of Pennsylvania and Figure 7.7 illustrates 

single and multiple breakwaters. 

Figure 7.6 Breakwaters – View of Presque Isle, Pennsylvania (USACE, 2003) 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-16 July 2007 

 Figure 7.7 Single and Multiple Breakwaters (USACE, 2003) 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 USACE. No date. Breakwaters. 

http://www.usna.edu/NAOE/courses/en420/bonnette/breakwater_design.html. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-17 July 2007 

Brush Layering 

Brush layering consists of placing live branch cuttings 

interspersed between layers of soil on cut slopes or fill 

slopes (Figures 7.8 and 7.9). These systems are 

recommended on slopes up to 2:1 in steepness and not to 

exceed 15 feet in vertical height. Branch cuttings, which 

are placed in a crisscross or overlapping pattern, should be 

long enough to reach the back of the bench and still 

protrude from the bank (growing tips facing the outside of 

the slope). The portions of the brush that protrude from the 

slope face assist in retarding runoff and reducing surface 

erosion. Backfill is then placed on the branches and 

compacted. 

Brush layering can be used to stabilize a slope against 

shallow sliding or mass wasting, as well as to provide 

erosion protection. Brush layers can stabilize and reinforce 

the outside edge or face of drained earthen buttresses placed against cut slopes or embankment 

fills. Brush layering works better on fill slopes than cut slopes, because much longer stems can 

be used in fill (Mississippi State University, 1999). It is most applicable for areas subjected to cut 

or fill operations or areas that are highly disturbed and/or eroded (ECY, 2007) 

Brush layering is somewhat similar to live fascine systems because both involve the cutting and 

placement of live branch cuttings on slopes. The two techniques differ principally in the 

orientation of the branches and the depth to which they are placed in the slope. In brush layering, 

the cuttings are oriented more or less perpendicular to the slope contour. In live fascine systems, 

the cuttings are oriented more or less parallel to the slope contour. The perpendicular orientation 

is more effective from the point of view of earth reinforcement and mass stability of the slope 

(USDA-NRCS, 1992). Thus, brush 

layering is more effective than live 

fascines in terms of earth 

reinforcement and mass stability 

(Mississippi State University, 1999). 

When used on a fill slope, brush 

layering is similar to vegetated 

geogrids, except the technique does 

not use geotextile fabric (USDA-FS, 

2002). 

Brush layering can disrupt native 

soils. Therefore, installation should 

be completed in phases and no more 

area should be excavated than is 

necessary (ECY, 2007). Figure 7.8 Brush Layering: Plan View (USDA-FS, 2002) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-18 July 2007 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, 

Center for Sustainable Design. 

1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the 

Landscape: Brush Layering.

Created for United States 

Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, Watershed Science 

Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/

csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/

bank/brushlayer.pdf. 

3⁄4 Myers, R.D. 1993. Slope 

Stabilization and Erosion 

Control Using Vegetation: A 

Manual of Practice for Coastal Property Owners: Brush Layering. Shorelands and Coastal Zone 

Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. Publication 93-30. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/brush.html. 

3⁄4 Walter, J., D. Hughes, and N.J. Moore. 2005. Streambank Revegetation and Protection: A Guide 

for Alaska. Revegetation Techniques: Brush/Hedge – Brush Layering. Revised Edition. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish.

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/restoration/techniques/hedgebrush.cfm.

Figure 7.9 Brush Layering: Fill Method (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-19 July 2007 

Brush Mattressing 

Brush mattressing is commonly used in Europe for 

streambank protection (Figure 7.10). It involves digging a 

slight depression on the bank and creating a mat or 

mattress from woven wire or single strands of wire and 

live, freshly cut branches from sprouting trees or shrubs. 

Branches approximately 1 inch in diameter are normally 

cut 6 to 9 feet long (the height of the bank to be covered) 

and laid in criss-cross layers with the butts in alternating 

directions to create a uniform mattress with few voids. The 

mattress is then covered with wire secured with wooden 

stakes 2.5 to 4 feet long. It is then covered with soil and 

watered repeatedly to fill voids with soil and facilitate 

sprouting; however, some branches should be left partially 

exposed on the surface. The structure may require 

protection from undercutting by placement of stones or 

burial of the lower edge. Brush mattresses are generally 

resistant to waves and currents and provide protection from the digging out of plants by animals. 

Disadvantages include possible burial with sediment in some situations and difficulty in making 

later plantings through the mattress. 

Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 

2002). Under the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (EMRRP), the 

USACE has presented research on brush mattresses in a technical note (Brush Mattresses for 

Streambank Erosion Control).3

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Allen, H.H. and C. Fischenich. 2001. Brush Mattresses for Streambank Erosion Control. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr23.pdf. 

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Brushmattress. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/brushmattress.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Brush Mattress. Created for United States Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/brushmattress.pdf. 

 

3 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr23.pdf

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-20 July 2007 

Figure 7.10 Brush Mattress (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-21 July 2007 

Bulkheads and Seawalls 

Bulkheads (Figure 7.11) are primarily soil-retaining 

structures designed to also resist wave attack. Seawalls are 

principally structures designed to resist wave attack, but 

they also may retain some soil (USACE, 1984). Both 

bulkheads and seawalls may be built of many materials, 

including steel, timber, or aluminum sheet pile, gabions, or 

rubble-mound structures. Although bulkheads and seawalls 

protect the upland area against further erosion and land 

loss, they often create a local problem. Downward forces 

of water, produced by waves striking the wall, can produce 

a transfer of wave energy and rapidly remove sand from 

the wall (Pilkey and Wright, 1988). A stone apron is often 

necessary to prevent scouring and undermining. With 

vertical protective structures built from treated wood, there 

are also concerns about the leaching of chemicals used in 

the wood preservatives. Chromated copper arsenate 

(CCA), the most 

popular chemical used for 

treating the wood used in 

docks, pilings, and bulkheads, 

contains elements of 

chromium, copper, and arsenic 

that are toxic above trace levels 

(CSWRCB, 2005; Kahler et al., 

2000). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Scottish National Heritage. 

No date. A Guide to 

Managing Coastal Erosion 

in Beach/Dune Systems: 

Seawalls. 

http://www.snh.org.uk/

publications/on-line/

heritagemanagement/

erosion/appendix_1.12.shtml. 

3⁄4 USACE. No date. Bulkheads 

and Seawalls.

http://www.usna.edu/NAOE/

courses/en420/bonnette/Seawall_Design.html. 

Figure 7.11 Typical Bulkhead Types (USACE, 2003) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-22 July 2007 

Check Dams 

Check dams, a type of grade control structure, are small 

dams constructed across an influent, intermittent stream, or 

drainageway to reduce channel erosion by restricting flow 

velocity. They can serve as emergency or temporary 

measures in small eroding channels that will be filled or 

permanently stabilized at a later date. Check dams can be 

installed in eroding gullies as permanent measures that fill 

up with sediment over time. In permanent usage, when the 

impounded area is filled, a relatively level surface or delta 

is formed over which water flows at a noneroding gradient. 

The water then cascades over the dam through a spillway 

onto a hardened apron. A series of check dams may be 

constructed along a stream channel of comparatively steep 

slope or gradient to create a channel consisting of a 

succession of gentle slopes with cascades in between. 

Check dams can be nonporous (constructed from concrete, sheet steel, or wet masonry) or porous 

(using available materials such as straw bales, rock, brush, wire netting, boards, and posts). 

Porous dams release part of the flow through the structure, decreasing the head of flow over the 

spillway and the dynamic and hydrostatic forces against the dam. Nonporous dams are durable, 

permanent, and more expensive, while porous dams are simpler, more economical to construct, 

and temporary. Maintenance of check dams is important, especially the areas to the sides of the 

dam. Regular inspections, particularly after high flow events, should be performed to observe 

and repair erosion at the sides of the check dams. Excessive erosion could dislodge the check 

dam, create additional channel erosion, and add more sediment to the streambed. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Check Dams. California 

Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/SE-4.pdf. 

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Check Dam. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.3_check_dam.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Check Dam. Created for United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/water/erosion/checkdam.pdf. 

3⁄4 SMRC. No date. Stream Restoration: Grade Control Practices. The Stormwater Manager’s 

Resource Center. 

http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Restoration/grade_control.htm. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Check Dams. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, 

TN. http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/cd.pdf. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-23 July 2007 

Coconut Fiber Roll

The coconut fiber roll technique consists of cylindrical 

structures composed of coconut husk fibers held together 

with twine woven from coconut material (Figures 7.12 and 

7.13). The fiber rolls are typically manufactured in 12-inch 

diameters and lengths of 20 feet, which serves to protect 

slopes from erosion, trap sediment, and as a result, 

encourage plant growth within the fiber roll. The system is 

typically installed near the toe of the streambank with 

dormant cuttings and rooted plants inserted into holes cut 

into the fiber rolls. Once installed, the system provides a 

good substrate for promoting plant growth and is 

appropriate where short-term moderate toe stabilization is 

needed. Installation of this design requires minimal site 

disturbance and is ideal for sites that are especially 

sensitive to disturbance. A limitation of this system is that 

it cannot withstand high velocities or large ice buildup, and 

it can be fairly expensive to construct. Coconut fiber rolls have an effective life of 6 to 10 years. 

In some locations, similar and abundant locally available materials, such as corn stalks, are being 

used instead of coconut materials (FISRWG, 1998). 

Installation guidelines are available from the USDAFS Soil Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 2002). 

Under EMRRP, the USACE has presented research 

on coconut rolls in a technical note (Coir Geotextile 

Roll and Wetland Plants for Streambank Erosion 

Control), which is available at 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr04.pdf. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP 

Construction Handbook: Fiber Rolls. California 

Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/

Construction/SE-5.pdf. 

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Coconut Fiber Rolls. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/coconut_fiber.pdf. 

Figure 7.12 Coconut Fiber Roll 

(Montgomery Watson, 2001) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-24 July 2007 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Coconut Fiber Roll. Created for United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute.

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/coconutfiberroll.pdf. 

Figure 7.13 Coconut Fiber Roll (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-25 July 2007 

Collection Systems 

Collection systems involve capture of fish by screening 

and/or netting followed with transport by truck or barge to 

a downstream location. Since the late 1970s, the USACE 

has successfully implemented a program that takes juvenile 

salmon from the uppermost dams in the Columbia River 

system (Pacific Northwest) and transports them by barge or 

truck to below the last dam. The program improves the 

travel time of fish through the river system, reduces most 

of the exposure to reservoir predators, and eliminates the 

mortality associated with passing through a series of 

turbines (van der Borg and Ferguson, 1989). Survivability 

rates for the collected fish are in excess of 95 percent, as 

opposed to survival rates of about 60 percent when the fish 

remain in the river system and pass through the dams 

(Dodge, 1989). However, the collection efficiency can 

range from 70 percent to as low as 30 percent. At the 

McNary Dam on the Columbia River, spill budgets are also implemented to improve overall 

passage (discussed in greater detail below) when the collection rate achieves less than 70 percent 

efficiency (Dodge, 1989). 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 Chelan County Public Utility District. No date. Juvenile Fish Bypass. 

http://www.chelanpud.org/juvenile-fish-passage.html. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-26 July 2007 

Construct Runoff Intercepts

Benches, terraces, or ditches break up a slope by providing 

areas of low slope in the reverse direction. This keeps 

water from proceeding down the slope at increasing 

volume and velocity. Instead, the flow is directed to a 

suitable outlet or protected drainage system. The frequency 

of benches, terraces, or ditches will depend on the 

erodibility of the soils, steepness and length of the slope, 

and rock outcrops. This practice can be used if there is a 

potential for erosion along the slope. 

Earth dikes, perimeter dikes or swales, or diversions can 

intercept and convey runoff from above disturbed areas to 

undisturbed areas or drainage systems. An earth dike is a 

temporary berm or ridge of compacted soil that channels 

water to a desired location. A perimeter dike/swale or 

diversion is a swale with a supporting ridge on the lower 

side that is constructed from the soil excavated from the adjoining swale (Delaware DNREC, 

2003). These practices can intercept flow from denuded areas or newly seeded areas and keep 

clean runoff away from disturbed areas. The structures can be stabilized within 14 days of 

installation. A pipe slope drain, also known as a pipe drop structure, is a temporary pipe placed 

from the top of a slope to the bottom of the slope to convey concentrated runoff down the slope 

without causing erosion (Delaware DNREC, 2003). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Earth Dikes and Drainage 

Swales. California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/EC-9.pdf. 

3⁄4 Fifield, J. 2000. Design and Implementation of Runoff Control Structures: Diversion Dikes and 

Swales. http://www.forester.net/ec_0001_design.html#diversion. 

3⁄4 Lake Superior/Duluth Streams. 2005. Grassed Swales.

http://www.duluthstreams.org/stormwater/toolkit/swales.html. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-27 July 2007 

Constructed Spawning Beds 

When a dam adversely affects the aquatic habitat of an 

anadromous fish species, one option may be to construct 

replacement spawning beds. Additional facilities such as 

electric barriers, fish ladders, or bypass channels would be 

required to channel the fish to these spawning beds. 

Merz et al., (2004) tested whether spawning bed 

enhancement increases survival and growth of Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) embryos in a 

regulated stream with a gravel deficit. The authors also 

examined a dozen physical parameters correlated with 

spawning sites (e.g., stream velocity, average turbidity, 

distance from the dam) and how they predicted survival 

and growth of Chinook salmon and steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). The results suggest that spawning 

bed enhancement can improve embryo survival in 

degraded habitat. Measuring observed physical parameters before and after spawning bed 

manipulation can also accurately predict benefits. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA’s) Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

and California (1998) states that artificial spawning beds for ocean-type Chinook salmon 

operated near three different dams was discontinued because of high pre-spawning mortality in 

adult fish and poor egg survival in the spawning beds. Success of constructed spawning beds in 

increasing survival and development of fish varies and often depends on the site. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

; Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-28 July 2007 

Construction Management 

Construction areas can be managed properly to control 

erosion by stabilizing entrances and proper traffic routing. 

A construction entrance is a pad of gravel or rock over 

filter cloth located where traffic enters and leaves a 

construction site. As construction vehicles drive over the 

gravel, mud and sediment are collected from the vehicles’ 

wheels. To maximize effectiveness, the rock pad should be 

at least 50 feet long and 10 to 12 feet wide. The gravel 

should be 1- to 2-inch aggregate 6 inches deep laid over a 

layer of filter fabric. Maintenance might include pressure 

washing the gravel to remove accumulated sediment and 

adding more rock to maintain thickness. Runoff from this 

entrance should be treated before exiting the site. This 

practice can be combined with a designated truck washdown station to ensure sediment is not transported off-site. 

Where possible, construction traffic should be directed to avoid existing or newly planted 

vegetation. Instead, it should be directed over areas that must be disturbed for other construction 

activity. This practice reduces the net total area that is cleared and susceptible to erosion. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Stabilized Construction 

Entrance/Exit. California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/TR-1.pdf. 

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Stabilized Construction Entrance.

Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.14_stabilized_entrance.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-29 July 2007 

Dormant Post Plantings 

Dormant post plantings include planting of either 

cottonwood, willow, poplar, or other sprouting species 

embedded vertically into streambanks to increase channel 

roughness, reduce flow velocities near the slope face, and 

trap sediment (Figure 7.14). Dormant posts are made up of 

large cuttings installed in streambanks in square or 

triangular patterns. Live posts should be 7 to 20 feet long 

and 3 to 5 inches in diameter. This method is effective for 

quickly establishing riparian vegetation particularly in arid 

regions. By decreasing near bank flow velocities, this 

design causes sediment deposition and reduces streambank 

erosion. This design is more resistant to erosion than live 

staking or similar designs that use smaller cuttings. 

Success of this design is most likely on streambanks that 

are not gravel dominated and where ice build up is not 

common. The exclusion of certain herbivores aids in the 

success of this design. This method should be combined with other soil 

bioengineering techniques to achieve a comprehensive streambank restoration design (FISRWG, 

1998). Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil Bioengineering Guide 

(USDA-FS, 2002). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. 

Stream Corridor 

Restoration: 

Principles, Processes, 

and Practices.

Federal Interagency 

Stream Restoration 

Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.

gov/technical/

stream_restoration/

PDFFILES/

APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to 

Control Streambank 

Erosion: Dormant 

Post Plantings. Iowa 

State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/dormant_post.pdf. 

Figure 7.14 Live Posts (USDA-FS, 2002) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-30 July 2007 

Encourage Drainage Protection 

A complete understanding of watershed protection should 

include the implementation of practices that guide future 

development and land use activities. This will not only 

help to identify existing sources of NPS pollution but also 

to prevent future impairments that may impact dam 

construction or operations and reservoir management. 

Watershed protection practices can include zoning for 

natural resource protection. Several zoning techniques are: 

• Use cluster zoning and planned unit development 

• Consider resource protection zones 

• Practice performance-based zoning 

• Establish overlay zones 

• Establish bonus or incentive zoning 

• Consider large lot zoning 

• Practice agricultural protection zoning 

• Use watershed-based zoning 

• Delineate urban growth boundaries 

More details about these techniques and case studies can be found in Protecting Wetlands: Tools 

for Local Governments in the Chesapeake Bay Region (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1997). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

; Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-31 July 2007 

Equipment Runoff Control 

During construction and maintenance activities at dams, 

equipment and machinery can be a potential source of 

pollution to the surface and ground water. Thinners or 

solvents should not be discharged into sanitary or storm 

sewer systems or into surface water systems, when 

cleaning machinery. Use alternative methods for cleaning 

larger equipment parts, such as high-pressure, 

high-temperature water washes or steam cleaning. 

Equipment-washing detergents can be used and wash water 

appropriately discharged. Small parts should be cleaned 

with degreasing solvents that can be reused or recycled. 

Washout from concrete trucks should never be dumped 

directly into surface waters or into a drainage leading to 

surface waters but can be disposed of into: 

• A designated area that will later be backfilled 

• An area where the concrete wash can harden, can be broken up, and can then be 

appropriately disposed 

• A location not subject to surface water runoff and more than 50 feet away from a 

receiving water 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

; Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-32 July 2007 

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plans 

ESC plans are important for controlling the adverse 

impacts of dam construction. ESC plans ensure that 

provisions for control measures are incorporated into the 

site planning stage of development. ESC plans also provide 

for prevention of erosion and sediment problems and 

accountability if a problem occurs (MDEP, 1990). In many 

municipalities, ESC plans are required under ordinances 

enacted to protect water resources. These plans describe 

the activities construction and maintenance personnel will 

use to reduce soil erosion and contain and treat runoff that 

is carrying eroded sediments. ESC plans typically include 

descriptions and locations of soil stabilization practices, 

perimeter controls, and runoff treatment facilities that will 

be installed and maintained before and during construction 

activities. In addition to special area considerations, the full 

ESC plan review inventory should include: 

• Topographic and vicinity maps 

• Site development plan 

• Construction schedule 

• Erosion and sedimentation control plan drawings 

• Detailed drawings and specifications for practices 

• Design calculations 

• Vegetation plan 

• Detailed drawings and specifications for control or management practices 

Some erosion and soil loss is unavoidable during land-disturbing activities. Although proper 

siting and design help prevent areas prone to erosion from being developed, construction 

activities invariably produce conditions where erosion can occur. To reduce the adverse impacts 

associated with construction activities at dams, the construction management measure suggests a 

system of nonstructural and structural ESCs for incorporation into an ESC plan. 

Nonstructural controls address erosion control by decreasing erosion potential, whereas 

structural controls are both preventive and mitigative because they control erosion and sediment 

movement. Brown and Caraco (1997) identified several general objectives that should be 

addressed in an effective ESC plan: 

• Minimize clearing and grading – clearing and grading should occur only where 

absolutely necessary to build and provide access to structures and infrastructure. Clearing 

should be done immediately before construction, rather than leaving soils exposed for 

months or years (SQI, 2000). 

• Protect waterways and stabilize drainage ways – all natural waterways within a 

development site should be clearly identified before construction activities begin. 

Clearing should generally be prohibited in or adjacent to waterways. Sediment control 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

; Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-33 July 2007 

practices such as check dams might be needed to stabilize drainage ways and retain 

sediment on-site. 

• Phase construction to limit soil exposure – construction phasing is a process where only a 

portion of the site is disturbed at any one time to complete the required building in that 

phase. Other portions of the site are not cleared and graded until exposed soils from the 

earlier phase have been stabilized and the construction nearly completed. 

• Stabilize exposed soils immediately – seeding or other stabilization practices should occur 

as soon as possible after grading. In colder climates, a mulch cover is needed to stabilize 

the soil during the winter months when grass does not grow or grows poorly.

• Protect steep slopes and cuts - wherever possible, clearing and grading of existing steep 

slopes should be completely avoided. If clearing cannot be avoided, practices should be 

implemented to prevent runoff from flowing down slopes. 

• Install perimeter controls to filter sediments – perimeter controls are used to retain 

sediment-laden runoff or filter it before it exits the site. The two most common perimeter 

control options are silt fences and earthen dikes or diversions. 

• Employ advanced sediment-settling controls – traditional sediment basins are limited in 

their ability to trap sediments because fine-grained particles tend to remain suspended 

and the design of the basin themselves is often simplistic. Sediment basins can be 

designed to improve trapping efficiency through the use of perforated risers; better 

internal geometry; the installation of baffles, skimmers, and other outlet devices; gentler 

side slopes; and multiple-cell construction. 

ESC plans ensure that provisions for control measures that are incorporated into the site planning 

stage of development help to reduce the incidence of erosion and sediment problems, and 

improve accountability if a problem occurs. An effective plan for runoff management on 

construction sites controls erosion, retains sediments on-site to the extent practicable, and 

reduces the adverse effects of runoff. Climate, topography, soils, drainage patterns, and 

vegetation affect how erosion and sediment should be controlled on a site (Washington State 

Department of Ecology, 1989). 

ESC plans should be flexible to account for unexpected events that occur after the plans have 

been approved, including: 

• Discrepancies between planned and as-built grades 

• Weather conditions 

• Altered drainage 

• Unforeseen construction requirements 

Changes to an ESC plan should be made based on regular inspections that identify whether the 

ESC practices were appropriate or properly installed or maintained. Inspecting an ESC practice 

after storm events shows whether the practice was installed or maintained properly. Such 

inspections also show whether a practice requires cleanout, repair, reinforcement, or replacement 

with a more appropriate practice. Inspecting after storms is the best way to ensure that ESC 

practices remain in place and effective at all times during construction activities. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-34 July 2007 

Because funding for ESC programs is not always dedicated, budgetary and staffing constraints 

may thwart effective program implementation. Brown and Caraco (1997) recommend several 

management techniques to ensure that ESC programs are properly administered: 

• Local leadership committed to the ESC program 

• Redeployment of existing staff from the office to the field or training room 

• Cross-training of local review and inspection staff 

• Submission of erosion prevention elements for early planning reviews. 

• Prioritization of inspections based on erosion risk 

• Requirement of designers to certify the initial installation of ESC practices 

• Investment in contractor certification and private inspector programs 

• Use of public-sector construction projects to demonstrate effective ESC controls 

• Enlistment of the talents of developers and engineering consultants in the ESC program 

• Revision and update of the local ESC manual 

An allowance item that acts as an additional “insurance policy” for complying with the erosion 

and sediment control plan can be added to bid or contract documents (Deering, 2000a). This 

allowance covers costs to repair storm damage to ESC measures as specified in the ESC plan. 

This allowance does not cover storm damage to property that is not related to the ESC plan, 

because this would be covered under traditional liability insurance. Damage caused by severe 

and continuous rain events, windblown objects, fallen trees or limbs, or high-velocity, short-term 

rain events on steep slopes and existing grades would be covered by the allowance, as would 

deterioration from exposure to the elements or excessive maintenance for silt removal. The 

contractor is responsible for being in compliance with the ESC plan by properly implementing 

and maintaining all specified measures and structures. The allowance does not cover damage to 

practices caused by improper installation or maintenance. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Infiltration Basin and Trench. Iowa 

State University. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/4.1_infiltration.pdf.

3⁄4 Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. 2003. Detention & Infiltration Basins. 

http://clean-water.uwex.edu/plan/drbasins.htm. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Vegetative Practices. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 

Nashville, TN. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/2.%20Vegetative%20Practices.pdf. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-35 July 2007 

Erosion Control Blankets 

Turf reinforcement mats (TRMs) combine vegetative 

growth and synthetic materials to form a high-strength mat 

that helps prevent soil erosion in drainage areas and on 

steep slopes (Figure 7.15) (USEPA, 1999). TRMs enhance 

vegetation’s natural ability to protect soil from erosion. 

They are composed of interwoven layers of nondegradable 

geosynthetic materials (e.g., nylon, polypropylene) stitched 

together to form a three-dimensional matrix. They are thick 

and porous enough to allow for soil filling and retention. In 

addition to providing scour protection, the mesh netting of 

TRMs is designed to enhance vegetative root and stem 

development. By protecting the soil from scouring forces 

and enhancing vegetative growth, TRMs can raise the 

threshold of natural vegetation to withstand higher 

hydraulic forces on stabilization slopes, streambanks, and 

channels. In addition to reducing flow velocities, natural vegetation removes particulates through 

sedimentation and soil infiltration and improves site aesthetics. In general, TRMs should not be 

used for the following: 

• To prevent deep-seated slope failure due to causes other than surficial erosion 

• If anticipated hydraulic conditions are beyond the limits of TRMs and natural vegetation 

• Directly beneath drop outlets to dissipate impact force (can be used beyond impact zone) 

• Where wave height might exceed 1 foot (can protect areas upslope of wave impact zone) 

The performance of a TRM-lined conveyance system 

depends on the duration of the runoff event. For 

short-term events, TRMs are typically effective at 

flow velocities of up to 15 feet per second and shear 

stresses of up to 8 lb/ft2

. However, specific highperformance TRMs may be effective under more 

severe hydraulic conditions. Practitioners should 

check with manufacturers for specifications and 

performance limits of different products. Factors 

influencing the cost of TRMs include the type of 

material required, site conditions (e.g., underlying 

soils, slope steepness), and installation-specific 

factors (e.g., local construction costs). TRMs 

typically cost considerably less than concrete and 

riprap solutions. 

Figure 7.15 Erosion Control Blanket 

(Conwed Fibers, n.d.) 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-36 July 2007 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual: Stormwater Best 

Management Practices for Cold Climates. Soil Erosion Control: Mulches, Blankets and Mats.

Prepared for the Metropolitan Council by Barr Engineering Company, St. Paul, MN. 

http://www.metrocouncil.org/Environment/Watershed/BMP/CH3_RPPSoilMulch.pdf. 

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Geotextiles and Mats. 

California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/EC-7.pdf. 

3⁄4 California Department of Transportation. 1999. Soil Stabilization Using Erosion Control 

Blankets. Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Bulletin. Vol. 3, No. 8. California 

Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/publicat/const/Aug_1999.pdf. 

3⁄4 Matthews, M. 1998. What are RECPs? Soil Stabilization Using Erosion Control Blankets. 

Erosion Control Technology Council, St. Paul, MN. http://www.ectc.org/what.html. 

3⁄4 North American Green. 2004. Green Views: Turn Reinforcement Mats as an Alternative to Rock 

Riprap. North American Green, Evansville, IN. 

http://www.nagreen.com/resources/literature/GV_AltToRockRiprap.pdf. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Vegetative Practices: Erosion Control Blanket/Matting. Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/2.%20Vegetative%20Practices.pdf. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-37 July 2007 

Establish and Protect Stream Buffers 

Riparian buffers and wetlands can provide long-term 

pollutant removal capabilities without the comparatively 

high costs usually associated with constructing and 

maintaining structural controls. Conservation or 

preservation of these areas is important to water quality 

protection. Land acquisition programs help to preserve 

areas considered critical to maintaining surface water 

quality. Adequate buffer strips along streambanks provide 

protection for stream ecosystems, help stabilize the stream, 

and can prevent streambank erosion (Holler, 1989). Buffer 

strips can also protect and maintain near-stream vegetation 

that attenuates the release of sediment into stream 

channels. Levels of suspended solids have been shown to 

increase at a slower rate in stream channel sections with 

well-developed riparian vegetation (Holler, 1989). 

Stream buffers should be protected and preserved as a conservation area because these areas 

provide many important functions and benefits, including: 

• Providing a “right-of-way” for lateral movement 

• Conveying floodwaters 

• Protecting streambanks from erosion 

• Treating runoff and reducing drainage problems from adjacent areas 

• Providing nesting areas and other wildlife habitat functions 

• Mitigating stream warming 

• Protecting wetlands 

• Providing recreational opportunities and aesthetic benefits 

• Increasing adjacent property values 

Specific stream buffer practices could include: 

• Establishing a stream buffer ordinance 

• Developing vegetative and use strategies within management zones 

• Establishing provisions for stream buffer crossings 

• Integration of structural runoff management practices where appropriate 

• Developing stream buffer education and awareness programs 

More information on establishing and protecting stream buffers is available from EPA’s National 

Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas,

4

 a document 

for use by state, local, and tribal managers in the implementation of nonpoint source pollution 

management programs. It contains a variety of practices and management activities for reducing 

pollution of surface and ground water from urban areas (USEPA, 2005d).

 

4 http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

; Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

; Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-38 July 2007 

Fish Ladders 

Fish ladders have been a commonly used structure to 

enable the safe upstream and downstream passage of 

mature fish (see Figure 7.16). There are four basic 

designs: pool-weir, Denil, vertical slot, and steeppass. 

Pool-weir fish ladders are one of the oldest and most 

commonly designed fish passage structures, which 

consists of stepped pools and weirs that allow fish to pass 

from pool to pool over the weirs that separate each. Poolweir fish ladders are normally used on slopes of about 10-

degrees. Some pool-weir fish ladders can be modified to 

increase the possible number of fish that are passed by 

including submerged orifices that allow fish to pass the 

fish ladder without cresting the weirs. 

Pool-weir fish ladders will pass many different species of 

fish if they are designed correctly for the environment in which they are employed. OTA (1995) 

provides details on design and operation of various forms of fish ladders. 

Figure 7.16 Fish Ladder at Feather River Hatchery, Oroville Dam, CA (Feather River, n.d.) 

Denil fish ladders are elongated rectangular channels that use internal baffles to dissipate flow 

energy and allow fish passage. They are widely used in the eastern United States due to their 

ability to pass a wide range of species (from salmonids to riverine) over a wider range of flows 

than pool-weir ladders. Denil ladders can be used on slopes from 10 to 25 degrees although 10 to 

15 degrees is optimal. Most Denil fish ladders are 2–4 feet wide and 4–8 feet deep. This fish 

ladder design allows fish to pass at a preferred depth instead of through a jumping action. Denil 

ladders do not have resting areas and therefore fish must either be able to pass the ladder in one 

burst or resting pools must be provided between sections. Resting pools should be provided 

every 16 to 50 feet depending upon the species being passed. The high flow rates and turbulence 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-39 July 2007 

associated with Denil fish ladders reduces the demand for attraction flow, which is commonly 

added to insure good attraction over varying flow rates. 

