United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
July 1983
EPA 430-9-83-009
oEPA Nonpoint Source Runoff
Information Transfer System
Mil
-r
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 27 '-
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Edition Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information Transfer
System
FROM: <^Carl Myers, Acting Director
*s+ Water Planning Division (WH-554)
TO: All Regional Water Management Division Directors
\TTN: All Regional WQM Coordinators
tf ReaJ&rfipl NES,
i^'r^ J^^j
THRU: 1 Henry L. Longe^fllT
of Watlr Prografrj/Operations (WH-546)
nators
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM: INFO-83- 21
Attached is a copy of the revised Nonpoint Source Runoff: Information
Transfer System for your use and for the additional input of case studies
for a second edition in the fall of 1983. (See Info Memo, Info 83-4).
This publication describes state-of-the-art methods for identifying
nonpoint source (NPS) runoff problems and for developing and implementing
runoff controls. The document is intended to provide local, State and
Federal managers with a concise, easy-to-read reference on strategies and
techniques for controlling NPS pollution. It is especially intended for
filling the gaps found in water quality management plans as the effects
of many control measures or practices on water quality and use are not yet
fully defined. The document is a useful means for disseminating the results
of the many demonstration projects now underway or being completed.
We believe that by annually updating the document the Information
Transfer System can be a useful means for improving the Federal, State
and local programs for controlling NPS. To make this happen, the Regions
will need to distribute copies to those working on NPS controls, to en-
courage these managers to provide case studies for future editions, and
to ensure that water quality management plans are updated where necessary
as a result of any new information.
Please provide any updated material for this Information Transfer
System and/or new case studies to Jim Meek (WH-554) by October 21, 1983.
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF
INFORMATION TRANSFER SYSTEM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, B.C. 20460
1982
-------
PREFACE
This publication describes state-of-the-art methods for identify-
ing NFS runoff problems and developing and implementing runoff con-
trols. We begin by presenting a national perspective on NFS-related
water quality problems and efforts to control them. Subsequent
chapters provide more specific information on identifying and solving
problems at State and local levels and give case studies of how
various jurisdictions have worked to improve and maintain water
quality.
This document addresses such questions as:
How do I know if I have an NFS runoff problem?
Where can I get the information I need to understand
and manage the problem?
What kinds of control efforts best fit my community's
and my State's needs, both technically and politically?
What is the role of the developer, farmer, forester,
and what are the regulatory measures in controlling
NFS runoff?
What has been done elsewhere to identify and solve
problems?
What difficulties can I expect when I implement
recommended runoff controls?
What financial and institutional concerns are involved?
What implementation issues have other managers faced?
-------
As you read this document, we would like to know how well it answers
the questions just posed. How helpful will it be to a State or local
manager just coming to grips with NFS runoff problems? Is the
information sufficient and useful?
More case studies are needed. We want you to provide specific
cases from your experience, particularly examples of problem identi-
fication and solution development activities. Our intent is to
assemble a useful reference that leads the reader to solid informa-
tion sources and that can be updated periodically as more information
is available. Guidelines for preparing case studies appear at the
end of this document.
We are also interested in making available more information about
the financial and institutional aspects of managing NFS runoff. We
would like you to provide examples of the experiences managers in
your area have had in making NFS management activities financially
operable, in designating management agencies and assigning responsi-
bilities, and in facilitating interjurisdictional cooperation.
Your comments and suggestionsand any case studiesto expand
the scope and depth of information in this workbook would be appre-
ciated. Please send these to Jim Meek, U.S. EPA, WH-554, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, B.C. 20460", or call (202) 382-7085.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION
2 THE NATIONAL PICTURE 2.1
BACKGROUND 2] 1
URBAN RUNOFF .' ' ' '' 2.' 3
AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF ',',', 2'.5
CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF .'.'.'.' 2! 10
SILVICULTURAL RUNOFF \ 2! 14
SMALL AND ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS 2.20
GROUND WATER PROTECTION 2.22
REFERENCES ...'.' 2' 29
3 URBAN RUNOFF 3.1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION !!!.'!!!.'.'.'!! 3^1
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT 3^3
IMPLEMENTATION 3' 7
REFERENCES 3 ] 20
CASE STUDIES 3'.22
4 AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF 4.1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4 ] 1
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT '.'.'.!!'.'.! 4^5
IMPLEMENTATION .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'! 4^13
REFERENCES 4! 18
CASE STUDIES 4.'21
5 CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF 5.1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 5.1
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT 5*6
IMPLEMENTATION 5 ] 13
REFERENCES !!!!'.'.'.'.'.!!'..' 5 ! 16
CASE STUDIES .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.*.'.'.'.'.'] 5.' 19
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE
6 SILVICULTURAL RUNOFF 6.1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 6.1
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT 6.6
IMPLEMENTATION 6.13
REFERENCES 6.23
CASE STUDIES 6.26
7 SMALL AND ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS 7.1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 7.1
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT 7.2
IMPLEMENTATION 7.13
REFERENCES 7.20
8 GROUND WATER PROTECTION 8.1
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 8.1
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT 8.5
IMPLEMENTATION 8.15
REFERENCES 8.29
CASE STUDIES 8.30
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING CASE STUDIES 9.1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 10.1
IV
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
This publication provides local, State, and Federal managers with
a concise, easy-to-read reference on water pollution control. As an
information transfer system, its four goals are to:
Summarize the status of our knowledge about controlling
water pollution.
Recount the best, state-of-the-art work now under way to
study and control water pollution.
Provide an easily accessible handbook for disseminating
the results of future work.
Avoid needless duplication of effort when new water
pollution control projects are initiated.
In 1973, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began awarding
grants under sections 106 and 208 of the Clean Water Act. These
grants have helped State, interstate, and areawide agencies develop
and implement programs to control water pollution. In particular,
State and local Water Quality Management (WQM) plans have been pre-
pared with section 208 grants to lay the groundwork for future water
quality planning, management, and implementation. These plans have
identified critical water quality problems, assessed alternative
control strategies, recommended cost-effective solutions, and
designated management agencies to implement approved solutions. As
of July 1982, of the 220 agencies which received grants, 216 had
received State certification and 213 had EPA approval.
Now that most of the initial planning has been completed, EPA,
the States, and the areawide agencies are carrying out the decisions
made in the planning process through section 201 construction grants,
1.1
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction Page 1.2
section 106 State program grants, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, section 205(g)
construction management assistance, and other implementation-oriented
programs. The plans also have identified key State and local
resources for implementing pollution control programs.
Many of the plans, however, have had gaps, especially in
strategies and techniques for controlling nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution. The nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution are
still insufficiently documented, and the effects of many control
measures or practices on water quality and use are not yet fully
defined.
To fill in the gaps, EPA provided section 208 funds to selected
projects around the country to study and control specific water
pollution problems on a prototype basis. Selection of the projects
depended in part on how well their potential results could be applied
in other areas facing similar problems. As solutions are verified,
the results will be disseminated as quickly and as effectively as
possible, so that other State and local governments can use them in
implementing their own WQM plans.
The WQM Information Transfer System (ITS) is the main vehicle for
disseminating these results. Information will be updated as more
projects are completed. The material contained in this document
will:
Provide a national look at water quality problems and
their control,
Review progress to date,
Summarize new information as it becomes available, and
Provide references to source materials and projects.
Each chapter of the ITS document is an independent unit. Chapter
2, "The National Picture," begins with a brief background section on
the nature of the problem. Subsequent sections of that chapter
discuss urban runoff, agricultural runoff, construction site runoff,
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction Page 1.3
silvicultural runoff, small and alternative wastewater systems
(SAWS), and ground water protection. Each section addresses the
extent of the problem nationally. How much pollution is there? What
impact does it have? How many waterways are affected?
Each of the later chapters deals with one of the topics discus-
sed in "The National Picture" and is a problem-solving guide aimed
particularly at State and local managers who want to know what has
been done elsewhere about problems similar to their own. The
chapters are generally divided into four sections: problem
identification, solution development, implementation, and case
studies. References to sources of additional information are
included at the end of each chapter.
Within each chapter, the problem identification section
provides information on means of identifying nonpoint source problem
areas. The methods discussed include evaluation of existing reports,
mapping, gathering additional data, making visual observations of
impacts, communicating with local residents, and using various pre-
diction formulas and models. The solution development section
reviews the current methods recommended for solving water quality
and use problems. In most cases this involves discussions of best
management practices (BMPs) and their application and uses. The
section on implementation includes discussions of programs being
concluded for prevention and reduction of NFS. Sources of relevant
information on additional measures, practices, or program references
are listed in the reference section of each chapter. The case
studies provide specific summary data on projects.
The ITS is intended as a resource document. It is not an all-
inclusive presentation on how to solve water pollution problems.
Instead, it is to be used as a general introduction to a specific
problem area, providing a working knowledge of what types of control
measures may be needed and what implementation problems can be
expected. It can then guide the reader to the technical literature,
to project officers, and to potential data bases. In this way, EPA
hopes to distribute effectively the results of the 10-year WQM
effort.
-------
2 THE NATIONAL PICTURE
-------
2 THE NATIONAL PICTURE
Background
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972, considerable
progress has been made toward protecting the quality of the Nation's
waters. Since 1973, EPA has helped local, State, and interstate
agencies to develop and implement programs to control water pollution
through grants awarded under sections 106 and 208 of the Clean Water
Act. State and local Water Quality Management (WQM) plans have been
prepared with section 208 grants to lay the groundwork for future
water quality planning, management, and implementation. These plans
have identified critical water quality problems, assessed alternative
control strategies, recommended cost-effective solutions, and
designated management agencies to carry out approved solutions.
During the early years, the planning activities focused on point
sources of pollution, mainly industrial and municipal wastewater
discharges. Areawide agencies representing cities and urban counties
carried out this work. When the States began their own WQM planning,
however, they found nonpoint source (NFS) pollution to be just as
serious a problem. Nonpoint sources include onsite waste treatment
systems and stormwater runoff from urban areas, agricultural opera-
tions, forestry operations, and construction sites. Ground water
protection is also important.
Taken together, nonpoint sources are the largest source of water
pollutants (by volume) in the country. In 1977, 37 States reported
in their 305(b) reports that they will would not meet the 1983 Clean
Water Act goals (fishable and swimmable quality) in at least part of
their waters because of nonpoint source pollution. In their 1982
305(b) reports, 20 States reported on the bases for their estimates
of waters meeting or not meeting the 1982 "fishable/swimmable" goal.
Fourteen of these cited nonpoint sources as one of the primary
reasons for nonattainment. Additionally, 10 of the 50 States cited
nonpoint sources as the most important cause of water degradation.
2.1
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.2
A number of individual studies by State, areawide, and local
planning officials have identified nonpoint sources as major causes
of water quality problems, for example:
In a detailed study of the Pike River watershed in Kenosha and
Racine Counties, Wisconsin, during 1980-1982, the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) determined
that nonpoint sources account for the majority of pollutants
which are transported to the surface water system. This
includes an estimated 96 percent of the nitrogen, 93 percent
of the phosphorus, 95 percent of the biological oxygen demand,
46 percent of the fecal coliform, and virtually all of the
suspended solids.
There were a number of studies preparatory to a $1.2 million
project by Maine's Department of Environmental Protection to
restore Lake Sebasticook, the largest lake restoration project
ever undertaken in New England. These studies indicated that
while point source discharges to the lake's inlet account for
6721 pounds of phosphorus per year, extensive farming opera-
tions in the Sebasticook watershed and other nonpoint sources
account for 13,228 pounds of phosphorus annually.
A 1980 interagency surface water study formed the basis for a
regional surface water management plan recently adopted by the
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area in Minnesota.
Measured against standards and guidelines established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the results of the study
of 110 subwatersheds indicated that 107 subwatersheds require
reductions in total phosphorus (TP) averaging 73 to 75 per-
cent, 93 subwatersheds require reductions in total nitrogen
(TN) of from 36 to 56 percent, 92 subwatersheds require reduc-
tions in total suspended solids (TSS) ranging from 34 to 43
percent, 82 subwatersheds require reductions in chemical
oxygen demand (COD) ranging from 18 to 38 percent, and 11 sub-
watersheds require reduction in lead (Pb) averaging 15 per-
cent. A concurrent study of the Region's lakes showed that
the primary reason for the degradation of most of the lakes is
NPS pollution. An evaluation of the impacts of point and NFS
loadings upon the Minnesota River revealed that for a 2-year
period, NPS loads exceeded point source loads for BOD (8,893
pounds versus 2,523 pounds) and for TP (1,001 pounds versus
734 pounds), but point source loadings greatly exceeded NPS
loadings for ammonia (3,994 pounds versus 368 pounds).
A 1980 Section 208 study of bacterial contamination of shell-
fish harvesting areas in the Navesink River by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection revealed that bacterial
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.3
input to the Navesink River Basin increased greatly during
storm events (median values for total coliform increased
23-fold, those for fecal coliform and fecal streptococci
7-fold), was largely of animal origin, and was ultimately
traceable to extensive horse farming along one of the
tributaries and, to a lesser extent, to domestic pet wastes
generated in the suburban areas along the upstream segment of
the Navesink River.
The remainder of this chapter spells out the significance of each
major nonpoint source.
Urban Runoff
Extent of the Problem
Urban runoff results from rainwater and snowmelt that flows
over city lots, lawns, streets, paved areas, and rooftops. Rain
gathers suspended particles and chemicals from the air, and runoff
water picks up dust, dirt, litter, animal wastes, bacteria, algal
nutrients, and toxic chemicals as it flows across ground and paved
surfaces. Often, runoff water discharged from storm sewers into
receiving waterways is significantly polluted.
The following examples typify urban runoff problems throughout
the country.
On Long Island, New York, urban runoff is the predominant
source of coliform bacteria and has caused the closure of
productive shellfish areas.
In Colorado, the South Platte River violates fecal
coliform standards 60 percent of the time because of
urban runoff. Violations of suspended solids, nutrients,
and bacteria standards limit recreation, fishing, and
irrigation.
During wet weather, California's Castro Valley Creek
contains concentrations of toxic pollutants (cadmium,
copper, lead, zinc) which exceed EPA standards. Street
dirt samples show that urban runoff is a major source
of these chemicals, particularly lead, which comes
almost exclusively from auto exhaust.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.4
A study published in 1975 by the National Commission on Water
Quality estimated that not until 1990 would biochemical oxygen demand
(8005) from wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflow
equal that from 1973 levels of urban runoff. Suspended sediment
contributions from urban runoff are projected to be over eight times
the amount from sanitary and combined sewer discharges. (Stormwater
drainage lines are either separate storm sewers or combined storm and
sanitary sewers; many municipalities have both.)
Types of Pollutants
Available data indicate that inorganic (mineral) sediments
similar to common sand and silt make up by far the largest volume of
the contaminants in urban runoff. These sediments are believed to
come from soil erosion, decomposed road-surface materials, construc-
tion site runoff, and other sources. Some adverse economic and
environmental impacts have been associated with urban sediment loads,
including increased operating costs for the drainage systems them-
selves. Nonetheless, urban runoff is believed to contribute
considerably less sediment than agricultural erosion processes.
Coarse-grained mineral sediments are probably not responsible for
the most significant pollution problems. A wide variety of potential
pollutants can attach themselves to the fine-grained sediment par-
ticles. Most studies have found that a great portion of the overall
pollution potential in street-surface contaminants is associated with
these fine-grained materials. One study found that "very fine,"
silt-sized material (less than 43 microns) accounts for only 5.9
percent of the total solids but about one-fourth of the oxygen demand
and perhaps one-third of the algal nutrients. It also accounts for
one-half of the heavy metals and nearly three-fourths of the total
pesticides.
Further data on the extent of urban runoff problems, the total
national contaminants load, and its impact on receiving water are
largely unavailable, although considerable work is under way.
Reports from the States in the 1977 National Water Quality Inventory
asserted that over 50 percent of the Nation's river basins are
affected at least to some extent by urban runoff. Managing this
problem can be expensive. According to EPA's 1980 Needs Survey,
collecting and treating separate storm sewer discharges would cost
$114 billion. EPA is now investigating best management practices
(BMPs) aimed at source control as alternatives. Initial cost
estimates for BMPs were an order of magnitude less than those for
central treatment.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.5
Agricultural Runoff
Extent of the Problem
According to testimony given by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Richard Lyng before the House Committee on Agriculture in June 1981,
runoff from agricultural lands produces more than half the Nation's
nonpoint source pollution. This pollution affects two-thirds of our
river basins. Farmlands contributed well over half of the total
manmade sediment load to water bodies.
Crop production activities can accelerate soil losses by causing
increased erosion. These soils can enter water bodies to add to
pollution. Animal production operations also can pollute waterways
from their wastes and sometimes cause additional erosion and sediment
problems when animals break down streambanks and disturb streambeds.
Types of Pollutants
Specific agricultural nonpoint source pollutants fall into five
major categories: pesticides, sediment, fertilizer, animal waste,
and dissolved salts.
Pesticides
Pesticides probably have the severest impact on water use of all
the pollutants originating on agricultural land. They can directly
harm fish and other aquatic life and limit water supplies for
drinking and recreation.
In eastern Arkansas, fish kills have occurred in the Cache,
L'Anguille, and White Rivers, where the pesticide toxaphene
has exceeded federally recommended safe levels by as much as
tenfold.
Wells were closed on eastern Long Island in New York when
unsafe levels of the pesticide aldicarb, used on the area's
potato farms, were detected in the water.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.6
The potential for environmental damages of any given pesticide
varies with its chemical properties and its toxicity. The degree to
which it persists in the environment or accumulates in the food chain
is also important in determining its impact.
For over a decade, pesticide use in the United States has in-
creased each year by about 40 million pounds of active ingredient.
In 1980, agriculture used an estimated 846 million pounds of pesti-
cides (active ingredient)72 percent of total national consumption.
Figure 2.1 illustrates this trend.
Herbicides are the most commonly used pesticides. In 1980,
farmers used 445 million pounds (active ingredient). Arachlor and
atrazine make up nearly one-third of all the herbicides used. Insec-
ticides are the second major class of pesticides used in agriculture.
They accounted for 306 million pounds of active ingredient in 1980.
Toxaphene and methyl parathion are two of the most common, making up
30 percent of all agricultural insecticides.
Sediments
Excess sediments from farmlands constitute a large volume of
pollutants entering surface water. Each year over 6.4 billion tons
of topsoil are reported to erode from non-Federal rural lands. Of
this, approximately 2 billion tons finds its way into rivers,
streams, and lakes.
Most sediment (nearly 4 billion tons per year) results from
erosion by water. Water erosion is categorized as: sheet erosion
(removing the soil fairly uniformly in a thin layer), rill erosion
(removing soil in small channels formed by concentrated flow), gully
erosion, and streambank erosion. In areas of high winds and little
rainfall, wind erosion is predominant. Wind erosion occurs in areas
that lack vegetative cover, have smooth surfaces, and contain soils
with particles that can be easily detached by wind.
Excessive sediment loads cause numerous water pollution problems.
Excessive sediment raises water treatment costs, causes esthetic
degradation, damages domestic and industrial water supplies, impairs
-------
Figure 2.1
United States Pesticide Usage
Total and Estimated Agricultural
Sector Share, 1964-1980
1200-
1000-
6
(
3
1
1
1
>7
1
"~"
6
n
^'
*
,:,
'f
z
«'
~
_
(
f-m
r
p
K
r
[;
59
n
'';
V
70
>.
»i
>f
~~-
71
7
^
^
*''
*'
^^
*^
r
2
-
7
1
']
\
^
l\
<<
|T
^*
,cf
^
74
V
-1
7
*
1
*:
s{:
^4
^
5
T
7
si
%
~t
i
^
>?
i
1
^
,^
'?
£
6
Fl
i.s
;S
i
;|
|J
1
1
P
i,
1
P
1
1
77 '
1
₯'
1
^
1
s*
ll
1
|
1
|
y
1
i
78 '
P
P
P
p
ft
P
P
I
I
1
P
E
1
1
p
i
P
79
~
fS
1
l!
\
i
K
I1
N
1
i
I
i
t
i
i
:
^
|
80
n
j
P
^
I
L
L
Agriculture
U.S.
2.7
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.8
fish and wildlife habitat, and clogs reservoirs and channels. In
addition, fine-grained sediment fractions frequently have been
identified as the principal transport vehicles for much of the
phosphorus that accelerates lake eutrophication, as well as for
pesticides and organic and inorganic wastes.
The cost of erosion and sediment deposition is high. Farmland
erosion costs agriculture $1 billion annually in lost production.
The United States pays $500 million yearly to remove sediments, both
natural and man-caused, from its waterways. In addition, sediments
add to the cost of cleaning up drinking supplies for both people and
animals.
Nutrients
Fertilizers create problems by promoting lake eutrophication and,
in some cases, adding pollutants to ground and surface waters. The
major nutrients are nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Nitrogen
and phosphorus are the major contributors to lake eutrophication.
Most nutrient problems result from applied manure or chemical
fertilizers. Nitrogen is generally the most serious pollutant, since
it remains in solution (as nitrate) and can move into surface waters
or percolate down to ground water. Nitrogen can also be transported
after becoming attached to soil particles or as organic matter when
fertilizer or manure is applied to the ground surface and not worked
into the soil.
In some areas animal wastes can be a serious pollutant source.
There are two water quality concerns with animal wastes. First, as an
organic or oxygen-demanding material, manure can seriously deplete
oxygen in streams and lakes. Second, as a nutrient, it can
overenrich a body of water and contribute to eutrophication.
There are 1.8 million farms in the United States with some type
of livestock. About 1.8 billion metric tons of wet manure, equiva-
lent to a dry weight of 158 million metric tons of solids, is
excreted annually. This contains about 7 million metric tons of
nitrogen, 1.7 million metric tons of phosphorus, and 318 million
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.9
metric tons of potassium. To illustrate further the magnitude of the
potential problems from animal wastes, consider that, nationally,
beef cattle in confinement, mostly in open feedlots, produce 23
million tons of manure a year. Fortunately, most owners of large
feedlots have installed preventive controls.
Dissolved Salts
Salinity from dissolved salts has become a critical concern in
many parts of the United States, particularly in the arid and
semiarid regions of the West. In irrigated areas, salt contamination
has reduced crop yields on 25 percent of the land. Salinity buildup
in the soil root zone can cut into a farmer's profits from crops.
Excessive salinity in lakes, streams, rivers, and ground water can
limit or preclude their use for irrigation; domestic, municipal, and
industrial water supply; or for fish and wildlife habitat.
Salinity, sometimes called total dissolved solids, results from
one or more of the solution products of minerals in soils and rocks,
irrigation return flows, leaching from municipal and industrial
wastes, and other sources, such as springs and wells. High salinity
levels generally result from an excess of the dissolved salts of
three metals: calcium, magnesium, and sodium (coupled with anions,
such as bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride). It is estimated that
there are 90 to 100 million tons of salt delivered annually to
surface water in the 11 Western States.
Irrigation specialists generally agree that in many circum-
stances, improved control over cropland irrigation is an effective
approach to reducing salinity in river systems. Frequently, it is
the most cost-effective option. When irrigation waters are inade-
quately applied, salts and dissolved minerals remain in surface
soils, impairing crop production. Overirrigation results in
excessive deep percolation, which can leach excess salt from the soil
and carry it into ground water or downstream water bodies.
Of those areas with salinity problems, the Colorado River Basin
has received the most attention to date, because of its high salt
load and impact on Mexico's farmland. Irrigation alone contributes
37 percent of the total salt load to the river in the upper Colorado
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.10
Basin. The river salt content varies from 50 milligrams per liter
in the headwaters to about 820 milligrams per liter at Imperial Dam.
Each milligram per liter increase in salinity concentration causes
approximately $469,000 per year in economic damages to downstream
water users.
Construction Site Runoff
Extent of the Problem
Earth-moving construction projects are temporary events, which
occur at different stages of the development of, and in different
portions of, a given drainage basin. Therefore, the cumulative
effect of construction-related pollution is extremely difficult to
predict or assess. Construction activity has been responsible for
extraordinary amounts of environmental damage to nearby water bodies,
particularly when disturbed surface soils and underlying foundation
materials are left exposed to rain, wind, and runoff.
By volume, excess sediment is the principal pollutant resulting
from construction projects, such as housing developments, factories,
highways, shopping centers, and other facilities. Consisting of
mineral and organic materials, it can have physical, chemical, and
biological effects on the water bodies into which it flows. These
effects are discussed briefly below.
Streams that flow from urbanized drainage basins may transport
and deposit from 200 to 500 tons of sediment per square mile each
year. By contrast, areas undergoing construction yield from 1,000 to
10,000 tons per square mile annually. For very small areas where
construction has altered the soil mantle and plant cover, sediment
losses from one acre may be more than 40,000 times that from adjacent
undeveloped woodlands. Since an estimated 4,000 acres of land is
being developed each day, the annual yield of sediment in our streams
and other water bodies will continue unless adequate control programs
are developed and implemented.
-------
Chapter 2
The National Picture
Page 2.11
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service recently made an inventory of
erosion on non-Federal lands. During 1978 and 1979, data were col-
lected from some 72,000 sample sites on 1.5 billion acres of land.
It was found that construction site erosion accounts for 1.4 percent
of the total national erosion. Construction sites in 10 States
accounted for over 60 percent of that 1.4 percent. Table 2.1 shows
the contribution from each of those 10 States.
Table 2.1
Erosion from Construction Sites
State
Alabama
North Carolina*
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Georgia*
Texas
Tennessee
Pennsylvania*
Ohio*
Kentucky
Total
Tons of Erosion
(in thousands)
13,653
6,674
5,071
4,231
3,817
3,528
3,280
3,126
3,004
2,970
49,354
Percent of
National Total
17.1
8.3
6.3
5.3
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
61.7
* States with erosion and sediment control laws in effect.
The total annual sediment loss from construction in the United
States was estimated to be 79,940,000 tons. The regional distribu-
tion of this total is shown in Table 2.2. Nearly all of this sedi-
ment is transported away from the construction sites by runoff and
discharged into nearby streams.
-------
Chapter 2
The National Picture
Page 2.12
Table 2.2
Regional Distribution of
Construction Site Sediment Loss
Regions
Northeast (14 States)
Southeast (12 States,
Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands)
Midwest (12 States)
West (12 States)
Total
Tons of Erosion
(in thousands)
9,798
49,473
13,679
6,990
79,940
Percentage
of Total
12.3
61.9
17.1
8.7
100.0
Types of Pollutants
As was noted above, sediment is, by volume, the major pollutant
from construction projects. The sheer volume of sedimentary deposits
creates many physical problems.
They reduce the storage capacity of reservoirs and obstruct
harbor and navigation channels.
By reducing the hydraulic capacity of streams, sedimentary
deposits often increase the frequency and severity of
floods.
They may fill drainage ditches along roads and railroads
and plug culverts and storm sewers.
They impair the esthetic attraction of lakes and
reservoirs used for swimming, boating, fishing, and other
recreational activities.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.13
Each year various governmental groups spend hundreds of millions of
tax dollars to conduct dredging and other operations to maintain the
use of these bodies of water and to offset damages.
The chemical and biological effects of sediment are numerous.
Fine-grained sediments such as clay have a tendency to
adsorb nutrients and a wide range of other pollutants.
An excess of such nutrients as phosphorus and nitrogen
can accelerate eutrophication of receiving waters, lead-
ing to increased growth of algae, objectionable tastes
and odors, depleted oxygen, and water treatment problems.
Sedimentary materials may include particles of organic
matter that can cause additional oxygen demand, bacterial
growth, and other water quality problems.
Silts and fine sands drastically reduce both the variety and
quantity of organisms in aquatic environments.
Increased turbidity decreases the penetration of sunlight,
on which many of the most fundamental aquatic organisms
depend. It may also change the rate of heat radiation,
resulting in water temperatures unsuitable for some species.
As particles of any size settle to the bottom, they form
a blanket which can smother developing fish eggs and
suppress other bottom-living organisms.
In strong currents, the abrasive action of coarser-grained
materials can have severe effects on bottom-living organisms.
Other potential pollutants from construction activities include
petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, soil additives,
construction chemicals, and miscellaneous construction wastes and
debris.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.14
Many petroleum products impart persistent, undesirable
tastes and odors to water, impairing its use for drink-
ing and water-contact recreation.
Oil films can block the transfer of oxygen from the
atmosphere into water, suffocating aquatic life.
Petroleum products often contain significant quantities
of metallic compounds (nickel, vanadium, lead, iron,
arsenic), pesticides, and other organic chemical im-
purities which can be toxic to fish and other aquatic
organisms and seriously impair their fitness for human
consumption.
The added expense of water purification to correct all of these
problems amounts to millions of dollars each year.
Silvicultural Runoff
Extent of the Problem
Silviculture involves the cultivation and harvesting of timber
for commercial purposes. It includes related activities such as
site preparation, tree thinning, fertilization, pest control,
reforestation, fire suppression, and road and trail building to
provide access for harvest machinery and log hauling.
About one-third of the United States is covered by forest.
Figure 2.2 shows the total amount of land covered by forest in each
State.
About 67 percent, or 500 million acres, of forest land is
commercial forest (lands capable of growing 20 cubic feet of woody
fiber per acre per year). Figure 2.3 shows the percentage of land
used in each State for commercial forest. In recent years, silvicul-
tural operations in the Nation's commercial forests have involved
millions of acres annually. The more than 4 million acres of forest
land which are disturbed annually increase offsite erosion signifi-
cantly beyond natural levels. This activity can cause severe local
water quality problems if good management practices are not used.
-------
Figure 2.2
Forest Land as a Percentage of Total Land Area
Source: U.S. Forest Service,
An Assessment of the Forest and
Range Land Situation in the
United States. January 1980.
2.15
-------
Figure 2.3
Commercial Forest Land in the United States
PERCENT OF LAND AREA IN
STATE IN COMMERCIAL FOREST
LEGEND
D 0-10%
on 10-35%
0 36-50%
B 51 - 65%
H Over 65%
Source:
U.S. Forest Service Commercial
Forest Land in the United States
2.16
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.17
Although it can be a severe local problem, silviculture-related
pollution does not appear to be a problem of widespread national
significance. On a per acre basis, forest lands are our best source
of high-quality water. Compared to farmland and range, forests
produce high-quality water that is low in sediment. Overall, they
contribute less than 4 percent of the total manmade sediment load to
the Nation's waterways. According to EPA's National Water Quality
Inventory1977 Report to Congress. 37 of the 246 river basins in the
United States are affected by silviculture; 20 of these are in the
Southeast and the Northwest.
There is a clear need to maintain these high-quality waters in
forested regions. Otherwise, water supply costs can increase and
cold-water fisheries may suffer. Many cities and towns in both the
East and West draw their drinking water from forested areas, and
trout and salmon fisheries depend on high-quality water from forested
watersheds.
With anticipated demand for timber products, production from both
public and private forests will grow significantly. According to
Forest Service estimates, the demand for wood may increase about 60
percent over the next 50 years, from 16 billion cubic feet in 1976 to
19 billion in 1990 and 26 billion in 2030. Production will continue
to be concentrated in the Pacific Northwest and the South. As the
demand for wood grows, the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and fire
retardants will increase, and more logging roads will be needed.
Without proper management, all of these activities can contribute to
water quality problems.
Types of Pollutants
There are four major categories of water pollutants caused by
silviculture: excess sediment loads, organic matter, forest
chemicals, and thermal pollution.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.18
Sediments
Sediments present the greatest water quality problem for forest
managers. They can obstruct waterways, reduce irrigation system
capacity, clog the gills of fish, destroy fish spawning beds, and
degrade water quality particularly if they are misapplied.
Every phase of a forest operation involves some degree of site
disturbance. These disturbances expose soil and increase erosion.
If eroded materials reach adjacent streams and waterways, they often
are deposited. This sediment can result from erosion and the trans-
port of materials from logging roads, skid trails (paths created by
dragging the logs to a loading area), log landings, and harvested
areas. Sediment may also come from landslides in areas of unstable
soil where roads have been built or logging activities conducted and
from scouring of watercourse sides and bottoms due to the increased
or more rapid runoff from disturbed areas.
Several hydrologic studies have -been conducted to determine the
relative sediment contribution of these activities. Road construc-
tion produces the most, 60 to 80 percent. Regeneration (site prepar-
ation) contributes 15 to 30 percent, and harvesting contributes 3 to
15 percent. Because the runoff in the harvest area may have a high
velocity, sediments may not be deposited until they have moved far
downstream.
Organic Matter
Organic matter originates with plants and animals (leaves, brush,
excrement, humus, dead plants and animals, etc.) and may be carried
to waterways by runoff or deposited directly in the waterways during
silvicultural operations. Logging operations generally leave bark
residues and woody debris. These materials can alter the physical
and chemical balance of the water if they enter a watercourse. The
organic matter sometimes has a nuisance value (floating debris),
physically interferes with normal aquatic ecology (bark deposits in
spawning beds), and nearly always reduces dissolved oxygen levels.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.19
Forest Chemicals
Forest chemicals such as pesticides, fertilizers, and fire
retardants can harm adjacent aquatic ecosystems, encourage algae
growth, and degrade water quality particularly if they are
misapplied.
Pesticides are usually applied by aerial spray; sometimes they
are applied from the ground. Applied to forests in the proper
amounts, at the right time, and by the proper method, they can
effectively control undesirable insects and vegetation. Most of
the problems result from direct application to water due to drift or
careless application or from heavy rainfall carrying off materials
shortly after application. Pesticides may become attached to soil
particles which can be eroded and deposited in streams. Once in
streams, pesticides can kill aquatic and other life and limit
potential water uses.
Fertilizers and fire retardants contribute nutrient elements,
primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, to the forest environment. They
reach waterways in the same way as pesticides, except that nitrogen
tends to occur in water-soluble forms that readily travel in overland
runoff or infiltrate to ground water. Both nitrogen and phosphorus
are essential for plants and animals; they are pollutants only when
present at too high a concentration. When present as ammonia,
nitrogen is toxic to fish at a concentration of 1 part per million.
Nitrate and nitrites can also be toxic, especially the latter.
Phosphorus, which provides food for algae, is chiefly noted for its
role in the eutrophication process.
With few exceptions (fire retardants are one), only firms
licensed by State and Federal regulatory agencies may apply forest
chemicals.
Thermal Pollution
Thermal pollution may occur when forestry operations raise stream
temperatures. Some cold-water game fish and other important aquatic
life cannot tolerate these increases. Increased temperatures can
also promote algae growth. In most streams, however, temperature
changes due to silvicultural activities are small and have little
effect.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.20
Most streams exhibit temperature changes throughout the day.
These vary from stream to stream and are related to stream velocity,
volume, depth, channel cross section, color of stream bottom, and
amount of shade. In deep streams, temperature fluctuates most near
the surface; bottom temperatures may not change even if all the shade
is removed.
Problems occur for forest managers when ambient stream tempera-
tures are near the threshold temperatures required by cold-water
aquatic life. In these cases, thermal pollution may result from
logging, which removes riparian vegetation that provides shade to the
watercourse. This allows sunlight to warm the stream. Warming may
also take place as a result of excess sediment deposition, since
shallow water warms faster than deep water, or increased concentra-
tion of suspended matter, either organic or inorganic. All these
potential problems are site-specific.
Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems
Throughout the United States, 29 percent of all residential
dwellings (75 percent in communities under 2,500 population) have
onsite disposal systems that use the treatment and absorption capa-
city of the soil to get rid of domestic wastes. Generally, these are
conventional septic systems, but they also include evapotranspiration
beds, mound systems, and variations of the basic septic system
design. Onsite systems also include waterless or low-water toilets,
holding tanks, and black water/gray water systems.
Small and alternative wastewater systems (SAWS) technology can
also be used to collect and treat wastes offsite. Alternative col-
lection systems include cluster systems, small-diameter gravity
sewers, vacuum sewers, and pressure sewers. Offsite treatment may be
done through small package plants or through alternative means such
as land treatment, lagoons, and oxidation ditches. While all of
these SAWS can perform satisfactorily under the right conditions,
septic systems are likely to remain the most common alternative to
central treatment plants.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.21
While SAWS are often (both technically and economically) the most
effective waste treatment option open to a community, they can create
serious problems if they fail. Technically, failures occur when
treatment efficiency drops or when the systems cannot handle the
waste loads they receive. Because they have been so widely used,
septic systems, cesspools, and privies fail the most often. When
they do, the results may be backyard ponding and foul odors, threats
to public health, reduced ground and surface water quality, and
inconvenience and financial hardships to residents.
Each year nearly 2 trillion gallons of wastewater from on-lot and
onsite systems alone move into the ground. Most of this is reliably
and safely disposed of. The primary and most immediate problem that
may occur is the contamination of individual and community drinking
water wells. In typical, small-lot residential developments, drink-
ing water is often drawn from wells within a few hundred feet of
septic systems. If these systems malfunction, untreated effluent may
leach into the ground and endanger the wells. In addition, surface
water can be contaminated by either a polluted ground water source or
runoff from disposal systems which have clogged and forced untreated
sewage to the ground surface.
SAWS failures are usually the result of human error in one or
more of four areas: siting, design, installation, and maintenance.
Mistakes in any of these areas can lead to serious problems.
