United States           Office of Water         May 1991
        Environmental Protection      (WH-553)
        Agency             Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA    Proposed Guidance Specifying
         Management Measures for
         Sources of Nonpoint Pollution
         in Coastal Waters
            Proposed Under the Authority of
          Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act
          Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

-------
                                     FOREWORD
This document contains proposed guidance specifying management measures for sources of
nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.  Nonpoint pollution is the pollution of our Nation's waters
by runoff from the land surface. In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,
Congress recognized that  nonpoint pollution is a key factor in  the continuing degradation of
many coastal waters, and established a new program to address  this pollution.

The new program established by Congress recognizes that the solution to nonpoint pollution lies
in State and  local action.   It  calls for the development and implementation  of State  coastal
nonpoint pollution programs.  These State programs are  to  be  developed in conformity with
technical guidance developed by EPA on the best, economically  achievable measures available
to protect coastal waters from  nonpoint pollution. This document proposes that "management
measures guidance."

The proposed management  measures guidance addresses  five source  categories of nonpoint
pollution:  agriculture,  silviculture,  urban,  marinas, and hydromodification.   A  suite  of
management measures is provided for each source category.  The number and type of systems
identified per source category are  based upon the range and diversity of substantively different
subcategories, activities,  and  pollutants.   In  addition, the guidance  contains a chapter that
provides information on other tools available to address many  source categories of nonpoint
pollution; these include vegetated filter strips, forested buffer strips, and  wetlands. EPA regards
this proposed guidance as a significant beginning to a year-long  process of refinement,  ending
with publication of the final guidance in May 1992. We welcome public comments, information
and data relevant to this continuing effort.

EPA will also  soon  be  publishing, jointly  with  the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,  proposed  guidance  for  the approval of  State programs   that  implement
management measures. That guidance will explain more fully how the management measures
guidance proposed today would be implemented in State programs. EPA encourages reviewers
of this  document to review and comment upon  that forthcoming  guidance as well.
                                                  Robert H. Wayland, m, Director,
                                                  Office   of  Wetlands,   Oceans,  and
                                                  Watersheds

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1:       INTRODUCTION

I.     Background  	1-1

      A.     Nonpoint Source Pollution	1-1

             1.     What is Nonpoint Source Pollution?  	1-1
             2.     National Efforts to Control Nonpoint Pollution	1-1

      B.     Coastal Zone Management  	1-3
      C.     Coastal Zone Act Reauthorizatiori Amendments of 1990  	1-3

             1.     Background and Purpose of the Amendments	1-3
             2.     State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs	1-5
             3.     Management Measures Guidance   	1-6

n.    Development of Proposed Management Measures Guidance	1-8

      A.     Schedule and Process Used to Develop Proposed Guidance	1-8

             1.     Schedule	1-8
             2.     Work Groups  	1-8
             3.     Meetings	1-9

      B.     Scope and Contents of This Proposed Guidance	1-9

             1.     Categories of Nonpoint Sources Addressed  	1-9
             2.     Overlaps Between Nonpoint Sources and Point Sources	1-10
             3.     Contents ofThis  Proposed Guidance	1-11

      C.     Development of Final Guidance; Request for Comments	1-11

ffl.   Technical Approach Taken in Developing This Guidance	1-12

      A.     The Nonpoint Source Pollution Process	1-12

             1.     Source Control   	1-12
             2.     Delivery Reduction	1-13

      B.     Management Measures as Systems	1-14

-------
      C.     Distinction Between Management "Measures" and "Practices"	1-14
      D.     Management Measures: Adaptation to Local Conditions	1-15
      £.     Pollution Reduction Estimates  	1-16
      F.     Costs, Economic Achievability, and Net Economic Benefits of
             Proposed Management Measures	1-17

IV.   Issues to Be Addressed in Program Guidance	1-18

      A.     State Conformity with Management Measures Guidance   	1-19
      B.     Applicability of Management Measures to Individual Sources	1-19
      C.     Land Uses and Critical Coastal Areas	1-20
      D.     Conclusion	1-21

V.    Request for Information and Comments  	1-21
CHAPTER 2.      AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

I.     Introduction  	2-1

n.    Pollutants that Cause Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution  	2-1

      A.     Nutrients  	2-1
      B.     Nitrogen  	2-2
      C.     Phosphorus	2-3
      D.     Sediment  	2-3
      E.     Animal Wastes	2-4
      F.     Salts	2-5
      G.     Pesticides	2-6

ffl.   Request for Comments	 2-7

IV.   Sources of Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution  	2-8

V.    Management Measures	2-8

      A.     Erosion and Sediment Control  	2-10

             1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-10
             2.     Pollutants   Produced  by   Soil   Erosion  and
                   Transported by Runoff and Sediment	:	2-10
             3.     Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment Control	2-10
             4.     Erosion and Sediment Control Management Practices	2-11
             5.     Effectiveness Information	2-15
                                        JV

-------
                TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
                                                                       Page
       6.     Cost Information	2-15
       7.     Operation and Maintenance	2-32
       8.     Planning Considerations	2-32

B.     Confined Animal Facility Management  .	2-34

       1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-34
       2.     Pollutants Produced by Confined Animal Facilities  	2-34
       3.     Management Measure to Control Confined Animal Facilities  . .  . 2-34
       4.     Confined Animal Facilities Management Practices	2-35
       5.     Effectiveness Information	2-38
       6.     Cost Information	2-39
       7.     Operation and Maintenance of This Measure	2-39

C.     Nutrient Management Measure	2-41

       1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-41
       2.     Pollutants Produced by Application of Nutrients Sources	2-41
       3.     Sources of Nutrients That Are Applied to Agricultural Lands  . .  . 2-42
       4.     Management Measure to Control Nutrients  	2-42
       5.     Nutrient Management Practices   	2-43
       6.     Effectiveness Information	2-45
       7.     Cost Information	2-46
       8.     Planning Considerations for  a Nutrient Management Measure  . .  . 2-46
       9.     Operation and Maintenance for Nutrient Management	2-48

D.     Pesticide Management	2-49

       1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-49
       2.     Pollutants Associated with Agricultural Pesticide Use	2-49
       3.     Sources of Pesticides	2-49
       4.     Management Measures to Manage Pesticide Use	2-49
       5.     Pesticide Management Practices	2-50
       6.     Implementation of Management Measure  	2-52
       7.     Effectiveness Information	2-52
       8.     Cost Information	2-55
       9.     Planning Considerations for  Implementing Pesticide Management   2-56
       10.    Operation and Maintenance for Pesticide Management  	2-57

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                           Page

      E.     Grazing Management	2-58

            1.    Management Measure Applicability	2-58
            2.    Pollutants Produced by Utilization of Agricultural
                  Range and Pasture Lands	2-58
            3.    Management Measure to Control Range and Pasture Land Grazing 2-58
            4.    Range and Pasture Land Management Practices  	2-59
            5.    Effectiveness Information	2-62
            6.    Cost Information	2-63
            7.    Planning Considerations	2-63

      F.     Irrigation Water Management	2-68

            1.    Management Measure Applicability	2-68
            2.    Pollutants Produced by  Irrigation	2-68
            3.    Management Measure to Control Irrigation Water	2-68
            4.    Irrigation Water Management Practices  	2-69
            5.    Effectiveness Information	2-73
            6.    Cost Information	2-74
            7.    Planning Considerations for Irrigation Water Management	2-82

VI.   Management Practice Tracking	2-83

Vn.   Sources of Assistance to Implement Management Measures  	2-83

      A.    Federal  	,	2-83
      B.    State/Local	2-84

      References	2-85

      Appendix 2-A	2-87


CHAPTER 3.      FORESTRY MANAGEMENT MEASURES

I.     Types of NPS Problems from Forestry Activities	3-1

n.    Approaches to the Use of Management Measures  	3-1
                                       VI

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                            Page

m.   State Forestry NFS Programs	3-2

IV.   Federal Land Management Agencies	3-2

V.    Local Governments	3-3

VI.   Management Measures	3-3

      A.     MM No.  1 Identification and Designation of Streamside Special
             Management Areas	3-3

             1.    Components and Specifications  	3-3
             2.    Effectiveness	3-5
             3.    Costs  	3-5

      B.     MM No.  2  Identification and Designation of Wetland Special
             Management Areas	3-6

             1.    Components and Specifications  	3-6
             2.    Effectiveness	3-7
             3.    Costs  	3-7

      C.     MM No. 3 Transportation System Planning and Design	3-8

             1.    Components and Specifications  	3-8
             2.    Effectiveness	3-11
             3.    Costs  	3-11

      D.     MM No. 4 Transportation System Construction/Re-construction	3-11

             1.    Components and Specifications  	3-11
             2.    Effectiveness	3-13
             3.    Costs  . . . . i	3-13

      E.     MM No. 5 Road Management	3-14

             1.    Components and Specifications  	3-14
             2.    Effectiveness	3-14
             3.    Costs  	3-15
                                       vJi

-------
                TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                       Page

F.     MM No. 6 Timber Harvest Planning	3-15

       1.     Components and Specifications  	3-15
       2.     Effectiveness	3-17
       3.     Costs   	3-17

G.     MM No. 7 Landings and Groundskidding of Logs	3-17

       1.     Components and Specifications  	3-17
       2.     Effectiveness	3-18
       3.     Costs   	3-18

H.     MM No. 8 Landings and Cable Yarding	3-18

       1.     Components and Specifications  	3-18
       2.     Effectiveness	3-19
       3.     Costs   	3-19

I.      MM No. 9 Mechanical Site Preparation  	3-20

       1.     Components and Specifications  	3-20
       2.     Effectiveness	3-20
       3.     Costs   	3-20

J.      MM No. 10 Prescribed Fire  	3-21

       1.     Components and Specifications  	3-21
       2.     Effectiveness	3-21
       3.     Costs   	3-21

K.     MM No. 11 Mechanical Tree Planting	3-22

       1.     Components and Specifications  	,	3-22
       2.     Costs   	3-22

L.     MM No. 12 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas	3-22

       1.     Components and Specifications  	3-22
       2.     Effectiveness	3-23
                                  via

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                          Page

            3.    Costs 	3-23

      M.    MM No. 13 Stream Protection for Pesticide and Fertilizer Projects .... 3-24

            1.    Components and Specifications  	3-24
            2.    Effectiveness	3-25
            3.    Costs 	3-25

      N.    MM No. 14 Petroleum Products Pollution Prevention	3-25

            1.    Components and Specifications  	3-25
            2.    Effectiveness	3-26
            3.    Costs 	3-26

      Footnotes	3-26

      References	3-26
CHAPTER 4.      MANAGEMENT  MEASURES FOR  URBAN
                  SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION

I.     Introduction  	4-1

      A.    Urban Nonpoint Pollutants and Water Quality Effects	4-2
      B.    Urban Nonpoint Source Pollutants	4-3

n.    Construction Management Measure	4-7

      A.    Management Measure Applicability	4-7
      B.    Pollutants Generated by Construction Activities	4-7
      C.    Construction Management Measures	4-7
      D.    Available Management Practices to Achieve Management Measures  .... 4-8

            1.    Practices Available to Achieve Management Measures 1 and 2 ... 4-8
            2.    Additional   Practices   Available  to  Achieve
                  Management Measures 1 and 2   	4-11
            3.    Practices Available as Tools to Achieve Management Measure 3  .  4-12
                                      ix

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                            Page

      £.     Erosion and Sediment Practices for Particularly Sensitive Watersheds  . . 4-12

      F.     Effectiveness and Cost	4-13

ffl.   Urban Stormwater Runoff Management  	4-15

      A.     Applicability of This Management Measure	4-15
      B.     Problem Description  . .	4-15
      C.     Management Measures for Urban Stormwater Management  	4-15
      D.     Principal Management Practices	4-16
      E.     Effectiveness of Stormwater Runoff Controls	4-16

             1.     Pond Systems (Detention/Retention)  	4-17
             2.     Infiltration Systems	4-19
             3.     Filter Systems	4-21
             4.     Source Control Systems	4-22

      Request for Comments	4-23
      References	4-23

IV.   Roads and Highways	4-24

      A.     Management Measure Applicability	4-24
      B.     Pollutants of Concern	4-24
      C.     Management Measures	4-24

             1.     Location and Design	4-24
             2.     Construction	4-26
             3.     Operation and Maintenance	4-26

      D.     Management Practices	4-26
      E.     Effectiveness and Cost	4-27

V.   Bridges	4-28

      A.     Applicability	4-28
      B.     Problem Description  	4-28
      C.     Management Measures for Bridges  	4-28
      D.     Management Practices	4-29

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                             Page

VI.   Household Management Measures	4-30

      A.     Applicability	4-30
      B.     Pollutants Generated  	4-30
      C.     Management Measure  	4-30
      D.     Management Practices  Available as  Tools  to Achieve  the
             Management Measure  	4-30
      E.     Effectiveness . ,	4-32

Vn.   Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems	4-33

      A.     Applicability	4-33
      B.     Coastal Water Pollution Caused by Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems . .  . 4-33

             1.     Nutrients Cause Eutrophication   	4-33
             2.     Nitrogen/Pathogens  Cause Drinking, Swimming,
                   and Shellfish Contamination  	4-33
             3.     Poorly Operating Systems Worsen Problems  	4-34

      C.     Management Measures	4-34

             1.     Phosphate Limits in Detergents   	4-34
             2.     High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures	4-36
             3.     Garbage Disposals	4-36
             4.     Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems for the Removal of
                   Pathogens, Phosphorus, BOD  	4-38
             5.     Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems for the Removal of Nitrogen  .  . 4-38

      D.     Other Practices that  May be Used as Tools to Achieve OSDS
             Management Measures	4-40
      E.     Implementation  	4-41
      References	4-41

Vin.  Urban Runoff in Developing  Areas	4-43

      A.     Applicability	4-43
      B.     Urban Runoff Problems in Developing Areas	4-43
      C.     Management Measures for Urban Runoff in Developing Areas  	4-43
      D.     Practices Available as Tools to Implement the Management Measures .  . 4-43
                                        XI

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
                                                                           Page
             1.    District Classification System  	4-44
             2.    Environmental Reserves	4-44
             3.    Site Design	4-45

      £.     Additional Practices Available as Tools to Control Urban Runoff	4-45
      F.     Examples of State and Local  Implementation of Management
             Measures for Development  	4-46
      G.     Effectiveness and Cost	4-46
CHAPTERS.      MANAGEMENT   MEASURES  FOR   MARINAS  AND
                  RECREATIONAL BOATING

I.     Introduction	5-1

      A.    Nonpoint Source Pollution Impacts from Marinas and Associated
            Boating Activities	5-2
      B.    Sources of NPS Impacts	5-3
      C.    Federal Programs that Apply to Marinas and Recreational Boating	5-4
      D.    State Programs	5-5
      E.    Management Measures	5-5
      F.    Applicability of Management Measures	5-6

II.    Management Measures for Marina Siting  	5-6

      A.    Environmental Concerns	5-6
      B.    Management Measures	5-7
      C.    Marina Siting Practices  	5-8

             1.     Water Quality	5-8
            2.     Wetlands	5-19
            3.     Submerged Aquatic Vegetation	5-19
            4.     Benthic Resources 	5-19
            5.     Critical Habitats	5-19
            6.     Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal  	5-19
            7.     Water Supply	5-20

      D.    Pollutant Reductions and Costs	5-21
                                       Xll

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                             Page

ffl.   Management Measures for the Design of Marinas	5-21

      A.     Environmental Concerns	5-21
      B.     Management Measures	5-22
      C.     Marina Design Practices	5-22

             1.     Shoreline Protection and Basin Design	5-23
             2.     Navigation and Access Channels	5-23
             3.     Wastewater Facilities  	5-24
             4.     Stormwater Management  	5-25
             5.     Dry Boat Storage	5-26
             6.     Boat Maintenance Areas	5-26
             7.     Fuel Storage and Delivery Facilities  	5-26
             8.     Piers and Dock Systems	5-27

      D.     Pollutant Reductions and Costs	5-27

IV.   Management Measures for Operations and Maintenance of Marinas and Boats . .  5-28

      A.     Environmental Concerns	5-28
      B.     Management Measures	5-28
      C.     Marina Operation and Maintenance Practices	5-29

             1.     Fish Wastes  	5-29
             2.     Boat Maintenance Areas	5-30

      D.     Pollutant Reductions and Costs	5-33

V.    Recommendations  for State Programs to Implement Management Measures  for
      Marinas and Recreational Boating	5-33

      A.     Management Process	5-34
      B.     Public Education  	5-34

      References	5-35
                                       Xlll

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                           Page

CHAPTER 6.      HYDROMODIFICATION,   DAMS   AND
                  LEVEES,   AND   SHORELINE  EROSION
                  MANAGEMENT MEASURES

I.     Hydromodification  	6-1

      A.    Overview of Sources	6-1
      B.    Nonpoint Source Problems Caused by Hydromodification  	6-2
      C.    Management Measures	6-4

            1.    Management Measures for Changed Sediment Supply	6-4
            2.    Management Measures for Loss of Water Contact
                  With Overbank Areas During Flood Events	6-5
            3.    Management Measures for Loss of Ecosystem Benefits	6-5
            4.    Management Measures for Reduced Freshwater Availability	6-6
            5.    Management Measures for Increased or Accelerated
                  Delivery of Pollutants	6-6
            6.    Management Measures for Secondary Effects	6-7

      D.    Costs of Management Measures  	6-7
      E.    Overview of Federal, State, and Local Programs and Processes	6-7

            1.    Existing Regulations	6-7

      References	6-8

n.    Dams and Levees	6-10

      A.    Coastal Problems Caused by Dams and Levees	6-10

            1.    Overview	6-10
            2.    Siting and Construction	6-11
            3.    Operation	6-11

      B    Management Measures for Dams and Levees	6-12

             1.    Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Construction  	6-12
            2.    Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Operation  	6-13
            3.    Habitat Protection  	6-15
                                       XIV

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                          Page

            4.    Fisheries Protection for Dams	6-16
            5.    Temperature  Control and Aeration of Reservoir
                  Releases and Tailwaters	6-18
            6.    Chemical and Other Pollutant Control for Construction	6-20

      References	6-22

ffl.   Shoreline Erosion	.6-23

      A.    Introduction  	6-23
      B.    Specific NPS Problems	6-23
      C.    Management Measures	6-23
      D.    Planning and Design Considerations to Select Management Practices .  . . 6-24
      E.    Management Practices	6-25

            1.    Nonstructural  	6-26
            2.    Combinations and Bioengineering	6-27
            3.    Structural	6-28

      References	6-30


CHAPTER 7.      MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR WETLANDS
                  PROTECTION AND BIOFILTRATION

I.     Introduction  	7-1

      A.    Overview	7-1
      B.    Definitions	7-2

            1.    Wetlands Definition   	7-2
            2.    Riparian Area Definition	7-2
            3.    Vegetative Filter Strips Definition	7-3

n.    Management Measure for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Filter Strips  . 7-3

ffi.   Management Practices for Wetlands	7-4

      A.    Benefits of Wetlands in NPS Control	7-4
                                      XV

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


                                                                            Page

      B.     Management Practices to Protect and Restore Wetlands	7-4

             1.    Management Practice - Protection	7-4
             2.    Management Practice - Restoration	7-8

IV.   Management Practices for Riparian Areas	7-12

      A.     Benefits of Riparian Areas in NPS Control  	7-12
      B.     Management Practices to Protect Riparian Areas	7-12

             1.    Management Practice - Protection	7-12
             2.    Effectiveness of Protection Practices	7-13
             3.    Cost Considerations  	7-14

      C.     Maintenance	7-14

V.    Management Practices for Vegetative Filter Strips	7-15

      A.     General Role	7-15
      B.     Management Practice for Vegetated Filter Strips	7-15

             1.    Effectiveness	7-15
             2.    Design Criteria	7-18

      C.     Cost	7-19
      D.     Maintenance	7-19

VI.   Monitoring Considerations  	7-20

      References	7-21


APPENDICES:

Appendix A   List of Management Measure Work Group Members  	A-l

Appendix B   Effect of Coastal Zone Management BMPs on Nonpoint Source
             Contaminant Loading in Ground Water	B-l
                                       XVI

-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                            Page

CHAPTER 1:       INTRODUCTION

I.     Background  	1-1

      A.     Nonpoint Source Pollution	1-1

             1.     What is Nonpoint Source Pollution?  	1-1
             2.     National Efforts to Control Nonpoint Pollution	1-1

      B.     Coastal Zone Management  	1-3
      C.     Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990  	1-3

             1.     Background and Purpose of the Amendments	1-3
             2.     State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs	1-5
             3.     Management Measures Guidance  	1-6

n.    Development of Proposed Management Measures Guidance	1-8

      A.     Schedule and Process Used to Develop Proposed Guidance	1-8

             1.     Schedule	1-8
             2.     Work Groups  	1-8
             3.     Meetings	1-9

      B.     Scope and Contents of This Proposed Guidance	1-9

             1.     Categories of Nonpoint Sources Addressed  	1-9
             2.     Overlaps Between Nonpoint Sources and Point Sources	1-10
             3.     Contents of This  Proposed Guidance	1-11

      C.     Development of Final Guidance; Request for Comments	1-11

ffl.   Technical Approach Taken in Developing This Guidance	1-12

      A.     The Nonpoint Source Pollution Process	1-12

             1.     Source Control   	1-12
             2.     Delivery Reduction	1-13

      B.     Management Measures as Systems	1-14
      C.     Distinction Between Management "Measures" and "Practices"	1-14
      D.     Management Measures:  Adaptation to Local Conditions	1-15

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
                                                                           Page
      E.     Pollution Reduction Estimates  	1-16
      F.     Costs, Economic Achievability, and Net Economic Benefits of
             Proposed Management Measures	1-17

IV.   Issues to Be Addressed in Program Guidance	1-18

      A.     State Conformity with Management Measures Guidance  	1-19
      B.     Applicability of Management Measures to Individual Sources	1-19
      C.     Land Uses and Critical Coastal Areas	1-20
      D.     Conclusion	1-21

V.    Request for Information and Comments 	1-21

-------
                                    CHAPTER 1

                                  INTRODUCTION

I.     BACKGROUND

This proposed guidance on management measures is required under section 6217 of the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. It provides guidance to States and Territories
on the types of management measures that  should be included in State and Territorial coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs.  This Chapter explains in detail the statutory requirements,
the approach used to develop management measures,  and the process for developing final
management measures guidance, and discusses issues related to State program development and
approval. While the program development and approval issues discussed in this Chapter provide
a framework for understanding the management measures guidance, the issues will be more fully
developed in draft program guidance scheduled to be published for public comment in July 1991.

A.     Nonpoint Source Pollution

       1.     What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?

Nonpoint source pollution is the pollution of our nation's waters from diffuse sources.  It is
caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground  and carrying natural and
manmade pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters, and
ground water.  (As discussed below, some diffuse sources are regulated under the NPDES
program as point source discharges.)

A more detailed discussion of the range of nonpoint sources and their effects on water quality
and riparian habitats is provided in subsequent chapters  of this guidance.
       2.     National Efforts to Control Nonpoint Pollution

       a.     Nonpoint source program

During the first fifteen years of the national program to abate and control water pollution, EPA
and the States have focused most of their water pollution control activities upon traditional "point
sources", such as discharges through pipes from sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities.
These point sources have been regulated by EPA and the States through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program established by Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act. Discharges of dredged and fill materials into wetlands have also been regulated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

As a result of the above activities, the Nation has greatly reduced pollutant loads from point
source discharges and has made considerable progress in restoring and maintaining water quality.

                                         l-i

-------
However, the gains in controlling point sources have not solved all of the nation's water quality
problems. Recent studies and surveys by EPA and by State water quality agencies indicate that
the majority of the remaining water quality impairments in our nation's rivers, streams, lakes,
estuaries,  coastal waters, and  wetlands result from nonpoint source  pollution and  other
nontraditional sources, such as urban stormwater discharges and combined sewer overflows.

In 1987, given the progress  achieved in controlling point sources, coupled with the growing
national awareness of .the increasingly dominant influence of nonpoint source pollution on water
quality, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to focus greater national efforts on nonpoint
sources.

In the Water Quality Act of  1987, Congress amended Section 101, "Declaration of Goals and
Policy", to add the following fundamental principle:

             It is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint
             sources of pollution be developed  and implemented  in an
             expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met
             through the control  of both point and  nonpoint sources of
             pollution.

More importantly, Congress  enacted Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, which established a
national program to  control  nonpoint sources of water pollution.  Under Section 319,  States
address nonpoint pollution by assessing nonpoint source pollution problems and causes within
the State;   adopting management  programs to control  the nonpoint source pollution; and
implementing the management programs.  Section 319 provides for the issuance by EPA of
grants  to  States  to assist them  in implementing those management programs or portions of
management programs that have been approved by EPA.

       b.     National estuary program

EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act.
This program focuses upon point and nonpoint pollution in geographically targeted, high-priority
estuarine waters.  In this program, EPA assists State, regional and local governments to develop
comprehensive conservation  and management plans that recommend priority corrective actions
to restore estuarine water quality, fish populations, and other designated uses of the waters.

       c.     Pesticides program

Another program administered by EPA that controls some forms of nonpoint pollution is the
pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Among other
things, this program  authorizes EPA to control pesticides that may threaten ground and surface
water. This approach entails determining the pesticide's potential for leaching into ground and
surface waters; if there  is such potential, determining whether  national-label restrictions will
adequately address leaching  concerns;  if not, determining whether additional training required

                                          1-2

-------
by restricted use classification for the pesticide will provide adequate protection; and if not,
determining whether providing States with the opportunity to develop State Management Plans
for the chemical will effectively address  the contamination risk.   In the event EPA cannot
determine that State  plans would sufficiently reduce the risks  to  human health and the
environment  (i.e.,  an unreasonable risk remains),  then EPA  would  resort  to national
cancellation.

EPA's approach to State management is described in a proposed Pesticides and Ground-Water
Strategy currently undergoing review by the Office of Management and Budget.  The strategy
describes the policies and regulatory approaches that the Agency will use to protect the Nation's
ground-water resources from risks of contamination by pesticides.  Linkage to and integration
with other evolving EPA/State programs is critical in order to avoid duplication of effort while
promoting related activities.

B.    Coastal Zone Management

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a program for  States and Territories to
voluntarily develop comprehensive programs to protect and manage coastal resources (including
the Great Lakes).  Li order to receive federal approval and implementation funding, States and
Territories had to demonstrate that they had programs, including enforceable policies, that were
sufficiently comprehensive  and  specific  to regulate land  uses,  water uses,  and  coastal
development; and to resolve conflicts among competing uses.  In addition, they had to have the
authorities to implement the enforceable policies.

There are  29  federally  approved State  and  Territorial  programs.   Despite  institutional
differences, each  program must protect and manage important coastal resources, including:
wetlands, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their
habitats.  Resource management and protection  is accomplished in a number of ways through
State laws,  regulations, permits,  and local  plans and zoning ordinances.

While water quality protection is  integral to the management of many of these coastal resources,
it was not specifically cited as a purpose or policy of the original statute. The Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of  1990  described  below  specifically charged  State  coastal
programs, as well as State nonpoint source  programs, with addressing nonpoint source pollution
affecting coastal water quality.

C.    Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

      1.     Background and  Purpose of the Amendments

On November 5,  1990, Congress enacted  the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
of 1990.  These Amendments were intended to address several concerns, a major one of which
is  the impact  of  nonpoint  source pollution on coastal  waters.  In  Section 6202(a) of the
Amendments, Congress made a set of findings; the following findings are pertinent here:

                                         1-3

-------
       "1.   Our  oceans, coastal waters, and estuaries constitute a unique resource.   The
condition of the water quality in and around the coastal area is significantly declining. Growing
human pressures on the coastal ecosystem will continue to degrade this resource until adequate
actions and policies are implemented.

       "2.  Almost one-half of our total population now lives in coastal areas.  By 2010, the
coastal population will have grown from 80,000,000 in 1960 to 127,000,000 people, an increase
of approximately 60 percent, and population density  in coastal counties  will be among the
highest in the Nation.

       "3.  Marine resources contribute to the Nation's economic stability.  Commercial and
recreational fishery activities support an industry with  an estimated value of $12,000,000,000
a year.
       »/
       "4.   Wetlands play a vital role in sustaining the coastal economy and environment.
Wetlands support and nourish fishery and marine resources.  They also protect the Nation's
shores from storm and wave damage.  Coastal wetlands contribute an estimated $5,000,000,000
to the production of fish and  shellfish in the United States coastal waters. Yet, SO percent of
the Nation's coastal wetlands have been destroyed, and more are likely to decline in the near
future.

       "5.  Nonpoint source pollution is increasingly recognized as a significant factor in coastal
water degradation.  In urban areas, storm water and combined  sewer overflow are linked to
major coastal problems, and in rural areas, runoff from agricultural activities may add to coastal
pollution.

       "6.  Coastal planning and development control measures are essential to protect coastal
water quality, which is subject to continued ongoing stresses.  Currently, not enough is  being
done to manage and protect coastal resources.
       "8.  There is a clear link between coastal water quality and land use activities along the
shore.  State management programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972  (16
U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) are among the best tools for protecting coastal resources and must play a
larger role, particularly in improving coastal zone water quality. ..."

Based upon these findings, Congress declared that:

       "It is the purpose of Congress in this subtitle [the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990] to enhance the effectiveness of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
by increasing our understanding of the coastal environment and expanding the ability of State
coastal  zone management programs to address coastal  environmental problems."  (Section
6202(b))

                                          1-4

-------
       2.     State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Prngrqm$

To address more specifically the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality,
Congress enacted Section 6217. "Protecting Coastal Waters".  This section provides that each
State with an approved coastal zone nmn^ggfflignt prftff1"8"1 must develop and submit to F-PA anS
flOA^\  for  approval  a  Coastal Nonpoint Polluting <^pntTfl1 prngTSTr!   The  purpose of the
program "shall be to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution
to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with  other State and local
authorities."

Coastal nonpoint pollution control programs are not intended to supplant existing coastal zone
management programs and nonpoint source management programs. Rather, theyjtre to serve
as an updatf anH  Mansion pf existing nonpnint source  management  programs a^ri am fn hal
coordinated closely with  ffre rearing ma^tql 7one management programs. The legislative history
indicates that the central purpose of section 6217 is to strengthen the links between Federal and
State coastal zone management and water quality programs and to enhance State and local efforts
to manage land use activities which degrade coastal waters and coastal  habitats.  The legislative
history further indicates  that State coastal zone and water quality agencies are to have co-equal
roles, analogous to the sharing of responsibility between NOAA and EPA at the Federal level.

Section 6217(b) states that each State program  must  "provide  for the implementation, at  a
minimum, of management measures in conformity with the guidance published under subsection
(g) to protect coastal waters generally," and also to:

       (1)    Identify lapd uses whirh individually or cumulatively,  may cause or contribute
             significantly  to a degradation, of (a)  coastal waters where there is a failure to
             attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or  protect designated uses,
             or (b) coastal waters that  are threatened by reasonably  foreseeable increases in
             pollution loadings from new or expanding  sources;

       (2)    Identify critical coastal areas  adjacent  to coastal  waters  identified  under the
             preceding paragraph;

       (3)    Implement additional  management measures applicable to land  uses and areas
             identified  under paragraphs (1) and (2) above that areffiecessary to achieve and
             maintain applicable wat^r  qualify standards aM protect  designatedHses^T

       (4)    Provide technical assistance to local governments and  the public  to implement
             management measures;

       (5)    Provide opportunities  for public participation in all aspects of the program;
                                          1-5

-------
       (6)    Establish mechanisms to improve coordination among State and local agencies and
             officials  responsible for land use  programs  and permitting,  water  quality
             permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health and safety; and

       (7)    Propose  to modify  State coastal zone boundaries as necessary  to implement
             NOAA recommendations under Section 6217(e), which are based on findings that
             inland boundaries must be modified to more effectively manage land and water
             uses to protect coastal waters.
EPA is required to puhli
-------
       "(D) quantitative estimates of the pollution reduction effects and costs of the measures;

       "(E) a description of the factors  which should be taken into account  in adapting the
measures to specific sites or locations; and

       "(F) any necessary monitoring techniques to accompany the measures to assess over time
the success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality."

State coastal nonpoint pollution control programs must implement management measures that are
in conformity with this management measures guidance.

The legislative history (Floor statement of Rep. Gerry Studds, House Sponsor of Section 6217,
as part of debate on Omnibus Reconciliation Bill, October 26, 1990) confirms that, as  indicated
by the statutory language, the "management measures" approach is technology-based rather than
water-quality based.   That is,  the management measures, in a manner  analogous  to the
technology-based requirements previously established for point sources, are to be based upon
technical 2nd economic achievability, rather than on establishing cause and  effect linkages
between particular land use activities and particular water quality problems. Congress' rationale
is that, with few exceptions, neither States nor EPA have the money or the time to create the
complex monitoring programs that would be required to document a causal link between specific
land use activities and  specific water quality problems.   Under the approach adopted by
Congress, States will  be able to concentrate their resources on developing and implementing
measures that experts  agree will reduce pollution significantly.

The legislative history indicates that the range of management measures anticipated by  Congress
is broad and may include, among other measures, use of buffer strips, setbacks, techniques for
identifying and protecting critical coastal areas and habitats,  soil erosion and sedimentation
controls, and siting and design criteria for water-related  uses such as  marinas.  However,
Congress has cautioned that the management measures should not unduly intrude upon the more
intimate land use authorities properly exercised at the local level.

The legislative history also  indicates that  the management measures guidance,  while patterned
to a degree after the point source effluent guidelines technology-based approach (see 40 CFR
Parts  400-471 for examples of this approach),  is not expected to have the same level  of
specificity as effluent guidelines. Congress has recognized that the effectiveness of a particular
management measure at  a particular site is subject to a variety of factors too complex to address
in a single set of simple, mechanical prescriptions developed  at the federal level. Thus, the
legislative history indicates that EPA's guidance should offer State officials a number of options
and permit them considerable flexibility in selecting management measures that are appropriate
for their State.

An additional major distinction drawn in the legislative history between effluent guidelines for
point  sources and management measures guidance is that the management measures will not be
directly or automatically applied to categories of nonpoint sources as a matter  of Federal law.

                                          1-7

-------
Instead, the measures must be established under State law, or under local authorities as described
through the State coastal nonpoint pollution control program.  The State program must provide
for the implementation of management measures in conformity with the management measures
guidance.  Under section 306(d)(16) of the CZMA, coastal  zone programs must provide for
enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of the State
coastal nonpoint pollution control program, including management measures.

H.     DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED MANAGEMENT MEASURES GUIDANCE

A.     Schedule and Process Used to Develop Proposed Guidance

       1.     Schedule

Congress established a six-month deadline (May 5,  1991)  for publication of this proposed
guidance, and an eighteen-month deadline (May 5, 1992) for publication of the final guidance.

Given the extremely tight statutory deadline for publishing proposed guidance, EPA has worked
to make this proposed guidance as broad and comprehensive as possible. To assist the public in
commenting on the proposal, we have included below a discussion of our plans for completing
the guidance by May 1992. While significant revisions are likely over the course of the nest
twelve months, we hope that this proposed guidance clearly outlines EPA's direction and
technical approach being considered for the final guidance, thereby providing for fair opportunity
for review and comment by interested persons, organizations, and agencies.

       2.     Work Groups

To meet the tight statutory deadline and draw upon existing sources of technical nonpoint source
expertise, EPA chose a work group approach to develop the guidance.  Since the guidance is
to address all significant categories of nonpoint  sources that impact  or could impact coastal
waters (see Background), EPA drew upon expertise covering the very wide range of subject
areas addressed in this guidance.

Because nonpoint experts tend to specialize in particular source categories, EPA decided to form
work groups on a category basis. Thus, in consultation with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and other Federal and State agencies, EPA established five work groups to develop this
proposed guidance:

    (1)      Urban, Construction, Highways, Airports/Bridges, and Septic Systems
    (2)      Agriculture
    (3)      Forestry
    (4)      Marinas and Recreational Boating
    (5)      Hydromodification, Dams and Levees, Shoreline Erosion, and Wetlands
                                         1-8

-------
A list of the members in each of these Federal-State workgroups is provided in Appendix A of
this guidance.

       3.     Meetings

EPA focused its initial efforts on briefing various governmental and other groups on the scope
of the new coastal legislation; obtaining a broad range of input on potential approaches to
developing the  management measures guidance; scoping out options for writing management
measures; and inviting participation by various interested EPA  and NOAA offices and other
Federal and State agencies in the work groups.

Some of the groups that EPA met with to discuss potential approaches to implementing the new
legislation include the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA), the Coastal States Organization  (CSO), several Federal agencies, and the Natural
Resources Defense Council.

On January 16, 1991, EPA held the first work group meeting, attended by over 30 Federal and
State agency staff with  expertise in coastal nonpoint pollution issues. That meeting resulted in
commitments for assistance and, in some cases, substantial participation in the effort, especially
by USDA and NOAA.  Each workgroup has held at least one meeting  since February,  1991,
with the agriculture work  group meeting three times and the urban group holding a two-day
meeting.  Other groups have utilized  teleconferencing for additional communication.   Both
Federal and State work group members have participated in drafting and reviewing this proposed
guidance.

B.     Scope and Contents of This Proposed Guidance

       1.     Categories of Nonpoint Sources Addressed

Many categories and subcategories  of nonpoint sources could affect coastal waters and thus could
potentially be addressed in this management measures guidance.  Including all such sources in
this proposed guidance would require more time than the tight statutory deadline allows. For
this reason, Congressman Studds stated in his floor statement, "The Conferees  expect that EPA,
in developing  its guidance, will concentrate on the large  nonpoint sources that are  widely
recognized as major contributors of water pollution."

This proposed guidance thus focuses on five major categories of nonpoint sources that  impair
or threaten coastal  waters nationally:  (1) agricultural  runoff; (2) urban runoff (including
developing and developed areas); (3) silvicultural (forestry) runoff;  (4) marinas and recreational
boating; and (5) hydromodification, dams and levees, and shoreline erosion.  EPA has also
included management measures for wetlands, riparian areas, and filter strips that apply generally
to various categories of sources of nonpoint pollution.  Some categories that have not been
addressed but may be responsible for nonpoint source pollution in some coastal waters include
oil and gas operations; mining activities; land disposal of wastes; and in-place contamination

                                          1-9

-------
(sediments).  EPA intends to investigate these activities' impacts on coastal waters as time and
resources allow.  We welcome comments from the public on these and other categories that
might appropriately be addressed in the management measures guidance.

       2.     Overlaps Between Nonpoint Sources and Point Sources

Historically,  there have always been overlaps  and ambiguity between programs designed to
control nonpoint sources and point sources. The primary overlap occurs between the stormwater
permit program (under  section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act) and traditional  urban runoff
programs.  Often, runoff may originate as a nonpoint source but ultimately be channelized and
become a point source.  A further  complication arises  because the Clean Water Act currently
requires a permit for some municipal stormwater sources while postponing regulatory coverage
of other (generally smaller) municipalities' storm water.

A second overlap occurs in connection with confined animal feeding operations.  Concentrated
animal feeding operations that meet particular size or other criteria are defined and regulated as
point sources under the section 402 permit program.  Other confined animal feeding operations
are not currently regulated as point sources.  Other overlaps may occur with respect to aspects
of mining operations, oil and gas extraction, land disposal, and other activities.

EPA intends  that the coastal nonpoint pollution control programs to be developed by the States
apply only to sources that are not currently required to apply for and receive an NPDES permit,
and that the management measures similarly apply only to sources that are not required to apply
for and receive an NPDES permit.  In this proposed  guidance, EPA has attempted to avoid
addressing activities that are clearly regulated point source discharges. However, for pollution
sources for which there may be overlap or ambiguity, EPA  has chosen to err on the side of
inclusiveness in this proposed guidance and to  include management  measures to  address  those
sources.

For example, the management measures guidance for marinas does not address pollution from
vessels, including marine sanitation devices, which are regulated as point sources under sections
312 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Nor does it address construction sites exceeding five acres
in size, which are regulated under section 402 of the Act.  On  the other hand, the guidance does
include urban runoff management measures. These will apply only to stormwater discharges that
are not required to apply for and receive stormwater permits; however, they include some of the
same measures that may be addressed in such stormwater permits. Readers should also note that
a stormwater discharge  that is currently exempt from permit  requirements may be required to
obtain a permit under section 402(p)(2)(E) of the Clean Water Act if EPA or a State determines
that it contributes to a violation of a water quality standard  or is a significant contributor of
pollutants to waters of the United States.  Additional stormwater discharges  may  also be
regulated as point sources under section 402(p)(6).

EPA will continue to evaluate overlapping areas and welcomes comment  on our proposed
attempts to deal with these areas.

                                          1-10

-------
       3.     Contents of This Proposed Guidance

This proposed guidance includes, for the five source categories addressed to date, the following:

       (1)    A specification of management measures;

       (2)    A description of the categories and subcategories of activities and locations for
             which each measure may be suitable;

       (3)    An identification of the individual pollutants or categories or classes of pollutants
             that may be controlled by the measures;

       (4)    A description of the water quality effects of the measures;

       (5)    Information regarding pollution reductions  achievable  with the management
             measures;

       (6)    Information on costs of the measures; and

       (7)    A description of some factors  which should be taken into account in adapting the
             measures to specific sites or locations.

Due to the extremely tight time constraints imposed by the statute, EPA could  not include
detailed information on all of the items identified above,  most notably  pollutant reduction
effectiveness  and cost data.   EPA will endeavor over the next year to obtain additional
information for inclusion in the final guidance.

C.     Development of Final Guidance: Request for  Comments

Much needs to be accomplished between now  and May  1992.  EPA intends  to examine and
evaluate various data sources, including those listed in  references listed at  the end of many of
the chapters of this document.  In addition,  EPA has existing, yet  incomplete, data bases
regarding the effectiveness of agricultural and urban management practices, and we will use this
information to the extent possible.  These data bases include information regarding the study
conditions, practices applied, and pollutant reductions achieved.  Other literature  will  be
accessed  through existing libraries of nonpoint source publications,  including information
maintained by Universities, other agencies, and State government. EPA will rely primarily on
those articles published in the peer-reviewed  technical literature, but will use  other reliable
sources as necessary.

EPA  solicits comments on the  proposed  guidance,  including  additional information and
supporting data on the measures specified in this guidance as well as additional management
measures that may be as effective  in controlling nonpoint source pollution.  In  particular, EPA
requests the following:

                                         1-11

-------
       (1)    Information on the  activities and locations  for which each measure may be
             suitable and on factors which should be taken  into account in adapting  the
             measures to specific sites or locations.

       (2)    Information on the pollutants that may or may not be controlled by the measure.

       (3)    Data regarding the pollutant reduction effectiveness of the measures.

       (4)    Data regarding the costs of each measure.

EPA also welcomes comments on the general approach used in the proposed guidance, including
the level of detail used to describe management measures.
           on this CT'^flfDffi should be mailed, wifhfo 1 20 davs of publication of the Federal
Register notice announcing the availability of this proposed guidance, to Steven Dressing.
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division  fWH-553).  Office of  Water.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street. S.W.. Washington. DC 20460.

The review comments received as a result of public notice will be assessed and summarized.
EPA will draw upon the information provided through public review and comment, the technical
materials referenced throughout this proposed guidance, and other expertise as available to make
final determinations as to the scope and content of the guidance.

m.    TECHNICAL APPROACH TAKEN IN DEVELOPING THIS GUIDANCE

       A.    The Nonpoint Source Pollution Process

Nonpoint source pollutants are transported to surface water by a variety of means, including
runoff and ground-water infiltration. Ground water and surface water are both considered part
of the  same  hydrologic  cycle when designing management  measures.    Ground-water
contributions of pollutant loadings to surface waters in coastal areas are often very significant.
The transport of nonpoint source pollutants to coastal waters through ground-water discharge is
governed by physical and  chemical  properties  of the  water, pollutant, soil, and aquifer.
Appendix B of the proposed guidance contains a discussion of the effects of various nonpoint
source management practices on ground water.

       1.     Source Control

Source control  is the first opportunity in any nonpoint source control effort.  Source control
methods very for different  types of nonpoint source problems.  Examples of source control
include:

       (1)    Reducing  or eliminating the introduction of pollutants to a land area.  Examples
             include reduced nutrient and pesticide application.

                                         1-12

-------
       (2)     Preventing non-introduced pollutants from leaving the site during land-disturbing
              activities.    Examples  include  conservation  tillage;  planning  forest  road
              construction to minimize erosion;  siting marinas adjacent to deep  waters  to
              eliminate or minimize the need for dredging; and managing grazing  to protect
              against overgrazing and the resulting increased soil erosion.

       (3)     Preventing interaction between precipitation and introduced pollutants. .Examples
              include  installing  gutters and  diversions  to  keep clean  rainfall  away  from
              barnyards; diverting rainfall runoff from areas of land disturbance at construction
              sites; and  timing chemical applications or logging activities based upon weather
              forecasts or seasonal weather patterns.

       (4)     Protecting riparian habitat and other sensitive areas. Examples include protection
              and preservation  of riparian zones,  shorelines, wetlands,  and highly  erosive
              slopes.

       (5)     Protecting natural hydrology.  Examples include  the maintenance  of pervious
              surfaces   in   developing  areas   (conditioned   based   upon  ground-water
              considerations); riparian zone protection; and water management.

       2.     Delivery Reduction

Pollution prevention often involves delivery reduction (intercepting pollutants prior to delivery
to the receiving  water)  in  addition to appropriate source control  measures.  Management
measures include delivery  reduction  practices to achieve the  greatest  degree of pollutant
reduction economically achievable, as required by the statute.

Delivery reduction practices intercept pollutants leaving the source by capturing the runoff or
infiltrate, followed either by treating and releasing the effluent or by permanently  keeping the
effluent from reaching a surface or ground water resource.

By their nature, delivery reduction  practices often bring with them side effects that must  be
accounted for.  For example, management practices  that intercept pollutants leaving the source
may reduce runoff, but  also increase infiltration to ground water.  For example, infiltration
basins trap runoff and allow for its percolation.  These devices, although highly successful at

controlling suspended solids, may not, because of their infiltration properties, be suitable for use
in areas with high ground-water tables and nitrate or pesticide residue problems.

The performance  of delivery reduction practices  is to a large extent dependent on  suitable
designs,  operational conditions, and proper maintenance.  For example, filter strips  may  be
effective for controlling particulate and soluble pollutants where sedimentation is not excessive,
                                           1-13

-------
but may be overwhelmed by high sediment input.  In many cases, filter strips are used as
pretreatment or supplemental treatment for other practices within a management system.

These examples illustrate that the combination of source control and delivery reduction practices,
and the application of those practices as components of management measures, are dependent
upon site-specific conditions.  Technical factors that may affect the  suitability of management
measures  include, but are not limited to,  land  use,  climate,  size of drainage  area,  soil
permeability, slopes, depth to water table, space requirements,  the  type and condition of the
water resource  to be protected, depth to bedrock, and the pollutants to be addressed.  In the
proposed management measure guidance below, some of these factors are discussed as they
affect the suitability of particular measures.  EPA expects to expand this aspect of management
measures in the final guidance.

B.     Management Measures as Systems

Technical experts who design and implement effective nonpoint source control measures do so
from a management systems approach as opposed to an approach that focuses on individual
practices.  That is, the pollutant control achievable from  any  given management system is
viewed as the sum of the parts, taking into  account the range of effectiveness associated with
each single practice, the costs of each practice, and the resulting  overall cost and effectiveness.
Some individual practices may not be very effective alone, but, in combination with others, may
provide a key function in highly effective systems.   This is analogous to the use of treatment
"trains," or series of treatment steps,  in most point source wastewater treatment systems.

Therefore, this  guidance  adopts the approach of specifying management measures  (defined by
    •"} the "best available...") as systems of management practices. This is primarily reflected
in two ways: (1) the management measures  are usually presented as  systems, and (2) for those
sources that generate pollutants from a number of somewhat discrete activities or unit areas the
guidance includes management measures for each activity or area.

For example, the agriculture category includes  separate management measures for sediment
control  on  agricultural  land;  nutrient  management; pesticide   management;  irrigation
management; and livestock management.  Taken together, however, these measures constitute
comprehensive  management measures that can address a wide range of farm operations, several
of which are frequently found on the same farm.

C.    Distinction Between  Management "Measures"  and "Practices"

Readers should note that the statute provides that State programs need to be "in conformity" only
with "management measures", not with "management practices".  The "management measures"
contained in this guidance are the heart of the guidance. The "practices" listed in the guidance
are provided strictly for informational purposes; they are designed to provide ideas on effective
tools to achieve the management measures.  However, the selection of these or other practices
                                          1-14

-------
is within the discretion of the State and managers of the sources of nonpoint pollution, provided
that the selected set of practices achieves the management measure.

Since nonpoint source pollutants have a limited number of pathways by which they reach water
resources, the practices that constitute management measures for the various source categories
may be similar in several cases.   For example, filter strips of one sort or another are used to
address a variety of sources, including agricultural, forestry, and urban sources.  At the same
time, the filter strip design specifications, operation and maintenance, and pollutant reductions
for each of these sources and specific activities  within these source categories may vary
considerably, however. In this proposed guidance, filter strips are addressed in the final chapter
as a multi-source management measure.  Similarly, the water-quality benefits of protecting and
restoring coastal wetlands  apply  across many categories of nonpoint sources  and are thus
addressed in the final chapter.  EPA may identify other management measures in the final
guidance that can be applied to more than one source category.

D.     Management Measures!   Adaptation to Local Conditions

It is generally not possible to prescribe a highly specific management measure that will be
uniformly applicable  nationally or regionally.  For example,  when designing erosion  and
sediment control systems on agricultural lands, one considers soil types, cropping patterns,
precipitation patterns, slopes, depth to water  table, and other factors to determine the proper
system for each parcel of land. Similarly, in determining management measures for developing
urban areas, a local community  might consider transportation system needs, land use, soils,
slopes, precipitation patterns, permeability, rate of growth, and other factors. The multitude of
combinations of site-specific factors that arise across the nation, within States, and even within
watersheds, makes it impractical to develop a list of specific management measures that is most
effective to control all of the existing and potential nonpoint source problems  affecting  our
coastal waters.

Rather than developing an exhaustive list of specific management measures (each of which is a
system of practices) tailored to all scenarios (an impossible  task), or even a defined subset of
possible scenarios, EPA proposes to specify  management measures in a  manner that  can be
applied on  a broader scale to categories of nonpoint sources.  By identifying measures  that
reflect best achievable pollutant reductions, yet allowing for approaches that achieve equivalent
or better pollutant control, EPA's proposal enables adaptation to site-specific conditions.  This
adaptation would occur through flexible application of management measures contained in State
coastal nonpoint pollution control  programs approved by NOAA and EPA.

This proposed guidance provides a suite of management measures for each source category. The
number and type of systems  identified per source category are based  upon the  range  and
diversity of substantively different subcategories, activities, and pollutants.

EPA used a consistent approach  to determine the number and type of management measure
systems needed  under each category.  We first determined  the range of subcategories  and

                                          1-15

-------
activities that fall under each source, and how they related to each other.  We then identified the
types of nonpoint source pollution and impacts that could be caused by each subcategory and
activity,  as  well as by combinations of subcategories and activities.   This step is key to
preventing pollution at the source.   Management measures were then  identified based  upon
several  factors,  including  the  types of pollutants,  pollutant fate  and transport, and  land
management patterns and opportunities.

Pollution prevention was always considered as the first component of management measures.
Pollutant delivery reduction measures were typically added only after it was determined that
additional control was necessary to reach the greatest degree of pollutant reduction economically
achievable.

For each management measure, a list of management practices that can be used in designing an
equivalent or better system is provided. The list of practices reflects the best available set of
practices, or components of best available systems, but is not all-inclusive of those practices that
could be used to develop systems that are  equivalent to or better than  specified management
measures.

The pollutant reductions that can be achieved using the specified management measures are also
described in this guidance,  quantitatively wherever possible.  These reductions serve as the
benchmarks for equivalent or better management measures. Pollutant reductions achievable with
the management practices listed are also given to the extent data are available.

The proposed guidance also describes factors that need to be taken into account in adapting the
systems to specific sites or locations.  These factors are illustrative of conditions that may lead
to (1) selection  of equivalent or better management measures for any given application, (2)
special design considerations, or (3) special operation and maintenance considerations. As for
other aspects of the proposed guidance, EPA intends to expand this information  in  the final
guidance.

E.    Pollution Reduction Estimates

Estimates of pollution reduction are provided for the management measures and a subset of the
management practices contained in  this proposed guidance.  All estimates provided are  based
upon data available to EPA, but EPA has to date performed little or no analysis of these data
due  to the tight statutory deadline for proposal.  Therefore, the estimates provided should be
considered only indicative of the types of estimates that will be given in the  final guidance, but
should not be considered best estimates at this time.

EPA expects during the coming year to assemble and analyze additional pollutant reduction data
on the  effectiveness  of various practices  and measures;  improve  its  understanding  of the
site-specific variability of pollutant reduction estimates by identifying factors that appear to cause
differences  in reductions; and characterize reduction results more rigorously.  EPA  will also
examine the specific practices to determine if differences in design or application  affected the

                                          1-16

-------
study results. For example, pipe outlet terraces may have a very different impact upon ground
water than terraces  with no pipe outlets.  Further, pipe outlet terraces  on soils underlain by
carbonate rock may have very different effects than terraces underlain by noncarbonate rocks.

In many cases,  EPA was unable to obtain or analyze data that would enable EPA to estimate
pollutant reduction effects of proposed management measures.  EPA intends to do considerable
work in the coming year to develop such quantitative information and welcomes commenters'
ideas and data in this regard.
F.     Costs. Economic Achievabilitv. and Net Economic Benefits of Proposed Management
       Measures

A limited amount of cost information is provided in various chapters of this proposed guidance.
The cost data, like the pollutant reduction effects estimates provide a preliminary indication of
the type and range of estimates  likely  to appear in  the final guidance, but should not be
considered final or best estimates  at this time.  EPA has also prepared a preliminary scoping
analysis of the net economic benefits of management measures for coastal waters.

Congress defined "management measures" to mean "economically achievable measures ... which
reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best
available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating
methods,  or other  alternatives.  Thus the management  measures must be "economically
achievable".

Congress has not defined the term "economically achievable"; nor has it explained the term in
legislative history.  However, as noted previously, the legislative history indicates that the
management measures approach  of Section  6217 is "patterned" after the "best available
technology economically achievable" (BAT) approach used hi the Clean Water Act for point
sources.   Thus, the meaning of  "economically achievable"  would  seem to  be its historical
interpretation in the point source program.

It is unclear that "economically achievable" would be interpreted precisely the  same way for
nonpoint source management measures guidance as it has been for point source BAT regulations.
Indeed, there are important distinctions between the "management measures" guidance and BAT
regulations that clearly limit the extent to which economic achievability can  be assessed and
factored  into a general analysis of proposed guidance. These  distinctions relate to the more
extensive flexibility inherent in implementing nonpoint source management measures.

The ability of a particular management measure to deal with nonpoint source pollution from a
particular site is subject to a variety of factors (e.g., geography,  geology, soils, hydrology, and
production methods) too complex  to address in a single set of simple, mechanical prescriptions
developed at the federal level. Thus, Congress indicated the need to provide in the management
measures guidance considerable  flexibility  for local selection  of management  measures.
Furthermore, unlike BAT  regulations,  the management measures  guidance is  not directly

                                          1-17

-------
applicable to nonpoint sources,  but, rather, will be directly implemented only through state
programs  developed  in conformity with the guidance.   These considerations make it very
difficult to predict the costs and economic impacts of management measures that will ultimately
be developed, applied, and implemented on a localized basis.

Many of the proposed management measures are generally regarded as low-cost, yet highly
effective.   Examples include agricultural  measures  such as sediment control  and nutrient
management. Others are more expensive, yet are widely practiced (e.g., animal waste controls
and construction of vegetative filter strips).  Further, it should be noted that significant cost-
share assistance is available to farmers from a variety of federal and state programs to assist in
the implementation of the agricultural management measures.

The  exceptionally tight six-month statutory deadline,  coupled with the analytical limitations
outlined above,  have precluded a formal economic analysis. To assist readers in evaluating the
effect of this guidance, EPA has prepared a preliminary net benefits analysis of nonpoint source
management  measures  for  coastal  waters.    This  preliminary analysis  indicates that
implementation of nonpoint pollution management measures in coastal areas may yield significant
net economic benefits.  EPA solicits comments on this preliminary benefits analysis.

Commenters are also invited to identify particular management measures that they believe are
or are not economically achievable; provide information or analyses to support their comments;
and suggest alternative analytical methodologies that they believe would be useful in determining
economic achievability. Commenters are also invited to suggest methods for analyzing economic
achievability in a manner that overcomes the analytical limitations outlined above and that could
be performed rapidly,  consistent with  the May  1992 deadline  for publication  of final
management measures guidance.

IV.    ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN PROGRAM GUIDANCE

A complete understanding of the proposed management measures depends on a consideration of
how they  will be implemented in State programs.  As described in "Background", each State
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) must  "provide for the implementation,
at a minimum, of management measures  in conformity  with the  guidance  published under
subsection (g) to protect coastal  waters generally,...."  States will implement the CNPCP
through amendments to their existing State nonpoint source program under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act (as  amended in 1987) and their Coastal Zone Management Program.

EPA and  NOAA plan to publish  draft state program  development and approval guidance in
August 1991. This guidance will address the key  issues of how the management measures are
to be implemented in State programs, as well as other program requirements.  States and other
interested parties will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the guidance at that
time. The agencies expect to publish final state program guidance in May 1992.
                                         1-18

-------
We recognize that many reviewers of the proposed management measures guidance will wish
to understand how these measures will apply programmatically as they evaluate and comment
upon  the measures.  Therefore,  to assist readers to consider the proposed  measures in the
broader implementation context, pending publication of the proposed state program guidance,
we identify below some of the key management measures implementation issues that EPA and
NOAA expect to address in the proposed program guidance, along with an indication of the
range of options being considered.

A.    State Conformity with Management Measures Guidance

Section 6217  assigns to  the States  the  responsibility for developing and  implementing
management measures "in conformity" with the subsection (g) guidance. The interpretation of
this requirement is key in that it will prescribe the degree of discretion that States will have in
developing alternative management measures and targeting specific sources and areas.  NOAA
and EPA are currently developing programmatic guidance which will explain how the Agencies
will make  decisions with  respect to whether State programs are "in  conformity with" the
guidance.

Some options currently under consideration are:

       (1)    States could be required to implement the specified management measures for all
             sources that contribute nonpoint source pollution to coastal waters.

       (2)    States could be required to implement either the specified management measures
             or tailored management  measures that are equivalent in performance  to the
             specified management measures for all sources that contribute nonpoint source
             pollution to coastal waters.

       (3)    States could be required to identify significant sources of nonpoint pollution and
             implement the specified management measures, or equivalent State management
             measures,  as  necessary to protect and restore coastal water quality.

       (4)    States could be required to develop performance requirements to determine where
             to  implement  the specified  management  measures,  or  equivalent  State
             management measures, to guarantee protection of coastal waters, on a case-by-
             case basis.

B.     Applicability of Management Measures to Individual Sources

A major issue  in the implementation of management measures  is whether the management
measures should be  required by State programs for all sources or only for a  subset of sources
or geographic areas  that are determined to be significant  sources of nonpoint source pollution.
The most stringent approach would require that every land owner or manager should implement
a minimum set of management  measures to prevent nonpoint source pollution,  without first

                                         1-19

-------
estimating the extent of a coastal water quality problem or threat and the land's relationship to
the problem or threat.  This approach would parallel the highly effective point source program,
in which uniform BAT controls applicable to all sources in a particular category has led to
relatively  rapid  progress in  the treatment of point source discharges.  The approach  also
establishes equal requirements for all competing producers.

A potential pitfall of this approach is that costs and pollutant reduction effects cannot readily be
taken into account  by States in developing management measures appropriate  to individual
sources or classes  of activities.   By requiring  minimum  measures of all land  owners  or
managers, the agencies may thus impose unnecessary costs and requirements upon those that do
not contribute to nonpoint source problems or the threat of such.  Furthermore, a  broadly
uniform approach may divert implementing agencies' efforts from focussing on the primary
problems that contribute most significantly to coastal water quality problems.

Between the two extreme options (applying management measures to all sources,  and applying
management measures only to sources demonstrated to have particular well-defined impacts on
coastal waters) lie certain intermediate options. For example:

       (1)     A tiered approach could set different levels of minimum control based upon the
              extent and type of the problem, and the likelihood that any given land area or
              class of sources might contribute to the  problem.  (Readers should note that
              section  6217(b)(3)  already provides for additional  management measures to
              address critical coastal areas and land uses. See the next section below.)

       (2)     A  targeted  approach  that  identifies certain  areas  or classes of sources  for
              treatment,  while leaving others untreated, presents  a similar way  to  achieve
              effective control at lower cost within each tier.
       (3)     A tiering or targeting approach could use tiering or targeting not to distinguish
              among different sources' control  requirements,  but rather  to prioritize  and
              schedule State implementation activities.

C.     Land Uses and Critical Coastal Areas

Section 6217(b)  requires that states identify land uses which, individually or cumulatively, may
cause or contribute significantly to a degradation of (a) coastal waters where there is a failure
to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or protect designated uses,  or (b) coastal
waters that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings from new
or expanding sources.  The section also requires states to identify critical coastal areas adjacent
to the coastal waters  identified above.   Finally, the  section requires  that the state coastal
nonpoint pollution  control program  provide  for implementation of additional management
measures that are necessary  to achieve and maintain applicable water quality standards.

Unlike the  management measures specified in this guidance,  the implementation of these
additional measures is tied directly to water  quality standards and designated uses of coastal

                                          1-20

-------
waters.  EPA and NOAA will work with the states to determine the scope and application of
these  additional management measures and their relationship to the measures developed in
accordance with section 6217(g).

D.    Conclusion

EPA reminds readers that the above issues, together with other implementation issues, will be
addressed in forthcoming State program approval guidance, scheduled for publication in draft
form in August 1991.  The brief discussion above has been intended to assist the public in
understanding related implementation issues as they review and comment upon the proposed
management measures guidance.   However, we request that commenters on this proposed
management measures guidance focus  their comments  upon the technical soundness of the
proposed management measures and reserve implementation-related considerations  until the
forthcoming State program approval guidance is published for public comment.

V.    REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENTS

EPA is  soliciting comments on the proposed guidance on management measures to control
coastal nonpoint pollution.  We are seeking additional information and supporting data on the
measures specified in this guidance and on additional measures that may be as effective or more
effective in controlling nonpoint source pollution.  The following information is sought by EPA
in preparing the final guidance:

      (1)    Information  on  the activities and locations for which each measure may  be
             suitable and information on factors which should be taken into account in adapting
             the measures to specific sites or locations;

      (2)    Information on the pollutants that may or may not be controlled by the measures;

      (3)    Data regarding the pollution reduction effects of the measures;

      (4)    Data regarding the costs of each measure; and

      (5)    Appropriate  monitoring techniques for each resource.

EPA also welcomes comments on the general approach used in the proposed guidance, including
the level of detail used to describe management measures. As mentioned above, EPA requests
that commenters focus their comments upon the technical soundness of the proposed management
measures guidance and reserve implementation-related considerations until the forthcoming state
program approval guidance is published for public comment.
                                        1-21

-------
CHAPTER 2. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

-------
CHAPTER 2.      AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES	2-1

I.     Introduction	2-1

n.    Pollutants that Cause Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution	2-1

      A.     Nutrients   	2-1
      B.     Nitrogen	2-2
      C.     Phosphorus	2-3
      D.     Sediment   	2-3
      E.     Animal Wastes	2-4
      F.     Salts  	2-5
      G.     Pesticides	2-6

ffl.   Request for Comments  	2-7

IV.   Sources of  Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution	2-8

V.    Management Measures  	2-8

      A.     Erosion and Sediment Control	2-10

             1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-10
             2.     Pollutants   Produced  by   Soil  Erosion   and
                   Transported by Runoff and Sediment	2-10
             3.     Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment Control	2-10
             4.     Erosion  and Sediment Control Management Practices	2-11
             5.     Effectiveness Information	2-15
             6.     Cost Information	2-15
             7.     Operation and Maintenance	2-32
             8.     Planning Considerations	2-32

      B.     Confined Animal Facility Management	2-34

             1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-34
             2.     Pollutants Produced by Confined Animal Facilities  	2-34
             3.     Management Measure to Control Confined Animal Facilities  .  . . 2-34
             4.     Confined Animal Facilities Management Practices	2-35
             5.     Effectiveness Information	2-38
             6.     Cost Information 	2-39
             7.     Operation and Maintenance of This Measure	2-39

      C.     Nutrient Management Measure	2-41

             1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-41

-------
            2.     Pollutants Produced by Application of Nutrients Sources	2-41
            3.     Sources of Nutrients That Are Applied to Agricultural Lands .  . .  2-42
            4.     Management Measure to Control Nutrients  	2-42
            5.     Nutrient Management Practices  	2-43
            6.     Effectiveness Information	2-45
            7.     Cost Information	2-46
            8.     Planning Considerations for a Nutrient Management Measure .  . .  2-46
            9.     Operation and Maintenance for Nutrient Management	2-48

      D.    Pesticide Management  	2-49

            1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-49
            2.     Pollutants Associated with Agricultural Pesticide Use	2-49
            3.     Sources of Pesticides	2-49
            4.     Management Measures to Manage Pesticide Use	2-49
            5.     Pesticide Management Practices	2-50
            6.     Implementation of Management Measure  	2-52
            7.     Effectiveness Information	2-52
            8.     Cost Information  	2-55
            9.     Planning Considerations for Implementing Pesticide Management   2-56
            10.    Operation and Maintenance for Pesticide Management	2-57

      E.    Grazing Management	2-58

            1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-58
            2.     Pollutants Produced by Utilization of Agricultural
                   Range and Pasture Lands	2-58
            3.     Management Measure to Control Range and Pasture Land Grazing  2-58
            4.     Range and Pasture Land Management Practices  	2-59
            5.     Effectiveness Information	2-62
            6.     Cost Information  	2-63
            7.     Planning Considerations	2-63

      F.    Irrigation Water Management	2-68

            1.     Management Measure Applicability	2-68
            2.     Pollutants Produced by Irrigation  	2-68
            3.     Management Measure to Control Irrigation Water	2-68
            4.     Irrigation Water Management Practices  	2-69
            5.     Effectiveness Information	2-73
            6.     Cost Information  	2-74
            7.     Planning Considerations for Irrigation Water Management	2-82

VI.   Management Practice Tracking  	2-83

-------
Vn.   Sources of Assistance to Implement Management Measures	2-83

      A.     Federal	2-83
      B.     State/Local  	2-84

      References	2-85

      Appendix 2-A	2-87

-------
                                    CHAPTER!

                  AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES
I.    INTRODUCTION

This chapter specifies management measures for agricultural sources of nonpoint pollution.
Agriculture is the nation's largest contributor of nonpoint source pollution.  In coastal waters,
its effect varies regionally.  In some coastal waters, agriculture has been identified as the single
largest contributor  of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants of concern.  For example,
agricultural runoff has been identified as the leading source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay
and in other estuaries. Thus, applying management measures to control agricultural nonpoint
pollution is an essential component of a State program to protect coastal waters from nonpoint
pollution.
H.    POLLUTANTS  THAT CAUSE  AGRICULTURAL  NONPOINT  SOURCE
      POLLUTION*

The primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutants are nutrients, sediment, animal wastes, salts,
and pesticides. These pollutants' effects on water quality are discussed below.

A.    Nutrients

Nitrogen and phosphorus are the two major nutrients from agricultural land that degrade water
quality.  All plants, whether land based, aerial, or aquatic, require nutrients for growth.  In an
aquatic environment, nutrient availability usually limits plant growth. Nitrogen and phosphorus
generally are  present at background or natural levels below 0.3 and 0.05 mg/1, respectively.
When these nutrients are introduced into a stream, lake, or estuary at higher rates, aquatic plant
productivity may increase dramatically. This process, referred to as cultural eutrophication, may
adversely affect the suitability of the water for other uses.

Increased aquatic plant productivity results in additional organic material being added to the
system that eventually dies and decays. The decaying organic matter produces unpleasant odors
and depletes the oxygen supply  required by aquatic organisms.  Excess plant growth also may
interfere with recreational activities such as swimming and  boating. Depleted oxygen levels,
       * This section on Pollutants that Cause Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution is adapted
from: USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Water Quality Field  Guide.  SCS-TP-160,
Washington, D.C.
                                        2-1

-------
especially in colder bottom waters where dead organic matter tends to accumulate, will reduce
the quality of fish habitat and encourage the propagation of fish which are adapted to less oxygen
or to wanner surface waters.  Highly enriched waters  will stimulate  algae production,  with
consequent increased turbidity and color.  Algae growth  is also believed to be harmful to coral
reefs (e.g., Florida coast).   Furthermore,  the increased turbidity results in  less  sunlight
penetration and availability to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).  Since SAV provides habitat
for small or juvenile  fish, the loss of SAV has severe consequences  for the food chain.
Chesapeake Bay is an example where nutrients are believed to have contributed to SAV loss.

B.     Nitrogen

All forms of transported nitrogen are potential contributors to eutrophication in lakes, estuaries,
and some coastal waters.  In general, though not all cases, nitrogen availability is the limiting
factor for plant growth in marine  ecosystems.  Thus,  the addition of nitrogen can have a
significant affect on the natural functioning of marine ecosystems.

In addition to eutrophication, excessive nitrogen causes other water quality problems. Dissolved
ammonia at concentrations above 0.2 mg/ljnav hfi trrrir \a finh especially trout.  Nitrates in
Slinking'water are potentially dangerous, especially to newborn infants.  Nitrate is converted to
nitrite in the  digestive tract,  which  reduces  the  oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood
(methemoglobinemia),  resulting in  brain damage  or even death.   The  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has set a limit of  1_0 mg/1  nitrate-nitrogen  in  watej; used  for human
consumption  (Robillard, et al., 1981).
Nitrogen is naturally present in soils but must be added to increase crop production.  Nitrogen
is added to the soil primarily by applying commercial fertilizers and manure,  but also by
growing legumes (biological nitrogen fixation) and incorporating crop residues. Not all nitrogen
that is present in or on the soil is available for plant use at any one time.  Organic nitrogen
normally constitutes the majority of the soil nitrogen. It is slowly converted (2 to 3 percent per
year) to the more readily plant available inorganic ammonium or nitrate.

The chemical form of nitrogen affects its impact on water quality.  The most biologically
important inorganic forms of nitrogen are ammonium (NH4+), nitrate (NO3-), and nitrite (NO^.
Organic nitrogen occurs as particulate matter, in living organisms, and as detritus. It occurs in
dissolved form in compounds  such as amino acid,  amines, purines, urea, etc.

Nitrate-nitrogen is highly  mobile and can move readily below the crop root zone, especially in
sandy soils.  It can also be transported with surface runoff, but not generally in large quantities.
Ammonium on the other hand, becomes adsorbed by the soil and is lost primarily with eroding
sediment. Even if nitrogen is not in a readily available form as it leaves the field, it can convert
to an available form later.
                                           2-2

-------
C.     Phosphorus

The phosphoiu&xonteat in most soils is low, between j).01 and 0.2 percen^by weight. Most
of this is unavailable for plant uptake.  Manure and fertilizers aF5*used to increase the level of
available phosphorus in the soil to promote plant growth. If runoff and erosion occur, some of
the applied phosphorus can reach nearby bodies of water.  High-intensity storms increase the
loss of particulate inorganic  phosphorus from croplands because this form of phosphorus is
associated with eroding sediments.

Phosphorus  can be found in  the soil in dissolved, colloidal,  or particulate forms.  Dissolved
inorganic phosphorus (orthophosphate phosphorus) is probably the only form directly available
to algae.  Algae consume dissolved inorganic phosphorus and convert it to the organic form.
Phosphorous is rarely found in concentrations high enough to be toxic to higher organisms.

Phosphorus  unavailable in the soil  system may erode with soil particles and later be released
when the bottom sediment of a stream becomes anaerobic,  creating  water quality problems.
While phosphorus typically plays the controlling role in freshwater systems, in some estuarine
systems, both nitrogen and phosphorus can limit plant growth.  Thus, the addition of phosphorus
as a nonpoint source pollutant can have  an adverse effect in both freshwater and estuarine
systems.

D.     Sediment

Sediment is  the  result of erosion.  It is the solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in
suspension,  is being transported, or has  been moved from  its site or origin by air, water,
gravity, or ice.  The types of erosion associated with agriculture that produce sediment are: (1)
sheet  and rill erosion and (2)  gully erosion.  Sediments from different sources vary in the kinds
and amounts of pollutants that are adsorbed to the particles.  For example, sheet and rill erosion
mainly move soil particles from the surface or  plow layer of the soil.  Eroded  soil is either
redeposited  on the same field pr transported from the field in runoff.