Vertical slot fish ladders are elongated rectangular channels that use regularly spaced baffles to 

create steps and resting pools. The vertically oriented slots in the baffles allow fish to pass 

through the ladder at a preferred depth. Unlike Denil fishways, vertical slot fishways provide a 

resting area behind each baffle allowing fish to pass in a “burst-rest” manner instead of one 

sustained motion. The channel created by the baffles is off-center making the baffles on one side 

of the ladder wider than the opposing side. Eddies that form behind longer baffles allow fish to 

rest and end the need for resting areas. Although vertical slot ladders are usually operated at 

slopes of about 10 degrees, they can be operated over a larger variety of flows. The vertical slots 

create a water jet that is regulated by the pool on the downstream side of it. This creates a 

uniform, level flow throughout the ladder. 

The steeppass fish ladder, often referred to as the “Alaska steeppass,” is a modified Denil fish 

ladder most commonly used in remote areas for the passage of salmonids. Steeppass fish ladders 

are usually constructed of lightweight materials such as aluminum and can operate on slopes up 

to 33 percent. The construction materials and design allow this type of fish ladder to be deployed 

as a single unit to remote areas. The baffles used in steeppass ladders are more aggressively 

designed, which allow the ladder to more effectively control water flow. The steeppass ladder is 

not without its limitations. Due to their narrow design, steeppass ladders are more susceptible to 

clogging due to debris and changes in flow upstream or downstream of the ladder. 

Although fish ladders can be extremely efficient at passing fish, small changes in design have 

been shown to significantly improve their functionality. A good example of this is the John Day 

Dam located on the Columbia River. The original design focused on the passage of salmonids 

and therefore only passed about 17 percent of the American shad (Alosa sapidissima) using the 

ladder. Research indicated that simple design changes could allow for the passage of riverine 

species such as American shad. By changing the placement of the weirs within the fish ladder, 

the fish ladder was able to pass 94 percent of the salmonids, and American shad passage 

increased to 74 percent (Monk et al., 1989). 

According to the USACE, Portland District (1997), the success rate for adults negotiating fish 

ladders at dams in the Columbia River Basin is about 95 percent. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Agency designs fishways assuming a 90 percent efficiency rate. Few studies document actual 

efficiency of fish ladders, but it is recognized that not all fishways are equally effective (for 

various reasons, such as predation or physical damage to passing fish). Some fishways installed 

in the last 20 years are less effective than newer ones (when federal licenses began to include 

fish passage requirements). Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) estimates efficiency 

between 75 and 90 percent (Presumpscot River Plan Steering Committee, 2002). 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 Michigan DNR. No date. What is a fish ladder? Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Lansing, MI. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_19092-46291--,00.html. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-40 July 2007 

Fish Lifts 

Fish lifts describe both fish elevators and locks, which are 

used to capture fish at the downstream side of a structure 

and then move them above the structure. Like fish ladders, 

these systems require sufficient attraction flow to move 

fish into the lift area. Lift systems can be advantageous 

because they are not species or flow specific. They can 

also be employed at structures too tall for fish ladders and 

to pass species with reduced swimming ability. 

Lift systems have the potential to move large numbers of 

fish if they are operated efficiently. These systems can be 

automated to allow operation much like fish ladders. Fish 

lift systems do require additional operation and 

maintenance costs and are subject to mechanical failures 

not associated with fish ladders. 

Most lift systems require either an active or passive bypass system to move fish far enough 

upstream to avoid entrainment in the flow through the dam. Passive bypass systems may include 

constructed waterways or pipes that discharge passed fish sufficiently up-steam of the structure. 

Active bypass systems include trucking and pumping operations that discharge the fish safely 

upstream of the structure. Active bypass systems, especially pumping systems, have come under 

scrutiny for fish behavior and health reasons. During the pumping process, fish may be subject to 

descaling and/or death due to overcrowding. After release, the fish may have orientation 

problems and therefore be subject to higher rates of predation mortality. Due to these concerns 

the United States Fish and Wildlife service has generally opposed the use of fish pumps (OTA, 

1995). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-41 July 2007 

Flow Augmentation 

Operational procedures such as flow regulation, flood 

releases, or fluctuating flow releases all have the potential 

for detrimental impacts on downstream aquatic and 

riparian habitat. When evaluating solutions associated with 

degraded aquatic and riparian habitat, stakeholders must 

balance operational procedures to address the needs of 

downstream aquatic and riparian habitat with the 

requirements of dam operation. There are often legal and 

jurisdictional requirements for an operational procedure at 

a particular dam that should also be considered (USDOI, 

1988). 

A flushing flow is a high-magnitude, short-duration release 

for the purpose of maintaining channel capacity and the 

quality of instream habitat by scouring the accumulation of 

fine-grained sediments from the streambed. Availability of 

suitable instream habitat is a key factor limiting spawning success. Flushing flows wash away 

the sediments without removing the gravel. Flushing flows also prevent the encroachment of 

riparian vegetation. 

However, it is important to keep in mind that flushing flows are not recommended in all cases. 

Flushing flows of a large magnitude may cause flooding in the old floodplain or depletion of 

gravel below a dam. Flushing flows are more efficient and predictable for small, shallow, highvelocity mountain streams unaltered by dams, diversions, or intensive land use. Routine 

maintenance generally requires a combination of practices including high flows coupled with 

sediment dams or channel dredging, rather than simply relying on flushing or scouring flows 

(Nelson et al., 1988). 

Several options exist for creating minimum flows in the tailwaters below dams. The selection of 

any particular technique as the most cost-effective is site-specific and depends on several factors 

including adequate performance to achieve the desired instream and riparian habitat 

characteristic, compatibility with other requirements for operation of the hydropower facility, 

availability of materials, and cost. 

Sluicing is the practice of releasing water through the sluice gate rather than through the turbines. 

For portions of the waterway immediately below the dam, the steady release of water by sluicing 

provides minimum flows with the least amount of water expenditure. At some facilities, this 

practice may dictate that modifications be made to the existing sluice outlets to maintain 

continuous low releases. Continuous low-level sluice releases at Eufala Lake and Fort Gibson 

Lake (Oklahoma) provided minimum flows needed to sustain downstream fish populations. The 

sluicing also had the benefit of improving DO levels in tailwaters downstream of these two dams 

such that fish mortalities, which had been experienced in the tailwaters below these two dams 

prior to initiating this practice, no longer occurred (USDOE, 1991). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

; Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-42 July 2007 

Turbine pulsing is a practice involving the release of water through the turbines at regular 

intervals to improve minimum flows. In the absence of turbine pulsing, water is released from 

large hydropower dams only when the turbines are operating, which is typically when the 

demand for power is high. 

A study undertaken at the Douglas Dam (French Broad River, Tennessee) suggests some of the 

site-specific factors that should be considered when evaluating the advantages of practices such 

as turbine pulsing, sluicing, or other alternatives for providing minimum flows and improving 

dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in reservoir releases. Two options for maintaining minimum flows 

(turbine pulsing and sluicing), and two aeration alternatives (operation of surface water pumps 

and diffusers) were evaluated for their effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages in providing 

minimum flows and aeration of reservoir releases. Computer modeling indicated that either 

turbine pulsing or sluicing could improve DO concentrations in releases by levels ranging from 

0.7 to 1.5 mg/L. This is slightly below the level of improvement that might be expected from 

operation of a diffuser system for aeration. A trade-off can also be expected at this facility 

between water saved by frequent short-release pulses and the higher maintenance costs due to 

operating turbines on and off frequently (Hauser et al., 1989). Hauser et al. (1989) found that 

schemes of turbine pulsing ranging from 15-minute intervals to 60-minute intervals every 2 to 6 

hours were found to provide fairly stable flow regimes after the first 3 to 8 miles downstream at 

several Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) projects. However, at points farther downstream, less 

overall flow would be produced by sluicing than by pulsing. Turbine pulsing may also cause 

waters to rise rapidly, which could endanger people wading or swimming in the tailwaters 

downstream of the dam (TVA, 1990). 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-43 July 2007 

Fuel and Maintenance Staging Areas 

Proper maintenance of equipment and installation of 

proper stream crossings will further reduce pollution of 

water by these sources. Vehicles need to be inspected for 

leaks. To prevent runoff, fuel and maintain vehicles on site 

only in a bermed area or over a drip pan. Fuel tanks should 

be protected and have containment systems. Stream 

crossings can be minimized through proper planning of 

access roads. This will help to keep potential sources of 

pollution away from direct contact with surface waters. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

; Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-44 July 2007 

Gated Conduits 

Gated conduits are hydraulic structures that divert the flow 

of water under the dam. They are designed to create 

turbulent mixing to enhance oxygen transfer. Gates are 

used to control the cross-sectional area of flow. Gated 

conduits have been extensively analyzed for their 

performance and effectiveness (Wilhelms and Smith, 

1981), although the available data are mostly from highhead projects (Wilhelms, 1988). An example of the 

effectiveness found that gated conduit structures were able 

to achieve 90 percent aeration and a minimum DO 

standard of 5 mg/L (Wilhelms and Smith, 1981). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-45 July 2007 

Groins 

Groins are structures that are built perpendicular to the 

shore and extend into the water. Examples of possible 

planform shapes for groins are illustrated in Figure 7.17. 

They are generally constructed in series, referred to as a 

groin field, along the entire length of shore to be protected. 

Groins trap sand in littoral drift and halt its longshore 

movement along beaches. The sand trapped by each groin 

acts as a protective barrier that waves can attack and erode 

without damaging previously unprotected upland areas. 

Unless the groin field is artificially filled with sand from 

other sources, sand is trapped in each groin by interrupting 

the natural supply of sand moving along the shore in the 

natural littoral drift. This frequently results in an 

inadequate natural supply of sand to replace the sand 

carried away from beaches located farther along the shore 

in the direction of the littoral drift. If “downdrift” beaches 

are kept starved of sand 

for long periods of time, 

severe beach erosion in 

unprotected areas can 

result. As with bulkheads 

and revetments, the most 

durable materials for 

construction of groins are 

timber and stone. Less 

expensive techniques for 

building groins use sandor concrete-filled bags or 

tires. It must be 

recognized that the use of 

lower-cost materials in 

the construction of 

bulkheads, revetments, or 

groins frequently results 

in less durability and 

reduced project life. 

Figure 7.18 illustrates 

transition from a groin 

field to a natural 

shoreline. 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 USACE. No date. Groins. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal & Hydraulics Laboratory.

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx?p=s&a=ARTICLES!188.

Figure 7.17 Possible Planform Shapes for Groins (USACE, 2003) 

Figure 7.18 Transition from Groin Field to Natural Shoreline (USACE, 2003) 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-46 July 2007 

Identify and Address NPS Contributions 

Another watershed protection practice involves the 

evaluation of the total NPS pollution contributions in the 

watershed. NPS contributions can stem from different 

land use activities upstream from a dam. For example, the 

analysis and interpretation of stereoscopic color infrared 

aerial photographs can be used to find and map specific 

areas of concern where a high probability of NPS 

pollution exists from septic tank systems, animal wastes, 

soil erosion, and other similar types of NPS pollution 

(TVA, 1988). Other remote sensing techniques, such as 

analysis of satellite imagery, can be used to map areas of 

concern within a watershed. Historically, TVA has used 

analysis of aerial photography images to survey about 

25 percent of the Tennessee Valley to identify sources of 

nonpoint pollution in a period of less than 5 years at a cost 

of a few cents per acre (TVA, 1988). Modern geographic 

information systems (GIS) enable watershed planners and modelers to rapidly assess large 

watersheds in a cost-effective manner. 

The development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in watersheds with impaired 

waterbodies is a way to identify all sources of pollution. TMDLs are planning documents that 

provide load allocations, for both point and nonpoint sources, and identify potential contributions 

of pollutants to an impaired waterbody. TMDLs often include the involvement of stakeholders 

throughout the watershed, in not only the development, but also with implementation of specific 

activities within the watershed. TMDL documents can provide a plan for addressing pollution 

sources throughout a watershed. 

Different practices can be used to control NPS pollution once sources have been identified. 

These practices may include the following: 

Soil Erosion Control 

Soil erosion has been determined to be the major source of suspended solids, nutrients, organic 

wastes, pesticides, and sediment that combined form the most problematic form of NPS pollution 

(TVA, 1988). Soil erosion and runoff controls have been addressed throughout earlier 

management measures in this document. 

Mine Reclamation 

Abandoned mines may have the potential to contribute significant sediment, metals, acidified 

water, and other pollutants to reservoirs (TVA, 1988). Old mines need to be located and 

reclaimed to reduce NPS pollutants emanating from them. Revegetation is a cost-effective 

method of reclaiming denuded strip-mined lands, and agencies such as the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) can provide technical insight for revegetation practices. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

; Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-47 July 2007 

Animal Waste Control 

A major contributor to reservoir pollution in some watersheds is waste from animal confinement 

facilities. TVA (1988) estimated that in the Tennessee Valley, farms produced about six times 

the organic wastes of the population of the valley. EPA also has available the National 

Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture,

5

 which is a 

technical guidance and reference document for use by state, local, and tribal managers in the 

implementation of NPS pollution management programs. It contains information on a variety of 

practices and management strategies for reducing pollution of surface and ground water from 

agriculture (USEPA, 2003b).

Correcting Failing Septic Systems 

The objective of this practice is to protect waterbodies from pollutants discharged by onsite 

sewage disposal systems (OSDS). They should be sited, designed, and installed so that impacts 

to waterbodies will be reduced to the extent practicable. Factors such as soil type, soil depth, 

depth to water table, rate of sea level rise, and topography should be considered. The installation 

of OSDS should be prevented in areas where soil absorption systems will not provide adequate 

treatment of effluents containing solids, phosphorus, pathogens, nitrogen, and nonconventional 

pollution prior to entry into surface waters and ground water. Setbacks, separation distances, and 

maintenance requirements should be established. 

Failing septic tank or OSDS are another source of NPS pollution in reservoirs. TVA has found 

septic tank failures to be a problem in some of its reservoirs and has identified them through an 

aerial survey (TVA, 1988). Additional guidance on OSDS is available from EPA’s Onsite 

Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (EPA 625-R-00-008), which is available through EPA’s 

National Service Center for Environmental Publications.6

Land Use Planning 

Land use plans that establish guidelines for permissible uses of land within a watershed serve as 

a guide for reservoir management programs addressing NPS pollution (TVA, 1988). Watershed 

land use plans identify suitable uses for land surrounding a reservoir, establish sites for economic 

development and natural resource management activities, and facilitate improved land 

management (TVA, 1988). Land use plans must be flexible documents that account for the needs 

of the landowners, state and local land use goals, the characteristics of the land and its ability to 

support various uses, and the control of NPS pollution (TVA, 1988). 

Comprehensive planning is an effective nonstructural tool to control NPS pollution. Where 

possible, growth should be directed toward areas where it can be sustained with minimal impact 

on the environment (Meeks, 1990). Poorly planned growth and development have the potential 

to degrade and destroy natural drainage systems and surface waters (Mantell et al., 1990). Proper 

planning and zoning decisions allow water quality managers to direct development and land 

disturbance away from areas that drain to sensitive waters. Land use designations and zoning 

laws can also be used to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as riparian corridors and 

wetlands. 

 

5 http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html

6 http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-48 July 2007 

Identify and Preserve Critical Areas 

Protection of sensitive areas and areas that provide water 

quality benefits (e.g., natural wetlands and riparian areas) 

is integral to maintaining or minimizing the impacts of 

development on receiving waters and associated habitat. 

Without a comprehensive planning approach that includes 

the use of riparian buffers, open space, bioretention, and 

structural controls to maintain the predevelopment 

hydrologic characteristics of the site, significant water 

quality and habitat impacts are likely. The experience of 

various communities has shown that the use of structural 

controls in the absence of adequate local land use planning 

and zoning often does not adequately protect water quality 

and might even cause detrimental effects, such as 

increased temperature. 

An initial step for incorporating targeted land conservation 

into a runoff management program is to identify critical conservation areas on a watershed map 

and superimpose this information on a tax map. Owners of potential conservation lands could 

include a mix of individuals, corporations or other business entities, homeowner associations, 

government agencies, and land trusts. 

Land conservation includes more than simply preserving land in its current state. It also means 

that an individual or organization should take responsibility for restoration of areas of the 

property that are contributing to runoff problems or have been adversely affected by runoff. 

Stewardship activities for land conservation might include: 

• Resource monitoring 

• General maintenance 

• Control of exotic species 

• Installation of structural runoff management practices and maintenance 

There are several options for landowners who would like to retain ownership of the parcel but 

relinquish stewardship and conservation management to another organization. These 

nonexclusive management options, discussed below, include establishing conservation 

easements, leases, deed restrictions, covenants, or transfer of development rights (TDRs). 

Conservation Easements 

A conservation easement is a legal agreement that transfers specific rights concerning the use of 

land by sale or donation to a government agency (municipal, county, or state), a qualified 

nonprofit organization (e.g., land trust or conservancy), or other legal entity without transferring 

title of the land (Cwikiel, 1996).

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

; Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-49 July 2007 

Leases 

Even though government agencies, land trusts, and other nonprofit organizations would prefer 

that conservation lands be acquired by donation or that conservation easements be placed on the 

property, some lands hold so much value as conservation areas that leasing is worth the expense 

and effort. Leasing a property allows the agency, trust, or organization to actively manage the 

land for conservation. 

Deed Restrictions 

Restrictions can be included in deeds for the purpose of constraining use of the land. In theory, 

deed restrictions are designed to perform functions similar to those of conservation easements. In 

practice, however, deed restrictions have proven to be much weaker substitutes because unlike 

conservation easements, deed restrictions do not necessarily designate or convey oversight 

responsibilities to a particular agency or organization to enforce protection and maintenance 

provisions. Also, deed restrictions can be relatively easy to modify or vacate through litigation. 

Modifying or nullifying an easement is difficult, especially if tax benefits have already been 

realized. For these reasons, conservation easements are generally preferred over deed 

restrictions.

Covenants 

A covenant is similar to a deed restriction in that it restricts activities on a property, but it is in 

the form of a contract between the landowner and another party. The term mutual covenants is 

used to describe a situation where one or more nearby or adjacent landowners are contracted and 

covered by the same restrictions.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) 

The concept of TDRs as a watershed protection tool is based on the premise that ownership of 

land includes a “bundle” of property rights. One of these rights is the right to develop the 

property to its “highest and best use.” Although this right can be restricted by zoning building 

codes, environmental constraints, and other types of restrictions, the basic right to develop 

remains. A TDR system creates an opportunity for property owners to transfer development 

potential or density at one property, called a sending area to another property, called a receiving 

area. In the context of watershed planning objectives, TDR programs can be an effective way to 

transfer development potential from sensitive subwatersheds to subwatersheds that can better 

deal with increased imperviousness. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-50 July 2007 

Joint Planting 

Joint planting (or vegetated riprap) involves tamping live 

cuttings of rootable plant material into soil between the 

joints or open spaces in rocks that have previously been 

placed on a slope (Figure 7.19). Alternatively, the cuttings 

can be tamped into place at the same time that rock is 

being placed on the slope face. Joint planting is useful 

where rock riprap is required or already in place. It is 

successful 30 to 50 percent of the time, with first year 

irrigation improving survival rates. Live cuttings must have 

side branches removed and bark intact. They should range 

from 0.5 to 1.5 inches in diameter and be long enough to 

extend well into the soil, reaching into the dry season water 

level. Installation guidelines are available from the USDAFS Soil Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 2002) and the 

USDA NRCS Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 18

(USDA-NRCS, 1992). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Joint Planting. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/joint_planting.pdf. 

Figure 7.19 Joint Planting (USDA-FS, 2002)

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-51 July 2007 

Labyrinth Weir 

Labyrinth weirs have extended crest length and are 

usually W-shaped. These weirs spread the flow out to 

prevent dangerous undertows in the plunge pool. A 

labyrinth weir at South Holston Dam (Tennessee) was 

constructed for the dual purpose of providing minimum 

flows and improving DO in reservoir releases. The weir 

aerates to up to 60 percent of the oxygen deficit. For 

instance, projected performance at the end of the summer 

is an increase in the DO from 3 mg/L to 7 mg/L (or an 

increase of 4 mg/L) (Hauser, 1992). Actual increases in 

the DO will depend on the temperature and the level of 

DO in the incoming water. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-52 July 2007 

Levees, Setback Levees, and Floodwalls 

Many valuable techniques can be used, when applied 

correctly, to protect, operate, and maintain levees 

(Hynson et al., 1985). Evaluation of site-specific 

conditions and the use of best professional judgment are 

the best methods for selecting the proper levee protection 

and operation and maintenance plan. According to 

Hynson and others (1985), maintenance activities 

generally consist of vegetation management, burrowing 

animal control, upkeep of recreational areas, and levee 

repairs. 

Care must be taken during construction to prevent 

disturbing the natural channel vegetation, cross section, or 

bottom slope. No immediate instream effects from 

sedimentation are usually caused by implementing this 

type of modification. The potential for long-term channel 

adjustments can be evaluated using methods outlined in Channel Stability Assessment for Flood 

Control Projects (USACE, 1994). 

Methods to control vegetation include mowing, grazing, burning, and using chemicals. Selection 

of a vegetation control method should consider the existing and surrounding vegetation, desired 

instream and riparian habitat types and values, timing of controls to avoid critical periods, 

selection of livestock grazing periods, and timing of prescribed burns to be consistent with 

historical fire patterns. Additionally, a balance between the vegetation management practices for 

instream and riparian habitat and engineering considerations should be maintained to avoid 

structural compromise. Animal control methods are most effective when used as a part of an 

integrated pest management program and might include instream and riparian habitat 

manipulation or biological controls. Recreational area management includes upkeep of planted 

areas, disposal of solid waste, and repairing of facilities (Hynson et al., 1985). 

The prevention of floods by dams and levees can eliminate or diminish essential ecological 

functions. Dams, levees and channel training structures have dramatically altered or eliminated 

the frequency, duration, magnitude, and timing of periodic high flows. These projects 

significantly reduce the likelihood of floodplain inundation, block the transfer of organic matter 

and nutrients between river and floodplain, block plant succession, eliminate fish access to 

spawning areas, and rob rivers of the erosive power to restore and create a diversity of habitats 

(Environmental Defense, 2002). Levees have had several impacts on the Snake River in 

Wyoming. Anthony (1998) found habitat losses, including changes in vegetation (including 

losses of cottonwood and riparian habitats from 1956) and changes in channel and floodplain 

complexity from a braided to a single channel pattern. 

Siting of levees and floodwalls should be addressed prior to design and implementation of these 

types of projects. Proper siting of such structures can avoid several types of problems. First, 

construction activities should not disturb the physical integrity of adjacent riparian areas and/or 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-53 July 2007 

wetlands. Second, by setting back the structures (offsetting them from the streambank), the 

relationship between the channel and adjacent riparian areas can be preserved. Proper siting and 

alignment of proposed structures can be established based on hydraulic calculations, historical 

flood data, and geotechnical analysis of riverbank stability. 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 LSU AgCenter. 1999. Floodwalls. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana 

Cooperative Extension Service. 

http://www.louisianafloods.org/NR/rdonlyres/7A01F7C8-703B-47D1-BCCD-63CD0A57721F/

2995/pub2745Floodwall6.pdf.
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-54 July 2007 

Live Cribwalls 

A live cribwall is used to rebuild a bank in a nearly 

vertical setting. It consists of a hollow, box-like 

interlocking arrangement of untreated log or timber 

members (Figure 7.20). The structure is filled with 

suitable backfill material and layers of live branch 

cuttings, which root inside the crib structure and extend 

into the slope. Logs or untreated timbers should range 

from 4 to 6 inches in diameter. Lengths will vary with the 

size of the crib structure. Fill rock should be 6 inches in 

diameter. Live branch cuttings should be 0.5 to 2.5 inches 

in diameter and long enough to reach the back of the 

wooden crib structure. Once the live cuttings root and 

become established, the subsequent vegetation gradually 

takes over the structural functions of the wood members. 

Live cribwalls are appropriate where space is limited and 

at the base of a slope where a low wall may be required to 

stabilize the toe of the slope and to reduce its steepness. They are also appropriate above and 

below the water level where stable streambeds exist. They are not designed for or intended to 

resist large, lateral earth stress. Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil 

Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 2002) and the USDA NRCS Engineering Field Handbook, 

Chapter 18 (USDA-NRCS, 1992). 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-55 July 2007 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Live Cribwall. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/live_cribwall.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Live Cribwall. Created for United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/livecribwall.pdf. 

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Live Cribwalls. Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs17.htm. 

Figure 7.20 Live Cribwall (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-56 July 2007 

Live Fascines 

Live fascines are long bundles of branch cuttings bound 

together in a cylindrical structure (Figure 7.21). They are 

suited to steep, rocky slopes, where digging is difficult 

(USDA-NRCS, 1992). When cut from appropriate species 

(e.g., young willows or shrub dogwoods) that root easily 

and have long straight branches, and when properly 

installed, they immediately begin to stabilize slopes. The 

cuttings (0.5 to 1.5 inches in diameter) form live fascine 

bundles that vary in length from 5 to 10 feet or longer, 

depending on site conditions and handling limitations. 

Completed bundles should be 6 to 8 inches in diameter. 

The goal is for natural recruitment to follow once slopes 

are secured. Live fascines should be placed in shallow 

contour trenches on dry slopes and at an angle on wet 

slopes to reduce erosion and shallow face sliding. Live 

fascines should be applied above ordinary high-water mark 

or bankfull level except on very small drainage area sites. In arid climates, they should be used 

between the high and low water marks on the bank. This system, installed by a trained crew, 

does not cause much site disturbance. 

Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 

2002) and the USDA NRCS Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 18 (USDA-NRCS, 1992). 

Under their Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (EMRRP), the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers presents research on live fascines in a technical note (Live and Inert 

Fascine Streambank Erosion Control).7

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Massachusetts DEP. 2006. Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual: Live 

Fascines. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. 

http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/Fact%20Sheets/Live%20Fascines.pdf. 

3⁄4 Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District. No date. Construction Specification VS-01: 

Live Fascines. http://www.gcswcd.com/stream/library/pdfdocs/vs-01.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Live Fascine. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/live_fascine.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Live Fascine. Created for United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute.

http://abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/livefacine.pdf. 

 

7 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr31.pdf

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-57 July 2007 

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Live Fascines. Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs14.pdf. 

Note: OHW (Ordinary High Water) is the mark along a streambank where the waters are common and usual. This 

mark is generally recognized by the difference in the character of the vegetation above and below the mark or the 

absence of vegetation below the mark (USDA-FS, 2002). 

Figure 7.21 Live Fascine (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-58 July 2007 

Live Staking 

Live staking (Figure 7.22) is appropriate for relatively 

uncomplicated site conditions when construction time is 

limited. It can also be used to stabilize intervening areas 

between other soil bioengineering techniques (USDANRCS, 1992). Live staking involves the insertion and 

tamping of live, rootable vegetative cuttings into the 

ground. If correctly prepared and placed, the live stake 

will root and grow. A system of stakes creates a living 

root mat that stabilizes the soil by reinforcing and binding 

soil particles together and by extracting excess soil 

moisture. Stakes are generally 1 to 2 inches in diameter 

and 2 to 3 feet long. Specific site requirements and 

available cutting source will determine size. Vegetation 

selected should be able to withstand the degree of 

anticipated inundation, provide year round protection, 

have the capacity to become well established under 

sometimes adverse soil conditions, and have root, stem, and branch systems capable of resisting 

erosive flows. Most willow species are ideal for live staking because they root rapidly and begin 

to dry out a slope soon after installation. Sycamore and cottonwood are also species commonly 

used for live staking. This is an appropriate technique for repair of small earth slips and slumps 

that are frequently wet. Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil 

Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 2002) and the USDA NRCS Engineering Field Handbook, 

Chapter 18 (USDA-NRCS, 1992). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Live Stakes. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/live_stakes.pdf. 

3⁄4 Myers, R.D. 1993. Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation: A Manual of 

Practice for Coastal Property Owners. Live Staking. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management 

Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia. Publication 93-30. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/livestaking.html. 

3⁄4 Walter, J., D. Hughes, and N.J. Moore. 2005. Streambank Revegetation and Protection: A Guide 

for Alaska. Revegetation Techniques: Live Staking. Revised Edition. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Sport Fish. 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/restoration/techniques/livestake.cfm. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-59 July 2007 

Figure 7.22 Live Staking (USDA-NRCS, 1992) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-60 July 2007 

Locate Potential Land Disturbing Activities 

Away from Critical Areas 

Material stockpiles, borrow areas, access roads, and other 

land-disturbing activities can often be located away from 

critical areas such as steep slopes, highly erodible soils, 

and areas that drain directly into sensitive waterbodies. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-61 July 2007 

Marsh Creation and Restoration 

Marsh creation and restoration is a useful vegetative 

technique that can address problems with erosion of 

shorelines. Marsh plants perform two functions in 

controlling shore erosion (Knutson, 1988). First, their 

exposed stems form a flexible mass that dissipates wave 

energy. As wave energy is diminished, the offshore 

transport and longshore transport of sediment are reduced. 

Ideally, dense stands of marsh vegetation can create a 

depositional environment, causing accretion of sediments 

along the intertidal zone rather than continued shore 

erosion. Second, marsh plants form a dense mat of roots, 

which can add stability to the shoreline sediments. The 

basic approach for marsh creation is to plant a shoreline 

area in the vicinity of the tide line with appropriate marsh 

grass species. Suitable fill material may be placed in the 

intertidal zone to create a wetlands planting terrace of 

sufficient width (at least 18 to 25 feet) if such a terrace does not already exist at the project site. 

For shoreline sites that are highly sheltered from the effects of wind, waves, or boat wakes, the 

fill material is usually stabilized with small structures, similar to groins, which extend out into 

the water from the land. For shorelines with higher levels of wave energy, the newly planted 

marsh can be protected with an offshore installation of stone that is built either in a continuous 

configuration or in a series of breakwaters. 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 Maryland Department of the Environment. 2006. Shore Erosion Control Guidelines: Marsh 

Creation. http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wetlandswaterways/Shoreerosion.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-62 July 2007 

Modifying Operational Procedures 

A useful tool for evaluating the effects of operational 

procedures on the quality of tailwaters is computer 

modeling. For instance, computer models can describe the 

vertical withdrawal zone that would be expected under 

different scenarios of turbine operation (Smith et al., 

1987). Zimmerman and Dortch (1989) modeled release 

operations for a series of dams on a Georgia river and 

found that procedures that were maintaining cool 

temperatures in summer were causing undesirable 

decreases in DO and increases in dissolved iron in 

autumn. The suggested solution was a seasonal release 

plan that is flexible, depending on variations in the inpool water quality and predicted local weather conditions. 