Besides human error, poor information has contributed to the
inadequate use of SAWS. Onsite-system owners, for example, are often
unaware of proper maintenance practices; in many instances they do
not even know that they own such systems. Waste treatment engineers
and planners have typically been inadequately trained in SAWS manage-
ment and too often consider conventional sewers and treatment plants
the only solution to failing onsite systems. Also, conventional
solutions have sometimes had a secondary impact on land uses. As
sewers are built at greater and greater distances from central treat-
ment plants to relieve failing septic systems in relatively low
density areas, they may encourage growth and sprawlan expensive
alternative for local governments.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.22
SAWS have both an economic and a water quality impact on local
waste treatment management. Properly designed and cared for, they
can provide a relatively inexpensive, environmentally sound, long-
term method of treating household wastes. Their success, however,
depends on careful management.
Ground Water Protection
Extent of the Problem
Contamination from a variety of sources threatens many ground
water supplies. While only limited national data are available on
the full extent of ground water contamination, site-specific problems
have turned up in almost every State. In each case, the severity of
the threat depends on the nature (toxicity) and volume of the
contaminant that a particular site or activity generates, the
characteristics of the materials beneath the site, and the particular
geological and hydrological conditions of the area. For instance, a
landfill with 200 feet of impermeable clay underneath would pose
little threat to an artesian aquifer beneath the clay, but a landfill
located on a permeable material with a shallow depth to water could
contaminate the aquifer. Table 2.3 summarizes the significance of
various contamination sources.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of ground water contamination is
that removing the pollutant source does not clean up the aquifer.
Contamination may rule out desired uses of the aquifer for decades or
centuries, because the natural self-cleaning processes that occur in
surface waters do not take place underground. Clean-up techniques,
such as treatment at the wellhead, are limited in their use and ex-
pensive. Ground water pollution often goes undetected, since routine
monitoring of aquifers is difficult and costly. Almost every known
instance of ground water pollution has been discovered only after the
water source was affected.
-------
Table 2.3
Relative Importance of Different Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Contamination Sources
Industrial impoundments
Land disposal sites
Septic tanks & cesspools
Municipal wastewater
Petroleum exploration
Mining
Other important contami-
nation sources, including
nondisposal sources
National
1
1
1
Northeast
1
II
1
Spi 1 Is; leaks;
road salt;
storage tanks.
Southeast
II
II
1
Spi 1 Is, leaks;
storage tanks;
agr I cultural
activities.
South Centra 1
III
II
III
II
1
II
Natural
1 each ing;
irrigation
return; aban-
doned wel Is.
Southwest
III
II
III
III
1
III
Natural
leaching;
irrigation
return;
sea water
encroachment.
Northwest
1
1
Irrigation
return;
abandoned
wel Is.
to
N3
I - High
I I - Moderate
I I I - Low
NOTE: Relative importance is based on the typical health hazard of the contaminants, the typical size of the area affected,
and the distribution of the waste disposal practice across the United States. A waste disposal practice may be a
serious problem in certain areas, but if the number of such areas is relatively small, then the practice would not be
given a high national rating. A very widespread practice which does not create serious problems even where sources of
contamination are concentrated would also be given a low rating nationally.
SOURCES: National significance: EPA, Report to Congress on Waste Disposal Activities and Their Effects on Groundwater, 1977,
p. 8.
Regional significance derived from: D. Fuhrman and J. Barton, Groundwater Pollution in Arizona, California, Nevada
and Utah, 1971, p. 87; D. Miller, F. DeLuca and T. Tesser, Groundwater Contamination in the Northeast States, 1974,
p. 150; M. R. Scalf, J. W. Keeley, and C. J. LaFevers, Groundwater Pollution in the South Central States, 1973, p. 78;
F. Vander Leeden, L. Cerrillo, and D. Miller, Groundwater Pollution Problems In the Northwest United States, 1975,
p. 229; D. Miller, P. Hackenberry, and F. DeLuca, Groundwater Pollution Problems In the Southeastern United States,
1977, p. 143.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.24
Sources of Pollutants
Some of the major sources of ground water pollutants are
discussed below.
Landfills, Dumps, and Surface Impoundments
In the United States, there are about 18,000 identified municipal
landfills currently in operation. At least 13,000 additional
facilities have been closed in the last 10 years, and as many as
100,000 unauthorized roadside dumps now exist. Although the number
of industrial landfills is unknown, it has been estimated at about
75,000. Together, these facilities receive an estimated 375 million
tons of solid waste each year, 10 to 15 percent of which is consid-
ered hazardous to human health, life, and the environment. Municipal
landfills alone leak about 90 billion gallons of leachate into the
ground.
A surface impoundment assessment (SIA) conducted by EPA in 1978
found over 176,000 wastewater impoundments (liquid waste disposal
pits, ponds, and lagoons) at sites around the country. Table 2.4
summarizes some of the findings.
A preliminary analysis of data from the industrial sites revealed
that:
About one-third of the impoundments contain potentially
hazardous liquid wastes. For sites associated with the
chemical and allied products industry, this figure
rises to 68 percent.
One-third of the sites may be within a mile of a water
supply well.
Almost 70 percent of the industrial impoundments are
unlined.
Only 5 percent are known to be monitored for water
quality.
-------
Chapter 2
The National Picture
Page 2.25
The toxicity of stored wastes varies widely. Existing controls
on handling and disposal have been neither adequate nor well coordi-
nated. Landfills and surface impoundments have been improperly sited
and operated, and wastes have been indiscriminately accepted and
dumped.
Table 2.4
Wastewater Impoundments; How Many? How Dangerous?
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Agricultural
Mining
Oil/Gas Brine Pits
Other
TOTAL
Sites
Located
10,819
19,116
14,677
7,100
24,527
1,500
77,739
Impoundments
Located
25,749
36,179
19,167
24,451
64,951
5,745
176,242
Sites
Addressed
8,193
10,675
6,597
1,448
3,304
327
30,544
On-Lot Disposal Systems
Over one-quarter of all U.S. households use on-lot disposal
systems (mostly septic systems), which discharge over 2 trillion
gallons of wastes annually below ground. About 500,000 new septic
systems are built each year, a growth rate of about 3 percent. While
these systems are a desirable means of wastewater treatment for many
areas, they can affect ground water quality if they are improperly
sited, designed, constructed, or operated. Too high a density of
on-lot systems can create similar pollution problems. (See the
section on small and alternative wastewater systems.)
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.26
Underground Storage Tanks and Pipelines
Spills and leaks from underground storage tanks and pipelines are
frequent sources of ground water contamination. While some jurisdic-
tions have standards for storage tank construction, many do not have
inspection programs for existing facilities; and access for inspec-
tions may be difficult.
Leaks from underground storage tanks and pipelines can contribute
to hydrocarbon contamination of ground water. Hydrocarbons have
leaked from gas station and home fuel-oil storage tanks, industrial
plants, and petroleum pipelines.
Radioactive Wastes
The disposal of radioactive wastes poses a potential long-term
threat to public health. Some ground water contamination has
occurred because of leaks from the temporary storage areas where
these wastes are held until permanent sites can be found. Wastes
from uranium mines and mills and from the mining and milling of
phosphates and metallic ores such as copper can also cause radio-
activity problems in ground water.-
Agricultural Practices
Agricultural practices responsible for contamination of ground
water are: irrigation return flow, application of chemical fertili-
zers or animal wastes, changes in vegetation, and use of pesticides.
In the West especially, irrigated agriculture is both a victim and a
cause of saline pollution, which causes reduced crop yields on one-
quarter of the irrigated land in that region. Irrigation can
introduce chlorides and other substances into ground water
reservoirs.
Ground water pollution by pesticides has not been detected as
frequently as surface water pollution because of the transit time
through the soil. The problem is more prevalent in areas of high
water tables or high permeability and in the immediate vicinity of
wells.
The large quantities of animal waste generated at feedlots can
pose ground water problems if they are improperly contained. Nitrate
and pathogens are the contaminants from this source most frequently
encountered in ground water.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.27
Saltwater Encroachment
Saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers has become a major
problem. The saline water may come from the sea or from inland
saline aquifers. More than two-thirds of the United States is
underlain by water containing more than 1,000 milligrams per liter of
dissolved solids, and many inland freshwater aquifers are hydraulic-
ally connected with saline ground water. In most cases, the heavier,
mineralized water underlies the freshwater. Where wells are too deep
or where excessive pumping changes underground pressures, saline
water may be drawn into zones containing freshwater.
Underground Injection Wells
Injection wells are used for the underground disposal of indus-
trial, municipal, nuclear, and hazardous wastes and wastes associated
with oil and gas production. Contamination is caused not only by
direct injection into an aquifer but also by pollutant leaks from the
wellhead, through the casing or well bore, or through fractures in
confining beds. An estimated 500,000 injection wells are in
operation nationwide.
Abandoned Wells
There are some 1.2 million abandoned wells located near under-
ground injection wells. The total number of abandoned wells is vast;
many will probably never be located. A number of these abandoned
wells have caused ground water contamination. In some cases, wells
serving houses or buildings which were demolished for redevelopment
or highway construction were simply bulldozed over, often breaking
surface casings and seals. The old wells become a direct route for
pollutants such as highway deicing chemicals or wastewater from leaky
pipelines to enter the underlying aquifers. When saltwater has
migrated to abandoned oil or gas wells, the wells can discharge
brine, contaminating freshwater aquifers.
Highway Deicing Chemicals
The use of large amounts of soluble salts for road deicing during
snowstorms has led to a significant number of cases of ground and
surface water pollution. Salt-laden runoff from roads can percolate
into soils adjacent to highways and reach ground water. Rain falling
on uncovered salt storage piles at highway maintenance garages can
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.28
dissolve the salt and facilitate infiltration of high concentrations
of chloride into shallow aquifers.
Mining Wastes
Ground water contamination from mines is caused by drainage of
highly mineralized water from mine workings. Among the main routes
of contamination are the slurry ponds and lagoons used to dispose of
liquid wastes and the tailing piles used to dispose of solid wastes.
The ponds often contain high concentrations of nitrates, chlorides,
heavy metals, and radioactive substances. Because the ponds are
usually unlined, fluids can seep into the ground water system.
Tailing piles contribute the contaminants when rainfall or runoff
percolates down through the uncovered pile, dissolving various
pollutants in the waste.
Draining mines to allow work below the water table can result in
oxidation of exposed ores. Percolating surface water or rainfall
entering a mine can leach the minerals and transport them to ground
water.
The formation of large volumes of acid mine drainage is the most
common severe pollution problem associated with coal mining. Sulfide
minerals oxidize to a form that combines easily with water to form
sulfuric acid. Once a mine is abandoned and drainage operations are
suspended, the water table can rise past the oxidized materials and
accelerate leaching. As a result, abandoned mines are a greater
source of contamination than operating mines.
There is currently no data base from which the full magnitude of
ground water contamination problems can be determined. The available
data are based largely on investigations of particular instances of
contamination, and one cannot determine with confidence how represen-
tative these cases are.
-------
Chapter 2 The National Picture Page 2.29
References
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality1980. The
Eleventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Washington, B.C.:Government Printing Office, December 1980.
Available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
National Commission on Water Quality. Staff Draft Report.
November 1975.
,S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980 Needs Survey, Cost
Estimates for Construction of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities. FRD-19. 1980.
Available from General Services Administration (8Bcc) ,
Centralized Mailing Lists Service, Building 41, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.
Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants, by
James D. Sartor and Gail B. Boyd. Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-081. Washington, D.C. November
1972.
Office of Water Planning and Standards. National Water
Quality Inventory, 1977 Report to Congress. October 1978.
Available from U.S. EPA, Office of Water Planning and
Standards, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
3 URBAN RUNOFF
o «! v-
I.
-------
3 URBAN RUNOFF
Problem Identification
Before a community or State makes a down payment on expensive
measures to manage urban stormwater, it is essential to document the
existence and extent of the problem. Some areas, suspicious of urban
runoff as a major pollutant source, are finding the problem to be
much less serious than originally thought, or even insignificant.
"If it ain't busted, don't fix it." The old saying is good advice,
particularly in an era of tightening government budgets.
Unlike municipal wastewater, there are no federally mandated
control requirements (e.g., best available technology) for urban
stormwater. Hence controls should be used only to the degree
that they solve specific water quality problems.
The established benchmark for judging wateu quality is the water
quality standard, which consists of a designated use for a particular
water body and criteria which quantify the concentrations of specific
pollutants compatible with that use.
The purpose of standards is to protect the beneficial uses of a
given water body. Distortions can occur, however, when technical
violations of criteria receive more attention than "real" denials of
beneficial water uses. Existing criteria are based on dry-weather
flows and generally are not met during wet weather. Consequently,
violations may occur frequently but be short lived and have little
impact.
On the other hand, standards are used with the assumption that a
receiving water body is well mixed and able to assimilate certain
pollutant loadings in an even flow. Storms may create sudden, large
"shock loads" which may damage aquatic ecosystems before they are
3.1
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.2
evened out by mixing. The critical question remains: Are beneficial
uses denied or measurably impaired?
Criteria provide a simple means of quantifying water quality
problems. More complex is the process of determining the sources and
quantities of loadings and the reduction in loadings needed to
correct a water quality problem. The transient and variable nature
of stormwater flows makes it difficult to measure or predict their
effects on receiving waters. Computer modeling, if done properly,
can predict how a receiving water body will respond to reductions in
some pollutants.
A basic conceptual approach to solving urban stormwater problems
was outlined in Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Update
and User's Guide, prepared by EPA in 1977.
Step 1. An effective approach methodology must be built
on a quantified need. Thus, a logical first-cut approach
will intermix
known drainage area characteristics and hydrology
reasonable ranges of pollutant-washoff and source
potential
background and direct discharge (point source)
loadings, and
prevailing water quality conditions versus
objectives.
The purpose is to predetermine how much of what problem
associated with what event frequency could be attributed to
urban runoff dynamics.
Step 2. Selective field monitoring, guided by such
analyses, should be concentrated in critical stream
reaches and representative catchments. This second-level
investigation is necessary to substantiate the local
applicability of assumed "best fit" data and to refine
estimates.
Step 3. With the problem quantified and substantially
isolated, a cost-effectiveness assessment of abatement
alternatives has a greater likelihood of success. In
this assessment, unit processes and improved management
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.3
practices, singly or in combination, are applied to the
problem, costs established, and performance (benefits)
quantified.
Step 4. Finally, repeat simulations of the receiving
waters, loaded under postplan conditions, may be performed
to yield a measure of the improvements potentially
attainable.
Several planning guides are available to assist local and State
officials in identifying and solving urban stormwater problems.
Three are compared in Table 3.1.
Different levels of analysis can be used to define the target
level of abatement required. Methods range from simple to complex.
Each method requires data. Complex methods such as large computer-
based models (like the University of Florida's Stormwater Management
Model) require large amounts of data, and as the amount of data
needed goes up, the cost of the analysis goes up. Analysis costs
should be directly related to the economic consequences of the
problem. EPA1s Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual describes in
detail a wide range of methods. Copies of this manual are available
from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). (See
reference list for ordering information.)
Solution Development
As problem definition and analysis range from the simple to the
complex, so do solutions. Everything from source control (e.g.,
using street cleaning equipment to reduce loads from urban streets)
to sophisticated treatment devices has its place, depending on the
circumstances. The areawide assessment manual mentioned above covers
this broad range of alternatives and relates them to the problem in a
general way.
Currently, the cost effectiveness of many of these solutions is
being more closely evaluated by local agencies in many areas of the
country. Moreover, improved methods for conducting the analyses are
available for some potential controls. The results of these evalua-
tions should be of great use to those agencies looking for solutions
to water quality problems associated with separate stormwater.
discharges.
-------
Table 3.1
Summary of Coverage of Selected Planning Guides
Publ i cat Ion
SWMM: Level 1 -
Preliminary Screening
Procedures.
University of
Florida,
October 1976.
Water Qiial jfy
Management Planning
for Urban Runoff.
URS Research Company,
December 1974.
Areawide Assessment
Procedures Manual.
EPA Municipal
Environmental
Research Laboratory,
July 1976.
Discharge
Qual ity and
Quantity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Control
Alternatives
Yes
Genera I
Discussions
Only
Yes
Receiving
Water
I mpacts
No
No
Yes
Control Costs
and
Benefits
No
Not Clear
Costs Only
Example
Appl i cat ions
Partial
Yes
Yes
Level of
Complexity
Low
Medium
Low to
High
3.4
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.5
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) holds a central
position in this evaluation effort (see Case Study 1). Initiated by
EPA in 1978 at the direction of Congress, NURP investigates the
nature of urban runoff impacts from separate stormwater flows and the
prospects for controlling them. It emphasizes nonstructural and
source controls for separate sewers which, while promising, have not
been evaluated as thoroughly as other methods.
By and large, control measures for developing areas are the
responsibility of local officials, planners, permitting authorities,
public works managers, developers, and builders.
Erosion and sediment control ordinances governing excava-
tion and landscaping procedures are critical in determining
the amount, rate, and quality of urban runoff.
Retention and detention basins greatly affect the amount
and movement of sediments and other runoff-transported
pollutants.
When used properly, straw bales are an effective control
measure in areas under development.
Both temporary and permanent swales are effective con-
trols but must be incorporated at the time an area is
first undergoing development.
A number of other flow attenuation and/or runoff rate reduction
devices have been utilized by local authorities while areas of a
community are being developed.
In developed areas, opportunities to control pollution from urban
stormwater are somewhat more limited. The drainage system, amount of
impervious pavement, population and housing densities, configuration
of roads and streets, and mix of land uses are substantially fixed.
As a consequence, water quality management must shift away from
longer range planning practices to best management practices (BMPs)
of a housekeeping nature.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.6
Catch-basins have been evaluated in research. While origi-
nally employed primarily for flow improvements, catch-basins
have been shown to achieve a measurable reduction in urban
runoff pollutant levels and are receiving scrutiny as a
principal BMP for use in developing urban areas. This is the
most promising management practice.
In-pipe storage appears to offer significant benefits in
attenuating runoff flows and settling out solids and
associated pollutants, especially heavy metals. While the
opportunities for creating detention or retention basins in
developed areas are limited, communities are finding ways
to do so by exercising ingenuity and by taking advantage
of their familiarity with local resources.
Litter control and control of the use of such chemicals as
fertilizers, pesticides, oil, gasoline, and detergents can be
effective in reducing pollutant loads in urban runoff. They
are also relatively inexpensive to implement, since they rely
heavily on public education efforts.
Street maintenance, management of highway deicing, sewer
cleaning and flushing, and reduction of infiltration/inflow
are other measures which have been found to improve the
quality of urban stormwater runoff in developed areas. How-
ever, street cleaning, which at one time looked promising, now
appears to offer little in most areas of the country for
water-quality improvement.
Numerous studies of the BMPs noted above, and others conducted in
a variety of settings, have been published. They typically summarize
costs and removal rates of control measures, loading rates associated
with various land uses, and institutional requirements for implemen-
tation. Some data on major BMPs are summarized in Table 3.2.
The best single source for such information is a 1977 publication
of EPA's Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati.
Entitled Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Update and
User's Guide, it updates an earlier (1974) report on the state of the
art in urban stormwater assessment and control, Urban Stormwater
Management and Technology: An Assessment, and should be used in
conjunction with that report. Both of these documents contain
extensive bibliographies of relevant, current literature. In
addition, each of the NURP Quarterly Progress Reports contains a
listing of the most recent articles and publications on stormwater
assessment and control. (See reference list for information on
obtaining these publications.)
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.7
Implementation
Urban stormwater management is a local matter. Nationwide, it
consists of a broad spectrum of approaches. At one end of the
spectrum are low-cost, elementary drainage systems designed solely to
minimize the inconvenient flooding of routine storms. At the other
end are sophisticated drainage utilities which plan and construct
drainage and control systems in developing areas and oversee a wide
range of stormwater pollution abatement activities in developed
areas.
Some authorities argue that this is exactly as it should be, that
local variations in available resources, population, perceptions of
which water uses are most important, climate, topography, and
hydrology make local determination of stormwater management objec-
tives and programs the only reasonable course to follow. The defini-
tion of what constitutes an urban runoff problem, they say, is so
intertwined with local opinions and expectations about beneficial use
that it is best resolved at the local or State level.
The Federal Government's role in stormwater management includes
the development and transfer of technology and regulation by means of
permits. Both NURP and EPA's Office of Research and Development
investigate urban runoff control technologies. But while EPA has
stormwater permitting authority through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), it has rarely been used. As of
this writing, at least one permit has been written for a storm drain
coming from Hills Air Force Base in Utah, and another has been
proposed for Bellevue, Washington.
State governments can regulate stormwater management practices
through the NPDES program, their own permit programs, or other
programs authorized by State statute. Current State efforts fall
into two categories: State stormwater permit programs and State
requirements for municipal or county stormwater control ordinances.
Many local governments across the country have established
stormwater management programs on their own. In some instances they
parallel the programs required by States even though they were
-------
Table 3.2
Costs and Effectiveness of Selected BMPs
Techn ique
Street Sweeping
Porous Paving
(Supplemental
Techn ique)
Purpose
Source control by house-
keeping. To reduce
pollutant loading of runoff
and to reduce first-flush
effects.
To increase Infiltration and
to reduce flood peaks.
Porous paving also reduces
need for separation of
combined sewers and reduces
size required.
Effectiveness
Removal Removal
Tons/Ac/Year Percent* Qualifications
Open land .2
General
res idential .2
General
commercial . 1
Light
i ndustr ial . 1
Heavy
i ndustr ial . 1
Al 1 land use
types .2
(Total solids
removal per
land use)
[Equivalent to
.37 tons/curb
mi le/yearl
Total solids
55%
BOD 45%
COD--30?
K. Nit. 45$
Phosphates--203!
Heavy metals
50%
Total pesticides
45?
*NOTE: These
numbers are
based on con-
trol led exper !-
ments. Actual
reductions are
general ly much
less.
Efficiency
depends on pore
s ize.
Removal based
on tons of
debris
col lected by
publ ic works
department.
Sweeping
ef f ic iency
varies with
area, rainf al 1 ,
frequency of
passes,
frequency of
cleaning, and
pr imar i ly
operator ski 1 1 .
It has not been
clearly
establ ished
that filtering
effect of sub-
base results in
a significant
improvement in
water qual ity.
Source: Taken from Section 208
Seminars given in 1977.
3.8
-------
Capital
Costs
(ENR=2000, $/Acre)
O&M
Qua I if I catIons
Limitations
Each one costs:
3-wheel
21,000-25,000
4-wheel~
32,000-35,000
Vacuum
34,800-39,150
(1975 prices)
Estimated cost:
$10.I/curb mile
$/Acre
Open land8
General residential
ft
General commercial6
Light industrial6
Heavy Industrial6
All types--?
2.90-11.22 in one study
Operations costs
(without maintenance)
$9.53/curb mile
Operations costs
(without maintenance)
Open land5
General residential5
General commercial4
Light Industrial6
Heavy Industrial4
A11 land use types4
($/Acre estimations)
1. O&M costs IncIude
maintenance and driver
personnel, but not
maintenance parts and
supplies.
2. Capital costs assume
purchase of 9 machines.
3. Assumption of 350 curb
mlIes swept per week.
4. Note: In buying a vacuum
sweeper, the most expen-
sive, a city may clean
catch basins (with wan-
dering hose attachment),
porous pavement, and
streets. Thus, capital
expenses may be split for
the other techniques.
Mechanical sweeping Is
Ineffective for fine
solids which account
for only 5.9% of total
solids but 25% of
oxygen demand.
Only effective where "no
parking" is enforced,
and thus an ordinance
is usual ly required.
Savings of porous
over conventional:
Parking lot~10,500
Residential street
low design 5,500
high design 24,800
Business street
surburban 13,000
city 80,900
County road17,800
Highway
2-lane 46,000
4-lane
asphalt 99,100
concrete 110,700
Playground1,300
Parking lot 280-380
Residential street
low design 180
high design 160
Business street
surburban 130
city 1000
County road
low volume 240-440
moderate volume 320
Highway
2-lane 320
4-lane
asphalt 360-400
concrete 260-300
Playground20
1. Storm drainage facilities
are assumed to be a part
of the costs of
conventional pavement.
2. O&M costs may be con-
sidered minimal since
both porous and conven-
tional paving would
require similar costs.
If pavement must be
instal led in any event,
O&M costs would be
incurred. Thus, any
additional expenditure
for O&M In porous paving
would be minimal.
1. ApplI cable only in
certain conditions:
slope less than 5%.
Sol I must be
permeable and climate
suitable.
2. Must be cleaned
regularly with vacuum
sweeper.
3. Experimental stage.
3.9
-------
Table 3.2 (continued)
Technique
Sewer Flushing for
Laterals in Combined
Sewers
Diversion Berms
Purpose
To reduce first-flush
effects.
To reduce erosion and to
enhance water quality
through reduction of
sediment.
Effectiveness
Remova 1 Remova 1
Tons/Ac/Year Percent Qualifications
Single fami ly
conventional -
.04
Si ngle fami ly
cluster-. 03
Townhouse
cluster-. 03
Walk-up
apartments-. 02
High-rise
apartments-. 03
Housing mix-. 03
(Total solids)
37.44
( sed i ment
remova 1 i n
construction
land use)
60% - 752 of
tota 1 so 1 1 ds
50-60?
sediment removal
1. Solids
deposited in
sewer
dependent on
design and
use of
system
length and
diameter of
pipe, vel.
of flow, and
frequency of
flushing.
2. Removal
figures are
based on
amounts that
wou 1 d be
depos i ted
if flushing
d i d not
occur .
3. One flush
per day
assumed.
3.10
-------
Capital
Costs
(ENR=2000, $/Acre)
O&M
Qua I ificat ions
Limitations
At 61J£ removal680
At 12% removal1360
At 6lit removal150
At 12% removal1390
1 Flush per day.
160
Minimal
1. Figures are weighted
averages.
2. Erosion can best be
control led by a
combination of techniques
3.11
-------
Table 3.2 (continued)
Technique
Sed iment Basin at
Construction Site
Detention Tanks
Purpose
To attenuate rate of runoff
and enhance water quality
through sedimentation.
To retard the rate of
runoff and reduce pollutant
load Ing.
Effectiveness
Removal Removal
Tons/AcAear Percent Qualifications
a. 37
b. 51
c. 59
d. 66
(sed Iment
removal )
BOD
a. .003
b. .004
c. .005
d. .005
SS
a. .08
b. .12
c. .14
d. .14
a. 50*
b. 702
c. 80*
d. 90*
(sed Iment
remova 1 )
a. smal 1
sed iment
basin
.04/acre
b. ,06/acre
c. downstream
sed Iment
basin
d. sediment
basin with
chemical
f locculants
BOD
a. .18
b. .32
c. .38
d. .39
SS
a. 38
b. 58
c. 65
d. 67
1 . a-d refer to
d if ferent
basin types,
see expl . in
% removal
column.
2. Efficiency
Is from sol 1
loss
equation.
3. Erosion can
best be con-
trol led by a
combination
of techn !-
ques.
4. Assumes
sed Iment
del Ivery
=.39.
a-d refer to
detention
tank volumes.
a. 2500
b. 7500
c. 15,000
d. 25,000
Al 1 figures
are gal /acre.
3.12
-------
Capital
Costs
(ENR=2000, $/Acre)
O&M
Qua I ifications
Limitations
a. 80
b. 120
c. 140
d. 240
a. 80
b. 216
c. 244
d. 272
1. Capital cost for c
depends upon basin size
and is equal to a if .04
basin/acre or equal to
b if .06 basin/acre.
Avallable land.
a. 1250
b. 3700
c. 7500
d. 12,500
25
.26 in/hr for 2 hours raln-
falI in design for
detention tank.
Available land.
3.13
-------
Table 3.2 (continued)
Technique
Sodded Ditches
Seed, Pert! 1 izer, and
Straw Mulch
Seed, Fertilizer, Straw
Mulch, Erosion Structures
and Sediment Basin
Purpose
To reduce erosion and
enhance water quality by
reducing sediment in runoff.
To control erosion in
construction sites and to
enhance water quality by
reducing sediment in runoff
(Straw is disked or treated
with asphalt or chemical
straw tack).
To reduce erosion and
pollutant loading of runoff.
Effectiveness
Remove 1 Remova 1
Tons/Ac/Year Percent Qualifications
Construction
land use 37-44
removal
.
a. 48
b. 57
66
50 - 6Q%
Sediment removal
a. 65* if
bu i 1 d i ng
begins
immediately
after seeding
b. 11% if 6
months pass
between
seeding and
bu i 1 d i ng
90*
Reductions are
calculated from
universal
soi 1 loss
equation.
a. Assumes 18
month con-
struction
per i od .
b. Assumes 24
month con-
struction
period.
1 . Percent
remova 1
figures are
sed i ment
remova 1 .
2. Erosion
figures
assume
construction
land use.
3.14
-------
Capital
Costs
(ENR=2000, $/Acre)
O&M
QualIfIcatlons
Limitations
215
Minimal
1. Figures are weighted
averages.
2. Erosion can be best con-
trol led by a combination
of techniques. Effect
increases to greater than
90% erosion control.
645
Minimal
Erosion can best be
control led through a
combination of techniques.
1260
130
1. O&M assumes 18 month
construction period.
2. O&M figures are for 12
months of construction
period.
3.15
-------
Table 3.2 (continued)
Technique
Catch Basins (Cleaning)
Inspection of 1 1 legal
Drain Connections
Underwater Storage,
Temporary Storage of
Combined Sewer Overflow
With an Epoxy Coated Steel
and Neoprene-Coated Nylon
Fabric
Purpose
A method of collection which
retains grit and debris to
reduce pot lutant loading.
To reduce Inflow from
Illegal connections to sewer
system.
To prevent combined sewer
overflows into receiving
water without treatment.
Effectiveness
Remova 1 Remova 1
Tons/AcAear
4 (total solid
removal )
9,089 II legal ly
connected
bui Id ings out of
25,527 Inspected
0 Simple storage
Percent
Total Solids
56%
BOD--43i6
88-90*
reduction In
II legal
connections
0
Qual if 1 cat Ions
1. .47 miles/
catch basin
2. Volume of
sump =
1.7yd3
3. Removal
figures
represent
maximum
amount of
material
that could
be retained
with
cleaning.
1. 40? of all
bul Id ings
were
11 legal ly
connected .
2. Effect of
program
depends on
repeated
Inspection.
3.16
-------
Capital
Costs
(ENR=2000, $/Acre)
O&M
Qua!If I cat Ions
Limitations
Costs are labor
Intensive.
AI I States average:
by hand
by eductor
by vacuum
States with heavy snow:
by hand 4
by eductor 1
by vacuum 5
Left column is cleaning
method In O&M column.
Total = 69,250
3 per buI Id ing
Inspected
4 per downspout
removed
$8/acre
Savings at water treatment
plant of approx. $3.6/ac/yr.
Over a period of years,
considerable savings,
especially for combined
sewers
1. Residential land use
single-fami ly dwel I Ings
2. 900 ft2 roof
3. d ischarge of
2700 ft 3/yr
4. 3 housing units/acre
5. cost of treatment/house
= 1.95 x 20_
13
6. 40£ illegal connections
Requires ordinance.
10,600
490
1. Design phase.
2. Costly.
3. Requires frequent
flushing.
4. Leakage problems.
3.17
-------
Table 3.2 (continued)
Technique
1. Flood Plain Zoning
Prohibition of
Development
2. Flood Control
Structures - 8 Dams
Controlling Release
Rates to 5-yr Storm
3. Channel Improvements
Over 6.25 Mi les
4. Control of Erosion and
Runoff at Source
Multicel 1 Storage
Reservoir: Concrete Tank
Placed Underground.
Initial Compartment Is A
Settl ing Chamber
Treatment of Combined
Sewer Overflows by a
Series of Aerated Lakelets
With Intermediate
Microstraining and High-
Rate Pressure Filtration
Purpose
Stormwater management and
erosion control for a
developing area.
To provide sufficient
underground storage to hold
combined sewer overflows
caused by storms. Overflow
I s pumped back for
treatment.
Multipurpose combined sewer
overflow treatment facility.
Effectiveness
Remova 1 Remova 1
Tons/Ac/Year Percent Qualifications
2 Sediment
.04 BOD
.2 BOD
.5-.7 SS
68% Reduction of
Sediment
85?
92-96$ BOD
94-96$ SS
1. Removal
based on
estimated
7.2 mil lion
tons of
sediment
del ivered to
river over
100 years.
2. Acres=
22,690.
3.18
-------
Capital
Costs
(ENR=2000, $/Acre)
04M
Qua)ifications
Limitations
460
6000
160
Land required should be
isolated.
3310
220
Pi lot project.
3.19
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.20
undertaken solely on the initiative of local authorities. Most of
these programs have centered on managing runoff in developing areas,
In part this happened because preventive measures are simpler to
prescribe and the costs can be programmed into initial development
costs. In part it happened because remedial operation and
maintenance measures are relatively unproven and, therefore, less
acceptable to the community at large. As knowledge about BMPs
increases, however, attention is shifting to the developed, as well
as developing, portions of urban areas.
References
Florida. Admin1strative Code, Chapter 17-4.248. March 1,
1979.
40 CFR Sections 122:57 and 122:59. Consolidated Permit
Regulations. May 19, 1980.
The General Permit program was originally established by 40
CFR Section 122:48, Revised National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)Regulations, June 7, 1979.
National Commission on Water Quality. Staff Draft Report.
November 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974 Needs Survey, Cost
Estimates for Construction of Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities.
. 1976 Needs Survey, Cost Estimates for Construction
of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities. MCD-48A.
1976.
. 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Estimates for Construction
of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities. FRD-1.
1978.
. 1980 Needs Survey, Cost Estimates for Construction
of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities. FRD-19.
1980.
Available from General Services Administration (8Bcc),
Centralized Mailing Lists Service, Building 41, Denver -
Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225. Please include title
and FRD number when ordering.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. A_reawi.de Assessment Procedures Manual.
Cincinnati. July 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program. Quarterly Progress Report.
Copies are available from NURP, WH-554, USEPA, 401 M
Street, S.W. , Washington, D.C. 20460.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and
Development. Urban Stormwater Management and Technology. An
Assessment. EPA/670-2-74-040.
Available from National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
. Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Update
and User's Guide. September 1977.
Available from NTIS at the address given in the previous
reference.
University of Florida. SWMM: Level IPreliminary Screening
Procedures. Gainesville, Florida. October 1976.
URS Research Company. Water Quality Management Planning for
Urban Runoff. December 1974.
Vermont Agency for Environmental Conservation. Interim Stormwater
Management Policy. July 7, 1978.
Vermont Water Resources Board. Vermont Water Quality Standards.
March 7, 1978. ""
Also see 10 V.S.A., Chapter 47.
Washington. King County. Department of Public Works. A Review
of Selected Surface Water Management Programs in the Pacific
Northwest, prepared by Shorett and Associates.Seattle,
Washington. July 1980.
Part of a Surface Water Management Utility Study. Avail-
able from the Department of Public Works, King County, 900 King
County Administration Building, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98104.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.22
Case Study I; Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
Location: Nationwide
Contact: Dennis Athayde, NURP Program Manager, WH-
554, USEPA, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,
B.C. 20460, (202) 755-2114
EPA initiated NURP in 1978. The program is a nationwide
investigation of the nature of urban runoff impacts from stormwater
flows and the prospects for controlling them. It emphasizes
nonstructural and source controls for separate sewers which, while
promising, have not been evaluated as thoroughly as other available
technologies.
NURP consists of 28 projects scattered geographically to cover a
wide range of climatic and hydrologic regimes. These projects will
characterize pollutant types, loads, and effects on receiving waters;
determine the need for controls; and evaluate various alternatives
for managing stormwater pollution. Overall, NURP, is helping local
governments solve specific water quality programs while determining
the significance of urban runoff as a national problem.
When completed in early 1983, NURP will provide credible and
reliable information which State and local governments can use to
make stormwater management decisions. EPA will report the results of
the program at that time. A report entitled Preliminary Results of
the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program has been completed and is
available from National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
For More Information
The summary that follows lays out the main elements of the 28
NURP projects and provides contacts and addresses for each. Further
information on the program is available through a series of
Quarterly Progress Reports published by EPA. Copies may be obtained
by writing to NURP at the address given above.
-------
Figure 3.1
Location of NURP Prototype Projects
Durham, New Hampshire
Low Mystic River, Massachusetts
Lake Quinsigamond, Massachusetts
Lake George, New York
Irondequoit Bay, New York
Long Island, New York
Baltimore, Maryland
Washington, D.C.
