-------
"(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
-------