Care should be taken with this sort of approach to 

accommodate the needs of both the fishery resource and 

reservoir recreationalists, particularly in late summer. 

Modeling has also been undertaken for a variety of TVA and USACE facilities to evaluate the 

downstream impacts on DO and temperature that would result from changes in several 

operational procedures, including (Hauser et al., 1990a; Hauser et al., 1990b; Higgins and Kim, 

1982; Nestler et al., 1986): 

• Maintenance of minimum flows 

• Timing and duration of shutoff periods 

• Seasonal adjustments to the pool levels 

• Timing and variation of the rate of drawdown 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-63 July 2007 

Mulching 

Newly established vegetation does not have as extensive a 

root system as existing vegetation and therefore is more 

prone to erosion, especially on steep slopes. Additional 

stabilization should be considered during the early stages 

of seeding. This extra stabilization can be accomplished 

using mulches or mulch mats, which are applied to 

disturbed soil surfaces and can protect the area while 

vegetation becomes established. 

Mulches and mulch mats include tacked straw, wood 

chips, and jute netting and are often covered by blankets 

or netting. Mulching alone should be used only for 

temporary protection of the soil surface or when 

permanent seeding is not feasible. The useful life of 

mulch varies with the material used and the amount of 

precipitation, but, generally, is approximately 2 to 6 

months. Mulching and/or sodding may be necessary as slopes become moderate to steep, as soils 

become more erosive, and as areas become more sensitive. During the times of the year when 

vegetation cannot be established, mulch can be applied to moderate slopes and soils that are not 

highly erodible. On steep slopes or highly erodible soils, mulching may need to be reapplied if 

washed away. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual: Stormwater Best 

Management Practices for Cold Climates. Soil Erosion Control: Mulches, Blankets and Mats.

Prepared for the Metropolitan Council by Barr Engineering Company, St. Paul, MN. 

http://www.metrocouncil.org/Environment/Watershed/BMP/CH3_RPPSoilMulch.pdf. 

3⁄4 CASQA. 2004. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Hydraulic Mulch. 

California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/EC-3.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Mulching. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/2.3_mulching.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-64 July 2007 

Noneroding Roadways

General Road Construction Considerations 

Road design and construction activities that are tailored to 

topography and soils and take into consideration the 

overall drainage pattern in the watershed where the road is 

being constructed can prevent road-related water quality 

problems. Lack of adequate consideration of watershed and 

site characteristics, road system design, and construction 

techniques appropriate to the site can result in mass soil 

movements, extensive surface erosion, and severe 

sedimentation in nearby waterbodies. The effect that a road 

network has on stream networks largely depends on the 

extent to which the networks are interconnected. Road 

networks can be hydrologically connected to stream 

networks where road surface runoff is delivered directly to 

stream channels (at stream crossings or via ditches or 

gullies that direct flow off the road into a stream) and where road cuts transform subsurface flow 

into surface flow (in road ditches or on road surfaces that deliver sediment and water to streams 

much more quickly than without a road present). The combined effects of these drainage 

network connections are increased sedimentation and peak flows that are higher and arrive more 

quickly after storms. This can lead to increased instream erosion and stream channel changes, 

especially in small watersheds (USEPA, 2005a). 

Site characteristics should be considered during construction planning. On-site verification of 

information from topographic maps, soil maps, and aerial photos can ensure that locations where 

roads are to be cut into slopes or built on steep slopes or where skid trails, landings, and 

equipment maintenance areas are to be located are appropriate to the use. If an on-site visit 

indicates that construction changes can reduce the risk of erosion, the project manager can make 

these changes prior to construction, and in some cases as the project progresses (USEPA, 2005a). 

Road drainage features tailored to the site prevent water from pooling or collecting on road 

surfaces. This prevents saturation of the road surface, which can lead to rutting, road slumping, 

and channel washout. Many roads associated with channelization projects are temporary or 

seasonal-use roads, and their construction should not involve the high level of disturbance 

generated by construction of permanent, high-standard roads. However, these types of roads still 

need to be constructed and maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation (USEPA, 2005a). 

Erosion control practices need to be applied while a road is being constructed, when soils are 

most susceptible to erosion, to minimize soil loss to waterbodies. Since sedimentation from roads 

often does not occur incrementally and continuously, but in pulses during large rainstorms, it is 

important that road, drainage structure, and stream crossing design take into consideration a 

sufficiently large design storm that has a good chance of occurring during the life of the project. 

Such a storm might be the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, or even 100-year, 12- to 24-hour return 

period storm. Sedimentation cannot be completely prevented during or after road construction, 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-65 July 2007 

but the process is exacerbated if the road construction and design are inappropriate for the site 

conditions or if the road drainage or stream crossing structures are insufficient (USEPA, 2005a). 

When constructing a new road, it is useful to consider road surface shape and composition, slope 

stabilization, and wetlands. A more detailed discussion of these topics is provided below. More 

information about potential impacts to fish habitat and passage are provided in EPA’s National 

Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry.

8

Road Shape and Composition 

The shape of a road is an important runoff control component. Road drainage and runoff control 

are obtained by shaping the road surface to be insloping, outsloping, or crowned. Insloping roads 

can be effective where soils are highly erodible and directing runoff directly to the fill slope 

would be detrimental. Outsloped roads tend to dissipate runoff more than insloped roads, which 

concentrate runoff at cross drain locations, and are useful where erosion of backfill or ditch soil 

might be a problem. Crowned roads are suited to two lane roads and to steep single-lane roads 

that have frequent cross drains or ditches and ditch relief culverts (USEPA, 2005a). These road 

surface shapes are illustrated in Figure 

7.23. Maintain one of these shapes to 

ensure good drainage. Crowns, inslopes, 

and outslopes will quickly lose 

effectiveness if not maintained frequently, 

due to ruts created by traffic when the road 

surface is damp or wet (USEPA, 2005a). 

Road surface composition can effectively 

control erosion from road surfaces and 

slopes. It is important to choose a surface 

that is suitable to the topography, soils, and 

intended use. Surface protection of the 

roadbed and cut-and-fill slopes with a 

suitable material can minimize soil losses 

during storms, reduce frost heave erosion 

production, restrain downslope movement 

of soil slumps, and minimize erosion from 

softened roadbeds (USEPA, 2005a). 

Slope Stabilization 

Road cuts and fills can be a large source of 

sediment when constructing a rural road. 

Stabilizing back slopes and fill slopes as they are constructed is important in minimizing erosion 

from these areas. Combined with gravel or other surfacing, establishing grass or another form of 

slope stabilization can significantly reduce soil loss from road construction. If constructing on an 

unstable slope is necessary, consider consulting with an engineering geologist or geotechnical 

 

8

 Available online at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt. 

Figure 7.23 Types of Road Surface Shapes (USEPA, 2005a) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-66 July 2007 

engineer for recommended construction methods and to develop plans for the road segment. 

Unstable slopes that threaten water quality should be considered unsuitable for road building. 

Planting grass on cut-and-fill slopes of new roads can effectively reduce erosion, and placing 

forest floor litter or brush barriers on downslopes in combination with establishing grass is also 

effective for reducing downslope sediment transport. Grass-covered fill is generally more 

effective than mulched fill in reducing soil erosion from newly constructed roads because of the 

roots that hold the soil in place, which are lacking with other cover. Because grass needs some 

time to establish itself, a combination of straw mulch with netting to hold it in place can be used 

to cover a seeded area and effectively reduce erosion while grass is growing. The mulch and 

netting provide immediate erosion control and promote grass growth (USEPA, 2005a). 

Wetland Road Considerations 

Sedimentation is a concern when considering road construction through wetlands. It is better to 

avoid putting a road through a wetland when an alternative route exists. If no alternative exists, 

make sure to implement best management practices (BMPs) suggested by the state. Road 

construction or maintenance for certain farming, forestry, or mining activities might be exempt 

under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404. However, to qualify for the exemption, the roads 

must be constructed and maintained following application of specific BMPs designed to protect 

the aquatic environment (USEPA, 2005a).
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-67 July 2007 

Pesticide and Fertilizer Management

Chemicals used in dam management include pesticides 

(insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) and fertilizers. 

Since pesticides can be toxic, they have to be mixed, 

transported, loaded, and applied correctly and their 

containers disposed properly to prevent potential nonpoint 

source pollution. Since fertilizers can also be toxic or can 

damage the ecosystem, it is important that they be handled 

and applied properly, according to label instructions. 

Even though a limited number of applications might be 

made at a specific dam site, consider that throughout a 

watershed many sites could receive applications of 

fertilizers and pesticides, which can accumulate in soils 

and in waterbodies. Application techniques also partly 

determine the potential risk to the aquatic environment 

from infrequent applications of pesticides and fertilizers. 

These chemicals can directly enter surface waters through five major pathways—direct 

application, drift, mobilization in ephemeral streams, overland flow, and leaching. Direct 

application is the most important source of increased chemical concentrations and is also one of 

the most easily controlled. 

Some more specific implementation practices for pesticide maintenance include: 

• Apply pesticides during favorable atmospheric conditions. Do not apply pesticides when 

wind conditions increase the likelihood of significant drift. It is also best to avoid 

pesticide application when temperatures are high or relative humidity is low because 

these conditions influence the rate of evaporation and enhance losses of volatile 

pesticides. 

• Ensure that pesticide users abide by the current pesticide label, which might specify 

whether users be trained and certified in the proper use of the pesticide; allowable use 

rates; safe handling, storage, and disposal requirements; and whether the pesticide may be 

used under the provisions of an approved State Pesticide Management Plan. 

• Locate mixing and loading areas, and clean all mixing and loading equipment thoroughly 

after each use, where pesticide residues will not enter streams or other waterbodies. 

• Dispose of pesticide wastes and containers according to state and federal laws. 

• Consider the use of pesticides as only one part of an overall program to control pest 

problems. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies have been developed to control 

pests without total reliance on chemical pesticides. 

• Base selection of pesticide on site factors and pesticide characteristics. These factors 

include vegetation height, target pest, adsorption (attachment) to soil organic matter, 

persistence or half-life, toxicity, and type of formulation. 

• Check all equipment carefully, particularly for leaking hoses and connections and 

plugged or worn nozzles. Calibrate spray equipment periodically to achieve uniform 

pesticide distribution and rate. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

; Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-68 July 2007 

• Always use pesticides in accordance with label instructions, and adhere to all federal and 

state policies and regulations governing pesticide use. 

Specific implementation practices for fertilizer maintenance include: 

• Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible. This practice reduces potential nutrient 

leaching to ground water, and it increase the availability of nutrients for plant uptake. 

• Apply fertilizer during favorable atmospheric conditions. Do not apply fertilizer when 

wind conditions increase the likelihood of significant drift. 

• Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching. 

• Base fertilizer type and application rate on soil and/or foliar analysis. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-69 July 2007 

Phase Construction 

Construction site phasing involves disturbing only small 

portions of a site at a time to prevent erosion from dormant 

parts (CWP, 1997c). Grading activities and construction 

are completed and soils are effectively stabilized on one 

part of the site before grading and construction commence 

at another. This is different from the more traditional 

practice of construction site sequencing, in which 

construction occurs at only one part of the site at a time but 

site grading and other site-disturbing activities typically 

occur all at once, leaving portions of the disturbed site 

vulnerable to erosion. To be effective, construction site 

phasing must be incorporated into the overall site plan 

early. Elements to consider when phasing construction 

activities include (CWP, 1997c): 

• Managing runoff separately in each phase 

• Determining whether water and sewer connections and extensions can be accommodated 

• Determining the fate of already completed downhill phases 

• Providing separate construction and residential accesses to prevent conflicts between 

residents living in completed stages of the site and construction equipment working on 

later stages 

A comparison of sediment loss from a typical development and from a comparable phased 

project showed a 42 percent reduction in sediment export in the phased project (CWP, 1997c). 

Phasing can also provide protection from complete enforcement and shutdown of the entire 

project. If a contractor is in noncompliance in one phase or zone of a site, that will be the only 

zone affected by enforcement. This approach can help to minimize liability exposure and protect 

the contractor financially (Deering, 2000b).

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-70 July 2007 

Physical Barriers 

Physical barriers are diversion systems that lead or force 

fish to bypasses that transport them above or below the 

dam (FAO, 2001). Physical diversion structures deployed 

at dams include angled screens, drum screens, inclined 

plane screens, louvers, and traveling screens. The success 

and effectiveness of physical barriers has been found to be 

specific to individual hydropower facilities (Mattice, 

1990). 

Angled screens are used to guide fish to a bypass by 

guiding them through the channel at some angle to the 

flow. Coarse-mesh angled screens have been shown to be 

highly effective with numerous warm- and cold-water 

species at adult life stages. Fine-mesh angled screens have 

been shown in laboratory studies to be highly effective in 

diverting larval and juvenile fish to a bypass with resultant 

high survival. Performance of angled screens can vary by species, stream velocity, fish length, 

screen mesh size, screen type, and temperature (Stone and Webster, 1986). Clogging from debris 

and fouling organisms is a maintenance problem associated with angled screens. 

Angled rotary drum screens oriented perpendicular to the flow direction have been used 

extensively to lead fish to a bypass. Angled rotary drum screens tend not to experience the major 

operational and maintenance clogging problems of stationary screens, such as angled vertical 

screens. Maintenance of angled rotary drum screens typically consists of routine inspection, 

cleaning, lubrication, and periodic replacement of the screen mesh (Stone and Webster, 1986). 

An inclined plane screen is used to divert fish upward in the water column into a bypass. Once 

concentrated, the fish are transported to a release point below the dam. An inclined plane 

pressure screen at the T.W. Sullivan Hydroelectric Project (Willamette Falls, Oregon) is located 

in the penstock of one unit. The design is effective in diverting fish, with a high survival rate. 

However, this device has been linked to injuries in some species of migrating fish, and it has not 

been accepted for routine use (Stone and Webster, 1986). 

Louvers consist of an array of evenly spaced, vertical slats aligned across a channel at an angle 

leading to a bypass. The turbulence they create is sensed and avoided by the fish (Stone and 

Webster, 1986). Louver systems rely on a fish’s instincts to use senses other than sight to move 

around obstacles. Once the louver is sensed, the fish tend to reverse their head first downstream 

orientation (to head upstream, tail to the louver) and move laterally along it until they reach the 

bypass (OTA, 1995). 

Submerged traveling screens are used to divert downstream migrating fish out of turbine intakes 

to adjoining gatewell structures, where the fish are concentrated for release downstream. This 

device has been tested extensively at hydropower facilities on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. 

Because of their complexity, submerged traveling screens must be continually maintained. The 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-71 July 2007 

screens must be serviced seasonally, depending on the debris load, and trash racks and bypass 

orifices must be kept free of debris (Stone and Webster, 1986). 

Physical barrier fish diversion systems have been found to work best when specifically designed 

to the structure and fish being passed. Small differences in design, such as the spacing or depth 

of the louvers, can mean the difference in success and failure. A successful louver system has 

been installed at the Holyoke Hydroelectric Power Station, on the Connecticut River. This partial 

depth louver system was installed in the intake channel at the power plant and successfully 

passed 86 percent of the juvenile clupeids and 97 percent of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 

smolts (Marmulla, 2001). Another partial depth louver system on the same river has experienced 

less successful results. The system installed at the Vernon Dam on the Connecticut River is 

successfully passing about 50 percent of the Atlantic salmon smolts (OTA, 1995). 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-72 July 2007 

Pollutant Runoff Control 

Store, cover, and isolate construction materials, refuse, 

garbage, sewage, debris, oil and other petroleum products, 

mineral salts, industrial chemicals, and topsoil to prevent 

runoff of pollutants and contamination of ground water. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

; Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-73 July 2007 

Preserve Onsite Vegetation 

Preserving onsite vegetation retains soil and limits runoff 

of water, sediment, and pollutants. The destruction of 

existing onsite vegetation can be minimized by initially 

surveying the site to plan access routes, locations of 

equipment storage areas, and the location and alignment 

of the dam. Construction workers can be encouraged to 

limit activities to designated areas only. Reducing the 

disturbance of vegetation also reduces the need for 

revegetation after construction is completed, including the 

required fertilization, replanting, and grading that are 

associated with revegetation. Additionally, as much 

natural vegetation as possible should be left next to the 

waterbody where construction is occurring. This 

vegetation provides a buffer to reduce the NPS pollution 

effects of runoff originating from areas associated with 

the construction activities. 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 CASQA. 2004. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Preservation of Existing 

Vegetation. California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/EC-2.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-74 July 2007 

Reregulation Weir 

Reregulation weirs have been constructed from stone, 

wood, and aggregate. In addition to increasing the levels 

of DO in the tailwaters, reregulation weirs result in a 

more constant rate of flow farther downstream during 

periods when turbines are not in operation. A reregulation 

weir constructed downstream of the Canyon Dam 

(Guadalupe River, Texas) increased DO levels in waters 

leaving the turbine from 3.3 mg/L to 6.7 mg/L (EPRI, 

1990). 

The USACE Waterways Experiment Station (Wilhelms, 

1988) has compared the effectiveness with which various 

hydraulic structures accomplished the reaeration of 

reservoir releases. The study concluded that, whenever 

operationally feasible, more discharge should be passed 

over weirs to improve DO concentrations in releases. 

Results indicated that overflow weirs aerate releases more effectively than low-sill spillways 

(Wilhelms, 1988). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-75 July 2007 

Reservoir Aeration 

Some techniques for reservoir aeration include: 

• Air injection systems 

• Diffused air systems 

• Oxygen injection systems 

• U-tube design 

Air injection systems mix water from different strata in 

the impoundment by using air or pure oxygen injected 

into a pumping system. Air injection systems are 

categorized as partial air lift systems and full air lift 

systems. In the partial air lift system, compressed air is 

injected at the bottom of the unit; then the air and water 

are separated at depth and the air is vented to the surface. 

In the full air lift system, compressed air is injected at the 

bottom of the unit (as in the partial air lift system), but the air-water mixture rises to the surface. 

The full air lift design has a higher efficiency than the partial-air lift and has a lesser tendency to 

elevate dissolved nitrogen levels (Thornton et al., 1990). 

Diffused air systems provide effective transfer of oxygen to water by forcing compressed air 

through small pores in diffuser systems to form bubbles. One diffuser system test in the 

Delaware River near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1969–1970 demonstrated the efficiency of 

this practice. Coarse-bubble diffusers were deployed at depths ranging from 13 to 38 feet. 

Depending on the depth of deployment, the oxygen transfer efficiency varied from 1 to 12 

percent. When compared with other systems discussed below, this efficiency rate is rather low. 

But the results of this test determined that river aeration was more economical than advanced 

wastewater treatment as a strategy for improving the levels of DO in the river (EPRI, 1990). 

Another type of oxygen injection system, which pumps gaseous oxygen into the hypolimnion 

through diffusers, has effectively improved DO levels in the reservoir behind the Richard B. 

Russell Dam (Savannah River, on the Georgia-South Carolina border). The system is operated 1 

mile upstream of the dam, with occasional supplemental injection of oxygen at the dam face 

when DO levels are especially low. The system has successfully maintained DO levels above 6 

mg/L in the releases, with an average oxygen transfer efficiency of 75 percent (EPRI, 1990; 

Gallagher and Mauldin, 1987). 

The diffused air system has been found to be a cost-effective method to raise low DO levels 

within a reservoir (Henderson and Shields, 1984). However, the costs of air diffuser operation 

may be high for deep reservoirs because of hydraulic pressures that must be overcome. 

Destratification that results from deployment of an air diffuser system may also mix nutrient-rich 

waters located deep in the impoundment into layers located closer to the surface, increasing the 

potential for stimulation of algal populations. Barbiero et al. (1996), in a study on the effects of 

artificial circulation on a small northeastern impoundment, found that artificial circulation 

ultimately had no effect on the magnitude of summer phytoplankton populations. However, the 

authors note that intermittent mixing events tend to promote increased transport of phosphorus 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

; Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-76 July 2007 

into the epilimnion. While this had no effect on phytoplankton populations in the studied lake, it 

demonstrates the potential of artificial circulation to impact water quality and the need for careful 

evaluation of potential impacts. 

Oxygen injection systems use pure oxygen to increase levels of dissolved oxygen in reservoirs. 

One type of design, termed side stream pumping, carries water from the impoundment onto the 

shore and through a piping system into which pure oxygen is injected. After passing through this 

system, the water is returned to the impoundment (EPRI, 1990). 

The U-tube design, in which water from deep in the impoundment is pumped to the surface 

layer, provides a means to aerate reservoir waters. Oxygen transfer is increased as a mixture of 

water and oxygen gas is subjected to greater hydrostatic pressure. Water moves down the U-tube 

and pressure increases as a function of depth, dissolving the oxygen gas into the water. The 

oxygenated water then travels back up through the system and is released to the waterway (Jones 

and Stokes, 2004). The inducement of artificial circulation through aeration of the impoundment 

may also provide the opportunity for a “two-story” fishery, reduce internal phosphorus loading, 

and eliminate problems with iron and manganese in drinking water (Thornton et al., 1990). 

If the principal objective is to improve DO levels only in the reservoir releases and not 

throughout the entire impoundment, then aeration can be applied selectively to discrete layers of 

water immediately surrounding the intakes or as water passes through release structures such as 

hydroelectric turbines. Localized mixing is a practice to improve releases from thermally 

stratified reservoirs by destratifying the reservoir in the immediate vicinity of the outlet structure. 

This practice differs from the practice of artificial destratification, where mixing is designed to 

destratify all or most of the reservoir volume (Holland, 1984). Localized mixing is provided by 

forcing a jet of high-quality surface water downward into the hypolimnion. Pumps used to create 

the jet generally fall into two categories, axial flow propellers and direct drive mixers (Price, 

1989). Axial flow pumps usually have a large-diameter propeller (6 to 15 feet) that produces a 

high-discharge, low-velocity jet. Direct drive mixers have small propellers (1 to 2 feet) that 

rotate at high speeds and produce a high-velocity jet. The axial flow pumps are suitable for 

shallow reservoirs because they can force large quantities of water down to shallow depths. The 

high-momentum jets produced by direct drive mixers are necessary to penetrate deeper reservoirs 

(Price, 1989). 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 Thornton, K.W., B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne. 1990. Reservoir Limnology: Ecological 

Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-77 July 2007 

Retaining Walls 

Retaining walls are used in areas where soils are unstable, 

where slopes are steeper than the angle of repose, and 

where the horizontal distance is limited. They help 

stabilize slopes and can decrease the steepness of a slope. 

If the steepness of a slope is reduced, the runoff velocity 

is decreased and, therefore, the erosion potential is 

decreased. 

According to the Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control 

Manual, a variety of materials can be used for 

construction of retaining walls, including concrete 

masonry, concrete cribbing, steel piling, gabions, precast 

stone, rock riprap, reinforced earth, stone drywall, and 

treated wood timbers. Costs vary by the material selected 

for construction. When designing a retaining wall, the 

following factors should be taken into account: drainage, 

bearing value of the soil, wall thickness, stress, foundation design, and wall height. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Retaining Wall. Iowa State 

University. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.13_retaining_wall.pdf. 

3⁄4 Leposky, R.E. 2004. Retaining Walls: What You See and What You Don’t. 

http://www.forester.net/ecm_0401_retaining.html.

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-78 July 2007 

Return Walls 

Whenever shorelines or streambanks are “hardened” 

through the installation of bulkheads, seawalls, or 

revetments, the design process must include consideration 

that waves and currents can continue to dislodge the 

substrate at both ends of the structure, resulting in very 

concentrated erosion and rapid loss of fastland. This 

process is called flanking. To prevent flanking, return walls 

should be provided at either end of a vertical protective 

structure and should extend landward for a horizontal 

distance consistent with the local erosion rate and the 

design life of the structure. 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 USACE. 1985. Coastal Engineering Technical Note: 

Determining Lengths of Return Walls. U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-iii-25.pdf. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-79 July 2007 

Revegetate 

Revegetation of construction sites during and after 

construction is the most effective way to permanently 

control erosion (Hynson et al., 1985). To select the right 

plants for your bioengineering project, note what native 

plant communities grow in the area. Avoid planting 

noxious or invasive grasses, such as reed canary grass or 

ryegrass. Remove invasive plants such as yellow 

starthistle, English ivy, deadly nightshade, field morning 

glory, scotch broom, cheatgrass, and purple loosestrife. 

Use more of the same native plants in the bioengineering 

design, as these plants are most likely adapted to 

conditions to the area. 

Plants like willow, red osier dogwood, alder, ash, and 

cottonwood can be well suited for bioengineering. They 

establish easily, grow quickly, and have thick root 

systems. Cuttings are available from native plant nurseries. They may also be collected next to 

the project site, if the area is well vegetated (Oregon Association of Conservation Districts, 

2004). 

Ecological and vegetational areas vary throughout the country. Therefore, other plant materials 

may be more suitable for a project. Contact local cooperative extension services for more plant 

information.9

 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual: Stormwater Best 

Management Practices for Cold Climates. Soil Erosion Control: Vegetative Methods. Prepared 

for the Metropolitan Council by Barr Engineering Company, St. Paul, MN. 

http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/BMP/CH3_RPPSoilVeget.pdf. 

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Restoring Streambanks with Vegetation.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs07.htm. 

 

9 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partners.html

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-80 July 2007 

Revetment 

A revetment (Figure 7.24) is a type of vertical protective 

structure used for shoreline protection. One revetment 

design contains several layers of randomly shaped and 

randomly placed stones, protected with several layers of 

selected armor units or quarry stone. The armor units in 

the cover layer should be placed in an orderly manner to 

obtain good wedging and interlocking between individual 

stones. The cover layer may also be constructed of 

specially shaped concrete units (USACE, 1984). 

Sometimes gabions (stone-filled wire baskets) or 

interlocking blocks of precast concrete are used in the 

construction of revetments. In addition to the surface 

layer of armor stone, gabions, or rigid blocks, successful 

revetment designs also include an underlying layer 

composed of either geotextile filter fabric and gravel or a 

crushed stone filter and bedding layer. This lower layer 

functions to redistribute hydrostatic uplift pressure caused by wave action in the foundation 

substrate. Precast cellular blocks, with openings to provide drainage and to allow vegetation to 

grow through the blocks, can be used in the construction of revetments to stabilize banks. 

Vegetation roots add additional strength to the bank. In situations where erosion can occur under 

the blocks, fabric filters can be used to prevent the erosion. Technical assistance should be 

obtained to properly match the filter and soil characteristics. Typically blocks are hand placed 

when mechanical access to the bank is limited or costs need to be minimized. Cellular block 

revetments have the additional benefit of being flexible to conform to minor changes in the bank 

shape (USACE, 1983). 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Riprap Revetments. Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs16.pdf.

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-81 July 2007 

Figure 7.24 Revetment Alternatives (USACE, 2003) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-82 July 2007 

Riparian Improvements 

Riparian improvements are another strategy that can be 

used to restore or maintain aquatic and riparian habitat 

around reservoir impoundments or along the waterways 

downstream from dams. In fact, Johnson and LaBounty 

(1988) found that riparian improvements were more 

effective, in some cases, than flow augmentation for 

protection of instream habitat. In the Salmon River (Idaho), 

a variety of instream and riparian habitat improvements 

have been recommended to improve the indigenous stocks 

of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). These 

improvements include reducing sediment loading in the 

watershed, improving riparian vegetation, eliminating 

barriers to fish migration (see sections discussing this 

practice below), and providing greater instream and 

riparian habitat diversity (Andrews, 1988). 

Maintaining and improving riparian areas upstream of a dam may also be an important 

consideration for reducing flow-related impacts to dams. Riparian areas along brooks and 

smaller streams are sometimes altered in a manner that impairs their ability to detain and absorb 

floodwater and stormwater (e.g., removal of forest cover or increased imperviousness). The 

cumulative impact of the riparian changes results in the smaller streams discharging increased 

volumes and velocities of water, which then result in more severe downstream flooding and 

increased storm damage and/or maintenance to existing structures (such as dams). These 

downstream impacts may occur even though main stem floodplains and riparian areas are 

safeguarded and remain close to their natural condition (Cohen, 1997). 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

; Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-83 July 2007 

Riprap 

Riprap is a layer of appropriately sized stones designed 

to protect and stabilize areas subject to erosion, slopes 

subject to seepage, or areas with poor soil structure. 

Riprap extends from the toe of the slope to a height 

needed for long term durability (Figure 7.25). 

Riprap can be used where vegetation cannot be 

established or in combination with vegetative approaches. 

This method is suitable where stream flow velocity is 

high or where there is a threat to life or property. This 

method can be expensive, particularly if materials are not 

locally available. This method should be combined with 

soil bioengineering techniques, particularly revegetation 

efforts, to achieve a comprehensive streambank 

restoration design (FISRWG, 1998). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Riprap. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.15_riprap.pdf. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of 

Environment and 

Conservation. 2002. Erosion 

and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Riprap. 

Tennessee Department of 

Environment and 

Conservation, Nashville, TN. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/

wpc/sed_ero_controlhand

book/rr.pdf. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory

Proper riprap placement (MHW=mean high water, MLW=mean 

low water).

Figure 7.25 Riprap Diagram

(http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/

components/DD6946g.html)
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-84 July 2007 

Root Wad Revetments 

Root wads armor a bank by keeping faster moving 

currents away from the bank (Figures 7.26 and 7.27). They 

are most useful for low energy streams that meander and 

have out-of-bank flow conditions. Root wads should be 

used in combination with other soil bioengineering 

techniques to stabilize a bank and ensure plant 

establishment on the upper portions of the streambank. 

Stabilizing the bank will reduce streambank erosion, trap 

sediment, and improve habitat diversity. There are a 

number of ways to install root wads. The trunk can be 

driven into the bank, laid in a deep trench, or installed as 

part of a log and boulder revetment. Use tree wads that 

have brushy top and durable wood, such as Douglas fir, 

oak, hard maple, juniper, spruce, cedar, red pine, white 

pine, larch, or beech. Ponderosa pine and aspen are too 

inflexible, and alder decomposes rapidly. 

With the added support of a log and boulder revetment, root wads can stabilize banks of highenergy streams. Root wad span should be approximately 5 feet with numerous root protrusions. 

The trunk should be at least 8 to 12 feet long. Boulders should be as large as possible, but at least 

one and a half times the log’s diameter. They should also have an irregular surface. Logs are to 

be used as footers or revetments and should be over 16 inches in diameter. 

When logs and root wads 

are well anchored, this 

design will tolerate high 

boundary shear stress. 

However, local scour and 

erosion is possible. 