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Knoxville, Tennessee
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Oakland County, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Kansas City, Missouri
Little Rock, Arkansas
Austin, Texas
Rapid City, South Dakota
Denver, Colorado
Salt Lake City, Utah
Bellevue, Washington
Eugene-Springfield, Oregon
Castro Valley, California
Fresno, California
3.23
-------
Table 3.3
Matrix Summary of NURP Projects
1
II
111
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
XI
X
KEY
Comm of Mass
Comm. of Mass
N.H Water Supply
Long Island RPB
New York DEC
New York DEC
Washington COG
Waccamaw RFC
N Carolina DNR
Tampa DPW
Knoxville/
Knox County
Tn-County RFC
SEMCOG
SEMCOG
IEPA
NEPC
Wise, DNR
City of Austin
Metroplan
MARC
Denver RCOG
Salt Lake County
6th District COG
Alameda County
FCWCD
State of Calif
City of Bellevue
Lane County COG
Aspects o'
this means
Receiving Water Type Impacts Beneficial Use Suspected Problem Pollutants Candidate Best Management Practice
; 0)
ElS . I c S
E5 « c S ? 0 S - I § 1 E
E s a- | s >- ? 5 ° » « B s a £ " £ S
I 1 Ilfl I !* |l 8 , f I If 11 HH
w > -o * Is ° w It 1 S u c £ ^ r- -n 5 to £ m £ « T]
= 055° = 3| f ^ S 5 " * d * £ £ £ g 5 Avera9e S £ t S M ^
E m 2 S £ 2 £m £ -0 § g ^ » 0 5 "° 8 1 - i Ra^fall £ £ 2 S § S |
V) _3 (E uj O O <"o « £L 5O ll< CDZwIOOU (m/Vr! 55 Q t3 U ilJ 5 O
Lake Qumsigamorid, MA o o o »oo 46
Mystic R.ver, MA o«o »oo BOO o o o * swirl concentrator
Durham, NH oo «oo o * ooo ooo
Long Island, NY o 00*00* o o* 44 o* permeable sewer
Lake George, NY * o o o o o 35
Irondequoit Bay, NY o* oo *ooo o»ooo o 32 o o
Metro Washington, DC o oo «oo »oooo o»oo o 40 o
Myrtle Beach, SC o o w o collector/outfall
Wmstan-Satem, NC »oo »oooooo o 44 oo
Tampa. FL o o* o o o o » 49
Knoxville, TN ooo o ooo ooo o 54
Lansing, Ml o o o oooo* » oversize sewer
Oakland County, Ml ooo o oooooo o runoff ordinance
Ann Arbor, Ml OQQO ooo
Champaign-Urbana, ILo oo »o
Glen Ellyn, IL oo o 0000*00 o 34
Milwaukee, Wl ooo oooo 31*
Austin, TX 0000*00 o runoff ordinance
Little Rock, AR »o oo ooooooo o 50
Kansas City, MO o o* *o ooo 39
Denver, CO oo* oo oooo oo* o 16 o* runoff ordinance
Salt Lake City, UT o 0*0 00*00 ooooooo 15 o canal stoiage, educai
Rapid City, SD o o o o o oo
Castro Valley, CA ooooo22*
Fresno, CA o o o 0*0 o
Bellevue, WA o o »o ooooooo
Eugene, OR *oo oo ooo ooooo o
program receiving major emphasis. For receiving water, NOTE For some projects, the program to assess BMPs will not be formulated until
BMPs, this means an emphasis on determining control effectiveness
and cost
o Aspects of program receiving less vigorous attention
SOURCE Adapted from Quarterly Progress Report, Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program, April 1980.
3.24
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.25
NURP Projects and Contact Persons
Durham, New Hampshire
Low Mystic River, Massachusetts
Lake Quinsigamond, Massachusetts
Long Island, New York
Irondequoit Bay, New York
Lake George, New York
Paul Oakland
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission
Prescott Park
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-3503
Nancy Apple Fratoni
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
Office of Planning and Program
Management
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 727-7436
Edith Tannenbaum
Long Island Regional Planning
Board
H. Lee Dennison Co. Office
Building
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, Long Island, New York
11787
(516) 724-1919
John M. Davis
Monroe County Division of Pure
Water
65 Broad Street
Rochester, New York 14614
(716) 428-5260
James W. Sutherland
New York State Department
of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 645
Lake George, New York 12845
(516) 688-5150
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff
Page 3.26
Washington, B.C., COG
Baltimore, Maryland
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Tampa, Florida
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Knoxville, Tennessee
Cameron Wiegand
Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments
1875 I Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20006
(202) 223-6800
Sam Martin
Regional Planning Council
2225 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 383-5863
Larry Schwartz
Waccamaw Regional Planning Council
P.O. Brawer 419
Georgetown, South Carolina 29440
(803) 546-8502
Ron Giovanelli
Tampa Bepartcnent of Public Works
Municipal Office Building
4th Floor-North
404 Jackson Street
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 223-8216
Boug Finan
Bepartment of Natural and Economic
Resources
Bivision of Environmental
Management
216 West Jones Stret
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 733-61Z6
John Lutz
Knoxville Metropolitan Planning
Commission
400 Main Street
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
(615) 521-2500
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff
Page 3.27
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Glen Ellyn (Chicago), Illinois
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Oakland County, Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
Austin, Texas
Mike Terstriep
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
State Water Survey Office
Champaign, Illinois 61820
(217) 333-4959
Don Hey
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
400 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 454-0400
Roger Bannerman
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
(608) 266-8805
Dave Morrison
Southeastern Michigan Council of
Governments
8th Floor Book Building
1249 Washington Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(303) 961-4266 Ext. 313
Bob Roller
Tri-County Regional Planning
Commission
913 West Holmes Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48915
(517) 393-0342
Chang Vo
City of Austin
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, Texas 78767
(512) 477-6511
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.28
Little Rock, Arkansas
Kansas City, Missouri
Rapid City, South Dakota
Denver, Colorado
Salt Lake City, Utah
Castro Valley, California
Warren Brainard
Me tropIan
Wallace Building
105 Main Street, 8th Floor
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 372-3300
Dave Garcia
Mid-America Regional Council
20 West Ninth
Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
(816) 474-4240
Mike Strub
Sixth District Council of Local
Governments
P.O. Box 1586
Rapid City, South Dakota 57709
(605) 394-2681
John Doerfer
Denver Regional Council of
Governments
2480 West 26th Avenue, 200-B
Denver, Colorado 80211
(303) 455-1000
Terry Way
Water Quality and Water Pollution
Control
Salt Lake County
Room 214, Building 1
2033 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
(801) 535-7210
Paul E. Lanfennan
Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, California 94544
(415) 881-6470
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.29
Fresno, California
Bellevue, Washington
Eugene-Springfield, Oregon
Doug Harrison
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District
2100 Tulare Street
600 Rowell Building
Fresno, California 93721
(209) 485-6330
Pam Bissonnette
Project Manager
City of Bellevue
P.O. Box 1768
Bellevue, Washington 98009
(209) 445-6988
Becky Kreag
Lane Council of Governments
Public Service Building
125 8th Avenue, East
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(503) 687-4283
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.30
Case Study 2;
Water Utility
Implementing an Interjurisdictional Surface
Location: Clark County, Washington
EPA Region: X
Contact: Glenn Dorsey, Utility Coordinator, Clark
County, P.O. Box 5000, Vancouver, Washington
98663, (206) 699-2044
Definition of Problem
Clark County, Washington, and its largest city, Vancouver, have
jointly created a surface water management utility to control urban
runoff and other water quality problems in the Burnt Bridge Creek
drainage area.
Winding its way down to the Columbia River, Burnt Bridge Creek
drains lands in rural Clark County and Vancouver. Although most of
the "crick" is undeveloped, it is facing new growth. Local managers
understand the importance of carefully managing its development in
order to avoid serious flooding and pollution problems.
In 1977 Clark County and Vancouver established surface water
management utility programs, by separate ordinances, to implement the
water quality management (WQM) plan for the Burnt Bridge Creek
drainage area. But lacking staff and an operations system, they
remained paper programs. For a time, the city and county could not
decide on the best way to proceed.
After nearly a year of discussion, city and county officials
created a joint Interim Management Board. The board reexamined the
drainage area's WQM plan, which at that time emphasized capital-
intensive flood controls. It found that the jurisdiction's ability
to finance these planned controls were questionable, and the benefits
of the flood control work were uncertain, particularly the water
quality benefits.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.31
Objectives
The Interim Management Board recommended:
Adopting a single, areawide plan;
Enacting legislation to control nonpoint sources of
pollution;
Developing drainage facilities manuals;
Inventorying structural deficiencies in existing drainage
systems;
Evaluating the area's septic systems; and
Reevaluating proposed flood control measures.
Once these objectives were spelled out, institutional roles and
funding polices became crucial.
Institutional Roles
With the help of EPA's Financial Management Assistance Program,
the Board recommended that a single entityClark County manage the
utility. The backing of a single, general-purpose government pro-
vides a comprehensive view of fees and taxes charged to area resi-
dents and will enable the utility to regulate and enforce require-
ments. Clark County was selected because it represents all citizens
in the county and can expand the program countywide as appropriate.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.32
Case Study 3; Street Sweeping
Location: Champaign, Illinois
EPA Region: V
Contact: Michael L. Terstriep, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, State Water Survey Division
Office, 605 East Springfield Street, Champaign,
Illinois 61820, (217) 333-0545
Definition of Problem
The Champaign, Illinois, SMSA was included in the 1978 section
208 urban stormwater assessment conducted by the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Evaluation of that study disclosed a need
for additional data, and support was gained for an evaluation of the
best management practice of optimized street sweeping in order to
improve urban stormwater quality. This study was carried out as part
of the National Urban Runoff Program.
The City of Champaign, which has a total area of about 11.4
square miles, is located just west of and contiguous to the City of
Urbana. Land use within the city is characterized as residential and
commercial, with some agricultural areas. Drainage is carried to the
local streams through an extensive network of drain tiles. The two
major urban drainage basins are Boneyard Creek and Copper Slough,
which carry runoff through the area river network to the Mississippi
River.
The beneficial use designated for both urban basins is general
use. This standard is exceeded between 20 and 30 times a year for
lead, copper, and iron; the annual maximum is up to 15 to 20 times
higher than the standard. Other identified pollutants of concern
included mercury and total suspended and dissolved solids.
Objectives
Among the major objectives of this street-sweeping project
evaluation were:
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.33
Relating the accumulation of street dirt to land use,
traffic count, time, and type and condition of street
surface;
Defining the wash-off of street dirt in terms of rainfall
rate, flow rate, available material, particle size, slope,
and surface roughness;
Determining what fraction of pollutants occurring in
stormwater may be attributed to atmospheric fallout;
Modifying the model to examine the functions determined;
Calibrating the modified model on instrumented basins;
Determining the possible influence of deposition and scour
in the drainpipe system on runoff quality; and
Developing accurate production functions and corresponding
cost functions for various levels of municipal street
sweeping.
Results
Given the constraints of this study and the geographic location
and weather patterns, the following findings were made:
Mechanical street sweeping as frequently as twice a week
is not effective in reducing the mean concentration or total
load of pollutants in urban stormwater runoff.
Sweeping once a week or more does reduce the amount and
variability of street dirt.
The effectiveness of mechanical cleaning depends not only on
the operation of the sweeper but also on the load and
particle-size distribution of the street material to be
removed. Removal efficiency ranged from 30 to 67 percent.
Wet deposition appears to be a major source of several
undesirable urban runoff constituents, primarily
ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate and nitrite-nitrogen, and
copper.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.34
The greatest part of the load of a constituent in the
total street load exists in the 250- to 1000-micron
size particles.
Hydrologic model simulation is quite reliable, but
water quality model simulation is much less so,
apparently because of the nature of pollutant
association with particle size.
For More Information
The final report on this project is scheduled for completion in
July 1982. Entitled Nationwide Urban Runoff Project. Champaign,
Illinois, Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Municipal Street"
Sweeping in the Control of Urban Stormwater Runoff Pollution, the
report will be available from the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection
Agency in Springfield, Illinois.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.35
Case Study 4; In-Line Storage
Location: Lansing, Michigan
EPA Region: V
Contact: Bob Roller, Tri-County Regional Planning
Commission, 913 West Holmes Avenue,
Lansing, Michigan 48915, (517) 393-0342
Definition of Problem
Public managers in Lansing, Michigan, are testing three methods
of in-line storage to control urban runoff pollution in the Grand
River:
An in-line wet retention basin,
Two in-line upsized (increased-volume) lengths of storm
drain, and
An in-line dry detention basin.
These potential best management practices are being evaluated in
the Bogus Swamp Drainage District, which drains into the Grand
through storm sewers.
Recent monitoring efforts documented water quality in the Grand
River and identified nonpoint source pollution, including urban run-
off, as a major contributor of biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen,
and suspended solids. Although contact recreation is prohibited
because of high coliform levels from combined sewer overflows else-
where in the Lansing area, many residents use the river for fishing
and boating. Fish ladders were recently installed at downstream
barriers and now permit salmon migration upstream into the Lansing
area. In addition, future planning calls for the development of more
linear parks along the Grand, and the reach into which the Bogus
Swamp Drainage District flows has been classified for total body con-
tact recreation. Because of the increasing recreational opportuni-
ties, both the public and the local governments are interested in
restoring the river.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.36
The Bogus Swamp Drainage District is representative of urban
conditions in Lansing. It covers 450 acres and contains single- and
multifamily residential housing, commercial and industrial zones, and
open space recreation areas. Nearly 5,200 people live in the
district.
Objectives
As part of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, the Lansing
project has four study objectives:
Determination of pollutant loads transported in the storm-
water as it enters and leaves each BMP structure and
related land use.
Assessment of the impact of these practices have on the
receiving water quality in the project area and regionally,
Identification of the financial requirements for capital
and operating and maintenance costs for these types of
controls.
Transfer of the information developed to other agencies in
the region.
Results
Although all work has not been completed, the project staff have
drawn some preliminary conclusions.
The in-line wet retention basin has proved very effective in
retaining suspended sediment, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand, and lead. Based on the
storms evaluated, the efficiency of retention increases with
an increase in storm size. The basin had a runoff storage
capacity above normal level of 83,000 cubic feet and cost an
estimated $173,000.
The in-line upsized storms drain sections have shown highly
variable results. These sections were 96 inches in diameter,
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.37
instead of 54 inches (needed for flow), and were 144 feet
and 85 feet in length. One tentative conclusion is that
the shorter section is probably too short for suitable
settling times, given the small particle sizes encountered.
The longer section has proved more effective in reducing
sediment loads and the pollutants associated with them,
although it is less effective than the wet retention basin.
The incremental costs for the increased diameter sections of
storm drains was approximately $36,000.
The in-line dry detention basin is an existing depression
comprised of several backyards which flood when existing
storm drains back up. As storm flows decrease, this over-
flow discharges back into the storm drains. The study re-
sults for this basin are still being evaluated, but
preliminary assessments indicate that while it operates
effectively for flood control, it reduces pollutants poorly.
Because the basin already existed, no costs were developed.
Status
The final evaluation of the three BMPs and their impact on
receiving waters is being completed. Given the difficulty of
locating space in urban settings for in-line wet retention basins
like the one investigated, the use of upsized in-line storm drains
needs further evaluation. The work to date suggests the need for
examining longer lengths of upsized drains at locations providing
opportunities to evaluate different loading conditions over a range
of storm events for all seasons.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.38
Case Study 5; Street Sweeping
Location: Castro Valley, California
EPA Region: IX
Contact: Gary Shawley, Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District, 399 Elmhurst Street,
Hayward, California 94544, (415) 881-6470
Definition of Problem
In California's Castro Valley watershed, street cleaning has been
shown to improve the quality of urban runoff from streets.
The Castro Valley watershed is a 5.5-square-mile area which
drains westward into San Francisco Bay. It is mostly residential,
with less than 10 percent of the land devoted to commercial
development. Representative of many suburban neighborhoods in the
Bay Area, Castro Valley has no municipal or industrial wastewater
dischargers, limited small-capacity storm sewers, and unchannelized
streambeds with residential development along the banks.
The beneficial uses designated by California for Castro Valley
Creek include water contact and noncontact recreation, as well as
aquatic habitat. The creek has a water quality problem because it
carries large quantities of toxic pollutants in excess of established
standards into San Francisco Bay. During wet weather, the average
concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in the creek
(measured from October 1978 until April 1981) exceed EPA standards.
Not only are 24-hour average concentration standards exceeded, but
the average lead and copper levels exceed maximum allowable concen-
tration criteria. Street dirt samples show that urban runoff is a
major source of these chemicals, particularly lead, which comes
almost entirely from auto exhaust. Thus, for some pollutants, the
amount found on streets in Castro Valley and the amount in receiving
water are directly related.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.39
Objective
To demonstrate the relationship between street cleaning and urban
runoff, the Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District
measured street cleaning effectiveness, street surface pollutant
loadings, and runoff water quality. Data were analyzed to correlate
surface pollutant loadings before storms with changes in runoff
pollutant mass yields. The conservation district also compared the
performance of vacuum and brush street cleaners.
Results
After two years' work, researchers made the following findings:
The optimum street cleaning frequency is three times a
week. Less frequent cleaning allowed significantly more
pollution, while more frequent cleaning produced little
additional improvement.
Cleaning the streets three times a week prevented a maximum
of 35 percent of the lead and 20 percent of the total solids
from entering runoff. Chemical oxygen demand, arsenic,
copper, and other constituents were reduced by less than
10 percent.
To prevent a given amount of a selected contaminant from
entering the receiving water requires that 10 to 100 times
that amount be removed from the street.
The most cost-effective street cleaning strategy, taking
into account the Bay Area's wet winters and dry summers, is
to clean the streets before the first rain of the year and
three times per week during the remainder of the winter.
Cleaning can be cut back substantially during the summer.
Cleaning the dirtiest streets more frequently is more cost
effective. While this may seem obvious, it is normal munici-
pal practice to clean downtown streets, which tend to be the
cleanest, most often.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.40
Finally, vacuum street cleaners were found to be no more
effective than brush sweepers, except in areas with unusually
clean street surfaces.
For More Information
The. final report of the Castro Valley NURP project is complete.
Entitled San Francisco Bay Area National Urban Runoff Project, the
report is available from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District at the above address.
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.41
Case Study 6: Stormwater Utility
Location:
EPA Region:
Contact:
Bellevue, Washington
Pam Bissonnette, City of Bellevue, P.O. Box
1768, Bellevue, Washington 98009,
(206) 445-6988
Definition of Problem
Establishing a public utility to control urban runoff in
Bellevue, Washington, has provided flexibility in developing and
financing a water quality improvement program. In addition to
enforcing stormwater regulations and control requirements on all new
development, the utility is responsible for maintaining the city's
drainage system.
Bellevue is a rapidly growing suburban community about six miles
east of Seattle. Seventy percent of its 19,000 acres is developed,
and population has jumped from about 5,000 in 1954 to 80,000 in 1979,
The city is nearly 55 percent single-family residential, although
high-density residential and commercial development is increasing.
Eleven small watersheds drain the area's rolling hills and valleys.
Annual precipitation is about 40 inches, of which 77 percent falls
between October and March.
Bellevue's rapid development has caused stormwater runoff
problems in most of the natural streams draining the area. These
include flooding, erosion, sedimentation/siltation, and poorer water
quality. Increased nutrients, sediments, turbidity, and toxic inputs
of oils, heavy metals, and pesticides have created the water quality
problems, particularly near-shore problems in Lake Washington, which
borders Bellevue.
Bellevue uses low and nonstructural controls for urban runoff.
Regulation, enforcement, and implementation of these controls is
conducted by a utility of the city government established in 1974.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.42
The utility receives public financing through the collection of
service charges and is a major division of the public works
department.
Utility Organization
The responsibility of the utility is to control the drainage
system and to protect the water resources from drainage system
impacts. While flood control is its primary function, the utility
focuses on a number of diverse issues such as biological quality,
esthetics, and recreation. To achieve these goals, the utility was
organized to provide the required technical and operational staff in
a single integrated group.
This organizational structure is significantly different from
that of most public works departments and is often difficult to form
within established agencies, particularly those without funds ear-
marked for drainage. Most public works departments are organized in
a staff arrangement, with an engineering department providing all
engineering services to other divisions, a maintenance division
providing all maintenance services to other divisions, and so on.
Such a staff arrangement can be unresponsive to the needs of a
stormwater management program because stormwater control is only one
of several responsibilities assigned to a division and usually
carries a lower priority than road construction, water and sewer
installation, and construction inspection services.
Bellevue's Storm and Surface Water Utility was organized to
provide utility inspectors, plan-review engineers, water quality
technicians, and maintenance personnel under a single operation for
controlling urban runoff and water resource problems. This approach
has proved to be an efficient enforcing and financial mechanism.
Utility Financing
The utility rate structure in Bellevue is based on a property's
contribution to the stormwater problem; the level of charge is
commensurate with (1) the property area and (2) the intensity of
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.43
development. A rate structure determined solely on the property's
contribution to the problem, however, does not provide for situations
such as oversizing downstream drainage controls in expectation of
future development. Owners of upstream undeveloped property could
argue that they were not contributing to the problem, thus forcing
downstream owners to pay for the overdesign.
Another important aspect of the rate structure is that the
utility charges apply to both public and private property. Even
streets and freeways are billed as developed real property.
The utility is now well established and accepted by the com-
munity. The residential bimonthly service charges for the utility
average about $1.60. This generates about $600,000 annually to carry
out the urban runoff and water resources programs and represents a
stable source of funding. It is balanced to just meet the costs of
the utility.
Storrawater Runoff Program
Erosion and sedimentation from construction sites and post-
development runoff management are required for the rapidly developing
urban area. Major drainage system improvements, including offline
and instream storage/detention, channel lining and cleaning, and
stormwater drains and bypasses, are part of a comprehensive drainage
master plan. These facilities are designed to limit the rate of run-
off from developed areas to predevelopment rates and to store runoff
in excess of this rate. Infiltration potential and impervious sur-
face characteristics are also factored into the design criteria. The
estimated costs of these master plan improvements average about
$1,000 per acre.
An ongoing, two-year BMP evaluation in Bellevue is being jointly
sponsored by NURP, EPA's Storm and Combined Sewer Section (SCSS), and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS is primarily responsible
for collecting data to evaluate storm runoff flow and characteristics
(wet-weather washoff and modeling). The NURP/SCSS project is evaluat-
ing BMPs to determine basinwide effectiveness and long-term water
quality impacts. This involves an analysis of 40 to 90 storms.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.44
For More Information
A more detailed case study of the Bellevue utility approach and
storrawater control program is available in Urban Stormwater Manage-
ment and Technology: Case Histories. Further information can be
found in Drainage Master Plan, City of Bellevue and Guidelines for
Stormwater Runoff Drainage Facilities. For information on obtaining
copies of these reports, write to the address given above.
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.45
Case Study 7; Urban Runoff Analysis
Location: Lake Quinsigamond, Massachusetts
EPA Region: I
Contact: Nancy Apple Fratoni, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering, Office of
Planning and Program Management, 1 Winter Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02108, (617) 727-7436
Definition of Problem
Water quality researchers in the Lake Quinsigamond area
(Worcester County, Massachusetts) have conducted an extensive
sampling, modeling, and analysis program to document the effects of
urban runoff on the lake.
Covering 772 acres, Lake Quinsigamond lies in a highly urban area
between the city of Worcester and the town of Shrewsbury. Three
major highways cross the lake, and its shoreline is densely developed
with homes and some commercial establishments. The surrounding
watershed occupies 25 square miles of residential and forested areas,
with some commercial and industrial sites. The lake supports fish-
ing, boating, water skiing, and swimming and recharges an aquifer
providing drinking water for Shrewsbury's lakeside wells.
Because of increased development, lake quality has deteriorated
over the past 20 years, causing public concern. Fishing activities
have been particularly affected. Two previous studies identified
stormwater runoff as a major cause of eutrophication. Specific
problems cited include large amounts of nutrients and suspended
solids and runoff-induced degradation of the lake's bacteriological
quality. These studies were inadequate, however, as recent work has
demonstrated. Through NURP, local managers have pinpointed the
impact of urban runoff on the lake.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.46
Sampling Program
Before a sampling methodology was developed, a preliminary
assessment of stormwater loads was performed, using the Army Corps of
Engineers' Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model (STORM). This
assessment provided a basis for evaluating the average annual storm-
water pollutant load to the lake and the percentage of this load
attributable to urban runoff. It also helped in the selection of
stormwater sampling stations.
With the information provided from the preliminary assessment, a
stormwater sampling program was developed to provide information on
pollutant quality and mass loadings sufficient to make correlations
between land use, storm activity, and resultant short- and long-term
impacts on lake water quality. The program was designed to monitor
the most likely points of storm-related pollution and to cover a
variety of land uses that were expected to have different pollutant
loading characteristics.
Environmental data were collected, using automated equipment to
overcome the random nature of storms. Data were collected on storm-
water runoff and quality, as well as water quality in the lake (at
different depths) and its tributaries.
The STORM Model
The sampling data were used to calibrate the STORM model to local
storm characteristics and land uses. Model components for runoff
coefficients and impervious surfaces were adjusted for flow.
Pollutant accumulation rates were adjusted for runoff quality. The
model was then used to generate annual loadings for 12 years of area
weather records. By comparing the results with preliminary model
runs and previous information pertaining to storm runoff quality, the
sampling program fine-tuned loading estimates and reduced the
uncertainty of future decisionmaking.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.47
Results
The final calibrated model for Lake Quinsigamond suggests mass
loadings about midway between 1971 survey figures based on grab
samples and 1977 modeling estimates. Without the present program,
errors on the order of 50 percent would have occurred in loading
estimates. The 1971 survey would have underestimated loadings
because grab samples are likely to miss the short flow periods when
loads are relatively heavy. The theoretical modeling estimates would
have overestimated loadings by over 60 percent, possibly missing the
effect of numerous ponds in the area that may be acting as pollution
buffers.
Analysis of lake data shows that higher concentrations of
phosphorus (the major pollutant) and coliform bacteria occur on wet
days. Future land uses are estimated to degrade average water
quality conditions 12 to 14 percent. Given these land use projec-
tions, available phosphorus loadings would need to be reduced 50
percent to ensure adequate lake oxygen levels during an average
hydrologic year; a reduction of 78 percent would be necessary during
a wet year. Reducing phosphorus alone, however, would not be
sufficient for the full restoration of cold water fisheries; other
pollutants must also be controlled.
Status
Urban runoff is a major component of the comprehensive water
quality management plan being developed for Lake Quinsigamond.
Wastershed management plans are being drafted for each major
tributary contributing urban stormwater. Recommended alternatives
include redirection of stormwater to ground water recharge areas and
maximum use of the in-line storage capability already available.
This would include redesigning and cleaning catch basins, and other
management practices.
For More Information
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
has produced three reports on the Lake Quinsigamond NURP project. To
obtain information on these reports, write to the address given
above.
-------
Chapter 3
Urban Runoff Case Studies
Page 3.48
Case Study 8; Source Controls
Location: Montgomery County, Maryland
EPA Region: III
Contact: Lewis Willams, Chief, Water Resources Section,
Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection, 101 Monroe Street, Rockville,
Maryland 20850, (301) 251-2360
Definition of Problem
By adopting and enforcing source control ordinances, Montgomery
County, Maryland, has developed one of the most advanced stormwater
management programs in the country.
Lying northwest of Washington, D..C., Montgomery County borders on
and drains into the Potomac River. The topography consists of roll-
ing hills with slopes ranging from 5 to 10 percent. Soils in the
uplands are well drained and subject to moderate erosion; soils along
the natural drainage courses are poorly drained and subject to high
erosion.
Over recent decades, Montgomery County has rapidly changed from
a rural agricultural area to a highly urban area with single-family
and high-density residential developments and commercial and light
industrial centers. These land use changes have increased the amount
and impact of urban runoff. A 1977 report on the Watts Branch (an
urbanizing country drainage area) estimates that urban runoff
contributes 88 percent of the suspended solids in the branch, 86
percent of the biological oxygen demand (BOD), 43 percent of the
nitrogen, and 64 percent of the phosphorus. Annual erosion losses
from the area were estimated to be as high as 8,000 cubic yards per
square mile. Although no monitoring data are available to quantify
the impact of receiving waters, estimates indicate the annual storm
pollutant loads for BOD and suspended solids are seven times the
annual base flow loads.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.49
Stormwater Management Program
In 1965, initial sediment controls were established to correct
erosion problems. State and local ordinances setting basic control
requirements were developed and adopted in the early 1970s.
Montgomery County adopted an ordinance in 1971 requiring that runoff
from the two-year worst storm be stored and released at
predevelopment rates; this ordinance applies to all new development.
Over 800 source controls have been constructed in the county.
Most are small, individual controls: wet and dry detention ponds,
underground storage vaults, infiltration/percolation storage, and
parking lot and rooftop storage. Detention ponds, the most common
control, are used extensively in residential and industrial develop-
ments. They were developed primarily to control construction sedi-
ment and postconstruction volume (flood/drainage), but other bene-
fits, including pollution control, recreation, and esthetic improve-
ments, have been realized.
Other than requiring source controls, there is currently no
mechanism for enforcing maintenance once the facilities are built.
The county role in enforcing stormwater management policy is limited
to design review and approval, permitting, and inspection during con-
struction. On private land, the owner must maintain the facility.
Today, Montgomery County's source control strategy is moving
toward larger control areas with basinwide applications. In the
Watts Branch, basin management includes a combination of offsite
headwater or tributary small-scale detention facilities, onsite
detention for some individual developments, and prohibitions on fill-
ing and construction in the 100-year flood plain. At other sites in
the county, large detention facilities, including permanent pool
lakes, are being built to contain stormwater flows.
Detention Pond Performance
Both onsite and offsite detention ponds reduce storm flows. Flow
attenuation efficiencies can approach 90 percent for flows at or near
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.50
the designed storm flow. At the Montgomery County service park
detention facility (a 1.3-acre permanent pool), 36 storms were
monitored in 1977. Peak flow reduction was consistently about 90
percent for small-volume, short-duration storms. Peak flow reduction
dropped to about 60 percent for larger volume, longer duration storms
that peaked at 3.3 cubic meters per second.
Pollutant trap efficiencies were monitored at the service park
site and at the Montgomery Mall Lake detention facility (a 5.9-acre
permanent pool). The median trap efficiencies at Montgomery Mall
Lake showed that pollutant removal can be high if the facility has
large permanent pool storage volume. Sediment trap efficiencies at
the service park averaged better than 92 percent. Smaller storms
produced better removals, but no storm monitored produced less than
88 percent.
Costs
Most onsite controls are provided by the developer during
construction, and the capital costs, including land costs, can be
passed on to the eventual owners. The recent direction of Montgomery
County's stormwater management program toward larger, offsite tribu-
tary controls enables developers to contribute to the cost of con-
structing the offsite facility controlling the runoff from their
developments. Offsite controls cost less and are easier to maintain
than many privately owned, small structures. The Watts Branch study
evaluates the control costs of six offsite detention ponds, and cost
estimates are available for several other planned facilities.
For More Information
For information on obtaining these cost studies, write to the
address given above. Two other reports are available from the same
source: "Sediment Basin Trap Efficiency Study, Montgomery County,
Maryland," a paper given at a meeting of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers in December 1978; and 208 Project Report -
Nonpoint Source Control Measures Study (March 1978).
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.51
Case Study 9: Watershed Development Versus Storm Runoff
Quality
Location: Austin, Texas
EPA Region: VI
Contact: Dr. George Chang or Tom Remaley, Watershed
Management Division, Department of Public Works,
P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767, (512) 477-6511,
ext. 2524
Definition of Problem
The Colorado River near Austin has three instream impoundments.
Lake Travis is uppermost, about 15 miles out of the city. Lake
Austin, which serves as the main water supply for the city, lies in
an area of low to medium development. Town Lake, the lowermost
impoundment, runs through the city and serves as a backup water
supply. All three lakes are heavily used for recreation. Town Lake
is the most visible, and when storms wash trash and sediment into it,
there is a public perception that the water is too polluted to be a
suitable source of drinking water. In addition, bacterial contamina-
tion after storms causes the city health department to post signs
forbidding swimming for several days in Town Lake. Costs for treat-
ing water from Town Lake for drinking water have increased, which
discourages this use.
Objectives
The major purpose of the Austin NURP project, begun in 1980, was
to test the effect of watershed development on the quality of storm
runoff and the receiving waters of Lake Austin and Town Lake. The
following two questions structured the study:
(1) How significant are the impacts of urbanization on
stormwater quality?
(2) How effective are certain control measures in minimizing
these impacts?
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.52
A sampling study was conducted of stormwater runoff from three
watersheds and of the receiving water in Town Lake.
Results
Medium density residential land use (39 percent impervious cover)
produces more total runoff than low density residential land use
(21 percent impervious cover). Runoff concentrations of most
pollutants are equal for both watersheds, but average concentrations
of fecal coliform, nitrates, and phosphorus are higher in the runoff
from the more developed areas. Copper, lead, and zinc concentrations
are also higher in this runoff. The overall result is that total
pollutant loading is greater from watersheds with a higher percent
impervious cover.
Receiving water sampling showed that short term effects of
runoff-pollution are significant, though no chronic water quality
impacts were apparent. Lake bottom sediments contain metals and
pesticides which are probably accumulations from many years.
The total chemical cost of treating drinking water increases as
polluted runoff degrades the receiving lake. This increase is mostly
from higher chemical needs to treat for coliforms, oil and grease,
and taste and odor. Because increased treatment costs are small
compared to normal base costs and because weather conditions
infrequently lead to heavy runoff, the incremental cost increase is
considered acceptable by the City. Total hardness and alkalinity
increase with heavy rain because much of the bedrock in the area is
limestone. This effect is less important in the developed areas.
The sampling program was seriously upset by a severe flood on
Memorial Day, 1982. Equipment was damaged and sample data were lost.
Consequently, the statistical significance of some conclusions is
weak.
The effectiveness of the Woodhollow Dam retaining basin could not
be determined since the flood damaged sampling equipment and skewed
some data.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.53
Status
The Citizens Advisory Board has recommended the City Council
adopt policies to control development and has generated some recom-
mendations for further study. Watershed ordinances requiring some
nonstructural runoff controls already exist, and the Advisory Board
will recommend maintaining and possibly strengthening these ordi-
nances. As an extra task, the City conducted a public opinion poll
of 1,000 registered voters to discover public attitudes toward water
pollution and who should pay for clean-up, and how well informed the
public actually is as to particular pollution problems. Generally,
public concern about water pollution was high, though perceptions
about the sources and nature of these problems were slightly
incorrect.
For More Information
The Final Report will be complete by February 1983. Water sampl-
ing data and specific cost and technical details may be found in this
report.
For general information or information about the public involve-
ment aspects of this study, contact David Pimentel at the address
listed above. For technical information, contact Dr. Chang at the
same address and phone number.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.54
Case Study 10; Checkdams and Bank Stabilization
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
EPA Region: VI
Contact: Andy Covington, Metroplan, 105 Main Street,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, (501) 372-3300
Definition of Problem
Fourche Creek and its tributaries drain the city of Little Rock.
The streams flow through neighborhoods, parks, commercial develop-
ments, and areas under construction.
Parking lots, storm drains, sewer manholes, the Little Rock zoo,
and stream banks were all suspected of polluting the streams, espe-
cially after rainfall. Sampling showed that BOD, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, and coliform levels were indeed elevated right
after storm events. Sewer overflows were found to cause the high
coliform counts, and Fourche Creek was posted by the City of Little
Rock as being unsafe for contact recreation. State water quality
standards are exceeded for coliforms.
Construction, especially road and bridge work, contributes heavy
sediment loads, and the water looks dirty.
Objectives
The objectives of this NURP study, begun in 1980, are:
to document the pollutant loads to the Fourche Creek system;
to identiy instream water quality problems;
to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing pollutant
loads to the streams;
to evaluate the economic and political feasibility of these
BMPs;
to build local government support for protecting water quality
in the Fourche Creek system.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Page 3.55
Results
Sampling showed that water quality deteriorates as the stream
flows through urban areas. Coliform counts exceed State water
quality standards during wet weather.
Intensive testing for priority pollutants showed undetectable
levels for most. Some metals, such as iron, were found at higher
levels. All results mentioned here are from the Second Annual
Report, July 1982.
On Coleman Creek, a series of checkdams was installed, and the
banks of the creek were stabilized with grass sod. Peak discharges
from this stretch have been dampened, and pollution loads are
reduced, though a heavy flow may flush pollutants, especially
suspended solids, from the checkdam detention ponds into the stream
flow. Coliform counts are lower downstream from the BMPs. The water
gets visibly cleaner as it flows through the detention ponds.
The detention ponds are filling faster than Metroplan thought
they would. The final report will recommend periodic cleaning of
these ponds by the City Public Works Department so they will continue
to be net sinks for pollutants, even during wet weather.
The total lost of installing this set of BMPs was about $60,000.
On Rock Creek, the banks were flattened and sodded. The channel
was straightened and widened. Side channels and bends in the stream
were armored with rip rap.
The most obvious impact is that flow velocity is reduced by the
"inline" storage afforded by the wider channel. An unexpected
finding was that the shoulders absorb a significant volume of water.
A settling effect probably causes a small reduction in pollutant load
downstream. Treating this section of Rock Creek, 3/8 mile, cost
approximately $70,000.
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.56
On Grassy Flat Creek, gabions were installed in two layers on
each side of the stream. They are each 3 feet wide, providing a
total of 6 feet on each bank, for 200 yards. Sampling is not
complete for this BMP. The cost, including cleaning the channel of
debris, was about $60,000.
Metroplan has discovered the costs of BMP installation will vary
as a function of two parameters: (1) local costs of labor and
materials and (2) whether the work is done by a public or private
crew. A preliminary conclusion is that private contractors are more
efficient, are more likely to arrange for proper equipment, and will
perform the work according to a schedule, whereas public crews often
have less knowledge and flexibility, do not coordinate equipment
needs, and perform according to schedules which change frequently,
causing delays and other inefficiences.
Metroplan has found the City departments cooperative and inter-
ested in protecting water quality. Budget priorities, however, are
subject to many political considerations, and projects which will
have a highly visible impact, such as the checkdams on Coleman Creek,
are more likely to be funded.
Status
Final sampling results will show how effective the BMPs are in
reducing pollutant loads. Political and economic evaluations will
follow a comparison of technical performance of the BMPs with their
costs.