Sediment which originates from surface soil will have a higher pollution potential than that from
subsurface soils.  The topsoil  of a field is usually richer in nutrients and other chemicals because
of past fertilizer and pesticide applications, as well as nutrient cycling and biological activity.
Topsoil is also more likely to  have a greater percentage of organic  matter.  Sediment  from
gullies and streambanks usually carries less adsorbed pollutants than sediment from surface soils.

Sediment from cropland usually contains a higher percentage of finer and less dense particles
than the soil from which it originates.  Large particles are more readily detached from the soil
surface because they are less cohesive.  They will also settle out of suspension more quickly
because of their size.  Organic matter is not easily detached because of its cohesive properties,
but once detached it is easily  transported because of its low density.  Clay particles and organic
residues will remain suspended  for longer periods and at slower flow velocities. This selective
erosion process  can increase overall pollutant delivery, because  small particles have a much

                                           2-3

-------
greater adsorption capacity per mass than larger particles.   As a result, eroding sediments
generally contain higher concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, and pesticides than the original
soil.

Sediment affects the use of water in many ways. Suspended solids reduce the amount of sunlight
available to aquatic plants, cover  fish spawning areas and food  supplies, smother coral reefs,
and clog the filtering capacity of filter feeders and the gills of fish.  This reduces fish, shellfish,
coral and plant populations, and decreases  the overall productivity of lakes, streams, estuaries,
and  coastal waters.  Turbidity interferes  with feeding habits of fish.  Recreation is  limited
because of the decreased fish population and the water's unappealing, turbid appearance.  Turbid
water reduces visibility, thus it is  less safe for swimming.

Chemicals such as some pesticides, phosphorus, and ammonium are transported with sediment
in an adsorbed state. Changes in the aquatic environment,  such as a lower concentration in the
overlying  waters or the development of anaerobic conditions in the bottom sediments, can cause
these chemicals  to be released from the sediment.  Adsorbed phosphorus transported by the
sediment may not be immediately available for aquatic plant growth but does serve as  a long-
term contributor to eutrophication.

E.    Animal Wastes

Animal wastes (manure) includes the fecal and urinary wastes of livestock and poultry, process
water (such as from a milking parlor), and the feed, bedding, litter, and soil with which they
become intermixed.  Animal  wastes can contribute nutrients, organic materials, and pathogens
to receiving waters.

Manure will be more easily removed  in  runoff when applied  to the soil surface than when
incorporated in  the soil.  Spreading manure  on frozen ground or snow can result in high
concentrations of nutrients being transported from the field during rainfall or snowmelt. The
problems  associated with nitrogen and phosphorus, as discussed in the section Nutrients, also
apply to animal wastes.  If sufficient manure is applied to meet the nitrogen needs of a crop,
phosphorus will generally be in  excess.   The soil  generally has the capacity to adsorb any
phosphorus leached from manure applied on land. However, as  previously mentioned,  nitrates
are easily leached through soil into  ground water or to return flows, and phosphorus can be
transported by eroded soil.

The demand for oxygen exerted by carbonaceous materials (individually or in combination with
nitrogen)  can deplete  dissolved oxygen supplies in water, resulting  in anoxic  or anaerobic
conditions.  When the decomposition process causes  water  to become anaerobic, methane,
amines, and sulfide are produced.   The water acquires an unpleasant odor, taste, and appearance
and becomes unfit for drinking, and for fishing and other recreational purposes.

Animal diseases can be transmitted to humans through contact with animal feces.  Runoff from
fields receiving  manure will contain extremely high numbers of bacteria if the manure has not

                                           2-4

-------
been incorporated or the bacteria have not been subject to stress.  Pathogen contamination from
animal waste has been responsible for shellfish contamination in some coastal waters.  However,
bacteria levels in receiving waters may be attributed in some cases to either agricultural runoff
or septic systems, and determination of actual sources is difficult.

Conditions which cause a rapid dieoff of  bacteria are low  soil moisture, low pH, high
temperatures, and direct solar radiation.  Manure storage generally promotes dieoff, although
pathogens can remain dormant at certain temperatures. Composting the wastes is quite effective
in decreasing the number of pathogens.

F.     Salts

Salts are a product of the natural weathering process of soil and geologic material. They are
present in varying degrees in all  soils and in freshwater, coastal/estuarine waters, and ground
waters.

In soils that have poor subsurface drainage, high salt concentrations  are created within the root
zone where most water extraction occurs.  The accumulation of soluble and exchangeable sodium
leads to soil dispersion,  structure breakdown, decreased infiltration, and possible toxicity; thus,
salts often become a  serious problem  on  irrigated land, both for continued agricultural
production and for water quality considerations.  High salt concentrations in streams can harm
freshwater aquatic plants just as excess soil salinity damages agricultural crops. While salts are
generally a more significant pollutant for freshwater ecosystems than for saline ecosystems, they
may also adversely affect anadromous fish, which while living in coastal and estuarine waters
most of their lives, depend on freshwater systems near the coast for crucial portions of their life
cycle.

The movement and deposition of salts depend on the amount and distribution of rainfall and
irrigation,  the  soil  and underlying strata, evapotranspiration rates, and other environmental
factors.  In humid areas, dissolved mineral salts have been naturally leached from the soil and
substrata by  rainfall. In arid and semiarid regions, salts have  not been removed  by natural
leaching  and are concentrated in the soil.  Soluble salts in saline  and sodic soils consist of
calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride ions.
They are fairly easily leached from  the soil.  Sparingly soluble gypsum and lime also occur.
The amounts present range from traces to more than 50 percent of the  soil mass.  The total
dissolved solids of ions  in ground water and streams include the soluble ions mentioned above.
Irrigation water, whether from ground water or surface  water sources, has a natural base load
of dissolved  mineral salts.  As the water is consumed by plants or lost to the atmosphere by
evaporation,  the salts remain and become concentrated  in the soil.  This is referred to  as the
"concentrating  effect."

The total salt load carried by irrigation return flow is the sum of the original salt in the applied
water resulting from the concentrating effect  plus salt pick-up. Irrigation return flows provide
the means for conveying the salts to the receiving streams or ground-water  reservoirs.  If the

                                           2-5

-------
amount of salt in the return flow is low in comparison to the total stream flow, water quality
may not  be degraded to the extent that use is impaired.  However, if the process of water
diversion for irrigation and the return of saline drainage water is repeated many times along a
stream or river, water quality will be progressively degraded for downstream irrigation use as
well as for other uses.

G.     Pesticides

Pesticides—insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, miticides, nematicides, etc.—are used extensively
in agriculture to control plant pests and enhance production.  However, despite the documented
benefits,  these chemicals may, in  some instances,  endanger surface and ground water and
ultimately human health.

Pesticides may harm the environment by  eliminating or reducing populations of desirable
organisms, including endangered species.  Some types of pesticides or their metabolites are
resistant  to  degradation.  These pesticides or their  degradation products  may persist and
accumulate in the aquatic ecosystems. The entire food chain, including man, can be affected.
Sublethal effect include the behavioral and structural changes of an organism that jeopardize its
survival.  For example, certain pesticides have been found to inhibit bone development in young
fish or affect reproduction by inducing abortion.

Herbicides in the aquatic environment can destroy the food source for higher organisms, which
may then starve.  Also, decaying plant matter causes a reduction in dissolved oxygen.

Sometimes a pesticide is not toxic by itself, but is lethal in the presence of other pesticides.  This
is referred to as a synergistic effect and may be difficult to predict or evaluate.  Bioconcentration
is a phenomenon that occurs if an organism ingests  more a  pesticide than it excretes. During
its lifetime, the organism will accumulate a higher concentration of that pesticide than is present
in the surrounding environment. When the organism is eaten by another animal higher in the
food chain,  the pesticide will then be passed to that  animal and up the food chain.

The amount of field-applied pesticide  that leaves a field in the runoff and enters a stream
primarily depends on:

       (1)    The intensity and duration of rainfall; and

       (2)    The length of time between pesticide  application and rainfall occurrence.

Pesticide losses are largest when rainfall is intense and occurs shortly after pesticide application,
a condition for which water runoff and erosion losses  are also greatest.

The rate of pesticide movement through the soil profile  to ground water is inversely proportional
to the pesticide  "adsorption partition coefficient" or K (defined as a measure of the sorption
phenomenon, whereby a pesticide is divided between the soil and water phase).   The larger the

                                          2-6

-------
K the slower the movement and the greater the quantity of water required to leach the pesticide
to a given depth. In general, it appears that only pesticides with K values less than 0.5 ml/g,
water solubilities greater than 100 mg/1, and/or long half-lives pose a serious threat to deep
ground-water resources.

Pesticides can  be transported to receiving waters either in dissolved form or attached'to
sediment.  Dissolved pesticides may be leached to ground-water supplies.  Pesticides have
varying characteristics as to degradation and the percent to which they will attach to sediment.
m.    REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

In Chapter  1 of this  guidance (Introduction), EPA  has generally requested submission  of
comments, information and data on relevant management practices, their effectiveness, and their
costs.   We  also  request  specific comment  on the  following  aspects of  the agricultural
management  measures:

Erosion and Sediment Control.   In Section IV.A below, EPA sets forth the management
measure for Erosion and Sediment Control. This measure consists in major part of reducing
erosion as close to zero as possible, but no greater than the lesser of (1) T  or (2) the erosion
produced after application of conservation tillage. T is the soil loss tolerance of the Universal
Soil Loss Equation, used by soil conservationists  to estimate the maximum rate of annual soil
erosion that will permit crop productivity to be sustained economically and indefinitely. There
are five classes of T factors ranging from 1 ton per  acre per year for shallow or otherwise
fragile soils to  5 tons  per  acre per year for deep soils that are least sensitive to damage by
erosion.

T does not address the acceptability of a particular rate of erosion from  a water quality
perspective, nor does it necessarily reflect the reduced  rate of erosion that can be accomplished
through application of the best available control measures that are economically achievable.. For
example, Wisconsin is  currently using a T-l standard (which allows one less ton per acre of soil
loss than a T standard allows) in its water quality program to address agricultural erosion.  It
may be that T-l more  accurately reflects the best available measures for erosion control.

EPA has attempted in  this  proposed guidance to partially compensate  for the  shortcomings  of
T as a management measure to protect water quality  by specifying conservation tillage as an
alternative management measure where it yields less erosion.  However, this measure too may
not reflect the best available measure that is economically achievable. Indeed, given the low net
costs associated with conservation tillage in many contexts, it may be that additional management
measures that would provide substantial incremental pollutant reduction benefits that reduce the
delivery of pollutants (e.g., contour farming and/or vegetated filter strips) would be achievable.

EPA requests comment on  the above issues and on options available to address them.
                                          2-7

-------
Nutrient and Pesticide Management.  Two of the agricultural management measures, nutrient
and pest management, do not actually  specify the measures to be taken "on the ground", but
rather define broad goals  ("eliminate  excess nutrient use";  "eliminate application of excess
pesticides") and then describe a process of evaluating certain relevant considerations.

EPA requests comment on whether the nutrient and pesticide management measures are
sufficiently specific to assure that compliance with them would achieve the desired water quality
objectives. If not, what additional specific practices could be added that are generally achievable
and add significant pollutant reduction effectiveness?
IV.    SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT POLLUTION

EPA has identified six major categories of sources of agricultural nonpoint pollution that affect
coastal waters.  These are: erosion from cropland; confined animal facilities; the application of
nutrients to cropland; the application of pesticides to cropland; land used for  grazing; and
irrigation of cropland.

Each of these source categories are addressed separately in the following section of this chapter.
For each source the following items are identified: the pollutants that result from these sources;
the management measures representing the best available systems of practices  economically
achievable  to reduce off-site delivery of these pollutants; a performance expectation for the
management measures; and some preliminary information on the pollutant reduction effectiveness
and cost of the measures and, in some cases, the particular practices that comprise the measure.
V.     MANAGEMENT MEASURES

In this section, the management measures that represent systems of practices which reflect the
best available, economically achievable,  nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies,
processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives are specified for each of the
major sources of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.  Major sources of agricultural nonpoint
source pollution include:

       (1)    Agricultural land needing treatment for erosion control;

       (2)    Concentrated animal production facilities;

       (3)    Land receiving nutrients from sources  such as  commercial fertilizers, animal
             wastes, and sludge;

       (4)    Land receiving pesticide applications;
                                          2-8

-------
       (5)    Land used for grazing; and

       (6)    Irrigated lands.

Each of these sources is addressed separately in the following section and the following items
are discussed for each of the sources:

       (1)    Where the management measures should be utilized or where they are applicable
             (for example, the erosion and sediment control management measures are utilized
             on all agricultural lands and the pesticide management measures are utilized on
             all agricultural lands that have pesticides applied to them);

       (2)    Pollutants associated with each source such as nutrients, sediment, salts,  etc.;

       (3)    The management measures which represent the best available systems of practices
             economically achievable to reduce off-site delivery of the pollutants resulting from
             each source (in some cases a performance expectation is specified and variety of
             practices  may be used to achieve the performance expectation; in other cases,
             particular practices are specified);

       (4)    Information on management practices that are available as  tools to achieve the
             management measures.

       (5)    Preliminary  information on   the  pollutant reduction  effectiveness   of  the
             management measures;

       (6)    Preliminary information on the cost of the management measures; and

       (7)    Operation and maintenance information.

Several agricultural sources may need to be addressed  on a given piece of agricultural  land in
the coastal zone to protect water quality. For example,  in some cases, erosion and sediment
control measures, nutrient management measures as well as pesticide management measures will
be needed i.e., systems of management measures.  In other areas, depending on site-specific
conditions, only one source may need to be addressed.
                                          2-9

-------
A.     Erosion qnd pediment Control

       1.     Management Measure Applicability

This management measure is  to be utilized on all agricultural lands, including all land that is
converted from other land uses to agricultural land.  Agricultural lands include, but are not
limited to:

             Cropland, dryland;
             Cropland, irrigated;
             Range and pastureland;
             Orchards;
             Specialty crop production; and
             Nursery crop production.

Those agricultural lands that also meet the applicability definitions of the concentrated animal
facility management measure; nutrient management measure; pesticide management measures;
grazing management measure; irrigation water management measure; or other management
measures are also subject to those management measures.

       2.     Pollutants Produced bv Soil Erosion and Transported bv Runoff and Sediment

Runoff water from agricultural land may transport the following types of pollutants:

       •     Sediment and participate organic solids;

       •     Participate bound nutrients, chemicals and metals, such as phosphorus, organic
             nitrogen, a portion of applied pesticides, and a portion of the metals applied with
             some organic wastes and found naturally within the soil;

       •     Soluble nutrients, such as nitrogen, a portion of the phosphorus, a portion of the
             applied pesticides, a  portion of  the soluble metals and  many other  major and
             minor nutrients;

       •     Salts; and

       •     Bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms.

       3.    Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment Control

The management measure for erosion and sediment control on agricultural lands is a combination
of practices that (1) control  gully erosion, (2) protect wetlands and  riparian zones, and (3)
minimize the detachment and transport of soil by water,  wind, ice, or gravity such that the
average annual erosion rate (expressed as tons per acre per year, or T/Ac/Yr) is as close to zero

                                          2-10

-------
as feasible (taking cost into account), but is in no case greater than the lesser of (a) "T" (the soil
loss tolerance value* for the soil series in the field) QT the average annual erosion rate achieved
with conservation tillage.

EPA recognizes that USDA is changing from the Universal Soil Loss Equation to the USDA-
Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model (Laflen et. al., 1991) now scheduled for FY
92.  The WEPP system will not only estimate the erosion to a tolerable rate for productivity
maintenance, but will estimate on-site deposition to prevent excessive adverse effects from
deposition,  sediment yield from fields to  allowable  rates that prevent excessive  off-site
sedimentation, and sediment yield from fields to prevent excessive degradation of off-site water
quality. It will also estimate  sediment characteristics needed to develop erosion control plans
for improvements in downstream water quality. EPA will track developments regarding WEPP,
particularly as they apply to this management measure.

       4.     Erosion and Sediment Control Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for agricultural erosion and sediment control that
are available as tools to achieve the erosion and sediment control management measure.  Under
each management practice, the U.S.  Soil Conservation Service (SCS) practice number and a
definition are provided.  The list of practices included in this section is not exhaustive and does
not preclude States or local agencies from  developing  special management measures in
cooperation  with the appropriate technical agency within the State for unique conditions and
problems that may be encountered in  particular areas, provided that the management measures
(the system of individual practices adopted) achieve a level of performance that is as effective
as that provided by the management measure specified in this guidance. There may also be State
or local standards that would require  additional practices.

Conservation cover (327)
Establishing and maintaining perennial vegetative cover to protect soil and water resources on
land retired form agricultural  production.

The purpose is to reduce soil  erosion and sedimentation, improve water quality, and create or
enhance wildlife habitat.

Conservation cropping sequence (328)
An adapted sequence of crops designed to provide adequate organic residue for maintenance or
improvement of soil tilth.
       "The "T"  factor is the soil loss tolerance of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. It is
defined as the maximum rate of annual soil erosion that will permit crop productivity to be
sustained economically and indefinitely. There are five classes of T factors ranging from 1 ton
per acre per year for shallow or otherwise fragile soils to 5 tons per acre per year for deep soils
that are least sensitive to damage by erosion.
                                         2-11

-------
The purpose of this practice is to improve or maintain good physical, chemical, and biological
conditions of the soil; help reduce erosion; improve water  use efficiency and water quality;
improve wildlife habitat; or break reproduction cycles of plant pests.

Conservation tillage (3291
Any tillage or planting system that maintains at least 30 percent  of the soil surface covered by
residue after planting to reduce soil erosion by water;  or where soil erosion by wind is the
primary concern, maintains at least 1,000 pounds of flat, small grain residue equivalent on the
surface during the critical erosion period.

The purpose is to reduce soil erosion; help maintain or develop good soil tilth, efficient moisture
use, and cover for wildlife.

Contour systems

       Contour fanning (3301
       Farming  sloping land in such a way that preparing land, planting, and cultivating are
       done  on the  contour.   This  includes  following established  grades of  terraces or
       diversions.

       The purpose is to reduce erosion  and control water.

       Contour orchard and other fruit area (331)
       Planting orchards, vineyards, or small  fruits so that all cultural operations are done on
       the contour.

       The purpose is  to reduce soil and water loss, to better control and use water, and to
       operate farm equipment more easily.

Cover and green manure crop (340)
A crop of close-growing grasses, legumes or small grain grown primarily for seasonal protection
and soil improvement.  It usually is grown for 1 year or less, except where there is permanent
cover as in orchards.

The purpose is to control erosion during  periods when the major crops do not furnish adequate
cover; add organic material to the soil; and improve infiltration, aeration, and tilth.

Critical area planting (342)
Planting vegetation, such as trees, shrubs,  vines, grasses, or legumes, on highly erodible or
critically eroding areas (does not include tree  planting mainly for wood products).

The purpose is to stabilize the soil, reduce damage from sediment and runoff to downstream
areas, and improve wildlife habitat and visual resources.
                                           2-12

-------
Crop residue use (344)
Using plant residues to protect cultivated fields during critical erosion periods.

The purpose is to conserve soil moisture, increase soil infiltration, reduce soil loss, and improve
soil tilth.

Delayed seed bed preparation (354)
Any cropping system in which all of the crop residue and volunteer vegetation are maintained
on  the soil surface until approximately 3 weeks before the succeeding crop is planted, thus
shortening the bare seedbed period on fields during critical erosion periods.

The purpose is to reduce soil erosion by maintaining soil cover as long as practical to minimize
raindrop splash and runoff during the spring erosion period.  Other purposes include  moisture
conservation, improved water quality, increased soil infiltration, improved soil tilth, and food
and cover for wildlife.

Diversion (362)
A channel constructed across the slope with a supporting  ridge on the lower side.

The purpose is to divert excess water  from one area for use or safe disposal in other areas.

Field border (386)
A strip of perennial vegetation established at the edge of a field by planting or by converting it
from trees to herbaceous vegetation or shrubs.

The purpose is to control erosion, protect edges of fields  that are used as "turnrows"  or travel
lanes for farm machinery, reduce competition from adjacent woodland, provide wildlife food and
cover, or improve the landscape.

Filter strip (393)
A strip or area of vegetation for removing sediment, organic matter, and other pollutants from
runoff and wastewater.

The purpose is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff or wastewater by filtration,
deposition, infiltration, absorption, decomposition, and volatilization, thereby reducing pollution
and protecting the environment.

Grade stabilization structure (410)
A structure used to control the grade and head cutting in  natural or artificial channels.

The purpose  is to stabilize the grade  and control erosion in natural  or artificial channels, to
prevent the formation or advance of gullies, and to enhance environmental quality and reduce
pollution hazards.
                                          2-13

-------
Grassed waterway (412)
A natural or constructed channel that is shaped or graded to required dimensions and established
in suitable vegetation for the stable conveyance of runoff.

The purpose is to convey runoff from terraces, diversions, or other water concentrations without
causing erosion or flooding, and to improve water quality.

Grasses and legumes in rotation (411)
Establishing grasses and legumes or a mixture of them and maintaining the stand for a definite
number of years as part of a conservation cropping  system.

The purpose is to produce forage for hay, silage, seed, or grazing; reduce soil and water loss;
maintain a favorable level of organic matter; and improve soil productivity.

Sediment basins (350)
A basin constructed to collect and  store debris or sediment.

The purpose is to preserve the capacity of reservoirs,  ditches, canals, diversions, waterways, and
streams; to prevent undesirable deposition on bottom lands and developed areas; to trap sediment
originating from construction sites; and to reduce or abate pollution by providing basins for
deposition and storage of silt,  sand,  gravel,  stone, agricultural  wastes,  and other detritus
material.

Stripcropping systems

       Contour stripcropping (585)
       Growing crops  in a systematic arrangement of strips or bands on the contour to reduce
       water erosion.  The crops are arranged so that a strip of grass or close-growing crop is
       alternated with  a strip of clean-tilled crop or  fallow or  a strip of grass is alternated with
       a close-growing crop.

       The purpose is  to reduce erosion and control water.

       Field stripcropping (586)
       Growing crops  in a systematic arrangement  of strips or bands across the general slope
       (not on the contour) to reduce water erosion. The crops are arranged so that a strip of
       grass or a close-growing crop is alternated with a clean-tilled crop or fallow.

       The purpose  is to help control erosion and  runoff on  sloping cropland where contour
       stripcropping is not practiced.

Terraces (600)
An earthen embankment, a channel, or combination ridge and channel constructed across the
slope.

                                           2-14

-------
The purpose is to:  (1) reduce slope length, (2) reduce erosion, (3) reduce sediment content in
the runoff water, (4) improve water quality, (5) intercept and conduct surface runoff at a
nonerosive velocity to a stable outlet, (6) retain runoff for moisture conservation, (7) prevent
gully  development,  (8)  re-form  the land surface,  (9) improve farmability,  or  (10) reduce
flooding.

Water and sediment control basin (6381
An earthen embankment or a combination ridge and channel generally constructed across the
slope  and  minor watercourses to form a sediment trap and water detention basin.

The purpose is to: improve farmability of sloping land; reduce watercourse and gully erosion;
trap sediment; reduce and manage onsite and downstream runoff; and improve downstream water
quality.

Wetland and Riparian Zone Protection
Wetlands and riparian zone protection practices are described in Chapter 7.

       5.     Effectiveness Information

Following is information  to  illustrate  the pollution  reductions that can  be achieved from
installation of  some of the  management practices  that may be  used to  implement this
management measure. Two tables (Tables 2-1 and 2-2) are presented to show the variability in
effectiveness information as reported by different sources. Also, general, qualitative information
of the effectiveness of selected management practices is included in Table 2-3.

The information contained  herein is primarily practice-oriented,  yet EPA seeks data regarding
the overall effectiveness of management measures, or systems of practices. To this end, EPA
is continuing to collect and  analyze more information regarding pollutant reductions, and solicits
comments regarding information  sources to utilize.

USDA estimates that the level of erosion control provided for  by the specified management
measure ("T") will result in an average annual savings of 9 Tons/Ac/Yr in the 28 coastal States.
This will be achieved by bringing average erosion rate down from 11.4 Tons/Ac/Yr to an of 4.5
Tons/Ac/Yr  ("T" values).

       6.     Cost Information

Cost estimates for control of erosion and sediment transport from agricultural lands are provided
in Tables  2-4,  2-5,  and 2-6.   The costs  in  Table 2-4  are  based  upon experiences  in  the
Chesapeake Bay Program, but are illustrative of the costs that could be incurred in coastal areas
across the Nation.  The costs in Table 2-5 are based on modeling runs for Indiana. The costs
in Table 2-6 are national summaries provided by the USDA, and represent costs on a much
broader scale.  Only the costs in Table 2-5 represent net costs to  the landowner or operator.  It
                                         2-15

-------
       Table 2-1. Estimated Pollutant Reductions for Selected Management Practices
                         Runoff     Sediment    Total P         Total N
                         Volume       Load       Load           Load
                        Reduction    Reduction   Reduction       Reduction
  Practice                 (%)        (%)       (%)             (%)
  Conservation tillage    up to 40    up to 50   up to 45          NA


  Stripcropping          up to 85    up to 75     NA             NA


  Grassed water ways1      NA      up to 65   up to 50        up to 30


  Diversions2               NA      up to 40   up to 45        up to 20
   Sediment retention and
   Water control structures   NA       up to 65      NA         up to 303
   Grassed filter strips       NA        85-90       50             NA
SOURCE:  New York Department of Environmental Conservation, 1990.
NOTE:  All reductions are relative to conventional (moldboard plow) tillage.

1 This is a transport practice. Reductions are based upon modeling.
2 Reductions are based upon modeling.
3 Paniculate organic nitrogen.
                                        2-16

-------
         Table 2-2.  Estimated Pollutant Reductions for Selected Management Practices
Practices
Runoff
Volume
Reduction
Sediment Total P
Load Load
Reduction Reduction
Of. »UB 1 ARM A*t» &•«»• « A • A* A J
Total N
Load
Reduction

Conservation
tillage system
Stripcropping
systems
Contour and
across slope
tillage
Terrace
systems
Sod waterways
Cover crops
Permanent Veg.
Cover on Critical
areas
Permanent Veg.
Cover
Reforestation
of Erodible Crop
and Pastureland
Buffer/Filter
strips
Water/Sediment
control basins
Sediment basin
Diversions
Crop residue
use
Grade
stabilization
structure
Contour &
across slope
cropping

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA


NA

NA

30 to 90
up to 75
50 to 90
90
70
40 to 60

95
less than
1 T/Ac/Yr
delivered

less than
1 T/Ac/Yr
delivered

70
NA

60
25
NA


5

up to 50'

35 to 90
up to 50
35 to 60
75
50
30 to 50

50
very
high

very
high

50
NA

40
23
NA


NA

up to 35

50 to 80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA

NA
NA

NA
NA
NA


NA

NA
SOURCE: Non-Point Source Tuk Force, Intenutknal Joint Commiinon, 1983.
NOTE: All reduction* ue relative to conventional (moidbowd plow) tillage.
1 Up to 50% on 2-6% slope., but lot thin 10% on 18-24% .lope..
                                                   2-17

-------
       Table 2-3.  Water Quality Statement for Selected Management Practices

Practice                             Water Quality Statement
Conservation
cover (327)  Agricultural chemicals are usually not applied to this cover in  large
             quantities and surface and ground water quality may improve where these
             material are not used.  Ground cover and crop residue will be increased
             with this practice.  Erosion and yields of sediment and sediment related
             stream pollutants should decrease. Temperatures of the soil surface runoff
             and receiving  water may be reduced.   Effects  will  vary  during the-
             establishment period and include increases in runoff, erosion and sediment
             yield. Due to the reduction of deep percolation,  the  leaching of soluble
             material will be reduced, as will be the potential for causing saline seeps.
             Long-term  effects of the practice would reduce agricultural nonpoint
             sources pollution to all water resources.

Conservation
croppping
sequence
(328)        This practice reduces erosion by increasing organic matter, resulting in a
             reduction of sediment and associated pollutants to surface waters.  Crop
             rotations that improve soil tilth may also disrupt disease, insect and weed
             reproduction cycles,  reducing 'the need for pesticides.  This  removes or
             reduces  the availability of  some  pollutants in  the  watershed.    Deep
             percolation may carry soluble nutrients and pesticides to the ground water.
             Underlying soil layers, rock and unconsolidated parent material may block,
             delay, or enhance  the delivery of these pollutants  to ground water.  The
             fate  of  these  pollutants  will  be site specific,  depending on the  crop
             management, the soil and geologic  conditions.

Conservation
tillage (329) This practice reduces soil  erosion,  detachment and sediment transport by
             providing soil  cover  during critical times in the cropping cycle.  Surface
             residues reduce soil compaction from raindrops, preventing soil sealing and
             increasing infiltration. This action may increase the leaching of agricultural
             chemical into the ground water.
                                        2-18

-------
                              Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice
                      Water Quality Statement
              In  order to maintain the crop residue on the surface it is difficult to
              incorporate fertilizers and pesticides.   This may  increase the amount of
              these chemicals in the runoff and cause more surface water pollution.

              The additional organic material on the surface may increase the bacterial
              action on and near the soil surface.  This may tie-up and then breakdown
              many pesticides which are surface applied,  resulting  in  less  pesticide
              leaving the field.  This practice is more effective in humid regions.

              With a no-till operation the only soil disturbance is the planter shoe and the
              compaction form the wheels. The surface applied fertilizers and chemicals
              are not  incorporated  and often are not in direct  contact with the  soil
              surface.   This  condition may result  in a high surface runoff of pollutants
              (nutrient and pesticides). Macropores develop under a no-till system.  They
              permit deep percolation and the transmittal of pollutants, both soluble  and
              insoluble to be carried into the deeper soil horizons and into the ground
              water.

              Reduced tillage systems disrupt or bread down the macropores, incidentally
              incorporate some of the materials applied to the soil surface, and reduce the
              effects of wheeltrack compaction.  The results are less runoff and less
              pollutants in the runoff.
Contour
fanning
(330)
This practice reduces erosion and sediment production. Less sediment and
related pollutants may be transported to the receiving waters.

Increased infiltration may increase the transportation potential for soluble
substances to the ground water.
                                       2-19

-------
                              Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice                             Water Quality Statement
Contour orchard
and other fruit
area (331)    Contour orchards and fruit areas may reduce erosion, sediment yield, and
              pesticide concentration in the water lost.  Where inward sloping benches
              are used, the sediment and chemicals will be trapped against the slope.
              With annual events, the bench may provide 100 percent  trap efficiency.
              Outward sloping benches may allow greater sediment and chemical  loss.
              The amount of retention depends on the lope of the bench and the amount
              of cover. In addition, outward sloping benches are subject to erosion  form
              runoff from benched immediately above them.   Contouring allows better
              access to rills, permitting maintenance that reduces additional erosion.
              Immediately after establishment, contour orchards may be subject to erosion
              and sedimentation in  excess of the now contoured orchard.  Contour
              orchards require more fertilization and pesticide application  than did the
              native grasses that frequently covered the slopes before  orchards  were
              started.  Sediment leaving the site may carry more adsorbed nutrients and
              pesticides than did the sediment before the benches were established  from
              uncultivated slopes.  If contoured orchards replace other crop or intensive
              land use, the increase or decrease in chemical transport from the site may
              be determined by examining the types and amounts of chemical used on the
              prior land use as compared to the contour orchard condition.

              Soluble  pesticides and nutrients may be delivered to and possibly through
              the root zone in an amount proportional to the amount of soluble pesticides
              applied, the increase in infiltration, the chemistry of the pesticides, organic
              and clay content of the soil, and amounts of surface residues.  Percolating
              water below the  root zone may carry excess solutes or may dissolve
              potential pollutants as they move.  In either case, these solutes could  reach
              groundwater supplies and/or surface downslope from the contour orchard
              area.  The amount depends on soil type, surface water quality, and the
              availability of soluble material (natural or applied).
                                        2-20

-------
                              Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice
                      Water Quality Statement
Cover and
green manure
crop (340)    Erosion, sediment and adsorbed chemical yields green manure could be
              decreased  in conventional tillage systems crop because of the increased
              period of vegetal cover.  Plants will take up available nitrogen and prevent
              its undesired movement.  Organic nutrients may be added to the nutrient
              budget reducing the need to supply more soluble forms.  Overall volume
              of chemical application may decrease because the vegetation will supply
              nutrients and there may be allelopathic effects of some of the types of cover
              vegetation on weeds.  Temperatures  of ground and surface  waters could
              slightly decrease.
Critical area
planting
(324)
Crop residue
use (344)
This practice may reduce soil  erosion and  sediment delivery to surface
waters.  Plants may take up more of the nutrients in the soil, reducing the
amount that can be  washed into surface  waters or  leached into ground
water.

During  grading,  seedbed  preparation,  seeding,  and mulching,  large
quantities of sediment and associated chemicals may be washed into surface
waters prior to plant establishment.
When this practice is employed, raindrops are intercepted by the residue
reducing detachment,use oil dispersion, and soil compaction.  Erosion may
be reduced and the delivery of sediment and associated pollutants to surface
water may be reduced.  Reduced soil sealing, crusting and compaction
allows more water to infiltrate,  resulting in  an increased  potential for
leaching of dissolved pollutants into the ground water.
                                       2-21

-------
                              Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice
                      Water Quality Statement
             Crop residues on the surface increases the microbial and bacterial action on
             or near the surface. Nitrates and surface-applied pesticides may be tied-up
             and less available to be delivered to surface and ground water. Residues
             trap sediment and  reduce.the amount  carried to surface water.   Crop
             residues promote soil aggregation and improve soil tilth.
Diversion
(362)
Field border
(386)
Filter strip
(393)
This practice will assist in the stabilization of a watershed, resulting in the
reduction  of sheet and  rill erosion by reducing the length of  slope.
Sediment may be reduced by the elimination of ephemeral and large gullies.
This may  reduce  the amount of sediment and related pollutants delivered
to the surface waters.
This practice reduces erosion by having perennial vegetation on an area of
the field.   Field borders serve as "anchoring points" for contour rows,
terraces, diversions, and contour strip cropping.   By elimination of the
practice of tilling and planting the ends up and down slopes, erosion from
concentrated flow in furrows and long rows may be reduced. This use may
reduce the quantity of sediment and related pollutants transported to the
surface waters.

When the field borders are located such that runoff flows across them in
sheet flow, they may cause the deposition of sediment and prevent it from
entering the surface water.  Where these practice are between cropland and
a stream or water body, the practice may reduce the amount of pesticide
application drift from entering the surface water.
Filter  strips  for  sediment  and related  pollutants  meeting  minimum
requirements may trap the coarser grained sediment.  They may not filter
out soluble or suspended fine-grained materials.  When a storm caused
runoff in excess of the design runoff,  the filter may be flooded and
                                       2-22

-------
                               Table 2-3.  (Continued)
Practice                            Water Quality Statement
              may cause large loads of pollutants to be released to the surface water.
              This type of filter requires high maintenance and has a relative short service
              life and is effective only as long as the flow through the filter is  shallow
              sheet flow.

              Filter strip for runoff form concentrated livestock areas may trap  organic
              material, solids, materials which become adsorbed to the vegetation or the
              soil within the filter. Often they will not filter out soluble materials. This
              type of filter is often wet and is difficult to maintain.

              Filter strips for controlled  overland flow treatment of liquid wastes may
              effectively filter out pollutants.  The filter must be properly managed and
              maintained,  including the proper resting time. Filter strips on forest land
              may trap coarse sediment, timbering debris, and other deleterious material
              being transported by runoff.  This may improve the quality of surface water
              and  has little  effect on soluble material in  runoff or on the quality of
              ground water.

              All types  of filters may reduce erosion on  the  area on which they  are
              constructed.

              Filter strips trap solids from the runoff flowing in sheet  flow through  the
              filter.  Coarse-grained and fibrous materials  are  filtered  more efficiently
              than fine-grained and soluble substances.  Filter strips  work for design
              conditions, but when flooded or overloaded they may release a slug load of
              pollutants  into the  surface water.
                                        2-23

-------
                              Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice
                      Water Quality Statement
Grade
stabilization
structure
(410)
Grassed
waterway
(412)
Where reduced stream velocities occur upstream and downstream from the
structure, streambank and  streambed erosion will be reduce.  This will
decrease the yield of sediment and sediment-attached substances.  Structures
that trap sediment will improve downstream water quality. The sediment
yield  change will be a function of the sediment yield to the structure,
reservoir trap efficiency and of velocities of released water. Ground water
recharge  may  affect aquifer quality depending  on  the quality  of the
recharging water. If the stored water contains only sediment and chemical
with low water solubility, the ground water quality should not be affected.
This practice may reduce the erosion in a concentrated flow area, such as
in a gully or in ephemeral gullies.  This may result in the reduction of
sediment and substances delivered to receiving waters. Vegetation may act
as a filter in removing some of the sediment delivered to the waterway,
although this is not the primary function of a grassed waterway.

Any chemicals applied to the waterway in the course of treatment of the
adjacent cropland may wash directly into the surface  waters in the case
where there is a runoff event shortly after spraying.

When used as a stable  outlet for another practice, waterways may increase
the likelihood of dissolved and suspended pollutants being transported to
surface waters when these pollutants are delivered to the waterway.
                                        2-24

-------
                              Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice
                      Water Quality Statement
Grasses and
legumes in
rotation (411) Reduced runoff and increased vegetation may lower erosion rates  and
             subsequent yields of sediment and sediment-attached substances.   Less
             applied nitrogen  may be required  to  grow  crops  because grasses  and
             legumes will supply organic nitrogen.  During the period of the rotation
             when  the grasses and legumes are growing,  they will take  up more
             phosphorus.  Less pesticides may similarly be required with this practice.
             Downstream water temperatures may be lower depending on the season
             when this practice is applied.  There  will be a greater opportunity for
             animal waste management on grasslands because manures and other wastes
             may be applied for a longer part of the crop year.
Sediment
basin (350)
Contour
stripcropping
(585)
Field
stripcropping
(586)
Sediment basins will remove sediment, sediment- associated materials and
other debris from the water which is passed on downstream.  Due to the
detention of the runoff in the basin, there is an increased opportunity  for
soluble materials to be leached toward the ground water.
This practice may reduce erosion and the amount of sediment and related
substances delivered to the surface waters. The practice may increase the
amount of water which infiltrates into the root zone, and, at the time there
is  an overabundance of soil water, this  water may percolate and  leach
soluble substances into the ground water.
This practice may reduce erosion and the delivery of sediment and related
substances to the surface waters. The practice may increase infiltration
                                       2-25

-------
                               Table 2-3. (Continued)
Practice
Terraces
(600)
                                    Water Quality Statement
              and, when there is sufficient water available, may increase the amount of
              leachable pollutants moved toward the ground water.

              Since this practice is not on the contour there will be areas of concentrated
              flow, from which detached sediment, adsorbed chemicals and dissolved
              substances will be delivered more rapidly to the receiving waters.  The sod
              strips will not be efficient filter areas in these areas of concentrated flow.
              This practice reduces the slope length and the amount of surface runoff
              which passes over the area downslope from  an individual terrace.  This
              may reduce the erosion rate and production of sediment within the terrace
              interval.  Terraces trap sediment and reduce  the sediment and associated
              pollutant content  in  the runoff  water which enhance  surface  water
              quality.Terraces may intercept and conduct surface runoff at a nonerosive
              velocity  to stable outlets, thus, reducing the occurrence of ephemeral and
              classic gullies and the resulting sediment. Increases in infiltration can cause
              a greater amount of soluble nutrients and pesticides to be leached into the
              soil. Underground outlets may collect highly soluble nutrient and pesticide
              leachates and convey runoff and conveying it directly to an outlet, terraces
              may increase the delivery of pollutants to surface waters. Terraces increase
              the opportunity to leach salts below the root zone in the soil. Terraces may
              have a detrimental effect on water quality if they concentrate and accelerate
              delivery of dissolved or suspended nutrient, salt, and pesticide pollutants to
              surface or ground waters.

Water and
sediment control
basin (638)    The practice  traps  and  removes  sediment  and  sediment-    attached
              substances from runoff.  Trap control efficiencies for sediment and total
              phosphorus, that are transported by runoff, may exceed 90 percent in silt
              loam soils.  Dissolved substance,  such as nitrates, may  be removed
                                        2-26

-------
                                Table 2-3. (Continued)
   Practice                            Water Quality Statement
                from discharge to downstream areas because of the increased infiltration.
                Where geologic condition  permit,  the practice  will lead  to  increased
                loadings of dissolved substances toward ground water. Water temperatures
                of surface runoff, released through underground outlets,  may increase
                slightly because of longer exposure to warming during its impoundment.
SOURCE:  Soil Conservation Service, 1988.
                                         2-27

-------
    Table 2-4.  Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices From Chesapeake Bay
                                           Installations
Practice
Conservation
Tillage
Stripcropping
Terraces
Grassed Water
Ways
Diversions
Sediment
Retention
Water control
Structures
Grassed Filter
Strips
Permanent
Veg. Cover
on Cr. Areas
Reforestation
of Crop and
Pastureland
Cover Crops
Total Acres
Treated1
20,627

4,754
812
4,311

615
21,190




4,351


18,041


4,658
1,845
Total Cost
(1990 Dollars)
371,704

213,941
175,925
2,488,144

153,516
3,952,752




44,206


627,368


677,069
20,022
Annual Cost
($/Ac/Yr)2
18. 15

11.9
35.3
94.0

40.6
30.5




2.7


9.2


23.6
10.9
Practice
Life
Span
1

5
10
10

10
10




5


5


10
1
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program,  1991.
1 Total acres treated is the actual area upon which the practice is applied. Some practices, such as filter strips and
diversions, actually serve or benefit several times more acreage than is treated, so cost per acre served or benefitted
can be substantially lower, and cost per ton of sediment "saved" can also be much lower.
2 Annual cost is calculated as total amortized cost (10%) over life span of practice, divided by (acres treated x life
3 Net costs are often much lower than this, frequently being negative.
                                                2-28

-------
Table 2-5. Effects of Three Tillage Systems on
              Returns in Indiana

Crop/Tillage
Continuous Com
Moldboard
Ridge
No-Till
Rotation Corn
Moldboard
Ridge
No-Till
Rotation Soybeans
Moldboard
Ridge
No-Till
Poorly
Drained
Soils
Dollar

$34.32
$49.36
$31.11

$79.20
$94.30
$90.49

$94.10
$104.55
^810.00

Somewhat Poorly
Drained
Soils
Values are Returns per

$16.74
$33.16
$25.58

$54.26
$63.76
$62.81

$65.90
$74.90
^ $64.95
^
Well
Drained
Soils
Acre1

$7.69
$30.26
$29.31

$34.18
$54.41
$53.51

$40.15
$58.85
$57.90
SOURCE: Griffith etal., 1986.
1 Returns (profit) to land, labor, and management.
                     2-29

-------
   Table 2-6. Summary of Costs for Selected Practices Applied for Erosion Control as a
                                 Primary Purpose
  System Number and Name                                      Total Cost Per
   (Systems are combinations of                                 Ton of Soil Saved
   SCS practices - see Appendix 2-A)                            (1990, amortized $)

  SL1  Permanent Vegetative Cover Establishment                          0.92

  SL2  Permanent Vegetative Cover Improvement                          1.05

  SL3  Stripcropping System                                             0.71

  SL4  Terrace Systems                                                 0.85

  SL5  Diversions                                                      0.84

  SL7  Windbreak Restoration or Establishment                            0.32

  SL8  Cropland Protective Cover                                        3.48

  SL11 Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Area                       1.41

  SL13 Contour Farming                                                0.30

  SL14 Reduced Tillage Systems                                         1.58

  SL15 No-Till System                                                 0.83

  WP1  Sediment Retention or Water Control Structure                      1.78

  WP2  Stream Protection                                               2.84

  WP3  Sod Waterways                                                 1.81
                                      ff

  WL1  Permanent Wildlife Habitat                                      2.09
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
1991.

                                       2-30

-------
is important to note that for some practices such as conservation  tillage the net costs often
approach zero and in some cases can be negative due to the savings in labor and energy.

For example, modeling has been used to demonstrate that in Minnesota (Conservation Tillage
Information Center, 1986) the return over total cost (i.e., total profit) increases for corn after
beans when changing  from moldboard plow ($8.52/Ac) to chisel till ($18.09/Ac), ridge till
($28.71), or no-till ($27.80). Similarly, modeling has shown that the relative cost (1982 dollars)
for no-till versus conventional tillage in Indiana can vary from losses of $27.87/Ac to savings
of $18.137Ac (Griffith, 1983).

The net cost of conservation tillage depends upon several factors, including crops, soils, and
climate.  For example, a modeling study for a 750-acre cash grain operation in central Indiana
(Griffith et  al., 1986) compared projected returns for moldboard plowing, ridge tillage, and no-
till planting for poorly drained soils (Group I), somewhat poorly drained soils (Group n), and
well-drained soils (Group ffl).  The results are given in Table 2-5  Either no-till or  ridge till
provides greater returns than moldboard in all nine scenarios, while moldboard provides a
greater return than either no-till or ridge till in only  three of nine scenarios.

Cost estimates for practices to control erosion and sediment on agricultural lands are also taken
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service,  1991).  Cost estimates reported by USDA are given by primary purpose, type of
agreement (long term agreement or regular Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)), and as
overall estimates.  The costs reported in Table 2-6 are for the  primary purpose of erosion
control, and long-term agreements and regular ACP agreements are lumped. The components
of each practice are given in Appendix 2-A.

The cost to install stripcropping systems (practice SL3) for the  primary purpose of erosion
control was about $300 per acre treated in 1990.  This cost is not amortized.  Practice SL3
decreased the average  annual erosion rate from 11 to 4.2 T/Ac/Yr, a reduction of 62 percent.

The cost to install permanent vegetative cover on critical areas (practice SL11) for the primary
purpose of erosion control was about $152.00 per acre served in 1990.  This cost is not
amortized.  Practice SL11 decreased the average annual erosion rate from 31 to 2.1 T/Ac/Yr,
a reduction of 93 percent.

The cost to install contour farming (practice SL13) for the primary purpose of erosion control
was about $200 per acre treated in 1990. This cost is not amortized. Practice SL13 decreased
the average annual erosion rate from 18 to 6 T/Ac/Yr, a reduction of 67 percent.

The cost to install reduced tillage systems (practice SL14) for the primary purpose of erosion
control was about $100 per acre treated in 1990. This cost is not amortized.   Practice SL14
decreased the average  annual erosion rate from 12 to 3.7 T/Ac/Yr,  a reduction of 69 percent.
                                         2-31

-------
The cost to install no-till systems (practice SL15) for the primary purpose of erosion control was
about $25.00 per acre treated in 1990.  This cost is not amortized. Practice SL1S decreased the
average annual erosion rate from 12 to 3.7 T/Ac/Yr, a reduction of 69 percent.

       7.      Operation and Maintenance

Operation:

Most structural practices for erosion and sediment control are designed to operate without human
intervention.  Water table control structures for example, would require some "operation" to
change the water level in the system. Management practices such as conservation tillage, on the
other hand,  do require "operation" each time they are used.  They must be factored into each
field operation that  takes place to produce the crop, in order to ensure that they are not
destroyed. Extreme care must be used to ensure that herbicides are not applied to any practice
that uses a permanent vegetative cover, such as waterways and filter strips.

Maintenance:

Structural practices  such as diversions, grassed waterways  and other practices  that require
grading and shaping may need to be repaired to maintain the original design; they may also need
reseeding to maintain the vegetative cover.  Trees and brush should not be allowed to grow on
berms, dams or other structural embankments. Sediment retention basins will need to be cleaned
to maintain  the design volume and efficiency.

Filter strips and field borders need to  be maintained to prevent channelization of flow and the
resulting short-circuiting of filtering mechanisms.  Reseeding of filter strips may be required on
a frequent basis.

Cost: The annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated to range from zero to ten
percent of the investment cost (U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation  Service-
Michigan, 1988).

       8.     Planning Considerations

Site specific resource information should be obtained from the SCS Field Office Technical
Guide.  Before deciding on the  management practices for  building a management  measure
system, there  are several planning issues that should be considered.  System adaptation to the
site conditions, acceptability of the practice(s) in the system to the land user, and the reduction
in erosion that will be  realized by installation of the practices are  key aspects that  must be
considered.

Local or state laws and regulations may dictate a specific level of erosion reduction or specific
conservation practices that must be included.  Practices that are chosen for  the  management
measure must also meet objectives of  the land user.

                                          2-32

-------
There are many conservation practices that can be used in developing a management measure.
Standards for these practices can be found in the local Soil Conservation Service Field Office
Technical Guide.  Other site specific resource information necessary for good system planning
can be found in these SCS guides.

Generally, more than one conservation practice will be needed to meet the sediment delivery
required of the management measure.  Several combinations of practices are likely to exist for
meeting the established sediment delivery rate.
Management measure system options should be prepared based on water quality objectives and
the land users' objectives.  Each  alternative should contain erosion and sediment reduction
evaluations.  The land user can then choose the system that best addresses personal objectives
while also meeting the erosion and sediment control guidelines as well as water quality goals.

Other  conservation practices, such as  wildlife upland habitat  management,  tree  planting,
farmstead and feedlot windbreak, pastureland and hayland planting, or other land use conversion
practices should be considered when developing a management measure.  Adding one or more
of  these  practices may  provide  additional erosion  and sediment control,  improve  the
environment, and add aesthetic values previously not realized.
                                         2-33

-------
B.     Confined Animal Facility Management

       1.     Management Measure Applicability

Confined animal facilities are: areas used to grow or house the animals; equipment and supplies
for production, processing and storage of product; the land near the buildings that the animals
have access to that does not support vegetative cover; manure and runoff storage areas; and
silage storage areas.   These areas  flre «"*fleci; to runoff control.  The land upon which the
manure, runoff and other wastes are utilized is considered agriculturaTcrop, hay and pasture land
and also subject to management measures for: erosion and sediment control, pesticides, nutrients
irrigation water and grazing, where applicable.

This management measure is to be applied to all existing confined animal facilities, except those
facilities that are required to apply for and receive discharge permits under 40 CFR, Section
122.23 ("Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations").  All new facilities are expected to be built
and operated in accordance with this measure.

       2.     Pollutants Produced  bv Confined Animal Facilities

The following pollutants may be contained in manure and associated bedding materials and may
be transported by runoff water from confined animal facilities and process wastewater:

       •     Nitrogen, phosphorus and many  other major  and minor  nutrients  or other
             deleterious materials;

       •     Salts;

       •     Bacteria, virus  and other microorganisms;

       •     Organic solids;

       •     Oxygen demanding substances; and

       •     Sediments.

       3.     Management Measure to Control Confined Animal Facilities

The management measure for confined animal facilities control is a combination of practices that
reduce discharge of pollutants from a confined animal facility by storing the runoff from storms
up to and including a 24 hour, 25 year frequency storm and preventing pollutant movement to
ground water. Manure and runoff water that is utilized on agricultural land will be applied in
accordance  with  the nutrient management  measure.   Disposal  of dead  animals will  be
accomplished in a manner that will  prevent any pollution to surface and ground waters.  The
management measure for confined animal facilities consists of:

                                          2-34

-------
       (1)    Storing the runoff from an  confined animal  facility from storms up to and
             including of 24 hour, 25 year frequency storm, and preventing contamination of
             ground water.This will require diversion of clean water around the facility and
             from roofs; control of runoff from lot surfaces and from storage areas for runoff
             and manure;  and control of process wastewater.

       (2)    Utilizing manure and runoff water on agricultural lands in accordance with the
             nutrient management measure; utilizing manure for bedding; or processing of
             manure for commercial marketing.

       (3)    Disposing  of dead  animals from  the  facility  by composting,  incineration,
             utilization of an approved burial site or,  removal via commercial service.

       4.     Confined Animal Facilities Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for confined animal facilities that are available as
tools to achieve the management measure  as set forth in section B.3.  Under each management
practice, the U.S. Soil  Conservation Service  (SCS)  practice number and a definition  are
provided.  The list of practices included in this section is not exhaustive and does not preclude
States or local agencies from developing special management practices in cooperation with the
appropriate technical agency within the State for unique conditions and problems that may t>e
encountered in particular  areas, provided that the  management  measures  (the system  of
individual practices adopted) achieve a level of performance that is as effective as that provided
by the management  measure specified in this guidance.   There may also be State or local
standards that would require additional practices.

       a.     For runoff control at the production facility

             Dikes  (356)
             An embankment constructed of earth or other suitable materials to protect land
             against overflow or to  regulate water.

             The purpose is to permit improvement of agricultural land by preventing overflow
             and better use of drainage facilities,  to prevent damage to land and property, and
             to facilitate water storage  and control  in  connection  with  wildlife and  other
             developments.  Dikes can also be used to protect natural areas, scenic features,
             and archeological sites from damage.

             Diversions (362)
             A channel constructed across the slope with a supporting ridge on the lower side.

             The purpose  is to divert excess water from one area for use or safe disposal in
             other areas.
                                         2-35

-------
Grassed waterway (412)
A natural or constructed channel that is shaped or graded to required dimensions
and established in suitable vegetation for the stable conveyance of runoff.

The  purpose is to convey runoff from  terraces, diversions, or  other  water
concentrations without causing erosion or flooding and to improve water quality.

Heavy use area protection (561)
Protecting heavily used  areas by establishing vegetative cover, by surfacing with
suitable materials, or by installing needed structures.

The  purpose is to stabilize urban, recreation, or facility areas frequently and
intensely used by people, animals, or vehicles.

Lined waterway or outlet (468)
A waterway  or outlet having an erosion-resistant lining of concrete,  stone, or
other permanent  material.   The lined section extends  up the side slopes to a
designed depth.   The earth  above the permanent lining may be vegetated or
otherwise protected.

The  purpose is to provide for safe disposal of runoff from other conservation
structures or from natural concentrations of flow, without damage by erosion or
flooding, where unlined or grassed waterways would be inadequate.  Properly
designed linings may also control seepage, piping, and  sloughing or slides.

Roof runoff management (558)
A facility for controlling, and disposing of runoff water from roofs.

The purpose is to prevent roof runoff  water  from flowing across  concentrated
waste areas,  barnyards, roads and alleys, and to reduce pollution  and erosion,
improve water quality, prevent flooding,  improve drainage, and protect the
environment.

Terrace (600)
An earthen embankment, a channel, or combination ridge and channel constructed
across the slope.

The purpose is  to: (1) reduce  slope  length, (2) reduce  erosion, (3) reduce
sediment content in the runoff water, (4) improve water quality, (5) intercept and
conduct surface  runoff at a non-erosive velocity to a stable outlet,  (6) retain
runoff for moisture
conservation, (7) prevent gully development, (8) re-form the land surface, (9)
improve farmability, or reduce flooding.
                              2-36

-------
b.     Manure and runoff storage

       Waste storage pond (425)
       An impoundment made by excavation or earthfill for temporary storage of animal
       or other agricultural wastes.

       The purpose is to store liquid and solid wastes, waste water, and polluted runoff
       to reduce pollution and to protect the environment.

       Waste storage structure (313)
       A fabricated structure for temporary storage of animal wastes or other organic
       agricultural wastes.

       The purpose is to temporarily store liquid or solid wastes as part of a pollution-
       control or energy-utilization system to conserve nutrients and energy  and to
       protect the environment.

       Waste treatment lagoon (359)
       An  impoundment made  by excavation  or earthfill for biological treatment of
       animal or other agricultural wastes.

       The purpose is to biologically treat organic wastes, reduce pollution, and protect
       the environment.

c.     Utilization of manure and runoff water

       1. Application of manure and/or runoff water to agricultural land
       Manure and/or runoff water will be applied to agricultural lands and incorporated
       into the soil in accordance with the management measures for nutrients.

       Waste Utilization (633)
       Using  agricultural  wastes  or other wastes on  land in  an environmentally
       acceptable manner while maintaining or improving soil and plant resources.

       The purpose is to safely use wastes  to provide fertility for crop, forage, or fiber
       production; to improve or maintain soil  structure; to prevent erosion;  and to
       safeguard water resources.

       2. Commercial marketing of manure

       Composting facility (317)
       A facility for  the biological stabilization of waste  organic material.
                                   2-37

-------
             The purpose is to treat waste organic material biologically by producing a humus-
             like material that can be recycled as a soil amendment and fertilizer substitute or
             otherwise utilized in compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations.

       d.     Disposal of dead animals

             "Dead Bird" composting

                    Composting facility (317)
                    A facility for the biological stabilization of waste organic material.

                    The purpose is to treat waste organic material biologically by producing
                    a humus-like  material that can  be recycled as a soil amendment and
                    fertilizer substitute or otherwise utilized  in  compliance with all laws,
                    rules, and regulations.

             Commercial Disposal Services

             Incineration

             Approved Burial Sites

       5.     Effectiveness Information

Pollution reductions that can be expected from installation of the management practices outlined
above are as follows:

When runoff from storms up to and including the 24 hour, 25 year storm is stored, there will
be no release of pollutants from a confined animal facility via the surface runoff route.  Rare
storms of a greater magnitude may produce runoff, but the "first flush" from them would be
contained by the 24 hour, 25  year storage volume.  Table 2-7 reflects the occurrence of such
storms by indicating less than 100 percent control for runoff control systems.
                                          2-38

-------
                          Table 2-7.  Runoff Control Efficiency
   Management Practice                          Removal efficiency
                                              Solids      Phosphorus
   Runoff Control System                     80 to 90      70 to 95
SOURCE:  Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.,  1986.

The information contained herein is primarily practice-oriented, yet EPA seeks data regarding
the overall effectiveness of management measures, or systems of practices. To this end, EPA
is continuing to collect and analyze more information regarding pollutant reductions, and solicits
comments regarding information sources to utilize.

       6.      Cost Information

Cost factors for control of runoff and manure from confined animal facilities.

                Table 2-8. Estimated Cost for Runoff Control Systems, by Size Range
                                Runoff Control Systems Only

Feedlot Capacity
(head)
100
500
1000

Investment

5000-12000
9000-16000
11000-20000
Cost Ranges
Annual
Dollars
300-600
400-800
500-1000

Annualized

770-1730
1250-2310
1540-2900
SOURCE: Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., 1986.

       7.    Operation and Maintenance of this Measure

       a.     Runoff control system

Operation:  The holding ponds or lagoons should be drawn down to design storm capacity within
14 days of a runoff event. Solids should be removed from the solids separation system after a
runoff event to ensure that solids will not enter the runoff holding facility.

                                         2-39

-------
Maintenance:  Diversions will need to be reshaped periodically and should be free of trees and
brush growth.  Gutters and downspouts should be inspected annually and repaired when needed.
Established grades for lot surfaces and conveyance channels must be maintained at all times.

Channels must be free of trees and brush growth.  Debris basins, holding ponds and lagoons will
need to be cleaned to assure that design volumes  are maintained.  Irrigation equipment, if used
to apply runoff water, should be flushed with fresh water after use.  This is usually done twice
per  year.   In  warm  climates this may be done four times per year,  while in other colder
climates, only once per year.  Clean water should be excluded from the storage structure unless
it is needed for further dilution  in a liquid system.
         Table 2-9.  Estimated Cost Implications for Selected Management Practices
   Practice
Unit
   Capital

(approximate)
Operating and
 Maintenance
(Approximate)
   Terrace
   systems
   Sod waterways
   Diversions

   Manure storage
   and use of
   nutrients
   Feedlot runoff
   control

   Exclusion or
   limited access
   to water courses
$14-39
per ha

$7/ha
drained

$90/ha
$10-20
per ha
$4/ha
$12/ha
    $120-330         est. 5% of capital
    per ha           annually

    $100/ha          $500/ha/yr
    drained

    $600/ha          est. 5% of capital
                    annually
    $250-500         pumping, spreading
    per ha           of manure
    $50/ha           5 % of capital annually
    $100/ha          5% of capital annually
SOURCE: Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint CommUiion, 1983.
NOTE: All coats are 1982 dollar* and amortized at a zero discount rate.
                                             2^0

-------
       b.     Manure storage system

Operation:   The storage structure should be emptied when  manure can  be applied to
cropland.Maintenance: Storage structures should be inspected for cracks and leaks after each use
cycle.  Manure transfer equipment must be inspected and repaired after each use cycle.

       c.     Cost

The annual cost of maintenance is estimated to be five percent of the investment cost.

C.     Nutrient Management Measure

The basic concept of nutrient management is pollution prevention, by using only the nutrients
necessary to produce a crop. This measure  may result in some reduction in the amount of
nutrients being applied to the land, thereby reducing the cost of production as well as protecting
water quality.

       1.     Management Measure Applicability

This management measure is to be utilized on all agricultural lands that have nutrients applied
to them.  When the source of the nutrients is other than commercial fertilizer, the material must
be tested to determine the nutrient value and the rate of availability of the nutrients.  Also, for
municipal and/or industrial treatment plant sludge and effluent, the concentration of metals and
organic toxics must be known before these wastes  are considered for application to agricultural
lands as nutrient sources.

Those agricultural lands that also meet the applicability definitions of the pesticide management
measure, erosion and sediment control management  measure,  grazing management measure,
irrigation water management, or other management measures,  are also  subject to those
management measures.

       2.     Pollutants Produced by Application of Nutrients Sources

Surface water  runoff from agricultural lands that have  had nutrients applied to them, may
transport the following pollutants:

       •     Particulate bound nutrients, chemicals and metals, such as phosphorus, organic
             nitrogen, metals applied with  some organic wastes and found naturally within the
             soil;

       •     Soluble nutrients and  chemicals, such as nitrogen, phosphorus,  metals and many
             other major and minor nutrients;

       •     Sediment, paniculate organic solids, oxygen demanding material;

                                        2-41

-------
       •     Salts; and

       •     Bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms.

Ground-water infiltration from agricultural lands that have had nutrients applied to them, may
transport the following pollutants:

       •     Soluble nutrients and chemicals, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, metals and many
             other major and minor nutrients, and salts.

       3.     Sources of Nutrients That Are Applied to Agricultural Lands

Nutrients are applied to  agricultural land  in several different forms and come from various
sources, including;

       •     Commercial fertilizer in  a  dry  or fluid form,  containing N,P,K,  secondary
             nutrients and micro-nutrients;

       •     Manure from animal production facilities including bedding  and other wastes
             added to the manure, containing N,P,K, secondary nutrients, micro-nutrients,
             salts, some metals and organics;

       •     Municipal  and/or industrial treatment plant sludge, containing N,P,K, secondary
             nutrients, micro-nutrients, salts, metals and organic solids;

       •     Municipal  and/or industrial treatment plant effluent,
             containing  N,P,K,  secondary nutrients, micro-nutrients, salts,  metals and
             organics;

       •     Irrigation water; and

       •     Atmospheric deposition of nutrients such as nitrogen and sulphur.

       4.    Management Measure to Control Nutrients

Following are the management measures for controlling excess nutrient use in agriculture. To
eliminate application of excess nutrients, to improve timing of application, and to increase the
use efficiency of nutrients, a nutrient management plan should be developed and implemented:

       (1)    Prepare a farm and field map containing soils information, a history of previous
             crops and  current crop rotation.

       (2)    Assess soil productivity by field to determine expected yields for the target crop.
                                          2-42

-------
       (3)    Calculate the nutrient resources available to the producer for the target crop.

       (4)    Utilizing  the  limiting nutrient/element  concept,  establish  nutrient/element
             requirement for the soil or the target crop and the nutrient sources available.

       (5)    Identify  timing and  application  methods  for  nutrients that  maximize plant
             utilization of nutrients and minimize the loss to the environment.

       (6)    Evaluate using cover crops to scavenge nutrients that might remain in the  soil
             after harvest and water level control to keep nitrogen laden water within the root
             zone for plant use and to promote denitrification in drainage system.

       (7)    Evaluate field limitations based on environmental hazards or concerns.

       (8)    Control phosphorus loss from a field by controlling sediment loss.  The primary
             management measure for control of phosphorus will be the erosion and sediment
             management measure, Section A., which is hereby included within the measure.

       5.     Nutrient Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for nutrient management that are available as tools
to achieve the management measure as set forth in section C.4.  This list of practices is not
exhaustive and does not preclude States and local agencies from developing special management
practices, in cooperation with appropriate technical agencies for unique conditions and problems
that may be encountered in particular areas, provided that the management measures (the system
of individual practices adopted) achieve a level of performance that is as effective as that
provided by the management measures specified in the guidance.  There may also be State and
local standards that would require additional nutrient management practices.

Following are the necessary components of a nutrient management plan:

       (1)    Soils information, a history of previous crops and current crop rotation for each
             field.

       (2)    An assessment by field to determine expected yields for the target crop.  The
             expected yield is determined by using the following:

             •     University  fertility  recommendations (based  on  soil  series  where
                    available),
             •     SCS Soils 5 information for the soil series, and
             •     Average yield history for the field.

       (3)    A summary of the nutrient resources available to the producer for the target crop.
             This would include the following steps:

                                          2-43

-------
             •     Testing of the soil in the field for phosphorus, potassium and nitrates;*

             •     Plant tissue testing for nutrient needs during the growing season (where
                   tissue tests are calibrated with crop nutrient needs);

             •     Estimate  of  the  nitrogen  contribution   form  soil  organic  matter
                   mineralization, where important;

             •     Nutrient analysis of manure and sludge; and

             •     Calculation of the nitrogen contribution to the soil from legumes grown
                   in rotation.

      (4)    Use of proper timing and application methods for nutrients that maximize plant
             utilization of nutrients and minimize the loss to the environment, including split
             application and banding of the nutrients and incorporation of fertilizers, manures
             and other organic sources.

      (5)    Use of cover crops (see practice 340 below) to scavenger nutrients and water
             level control to keep nitrogen-laden water within the root zone for plant use and
             to promote denitrification in drainage system.

             Cover and Green Manure Crop (340))
             A crop  of close-growing  grasses, legumes or small grain grown  primarily for
             seasonal protection and soil improvement.  It usually is grown for 1 year or less,
             except where there is permanent cover as in orchards.

             The purpose is to control erosion during periods  when  the major corps do not
             furnish adequate cover; add organic material to the soil and improve infiltration,
             aeration and tilth.

      (6)    Evaluate field limitations based on environmental  hazards or concerns such as:

             •     Sinkholes, wells and other routes of direct access  to ground water such as
                    karst topography;
             •     Proximity to surface water;
             •     Highly credible soils;
             •     Highly permeable  soils; and
             •     Shallow aquifers.
       * Soil testing for nitrates in humid regions has produced inconsistent results and should
be used with caution. Consideration should be given to the alternative approach of plant tissue
testing early in the growing season to determine the nitrogen needs of the crop.
                                          2-44

-------
       (7)    Provide a narrative explaining the plan and its use.

             Nutrient Management (590)
             Manage  the amount, form, placement, and timing  of applications  of  plant
             nutrients.

             The purpose is to supply plant nutrients for optimum forage and crop yields,
             minimize entry of nutrients to surface and ground water, and to maintain or
             improve chemical and biological condition of the soil.

       6.     Effectiveness Information

Following is a summary of some of the available information regarding pollution reductions that
can be expected from installation of nutrient management practices.

The State of Maryland estimates that average reductions of 34 pounds of nitrogen and 41 pounds
of phosphorus per acre can be achieved through the implementation of nutrient management
plans (Maryland Department of Agriculture, 1990).   These average reductions may be high
because they are mostly for farms  that utilize animal wastes, average reductions for farms that
only use commercial fertilizer may be much lower. However, they do  represents a significant
amount of nutrients  that will not be applied to the fields and will not be available for transport
from the field in surface water or for movement into the ground-water system.  The actual
percent reduction in  the amount of these nutrients reaching coastal waters is difficult to measure
or predict at this time. However, field scale and watershed models  can be use to predict the
reduction in nutrients moving to the edge of the field and to the ground water.

As of July 1990, the Chesapeake  Bay drainage basin States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia reported that approximately 114,300 acres (1.4 percent of eligible cropland in the basin)
had nutrient management plans for in place (USEPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1991).  The
average nutrient reduction of total nitrogen and total phosphorus was 31.5 and 37.5 pounds per
acre, respectively. The States initially prioritized nutrient management efforts toward animal
waste utilization.  Because initial planning was focused on animal  wastes  (which have a
relatively high total nitrogen and phosphorus loading factor), estimates of nutrient reduction (see
Table 2-10) attributed to nutrient management may  decrease as more cropland using only
commercial fertilizer is enrolled in the program.
                                         2-45

-------
       Table 2-10.  Estimated Nutrient Reductions for Selected Management Practices
                                                          Total?
                                                     Load Reduction (96)
   Management Practice                                     (approximate)

   Proper Rate of Fertilizer
   Application                                                 3

   Optimum Timing of
   Fertilization                                                20

   Optimum Method of
   Fertilization                                              up to 90
SOURCE: Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint Commission, 1983.

       7.     Cost Information

Following is available information on the costs of implementing nutrient management practices.

In general, most of the costs are associated with providing additional technical  assistance to
landowners to develop nutrient management plans.  In many instances landowners can actually
save money by implementing nutrient management plans.  For example, Maryland estimates
from the over 750 nutrient management plans that were completed prior to September 30, 1990,
that if plan recommendations are followed, the landowners will save an average of $23 per acre
per year (Maryland Department of Agriculture,  1990). The average saving may be high because
most plans were for farm utilizing animal waste, future saving may be reduced as more farms
using commercial fertilizer are included in the  program.
                                         2-46

-------
        Table 2-11.  Estimated Cost Implications for Selected Management Practices
                                                                     Operating and
                                                           Capital    Maintenance
   Practice                                     Unit     (approximate) (approximate)
   Proper Rate of
   Fertilizer
   Application                                   000

   Optimum Timing of
   Fertilization                                minimal         0         minimal

   Optimum Method of
   Fertilization                                minimal        NA        minimal
SOURCE:  Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint Commission, 1983.

       8.     Planning Considerations for a Nutrient Management Measure

When developing a nutrient management plan the following items should be given careful
consideration.

       •     A farm and field map

             The land that will be included in the nutrient plans should be located on a map
             of the farm and detailed on field maps showing the location of crop to be grown.
             A soils map for each field should be included in this initial information package.
             The map should be accompanied by the exact acres within the field, a five year
             average of crop yield for the field and an indication of the soil productivity of the
             field.

       •     Nutrient requirements of the target crop

             The most critical element of the plan is the yield goal established for the crop.
             This is to be based on the yield history and productivity of the soil in the field.
             The goal must be realistic  for  the  soil, the  growing season  rainfall and
             management ability of the producer.   Once the yield goal for a target crop is
             established, the nutrient requirements for the target crop can be calculated.

       •     Nutrient sources available by field and rotation system used for the field

             A list of all sources of nutrients must be developed for each field.  This would
             include results from soil testing, analysis of animal wastes that will be applied to

                                         2-41

-------
             the field, analysis of any other organic wastes that will be applied to the field,
             credit for crop residues from previous crops, credit for cover crop if grown prior
             to the target  crop,  credit for nitrogen  in  irrigation water  and atmospheric
             deposition on nitrogen on the field during the growing season.

       •     Indication of any environmental hazards or concerns

             A list of environmental hazards for each field should be developed at this time.
             The list should indicate areas of excessive leaching within the field, depth to
             ground water,  distance to surface water, location of sink holes, indication of karst
             subsurface formations,  location of water supply wells and areas of the field that
             are included in a wellhead protection zone.

       •     The narrative explaining the plan and its use

             The plan will specify the nutrients needed to reach the yield goal and the sources
             of these nutrients.  It will recommend times of application for the sources and the
             methods of application.   This may include split applications of commercial
             fertilizer,  incorporation of manure and  the use of slow release nutrient sources.
             The plan may  require either soil testing or tissue testing after the crop reaches a
             specified stage as a guide for the application of additional nutrients to complete
             the requirements for the yield goal. Winter cover crops may also be specified to
             hold nutrients  during this time period.

       9.     Operation and Maintenance for Nutrient Management

Operation:

The utilization of a nutrient management plan requires periodic soil testing for each field, soil
and/or tissue testing during the early growth stages of the crop and testing of manure,  sludge
and irrigation water if they are used. The plan may call for multiple applications of nutrients
requiring more that one  field operation to apply the total nutrients required for the crop.

Maintenance:

A nutrient management  plan should be updated whenever the crop rotation is changed or the
nutrient source is changed.  Application equipment must be calibrated and inspected for wear
and damage periodically and repaired when necessary.  Records of nutrient use and source
should be maintained along with other production records for each field. These will  be used to
update or modify the management plan  when  necessary.   The management plan  should be
reviewed at least every three years.
                                          2-48

-------
D.     Pesticide Management

The basic concept of pesticide management is pollution prevention. The most effective approach
to reducing pesticide pollution of waters is, first, to release fewer pesticides into the environment
and, second, to use practices which minimize the movement of pesticides to surface and ground
water.  In addition, pesticides should only be applied when an economic benefit to the grower
will be achieved.  Such an approach emphasizes using pesticides only when, and to the extent,
necessary to control the target pest.  This usually results  in some reduction in the amount of
pesticides being applied to the land, thereby enhancing the protection of water quality as well
as reducing the cost of production.