Varying with climate and 

tree species used, the 

decomposition of the logs 

and rootwads will limit 

the life span of this 

design. If colonization of 

streambank vegetation 

does not take place, 

replacement may be 

required. The project site 

must be accessible to 

heavy equipment. 

Locating materials may be 

difficult in some locations 

and this method can be expensive (FISRWG, 1998). 

Figure 7.26 Root Wad, Log, and Boulder Revetment with Footer: Plan View 

(USDA-FS, 2002) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-85 July 2007 

Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 

2002). Under EMRRP, the USACE has presented research on rootwad composites in a technical 

note (Rootwad Composites for Streambank Erosion Control and Fish Habitat Enhancement).10

Figure 7.27 Rootwad, Log, and Boulder Revetment with Footer: Section (USDA-FS, 2002) 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 Harmon, W.A. and R. Smith. 2000. Using Root Wads and Rock Vanes for Streambank 

Stabilization. River Course Fact Sheet Number 4. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/rv-crs-4.pdf. 

3⁄4 Walter, J., D. Hughes, and N.J. Moore. 2005. Streambank Revegetation and Protection: A Guide 

for Alaska. Revegetation Techniques: Root Wads. Revised Edition. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Sport Fish. 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/restoration/techniques/rootwad.cfm. 

 

10 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr21.pdf
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-86 July 2007 

Rosgen’s Stream Classification Method 

Rosgen’s stream channel stability method provides a 

sequence of steps for the field practitioner to use in 

reaching final conclusions and making recommendations 

for management, stream design, or restoration. The field 

practitioner uses field-measured variables to assess: 

• Stream state or channel condition variables 

• Vertical stability (degradation/aggradation) 

• Lateral stability 

• Channel patterns 

• Stream profile and bed features 

• Channel dimension factor 

• Channel scour/deposition (with competence 

calculations of field verified critical dimensionless 

shear stress and change in bed and bar material size 

distribution) 

• Stability ratings adjusted by stream type 

• Dimensionless ratio sediment rating curves by stream type and stability ratings 

• Selection of position in stream type evolutionary scenario as quantified by morphological 

variables by stream type to determine state and potential of stream reach. 

The stability assessment is conducted on a reference reach and a departure analysis is performed 

when compared to an unstable reach of the same stream type. Changes in the variables 

controlling river channel form, primarily streamflow, sediment regime, riparian vegetation, and 

direct physical modifications can cause stream channel instability. Separating the differences 

between anthropogenic versus geologic processes in channel adjustment is a key to prevention, 

mitigation, and restoration of disturbed systems. 

Rosgen (1996) has also created a river inventory hierarchy involving four levels that would allow 

a stream assessment to be conducted at various levels, ranging from broad qualitative 

descriptions to detailed quantitative descriptions. The idea is to provide documented 

measurements, coupled with consistent, quantitative indices of stability, to make the approach to 

stream assessments less subjective and more consistent and reproducible. Level I and Level II 

are used to do the initial stratification of a reach by valley and stream type. Level III is used to 

predict stability. Level IV is used for validation, and requires the greatest amount of detail over a 

longer time period. For example, vertical stability and bank erosion can be estimated at Level III. 

But, in a Level IV assessment, permanent cross-sections are revisited over time to verify shifts in 

bed elevation and measure actual erosion that occurred. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

; Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-87 July 2007 

The four hierarchal levels, and the measurements and determinations they include, are shown 

below along with their objectives. 

Level I—Geomorphic characterization: Used to describe generalized fluvial features using 

remote sensing and existing inventories of geology, landform evolution, valley morphology, 

depositional history and associated river slopes, relief and patterns utilized for generalized 

categories of major stream types, and associated interpretations. 

Level II—Morphological description: To delineate homogeneous stream types that describe 

specific slopes, channel materials, dimensions and patterns from reference reach 

measurements and provide a more detailed level of interpretation than Level I. Includes 

measurements such as sinuosity, width/depth ration, slope, entrenchment ratio, and channel 

patterns and material. 

Level III—Stream “state” or condition: The “state” of streams further describes existing 

conditions that influence the response of channels to imposed change and provide specific 

information for prediction methodologies (such as stream bank erosion calculations). 

Provides for very detailed descriptions and associated interpretation and predictions. Includes 

such measurements and/or characterizations of vegetation, deposition, debris, meander 

patterns, channel stability index, and flow regime. 

Level IV—Reach specific studies (validation level): Provides reach-specific information on 

channel processes. Used to evaluate prediction methodologies; to provide sediment, 

hydraulic and biological information related to specific stream types; and to evaluate 

effectiveness of mitigation and impact assessments for activities by stream type. Involves 

direct measurements of sediment transport, bank erosion rates, aggradation/degradation, 

hydraulics, and biological data. 

Rosgen’s stream classification methodologies can assist in stream restoration design by: 

• Enabling more precise estimates of quantitative hydraulic relationships associated with 

specific stream and valley morphologies. 

• Establishing guidelines for selecting stable stream types for a range of dimensions, 

patterns, and profiles that are in balance with the river’s valley slope, valley confinement, 

depositional materials, streamflow, and sediment regime of the watershed. 

• Providing a method for extrapolating hydraulic parameters and developing empirical 

relationships for use in the resistance equations and hydraulic geometry equations needed 

for restoration design. 

• Developing a series of meander geometry relationships that are uniquely related to stream 

types and their bankfull dimensions. 

• Identifying the stable characteristics for a given stream type by comparing the stable form 

to its unstable or disequilibrium condition. 

Refer to Applied River Morphology (Rosgen, 1996) for more information on this stream 

classification system and potential applications. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-88 July 2007 

Scheduling Projects 

Often clearing and grading for a project can be scheduled 

during the time of year that the erosion potential of the site 

is relatively low. In many parts of the country, there is a 

certain period of the year when erosion potential is 

relatively low and construction scheduling could be very 

effective. For example, in the Pacific region if construction 

can be completed during the 6-month dry season (e.g., May 

1 to October 31), temporary erosion and sediment controls 

might not be needed. In some parts of the country erosion 

potential is very high during certain parts of the year, such 

as the spring thaw in northern and high-elevation areas. 

During that time of year, snowmelt generates a constant 

runoff that can erode soil. In addition, construction 

vehicles can easily turn the soft, wet ground into mud, 

which is more easily washed off-site. Therefore, in the 

north, limitations could be placed on clearing and grading 

during the spring thaw (Goldman et al., 1986). 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 CASQA. 2004. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Scheduling. California 

Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA.

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/EC-1.pdf.

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-89 July 2007 

Sediment Basins/Rock Dams 

An earthen or rock embankment that is located to capture 

sediment from runoff and retain it on the construction site. 

Sediment basins, also known as silt basins, are engineered 

impoundment structures that allow sediment to settle out of 

the urban runoff. They are installed prior to full-scale 

grading and remain in place until the disturbed portions of 

the drainage area are fully stabilized. They are generally 

located at the low point of sites, away from construction 

traffic, where they will be able to trap sediment-laden 

runoff. Basin dewatering is achieved either through a 

single riser and drainage hole leading to a suitable outlet on 

the downstream side of the embankment or through the 

gravel of the rock dam. In both cases, water is released at a 

substantially slower rate than would be possible without 

the control structure. 

The following are general specifications for sediment basin design criteria as presented in 

Schueler (1997): 

• Provide 1,800 to 3,600 ft3

 of storage per contributing acre (a number of states, including 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Delaware, recently increased the storage 

requirement to 3,600 ft3

 or more [CWP, 1997b]). 

• Surface area equivalent to 1 percent of drainage area (optional, seldom required). 

• Riser with spillway capacity of 0.2 ft3/s/ac of drainage area (peak discharge for 2-year 

storm with 1-foot freeboard). 

• Length-to-width ratio of 2 or greater. 

• Basin side slopes no steeper than 2:1 (h:v). 

• Safety fencing, perforated riser, dewatering (optional, seldom required). 

Sediment basins can be classified as either temporary or permanent structures, depending on the 

length of service of the structure. If they are designed to function for less than 36 months, they 

are classified as temporary; otherwise, they are considered permanent. Temporary sediment 

basins can also be converted into permanent runoff management ponds. When sediment basins 

are designed as permanent structures, they must meet all standards for wet ponds. It is important 

to note that even the best-designed sediment basin seldom exceeds 60 to 75 percent total 

suspended solids (TSS) removal, which should be considered when selecting a sediment control 

practice. 

Basins are most commonly used at the outlets of diversions, channels, slope drains, or other 

runoff conveyances that discharge sediment-laden water. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-90 July 2007 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Sediment Basin. California 

Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/SE-2.pdf. 

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Sediment Basin. Iowa State 

University. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.17_sediment_basin.pdf. 

3⁄4 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1992. SESC Training Manual: Sedimentation 

Basin. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Lansing, MI. 

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-sb.pdf. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Sediment Basin. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, 

TN. http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/sb.pdf. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-91 July 2007 

Sediment Fences 

Silt fence, also known as filter fabric fence, is available in 

several mesh sizes from many manufacturers. Sediment is 

filtered out as runoff flows through the fabric. Such fences 

should be used only where there is sheet flow (no 

concentrated flow), and the maximum drainage area to the 

fence should be 0.5 acre or less per 100 feet of fence. To 

ensure sheet flow, a gravel collar or level spreader can be 

used upslope of the fence. Many types of fabrics are 

available commercially. The characteristics that determine 

a fence’s effectiveness include filtration efficiency, 

permeability, tensile strength, tear strength, ultraviolet 

resistance, pH effects, and creep resistance. The longevity 

of silt fences depends heavily on proper installation and 

maintenance, however they typically last 6 to 12 months. 

CWP (1997d) identified several conditions that increase 

the effectiveness of silt fences: 

• The length of the slope does not exceed 50 feet for slopes of 5 to 10 percent, 25 feet for 

slopes of 10 to 20 percent, or 15 feet for slopes greater than 20 percent. 

• The silt fence is aligned parallel to the slope contours. 

• Edges of the silt fence are curved uphill, which does not allow flow to bypass the fence. 

• The contributing length to the fence is less than 100 feet. 

• The fence has reinforcement if receiving concentrated flow. 

• The fence was installed above an outlet pipe or weir. 

• The fence is down slope of the exposed area and alignment considers construction traffic. 

• Sediment is not allowed to accumulate behind the fence (increases capacity and decreases 

breach potential). 

• Alignment of the silt fence mirrors the property line or limits of disturbance. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Straw Bale Barrier. 

California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/SE-9.pdf. 

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Sediment Barrier. Iowa State 

University. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.16_sediment_barrier.pdf. 

3⁄4 Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Protecting Water Quality, A Construction Site 

Water Quality Field Guide: Sediment Fence. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/field-guide/fg05_06_sedimentcontrol.pdf.

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Silt Fence. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/sf.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-92 July 2007 

Sediment Traps 

Sediment traps are small impoundments that allow 

sediment to settle out of runoff water. They are typically 

installed in a drainage way or other point of discharge 

from a disturbed area. Temporary diversions can be used 

to direct runoff to the sediment trap. Sediment traps are 

ideal for sites 1 acre and smaller and should not be used 

for areas greater than 5 acres. They typically have a useful 

life of approximately 18 to 24 months. A sediment trap 

should be designed to maximize surface area for 

infiltration and sediment settling. This design increases 

the effectiveness of the trap and decreases the likeliness 

of backup during and after periods of high runoff 

intensity. The approximate storage capacity of each trap 

should be at least 1,800 ft3

/acre of disturbed land draining 

into the trap (Smolen et al., 1988). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 2004. Constructed Ditch Fact Sheet: 

Sediment Traps. No. 9. http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/600Series/641310-1.pdf. 

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Sediment Traps. California 

Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/SE-3.pdf. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Sediment Trap. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, 

TN. http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/st.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-93 July 2007 

Seeding 

Seeding establishes a vegetative cover on disturbed areas 

and is very effective in controlling soil erosion once a dense 

vegetative cover has been established. Seeding establishes 

permanent erosion control in a relatively short amount of 

time and has been shown to decrease solids load by 99 

percent (CWP, 1997a). The three most common seeding 

methods are (1) broadcast seeding, in which seeds are 

scattered on the soil surface; (2) hydroseeding, in which 

seeds are sprayed on the surface of the soil with a slurry of 

water; and (3) drill seeding, in which a tractordrawn 

implement injects seeds into the soil surface. Broadcast 

seeding is most appropriate for small areas and for 

augmenting sparse and patchy grass covers. Hydroseeding is 

often used for large areas (in excess of 5,000 square feet) 

and is typically combined with tackifiers, fertilizers, and 

fiber mulch. Drill seeding is expensive and is cost-effective 

only on sites greater than 2 acres. For best results, bare soils should be seeded or otherwise 

stabilized within 15 calendar days after final grading. Denuded areas that are inactive and will be 

exposed to rain for 15 days or more can also be temporarily stabilized, usually by planting seeds 

and establishing vegetation during favorable seasons in areas where vegetation can be 

established. In very flat, nonsensitive areas with favorable soils, stabilization may involve simply 

seeding and fertilizing. The Soil Quality Institute (SQI, 2000) recommends that soils that have 

been compacted by grading should be broken up or tilled before vegetating. 

To establish a vegetative cover, it is important to use seeds from adapted plant species and 

varieties that have a high germination capacity. Supplying essential plant nutrients, testing the 

soil for toxic materials, and applying an adequate amount of lime and fertilizer can overcome 

many unfavorable soil conditions and establish adequate vegetative cover. Specific information 

about seeds, various species, establishment techniques, and maintenance can be obtained from 

Erosion Control & Conservation Plantings on Noncropland (Landschoot, 1997) or a local 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service11 or Natural Resources 

Conservation Service12 office. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Hydroseeding. California 

Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Construction/EC-4.pdf.

3⁄4 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Seeding for Construction Site Erosion 

Control. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/pdf/stormwater/techstds/erosion/

Seeding%20For%20Construction%20Site%20Erosion%20Control%20_1059.pdf.

 

11 http://www.csrees.usda.gov 12 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-94 July 2007 

Selective Withdrawal 

Temperature control in reservoir releases depends on the 

volume of water storage in the reservoir, the timing of the 

release relative to storage time, and the level from which 

the water is withdrawn. Dams capable of selectively 

releasing waters of different temperatures can provide 

cooler or warmer water temperatures downstream at times 

that are critical for other instream resources, such as 

during periods of fish spawning and development of fry 

(Fontane et al., 1981; Hansen and Crumrine, 1991). 

Stratified reservoirs are operated to meet downstream 

temperature objectives such as to enhance a cold-water or 

warm-water fishery or to maintain preproject stream 

temperature conditions. Release temperature may also be 

important for irrigation (Fontane et al., 1981). 

Multilevel intake devices in storage reservoirs allow 

selective withdrawal of water based on temperature and DO levels. These devices minimize the 

withdrawal of surface water high in blue-green algae, or of deep water enriched in iron and 

manganese. Care should be taken in the design of these systems not to position the multilevel 

intakes too far apart because this will increase the difficulty with which withdrawals can be 

controlled, making the discharge of poor-quality hypolimnetic water more likely (Howington, 

1990; Johnson and LaBounty, 1988; Smith et al., 1987). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-95 July 2007 

Setbacks 

Where setbacks have been implemented to reduce the 

hazard of coastal land loss, they have also included 

requirements for the relocation of existing structures 

located within the designated setback area. Setbacks can 

also include restrictions on uses of waterfront areas that are 

not related to the construction of new buildings (Davis, 

1987). Upland drainage from development should be 

directed away from bluffs and banks so as to avoid 

accelerating slope erosion. 

In most cases, states have used the local unit of 

government to administer the program on either a 

mandatory or voluntary basis. This allows local 

government to retain control of its land use activities and to 

exceed the minimum state requirements if this is deemed 

desirable (NRC, 1990). 

Technical standards for defining and delineating setbacks also vary from state to state. One 

approach is to establish setback requirements for any “high hazard area” eroding at greater than 1 

foot per year. Another approach is to establish setback requirements along all erodible shores 

because even a small amount of erosion can threaten homes constructed too close to the 

streambank or shoreline. Several states have general setback requirements that, while not based 

on erosion hazards, have the effect of limiting construction near the streambank or shoreline. 

The basis for variations in setback regulations between states seems to be based on several 

factors, including (NRC, 1990): 

• The language of the law being enacted 

• The geomorphology of the coast 

• The result of discretionary decisions 

• The years of protection afforded by the setback 

• Other variables decided at the local level of government 

From the perspective of controlling NPS pollution resulting from erosion of shorelines and 

streambanks, the use of setbacks has the immediate benefit of discouraging concentrated flows 

and other impacts of storm water runoff from new development in areas close to the streambank 

or shoreline. In particular, the concentration of storm water runoff can aggravate the erosion of 

shorelines and streambanks, leading to the formation of gullies, which are not easily repaired. 

Therefore, drainage of storm water from developed areas and development activities located 

along the shoreline should be directed inland to avoid accelerating slope erosion. 

The most significant NPS benefits are provided by setbacks that not only include restrictions on 

new construction along the shore but also contain additional provisions aimed at preserving and 

protecting coastal features such as beaches, wetlands, and riparian forests. This approach 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

; Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-96 July 2007 

promotes the natural infiltration of surface water runoff before it passes over the edge of the bank 

or bluff and flows directly into the coastal waterbody. Setbacks also help protect zones of 

naturally occurring vegetation growing along the shore. As discussed in the section on 

“bioengineering practices,” the presence of undisturbed shoreline vegetation itself can help to 

control erosion by removing excess water from the bank and by anchoring the individual soil 

particles of the substrate. 

Almost all states and territories with setback regulations have modified their original programs to 

improve effectiveness or correct unforeseen problems (NRC, 1990). Experiences have shown 

that procedures for updating or modifying the setback width need to be included in the 

regulations. For instance, application of a typical 30-year setback standard in an area whose rate 

of erosion is 2 feet per year results in the designation of a setback width of 60 feet. This width 

may not be sufficient to protect the beaches, wetlands, or riparian forests whose presence 

improves the ability of the streambank or shoreline to respond to severe wave and flood 

conditions, or to high levels of surface water runoff during extreme precipitation events. A 

setback standard based on the landward edge of streambank or shoreline vegetation is one 

alternative that has been considered (NRC, 1990; Davis, 1987). 

From the standpoint of NPS pollution control, an approach that designates streambanks, 

shorelines, wetlands, beaches, or riparian forests as a special protective feature, allows no 

development on the feature, and measures the setback from the landward side of the feature is 

recommended (NRC, 1990). In some cases, provisions for soil bioengineering, marsh creation, 

beach nourishment, or engineering structures may also be appropriate since the special protective 

features within the designated setbacks can continue to be threatened by uncontrolled erosion of 

the shoreline or streambank. Finally, setback regulations should recognize that some special 

features of the streambank or shoreline will change position. For instance, beaches and wetlands 

can be expected to migrate landward if water levels continue to rise. Alternatives for managing 

these situations include flexible criteria for designating setbacks, vigorous maintenance of 

beaches and other special features within the setback area, and frequent monitoring of the rate of 

streambank or shoreline erosion and corresponding adjustment of the setback area. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-97 July 2007 

Shoreline Sensitivity Assessment 

Currently there are no complete, universal assessment 

methodologies that apply to all shorelines and assess 

erosion vulnerabilities in various types of lakes, reservoirs, 

estuaries, and coasts. The methods presented by NOAA 

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were originally 

developed for other purposes and are being applied for 

other shoreline assessments: 

• Environmental Sensitivity Mapping 

• USGS Coastal Classification (Coastal & Marine 

Geology Program) 

• Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) (focus is on 

SLR—the “erosion” factor may be the only 

relevant factor in CVI) 

Environmental Sensitivity Mapping 

The Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) was originally created for NOAA to prioritize areas 

for environmental cleanup (mainly oil-spills), to assist spill-response coordinators in evaluating 

the potential impact of oil along a shoreline, and to facilitate the allocation of resources during 

and after a spill.

ESI maps are comprised of three general types of information (NOAA, 1997):

• Shoreline Classification—ranked according to a scale relating to sensitivity, natural 

persistence of oil, and ease of cleanup. 

• Biological Resources—including oil-sensitive animals and rare plants as well as habitats 

that are used by oil-sensitive species or are themselves sensitive to oil spills, such as 

submersed aquatic vegetation and coral reefs. 

• Human-Use Resources—specific areas that have added sensitivity and value because of 

their use, such as beaches, parks and marine sanctuaries, water intakes, and 

archaeological sites. 

The standardized ESI shoreline guideline rankings include estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, and 

palustrine habitats (NOAA, 1997). The classification scheme is based on an understanding of the 

physical and biological character of the shoreline environment, not just the substrate type and 

grain size. Relationships among physical processes, substrate type, and associated biota produce 

specific geomorphic/ecologic shoreline types, sediment transport patterns, and predictable 

patterns in oil behavior and biological impact. The concepts relating natural factors to the 

relative sensitivity of coastline, mostly developed in the estuarine setting, were slightly modified 

for lakes and rivers. The sensitivity ranking is controlled by the following factors: 

• Relative exposure to wave and tidal energy 

• Shoreline slope 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

; Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-98 July 2007 

• Substrate type (grain size, mobility, penetration and/or burial, and trafficability) 

• Biological productivity and sensitivity 

ESI maps have proven to have a long-term use, and they are excellent tools for studying 

shoreline change and its effects on the distribution and concentration of plants and animals living 

near the coast. Environmental sensitivity mapping is still evolving, and NOAA researchers are 

working with federal, state, and private industry partners to improve the ESI mapping system to 

extend beyond spill response. 

USGS Coastal Classification (Coastal & Marine Geology Program) 

The objective of the Coastal Classification Map is to determine the hazard vulnerability of an 

area. The coastal geomorphic classification scheme utilizes morphology and human 

modifications of the coast as the primary basis for hazard assessment. It emphasizes physical 

factors that influence erosion, overwash of sandy beaches and barrier islands, and landward 

sediment transport during storms along and across those features (USGS, 2004). 

USGS National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise 

The USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program’s National Assessment, seeks to determine the 

relative risks due to future sea-level rise for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts 

USGS, 2002). Through the use of a CVI, the relative risk that physical changes will occur as sealevel rises is quantified based on the following criteria: tidal range, wave height, coastal slope, 

shoreline change, geomorphology, and historical rate of relative sea-level rise. This approach 

combines a coastal system’s susceptibility to change with its natural ability to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions, and yields a relative measure of the system’s natural vulnerability to 

the effects of sea-level rise. 

In 2001, USGS in partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) Geologic Resources 

Division, began conducting hazard assessments and creating map products to assist the NPS in 

managing vulnerable coastal resources. One of the most important and practical issues in coastal 

geology is determining the physical response of coastal environments to water-level changes. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 NOAA. 1997. Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines (Version 3) Chapter 2. Seattle, WA. 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/876_chapter2.pdf. 

3⁄4 USGS. 2002. Vulnerability of US National Parks to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Change. U.S. 

Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-02/fs095-02.html. 

3⁄4 USGS. 2004. Coastal Classification Mapping Project. U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal & 

Marine Geology Program. http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/coastal-classification/class.html. 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-99 July 2007 

Site Fingerprinting 

Often areas of a construction site are unnecessarily 

cleared. The total amount of disturbed area can be 

reduced with site fingerprinting, which involves placing 

development in the most environmentally sound locations 

on the site and minimizing the size of disturbed area. 

With site fingerprinting, only those areas essential for 

completing construction activities are cleared. The 

remaining area is left undisturbed. 

Fingerprinting places development away from 

environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, steep slopes, 

etc.), areas for future open space and restoration, areas 

where trees are to be saved, and temporary and permanent 

vegetative buffer zones. 

The proposed limits of land disturbance can be physically 

marked off to ensure that only the land area required for buildings, roads, and other infrastructure 

is cleared. Existing vegetation, especially vegetation on steep slopes, can be avoided. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-100 July 2007 

Sodding 

Sodding permanently stabilizes an area with a thick 

vegetative cover. Sodding provides immediate stabilization 

of an area and can be used in critical areas or where 

establishing permanent vegetation by seeding and 

mulching would be difficult. Sodding is also a preferred 

option when there is high erosion potential during the 

period of vegetative establishment from seeding. 

According to the Soil Quality Institute (SQI, 2000), soils 

that have been compacted by grading should be broken up 

or tilled before placing sod. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Minnesota Urban 

Small Sites BMP Manual: Stormwater Best Management 

Practices for Cold Climates. Soil Erosion Control: 

Vegetative Methods. Prepared for the Metropolitan 

Council by Barr Engineering Company, St. Paul, MN. 

http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/BMP/CH3_RPPSoilVeget.pdf. 

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Sodding. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/2.6_sodding.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-101 July 2007 

Soil Protection 

Unprotected stockpiles are very prone to erosion, and they 

must be protected. Small stockpiles can be covered with a 

tarp to prevent erosion. Large stockpiles can be stabilized 

by erosion blankets, seeding, or mulching. 

Because of the high organic content of topsoil, it is not 

recommended for use as fill material or under pavement. 

After a site is cleared, the topsoil is typically removed. 

Since topsoil is essential to establish new vegetation, it 

should be stockpiled and then reapplied to the site for 

revegetation, if appropriate. Although topsoil salvaged 

from the existing site can often be used, it must meet 

certain standards, and topsoil might need to be imported 

onto the site if the existing topsoil is not adequate for 

establishing new vegetation. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-102 July 2007 

Spill and Water Budgets 

Although often used together, spill and water budgets are 

independent methods of facilitating downstream fish 

migration. Spill budgets provide alternative methods for 

fish passage that are less dangerous than passage through 

turbines. Spillways are used to allow fish to leave the 

reservoir by passing over the dam rather than through the 

turbines. The spillways must be designed to ensure that 

hydraulic conditions do not induce injury to the passing 

fish from scraping and abrasion, turbulence, rapid pressure 

changes, or supersaturation of dissolved gases in water 

passing through plunge pools (Stone and Webster, 1986). 

In the Columbia River basin (Pacific Northwest), the 

USACE provides spill on a limited basis to pass fish 

around specific dams to improve survival rates. At key 

dams, spill is used in special operations to protect hatchery 

releases or provide better passage conditions until bypass systems are fully developed or, in 

some cases, improved (van der Borg and Ferguson, 1989). The cost of this alternative depends 

on the volume of water lost for power production (Mattice, 1990). Analyses of this practice, 

using a USACE model called FISHPASS, historically has shown that application of spill budgets 

in the Columbia River basin is consistently the most costly and least efficient method of 

improving overall downstream migration efficiency (Dodge, 1989). 

In 1995 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a draft biological opinion to 

save Columbia River Basin salmon. The opinion was issued after concluding that current 

operations of the hydropower system were jeopardizing Columbia Basin salmon. The opinion 

addresses safer passage for young fish through the dams and modification to a number of 

hydropower operations and facilities. It calls for using as much water as possible during fishpassage season to improve flow for fish moving through the system. Specifically the draft called 

for spilling water over dams to increase passage of juvenile salmon via non-turbine routes to at 

least 80 percent. The USACE now runs the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program in cooperation 

with NMFS (NOAA, 1995; USACE, 2002b). 

Water budgets increase flows through dams during the out-migration of anadromous fish species. 

They are used to speed smolt migration through reservoirs and dams. Water normally released 

from the impoundment during the winter period to generate power is instead released in May or 

June, when it can be sold only as secondary energy. This concept has been used in some regions 

of the United States, although quantification of the overall benefits is lacking (Dodge, 1989). 

The volume of a typical water budget is generally not adequate to sustain minimum desirable 

flows for fish passage during the entire migration period. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Authority has proposed replacement of the water budget on the Columbia River system with a 

minimum flow requirement to prevent problems of inadequate water volume in discharge during 

low-flow years (Muckleston, 1990). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-103 July 2007 

Spill Prevention and Control Program 

Spill procedure information can be posted, and persons 

trained in spill handling should be onsite or on call at all 

times. Materials for cleaning up spills can be kept onsite 

and easily available. Spills should be cleaned up 

immediately and the contaminated material properly 

disposed. 

In general, a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure 

(SPCC) plan can include guidance to site personnel on: 

• Proper notification when a spill occurs 

• Site responsibility with respect to addressing the 

cleanup of a spill 

• Stopping the source of a spill 

• Cleaning up a spill 

• Proper disposal of materials contaminated by the spill 

• Location of spill response equipment programs 

• Training program for designated on-site personnel 

A periodic spill “fire drill” can be conducted to help train personnel on proper responses to spill 

events and to keep response actions fresh in the minds of personnel. It is important to maintain 

an adequate spill and cleaning kit, which could include the following: 

• Detergent or soap, hand cleaner, and water 

• Activated charcoal, adsorptive clay, vermiculite, kitty litter, sawdust, or other adsorptive 

materials 

• Lime or bleach to neutralize pesticides or other spills in emergency situations 

• Tools such as a shovel, broom, and dustpan and containers for disposal 

• Proper protective clothing 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

; Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-104 July 2007 

Spillway Modifications 

Spill at hydroelectric dams is routinely required during 

periods of high runoff when the river discharge exceeds 

what can be passed through the powerhouse turbines. In 

some cases, spill has been associated with gas 

supersaturation problems. The USACE has proposed 

several practices for solving the gas supersaturation 

problem. These include (1) passing more headwater 

storage through turbines, installing new fish bypass 

structures, and installing additional power units to reduce 

the need for spill; (2) incorporating “flip-lip” deflectors in 

spillway-stilling basins, transferring power generation to 

high-dissolved-gas-producing dams, and altering spill 

patterns at individual dams to minimize nitrogen mass 

entrainment; and (3) collecting and transporting juvenile 

salmonids around affected river reaches. Only a few of 

these practices have been implemented (Tanovan, 1987). 

As more attention is being paid to maintaining minimum flows in rivers for fish passage and 

spawning, mangers are balancing the need for spills with the potential impacts of gas 

supersaturation (Anderson, 2004; Anderson, 1995; DeHart, 2003; USFWS, 2001; Van Holmes 

and Anderson, 2004). For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has routinely monitored 

gas supersaturation in reaches below Bonneville Dam (Columbia River, Oregon) to protect 

migrating salmon, many of which are endangered species (USFWS, 2001). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

; Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-105 July 2007 

Surface Roughening 

Roughening is the scarifying of a bare sloped soil surface 

with horizontal grooves or benches running across the 

slope. Roughening aids the establishment of vegetative 

cover, improves water infiltration, and decreases runoff 

velocity. 

Additional Resource

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Surface Roughening. Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN. 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/

sed_ero_controlhandbook/sr.pdf. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-106 July 2007 

Toe Protection 

A number of qualitative advantages are to be gained by 

providing toe protection for vertical bulkheads. Toe 

protection usually takes the form of a stone apron installed 

at the base of the vertical structure to reduce wave 

reflection and scour of bottom sediments during storms. 