For More Information
The final report will contain detailed data on costs of the
BMPs, sampling results, and an analysis of the political considera-
tions which influence local water quality decisions. Reports pub-
lished to date are
(1) First Annual Report
(2) Second Annual Report
-------
Chapter 3 Urban Runoff Case Studies Page 3.57
Questions about any of the above may be directed to;
Andy Covington
Metroplan
105 Main Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 372-3300
-------
4 AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
-------
4 AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
Problem Identification
If soil surfaces are disturbed; surface runoff increased or
concentrated; vegetation removed; pesticides, nutrients, or other
materials applied to the ground in greater quantities than crops and
organisms can consume; or salts concentrated and removed from irri-
gated lands, pollution can result. Thus, the very nature of agricul-
ture makes some degree of nonpoint source (NFS) pollution almost
inevitable. The task in problem identification is to estimate the
magnitude and extent of this pollution.
The first step in this assessment is the compilation and
evaluation of all existing pertinent information. This information
should include water quality analyses; streamflow records; pollution
reports; sediment loss studies; reservoir sedimentation surveys; and
reports on fish kills, lake eutrophication, and increased surface or
ground water salinity.
Much of the information needed can be obtained from agricultural
and water quality agencies at local, State, and Federal levels.
Other important sources are newspaper articles, reports in local
periodicals, and complaints made by individuals or environmental
groups about surface or ground water pollution.
A great deal of the information gathered is likely to concern
sediment loss, since sediment is the chief pollutant by volume,
resulting from both crop and animal production. Problems from other
pollutants frequently go hand in hand with excess sediment loss,
4.1
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff
4.2
because nutrients, pesticides, and other pollutants adhere to the
fine-grained sediment and enter the water bodies where the sediment
is deposited.
Important sources of data on the extent of sedimentation are:
County, State, or Federal road or highway department reports
on maintenance costs for removing sediment deposits from
ditches, culverts, or roadways;
Data from drinking water plants on the degree of turbidity
removal necessary to meet and maintain water quality standards
for industries and municipalities;
Reports on the amount of sediment dredged from rivers in order
to maintain navigability;
Reservoir sediment deposition surveys conducted by Federal or
State agencies. This is a particularly important means of
determining where soil losses from agricultural activities are
extensive; the average annual sediment accumulation per square
mile of drainage can be obtained from these documents.
Even when such quantified data are not available, it is often
possible to tell that excessive sediment loss is taking place and to
locate its source. Deposits can sometimes be seen in culverts,
ditches, drainageways, and the like. They are often visible
downstream from eroded areas, where the gradients are reduced.
Deposits can also be detected in small ponds or lakes downstream.
Deltas form at the upstream end of these bodies of water, where
streams dump their sediment loads. Deposits also form where a
heavily laden stream enters a larger, slower moving stream.
Sediment eroded by wind is deposited where wind velocities
decrease. Again, eroded areas upwind of the deposits indicate the
most likely source of the pollutant. Blowing dust, which reduces
visibility and makes driving dangerous, is also a sign of excess wind
erosion. Unless the wind-blown sediment is stabilized quickly by
vegetation or other control measures, it will be transported by
runoff into drainage systems and cause water pollution problems.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.3
Rill and gully erosion caused by concentrated runoff water also
threatens water quality. Even if the area is a considerable distance
from a stream and the sediment is initially deposited on land, it is
only a matter of time before more runoff carries it into a water
body.
While visual observation may reveal the existence of a problem
and even indicate likely sources, some degree of quantification is
needed to deal effectively with sediment loss and gauge the success
of controls. If sufficient data are not available from other
sources, it is possible to make an estimate. The quantity of sedi-
ment eroded from an area of rill and gully erosion can be estimated
by measuring the length, width, and depth of the rills and gullies
and computing their total volume. Because the material occupies a
greater volume after it is eroded than when it is in place, a bulking
factor should be assigned to determine the volume of sediment to be
derived from a given volume of in-place soil.
Another method of obtaining an estimate is to use the Universal
Soil Loss Equation (USLE) developed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). This equation estimates annual soil losses by
using rainfall and runoff erosivity indices, soil erodibility fac-
tors, slope factors, and cover and management and supporting practice
factors. When there is no conservation program in effect in an area,
the cover and management factor and supporting practices factor must
be estimated from the amount of ground cover present. Alternatively,
they may be assigned a value of 1, indicating they have no influence
in preventing soil loss.
The results of the computation of the USLE should be compared
with the acceptable limits for annual soil loss set by soil scien-
tists. These limits, which generally range from 2 to 5 tons per
acre, estimate the amount of soil loss compatible with continued
fertility and productivity of soils over a period of time. In areas
with shallow soils, the limit may be as low as 1 ton.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff
Page 4.4
The nonpoint sources of pollutants other than sediment are
difficult to assess.
Wastes from organic materials can show up as debris.
Soluble pollutants and materials which adhere to fine-grained
sediment can be identified by leaching and analyzing sediments
for suspected materials. Analysis of sediment samples
obtained during reservoir sediment deposition surveys can be
extremely useful in indicating pesticide, nutrient, and other
types of pollutants from agricultural areas.
Fish kills downstream may indicate the presence of toxic
materials in runoff.
Algal blooms in water bodies may be evidence of excess
nutrients from fertilizers and animal wastes.
Salt from irrigation return waters often shows up as light-
colored, desiccated deposits, particularly in topographic
depressions. Saline surface water return flows are concen-
trated in these areas and evaporated by the sun. If the water
table is close enough to the surface, saline water may be
drawn to the surface by capillary action, evaporate, and leave
a salty residue. Samples of water from different depths
should be taken to determine whether the salt is from ground
or surface sources.
It is also desirable to assess the potential for agricultural
activities to contribute to NFS pollution of waterways. To do so,
all available pertinent information should be obtained on the type of
activities to be conducted and on local soils, climate, and topog-
raphy. This should include:
The types of products produced (plants or animals) and their
arrangement and density;
The kinds of tillage practices or other soil-disturbing
activities to be carried out;
What pesticides, fertilizers, crop residues, or other
additives are to be applied and disposed of;
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.5
Whether irrigation water is to be applied and what type of
system is to be used;
The types of NFS control measures proposed;
The quantity, frequency, and intensity of precipitation
expected;
Prevailing wind directions and velocities;
The composition, permeability, thickness, and other physical
characteristics of the soils;
The proximity of the area to surface water bodies;
The depth to ground water;
The quality of each water source that could be affected; and
The possible occurrence of saline materials at or below soil
horizons.
Solution Development
There are a number of financial and technical assistance programs
designed to help develop and implement appropriate conservation
measures for NFS pollution control. These programs are administered
through local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) and
USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and Cooperative Extension Service.
In addition to its various research, educational, financial, and
technical assistance programs, USDA has experienced staff members who
work directly with farmers and ranchers whose activities affect water
quality.
The adoption of soil and water conservation practices aimed at
proper land management, careful pesticide and fertilizer use, and
proper waste disposal are the essential components in expanding NFS
pollution control efforts. The goal of these voluntary measures is
to reduce soil losses and the runoff of other potential pollutants.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff
Page 4.6
Experience has shown that voluntary and incentive mechanisms are
successful up to a point. In areas with critical water quality
problems, however, they may be insufficient, as they are not
implemented completely and uniformly. To overcome these basic
shortcomings, farmers and agencies at all levels of government need
forums for the exchange of information on new and innovative
approaches.
This section discusses five basic categories of agricultural non-
point control practices: erosion control, runoff control, nutrient
management, pesticides management, and special practices involving
innovative solutions.
Erosion Control Practices
The goal of erosion control practices is to reduce erosion to a
rate compatible with acceptable water quality, a wholesome environ-
ment, and the productive capacity of the land. Erosion can usually
be controlled through practices which minimize raindrop impact on the
soil and reduce runoff velocities and concentrations.
In many situations, erosion can be controlled by agronomic
practices that involve crop management, cropping sequences, seeding
methods, soil treatments, tillage methods, and timing of field
operations. Generally, farming parallel to the field contours will
reduce erosion. However, contouring alone is not sufficient where
slope steepness or length is excessive. It must then be supported by
practices such as terraces, diversions, contour furrows, contour
listing, contour strip cropping, waterways, and other control
structures.
Under certain conditions, it may be essential to apply various
site-specific combinations or systems of practices to achieve
adequate erosion control.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.7
Runoff Control Practices
Surface runoff from cropland can rarely be eliminated. It can,
however, be substantially reduced by agronomic and engineering prac-
tices. Land use and treatment practices can affect direct runoff by
changing its volume and peak rate.
Surface runoff volumes can be reduced by measures that:
Modify soil characteristics to increase infiltration rates,
Increase surface retention or detention storage, allowing more
time for water to infiltrate into the soil, and
Increase interception of rainfall by growing plants or
residues.
Nutrient Management Practices
Many nutrients can be controlled or prevented from leaving an
agricultural area through control of the fine-grained sediments upon
which they are adsorbed. Soluble nutrients such as nitrates, which
move in solution in surface runoff or ground water flows, generally
cannot be controlled with the sediments.
The method of applying fertilizer is important for control, as
there is a much greater pollution potential from nutrients applied to
the surface than from those incorporated into the soil. In deter-
mining the amount of fertilizer or other nutrients, the type of crop,
the time of application, weather conditions, and soil characteristics
should be carefully considered. Any excess quantities will move
below the crop root zones and enter ground water bodies.
Tillage practices also can be used to reduce pollution from
nutrients and other pollutants. Table 4.1 provides information on
how various tillage practices have reduced sediment, particulate
phosphate, and soluble orthophosphate losses from agricultural
areas.
-------
Table 4.1
Sediment and Selected Nutrient Loss With Conventional and Conservation TIM
Tillage
Conventional
Till Plant
Conventional
No Ti II
Conventional
No Ti 1 1
Conventional (New York)
Conservation (New York)
Conventional (Iowa)
Conservation (Iowa)
Conventional (Georgia)
Conservation (Georgia)
Conventional (1970)
No Ti II (1970)
Conventional (1971)
No Til 1 (1971)
Conventional
Continous No Ti 1 1
Soybeans-Wheat*
No Till
Soybeans-Corn*
No Till
Corn-Soybeans*
Convent iona 1
No Till
Precipitation
(cm)
48.7
48.7
46.8
75.3
12.7
12.7
81.8
81.8
68.9
68.9
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
96**
96**
Runoff
(cm)
4.3
2.0
11.7
13.8
10.1
7.4
10
8
7
5
19
16
15.4
17.8
8.8
8.7
6.4
4.6
0.3
7.7
6.1
11.8
15.4
Sediment
(kg/ha)
18,000
4,000
2,004
74
46,120
3,470
20,000
9,000
17,000
5,000
41,000
24,000
1,749
438
772
273
25,300
60
5
530
340
3,570
470
TPP
(kg/ha)
38.88
10.85
1.90
0.32
15.48
2.11
33
15
23
17
17
10
8.3
0.4
1.2
1.3
13.5
0.19
0.02
1.17
0.82
OP
(kg/ha)
0.12
0.15
0.05
0.09
0.002
0.009
0.15
0.11
0.24
0.16
0.39
0.32
0.20
1.70
0.10
0.20
0.001
0.93
0.03
0.28
0.98
0.16
1.56
Comments
Values estimated from
graphs.
Two different years
on same plot.
Simulated rainfal 1 .
S imu lated rainfal 1 .
Model output using
field data.
Model output using
field data.
Soybeans
Soybeans
Mean of seven years'
data.
Notes:
Crop was corn unless otherwise noted.
TPP = Total particulate phosphate.
OP = Soluble orthophosphate.
* = Crop rotation.
** = Mean participation for 84 years of record.
4.8
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.9
In some cases involving ground water pollution caused by infil-
trating pollutants, additional or alternative practices may be
required. A list of such practices and information on their results
are given in Table 4.2.
Pesticide Management Practices
Generally, a reduction in sediment loss will also reduce loss of
applied pesticides; as a result, practices that control runoff and
sediment should always be considered in pesticide pollution control.
In addition, there are a number of options which involve manipulation
of the pesticide itself. They can be used alone or in conjunction
with the runoff and erosion control measures. Table 4.3 lists some
of these practices.
Obviously, good basic management of chemicals is required
wherever pesticides are used. Instructions for their use should be
followed very carefully. The chemicals should be stored so as to
minimize the hazard of possible leakage, and containers disposed of
in accordance with procedures approved under the provisions of the
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act. Probably the best
disposal method for used containers is to bury them in an approved
landfill. They should be rinsed three times and punctured before
burying; the rinsings should be treated as excess pesticide and
buried along with the container. If adequate application equipment
is not available or if the farm operator is untrained and uncertain
of proper application procedures, certified commercial applicators
should be employed. When feasible, farm operators should seek
training and certification themselves.
Special Design Considerations
Some existing conservation practices can control nonpoint source
pollutants to some extent. With additional emphasis on design for
pollution control, they may be made highly effective. The following
practices are discussed to provide information on such design
considerations. These practices should of course be utilized in
conjunction with proper tillage and other conservation methods.
-------
Table 4.2
Highlights of Agricultural Nutrient-Loss Control Practices
Practice
High IIghts
Eliminating excessive fertilization
Timing nitrogen application
Using crop rotation
Using animal wastes for fertilizer
Plowing under green legume crops
Using winter cover crops
Controlling fertilizer release or transformation
Incorporating surface applications
Controlling surface applications
Using legumes in hay lands and pastures
Timing fertilizer slowdown
May cut nitrate leaching appreciably; reduces
fertilizer costs; has no effect on yield.
Reduces nitrate leaching; increases nitrogen
use efficiency; ideal timing may be less
convenient.
Substantially reduces nutrient inputs; not
compatible with many farm enterprises; reduces
erosion and pesticide use.
Economic gain for some farm enterprises; slow
release of nutrients; spreading problems.
Reduces use of nitrogen fertilizer; not always
feasible.
Uses nitrate and reduces percolation; not
applicable in some regions; reduces winter
erosion.
May decrease nitrate leaching; usually not
economically feasible; needs additional
research and development.
Decreases nutrients in runoff; has no effect
on yield; not always possible; adds costs in
some cases.
Useful when incorporation is not feasible.
Replaces nitrogen fertilizer; limited
applicability; difficult to manage.
Reduces erosion and nutrient loss; may be less
convenient.
4.10
-------
Table 4.3
HIgh11ghts of AgrI cultural Pesticide-Loss Control Practices
Practice
Hlghlights
Broadly Applicable Practices
Using alternative pesticides
Optimizing placement with respect to loss
Using crop rotation
Using resistant crop varieties
Optimizing crop planting time
Optimizing pesticide formulation
Using mechanical control methods
Reducing excessive treatment
Optimizing time of day for application
Applicable to all field crops; can lower
aquatic residue levels; can hinder development
of target species resistance.
Applicable where effectiveness is maintained;
may involve moderate cost.
Universally applicable; can reduce pesticide
loss significantly; some indirect cost if less
profitable crop is planted.
Applicable to a number of crops; can sometimes
eliminate need for insecticide and fungicide
use; only slight usefulness for weed control.
Applicable to many crops; can reduce need for
pesticides; moderate cost possibly involved.
Some commercially available alternatives; can
reduce necessary rates of application.
Applicable to weed control; will reduce need
for chemicals substantially; not economically
favorable.
Applicable to insect control; refined predictive
techniques required.
Universally applicable; can reduce necessary
rates of application.
Practices of Limited Applicability
Optimizing date of application
Using integrated control programs
Using biological control methods
Using lower application rates
Managing aerial applications
Planting between rows In minimum tillage
Applicable only when pest control is not
adversely affected; little or no cost involved.
Effective pest control with reduction in
amount of pesticide used; program development
difficult.
Very successful in a few cases; can reduce
insecticide and herbicide use appreciably.
Can be used only where authorized; some
monetary savings.
Can reduce contamination In nontarget areas.
Applicable only to row crops in non-plow-based
tillage; may reduce amounts of pesticides
necessary.
4.11
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff
Page 4.12
Sediment Basins
Sediment detention basins have been used for many years to reduce
the runoff of sediment into downstream areas. Generally, however,
their efficiency is gauged by the percentage of the total sediment
load being detained. This leaves open the question of their effec-
tiveness in controlling the fine-grained sediments which adsorb
nutrients.
A high removal efficiency may indicate a considerable reduction
in sand and silt-sized particles but little reduction in the clay-
sized materials for which phosphates and some other pollutants have a
great affinity. Sediment basins specifically designed to remove a
significant amount of clay particles should be effective in control-
ling associated pollutants. Studies are currently in progress to
provide quantitative information for better evaluation of the basins
and also to develop new design techniques.
Grassed Waterways
The primary purpose of grassed waterways, as presently designed,
is to prevent gully erosion. Any reductions of sheet runoff of sedi-
ment or nutrients are incidental to their intended purpose. It
appears, however, that grassed waterways can be designed specifically
for sediment and/or nutrient control. A review of the literature
suggests that soluble nutrients and fine-grained sediments and their
adsorbed nutrients can be significantly reduced by grassed waterways
designed for this purpose. Experience indicates that efficiencies of
up to 99 percent removal of sediment can be obtained with a properly
designed grassed waterway. Significant removals of clay-sized sedi-
ments can be achieved, indicating that sediment-associated nutrients
can likewise be effectively removed. The important variables that
determine the effectiveness of a grassed waterway in preventing
sediment removal are type of vegetation, length of filter, slope,
depth of runoff, application rate of water to be filtered, and size
distribution and initial concentration of sediment.
Grassed Buffer Strips
Grassed buffer strips are similar to grassed waterways except
that they are designed for overland flow rather than channel flow.
The important factors determining the efficiency of a grassed buffer
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.13
strip are essentially the same as for a grassed waterway. Perhaps
the most significant consideration in terms of overall effectiveness
of buffer strips in a watershed or subwatershed is to ensure that
runoff into the strips occurs as sheet flow and not in concentrated,
discrete channels. Further research is required to define the
effects of other variables on their effectiveness in pollution
control.
Implementation
EPA's Water Quality Management Program established through sec-
tions 208, 106, and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act allows States to
select the most practicable strategy for achieving effective agricul-
tural NPS control. Although several States have an array of regula-
tory tools available for this purpose, most have chosen a voluntary
approach involving cost-share incentives and technical assistance.
Through the WQM plans, nonpoint source problem areas in priority
watersheds are identified and best management practices (BMPs)
recommended.
A 1980 national review of the status of State agricultural NPS
control programs and their readiness to launch self-sufficient
implementation activities revealed a number of important findings.
Forty-seven States have now approved agricultural nonpoint
source control programs. Thirty-nine States are involved in
program implementation. The Soil Conservation Service, Exten-
sion Service, and other State and Federal agencies have become
the key vehicles for directing implementation efforts.
Forty-six States have water pollution abatement authority
which extends to agricultural nonpoint sources, but only six-
teen States have used it for agricultural pollution control.
Federal cost-sharing assistance is considered necessary for
implementation of agricultural nonpoint programs in a majority
of the States, according to State respondents. Only 12
States, however, have enacted their own cost-sharing programs
in some form.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.14
While many States intend to rely heavily on the Soil Conserva-
tion Districts to act as designated management agencies (DMAs)
and provide technical assistance, districts in many States
lack resources to fulfill these responsibilities. It is
estimated that nearly 500 additional technical employees are
needed in 13 States alone.
Twenty-four of forty-eight States reported that additional
staff were necessary to achieve an operational implementation
program. Fourteen States have requested additional resources
through budget requests to the governors, and eleven States
have requested additional funding from State legislatures.
From these findings, it is apparent that the majority of States
are not prepared to carry out a self-sufficient agricultural NFS
control program. From all indications, there are a number of techni-
cal and institutional problems which hinder program development and
implementation.
Among the technical problems are:
Identifying and locating pollution source problems;
Assessing the impact of agricultural pollutants on water uses
and establishing credible cause-and-effeet relationships;
Promoting BMP application;
Establishing water quality criteria for agricultural
pollutants; and
Establishing technically effective monitoring programs.
Institutional difficulties have arisen in:
Establishing and maintaining long-term partnerships between
water quality agencies and designated management agencies;
Establishing and managing operational programs at the State
level;
Gaining legislative support to fund expanded technical
assistance programs and cost-sharing programs.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.15
EPA recognizes the difficulty experienced by some State and
local governments in establishing effective programs. At the Federal
level, EPA, in cooperation with other agencies, primarily USDA, has
supported prototype efforts to develop effective institutional,
technical, and programmatic approaches to solving agricultural NPS
water quality problems.
In 1978, EPA and USDA initiated the Model Implementation Program
(MIP) in seven areas with agricultural water quality problems. These
projects are designed to install and evaluate BMPs, determine farmer
attitudes, and document costs and water quality impacts. In addi-
s>\ t ion, (2%) Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) water quality
projects were undertaken in 1979. EPA is also participating in the
experimental Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) which provides cost-
share funds for implementing certain best management practices
consistent with the WQM plans. Figure 4.1 shows the location of
these projects.
Through these joint efforts EPA and USDA have pooled their
resources and expertise to take concerted action against water qual-
ity problems in a number of designated watersheds. Funds to support
technical assistance, cost sharing, and monitoring have come from
various EPA and USDA programs, including EPA's section 208 program,
section 314 Clean Lakes Program, the Great Plains Conservation
Program, and the Resource Conservation and Development Program.
Under the Model Implementation Program, ASCS provides cost-
sharing funds for conservation and water quality measures needed in
the selected MIP areas. The Cooperative Extension Service coordi-
nates educational and informational programs of the MIP projects and
demonstrates proper application of BMPs. The Soil Conservation
Service and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts develop conser-
vation plans with individual farmers and provide necessary technical
assistance. In support of the MIP projects, EPA has agreed to pro-
vide additional financial assistance under the Clean Lakes (section
314) program for lake-oriented MIP projects, and to provide research
and development and section 208 funds for water quality monitoring
and evaluation.
-------
Figure 4.1
Nationwide Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Projects
LEGEND:
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
PROGRAM SPECIAL WATER
QUALITY PROJECTS
RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECTS
A 1 ALABAMA
Swan Lake
A 2 ARKANSAS
Chief Wiley's Water
A 3 CONNECTICUT
Little River
A 4 ILLINOIS
Blue Creek
A 5 INDIANA
Dirty Baker's Dozen
A 6 KANSAS
Soldier Creek
A 7 KENTUCKY
Little Bayou DeChien
A 8 MAINE
Aroostook Prestile
A 9 MARYLAND
Cecil County
A10 MICHIGAN
Sagmaw Bay
A11 MISSISSIPPI
Eroding Wolf
A12 MISSOURI
Middle Fork of Salt
A13 NEBRASKA
Hall County
A14 NEW HAMPSHIRE
Great Houghton
A15 NEW MEXICO
Upper Rio Hondo
A16OHIO
A1 7 OREGON
Wasco County
A18 PUERTO RICO
Caugus District
A19 SOUTH CAROLINA
Tyger River
A20TENNESSEE
Gibson
A21 TEXAS
Lake Fork Creek
R 1 ALABAMA
Lake Tholocco
R 2 DELAWARE
New Castle County
R 3 IDAHO
Rock Creek
R 4 ILLINOIS
Highland Silver Lake
R 5 IOWA
Prairie Rose
R 6 KANSAS
Upper Wakarusa
R 7 LOUISIANA
Bonne Idee
R 8 MARYLAND
Double Pipe Creek
R 9 MICHIGAN
Saline Valley
R10TENNESSEE
Reelfoot Lake
R11 UTAH
Snake Creek
R12 VERMONT
St Alban's Bay
R13 WISCONSIN
Lower Manitowoc
R14 FLORIDA
Taylor Ck Nubbin Slough
R15 MASSACHUSETTS
Westport River
RJ#*MINNESOTA
Garvm Brook
R17 NEBRASKA
Long Pine Creek
R18 OREGON
Tillamook Bay
R19 PENNSYLVANIA
Conestoga Headwaters
R20 SOUTH DAKOTA
Oakwood-Lake Pomsett
R21 VIRGINIA
Nansemond-Chuckatuck
MODEL IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
M 1 INDIANA
Indiana Heartland
M 2 NEBRASKA
Maple Creek
M 3 NEW YORK
W Branch Delaware R
M 4 OKLAHOMA
Little Washita
M 5 SOUTH CAROLINA
Broadway Lake
M 6 SOUTH DAKOTA
Lake Herman
M 7 WASHINGTON
Yakima/Sulfur
4.16
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.17
In April !979, the Department of Agriculture announced the
approval of 21 additional ACP Special Water Quality Projects involv-
ing 30 counties in 20 States and Puerto Rico to be funded through
1981. The ACP and MIP projects utilize special national reserve ACP
cost-sharing funds to support expanded cost sharing in the project
areas. Building on the experience gained through the MIP projects,
the ACP projects are making even greater strides in familiarizing the
agricultural community with water quality and agricultural nonpoint
source problems.
The objective of the Rural Clean Water Program is to assist in
improving water quality in rural areas in the most cost-effective
manner possible without disrupting the production of food and fiber.
This experimental program provides long-term financial and technical
assistance to owners and operators of privately owned agricultural
lands. The purpose of the technical assistance is to obtain the
installation, implementation, and maintenance of BMPs on farms to
control nonpoint sources of pollution and improve water quality.
Thirteen projects were selected and funded in 1980, and eight new
projects were added in 1981.
The Secretary of Agriculture administers the RCWP program in
consultation with the Administrator of EPA; EPA must concur in the
selection of BMPs. The Administrator of the Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service is responsible for administering the
national program. Coordination of technical assistance has been
given to the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service. ASCS is
assisted in program administration by other USDA agencies, in
accordance with existing authorities.
One of the unique provisions in the RCWP program is the directive
for intensive study of the impact of selected BMPs on water uses and
quality. General trend monitoring can indicate only whether BMPs
have any noticeable impact on water quality. With the increased
intensity of general monitoring and evaluation, specific BMPs can be
evaluated for their effectiveness in reducing the amount of runoff
and pollution generated on a field or feedlot. Both EPA and USDA are
hopeful that the five comprehensive monitoring projects will generate
the data needed to answer a number of technical questions regarding
the effectiveness of BMPs.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.18
Finally, in order to provide answers to questions about the
effectiveness of institutional and technical measures used to address
agricultural water quality problems, EPA, along with USDA, has ini-
tiated a nationwide Water Quality Evaluation Project. Under the
direction of the North Carolina State University Extension Service,
water quality monitoring data are being gathered from the ACP, MIP,
and RCWP projects. The North Carolina State project is a formal
attempt to collect and analyze data to provide better information on
the cost effectiveness of technical nonpoint source solutions.
The case studies section of this chapter offers a sampling of the
work done on agricultural NPS problems. The case studies were chosen
to reflect the many areas the Federal Water Quality Management
Program has dealt with. State and local agencies will continue to
address these problems on a self-sustaining basis.
References
American Public Works Association. Practices in Detention of
Urban Stormwater Runoff, by H. G. Poertner. Special Report
43. 1974.
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart G. Grants for Water Quality Planning
and Implementation. Final Regulations. May 23, 1979.
Johnson, C. B., and Moldenhauer, W. C. "Effect of Chisel Versus
Moldboard Plowing on Soil Erosion by Water." Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J43U979): 177-179.
Johnson, H. P.; Baker, J. L.; Schrader, W. D.; and Laflen,
J. M. "Tillage System Effects on Sediment and Nutrients in
Runoff from Small Watersheds." Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.
22:1110-1114.
Lyng, Richard E., Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture.
Testimony before the House of Representatives, Committee
on Agriculture. June 1981.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.19
McDowell, L. L., and McGregor, K. C. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Losses in Runoff from No-Till Soybeans." Trans. Am. Soc.
Agric. Eng. 1980(?) (in press).
Missouri Water Resources Research Center. Facilities and Pesti-
cides in Runoff and Sediment from Claypan Soil, by G. E.
Smith, R. Blanchar, and R. E. Dunwell.Completion Report
B-099-Mo. Columbia, Missouri. 1979.
Ramkens, M. J. M.; Nelson, D. W.; and Mannering, J. V. "Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Composition of Surface Runoff as Affected by Tillage
Methods." J. Environ. Qual. 2(1973): 292-295.
Schwab, C. 0.; McLean, E. 0.; Waldron, A. C.; White, R. K.; and
Michener, D. W. "Quality of Drainage from a Heavy-Textured
Soil." Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 16 (1973):1104-1107.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil and Water Resource
Conservation Act, Review Draft, Part 1. 1980.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service.
Control of Water Pollution from Cropland. Volume I: A Manual
for Guideline Development, by B. A. Stewart,D.A. Woolhiser, W.
H. Wischmeier, J. H. Caro, and M. H. Frere. Report ARS-H-S-1.
Hyattsville, Maryland. November 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. 1980 Rural Clean Water Program. 7 CFR,
Part 700. March 4, 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Erosion and Sediment
ControlSurface Mining in the Eastern U.S. October 1976.
Impact of Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology
on Water Quality and Stream Biota, by Karr, J. R., and
Scholloser. EPA-600/3-77-097. August 1977.
Implementation Status of State 208 Agricultural Pro-
August 1980.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Page 4.20
Nonpoint Source Control Guidance: Construction Activi-
ties. December 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research
Laboratory. Effectiveness of Soil and Water Conservation
Practices for Pollution Control, by D.A. Haith and R. C. Loehr.
USEPA-RD.EPA-600/3-79-106.Athens, Georgia. 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program
Office. Environmental Impact of Land Use on Water Quality, by J,
Lake and J. Morrinsion.EPA-905/9-77-007-B.Chicago.October
1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water and Waste
Management. Water Planning Division. Agricultural Land Use
Water Quality Interaction^ Problem Abatement,L Project1
Monitoring, and Monitoring Strategies, by J. Kuhner.Washington,
B.C. September 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region III. Nutrient
Technical Advisory Committee. Recommendations for Reducing
Losses of Applied Nutrients in Region III. Philad e 1 ph i a,
Pennsylvania. December 1979.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.21
Case Study 1; Visible Sediment Load Reduction Attributed to
BMP s
Location: Twin Falls County, Idaho
EPA Region: X
Contact: Terry Keys, Manager, Water Quality Planning &
Standards Section, Division of Environment,
Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334-4250
Definition of Problem
In 1977, farmers in the Twin Falls area were using a local water
course called the L.Q. drain to dispose of irrigation runoff from
their farms. The water flows from the drain over the rim of the Snake
River Canyon and into the Snake River.
Water quality of the L.Q. drain, and subsequently the Snake
River, was severely affected by this irrigation return flow. The
water quality problems were associated with phosphate, nitrogen,
suspended solids, turbidity, bacteria, and toxic chemicals. Fish
kills in the area have been documented by the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, as being caused by toxic
agricultural chemicals inadvertently released from canals.
Objectives
In 1977, the Idaho Division of Environment initiated a study of
the area just west of Twin Falls to assess and control the problem.
Project resources were granted directly to the conservation
district in order to provide the cost-share moneys to the area
farmers for installation of best management practices. The
conservation district, in turn, worked with local participating
farmers to develop farm conservation plans that included State BMPs
and provided for cost sharing of these practices.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.22
The main objectives of the project were to divert the irrigation
return flow from direct discharge into the L.Q. drain and to provide
for onsite disposal of the sediment-laden water.
Results
In the first year of the project, 21 of the 25 area farmers using
the L.Q. drain established practices and structures to remove trans-
ported sediment from the return irrigation water on their farms.
These farmers built settling ponds from which they remove accumulated
topsoil each year and spread it back on their farms.
The economic benefit of reclaiming the lost topsoil was readily
appreciated not only by the participating farmers but also by their
neighbors. This encouraged the project managers to request, and
receive, second-year funding to expand the area treated.
BMPs applied in Twin Falls County have reduced sediment in the
L.Q. drain by 65 to 75 percent. Today, the water runs clear even
during the peak irrigation season, and the farmers are pleased not to
have their fields' topsoil go "down the drain."
For More Information
Contact Terry Keys, manager of the Idaho water quality agency,
for more information and an update on the status of the project.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.23
Case Study 2: 50 Percent Sediment Reduction from Conservation
District Program
Location: Dragon Creek, New Castle County, Delaware
EPA Region: III
Contact: Bernard Dworsky, Administrator, Water Resources
Agency, 2701 Capitol Trail, Newark, Delaware
19711, (301) 366-7823
Definition of Problem
Before the fall of 1977, annual soil loss from the Dragon Creek
watershed was approximately 11 tons per acre, significantly above the
3 tons per acre figure locally considered allowable to maintain soil
fertility. The total soil loss was estimated at 38,000 tons.
Agricultural activities, primarily the production of corn and
soybean crops, were considered to be the main source of the eroded
soils. Beneficial uses of the area waters, such as recreation and
fish habitats, were limited not only by the eroded soils entering the
watercourse but also by associated agricultural pollutants such as
fertilizers and pesticides.
Objectives
As part of the water quality management program, the Water
Resources Agency for New Castle County entered into a cooperative
agreement in the fall of 1977 with the New Castle County Conservation
District to undertake a voluntary program in the 5,000-acre water-
shed.
Through technical assistance provided by the conservation
district, the use and implementation of conservation plans were
initiated. These plans, which were voluntary, called for the
participating farmer to use a comprehensive approach to the water
quality problems on his land and to implement best management
practices to control the erosion.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 4.24
Results
Through the efforts of the conservation district, landowners and
farmers in 93 percent of the watershed have voluntarily developed and
implemented conservation plans.
The watershed landowners and farmers have succeeded in reducing
the sediments entering Dragon Creek by 50 percent. Annual soil loss
from croplands is now less than 5 tons per acre. Total soil loss has
dropped to below 20,000 tons.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Bernard Dworsky for additional information and recent
developments in the watershed, including the progress of the adjacent
Appoquinimink River Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.25
Case Study 3: Lake To Be Cleaned Up as Part of RCWP Project
Location: Prairie Rose Lake, Shelby County, Iowa
EPA Region: VII
Contact: Mark Berkland, State Resource Conservationist,
Soil Conservation Service, 693 Federal Building,
210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50309,
(515) 284-4260
Definition of Problem
Prairie Rose Lake in Shelby County, Iowa, has been deteriorating
rapidly because of excessive sediment and nutrient runoff from
agricultural lands in the lake's 4,643-acre watershed.
The area has a serious erosion problem. The watershed annual
average soil loss is approximately 20 tons per acre, and approxi-
mately 62 percent of the cropland has an annual soil loss of 30 tons
per acre. The Iowa Water Quality Management Plan states that the
Prairie Rose watershed has one of the highest erosion rates in the
State.
The lake is classified in the Iowa Water Quality Standards to
protect primary and secondary body contact, wildlife, fish and other
aquatic-life uses, and potable water supply. Prairie Rose State Park
is an important recreational area for west central Iowa. Since 1968,
boating area and fish habitat lost to sediment deposition equals
nearly «10 percent of the lake. Further, the 1977 National
Eutrophication Survey indicated that Prairie Rose Lake is eutrophic,
and unless the nonpoint phosphorus loads can be reduced, the lake
can be expected to exhibit progressive symptoms of eutrophication.
Reduction of sediment delivery to the lake should reduce the
input of chemicals to the lake and thereby decrease future damage.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.26
Objectives
Over $700,000 in cost-share funds has been made available through
the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), jointly administered by the
USDA and EPA, for farmers to apply best management practices to
control the delivery of sediments and agricultural chemicals to the
lake.
This RCWP project has a seven-year schedule for signing contracts
with landowners who control 80 percent of the watershed land. These
contracts between the State Soil Conservation Service (SCS) office
and the local landowners provide for sharing the costs of imple-
menting recommended BMPs.
The Iowa Department of Soil Conservation and the Shelby County
Soil Conservation District will be responsible for the local adminis-
tration of this project. They have successfully administered the
Iowa erosion control cost-share program since 1973.
The RCWP program is designed to implement BMPs on pasture and
cropland above the lake. Conservation tillage, contour farming,
pasture management, nutrient and pesticide management, establishment
of permanent vegetative cover, diversions, grade-stabilization
structures, grassed waterways, sediment and water control basins, and
terraces are BMPs used on the watershed.
Results
The program is still in its initial phases and has been progres-
sing satisfactorily. As of the beginning of 1982, over 2,486 acres
were under contract with SCS. This represents approximately 63
percent of the area to be treated.
Over 17.8 miles of terraces, 1,500 feet of field borders, and 8.1
acres of grassed waterways had been installed through 1981. 1,533
acres of nutrient and integrated pest management are currently under
way on 20 farms.
Steady progress is proposed through 1985.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.27
For More Information
Contact Mr. Mark Berkland, State Resource Conservationist, for
information on the current status of the project.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 4.28
Case Study 4: No-Till Cost-Shaire Incentive Program
Location: Illinois
EPA Region: V
Contact: Jim Frank, Superintendent, Division of Natural
Resources, Department of Agriculture, State Fair
Grounds, Springfield, Illinois 62706, (217)
782-6297
Definition of Problem
The Illinois Water Quality Management Plan cited the significant
impact agricultural nonpoint source runoff from cultivated areas has
on water resources in the State. The plan made several recommenda-
tions to control the problem, including the designation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and the creation of a State-wide cost
share program to implement these BMPs.
In response to this expressed need, the Illinois General Assembly
enacted the "Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act" in 1977. The
Act states that it is "in the public interest to provide for the pre-
vention of air and water pollution and for the prevention of erosion,
floodwater and sediment damages," that "erosion continues to be a
serious problem throughout the State," and establishes and provides
for implementation of "a statewide comprehensive and coordinated
erosion and sediment control program to conserve and protect land,
water, air and other resources."