       1.     Management Measure Applicability

The management measures set forth in this section are to be utilized on all agricultural lands that
have or are intended to have pesticides applied to them.

Those  agricultural lands that also meet the applicability definitions of the erosion and sediment
management measure, nutrient management measure, grazing management measure, or other
management measures are also subject to those management measures.

       2.     Pollutants Associated with Agricultural Pesticide Use

Pesticides include any substance or mixture of substances  intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating any pest or intended use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or  desiccant.
The principal pesticidal pollutants that may be detected in surface water and in ground water are
the active and inert ingredients and any persistent degradation products. Pesticides may enter
ground and surface water in dissolved form or bound to eroded soil particles.

       3.     Sources of Pesticides

A major source of contamination from pesticide use is the result of application of pesticides.
Other  sources  of pesticide contamination are atmospheric deposition,  spray drift during the
application process, misuse, and spills,  leaks,  and discharges  that may be associated  with
pesticide storage, handling and waste disposal.

       4.     Management Measures to Manage Pesticide Use

Following are the management measures for  managing agricultural pesticide use.   They will
reduce surface  and ground-water contamination,  eliminate application of excess pesticides,
improve timing and efficiency  of application, increase the use efficiency of pesticides, and
reduce the generation of  pesticide wastes. Specific pesticide  management measures are  as
follows:

       (1)    Evaluate the pest problems, previous pest control measures, and cropping history.

                                         2-49

-------
       (2)    Evaluate  the physical characteristics of the  site for the leaching  of soluble
             pesticides or runoff of soluble or soil-borne pesticides.

       (3)    Utilize integrated pest management (IPM) systems  to reduce  the  amount of
             pesticides applied to the maximum extent  that is technically and economically
             achievable.  IPM is defined as a pest control strategy based on the determination
             of an economic threshold that indicates when a pest population is approaching the
             level at which control measures are necessary to prevent a decline in net returns.
             In principle, IPM is an ecologically based strategy that relies on natural mortality
             factors, such  as  natural enemies, weather, and  crop management, and seeks
             control tactics that disrupt these factors as little as  possible (National Research
             Council, 1989).

       (5)    If pesticide applications are necessary and a choice  of materials exists, consider
             the persistence and leachability of products along with other factors in making a
             selection. Users must apply pesticides in accordance with the instructions on the
             label of each pesticide product, and when required, be trained and certified in the
             proper use of the pesticide.

       (6)    Ensure that pesticides  are handled safely, and stored and disposed of properly.

       5.     Pesticide Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for pesticide management that are available as tools
to achieve the management measure as set forth in section D.4.  This list of practices is not
exhaustive and does not preclude States and local agencies from developing special management
practices,  in  cooperation with  the appropriate technical agency  within  the State for unique
conditions  and problems  that  may  be  encountered  in  particular areas,  provided that the
management  measures  (the system of individual  practices  adopted)  achieve a  level of
performance  that is as effective as the provided by the management measures specified in the
guidance.  There may also be State and local standards that would require additional pesticide
management  practices:

       (1)    Inventory of current and historical pest problems, cropping patterns and use of
             pesticides for the field.

       (2)    Consider soil and physical characteristics of the site, including the potential for
             the leaching or runoff of pesticides.  In situations where the potential for loss is
             high, emphasis should be given to practices and/or management measures that
             will minimize these potential losses.  The physical characteristics to be considered
             should include limitations based on environmental hazards or concerns such as:

              •      Sinkholes, wells and other areas of direct access to ground water such as
                     karst topography;

                                          2-50

-------
             Proximity to surface water;
             Highly credible soils;
             Soils with poor adsorptive capacity;
             Highly permeable soils; and
             Shallow aquifers;

(3)     Following is a list of the primary practices available to implement IPM systems:

             More efficient application methods e.g. spot spraying;
             Pesticide application based on economic thresholds;
             Use of resistant crop strains;
             Use less environmentally persistent pesticides;
             Use pesticides with reduced mobility in water;
             Use timing of field operations (planning, cultivating, and harvesting) to
             minimize application of pesticides;
       •     Conduct scouting (use periodic scouting to determine when pest problems
             reach the economic threshold on the farm);
       •     Use of biological controls:
             (a)    introduction and fostering of natural enemies;
             (b)    preservation of predator habitats; and
             (c)    release of sterilized male insects;
       •     Use of pheromones:
             (a)    for monitoring populations;
             (b)    for mass trapping;
             (c)    for disrupting mating or other behaviors of pests; and
             (d)    to attract predators/parasites;
       •     Crop rotations
       •     Use cover crops in the system, as needed, to promote water use and
             reduce deep percolation of water that contributes to leaching of pesticides
             into ground water;
       •     Destruction of pest breeding, refuge and overwintering  sites;
       •     Use of "trap" crops;
       •     Habitat diversification; and
       •     Use of botanicals.

(4)     Maintain a history of pesticide use for each field.  This could  include the types
       of pesticides used, amount, and the method of application.

(5)     A strong State role and linkage with  other evolving ground and surface water
       protection programs is critical to protect water resources from contamination from
       pesticide chemicals.  Therefore, States should integrate this aspect of their Coastal
       program with State and Federal  strategies designed to reduce ground and surface
       water contamination associated with pesticide use.   Particular attention should be
       paid to  practices which  provide  flexibility for  decisions  to be made  on a
       geographic basis—taking into account use, value and vulnerability of ground-water
       resources.

                                   2-51

-------
       6.     Implementation of Management Measure

The management measures specified in section D.4 identify the changes in behavior and thought
processes that are needed to manage pesticides to reduce excess pesticide use.  FIFRA can be
used to enforce requirements to follow pesticide label instructions and for applicator training and
certification, when necessary.  States are using a variety of approaches to encourage change in
behavior and thought processes regarding  pesticide use,  such as State wide and regional
strategies and farm-specific plans.  EPA believes that farm-specific pesticide management plans
may be necessary to document the changes in behavior and the thought processes necessary to
implement the management measure.

EPA solicits  comment  on  whether the  pesticide management  measure  should include
development of a pesticide management plan so that the behavior and thought process associated
with the management measures is documented.

       7.     Effectiveness Information

Following is  a  summary of available information regarding pollution reductions that can be
expected from using pesticide management practices.

Table 2-12 summarizes estimates of potential pesticide loss reductions from various management
practices and systems of practices at a field level as compared with a hypothetical field utilizing
cropping practices which were typical until the late 1970's.  The uncertainty of the estimates is
a function of the  rapid transitions in production methods coupled with the  variance among
regions and seasons.  Traditional sediment and erosion control practices are not as effective on
cotton as with corn and soybeans because much cotton is grown on relatively flat land with little
or no water erosion problem (Heimlich and Bills, 1984).

Table  2-13 summarizes the estimates of pesticide loss reductions from various management
practices and combinations of practices for corn (North Carolina State University, 1984). These
estimates are made at the field level as compared with a hypothetical field utilizing conventional,
traditional or typical cropping practices realizing that these practices may vary considerably
between geographic regions.

The Non-Point Source Task Force of the International Joint Commission (1983) for the Great
Lakes Basin also estimated pesticide reductions associated with selected  management practices
and the data are  summarized in Table  2-14.  The Task Force found that the most effective,
although not necessarily  the most acceptable method of pesticide Great Lakes loading control,
is regulation of the use of volatile and  persistent pesticides (see practice no.  2 below).  They
noted  that this has been effective in the Great Lakes Basin.

The Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) agricultural
watershed studies found that 66  percent of simazine loadings and 22 percent of atrazine loadings
were due to spills in 1976-77 (Frank et al., 1978).  Thus, safe handling, storage and disposal
practices (see practice no. 6 below) alone, can significantly reduce pesticide losses.

                                          2-52

-------
    Table 2-12.  Estimates of Potential Reductions in Field Losses of Pesticides for Cotton
                Compared to a Conventionally and/or Traditionally Cropped Field1

Terracing
Contouring
Reduced Tillage
Grassed Waterways
Sediment Basins
Filter Strips
Cover Crops
Optimal Application
Techniques3
Nonchemical
Methods
Scouting Economic
Thresholds
Crop Rotations

Pest Resistant
Varieties
Alternative Pesticides

Transport Route(s)
SR and SL #
SRandSL
SRandSL
SRandSL
SR
SR
SRandSL
..
All Routes ($)

All Routes
All Routes

All Routes

All Routes

All Routes

Range of
Pesticide
Loss Reduction
(Percent)2
0-<20*)
0-(20*)
^tO - +20 AB
0-10 AB
0-10 AB
0-10 A
-20- +10 B

40-80 A


40-65 A
0-30 B
0-20 A
10-30 B
0-60 A
0-30 B
60-95 A
0-20 B
SOURCE: North Carolina State University, 1984.

* Refers to estimated increases in movement through soil profile.
# SR = Surface Runoff
 SL = Soil Leaching
$ Particularly drift and volatilization

'The hypothetical traditionally cropped comparison field utilizes the following management system:
a) conventional tillage without other SWCPs,
b) aerial application of all pesticides with timing based only on field operation convenience,
c) ten insecticide treatments annually with a total application of 12 kg/ha based on a prescribed schedule,
d) cotton grown in 3 out of 4 years,
e) long season cotton varieties.

2Assumes field loss reductions are proportional to application rate reductions.
A = insecticide (toxaphene, methylparathion, synthetic pyrethroids).
B = herbicides (trifluralin, fluometron).
Ranges allow for variation in production region, climate, slope and soils.
'Defined for cotton as ground application using optimal droplet or granular size ranges with spraying
restricted to calm periods in late afternoon or at night when precipitation is not imminent.
                                                       2-53

-------
     Table 2-13.  Estimates of Potential Reductions in Field Losses of Pesticides for Corn
                Compared to a Conventionally and/or Traditionally Cropped Field1
   Management Practice
Transport Route(s)
      Affected
Range of Pesticide
Loss Reduction
  (Percent)2
   SWCPs
    Terracing
    Contouring
    No-till

    Other Reduced
     Tillage
    Grassed Waterways
    Sediment Basins
    Filter Strips
    Cover Crops

   Optimal Application
   Techniques4

   Nonchemical
   Methods
    Adequate Monitoring
    Crop Rotations
SR and/or SL<#)
SR and/or SL
SR and/or SL
SR and/or SL

SR and/or SL

SR
SR
SR
SR and/or SL

All Routes $
All Routes

All Routes
All Routes
40-75AB (25*)
15-55AB (20*)
-10 - +40B
 60- +10A(10*)
-10 - +60B
-40 - +20A (15*)
-10-20AB
0-10AB
0-10AB
0-20B3

10-20
20-40B
40-65A
40-70A
10-30B
SOURCE:  North Carolina State University, 1984
* Refers to estimated increases in movement through soil profile.
# SR = Surface Runoff
 SL = Soil Leaching
$ Particularly drift and volatilization

'The hypothetical field used as the basis for comparison utilizes the following management system:
a) conventional tillage without other SWCPs,
b) ground application with timing based only on field operation convenience,
c) little or no pest monitoring; spraying on prescribed schedule,
d) corn grown in 3 out of 4 years.
'Assumes field loss reductions are proportional to application rate reductions. A = insecticides (carbofuran and O.P.s)  B = herbicides
(Triazine, Alachlor, Butylate, Parquat) Ranges allow for variation in climate, slope, soils and types of pesticides used.  Ranges for no-
till and reduced-till are derived from a combination of increased application rates and decreased runoff losses.
'Cover crops only will affect runoff and leaching losses for pesticides persistent enough to be available over the non-growing season.
In the case of pesticides used on corn only the triazine and anilide herbicides will generally meet this criteria.
'Defined here for com as ground application using  optimal droplet or granular size ranges, with spraying restricted to  calm periods in
late afternoon or evening.
                                                     2-54

-------
       Table 2-14.  Estimated Pesticide Reductions for Selected Management Practices
                                                 Percent Reduction
   Management Practice                                (Approximate)
   1. Proper rate of                                50-75%
     pesticide application                            (in conjunction with No. 3)

   2. Use of pesticides with                          100%
     minimum persistence and
     volatility

   3. Optimum method of                            50-75%
     pesticide application                            (in conjunction with No. 1)

   4. Optimum timing of                            50%
     pesticide application                            (if application prior to
                                                 spring runoff can be avoided)

   5. Integrated pest                                Undocumented (but up to 100%
     management                                  is possible)

   6. Safe handling, storage                          up to 50%
     and disposal of pesti-
     cides
SOURCE: Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint Commission,  1983.

       8.     Cost Information

In general, most of the costs of implementing a pesticide management plan are program costs
associated with  providing  additional technical assistance to landowners  to develop pesticide
management plans and for field scouting during the growing season. Producers can actually save
money by implementing pesticide management plans.

The Non-Point Source Task Force of the International Joint Commission for  the Great Lakes
Basin (1983) estimated the cost implications for selected pesticide management practices and the
data are summarized in Table 2-15.

Costs for erosion and sediment control and for irrigation management are in Sections A and F,
respectively.
                                           2-55

-------
       Table 2-15.  Estimated Cost Implications for Selected Pesticide Management Practices
   Management Practice
Unit          Capital      Operating
            Approximate
   1.  Proper rate of                      minimal
      pesticide application

   2.  Use of pesticides with minimum         0
      persistence and volatility

   3.  Optimum method of                 minimal
      pesticide application

   4.  Optimum tuning of                 minimal
      pesticide application

   5.  Integrated pest                     minimal
      management
              minimal
                 0
                           minimal
minimal
                           major
                           inconvenience
SOURCE: Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint Commission, 1983.

       9.     Planning Considerations for Implementing Pesticide Management
Following is a more detailed discussion regarding effective pesticide management:

       •      A farm and field map.

              The land where pesticides will be used should be located on a map of the farm.
              In addition, the following information should be compiled  for each field:

                     Crops to be grown and a history of crop production;
                     Information on soils types;
                     The exact acres within each field; and
                     Record  on past pesticide use on each field.

       •      Pesticide requirements for the target pest(s).

              The  most  critical element  is establishment of the economic yield reductions
              thresholds  for  each crop.   The reduction thresholds must be realistic for the
              producer.
                                           2-56

-------
       •     Pesticide sources available by field and rotation system used for the field.
       •     Indication of any environmental hazards or concerns.

             A list of environmental hazards for each field should be developed at this time.
             The list should indicate
             areas of excessive leaching within the field,  depth to ground water, distance to
             surface water, location of sink holes, indication of karst subsurface formations,
             location of water supply wells and  areas of  the field that are included in a
             wellhead protection zone.

       10.   Operation and Maintenance for Pesticide Management

Operation:

Effective pesticide management may require periodic scouting of each field for pests.   Also,
multiple applications of pesticides may require more that one field operation to  apply the
pesticides  required for the crop.

Maintenance:

Pesticide management measures should be updated whenever the crop rotation is changed or the
pesticide source is changed.  Application equipment must be calibrated and inspected for wear
and damage periodically and repaired when necessary.  Records of pesticide application  should
be maintained along with other production records for each  field. These will be used to  update
or modify the management measure when necessary.  The management measure for each field
should be  reviewed every year.
                                         2-57

-------
E.     Grazing Management

This management measure is designed to improve water quality from, and protect riparian zones
within, range or pasture land.  The key elements are grazing management  for the proper
utilization of the forage component of the vegetation, controlling access to or excluding livestock
from sensitive areas such as streambanks and riparian zones, and improving of vegetative cover
to reduce erosion.

       1.      Management Measure Applicability

The management measure is to be utilized on all irrigated and non-irrigated agricultural pasture
lands and range lands.

Those range and pasture lands that also meet the applicability definitions of the erosion and
sediment control management measure, pesticide management measure, nutrient management
measure, irrigation water management, or other management measures are also subject to those
management measures.

       2.     Pollutants Produced by Utilization of Agricultural Range and Pasture Lands

Runoff water from agricultural pasture lands and range lands may transport the following types
of pollutants:

       •     Sediment and paniculate organic solids;

       •     Paniculate bound nutrients, chemicals and metals, such as phosphorus,  organic
             nitrogen, a portion of applied pesticides, and a portion of the metals applied with
             some organic wastes and found naturally within the soil;

       •     Soluble nutrients, such as nitrogen, a portion of the phosphorus, a portion of the
             applied pesticides, a portion of the  soluble metals and  many other major and
             minor  nutrients;

       •     Salts; and

       •     Bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms.

       3.     Management Measure to Control Range and Pasture  Land Grazing

The range and pasture land grazing control management measure is a combination of practices
to reduce the discharge of sediment, nutrients and chemicals from agricultural pasture land and
range lands to receiving waters; to prevent streambank erosion caused by livestock; and  to
enhance or maintain riparian zones at the good to excellent conditional status.  At a minimum,
                                         2-58

-------
for range land this measure will maintain the range condition at the good condition status* or
above; for pasture this measure will maintain a vegetation cover that will reduce erosion to, or
maintain soil stability within, the soil loss tolerance value or below.  For both range  and
pastures, areas will be provided for livestock watering, salting and shade that are located away
from streambanks and riparian zones. This will be accomplished by managing livestock grazing
and providing facilities for water, salt and shade, as needed.

       4.     Range and Pasture Land Management Practices

Following is a list  of management practices for range  and pasture grazing control that are
available as tools to achieve the range and pasture land management measure  as set forth in
Section E.3.  Under each management practice  the U.S.  Soil Conservation (SCS) practice
number and a definition is provided. The list of practices included in this section is by  no means
exclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies  from developing special management
practices in cooperation with the appropriate technical agency within  the State  for unique
conditions  and problems that  may  be encountered  in particular areas, provided  that  the
management measures  (the  system  of  individual practices  adopted) achieve a  level  of
performance that is  as effective as that provided by the management measure specified in  this
guidance.  There may also be state or local standards that would require additional practices.

       (1)    Implementation of a grazing management scheme that assures proper grazing use
             by grazing at an intensity that balances the number of livestock with the available
             forage and feed and describes the animal movement through the operating unit of
             range or pasture lands. Proper grazing  use will maintain enough live vegetation
             and litter cover to protect the soil from erosion, and will maintain or improve the
             quality and quantity of desirable vegetation.  Practices that accomplish this are:

             Deferred Grazing (352)
             Postponing grazing or resting grazing land for prescribed period.

             The purpose is to: (1) promote natural re-vegetation by increasing the vigor of the
             forage stand and  permitting desirable plants to produce seed, (2) provide a feed
             reserve for fall and winter grazing or emergency use, (3) improve the appearance
             of range having inadequate cover, and (4) reduce soil loss and improve water
             quality.

             Planned Grazing  System (556)
             A practice in which two or more grazing units are alternately rested and grazed
             in a planned sequence  for a period of years, and rest periods may be throughout
             the year or during the growing season of key plants.
       * Range land condition rating (percent climax vegetation): Excellent = 76-100%, Good
= 51-75%, Fair = 26-50%, and
Poor = 0-25%.

                                          2-59

-------
       The purpose is to: (1) maintain existing plant cover or hasten its improvement
       while properly using the  forage of all grazing units, (2) reduce erosion and
       improve water quality,  (3) increase efficiency of grazing by uniformly using all
       parts of each grazing unit, (4) insure a supply of forage throughout the grazing
       season,  (5) increase production and  improve quality of forage,  (6) enhance
       wildlife habitat, (7) promote flexibility in the grazing program and buffer the
       adverse effects of drought, and (8) promote energy conservation through reduced
       use of fossil fuel.

       Proper Grazing Use (5281
       Grazing at an  intensity that will maintain enough cover to protect the soil and
       maintain or improve the quantity and quality of desirable vegetation.

       The purpose is to:  (1) increase the vigor and reproduction of key plants;  (2)
       accumulate Utter and mulch necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation and
       improve water quality;  (3) improve or maintain the condition of the vegetation;
       (4) increase forage production; (5) maintain natural beauty; and (6) reduce the
       hazard of wildfire.

(2)     Providing water and salt supplement facilities away from streams will help keep
       livestock away from streambanks and riparian zones.   The  establishment of
       alternate water supplies for livestock is an essential component of this measure
       when distribution problems of livestock  occurs in a grazing unit.  In  some
       locations, artificial shade may be constructed to encourage use of upland sites for
       shading and loafing. This will be accomplished through the following:

       Pipeline (5161
       Pipeline installed for conveying water for livestock or for recreation.

       The purpose is to convey water from a source of supply to a point of use.

       Pond (3781
       A water impoundment made by constructing a dam or an embankment or by
       excavation a pit or dugout.

       The purpose is to provide water for livestock, fish and wildlife, recreation, fire
       control, and other related uses, and to maintain or improve water quality.

       Trough or Tank (6141
       A trough or tank, with needed devices for water control and waste water disposal,
       installed to provide drinking water for livestock.

       The purpose is to provide watering facilities for livestock at selected locations that
       will protect vegetative cover through proper distribution of grazing or through
       better grassland management for erosion control. Another purpose on some sites

                                   2-60

-------
       is to reduce or eliminate the need for livestock to be in streams, which reduces
       livestock waste there.

       WeH (642)
       A  well  constructed  or improved to provide water  for  irrigation, livestock,
       wildlife, or recreation.

       The purpose is to facilitate proper use of vegetation on rangeland, pastures, and
       wildlife areas; and to supply the water requirements of livestock and wildlife.

(3)     Minimizing access to or excluding livestock from streambanks and riparian zones
       is essential to the implementation of this management measure.  This could be
       accomplished by fencing of areas where animals tend to congregate, including
       stream corridors and riparian zones.

       Fencing (5161
       Enclosing or dividing an area of land with a suitable permanent structure that acts
       as a barrier  to livestock,  big  game, or  people (does not include temporary
       fences).

       The purpose is to: (1) exclude livestock or big game  from areas that should be
       protected from grazing, (2) confine livestock or big game on an area, (3) control
       domestic livestock while permitting wildlife movement, (4) subdivide grazing land
       to permit  use of grazing systems, (5) protect  new seedings and plantings from
       grazing, and (6) regulate access to areas by people or prevent trespassing.

       Livestock exclusion (4721
       Excluding livestock from an area not intended for grazing.
       The purpose is to  protect, maintain,  or improve the quantity and quality of the
       plant  and animal resources;  to  maintain  enough cover to  protect the  soil;  to
       maintain moisture  resources;  and to increase natural beauty.

(4)     Where existing conditions result in  excessive erosion, it will be necessary  to
       improve or re-establish the vegetative cover on range and pasture lands.  When
       re-establishment of vegetation is required, it may be accomplished using the
       following practices:

       Pasture and Havland Planting (5121
       Establishing and reestablishing long-term stands of adapted species of perennial,
       biannual,  or reseeding forage plants. (Includes pasture and hayland renovation.
       Does  not include grassed waterways  or outlets or cropland.)

       The purpose  is to reduce erosion,or  maintain  soil stability and to produce high
       quality forage.
                                    2-61

-------
             Range Seeding (550)
             Establishing adapted plants by seeding on native grazing land ( does not include
             pasture and hayland planting).

             The purpose is to:  (1) prevent excessive soil and water loss and improve water
             quality;  (2) produce more forage for grazing of browsing animals on rangeland
             or land converted to range from other uses; and (3) improve the visual quality of
             grazing land.

             Critical area planting (342)
             Planting vegetation, such as trees,shrubs, vines grasses, or legumes, on highly
             erodible or critically eroding areas (does not include tree planting mainly  for
             wood products).

             The purpose is to stabilize the soil, reduce damage from sediment and runoff to
             downstream areas,  and improve wildlife habitat and visual resources.

       5.     Effective"??? Information

Table 2-16 presents information on pollution reductions that can be expected from installation
of the management practices outlined within this  management measure.

       Table 2-16.  Estimated Pollutant Reductions for Selected Management Practices
                                   Sediment Load             Total P Load
   Practice                           Reduction                  Reduction
   Permanent Veg. Cover               less than                    very
                                       1 T/Ac/Yr                  high
                                       delivered

   Reforestation of Erodible             less then                    very
   Crop and Pastureland                 1 T/Ac/Yr                  high
                                       delivered
SOURCE:  Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint Commission, 1983.
NOTE: All reductions are relative to conventional (moldboard plow) tillage.

The information contained herein is primarily practice-oriented, yet EPA seeks data regarding
the overall effectiveness of management measures, or systems of practices.  To this end, EPA
is continuing to collect and analyze more information regarding pollutant reductions, and solicits
comments regarding information sources to utilize.

                                         2-62

-------
The Soil Conservation Service has developed a set of water quality statements for each practice
that provide some insight into the use of the practice for water quality improvement.  They also
include  warnings of negative water quality impacts that might occur by using the practice.
Water quality statements for the practices listed in this management measure are contained in
Table 2-17.
       6.     Cost Information

Cost factors for control of erosion and sediment transport from agricultural lands.

       The cost to install the Grazing Land Protection system (SL6) for the 42 states which used
       the practice, was $5.68 per acre in 1990 (USDA, ASCS, 1991).

       The system reduced erosion by an average of 2.2 tons per acre at an amortized cost of
       $0.50 per ton (USDA, ASCS, 1991).

       The SL6 Grazing Land Protection contain many of the practices recommended in this
       management measure (see Appendix 2- A).

       7.     Planning Considerations

The selection of management practices for this measure will be based on an evaluation of current
conditions, problems identified,  quality criteria, and management goals.

Successful  resource management on range and pasture land is the correct application of a
combination of practices that will meet the needs of the range and pasture land ecosystem - the
soil, water, air, plant and animal resources and the objectives of the land user.

For a sound grazing land management system to function properly and to provide for a sustained
level of productivity, the following should be considered.

       (1)    Know the key management plant species and their response to different seasons
             and degrees of use by various kinds and classes of livestock.

       (2)    Know  the demand for,  and seasons of use, of forage and browse by  wildlife
             species.
                                         2-63

-------
       Table 2-17.  Water Quality Statement for Selected Management Practices
Practice                            Water Quality Statement
Deferred Grazing
(352)           In areas with bare ground or low percent ground cover, deferred grazing
                will reduce  sediment  yield because of  increased ground cover,  less
                ground surface disturbance, improved soil bulk density characteristics,
                and greater infiltration rates. Areas mechanically treated will have less
                sediment yield when deferred to encourage re-vegetation.  Animal waste
                would not be available to the area during the time of deferred grazing
                and there would be less opportunity for adverse runoff effects on surface
                or  aquifer water quality.  As vegetative cover increases, the filtering
                processes are enhanced, thus trapping more silt and nutrients as well as
                snow if climatic conditions for snow exist. Increased plant cover  results
                in a greater uptake and utilization of plant nutrients.

Fencing
(382)           Fencing is a practice that can be on the contour or up and down slope.
                Often a fence line has grass and some shrubs in it. When a fence is built
                across the slope it will slow down runoff,  and cause deposition of coarser
                grained materials reducing the amount of sediment delivered downslope.
                Fencing may protect riparian areas which  act as sediment traps and filters
                along water channels and impoundments.

                Livestock have a tendency to walk along fences. The paths become bare
                channels which  concentrate and accelerate  runoff  causing  a greater
                amount of erosion within the path  and  where the path/channel  outlets
                into another channel.   This can  deliver  more sediment and associated
                pollutants  to  surface  waters.    Fencing  can  have  the  effect of
                concentrating livestock in small areas, causing a concentration of manure
                which  may  wash  off into  the stream, thus causing  surface  water
                pollution.
                                       2-64

-------
                              Table 2-17. (Continued)
Practice
                    Water Quality Statement
Pasture and
Hayland Planting
(556)
The long-term effect will be an increase in the quality of the surface
water  due  to   reduced  erosion and sediment  delivery.  Increased
infiltration  and  subsequent percolation   may  cause  more  soluble
substances to be carried to ground water.
Planned grazing
system (556)
Range seeding
(550)
Planned grazing systems normally reduce the system time livestock spend
in each pasture. This increases quality and quantity of vegetation.  As
vegetation quality  increases,  fiber content in manure decreases which
speeds  manure   decomposition   and  reduces  pollution   potential.
Compacted layers of the soil tend to diminish because of the opportunity
for freeze-thaw, shrink-swell, and other natural soil mechanisms to occur
that reduce compacted layers during the absence of the grazing animals.
This increases infiltration, increases vegetative growth, slows runoff, and
improves the nutrient and moisture filtering and trapping ability of the
area.

Decreased  runoff  will reduce the  rate of erosion and  movement of
sediment and dissolved and sediment-attached substances to downstream
water courses.  No increase in ground water pollution hazard would be
anticipated from the  use of this practice.
Increased erosion and sediment yield may occur during the establishment
of this practice.   This is  a temporary situation and sediment yields
decrease when reseeded area becomes established. If chemicals are used
in reestablishment process,  chances of chemical runoff into downstream
water courses are reduced  if application is applied according to label
instructions.  After establishment of the grass  cover, grass sod slows
runoff, acts as a filter to trap sediment,  sediment attached substances,
                                       2-65

-------
                             Table 2-17. (Continued)
Practice
                   Water Quality Statement
Pipeline
(516)
increase infiltration, and decreases sediment yields.

Pipelines  may  decrease sediment, nutrient,  organic, and bacteria
pollution from  livestock.   Pipelines may afford the opportunity  for
alternative water sources other than streams and lakes, possibly keeping
the animals away from the stream or impoundment. This will prevent
bank destruction with resulting sedimentation, and will reduce animal
waste deposition directly in the water.  The reduction of concentrated
livestock areas  will reduce  manure solids, nutrients, and bacteria that
accompany surface runoff.
Trough or tank
(614)
Pond
(378)
By the installation of a trough or tank, livestock may be better distributed
over the pasture,  grazing can be better controlled, and surface runoff
reduced, thus reducing erosion.  By itself this practice will have only a
minor effect on  water  quality; however when coupled with other
conservation practices, the beneficial effects of the combined practices
may be large.  Each site and application should be evaluated on their
own merits.
Ponds may trap nutrients and sediment which wash into the basin.  This
removes these substances from downstream.  Chemical concentrations in
the pond may be higher during the summer months.  By reducing the
amount of water that flows in the channel downstream, the frequency of
flushing of the stream is reduced and there is a temporary collection of
substances  held  temporarily  within the channel.  A pond may cause
more teachable  substance to be carried into the ground water.
                                      2-66

-------
                                Table 2-17. (Continued)
   Well
   (642)         When water is obtained it has poor quality because of dissolved substances,
                its use in the  surface environment or its discharge to downstream water
                courses the surface water will be degraded.  The location of the well must
                consider the natural water quality and the hazards of its use in the potential
                contamination  of the environment. Hazard exists during well development
                and its operation and maintenance to prevent aquifer quality damage from
                the pollutants through the well itself by back flushing,  or accident, or flow
                down the annual spacing between the well casing and  the bore hole.
SOURCE:  USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1988.

       (3)    Know the amount of plant residue or grazing height that should be left to protect
             grazing land soils from wind and water erosion and to provide for plant regrowth.
       (4)    Know the range site production capabilities and the pasture land suitability group
             capabilities so an initial stocking rate can be established.

       (5)    Know how to use livestock as a tool in the management of the range ecosystems
             and pasture lands to insure the health and vigor of the plants,  soil  tilth, proper
             nutrient cycling,  erosion control, and riparian area management, while at the
             same time meeting livestock nutritional requirements.

       (6)    Establish  grazing unit  sizes, watering,  shade and salt locations,  etc. to  secure
             optimum livestock distribution and utilization.

       (7)    Provide for livestock herding, as needed, to protect sensitive areas from excessive
             use at critical times.

       (8)    Encourage proper wildlife harvesting to ensure proper population densities and
             forage balances.

       (9)    Know the livestock diet requirements in terms of quantity and quality to ensure
             that there  are enough grazing units to provide adequate livestock nutrition for the
             season, kind and classes of animals on the farm/ranch.

       (10)   Maintain a flexible grazing system to adjust for unexpected environmentally and
             economically generated problems.

                                         2-67

-------
F.     Irrigation Water Management

       1.     Management Measure Applicability

This management measure is to be utilized on all irrigated agricultural lands, including but not
limited to the following: cropland, pastureland, orchards, specialty crop production, and
nursery crop production.

Those irrigated agricultural lands that also meet the applicability definitions of the erosion and
sediment management measure, nutrient management measure, pesticide management measure,
grazing management  measure, or other management  measures are also subject to  those
management measures.

       2.     Pollutants Produced by Irrigation

Runoff water and leachate from irrigated land  may transport the following types of pollutants:

       •     Sediment and participate organic solids;

       •     Farticulate bound nutrients, chemicals and metals, such as phosphorus, organic
             nitrogen, a portion of applied pesticides, and a portion of the metals applied
             with some organic wastes and also found naturally within the soil;

       •     Soluble nutrients, such as nitrogen, soluble phosphorus, a portion of the applied
             pesticides, soluble metals, salts  and many other major and minor nutrients;  and

       •     Bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms.

       3.     Management Measure to Control Irrigation Water

The management measure for irrigation water on agricultural lands is a combination of practices
that maximizes the water use efficiency of the irrigation system, minimizes the amount of water
that is wasted or discharged from the system, and improves the water quality of both surface and
subsurface return flows from the system by:  (1) scheduling and managing the application of
irrigation water; (2) minimizing to the extent possible irrigation water runoff from all irrigation
systems except for surface irrigation, which  will be recovered and reused with a tailwater
recovery system*; and (3) eliminating  unnecessary deep  percolation, thereby reducing the
amount of pollutants entering  nearby surface  waters and groundwater. When chemigation is
used, the management measure includes backflow preventers.
       * In some locations, tailwater or runoff of applied irrigation water are subject to other
water rights or are required to be released to maintain stream flow. In these special cases, reuse
on-site may not be allowed and would not be considered part of the management measure for
such locations.
                                          2-68

-------
      (1)    Proper irrigation scheduling is a key element in irrigation water management.
             Irrigation scheduling should be based on knowing the daily water use of the crop,
             the water holding capacity of  the soil, the lower limit of soil moisture for each
             crop and soil and  measuring  the amount of water applied to the field.  Also
             natural precipitation should be considered and proper adjustment made in  the
             scheduled irrigations.

      (2)    Irrigation water should be applied properly in a manner that assures efficient use
             and  uniform distribution  of  irrigation water and minimizes runoff or deep
             percolation.

      (3)    Irrigation water transportation  systems that move water from the source of supply
             to the irrigation system  should be designed and managed in a manner that
             minimizes  evaporation,  seepage flow-through water losses from canals and
             ditches.

      (4)    The  utilization of runoff water for additional irrigation or to reduce the amount
             of water diverted increases the efficiency of use of irrigation water.  For surface
             irrigation systems  that require runoff or tailwater as part of the design and
             operation, a tailwater management practice be installed and used.

      (5)    Drainage water from  an  irrigation system should be managed to reduce deep
             percolation, move tailwater to the reuse system, reduce erosion at the end of the
             irrigated field and help control adverse impacts on surface and ground water.  A
             total drainage system should be an integral part of the planning and design of an
             efficient irrigation system.

      4.     Irrigation Water Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for irrigation water management that are available
as tools to achieve the irrigation water management measure as set forth in Section F.3.  Under
each management practice the U.S. Soil Conservation Service  (SCS) practice number and a
definition are provided. The list of practices included in this section is not exhaustive and does
not preclude States or local  agencies  from developing  special management practices  in
cooperation with the appropriate technical agency within the State for unique conditions and
problems that may  be encountered in particular areas, provided that the management measures
(the system of individual practices adopted) achieve a level of performance that is as effective
as that provided by the management measures specified in this guidance.  There may also be
state or local  standards that would require additional practices.

      (1)    Proper irrigation scheduling

             Practices that may be  used to  accomplish proper irrigation scheduling are:
                                         2-69

-------
Irrigation water management (449)
Determining and controlling the rate, amount, and timing of irrigation water in
a planned and efficient manner.

The purpose is to effectively use available irrigation water supply in managing
and controlling the moisture environment of crops to promote the desired crop
response,  to  minimize  soil erosion and  loss of plant nutrients,  to control
undesirable water loss, and to protect water quality.

To achieve this  purpose the irrigator  must have knowledge of:  (1) how to
determine when irrigation water should be applied, based on the rate of water
used by crops and on the stages of plant growth, (2) how to measure or estimate
the amount of water required for each irrigation, including the leaching needs, (3)
the normal time needed  for the soil to absorb the required amount of water and
how to detect changes  in  intake rate, (4) how to  adjust water stream size,
application rate, or irrigation time to compensate for changes in such factors as
intake rate or the amount of irrigation runoff from an area, (5) how to recognize
erosion caused by irrigation, (6) how to estimate the amount of irrigation  runoff
from an area, and (7) how to evaluate the uniformity of water application.

Water  measuring device
An irrigation water meter, flume or other water measuring device installed in a
pipeline or ditch.  The measuring  device must be installed between the point of
diversion and water distribution system used on the field. The device should be
a recording meter that will indicate both the rate of flow and the total water used.

The purpose  is to provide the irrigator the rate  of flow and/or application of
water,  and the total amount of water applied to the field with each irrigation.

Soil and crop water use  data
From soils information the water holding capacity of the soil can be determined
along with the amount of water that the plant can extract  from  the soil  before
additional irrigation is needed. Water use information for various crops can be
obtained from various USDA publications.

The purpose  is to allow the irrigator to estimate  the amount of available water
remaining in the root zone at any time, thereby indicating when the next irrigation
should be scheduled  and the amount of water needed.  There are  methods to
measure the soil moisture and these should be employed for high value crops or
where  the water holding capacity  of the soil is very low.
                            2-70

-------
(2)     Proper application of irrigation water

       The type of irrigation system employed will vary with the type of crop grown,
       the  topography,  and  soils.   There are several systems that,  when  properly
       designed and operated, can be used as follows:

       Irrigation system, drip or trickle (441)
       A planned  irrigation system in which all necessary  facilities are installed for
       efficiently applying water directly  to  the root zone of plants by  means  of
       applicators  (orifices, emitters, porous tubing, or perforated pipe) operated under
       low pressure.  The applicators can be placed on or below the surface of the
       ground.

       The purpose is to efficiently apply irrigation water directly to the plant root zone
       to minimize water loss, erosion, impacts to water quality, and salt accumulation
       while maintaining soil moisture within the range for good plant growth.

       Irrigation system, sprinkler (442)
       A planned  irrigation system in which all necessary  facilities are installed for
       efficiently applying water by means of perforated pipes or nozzles operated under
       pressure.

       The purpose is to efficiently and  uniformly  apply irrigation water to minimize
       water loss,  erosion, and impacts to water quality while maintaining soil moisture
       for optimum plant growth.

       Irrigation system, surface and subsurface (443)
       A planned irrigation system in which all necessary water control structures have
       been installed for efficient distribution of irrigation water by  surface means, such
       as furrows, borders, contour levees,  or contour ditches, or by subsurface means.

       The purpose is to efficiently convey and distribute irrigation water to the point of
       application  to minimize water loss, erosion,  and impacts to water quality while
       maintaining soil moisture for optimum plant  growth.

       Irrigation field ditch (388)
       A permanent irrigation ditch constructed  to convey  water  from the source of
       supply to a field  or fields in a farm distribution system.

       The standard for this practice applies to open channels and elevated ditches of 25
       ftVsecond or less capacity formed in and with earth materials.

       The purpose is to prevent erosion or loss of water quality or damage to the land,
       to make possible proper irrigation water use, and to efficiently convey water to
       minimize conveyance losses.

                                   2-71

-------
       Irrigation land leveling (464)
       Reshaping the surface of land to be irrigated to planned grades.

       The purpose  is to permit uniform and efficient application of irrigation water
       without causing erosion, loss of water quality, or damage to land by waterlogging
       and at the same time to provide for adequate surface drainage.

(3)     Irrigation water transportation systems

       Transporting  irrigation water from the source of supply to the irrigation system
       can be a significant source of water loss and cause of degradation of both surface
       water and ground water. Losses during transmission include seepage from canals
       and ditches, evaporation from canals and ditches, and flow-through water (water
       that is never applied to the land but is needed to maintain hydraulic head in the
       ditch).   The primary water quality concern is the  development of saline seeps
       below the canals and ditches and the discharge of saline waters.  Another water
       quality concern  is the potential for erosion caused by the discharge of flow-
       through water.   Practices  that are  used  to assure  proper  transportation  of
       irrigation water from the source of supply to the irrigation system are:

       Irrigation water conveyance, ditch and canal lining (4281
       A fixed lining of impervious material installed in an existing or newly constructed
       irrigation field ditch or irrigation canal or lateral.

       The purpose  is to prevent waterlogging of land, to maintain water quality, to
       prevent erosion, and to reduce water loss.

       Irrigation water conveyance, pipeline (4301

       A pipeline and appurtenances installed in an irrigation system.

       The purpose is to prevent erosion or loss of water quality and damage to land, to
       make possible proper water use, and to reduce water conveyance losses.

       Structure for  water  control (587)
       A structure in an irrigation, drainage, or other water  management systems that
       conveys water, controls the direction or rate of flow, or maintains a desired water
       surface elevation.

       The purpose is to control the stage, discharge, distribution, delivery, or direction
       of flow of water in open channels or water use areas. Also used for water quality
       control, such as sediment reduction or temperature regulation.  These structures
       are also used to protect fish and wildlife and other natural resources.
                                    2-72

-------
       (4)     Utilization of runoff water for additional irrigation or to reduce the amount of
              water diverted.  The practice is described as follows:

              Irrigation system, tfl^wflter recovery (447)
              A facility to collect, store, and transport irrigation tailwater for reuse in the farm
              irrigation distribution system.

              The purpose is to conserve farm irrigation water supplies and water quality by
              collecting the water that runs off the field surface for reuse on the farm.

       (5)     Management of drainage water

              There are several practices to accomplish this:

              Filter strip (393)
              A strip or area of vegetation for removing sediment, organic matter, and other
              pollutants from runoff and waste water.

              The primary purpose is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff or
              waste water by filtration, deposition, infiltration, absorption, decomposition, and
              volatilization, thereby reducing pollution and protecting  the environment.  An
              additional purpose is to prevent erosion at the upland edge of fields by dissipating
              the energy of irrigation water applied as concentrated  flow.

              Surface drainage  field ditch (607)
              A graded ditch for collecting excess water in a field.

              The purpose is to  drain surface  depressions for recovery and  reuse of excess
              water or for the controlled delivery of excess water to a filter strip for treatment;
              collect or intercept excess surface water, such as sheet flow, from natural and
              graded land surfaces or channel flow from  furrows and carry it to an outlet for
              recovery and reuse or for the controlled delivery of excess water to a filter strip
              for treatment; and collect or intercept excess subsurface water and carry it to an
              outlet for recovery and reuse or for the controlled delivery of excess water  to a
              filter strip for treatment.

       5.      Effectiveness Information

Following is information on pollution reductions that can be expected from installation of the
management practices outlined within this management measure.

The Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project  in Idaho is the source of much
information regarding the benefits of irrigation water management (Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, 1990). All crops  in the Rock Creek watershed are  irrigated with water diverted

                                         2-73

-------
from the Snake River and delivered through a network of canals and laterals. The combined
implementation of irrigation management practices, sediment control practices, and conservation
tillage has resulted in high reductions (from 61 percent  to 95 percent reduction for  all six
stations) in suspended sediment loadings in Rock Creek from 1981 to 1988.  Similarly, eight of
ten sub-basins  showed reductions in suspended sediment loadings over the same time period.

The Soil Conservation Service has developed a set of water quality statements for each practice
that provide some insight into the use of particular irrigation water management practices for
water quality improvement (USDA, SCS, 1988).  They also include warnings of negative water
quality impacts that might occur by using the practices.  Water quality  statements for the
practices listed in this management measure are contained  in Table 2-18.

    6.     Cost Information

Cost estimates for practices to control irrigation water on agricultural lands are taken from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA ASCS, 1991). Cost estimates reported in this document
are given by primary purpose, type of agreement (long-term agreement or regular ACP), and
as overall estimates.  The  costs reported here lump long term agreements and regular ACP
agreements.  The components of each practice are given in Appendix 2-A.

The cost to install the irrigation water conservation system (practice WC4)  for the primary
purpose of water conservation in the 28 states which used the practice, was about $77.00 per
acre served in 1990.  Practice WC4 increased the average  irrigation system efficiency from 47
percent  to 63 percent at an amortized cost of $9.74 per acre foot of water conserved.

The  cost to  install water management systems for pollution control (practice SP35) with the
primary purpose being  water quality was about $103 per acre served.  Overall, the cost of
practice SP35  was about $50 per acre served.

Table 2-19 shows the cost (per ton of soil saved) of implementing practices  WC4 and SP35 for
the primary  purpose of erosion control.
                                         2-74

-------
       Table 2-18.  Water Quality Statement for Selected Management Practices
Practice
                 Water Quality Statement
Irrigation water
management (449)
Irrigation system,
drip or trickle
(441)
Irrigation system,
sprinkler (442)
Management of the irrigation system should management provide the
control needed to minimize losses of water, and yields of sediment
and  sediment  attached  and dissolved  substances, such as  plant
nutrients and herbicides, from the system.  Poor management may
allow the loss of dissolved substances from the irrigation system to
surface  or  ground water.   Good management may reduce saline
percolation from  geologic origins.  Returns to the surface  water
system would increase downstream water temperature.
Surface water quality may not be significantly affected by transported
substances  because runoff  is largely  controlled by  the  practice.
Chemical applications may be applied through the system. Reduction
of runoff will result in less sediment and chemical losses  from the
field during irrigation.  If excessive, local, deep percolation should
occur,  a chemical hazard may exist to shallow ground water or to
areas where geologic materials provide easy access to the aquifer.
Proper  irrigation   management  controls  runoff and  prevents
downstream surface water deterioration from sediment and sediment
attached substances.  Over irrigation through poor management can
produce impaired water quality in runoff as well  as ground water
through increased percolation.  Chemigation with this system allows
the operator the opportunity to mange nutrients, waste water and
pesticides.   For example,  nutrients applied in several incremental
applications based on the plant needs may reduce ground water
                                      2-75

-------
                             Table 2-18 (Continued)
Practice
                 Water Quality Statement
                  contamination considerably, compared to one  application  during
                  planting.  Poor management may cause pollution of surface and
                  ground water.    Pesticide  drift from chemigation may also be
                  hazardous to vegetation,  animals,  and  surface water  resources.
                  Appropriate  safety  equipment,  operation and maintenance  of the
                  system  is   needed  with   chemigation  to prevent  accidental
                  environmental pollution or backflows to water sources.
Irrigation system,
surface and
subsurface (443)
Operation and management of the irrigation system in a  manner
which allows little or no runoff may allow small yields of sediment
or sediment-attached  substances  to downstream waters.  Pollutants
may increase if irrigation water management is not adequate.  Ground
water quality from mobil dissolved chemicals may also be a hazard
if irrigation  water management does not prevent deep  percolation.
Subsurface irrigation that requires the drainage and removal of excess
water from the field may discharge increased amounts of dissolved
substances  such as  nutrients  or  other  salts   to  surface water.
Temperatures of downstream water courses that receive runoff waters
may be increased.  Temperatures of downstream waters might be
decreased with subsurface systems when excess  water is being
pumped  from the  field to lower the water table.  Downstream
temperatures should not be affected by subsurface irrigation during
summer months if lowering the water table is not required. Improved
aquatic habitat may occur if runoff or seepage occurs from surface
systems of from pumping to lower the water  table in subsurface
systems.
                                       2-76

-------
                              Table 2-18 (Continued)
Practice
                 Water Quality Statement
Irrigation field
ditch (388)
Irrigation land
leveling (464)
Irrigation water
conveyance, ditch
and canal lining
(428)
Salinity changes may occur in the soil and water.  This will depend
on the irrigation water quality, the level of water management, and
the geologic materials of the area. The quality of ground and surface
water may be altered depending on environmental conditions.  Water
lost from the  irrigation system to downstream runoff may contain
dissolved substances, sediment, and sediment-attached substances that
may degrade water quality and increase water temperature.  This
practice  may  make water  available  for  wildlife, but  may not
significantly increase habitat.
The effects of this practice depend on the level of irrigation water
management.  If root zone water is properly managed, then quality
decreases of surface and ground water may be avoided. Under poor
management,  ground and  surface  water quality  may deteriorate.
Deep percolation and recharge with poor quality water may lower
aquifer quality.   Land leveling may minimize erosion  and when
runoff occurs concurrent sediment yield reduction. Poor management
may cause  an increase in salinity of soil, ground and surface waters.
Potentials for ground water effects from infiltration of poor quality
water with and canal lining dissolved substances would be reduced.
Potential for ground water  effects from infiltration of high quality
water would be reduced.  Increased stability of the conveyance will
also reduce bank or bed erosion which would provide sediment yield
reduction within the system and to downstream waters.
                                       2-77

-------
                              Table 2-18 (Continued)
Practice
                 Water Quality Statement
Irrigation water
conveyance,
pipeline (430)
Structure for
water control
(587)
Potentials for ground water effects from infiltration of poor quality
water would be eliminated by this practice.  No streambank or bed
erosion would occur  which may provide  sediment  or  sediment
attached substances to downstream water courses. Deep percolation
of saline water may  be avoided.  Temperature increases that occur
from flow in an open conveyance may be eliminated by the pipeline.
Wildlife or aquatic habitat that had depended on seepage  from the
irrigation water conveyance will be decreased.
Use of the practice  to  conduct water one elevation to a lower
elevation within, to or from a ditch, channel, or canal may not have
any effect on the quality  of surface or ground water.

Use of the practice to control the elevation  of water in drainage or
irrigation  ditches  may reduce bank  erosion and scouring in the
channel;  this results in the  reduction of sediment and  related
pollutants delivered to the surface water.

When used to control, the division or measurement of irrigation water
may have an insignificant effect on the quality of surface and ground
water.

Use of the practice to keep trash, debris, or weed seeds from entering
pipelines has little effect  on the quality of surface and ground water.

Use of the practice to control the direction of channel flow resulting
from tides and high water or backflow from  flooding has little effect
on the quality of surface  and ground water.
                                       2-78

-------
                              Table 2-18 (Continued)
Practice                              Water Quality Statement
                   Use of the practice to control the level of water table or to remove
                   surface subsurface water from adjoining land, to flood land for frost
                   protection, or to manage water levels for wildlife or recreation may
                   increase infiltration and percolation of water by supplying a surplus
                   of water to the surface when used for flooding.  This will enable
                   soluble pollutants to be carried into the ground water. When used to
                   remove drainage water from the surface  or subsurface, substances
                   may be "straight-lined" into the surface waters.  When  the function
                   is to impound water, the pH of the surface water may be lowered
                   with a consecutive increase in tannic acid and iron content.  Water
                   temperature may be increased in the summer months.

                   Use of the practice to convey water over, under, or along a ditch,
                   canal,  road, railroad, or other barriers will have little effect on the
                   quality of surface or ground water.

                   Use of the practice to modify water flow to provide habitat for fish,
                   wildlife, and other aquatic animals may increase the dissolved oxygen
                   content of the stream, and may lower the water temperature.

Irrigation system,
trailwater recovery
(447)              The reservoir will trap sediment and sediment attached substances
                   from runoff waters. Sediment and chemical will accumulate in the
                   collection facility entrapping would  decrease downstream yields of
                   these substances.

                   Salts, soluble nutrients, and soluble pesticides will be collected with
                   the runoff and will not be released  to surface waters.   Recovered
                   irrigation  water with high salt and/or metal content will ultimately
                                        2-79

-------
                               Table 2-18 (Continued)
Practice                             Water Quality Statement
                   have to be disposed in an environmentally safe manner and location.
                   Disposal of these waters should be part of the overall  management
                   plan. Although some ground water recharge may occur, little if any
                   pollution hazard is expected.

Filter strip (393)   Filter strips for  sediment and related pollutants meeting minimum
                   requirements may trap the coarser grained sediment.  They may not
                   filter out soluble or suspended fine-grained materials.  When a storm
                   caused runoff in excess of the design runoff, the filter may be flooded
                   and may cause large loads of pollutants to be released to the surface
                   water.  This  type of filter requires  high maintenance and has a
                   relative short  service life and is effective only as long as  the flow
                   through the filter is shallow sheet flow.

                   Filter strip  for runoff form concentrated  livestock areas  may  trap
                   organic material, solids, materials which become adsorbed  to the
                   vegetation or the soil within the filter.  Often they will not filter out
                   soluble materials. This  type of filter is often wet and is difficult to
                   maintain.

                   Filter strips for controlled overland flow treatment of liquid wastes
                   may effectively  filter out pollutants.   The filter must be  properly
                   managed and  maintained, including the proper resting  time.  Filter
                   strips on forest land may trap coarse sediment, timbering debris, and
                   other deleterious material being transported by  runoff.  This may
                   improve the quality of surface water and has little effect on soluble
                   material in runoff or on  the quality of ground water.

                   All types of filters may reduce erosion on the area on which they are
                   constructed.
                                        2-80

-------
                                Table 2-18 (Continued)
   Practice                            Water Quality Statement
                     Filter strips trap solids from the runoff flowing in sheet flow through
                     the filter.   Coarse-grained and fibrous materials are filtered more
                     efficiently than  fine-grained and soluble substances.  Filter strips
                     work for design conditions, but when flooded or overloaded they may
                     release a slug load of pollutants into the surface  water.

   Well (642)         When water is  obtained it has poor quality because of dissolved
                     substances, its use in the  surface  environment  or  its discharge to
                     downstream water courses the surface water will be degraded. The
                     location of the well must consider  the natural water quality and the
                     hazards of its use in the potential contamination of the environment.
                     Hazard  exists during  well  development and  its  operation and
                     maintenance to prevent  aquifer quality  damage  from the pollutants
                     through the well itself by back flushing, or accident, or flow down
                     the annual spacing between the well casing and the bore hole.
 SOURCE: USDA, SCS, 1988.

       Table 2-19. Summary of Costs for Selected Irrigation Management Practices
      System Number and Name                               Total Cost Per
     (Systems are combinations of                           Ton of Soil Saved
   SCS practices - see Appendix 2-A)                         (1990, amortized $)
   WC4   Irrigation Water Conservation                            3.65
   SP35   Water Management systems for Pollution                  0.46
           Control
SOURCE:  USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1991.

                                        2-81

-------
       7.      planning Considerations fpr Trrigation Water Management

During the development and implementation  of this management measure for irrigation, the
following water quality effects and impacts should be considered.

       (1)    Effects  on  erosion  and  the  movement  of  sediment  and  soluble  and
             sediment-attached substances carried by runoff.

       (2)    Effects on the movement of dissolved substances  below the root zone or to
             ground water.

       (3)    Short-term and construction related effects on the quality of downstream water
             courses.

       (4)    Potential of uncovering or redistributing toxic materials such as saline soil.

       (5)    Effects of water management on the salinity of soils, soil water, or aquifers.

       (6)    Potential for development of saline seeps or other salinity problems resulting from
             increased infiltration near restrictive layers.

       (7)    Effects of soil water levels on such  nutrient  processes  as  nitrification  and
             denitrification.

       (8)    Effects on the temperatures of downstream waters that could prevent undesirable
             effects on aquatic and wildlife communities.

       (9)    Effects of installing the lining  on the erosion of the earth conveyance and the
             movement of sediment and soluble and sediment-attached substances carried by
             water.

       (10)   Effects of installing the pipeline (replacing other types of conveyances) on channel
             erosion  or  the  movement of sediment and soluble  and  sediment-attached
             substances carried by water.

       (11)   Effects on  the nutrient budget within the filter strip as  related to removal,
             residence, or accumulation  of  nutrients.  Nutrient  budgets should  account for
             effects of growing and decaying vegetation.

       (12)   Filtering  effects of vegetation  on movement of sediment, pathogens, organic
             loads, and dissolved and sediment-attached substances.

       (13)   Effects of the filter strip vegetation's uptake of nutrients on surface and ground
             water.

                                          2-82

-------
      (14)   Effects of the timing of the vegetation's  management,  including clipping,
             harvesting, removal and re-establishment on the nutrient balance within the filter
             strip.

      (15)   Effects on the visual quality of on-site and downstream water resources.

      (16)   Effects on wetlands or water-related wildlife habitats.


VI. MANAGEMENT PRACTICE  TRACKING

Tracking of the installation of agricultural management measures and systems of management
measures is critical to knowing how  well a program is working.  It is also important to know
where and by whom a management  measure is installed, when it was certified, and how long
it should stay in place.  This will allow program managers to go back to a farm or field and re-
certify that the management measure  or practice is still there and operating according to design.

Such tracking systems may be used and/or developed to track initial installation of management
measures and to provide a system to check on them at specific time intervals in the future. The
funding  agency for a  particular management  practice should  know when  and where  a
management measure or practice is installed  and should certify it for payment, as appropriate.
This should be the first check needed. For later re-certification, field evaluations will be needed
to re-certify  a practice.  The funding agency may decide that it is most practical  for county
conservation districts to fulfill the role of checking and re-certifying management measures and
practices.


VH. SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE TO IMPLEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES

This section is to be developed in a later draft. Following is a preliminary draft outline for this
section:

A.  Federal

      1.     USDA

                   SCS, ES, ASCS, etc.
                   Agricultural  Conservation Program
                   Hydrologic Unit Projects
                   Demonstration  Projects
                   PL 566 Projects
                   Conservation Reserve Program
                   New Farm Bill programs (Water Quality Incentive Program, etc.)
                                        2-83

-------
      2.
      EPA
B.
State/Local
                   Section 319, Nonpoint Source Program
                   Section 320, National Esturary Program
                   Section 117, Chesapeake Bay Program
                   Section 314, Clean Lakes Program
                   Wellhead Protection Program
                   Nitrogen Action Plan
                   State/Local NPS Programs
                   State Revolving Funds
                   State/Local Land Use Control Programs
                   Conservation Districts
                                        2-84

-------
REFERENCES

Conservation  Technology Information  Center. 1986. Economics of conservation tillage: a
reference guide. West Lafayette, Indiana.

Development  Planning  and Research Associates, Inc.  1986.  An evaluation of the cost-
effectiveness of agricultural best management practices and publicly owned treatment works in
controlling phosphorus  pollution in the Great Lakes basin.   U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.

Frank, R., H. Brown, G. Sirons, M. Holdrinet, B. Ripley, D. Onn, R. Coote. 1978. Stream
flow quality - pesticides in eleven agricultural watersheds in southern Ontario, Canada, 1974-77.
PLUARG Final Report, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

Griffith, D., J.V. Mannering, J.J. Fletcher, and WJ. Van Beck. 1986.  Proceedings for better
farming - better living.  Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette,
Indiana.

Griffith, D. 1983. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette,  Indiana.

Heimlich, R.E. and N.L. Bills. 1984. An improved soil erosion classification for conservation
policy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 39(4):261-267.

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 1990.  Rock Creek Rural  Clean  Water Program
comprehensive water quality monitoring annual report -  1989.   Division of Environmental
Quality, Water Bureau, Boise, Idaho.

Laflen, J.M., L.J. Lane and G.R. Foster. 1991. WEPP: a new generation of erosion prediction
technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 34-38.

Maryland Department of Agriculture.  1990.   Nutrient Management  Program.  Annapolis,
Maryland.

National  Research  Council, Board on Agriculture. 1989. Alternative agriculture.  National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

New York Department  of Environmental Conservation. 1990. Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for New Development. (Draft) Division of Water Technical and Operations Guidance
Series (5.1.8).

Non-Point Source Task Force, International Joint Commission. 1983. Evaluation of agricultural
non-point source control practices. International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario,  Canada.
                                        2-85

-------
North Carolina State University. 1984. Best management practices for agricultural nonpoint
source control: IV. pesticides. Raleigh, N.C.

Robillard, P.D., M.F. Walter, and L.M. Bruckner. 1981. A planning guide for the evaluation
of agricultural nonpoint source water quality control. Final project report R804925010. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 1989.
Practice names and codes used by USDA-ASCS, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 1991.
Agricultural conservation program:  1990 fiscal year statistical summary. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.  1988.1-4 effects of conservation
practices on water quantity and quality. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service - Michigan. 1988. Technical guide,
section V, statewide flat rate schedule - costs of conservation practices. East Lansing, Michigan.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.   Quality criteria for wat
-------
                                 APPENDIX 2-A
                   Practice Names and Codes Used by USDA-ASCS
	(USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1989)

ASCS                                                  TECHNICAL
PRACTICE                                             PRACTICE
CODE	DESCRIPTION TITLE	CODE

SL 1        Permanent vegetative cover
                   establishment

                   Conservation tillage                   329
                   Pasture and hayland Planting            S12
                   Range seeding                         550
                   Cover and green manure crop
                   (orchard and vineyards only)           340
                   Field borders                         386
                   Filter strips                           393

SL 2        Permanent vegetative cover
                   improvement

                   Conservation tillage                   329
                   Pasture and hayland management         510
                   Pasture and hayland Planting            512
                   Fencing                             382
                   Range seeding                         550
                   Deferred grazing                      352
                   Firebreak                            394
                   Brush management                    314

SL 3        Stripcropping System

                   Divided slopes                        363
                   Obstruction removal                   500
                   Stripcropping, contour                 585
                   Stripcropping, field                    586
                   Stripcropping, wind                   589
                   Subsurface drain                      606

SL 4        Terrace system

                   Critical area planting                   342
                   Grade stabilization structure             410
                                      2-87

-------
                             Appendix 2-A (Continued)
ASCS                                                   TECHNICAL
PRACTICE                                              PRACTICE
CODE                   DESCRIPTION TITLE           CODE
                   Grassed waterway                      412
                   Lined waterway outlet                  468
                   Obstruction removal                    500
                   Terrace                               600
                   Subsurface drain                       606
                   Underground outlet                     620
                   Vertical drain                          630
                   Water and sediment crt. basin            638

SL 5         Diversions

                   Critical area planting                    342
                   Dike                                 356
                   Diversion                             362
                   Grassed waterway                      412
                   Lined waterway outlet                  468
                   Obstruction removal                    500
                   Pipeline                              516
                   Subsurface drain                       606
                   Underground outlet                     620
                   Vertical drain                          630

SL 7         Windbreak restoration or establishment

                   Fencing                              382
                   Field windbreak                       392
                   Well                                 642
                   Windbreak renovation                  650
                   Irrigation system
                         Trickle (drip)                    441
                         Sprinkler                       442
                         Surface or subsurface            443

SL 8         Cropland protection cover

                   Cover and green manure crop            340
                                       2-88

-------
                             Appendix 2-A (Continued)
ASCS
PRACTICE
CODE
            DESCRIPTION TITLE
TECHNICAL
PRACTICE
CODE
SL11
SL13
SL14
Permanent vegetative cover on
      critical areas

      Cover and green manure crop
      Critical area planting
      Fencing
      Field borders
      Filter strip
      Forest land erosion control
      system
      Mulching
      Streambank and shoreline
      protection
      Tree planting

Contour fanning

      Contour fanning
      Obstruction removal
      Subsurface drain

Reduced tillage system

      Conservation tillage
      Stubble mulching
                                                        340
                                                        342
                                                        382
                                                        386
                                                        393

                                                        408
                                                        484

                                                        580
                                                        612
                                                        330
                                                        500
                                                        606
                                                        329
                                                        588
SL15
SP35
No-till system

      Conservation tillage
      Stubble mulching

Water management system for
      pollution control
                                                        329
                                                        588
                                       2-89

-------
                              Appendix 2-A (Continued)
ASCS
PRACTICE
CODE
DESCRIPTION TITLE
TECHNICAL
PRACTICE
CODE
                   Grass and legumes in rotation
                   Underground outlets
                   Land smoothing
                   Structure for water control
                   Subsurface drain
                   Surface drainage-field ditch
                   Surface drainage-main or
                   lateral
                   Toxic salt reduction

WC 4        Irrigation water conservation

                   Critical area planting
                   Irrigation canal or lateral
                   Structure for water control
                   Irrigation field ditch
                   Sediment basin
                   Grassed waterway or outlet
                   Irrigation land leveling
                   Irrigation water conveyance
                   ditch and canal lining
                   Irrigation water conveyance
                   pipeline
                   Irrigation system, trickle
                   (drip)
                   Irrigation system, sprinkler
                   Irrigation system, surface or
                   subsurface
                   Irrigation system, tailwater
                   recovery
                   Land smoothing
                   Irrigation pit or regulation
                   reservoir
                   Subsurface drainage
                   (for salinity  only)
                   Toxic salt reduction
                                411
                                620
                                466
                                587
                                606
                                607

                                608
                                610
                                342
                                320
                                587
                                388
                                350
                                412
                                464

                                428

                                430

                                441
                                442

                                443

                                447
                                466

                                552

                                607
                                610
                                        2-90

-------
                             Appendix 2-A (Continued)
ASCS                                                   TECHNICAL
PRACTICE                                              PRACTICE
CODE                   DESCRIPTION TITLE           CODE
WL 1        Permanent wildlife habitat

                   Fencing                              382
                   Wildlife upland habitat
                   management                           645

WP 1        Sediment retention, erosion
                   or water control structures

                   Critical area planting                   342
                   Dam, diversion                        348
                   Dam, multiple purpose                  349
                   Sediment basin                        350
                   Diversion                             362
                   Fencing                              382
                   Dam, floodwater retention               402
                   Grade stabilization structure             410
                   Grassed waterway                      412
                   Lined waterway outlet                  468
                   Mulching                             484
                   Pond sealing or lining                  521
                   Structure for water control               587
                   Subsurface drain                       606
                   Underground outlet                     620
                   Vertical drain                          630
                   Water and sediment control
                   basin                                 638
WP 2       Stream protection
                   Filter strip                            393
                   Channel vegetation                     322
                   Fencing                              382
                   Pipeline                              516
                   Streambank and shoreline
                   protection                             580
                                       2-91

-------
                            Appendix 2-A (Continued)
ASCS                                                 TECHNICAL
PRACTICE                                            PRACTICE
CODE                  DESCRIPTION TITLE          CODE
                  Field border                          386
                  Tree planting                         612
                  Trough or tank                       614
                  Stock trails or walkways                575

WP 3       Sod waterways

                  Critical area planting                  342
                  Grassed waterway                     412
                  Lined waterway outlet                 468
                  Mulching                            484
                  Structure  for water control              587
                  Subsurface drain                      606
                  Underground outlet                   620
                  Vertical drain                         630
                                      2-92

-------
CHAPTER 3. FORESTRY MANAGEMENT MEASURES

-------
CHAPTER 3.   FORESTRY MANAGEMENT MEASURES

I.     Types of NFS Problems from Forestry Activities  	3-1

n.    Approaches to the Use of Management Measures  	3-1

ffl.   State Forestry NPS Programs 	3-2

IV.   Federal Land Management Agencies	3-2

V.    Local Governments	3-3

VI.   Management Measures  	3-3

      A. MM No. 1 Identification and Designation of Streamside Special Management
         Areas	3-3

         1. Components  and Specifications	3-3
         2. Effectiveness	3-5
         3. Costs	3-5

      B. MM No. 2 Identification and Designation of Wetland Special Management
         Areas	3-6

         1. Components  and Specifications	3-6
         2. Effectiveness	3-7
         3. Costs	3-7

      C. MM No. 3 Transportation System Planning and Design	3-8

         1. Components  and Specifications	3-8
         2. Effectiveness	3-11
         3. Costs	3-11

      D. MM No. 4 Transportation System Construction/Re-construction	3-11

         1. Components  and Specifications	3-11
         2. Effectiveness	3-13
         3. Costs	3-13

      E. MM No. 5 Road Management	3-14

         1. Components  and Specifications	3-14
         2. Effectiveness	3-14
         3. Costs	3-15

-------
F. MM No. 6 Timber Harvest Planning	3-16

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-16
   2.  Effectiveness	3-17
   3.  Costs	3-17

G. MM No. 7 Landings and Groundskidding of Logs  	3-17

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-17
   2.  Effectiveness	3-18
   3.  Costs	3-18

H. MM No. 8 Landings and Cable Yarding  	3-18

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-18
   2.  Effectiveness	3-19
   3.  Costs	3-19

I.  MM No. 9 Mechanical Site Preparation	3-20

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-20
   2.  Effectiveness	3-20
   3.  Costs	3-20

J.  MM No.  10 Prescribed Fire	3-21

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-21
   2.  Effectiveness	•. . 3-21
   3.  Costs	3-21

K. MM No.  11 Mechanical Tree Planting	3-22

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-22
   2.  Costs	3-22

L. MM No.  12 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas  	3-22

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-22
   2.  Effectiveness	3-23
   3.  Costs	3-23

M. MM No.  13 Stream Protection for Pesticide and Fertilizer Projects	3-24

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-24
   2.  Effectiveness	3-25
   3.  Costs	3-25

-------
N. MM No. 14 Petroleum Products Pollution Prevention  	3-25

   1.  Components and Specifications	3-25
   2.  Effectiveness	3-26
   3.  Costs	3-26

Footnotes	3-26

References	3-26

-------
                                   CHAPTERS

                     FORESTRY MANAGEMENT MEASURES

I.     TYPES OF NFS PROBLFJV1S FROM FORESTRY ACTIVITIES

The potential for forestry related activities to cause water pollution has long been recognized.
Water quality concerns for forestry were addressed in the 1972 Clean Water Act and later more
comprehensively under Sections 208  and 319 as  nonpoint sources.  The types of problems
related to Forestry activities include generation of sediment from roads and landslides, loss of
shade from stream canopy removal, woody debris jams from poorly managed logging slash,
increased channel erosion and increased stream bedload sediments.  In some areas  this has
resulted in:

      •      Suspended and bedload sediments

      •      Turbidity

      •      Woody material accumulations on bottoms

      •      Temperature increases, including potential temperature induced  effects to the
             development of salmonid smolts and changes in aquatic communities

      •      Loss of important stream structural habitat provided by large woody debris from
             fallen trees, especially conifers.  In smaller streams these obstructions  perform
             many important functions including: pool formation, cover, habitat complexity,
             nutrient and energy retention, stream bank and bed stability, and bed sediment
             storage.

      •      Concentration and channelization of flows entering wetlands from road drainage
             systems and drainage of wetlands due to mechanical site preparation.

      •      Loss of chum, humpback, pink, chinook, atlantic, and coho salmon, steelhead and
             sea-run cutthroat trout (salmonids), smelt, and other anadromous fish species.

      •      Nutrient accumulations from forest fertilizer mis-applications or spills.

      •      Toxic pollutant accumulations from  mis-applications of pesticides or spills.

H.    APPROACHES TO THE USE OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES

If management measures are needed to prevent or correct the problems listed, then they should
be comprehensively designed to prevent or address the causes of the problems. Often this means
a site specific design to best achieve effectiveness.  In some cases it may mean a prohibition of

                                        3-1

-------
activity in certain especially sensitive areas to ensure prevention of impairment. For example,
some harvesting practices may need to be avoided on steep slopes or the amounts of pesticide
or herbicide applied may be reduced in order to prevent pollution.  It should focus on the
pathways and causes of the NFS pollution to be an effective control.

There may be a  number of Management Measures approaches to a certain problem.  States
should remain flexible to work with operators and other agencies to find feasible solutions to
water quality and habitat problems which achieve equivalent NFS control levels specified in this
guidance.

m.  PRESENT  STATE FORESTRY NFS PROGRAMS

All states with important forestry activities have identified Best Management Practices (BMP's)
to control  silviculturally (forestry  activities)  related  nonpoint source  (NFS) water quality
problems.  Often the water quality problems which are presently occurring are not due to the
ineffectiveness of the practices themselves, but of the failure to implement them appropriately.

There are two basic types of state forestry NFS programs.  One is a voluntary program relying
upon a set of Best Management Practices as guidelines to operators.  Sometimes BMP's can be
applied in the normal course of forest harvest operations with few significant added costs.
Operator education and technology transfer is a primary activity of the state departments of
forestry.  Workshops, brochures, field tours are continually held to educate and demonstrate to
operators the latest water quality management techniques. Landowners hiring operators are often
encouraged to require operators who have attended state sponsored workshops or to stipulate in
contracts that the state forestry BMP's must be applied.

The other type of state forestry program is a set of Forest Practice Rules and Regulations based
on a State Forest Practices Act or local government regulations.  These Rules and Regulations
may closely resemble the sets of BMP guidelines described previously, but have requirements
which are enforceable.  Often streams are classified based upon importance for municipal water
supply or  propagation  of  aquatic life as  the  most sensitive designated use.  Protective
requirements of various kinds  for shade, large woody debris recruitment, bank stability, and
others are often stipulated for streamside zones, riparian areas, filter, or buffer strips. Harvest
plans of operations or applications to perform a timber harvest are frequently required for review
by the State Department of Forestry and other state agencies.

Present state  Coastal  Zone Management  (CZM)  programs  may already  include  specific
regulations or BMP guidelines for forestry activities.  In  some states,  CZM programs  have
adopted by reference, or as part of a networked program, the state forestry regulations or BMPs.

IV.   FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Federal land management agencies engaged in  forestry activities such as the USDA Forest
Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management are to meet all federal, state, interstate, and

                                         3-2

-------
local requirements to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.  Similarly, the revised
CZMA Act requires federal agencies to comply with state Coastal Zone NFS Management Plans
to protect coastal water quality and habitat.