The installation of rubble toe protection should include 

filter cloth and perhaps a bedding of small stone to reduce 

the possibility of rupture of the filter cloth. Ideally, the 

rubble should extend to an elevation such that waves will 

break on the rubble during storms. 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Massachusetts DEP. 2006. Massachusetts Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Management Manual: Stone Toe 

Protection. Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection, Boston, MA. 

http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/Fact%20Sheets/Stone%20Toe%20Protection.pdf. 

3⁄4 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Vegetated Armoring Erosion Control 

Methods. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/waterway/erosioncontrol-vegetated.html. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-107 July 2007 

Training—ESC 

Provide education and training opportunities for 

designers, developers, and contractors. One of the most 

important factors determining whether ESCs will be 

properly installed and maintained on a construction site is 

the knowledge and experience of the contractor and onsite 

personnel. Many communities require certification for 

key on-site employees who are responsible for 

implementing the ESC plan. Certification can be 

accomplished through municipally sponsored training 

courses; more informally, municipalities can hold 

mandatory preconstruction or prewintering meetings and 

conduct regular and final inspection visits to transfer 

information to contractors (Brown and Caraco, 1997). 

Information that can be covered in training courses and 

meetings includes the importance of ESC for water 

quality protection; developing and implementing ESC 

plans; the importance of proper installation, regular inspection, and diligent maintenance of ESC 

practices; and record keeping for inspections and maintenance activities. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-108 July 2007 

Transference of Fish Runs 

Transference of fish runs involves inducing anadromous 

fish species to use different spawning grounds in the 

vicinity of an impoundment. To implement this practice, 

the nature and extent of the spawning grounds that were 

lost due to the blockage in the river need to be assessed, 

and suitable alternative spawning grounds need to be 

identified. The feasibility of successfully collecting the fish 

and transporting them to alternative tributaries also needs 

to be carefully determined. 

One strategy for mitigating the impacts of diversions on 

fisheries is the use of ephemeral streams as conveyance 

channels for all or a portion of the diverted water. If flow 

releases are controlled and uninterrupted, a perennial 

stream is created, along with new instream and riparian 

habitat. However, the biota that had been adapted to 

preexisting conditions in the ephemeral stream will probably be eliminated. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

; Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-109 July 2007 

Tree Armoring, Fencing, and Retaining Walls 

or Tree Wells 

Tree armoring protects tree trunks and natural vegetation 

from being damaged by construction equipment. Fencing 

can also protect tree trunks, but it should be placed at the 

tree’s drip line so that construction equipment is kept 

away from the tree. A tree’s drip line is the minimum area 

around the tree in which the tree’s root system should not 

be disturbed by cut, fill, or soil compaction caused by 

heavy equipment. When cutting or filling must be done 

near a tree, a retaining wall or tree well can be used to 

minimize the cutting of the tree’s roots or the quantity of 

fill placed over the tree’s roots. It is recommended that 

cutting or filling be done only when absolutely necessary. 

Fill placement over the tree root flare or within the 

dripline will eventually kill the tree. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-110 July 2007 

Tree Revetments 

Tree revetments consist of a row of interconnected trees 

anchored to the toe of the streambank or to the upper 

streambank (Figures 7.28 and 7.29). This serves to reduce 

flow velocities along eroding streambanks, trap sediment, 

and provide a substrate for plant establishment and erosion 

control. This design relies on the installation of an 

adequate anchoring system and is best suited for 

streambank heights under 12 feet and bankfull velocities 

under 6 feet per second. In addition, this structure should 

occupy no more than 15 percent of the channel at bankfull. 

Toe protection is needed to accompany this design if scour 

is anticipated and upper bank soil bioengineering 

techniques are recommended to ensure streamside 

regeneration. This design allows for the use of local 

materials if they are readily available. Decay resistant 

species are 

recommended for the 

logs to extend the life 

of the structure and 

thus the ability of 

vegetation to become 

established. Due to 

decomposition, 

these structures have 

a limited life and 

might require 

periodic replacement. 

It is considered 

beneficial that 

decomposition of the 

logs over time allows 

the streambank to 

return to a natural 

state with protection 

provided by mature 

streambank 

vegetation. There is a 

potential for the logs to dislodge, and these structures should not be located upstream of bridges 

or other structures sensitive to damage. Tree revetments are susceptible to damage by ice 

(FISRWG, 1998). Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil Bioengineering 

Guide (USDA-FS, 2002). 

Figure 7.28 Tree Revetment (USDA-FS, 2002)

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-111 July 2007 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Spruce Tree Revetment. 

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/sarr/restoration/techniques/images/csbs_strevet.pdf. 

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 Goard, D. 2006. Riparian Forest Best Management Practices: Tree Revetments. Kansas State 

University, Manhattan, KS. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/forst2/MF2750.pdf. 

3⁄4 Gough, S. 2004. Tree Revetments for Streambank Revitalization. Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Fisheries Division, Jefferson City, MO. http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/streams/revetmen/. 

Figure 7.29 Tree Revetment: Section View (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-112 July 2007 

Turbine Operation 

Implementation of changes in the turbine start-up 

procedures can also enlarge the zone of withdrawal to 

include more of the epilimnetic waters in the downstream 

releases. Monitoring of the releases at the Walter F. 

George lock and dam (Chattahoochee River, Georgia), 

showed levels of DO declined sharply at the start-up of 

hydropower production. The severity and duration of the 

DO drop were found to be reduced by starting up all the 

generator units within a minute of each other (Findley and 

Day, 1987). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-113 July 2007 

Turbine Venting 

Turbine venting is the practice of injecting air into water as 

it passes through a turbine. If vents are provided inside the 

turbine chamber, the turbine will aspirate air from the 

atmosphere and mix it with water passing through the 

turbine as part of its normal operation. In early designs, the 

turbine was vented through existing openings, such as the 

draft tube opening or the vacuum breaker valve in the 

turbine assembly. Air forced by compressors into the draft 

tube opening enriched reservoir waters with little 

detectable DO to concentrations of 3 to 4 mg/L. Overriding 

the automatic closure of the vacuum breaker valve (at high 

turbine discharges) increased DO by only 2 mg/L 

(Harshbarger, 1987). 

Turbine venting uses the low-pressure region just below 

the turbine wheel to aspirate air into the discharges (Wilhelms, 1984). Autoventing turbines are 

constructed with hub baffles, or deflector plates placed on the turbine hub upstream of the vent 

holes to enhance the low-pressure zone in the vicinity of the vent and thereby increase the 

amount of air aspirated through the venting system. Turbine efficiency relates to the amount of 

energy output from a turbine per unit of water passing through the turbine. Efficiency decreases 

as less power is produced for the same volume of water. In systems where the water is aerated 

before passing through the turbine, part of the water volume is displaced by the air, thus leading 

to decreased efficiency. Hub baffles have also been added to autoventing turbines at the Norris 

Dam (Clinch River, Tennessee) to further improve the DO levels in the turbine releases (Jones 

and March, 1991). 

Developments in autoventing turbine technology show that it may be possible to aspirate air with 

no resulting decrease in turbine efficiency. In one test of an autoventing turbine at the Norris 

Dam, the turbine efficiency increased by 1.8 percent (March et al., 1991; Waldrop, 1992). 

Technologies like autoventing turbines are very site-specific and outcomes will vary 

considerably. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-114 July 2007 

Vegetated Buffers 

Like filter strips, vegetated buffers provide a physical 

separation between a construction site and a waterbody. 

The difference between a filter strip and a vegetated buffer 

area is that a filter strip is an engineered device, whereas a 

buffer is a naturally occurring filter system. Vegetated 

buffers remove nutrients and other pollutants from runoff, 

trap sediments, and shade the waterbody to optimize light 

and temperature conditions for aquatic plants and animals 

(Welsch, n.d.). Preservation of vegetation for a buffer can 

be planned before any site-disturbing activities begin so as 

to minimize the impact of construction activities on 

existing vegetation. Trees can be clearly marked at the 

dripline to preserve them and to protect them from ground 

disturbances around the base of the tree. 

Proper maintenance of buffer vegetation is important. Maintenance requirements depend on the 

plant species chosen, soil types, and climatic conditions. Maintenance activities typically include 

fertilizing, liming, irrigating, pruning, controlling weeds and pests, and repairing protective 

markers (e.g., fluorescent fences and flags). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 CASQA. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Construction Handbook: Vegetated Buffer Strips. 

California Stormwater Quality Association, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-31.pdf. 

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Forested Buffer Strips. Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs13.htm. 

3⁄4 River Alliance of Wisconsin. No date. Benefits of Vegetated Buffers. River Alliance of 

Wisconsin, Madison, WI. http://www.wisconsinrivers.org/documents/policy/

Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Benefits%20of%20Vegetated%20Buffers.pdf.

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Vegetative Practices. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 

Nashville, TN. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/2.%20Vegetative%20Practices.pdf.

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

 ; Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-115 July 2007 

Vegetated Filter Strips 

Vegetated filter strips are low-gradient vegetated areas that 

filter overland sheet flow. Runoff must be evenly 

distributed across the filter strip. Channelized flows 

decrease the effectiveness of filter strips. Level spreading 

devices are often used to distribute the runoff evenly across 

the strip (Dillaha et al., 1989). 

Vegetated filter strips should have relatively low slopes 

and adequate length to provide optimal sediment control 

and should be planted with erosion-resistant plant species. 

The main factors that influence the removal efficiency are 

the vegetation type, soil infiltration rate, and flow depth 

and travel time. These factors are dependent on the 

contributing drainage area, slope of strip, degree and type 

of vegetative cover, and strip length. Maintenance 

requirements for vegetated filter strips include sediment 

removal and inspections to ensure that dense, vigorous vegetation is established and concentrated 

flows do not occur. For more information on vegetated filter strips, refer to EPA’s National 

Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement 

of Nonpoint Source Pollution (USEPA, 2005b). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Vegetative Filter Strip. Iowa State 

University. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/2.8_veg_filter_strip.pdf. 

3⁄4 Leeds, R., L.C. Brown, M.R. Sulc, and L. VanLieshout. No date. Vegetative Filter Strips: 

Application, Installation and Maintenance. The Ohio State University, Food, Agriculture and 

Biological Engineering, Columbus, OH. http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0467.html. 

3⁄4 USDA. 2003. Grass Filter Strips. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

http://www.oh.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/Lake_Erie_Buffer/filter_strips.html. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

; Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-116 July 2007 

Vegetated Gabions 

Vegetated gabions (Figure 7.30) start with wire-mesh, 

rectangular baskets filled with small to medium rock and 

soil. The baskets are then laced together to form a 

structural toe or sidewall. Live branches (0.5 to 1 inch in 

diameter) are then placed on each consecutive layer 

between the rock filled baskets to take root, join together 

the structure, and bind it to the slope. This method is 

effective for protecting steep slopes where scouring or 

undercutting is occurring. However, this method is not 

appropriate in streams with heavy bed load or where severe 

ice damage occurs. This method provides moderate 

structural support and should be placed at the base of a 

slope to stabilize the slope and reduce slope steepness. A 

stable foundation is required for the installation of these 

structures. When the rock size needed is not locally 

available, this design is effective because 

smaller rocks can be used. A limiting 

factor of this method is that it is 

expensive to install and to replace. These 

structures are relatively expensive to 

construct and frequently require costly 

repairs. This method should be combined 

with other soil bioengineering 

techniques, particularly revegetation 

efforts, to achieve a comprehensive 

streambank restoration design (FISRWG, 

1998). There is often opposition to these 

structures based on their inability to 

blend in with natural settings and their 

general lack of aesthetically pleasing 

qualities (Gore, 1985). 

Installation guidelines are available from 

the USDA NRCS Engineering Field 

Handbook, Chapter 18 (USDA-NRCS, 

1992). Under EMRRP, the USACE has 

presented research on vegetated gabions 

in a technical note (Gabions for 

Streambank Erosion Control).13

 

13 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr22.pdf

Figure 7.30 Vegetated Gabion (Allen and Leech, 1997) 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-117 July 2007 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. Iowa Construction Site Erosion Control Manual: Gabion. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/construction/3.8_gabion.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Vegetated Rock Gabions/Gabions. Created for United 

States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science 

Institute. http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/veg_rockgabions.pdf. 

3⁄4 MMG Civil Engineering Systems, Ltd. 2001. Vegetated Gabions. MMG Civil Engineering 

Systems, Ltd., St. Germans, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, England. 

http://www.verdantsolutions.ltd.uk/acrobat/vegsod.pdf. 

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Gabion Revetments. Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs15.htm. 

3⁄4 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook: Gabion. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/sed_ero_controlhandbook/ga.pdf.
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-118 July 2007 

Vegetated Geogrids 

Vegetated geogrids consist of layers of live branch 

cuttings and compacted soil with natural or synthetic 

geotextile materials wrapped around each soil layer 

(Figure 7.31). This serves to rebuild and vegetate eroded 

streambanks, particularly on outside bends where erosion 

can be a problem. This system is designed to capture 

sediment providing a substrate for plant establishment and 

if properly designed and installed, these systems help to 

quickly establish riparian vegetation. Its benefits are 

similar to those of brush layering (e.g., dries excessively 

wet sites, reinforces soil as roots develop, which adds 

significant resistance to sliding or shear displacement). 

Due to the strength of this design and the higher initial 

tolerance to flow velocity, these systems can be installed 

on a 1:1 or steeper streambank or lakeshore. Limitations 

of this design include the complexity involved with 

constructing this system and the fairly high expense (FISRWG, 1998). When constructing this 

type of system, use live branch cuttings that are brushy and root readily. Also use cuttings that 

are 0.5 to 2 inches in diameter and 4 to 6 feet long. This type of system requires biodegradable 

erosion control fabric. Installation guidelines are available from the USDA-FS Soil 

Bioengineering Guide (USDA-FS, 2002). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 Massachusetts DEP. 2006. Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual:

Vegetated Geogrids. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. 

http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/Fact%20Sheets/Vegetated%20Geogrids.pdf. 

3⁄4 ISU. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion: Vegetated Geogrids. Iowa State University. 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank/vegetated_geogrids.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Vegetated Geogrids. Created for United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/vegegeogrids.pdf. 

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-119 July 2007 

Figure 7.31 Vegetated Geogrid (USDA-FS, 2002) 
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-120 July 2007 

Vegetated Reinforced Soil Slope (VRSS) 

The vegetated reinforced soil slope (VRSS) soil system 

(Figures 7.32 and 7.33) is an earthen structure constructed 

from living, rootable, live-cut, woody plant material 

branches, bare root, tubling or container plant stock, along 

with rock, geosynthetics, geogrids, and/or geocomposites. 

The VRSS system is useful for immediately repairing or 

preventing deeper failures, providing a structurally sound 

system with soil reinforcement, drainage, and erosion 

control (typically on steepened slope sites with limited 

space). Living cut branches and plants grow and perform 

additional soil reinforcement via the roots and surface 

protection via the top growth (Sotir and Fischenich, 2003). 

Live vegetation is typically installed from just above 

baseflow elevation and up the face of the reconstructed 

streambank, acting to protect the bank through immediate 

soil reinforcement and confinement, drainage, and, in the toe 

area, with rock. The system extends below the depth of 

scour, typically with rock, which improves infiltration and 

supports the riparian zone. Internal systems (e.g., rock, live 

cut branches) can be configured to act as drains that redirect 

or collect internal bank seepage and transport water to the 

stream via a rock toe (Sotir and Fischenich, 2003). 

Plants may be selected to provide color, texture, and other 

attributes to add a natural landscape appearance. Examples 

of plants include dogwood, willow, hybiscus, and Viburnum

spp. Check with your local NRCS office to make sure these 

are appropriate for the location. If a compound channel cross 

section is desirable near or just below the baseflow 

elevation, a step-back terrace may be incorporated to offer 

an enhanced riparian zone where emergent aquatic plants 

may invade over time. Although the total mass uptake may 

be small, they assimilate contaminants within the water 

column. Aquatic wetland plants that may be installed 

adjacent to the stream include blueflag, monkey flower, and 

pickerelweed. Again, check with your local NRCS office to 

ensure these are appropriate. VRSS systems can be constructed on slopes ranging from 1V on 2H 

(1:2) to 1:0.5. When constructed in step or terrace fashion, they improve pollutant control by 

intercepting sediment and attached pollutants during overbank flows (Sotir and Fischenich, 

2003). Additional information about VRSS systems is available from USACE’s Vegetated 

Reinforced Soil Slope Streambank Erosion Control.

14

 

14 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr30.pdf

Figure 7.32 VRSS Structure After 

Construction 

(Sotir and Fischenich, 2003) 

Figure 7.33 Established VRSS 

Structure (Sotir and Fischenich, 2003)

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

; Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-121 July 2007 

Water Conveyances 

These are the open or closed channel, conduit, or drop 

structure used to convey water from a reservoir. The 

USACE has studied the performance of spillways and 

overflow weirs at its facilities to determine the importance 

of these structures in improving DO levels. For example, 

data have been analyzed for the test spill done in 1999 at 

Canyon Ferry Dam in Montana, which found that allowing 

a portion of the releases to go over the spillways resulted in 

a significant increase in DO in the river downstream of the 

dam. Initially the use of spillways appeared to be a viable 

solution to the problem of low dissolved oxygen in the 

river below the dam. However, there was a problem with 

nitrogen supersaturation. 

The operation of some types of hydraulic structures has 

been linked to problems of the supersaturation. An 

unexpected fish kill occurred in spring 1978 due to supersaturation of nitrogen gas in the Lake of 

the Ozarks (Missouri) within 5 miles of Truman Dam, caused by water plunging over the 

spillway and entraining air. The vertical drop between the spillway crest and the tailwaters was 

only 5 feet. The maximum total gas saturation was 143 percent, which is well above desired 

saturation levels. In this case, the spillway was modified by cutting a notch to prevent water from 

plunging directly into the stilling basin (ASCE, 1986). 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

; Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-122 July 2007 

Wildflower Cover 

Because of the hardy, drought-resistant nature of 

wildflowers, they may be more beneficial as an erosion 

control practice than turf grass. Though not as dense as 

turfgrass, wildflower thatches and associated grasses are 

expected to be as effective in erosion control and 

contaminant absorption. An additional benefit of 

wildflower thatches is that they provide habitat for 

wildlife, including insects and small mammals. Because 

thatches of wildflowers do not need fertilizers, pesticides, 

or herbicides and watering is minimal, implementation of 

this practice may result in cost savings. 

A wildflower stand requires several years to become 

established, but maintenance requirements are minimal 

once established. Prices vary greatly, from less than $15 

(Stock Seed Farms, n.d.) to $40 (Albright Seed Company, 

2002) a pound, for wildflower seed mixes. The amount of wildflower seeds applied depends on 

the desired coverage of wildflowers. However, Stock Seed Farms recommends that one pound of 

seed can cover 3,500 ft2

 (Stock Seed Farms, n.d.). Keep in mind that species selection should 

focus on those wildflowers and grasses native to the given area or appropriate to the site. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-123 July 2007 

Wind Erosion Controls 

Wind erosion controls limit the movement of dust from 

disturbed soil surfaces and include many different 

practices. Wind barriers block air currents and are effective 

in controlling soil blowing. Many different materials can 

be used as wind barriers, including solid board fences, 

snow fences, and bales of hay. Sprinkling moistens the soil 

surface with water and must be repeated as needed to be 

effective for preventing wind erosion (Delaware DNREC, 

2003); however, applications must be monitored to prevent 

excessive runoff and erosion. 

Channelization 

 Physical & chemical 

 Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

; Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

 Streambanks  Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

 Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 7: Practices for Implementing Management Measures 

EPA 841-B-07-002 7-124 July 2007 

Wing Deflectors 

Wing deflectors are structures that protrude from either 

streambank but do not extend entirely across a channel. 

The structures are designed to deflect flows away from the 

bank, and create scour pools by constricting the channel 

and accelerating flow. The structures can be installed in 

series on alternative streambanks to produce a meandering 

thalweg and stream diversity. The most common design is 

a rock and rock-filled log crib deflector structure. The 

design bases the size of the structure on anticipated scour. 

These structures need to be installed far enough 

downstream from riffle areas to avoid backwater effects 

that could drown out or damage the riffle. This design 

should be employed in streams with low physical habitat 

diversity, particularly channels that lack pool habitats. 

Construction on a sand bed stream may be susceptible to 

failure and should be constructed with the use a filter layer 

or geotextile fabric beneath the wing deflector structure (FISRWG, 1998). 

Additional Resources

3⁄4 FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/PDFFILES/APPENDIX.pdf.

3⁄4 Massachusetts DEP. 2006. Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual: 

Wing Deflectors. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. 

http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/Fact%20Sheets/Wing%20Deflectors.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Single Wing Deflector. Created for United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/singlewing.pdf. 

3⁄4 Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Double Wing Deflector. Created for United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute.

http://abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/doublewing.pdf. 

3⁄4 Ohio DNR. No date. Ohio Stream Management Guide: Deflectors. Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources. http://www.ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs19.pdf. 

3⁄4 SMRC. No date. Stream Restoration: Flow Deflection/Concentration Practices. The Stormwater 

Manager’s Resource Center. 

http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Restoration/flow_deflection.htm.

Channelization 

; Physical & chemical 

; Instream/riparian restoration 

Dams 

 Erosion control 

 Runoff control 

 Chemical/pollutant control 

 Watershed protection 

 Aerate reservoir water 

 Improve tailwater oxygen 

 Restore/maintain habitat 

 Maintain fish passage 

Erosion 

; Streambanks ; Shorelines 

  Vegetative 

; Structural 

 Integrated

 Planning & regulatory
Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

EPA 841-B-07-002 8-1 July 2007 

Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

Physical and chemical effects of hydraulic and hydrologic changes to streams, rivers, or other 

surface water systems can often be estimated with models and past experience (expert judgment). 

Several different models are available that can simulate many of the complex physical, chemical, 

and biological interactions that occur when hydraulic changes are imposed on surface water 

systems. Additionally, models can sometimes be used to determine a combination of practices to 

mitigate the unavoidable effects that occur even when a project is properly planned. Models, 

however, cannot be used independently of expert judgment gained through past experience. 

When properly applied models are used in conjunction with expert judgment, the effects of 

hydromodification activities (both potential and existing projects) can be evaluated and many 

undesirable effects prevented or eliminated. Models combined with expert judgment can also be 

used to evaluate existing hydromodification activities as part of operation and maintenance 

programs to identify possible opportunities to reduce or eliminate water quality impacts. 

In the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) report, Review of Watershed Water Quality 

Models1

 (Deliman et al., 1999), the authors compare and evaluate existing hydrologic and 

watershed water quality models, make recommendations for base model(s) for predicting 

nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, and identify areas for model improvement. The authors review 

commonly used and well validated models used in urban or nonurban settings. Users of the 

models can use the report to obtain basic model information and to review how well the models 

simulate NPS pollution and where the authors think improvements could be made. This 

information might be useful to readers who are trying to select the best model for analyzing how 

to reduce NPS pollution in their watersheds (Deliman et al., 1999). 

Tables 8.1 and 8.2 below provided example of models and assessment approaches that could be 

used to determine the effects of hydromodification activities.

 

1

 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trw99-1.pdf
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-2 July 2007 

Available Models and Assessment Approaches Table 8.1 lists some of the models available for studying the effects of channelization and channel modification amodels to analyze watershed runoff and to assess BMPs and low impact development to reduce impacts (of hydr

activities.) The table also provides a quick description of each model and the dimension in which it models, as wcontact information. 

Table 8.1 Models Applicable to Hydromodification Activities 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

Channelization and Channel Modification Models BRANCH 1 The Branch-Network Dynamic Flow Model is used to simulate 

steady state flow in a single open channel reach or throughout a system of branches connected in a dendritic or looped pattern. The model is typically applied to assess flow and transport in upland rivers where flows are highly regulated or backwater effects are evident, or in coastal networks of open channels where flow and transport are governed by the interaction of freshwater inflows, tidal action, and meteorological conditions. (Last updated: 1997) 

http://water.usgs.gov/cg

man_wrdapp?branch

CE-QUAL-RIV1 1 CE-QUAL-RIV1 is a one-dimensional (cross-sectionally 

averaged) hydrodynamic and water quality model, meaning that the model resolves longitudinal variations in hydraulic and quality characteristics and is applicable where lateral and vertical variations are small. CE-QUAL-RIV1 consists of two parts, a hydrodynamic code (RIV1H) and a water quality code (RIV1Q). The hydrodynamic code is applied first to predict water transport and its results are written to a file, which is then read by the quality model. It can be used to predict onedimensional hydraulic and water quality variations in streams and rivers with highly unsteady flows, although it can also be used for prediction under steady flow conditions. 

http://www.wes.army.m

riv1info.html
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-3 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

CE-QUAL-W2 2 CE-QUAL-W2 is a two-dimensional, laterally averaged, finite 

difference hydrodynamic and water quality model for rivers, reservoirs, and estuaries. Because the model assumes lateral homogeneity, it is best suited for relatively long and narrow waterbodies exhibiting longitudinal and vertical water quality gradients. Branched networks can be modeled. The model accommodates variable grid spacing (segment lengths and layer thicknesses) so that greater resolution in the grid can be specified where needed. 

http://smig.usgs.gov/cgi-

home_pages/model_hom

http://www.ce.pdx.edu/w

CH3D-SED 1, 2, or 3 The CH3D numerical modeling system can be used to 

investigate sedimentation on bendways, crossings, and distributaries. Applications address dredging, channel evolution, and channel training structure evaluations. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.arm

chl.aspx?p=s&a=Softwa

EFDC 1, 2, or 3 The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code is a single source, 

three-dimensional, finite-difference modeling system having hydrodynamic, water quality-eutrophication, sediment transport and toxic contaminant transport components linked together. 

John Hamrick developeInstitute of Marine ScienJohn Hamrick, Tetra TePlace, Suite 340 Fairfax

EFM 1 Ecosystem Functions Model (EFM) is a planning tool that 

analyzes ecosystem response to changes in flow regime. EFM allows environmental planners, biologists, and engineers to determine whether proposed alternatives (e.g., reservoir operations, levee alignments) would maintain, enhance, or diminish ecosystem health. Project teams can use EFM software to visualize existing ecologic conditions, highlight promising restoration sites, and assess and rank alternatives according to the relative enhancement (or decline) of ecosystem aspects. The hydraulic modeling portion of the EFM process is performed by existing independent software, such as HEC-RAS. 

http://el.erdc.usace.arm

smartnote04-4.pdf
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-4 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

FESWMS-2DH 2 FESWMS-2DH is a finite element surface water modeling 

system for two-dimensional flow in a horizontal plane. The model can simulate steady and unsteady surface water flow and is useful for simulating two-dimensional flow where complicated hydraulic conditions exist (e.g., highway crossings of streams and flood rivers). It can also be applied to many types of steady or unsteady flow problems. (Last 

updated: 1995) 

http://water.usgs.gov/cg

bin/man_wrdapp?feswm

HEC-6 1 HEC-6 is a one-dimensional, moveable boundary, open 

channel flow numeric model designed to simulate and predict changes in river profiles resulting from scour and deposition over moderate time periods, typically years. Latest revision occurred in 1993. 

http://www.hec.usace.ar

oftware/hec6/hec6.htm

HEC-HMS 1 The HEC-HMS model is designed to simulate the precipitationrunoff processes of dendritic watershed systems. It is 

applicable in a wide range of geographic areas for solving the widest possible range of problems, including large river basin water supply and flood hydrology, and small urban or natural watershed runoff. Hydrographs produced by the program are used directly or in conjunction with other software for studies of water availability, urban drainage, flow forecasting, future urbanization impact, reservoir spillway design, flood damage reduction, floodplain regulation, and systems operation. 

http://www.hec.usace.ar

hec-hms/index.html

http://el.erdc.usace.army

smartnote04-3.pdf
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-5 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

HEC-RAS 1 HEC-RAS is an integrated system of software, designed for 

interactive use in a multi-tasking, multi-user network 

environment. The system is comprised of a graphical interface (GUI), separate hydraulic analysis components, data storage and management capabilities, graphics and reporting facilities. The model performs one-dimensional steady flow, unsteady flow, and sediment transport calculations. The key element is that all three components will use a common geometric data representation and common geometric and hydraulic computation routines. In addition to the three hydraulic analysis components, the system contains several hydraulic design features that can be invoked once basic water surface profiles are computed. The HEC-RAS modeling system was developed as a part of the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s “Next Generation” (NexGen) of hydrologic engineering software. The NexGen project encompasses several aspects of hydrologic engineering, including: rainfall-runoff analysis; river hydraulics; reservoir system simulation; flood damage analysis; and real-time river forecasting for reservoir operations. 

http://www.hec.usace.ar

HIVEL2D 1, 2 HIVEL2D is a free-surface, depth averaged model designed 

specifically to simulate flow in typical high-velocity channels. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.arm

a=Software;6

RiverWareTM 1 RiverWareTM is a reservoir and river modeling software 

decision support tool. With RiverWareTM, users can model the topology, physical processes and operating policies of river and reservoir systems, and make better decisions about how to operate these systems by understanding and evaluating the trade-offs among the various management objectives. Water management professionals can improve their management of river and reservoir systems by using the software. The Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the USACE sponsor ongoing RiverWareTM research and development.

http://cadswes.colorado
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-6 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

SAM 1 The model calculates the width, depth, slope and n-values for 

stable channels in alluvial material. SAM can be used to evaluate erosion, entrainment, transportation, and deposition in alluvial streams. Channel stability can be evaluated, and the evaluation used to determine the cost of maintaining a constructed project. The model is currently being improved and enhanced at WES. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.arm

CHL.aspx?p=s&a=Softw

SIAM N/A SIAM is a model designed to simulate the movement of 

sediment through a drainage network from source to outlet. It allows for evaluation of numerous sediment management alternatives relatively quickly. The model provides an intermediate level of analysis more quantitative than a conventional geomorphic evaluation, but less specific than a numerical, mobile-boundary simulation. SIAM is to be incorporated into a future release of HEC-RAS. 

http://www.usbr.gov/pm

srhsiam/index.html

http://www.wes.army.m

RSM-2-WS04.pdf

SMS (RMA2 and RMA4) 

1, 2 The Surface-Water Modeling System is a generalized 

numerical modeling system for open-channel flows, sedimentation, and constituent transport. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.arm

=Software;4

TABS-MD (RMA2, RMA4, RMA10, SED2D) 

1, 2, or 3 The multi-dimensional numerical modeling system is a 

collection of generalized computer programs and utility codes, designed for studying multidimensional hydrodynamics in rivers, reservoirs, bays, and estuaries. The models can be applied to study project impacts of flows, sedimentation, constituent transport, and salinity.

http://chl.erdc.usace.arm=Software;10

WASP 1, 2, or 3 Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program. Framework for 

modeling contaminant fate and transport in surface waters. The WASP framework can be used to model biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen dynamics, nutrients and eutrophication, bacterial contamination, and organic chemical 

and heavy metal contamination. 

http://www.epa.gov/athe

wasp.html
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-7 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

Models to Analyze Watershed Runoff and Assess Practices to Reduce Impacts of Hydromodification BMP Decision Support System (BMP-DSS) 

1 BMP-DSS is a decision-making tool for placement of 

BMPs/LID practices at strategic locations in urban watersheds based on integrated data collection and hydrologic/hydraulic/water quality modeling. The system uses GIS technology, integrates BMP processes simulation models, and applies system optimization techniques for BMP placement and selection. The system also provides interfaces for BMP placement, BMP attribute data input, and decision optimization management. The system includes a stand-alone BMP simulation and evaluation module, which complements both research and regulatory nonpoint source control assessment efforts and allows flexibility in examining various BMP design alternatives. 