This comprehensive conservation program coordinates the activi-
ties of the local Conservation Districts through the creation of the
State Soil and Water Conservation Districts Advisory Board,
encourages the development of municipal control ordinances, and
initiates a State cost share program.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.29
The cost share program is designed to encourage land owners to
comply with district erosion and sediment control standards. To get
the program started, the General Assembly provided in FY 1981 an
initial $500,000 in State funds.
Objectives
The cost share program is designed to provide for the sharing by
the State of part of the cost of enduring erosion and sediment and
control devices, structures, and practices.
For the initial level of funding, the program paid farmers
$10 to $25 per acre to initiate zero-till or reduced-tillage farming
methods. The program was used as an education tool for farmers. The
reduced-tillage BMPs were selected to reduce the amount of soil
eroding from cultivated areas and to encourage farmer participation.
Results
Approximately $450,000 of the initial State funds had been cost
shared by May 1982. Over 26,000 acres of cultivated farm lands
qualified for treatment with zero-till or reduced-tillage methods in
48 of the 98 Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
Participation by the 863 farmers was quite successful. It was
found that an average 14.2 tons of soil per acre per year were
retained on the 863 farmers' land at a cost of $1.22 per ton or
$17.28 per acre.
This soil retention reflects a reduction of the erosion rate from
21.8 tons per acre per year before the application of the reduced-
tillage methods to approximtely 7.5 tons per acre per year after
application. This represents an approximate retention of 370,693
tons of soil per year on the treated fields.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Jim Frank of the Department of Agriculture for more
information and further evaluation of the State cost share program.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 4.30
Case Study 5; State and Local Adoption of Agricultural Program
Location: Maryland
EPA Region: III
Contact: Thomas Andrews, Director, Water Resources
Administration, Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, D-2, Annapolis,
Maryland 21301, (301) 269-3846
Definition of Problem
Through the efforts of the statewide Water Quality Management
Program, a State agricultural program to control sediment and animal
wastes has been adopted by State and local governments in Maryland.
Objectives
The agricultural program is designed to work in conjunction with
the existing and recently amended Rules and Regulations for Sediment
Control (Section 8.05.03.01).
Local soil conservation districts have identified critical areas
for special attention. They are now working with farmers in these
areas to reduce pollution from agricultural sources.
Results
The program has met with positive reaction from the farmers
contacted. However, no assessment of its success has been
completed.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Thomas Andrews, Director of the Water Resources
Administration, for more information and the current program status.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.31
Case Study 6; 75 Percent of Lake Drainage Area Treated in
MIP Project
Location: Lake County, South Dakota
EPA Region: VIII
Contact: Larry Nieman, Assistant State Conservationist,
Soil Conservation Service, Federal Building,
200 4th Street, S.W., Huron, South Dakota 57350,
(605) 352-8651
Definition of Problem
Use of Lake Herman in Lake County, South Dakota, has dwindled
almost by half as water quality has deteriorated. The 1,350-acre
popular recreation and fishing spot has suffered from agricultural
nonpoint source contributions such as runoff from feedlots and
sediments from croplands.
Because of these water quality problems, Lake Herman was selected
in 1978 to participate in EPA's Model Implementation Program.
Objectives
The MIP received funds for two years to facilitate the applica-
tion of best management practices to control the nonpoint sources.
Results
Through past efforts and through the Model Implementation
Program, about 75 percent of the drainage area into the lake (mostly
cropland and range) has been treated with BMPs such as terraces,
contour cropping systems, and sediment retention dams. Today, Lake
Herman is on its way back to providing fishing and other recreation
benefits.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 4.32
For More Information
Contact Mr. Larry Nieman, Assistant State Conservationist, for
more information on the Lake Herman MIP.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.33
Case Study 7; Commitment to Water Quality Management Gets
Results
Location: Lake Mendota, Dane County, Wisconsin
EPA Region: V
Contact: William Lane, Dane County Regional Planning
Commission, City-County Building, Room 14,
Madison, Wisconsin 53709, (608) 266-4886
Definition of Problem
After the Dane County Regional Planning Council demonstrated that
agriculture was a major cause of pollution in Lake Mendota, water
quality considerations became an important part of best management
practice selection.
Objectives
Farmers were encouraged to use varying amounts of conservation
tillage and to install measures that complement streambank fencing
such as offstream water points and cattle crossings.
Results
Support for the cost-sharing program in the farming community
reflects the commitment to water quality management that the Dane
County water quality management has generated.
For More Information
Contact Mr. William Lane of the Dane County Regional Planning
Council for more information concerning the agricultural program and
continuing farmer support.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.34
Case Study 8: Pesticide Container Cleanup
Location: Southwestern Illinois
EPA Region: V
Contact: Robert Wydra, Manager, Southwestern Illinois
Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission, 203
West Main Street, Collinsville, Illinois 62234,
(618) 344-4250
Definition of Problem
The Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Commission (SIMAPC) identified the improper disposal of pesticide
containers as a significant water quality concern.
Objectives
The commission made recommendations, as part of their water
quality management program, for better management of the disposal of
pesticide containers. The program coordinated and formalized a
collection system to dispose of the containers.
Results
In 1980, two of the SIMAPC planning area's three counties had
programs that together collected about nine tons of containers.
The remaining county has recently initiated a third disposal
program.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Robert Wydra of the commission for information on the
progress of the program.
-------
Chapter 4
Agricultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 4.35
Case Study 9: Successful Irrigation Network Expands
Location: Monterey Bay area, California
EPA Region: IX
Contact: Will Smith, Executive Director, Association of
Monterey Bay Area Governments, P.O. Box 190, 23845
Holman Highway, Monterey, California 93940, (408)
373-8477
Definition of Problem
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, an areawide
water quality management agency, cited agriculture as a significant
nonpoint source in the bay area.
The association coordinated a program to encourage local farmers
to install soil and water conservation practices.
Objectives
With assistance from the project, Monterey Bay farmers invested
$250,000 in farming methods designed to decrease erosion and conserve
water.
A $40,000 water recovery system was designed to divert irrigation
runoff into a holding pond where sediment settles out. The system
then recycles the water into the farms' irrigation networks.
Results
The water recovery system and other best management practices
were so successful that a neighboring conservation district has
cooperated to expand the program.
-------
Chapter 4 Agricultural Runoff Case Studies Page 4.36
For More Information
For more information, contact Mr. Will Smith, executive director
of the association, for the current status of the program.
-------
5 CONSTRUCTION SITE
RUNOFF
-------
5 CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF
Problem Identification
Construction activities which disturb surface soils or underlying
geological materials generate nonpoint source (NFS) pollutants. Sur-
face runoff will transport these materials away from the site unless
extreme care is taken to contain them within the area being
developed. It is extremely difficult to assess the magnitude and
extent of future pollutant discharge from the construction areas with
any reasonable accuracy, because runoff from construction sites
varies tremendously, depending on the intensity and duration of
rainfall and other weather conditions; the topography, geology, and
soil types in the area; the area of disturbed soil; the type of
construction involved; the character of vegetative cover; and other
local conditions. The techniques and strategies to be applied differ
from region to region, so a survey of existing problems is valuable
for developing plans for controlling such pollution in the future.
Techniques and strategies should be devised to restrict pollution
runoff under both natural and manmade conditions.
The initial step in understanding construction NFS pollution in
an area should be to conduct a survey of all existing and recently
completed construction projects where the ground surface has been
disturbed. Information should be obtained regarding site locations,
particularly with regard to their proximity to water bodies; their
surface area, slope, and geometric configuration; foundation
conditions; the duration of construction activities; and other
pertinent factors. A construction site for a linear facility, such
as a highway or pipeline, may cause much greater pollution problems
than one with a much larger local surface area of more nearly equal
dimensions, such as a shopping center. Construction of many dams,
recreation facilities, and some powerplants does not disturb
excessively large surface areas, but because they are often on, or
extremely near, streams of good quality, they have a high pollution
potential.
Sediment is the chief pollutant generated by construction
activities, so the field survey will involve primarily estimates
5.1
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.2
of sediment runoff. But other pollutants may be generated also, and
the runoff of these pollutants is even more difficult to assess than
that of the frequently readily visible sediment.
The following are some signs of other pollutants to watch for:
Runoff of petroleum products may show up as oil sheens
on water or oil scums on surfaces downstream from the
site.
Wastes from solid materials can show up as debris in
water bodies.
Toxic materials in runoff may cause fish kills.
Algal blooms may be evidence of excess nutrients.
Soluble pollutants can be assessed by leaching and
analyzing samples of fine-grained sediments (to which
they adhere) for suspected materials.
The local public can be an extremely valuable source of informa-
tion. Many people, particularly older residents, remember the condi-
tions of local streams before construction and can convey pertinent
information about changes which have occurred. They can help locate
areas of prior extreme sediment deposition, channel erosion, oil
spills, fish kills, and the like. If dates can be recalled, it may
be possible to document these events in local newspapers.
As was noted above, sediment is the chief pollutant from con-
struction. The limited research data available indicate that as much
as 70 percent of the sediment removed by erosion from a construction
site that lacks adequate control measures may be carried downstream
by runoff. During field surveys, then, it is important to obtain
reliable information on the extent of sediment runoff problems.
These surveys should include onsite estimates of the amount of
erosion that has occurred and the volume of sediments deposited in
the site area and immediately downstream.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.3
An excellent time to make these observations is during a period
of intense rainfall. At that time erosion and transport of sediment
can be observed. The sediments will be deposited later, as runoff
velocities decrease or as the runoff waters collect in impoundments.
Once the suspended sediments settle out, they can be measured.
Wind erosion is a significant factor, particularly in western
areas of the country where winds may blow continuously over long
distances with no topographic obstructions. Observations should be
made during and after windstorms, when information on the direction
of movement and the location of wind-blown deposits can be obtained.
Materials deposited by the wind can often be differentiated from
water-laid materials by their location with respect to streams, their
uniform grain size, the angularity of fragments, and the generally
low density of deposits. Water deposits are usually near the water
sources that transported them, are generally composed of a mixture of
different sizes of materials which are more or less rounded by water
transport, and are of much higher density than wind-blown sediments.
Erosion caused by rainfall and runoff occurs as sheet and rill
erosion and gully erosion. Unconcentrated water flows cause sheet
and rill erosion; concentrated flows cause gully erosion. Estimates
of the volume of sediments derived from gully erosion can be made
from field observations and measurements. The methodology for this
will be discussed shortly.
Soil loss from sheet and rill erosion is less apparent and more
difficult to estimate reliably. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) has developed a Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) that can
be used to estimate both natural sediment losses prior to construc-
tion and those resulting from construction activities. The USLE must
be used with extreme care, however, because slopes, soil characteris-
tics, and other properties of construction sites are much different
from, and more variable than, those of the farmlands for which the
USLE was designed. It is important to note also that these estimated
losses involve sheet and rill erosion only and do not address the
question of how much of the sediment is transported from the site.
The movement of sediment is extremely complex, and the nature of the
site variables makes quantitative evaluations difficult.
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff Case Studies
Page 5.4
As was noted earlier, it is somewhat easier to estimate sediment
losses from gully erosion. The first step in this process is to
determine the extent of the erosion. Gullies are readily observed,
as they are incised into smooth construction cut and fill slopes.
Simply taking the dimensions of the gullies and multiplying them
gives a measurement of the amount of material eroded.
For the succeeding steps in the assessment, it must be remembered
that erosion volume does not equal sediment volume. The sediment is
loosely deposited, and so occupies a greater volume than when it was
in place. Thus, even allowing for a bulking factor, measurements
will not be precise.
It is possible to arrive at an estimate of how much sediment has
entered downstream water bodies by next determining the amount of
sediment that has been deposited onsite and subtracting that from the
total estimated sediment loss.
Onsite, the deposited materials will form small deltas
at the bottom of cut and fill slopes or wherever runoff
velocity has decreased.
Diversion ditches, swales, or depressions may be filled
with sand-sized particles.
Sheets of sediments may be deposited in low, flat areas.
The area of the deposits times their thickness will provide an esti-
mate of volume. In some instances, buried survey markers or other
objects may help in estimating the thickness, but a great deal of
judgment is necessary to arrive at valid thickness measurements.
Probably the most reliable measure of the quantity of sediment
that has left a construction site is that obtained by conducting a
reservoir sedimentation survey. Such a survey is performed by
measuring the area and thickness of the delta formed by the
accumulation of excess sediment. If no other construction or other
sediment-generating activity is taking place in the drainage basin
for the reservoir, it may be assumed that the excess sediment results
from a given construction site. Hydrology and Urban Land Planning,
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.5
published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1968, gives useful
information on conducting these surveys.
The volume of excess sediments deposited downstream from con-
struction sites can be estimated directly in a manner similar to that
used for estimating onsite deposits. If photographs or recent
contour maps, such as those on a scale of 1:24,000 by the USGS, are
available to show preconstruction conditions, some idea of the
pollutant load contributed by construction activities can be
gleaned.
Evidence of excess sediment loads in the stream system can be
observed where:
The stream seems to be constricted by materials in low-
gradient areas.
Small pools are filled, or filling, with deposits.
Massive sediment deposits cover areas adjacent to and
at a higher elevation than the present stream. This
indicates that the stream had an excess sediment load
during flood stage. As the runoff volume decreased and
the stream level dropped, deposition occurred.
A stream, previously flowing on bedrock, is "braided"
and flowing on uniformly sized material. (A braided
stream is one that flows in several dividing and reunit-
ing channels, similar to the strands of a braid.)
Again, in making such preconstruction/postconstruction com-
parisons, caution should be exercised in deciding how much of the
pollution load is attributable to construction activities. Other
possible influences should be carefully assessed. Since the princi-
pal sediment loads are transported during flood flows, it is entirely
possible that a sediment load present at or immediately downstream
from a construction site actually resulted from a past anomalous
inflow further upstream. Sediment loads from landslides, for
example, move downstream in "slugs," which may show up several years
after the landslide.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.6
Similar caveats apply to the assessment of chemical and biologi-
cal runoff. As was noted earlier, some of these pollutants travel in
solution and others adhere to clays and other fine-grained sediments,
which remain in suspension in the runoff waters and are transported
offsite. After construction has been completed and conditions have
stabilized, it is difficult to assess these types of runoff. Samples
taken immediately upstream and immediately downstream of construction
sites can be compared to give some indication of the pollutant load
contributed by construction activities.
Field surveys are intended only to show whether erosion and
runoff problems exist and to give some idea of their magnitude. As
has been stated throughout this section, these are estimates, not
precise measures. However, the sum of all site estimates should
provide a fairly reliable indication of the magnitude of pollution in
the area and whether it will increase or decrease in the future.
A further factor to be considered in these estimates is the
amount of soil loss which could be expected to occur naturally, in
the absence of construction. The USLE can be used to generate this
estimate, bearing in mind the cautions given earlier. Only the
sediment load above this natural or background figure should be
considered the pollution load generated by construction.
In addition to these field surveys, there should be an evaluation
of existing gauging, monitoring, and sampling information to estab-
lish stormwater runoff quantities and the gross sediment yield from
the sites. Much data on sediment problems is readily attainable from
records of local, State, and Federal agencies such as conservation
districts; county public works departments; State conservation,
transportation, water quality, and water development agencies; and
the USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service,
and the Corps of Engineers.
Solution Development
The technical capability to control erosion and runoff of sedi-
ment and other construction-related pollutants is already well
developed. It involves protecting disturbed soil from falling.
raindrops and flowing runoff water, controlling the energy of the
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.7
runoff, trapping sediment that is being transported, and applying
good housekeeping practices for potential pollutants other than
sediment. The cost of effective erosion and sediment control is
small and so is not a major impediment to implementing controls. The
principal problem lies in achieving effective administrative control
and enforcement by responsible agencies.
Onsite, a construction runoff problem is often not readily
apparent until after too much sediment has been eroded. Offsite, it
is frequently difficult to discover the source of the polluting
material. As a result, the potential emphasis should be on keeping
potential pollutants onsite"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure." Controlling sediment by relying on water quality standards
is simply not feasible, because even if the source of that sediment
could be found, implementing corrective measures during the runoff
season would be next to impossible. It is much easier to exercise
preventive measures during the dry season, while construction is
going on.
A developer or construction company can devise an adequate
erosion and sediment control plan for use onsite. In doing so, there
are two elements to consider. The first deals with proper planning
of the development, the second with the controls needed where erosion
and sediment runoff are problems.
First, construction plans should be designed to minimize
short- and long-term surface and ground water drainage
problems, both by confining construction drainage to the
least critical areas through the site and by minimizing
the effects on the natural drainage system.
Second, construction plans should include onsite sediment
and erosion control measures. After the peak runoff rates
and other constants for the area have been determined, the
site plan should prescribe the ground cover, the erosion
control measures to be provided, and the method of install-
ing, operating, and maintaining the measures.
Deciding what ground protection covers (for example, plants,
mulch, wood chips, or mats) are needed is very important. Because
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.8
they are inexpensive and effective, both temporary and permanent
plantings and supplementary mulches of one kind or another are
usually selected, because preventing erosion is more practical and
less expensive than providing structural measures to the subsequent
movement of sediment.
Structural measures, such as detention basins to trap sediment,
often are necessary. In some cases other water control structures,
such as diversion ditches, berms, slope drains, or sediment basins,
may be required to reduce sediment runoff further.
The management aspects of the site plan deal mainly with the
operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures,
including the sequence of their implementation and removal relative
to other activities on the site. Management controls are also
important in controlling the use, application, or removal of
potential water pollutants such as oils, litter, and pesticides.
It is difficult to generalize information on the costs and
effectiveness of various types of controls, because of varying site
conditions and changing labor, materials, and equipment costs. In
many cases costs are partially offset by the savings realized through
better site planning, reduced grading or regrading, and decreased
maintenance of the finished site. Table 5.1 shows typical cost
ranges compiled by EPA staff during the late 1980s.
Good erosion and sediment control, in conjunction with management
of stormwater runoff, will prevent the movement of many pollutants
other than sediments into receiving waters. Those pollutants that
are in solution, however, or are carried on fine-grained sediments,
may pass through all sediment control measures and reach water bodies
downstream. Material such as pesticides, petrochemicals, and fertil-
izer are extremely difficult to control once they are present in the
runoff water. The only practical options are either to provide
expensive water treatment facilities, or stormwater detention basins,
or, preferably, to prevent these pollutants from reaching runoff
waters by using proper application techniques and good housekeeping
practices. Some of these techniques are discussed below.
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff
Page 5.9
Table 5.1
Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Construction Site Runoff Control
Type of Control
Ground Cover
Vegetation, with mulch
Asphalt emulsion
Excelsior (with staples)
Erosion-Reducing Structures
Temporary diversions
Permanent diversions
Level spreaders
Silt fences
Sediment Detention Basins
Small
Large
Estimated
Effectivenesss
Percent
90-99
98
90
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
60
70
Estimated
Cost
$800-1, 400/acre
$480/acre
$l,500/acre
$l-2/linear ft.
$5-10/linear ft.
$2.50-5.00/ft.
$3-6/ linear ft.
$300-1,600
$6,400-9,750
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.10
Pesticides
The use of many insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides is
restricted by Federal, State, or local regulations. To avoid
environmmental problems, strict adherence to recommended practices is
necessary.
Application rates should conform to label directions.
Application equipment should be cleaned or disposed of
properly after use.
Storage areas should be protected from the weather and
from public access.
Areas that have been recently treated with particularly
potent pesticides should be clearly marked to warn
trespassers and the unwary.
The time of application is extremely important in prevent-
ing runoff.
Do not apply pesticides when heavy rainfall shortly
after application is likely.
Do not apply pesticides during extremely hot or cold
weather. Under freezing conditions, the chemicals
will not be absorbed and will enter runoff.
Often, more pesticide is carried in solution in runoff water than
is attached to fine-grained sediment particles. However, the concen-
tration is far greater in sediment and so many have more detrimental
effects when the sediments are deposited in water bodies.
Petrochemicals
Sediment control is the chief mechanism for controlling petro-
chemical pollutants, such as oils, gasolines, and greases. Addi-
tional measures include proper collection and disposal of the waste
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff
Page 5.11
products, prevention of oil leaks, and proper maintenance of
equipment.
Used oils and greases and greasy or oily rags and papers
should be disposed of in proper receptacles and kept
out of contact with rain or runoff water.
Dumping waste materials at the construction site should
be prohibited.
Liquid and solid wastes should be collected in containers
and regularly transported to sanitary landfills.
When machinery is to be maintained, lubricated, or re-
paired onsite, it should be placed on a pad of absorbent
material to catch any leaks, spills, or small discharges.
Equipment should be washed only at specified locations,
and the runoff should be collected in holding ponds.
Neither equipment cleaning nor maintenance work should
be done adjacent to any stream or water body.
Fertilizers
Evaluate the need for fertilizers and other soil additives
carefully, so that only optimum amounts are applied. This will help
prevent excess nutrients from entering ground or surface water. The
loss of nutrients can be further minimized by dividing the optimum
amount into several smaller applications.
Solid Wastes
Construction activities generate a variety of solid wastes:
residues from trees and shrubs removed during land clearing; wood
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.12
and paper from packaged supplies; and scrap metals, sanitary wastes,
rubber, plastic, glass fragments, and the like from normal, day-to-
day operations. The best mechanism for controlling these wastes is
to provide adequate, effective disposal facilities. These wastes
should be removed from the site frequently and taken to suitable,
authorized disposal sites.
Inert materials, which do not leach and cause ground
water problems, may be used to refill borrow pits or
other excavated areas. They may also be used as road
fills or fills for other facilities.
Trees and other vegetation may be chipped up and used
onsite as inexpensive, convenient mulch.
Any solid wastes trapped in sediment detention basins
should be removed as quickly as possible.
State and local antilitter ordinances should be enforced.
If no violation of air pollution requirements is involved,
flammable wastes may be burned.
Stormwater
In the past, the philosophy for construction site stormwater
control was to route it through as quickly as possible. Areas
downstream from the sites then had to bear the brunt of accelerated
and increased peak storm runoff. Flooding, excess channel erosion,
and other damaging effects resulted.
The proper method of stormwater management is to reduce and delay
peak discharges of runoff water. This may be achieved by
Increasing infiltration in the drainage areas, thus reduc-
ing the amount of precipitation that actually becomes
runoff;
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.13
Increasing the time of runoff concentration by accentu-
ating the meandering of drainageways to reduce gradients
and runoff velocity; and
Providing temporary storage facilities, so that the
stored water can be released at controlled rates.
Implementation
The crucial element of construction NFS pollution control
programs is the enforcement of standards. It is not enough for
control agencies merely to develop and provide information on
effective erosion and sediment control measures; they must ensure
that these measures are properly applied and adequately maintained.
Public interest in methods and programs for controlling erosion
and sediment loss from construction sites grew during the 1970s.
Early efforts in several States provided examples of control which
led to the development of the Model State Act for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control. This model act was prepared by an interagency
group and published by the Council of State Governments in their
document 1973 Suggested State Legislation.
Now 14 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands
have relatively effective laws on construction erosion and sediment.
As Table 5.2 shows, similar legislation has been introduced in
several other States. A review of existing legislation shows that,
despite the model act, provisions for sediment control vary widely.
Most States which have effective legislation approach the
construction site erosion problem by trying to prevent eroded soils
from leaving the site. They do this by requiring that plans for
implementing control measures be completed before construction begins
and by making the issuance of local construction permits dependent on
approval of the site plan. Site plans generally must be developed in
accordance with standards or specifications issued by the States or
by local governments. Manuals which illustrate planning techniques
and control measures are available from several of the operating
-------
Table 5.2
Status of Effective Legislation for Sediment Control In Construction
State
A 1 abama
Alaska
Ar ! zona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Law
Drafted
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Introduced
to Legislature
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enacted
X
X
X
X
X
(1)
X
X
X
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carol ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol ina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyom i ng
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Law
Drafted
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Introduced
to Legislature
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enacted
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1) Governor's executive order assigns sediment control
responsibility to conservation districts.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.15
State control agencies. (See the reference section later in this
chapter.)
States often assign counties or soil and water conservation
districts the responsibility of reviewing and approving erosion and
sediment control plans and overseeing their operation. The National
Association of Conservation Districts has been instrumental in
attempting to gain State enactment of laws to establish these
districts as management agencies.
Most States have enforcement authority, and several hold such
authority jointly with local governments. In States with the
strongest legislation, the State may enforce the program if local
governments fail to do so.
Although some States impose site discharge limits, the evidence
shows that effective control of construction-generated pollution can
best be achieved through proper site planning, adequate review and
approval of the plans by a responsible management agency, adherence
to the plans, and, when necessary, aggressive enforcement of laws and
regulations.
This last element is critical, for legislation alone is not
sufficient. In order for controls to be effective, the laws must be
enforced. Little can be said with certainty about the success of the
control programs themselves. A Soil Conservation Study of^construc-
tion site erosion indicates that 41 percent of the country's con-
struction runoff comes from six States without effective legislation;
however, significant erosion problems also exist in four States that
do have such legislation. Few local governments have taken strong
action toward implementing effective programs without specific State
support, although it is often strong local interest which prompts
this support.
To be effective, a control program must have the resources needed
to perform plan reviews and inspections. Several local governments
impose permit issuance fees to recover all or part of their costs.
EPA records show that these fees can be related to the surface area
of the construction site, the volume of earth to be moved, or the
cost of moving the disturbed earth. Some ordinances allow
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Page 5.16
substantial fee reductions for supervised development work that is
done by an entity other than the control agency.
The Federal role, through EPA, has been to prepare technical
information on problems and solutions and to explain the benefits of
enacting erosion and sediment control legislation at the State level.
This role has been carried out through a State sediment control
institutes program; institutes have been held in over 40 States.
As the studies and programs conducted by Montgomery County,
Maryland, and the California State Water Resources Control Board (see
Case Studies 1 and 2) illustrate, not only do we have the technical
capacity to control erosion and sediment runoff, but the cost of
effective controls is smallespecially when compared with the cost
of trying to repair damage once it has been done.
References
Brady, Nyle C. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 8th ed. New
York: Macmillan, 1974.
California State Water Resources Board. Demonstration of Erosion
and Sediment Control Technology. Lake Tahoe Region of
California"!March 1978.
Council of State Governments. 1973 Suggested State Legislation.
Volume 32, September 1972. ~~
Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Division. Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
January 1980. "~~~~'
Illustrates planning techniques and control measures.
Georgia State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. Manual for
Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, n.d.
Illustrates planning techniques and control measures.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.17
Krynine, Dimitri P., and Judd, William R. Principles of Engineering
Geology and Geotechnics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.
National Conference of State Legislatures. State Soil Erosion
and Sediment Control Laws, by Susan B. Klein.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service.
Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of
the Rocky Mountains; Guide for Selection of Practices for
Soil and Water Conservation, by W. H. Wisczmeier and D. D.
Smith.Prepared in cooperation with Purdue Agricultural
Experiment Station. Agriculture Handbook No. 282.
May 1965.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Distri-
bution of Data on Erosion of Streambanks, Gullies, Roads, and
Construct ion Areas. National Bulletin No. 290-14. December 11,
1980.
U.S. Department of Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. Effect
of Urbanization on Streamflow and Sediment Transport in
the Rock Creek and Anacostia River Basins, Montgomery
County, Maryland, 1962-1974. Professional Paper 1003.
1978.
Hydrology for Urban Land Planning: A Guidebook
on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. Circular
554. 1968.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Planning
and Standards. Methods of Quickly Vegetating Soils of Low
Productivity, Construction Activities'? EPA 440/9-75-006.
July 1975.
Nonpoint Source Control Guidance, Construction Activi-
ties . December 1976.
. Report on State Sediment Control Institutes Program.
EPA 440/9-75-001.April 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Program
Operations. Comparative Cost of Erosion and Sediment Control
Construction Activities.EPA 430/9-73-016.July 1973.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.18
Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition Resulting from
Highway Construction and Land Development.
September 1971."
_ Processes. Procedures, and Methods To Control Pol-
lution from All Construction Activities.EPA 430/9-73-
007.October 1973.~~
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook. 2nd ed. 1980.
Illustrates planning techniques and control measures.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.19
Case Study 1; Local Erosion and Sediment Control Program
Location: Montgomery County, Maryland
EPA Region: III
Contact: Montgomery County Department of Environ-
mental Protection, 101 Monroe Street,
Rockville, Maryland 20850, (301) 251-2360
In 1961 the State of Maryland's attorney general declared
sediment to be a pollutant. Erosion- and sediment-related problems
had been found to be costly, affecting directly or indirectly every
taxpayer in the State. Ditches were clogged and channels were filled
with sediment, decreasing channel capacities and increasing flood
problems. Ponds were filled, and spawning grounds for shell- and
finfish destroyed.
In 1962, Montgomery County began a study to define sediment
problems and urban runoff. (The county is located just north of
Washington, D.C., and much of it can be considered part of the
greater metropolitan Washington area.) In 1966, the study was
expanded to evaluate the response to sediment control practices
in areas undergoing urban development.
The county collected data on land use, land cover, precipita-
tion, streamflow, and sediment for nine drainage subbasins in a
32-square-mile area. It determined that the average annual suspended
sediment yields for urban construction sites ranged from 7 to 100
tons per acre, depending on such factors as slopes, proximity to
stream channels, natural vegetation buffer zones, and the use of
sediment control measures. During the course of the study, it was
estimated that the suspended sediment load in the nearby Anacostia
River basin between 1962 and 1974 could have been reduced by 50
percent if strictly enforced sediment controls had been used, and
that the controls would have cost only $19 per ton ($1,030 per
acre).
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.20
In 1971 Montgomery County enacted an ordinance to control
erosion and sediment runoff. It requires that plans for subdivision
development and other construction facilities include erosion,
sediment, and stormwater control measures which meet State and local
standards. Plans are received by the county conservation district,
and inspection and enforcement are carried out by the county
Department of Environmental Protection, Sediment Control Section.
Permit fees to help pay for program activities have been
established at $40 for small areas of land disturbance (less than
30,000 square feet) and 2 cents per square foot for areas over this
size. In addition, a performance bond of up to $10,000 is required,
depending on the size o the project. Violations of the ordinance can
result in withdrawal of the permit and possibly a stop-work order
that can be enforced by arrest.
Since Montgomery County enacted its sediment control ordinance
in 1971, construction site suspended sediment yields have decreased
60 to 80 percent.
For more information, write to the address given above.
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff Case Studies
Page 5.21
Case Study 2; Erosion and Sediment Control Strategy
Location: Sierra Nevada, California, Area
EPA Region: IX
Contact: California State Water Resources Control Board,
1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California 95814,
(916) 445-3993
The California State Water Resources Control Board carried out a
three-year project to determine methods of preventing and correcting
erosion and sediment problems. Two representative project sites were
studied. The first, Northstar-at-Tahoe, was a well planned and well
constructed residential and recreational development begun in the
early 1970s. The second, the Rubican Properties, was a poorly
developed and poorly constructed development built in the late 1950s
and early 1960s.
At both sites the Board conducted extensive hydrologic and water
quality monitoring programs. The data monitored included precipita-
tion, snow depth, streamflow, suspended sediment and its concentra-
tion, and benthic macroinvertebrate communities (bottom-living
aquatic organisms).
At Northstar-at-Tahoe, postdevelopment erosion rates were esti-
mated to be 100 percent above predevelopment levels, and the benthic
macroinvertebrate community of nearby West. Martis Creek had suffered
only minor perturbations. By contrast, erosion rates at the other
site were estimated to be more than 10,000 percent above the pre-
development levels, and in a nearby creek the benthic macro-
invertebrate community has been almost completely destroyed. While
the development at Northstar-at-Tahoe has had a minimal and perhaps
acceptable impact on West Martis Creek, the development of Rubican
Properties has led to totally unacceptable destruction of the travel
stream in the basin, Lonely Gulch Creek.
The cost of Northstar's extensive, preplanned erosion controls
was less than $400 per developed unit or residential lot. By con-
trast, the cost to complete corrective erosion control at the other
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.22
site would range from $1,000 to $3,000 or more per residential lot.
Results gained from the study show that it is much less expensive to
control the erosion and sediment from construction sites by a preven-
tion program enforced by a responsible control agency than to correct
problems generated by past activities.
For further details, contact the California State Water
Resources Control Board.
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff Case Studies
Page 5.23
Case Study 3: Local Sediment Control Program
Location: Chesterfield County, Virginia
EPA Region: III
Contact: Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, 203 Governor Street, Suite 206,
Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-2064
In 1976, the State of Virginia's General Assembly determined
that, as a result of erosion of lands and the deposition of sediments
in waters of the State, fish, aquatic life, recreation, and other
uses of land and waters were being affected and that it was necessary
to establish and implement a statewide program to control such
problems.
A statewide erosion and sediment control law was enacted. It
was to be implemented by the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, in cooperation with counties, cities, towns, other
subdivisions of the State, and other public and private entities.
Each district within the Commonwealth was required to develop and
adopt a control program consistent with the State's.
Chesterfield, one of Virginia's fastest growing counties, devel-
oped the required program. Similar to others in the State, this con-
trol program involves review of the construction erosion and sediment
control plans by the county Division of Environmental Engineering.
Developers submit plans which include the site plan, containing
topographic data, location and types of control measures, and any
additional information needed to evaluate the project. Cost esti-
mates and a plan review fee are also submitted. The county evaluates
the plans and notifies the developer of any necessary corrections.
Once the plans are approved, the developer submits a siltation agree-
ment and a bond, and construction can begin.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.24
Violations of the erosion and sediment control ordinance result
first in the transmittal to the developer, by certified mail, of a
five-day notice citing the violations. This is followed by a three-
day notice and, if there is still no response, a "cease building"
notice. A court summons is issued if the developer fails to respond
to these notices.
It is at this stage that one problem is becoming apparent. Some
courts allow continuances so often that by the time a case is finally
heard, construction is over and the violations are no longer taking
place. Damage to downstream areas, however, has already been done.
Another problem has to do with the attitude of many people
involved with the erosion and sediment control practices. Since many
engineers design the best management practices after the site has
been fully laid out, the measures often are not incorporated effec-
tively. They may be installed at the wrong location or at the wrong
time, decreasing their efficiency. The developers often notice this
lack of efficiency and conclude that the practices are a waste of
time and money.
Still, the program is reported to be working well. there are
fewer complaints of damages downstream from construction sites, and
fewer site plans need revision. This is evidence of growing confi-
dence in and understanding of the division's activities.
For further information, write or call the Virginia Soil and
Water Conservation Commission at the above address.
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.25
Case Study 4: Guidance on BMPs for Transportation Projects
Location: California
EPA Region: IX
Contact: California Department of Transportation,
Transportation Laboratory, 5900 Folson Blvd.,
Sacramento, California 95819, (916) 444-4796
The California State Depatment of Transportation (Caltrans) has
prepared and distributed a document entitled "Best Management
Practices for Control of Water Pollution (Transportation Activi-
ties) " It provides information on all the functional areas of
planning, constructing, and maintaining a transportation system to
minimize adverse effects on water quality. These best management
practices will be reviewed periodically and updated when necessary to
keep the program effective in maintaining minimal adverse impacts on
water quality from highway construction.
To implement the BMP program, a memorandum of understanding
between Caltrans and the California State Water Resources Control
Board will designate Caltrans as the agency responsible for water
quality issues affecting the State road system. The control board
will help assess problems and recommend corrective measures.
It is a fully cooperative program which involves many local,
State, and Federal agencies. Highway districts are authorized to
establish memoranda of understanding with local resource conservation
districts (RCDs) and regional water quality control boards for
participation in remedial programs to provide long-term solutions to
erosion problems. Specialists from the RCDs, the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, and other State and Federal agencies will
provide expert advice on erosion control.
Once the initial BMP plan has been approved by the State Water
Resources Control Board, it is to become part of the overall State
program of water pollution control.
For more information, communicate with the California Department
of Transportation at the address above.
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff Case Studies
Page 5.26
Case Study 5; Reservoir Watershed Erosion and Sediment Control
Program ~~ " ~~ ~~ '
Location:
EPA Region:
Contact:
Greater Boston, Massachusetts, Region
I
Kevin McSweeney, EPA Region I, John F.
Kennedy Building, Room 2203, Boston,
Massachusetts 02203, (617) 223-5139
Under an agreement between the State of Massachusetts and EPA,
the State, EPA, and the Metropolitan District Commission have been
working with the two areawide planning commissions to develop model
erosion control ordinances, including subdivision regulations. These
ordinances will help protect the Wachusetts Reservoir, a major
"finished" water supply for the greater Boston region.
These agencies are also consummating a memorandum of understand-
ing for cooperation on agricultural and forestry practices in the
reservoir's watershed. At the same time, the Federal Highway
Administration, EPA, and the State are working together on erosion
control measures for the construction of Interstate Highway 1-190.
For information on the results of these cooperative undertakings,
contact the regional representative at the address given above.
-------
Chapter 5
Construction Site Runoff Case Studies
Page 5.27
Case Study 6; Local Regulatory Programs Recommended
Location:
EPA Region:
Contact:
Washington County, Wisconsin
Ralph Christensen, EPA Region V, 230 South
Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 353-3545
In Washington County, Wisconsin, agencies from all levels of
government worked together to identify sediment problems in urban and
rural areas, define the effectiveness of control measures, and create
an effective coalition of government agencies with jurisdiction over
land use and water quality problems.