The USFS and BLM in nearly all of the states where agency lands are situated have developed
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the water quality agencies to develop and use BMP's
which meet or exceed the state BMP'S and Forest Practice Rules.  Many of these MOU's have
been recently updated to become a part of states'  319 NFS Management Programs.  In most
cases these agencies have become a Designated Management Agency (DMA) under authority in
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.  The DMA authority requires the agency to develop its own
Water Quality Program which must be approved by the State.  The agency then is delegated
responsibility to manage the waters under its jurisdictions according to state law meeting water
quality standards and other state requirements.   Often there is an action plan required by  the
state, and agency progress is evaluated on an annual basis. State enforcement of the MOU and
DMA programs varies among states.  A few  states require the agencies to provide annual
monitoring reports and annual monitoring plans.

V.    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Counties, municipalities, and local soil and  water conservation management  districts may also
impose additional requirements on landowners and operators conducting forestry activities.  In
urban settings this often relates to the conversion of forested lands to urban uses, primarily  for
residential and business developments. Developers are not always familiar with forestry activity
BMP'S or state forest practice rules and regulations. In some cases, the potential for speculative
investing leads to major land development wliich may overwhelm a small government agencies
ability to monitor and manage these types of forestry activities.

In rural areas additional requirements for forestry activities may be  made by  soil and water
conservation districts.  These requirements primarily apply to small non-industrial forest owners
who manage  small woodlots.  Collectively,  non-industrial forest owners control a majority of
the productive timber lands in the eastern U.S.  and sizeable acreages in some  western states.
The major industrial privately owned timber lands are located in the Southeast  and Northwest
parts of the U.S.

VL   MANAGEMENT MEASURES

A.    MM No. 1 Identification and Designation of Streamside Special Management Areas

      1.     Components and Specifications

The  objective of this MM is to protect water quality and aquatic  habitat and prevent  the
occurrence of adverse impacts from logging,  roadbuilding,  and other land disturbing
management  activities.  Streamside Special Management Areas are the areas immediately
                                         3-3

-------
neighboring streams or waterbodies, which greatly influence water quality and aquatic habitats.
These areas function in the following ways:

       (1)    Filters sediments from waters flowing across the surface toward waterbodies,

       (2)    Provides a renewable source of large woody debris for cover for fishes and other
             aquatic organisms, hydraulic control features to dissipate flow energy and develop
             pools, and bed and bank structure to improve stream channel stability.  This large
             woody debris also provides hydraulic control features to dissipate flow energy and
             develop  pools, and bed and bank structure to improve stream channel stability,

       (3)    Provide  important water  surface shading to moderate stream temperature during
             extreme weather conditions in the summer and winter,

       (4)    Provide  hydraulic roughness on banks and within stream channels to attenuate
             flood flows, thereby reducing the extreme nature of high flow events

       (5)    Provide  a source of energy and nutrients (litter and leaves) for  small tributary
             streams  supporting efficiently functioning aquatic  communities.

The identification and  designation of streamside areas is needed to determine the  extent and
distribution of highly valued and sensitive riparian resources. The boundaries of these areas are
determined by  the minimum distance needed  to provide protection to the  water quality and
habitat functions. Distances needed may vary depending on soil type, slope and riparian cover.
Some States and forest management agencies  and companies have set minimum distances to
protect  water  quality  and ecosystem function.   Additional distance is required  if there is
reasonable risk of pollution or loss of the functions described above.

Use of existing resource inventories,  water quality data,  stream  classifications, state water
quality  designations, topographic maps, aerial photos, and best professional judgment  of the
harvest sale planner and  resource specialists are needed to  define the boundaries of the
streamside special management area. Any  activities planned within the area must not degrade
water quality or habitat value.   Most states have identified streamside management zone widths
in BMP guidelines or State regulations.

Boundaries of this area must be clearly  identified to avoid any misunderstanding by the forestry
operator.   This will  prevent  the inadvertent continuation of forestry  activities  which  are
occurring outside of the streamside special management area which would impair the water
quality  and habitat values if  conducted in the SSMA.   The designation  of  this area must
accomplish the following:

       (1)    Reduce  delivery of forestry  activity created  sediments from upland or adjacent
             areas  to  the waterbody being protected  except during storm events  with
                                           3-4

-------
             recurrence intervals greater than 10 years estimated using standard procedures and
             appropriate storm durations for the local climatic conditions.

       (2)    Provide  a source  of large  woody debris within  the  Streamside Special
             Management  Area to the stream at a rate that is equivalent to natural rates of
             supply over a time period that is the average lifespan of the tree species  in the
             stand.

       (3)    Provides shading to the stream water surface which is equivalent to natural levels
             for the potential natural vegetation present. If the existing shading condition prior
             to activity is less than the  natural levels for the potential natural  vegetation
             present,  then there should be no  reductions of shading caused by proposed
             activities.

       (4)    Provide sufficient width to withstand wind damage or blowdown.

       2.     Effectiveness

The effectiveness of SSMA identification to prevent impacts to  streamside areas is 75-85%.
This rate of effectiveness is limited by runoff from roads which drains directly to  the stream
network. Errors in marking and identification of the appropriate boundary occur.  Temporary
boundary markers occasionally are removed or become lost permitting accidental incursions into
the special management with higher disturbance levels.  In the west landslides may deliver large
quantities of sediments from upslope roads or harvest units across the SSMA.

       3.     Costs

The net cost for the establishment of streamside management zones  may include the costs of
layout and marking of the zone.  It may also include any additional costs from special harvesting
techniques which are used to extract merchantable timber from the streamside management zone.
However,  these extra  harvesting costs  are generally offset by  the value of the harvested
stumpage.  It is possible that merchantable timber which is not harvested from the  streamside
zone due to percent removal restrictions or other management considerations, may be  considered
an indirect cost of  the SMZ.   If there  is existing  vegetation on the site direct cost of
implementing this management measure will be limited.

For situations where existing vegetation is not present, cost estimates for control of erosion and
sediment transport from forestry activities in streamside areas have been summarized by the
USD A Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). For streamside management
zones the ASCS Stream Protection Practice (WP2) the average cost to install was about $130.00
per mile.

In the State of Virginia Best Management Practices Handbook for forestry, forest filter strips
were  estimated  to have no direct costs if preserving existing vegetation. If the management

                                          3-5

-------
measure requires the planting of a filter strip on a disturbed area the costs estimated to be the
same as for revegetation.

The following example costs for activities related to the establishment of streamside special
management zones are USDA Forest Service estimates from the Pacific Northwest:

       Activities                                  Costs

       Streamside prescription                    $250/mile
       Boundary marking                        $200/mile
       Indirect or Foregone Opportunity
       Cost of Merchantable stumpage
       not harvested
                              10 MBF/ac @ $100/MBF  = $1000/acre
                             20 MBF/ac @ $150/MBF  = $3000/acre
                             50 MBF/ac @ $200/MBF  = $10000/acre
B.    MM No. 2  Identification and Designation of Wetland Special Management Areas

      1.     Components and Specifications

The objective in designating boundaries for Wetland Special Management Areas (WSMA) is to
maintain wetland functions and values and to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and
habitat in wetland areas from logging.

Wetlands are important in providing moderating influences for water quality and habitats in
coastal  areas.  Wetland  ecosystems  are  commonly key  components to a  healthy coastal
environment. The CWA protects the chemical, physical and biological integrity of wetlands as
waters of the United States. Management activities in these areas must not degrade or adversely
affect the functions and values of these ecosystems.  Effects to the hydrologic  conditions in
wetlands are commonly the most permanently destructive to the  ecosystems.   Vegetation
communities  may also be adversely affected by the introduction of exotic plants or selective
removal of key component species.

The boundaries of  these WSMAs are determined by the minimum distance needed to provide
protection to the water quality and habitat. Additional distance is required if there is reasonable
risk of impairment  or loss of the functions described above.

Information from resource inventories, topographic maps, aerial photos, and soil surveys and
the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands will be useful to
identify areas needing protection as WSMAs. Planning must identify the areas where operation
of heavy equipment may not be appropriate. Flowing wetlands connected to riverine systems
should be distinguished from isolated wetlands, because these ecosystems function differently.

                                         3-6

-------
Forestry access must be designed to avoid wetland areas and minimize road construction across
wetlands.  Where roads must be constructed across wetlands flow passages should be planned
to prevent disturbances and hydrologic differences between the two sides of the road.   Driest
seasons should be used to access and harvest these areas.

Boundaries of  Wetland Special Management Areas must be clearly  identified to prevent
misunderstanding by the forestry operator about the location and extent of the WSMA.  In many
cases this will require on site boundary marking with flagging, paint, or signs where the WSMA
adjoins an area with planned forestry activities. The designation and planning of activities in
the WSMA'S must provide a level of protection that:

       (1)    Prevents ground disturbing activities which would cause wetland areas to drain
             during wet periods or clearly cause a disruption of the hydrologic conditions of
             the wetland.

       (2)    Prevents delivery of human activity created sediments from the areas outside of
             the area to  the wetland being  protected except  during  storm events with
             recurrence  intervals  estimated using standard procedures  to be greater than 10
             years.

       (3)    Prevents loss of sensitive aquatic habitat conditions which otherwise would occur
             without the designation of the Wetland Special Management Area.

       2.     Effectiveness

The effectiveness of wetland boundary identification to prevent impacts to wetlands is 75-85%.
This rate of effectiveness is limited by runoff from roads which drains directly to wetlands or
to the stream network upstream.   Errors  in  marking and identification of the appropriate
boundary  occur.   Boundary markers occasionally  are removed  or become lost permitting
accidental incursions into the special management area  with higher disturbance levels.

       3.     Costs

The net cost for the establishment of wetland special management zones may include the costs
of layout and marking of the zone.   The following  example costs for activities related to the
establishment of streamside special management zones are USDA Forest Service estimates from
the Pacific Northwest:

       Activities                                        Costs

       Wetland prescription                             $250/mile
       Boundary marking                                $200/mile
                                          3-7

-------
C.     MM No. 3  Transportation System Manning and Design

       1.     Components and Specifications

The objective of this MM is to locate and design roads with minimal sediment delivery potential
to streams and coastal areas.  Roads have been shown consistently to be the largest cause of
sedimentation resulting from forestry activities. Good location and design of roads can greatly
reduce sources and transport of sediment materials.

Important sediment sources are associated with stream crossings, fills on slopes greater than 60
percent, poorly designed road  drainage structures,  and road locations close to streams.  In the
west the largest sources of sediment are often associated with landslides.  Certain rock types and
geomorphic conditions are conducive to the risk of landslides. Such areas can be identified and
avoided.  In other areas inadequate cross drainage and poor location are the greatest sources of
sediment to waterbodies.

       a.     Location

Location of roads on ridges versus natural drainages is an important way to distance, and thereby
prevent, the effects of surface erosion of road surfaces, cut, and fills from streams. Roads must
not be located along stream channels where the road fill extends within 25 horizontal feet of the
average annual high water level, except for crossings.  Existing roads in poor locations must be
relocated when the road is to be reconstructed. Roads on gentle slopes drain more freely than
roads on flat areas.  Roads on steep terrain  should avoid use of switchbacks through more
favorable locations.  "Stacking" of roads above one another should be avoided by the use of
longer span cable harvest techniques.

       b.     Drainage crossings

Sizing of bridges and large culverts for major drainage crossings must be designed based upon
reliably tested regionalized methods for permanent well trafficked roads.  Appropriate equipment
and materials must be planned for installation of the drainage crossing structures.   Crossings
should be designed to cross drainages at 90° to the flow to minimize effects to  the channel and
flow capacity through  the structure.  Designs  must provide suitable measures to facilitate fish
passage when fish-bearing streams are crossed.  This is especially important in  the west for
streams with anadromous  fish.

Structures  for permanent road crossings  should  be adequately designed  to avoid failure as
follows:

       (1)    Small culverts  should be designed to pass  the 25  year  recurrence interval
             discharge without entrance head above the top of the structure
                                           3-8

-------
       (2)    Major culverts and small bridges should pass the 50 year recurrence interval
             discharge without head above the top of the structure and

       (3)    Major bridges should pass the 100 year recurrence interval discharge without head
             above the structure.

       (4)    Additional capacity must be provided when debris loading above the structure
             would potentially become lodged in the structure opening and reduce its capacity.

Use of fords should be limited to extreme situations where use of bridges and culverts is not
feasible.  Fords should be located where  streambeds  are stable having bedrock or a concrete
apron carefully installed.  Springs flowing continuously for more than 1 month must have
drainage structures,  rather than allowing  use of road ditches to carry the flow to a drainage
culvert.

       c.     Road prism

Design of  the  road prism must  be appropriate to  the terrain  where  the road  is  located.
Alignments that roll with the terrain cause less slope disturbance than strongly  controlled
sections with sustained grades and alignments. Balanced construction of the road cross-section
must be limited to reasonable sideslopes. Sideslopes greater than 60 percent requires full-bench
construction and removal of the excavated  road cut material to a suitable disposal area.  Surface
design as crowned, insloped, or outsloped  must be consistent with the road drainage structures.

       d.     Road drainage

Careful design of the surface drainage to match natural sideslope drainage swales and appropriate
spacings  must  occur.   Inlet and outlet  structures  for culverts must be planned  to avoid
sedimentation where erosion of ditches and fills occurs. Road dips must be designed to drain
freely without eroding the road surface. Roads in flat areas should have elevated roadbeds to
avoid development of mudholes (this practice may not be appropriate in flat areas with periodic
surface flows.

       e.     Surfacing

Roads planned for all-weather use must be  surfaced with suitable materials unless native surfaces
support truck traffic without becoming rutted or eroding.  Planning for rock quarry locations
must include a quarry development and rehabilitation plan.

       f.     Landslides

Use of available geologic information,  soil  maps,  topographic maps, aerial photos,  local
experience, and technical consultation with a geologist, a geotechnical engineer or a qualified
specialist must be made when landslide prone areas are known to exist in the planned area to

                                           3-9

-------
be accessed.  Landslide prone areas should be avoided even if alternative routes are longer or
more costly to construct.  If there are no alternative routes and landslide prone areas must be
crossed, specialized construction techniques will be planned to prevent landsliding.  Sufficient
testing of the bearing materials, piezometric surface of shallow groundwater during storm events,
and other site specific investigative techniques must be used to appropriately design slope drains,
locations of bin walls, use of geotextile materials, riprap, and other specialized techniques to
prevent landslides.

       g.     Water sources

Locations of water sources used to  wet and compact road beds and surfacing must be pre-
planned.   The water source development and water tank-truck access must be planned to
minimize sedimentation and protect the natural water  source. Road fills at drainage crossings
must not be used as water impoundments unless they have been suitably designed as an earthfill
dam.  Such earthfill embankments must have outlet controls to allow  draining prior to runoff
periods.

       h.     Muskegs

Roads crossing muskegs (high water table areas in northern climates typified by humus and acid
waters) must use overlay construction techniques with suitable non-hazardous materials.  Cross
drains must be provided to allow free drainage especially in  sloping areas.

The following are specifications for this MM:

       (1)     Location: The locations of new roads must not encroach on streams, fills must
              not be  located  within 25  horizontal  feet of the annual high  water  level.
              Construction of new switchback roads must not occur near streams.  There must
              not be planned construction of a streamside road when there is an existing road
              on the opposite side of the drainage, unless the existing road is being replaced and
              will be obliterated.

       (2)     Drainage crossings:   Must  meet the design  levels described  above. Must be
              designed  to allow  fish  passage  in  fish-bearing  streams.    Fish  passage
              specifications should be designed for the fish species present.

       (3)     Road prism: Sideslopes greater than 60 percent for new construction require full
              bench construction and removal of fill  material to a suitable location.  Planning
              of the road surface prism must match the road surface drainage system.

       (4)     Road drainage:   Spacing of drainage structures  must  match terrain and be
              appropriate to endure the 25 year precipitation recurrence interval for a storm
              duration appropriate to the area without rilling, gullying or  loss of drainage
              structures.

                                           3-10

-------
       (5)    Surfacing:  Appropriate sized aggregate,  percent fines,  and suitable particle
             hardness must protect the surface from rutting and eroding under heavy truck
             traffic during wet periods of operation. Ditch runoff should not be visibly turbid
             during these conditions. Aggregate must not contain high sulfide ores that would
             produce acid drainage or be contaminated with hazardous materials.

       (6)    Landslides:  Designs must prevent the occurrence of landslides for storms with
             a precipitation recurrence interval of 100 years or less for an appropriate design
             storm duration typically causing flooding in the area being considered.

       (7)    Water sources: Planned water source developments to be used to wet and compact
             roadbeds  and surfaces should not impact channel banks and  streambeds of the
             watercourses being used for this purpose.  Access roads  to water  sources should
             not provide sediment to the water source.

       (8)    Muskeg roads: Roads must not pond water on the  upslope side of the road.
             Overlay materials cannot include hazardous materials.

       2.     Effectiveness

The effectiveness of this MM to prevent sedimentation is 85-90 percent. Careful planning is the
most effective aspect of road management.  The variation in effectiveness is due to the differing
complexity of terrain.  Landslide prone areas present a difficult challenge for  road planners.
Vertical relief, slope  steepness are other factors influencing design effectiveness.  Available
funding to allow certain expensive structural  designs  may  be lacking.   Design tools  and
techniques  are  continually  improving.   Models for predicting unstable slope  conditions are
presently available, if data can be collected.

       3.     Costs

       Activities                                            Costs

       Planning                                             Add 25%

D.     MM No. 4  Transportation System Construction/Re-construction

       1.     Components and Specifications

The objective  of  this MM  is  to  minimize erosion  and  sedimentation  during  road
construction/reconstruction  projects.    The disturbance  of soil  and  rock  during  road
construction/reconstruction creates a significant potential for erosion and sedimentation of nearby
streams and coastal waters.  Road construction includes:  (1) the clearing phase to remove trees
and woody vegetation from the road right-of-way, (2) the pioneering phase,  where the slope is
excavated and filled to establish the road centerline and approximate grade, (3) the construction

                                          3-11

-------
phase, where final grade and road prism design specifications are made, bridges, culverts and
road drainage structures are installed, and (4) the surfacing phase when the road bed is placed,
compacted; road fills are compacted, and the lifts of gravel surfacing and pavement (if planned)
is placed and compacted.

Slash materials from right-of-way clearing should not be left in streams.  This material is often
useful if placed  as windrows along the base of the fill  slope.  This operation is efficiently
handled by an excavator or "big hoe".  This same piece of equipment is often used  in the
pioneering and road construction phases.  Right of way material that is merchantable is often
utilized by the operator.

Pioneering earthwork activities should not be allowed to proceed more than .5 miles from the
finished road surface. During rainy seasons this distance should be reduced due to the necessity
for shutdown if  wet conditions develop.  Crossing of flowing streams  during the pioneering
operation should be minimized.  Operation  within streams during seasons when spawning and
where salmonid eggs are incubating must not occur. Careful planning of equipment operation
is necessary  to  minimize the movement of excavated material downslope as unintentional
sidecast.   Disposal sites identified in the planning phase must be used.

Construction of bridges and culverts must be conducted carefully.  The construction should occur
during low flow conditions.  Equipment operation within the streambed must be minimized.
Construction of piers, footing, abutments, wingwalls, and other structures within the normally
wetted portion of the stream will require measures to redirect flows within the channel area and
contain turbid waters in settling basins.  Care must be taken to minimize sedimentation.

Construction of  cuts, fills, and the  roadway must  be done according to planning and design
specifications. Care must be used to contain materials and minimize loss of excavated material
downslope.  Culverts and ditches must be properly bedded, and placed according to appropriate
procedures.  Inlet and outlet structures must be installed properly.

Compaction of  the road base at the proper  moisture  content,  surfacing, and grading is
accomplished to  give the designed road surface drainage shaping. Surface drainage waterbars,
open-top culverts, or slit-troughs are installed to prevent rilling and intercept rut drainage which
may develop.

Use of straw bales, straw mulch, grass-seeding, hydromulch, and other erosion control and re-
vegetation techniques complete the construction project. Freshly disturbed soils will need
protection until vegetation  is established.   Construction and Reconstruction activities must be
managed to  minimize impacts to streams and coastal areas as follows:

       (1)    Slash material must not be left in watercourses.  It must be removed before the
              appropriate equipment to retrieve it leaves  the area.
                                          3-12

-------
       (2)    Excess  fill material must be carefully managed and not permitted  to  slough
             downslope beyond reach of construction equipment.

       (3)    Bridges, culverts, and  other stream  crossing structure  installations must be
             conducted to minimize production of sediment.  Turbid waters must be contained
             and  diverted to settling basins or flat areas before discharge to  the stream.
             Equipment should not operate within the streambed,  but should be  limited to
             making the minimum number of crossings for access to the site.

       (4)    Installation of road drainage culverts and structures must  be made according to
             planned and designed specifications.   Road surfacing  and shaping must follow
             designs.

       (5)    Mulching and revegetation  must be  done as quickly as possible  to protect
             disturbed soils from excessive erosion such as rilling and gullying.

       2.     Effectiveness

This MM has an effectiveness range of 65-80 percent to prevent entry  of sediment into area
waterbodies.  The reason that complete prevention of sedimentation does not occur  is the fine
particles that are eroded from freshly exposed soils.  Studies show that 80 percent of erosion on
studied roads occurred during the first 3 years following construction.   A certain amount of
fillslope material sloughs downslope and finally, the road drainage systems acts as a new stream
network on the landscape which must establish an equilibrium with its bed.  The variation in
effectiveness is due to slope steepness, rock type and soils, climate, landslide sensitivity, runoff
events during  the first 3-year period, execution error, and unanticipated springs,  supplying
additional runoff and erosion.

       3.     Costs

The cost of implementing erosion control practices for forest land management access roads has
been estimated to be $11.00 per mile based on national summaries provided by the  USD A
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).   In the State of Virginia Best
Management  Practices Handbook for forestry,  the  following costs were estimated1 for  the
construction of woodland access roads and skid trails:

       Activities                                      Costs

Construction of Access Roads:                         $160.00/100 feet
       Land clearing and earthwork
       Culverts
       Bridges
       Drainage Dips
       Water Bars                                    $4.75 each

                                         3-13

-------
       Surface Materials
       Seed                                   $4.75/100 feet
       Mulching                               $160.00/acre

Construction of Skid Trails                    $40.00/100 feet
       (Water Bars)
       (Drainage Dips)

The following example percentages for activities related to the construction of forest roads are
based on USDA Forest Service estimates from the Pacific Northwest:

       Activities                               Costs

       Clearing phase                          Add 5%
       Pioneering phase                        Add 30%
       Construction phase                      Add 30%
       Surfacing phase                         Add 50%

E.     MM No. 5 Road Management

       1.      Components and Specifications

Landowners with roads  must manage those roads to prevent sedimentation and pollution from
transported materials. Roads  that are actively eroding and providing sediment to waterbodies,
whether in use or not, must be treated to prevent erosion.  Major sources such as  landslides
must be prevented by maintenance or removal of drainage crossings such as bridges, culverts,
and fords as well as road surface drainage structures such as ditches, culverts, dips, waterbars,
etc.  Large deposits of sediment due to sloughing or road  related landsliding must be stabilized
to the greatest degree practicable to reduce sedimentation.

If roads  are no longer  needed, art effective treatment is to remove  drainage  crossings and
culverts if there is a risk of plugging or failure from lack of maintenance. In other cases it is
economically more viable to periodically maintain the crossing and drainage structures.  Roads
subject to rutting must either be maintained to properly  drain without excess sediment or be
blocked from traffic. While road maintenance is an expensive proposition, it is far cheaper than
repair  after  failure or decades of fish population losses.  For some unstable sections, the  only
effective treatment is excavation and haul of the road section or expensive geotechnical solutions
such as groundwater drainage,  grouting, or support by pilings.

       2.     Effectiveness

The  effectiveness of this MM is 75-90% due to  the periodic nature of road maintenance
activities, especially for older  roads not in use.  The effectiveness varies with the landslide
                                          3-14

-------
sensitivity, slope steepness, rock type and soils, runoff events, and overall condition of the road
system.

       3.     Costs

In the State of Virginia Best Management Practices Handbook for forestry, the following costs
were estimated1 for the management and maintenance of forest roads and skid trails:

       Activities                                     Costs

       Road Maintenance                             $3.25/100 feet
       Cleaning Culverts
       Filling Ruts and Grading                      $3.25/100 feet

       Retirement of Roads                           $8.00/100 feet
       Filling Ruts and Grading                      $3.25/100 feet
       Bedding with Brush                           $2.00/100 feet
       Water Bars                                   $4.75/each
       Seeding                                      $4.75/100 feet

       Retirement of Skid Trails                      $ .80/100 feet
       Bedding with Brush                           $2.00/100 feet
       Water Bars                                   $4.75/each
       Seeding                                      $4.75/100 feet
       Mulching                                     $160.00/acre

The following example costs for activities related to the construction of forest roads are based
on USDA Forest  Service estimates from the Pacific Northwest:

       Activities                                     Costs

       Routine maintenance of drainage               $200-600/mile structures
       Routine maintenance of the road surface
             native surface                           $200-$1200/mile
             gravel                                  $200-$600/mile
       Road barriers                                  $300-5,000 each
       Replacement of drainage culverts               $30-50,000/mile
       Replacement of drainage crossings
             culverts                                $5-500,000 each
             bridges                                $.1-5.0 million
       Excavation of unstable road section             $. 1-1.0 million
       Underground drainage, piles                   $.2-1.0 million
                                         3-15

-------
F.     MM No. 6 Timber Harvest Planning

       1.      Components and Specifications

Timber harvest is usually selected for areas with merchantible stands of timber that economically
are viable. Selection of stands for harvest also is made based on silviculture! considerations for
the regeneration or future condition of the  stand.  Such planning must also include provisions
to identify unsuitable areas which may have merchantible trees, but pose risks for landslides.
These concerns are greatest for steeply sloping areas in areas of high rainfall or snowpack in
sensitive rock types.   Decomposed  granite,  highly weathered  sedimentary,  fault zones in
metamorphic rocks are potential rock-types of concern.  Deep soils derived from these rocks,
colluvial hollows, and fine textured  clay soils often referred to as "blue goo" are soil conditions
causing potential problems.  Such areas usually have a history of landslides either naturally or
related to earlier land disturbing activities. When risks of landslides are present,  a technical
specialist  such as a geologist, soil scientist, hydrologist  or  geotechnical engineer .should be
consulted.

Studies have identified cumulative sedimentation effects from the incremental additions of small
sediment volumes added together within a drainage basin.  In some climatic zones often related
to elevation and orientation to the prevailing winds, streamflow peaks may be increased from
timber harvest at certain points in the drainage network.  These peaks may cause adjustments
in channel beds and banks  with net sediment increases.  In areas where the cumulative effects
of timber harvest activities are affecting water quality and  habitats, adjustments in planned
harvest are necessary.  This includes selection of harvest units with low risks of sedimentation,
such as flat ridges or  broad valleys, postponement of harvesting  until erosion sources are
stablilized, and selection of limited  areas of harvest using existing roads.

Planning of the silviculture! system of harvest as even-aged (eg. clearcut, seedtree, shelterwood,)
or un-evenaged (eg. group selection, or individual tree selection) and the type of yarding system
must consider potential water quality  and habitat  impacts.   At first,  it may  appear  more
beneficial to water quality to use un-even aged silviculture! stand  management, because less
ground disturbance and loss  of canopy cover occurs. This may be  misleading, because more
acres must be treated to yield equivalent  timber  volumes which require more miles  of road
construction and/or re-construction.  Roads have been shown repeatedly to produce the greatest
volumes of sediment in forestry activities.

Additionally for moderately sloping areas,  yarding of uneven-aged silvicultural systems is most
often accomplished by  ground-skidding equipment which disturbs soils several times more in
total area than cable yarding systems.  Cable yarding systems may be used in sloping areas for
even-aged silvicultural systems.  Whichever silvicultural system is selected will require planning
to  minimize  erosion  and sediment  delivery  to  waterbodies.   Harvested  areas should be
immediately replanted  or regenerated to prevent  further erosion and potential impact  to
waterbodies.  The following are specifications for this MM:
                                           3-16

-------
       (1)     Planned harvest units  will not add  to  problems of cumulative  sedimentation
              effects.

       (2)     Selection of the silvicultural system will include consideration of potential water
              quality impacts from needed roads and skidding operations.

       (3)     Areas with identified risks of landslides by a qualified  specialist, eg. geologist,
              soil scientist, geotechnical engineer, or hydrologist will not be harvested.

       2.     Effectiveness

This MM  will provide  a 85-100% effectiveness in preventing  the  entry of sediments  into
waterbodies. This variation is due to uncertainties in identifying landslide prone areas, the slope
steepness, the uncertainty of  assessing cumulative effects, and the runoff events.

       3.     Costs

Provide an addit||||L 15 percent of planning time  for water quality  considerations in timber
harvest planning.

G.     MM No. 7 Landings and GrQundskidding of Logs

       1.     Components and Specifications

Landings and skidtrails will  be pre-planned  to  control erosion and delivery of sediments to
watercourses. Locations are primarily  determined  in the field based upon the distribution of
timber volumes designated for harvest.  Generally,  this pre-planning will take place when the
harvesting  unit is layed out  as described in MM  No. 6.  The most  economically  efficient
locations for landings and skidtrails will be adjusted  to protect waterbodies from the delivery of
sediments.  Landings must be located outside of the Streamside or Wetland Special Management
Areas.

Landings will be  no larger  than necessary  to  safely  and efficiently store and  load trucks.
Drainage structures such as waterbars, culverts,  and ditches will be constructed.  Slope of the
landing surface should be less than 5 percent and will be shaped to promote efficient drainage
of runoff. Landing fills must not exceed 40 percent slope and must not have incorporated woody
or organic materials.  If landings are  to be used during wet periods a suitable depth of gravel
surfacing will be necessary to prevent rutting.

Groundskidding of logs will be limited to slopes less than 40 percent. For sensitive soils further
limitation of activities on slopes is needed.  During wet periods, groundskidding should be
stopped when rutting and churning of the  soil begins and when runoff from skidtrails is turbid
and no longer infiltrates within a short distance from the skidtrail. Groundskidding on frozen
soils or frozen snowpack should be conducted as a method to avoid disturbance of sensitive soils

                                          3-17

-------
during winter logging.  Winter logging may still lead to sedimentation if provisions for drainage
during the spring thaw or break up are not made.

Skidtrails should also be pre-planned (again, this should be done prior to harvest - MM No. 6)
to minimize disturbance and compaction of soils.  In SSMAs felling of trees should be carried
out with the large ends toward the skidtrails (felling to the lead) to minimize disturbance and
yarding costs.   Skidtrails will not be located within Streamside or Wetland Special Management
Areas.  Yarding of trees within these areas must be accomplished by endlining, use of winch and
cable to each log turn.   Unimproved skidtrails should not be located across flowing drainages.
Improved crossings may be constructed  as long as earth material does not enter waters and
woody materials are removed immediately following skidding operations in the area.  Skidtrails
must not exceed  1200 feet in length.   The  pattern of skidtrails  will  disperse rather  than
concentrate runoff.  Drainage waterbars will be constructed  with appropriate spacing and
locations to prevent rilling and gullying of the skidtrail and for areas receiving the drainage.

       2.    Effectiveness

Depending upon the sensitivity of the area considering factors such as pe|JHit slope, amount of
area in  skidtrails, volume of timber yarded, soils, climate, runoff events, proximity to streams,
proper  location and pre-planning  of landings and  skidtrails should provide  85-100 percent
effectiveness in preventing sediment entry to watercourses immediately after harvest.

       3.    Costs
                                               Cost
       Landings

       Pre-planning and drainage design          $80-100/landing
       Construction drainage structures          $30-SO/landing

       Skidtrails

       Pre-planning                            $20/mile
       Construction, drainage structures          $40/mile

H.    MM No. 8 Landings and CaMe  Yarding

       1.    Components  and Specifications

Landings for cable yarding equipment will be carefully located and designed. Locations with risk
of landslides identified by a  qualified specialist (geologist, geotechnical engineer, soil scientist,
or hydrologist) will not be used.  Landings will not be located within Streamside or Wetland
Special Management Areas or located over drainages.
                                          3-18

-------
Landings will be no larger than necessary to operate yarding and loading equipment safely and
efficiently.  Drainage structures such as waterbars, culverts, and ditches will be constructed to
efficiently control runoff.  Slope of the landing surface will be less than 5 percent and will be
carefully shaped for efficient drainage.  Landing fills must not exceed 40 percent slope and must
not incorporate woody  and organic materials.  Landing fills  will  not slough or fail  into
•watercourses. If landings are to be used during wet periods, a suitable depth of gravel surfacing
will be necessary to prevent rutting.

Landings will be located where slope profile data indicate favorable deflection conditions for the
yarding equipment planned for use.  Profiles must allow only minimal area of yarding corridor
gouge or soil plowing. Such disturbed areas will be hand water-barred and covered with straw
mulch if the continuous disturbance area is greater than 450 square feet.

High  lead cable systems  should be used on an average profile slope of less than 15 percent to
avoid soil disturbance from side wash.  Skyline cable systems are suitable for average profile
slopes greater than 15 percent.  Yarding corridors for Special Streamside Management Areas
will meet Components and Specifications for these areas.   Yarded logs will not make  surface
contact within the major channel banks of the watercourse of the SSMA.  Yarding generated
slash  materials will be removed from watercourses by the end of the workday.

       2.    Effectiveness

Preplanning  of landings.and yarding corridors  for cable yarding should provide a range of
effectiveness of 70-100  percent  effectiveness depending  upon  the sensitivity of the site to
landsliding, based on such factors as  percent slope, proximity to streams, rock type, soils,
climate, runoff events, and the volume of timber harvested.

       3.     Costs
                                               Cost
       Landings

       Pre-planning and  drainage design         $80-100/landing
       Construction drainage structures          $30-50/landing

       Cable Corridors

       Pre-planning                            0
       Hand water-barring                      $5-30/corridor
       Straw mulching                          $30-50/corridor
                                          3-19

-------
I.      MM No. 9 Mechanical Site Preparation

       1.     Components and Specifications

Mechanical site preparation will not be applied to slopes greater than 30 percent.  On sloping
terrain greater than 10 percent, ground disturbing activities will be conducted on the contour
leaving slash windrows also on the contour.  The objective is to provide a seedbed or remove
competing  vegetation  species from  seedlings while  minimizing the potential for  erosion.
Mechanical site preparation will not be conducted within Streamside Special Management Areas.
Filter strips of suitable width will protect all drainages to prevent sedimentation by the 10 year
precipitation event for storms  of common duration for the climate of the area.  All slash material
must be removed from drainages by the end of the workday. Operation is prohibited during wet
periods when equipment begins to cause rutting or churning of the soil.  Windrows will be
located a safe distance from drainages to prevent movement of the material during high runoff
conditions.  Breaks in the windrows will  occur at regular intervals to equalize water levels on
both sides of the windrow.

Bedding operations in high water  table areas will be conducted during dry periods of the year.
Bedding areas will be located on  the contour or at right angles  to the direction of flow when
flooded. Openings in the beds will occur at sufficient intervals to avoid ponding and allow water
levels to equalize on both sides of  the bed.  Disturbed soil area between beds will be minimized.
Special care will  be used to prevent changes in the natural hydrologic conditions  of these
forested wetlands.

       2.     Effectiveness

The use  of this MM  should provide 80-100%  effectiveness in preventing sedimentation to
streams and in protecting the hydrologic conditions in wetlands.

       3.     Costs

The cost to conduct erosion  control practices during site preparation for forest regeneration
averaged about $62.00 per acre treated in 1990 based on national summaries provided by the
ASCS. In the State of Virginia Best Management Practices Handbook for forestry, the following
costs were estimated1 for the site  preparation:

       Activities                              Costs

       Prescribed Burning                      $16.00/acre
       Bulldozing or Shear Blading             $105.00/acre
       Chemical
             Ground                          $41.00/acre
             Aerial                            $38.00/acre
             Chopping                         $70.00/acre

                                          3-20

-------
             Discing                           $40.00/acre
             Bedding                          $24.00/acre

The following example costs for activities related to site preparation are USDA Forest Service
estimates from the Pacific Northwest:

Add 5 percent to the cost of mechanical site preparation for achieving these MM's.

J.    MM No. 10  Prescribed Fire

      1.     Components and Specifications

No prescribed fire for site preparation or forestry slash removal purposes will be conducted in
SSMAs. Prescribed fire in wetland areas should be carefully designed to protect wetland values
and prevent erosion.  Intense prescibed fire will not occur in streamside vegetation for small
drainages  where there is risk of sedimentation due to the loss of canopy and the soil binding
ability of vegetation roots.   Firelines  will be  constructed  outside  of  the  streamside  zones
protected from prescribed fire.  Intense prescribed fire on steeply sloping areas must not increase
the risk of  sedimentation to nearby drainages.  Prescriptions for prescribed fire will avoid
conditions requiring extensive blading  of fire  lines by heavy equipment.  Where possible,
prescriptions should rely on hand lines, firebreaks, and hose lays to minimize soil disturbance,
especially on sloping areas where firelines must be parallel to the slope.   All firelines must be
water-barred at appropriate intervals to prevent rills and gullies on the fireline and in the area
receiving the runoff.  Waterbars  should be constructed to drain runoff outside of the burned
area.


      2.     Effectiveness

Use of this MM to reduce  erosion related  to prescribed  fire should  provide  90-100%
effectiveness in preventing sedimentation to waterbodies in the area.  Variation in effectiveness
is due to slope, soils, intensity of the burn, runoff events, and climate.

      3.     Cost

In the State  of Virginia Best Management Practices Handbook for forestry, the following costs
were  estimated1 for the use of prescribed fire for site preparation:

      Activities                                      Costs

      Prescribed Burning                             $16.00/acre

The following example cost percentages for prescribed fire are USDA Forest Service estimates
from  the Pacific Northwest:

                                          3-21

-------
      Firelines                                      Cost

      Additional to protect drainages,                 Add 30-50%
        fall
      Reductions due to wetter                       Minus 30-50%
        conditions

K.    MM No.  11 Mechanical Tree Planting

      1.     Components and Specifications

Equipment will be operated on the contour to prevent erosion. Mechanical planting will not be
conducted within Streamside  Special Management Areas.   When crossing small ephemeral
drainages (drainages which only flow during storms or snowmelt), the plow will be raised until
the equipment passes well beyond the zone of flow.   Slits should be turned upslope before
crossing the drainage to prevent entry of slit runoff.

      2.     Costs

The cost to install forest tree plantations for the primary purpose of erosion control was about
$137.00 per acre in 1990 based on national summaries provided by the ASCS. In the State of
Virginia Best Management Practices Handbook for forestry, the following costs were estimated1
for tree planting:

      Activities                                     Costs

Tree Planting
      Hand
        Loblolly Pine                                $47.00/acre
        White Pine                                  $70.00/acre
        Hardwoods                                  $141.00/acre
      Machine
        Loblolly Pine                                $50.00/acre
        White Pine                                  $71.00/acre

The following are example cost percentage for mechanical tree planting based on USDA Forest
Service contracts from  the Pacific Northwest:

Add 5 percent to the cost of mechanical site preparation for achieving these MM's.
                                         3-22

-------
L.     MM No. 12 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas

       1.     Components and Specifications

The objective of this MM is to reduce erosion by the fastest revegetation possible. Revegetation
efforts will be conducted in the most efficient and effective manner economically feasible
appropriate to the area.  In humid areas during the growing season, grass and legume seeding
will be done immediately following the completion of the earth disturbing activity, preferably
within days after the activity has ended. Use of straw as mulch, hydromulch, lime and fertilizer,
wetting agents, jute netting, woven fabrics, etc.  will depend on the most successful mixes of
species and treatments for the area.

In dry areas during the growing season, it is most often successful to postpone seeding and
related treatments to just prior to the normal beginning of the wet period, often fall and spring.
Seeding done earlier would commonly fail due to the lack of sufficient moisture.  Late fall or
winter seeding often  fails  due  to  cold  soil temperatures inhibiting  germination,  and being
conducive to seed-killing mold and fungi.

Revegetation efforts should be concentrated on the largest areas of disturbance near waterbodies.
On steep slopes use of native woody plants planted in rows,  cordones, or wattles may be more
effective than grass in becoming established and binding the soil with roots.
Seed mixtures will contain plants with soil binding properties. Cattle grazing must be prevented
on newly re-established  vegetation plantings.  Seed selection should include natives where
possible, and  should consist primarily of annuals to allow  natural revegetation  of native
understory  plants in time. Exotic species which may spread to other areas must not be used.

       2.     Effectiveness

The effectiveness of revegetation to prevent sedimentation of area waterbodies varies from 40%
to 60% This variation and limited effectiveness is due to the period of time that soils are exposed
to rain and  snowmelt before vegetation is established. The period of exposure is strongly related
to the weather, climate, antecedant soil moisture, soils,  slope steepness, runoff events,  and
grazing by  animals.

       3.     Costs

The cost to establish permanent vegetative cover on critical areas for the primary purpose of
erosion control was about $140.00 per acre in 1990 based on national summaries provided by
the ASCS.   In the  State of Virginia Best Management Practices  Handbook for forestry, the
following costs were estimated1 for the use of prescribed fire for site preparation:
                                          3-23

-------
       Activities                                      Costs

Seedbed Preparation
       Lime                                          $19.00/ton
       Fertilizer                                      Variable- depending on
                                                     sowing rate
       Seed                                          $4.75/100 feet
       Mulching                                      $158.00/acre

The  following example costs for revegetation methods  are based on USDA Forest Service
contracts from the Pacific Northwest:

       Method                                        Cost

       Grass-seeding (hand)                           $50/acre
       Grass-seeding (helicopter)                       $100/acre
       Hydromulching seed and fertilizer               $ ISO/acre
       Straw mulch                                   $500/acre
       Jute netting                                    $ 1 ,000/acre
       Woven fabric                                  $5 ,000/acre
       Woody plant rows, cordon, wattles              $ I/foot
M.    MM No. 13 Sfrga111 Protection for Pesticide and Fertilizer Projects

       1.     Components and Specifications

Pesticides: Pesticides are used for many different purposes. Since they are toxic materials, they
must be mixed, transported, loaded, applied, and their containers disposed of with great care.
Their use must be prescribed for the appropriate pest after consideration of integrated pest
management (IPM) approaches. Application must be conducted according to label instructions
for the certified use. Applicators  must be licensed by the appropriate state agency.

Spray programs must meet state requirements.  For aerial applications this commonly involves
inspection of the mixing and loading process, nozzle calibration, and approval of appropriate
weather conditions, and spray area and buffer area monitoring.   Buffer areas for identifiable
flowing waters must be established and made identifiable for applicators. Accidental spills of
toxic materials into waterbodies must be immediately reported to the state water quality agency.
Spill contingency plans must be in place and include effective means to control spills to the
maximum extent practicable.

Streams must be sampled adjacent to or below application areas at time intervals to measure the
expected peak concentration  based upon time of application, travel  time, and  nature of the
material.  Sampling results must  be reported to the state water  quality agency  and licensing
agency.

                                          3-24

-------
Fertilizers: Fertilizers may also be toxic materials depending upon the concentration. Similar
planning, care in use, sampling, and reporting are necessary. Serious consideration of the costs
and benefits of fertilizer use in forest applications will be made.  Spill contingencies apply as
well.  Appropriate buffers for flowing waters  and aerial weather conditions will be properly
managed to prevent the entry of fertilizers into waterbodies.

      2.     Effectiveness

This MM varies between 95-100% effective in preventing entry of pesticides and fertilizers in
waterbodies.  While the consequences of entry of pesticides and fertilizers is high, the risk of
entry is low when this MM is applied.

      3.     Costs

In the State of Virginia Best Management Practices Handbook for forestry, the following costs
were estimated1 for control of the use of pesticides to protect water quality:

      Activities                                      Costs

Chemical application for Pine
Release
      Ground                                       $32.00/acre
      Aerial                                         $32.00/acre

The following cost estimate is  based on USDA Forest Service information from the Pacific
Northwest:

      Activities                                      Costs

      Planning and coordination                       Equal to
                                                     Application Costs

N.    MM No. 14 Petroleum Products Pollution Prevention

      1.     Components and Specifications

Planning to designate appropriate areas  for petroleum storage,  procedures and equipment for
dispensing, and procedures for spill containment and contingencies will be done.   Sites for
storage  and transfer must meet state and federal regulations.  Spills of fuels must be contained
and treated. Fuel trucks and pickup mounted fuel tanks must not have leaks.  Fuel storage and
transfer sites must be located sufficiently distant from waterbodies to prevent entry of petroleum
products should the storage tank lose its entire  capacity of storage.
                                          3-25

-------
A specified area  must be designated  for draining lubicants from equipment  during routine
maintenance.  The area  should  allow all waste lubricants to  be collected and stored until
transported off-site for recycling, re-use,  or disposal at an approved site.   Waste oil, filters,
grease cartridges, and other petroleum contaminated materials will not be left as refuse in the
forest, but must be transported to an approved disposal site.

      2.     Effectiveness

This MM is 95%  effective in preventing  the entry of petroleum products into streams. The
small percentage of failure occurs as fuel spills from leaking tanks or traffic accidents.  Leaking
of petroleum from moving vehicles cannot be completely eliminated nor can traffic accidents.

      3.     Costs
       Activities                               Costs

       Preventive measures                     $0 These measures are already required by
                                              state and federal rules and regulations

NOTE: Comments are solicited on all aspects of this section, and particularly on the amount
and the level of detail in this discussion.  In addition, comments on the cost and effectiveness
information which is provided or additional information which may be available elsewhere are
requested.  Additional or alternative management measures required to address a given practice
or pollutant source,  or which are more applicable to a specific region of the United States, are
also requested. EPA will be collecting additional information on management measures, and
their costs and effectiveness, during the revision of this draft guidance.  The contributions and
suggestions of commenters on these subjects will be welcome.

FOOTNOTES
       are in converted from 1979 to 1990 dollars using an aggregate cost index from  the
Engineering News Report, March 25, 1991.

REFERENCES

Commonwealth of Virginia.  1979.    Best  Management Practices Handbook - Forestry.
Virginia State Water Control Board, Planning Bulletin 317.

USDA.  1991.  Agricultural Conservation Program - 1990 Fiscal Year Statistical Summary.
ASCS, Washington, DC.
                                          3-26

-------
CHAPTER 4. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR URBAN SOURCES
              OF NONPOINT POLLUTION

-------
                                  CHAPTER4

MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR URBAN SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION

I.     Introduction	4-1

      A.    Urban Nonpoint Pollutants and Water Quality Effects	4-2
      B.    Urban Nonpoint Source Pollutants	4-3

H.    Construction Management Measure	4-7

      A.    Management Measure Applicability  	4-7
      B.    Pollutants Generated by Construction Activities	4-7
      C.    Construction Management Measures	4-7
      D.    Available Management Practices to Achieve Management Measures  .... 4-8

            1.    Practices Available to Achieve Management Measures 1 and 2  ... 4-8
            2.    Additional   Practices   Available  to   Achieve
                  Management Measures 1 and 2  	4-11
            3.    Practices Available as Tools to Achieve Management Measure 3 .  4-12

      E.    Erosion and Sediment Practices for Particularly Sensitive Watersheds  . .  4-12

      F.    Effectiveness and Cost	4-13

in.   Urban Stormwater Runoff Management 	4-15

      A.    Applicability of This Management Measure  	4-15
      B.    Problem Description  	4-15
      C.    Management Measures for Urban Stormwater Management	4-15
      D.    Principal Management Practices  	4-16
      E.    Effectiveness of Stormwater Runoff Controls  	4-16

            1.    Pond Systems (Detention/Retention)	 4-17
            2.    Infiltration Systems	4-19
            3.    Filter Systems	4-21
            4.    Source Control Systems	4-22

      Request  for Comments  	4-23
      References	4-23

IV.   Roads and Highways	4-24

      A.    Management Measure Applicability  	4-24
      B.    Pollutants of Concern	4-24
      C.    Management Measures	4-24

-------
             1.     Location and Design	4-24
             2.     Construction	4-26
             3.     Operation and Maintenance	4-26

      D.     Management Practices  	4-26
      E.     Effectiveness and Cost	4-27

V.    Bridges	4-28

      A.     Applicability  	4-28
      B.     Problem Description 	4-28
      C.     Management Measures for Bridges	4-28
      D.     Management Practices  	4-29

VI.   Household Management Measures	4-30

      A.     Applicability  	4-30
      B.     Pollutants Generated 	4-30
      C.     Management Measure	4-30
      D.     Management  Practices  Available  as  Tools to  Achieve the
             Management Measure	4-30
      E.     Effectiveness	4-32
                                                             •
VII.   Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems 	4-33

      A.     Applicability 	4-33
      B.     Coastal Water Pollution Caused by Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems .  . . 4-33

             1.     Nutrients Cause Eutrophication  	4-33
             2.     Nitrogen/Pathogens Cause  Drinking, Swimming,
                   and Shellfish Contamination 	4-33
             3.     Poorly Operating Systems Worsen Problems  	4-34

      C.     Management Measures	4-34

             1.     Phosphate Limits in Detergents  	4-34
             2.     High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures	4-36
             3.     Garbage Disposals  	4-36
             4.     Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems for the Removal of
                   Pathogens, Phosphorus, BOD   	4-38
             5.     Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems for the Removal of Nitrogen  . . 4-38

      D.     Other Practices that May be Used as Tools to Achieve OSDS
             Management Measures	4-40
      E.     Implementation	4-41
      References	4-41

-------
Vin.  Urban Runoff in Developing Areas	4-43

      A.     Applicability  	4-43
      B.     Urban Runoff Problems in Developing Areas  	4-43
      C.     Management Measures for Urban Runoff in Developing Areas	4-43
      D.     Practices Available as Tools to Implement the Management Measures  .  . 4-43

             1.     District Classification System	4-44
             2.     Environmental Reserves	4-44
             3.     Site Design	4-45

      E.     Additional Practices Available as Tools to Control Urban Runoff	4-45
      F.     Examples of State and Local  Implementation of Management
             Measures for Development  	4-46
      G.     Effectiveness and Cost	4-46

-------
                                     CHAPTER 4

 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR URBAN SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION

I.     INTRODUCTION

This chapter specifies management measures to abate and control water quality problems in
coastal areas resulting from urban runoff. Urbanizing and urbanized areas, construction, onsite
sewage disposal systems  (septic  systems),  highways, and bridges will be covered under this
heading.

It has  been well documented that urban sources of pollution contribute significantly to the
degradation of coastal and estuarine water resources.  The National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP), State 305(b) reports,  and the Section 319 Assessment reports all indicate that urban
loadings of sediments, nutrients and toxic substances to surface waters are significant and may
cause impairment or denial of beneficial uses.

Curtailment of recreational and commercial uses of coastal waters due to contamination from
urban runoff has been well publicized.  Land  conversion associated with the urbanization of
undeveloped lands has resulted in the loss  of vegetation  and sensitive wetlands, alteration of
natural drainage patterns  and the creation of expanded areas of imperviousness.  This loss of
infiltrative capacity has been correlated with increases in the velocity, volume and frequency of
stormwater runoff.  Mitigation and  prevention of this process is inherently difficult in
sources are diverse, changes  in water quality  may  be gradual and  cumulative,  existing
institutional frameworks often fail to address NPS pollution in a comprehensive manner, and
political constraints tend to limit the number of viable options for meaningful change.

Management measures appropriate to control urban runoff must address an array of pollutants.
As urbanization occurs, strategies must comprehensively address pollutants generated during all
phases of this process.   Management practices  or systems need  to  be  developed  for urban
sources of NPS which anticipate and adjust to these ongoing changes.  In such an environment,
a phased approach is often necessary  to prevent  and control each type of pollutant generated.
Planning and site design can be effective means to prevent and control nonpoint source pollution.
Both watershed and site planning can be used to (1) locate development away from sensitive land
forms which may be highly erodible or serve as natural filters for stormwater  ruooff and (2)
design developments to allow more effective or efficient control of nonpoint source runoff.  This
subject will be addressed in more  detail within the body of this section. To further illustrate this
point, where development or construction are planned, site  suitability evaluations are appropriate
prior to the planning and design phase.   As planning and design  occur,  best  management
strategies should assess the environmental effects of the project and identify practices or controls
needed  to prevent or mitigate runoff during  and after  construction.  During construction,
management practices should schedule activities to minimize site disturbance and  include the use
of sediment control measures and practices.  Finally, post construction measures should ensure
                                         4-1

-------
that proper operation and maintenance of control devices such as buffer strips and detention
basins occur on a long term basis.

The management measures presented in the following sections represent the EPA's preliminary
effort to specify the best practices or management systems to control urban sources of nonpoint
pollution.  Where possible, data on effectiveness, cost of implementation and operation and
maintenance has been provided. In the absence of readily available data, the guidance contains
examples or cites existing State practices, which are under consideration as best management
practices. The Agency is soliciting information both on additional management measures that
apply to urban problems and any cost or effectiveness data which is applicable to these or
previously  identified measures.  The  Agency will consider these and additional information
regarding costs and pollution reduction effects prior to publishing the final guidance.

Listed below are some of the major sources of urban nonpoint pollution:

       (1)     Construction on sites less than five acres in size
       (2)     Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems - septic tanks
       (3)     Households
       (4)     Roads, Highways and Bridges
       (5)     Golf Courses/Parks
       (6)     Service stations

As pointed out in the introduction, some of these activities may be required to apply for and
receive point  source permits. In such cases,  they are not subject to this guidance. (See the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System Permit Application Regulations for Storm
Water Discharges published in 55 Fed. Reg. 47990 (November 16, 1990) for more information
concerning point source discharges.)'

A.    Urban Nonpoint Pollutants and Water Quality Effects

Most pollutants enter coastal waters either as soluble forms or bound to sediments.  Additional
pollutants result from atmospheric deposition.  Data from both the National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) and the §319 Report documents that sediments, nutrients and pathogens are
the most likely pollutants to impair water quality and designated uses.  Heavy metals, oils and
grease, toxic organic chemicals and oxygen-demanding materials may also contribute to water
quality problems.

Volume and poEutant concentration in urban runoff affect the extent receiving coastal waters are
impaired.  Daniel (1978) found high concentrations of pollutants are generally associated with
the following conditions: (1) densely populated and/or industrial areas; (2) intensive storms; (3)
beginning stages of storms; (4) prolonged dry periods prior to a runoff event; and (5) drainage
areas with significant construction activity.
                                          4-2

-------
Some generic water quality impacts associated with urban runoff include: (1) rapid short-term
changes in water quality during and shortly after storm events which result from the discharge
of pollutants at relatively high concentrations; (2) longer-term water quality impacts on biological
communities and health associated with the discharge of toxic pollutants at lower concentrations;
(3) long-term effects associated with the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants into estuaries
and wetlands; (4) physical changes related to the erosion of stream banks and/or the creation of
sediment deposits  in near coastal areas; and (5) water quality changes associated with the
scouring and resuspension of in place pollutants.

B.     Urban Nonpoint Source Pollutants

Listed below  are  the principal types  of NFS  pollutants  found in urban runoff with brief
descriptions of their potential to adversely affect surface and coastal waters (Schueler, 1987).
Table 4-1 further  illustrates types and sources of hazardous urban pollutants (EPA, Urban
Targeting  and  BMP Selection, 1990)

Sediment:   Suspended  sediments comprise  the bulk of  urban nonpoint  source pollutants.
Sediment  has  both short and  long term impacts on receiving  waters.   Some immediate
detrimental impacts of high sediment loadings include: increased turbidity, impaired respiration
of fish and aquatic invertebrates,  reduced  fecundity and  impairment of  commercial and
recreational fishing.  High sediment concentrations may also cause long term effects.  Heavy
sediment  deposition in  low velocity  receiving  waters may  result  in smothered  benthic
communities, increased sedimentation of watercourses, changes in bottom substrate composition
and alteration of the water's aesthetic value.  Additional chronic effects may occur where
sediments rich in organic matter or clay are present. Such sediments tend to bind and transport
nutrients, toxic substances and trace metals. These enriched depositional sediments may present
a continued risk to aquatic and benthic life especially where the sediments are disturbed and
resuspended.

Oxygen Demanding Substances:   Dissolved oxygen levels are  critical to healthy waters.
Decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms depletes dissolved oxygen  (DO) levels in
receiving  waters,  especially  estuaries.   Data has  shown that urban  runoff with  high
concentrations of decaying organic matter can severely depress DO levels after storms (EPA,
1983).  The NURP study found that oxygen demanding substances are present in urban runoff
at concentrations  approximately equal to  those  in  secondary treatment discharges.   The
Chesapeake Bay Office is  currently recommending that DO levels not fall below  specified
thresholds for selected habitats (see Table 4-2:  Note, however, that Table 4-2 only applies to the
Chesapeake Bay and should not be applied elsewhere without adjustment).

Nutrients: The problems created by excess phosphorus and nitrogen loading to water bodies are
well known and discussed in detail in Chapter 2  (agriculture).   Accelerated eutrophication,
decreases of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAY) and toxicity to humans or wildlife may occur
when the concentration of certain forms of nutrients exceed a critical level. Surface algal scum,
                                          4-3

-------
    Table 4-1. Potential Sources of Toxic and Hazardous Substances in Urban Runoff
                             Automobile Use
                         Pesticide Use
                      Industrial/Other Use
Heavy Metals
     Copper
     Lead
     Zinc

     Chromium
Halogenated Aliphatics
     Methylene chloride

     Methyl chloride
metal corrosion
gasoline, batteries
metal corrosion
tires, road salt
metal corrosion
gasoline
Phthalate Esters
     Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
     Butylbenzyl phthalate
     Di-N-butyl phthalate
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
      Chrysene
      Phenanthrene
      Pyrene

Other Volatiles
      Benzene
      Chloroform

      Toluene

Pesticides and Phenols
      Lindane (gamma-BHC)

      Chlordane
      Dieldin
      Pentachlorophenol
      PCBs
gasoline, oil, grease
gasoline
gasoline, oil, asphalt
gasoline
formed from salt,
gasoline & asphalt
gasoline, asphalt
algicide
wood preservative
fumigant

fumigant
                         insecticide
wood preservative
insecticide
                         mosquito control
                         seed pretreatment
                         termite control
                         insecticide
                         wood preservative
paint, wood
preservative
electroplating
paint
paint, metal corrosion

paint, metal
corrosion,
electroplating
plastics, paint
remover solvent
refrigerant, solvent
                      plasticizer
                      plasticizer
                      plasticizer, printing
                      inks, paper, stain,
                      adhesive
wood/coal combustion
wood/coal combustion
solvent
solvent, formed from
chlorination
solvent
                      wood processing
                      paint
                      electrical, insulation
                                              4-4

-------
                 Table 4-2. Recommended DO Habitat Requirements
         Category
DO Value
 (mg/L)
        Specific Requirements
Spawning Reaches:
       Instantaneous DO
   5.0
All Tidal Waters of the
Chesapeake Bay for All
Seasons Except the
Spawning Areas and Times
Defined Above:
       Category I -
       Instantaneous DO
       Category n -
       One-hour DO
   0.5
   1.0
       Category ffl -
       Twelve-hour DO
   3.0
       Category IV -
       Monthly Average
       DO
   5.0
DO should not fall below 5.0 mg/L at
any time within anadromous fish
spawning reaches and nursery areas
during late winter through late spring
(February 1 - June 15).
DO should not be below 0.5 mg/L at
any location, at any season, or for any
duration.

DO should not fall below 1.0 mg/L for
more than one hour at any location or at
any time. Excursions below 1.0 mg/L
should not occur more frequently than
every 12 hours.

DO should not fall below 3.0 mg/L for
more than 12 hours at any location or
time.  Twelve-hour excursions below
3.0 mg/L should not occur more
frequently than every 48 hours.

Monthly mean DO should not be below
5.0 mg/L at any location or season.
                                      4-5

-------
water discoloration,  strong odors, depressed oxygen  levels,  and release of toxins are also
common problems.

Heavy Metals:  Heavy levels of copper, lead and zinc are the most prevalent priority pollutant
constituents found in urban runoff. The presence and concentrations of these metal is in some
cases high enough  to impact beneficial  uses and cause detrimental effects to aquatic life.
Groundwater sources of drinking water supplies may also be degraded or endangered by the
presence of heavy metals and nitrates.

Oil and Grease:  Oil and grease contain a wide variety of hydrocarbon compounds.  Some
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) are  known to be toxic to aquatic life at low
concentrations. The precise impacts of hydrocarbons on the aquatic environment are not well
understood.

Pathogens: The presence of pathogens in surface water may cause public health standards for
water contact to be exceeded and restrict shell fish harvesting.  Although high fecal coliform
counts have documented in urban runoff, the health implications are unclear where contamination
is not from improper sanitary connections or septic systems.

Other Pollutants: Other toxic chemicals are rarely found in urban runoff from residential and
commercial land use areas in concentrations that exceed current water quality criteria. Pesticide
concentrations in urban runoff generally  are near detection limits.  PAHs  commonly detected
organic compounds found in urban runoff have not been correlated with known problems. There
is currently a lack of data on industrial runoff to draw conclusions about the fate and effects of
related pollutants.
                                          4-6

-------
H.     CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT MEASURE

A.     Management Measure Applicability

This management  measure is applicable to all construction activities which  result in land
development or disturbance and are not subject to a requirement to apply for and receive an
NPDES permit [Note: All construction activities, including clearing, grading and excavation
which  result in the disturbance of areas greater or equal to  5 acres or are part of a larger
development plan are covered by the NPDES regulations].  Activities subject to this management
measure include, but are not limited to, commercial or residential development, road, highway,
airport and bridge  construction, landscaping and installation of underground storage tanks or
sewer/stormwater conveyances.

B.     Pollutants Generated by Contraction Activities

Construction related pollutants transported in  urban runoff,   listed in decreasing  order of
importance include:

       •     Sediment and paniculate organic  solids;
       •     Toxic metals and hydrocarbons
             (deposited from onsite equipment);
       •     Nutrients
             (applied to promote revegetation and site stabilization).

The major pollutant generated from construction activities is sediment. Sediment loadings from
construction sites may be as much as 100 times greater per acre than those from agricultural
lands and perhaps  2,000 times per acre greater than from undisturbed forestland (IEN p. 64,
Bergquist, 1986).  Exposed, disturbed and stockpiled soils are extremely susceptible to erosion
and transport off site. In general, downstream suspended sediment levels are greatest during the
advanced stages of construction when sediment delivery conditions are optimal (Schueler, 1990).

C.     Construction Management Measures

Management measures for construction consist of the following sets of measures.

       (1)    Reduce site disturbance and the detachment and transport of soil on construction
             sites  by disturbing the smallest area for activities, stabilizing disturbed areas
             within a  reasonable  time, reducing runoff velocities, and protecting disturbed
             areas from stormwater runoff.

       (2)    Control eroded  sediment on site such that off-site sediment and paniculate organic
             solids delivery is  reduced to or below the lower of either  pre-development
             sediment loadings (to the  extent practicable) or the acceptable soil loss  tolerance
             for agricultural lands.

                                          4-7

-------
       (3)    Reduce toxic and nutrient loadings to  pre-development levels (to the  extent
             practicable) by reducing the generation  and migration of toxic substances and
             avoiding excess applications of nutrients.

D.     Available Management Practices to  Achieve Management Measures

Listed below is a selection of state-of-the-art erosion and sediment control practices ideal for
coastal regions.  These practices are available as tools to achieve the construction management
measure specified in section n.C.

       1.     Practices Available to Achieve Management Measures 1 and 2

Practices for general use:

       •     Plan  development to fit the  topography, soils,  drainage patterns and natural
             vegetation of the site.

       •     Avoid mass clearing and grading of the entire site (e.g., use phased construction
             sequencing to limit the amount of disturbed area  at any given time).

       •     Establish vegetative cover on all disturbed sites where construction activity has
             been  interrupted for an unreasonable time.

       •     Configure site plans to retain the maximum area  of open vegetated space.

       •     Divert and convey off-site runoff around  disturbed soils and steep slopes to stable
             areas in order to retain sediment onsite and prevent transport of pollutants offsite.

       •     Utilize grading  methods which impede vertical  runoff and provide maximum
             runoff infiltration capacity.

       •     Implement a maintenance and  follow-up program for control practices including
             post storm event inspections of all control practices.

       •     Restrict the  clearing  and grading of all areas that will later  function as post
             development buffer zones.

       •     Locate large graded areas  on the most  level portion of the site and avoid the
             development of steep vegetated slopes.

       •     Reestablish vegetative areas that have been filled or damaged by construction
             equipment or activities.

       •     Conduct temporary construction and fill activities outside of floodplains.

                                          4-8

-------
       •     Prepare  an  erosion and  sediment  control  plan  which  specifies  location,
             installation, and  maintenance of practices to prevent and control erosion and
             sediment loss at the site.  The efficacy of this practice can be further enhanced
             by communicating the provisions of the control plan to all employees associated
             with the project and by designating responsibility for implemention of the plan to
             an individual certified in erosion and sediment control  practices  by the local
             authority.

       •     Use surface roughening (horizontal depressions) to control erosion and aid the
             establishment of vegetative cover.

       •     Avoid the placement of entrances on steep grades or curves.

       •     Protect inlets to storm sewers by suitable filtering devices during construction.

       •     Construct access  roads with grades less than 10%.

       •     Stockpile topsoil  and reapply it to revegetate the site.

       •     Use practices  such as benching,  terracing,  or diversional  structures  where
             development occurs on steep vegetated slopes.

       •     Physically  mark  off limits of land disturbance on  the site with tape, signs or
             barriers  to ensure preservation of offsite areas.

       •     Evaluate the need for extraordinary controls and, if necessary, implement such
             controls.

Vegetative Stabilization Practices  - Rapid establishment of a grass  or mulch cover on a cleared
or graded area at construction sites is the single most important factor in reducing downstream
sediment and can  reduce suspended sediment levels to receiving waters by up to six  fold
(Schueler, 1990).

       •     Temporary seeding - Temporary seeding may be the single most important factor
             in reducing  construction  related erosion ("New York  Guidelines for Urban
             Erosion and Sediment Control:, USD A - Soil Conservation Service, March 1988).
             Temporary  seeding practices have been found to  be  up to 95% effective in
             reducing erosion  ("Guides for Erosion and Sediment Control in California"- Soil
             Conservation Service, Davis, CA, Revised 1985).  For critical areas, vegetation
             should cover 90% of each square yard of disturbed area  to adequately stabilize
             soils.  Moderately sloped areas with fertile soils require at least 75% of each
                                          4-9

-------
             square yard of exposed area to be vegetated. (Pennsylvania Soil and Erosion
             Control Manual, 1983)

       •     Permanent Seeding
       •     Mulching - wood Fiber hydroseeder slurries are well suited to establish vegetation
             on steep slopes, in critical areas, and areas with severe climates
       •     Sod  stabilization - good sod  cover  may be up to 98% effective in controlling
             erosion (PA S & E.1983)
       •     Vegetative buffer strips
       •     Tree and shrub protection: fencing, tree armoring, retaining walls or tree wells

(See Chapter 7 for additional data on vegetative stabilization/filtration practices.)

Perimeter Control practices - Perimeter controls are devices placed at the edge or boundary of
construction site disturbance to:  (1) prevent sediments  from washing off site and;  (2) direct
surface runoff into a sediment trap or basin.

       •     Temporary and permanent diversions - "among the most effective and least costly
             practices for controlling erosion and sediment"    (North Carolina Erosion and
             Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, 1988).
       •     Grass covered earthen berms
       •     Silt fences or curtains
       •     Infiltration trenches
       •     Straw bales - When installed  properly straw bales can remove up to 67% of the
             sediment provided rotten or broken bales are replaced (VA Erosion and Sediment
              Control Handbook, 1980).

Trap & Basin Practices -  Sediment traps and basins are used at  construction sites  to capture
surface runoff of sediment during  storm events.  The sediment-laden water  is retained for  a
period or time to allow sediment particulates to settle to the bottom of the trap.  Current designs
of sediment traps and basins have been found to be only moderately effective.  Sattherwaithe,
found that for 2/3 of storms in the Northeast, sediment  controls were less than 50% effective.
In Maryland, current recommendations have been proposed to require traps and basins with 1800
cubic feet/acre of permanent pool and 1800 cf/acre of "dry de-watering storage".  This design
with a total volume of 3600 cf/acre will effectively treat 90% of the storms each year assuming
(1) a runoff coefficient of .5 during the most active stage of construction and (2) 90% of annual
runoff results from storms of 1.5 inches or less  (Performance of Current Sediment Control
Measures at Maryland Construction Sites, Schueler and Lugbill, 1990).

Super Basin Practices - Super basins have wet and dry storage equivalent to one-inch of sediment
per acre of upland watershed area.  Properly designed and maintained super basins can provide
reliable high rates of sediment removal for  most annual storm events.
                                          4-10

-------
Extraordinary and  Redundant  Control Practices  - Extraordinary controls  apply to  both
stormwater management and sediment and erosion control.

       •     Oversized devices such as sediment basins or traps
       •     Immediate stabilization of disturbed areas
       •     Inspections of erosion and sediment control practices following every storm event

(Note: For additional extraordinary practices, refer to section E.)

       2.     Additional Practices Available to Achieve Management Measures 1 and 2

Listed below are other practices which have varying degrees of effectiveness and can be utilized
in combination with the preceding practices to achieve the level of reduction specified in
management measures 1 and 2.  This list is not all inclusive.

       •     Riprap - use on or for.

                    Steep cut and fill slopes subject to severe weathering or seepage;
                    Channel liners;
                    Inlet and outlet protection at culverts;
                    Streambank protection;
                    Shorelines subject to wave action.

       •     Temporary construction entrance/exit - gravel buffer to collect mud and sediment
             and prevent tracking of soils offsite
             Vehicle washing in area with drainage and sediment trap
             Dune stabilization - vegetative planting
             Diversion  dikes  (Perimeter protection) - require immediate vegetation  after
             construction and stabilization of the channelized area according to flow conditions
             Grass-lined channels
             Riprap lined and paved channels
             Temporary slope drains
             Level  spreaders
             Temporary stream crossings (fords, culverts, bridges)
             Streambank stabilization practices - vegetative and structural including gabions,
             deflectors, log cribbing, reinforced concrete  and grid pavers. (Stream channel
             velocities for 10 year storm must be less than 6 ft/sec for vegetative stabilization
             to be effective)
             Subsurface drains
             Check dams
             Paved flumes
             Nets and mats
             Dust control measures - vegetative, sprinkling, wind barriers
                                          4-11

-------
       3.     Practices Available as Tools to Achieve Management Measure 3

Toxic substances and nutrients tend to bind to fines.  In most cases where proper erosion and
sediment controls  have been utilized,  heavy metals, hydrocarbons  and nutrients will be
immobilized. There is, however, an additional set of practices which can be utilized to reduce
the volume and concentration of floatable and soluble pollutants such as oil and grease and
nitrates.

       •     Provide sanitary facilities for construction workers.

       •     Maintain highway equipment and machinery only in confined areas specifically
             designed to control runoff (BMP  Handbook,  VA State Water Control Board
             Planning Bulletin 321, 1979).

       •     Use absorbent materials such as hay bales, cat litter and absorbent pads to collect
             and  prevent migration of pollutants.

       •     Store, cover and isolate construction materials, including topsoil and chemicals
             to prevent runoff of pollutants and contamination of groundwater.

       •     Spill Prevention and Control Plan - Spill prevention and control is an important
             element of a runoff control strategy. Agencies,  contractors and other commercial
             entities that store, handle, or transport  fuel, oil  or hazardous materials should
             develop a spill response counter measures plan.

       •     Maintain  and  wash  highway equipment  and  machinery in  confined  areas
             specifically designed to control runoff (BMP Handbook, VA State Water Control
             Board Planning Bulletin 321, 1979).

E.     Erosion and Sediment Practices for Particularly Sensitive Watersheds

Sensitive  watersheds may need  additional protection above  the level required  for  most
construction activities.  Consistent with other measures in this guidance, the watershed affected
and the type of resources needing protection will dictate the combination of practices which are
necessary.  Comments are solicited on the following  set  of practices and their suitability for
inclusion in the final guidance as a management measure for  particularly sensitive watersheds.
(Note: The Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program regulations define sensitive areas
as having the following features:  hydric soils or soils with hydric properties,  highly erodible
soils with high K values, steep slopes greater than 15%)

        (1)  72-hour stabilization requirement;
        (2)  Installation of double rows of silt fencing;
        (3)  Oversizing of sediment traps and basins;
                                          4-12

-------
        (4)   Immediate installation of infiltration practices with provisions to maintain these
             devices until vegetation is established;
        (5)   Innovative scheduling for paving vs. vegetative stabilization and implementation
             of infiltration practices to reduce thermal impacts;
        (6)   Minimization of cleared  forest lands;
        (7)   Establishment or protection of forested buffers along streams;
        (8)   Phased clearing operations;
        (9)   Installation of traps and basins prior to grading;
       (10)   Installation of turbidity curtains;
       (11)   Maintenance of controls following every storm-event; and
       (12)   Increased  inspection  intervals (once a week minimum;  the 1983  Maryland
             Standards  and Specifications for Erosion  and Sediment Control suggest daily
             inspections).