Developed by the EPA County Department of EResources. Contact Dr. 301-883-5836 for more 

HSPF 1 Hydrological Simulation Program–—FORTRAN (HSPF) is a 

comprehensive package for simulation of watershed hydrology and water quality for both conventional and toxic organic pollutants. HSPF incorporates watershed-scale ARM and NPS models into a basin-scale analysis framework that includes fate and transport in one dimensional stream channels. It is the only comprehensive model of watershed hydrology and water quality that allows the integrated simulation of land and soil contaminant runoff processes with In-stream hydraulic and sediment-chemical interactions. The result of this simulation is a time history of the runoff flow rate, sediment load, and nutrient and pesticide concentrations, along with a time history of water quantity and quality at any point in a watershed. HSPF simulates three sediment types (sand, silt, and clay) in addition to a single organic chemical and transformation products of that chemical. 

http://www.epa.gov/cea

index.htm
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-8 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

LSPC 1 LSPC is the Loading Simulation Program in C++, a watershed 

modeling system that includes streamlined Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) algorithms for simulating hydrology, sediment, and general water quality on land as well as a simplified stream transport model. LSPC is derived from the Mining Data Analysis System (MDAS), which was developed by EPA Region 3 and has been widely used for 

mining applications and TMDLs. A key data management feature of this system is that it uses a Microsoft Access database to manage model data and weather text files for driving the simulation. The system also contains a module to assist in TMDL calculation and source allocations. For each model run, it automatically generates comprehensive text-file 

output by subwatershed for all land-layers, reaches, and simulated modules, which can be expressed on hourly or daily intervals. Output from LSPC has been linked to other model applications such as EFDC, WASP, and CE-QUALW2. 

http://www.epa.gov/ATH

lspc.html

Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles, and Ponds—Urban Catchment Model (P8–UCM) 

1 P8–UCM is a model for predicting the generation and 

transport of stormwater pollutants in urban watersheds. Continuous water balance and mass balance calculations are performed on a user-defined system consisting of watersheds, devices (runoff storage/treatment areas, BMPs), particle classes, and water quality components. Simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall and daily air temperature time series data. The model simulates pollutant transport and removal in a variety of treatment devices (BMPs). 

http://wwwalker.net/p8
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-9 July 2007 

Model Dimension Description Model Re

Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) 

1 SWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model used for 

single event or long-term (continuous) simulation of runoff quantity and quality from primarily urban areas. The runoff component of SWMM operates on a collection of subcatchment areas that receive precipitation and generate runoff and pollutant loads. The routing portion of SWMM transports this runoff through a system of pipes, channels, storage/treatment devices, pumps, and regulators. SWMM tracks the quantity and quality of runoff generated within each subcatchment, and the flow rate, flow depth, and quality of water in each pipe and channel during a simulation period comprised of multiple time steps. 

http://www.epa.gov/ednn

index.htm
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-10 July 2007 

Table 8.2 lists some of the available assessment models and approaches for assessing the biological impacts of ch

table also provides a quick description of the model or approach, as well as sources of additional information. 

Table 8.2 Assessment Models and Approaches 

Model or 

Assessment 

Approach 

Description Model Resource

Assessment Models AQUATOX A freshwater ecosystem simulation model designed to 

predict the fate of various pollutants such as nutrients and organic toxicants and their effects on the ecosystem, including fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants (including periphyton). 

http://epa.gov/waterscience/models/aq

Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) 

A water quality modeling and decision support system designed for environmental impact assessment of mixing zones resulting from wastewater discharge from point sources. The system emphasizes the role of 

boundary interaction to predict plume geometry and dilution in relation to regulatory mixing zone requirements. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/mod

HEC-HMS, Hydrologic Modeling System 

A system designed to simulate the precipitation-runoff processes of dendritic watershed systems. In addition to unit hydrograph and hydrologic routing options, capabilities include a linear quasi-distributed runoff transform (ModClark) for use with gridded precipitation, continuous simulation with either a one-layer or more complex five-layer soil moisture method, and a versatile parameter estimation option. 

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/softwa

HEC-RAS, River Analysis System 

The HEC-RAS system is used to calculate water surface profiles for both steady and unsteady gradually varied flow. The system can handle a full network of channels, a dendritic system, or a single river reach. 

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/softwa

hecras.html

http://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov/products

Models/Ras.html
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-11 July 2007 

Model or 

Assessment 

Approach 

Description Model Resource

Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM) 

A set of computer programs designed to predict the microhabitat (depth, velocities, channel indices) conditions in rivers at different flow levels and the relative suitability of those conditions for different life stages of aquatic life. (Serves as the key microhabitat simulation component of IFIM.) 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

Riverine Community Habitat Assessment and Restoration Concept (RCHARC) 

A simulation approach using computer models to compare hydraulic conditions and microhabitats of a reference reach to alternative study reach(es). 

Nestler, J., T. Schneider, and D. Latkanew method for physical habitat analy

Hydrology, 294-99. 

RiverWareTM RiverWareTM is a reservoir and river modeling software 

decision support tool. With RiverWareTM, users can model the topology, physical processes, and operating policies of river and reservoir systems, and make better decisions about how to operate these systems by understanding and evaluating the trade-offs among the various management objectives. Water management professionals can improve their management of river and reservoir systems by using the software. The Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Army Corps of Engineers sponsor ongoing RiverWareTM research and development. 

http://cadswes.colorado.edu/riverware

Salmonid Population Model (SALMOD) 

A computer model that simulates the dynamics (spawning, growth, movement, and mortality) of freshwater salmonid populations, both anadromous and resident, under various habitat quality and capacities. 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

Assessment Approaches A Procedure to Estimate the Response of Aquatic Systems to Changes in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Inputs 

A simple tool to estimate the responsiveness of a waterbody to changes in the loading of phosphorus and nitrogen using a dichotomous key that classifies it according to key characteristics. 

ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-12 July 2007 

Model or 

Assessment 

Approach 

Description Model Resource

EPA Volunteer Stream Monitoring Methods 

A series of methods geared for volunteer monitoring programs offering simple to advanced techniques for monitoring macroinvertebrates, habitat, water quality, and physical conditions. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/v

Habitat Evaluation Procedures/Habitat Suitability Index (HEP/HSI) 

HEP is an evaluation method that determines the suitability of available habitat for select aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species and measures the impact of proposed land or water use changes on that habitat. HSI is a measure of habitat suitability. 

http://policy.fws.gov/870fw1.html

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) 

An aquatic ecosystem health index using measures of total native fish species composition, indicator species composition, pollutant intolerant and tolerant species composition, and fish condition. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/wq

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) 

A method for assessing the degree of hydrologic alteration attributable to human impacts within an ecosystem. The method takes daily stream flow values and calculates indices relating to the five components of flow regime critical for ecological processes: magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change of hydrologic conditions. 

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshw

/art17004.html

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) 

A river network analysis that incorporates fish habitat, recreational opportunity, and woody vegetation responses to alternative water management schemes. Information is presented as a time series of flow and habitat at select points within the network. 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) 

An invertebrate community health index using ten structural and compositional invertebrate community metrics including number of mayfly, caddisfly, and dipteran taxa. 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioass

Life.html
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-13 July 2007 

Model or 

Assessment 

Approach 

Description Model Resource

(Modified) Index of Well-Being (IWB) 

The IWB is a fish community health index using measures of fish species abundance and diversity estimates. The modified index of well being factors out 13 pollutant tolerant species of fish from certain calculations to prevent false high readings on polluted streams which have large populations of pollutant tolerant fish. 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioass

Life.html

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) 

A set of protocols that offer cost-effective techniques of varying complexity to characterize the biological integrity of streams and rivers using the collection and analysis of biological, physical, and chemical data. It focuses on periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish assemblages, and on assessing the quality of the physical habitat. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/r

Rapid Channel Assessment (RCA) 

A reference stream/integrated ranking approach to evaluate the physical condition of a stream channel 

based on channel geometry, percent channel-bank scour, sediment size distribution and embeddedness, large wood debris, and thalweg profiles. 

CWP. 1998. Rapid Watershed PlanninComprehensive Guide for Managing U

Center for Watershed Protection, EllicFor a copy contact: The Center for Wa8391 Main Street Ellicott City, MD 210

center@cwp.org. 

Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) 

A reference stream/integrated ranking approach to evaluate steam health based on chemical stability, channel scouring/sediment deposition, physical instream habitat, water quality, riparian habitat, and biological indicators. 

CWP. 1998. Rapid Watershed PlanninComprehensive Guide for Managing UCenter for Watershed Protection, EllicFor a copy contact: The Center for Wa8391 Main Street Ellicott City, MD 210center@cwp.org. 

http://www.stormwatercenter.net

Rosgen’s Stream Classification Method 

A classification method that uses morphological stream characteristics to organize streams into relatively homogeneous stream types to predict stream behavior and to apply interpretive information. 

Reference: Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, For a copy contact: Wildland HydrologLake Road, Pagosa Springs, CO 8114
EPA 841-B-07-002 8-14 July 2007 

Model or 

Assessment 

Approach 

Description Model Resource

Stream Network/Stream Segment Temperature Models (SNTEMP/SSTEMP) 

Developed to help predict the consequences of stream manipulation on water temperatures, these computer models simulate mean daily water temperatures for streams and rivers from data describing the stream’s geometry, meteorology, and hydrology. SNTEMP is for a stream network with multiple tributaries for multiple time periods. SSTEMP is a scaled down version suitable for single (to a few) reaches and single (to a few) time periods. 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) 

A simple procedure to evaluate the condition of a stream based on visual characteristics. It also identifies opportunities to enhance biological value and conveys information on how streams function. 

ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/

Systems Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) 

An integrated set of models used to aid the evaluation of water management alternatives, it address significant interrelationships among selected physical (temperature, microhabitat), chemical (dissolved oxygen, water temperature), and biological variables (young-of-year Chinook salmon production), and stream flow. Developed for the Klamath River in northern California. 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

Time-Series Library (TSLIB) 

A set of DOS-based computer programs to create monthly or daily habitat time-series and habitat-duration curves using the habitat-discharge relationship produced 

by PHABSIM. (Can serve as the hydraulic component of IFIM). 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Sof

TR-20, Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology 

A physically based watershed scale runoff event model that computes direct runoff and develops hydrographs resulting from any synthetic or natural rainstorm. Developed hydrographs are routed through stream and valley reaches as well as through reservoirs. 

http://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov/products

Models/WinTR20.html

TR-55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds 

Simplified procedures to calculate storm runoff volume, peak rate of discharge, hydrographs, and storage volumes required for floodwater reservoirs. 

http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED
Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

EPA 841-B-07-002 8-15 July 2007 

Examples of Channel Modification Activities and Associated 

Models/Practices 

Modeling for Impoundments 

A low-complexity option for modeling impoundments is to use simple models like the Bathtub 

model to simulate the waterbody. Compared to more complex multi-dimensional models, which 

use multiple computational cells to estimate volumetric and contaminant fluxes between the 

cells, Bathtub-type models typically use a single cell. This single cell, while a simplification of 

the system, may be appropriate if the system is fully mixed in both the horizontal and vertical 

dimensions. This approach can also be economically developed using spreadsheets (such as 

Excel) to calculate the results. However, a Bathtub-type model has limited utility if the water 

body is stratified or if results are required at more than one location in the system. 

Another example of a modeling tool that has the ability to simulate impoundments is CE-QUALW2, a two-dimensional hydrodynamic water quality model. CE-QUAL-W2 provides results for 

either a horizontal or cross-sectional, two-dimensional plane. Because the model assumes a 

vertically or horizontally-mixed environment, it is best suited for relatively long and narrow 

water bodies (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries) that exhibit longitudinal or vertical water 

quality stratification. The water quality portion of CE-QUAL-W2 includes the major processes 

of eutrophication kinetics and a single algal compartment. The bottom sediment compartment 

stores settled particles, releases nutrients to the water column, and exerts sediment oxygen 

demand based on user-supplied fluxes; a full sediment diagenesis (i.e., the process of chemical 

and physical change in deposited sediment during its conversion to rock) model is under 

development. 

The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) is a general-purpose modeling package for 

simulating one- or multi-dimensional flow, transport, and bio-geochemical processes in surface 

water systems including rivers, lakes, estuaries, reservoirs, wetlands, and coastal regions. The 

EFDC model was originally developed by Hamrick in 1992 at the Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science for estuarine and coastal applications and is considered public domain software. This 

model is now EPA-supported as a component of EPA Region 2’s PRVI BASINS software 

system and EPA’s TMDL Toolbox,2

 and has been used extensively to support TMDL 

development throughout the country. In addition to hydrodynamic, salinity, and temperature 

transport simulation capabilities, EFDC is capable of simulating cohesive and non-cohesive 

sediment transport, near field and far field discharge dilution from multiple sources, 

eutrophication processes, the transport and fate of toxic contaminants in the water and sediment 

phases, and the transport and fate of various life stages of finfish and shellfish. 

Modeling for Estuary Tidal Flow Restrictions 

Artificial hydraulic structures have the ability to alter natural flow patterns (hydrodynamic) in an 

estuary, which may modify erosion patterns, salinity regimes, and the fate and transport of 

pollutants. Some examples of artificial hydraulic structures include culverts, bridges, tide gates, 

 

2

 http://www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/efdc.html
Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

EPA 841-B-07-002 8-16 July 2007 

and weir structures. Installation or removal of these structures may cause a significant change in 

local hydrodynamics, and tools may be used to estimate the impacts prior to the modification. 

The EFDC model, as described above, allows modelers to evaluate the impacts of hydraulic 

structures, such as culverts, bridges, tide gates, and weirs. Due to the flexibility of EFDC, each of 

these structures can also be conceptually represented in a variety of ways. For example, the weir 

equation can be applied to locations in the modeling grid to estimate water surface-dependent 

flow through one or more grid cells. This enables a modeler to evaluate the effect of placement 

of structures that modify surface flow patterns (such as a weir). Structures such as piers and 

impermeable barriers (e.g. jetties, breakwaters) can also be simulated using this code. 

Another modeling tool that can address estuary tidal flow restrictions is the Finite Element 

Surface Water Modeling System (FESWMS) model. This modeling code was developed by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and is distributed by the U.S Geological Survey 

(USGS). FESWMS is a hydrodynamic modeling code that simulates two-dimensional, depthintegrated, steady or unsteady surface-water flows. It supports both super and subcritical flow 

analysis, and area wetting and drying. FESWMS is also suited for modeling regions involving 

flow control structures, such as are encountered at the intersection of roadways and waterways. 

Specifically, the FESWMS model allows the user to include weirs, culverts, drop inlets, and 

bridge piers into a standard two-dimensional finite element model. FESWMS does not have 

three-dimensional capabilities. 

Modeling for Estuary Flow Regime Alterations 

A number of structures or processes can alter the flow regime of a system. Flow contributions to 

an estuary can be altered by upstream rediversions or basin transfers, dams and dam releases, or 

other channel modifications. For example, when freshwater flows patterns are altered by the 

presence and operation of a dam, EFDC can be used to model the impact to downstream 

estuaries. EFDC can provide modelers with a time series representation of flow that is withdrawn 

from a simulated reservoir/dam system. Coupling the time series flow projections with 

hydrodynamic analysis of the receiving esturay enables modelers to determine potential impacts 

of altered flow patterms and to evaluate various spill options for the dam operation. Structures 

within the estuary that may alter the flow patterns include marinas, piers, jetties, and other 

similar type structures. Flow regime alterations due to these structures can be simulated using the 

same modeling tools described in the Flow Restrictions section above. Flow restrictions are the 

cause of most changes in the flow regime, so the simulation of the causes of restriction using a 

process-based modeling tool produces the desired flow alterations. Therefore, EFDC and 

FESWMS can be utilized in the same manner to obtain flow regime results. 

Temperature Restoration Practices 

Several computer models that predict instream water temperature are currently available. These 

models vary in the complexity of detail with which site characteristics, including meteorology, 

hydrology, stream geometry, and riparian vegetation, are described. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service developed an instream surface water temperature model (Theurer et al., 1984) to predict 

mean daily temperature and diurnal fluctuations in surface water temperatures throughout a 

stream system. The model, Stream Network Temperature Model (SNTEMP), can be applied to 

any size watershed or river system. This predictive model uses either historical or synthetic 
Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

EPA 841-B-07-002 8-17 July 2007 

hydrological, meteorological, and stream geometry characteristics to describe the ambient 

conditions. The purpose of the model is to predict the longitudinal temperature and its temporal 

variations. The instream surface water temperature model has been used satisfactorily to evaluate 

the impacts of riparian vegetation, reservoir releases, and stream withdrawal and returns on 

surface water temperature. In the Upper Colorado River Basin, the model was used to study the 

impact of temperature on endangered species (Theurer et al., 1982). It also has been used in 

smaller ungauged watersheds to study the impacts of riparian vegetation on salmonid habitat.3

 

The Stream Segment Temperature Model (SSTEMP) is a much-scaled down version of the 

SNTEMP model developed by the USGS Biological Resource Division. Unlike the large 

network model (SNTEMP), this program only handles single stream segments for a single time 

period (e.g., month, week, day) for any given “run.” Initially designed as a training tool, 

SSTEMP may be used satisfactorily for a variety of simple cases that one might face on a day-today basis. It is especially useful to perform sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. The model 

predicts minimum 24-hour temperatures, mean 24-hour temperatures, and maximum 24-hour 

stream temperatures for a given day, as well as a variety of intermediate values. The SSTEMP 

model identifies current stream and/or watershed characteristics that control stream temperatures. 

The model also quantifies the maximum loading capacity of the stream to meet water quality 

standards for temperature. This model is important for estimating the effect of changing controls 

or factors (such as riparian grazing, stream channel alteration, and reduced streamflow) on 

stream temperature. The model can also be used to help identify possible implementation 

activities to improve stream temperature by targeting those factors causing impairment to the 

stream. Good input data and an awareness of the model’s assumptions are critical to obtaining 

reliable predictions. SSTEMP may be used to evaluate alternative reservoir release proposals, 

analyze the effects of changing riparian shade or the physical features of a stream, and examine 

the effects of different withdrawals and returns on instream temperature.4

 

Selecting Appropriate Models 

Although a wide range of adequate hydrodynamic and surface water quality models are 

available, the central issue in selecting appropriate models for evaluating hydromodification 

projects is the appropriate match of the financial and geographical scale of the proposed project 

with the cost required to perform a credible technical evaluation of the projected environmental 

impact. It is highly unlikely, for example, that a proposal for a relatively small stream channel 

modification project, such as installing culverts in a stream segment, would be expected or 

required to contain a state-of-the-art hydrodynamic and surface water quality analysis that 

requires one or more person-years of effort. In such projects, a simplified, desktop approach 

(e.g., HEC-RAS Model) requiring less time and money would most likely be sufficient (USACE, 

2002a). In contrast, substantial technical assessment of the long-term environmental impacts 

would be expected for channelization proposed as part of construction of a major harbor facility 

or as part of a system of navigation and flood control locks and dams. The assessment should 

 

3

 For more information or to download SNTEMP, see the U.S. Geological Survey Web site: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/SNTEMP. 4

 More information about the model is available on the U.S. Geological Survey Web site: 

http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/software/default.asp (navigate to Stream Network Temperature Model and 

Stream Segment Temperature Model). 
Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

EPA 841-B-07-002 8-18 July 2007 

incorporate the use of detailed 2D or 3D hydrodynamic models coupled with sediment transport 

and surface water quality models. 

In general, six criteria can be used to review available models for potential application in a given 

hydromodification project: 

1. Time and resources available for model application 

2. Ease of application 

3. Availability of documentation 

4. Applicability of modeled processes and constituents to project objectives and concerns 

5. Hydrodynamic modeling capabilities 

6. Demonstrated applicability to size and type of project 

The Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM),5

 EPA Environmental Research 

Laboratory, Athens, Georgia, provides continual support for several hydrodynamic and surface 

water quality models, such as HSCTM2D, HSPF, PRZM3, and SED3D. Another source of 

information and technical support is the Waterways Experiment Station, USACE, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi.6

 Although a number of available models are in the public domain, costs associated 

with setting up and operating these models may exceed the project’s available resources. For a 

simple to moderately difficult application, the approximate level of effort varies, but could range 

from 1 to 12 person-months. 

Several factors need to be considered in the application of mathematical models to predict 

impacts from hydromodification projects including: 

• Variations and uncertainties in the accuracy of these models when they are applied to the 

short- and long-term response of natural systems. 

• Availability of relevant information (data collection) to derive the simulations and 

validate the modeling results. 

The cost of a given modeling project depends on a number of factors. Questions need to be asked 

prior to the start of a modeling project to determine the purpose and future use of the model, 

and/or its results. For example, the modeler needs to know if the model results are to be used 

deterministically (the model assumes there is only one possible result that is known for each 

alternative course or action), or if the model is to be used for a heuristic (involving or serving as 

an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error 

methods) scoping exercise to identify data gaps in a system. In a deterministic study, the results 

are traditionally compared to observed data in an effort regarded as calibration and validation. 

The model must therefore be rigorous enough to represent the system accurately. The complexity 

of the system under study is also a consideration that must be made prior to the project. The 

complexity of the system generally correlates well with the level of complexity of the model 

required to simulate it. Likewise, the more complex the model is, the more intensive it is to 

develop and run, and the more costly the modeling project is. 

 

5

 http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl

6

 http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil
Chapter 8: Modeling Information 

EPA 841-B-07-002 8-19 July 2007 

A number of approaches are available to model a given system, and the discussion above only 

highlights a few of the modeling tools currently available. The cost to set up a model for a given 

system varies tremendously, based not only on the modeling code selected, but also on what the 

modeler decides to simulate. For example, a modeler may aim to obtain flow results for an 

estuary using a given model. In reality, surface winds in that estuary may or may not be 

influencing the flow regime. If observed wind data is available from a weather station nearby, 

the modeler may choose to incorporate these data into the model to better represent that 

influence. The modeler may also choose not to incorporate these data, or the data may not be 

available. Although the modeler is utilizing the same modeling code, the decision regarding 

whether or not to simulate the wind conditions is not only a question regarding the model’s 

purpose, but also what the development of this model will cost. 

Modeling tools can range from simple spreadsheet tools using “back of the envelope” type 

calculations, to complex processed based models that must be run on high performance 

computing systems. As discussed previously, the tool selected for a given modeling project 

needs to be chosen with a number of questions in mind. As a result, each system can be modeled 

in a number of different ways with a number of different modeling codes. Therefore, the range in 

cost for even a single estuary or impoundment may range tenfold depending on the model’s 

purpose. Typically, the cost of developing a model may range from a few thousand dollars for a 

simple spreadsheet model, to in excess of one million dollars for a more robust modeling system. 
Chapter 9: Dam Removal Requirements, Process, and Techniques 

EPA 841-B-07-002 9-1 July 2007 

Chapter 9: Dam Removal Requirements, Process, and Techniques 

Chapter 2 provided a discussion of specific impacts from dams, water quality above and below 

the dam, suspended sediment and recharge issues, and biological and habitat impacts. Chapter 4 

then provided a discussion of types of dams, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

requirements, management measures and practices that can be used to mitigate for some of the 

effects of dams, and information to consider when contemplating removing a dam. Chapter 9 

focuses on what occurs after the decision has been made to remove a dam. This chapter provides 

a more detailed discussion on some permitting requirements for removing dams, the dam 

removal process, and sediment removal techniques to consider when removing a dam. 

Requirements for Removing Dams 

Removing a dam may require evaluations and permits from state, federal, and local authorities. 

These requirements are typically to ensure that the removal is done is a manner that is safe and 

minimizes short and long term impacts to the river and floodplain. States and local governments 

have different requirements. The following federal requirements may apply to dam removal: 

• Rivers and Harbors Act Permit 

• FERC License Surrender or Non-power License Approval 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review 

• Federal Consultations (Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, MagnusonStevenson Act Consultation, National Historic Preservation Act Compliance) 

• State Certifications (Water Quality Certification, Coastal Zone Management Act 

Certification) 

The following state requirements might apply to dam removal: 

• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit 

• Waterway Development Permits 

• Dam Safety Permits 

• State Environmental Policy Act Review 

• Historic Preservation Review 

• Resetting the Floodplain 

• State Certifications 

Demolition and building permits may also be required for dam removal. Individual state and 

local governments may have additional requirements as well. 
Chapter 9: Dam Removal Requirements, Process, and Techniques 

EPA 841-B-07-002 9-2 July 2007 

Dam Removal Process 

The complexity of the removal process of a dam is specific to each particular case of removal. 

There are two major components of the removal process: the stakeholders involved in the 

decision-making process of removing the dam and the actual physical removal of the dam itself. 

The authorities that govern dams are numerous, yet overlapping. These entities include: USACE, 

Bureau of Reclamation, FERC, and other federal agencies; interest groups; and state and local 

governments. There are also various state programs that have been created to keep dams safe and 

environmentally friendly, as well as to help owners finance dam removal. A study by the Aspen 

Institute (2002) provides a list of priority issues to consider when dam removal may be a 

possibility. Among the considerations listed are dam and public safety, economics, 

environmental concerns, risk, social values and community interests, scientific information, and 

stakeholder participation. This report suggests that success of dam removal is dependent upon a 

thorough analysis of these competing factors and input from all interested parties (Aspen 

Institute, 2002). Often, the dam owner makes the decision to remove a dam, deciding that the 

costs of continuing operation and maintenance are greater than the cost of removing the dam. 

However, state dam safety offices can order for a dam to be removed if there are safety concerns; 

FERC can order removal of dams under their jurisdiction for environmental and safety reasons 

(American Rivers, n.d.a.). 

State governments have authority over the dams in their jurisdiction. Other state and local 

government agencies dealing with issues such as water quality, water rights, and fish and wildlife 

protection can also play a role in overseeing dams within their jurisdiction if they so choose 

Tips for a Successful Permitting Process (American Rivers, 2002b) 

Dam removal is relatively new and the permitting process can be difficult. Most state and federal 

agencies are not yet practiced at moving dam removal through the permitting process. The relevant 

permitting requirements were designed for more destructive activities, and dam removal does not 

easily fit into the requirements. Tips to help make the process smoother include: 

Schedule Time 

• Expect dam removal projects to take longer than construction efforts. 

• Schedule more lead-time into the permitting process to avoid delays and frustrations. 

Establish a Relationship with the Permitting Agencies 

• Hold a pre-application meeting with key agency staff once your project is well thought out. 

• Do not attempt to circumvent the process and stick with the permitting timeline. 

• Do not provide inconsistent information. 

• A single point of contact for the group applying for the permit will help avoid confusion and 

maintain communication. 

Providing Information about the Proposed Project 

• Create clear and simple descriptions and drawings (to scale) of the proposed project. 

• Be sure to identify complicating conditions, schedules, seasonal constraints, etc. 

• Provide and discuss alternatives, but make it clear why the chosen approach should be used. 

• Assume the reviewers know nothing about your project. 
Chapter 9: Dam Removal Requirements, Process, and Techniques 

EPA 841-B-07-002 9-3 July 2007 

(FOE et al., 1999). Certain states have implemented stringent rules for dams that are and are not 

regulated by FERC or USACE. For example, the state of Wisconsin has a Dam Safety Inspection 

Program that requires dams to be inspected every 10 years by the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WDNR) (Doyle et al., 2000). Any dam that fails to meet safety requirements 

set by WDNR must be repaired or removed. The state of Pennsylvania has implemented a law 

that was written under the order of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission that states that 

any newly constructed or existing dam that requires a state permit for construction or 

modification must also include provisions for fish passage (Doyle et al., 2000). 

Some states have programs that aid dam owners in the process of removing their structures. The 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has adopted procedures to make it 

easier and less expensive for dam owners to remove unsafe, unused, or unwanted dams. In this 

process, owners of dams on third order or larger streams are contacted and asked if they are 

interested in removing their dams. If they are, then all the landowners affected by the removal 

are contacted, and a public meeting is held if interest warrants one. After public comments, an 

engineering design is created, followed by an environmental assessment, then sediment and 

erosion control (ESC) plans are established, and finally approval is sought by the USACE. This 

program was used in the removal of seven dams on Conestoga River and also in the removal of 

the Williamsburg Station Dam on the Juniata River. This approval process takes between 12 and 

18 weeks (FOE et al., 1999). However, the physical decommissioning and removing of a dam 

can still be a lengthy and diversified process. 

Sediment Removal Techniques 

Large dams can trap thousands to millions of cubic yards of sediment over time, eliminating the 

flood control or storage capacity of the dam. Removal or control of sediment behind a dam can 

represent a large portion of the cost and planning effort of a dam removal project. There are 

several methods available to project planners and dam owners that target different pollution 

concerns and budgetary limitations (International Rivers Network, 2003). The options in terms of 

sediment removal range from complete removal and relocation of all accumulated material from 

the inundated regions; removing sediment only from the anticipated channel of the river, or 

allowing the river to erode a new channel through the sediment (Wunderlich et al., 1994). 

If the sediment is basically clean and the main concern is turbidity and clogging downstream 

streambed spawning areas, gradual incremental drawdowns of the reservoir behind the dam 

allow the sediment to be transported downstream in smaller portions and avoids the release one 

large, lethal volume of sediment. If contaminated sediment is the main concern, dredging is an 

option that can be used. While the use of silt curtains can minimize turbidity during dredging, silt 

curtains do not contain dissolved substances such as metals, which can pose a threat to 

downstream ecosystems (EMC2, 2001). Another option for contaminated sediments is to 

stabilize the sediment in place within the stream. This can be accomplished by leaving a portion 

of the dam in place to hold back an area of sediment that is of concern. The strategic placement 

of boulders can also contain the sediment from moving downstream. 

For more information on issues associated with dam removal, see the Additional Resources 

section of this document. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-1 July 2007 

References Cited1

Academy of Natural Sciences. 2002. Manatawny Creek Dam Removal. 

http://www.ansp.org/research/pcer/projects/manatawny/index.php. Accessed June 2007. 