Monitoring programs were established in the rapidly urbanizing
southeastern portion of the county. Data from this program indicated
sediment losses up to 36,000 kg/ha occurred during initial construc-
tion. When most of the construction in the project was completed,
losses decreased to 4,600 kg/ha. Once the problems were defined and
solutions developed, the challenges were to work with local decision-
makers to implement the proposals and to observe and document the
results of these efforts.
One of the goals of the project was to develop a mechanism for
sediment control in the county. County statues required developers
to submit a development plan for review. The plan did not require
provisions controlling runoff from sites under construction. Those
who worked on the project concluded that programs for controlling
construction site erosion and sediment transport were equitable and
workable. Their recommendation was that regulatory programs should
be adopted wherever they are needed, by all local units of govern-
ment .
As a result of the project, a model ordinance requiring erosion
and sediment control measures was drafted and widely circulated among
county and town officials and town legal representatives. Public
hearings also were held. The county board unanimously approved the
-------
Chapter 5 Construction Site Runoff Case Studies Page 5.28
ordinance, and later all incorporated areas in the county added the
county-adopted provisions to their subdivision controls. Some
entities used the soil and water conservation districts for a review
agency; others used their own engineers.
As a result of the Washington County project, a uniform mechanism
for sediment and erosion control during subdivision construction has
been established in the county. Acceptance of and compliance with
the new requirements have been excellent. Most important, the new
requirements were developed within existing statutory frameworks and
new legislative mandates were not required.
For further information, write to the address given above.
-------
6 SILVICULTURAL RUNOFF
-------
6 SILVICULTURAL RUNOFF
Problem Identification
The fact that a silviculture operation is moving into an area
does not mean that a water pollution problem is imminent. On the
contrary, most problems of this sort are site-specific and depend on
a variety of factors, particularly the size and type of the forestry
operation, land and climatic conditions, and the beneficial uses of
the affected waterways (e.g., game fishing, spawning grounds, drink-
ing supply). However, if a forest watershed is suddenly exposed to
high sedimentation, pesticide contamination, nutrient overload, or
high water temperatures, local forestry operations may be the cause.
If such operations are scheduled to move into an area with a sensi-
tive watershed, certain steps can be taken to identify and prevent or
minimize potential problems.
Identifying the sources of existing problems requires some fairly
straightforward steps, such as surveying forestry operations in
relation to watercourse locations. In some cases, these steps may be
sufficient to pinpoint problem areas. When several forestry opera-
tions are active in an area or when large tracts of land are af-
fected, further investigation may be needed to determine where to
install control measures.
It is more cost effective to prevent potential problems than to
solve them once they- have occurred. This requires adequate predic-
tion techniques. Making accurate predictions requires data about the
many factors related to silvicultural pollution: soil types, slope,
existing vegetation and cover, climate, and proximity to wetlands and
water bodies. The characteristics of the silviculture operation are
also important: type of activity, number of acres involved, manage-
ment methods, and scheduling. Information on problems can be
obtained by evaluation of existing data and reports, maps and other
pictorial measures, and special studies of all kinds. Methods are
available for predicting potential pollution loads and monitoring
data to assess water quality changes, impacts, and reductions. The
6.1
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.2
state of the art in this area is still fairly imprecise, but several
tools are available.
Existing Data
Existing data are usually available in the form of maps, aerial
photographs, geology and soil reports, forest survey and range
analysis allotment reports, streamflow and precipitation records,
research publications, barometer watershed results, and the like.
These data should be collected and reviewed prior to field investiga-
tions to gain a general understanding of the landscapes, the
resources, and the problems connected with the use of the resources.
They also indicate what data are still needed.
Field Surveys
Field surveys serve many purposes. They correct errors or omis-
sions in existing maps and reports; provide a look at existing and
potential problem areas; offer specific information about runoff,
soils, slopes, vegetation, construction activities, and chemical and
pesticide use; and constitute a double-check on silviculture opera-
tors. Often, detailed soil maps for areas west of the 100th meridian
(central United States) are not available. As a result, field
surveys are often the only means of planning for potential pollution
problems in many western States.
Predictive Methods
Predictive methods may involve mathematical models for forecast-
ing pollutant contributions. They are very useful in analyzing data,
pinpointing critical problem areas, and determining management needs.
However, a user must be cautious, as they are only as good as the
data that go into them.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is one of the most
commonly used predictive tools. Modified to address forestry
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.3
conditions, it can be used to estimate long-term sheet erosion from
forest land. This estimate is usually in terms of tons per acre per
year. The Forest Service uses a modified USLE extensively to predict
erosion and sedimentation rates in the Northeast and Southeast. It
includes factors for soil conditions, land and canopy cover, topog-
raphy, and rainfall. The modified soil loss equation is shown in
Figure 6.1.
The USLE has two major limitations for forest areas. First, it
is dependent on accurate soil information, and detailed soil maps, as
has been noted, are unavailable for many western States. Second, the
equation estimates soil loss from sheet and rill erosion rather than
the total sediment delivered to receiving waters.
For water quality planners, predicting suspended sediment levels
entering surface water is more important than predicting onsite
erosion. Planners need answers to questions such as: What is the
suspended sediment contribution of each land use or disturbance in
the forest? What control measures are required to reduce the sedi-
ment contribution to an acceptable level?
The First Assessment of Suspended Sediment (PASS) was proposed by
the U.S. Forest Service (in Estimating the Impact of Forest Manage-
ment of Water Quality, October 1971) to be used to evaluate the
impact of disturbances or control practices on suspended sediments in
surface water, to identify problems, and to evaluate possible
solutions. In addition to sheet erosion, FASS also takes into
account gully and channel erosion.
There are other quantitative methods for assessing potential
gully erosion, channel erosion, and thermal pollution. Other than
site-specific case studies, no methods exist for predicting the
effects of silviculture-related organics, pesticides, and nutrients.
However, because soil erosion and surface runoff are the major means
of transport for these substances, the techniques for predicting
sediment contributions may be useful in estimating the quantities of
forest chemicals reaching streams and lakes.
-------
Figure 6.1
Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
For Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest Land
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) has been modified to better estimate
sheet and rill erosion where forest management activities and other causes
expose soil to the erosive energy of rainfall and runoff. Erosion is defined
as the amount of soil delivered to the toe of the slope where either deposition
begins or where runoff becomes concentrated. The USLE does not estimate gully,
landslide, soil creep, or stream channel erosion. The procedure was validated
using research plots and watersheds.
The equation is:
A = RKLSCP
where:
A » the computed soil loss per unit area, expressed in the units
selected for K and for the period selected for R. In practice, these are
usually so selected that they compute A in tons per acre per year, but
other units can be selected.
R = the rainfall and runoff factor, the number of rainfall erosion
index units, plus a factor for runoff from snowmelt or applied water where
such runoff is significant.
K = the soil credibility factor, which is the soil loss rate per
erosion index unit for a specified soil as measured on a unit plot, which
is defined as a 72.6-foot length of uniform 9% slope continuously in clean-
tilled fa I low.
L « the slope-length factor, the ratio of soil loss from the field
slope length to that from a 72.6-foot length under identical conditions.
S = the slope-steepness factor, the ratio of soil loss from the field
slope gradient to that from a 9% slope under otherwise identical condi-
tions.
C » the cover and management factor, the ratio of soil loss from an
area with specified cover and management to that from an identical area in
tilled, continuous fallow.
P » the support practice factor, the ratio of soil loss with a support
practice like contour disking to that with straight-row farming up and down
the slope.
The erosion estimate Is made by multiplying the values for the six factors
(RKLSCP). Values for these factors are derived from figures, tables, published
Information, and field observations.
From: A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest Lands. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. State & Private Forestry.
Southeastern Area. Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication SA-TP 11.
September 1980.
6.4
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.5
Monitoring Information
Monitoring information can be used to document both ambient
stream conditions and the effects of silvicultural activities as they
occur. Additional control measures can then be installed if needed.
This approach is effective as long as pollution problems can be
effectively managed after the fact. For some problems, this may not
be possible.
There are numerous sources of water quality data. Among these
are the EPA, Forest Service, Geological Survey, Army Corps of
Engineers, and State and local water pollution control agencies.
Most of these agencies keep their own data. The EPA's STORET System,
however, has the data of most of these other agencies. It is a
comprehensive source of water quality data in computer-processable
form. STORET data are retrievable at regional EPA offices.
When data are unavailable from existing sources, local water
quality monitoring can be done to determine the effects of silvi-
cultural activities. These effects are usuallly determined by
comparing upstream samples with downstream samples. This normally
provides useful results in a relatively short time. Long-term
monitoring is needed to indicate natural background water quality
levels for proper interpretation of upstream and downstream data.
Monitoring should generally be limited to those waters and water
characteristics which silvicultural activities will most likely
affect: temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, dissolved
oxygen, specific conductance, nutrients, and pesticides. Streamflow
should be monitored to assist in interpreting data.
The sampling frequency must be carefully established so that all
water quality changes resulting from silvicultural activities will be
observed. Monitoring schemes must be built upon some knowledge of
how and when pollutants are likely to be produced. For example, we
know that forest chemicals most frequently enter streams during
application. We know sediment enters streams primarily during
storms. Water temperature monitoring should be geared to midsummer,
midday periods on hot, clear days.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.6
Solution Development
If water quality problems due to silvicultural activities are
identified, solutions can be tailored to specific problems. EPA has
published technical materials that provide information about assess-
ment procedures and best management practices (BMPs). Processes,
Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from SilvT-
cultural Activities, published in 1973, was one of the initial docu-
ments produced. It discusses changes in existing forestry practices
that can protect water quality and makes recommendations for the
proper design and planning of forestry activities and was the basis
for State developed BMPs. The approach of this document and of most
of EPA's silviculture program guidance is threefold:
Minimize soil-disturbing activities which will result
in the release of excess forest constituents such as
sediment into the water.
Introduce as few new pollutants into the forest as
possible.
Manage silvicultural activities to keep eroded soil and
other pollutants out of the water (containment).
Forestry-related pollutants can be most effectively controlled
when all factors in the silviculture and harvest system are coordi-
nated with proper soil and water management. Different practices
should be used for different types of silvicultural activities.
Sediments
As the following discussion makes clear, however, many BMPs serve
more than one pollutant-reducing purpose. Streamside management
zones for example, in addition to controlling the amount of soil that
reaches a stream, can be used to control fertilizer and pesticide
pollution and to prevent thermal pollution.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.7
Roads and Trails
Construction, use, and maintenance of road and trail systems are
the greatest sources of sediments from silvicultural operations. If
roads and trails are carefully laid out, maintained, and rehabili-
tated after use, the amount of sediment they contribute can be
greatly reduced. To reduce sediment:
Plan road systems carefully to reduce their total
length.
Avoid rugged terrain where extensive cuts and fills
will be needed.
Keep roads and trails out of watercourses and areas
near surface water bodies.
Use armor materials and mulching or seeding immediately
following construction or use to reduce erosion of trails,
roadsides, and fill.
Prevent erosion of roadside drainage channels by surfac-
ing them with hard materials or by building turnouts and
other structures to reduce velocities and minimize volume
buildup.
Prohibit the use of unfinished roads.
Harvest Operations
Trees are harvested singly or in small groups (selective
cutting), in larger groups but leaving some trees to reseed areas
(seed-tree or shelter-wood cutting), or by completely cutting large
areas (clearcutting). The selection of the harvest system is basic
to sediment control and must be responsive to a range of conditions
on any particular logging location. Selective logging methods are
likely to generate low yields of sediment at frequent intervals. In
contrast, clearcutting can result in increased sediment yields for
perhaps two to five years, followed by a long period of time when the
forest floor is undisturbed and sediment yields are minimal.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.8
Appropriate logging systems can also control sediment. There is
usually a choice between two or more major systems: tractor, high
lead, skyline, balloon, helicopter, or variations and combinations of
these. These systems have varying potentials for erosion and
sedimentation, cost, and adaptability to forest types and terrains.
Several studies have shown that clearcutting, normally a high
sediment yield system, can be one of the most sediment-free systems
if it is coupled with logging systems that lift logs off the ground
for transportation from the cutting site to land for transfer to
trucks.
Efforts should be made to avoid disturbing the forest litter and
soils. Other harvest practices can also help reduce runoff and
erosion.
Use a cable sky-line system for logging on steep slopes
and in areas where soil erodes easily.
Make streamside management zones off limits to vehicles.
These zones filter out debris and sediment transported
by runoff from adjacent harvest sites and reduce thermal
pollution by preserving shade over watercourses.
Block roads and trails, immediately or as soon as possible
after harvest operations are completed, and provide adequate
maintenance of associated drains to prevent erosion and the
formation of gullies.
Reseed exposed soil with grass and trees.
When possible, avoid sensitive areas when restocking with
commercial species. Site preparation associated with such
reseeding often involves disturbance of the soil, which can
promote erosion on steep slopes and fragile areas.
Pesticides
Pesticides should be selected for effectiveness and minimum
toxicity to the environment. Guidelines for pesticide selection
include: low persistence in the environment, low susceptibility to
transport through the environment (nonvolatile, water insoluble),
high selectivity (minimum toxicity to nontarget species), bio-
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.9
degradability to harmless end-products, lack of bioaccumulation in
the food chain.
Carefully following the rules for application will minimize
pesticide pollution.
Apply pesticides when weather conditions are most
favorable for assuring that a maximum percentage reaches
target site and species.
Avoid watercourses. Leave a strip between streambeds and
treated areas. The following strip widths are generally
recommended for herbicides:
for aerial application: by plane, 100 ft; by
helicopter, 50 ft;
for ground-vehicle application, 25 ft;
for hand spraying, 25 ft;
for hand injection, 15 ft.
Dispose of all containers and pesticide residues properly,
Apply pesticides only to the areas that need treatment
rather than using blanket applications to both diseased
and healthy areas. It has been proposed that aerial
application be done by helicopters to enable more
accurate placement on target sites and species.
Avoid the excessive use of herbicides to prevent vegeta-
tion growth on roadsides.
When possible, use alternatives to pesticides, such as
prescribed fire, mowing, and integrated pest management.
Fertilizers
Pollution from fertilizers can be controlled with many of the
same management practices used to control pesticides.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.10
Fertilize only when soil tests indicate that benefits are
expected to be economically worthwhile.
Fertilize at rates that do not exceed the adsorption
capacity of the soil and the uptake capacity of timber
stands.
Apply fertilizers in frequent, small doses as economically
practical rather than in infrequent, large amounts. Such
frequent application is environmentally safer.
Avoid application on watercourses, and leave strips between
streams and fertilized areas.
Apply fertilizers when wind drift is minimal, and do not
apply them in periods of heavy rainfall.
To ensure accurate placement, use helicopters for aerial
application.
Limit aerial applications of fertilizer to pellet form
(coarse pellets are better than fine ones); restrict liquid
fertilizer sprays where feasible.
Fire Retardants
Do not apply fire retardants directly to streams and lakes.
Thermal Pollution
Thermal pollution can generally be controlled by maintaining
shading strips of vegetation along streams. The width of the strip
can be determined by onsite inspection. Narrow streams can be kept
cool by low-growing cottonwood, alder, and willows without sacri-
ficing any marketable timber. Wider streams require taller trees to
shade them.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.11
The Nonpoint Pollution Control Process
In March 1977, EPA issued a document entitled Nonpoint Source
Control GuidanceSilviculture to help forestry and water quality
planners develop BMPs for controlling silviculture-related pollution.
These guidelines concentrate on identifying actual problems and
establishing an appropriate technical framework for effective,
practical corrective action. This methodology has served as the
basis for most States' silviculture programs.
This guidance was based on 10 milestones (shown in Figure 6.2):
1. Identification and evaluation of climatic, physiographic,
and biologic interactions within the designated area.
2. Description and evaluation of each silvicultural activity.
3. Description of hydrologic, physical, chemical, and biologic
characteristics of the receiving waters.
4. Identification of the degree to which the changes in
inherent pollution hazards might contribute or are
contributing potential pollutants to the waters.
5. Comparison of past trends and present water quality to water
quality goals, and identification and definition of
problems.
6. Development of the BMP design criteria needed to meet water
quality goals.
7. Identification of a range of technically feasible, alter-
native silvicultural practices.
8. Screening of the alternatives to identify those that are
feasible, taking into account factors such as economics,
social attitudes, and needs.
9. Development of implementation schedules for the selected
BMPs, followed by actual implementation under appropriate
regulatory or nonregulatory institutional arrangements.
-------
Figure 6.2
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Process
o
©
©
0
0
©
NATURAL CONDITIONS
BIOLOGIC
PHYSIOGRAPHIC *
CLIMATIC
PAST & CURRENT
SILVICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES
CONDITION OF
RECEIVING WATERS, ^
PAST & PRESENT
WATER DUALITY GOALS *.
for Silviculture
NATURAL POLLUTION
HAZARD INDEX OF
LANDSCAPE UNITS
WITHIN THE TOTAL
PLANNING AREA
I
UNITS OR PORTION OF
UNITS DRAINING TO
EACH STREAM OR
STREAM SEGMENT
1
LANDSCAPE UNITS
AFFECTED AND CONDITIONS
CREATED BY PAST AND
PRESENT ACTIVITIES
1
CHANGE IN HAZARD INDEX
DUE TO SILVICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES AS MODIFIED
BY RECOVERY
|
CORRELATION
1
IDENTIFICATION AND
ACCpOCHJI CRJT flC
SUSPECTED PROBLEMS
ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMS
WITH DEFINITION OF
BMP DESIGN CRITERIA
{
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES
WHICH MEET CRITERIA
SILVICULTURAL BMP
CONTRIBUTION TO
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
NO PROBLEM
f
YES
ACTIVITIES DESIGNED
UUITUIIU mm niTiniuo
^" WllnllV UUNUMIUNo
AND HAZARDS
NO
Yl
Kin
NO
SOCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
FEASIBLE BMP f ^\
CONSIDERATIONS 1 ^-^
*~ * ATTAINMENT OF
IMPLEMENTATION h~ DESIRED CnNDITlHIU
1
s
IN RECEIVING WATERS
6.12
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.13
10. Development of a feedback system to ensure the use of
the most effective practical means for pollution control
consistent with water quality goals.
This process was supplemented with the use, primarily in the eastern
States, of the USLE.
Various regional studies and other reports have also been
produced to assist forestry planners. Some of these are listed in
the reference section of this chapter.
Figure 6.3 is adapted from An Approach to Water Resources
Evaluation of Nonpoint SiIvicultur^al Sources (A Procedural
Handbook).It illustrates the relationships of various qualitative
and quantitative factors in meeting water quality goals.
Implementation
Solutions for Silvicultural pollution problems should be designed
with implementation in mind. Effective implementation requires that
several questions be addressed.
Should the implementation approach be regulatory or
voluntary?
What legislation is needed to implement solutions?
What agency can best carry out the work?
Where can funds be found for staff and required programs?
How can public comment be solicited and effectively used?
What steps can be taken to evaluate results?
Most States facing Silvicultural problems have already taken
action. The majority have identified specific problems, developed
-------
Figure 6.3
Relationship of Qualitative and Quantitative Factors
in Meeting Water Quality Goals
QUALI
ANA
I
1 HYDROLOGY
TATIVE
LYSIS "*
\
SURFACE
EROSION
WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVE
1 '
PROPOSED
SILVICULTURAL -*
ACTIVITY
I 1
'
^S'Lr^Sr TEMPERATURE 1 DISSOLVED
1 '
TOTAL
POTENTIAL
SEDIMENT
A
PROPOSED
SILVICULTURAL
ACTIVITY
TECHNICALLY
ACCEPTABLE
/ WATER X
/ QUALITY X
YES / OBJECTIVE MET X. |\]Q
^
QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS
1
1 NUTRIENTS
I
INTRODUCED
CHEMICALS
CONTROL
OPPORTUNITIES
COMPUTATION OR / \ DECISION
EVALUATION / \ POINT
1
DENOTES FACTORS
TO BE ANALYZED
6.14
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.15
BMPs and control programs, and designated management agencies to
carry out the programs. The outstanding tasks most commonly cited by
the States are the development and promotion of training programs,
development of adequate local funding to support recommended pro-
grams, better quantification of the effectiveness of BMPs, and
development of adequate evaluation procedures. Table 6.1 summarizes
State silviculture programs and their implementation problems.
Many States are using a voluntary approach to implementation.
Forestry operators are shown how their activities can affect water
quality and which BMPs can be used to control potential pollutants.
Some States rely on the good faith of the operators and the threat of
increased regulation; others provide limited cost-share funds as
incentives. The programs implemented by Vermont and Virginia are
described in Case Studies 1 and 7.
Oklahoma has implemented a rating system to evaluate how well
timber harvesting operations have followed forestry BMPs to protect
water quality. After timber is harvested, roads, harvesting, and
site preparation are checked. A report card is then prepared. The
State forester, who is provided with the evaluations, contacts the
companies which need help to improve problem areas.
Other States, such as California and Nevada, have adopted
regulatory controls. Both have incorporated water protection
measures in their forest practices acts. Nevada prohibits certain
activities near water bodies and requires timber operators to seed
skid trails, landings, and roads. In California, harvesting plans
are required of all timber operations; they must show how water
quality will be protected and silvicultural BMPs will be used.
Other regulatory measures available to a State or county
include:
Sediment control laws which require monitoring of forest-
related erosion.
Performance bonds which ensure that funds are available
to correct damage caused by irresponsible operators
to fragile areas or streams.
Training, testing, and licensing of forest operators.
-------
Table 6.1
Summary of State SI Ivlcultural WQM Programs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Ar i zona
Arkansas
Cal ifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Primary Planning
Agency
State Forester
State Forester/
Water Qual ity
Areawlde Agencies
State Forester
State Forester
Areawlde Agencies
State Forester
Water Quality
Designated
Management
Agency
State Forester
State Forester/
Water Quality
MOU w/State
Forester & Forest
Service
State Forester
State Forester
Counties
State Forester
Type
of Recommended
Control Program
Voluntary
Regulatory (FPA)
Nonregulatory
Voluntary
Regulatory (FPA)
Nonregulatory
(Local Ordinances)
Nonregulatory
Not Determined To
Be a Major
Nonpolnt Source
Training
Training & TV Spots
FY 81/208 Funded
Program
To Be Devised
National Prototype
Program
Series of
Workshops
Monitoring
BMP Verification
Water Quality
Agency
Cont i nu i ng
Assessment
10-Year Erosion
Study
Implementation
Problems
$, Inadequate Data
Base
Lack of Data and
BMP Specification
$, Difficulty in
Developing SMZ BMPs
Legislative
Modification
Required
Difficulty In
Contact i ng Sma 1 1
Operators
Key: FPA - Forest Practices Act MOU - Memorandum of Understanding
$ - Inadequate Funding SMZ - Streamside Management Zone
Compiled from Summary of the Current Status
of SIIvicultural 208 Programs1980, NCASI
Special Report 80-12, December 1980.
-------
Table 6.1 (Continued)
State
Florida
Georg 1 a
Hawa 1 1
Idaho
1 1 linois
1 ndlana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Primary Planning
Agency
State Forester
State Forester
State Forester
Water Quality
State Forester
State Forester
Designated
Management
Agency
State Forester
State Forester
State Forester
State Forester
State Forester
State Forester/
Water Quality
Type
of Recommended
Control Program
Nonregulatory
Nonregulatory
No Silvicultural
Program Covered
under Agriculture
Regulatory (FPA)
Voluntary
None
None
None
Voluntary
Voluntary
Quas I -Regu 1 atory
(Existing Statutes)
Training
Workshops Held
Workshops Held
FY 81/208 Funded
Univ. of Kentucky
Develops and
Eva 1 uates
Existing Programs
Monitoring
BMP Effect on
Demonstration
Areas
3-Year Study
Demonstration
Projects
Mon i tor 1 ng Proj ect
Implementation
Problems
$, Program
Evaluation
Difficulty
$
$, Enforcement
Manpower Shortage
$, Stopped
Development of
Training
Large Number of
Operators To Reach
$
Difficulty in
Quantifying Effects
-------
Table 6.1 (Continued)
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
M i ssour i
Montana
Nebraska
Primary Planning
Agency
Water Qual ity
State Forester/
Areawide Agencies
State Forester
Water Qua 1 i ty
Designated
Management
Agency
State Forester/
Water Quality
State Forester/
Water Qual ity
State Forester
Conservation
D i str i cts/Forest
Serv i ce
Type
of Recommended
Control Program
Quas i-Regu 1 atory
(Existing Statutes)
None; Existing
Water Quality &
Forestry Regs
Adequate
Quas i -Regu 1 atory
(Existing
Regs)
Voluntary
None; Existing
Pract i ces
Considered
Adequate
None; Existing
Pract i ces
Considered
Adequate
Voluntary
None
Training
State Forester
Develops Program
Industry & Private
Training/National
Prototype
Mon i tor i ng
BMP Demonstration
Projects
BMP Demonstration
Proj ects
Implementation
Problems
Permitting
Implementing Exist-
i ng Statutes
Staff Expertise,
Desire To Expand
Cost-Share Program
$
$, Funding Qual ity
Research
00
-------
Table 6.1 (Continued)
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carol ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Primary Planning
Agency
Water Qual ity
Water Quality
State Forester
Water Qual ity
Water Qual ity
State Forester
Water Qual ity
State Forester
Designated
Management
Agency
State Forester
Water Qual ity
Cons. Dist/State
Forester
Water Qual ity
Water Qual Ity
State Forester
State Forester
Type
of Recommended
Control Program
Quasi Regulatory
(Some Existing
Regs)
Regulatory
Voluntary (Existing
Regs)
Voluntary
Voluntary (Existing
Regs)
Voluntary
None
None
Voluntary
Regulatory (FPA)
Training
Development
Program
Subject to $
Existing Program,
National Prototype
4 Separate
Programs, National
Prototype
Mon i tor ing
Demonstration
Projects
BMP Assessment
w/Forest Serv ice
to Deve 1 op NF
Program
MIP Project
Site-Speci fie
BMP Monitoring
Implementation
Prob 1 ems
$
In tent-To-Cut
Notice Delays
EPA Planning Time
Constraints
$, Low Pr ior i ty
Source
Existing Financial
Disincentives for
BMP Use
Data Limited; Cost-
Share Needs Funds
FPA Admin. Tied to
General Revisions
-------
Table 6.1 (Continued)
State
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol Ina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Primary Planning
Agency
Water Qua 1 i ty
Water Qua 1 1 ty
Areawlde Agencies
State Forester
Water Quality
State Forester
Water Quality
Water Quality
State Forester
Water Quality
Designated
Management
Agency
Water Quality
State Forester
State Forester
State Forester
Water Quality
Water Quality
State Forester
State Forester
Water Quality
Type
of Recommended
Control Program
Quas 1 -Regu 1 atory
(Existing
Regs)
None
Voluntary
Voluntary (Most
Federal Lands)
Voluntary
Voluntary
Stil 1 in Initial
Planning Phase
Voluntary
Self-Policing
Voluntary
Regulatory (FPA)
Voluntary;
Industrial
Complaint System
Tra i n i ng
Clemson University
Intensive Project
Handbook &
Workshops
3-Tiered Training
To Develop EPA/FS
Package
3 Logging Workshops
National Prototype
Mon I tor I ng
BMP Demonstration
Projects
Demonstration
Projects
FS Monitoring
WQ Monitoring
BMP Implementation
Effect
Implementation
Problems
$
Coordination of
Agencies
Satisfactory
Problem Identifi-
cation
Low Priority
$
$ To Support BMP
Incentives
Proposed Revision
of WQS To Allow
for Periodic
Variation
10
o
-------
Table 6.1 (Continued)
State
Wisconsin
Wyom i ng
Primary Planning
Agency
Water Quality
Water Quality
Designated
Management
Agency
Water Quality
Water Quality
Type
of Recommended
Control Program
Voluntary
Voluntary
Tra i n i ng
Mon i tor i ng
FS Monitoring
Being Upgraded
Implementation
Prob 1 ems
Cost-Share under
Development
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff page 6.22
No matter which approach is recommended, State legislatures or county
councils must first pass enabling legislation. Support from elected
officials is essential in making the program work, particularly where
funding is concerned. Public involvement can be very helpful in
generating this support. The technical, citizen, and policy advisory
committees begun through State and area WQM programs have provided a
good start in this area in several States.
Another important factor is the designation of a management
agency (or agencies) to carry out the work. Most States have selec-
ted either the State forester's office or the State WQM agency to
plan forestry water quality programs. Almost all States with such
programs have designated the State forester's office to carry them
out. These offices can provide a strong link between environmental
interests and the forestry community.
Stable funding is probably the most important problem. In the
past, section 208 WQM grants have been available for planning related
to silvicultural water pollution. Because no new 208 grants will be
awarded, State and local governments will have to find funding
sources for this work.
Funds for program operation were always intended to come from
State and local sources. The EPA Financial Management Assistance
Program works with ongoing projects to develop self-sustaining
financial and institutional arrangements. This program will focus on
ground water, urban runoff, and agriculture in the near future, but
the findings and implications of these projects should also be help-
ful to forestry water quality programs.
The current interagency agreement between EPA's Office of
Research and Development and the Forest Service Research Unit
continues to provide funding for new research and technology transfer
projects. These projects evaluate the effectiveness of applied BMPs
and the water quality impact of forestry management activities.
Results are disseminated through the Forest Service Research Unit's
existing technology information transfer system. They should help
to satisfy the State's needs for this type of information.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.23
The majority of State programs are either in place or fairly near
startup. Federal assistance to the States for silvicultural water
quality management is being institutionalized by the Forest Service
with continuing support from EPA. The future of the silvicultural
water quality program is now in the hands of the States. With their
continued effort, aided by Forest Service technical assistance and
EPA support, effective management programs can soon be fully
implemented.
References
Dissmeyer, G. E. "Estimating the Impact of Forest Management of
Water Quality," presented at Cooperative Watershed Management
Workshop, U.S. Forest Service. Memphis, Tennessee. October 4-8,
1971.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improve-
ment . Summary of the Current Status of Silvicultural 208
Programs. NCASI Special Report No. 80-12. New York. December
1980.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Serv-ice. An Asses sment of
the Forest and Range Situation in the United States. F-AFS-
A65121-00.Washington, D.C. January 1980.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. California Region.
A Guide to Erosion Reduction on National Forest Timber Sale
Areas. 1954.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Northeastern Area
State and Private Forestry. Generalized Erosion and Sediment
Rates for Disturbed and Undisturbed Forest Land in the Northeast.
February 1977.
-------
Chapter 6 SiLvicultural Runoff Page 6.24
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest
Forest and Ranger Experiment station. Environmental Effects of
Forest Residues Management in the Pacific Northwest. General
Technical Report PNW-24. Portland, Oregon. 1974.
A state-of-the-art compendium.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Southeastern Area
State and Private Forestry. A Guide for Predicting Sheet and
Rill Erosion on Forest Land. Technical Publication SA-TP-11.
Atlanta, Georgia. September 1980.
Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management Activities
in the Southeast, by G. Dissmeyer and R. Stump. Atlanta,
Georgia. April 1978.
,S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research
Laboratory. An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of
Nonpoint Silv'icultural Sources (A Procedural Handbook). Athens,
Georgia. August 1980.
Produced jointly by EPA and the Forest Service. Excellent
summary of methodologies. Addresses hydrology, surface erosion,
landslides, total potential sediment, temperature, dissolved
oxygen and organic matter, nutrients, and forest chemicals.
. Nonpoint Water Quality Modeling in Wildland Management;
A State-of-the-Art Assessment.EPA 600/3-77-036.Athens,
Georgia.April 1977.
Addresses the use of predictive models and their relative
value to water quality planners. Includes assessment of stream-
flow, sediment and erosion, biological and chemical models.
Recommendations for use.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Water
Programs. Processes, Procedures, and Methods To Control
Pollution Resulting from Silvicultural Activities. EPA
430/9-73-010. Washington, D.C. 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and
Monitoring. The Influence of Log Handling on W,ater Quality.
EPA-R2-73-085. Washington, D.C. February 1973.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Page 6.25
,S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Planning and
Standards. Nonpoint Source Control GuidanceSilviculture.
Washington, D.C. March 1977.
Contains 10-part nonpoint source control methodology.
Emphasis is on problem identification and appropriate
technical framework.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region X. Forest Harvest,
Residue Treatment, Reforestation, and Protection of Water
Quality.EPA 910/9-76-020. Seattle, Washington. April 1976.
Logging Roads and Protection of Water Quality. EPA 910/
9-75-007. Seattle, Washington. March 1975.
Silvicultural Chemicals and Protection of Water Quality.
1SPA~91079-7 7-036.Seattle, Washington. June"T97T!
This and the two preceding documents form a state-of-the-
art summary of technology available to control the impact of
Silvicultural nonpoint sources.
-------
Chapter 6
Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 6.26
Case Study 1; Industry Self-Policing Program Established
Location:
EPA Region:
Contact:
Vermont
I
Stephen Syz, 208 Program Coordinator, Agency of
Environmental Conservation, State Office Building,
Heritage II, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, (802)
828-2763
Definition of Problem
In 1977, the Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation (AEC) appointed the 208 Forestry Runoff Committee and
made it responsible for developing a silvicultural nonpoint source
(NPS) plan. The committee was to identify the problems, examine the
research data, review the adequacy of existing laws and regulations,
and recommend implementable solutions for controlling nonpoint
forestry runoff. The recommendations developed by this study became
the basis of the water quality management forestry plan.
The 208 committee cited silvicultural NPS runoff as a priority
problem in its initial evaluation of NPS problems. The final plan
recommended a strong educational approach for forest landowners and
timber harvesters, together with self-policing of logging jobs by the
forest industry.
Objectives
Under the certified forestry plan, the Vermont Timber Truckers
and Producers Association (VTTPA) has divided the State into three
sections and elected a three-member committee in each section. All
complaints concerning logging-related water quality problems are
referred to the AEC. If the problem is sufficiently serious, the
VTTPA committee visits the logger responsible to encourage him to
resolve the problems with appropriate best management practices.
The State becomes involved in onsite visits to loggers only when the
logging industry's self-policing effort fails to bring about a
solution.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.27
The second part of the forestry plan calls for a rigorous educa-
tional and informational approach. There are four projects involved,
including a handbook, workshops, press coverage, and model timber
sale contracts.
Workshops for loggers were held in 1978 and 1979 to provide
technical information, demonstrations, a review of legislation, and
assistance in the control of nonpoint source runoff. Evaluation
forms completed by workshop participants revealed the huge success of
these activities.
Results
Since the program began in July 1979, the committees have met
with loggers on many occasions and satisfactorily resolved water
quality problems by encouraging the use of BMPs. Although the
program has not been in effect long enough to judge its overall
effectiveness, State water resource investigators have reported a new
attitude and higher level of responsibility on the part of loggers
who have been contacted. Problems encountered have been resolved
quickly and efficiently.
Contributing to the success of the training sessions has been the
cosponsorship of programs by industry companies, including the St.
Regis Corporation and International Paper Company.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Stephen Syz of the Agency of Environmental
Conservation for more information and current activities of the
program.
-------
Chapter 6
Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 6.28
Case Study 2; Amended Forest Practices Act Includes Water
Quality
Location: California
EPA Region: IX
Contact: Jeff Diaz, Water Resources Control Board,
P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801,
(916) 323-7609
Definition of Problem
Regulation of California's timber industry began in January 1974
with the passage of the Z1Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act (FPA) of
1973 to protect the State's natural resources for future
generations.
The California Water Quality Management (WQM) Plan cites the
potential for water quality problems arising from silvicultural
activities. Positive correlations are drawn between certain
silvicultural operations and the potential for water quality
degradation. Best management practices, suggested changes to the
FPA and Forest Practice Rules, and documentation of the various
interagency relationships are also included in the plan.
Reflecting WQM control program recommendations, legislation
passed in 1981 reflects the silviculture section of the State WQM
plan into a revision of the State forest practices act. Modification
of the forest practice rules followed.
Objectives
Under the WQM program, the Division of Forestry was charged with
reviewing the original FPA in order to identify potential BMPs, to
determine whether implementation was adequate to meet the goals of
the act, to recommend amendments and additions to the forest practice
rules, and to assure concurrence with the planning objectives of PL
92-500.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.29
As a product of this effort, the act was amended to empower the
State Board of Forestry to protect waterways from adverse effects of
timber operations. All timber operators must submit timber
harvesting plans showing how water quality will be protected and how
forestry BMPs will be used. The Board of Forestry must now solicit
recommendations not only from the State Forester, but also from the
Department of Fish and Game, the State Water Resources Control Board,
and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board before new
rules and regulations are adopted.
Status
Final rules on forest roads and landing areas that partially
implement the legislation are presently under administrative and
public review. Implementation of the changes will begin when the
regulations are finally adopted, sometime before the end of 1982.
For More Information
Write to the address above for additional information and the
present status of the proposed regulations.
-------
Chapter 6
Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 6.30
Case Study 3; Requirement for Water Quality Consideration in
Forest Plan
Location:
EPA Regions:
Contact:
Forest Service Northeastern Area
I & V
Bill Johns, Forest Resource Planning, USDA Forest
Service, Northeastern Area Office, 370 Reed Road,
Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008, (215) 461-3191
Definition of Problem
Forestry operations were cited in the Water Quality Management
(WQM) Plans of New Hampshire and Minnesota as having potentially
significant water quality impacts. The plans recommended voluntary
control programs; they also recommended that the State forestry
agency be the designated management agency.