(Maryland State Highway Administration Chesapeake Bay Initiatives Action Plan, August 15,
1990)

F.     Effectiveness and Cost

Table 4-3 provides information on effectiveness, cost and applicability of some of the erosion
and sediment control practices discussed above.
                                          4-13

-------
                  Table 4-3.  Erosion and Sediment Control Practices
]j? Hi li
« w o o o o
• 0-40% High Level of Control
3 30-40% Moderate Level of Control
O 0-20% Low Level of Control
® Ineffective
• Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective
O Low Effectiveness
® Ineffective
• Directly Protects
3 Indirect*/ Protects
/~\ k|_ Rrntiei iillnn
{_j no fTuncDufi
® Not Related
• wwCww
ew-QOOO
• wwww •
S^Td 'ZSSZZf* • • Q ® • w"
• Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective /~\ ^^ ^> /O. /O> <>
O Low Effectiveness W W W X> ^ ^
® Ineffective
• Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective
O Low Effectlveneas
® Ineffective
Q0Q0OO
• Widely Applcleble
3 Applicable Depending on Site ^ ^ A A aaet A
O Seldom Applicable W W W W W W
® Not Applicable
• Low Burden
3 Moderate Burden (~\ A ^ /*^\ ^^ A
OHIgh Burden ^ ^ ~ ^-^ " w
® Not Applicable
• LongUved
3 Long Lived w/MsMensnce
O Shortlived
® Not Applicable
••Q®0w
• PosUve
ONeutrml O C^ A atk a* A
O Negative W W W W W W
® Mixed
• None or Positive
3 Slight Negative Impacts s~\ s~\ ^ A aak A
O Strong Negative Impacts at Some Sttn WWW WWW
® Prohibited
• Low
3 Modem*
QHIgh
® Very High
• Low
3 Moderate
OHigh
® Very High
OOQw ••
OQ«Q®«
3 Moderate f~\ ^ ^ A A A
Qtough V-X ^ ^ ^ W W
<3>V*ry Tough
• Simple
3 Moderate
O Complex
Oww* ww
• Can Be Deed Moderately In These Areas
3 Sometimes Can Be Used _ .... „ «m ^ «m
O Seldom Ueed V 09 W WWW
® Not Used

General
Nutrient Control
Shellfish
Estuarlne Habitat
Protection
Sedimentation
Sediment Toxics
Stormwater Control
Feasibility In
Coastal Areas
Maintenance
Burdens
Longevity
Community
Acceptance
Secondary
Environmental
Impacts
Cost to
Developers
Cost to Local
Governments
Difficulty In Local
Implementation
Site Data
Required
Water
Dependent Use
Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Draft, 1991
                                            4-14

-------
       URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT

A.     Applicability of This Ma^ag$mqnt Measure

This management measure applies to all urban areas other than those which are required to apply
for and receive NPDES  stormwater permits.

B.     Problem Description

Urbanized areas, or those in which development has altered the natural infiltration characteristics
of the land, experience increased surface runoff.  Land development alters the natural balance
between stormwater runoff and natural absorption areas by replacing them with greater amounts
of impervious surface.  This results in increased surface runoff at greater velocity.

As a result of increased quantity and velocity of runoff, greater amounts of pollutants are carried
in the increased runoff flow, streambanks are eroded, greater amounts of pollutants are carried
in the increased runoff flow, and  the likelihood of  flooding, erosion  and water quality
degradation increases. Moreover, streambank erosion results in degraded aquatic habitat.

Urbanized areas experience pollutant runoff loadings many times that of land  in its pre-
development state.   The principal pollutants found in urban runoff include sediment, oxygen-
demanding substances, nutrients, heavy metals,  bacteria & pathogens, oil & grease, and toxics
& pesticides.
                                                    a
C.     Management Measures for Urban Stormwater Management

       (1)   Limit the  creation of impervious surface and retain the appropriate amount of
             pervious surface in order to achieve optimal infiltration of runoff into  soil.
             Protect natural vegetation and drainageways.

       (2)   Limit disturbance of areas such as steep slopes and unstable areas.

       (3)   Control the first  flush of  runoff  to reduce  loadings of sediment and toxic
             pollutants, taking into account cost and pollutant reduction effects.

       (4)   Protect against streambank erosion by reducing  post-development  stormwater
             runoff peak flows.

       (5)   Implement source  controls  where   appropriate  to reduce  the availability  of
             pollutants to be entrained in stormwater runoff.

       (6)   Control the application of nutrients  and pesticides  to golf courses and parks.
                                         4-15

-------
D.     Principal Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for urban stormwater runoff management that are
available as tools to achieve the urban stormwater runoff management measure:

       (1)    Pond Systems (Detention/Retention)

             (a)     Detention devices:   Runoff is temporarily stored, then  subsequently
                    discharged to a surface water. Pollution abatement results from the settling
                    of pollutants during the detention period.

             (b)     Retention devices:  Runoff is permanently  captured so that it is never
                    discharged directly to surface waters.  Wetlands may often be constructed
                    in such devices to promote nutrient uptake.

       (2)    Biofiltration

             These methods accomplish pollutant removal by filtration, biological uptake, or
             trapping sediment. These controls comprise an infiltration system which not only
             allows pollutant removal but also recharges the groundwater through infiltration.
             These methods may also be incorporated as components of pond systems. (See
             Chapter 7 for further discussion of biofiltration)

       (3)    Infiltration Devices

             Infiltration  devices utilize various  methods for  removing the soluble and fine
             particulate pollutants found in stormwater runoff.

The devices or practices described above are the primary means by which to control the bulk
of pollutants iruuisan stormwater runoff after they leave the site.

E.     Effectiveness of Stormwater Runoff Controls

The best available procedures for urban stormwater management include both structural and non-
structural components and involve a combination of detention, infiltration and filtering devices.
Treatment  systems, rather than individual practices, will tend  to achieve the greatest pollutant
reduction goal.  Systems should include source control, stormwater management and riparian
protection to achieve the  highest level of effectiveness.

Stormwater treatment  systems are site-specific;  their effectiveness is  highly  variable and
dependent on many factors, including the following: contributing drainage area; the infiltration
characteristics of soils on site;  site topography; and available space for a treatment structure on
site.
                                          4-16

-------
In addition, practices or combinations of practices which are considered to be "best available"
in some or in many situations, may nevertheless not be the  most effective or economically
achieveable for a particular site, and may even be entirely ineffective for the  site. A system of
practices should be tailored  to a particular site  to avoid selection of  unsuitable practices,
maintenance problems, or failure to achieved desired pollutant reduction.

Table 4-4 provides a  matrix  that shows the relative suitability, effectiveness, and costs of a
variety of stormwater runoff treatment or control practices. A brief discussion of these practices
follows immediately below.
       1.    Ppmf Systems (Detention/Retention)

The ponds described below (and referred to in D(l) above) range from completely dry structures
to permanently  wet structures with various combinations included.   In addition,  wetland
components are discussed for their ability to enhance pollutant removal, create habitat diversity,
and provide visual interest.

Wet Extended Detention Pond - A permanent pool system containing a forebay near the inlet to
trap sediments  and a deeper pool  near  the riser.   This  pond system  provides  an optimal
combination of downstream channel protection and urban pollutant removal. Extended detention
wet ponds are generally the  most cost effective urban/coastal practices available for pollutant
removal and stormwater control.

Wet Pond - A pond system with all of its storage utilized  as a permanent pool. This system
provides high levels of urban pollutant removal through biological uptake from aquatic wetland
plant species.  In addition, a wet pond can be an attractive  community feature.

ED Micro-Pool - A dry  ED system  containing one or two small permanent pools for pollutant
removal. One micro-pool located near the riser protects the ED pipe from clogging. A second
micro-pool located near the inlet acts as a sediment forebay.  The micro-pool system  has a much
lower maintenance burden than conventional dry ED pond  systems and is a particularly useful
design for fingerprinting a pond into a sensitive woodland or wetland area.

ED Shallow Marsh - A system utilizing emergent aquatic wetland plant species as its principal
pollutant removal mechanism.   The ED shallow marsh typically consists of a 0-3 foot deep
irregularly shaped permanent pool, creating diverse wetland habitats in a relatively small space,
while providing moderate levels of soluble pollutant removal.

Shallow Marsh - A system with much of its storage devoted to a shallow marsh, this pond design
can consume a great deal of land area.  However with proper grading, design and propagation
techniques, this system can result in the creation of extensive,  high quality emergent  wetland
habitat. The shallow marsh can achieve high removal rates  of soluble and paniculate pollutants
through the biological uptake mechanism of emergent aquatic plants.
                                         4-17

-------
                       Table 4-4.  Stormwater Runoff Treatment/Control
                                All Can Be Used in Stomiwater Projects
                                                                                            General
• 0-40% High Level of Control
3 30-40% Moderate Level of Control
O 0-20% Low Level of Control
  Ineffective
                                                                   •••••QQ
                                                                                            Nutrient Control
  Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective
O Low Effectiveness
® Ineffective
                                                                                            Shellfish
• Directly Protects
3 Indirectly Protects
O No Protection
® Not Related
                                                                                            Estuarlne Habitat
                                                                                            Protection
                                                                                            Sedimentation
  Highly Effective
3 Moderate* Effective
O Low Effectiveness
® Ineffective
                            • Q«e
                                                                                            Sediment Toxics
• Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective
O low Effectiveness
® Ineffective	
                                                                                            Stormwater
                                                                                            Control
• Widely Applclabla
3 Applicable Depending on Site
O Seldom Applicable
® Not Applicable
                                                                                            Feasibility In
                                                                                            Coastal Areas
• Low Burden
3 Moderate Burden
O High Burden
® Not Applicable
                                                 oeood     OQ
                                                                                            Maintenance
                                                                                            Burdens
• LongUved
3 Long Lived w/Malntenance
O Shortlived
<8> Not Applicable
                                                 O^OQQ
                                                                                            Longevity
• Positive
3 Neutral
O Negative
® Mixed
                                                                   Q®
                                                                                            Community
                                                                                            Acceptance
• None or PosK>»
3 Slight Negative Impacts
O Strong Negattve Impacts at Some Sites
® Prohibited
                                                       OQ*
                                                                                            Secondary
                                                                                            Environmental
                                                                                            Impacts
• Low
3 Moderate
QHIgh
® Very High
                                                                   OOOOOQQ
                                                                                            Cost to
                                                                                            Developers
• Low
3 Modems
QHIgh
ig Very High
                            OOQ*
                                                                   O0OOOOO
                                                                                            Cost to Local
                                                                                            Governments
• Easy
3 Moderate
O tough
® Very Tough
                            OOQ*• •
                                                                                            Difficulty In Local
                                                                                            Implementation
• Simple
3Moderata
O Complex
®None
                                                                                            Site Data
                                                                                            Required
• Can Be Used Moderately In These Areas
3 Sometimes Can Be Used
O Seldom Used
® Not Used	
                                                                                            Water
                                                                                            Dependent Use
  Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Draft, 1891
                                              4-18

-------
In-Filter Dry Pond - An innovative dry pond system for sites having permeable soils that
promote infiltration.  Design includes stormwater detention, pretreatment via plunge pools and
grassed swales, and a series of infiltration trenches and basins.

Dry ED Pond - A pond system typically comprised of two stages: The upper stage is graded to
remain  dry except for infrequent  storms; whereas  the lower  stage is designed for regular
inundation. Runoff pretreatment is difficult to achieve with this pond system, and it is equally
difficult to prevent clogging of the ED control device.

Evaluation

Wet Ponds and Wet Extended Detention Ponds are extremely effective water quality practices.
When properly sized and maintained, Wet Ponds and Wet Extended Detention Ponds can achieve
a high removal rate for sediment, BOD, nutrients, and trace metals.  Biological processes within
the pond also remove the soluble nutrients (nitrate and ortho-phosphorous) that contribute to
nutrient enrichment (eutrophication). Soluble nutrient removal is achieved through a process
known as biological uptake where aquatic plants convert the soluble nutrients into biomass which
then settles into pond sediments and is later consumed by bacteria and thus removed from the
pond system.

Wet Extended Detention Ponds are most cost effective in larger, more intensely developed sites.
Pond practices normally require a significant contributing watershed area (greater than 10 acres)
to ensure proper operation.  Positive impacts associated with wet pond systems can include:
creation of local wild life habitat, increased property values, recreation, and landscape amenities.

Extended Detention  Ponds are  effective in  controlling  post-development peak stormwater
discharge rates to a desired pre-development level for the design storm(s)  specified.   If
stormwater is detained for 24 hours or 'more, as much as 90% removal of particulate-form or
suspended solid pollutants is possible.

However, it should be noted that extended detention ponds have the disadvantage of elevating
water temperatures.   Thus their use may be inappropriate in  some locations, such as trout
habitat.  In addition, care should be taken not to reduce base flows below levels necessary to
sustain the aquatic habitat.

       2.    Infiltration
The infiltration systems described below (and described in D(3) above) range in design from
stone-filled trenches and basins to permeable asphalt pavement.  All utilize differing methods
for removing soluble and fine paniculate pollutants found in stormwater runoff. To prevent
infiltration systems from becoming clogged with fine  sediment, it is essential to pretreat the
incoming  runoff.  Methods of pretreatment range  from filter cloth  to vegetated filter strips.
With pretreatment, infiltration systems can be an effective component of an urban water quality
practices.

                                         4-19

-------
It is important to recognize that infiltration systems create a risk of transferring pollutants from
surface water to ground water.  Therefore, infiltration systems should not be used near wells or
in wellhead protection areas or in  settings  in  which drinking water  supplies may become
contaminated.

Infiltration Trench - An Infiltration Trench works by diverting stormwater runoff into a shallow
(3-8 feet) excavated trench which has been back-filled with stone to form an underground
reservoir.  Runoff is then either exfiltrated into the sub-soil or collected in under-drain pipes and
conveyed to an outflow facility. Infiltration Trenches are an adaptable practice that adequately
remove both soluble and paniculate pollutants.  Infiltration Trenches are primarily an on-site
control and are seldom practical or  economical for drainage areas larger than 5 to 10 acres.
Infiltration Trenches are one of the few practices that adequately provide pollutant removal on
small sites or infill  development.   Infiltration Trenches  preserve the natural groundwater
recharge capabilities of a site and can often fit into margins, perimeters, and other unutilized
areas of the site.  A disadvantage is  that Infiltration Trenches require careful construction,
pretreatment, and regular maintenance to prevent premature clogging.

Infiltration Trench #2 - Similar to the trench system described above, this design accepts sheet
flow from  the lower end of a parking lot or paved surface.  Runoff is  diverted off the paved
parking lot through slotted curbs. The slotted curbs function as a level spreader for stormwater.
A grass filter  strip separates the trench from  the paved surface for capture of sediments. This
trench includes a perforated PVC-type pipe for passage of large design storm events.  At the end
of the trench is a grassed  berms to ensure that runoff does  not escape.

Infiltration Basin - Infiltration Basins are an effective means for removal of soluble and fine
paniculate pollutants.   Unlike other infiltration systems, basins are easily adaptable to provide
full control for peak storm events. Basins can also  serve large drainage areas (up to 50 acres).
Basins are  a feasible option where soils are permeable. Basins are advantageous in that they can
preserve the  natural water table of a  site,  serve larger developments,  can be  used as a
construction sediment basin, and are reasonable cost effective in comparison to other practices.
One disadvantage is the need for frequent maintenance.  In addition, infiltration basins have
sometimes failed because they were installed in unsuitable locations or soils.

Dry Well - A small infiltration system designed to accept stormwater from a roof-drain down-
spout. Rather than dispersing its stormwater across a paved surface or grassed area, the down
spout pipe connects directly into the dry well which filters roof top runoff into soils.

Porous Pavement - Porous Pavement is a permeable pavement having the capability to remove
both soluble and fine paniculate pollutants in urban runoff and provide groundwater recharge.
Use is restricted to low traffic volume parking areas.  Porous Pavement systems can receive
runoff from adjacent roof tops.  This reasonably cost-effective practice is only feasible on sites
with gentle slopes, permeable  soils, deep water tables and bedrock levels.  Requires careful
design, installation, and maintenance.  Although Porous Pavement has the high capability to
                                           4-20

-------
remove both soluble and fine participate pollutants from urban runoff, it can become easily
clogged and is difficult and costly to rehabilitate.

Evaluation

From a pollutant removal standpoint, Infiltration Trenches, Basins, and Porous Pavement have
a moderate to high removal capability for both paniculate and soluble urban  pollutants,
depending upon how much of the annual runoff volume is effectively exfiltrated through the soil
layer.  It should  be noted that infiltration practices should not be entirely relied upon to achieve
high levels of particulate pollutant removal (particularly sediments),  since these particles can
rapidly clog the device.  For these systems to be  effective, paniculate pollutants must be
removed before  they enter the structure by means of a filter strip, sediment trap or other pre-
treatment devices, and these devices must be regularly maintained.

In summary, infiltration systems can adequately remove soluble urban pollutants on smaller sites
(10 acres or less). As a practice for controlling coastal non-point source pollution,  infiltration
systems should only be considered as part of an integrated system of management measures.

       3.    Filter Systems

The filter systems described below (and described in D(2) above)  rely on various forms of
erosion resistant vegetation to amplify paniculate pollutant removal, improve terrestrial habitat,
and enhance the  appearance of a development site.  In addition, filter systems can improve both
the   performance and amenity value  of pond  and  infiltration  practices  via stormwater
pretreatment, and can be used in such areas as golf courses and parks  to intercept runoff and
prevent its entry into surface waters and coastal shorelines.

Grass Filter Strip -  Similar to a grassed  swale, but can only accept overland sheet flow. Filter
strips are effective when used to protect surface infiltration trenches from clogging by sediment.
Effective in removal of sediment, organic material,  and trace metals.  Should be  used as a
component in an integrated  stormwater management system.  Filter  strips are inexpensive to
establish and cost almost nothing if preserved prior to site development.  As  with all filter
systems, long-term maintenance (mowing, inspection for  short circuiting, etc.),  should be
included in overall costs. Grass filter strips are discussed in detail in chapter 7 of this guidance.

Riparian Buffer  Strip - Riparian buffer strips improve water quality by removing nutrients,
sediment and suspended solids, and pesticides and other toxics from surface runoff, as well as
subsurface and groundwater  flows.  The pollutant removal mechanism associated with riparian
vegetation combines the physical process of filtering and the biological processes of nutrient
uptake and denitrification. Riparian buffer strips are discussed in detail in chapter 7 of this
guidance.
                                          4-21

-------
Grassed Swale - A grassed, low gradient conveyance channel that provides some water quality
improvements for stormwater via natural filtration, settling, and nutrient uptake of the grass
cover. Often used as an alternative to curb and gutter drainage conveyance.  Grassed swales
affect peak discharges by lengthening time of concentration.  Can be fitted with low check dams
to increase removal efficiency via temporary ponding.

Sand Filters - A water quality control filtration system used to remove large particulates from
runoff and protect filter media from excessive sediment loading at stormwater quality control
basins.  Sand filters can be used independently or with a dry pond/basin element.

Peat/Sand Filters - A man-made soil filter system  utilizing the  natural absorptive features of
peat.  The system features a grass cover crop and  alternating sub-layers of peat, sand, and a
perforated  pipe underdrain system. Systems are presently used for municipal waste effluent
treatment and are being adapted for use in stormwater management.

Evaluation

Filter strips have a low to moderate  capability of removing pollutants in urban runoff,  and
exhibit higher removal rates  for particulate rather  than soluble pollutants.  Pollutant  removal
techniques include filtering through vegetation and/or soil, settling/deposition, and uptake by
vegetation. Riparian buffer strips appear to have a higher pollutant removal capability than grass
filter strips.  However, length, slope, and soil permeability are critical factors which influence
the effectiveness of any strip. Another practical design problem is prevention of stormwater
from concentrating and thereby "short-circuiting" the strip.

Filter Systems are an essential component of a comprehensive nonpoint source control strategy,
but should generally be used in conjunction with infiltration systems and/or pond systems,  as a
pre-treatment for runoff.

       4.    Source  Control Systems

Source control systems  reduce the availability of pollutants that can become entrained in
stormwater runoff.

Street Maintenance - Implementation of street-cleaning programs, scheduled on a regular basis,
can be effective at removing pollutants attached  to fine sediment. Street-cleaning should occur
on a more frequent basis  during periods of more frequent storm events. Street maintenance can
be effective in reducing the total amount of pollutant load which is carried  off-site by runoff.
Implementation of catch-basin maintenance and cleaning programs to remove sediment and
debris from storm drains is an additional practice.

Leaf & Lawn Vegetation Collection - Implementation of leaf and lawn vegetation collection
programs to reduce the amount of nutrient load in  stormwater runoff can be an effective,  yet
                                          4-22

-------
inexpensive management practice. Collection frequency should be increased during autumn and
spring periods of increased leaf fall.

Toxic and Hazardous Pollutants Recycling - Sources of toxic and hazardous pollutants can be
identified and programs to educate and inform citizens about how to control and recycle them
can be implemented.  Used motor oil recycling programs are one example of this management
practice.

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

In Chapter 1 of this guidance  (Introduction), EPA has generally requested submission  of
comments, information and data on relevant management practices, their effectiveness, and their
costs.  We also request specific comment on the following aspects of the urban stormwater
management measures:

1. One of the stormwater management measures for control of the first flush of runoff, does not
specify the amount of runoff to be treated or the length of time it should be treated.  EPA
requests comment and information on the costs and pollution reduction effects of specifying the
treatment of the first flush of stormwater runoff by detaining at least 1/2 inch of runoff from the
drainage area for 12-48 hours, depending on particle size and settling velocity. If this is not
feasible or appropriate, what management measure should be established for controlling the first
flush of urban stormwater runoff?

2. Another of the stormwater management measures calls for implementing source controls to
reduce the availability of pollutants to be  entrained in stormwater runoff, but does not specify
source controls for runoff from service stations.  Other, specific controls are listed in the section
on recommended practices. EPA requests comment on the costs and pollutant reduction effects
of specifying, in the management measure, service station runoff controls and collection systems,
including the control of oil and grease through appropriate disposal  methods utilized off-site.

REFERENCES

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, The Florida Development Manual: Storm
Water Management Practices (June 1988)

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Controlling Urban  Runoff: A Practical
Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs (Washington, DC, 1987)

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (September 1988)

USEPA, Urban Runoff and Stormwater Management Handbook (Chicago, 1990)

USEPA, Urban Targeting and BMP Selection (Chicago, 1990)

                                        4-23

-------
IV.    ROADS AND HIGHWAYS

A.     Management Measure Applicability

This management measure applies to new and existing roads and highways located in coastal
areas.

B.     Pollutants of Concern

The primary pollutants associated with roads and highways are:

             Deicing chemicals
             Vehicular deposits
             Erosion and sediment
             Herbicides
             Dust, dirt, and debris

In areas where deicing agents are used, deicing chemicals and abrasives are the largest source
of pollutants during winter months.  The major source of pollutants are from vehicular deposits
and runoff. (FHWA, US DOT, Technical Summary, Sources and Migration of Highway Runoff
Pollutants, Reports No. FHWA/RD-84/057-060-XX, June 1987.)

Table 4-5 lists the pollutants found in stormwater runoff from roads and highways and their
sources.  The disposition and subsequent magnitude of pollutants found in highway runoff are
site-specific and affected by traffic volume, highway design, surrounding land use, climate, and
accidental spills.  The major impacts of these pollutants can cause impairment to coastal area
surface and ground waters.

C.    Management Measures

The management  measures for roads and highways are devised to (1) prevent direct discharge
of stormwater runoff from impervious road surfaces into coastal receiving waters, and (2) to
minimize the flow of runoff to coastal  waters.

       1.    Location and Design

Locate roads and highways away from wetlands, critical habitat areas, and drainage channels in
the coastal zone, and to minimize cut and fill.  Design drainage systems to avoid direct discharge
into surface waters.  Additional management measures set forth in Section VHI of  this chapter
should be used where applicable.
                                         4-24

-------
             Table 4-5.  Highway Runoff Constituents and Their Primary Sources
   Constituents
Primary Sources
   Particulates

   Nitrogen, Phosphorus

   Lead


   Zinc

   Iron


   Copper
   Chromium

   Nickel


   Manganese

   Cyanide


   Sodium, Calcium, Chloride

   Sulphate

   Petroleum


   PCB
Pavement wear, vehicles, atmosphere, maintenance

Atmosphere, roadside fertilizer application

Leaded gasoline (auto exhaust), tire wear (lead oxide filler material,
lubricating oil and grease, bearing wear)

Tire wear (filler material), motor oil (stabilizing additive), grease

Auto body rust, steel highway structures (guard rails, etc.), moving
engine parts

Metal plating, bearing and bushing wear, moving engine parts, brake
lining wear, fungicides and insecticides

Tire wear (filler material), insecticide application

Metal plating, moving engine parts, break lining wear

Diesel fuel and gasoline (exhaust), lubricating  oil, metal plating,
bushing wear, brake lining wear, asphalt paving

Moving engine parts

Anticake compound (ferric ferrocyanide, sodium ferrocyanide, yellow
prussiate of soda) used to keep deicing salt granular

Deicing salts

Roadway beds,  fuel, deicing salts

Spills, leaks or blow-by of motor lubricants, antifreeze and hydraulic
fluids, asphalt surface leachate

Spraying of highway rights-of-way, background atmospheric deposition,
PCB catalyst in synthetic tires
Source:  U.S.  DOT, FHWA, Report No. FHWA/RD-84/057-060, June 1987.
                                                4-25

-------
       2.    Construction

Minimize construction debris and deposits. Cut and fill areas are to be stabilized to prevent sink
holes and erosion.  Additional management measures set forth in Section n of this Chapter
should be used where applicable.

       3.    Operation and Maintenance

Establish inspection and compliance programs.  Stabilize slopes in accordance with Section n.
Prevent herbicides  from  entering drainage systems.  Maximize overland flow  for runoff
containing deicing salts and abrasives to prevent direct discharge to surface and coastal waters.
Additional management measures for erosion and sediment control in Section III of this chapter
also apply.

D.     Management Practices

Following is a list of management practices for roads and highways that are available as tools
to achieve the management measures specified above. These practices can be used separately
or as combined systems and are applicable for new roads  and highways, and are also suitable
for retrofitting to existing roads  and highways.  See Sections n, in, and VHI for detailed
information on extended detention ponds, wet ponds, infiltration practices, filter strips, and
grassed swales.

In addition, the following practices can be effective:

       (1)   Washing and Cleaning-  Wash construction  vehicles to remove  mud and  other
             deposits prior to leaving  the construction site.  Construction vehicles entering or
             leaving the site  with debris  or other loose material should  be covered with
             protective tarps.  Construction materials and stockpiles on-site should be covered
             to prevent transport of dust, dirt, and debris. Install and maintain mud and silt
             traps.

             Sweeping  and  vacuuming road  surfaces  is  a practical means  of removing
             accumulated dust, dirt, and debris.  Road cleaning programs need to be effective
             at removing pollutants attached  to fine sediment.  Cleaning should occur on  a
             scheduled basis with more frequent cleaning during periods of frequent storm
             events. This reduces the total amount of pollutant load which is carried away by
             runoff.

       (2)   Restabilize Slopes - Eroded slopes and washed-out areas should be stabilized with
             newly applied vegetative cover, rocks or gabions.  Vegetative cover is preferred
             to reduce runoff and to filter/absorb pollutants.  Vegetative materials that require
             minimal maintenance should be used.
                                          4-26

-------
       (3)   Herbicide Controls -  Ensure proper  handling,  application,  and disposal of
             herbicides used to control weeds and other unwanted vegetative material.

       (4)   Education Programs - Encourage public participation through programs such as
             " Adopt A Highway"   to alert action to remove animal  debris and wastes, and
             call attention to abuses affecting the disposal of toxic wastes  such as waste
             crankcase oil into drainage  systems.

       (5)   Water Quality Inlets - Current designs of water quality inlets appear to have low
             to moderate removal rates  for particulate pollutants, and low to zero rates for
             soluble pollutants. Water quality inlets rely primarily on settling for removal, and
             given their small storage capacity and brief residence times, it is likely that only
             coarse grit, sand, and some silts will be trapped.  Inlets do show some promise
             in removing hydrocarbons, such as  oil, gas and  grease, from runoff.   Due to
             resuspension problems, however, pollutant removal can only be attained in water
             quality inlets if they are cleaned  regularly.

E.     Effectiveness and Cost

Effectiveness of each of the management practices identified, with approximate costs where
available, are discussed in the appropriate sections referenced above.  EPA intends to collect
additional information on effectiveness and costs of these and the additional practices identified.
                                          4-27

-------
V.     BRIDGES

A.     Applicability

This management measure is applicable to new and existing bridges with solid roadways that
cross coastal waters or their tributaries.

This management measure does not apply to U.S. Coast Guard-approved bridges that are
covered by Nationwide Permit No. 15 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

B.     Problem Description

Bridge construction in coastal areas may cause significant erosion and sedimentation resulting
in the loss of wetlands and riparian vegetation. Runoff from bridges may deliver considerable
loadings of heavy metals, hydrocarbons and toxic substances from cars and de-icing of roads as
a result of direct delivery through scupper drains into coastal waters with no overland buffering
or treatment.  Maintenance of structures can result in runoff and direct discharge of lead, rust,
paint, particulates, solvents, and cleaners.

C.     Management Measures for Bridges

The management measures for bridges are devised to control direct  delivery of pollutants to
coastal waters and reduce the pollutants which reach coastal waters in stormwater runoff.

       (1)    Site new bridges so that significant adverse impacts to  wetlands  and  riparian
             vegetation are minimized.

             Implement applicable measures identified in Development Section VIII.

       (2)    Design new bridges  to reduce the  amount of pollutants  transported to  surface
             water, where appropriate.

             Route runoff to land for treatment in accordance with management  measures for
             stormwater runoff identified in Section HI.

       (3)    Control sedimentation activities during bridge construction (especially on steep
             slopes at crossing).

             Implement applicable measures identified in Construction Section II.

       (4)    Control sediment from dredging.

       (5)    Reduce  the delivery of any pollutants  used or generated during maintenance

                                          4-28

-------
             operations (paint, rust and paint removal agents) to coastal waters by capturing,
             containing storing and properly disposing of work or waste materials. (COMAR)

D.     Management Practices

       (1)   Site bridges as far as possible from wetlands, sensitive areas  such as  shellfish
             beds, and critical habitat areas.

       (2)   Limit the use of scupper drains (which drain runoff directly into coastal waters)
             on bridges. Scupper drains allow runoff in the bridge gutters to drain directly into
             coastal waters (South Carolina Coastal Council Policy).

       (3)   Capture, contain and collect scrapings, paint, and sand blast material that could
             fall into coastal waters using suspended tarps, vacuums, or booms in water.

       (4)   Require proper disposal of wastes; prohibit the disposal of any waste material into
             coastal waters.
                                          4-29

-------
VI.    HOUSEHOLD MANAGEMENT MEASURES

A.     Applicability

The following management measures apply to households and workplaces.

B.     Pollutants Generated

Pollutants generated from households include:

       (1)   Household toxics - used oil, paint, solvents and pesticides
       (2)   Nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorus
       (3)   Pathogens - bacteria, fecal coliform and other pathogens

Municipal housekeeping and homeowner participation have been shown to have an effect on
water quality especially in areas of high population density (The Jones Falls Watershed Urban
Stormwater Runoff Project, 1986). Public education and outreach are crucial to the effectiveness
of these measures.

The main sources of household pollution are:

       •    Landscaping activities - erosion (see construction section)
       •    Lawn/garden care - over-fertilization, unnecessary herbicide or pesticide use,
            improper leaf management
       •    Household toxics - improper disposal of oil/grease, antifreeze, paint, household
            cleaners and solvents
       •    Pets - improper disposal of fecal matter
       •    Car/boat care - poor maintenance, washing

C.    Management Measure

Communities should establish and implement programs to educate, assist, and where appropriate,
require households and  workplaces to minimize the introduction of pollutants and  pollutant
sources into surface water or terrestrial areas in a manner that may result in runoff to surface
or ground waters.

D.    Management Practices Available as Tools to Achieve the Management Measure

The management practices listed below are principles and tools that local communities may use
to build household management programs to achieve the management measure in section VI.C.
These practices  are arranged by source and implementable on an individual basis.   These
practices, based on the principle of  source reduction,  are  self-implementing, reduce use of
materials and in general lower operating and maintenance costs to existing pollution reduction
systems:

                                         4-30

-------
(1)    Lawn Management and Landscaping

•     Reduce herbicide application and watering by mulching to retain moisture and
      inhibit weeds
•     Do not apply pesticides or fertilizers before rainstorms  or pesticides on windy
      days; reduce chemical lawn additives to bare minimum or use organic methods;
      test soils for nitrogen and phosphorous content before  fertilizing;  leave grass
      clippings on lawn to provide nutrients; compost leaf matter and other yard waste;
      avoid late spring fertilization; use manual or mechanical weed control  methods
      where possible
•     Prevent soil erosion - do not mow within 5 feet of water body; plant ground cover
      in bare areas; reduce disturbed areas as much as possible
•     contour lawns to avoid erosion, impede runoff and facilitate infiltration
•     limit amount of water  applied to lawns and gardens; water only when necessary
      preferably in the morning

(2)    Household  Toxics

•     Dispose of used paints, pesticides,  toxic household  cleaners and solvents at
      hazardous waste collection centers
•     Recycle used oil at designated service stations or collection centers
•     Soak up oil spills and other automobile fluid leaks with absorbent materials; place
      used material in municipal trash
•     Minimize use of toxic  cleaners, encourage use of biodegradable cleaners.

(3)    General

•     Refrain from placing materials down the storm drains; keep drains clear of foreign
      matter
•     Retain as much permeable area as possible; consider alternatives to concrete such
      as permeable pavement or flagstones
•     Use phosphate free detergents

(4)    Pet Wastes

•     Manage pet waste to minimize runoff into surface waters

(5)    Car/boat Care

•     Dispose of antifreeze down household drain while running tap water (this practice
      is not applicable for septic systems)
•     Minimize use of antifouling paint; dispose paint and paint scrapings at hazardous
      waste collection center
•     Use biodegradable cleaners

                                   4-31

-------
       •     Use absorbent materials (e.g., cat litter) to soak up household chemical spills or
             engine leaks

E.     Effectiveness

Pet waste control has been shown to remove greater than 50% of nutrients and pathogens
(Maryland Regional Planning Council,  1986). The Agencies solicit information on cost and
effectiveness of the above practices.
                                           4-32

-------
VH.   ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

A.     Applicability

This management measure applies to any residential sewage that is not treated or planned for
treatment in a centralized public sewer system. Onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS) include
conventional septic systems, large scale conventional systems, alternative and innovative designs,
and private sewage treatment facilities.

B.     Coastal Water Pollution Caused by Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems

Proper treatment of wastewater effluent with onsite disposal systems is an essential component
of coastal water quality protection. When properly sited, designed,  installed, and maintained,
individual sewage disposal systems can be used to treat most pollutants found in household waste
simply and effectively.  Treated wastewater  usually reaches coastal waters by groundwater
recharge or by groundwater/surface water interfaces.

       1.    Nutrients Cause Eutrophication

Nitrogen is generally not removed by  conventional onsite systems, and can therefore cause
eutrophication in coastal areas. For example,  Nixon (1982) found OSDS effluent to contribute
an estimated 12 to 44 percent of the annual nitrogen load to eight south shore coastal lagoons
in Rhode Island.

Under most conditions, phosphorus  tends  to be  attenuated quickly and effectively by soil
processes.  Except in sensitive waterbodies (including  fresh waters  and some fresher inshore
sectors of estuaries),  phosphorus presents less hazard as a transportable nutrient than does
nitrogen.  In sensitive phosphorus limited waterbodies, however, extremely low phosphorus
concentrations can induce eutrophication, and  concern is warranted.   For example, Sikora and
Corey concluded that phosphorus contamination of groundwater could be anticipated primarily
in sandy soils with low organic matter content, soil having high water table, and shallow soils
over creviced bedrock.  Systems in sandy soil near surface water bodies, therefore, are most
likely to contribute phosphorus loading  to receiving waters.

       2.    Nitrogen/Pathogens Cause Drinking. Swimming, and Shellfish Contamination

Many coastal areas depend on groundwater sources for water supplies, and are vulnerable to loss
of supplies to OSDS-related contamination.  EPA has established a drinking water standard of
10 mg/L nitrate nitrogen to reduce the risk of infant cyanosis or methemoglobinemia caused by
elevated nitrate levels in drinking water.   Improperly  treated OSDS effluent can also create
significant health hazards if pathogens (bacteria & viruses), which may be present in effluent,
contaminate groundwaters, saturated surface soils, or coastal waters.  Research indicates that
bacteria and viruses are capable of traveling considerable distances,  and that transport may be
particularly rapid in highly permeable soils.  Heufelder  (1988) prepared  an extensive review of

                                         4-33

-------
many pertinent issues relating to entrapment of nonpoint source pathogens in groundwater,
transport of groundwater entrained organisms in estuarine areas, and survival of viruses in
marine systems.  In many coastal  states, closure of shellfish areas and swimming areas, and
restriction of other beneficial uses, have been attributed to pollutant concentrations traceable to
improperly functioning septic systems within the contributing watershed or recharge area.

       3.    Poorly Oeratin
The degree of the problems can increase significantly in poorly operating systems.  In overt
system failure, soils can no longer accept effluent and sewage may break out onto the ground
surface  where it is transported  by drainage systems or overland runoff to  surface runoff.
Overland pipes  and  subsurface  drainage pipes, designed to prevent system flooding,  may
intercept contaminated groundwater  and discharge  contaminants  directly to  surface waters.
Hydraulic overloading(too much wastewater for  the  system to handle)  can  cause bacteria,
viruses, and nutrients to enter coastal waters via groundwater.  Often, both groundwater and
surface waters are vulnerable to contamination, due to coastal areas' susceptibility  to flooding
and sea level rise, high water tables,  and groundwater recharge of coastal embayments.

C.     Management Measures

Five management measures apply  to OSDS  in coastal areas.   The goals of the management
measures are to:  (1) minimize pollutants discharges  to OSDS; (2)  minimize the flow of water
to OSDS through conservation, thereby prolonging OSDS life and improving operation, and (3)
minimize or  eliminate the discharge of nutrients, pathogens (viruses &  bacteria), and other
pollutants from the OSDS into ground and surface waters.

       1.    Phosphate Limits in Detergents

       a.    Management measure

Detergents should contain low amounts  of phosphates.  Phosphate restrictions are already in
place in many coastal States, including the District of Columbia, Indiana,  Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin  (see Table 4-6).

This measure is especially protective of  systems located near where groundwater discharges to
the surface or that are failing/overloaded, enabling phosphorus to reach  sensitive,  phosphorus
limited embayments.

       b.    Effectiveness/Costs

The use of these detergents in place of high phosphate detergents is expected to reduce the
loadings of phosphates to OSDS by 50 percent (EPA, 1980). Cost should be  negligible.
                                          4-34

-------
                    Table 4-6.  Phosphate Limits in Detergents
State
District of Columbia
Indiana 1>2
Maryland
Michigan1
Minnesota1
New York1
Wisconsin1
Phosphorus (P)
Laundry Detergents
iS 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
£ 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
£ 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
£ 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
£ 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
£ 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
£ 0.5% by weight as
elemental P
Phosphorus (P)
Dishwashing
Detergents


£ 8.7% by weight as
elemental P
£ 8.7% by weight as
elemental P



Phosphorus (P)
Levels Industry

Img/L total P
effluent cone, at
discharges S
3,785m3/d (1MGD)
within Great Lake
Basin

Img/L total P
effluent cone, at
discharges ^
3,785m3/d (1MGD)
within Great Lake
Basin
1 mg/L total P
effluent cone, at
discharges ^
3,785m3/d (1MGD)
within Great Lake
Basin
Img/L total P
effluent cone, at
discharges ^
3,785m3/d (1MGD)
within Great Lake
Basin
Img/L total P
effluent cone, at
discharges 5:
3,785m3/d (1MGD)
within Great Lake
Basin
Sonzogni, William, and Thomas Heidtke.  1986.  "Effect of Influent Phosphorus Reductions on
Great Lakes Sewage Treatment Costs."  Water Resources Bulletin AWRA 22:4 (623-627).
Indiana Administrative Code.  1991. Cumulative Supplement.  Title 327 IAD 2-5-1.

                                         4-35

-------
       2.    High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures

       a.    Management measure

New or replacement plumbing fixtures should be high-efficiency. Plumbing fixtures in failing
systems should be replaced as soon as possible.

       b.    Effectiveness/Costs

Water conservation will help solve hydraulic overloading problems and reduce the cost of retrofit
management measures for system improvement and nitrogen removal. Modern, high efficiency
fixtures include:   1.5 gallon or less per flush toilets,  2.0 gallon per minute (gpm) or less
shower heads, faucets of 1.5 gpm or less, and  front loading washing machines of up to 27
gallons per 10 to 12 pound load.  These can  result in a 30 to 70 percent reduction of total in-
house water use (Consumer Reports July 1990 and Feb.  1991 and Krause, et al, 1990).  When
used in connection with management practices for new and replacement construction,  the
reduced flows save costs by reducing the size of new and retrofit treatment facilities, extending
the life of OSDSs, increasing performance of  existing facilities, and lowering costs of operation
for holding tanks. Cost savings have also been documented due to reduced demands for potable
water (Logsdon, 1987).  The cost is minimal,  especially for replacement when a fixture breaks.

       3.    Garbage Disposals

       a.    Management measure

Garbage disposal use should not be allowed when an on-site system is failing.  Garbage disposals
should generally be avoided to:  (1) reduce loadings of nitrogen to OSDS, and (2)  reduce
solids/BOD and decrease pumping frequency for septic/holding  tanks.

       b.    Effectiveness/Costs

The use of a garbage disposal contributes substantial quantities of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids, and nutrients to the wastewater load (Table 4-7).  As a result, it has
been shown that the use of a garbage disposal may increase sludge and scum, and also produce
a higher failure rate for conventional OSDS under otherwise comparable situations (EPA, 1980).
Also, most waste handled by a garbage disposal could  be  handled as solid wastes, either for
compost piles or trash pick up to public landfills.  The cost is minimal as other disposal options
are available, such as home composting and solid waste removal to municipal disposal sites.
The effectiveness would be to remove from the total household loadings to the OSDS about 28
percent of the BOD, 37 percent of suspended solids, 5 percent of total nitrogen, and 2 percent
of total phosphorus from entry into OSDS's  (Table 4-7).
                                          4-36

-------
 Table 4-7. Pollutant Contributions of Major Residential Wastewater Fractions  (gm/cap/day)
                 Garbage                            Basins, Sinks,   Approximate
   Parameter     Disposal            Toilet            Appliances        Total
   BOD5           18.0              16.7                28.5           63.2
               (10.9 - 30.9)       (6.9 - 23.6)        (24.5 - 38.8)

   Suspended       26.5              27.0                17.2           70.7
   Solids       (15.8-43.6)       (12.5-36.5)        (10.8-22.6)

   Nitrogen         0.6               8.7                 1.9            11.2
                (0.2-0.9)        (4.1-16.8)         (1.1-2.0)

   Phosphorus      0.1               1.2                 2.8            4.0
                                  (0.6 - 1.6)          (2.2 - 3.4)
Means and ranges of results reported by EPA, 1980.
                                        4-37

-------
       4.    Qngif g j^ewage Disposal System^ fpr Removal of Pat

       a.    Management measure

A properly designed and maintained septic system, with appropriate set-backs from coastlines
based on soil types,  should be  used  to achieve  almost complete removal of pathogens,
phosphorus, and BOD within the property line of an individual residence.

       b.    Effectiveness/Costs

Modern conventionally designed septic systems are composed of a building sewer, a septic tank,
a distribution box, and a drainfield or leachfield.  Most solids entering the septic tank settle to
the bottom  and are partially decomposed by anaerobic bacteria.   Some treatment of the
wastewater occurs in the septic tank, which is primarily designed to remove 30-40% of the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and most solids to prevent their entering the drainfield.
Periodic septic tank pumping is essential to preserve the capacity of the tank and prevent
clogging of the drainfield and premature system failure. Periodic inspections should be required.
The liquid effluent from the tank is discharged to a distribution box, which separates effluent
flow into approximately equal flow, for discharge to a drainfield  perforated pipe network,
usually  crushed stone  surrounded  by  native soil.  Once in the drainfield, effluent leaving the
perforated pipe network percolates through the crushed stone and moves downward into the
underlying  soil  material where treatment takes place.    Nutrients and pathogens  may  be
mechanically filtered out, microbially  decomposed, or chemically attached to soil particles. The
rate and efficiency of this treatment depends upon the characteristics  of the soil, depth to water
table, and the nature of  the wastestream.

There are a number of alternative designs which apply to areas of high water tables, sandy soils,
and other site specific factors.  Some of these are discussed below and in  the EPA Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Design Manual,  1980  - which is being updated.
Costs of a Septic System usually range from $4,000 to $10,000.

       5.    Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems for the Removal of Nitrogen

       a.    Management measure for OSDS in  existing development

Install Denitrifying Treatment Systems where appropriate to reduce nitrogen from existing onsite
sewage disposal systems.

       b.    Practices available to achieve this management measure

A number  of treatment systems,  two of  which  are identified below, are known to remove
nitrogen using denitrification, which is carried out under anoxic conditions by microorganisms
which convert nitrate to nitrogen gasses.  Most are in early stages of development and require
nitrification of septic tank effluents as an intitial part of the treatment process, because between

                                          4-38

-------
65%-75% of the total nitrogen in septic tank effluents is in ammonia form.  Operation and
maintenance of  denitrification systems are complex.   EPA  solicits cost and effectiveness
information on these and other systems to remove nitrogen onsite from sewage.

       (1)   Intermittent Sand Filters - The intermittent sand filter consists of a pretreatment
             unit such as a septic tank, a dosing unit, and a sand  filter with underdrains.  A
             sand  filter is an open bed of 2 to 3 feet of sand underlain by graded gravel with
             collector drains.  Dose recycling between sand filter and septic tank can reportedly
             remove SO to 70 percent of the total nitrogen. These systems can also treat BOD
             and  suspended  solids to less than  10  mg/1  and pathogens to  100 to  900
             colonies/100 ml. To meet the management measure for BOD, suspended solids,
             and pathogens a leaching field, either existing or new, must be included.  Costs
             from $5,000 - $10,000.

       (2)   Upflow Anaerobic Filter (UAF> and Sand Filter - The UAF and sand filter are an
             emerging technology which could provide nitrogen removal from existing onsite
             disposal systems. The UAF is a tank resembling a septic tank filled with 3/8 inch
             gravel with a deep inlet tee and a shallow outlet tee. Dosed recycling between the
             sand  filter and UAF has been shown in research to result in 60-75 percent overall
             nitrogen removal. This technology would have to be used between existing septic
             tanks and leaching fields  to provide equivalent removal of other pollutants.  Costs
             from $3,000 - $8,000.

       c.    Management measures for OSDS in new development

Use either a wastewater separation or siting approach to minimize nitrogen discharges from
OSDS in areas of new development.

       d.    Practices  available to implement this management measure

       (1)   Wastewater Separation with Holding Tank (Blackwater) and Conventional System
             (Greywater)   -  Wastewater  separation  consists  of separating  toilet  wastes
             (blackwater)  from other  residential wastes (greywater)  using watertight holding
             tanks, hauling the blackwater offsite, and treating of greywater in a conventional
             septic tank and absorption field.

             Coupled with elimination of garbage disposals, the waste separation with holding
             tanks for blackwater and conventional treatment for greywater is expected to result
             in a reduction of 55 percent of the BOD, 75 percent of the suspended solids, 83
             percent of the nitrogen, and 32 percent of phosphorus.  The remaining pollutant
             loadings in greywater,  except for nitrogen, will be removed by conventional
             treatment. The effectiveness of this measure is dependent on periodic inspections
             of the holding tank, routine pumping and hauling, and effective treatment of the
             hauled waste. The incremental cost increase in new construction will be for the

                                         4-39

-------
             additional plumbing, for which EPA, soliciting cost information, and a water-tight
             holding tank, which should cost about $1,000.  The costs to haul and treat the
             blackwater will be about $200/yr to haul it a reasonable distance plus treatment
             costs.

       (2)    Site Density Controls to Limit Loadings of Nitrogen to Coastal Waters - The total
             loadings of nitrogen from  combined OSDS can be controlled to the equivalent
             treatment level of the nitrogen management measures using low density zoning or
             other site restrictions to limit the number of sources in a discrete area under the
             control of one or more jurisdictions.

D.     Other Practices  That  May Be Used  as Tools to Achieve OSPS Management
       Measures

Many practices are available or being developed which could treat pollutants from  OSDS to
levels equivalent to those obtained using  the Management Measures above.  These include:

       (1)    WastewateiLSeparation and Hauling  for Existing Systems - Low volume toilets
             would result in pumping/hauling costs of 200 dollars per year (at $50 every 3
             months), but the high cost and  inconvenience for replumbing  residences to
             separate sewer lines is  expected to make this option less preferable than some
             practices discussed above.  Estimated removals due to separation and hauling of
             blackwater  (including elimination  of garbage disposals) will be the same as in
             S.d.i. above.  Existing conventional treatment for greywater would likely remove
             pathogens and the remaining BOD  and suspended  solids unless  the system is
             failing.

       (2)    Wastewater Separation and RUCK Systems - This system may be used in lieu of
             hauling  separated wastes.  A RUCK system is designed to nitrify blackwater in
             a buried sand filter and then mix  the nitrified blackwater with greywater in an
             anaerobic tank.  The greywater provides the carbon source  for  denitrification
             within the anaerobic tank.  Final disposal of the effluent is in a conventional soil
             absorption system. The RUCK system requires blackwater/greywater separation,
             tanks and a buried sand filter.  Supposedly, effectively treats  BOD, suspended
             solids, and as much as  SO  percent of the nitrogen. The Agency is soliciting for
             actual application and cost-effectiveness data.

       (3)    Holding Tanks for All Wastewater from Existing Systems - Holding tanks are
             most effective as controls for all pollutants but are usually too costly an option for
             existing housing due to the high  cost of pumping  and hauling.  A watertight
             holding tank of a 1000 gallon capacity would have to be pumped out every 5-10
             days at 50 gallons/capita/day and a family of four, even  with flow reduction from
             high efficiency fixtures.  At 50 dollars per load the operating cost is 150-300
             dollars per month.

                                          4-40

-------
       (4)   Elevated Sand Mounds - A mound system is a pressure dosed, absorption system
             that is elevated above the natural soil surface in a sand fill.  The general design
             configuration overcomes certain site restrictions such as slowly permeable soils,
             shallow permeable soils over porous bedrock, and permeable soils with water
             tables somewhat higher  than otherwise allowable by local codes.  This system
             consists of a septic tank, dosing chamber, and the elevated mound, and can treat
             septic tank waste effluent to  approach Primary  Drinking Water Standards for
             BOD, suspended solids, and pathogens. Nitrogen is not usually removed.  Costs
             are $7,000 with a septic tank.

       (5)   Evapotranspiration Systems  - Evapotranspiration (ET)  Systems combine the
             process of evapotranspiration from the surface of a bed and transpiration (water
             used by plants) to dispose of wastewater. Wastewater is given pretreatment by
             some mechanism, such as a septic tank or aerobic unit.  It then flows into the ET
             system for final treatment and disposal.  An ET  bed usually consists of a liner,
             drainfield  tile, and gravel and  sand layers. ET systems can be a viable means of
             on-site disposal where evapotranspiration rates consistently exceed rainfall.  A
             majority of the systems  in  use in  the United States  are combinations of
             evapotranspiration and soil absorption systems.   Properly designed, sited, and
             maintained, this system should provide no discharge of wastewater. Construction
             costs are expected to be high.  Careful inspection of the linerbed and periodic
             checks of  the ground water are required to insure integrity of the liner.

       (6)   Wetlands and Greenhouses - These are  new, innovative approaches which are
             climate specific,  delicate, and expensive to operate and maintain.  The Agency
             solicits data on design, effectiveness and cost.

£.     Implementation

Effective implementation of the OSDS  measure generally depends on formation of specific
wastewater management entities.   With adjoining  communities,  local governments should
consider adoption of joint wastewater management districts to complement inter-local facilities
planning   and community education for sewage and septage disposal.  Public education and
outreach can  effectively address the ineffectiveness and dangers associated with use of septic
tank cleaners/additives,  and disposal of paint/thinners  in OSDSs. Density zoning and similar
practices also become valid alternatives to these management measures when developed jointly
by districts that represent large coastal areas.

REFERENCES

Heufelder, G.R., 1988. Bacteriological Monitoring in Buttermilk Bay, Barnstable County Health
and Environmental Department, BBP-88-03.
                                         4-41

-------
Krause, Alfred E., USEPA Reg 5, et. al, 1990. Role of Efficient Plumbing Fixture in On-Site
Wastewater Treatment.

Lee, V. and S. Olson, 1985.  Eutrophication and management  initiatives for the control of
nutrient inputs to Rhode Island coastal lagoons.  Estuaries, 8:2B p. 191-202.

Logsdon, Gene, 1987. Reducing the Wastewater Stream. Biocycle, May/June, 1987, pp.46-48.

Nixon, S., et al, 1982.  Nutrient inputs to Rhode Island coastal lagoons and salt ponds. Report
to Rhode Island Statewide Planning, in Lee and Olson, 1985.

USEPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

USEPA, Office of Water, 1980.  Design Manual for Onsite Waste Disposal Systems.
                                         4-42

-------
    .  URBAN RUNOFF IN DEVELOPING AREAS

A.     Applicability

This management measure is applicable to areas which currently contain significant undeveloped
areas which are or will be experiencing development.  This measure is in addition to other
applicable management measures contained in this chapter that may apply to such areas.

B.     Urban Runoff Problems in Developing Areas

The problems caused by urban runoff in developing areas are the same as those discussed
generally for urban runoff elsewhere in this chapter.



Undeveloped areas provide the opportunity  for local communities to implement solutions that
are either unavailable or costly to implement in areas that are already heavily developed.  These
opportunities include the ability to apply siting criteria and processes, as  specified in section
6217(g)(5),  to  encourage development to  take place in a manner  that  is compatible with
maintaining  water  quality.  This section contains management measures that focus on those
opportunities:

       (1)   Maintain natural hydrology at both the watershed and site levels. In practice, this
             often is achieved by:  1) minimizing impervious surface area 2) protecting natural
             vegetation and 3) retaining natural drainageways to the maximum extent possible;

       (2)   Minimize disturbance of unstable areas: locate development on the most suitable
             areas within the watershed and within individual sites; direct development away
             from critical areas within the watershed such as steep slopes and highly erodible
             soils;

       (3)   Protect natural forms which contribute to beneficial water quality impacts within
             the watershed,  i.e., wetlands, forest areas and riparian areas; where possible,
             contiguous buffer areas within the watershed  should be retained.
D.     Practices Available as Tools to T^npl^ment the Management Measures

This section discusses practices that available as tools to achieve the management measures set
forth in section Vffl.C.  The key opportunity to protect water  from urban nonpoint pollution
occurs prior to development. Local communities and state and regional agencies have found that
pre-development protection can best be provided through the adoption of environmentally-based
decisions to govern the development process.  The greatest level of coastal protection is afforded
where a single development ordinance is adopted by a community, and administered by a single
                                         4-43

-------
authority within that community.   Practices available to the  regional and local authorities
include:

       1.    District Classification System

District classification systems can be used to direct heavy development away from sensitive areas
and assure any development in sensitive areas is limited in a manner that protects and sustains
water quality. The use of districting controls allows local authorities to address preservation of
critical areas necessary for coastal water quality protection and retain flexibility in planning
development.

       2.    Environmental Reserves

Environmental reserves include, but are not limited to, establishing  a comprehensive buffer
system for protection of environmentally sensitive coastal areas.  The preservation  of these areas
can greatly reduce the  detrimental impacts commonly associated with coastal  NFS pollution.
The following buffers and development restrictions are useful tools to help coastal communities
maintain the integrity of coastal environmental resources.

       (1)    Stream Buffers - A stream buffer is a  variable width strip of vegetated land for
             protection of water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitats.  Development should
             not be allowed within a variable width buffer strip on each side of  an ephemeral
             and perennial stream channel.  Minimum widths  for buffer strips of 50 feet for
             low-order headwater  streams  and 200 feet or  more for larger  streams,  are
             recommended.   Stream  buffers should  be expanded  to  include floodplains,
             wetlands, steep slope areas, and open space to form a contiguous system.

       (2)    Wetland Buffers - No habitat disturbing activities should occur within tidal or non-
             tidal wetlands and a perimeter buffer area (a 25 - 50 foot buffer is  recommended).
       (3)   Coastal Buffers - A coastal buffer is a variable width strip of vegetated land
             preserved from  development  activity  to protect  water quality,  aquatic and
             terrestrial habitats.  A  100 foot minimum buffer of natural vegetation landward
             from the mean high tide line  is recommended  to remove or reduce sediment,
             nutrients, and toxic substances from entering coastal waters.

       (4)   Expanded Buffers - Buffers should be expanded to include contiguous sensitive
             coastal areas which, if developed or disturbed, may impact streams,  wetlands,  or
             other aquatic environments. Expansion of buffers is a good practice whenever
             new land development or other disruptive activities occur.
                                          4-44

-------
       3.    Site Design

Site design  can be  used  to  identify  the  best site-specific practices  to  minimize  site
imperviousness,  attenuate runoff from development and also improve the effectiveness of the
conveyance and  treatment components of a runoff control system.  Two highly effective tools
are clustering and fingerprinting.

       (1)   Cluster  -  Clustering concentrates  development and construction activity  to a
             limited  portion of the site  while  leaving the remaining  portion undisturbed.
             Concentrating developed areas allows stormwater to be more effectively treated
             by a system of runoff management practices.

       (2)   Site Fingerprinting - The total amount of disturbed area  within a site can be
             minimized by fingerprinting development.  Fingerprinting can reduce impacts to
             surface waters by locating development outside of environmentally sensitive areas
             which buffer runoff or which  may  be more prone to erosion (steep slopes).
             Further  erosion and sediment control is achieved by disturbing areas only where
             structures, roads, and rights of way will exist after construction is complete.

E.     Additional Practices Available as Tools to Control Urban Runoff

       (1)   Floodplain Limits - Limiting development to areas outside of the boundaries of the
             recommended post development 100 year floodplain  will preserve streamside
             buffers necessary for biofiltration and generally eliminate any needed future flood
             protection.

       (2)   Steep Soils Limits - Slope restrictions help reduce erosion and sediment loading.
             Clearing or grading should generally not occur on slopes in excess of 25%.

       (3)   Watershed plans - Watershed plans identify existing or potential water quality
             problems within the watershed, define goals to address water quality problems,
             and specify measures or practices  to prevent or mitigate degradation of water
             quality.

       (4)   Environmental  Impact  Statements  (EIS)   -  An  EIS  identifies   significant
             environmental impacts from potential development,  including  water quality
             impacts, and provides alternatives to minimize short and long term impacts of the
             proposed development.

       (5)   Offsets - Structures or actions that  compensate for undesirable impacts. Offsets
             can be  a  tool to help communities minimize the construction  of impervious
             surfaces and provide other forms of water quality protection.  Methods used to
             meet this  goal include reduced side  walk widths, the use of porous or gritted
             pavement and the design of narrow-width roadways in low density residential development

                                          4-45

-------
       (6)    Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) - Localities may use the development of capital
             facilities, roads, and sewage lines and POTWs, to guide development in coastal
             areas away from sensitive areas which protect coastal water quality.  Localities
             can adopt CIPs which describe the location and timing for capital improvements,
             etc.   By establishing development  schedules, the  locality  finalizes  those
             improvements it will implement within a given period (usually 5 years). This type
             of development may provide incentives  to developers to cluster around these
             improvements and reduce development of critical areas.

       (7)    Wetland Protection - Tidal and Non-tidal wetlands are vital to the maintenance of
             water quality in addition to providing flood control benefits.  In  many cases, the
             establishment of a stream  or coastal buffer will have already  protected these
             important areas. (See the Biofiltration section of this guidance.)

       (8)    Forest  Protection - Forests filter runoff and  are a protective  land use which
             provides significant water quality and wildlife habitat benefits.  Where possible,
             tree-save areas should be large blocks and linked to the buffer system rather than
             small isolated  stands.   Studies have indicated that linked areas provide more
             effective sediment filtration and  erosion control.  (See Chapter 7 of this guidance.)
F.     Evampl^s  of State and Local  Implementation of  Management Measures  for
       Development

       Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program
       Oregon State Land Use Program
       Austin, TX Comprehensive Watershed Protection Act
       North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act

G.     Effectiveness and Cost

Table Vm.l provides information on effectiveness and cost for various environmental reserve
and site design practices.
                                          4-46

-------
                  Table 4-8.  Zoning/Land Use Effectiveness
STA
                           (A W (0 O M O
                                              OOOOOOODOOO
                                                                             U (0 O O O
                                                                                             General
• 0-40% High Level of Control
3 30-40% Moderate Level of Control
O 0-20% Low Level of Control
® Ineffective
                                                                             ww-w-OO
                                                                                             Nutrient Control
• Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective
O Low Effectiveneaa
® Ineffective	
                                              OO^QwOO
                                                                             QwwwO
                                                                                             Shellfish
• Directly Proteea
3 Indirectly Protecta
ONo Protection
®Not Related
                                              QwQwO
                                                                             wwwOO
                                                                                             Estuarlne Habitat
                                                                                             Protection
• 00%+High
O 0-30% Low
I
                                                                                             Sedimentation
  Highly Eftectto
3 Mod«r«t»ly Eftecttv*
                                              ooooooooooo
                                                                             ww-wQO
                                                                                             Sediment Toxics
• Highly Effective
3 Moderately Effective
                                                               oooo
                                                                                            Stormwater
                                                                                            Control
• Widely Applclable
3 Applicable Depending on Site
O Seldom Applicable
                                                                                             Feasibility In
                                                                                             Coastal Areas
• Low Burden
3 Moderate Burden
O High Burden
® Not Applicable
                                                                                             Maintenance
                                                                                             Burdens
• Long Lived
3 Long Lrved w/Malmenance
O Shortlived
® Not Applicable	
                                                                                             Longevity
• Poetbve
  Mbced
                             wQwOQ
                                              • • • 9999 9 •• •
                                                                             OOOOO
                                                                                             Community
                                                                                             Acceptance
  None or Positive
9 Slight Negettve Impecta
O Strong Negative Impecta at Some Stoe
® Prohibited
                             e» Ci •» Pi •»
                             WWWWW
                                                                             wQwQO
                                                                                            Secondary
                                                                                            Environmental
                                                                                            Impacts
ssr
  Very High
                                              Owoeoeeeooo     wOwoo
                                                                                            Cost to
                                                                                            Developers
  Low
8BT
®Very High
                                                                                            Cost to Local
                                                                                            Governments
• Eaey
3 Moderate
O tough
® Very Tough
                                              QOQwO wQ OOw9
                                                                                            Difficulty In Local
                                                                                            Implementation
  Simple
                                                                             OOQw-w
®None
                                                                                            Site Data
                                                                                            Required
• Can Be Ueed Moderately In Theee Areaa
3 Somedmee Can Be Uted
O Seldom Uted
®NotUeed
                             ^
                             vj
                                             • •
                                                               wwwO
                                                                                            Water
                                                                                            Dependent Use
        Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Draft, 1991

                                                  4-47

-------
CHAPTERS. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR MARINAS AND
             RECREATIONAL BOATING

-------
CHAPTERS.      MANAGEMENT   MEASURES  FOR   MARINAS   AND
                  RECREATIONAL BOATING

I.     Introduction	5-1

      A.    Nonpoint Source Pollution Impacts from Marinas and Associated
            Boating Activities	5-2
      B.    Sources of NFS Impacts	5-3
      C.    Federal Programs that Apply to Marinas and Recreational Boating	5-4
      D.    State Programs	5-5
      £.    Management Measures	5-5
      F.    Applicability of Management Measures	5-6

n.    Management Measures for Marina Siting 	5-6

      A.    Environmental  Concerns	5-6
      B.    Management Measures	5-7
      C.    Marina Siting Practices	5-8

            1.    Water Quality	5-8
            2.    Wetlands	5-19
            3.    Submerged Aquatic Vegetation	5-19
            4.    Benthic  Resources  	5-19
            5.    Critical  Habitats	5-19
            6.    Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal  	5-19
            7.    Water Supply  	5-20

      D.    Pollutant Reductions and Costs	5-21

ffl.   Management Measures for the Design of Marinas	 5-21

      A.    Environmental  Concerns	5-21
      B.    Management Measures	5-22
      C.    Marina Design  Practices	5-22

            1.    Shoreline Protection and Basin Design	5-23
            2.    Navigation and Access Channels	5-23
            3.    Wastewater Facilities	5-24
            4.    Stormwater Management 	5-25
            5.    Dry Boat Storage	5-26
            6.    Boat Maintenance Areas	5-26
            7.    Fuel Storage and Delivery Facilities  	5-26
            8.    Piers  and Dock Systems	5-27

      D.    Pollutant Reductions and Costs	5-27

-------
IV.   Management Measures for Operations and Maintenance of Marinas and Boats .  . 5-28

      A.     Environmental Concerns	5-28
      B.     Management Measures	5-28
      C.     Marina Operation and Maintenance Practices  	5-29

             1.     Fish Wastes  	5-29
             2.     Boat Maintenance Areas	5-30

      D.     Pollutant Reductions and Costs	5-33

V.    Recommendations for State Programs to Implement Management Measures for
      Marinas and Recreational Boating	5-33

      A.     Management Process	5-34
      B.     Public Education	5-34

      References	5-35

-------
                                    CHAPTERS

  MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING


I.     INTRODUCTION

Properly designed and operated marinas can reduce impacts to the marine environment, as well
as benefit the boating public.  Many NFS impacts of boats can more easily be prevented and
contained at the centralized site a marina provides, than at individual docks and moorings.
Denying opportunities for marina development does not necessarily prevent  NFS  impacts.
Ensuring the best possible siting for marinas, as well as best available design and construction
practices and ensuring appropriate marina and boating operations and maintenance procedures
can greatly reduce NFS pollution from marinas.

The management measures or systems of best management practices described in this chapter
are designed  to reduce NFS pollution  from marinas  and  recreational  boating.  Effective
implementation will:

       •     Prevent the introduction of nonpoint source pollutants (or impacts) at the source
             and/or,

       •     Reduce the delivery of pollutants from the  source to water resources.

This chapter specifies the management measures  (in Sections IH.B., IV.B.,  and V.B.) that
represent the best systems of practices available to prevent NFS pollution from marinas and
recreational boating or reduce NFS pollutant delivery from these sources to coastal waters.  The
management measures are grouped  in three categories:  siting (ffl.B.), design (IV.B.), and
operation  and  maintenance  (V.B.).   For each  of these three  categories,  following the
management measures, the guidance provides information on a variety of practices that may be
used as  tools  to accomplish the management measures.  An attempt  is also made to identify
effectiveness of these measures, or performance goals that can be achieved by these measures.
Comments  are  welcome  on the  composition, effectiveness  and  cost of  these management
measures.

It is expected that each coastal State's decision on implementation of these management measures
will  be  based  on the management strategy  developed as part of its vision  for the future.
Pollution prevention should be at the fore of any such  strategy.  Hence, while flexibility is a
keystone we  expect  that  all States will need a process for State or local-level review/
management of environmental impacts from marinas and  recreational boating.

A site selection process based upon a clear understanding of potential water quality impacts is
the most important  factor for avoidance of NFS pollution  from marina  development and
operation.  Determination of potential water quality impacts as part of the marina siting process
can avoid NFS pollution impacts and degradation of the water  body, also protecting designated
uses.
                                         5-1

-------
A.  Nonpoint Source Pollution Impacts from Marinas and Associated Boating Activities

Nonpoint pollution from marinas and recreational boating activities may result in detectable
adverse environmental effects to nearby water column and benthic resources.  These impacts can
be caused by physical and chemical disturbances.  A few important examples of these impacts
include:

       •      Toxicity in the water column, both lethal and sublethal, related to decreased
              levels of  dissolved  oxygen  and  elevated levels of  metals  and  petroleum
              hydrocarbons,

       •      Increased levels of metals and organic chemicals in the tissues of organisms such
              as algae, oysters, mussels or other filter feeders,

       •      Increased levels of pollutants in sediments resulting in toxicity or avoidance of the
              area by benthic organisms,

       •      Levels of pathogen indicators that result  in  shellfish bed  or swimming area
              closure,

       •      Disruption of the bottom during dredging and positioning of pilings may destroy
              habitat, resuspend  bottom sediment  (resulting in the re-introduction  of toxic
              substances into the water column),  and increase turbidity  which affects the
              photosynthetic activity of algae and estuarine vegetation, and

       •      Shoaling, and shoreline and shallow area erosion due to bulkheading, motorboat
              wake, or changes in circulation.

Degradation of the nearby biological community and sediment should also be considered during
the process of assessing NFS pollution impacts from marina development and operation. (EPA
is developing methods for assessing risks associated  with toxic substances in sediments and
standardized  bioassays to assess chronic  effects and bioaccumulation resulting from sediment
contamination. Guidance for the development of biological and wildlife criteria are also being
developed by EPA.) Following is a list of specific pollutants  and measures of pollution, as well
as affected communities that  should be considered in siting a marina:

       (1)    Chemical
              (a)    dissolved oxygen (DO)
              (b)    nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
              (c)    pathogens (coliform as indicator)
              (d)    metals  (copper, lead, tin)
              (e)    petroleum hydrocarbons
              (f)    total suspended solids

                                          5-2

-------
             (g)    biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

       (2)    Biological
             (a)    endangered species
             (b)    bird rookeries
             (c)    benthos
             (d)    fish, shellfish and corals
             (e)    submerged aquatic vegetation
             (f)    wetlands

       (3)    Sediments
             (a)    contaminated sediments (criteria under development)
             (b)    turbidity
B.  Sources of NFS Impacts

Some sources at marinas are point sources. These include sewage discharges, both from marinas
and from boats, and stormwater discharges.  In addition, an entire marina may be potentially
be required to apply for and receive permits under the NPDES stormwater permit program,  to
the extent they are required to do so, they are not  covered  by the coastal nonpoint  source
pollution control program. However, many marinas are not currently required to apply for and
receive NPDES permits.  The nonpoint source pollution control program and these management
measures guidelines are applicable to these marinas. Similarly, some aspects of marina dredging
may be  subject to the section 404 permits for the discharge of dredge and fill material.  This
guidance is not applicable to dredging subject to section 404 permit requirements.   There are
essentially three source categories of marina and boating operations that may cause nonpoint
pollution:

      (1)    Marina Construction

      (2)    Marina and boat operation, repair, and maintenance

      (3)    Dredging and dredge disposal

The most important step in controlling the impacts of these source  categories is appropriate
marina siting.  Marinas should be sited adjacent to deep waters, in locations where flushing is
adequate to avoid shoaling and contamination problems, and where effects on important  habitat
are minimized.

Runoff from marina construction activities is similar to that of any type of urban development.
(See discussion under appropriate chapter for management measures.)  Installment of pilings can
cause considerable turbidity (as  well as possible contaminant resuspension), impairing
                                          5-3

-------
photosynthesis and harming benthos.  Dredging during construction has essentially the same
effects as dredging for maintenance, as discussed below.

Day-to-day marina operation can be a source of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces,
including car parking lots and buildings and sanitary and greywater disposal on land (e.g.,
poorly functioning or overloaded septic systems in sandy coastal soils).  Contaminants from
land-side boat maintenance projects, including hull scraping, sanding,  welding, painting  and
varnishing can be carried in stormwater runoff or by air.

Boat maintenance that occurs in the water will be a direct source of contaminants (as described
above). Chemicals, such as chromated copper arsenic-, copper- and tributyltin-based antifouling
paints used to protect boats and wooden docks from destruction and fouling, may leach heavy
metals directly into surrounding waters.  Debris lost or thrown overboard is another problem
area.

Concerns related to boat operation include fueling operations, bilge water discharge, accidental
fuel or oil spills, propwash within channels (causing turbidity and resuspension of possible
contaminated sediments) and shoreline erosion due to motorboat wake. Disposal of sanitary
wastes, both legal and illegal (both from boats fitted with marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and
those without), and discharge of greywater are other sources.

Another category of NPS pollution from marinas is dredging.  For the purposes of this chapter,
only the dredging within the marina itself and dredging to ensure access from the marina to the
channel is discussed.

Dredging disturbs bottom habitat communities temporarily, increases turbidity    (possibly
disrupting photosynthetic activity), and may  resuspend contaminated sediments.   Disposal of
dredged material in shallow water or in wetlands may smother habitat, contaminate sites and
increase turbidity.