Adams, S., and O.E. Maughan. 1986. The effects of channelization on the benthic assemblage in 

a southeastern Oklahoma stream. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 66:35-36. 

Albright Seed Company. 2002. Albright Seed Company. 

http://www.albrightseed.com/leaflittermar2002.htm. Accessed April 2004. 

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 400 p.

Allen, H.H., and C.V. Klimas. 1986. Reservoir Shoreline and Revegetation Guidelines. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Waterways, Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Allen, H.H. and J.R. Leech. 1997. Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control: Report 1 

Guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Impact Research Program, Technical 

Report EL-97-8. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel97-8.pdf. Accessed October 2004. 

American Rivers. No date a. Dam Removal Toolkit: Frequently Asked Questions about Dam 

Removal. http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AMR_content_db51. 

Accessed June 2007. 

American Rivers. No date b. Data Collection: Researching Dams and Rivers Prior to Removal. 

http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/Reseaching_a_Dam_Data_Collection.pdf?

docID=981. Accessed June 2007.

American Rivers. 1999. Dam Safety: Protecting Communities and Ecosystems from Dam 

Failure. 

American Rivers. 2002a. The Ecology of Dam Removal: A Summary of Benefits and Impacts. 

http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/ecologyofdamremoval.pdf?docID=494. Accessed 

October 2004.

American Rivers. 2002b. Obtaining Permits to Remove a Dam. 

http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/DR_-_Resource_-_Obtaining_Permits_to_

Remove_a_Dam.pdf?docID=1602. Accessed June 2007. 

American Rivers and Trout Unlimited. 2002. Exploring Dam Removal: A Decision Making 

Guide. http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/Exploring_Dam_Removal-A_DecisionMaking_Guide.pdf?docID=3641. Accessed October 2004.

 

1

 This reference list contains references cited throughout the document. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-2 July 2007 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1986. Lessons Learned from Design, 

Construction, and Performance of Hydraulic Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Hydraulics Division, Hydraulic Structures Committee, New York, NY. 

Anderson, S. 1992. Studies begin on Kaneohe Bay’s toxin problem. Makai 14(2):1,3. University 

of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. 

Anderson, J. 1995. Analysis of Snake River Spill. University of Washington. 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/papers/jim/testimonies/senate.june.html. Accessed September 

2005. 

Andrews, J. 1988. Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement for the Middle Fork and Upper 

Salmon River. Technical Report DOE/BP/17579-2. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville 

Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 

Anthony, P. 1998. The Snake River Levee System Report. Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance. 

http://www.jhalliance.org/Library/Reports/levee.pdf. Accessed April 2004. 

Ashley, P.R. and M. Berger. 1997. Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation 

Procedures Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. Portland, OR. 

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?pub=W39607-1.pdf. Accessed 

August 2005. 

Aspen Institute. 2002. Dam Removal: A New Option for a New Century. The Aspen Institute, 

Queenstown, MD. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/{DEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-

8DF23CA704F5}/damremovaloption.pdf. Accessed June 2007. 

Associated Press and the Herald Staff. 2002. Corps modifying dams. Tri-City Herald. 

http://www.snakedams.com/news/022102.html. Accessed July 2002. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2002. Beach Nourishment: A Review of 

the Biological and Physical Impacts. ASMFC Habitat Management Series # 7. 

http://www.asmfc.org/publications/habitat/beachNourishment.pdf. Accessed August 2005. 

Barbiero, R.P., S.L. Ashby, and R.H. Kennedy. 1996. The effects of artificial circulation on a 

small northeastern impoundment. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(3):575-584. 

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment 

Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and 

Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of 

Water; Washington, D.C. 

Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1991. Use of habitat assessment in evaluating the biological 

integrity of stream communities. In Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation, ed. EPA440/5-91-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, pp. 25-38. Washington, 

DC. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-3 July 2007 

Benke. 2001. Importance of flood regime to invertebrate habitat in an unregulated riverfloodplain ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20(2):225-240. 

Bentrup, G. and J.C. Hoag, 1998. The Practical Streambank Bioengineering Guide. USDA 

NRCS Plant Material Center, Aberdeen, Idaho. 

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~bbledsoe/CE413/idpmcpustguid.pdf. Accessed December 2004.

Biedenharn, D.S., C.M. Elliott, and C.C. Watson. 1997. The WES Stream Investigation and 

Streambank Stabilization Handbook. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Biedenharn, D.S. and L.C. Hubbard. 2001. Design Considerations for Siting Grade Control 

Structures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/CHL CHETN-VII-3. 

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/chetn-vii-3.pdf. Accessed November 

2004. 

Bis, B., A. Zdanowicz and M. Zalewski. 2000. Effects of catchment properties on 

hydrochemistry, habitat complexity, and invertebrate community structure in a lowland river.

Hydrobiologia 42: 369-387. 

Bowie, A.J. 1981. Investigation of vegetation for stabilizing eroding streambanks. Appendix C to

Stream Channel Stability. U.S. Department of Agriculture Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, 

MS. Original not available for examination. Cited in Henderson, 1986. 

Brate, A. 2004. Dam rehabilitation a comprehensive approach to rehabbing small watershed 

dams. Resource 11(2). 

Brookes, A. 1998. Channelized Rivers; Perspectives for Environmental Managers. John Wiley & 

Sons, Chichester, England. 

Brown, W., and D. Caraco. 1997. Muddy water in—Muddy water out? A critique of erosion and 

sediment control plans. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):393–403. 

Burch, C.W., P. R. Abell, M. A. Stevens, R. Dolan, B. Dawson, and F.D. Shields, Jr. 1984. 

Environmental Guidelines for Dike Fields. Technical Report E-84-4. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Cada, G.F. 2001. The development of advanced hydroelectric turbines to improve fish passage 

survival. Abstract. Fisheries. 26(9):14-23. 

http://hydropower.inel.gov/turbines/pdfs/amfishsoc-fall2001.pdf. Accessed September 2005. 

California Department of Boating and Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy. 2002. 

California Beach Restoration Study. Sacramento, California. http://dbw.ca.gov/beachreport.asp. 

Accessed August 2005. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-4 July 2007 

CSWRCB. 2005. California Nonpoint Source Encyclopedia. California State Water Resources 

Control Board. Sacramento, CA. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/encyclopedia.html. Accessed 

August 2005. 

CASQA. 2003. Drainage System Maintenance. California Stormwater Quality Association. 

California Stormwater BMP Handbook, SC-74. 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Municipal/SC-74.pdf. Accessed November 2004.

CWP. 1997a. Keeping soil in its place. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3): 418–423, Center 

for Watershed Protection. 

CWP. 1997b. Improving the trapping efficiency of sediment basins. Watershed Protection 

Techniques 2(3): 434–439, Center for Watershed Protection. 

CWP. 1997c. The limits of settling. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):429–433, Center for 

Watershed Protection.

CWP. 1997d. Strengthening silt fence. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):424–428, Center 

for Watershed Protection. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997. Protecting Wetlands: Tools for Local Governments in the 

Chesapeake Bay Region. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 

Cohen, R. 1997. Fact Sheet #9: The Importance of Protecting Riparian Areas Along Smaller 

Brooks and Streams. Rivers Advocate, Riverways Program, Massachusetts Department of 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement. 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/pdf/riparian_factsheet_9.pdf. Accessed May 2003. 

Colonnello, G. 2001. Physico-chemical comparison of the Manamo and Macereo rivers in the 

Orinoco delta after the 1965 Manamo dam construction. Intercencia 26(4): 136-143. 

CSU. No date. Demonstration Erosion Control. Colorado State University 

http://www.colostate.edu/orgs/CRSS. Accessed April 2007. 

Colt, J. 1984. Computations of Dissolved Gas Concentrations in Water as Functions of 

Temperature, Salinity and Pressure. Special Publication No. 14. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD. 

Conwed Fibers. No date. Conwed Fibers. http://www.conwedfibers.com. Accessed May 2003. 

Copeland, R.R., D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. 

Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. ERDC/CHL TR-01-28. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Washington, DC. 

Cwikiel, W. 1996. Living with Michigan Wetlands: A Landowner's Guide. Tip of the Mitt 

Watershed Council, Conway, MI. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-5 July 2007 

Davis, C.A. 1987. A strategy to save the Chesapeake Shoreline. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation 42(2):72-75. 

Décamps, H., M. Fortune, F. Gazelle, and G. Pautou. 1988. Historical influence of man on the 

riparian dynamics of a fluvial landscape. Landscape Ecology. 1(3):63-173. 

Deering, J.W. 2000a. Allowance Item for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/Measures. 

John W. Deering, Inc., Bethel, CT. 

Deering, J.W. 2000b. Phasing, Sequence, and Methods. John W. Deering, Inc., Bethel, CT.

Dehart, M. 2003. Summary of Documented Benefits of Spill. Fish Passage Center. 

http://www.fpc.org/documents/memos/227-03.pdf. Accessed September 2005. 

Delaware DNREC. 2003. Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware. 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/Soil/Stormwater/New/

Delaware%20ESC%20Handbook_06-05.pdf. Accessed August 2005. 

Delaware Riverkeeper. No date. Dam Removal and River Restoration. 

http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/factsheets/dam_removal.html. Accessed May 2003. 

Deliman, P.N., R.H. Glick, and C.E. Ruiz. 1999. Review of Watershed Water Quality Models. 

Technical Report W-99-1, U.S. Army Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

MS. 

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D. Lee. 1989. Long-term effectiveness of vegetative filter strips. 

Water Environment and Technology (November 1989):419-421. 

Dodge, N.A. 1989. Managing the Columbia River to meet anadromous fish requirements. In 

Proceedings Waterpower '89, American Society of Civil Engineers, Niagara Falls, NY August 

23-25, 1989. 

Dorthch, M.S. 1997. Water Quality Considerations in Reservoir Management. Water Resources 

Update, Universities Council on Water Resources, Southern Illinois, University Carbondale, IL. 

Doyle, M.W., E.H. Stanley, M.A. Luebke, and J.M. Harbor. 2000. Dam Removal: Physical, 

Biological, and Societal Considerations. American Society of Civil Engineers Joint Conference 

on Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and Management. Minneapolis, 

MN. 

Dryden Aqua. 2002. Degassing. http://www.drydenaqua.com/degassing/degas.htm. Accessed 

July 2002. 

Duke Engineering & Services, Inc. 2000. Fish Entrainment: Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project. 

FERC Project No. 637. http://www.chelanpud.org/relicense/study/reports/4010_1.pdf. Accessed 

April 2004. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-6 July 2007 

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman, New 

York, 818 p. 

ECY. 2007. Brush Layering. Washington Department of Ecology. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/brush.html. Accessed May 2007. 

EMC2. 2001. Milltown Reservoir Sediments Site Draft Combined Feasibility Study. 

http://www.epa.gov/region08/superfund/sites/fs_narrative.pdf. Accessed October 2004. 

Environmental Defense. 2002. Impacts of Corps Projects. 

http://www.edf.org/documents/2072_ImpactsCorpsProjects.pdf. Accessed April 2004. 

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Almanac of Enforceable State Laws to Control Nonpoint 

Source Water Pollution. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.eli.org. 

Accessed June 2003. 

EPRI. 1990. Assessments and Guide for Meeting Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Standards for 

Hydroelectric Plant Discharges. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI GS-7001. Aquatic 

Systems Engineering, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.

EPRI. 1999. Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes: Status Report. Electric Power Research 

Institute. TR-114013. 

EUCC. 1999. European Code of Conduct for the Coastal Zone. European Union for Coastal 

Conservation. http://www.coastalguide.org/code. Accessed August 2005. 

FAO. 1997. Management of Agricultural Drainage Water Quality. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. Water 

Reports 13. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7224e/w7224e00.htm#Contents.

FAO. 2001. Dams, Fish and Fisheries: Opportunities, Challenges and Conflict Resolutions. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fishery Department. Rome, Italy. 

http://www.fao.org/documents. Accessed August 2005. 

Feather River Hatchery. No date. Feather River Hatchery: Fish Ladder. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hatcheries/feather-river. Accessed May 2003. 

FEMA. 2003. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms (FEMA 148). Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/fema148.shtm. Accessed May 2007. 

FHWA. 2001. River Engineering for Highway Encroachments: Highways in the River 

Environment. Hydraulic Design Series Number 6, Publication Number FHWA NHI 01-004, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/010589.pdf. Accessed August 2005.
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-7 July 2007 

Fidler, L.E. and G.G., Oliver. 2001. Towards a Water Quality Guidance for Temperature in the 

Province of British Columbia. Water Quality Section, Water Management Branch, British 

Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 

Findley, D.I., and K. Day. 1987. Dissolved oxygen studies below Walter F. George Dam. In 

Proceedings: CE Workshop on Reservoir Releases, Misc. Paper E-87-3. U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

FISRWG. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal 

Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Technical Information Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration. Accessed 

June 2003.

Fischenich, C. and H. Allen. 2000. Stream Management. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL SR-W-00-1. 

Fontane, D.G., W.J. Labadie, and B. Loftis. 1981. Optimal Control of Reservoir Discharge 

Quality Through Selective Withdrawal: Hydraulic Laboratory Investigation. Prepared by 

Colorado State University and the Hydraulics Laboratory, Waterways Experimental Station, for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Franklin, S.B., J.A. Kupfer, S.R. Pezeshki, R.A. Hanson, T.L. Scheff and R.W. Gentry. 2001. A 

comparison of hydrology and vegetation between a channelized stream and a nonchannelized 

stream in western Tennessee. Physical Geography 22(3):254-274. 

Freeman, P.H. 1977. Large Dams and the Environment, Recommendations for Development 

Planning. In International Institute for Environment and Development. 

Friends of the Earth (FOE), American Rivers, and Trout Unlimited. 1999. Dam Removal Success 

Stories: Restoring Rivers through Selective Removal of Dams that Don’t Make Sense. 

http://www.foe.org/res/pubs/pdf/successstories.pdf. Accessed June 2007. 

FOR. 1999. Rivers Reborn: Removing Dams and Restoring Rivers in California. Friends of the 

River, Sacramento, California. 

http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/DocServer/RiversReborn.pdf?docID=224&AddInterest=1004. 

Accessed June 2007. 

Fulford, E.T. 1985. Reef type breakwaters for shoreline stabilization. In Coastal Zone '85,

American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1776-1795. 

Gallagher, J.W., and G.V. Mauldin. 1987. Oxygenation of releases from Richard B. Russell 

Dam. In Proceedings: CE Workshop on Reservoir Releases, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Paper E-87-3. 

Galli, J. 1991. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best 

Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Maryland 

Department of the Environment. Washington, DC. 188 pp. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-8 July 2007 

Goldman, S.J., K. Jackson, and T.A. Borstztynksy. 1986. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 

Gore, J.A., ed. 1985. The Restoration of Rivers and Streams. Butterworth, Boston, MA.

Gray, D.H. and R.B. Sotir. 1996. Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A 

Practical Guide for Erosion Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 

Hamilton, P. 1990. Modelling salinity and circulation for the Columbia River estuary. Progress 

in Oceanography 25:113-156. 

Hansen, R.P., and M.D. Crumrine. 1991. The Effects of Multipurpose Reservoirs on the Water 

Temperature of the North and South of Santiam Rivers, Oregon. Water Resources Investigations, 

Report 91-4007. U.S. Geological Survey, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland, OR. 

Hardaway, C.S., G.R. Thomas, and J.-H. Li. 1991. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Study: Headland 

Breakwaters and Pocket Beaches for Shoreline Erosion Control, Final Report. Virginia Institute 

of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. 

Hardaway, C.S., and J.R. Gunn. 1989. Elm’s Beach Breakwater Project - St. Mary's County, 

Maryland. In Proceedings Beach Technology '89, Tampa, FL. 

Hardaway, C.S., and J.R. Gunn. 1991. Working Breakwaters. Civil Engineering October 

1991:64-66. 

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An 

Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

CO. 

Harris, G.G., and W.A. Van Bergeijk. 1962. Evidence that the lateral-line organ responds to nearfield displacements of sound sources in water. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America

34:1831-1841. 

Harshbarger, E.D. 1987. Recent developments in turbine aeration. In Proceedings: CE Workshop 

on Reservoir Releases. Misc. Paper E-87-3. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Hauser, G. 1992. Tennessee Valley Authority. Personal communication. 

Hauser, G.E., M.D. Bender, and M.K. McKinnon. 1989. Model Investigation of Douglas 

Tailwater Improvements. Technical Report No. WR28-1-590-143. Tennessee Valley Authority, 

Norris, TN. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-9 July 2007 

Hauser, G.E., M.C. Shiao, and M.D. Bender. 1990a. Modeled Effects of Extended Pool Level 

Operations on Water Quality. Technical Report No. WR28-2-590-148. Tennessee Valley 

Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. 

Hauser, G.E., M.C. Shiao, and R.J. Ruane. 1990b. Unsteady One-Dimensional Modelling of 

Dissolved Oxygen in Nickajack Reservoir. Technical Report No. WR28-1-590-150. Tennessee 

Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. 

Henderson, J.E. 1986. Environmental design for streambank protection projects. Water 

Resources Bulletin 22(4):549-558. 

Henderson, J.E., and F.D. Shields Jr., 1984. Environmental Features for Streambank Protection 

Projects. Technical Report E-84-11.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Higgins, J.M., and B.R. Kim. 1982. DO model for discharges from deep impoundments. Journal 

of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE 108(EE1):107-122. 

Hobbs, C.H., R.J. Byrne, W.R. Kerns, and N.J. Barber. 1981. Shoreline erosion: A problem in 

environmental management. Coastal Zone Management Journal 9(1):89-105. 

Hobson, R.D. 1977. Review of design elements for beach-fill evaluation. TP 77-6. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. North American 

Lake Management Society and Terrene Institute, in cooperation with the Office of Water, 

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Madison, WI. 

Holland, J.P. 1984. Parametric investigation of localized mixing in reservoirs. Technical Report 

E-84-7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Original 

not available for examination. Cited in Price, 1989. 

Holler, S. 1989. Buffer strips in watershed management. In, Watershed Management Strategies 

for New Jersey. pp. 69-116., Cook College Department of Environmental Resources and New 

Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. 

Houston, J.R. 1991. Beachfill performance. Shore and Beach 59(3):15-24. 

Howington, S.E. 1990. Simultaneous, Multilevel Withdrawal from a Density Stratified Reservoir. 

Technical Report W-90-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Hupp, C.R., and A. Simon. 1986. Vegetation and bank-slope development. In Proceedings of the 

Forest Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 83-92. U.S. 

Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Washington, DC. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-10 July 2007 

Hupp, C.R., and A. Simon. 1991. Bank accretion and the development of vegetated depositional 

surfaces along modified alluvial channels. Geomorphology 4:111-124. 

Hynson, J.R., P.R. Adamus, J.O. Elmer, T. DeWan, and F.D. Shields. 1985. Environmental 

Features for Streamside Levee Projects. Technical Report E-85-7. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

International Rivers Network. 2003. Reviving the World’s Rivers: Dam Removal: Technical 

Challenges. http://www.irn.org/revival/decom/brochure/rrpt4.html. Accessed June 2003.

Jackson, D. 1989. A glimmer of hope for stream fisheries in Mississippi. Fisheries 14:4-9. 

Johnson, P.L., and J.F. LaBounty. 1988. Optimization of Multiple Reservoir Uses Through 

Reaeration - Lake Casitas, USA: A Case Study. Commision Internationale des Grands Barrages. 

Seizieme Congress des Grands Barrages, San Francisco, 1988. Q. 60, R. 27 pp. 437-451. 

Jones, R.K., and P.A. March. 1991. Efficiency and cavitation effects of hydroturbine venting. In 

Progress in Autoventing Turbine Development. Tennessee Valley Engineering Authority, 

Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN.

Jones & Stokes. 2004. Final: Aeration Technology Feasibility Report for the San 

Joaquin River Deep Water Ship Channel. Prepared for the California Bay-Delta Authority. 

http://www.sjrdotmdl.org/library_folder/1033.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2007. 

Kahler, T., M. Grassley, D. Beauchamp. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, 

and Other Artificial Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA-listed Salmonids in Lakes. 

Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Seattle, Washington. 

http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/pdf/Utilities/dock_bulkhead.pdf. Accessed August 2005. 

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing 

Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Illinois Natural History 

Survey Special Publication No. 5. 

Killam, G. 2005. The Clean Water Act Owner’s Manual. 2d ed. River Network, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to low frequency sound in 

downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal of Fish Biology. 45:227-233. 

Knutson, P.L. 1988. Role of coastal marshes in energy dissipation and shore protection. In The 

Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands, ed. D.D. Hook, W.H. 

McKee, Jr., H.K. Smith, J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr. 

Kubecka, J., and J. Vostradovsky. 1995. Effects of dams, regulation and pollution on fish stocks 

in the Vltava river in Prague. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10(2-4):93-98. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-11 July 2007 

Landschoot, P. 1997. Erosion Control & Conservation Plantings on Noncropland. Pennsylvania 

State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park, PA. 

Lane, E.W. 1955. The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering. Proceedings 

of the American Society of Civil Engineers 81(745):1-17. 

Larinier, M. 2000. Dams and Fish Migration. Institut de Mecanique des Fluides, Toulouse, 

France. http://www.wca-infonet.org/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet?filename=

1066733415116_fish.pdf&refID=115443. Accessed June 2003 

Lee, M. 1999. March. Costs mount for Snake Dam removal. Tri-City Herald 

http://www.snakedams.com/news/story12.html. Accessed June 2002. 

Los Angeles River Watershed. 1973. Evaluation of check dams for sediment control. Los 

Angeles River Watershed, Angeles National Forest, Region 5. 

Low Impact Development Center, Inc. No date. Introduction to Low Impact Development (LID). 

http://www.lid-stormwater.net/intro/background.htm. Accessed May 2007. 

MDEP. 1990. Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality, and York County Soil and Water 

Conservation District. 

Mantell, M.A., S.F. Harper, and L. Propst. 1990. Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook 

to Growth Management Strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

March, P.A., J. Cybularz, and B.G. Ragsdale. 1991. Model tests for evaluation of auto-venting 

hydroturbines. In Progress in Autoventing Turbine Development. Tennessee Valley Authority, 

Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. 

Marmulla, G., ed. 2001. Dams, Fish, and Fisheries: Opportunities, Challenges, and Conflict 

Resolution. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 419. 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/Y2785E/y2785e.pdf. Accessed April 2004. 

MDNR. 2001. Annual Report 2001: Hydromodification/Channelization. Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/nps/publications/2001_annual_report.pdf. Accessed June 

2003. 

Massachusetts River Restore Program. 2002. Dam Removal Fact Sheet. 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/pdf/rivdamremove.pdf. Accessed June 2002.

Mathias, M.E., and P. Moyle. 1992. Wetland and aquatic habitats. Agriculture Ecosystems & 

Environment 42(1-2):165-176. 

Mattice, J.S. 1990. Ecological effects of hydropower facilities. In Hydropower Engineering 

Handbook, ed. Gulliver, J.S. and R.E.A. Arndt, pp. 8.1-8.57. McGraw-Hill, New York. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-12 July 2007 

McCully, Patrick. 2001. Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. Zed Books, 

London. 

MDC. 2007. St. Francis River Watershed: Habitat Conditions. Missouri Department of 

Conservation. http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/stfranc/habitat. Accessed April 2007. 

Meeks, G., Jr. 1990. State Land Conservation and Growth Management Policy: A Legislator’s 

Guide. National Conference of State Legislators, Washington, DC. 

Merritt, D.M., and D.J. Cooper. 2000. Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to 

river regulation: a comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River 

basin, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16(6):543-564. 

Merz, J.E., J.D., Setka, G.B. Pasternack, and J.M. Wheaton. 2004. Predicting benefits of 

spawning-habitat rehabilitation to salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) fry production in a regulated 

California river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 61:1433-1446. 

Mississippi State University, Center for Sustainable Design. 1999. Water Related Best 

Management Practices in the Landscape: Brush Layering. Created for United States Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. 

http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS-BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/brushlayer.pdf. Accessed May 

2007. 

Monk, B., D. Weaver, C. Thompson, and F. Ossiander. 1989. Effects of flow and weir design on 

the passage behavior of American shad and salmonids in an experimental fish ladder. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:60-67. 

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M.Buffington, 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel 

response and assessment of channel condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002. Department of 

Geological Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Montgomery Watson. 2001. Sediment Management Unit 56/57 Demonstration Project, Fox 

River, Green Bay, Wisconsin. Prepared for Fox River Group of Companies and Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Morita, K., and S. Yamamoto. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation by damming on the 

persistence of stream-dwelling charr populations. Conservation Biology 16(5):1318-1323. 

Muckleston, K.W. 1990. Striking a balance in the Pacific Northwest. Environment 32(1):11-15, 

32-35. 

Mueller, R.P., D.A. Neitzel, W.V. Mavros, and T.J. Carlson. 1998. Evaluation of Low and High 

Frequency Sound for Enhancing Fish Screening Facilities to Protect Outmigrating Salmonids. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. 

http://www.efw.bpa.gov/Publications/h62611-13.pdf. Accessed August 2005. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-13 July 2007 

Mueller, R.P., D.A. Neitzel, and B.G. Amidan. 1999. Evaluation of Infrasound and Strobe Lights 

to Elicit Avoidance Behavior in Juvenile Salmon and Char. Prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. http://www.pnl.gov/ecology/pubs/PDFs/sound99.pdf. 

Accessed August 2005. 

NRC. 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. National Research Council, National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC. 

NRC. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Research Council, National Academy 

Press, Washington, DC. 

NRC. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Platte River. National Resource Council, 

National Academy Press, Washington DC. 

http://www.platteriver.org/library/NAS%20documents/NASrpt.pdf. Accessed May 2007. 

NRDC. No date. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution, Chapter 12: 

Low Impact Development. National Resources Defense Council. 

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap12.asp. Accessed May 2007. 

Negishi, J.N., M. Inoue and M. Nunokawa. 2002. Effects of channelization on stream habitat in 

relation to spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. Freshwater Biology

47 (8):1515-1529. 

Nelson, R.W., J.R. Dwyer, and W.E. Greenberg. 1988. Flushing and Scouring Flows for Habitat 

Maintenance in Regulated Streams. Final Technical Report Contract No. 68-01-6986, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standard Division, Washington, DC. 

Nestler, J.M., C.H. Walburg, J.F. Novotny, K.E. Jacobs, and W.D. Swink. 1986. Handbook on 

Reservoir Releases for Fisheries and Environmental Quality. Instruction Report E-86-3. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Nichols, F.H., J.E.. Cloern, S.N. Luoma, and D.H. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an 

estuary. Science. 231:567-573. 

NOAA. 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service Releases Draft Biological Opinion to Save 

Columbia River Basin Salmon. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr95/jan95/opinion.html. Accessed August 2005. 

NOAA. 1997. Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines (Version 3) Chapter 2. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/876_chapter2.pdf. Accessed May 2007. 

NOAA. 1998. Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and 

California. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-NWFSC-35. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm35/index.htm. 

Accessed September 2005. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-14 July 2007 

NOAA. 2006. Shoreline Terms. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/shoreline/term.html#partr. Accessed May 2007. 

Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress (OTA). 1995. Fish Passage 

Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities. OTA-ENV-641. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC.

Oregon Association of Conservation Districts. 2004. Protecting Streambanks from Erosion: Tips 

for Small Acreages in Oregon. http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/news/factsheets/fs4.pdf. Accessed 

March 2004. 

Petersen, J.C. 1990. Trends and Comparison of Water Quality and Bottom Material of Northern 

Arkansas, 1974-85 and Effects of Planned Diversions. USGS Water-Resources Investigation 

Report 90-4017. U.S. Geological Survey, Little Rock, AR. 

Pilkey, O.H. 1992. Another view of beachfill performance. Shore and Beach 60(2):20-25. 

Pilkey, O.H., and H.L. Wright III. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 

Special Issue No. 4:41-64. Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. 

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid 

Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 

EPA/440/4-89/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/claritgw?op-Display&document=clserv:OAR:0555;&rank=

4&template=epa. Accessed September 2005.

Pozo, J., E. Orive, H. Fraile, and A. Basaguren. 1997. Effects of Cernadilla-Valparaiso reservoir 

system in the River Tera. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13(1):57-73. 

Presumpscot River Plan Steering Committee. 2002. A Summary of Fisheries Conditions, Issues, 

and Options for the Presumpscot River. University of Southern Maine, Casco Bay Estuary 

Project. http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/053002_Revised_Fisheries_Short_files/

053002_Revised_Fisheries_Short.htm. Accessed September 2005. 

Price, R.E. 1989. Evaluating commercially available destratification devices. Water Operations 

Technical Support Information Exchange Bulletin, Volume E-89-2, December 1989. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Pugh, J.R., G.L. Monan, and J.R. Smith. 1971. Effect of water velocity on the fish-guiding 

efficiency of an electrical guidance system. Fishery Bulletin 68(2):307-324. 

Rasmussen, Jerry. 1999. Reservoir and Channelization Projects. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

http://wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/MICRA/ReservoirsandChannelizationProjects.htm. Accessed 

April 2004. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-15 July 2007 

Reiser, D.W., M.P. Ramey, and T.R. Lambert. 1985. Review of Flushing Flow in Regulated 

Streams. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA. In Flushing and Scouring Flows 

for Habitat Maintenance in Regulated Streams, ed. W.R. Nelson, J.R. Dwyer, and W.E. 

Greenberg. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

River Recovery. 2001. Why decommission a dam? http://www.recovery.bcit.ca/dmantle.html. 

Accessed June 2003. 

Rosgen, D. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(3):169-199. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Roy, D., and D. Messier. 1989. A review of the effects of water transfers - the La Grange 

hydroelectric complex (Quebec, Canada). Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 4:299-

316. 

Sandheinrich, M.B., and G.J. Atchison. 1986. Environmental Effects of Dikes and Revetments on 

Large Riverine Systems. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Iowa Cooperative Fishery 

Research Unit, and the Department of Animal Ecology, Iowa State University for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing 

Urban Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 

Washington, DC. 

Schueler, T. 1997. Impact of suspended and deposited sediment: risks to the aquatic environment 

rank high. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(3):443–444. 

Schulte, Marc., S.M. Forman, D.T. Williams, G. Marshburn, and R. Vermeeren. 2000. A Stable 

Channel Design Approach for the Rio Salado, Salt River, Arizona. 

Schumm, S.A. 1960. The shape of alluvial channels in relation to sediment type. U.S Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Schumm, S.A. 1977. The fluvial system. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

SEAS. 2007. Soil & Water Conservation. Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service. 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_&_water/seas.shtml. Accessed May 2007. 

Sherwood, C.R., D.A. Jay, R. Harvey, P. Hamilton, and C. Simenstad. 1990. Historical changes 

in the Columbia River Estuary. Progress in Oceanography, 25:299-352. 