State forestry agency programs are to be directed by a
comprehensive State Forest Resource Plan (SFRP). These plans,
authorized under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1979,
administered by the Forest Service, and developed by the States, are
long-range planning programs for the orderly development and use of
State forest resources. As such, the documents are the key to
integrating programs or concerns into the State forestry
organization.
In an example of successful interagency cooperation, the
Northeastern Area Office of the Forest Service is asking these two
States in their area to incorporate State 208 silvicultural plan
recommendations into their SFRPs. This was accomplished by a
December 1980 grant condition linking their prototype planning and
SFRP planning grants.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies _ Page 6.31
Objectives
The Northeastern Area Office is administering the grant moneys
for two of the three EPA water quality management prototype planning
projects. As part of the grant conditions to these States, New
Hampshire and Minnesota, the Northeastern Area office is asking that
the soil and water section of the SFRP incorporate the silvicultural
portion of the State WQM plan. This will institutionalize water
quality management recommendations into the State forestry budgeting
process and thereby provide for implementation of WQM
recommendations.
Status
Both States are completing the SRFPs and the prototype planning
projects. Draft work to date outlines some specific recommendations
for integrating the water quality and forest resource programs.
Results will be made available upon completion and adoption of the
SRFP and prototype report, probably in January of 1983.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Bill Johns of the Forest Service, listed above, for
updated information.
-------
Chapter 6
Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies
Page 6.32
Case Study 4; National Training Package Developed
Location:
EPA Regions:
Contact:
Nationwide
Nationwide
Robert Dunn, Silvicultural NPS Program Manager,
Water Planning Division, WH-554, EPA,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202) 426-2474
Definition of Problem
Thirty-seven of the States cited Silvicultural nonpoint sources
as being significant or potentially significant pollution sources.
Each of these States then proposed some type of control program,
either voluntary or regulatory. Practically all the Silvicultural
elements of the State Water Quality Management plans cited the need
for training or education programs as a key element of their control
programs.
Objectives
To fulfill this stated need and to promote the control of
potential impacts of silvicultural nonpoint sources, EPA and the
Forest Service have jointly developed a National Forestry Water
Quality Training Package. Representatives from the Soil Conservation
Service, Extension Service, forest industry, and State forestry
departments assisted in this work.
The package consists of three slide/tape courses, each designed
to reach a different target audience. Course A is designed for
national and State policymakers. It provides history, background,
and an explanation of the need for water quality to be considered in
their forestry programs.
Course B targets management personnel in both forestry and water
quality organizations. This course will provide more information on
the types of water quality problems that have been identified and
possible management practices to control them.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.33
The third course, C, is in outline form only; it gives the States
an opportunity to design a course for their local use. This course,
which probably will be directed toward loggers and operators, will
describe the problems and provide State-recommended best management
practices to address them.
The State and Private Forestry unit of the Forest Service is
designated as the main distribution network for the package. When
reproduced, the programs will be distributed to the 37 States which
identified silviculture as a potential source in their WQM plans.
The initial sets of the program are scheduled to be available in the
fall of 1982.
It will be up to the States to develop the training program as
their local needs dictate. The Forest Service regions and areas will
be available to assist the States in developing and implementing
the programs.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Robert Dunn at the address above, or one of the
Forest Service regions or areas/ for more information on the training
package and for current information on the status of its distribution
and implementation.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.34
Case Study 5; Streambank Stabilization Methods Applied
Location: Asheville, North Carolina, area
EPA Region: IV
Contact: James Stokoe, 208 Project Director, Land-of-Sky
Regional Council, P.O. Box 2175, Asheville, North
Carolina 28802, (704) 254-8131
Definition of Problem
The Land-of-Sky Regional Council water quality management program
found one of their major water quality problems was caused by the
erosion of unstable streambanks. Not only was this source causing an
increase in stream turbidity and reducing beneficial uses, but it was
also destroying the streambanks themselves.
Objectives
In order to stabilize local streambanks, more than 22,000
seedlings were planted along the French Broad River and two of its
tributaries.
Most of the seedlings were used directly on streambank faces in
critically eroding areas. Some were used to plant buffer strips with
species which would produce income as well as provide wildlife food
and cover and sediment and erosion control.
The project was carried out by the cooperative efforts of the
Land-of-Sky Regional Council, the Soil Conservation Service, the Army
Corps of Engineers, and 18 riparian landowners, who participated
voluntarily.
Results
Taking into consideration the usual survival rates of planted
seedlings, it is expected that the treated streambanks will remain
intact and stable.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.35
For More Information
Contact Mr. James Stokoe, 208 Project Director, for more
information and the current status of the stabilization efforts.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.36
Case Study 6; EPA-Forest Service interregional Agreements
Signed
Location: Forest Service Northeastern Area
EPA Regions: I, II, III, V, & VII
Contact: James Byrne, Director, Forest Resource Planning,
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area Office,
370 Reed Road, Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008,
(415) 461-3189
Definition of Problem
In order to assist the EPA in assessing forestry impacts on water
quality and in order to further their partnership, the Northeastern
Area Office of the Forest Service entered into memoranda of
understanding during the first months of 1982 with the several EPA
regions within its boundaries.
The Northeastern Area encompasses a sizable portion of the United
States: basically all the States east of the 95th meridian and north
of Kentucky and Virginia. This area roughly covers EPA Regions I,
II, III, V, and VII.
Objectives
The memoranda identify and define the general principles of
cooperation, coordination, and communication to be utilized between
the Forest Service and EPA at the regional level. The memoranda
serve also to implement the master agreement the two agencies have at
the national level.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.37
Results
Coordination between the two agencies is just beginning and is
likely to develop further because of the attention the joint programs
are receiving from top policymakers of the agencies.
For More Information
For more information contact Mr. James Byrne at the address
above.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.38
Case Study 7: Advertising the Water Quality Message
Location: Virginia
EPA Region: III
Contact: Robert Stapleford, 208 Coordinator, Water Control
Board, P.O. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230,
(804) 786-0000, Ext. 355
Definition of Problem
The State of Virginia, in its water quality management planning
program, cited the potential for water quality degradation from
poorly conducted silvicultural activities. The State recommended
that this potential source be controlled through a voluntary program
of best management practices on the ground.
Objectives
To help implement these BMPs, the State has developed an expanded
education program to encourage lumber and pulp operations to follow
BMPs properly.
Educational signboards have been installed in sawmills and pulp
concentration yards so workers can see how to carry out forestry BMPs
developed by the State WQM planning commission. This way, the
workers are exposed to the BMPs almost daily; this should serve to
reinforce the message that clean water is their responsibility.
To help further, the State hired a forester to work with the
lumber and pulp operators.
-------
Chapter 6 Silvicultural Runoff Case Studies Page 6.39
Results
No evaluation program was proposed, but worker response is
expected to be positive.
For More Information
Contact Mr. Robert Stapleford of the Water Control Board for more
information.
-------
7 SAAALL AND ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
-------
7 SMALL AND ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Problem Identification
Failures of small and alternative wastewater systems (SAWS) are
usually the result of human error related to one or more of four
areas:
Siting: Because of soil characteristics, topography,
drainage patterns, and housing density, SAWS dependent on
soil absorption may not work in some areas; in others they
may require density restrictions or design modifications.
Design: SAWS may not be properly designed to meet the needs
of a given household or group of households; they may also be
inadequately designed for a given soil type, topography,
drainage pattern, or housing density.
Installation: Poor construction can cause ponding or back-
ups if pipes are placed at the wrong slopes, if the soil is
overcompacted, or if improper materials are used; poor
construction may also allow leaks of untreated effluent.
Maintenance: Overloading with wastewater or flushing certain
chemicals and debris may cause system failures. Failure to
pump septage or repair electrical and mechanical devices can
cause backups or discharges of untreated effluent.
While determining the causes of a SAWS failure may often be
possible, finding the failure itself may be another matter. Public
works, sanitation, and public health departments usually have records
of known failures. On the other hand, system owners are sometimes
reluctant to report failures because of the expense involved in
7.1
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.2
repairing or replacing the system. Surface ponding and runoff are
likely to be reported because of the smell and potential health
threat. If a system owner does not speak up, his neighbors probably
will. Ground water contamination, however, can occur for quite a
while before it creates a problem such as contaminating a drinking
water well.
Even when such a problem occurs, it is often difficult to trace
the source to a single system or group of systems. Careful study
should go into determining the cause of a ground water problem, as
the people of Long Island, New York, learned. Septic systems were
thought to be the source of nitrate contamination of ground water.
Only after central sewage treatment plants and collector systems were
built was it discovered that farming was the cause.
To deal with existing SAWS problems, managers can take several
actions. From existing data on SAWS failures, they can sometimes
designate areas where more failures are likely to occur. These areas
should be studied carefully to see if rehabilitation or replacement
of existing systems is needed. The remedial measures considered
should include the full range of SAWS technologies as well as
conventional solutions such as extending relief sewers from a central
treatment system. Ground water monitoring can also be a useful tool
in finding contamination as it occurs or before it becomes a serious
problem.
Prevention, however, is the most cost-effective way to manage
SAWS problems. State and local managers can designate or prohibit
areas for new SAWS based on their soil, topographic, drainage, and
housing density characteristics. Managers should also consider
whether an area is a sensitive natural resource area. In areas where
SAWS are permitted, design requirements should be suited to the site.
These types of land designations identify potential problem areas and
set SAWS policy accordingly.
Solution Development
Adequate solutions to SAWS problems require specific management
techniques. The first part of this section reviews some of these
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.3
techniques. Depending on the number of SAWS in an area and the
degree of control a community finds necessary, SAWS management pro-
grams may be needed. The latter part of this section examines the
design of such programs and their financial and institutional
requirements.
Techniques for Managing SAWS
Siting
The standard method of determining where onsite systems should be
located is the "perc" (percolation) test. Water is poured into a
hole in the ground to see if it will drain at a suitable rate
(neither too fast nor too slow) to accept wastewater. Although this
test is used all over the country, it is generally considered
unreliable. It can be improved by combining it with a minimum
lot-size requirement, an analysis of the type of soil on the site by
a competent soil scientist, and a conscientious effort by the county
or municipal sanitary office to encourage good design, installation,
and maintenance. Some areas, such as those near watercourses or
those with shallow or sandy soils, may require use of modified septic
systems or of alternative treatment systems.
Design
Design criteria vary from State to State and according to the
volume of the system. A four-bedroom house with a washing machine
and dishwasher requires a larger leaching field than a two-bedroom
house without major water-using appliances. Two rules of thumb are:
Keep systems a minimum of 50 feet from surface water
bodies and 100 feet from wells.
Require at least 48 inches from the bottom of the leach-
ing field to the ground water. (Some States allow only 18
inches.)
A community may wish to require two leaching fields, each one used in
alternating years while the other rests and rehabilitates itself.
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.4
Installation
Even well-designed systems may fail if contractors or home
builders do not install them properly. Leaching fields should be
installed in a single day and in dry weather. If installation
requires more than one day, partially completed fields should be
covered to prevent filling with rainwater. Every effort must be made
to prevent soil in the leaching field from being packed down, as
compacted soil impedes the flow of wastewater into the field. Heavy
equipment must be kept off the leaching field area, because it can
compact soil and crush the pipe which transports the wastewater into
the field. Crushed stone is usually a part of the leaching field
drainage system. Care should be taken not to'use clay-covered stone,
because the clay will eventually be washed to the bottom of the
field, seal it, and prevent drainage.
Maintenance
Much of the responsibility for maintenance falls on the home-
owners. Water conservation improves performance by reducing the
volume of liquid to be absorbed by the leaching field and by allowing
more time for solids to settle out in the tank. The user must avoid
dumping materials such as kitchen wastes, disposable diapers, ciga-
rette butts, sanitary napkins, and other large solids into the
system.
Ideally, septic tanks would be inspected every year and pumped if
necessary. Pumping septic tanks every two to three years is often
recommended for good operation. Some municipalities automatically
pump tanks every two years; some simply remind the homeowner by post
card when it is time to pump. Municipalities should encourage good
maintenance through educational programs and by distributing a home-
owner's manual on septic system care.
Septage
There must be a means to dispose of septage (sludge pumped from
the bottom of septic, holding, or other settling tanks). One
possibility is to use an existing sewage treatment plant. This
requires a plant that can accept and treat septage in a volume and on
a schedule that meets system user needs. Septage, however, has a
much stronger concentration of wastes than the effluent treatment
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.5
plant usually receives. In large enough quantities, it may disrupt
treatment processes.
An alternative is a special plant to treat septage. Construction
of such a plant is considered an "innovative and alternative" project
and is eligible for 85 percent Federal funding. In some cases,
several towns may cooperate to construct and operate this type of
plant. It may be noted here that vehicles which pump and haul
septage ("honey wagons") are also eligible for 85 percent funding.
Serious consideration should be given to disposal by land
spreading. Septage is well suited for this, because it has value as
fertilizer and, unlike wastes from municipal treatment plants, it is
relatively free of toxic substances and heavy metals. Before it is
spread on the land, the septage may be dewatered by composting or
other means.
Rehabilitation of Failed Systems
There are several ways to rehabilitate failed systems.
Flush the system with hydrogen peroxide. Recent data
suggest that this is an effective way of clearing clogged
leaching fields so they can function properly again.
Construct a new onsite leaching field, allowing the old
field to rest and renovate itself through natural pro-
cesses. Once the old field is renovated, the system is
operated as an alternating field.
Abandon the onsite leaching field in favor of new
community leaching fields to which several units may
be connected.
Use another method, such as a mound system or an
evapotranspiration bed.
Developing SAWS Management Programs
Local Program Design
Municipalities, towns, counties, and special districts have
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.6
traditionally managed SAWS programs. Local organizations which have
been assigned SAWS responsibilities include public agencies (such as
municipal/county health, public works, and planning departments),
special purpose agencies (conservation districts, water and sewer
authorities, sanitary districts, and onsite wastewater management
districts), and private sector groups (homeowner associations, rural
cooperatives, private utilities, installers, and septage pumpers/
haulers). The authorities and capabilities of these various
organizations vary widely.
A local agency's management activities can include planning,
regulation, operation, and technical assistance. Typically, however,
local efforts to regulate SAWS have been limited to review and
approval of system location and size. In many cases, even these
programs have been ineffective because of inadequate staffing'or
other economic pressures.
When the public role is small, homeowners have almost all respon-
sibility for system operation and repair. This has not always been
an effective management solution. But even when public agencies have
had the authority to require correction or replacement of failing
systems, staffing and other resource problems have often limited such
enforcement activities.
Recognizing the need to improve system performance, many
communities have upgraded their regulatory programs through revised
regulations, improved soil analysis procedures, site inspection,
permit issuance, installer licensing, and homeowner education. While
many potential problems have been reduced by proper design and in-
stallation, more comprehensive programs recognize the need to monitor
system operation closely. Among the practices used to do this are
making renewal of operating permits contingent upon homeowner demon-
stration of system inspection and instituting random or universal
inspection programs and maintenance programs, including pump-outs,
septage disposal, and rejuvenation of leaching fields.
Figure 7.1 provides a detailed list of items which should be
considered in setting up a local SAWS management program. The basic
functions which should be included are: planning, site evaluation,
system design, inspection during installation, operation and mainte-
nance, financing (application for loans and grants for systems
design; major rehabilitation and construction; development and
administration of user charge systems, assessments, and other
-------
Hgure 7.I
Items to be Considered In Establishing Local SAWS
Programs
PIannIng
I. Develop WQM and facility management
plans.
Conduct research and development
on noncentral system costs and
per formance.
Integrate land use planning and
wastewater management program
needs and objectives.
Determine most cost-effective
and technologically feasible method
of sewage disposal.
2. Coordinate plan preparation, plan review,
enforcement, and maintenance procedures.
Provide for coordination among regula-
tory authorities to provide the most
expeditious review.
* Act as coordinator among agencies to
facilitate plan review and system in-
staI I at Ion.
Eliminate duplication of effort.
4. Provide design assistance; design
publicly owned systems.
I nsta Nation
Establish program for site Inspec-
tions during system installation.
Provide for visit by local public
health or environmental depart-
ment .
Provide for visit by licensed
professional engineer or other
qua I IfIed Ind iv i d uaI .
Develop procedures and guidelines
for installation supervision.
2. Establish requirements for
licensing, certifying, and training
system i n sta I Iers.
3. Issue final inspection approval and/
or permit.
0 perat i on and Maintenance
Site Evaluation and System Design
I. Determine site limitations for noncentral
systems.
Develop procedures and data requirements
for site evaluations.
Conduct site inspection and evaluation to
ascertain unique site characteristics.
2. Develop guidelines for system design.
Establish/evaluate performance
standards, construction specifica-
tions, etc.
3. Issue permits for system construction.
I. Establish O&M procedures and re-
spons i b iI i 11es.
Develop program of routine O&M.
Conduct periodic Inspections and
evaluations of system operation.
Develop enforcement and regulatory
mechanisms as required.
Establish emergency maintenance
proced ures.
2. Develop program for septage
handling, treatment, and disposal.
3. Identify failing systems.
Clearly define what constitutes a
fa I Iure.
7.7
-------
Figure 7.1 (continued)
Develop methodology for locating
failed systems.
Develop enforcement and regulatory
mechanisms to correct failed
systems.
Initiate rehabilitation efforts.
Won Itor 1ng
I. Monitor surface and ground water
cond it ions.
2. Monitor existing systems for
fa) lure.
Financing
I. Identify available sources of funding.
2. Secure funds for system construction and
initial upgrading.
3. Set and collect user fees for O&M.
4. Establish and collect fees for permit
issuance, plan review, monitoring,
etc.
Pub I ic Education
I. Develop programs to convey
information on SAWS technology,
management systems, and benefits
to general public, engineers, and
developers.
2. Inform public of maintenance
procedures, proper operation,
and water conservation
techniques.
3(. Develop procedures for public
reporting of system failure.
7.8
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.9
revenue programs), water quality monitoring, system inspection,
public education, and general program coordination.
SAWS should be included in local wastewater management
strategies. The wastewater facility plan (e.g., the section 201
Facilities Plan), capital improvement program, local comprehensive
plan, and zoning map are the principal tools of local government to
guide the direction and character of future growth and wastewater
management services within a community. The section 201 Facilities
Planning Program requires that communities analyze the condition of
existing systems, determine the need for new facilities, and investi-
gate alternative technologies, including noncentral wastewater
systems. The local comprehensive plan (which should include or be
coordinated with the State and/or areawide water quality management
plan) should project the community's growth and lay out how and where
SAWS will be used to provide wastewater treatment capacity to handle
this growth.
The solution to the wastewater management needs of small com-
munities may require a combination of facilities construction and
rehabilitation as well as new management approaches. When problems
are particularly pervasive, a program may be needed to document the
problem and recommend solutions, including repair or replacement of
existing systems and construction of alternative community systems,
when such action is necessary and cost-effective. A range of tech-
nologies should be considered. The basic options are outlined in
Figure 7.2.
Financial Considerations
Cost evaluation is also an important part of SAWS management
planning. As part of the facilities planning process, the related
management costs for the different alternatives should be estimated.
These types of costs include facility installation, repair or
replacement during the planning period; and maintenance and
management costs (including plan reviews, installation inspection,
operation and maintenance inspection, ground water monitoring, public
education, and other regulatory or enforcement activities). These
costs should be clearly identified to reflect facilities phasing and
anticipated system repairs and replacements over time.
-------
Figure 7.2
Onslte and Alternative Systems
Individual Systems
Standard septic tank and drainage field
Alternate treatment methods (e.g., aerobic tank)
Alternate disposal methods
Elevated sand mound
Alternating disposal areas
Electro-osmosis system
Black water/gray water systems
Wastewater recycle units (e.g., mineral oil media)
Waterless toilets (e.g., compost toilets)
Reduced-size disposal areas for gray water
Accessory water-saving devices
Community Systems
Conventional gravity sewers
Small-diameter gravity sewers
Small-diameter pressure sewers
Individual grinder pumps
Individual effluent pumps
Conventional noncentral treatment (i.e., package plant)
Alternate treatment systems
- Lagoon treatment
Community subsurface disposal (after septic-tank or
other treatment)
- Land application (after secondary-1 evel treatment)
7.10
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.11
Cost estimates of public management activities should be based
upon a realistic annual estimate of staff time for various activities
(with assumptions about skill mixes and labor costs) and an estimate
of other resources required, such as monitoring equipment and office
equipment. Start-up costs should be distinguished from ongoing
expenses. When an agency has multiple responsibilities, the time and
resources needed for SAWS management should be shown separately and
as a portion of the total departmental budget.
Cost estimates for various SAWS alternatives should clearly
indicate the relative distribution of costs to the homeowner, public
agencies, and other affected groups. Both direct costs and indirect
costs, such as changes in tax rates, tax revenues, and costs of other
public services, should be included in the estimate.
Revenues to support local SAWS management programs may be
generated from bonds, construction and operating permits, license
fees, plan review fees, assessments, property taxes, and user
charges. A user charge program may include amortization of
facilities, maintenance costs, sinking funds for repair and
replacement, and other administrative expenses. The community may
elect a fee-for-service approach rather than a flat-rate charge
system. These costs will vary widely if homeowners retain primary
responsibility for privately contracting for maintenance and repair
services. When a community has a variety of wastewater technologies,
a decision must be made whether to adopt a uniform service charge or
differential rates based upon actual service costs (e.g., part
new/existing sewers and publicly owned treatment works, part onsite
systems).
Institutional Arrangements
A strategy should be developed to assure implementation of the
local SAWS management program.
A legislative program may be needed to provide specific
statutory authority for designated agencies to undertake
SAWS management responsibilities and raise necessary
revenues. In some cases, an opinion from the State
attorney general's office may be sufficient.
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.12
Interagency agreements may be needed to clarify agency
responsibilities; share staff; coordinate review, approval,
and permitting processes; institute joint billings; and
otherwise coordinate implementation.
Information programs will be essential for obtaining the
necessary political, administrative, and public support.
Start-up efforts will be needed to secure and train staff.
Ordinances, regulations, policies, and/or judicial approval
may be needed to float bonds, to apply for grants, to
establish user charges, or to create new agencies or
significantly modify existing ones.
State agencies may also be actively involved with SAWS manage-
ment, particularly public health authorities, water pollution control
agencies, planning organizations, and other environmental management
and regulatory agencies. State SAWS programs should work in a
coordinated effort with local governments. They should provide a
central base of SAWS expertise and information and advocate SAWS
concepts for small communities and urban areas, as appropriate.
In order to carry out these responsibilities, many changes may be
needed in:
SAWS-related regulations, legislation, and policies;
Administrative procedures and institutional relationships;
Technical and training assistance activities;
Administration of the construction grants program (including
facility plans and the State construction grant priority
list);
Resources allocated to SAWS management;
Licensing and registration of septage haulers, SAWS
contractors, and others involved with SAWS; and
Other related State activities.
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.13
In those States that take the lead in regulating SAWS, appro-
priate action should be taken to allow wider use of alternative
systems while ensuring that local management is strong enough to
protect health and water quality.
When States share considerable authority for SAWS management with
local governments, good communication is important. Many of the
local agencies providing SAWS project review are not responsible to
the State water pollution control agency. Since this agency usually
administers EPA construction grants, it is necessary to establish
reliable lines of communication and coordination. In this way, both
State and local water pollution control agencies can be more attuned
to the wastewater needs of specific communities, particularly rural
ones, and include them on State construction grant priority lists
when it is appropriate.
Changing attitudes about SAWS means more than passing enabling
legislation or requiring that alternative technologies be considered.
Effective State SAWS management programs should also include techni-
cal assistance and public education, which may be accomplished in
part through certification and licensing procedures. In cooperation
with local governments, States should also consider preparing and
disseminating technical manuals for wastewater system evaluation and
designing pamphlets outlining recommended homeowner maintenance
practices. Figure 7.3 lists potential component's of a State SAWS
program.
Implementation
Many of the apparent obstacles to using SAWS, such as the lack of
reliable design criteria and realistic cost data and the various
legal and institutional issues of management programs, are being
overcome. Several States have enacted legislation and regulations
which allow greater use of SAWS and provide for better management at
the local level.
There are a variety of ways States and localities can structure
the management of SAWS programs and still conform to EPA's construc-
tion grant regulations. Although the regulations require that
grantees develop management programs, they do not require that
-------
Flgure 7.3
State SAWS Program Activities
Planning/Plan Review
F i nan cing
Community wastewater management plans
General problem assessment and priority
setti ng
Analysis of SAWS nonpoint source best
management practices
Model fac iIi ty pians
Facility plan review criteria
guidance In evaluation of alterna-
tives
economic and technical criteria
impact assessment methodology
Special facility planning units
Guidelines for facility plan prepara-
tion
Guidelines for sanitary surveys
Guidelines for land development plan
preparat i on
Land development review methodology
and impact criteria.
ReguI at 1ons
Fac iI I ty planning and
design
Facility construction
Operation and maintenance
(e.g., partial support of
regulatory/enforcement programs)
Institutional and manage-
ment stud i es
Private system rehabilita-
tion/replacement loans
Priority list system for small
commun i 11 es
Uniform financing policy and
fund i ng cr i ter ia
Education/Training
Program guidance manuals (institu
t ionaI i ssues)
SAWS technology approval criteria
proced ures
Design standards development
Enforcement procedures guidance
Enabling legislation for
a I ternative-system management
Evaluation of local program manage-
ment (capabilities, effective uses)
Monitoring of ground and surface
water impacts of SAWS
and
Works hops/seminars/train ing
sess i ons
Technical (instruction) manuals
Information dissemination
Training/certIfication/l icensing
Research and Development
Demonstration projects
(techno Iogy/management)
Monitoring of full-scale operating
systems
Field testing of units
Surveys of operating systems
7.14
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.15
all responsibilities be undertaken by a public agency or that all
public functions be carried out by the same agency. The regulations
do require management programs to assure that operating inspections
be conducted at least once every three years, that a user charge and
cost-recovery program be established where applicable, and that a
program be developed to monitor potential ground water contamination.
This section examines various management and regulatory structures
currently in place.
State public health authorities have traditionally been respon-
sible for setting and enforcing standards. Some States have retained
all regulatory authority over noncentral wastewater systems, while
most have delegated all or part of the responsibility to local
governments. Table 7.1 illustrates the varying regulatory approaches
toward SAWS taken by the States. The data are from an EPA research
study.
Public health laws and codes in States which share regulatory
responsibilities with local governments are usually viewed as minimum
standards to be adopted by local jurisdictions, who have the right to
establish regulations more restrictive than the State minimum. This
regulatory arrangement can be structured in several ways.
The most popular is for local governments to review plans and
issue permits for individual onsite systems; the State retains the
right to review and approve large systems (and sometimes innovative
and experimental systems as well). Under this shared arrangement,
some States, like Wisconsin, reserve the right to review and approve
subsurface wastewater disposal systems in subdivisions. The State of
Washington exercises regulatory authority over multi-lot developments
by requiring formation of a management agency to oversee maintenance
and operation of subsurface wastewater disposal systems in sub-
divisions.
Agencies other than health departments may also play a role in
SAWS management at the State or local level. Given the participation
of a number of agencies, State and local SAWS programs have found it
necessary to clarify agency roles, authorities, and interrelation-
ships.
-------
Table 7.1
Illustrative Regulatory Approaches
to SAWS Managment
State
New Hampshire
I llinois
Maine
Pennsylvania
Washington
California
Vermont
Maryland
Minnesota
Onsite
State/Local
Institutional
Arrangement
State
State/Local
State/Local
State/Local
State/Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Programs
Program
Approach
TR & EN
TR
TR & EN
TR & EN
TR
ADM
TR & EN
TR
TR & EN
Small Community Programs
State/Local
Institutional
Arrangement
State
State
State/Local
State/Local
State/Local
State
State/Local
State
State
Program
Approach
SR
FP
FP
FP
COM
EL
FP
EL
COM
1
ADM
TR
TR & EN
2SR
EL
FP
COM
Administrative
Technical review
Technical review and enforcement
Subdivision review only
Enabling legislation only
Facilities planning provisions
Combination of programs
7.16
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.17
In Illinois, for example, two State agenciesthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Illinois Department of
Public Health (DPH)and local health departments share responsibil-
ity for the SAWS management program. The Illinois EPA, through its
Water Pollution Control Division, is responsible for onsite facility
plan review, discharge permits, technical review, and design stan-
dards. It also issues permits for publicly owned cluster septic
systems, samples water quality, inspects facilities, and occasionally
assists in preparing local needs summaries.
The Illinois Department of Public Health works with local health
departments to administer onsite programs. According to the 1974
Illinois Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act, the DPH has authority
over all domestic systems under 1500 gallons per day and all sub-
surface disposal systems. This includes design, installation, main-
tenance, and monitoring. The DPH uses its licensing control over
septic installers as the primary management approach. Under the
licensing act, 17 county health departments have been designated as
agents of the State. This allows the local health departments to
perform onsite management duties in conjunction with the State DPH.
The State of New Hampshire, on the other hand, has retained all
regulatory authority over SAWS. Furthermore, it has consolidated
most functions dealing with subsurface wastewater disposal into a
single agency, the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission.
In California, Illinois, Washington, and other States, the
management of SAWS programs may be handled through the formation of
onsite wastewater management zones.
The California SAWS management program has two important
features. First, the State Water Resources Control Board shares
responsibility for regulating noncentral systems with nine regional
Water Quality Control Boards. Regulatory control for systems of five
units or less has been delegated to the counties. Second, 1979 State
legislation makes it possible for public agencies to manage onsite
wastewater systems. Onsite wastewater management zones may be
established for collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater
without using conventional systems.
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.18
Currently, the authorities and capabilities of State and local
organizations to develop and manage SAWS program vary widely. From
State to State, alternative institutional arrangements will involve
varying distributions of authorities and responsibilities among
public agencies, homeowners, and the private sector. The major
variant will be the extent of public responsibility for regulating
and maintaining systems. Figure 7.4 lists factors to be considered
in evaluating management alternatives.
Two local programs which illustrate the range of onsite manage-
ment possibilities are Fairfax County, Virginia, and Stinson Beach,
California.
Fairfax County's program, administered by the county health
department, is primarily a regulatory program directed at preventing
failure by ensuring proper planning, design, and construction. It
requires that all septic systems have two-year permits. No renewal
is allowed unless the homeowner presents evidence that the tank has
been pumped. Although the program relies heavily on homeowners to
maintain their systems, the septic tank failure rate has been near
zero since the mid-1960s. Rather than provide inspection or mainte-
nance services, the county responds to reported failures.
In Stinson Beach the management program was developed in
response to the public health hazard presented by malfunctioning
septic systems. After several studies of conventional sewers, the
town developed an Onsite Wastewater Management District administered
by the Stinson Beach County Water District. The district takes an
active role throughout the life of each of the 500 onsite systems in
its jurisdiction. The design and installation of new systems are
regulated; existing systems are inspected and tested at least every
two years. Two-year operating permits are issued to each system
which passes inspection.
The Stinson Beach district also takes an active role in repair
and replacement of malfunctioning systems. Water quality monitoring
is conducted to assist the district. All onsite systems in the
district are privately owned; the cost of repair, replacement, and
new construction is borne privately. The Stinson Beach approach has
proved successful because it has used existing onsite systems to
provide cost-efficient wastewater disposal service.
-------
Figure 7.4
Evaluation Criteria for Selection of Management Agencies
ADMINISTRATIVE FEASIBILITY (legal basis, statutory authorization,
relative complexity, staff needed, start-up time)
INSTITUTIONAL FEASIBILITY (organization or coordination changes
required, existing functional capabilities, general resistance
to change)
POLITICAL AND PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY (attitude toward government inter-
vention and local autonomy; availability of grant assistance;
cost; public participation in design and administration of the
program; accountability; understanding of the problem and need
for managment; consistency with other plans, policies, and area
objectives)
EFFECTIVENESS IN MEETING HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
COST EFFECTIVENESS
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
ECONOMIC EQUITY (COST DISTRIBUTION)
SECONDARY SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS (EXTENT AND DISTRIBUTION)
7.19
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.20
References
Binkley, C., et_ a±. jnterceptor Sewers and Urban Sprawl. Lexington
Books: Lexington, Massachusetts,1975.
Environmental Policy Institute and Clean Water Fund. Shopping for
Sewage Treatment: How To Get the Best Bargain for Your
Community or Home, ed. by Michael Gravity et al.Washington,
B.C. 1980.
National Association of Home Builders. Alternatives to Public
Sewers, prepared by Dewberry, Nealon & Davis.Washington, D.C.
1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. Management of On-Site and Small Community
Wastewater Systems, by Roy F. Weston, Inc.M687.Cincinnati.
November 1979.
Management of Small Waste Flows, prepared by the Small
Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin.
Cincinnati. September 1978.
_ Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small Com-
munities, by P. Deese and J. Hudson.EPA-600/8-80-030.
Cincinnati. August 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Program
Operations. Alternative Systems for Small Communities and Rural
Areas. FRD-1(TWashington, D.C.January 1980.
Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems, by R. Otis j^t a±.EPA-625/1-80-012.Washington, D.C.
October 1980.
Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual.
EPA-430/9-78-009.Washington, D.C.February 1980.
-------
Chapter 7 Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems Page 7.21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Planning Division.
Ground Water Protection. Washington, D.C. November 1980.
A Strategy for Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems,
Washington, D.C. February 1980.
-------
8 GROUND WATER PROTECTION
-------
8 GROUND WATER PROTECTION
Problem Identification
Because routine monitoring of aquifers is difficult and costly
and historically, has not always been necessary, most States do not
have effective monitoring programs. As a result, contamination of
ground water is not usually discovered until it shows up in drinking
water.
To identify ground water pollution problems, States and local
managers can check existing data and initiate monitoring programs.
To obtain existing data, they can turn to:
State departments of health, for records on well construction
and contamination cases.
City and county water departments and private water companies,
for information on public water supplies from ground water
sources.
State departments of agriculture or environmental protection,
for information on reductions in ground water quality caused
by extensive irrigation.
In addition to these sources, there are a number of surveys and
studies which may be of interest. Some of these are listed in the
reference section later in this chapter.
Monitoring can be done at lower cost if it is focused on the most
likely problem areas. This requires consideration of land uses,
aquifer recharge and discharge zones, geology and soil types, ground
water flow characteristics, extent of withdrawals, types of pollu-
tants released, and the importance of the resource.
8.1
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.2
The most basic step in identifying a ground water problem is to
define goals for present and future uses of ground water resources,
as different uses may require different degrees of protection.
Levels of contaminants which would be unacceptable in a drinking
water source might not be a problem in water to be used for
industrial purposes.
In defining objectives for a State ground water management pro-
gram, a number of important issues must be considered and resolved.
Among these issues are the following:
Should all high-quality ground water be protected, or only
drinking water supplies?
Should important land uses and activities (e.g., residential
and economic development, waste disposal, agriculture, fuel
extraction and processing) be encouraged or accommodated by
allowing degradation of some ground waters down to or below
drinking water standards?
Should zones of existing contamination be contained and
controlled, without attempting to clean them up?
How much reliance should be placed on engineering technolo-
gies, rather than land use restrictions, to protect the
recharge zones of high-quality aquifers?
How large are the social and administrative costs of pursuing
alternative ground water policies, and how expensive a policy
can the State afford?
A central concern implicit in these issues is: How good does
ground water have to be? When ground water is good enough to drink,
should it remain so? When large populations already depend on it as
a drinking source, protecting its drinkability makes sense. But what
about high-quality ground water that isn't presently being used as a
drinking source? Today's unused aquifer may prove a valuable drink-
ing source for future generations.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection Page 8.3
Drinking is one of the most common, socially valuable, and
vulnerable uses of water; hence, drinkability is an important bench-
mark for water quality. The standards for finished drinking water
are particularly high. Water of slightly lower quality can be used
for drinking if it is purified first, but this adds to its cost.
Since some contaminants cannot be feasibly removed, allowable levels
of these contaminants at the source would be the same as allowable
levels at the tap. Still lower levels of ground water quality may be
adequate for uses other than drinking: powerplant cooling, indus-
trial processes, agriculture, mining, and maintenance of surface
streamflow, to name a few.
Some people favor a "nondegradation" policy, which would allow
no pollution of ground water at all. Such a policy is essentially
a~holding action to prevent further deterioration in quality, since
pollution can rarely be reversed. Others feel that the limited
resources available should cbe focused on protecting priority
aquifers, rather than indiscriminately protecting them all, including
those containing unrecoverable water.
All ground water may not merit the same level of protection. It
makes little sense to put a municipality to the expense of retooling
a landfill in order to protect the water supply below when the oil
well next door has hopelessly polluted it already. If an aquifer is
expected to be used for the foreseeable future primarily for purposes
which do not demand high-quality water (for example, mining, agricul-
ture), standards that are sufficient for these uses only may be
preferred. In fact, a decision may be made to isolate small parts of
slow-moving, low-yielding aquifers for waste disposal. This is also
the principle behind underground injection wells.
A State or local government must decide which factors will give
an aquifer a priority protection status and which institutions will
be responsible for protection decisions. The decision to designate
uses for aquifers (-including waste disposal) must be made only after
careful thought, planning, and debate. Government officials, envi-
ronmental groups, industries, and the general public must all be
involved in these choices. Aquifer classification can be an impor-
tant starting point in making these decisions.