Some of the most visible controversy associated with recreational boating deals with the disposal
of sanitary wastes.  As a source of fresh pathogen pollution, untreated sewage discharges from
boats have a greater potential for the presence and survival of disease-causing  organisms than
do  discharges from treated municipal sewage sources.  However, boats are considered point
sources under the CWA, and sewage discharges from boats are regulated under section 312 of
the CWA.

C.  Federal Programs that Apply to Marinas and Recreational Boating

The siting and permitting process which marinas are subject to varies from State to State.  State
and Federal agencies both play a role in this process.  Boats are not required to be equipped
with a MSD.  However, if a boat does have a MSD,  the MSD has to meet certain  standards.
Section 312 of the CWA required EPA to develop standards for MSD discharges to prevent the
discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the

                                           5-4

-------
U.S. from new and existing vessels.  To meet those standards, the CWA required the Coast
Guard to promulgate regulations governing design, construction, installation, and use of MSDs.
Management measures to address regulated MSDs will not be a part of this chapter, since they
are already regulated under the CWA. However, sanitary wastes will be included in regard to
siting and design of marinas.  In addition to EPA standards for MSDs, EPA may allow a State
to prohibit all discharges (treated or untreated) from marine toilets, thus declaring the area a "No
Discharge Zone."  Any  State may petition the EPA Administrator for a "No Discharge Zone"
to be designated in some or all of the waters of the state.  However, EPA must ensure these
waters  meet certain tests before considering granting the petition.

Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
regulates all work and structures in navigable waters of the United States.  Under Section 404
of the  CWA, COE permits  are issued  or denied  to regulate discharges of dredged  or fill
materials in navigable waters of the United States including wetlands.  Guidelines which the
COE applies in evaluating disposal sites for dredged or fill material are developed by EPA. The
expressed goal of the 404 program is to protect water quality, aquatic resources and wetlands.

The Food and Drug Administration has established fecal coliform standards for certified shellfish
growing waters.  Shellfish cannot be harvested in waters with fecal coliform counts of 14/100
ml  or higher.  Each coastal State  regulates its  own shellfish sanitation program under the
voluntary National Shellfish Sanitation Program.  States must participate if they wish to export
shellfish across State lines.  Various approaches are used to comply.

D.  State Programs

Some States issue separate  dredge and fill,  marshlands or wetlands permits for marina
developments, while other  States  review Federal permit applications and do  not issue State
permits.  All States with Federally approved coastal programs have the authority to object to
Section 10/Section 404 permits if the  proposed action is inconsistent with the  State's Coastal
Zone Management Program.  Some States require permits for  the use of State water
bottomlands.  All States have authority under the Clean Water Act to issue Section 401 water
quality certifications for Federally permitted actions  as part  of their water quality standards
program.

Some States also have a State coastal zone management permit providing them authority over
development activities in areas located within their defined coastal zone.  Alternatively, or in
addition to this permitting authority, some States have regulatory planning  authority  in given
areas of the coast,  allowing them to affect the siting of marinas, if not their actual design and
construction.

£.  Management Measures

Control of NFS pollution from marinas and recreational boating requires the combination and
coordination of many management measures: siting and design considerations, implementation

                                         5-5

-------
of operation and maintenance plans, and public education.  Management measures for marinas
and recreational boating are organized under the following activities:

       •     Siting,

       •     Design, and

       •     Operation and maintenance.

As with all other management measures in this guidance, there may be more than one way to
achieve the  same or better pollutant reduction than achieved with the specified management
measure.  Approaches that  equal or exceed  the performance of the specified management
measures, without resulting in harmful side effects, are for purposes of this guidance considered
as alternative management measures.

F.  Applicability of Management Measures

These management measures are applicable to:

       •     Any commercial facility which contains five or more slips, or any facility where
             a boat for hire is docked, or a boat maintenance/repair yard that is on or adjacent
             to the water.

       •     Any residential or planned community marina with ten or more slips.

       •     Public or commercial boat ramps.

       •     Any mooring field where 10 or more boats are anchored on  a regular basis.

       •     Any Federal, State, or local facility that involves docking of five or more boats
             or involves boat maintenance/repair that is on or adjacent to  the water.

States may wish to apply these measures to other situations as well.

H. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR MARINA SITING

A. Environmental Concerns

The marina siting Management Measures, listed in Section B below, are designed to address the
following water quality concerns.

Maintaining water quality  within a marina basin depends primarily on how readily the marina
renews its waters, a process aptly known as "flushing."  If a marina is not properly flushed,
pollutants will concentrate to unacceptable levels resulting in impacts  to biological resources.

                                          5-6

-------
Methods approved for analyzing the flushing potential of a marina are discussed under the Water
Quality Assessment section of this chapter.

As discussed in more detail in another chapter of this guidance, wetlands perform many vital
functions,  such as  serving as highly productive nursery areas for aquatic and terrestrial
organisms, providing nutrients,  reducing flood damages, and maintaining water quality by
trapping sediment and filtering pollutants. There is a significant possibility  that NFS pollution
from marinas could result in loss of are values.

Marinas are commonly located in biologically productive areas that are sensitive to disturbances.
The  popularity of  shellfish make  them significant  commercial  and recreational resources.
Submerged aquatic  vegetation (SAV) are important because of the shelter which they provide
to aquatic organisms, the food source which they provide to waterfowl, and their natural filtering
capability to remove suspended solids and disperse wave energy.  Benthic resources should be
protected because they are important in the food chain, they are also valuable as commercial and
recreational food sources.  Critical habitats are areas which are essential for maintaining wildlife,
particularly for winter survival and breeding, and as nesting areas for migrating species. Highly
productive primary  nursery areas for aquatic organisms (e.g., fish or crustaceans)  should also
be considered critical habitats.  Marina-related dredging may impact shellfish beds, SAVs, or
other benthic resources and habitats directly through construction activities or indirectly through
increased turbidity and sediment deposition. Resuspension of sediments by boats also may affect
biological resources adversely.

B. Management Measures

This section contains the management measures to be applied in the siting of marinas:

       (1)    Site marinas such that tides and currents  are adequate to flush the site, or renew
             its  water regularly.  Marina construction should  only  be allowed in areas where
             a water quality assessment reveals  that standards  will not be  violated and
             biological resources dependent upon clean water will  not be degraded.

       (2)    Site marinas adjacent to deep water to avoid or minimize dredging needed. The
             area to be dredged should be the minimum needed for the marina itself, including
             the docking areas, fairways,  and channels, and for other maneuvering areas that
             are needed.   In no case  should  the bottom of  the marina be deeper than the
             adjacent open water.  During dredging operations, turbidity should be minimized
             through the proper placement of silt screens or turbidity curtains.

       (3)    Site  marinas  near currently  permitted  public  areas for  disposal of  dredged
             materials.

       (4)    Site  marinas away  from wetlands,  shellfish  resources, submerged  aquatic
             vegetation, and  critical habitat areas.

                                           5-7

-------
       (S)    Locate piers such that shading of submerged aquatic vegetation is minimized.

       (6)    Site marinas  such that they have easy access to roads, utilities, public sewers
             (where  available),  and water lines, to  avoid NFS impacts  associated with
             developing these services.

       (7)    Site marinas away from surface or ground water that is used for water supply.

C.  Mffrfrlft Sitin  Practices
This section provides technical guidance on practices that may be used as tools to assist in the
implementation of the management measures set forth in Section m.B. above.

       1.  Water Quality

To aid in the determination as to whether a site is appropriate for marina construction, a water
quality assessment of the proposed project is recommended.  Also, the cumulative impacts of
proposed new and existing development projects should be considered.  For instance, if a group
of small marinas were proposed in one area, whether by design or by chance, the impact of the
marinas taken together should be examined.  Therefore, even if any one of the projects would
cause negligible impacts on water quality, one or more projects may be precluded based on the
cumulative impacts. Alternately, each marina developer may be required to modify their project
so that the cumulative impacts of all the projects can be made acceptable. In any event, based
on the ecological sensitivity of the proposed site, a water quality monitoring  plan may be
required for the periods of time prior to, during, and after construction.

A water quality assessment should include appropriate modeling, monitoring, and data analysis
to determine the proposed marina's impact on:

       (1)    Fecal coliform concentrations (to indicate potential impacts due to microbial
             pathogens),

       (2)    Dissolved oxygen concentrations, and

       (3)    Other parameters, if there is a concern that the water quality standards for those
             parameters may be violated.

Examples of other types of parameters which could be of concern include:

       •     Various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (derived from petroleum products)  -
             Other toxic organics (i.e. PCB's, benzene, various solvents, etc.)

       •     Heavy metals such as chromium, copper, cadmium, mercury, lead, nickel, and
             zinc, and

                                          5-8

-------
       •     Nutrients (i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus).

The discussion below provides guidance in assuring adequate flushing, compliance with water
quality standards, and protection of shellfish harvest areas. The water quality assessment may
be divided into a two tiers, as follows:

Tier 1 - If screening methods are determined to be appropriate for the system being investigated,
the initial screening methods described in this guidance can be used.  Screening methods are
acceptable provided that they are appropriate for the system and they do not predict water quality
problems.

Tier 2 - If screening-level  analysis predicts water quality problems, then additional, more
detailed,  investigations of water quality impacts should be performed.

A valid  water quality assessment should include,  at  a minimum,  appropriate modeling,
monitoring, and  data analysis to determine:

       •     The flushing characteristics of the proposed marina.

       •     The spatial extent of the shellfish harvest closure zone resulting from presumed
             or actual pathogen contamination.

       •     If the 24-hour average dissolved oxygen concentration and the one-hour (or
             instantaneous) minimum  dissolved oxygen concentration both inside the marina
             and in adjacent ambient waters would violate state water quality standards.  (The
             national   recommended  water  quality criteria are  dependent  upon   water
             temperature.)

For each of the items described above, the analyses should be conducted based on the following
conditions:

       (1)    Average ambient water temperature  and salinity for the critical season of marina
             operation.  The critical season  is defined as  the season which has  the highest
             potential for adverse water quality impacts.

       (2)    For  tidally influenced sites, the average tidal conditions (high and  low tide
             elevations, tide range, and current velocities) for the  critical season of marina
             operation.

       (3)    Sediment Oxygen Demand (SOD) rates of at least 2.0 gm/sq m/d at 20 degrees
             C. SOD varies from area to area. The default value should be used unless it can
             be demonstrated that another value is more appropriate.  This base rate should be
             adjusted to the temperature of the analysis based on the following formula:
                                          5-9

-------
                        T = SOD20(1.065)cr-2a)

             Where,

                    SODM = SOD at 20°  Celsius
                    SODT = SOD at temperature of analysis
                    T = Temperature in degrees Celsius

       (4)    Seasonal average background BOD5 and BOD20 concentrations of the adjacent
             ambient waters.

       (5)    Seasonal 24-hour average background dissolved oxygen  concentrations  of the
             adjacent ambient water.

       (6)    A typical instantaneous minimum and maximum dissolved oxygen concentration
             determined by continuous dissolved oxygen, temperature, and possibly salinity
             monitoring  of the  adjacent waters at the site.   The monitoring should be
             conducted during the season of interest.  Temperatures should approximate the
             average critical season  temperature identified in 1) above.

       (7)    Additional or alternative conditions may be  required or approved if there  is
             documented evidence that the additions or alternatives are appropriate.

       a.  Flushing of marina sites

The  method  chosen to estimate  expected  flushing from a marina  site depends upon the
hydrographic characteristics of the location.  Marinas anticipated to be located within a confined
area with one or two relatively narrow openings would have flushing characteristics considerably
different from marinas located directly on larger bays or estuaries or along river shorelines.
Two openings may improve flushing in semi-enclosed marina basins.

Flushing time within a semi-enclosed area can be estimated using simplified dilution calculations.
The parameters required for the estimation are:

       •      Average marina depth at low and high tide following completion of dredging,
              based upon the representative tidal range of the area,

       •      Volume of non-tidal freshwater inflow into the marina,

       •      Surface area of the marina, and

       •      The percentage of discharged water returning  to the basin on the following tidal
              cycle.
                                          5-10

-------
The flushing time of a semi-enclosed marina can be approximated by the following equation:

                           TJLogD
                        AL + BAR - ITC
                    Log  	
                             AH

       where:        Tf =  Time of flushing (hours)
                    Tc = Tidal cycle, high tide to high tide (hours)
                    A  — Surface area of marina (m2)
                    D  = Desired dilution factor
                    R  = Range of tide (m)
                    b —  Return flow factor (dimensionless)
                    I  = Non-tidal freshwater inflow (rnVhour)
                    L  = Average depth at low tide (m)
                    H  = Average depth at high tide (m)

The parameter "b" represents the percentage of the tidal prism ("AR" in Equation 1) that was
previously flushed from the marina on  the outgoing tide; has returned on the subsequent
incoming tide; and is expressed as a decimal fraction. For example, if a river had a relatively
low flow rate, water discharged from a marina at the completion of one tidal cycle may still
exist in proximity to the marina inlet and portions may  flow back into the marina on the
incoming tide. This water mass portion would not be considered as aiding flushing for water
quality considerations.

Non-tidal freshwater inflow from  runoff or stream discharge into the  marina basin can be
estimated using hydrologic techniques. If "ITC" is much less than "AL + BAR," this component
of the equation can be ignored. Estimating the flushing time of a marina may be dependent upon
several factors.  Additional information on estimating flushing time can be found in the Coastal
Marinas Assessment Handbook (EPA,  1985) or Draft Final Report on Marina Water Quality
Models (Morton, M. and  Moustafa, Z., 1991).  Many  characteristics of  the marina site,
including location relative to other water bodies, ambient water quality, biological activity, total
volume and expected marina activity, and type and volume  of discharge,  would all affect
flushing time.  For most cases a two  to four day flushing time is satisfactory  while longer
flushing times could result in unacceptable buildup of toxic  pollutants or decrease in dissolved
oxygen.

       b.  Shellfish harvest closure zones

Federal regulations administered by the Food and Drug  Administration require that States
establish closure  zones around marinas  to protect the food supply from contaminated shellfish.
Good water quality is an absolute necessity in order to provide this protection.  This is because
shellfish are filter feeding organisms and are therefore able to concentrate pollutants.  Even if

                                        5-11

-------
overlying waters  contain low levels of pollutants, shellfish can assimilate and  magnify both
biological and chemical contaminants.

Construction of a marina or docking facility may result in short term localized water quality
problems due to alteration of existing upland vegetation and changes in the area's watershed.
However, the long term effects of marina maintenance and operations cause the greatest concern.
Marina operation may contribute pathogenic organisms as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and
heavy  metals.  The concentration of human activity in the  area of a marina also poses a
particular water quality concern because of the potential problem of sewage disposal.

Fecal coliform bacteria are used as an indicator of the pathogenic organisms (viruses, bacteria,
and parasites) that may be present in sewage.  Therefore, all water quality  assessments for
water-based marina designs should identify and document potential fecal coliform loadings and
the shellfish closure zones that would result from those estimated loadings (see Figure 5-1).

The shellfish harvest closure zone for the proposed project should be determined based upon a
water quality standard for fecal coliform of 14 organisms MPN (most probable number) per 100
milliliters of water.  Once the closure zone has been determined, it should be determined if the
shellfish  closure  zone  would result in any impact to existing shellfish harvest  areas.  If the
closure zone intersects productive shellfish areas that  are approved  for shellfish harvesting,
development of the marina should not be allowed as planned.

       c. Dissolved oxygen concentrations

All water  quality assessments  should address  the potential  for  violations of  water quality
standards for dissolved oxygen concentrations.  In most States' waters, a standard exists for the
24-hour average concentration and an instantaneous minimum concentration.  The assessment
must present reasonable estimates of these concentrations for the planned marina and adjacent
waters.  The estimates should be based on monitoring or modeling, depending  on the nature of
the marina.

The water quality assessment should be based on marina location and configuration.  The first
and most basic distinction made is that of open versus semi-enclosed marinas (marinas located
within an embayment which effectively partitions the  marina  from the open ambient waters).
Within the semi-enclosed marina category, further distinctions are made  for existing versus
proposed embayments, and whether the waters at the site are completely mixed or vertically
stratified due to temperature and salinity gradients.

       i.  Tier 1  assessments: open marinas

Marinas  are considered to be open if they are located  along an existing shoreline and have no
man-made or natural barriers which tend to restrict the exchange of water between ambient water
and water within the marina area.  These  marinas  generally  consist of a number of piers or
docks which extend from the shoreline (Figure 5-2). The water quality assessment for dissolved

                                          5-12

-------
     LU —
     a —
     22:
     x a
o
z

o:

LU
o
                        LU
                        CX
     LU

     O
i    §
1
V
1
\
   FIGURE*-/ - REPRESENTATIVE UPLAND  BASIN  MARINA WITH

               ASSOCIATED SHELLFISH  HARVEST CLOSURE ZONE
                          5-13

-------
0
Ambient
Water
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1

1 .
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
1

Existing or Proposed Open Marina
KEY
1
2 Shoreline
                              0 Potential Monitoring Sites
Figure ^.-Illustration of Open Marinas
          and Potential Monitoring Sites
                  5-14

-------
oxygen should rely on actual monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations within the proposed
marina area.  The monitoring should be representative of conditions which will be most critical
in terms of meeting dissolved oxygen standards.  These conditions generally occur during
periods  of high water temperature and low freshwater flow.  In tidal areas, the  monitoring
should occur during average or neap tide conditions since mixing will be restricted during these
periods.   Occurrences of algal blooms or other conditions  may  influence when  the critical
condition occurs for a particular site.

A minimum of two days of dissolved oxygen monitoring should be collected. The  monitoring
should be conducted at no less than two-hour intervals and  should include dissolved oxygen
concentration, temperature, and salinity (if in  estuarine or marine waters).  The site or sites
selected should be representative of the range of conditions found within the marina area.   If
the water column  is stratified at the site, samples should be collected near the bottom, middle
and surface of the water column.  From the data collected,  the twenty-four hour average,
maximum, and minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations should be reported and compared to
water quality standards to assess the potential for violations.

       ii.  Tier  1  assessments:  semi-enclosed marinas

Marinas are considered  to  be semi-enclosed if they  are located in a natural or  man-made
embayment which limits the mixing of waters in the marina area with ambient waters (Figure
5-3). The water quality within the embayments may differ significantly from the water quality
of adjacent ambient waters.  In cases like these, a combination of monitoring and modeling may
be needed to estimate dissolved oxygen concentrations.  If the  embayment for the marina exists,
the analysis may rely primarily on monitoring similar to that discussed for open marinas. If the
embayment does not exist, a combination of monitoring and modeling may be necessary.

       iii.  Tier 1 assessments: existing embayments

For semi-enclosed marinas in which the embayment currently exists and no changes are proposed
that would change the hydrodynamics of the embayment, the analysis  may be limited to diel
monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations during the critical period.  The  monitoring
guidance provided for the  open marinas applies.  Modeling  may be  required if additional
loadings of oxygen demanding substances are  likely to be introduced during the operation or
construction of the marina.  The models discussed below in the Proposed Embayments section
would be applicable.

       iv.  Tier 1 assessments: proposed embayments

For semi-enclosed marinas which have not yet been excavated, or for which changes have been
proposed that would affect the hydrodynamics of the embayment, the water quality  assessment
should rely on monitoring and the application of appropriate models to predict dissolved oxygen
concentrations. The dissolved oxygen screening procedures will serve as an initial  assessment
to determine if dissolved oxygen water quality standards are likely to be violated. If problems

                                         5-15

-------
                          Ambient
                          Water
        Symetrical Rectangular Basin
Complex or
Compartmented Marina
                            Ambient
                            Water
V
     Tributary
                             Ambient
                             Water
         Elongated Basin
        KEY
                                                   Shoreline
                                                0 Potential Monitoring Sites
               Figure £-3 -Illustration of Enclosed Marinas
                         and Potential Monitoring Sites
                                     5-16

-------
are indicated at the screening level,  more detailed procedures may be applied to examine
dissolved oxygen concentrations (see Figure 5-4).

The presence of salinity, dissolved oxygen or temperature gradients that result in stratification
(as discussed in the open  marina monitoring section) will require detailed procedures.  The
screening  procedures  for  dissolved oxygen  concentrations  for proposed  marinas located  in
semi-enclosed embayments should be based on a combination of dissolved oxygen monitoring
coupled with the application of a steady  state, tidally averaged water quality model and a
flushing model.  The monitoring guidance provided in the Open Marina section, above, should
serve as the basis for the screening procedure. In addition, the average tide range and high and
low water depths of the adjacent ambient  waters,  as well as the proposed marina,  should be
required to implement the  screening models.  Flow rates (seven day, ten year low), BOD, and
dissolved oxygen concentrations of tributaries that will enter the proposed basin should also be
provided or monitored.   Additional monitoring may  be necessary in  areas  where there  is
significant algal productivity, or in cases where detailed models are applied.  Typical sampling
sites for enclosed marinas  are illustrated in Figure 5-3.

The screening level assessment of the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration should be based
on the average dissolved oxygen concentration for the proposed basin as calculated above, and
on the deviation between the average and minimum dissolved oxygen concentration measured
in the ambient waters.

      v.  Tier 2 assessments: detailed procedures

Detailed procedures for dissolved oxygen analyses are recommended for proposed marinas that
are not expected to be completely mixed due to stratification within the water column or due to
the configuration of the marina basin. For example, proposed marina basins that are significantly
elongated  or segmented will prevent thorough mixing and will require detailed  modeling.
Detailed procedures may  also be necessary  to evaluate potential  problems indicated by the
screening level analysis. The detailed procedures used will be dependent on the specific site and
model being considered.

As with the  screening-level analysis,  the  detailed analysis should include a combination of
monitoring and modeling.    The  model selected  for the detailed analysis  should have
demonstrated applications in predicting average and minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations
for systems that are similar to  the marina  basin configuration being proposed.   The most
available and accepted model with these abilities is the WASP model, which was developed and
is supported  by EPA.  In most situations it will be the model of choice.  The monitoring
required to support a detailed model will vary with the model and the specific site.  Sufficient
data should be collected to calibrate the hydrodynamic and  water quality components of each
model for the specific site.
                                          5-17

-------
           AC preapplicacion meeting decermine whether screening
           level model is appropriate, or provide guidance to
           applicant regarding what information must be collected
           to make this determination.
                           If necessary, applicant
                           gathers information and reports
     Screening level IS appropriate
                      Screening level IS NOT appropriate
            Use screening procedures
                       Results show
                       water quality
                       violation
                    Applicant re-
                    evaluates likeli-
                    hood of success
Results show NO
water quality
violation
                    Use detailed procedures
                     Results show
                     water quality
                     violation
                      Applicant re-
                      evaluates- likeli-
                      hood of success
     OK,
  include as
part of water
   quality
 assessment
i
                    Applicant re-
                    designs project
 Results  show  NO
 water  quality
 violation
                Applicant abandons
                project
       OK,
  Include  as
rpart  of  water
    quality
 .assessment
                  j, Flow Chart  for Water Quality Assessments  Requiring
                   Modeling Analysis
                                  5-18

-------
       d.  Other parameters

Other parameters need only be investigated if there is a concern about the potential for violation
of water quality standards.

       2.  Wetlands

The despoliation and destruction of public and private wetlands during marina construction and
operation should be avoided.  Further discussion on wetlands can be found in another chapter
of this guidance.

       3.  Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

The net loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) should not be allowed. In no case should
highly productive SAV be adversely impacted. If a marina is sited in the proximity of SAV,
any related disturbance of these SAV areas should require compensation measures.  Before such
measures are  approved it  should  be determined  that substantial, prudent, and reasonable
measures have been taken to avoid the impacts.  Since this kind of vegetation cannot survive
when heavily shaded, shading of SAV by piers crossing over them should be avoided.

       4.  Benthic Resources

The  benthic community at the marina  site should be evaluated using  rapid bioassessment
techniques (EPA, 1989; Luckenbach, Diaz and Schaffner, 1989).  Benthic areas that are found
to have degraded benthic communities should be considered for marina siting over those areas
that are found to be healthy and productive. It is recommended that each state should develop
rapid bioassessment techniques and criteria appropriate to their bioregions.

       5.  Critical Habitats

Marinas should not be sited in proximity to such areas if  the project would adversely affect
natural populations. A buffer zone should be established around critical  habitats located near
the project.  The size of this zone should be decided on a case-and species-basis.  No general
or specific guidance regarding the extent of these buffer zones can be given because of the wide
variation in requirements between species.

       6.  Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal

Ideally, marinas should be located where dredging will not be necessary to allow safe navigation.
In many locations, unfortunately, this is not possible.  Therefore, marinas should be sited at
locations that require the least amount of dredging  for the draft of the boats that will use that
marina. In some cases, the draft may have to be limited to avoid or to minimize the amount of
dredging.  The area to be dredged should be the minimum needed for the marina itself, including
the docking areas, fairways, and canals,  and for other  maneuvering areas that are needed.  In

                                         5-19

-------
no case should the bottom of the marina be deeper than the adjacent open water. Marinas should
not be built in sites that will require maintenance dredging more frequently than once every four
years.

Previous sections of this guidebook have described natural resources which may be impacted by
the construction and operation of a marina.  Dredging to construct or maintain a marina can
result in losses of these resources and/or adverse impacts to nearby resources because of the
turbidity associated with dredging.  In addition, because certain times of the year are more
critical than others due to migration,  spawning and early  development of important species,
dredging should not occur at all at such times.

During dredging operations, any project-related turbidity should be contained, thus minimizing
adverse impacts to the surrounding habitat and avoiding possible violations of water quality
standards.  Proper placement of silt screens or turbidity curtains is a common and relatively
effective method of containment.  Marinas should not be  built in sites that will require
maintenance dredging more frequently than once every four years.

Whenever dredged material may be contaminated, disposal in an upland diked containment area
is the preferred disposal method.   Wherever feasible, applicants  should use existing  diked
disposal areas.   Diked disposal areas  must be sized and designed to prevent resuspension or
erosion of the dredged material and subsequent transport back into adjacent waters. They must
also be sited to avoid ground  water contamination.

Another disposal option, available only for clean, uncontaminated fill, is placement on or near
shore, where it is desirable to enhance beach profiles, stabilize shorelines, and/or build or
enhance wetlands.

Dredging in  waters  of the United States is regulated by the Army Corp  of Engineers, as
discussed earlier in the introduction. This guidance on dredging and dredge disposal is provided
so that prospective marina owners have an indication as to what they may expect from efforts
to site a marina.

       7. Water Supply

Marinas should be sited and designed to preclude any contamination of  surface  water or
groundwater that is used for water supply. Runoff from potential areas of contamination, such
as maintenance areas should be treated, as described under the Stormwater Management Section
of this section.

Upland basins  should not be excavated in areas upgradient or within 1000 feet of public or
private well fields, nor should excavation occur within water supply protection areas, or where
an increased  threat of saline water encroachment is likely.  A danger exists that dredging may
improve the hydrologic "connection" between brackish water and the fresh water aquifer, which,
when coupled with a head loss from pumpage within the aquifer, may result in contamination

                                          5-20

-------
of the aquifer.  A buffer of less than 1000 feet may be used if it can be demonstrated that a
lesser distance will result in no adverse impact on groundwater.

It should be demonstrated that there is an adequate water supply to serve all of their project
needs.  As a rule of thumb, 30 gallons/slip/day will be needed during peak usage periods.

D.  Pollutant Reductions and Costs

Proper siting of marinas can completely avoid some of the NFS pollution impacts associated this
type of development.  Direct impacts to shellfish areas, wetlands, SAVs, and other  benthic
resources  and habitats can be averted.   Water quality  problems can be greatly reduced or
eliminated entirely through proper siting.  The costs of identifying a good site for a marina and
preparing  a water quality assessment will be dependent upon regional and local conditions. Past
efforts have varied from $2,000 to $16,000.

ffl.  MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR THE DESIGN OF MARINAS

A.  Environmental Concerns

The  management measures, listed in Section B below, are designed to address the following
water quality concerns.

Design  considerations for the minimization of NPS pollution associated with marinas should
include: shoreline stabilization, location of navigation channels, stormwater,  dryboat storage,
boat maintenance areas, fueling areas,  and control of spills.   Improper shoreline design can
result in erosion or degradation of habitat.  Placement and design of navigation channels is a
major factor in flushing and resulting water quality.  Boat maintenance activities that can result
in NPS  pollution include:

       •     Painting and paint removal,

       •     Welding, brazing, soldering, and metal cutting,

       •     Woodworking,

       •     Engine repair and service,

       •     Servicing LPG and CNG systems,  and

       •     Boat washing and hull cleaning.

Rainfall runoff from areas where these activities occur  becomes polluted with  oils, greases,
organic  and inorganic wastes,  and other potentially harmful substances. Introduction of these
substances into adjacent waters can have significant adverse water quality impacts.

                                          5-21

-------
Marina fueling systems typically consist of storage tanks (usually underground) and pumps on
shore, with fuel meters and dispensers mounted on a fuel pier or dock.  Areas where boats are
fueled are subject to contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons from leaks and spills.

B.  Management Measures

This section contains the management measures to be applied in the design of marinas:

       (1)     Use natural vegetation to stabilize shorelines wherever possible.

       (2)     Navigation and access  channels  should be  located in areas with  safe  and
              convenient access to waters of navigable  depth, based  on the kind  of vessel
              expected to use the marina, but in no case exceeding the depth of adjoining
              channels and waters.

       (3)     The first one-half inch of runoff from the entire marina property for  a  10-year
              24-hour storm should be detained and released over a 24-hour period.

       (4)     All  stormwater management  systems should be  provided with  a bypass or
              overflow system so that the peak discharge from a 10-year 24-hour storm will be
              safely conveyed to an  erosion and scour-protected storm water outfall.

       (5)     Dry boat storage should be utilized over wet slips wherever feasible.

       (6)     Boat maintenance areas should be designed so  that all maintenance activities that
              are significant potential sources of pollution can be accomplished over dry land
              and under roofs (where practical), allowing for proper control of by-products,
              debris, residues,  solvents, spills, and  stormwater runoff.   All drains from
              maintenance areas should lead to a sump, holding tank, or pumpout facility from
              which the  wastes can later be extracted for treatment and/or disposal.  Drainage
              of maintenance areas directly into surface or ground water or wetlands should not
              be allowed.

       (7)     Fueling stations generally should be located such that they are accessible by boat
              without entering or passing through the main berthing areas  in order to avoid
              collisions.

       (8)     Marina operators  should have a spill contingency plan and the proper equipment
              and training to implement the plan.

C. Marina Design Practices

This  section provides technical guidance on practices that may be used  as tools to assist in the
implementation of the management measures set forth in  Section IV.B. above.

                                          5-22

-------
       1. ffiiprgline Protection and Basin Design

Natural vegetation should be used wherever feasible to stabilize shorelines.  However, when
additional stabilization becomes necessary, sloping riprap revetments are preferred over vertical
bulkheads, since they generally provide greater habitat and reduce wave reflections. Shoreline
intertidal areas should be preserved to the greatest extent possible.

In instances where bulkheads are to be installed, they should be constructed in such a manner
that they are effective against erosion and provide adequate bank stabilization. The potential for
erosion and scour at the mudline should  be evaluated.  Bulkheads should be constructed to
prevent losses of fine material through joints  or cracks from the land side to the  water side,
which could ultimately lead to failure of the wall.  Bulkheads should be stabilized by providing
adequate anchorage (such as batter piles or tie backs) or adequate embedment, depending on the
type of bulkhead. Where public walkways, steps, or ramps run adjacent to bulkheads, handrails
or other safety provisions should be provided along the top of the wall where the vertical drop
to the current mean low water line or mud line exceeds three feet, unless local or State building
codes stipulate otherwise.  Any interference with public access  should be avoided.

Basins that are constructed with square corners or other stagnant water areas will tend to trap
sediment and debris.  If this debris is allowed to collect and settle to the  bottom,  an oxygen
demand will be imposed on the water and  water quality will  suffer.  Therefore, square corners
should be avoided in critical  down-wind  or similar areas where this is most likely to be a
problem.  If square corners are unavoidable  because of other considerations, then points of
access should be provided in those comers to allow for easy clean out of accumulated debris.

Riprap revetments are considered to be flexible since they can accommodate minor consolidation
and  settlement of their foundations.   Still, adequate provisions  should  be made  to prevent
migration and loss  of fine materials through  the riprap, such  as placement of a filter fabric
beneath the armor layer.  The slope of the revetment should be sufficiently  flat to maintain
stability, but in no case should the slope be  steeper than one  vertical to  1.5 horizontal.  In
addition, adequate toe protection should be provided to compensate for known  or anticipated
scour.

Considerations for  new construction are  addressed  in the  urban section  of  this  document.
Control measures such as turbidity curtains, vegetative barriers, etc. should be used to contain
erosion.

       2. Navigation and Access Channels

Channels  should be located in areas with  safe and convenient access  to waters of navigable
depth, based on the kind of vessels expected to use the marina, but in no  case  exceeding the
depths of adjoining channels and waters.  "Safe and convenient" access should be determined
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as  existing water  depths, distance to
existing canals and their depths, and  tidal and wave actions.  Before considering dredging,

                                          5-23

-------
should attempt to gain access to deeper water by extending docks and piers farther from shore.
The maximum extent to which a pier should extend into the waterway should be determined by
each state and applied in a consistent manner (10% of the width of the channel has been set in
some cases).   In some cases, rather  than dredging (and  possibly having  to develop a
compensation plan), it may make more sense to simply limit the maximum boat drafts in the
marina or utilize dingy access to moorings.  Where channels are narrow, dry stacking of boats
should be considered.

Where dredging is unavoidable, natural or  existing channels should be used to minimize the
amount of dredging.  Also, naturally existing channels are less likely than surrounding shallow
areas to contain shellfish beds,  submerged  aquatic vegetation, or other resources which  may
complicate permitting and require mitigation or compensation measures.

       3.  Wastewater Facilities

Three types of onshore collection systems are available:  marina-wide systems, portable/mobile
systems, and dedicated slipside  systems. Marina-wide collection  systems include one or more
centrally located sewage pumpout stations.   These  stations are generally located at the end of a
pier,  often on a fueling pier so  that fueling and pumpout operations can be combined. Boats
requiring  pumpout services dock at the pump-out station, a flexible hose is connected to the
wastewater fitting in  the full of  the boat, and pumps or a vacuum  system move the wastewater
to an on-shore holding tank, a public sewer system, a private treatment facility,  or other
approved  disposal  facility.   In  cases where the boats in the marina use only small portable
(removable) toilets, a  satisfactory  disposal  facility could be a toilet into which the portable
(removable) toilets can be dumped. Portable/mobile systems are similar to marina-wide systems
except that the pumpout stations are mobile.   The mobile unit includes a pump  and a small
storage tank. The unit is connected to the deck fitting on the vessel, and wastewater is pumped
from the vessel's holding tank to the pumping unit's storage tank.  When the storage tank is full,
its  contents are discharged into  one of the previously listed approved  disposal facilities.
Dedicated slipside systems provide continuous wastewater collection at a slip. Slipside pumpout
should be provided to live-aboard vessels.  The remainder of the marina can still be served by
either marina-wide or mobile pumpout systems.

Note that chemicals from holding tanks  may retard the normal functioning of septic systems.
Neither the chemicals nor the concentration of wastes has proven to be a significant problem for
properly operating public treatment plants provided there is adequate dilution between the marina
and the treatment plant.  In some cases, the effluent from  the marina may have to be diluted
before introducing it to the sewer system.

Shoreside restroom facilities for the use of marina patrons should be required at all marinas.
Adequate  restroom facilities for any given marina are dependent upon the nature (recreational
or public, or residential or planned community) and size of the marina and its ancillary features.
Restroom facilities should be conveniently located and well-maintained to encourage their use
by boaters at the marina.  At residential or  planned community marinas public restrooms may

                                          5-24

-------
not be required unless there are non-residents who routinely use the marina who do not have
access to a private bathroom, or unless the convenient travel time  from the slips  to the
residences is longer than five minutes.

Marina operators should post ample signs prohibiting the discharge of sanitary wastewater,
dishwater, or greywater from boats into the waters of the State, including the marina basin, and
also explaining the availability of pumpout services and public restroom facilities.  Signs should
also fully explain the procedures and rules governing the use of the pumpout facilities.

       4. Stormwater Management

All stormwater management systems should be provided with a bypass or overflow system so
that the peak discharge from a 10-year 24-hour storm will be safely conveyed to an erosion and
scour-protected storm water outfall.  All discharges shall be calculated using methods developed
by the U.S.  Soil Conservation Service and described in either their Technical Release 20 or 55.

For new construction:

       (1)     The first one-half inch of runoff from the entire marina property for a 10-year
              24-hour storm should be detained and released over a 24-hour period. Runoff to
              should be controlled with a weir that will direct the first one-half inch of runoff
              to the are and bypass  the rest  to the receiving water body.  This is known as
              control of the first flush and is important because this first one-half inch of runoff
              has high concentrations of pollutants compared with the bulk of the remaining
              runoff.

       (2)     Use of  infiltration practices may also be an  acceptable alternative.   Paving
              materials which allow for increased infiltration include permeable asphalt paving,
              paving blocks, and, in lighter use areas, coquina, gravel, oyster shells, or similar
              surfaces. Such infiltration practices are acceptable only in areas with appropriate
              soils, slopes, and depths to ground water. A strict maintenance schedule should
              be prepared and adhered to by the marinas operator.  Porous asphalt should be
              used only as a last resort and only after a regular vacuuming schedule has been
              approved.  This  is needed because porous pavements can quickly  become
              impermeable when clogged with  small  quantities of fines.   Once  they have
              become impermeable, their storm runoff benefits are nullified.

       (3)     Other treatment practices for storm runoff may be considered on a case-by- case
              basis if they can achieve an equivalent removal efficiency of 80% of suspended
              solids in addition to removal of other pollutants as needed.
                                          5-25

-------
       5.  Dry Boat Storage

Dry boat storage is the storage of boats on dry land (inside or outside) when they are not in use,
often in multi-level vertical racks using a forklift truck or crane system. Dry storage of boats
drastically reduces the in-water requirements for structures, typically requiring only a few wet
staging slips for short term berthing of vessels after being taken from storage for subsequent
boarding, and then upon their return before being placed back into storage.  Dry storage should
be  utilized  over wet slips  wherever  feasible due to  the reduced potential  for  adverse
environmental impacts from NFS pollution.

Construction of dry storage buildings must conform to all applicable requirements of municipal,
county, or State  housing, electrical,  plumbing, fire protection, and  building codes.   In the
absence of any such  fire protection codes, fire protection procedures for dry storage areas are
covered in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 303, Fire Protection Standard for
Marinas and Boatyards.

       6.  Boat Maintenance Areas

Boat scraping,  sanding, washing, etc. should only be done in areas designed to  handle runoff
in a manner that prevents it from reaching adjacent waters  and wetlands  (see sections on
stormwater and operations and maintenance).

       7.  Fuel Storage and Delivery Facilities

In the event of a spill of fuel, oil, or other toxic or hazardous substance, it is the responsibility
of the marina operator to properly contain and clean up the spill in a timely and diligent manner.
This is true even if the spill has been caused by some negligent or inadvertent action of a patron
of the  marina.  Coast Guard regulations require that all spills that cause a visible sheen on the
water  must  be reported.  All spills should  also be reported immediately to the proper state
authority. A spill contingency plan should be posted and include:

       (1)     Posting of notification procedures in the event of a spill.

       (2)     Immediate on-site availability (less than 1/4 hour) of containment equipment such
              as booms, absorbent  materials, or  skimmers.  This equipment should be
              conveniently stored on site.  Responsible marina personnel should be trained in
              the proper use of  this equipment.  Marina personnel should be required to
              participate in annual drills to  demonstrate their readiness in the event of a spill
              and to assure that containment equipment is in working order.

       (3)     Disposal of the collected fuel or other material contaminated by the pollutant in
              accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations.
                                           5-26

-------
       8. Piers and Dock Systems

All timber used  for construction above the water  line should be  pressure treated with a
preservative such as chromated copper arsenate (CCA) or creosote to avoid damage by wood
borers.   Underwater, or periodically submerged portions of timber  structures should not be
constructed with CCA or creosote-treated timber.  Treated piles that  project above deck level
should be protected with battens or some protective sheathing.

The use of concrete pilings should be seriously considered both in planned marinas and  those
undergoing expansion or repair/replacement of piers. Use of concrete pilings eliminates leaching
of preservatives and decreases pier maintenance costs.

D.  Pollutant Reductions and Costs

Actual numbers on pollutant reductions and costs are not currently available.  The following
discussion is on the relative pollution reduction of the management measures.

The proper design of marina channels and basins will result in avoidance of impacts to important
habitat and protection of water quality. Properly flushed channels and basins will prevent build-
up of natural and man induced substances that degrade the environment. Pollutant reductions
and cost for the control of stormwater are discussed in the chapter of this guidance on urban
management measures.

With dryboat storage, dredging is minimized since there is no large basin, only a small staging
area. This will minimize water quality and flushing concerns, as well as flow disruptions caused
by structures built to protect boats from wind and wave action.  Large amounts of treated timber
for docks and bulkheads are not needed, thus minimizing the leaching of wood preservatives into
the water and the shading effects of docks, piers, pilings, and boats. The amount of contact time
between pesticide-containing bottom paints and the water is minimized,  perhaps even eliminating
the need for the use of bottom paints.  The use of construction material that does not contain
CAA or creosote may not add to initial construction costs (unless concrete is used), but may add
maintenance costs due to upkeep (unless concrete is used).

Proper design of fueling facilities and prepositioning of spill containment and cleanup equipment
(100 feet of boom and absorbent material) will add approximately $2000 to $10,000 in cost to
a marina project.  Pollutant reduction is difficult to quantify because of the episodic nature of
fuel spillage.
                                         5-27

-------
IV.   MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR OPERATIONS AND  MAINTENANCE OF
      MARINAS AND BOATS
A.  Envirofifn^iijftl Concerns

The Management Measures, listed in Section B below, are designed to address the following
water quality concerns.

The operation and maintenance of a marina and associated boating produces the same concerns
as those addressed in the design of marinas as well as day-to-day activities such as disposal of
fish wastes and the repair, maintenance, and operation of boats.

During the  summer  months,  dissolved oxygen  depressions,  odor complaints and aesthetic
problems may result from disposal of fish wastes into the water in concentrations that overload
the natural ecosystem.

Small boat yards and marinas  are confronted with handling a significant number of hazardous
waste sources  due  to the variety of maintenance and  repair operations that result from boat
operations.  Owners of marinas have a responsibility to see that no hazardous materials enter
the body of water on which they are located.

Many of the wastes generated by  boat yards and marinas must not be discharged into either
sanitary sewers, storms or deck drains.  Although there are some exceptions,  most inside drains
go to sanitary sewers and most outside drains  go to natural waters. Wastes improperly, disposed
down drains may cause water  pollution, damage or impair sewage treatment plants and can be
harmful to workers. Contaminants of concern include, antifreeze, oils, detergents,  wash water
from cleaning floors and decks and paint dust.

B.  Management Measures

This section contains the management measures to be applied in the operation and maintenance
of marinas and boats:

       (1)    Encourage the  recycling  of fish  wastes back into the  natural ecosystem in a
             manner that will not degrade water quality or cause other adverse environmental
             impacts.

       (2)    Tarps and vacuums  should be used to collect solid wastes produced  by cleaning
             and repair of boats.  Such wastes should be prevented from entering adjacent
             water.

       (3)    Vacuum or sweep up and catch debris, sandings, and trash from boat maintenance
             areas on a regular basis so that runoff will not carry it into the  water.
                                         5-28

-------
       (4)    An oil water separator should be used on outside drains and maintained to ensure
             performance.

       (5)    Curbs, berms or other barriers should be built or placed around areas used for the
             storage of liquid hazardous materials to contain spills.

       (6)    Tarps should be used to catch spills of paints, solvents, or other liquid materials
             used in the repair or maintenance of boats.

       (7)    Used antifreeze should be stored in a barrel labeled "Waste Antifreeze Only" and
             should be recycled.

       (8)    Valves  should be used on the air vents  of fuel tanks that prevent fuel from
             overflowing  and spilling.

       (9)    All boats with inboard engines should have oil absorption pads in bilge areas and
             they be changed when they are no longer useful or at least once a year.

       (10)   Only phosphate-free and  biodegradable  detergents should be used  for  boat
             washing.

C.  Marina Operation and Maintenance Practices

This section provides technical guidance on practices that may be used as tools to assist in the
implementation of the Management Measures set forth in Section V.B. above.

       1.  Fish Wastes

A fish waste policy may need to be developed. In order  to implement the policy in a consistent
manner, guidelines could be established that meet the following requirements:

       (1)    Fish wastes should not be discharged into surface waters in any dead end lagoons,
             other poorly flushed locations, or other areas where such discharge could result
             in a water quality or public nuisance problem.

       (2)    Where fish waste disposal will not result in water quality or public nuisance
             problems, fish wastes could be recycled back into the ecosystem from which the
             organisms were originally harvested.

       (3)    Fish waste recycling within marina basins should only be allowed if in accordance
             with approved Operations and Maintenance Plans.  Marinas should not provide
             fish cleaning stations unless the activity has been included in the Operations and
             Maintenance Plans.  Marinas which are not approved for fish waste recycling
                                          5-29

-------
             should post signs warning fishermen that fish wastes should not be disposed of
             in the water at that location.

       (4)    Fish wastes should not be recycled into surface waters in such a way that they
             will wash up onto any shoreline, or cause odors or other nuisances.

       2.  Boat Maintenance Areas

Small boat yards and marinas are confronted with handling a significant number of hazardous
waste sources due to  the variety of maintenance and repair operations that result from boat
operations.

       a.  Hydroblast containment

This practice entails the  containment of hydroblast (pressure washing) wastewater to prevent
paint chips and oil from being discharged into natural waters and storm drains. In most states,
permission must be obtained to discharge these wastes to the local sanitary sewer.  The local
utilities should be consulted for pretreatment possibilities.  Cleaning processes that use chemical
additives such as solvents or degreasers must be done in a self-contained system that prevents
discharge to storm  drains or sanitary  sewer.  Wastewater without such additives should be
directed into wetpond detention basins as described in another section of this guidance.  Where
feasible,  wastewater from this operation can be collected and reused.

       b.  Abrasive blasting containment

Grit from abrasive blasting  contains paint chips and other materials should be prevented from
entering natural waters or storms.  'Dockside' blasting, outside a drydock or containment area
should not be done.  Workshops and yards must be kept clean of debris and grit from sand
blasting operations  so that runoff and wind will not carry  any waste into the water.  During
blasting operations, outdoQuareas should be enclosed in plastic tarps and no blasting should be
done on windy days.  The bottom edge of tarpaulins and plastic sheeting must be weighted so
that it will remain  in place during  light breezes.  A spray booth  should be used whenever
possible to capture the blast grit and should be used if sand is being used.

       c.  Spray booths

Spray Booths concentrate paints and as  such represent a hazard to both employees and the
environment.   Booths must meet local building and fire code  requirements  and must ensure
adequate ventilation for  people working in them.  Paint guns used in spray booths should be
either High Velocity Low Pressure (HVLP) or High Efficiency Low Pressure (HELP) which are
rated at  65% efficient paint  transfer,  or electrostatic paint spraying methods.   In replacing
existing  spray guns,  convert to HVLP  or HELP  types.  Cleaning paint guns can  also be
hazardous since spent solvent must be treated as a hazardous waste and not discharged directly
into drains.  Cleaning should be done in an enclosed gun cleaner/recycler machine.

                                           5-30

-------
       d.  Waste storage

Waste oil, fuels stored above ground and hazardous material must be protected by a berm (a
built-in curb or barrier) in an area that is sufficiently large to contain a spill. Its purpose is to
catch anything that spills or leaks, in case a container is tipped, overfilled or ruptured.   No
drains should be inside the secondary containment. If for some reason there is a drain, it should
lead to a blind sump.  Secondary containment should have a concrete floor and, if outdoors, be
roofed. Other measures that count as secondary containment that may be used instead are;

       (1)    A sump, with no drain, near the tank to catch an accidental spill,

       (2)    Build a 2 to 4 inch sill across the doorway, high enough to contain a spill yet low
             enough to allow machinery to access the building,

       (3)    Buy or build double-containment tanks,  and

       (4)    Or build high drip pans installed under existing tanks.

Outdoor storage of hazardous materials  (drums,  smaller container, batteries) must be covered
and have secondary containment.  Containers of hazardous materials should be placed under
cover and on impervious pads (concrete is not impervious unless the surface is properly coated).
Secondary containment may be a berm or a pallet with  a tray. All drums must be labelled with
the date, the words "Hazardous Waste",  the associated  hazards (ie, flammable) and the contents
of the container.

       e.  Waste oil storage

Waste oil should hot be contaminated with any other hazardous substances and if it does become
contaminated, it  should be labelled as  a hazardous waste  which entails expensive disposal
procedures.   Drums should be labelled  "Waste Oil  Only" to prevent mixing in other wastes,
especially solvents.  The labelling also  aids fire fighters who,  in  case of fire, must treat an
unlabeled drum  as the worst case.  Waste oil should be disposed of according  to appropriate
statutes and  regulations.  Recycling is strongly encouraged.

       f. Drainage systems

Most local sewer utilities, via pretreatment ordinances  and discharge permits, restrict what  can
be poured into inside drains since some contaminants are not removed by the treatment process.
Drains connected to sanitary sewers may need sand traps and oil water separators. Lack of an
oil-water separator for steam cleaning and pressure washing of engines and other oily parts may
result in a violation of discharge limits.  However,  an oil-water separator is designed for  the
specific purpose of removing oil from water and will not remove all hazardous waste.  Oil-water
separators should be  regularly  maintained and cleaned whenever  three  inches of  oil  has
accumulated. Local sewer utilities should be contacted for help in determining the best way to

                                          5-31

-------
dispose of liquid wastes since discharge limits vary.  Great care must be taken not to allow any
contaminants to enter outside drains since most drain directly in streams or rivers without any
type of treatment.  Oil water separators should be installed on outdoor drains in areas where
engine maintenance occurs.

       g.  liquid waste management

Paints and solvents must be prevented from entering waterways by the use of drip pans, drop
cloths or tarpaulins.  Whenever possible, paints and solvents should be mixed in bermed areas
away from storm drains, surface waters, shorelines and piers. Only one gallon (or less) of paint
and solvent should be opened at a, time when working on floats and should be contained within
drip pans or tarpaulins.  Paint and solvent  spills should be prevented  from reaching storm or
deck drains, cleaned up and disposed of appropriately.  Cleanup materials soaked with solvent
must be handled as hazardous waste.

       h.  Solid waste management

Cleaning must be done in such a way that no debris falls into the water and is done to prevent
the accumulation  of waste material that may get blown onto surface waters.   Cleaning with a
vacuum is the preferred method for collecting sandings and trash. Sandblasting debris should
be collected and stored with the spent grit and removed frequently. Hosing of decks  and docks
should not be done when it might cause debris  to be washed into the  drains. After the contents
of a drum or a container is used they should be flattened and made unusable.  If possible, reuse
or recycle empty  drums rather than dispose as solid waste.

Marina operators  are responsible for the contents of their dumpsters and hazardous waste should
never be placed in them. Dumpsters should be locked within an enclosure to prevent  "midnight
dumping".  Liquid wastes should not be placed in dumpsters but disposed of  properly by other
methods.  Recycling of non-hazardous solid waste such as scrap metal, aluminum, glass wood
pallets, papers and cardboard is recommended whereverJeasible.  Dumpsters, that store items
such as used oil filters should, while awaiting  transfer to a landfill, be covered to prevent rain
from leaching material from the dumpster onto the ground.

       i. Antifreeze

Antifreeze  from boat engines may be recycled if it is not mixed with other wastes.  Some
facilities elect to purchase on-site recycling equipment. However, filters from the recycling units
must be handled  as hazardous waste and may not be disposed of in solid waste.  Runoff that
contains antifreeze should be prevented from entering storm drains or  natural waters.
                                          5-32

-------
      j.  Boating

Discharges from boats are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. However, many
activities associated with the use of boats result in impact to coastal waters. Activities that may
mitigate some of the impacts associated with boating include:

      (1)    Prohibitions on the use of environmentally damaging materials and encouragement
             of environmentally sensitive substitutes,

      (2)    Speed zones where erosion or other detrimental results could occur,

      (3)    No boating and/or anchorage zones where  sensitive or critical habitats could be
             damaged by "prop-wash",

      (4)    No discharge zones where water quality standards could be violated by such a
             discharge,

      (5)    Limitations on in-the-water boat hull cleaning if it can be demonstrated that this
             is a significant local problem,

      (6)    If in-the-water boat hull cleaning can be an acceptable practice if it is done with
             a soft cloth (instead of scraping) several  times a year, and

      (7)    Prohibitions of disposal of wastes from boats into State waters.

D.  Pollutant Reduction and Costs

Pollutant  reduction and costs have not been determined for the Management Measures related
to the operation and maintenance of marinas  and boats. NFS pollution resulting from some of
the  activities identified above can  be eliminated entirely and others can be greatly reduced
through implementation of the prescribed Management  Measures.

V.    RECOMMENDATIONS   FOR   STATE    PROGRAMS  TO   IMPLEMENT
      MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

The information in the remainder of this chapter does not represent management measures but
are  recommendations for States to consider in their overall approach to marina and recreational
boating NPS pollution management. The draft program guidance to be published by EPA and
NOAA in the summer of  1991  will contain information  on State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program development and approval.
                                        5-33

-------
A.  Management Process

It is recommended that a process be developed by every State to permit and regulate recreational
boating and marina development and operation. This process should be the foundation on which
the actual management measures identified in the rest of this chapter can be designated and
implemented.  Most States already have programs designed to accomplish many of the actions
suggested in this guidance and States are not encouraged or discouraged from reorganizing their
programs as described in this chapter.  However,  it is recommended that States review and, if
needed, revise their programs to meet the performance goals identified.  Marina and boating
programs should consist of the following:

       (1)    Marina regulations,

       (2)    Marina development application form,

       (3)    Technical guidance for locating, planning, design and construction of marinas,

       (4)    Boating regulations,

       (5)    Chemical bans/controls of certain boat washing or stripping chemicals,

       (6)    Enforcement/  monitoring plans, and

       (7)    Public education.

Marina regulations should deal with potential pollution sources that may originate due to the
physical presence or operation of marinas. The intent of the regulations should be three-fold.
First, to apply strict environmental controls over the siting, design, construction, and operation
of new marinas.  The controls  should be most comprehensive for new  marinas because new
construction offers the greatest opportunity for proper environmental planning and management.
Second, to allow upgrading of existing facilities in ways which can benefit the environment by
imposing reasonable restrictions which would effectively discourage or prevent environmentally
detrimental impacts.  In this case, it is recognized that physical constraints at existing sites may
present insurmountable limitations over the  scope of feasible improvements that can occur.
Third, to provide for safe and environmentally sound operation of existing and future marinas
through prevention of pollution by good housekeeping procedures.

B.  Public Education

To improve success in reducing NPS pollution from marinas and recreational boating, a public
education program is vital.  The public should be educated about causes of NPS pollution and
practices that will reduce NPS pollution. Specific areas in which boaters should be educated
include:
                                          5-34

-------
      (1)    The types and sources of NFS pollution impacts associated with marinas and
             boats,

      (2)    Locations and types of sensitive coastal resources and wildlife habitat areas in
             local waters, and methods of minimizing boater impacts,

      (3)    New  environmental  protection initiatives  and new  operational  measures
             implemented to respond to these initiatives,

      (4)    Marina operation and maintenance plans,

      (5)    Encourage limited use of detergents or use of detergents with 0.5% phosphates
             by weight,

      (6)    Proper collection and disposal of hazardous material (bottom paint scrapings and
             sanding dust, fiberglass resins, epoxy, MSD pumpout waste, dump station wastes,
             acid-type cleaners, wood bleaches, varnishes, etc.),

      (7)    Environmentally sensitive  boat maintenance and upkeep procedures,

      (8)    Inform the public as to  EPA and Coast  Guard regulations  prohibiting the
             discharge or oil or oily waste that causes a visible film or sheen,

      (9)    Proper use of sewage pumpout facilities, and

      (10)   Other boating regulations.

REFERENCES

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), 1990. State
of Delaware Marina Guidebook. DNREC, Division of Water Resource,  Dover,  DE.

Luckenbach, M.W., R.J. Diaz, and L.C.  Schaffner, 1989.  Report to the Virginia Water Control
Board. Appendix I. Project 8: Benthic Assessment Procedures. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Glouster Point, Virginia.

Morton, M., and Z. Moustafa,   1991.  Draft Final Report on Marina Water Quality Models.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV, Atlanta, GA.

U.S. EPA, 1985. Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook. U.S. EPA - Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
(under revision).

U.S. EPA, 1989.   Rapid  Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams  and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. EPA-AWPD, - Washington, D.C.

                                        5-35

-------
CHAPTER 6. HYDROMODIFICATION, DAMS AND LEVEES, AND SHORELINE
              EROSION MANAGEMENT MEASURES

-------
                                   CHAPTER 6

   HYDROMODIFICATION, DAMS AND LEVEES, AND SHORELINE EROSION

I.     Hydromodification	6-1

      A.     Overview of Sources	6-1
      B.     Nonpoint Source Problems Caused by Hydromodification	6-2
      C.     Management Measures	6-4

             1.     Management Measures for Changed Sediment Supply	6-4
             2.     Management Measures for Loss of Water Contact
                   With Overbank Areas During Flood Events	6-5
             3.     Management Measures for Loss of Ecosystem Benefits	6-5
             4.     Management Measures for Reduced Freshwater Availability	6-6
             5.     Management Measures for Increased or Accelerated
                   Delivery of Pollutants	6-6
             6.     Management Measures for Secondary Effects	6-7

      D.     Costs of Management Measures  	6-7
      E.     Overview of Federal, State, and Local Programs and Processes	6-7

             1.     Existing Regulations	6-7

      References	6-8

n.    Dams and Levees	6-10

      A.     Coastal Problems Caused by Dams and Levees	6-10

             1.     Overview	6-10
             2.     Siting and Construction  	6-11
             3.     Operation	6-11

      B     Management Measures for Dams and Levees  	6-12

             1.     Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Construction	6-12
             2.     Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Operation  	6-13
             3.     Habitat Protection	6-15
             4.     Fisheries Protection for Dams	6-16
             5.     Temperature Control and Aeration of Reservoir
                   Releases and Tailwaters	6-18
             6.     Chemical and Other Pollutant Control for Construction	6-20

      References	6-22

-------
ffl.    Shoreline Erosion	6-23

       A.    Introduction	6-23
       B.    Specific NFS Problems	6-23
       C.    Management Measures	6-23
       D.    Planning and Design Considerations to Select Management Practices .  . .  6-24
       E.    Management Practices  	6-25

             1.     Nonstructural  	6-26
             2.     Combinations and Bioengineering	6-27
             3.     Structural	6-28

       References	6-30

-------
                                    CHAPTER 6

   HYDROMODHICATTON, DAMS AND LEVEES, AND SHORELINE EROSION
                            MANAGEMENT MEASURES

This chapter addresses nonpoint pollution caused by hydromodification and shoreline erosion.
Hydromodification covers a wide range of different activities, each presenting varying degrees
of a range of nonpoint source (NPS) problems.  Identified  below are a  range of hydraulic
activities that may cause NPS pollution.  A subset of these activities is addressed through the
management measures identified in the section.  EPA is seeking suggestions on which activities
to focus on most extensively over  the next year as it develops the final guidance. Hydraulic
modifications vary significantly depending on the geographic region of the country.  Therefore,
we are  also  soliciting  suggestions  on  geographic-specific activities  and  accompanying
management measures.

In addition, this chapter addresses  shoreline erosion which, unlike the previous chapters, is a
symptom or result of other activities, rather than an independent activity that causes a problem.
Nonetheless, it is a source of nonpoint pollution that significantly affects many coastal waters.

I. HYDROMODIFICATION

A.     Overview of Sources

The  following is a  list  of  major activities that  can cause alterations  of the  hydrologic
characteristics of coastal and non-coastal waters which, in turn, could cause degradation of water
resources.

       (1)    Dredging  (e.g.,  marina  basin,  channels, borrow pits,  underwater  mining
             activities) - These activities alter the depth, width, and/or location of waterways
             or embayments and potentially reduce flushing characteristics. The reductions in
             flushing  may   reduce  dissolved  oxygen  and  change  bottom  sediments.
             Specifically, there is a tendency for finer textured sediments to accumulate in
             these areas impacting the benthic biota. Such areas may attract organic material
             and concentrate pollutants. In addition, dredging for channelization may increase
             salt water intrusion  from the ocean during low river flow periods but decrease
             salinities during high flow periods by hastening passage of flood  flows.

       (2)    Dams and Impoundments - Dams and impoundments may alter the distribution
              'of sediments in the  estuary and may cause migration of the turbidity maximum
             zone (i.e.,  the zone of  greatest  sediment  concentration)  thereby increasing
             sedimentation rates  in some areas and decreasing them in others.  Also, by
             reducing the discharge volumes, downstream current velocities and total flows
             may be reduced which in turn may promote the accumulation of fine textured
             sediments with high organic matter content and the reduction of aquatic habitat

                                         6-1

-------
             dependent upon higher flows.   Aquatic  habitat may  also be lost  through
             inundation.  These issues are  addressed  more extensively  in  the dams and
             impoundments section (section n below).

      (3)    Tidal Flow Restrictors  (undersized  culverts, transportation  embankments,
             undersized bridges, tide gates, sluice gates,  weirs) - These structures may reduce
             tidal flushing and decrease exchange volumes thereby creating or exacerbating
             water quality problems. Tidal flow restrictors also cause ponding and may cause
             a loss of vegetation.  There may  also be a concurrent change in the sediment
             quality.   Such changes may also restrict movement and migration of fish and
             crustaceans and affect shellfish populations.

      (4)    Flow Regime  Alterations (e.g. diversions,  withdrawals,  fixing banklines  to
             accelerate flows or to prevent migration of waterway) - Removing freshwater that
             otherwise enters the estuary or increasing freshwater flows into  an estuary can
             alter hydraulic characteristics  and water chemistry, thus  impacting shellfish,
             fisheries, and habitat. Changes to the distribution, amount, or timing of flows
             affects living resources.  Hardening banks along waterways eliminates habitat,
             decreases organic matter entering aquatic system, and may improve the efficiency
             of NFS pollutant movement from upper reaches of watershed into coastal waters.

      (5)    Breakwaters and Wave Barriers - These activities may, through the dissipation of
             wave energy, cause  sediment quality to degrade  especially  if accumulated
             sediment contain contaminants and organic material.  These devices  may also
             reduce the flushing characteristics of coastal and inland waters and may cause or
             exacerbate existing water quality problems.

      (6)    Excavation qf Uplands to Increase Water Area (e.g., excavation of marinas from
             upland;  artificial lagoonal systems)  - This activity frequently results in poorly
             flushed areas.  Depending upon the location along a tidal waterbody, there may
             be a reduction in the height of tides downstream.  Such changes may create or
             exacerbate water and sediment quality.

B.    Nonpoint Source Problems Caused by Hvdromodification

Nonpoint source constituents/parameters of interest that may be influenced by hydromodification
include:  sediment, turbidity,  salinity,  temperature, nutrients, dissolved oxygen and oxygen
demand, and contaminants. Hydraulic modifications alter the physical environment which may
have either harmful or beneficial nonpoint source effects.  The nonpoint source parameters can
cause problems if they occur outside of normal  or  desired ranges.   For example, salinity
fluctuations within range of about 5 to 20 parts per thousand are needed for optimal production
of oysters.  Periods of lower salinity within this range enable the oysters to thrive and periods
of higher salinity are needed to reduce population of predators that destroy oysters.  However,
                                          6-2

-------
extremes of  either prolonged  low  salinity or  prolonged high  salinity can  reduce oyster
populations.

The significance of hydromodification lies not only in how such modifications alter the physical
environment but, perhaps more importantly, how they ultimately affect freshwater and marine
biota and habitat. In many cases, aquatic life is impacted due to disruption of flow, circulation
patterns, and other changes in the characteristics of die waters on which these organisms depend.
Hydromodifications have deprived wetlands and estuarine shorelines of enriching sediments,
prevented natural systems from absorbing energy and filtering pollutants from other sources, and
impacted  fish  and  shellfish   landings.     Nonpoint  source  problems   associated  with
hydromodification are characterized in this chapter into the following six areas:

       (1)     Changes in sediment supply.   Erosion of bed sediments may  increase  turbidity,
              release nutrients, expose contaminants, or expose organic materials that increased
              oxygen demand.   New or eroded sediments may deposit elsewhere,  covering
              benthic communities, or altering habitat. Insufficient sediment supply may not
              keep up with subsidence and sea  level rise, leading to marsh subsidence and loss,
              as in Louisiana.  Erosion or deposition may lead to loss of  habitat,  migration
              pathways, or conditions unsuitable for reproduction and growth of biota.

       (2)     Loss of water contact with wetlands and non-wetland overbank areas during
              floods or other high water events.   The loss of contact may result in reduced
              filtering of nonpoint source materials by vegetation and soils.   (See Wetlands and
              Riparian Areas chapter.)

       (3)     Loss of ecosystem benefits  such as habitat,  pathways for migration,  and
              conditions suitable for reproduction  and growth.  For example, in California,
              flow modifications have resulted in reversal of river/stream flow regimes resulting
              in disorientation of anadromous fish that rely on flow to direct them downstream
              to spawn.

       (4)     Reduced freshwater availability for municipal, industrial, or agricultural purposes.
              Salinity above threshold levels  constitutes pollution of freshwater  supplies or
              alteration of salinity regime such that vegetation die-off occurs.  (Some cooling
              and process water uses are unaffected by salinity.)

       (5)     Increased delivery or rate of delivery of pollutants from upstream.

       (6)     Secondary effects such as movement of the estuarine turbidity maximum (zone of
              higher sediment concentrations caused by salinity and tide-induced  circulation)
              with salinity changes, eutrophication caused by inadequate flushing, and trapping
              large quantities of sediments.
                                          6-3

-------
C.     Management Measures

Nonstructural measures are one category of management measures that can be used to prevent
or minimize water pollution due to hydrologic modifications.  While consideration should be
given  to  both nonstructural  and structural measures  during the early planning  stages,
nonstructural measures should be given preference in the planning stage given their potential to
protect or restore habitat.  Certain environmental conditions such as might exist in wetlands or
other  sensitive  aquatic sites, for example, may rule out  structural considerations.   A
nonstructural program will be easiest to implement if it can be developed and adopted for areas
not yet experiencing rapid, urban, commercial or industrial expansion.  Where circumstances
and costs rule  against a complete nonstructural program,  an appropriate use of both structural
and nonstructural modifications may be satisfactory.

Management Measures for the NFS problems listed above are given below.

       1.     Management Measures for Changed Sediment Supply

       (1)    Proper project design.  Sediment erosion from (and deposition to) the bed of a
             coastal waterway can be managed by proper project design. Proper design is site
             and  flow condition specific and cannot be generalized, but  appropriate models
             should be used to design waterway modifications. The best available technology
             includes 2-dimensional numerical and hybrid (numerical plus physical) models.
             (McAnally,  1986,  "Modeling Estuarine Sedimentation Processes," Proceedings,
             Symposium to Reduce Maintenance Dredging in Estuaries, National Academy of
             Sciences, Washington,  DC.)

       (2)    Vegetative cover.  Sediment erosion from overbank areas that flood during high
             water events can best be controlled by vegetative cover.

              (a)    In salt and brackish water areas, the best available technique is planting
                    marsh grasses suitable to the salinity level. Grasses anchor the soil with
                    roots and detritus and reduce flow stresses on the bed by  sheltering it.
                    (Allen, H. H.,  Webb,  J. W. & Shirley, S.O., 1983, Proceedings, 3rd
                    Symposium on  Coastal Ocean Management, American Society of Civil
                    Engineers, pp 735-748; Fredette, et al., 1985, "Seagrass Transplanting,
                     10 Years of CE Research, Wetlands Research  Conference.)

              (b)    In fresh water areas, the best technique is planting of tree breaks, which
                    function much as grasses do plus diminish downstream water flow energy.
                    Tree breaks diminish the flow capacity of the overbank area,  so evaluation
                    of the tradeoff between  upstream flood control and overbank erosion must
                    be made.  (Lower Mississippi  Valley  Division, U.S.  Army Corps of
                    Engineers).
                                          6-4

-------
(3)     Using noneroding roadways. Noneroding roadways, such as board roads, should
       be used to access sites within and near wetlands.

(4)     Effectiveness. Benefits of these measures consist of significant reduction (but not
       elimination) of sediment bed erosion during high flow events.  Use of models to
       design projects can result in diminished amounts of sediment deposition  away
       from the modification site.

2.     Management Measures for Loss of Water Contact with Over-bank Areas
       During Flood Events

(1)     Setback levees and compound-channel designs. Contact between flood waters and
       overbank soil and vegetation can best be increased by a combination of setback
       levees (see section on Levees, Dams, and Impoundments) and use of compound-
       channel  designs.  Compound-channel designs consist  of an  incised, narrow
       channel to carry  water during low (base) flow periods, a staged overbank area for
       the flow to expand into during design flow events, and an extended overbank
       area, sometimes with meanders for high flow events. Planting of the extended
       overbank as described  above completes the design.  (W.M.  Linder.  1976.
       "Designing for Sediment Transport", Water Spectrum. Spring-Summer).

(2)     Effectiveness. Benefits of this design practice include (a) improved conveyance
       with  less sediment deposition during low and moderate flows, (b)  improved
       habitat, (c) open migration pathways for fish, and  (d) improved filtering with
       minimal erosion during high flow events.

(3)     "Wing wal|" impoundment for overbank flow in frequent storm events.  Construct
       a notched impoundment within the stream channel immediately upstream of small
       stream culvert crossings. Designed to back up flows during frequent storm events
       and expand flow over streambanks into vegetated floodplain. Flow from larger
       storm events (typically two-year or greater) will overtop the wall and continue
       through stream culvert.

(4)     Effectiveness.   Benefits are directly associated with  reduction of  sediment
       loadings.  Reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous estimated at 5-15 %.  Restores
       or maintains habitat of overbank areas and provides a pathway for fish migration.

3.     Management Measures for Loss of Ecosystem Benefits

(1)     Site specific design.  Preserving ecosystem benefits is best achieved by site
       specific  design  to  obtain  pre-defined optimum/existing  ranges of physical
       environmental conditions. The use of models is one way to achieve this.  The
       process consists  of these steps:
                                  6-5

-------
             (a)     Define which ecosystem benefits may be placed at a risk by a project.

             (b)     Define the range of acceptable values for the system-significant parameters
                    listed in part 1 and the range of flow and net transport values that will
                    maximize/maintain ecosystem benefits. Note that specifying zero change
                    in the parameters may not optimize ecosystem benefits.

             (c)     Use  appropriate models  to  evaluate system  behavior  under  project
                    alternative plans and appropriate conditions of flow and climate.  Verify
                    that the models are capable of reproducing significant processes in the
                    area  of interest,  then use the sequence of modeling  hydrodynamic
                    response, transports, and then water quality.

             (d)     Refine the project design so as to obtain an acceptable range of significant
                    parameters.

      Appropriate models may be 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional, or 3-dimensional, depending
      on system behavior and economics, and may be physical, numerical or hybrid models,
      depending on system characteristics and parameters/processes of interest. (Hudson, et
      al.,  Coastal  Hydraulic Models,  SR-5, Sept. 1979.  U.S.A.E. Coastal Engineering
      Research Center, Vicksburg, MS).

      4.     Management Measures for Reduced Freshwater Availability

      (1)    For most cases, reduction in freshwater availability is best managed by the same
             techniques described in item 3 above. In this case, the salinity threshold levels
             should be selected  using defensible criteria,  not arbitrary specifications of "zero
             change" or "zero salinity," neither of which occur in nature.

      (2)    Salinity increases  in fresh or  brackish marshes that are  caused  by  canal
             construction are best managed by the same techniques described in item 3 above.

      (3)    Artificial  nourishment.   Salinity increases  caused by land  subsidence, which
             lowers marsh levels faster than reduced sediment supply can maintain them  are
             best managed by artificial nourishment with diverted sediment.

      5.     Management Measures for Increased or Accelerated Delivery of Pollutants

Increased or accelerated delivery of pollutants from upstream are best managed by the techniques
described in item 3 above.  (For  example,  the Chesapeake Bay Program's numerical modeling
effort provides effective consideration of pollutant delivery. However, it  may not adequately
consider effects on habitat.)
                                          6-6

-------
       6.     ft^BlfflSCTlffit Mfflffyres for Secondary Effects

(see problem description p. 6-3)

Secondary effects are best managed by techniques described in Section I.C.3 above.

D.     Costs of Management Measures

Appropriate model studies described in the preceding best management practices have highly
variable costs, but common cost ranges are:

       (1)    1-dimensional hydrodynamics and water quality - $5,000 - $50,000.

       (2)    2-dimensional hydrodynamics and water quality
             (a) Creeks, small river sections - $10,000 - $100,000
             (b) Sections of rivers to large estuaries - $25,000 - $500,000

       (3)    3-dimensional hydrodynamics and water quality
             $100,000 - $5,000,000

Planting overbank and marsh grasses cost between $2,000 and $9,000 per hectare.