Shields, F.D., Jr., A.J. Bowie, and C.M. Cooper. 1995. Control of streambank erosion due to bed 

degradation with vegetation and structure. Water Resources Bulletin 31(3):475-489. 

Shields, F.D., Jr, R.R. Copeland, P.C. Klingeman, M.W. Doyle, and A. Simon. 2003. Design for 

stream restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-16 July 2007 

Shields, F.D., Jr., J.J. Hoover, N.R. Nunnally, K.J. Killgore, T.E. Schaefer, and T.N. Waller. 

1990. Hydraulic and Environmental Effects of Channel Stabilization, Twentymile Creek, 

Mississippi. EL-90-14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Shields, F.D., Jr., and T.E. Schaefer. 1990. ENDOW User's Guide. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Simon, A. 1989a. A model of channel response in distributed alluvial channels. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26. 

Simon, A. 1989b. The discharge of sediment in channelized alluvial streams. Water Resources 

Bulletin 25 (6):1177-1188. American Water Resources Association. 

Simon, A., and C.R. Hupp. 1986. Channel evolution in modified Tennessee channels. In 

Proceedings of the Forest Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 

71-82. U.S. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Washington, DC. 

Simon, A., and C.R. Hupp. 1987. Geomorphic and vegetative recovery processes along modified 

Tennessee streams: An interdisciplinary approach to disturbed fluvial systems. In Forest 

Hydrology and Watershed Management. Proceedings of the Vancouver Symposium, August 

1987. IAHS-AISH Publication No. 167. 

Simons, D.B., and F. Senturk. 1992. Sediment Transport Technology. Water Resources 

Publication. Littleton, CO. 

Smith, D.R., S.C. Wilhelms, J.P. Holland, M.S. Dortch, and J.E. Davis. 1987. Improved 

Description of Selective Withdrawal Through Point Sinks. Technical Report E-87-2. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyatt, J. Lichthardt, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. Erosion and 

Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control 

Commission, Raleigh, NC. 

Soderberg, R.W. 1995. Flowing Water Fish Culture. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, LA. 

Soil Quality Institute (SQI). 2000. Soil Quality—Urban Technical Note No. 1: Erosion and 

Sedimentation on Construction Sites. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_utn_1.pdf. 

Accessed June 2007. 

Sotir, R.B. and J.C Fischenich. 2003. Vegetated Reinforced Soil Slope Streambank Erosion 

Control. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-30. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr30.pdf. Accessed 

October 2004. 

Stanford and Ward. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated 

Rivers: Research and Management 12: 391-413. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-17 July 2007 

Stauble, D.K. 2005. A Review of the Role of Grain Size in Beach Nourishment Projects. U.S. 

Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. 

http://www.fsbpa.com/05Proceedings/02-Don%20Stauble.pdf. Accessed August 2005. 

Steiger, J., M. James, and F. Gazelle. 1998. Channelization and consequences on floodplain 

system functioning on the Garonne River, SW France. Regulated Rivers: Research and 

Management 14(1):13-23. 

Stock Seed Farms. No date. Stock Feed Farms. 

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/stockseed/habmixwilcom.html. Accessed April 2004. 

Stone and Webster. 1986. Assessment of Downstream Migrant Fish Protection Technologies for 

Hydroelectric Application. Report AP-4711. Palo Alto, California, Electric Power Research 

Institute. 

Swanson, S., D. Franzen, and M. Manning. 1987. Rodero Creek: Rising water on the high desert. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42(6):405-407. 

SWCD. No date. Protecting Streambanks from Erosion: Tips for Small Acreages in Oregon.

Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Small Acreage Steering 

Committee, Oregon Association of Conservation Districts.

http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/news/factsheets/fs4.pdf. Accessed June 2007. 

Tachet, J.F. 1997. River incision in south-east France: Morphological phenomena and ecological 

effects. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13(1):75-90. 

Tanovan, B. 1987. System spill allocation for the control of dissolved gas saturation on the 

Columbia River. In Proceedings: CE Workshop on Reservoir Releases. Paper E-87-3. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. 

TRB. 2001. A Process for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for 

Dredging Projects. Transportation Research Board, Committee for Environmental Windows for 

Dredging Projects. Washington, DC. http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=556. Accessed 

August 2005. 

Tulane University. No date. Shoreline Processes and the Evolution of Coastal Landforms. 

http://www.tulane.edu/~geol113/COASTAL-PROCESSES-1a.htm. Accessed May 2007. 

TVA. 1988. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Activities 

Under the Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee 

Valley Authority During Fiscal Years 1983-1986. Tennessee Valley Authority. 

TVA. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statements, Tennessee River and Reservoir Operation 

and Planning Review. Tennessee Valley Authority. Report Number TVA/RDG/EQS-91/1. 

Theisen, M. 1996. How to make vegetation stand up under pressure. Civil Engineering News. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-18 July 2007 

Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. Instream 

Flow Information Paper No. 16. USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Instream Flow 

Service Group, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and C.G. Prewitt. 1982. Application of IFG’s instream water 

temperature model in the Upper Colorado River. In Proceedings of the International Symposium 

on Hydrometeorology, Denver, CO, 13-17 June 1982, pp. 287-292. American Water Resources 

Association.

Thornton, K.W., B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne. 1990. Reservoir Limnology: Ecological 

Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 

University of Alabama. 2006. Shorelines and Shore Processes. 

http://www.geo.ua.edu/intro03/Shore.html. Accessed May 2007. 

University of Texas. 1998. Environmental Organic Geochemistry: Course Notes 1998. 

http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387e/387e_notes_intro.htm. Accessed October 2004.

USACE. No date a. The WES Handbook on Water Quality Enhancement Techniques for 

Reservoirs and Tailwaters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

USACE. No date b. National Inventory of Dams. 

http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm. Accessed May 2007. 

USACE. 1981. Low-cost shore protection, final report on the shoreline erosion control 

demonstration program (Section 54). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. 

USACE. 1983. Streambank Protection Guidelines for Landowners and Local Governments. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 

USACE. 1984. Shoreline Protection Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 2 vols. 

USACE. 1989. Engineering and Design: Sedimentation Investigations of Rivers and Reservoirs. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-4000. 

http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-2-4000/toc.htm. Accessed 

September 2005. 

USACE. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion Study: Feasibility Report. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. 

USACE. 1994. Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects. EM 1110-2-1418. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/

eng-manuals/em1110-2-1418/toc.htm. Accessed April 2005.
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-19 July 2007 

USACE. 1997. To Save the Salmon. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District 11/97. 

http://www.bluefish.org/tosave.htm. Accessed September 2005. 

USACE. 1999. Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund and the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center 

vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. District Court testimony, Seattle. 

USACE. 2002a. River Analysis System: Applications Guide, Example 14: Multiple Culverts. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, CPD-70. 

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documents/appguide/cvr_incvr_toc.pdf. 

Accessed October 2004.

USACE. 2002b. Columbia River Basin—Dams and Salmon. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/ps/colrvbsn.htm. Accessed August 2005. 

USACE. 2003. Coastal Engineering Manual, Part V. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-2-1100/PartV/PartV.htm. 

Accessed December 2004. 

USDA–FS. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-683. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide. Accessed October 2004. 

USDA-NRCS. 1992. Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 18 – Soil Bioengineering for Upland 

Slope and Protection and Erosion Reduction. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/EFH-Ch18.pdf.

USDA-NRCS. 2004. Farm Bill 2002: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. WHIP Fact Sheet. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/pdf/WHIPFct.pdf. Accessed April 2007. 

USDOE. 1991. Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects, Volume 1: Current 

Practices for Instream Flow Needs, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fish Passage. DOE/ID-10360. U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

USDOI. 1988. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Final Report. NTIS No. PB88-183348/AS. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, UT. 

USDOI. 1995. Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration: Final Environmental Impact Statement, June 

1995. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 

http://www.nps.gov/archive/olym/elwha/docs/eis0695/eis0695toc.htm. Accessed April 2007. 

USEPA. 1973. The Control of Pollution from Hydrographic Modifications. EPA 430/9-73-017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in 

Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-20 July 2007 

USEPA. 1995a. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality. EPA 841-F-95-007. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Ecology. Accessed January 2005.

USEPA. 1995b. Erosion, Sediment, and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways. EPA-841-F95-008d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/runoff.html. Accessed January 2005. 

USEPA. 1997a. Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting 

Ecosystems and Communities. EPA 230-B-96-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. http://epa.gov/care/library/howto.pdf. Accessed January 2005.

USEPA. 1997b. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 841-B-97-003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/stream.pdf. Accessed June 2003. 

USEPA. 1998. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-97-008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/305b/96report. 

Accessed June 2003. 

USEPA. 1999. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Turf Reinforcement Mats. EPA 832-F-99-

002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2000. Low Impact Development: A Literature Review. EPA-841-B-00-005. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lid.pdf. 

Accessed May 2007. 

USEPA. 2002a. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-02-

001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report. Accessed June 2003. 

USEPA. 2002b. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for 

the Construction and Development Category. EPA 821-R-02-009. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/envir/C&D_Envir_Assessmt_proposed.pdf. 

Accessed June 2003. 

USEPA. 2002c. South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project: Removal of Dam Benefits Aquatic Life. 

Section 319 Success Stories, Vol. III. EPA 841-S-01-001. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/OR.htm. Accessed 

August 2005. 

USEPA. 2003a. Sediment Oxygen Demand Studies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New 

England Regional Laboratory. http://www.epa.gov/region1/lab/ecology/sod.html. Accessed June 

2003. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-21 July 2007 

USEPA. 2003b. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Agriculture. EPA 841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html. Accessed May 2003.

USEPA. 2003c. EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature 

and Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Seattle, WA. 

USEPA. 2005a. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Forestry. EPA 841-B-05-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt. Accessed April 2007. 

USEPA. 2005b. National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian 

Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 841-B-05-003. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/wetmeasures. Accessed 

September 2005.

USEPA. 2005c. Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our 

Waters. EPA 841-B-05-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/nps. 

USEPA. 2005d. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Urban Areas. EPA 841-B-05-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html. Accessed May 2003. 

USFWS. 2001. Gas Supersaturation Monitoring Report for Spill Below Bonneville Dam: March 

10-13, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, 

Vancouver, WA. 

http://www.fws.gov/columbiariver/pdfdocs/water/2001%20GBT%20Report.pdf. Accessed 

September 2005. 

USGS. 1997. Sediment Oxygen Demand in the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon, 1992-96. U.S. 

Geological Society, Stewart Rounds and Micelis Doyle. 

http://or.water.usgs.gov/pubs_dir/Html/WRIR97-4103/contents.html. Accessed October 2004. 

USGS. 2000. Mississippi. USGS Fact Sheet 025-99. U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-025-99/pdf/fs-025-99.pdf. Accessed April 2007. 

USGS. 2004. An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United 

States. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/intro.html. Accessed May 2007. 

van der Borg, R., and J. Ferguson. 1989. Hydropower and fish passage impacts. In Proceedings 

Waterpower '89, American Society of Civil Engineers, Niagara Falls, NY, August 23-25, 1989. 

VanderKooy, S.J. and M.S. Peterson. 1998. Critical current speed for young Gulf Coast walleyes. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(1):137-140. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-22 July 2007 

Van Holmes, C., and J. Anderson. 2004. Predicted Fall Chinook Survival and Passage Timing 

Under BiOp and Alternative Summer Spill Programs Using the Columbia River Salmon Passage 

Model. Columbia Basin Research, University of Washington. 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/papers/2004SummerSpill.pdf. Accessed September 2005. 

Waldrop, W.R. 1992. The autoventing turbine, a new generation of environmentally improved 

hydroturbines. In Proceedings of the American Power Conference. 

Walker, R. and W. Snodgrass. 1986. Model for sediment oxygen demand in lakes. Journal of 

Environmental Engineering 112(1):25-43. 

Wang, W., 1980. Fractionation of sediment oxygen demand. Water Research 14:603-612. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution assessment and 

management program. Document No. 88-17. Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/981813wr.html. 

Accessed June 2003. 

Watson, C.C., D.S. Biedenharn, and S.H. Scott. 1999. Channel Rehabilitation: Process, Design, 

and Implementation. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/2/9/0/ChannelRehabilitation.pdf. Accessed 

August 2005. 

WEF. 1997. The Clean Water Act Desk Reference: 25th Anniversary Edition. Water Environment 

Federation, Alexandria, VA. 

WRM. 2000. Dam Repair or Removal: A Decision-Making Guide. Water Resources 

Management Practicum. http://www.ies.wisc.edu/research/wrm00. Accessed May 2003. 

Watson, C.C., D.S. Biedenharn, and S.H. Scott. 1999. Channel rehabilitation: processes, design, 

and implementation. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and 

Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Welsch, J.D. No date. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and 

Enhancement of Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern 

Area State and Private Forestry, Randnor, PA. 

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 

Wilhelms, S.C. 1984. Turbine venting. Environmental & water quality operational studies, 

Volume E-84-5, September 1984. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Wilhelms, S.C. 1988. Reaeration at low-head gated structures; preliminary results. Water 

operations technical support, Volume E-88-1, July 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 
References Cited 

EPA 841-B-07-002 References-23 July 2007 

Wilhelms, S.C., and D. R. Smith. 1981. Reaeration through gated-conduit outlet works. 

Technical Report E-81-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-81-5. 

Wilhelms, S.C. and L.I. Yates. 1995. Improvement of reservoir releases by aeration. Water 

Quality Technical Note MS-01. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 

Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1978. Dune Building and Stabilization with Vegetation. Special Report 

No. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. 

Wunderlich, R.C., B.D. Winter, and J.H. Meyer. 1994. Restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem 

and anadromous fisheries. Salmon Ecosystem Restoration: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the 

1994 Northeast Pacific Chinook and Coho Salmon Workshop. American Fisheries Society, 

Corvalis, OR.

Wyzga, B. 2001. Impact of channelization-induced incision of the Skawa and Wisloka rivers, 

southern Poland, on the condition of overbank deposition. Regulated Rivers: Research and 

Management 17(1):85-100. 

Zimmerman, M.J., and M. S. Dortch. 1989. Modelling water quality of a reregulated stream 

below a hydropower dam. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 4:235-247.
Additional Resources 

Additional Resources 

The following are additional resources that may be used to obtain supplementary information for 

topics presented in this document. 

Background on Streams, Restoration, and Hydrology 

The following are basic references regarding stream ecology, restoration, and hydrology: 

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology—Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and 

Hall, New York. 

Brookes, A. and F.D. Shields, eds. 1999. River Channel Restoration: Guiding Principles for 

Sustainable Projects. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K. 

Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and P.R. Newroth. 1993. Restoration and Management 

of Lakes and Reservoirs. 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 

Fischenich, C. 2000. Glossary of Stream Restoration Terms. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr01.pdf. Accessed October 2004. 

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction 

for Ecologists. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K. 

Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration 

Ecology 3(2):133-136. 

Kondolf, G.M., and E.R. Micheli. 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental 

Management 19(1):1-15. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, 

Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Poff, N., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. 

Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. 

BioScience 47:769-784. 

Ponce, V.M. 1989. Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Englewood 

Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Colorado. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-1 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

USEPA. 1995. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality. EPA 841-F-95-007, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Ecology. 

Detailed Information for Practices to Achieve Management Measures 

Additional information about practices, their effectiveness, limitations, and cost estimates are 

available from a number of sources, including: 

Allen, H.H. and J.R. Leech. 1997. Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control: Report 1 

Guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Impact Research Program, Technical 

Report EL-97-8. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel97-8.pdf. 

American Society of Civil Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ASCE and 

USEPA). 2007. International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) Database. 

http://www.bmpdatabase.org. 

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2007. The Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center. 

http://www.stormwatercenter.net. 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream Corridor 

Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration. 

Fischenich, J. C. and H. Allen. 2000. Stream Management. ERDC/EL SR-W-00-1, U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/srw00-1/srw00-1.pdf. Accessed October 2004. 

Knutson, P.L., and M.R. Inskeep. 1982. Shore Erosion Control with Salt Marsh Vegetation. 

Coastal Engineering Technical Aid No. 82-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal 

Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 1995. Storm Water Runoff & Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Control Guide for Builders and Developers. National Association of Home Builders, 

Washington, DC. http://www.nahbrc.org. 

Oregon Association of Conservation Districts. 1999. Protecting Streambanks from Erosion: Tips 

for Small Acreages in Oregon. http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/news/factsheets/fs4.pdf. 

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1999. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual: 

Volume 3—Best Management Practices. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, 

CO. http://www.udfcd.org. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Engineer Research and Development Center 

(ERDC) Web site. http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-2 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS). 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide 

for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Development Document for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category. EPA-821-R02-007. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/devdoc.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. National Menu of Stormwater Best 

Management Practices. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/menu.cfm.

Additional information about hydromodification, soil bioengineering, and restoration is available 

from the following: 

• Ann Riley, Urban Stream Restoration: A Video Tour of Ecological Restoration 

Techniques (http://www.noltemedia.com/nm/urbanstream): This video, which can be 

ordered online, is a documentary tour of six urban stream restoration sites. It provides 

background information on funding, community involvement, and the history and 

principles of restoration. The demonstration includes examples of stream restoration in 

very urbanized areas, re-creating stream shapes and meanders, creek daylighting, soil 

bioengineering, and ecological flood control projects. Ann Riley, a nationally known 

hydrologist, stream restoration professional, and executive director of the Waterways 

Restoration Institute in Berkley, California, leads the tour. 

• California Forest Stewardship Program. Bioengineering to Control Streambank Erosion 

(http://ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/bioengineering.html): This fact sheet discusses 

various bioengineering techniques applicable to California streams. 

• Lower American River Corridor River Management Plan (http://www.safca.com): The 

plan provides information on aquatic habitat management goals, including restoration to 

improve aquatic habitat impaired by low flows from channel modification of the Lower 

American River. 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service, Watershed Technology Electronic Catalog

(http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wtec/wtec.html): This online catalog is a source of 

technical guidance on a variety of restoration techniques and management practices, to 

provide direction for watershed managers and restoration practitioners. The site is 

focused on providing images and conceptual diagrams. 

• North Delta Improvements Project (http://ndelta.water.ca.gov/index.html): The North 

Delta Improvements Project (NDIP), which is under the California Department of Water 

Resources, presents unique opportunities for synergy in achieving flood control and 

ecosystem restoration goals. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-3 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

• Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Stream Management Guide Fact Sheets 

(http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/pubs/fs_st/streamfs.htm): This is a compilation of fact 

sheets offering technical guidance for streambank and instream practices, general stream 

management, and stream processes. 

• Sacramento River Riparian Habitat Program (http://www.sacramentoriver.ca.gov): The 

Sacramento River Riparian Habitat Program is working to ensure that riparian habitat 

management along the river addresses the dynamics of the riparian ecosystem and the 

reality of the local agricultural economy. 

• Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and 

Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 

Washington, DC. 

• South Delta Improvements Program

(http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/sdb/sdip/index_sdip.cfm): The purpose of the South 

Delta Improvements Program (SDIP) is to incrementally maximize diversion capability 

into Clifton Court Forebay, while providing an adequate water supply for diverters within 

the South Delta Water Agency and reducing the effects of State Water Project exports on 

both aquatic resources and direct losses of fish in the South Delta. 

• South Sacramento County Streams Project (http://www.spk.usace.army.mil): South 

Sacramento County Streams Project provides flood damage reduction to the urban areas 

of the Morrison Creek and Beach Stone Lake drainage basins in the southern area of 

Sacramento, as well as around the Sacramento Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant. 

The project will fund stream restoration in southern Sacramento County. 

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/aquatic/svapfnl.pdf): This document outlines 

methods for field conservationists and landowners to evaluate stream ecological 

conditions. 

• Washington State Department of Transportation, Soil Bioengineering Web site

(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/roadside/sb.htm): This is a comprehensive Web 

site, with information on cost, specifications for project design, funding, and case studies. 

• WATERSHEDSS:Water, Soil and Hydro-Environmental Decision Support System 

(http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss): The “Educational Component” of this Web 

site contains fact sheets with information on a variety of techniques for management 

practices, including soil bioengineering and structural streambank stabilization. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-4 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

Resources for Dams 

Thornton, K.W., B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne, eds. 1990. Reservoir Limnology: Ecological 

Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No date. The WES Handbook on Water Quality Enhancement 

Techniques for Reservoirs and Tailwaters. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Web sites for dam removal include the following: 

• American Rivers’ Rivers Unplugged Program: 

http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AMR_content_1270

• Association of State Dam Safety Officials: http://www.damsafety.org

• Friends of the Earth’s River Restoration: 

http://www.foe.org/camps/reg/nw/river/index.html

• International River Network’s River Revival Program: http://www.irn.org/revival/decom

• Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement 

River Restore Program: 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/programs/riverrestore/riverrestore.htm

• National Performance of Dams Program Stanford University: 

http://www.stanford.edu/group/strgeo/researchcenters.html

• New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services: 

http://www.des.state.nh.us/dam.htm

• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Dam Safety, Dam 

Safety Program: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/we/damprogram/Main.htm

• Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission: http://www.fish.state.pa.us

• River Recovery—Restoring Rivers through Dam Decommissioning: 

http://www.recovery.bcit.ca/index.html

• United States Society on Dams: http://www.ussdams.org

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/dsfm/dams/removal.html

Additional information about dam removal is available from the following resources: 

• ASCE. 1997. Guidelines for the Retirement of Hydroelectric Facilities. American Society 

of Civil Engineers. 

• Bednarek, A.T. 2001. Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam 

removal. Environmental Management 27(6):803-814. 

• Bioscience. 2002. Dam removal and river restoration: Linking scientific, socioeconomic, 

and legal perspectives. Summer (special issue). 

• Born, S.M., et al. 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: 

The Wisconsin experience. Environmental Management 22(3):359-370. 

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-5 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

• Hart, D.D. and N.L. Poff. 2002. A special section on dam removal and river restoration. 

BioScience 52:653-655. 

• Heinz Center. 2002. Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making. Available at: 

http://www.heinzctr.org/Programs/SOCW/dam_removal.htm. 

• International Rivers Network: http://www.irn.org/pubs/wrr. 

• Niemi, G.J., et al. 1990. Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from 

disturbance. Environmental Management 14(5):571-587. 

• United States Society on Dams Publications: http://www.ussdams.org/pubs.html. 

• University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension. 1996. The Removal of Small Dams: An 

Institutional Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience. Extension Report 96-1, May. 

Department of Urban and Regional Planning. 

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Projects: 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/sidebar/iem/lowerwis/index.htm#baraboo or 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/lowerwis/baraboo.htm; 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/sidebar/iem/milw/index.htm; 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/sidebar/iem/superior/index.htm; 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/sidebar/iem/sheboygan/index.htm

Noneroding Roadways 

The following sources may be used to obtain additional information on noneroding roadways: 

• Controlling Nonpoint Source Runoff Pollution from Roads, Highways, and Bridges 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/roads.html

• Erosion, Sediment, and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/runoff.html

• Gravel Roads: Maintenance and Design Manual—the purpose of the manual is to 

provide clear and helpful information for doing a better job of maintaining gravel roads. 

The manual is designed for the benefit of elected officials, mangers, and grader operators 

who are responsible for designing and maintaining gravel roads. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/gravelroads

• Low-Volume Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide

http://zietlow.com/manual/gk1/web.doc

• Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual

http://berkshireplanning.org/4/download/dirt_roads.pdf

• Planning Considerations for Roads, Highways, and Bridges

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/planroad.html

• Pollution Control Programs for Roads, Highways, and Bridges 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/control.html

• Recommended Practices Manual: A Guideline for Maintenance and Service of Unpaved 

Roads http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/unpavedroads.html

• The “Road Maintenance Video Set” is a five-part video series developed for USDA 

Forest Service equipment operators that focuses on environmentally sensitive ways of 

maintaining low volume roads. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/maint_videoset.html

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-6 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

Additional Information 

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment 

Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and 

Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of 

Water; Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/ Accessed July 2007. 

International Commission on Large Dams 

http://www.icold-cigb.org

International Rivers Network 

http://www.irn.org

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center 

http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

http://www.usbr.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

http://www.nps.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

http://www.fws.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

http://www.usgs.gov

USEPA. 1994. A State and Local Government Guide to Environmental Program Funding 

Alternatives. EPA 841-K-94-001. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/funding.html

USEPA. 1994. A Tribal Guide to the Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Program. EPA 841-

S-94-003. 

USEPA. 1994. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume I. EPA 841-S-94-004. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319

USEPA. Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection

http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-7 July 2007 
Additional Resources 

EPA 841-B-07-002 Resources-8 July 2007 

USEPA. 1997. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II—Highlights of State and Tribal Nonpoint 

Source Programs. EPA 841-R-97-001. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319II

USEPA. 2002. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume III. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III

USEPA Clean Lakes Program 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/cllkspgm.html

USEPA Environmental Finance Information Network (EFIN) 

http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/efin.htm

USEPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Homepage 

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS

USEPA Surf Your Watershed 

http://www.epa.gov/surf

USEPA Watershed Academy 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy

Watershedss, (Water, Soil, and HydroEnvironmental Decision Support System)—North Carolina 

State University 

http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss
EPA # April 2001

Appendix A

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts

This appendix provides wetlands contacts, nonpoint source regional contacts, and

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Contacts.
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-07-002 July 2007 A-1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts

EPA is grouped into 10 Regions. For questions about a particular state, contact the appropriate EPA Regional

Coordinator listed below.

Region 1:

CT, MA, ME, NH,

RI, VT

http://www.epa.

gov/region01/

Region 2:

NJ, NY, PR, VI

http://www.epa.

gov/Region2

Region 3:

DC, DE, MD, PA,

VA, WV

http://www.epa.

gov/region03

Region 4:

AL, FL, GA, KY,

MS, NC, SC, TN

http://www.epa.

gov/region4/

Region 5:

IL, IN, MI, MN,

OH, WI

http://www.epa.

gov/region5/

U.S. EPA-Region 1

Wetlands Protection Unit

One Congress Street

Boston, MA 02114-2023

http://www.epa.gov/region01/

topics/ecosystems/

wetlands.html

U.S. EPA-Region 2

Water Programs Branch

Wetlands Section

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

http://www.epa.gov/region02/

water/wetlands/

U.S. EPA-Region 3

Wetlands Protection

Section

1650 Arch Street (3WP12)

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/

hydricsoils/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 4

Wetlands Section

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

http://www.epa.gov/region4/

water/wetlands/

U.S. EPA-Region 5

Watersheds and Wetlands

Water Division (W-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

http://www.epa.gov/region5/

water/wshednps/

topic_wetlands.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 1

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

One Congress Street,

Boston, MA 02114-2023

http://www.epa.gov/region01/

topics/water/npsources.html

U.S. EPA-Region 2

Water Programs Branch

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

http://www.epa.gov/region02/

water/npspage.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 3

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

1650 Arch Street (3WP12)

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/

nps/

U.S. EPA-Region 4

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

http://www.epa.gov/region4/

water/nps/

U.S. EPA-Region 5

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

Water Division (W-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

http://www.epa.gov/region5/

water/wshednps/topic_nps.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 1

SRF Program Contact

One Congress Street

Boston, MA 02114-2023

http://www.epa.gov/ne/cwsrf/

index.html

U.S. EPA-Region 2

Water Programs Branch

SRF Program Contact

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

http://www.epa.gov/Region2/

water/wpb/staterev.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 3

Construction Grants Branch

SRF Program Contact

1650 Arch Street (3WP12)

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/

srf/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 4

Surface Water Permits & Facilities

SRF Program Contact

61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta GA, 30303

http://www.epa.gov/Region4/

water/gtas/grantprograms.html

U.S. EPA-Region 5

SRF Program Contact

Water Division (W-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

http://www.epa.gov/region5/

business/fs-cwsrf.htm

EPA Region Nonpoint Source Regional

Coordinators

Wetland Contact Clean Water State

Revolving Fund

Regional Coordinators
Appendix A

A-2 EPA 841-B-07-002 July 2007

Region 6:

AR, LA, NM, OK,

TX

http://www.epa.

gov/region6

Region 7:

IA, KS, MO, NE

http://www.epa.

gov/region7

Region 8:

CO, MT, ND, SD,

UT, WY

http://www.epa.

gov/region8

Region 9:

AZ, CA, HI, NV,

Pacific Islands

http://www.epa.

gov/region9/

Region 10:

AK, ID, OR, WA

http://www.epa.

gov/region10/

General Program

Information

U.S. EPA-Region 6

Marine and Wetlands Section

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

http://www.epa.gov/region6/

water/ecopro/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 7

Wetlands Protection

Section (ENRV)

901 N. 5th St.

Kansas City, KS 66101

http://www.epa.gov/region7/

wetlands/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 8

Wetlands Program

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2405

http://www.epa.gov/region8/

water/wetlands/wetlands.html

U.S. EPA-Region 9

Water Division, Wetlands

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.epa.gov/region09/

water/wetlands/index.html

U.S. EPA-Region 10

Wetlands Section

1200 Sixth Ave.

Seattle, WA 98101

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/

ECOCOMM.NSF/webpage/

Wetlands

U.S. EPA

Wetlands Division (4502F)

Mail Code RC-4100T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

http://www.epa.gov/owow/

wetlands/

U.S. EPA-Region 6

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

http://www.epa.gov/region6/

water/ecopro/watershd/

nonpoint/

U.S. EPA-Region 7

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

901 N. 5th St.

Kansas City, KS 66101

U.S. EPA-Region 8

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

 999 18th Street, Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202-2405

http://www.epa.gov/region8/

water/nps/contacts.html

U.S. EPA-Region 9

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.epa.gov/region09/

water/nonpoint/index.html

U.S. EPA-Region 10

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

1200 Sixth Ave.

Seattle, WA 98101

U.S. EPA Nonpoint Source

Control Branch (4503-T)

Ariel Rios Bldg.

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps

U.S. EPA-Region 6

SRF Program Contact

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

http://www.epa.gov/Arkansas/

6en/xp/enxp2c4.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 7

SRF Program Contact

901 N. 5th St.

Kansas City, KS 66101

http://www.epa.gov/Region7/

water/srf.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 8

SRF Program Contact

999 18th Street, Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202-2405

U.S. EPA-Region 9

Construction Grants Branch

SRF Program Contact

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.epa.gov/region9/

funding/

U.S. EPA-Region 10

Ecosystems & Communities

SRF Program Contact

1200 Sixth Ave.

Seattle, WA 98101

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/

ecocomm.nsf/webpage/

Clean+Water+State+Revolving

+Fund+in+Region+10

U.S. EPA

The Clean Water State

Revolving Fund Branch

(4204M)

1201 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20004

http://www.epa.gov/owm/

cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm

EPA Region Nonpoint Source Regional

Coordinators

Wetland Contact Clean Water State

Revolving Fund

Regional Coordinators