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.4
Once the State has determined its ground water management goals,
it can develop and apply a ground water classification system, if
different levels of protection are required. Such classifications
may be simple or complex, fragmentary or comprehensive. Among
possible approaches, a State may:
Single out its highest quality aquifers for designation as
drinking water supplies, to which a stringent degree of
protection will be afforded.
Adopt a blanket nondegradation policy, recognizing that ground
water of poorer quality can receive more contaminants without
further degradation than ground water of higher quality.
Designate aquifers of mediocre quality, or of high quality but
low yield, as suitable for limited degradation from planned or
accidental waste discharges.
Define and "write off" existing zones of contamination within
otherwise usable aquifers and require that such zones be
monitored, contained, and controlled.
Designate different ground waters for different predominant
uses and adopt sets of numerical ground water quality stan-
dards that define the degree of protection to be afforded each
use.
One classification plan divides aquifers into three major catego-
ries. A priority (or high-quality) category contains aquifers which
serve as sole or principal sources of drinking water. A middle cate-
gory contains all other actual or potential drinking water sources,
sources for other major water uses, and aquifers whose contamination
would harm surface water. The last category includes the remaining
low-quality aquifers or portions of aquifers. Variations and refine-
ments of this plan are possible.
The most useful unit for ground water classification is usually
not the entire aquifer, but a specific part of it. Some aquifers are
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.5
especially vulnerable to pollution in the recharge zones, where
surface water naturally seeps into them. Because contaminants
underground do not disperse in all directions but travel in a plume
in the direction of ground water flow, only part of an aquifer may be
affected by a specific contamination source. Consequently, efforts
to map an aquifer's recharge zones and flow characteristics can
provide useful support for ground water management programs.
A good understanding of the ground water flow system is needed
before control measures can be developed. This means carefully
collecting the right data, sometimes over a lengthy period of time.
Long Island, New York, is a case in point. Because septic sys-
tems were thought to cause nitrate contamination of ground water,
central sewage treatment plants and collector systems were built.
Too late, farming was found to be the cause of the contamination.
One large treatment plant built to protect ground water was placed in
the wrong spot, serving a ground water discharge rather than recharge
area. Not only was ground water used consumptively, leading to
dried-up streams in the discharge area, but the recharge area (where
the problem originated) was not protected.
On another part of Long Island, large recharge basins for
stormwater runoff were built to return freshwater to an aquifer being
overused and thought to be threatened by saltwater intrusion. Better
data collection could have shown that saltwater intrusion was not
really a problem and could have prevented ground water pollution from
poor quality stormwater. In these cases careful collection of the
right data could have prevented large dollar outlays for unnecessary
(and counterproductive) control measures. Figure 8.1 lists the
principal data requirements for ground water analysis and modeling.
Solution Development
Once a State has defined its ground water management goals and
translated these goals into a ground water classification system (if
necessary), it can develop solutions to identified ground water
-------
Figure 8.1
Principal Data Requirements for Ground Water
Analysis and Modeling
Hydrogeologic maps showing extent and boundaries
of all aquifers and non-water-bearing rocks
Topographic map showing surface water bodies and
land forms
Physical Water-table/ bedrock-configuration, and saturated-
Framework thickness maps
Transmissivity maps showing aquifers and boundaries
Maps showing variations in storage coefficient
Relation of saturated thickness to transmissivity
Hydraulic connection of streams to aquifers
Type and extent of recharge areas (irrigated areas,
recharge basins, recharge wells, etc.)
Surface water diversions
Ground water pumpage (distribution in time and space)
Depth-to-water map, keyed to evaporation and
Hydrologic transpiration rates
Stresses Ground water inflow and outflow
Precipitation
Areal distribution of water quality in aquifer
Streamflow quality (distribution in time and space)
Geochemical and hydraulic relations of rocks, natural
water, and artifically introduced water or waste
liquids
Water-level change maps and hydrographs
Model Streamflow, including gain and loss measurements
Calibration History of pumping rates and distribution of
pumpage
Prediction
and
Optimization
Analysis
Economic information on water supply and demand
Legal and administrative rules
Environmental factors
Other social considerations
(Source: Water Resources Council)
8.6
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.7
problems. At this point the State has determined how much protection
is necessary in different geographical areas and can begin fashioning
controls to meet these needs. To develop solutions, it is useful to
consider the various points at which the exercise of management
control is feasible:
Before land development occurs, ground water recharge zones
can be designated for protection against incompatible land
uses.
When permission is sought to locate a pollution-generating
facility or development, the proposed land use can be screened
for compliance with siting standards aimed in part at ground
water protection.
Existing and potential sources of pollution can be controlled
through best management practices at or before the point of
discharge.
Existing polluted ground water can be contained or controlled
to minimize damage to human health and/or the environment.
At each of these points of intervention, there are a variety of
possible management approaches (for example, mandatory or voluntary)
and institutional arrangements (for example, between State and local
governments) from which a State may choose options that seem best
suited both to its own political traditions and to the nature of the
problem.
Developing solutions to ground water problems requires a recogni-
tion of other related concerns and objectives; namely, quality/
quantity issues and the interrelationship of ground and surface
waters.
Practically and scientifically speaking, questions of ground
water quality and quantity have little meaning when considered in
isolation. The important question is whether there is enough water
of the right quality for the use we want to make of it. Many State
ground water laws address only quantity issues and focus more on
preventing fights over allocation rights than on protecting the
quality of the resource.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.8
In certain parts of the United States excessive water use causes
ground water quality problems. For example, when a usable aquifer
lies next to an ocean or a saline aquifer, overpumping can pull
saltwater into wells and render them useless. Wasteful methods of
crop irrigation in other areas flush more salts and nutrients into
ground water than are either necessary or desirable. Degradation
also occurs in areas where too much water is withdrawn from
interdependent ground/surface water systems.
To complicate matters further, controls aimed solely at protec-
ting water quality can adversely affect ground water quantity. For
example, septic system effluents make up a significant percentage of
ground water recharge in some areas. Where these septic systems have
been replaced with a central sewer system to reduce pollution,
recharge has diminished, affecting both ground and surface waters.
Diverting contaminated storm runoff or irrigation return flows can
produce similar effects.
These last examples suggest a second major relationship which
must be addressed. Ground and surface waters are closely related in
the hydrologic cycle and must be considered together in any compre-
hensive water quality management program. According to one EPA
consultant, ground water may provide as much as 80 percent of all
base streamflows nationwide. As a result, ground water depletion can
increase the concentration of pollutants in streams by reducing flow.
Pollutants in ground water can also find their way to surface
waters.
For the most part, ground water laws have developed out of
doctrines originally applied to surface waters and often fail to take
into acccount the unique characteristics of ground water hydrology.
They do not address depletion, are often inadequate in resolving con-
flicts between surface and ground water uses, and generally resolve
conflicts between uses only after ground water pollution has taken
place.
Furthermore, ground water laws are typically administered by a
proliferation of special-purpose programs and institutions, none of
which affords a comprehensive perspective on water resource planning
and management. In order to attack the ground water pollution
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.9
problem, joint management of the complex quality/quantity and ground
water/surface water relationships must be sought where appropriate.
Protection of ground water quality requires State and local
action. Under our federal system, most of the powers over land use
and allocation of water supplies, as well as a wide range of activi-
ties that may contaminate those supplies, reside with the States.
It is currently their responsibility to develop strategies and
administer programs for protecting ground water quality.
In contrast, EPA can play only a limited role. EPA is respon-
sible for regulating relatively few categories of discharging
sources, such as hazardous waste facilities, waste disposal wells,
and land disposal of effluents. For most sources of ground water
contamination, there is little, if any, Federal regulation. Even
with respect to the sources EPA can regulate, there are serious gaps
in coverage, and it is the intent of enabling statutes that
administrative authority be transferred to States with qualifying
regulatory programs of their own. Consequently, the major role for
EPA in ground water is not to regulate but to furnish technical and
some financial assistance to the States on an advisory basis.
A unique mix of ground water protection measures will probably be
required for any given set of local or regional conditions. Some of
the measures being tried or considered by individual States are dis-
cussed below.
Controls over Land Development
The surest way to prevent ground water pollution is to prohibit
or restrict land uses that can be expected to discharge pollutants
into the ground. The conversion of open land to urban or suburban
development is seldom achieved without degradation of ground (and
surface) water quality, even when development planning incorporates
sound technologies for controlling major sources of pollution. The
effectiveness, as well as the legality, of land development controls
may depend largely upon how reliably the resource to be protected can
be identified and characterized.
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.10
The primary purpose of land development controls is to protect
the recharge zones of flow systems that yield high-quality water for
drinking supplies and other sensitive uses. These critical zones
often require special protection. Because of the difficulty of de-
veloping and enforcing ground water quality standards, nondegradation
has been proposed as a goal in these zones. Since aquifer segments
can be isolated, nondegradation is more feasible for ground water
than for surface water.
Ideally, critical recharge zones would be preserved in their
natural vegetative state. However, land development controls in
these areas could include the exclusion of septic systems, land
disposal facilities, and hazardous industrial activities. Limitation
of residential and commercial development to low densities and
curtailment of road construction are also desirable in many cases.
Generally, land use controls are the exclusive province of local
governments. The political problems involved with their legislation
and implementation are a major drawback. They have been challenged
on the grounds that they constitute the taking of property without
compensation. Implementing such controls across the potentially high
number of political boundaries that a recharge area can cover is even
more complicated. The probability of upholding land use controls is
much greater if they are based on sound hydrology and fair public
planning processes.
A number of land use mechanisms have been employed throughout the
country. Two are discussed here: public acquisition of land to be
maintained as open space, and zoning.
Public Acquisition of Land To Be Maintained as Open Space
The acquisition of open space to protect ground water resources
is the securest form of protection. As a general rule, this manage-
ment practice should be considered where:
Long-term protection is absolutely critical to the quality
of ground water in the aquifer;
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.11
A combination of mutually supporting purposes (protection of
wildlife, provision of recreation, etc.) can be achieved
through acquisition;
Stringent land use controls on private property owners are
politicallly or legally unacceptable; and
The recharge zone is clearly defined.
The major disadvantage of acquisition of open space is its cost,
especially where development pressures have pushed up the price of
land. Costs can be reduced, however, by acquiring development rights
or purchasing conservation easements from the owners of open space.
Zoning for Aquifer Protection
Zoning is the primary regulatory vehicle for designating
geographical districts in which particular categories of land use
will be prohibited, allowed, or conditionally permitted. Typically,
certain uses are permitted as a right within a particular zone, and
other uses are allowed upon conditions that are specified in the
ordinance or incorporated in special development permits. Zoning for
purposes of protecting aquifers (or other natural resources) has been
authorized by law in a growing number of States and has been upheld
by the courts as a valid exercise of police power.
Zoning can protect ground water quality in at least three ways:
It prohibits or restricts the location of polluting sources
within the zone;
It allows development only in sufficiently low densities to
avoid exceeding the assimilative or filtrative capacity of the
soil; and
It limits the conversion of natural to impermeable surfaces,
preserving natural recharge and thereby keeping saline or
polluted water from intruding into the aquifer.
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.12
Zoning is only a prospective tool; it regulates future uses but
cannot require the removal of preexisting, nonconforming uses. For
this reason zoning must be considered as a preventive, rather than a
remedial, management control.
Typically, an aquifer protection district (APD) functions as an
overlay upon any preexisting zoning district. In other words, the
APD adds additional restrictions to those which already obtain in the
underlying district. The APD is delineated on a map, which becomes
part of the zoning ordinance, and may consist either of the entire
land surface overlying an aquifer or of more limited recharge areas,
perhaps supplemented by a surrounding protection strip to provide a
margin of safety in regulating land use.
Water Quality Standards
Ground water quality standards are a more precise method of
answering the question, How much protection do we need? Much con-
fusion surrounds the term "standard," because it can mean different
things in different contexts. As used here, a standard consists of a
designated use of an aquifer and a set of numerical limits on the
allowable concentrations of particular contaminants consistent with
that use. The numerical limits are called "criteria," and they vary
according to an aquifer's assigned use. For example, the criterion
for nitrates may be low in an aquifer used for drinking (where they
can cause health problems) but somewhat higher in sources of irriga-
tion water (where they can provide nutrients for plants).
Like classification systems, standards express general goals for
ground water quality based on use. Both offer ways of setting prior-
ities for where, how much, and how urgently protection efforts are
needed.
Standards themselves do not prevent pollution. Their main use is
in setting an objective legal basis for further, more active pollu-
tion control measures or for determining what changes in ground water
quality are permissible. Theoretically, it should be possible to
work backward from the standard and calculate what specific limits
and controls on pollution are needed to meet it. In practice,
however, this process is far more difficult for ground water than for
surface water.
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.13
Because pollutants do not disperse underground as they do in
surface waters, an understanding of their movement is important, but
basic hydrogeologic data and computer models for predicting ground
water movement are not well developed in many areas. Technical
problems remain in assessing the impact of specific pollutants,
particularly organics. Monitoring the quality of entire aquifers is
difficult and expensive. All this makes it difficult to draw a
cause-and-effeet relationship between control measures and attainment
of the standards, leaving the controls open to challenge. Also, once
standards have been exceeded, some damage to ground water may be vir-
tually irreversible. This means that standards may be less useful as
a protection mechanism for ground water than for surface water.
For these reasons, standards may not work everywhere, and there
may be simpler and more practical alternatives. The success of
standards depends partly on the approach selected by each State. To
date, five States have ground water quality standards, six are
reviewing proposed standards, and seven are considering developing
them. In all, nearly 40 percent of the States are taking steps in
this direction.
Facility Siting Standards
Facility siting standards bear a resemblance to zoning on one
hand and operational controls on the other. Like zoning, these
standards can dictate prospectively whether a particular facility can
be located on a particular piece of land. Like operational controls
or best management practices (BMPs), they can dictate how discharges
to ground water are to be controlled, given the fact that the
facility is already on a particular piece of land.
There are two major approaches to employing facility siting
standards.
Where there is substantial knowledge about the aquifer and the
ground water flow system is well defined, the objective is to
protect recharge zones by applying stringent operational
requirements to facilities in those areas or perhaps by
prohibiting them from locating in those areas.
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.14
Where the ground water flow system is largely undefined, the
burden is on the proponent of the facility to prove that the
facility will not impair present and projected uses of ground
water. In effect, the proponent of the facility prepares a
ground water quality impact statement and, in doing so,
advances the State's knowledge about the aquifer.
Either approach to facility siting entails prohibitions of certain
activities, such as hazardous waste disposal, in particular locations
and conditional allowances of other activities in other locations.
Facility siting is usually administered through a permit system on a
case-by-case basis.
Effluent Limits
For lower priority aquifers or areas where land use controls are
not feasible, effluent limits can be used to restrict the amount and
strength of discharges into ground water, especially point source
discharges or effluents from land disposal sites. Permits are the
most likely means of enforcing such limits.
Effluent limits have the advantage of placing specific limits on
individual polluters based on their actual discharges. They are also
an effective means of stopping existing polluters and can be used to
focus on specific problems when more sweeping protection measures are
unnecessary. Politically, they may be more acceptable than other
control measures.
Effluent limits do have drawbacks, however. If based on quality
standards, they can suffer from the same methodological and technical
problems. In addition, they often stop polluting activities only
after ground water contamination has occurred. Finally, effluent
limits do not address the many significant nonpoint sources of
pollutants.
Best Management Practices
Ground water contamination can also be reduced or eliminated
through BMPs, which address nonpoint or areawide sources of pollu-
tion. They are a wide range of technical and management tools
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.15
specifically selected for individual types of pollution. For farm
areas, this can mean more efficient and better timed applications of
fertilizer and pesticides. For developing areas, BMPs may mean more
frequent septic system pumpouts or better road salt management.
In many areas, BMPs can be used to deal with specific sources and
problem areas. Because many actually save money, they can be imple-
mented voluntarily, although mandatory BMPs may be needed to deal
with more serious contamination threats. The voluntary approach to
BMPs can make them more politically acceptable. Even more important,
many BMPs reduce ground water pollution enough to make the develop-
ment of a regulatory program unnecessary. Because they generally
reduce rather than eliminate pollution, however, BMPs may not be
adequate in some critical areas, and more stringent controls may be
needed.
Implementation
According to a 1981 Water Resources Council (WRC) report, nearly
every State has some form of regulatory program to control at least
some ground water contamination sources. These programs vary widely.
Some control single sources, such as hazardous waste disposal sites.
Others regulate most discharges through aquifer classification,
standards, and permits. The WRC report explains that almost all
States have the statutory authority to adopt ground water protection
programs under their general water quality acts, which include ground
water under the definition of "waters of the State." Regulated con-
taminant sources typically include solid and hazardous waste
landfills, surface mining, and underground injection wells.
Table 8.1, which is adapted from the WRC report, summarizes each
State's ground water protection efforts. As the table shows, 15
States have implemented aquifer classification systems, and at least
3 more are developing them. Ground water quality standards have been
adopted in 16 States; at least 14 others are in the process of
adopting them.
In several States, local governments have the power to Use zoning
to protect critical recharge zones. Many jurisdictions are taking
advantage of this power.
-------
Table 8.1
Ground Water Protection
STATE
Alabana
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Col 1 torn la
REGULATORY
PROGRAM
Deep well Injection of
Industrial wastes, land-
fills, and other surface
activities.
Wastewater discharges and
sol Id and hazardous waste
landfills.
Landf II Is and surface
mining.
Landfills, surface mining,
septic tanks, and deep well
Injection of oil and gas
brine.
All discharges Into ground
water; program shared between
State Water Resources Control
Board and regional boards.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Governor's Task
.Force on Water Policy
may recommend classi-
fication system.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Dept. of Public Health
considering drinking
water standards.
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation has adopted
drinking water standards.
Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Boards have adopted
ground water qua 1 1 ty
standards.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
State program being
developed to designate
sole-source aquifers.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Extensive State pro-
grams exist to de-
termine extent of
ground water contamina-
tion.
oo
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
REGULATORY
PROGRAM
Most discharges Into ground
water through several
different State agencies.
Certain discharges Into
ground water*
All sources of contamination.
Deep wel 1 Injection of
Industrial wastes, saltwater
Intrusion, landfills and
surface mining.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, oil and gas
brlno, underground storage,
surface discharges, and land-
fills.
CUSS IFICAT ION
SYSTEM
Dept. of Environ-
mental Regulation
has classified
aqul fers.
GROUND MATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Ground water quality stand-
ards adopted to protect
drinking water (under
revision).
Drinking water standards
adopted.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
Local gov'ts autho-
rized to use zoning to
protect aquifers. Two
towns have done so.
Now Castle County has
been designated a sole
source aqul fer.
Local gov'ts autho-
rized to use zoning to
protect aquifers.
Dade County has done
so; Biscayne Bay
Aquifer sole source.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Interagency Ground
Water Task Force study-
Ing ground water pro-
tection options.
00
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Hawai 1
Idaho
1 Illnois
Indiana
Georgia
REGULATORY
PROGRAM
Sewage, stormwater, deep well
injection of industrial
wastes, landfills, and
saltwater Intrusion.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
and surface mining.
All discharges Into ground
water .
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes and landfills.
Landfills, surface mining,
and deop well Injection of
Industrial wastes.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Aqul fers being
classified by use.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Ground water quality standards
are being adopted.
Drinking water standards
adopted.
Drinking water standards
adopted.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
State and local zoning
used to protect ground
water.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Dept. of Water Resource;
preparing comprehensive
ground water protection
plan.
00
h-'
oo
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
REGULATORY
PROGRAM
Surface Impoundments, land-
fills, surface mining, deep
veil Injection of Industrial
wastes, and oil and gas brine.
Landfills and surface mining.
Landfills, surface mining,
deep wall Injection of
Industrial wastes, and
saltwater Intrusion.
Deop wol 1 Injection of In-
dustrial wastes or
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
REGULATORY
"KOGRAM
Landf 1 1 Is, saltwater
Intrusion, and deep well In-
jection of Industrial wastes.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
hazardous waste sites, and
surface mining.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
surface mining, and other
surface activities.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes and oil and
gas brine, and landfills.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
surface raining, and other
surface activities.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Aquifers being
class (fed according
to drinking water
standards and
natural water
qual Ity.
Classification
system being de-
veloped.
GROUND HATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Drinking water standards
adopted.
Drinking Mater standards being
developed.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
Local gov'ts authorized
to use zoning to pro-
tect aquifers; several
have done so.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Mater Quality Task
Force studying ground
water protection
alternatives.
00
S3
o
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
REGULATORY
PKOGRAM
Ground watur quality pro-
tection regulations being
developed.
Daep tiell Injection of In-
dustrial wastes and
lanjf II Is.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
and surface mining.
Solid and hazardous wastes;
Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission developing
permit program for dis-
charges.
Landfills, surface mining,
saltwater Intrusion, and
deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Classification
system established
to protect primary-
use aquifers for
drinking water.
Al 1 ground water to
be classified as
potential water
supply under de-
veloping program.
Classification
system being Imple-
mented by Dept. of
Environmental Pro-
tection.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Ground water quality stan-
dards being developed.
Dept. of Environmental Con-
trol has adopted ground water
quality standards.
Drinking water standards are
being promulgated by Dept.
of Human Services.
Ground water quality stan-
dards bel ng adopted by the
Dept. of Environmental Pro-
tection.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
Local gov'ts authorized
to use zoning to pro-
tect aquifers; some
towns have done so.
Activities restricted
In Central Pine
Barrens; ground water
quality standards based
on nondogradat Ion.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Legislature consider-
ing bill to regulate
nitrate pollution In
ground water control
areas.
Water Supply Policy
Commission studying
ground water protec-
tion alternatives.
00
NO
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
New Mexico
NCM York
North Carol Ina
North Dakota
Ohio
REGULATORY
PROGRAM
A 1 1 sources of ground water
contamination.
All discharges Into ground
water.
Alt sources ot ground water
contamination.
Landfills, surface mining,
and deop well Injection of
Industrial wastes.
Landfills, surface mining,
and deap well Injection of
Industrial wastes.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Aquifers have been
classified by Water
Qual Ity Control
Commission.
Statewide classifi-
cation system es-
tablished dividing
ground water Into
three categories.
Aquifers are being
classified.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Water Quality Control Com-
mission adopted standards
to protocf ground water of
10,000 mg/l or less of total
dissolved solids for
domestic and agricultural
use.
Dept. of Environmental Pro-
tection has adopted numerical
standards based on a non-
degradation policy.
Drinking water standards
adopted .
LAND USE
CONTROLS'
Local ordinances have
been adopted to pro-
tect aquifers; Long
Island has been
designated a sole
source aqul for.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
A major 208 planning
effort has been con-
ducted on Long Island.
CO
S3
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
REGULATORY
°RO«W
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
surface mining, and
saltwater Intrusion.
All discharges Into ground
water.
Landfills, sewage and sludge
disposal, and deep well In-
jection of Industrial wastes.
Waste discharges, deep well
Injection of Industrial
wastes and landfills under
hazardous waste law.
Landfills, surface mining,
and other surface activities.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Aquifers are begin-
ning to be classi-
fied.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Drinking water standards
adopted; ground water protec-
tion standards are being
p lanned.
Ground water quality standard
being adopted for aquifers In
danger of contamination.
General water quality
standards are being adopted.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
Local gov'ts authorized
to use zoning to pro-
tect aquifers.
Local gov'ts authorized
to use zoning to pro-
tect aquifers; legisla-
ture may consider land
use planning leglsla-
t Ion.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
00
U)
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
REGULATORY
P ,JW'
Landfills, surface mining,
deep well Injection of
Industrial wastes, and
saltwater Intrusion.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
and surface mining.
Waste.aror discharges, solid
and hazardous wastes, deep
wall injection of Industrial
wastes, and ol 1 and gas
br Ine.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
surface mining, and
saltwater Intrusion.
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
and other surface activities.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Aquifers ere being
classified.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Ground water quality
standards are being de-
veloped.
Dept. of Health has adopted
drinking water standards.
Ground water quality standards
have been adopted.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
Local gov'ts authorized
to use zoning to pro-
tect qul ters.
Water Commission pro-
hibits certain activi-
ties over Edwards
Aquifer - sole-source
aqul fer.
Local gov'ts authorized
to use zoning to pro-
tect aquifers.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Agency of Environ-
mental Conservation
developing State
ground water protec-
tion strategy.
00
-------
Table 8.1 (continued)
STATE
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
REGULATORY
PROGRAM
Deep well Injection of In-
dustrial wastes, landfills,
surface mining, and
saltwater Inlruslon.
Ons 1 to disposal, stormwater
disposal, and landfills.
Landfills, surface mining,
and deep well Injection of
Industrial wastes.
Landfills and surface mining.
All discharges Into ground
water.
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
;iassl float Ion systen
jstabl Ished.
Aquifers In danger
>f contamination have
>een classified by
)apt. of Envlron-
nental Qual Ity.
GROUND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Numerical ground water quality
standards adopted based on
nondegradatlon policy.
Ground water quality standards
being developed.
Dept. of Natural Resources Is
proposing ground water
quality standards.
Ground water quality standard:
adopTea based on current and
projected uses.
LAND USE
CONTROLS
Spokane area designated
a sole source aquifer.
SPECIAL
STUDIES
Dept. of Ecology de-
veloping State ground
water protection
strategy.
oo
S3
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.26
Long Island, New York, provides an example of zoning on a large
scale to protect ground water quality. The WQM plan divided the two
counties on Long Island into eight management zones conforming to
particular watersheds and critical recharge areas.
In one zone of more than 100 square miles, consisting largely of
pristine woodlands overlying high-quality ground water, future
development has been severely limited through zoning ordinances
requiring a minimum lot size of two acres. The zone, which also
prohibits various new sources of pollution, is intended to achieve
nondegradation. When the town of Brookhaven rezoned 30,000 acres
upward to a two-acre minimum lot size, challenges in court were met
because the zoning change was backed up by extensive hydrogeological
data and by a comprehensive watershed management plan.
In contrast, another zone covered by the WQM plan consists of a
25-square-mile area in which ground water quality has already been
seriously impaired by organic chemicals and nitrates. A decision was
made to write off the area and not to attempt the virtually impossi-
ble task of restoring the ground water to high quality.
Dade County, Florida, has adopted a zoning approach to protect
the recharge zone of public water supply wells. The ordinance
defines several zones within a core of influence and applies restric-
tions of varying severity to land uses, depending on distance from
the wells. This approach relies heavily on attenuation of bacteria,
dissolved solids, and other kinds of contaminants as they move
through the ground with the passage of time.
In a related effort, Dade County has developed a proposed
management plan for the East Everglades, where wetlands serve as an
important source of recharge for the Biscayne Aquifer. The plan
calls for various restrictions in new overlay zoning districts and
provides for transfer of development rights to landowners at
designated sites outside the districts.
It is possible to designate critical ground water areas for
special protection under State laws. In Florida, for example, a
statewide authority has been empowered to designate "areas of
critical concern," defined so that recharge zones of important water
supply aquifers fit that description. In Texas, the Railroad
Commission (which administers the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act)
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.27
may make certain lands off limits to surface mining. One of the
criteria for making such a designation is "the risk of damages to
renewable resources such as water supply."
Important ground water resources can also be protected by
single-purpose State programs. The Pine Barrens in New Jersey and
the Edwards Aquifer in Texas are prime examples.
The Pine Barrens are a unique natural susceptible aquifer. In
1978, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
promulgated two sets of regulations to protect this area. The first
is a set of numerical ground and surface water quality standards
intended to implement a nondegradation policy. The second is a set
of regulations designating the Central Pine Barrens as a critical
area for sewage purposes. New septic systems cannot be located in
this area unless DEP issues a permit after performing a review to
determine conformity with water quality standards.
The Texas Water Board administers a somewhat less strict set of
policies for the Edwards Aquifer, which provides water for over 1
million people in the San Antonio area. The board has mapped the
geographic area constituting the recharge area. Within this area
most types of waste discharge are allowed only in accordance with
provisions of permits issued by the board.
Special problems may arise when an aquifer is shared by two or
more political jurisdictions. It often happens, for example, that a
municipality draws its water supply from an aquifer whose recharge
zone lies in an adjacent municipality which may have no interest in
protecting the zone from pollutant discharges or conversion to
impermeable surfaces. In such a case, State law might afford the
first town the power to condemn property development rights in the
portion of the recharge zone that lies in the second town. If this
is not done, the State might have to step in to protect the first
town's supply.
At any level of government, interjurisdictional cooperation for
aquifer protection can sometimes be obtained when the jurisdictions
perceive mutual interests. In southeastern Massachusetts, for
example, four towns that share the Mattapoisett Aquifer have formally
agreed to protect and allocate it through cooperation action. With
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.28
the help of the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development
District (working through the WQM Program), these four towns estab-
lished an advisory committee that adopted a memorandum of under-
standing and a set of bylaws describing their commitment to coordi-
nate their ground water rules and regulations. They have evaluated
the safe yield of the aquifer and agreed upon an allocation system,
including the order in which wells will be dug in the four towns.
The advisory committee has also supported amendments to zoning laws
to protect both the quality and quantity of the ground water.
At the Federal level, there is no comprehensive ground water pro-
tection program. Several different programs address a few important
but limited aspects of the problem, such as solid and hazardous waste
disposal, drinking water quality, underground Injection wells, and
surface mining. Under the WQM Program, funds were provided for 27
prototype projects around the country. The projects have developed
and tested cost-effective best management practices for characteris-
tic contamination problems. Some of these are discussed in the
case studies of this chapter.
While all of these activities are encouraging, much work remains
to be done. Adequate implementation of ground water protection
programs will require:
More professionals trained in ground water science.
More research into pollutant sources and transport
through aquifers.
Improved profiles of aquifers according to location, soil
types, geologic formations, hydrology, and capacity to
eliminate, attenuate, or pass pollutants.
Greater awareness of ground water issues on the part of
the general public and public officials.
Institutional solutions to coordinating fragmented ground
water protection programs and developing more comprehensive
programs.
-------
Chapter 8 Ground Water Protection Page 8.29
References
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A. Ground Water. Prentice
Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.
Tripp and Jaffe. "Preventing Ground Water Pollution: Towards a
Coordinated Strategy To Protect Critical Recharge Zones."
Harvard Environmental Law Review 3.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Interim
Report on Ground Water Contamination; Environmental Protection
Agency Oversight. No. 874. 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ground Water Protection.
1980.
A Manual of Laws, Regulations, and Institutions for
Control of Ground Water Pollution. 1976.
. "Planning Workshops To Develop Recommendations for a
Ground Water Protection Strategy." 1980.
. "Proposed Ground Water Protection Strategy." 1980.
. The Report to Congress; Waste Disposal Practices and
Their Effects on Ground Water. 1977.
. Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on Ground Water in
the United States; A Preliminary Survey. 1978.
U.S. Water Resources Council. The Nation's Water Resources
1975-2000. 1978.
. State of the States; Water Resources Planning and
ManagementA Ground Water Supplement. 1981.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.30
Case Study 1; Model Documents Provided
Location: Barnstable County, Massachusetts
EPA Region: I
Contact: Scott Horsely, Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission, Barnstable, Massachusetts
02630, (617) 363-2511
The Cape Cod (Massachusetts) Planning and Development Commission
has provided 15 towns on the Cape with:
Local zoning ordinances to protect ground water recharge
areas;
A model regulation for subsurface gasoline and fuel
storage;
A model health regulation for local control of hazardous
and toxic materials; and
A draft comprehensive ground water monitoring program for
Barnstable County.
At least 14 of the 15 towns have adopted the proposed zoning
ordinances, and 10 have adopted the model regulation for subsurface
fuel and gasoline storage. For an update on the project, contact
Scott Horsely at the address given above.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.31
Case Study 2: Statewide Permit Program
Location: New Jersey
EPA Region: II
Contact: Dr. Marwan Sadat, Assistant Director, Water
Quality Management, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 1390,
Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609) 292-5265
With a Water Quality Management grant, the State of New Jersey
has launched a statewide permit program to control discharges to
ground water. The program is aimed at the State's hundreds of land-
fills and lagoons, which produce millions of gallons of leachate each
year.
The new program includes policies and procedures for selecting
waste disposal sites, allocating ground water supplies, and setting
permit specifications. Effluent limitations based on ground water
wasteload allocations will be added to New Jersey's existing NPDES
permit programs.
The goal of the program is to reduce and eventually eliminate
pollutants that violate State ground water and potable water
standards.
For further information, write to the address given above.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.32
Case Study 3: Ground Water Management and Water Conservation
Program " ~ '
Location:
EPA Region:
Contact:
Middlesex County, New Jersey
II
William Kruse, County of Middlesex,
40 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, New Jersey
08901, (201) 745-2674
In Middlesex County, New Jersey, 35 communities along the Lower
Rantan River are developing a concerted ground water management and
water conservation program. The area's underground public water
supply is now threatened by saltwater intrusion (caused by over-
drafts) and toxic pollution.
Critical recharge areas will be protected through land use
controls, open space and buffer zones, density limitations, and
performance standards. To provide maximum protection, the effort
will be linked to water use and conservation.
For further information, write to the address above.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.33
Case Study 4; Statewide Capability Review
Location: Michigan
EPA Region: V
Contact: Ron Wilson, Water Quality Management, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Box 30028,
Steven I. Mason Building, Lansing, Michigan
48909, (517) 974-9437
Because over 800 existing or potential contaminated ground water
sites have been identified, the State of Michigan is reviewing its
technical, legal, and institutional capabilities for dealing with
these incidents and preventing new ones.
Through the WQM Program, work is well under way toward ranking
existing and potential contamination sites and developing a compre-
hensive program to manage them. Because of the importance of local
governments in ground water protection, some project funds were
provided to four areawide agencies which will work with selected
communities to address specific local problems.
For information on this project, write to the address above.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.34
Case Study 5; Recycling Nitrates
Location: Hall County, Nebraska
EPA Region: VII
Contact: Clark Haberman, Water and Waste Management
Division, Department of Environmental
Control, Statehouse Station, 301 Centennial
Mall South, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509,
(402) 471-2186
Farmers in Hall County, Nebraska, are cleaning up their ground
water and saving money by recycling polluting nitrates. In the past,
intensive fertilizer use and irrigation have contributed high levels
of nitrates to valuable ground water supplies needed for farm animals
and for human consumption. On a project area of over 41,000 acres,
farmers are now using the high-nitrate ground water for irrigation
and as a supplement to their regular fertilizer applications,
reducing their fertilizer costs.
Over 14 Federal, State, and local agencies have been involved in
providing cost-share funds and technical assistance to get the pro-
ject going.
For information on the progress of the project, write to the
address given above.
-------
Chapter 8
Ground Water Protection
Page 8.35
Case Study 6; Private Sector Participation
Location: Gila County, Arizona
EPA Region IX
Contact: Dan Mayercek, Central Arizona Council of
Governments, 1810 Main Street, Florence,
Arizona 85232, (602) 868-5878
In the Globe-Miami area of Gila County, Arizona, copper mining
companies are working with local officials, State agencies, and the
WQM Program to protect ground water supplies. Water degradation has
forced some people to abandon wells; copper plating of pumps and well
casings by copper-laden water is common. After storms, the pH level
of some surface waters has dropped as low as 2.
With funds from EPA, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and a 25 percent
match from the local copper companies, the link between copper mine
tailings and ground water contamination is being determined, and best
management practices are being developed and implemented to control
the problem.
For further information, write to the address above.
-------
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING CASE STUDIES
As was stated in the preface to this document, we are interested
in receiving case studies from the field. Each case study should
contain:
A brief statement of the problem encountered. What condi-
tions prompted State or local governments to take action?
If, for example, it was deterioration of water quality,
what was the extent of the deterioration and over what
period of time did it occur?
A brief description of the program undertaken, with the
starting date.
The objectives of the project.
The results thus far obtained. Be sure to include the dates
as of which results are reported. Include a few quantified
examples, if possible. It is not necessary, though, to
overwhelm the reader with figures.
The name, address, and phone number of a contact person.
If reports have been issued, include their titles. If
reports are expected to be available at some time in the
future, give the expected date of completion.
Bear in mind that the purpose of the case studies is to provide
sufficient information to allow the reader to decide whether more
details would be helpful in his or her situation. The case studies
included in the chapter on urban runoff may serve as a reliable
guide to the degree of specificity needed to accomplish this.
9.1
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AGP Agricultural Conservation Program
AEG Agency of Environmental Conservation
APD aquifer protection district
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (USDA)
BMP best management practice
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CD conservation district
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DMA designated management agency
DPH Department of Public Health
PASS First Assessment of Suspended Sediment
FPA forest practices act
ITS information transfer system
MARC Mid-America Regional Council
MIP Model Implementation Program
MOU memorandum of understanding
NCASI National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NFS nonpoint source
NTIS National Technical Information Service
NURP National Urban Runoff Program
RCWP Rural Clean Water Program
10.1
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
SAWS small and alternative wastewater systems
SCS Soil Conservation Service (USDA)
SEMCOG Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments
SFRP State forest resource plan
SIA surface impoundment assessment
SIMAPC Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Commission
SMZ streamside management zone
SS suspended sediments
SWCD soil and water conservation district
SWMM Stormwater Management Model
TDS total dissolved solids
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation
WQC Water Quality Control
WQM water quality management
WRC Water Resources Council
VTTPA Vermont Timber Truckers and Producers Association
10.2
-------
-------
Agency PPA-335
Washington DC 20460 "
Official Business ^ ~ Special
Penalty for Private Use $300 Fourth-Class
Rate
Book
------- |