Planting overbank tree strips costs between $10,000 and $25,000 per acre.

Channel design and construction to incorporate compound channel design may increase initial
and maintenance costs.

Costs of construction of concrete, notched wing wall are in the $10,000-$15,000 range.

E.     Overview of Federal.  State, and Local Programs and Processes

       1.     Existing Regulations

       a.     Administration and background for nonpoint sources

             (1)    Clean Water  Act (Section 404)~permit program for the  discharge of
                    dredged  and fill material
             (2)    National Environmental Policy Act-sets the policy requiring all Federal
                    agencies to write an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any major
                    Federal action "significantly"  affecting the environment.  An EIS  must
                    include  consideration  of environmental  factors  which  tend  to  help
                    minimize nonpoint source pollution when it has been found abandonment
                    of the proposed action is impractical.
                                         6-7

-------
             (3)    US Army Corps of Engineers permit process for dredging and filling.

             (4)    Section 73 of Public Law 93-251 on nonstructural flood damage reduction
                   measures.

      b.     Examples of present State guidelines

             (1)    Best Management Practices Guidelines for Virginia
             (2)    Better Quality Management Plan for the State of Louisiana
             (3)    Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, 1989
             (4)    San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
                   policies on fill in tidal areas.

REFERENCES

Diplas, P. and Parker, G.  1985 (Jun).  "Pollution of Gravel Spawning  Grounds Due to fine
Sediment,"  University of Minnesota Hydraulics Laboratory Project Report No. 240.  St.
Anthony Falls, MN.

Engler,  R.M.,  Patin, T.R.,  and Theriot,  R.F.    1990  (Feb).   "Update  of the Corps'
Environmental Effects of Dredging Program (FY 89),"  Miscellaneous Paper D-90-2, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

USAGE,  Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers.   1987 (30 Jun).   "Beneficial Uses of
Dredged  Material,"  Engineer Manual  1110-2-5026,  US Government  Printing  Office,
Washington, DC.

Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers.  1983 (25 Mar). "Dredging and Dredged Material
Disposal," Engineer Manual 1110-2-5025, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Lagasse, P.P. 1975.  "Interaction of River Hydraulics and Morphology with Riverine Dredging
Operations," Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort collins,  CO.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.  1990.  State of Louisiana Water Quality
Management Plan, Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report.

Puget Sound Water Quality  Authority.    1988  (Oct).   "1989  Puget Sound Water  Quality
Management Plan,"  Seattle, WA.

Truitt, C.L.  1988.   "Dredged Material Behavior During Open Water Disposal," Journal of
Coastal Research. Vol 4 No. 3.
                                         6-8

-------
Turner,  R.E., et.  al.  "Backfilling Canals in Coastal Louisiana," Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses,  Proceedings of National Wetlands Symposium, Kusler, Quammen, and Brooks, eds.
pp 135-139.

Vinzant, LJ. "Road Dump Access to Oil/Gas Drilling Locations as an Alternative to Canal
Dredging," Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, Proceedings of National Wetlands Symposium,
Kusler, Quammen, and Brooks, eds. pp 124-127.

Virginia Department of Conservation  and Recreation.   1979.  Best Management Practices
Handbook. Hydrologic Modifications.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1989 (Apr).  North
Carolina Nonpoint Source Management. Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section.

James and Stokes Associates, Inc. "The Effects of Altered Streamflows on Fish and Wildlife in
California."  1976.
                                        6-9

-------
n.    DAMS AND LEVEES

A.    Coastal Prpblqi^s Caused fry Pflms and Levees

      1.     Overview

Dams and levees can adversely impact coastal and near coastal water quality, as well as the
hydrologic regime of stream systems. Direct impacts associated with the siting, construction,
and operation of dams and levees are due primarily to the disturbance of soil and ground cover,
changes in stream hydraulics, and modification of existing ecosystems (i.e., loss or reduction
of ecosystem filtering and uptake functions).

There are two large classes of impoundments (Virginia Department   of Conservation  and
Recreation, 1979).  First, there is the run-of-the-river impoundment, which is an impoundment
that usually has a small hydraulic head (low dam), limited storage area (thus, a short detention
time), and no positive control over lake storage. The amount of water released from this class
of impoundments is  dependent upon the amount of water entering the impoundment form
upstream sources.

The second class is the storage impoundment, in which there is a  large hydraulic head (high
dam), large storage capacity (long detention time), and a positive control on the amount of water
released from the dam.  Flood control dams and hydro-power dams are usually of the storage
class. Run-of-the-river impoundments generally have a much less pronounced overall effect on
water quality than do storage impoundments.

There are several possible intended  uses for impoundments:

       (1)    Flood control
       (2)    Power generation
       (3)    Navigation
       (4)    Water  supply - domestic, industrial, irrigation
       (5)    Other - recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, low flow augmentation, etc.

These various uses often require differing design and  management practices and, in cases of
multiple-use objectives, present conflicting operational requirements.  For example, flood control
impoundments have large storage capacities to contain flood waters.  As the wet or rainy season
approaches,  water is released to insure that adequate storage capacity is available for the periods
of high flow. The dam is operated to  trap excess flow during the wet season,  and to later
release this flow during periods of low stream flow.

In contrast,  the operation of dams for power generation has traditionally been focused on
meeting peak electricity demands. The dams, therefore,  usually must impound and store large
quantities of water, providing control over downstream releases to meet peak needs.
                                         6-10

-------
As a further contrast, dams for navigation purposes must be operated to maintain a minimum
depth in the  impoundment.   These dams usually have locks to facilitate the movement of
commercial traffic, and control over downstream releases.  Water supply dams impound large
quantities of water to meet user needs.

Multi-purpose impoundments  can have  conflicting operational requirements  that must be
balanced in  order to meet all specified  uses.  For example,  the  Shasta Dam in northern
California (U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976) is operated for flood control,  irrigation,
navigation, fish and wildlife conservation, hydroelectric power, recreation, and salinity control
in the  Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

       2.    Siting and Construction

The siting of dams and diversions can result in the inundation of wetlands and special aquatic
and terrestrial sites above the  structures,  and the drainage of aquatic and wetland habitats
downstream.   They can  also impede or  block  migration routes  of important sport  and
commercial fishes.  For example, 95 percent  of the historic spawning habitat  for salmon and
steelhead trout in California has been either destroyed or made unavailable by dams.

Construction activities can cause increased sedimentation of coastal and near-coastal waters due
to vegetation removal, soil  disturbance,  and soil  rutting.  Fuel and chemical spills, and the
cleaning of equipment (e.g., concrete washout) are also potential  nonpoint source problems
associated with construction.  The proximity of  most dams and levees  to  streambeds  and
floodplains heightens the need for on-site pollutant prevention.

Dam construction can have other effects on  the local hydraulics (Virginia  Department of
Conservation and Recreation, 1979).  In order to guard against dam failure, the flow of water
under and around the sides of the dam site must be impeded.  This is done by embedding an
impervious core into the ground  to prevent the flow of groundwater under or around the  dam
(piping). While this construction technique is necessary to ensure the safety of the dam, it can
impede the flow of groundwater in the vicinity of the dam. This interference might not become
apparent until the dam is fully constructed and the impoundment filled. These effects  on the
groundwater  flow can cause drops in the water  table below  the  dam  site, and increases
upstream. A rise in the water table can lead to the formation of marshes in areas that had been
dry.  Other effects include the possible accumulation of pollutants in  the groundwater because
the flow of the groundwater is disrupted.

       3.    Operation

The operation of dams and levees can also cause a variety of nonpoint source pollution impacts
to coastal and  near-coastal  waters.  For example, dams can  severely reduce downstream
movement of sediment, causing a  change in stream hydraulics. This change in stream hydraulics
can cause increased downstream  scouring and streambank erosion,  resulting in increased
sediment and nutrient delivery to coastal waters.  As another example,  lower instream flows and

                                         6-11

-------
flattening of peak flows associated with controlled releases from dams can result in aggradation
of near-coastal stream  beds and estuaries, degrading valuable spawning and rearing habitats.
Dams can also limit recruitment of favorably sized substrate needed by aquatic fauna, and lower
nutrient inflows to estuaries and near-coastal waters.  In  addition, dams can cause elevated
downstream water temperatures and lower downstream dissolved oxygen levels.

Levees can cause increased transport of suspended sediments to coastal and near-coastal waters
during high-flow events.  Levees  can also prevent the lateral movement of sediment-laden
waters into adjacent wetland and riparian areas which would otherwise serve as depositories for
sediments, nutrients,  and other pollutants.  This has been a big factor, for example, in the rapid
loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana. Levees also interrupt natural drainage from upland slopes
and can cause concentrated, erosive flow of surface water.

B.    Management Measures for Dams and Levees

Management Measure Applicability:

These management measures are to be utilized on all dams, and the erosion and sediment control
for construction, erosion  and sedimentation control for  operation,  habitat protection,  and
chemical and other pollutant control for construction apply to all levees.

These management measures do not apply to the extent that their implementation under State law
is precluded under California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 110 S.Ct. 2024 (1990)
(addressing the supercedence of State in-stream flow requirements by Federal flow requirements
set forth in FERC licenses  for hydroelectic power plants under the Federal Power Act).

       1.     Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Construction

       a.     Problems to  be  addressed

Erosion  and sedimentation control techniques can be used to address the  erosion problems
resulting from dam or  levee construction.

       b.     Erosion  and  sedimentation management measure for construction

The management measure for  control of erosion and sedimentation  during the construction of
dams and levees is a combination of practices that minimizes the detachment and transport of
soil by   human-induced disturbance, water, wind,  ice, or gravity such that the delivery of
sediment caused by the construction activities, either directly or indirectly, to natural waterways
is not significantly greater than the delivery of sediment from  the construction  area prior to
construction activities.
                                          6-12

-------
       c.     Management practices

Following is a list  of management practices for erosion and sedimentation control that are
available as  tools  to achieve  the  erosion and  sedimentation  management measure for
construction of dams and levees.

Soil Bioengineering - These techniques can be used to address the resulting erosion from dam
and levee construction.  Grading or terracing a problem streambank or eroding area and using
interwoven vegetation mats  installed alone or in combination with  structural measures will
facilitate infiltration stability.

Environmental Design of Waterways  (ENDOW) - This problem-solving computer program is
a practice that consolidates information on environmental features and facilitates their selection
for use in the planning and design of  streambank protection and flood control projects (Shields
and  Schaefer,  1990).   The  type of project,  dominant  mechanisms(s) of erosion, and
environmental goals are entered into the ENDOW program.  The program then lists  and
determines  the  relative  feasibility of the environmental  goals and features  (e.g.,  pool/riffle
complexes, preservation and creation of wetlands, low flow channels) within the program.

Other applicable practices are listed hi the "Construction Management Measure" section of the
urban chapter in this guidance.

       2.    Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Operation

       a.     Problems  to be addressed

Erosion and  sedimentation control techniques can  be  used  to address the erosion problems
resulting from dam or levee operation.

       b.     Erosion and sedimentation management measure for operation

The management measure for control of erosion and  sedimentation during the operation of dams
and levees is a combination of practices that minimizes the detachment and transport of soil by
human-induced disturbance, water, wind, ice, or gravity such that  the delivery of sediment
caused by dam or levee operation, either  directly  or indirectly, to natural waterways is not
significantly greater than the delivery of sediment from the area influenced by  the dam or levee
prior to establishment of the dam or levee.

       c.     Management practices

Following is a  list of management practices for  erosion and  sedimentation control that are
available as tools to achieve the erosion and sedimentation management measure for operation
of dams and levees.
                                         6-13

-------
Downstream Erosion Controls - The release waters from an impoundment can cause problems
downstream by eroding the  stream  channels and  by scouring the  stream bed  (Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation,  1979).  The amount of erosion potential is
determined by the credibility of the stream channel and banks, and by the amount of "excess"
energy the water possesses.

The usual method of controlling erosion is to place energy dissipators downstream of the water
release to consume the excess  energy, lowering the erosion potential. Energy dissipators can
take many forms, including:

Riprap or quarried stone can be used to line the streambed, and is resistant to dislodgment
because of its jagged shape. Riprap "liner" will not fail due to settling and shifting.

River Rock is frequently used to line the streambed and channels because it is usually available
at the site. Advantage is that the rock "liner" is flexible and can withstand settling and shifting
without failure.  Problem is that river rocks are generally rounded,  and, therefore, dislodged
easily by flows.

Gabions are wire mesh baskets filled with rock,  and can  be placed  in the stream to form a
"liner." Gabions can be anchored into the stream banks or streambed for stability. Gabions are
flexible and seldom fail because of settling or shifting.   However, gabions require periodic
maintenance to insure that none  of the wire is broken or corroded.

Concrete Blocks and  Liners can usually be made on-site since dam   construction typically
requires some concrete.  Because concrete is less dense than either river rock or riprap, it is
necessary  to make concrete  blocks larger to  provide the same resistance to   dislodgment.
Concrete structures are inflexible, and therefore more likely to fail due to settling and shifting.

Soil Bioengineering techniques can be used to address the resulting erosion from dam and levee
operation. Grading or terracing a problem streambank or eroding area and using interwoven
vegetation mats installed alone or in combination with structural measures  will facilitate
infiltration stability.

Environmental Design of Waterways  (ENDOW).  This practice is described under the
management practice for erosion and sediment control for construction.

       d.     Cost information

River rock is obtained at essentially no cost because it is obtained on site in most cases (Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation,  1979).

Riprap is more expensive than river rock because of quarrying and transportation costs. In
Tennessee, riprap is estimated to cost  $2,000 per 100 feet, assuming 1 cubic yard of riprap per
linear foot (Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, ca.  1990).

                                          6-14

-------
Gabions are usually filled with rock found at the site; however,  they require additional hand
labor to place the rock and ensure that the containers are not damaged.

       3.      Habitat Protection

       a.      Problems to be addressed

The loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat or habitat function associated with the construction
or operation of dams and levees is addressed by this management measure.  This includes the
preservation and protection of wetlands, riparian zones, and adjacent terrestrial habitat.

The control of natural fluctuations in stream flow can cause an increase in  the occurrence of
rooted aquatic vegetation and an  increase in the deposition of fine particles  (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,  1976).  Fine particles can compact spawning gravels, thus affecting spawning
success.

       b.      Management measure

The management measure for habitat protection is a combination of practices that minimizes
the loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat and habitat function such that habitat function in the
area affected by the dam or levee is not significantly degraded.  Habitat function includes both
the  range  of environmental benefits  provided  by  habitat (e.g.,  spawning,  food supply,
protection), as well as the capacity to support the numbers and diversity of species dependent
upon the habitat.

       c.      Management practices

Following is  a list of management practices for habitat protection that are available as tools to
achieve the habitat protection management measure.

Setback Levees - Setback levees avoid habitats which serve flood control functions  and act as
filters  for sediment and other pollutants.  They allow  a given level of high flow to maintain
existing floodplain habitats.  They also allow the transport of lesser amounts  of pollutants than
rapid transmission structural  systems, lowering the delivery  of pollutants  to coastal waters.

Low flow gates, channels, and weirs - Allow flow maintenance of fishery and  other habitats with
the same resultant benefits as cited for setback levees.

Flushing and Scouring Flows for Habitat Maintenance -'This practice is intended to maintain
habitats and substrates by  periodically flushing away sandbars and excessive deposits of fine
particles and rooted vegetation in areas downstream from  the  structure.  It is essential to
establish an actual ecological need for a flushing or scouring flow before proceeding to predict
or prescribe the requirements (U.S. EPA,  1988).  Predictive and evaluative methods should be
selected  which are  compatible  with   site-specific  conditions,  such as  the  watershed

                                          6-15

-------
characteristics,  instream flow regime, bed material composition, and channel morphology. It
is wise to compare results of several methodologies, which could vary by one or even two orders
of magnitude, when predicting flushing or scouring flow requirements, and, if possible, provide
fieid verification.  An awareness of the assumptions and limitations inherent in any predictive
methodology is important because sediment transport mechanics and channel maintenance theory
are still in an early stage of development.

Environmental Design of Waterways  (ENDOW) - This  practice is  described  under the
management practice for erosion and sediment control for construction.

      4.     Fisheries Protecting for Dams

      a.     Problems to be addressed

This management measure addresses impacts to fisheries caused by the amount and scheduling
of flow releases, downstream sedimentation of spawning areas, changes  to water temperature,
and fish passage. The generation of power at hydroelectric dams results from the movement of
reservoir water through penstocks and turbines to downstream areas.  Migrating young fish may
suffer significant losses when passing  through  the turbines unless  these facilities have been
designed  for fish passage.

      b.     Management measure

The management measure for fisheries protection is a combination of practices that minimizes
the loss of desirable fish species by: (1) mamtaining minimum instream flows for the protection
of desirable aquatic species, (2) controlling flow fluctuations within seasonal bounds to protect
against damage to aquatic life, (3) providing for flushing or scouring flows as needed for aquatic
habitat maintenance,  and (4)  providing for adequate fish passage  for spawning and migratory
(both upstream and downstream) purposes.

      c.     Management practices

Following is a list of management practices for fisheries protection that are available as tools to
achieve the fisheries  protection management measure.

Maintaining Minimum Flows - In the design,  construction, and  operation of structures, the
minimum flow requirements to support aquatic and other water-dependent wildlife in downstream
areas are addressed.  Instream flows are usually  maintained to protect or  enhance one  or a few
harvestable  species of fish  (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  1976).   Other  fish, aquatic
organisms, and riparian wildlife are assumed to also be adequately protected by these flows.

Reduction of Flow Fluctuations - Seasonal discharge limits are established to prevent excessive,
damaging rates of flow release.  Limits are also placed on the rate of change of flow and river
                                         6-16

-------
stage (as measured at a point downstream of the release) to further protect against damage to
aquatic communities  (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976).

Fish Ladders - Fish ladders or similar types of structures should be provided to  enable upstream
and downstream passage of mature fish. Safe downstream passage of mature fish and fry should
also be provided   (see screens and barriers to intakes).   Some fish,  such as steelhead and
cutthroat trout, migrate to the ocean more than one time during  a lifetime, making necessary
the provision for safe downstream passage of mature fish.

Screens and Barriers  to Intakes - Fish can  be prevented from moving into intakes for water
pumps and turbines through the use of various types of screens or barriers (U.S. EPA, 1979).
The survival chances of the downstream migrating fish can be increased by providing facilities
that bypass them into a gatewall before they enter the turbines and direct them into a channel
where they can move safely downstream. Fish can be diverted into holding tanks, collected, and
transported away from the area of influence of the pumps, and then released back into the water.

Created Spawning Beds - When the effects of a dam on the habitat of anadromous fish  are
severe,  constructed spawning beds may be  designed into the project (Virginia Department of
Conservation and  Recreation, 1979).  Additional facilities are then required to channel the fish
to these spawning beds. These can include electric barriers, fish ladders, and bypass channels.

Fish Hatcheries - Only use in existing dams where adequate fish passage not possible  or as
compensation for loss of fish passage (e.g., fish population supplementation).  Native stocks
should be used wherever practicable.

When reservoirs flood spawning beds for anadromous fish, hatcheries are established to collect,
kill, and obtain the roe from migrating fish  (U.S. EPA, 1979).   The roe is fertilized  and then
placed in the hatchery under controlled conditions until the fish are hatched.  After having
reached  an appropriate  stage in  their development, the fish  are released into the  river
downstream (or above dam to enhance reproduction in the upper watershed) of the dam to
migrate back to the ocean.

Transference of Anadromous Fish Runs - This practice involves the inducement of anadromous
fish to utilize different spawning grounds in the vicinity of the impounded waters.  The extent
of the spawning grounds to be lost by blockage of the river is assessed, and the feasibility of
transferring existing anadromous fish runs affected by the structure to alternative tributaries is
determined.

Environmental  Design of  Waterways (ENDOW) - This  practice is  described  under  the
management practice for erosion and sediment control for construction.
                                         6-17

-------
       5.     Temperature Control and Aeration of Resorvoir Releases and Tailwaters

       a.     Problems to be addressed

This management measure is intended to increase dissolved oxygen  levels  from reservoir
releases and tailwaters  such that aquatic communities are maintained at levels of abundance,
diversity,  and  function that  existed prior to the construction of the dam.  Changes in
temperature are also addressed to prevent damage to fisheries.

One drawback associated with aeration of release water is the increased possibility of nitrogen
supersaturation  (Virginia Department  of Conservation  and Recreation,  1979).   Water  that
discharges  over the spillway  of a dam  and plunges into the spillway basin or plunge pool
immediately downstream can become saturated with nitrogen, oxygen, and other gases.  As the
water plunges rapidly to depths, hydrostatic pressures increase.  Entrained air is forced  into
solution by the pressure before it can rise to the surface and escape. Since air is approximately
80 percent nitrogen, the water becomes supersaturated with nitrogen.  Nitrogen levels of 115
percent saturation have been documented to cause mortalities in fish.

       b.     Temperature and  aeration management measure

The management measure for  temperature control and  aeration of reservoir releases  and
tailwaters  is a combination of practices  that  restores dissolved oxygen levels to the levels
existing prior to the construction of the  dam, and maintains temperatures within ranges
appropriate for desirable fishes.

       c.     Temperature control and aeration practices

Following is a list of management practices for temperature control and aeration of reservoir
releases and  tailwaters that are available as tools  to achieve the temperature and aeration
management measure.

The following information is taken from Tennessee's Section 319 (Clean Water Act) nonpoint
source management program  (Tennessee Department of Health and Environment, ca. 1990)
unless otherwise  noted.

Turbine Venting - Includes Hub baffle, draft tube wall baffle, compressed air through hub or
wall.  Modify air supply system to increase airflow.

Surface Water Pumps - Pumps  surface water with higher dissolved oxygen downward to mix
with deeper water as the two strata are entering the turbine.

High  Purity Oxygen Injection - Used in combination with turbine venting or surface water
pumps  to add more oxygen.
                                          6-18

-------
Diffused Aeration or Oxygenation of the Reservoir - Used to lower concentrations of dissolved
iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide.

Surface Water Intake - It may be feasible when constructing a new dam to provide upper
elevation outlets to withdraw oxygenated surface water.

Multi-Level Discharge Systems - Multi-level discharge systems have been used successfully to
mix  waters from all levels of an impoundment to provide some control  over the temperature
and dissolved oxygen concentrations of the release waters (Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation,  1979).  This consists  of providing a release structure with several intake
structures  at various depths, thus allowing controlled withdrawals from the different levels in
the lake. Although this is normally provided during construction, such a structure can be added
to an established impoundment.  The use of such a system must be carefully  considered and
designed before implementation because multi-level discharge systems change the  thermal
structure of the impoundment as a function of withdrawal patterns.

Watershed Management - Control of all point and nonpoint sources  of pollutants to achieve
improved  reservoir inflow quality.

Reregulation Weir - Used to  capture hydropower release a  short distance downstream and
regulate flows to the desired level in reach below the weir.

Small Turbine - Provides continuous generation of power using small flow as  opposed to peaking
with large turbine units and high flow.

Pulsing - Provides pulse flow on a frequent basis to minimize draining or drying out of tailwater
area.  This technique requires off-peak operation and decreases the ability to produce peaking
power where pulses are needed on a daily basis  during certain parts of the  year.

Sluice - Modification is made to existing sluice outlet to maintain continuous minimum flow.

Spillway Modification to Prevent Supersaturation of Gases - Spillways are designed or modified
to cause the flows  to be flipped  as they are discharged. Upturned deflectors, cantilevered
extension,  "flip  buckets," or "flip lips" can be designed for spillway terminal structures  to
deflect the water in a downstream direction and prevent the discharge from plunging straight
down. Flows can even be caused to fan out into a thin sheet through the use  of a flaring device.

Alternative measures to prevent nitrogen and other gases from  reaching Supersaturation levels
include (1)  decreasing spillway  flows by providing  additional reservoir storage,  and  (2)
decreasing spillway flows by passing water through any available outlet conduit where turbulence
will not entrain air.
                                          6-19

-------
      d.     Effectiveness information

The following information is taken from Tennessee's Section 319  (Clean Water Act) nonpoint
source management program (Tennessee  Department of Health and Environment, ca. 1990)
unless otherwise noted.

Turbine Venting - Expect a 2 mg/L to 4 mg/L increase in dissolved oxygen.  This is a proven
method, but there is a question regarding cavitation resulting from venting.

While the actual design of the turbines is dependent upon many factors, the use of wedge-shaped
deflector plates in the draft tubes, slightly below the turbine wheel  will create a negative
pressure in  the flow and thus induce aeration (Virginia Department of Conservation  and
Recreation, 1979). Howell-Burger valves produce a spray discharge or release that reportedly
(TVA) had reaeration efficiencies of 80 percent when the exit velocities exceeded nine meters
per second.

Surface  Water Pumps - Expect a 2 mg/L to 4 mg/L increase in dissolved oxygen.

High  Purity Oxygen Injection - Used in combination with turbine venting or surface water
pumps,  dissolved oxygen levels can be increased beyond a 2 mg/L to 4 mg/L increase.

Watershed Management - Not expected to correct all dissolved oxygen depletion problems, but
is used in combination with other techniques to provide better overall dissolved oxygen  levels.

      e.     Cost information

The cost information provided in Table 6-1 is based upon data provided by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (Tennessee Department  of Health and Environment, ca. 1990).

      6.     Chemical and Other Pollutant Control for Construction

      a.     Problems to be addressed

This management measure addresses fuel and chemical spills associated with dam and levee
construction, as well as concrete washout and related construction activities.

      b.     Management measure

The management measure for control of chemicals and other pollutants  during the construction
of dams and levees is a combination of practices that minimizes the risk of delivery to  natural
waterways of chemicals and other pollutants associated with the construction activities.
                                         6-20

-------
Table 6-1.    Approximate Costs for Reservoir Release and Tailwater Practices (ca. 1990
             dollars)
   Practice
        Cost Description
   Turbine Venting
   Surface Water
    Pumps
Capital cost can range from $15,000 to $1,000,000 per turbine
unit.  Annual  operation and maintenance cost can range from
$50,000 to $100,000 at a project like Norris Dam, and
$10,000 to $20,000 at a project like Tims Ford Dam.

Capital costs about $200,000 per turbine unit. Annual
operating cost about $25,000/unit.  Operating cost consists
primarily of power costs to run  the pumps.
   High Purity Oxygen  Cost for an experimental system on one turbine unit is as
    Injection           much as $300,000, with an annual operating cost of about
                       $50,000/unit.
   Diffused Aeration
   the Reareation
Capital cost for a small non-power lake is $50,000 to
$100,000 with an annual cost of $5,000 to $10,000.
   Reregulation Weir   Capital cost of $500,000 to $750,000.
   Small Turbine
   Pulsing
   Sluice
Capital cost of $500,000 to $750,000, with operating costs at
about the break-even point.

Annual cost can be as low as $5,000 to $10,000 where few
pulses are needed. This technique requires off-peak operation,
and may be subject to additional demand charge because it
decreases ability to produce peaking power.  Additional charge
could range from  $100,000 to $700,000 where pulses are
needed on a daily basis during part of the year.

Capital cost of $150,000, with annual operating cost of about
$200,000 to $300,000.
Tennessee Valley Authority water use cost is based on the assumption of lost power-generating
potential.
                                         6-21

-------
      c.     Management practices

Following is a list of management practices for chemical and other pollutant control that are
available as tools to achieve the management measure for chemical and other pollutant control
for construction.

Nutrient Management - The nutrient management measure for agriculture should be applied for
all use of nutrients associated with construction (e.g., revegetation).

Pest Management - The pest management measure for agriculture should be applied for  all use
of pesticides associated with construction.

Spills -  Spill containment and  cleanup procedures should be in place to address fuels and
chemical spills.

Equipment Washout - Treatment or detention of concrete washout and related washout should
be provided such that direct entry of washout contaminants  to surface waters is prevented.

REFERENCES

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.  1990. State of Louisiana  Water Quality
Management Plan, Volume 6, Part B, Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, Office
of Water Resources, Baton Rouge, LA.

Shields, F.D., Jr., and T.E. Schaefer. 1990. ENDOW User's Guide, U.S. Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Tennessee Department of Health and Environment. 1990 (ca.).   Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Management Program for the State of Tennessee, Bureau of Environment, Nashville,
TN.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Best Management Practices Guidance, Discharge
of Dredged or Fill Materials, Office of Water,  Washington, DC,  EPA 440/3-79-028.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency. 1988. Flushing  and Scouring  Flows for Habitat
Maintenance in Regulated Streams, Office of Water, Washington, DC, NTIS #PB87.101893.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. The Effects of Altered  Streamflows on Fish & Wildlife
in California, Task II: Individual Case Study Results, Western Energy and  Land Use Team,
Fort  Collins, CO.

Virginia Department of  Conservation and  Recreation. 1979.  Best Management Practices
Handbook - Hydrologic Modifications, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Richmond,
VA.

                                        6-22

-------
m.    SHORELINE EROSION
This section addresses NFS problems  related  to  shoreline erosion in bays, estuaries,  tidal
streams, and watersheds within the coastal zone. It does not address open coastal shorelines as
erosion into open ocean is not likely to  cause NFS problems.

Numerous factors affect the processes  along the shore  zone  (see section D on planning and
design considerations).  Eroding shorelines and streambanks contribute NFS sediment loads and
nutrients to the neighboring waterway.  The sediment may have beneficial or harmful impacts.
Beneficial impacts include beach nourishment, sandbar creation or nourishment of wetlands that
combat erosion.  Adverse water quality  impacts (turbidity, BOD, sediment), burial of shellfish
beds, smothering of submerged aquatic vegetation  (SAV),  impacts to spawning areas and
property loss are several detrimental impacts of erosion.   Eroding shorelines also contribute
nitrogen, phosphorus and other pollutants to the waterbody.

[EPA requests additional information addressing more arid areas and shoreline measures further
upstream in coastal watersheds.]

B.     Specific NFS Problems

This section focuses on controls for erosion caused or exacerbated by human land use or water
activities.  Erosion rates ranging from 1 to 20  feet per year are typical in many coastal  areas
where the fastland along the shore is itself composed of older deposits of interbedded sand, silt,
and clay. This type of eroded shoreline sediment may often contain adsorbed nutrients.  It has
been demonstrated that nutrient loadings from eroded shoreline sediments are significant.  High
nitrogen concentrations have been found in upper bank sediments,  especially on eroding  farm
fields. For 14 sites in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay, for example, average loading
rates were 0.51 Ibs/ton for nitrogen and  0.35 Ibs/ton for phosphorous of eroded sediments  from
the estuarine  shorelines.  Shoreline erosion can also adversely affect living bay resources by
increasing sedimentation rates and turbidity.

C.     Management Measures

To address the NFS problems identified  in Section B above, shoreline management measures in
the coastal bay/estuarine  system should incorporate the  upland,  shore zone  and nearshore
regimes in order to accomplish the following objectives:

       (1)     Avoid the generation of NFS pollution from shoreline erosion during a "25-year"
              event.   For fluvial environments (upstream), this event is the "25-year" flood.
              For estuaries or coastal  bays, this  event includes tidal storm surge and  wind
              induced wave action.
                                         6-23

-------
       (2)    Achieve no significant sedimentation  from the shoreline  source and minimal
             visible loss of shoreline.

       (3)    Do not transfer erosion energy to or negatively impact other shoreline areas due
             to management actions. Minimize impacts of controllable erosion potential (form
             wave energy  and overland storm runoff) such as boat wakes  or  channelized
             runoff.

       (4)    Protect natural  shoreline  vegetation and aquatic  habitats such as  wetlands,
             submerged aquatic beds, riffle pool complexes, and  riparian habitat.  Restore
             damaged habitat as a shoreline stabilization practice when conditions allow.

Nonstructural management practices are preferred.  Structural shoreline erosion practices should
be used only in areas where nonstructural practices are ineffective (i.e., areas with high wave
energy).  Satisfaction of all of the measures for any reach may be difficult.  For example,
management practices that are effective for certain water quality objectives may be ineffective
or even counter productive  in achieving other water quality objectives.  For instance, even
though bulkheads effectively reduce sediment input, they provide little benefit for restoration of
habitat, and in some cases, they have caused other NFS problems due to leaching of chemical
wood preservatives from the structure.

D.     Planning and Design Considerations to Select Management Practices

The following process outlines an approach for selecting the appropriate management practices
to achieve the management measures described in Section C above.

       (1)    Identify extent of erosion  problem.  The rates  of  shoreline erosion can  be
             estimated by comparing present and historic shoreline locations through use of
             maps, photographs, or pre-existing surveys. Additional site-specific information
             on the bank height of the fastland can be considered  with the historic recession
             rate, to identify areas contributing the greatest volumes of sediment and  related
             pollutants  (i.e., agricultural lands).

       (2)    Evaluate the effects of the adjacent land use.  It is important to consider both the
             adjacent land use activities and water use activities (such as boat wake) that may
             cause or  exacerbate  shoreline erosion problems.   Therefore, the shoreline
             management practice should be implemented in conjunction with the management
             measures prescribed  in the earlier chapters of this guidance. (See  Chapters  on
             Agriculture, Forestry, Urban, and Marinas.)

       (3)    Evaluate the natural causes of shoreline erosion.  Shorelines along rivers, bays,
             and estuaries may degrade gradually due to the daily action of tides, waves, and
             currents.   Alternatively, only the most severe storm conditions may cause loss of
             fastland or wetlands along the shore.   Shoreline erosion in coastal areas is

                                          6-24

-------
             strongly related to an area's  wave climate.   A relatively simple measure of
             potential wave climate is the measure of fetch (the distance over open water that
             winds can generate waves).  In coastal bays and estuaries, the fetch is limited to
             the distance to  the opposite shore. For instance, a low energy shore may have
             a short fetch across a creek but a very long fetch toward the northeast (i.e., storm
             exposure).  Further upstream, the driving  factor may be overland runoff and
             velocities generated by storm events.  The Great Lakes shorelines, on the other
             hand, may have an almost unlimited fetch due to their great widths  and deep
             water.  Selection of the appropriate erosion control measure should be directly
             related  to the extent of the problem and an understanding of the underlying
             causes.

       (4)    Determine limits of the reach.  A reach is a segment of shoreline wherein the
             erosion  processes  and  responses are  mutually interactive.    For  example,
             appreciable littoral sand supply would not pass the boundaries of the reach. A
             reach may also be  defined as a shoreline segment wherein manipulation  of the
             shoreline within that segment would  not directly influence adjacent segments.
             That is, measures implemented on an individual property should minimize impacts
             to neighboring  properties in the reach.

       (5)    Identify wetlands, riparian, submerged aquatic beds, and other nearshore habitats
             in the shoreline area of concern. Allow adequate flow and circulation to protect
             the functional value of adjacent wetlands or other aquatic habitat.  If wave climate
             and other erosive  conditions  allow,  consider nonstructural measures such as
             restoring pre-existing habitat or using a combination of low profile structures with
             re-establishing aquatic habitats.

E.     Management Practices

This section discusses management practices that are available as tools to achieve the shoreline
erosion management measures. There are various practices available to achieve the management
measures. These practices range from biological and physical engineering processes to zoning/
restrictions.   The planning process described above is essential in selecting  the appropriate
management practice.  Eroding areas may be influenced by wind-driven wave action, tidal
fluxes, storm discharges from land, operation of water craft,  or various land use activities.
Selection of the appropriate management practice depends upon a comprehensive understanding
of the driving forces behind shoreline erosion.  The  three basic categories of shoreline erosion
control measures are:

       (1)    Nonstructural:   includes bank grading and  beach nourishment.  Also include
             restoration and re-vegetation  of wetlands  (emergent marsh, shrub-scrub,  or
             forested) and other vegetation re-establishment (see chapter on wetlands/riparian
             restoration for additional information).
                                          6-25

-------
       (2)    Combinations and  Bioengineering:   includes  mixed  use of  structural  and
             nonstructural approaches such as biological engineering practices, including live
             staking, live fascine, brushlayer, branchpacking, brushmatresses; also headland
             breakwaters and beach nourishment with vegetation  re-establishment,  bank
             grading and beach fill, groins with vegetation re-establishment.

       (3)    Structural:   includes bulkheads,  stone  revetments,  seawalls, groins  and
             breakwaters.

There are various methods and combinations of methods available from which  to choose once
a decision has been made to stabilize a shoreline.  The method  or methods selected must be
compatible with other methods (if combinations  are selected) and with the objectives of the
management strategy. Some methods, with price estimations, are as follows:

       1.     Nonstructural

       a.     Bank grading

Bank grading is basically the reshaping of the upper shoreface of a sediment bank to enhance
upland vegetative growth.  This method is typically used in combination with other methods
described  below.   The cost for bank grading ranges from $2.50 to $5.00 per cubic yard of
material moved.

       b.     Marsh vegetation

The use of marsh vegetation to abate shoreline erosion can be attractive in terms of cost.  The
initial cost of creating a substantial marsh grass fringe ranges from $30.00 to $60.00 per linear
foot, depending on the desired width. Yearly maintenance of a marsh fringe generally involves
fertilization and debris removal as well as additional planting.  Not all estuarine shorelines are
suitable for treatment with marsh grass plantings.  Shorelines exposed to high energy categories
would  be excluded from the vegetative alternative due to more frequent damaging wave action
(Knutson, 1977).  However, it may be possible to establish a marsh fringe under these conditions
in conjunction with some type of offshore breakwaters or other wave damping  device.

       c.     Other re-vegetation

(See Wetlands  and Riparian  area chapter on restoration for additional information beyond
emergent marshes like restoring vegetation in areas further upstream such as bottomland forest
or scrub-shrub.)
                                          6-26

-------
       d.     Beach nourishment

There are a variety of techniques available to artificially re-nourish beach systems, however the
source, quality, and grain size of material used for re-nourishment needs to be economically
evaluated in order to determine its suitability for placement.  Truck hauling, cutterhead pipeline
dredging, hopper dredging, and combinations of these techniques can be used to effectively re-
nourish a beach.  In evaluating the quantity of material needed to construct the required beach
width, the volume of the material needed to fill the offshore zone where the profile is not in
dynamic equilibrium must be considered. If this subaqueous portion of the shore is not filled,
the erosion rate of the new material might accelerate until the profile adjusts  to the dynamic
equilibrium condition. In this case the visible portion of the beach may be displaced offshore
with little chance of returning.

The location of the optimum placement of material is another important aspect  of beach re-
nourishment. This  location is mostly dependent on the physical characteristics of the shoreline
and the desired result of the project. Placement on the visible portion of the beach can occur
in the  form of a dune and/or berm construction.  The benefits of this type of  erosion control
measure are readily observed due to the increased beach width for recreation  and as a storm
protection method.   However the berm life might be of short duration due  to the previously
mentioned processes. Other placement options exist in the foreshore zone and in an offshore
zone in the form of a bar.

The cost for beach nourishment varies widely based on the distance to the sand source, the type
of equipment used,  and the method of placement.

       2.     Combinations and Bioenginccring

Soil bioengineering provides an array  of practices that are effective for both prevention or
mitigation of NFS  problems.  This applied technology combines mechanical, biological and
ecological principles to construct protective  systems that prevent slope failure  and erosion.
Adapted types of woody vegetation (shrubs and trees)  are  initially  installed  as key structural
components, in specified configurations, to  offer immediate soil protection and reinforcement.
Soil bioengineering systems normally utilize cut, unrooted plant parts in the  form of branches
or rooted plants.  As the systems establish  themselves and  develop  roots (fibrous inclusions),
they provide an additional resistance to sliding or shear displacement in streambanks or upland
slopes.

Specific soil bioengineering practices contributing to these systems include  live  staking, live
fascine, brushlayer, branchpacking,  brushmatresses, joint planting, live cribwall and live gully
repair.  Environmental benefits include  diverse and productive riparian habitats, shade and
organic additions to streams or small water bodies, cover for fish, aesthetic  values and water
quality.
                                          6-27

-------
Soil bioengineering systems contribute to the following partial list of desired effects:

       •     Protection of soil surface against wind, rain and frost erosion
       •     Improved water quality through higher interception of rainfall, and stabilization
             of soil against erosion.
       •     Increased shade  and reduced temperatures in  soil,  water, and air layers near
             ground surface.
       •     Improved soil permeability.
       •     Improved riparian and aquatic habitat.
       •     Improved soil enrichment (decaying organics and symbiosis) and improved water
             retentive capacity of soil.
       •     Improved subsurface drainage.
       •     Reduced wave action.
       •     Stabilization of slopes prone to shallow failure.
       •     Control of rills and gullies.
       •     Filtration of runoff sediment.
       •     Restoration of aesthetically  degraded areas of protection of existing aesthetic
             attributes.
       •     Minimum disturbance of existing desired site conditions.
       •     Reduced operation and maintenance costs.

       3.     Structural

       a.     Revetments

The primary purpose of a revetment is to protect the land and upland areas behind the structure
from erosion by waves and currents. The stability of a revetment depends on the underlying soil
conditions and should therefore be constructed on a stabilized slope. Erosion may continue or
accelerate on an adjacent shore if it was formerly supplied with material eroded  from the now
protected area.   The three basic components of a revetment are the armor layer which absorbs
the wave energy, the underlying filter layer supporting the armor layer, and the  toe protection
to prevent displacement of the armor units.

Revetments are commonly constructed of graded quarrystone,  precast  interlocking blocks,
gabions, stacked bags, or special mats.  The size and quantity of the construction material and
therefore the price of a structure varies with the energy  category of the shoreline.  Important
design considerations include use and overall shape of the structure, location with respect to the
existing shoreline, structure length and height, soil stability, normal and  storm surge water
elevations,  availability  of construction  materials,  economics,  environmental  concerns,
institutional constraints, and aesthetics.  Average costs for revetments constructed from Class
n riprap range from $175  to $225 per linear foot.
                                           6-28

-------
       b.     Seawalls and bulkheads

A seawall is a structure that is built to protect the landward side of the wall from damaging tidal
elevations and wave attack.   Seawalls may be constructed  with concrete, steel sheet piles or
wood.   Bulkheads have two functions.  The first is to retain or prevent sliding of material
seaward, and the second, to  protect the upland against damage from wave action.  Seawalls or
bulkheads may be used in aU three energy categories; however, the effects of these types of
structures on the entire reach of shoreline must be evaluated. The costs of bulkheads varies with
the energy category and the locality of the project.  Typical  costs (for  timber bulkheads) are
$200.00 to $275.00 per linear foot.  These costs  may vary $25%  to 40% depending on the
location of the project.

       c.     Groins

A groin is a shore protection device, usually oriented perpendicular to the  shore,  that may
consist of one or more structures.  The purpose of these structures is to  trap littoral drift, thus
creating a beach on the updrift side of the groin.  Careful planning and design  of a single groin
or groin field is necessary to avoid adverse erosional effects on the downdrift side of a project.
Groin fields usually  require maintenance in the form of beach nourishment if  the volume of
longshore drift is insufficient to  bypass around the groin tip.  The cost per linear foot varies
from $35  to $180 depending on the wave energy category and the locality of  the project.

       d.     Breakwaters

The functions of breakwaters is  to intercept incoming waves, dissipate their energy,  and thus
form a low-energy shadow zone  on the landward side.  This reduction in wave energy reduces
the ability of sediment transport.  Sand moving along the shore is therefore trapped behind the
structures and accumulated.  Breakwaters are often placed as segmented structures that allow for
the protection of longer reaches of shoreline for less cost.

The headland control concept is to take advantage of the shoreline's natural movement toward
equilibrium.  Less resistant shorelines between stable headlands continue to erode  until the
equilibrium point is reached.   As the shoreline  reaches  a  stable configuration, a shallow
embayment is formed between the headlands.  This equilibrium state will depend on  the wave
climate and the sediment transport mechanisms acting on the shoreline. By maintaining natural
headlands as focal points for stabilization or by inducing artificial ones, the  shoreline should
stabilize between these headlands.  An extensive eroding shoreline reach may be controlled by
structurally protecting only  about 30 percent of the total reach.  Breakwaters and  headland
breakwaters average  $90.00 to $350.00 per linear foot.
                                          6-29

-------
REFERENCES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Year? Low Cost Shore Protection... a Property Owner's Guide.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Year?  Low  Cost Shore Protection ... a Guide for Local
Government Officials.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. (1990 public hearing
draft)

Maryland Eastern Shore Resource Conservation and Development Council. Public information
document.  "Shoreline Erosion Control-The Natural Approach."

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  General Information Pamphlet. "Help Yourself:  A discussion
of erosion problems on the Great Lakes and alternative methods of shore protection.

Michigan  Sea Grant  College Program.  "Vegetation and its role in reducing  Great  Lakes
shoreline erosion:  A guide for property owners." MICHU-SG-88-700.
                                        6-30

-------
CHAPTER 7. MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR WETLANDS PROTECTION
                   AND BIOFDLTRATION

-------
                                  CHAPTER?

MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR WETLANDS PROTECTION AND BIOFILTRATION

I.     Introduction	7-1

      A.    Overview	7-1
      B.    Definitions  	7-2

            1.    Wetlands Definition  	7-2
            2.    Riparian Area Definition  	7-2
            3.    Vegetative Filter Strips Definition	7-3

n.    Management Measure for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Filter Strips  . 7-3

ffl.   Management Practices for Wetlands  	7-4

      A.    Benefits of Wetlands in NPS Control  	7-4
      B.    Management Practices to Protect and Restore Wetlands	7-4

            1.    Management Practice - Protection	7-4
            2.    Management Practice - Restoration	7-8

IV.   Management Practices for Riparian Areas	7-12

      A.    Benefits of Riparian Areas in NPS Control	7-12
      B.    Management Practices to Protect Riparian Areas  	7-12

            1.    Management Practice - Protection	7-12
            2.    Effectiveness of Protection Practices  	7-13
            3.    Cost Considerations  	7-14

      C.    Maintenance  	7-14

V.    Management Practices for Vegetative  Filter Strips	7-15

      A.    General Role	7-15
      B.    Management Practice for Vegetated Filter Strips  	7-15

            1.    Effectiveness	7-15
            2.    Design Criteria	7-18

      C.    Cost  	7-19
      D.    Maintenance  	7-19

VI.   Monitoring Considerations 	7-20

      References	7-21

-------
                                    CHAPTER?

         MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR WETLANDS PROTECTION AND
                                 BIOPTLTRATION

I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Overview

The preceding five chapters of this guidance have specified management measures that represent
the most effective systems of practices to prevent or reduce coastal nonpoint pollution from five
specific categories of sources.  Below, we specify a management measure  that, in contrast,
applies to a broad variety of sources. This measure addresses wetlands protection, riparian zone
protection, and vegetative filter strips.

The loss of wetland and riparian areas as buffers between uplands and the parent  waterbody
allows for more direct contribution of NFS pollutants to the aquatic ecosystem. Often, loss of
these  systems is concomitant with other alteration of land features  which increase drainage
efficiency. As a result, excessive fresh water, nutrients, sediments, pesticides,  oils, greases, and
heavy  metals from nearby land use activities may be discharged through storm events and
seepage to the water column and downstream to the coastal waters without the benefits of
filtration and  attenuation that would normally occur in the wetland (riparian area), if present.

A  study performed in the southeastern United States Coastal Plain illustrates,  dramatically, the
prevention role that wetlands and riparian areas play.  The study examined the water quality role
played by mixed hardwood forests along stream channels adjacent to agricultural lands. Based
on the input/output budgets, these streamside forests were shown to be effective in retaining N,
P, Ca, and Mg.  It was projected that total conversion of the riparian forest to a mix of crops
typically grown  on  uplands would  result  in a twenty-fold  increase in NO3-N loadings.
(Lowrance, et al 1983).

Land use activities that alter the structure or hydrologic regime of wetlands and riparian areas
may contribute  significantly to NPS problems.   When riparian vegetation is removed  or
degraded, the banks of streams, bays, or estuaries are destabilized and become more  vulnerable
to  erosion from storm events, wave action, or concentrated runoff. Floodplain wetlands are very
efficient in retaining sediments when the wetlands come in contact with flood waters.  However,
when  the hydrology of these same wetlands  is modified, such as by channelization, they may
become exporters  of sediments instead.  Tidal wetlands perform  many water purification
functions. However,  when they are severely  degraded such as when drained by tide gates, they
have been shown to be a source of nonpoint pollution.  When such tidal wetlands underlain by
a layer of organic peats are drained, the rapidly decomposing soils may release sulfuric acid that
may significantly reduce pH in surrounding waters.
                                         7-1

-------
Wetlands and riparian zones also offer important advantages in habitat protection. Protection
and protective use of wetlands and riparian zones should allow for both nonpoint source control
and other corollary benefits of these natural aquatic systems. Land managers should, therefore,
utilize proper management techniques to protect and restore the multiple benefits of these
systems.  For these reasons, EPA recommends that land managers should factor both protection
and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas into their NPS and coastal management programs.

Vegetative filter strips can also provide important benefits in protecting coastal  waters from
nonpoint source pollution.  As discussed below, properly designed and maintained vegetative
filter strips can substantially reduce the delivery of sediment and some nutrients to coastal waters
from nonpoint sources.

B.  Definitions

EPA provides definitions for wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetative filter strips below. These
definitions are provided  for clarification purposes  only.  Identifying the exact boundaries of
wetland or riparian areas is less critical than identifying ecological systems of concern. In fact,
in many cases,  the area of concern may include an upland buffer adjacent to sensitive wetland
areas  to protect them from excessive nonpoint source impacts.

       1.  Wetlands Definition

Below is the regulatory definition used by EPA  and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

       "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
       and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,  a prevalence
       of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally
       includes swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas."

Wetlands  are generally waters of U.S. and as such afforded protection under the  Clean Water
Act.   Although we are  focusing  on  the function of wetlands in reducing nonpoint source
pollutants, it is important to keep in mind that they are ecological systems that perform a range
of hydrologic and habitat functions as well as transforming or trapping pollutants.

       2.  Riparian Area Definition

Simply stated, a "riparian area" is the vegetated  area along a waterbody. There is no one well-
established definition; however, these areas are typically part of a "riparian system", a complex
assemblage of organisms and their environment  existing adjacent to and near  waterbodies.
Riparian areas are zones that are strongly influenced by an adjacent aquatic environment, have
linear characteristics, and experience hydrological fluxes at least once within the growing season.
These areas are associated with bays, estuaries, rivers,  lakes, reservoirs, springs, seeps, and
ephemeral, intermittent,  or perennial  streams.  They occur as complete ecosystems or as an
ecotone between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, but  have distinct  vegetation  and soil

                                          7-2

-------
characteristics because of high soil moisture.  Topographic relief and presence of depositional
soils most strongly influence the extent of water regimes and associated riparian zones.  Riparian
ecosystems may be classified as uplands,  wetlands, or some mixture of the two.  Generally,
riparian wetland soils are high in clay content, organic matter, water-holding capacity, and
natural fertility.  The term "riparian ecosystem" does not convey definitive boundaries.

Riparian zones  differ functionally from vegetative filter strips in that riparian zones have the
ability to filter subsurface as well as surface flows* while filter strips are primarily involved in
the filtration of surface flows.

      3. Vegetative Filter Strips Definition

Vegetative  filter  (or buffer) strips (VFS) are permanent, maintained strips  of  planted or
indigenous vegetation located between nonpoint sources of pollution and receiving water bodies
for the purpose of removing or mitigating the effects of nonpoint source pollutants such as
nutrients, pesticides, sediment and suspended  solids.  VFS  employ strips of perennial grasses,
legumes, and/or hay crops to act as a filter to remove sediment and suspended solids, to reduce
runoff velocity, and to facilitate rain absorption into the soil.

The  pollutant-removal mechanism of the filter strip results from a combination of functions,
including a change in flow hydraulics and the process of neutralizing or assimilating pollutants.
The physical process of removing pollutants involves filtering particulates and sediment through
vegetation,  its settling and deposition, and, in some cases, uptake by vegetation.

[EPA REQUESTS COMMENT:  Should this chapter also address other aquatic resources that
are important to maintaining water quality?  A proposal to include two other categories of
aquatic resources follows:

      Intertidal Flats:  trap sediments and  reduce the amount  of suspended sediments in
      adjacent coastal waters; flats also influence the chemistry of adjacent coastal waters.

      Submerged Aquatic Vegetation:   tend to dampen wave energy thereby  promoting
      sedimentation.  This in turn reduces amount of suspended sediments in the water.]

H.    MANAGEMENT  MEASURE  FOR  WETLANDS,  RIPARIAN AREAS, AND
      VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIPS

Wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetative filter strips are important components of systems to
control nonpoint sources of pollution.  A principle of protection involves  minimizing impacts
to wetlands and riparian  areas serving to control nonpoint source pollution, by maintaining
existing functions of the  wetlands and riparian areas, including: vegetative composition and
cover; flow  characteristics  of  surface  and ground water;   hydrology and geochemical
characteristics of substrate; and species composition.  In addition, vegetated filter strips have
                                         7-3

-------
wide applicability and should be broadly employed to protect coastal waters from sediments and
nutrients.

m.  MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WETLANDS

A.   Benefits of Wetlands in NFS Control

Wetlands provide  many  beneficial uses including habitat,  flood  attenuation, water quality
improvement,  shoreline stabilization,  and groundwater recharge and discharge. Wetlands can
play a critical  role  in reducing nonpoint source pollution problems in open bodies of water by
trapping and/or transforming pollutants before releasing them to adjacent waters.  Their role in
water quality includes processing,  removing, transforming and storage of such pollutants as
sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, and certain heavy metals in exchanges with adjacent
waters or with waters that pass through the wetland.  Wetlands are also major exporters of
carbon and nutrients.

A wetland's position in the landscape, both in relation to the pollutant source and the wetland's
position in the watershed, affects its water quality functions.  Wetlands in the upper reaches of
the watershed are believed to have the greatest overall impact on water quality because a larger
percentage of  water in the river has contact with adjacent wetland  environments.  It has been
estimated that the  first 20 meters of a  wetland  (both riparian and salt marshes)  immediately
below the source of nonpoint source pollution may be the most effective filter.

In its June 18, 1990, "National Guidance: Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control Programs",
EPA formally recognized and advised EPA Regional and State  program  managers of the
importance of linking NPS and wetland program activities to enhance the effectiveness of both.
That linkage can be extended to include the State coastal zone programs to address the new NPS
requirements in the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. This linkage between wetlands
and nonpoint source programs is particularly appropriate given the  special emphasis placed on
wetlands within the enhancement grants provisions of the CZMA.

B.  Management Practices  to Protect and Restore Wetlands

There  are  two  overall  management practices for wetlands:  1) Establish a preference for
protection of existing wetland systems adjacent to parent waterbodies  (impact avoidance), 2)
Identify wetland areas in a watershed  to target for restoration for their NPS reduction and other
benefits.

       1.  Management Practice - Protection

Establish a preference in NPS programs for  protecting wetlands (impact avoidance).  Avoiding
impact to wetlands is fundamental to  pollution prevention. A principle  emphasizing protection
advocates avoiding impact to wetland  areas when practicable to maintain existing beneficial uses
(functions) and to  meet existing water quality standards.

                                          7-4

-------
      (1)    Consider wetlands and riparian areas on a watershed or landscape scale so
             that they form a continuum of filters before waters enter an estuary.  This
             practice includes basin wetlands, riparian buffers and wetlands adjacent to streams
             and rivers that together serve important NPS functions to buffer the estuary from
             the sources of NPS pollution.

      (2)    Identify  wetlands with significant nonpoint source control potential within
             coastal watersheds.

      (3)    Existing  wetlands should not be altered to maximize their water quality
             function at the expense of then:  other functions as waters of the U.S.  For
             example, the following practices should be avoided: location of stormwater ponds
             or sediment retention basins  within a wetland; or extensive dredging and plant
             material harvest as part of nutrient or metals management in natural wetlands.

      (4)    Conduct permitting, licensing, certification, and nonregulatory NPS activities
             hi a manner that  protects existing beneficial uses  (functions) and  meets
             applicable  water quality standards for wetlands. Because almost all wetlands
             are "waters of the U.S." they are provided the same protection under water
             quality standards as other waters.  EPA has issued guidance for States to develop
             or improve standards for their  wetlands no later than 1993 (U.S. EPA. 1990).
             These standards include not only chemical  numeric  criteria, but biological and
             physical  narrative or numeric  criteria designed  to protect the designated uses
             (functions)  of the wetland.

      (5)    Use upland buffers around existing wetlands when necessary to prevent NPS
             impairment to wetlands.  For example, if sediment runoff is a problem in an
             area, consider the assimilative capacity of a wetland area to determine what other
             measures such as  upland buffers are needed to handle the volume of sediment.

      a.     Effectiveness  of protection practices

Inorganic solids  (sediments) - The role of wetlands in trapping suspended  sediments is well
documented.  Due to their relatively low slope, wetlands positioned between sediment sources
and open bodies of water,  such as a bottomland  hardwood  forested  wetland, can remove
moderate amounts of sediment from turbid runoff without ecological  damage to the wetland.
In addition,  vegetated wetlands along streams or rivers stabilize  soils and  help to minimize
sediments transported downstream to the estuary.  Sediment removal rates of 80 to 90% are
common in floodplain wetland and riparian areas.

Fecal coliform - Bacteria are generally associated with particulates in the water column.  When
sediments settle out in wetland areas, a long retention time of the particulates promotes die off
of the bacteria.
                                         7-5

-------
Nutrients - The vegetation in a wetland is important both for uptake of nutrients and as a carbon
and litter source for the soil. The carbon, in turn, fuels the immobilization of phosphorus and
nitrogen by microorganisms in the soil and the transformation of nitrogen into a gaseous form
through denitrification.  The layer of litter along the riparian area surface also serves to trap
sediments which in turn  also captures the paniculate phosphorus.

Nitrogen - The effectiveness of wetlands in removing and transforming nitrates varies  with
retention time of the water in the wetland and the wetland type. Nitrogen is removed primarily
from ground water flowing near the surface and is transformed and released as a gas.  The net
effect of wetlands is to reduce nitrate concentrations.  However, nitrate may be flushed from
wetlands during periods  of high flow (Brown, 1985) (Johnston, Detenbeck, Niemi, 1990).

Riparian vegetation that borders first order streams appears to most efficiently remove nitrate
due to contact of a large percentage  of the water  with the wetland or riparian area.  In higher
order streams, the primary contact with wetlands occurs during flooding periods (e.g., palustrine
wetlands) or when water is impounded (Whigham and Chitterling, 1988).  Some examples of
effectiveness of nitrogen removal are (Whigham and Chitterling, 1988; Johnston,  1990):

Vegetation Type                                            Removal

Cypress swamp in Louisiana:                                 49%
Riparian zone in Piedmont of Georgia:                        68%
Cypress dome in Florida:                                    74%
Riparian forest of North Carolina coastal plain:                86%
Riparian forest of Maryland inner coastal plain                 89%

Phosphorus - The role of wetlands in retaining phosphorus has shown mixed results, depending
on the wetlands location. Because total phosphorus is sorbed to fine silts and clays, the sediment
retention functions of wetlands tend to trap phosphorus as well.  In contrast, studies have shown
that phosphorus is not efficiently trapped in upland riparian areas because the fine sediments with
attached phosphorus either move through the riparian zone, or paniculate phosphorus is trapped
and released as dissolved phosphorus (Cooper, 1986; Whigham and  Chitterling, 1988).

The most important wetlands for phosphorus removal appear to be palustrine wetlands further
down the watershed from  first order streams.  In addition, phosphorus removal appears to be
greatest where the surface water comes in contact with the wetland vegetation and litter zone.

Riverine wetlands have also been shown to reduce both nitrogen and phosphorus, but it depends
on contact time with the wetland  usually  associated with flooding events. For example, one
study shows a 10-17 percent retention of phosphorus when 50% of the wetland is inundated, and
a 46-69 percent retention  when more than 50%  is inundated.  When surface flow is diffuse
rather than channelized, fine  silts and clays along with attached phosphorus are deposited in
wetlands along rivers.
                                          7-6

-------
       b.     Programs to protect wetlands

In highly developed urban areas, the riparian area may virtually be destroyed by construction,
filling  in wetlands, channelization or other significant alteration.  In agricultural areas, the
wetland and riparian systems may either involve no management, use of the area for grazing,
or removal of native vegetation and replacement by annual crops or perennial cover.  Significant
hydrologic alterations may have occurred to expedite drainage of farmland. Agricultural impacts
to riparian systems may involve clear cutting, filling for stream crossings, and other activities
that may significantly affect hydrology and sediment deposition in the riparian zone and the
neighboring stream, lake, or estuary.  Similar destruction or significant impact may occur as a
result of various other activities such as highway construction, silviculture, surface mining,
deposition of dredged material, and excavation of ports and marinas.  All of these activities have
the potential to degrade or destroy the water quality functions of wetlands and riparian areas and
may generate additional nonpoint source problems as well.

General approaches - There are many programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory, to protect
wetland functions.  The list includes elements such as:

Acquisition - Obtain easements or full acquisition rights for wetland and riparian areas  along
impaired streams,  bays, and estuaries.  There are numerous federal programs such as Soil
Conservation Service Wetlands Reserve and  Fish and Wildlife Service National  Waterfowl
Management Plan funding that can provide assistance for acquiring easements or full purchase.

Zoning - Control activities negatively impacting these targeted areas through special area zoning
and transferable development rights.

Water  Quality Standards - Put water quality standards in place for wetlands.  Factor natural
water quality functions into designated uses for wetlands, and include biological and hydrologic
criteria to protect the full range of wetland functions.

Regulation and Enforcement - Establish, maintain,  strengthen regulatory  and enforcement
programs.  Include nonpoint source conditions in permits and licenses under CWA §401 and
§404, state regulations, etc.

Restoration - Maximize opportunities to set aside and restore wetland and riparian areas  using
USDA's Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs and other federal assistance.

Education and Training - Educate farmers and urban dwellers and other agencies on the role of
wetland and riparian areas in protecting water quality and BMP's for restoring stream edges.
Teach  courses in simple restoration techniques for landowners.

Comprehensive watershed planning - Establishes a framework for multi-agency program linkage
and presents opportunities to link implementation efforts aimed at protection or restoration of
wetlands or riparian areas.   A number of State and Federal agencies carry out programs with

                                          7-7

-------
compatible mechanisms and objectives to NFS implementation goals in the coastal zone.  For
example, the Corps of Engineers administers the CWA Section 404 program; USD A implements
Swampbuster, Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs; EPA, the COE and States
work together to perform Advance Identification of wetlands for special consideration (Section
404); and States administer  the CZM program which provides opportunity  for consistency
determinations and  the CWA  401 certification program which allows  for consideration  of
wetland protection and water quality objectives.

As an example of a linkage to protect nonpoint source and other benefits of wetlands, a State
could determine under CWA Section 401 or a State regulatory program that a proposed activity
in wetlands is inconsistent with State water quality standards or the objectives of the established
watershed strategy.  Or, if a proposed permit is allowed contingent upon mitigation by creation
of wetlands, such mitigation might be targeted in areas defined in the watershed assessment as
needing restoration.  Watershed or site specific permit conditions may  be appropriate (i.e.,
specific buffer widths/structure based on adjacent land use activities).   Similarly, USDA's
Conservation or Wetlands Reserve Programs could provide  landowner assistance in areas
identified by the NFS program as needing particular protection or riparian zone re-establishment.

       c.     Examples from State and local programs

Baltimore County, Maryland, adopted a bill to protect the water quality of streams, wetlands,
and floodplains that requires forest buffers for any activity that is  causing or contributing to
pollution including: nonpoint pollution of the waters of the State in that county; erosion and
sedimentation of stream channels; or degradation of aquatic and riparian  habitat.

The  county has management  requirements  for  the  forest buffers including wetlands and
floodplains tha specify limitations on alteration of the natural conditions of these resources. The
provisions also call for public and private improvements to the forest buffer to abate and correct
water pollution, erosion and  sedimentation  of stream channels, and  degradation of aquatic and
riparian habitat.

Washington has developed draft wetland water quality standards to protect wetlands that include
enforceable provisions to address  stormwater and nonpoint discharges  into wetlands.  The
primary means for requiring compliance with standards will be through waste discharge permits,
rules, orders, and directives issued by the Department of Ecology.  In cases where BMPs are
not being  implemented,  the Department  may pursue  voluntary  corrective  action, orders,
directives, permits, or civil or criminal sanctions to gain compliance with standards.

       2.    Management Practice - Restoration

When conditions are appropriate, restoration of wetlands and riparian areas should be preferred
over structural management measures to gain NFS and additional benefits for waters of the U.S.
Restoration of wetlands refers to re-establishing a wetland and its range of functions where one
existed previously by re-establishing the hydrology, vegetation, and other habitat characteristics.

                                          7-8

-------
Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas in the watershed have been shown to result in NFS
benefits.

A restoration management practice should be used in conjunction with other measures addressing
the adjacent land use activities and in some cases water activities as well.

A preference should be established for restoring multiple ecological functions of waters of the
U.S.  When conditions are appropriate, restoration of the aquatic ecosystem  is a wholistic
approach to water quality that addresses NFS problems while meeting the goals of the Clean
Water Act to protect and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters.   Full restoration of complex wetland  and riparian functions may be difficult or
expensive, based on site conditions, complexity of system to be restored, availability of native
plants, etc. The following are general approaches to factor into wetland and riparian restoration
projects for NFS benefits.  Specific practices under these approaches must be tailored to specific
ecosystem type and site conditions. The preceding chapter's section on shoreline erosion also
discusses restoration in the context of mitigating shoreline erosion in wetland or riparian areas.
       (1)    Restoration of hydrology is a critical factor to gain NFS benefits and increase
             probability of successful restoration.

       (2)    Restore native plant species when possible either allowing natural succession
             or through selected planting. When consistent with pre-existing wetland type,
             plant a diversity of plant types, or manage natural succession of diverse plant
             types rather than planting monocultures.  Deep rooted plants may  work better
             than grasses for transforming nitrogen because they reach the water moving under
             the surface. For forested systems, a simple approach to successional restoration
             would be to plant one native tree species, one shrub species, and  one ground
             cover species and allow natural succession to add diversity of native species over
             time.

       (3)    When  possible  plan restoration as part  of naturally  occurring aquatic
             ecosystems. Factor in ecological principles when selecting sites and designing
             restoration such as:  seek high habitat diversity and high productivity in the
             river/wetland systems; look for opportunities to maximize habitat connectedness
             (between  different  habitat types); and restore  to provide  refuge or migration
             corridors along rivers between larger patchs of upland habitat — animals are most
             likely to colonize new areas if they can move upstream and downstream under
             cover.

       (4)    Seek a range  of  pre-existing functions:  Maximize the  wetland  functions
             restored  to replicate  pre-existing  functions.    In  addition  to  pollutant
             transformation,  functions to  restore may include flood  control,  food chain
             support, and habitat.  Additional measures (such as adjacent land use BMPs) and

                                          7-9

-------
             monitoring should be used to ensure that there are no detrimental impacts to
             wildlife  if loadings  include pollutants  toxic  to  wildlife.   See chapters on
             Agriculture,  Silviculture, and Urban Activities for specifications of applicable
             management measures.

       a.     Effectiveness of restoration practices

The ultimate goal of wetland and riparian restoration is to restore ecosystems as opposed to
buffer strips, but this may evolve over time through managed succession.

       •     An ecosystem should  be self-sustaining, whereas buffer strips are generally not.
       •     Restore targeted water quality functions.
       •     Restore a range of wetland or riparian functions that used to exist at that site.
       •     Do not  degrade value  of surrounding  natural habitats  through uncontrolled
             expansion of exotic species.

See section n.B.l.b. for typical removal effectiveness of NFS pollutants by these systems.

       b.     Planning and siting considerations

A relatively high degree of success has been achieved  with revegetation of coastal, estuarine,
and freshwater marshes because hydrology is relatively easy to restore, native seed stocks are
often present, and natural  revegetation often occurs.   Marsh vegetation also quickly reaches
maturity in comparison with shrub or forest vegetation. Success rates for marshes seem to be
conelated to proper elevation. Spartina patens has been difficult to restore due to sensitivity to
elevation requirements. Spartina altemiflora restoration has succeeded where the elevation and
soils are within a given range (depending on the site) and the wave conditions are not extreme
(Walker, 1988).  Since many of the  factors vary with site conditions and wetland type, a careful
review of existing literature and case-studies (both successful and unsuccessful) is needed.
Planning:
       •      Identify sources of NFS problems. Consider the role of restoring sites within a
              broader landscape context.

       •      Set goals for the restoration project based on location and type of NFS problem;
              when practical, replicate multiple functions while still gaining NFS benefits.

       •      Locate historic accounts (i.e., maps,  descriptions, photographs) to identify sites
              that were previously wetland or riparian. These sites are likely more suitable for
              restoration if the original hydrology has not been permanently altered.
                                          7-10

-------
Site considerations:

It is difficult to establish any single methodology for identifying potential restoration sites on a
national scale. Project goals, NFS problems, and site specific parameters all must be considered
in restoration design. The following list identifies some important information or considerations
for siting a restoration project.  This should not be regarded as the final word on considerations,
but should be adapted as appropriate for a given project or proposal.

       •     Site history.  Past uses of site including past functioning as wetland.
       •     Topography. Surface  topography  including  elevations  of  levees,  drainage
             channels, ponds, islands.
       •     Slope and tidal range.
       •     Existing water control structures.  Location of culverts  tide gates, pumps, and
             outlets.
       •     Hydrology.  Hydrologic conditions  affecting the site. Wave  climate,  currents,
             overland flows and flood events.
       •     Sediment budgets.  Sediment inflow, outflow, and retention.
       •     Soil.  Description of existing soils with analysis of suitability  for supporting
             wetland plants.
       •     Existing (or native) vegetation.
       •     Salinity.
       •     Timing of restoration project.
       •     Potential impact to site from  adjacent human activities.

       c.     Cost considerations for restoration

The cost of wetland and riparian restoration projects will vary significantly depending on the
degree of grading, hydrologic  changes required, the availability and cost of  native vegetation,
and whether any physical structures are needed to  help ensure success.

An example of restoration costs for an east  coast coastal marsh includes the  following:

       •     If substrate is already sufficient and minimal site preparation  is required, costs
             average less than $30.00 per linear foot to plant a single marsh species (Spartina).
       •     If more extensive bank grading, preparation, or fill is required, the same marsh
             restoration costs may range from  $60.00 to $100.00 per linear foot.
       •     If a protective  structure, typically  a low-crested sill, is necessary to reduce
             erosional forces, the costs can range from $120.00 to 150.00 per linear foot.

EPA requests additional cost data for other wetland and riparian types such as mangrove swamp,
scrub-shrub swamp, forested wetland or riparian zone, or grassland riparian  zone.
                                          7-11

-------
IV.  MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RIPARIAN AREAS

A.    Benefits of Riparian Areas in NFS Control

Riparian areas are able to intercept surface runoff, wastewater, subsurface flow, and certain
groundwater flows from sources upland of the area, removing or buffering the receiving water
body from the effects of the pollutants, or preventing the entry of pollutants into the receiving
water body.  A riparian buffer strip should be used to protect a stream from land use activities
adjacent to the stream, and normally consists of grasses, shrubs and trees in the streambank area
(New York DEC, 1986).  Riparian buffers perform much like wetlands by filtering, storing and
even transforming nonpoint source pollutants  (Stuart and Greis, 1991).

Like planted vegetation in riparian zones, naturally-occurring vegetation has been shown to be
effective in removing sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other nonpoint source contaminants
from upland runoff as well as in the abatement of streambank erosion (U.S. EPA, 1988).  The
pollutant removal mechanisms associated with riparian vegetation combines the physical process
of filtering (much like the vegetative filter strip), and the biological processes of nutrient uptake
and  denitrification (Peterjohn and  Correll,  1984).  In addition  to  these two  functions, the
preservation of vegetation along the streambank shades the stream and helps to maintain lower
water temperatures, which preserves fish habitat.  The presence of riparian vegetation also helps
to prevent streambank erosion.

B.    Management Practices to Protect Riparian Areas

      1.     Management Practice - Protection

As for wetlands, the best way to ensure riparian areas provide NPS benefits in the watershed
is to establish a preference for protection of  existing  riparian areas adjacent  to parent
waterbodies  (impact avoidance).  The nonpoint source goal in protecting riparian areas is  to
improve water quality (1) by removing nutrients, sediment and suspended solids, and pesticides
and  other toxics from  surface runoff, wastewater, subsurface and groundwater flows from
sources  upland of the riparian area, and (2) by buffering the effects of upland nonpoint source
pollution before its entry  into waters of the riparian zone.

       (1)     Consider wetlands and riparian areas on a watershed or landscape scale  so
              that they form a continuum of filters before waters enter an estuary. This
              practice includes basin wetlands, riparian buffers and wetlands adjacent to streams
              and rivers that together serve important NPS functions to buffer the estuary from
              the sources of NPS pollution.

       (2)     Identify  riparian areas with significant nonpoint source control potential
              within coastal watersheds.
                                         7-12

-------
The identification and designation of streamside areas is needed to determine the extent and
distribution of highly valued and sensitive riparian resources. The boundaries of these areas are
determined by the minimum  distance needed to provide protection to the water quality and
habitat functions.  Distances needed may vary depending on soil type, slope, and riparian cover.
Some States and  forest management agencies have set minimum distances to protect water
quality and ecosystem function.  Additional distance is required if there is reasonable risk of
pollution or loss of riparian functions.

This practice applies to the  following water bodies  where they are located downslope of
croplands, pastures, etc.:

       (1)  Adjacent to streams (streambanks)

       (2)  Around lakes or ponds

       (3)  Adjacent to wetlands

       (4)  Near groundwater recharge areas

       (5)  In areas where soil erosion and sediment deposition is a significant problem

       2.     Effectiveness of Projection Practices

One study suggests  that good water  quality for streams and water bodies in agricultural
watersheds is directly related  to nutrient removal and uptake  in the riparian ecosystem.  It
concludes that the absence of riparian vegetation will result in higher nutrient loadings and
stresses that maintenance of the riparian ecosystem is vital to the preservation of high water
quality (Peterjohn and Correll, 1984).

Research indicates that nonpoint source pollutant mitigation can also be achieved through the
process of denitrification in the riparian zone.  Bacterial denitrification in anaerobic sites has
been shown to remove large quantities of nitrates from  riparian zone groundwater (Schipper, et
al., 1989).

A riparian buffer is most effective as  a component of an integrated land management  system
which combines nutrient, sediment and soil erosion control management. The riparian ecosystem
consists of a complex organization of biotic and abiotic elements.  Like planted vegetative filter
strips or grassed swales, riparian buffer strips have been shown to be effective in removing
sediment, suspended solids, nutrients, pesticides and other contaminants from upland runoff.
In addition, some studies suggest that riparian vegetation acts as a nutrient sink, taking  up and
storing nutrients, and that this function may be related  to age (Lowrance, et al.).

It is clear that the long-term maintenance of natural riparian vegetation zones in areas subject
to inputs from upland areas can be an effective management practice for reducing certain types

                                          7-13

-------
of nonpoint source pollution and that efforts to improve watershed water  quality should
emphasize maintenance of riparian vegetation (Fail, et al.). Other studies confirm the important
role of riparian ecosystems as nutrient sinks and buffers against runoff from surrounding lands.

Studies done in agricultural watersheds suggest that good water quality is directly related to
nutrient removal and nutrient uptake in the riparian ecosystem (Lowrance, et al.).  While some
data supports the  hypothesis that bottomland riparian ecosystems act as short- and long-term
nutrient filters  and sinks through vegetative uptake of upland-applied nutrients, these studies are
not conclusive (Fail, et al.).

While the exact nature of the process by which pollutant reduction is achieved may be open to
debate, numerous research studies have documented the effectiveness riparian buffer areas in
removing nutrient loadings from runoff from  upland agricultural areas.  Three major studies
from Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia are summarized below Stuart and Greis, 1991):

       Study                     Total P                           Total N

Peterjohn/Correll  (MD)           76%                             88%

Jacobs/Gilliam (NC)              50%                             93%

Lowrance (GA)                   50%                             83%


Additional data regarding the effectiveness of riparian areas can be found under section II.B. l.b.

       3.     Cost Considerations

The following  costs are provided to give some indication of the cost of restoring riparian zones.

        $100/acre (conifer seedling)
        $200/acre (deciduous seedling)
        $1000-5000/acre (nursery stock)

There is  no direct cost  involved in preserving  existing vegetation in the riparian zone.

C.     Maintenance

The maintenance  of riparian buffer areas  is especially important in preventing sediment  from
entering streams where its effect on fish and spawning can be a serious problem.
                                         7-14

-------
V.    MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIPS

A.    General Role

Runoff water quality management methods genetically referred to as biofiltration methods have
been shown to provide significant reductions in pollutant delivery.  These include vegetative
filter strips, grassed swales or vegetated channels, and created wetlands.  These methods have
been applied in a wide range of settings, including cropland, pastureland, forests, and developed
as well as developing urban areas, where biofiltration methods can perform a complementary
function in terms of sediment control and stormwater management. When properly installed and
maintained, biofiltration methods have been shown to effectively prevent the entry of sediment
and sediment-bound pollutants, nutrients, and oxygen-consuming substances into water bodies.

Vegetative filter strips are discussed and described in particular source category-specific chapters
of this guidance, but it is clear that they should be considered to have wide-ranging applicability
to various nonpoint source categories.  Vegetative filter strips SHOULD  be widely adopted as
components of management systems to address nonpoint source pollutants in runoff from a wide
variety of sources.

B.    Management Pra.cjiQgs for Vegetative Filter Strips

The purpose of vegetative filter strips is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff
and wastewater by filtration, deposition, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, decomposition and
volatilization and thereby reduce the amount  of pollution entering adjacent water  bodies
(U.S.D.A., 1988). Vegetative filter strips are used in areas adjacent to water bodies which may
be subject to sediment, suspended solid, and/or nutrient runoff.  They improve water quality by
removing nutrients,  sediment,  suspended solids, pesticides, etc., from surface runoff and waste
water.

      1.     Effectiveness

A substantial body of research suggests that vegetative filter strips improve  water quality and
are an effective management practice for the control of silvicultural, urban, construction and
agricultural nonpoint sources of sediment, phosphorus, bacteria, and some pesticides. There are
also studies which suggest that the results are inconclusive and variable.  However, the following
are sources for which filter strips may provide some removal capability (Lanier, 1990):

      (1)    Forestry - Forest filter strips are used to prevent entry of sediment into riparian
             water bodies.

      (2)    Cropland - The primary function of grass  filter strips is to filter sediment from
             soil erosion and sediment-borne nutrients.   However, filter strips should not be
             relied upon as the sole or primary means of preventing nutrient movement from
             cropland.

                                         7-15

-------
       (3)    Urban - Filtering and removal of sediment, organic material and trace metals.
             According to the Washington Council of Governments, filter strips have a low to
             moderate  capability of removing pollutants in urban runoff, and have higher
             removal rates for particulate than for soluble pollutants (Schueler, 1987).

Filter strips are designed to be used under conditions in which runoff passes over the vegetation
in a uniform sheet flow. The distribution of runoff across the filter in such a manner is critical
to the success of the filter strip. If runoff is allowed to concentrate or channelize, the filter strip
is easily inundated and its purpose defeated.

Filter strips need the following elements to work properly: 1.) a device such as a level spreader
which ensures that runoff reaches the filter strip as a sheet flow (berms can be used for this
purpose if they are placed at a perpendicular angle to the filter strip area to prevent concentrated
flows);  2.) a dense vegetative cover of erosion-resistant plant species;  3.) a gentle slope of no
more than 5%;  4.) length at least as long as the adjacent contributing area (Schueler, 1987). If
these requirements are met, the VFS has been shown to remove a high degree of particulate
pollutants.  Its effectiveness at removing soluble pollutants, however,  is not well-documented
(Schueler,  1987).

The effectiveness  of vegetative  filter  strips varies with  topography,  vegetative  cover,
implementation and use with other management practices, as well as the following key variables:

       (1)    Slope - Filter strips function optimally at slopes of less  than 5%; slopes greater
             than 15% render them ineffective because surface runoff flow will not be sheet-
             like and uniform.  Their effectiveness is strongly site-dependent, i.e., VFS have
             been demonstrated to be ineffective on hilly plots or in terrain  which allows
             concentrated flows.

       (2)    Site Considerations - Filter strips are most effectively employed at sites which
             generate suspended solids, sediment and sediment-bound pollutants. As sediment
             increases  in  the filter,  effectiveness decreases;  if the  filter  strip becomes
             inundated, it becomes ineffective. Without maintenance, the effectiveness of filter
             strips will decline over time, as more runoff events occur (Magette, et al., 1989).

       (3)    Pollutant  Type - Sediment and sediment-bound nitrates, phosphorus, and toxics
             are efficiently removed by filter strips. However, removal rates are much lower
             for soluble nutrients and toxics.  Soluble nutrients are more effectively removed
             by riparian vegetation.

       (4)    Vegetated Area - Criteria for choosing the best  vegetation type include dense
             growths  of  grasses and legumes which  are  resistant  to  overland flow.
             Effectiveness increases as the ratio  of vegetated filter area to unvegetated area
             increases. A filter strip should be at least as long as the runoff-contributing area.
              "Contact  time" between runoff and the vegetation is a critical variable.

                                          7-16

-------
Different filter strip characteristics such as size and type of vegetation can result in different
pollutant loading characteristics as well as loading reductions.  Following are some reduction
rates based on strip size and vegetation:

Study/Source       Size               Vegetation         Reduction1

Barker/Young      21x91m            Fescue/rye         89.9% TSS
                                                         97.3% TN
                                                         98.4% TP
Dillahaetal        6xSm              Orchard grass      95% TSS
                                                         77% TN
                                                         80% TP

Overman/Schanze   5 ha               Bermuda grass      81.3% TSS
                                                         67.2% TN
                                                         38.8% TP

Dillaha, et al., (1988) found^vegetative filter strips to be very effective at removing sediment
and sediment-bound  pollutants from  feedlot runoff, but much less  effective  at removing
pathogens, fine sediment and soluble nutrients such as nitrate (NO3) and orthophosphorus (PO4).

          Filter width                           Percent reduction/Pollutant

             9.1 m                                       95% TSS
                                                         69%NH4
                                                         4%  NO3
                                                         30% PO4
                                                         80% Pt
             4.6 m                                        87% TSS
                                                          34% NH4
                                                          -36% N03
                                                          -20% PO4
                                                          63% Pt
As  the data above shows, the study  found  that the filter strips  were not very effective at
removing nitrate (NO3) and orthophosphate (PO4). Effluent nitrate loadings exceeded influent
loadings, indicating that the filter strips not only did not trap nitrate, but through mineralization
actually released previously trapped nitrogen as nitrate.  Although sediment-bound phosphorus
   'Reductions in concentration.

                                        7-17

-------
was fairly effectively removed, soluble phosphorus (PO4) also produced greater effluent loadings
than influent ones (Dillaha, et al., 1988).

The universality of these results should not be assumed.  The same researcher determined that
VFS were frequently ineffective  for  water quality improvement because of the difficulty in
assuring sheet flow of runoff. This study found that filter strips are most appropriate in small
fields where runoff cannot concentrate before reaching the strip (Dillaha, et al.,  1989).

Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of vegetative filter strips is unclear. In addition, trials
conducted under controlled experimental conditions may differ from on-site effectiveness in
"real world" conditions.

       2.      Design Criteria

Whereas a grassed swale or waterway  is  used  to control  or reduce  the pollutant load  from
concentrated stormwater runoff, preventing concentrated flows is the key element of filter strip
design. Filter strips are  designed to accept overland sheet flow of runoff only.

The primary factors in determining filter strip effectiveness are filter length; uniformity of runoff
flow through  the filter, field slope, type and density of vegetation, and sediment  size.  The
following critical factors should be observed:

       (1)     The contour of the filter strip should be identical (in terms of elevation) to the
              adjacent area.

       (2)     A device,  such as a berm placed at a perpendicular angle to the filter strip area,
              should be  used to distribute runoff over the filter strip in an even  manner.

       (3)     The filter strip should be directly adjacent to the impervious area to avoid runoff
              bypassing  or short-circuiting the device.

       (4)     Minimum  filter strip width for flat terrain should be 20 feet if a grass or turf
              strip.  Studies suggest that a minimum 50-75 feet width is preferable, while others
              suggest attempting  to achieve a one-to-one vegetated to unvegetated area ratio.

       (5)     Generally speaking, increasing slope steepness requires increased filter strip width
              to maintain effectiveness.  Grass  filter strips function best on slopes of 5% or
              less. They will not function effectively on slopes greater than 15%.

       (6)     Grasses with a high runoff retardance value, such as  Bahia and Bermuda grass,
              are recommended for use in the filter strip.

       (7)     Contact time between runoff and  the filter strip should be maximized to permit
              infiltration and sedimentation to occur.

                                           7-18

-------
C.     Cost

Vegetative filter strips can be an inexpensive component of an overall pollutant reduction system.
If they are preserved before development occurs, they are virtually free (Schueler, 1987). There
is, however, an opportunity cost for leaving land undeveloped.

Establishment of filter strips  of  grass, trees, or permanent wildlife  plantings on  cropland
adjoining a stream, creek, river or other water  body may be eligible for enrollment in the
Conservation Reserve Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The following table briefly describes representative costs for establishing filter strip vegetation
(Schueler, 1987):
              Comparative Costs for Establishing Vegetative Control Practices


                Method                           Avg. Cost per Acre


              Conventional Seeding                    $1633

              Hydroseeding                           $1725

              Sodding                                $10,900

              Riparian buffer                          $100 (conifer seedling)
                                                     $200 (deciduous seedling)
                                                     $1000-5000 (nursery stock)

D.     Maintenance

The design, placement and maintenance of filter strips are all very critical to their effectiveness
and serious attention should be directed to prevent concentrated flows from occurring. Although
intentional planting and naturalization of the vegetation will enhance the effectiveness of the
larger  filter strip,  it should be inspected periodically to determine if concentrated flows are
bypassing or overwhelming the device, particularly at the perimeter.

For shorter filter strips, where natural vegetative succession  is not intended, the vegetation
should be managed like a lawn.  It should be mowed 2-3 times a year, fertilized, and weeded
in an attempt to achieve dense,  hearty vegetation.  The goal  is to increase vegetation density for
maximum filtration.
                                         7-19

-------
Accumulated sediment and paniculate matter in the filter strip should be removed at regular
intervals to prevent inundation of the device. Frequency of this type of service will depend on
the frequency and volume of runoff flows.

Development of channels and erosion rills within the filter strip area must be avoided.  To
ensure effectiveness, sheet flow must be maintained at all times.

VL    MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS

The effectiveness of practices to protect and restore wetland and riparian systems as management
measures should be monitored.  Establish specific objectives and milestones to aid in assessing
effectiveness.  Following are examples of ways to monitor results. Additional monitoring tools
which are more appropriate for specific projects and conditions may  be needed.  Establish a
feedback  mechanism to  provide  opportunity  for  management considerations  during  the
implementation and maintenance period.

Assess effectiveness of protection/restoration through some or all of the following:

             Assess maintenance/restoration of beneficial uses
             Conduct baseline  mapping (quantification and spatial distribution)
             Monitor water quality changes
             Track restoration  and losses (acreage and type)
             Track structural changes (i.e., forest removal, restoration  of pasture/cropland to
             wetland/forest)
       •     Monitor institutional progress in avoidance/protection such as: (1) State or local
             tax incentives (2) multi-agency participation in protection/restoration efforts, (3)
             watershed   initiatives,    (4)   acreage    protected    through   long-term
             protection/restoration through acquisition or easements, (6)  number of zoning
             restrictions, local adoption of restriction ordinances, (7)  citizen participation, (8)
             emphasis on wetlands/riparian protection/restoration across NFS activity areas
             (not limited to  agriculture, but also urban, construction,  silviculture, etc.), (9)
             number of Wetlands Reserve or Conservation Reserve sign-ups.

Success often depends upon the long-term ability to manage, protect, and manipulate wetlands
and adjacent buffer areas.  Restored wetland and riparian  systems often require "mid-course
corrections" and management over time.  Careful  monitoring  of systems after their original
establishment and, in some cases, active management of the systems,  are often critical to long
term  success.    To increase chances of success, restored wetlands should be designed as self
sustaining or self  managing systems.   This is more likely if the project is re-establishing a
wetland area where one existed  previously.
                                          7-20

-------
REFERENCES

Brinson, MM Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection, U.S. Senate

Broome, S.W. Creation and Restoration of Tidal Wetlands of the Southeastern United States in
Wetland Creation and Restoration: Status of the Science

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1981.  Planting Marsh  Grasses for
Erosion Control. UNC Sea Grant College Publication UNC-SG-81-09.

Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1982. Establishing brackish marshes
on graded upland sites in North Carolina. Wetlands, 2:152-178.

Correll, D.L. and  Weller,  D.E.  Factors limiting  processes in freshwater  wetlands: an
agricultural primary stream riparian forest.

Dillaha, et al.  1988. Evaluation of Vegetative Filter Strips as a Best Management  Practice for
Feed Lots, Journal WPCF. 60(7): 1231-1238.

Dodd,  J.D. and J.W. Webb. 1975. Establishment of vegetation for shoreline stabilization in
Galveston Bay. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Misc. Paper 75-6.

Fail, L, et al. Riparian Forest Communities and their Role in Nutrient Conservation in an
Agricultural Watershed. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 11(3): 114-115.

Gosselink, J.G.,  and Lee, L.C.1987.  Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland hardwood
forests. Center for wetland resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.  LSU-CEI-86-
09.

Uemond, H.F.,  and RJ. Benoit. 1988. Cumulative impacts on  water  quality functions of
wetlands,  J. Environmental Mgim;.r  12:639-654.

Hook,  P.B. and M.M. Brinson. 1989. Influence of landscape position, hydrologic forcing, and
marsh  size on ecological differentiation within  an irregularly  flooded brackish marsh.   Paper
presented at the 4th annual Landscape Ecology Symposium, Fort  Collins, Co,  March 15-18,
1989.

Johnston,  C.  1990.  The effects of freshwater wetlands on water quality: a compilation of
literature values. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  internal draft,
Washington, DC.

Josselyn, M. Wetland Mitigation  Along the Pacific Coast of the United States  in Wetland
Creation and Restoration: Status of the Science
                                        7-21

-------
Lanier,  A.L.  1990. Database  for  Evaluating  the  Water  Quality  Effectiveness  of Best
Management Practices. Master's Thesis, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Lewis, R.R. m, Creation and Restoration of Coastal  Plain Wetlands in Florida in Wetland
Creation and Restoration:  Status of the Science

Lowrance, R., et al. Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in Agricultural Watersheds, Bioscience.
34(6): 374-377.

Lowrance, R., R. Leonard, and J. Sheridan, 1985. Managing riparian ecosystems to control
nonpoint pollution.  J. Soil and Water Cons.  40:87-91.

Lowrance, R., R. L. Todd, and Loris E. Asmussen. 1983. Waterborne Nutrient Budgets for the
Riparian Zone  of an Agricultural Watershed. Agriculturef  Ecosystems  and Environment,
10(1983)371-384. Amsterdam.

Magette, W.L., et al. 1989. Nutrient and  Sediment Removal by Vegetated Filter Strips,
Transactions of the ASAE. 32(2):663-667.

Mahoney, D.L. and Erman, D.C. 1984. The role of streamside buffer strips in the ecology of
aquatic biota. In R.E. Watner and K.M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: ecology.
conservation, and productive management. University of California Press. Berkley, CA.

Mitsch, W.J., Dorge, C.C, and  Wienhoff, J.R. 1979. Ecosystem dynamics and a phosphorus
budget of an alluvial cypress swamp in southern Illinois, Ecology 60:  1116-1124.

New  York  State Department  of Environmental  Conservation.  1986. Stream   Corridor
Management:  A Basic? Reference Manual, Albany, NY.
Nixon, Scott W., Virginia Lee, 1986.  Wetlands and Water Quality:  A Regional Review of
Recent Research in the United States on the Role of Freshwater and Saltwater Wetlands as
Sources.  Sinks,  and Transformers of Nitrogen,  Phosphorus, and Various  Heavy  Metals.
Prepared by University of Rhode Island for US Army  Engineers. Technical  Report  Y-86-2.
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Peterjohn, W.T., and D.L. Correll. 1984.  Nutrient Dynamics in an Agricultural Watershed:
Observations on  the Role of a Riparian Forest, Ecology. 65(5): 1466-1475.

Schipper,  L.A.,  et al. 1989. Mitigating Nonpoint Source  Nitrate Pollution by Riparian Zone
Denitrification. Forest Research Institute, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Schueler,  T.R.  1987. Controlling  Urban Runoff:   A Practical Manual for Planning and
Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

                                         7-22

-------
Stuart, G., and J.  Greis. 1991. Role of Riparian Forests  in Water Quality on Agricultural
Watersheds.

Tilton, D.L., and R.H. Kadlec.  1979.  The utilization of  a freshwater wetland for nutrient
removal from secondarily treated waste water effluent, J. Environmental Quality. 8:328-334.

U.S.D.A. 1988. Handbook of Conservation Practices. Supplement, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1988. Summary Report:  The Literature Review of Ecological Benefits of the
Conservation Reserve Program. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1990. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands:  National GuidanceT Office of Water,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. Riparian Area Management Policy,  Region 10, Seattle, WA.

Whigham, D.F., and C, Chitterling. 1988. Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: a
landscape perspective,   J. Environmental Mgmt. 12:663-674.
                                        7-23

-------
APPENDIX A. WORK GROUP MEMBERS

-------
                                  Agriculture
Chairperson: Lynn Shuyler

Co-Chair: WaltRittall

Susan Alexander
Jim Baumann
Ann Beier
Ken Blan
Earl Bradley, Jr.

J^ee Bridgeman
John Cannell
Stan Chanesman
Tom Davenport
Nancy Dean
Roger Dean
Tony Dore
Steve Dressing
Cindy Dyballa

Ron Dyer
Julie Elfving
David Engel
Madge Ertel
Beverly Ethridge
Dan Farrow
Dianne Fish
Charles Frink

Cynthia Garman-Squier
Robert Goo
Tami Grove
Roland D. Hauck

Malcolm  Henning

Jack Hodges

Diana Home
U.S. EPA, Region HI, Chesapeake Bay Program

USDA, Soil Conservation Service

U.S. EPA, Region VI
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Soil Conservation Service, Gulf of Mexico Program
Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
U.S. EPA, Region V, Water Quality Section
NOAA, National Weather Service
U.S. EPA, Region VTJI
U.S. EPA, Region H
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S.  EPA,   Office of  Policy,  Planning,  and
Evaluation
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. EPA, Region VH
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA, Region IV
NOAA
U.S. EPA
Department  of Soil  and  Water,  Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station
USDA Extension Service
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
California Coastal Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Research
Department
U.S.  EPA,   Region  H,  Water  Standards  and
Planning Branch
California State Water Resources  Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
Office of Pesticide  Programs,  Field Operations
Division
                                       A-l

-------
Tom Howard

Frank J. Humenik
Robert losco
Norman T. Jeffries

Chuck Job
Richard  Kashmanian

Gene Kinch
Jim Lewis
Catherine Long
Tom McAlpin

Frank McGilvery
Laurie McGilvray
Marc McQueen
James W.  Meek
Jerry Miller

Jim Mills

Elbert Moore
Siroos Mostaghimi

Bill O'Beirne

Clay Ogg
Percy Pacheco
Jovita Pajarillo
Roberta Parry

Anne Poole

Margherita Pryor

Paul Robillard
Barbara Ryan
Joel Salter
Bob Saunders
Laurie Schwartz

John Simons
Laverne Smith
Division  of Water  Quality  and  Regulations,
California State Water Resources Control
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Northern  Virginia Soil and  Water Conservation
District
U.S. EPA
U.S.  EPA,  Office of  Policy,  Planning, and
Evaluation
Bureau of Land Management
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
   Uc FPA
  «ij« • iii <&
Virgin  Islands  Coastal  Management  Program
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
Massachusetts The Pilgrim RC&D Area
EPA/USDA, Science and  Education
Cooperative  Extension  Service,   Iowa   State
University
.NOAA, Office of  Ocean and Coastal  Resource
Management
U.S. EPA, Region X
Northern  Virginia Soil and Water  Conservation
District
NOAA, Office of  Ocean and Coastal  Resource
Management
U.S. EPA
NOAA/NOS/OMA
Water Management Division, EPA, Region DC
U.S.  EPA,  Office  of  Policy,  Planning,  and
Evaluation
New  Hampshire  Department  of Environmental
Services
U.S.  EPA,  Office  of  Marine  and  Estuarine
Protection
Pennsylvania State University
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA
Washington Department of Ecology
Department  of  the  Navy,   Naval  Facilities
Engineering Command Headquarters
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water Protection
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                        A-2

-------
Peter Smith

Kristine Stewart
Linda Strauss
Gordon Stuart
Nancy Sullivan
Paul Swartz
Bill Swietlik

Sid Taylor

Frances Thicke
Lou True
David Waite

Anne Weinberg
Kevin Weiss
Dov Weitman
Stuart Wilson
Bill Wisniewski
Mitch Wolgamott
Larry  Yamamoto

Bob Zimmerman
Hank Zygmunt
Strategic  Planning  Division,  Soil  Conservation
Service
USDA, Soil Conservation Service - Rhode Island
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
USDA, Forest Service
U.S. EPA, Region I
Pennsylvania Department of the Environment
U.S. EPA,  Office  of  Water Enforcement  and
Permits
California State Water Resources  Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
USDA, Extension Service
EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Department  of  Interior,   Bureau  of  Land
Management
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
U.S. EPA, Region ffl
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Hawaii  Department of Health,  Environmental
Planning Office
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Region m
                                       A-3

-------
                                    Forestry
Chairperson: Alan Smart

Co-Chain John Cannell

Susan Adamowicz

Dennis Ades
Susan Alexander
AnnBeier
Dick Bird
Debra Caldon
Ian Caufield
Stan Chanesman
David Coffman
Max Coopenhagen
Tom Davenport
Roger Dean
Tony Dore
Steve Dressing
Bill Edwards
Julie Elfving
David Engel
Madge Ertel
Mike Goggin
Bart Haig
Karen Hamilton
Warren Harper

Robert losco
Chuck Job
Ross Johnson
Terry Johnson
Kay Kowski
Peter Kuch

MikeKuehn
Gaylon Lee

Frank McGilvery
U.S. EPA, Region X

U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch

Rhode  Island  Department  of  Environmental
Management, Division of Water Resources
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. EPA, Region VI
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Bureau of Land Management
California
ADEC- Alaska
NOAA/NMFS, F/PR3
Virginia Division of Forestry
Forest Service - Alaska
U.S. EPA, Region V, Water Quality Section
U.S. EPA, Region Vm
U.S. EPA, Region H
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Forest Service - Alaska
U.S. EPA, Region VE
NOAA/NMFS, F/PR3
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA, Forest Service
U.S. EPA, Region I
U.S. EPA, Region vm
USDA,  Forest  Service,  Watershed  and  Air
Management
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water Protection
California Division of Forestry
SCS
NMFF, Auke Bay Lab - Alaska
U.S.  EPA,  Office  of  Policy,  Planning  and
Evaluation
Forest Service - Alaska
California State Water Resources Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                        A-4

-------
Laurie McGilvray

Elbert Moore
Bill O'Beirne

Jovita Pajarillo
Mike Phillips

Anne Poole

Dave Powers
Margherita Pryor

Alan Reisenhoover
Barbara Ryan
Larry Schmidt

Laurie Schwartz

Walt Sheridan
Laverne Smith
Peter Smith

Deborah Southard
Nancy Sullivan
Sid Taylor

Jeff Vowell
Dov Weitman
Stuart Wilson
Hal Wise
Hank Zygmunt
NOAA, Office  of Ocean and  Coastal Resource
Management
U.S. EPA, Region X
NOAA, Office  of Ocean and  Coastal Resource
Management
Water Management Division, EPA, Region IX
Minnesota  Department  of  Natural  Resources,
Division of Forestry
New  Hampshire  Department  of  Environmental
Services
U.S. EPA
U.S.  EPA,   Office  of Marine  and  Estuarine
Protection
NOAA/NMFS
U.S. Department of Interior
USDA,  Forest  Service,  Watershed  and  Air
Management
Department   of  the   Navy,   Naval  Facilities
Engineering Command Headquarters
Forest Service - Alaska
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Strategic  Planning Division,  Soil  Conservation
Service
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
U.S. EPA, Region I
California State Water Resources Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
Florida State Division of Forestry
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S. EPA, Region m
                                        A-5

-------
                                     Urban
Chairperson: Tom Davenport

Co-Chair: Robert Goo

Co-Chair: Bill O'Beirne

Susan Adamowicz

Susan Alexander
Fred Banach

John T. Baranowski
Ann Beier
Earl Bradley, Jr.

Molly Cannon

Paul Cassidy
Stan Chanesman
Jim Collins
Diane Davis

Roger Dean
Charles DesJardins
Tony Dore
Steve Dressing
Julie Elfving
David Engel
Madge Ertel
Beverly Ethridge
Dan Farrow
Rod Frederick
Tami Grove
Malcolm  Henning

Tom Howard

Robert losco
Norman T. Jeffries

Chuck Job
U.S. EPA, Region V, Water Quality Section

U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch

NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management

Rhode  Island  Department  of  Environmental
Management, Division of Water Resources
U.S. EPA, Region VI
Connecticut   Department   of  Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Water Management
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources
Maryland  Department   of  the   Environment,
Sediment and Stormwater Administration
U.S. EPA
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
U.S. EPA, Permits
U.S.  EPA,  Office of  Marine and Estuarine
Protection
U.S. EPA, Region Vm
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. EPA, Region H
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S. EPA, Region VH
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA, Region IV
NOAA
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
California Coastal  Commission
U.S.  EPA,  Region  H,  Water Standards and
Planning Branch
Division  of  Water  Quality  and  Regulations,
California State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Northern Virginia Soil  and Water Conservation
District
U.S. EPA, Office  of Ground Water Protection
                                       A-6

-------
Richard Kashmanian

Peter Kumble
Eric Livingston

Randy May
Frank McGilvery
Laurie McGilvray

Tom Medeiros

Kathy Minsch
Elbert Moore
Jennie Myers
Bill O'Beirne

Michael Onell

Jovita Pajarillo
Judith Pederson
Margherita Pryor

Steve Resler
Paul Robillard
Christine Ruf

Barbara Ryan
Tom Schueler
Laurie Schwartz

Elizabeth Scott

Earl Shaver

Jan Smith
Laverne Smith
Peter Smith

Stephen Snyder
Nancy Sullivan
Bill Swietlik

Sid Taylor
U.S.  EPA,  Office of  Policy,  Planning,  and
Evaluation
Washington, DC
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Bureau of Surface Water Management
Connecticut Department of Water Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NOAA, Office of  Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
Rhode Island  Coastal Resources  Management
Council
Puget Sound Water  Quality Authority
U.S. EPA, Region X
Rhode Island Land Management Project
NOAA, Office of  Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
U.S.  EPA,  Office of Water Enforcement  and
Permits
Water Management Division, EPA, Region DC
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Program
U.S.  EPA,  Office of  Marine  and  Estuarine
Protection
New York Coastal Management Program
Pennsylvania State University
U.S.  EPA,  Office of  Policy,  Planning,  and
Evaluation
U.S. Department  of Interior
Washington, DC
Department  of  the  Navy,   Naval  Facilities
Engineering Command Headquarters
Rhode  Island  Department   of   Environmental
Management
Department   of  Natural   Resources   and
Environmental Control
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Strategic  Planning  Division,  Soil  Conservation
Service
South Carolina Coastal Council
U.S. EPA, Region I
U.S.  EPA,  Office of Water Enforcement  and
Permits
California State Water Resources  Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
                                       A-7

-------
Douglas Tom                         Hawaii Office of State Planning, Office of the
                                     Governor
Kevin Weiss                          U.S. EPA
Dov Weitman                         U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Stuart Wilson                         Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Bill Wisniewski                       U.S. EPA, Region ffl
Larry Yamamoto                      Hawaii  Department  of  Health,  Environmental
                                     Planning Office
Bob Zimmerman                      Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Hank Zygmunt                        U.S. EPA, Region m
                                        A-8

-------
                              Boats and Marinas
Chairperson: Ellen Gordon

Susan Adamowicz

Susan Alexander
Ann Beier
Shirley Birosik
John Cannell
Stan Chanesman
Sarah Cooksey
Tom Davenport
Roger Dean
Tim Dillingham

Tony Dore
Steve Dressing
Ron Dyer
Julie Elfving
David Engel
Madge Ertel
Beverly Ethridge
Rod Frederick
Tami Grove
Tom Howard

Robert losco
Mary Jaynes
Tom Mark
Frank McGilvery
Laurie McGilvray
Elbert Moore
Debbie Munt
Jennie Myers
Bill O'Beirne
Carlos Padin

Jovita Pajarillo
NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management

Rhode  Island  Department  of  Environmental
Management, Division of Water Resources
U.S. EPA, Region VI
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Louisiana Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. EPA
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
Delaware  Department  Natural  Resources  and
Environmental   Control,  Division   of  Water
Resources
U.S. EPA, Region V, Water Quality Section
U.S. EPA, Region VJJJ
Rhode  Island  Coastal  Resources  Management
Council
U.S. EPA, Region H
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. EPA, Region VH
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA, Region IV
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
California Coastal Commission
Division  of  Water  Quality  and  Regulations,
California State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
North Carolina  Bureau  of Health and  Natural
Resource,   Department  of  Environmental
Management
Washington Department of Ecology
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Coastal Resource Management
U.S. EPA, Region X
Washington Department of Ecology
Rhode Island Land Management Project
NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management
Planning   Area/Water  Division,  Puerto  Rico
Department of Natural Resources
Water Management Division, EPA, Region IX
                                       A-9

-------
Margherita Pryor

Steve Resler
Dan Rothenberg

Barbara Ryan
James Saib
Laurie Schwartz

Elizabeth Scott

Laverne Smith
Steve Springer

Stephanie Stanzone

Nancy Sullivan
Sid Taylor

Douglas Tom

Bob Zimmerman
Hank Zygmunt
U.S.  EPA,  Office  of Marine  and  Estuarine
Protection
New York Coastal Management Program
Connecticut   Coastal  Management   Program,
Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Department of the Interior
NOAA Corps, Technical Support Staff
Department  of   the   Navy,   Naval  Facilities
Engineering Command Headquarters
Rhode  Island   Department   of   Environmental
Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service,  Office  of
Enforcement
U.S.  EPA, Office  of Marine   and  Estuarine
Protection
U.S. EPA, Region I
California State Water  Resources Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
Hawaii  Office of State Planning, Office of the
Governor
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Region ffl
                                        A-10

-------
                               Hydromodification
Chairperson: Dianne Fish

Co-Chair: Beverly Ethridge

Susan Adamowicz

Susan Alexander
Oscar Balaguer

AnnBeier
Dave Chambers
Stan Chanesman
lim Collins
Tom Davenport
Roger Dean
John Demond
Tony Dore
Steve Dressing
Cindy Dyballa

Julie Elfving
David Engel
Madge Ertel
Sherri Fields
Tim Goodyear
Ellen Gordon
Tami Grove
C. Scott Hardaway

LeeHiU


Tom Howard

Bill Hubbard
Robert losco
Norman T. Jeffries

Nicholas Krause

Bill Kruczynski
U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands

U.S. EPA, Region IV

Rhode  Island  Department  of  Environmental
Management, Division of Water Resources
U.S. EPA, Region VI
California State Water Resources  Control Board,
Division of Water Quality
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Louisiana Governors Office
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
U.S. EPA, Permits
U.S. EPA, Region V, Water Quality Section
U.S. EPA, Region VHI
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Region n
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S.  EPA,  Office of Policy,  Planning,  and
Evaluation
U.S. EPA, Region VH
NOAA/NMF, F/PR3
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
NOAA/NMF, Oxford, Maryland Laboratory
NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management
California Coastal Commission
Division of Geological and Benthic Oceanography,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia   Department    of  Conservation   and
Recreation,   Division    of  Soil   and  Water
Conservation
Division  of  Water  Quality   and  Regulations,
California State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Massachusetts
U.S. EPA - Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Northern Virginia  Soil and Water Conservation
District
WE-Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Mississippi
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab., Florida
                                       A-il

-------
Ed Kruse
Catherine Long
BiU MacNaUy
Frank McGilvery
Laurie McGilvray
Marc McQueen
Elbert Moore
BiU O'Beirne
Richard Olson
Carlos Padin

Jovita Pajarillo
Anne Poole

Dave Powers
Ruth Pratt
Margherita Pryor

Ron Rozsa

Barbara Ryan
Laurie Schwartz

Tracy Skrabal
Laverne Smith
Peter Smith

James Stingel
Nancy Sullivan
Rich Sumner
BiU Swietlik

Sid Taylor

Bob Thronson
Ron Turtle

Dov Weitman
Dennis Whigham
Stuart Wilson
David Worley

Bob Zimmerman
Hank  Zygmunt
NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management

COE-WE, Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi
U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service
Office of Coastal Resource Management
The Pilgrim, Massachusetts RC&D Area
U.S. EPA, Region X
NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab., Oregon
Planning  Area/Water  Division,   Puerto   Rico
Department of Natural Resources
Water Management Division, EPA, Region K
New Hampshire  Department  of  Environmental
Services
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA, Region IX, Nonpoint Source Office
U.S.  EPA,   Office  of  Marine  and Estuarine
Protection
Connecticut   Coastal   Management  Program,
Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Department of the Interior
Department  of  the  Navy,  Naval  FacUities
Engineering Command Headquarters
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service
Strategic  Planning  Division, SoU Conservation
Service
SoU Conservation Service - Pennsylvania
U.S. EPA, Region I
U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab, Oregon
U.S. EPA,  Office  of  Water Enforcement  and
Permits
California State Water Resources Control Board,
Division of Water QuaUty
U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
USDA, Soil  Conservation  Service,  Engineering
Division
U.S. EPA
SERC, Maryland
Virginia Division of SoU and Water Conservation
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Coastal Zone Management Section
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA, Region m
                                       A-12

-------
APPENDIX B.  EFFECT OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT BMPS ON
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTAMINANT LOADING IN GROUND WATER

-------
                     Effect of Coastal Zone Management BMPs on
               Nonpoint Source Contaminant Loading in Ground Water
INTRODUCTION

       Coastal Zone Management (CZM) best management practices (BMPs) are designed to
reduce or eliminate the degradation of coastal waters by controlling contaminant migration from
agricultural, forest, and urban lands.  In doing so, these BMPs can alter the quality and quantity
of water discharging into  coastal waters that either runs  off the  land  surface or percolates
through the soil.  For example, BMPs that are designed to reduce surface water discharge of
stormwater may substantially increase infiltration into ground water (Mannering et al., 1987;
Baker, 1987).  In addition, selection of BMPs should be coordinated with State ground-water
protection priorities based on ground-water use value and vulnerability.  Otherwise, certain
BMPs that increase infiltration of water could contribute to contamination of private and public
drinking water wells.  As a result, BMPs should be assessed in terms of their impact on both
surface-water and ground-water resources.

       The transport of contaminants in subsurface waters is governed by the  physical  and
chemical principles associated with soil-water flow and contaminant transport. An understanding
of these principles will facilitate assessments  of the potential effects that BMPs may have on
contaminant loading in ground water and the subsequent pollution of coastal waters.  Section I
will discuss basic principles of contaminant transport associated with the  flow of water through
soil and aquifers.  Section n will compare the effects of general BMP types on the quantity and
quality of water movement to ground and surface waters.
I. PRINCIPLES OF CONTAMINANT LOADING IN GROUND WATER

       Transport of nonpoint source pollutants to coastal waters through ground-water discharge
is governed by physical and chemical properties of the water, pollutant, soil, and aquifer (Cheng
and  Koskinen,  1986).  This  section will discuss general influences  of soil water  flux,
contaminant properties, soil properties and aquifer properties on the migration of contaminants
through soil and ground waters.
                                         B-l

-------
A. Water Flux

       Water is the transport mechanism most responsible for pollutant movement in the
subsurface  environment (Nielsen et al., 1989).  Saturated and unsaturated water  flow
through the soil provide mass and diffuse transport of soluble pollutant constituents, as
well as displacement of non-soluble constituents.  This discussion influencing water flux
through the soil addresses the following factors:

              •     infiltration;
              •     infiltration from impoundments; and
              •     water balance.

       i. Infiltration

              Transport of pollutants to ground water is a function of the amount of
       water that enters the soil (infiltration) over a specified area.  Infiltration can be
       characterized by the following equation (Hanks and Ashcroft, 1980):

            Infiltration =  Precipitation  + Irrigation  - Run-off               CO
              Precipitation and irrigation (influx) intensities and duration that exceed the
       water intake ability of the soil surface will result in run-off.  Soils may accept
       brief periods of high intensity influx or prolonged periods of low intensity influx
       before run-off occurs (Taylor and Ashcroft, 1972).  This is because infiltration
       is  driven  by soil  hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic  gradients that change
       rapidly during an infiltration event (Kirkham and Powers, 1972).  These hydraulic
       properties are governed by soil physical properties.  Infiltration rates will also
       generally decrease after tillage, in relation to run-off, with progressive infiltration
       events due to changing soil physical properties (Baker and Lafien, 1983; Onstad
       and Voorhees, 1987).  Soil physical properties related to water intake ability are
       the soil texture, antecedent (previous) soil water content, and  soil structure
       (compaction or bulk density).  In general, coarser  soil textures (larger soil particle
       size),  lower antecedent water contents, and better soil  structure (lower bulk
       densities)  will provide increased infiltration.   Time-related factors  such as
       antecedent soil moisture contents, soil compaction, and the occurrence of frozen
       soil conditions significantly affect infiltration rates (Schepers, 1987).
                                    B-2

-------
       The presence of vegetation and organic matter on the soil surface also may
substantially increase the water intake ability of the soil (Baker and Laflen, 1983).
Vegetation will provide interception and limited storage of stormwater by the
plant canopy (Banerjee, 1973).  Interception of rainfall by vegetation will also
reduce displacement of soil particles and degradation of surface soil structure due
to direct impact of raindrops (Onstad and Voorhees, 1987; Brady, 1974). The
presence of vegetation  also has the effect of increasing soil moisture holding
capacities, increasing surface storage of water,  and slowing the rate of run-off
(Baker et. at., 1987).  These plant-related properties will change with season and
site activities due to decomposition of organic matter and the seasonal nature of
plant growth.

ii. Induced Infiltration from Impoundments

       Rainfall in  excess of  soil infiltration capabilities can  be collected in
impoundments designed to control run-off (as cited in Nightingale et. al., 1985).
This provides increased localized opportunity for water to  infiltrate and  carry
pollutants through the soil by extending infiltration times over a limited area
(Hannam and Leece,  1986).  Infiltration amounts and rates  will depend on the
design and construction of the impoundment and the properties of the underlying
soil. Impoundments built over soils with low hydraulic conductivities, lined with
clay or other artificial liners, or that experienced substantial compaction of the
soil during construction will reduce infiltration rates and prolong surface storage
of the run-off.

       Such prolonged  surface storage in impoundments may  reduce the total
amount  of stormwater infiltrating  and  discharging  into surface  streams  by
increasing the amount of run-off water evaporated into the atmosphere.  This may
be due to direct evaporation from the impoundment or from subsequent use of the
stored  water such as for irrigation or artificial wetlands (Edwards et al., 1985).

iii. Water Balance

       The amount of pollutant that migrates to ground water is dependent upon
the site-specific water balance. Drainage is calculated from the water balance as
the amount of water entering the soil minus the  amount of water leaving the soil
surface.  This is dependent upon site-specific rainfall, irrigation, vegetation, soil

                             B-3

-------
properties, and climatic energy.   This relationship is characterized by the soil
water balance equation (Hanks and Ashcroft, 1980):
          Dr  =  Inf + Ds (0, ^ - 0V J - Es - Tp                    (2)

where:
       Dr = drainage in equivalent depth
       Inf = infiltration in equivalent depth
       Ds = maximum depth of soil subject to Es or Tp
       0v Kt  = volumetric water content of the soil
       0v & = volumetric water content of the soil at field capacity
       Es = soil evaporation in equivalent depth
       Tp = plant transpiration in equivalent depth

       Gravitational force will remove water from  soils as drainage when their
water contents are  above a soil moisture level commonly referred to as field
capacity (soil water holding capacity).  This term is associated with a condition
of equilibrium between gravitational  forces and the attractive forces exerted on
water by the soil particles (Brady, 1974).

       Soil water can also be removed from the soil at soil water contents below
field capacity by soil evaporation and plant transpiration.  Soil evaporation and
plant transpiration are inter-dependent and  are often considered collectively as
evapotranspiration (Hanks and Ashcroft, 1980).  For areas where plants are not
present or not actively transpiring, it may be inappropriate to include the plant
transpiration or evapotranspiration component. Similarly, when plants completely
cover the ground surface, the soil evaporation component may also be negligible
(Kidman, 1990).  Soil water loss due to evaporation is limited to a relatively
shallow surface layer of the soil (Hanks, 1985). Transpiration, however, may
remove soil  water from  depths corresponding to the depth of root penetration.
Once water has infiltrated below the surface layer of bare soils, or below the root
zone of vegetated soils, a discharge of water into the ground water (drainage) will
be induced.

       As infiltration induces  drainage when soil moisture content in the root
zone and/or surface soil layer exceeds field capacity, drainage can be minimized
by reducing  the soil water content. This can be accomplished on irrigated land
                             B-4

-------
       by regulating irrigation amount and timing to maintain soil water contents at or
       below field capacity.  This rigorous control of irrigation water may necessitate
       improved irrigation and water delivery systems.  Drainage in non-irrigated areas
       can also be minimized through the establishment of appropriate plant species that
       will enhance extraction of soil water and provide increased capacity in the soil to
       store infiltrating stormwater.

B. Contaminant Migration

       The amount of pollutant reaching coastal waters will depend on the physical and
chemical properties of the pollutant.  These properties will define, in conjunction with
soil and water properties, the persistence,  mobility, and migration pathway of the
pollutant (Cheng and Koskinen,  1986).  This discussion on contaminant migration
through the soil includes an examination of the following factors:

              •     persistence; and
              •     mobility.

       i. Persistence

              Pollutant persistence is the relative measurement of the portion remaining
       after a period of time.  The two major processes affecting persistence are, in
       general, volatilization and  degradation  (Helling,   1987).   Volatilization is  a
       potentially major movement pathway for contaminants with high vapor pressures,
       especially when exposed to the atmosphere at or near the soil surface (Glotfelty,
       1987). Degradation of organic pollutants in the soil to non-toxic end products is
       the result of chemical reactions and soil microbial activities (Cheng and Koskinen,
       1986). The rate at which this degradation proceeds  is related to the concentration
       of the pollutant.  Organic chemical degradation rates are commonly assumed to
       be described by the exponential decay function (Strenge and Peterson, 1989):
                           C(t) =  C0- 0.5V1-'                             (3)
       where:
       C(t)  = amount of pollutant present at time t
                                   B-5

-------
       C0 = amount of pollutant initially present
       t = time in days from initial time
       Te = time in days for Vi the initial pollutant concentration to degrade

       ii.  Mobility

             The rate of pollutant migration through the unsaturated zone, relative to
       soil water velocity, is dependent upon complex geochemical interactions such as
       precipitation/dissolution and adsorption/desorption (Strenge and Peterson, 1989).
       Pollutant properties affecting these interactions include water solubility, viscosity,
       density, volatility, and adsorptivity (Camp Dresser and McKee, 1986).  Mobility
       of the contaminant is strongly related to its degree of water solubility (Wagenet,
       1987).

             For insoluble contaminants, viscosity and density determine its mobility
       through the soil and aquifer. • Insoluble contaminants  with  a  solution density
       greater than water tend to sink to the bottom of an aquifer and move slowly in
       relation to ground-water flow.  In contrast, contaminants with a solution density
       less than water tend to remain at the top or float to the top as they move through
       an aquifer and upon discharge into coastal surface  waters (Camp Dresser and
       McKee, 1986).  The rate of migration for liquid contaminants that do not mix
       with water will depend, in large measure, on the viscosity of the contaminant.
       The physical and chemical nature of the soil provides charged surface area that
       can attract and immobilize contaminants in soil water (Jurinak, 1988).   The
       adsorptivity of a pollutant is its relative attraction to these charged soil surfaces
       (Strenge and Peterson, 1989).

              The complex physical and chemical interactions  that dictate the mobility
       of the contaminant  are not completely understood.  However, their  effects on
       contaminant mobility can be simplified  by the use  of distribution coefficients.
       This is  a  "bulk" chemical parameter that estimates the relative amount of the
       contaminant immobilized in the soil (Strenge and Peterson, 1989):

Distribution Coefficient (KJ  -  Concentration of Contaminant Immobilized   (4)
                                  Concentration of Contaminant in  Solution
                                    B-6

-------
       For example, nitrate has a Kj of zero which means that its movement is not
       retarded in the soil and will move as fast as the soil water (Bouwer, 1989). Other
       contaminants, with higher retardation factors, such as chlorinated aromatics move
       as much as 40 times slower than the water (Bouwer, 1987).  These less mobile
       chemicals will pose less immediate risk to ground water contamination but may
       concentrate  at  the  soil surface  and have a  higher  risk  to surface water
       contamination due to migration with sediments in run-off (Baker and Laflen,
       1983; Dick and Daniel,  1987).

              These characterizations of contaminant degradation rate and mobility are
       generalizations based largely on laboratory studies and their application to  field
       conditions  should be  viewed  with  some skepticism (Jury  et.  al.,  1983).
       Application of these relationships should be limited to surface soils where organic
       carbon contents and microbial activities are high (Bouwer, 1987) as they may be
       of little value in predicting transport of pesticides in the ground water.

C. Soil Properties

       The soil provides resistance to the movement of the pollutant by limiting the flow
of water and providing surface area for adsorption of the pollutant.  The amount of this
resistance will vary  with different soil  materials,  configurations  of different  soil
materials, and the thickness of the unsaturated portion of the soil.  Layering of differing
soil materials  or densities will  affect the rate and direction of water flow (Taylor and
Ashcroft, 1972).  Palmer (1986) indicates that unsaturated flow might travel laterally as
much as several  kilometers before reaching the water  table. This discussion on soil
properties includes examination of factors governing:

              •     preferential soil water flow; and
              •     soil chemical properties.

       i. Preferential Soil Water Flow

          Preferential  soil water  flow  is  the  principal factor  responsible   for
       underestimation of chemical movement in the soil by chemical transport models
       (Jury et. al., 1983). The amount of soil disturbance and the occurrence and
       frequency of preferential flow paths may differ  significantly among forest,
       agricultural, and urban soils.  Forest soils,  and  other undisturbed soils, have a

                                   B-7

-------
higher potential for preferential water flow due to increased occurrence of animal
burrows, root and worm holes, and cracks.   Van Wesenbeeck and Kachanoski
(1991) indicate that tillage of agricultural soils reduces bypass or channel flow by
reducing the lateral variability of soil properties.  Certain configurations of soil
material, such as karst formations  may also induce preferential  soil water flow
allowing  very  minimal  resistance  to  percolating  water  (Palmer,  1986).
Preferential flow conditions  (enhanced  contaminant migration  rates)  occur in
relatively uniform soils and will be intensified by intermittent applications of non-
uniform irrigation (Bouwer,  1987;  Bouwer, 1989).

ii. Soil Chemical Properties

       Chemical properties of the soil such as cation exchange capacity, pH, and
organic matter content will affect the capacity of the soil to store and immobilize
the pollutant. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a measure of the soil adsorption
capacity for positively charged solutes (Brady, 1974). This capacity is  related to
the amount of surface area which is a function of the size of soil particles and the
type of minerals within the soil. Representative surface areas of soils and clay
minerals (Jurinak, 1988) include the  following:
                                   Surface Area (m2/g)
    Montmorillonite                      600-800
    Illite                                  70-120
    Kaolinite                              10-20
    Clay soil                             150-200
    LoarnjoU                             50-100
    Sandy soil                            10-40
    Humus                              600-850

Effective CEC will generally decrease with lower pH  levels, as hydrogen ions
will dominate the exchange complex, and increase with higher organic matter
contents (Wagenet, 1987; Tisdale et. al., 1985), largely due to increased surface
area as shown above.

       The pH of the soil solution will also have important effects on pollutant
degradation and solubility (mobility) due to  hydrolysis  (Dick and Daniel, 1987;
Glotfelty,  1987).  For inorganic contaminants,  hydrolysis determines metal
species that exist in solution.  For organic contaminants, the effects of hydrolysis

                             B-8

-------
       are indirectly addressed through consideration  of degradation rates  or rate
       constants (Strenge and Peterson,  1989).

             Cation exchange does not explain the retention by soils of heavy metals
       and organic anions.   This retention is often determined by the formation of
       complexes between the pollutant and the organic matter or soil surface (EPA,
       1983). Organic matter complexes within the soil are complicated and not well
       understood but do significantly contribute to the retardation or immobilization of
       pollutants.

D. Aquifer Properties

       The release of contaminants into  coastal waters from an aquifer is dependent on
the discharge rate of ground water and  the movement of contaminants in  the  aquifer.
This discussion on aquifer properties includes examination of factors governing:

             •     ground water flow and
             •     contaminant movement in aquifers.

       i. Ground Water Flow

       The discharge  of ground water is  controlled by  the permeability (hydraulic
conductivity) of the aquifer,  the distribution of hydraulic potential over the aquifer, and
the cross  sectional area of an aquifer perpendicular to the ground-water flow (Todd,
1960).

       Gravitation is the primary force driving water  flow in the unsaturated zone
causing water flow, in the absence of interfering layers, tends to be mainly vertical. In
the saturated  zone, however, water flow will be in response to water pressure gradients
along the  flow path of the aquifer.

       The rate of aquifer flow in response to pressure gradients will be determined by
the permeability of the material comprising the aquifer. Permeability is a function of the
interconnected  pore space  within the  material.   For  consolidated  material  (rock
formations), permeability will depend on the presence and extent of fractures, joints, or
the inherent permeability of the material itself.  Configurations of subsurface materials
                                   B-9

-------
of differing permeabilities will determine the rate and pathway for water flow within the
aquifer.

       ii. Contaminant Movement in Aquifers

       Transport of contaminants in an aquifer is controlled by the processes of advection
and dispersion.  Advection is the transport of a contaminant at an average ground-water
velocity  which  is dependent on the hydraulic conductivity,  hydraulic  gradient,  and
effective porosity of the aquifer (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).  Dispersion, on the other
hand, refers to the spreading of a contaminant as it flows through the aquifer.  Because
dispersion causes the mixing of contaminated ground water with uncontaminated ground
water, it is a mechanism for dilution.  Both advection and dispersion are controlled by
the physical properties of the aquifer, the distribution of hydraulic potentials within the
aquifer, and chemical processes within the aquifer.

       The advection of contaminants in an aquifer is directly associated with the flow
of ground water.  In aquifers  of high  hydraulic conductivity (i.e., permeable), rapid
movement of contaminants  is  facilitated by rapid  movement of ground water.  The
movements of ground water and contaminants are also dependent on the steepness of the
hydraulic gradient in the direction of ground-water  flow.  Finally,  in aquifer with high
porosity  (e.g., fine grain material), the movement of ground water is generally slow and
the transport of contaminants is dominated by dispersion.

       The dispersion  of contaminants in  an  aquifer is  controlled by mechanical
dispersion and molecular diffusion.  Mechanical dispersion is directly related to velocity
of ground-water flow, and  molecular diffusion can be  determined by the contaminant
diffusion coefficient and the particle size of the  aquifer media. In aquifers with low
hydraulic conductivity and small particle size, diffusive transport of contaminants is large
when compared to advective transport.  In this case, dispersion can cause contaminants
to arrive at a discharge point (e.g., coastal water) prior to the arrival time derived from
the average ground-water velocity.

       The movement of contaminants in an aquifer is also controlled by properties of
the contaminants.  The properties affecting contaminant persistence and mobility, as
previously discussed, generally apply to contaminants in the aquifer with the exception
of chemical and  microbial degradation processes.  Degradation within the aquifer
                                    B-io

-------
       environment may be severely restricted due to limited amounts of oxygen and organic
       material.
H. ASSESSMENT OF BMPS

       The preceding Section I, presented an overview of the factors influencing water and
contaminant movement through the soil.  The  following section addresses the impacts that
specific types of BMPs may have on surface water and ground-water supplies.  The following
describes the general types of agricultural, forestry, and urban BMPs and the rational for these
impacts which are summarized in Exhibit 1.

A.  Sedimentation Controls

Reduction of run-off velocity: BMPs which provide obstructions to surface water flow.  These
may include techniques  that  use soil  surface  alteration  (pitting, primary  tillage),  slope
modification (leveling, terracing), residue  management (conservation tillage),  and contour
agricultural practices to slow run-off velocities. These BMPs affect ground and surface waters
through:

       •     decreased transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on  sediments to
             surface waters;
       •     increased infiltration and evaporation thus decreasing run-off; and
       •     increased  ground  water transport of soluble contaminants and/or decreased
             concentration of contaminants in the ground water.

Surface stabilization: BMPs which physically reduce  or prevent displacement of soil particles.
These  may include techniques  such as  surfacing of rural and forest roads, use  of surface
mulches, and establishment of permanent vegetative cover on disturbed roadsides and fields.
These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on  sediments to
             surface waters.

The effect on  run-off,  infiltration,  and ground water contamination will depend  on the
permeability of the material used to stabilize the surface.
                                         B-ll

-------
Filtration of sediments: BMPs which remove sediments from run-off waters by passing run-off
water through vegetated areas.  These may include techniques such as strip fanning, buffer
zones around surface waters, and  artificial wetlands.  These BMPs affect ground and surface
waters through:

       •     decreased transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on  sediments to
             surface waters;
       •     increased infiltration and evaporation thus decreasing run-off; and
       •     increased ground water transport of soluble contaminants and/or decreased
             concentration of contaminants in the ground water.

Settling impoundments: BMPs which  include diversion of run-off into impermeable surface
impoundments thus reducing turbulence and allowing sediments to settle.  These BMPs affect
ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on  sediments to
             surface waters and
       •     increased evaporation.

The effect on run-off, infiltration, and ground water contamination  will depend on the use of the
stored water and collected sediments.

Infiltration  impoundments:  BMPs which  collect  run-off  water  in  permeable  surface
impoundments such that collected water will recharge ground water or evaporate.  These BMPs
affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on  sediments to
             surface waters;
       •     increased infiltration and evaporation thus decreasing run-off;
       •     increased evaporation; and
       •     increased ground water transport of soluble contaminants and/or decreased
             concentration of contaminants in the ground water.

Watercourse  stabilization: BMPs which physically reduce or prevent the displacement of soil
particles lining watercourses. These may include techniques such as establishment of permanent
streambank vegetation or the lining of streambanks with geotextiles, rocks, or concrete. These
BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

                                         B-12

-------
       •     decreased transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on sediments to
             surface waters.

The effect on run-off, infiltration, evaporation, and ground water contamination will depend on
the permeability of the materials used to stabilize the watercourse.

Timing of activities:  BMPs which reduce the disturbance of soils during periods when the
potential for displacement of soil particles is high.  These may include management practices
that restrict site activities when the soil is excessively wet, dry, devoid of cover, or frozen and
during periods when high winds or precipitation occurs or is expected to occur.  These BMPs
affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased  transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed on sediments to
             surface waters; and
       •     increased capacity for soil to retard migration of adsorbed contaminants to ground
             water.

T.pcalized use restriction: BMPs which restrict site activity on areas of high sediment producing
potential.  These may include  techniques such as restricting livestock access to susceptible
streambanks, restricting  cultivation of areas  with excessive  slope,  and restricting timber
operations on sensitive watersheds.  These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased  transport of sediments and contaminants adsorbed.on sediments to
             surface waters;
       •     decreased run-off;
       •     increased evaporation; and
       •     decreased  contamination of surface  and ground  waters due  to elimination of
             activity-related contamination.

The effect on infiltration will depend on the water use of the vegetation at the  site.

B.  Nutrient Controls

Reducing excess in soil: BMPs which include careful nutrient management techniques to meet
but not substantially exceed the nutrient requirements  of the managed vegetation (i.e., crops,
pasture,  turf, or timber).  This also  includes BMPs  which maximize production (therefore
                                          B-13

-------
nutrient uptake) through cultural management and control of pests and diseases.  These BMPs
affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the quantity
             of contaminant in the soil.

Application  timing:  BMPs  which alter timing of nutrient applications based  on climatic
conditions which affect the transport and fate of nutrients. These may include techniques such
as multiple fertilizer applications, fertigation, and the avoidance of applications during the fall,
early spring or at other times when precipitation is in excess of evapotranspiration. These BMPs
affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the quantity
             of contaminant in the soil.

Surface application of nutrients: BMPs which minimize soil disturbances, such as conservation
tillage,  may  impose  restrictions  on the  incorporation of soil-applied nutrients.   Surface
application of nutrients affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     increased surface water contamination due to concentration of nutrients at or near
             the soil surface and
       •     decreased ground water contamination due to a reduction in contaminant quantity
             through surface run-off, volatilization, or photodegradation.

The effect on ground  water contamination may change if nutrient applications are increased to
compensate for these losses.
Shelter of manure sources: BMPs which reduce or exclude precipitation from manure source and
storage areas. These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •      decreased contamination of surface and ground  waters by reducing the quantity
              of contaminant in run-off water;
       •      increased run-off; and
       •      decreased infiltration.
                                          B-14

-------
Containment of manure sources:  BMPs which prevent surface and subsurface  migration of
manure at manure source or storage sites.  This includes BMPs which specify the use of cement
floors or other restrictive liner materials in commercial animal and poultry producing operations.
These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by eliminating run-off and
             infiltration.

This effect may be dependent upon the final use of the manure and effluent.

C.  Pesticide Controls

Biological pest control: BMPs which utilize biological competition and predators to control pests
and reduce pesticide usage.  These  include techniques which introduce or enhance biological
controls as well as those which minimize the disturbance to natural biological controls.  These
BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the usage of
             pesticides.

Mechanical pest control: BMPs which physically limit, remove,  or destroy the pest without the
use of pesticides. These include techniques such as cultivation, insect traps, timing of operations
to afford maximum resistance or competition to managed vegetation from  pests, and avoidance
of diseased vectors such as the presence of certain plant residues.  These BMPs affect ground
and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the usage of
             pesticides; and
       •     increased infiltration and decreased run-off due to increased tillage.

Crop selection/rotation: BMPs which prevent buildup of pest populations due to a monoculture
environment or the use of a crop or  variety which has increased pest resistance. These include
techniques such as crop rotation,  use of varieties with increased resistance,  or  the use of a
different crop type to facilitate pest control.   These BMPs affect ground and surface waters
through:
                                         B-lS

-------
       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the usage of
             pesticides.

On demand pesticide use: BMPs which minimize pesticide usage through correlation of the
amount and type of pesticide to actual pest conditions. These include techniques which monitor
the presence and population of pests as a basis for pesticide usage instead of predetermined
application schedules.  These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the usage of
             pesticides.

Pesticide application timing: BMPs which minimize pesticide usage through adventitious timing
of pesticide applications.  These include techniques that correlate applications to the  most
vulnerable periods of pest life cycles, those that prevent major infestations through monitoring
of pest populations, and those that correlate applications with climatic conditions.  These BMPs
affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground waters by reducing the amount of
             pesticide used through control of pest populations and
       •     decreased contamination of surface and ground  waters by restricting pesticide
             usage when storms are likely to occur.
D.  Water Controls

Irrigation scheduling: BMPs which include continual evaluation of soil moisture conditions to
determine the optimal irrigation timing and amounts to minimize ground-water recharge.  These
include techniques which combine soil moisture measurements with computer programs that
forecast water demands of the crop so that irrigation applications do not produce excess ground-
water recharge.  These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface water by increasing infiltration and reducing
             run-off; and
       •     decreased contamination of ground water by reducing drainage.

Selective irrigation: BMPs which minimize irrigation quantities by limiting the area irrigated to
the root zone of the crop.  These include irrigation application techniques that utilize localized

                                         B-16

-------
point- and line-source drip and seepage irrigation systems.   These BMPs affect ground and
surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface water by reducing run-off; and
       •     decreased drainage from the root zone.

Selective irrigation may tend to concentrate contaminants at specific locations within the soil.
Therefore the effect of this practice on ground-water contamination may depend on site specific
conditions.

Irrigation uniformity: BMPs which reduce the amount of ground-water recharge due to irrigation
by increasing the ability to uniformly place irrigation water within the root zone. These include
the use of higher technology irrigation systems such as center pivot, fixed line, and lateral move
sprinklers.  These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of ground water by reducing the amount of drainage
             from the root zone.

Soil  moisture control: BMPs which manipulate soil moisture in non-irrigated areas.  These
include techniques which establish vegetation or crops for the purpose of extracting water from
the soil to limit water table recharge. These BMPs affect ground and surface waters through:

       •     decreased contamination of surface water by increasing infiltration and reducing
             run-off; and
       •     decreased contamination of ground water by reducing drainage.
                                         B-17

-------
                                 EXHIBIT 1

 COMPARISON OF BMP EFFECTS ON THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF GROUND AND SURFACE
WATER

General BMPs
SEiftMEi^
reduction of runoff velocity
surface stabilization
filtration of sediments
settling impoundments
infiltration impoundments
watercourse stabilization
timing of activities
localized use restriction
KUTRIENT CONTROLS i
reducing excess in soil
application timing
surface applications
shelter of manure sources
containment of manure sources
PESTICIDE CONTROLS
biological pest control
mechanical pest control
crop selection/rotation
on demand pesticide use
pesticide application timing
WATER CONTROLS
irrigation scheduling
IMPACT OF BMPs ON:
Ground Water
Recharge
increase
variable
increase
variable
increase
variable
no effect
variable
Contamination
variable
variable
variable
variable
increase
variable
decrease
decrease

no effect
no effect
no effect
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease

no effect
increase
no effect
no effect
no effect
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease

decrease
decrease
Surface Water
Recharge
decrease
variable
decrease
variable
decrease
variable
no effect
decrease
Contamination
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease

no effect
no effect
no effect
increase
decrease
decrease
decrease
increase
decrease
decrease

no effect
decrease
no effect
no effect
no effect
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease

decrease
decrease
                                    B-18

-------
selective irrigation
irrigation uniformity
soil moisture control
decrease
decrease
decrease
variable
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
B-19

-------
Baker, D.B.  1987.  Overview of Rural Nonpoint Pollution in the Lake Erie Basin.  In: TJ.
Logan, J.M. Davidson, J.L. Baker, and M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects of Conservation Tillage
on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, pp.64-
91.

Baker, J.L.  1987. Hydrologic Effects of Conservation Tillage and Their Importance Relative
to Water Quality.  Jju TJ. Logan, J.M. Davidson, J.L. Baker, and M.R.  Overcash (eds.)
Effects of Conservation  Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides.   Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, pp. 113-124.

Baker, J.L., and J.M. Laflen.  1983.  Water Quality Consequences of Conservation Tillage.
Jour. Soil and Water Cons. Vol.38, No.3, pp. 186-193.

Baker, J.L., TJ. Logan, J.M. Davidson, and M. Overcash.  1987. Summary and Conclusions.
JjH TJ. Logan, J.M. Davidson, J.L. Baker, and M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects of Conservation
Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
pp.277-281.

Banerjee, A.K.   1973.   Computing Transpiration  and Soil Evaporation from Periodic Soil
Moisture Measurements and Other Physical Data.  Indian Forester, pp. 82-91.

Bouwer, H.  1987.  Effect of Irrigated Agriculture on Groundwater.  Jour. Irr. Drain. Eng.
Vol.113, pp.4-15.

Bouwer, H. 1989. Linkages with Ground Water. Jju R J^. Follett (ed.) Nitrogen Management
and Ground Water Protection. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 363-
372.

Brady, N.C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 8* Edition. Macmillan Publishing Co.,
Inc., New York

Camp Dresser and Mckee Inc.   1986.  Interim Report - Fate and Transport of Substances
Leaking from  Underground Storage Tanks.  Prepared for the Office of Underground Storage
Tanks, U.S. EPA. DCN: 998-TS6-RT-CDZN-1. Washington D.C.

                                         B-20

-------
Cheng, H.H., and W.C. Koskinen.   1986.  Processes and Factors  Affecting Transport of
Pesticides to Ground Water. Ini Evaluation of Pesticides in Ground Water. American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.  pp. 2-13.

Dick, W.A., and T.C.  Daniel. 1987.  Soil Chemical and Biological Properties as Affected by
Conservation Tillage: Environmental Implications. Ini TJ. Logan, J.M. Davidson, J.L. Baker,
and M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality -  Nitrates
and Pesticides.  Lewis  Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan,  pp. 125-147.

Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, R.K. White, and N.R. Fausey. 1985. Effects of a Settling Basin
and Tiled Infiltration Bed on Runoff From a Paved Feedlot.  Jm Agricultural Waste Utilization
and Management: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Agricultural  Wastes.
ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich, pp.737-744.

EPA.  1983.  Hazardous  Waste Land Treatment.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. SW-874. Washington, DC.

Freeze, R.A.  and J.A.  Cherry.  1979.  Groundwater.  Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Glotfelty, D.E.  1987.  The Effects of Conservation Tillage Practices on Pesticide Volatilization
and Degradation. IfliT.J. Logan, J.M.  Davidson, J.L. Baker, and M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects
of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides.  Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Michigan, pp. 169-177.

Hanks, RJ.   1985. Crop Coefficients  for Transpiration. Im Advances in Evapotranspiration.
Proc. Nat. Conf. Adv. Evapotranspiration, Chicago, 111., ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich,  pp.431-438.

Hanks, R.J., and G.L.  Ashcroft.  1980. Applied Soil Physics, Advanced Series in Agricultural
Sciences No.8.  Springer-Verlag, New York.

Hannam, I.D. and D.R. Leece.  1986.  Pollution Management in Catchment Waterways. Jour.
Soil Cons. Vol.42, pp.25-29.

Helling, C.S.  1987. Effect of Conservation Tillage on Pesticide Dissipation.  Ini TJ. Logan,
J.M. Davidson,  J.L.  Baker,  and M.R.  Overcash (eds.) Effects of Conservation Tillage on
Groundwater  Quality  - Nitrates and Pesticides.   Lewis  Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
pp. 179-187.

                                        B-21

-------
Jurinak, JJ. 1988. Principles of Soil Environmental Chemistry. Utah State University, Logan,
Utah.

Jury,  W.A., H. El Abd, and T.  Collins.  1983.  Field Scale Transport of Nonadsorbing
Chemicals Applied to the Soil Surface.  In: D.M. Nielsen and M. Curl (eds.) Proceedings of
the NWWA/US  EPA  Conference  on  Characterization  and Monitoring of  the  Vadose
(Unsaturated) Zone. NWWA, Worthington, Ohio, pp.203-221

Kidman, R.L.  1990.  Transpiration and Evaporation Crop Coefficients for Com.   Ph.D.
Dissertation.  Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Kirkham, D., and W.L. Powers.  1972.  Advanced  Soil Physics.  Wiley-Interscience, New
York.

Mannering, J.V., D.L. Schertz, and B.A. Julian.  1987.  Overview of Conservation Tillage.
In: T.J. Logan,  J.M. Davidson, J.L. Baker, and M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects of Conservation
Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
pp.3-17.

Nielsen, D.R.,  M.T. van Genuchten, and W.A. Jury.  1989.  Transport Processes from Soil
Surfaces to Groundwaters.  JJL. Groundwater Contamination.  IAHS Publication No. 185.  Int.
Assoc. Hydr. Sci., Washington, DC.  pp.99-108.

Nightingale, H.I., D. Harrison, and J.E. Salo.  1985.  Evaluation Technique for Ground Water
Quality Beneath Urban Runoff Retention and Percolation Basins.  Ground  Water Monitoring
Review, Vol.5, pp.43-50.

Onstad, C.A. and W.B. Voorhees.  1987.  Ini T.J. Logan, J.M. Davidson, J.L. Baker,  and
M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates  and
Pesticides.  Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan,  pp.95-112.

Palmer, A.N.   1986.  Prediction of Contaminant Paths in Karst Aquifers. Ini Proceedings of
the Environmental Problems  in Karst Terranes and  Their Solutions Conference. NWWA,
Dublin, Ohio.  pp. 32-53.
                                         B-22

-------
Schepers,  J.S.   1987.   Effect of  Conservation Tillage on Processes Affecting Nitrogen
Management.  Ini T.J. Logan, J.M.  Davidson, J.L.  Baker, and M.R. Overcash (eds.) Effects
of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides.  Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Michigan,  pp.241-249.

Strenge, D. L.  and S. R.  Peterson.   1989.   Chemical Data Bases  for  the Multimedia
Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS): Version 1.   Prepared for the U. S.
Department of Energy by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory. PNL 7145, UC 602, 630.

Taylor, S.A., and G.L. Ashcroft.  1972. Physical Edaphology - The Physics of Irrigated and
Nonirrigated Soils.  W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Tisdale, S.L., W.L. Nelson, and  J.D. Beaton.  1985.  Soil Fertility and Fertilizers, Fourth
Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

Todd, D.K.  1960.  Ground Water Hydrology.  John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Van Wesenbeeck, I.J., and R.G. Kachanoski. 1991.  Spatial Scale Dependence of In Situ Solute
Transport.  Soil Sci. Sco. Am.  J. Vol.55, pp.3-7.

Wagenet, RJ.  1987.  Processes Influencing Pesticide Loss with Water Under Conservation
Tillage.  In TJ. Logan, J.M.  Davidson, J.L. Baker, and M.R. Overcash (eds.)  Effects of
Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality - Nitrates and Pesticides.   Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Michigan,  pp. 189-204.
                                         B-23

-------